Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0029-0019
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-01-29T05:00Z

OAKRIDGE
NATIQNALLABORATORY
ORNLITM­
2001/
17
5
~
i
MANAGED
BY
UT­
BATTELLE
FOR
THE
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENERGY
?!

Measurements
of
Mercury
Released
from
Solidified/
Stabilized
Waste
Forms
April
2001
C.
H.
Mattus
UT­
BATTELLE
ORNL­
27
(
4­
00)
DOCUMENT
AVAILABMTY
Reports
produced
after
January
1,1996,
are
generally
available
free
via
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE)
Information
Bridge.

Web
site
http://
www.
osti.
gov/
bridge
Reports
produced
before
January
1,
1996,
may
be
purchased
by
members
of
the
public
from
the
following
source.

National
Technical
information
Service
5285
Port
Royal
Road
Springfield,
VA
22161
Telephone
703­
605­
6000
(
l­
800­
553­
6847)
TDD
703­
487­
4639
Fax
703­
605­
6900
E­
mail
info@
ntis.
fedworld.
gov
Web
site
http://
www.
ntis.
gov/
support/
ordernowabout.
htm
Reports
are
available
to
DOE
employees,
DOE
contractors,
Energy
Technology
Data
Exchange
(
ETDE)
representatives,
and
International
Nuclear
information
System
(
INIS)
representatives
from
the
following
source.

Office
of
Scientific
and
Technical
Information
P.
O.
Box
62
Oak
Ridge,
TN
37831
Telephone
865­
576­
8401
Fax
865­
576­
5728
E­
mail
reportsQadonis.
osti.
gov
We6
site
httpz//
www.
osti.
gov/
contact.
html
.

This
report
was
prepared
as
an
account
of
work
sponsored
by
an
agency
of
the
United
States
Government.
Neither
the
United
States
Government
nor
any
agency
thereof,
nor
any
of
their
employees,
makes
any
warranty,
express
or
implied,
or
assumes
any
legal
liability
or
responsibility
for
the
accuracy,
completeness,
or
usefulness
of
any
information,
apparatus,
product,
or
process
disclosed,
or
represents
that
its
use
would
not
infringe
privately
owned
rights.
Reference
herein
to
any
specific
commercial
product,
process,
or
service
by
trade
name,
trademark,
manufacturer,
or
otherwise,
does
not
necessarily
constitute
or
imply
its
endorsement,
recommendation,
or
favoring
by
the
United
States
Government
or
any
agency
thereof.
The
views
and
opinions
of
authors
expressed
herein
do
not
necessarily
state
or
reflect
those
of
the
United
States
Government
or
any
agency
thereof.
*
Chemical
Technology
Division
MEASUREMENTS
OF
MERCURY
RELEASED
FROM
SOLIDIFIED/
STABILIZED
WASTE
FORMS
C.
H.
Mattus
.
April
2001
.

Prepared
for
the
U.
S
.
Department
of
Energy
Office
of
Technology
Development
Washington,
D.
C.
20585
Prepared
by
OAK
RIDGE
NATIONAL
LABORATORY
Oak
Ridge,
Tennessee
3783
l­
6285
managed
by
UT­
BATTELLE,
LLC
for
the
U.
S.
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENERGY
under
contract
DE­
AC054OOR22725
P
CONTENTS
s
LISTOFFIGURES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
v
.
LISTOFTABLES..................................................................
vii
ACRONYMS...............................................~.......................
ix
EXECUTIVE
S
UMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
xi
1.
BACKGROUND
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2.
INTRODUCTION
.........................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
3.
WASTE
DESCRIPTION
....................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
4.
EQUIPMENT
DESIGN
­
MERCURY
VAPOR
ANALYZER
.............................
4
5.
MEASUREMENTS
OF
MERCURY
RELEASE
........................................
4
5.1
Experimental
Procedure
..........
;
...........................................
5
5.2
Results
of
Tests
Performed
at
2
°
C
.............................................
6
5.3
Results
of
Tests
Performed
at
20
°
C
9
............................................

5.4.
Results
of
Tests
Performed
at
60
°
C
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
6.
DISCUSSION
OF
RESULTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
6.1
QA/
QC
PureMercurySamples
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
6.2
QA/
QC
Blank
Samples
.....................................................
14
6.3
UntreatedSoil
............................................................
15
6.4
Thermal
Desorption
­
SepraDyne
Process
......................................
15
6.5
Solidification/
Stabilization
Using
Sulfur
Polymer
Cement
­
BNL
Process
............
15
6.6
Solidification/
Stabilization
Using
Portland
Cement­
Based
Additives
­
ATG
Process
...
16
6.7
Solidification/
Stabilization
Using
Proprietary
Additives
­
NFS
Process
..............
16
7.
CONCLUSIONS..
...............................................................
16
8.
REFERENCES
...............................................................
..:
17
APPENDIX
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A­
l
.

P
.
.
.
111
LIST
OF
FIGURES
Figure
Page
1
Mercury
concentration
in
headspace
at
2
°
C
­
samples
with
lower
concentrations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
2
Mercury
concentration
in
headspace
at
2
°
C
­
samples
with
higher
concentrations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3
Mercury
concentration
in
headspace
at
20
°
C
­
samples
with
lower
concentrations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
4
Mercury
concentration
in
headspace
at
20
°
C
­
samples
with
higher
concentrations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
5
Mercury
concentration
in
headspace
at
60
°
C
­
samples
with
lower
concentrations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
6
Mercury
concentration
in
headspace
at
60
°
C
­
samples
with
higher
Concentrations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
V
*
LIST
OF
TABLES
L
Table
Page
.
1
Characterization
of
the
soil
wastes
.................................................
3
2
Summary
of
technologies
and
soils
used
for
demonstrations
.............................
3
3
Mercury
concentrations
in
samples
and
in
TCLP
extracts
...............................
4
4
Vapor
concentration
of
pure
mercury
over
the
temperature
range
investigated
...............
5
5
Instrument
sensitivity
as
a
function
of
the
volume
analyzed
..........................
:.
.
14
A­
l
Summary
of
data
for
the
samples
maintained
at
2
°
C
..................................
A­
3
A­
2
Smnmary
of
data
for
the
samples
maintained
at
20
°
C
.................................
A­
6
A­
3
Summary
of
data
for
the
samples
maintained
at
60
°
C
.................................
A­
9
1
vii
,
"

AMLGM
ASTM
I
ATG
BNL
c&
4
CVAA
DOE
EPA
IMERC
INEEL
LDR
MLLW
MWFA
NFS
ORNL
rvb
PPm
RCRA
RMERC
SPC
s/
s
TCLP
TLV
UTS
ACRON)?
MS
amalgamation
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials
Allied
Technology
Group
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
Clean
Air
Act
cold
vapor
atomic
absorption
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
incineration
of
mercury
wastes
Idaho
National
Engineering
and
Environmental
Laboratory
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
mixed
low­
level
waste
Mixed
Waste
Focus
Area
Nuclear
Fuel
Services
Oak
Ridge
National
Laboratory
parts
per
billion
parts
per
million
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
retorting
or
roasting
of
mercury
wastes
sulfur
polymer
cement
solidification/
stabilization
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
Threshold
Limiting
Value
Universal
Treatment
Standards
ix
.

.

.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This
report
covers
work
performed
during
FY
1999­
2000
in
support
of
treatment
demonstrations
conducted
for
the
Mercury
Working
Group
of
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE)
Mixed
Waste
Focus
Area.
In
order
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act,
as
implemented
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
DOE
must
use
one
of
these
procedures
for
wastes
containing
mercury
at
levels
above
260
ppm:
a
retorting/
roasting
treatment
or
an
incineration
treatment
(
if
the
wastes
also
contain
organics).
The
recovered
radioactively
contaminated
mercury
must
then
be
treated
by
an
amalgamation
process
prior
to
disposal.
The
DOE
Mixed
Waste
Focus
Area
and
Mercury
Working
Group
are
working
with
the
EPA
to
determine
if
some
alternative
processes
could
treat
these
types
of
waste
directly,
thereby
avoiding
for
DOE
the
costly
recovery
step.
They
sponsored
a
demonstration
in
which
commerqial
vendors
applied
their
technologies
for
the
treatment
of
two
contaminated
waste
soils
from
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory.
Each
soil
was
contaminated
with
­
4500
ppm
mercury;
however,
one
soil
had
as
a
major
radioelement
americium­
24
1,
while
the
other
contained
mostly
europium­
152.
The
project
described
in
this
report
addressed
the
need
for
data
on
the
mercury
vapor
released
by
the
solidified/
stabilized
mixed
low­
level
mercury
wastes
generated
during
these
demonstrations
as
well
as
the
comparison
between
the
untreated
and
treated
soils.
A
related
work
began
in
FY
1998,
with
the
measurement
of
the
mercury
released
by
amalgamated
mercury,
and
the
results
were
reported
in
ORNL/
TM­
13728.

Four
treatments
were
performed
on
these
soils.
The
baseline
was
obtained
by
thermal
treatment
performed
by
SepraDyne
Corp.,
and
three
forms
of
solidification/
stabilization
were
employed:
one
using
sulfur
polymer
cement
(
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory),
one
using
portland
cement
[
Allied
Technology
Group
(
ATG)],
and
a
third
using
proprietary
additives
(
Nuclear
Fuel
Services).

The
release
of
mercury
vapor
above
the
headspace
of
the
untreated
soils
and
waste
forms
was
studied
as
a
function
of
temperature.
Three
temperatures
were
selected:
2,20­
22,
and
60
°
C.
Measurements
were
performed
at
three
time
intervals
­
1,3,
and
7
days
­
to
ensure
that
equilibrium
between
the
solid
and
gas
phases
had
been
achieved.

Results
showed
that
untreated
soil
containing
either
radionuclide
(
americium
or
europium)
released
mercury
vapor
in
the
headspace
in
the
same
way
that
pure
mercury
was
released.
During
the
tests,
some
tiny
droplets
of
elemental
mercury
were
observed
in
the
soil,
which
corroborates
the
measurements
obtained.
The
soil
treated
by
either
process
(
thermal
desorption
or
solidification/
stabilization)
released
little
mercury
vapor
in
the
headspace,
up
to
a
factor
of
350
less
when
compared
with
the
untreated
soils.
At
2O"
C,
the
soil
stabilized
by
ATG
released
the
most
mercury,
at
levels
slightly
above
the
threshold
limiting
value
(
TLV)
of
0.05
mg/
m3,
with
quantities
varying
between
0.04
and
0.11
mg/
m'.
The
other
treated
soils
were
found
to
be
comparable
with
the
thermal
desorption
process.
However,
it
should
be
noted
that
because
of
the
sensitivity
of
the
instrument
and
the
small
volumes
analyzed,
a
direct
comparison
of
the
results
with
the
TLV
is
not
appropriate.

At
60
°
C
the
same
sample
treated
by
ATG
released
between
1
and
3
mg/
m'
of
mercury,
while
the
levels
for
the
others
were
below
0.5
mg/
m3.
These
values
should
be
compared
with
the
releases
measured
in
the
untreated
soils,
which
ranged
from
100
to
­
1s'O
mg/
m3.

xi
?

c
.
1.
BACKGROUND
Significant
quantities
of
waste
containing
both
radioactive
components
and
mercury
[
mixed
low­
level
waste
(
MLLW)]
`
are
currently
stored
at
several
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE)
facilities.
In
order
to
meet
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
(
LDR),
the
treatment
standard
for
this
type
of
waste
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
as
set
forth
in
40
CFR
268.40,
is
amalgamation.
For
radioactively
contaminated
wastes
containing
mercury
at
levels
above
260
ppm,
one
of
two
treatment
standards
is
currently
applied.
If
the
waste
does
not
contain
organic
constituents,
retorting
or
roasting
in
a
thermal
processing
unit
is
the
treatment
standard
to
follow;
if
the
waste
also
contains
organics,
then
incineration
is
the
approved
treatment
standard.
Recovery
of
the
radioactive
mercury
is
then
followed
by
an
amalgamation
step
before
final
disposal
can
occur.
In
an
effort
to
reduce
the
costs
associated
with
this
two­
step
treatment,
the
Mixed
Waste
Focus
Area
(
MFWA)
and
the
Mercury
Working
Group
are
working
together
with
the
EPA
to
determine
whether
some
form
of
direct
treatment
would
meet
the
goal
of
a
maximum
TCLP
extract
concentration
of
0.025
mg/
L
mercury
while
also
reducing
the
cost
for
final
disposal
of
these
wastes.

Recently,
concerns
have
arisen
about
the
release
of
mercury
vapors
from
amalgamated
or
stabilized
wastes.
Much
work
was
done
to
stabilize/
amalgamate
the
mercury,
and
success
was
declared
when
the
leaching
results
were
found
to
be
satisfactory.
However,
no
measurement
of
the
headspace
of
the
waste
forms
was
performed
and
the
possibility
for
volatilization
of
the
mercury
was
overlooked.
In
the
work
performed
in
FY
1999
for
the
Mercury
Working
Group,
the
author
of
this
report
measured
significant
amounts
of
mercury
vapors
released
by
some
amalgams
prepared
by
commercial
vendors
(
I).
Hamilton
and
Bowers
have
studied
the
release
of
mercury
vapors
from
solidified/
stabilized
waste
forms
using
portland
cement
as
a
matrix
(
2).
Their
findings
corroborate
the
author's:
the
concentration
of
mercury
in
the
vapors
increased
with
temperature
and
time
when
oxide
or
elemental
mercury
species
were
involved.
The
mercury
was
released
quickly,
and
the
headspace
above
the
samples
became
saturated
within
a
few
hours.
When
mercury
was
stabilized
with
sulfide,
no
release
of
mercury
vapor
was
measured.

Recently,
in
reporting
to
Congress,
the
R&
D
Mercury
Group
from
the
Florida
landfill
wrote
that
"
the
working
face
of
the
landfill
may
be
more
important
than
the
landfill
gas
as
a
source
of
mercury
emissions.
While
most
of
the
mercury
buried
within
the
landfill
may
be
immobilized,
operations
on
the
working
face
lead
to
emissions
as
mercury­
containing
devices
break.
Moreover,
the
study
found
that
landfills
may
emit
highly
toxic
organic.
mercury,
as
the
result
of
reactions
that
take
place
within
the
landfill"
(
3).

2.
INTRODUCTION
l
One
of
the
primary
performance
requirements
specified
in
the
MWFA
Technology
Development
.
Requirements
Document
­
Mercury
Amalgamation
­
is
related
to
vapor
emissions:
"
The
process
must
not
release
mercury
vapors
into
the
environment
above
the
limits
established
by
the
applicable
air
permit
[
in
accordance
with
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
requirements].
In
addition,
the
process
should
not
expose
1
operators
to
mercury
vapors
above
the
established
Threshold
Limiting
Value
(
TLV)
of
0.05
mg/
m'.
Using
the
TLV
as
a
basis,
the
final
waste
form
must
have
a
vapor
pressure
of
less
than
1
Oe6
torr
at
140
°
F"
(
4).

"
Vapor
pressure"
is
defined
as
the
pressure
at
which
a
liquid
or
solid
is
in
equilibrium
with
its
vapor
at
a
given
temperature
(
5).
This
properly
depends
only
upon
the
temperature
and
the
composition
of
the
material
considered.
For
a
typical
liquid,
a
constant
and
reproducible
vapor
pressure
exists,
which
varies
only
with
the
temperature
(
i.
e.,
it
increases
as
the
temperature
rises).

The
modified
test
procedure
used
in
this
study
was
very
similar
to
the
static
headspace
analysis
method
used
by
Kriger
and
Turner
(
6).
In
this
technique,
the
mercury
vapor
pressure
was
allowed
to
reach
equilibrium
in
a
static
headspace
and
the
mercury
concentration
(
mass/
volume)
in
the
headspace
was
subsequently
measured
using
a
commercial
mercury
vapor
analyzer.
This
instrument
was
used
successfully
in
the
work
performed
during
FY
1999
(
1)
and
was
also
used
by
other
scientists
for
similar
work
(
2,6).

3.
WASTE
DESCRIPTION
Two
soil
wastes
stored
at
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
(
BNL)
on
Long
Island,
New
York,
were
used
in
this
demonstration.
These
soils
contained
about
4500
mg/
kg
mercury
and
were
also
contaminated
with
radionuclides
­
americium­
241
in
one
case
and
europium­
152
in
the
other.
For
each
soil,
four
drums
were
sampled
and
analyzed
for
radionuclide
content,
total
mercury,
and
leachable
mercury
via
the
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
(
TCLP).
Characterization
of
these
two
soils
was
performed
at
BNL,
and
data
are
provided
in
Table
1.

The
vendors
­
BNL,
SepraDyne,
Allied
Technology
Group
(
ATG),
and
Nuclear
Fuel
Services
(
NFS)
­
provided
samples
of
the
untreated
soil
they
received
as
well
as
the
treated
soil
they
generated
via
the,
application
of
their
processes.
The
untreated
soil
appeared
to
be
a
sand­
like
material
with
some
large
pebbles
and
pieces
of
debris.
Some
vendors
received
only
one
type
of
soil
for
their
demonstration,
while
others
received
both
soils.
Table
2
summarizes
the
technology
as
well
as
the
type
of
soil
used
for
each
demonstration.

These
samples
will
be
used
to
test
a
new
set
of
protocols
developed
by
Dr.
David
Kosson
at
Vanderbilt
University.
This
set
of
protocols,
which
could
replace
the
controversial
TCLP
in
the
future,
requires
that
particles
in
the
sample
be
reduced
in
size
to
~
300
pm,
~
2
mm,
or
15
mm.
For
our
project,
based
on
the
size
of
the
untreated
soil
material,
we
chose
a
maximum
size
of
12
mm.
All
the
samples
were
crushed
if
necessary
and
sieved.
The
sieved
samples
were
then
used
for
the
mercury
vapor
measurement
test.
'

2
Table
1.
Characterization
of
the
soil
wastes
Soil
contaminated
with
europium­
152
Sbilcontaminkd
with
americium­
24
1
E­
l
E­
2
E­
3
E­
4
Average
A­
l
A­
2
A­
3
A­
4
Average
Am­
24l(
pCi/
g)
0
0
0
0
0
12,230
9,085
12,130
17,160
12,651
cs­
137
(
pCi/
g)
14.1
13.39
17.38
13.39
14.57
0.1257
0.0709
0.1736
0.3673
0.1844
Gross
alpha
@
G/
g)
327
714
345
584
493
5150
16,317
8467
15,795
11,432
Gross
beta
@
Ci/
g)
187
306
210
377
270
386
1114
768
1586
964
Eu­
152
(
pCi/
g)
20.73
15.29
36.56
7.625
20.05
Eu­
154
(
pCi/
g)
14.09
10.52
20.76
5.953
12.83
Pu­
238
(
pCi/
g)
0
0
0
0
0
6.41
4.8
4.91
16.7
8.21
Pu­
239/
240
(
pCi/
g)
0.279
0.375
0.188
0.259
0.28
29.3
15.3
17.1
56.8
29.63
U­
234
(
pCi/
g)
14.4
14
11.4
17.4
14.3
0.35
0.232
0.344
0.502
0.357
U­
235
(
p&
g)
0.66
0.774
0.562
0.773
0.692
0.023
0.045
0.0125
0.0197
0.0251
U­
238
(
pCi/
g)
11.7
11.7
9.21
14.6
11.80
0.23
0.181
0.166
0.229
0.202
TCIJ
@
g/
L)
BariLllIl
1.56
1.78
1.48
1.82
li660
0.134
0.193
0.357
0.15
0.209
Mercury
0.208
0.245
0.191
0.212
0.214
0.868
1.5
1.39
1
1.190
CadmiUm
0.164
0.116
0.0999
0.148
0.132
0
0
0
0
0.000
Lead
0.754
0.789
0.736
0.993
0.818
<
0.015
0.0216
0.0263
<
0.015
0.024
Mercury
(
m&
g)
4,190
3,100
4,880
5,510
4,420
4,040
4,190
2,310
5,570
4,028
Table
2.
Summary
of
technologies
and
soils
used
for
demonstrations
.
Vendor
Tecbnoloev
Soil
used
BNL
SepraDyne
ATG
NFS
Sulfur
polymer
cement
Thermal
treatment
Solidification/
stabilization
Solidification/
stabilization
Am­
241
Am
­
241
and
Eu­
152
Eu­
152
Am­
241
Each
sample
received
was
analyzed
by
cold
vapor
atomic
absorption
(
CVAA)
for
total
mercury
concentration.
The
instrument
used
was
a
PS200
from
Lehman
Labs.
The
sample
preparation
and
analysis
were
conducted
according
to
EPA
method
SW846­
7471.
A
modified
TCLP
test
was
performed
on
each
sample
following
SW846­
1311,
using
only
20
g
of
sample
and
400
mL
of
extraction
fluid
instead
of
the
100
g/
2
L
indicated
in
Method
13
11.
The
extracts
were
then
analyzed
by
CVAA
for
mercury.
The
results
of
both
the
total
mercury
concentration
present
in
the
sample
and
the
mercury
extracted
in
the
TCLP
test
are
provided
in
Table
3.
Data
provided
by
the
vendor,
when
available,
are
shown
in
bold
character.

3
Table
3.
Mercury
concentrations
in
samples
and
in
TCLP
extracts
Sample
Mercury
concentration
Mercury
in
modified
b4&)
TCLP
tug/
L)
Untreated
soil
(
Eu)
received
from
ATG
5,480;
4,200
105;
282
Untreated
soil
(
Eu)
received
from
BNL
3,250
78.7
Untreated
soil
(
Am)
received
from
NPS
3,470
270
Untreated
soil
(
Am)
received
from
BNL
3,280
401
SepraDyne
thermal
treatment
­
soil
Eu
1.39
0.005
SepraDyne
thermal
treatment
­
soil
Am
4.53
3.33
BNL
sulfur
polymer
cement
­
soil
Am
997
42.7
ATG
solidification/
stabilization
­
soil
Eu
1,840
32.9;
2.03
to
13.9'

NPS
solidification/
stabilization
­
soil
Am
2,410
3.0
Regulatory
limit
of
mercury
in
TCLP
200
UTS
limit
for
mercury
`
Depends
on
the
formulation
used.
25
4.
EQUIPMENT
DESIGN
­
MERCURY
VAPOR
ANALYZER
The
instrument
used
for
measurement
of
the
vapor
pressure
of
mercury
was
a
Jerome
43
1­
X
gold­
film
mercury
vapor
analyzer
from
Arizona
Instruments
(
Phoenix,
Arizona).
The
range
of
detection
is
0.000
to
0.999
mg/
m3
mercury.
The
sensitivity
of
the
instrument
is
0.003
mg/
m3,
well
below
the
TLV
of
0.05
mg/
m3.
The
air
sampling
is
performed
with
the
aid
of
an
internal
pump.
The
amount
of
air
sampled
and
analyzed
each
time
is
87.5
n&
The
air
flows
through
a
guard
column
packed
with
soda
lime
for
removing
moisture
and
acid
gases.
The
resulting
dry
vapor
is
deposited
onto
a
gold
film,
which
forms
an
amalgam
with
mercury,
thus
increasing
the
electrical
resistance
of
the
film.
This
instrument
is
stable
and
selective
for
mercury
and,
unlike
ultraviolet
analyzers,
is
not
prone
to
interferences
such
as
those
from
water
vapor
and
hydrocarbons.
When
the
sensor
approaches
its
saturation
limit,
the
instrument
provides
a
warning;
regeneration
of
the
sensor
then
takes
about
10
min.
The
instrument
should
not
be
used
for
about
30
min
after
regeneration
of
the
sensor
to
allow
the
metal
to
cool
down
to
room
temperature.

5.
MEASUREMENTSOF
MERCURY
RELEASE
The
objective
of
this
set
of
experiments
was
to
study
the
effect
of
temperature
on
the
mercury
vapors
released
from
the
various
waste
forms
and
untreated
soils.
Measurements
were
made
at
the
following
temperatures:
2"
C,
ambient
(­
20­
22"(
I),
and
60
°
C.

The
objective
of
these
tests
was
to
measure
the
release
of
elemental
mercury
vapor
over
a
given
set
of
conditions
for
each
candidate
waste
form
and
to
compare
the
results
with
those
for
pure
elemental
mercury.
In
the
literature,
the
mercury
vapor
pressure
above
pure
mercury
is
expressed
as
a
function
of
temperature.
The
expected
gas
space
concentration
of
mercury
at
each
temperature
can
be
calculated
4
r
from
the
mercury
partial
pressure
using
the
ideal
gas
law,
Eq.
(
1).
The
calculated
data
are
presented
in
Table
4.

.

where
W
PM
­=
RT
'
V
(
1)

P
=
vapor
pressure
of
the
sample
(
Pa),

W
=
mass
of
vaporized
material
(
g),
A4
=
molecular
weight
of
mercury
(
g
.
mol­`),
R
=
gas
constant
(
8.31
Pa
*
m3
*
mol­*
*
K­
l),
T
=
temperature
(
K),
v
=
volume
analyzed
(
m3).

Table
4.
Vapor
concentration
of
pure
mercury
over
the
temperature
range
investigated"

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2.42
2.67
2.94
3.20
3.53
3.86
4.25
4.65
5.11
5.57
"
Derive
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Md
@
Wd
6.10
6.63
7.27
7.91
8.66
9.41
10.28
11.15
12.17
13.18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
F­&
l
(
mp/
m'f
14.37
15.54
16.93
18.31
19.91
21.51
23.36
25.20
27.34
29.47
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
ekzis
[
HEd
(
mg/
m3)

31.93
34.38
37.22
40.04
43.30
46.53
SO.
26
53.96
58.22
62.46
y
T
("
0
lHg1
(
mp/
m3)
T
("
0
D­
w
(
Wm')
T­
T
T
("
Q
[
Hgl
(
mglm')

41
67.32
51
135.28
61
260.30
42
72.15
52
144.37
62
276.76
43
77.68
53
154.68
63
295.27
44
83.18
54
164.92
64
313.67
45
89.48
55
176.58
65
334.29
46
95.74
56
188.16
66
354.79
47
102.89
57
201.28
67
377.92
48
110.00
58
214.33
68
400.9
1
49
118.10
59
229.08
69
426.72
50
126.14
60
243.75
70
452.39
yszcs,
47th
e&
.
on,
p.
D­
108.

5.1
Experimental
Procedure
P
The
sample
preparation
was
performed
using
Kapake
pouches
and
glass
sample
vials
with
Teflon
septa.
The
samples
to
be
maintained
at
2
and
20
°
C
were
introduced
into
the
pouches,
while
those
to
be
tested
at
60
°
C
were
placed
in
glass
vials.
The
samples
at
0­
3
°
C
were
placed
in
a
container
filled
with
ice
and
water
and
stored
in
a
refrigerator
set
at
2
°
C.
A
thermocouple
was
placed
in
the
liquid
to
measure
the
temperature
of
the
bath
where
the
samples
were
sitting.
Tests
made
during
FY
1999
showed
that
the
samples
could
not
simply
remain
in
the
refrigerator,
since
opening
the
door
modified
the
temperature
and
thus
introduced
variations
in
the
measurements.
The
samples
at
20­
22
°
C
were
maintained
at
room
temperature
in
the
laboratory
using
a
thermocouple
to
monitor
the
temperature.
The
samples
tested
at
60
°
C
were
placed
in
a
water
bath
to
avoid
fluctuation
of
temperature
during
sampling.
The
temperature
of
the
water
was
monitored
using
equipment
with
a
digital
readout.
Since
the
release
of
mercury
in
the
headspace
is
independent
of
the
amount
of
sample
present,
approximately
15
mL
of
material
(
equivalent
5
to
a
tablespoon)
was
introduced
into
each
bag
or
vial.
The
samples
were
not
dried
prior
to
testing.
The
bags
were
then
filled
with
compressed
air
to
provide
the
necessary
volume
needed
for
later
sampling
(
and
to
allow
for
volume
changes
during
the
curing
time),
heat
sealed,
and
transferred
into
their
respective
locations
for
curing.
All
the
samples
were
prepared
in
triplicate.
For
each
temperature,
as
a
means
of
ensuring
quality,
a
blank
and
a
sample
containing
pure
mercury
metal
served
as
controls
and
were
also
run
in
triplicate.
At
selected
time
intervals,
the
samples
were
measured;
then
the
bags
were
resealed.

Volumes
of
0.2
to
10
mL
of
the
headspace
sample
diluted
to
a
total
of
87.5
mL
by
room
air
were
found
to
be
appropriate
for
use
in
this
set
of
experiments.
The
total
concentration
had
to
be
recalculated
to
take
into
account
the
dilution
made
during
sampling.
Even
though
equilibrium
between
the
sample
and
the
air
above
is
reached
rapidly
(
2),
measurements
were
made
at
1,3,
and
7
days
to
confirm
that
the
data
obtained
were
representative
of
an
equilibrium
condition.

Each
bag
was
sampled
and
analyzed
four
times,
and
the
results
were
averaged.
The
standard
deviation
for
the
12
measurements
made
for
each
sample
was
used
in
calculating
the
error
on
the
average
concentration.
The
plots
are
bar
graphs
where
the
average
concentration
is
represented
in
bold
and
the
range
of
possible
concentration
is
represented
as
a
line
on
each
side
of
the
average.
The
large
difference
in
mercury
concentration
among
the
samples
did
not
allow
adequate
representation
of
the
data
on
one
plot
in
that
the
samples
showing
a
low
release
of
mercury
would
not
have
been
differentiated.
Therefore,
two
plots
are
presented
for
each
temperature­­
one
representing
the
samples
with
low
release
of
mercury,
and
the
other
representing
the
samples
releasing
larger
amounts
of
mercury.

Because
some
treated
samples
were
unavailable
in
May
when
the
fust
test
was
performed,
another
series
of
tests
was
conducted
in
September.
Each
time
the
same
QA/
QC
samples
were
measured
with
the
samples,
which
explained
the
presence
of
the
blank
and
two
mercury
standards.
The
thermal
treatment
samples
from
SepraDyne
are
associated
with
the
blank
and
mercury
standard
A
and
were
run
in
May.
The
three
other
treated
soils
­
sulfur
polymer
cement
by
BNL,
solidification
and
stablization
by
ATG,
and
solidification
and
stabilization
by
NFS­
were
run
in
September
and
are
associated
with
the
blank
and
mercury
standard
B.

5.2
Rq&.
s
of
Tests
Performed
at
2
°
C
After
1,3,
and
7
days,
a
series
of
measurements
was
performed.
The
data
obtained
are
summarized
in
the
appendix
(
Table
A.
l),
and
Figs.
1
and
2
plot
the
average
values
obtained
for
each
series
as
well
as
the
domain
of
error
associated
with
the
measurements.

6
t`

*

­

­
­

J
­

­

­

­
I..
­

L
L
­

­
PL­(
W)
S/
S
SAN
PE­(`
JJV)
S/
S
SAN
Pl­(
WV)
S/
S
SAN
p&
a)
s/
s
at/

Pe(
n3)
s/
s
Elltl
PM@
s/
s
wd
PL­(`
JJV)
3dS
lN8
PC­(
W)
3dS
lN9
PC­(
W)
3dS
lN9
PL­
a
ww
P&­
9
ww
P
l­
9
ww
pi­
(
f­
q)
auAae&
S
ps­
(
ng)
auhawdag
pi­
(
ng)
WAaeJdaS
pi­
(
WV)
auA@
adaS
p&­
(
WV)
CNhaE.
Jdag
p
l­
(
uJV)
aui@
JdaS
PL­
V
Yuw
P&­
V
Yum
P
1­
v
ww
1
7
.

I
I
L
­
L
I
I
­

I
L
I
I
I
I
r
P
F
1
F
E
.
Zi
3
d
.

.
m
El
5.3
Results
of
Tests
Performed
at
20
°
C
The
samples
tiere
maintained
at
room
temperature
(­
21.5
"
C)
for
this
set
of
experiments.
The
data
obtained
at
1,3,
and
7
days
are
summari
zed
in
Table
A.
2
of
the
appendix.
Figures
3
and
4
plot
the
average
values
obtained
for
each
series.

5.4
Results
of
Tests
Performed
at
60
°
C
For
this
series
of
tests,
the
data
showed
more
fluctuation
than
for
the
two
other
temperatures.
Opening
the
water
bath
probably
caused
the
temperature
of
the
samples
to
drop;
furthermore,
the
smaller
volume
of
air
sampled
introduced
a
larger
error
in
the
mercury
concentration
measured.
The
data
obtained
are
compiled
in
Table
A­
3
of
the
appendix
and
illustrated
in
Figs.
5
and
6.

6.
DISCUSSION
OF
RESULTS
i
c
Some
parameters
in
these
experiments
were
not
controlled
closely
enough,
thus
providing
only
semi­
quantitative
results
that
could
not
be
used
to
determine
if
a
waste
form
Was
actually
at
or
below
the
TLV
concentration.
Some
of
the
samples
were
actually
tested
a
long
time
after
the
treatment
was
completed,
with
the
storage
of
the
samples
being
uncontrolled
during
that
time.
The
samples
were
size
reduced
to
fit
the
experiment
and
may
not
represent
the
actual
waste
form
in
its
definitive
form.
In
order
to
accurately
determine
the
concentration
of
mercury,
larger
volumes
of
air
should
be
sampled.
However,
this
would
not
be
compatible
with
the
experiment
in
the
laboratory,
which
would
require
regeneration
of
the
sensor
after
each
measurement
when
using
the
mercury
vapor
analyzer
supplied
by
Arizona
Instruments.
If
a
measurement
was
needed
to
compare
the
mercury
released
by
the
waste
form
with
the
TLV,
it
should
be
done
on
the
actual
waste
form
­
monolith
or
not
­
after
completion
of
the
process.
The
waste
form
should
also
be
maintained
under
controlled
conditions
­
temperature,
humidity,
time
­
until
the
measurement
is
performed.

In
this
study,
the
results
obtained
at
room
temperature
are
probably
me
most
accurate
and
reproducible
since
there
was
little
fluctuation
in
temperature
during
the
measurements.
Sample
volumes
of
0.2­
10
mL
were
used
for
the
experiments.
The
error
in
the
measured
volume
was
estimated
to
be
in
the
range
of
20­
25%
for
the
smaller
volumes
and
­
5%
for
the
higher
volumes
analyzed.

.
As
discussed
in
Sect.
4,
the
mercury
vapor
analyzer
is
sensitive
to
within
0.003
mg/
m3.
This
value
needs
to
be
corrected
by
the
dilution
factor;
the
resulting
sensitivities
for
each
volume
analyzed
are
shown
in
Table
5.
During
the
early
phase
of
testing,
smaller
volumes
were
removed
and
analyzed
without
realizing
that
the
sensitivity
of
the
instrument
suffered,
as
shown
in
Table
5.
In
subsequent
tests,
larger
volumes
were
used
to
eliminate
the
issue
of
sensitivity.
As
a
result,
data
associated
with
early
measurements
are
higher
than
those
in
which
larger
volumes
were
used,
making
some
data
comparisons
diffkult.

9
0.1
0.02
0
Fig.
3.
Mercury
concentration
in
headspace
at
20
°
C­
samples
with
lower
concentrations.
PL­
El
PJEPUW
6H
PE­
9
PJEPUW
6H
P
l­
9
PJEPUW
6H
P/
L­(
W)
lN9
I!
OS
P~
l~~
Jwl
PE­
oElhN9
l!
OS
PW~
Jwl
P
i+
MiNa
iw
pw=
Jwn
PL­@
JV)
SdN
l!
OS
PW=
JW­
l
PE­(`­
WkJN
l!
OS
PW=
JWn
P
l­(
Wk=
IN
l!
OS
PWaJYJn
PL­@
JvhNa
l!
OS
P~
I~~
Jwl
PG­&
whNa
l!
OS
PW~
Jw­
l
P
l­(
whNa
I!=
Pw=
Jwl
PL­
V
PJEPUW
6H
PC­
V
PJEPUW
6H
P
1­
V
PJePWS
6H
11
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
u
5
Y
k!
m
x
8
z
ro
m
­
0
7
a
Fig.
5.
Mercury
concentration
in
headspace
at
60
°
C­
samples
with
lower
concentrations.
­
.

I
.
.

.
.
.

I
­
L
I
.

=
I2
.,
L
PL­
8
PJEPWS
6H
PC­
8
PJePUW
fjH
P
L­
8
PJ=
PWS
6H
­

PL­@
JVklN
I!
OS
PwaJwn
PI(
W)
SJN
I!=
PWWWl
P
l­@
Jt'kdN
l!
OS
PW~
JWl
PL­
bJV)
lNG
I!=
PWaJWfl
PS­
bJJt'hN!
Zl
I!=
PW~
JUJfl
P
I­(`
WfhNEl
l!
OS
PW!
aJWn
w(
n3)
9m
w
pw=
Jwn
Pc­(
n3kuv
I!=
pw=
Jwn
P
L­(
n3)
91v
19s
PaaJiun
,

PL­
V
PJePWS
6H
PC­
V
PJePWS
6H
PC­
V
PJSPWS
6H
13
Table
5.
Instrument
sensitivity
as
a
function
of
the
volume
analyzed
Sample
size
(
mL)
Sensitivity
(
mg/
m3)
.

0.2
1.31
0.3
0.875
1
0.2625
2
0.1313
3
0.0875
10
0.0263
6.1
QA/
QC
Pure
Mercury
Sampies
The
concentration
of
mercury
in
the
headspace
of
the
mercury
standard
was
found
to
be
­
1­
3
mg/
m'
at
the
lowest
temperature,
compared
with
the
theoretical
values
of
2.42,2.67,
and
2.94
at
1,2,
and
3
"
C,
respectively.
At
ambient
temperature,
which
was
­
2
l­
22
"
C,
the
measurements
were
found
to
be
in
the
17­
to
2
1­
mg/
m3
range,
compared
with
the
theoretical
values
of
15.54
and
19.91
at
22
and
25
"
C,
respectively.
Larger
deviations
from
the
theoretical
values
were
found
for
the
samples
maintained
at
60
"
C,
which
were
determined
to
be
lower.
These
deviations
were
probably
due
to
the
smaller
volume
of
headspace
gas
analyzed;
only
0.2
mL
was
used
so
that
the
sensor
would
not
become
saturated
too
rapidly.
It
was
also
noticed
that
the
temperature
of
the
bath
dropped
when
the
cover
was
removed
during
the
measurements.

6.2
QA/
QC
Blank
Samples
The
samples
tested
in
May
on
days
1
and
3
appear
to
have
high
mercury
concentrations,
while
the
results
at
day
7
are
closer
to
zero.
A
problem
with
the
instrument
is
a
possible
explanation
for
the
high
concentration
value;
however,
both
the
sensitivity
of
the
instrument
and
the
volume
of
sample
actually
analyzed
account
for
the
insignificant
difference
in
value.
As
shown
in
Table
5,
the
sensitivity
of
the
instrument
for
1
mL
is
0.26
mg/
m'.
This
volume
was
used
for
the
measurement
of
the
blank
on
day
1
at
a
temperature
of
2
°
C.
On
day
3,
a
volume
of
3
mL
was
analyzed
and
the
sensitivity
for
that
volume
was
­
0.09
mg/
m'.
Finally
on
day
7,
a
volume
of
10
mL
was
sampled,
which
corresponded
to
a
sensitivity
of
0.026
mg/
m'.
The
same
volume
of
10
mL
was
used
for
the
blank
at
20
°
C.
For
the
September
blank
sample,
a
volume
of
10
mL
was
used
at
2
and
20
°
C.

14
6.3
Untreated
Soil
1
The
untreated
soil
was
a
sand­
like
matrix
with
­
10%
moisture.
The
larger
pebbles
had
been
removed
through
use
of
a
2­
mm
sieve.
The
data
obtained
for
the
untreated
soils
showed
that
the
soils
released
as
,
much
mercury
vapor
in
the
headspace
as
pure
mercury,
even
though
the
total
concentration
of
mercury
in
the
soil
was
only
­
4500
mg/
kg.
As
expected,
the
release
of
mercury
vapor
was
independent
of
the
predominant
radionuclide
contaminating
the
soil.
Some
very
small
droplets
of
elemental
mercury
were
found
in
the
soil,
confirming
the
data
obtained.
Another
interesting
observation
is
that
the
10%
moisture
content
did
not
modify
the
concentration
ofmercury
in
the
headspace.
These
observations
should
emphasize
the
importance
of
immobilizing
the
mercury­
even
when
present
at
low
concentrations­
into
a
form
that
is
stable
and
able
to
retain
all
the
mercury
present
in
the
waste.
For
waste
samples
contaminated
with
elemental
mercury,
as
in
this
demonstration,
the
measurement
of
mercury
vapor
in
the
headspace
of
the
waste
form
could
also
serve
as
a
way
to
ensure
that
complete
conversion
of
elemental
mercury
was
achieved
through
the
process.

L
Two
years
ago,
the
Mercury
Working
Group
conducted
a
demonstration
in
which
commercial
vendors
tested
their
processes
for
amalgamating
elemental
mercury
(
1).
One
vendor
used
amalgamation
with
metals,
but
the
process
did
not
yield
100%
conversion
and
some
small
droplets
of
mercury
were
visible
in
association
with
the
amalgam
formed.
These
samples
showed
as
much
mercury
vapor
in
the
headspace
as
that
found
for
pure
mercury.
Such
data
corroborate
the
hypothesis
that
this
type
of
measurement
could
serve
as
an
indicator
of
the
completion
of
the
amalgamation
process
when
stabilizing
elemental
mercury.

c
These
findings
corroborate
the
results
obtained
by
Gorin
et
al.
(
7)
and
others
(
3,6).
In
this
experiment,
very
rapid
kinetics
of
equilibrium
existed
between
the
sample
and
the
headspace,
and
equilibrium
was
reached
within
1
day.
A
study
performed
at
Vanderbilt
University
(
3)
provides
an
explanation
concerning
the
mechanisms
of
mercury
stabilization,
depending
on
which
chemical
forms
of
mercury
exist
in
the
waste.

P
6.4
Thermal
Desorption
­
SepraDyne
Process
The
soil
treated
by
thermal
desorption
was
a
sandy,
dusty,
black
material
that
had
been
sifted
through
a
2­
mm
sieve.
This
process
was
the
baseline
for
the
treated
samples
since
it
is
the
current
EPA­
approved
treatment
process
for
waste
contaminated
with
levels
of
mercury
above
260
ppm.
The
concentration
of
mercury
vapor
in
the
headspace
was
found
to
be
the
same
as
the
blank
and
involved
the
same
sensitivity
issue
since
the
volumes
used
were
the
same
as
those
analyzed
in
May.
The
difference
with
the
blank
is
that
a
volume
of
2
mL
was
analyzed
on
day
1
at
2
°
C
with
a
corresponding
sensitivity
of
­
0.13
mg/
m'.

6.5
Solidification/
Stabilization
Using
Sulfur
Polymer
Cement
­
BNL
Process
The
soil
treated
by
sulfur
polymer
cement
was
cast
in
a
monolith
form
the
size
of
a
l­
gal
can.
The
material
was
broken
into
pieces
small
enough
to
use
a
jaw
crusher
to
fit
the
2­
mm
sieve.
As
found
in
the
results
for
FY
1999,
mercury­
contaminated
wastes
treated
with
sulfide
yielded
the
most
stable
waste
forms.
The
waste
treated
with
sulfur
polymer
cement
showed
very
little
or
no
release
of
mercury
vapor,
even
at
higher
temperatures.
Its
effectiveness
is
comparable
to
that
of
the
thermal
desorption
process.

15
6.6
Solidification/
Stabilization
Using
Portland
Cement­
Based
Additives
­
ATG
Process
The
soil
treated
with
this
process
was
received
in
the
form
of
a
gray,
crushed
material
with
hard
clumps,
much
like
cement­
based
materials.
The
moisture
content
of
the
sample
was
less
than
5%.
Larger
particles
had
to
be
size
reduced
in
a
mortar
to
fit
the
2­
mm
sieve.
Even
though
the
total
amount
of
mercury
was
not
elevated,
this
process
appeared
to
release
the
most
mercury
of
the
samples
tested.
At
2O"
C,
the
release
measured
slightly
above
the
TLV
of
0.05
mg/
m'.
This
could
indicate
that
the
elemental
mercury
was
not
completely
amalgamated
prior
to
the
solidification
of
the
cement
matrix.

6.7
Solidification/
Stabilization
Using
Proprietary
Additives
­
NFS
Process
­

The
sample
received
from
this
process
was
a
sand­
like
material
that
was
darker
than
the
original
soil.
Unlike
the
sulfur
polymer
cement
and
the
ATG
processes,
this
process
generated
a
flowing,
rather
than
a
hard,
final
material.
The
moisture
content­
15%­
was
slightly
higher
than
that
in
the
original
soil.
This
process
appeared
to
be
successful
in
binding
the
elemental
mercury
in
a
form
in
which
mercury
vapors
cannot
be
generated
since
at
higher
temperatures,
the
release
is
not
significant
and
is
comparable
to
that
achieved
via
thermal
desorption
processes.

7.
CONCLUSIONS
Two
contaminated
waste
soils,
each
with
a
mercury
level
of
about.
4500
ppm,
were
used
for
testing
different
processes
that
claimed
to
reduce
the
mercury
to
levels
below
the
regulatory
limit:
that
is,
0.025
mg/
L
in
the
TCLP
leachate
of
the
sample
as
stated
in
EPA
method
SW846­
13
11.
One
vendor
measured
the
mercury­
reacting
ionic
species
that
could
combine
with
mercury,
and
the
total
did
not
account
for
all
the
mercury
present
in
the
waste.
During
the
testing,
some
tiny
droplets
of
elemental
mercury
could
be
seen
in
the
untreated
soil.
e
The
four
processes
evaluated
­
thermal
desorption
by
SepraDyne,
solidification/
stabilization
using
sulfur
polymer
cement
by
BNL,
solidification/
stabilization
using
portland
cement
additives
by
ATG,
and
solidification/
stabilization
using
proprietary
additives
by
NFS
­
as
reported
by
the
vendor
to
the
Mercury
Working
Group,
reached
the
goal
of
achieving
TCLP
results
below
the
regulatory
limit
(
0.025
mg/
L).
In
this
study,
when
the
samples
were
subjected
to
a
modified
TCLP
test,
the
concentrations
of
mercury
in
the
TCLP
leachates
were
found
to
be
slightly
above
0.025
mg/
L
in
some
cases.

The
EPA
was
also
interested
in
comparing
the
TCLP
results
with
some
measurements
of
the
mercury
vapor
concentration
in
the
headspace
of
the
waste
form.
Measurements
of
the
mercury
vapor
in
the
headspace
of
the
untreated
soils
showed
that
the
soils
attained
about
the
same
equilibrium
vapor
pressure
of
mercury
as
the
elemental
mercury
standard
used
in
the
experiment.
The
samples
treated
by
either
process
(
thermal
desorption
or
solidification/
stabilization)
showed
greatly
reduced
vapor
concentrations
(
up
to
a
factor
of
about
350).
The
soil
treated
by
ATG
appeared
to
exhibit
the
highest
mercury
vapor
pressure
at
ambient
temperature,
while
the
other
processes
gave
results
comparable
to
those
obtained
by
thermal
desorption.
16
Because
of
the
larger
experimental
uncertainty
related
to
the
instrument
sensitivity
for
the
lower­
concentration
results,
a
direct
comparison
of
the
results
with
the
TLV
is
not
appropriate.
If
comparison
with
the
TLV
was
required,
the
test
would
have
to
be
performed
under
strict
conditions
where
parameters
such
as
temperature,
humidity,
physical
state
of
the
waste
form,
and
elapsed
time
between
the
treatment
and
testing
are
controlled
and
kept
constant
for
all
processes
tested.

1.

2.

3.

e
4.

*

5.

6.

7.
8.
REFERENCES
C.
H.
Mattus,
Measurements
of
Mercury
Releasedfrom
Amalgams
and
SuIfde
Compounds,
ORNL/
TM­
13
728,
Oak
Ridge
National
Laboratory,
April
1999.

W.
P.
Hamilton
and
A.
R.
Bowers,
"
Determination
of
Acute
Hg
Emissions
from
Solidified/
Stabilized
Cement
Waste
Forms,"
Wmte
MaPlagement
17(
l),
25­
32
(
1997).

S.
E.
Lindberg
et
al.,
Pathways
of
Mercury
in
Solid
Waste
Disposal,
ORNL
Sampling
Operations
Summary
and
Preliminary
Data
Report
for
PaMSWbD­
4
Brevard
County
Landfill,
Oak
Ridge
National
Laboratory
and
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
February
6,
1999.

Mercury
Amalgamation,
Mixed
Waste
Focus
Area,
Technology
Development
Requirements
Document,
INEL/
EXT­
97­
003
14,
Rev.
0,
March
1997.

D.
M.
Considine
and
G.
D.
Con&
dine,
eds.,
Encyclopedia
of
Chemistry,
4th
ed.,
Van
Nostrand
Reinhold,
New
York,
1984.

A.
A.
Kriger
and
R.
R.
Turner,
Field
Analysis
of
Mercury
in
Water,
Sediment
and
Soil
Using
Static
Headspace
Analysis,
CONF­
940729­
2,1994.

A.
H.
Gorin,
J.
H.
Leckey,
and
L.
E.
Nulf
Final
Disposal
Options
for
Mercury/
Uranium
Mixed
Wastesj?
om
the
Oak
Ridge
Reservation,
Y­
DZ­
1106,
Oak
Ridge
Y­
12
Plant,
August
1994.

17
APPENDIX
i
*
.
t
.
.
R
d
Table
A.
l.
Summary
of
data
for
the
samples
maintained
at
2
°
C
lample
Size
1
day
­
05/
09/
00
VW
3
days
­
OS/
l
l/
00
Wgl
7
days
­
05/
15/
00
Wgl
lame
WI
readings
(
w/
m31
readings
(
w/
m3)
readings
(
w/
m3)

Hank
­
A
(
1)
1
d:
1
0.008
0.004
0
0.003
0.328
0.004
0
0
0.004
0.058
0
0
0
0
0.000
Hank­
A
(
2)
3d:
3
0.004
0.004
0
0.004
0.263
0.004
0.003
0
0
0.051
0
0
0
0
0.000
Hank­
A
(
3)
7
d:
10
0.006
0
0.003
0
0.197
0.004
0.004
0.004
0
0.088
0
0
0.004
0
0.009
Average
0.263
0.066
0.003
sx
0.217
0.056
0.010
Error
0.14
0.04
0.01
Aercury
standard
A
(
1)
ld:
2
0.046
0.041
0.048
0.03
1.805
0.038
0.042
0.049
0.046
1.914
0.079
0.08
0.077
0.076
2.275
nercury
standard
A
(
2)
3
d:
2
0.035
0.036
0.035
0.035
1.542
0.047
0.043
0.044
0.048
1.991
0.077
0.075
0.077
0.078
2.239
nercury
standard
A
(
3)
7d:
3
0.04
0.041
0.04
0.04
1.761'
0.044
0.041
0.046
0.042
1.892
0.085
0.081
0.081
0.081
2.392
Average
1.703
1.932
2.302
sx
0.211
0.133
0.078
Error
0.13
0.08
0.05
Jntreated
soil
ATG(
Eu)­(
1)
1
d:
2
0.063
0.064
0.063
0.059
2.723
0.051
0.05
0.048
0.051
2.188
0.099
0.1
0.097
0.096
2.858
Jntreated
soil
ATG(
Eu)­(
2)
3
d:
2
0.059
0.058
0.061
0.059
2.592
0.037
0.026.
0.029
0.033
1.367
0.1
0.103
0.103
0.1
2.960
Jntreated
soil
ATG(
Eu)­(
3)
7d:
3
0.062
0.057
0.059
0.048
2.472
0.09
0.083
0.082
0.084
3.708
0.114
0.1
0.114
0.11
3.194
Average
2.596
2.421
3.004
sx
0.176
0.979
0.174
Error
0.11
0.62
0.11
Jntreated
soil
BNL(
Am)­(
1)
1
d:
2
0.065
0.062
0.055
0.063
2.680
0.034
0.039
0.039
0.038
1.641
0.087
0.085
0.084
0.085
2.486
Jntreated
soil
BNL(
Am)­(
2)
3d:
2
0.052
0.056
0.061
0.057
2.472
0.042
0.04
0.039
0.035
1.706
0.098
0.1
0.097
0.096
2.851
Jntreated
soil
BNL(
Am)­(
3)
7d:
3
0.066
0.062
0.062
0.065
2.789
0.046
0.04
0.039
0.042
1.827
0.073
0.071
0.053
0.059
1.867
Average
2.647
1.724
2.401
sx
0.187
0.132
0.431
Error
0.12
0.08
0.27
Table
A.
1
(
cont.)

Sample
Size
1
day
­
05/
09/
00
NitI
3
days
­
05/
l
l/
00
W&
l
7
­
days
05/
15/
00
Wgl
name
WI
readings
(
mg/
m3)
readings
*
(
ms/
m3)
readings
(
mg/
rr+)

Untreated
soil
NFS(
Am)­(
1)
1
d:
2
,,
0.078
0.077
0.074
0.077
3.347
0.05
0.051
0.054
0.053
2.275
0.092
0.096
0.09
0.09
2.683
Untreated
soil
NFS(
Am)­(
2)
3
d:
2
0.06
0.056
0.055
0.056
2.483
0.055
0.049
0.052
0.047
2.220
0.096
0.085
0.086
0.08
2.530
Untreated
soil
NFS(
Am)­(
3)
7d:
3
0.055
0.053
0.049
0.052
2.286
0.038
0.035
0.023
0.023
1.302
0.071
0.067
0.064
0.057
1.889
Average
2.705
1.932
2.367
sx
0.468
0.486
0.370
Error
0.30
0.31
0.24
Untreated
soil
BNL(
Eu)­(
1)
l&
2
0.051
0.055
0.053
0.053
2.319
0.043
0.079
0.08
0.081
3.095
0.087
0.083
0.066
0.063
2.180
Untreated
soil
BNL(
Eu)­(
2)
3d:
2
0.055
0.05
0.043
0.052
2.188
0.094
0.052
0.041
2.727
0.08
0.053
0.065
0.052
1.823
Untreated
soil
BNL(
Eu)­(
3)
7d:
3
0.059
0.051
0.052
0.05
2.319
0.08
0.077
0.07
0.075
3.303
0.109
0.078
0.068
0.07
2.370
Average
2.275
3.042
2.124
sx
0.160
0.716
0.442
Error
0.10
0.45
0.28
SepraDyne
(
Am)
­
(
1)
1
d:
2
0.008
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.219
0.005
0
0
0
0.036
0.003
0.004
0
0
0.015
SepraDyne
(
Am)
­
(
2)
3
d:
3
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.175
0.003
0.004
0.004
0
0.080
0
0
0
0
0.000
SepraDyne
(
Am)
­
(
3)
7
d:
10
0.004
0.003
0
0.102
0.004
0.004
0.003
0
0.080
0
0
0
0
0.000
Average
0.165
0.066
0.005
sx
0.076
0.057
0.012
Error
0.05
0.04
0.007
SepraDyne
(
Eu)
­
(
1)
1
d:
2
0.006
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.197
0.003
0
0.003
0
0.044
0
0
0
0
0.000
SepraDyne
(
Eu)
­
(
2)
3d:
3
0.005
0.003
0
0.003
0.120
0
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.080
0
0
0
0
0.000
SepraDyne
(
Eu)
­
(
3)
7
d:
10
0.004
0
0
0
0.044
0.006
0
0
0
0.044
0
'
0
0
0
0.000
Average
0.120
0.056
0.000
SX
0.091
0.061
0.000
Error
0.06
0.04
0.000
Table
A­
l
(
cont.)

Sample
Size
1
day
­
09/
26/
00
U­&
l
3
days
­
09/
28/
00
Wsl
7
days
­
10/
02/
00
Wgl
name
0.
m
readings
(
mg/
m3)
readings
(
w2/
m3)
readings
(
mg/
m3)
Blank
­
B
(
1)
1
d:
10
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
Blank­
B
(
2)
3
d:
10
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
Blank­
B
(
3)
7d:
10
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
Average
0.000
0.000
0.000
sx
0.000
0.000
0.000
Error
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mercury
standard
B
(
1)
1
d:
3
0.13
0.113
0.111
0.108
3.369
0.094
0.09
0.091
0.104
2.764
0.105
0.1
0.095
0.095
2.880
Mercury
standard
B
(
2)
3d:
3
0.111
0.099
0.098
0.116
3.092
0.094
0.091
0.087
0.085
2.603
0.098
0.102
0.1
0.1
2.917
Mercury
standard
B
(
3)
7d:
3
0.093
0.094
0.09
0.88
8.436
0.098
0.101
0.095
0.098
2.858
0.102
0.1
0.101
0.105
2.975
Average
4.966
2.742
2.924
sx
6.250
0.157
0.089
Error
3.97
0.099
0.06
BNL
SPC
(
Am)­(
1)
l&
10
0
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.004
0
0.003
0.004
0.024
BNL
SPC
(
Am)­(
2)
3d:
lO
0
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0.003
0.003
0.013
0.004
0
0
0.003
0.015
BNL
SPC
(
Am)­(
3)
7d:
10
0.003
0.003
0
0.003
0.020
0
0.003
0.004
0
0.015
0
0
0
0
0.000
k
Average
0.007
t!
h
0.009
0.013
sx
0.011
0.014
0.016
Error
0.007
0.009
.
0.01
ATG
S/
S
(
Eu)­(
1)
1
d:
10
0.009
0
0
0
0.020
0.013
0
0
0
0.028
0
0
0
0
0.000
ATG
S/
S
(
Eu)­(
2)
3d:
10
0.003
0.004
0.006
0.005
0.039
0
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.033
0
0
0
0
0.000
ATG
S/
S
(
Eu)­(
3)
7
d:
10
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.008
0.063
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.057
0
0
0
0
0.000
Average
0.041
0.039
0.000
sx
0.027
0.034
0.000
Error
0.017
0.021
0.00
NFS
S/
S
(
Am)­(
1)
1
d:
10
0.008
0.005
0.007
0.008
0.061
0.012
0.006
0.006
0.013
0.081
0
0
0
0
0.000
NFS
S/
S
(
Am)­(
2)
3
d:
10
0.008
0.008
0.006
0.007
0.063
0.008
0.013
0.02
0.008
0.107
0
0
0
0
0.000
NFS
S/
S
(
Am)­(
3)
7d:
10
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.004
0.055
0.013
0.008
0.011
0.01
0.092
0
0
0
0
0.000~

Average
0.060
0.093
0.000
sx
0.011
0.033
0.000
Error
0.007
0.021
0.00
1
Table
A­
2.
Summary
of
data
for
the
samples
maintained
at
20
°
C
ample
Size
1
day
­
05/
09/
00
W&
l
3
days
­
05/
l
l/
00
[&
I
7
days
­
05/
15/
00
Wgl
ame
W­
J
readings
(
midm3>
readings
tmdm3>
readings
tmg/
m3:
Ilank
­
A
(
1)
1
d:
10
0
0
0
0.000
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.042
0
0
0
0
0.000
ilank­
A
(
2)
3
d:
10
0
0
0
0.000
0.008
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.039
0
0
0
0
0.000
Ilank­
A
(
3)
7
d:
10
0
0
0
0.000
0.006
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.042
0
0
0
0
0.000
4verage
0.000
0.041
0.000
SX
0.000
\
0.011
0.000
Error
0.000
0.007
0.000
lercury
standard
A
(
1)
1
d:
1
0.207
0.204
0.203
0.199
17.784
0.194
0.199
0.19
0.197
17.063
0.204
0.198
0.207
0.212
17.959
Mercury
standard
A
(
2)
3
d:
1
0.205
0.2
,0.194
0.198
17.434
0.218
0.218
0.219
0.22
19.141
0.212
0.211
0.199
0.204
18.069
llercury
standard
A
(
3)
7d:
1
0.199
0.197
0.2
0.192
17.238
0.219
0.208
0.204
0.206
18.309
0.199
0.208
0.191
0.189
17.216
Average
17.49
18.17
17.75
SX
0.369
0.920
0.652
Error
0.234
0.584
0.414
Jntreated
soil
ATG@
u)­(
1)
1
d:
1
0.216
0.218
0.218
0.224
19.163
0.186
0.166
0.179
0.191
15.794~
0.178
0.187
0.183
0.179
15.903
Jntreated
soil
ATG(
Eu)­(
2)
3
d:
1
0.223
0.221
0.227
0.227
19.644
0.188
0.176
0.18
0.183
15.903
0.188
0.177
0.173
0.177
15.641
Jntreated
soil
ATG(
Eu)­(
3)
7
d:
1
0.223
0.221
0.219
0.223
19.381
0.134
0.176
0.148
0.139
13.059
0.182
0.163
0.168
0.158
14.678
4verage
19.40
14.92
15.41
sx
0.293
1.636
0.771
Error
0.186
1.039
0.489
Jntreated
soil
BNL(
Am)­(
1)
1
d:
1
0.215
0.224
0.22
0.212
19.053
0.185
0.186
0.188
0.18
16.166
0.225
0.22
0.21
0.202
18.747
Jntreated
soil
BFiL@
h)­(
2)
3
d:
1
0.215
0.215
0.213
0.212
18.703
0.208
0.198
0.222
0.198
18.069
0.208
0.204
0.201
0.199
17.763
Jntreated
soil
BNL(
Am)­(
3)
7
d:
1
0.202
0.217
0.208
0.203
18.156
0.162
0.159
0.16
0.158
13.978
0.203
0.199
0.198
0.194
17.369
4verage
18.64
16.07
17.96
sx
0.533
1.752
0.770
Error
0.339
1.112
0.489
u
1
Table
A­
2
(
cont.)
*
.
i
Sample
Size
1
day
­
05lO9lOO
Fkl
3
days
­
05/
l
1100
FM
7
days
­
05/
15/
00
[&
I
name
(
mL)
readings
(
mg/
m'
readings
(
mg/
m'
readings
mg/
m'

UntreatedsoilNFS(
Am)­(
1)
1
d:
1
0.22
0.209
0.209
0.206
18.463
0.196
0.197
0.19
0.19
16.909
0.19
0.198
0.191
0.191
16.844
Untreated
soilNFS(
Am)­(
2)
3
d:
1
0.21
0.202
0.212
0.205
18.134
0.194
0.197
0.193
0.195
17.041
0.199
0.199
0.192
0.199
17.259
Untreated
soilNFS(
Am)­(
3)
7
d:
1
0.202
0.204
0.202
0.205
17.784
0.2
0.199
0.196
0.189
17.150
0.187
0.182
0.188
0.189
16.319
Average
18.13
17.03
16.81
sx
0.440
0.300
0.465
Error
0.280
0.190
0.295
Untreated
soil
BNL(
Eu)­(
1)
1
d:
1
0.208
0.212
0.21
0.208
18.331
0.222
0.219
0.229
0.213
19.316
0.222
0.188
0.203
0.203
17.850
Untreated
soil
BNL(
Eu)­(
2)
3
d:
1
0.223
0.25
0.252
0.245
21.219
0.218
0.218
0.217
0.208
18.834
0.199
0.208
0.204
0.209
17.938
Untreated
soil
BNL(
Eu)­(
3)
7
d:
1
0.237
0.247
0.252
0.244
21.438
0.216
0.174
0.175
0.184
16.384
0.218
0.2
0.182
0.18
17.063
Average.
.
20.33
18.18
17.62
sx
1.558
1.587
1.082
Error
0.989
1.008
0.687
SepraDyne
(
Am)
­
(
1)
1
d:
10
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.009
0.006
0.007
0.005
0.059
0
0
0
0
0.000
SepraDyne
(
Am)
­
(
2)
3d:
lO
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.008
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.057
0
0
0
0
0.000
3epraDyne
(
Am)
­
(
3)
7d:
lO
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.009
0.006
0.004
0.003
0.048
0
0
0
0
0.000
Average
0.000
0.055
0.000
sx
0.000
0.015
0.000
Error
0.000
0.010
0.000
SepraDyne
(
Eu)
­
(
1)
1d:
lO
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.006
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.039
0
0
0
0
0.000
SepraDyne
(
Eu)
­
(
2)
3
d:
10
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.008
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.048
0
0
0
0
0.000
;
epraDyne
(
Eu)
­
(
3)
7d:
lO
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.006
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.039
0
0
0
0
0.000
Average
0.000
0.042
I
0.000
sx
0.000
0.011
0.000
Error
0.000
0.007
0.000
Table
A­
2
(
cont.)

ample
Size
1
day
­
09/
26/
00
WI
3
days
­
09l28lOO
D­
k1
7
days
­
1
O/
02/
00
FM
ame
(
mL)
readings
.
(
mg/
m3)
readings
(
mg/
m3)
readings
._
(
mg/
m3)

llank­
B
(
1)
1d:
lO
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
ilank­
B
(
2)
3d:
lO
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
ilank­
B
(
3)
7d:
lO
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
0
0.
0
0.000
Iverage
0.000
0.000
0.000
sx
0.000
0.000
0.000
Error
0.00
0.00
0.00
lercury
standard
B
(
1)
1
d:
1
0.234
0.225
0.231
0.235
20.234
0.222
0.188
0.228
0.222
18.813
0.248
0.257
0.252
0.237
21.744
lercury
standard
B
(
2)
3
d:
1
0.226
0.235
0.223
0.225
19.884
0.23
0.265
0.256
0.244
21.766
0.252
0.239
0.236
0.229
20.913
4ercury
standard
B
(
3)
7
d
:
1
0.223
0.227
01222
0.223
19.578
0.222
0.222
0.215
0.221
19.250
0.243
0.231
0.219
0.223
20.038
9verage
19.90
19.94
20.898
sx
0.417
1.671
1.008
Error
0.27
1.06
0.64
INL
SPC
(
Am)­
(
1)
1
d:
10
0.003
0.007
0.005
0.007
0.048
0
0
0
0.003
0.007
0.003
0.004
0.003
0
0.022
INL
SPC
(
Am)­
(
2)
3d:
lO
0
0
0.009
0.005
0.031
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.003
0.003
0.003
0
0.020
INL
SPC
(
Am)­
(
3)
7
d:
10
0.004
0.004
0.005
0
0.028
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.031
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.033
9verage
0.036
:
0.012
0.025
sx
0.025
0.015
0.012
Error
0.02
0.01
0.01
LTG
S/
S
(
Eu)­(
1)
1
d:
10
0
0.006
0.012
0.009
0.059
0.013
0.011
0.009
0.009
0.092
.0.005
0.014
0.008
0.006
0.072
irG
S/
S
(
Eu)­(
2)
3
d:
10
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.01
0.079
0
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.039
0.015
0.013
0.009
0.011
0.105
,
TG
S/
S
(
Eu)­(
3)
7d:
10
0.013
0.012
0.017
0.015
0.125
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.050
0
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.024
4verage
0.088
0.061
0.067
sx
0.037
0.028
0.040
Error
0.02
0.02
0.03
JFS
S/
S
(
Am)­(
1)
1
d:
10
0
0
0.007
0.012
0.042
0
0.003
0.004
0
0.015
0
0
0
0
0.000
iFS
S/
S
(
Am)­(
2)
3d:
10
0.004
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.070
0
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0
0.000
IFS
S/
S
(
Am)­(
3)
7d:
lO
0
0.003
0.007
0.009
0.042
0
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0
0.000
Average
0.051
0.005
0.000
SX
0.036
0.012
0.000
*
.
L
*
*
.

Table
A­
3.
Summary
of
data
for
the
samples
maintained
at
60
°
C
lample
Size
1
day
­
05lO9lOO
[
J&
d
3
days
­
05/
l
l/
00
U­&
l
7
days
­
05/
15/
00
U­
W
lame
tniL)
readings
(
mdm3)
readings
tmg/
m3)
readings
(
mg/
m'>
blank
­
A
(
1)
1
d:
1
0.006
0
0
0
0.131
0.007
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.186
0
0
0
0
0.000
Hank­
A
(
2)
3
d:
2
b.
009
0.006
0.011
0.005
0.678
0.007
0.008
0.005
0.005
0.273
0
0
0
0
0.000
blank­
A
(
3)
7
d:
2
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.013
1.028
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.197
0
0
0
0
0.000
hverage
0.61
0.22
0.00
sx
0.412
0.067
0.000
Error
0.26
0.04
0.00
dercury
standard
A
(
1)
1
d:
0.3
0.456
0.441
0.458
0.501
135.33
0.533
0.569
0.545
0.513
236.3
0.492
0.484
0.422
0.403
197.0
hercury
standard
A
(
2)
3
d:
0.2
0.412
0.464
0.5
0.567
141.68
0.433
0.456
0.409
0.397
185.4
0.307
0.253
0.31
0.256
123.2
/
lercury
standard
A
(
3)
7d:
0.2
0.462
0.525
0.484
0.493
143.21
0.343
0.325
0.34
0.386
152.5
0.312
0.401
0.386
0.271
149.8
Average
140
191
157
sx
11.422
35.773
35.409
Error
7
23
22
Jntreated
soil
ATG(
Eu)­(
1)
1
d:
0.3
0.499
0.501
0.504
0.488
145.25
0.442
0.386
0.415
0.428
182.8
0.532
0.518
0.452
0.449
213.4
Jntreated
soil
ATG(
Eu)­(
2)
3
d:
0.2
0.45
0.459
0.469
0.45
133.29
0.333
0.332
0.361
0.379
153.7
0.381
0.337
0.341
0.299
148.5
Jntreatedsoil
ATG(
Eu)­(
3)
7
d:
0.2
0.588
0.501
0.594
0.59
165.74
0.319
0.329
0.342
0.319
143.2
0.301.
0.298
0.278
0.273
125.8
4verage
148
160
163
sx
15.006
18.397
39.130
Error
10
12
25
Jntreated
soil
BNL(
Am)­(
1)
1
d:
0.3
0.303
0.345
0.359
0.348
98.80
0.31
0.234
0.255
0.231
112.7
0.366
0.334
0.317
0.305
144.6
Jntreated
soil
BNL(
Am)­(
2)
3
d:
0.2
0.302
0.317
0.378
0.403
102.08
0.226
0.275
0.277
0.251
11215
0.301
0.283
0.251
0.258
119.5
Jntreatedsoil
BNL(
Am)­(
3)
7d:
0.2
0.335
0.35
0.321
0.373
100.55
0.238
0.25
0.244
0.259
108.4
0.252
0.227
0.215
0.195
97.2
4verage
100
111
120
sx
8.643
9.965
21.456
Error
5
6
14
Table
A­
3
(
cont.)

Sample
Size
1
day
­
05/
09/
00
F&
l
3
days
­
05/
l
l/
O0
B&
t1
7
days
­
05/
15/
00
Wgl
name
G­
a
readings
(
Wd
readings
(
mg/
m3)
readings
(
mg/
m3.
Untreated
soil
NFS(
A&)­(
1)
1
d:
0.3
0.357
0.356
0.386
0.337
104.71
0.262
0.282
0.297
0.318
126.8
0.38
0.36
0.349
0.329
155.1
Untreated
soilNFS(
Ar&(
2)
3
d:
0.2
0.438
0.423
0.414
0.454
126.07
0.296
0.287
0.301
0.314
131.0
0.318
0.334
0.319
0.309
140.0
Untreated
soil
NFS(
Am)­(
3)
7
d:
0.2
0.36
0.357
0.272
0.244
89.91
0.25
0.231
0.236
0.247
105.4
0.241
0.249
0.234
0.249
106.4
Average
107
121
134
sx
17.608
12.73
21.051
Error
11
8
13
Untreated
soil
BNL@
u)­(
1)
1
d:
0.3
0.464
0.46
0.515
0.462
138.61
0.388
0.396
0.382
0.328
163.4
0.376
0.36
0.349
0.365
158.6
Untreated
soil
BNL(
Eu)­(
2)
3
d:
0.2
0.574
0.555
0.559
0.45
155.90
0.373
0.354
0.346
0.337
154.2
0.313
0.318
0.3
0.273
131.7
Untreated
soil
BNL(
Eu)­(
3)
7
d:
0.2
0.408
0.408
0.391
0.44
120.09
0.294
0.286
0.297
0.284
127.0
0.678
0.576
0.509
0.436
240.5
Average
138
148
177
sx
17.508
17.26
51.708
Error
11
11
33
(
Am)
(
1)
­
SepraDyne
1
d:
1
0.009
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.438
0
0
0
0.004
0.044
0.005
0.004
0
0.009
0.197
SepraDyne
(
Am)
­
(
2)
3
d:
2
0.01
0
0
0
0.219
0.004
0.009
0.005
0
0.197
0.009
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.263
SepraDyne
(
Am)
­
(
3)
7d:
2
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.007
0.004
0.008
0.008
0.295
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.295
Average
0.22
0.18
0.25
sx
0.306
0.145
0.103
Error
0.19
0.09
0.07
SepraDyne
(
Eu)
­
(
1)
1d:
l
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.009
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.241
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.273
SepraDyne
(
Eu)
­
(
2)
3d:
2
0
0.007
0
0.009
0.350
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.208
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.317
SepraDyne
(
Eu)
­
(
3)
7d:
2
0
0
0.005
0.008
0.284
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.004
0.230
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.186
Average
0.21
0.23
0.26
sx
0.308
0.059
0.077
I
Error
0.20
0.04
0.05
I
t
f
Table
A­
3
(
cont.)

Sample
Size
1
day
­
09/
26/
00
U­&
l
3
days
­
09/
28/
00
D­
M
7
days
­
10/
02/
00
Wgl
name
WA
readings
(
mg/
m")
readings
(
mg/
m3)
readings
(
mg/
m3)

Blank
­
B
(
1)
ld:
3
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
Blank­
B
(
2)
3d:
3
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
Blank­
B
(
3)
7d:
3
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0.000
Average
0.000
0.000
0.000
sx
0.000
0.000
0.000
Error
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mercury
standard
B
(
1)
1
d:
0.2
0.289
0.33
0.374
0.378
149.953
0.364
0.37
0.375
0.39
163.953
0.275
0.398
0.45
0.452
172.266
Mercury
standard
B
(
2)
3
d:
0.2
0.24
0.277
0.287
0.358
127.094
0.336
0.331
0.314
0.317
141.969
0.332
0.363
0.387
0.363
158.047
Mercury
standard
B
(
3)
7d:
0.2
0.319
0.309
0.287
0.291
131.906
0.365
0.346
0.325
0.35
151.594
0.351
0.348
0.32
0.34
148.641
Average
136.3
152.5
159.651
sx
17.557
10.264
21.395
Error
11.15
6.52
13.59
BNL
SPC
(
Am)­`(
l)
Id:
3
0
0.024
0.037
0.044
0.766
0.01
0.011
0.012
0.009
0.306
0
0
0
0
0.000
BNL
SPC
(
Am)­
(
2)
3d:
3
0
0
0.003
0.014
0.124
0.019
0.02
0.016
0.015
0.510
0.005
0
0
0
0.036
BNL
SPC
(
Am)­
(
3)
7d:
3
0.037
0.022
0.028
0.021
0.788
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.459
0.005
0
0
0
0.036
Average
0.559
0.425
0.024
sx
0.442
0.096
0.054
Error
0.28
0.06
0.03
4TG
S/
S
(
Eu)­(
1)
l&
3
0.093
0.055
0.059
0.047
1.852
0.224
0.091
0.053
0.069
3.186
0.065
0.066
0.092
0.065
2.100
4TG
S/
S
(
Eu)­(
2)
3d:
3
0.02
0.038
0.048
0.03
0.992
0.06
0.077
0.085
0.05
1.983
0.087
0.05
0.06
0.047
1.779
4TG
S/
S
(
Eu)­(
3)
7d:
3
0.039
0.053
0.061
0.043
1.429
0.057
0.065
0.057
0.072
1.830
0.062
0.06
0.059
0.047
1.663
Average
1.424
2.333
1.847
sx
0.512
1.315
0.390
Error
0.33
0.84
0.25
I\
IFS
S/
S
(
Am)­(
1)
ld:
3
0
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0
$
000
VFS
S/
S
(
Am)­(
2)
3d:
3
0
0
0
0.004
0.029
0
0
0
0
0.000
0
0
0.004
0.005
0.066
VFS
S/
S
(
Am)­(
3)
7d:
3
0
0
0
0.004
0.029
0
0
0
0.006
0.044
0
0
0
0.003
0.022
Average
0.019
0.015
0.029
sx
0.043
0.048
0.052
Error
0.03
0.03
0.0
ORNL/
T@
f­
2OOY17
I
INTERNAL
DISTRIBUTION
1.
T.
B.
Conley
2.
R.
T.
Jubin
3.
C.
M.
Kendrick
4.
P.
Kirk
5.
K.
T.
Klasson
6­
10.
C.
H.
Mattus
11.
L.
E.
McNeese
12­
13.
M.
I.
Morris
14.
S.
M.
RObinson
15.
R.
D:
Spence
16.
Central
Research
Library
17.
Laboratory
Records
­
RC
18­
19.
Laboratory
Records
­
for
submission
to
OSTI
P
EXTERNAL
DISTRfBUTION
c
20.
John
Austin,
U.
S.
EPA,
OSW/
5302W,.
401
M
Street,
Washington,
DC
20460
21.
Mary
Cunningham,
U.
S.
EPA,
OSW/
5302W,
401
M
Street,
Washington,
DC
20460
22.
Ron
Fontana,
DOE­
Idaho
Operations,`
850
Energy
Drive,
Idaho
Falls;
lD%
34Oi­
1235
23.
G.
A.
Hulet,
Idaho
National
Engineering
and
Environmental
Laboratory,
2525
N.
Freemont,
Idaho
Falls,
ID
83415­
3875
*
24.
D.
A.
Hutchins,
U.
S.
DOE,
55
Jefferson
Avenue,
MS­
EW97,
Oak
Ridge,
TN
37830
25.
N.
Jacobs,
Nuclear
Fuel
Services,
1205
Banner
Hill
Road,
Erwin,
TN
37650
26.
Paul
Kalb,
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory,
34
North
Railroad
St,
Upton,
NY
11973
27.
David
S.
Kosson,
Vanderbilt
University,
Box
1831
Station
B,
Nashville,
TN
37235
28.
Josh
Lewis,
U.
S.
EPA,
OSW/
5302W,
401
M
Street,
Washington,
DC
20460`
29.
Bill
Ocwa,
DOE­
Idaho
Operations,
2525
N.
Freemont,`
Idaho
Falls,
ID
83415­
3875
30.
Lynn
Schwendiman,
DOE­
Idaho
Operations,
2525
N.
Freemont,
Idaho
Falls,
ID
83415­
3875
3
1.
R.
Eric
Williams,
Idaho
National
Engineering
and
Environmental
Laboratory,
2525
N.
Freemont,
'
Idaho
Falls,
ID
83415­
3875
32.
William
Smith,
ATG,
47375
Fremont
Blvd.,
Fremont,
CA
94538
33.
David
Maknius,
SepraDyne
Corp.,
12801
Stemmons
Frwy,
Suite
803,
Farmers
Branch,
TX
75234.
,