EPA/600/R-09/148
November 2009
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl
Technology Performance Review: Selecting and Using
Solidification/Stabilization Treatment for Site Remediation
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's Engineering Technical
Support Center (ETSC) provides technical support to EPA Headquarters and Regional Office personnel
for innovative approaches for site remediation. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental
problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan and was
funded by a grant from the Superfund and Technology Liaison Program of EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) Office of Science Policy, a partner with the ETSC in providing technical support to
the Regions. It is published and made available by EPA ORD to assist the user community and to link
researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Foreword i
Acknowledgements iv
Disclaimer iv
Abbreviations and Acronyms v
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Solidification/Stabilization 1
3.0 Types of Sites and Contaminants Treated by Solidification/Stabilization 2
4.0 Solidification/Stabilization Treatment Evaluation 5
5.0 Cost of Solidification/Stabilization 10
6.0 Long-Term Permanence 11
7.0 Case Studies 12
7.1 American Creosote Works Superfund Site, Jackson, TN 13
7.2 Pepper Steel and Alloys, Inc. Superfund Site, Medley, FL 14
7.3 Schuylkill Metals Corporation Superfund Site, Plant City, FL 15
7.4 Selma Pressure Treating Superfund Site, Selma, CA 16
7.5 Reuse of New York Harbor Sediments - Brownfields, New York
Port Authority 17
7.6 South 8th Street Landfill Superfund Site, West Memphis, AR 18
7.7 Georgia Power Company and Electric Power Research Institute, Columbus, GA 19
8.0 Additional Information 20
9.0 Supporting Resources 21
Technology Performance Review: n November 2009
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
-------
List of Tables and Figures
Tables Page
3-1 Effectiveness of Solidification/Stabilization on General Contaminant Groups for Soil
and Sludges 3
3-2 Selected Solidification/Stabilization Projects 6
4-1 Typical Solidification/Stabilization Specifications 7
5-1 Major Bid Cost Components vs. Actual Costs for Solidification/Stabilization
Treatment at American Creosote Works in Jackson, TN 10
5-2 Selected Results of the American Creosote Works Treatability Study 11
9-1 References by Topic 18
Figures
2-1 Binder Materials Used for Solidification/Stabilization Application 1
3-1 Source Control Treatment Technologies (FY 1982-2005) 3
3-2 Ex-Situ Soil Mixing at the Peak Oil Site 4
3 -3 In-Situ Treatment Using Shallow Soil Mixing Method at Former MGP Site 5
4-1 Conceptual Model Treatability Study 8
4-2 In-Situ Treatment of Acidic Disposal Pit Wastes 9
7-1 Ex-Situ Treatment at ACW Site 13
7-2 Overview of PSA Site 14
7-3 Schuylkill Metals Wastewater Holding Pond 15
7-4 Overview of SPT Site 16
7-5 Dredged Sediment Undergoing Treatment in Barge 17
7-6 Performance Sampling at South 8th Street Landfill 18
7-7 In-Situ Soil Mixing at MGP Site 19
Technology Performance Review: m November 2009
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
-------
Acknowledgements
Funding for this document was provided by the Office of Research and Development (ORD). This Technical
Performance Review was prepared under the EPA STREAMS contract number EP-C-05-061, Task Order #36
with Tetra Tech EM Inc. Jennifer Goetz was the EPA Project Officer, David Reisman served as the EPA Task
Order Manager, Stan Lynn was the Tetra Tech project manager, and Felicia Barnett, ORD Office of Science
Policy and Region 4 Superfund and Technology Liaison, managed the project. We would like to
acknowledge the valuable assistance and expert knowledge of Ed Bates of the ORD Engineering Technical
Support Center for his input into this document. We appreciated the assistance of the Regional Project
Managers named within this document for their input and review of material, as well as Jim Harrington,
Donna McCartney, Julie Santiago, Lindsey Lien, Michael Davis, and Michael Gill of the EPA Engineering
Forum who reviewed and provided insight with their comments on the draft publication. Without the
combined effort of all these talented individuals, this document would not have been possible.
Disclaimer
The document was subjected to the Agency's peer and policy review and was approved for publication as an
EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
Technology Performance Review: iv November 2009
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
-------
Technology Performance Review: Selecting and Using Solidification / Stabilization Treatment
for Site Remediation
F. Barnett, S. Lynn, and D. Reisman
Abstract: Solidification/Stabilization (S/S) is a widely used treatment technology to prevent migration
and exposure of contaminants from a contaminated media (i.e. soil, sludge and sediment). Solidification
refers to a process that binds a contaminated media with a reagent changing its physical properties.
Stabilization refers to the process that involves a chemical reaction that reduces the teachability of a waste.
S/S treatment and application is primarily used at hazardous waste sites. This Technology
Performance Review (TPR) includes a discussion on several sites, and addresses important factors to
consider in the selection of S/S treatment. Each S/S case study has a brief project description, regulatory
status, S/S treatment process that includes binder materials used, and a summary of the performance data.
Estimated treatment costs and maintenance activities are also included when available. Estimated costs must
be adjusted for inflation and current material price increases.
This TPR is not an authoritative or original source of research on S/S treatment and is intended to provide a
summary of the S/S process and its potential applicability across multiple sites and conditions. This
document should not be used as the sole basis for determining this technology's applicability to a specific site.
Additional Key Words: solidification, stabilization, remediation, remedial technology, S/S
Technology Performance Review: v November 2009
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ASR Annual Status Report ORD
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, PCB(s)
Xylenes PAH(s)
cm/s Centimeters per Second PRP
cy Cubic Yard PCP
DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid PSI
ETSC Engineering Technical Support Center ROD
RCRA
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
ROD EPA Record of Decision RPMs
LEED Leadership in Energy and S/S
Environmental Design STL
LNAPL Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid SPLP
MGP Manufactured Gas Plant
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level TPR
(ig/L Micrograms per Liter TCLP
mg/kg Milligrams per Kilogram
NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid TSP
NRML National Risk Management Research UCS
Laboratory (U.S. EPA) EPA
NPL National Priorities List
VOC(s)
Office of Research and Development
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Potential Responsible Party
Pentachlorophenol
Pounds per Square Inch
Record of Decision (CERCLA)
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
Remedial Project Managers
Solidification/Stabilization
Superfund and Technology Liaison
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching
Procedure
Technology Performance Review
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure
Trisodium Phosphate
Unconfmed Compressive Strength
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Volatile Organic Compound
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
November 2009
-------
1.0 Introduction
This Technology Performance Review (TPR) focuses on solidification/stabilization (S/S) treatment and
includes its application primarily at CERCLA (Superfund) sites, but also includes a brief discussion of
Brownfields, RCRA and other federal facility sites. The scope of this document is to provide basic
information about S/S treatment. Use of this technology must follow applicable federal, state and local
regulations. The document discusses important factors to consider in the selection of S/S treatment, such
as treatability studies and S/S specifications to evaluate performance, type of contaminants to be treated,
cost considerations, and long-term permanence. The Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual
Status Report (ASR), 12th Edition, establishes that S/S is among the most frequently used established
(where cost and performance is often available) treatment technologies for on- and off-site remedies.
According the ASR, S/S was used in 217 Superfund projects from 1982 to 2005.
Several S/S projects, from EPA and the states, were reviewed as part of this TPR, and most are used as
either exhibits or case studies throughout this document. The site-specific case studies illustrate where
this technology has been successfully applied and reliability versus where there are limitations. The TPR
is intended to provide assistance to decision makers such as Remedial Project Managers (RPMs),
remediation practitioners, researchers, and other interested parties in evaluating S/S as a treatment option
for their sites.
Each S/S case study in this TPR has a brief project description, regulatory status, S/S treatment process
that includes binder materials used, and a summary of the performance data. Estimated treatment costs
and maintenance activities are also included when available.
This TPR is not an authoritative or original source of research on S/S treatment. It is intended to briefly
describe the S/S process and its potential applicability across multiple sites and conditions. This
document cannot be used as the sole basis for determining this technology's applicability to a specific
site, because that decision is based on many factors and must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Technology expertise must be applied and treatability studies conducted to support a final remedy
decision.
2.0 Solidification/Stabilization
Inorganic and Organic
Binders (2)
3%
Organic Binders Only (2)
3%
S/S is a widely used treatment technology to prevent migration and exposure of contaminants from a
contaminated media (i.e. soil, sludge and/or sediments). Solidification refers to a process that binds a
contaminated media with a reagent changing its physical properties by increasing the compressive
strength, decreasing its permeability and encapsulating
the contaminants to form a solid material.
Stabilization refers to the process that involves a
chemical reaction that reduces the leachability of a
waste, so it chemically immobilizes the waste and
reduces its solubility; becoming less harmful or less
mobile. S/S treatment typically involves mixing a
binding agent into the contaminated media or waste.
These techniques are done either in-situ, by injecting
the binder agent into the contaminated media or ex-
situ, by excavating the materials and machine mixing
them with the agent.
Inorganic Binders Only (55)
94%
Common types of binder materials used are organic
binders that include asphalt, organophilic clay, or
Figure 2-1. Binder Materials Used for
Solidification/Stabilization Application
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
November 2009
-------
activated carbon; and inorganic binders that may include cement, fly ash, lime, phosphate, soluble
silicates, or sulfur. Figure 2-1 shows percentage of binder materials used based on input from EPA and
State project managers on various S/S applications at Superfund sites in the past. The resulting product
from the treatment process is a monolithic block of waste that is either excavated and disposed of in a
landfill or re-used on site to support redevelopment.
Another S/S treatment process is vitrification (in-situ or ex-situ). The treatment process uses an electric
current, direct-fired kiln, or other heat source to melt soil or other earthen materials at extremely high
temperatures (1,600 - 2,000°C or 2,900 - 3,650°F). The treatment process is used to immobilize most
inorganics and to destroy organic pollutants by pyrolysis. Inorganic pollutants are incorporated within the
vitrified glass and crystalline mass. Water vapors and organic pyrolysis combustion products are
captured by an off-gas treatment system for additional processing prior to discharge. Superfund Record
of Decision (ROD) data collected from the EPA ASR 12th Edition shows that vitrification has only been
selected three times in RODs and construction completed at only one Superfund site as of 2005. The
energy requirements and, in cases where ex-situ is used, costs for transportation of materials have
precluded use of vitrification as a viable treatment option. Therefore, this document focuses on binder
material uses in S/S treatment only.
3.0 Types of Sites and Contaminants Treated By Solidification/Stabilization
There is potential to use S/S under a wide variety of site conditions. Some types of sites at which S/S has
been applied or evaluated include: manufacturing gas plants (MGP), wood preserving sites, industrial and
municipal landfills, military bases, ammunition plants, waste oil recycling facilities, plating facilities, oil
refineries, and battery disposal facilities. Physical and chemical tests must be completed on contaminated
material from these sites prior to implementation of S/S treatment. Leaching and extraction tests assist in
determining the amount of hazardous contaminants that can leach from the treated waste under a worst-
case scenario. Physical tests such as compressive strength can be used to determine absence office
liquids in treated material and also construction properties if treated material is intended for reuse or land
disposal. Physical tests of solidified material are also used as indicators of the longevity of the
solidification including resistance to freeze/thaw. These tests are described in more detail in Section 4.0.
S/S has been tested and evaluated for its effectiveness in containing and treating a wide array of
contaminants, such as metals including lead, arsenic and chromium, and organic contaminants, such as
creosote and petroleum products found at sites. For metals, S/S is most often selected for treatment of these
contaminants because metals form insoluble compounds when combined with appropriate additives, such as
Portland cement. According to the EPA ASR 12 Edition, S/S treatment was selected for source treatment of
metals on 180 projects from 1982 to 2005.
In applying S/S for treating organic contaminants, the use of certain materials such as organophilic clay
and activated carbon, either as a pretreatment or as additives in cement, can improve contaminant
immobilization in the solidified/stabilized wastes. Some organic contaminants have a detrimental effect
on the properties of cementitious materials and may not be immobilized by S/S treatment. These organic
contaminants should be remediated by some other treatment process, such as thermal or biological
processes, prior to performing S/S. Table 3-1 lists S/S treatment effectiveness in treating general
contaminant groups.
Technology Performance Review: 2 November 2009
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
-------
Table 3-1. Effectiveness of Solidification/Stabilization on General Contaminant
Groups for Soil and Sludges
Contaminant Group
Effectiveness
Organic
Halogenated Volatiles
Non-halogenated Volatiles
Halogenated Semivolatiles
Non-halogenated Semivolatiles and Non-
volatiles
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Pesticides
Dioxins/Furans
A
A
Inorganic
Non-volatile Metals
Radioactive Materials
I = Demonstrated Effectiveness
A = No Expected Effectiveness
= Potential Effectiveness
Superfund S/S Application
In Situ Technologies (462) 47%
Soil Vapor Extraction (248)
26%
S/S is frequently selected as a source control treatment option at EPA Superfund remediation sites. Based
on Superfund RODs from FY 1982 through FY 2005, 23 percent of selected source control remedies for
these sites included the use of S/S (see Figure 3-1). For S/S, 18 percent of these source control projects
were ex-situ treatment with
only 5 percent being in-situ
treatment. EPA has also
identified S/S treatment as Best
Demonstrated Available
Treatment Technology for at
least 50 commonly produced
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous wastes.
Exhibit 3-1 provides an
example of a successful S/S
remedy at the Peak Oil
Superfund Site in Tampa,
Florida.
Ex Situ Technologies (515) 53%
Physical Separation (21)
2 /o
Incineration (on-site) (42)
4%
Bioremediation (60)
6%
Thermal
Desorption (71)
7%
Incineration (off-site)
(105)
11%
Solidification/
Stabilization (173)
18%
Other Ex Situ (43)
4%
Chemical Treatment - 9
Neutralization - 7
Soil Vapor Extraction - 7
Soil Washing - 6
Mechanical Soil Aeration - 4
Open Burn/Open Detonation - 4
Solvent Extraction - 4
Phytoremediation - 1
Vitrification - 1
Bioremediation
(53)
5%
Multi-Phase
Extraction (46)
5%
Solidification/
Stabilization (44)
5%
Chemical
Treatment (20)
2%
Flushing (17)
2%
^Thermal Treatment (14)
1%
Other In Situ (20)
2%
Neutralization - 8
Pnytoremediat|on - 6
Mechanical Soil Aeration - 3
Vitrification - 2
Electrical Separation - 1
Figure 3-1. Source Control Treatment
Technologies (FY 1982-2005)
Technology Performance Review: 3
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
November 2009
-------
Exhibit 3-1. Peak Oil Superfund Site in Tampa, Florida
Figure 3-2. Ex-Situ Soil Mixing at the
Peak Oil Site
The Peak Oil Superfund site a former waste oil recycling plant
site, covered 15.5 acres and soil was contaminated with waste oil
products, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead, and
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. As a result of a previous
remediation attempt (infrared heat treatment), a stockpile of
contaminated ash mixed with soil was also present. The
underlying lithology was made up of variable drift and included
sand, silt, clay, and peat. This area also had a shallow water
table with a low hydraulic gradient to the west.
The treatment method at the site involved excavation of
contaminated soil and backfilling the void to a height of 8 to 12
inches above the water table with clean soil. The excavated oil-
contaminated soil and ash were blended together and treated
with trisodium phosphate (TSP) granules to further immobilize
the lead. The material was then screened and fed through a
pugmill where it was mixed with the cement binder agent (see
Figure 3-2). An estimated 19,300 cy of material was treated.
Brownfields Solidification/Stabilization Application
One of the more optimal applications of S/S remediation is as a containment technology for remediation
of contaminated industrial properties. S/S has been implemented at a number of Brownfields sites across
the country. The treated material can often be reused on site as part of the redevelopment efforts since
S/S treatment can improve the physical characteristics of the material.
Exhibit 3-2 provides an example of a successful Brownfields project that used S/S treatment to remediate
contamination at a former MGP site. This project earned the regional Phoenix Award at the EPA-
sponsored Brownfields 2006 Conference and also received certification under the U.S. Green Building
Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program.
Exhibit 3-2. Kendall Square Redevelopment Project in Cambridge, Massachusetts
Kendall Square is a former MGP site that covered 10-acres in East Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Byproducts from the MGP operations led to soil impacted with coal tar and petroleum residues. As a
temporary cleanup remedy, a previous owner of the property capped the subsurface contamination with a
parking lot, which remained in place for about 30 years. Revitalization of the area surrounding the
property made it attractive for redevelopment. The results of an environmental investigation found 4
acres of soil impacted with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), from 0 to 20 feet below grade; and a 3-acre non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) plume that
consisted of: dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) present at the groundwater/clay interface about
20 feet below grade and light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) on the groundwater surface about 10
feet below grade.
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
November 2009
-------
Figure 3-3. In-Situ Treatment Using
Shallow Soil Mixing Method at
Former MGP Site
Excavation and disposal was chosen as the remediation
strategy for the parcels of the property outside the NAPL
plume. In-situ S/S was selected to treat the NAPL plume and
contaminated soil. A mixture of Portland cement, bentonite
and water was mixed and injected into the impacted soil,
immobilizing free-phase NAPL in the subsurface. In-situ soil
mixing was accomplished using a 10-foot, crane-mounted
auger system. The mixed soil columns were overlapped by 35
percent, ensuring that all impacted soil was treated (see Figure
3-3). S/S treatment resulted in immobilization of
contaminants of concern within a 20-foot thick monolithic,
solidified mass with a volume over 100,000 cy.
Other Examples of Solidification/Stabilization Applications
S/S remediation projects have also been conducted by federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of
Defense and U.S. Department of Energy, to manage munitions constituents from unexploded ordnance-
and radioactive-impacted sites. For example, S/S was used at the former Fernald Uranium Processing
Facility in Cincinnati, Ohio to treat low-level production waste that was stored in two silos on site. About
8,900 cubic yards of material containing radium and thorium radionuclides was removed from the two
silos, treated with S/S, and shipped off-site for disposal. S/S treatment involved a cement-rich mix design
consisting of 20 percent waste and 80 percent of cement and other supplemental cementitious materials to
not only produce a monolithic block of waste but also to shield from radioactivity.
Table 3-2 lists types of sites that S/S has been employed with some level of success in remediating the
sites. The table provides only a sample of sites and contaminants.
4.0 Solidification/Stabilization Treatment Evaluation
Specifications for S/S projects generally fall into the physical or chemical categories. Typical S/S
specifications are provided in Table 4-1. The commonly specified physical tests in project performance
standards include hydraulic conductivity and unconfmed compressive strength (UCS).
The most commonly specified chemical test is the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).
The TCLP is applied because it is linked to regulations in the EPA RCRA program. However, there has
been discussion about the appropriateness of applying TCLP to S/S treated waste when this treated waste
is managed other than in a municipal landfill. The TCLP procedure relies on extracting sample waste
with a diluted organic acid, simulating conditions of mixed waste (including organic waste) disposal, such
as in a municipal landfill. Many S/S-treated wastes are disposed in monofills or treated in situ and left in
place. The TCLP procedure may not be the appropriate simulation of these disposal scenarios. To
address this, the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) may be applied in place of the TCLP.
The SPLP is designed to simulate waste exposure to acid rain. Decision makers should consider the final
disposal environment of treated waste to determine the appropriate test.
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
November 2009
-------
Table 3-2. Selected Solidification/Stabilization Projects
Contaminant(s)
PCBs, lead and arsenic
Arsenic, PAHs, and
dioxin
PCBs
Lead, PAHs, and PCBs
To achieve remedial
goals and
chemical/physical
performance standards
specified in the ROD
amendment
PAHs and DNAPL
Arsenic and creosote
Purpose
Stabilize contaminated
soil in monolith per
remedy in the EPA ROD
To meet industrial risk-
based, soil remedial goals
specified in the ROD
Pilot-scale study to
evaluate suitability of
treating contaminated
sediment and reusing
treated material for
construction purposes
To achieve remedial goals
and chemical/physical
performance standards
specified in the ROD
amendment
To create a more cohesive
layer less susceptible to
erosion and eliminate
contaminant exposure to
benthic community in
river sediment as
specified in ROD
To meet cleanup standard
for reuse of material as
sub base and base course
for pavement constructed
on site
Media
144,00 cy of soil
45,000 cy of soil
10,000 cy of
sediment
40,000 cy of soil
and sludge
2,450 cy of
sediment
Soil
Mechanism
Ex- situ treatment
and capping the
processed monolith
Ex- situ treatment
then backfilled,
compacted, and
capped on site
Ex-situ treatment
after harbor sediment
was dredged and
dewatered
In-situ treatment with
crane auger and soil
capped
In-situ treatment
using marsh
excavator to mix
upper 2 feet of
sediment with
cement-based grout
24,000 cy treated by
in-situ mixing of
deep soil with in-situ
blender/27,000 cy
treated ex-situ using
pugmill equipment
S/S Binding
Agent(s) and
Formula
Cement and fly ash
5% Cement, 1.3%
powdered carbon,
and 4.5% fly ash
13% Cement
Agricultural
limestone
(pretreatment),
cement, and fly ash
Cement and
proprietary additives
8% Cement
Site/Name/Location
Pepper Steel and Alloys,
Inc. Superfund
site/Medley, FL
American Creosote
Works Superfund
site/Jackson, TN
New Bedford Harbor
Superfund site/New
Bedford, ME
South 8th Street Landfill
Superfund site/West
Memphis AR
Koppers Co. Ashley River
Superfund
site/Charleston, South
Carolina
Former Wood Treating
Facility - Brownfields
site/Port Newark, New
Jersey
Point of Contact
Jan Rogers, U.S EPA
(561)616-8868
rogers.ian(@,era.eov
Femi Akindele, U.S. EPA
(404) 562-8809
akindele.femi(@,epa. gov
Dave Dickerson, U.S.
EPA (617) 918-1329
dickerson.dave(@,epa. gov
Erik Matthews, USACE
(978)318-8365
erik.w.matthews(@,usace.a
rmv.mil
Vincent Malott, U.S. EPA
(214)665-8313
malott.vincent(@,epa. gov
Craig Zeller, U.S. EPA
(404) 562-8827
zeller.craig(@,epa.gov
Eric Stern, U.S. EPA
(212)637-3806
stern.eric(@,epa. gov
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
November 2009
-------
There are other chemical tests used to assess the leachability of S/S treated waste including the semi-
dynamic leaching test, American Nuclear Society (ANS) 16.1, originally developed for nuclear waste but
has also been adopted for S/S treated waste.
Table 4-1. Typical Solidification/Stabilization Specifications
Parameter
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Hydraulic Conductivity
Leaching Tests
Units
Pounds per
Square Inch
Centimeters per
Second
Milligrams per
Liter
Average Value (1)
>50
-------
Tier!
Emphasis on
Physical Properties
Multiple formulations with
emphasis on attaining target
physical properties. Look at
leachate characteristics as well.
Evaluate each sample with
respect to Tier I target goals.
Achieve
Tier I
Target Goals?
Revise
Formulations
as Necessary
Tier II
Emphasis on
Chemical Properties
Revise formulas with emphasis
chemical properties. Refine
formula as needed for Tier I goals.
Evaluate each sample
with respect to
Tier I and II target goals
NO
Revise
Formulations
as Necessary
Tier III
Optimization
Optimize formulas
to meet
Target Goals
Select
Final Design
Figure 4-1. Conceptual Model Treatability Study
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
November 2009
-------
The sampling approach is also critical to the treatability study to insure representative soil samples of less
impacted to highly contaminated areas are collected from the site. This step is necessary so the selected
reagent formula will work across the entire S/S treatment area. The soil samples collected for testing:
Should represent worst case for full-scale treatment
Should be field screened using soil gas, photoionization detector, metals screening (x-ray
fluorescence), and/or PCB/PCP test kits to confirm contaminants present at sample locations
Should be verified through homogenization by analyses of a minimum of 3 sets of grab samples
Should be used to research/develop initial formulations
Exhibit 4-1 provides an example of a full-scale cleanup where performance standards were achieved for
the South 8th Street Landfill Superfund site in Memphis, Arkansas. A treatability study was completed to
develop optimal S/S treatment formula prior to full-scale remediation of the site.
Exhibit 4-1. South 8th Street Landfill Superfund Site in West Memphis, Arkansas
The South 8th Street Landfill was a 16.3 acre site located on the floodplain between the Mississippi River
and the St. Francis Levee in West Memphis, Arkansas. The site was first used for waste disposal
sometime after 1957. Between 1970 and 1980, a 2.6 acre pit at the site was used for disposal of waste oil
sludge from a re-refining process. Between 1981 and 1988, EPA conducted investigations and found the
site contaminated with PAHs, PCBs, benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX), pesticides, and
metals. The principal threat was the waste pit, primarily due to
the low pH of the wastes which were corrosive and could have
caused severe burns.
The ROD specified ex-situ S/S treatment of the waste.
Subsequent treatability testing by the PRP group demonstrated
that the waste could be treated in-situ and was successful in
meeting the following performance standards:
Figure 4-2. In-Situ Treatment of Sludge
Pit Wastes
UCS > 50 pounds per square inch (psi)
Hydraulic conductivity less IxlO"6 centimeters per
second (cm/s)
Leaching of lead < 15 micrograms per liter ((ig/L) as
determined by SPLP
Augers were used to mix the reagent and sludge (see Figure 4-2). Approximately 40,000 cy of sludge
were treated. The treatment formula was as follows:
64.5 percent sludge
16.1 percent limestone for pretreatment
12.9 percent Portland cement
6.5 percent fly ash
Average cost was about $106 per cy.
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
November 2009
-------
5.0 Cost of Solidification/Stabilization
Costs presented in this section are based on data collected from 1982 to 2005 at National Priorities List
(NPL) sites and some of these sites are presented as case studies in this document. S/S costs vary
according to site, contaminants, and ex-situ or in-situ treatment. Ex-situ S/S is used to treat excavated
soil, so the operation and maintenance duration depends on the processing rate of the treatment unit and
the volume of soil to be treated. Processing typically would be done on site in a mobile unit. Average
costs for small-scale, ex-situ treatment (approximately 1,000 cy) range from $125 to $185 per cy. Large-
scale treatment (approximately 50,000 cy) generally cost in the range of $70 to $145 per cy. Table 5-1
provides an example of major bid cost components vs. actual costs for S/S ex-situ treatment of soil at the
American Creosote Works Superfund site in Jackson, Tennessee.
Major cost drivers for ex-situ treatment include the following:
Moisture content
Contaminant types
System size
These 3 factors are important in determining costs for S/S treatment. Higher percent moisture content
will increase amount of reagent required for treatment. Contaminant concentration and type determine
the amount and type of reagents added to the waste to attain the required treatment standards. Excessive
addition of reagents can increase volume resulting in higher treatment and disposal costs. Selecting the
correct size mobile s/s system to adequately handle throughput of waste volume is also an important cost
consideration.
Table 5-1. Major Bid Cost Components vs. Actual Costs for Solidification/Stabilization Treatment
at American Creosote Works in Jackson, TN
Item
Mobilization and Reports
Demolition/Debris
NAPL recovery
Cutoff wall
Drainage Trenches
Excavate, Treat and Replace Soil
Water Treatment
Creosote Disposal
CAP (GCL plus 2 ft. soil)
Site Restoration and Demobilization
Other
Total Bid
Actual Total Paid
Cost Per Unit
System
$9 linear foot
$14.90 cy
$44.25 cy
$0.68 gallon
$3.05 gallon
$50,460 acre
46,700 cy
Total Cost ($)
142,000
34,000
124,000
20,000
75,000
1,996,000
20,000
47,000
363,000
55,000
10,000
2,886,000
3,200,000
In-situ treatment typically uses augers or injector head systems to mix reagents with soil to immobilize
contaminants. Reagents are applied through nozzles at the bottom of the augers as they turn, mixing and
drilling into the soil. Grout injection involves forcing reagent into the soil porosity using high-pressure
grout injection pipes forced into the soil. Average costs for auger treatments range from $40 to $60 per
cy for shallow applications and $150 to $250 per cy for deeper applications.
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
10
November 2009
-------
Costs for in-situ treatment vary widely according to project size, subsurface soil characteristics, chemical
nature of contaminants, and additives or reagents used and their availability. Most reagents and additives
are relatively inexpensive industrial commodities and are widely available. However, the method
requires large volumes of bulk reagents and additives be transported to the site. The transport costs can
increase where local material sources are unavailable.
The volume of reagent required for in-situ or ex-situ treatment can range from 5 to 30 percent per volume
of soil treated. The quantity of reagent to be added is determined through the treatability study process
conducted on the subject waste or medium. Table 5-2 presents selected results of the American Creosote
Works treatability study and cost of reagent per ton of untreated soil to meet target remediation goals.
Table 5-2. Selected Results of the American Creosote Works Treatability Study
Treated Treated
Parameter Units Untreated $39/ton(1) $62/ton(1) Target
PCP
Total Milligrams 200
per kilogram
(mg/kg)
SPLP(pH) Micrograms 8,200(7.0) 120(11.8) 12(11.8) 200
per liter
(Hg/L)
Dioxins
Total Micrograms 50
per kilogram
SPLP (pH) ng/L 320 (7.0) 12(11.8) 14(11.8) 30_
PAHs
Total mg/kg 29
SPLP (pH) ng/L 2.8(7.0) <2.8 (11.8) <2.8 (11.8) 10_
Physical Properties'
,(2)
UCS Pounds per - 1,435 1,240 >100
Square Inch
Permeability Centimeters - 1.1 x 10* 4.1x10"' <1.0xlO"(
per Second
- Cost of reagent only per ton of untreated soil using different composition.
2 - 28 day cure time.
SPLP - Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
UCS - Unconfined Compressive Strength
6.0 Long-Term Permanence
Future use of the site and environmental conditions may erode materials used to stabilize contaminants,
which may impact their capacity to immobilize contaminants. Cement-based S/S stabilized wastes, for
example, are vulnerable to the same physical and chemical degradation processes as concrete and other
cement-based materials. SS-treated material using concrete as part of the reagent mix may differ from
conventional concrete. Conventional concrete for use in building material uses properly proportioned
gravel, stone and sand selected strictly for their durability and compressive strength properties. In S/S
treatment, mix designs are based on the properties of the contaminated media that is being treated so
selection of aggregate material is generally not an option. Concrete used in building materials typically
have a minimum UCS of 4,000 psi or greater, S/S-treated materials usually have UCS performance
standards starting at 50 psi.
Technology Performance Review: 11 November 2009
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
-------
Treatability testing cannot simulate all real world conditions to which S/S treated waste may be exposed,
and there is limited information currently available regarding the long-term permanence of S/S products'
durability. It is important that long-term monitoring be completed to insure that contaminants have not
been re-mobilized. Five-year reviews for cases studies presented in this document indicate monitoring
groundwater and/or surface water downgradient of S/S treated source area was the selected remedy for
long-term monitoring. This is the case with most remediation projects that result in a form of constructed
containment (e.g., cap, road bed material, structural, fill, etc.). In these cases, it may be difficult to
complete chemical tests (leachate) and physical tests (strength and permeability) without compromising
the structural integrity of the remedial construction work. The EPA five-year review reports on NPL sites
should be considered as a source for future information on long-term permanence of S/S remedies as
more information on monitoring techniques becomes available.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) recently completed a study on the long-term effectiveness
of S/S treatment on soils impacted by former MGP operations at a site in Columbus, Georgia. The EPRI
study evaluated the structural integrity and geo-chemical nature of the treated soils 10 years after S/S
treatment. The site was redeveloped into a park with a river walk along the Chattahoochee River. The
study is discussed in more detail in Section 7.0, Case Studies.
In-situ S/S treatment of impacted soils at the MGP site was completed in June 1993. In 2003, cored
samples of the treated soil were evaluated to identify chemical and physical deterioration. Results of the
study concluded that after 10 years the S/S treated material solidified mass at the site continues to exceed
original performance standards. The results of the 10-year study are summarized below:
Groundwater has not penetrated the solidified mass
All samples surpassed geotechnical pre-remediation performance standards
The liner integrity has remained in place
Solid phase geochemistry did not show physical or chemical deterioration
Groundwater monitoring has shown that leaching has not occurred
Results from Remedial Options Assessment Modeling have shown there is low potential for
leaching in future
7.0 Case Studies
This section discusses select case studies that illustrate the testing and application of S/S at various sites.
Technology Performance Review: 12 November 2009
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
-------
7.1 American Creosote Works Superfund Site, Jackson, TN
Site Type: Wood Preserving
Scale: Full-scale, ex-situ treatment.
Site Description: The 60-acre American Creosote Works (ACW) site was a wood treatment plant that
operated from the early 1930s until late 1981. The plant used coal tar creosote (PAHs) and
pentachlorophenol (PCP) to preserve wood. Groundwater
underlying the facility, on-site soils, surface water, and
sediments were contaminated with VOCs, PAHs, and metals.
Solidification/Stabilization Design: Soil from a 7-acre area of
the ACW site (45,000 cy) was excavated for treatment (see
Figure 7-1). The soil was mixed by pugmill and the S/S formula
was as follows: 89.2 percent waste, 5 percent cement, 4.5
percent fly ash, and 1.3 percent powdered carbon. The treated
material was buried on site covered with a geosynthetic clay
liner and capped with clean soil.
Figure 7-1. Ex-Situ Treatment at ACW
Performance Data: Industrial risk-based, soil remedial goals
specified by the ROD in milligrams per kilogram (ppm) were: arsenic, 225; benzo (a) pyrene, 41.5;
dibenzo (a,h) anthracene, 55; PCP, 3,000; and dioxin, 0.00225. The following table summarizes strength,
permeability, and leaching analyses and the average results for tested samples:
Strength (UCS- Pounds per Square Inch)
Permeability (Centimeters per Second)
Leaching:
Arsenic (ng/L)
PAHs (ng/L)
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (ng/L)
PCP (jig/L)
Dioxins (pg/L)
Average
>100
80
-------
7.2 Pepper Steel and Alloys, Inc. Superfund Site, Medley, FL
Site Type: Battery Manufacturing
Scale: Full-scale treatment of 85,000 cubic yards.
Site Description: The Pepper Steel and Alloys, Inc.
(PSA) site consists of three 10-acre tracts. PSA
operations were conducted on one of the 10-acre
tracts. Operations at the site included manufacture of
batteries, pre-cast concrete products and fiberglass
boats, and repair of heavy equipment and service
trucks. All three tracts are believed to have received
waste from PSA. The terrain is naturally flat and
underlain by, in ascending order, organic loam and
peat, sand, and limestone. Groundwater occurs at
about 6 feet bgs.
Figure 7-2. Overview of PSA Site
The site was added to the NPL in 1983 (see Figure 7-2). Subsequent remedial investigations documented
soil contaminated with arsenic, lead, and PCBs at concentrations high enough to pose a threat to public
heath, welfare, and environment.
Solidification/Stabilization Design: Approximately 85,000 cy of soil were excavated and mixed with
cement, fly ash, and water (proportions not provided) and pumped back into the excavation.
Performance Data: Performance criteria were as follows:
UCS>20.9psi
Hydraulic conductivity < 1x10"6 (cm/s)
Leachates below EP Tox criteria
Major Cleanup Milestones: Final Remedy Selected - 3/12/86; Construction Complete - 9/28/93.
Maintenance Activities: The five-year review from 2007 indicated that EPA entered into a
Cooperative Agreement with the PRP for O&M activities, including clearing trees from the site,
repairing the cover after tree removal, and inspecting the drainage collar for any necessary repairs.
Regulatory Status: Complete. Groundwater quality monitoring is ongoing.
Cost: Not provided.
Point of Contact: Jan Rogers, EPA RPM - Phone: (561) 616-8868/Email: rogers.jan@epa.gov
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
14
November 2009
-------
7.3 Schuylkill Metals Corporation Superfund Site, Plant City, FL
Site Type: Battery Recycling
Scale: Full-scale treatment of 150,000 tons of soil.
Figure 7-3. Schuylkill Metals Wastewater
Holding Pond
Site Description: Prior to 1972, the 17.4 acre
Schuylkill Metals Corporation (Schuylkill) was
primarily marsh. Beginning in 1972, Schuylkill began
operations as a battery recycling plant. Schuylkill
subsequently filled and developed the site including
2.3 acres of processing area and a 2.2 acre wastewater
holding pond (see Figure 7-3). Between 1972 and
1986 Schuylkill recycled more than 20,000 batteries.
The site is underlain by, in descending order, a
surficial aquifer system 8 to 20 feet thick, an
intermediate depth aquifer system 36 to 55 feet thick,
and a deep bedrock aquifer system over 1,000 feet
thick.
The Site was added to the NPL in 1982. Remedial investigations and feasibility studies conducted
between 1987 and 1990 documented soil and groundwater contaminated with lead, cadmium, chromium,
and antimony.
Solidification/Stabilization Design: Ex-situ mixing in proportions as follows:
Soil 88 percent
Cement 10 percent
TSP 2 percent
The treated soils were consolidated in a 5-acre plot on the northern portion of the site.
Performance Data: Performance criteria were as follows:
UCS>50psi
Hydraulic conductivity < 1x10"6 cm/s
Lead in TCLP leachate < 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
Lead in SPLP leachate < 1 mg/L
Major Cleanup Milestones: Final Remedy Selected - 9/28/90; Construction Complete - 9/15/98.
Regulatory Status: Complete.
Cost: Estimated $40 per ton.
Point of Contact: Galo Jackson, EPA RPM - Phone: (404) 562-8937/Email: iackson.galo@,epa.gov
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
15
November 2009
-------
7.4 Selma Pressure Treating Superfund Site, Selma, CA
Site Type: Wood Preserving
Scale: Full-scale, ex-situ treatment.
Figure 7-4. Overview of SPT Site
Site Description: The Selma Pressure Treating (SPT) site
was a former wood treating facility, located approximately
15 miles south of the City of Fresno, in Selma, California
(see Figure 7-4). The SPT site occupied approximately 18
acres, which included a paved area where the former wood
treatment and storage facility operated, percolation ponds,
a building housing a water treatment facility, and a capped
soil impoundment area. The following chemical
contaminants were detected in the soil: chromium,
arsenic, copper, dioxins/furans, and PCP. Arsenic,
dioxins/furans, and PCP were found at concentrations that
posed a risk to human health through exposure to soil.
Solidification/Stabilization Design: Silicate Technology Corporation's (STC) S/S process was
demonstrated at this site. An initial treatability study determined the amount of STC's proprietary liquid
silicate reagent to be used. Contaminated soil was first excavated and pre-screened to separate course
material prior to treatment. The course material was sent through a shredder to reduce the grain size to
less than 3/8-inch. The screened material was then processed through a batch plant where it was weighed
and reagent was added. The material was then mixed and allowed to cure. The treated material was
placed in an on-site impoundment and capped.
Performance Data: The following table summarizes ranges of concentrations by TCLP analysis:
Constituent
Arsenic (TCLP)
Copper (TCLP)
PCP (total)
Ranges of Concentrations by
TCLP Analysis (ppm)
Raw Waste
1.06-3.33
1.38-9.43
2,000-8,300
Treated Waste
0.086-0.875
0.062-0.103
80-170
Percent Reduction
35-92
90-99
91-97
Major Cleanup Milestones: Final Remedy Selected - 9/24/88; Construction Complete - 1/26/05.
Regulatory Status: According to the five-year review completed in 2006, the remedial action objectives
set forth in the ROD for soils at the SPT site have been met.
Maintenance Activities: Institutional controls at the SPT site prohibited potable use of area groundwater
and digging or excavation where treated soil was buried. The capped areas were reported to be in good
condition during the 2006 five-year review.
Cost: $190 to $330 per cy of raw waste.
Point of Contact: Charnjit Bhullar, EPA RPM - Phone: (415) 972-3960/Email:
bhullar.charnjit@epa.gov
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
16
November 2009
-------
7.5 Reuse of New York Harbor Sediments - Brownfields, New York Port Authority
Site Type: Shipping Port
Scale: Full-scale, ex-situ treatment.
Site Description: The New York/New Jersey Harbor is a major
commercial shipping port and must be dredged to maintain
navigability. Due to concerns regarding contamination, federal
regulations restrict ocean disposal of sediments dredged from the
harbor and land-based disposal options are required.
Contamination in the sediment includes metals, dioxins, PAHs,
and PCBs.
Solidification/Stabilization Design: During the testing phase,
dredged material was transported by barge to a pier (see Figure
7-5), and cement was mixed into the sediment while it remained
in the barge. Portland cement was used as the binding reagent.
The mixing method used an excavator-mounted mixing head.
Sediments were then processed in a stationary pugmill. Portland cement was added at a rate of 8 percent
of the wet weight of dredged sediment.
Performance Data: The treated material removed from the barge was used as structural fill at two
properties. Both properties were designated for Brownfields redevelopment. Treated sediment was used
to cover 20 acres of a municipal landfill and a shopping center was constructed. Over 1.5 million cy
covered a former coal gasification and wood preservation facility.
Regulatory Status: Brownfields. No further action has been completed.
Cost: Not provided.
Point of Contact: Eric Stern, EPA Region 2 - Phone: (212) 637-3806/Email: stern.eric@epa.gov
Figure 7-5. Dredged Sediment
Undergoing Treatment in Barge
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
17
November 2009
-------
7.6 South 8th Street Landfill Superfund Site, West Memphis, AR
Site Type: Industrial and Municipal Waste Landfill
Scale: Full-scale treatment of 40,000 cy.
Figure 7-6. Performance Sampling at South
8th Street Landfill
Site Description: The 30-acre site was located on the flood
plain between the Mississippi River and the St. Francis
Levee in West Memphis, Arkansas. Formerly, the site was
excavated for gravel deposits resulting in a series of borrow
pits. Sometime after 1957 the pits were used for disposal of
industrial and municipal wastes. Between 1960 and 1970, a
2.6 acre parcel was used for the disposal of waste-oil-sludge
from a nearby re-refining process.
Between 1981 and 1988, EPA conducted borings in and near
the waste-oil-sludge pit. Soil was found to be contaminated
with PAHs, PCBs, and lead. The site was proposed for
listing on the NPL in 1991.
Solidification/Stabilization Design: In-situ mixing with augers in the following proportions:
Soil 64.5 percent
AG limestone 16.1 percent
Portland cement 12.9 percent
Fly ash 6.5 percent
Performance Data: The following table summarizes the performance criteria per the ROD
(see Figure 7-6):
Parameter
PH
ucs
Hydraulic Conductivity
Wet/Dry Durability
Value
7.0
-------
7.7 Georgia Power Company and Electric Power Research Institute, Columbus, GA
Site Type: Manufactured Gas Plant
Scale: Full-scale, in-situ treatment.
Site Description: The former Columbus MGP was located in the central business district of Columbus,
Georgia, adjacent to the Chattahoochee River. The plant was in operation from the 1850s until it was
decommissioned in 1931. Soil and groundwater contamination from the plant operations was assessed
from 1990 to 1991. Contaminants included PAHs, BTEX, and cyanide.
Solidification/Stabilization Design: The S/S
treatment was initiated in February 1992 and
completed in June 1993. The soils were solidified by
pumping cement slurry thru 2.4-meter diameter
hollow-stem augers (see Figure 7-7). A 10 percent
mixture of binding agent was used for the majority of
the site, and a 25 percent mixture was used adjacent to
the Chattahoochee River to act as a barrier wall and to
facilitate construction of the river walk and park.
Performance Data: Post-remediation groundwater
monitoring began in 1993 and, based on analytical
results, was discontinued in 1998. A study was
conducted in 2002 and 2003 to evaluate structural
integrity of the solidified soils and to evaluate the 10-
year effectiveness of S/S with respect to immobilizing
the contaminants. The study included collection of
drill cores from the site for geotechnical characteristics, geochemistry, and contaminant analysis.
Leachability testing and groundwater modeling were also conducted. The study determined that the
structural integrity and geochemical nature of the solidified mass continues to exceed the original
performance standards established prior to implementation of S/S.
Performance criteria were as follows:
All samples exceeded the performance criteria established for the site for both the 25 percent
cement mixture (IxlO"6 cm/s) and 10 percent cement mixture (IxlO"5 cm/s)
All samples met the performance criteria for UCS of 60 psi
Leachability study identified naphthalene and acenapthene as most commonly detected
compounds. Naphthalene was only constituent that exceeded Federal Maximum Contaminant
Levels and State of Georgia Drinking Water Standards
Regulatory Status: An evaluation of remedial alternatives was performed in 1991 and S/S was selected.
Prior to implementation, a treatability study, feasibility study, and risk assessment were conducted.
Based on these studies, performance criteria were presented to and agreed upon by the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division.
Cost: Not provided.
Point of Contact: Andrew Coleman, EPRI Principal Investigator - Phone: (650) 855-2000
Figure 7-7. In-Situ Soil Mixing at MGP Site
Technology Performance Review: 19
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
November 2009
-------
8.0 Additional Information
For EPA staff requiring site-specific assistance, consult the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Office of Research and Development's (ORD) Engineering Technical Support Center (ETSC) at
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/lrpcd/rr/etsc/index.html or consult your regional Superfund and Technology
Liaison (STL) at http://www.epa.gov/OSP/hstl.htm. The Supporting Resources in Section 9.0 of this
document presents more detailed information on S/S treatment.
Technology Performance Review: 20 November 2009
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
-------
9.0 Supporting Resources
Table 9-1 presents a list of references including Internet sites, documents, and presentations used to
prepare this document and a general guide to the subject matter included in each reference.
Table 9-1. References by Topic
References
A Citizen's Guide to Solidification/Stabilization. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. EPA 542-F-01-024. December 2001.
Website: http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/citizens/s-s.pdf.
Solidification/Stabilization Use at Superfund Sites. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. EPA 542-R-00-010. September 2000.
Website: http://www.cluin.org/download/remed/ss sfund.pdf.
Solidification/Stabilization Resource Guide. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. EPA/542-B-99-002. April 1999. Website:
http://www.cement.org/waste/pdfs/EPAResourceGuide.pdf
Solidification/Stabilization and Its Application to Waste Materials. Office
of Research and Development. EPA/530/R-93/012. June 1993. Website:
https://www. cement.org/waste/pdfs/EP ATechnicalResourceDocument.pdf
Engineering Bulletin Solidification/Stabilization ofOrganics and
Inorganics. Office of Research and Development. EPA/540/S-92/015.
May 1993. Website:
https://www. cement.org/waste/pdfs/EP AEngineeringBulletin.pdf
Stabilization/Solidification ofCERCLA andRCRA Wastes: Physical
Tests, Chemical Testing Procedures, Technology Screening and Field
Activities. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. EPA/625/6-89/022.
May 1989. Website: http://www.cement.org/waste/pdfs/EPATesting.pdf
OHandbookfor Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous Wastes.
Hazardous Wastes Engineering Laboratory. EPA/540/2-86/001. June
1986. Website: http://www.cement.org/waste/pdfs/EPAHandbook.pdf
Solidification/Stabilization of Contaminated Material, Unified Facility
Guide Specification. USAGE UFGS-02160a. October 2000. Website:
http://www.cement.org/waste/pdfs/USACEConstructionSpec.pdf
Engineering and Design: Treatability Studies for
Solidification/Stabilization of Contaminated Material. USAGE ETL 110-
1-158. February 1995. Website:
http://www.cement.org/waste/pdfs/USACETreatabilityGuide.pdf
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide,
Version 4. 0 Section 4. 9 Solidification/Stabilization. Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable. Website:
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/sectionl/toc.html
Evaluation of the Effectiveness ofln-Situ Solidification/Stabilization at
the Columbus, Georgia Manufactured Gas Plant Site. Electrical Power
Research Institute. September 2003.
Wilk, C. Principles and Use of Solidification/Stabilization Treatment for
Organic Hazardous Constituents in Soil, Sediment, and Waste, presented
at the WM Conference in Tucson, AZ. Portland Cement Association.
February 2007. Website:
http://www.cement.org/waste/pdfs/Radwaste%20paper.pdf
Cement, ca Internet website (particularly for Effectiveness of Cement-
Based Applications). 2007.
Cement.org Internet website (particularly for Solidification/Stabilization
Waste Treatment Overview and Case Studies). 2007.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/asr Internet website (particularly for Annual Status
Report data for Superfund Case Studies). 2007.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/fiveyear Internet website (particularly for 5-yr
Reviews on Superfund Case Studies). 2007.
What is
Solidification and
Stabilization
Examples of
Solidification and
Stabilization
Advantages and
Considerations in
Selecting Solidification
and Stabilization
Significance
of
Treatability
Testing
Technology Performance Review:
Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization for Site Cleanup
21
November 2009
------- |