1、 COE EL-93-12 FINAL REPORT 3515789 0559307 T9T m US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Ex per ment Station Technical Report EL-93-12 July 1993 An Evaluation of Stabilization/Solidification of a KO88 Spent Potliner Waste by Michael G. ChanneIl, Teresa T. Kosson En vironmental Laboratory Approved For P
2、ublic Release; Distribution Is Unlimited Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-COE EL-93-12 FINAL REPORT W 3515789 0559308 926 The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising,
3、 publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-COE EL-73-12 FINAL REPORT 3535789 0559309 8
4、62 Technical Report EL-93-1 2 July 7993 An Evaluation of Stabilization/Solidification of a KO88 Spent Potliner Waste by Michael G. Channel, Teresa T. Kosson Environmental Laboratory U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Final Report
5、Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited Prepared for Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Technical Evaluation and Development Section Cincinnati, OH 45268 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from I
6、HS-,-,-COE EL-93-12 FINAL REPORT 3515789 0559330 584 Waterways Experiment Station Cataloging-In-Publlcatlon Data Channell, Michael G. An evaluation of stabilization/solidification of a KO88 spent potliner waste / by Michael G. Channell, Teresa T. Koscon ; prepared for Rick Reduction Engineering Labo
7、ratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Evaluation and Development Section. 44 p. : ill. ; 28 cm. - (Technical report ; EL-93-1 2) Includes bibliographical references. 1. Electrolytic cells - Lining - Environmental aspects. 2. Binders (Materials) 3. Smelting furnaces -Waste disposal.
8、 4. Factory and trade waste - Leaching. I. Koscon, Teresa T. II. Risk Reduction Engi- neering Laboratory (U.S.) 111. United States. Environmental Protection Agency. III. U.S. Army Engineer Watetways Experiment Station. IV. Title. V. Series: Technical report (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment S
9、tation) ; EL-93-12. TA7 W34 no.EL-93-12 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-. COE EL-93-12 FINAL REPORT 9 3515789 05593LL 410 Contents Preface . v Conversion Factors. Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement . vi 1-Introduction . 1 Background .
10、1 Stabilization/Solidification . 2 WasteofInterest 3 Purposeand Scope 3 OrganizationofReport . 4 2-Materials and Methods . 5 General Study Approach 5 SampleCollection . 5 Preparation of Test Specimens 6 UCSandTCLPTesting . 8 SDiscussion of Results . 10 Initial Screening Test Results 10 UCSResults 11
11、 Bleed Water Results 13 Ratios Selected for TCLP Extraction . 14 TCLPResults . 14 4-Conclusions 18 References . 19 Tables 1-10 Appendix A: Unconfined Compressive Strength Data . Al Appendix B: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure Data . B1 Appendix C: Binder Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Pr
12、ocedure Results . . C1 SF 298 iii Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,- COE EL-93-32 FINAL REPORT = 3535789 0559332 357 List of Figures Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Schematic flowchart for
13、 stabilization processing 6 waste using different cement binder ratios . 12 UCS versus curing time for the S/S KO88 spent potliner UCS versus curing time for the S/S KO88 spent potliner waste using different kiln dust binder ratios 12 UCS versus curing time for the S/S KO88 spent potliner waste usin
14、g different lime/fly ash binder ratios 13 UCS versus curing time for the S/S KO88 spent potliner waste using different binder “X“ binder ratios 14 TCLP results of cyanide for the different bmders used for the S/S of the KO88 spent potiiner waste . 15 TCLP results of fluoride for the different binder
15、s used for the S/S of the KO88 spent potiiner waste . 16 Percent treatment for cyanide and fluoride based on binders used for the S/S of the KO88 spent potiiner waste . , . 16 iv Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,- COE EL-93-32 FINAL REP
16、ORT rn 3535789 0559333 293 rn Preface This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Piotection Agency (USEPA), Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, by the US. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES). The work was performed during the period June 1991 to September 1992 by Mr. Michael
17、 Channeli and Ms. Teresa Kosson, Environmental Restoration Branch (ERB), Environmental Engineering Division (EED), Environmental Laboratory (EL), WES. Chemical analyses were performed by Science Appli- cations International Corporation, Rockville, MD. The work was conducted at WES under the direct s
18、upervision of Mr. Norman R, Francingues, Chief, ERB, and the general supervision of Dr. Raymond L. Montgomery, Chief, EED, and Dr. John Harrison, Director, EL. Project officer for the USEPA was Mr. Ron Turner. At the time of publication of this report, Director of WES was Dr. Robert W. Whaiin. Comma
19、nder was COL Leonard G. Hassell, EN. This report should be cited as follows: Channeli, M. G., and Kosson, T. T. (1993). “An Evaluation of stabilization/solidification of a KO88 spent potliner waste,“ Technical Report EL-93-12, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. V Provide
20、d by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Conversion Factors, Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement gallons (U.S. liquid) inches Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SI units as follows: 3.78541 2 liters 0.0254 meters I 0.30
21、48 I meters II pounds (mass) square inches 0.4535924 kilograms 6.4516 square centimeters pounds (force) Il per square inch 6.894757 kilopascals Il vi Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,- COE EL-93-12 FINAL REPORT m 3515789 0559335 066 m 1
22、 Introduction Background Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted through the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, impose substantial responsibilities on handlers of hazardous waste. in particular, these amendments prohibit the continued land disposal of untr
23、eated hazardous wastes beyond specified dates “unless the Administrator determines that the prohibi- tion . is not required in order to protect human health and the environment for as long as the wastes remain hazardous .“ (RCRA Sections 3004(d)(l), (e)(5), 42 USC 6924(D)(1), (e)(l), and (gl(5). Was
24、tes treated according to treatment standards set by the US. Environ- mental Protection Agency (USEPA) under Section 3004(m) of RCRA are not subject to the prohibitions and may be land disposed. The statute requires USEPA to set “levels or methods of treatment, if any, that substantially dimin- ish t
25、he toxicity of the waste or substantidy reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the environment are minimiz ed.“ (RCRA Sec- tion 3004(m)(l), and 42 USC 6924 (m)91). To expedite the development of treatme
26、nt standards, various deadlines were established for agency action. Further land disposal of a particular group of hazardous wastes is prohibited at certain deadlines if the USEPA has not set treatment standards under RCRA Section 3004(m) for such wastes or deter- mined, based on a case-specified pe
27、tition, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the units for as long as the wastes remain hazard- ous. Additional deadlines result in conditional restrictions on land disposal to take effect if treatment standards have not been promulgated or if a petition has not been grante
28、d. Treatment standards will be established based on Best Demonstrated Avail- able Technology (BDAT) and developed according to RCRA Section 3004(m). USEPA (1986a) defines a technology as best, demonstrated, and available as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproducti
29、on or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-a. Best-if several technologies are available for treating the same (or similar) waste(s), the waste-treatment method that reduces the concentration and/or the migration of contaminants most effectively is considered best. b. Demonstrated-for a
30、 waste-treatment technology to be considered demonstrated, a full-scale facility must be known to be in operation for treating the waste. c. Available-for a waste-treatment technology to be considered available, it must (a) not present a greater total risk than land disposal, (b) be able to be purch
31、ased or licensed from the proprietor if a technology is a proprietary or patented process, and (c) provide substantial treatment. Stabilizationlsolidification (S/S) is one technology that meets the demonstrated and available criteria (USEPA 1986). S/S of hazardous wastes has been proposed as a treat
32、ment method for substantially reducing the likeli- hood of contaminant migration. USEPA has initiated studies to evaluate S/S technology as a BDAT and to develop data to support the establishment of treatment standards. Stabilitat ion/Solid if cat ion S/S is a process that involves the mixing of a h
33、azardous waste with a binder material to enhance the physical and chemical properties of the waste and to chemically bind any free liquid (USEPA 1986). Typically, the binder is a cement, pozzolan, or thermoplastic. Proprietary products may also be added. Often, the S/S process is changed to accommod
34、ate specific wastes. Since completely discussing all possible modifications to an S/S process is not possible, discussions of most S/S processes have to be related directly to generic process types. The performance observed for a specific SIS system may vary widely from its generic type, but the gen
35、eral characteristics of a process and its products are usually similar. Comprehensive general discussions of waste SIS processes are given in Malone and Jones (1979); Malone, Jones, Larson (1980); Iadevaia and Kitchens (1980); and USEPA (1986b). Waste SIS systems that have potential BDAT application
36、s include the foliowing: u. Lime/fly ash pozzolanic processes. 2 6. Pozzolan-portland cement systems. c. Vitnfication. Chapter 1 Introduction Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-COE EL-93-12 FINAL REPORT = 3515749 0559317 939 Lime/fly ash
37、 pozzolanic processes use the finely divided, noncrystalline silica in fly ash and the calcium in lime to produce low-strength cementation. The waste containment is produced by entrapping the waste in the pozzolan concrete matrix (microencapsulation). Metals are also usually converted to less solubl
38、e forms that further inhibit leaching. Pozzolan-portland systems use portland cement and fly ash or other pozzo- lan materials to produce a type of waste/concrete composite. Contaminant migration is reduced by microencapsulation of the contaminants in the concrete matrix. The addition of soluble sil
39、icates to pozzolan-portland systems may accelerate hardening. As with lime/fly ash pozzolonic systems, metals are also converted to less soluble forms in the pozzolan-portland systems. Vitrification is a process whereby hazardous wastes are incorporated into a molten substance utilizing very high te
40、mperatures. The process is carried out by inserting electrodes into a waste mass and passing a high current of elec- tricity through the mass. The high temperature produces a melt; and as the melt cools, contaminants are trapped in the melt. When cooled, the melt fonns a stable noncrystalline solid
41、that resembles obsidian, a very strong glass. Waste of Interest The KO88 spent potliner waste that was evaluated was a bottoms ash from the incineration of wastes produced from the primary reduction of aluminum from the metal smelting industry. The waste was contaminated with metals, cyanides, and f
42、luorides. The waste was coiected in three 5-gal buckets and shipped to the US. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) under chain of custody by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Rockville, MD, the contractor for the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL). The sam
43、ple was obtained from the USEPA Incineration Research Facility in El Dorado, AR. Upon receipt of the samples at WES under chain of custody, the waste was placed in a walk-in cooler at 4 “C for storage until needed for testing. Purpose and Scope The specific objective of the study was to determine if
44、 S/S techniques could be applied to a KO88 spent potliner waste contaminated with metals, cyanides, and fluorides to characterize the effect of S/S on that soil. The physical and chemical properties of the stabilizedholidified waste were evaluated to deter- mine if S/S techniques substantially reduc
45、ed the amount of hazardous page vi. A table of factors for converting non-SI units of measurement to SI units is presented on Chapter 1 Introduction 3 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-contaminants in the Toxicity Characteristic Leachin
46、g Procedure (TCLP) leach- ates and improved the physical handling properties of the waste. Four binder systems (cement, kiln dust, lime/fly ash, and binder “X) were used to stabilize/solidify the waste. The binder “X“ was sent to WES by Mr. Ron Turner of RREL. The stabilizedholidified waste was cure
47、d, and the physical and chemical properties of the treated samples were evaluated. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test was used to measure physical strength, and TCLP was used to assess the leachability of the chemical conta- minants from the stabilized/solidified waste. This report prese
48、nts the methods and test results from the S/S of the waste material. It is not intended to determine nor does it attempt to determine whether S/S is a BDAT for the treatment of the KO88 spent potliner waste. Organization of Report This report is divided into four basic parts: a. Chapter 1 briefly de
49、scribes the background for this study, introduces the concept of S/S, and states the purpose and scope of this study. b. Chapter 2 describes the methods used for sampling, treatment, and testing of the waste materials. c. Chapter 3 presents and discusses the results of the UCS and the TCLP of the stabilized/solidified KO88 spent potliner waste. d.
