NC0024406_6. BCSS CAP Part 1_Appx D_Final_20151208

)rption

This page intentionally left blank

The WILLIAM STATES LEE COLLEGE of ENGINEERING
Soil Sorption Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station
Prepared for
HDR Engineering, Inc
Hydropower Services
440 S Church Street # 1000,
Charlotte, NC 28202
Investigators
William G. Langley, Ph.D., P.E.
Shubhashini Oza, Ph.D.
UNC Charlotte
Civil and Environmental Engineering
EPIC Building, 3252,
9201 University City Blvd,
Charlotte, NC 28223
October, 312015

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Table of Contents
List of Tables -----------------------------------------------------
List of Figures ----------------------------------------------------
I . Introduction -------------------------------------------------
2. Background --------------------------------------------------
3. Experiment: Kd Determination ---------------------------
3.1 Sample Storage and Preparation --------------------
3.2 Metal Oxy-hydroxide Phases ------------------------
3.3 Test Solution -------------------------------------------
3.4 Equipment Setup --------------------------------------
4. Model Equations for Kd Determination ------------------
5. Leaching for Ash Samples --------------------------------
6. Results -------------------------------------------------------
7. References ---------------------------------------------------
Appendix — A -----------------------------------------------------
Appendix — B-----------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------- iii
------------------------------------------- iv
-------------------------------------------- 1
-------------------------------------------- 1
-------------------------------------------- 2
-------------------------------------------- 2
-------------------------------------------- 3
-------------------------------------------- 3
-------------------------------------------- 3
-------------------------------------------- 4
-------------------------------------------- 5
-------------------------------------------- 5
-------------------------------------------- 8
-------------------------------------------- 9
------------------------------------------- 19
iiIPage

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
List of Tables
Table 1:
Site specific soil sample analyzed for Kd.........................................................................
9
Table 2:
Synthetic ground water constituents and trace metals concentrations ..............................
9
Table 3:
Oxidation-reduction potential values for selected soil samples (ASTM G 200-09) ......
10
Table 4:
Summary of batch and column Kd for AB — 2D.............................................................
10
Table 5:
Summary of batch and column Kd for GWA - 8 S.........................................................
11
Table 6:
Summary of batch and column Kd for AB — 9S.............................................................
11
Table 7:
Summary of batch and column Kd for BG — 3 S.............................................................
11
Table 8:
Summary of batch and column Kd for GWA — 12..........................................................
12
Table 9:
Summary of batch and column Kd for GWA — 2D.........................................................
12
Table 10:
Summary of batch and column Kd for GWA — 3D.......................................................
12
Table 11:
Summary of batch and column Kd for GWA — 11 D....................................................
13
Table 12:
Summary of batch and column Kd for GWA — 5 S.......................................................
13
Table 13:
Summary of batch and column Kd for MW — 200 BR .................................................
13
Table 14:
Kd Qualifiers for batch and column plots.....................................................................
14
Table 15:
Ogata-Banks parameters used in developing column Kd.............................................
15
Table 16:
HFO, HMO and HAO...................................................................................................
17
Table 17:
Method 1313 leaching - pH, ORP and conductivity (at natural pH) ............................
18
Table 18:
Method 1313 leaching (at natural pH) data for ash samples collected at the site ........
18
iiiIPage

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Tumbler for 1313, 1316 and batch Kd...........................................................................
19
Figure 2:
Batch filtration set-up....................................................................................................
19
Figure3:
Column set-up...............................................................................................................
20
Figure 4:
Syringe filtration for extraction of HFO/HMO/HAO...................................................
21
Figure 5:
Arsenic batch Kd - AB - 2D...........................................................................................
22
Figure 6:
Arsenic column Kd - AB - 2D.......................................................................................
22
Figure 7:
Boron batch Kd - AB - 2D.............................................................................................
23
Figure 8:
Boron column Kd - AB - 2D..........................................................................................
23
Figure 9:
Cadmium batch Kd - AB - 2D.......................................................................................
24
Figure 10:
Cadmium column Kd - AB - 2D..................................................................................
24
Figure 11:
Iron batch Kd - AB - 2D..............................................................................................
25
Figure 12:
Manganese batch Kd - AB - 2D...................................................................................
25
Figure 13:
Molybdenum batch Kd - AB - 2D...............................................................................
26
Figure 14:
Molybdenum column Kd - AB - 2D............................................................................
26
Figure 15:
Selenium batch Kd - AB - 2D......................................................................................
27
Figure 16:
Selenium column Kd - AB - 2D...................................................................................
27
Figure 17:
Thallium batch Kd - AB - 2D......................................................................................
28
Figure 18:
Thallium column Kd - AB - 2D...................................................................................
28
Figure 19:
Vanadium column Kd - AB - 2D.................................................................................
29
Figure 20:
Arsenic batch Kd — GWA - 8 5....................................................................................
30
Figure 21:
Arsenic column Kd — GWA - 8 S................................................................................
30
Figure 22:
Boron batch Kd — GWA - 8 S......................................................................................
31
Figure 23:
Boron column Kd — GWA - 8 5...................................................................................
31
Figure 24:
Cadmium batch Kd — GWA - 8 S................................................................................
32
Figure 25:
Cadmium column Kd — GWA - 8 S.............................................................................
32
Figure 26:
Molybdenum column Kd — GWA - 8 S.......................................................................
33
Figure 27:
Selenium batch Kd — GWA - 8 S.................................................................................
34
Figure 28:
Selenium column Kd— GWA - 8 5..............................................................................
34
Figure 29:
Thallium batch Kd — GWA - 8 S.................................................................................
35
Figure 30:
Thallium column Kd — GWA - 8 S..............................................................................
35
ivIPage

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Figure 31:
Vanadium column Kd— GWA - 8 S............................................................................
36
Figure 32:
Arsenic batch Kd - AB - 9 S........................................................................................
37
Figure 33:
Arsenic column Kd — AB — 9 S....................................................................................
37
Figure 34:
Boron batch Kd — AB — 9 S.........................................................................................
38
Figure 35:
Boron column Kd — AB — 9 S......................................................................................
38
Figure 36:
Cadmium batch Kd — AB — 9 S....................................................................................
39
Figure 37:
Cadmium column Kd — AB — 9 S................................................................................
39
Figure 38:
Manganese batch Kd — AB — 9 S.................................................................................
40
Figure 39:
Molybdenum column Kd — AB — 9 S..........................................................................
41
Figure 40:
Selenium batch Kd — AB — 9 S....................................................................................
42
Figure 41:
Selenium column Kd — AB — 9 S.................................................................................
42
Figure 42:
Thallium batch Kd — AB — 9 S.....................................................................................
43
Figure 43:
Thallium column Kd — AB — 9 S.................................................................................
43
Figure 44:
Vanadium column Kd — AB — 9 S...............................................................................
44
Figure 45:
Arsenic batch Kd — BG — 3 S.......................................................................................
45
Figure 46:
Arsenic column Kd — BG — 3 S....................................................................................
45
Figure 47:
Boron column Kd — BG — 3 S......................................................................................
46
Figure 48:
Cadmium batch Kd — BG — 3 S....................................................................................
47
Figure 49:
Cadmium column Kd — BG — 3 S................................................................................
47
Figure 50:
Iron batch Kd — BG — 3 S.............................................................................................
48
Figure 51:
Manganese batch Kd — BG — 3 S.................................................................................
48
Figure 52:
Molybdenum batch Kd — BG — 3 S..............................................................................
49
Figure 53:
Molybdenum column Kd — BG — 3 S..........................................................................
49
Figure 54:
Selenium batch Kd — BG — 3 S....................................................................................
50
Figure 55:
Selenium column Kd — BG — 3 S.................................................................................
50
Figure 56:
Thallium batch Kd — BG — 3 S.....................................................................................
51
Figure 57:
Thallium column Kd— BG — 3 S..................................................................................
51
Figure 58:
Vanadium column Kd — BG — 3 S...............................................................................
52
Figure 59:
Arsenic batch Kd — GWA — 12....................................................................................
53
Figure 60:
Arsenic column Kd— GWA — 12.................................................................................
53
Figure 61:
Boron batch Kd— GWA — 12.......................................................................................
54
v I P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Figure 62:
Boron column Kd— GWA — 12....................................................................................
54
Figure 63:
Cadmium batch Kd — GWA — 12.................................................................................
55
Figure 64:
Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 12.............................................................................
55
Figure 65:
Molybdenum batch Kd— GWA — 12...........................................................................
56
Figure 66:
Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 12........................................................................
56
Figure 67:
Selenium batch Kd — GWA — 12.................................................................................
57
Figure 68:
Selenium column Kd — GWA — 12..............................................................................
57
Figure 69:
Thallium batch Kd— GWA — 12..................................................................................
58
Figure 70:
Thallium column Kd — GWA — 12...............................................................................
58
Figure 71:
Vanadium column Kd — GWA — 12.............................................................................
59
Figure 72:
Arsenic batch Kd — GWA — 2 D..................................................................................
60
Figure 73:
Arsenic column Kd — GWA — 2 D...............................................................................
60
Figure 74:
Boron batch Kd — GWA — 2 D.....................................................................................
61
Figure 75:
Boron column Kd — GWA — 2 D.................................................................................
61
Figure 76:
Cadmium batch Kd — GWA — 2 D...............................................................................
62
Figure 77:
Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 2 D............................................................................
62
Figure 78:
Iron batch Kd— GWA — 2 D........................................................................................
63
Figure 79:
Manganese batch Kd — GWA — 2 D............................................................................
63
Figure 80:
Molybdenum batch Kd — GWA — 2 D.........................................................................
64
Figure 81:
Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 2 D......................................................................
64
Figure 82:
Selenium batch Kd — GWA — 2 D................................................................................
65
Figure 83:
Selenium column Kd — GWA — 2 D............................................................................
65
Figure 84:
Thallium batch Kd — GWA — 2 D................................................................................
66
Figure 85:
Thallium column Kd — GWA — 2 D.............................................................................
66
Figure 86:
Vanadium column Kd — GW — 2 D..............................................................................
67
Figure 87:
Arsenic batch Kd — GWA — 3 D..................................................................................
68
Figure 88:
Arsenic column Kd — GWA — 3 D...............................................................................
68
Figure 89:
Boron column Kd — GWA — 3 D.................................................................................
69
Figure 90:
Cadmium batch Kd — GWA — 3 D...............................................................................
70
Figure 91:
Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 3 D............................................................................
70
Figure 92:
Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 3 D......................................................................
71
viIPage

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Figure 93:
Selenium batch Kd — GWA — 3 D................................................................................
72
Figure 94:
Selenium column Kd — GWA — 3 D............................................................................
72
Figure 95:
Thallium batch Kd — GWA — 3 D................................................................................
73
Figure 96:
Thallium column Kd — GWA — 3 D.............................................................................
73
Figure 97:
Vanadium batch Kd — GWA — 3 D..............................................................................
74
Figure 98:
Vanadium column Kd — GWA — 3 D...........................................................................
74
Figure 99:
Arsenic batch Kd — GWA — 5 S...................................................................................
75
Figure 100:
Arsenic column Kd — GWA — 5 S..............................................................................
75
Figure 101:
Boron batch Kd — GWA — 5 S...................................................................................
76
Figure 102:
Boron column Kd — GWA — 5 S................................................................................
76
Figure 103
: Cadmium batch Kd — GWA — 5 S..............................................................................
77
Figure 104:
Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 5 S..........................................................................
77
Figure 105:
Iron batch Kd — GWA — 5 S.......................................................................................
78
Figure 106:
Molybdenum batch Kd — GWA — 5 S........................................................................
79
Figure 107:
Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 5 S....................................................................
79
Figure 108:
Selenium batch Kd — GWA — 5 S..............................................................................
80
Figure 109:
Selenium column Kd — GWA — 5 S..........................................................................
80
Figure 110:
Thallium batch Kd — GWA — 5 S..............................................................................
81
Figure 111:
Thallium column Kd — GWA — 5 S...........................................................................
81
Figure 112:
Vanadium batch Kd — GWA — 5 S.............................................................................
82
Figure 113
: Vanadium column Kd — GWA — 5 S.........................................................................
82
Figure 114:
Arsenic batch Kd — GWA — 11 D..............................................................................
83
Figure 115:
Arsenic column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial A.............................................................
83
Figure 116:
Arsenic column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial B.............................................................
84
Figure 117:
Arsenic column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C.............................................................
84
Figure 118:
Boron column Kd— GWA — 11 D, Trial A................................................................
85
Figure 119:
Boron column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial B................................................................
86
Figure 120:
Boron column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C................................................................
86
Figure 121:
Cadmium batch Kd— GWA — 11 D...........................................................................
87
Figure 122:
Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial A ..........................................................
87
Figure 123:
Cadmium column Kd— GWA — 11 D, Trial B..........................................................
88
viiIPage

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Figure 124:
Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C..........................................................
88
Figure 125:
Iron batch Kd — GWA — 11 D....................................................................................
89
Figure 126:
Manganese batch Kd— GWA — 11 D.........................................................................
89
Figure 127:
Molybdenum batch Kd — GWA — 11 D.....................................................................
90
Figure 128:
Molybdenum column Kd— GWA — 11 D, Trial A ....................................................
90
Figure 129:
Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial B....................................................
91
Figure 130:
Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C....................................................
91
Figure 131:
Selenium batch Kd — GWA — 11 D............................................................................
92
Figure 132:
Selenium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial A ...........................................................
92
Figure 133:
Selenium column Kd— GWA — 11 D, Trial B...........................................................
93
Figure 134:
Selenium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C...........................................................
93
Figure 135:
Thallium batch Kd — GWA — 11 D............................................................................
94
Figure 136:
Thallium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial A ...........................................................
94
Figure 137:
Thallium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial B...........................................................
95
Figure 138:
Thallium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C...........................................................
95
Figure 139:
Vanadium batch Kd — GWA — 11 D..........................................................................
96
Figure 140:
Vanadium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial A .........................................................
96
Figure 141:
Vanadium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial B.........................................................
97
Figure 142:
Vanadium column Kd— GWA — 11 D, Trial C..........................................................
97
Figure 143:
Arsenic batch Kd — MW — 200 BR............................................................................
98
Figure 144:
Arsenic column Kd — MW — 200 BR.........................................................................
98
Figure 145:
Boron column Kd — MW — 200 BR...........................................................................
99
Figure 146:
Cadmium batch Kd — MW — 200 BR.......................................................................
100
Figure 147:
Cadmium column Kd — MW — 200 BR....................................................................
100
Figure 148:
Molybdenum batch Kd — MW — 200 BR.................................................................
101
Figure 149:
Molybdenum column Kd — MW — 200 BR..............................................................
101
Figure 150:
Selenium batch Kd — MW — 200 BR.......................................................................
102
Figure 151:
Selenium column Kd — MW — 200 BR....................................................................
102
Figure 152:
Thallium batch Kd — MW — 200 BR........................................................................
103
Figure 153 :
Thallium column Kd — MW — 200 BR.....................................................................
103
Figure 154::
Vanadium batch Kd — MW — 200 BR....................................................................
104
viiiIPage

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Figure 155:
Vanadium column Kd — MW — 200 BR..................................................................
104
Figure 156:
pH versus US for AB - 2 D.....................................................................................
105
Figure 157:
ORP versus US for AB - 2 D..................................................................................
105
Figure 158:
Conductivity versus US for AB - 2 D.....................................................................
106
Figure 159:
pH versus US for GWA - 8 S.................................................................................
106
Figure 160:
ORP versus US for GWA - 8 S..............................................................................
107
Figure 161:
Conductivity versus US for GWA - 8 S.................................................................
107
Figure 162:
pH versus US for AB - 9 S.....................................................................................
108
Figure 163:
ORP versus US for AB - 9 S..................................................................................
108
Figure 164:
Conductivity versus US for AB - 9 S.....................................................................
109
Figure 165:
pH versus US for BG - 3 S.....................................................................................
109
Figure 166:
ORP versus US for BG - 3 S..................................................................................
110
Figure 167:
Conductivity versus US for BG - 3 S.....................................................................
110
Figure 168:
pH versus US for GWA - 12..................................................................................
111
Figure 169:
ORP versus US for GWA - 12................................................................................
111
Figure 170:
Conductivity versus US for GWA - 12...................................................................
112
Figure 171:
pH versus US for GWA - 2 D.................................................................................
112
Figure 172:
ORP versus US for GWA - 2 D..............................................................................
113
Figure 173:
Conductivity versus US for GWA - 2 D.................................................................
113
Figure 174:
pH versus US for GWA - 3 D.................................................................................
114
Figure 175:
ORP versus US for GWA - 3 D..............................................................................
114
Figure 176:
Conductivity versus US for GWA - 3 D.................................................................
115
Figure 177:
pH versus US for GWA - 11 D...............................................................................
115
Figure 178:
ORP versus US for GWA - 11 D............................................................................
116
Figure 179:
Conductivity versus US for GWA - 11 D...............................................................
116
Figure 180:
pH versus US for GWA - 5 S.................................................................................
117
Figure 181:
ORP versus US for GWA - 5 S..............................................................................
117
Figure 182:
Conductivity versus US for GWA - 5 S.................................................................
118
Figure 183:
pH versus US for MW 200 BR...............................................................................
118
Figure 184:
ORP versus US for MW 200 BR............................................................................
119
Figure 185:
Conductivity versus US for MW 200 BR...............................................................
119
ixIPage

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Figure 186:
Arsenic 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin...................................................................
120
Figure 187:
Boron 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin.....................................................................
120
Figure 188:
Chromium 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin..............................................................
121
Figure 189:
Manganese 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin.............................................................
121
Figure 190:
Molybdenum 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin..........................................................
122
Figure 191:
Selenium 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin................................................................
122
Figure 192:
Vanadium 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin..............................................................
123
Figure 193:
Zinc 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin........................................................................
123
Figure 194:
Boron 1316 Pinehall Road Ash Landfill.................................................................
124
Figure 195:
Iron 1316 Pinehall Road Ash Landfill....................................................................
124
Figure 196:
Zinc 1316 Pinehall Road Ash Landfill....................................................................
125
Figure 197:
pH at varying US ratio for 1316 testing of Belews Creek Ash Basin ....................
126
Figure 198:
ORP at varying US ratio for 1316 testing of Belews Creek Ash Basin .................
126
Figure 199:
Conductivity at varying US ratio for 1316 testing of Belews Creek Ash Basin ....
127
Figure 200:
pH at varying US ratio for 1316 testing of Pinehall Road Ash Landfill ................
128
Figure 201:
ORP at varying US ratio for 1316 testing of Pinehall Road Ash Landfill .............
128
Figure 202:
Conductivity at varying US ratio for 1316 testing of Pinehall Road Ash Landfill
129
x I P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
1. Introduction
Duke Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Duke Energy), owns and operates the Belews Creek Steam Station
located in Stokes County, North Carolina. The coal ash residue from the coal combustion process
for power generation was placed in the plant's ash basin, which is permitted by the North
Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water
Resources (DWR) under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.
In a Notice of Regulatory Requirements (NORR) letter dated August 13, 2014, the Division of
Water Resources (DWR) requested that Duke Energy prepare a Groundwater Assessment Plan to
identify the source and cause of possible contamination, any potential hazards to public health
and safety, and actions taken to mitigate them, and all receptors and complete exposure
pathways. In addition, the plan should determine the horizontal and vertical extent of possible
soil and groundwater contamination and all significant factors affecting contaminant transport
and the geological and hydrogeological features influencing the movement, chemical, and
physical character of the contaminants. The work plan was also prepared to fulfill the
requirements stipulated in Coal Ash Management Act 2014 — North Carolina Senate Bill 729:
The Groundwater Assessment Plan includes the collection of groundwater and surface water
information to prepare a Comprehensive Site Assessment Report and support the development of
a groundwater computer model to evaluate the long term fate and transport of constituents of
concern (COC) in groundwater associated with the ash basin.
Critical input parameters for the model are site specific soil sorption coefficients Kd for each
COC. This report presents the initial results of sorption testing on selected soils from the Steam
Station to quantify the Kd terms. Testing was performed at the Civil and Environmental
Engineering laboratories in the EPIC building at UNC Charlotte. Soil samples were collected
during the geotechnical and environmental exploration program at the facility between March
and June 2015, thirty one of which were delivered to UNC-Charlotte between March 15th and
June 12th of 2015.
2. Background
In groundwater, sorption is quantified by the equilibrium relationship between chemicals in the
dissolved and adsorbed phases. Experiments to quantify sorption can be conducted using batch
or column procedures. A batch sorption procedure consists of combining soil samples and
solutions across a range of soil -to -solution ratios, followed by shaking until chemical equilibrium
is achieved. Initial and final concentrations of chemicals in the solution determine the adsorbed
amount of chemical, and provide data for developing plots of adsorbed versus dissolved
chemical. If the plot, or isotherm, is linear, the single -valued coefficient Kd, with units of volume
per unit mass, represents the slope of the isotherm. Depending on the chemical, its dissolved
phase concentration, and the soil characteristics, nonlinear isotherms, characterized by two or
more coefficients, may result.
The column sorption procedure consists of passing a solution of known chemical concentration
through a cylindrical column packed with the soil sample. A plot of the chemical constituent
measured in the column effluent is plotted versus time or its equivalent, pore volumes passed.
1 I Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
This so-called breakthrough curve is plotted together with the analytical solution of the
advection-dispersion-adsorption equation from which the linear sorption coefficient Kd is
estimated by visual curve fitting [1]. When comparing the merits of the two procedures for
quantifying sorption, the batch procedure provides a more effective contact between the solution
and soil, while the column procedure is more representative of in -situ groundwater flow
conditions where solution soil contact may non -uniform and less than fully effective. Both batch
and column procedures were employed for the sorption experiments on soils from the facility.
Depending on practical considerations, the batch procedure may be designed to capture a wide
range of Kd values.
Metal oxy-hydroxide phases of iron, manganese, and aluminum in soils are considered to be the
most important surface reactive phases for cationic and anionic constituents in many subsurface
environments [2]. Quantities of these phases in a given soil can thus be considered as a proxy
for COC sorption capacity for a given soil. In this study, oxy-hydroxide phases of iron,
manganese, and aluminum (hereafter referred to as HFO, HMO, and HAO) were measured
concurrently with sorption coefficients for selected COCs and soil samples.
3. Experiment: Kd Determination
3.1 Sample Storage and Preparation
Ten soil samples were selected for determination of sorption coefficients (Table 1). The basis for
selection was to provide adequate coverage of the saturated zone beneath and down gradient of
the ash basin. Preserved soils arrived at the EPIC lab in air -tight plastic bags on ice in coolers.
Samples were stored in their original containers in a cold room at less than 4° C until tested. For
batch and column procedures, soil samples were disaggregated, homogenized, and air-dried at
room temperature in aluminum pans (21" x 13" x 4"), for a minimum of 72 hours, with turning
every 12 hours. The dry samples were then sieved to a particle diameter of less than 2 mm (#10
U.S. Standard mesh). Sample splits for column testing were sieved a second time to remove
particles less than 0.30 mm (#50 U.S. Standard mesh) in order to have sufficient permeability of
the sample such that water passed through the column without operational problems, such as
leaking or reduced flow.
Bedrock samples were fragmented using a Sotec Systems Universal Testing Machine (UTM).
Fragmentation was continued until the approximate grain size was 2.0 to 0.30 mm by visual
inspection. Like the soil samples, bedrock samples intended for column testing were sieved a
second time to remove particles less than 0.30 mm (#50 U.S. Standard mesh) to minimize
operational problems associated with the smaller particle size fraction.
Soil samples for batch sorption testing were weighed and placed in 250 mL wide -mouth HDPE
bottles with polypropylene screw tops (in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Technical Resource Document EPA/530/SW-87/006-F). For each test on a single
sample, soil masses of 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100 grams were placed in separate bottles. The
columns were 8 inch long (20.3cm) polyethylene tubes with dimensions 0.675 in. (16 mm) I.D.
by 0.75 in. (19 mm) O.D. Each column setup included two polypropylene end caps with barbed
fittings which accept 0.25 to 0.375 in. (6.4 to 9.5 mm) I.D. tubing. Two discs of porous
2 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
polyethylene and polymer mesh screen were placed between the end cap and tube to retain the
soil in the column.
A modified slurry packing method was used to provide homogenous sample packing without
preferential flow in the columns [3]. With one end cap in place acid -washed Ottawa sand was
added through the open end to a depth of about 2 cm to ensure the effective dispersal of now
across the column cross section. With the lower end cap and sand in place, 3 mL of 18 MQ water
(high purity de -ionized water) was added to the column. Then sample material was added in 5
cm lifts. The column assembly was weighed after each addition of water and soil. In order to
eliminate trapped air, the column was placed on a vibrating table for 15 seconds. This process
also ensured proper compaction while promoting a uniform density throughout the column. The
sequence of adding water and sample material followed by vibrating was continued until roughly
2 cm of column head space remained. A 2 cm thick sand layer was added at the top of the
compacted sample and the upper end cap was attached. The length of material in the column was
measured in order to estimate the dry bulk density and porosity of the packed sample.
Experimental set-up is presented in Figure 4.
3.2 Metal Oxy-hydroxide Phases
The analytical method for determining hydrous ferric oxide (HFO) and hydrous aluminum oxide
(HAO) was adapted from Chou and Zhou [4] and that of hydrous manganese oxide (HMO) from
T. T. Chao [5]. The HFO and HAO method calls for extracting the soil sample using a 0.25M
NH2OH-HC1-0.25M HCl combined solution as the extractant at 50' C for 30 minutes (soil/liquid
= 0.1 g/25 mL). The HMO methods calls for extracting the soil samples using a 0.1 M
NH2OH-HC1-0.25M HCl combined solution as the extractant at 25' C for 2 hours (soil/liquid =
0.025 g/50 mL) (Figure 4).
3.3 Test Solution
A synthetic groundwater, with chemical composition is provided in Table 2, was prepared using
reagent grade solid chemicals and 18 MQ water. Target COC concentrations were attained by
diluting concentrated reference standards to the synthetic groundwater solution. After adding the
reference standards, the COC-amended feed solution was back-titrated as needed to an
approximate pH range of 6.5 to 7.5 using 0.IN sodium hydroxide solution. Iron and manganese
were omitted from the list of target COC given that they were considered likely to leach when
exposed to the synthetic groundwater.
3.4 Equipment Setup
The COC-amended solutions were prepared in 10 liter and 20 liter LDPE carboys for the batch
and column experiments, respectively. For each batch experiment, 200 mL of solution was
added to each 250 mL bottle to obtain soil mass to solution ratios of 50, 125, 250, 375, and 500
mg/L. The soil -solution mixtures were equilibrated in a rotary mixer operating at 60 rpm for 24
hours. The experimental set-up and filtration details are presented in Figure 1 and 2. Following
equilibration, water samples were drawn, filtered, and preserved for analysis of ten COC
(arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, molybdenum, iron, manganese, selenium, thallium, and
3 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
vanadium). Sample blanks were included in selected experiments to confirm stability of the
solution.
For the column experiments, Masterflex peristaltic pump drives with 12-channel, 8-roller
cartridge pump heads and cartridges were connected between the carboys and the columns using
Tygon tubing, valves, and fittings. The columns were operated in the up -flow mode. The now
rate was set to pass approximately twelve pore volumes, or approximately 200 mL, per day
through each column. Before pumping began with the COC-amended solutions, the columns
were fully saturated by slowly pumping reagent water in the up -flow mode. The COC-amended
solutions were stirred continuously using magnetic stirrers. The arrangement of the carboys,
pump, and columns is shown in Figure 4. Real-time, grab sample volumes of approximately 50
ml were drawn for each sampling event. The sample time and total volume pumped since the
previous sampling event were recorded for calculating flow rates and pore volume passed.
Concurrent samples of the feed solutions were also taken for each sampling event. Each sample
was proportioned, filtered, and preserved for the analyses of eight COC (arsenic, boron,
cadmium, chromium, molybdenum, selenium, thallium, and vanadium). Iron and manganese Kd
values were determined from the combination of batch and HFO-HMO values and not by the
column method.
4. Model Equations for Kd Determination
After equilibration of a batch soil -solution mixture, the COC concentration in solution will be
reduced due to sorption. This may be expressed as
x
m = [(CO — C)/m] * V
where, x/m is the soil concentration (µg/g), Co is the initial solution concentration (µg/L), C is
the final solution concentration, m is the soil sample mass, and V is the volume of solution. For
sorption characterized by a linear isotherm, a plot of measured solution concentration versus
calculated soil concentration for each soil sample (five data points: one for each soil to solution
ratio) will yield the linear Kd term as the slope of x/m versus C.
For the steady-state flow regime considered in the column tests, van Genuchten and Alves
[1982] presented the following form of the Ogata-Banks equation for one-dimensional,
advection-dispersion equation with sorption as a close approximation to that for a finite length,
lab -scale column [1, 6]:
COx — vtl Rx + Vtll
C(x, t) = 2 [erfc (2 DRt I + exp(�x/D)erfc (2 DRt /J
where, C(x,t) is the solute concentration (M/L3), x is the column length (L), t is the elapsed time
(T), Co is the feed concentration (M/L3), R is the dimensionless retardation coefficient, v is the
seepage velocity (L/T), and D is the soil dispersion coefficient (L2/T). For sorption characterized
by a linear isotherm, the Kd term (L3/M) is incorporated in R:
4 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
R=1+Pb Kd
n
where, Pb is the dry bulk density of the soil (M/L3) and n is the porosity. For the given test
conditions where dispersion was dominant over diffusion, the soil dispersion coefficient D is
equal to the product of the longitudinal dispersivity, aL (L) and the seepage velocity. Supporting
data used to estimate Kd based on O-B equation are provided in Table 15. For plotting the
analytical results together with the O-B equation, cumulative pore volumes corresponding to the
elapsed time of each sampling event were calculated using measured water volumes pumped and
the column pore volume. For each COC and soil column, Kd was estimated by visually fitting
the plotted O-B equation to the measured solution concentrations.
5. Leaching for Ash Samples
The site specific ash samples were subjected to two leaching protocols, Method 1313 and
Method 1316.
Method 1313: Liquid -Solid Partitioning as a Function of Extract pH using a Parallel Batch
Extraction Procedure [6]. The procedure calls for reaching nine specific pH targets after mixing.
If the natural pH of the material, without acid or based addition, is not one of the target pH
positions, the natural pH is a tenth position in the procedure. For the purpose of this study, the
test was conducted at the natural pH of the material only. The ash samples were extracted for 24
hours with 18 MQ water. The leachate from the extraction step were filtered using 0.45 µ filter
paper and analyzed for pH, ORP, conductivity, and concentration of anions and cations.
Method 1316: Liquid -Solid Partitioning as a Function of Liquid -Solid Ratio using a Parallel
Batch Extraction Procedure [7]. This method consists of five parallel extractions over a range of
US values from 0.5 to 10 mL eluent/g dry material. In addition to the five test extractions, a
method blank without solid sample was carried out to verify that analyte interferences are not
introduced as a consequence of reagent impurities or equipment contamination. The 250 mL test
bottles were equilibrated for 24 hours with 18 MQ water (and as per method specification). At
the end of the contact interval, the leachate from the extraction step was filtered (0.45 filter
paper) and analyzed for pH, ORP, conductivity, and concentration of anions and cations
6. Results
The oxidation and reduction potential (ORP) values of soil samples, measured as per ASTM G
200 — 09, are listed in Table 3 [7].
The sorption test results are grouped by soil sample. Batch and column results are tabulated in
Tables 4 to 13. The Kd result for COCs are assigned qualifiers as presented in Table 14. The
parameters used in Ogata-Banks equation for developing the Kd column plots are presented in
Table 15. Batch and column test results for the COCs are shown in Figure 5 through 155 for each
soil sample.
5 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
At the conclusion of the breakthrough experiment six pore volumes of 18 MQ water was passed
through the column (data not shown in column Kd plots). No significant COC desorption was
observed based on the column effluent monitoring.
General comments for Kd experiments:
The sorption coefficients extracted from the experimental results in this study may be affected to
some extent by factors related to the experimental design. They include the following:
• The goal of the batch and column sorption studies was to expose each soil sample to
COCs in the aqueous phase and allow COC adsorption to occur until equilibrium is
achieved. A solution intended to represent a generic groundwater was used as the
background solution to which COCs were added. This solution differs from the in -situ
solution in groundwater from which the soil sample was sampled. As a result, the soil
sample is exposed to a geochemical environment in which a number of chemical
reactions may take place in addition to sorption.
• The number of COCs for which sorption estimates are required for each sample
necessitates combining a number of COCs in a single solution for simultaneous
measurement. These COCs may interact chemically, thus altering their respective
sorption characteristics for individual soil samples.
• Sorption characteristics for selected COCs are sensitive to redox conditions. Experiments
in the lab were conducted in atmospheric conditions unless otherwise noted. The
resulting sorption coefficients may not be representative of other redox settings.
• Sample splits for column testing were sieved to remove particle sizes less than 0.30 mm
in order to have sufficient permeability of the sample to pass water through the column
without operational problems such as leaking and reduced flow. This could also affect the
observed Kd value.
Specific comments for batch and column Kd experiments are summarized as follows
• Batch Kd for As ranged from 16.6 to 3025.5 mL/g and column Kd ranged from 30.0 to
775.0 mL/g.
• Batch Kd for B ranged from 0.9 to 3.4 mL/g and column Kd ranged from 13 to 18 mL/g.
• Batch Kd for Cd ranged from 15.0 to 414.0 mL/g and column Kd ranged from 175 to 675
mL/g.
• Fe and Mn were not included in the test solution, so its occurrence in the batch test
solution is indicative of leaching. HFO and HMO values were used as the initial
concentration to predict the Kd values for Fe and Mn, respectively. If the concentration of
Fe and Mn increased with mass of soil per unit volume of test solution during batch
experiments, it is an indication of a linear leaching model, as opposed to a linear sorption
6 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
model. Kd for Fe indicated linear isotherm for few soil samples and ranged from 2254.9
to 66,192.0 mL/g and in Mn Kd ranged from 0.05 to 52.5 mL/g.
• Batch Kd for Mo ranged from 51.1 to 3373.8 mL/g and column Kd ranged from 45 to 520
mL/g.
• Batch Kd for Se ranged from 3.2 to 3458.5 mL/g and column Kd ranged from 25 to 650
mL/g.
• Batch Kd for Tl ranged from 73 to 1664.3 mL/g and column Kd ranged from 290 to 900
mL/g.
• Batch Kd for V ranged from 21.3 to 1090.7 mL/g, and column Kd ranged between 25 to
700 mL/g.
pH, ORP, and conductivity at different liquid to solid (L/S) ratios for batch experiment is
depicted through Figures 156 through 185.
HFO, HMO and HAO results are presented in Table 16.
The leaching test for 1313 is tabulated in Table 17 and 18. From Table 18 it can be observed
that leaching was negligible for beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, nickel, lead and thallium (below
minimum detection limit of 1 ppb). Leaching was observed for other metals, such as arsenic,
boron, chromium, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, vanadium and zinc.
The leaching trend for 1316 is presented through Figures 186 through 202.
7 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
7. References
1. Akio Ogata, R.B.B., A Solution of the Differential Equation of Longitudinal Dispersion
in Porous Media. Geological Survey Professional Paper 411 - A, 1961: p. 1-13.
2. Robert G. Ford, R.T.W., Robert W. Puls, Monitored Natural Attenuation of Inorganic
Contaminants in Ground Water. 2007, National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
U.S. EPA: Cincinnati, Ohio.
3. Oliviera, I.B., A.H. Demond, and A. Salehzadeh, Packing of Sands for the Production of
Homogeneous Porous Media. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1996. 60(1): p.
49-53.
4. Chao, T.T. and L. Zhou, Extraction Techniques for Selective Dissolution of Amorphous
Iron Oxides from Soils and Sediments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 1983. 47(2): p. 225-232.
5. Chao, T.T., Selective Dissolution of Manganese Oxides from Soils and Sediments with
Acidified Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1972.
36(5): p. 764-768.
6. W.J.Alves, M.T.v.G.a., Analytical Solutions of the One -Dimensional Convetive-
Dispersive Solute Transport Equation. 1982.
7. ASTM, ASTM G 200 - 09 "Standard Test Method for Measurement of Oxidation -
Reduction Potential (ORP of Soil) ". 2014, ASTM International: West Conshohocken,
PA.
8 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Appendix — A
Table 1: Site specific soil sample analyzed for Kd
Sample Name
Depth ft.
AB-2D
75
GWA - 8 S
28
AB-9S
45
BG-3 S
40-42
GWA — 12
25 — 27
GWA — 2 D
45
GWA —3D
54-56
GWA— 11D
10'BWT
GWA-5 S
28-35
MW — 200 BR
10' B WT
Table 2: Synthetic ground water constituents and trace metals concentrations
Chemical
Concentration
Units
CaSO4.2H20
20.0
PPM
M SO4
5.0
PPM
Na HCO3
10.0
ppm
Arsenic
500
ppb
Boron
500
ppb
Cadmium
500
ppb
Chromium
500
ppb
Molybdenum
500
ppb
Selenium
500
ppb
Thallium
500
ppb
Vanadium
500
ppb
9 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Table 3: Oxidation-reduction potential values for selected soil samples (ASTM G 200-09)
Sl. No.
Sample Name
Depth ft.
ORP mV
Trial A
Trial B
Trial C
Average
1
AB - 25 A
64
445.8
438.1
433.1
439.0
2
AB - 2D
75
450.6
464.5
461.6
458.9
3
AB - 3D
45 - 50
430.3
425.7
441.6
432.5
4
AB - 3 S
28
462.0
465.6
463.9
463.8
5
GWA - 8 S
28
372.9
386.1
337.3
365.4
6
AB - 8D
59 - 60
247.6
236.5
249.8
244.6
7
AB - 9D
60
376.3
222.0
243.8
243.8
8
AB - 9S
45
456.6
445.7
475.4
459.2
9
BG - 2S
55 - 60
463.2
476.0
484.3
474.5
10
BG - 3 S
40 - 42
469.0
468.4
468.3
468.6
11
BG - 3 S
44 - 45
473.0
477.4
477.6
476.0
12
GWA- 11 D
10
331.0
246.9
243.3
273.7
13
GWA- 11 D
10B
425.2
432.9
430.4
429.5
14
GWA - 12 D
25 - 27
442.4
478.2
480.4
467.0
15
GWA- 16 S
44 - 47
421.5
444.4
454.7
440.2
16
GWA - 2D
45
300.7
270.8
345.7
305.7
17
GWA-3D
44
436.1
421.2
411.5
422.9
18
GWA - 7S
42.5 - 43.5
472.3
499.6
498.1
490.0
19
MW - 200 BR
9
7.5
10.3
12.4
10.1
20
GWA - 5D
53.2 - 53.9
BEDROCK
21
GWA - 2D
56 - 56.6
BEDROCK
22
GWA - 3D
54 - 56
BEDROCK
23
MW - 200 BR
21.6 - 22.5
BEDROCK
Table 4: Summary of batch and column Kd for AB - 2D
Batch
Column
Metals
Trial I
R
Trial - 2
R
Arsenic
1903.2
0.96
1451.5
0.97
675
Boron
1.4
0.71
--
--
15
Cadmium
87.0
0.97
79.0
0.99
175
Chromium
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Iron
26810.0
0.56
17737.0
0.73
NA
Manganese
8.8
0.48
--
--
NA
Molybdenum
2083.0
0.90
3373.8
0.49
360
Selenium
2455.7
0.47
--
--
625
Thallium
137.8
0.99
135.0
0.99
640
Vanadium
Non -linear isotherm
625
101Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Table 5: Summary of batch and column Kd for GWA - 8 S
Batch
Column
Metals
Trial I
R2
Trial - 2
R2
Arsenic
2848.9
0.57
--
--
520
Boron
3.0
0.49
3.4
0.91
18
Cadmium
15.7
0.87
17.2
0.93
500
Chromium
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Iron
39.9
1 0.87
1
1
NA
Manganese
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Molybdenum
Non -linear isotherm
520
Selenium
3458.5
0.54
1
500
Thallium
73.3
0.97
1 84.7
0.99
500
Vanadium
Non -linear isotherm
510
Table 6: Summary of batch and column Kd for AB - 9S
Batch
Column
Metals
Trial I
R2
Trial - 2
R2
Arsenic
2528.9
0.76
--
--
460
Boron
2.5
0.91
2.6
0.97
14
Cadmium
17.1
0.99
17.6
0.97
300
Chromium
Non -linear Isotherm
NA
Iron
Non -linear Isotherm
NA
Manganese
0.05
1 0.64
1 --
I --
NA
Molybdenum
Non -linear Isotherm
400
Selenium
2910.0
0.80
3291.3
0.66
500
Thallium
124.1
0.97
133.4
0.99
440
Vanadium
Non -linear Isotherm
600
Table 7: Summary of batch and column Kd for BG - 3 S
Batch
Column
Metals
Trial I
R2
Trial - 2
R2
Arsenic
1285.9
0.99
1311.9
0.99
725
Boron
0.9
0.81
--
--
15
Cadmium
57.3
0.98
57.4
0.98
675
Chromium
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Iron
--
--
41502.0
0.70
NA
Manganese
0.37
0.67
--
--
NA
Molybdenum
2637.3
0.84
2495.3
0.86
225
Selenium
2169.5
0.90
2250.5
0.89
460
Thallium
128.8
0.99
131.5
0.99
700
Vanadium
Non -linear isotherm
700
11 I Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Table 8: Summary of batch and column Kd for GWA - 12
Batch
Column
Metals
Trial I
R2
Trial - 2
R2
Arsenic
414.0
0.98
434.8
0.98
260
Boron
1.2
0.88
--
--
14
Cadmium
58.5
0.98
60.0
0.99
175
Chromium
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Iron
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Manganese
0.43
0.41
--
--
NA
Molybdenum
453.3
0.73
459.7
0.69
100
Selenium
650.5
0.84
643.0
0.91
190
Thallium
1 112.4
0.98
118.8
0.99
1 290
Vanadium
1 1033.3
0.90
--
--
290
Table 9: Summary of batch and column Kd for GWA - 2D
Batch
Column
Metals
Trial I
R2
Trial - 2
R2
Arsenic
2903.6
0.75
3025.5
0.69
775
Boron
1.7
0.64
13
Cadmium
16.4
0.90
15.0
0.84
270
Chromium
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Iron
18505.0
0.71
35059.0
0.54
NA
Manganese
--
--
52.5
0.52
1 NA
Molybdenum
1379.0
0.88
--
--
260
Selenium
1650.4
0.95
--
1
--
490
Thallium
152.7
0.99
155.7
0.98
900
Vanadium
Non -linear isotherm
700
Table 10: Summary of batch and column Kd for GWA - 3D
Batch
Column
Metals
Trial I
R2
Trial - 2
R2
Arsenic
16.6
0.98
17.2
0.98
30
Boron
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Cadmium
414.0
1 0.81
1 --
--
480
Chromium
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Iron
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Manganese
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Molybdenum
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Selenium
3.2
0.90
3.3
0.80
25
Thallium
1628.6
0.80
1664.3
0.86
550
Vanadium
23.0
0.99
21.3
0.98
25
121Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Table 11: Summary of batch and column Kd for GWA - 11 D
Batch
Column
Metals
Trial I
R'
Trial - 2
R2
Trial A
Trial B
Trial C
Arsenic
1063.8
0.99
1104.8
0.98
700
675
600
Boron
Non -linear isotherm
15
15
15
Cadmium
18.7
1 0.92
1 17.0
0.62
675
650
600
Chromium
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Iron
66,192.0
0.66
--
--
NA
Manganese
33.5
0.73
35.2
0.64
NA
Molybdenum
258.1
0.73
176.1
0.62
300
350
330
Selenium
456.8
0.92
555.4
0.91
650
650
575
Thallium
490.7
0.98
524.2
0.95
675
675
600
Vanadium
868.6
0.90
1090.7
0.94
675
675
600
Table 12: Summary of batch and column Kd for GWA - 5S
Batch
Column
Metals
Trial I
R2
Trial - 2
R2
Arsenic
413.9
0.99
407.0
0.99
75
Boron
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Cadmium
161.9
1 0.98
1 164.2
0.99
350
Chromium
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Iron
4739.8
1 0.82
1 2254.9
0.60
NA
Manganese
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Molybdenum
49.3
0.55
48.2
0.50
50
Selenium
157.1
0.83
160.5
0.90
85
Thallium
197.7
0.99
206.0
0.98
430
Vanadium
988.5
0.91
961.7
0.89
190
Table 13: Summary of batch and column Kd for MW - 200 BR
Batch
Column
Metals
Trial I
R2
Trial - 2
R2
Arsenic
270.4
0.92
327.8
0.94
125
Boron
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Cadmium
102.5
0.87
87.0
0.75
575
Chromium
238.3
0.95
--
--
NA
Iron
Non -linear isotherm
NA
Manganese
6.2
0.78
--
--
NA
Molybdenum
51.7
0.94
51.1
0.71
45
Selenium
137.1
0.79
154.0
0.62
170
Thallium
120.6
0.91
112.8
0.72
600
Vanadium
77.5
0.92
--
131Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Table 14: Kd Qualifiers for batch and column plots
Batch Kd Qualifiers
Sl.
Description
Qualifier
No.
Identification Number
1
The concentration distribution is sufficient for the selected US
Q — B — 1
ratio and given COC under consideration.
2
The range of final COC concentration is narrow, such that
Q — B — 2
normal variation due to the analytical method resulted in a
non -linear isotherm.
3
The range of final COC concentration is narrow and low, such
Q — B — 3
that normal variation due to the analytical method resulted in a
non -linear isotherm.
4
Leachable COC is present in the soil sample prior to testing.
Q — B — 4
This resulted in higher concentration of COC in the final COC
concentration at the end of batch experiment. The mass
balance approach for estimating sorption can only be done if
leachable COC is known.
5
Anomalous variability in the experimental results resulted in a
Q — B — 5
non -linear isotherm.
6
Initial COC concentration in the synthetic ground water is not
Q — B — 6
sufficient to produce a well-defined linear isotherm.
Column Kd Qualifiers
Sl.
Description
Qualifier
No.
Identification Number
1
The breakthrough curve is sufficient for applying the Ogata-
Q — C — 1
Banks model equation.
2
The COC reached breakthrough although the concentration
Q — C — 2
was less than the feedstock. Other chemical interactions
between soil and synthetic ground water occurring after the
initial breakthrough caused a transient decrease in effluent
concentration with increased pore volumes (very commonly
observed with arsenic in most soil samples from various sites).
3
Effluent and influent concentrations are essentially the same
Q — C — 3
over the period of data collection, indicating minimal COC
sorption onto the soil (observed frequently with boron and
molybdenum).
4
Breakthrough was not observed. A conservation estimate of
Q — C — 4
sorption was made by assuming breakthrough occurred at the
end of the data collection period.
5
The model equation is fit to the initial segment of the
Q — C — 5
breakthrough curve to yield a conservative estimate of
sorption.
141Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Table 15: Ogata-Banks parameters used in developing column Kd
Sample Name
AB-2
GWA - 8 S
AB - 9 S
BG - 3 S
GWA - 12
GWA - 2 D
Depth
ft.
75
28
45
40 - 42
25 - 27
45
Parameter
Units
Effective porosity (n)0.32
0.47
0.40
0.34
0.32
0.36
Bulk density b
/cm
1.80
1.41
1.60
1.75
1.79
1.70
Column diameter
cm
1.5
Column area
cm
1.77
Column length
cm
17.75
18.6
17.2
1 16.6
18.0
16.75
Diffusivity Do
cm2/s
9.00E-06
b
0.05
a
0.66
w = a* n - b
0.18
0.28
0.23
0.19
0.18
0.20
Effective molecular diffusion
coefficient D*
cm2/s
1.62E-06
2.49E-06
2.06E-06
1.73E-06
1.62E-06
1.83E-06
Dispersivity factor
0.01 - 0.20
Dis ersivit
cm
1.66 - 3.72
Average flow rate Q
cm'/daycm'/day
132.25
129.92
154.08
130.71
128.00
148.00
Bulk volume
cm
31.37
32.87
30.39
29.16
31.81
29.60
Pore volume
cm
10.11
15.44
12.08
9.93
10.28
10.61
Hydraulic detention
Day
0.24
0.25
0.20
0.22
0.25
0.20
Linear velocity
cm/day
232.21
156.53
219.33
217.15
224.21
233.67
151Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Ogata-Banks parameters continued....
Sam
ple name
GWA - 3 D
GWA - 11 D
GWA - 5 S
MW - 200 BR
Depth
ft.
54-56
10' B-WT
28-35
10' B-WT
Parameter
Units
Trial A
Trial B
Trial C
Effective porosity (n)0.33
0.35
0.29
0.30
0.33
0.30
Bulk density b
/cm3
1.79
1.73
1.89
1.86
1.79
1.86
Column diameter
cm
1.50
Column area
cm 2
1.77
Column length
cm
17.0
17.50
17.2
Diffusivit Do
cm /s
9.00E-06
b
0.05
a
0.66
w=a* n-b
0.18
0.02
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.16
Effective molecular diffusion coefficient D*
cm2/s
1.64E-06
1.80E-07
1.41E-06
1.46E-06
1.64E-06
1.47E-06
Dispersivity factor
0.01 - 0.20
Dis ersivit
cm
0.17 - 3.50
Average flow rate Q
cm /da
116.80
132.58
137.42
132.67
140.00
125.33
Bulk volume
cm
30.04
30.93
30.93
30.93
30.93
30.39
Pore volume
cm
9.77
10.77
8.87
9.17
10.06
9.05
Hydraulic detention
Day
0.26
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.24
Linear velocity
cm/day
203.14
215.47
271.25
253.11
243.55
238.17
161Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Table 16: HFO, HMO and HAO
Sample Name
Depth
HFO
HMO
HAO
ft.
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
MW - 200 BR
10' B WT
3830.2
37.7
27267.2
GWA - 5 S
28 - 35
2004.7
307.7
1728.8
GWA - 11 D
10' B WT
2446.0
446.6
1947.8
GWA - 3 D
54 - 56
2155.5
217.5
1381.3
GWA - 12
25 - 27
412.4
98.4
796.3
AB - 2 D
75
1256.5
151.2
1963.3
BG - 2 S
40 - 42
1190.5
390.1
1163.8
GWA - 2 D
45
1085.2
245.8
1110.0
AB - 9 S
45
1246.25
NA
4120.0
S
28
4060.0
NA
1957.5
-GWA-8
GWA - 5 S
42.5 - 43.5
435.0
309.1
337.5
BG - 2 S
55 - 60
380.0
446.6
337.5
S
33 - 35
227.5
60.9
415.0
-GWA-8
AB-3 D
45 - 50
347.5
172.2
580.0
GWA - 10 D
45 - 47
555.0
205.3
591.3
AB - 25 A
64
272.5
219.8
576.3
S
28
338.8
243.7
482.5
-AB-3
AB - 75 L
23
377.5
59.6
611.3
GWA - 3 D
44
830.0
199.4
427.5
AB - 8 D
59 - 60
1555.0
504.2
1061.3
BG - 3 S
44 - 45
358.8
369.0
286.3
AB - 15
20 - 25
270.0
242.4
483.8
AB - 15
35 - 40
232.5
214.0
335.0
171Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Table 17: Method 1313 leaching - pH, ORP and conductivity (at natural pH)
Sample Name
Trial
H
Conductivity
ORP
S/cm
mV
Pinehall Road Ash Landfill
A
5.29
44.0
336.4
B
5.29
47.3
327.7
Belews Creek Ash Basin
A
6.33
103.1
330.4
B
6.78
100.4
328.1
Table 18: Method 1313 leaching (at natural pH) data for ash samples collected at the site
Sample Name
As
B
Be
I Cd
I Cr
I Co
I Cu
I Fe
I Mn
I Mo
I Ni
I Pb
I Se
I Tl
I V
I Zn
Trial
b
Pinehall Road
A
1.9
< 1
< 1
< 1
1.7
3.7
27.5
17.1
< 1
< 1
< 1
4.0
< 1
< 1
3.4
Ash Landfill
B
1.9
<1
<1
<1
1.8
3.7
19.9
16.4
<1
<1
<1
4.2
<1
<1
8.3
Belews Creek
A
9.0
< 1
< 1
25.6
< 1
< 1
13.2
52.8
90.7
< 1
< 1
44.6
< 1
21.9
1.2
Ash Basin
B
8.4
< 1
< 1
24.5
< 1
< 1
11.2
52.0
86.6
< 1
< 1
43.6
< 1
22.8
1.3
181Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Appendix — B
Figure 1: Tumbler for 1313, 1316 and batch Kd
I t
Figure 2: Batch filtration set-up
of
191Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Figure 3: Column set-up
201Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Figure 4: Syringe filtration for extraction of HFO/HMO/HAO
211Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station
Kd plots
.Arsenic
10
g _Kd= 1903.2 mL/g y = 1.9032x
Kd = 1451.5 mL%g R== 0.9552 •
s
7
6
i
4
♦mil
3
2
1 °
°
4
0 1 2
Figure 5: Arsenic batch Kd - AB - 2D
Q—B-3
500
300 _
300
a.
a.
200
100
0
0
Arsenic - Column AB - 2 D
• • • • •
• As in Effluent
• As in Feed
— • — Kd 650 mL/g
Kd 675 mL/g
— — Kd 700 mL/g
50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 6: Arsenic column Kd - AB - 2D
Q—C-5
UNC Charlotte
221Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
L4 Kd = 1.4 mLlg
Kd = 1.4 mL!g
1.2
•
1.0
0.8tin
• •
D
106
}_4
}_2
}_0
600 650
Boron
y = 0.0014x •
R2 = 0.7059
• i
4
•
y = 0.0014x
R2 = 0.3869
• Trial A • Trial B
700 750 800 850 900 950
Ngq-
Figure 7: Boron batch Kd - AB - 2D
Q—B-4
500
400
300
a
a
co
200
100
0
0
Boron - Column AB - 2 D
f
i
r
f
f
• B in Effluent
• B in Feed
— • — Kd 9 mL!g
Kd 15 mLlg
— — Kd 24 mL!g
50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 8: Boron column Kd - AB - 2D
Q—C— 1
231Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
Cadmium
10 ?0 30 40 50 60 70
µ9/L
Figure 9: Cadmium batch Kd - AB - 2D
Q—B-3
Cadmium - C olun-ni AB - 2 D
500
400 • • � • +
• • •
* • + • • • Cd in Effluent
300 — —+ • • + r� r�' i — • Cd in Feed
— • — Kd 150 mL!g
200 i' • ` Kd 175 mL/g
• •
— — Kd 200 mL/g
100 —•
0 50 100 150 200
Pare vArnes passed
Figure 10: Cadmium column Kd - AB - 2D
Q—C-5
241Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Iron
140
Kd = 26810.0 a/g
120 -Kd=17737.0 rk/2 •
100 y=17737x
• • .. R2 = 0.7292
80
Y
= 26814x
►' •
60 Rz= 0.5567 —
40 _ -
20
• • • Trial A • Trial B
0 1-
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
mg/L
Figure 11: Iron batch Kd - AB - 2D
Q—B-5
16
Kd = 8.8 mL/a
12
8
4
0
0.0 0.2 0.4
Figure 12: Manganese batch Kd - AB - 2D
Q—B-2
Manganese
y = 8.614x
Rz = 0.3771
y = 8.8031x
R2 = 0.4846
••
• • • Trial A • Trial B
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
mJL
251Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
10
9
8
7
6
ac
� 5
4
3
2
0
Molybdenum
d—=-208.3
Kd = 3373_8
•
/g
y=3.3738x
y = 2.083x
R2 = 0.898
•
•Trial
A •Trial B
0 1 2 3 4 5
P9/L
Figure 13: Molybdenum batch Kd - AB - 2D
Q—B-3, 5
Molybdenum - Column AB - 2 D
500
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
400 •
300
a
0.
O
200
100
0
0
• Mo in Effluent
• Mo in Feed
t— • — Kd 340 mL/g
Kd 360 mL/g
— — Kd 380 mL/g
50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 14: Molybdenum column Kd - AB - 2D
Q—C-5
261Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
Selenium
10
Kd = 2455.7 mL/g
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
Figure 15: Selenium batch Kd - AB - 2D
Q—B-3
700
600
500
400
c.
`n 300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 16: Selenium column Kd - AB - 2D
Q—C-5
y = 2.4557x
RZ = 0.4744
•
UNC Charlotte
•
•
• Trial A
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
µg/L
Selenium - Column AB - 2 D
• Se in Effluent
• Se in Feed
— - — Kd 600 mL/g
Kd 625 mL/g
— — Kd 650 mL/g
200
271Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
6
7
6
5
ba
44
3
2
1
0
0
Thallium
10 20 30 40 50 60
R9/-
Figure 17: Thallium batch Kd - AB - 2D
Q—B-3
700
600
500
400
a
H 300
200
100
Thallium - Column AB - 2 D
•
• Tl in Effluent
• Tl in Feed
— — Kd 620 mL/g
Kd 640 mL/g
— — Kd 660 mL/g
0 c�
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 18: Thallium column Kd - AB - 2D
Q—C-5
281Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
0
a.
300
200
100
0
0
Vanadium - Colunui AB - 2 D
• \' in Effluent
• V in Feed
— • — Kd 600 mL/g
Kd 625 mL/g
— • — Kd 650 mL/g
50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 19: Vanadium column Kd - AB - 2D
Q—C-5
291Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Arsenic
9
8 Kd = 2848.9 mUg
7
6 y = 2.8489x
5 RZ = 0.5656
4
3 !•
2 �.
1 =
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
µlb
Figure 20: Arsenic batch Kd — GWA - 8 S
Q—B-3
Arsenic - Column AB - 6 GTE
500
400
300
d
200
100
0
0 � 0 100
Pore vol unes passed
Figure 21: Arsenic column Kd — GWA - 8 S
Q—C-5
•
2.0
2.5
• As in Effluent
• As in Feed
— • — Kd 500 mLlg
Kd 520 mLlg
— — Kd 540 mLlg
150
301Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
3.0
Kd = 3.0 mL/g
2.5 Kd =-3-.T mL/g
2.0 -
1.5 -
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 200
Figure 22: Boron batch Kd — GWA - 8 S
Q—B-4
500
400
300
100
0
0 50 100
Pore volumes passed
Figure 23: Boron column Kd — GWA - 8 S
Q—C— 1
Boron
y = 0.0034x
R' = 0.9068
• . '' y = 0.003x
• RZ = 0.4875
400 600
µg/L
Boron - Column AB - 6 GTB
• Trial A • Trial B
800 1000
• B in Effluent
• B in Feed
— • — Kd 12 mL/g
Kd 18 mL/g
— • — Kd 24 mL/g
150
311Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Cadmium
1.2
Kd = 15.7 mL/g y = 0.0172x
1.0 Kd = 17.2 -mL-/
Rz = 0.9322 �
0.8
y = 0.0157x
?' 0.6 • R2-=-0.8715
0.4 «
02
• Trial A • Trial B
0.0
�! 10 30 40 50 60 70
p a I
Figure 24: Cadmium batch Kd — GWA - 8 S
Q—B-3
Cadmium - ColuninAB - 6 GTB
500
Holi7
300
200
100
0
0 50 100
Pore vohnnes passed
Figure 25: Cadmium column Kd — GWA - 8 S
Q—C-5
Cd in Effluent
• Cd in Feed
- — Kd 475 mL{g
Kd 500 mL{g
- — Kd 525 mLIg
150
321Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
500
400
300
a
a
200
100
0
0
Molybdenui7i - Colunui AB - 6 GTB
50 100
Porevohimes passed
Figure 26: Molybdenum column Kd — GWA - 8 S
Q—C-5
• MD in Effluent
• Mo in Feed
- - — Kd 500 mL/g
Kd 520 mL/g
- - — Kd 540 mL/g
150
331Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 -
0.0
Belews Creek Steam Station
Selenium
L/g
•
0.5
Figure 27: Selenium batch Kd — GWA - 8 S
Q—B-3
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
0
y = 3.5978x
R2 = 0.2729
�,..• " y = 3.4585x
R2 = 0.5439
0
8 • Trial A • Trial B
1.0 1.5
µg/L
Selenium - Column AB - 6 GTB
UNC Charlotte
2.0
• SeinEffluent
• SeinFeed
— • — Kd 480 mLfg
Kd 500 mLig
— • — Kd 520 mL{g
50 100 150
Porevohnnes passed
Figure 28: Selenium column Kd — GWA - 8 S
Q—C-5
3 4 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Thallium
7
Kd = 73.3 mL/g y = 0.0847x •
z
6 _Kd = 84.7 mL/g5 TO
R = 0.9854
•,.•••' y = 0.0733x
4 e Rz = 0.9702
3
2
1 i e • Trial A• Trial B
0 —
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 29: Thallium batch Kd — GWA - 8 S
Q—B-3
700
600
500
In 400
300
200
100
0
Thallium - Coluiim AB - 6 GTB
•• • •
•
•
•
•
• T1 in Effluent
• Tl in Feed
- — Kd 480 mL/g
Kd 500 mL/g
- — Kd 520 mL/g
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 30: Thallium column Kd — GWA - 8 S
Q—C-5
351Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
300
200
100
0
0
Vanadium - Column AB - 6 GTB
• V in Effluent
• V in Feed
— - — Kd 490 mL/g
Kd 510 mL/g
— - — Kd 530 mLig
50 100 150
Pare vohunes passed
Figure 31: Vanadium column Kd — GWA - 8 S
Q—C-5
361Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
9
8
7
6
5
=L 4
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.� 1.0
Figure 32: Arsenic batch Kd - AB - 9 S
Q—B-3
500
400
300
a.
.94
200
100
Arsenic
•
5289x
• Trial '- C
1.2.0 2.5
µ a1L
Arsenic - Column AB - 9S
9M
As in Effluent
+ As in Feed
— — Kd 440 mLFg
Kd 460 mL{g
— — Kd 480 mL{g
0 —
0 =0 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 33: Arsenic column Kd — AB — 9 S
Q—C-2
371Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Stearn Station
UNC Charlotte
3-0
2-5
2-0
tw
-8b 1-5
1-0
0-5
00
Boron
Kd='L.D mLlg
.11g—
—Kd-E:-=2-6
y = 0.0026x
......
.
R,- = 0-9724
y 0-0025X
R' = 0-96W
*Thal A *Thal B
400 fiii 600
Figure 34: Boron batch Kd — AB — 9 S
Q—B-4
500
1 400
300
a.
oa
200
100
A
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
700 800 900 1000
ANL
Boron - Column AB - 9S
Figure 35: Boron column Kd — AB — 9 S
Q—C—I
* 13 in Effluent
* B in Feed
--- Kd 10 mL/g
Kd 14 n1L/g
Kd28 mL/g
200
38 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
1.2
1.0
0.9
0_6
0.4
0.2
n_n
0
Cadmium
10 20 30 40 50 50 70
N9/L
Figure 36: Cadmium batch Kd — AB — 9 S
Q—B-3
Cadmium - Column AB - 9S
500
400 • • •
• o • • • • Cd in Effluent
• • • Cd in Feed
300 • • • •IZ f
— — Kd 275 mL/g
U '
200'
Kd 300 mL/g
' — — Kd 325 mL/g
0900
100 i • •
0 —
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 37: Cadmium column Kd — AB — 9 S
Q—C-5
391Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Stearn Station UNC Charlotte
Manganese
0.12 IKd = 0.05 mL/c,
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
000
0.0 0.5
Figure 38: Manganese batch Kd — AB — 9 S
Q—B-5
0.0477x
0.6409 y = 0.0438x
R2= 0.4568
•
• Trial A • Trial B
1.0 1.5 2.0
ma,'L
40 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
500
400
300
P.
P4
o"
200
100
0 Lr# •
0 50
Molybdenum - Column AB - 9S
#
# # # # # # # # # # #
Of
s
I %!
Nlo in Effluent
# Mo in Feed
— • — Kd 375 mLIg
Kd 400 mLlg
— — Kd 425 mLIg
150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 39: Molybdenum column Kd — AB — 9 S
Q—C-5
411Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
12
10
9
bD
-8b 6
4
2
0
r
Selenium
Kd= 2910.0mL/g
Kd = 3291.3 mL!g
y = 32913x
R2 = 0-6622
Y=
R' = 0. 8AIQ
II
*Trial A *Tji2l B
-n 11-� 1.0 1.5 2-0 2-5 3-0
IIWL
Figure 40: Selenium batch Kd — AB — 9 S
Q—B-3
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
A
Selenium - ColumnAB - 9S
•
r.
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 41: Selenium column Kd — AB — 9 S
Q-C-5
• Se in Effluent
• Se in Feed
Kd 480 mL/g
Kd 500 mL/g
Kd 520 mL/g
42 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Thallium
Kd = 124.1
Kd = 133.4,
/g
/9
y = 0. 1334x
W = 0.9871
Y=
R' = 0-9688•
*TAaIA
*ThalB
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
II&L
Figure 42: Thallium batch Kd — AB — 9 S
Q—B-3
Thallium - CcluiniiAB - 9S
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
• TI in Effluent
• T1 in Feed
— - — Kd 420 mL/g
Kd 440 mL/9
— - — Kd 460 mL/g
0
0 50 100 150 200
Pore vohunes passed
Figure 43: Thallium column Kd — AB — 9 S
Q—C-5
43 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
300
200
100
0
0
Vanadium - Column AB - 9S
V in Effluent
• V in Feed
— - — Kd 580 mL!g
Kd 600 mL. g
— - — Kd 620 mL,/g
50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 44: Vanadium column Kd — AB — 9 S
Q—C-5
441Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Arsenic
10 Kd= 1285.9 mLlg
g -Kd-= 1311.9 mL;'g
s
7
6
en
5
4
2
1
a
0 1 _
Figure 45: Arsenic batch Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—B-3
500
400
300
a
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Porevrolumes passed
Figure 46: Arsenic column Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—C-5
y = 1.3119x �.•
Rz = 0.9926 i-
y = 12s59x
R2 = 0.9902
• Trial A • Trial B
3 4 5 6 7 8
P91L
Arsenic - Column BG- 3S
• As in Effluent
• As in Feed
- • - Kd 700 mL.?g
Kd 725 mLfg
- - Kd 750 mL?g
200
451Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
q
Boron- Column BG - 3 S
500
511I11
300
200
10o
a B in Effluent
• B in Feed
—•— Kd10mL,g
Kd 15 mLt
— • — Kd 20 mLlg
0
0 50 100 150 200
Pare volumes passed
Figure 47: Boron column Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—C— 1
461Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
5
5
4
4
3
tio
43
2
2
1
1
0
0.00
Cadmium
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
R9/L
Figure 48: Cadmium batch Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—B-2
500
400
300
200
100
Cadmium - Column BG - 3 S
• Cd in Effluent
• Cd in Feed
— Kd 650 mL.tg
—Kd 675 mLtg
— Kd 700 mLrg
0 50 100 150 200
Pare volumes passed
Figure 49: Cadmium column Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—C-5
471Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.000
Iron
= 41502x
? = 0.7039
y = 23943x
Rz = 0.3771
0.001 0.002 0.003
mg/L
Figure 50: Iron batch Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—B-5
• Trial A 0 Trial B
0.004 0.005 0.006
Manganese
0.25
0.20 •
0.15 y = 0.3725x •
R2 - 0.6716
0.10
0.05 •
• • 0.00 Trial - C
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
mg/L
Figure 51: Manganese batch Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—B-5
0.5
481Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
ivLULY UU� 11u 11
Kd=2
37.3 /
1
•0
Kd = 2495.3
mL/g
y = 2-6373x
RI=0.8 05
y. .4953�-
R' = 0.8639
•
•
e
Trial A iTrial
1 0-0 0-5 1-0 1-5 2-0 2-5 3-0 3.5 4.0
"9/L
Figure 52: Molybdenum batch Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—B-3
Molybdenum- Column BG- 3 S
500
400
300
u.
u.
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 53: Molybdenum column Kd — BG — 3 S
Q-C-I
200
Mo in Effluent
Mo in Feed
Kd 200 mL/g
Kd 225 mL/g
Kd 250 mL/g
49 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Selenium
10
9 Kd = 2169.5 mL/g y = 2.1695Z • •
g Kd = 2250.5 mL/g RZ = 0.8993
7
6
5 —y = 2.2505x
4 __ Rz = 0.8922
0
3
2 0
1 8 • Trial A • Trial B
0
0 1 ? 3 4
1�a;L
Figure 54: Selenium batch Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—B-3
Selenium - Column BG - 3S
700
600
500
A 400
"0 300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200
Pare volumes passed
Figure 55: Selenium column Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—C-5
Se in Effluent
Se in Feed
Kd 450 mL/g
Kd 460 mLlg
Kd 470 mLlg
501Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
s
7
6
5
U
44
3
2
1
0
0
Thallium
10 20 30 40 50 60
R9/L
Figure 56: Thallium batch Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—B-3
Thallium - Column BG - 3S
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
• T7 in Effluent
• T7 in Feed
— • — Kd 675 mL./g
Kd 700 mLlg
— • — Kd 725 mLlg
0 —•��• • • • •-• — — — -
0 50 100 150 200
Pore vohunes passed
Figure 57: Thallium column Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—C-5
511Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
300
200
100
0 L
0
Vanadium - Cohmili BG - 3 S
• V in Effluent
• V in Feed
— - — Kd 675 mL?g
Kd 700 mL/g
— - — Kd 725 mLIg
50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 58: Vanadium column Kd — BG — 3 S
Q—C-5
521Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
10
s
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Arsenic
Kd = 414.0 z
Kd = 434.8mLl9
v=0.
R2 =1
y.
Ji
�r
0 5 10
P9/L
Figure 59: Arsenic batch Kd — GWA — 12
Q—B-3
Arsenic - Column GWA - 12
500
400
300
a.
d
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200
Pore vohunes passed
Figure 60: Arsenic column Kd— GWA — 12
Q—C-2
in Effluent
in Feed
230 mL/g
260 mL/g
290 mLlg
531Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
0.50 �
Kd = 1.2 mL/g
0.40
0.3 0
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 100
Figure 61: Boron batch Kd— GWA — 12
Q—B-3
q
500
400
300
200
100
Boron
•
y 0.0012x
R' = 0.8817
200 300
p a'I
Boron - Colunni MNA - 12
400
500
• B in Effluent
• B in Feed
— — Kd 7 mLig
Kd 14 mLlg
— • — Kd 21 mL/g
0 1 1 I 1
0 50 100 150 200
Pare volumes passed
Figure 62: Boron column Kd— GWA — 12
Q — C — 1
541Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
5-0
4-5
4-0
3-5
3-0
2-5
2-0
1-5
1-0
0-5
00
Cadmium
Kd =
8.5 n3U
y = 006x
R1=0.986
Kd
0.0 Mug
�y
IR2:
0 10 20 30 40 50 (YO
PA
Figure 63: Cadmium batch Kd — GWA — 12
Q—B-3
Cadmium - Column GIN A - 12
500
400 ••Cd in Effluent
300 a CdinFeed
Kd 150 mL/g
200
—Kd 175 mL/9
Kd 200 mL/g
100
0
0 50 100 150 200
Pore vohunes passed
Figure 64: Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 12
Q-C-5
55 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
10
9
8
7
6
bD
5
4
3
2
1
0
Molybdenum
Kd= 453.3 mLlg
M = 459.7
!g
y = 0.4597
_ . 9I0
,t •�
y-=-0:4533x
R2 = 0.7299
•Trial A •Trial B
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 65: Molybdenum batch Kd— GWA — 12
Q—B-3
50(
40C
30C
a.
a.
0
20C
10C
R9/L
Molvbdeniun- Column GINA- 12
•
0 *a* &
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 66: Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 12
Q—C— 1
in Effluent
in Feed
80 mug
WD mLlg
120 mLlg
561Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
10
9
8
6
an
a� 5
4
3
2
1
0
Selenium
Kd = 65
.5 mLJg
Kd = 64
3.0 mL!g
t: ° i•
y = 0.6505x
511`14•
y =
z —
.643x
48
•
•
•
•Trial A ♦Trial B
i
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
N9/L
Figure 67: Selenium batch Kd — GWA — 12
Q—B-3
700
600
500
400
n.
a
ci
300
200
100
0
0
�0
Selenium - Column GWA - 12
•
100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 68: Selenium column Kd — GWA — 12
Q—C— 1
• Se in Effluent
• Se in Feed
—•— Kd170mL/g
Kd 190 mL/g
— • — Kd 210 mL/g
200
571Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
8
7
6
5
tM
44
3
2
1
0
0
Thallium
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
R9/L
Figure 69: Thallium batch Kd — GWA — 12
Q—B-3
700
600
500
400
c
a
300
200
100
0
0
Thallium - Column GWA - 12
• •
50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 70: Thallium column Kd — GWA — 12
Q—C-5
• T1 in Effluent
i • Tl in Feed
— — Kd 270 mL/g
Kd 290 mL/g
— — Kd 310 mL/g
200
581Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
300
200
100
0
0
Vanadium - Column GWA - 12
• • a • - • • • . . • _ • • •
50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 71: Vanadium column Kd - GWA - 12
Q-C-5
• V in Effluent
• V in Feed
- - - Kd 270 mL/g
Kd 290 mL/g
- - Kd 310 mL/g
200
591Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Arsenic
10 -
9 -Kd= 2903-64n.L,/g .
Kd = 302515 mL/g
s
7
y = 3.0255x
6=-0.691
on
5
4
• y = 2.9036x
3 Rz = 0.7452
2 •
1 •
. Trial A •Trial B
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
kg1-
Figure 72: Arsenic batch Kd — GWA — 2 D
Q—B-3
Arsenic - Column GWA - 2D
Soo
•'.. •
-100
300
a.
4 200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 73: Arsenic column Kd — GWA — 2 D
Q—C-5
• As in Effluent
• As in Feed
- • - Kd 750 mL/g
Kd 775 mL/g
- - Kd 800 mL/g
250
601Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
2.5
Kd =1.7 mL/g
2.0
1.5 — — -
Ob
1.0 -
0.5
0.0
0 200 400
Figure 74: Boron batch Kd— GWA — 2 D
Q—B-4
rQ
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 75: Boron column Kd — GWA — 2 D
Q—C— 1
Boron
v = 0.002lx
R' = 0.398
y = 0.0017x
RI = 0.63 81
•
• Trial A • Trial B
600 800 1000 1200
µg/L
Boron- Column MNA- 2D
• B in Effluent
B in Feed
— — Kd 10 mLlg
Kd 13 mLlg
— • — Kd 17 mL/g
250
61 Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
1.2
1.0
0.8
O.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
Cadmium
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
kg2
Figure 76: Cadmium batch Kd — GWA — 2 D
Q—B-3
Cadmium - Column MNA - ='D
500
F- 1 -1
400 ••• •
• �•
300 - • •
200 '
100
•
�.'• ••• ••000.0•••••1
0
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 77: Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 2 D
Q—C-2
• Cd in Effluent
• Cd in Feed
— • — Kd 220 mL.fg
Kd 270 mL/9
— Kd 320 rnDg
250
621Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Stearn Station UNC Charlotte
Iron
140
Kd = 35059.0 niL/g
120
Kd= 18505.0 niUg
y = 35059x
.'P R 2 = 0.5394
•
100
so
i
0
y = 18505x
R2= 0.7084
60
40
•
20
•
o Trial A o Trial B
0
0.000 0.001 0.002
0.003 0.004
0.005 0.006 0.007
Figure 78: Iron batch Kd— GWA — 2 D
Q-13-5
in2)'L
Manganese
30 -
Kd = 52.�5 n1L/g
25
20 -
y = 52.449x
15 - RI = 0.5195
10
y 52.474x
5
9 Trial A • Trial B R2 = 0.4006
0
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350
ma,1
Figure 79: Manganese batch Kd — GWA — 2 D
Q-13-5
63 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
10
8
6
cA
4
2
0
0.0
2.0
Molybdenum
Figure 80: Molybdenum batch Kd — GWA — 2 D
Q—B-3
500
400
300
l 200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volurnes passed
Figure 81: Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 2 D
Q—C— 1
y = 1.379L
R2 = 0.877
• Trial - C
4.0 6.0 8.0
µg/L
Molybdenum - Column GWA - 2D
• •-- 0 000
• Mo in Effluent
• Mo in Feed
- — Kd 250 mL/g
Kd 280 mL/g
- — Kd 310 mL/g
250
641Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
14
12
10
rt,
8
6
4
2
0
0
Selenium
2 4 6 8 10
ug/L
Figure 82: Selenium batch Kd — GWA — 2 D
Q—B-3
Selenium - Column GWA - 2D
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200
Pore -,oluiiies passed
Figure 83: Selenium column Kd — GWA — 2 D
Q—C-5
•
• Se in Effluent
• Se in Feed
— — Kd 450 mL/g
Kd 490 mL/g
— — Kd 540 mL/g
250
651Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
s
7
6
5
�n
4
3
2
1
0
0
= 155.7
10 20
Thalliurn
y = 0.1557x
R' = 0.9763
y = 0.1527x
R2 = 0.9948
Figure 84: Thallium batch Kd — GWA — 2 D
Q—B-3
. Trial A • Trial B
30 40 50 60
N9/-
Thallium - Column GWA - 2D
700
600 . • • . •
500 • • T1 in Effluent
400 • • . • . • • Tl in Feed
a.
_ — — Kd 800 mL/g
300
Kd 850 mL/g
200
— • — Kd 900 mL/g
100
0gooses
9 _•
0 50 100 150 200 250
Pore volumes passed
Figure 85: Thallium column Kd— GWA — 2 D
Q—C-5
661Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Vanadium - Column GWA - 2D
Kill]
.•
• • •
• • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • . • .
200
100
0 ,
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 86: Vanadium column Kd — GW — 2 D
Q—C-5
• V in Effluent
• V in Feed
- • - Kd 600 mL/g
Kd 650 mL/g
- - - Kd 700 mL/g
250
671Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
45
4.0
3.5
3.0
�n
2.5
to
1 20
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
Arsenic
50 100 150 200 250 300
P&I
Figure 87: Arsenic batch Kd — GWA — 3 D
Q—B—I
Arsenic - Column GWA - 3D
500
•
400
• Of �. • ••
300 •
.a 1
a t
200
• r
100 —
r
0 � r
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 88: Arsenic column Kd — GWA — 3 D
Q—C— 1
• As in Effluent
• As in Feed
— • — Kd 20 mL/g
Kd 30 mL/g
— • — Kd 40 mL/g
200
681Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
500
400
300
p
200
100
Baron - Column GWA - 3D
D 50 100 150 200
Pare volumes passed
Figure 89: Boron column Kd — GWA — 3 D
Q—C-3
«B in Effluent
•BinFeed
691Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Cadmium
6-0 1 - - -- -- --- -- : .................................
F d = 414.0 inL/g
5.0 .............................................................
4-0
3-0
Y = 0.414x
2-0 iR 2=0_aj
1.0
•
rL n *TrialA I
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
119/L
Figure 90: Cadmium batch Kd — GWA — 3 D
Q—B-3
500
400
300
200
100
Cadmium - Column MN -A - 3D
•
0
0 50 100 150
Pore vohunes passed
Figure 9 1: Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 3 D
Q—C-5
• Cd in Effluent
• CdinFeed
. — Kd 460 mL/g
—Kd 480 mL/g
. . — Kd 500 mL/g
200
70 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Molybdenum - Column G�NA - 3D
500 ...
400 �.. •............
0 L
0 Si 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 92: Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 3 D
Q—C-3
711Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
1.6
1.4 Kd = 3.2
Kd = 3.3
1.2
1.0
c, 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
Selenium
•
•
y = 0.0033x
R z- 0.7955
_
v = 0.0032x
R'=0.895
• Vial A • Trial B
100 200 300 400
ug/L
Figure 93: Selenium batch Kd — GWA — 3 D
Q—B-1
Selenium - Column GWA - 3D
700
600
•�•
•
500 ® i•,••
400 •
300
� r
200
i
100 —
i
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 94: Selenium column Kd — GWA — 3 D
Q—C— 1
• SeinEffluent
• Se in Feed
— • — Kd 15 mL/g
Kd 25 mL/g
— • — Kd 35 mL/g
200
721Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Thallium
10
Kd = 1628.6 mL/g
g Kd = 1664.3 mL/g ••
y = 1.6643x
6 R2 = 0.8637
s='``' y = 1.6286x
4 ,.��•`t• R2 = 0.8018
•
2—
_
0 • Trial A • Trial B
0 1 2 3 4
µg/L
Figure 95: Thallium batch Kd — GWA — 3 D
Q—B-3
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Thallium - Coluinn MNA - 3D
•
•
• T7 in Effluent
• T4 in Feed
- — Kd 525 mL/g
Kd 550 mLlg
- — Kd 575 mLlg
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 96: Thallium column Kd — GWA — 3 D
Q—C-5
731Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
04
x 1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Vanadium
Kd = 23.0 mL/g
y = 0.0_23x
�1
Kd = 21.3 mL/g I R2 = 0.996S
y = 0.0213x
R- = 0.9834
04
• Trial A • Trial B
-! 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
µg/L
Figure 97: Vanadium batch Kd — GWA — 3 D
Q—B-2
c,
c.
;uu
200
100
Vanadium - Column GWA - 3D
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 98: Vanadium column Kd — GWA — 3 D
Q—C— 1
• V in Effluent
• V in Feed
— — Kd 20 mL/g
Kd 25 mL/g
... Kd 30 mL/g
200
741Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
9
s
7
6
txo5
non
�4
3
2
1
0
Arsenic
Kd= 413-9 mU
Kd = 407-0 mLfg
y = ; x
y = 0.4139x
Rz = 0.9971
*Trial A *Trial B
a.
r
0 5 10 15 20 25
P&L
Figure 99: Arsenic batch Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q—B-3
Arsenic - Column GWA- 5S
Sao
400
300
n.
a.
d
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Porevohmies passed
Figure 100: Arsenic column Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q—C-2
200
As in Effluent
As in Feed
Kd 60 mLfg
Kd 75 mLfg
Kd 90 mLlg
751Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Boron
0.9
Kd = 0.8 mL'g
0.8
..........
0. ...............................
0.6
CL 0.5
ED
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
800 820 840 860
Figure 101: Boron batch Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q—B-4
= 0.0008X
R- = 03344
*Thal A
880 900 920 940 960
PB2
Boron - Column GWA - SS
500
400
300 -
c.
• B in Effluent
200
•Bin Feed
100
n 50 100 150 200
Pore vohunes passed
Figure 102: Boron column Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q—C-3
761Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation
6
Kd= 161.9 mL/g
5 Kd = 164�2 rnUg
4
to
c8n 3
2
•
0
0 5
Belews Creek Steam Station
Cadmium
i
y=0.1642x
R2 = 0.9898 . l:
y = 0.1619x
R2 = 0.9776
*Trial A •Trial B
10 15 20 25 30 35
Rg/L
Figure 103: Cadmium batch Kd— GWA — 5 S
Q—B-3
Cadmium - Column GWA - 5S
500
400
300
-d'
U
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Porevohnnes passed
Figure 104: Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q—C-5
UNC Charlotte
• Cd in Effluent
• Cd in Feed
- — Kd 325 mL/g
Kd 350 mL/g
— Kd 375 mL/g
200
771Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
Iron
250
Kd = 473 9.8 mL/g
Kd = 2254.9 n L/g
200 1 :• y = 4739.8x •
150
100
I
50 ••
0
0.00 0.02
Figure 105: Iron batch Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q—B-2
R2 = 0.8227
y = 2254.9x
R2 = 0.6046
0.04 0.06
mg/L
UNC Charlotte
• Trial A • Trial B
0.08 0.10
781Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
8
7
6
5
-Bb 4
3
2
I
0
Molybdenum
Kd = 493
mLlg
— 93x
—4$-2
mL. g
=0.5507
y = 0.0482g
R2 = 0501
y11t51y1s
• °`sts
•
•
.T
lial A
Trial B
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Pg/Z
Figure 106: Molybdenum batch Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q—B-5
500
400
300
a.
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pare volumes passed
Figure 107: Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q—C— 1
Molybdenum - C olumn GWA - 5 S
r �
r
� r
r �
f
� r
. r
r .
r �
• r
• Mo in Effluent
• Mo in Feed
— Kd 35 mL/g
—Kd 50 mLlg
— Kd 65 mLJg
200
791Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
9
8
7
nn 5
�4
3
2
1
0
Selenium
Kd= 157.
-L/9
Kd = 160.
mUg
y = 0.1605x
R' = 0.8967
y = 0.1571x
R' = 0.8262
•
•
•
*Trial A *Trial B
I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
WL
Figure 108: Selenium batch Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q—B-3
Selenium - Column GWA - 5S
700
600
500
400
V' 300
200
100
• SeinEffluent
• SeinFeed
— • — Kd 75 mLlg
Kd 85 mLlg
— • — Kd 95 niL�Z
0 1e_rr I I
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 109: Selenium column Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q—C— 1
801Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
9
8
7
6
�5
�4
3
2
1
0
0
Thallium
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
P&L
Figure 110: Thallium batch Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q—B-3
700
600
500
400
F 300
200
100
0
0
Thallium - Colunm GVLTA - 5S
• Tl in Effluent
• T1 in Feed
— • — Kd 420 mL!g
Kd 430 mLIg
— • — Kd 440 mLJg
50 100 150 200
Porevohanes passed
Figure 111: Thallium column Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q—C-4
811Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Pg/L
Figure 112: Vanadium batch Kd— GWA — 5 S
Q—B-3
Vanadium - Column GWA - 5S
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
PoTevohunes passed
Figure 113: Vanadium column Kd — GWA — 5 S
Q-C-I
Vanadium
Kd= 9k5
mL/g
—Kd-��-96
--7-mL!g--
"0
Y=0.9885x
R7- = 0-9058
y=O
1 .9617.
R =
0-8915
so
Trial A *Trial B
•
5 6 7
200
• in Effluent
• in Feed
Kd 170 mL!g
Kd 190 rnLIg
Kd 210 rnLfg
82 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Arsenic
10
Kd = 1063.8 mL/g y = 1.1048s
8
Kd = 1104.8 mL/� R2 = 0.981 • •
6 -
cn
y = 1.0638t
4 R= = 0.9956
2 low
_ • • Trial A • Trial B
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
µgIL
Figure 114: Arsenic batch Kd — GWA — 11 D
Q—B-3
Arsenic - Column GWA - 11 D Trial A
500
400
300
.o
c.
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 115: Arsenic column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial A
Q—C-5
• As in Effluent
As in Feed
— - — Kd 650 mL/g
Kd 700 mL/g
— — Kd 750 mL/g
200
831Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Arsenic - Column GWA - 11 D Trial B
500
400
300
a
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 116: Arsenic column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial B
Q—C-5
Arsenic - Column GWA - 11D Trial C
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 117: Arsenic column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C
Q—C-5
• As in Effluent
• As in Feed
- • - Kd 650 mL/g
Kd 675 mL/g
- - Kd 700 mL/g
200
• As in Effluent
• As in Feed
- Kd 550 mL/g
Kd 600 mL/g
- - Kd 650 mL/g
200
841Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
500
400
300
a.
200
100
Boron - Column GWA - 11 D Trial A
• B in Effluent
• B in Feed
— • — Kd 10 mL/g
Kd 15 mL/g
1 — • — Kd 20 mL/g
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 118: Boron column Kd— GWA — 11 D, Trial A
Q—C— 1
851Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Boron - Column GWA - 11 D Trial B
500
400
300
a
a
a.
C!1
200
i
i
100
0 I •
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 119: Boron column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial B
Q—C— 1
500
400
1 1
1 1
300
a,
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 120: Boron column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C
Q—C— 1
Boron - Column GWA - 11D Trial C
•
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•
•
• B in Effluent
• B in Feed
- - Kd 10 mL/g
Kd 15 mL/g
- - Kd 20 mL/g
200
• B in Effluent
• B in Feed
- - Kd 10 mL/g
Kd 15 mL/g
- • - Kd 20 mL/g
200
861Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Cadmium
3.5
Kd = 18.7 mL/g •
3.0 Kd = 17.0 mL/g y = 0.0187x2.•
5 R' = 0.9227
2.0
y = 0.0171
1.5 • • R'=0.6154
1.0 •
05 - • •
• Trial A • Trial B
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
µ21
Figure 121: Cadmium batch Kd— GWA — 11 D
Q—B-2
Cadmium - Column GNVA - 11 D Trial A
500
400
300
a
v
U
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 122: Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial A
Q—C-5
• Cd in Effluent
• Cd in Feed
- - Kd 650 mL/g
Kd 675 mL/g
- - Kd 700 mL/g
200
871Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Cadmium - Column GWA - 11 D Trial B
500
400
300
a.
a.
-d
U
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 123: Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial B
Q—C-5
500
400
300
n.
U
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 124: Cadmium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C
Q—C-5
• Cd in Effluent
• Cd in Feed
- - Kd 625 mL/g
Kd 650 mL/g
- - Kd 675 mL/g
200
Cadmium - Column GWA - 11D Trial C
• Cd in Effluent
• Cd in Feed
- Kd 575 mL/g
Kd 600 mL/g
- - Kd 625 mL/g
200
881Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Iron
300 -
Kd = 66192 inL/a y = 66192x
2 50 R2 = 0.6582
•
200
150 - y = 47179x
R2 =' 0.1789
100 -
50
• • • Trial A • Trial B
0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
mg/L
Figure 125: Iron batch Kd — GWA — 11 D
Q—B-5
50
Kd = 33.4 mL/g
40 Kd = 35.2 mL/g
30
cn
r�
20
10
0
0.0 0.2
Manganese
y = 35.223x
RZ = 0.6384
•
y = 33.448x
» Rz = 0.7276
..
• Trial A • Trial B
0.4
Figure 126: Manganese batch Kd— GWA — 11 D
Q—B-5
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
ug'L
891Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Molybdenum
10
Kd = 258.1 mL/g
8 Kd = 176.1 mL/g • i
6 y = 0.2581x
R2 = 0.7324••'•
-z y = 0.176lx
4 M R2 = 0.6226
2 -
• Trial A • Trial B
0 '
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
µg/L
Figure 127: Molybdenum batch Kd — GWA — 11 D
Q—B-3
Molybdenum - Column GWA - 11 D Trial A
500
400
300
0
z 200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 128: Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial A
Q—C-5
• Mo in Effluent
• Mo in Feed
— Kd 290 mL/g
Kd 300 mL/g
— — Kd 310 mL/g
200
901Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Molybdenum - Column GWA - 11 D Trial B
500
400
300
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 129: Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial B
Q—C-5
Molybdenum -Column GWA - 11D Trial C
500
400
300
c
C
i 200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 130: Molybdenum column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C
Q—C-5
• Mo in Effluent
• Mo in Feed
- • - Kd 340 mL/g
Kd 350 mL/g
- - Kd 360 mL/g
200
• Mo in Effluent
• Mo in Feed
- - Kd 320 mL/g
Kd 330 mL/g
- - Kd 340 mL/g
200
911Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
10
Kd = 456.8 mL/g
8 Kd = 555.4 mL/g
6
ao
•
2 -
0
0 5
Selenium
y = 0.5554x
RZ = 0.914
y = 0.4568x
Rz = 0.9211
• Trial A • Trial B
10 15 20
u¢/L
Figure 131: Selenium batch Kd — GWA — 11 D
Q—B-3
Selenium - Column GWA - 11 D Trial A
700
600
500
400
a.
a.
300
200
100
0
0 -;0 100 150
Pore vohunes passed
Figure 132: Selenium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial A
Q—C-5
25
• Se in Effluent
• Se in Feed
— — Kd 625 mL/g
Kd 650 mL/g
— — Kd 675 mL/g
200
921Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Selenium - Column GWA - 11 D Trial B
700
600
•
500 • • • • Se in Effluent
400 • • • • • Se in Feed
— • — Kd 625 mL/g
300
Kd 650 mL/g
200
— - — Kd 675 mL/g
100
0
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 133: Selenium column Kd— GWA — 11 D, Trial B
Q—C-5
Selenium - Column GWA - 11D Trial C
700
600
500
a
400
2
300
200
100
• Se in Effluent
• Se in Feed
— • — Kd 550 mL/g
Kd 575 mL/g
— — Kd 600 mL/g
0 L i • •
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 134: Selenium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C
Q—C-5
931Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Thalliulu
10
Kd = 490.7 mL/g
8 Kd = 524.2 mL/g y = 0.5242x
Ai
4
2
0
0
R2 = 0.9504
y = 0.4907x
R2 = 0.9783
t-
• % • Trial A • Trial B
Figure 135: Thallium batch Kd — GWA — 11 D
Q—B-3
700
600
500
400
CL
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 136: Thallium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial A
Q—C-5
10 15
pgI
Thallium - Column GWA - 11 D Trial A
20
• T1 in Effluent
• Tlin Feed
— • — Kd 650 mL/g
Kd 675 mL/g
— . — Kd 700 mL/g
200
941Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
700
600
500
400
c.
a.
300
200
100
0
0
Thallium - Column GWA - 11 D Trial B
• T1 in Effluent
• Tlin Feed
— • — Kd 650 mL/g
Kd 675 mL/g
— — Kd 700 mL/g
50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 137: Thallium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial B
Q—C-5
Thallium - Column GWA - 11D Trial C
700
600
500
a.
400
a.
H 300
200
100
• TI in Effluent
• Tlin Feed
— — Kd 575 mL/g
Kd 600 mL/g
— — Kd 625 mL/g
0-• •
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 138: Thallium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C
Q—C-5
951Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
7
Kd = 868.6 mL/g
6
Kd = 1090.7 mL
5
4
3
2
0
0
2
Vanadium
y = 1.09071
/g R2 = 0.935S a
Figure 139: Vanadium batch Kd — GWA — 11 D
Q—B-3
300
= 0.86861
R2 = 0.9015
• Trial A • Trial B
4
Et€/L
Vanadium - Column GWA - 11 D Trial A
9
••• • • • •• ••• •• •
• • • • • • • • • • V in Effluent
200
• V in Feed
a.
- • - Kd 650 mL/g
9
100 Kd 675 mL/g
- - Kd 700 mL/g
0 • • • • • • • • • • •-• - - - • •-• aa-�t r�'i —
50 100 1i0 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 140: Vanadium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial A
Q—C-5
S
961Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
a
a
a
300
200
100
Vanadium - Column GWA - 11 D Trial B
• • • • • • • • VinEffluent
• V in Feed
- - Kd 650 mL/g
Kd 675 mL/g
- - Kd 700 mL/g
0
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 141: Vanadium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial B
Q—C-5
Vanadium - Column GWA - 11D Trial C
300
• • . • • • • • V in Effluent
200
• V in Feed
- - Kd 575 mL/g
100 Kd 600 mL/g
- • - Kd 625 mL/g
0 •�
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 142: Vanadium column Kd — GWA — 11 D, Trial C
Q—C-5
971Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Stearn Station
UNC Charlotte
9
8
7
txo
L'T
4
3
2
Arsenic
Kd = 279.4
—K
I
mL/g
y =
Rz
03278x
0.9413
t
*TrialA OTrialB
y = 0-2704x
•
0 5 10 15 20 25
P9/L
Figure 143: Arsenic batch Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q—B-3
30 35
Arsenic - Column MW - 200 BR
500
400
9 AsinEffluent
300 As in Feed
Kd 100 mL/g
200 —Kd 125 mL/g
Kd 150 mL/g
100
•
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 144: Arsenic column Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q—C-2
98 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
500
400
300
200
100
0
Boron - Column M - 200 BR
0 50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 145: Boron column Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q—C-3
. B in Effluent
oBinFeed
991Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Cadmium
6
Kd = 102.5 mL
Kd = 87.0 ni /,
5 - --
4
on
3
2
1 • • r:
0
0 10
v = 0.1025
R2 = 0.8727
y = 0.087x
RI= 0.7517
*Trial A ' • Trial B
20 30 40 50 60
N9/L
Figure 146: Cadmium batch Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q—B-3
500
400 ••• •
300
a.
rJ
200
100
0
•
Cadmium - Column NM7 - 200 BR
0 50 100 150
Porevoiumes passed
Figure 147: Cadmium column Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q—C-5
Cd in Effluent
Cd in Feed
Kd 550 mL!g
Kd 575 mL/g
— • — Kd 600 mL/g
F "I
•
200
1001Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
8
7
6
5
R 4
3
2
1
0
0
Molybdenum
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
RP/ -
Figure 148: Molybdenum batch Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q—B-5
Molybdenum - Column MW - 200 BR
500
400
300
a
a.
a.
d
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
Pore volumes passed
Figure 149: Molybdenum column Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q—C— 1
• Mo in Effluent
• Mo in Feed
- — Kd 35 mL/g
Kd 45 mL/g
- — Kd 55 mL/g
200
1011Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
9
8
7
6
�5
4
3
2
1
0
0
Selenium
10 20 30 40 50
PF/-
Figure 150: Selenium batch Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q—B-3
700
600
500
a 400
a
c
V
300
200
100
0
0
Selenium - Column 1VIW - 200 BR
50 100 150 200
Pore volumes passed
Figure 151: Selenium column Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q—C— 1
Se in Effluent
Se in Feed
Kd 150 mL/g
Kd 170 mL/g
Kd 190 mL/g
1021Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
Thallium
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
P91L
Figure 152: Thallium batch Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q—B-3
700
600
500
400
F 300
200
100
0
0
Thallium - Coluimi KiN- - 200 BR
• T1 in Effluent
• T1 in Feed
- — Kd 575 mL./g
— Kd 600 mLlg
- — Kd 625 mLlg
50 100 150 200
Porevohunes passed
Figure 153 : Thallium column Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q—C-5
1031Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Vanadium
6 1
Kd = 77- mL/g
Kd = 66 mUg
4
y = 0-0668x
R'= 0.0097
3
0
0 10 20
y = U-U I p�
R2- 0.91
7 1 917
•
*Tri2I A 1 4
30 40 50 60
P9/L
Figure 154: : Vanadium batch Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q—B-3
Vanadium - Column MW - 200 BR
300
200
0
0 50 100 150
Pare vohunes passed
Figure 155: Vanadium column Kd — MW — 200 BR
Q-C-5
• V in Effluent
VinFeed
--— Kd 260 mL!g
Kd 275 rnLI9
Kd 290 rnLfg
200
104 1 P a g e

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
5.50
5.45
5.40
5.35
5.30
5.25
5.20
5.15
5.10
5.05
5.0n
0
pH vs LIS
40 60 80 100 120
L/S (ML -g)
Figure 156: pH versus US for AB - 2 D
440
435
430
425
a
420
0 415
410
405
400
0
ORP vs L. S
_0 40 61D 80 100 120
L S i;mL'g)
Figure 157: ORP versus US for AB - 2 D
1051Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Conducti-vity vs L."S,
200
190
180
170
b
0 160
e.�
150
140
0 20 40 60 80 100
L/S (mLlg)
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 158: Conductivity versus US for AB - 2 D
pH vs L/S
5.50
• Trial A • Trial B
5.45
5.40 •
5.35
5.30 • •
¢5.25 •
5.20
5.15 •
5.10
5.05 •
5.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 159: pH versus US for GWA - 8 S
120
1�0
1061Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
350
• Trial A • Trial B
345
340
335
> 330
325
ark •
0320 •
315
310
305
300
0 20 40
ORP vs L/S
60
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 160: ORP versus US for GWA - 8 S
Conductivity vs US
170
165
160
155
U
150
145
140
U 135
130
125
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 161: Conductivity versus US for GWA - 8 S
80
•
100 120
1071Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
5.3
• Trial A • Trial B
•
5.3
•
5.2
5.2 •
5.1 0
5.1
5.0 —
0 20
pH vs L/S
•
•
•
•
40 60 80 100 120
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 162: pH versus US for AB - 9 S
425
• Trial A ® Trial B
423
421
419 •
- 417 •
415
0413
411
409 • •
407 -
405
0 20
ORP vs L/S
40 60 80 100 120
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 163: ORP versus US for AB - 9 S
1081Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
Conductivity vs L/S
170
165
160
155
y
U
0 150
U
145
140
0 20 40 60
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 164: Conductivity versus US for AB - 9 S
pH vs L/S
5.50
• Trial
5.45
5.40 •
5.35
5.30
x�.25
•
5.20
5.15
5.10
5.05
5.00
0
80 100 120
20 40 60 80 100
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 165: pH versus US for BG - 3 S
120
1091Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
450
• Trial A • Trial B
445
440
> •
•
435
O
430 •
425 •
420
0 20 40
ORP vs L/S
•
•
60
L/S (mL/g)
•
•
Figure 166: ORP versus US for BG - 3 S
Conductivity vs US
158
156
- 154
2
Cn
152
150
r_
O
U 148
MER
144
•
•
80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 167: Conductivity versus US for BG - 3 S
1101Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
5.42
5.40
5.38
¢5.3 6
5.34
5.32
5.3 0
0
pH vs L/S
20 40 60 80 100 120
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 168: pH versus US for GWA - 12
ORP vs L/S
438
• Trial A ® Trial B
436
434
0
432
430
E
0 428
426 •
424
•
422 •
420
0 20
•
•
40 60 80 100 120
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 169: ORP versus US for GWA - 12
111 I Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
2
Cn
Conductivity vs L/S
165
160
155
150
145
0
U 140
=1911
130
0 20 40 60
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 170: Conductivity versus US for GWA - 12
pH vs L/S
5.60
5.50
5.40
05.3 0
5.20
5.10
5.00
0
20 40 60
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 171: pH versus US for GWA - 2 D
80 100 120
80 100 120
1121Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
435
• Trial A • Trial B
430
425
> 420
•
•
� 415
410
•
405
400
0 20 40
ORP vs L/S
•
•
60 80 100 120
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 172: ORP versus US for GWA - 2 D
Conductivity vs US
166
164
162
U
vA 160
158
U
156
0
U
154
152
150
0 20 40 60
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 173: Conductivity versus US for GWA - 2 D
80 100 120
1131Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
8.3 0
8.10
7.90
7.70
x
7.50
7.30
7.10
6.90
0
pH vs L/S
20 40 60 80 100 120
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 174: pH versus US for GWA - 3 D
ORP vs L/S
340
• Trial A ® Trial B
320
300
> 280 •
E
�260
240
220
200
0 20
•
•
40 60
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 175: ORP versus US for GWA - 3 D
80 100 120
1141Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Conductivity vs L/S
240
230
- 220
U
210
U 190
180
170
0 20 40 60
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 176: Conductivity versus US for GWA - 3 D
pH vs L/S
6.4
6.2
6.0
C 6 5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
0
20 40 60
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 177: pH versus US for GWA - 11 D
80 100 120
80 100 120
1151Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
ORP vs L/S
430
• Trial A • Trial B
420
410
400
O
390 • •
380 • -
370
•
0 20 40 60
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 178: ORP versus US for GWA - 11 D
Conductivity vs US
250
240
230
U
rn 220
210
U
200
0
U
190
180
170
0 20 40 60
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 179: Conductivity versus US for GWA - 11 D
•
•
80 100 120
80 100 120
1161Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
UNC Charlotte
pH vs L/S
6.4
• Trial A • Trial B
6.3 •
6.2
a, 6.1
•
6.0 •
5.9 - •
•
•
5.8
0 20 40 60 80
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 180: pH versus US for GWA - 5 S
ORP vs L/S
420
• Trial A • Trial B
410
400
390 •
•
O
380
370
s
360
0 20
40 60 80
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 181: ORP versus US for GWA - 5 S
•
•
100 120
100 120
1171Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
Conductivity vs L/S
170
165
160
155
U
J
0 150
U
145
140
0 20 40 60
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 182: Conductivity versus US for GWA - 5 S
pH vs L/S
6.65
• Trial A ® Trial B
6.60 •
6.55 •
6.50
x
o.
6.45
6.40
6.35
•
6.30
0 20 40
Figure 183: pH versus US for MW 200 BR
•
•
80 100 120
•
•
60 80 100 120
L/S (mL/g)
1181Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
380
370
360
E 350
p340
330
320
310
0
ORP vs L/S
20 40 60 80 100 120
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 184: ORP versus US for MW 200 BR
Conductivity vs L/S
230
220
210
200
y
U
0 190
U
180
170
0 20 40 60
L/S (mL/g)
Figure 185: Conductivity versus US for MW 200 BR
80 100 120
1191Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation
0
20
15
Belews Creek Steam Station
1316 plots
2 4 6
8 10
• Trial (A)
0 3 6 9
L:S Ratio (mUg-dry)
Figure 186: Arsenic 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin
0 2 4 6
6800
C
5100
Q
a 3400
c
0
`o •
m
1700
0
20
15
10
5
0
12
8 10
6800
Trial (A)
5100
3400
1700
0
0 3 6 9 12
L:S Ratio (mUg-dry)
Figure 187: Boron 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin
UNC Charlotte
1201Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
0
10
8
Q.
g
P 6
7
O
L
V
4
2
3 6 9 12
• Trial
0 3 6 9
L:S Ratio (mLlg-dry)
Figure 188: Chromium 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin
0 2 4 6
320
240
O.
Q
N
160
d
c
m
01
c
ea
80
0
10
8
6
4
2
12
8 10
320
Trial (A)
240
160
80
•
0
0 3 6 9 12
L:S Ratio (mLlg-dry)
Figure 189: Manganese 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin
1211Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
0 2 4 6
4so
360
Q
240
c
m
O
2 120
0
8 10
• Trial (A)
0 3 6 9
L:S Ratio (mLlg-dry)
Figure 190: Molybdenum 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin
0 3 6 9
160
120
2
a
80
E
N
a�
v7
40
0
0 3 6 9
L:S Ratio (mL/g-dry)
Figure 191: Selenium 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin
• Trial (A)
480
360
240
120
0
12
12
1
12
60
120
80
40
0
UNC Charlotte
1221Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
0 3 6 9 12
40
30
o.
E
20
v
m
c
m
10
0
40
30
20
10
0
0 3 6 9 12
US Ratio (mL/g-dry)
Figure 192: Vanadium 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin
0 3 6 9 12
20 2
15
a
pCL 10
U
C
N
5
0
0 3 6 9
L:S Ratio (mL/g-dry)
Figure 193: Zinc 1316 Belews Creek Ash Basin
• Trial (A)
0
15
10
5
0
12
1231Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
0 3 6 9 12
680
510
2
340
c
O
O
[0
170
0
680
510
340
170
0
0 3 6 9 12
US Ratio (mL/g-dry)
Figure 194: Boron 1316 Pinehall Road Ash Landfill
0 3 6 9 12
400 4
00
1241Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
0
48
36
CL 24
v
e
N
12
0
3 6 9 12
0 3 6 9
L:S Ratio (mUg-dry)
Figure 196: Zinc 1316 Pinehall Road Ash Landfill
Trial (A)
46
36
24
12
0
12
1251Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station
0 2 4 6
16
12
2 8
Q
4
0
8 10
16
12
8
4
0
0 3 6 9 12
L:S Ratio (mUg-dry)
Figure 197: pH at varying US ratio for 1316 testing of Belews Creek Ash Basin
0 2 4 6 8 10
240
230
E
220
a
it
0
210
200
• Trial
240
230
220
210
200
0 3 6 9 12
L:S Ratio (mUg-dry)
Figure 198: ORP at varying US ratio for 1316 testing of Belews Creek Ash Basin
UNC Charlotte
1261Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
0 3 6 9 12
1200
r
800
Z
u
7
c
U
400
0
1600
1200
800
400
0
0 3 6 9 12
L:S Ratio (mUg-dry)
Figure 199: Conductivity at varying US ratio for 1316 testing of Belews Creek Ash Basin
1271Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
0
16
12
2 8
a
4
0
3 6 9
12
16
12
8
4
0
0 3 6 9 12
US Ratio (mLlg-dry)
Figure 200: pH at varying US ratio for 1316 testing of Pinehall Road Ash Landfill
0 3 6 9 12
250 2
240
E
230
a
O
220
210
50
240
230
220
210
0 3 6 9 12
L:S Ratio (mLlg-dry)
Figure 201: ORP at varying US ratio for 1316 testing of Pinehall Road Ash Landfill
1281Page

Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station UNC Charlotte
0
20
90
E
W
60
w
t)
c
O
U 30
0
3 6 9
12
120
90
60
30
0
0 3 6 9 12
US Ratio (mLlg-dry)
Figure 202: Conductivity at varying US ratio for 1316 testing of Pinehall Road Ash Landfill
1291Page