United States Research andEnvironmental ProtectionAgency

Development(MD-235)

EPA/540/A5-89/001May 1989

GEPA_-

HAZCONSolidification Process,Douglassville, PAApplications Analysis Report

EPA/540/A5-89/001May 1989

Applications Analysis Report

HAZCON Solidification Process,Douglassville, Pennsylvania

Risk Reduction Engineering LaboratoryOffice of Research and DevelopmentU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Notice

The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3255 and the Superfund InnovativeTechnology Evaluation (SITE) program. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peerreview and administrative review and it has been approved for publication as aUSEPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitutean endorsement or recommendation for use.

ii

Foreword

The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program wasauthorized in the 1986 Superfund amendments. The program is a joint effortbetween EPA’s Office of Research and Development and Office of Solid Wasteand Emergency Response. The purpose of the program is to assist the develop-ment of hazardous waste treatment technologies necessary to implement newcleanup standards which require greater reliance on permanent remedies.This is accomplished through technology demonstrations which are designedto provide engineering and cost data on selected technologies.

This project consists of an analysis of Hazcon’s proprietary solidifi-cation process. The technology demonstration took place at a former oilreprocessing plant which comprises the Douglassville superfund site. Thedemonstration effort was directed at obtaining information on the performanceand cost of the process for use in assessments at other sites. Documentationconsists of two reports. The Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 540/5-89/001a)describes the field activities and laboratory results. This ApplicationsAnalysis provides an interpretation of available data and discusses thepotential applicability of the technology.

Additional copies of this report may be obtained at no charge fromEPA’s Center for Environmental Research Information, 26 West Martin LutherKing Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268, using the EPA document number found onthe report’s front cover. Once this supply is exhausted, copies can bepurchased from the National Technical Information Service, RavensworthBldg., Springfield, VA, 22161, (702) 487-4600. Reference copies will beavailable at EPA libraries in their Hazardous Waste Collection. You canalso call the SITE Clearinghouse hotline at l-800-424-9346 or 382-3000 inWashington, D.C. to inquire about the availability of other reports.

/494. /(iI.&Margaret M. Kelly, DirectorTechnology Staff, Office of

Program Management andTechnology, OSWER

y, Actidg DirectorOffice of Environmental Engineering

and Technology Demonstration

i i i

Abstract

This document is an evaluation of the HAZCON solidification technology and itsapplicability as an on-site treatment method for waste site cleanup.

A Demonstration was held at the Douglassville, Pennsylvania Superfund site in thefall of 1987. Operational data and sampling and analysis information were carefullymonitored and controlled to establish a data base against which other available dataand the vendor’s claims for the technology could be compared and evaluated.Conclusions were reached concerning the technology’s suitability for use in clean up ofthe types of materials found at the test site, and extrapolations were made to cleanupsof other materials.

Site materials were sampled to characterize the site. Untreated feedstock materialswere sampled to provide a base case against which to compare the product materials,and solidified materials were sampled after 7 days and after 28 days of curing. Thesamples were analyzed to determine physical properties such as unconfinedcompressive strength and permeability, chemical properties such as leachability, andmicrostructural characteristics. The results of these tests were then considered, alongwith those obtained by other investigators, and conclusions on the technology drawnfrom all the work.

The conclusions drawn from the test results and other available data are that: (1) theprocess can solidify wastes high in organics; (2) the process does not immobilizevolatile and semivolatile organics in most instances; (3) heavy metals are successfullyimmobilized; (4) a large volume increase can be expected where moisture content ofthe wastes is low; (5) the solidified material shows good structure with highunconfined compressive strengths and low permeabilities; (6) the microstructureindicates a potential for degradation over the long term; and (7) the process iseconomical.

iv

Contents

Page...

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivTables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viFigure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viAbbreviations and Symbols ................................................ viiAcknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

1. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5The SITE Program .................................................. 5SITE Program Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5KeyContacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. Technology Applications Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Conclusions ........................................................ 7Technology Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Environmental Regulations and the HAZCON Results ................

Waste Characteristics and Performance of the Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ranges of SITE Characteristics Suitable for the Technology ............

Material Handling Required by the Demonstrated Technology .........

Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Testing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Economic Analysis ....................................................

Introduction .......................................................Results of Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Basis of Economic Analysis .........................................

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AppendicesA. Process Description .............................................

B. Vendor’s Claims for the Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. SITE Demonstration Results .....................................D. Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References for Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

121415161717

19192121

27293543

52

Tables

Number

1

2

B-l

B-2

C-1

C-2

C-3

C-4

C-5

C-6

C-7

C-8

Page

Comparison of HAZCON Results to Some Regulatory Valuesfor Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Estimated Cost ............................................... 20

Wastes Compatible with the HAZCON System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Priority Pollutant Limits in TCLP Extracts ...................... 32

Physical Properties of Untreated Soils .......................... 36

Physical Properties of Treated Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Migration Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Chemical Analyses of Untreated Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Chemical Analyses of Treated Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Concentration of Metals in TCLP Leachates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Volatiles in TCLP Leachates ...... ............................. 41

Base Neutral/Acid Extractable in TCLP Leachates ............... 41

Figure

A-1 HAZCON process flow diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

vi

Abbreviations and Symbols

ANS 16.1

API

ARAR

ASTM

BDAT

BNA

CERCLA

CFR

cm/sec

cu ft

cu yd

DSA

EPA

EP Tox

FSA

g/mlHSWA

KPa

Kw

LAS

lb/min

LFA

m/sec

MCC - IP

MFU

mg/Kg

Modified American Nuclear Industry leaching test method

American Petroleum Institute

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

American Society for Testing and Materials

Best Demonstrated Available Technology

base neutral/acid (extractable)

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act of 1980

Code of Federal Regulations

centimeters per second

cubic feet

cubic yard

Drum Storage Area

Environmental Protection Agency

Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test - leach test

Filter Sludge Area

grams per milliliter

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA - 1984

kilopascal (s)

kilowatt(s)

Lagoon North

Lagoon South

pounds per minute

Landfarm Area

meters per second

Materials Characterization Center static leach test method

Mobile Field Blending Unit

milligrams per kilogram

vii

Abbreviations and Symbols (Continued)

mg/l

ml/gNCP

n/m

NPDES

NPL

O&G

ORD

OSHA

OSWER

PADER

PAHs

Pb

PCBs

PCP

PFA

PL

ppb

ppmpsi

RCRA

RI/FS

RREL

SARA

SEM

SITE

SPCC

TCLP

TOC

TSCA

UCS

milligrams per liter

milliliters per gram

National Contingency Plan

Newtons per meter

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

National Priorities List

oil and grease

Office of Research and Development

Occupational Safety and Health Act

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Pennsylvania Department of Emergency Response

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

lead

polychlorinated biphenyls

pentachlorophenol

Processing Facility Area

Public Law

parts per billion

perts per million

pounds per square inch

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

Scanning Electron Microscope

Super-fund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

total organic carbon

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976

unconfined compressive strength

viii

Abbreviations and Symbols (Continued)

micron(s)

micrograms per liter

volatile organic compound

Waterways Experiment Station (Army Corps of Engineers)

ix

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared under the direction and coordination of Paul R. dePercin,EPA SITE Program Manager in the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,Cincinnati, Ohio. Contributors and reviewer for this report were Dick Valentinetti,John Kingscott and Linda Galer of USEPA, Washington, D.C.; Stephen James, RobertOlexsey, Ronald D. Hill, and Lisa Moore of USEPA, RREL, Cincinnati, Ohio; andTimothy Smith of HAZCON Inc., Katy, Texas.

This report was prepared for EPA’s Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation(SITE) Program by Stephen Sawyer of Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. for the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3255.

X

Section 1Executive Summary

Introduction

The HAZCON solidification process was tested andevaluated under the Superfund InnovativeTechnology Evaluation (SITE) Program. The processinvolves the mixing of hazardous waste material andcement with a patented nontoxic chemical calledChloranan. Chloranan is claimed to neutralize theinhibiting effects that organic contaminantsnormally have on the hydration of cement-basedmaterials. HAZCON claims that the wastes areimmobilized and bound by encapsulation into ahardened leach-resistant concrete-like mass by thisprocess. Therefore, the major objectives of the SITEproject were to evaluate the HAZCON solidificationtechnology in the following areas:

Effectiveness for treating and solidifyingcontaminated soils varying from 1% to 25% bywt oil and grease during the DemonstrationTest and other types of waste high in organics.

Ability to immobilize the site contaminants,which included volatile organics (VOW, baseneutral/acid extractables (BNAs), oil andgrease, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), andheavy metals.

Probable long-term stability and integrity ofthe solidified soil.

Performance and reliability of the processsystem.

Costs for commercial-scale applications.

ConclusionsThe conclusions drawn from reviewing the data onthe HAZCON process, both from the SITEDemonstration, where the most extensive resultswere obtained, and the literature, in relation to SITEProgram objectives, are:

0 The process can solidify contaminated materialhigh in organics. Soils at the DouglassvilleSuperfund site with up to 25% organics weresolidified. Other applications showed

successful solidification of petroleum refinerywaste streams, and other wastes high inorganics.

Heavy metals were immobilized with leachatereductions in excess of a factor of 100 in manyinstances.

Organic contaminants, VOC and BNA, werenot immobilized for the most part. Instanceswhere immobilization of organics occurred wereobserved in some studies outside the SITEProgram. In the SITE Program the ToxicityCharacteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)produced equivalent leachate concentrationsfor the treated and untreated wastes.

The physical properties of the treated wasteswere in general quite satisfactory. Highunconfined compressive strength (UCS), lowpermeabilities, and satisfactory results ofweathering tests were obtained. However, largevolume increases in treated soils were found.The microstructural analyses of the solidifiedsoil materials indicate a potential for long-termdurability problems, although a prediction onsolidified mass durability is not possible.

Efficient operating capabilities of theequipment are attainable, even thoughnumerous operating difficulties wereencountered by HAZCON during the SITEDemonstration. It is likely that design changesin the raw material feed system and in theblender, the two areas where shortcomingswere observed, can improve operations.

The HAZCON system is economical. Costs willapproach $100/ton of contaminated soil whenusing larger units and reduced additiveconsumption within the defined parameters(see Section 4).

Applications for immobilization of heavy metals inwastes containing high organics, even at organiclevels higher than those of the SITE project, arelikely. Immobilization of organic contaminants in

most applications is unlikely; some selectapplications may exist, and for each a treatabilitystudy should be performed. Where solidification ofhigh organic content wastes is the primary concernsatisfactory physical properties are expected.

Several moisture-related limitations must beconsidered in application of the HAZCONtechnology. For wastes with low moisture contents,such as soils, the large volume increases may requirethe capability to relocate the treated material so asnot to adversely affect site contours and access. Forareas where the solidified blocks become water-saturated, weathering cycles, particularlyfreeze/thaw, may become detrimental to the highlyporous treated blocks; they could fracture due tofreezing of absorbed water.

In summary, the HAZCON technology hasapplications for the immobilization of heavy metalsin soils and sludges where organics levels are high. Inaddition, the remediation site should 1) containorganic toxins that are either sufficiently immobileor proven by a treatability study to be immobilizedand 2) be such that physical soil solidification isdesirable.

ResultsPhysical TestsThe most extensive physical testing on the HAZCONprocess was performed as part of the SITEDemonstration, although additional data wasobtained by Environment Canada [l], by WaterwaysExperiment Station (WES) [2 ] , and at tests at theSand Springs, OK Superfund site [3 ] . The keyphysical tests, which are used in evaluatingpotential treated soil durability, are unconfinedcompressive strength (UCS), weathering (wet/dryand freeze/thaw), permeability, and bulk density.

The UCS values for HAZCON-treated soil rangedfrom 220 psi for the Filter Storage Cake Area (FSA)samples during the SITE Demonstration to 2,959 psiin the Environment Canada study on a metalfinishing sludge. These are very satisfactory whencompared to the EPA guideline of 50 psi [4] forstabilization/solidification systems and otherconcrete-based waste treatment systems, withresults typically in the range of 15 to 150 psi [ 5 ] .

The results from the 12-cycle wet/dry andfreeze/thaw weathering tests showed low absoluteweight losses, less than 1.0% by wt in all cases. Whencompared to control samples, the weight losses wereless than 0.3%, which is considered very low. UCStests after the weathering tests on the SITEDemonstration samples showed no loss of strength.These weathering tests are more severe thanweathering under an actual field environment,

but due to the limited number of cycles involved,they provide indications of only short-termdurability. Quantification of solidified massintegrity in terms of life expectancy is not possible.Permeability is a measure of a solid’s ability topermit the passage of water. The treated soil valuesobtained for the SITE Demonstration and fromEnvironment Canada were very low, about 10-8

cm/sec; while at Sand Springs the value was 10-6

cm/sec. This relates very satisfactorily to the targetvalue of 10-7 cm/sec or less used for designing soilbarrier liners for hazardous waste landfill sites. Lowpermeabilities should reduce both erosion andleaching potentials.

Bulk density results were obtained for the SITEDemonstration and Environment Canada work,where detailed information was available on thewastes and on the material balances. The bulkdensity changes upon solidification were relativelysmall, producing large volume increases, averaging120% during the Demonstration Test. Therefore, forrelatively dry wastes, particularly in difficultapplications where large quantities of cement andChloranan may be used, volume increases of 100% ormore may occur. HAZCON can reduce the volumeincreases by optimizing the quantity of additives, butthis may alter the physical and chemical propertiesof the treated soil.

The microstructual analyses performed on SITEDemonstration samples included optical andscanning electron microscopy and x-ray diffractionanalysis of the crystalline structures. These resultsshowed a porous and incompletely hydrated matrixwith undispersed brownish aggregates. Theseshortcomings may be due in part to insufficientmixing, which could be corrected with a morevigorous mixer. Therefore, a long-term potential fortreated soil degradation exists, although a timeframe for degradation cannot be predicted.

Solidification occurred for all wastes reported in thevarious references on the HAZCON technology, eventhose high in organics and moisture.

Chemical TestsChemical analyses were performed on untreated andtreated waste, along with corresponding TCLPleachate analyses. Although extensive leachateanalyses exist on treated soil, only limited data isavailable on the original untreated wastes, and aprimary goal of this evaluation is to comparecontaminant mobility of treated waste versus rawwaste.

The HAZCON process is effective in immobilizingheavy metals, and it is expected that applicableregulations will be met. A reduction factor of over100 for lead, the predominant metal at the site, as

well as for zinc, was seen during the SITEDemonstration. TCLP leachate levels for treated soilwere about 100 pg/l. The WES results for treatedBasin F liquid at Rocky Mountain Arsenal(untreated copper content, 5,680 mg/l) using theExtraction Procedure Toxicity (EP Tox) leach testshowed a value of 410 pg/l in the leachate.

A significant amount of data is available from eightsources, in varying degrees of detail, on theimmobilization of organics. In most cases, the resultsshow the extracts from the TCLP leaching tests ofuntreated soil to be equal to those of treated soil.However, some TCLP data, particularly thatprepared for the American Petroleum Institute (API)[5] on petroleum refinery wastes, showed sharpreductions in leachate concentration after wastetreatment. This indicates that there may be selectapplications where immobilization of organicsoccurs.

TCLP analyses during the Demonstration wereperformed for VOCs and BNAs. The results for totalVOC of untreated and treated soils were below 1.0mg/l for soil concentrations up to 150 ppm by wt. ForBNA, the untreated and treated leachate values forthe most contaminated location, FSA, were bothabout 3.0 mg/l, comprising almost exclusivelyphenols. The other BNAs, phthalates andnaphthalene, were found to leach only slightly(<l00 pg/l) from both untreated and treated soils.The results of leach tests MCC-1P and ANS 16.1,where the core sample is left intact (not crushed likeTCLP), provided leachate values of the same order ofmagnitude as the TCLP results, with ANS 16.1 lessthan MCC-1P.

The results reported by WES [ 2 ] indicate that 86.7%of the organics were leached after five cycles of a

sequential leach test where the treated material iscrushed (similar to the TCLP test). The conclusion ofthis report was that the HAZCON process did noteffectively stabilize the total organic carbon in BasinF liquid. Other reports, by Environment Canada andHAZCON confidential report B [6], showed similarresults.

However, the API report [ 5 ] on treating refinerywastes showed TCLP leachate reductions for treatedwaste up to 99%. Also the tests performed at SandSprings, OK showed TCLP leachate concentrationreductions, although all values were very close todetection limits.

EconomicsThe economic analyses was based upon the HAZCON10 cu yd/hr mobile field blending unit (MFU) utilizedat Douglassville under the SITE Demonstration Testconditions. Then a range of potential operating costswas determined assuming system improvements of alarger unit and lower chemical consumptions,reasonable assumptions for future units. Theanalyses, based upon remediating part of theDouglassville, PA Superfund site, considered two on-stream factors (70% and 90%), two chemical additiverates (the SITE Demonstration level and two-thirdsof that), and operating capacities of 300 and 2,300Ib/min. The cost to process the feedstock, with all thesite-specific assumptions defined in Section 4 of thisreport, ranged from $97 to $206/ton of soil. The lowervalue is based upon reduced additive consumptionand a new and larger processing unit than the oneutilized for the SITE Demonstration.

The process is very intensive in labor and chemicaladditives, with these items amounting to about 85%to 90% of the total reported costs.

3

Section 2Introduction

The SITE ProgramIn 1986, the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste andEmergency Response (OSWER) and Office ofResearch and Development (ORD) established theSuperfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)Program to promote the development and use ofinnovative technologies to clean up Superfund sitesacross the country. Now in its third year, SITE ishelping to provide the treatment technologiesnecessary to implement new federal and statecleanup standards aimed at permanent remedies,rather than quick fixes. The SITE Program iscomposed of three major elements: theDemonstration Program, the Emerging TechnologiesProgram, and the Measurement and MonitoringTechnologies Program.

The major focus has been on the DemonstrationProgram, which is designed to provide engineeringand cost data on selected technologies. To date, thedemonstration projects have not involved funding fortechnology developers. EPA and developersparticipating in the program share the cost of thedemonstration. Developers are responsible fordemonstrating their innovative systems at chosensites, usually Superfund sites. EPA is responsible forsampling, analyzing, and evaluating all test results.The result is an assessment of the technology’sperformance, reliability, and cost. This informationwill be used in conjunction with other data to selectthe most appropriate technologies for the cleanup ofSuperfund sites.

Developers of innovative technologies apply to theDemonstration Program by responding to EPA’sannual solicitation. EPA also will accept proposals atany time when a developer has a treatment projectscheduled with Super-fund waste. To qualify for theprogram, a new technology must be at the pilot orfull scale and offer some advantage over existingtechnologies. Mobile technologies are of particularinterest to EPA.

Once EPA has accepted a proposal, EPA and thedeveloper work with the EPA regional offices andstate agencies to identify a site containing wastes

suitable for testing the capabilities of the technology.EPA prepares a detailed sampling and analysis plandesigned to thoroughly evaluate the technology andto ensure that the resulting data are reliable. Theduration of a demonstration varies from a few days toseveral months, depending on the length of time andquantity of waste needed to assess the technology.After the completion of a technology demonstration,EPA prepares two reports, which are explained inmore detail below. Ultimately, the DemonstrationProgram leads to an analysis of the technology’soverall applicability to Superfund problems.

The second principal element of the SITE Program isthe Emerging Technologies Program, which fostersthe further investigation and development oftreatment technologies that are still at thelaboratory scale. Successful validation of thesetechnologies could lead to the development of asystem ready for field demonstration. The thirdcomponent of the SITE Program, the Measurementand Monitoring Technologies program, providesassistance in the development and demonstration ofinnovative technologies to better characterizeSuper-fund sites.

SITE Program ReportsThe analysis of technologies participating in theDemonstration Program is contained in twodocuments, the Technology Evaluation Report andthe Applications Analysis Report. The TechnologyEvaluation Report contains a comprehensivedescription of the demonstration sponsored by theSITE program and its results. This report gives adetailed description of the technology, the site andwaste used for the demonstration, sampling andanalysis during the test, and the data generated.

The purpose of the Applications Analysis Report is toestimate the Superfund applications and costs of atechnology based on all available data. This reportcompiles and summarizes the results of the SITEdemonstration, the vendor’s design and test data,and other laboratory and field applications of thetechnology. It discusses the advantages,disadvantages, and limitations of the technology.

5

Costs of the technology for different applications areestimated based on available data on pilot- and full-scale applications. The report discusses the factors,such as site and waste characteristics, that have amajor impact on costs and performance.

The amount of available data for the evaluation of aninnovative technology varies widely. Data may belimited to laboratory tests on synthetic wastes, ormay include performance data on actual wastestreated at the pilot or full scale. In addition, there arelimits to conclusions regarding Superfundapplications that can be drawn from a single fielddemonstration. A successful field demonstration doesnot necessarily assure that a technology will bewidely applicable or fully developed to thecommercial scale. The Applications Analysisattempts to synthesize whatever information isavailable and draw reasonable conclusions. Thisdocument will be very useful to those considering thetechnology for Super-fund cleanups and represents acritical step in the development andcommercialization of the treatment technology.

Key Contacts

For more information on the demonstration of theHAZCON technology, please contact:

1. Regional contact concerning the Douglassville, PAsite:

Mr. Victor JanosikSuperfund Branch (3HW21)USEPA, Region III841 Chestnut St.Philadelphia, PA 19107215-597-8996

2. EPA project manager concerning the SITEdemonstration:

Mr. Paul de PercinUSEPARisk Reduction Engineering Laboratory26 W. Martin Luther King DriveCincinnati, OH 45268513-569-7797

3. Vendor concerning the process:

HAZCON Engineering, Inc.Mr. Timothy SmithPO. Box 124732522 McAllister Rd.Brookshire, TX 77423713-934-4500

Section 3Technology Applications Analysis

IntroductionThis section of the report addresses the applicabilityof the HAZCON process to varying potentialfeedstocks based upon the results obtained from theSITE Demonstration and other HAZCONapplications test data. Since the results of theDemonstration provide the most extensive data base,conclusions on the technology’s effectiveness and itsapplicability to other potential cleanups will bestrongly influenced by those results, which arepresented in detail in the Technology EvaluationReport. Additional information on the HAZCONtechnology, including a process description, vendorclaims, a summary of the Demonstration Results,and reports on outside sources of data using theHAZCON technology are provided in Appendices A-D.

Following are the overall conclusions being drawn onthe HAZCON technology. The TechnologyEvaluation subsection discusses the available datafrom the Demonstration, HAZCON, and theliterature, and provides more details on theconclusions and applicability of the HAZCONprocess.

ConclusionsThe conclusions drawn from reviewing the data onthe HAZCON process are:

The process can solidify contaminated materialhigh in organics. Soils at the DouglassvilleSuper-fund site with up to 25% organics weresolidified. Other applications showed successfulsolidification of petroleum refinery wastestreams, organics, water high in organics froma waste storage pond, metal finishing sludge,and other less clearly defined wastes.

Immobilization of heavy metals was observed,with leachate improvements for lead and zinc inexcess of a factor of 100.

Organic contaminants, VOCs and BNAs, werenot immobilized for the most part. The

0

extensive testing for the Demonstration andother test programs showed no immobilizationof the organics. However, there were twoinstances where immobilization of organicsoccurred.

The physical properties of the treated wastesare in general quite satisfactory. High UCS,low permeabilities, and satisfactory results ofweathering tests were obtained. However, largevolume increases in treated soils can beexpected, and the microstructural analyses ofthe solidified soil materials indicates apotential for long-term durability problems.

Application for immobilization of heavy metals (upto 2.3% by wt) in wastes containing high organics, upto at least 25% by wt in soils, has been shown.Successful immobilization of higher quantities ofheavy metals at even higher oil and grease levelswould be anticipated. Immobilization of VOCs andBNAs did not occur in the SITE Demonstration teston soils up to 25% by wt oil and grease,andimmobilization of other organics, as reported byother investigators, was also unsuccessful. However,immobilization of some petroleum refinery wasteswas successful.

Therefore, applications for immobilizing organiccontaminants, compared to a simple solidificationprocess with only cementitious materials, may haveto be tested on a site-by-site basis to proveapplicability of the HAZCON process. For highorganics content wastes, solidification may be verydifficult; the use of Chloranan will enhancesolidification of organics.

Two limitations in the application of the HAZCONprocess need to be considered. For the treatment ofsoils or other relatively low-moisture wastes, thelarge volume increases may limit application tospacious areas where the excess volume of materialcan be located without adversely affecting sitecontours and accessibility. In addition, in very wetareas, especially below the water table, where thesolidified material would become saturated,

7

weathering cycles could lead to fractures in thehighly porous solidified mass of treated soil.

Technology EvaluationThe two criteria defined in the SITE ProgramDemonstration Plan [7] to evaluate the HAZCONtechnology are:

0 Mobility of the contaminants as determinedfrom leaching and permeability tests, and

0 Integrity of the solidified soil as determinedfrom various physical tests such as UCS,weathering (wet/dry and freeze/thaw), andmicrostructural analyses (microscopy and x-raydiffraction).

The following discussions utilize the availableHAZCON information to provide more detailedconclusions on the process, particularly as related tothe various physical and chemical properties oftreated material. The reader should note that theresults differ from the claims expressed by HAZCONin Appendix B in some instances.

Physical Test ResultsThe most extensive physical testing on the HAZCONprocess was performed in the SITE Project andreported in detail in the SITE TechnologyEvaluation Report [8]. Additional data, as defined inAppendix D, was provided by Environment Canada[1] , by Waterways Experiment Station (WES) on thelaboratory investigation they performed on Basin Ffluid wastes at Rocky Mountain Arsenal [2], and fortests at the Sand Springs Superfund site [ 3 ] nearTulsa, Oklahoma. This limited quantity of data, bothphysical and chemical, is not unexpected, since thepurpose of the SITE Program is to evaluate newinnovative processes.

Unconfined compressive strength is a primaryindicator of the durability of solidified wastes. Theresults of the studies show very satisfactorystrengths for the solidified wastes relative to EPA’sguideline of 50 psi [4] for stabilization/solidificationsystems. The Demonstration Test results for 28-daysamples ranged from 219 psi at FSA to 1,574 at PFA.An inverse relation exists between strength and oiland grease content, although samples with thelowest oil and grease content, at DSA, did not givethe highest UCS. If the inverse relationship of UCSto oil and grease continues at higher concentrationlevels, then high organic content wastes (>25% bywt) may produce solids approaching the 50 psiguideline.

The values obtained at Sand Springs averaged 530psi for an undefined formulation. For theEnvironment Canada laboratory study, with the

same ratio of waste to cement to Chloranan as at theSITE project, the UCS was 2,959 psi. The valuereported in the WES study was 2,902 psi. The latterthree studies did not involve contaminated soils, andall involved higher water content waste than theSITE test material.

SITE Demonstration UCS values at 7 and 28 dayswere essentially equal. For the formulation tests onsamples prepared in the laboratory withoutChloranan, the UCS increased about 40% betweenthe 7- and 28-day samples, which is an expectedincrease for Type I cement. A possible explanation isthat Chloranan accelerated the cement settingreactions. The laboratory formulations for FSAshowed UCS values below 40 psi; thus, theChloranan addition in the field tests, as seen above,had a very positive effect on UCS. No apparent effecton strength was seen for soil from LAN. Thissuggests that the Chloranan’s contribution to UCSstarts to occur above 16.5% by wt oil and grease andbelow 25% by wt oil and grease in the untreated soil.

These are all very satisfactory results, especiallycompared to the EPA guideline of 50 psi forstabilization/solidification systems. High UCSvalues imply the potential for maintainingstructural integrity for many years. Other cement-based waste treatment systems are typically in therange of 15 psi to 150 psi [5], although thecomparison may not be fair since the weight ratio ofwaste to cement varies widely in these processes.

Weathering effects can break down the internalstructure of the solidified soil producing potentialpaths for water flow, which would increasepermeability and the potential for contaminantleaching. Twelve-cycle wet/dry and freeze/thaw testsperformed during the SITE Demonstration producedgood results, in which the weight loss of the testspecimens was only slightly greater than theircorresponding controls (0.98% vs. 0.84% for thewet/dry and 1.10% vs. 0.80% for the freeze/thaw).Four-cycle wet/dry tests at Sand Springs [ 3 ] showedlosses of about 0.10%, which is very low. In addition,a 12-cycle freeze/thaw test performed as part of theEnvironment Canada study showed the testspecimen weight loss to be less than that of thecontrol. These tests, which are more severe thanconditions in the field, provide an indication of short-term treated soil integrity under natural weatheringstresses. The tests are recommended as a means ofcomparing weathering performance of differentprocesses, but cannot be used to predict long-termdurability.

Freeze/thaw weathering is of concern because of therecognized potential for frost damage of concretestructures. The test uses a greater rate of coolingthan the maximum of about 5°F per hour that is

expected in nature. In addition, the tests are carriedout on specimens that are nearly water saturated,where the water can rapidly freeze and causefracturing of the solidified waste. Relatively dryconcrete, below 80% of saturation level, is less likelyto fracture than a saturated material.

Unconfined compressive strength tests wereperformed on both the test specimen and controlsamples after the 12 weathering cycles during theSITE Demonstration, These UCS results werecomparable to the unweathered values. Thus, it canbe concluded from the weight loss and UCS valuesthat the HAZCON treated soil maintained itsintegrity through an initial set of weathering cycles.A scheduled long-term monitoring program existsduring which the treated soil blocks will be sampledannually. This will provide additional informationon durability of the solidified mass.

Permeability indicates the degree to which thematerial permits or prohibits the passage of waterand is thus one measure of the potential forcontaminants to be released to the environment. It isdependent on the solidified material’s density,degree of saturation, particle size distribution [5 ] ; aswell as pore size, void ratio, interconnectingchannels, and the liquid pressure. Results forpermeabilities of solidified wastes are reported in theTechnology Evaluation Report [8], by EnvironmentCanada [5], and from the Sand Springs [3] tests. Thefirst two sources indicated permeabilities in therange of 10-s to 10-9 cm/sec, while the latter testvalue was 10-6 cm/sec. These permeabilities are amajor improvement compared to untreated soils, forwhich values for the Demonstration Test were about10-2 cm/sec. Cement systems usually can attainpermeabilities of 10-5 to 10-6 cm/sec [ 4 ] , and soilbarrier liners for landfills are considered satisfactoryby EPA and the hazardous waste disposal industry ifthe permeability is 10-7 cm/sec or less.

The permeabilities performed during the SITEproject laboratory formulation work showed that thesolidified sample values for LAN may have beengreater and those for FSA were about the same asthe field samples. Therefore, Chloranan may have abeneficial effect on permeability, but insufficientdata exists to confirm it. The permeability valuesmeasured in each study were quite low, conformingwell with HAZCON’s claims, and should provesatisfactory for any site remediation.

Bulk densities on the treated soils were measuredduring the Demonstration, by Environment Canadaon a metal finishing waste containing 50% moisture,and on an oily sludge material high in moisturecontent provided to HAZCON.

The bulk density increase of the raw residue from theEnvironment Canada study after treatment was

23.5% (from 1.49 g/ml to 1.84 g/ml) for a weightincrease from the addition of water, cement, andChloranan of 126%. Therefore, the calculated volumeincrease of the treated residue, compared to theuntreated wet residue, was 83%. This compares to anaverage volume increase for the relatively dry soilstested during the Demonstration of 120%. For an oilysludge, the volume upon solidification decreased, butinformation on quantities of additives used,composition of the waste, UCS, or other physicalproperties of this solidified material is not available.These results deviate from the claim of HAZCONthat the volume change upon remediation is verysmall.

HAZCON claims that with optimization of thequantities of cement and Chloranan used (reductionsfrom SITE project quantities of 33% to 66%), thevolume increase could be reduced. However, otherphysical and chemical properties of the treated soilmay change with these reductions. It is projectedthat the minimum volume increase on theDouglassville soils would be 40% to 50% and less forthe waste treated by Environment Canada. It hasbeen verbally indicated by HAZCON that wasteshigh in moisture will have a smaller volumeincrease. It appears from the Demonstration Testlaboratory formulation data that the addition ofChloranan resulted in a small increase in the bulkdensity of the treated soil. However, more data isrequired to confirm this observation.

In conclusion, it appears that for relatively dry wastematerials, bulk density changes are small and theresultant volume increases are large. This could be avery important remediation design consideration atmany sites

Optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy,and x-ray diffraction analyses were performed onuntreated and treated soil samples during the SITEDemonstration. These methods are commonly usedtechniques for understanding the mechanisms ofstructural degradation of soil, cement, and soil-cement mixtures both with and without addition ofinorganic and organic compounds. Althoughrelatively few studies of the microstructure ofcomplex waste/soil mixtures like those resultingfrom stabilization/solidification procedures havebeen reported, useful information can be obtained onthe potential durability of the solidified mass. Theseobservations complement the weathering testresults, which are short-term measures of solidifiedmass integrity; and UCS which is an indirectindication of durability.

Microstructural studies from the Demonstration canprovide information on the potential for structuralchange over the long-term, although quantitativepredictions on durability are not possible. Results

9

described in this report suggest that the HAZCON-solidified material may have a gerater potential forlong-term degradation than ordinary Portlandcement concrete. The HAZCON-solidified blockswere found to be porous and incompletely hydrated,and brownish aggregates in the soil passed throughthe process unaltered. These observations areindicative that mixing in the HAZCON MFU wasnot highly efficient. It also was concluded thatencapsulation was the principal mechanism ofsolidification/stabilization. This was supported bythe observation of brownish aggregates that passedthrough the soil even after treatment unchanged.Peaks in the x-ray diffraction patterns common toboth the soil and cores could not be identified withany expected soil or cement minerals and are likelyto be associated with the (possibly unaltered) waste.

Pore concentrations and their distribution can affectboth permeability and leaching; connected poresprovide pathways for water migration. Studies haveshown that although pores of freshly prepared wasteforms are normally not saturated, upon contact withwater the matrices tend to absorb water and reachsaturation [9]. Cement-based systems with highporosity, therefore, may lose integrity as a result offracturing caused by freeze/thaw or wet/dryconditions.

Chemical Test ResultsThe most extensive chemical analyses, measuringboth the waste feed and leachate compositions, wereperformed as part of the SITE project. Considerabledata is also available on the HAZCON technologyfrom many other sources, which includes thosereferred to at the beginning of the physical testsection and in the IWC report [10], in twoindependent confidential studies [6,11], and in areport by Risk Science International for theAmerican Petroleum Institute (API) [12]. Theseresults are not consistent with one another, and inmany cases, information on waste properties,additive mix quantities, and physical properties ofthe treated waste are not reported. It is important toknow the quantity of the contaminants in theuntreated and treated wastes when performing aleach test, and this information is available in only afew of the test programs. Leaching tests indicate thechemical stability of the solidified mass, its tendency[13] to leaching by water, and the mobility ofcontaminants contained in the solidified waste whenthey are in contact with aqueous solutions.

The HAZCON process is very effective inimmobilizing heavy metals. Reductions in leachate

concentrations by a factor in excess of 100 wereobserved for many of the samples collected duringthe Demonstration. At FSA, the untreated soil’s oiland grease level was 25% by wt with a lead content of22,600 mg/kg. The leachate of the untreated soilcontained 17.9 mg/l of lead, with the 28-day coresamples less than 400 pgJl and the 7-day samples, 70pgJl. Larger leachate concentration changes werenoted at other Douglassville plant areas. The WESanalyses at Rocky Mountain Arsenal show a lowvalue (0.41 mg/l] of copper in the treated waste TCLPleachate for a Basin F liquid containing 5,680 mg/lcopper. HAZCON confidential report “A” [11] (undefined waste and treatment process) for TCLPleachates of a treated waste after 28 days of curingshows values for chromium, cadmium, and nickel ofless than 50 pgJl and for arsenic of less than 1.0 mg/l.These values, with the possible exception of arsenic,would probably meet most regulatory requirements.For the WES work and HAZCON confidentialstudies, concentrations in untreated waste extractswere not performed, so the degree of immobilizationcannot be defined.

A significant amount of data is available on theHAZCON technology’s ability to immobilizeorganics, VOCs, and BNAs. This data showsimmobilization of organics in a few instances but notin most. In many cases only posttreatment TCLPleachate analyses are available. The most extensivedata was accumulated for the Demonstration Test,with soil analyses before and after solidificationmatched to leachate concentrations. Three differentleach tests were performed: TCLP, ANS 16.1, andMCC-1P. In the TCLP test, the solidified samples arecrushed, while for the other two the solid ismaintained intact. Since many test parameters differbetween leach test procedures, and experience withMCC-1P and ANS 16.1 is limited for hazardouswastes, the significance of any differences betweenleach test results is unclear, but indications ofleachability can be discerned.

The results of the TCLP tests performed during theDemonstration Test showed that the VOCs andBNAs were not immobilized. Calculations ofmigration potential, which is weight of a specifiedanalyte in the leachate divided by its weight in thesoil, were approximately equal for treated anduntreated soils. The total VOC values weremoderately low, less than 1.0 mg/l, for soilconcentrations up to 150 ppm by wt in the untreatedsoil. Leachate analyses for the BNA for both treatedand untreated soils showed very low values forphthalates and naphthalene, less than 100 pgJl, but

10

high values for phenols. At FSA, where the phenolscontent was 405 mg/kg, the leachate concentrationranged from 2.8 to 3.8 mg/l for both treated anduntreated soils.

Posttreatment leaching results of a 7-day testperformed by Environment Canada [l] with a 4:lweight ratio of leachate to crushed solid showed verylow leaching of benzene and trichloroethylene, andvery high leaching of phenol. Approximately 80% ofthe phenol contaminant was extracted, with otherorganic components between the two extremes.Pretreatment values were not performed for acomparison.

The results for Basin F liquid at Rocky MountainArsenal, as reported by WES [2], indicated that ahigh percentage of the total organics, 86.7%, wasextracted after 5 cycles of a sequential leaching test,with 67% extracted after the first cycle. Caution isadvised by the authors regarding extrapolating thisdata to the field, because the test sample leached iscrushed and so its surface-to-mass ratio may bedifferent.

Leach tests using EP Tox were also performed, withthe results equivalent to other technologiesinvestigated by WES on Basin F liquid. Theconclusion of the WES report was that the HAZCONprocess did not effectively stabilize the total organiccarbon in Basin F liquid.

A brief excerpt of confidential HAZCON report “B”[6] on TCLP leach tests for pentachlorophenol (PCP)showed nine points of data: HAZCON in asubsequent letter indicates this was part of anoptimization study. The raw sample TCLP extractconcentration was 2.1 mg/l PCP, while the ninetreated samples ranged from 1.1 to 27 mg/l.Information on quantities of cement and Chlorananwere not provided. For eight of the analyses,immobilization did not occur, but for the ninth,where the leachate concentration was 1.1 mg/l, someimmobilization may have occurred, but it cannot beconfirmed because pretreatment and posttreatmentwaste compositions are not available and the amountof additives used is undefined.

In a report by Risk Science International for theAmerican Petroleum Institute [12], the HAZCONprocess was one of many remediation technologiesevaluated on petroleum refinery wastes, includingAPI separator sludge, slop oil emulsion solids, andtwo different filter cakes. The emphasis of the reportwas to compare different types of processes,mechanical, solvent extraction, thermal, andstabilization/ solidification. However, for each type, anumber of technologies were treated. Forstabilization/solidification, Process #l is the

HAZCON solidification technology. TCLP leachateresults for HAZCON-treated and untreated wasteswere presented; the API separator sludge showed areduction of approximately 99% for VOCs, BNAs,organic acids, and metals. For the slop oil and thefilter cakes, the primary contaminants were VOCs,and equivalent reductions were observed. However,for these three wastes the leachate quantities of totalBNAs, organic acids, and metals are low andscattered, so the technology’s ability to immobilizethem cannot be confirmed. The ratio of waste tocement to Chloranan was 2:1:0.05. These results aregood, particularly for the VOCs, but are notconsistent with the other results noted above.Although not described in any detail, a properquality assurance program appears to have existedfor the analyses.

In an IWC study [10], the HAZCON process was oneof three solidification technologies evaluated onorganic sludges high in moisture. The HAZCONprocess proved to be the best and was judgedsatisfactory by the authors to meet regulatoryrequirements. One apparently positive set of resultson the most difficult waste, which contained a total of9% to 10% toluene, trichloroethylene, and benzene,showed that the TCLP leachate for treated materialcontained 23.4 mg/l of these components. Leach testson untreated waste were not performed, so proof ofthe technology’s effectiveness cannot be confirmedfrom these results.

TCLP leachate results were obtained on raw sludgefrom the Sand Springs, OK Superfund site,containing about 10% by wt oil and grease; theHAZCON-treated material contained some VOC andBNA. The treated waste leachates showed nodetectable levels of these organics. The untreatedwaste extract values for the individual VOCcomponents ranged from nondetected to 50 pg/l.Thus, some immobilization of organics may haveoccurred. All the values reported are very low, andanalyses of the corresponding site waste were notreported, although various Sand Springs site wastescontained 10 to 100 mg/kg of these organiccontaminants.

Thus, it can be concluded that immobilization ofvolatile and semivolatile organics does not usuallyoccur. This was observed in most of the testsreported, with the Demonstration Test providing themost complete data set available. DemonstrationTest results of the special leach tests, which attemptto simulate the leaching of a solidified mass, werethe same order of magnitude as the TCLP leachateconcentrations. This would appear to show that theTCLP results are indicative for this technology ofleaching from a solidified mass. However, as somepositive results on organic contaminant

11

immobilization have been reported, some site.speci& tests may need to be performed.

OperationsSince most of the data on the HAZCON process isbased upon laboratory tests, operational data is onlyavailable from the Demonstration. These results aredescribed in Appendix C. It was noted that althoughHAZCON encountered many difficulties atDouglassville, particularly for the 5-cu-yd runs,design changes in the feed and mixing systems willproduce a reliable operating system.

SummarySolidification/stabilization technologies generallyreduce contaminant mobility, particularly for toxicmetals, and increase volume. These techniquesnearly always leave some uncertainty about long-term effectiveness, because laboratory tests canneither fully duplicate field conditions over longperiods of time nor establish what actually happensto the contaminants during treatment [14,15]. Thisis true for the HAZCON technology also.

In conclusion the overall physical properties ofwastes treated by the HAZCON process are good,although the potential for some remediation designengineering and durability difficulties exists. Theinnovative aspect of the HAZCON technology is theuse of Chloranan in conjunction with solidificationby Portland cement or other pozzolans. Chlorananappears to 1) mitigate some of the detrimental effectsof organics on the rate of cement hydration reactions,2) allow solidification of waste high in organics, and3) improve some physical properties of the treatedmaterial. Chloranan may also alter and improve theability of Portland cement to immobilize heavymetals. However, it does not appear to enhance theimmobilization of organics, except possibly in selectapplications. Thus, the technology appears to haveapplications for the immobilization of heavy metalsin soils and sludges, where oil and grease levels arehigh; and at sites where specific organic toxins aresufficiently immobile and where physical soilstabilization is deemed necessary. For otherapplications, at sites containing organiccontaminants, treatability studies should beperformed.

Environmental Regulations and theHAZCON ResultsThis section briefly discusses regulations pertainingto hazardous waste cleanups. The discussionparticularly focuses on the Land Disposal Restriction(LDR) standards and the use of stabili-zation/solidification for Superfund actions.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) was passed in 1976 and expanded under theHazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of1984. Section 3004 of HSWA prohibits land disposalof untreated hazardous wastes after specified datesand requires EPA to develop treatment standards,which must be met before disposal is allowed.

After these standards, or Land Disposal Restrictions(LDRs), become effective, wastes that are not treatedto meet those standards will be banned from landdisposal.

The key portion of this section of the 1984 HSWA isthe mandate for treatment standards for every wasteor group of similar wastes. All industrial hazardouswastes were ranked according to their intrinsichazard and their volume. Based upon that ranking,the list was divided into thirds, and a schedule wasprepared for establishing treatment standards.Wastes that are considered hazardous based upontheir characteristics were scheduled for the finalthird. The hazardous characteristics defining wastesinclude ignitability , corrosivity, and reactivity, andwastes that are hazardous based on extractionprocedure toxicity (EP Tox-leach test). Land disposalof untreated wastes was prohibited on August 8,1988 for the “First Third”; planned for June 8, 1989for the "Second Third”; and May 8, 1990 for the“Third Third” of the scheduled wastes.

Treatment standards are based on the performanceof the Best Demonstrated Available Technology(BDAT) to treat the waste. A technology isconsidered to be demonstrated for a particular wasteif the technology is in full-scale commercialoperation for treatment of that waste. Treatmentstandards can be established either as a specifictechnology or as a performance standard based on aBDAT technology. When treatment standards arefixed at a performance level, the regulatedcommunity may use any technology not otherwiseprohibited to treat the waste so that it meets thetreatment standard.

On August 17, 1988, EPA promulgated treatmentstandards for the First Third of the restrictedhazardous wastes. For three of these nonwastewaterinorganic wastes, F006, K046, and K022, the BDATperformance standard is based on stabilization/solidification technology; the standard for four otherwastes is also based on stabilization/solidification asthe BDAT for nonwastewater residuals (K001 andK086) or ash residue (K101 and K102) following theinitial treatment.

On January 11, 1989, EPA proposed additionaltreatment standards for the “Second Third” of the

12

restricted hazardous wastes. EPA also proposedadditional treatment standards for some “FirstThird” wastes and for ‘Third Third” wastes. Of these,BDAT performance standards for F012, F006, andF019 were based on stabilization/solidification.

In each case research to develop the performancestandard indicated that full-scale stabili-zation/solidification is widely used throughout thecountry to bind these metal waste constituents into acementitious matrix that immobilizes them, therebyreducing their leaching potential.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)The Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980as amended by the Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 provides forfederal funding to respond to releases of hazardoussubstances to air, water, and land. CERCLAauthorized EPA to prepare the NationalContingency Plan (NCP) for hazardous substanceresponse. The NCP defines methods and criteria fordetermining the appropriate extent of removal,remedy, and other measures. Specific techniquesmentioned in the NCP for remedial action athazardous waste sites include stabilization /solidi-fication as a cost-effective technology for handlingcontaminated soil and sediment.

Section 121 of SARA, entitled CleanupStandards, strongly recommends remedial actionsusing on-site treatment that”...permanently andsignificantly reduces the volume, toxicity,or mobilityof hazardous substances.” The actions must assureprotection of human health and the environment,must be in accordance with the NCP, and must becost-effective. This means that when selecting anappropriate remedial action, the first step is todetermine the level of cleanup that is necessary toprotect the environment, and the second step is tochoose the most cost-efficient means of achievingthat goal. SARA further states that “off-sitetransport and disposal... without such treatmentshould be the least favored alternative remedialaction where practical treatment technologies areavailable.”

SARA also added a new criterion to CERCLA to beused in determining cleanup priority: thecontamination or potential contamination of theambient air that is associated with a release. Sincestabilization/solidification often involves thetreatment of organic constituents, this criterion is ofprimary concern in that the method ofstabilization/solidification selected must not releaseVOCs into the ambient air.

Superfund Response ActionsSuperfund response actions must meet “applicable orrelevant and appropriate requirements” (ARARs) forcleanup. If land disposal restrictions are applied toSuperfund actions, they may be “applicable orrelevant and appropriate.” LDRs are applicablewhen existing federal or state laws can be utilized tohave direct authority over placement of restrictedhazardous wastes in or on the land. LDRs may berelevant and appropriate when Superfund hazardoussubstances are sufficiently similar to restrictedindustrial hazardous wastes such that use of LDRs issuited to the circumstances of the releases.

In addition to industrial process waste, the HSWAalso addresses soil and debris that result fromCERCLA response actions and RCRA correctiveactions. Effective August 8, 1988, EPA issued anational capacity variance through November 8,1990 for all CERCLA/RCRA soil and debris, whichare contaminated with hazardous wastes whoseBDAT standards are based upon incineration.

In the meantime, the EPA intends to developseparate BDAT treatment standards for soil anddebris, because the BDAT standards were developedfor industrial waste processes, which are oftendifferent from the soil or debris waste matrices interms of chemical/physical composition,concentrations, and media within and among sites.

Until standards are developed for soil and debris,remedies will continue to be selected on a site-specific basis. Since these remedies are not likely toconform to the BDAT standards for industrialprocess waste, a variance is required.

Under a treatability variance, treatment will beapplied with the goal of achieving substantialreduction in toxicity and mobility through treatmentto a range of treatment levels. These treatmentlevels were developed from a data base that EPA hascompiled of treatability data for contaminated soil.

The data were divided into treatment for organic andinorganic constituents, and further divided intostructural-functional groups based upon treatabilityfor the organics, and for individual metals for theinorganics.

The treatment ranges for soil and debris have beendeveloped as interim guidance until final treatmentstandards for soil and debris are promulgated.Modifications to the treatment ranges may occur andwill be issued as revised guidance as additionaltreatment information becomes available.

In developing the interim guidance, solidificationand stabilization technologies have not beendemonstrated to be effective technologies for the

13

treatment of organic wastes. Solidification andstabilization data resulting from the treatment oforganic wastes were, therefore, not considered.Consequently, the treatment levels are expressed astotal composition values for organics and as leachatevalues for inorganics.

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)The disposal of PCBs and PCB-contaminatedmaterials, 50 ppm by wt and greater, are regulatedunder the provisions of the Toxic Substances ControlAct of 1976. The regulations, which are found in 40CFR 761.60, address disposal requirements inrelation to the concentration of the PCBs in thewaste. PCBs in concentrations of 50 to 500 ppm maybe disposed of either by landfilling or incineration.PCBs in concentrations greater than 500 ppm mustbe disposed of by incineration. A contaminated wasteunder 500 ppm by wt is a candidate forstabilization/solidification. Unless regulationschange, PCBs in concentrations greater than 500ppm may not be disposed of by stabili-zation/solidification technology. Also, several stateshave their own PCB regulations that may impact onthe use of stabilization/solidification technology.

Comparison of Regulations to HAZCON ResultsStabilization/solidification has been shown to be aneffective technology for treating metals. In addition,the HAZCON process appears to overcome theinhibiting effect from the presence of organics on thesolidification process. However, there is uncertaintyconcerning the potential use of stabili-zation/solidification for Superfund soilscontaminated with organics. The Land DisposalRestriction standards have been developed with theassumption that stabilization/solidification is not aBDAT for organics. Test results from theDouglassville demonstration for the HAZCONtechnology tend to substantiate this assumption, aslong as the TCLP leach test is assumed as the solecriterion for effectiveness.

Superfund legislation requires consideration ofalternatives that permanently and significantlyreduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardoussubstances. Since remedies are chosen site-specifically based on cost-effectiveness, there may beapplications where stabilization/solidification is anacceptable remedy for wastes with some organics.This will be especially true if a measure ofperformance other than TCLP is chosen.

It is more feasible to evaluate the HAZCON processwith respect to regulations and treatment levels formetals-bearing wastes. There are regulations andapproved delisting petitions for several waste-codedmaterials, primarily F006, which is electroplatingwastes. For these metals, barium, cadmium, lead,chromium, nickel, and mercury, some treated waste

leachate values exist that provide a guideline forleaching results. In addition, the national capacityvariance for RCRA and CERCLA soil and debrisprovides proposed treatment levels for contaminatedsoils. These treatment concentrations for leachatesare in the range of 0.1 to 3.0 ppm when the metals inthe waste are below the threshold range, which isessentially the same order of magnitude as thevalues in the Demonstration for all metals exceptlead; lead soil concentrations were higher than thethreshold value by a factor of 10-70. Thus, only a 95%reduction factor is required.

A comparison of the HAZCON results and theregulatory values are shown in Table 1. Based uponthe available data, primarily from theDemonstration, the HAZCON process would readilymeet the range of regulatory concentration valuesthat are currently accepted. Even for the high leadvalues in the Demonstration waste, the treatmentrange and reduction factors were readily met.

Waste Characteristics and Performanceof the Technology

Solidification/stabilization processes involve theaddition of agents that are intended to mechanicallyor chemically bind or encapsulate hazardousconstituents to prevent their release into theenvironment. These processes generally increase thestrength and decrease the permeability of thesolidified mass. In general, the stronger, moreimpermeable, and more durable a treated waste, themore effectively it will contain hazardousconstituents. If the material does not fragment,create dust, or increase the surface area available forleaching, losses will be minimized. Some processesproduce solid pellets, where compressive strength isnot a criterion.

The HAZCON process is a cement-based processwhose design concept is to solidify and immobilizewaste contaminants. The principal differencebetween this process and other cement-basedprocesses is the use of a proprietary component-Chloranan-which is claimed to permit solidificationof waste materials with high organic concentrations.It has long been known that organics may inhibit thecementation process, which may result in lessfavorable physical characteristics of the solidifiedproduct, such as UCS, permeability, and bulkdensity.

Batch system feeds are preferred by HAZCON, Inc.to continuous feeds, since the developer believes feedvariations can be more easily identified with a batchsystem and steps can be taken to adjust admix ratiosto compensate for feed variations. The HAZCONprocess claims to be able to handle any type of feed.Matrices preferred by HAZCON in order of

14

Table 1. Comparison of HAZCON Resutts to Some Regulatory Values for Metals

Regulatory range, mg/l(d)

HAZCON

HAZCONtreated waste, mg/l

(a)

(waste concentration, mg/kg)

Metal

Pb

Cr

Ni

Cd

Cu - -

LDRs Delisting

0.25-0.5 0.31-0.5

0.32 1.7

2.2 0.048-0.32

0.066-0.14 0.063

InterimGuidelines

0.1-3.0

0.5-6.0

0.5-1.0

0.2-2.0

0.1-3.0 -

u n t r e a t e d waste,mg/l

(e)

17.9 0.40(b)

(22,400)

< 0.008 < 0.007 (95)

0.07 0.025 (17)

0.13 < 0.004 (6)

0.41 ( 5,680)(C)

(a)Leaching results after 28 + days of curing.(b)The 7-day core leachate from the Demonstration Test was 0.070 mg/l.(c)Rocky Mountain Arsenal - Basin F pond water. There are not any regulatory values for copper.(d)All values based upon using EP Toxicity leaching test.(e)Results from the Demonstration Test using TCLP.

preference are soils, sludges, emulsions, and lastlyliquids, with the preferred contaminants beingmetals, organics, and lastly volatile organics.

Although the Chloranan admix was selected for useat the Douglassville site and usually not defined inthe other tests of the HAZCON technology, otherformulations or admixes can be chosen dependentupon the waste contaminants. HAZCON iscontinuing to develop admixes that are contaminant-specific, but has not provided any information onwhat these changes are or the factors that influencetheir selection.

HAZCON usually tests all site materials beforeoperation to determine the proper formulations,admixes, and ratios for optimum results. However,this was not done for the Demonstration, andconservatively high levels of Chloranan and cementwere utilized. Cement-based mixtures generally areused, as they have proven to be effective, but theequipment can process other pozzolanic (fly ash, kilndust, etc.) mixtures as well.

The HAZCON system is claimed to work best withsoil feeds; sticky materials are more difficult to treatbecause of materials handling problems. However,during the Demonstration, the sticky filter cake wasprocessed more easily by the MFU than the other soilfeeds. Information from other tests on ease ofprocessing various feedstocks was not reported. The10 cu yd/hr continuous system used in the SITEProject works best with materials of a consistencyranging from soil-like to light sludges. Liquidscannot be handled because of insufficient equipmentcomponent sealing.

Variability of feedstock components can result inproduct problems. This can be overcome by usinglarger than optimum ratios of admixes, but at thecost of volume increase or the necessity to frequently

sample the feedstock to ensure constancy. Out-of-specification product material may be recycled whilestill in a slurry state, but after solidification theproblems with recycle become much more serious.For further treatment, special equipment such ascrushers, screens, etc., are required. In addition,laboratory analyses may have to be obtainedpromptly to minimize the quantity of recycle.

Cold weather (below 40oF) can affect the hydrationreactions and thus the product quality. However,this effect may be overcome by the use of specialcements or by preheating the process streams andfeedstock to a maximum of 40°F to 50oF, which wouldavoid volatilization of the light organics. Preheatingof any feed materials would increase equipment andoperating costs. Since the hydration of cement isexothermic, additional heat is not required once thereactions commence.

Ranges of SITE Characteristics Suitablefor the TechnologyCurrently HAZCON has available two continuousMobile Field Blending Units (MFU) that can processup to about 10 cu yd/hr of untreated soil. HAZCONindicates that five 100 cu yd /hr batch systems are inthe planning stages and are expected to be availablein the fall of 1988; they will be managed through fiveplanned regional offices tentatively selected to beopened in Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles,and New Jersey. Prior to the start of operations ofthe 100 cu yd/hr systems, HAZCON intends to serveas the prime contractor to design site-specific batchremediation system components and to subcontractthe use and operation of the equipment. Remediationtime constraints, areas of remediation, and costs willdetermine which system will be selected forremediation of a specific site. Multiple systemsoperating in parallel will allow handling of largesites. HAZCON has indicated that sites greater than

15

those capable of being handled by the multiple 100-cu-yd arrangement may be handled by subcontractedprocess equipment. All equipment is selected basedon contaminants and costs. HAZCON places nolimits on the size of the site that can be remediated.For a site the size of Douglassville-250,000 cu yd tobe remediated-assuming a 90% on-stream factor and24 hours processing per day, one 100 cu yd/hr systemcould remediate the entire site in approximately 4months. The 10 cu yd continuous system would takemore than 3 years to complete the remediation.

The 10 cu yd/hr system is compact, weighsapproximately 17,000 pounds (empty) is mobile, andrequires no special over-the-road or operatingpermits. Thus, it would be accessible to nearly allhazardous waste sites. The system must be nearlylevel to operate, and the site soil must be able tosupport the system’s weight fully loaded withcement, water, feedstock, and admixes, as well assupport auxiliary equipment and storage tanks.Therefore, some site preparation work may berequired to level the terrain, pour slabs, and buildaccess roads. The trailer and support equipmentrequire a setup area of about 500 sq ft. Additionalarea is needed for storage of cement, Chloranan, andfuel, as well as personnel facilities for any long-termproject. The moving components-pumps, feeders,etc.-are driven by a hydraulic power pack derivingits power off the diesel engine of the transportingvehicle. The cement is air conveyed from a separatecement truck to the cement hopper on the MFU.

The 100-cu-yd/hr proposed system consists of a feedaggregate bin where the waste feed is weighed, acement feed bin, and a rotary drum mix tank. Thefeed and cement are combined and conveyed to themix tank, where water and admixes are added.Pumpable materials can be metered directly into themix tank. The system will be mounted on an over-the-road trailer and will weigh approximately 40,000pounds (empty). Some site work may be required tolevel an area for the trailer or to pour support slabs.Good traction for the earth-moving equipment isrequired. The trailer and support equipmentprovided by HAZCON will occupy approximately a1,000 sq ft area. Additional area is needed forcement, fuel, and Chloranan storage bins, as well aspersonnel facilities. The system power source for theHAZCON unit is a 60 KW diesel generator, plusadditional power for support systems.

Although the MFU used at Douglassville is notcorrosion-resistant, the proposed 100-cu-yd/hr batchsystem’s major components, such as the feed andaggregate bins, belts, and rollers, will be corrosion-resistant stainless steel. The new systems aredesigned to be operated under negative pressure toreduce emissions. The small MFU is not leak-tightand would experience difficulty in maintaining

negative pressure. The MFU is claimed by HAZCONto be explosion-proof, and at least one of the five 100-cu-yd/hr systems will be designed to be explosion-proof.

Auxiliary equipment consists of storage tanks andfeed equipment for the fuel, Chloranan, and cement;a personnel trailer for administrative functions; on-site sampling facilities for any laboratory work;parts supplies; health and safety supplies; and anarea with equipment for personnel and equipmentdecontamination.

Typically, the process consists of excavating thewaste; transporting it to the solidification unit; andsizing, processing, and removal of the solidifiedproduct to a permitted landfill. It may be left on asite if it meets the established site regulations or, fora coded waste, the land ban (RCRA) requirements.The placement of the treated waste back into theoriginal excavations is possible, although this hasnot yet been satisfactorily demonstrated for mostsystem applications. Disposal on or off site forrejected screened materials must be anticipated.Local bridges and roads must be able to supportstandard excavating equipment.

Off-site migration of airborne contaminants orvapors can be a problem during excavation, mixing,and transport of the waste to remediation. Highwater tables can result in groundwatercontamination during excavation; high groundwaterthat results in bearing losses at the site couldpreclude use of the technology without appropriatesupport slabs for equipment and roads for transport.

The HAZCON technology can process a wide range offeedstocks, from dry soils to liquid wastes. However,monitoring of the feedstock is required, so thatadjustments in the quantity of cement, Chloranan,and water can be made. All feedstocks should not beprocessed with the same quantities of additives, orthe economics of the process will suffer.

Material Handling Required by theDemonstrated TechnologyA successfully solidified product from HAZCON’scontinuous system is dependent on proper time,weight, flow calibrations, and ratios of the admixes.Component feed variations, such as “slugs” of oil andgrease in an otherwise uniform soils feed, cannot beeasily handled by this system, as would be the casefor many systems, and could result in impropermixture ratios. Continuous measurements of oil andgrease or of individual contaminant levels is notpossible. In order to overcome this disadvantage theprocess is capable of using higher-than-requiredadmix ratios, but this procedure is less cost-effective.HAZCON, therefore, prefers to use batch systems

16

where they claim the mix ratios can be carefullymonitored, variations in the feed components can beeasily adjusted, and improved mixing can be applied.HAZCON does not define how feed variations will beidentified or defined.

Heavy earth-moving equipment is required toproperly excavate the feed stock material andtransport it to the system free inlet. Both thecontinuous and batch systems require air monitoringequipment to track organic and dust exposuresduring excavation, transport, and feed to the system.Feed materials must be screened and/or crushed to 3-inch diameter for the continuous system, and to 6-inch diameter for the 100 cu yd/hr batch system.Grinding, crushing, or other appropriate sizereduction equipment may be used to pretreat thefeedstock. HAZCON claims that contaminatedwater, whether surface or ground water, can be usedin the process as the water additive.

Any site conditions that could interfere withexcavation would present a problem for thetechnology, as they probably would for most othersimilar technologies. For example, a high watertable might require process adjustments, presentexcavation problems, and might indicate insufficientsupport for access by heavy equipment. Frozenground could present an excavation, screening, andprocessing problem.

At the Douglassville site, the feed material had atendency to pack when compressed, causingHAZCON to reduce the feedrate to slower thanoriginally intended because the feed screw had atendency to ride up on the material and jam. The soilalso was fed to the 7 l/2 cu yd feed hopper only asrapidly as the process screw could process it, whichadded significant time and expense to the sitesupport operations. In addition, an uncontrolled andcrudely measured water feed stream was fed directlyto the storage bin to facilitate soil movement.HAZCON suggests, without providing any details,that in such circumstances, pretreating the feedmaterial to obtain a nonpackable slurry wouldresolve such difficulties. HAZCON indicates that the100-cu-yd batch system is not expected to experiencethe same problems.

Personnel IssuesPersonnel required for the 10 cu yd/hr system atDouglassville were four operators as a minimum, notincluding operators of other earth-movingequipment, office and laboratory workers, etc.HAZCON claims that the 100 cu yd/hr batch plantwill require two people--a control room operator andan outside person--plus earth-moving, office, lab, andmaintenance personnel.

HAZCON claims that personnel are usually widelyavailable, and if not trained can be trained on site byHAZCON. However, these people must passappropriate physical exams and have completed anEPA-approved IO-hour hazardous material trainingcourse, which reduces local manpower availability.

Personnel are subjected to the standard OSHArequirements for operating moving equipment andwould be required to wear the proper personalprotective equipment dictated by the specific siteconditions and contaminants.

Testing ProceduresThe samples taken and analytical procedures usedfor the Demonstration Test were selected based uponthe information required to provide answers to thetechnology evaluation criteria. The two importanttechnical criteria to evaluate any stabili-zation/solidification technology are:

l Mobility of the contaminants

l Durability of the solidified mass

Tests were drawn from various related fields andapplied to hazardous waste to obtain the answers.

The most important factors in evaluatingcontaminant mobility are:

l To relate pretreatment to posttreatment resultsl To measure contaminant concentration in the

waste for the samples being used in leachingtests

Therefore, for all pretreatment and posttreatmentsamples for the Demonstration Test, soil analyses forVOC, BNA, PCB, and heavy metals were performedbefore samples of the same material were leached.The TCLP test is the most widely accepted leachingprocedure and is capable of measuring both organicsand heavy metals. It is the most important test in theprogram for evaluating contaminant mobility. Twoadditional leach tests, MCC-1P and ANS 16.1, werealso used on selected posttreatment samples; theyattempt to simulate leaching from a solidified mass.MCC-1P simulates a stagnant groundwater regimeand ANS 16.1 a more rapidly moving groundwaterwhere the boundary (surface) concentrations arebelow saturation levels. These tests were drawn fromthe nuclear industry and are relatively expensive toperform. The three tests use different leachate-to-solid ratios, so only a qualitative relationshipbetween test results is valid.

Following the TCLP test, the next most importanttest is permeability, which is a measure of flow ofwater through the solid. Since water is the leaching

agent, only water coming in contact with thecontaminant can leach the toxins out. A constanthead permeability test, such as ASTM D-2434-68,can be used for untreated soils where permeabilitiesare relatively high, more than 1x10-4 cm/sec. For thetreated soils, where permeabilities may range from1x10-6 cm/sec to 1x10-10 cm/sec, the falling headpermeability test is used. This is described in TestMethods for Solidified Waste Characterization(TMSWC) (a draft document prepared by theMaterials Characterization Center of EPA).

Once the contaminant is immobilized, the concern ishow long it will remain that way. Therefore, testswere performed to provide information on potentialdurability of the treated soil. In addition, a long-termmonitoring program, for this SITE project over afive-year period, is included; samples will becollected from treated soil that is buried at theDouglassville site. The most prominent test is UCS,which provides a measure of the quality of thesolidified mass. It is a test commonly used by thecement industry to evaluate cement quality and isrelatively inexpensive.

Wet/dry and freeze/thaw 12-cycle tests provideadditional information on degradation of thesolidified material. The tests used are described inTMSWC and are very similar to the ones used byASTM. These tests, although more severe than fieldweathering, provide an indication as to whether thesolidified material when saturated or nearsaturation, as when buried, will disintegrate overthe first few weathering cycles, which may takeplace within the first few years. The tests cannot beused to quantitatively predict the life of the solidifiedmass in terms of years, decades, or centuries.

The final group of tests, which can be performed andinterpreted at only a few laboratories, go under thegeneral heading of microstructural analyses. Bothtreated and a few untreated soil samples areanalyzed by the following methods:

0 X-ray diffraction (XRD) - defines crystallinestructure, which can indicate changes from thenormally expected structure.

0 Microscopy both optical and scanning electron(SEM).- These techniques characterize crystal

appearance, porosity, fractures, and presence ofunaltered waste forms. From these observa-tions, mixing efficiency can also be obtained.

0 Energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry -elemental analysis of crystal structures can bedetermined.

These tests are proven methods of analysis forunderstanding the mechanism of structuraldegradation in materials similar to those of the SITEDemonstration. The literature is replete withexamples of SEM and XRD analyses of soil, cement,soil-cement mixtures, and each of these mixed withvarious inorganics and organic compounds.However, there have been relatively few studies ofthe microstructure of complex waste/soil mixtures,such as those resulting from a stabiliza-tion/solidification procedure. Consequently, in somecases, interpretation of the microstructuralobservations may be difficult.

These observations provide information on thepotential for long-term durability of the solid. Theycannot quantitatively predict the life of the solidmass or provide a direct relationship to the othertests described above. In the future, if a body of datais developed from long-term monitoring programs,the predictability of these procedures will improve.

Another test of importance, but not directly relatedto the two technology evaluation criteria, is theinexpensive test of measuring bulk density. In allsolidification processes, pozzolans and specialadditives, along with water in many cases, are addedto the waste. This could lead to major waste or soilvolume changes, which may affect the remediationprocedures. Bulk density measurements of the soilbefore and after soil treatment, along with amaterial balance, will provide a method ofcalculating volume change during the remediationprocess.

The other physical tests--moisture, pH, and particlesize distribution (PSD)--are typical soils tests andprovide background information that could becomeimportant if problems occur. Moisture and pHanalyses are very inexpensive, and a PSD ismoderately priced.

18

Section 4Economic Analysis

A primary purpose of the economic analysis is toattempt to estimate costs (not including profits) for acommercial-size remediation. It was expected thatstabilization/solidification technologies would be lessexpensive than most other technologies, such asincineration. The basis for this analysis wasremediation of part of the Douglassville site. Becausethe Douglassville Superfund site is a spacious area ina rural setting, it allows a simplification andelimination of some potentially expensive site-specific costs. Many costs are site specific, beingaffected by such factors as site geology; being in afloodplain (as at the Douglassville site); type andquantity of contaminants; proximity to thecommunity or to other industrial sites; regulatoryrequirements, and local costs of labor, utilities, andraw materials.

Due to the short-term nature of the Demonstrationand the fact that labor and chemical expensesdominate the remediation costs, the actual test costsfor HAZCON and EPA were not used. However, sinceHAZCON used a small-scale (300 lb/min),continuous, commercial unit, the capacity, on-streamfactor, and chemical usage during the DemonstrationTest comprise the starting basis for a commercialcleanup estimate. One change was made for theanalysis in each of these variables, which wouldprogressively improve the commercial potential.First, the existing small-scale unit was assumed tooperate at on-stream factors of 70% and 90%. Then,based upon HAZCON’s recommendations for the sizeof the unit that will be available in the foreseeablefuture, a 2,300 lbmin batch unit is assumed at both70% and 90% on-stream factors. If a treatabilitystudy had been performed by HAZCON onDouglassville wastes, reduced quantities of cementand Chloranan might have been used. However,since this did not occur, HAZCON utilized aconservative approach and probably used morecement and Chloranan than required for all or mostof the plant areas. HAZCON has indicated that lowercement and Chloranan rates are likely to be used,possibly 25% to 50% by wt lower. Therefore, a 33%reduction in usage for each of the above conditionswas investigated. Thus, eight cost scenarios were

developed ranging from using the existing unit atDemonstration conditions to using future commercialequipment at optimized chemical consumptions.These costs are presented in Table 2.

Important assumptions were made in preparing theeight cases that could significantly impact theremediation costs. Many actual or potential costs thatexist were not included as part of this estimate. Theywere omitted because site-specific engineeringdesigns would be required, which were beyond thescope of this SITE project. Therefore, certainfunctions were assumed to be performed by othersand were not included in the estimates. The majorassumptions that reduced the cost estimates were:

l A prime contractor is at the site who will performmany site functions including many services notcharged to the HAZCON remediation and so onlypartially included in this cost estimate. Theseare:

Site preparation--roads, access to feedstock,and providing utilities to plant battery limits.Battery limits can be defined as a spaceenvelope that includes all of the HAZCONequipment plus support equipment to whichutilities and access must be provided.

Installation of support tankage, pumps,piping, etc., for feeding the cement,Chloranan, and fuel to the operating unit.

Removal of support equipment at thecompletion of the cleanup.

0 A large volume increase between untreated andtreated wastes exists. Thus, the total treatedwaste may not be able to be placed back into theoriginal excavation. A cost for removal to alandfill is not included and could be quitesubstantial. Even moving the excess material totreated waste may not be able to be placed backinto the original excavation. A cost for removal toa landfill is not included and could be quitesubstantial. Even moving the excess material to

19

Table 2. Estimated Costaa,c

Site Preparation

Permitting and Regulatory

Equipment

HAZCON, $b

Support, $/ton

Equipment Rentals, $/ton

Contingency, $/ton (10% of DirectCosts)

Startup and Fixed Cost, $/ton

Operator Training

Site Mobilization

Depreciation (10% of Direct Costs)

Insurance and Taxes(10% of Direct Costs)

Labor Costs, $/ton

Salaries and Living Expenses

Administration (10% of Direct Costs)

Supplies - Raw Materials, $lton

Cement

Chloranan

Supplies - Utilities, $/ton

Fuel

Electricity

Water

Effluent Treatment -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Residual Transport -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Analytical, $/ton

Facility Modifications, $/ton(10% of Direct Costs)

Site Demobilization, $/ton

TOTALS, $/ton

Test Chemical Consumption

300 lb/minOn-Stream Factor90%

- -

70%

- -

2300 Ib/minOn-Stream Factor90% 70%

-- - -

- - - -

300 Ib/minOn-Stream Factor90% 70%

- - - -

- - - -

100,000 100,000 300,000 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 100,000 100,000

2.25 2.25 6.75 6 . 7 5 2 .25 2 .25

8.05 10.36 1.05 1.35 8 . 0 5 10.36

0 . 2 5 0.32 0.11 0 . 1 3 0 . 2 5 0 . 3 2

2300 Ib/minOn-Stream Factor90% 70%

- - - -

- - - -

300,000 3 0 0 , 0 0 0

6.75 6 . 7 5

1.05 1 .35

0.11 0 . 1 3

0 . 8 4 0.84 0.84 0.84 0 . 8 4 0 . 8 4 0 . 8 4 0 . 8 4

0 . 8 3 0.83 0.83 0 . 8 3 0 .83 0 . 8 3 0 . 8 3 0 . 8 3

0 . 2 5 0.32 0.11 0 . 1 3 0 . 2 5 0 . 3 2 0.11 0 . 1 3

0.25 0.32 0.11 0 . 1 3 0 . 2 5 0 . 3 2 0.11 0 . 1 3

50.32 64.70

0 . 2 5 0.32

5 0 . 0 0 50.00

6 6 . 6 7 66.67

1.00 1.29

0 . 0 3 0.03

0 . 0 8 0.08

6.56 8 . 4 4

0.11 0 . 1 3

5 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0

6 6 . 6 7 6 6 . 6 7

0 . 2 3 0 . 2 9__ __

0 . 0 7 0 . 0 7

5 0 . 3 2 6 4 . 7 0

0.25 0 .32

3 3 . 3 3 3 3 . 3 3

4 4 . 4 4 4 4 . 4 4

1 .00 1 .29

0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 - -

0 . 0 8 0 . 0 8

6.56 8 . 4 4

0 . 1 1 0 . 1 3

3 3 . 3 3

4 4 . 4 4

3 3 . 3 3

4 4 . 4 4

0.23

0 . 0 7

0 . 2 9__

0 . 0 7

5 . 6 5 6.50

0 . 2 5 0.32

0 . 8 3 0.83

1 8 7 . 8 0 205.98

2 . 2 6 2 . 4 0 5 . 6 5 6 . 5 0

0 . 1 2 0 . 1 4 0 . 2 5 0 . 3 2

0 . 8 3 0 . 8 3 0 .83 0 . 8 3

136.65 139.13 148.90 167.08

2.26 2 .40

0 . 1 2 0 . 1 4

0 . 8 3 0 . 8 3

9 7 . 7 5 1 0 0 . 2 3

Reduced Chemical Consumption

a This cost analysis does not include profits of the contractors involved.b Not used directly but is used for the estimate of other costs.c The American Association of Cost Engineers defines three types of estimates: order of magnitude, budgetary, and definitive. This estimate

would most closely fit an order of magnitude estimate with an accuracy of + 50% to -30%. However, as HAZCON is a new technology,the accuracy range is probably significantly wider.

20

another area at the Douglassville site, along withland contouring, would add appreciable expense.

l Permitting and any environmental monitoring ofoperations for any regulatory authority are notincluded.

l Operations are assumed to be 7 days per weekand 24 hours per day. Any reductions in thisschedule would add to the remediation cost byincreasing the labor costs.

Results of Economic AnalysisThe results of the analysis show a cost per ton rangeof $97 to $205. The lowest value is based uponHAZCON’s expectation of reducing chemicalconsumptions by 33% attaining an on-stream factorof 90%, and using a new 2,300 lb/min batchprocessing unit . Since a 70% on-stream factor iscloser to that actually seen at Douglassville, PA, thecosts for this level of operating efficiency are alsocalculated. These cost values are higher than thosenormally claimed by HAZCON, see Appendix B. Inaddition, many costs not charged to HAZCON asmentioned in the previous subsection and discussedin more detail under Basis of Economic Analyses,would increase the actual cost to those responsible forremediating the site. Extreme care in defining theground rules for the economic analysis is required.

The results show that 85% to 90% of the costs are forraw materials (cement and Chloranan) and labor.HAZCON provided the cost for cement at $50/tondelivered, which may be a little low for theDouglassville area, and for Chloranan at $3.00/gallon($66.67/ton). The labor costs include 17 people tooperate the HAZCON equipment, 17 people toprovide support services such as feedstockpreparation, plus 5 management and officepersonnel. The same size work force for both the largeand small processing unit is assumed.

The two largest potential savings in remediating thesite result from chemical use reductions and theincreased size of the processing unit, which wouldreduce operating time to remediate the samequantity of contaminated soil, compared to the 300lb/min system used at the Demonstration. The nextlargest cost factors are on-stream time, analyticalcosts, and equipment rentals and consummables.This suggests that larger remediations would bemore cost-effective, and that equipment operationmust be closely monitored to ensure high on-streamfactors. Stable operations may also allow reducedsampling frequency, but this potential variable wasnot included in the economic analysis.

Basis of Economic Analysis

The cost analysis was prepared by breaking the costsinto twelve groupings. These will be described indetail as they apply to the HAZCON process. Thecategories, some of which do not have costs associatedwith them for this technology, are as follows:

0

0

0

0

l

0

0

0

0

0

Site preparation costs -- including site design andlayout, surveys and site investigations, legalsearches, access rights and roads, preparationsfor support facilities, decontamination facilities,utility connections, and auxiliary buildings.

Permitting and regulatory costs -- includingpermit(s), system monitoring requirements, anddevelopment of monitoring and analyticalprotocols and procedures.

Equipment costs -- broken out by subsystems,including all major equipment items: processequipment, materials handling equipment, andresidual handling equipment. Also includeddescriptions of the equipment specifications (i.e.,throughput and utilization rate).

Startup and fixed costs -- broken out bycategories, including mobilization, shakedown,testing, working capital, depreciation, taxes, andinitiation of environmental monitoring pro-grams.

Labor costs -- including supervisory andadministrative staff, professional and technicalstaff, maintenance personnel, and clericalsupport.

Supply costs -- includes the raw materials,cement, and Chloranan. This is the largest of thetwelve cost categories for the HAZCONtechnology, and any design optimizations basedon treatability studies or direct field experiencecould have a large impact on the bottom line.

Supplies and consumables costs -- both theutilities required, which include fuel, electricity,and water, and any byproducts or posttreatmentof the treated soil.

Effluent treatment and disposal costs -- both on-site and off-site facility costs includingwastewater disposal and monitoring activities.

Residuals and waste shipping, handling, andtransport costs -- including the preparation forshipping and actual waste disposal charges.

Analytical costs -- including laboratory analysesfor operations and environmental monitoring.

21

-0 Facility modification, repair, and replacementcosts -- including design adjustments, facilitymodifications, scheduled maintenance, andequipment replacement.

l Site demobilization costs -- including shutdown,site cleanup and restoration, permanent storagecosts, and site security.

Some general ground rules defining the basis of theestimates are as follows:

The remediation occurs at the DouglassvilleSuperfund site, No. 102 on the National PriorityList (NPL).

A total of 35,400 tons of soil are processed in eachof the eight cases estimated. (This figure is basedupon the HAZCON MFU used for theDemonstration Test operating at 300 Ib/min,continuously for six months at a 90% on-streamfactor.)

There is a prime contractor on site responsible forthe complete site cleanup, who will providecertain functions for the HAZCON processingunit, such as site preparation, whose costs are notincluded.

The twelve cost factors, along with the assumptionsutilized, each are described below.

Site Preparation Costs

It is assumed that this work will be performed by thesite prime contractor and that there will be nocharges to the HAZCON cleanup. This assumes thatroads, site preparation for the HAZCON MFU and itssupport equipment, and access to the feedstock areprovided by others, along with the supply ofelectricity and water to battery limits and connectingthem to the system. It is also assumed that the designof the facilities and any final contouring of the landwill take into consideration that the DouglassvilleSuperfund site is in a 100-year floodplain and that itis covered by the Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Act of1972. These latter two factors may add considerablecost to any remediation.

Permitting and Regulatory Costs

Since Douglassville is a Superfund site, it is assumedthat no permits will be required, neither federal norstate. The need for developing analytical protocols ormonitoring records is assumed not to exist. On non-Super-fund sites, this activity could be expensive andvery time consuming.

22

Equipment Costs

Based upon information provided by HAZCON, thecapital cost for the small continuous processing unitused during the Demonstration Test is $100,000, andthe cost of their future large batch processing systemis $300,000. In addition to the HAZCON mobile unit,there are stationary facilities required for the storageof cement, Chloranan, and fuel oil. In addition, thereare pumps for the fuel and Chloranan and an airconveying system for the cement. This involves addedexpenses within battery limits: site preparation,foundations, interconnecting piping, support steel,instrumentation, and electrical supplies. For thesmall HAZCON system, second-hand supportequipment may be utilized that might be discarded atproject completion.

Tanks and pumps might be available from usedequipment suppliers. Even with refurbishing andcheckout, major savings both in time and cost may berealized. It is assumed that there is a project charge of$80,000 or $2.25 per ton of soil processed. For thelarge system, the charge is assumed to be triple thisamount, or $6.75 per ton of soil. A preliminarydesign, along with ground rules for operation at thesite, would be required to provide a more accurateestimate. Since there are so many variables involvedand this type of design is outside the scope of theSITE Program, this preliminary design was notperformed

A contingency cost, approximately 10% of the directcosts on an annual basis, is allowed for unforeseen orimproperly defined cost definitions. This is separatefrom the previously described design basisuncertainties.

One of the largest costs after chemicals and labor isthe rental of equipment and consumables. Rentalequipment includes such items as: front-end loaders,backhoes for soil excavation and transport, a steamcleaner for decontamination, a pickup truck, a drillrig, and personnel facilities. This latter item includesexpendable health and safety clothes, health andsafety instrumentation, trailers for office space,sanitary facilities, lights, and sampling materials.Based upon a six-month program, this is estimated toadd up to about $285,000. It is assumed that thesecosts are directly proportional to the time at the site.

Startup and Fixed Costs

The costs included in this group are operatortraining, initial shakedown of the equipment,equipment depreciation, and insurance and taxes.

It is assumed that three days of operator training arerequired for the HAZCON MFU operators,supplementary field personnel, the Site Health andSafety Officer, and the sampling technician. The

costs include salaries, overheads, and expenses at therates described under the grouping for labor.

Initial startup includes setup of the HAZCONequipment and checkout of its operation. This isequivalent to the HAZCON site mobilization, buttravel costs to the Douglassville site are not included.Three days are allowed for this function. Theinstallation of the support tankage, pumps, etc., isnot assumed as a charge to the remediation. This isprobably a significant cost, equivalent to manydollars per ton, but the design of a system and abudgetary or detailed estimate of it is outside thescope of this economic analysis. For purposes of thisestimate, this installation work is assumed to be bythe site prime contractor and not charged directly tothe HAZCON operation.

The depreciation costs are based upon a lo-year lifefor all the equipment. Therefore, the costs are basedupon the write-off of $180,000 worth of equipment forthe small system and $540,000 for the large system.

Insurance and taxes are lumped together and areassumed for the purposes of this estimate as 10% ofdirect costs taken on an annual basis.

Labor CostsThese costs are salaries plus overhead along withliving expenses and some miscellaneous admini-strative expenses. It is expected that a total of 39people will be required, with the same numberneeded for both the large and small operating units.It is expected that most of the people will be onexpenses, except for some support people that areassumed to be local hires.

HAZCON indicated they require three operators plusone supervisor per shift, with their salaries rangingfrom $17.50 to $35.00/hr. It is also assumed thatthere is one overall coordinator, which costs theproject $50/hr. In addition, it is assumed that allpersonnel are allowed $85/day living expenses.

In order to provide feedstock and other field supportservices it is assumed that three operators plus asupervisor are required each shift plus an overallcoordinator. Expenses for these personnel areassumed to range from $25/hr for the operators, whoare local hires and do not charge living expenses, to$40/hr for shift supervisors, and $50/hr for thecoordinator.

In addition, it is assumed there is one site health andsafety officer at $50/hr, an overall project manager at$60/hr, a part-time sampling technician at $40/hr, anoffice manager at $40 /hr to handle field accountingand purchasing and one secretary at $20/hr. Theliving expenses, with some rental cars included, forthe field support supervisors, field support

coordinator, health and safety officer, projectmanager, and office managers are estimated at$120/day. A contingency of about 10% to 15% for allpersonnel is also allowed for overtime plusunexpected expenses. This results in a total averagedaily cost of approximately $9,800.

An additional labor-related expense item isadministrative costs, which include office expenses,such as supplies, telephones, furniture, andreproduction equipment, but not salaries. This cost isassumed to be 10%, on an annual basis, of directcosts.

Supply costsThe cost of raw materials includes typical variablecosts and is the largest expense; the raw materialsare cement and Chloranan. The costs were providedby HAZCON and were assumed to be on a deliveredbasis. Cement was charged to the project at $50/ton,which may be a little low for the Douglassville area,and Chloranan at $66.67/ton ($3.00/gal).

Supplies and Consumable CostsThe utilities included are fuel, electricity, water; alsoincluded are byproducts that require treatment ortransport to a landfill.

HAZCON indicated that their small mobile fieldblending unit (MFU) would consume fuel for itsoperation at 4 gph, and the proposed large unit at 5gph. External electricity is not required for the MFU.It is assumed that the support vehicles, front-endloaders, backhoes, and pick-up truck consume anequivalent amount of diesel fuel. The fuel wasassumed to cost $1.00/gal. Electricity is assumed topower lights, trailers, pumps, etc. at an average dailyrate of 5 kw. The cost of electricity is assumed at$0.04/kwhr.

Water use is primarily for the process, with smallquantities required for equipment decontamination.Based upon material balances in the SITE ProgramTechnology Evaluation Report, the waterconsumption is assumed to be 14 gpm for the smallMFU and approximately 100 gpm for the large unit.The cost of water is assumed at $0.80/1000 gal. Thereare not any byproducts from the HAZCON process,and soil pretreatment or posttreatment is notnecessary. If this were to change due to low pH orother factors, where neutralization of the untreatedsoil feed or special covering of the treated soilbecomes necessary, another major cost could beadded.

Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs

Since there are not any liquid effluent streamsassociated with this technologythis category.

Residual and Waste Shipping, Transport Costs

There are no residuals or byproducts

no costs accrue to

Handling, and

associated withthe HAZCON technology. Therefore, there are noexpenses associated with this category of potentialcosts. However, if this changes due to the inability ofthe site to handle the large volume increase producedin the treatment of the wastes, a major new expensefor transporting the excesses to an approved landfillwould occur.

Analytical Costs

It is assumed that sample sets will be taken daily forthe first two weeks of operation at all operatingconditions. After that, sample sets will be collectedonce per week until the cleanup is completed. Bothphysical and chemical analyses will be run on allsample sets, with the cost per set estimated at $5,000.The cost/ton reported in Table 2 is an overall averagevalue, based upon a completed project.

Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacementcosts

The costs accrued under this category includemaintenance and working capital. Maintenancematerials and labor costs are difficult to estimate andcannot be predicted as functions of preliminarydesign concepts. Therefore, annual maintenancecosts are assumed as 10% of capital costs. Workingcapital costs are assumed to be negligible, as allsupplies purchased to have on-hand are assumed tobe fully consumed by the project’s completion. Thecost of using money early in the project is neglected.

Site Demobilization Costs

It is assumed that all personnel will be on site forthree days for demobilization. This is sufficient timefor disassembly of the HAZCON mobile equipment,decontamination and cleanup, but insufficient forremoval of support equipment, storage tanks, pumps,etc. The additional work required is assumed to be bythe site prime contractor and not charged toHAZCON.

24

References

1. Cote, P. 1988. Znvestigations of SpecificSolidification Processes for the Immobilizationof Organic Contaminants. WastewaterTechnology Center, P.O. Box 5050, Burlington,Ontario, Canada L7R 4A6, April 27,1988

2. Myers, T. and M. Zappi, 1987. “LaboratoryInvestigation of Organic ContaminantImmobilization by Proprietary Processing ofBasin F Liquid, Rocky Mountain Arsenal,Denver, Colorado.” Technical Report EL-87-11.U.S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

3. USEPA, 1987. Sand Springs Superfund Site--Report Excerpts.

4. USEPA, 1986. Prohibition on the Placement ofBulk Liquid Hazardous Waste in Landfills--Statutory Interpretative Guidance. EPA 530-SW-86/016. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse, Washington, DC.

5. USEPA, 1982. Guide to the Disposal ofChemically Stabilized and Solidified Waste.SW-872 Revised. Municipal EnvironmentalResearch Laboratory, Office of Research andDevelopment, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Cincinnati, OH.

6.

7.

HAZCON Confidential Report B

USEPA, 1987. Demonstration Plan HAZCON/Douglassville SITE Program.

8. USEPA, 1989. Technology Evaluation Report,Site Program Demonstration Test, HazconSolidif icat ion, Douglassville, PA. U . S .Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofResearch and Development, Hazardous WasteEngineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,OH.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Cote, P. and T.R. Bridle, 1987. Long-TermLeaching Scenarios for Cement-Based WasteForms. Waste Management and Research, 1987,5, pp 55-66.

IT Corp. IWC Feas ib i l i ty Study -Solidification/Fixation Bench Scale Testing,Appendix A. IT Corp. Austin, Texas. ( no date).

HAZCON Confidential Report A

Risk Science International, 1987. “Evaluationof Treatment Technologies for Listed PetroleumRefinery Wastes. Interim Report.” Prepared forthe American Petroleum Institute. April 27,1987.

Planning Research Corporation, 1988.“Evaluation of Test Protocols for Stabilization/Solidification Technology Demonstrations.”Draft Report. Contract 68-03-3484. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofResearch and Development, Cincinnati, OH.

Cote, P., et al., 1986. “An Approach forEvaluating Long-Term Leachability fromMeasurement of Intrinsic Waste Properties.”Hazardous and Industrial Solid Waste Testingand Disposal, 6th Vol., ASTM STP 933, Dr.Lorenzen, et al., editors, American Society forTesting and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 63-78.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, 1988. Are We Cleaning Up? TenSuperfund Case Studies--A Special Report.OTA-ITE-362. U.S. Government PrintingOffice Washington, DC.

25

APPENDIX A

PROCESS DESCRIPTION

Description of the Primary TreatmentMechanisms

Solidification and stabilization are treatmentprocesses that are designed to accomplish one ormore of the following results [1,2]:

l Improve the handling and physical charac-teristics of the waste, as in the sorption of freeliquids.

l Decrease the surface area of the waste massacross which the transfer or loss of contaminantscan occur.

l Limit the solubility of any hazardous constitu-ents of the waste such as by pH adjustment orsorption [3,4].

l Change the chemical form of the hazardousconstituents to render them as innocuouscompounds or make them less leachable.

Solidification entails obtaining these resultsprimarily by producing a monolithic block of treatedwaste with high structural integrity. Stabilizationtechniques limit the mobility of the wastecontaminants or detoxify them, whether or not thephysical characteristics of the waste are changed orimproved. This is accomplished usually through theaddition of materials to ensure that the hazardousconstituents are maintained in their least mobile orleast toxic form [4,5].

The HAZCON process is a cement-based process inwhich the contaminated material is mixed withPortland cement, a patented additive calledChloranan, and water. The process is capable oftreating solids, sludges, semi-solids, or liquids. Theunit used for the Demonstration Test could onlyprocess solids. The Developer’s claim is that themixture hardens into a cohesive mass thatimmobilizes contaminants. The Chloranan is re-ported to make it possible to fixate wastes

contaminated with high concentrations of organiccompounds.

The cement hardens in a process brought about bythe interlacing of thin, densely packed silicate fibersthat grow from the individual cement particles. Thefiber matrix incorporates the added aggregates andthe waste into a monolithic, rocklike mass. Thewaste soil is entrapped in the rigid matrices of thehardened concrete. A process flow diagram of theHAZCON technology is shown in Figure A-l.

Figure A-l. HAZCON process flow diagram.

The Chloranan is claimed to act upon the waste toremove the Figure A-l. HAZCON process flowdiagram. inhibiting effect that organic contaminants

27

normally have on the crystallization of pozzolanicmaterials such as cement, by reacting to form acoating around the organic molecules. Themicroencapsulation prevents the organics frominhibiting the normal crystallization of the pozzolan.According to HAZCON, Chloranan is a patented,proprietary, and nontoxic chemical blend.

Typical ratios of waste/cement on a weight basisrange from 1:1 to 3:1. For the test at theDouglassville site, a conservative ratio of 1 partwaste to 1 part pozzolan was selected by HAZCON.Chloranan is pumped into the mixing chamberfollowed by the addition of cement. Through precisecontrol of the flowrate, ratios of waste-to-Chloranancan be metered accurately from a 10:1 to a 50:1 blendratio by weight. For the Demonstration Test, a 10:1ratio was used. After initial combination of theprimary ingredients, water was added as necessaryto achieve a desirable consistency of the mix asvisually determined by HAZCON.

All additives are fed through a mixing chamber toachieve a homogenous blend. Various types of mixerscan be used, and the selection may be dependentupon the type of contaminants.Thorough mixing isrequired, particularly when high levels of organicsare present, so that the Chloranan is thoroughlydispersed into the waste, and then intimately mixed

with the cement and water. A screw blender, used forthe Douglassville test, or a higher energy moreefficient pugmill or ribbon blender may be used. Theresultant mass is discharged into either a temporaryor a permanent disposal area.

Comparison to Existing TreatmentTechnologies

Comparing the HAZCON Engineering, Inc. solid-ification process to other cement-based technologiesreveals that few differences exist in equipment andstill fewer in the processes. Although the means toconvey and mix the materials can vary, the basicunit operations remain the same. A different type ofcement can be used in the process or a more efficientmixer to blend the waste, cement, and additive, butthe solidification reactions are essentially the same.

The unique characteristic of the HAZCON process isthe use of the proprietary ingredient Chloranan. Thewastes most effectively solidified by the process areaqueous solutions, suspensions, or solids containingappreciable amounts of heavy metals and inorganicsalts. The claimed characteristic of the Chlorananto inhibit the effects of organics on the crystal-lization of the cement is unique to the HAZCONprocess.

28

APPENDIX B

VENDOR’S CLAIMS FOR THE TECHNOLOGY

This appendix to the report is based upon claimsmade by HAZCON either in conversations or inwritten or published materials. The reader iscautioned that these claims and interpretation of theregulations are those made by the vendor and are notnecessarily correct or able to be substantiated by testdata. Many of HAZCON’s claims are evaluated insection 3 against the available test data.

Potential Applicability

The HAZCON Process

The HAZCON mobile field blending units arecapable of treating extracted solids, sludges, or fluidsat rates up to 60 cu yd per hour. These truck- ortrailer-mounted units are supported by bulk cementcarriers and chemical tankers. Two continuousprocessing units are currently available; the oneused for the Demonstration Test was sized for 10 cuyd per hour. This system is not designed to processfluids.

The HAZCON process is intended primarily for on-site use at RCRA- and CERCLA-regulated remedi-ations. Utilization of multiple units of high produc-tion concrete batching equipment allows treatmentof up to 200 cu yd of waste each hour in high volumeapplications.

Materials that are either pumpable, able to beextracted by earth-moving equipment, or conveyableusing conventional means are most applicable to theprocess, because of the ease of introducing thematerial into the blending equipment.

HAZCON adapts commonly available conventionalconcrete processing equipment to its wastesolidification operations. Truck and trailer systemsare the most convenient, since they are readilyavailable, but almost any standard mixingequipment can be used. For large sites, transportablesystems, such as an asphalt batch plant or cement

29

mixers are appropriate. Batch blending units are thesystems of choice, since, according to HAZCON, feedvariations can be more easily identified. Thus, stepscan be taken to adjust admix ratios to compensate forfeed changes, allowing better control of blendingratios and mix consistencies. These systems are farmore accurate than the in-line blenders, such as wasused during the SITE demonstration; the in-lineblender was used only because it was most suitablefor a relatively small-scale operation.

HAZCON suggests that their process is superior tocompetitive systems such as in situ processes, in thattheir excavation and mixing process assures moreeffective mixing than in situ systems. Admixratioing is more effective and can be betteroptimized, whereas in situ systems must use excessadmix materials to ensure proper ratios, leading tolarger volume increases in the product material.

HAZCON makes no claim to a universal treatmentadvantage in the use of the chemical blendChloranan. Applications of their process where littleor no organic contamination exists would not beappropriate. The additive has been proven throughextensive internal testing to be capable of producinga highly leach-resistant product, yielding highcompressive strengths, from highly organic wastes.

HAZCON has the capability of targeting waste-specific contaminants with the most optimal mixformulations available, and also has the expertise toput these formulas to use in actual field applications.Scale-up from laboratory-sized batches to full-scaleapplication can be made directly, since thestabilization chemistry is more significant than theequipment used-any mechanical equipment thatuniformly mixes the waste and additives issatisfactory.

HAZCON usually tests all site materials beforeoperation to determine the proper formulations,admixes, and ratios for optimum results. Cement-based mixtures generally are used, as they have

proven to be effective systems, but the equipmentcan process other pozzolanic (fly ash, kiln dust, etc.)mixtures as well, as needed. HAZCON claims thatoptimal results have been achieved usingChloranan/cement mixes.

Posttreatment is not required. HAZCON also claimsthat contaminated clothing and water can be used asraw materials in the process, and that any materialsthat cannot be fed through the system can beentombed within the solidified mass.

Treatable Wastes

HAZCON claims to be able to handle any type offeed, such as liquids, sludges, emulsions, and soils.Only reactive components in the feed may affect thetechnology. These components are identified duringlaboratory characterization tests, and proper pre-cautions are taken to keep reactive componentsseparated, or to pretreat them to nullify theirreactive characteristics. If the laboratory testingindicates that feed pretreatment can enhance thesolidification process, the waste feed may be pre-

Table B-l. Wastes Compatible with the HAZCON System*

treated as needed. HAZCON stresses that pretreat-ment usually is not required.

HAZCON reports that the waste types shown inTable B-l are compatible with their technology. Thewaste types listed, found at RCRA and CERCLAsites, are those for which test data are available.Additional waste types and contaminants for whichno leachate data are available are also treatable bythe HAZCON process. Matrices preferred byHAZCON in order of preference are soils, sludges,emulsions, and lastly liquids, with the preferredcontaminants being metals, organics, and lastlyvolatile organics. Additional materials treated byHAZCON and process results are shown below:

To date the most common full-scale treatmentprocess performed by HAZCON has been on sludgescontaining oil and grease. HAZCON indicates thatthey have successfully solidified material forMonsanto Company, Sterling Chemicals, PhillipsPuerto Rico Core, Inc., Mobil Chemical Co., NALCOChemical Co., and others. Laboratory treatment hasbeen accomplished on all types of refinery, plating,and blending by-product wastes.

Arsenic (6,7) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (8)

Barium (5) Oil & Grease (8)

Cadmium (6,7,8)

Chromium (3,6,7,8) BNA Phthalates (3.8)

Copper (3,8) BNA Phenols (3,8,10)

Lead (3,7,8) BNA Naphthalene (3,8)

Mercury (7) Methylene Chloride (9)

Nickel (6,8) Pentachlorophenol (PCP) (11)

Selenium (7) 1,1 -Dichloroethylene (9)

Silver (7,8) 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (9)

Zinc (8) 1,1 ,1 -Trichlorobenzene (9)

Chloroform (9) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (9)

lsobutanol (9) 1,1 ,1,2-Tetrachloroethane (9)

Acrylonitrile (9) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (9)

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) (9) Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (10)

p&m-Cresol (3) 2,4-Dimethylphenol (3)

Lindane (7) Toxaphene (7)

lndene (3) 1 -Methylnaphthalene (3)

The numbers in brackets designate references cited.

Toluene (3,8,9)

Trichloroethene (6)

Tetrachloroethane (9)

Ethylbenzene (3,8,9)

Xylenes (3,8)

Benzene (3,9,10)

Trichloroethylene (9,10)

Chloroethylene (9,10)

Tetrachloroethytene (9)

Carbon Tetrachloride (6,9)

Vinyl Chloride (9)

Carbon Disulfide (9)

Acenaphthene (10)

Aniline (10)

o-Cresol (3)

Endrin (7)

2.4-D (7)

Phenanthrene (3)

30

Material Treated Volume Results

Nonhazardous organicsludge40% aromatic organics

Organic wash-out pit

API separator sludge

Asphaltic sludge, < 1 pH

Slop oilOil base paint + solvents

AN centrifuge cake

Acetone

> 67,000 gal> 60,000 gal

> 10,000 gal

> 20,000 gal

> 500 gal

> 500 gal

> 250 gal

> 100 gal

> 50 gal

landfillable >300 psi

landfillable >500 psi

landfillable > 600 psilandfillable > 100 psi

nonhazardous, 6.4 psi

landfillable > 1500 psi

landfillable > 1500 psi

landfillable > 2500 psilandfillable > 1200 psi

Extensive investigations are underway to identifyother wastes that can be treated by the process,including low-level radioactive wastes.

System Advantages

Some of the claimed advantages of the HAZCONsystem over existing systems are:

Formation of a homogeneous mass that iscapable of being emplaced as a unit and isretrievable, traceable, or useable for otherpurposes.

Leach resistance of the product, which can beaccurately measured and recorded.

Creation of a material after treatment that istransportable without risk of dispersion,incremental loss in transit, dilution, or mixingwith other materials.

Creation of an extrudable cement-like slurrythat can be formed into any shape and emplacedin any sort of form or container prior tohardening to meet a multiplicity of requirementsfor disposal, emplacement, or reuse.

Readily available ingredients (fly ash, kiln dust,Portland cement) except for small quantities ofthe proprietary reagent controlled by HAZCON.

Reduction of toxicity immediately uponhardening, which occurs within 30 minutes ofpouring into forms or containers.

Capability to immediately return the mass to theblending system for reprocessing in case the mixis faulty, without degradation of chemical orphysical characteristics.

No necessity to pH-balance waste streams,allowing the HAZCON system’s universalapplication.

No need to decant or filter to remove moisture, asthe system has very tolerant allowances for

moisture content, which is utilized in the cementhydration reactions.

0 Improved safety as designed, since the HAZCONextraction and pumping system that carries thewaste to a blending station requires only oneperson to be in the exclusion zone in protectiveclothing-the remainder of the staff are from1,000 to 4,000 feet away.

HAZCON has performed in-house laboratory studiesto verify that they can solidify pure acetone into ahomogeneous, strong, and very dense solid free ofvolatile gases and practically odorless. As a result ofthis capability combined with previous solidificationsuccesses, HAZCON claims that no compoundsknown to exist in typical RCRA and Super-fund sitescannot be treated by their process. Feeds havingsolvents, volatiles, or variations in pH ortemperature do not present a problem in thesolidification process. HAZCON presents Table B-2as indicative of their treatment successes.

Product Characteristics

The prime advantage of the HAZCON organicfixation technology is in its ability to overcome theinhibiting effect that organics typically have onpozzolanic fixation. The additive Chloranan, whenmixed with the waste and cement or kiln dust, reactsto form a coating around the organic molecules. Thismicroencapsulation prevents the organics frominhibiting the normal crystallization of the pozzolan.Other fixation processes, many of which do not useproprietary chemicals, cannot claim to treat wasteswith high concentrations of organic material.

The HAZCON solidification process is claimed toproduce a hardened mass with the followingcharacteristics:

Compressive strengths of 300 to 5000 psi

Leach resistance

Low permeability (10-7 to 10-9 cm/sec)

More dense than concrete

Volumetric reduction with most wastes or verysmall increases

Toxicity reduced

Product available for useful purposes such asroad construction

HAZCON’s formulation creates a hardened mass ofsufficient strength for allowing capping even whenapplied to wastes containing over 50% total organiccompounds. The most significant capability claimed

31

Table B-2. Priority Pollutant Limits In TCLP Extracts (ppm)

Priority Before Regulatory AfterPollutant Treatment Level Treatment

Arsenic 11.6

Barium 131.0

Cadmium 13.2

Chromium 68.0

Lead 265.0

Mercury 1.2

Selenium 2.0

Silver 7.5

Benzene 22.0

Cresol-o >10.8

Cresol-m >10.8

Cresol-p >10.8

Endrin 1.0

Lindane 3.0

Methoxychlor 10.0

Pentachlorophenol 70.0

Phenol > 14.4

Toxaphene 1.0

2,4-D 20.0

2,4,5-TP Silver 10.0

Toluene 1 .0

Xylenes-m 50.0

Xylenes-o 51.0

Xylenes-p 51 .0

1 ,2-Dichloroethane 1 .0

1,1 -Dichloroethylene > 0.1

2,4-Dinitrotoluene > 0.13

Chlorobenzene > 1.4

Chlordane > 0.03

Chloroform > 0.07

5.0

100.0

1 .0

5.0

5.0

0.2

1.0

5.0

0.07

10.0

10.0

10.0

0.003

0.06

1.4

3.6

14.4

0.07

1.4

0.14

14.4

0 . 4

0.1

0.13

1.4

0.03

0.07

0.001

0.70

0.28

0.132

0.503

0.0008

0.005

0.038

0.04

0.68

0.66

0.68

0.0004

0.00001

0.00001

1.65

0.67

0.0002

0.00001

0.00001

0.66

0.29

0.34

0.34

0.001

0.0001

0.002

0.00001

0.00001

0.0001

* Proposed toxicity characteristic contaminants regulatory levels thatdefine, using TCLP, if a waste is hazardous - Federal RegisterVol. 51, No. 114 Friday, June 13, 1966. [12]

for the solidified product is resistance to leaching oftoxins in excess of the EPA’s Maximum Con-centration Limits (a standard used to evaluatetreatment alternatives as they affect the ability of acontaminant to pollute the surrounding environ-ment.)

Once blended, the cement-like slurry can be pumpedinto concrete forms for hardening or returned to theground for in situ emplacement. The product isdenser than cement; its high strength reduces thepossibility of fracturing and release of toxic com-ponents.

The addition at normal ratios of the Chlorananadditive is more cost-effective than the higher fixing

agent ratios required in competitive systems tofixate high-organic wastes. HAZCON claims thattheir lower ratio admix levels also can result in alower volume increase of the solidified product thanproduced by competitive systems. HAZCON has theability to optimize its additive blend to limit volumeincrease in situations when volume is of concern. Atthe Demonstration site ratios of cement-to-waste of1:1 and of Chloranan-to-waste of 1:10 were used.HAZCON claims that ratios as low as 1:3 and 1:20,respectively, can be used in some applications.Volume increases as low as 10% have been achievedin the past on soil wastes; 30% to 40% is average.

HAZCON calculates that the normal cost range fortreatment of one cubic yard of waste varies from$15.00 to $12 0.00 ($12 to $96/ton of soil), as based onactual previous bid amounts and completed remedi-ations. Typically the cost increases as treatmentcriteria become more stringent, and according to themagnitude of difference between the treatmentrequirements and the initial condition of the rawwaste.

Capital costs range from $75,000 to $250,000depending on the output capacity of the blendingequipment. These are typical operating costs:$100/hour for operators, $3 to $6/ton of soil formiscellaneous expenses, and $15 to $80/ton of soil foradditives.

Overview

HAZCON states that their solidification technologyoffers an alternative for on-site remediation of RCRAand CERCLA sites. The Environmental ProtectionAgency evaluation of the HAZCON process underthe Super-fund Innovative Technology Evaluation orSITE program was the first solidification processevaluation and has provided an abundance of data onthe technology. HAZCON expects that the emergingdata base from the test will set the stage for thefuture use of their technology on CERCLA sitesthroughout the country.

Under the provisions of the Comprehensive Environ-mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the SuperfundAmendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986(SARA), the stabilization/solidification process isrecognized as a Best Demonstrated Available Tech-nology (BDAT) under the land banning regulations.The HAZCON process probably can meet Federaland State applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements (ARARs) for the disposal of hazardouswastes.

32

The HAZCON technology has been evaluated and Station (WES) at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal [7];reported upon at the Douglassville SITE Demon- and at the Sand Springs Superfund Site [13].stration [8]; in tests reported in the I.T./IWC report HAZCON offers these evaluations, the results of[9]; in two independent confidential studies [6,11]; in which are highlighted in Section 3 and Appendix A,a report by Risk Science International for the as confirmation of their capabilities to remediate aAmerican Petroleum Institute (A.P.I.) [l]; in a wide range of sites and contaminants.Canadian report [10]; by the Waterways Experiment

33

SITE DEMONSTRATION RESULTS

Introduction

A wide variety of soil contaminant concentrationsexist at the Douglassville Superfund Site, and avariety of feedstocks were used in the tests toevaluate the HAZCON technology. The soils treatedcontained oil and grease ranging from 1% to 25% bywt, heavy metals (primarily lead) from 0.3% to 2.3%by wt, volatile organics up to 150 ppm by wt , baseneutral/acid extractables (semivolatile organics)ranging up to more than 500 ppm by wt, and smallamounts of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). A testwas run on contaminated soil from six plant areas,each providing a different composition feedstock.

The analytical data consist of test results ofuntreated soil, treated soil collected in the field as aslurry after a 7-day curing period, and core samplesfrom the solidified blocks after curing in the field for28 days. Clean soil, FSA soils, and LAN soils, thesetwo areas containing the highest organics content,each were mixed in the analytical laboratory withthe cement used in the field without Chloranan andchecked for physical properties as a baseline againstwhich to compare the field results. The Demon-stration results are discussed separately in terms ofthe physical tests, chemical tests, and operations.

Results

A large amount of analytical and operating data wasobtained, and it was sufficient to meet the programobjectives. The detailed results and operatingsummaries are in the Technology Evaluation Report[8].

Physical

The physical tests showed that the HAZCON processcan readily solidify contaminated soil with oil andgrease content up to 25% by wt. The HAZCONprocess produced a structurally firm material, with

few negative properties observed. The unconfinedcompressive strengths (UCS) of tested samplesranged from 220 psi at FSA, the highest oil andgrease content area, to 1,570 at PFA, one of the loweroil and grease areas. In general, the treated soilstrength was inversely proportional to the oil andgrease content. These UCS values easily meet theEPA guideline of 50 psi [14] for this type oftechnology.

Soil samples were prepared in the laboratory withoutChloranan for FSA and LAN. For FSA, the solidifiedsoil had a UCS of less than 40 psi, while for LAN theresults were equal to those samples with Chloranan.Therefore, for the highest oil and grease contentsamples, Chloranan appears to have a verybeneficial effect.

The permeabilities and other results of the wet/dryand freeze/thaw weathering tests were good. Thepermeabilities, for both the field samples withChloranan and the two laboratory formulationswithout Chloranan, were in the range of 10-8 to 10-9

cm/sec, which is less than an EPA and industryguideline of 10-7 cm/sec for hazardous waste landfillsoil barrier liners. Not only does a low permeabilityreduce contaminant mobility, but it reduces soliderosion and weathering. The wet/dry and freeze/thawweathering tests showed relatively low weightlosses, less than 1.0%, over the twelve cycle tests,with the test specimen losses only slightly largerthan the control samples, not subjected to drying orfreezing. Unconfined compressive strength testsperformed on the weathered test specimens showedno losses in strength.

Less positive results were observed from the bulkdensity and microstructural analyses. The treatedsoil bulkdensity increased approximately 10% to15% resulting in a volume increase of the treated soilcompared to the untreated soil of 120%. Thus, onepart soil plus one part cement plus water andChloranan yields 2.2 parts treated soil by volume.

This may provide remediation difficulties involvingwhere to place the excess material. HAZCON hasindicated that smaller quantities of cement andChloranan might have been used, which wouldgreatly reduce the volume increase, but this mayimpact other physical and chemical properties. Inaddition, the microstructural analyses showed thatthe solidified mass was porous, that mixing of thevarious components was not highly efficient, andthat brownish aggregates passed through the processunchanged. These characteristics are factors thatmay impact upon durability of the solid mass andimmobilization of the contaminants. A more efficientmixer, such as a ribbon blender, may eliminate manyor all of these deficiencies.

The physical properties of the untreated and treatedsoils are shown in Tables C-l and C-2.

Chemical

The chemical analysis consists of both soil andleachate analyses for metals, volatile organics(VOCs), base neutral/acid extractables (BNAs), andpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The leachateresults can be directly related to the correspondingsoil composition.

Table C-3 presents the results for these contam-inants (except PCBs) in terms of migration potential,which is defined as the weight of an analyte in theleachate divided by the weight in the solid being

leached. Migration potential provides a method ofcomparing the fraction of an analyte extracted fromthe solid for both the untreated and treated soils.

The untreated and treated soil analyses are shown inTables C-4 and C-5. The TCLP and special leachtests, ANS 16.1 and MCC-lP, showed that theHAZCON process immobilized heavy metals, whichconsist predominantly of lead, but not organics. Theheavy metals were reduced in the TCLP leachatefrom concentrations of 20 to 50 mg/l for untreatedsoils to 5 to 400 ugll for treated soils, with most of thetreated soil values below 100 pg/l. These results areshown in Table C-6.

The leachate analyses for organics, VOC, and BNAshowed that they were not immobilized, since theleachate concentrations of the contaminants in thetreated soil were equivalent to those in the untreatedsoil (See Tables C-7 and C-8). The primary VOCsdetected were toluene, xylenes, tetrachloroethene,trichloroethene, and ethylbenzene. The individuallocation values for total VOCs varied greatly as thesoil composition ranged from nondetected to amaximum of 150 ppm by wt at FSA. For the threeareas of lowest VOC concentrations, DSA, LFA, andPFA, toluene was injected at a rate sufficient toprovide an equivalent of 125 ppm by wt VOCconcentration in these soils. The TCLP leachateresults ranged, for both the treated and untreatedsoils, from less than 100 ug/l to about 1000 pg/l. Thesoils without toluene injection provided the bestcomparisons.

Table C-l. Physical Properties of Untreated Soils

Untreated Soil

Plant AreaMoisture,Weight %

11.817.624.716.76.611.915.7

Total Less thanBulk density,(a) Oil & Grease,(c) Organic Carbon, Permeability, 200 mesh (74p),

g/ml Weight % Weight % cm/sec(b) %

1.23 1 .o 4.9 5.7 x 10-1 581.40 16.5 23.0 1.8 x 10-31.60 25.3 27.3 Impermeable(d) Ngd)1.68 4.3 8.9 10.5 x 10-2 571.73 4.5 7.5 7.7 x 10-2 191.59 7.7 14.3 1.5 x 10-5 47

1.63(e) 0.26 0.3 6.0 x 10-3 32

(a) Values reported are of undisturbed soil samples except for clean soil.(b) Permeability as measured by constant head permeability test.(c) Oil and grease is fraction of TOC extracted by a solvent.(d) Could not be run due to excessive stickiness.(e) Compacted loose sand.

Table C-2. Physlcal Properties of Treated Soils

< _____________________________, Dsv________________________________ > < _______________.___ _____ _____2S Day ______________________.________ _ >

Plant Moisture,Area %

BulkDensity,

g/ml

Unconfined Bulk UnconfinedCompressive Permeability,(a) Moisture, Density Compressive Permeability,Strength, psi cm/sec % g/ml Strength, psi cm/sec

DSALANFSALFAPFALASCementonlyClean(b)

soil a

14.2 1.95 1446 1.6 x10-9 14.8 1.99 1113 1.8 x 10-9

20.1 1.61 427 1.7 x10-9 17.2 1.59 524 3.6 x 10-9

24.7 1.51 238 4.5 x10-9 22.1 15.1 219 8.4 x 10-8

17.0 1.84 947 4.5 x10-9 15.1 1.86 945 4.5 x 10-9

11.6 2.07 1435 4.3 x1 0 - 9 ( d ) 10.0 2.02 1574 5.0 x 10-9

16.0 1.07 894 2.4 x10-9 15.8 1.74 889 2.2 x 10-9

9.9 1.98 1758 (c) 11.0 2.07 2949

The BNAs consisted of phthalates, phenols, andnaphthalene. The phthalates and naphthaleneconcentrations in both untreated and treated soilTCLP leachates were very low, less than 50 pg/l.However, the phenol concentrations in the leachateswere much greater. For FSA, where the untreatedsoil contained 405 ppm by wt phenols, the untreatedand treated soil leachate concentrations were both inthe range of 3 to 4 mg/l. Thus, for phenols, whichhave a moderate solubility in water, the migrationpotentials were approximately the same for thetreated and untreated soils. Since the phthalate andnaphthalene leachate concentrations were so low,determination as to whether they were immobilizedis difficult.

The TCLP leachate analyses for PCBs providedvalues all below detection limits of 1.0 pg/l, both forthe treated and untreated soil samples.

The special leach tests, ANS 16.1 and MCC-lP,attempt to simulate leaching from the solidifiedmass, as compared to the TCLP test where thesample is crushed. Tests equivalent to ANS 16.1 andMCC-1P were not performed on untreated soil.Therefore, these results can only be compared to thetreated soil TCLP results. Since experience withthese tests for hazardous wastes is limited, and eachtest uses a different weight ratio of solid to leachate,significance of the results is unclear. However, theleachate concentrations from all three tests were the

cementFSA & (b) 13.0 2.04 5.9 x 10-9

cement 28.2 1.41 27 ( c ) 28.9 1.36 38 3.2 x 10-8

LAN &(b)

c e m e n t 19.6 1.60 373 (c) 20.6 1.55 539 3.8 x 10-8

(a) Permeabilities all performed after 28 days elapsed.(b) Laboratory formulations prepared without the use of Chloranan: Baseline.(c) Not scheduled to be performed.(d) The two low values average 4.7 x 10-10 cm/sec. The third value was 1.2 X 10-8 cm/sec.

same order of magnitude. This indicates leaching ofthe blocks in the field may be similar to that shownby a TCLP test. This was surprising, since thesurface area and the intimacy of mixing for leachingin the TCLP test is much greater than for ANS 16.1and MCC-1P.

Operations

Many operational difficulties were encountered byHAZCON during the 5-cu-yd runs. Control ofChloranan and water rates were erratic. In addition,on two occasions the soil feed screw jammed withsoil, and operations had to be discontinued so theHAZCON unit could be flushed clean. In theextended run (3 hr) at LAS, where 25 cu yd of treatedsoil was produced, operations ran relatively smoothwith an on-stream factor of about 85%. For all tests alabor-intensive effort was required to maintainoperations.

Material balances performed on each test runshowed that the soil processing rate ranged from 180lb/min to 300 lb/min and was constant for each testarea. The cement-to-soil additions were maintainedat the targeted ratio of 1:1 except during theextended run when the cement rate tailed off. Thefeed ratio of Chloranan to soil varied between runs,ranging from 0.052 to 0.094; this compares to thetargeted value of 0.

37

WQ,

Table C-3,

PlantArea

DSALANFSALFAPFALAS

Migration Potential, pg leached!pg in soiI(a)

VOC Toluene

Untreated Treated Untreated Treated

13.55 5 .70 13.55 5.970 . 1 6 6 0.265 0.200 0.6250.137 0.148 0.192 0 . 2 7 4

8 . 3 5 0 . 3 0 0 8 . 3 5 0 . 3 1 24 . 7 8 0.730 4 .78 0.7570.154 0.305 0.667 0.562

BNAs Phenols Metals - Pb

Untreated Treated Untreated Treated

0.938

0.108

0 . 0 6 2 5

0.0519

0.0059

ND(b)

N D N D0.617 3.73 0.810.151 0.139 0.429N D N D (c)0.533 N D (c)0.306 N D 1.93

Untreated Treated

0.0093 0.0001690.0691 0.0000360.0159 0.000800 . 0 4 0 4 0 . 0 0 0 5 4 0

0.0567 0.000061

0.0706 0.000313

Reductionof Lead, %

98.19

9 9 . 9 5

95.03

98.67

99.89

99.56

(a) Based upon TCLP leaching test.(b) ND - Not detected.(c) Below quantification limits.

Table C-4. Chemical Analyses of Untreated Soils

Parameter D S A L A N

PCBs - ppm by wt

Aroclor 1260 1.2 51Aroclor 1248 ND ND

F S A L F A

40 10ND ND

PFA

14.5

19

L A S

2 5 0

270

Oil and grease, %by wt 0.98 16.5 25.3 4.27 4.47 7.800

Metals - ppm by wt

Lead

Chromium

Nickel

Cadmium

CopperZinc

BNA - ppb by wt

All phthalatesAll phenols

Naphthalene

3,230 9,250 22,600 13,670 7,930 14,8300

24 19 31 46 95 730

23 6 8 22 46 170

1 2.3 6 4 5.5 3.50

74 35 128 90 440 1400

315 150 655 735 1,600 5800

12,150 15,700 14,200 33,500 10,750 34,2000ND 5,200 405,000 ND ND ND0

ND ND 115,000 3,200 7,700 5,4000

Volatiles - ppb by wt

Toluene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethane

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes

ND - None detected

ND 1,000 26,000 ND ND 2900

ND 130 13,800 ND ND 5800

ND 160 6,100 ND 100 1,500

ND 180 13,000 ND ND 400

ND 970 91,000 ND 320 3,700

Table C-5. Chemical Analyses of Treated Soils*

Parameter D S A LAN F S A L F A PFA LAS

Total PCBs (ppm)

Oil and (%)grease 0.54 7.54 9.45 1.53 2.11 1.67

Lead (ppm) 830 2800 10300 1860 3280 3200

NDDTotal BNAs (ppb) 42800 368900 ND 4130 15700

Phthalates ND ND 1300 ND ND 2150

Phenols ND 32400 126800 ND ND 6700

Naphthalene ND 10400 216700 ND 4130 4550

Total Volatiles (ppb) 1320 3550 105300 24700 22700 7200

Toluene (ppb) 1240 1280 19000 23700 17700 1780

‘Based on 28-day results

39

Table C-6. Concentration of Metals in TCLP Leachates mg/liter*

Pb Cr Ni Cd Cu Zn

Soil-

DSA 1.5 < 0.008 0.02 < 0.004 < 0.03 0.07

LAN 31.8 < 0.008 0.07 0.02 < 0.3 1.1

FSA 17.9 0.27 0.11 0.13 < 0.03 23.0

LFA 27.7 < 0.008 0.06 0.03 < 0.08 6.7

PKA 22.4 < 0.008 0.05 0.01 < 0.03 1.4

LAS 52.6 < 0.008 0.07 0.04 0.13 4.8

7-Day Cores

DSA 0.015 < 0.07 <0.15 < 0.04 < 0.06 < 0.02

LAN < 0.002 < 0.07 <0.15 < 0.04 < 0.06 < 0.02

FSA 0.07 0.02 < 0.008 < 0.003 < 0.03 0.02

LFA 0.04 < 0.07 <0.15 < 0.04 < 0.06 0.04

PFA 0.01 < 0.07 <0.15 < 0.04 < 0.06 0.02

LAS 0.14 < 0.008 < 0.008 < 0.003 < 0.05 0.04

28-Day Cores

DSA 0.007 < 0.007 0.020 < 0.004 0.023 0.037

LAN 0.005 0.007 <0.015 < 0.004 0.010 0.017

FSA 0.400 < 0.070 <0.15 < 0.040 < 0.060 0.037

LFA 0.050 0.009 0.015 < 0.004 0.080 0.013

PFA 0.011 < 0.007 <0.015 < 0.004 0.027 0.030

LAS 0.051 0.015 0.025 < 0.004 0.055 0.258

* Where the symbol < is used, indicates values below detection limits of quantity shown. The detection limits vary between metals and fromanalysis to analysis.Where 2 of 3 values are above detection limits, three values were averaged assuming the one below detection limits is zero.three values is above detection limits, the results are reported as below detection limits.

if only one of

Table C-7. Voiatiles in TCLP Leachates, pgli(a)

Volatile Organic DSA LAN

Untreated Soil

Toluene 915 10

Xylenes <50 7

Trichloroethene <20 2.4

Tetrachloroethene <40 <4

Ethyl benzene <70 <7

FSA

245

525165

19

80

LFA PFA LAS

5100 1 100(b)

10

< 230 <180 35

<95 <76 8

<210 <160 5

< 360 < 290 <7

7-Dav Cores

Toluene

XylenesTrichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

Ethyl benzene

380 <6 220 201 350 <15

3.5 6 340 5 20 15

<10 105

<20 <4 11 <4 <10 <10

<40 <7 60 <7 <20 <20

28-Day Cores

Toluene

Xylenes

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

Ethylbenzene

400370 230 370 670 50

6 8 330 <8 170 40

<9 2 100 <9 <9 8

<6 3 20 <6 <6 10

<3 2 60 2 <3 4

(a) < indicates less than detection limits. Within one sampling area, the detection limit may change between samples. For these, the highestdetection limit is shown.

(b) Two values < 60 and 2200 pg/f.

Table C-8. Base Neutral/acld Extractables In TCLP Leachates, pgl

BNA

Untreated Soil

Phthalates

Phenols

Naphthalene

DSA LAN

ND 10

ND 1010

ND ND

FSA

ND

2810

50

L F A

10

ND

ND

P F A

10

ND

ND

LAS

ND

ND

10

7-Dav Cores

Phthalates

Phenols

Naphthalene

28-Dav Cores

Phthalates

PhenolsNaphthalene

ND 30 ND 10 20 ND

40 1310 3850 30 50 470

15 ND 60 10 20 ND

ND 10 10 20 30 80

ND 1440 2720 80 80 650

ND ND 60 ND ND ND

ND - not detected

41

Appendix DCase Studies

Data in the HAZCON Applications Analysis Report was quoted from a variety ofoutside sources along with the SITE Technology Evaluation Report. This Appendixcontains a summary of these sources, listed below.

D-l Canadian Report [10]D-2 Waterways Experiment Station - Basin F Liquid Rocky Mountain Arsenal [7]D-3 Sand Springs Superfund Site [13]D-4 Risk Science International for API [3]D-5 IT Study for IWC [9]D-6 HAZCON Confidential Report A [11]D-7 HAZCON Confidential Report b [6]

43

Case Study D-1

Canadian Report: Investigation of SpecificSolidification Processes for the Immobilization ofOrganic Contaminants.

Description:A laboratory study was conducted on theeffectiveness of the HAZCON solidification processon a spiked metal finishing waste. Acenaphthene,aniline, benzene, bis(2-chloroethyl) ether, phenol,trichloroethylene and lithium (as a tracer) wereadded to create a concentration of 500micrograms/gram in the waste. Two hundred gramsof Chloranan and 2,000 grams of Portland cementwas added to the 2,000 gram waste sample (1:1 and1:10 ratios, respectively). Mixing was limited to 10minutes.

Testing Protocol:After 56 days of curing chemical and physical testswere performed on the sample. The untreated samplehad been previously tested with certain of these sametests. The conclusions section lists the specific testsand the results, and the data comparison. Tworeplicate samples were tested and the data reported.No effort was made to control or contain chemicalvolatilization during the mixing and curing.

The leach concentration was measured in a batchextraction conducted for 7 days at a liquid-to-solidratio of 4:1. The liquid-to-solid ratio is calculated on adry weight basis but the waste is added wet.

Major Conclusions:

l No conclusions are presented in the document.

Data Summary

Measured Physical Properties

bulk density of untreatedwaste g m / c m 3

?u$ der#ty of treated wastecm

r/ids specific gravity (@ 20

moisture content (w/ww)

unconfined compressivestrength (kPa)

freeze/thaw weathering(weight loss)

p”rmeability (m/s XOE+10,@20C)

Weight and Volume Changes

weight change factor

volume change factor

Calculated Matrix Properties

void fraction

porosity

degree of saturation

1.49

0.188

20,409

-0.0082

4

2.26

1.83

0.51

0.34

1 . 0 2

44

Equilibrium Leach Test Summary

Concentration CalculatedMeasured Calculated Fraction

Rep Contaminant Name Leachate (&ml) Residue (pg/g) Extracted (%)

1 Acenaphthene 1.820 211.7 2.9

Aniline 19.400 154.2 30.2

Benzene 0.007 221.0 0.0

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 2.110 213.7 3.3

Lithium 66.000 -8.2 103.8

Phenol 49.500 50.6 77.1

Trichloroethylene 0.003 221.0 0.0

2 Acenaphthene 1.650 212.3 2.6

Aniline 19.300 154.6 30.1

Benzene 0.009 221.0 0.0

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 2.240 213.3 3.5

Lithium 67.000 -11.6 105.3

Phenol 52.120 41.6 81.2

Trichloroethylene 0.010 221.0 0.0

ANS 16.1 Leachate Index

Contaminant

Aniline

Bis(B-chloroethyl) ether

Phenol

Acenaphthene

Lithium

8.2

9.9

7.9

10.1

7.0

45

Case Study D-2

Laboratory Investigation of Organic ContaminantImmobilization by Proprietary Processing of Basin FLiquid; Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado.

Description:A laboratory study was conducted on theeffectiveness of the HAZCON solidification processon the Basin F liquid from the Rocky MountainArsenal. Basin F is a hazardous wastestorage/evaporation pond containing several milliongallons of chemical waste from past industrial andmilitary activities. Concentrations reported wereTOC 97,000 mg/l; ammonia-nitrogen 40,700 mg/l;copper 5,860 mg/l; and arsenic 3.10 mg/l. The pH ofthe liquid was 5.7.

To 1,500 grams of Basin F liquid was added 3,500grams of portland cement (1:2 ratio) and 500 grams ofChloranan (3:l ratio). During mixing ammonia gaswas released; it was determined this could be avoidedby adding magnesium and phosphate to formammonium magnesium phosphate.

Testing Protocol:Physical and Chemical tests were performed on thestabilized waste. The physical test was theunconfined compressive strength (UCS) procedure.Six duplicate samples were tested and the resultsaveraged. Two chemical tests were used to evaluatethe stabilization effectiveness; the toxicity extractionprocedure (EP) and the sequential batch leach test(SBLT). Two duplicate samples were run with the EPtox and four samples were tested using SBLT.

Leachates generated by the EP tox and the SBLTwere analyzed for TOC, copper, barium, cadmium,chromium, lead and siIver, selenium, mercury,ammonia and pesticides (e.g., lindane, endrin, andtoxaphene).

Major Conclusions:

Physical strength tests showed that the HAZCONprocess can convert Basin F liquid to a hardened solidmass. Sequential batch leach tests showed thatgreater than 86 percent of the total organic carboncould be leached from HAZCON solidified Basin Fliquid. The Toxicity Extraction Procedure showedthat HAZCON solidified Basin F liquid did notexceed the limits for the contaminants specified bythe USEPA for the procedure.

The HAZCON solidification process is a cement-based process that possesses chemical stabilizationproperties similar to other cement-basedsolidification processes. The HAZCON process didnot effectively stabilize the total organic carbon inBasin F liquid. Chemical stabilization of organics inBasin F liquid by the HAZCON process did notappear technically feasible.

Data Summary:The unconfined compressive (UCS) strength testresults were dependent on the curing period. Aftercuring for seven days the UCS was less than 500 psi,but the UCS increased rapidly to 2,900 psi after 30days of curing. There was potential for furtherstrength development.

To pass the toxicity extraction procedure the leachatemust not exceed concentrations one hundred timesthe national interim primary drinking waterstandards. In all cases, for the specific compoundsanalyzed for, the leachate concentrations weresubstantially below the requirements.

There are five sequential leachates developed fromthe sequential batch leach test. In the first step 67.2%of the TOC was leached from the HAZCON stabilizedwaste. For steps 2 through 5, the cumulative TOCextracted were 79.6, 83.7, 85.4 and 86.7 percent,respectively. Further leaching would have removedmore TOC. Thus, less than 13 % of the TOC wasresistant to leaching after the HAZCON treatment.

46

Case Study D-3

Sand Springs Superfund Site Test Summary.

Description:A field treatability study was performed at the SandSpring, Oklahoma Superfund Site located about 10miles west of Tulsa. HAZCON used their MobileField Blending Unit to process waste from a closed oilrefinery. The waste was a heavy organic tar (about50% organics) with little volatile organics. Threesamples of the raw material were analyzed and twosamples of the treated (stabilized) waste. The beforeand after results were compared to determine if therehad been any improvement in the leachingcharacteristics.

Testing Protocol:Both physical and chemical tests were performed onthe treated waste. Only chemical tests wereperformed on the untreated waste. Physical testsincluded the unconfined compressive strength (UCS),the wet/dry durability and permeability. Chemicaltest was the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure(TCLP).

The leachates (before and after) were analyzed forboth organics and metals. The organic analysisincluded volatile organics (i.e., benzene, ethyl ben-zene, toluene, total xylenes 2-hexanone and 4-methyl-2pentanone) and semivolatile organics (i.e.,2-methlyphenol, 2,Cdimethlyphenol, naphthalene,2_methylnaphthalene, phenanthrene and flour-anthene). Most metals were included in the metalsanalysis.

Major Conclusions:No conclusions were presented in the document.

Data Summary:The physical test results were very good. The UCSdata ranged from 450 psi to 600 psi. Weight loss fromthe wet/dry durability test ranged from 0.09 to 0.12%after 4 cycles. The permeability data was notavailable.

After treatment only barium and zinc had TCLPleachate concentrations that could be quantified andthese were at the detection limits. All the othermetals were below the detection limits. Many of themetals had TCLP leachate concentrations below thedetection limits before treatment, i.e., arsenic,barium, beryllium, cadmium, mercury, selenium,silver and thallium.

After treatment the leachate concentrations for allthe volatile and semivolatile organics (listed above)were below the detection limits. Three volatileorganics were not detected in leachate from theuntreated waste (i.e., benzene, ethyl benzene and 4-methyl3pentanone). Those organics that could bemeasured had leachate concentrations less than 0.01mg/l from the untreated waste.

47

Case Study D-4

Risk Science International for American PetroleumInstitute: Evaluation of Treatment Technologies forListed Petroleum Refinery Wastes

Description:A laboratory study was performed to determine if theHAZCON stabilization process can adequately treatrefinery waste, i.e, API separator sludge, slop oilemulsion solids, plate filter cake and belt filter cake.Chloranan was mixed with 50 gram samples of eachwaste at ratios of 1:10, 1:20 and 1:30. The best mixwas then further mixed with pozzolanic material(e.g., kiln dust) at ratios of l:l, 2:l and 3:l. There isno information as to whether any effort was made tocontain the volatile organics from volatilizing. TheTCLP leachate concentration for the untreated wastewas compared to the leachate concentration for thestabilized waste and a percent reduction inconcentration calculated.

After curing 24 hours the sample was tested for pH,compressive strength and wet/dry durability. Theleachates were analyzed for volatile, semivolatile(base/neutral) and acid organics, and metals. Volatileorganics included benzene, methyl ethyl ketone,styrene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylenes.Semivolatile organics included anthracene, chrysene,indene, fluoranthene, naphthalene, phenanthrene,pyrene and several other BNAs. Acid organicsincluded cresol, 2,4-demethylphenol and phenol.Metals included arsenic, barium, cadmium,chromium, cobalt, lead, mercury and selenium.

Major Conclusions:

No conclusions were presented in the document.

Data Summary:After HAZCON treated the API separator sludge asubstantial reduction in the leachate concentrationswas measured. For those chemicals that the changein leachate concentration could be measured, theleachate concentration reduction ranged from 96 to99%. This was true for all four chemical classes;VOCs, BNAs, acid organics and metals.

The results of the stabilization of the slop oilemulsion solids was less successful. Volatile organicleachate concentration dropped by 99%, but theBNAs showed little if any change and there was anincrease in the leachate concentration of the acidorganics. Most metals were below detectable limitsbefore and after treatment.

The effectiveness of the HAZCON stabilizationprocess on the plate filter cake and belt filter cakecould not be determined because most of thechemicals were below detectable limits beforetreatment.

48

Case Study D-5

International Technologies Study for the IWCSuper-fund Site.

Description:A laboratory study was conducted on theeffectiveness of the HAZCON solidification process totreat the two wastes at the IWC superfund site.Wastes from the surface impoundment and the AreaD drum solvent were prepared into three samples fortreatment. These samples were surfaceimpoundment sludge; surface impoundment sludgemixed with the aqueous phase from Area D; andsurface impoundment sludge mixed with both theaqueous and organic fractions from Area D.

The surface impoundment contaminants weretoluene - 72,000 ppm, trichloroethylene - 21,000 ppmand ethyl benzene - 3,000 ppm. Area D drum disposalhad toluene - 92,000 ppm, ethyl benzene - 39,000ppm, methylene chloride - 83 ppm, andtrichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene less than50 ppm. (To the 300 grams of sludge and 100 grams ofmixed liquids, HAZCON mixed in 60 grams ofChloranan and 300 grams of Portland cement. TheTCLP leachate concentrations were compared to thetreated TCLP concentrations before treatment and tothe proposed TCLP limits.

Testing Protocol:

The samples were tested for physical properties usingthe unconfined compressive strength (UCS)procedure. Chemical properties of the samples weredetermined by the toxic leaching characterizationprocedure (TCLP). The TCLP leachate was analyzedfor a broader range of chemicals than listed above.The testing procedure did not attempt to suppress theloss of volatile organics during the mixing and curingof the samples.

Major Conclusions:

The data derived from the HAZCON bench scale testdemonstrates that the waste soils, sludges, aqueousliquids and organic liquids present at the IWC sitemay be successfully treated by solidification andfixation for on-site disposal.

The general conclusions were that HAZCON“passed” the metal and extractable organics (BNAs)leach test for surface impoundment sludge mixedwith both the aqueous liquid and the two fractionsfrom Area D (sample types 2 and 3). HAZCON also“passed” the volatile organic leach test for theaqueous mix, but only had a “tentative” pass for thetwo fraction mix. A passing concentration is aleachate concentration less than the proposed TCLPlimits. BNAs have no proposed TCLP limits and thussubstantial reduction in leachate concentration wasused to determine “passing.”

Data Summary:

UCS results for the two HAZCON samples improvedover the curing period from 200 and 225 psi after 18hours of curing to greater than 700 psi after 90 hoursof curing.

The TCLP results for volatile organics were mixed.For most chemicals the TCLP results were below theproposed TCLP limits. There were a few chemicals,however, that the detection limits were above theproposed limits and when the leachate data wasreported as “less than the detection limit” it isdifficult to interpret the data. Chemicals of this typewere benzene, carbon tetrachloride, methyl ethylketone, chloroform, isobutanol, trichloroethylene,vinyl chloride and tetrachloroethylene. Except forisobutanol, the leachate concentrations for the abovechemicals were all less than 10 mg/l and most wereless than 1 mg/l.

49

Case Study D-6

HAZCON Confidential Report A.

Description:Waste samples from five plant facilities wereobtained and laboratory treatability studiesperformed. These wastes contained chromium,chlorobenzene, cadmium, nickel and arsenic.

Testing Protocol:For each of the five wastes duplicate samples weretreated using the HAZCON solidification procedureand allowed to cure for 32 to 56 days.

No physical test results were reported. Chemical testresults were determined by performing the toxiccharacteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) andanalyzing the leachate for the compound of interest.For two of the facilities (B and E) the raw (untreated)waste was also tested with the TCLP. Method blankswere performed.

Major Conclusions:No conclusions are presented in the document.

Data Summary:Results of the TCLP Analyses for the HAZCON 28 day samples:

ProposedConcentration Regulatory

Plant Sample Constituent mg/l Level, mg/lA 1 chromium 0.032 5.0

2 chromium 0.030 5.0Methods Blank - chromium <0.02

B 1 chlorobenzene 0.6 1.42 chlorobenzene 1.4 1.4

raw waste chlorobenzene 33.0 1.4Methods Blank - chlorobenzene <0.005

C 1 cadmium 0.05 1.02 cadmium <0.02 1.0

Methods Blank - cadmium <0.02D 1 nickel 0.06 4.8

2 nickel 0.07 4.8Methods Blank - nickel <0.05

E 1 arsenic 0.91 5.02 arsenic 0.67 5.0

raw waste arsenic 30 5.0Methods Blank - arsenic <0.01

Proposed regulator level from the 6/13/86 Federal Register

Nickel estimated delisting criteria; 5/17/88 Federal Register proposed regulation shows 0.31 mg/l

5 0

Case Study D-7

HAZCON Confidential Report B.

Description:A laboratory study was conducted on theeffectiveness of the HAZCON solidification processon soil contaminated with pentachlorophenol (PCP).The results of the TCLP on the raw waste was 2.1ppm PCP. No information was available on themixing ratios of cement or Chloranan.

Testing Protocol:Nine treatability samples were processed byHAZCON. After curing, a toxic characteristicleaching procedure (TCLP) was performed on thesamples and the leachate analyzed for PCP.

Major Conclusions:No conclusions are presented in the availableinformation.

Data Summary:Below is the TCLP data onsamples:

the nine treatability

PCP TCLPConcentration

Sample Number mg/l 9 16

10 21

11 24

12 26

13 24

14 4.3

15 2.9

16 27

17 1.1

51

References for Appendices

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Tittlebaum, M.E., et al. State-of-the-Art onStabilization of Hazardous Organic LiquidWastes and Sludges. In CRC Critical Reviews inEnvironmental Control, Vol. 15, Issue 2, CRCPress, Boca Raton, Florida, 1985, pp 179 - 211.

USEPA, 1985. Handbook--Remedial Action atWaste Disposal Sites. EPA 625/6-85/006. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofResearch and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,and Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse, Washington, D.C.

Risk Science International, 1987. “Evaluationof Treatment Technologies for Listed PetroleumWastes.” Interim Report. Prepared for theAmerican Petroleum Institute. April 27,1987.

USEPA, 1982. Guide to the Disposal ofChemically Stabilized and Solidified Waste.SW-872 Revised. Municipal EnvironmentalResearch Laboratory, Office of Research andDevelopment, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Malone, P.G. and L. Jones, 1979. Survey ofSolidification/Stabilization Technology forHazardous Industrial Wastes. EPA 600/2-79/056. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Municipal Environmental ResearchLaboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.

HAZCON Confidential Report B.

Myers, T. and M. Zappi, 1987. “LaboratoryInvestigation of Organic ContaminantImmobilization by Proprietary Processing ofBasin F Liquid, Rocky Mountain Arsenal,Denver, Colorado.” Technical Report EL-87-11.U.S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

USEPA, 1988. Technology Evaluation Report,SITE Program Demonstration Test, HAZCONSolidif ication, Douglassvil le , PA. U . S .Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofResearch and Development, Risk ReductionEngineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.

IT Corp. IWC Feasibility Study - Solidi-fication/Fixation Bench Scale Testing, AppendixA. IT Corp. Austin, Texas. (no date).

Cote, P. 1988. Investigation of SpecificSolidification Processes for the Immobilizationof Organic Contaminants. HAZCON, Inc.Wastewater Technology Center, P.O. Box 5050,Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6, April 27,1988.

HAZCON Confidential Report A.

Federal Register, Volume 51, No. 114, 6/13/86,p. 21652.

USEPA, 1987. Sand Springs Superfund SiteReport Excerpts.

USEPA, 2986. Prohibition on the Placement ofBulk Liquid Hazardous Waste in Landfills --Statutory Interpretative Guidance. EPA 530-SW-86/016. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse, Washington, D.C.

52