Technical/Regulatory Guidance

Development of Performance Specifications
for Solidification/Stabilization
July 2011
Prepared by
The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council
Solidification/Stabilization Team
ABOUT ITRC

Established in 1995, the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) is a state-led, national
coalition of personnel from the environmental regulatory agencies of all 50 states and the District of
Columbia, three federal agencies, tribes, and public and industry stakeholders. The organization is
devoted to reducing barriers to, and speeding interstate deployment of, better, more cost-effective,
innovative environmental techniques. ITRC operates as a committee of the Environmental Research
Institute of the States (ERIS), a Section 501(c)(3) public charity that supports the Environmental Council
of the States (ECOS) through its educational and research activities aimed at improving the environment
in the United States and providing a forum for state environmental policy makers. More information
about ITRC and its available products and services can be found on the Internet at www.itrcweb.org.


DISCLAIMER

ITRC documents and training are products designed to help regulators and others develop a consistent
approach to their evaluation, regulatory approval, and deployment of specific technologies at specific
sites. Although the information in all ITRC products is believed to be reliable and accurate, the product
and all material set forth within are provided without warranties of any kind, either express or implied,
including but not limited to warranties of the accuracy or completeness of information contained in the
product or the suitability of the information contained in the product for any particular purpose. The
technical implications of any information or guidance contained in ITRC products may vary widely based
on the specific facts involved and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional and
competent advisors. Although ITRC products attempt to address what the authors believe to be all
relevant points, they are not intended to be an exhaustive treatise on the subject. Interested parties should
do their own research, and a list of references may be provided as a starting point. ITRC products do not
necessarily address all applicable health and safety risks and precautions with respect to particular
materials, conditions, or procedures in specific applications of any technology. Consequently, ITRC
recommends also consulting applicable standards, laws, regulations, suppliers of materials, and material
safety data sheets for information concerning safety and health risks and precautions and compliance with
then-applicable laws and regulations. The use of ITRC products and the materials set forth herein is at the
user’s own risk. ECOS, ERIS, and ITRC shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special,
consequential, or punitive damages arising out of the use of any information, apparatus, method, or
process discussed in ITRC products. ITRC product content may be revised or withdrawn at any time
without prior notice.

ECOS, ERIS, and ITRC do not endorse or recommend the use of, nor do they attempt to determine the
merits of, any specific technology or technology provider through ITRC training or publication of
guidance documents or any other ITRC document. The type of work described in any ITRC training or
document should be performed by trained professionals, and federal, state, and municipal laws should be
consulted. ECOS, ERIS, and ITRC shall not be liable in the event of any conflict between ITRC training
or guidance documents and such laws, regulations, and/or ordinances. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of use by ECOS, ERIS, or
ITRC. The names, trademarks, and logos of ECOS, ERIS, and ITRC appearing in ITRC products may not
be used in any advertising or publicity, or otherwise indicate the sponsorship or affiliation of ECOS,
ERIS, and ITRC with any product or service, without the express written permission of ECOS, ERIS, and
ITRC.
S/S-1





Development of Performance Specifications for
Solidification/Stabilization












July 2011



Prepared by
The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council
Solidification/Stabilization Team


Copyright 2011 Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council
50 F Street NW, Suite 350, Washington, DC 20001



















Permission is granted to refer to or quote from this publication with the customary
acknowledgement of the source. The suggested citation for this document is as follows:

ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). 2011. Development of Performance
Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization. S/S-1. Washington, D.C.: Interstate
Technology & Regulatory Council, Solidification/Stabilization Team. www.itrcweb.org.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The members of the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) Solidification/
Stabilization (S/S) Team wish to acknowledge the individuals, organizations, and agencies that
contributed to this technical and regulatory guidance document.

As part of the broader ITRC effort, the S/S Team effort is funded primarily by the U.S.
Department of Energy. Additional funding and support have been provided by the U.S.
Department of Defense and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ITRC operates as a
committee of the Environmental Research Institute of the States (ERIS), a Section 501(c)(3)
public charity that supports the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) through its
educational and research activities aimed at improving the environment in the United States and
providing a forum for state environmental policy makers. Significant financial support was also
provided by the Electric Power Research Institute.

The S/S Team, whose members are listed in Appendix D, wishes to recognize the efforts of
specific team members who provided valuable written input in the development of this
document. In addition, the team would like to thank Brian G. Hennings, Christopher A. Robb,
and Roy E. Wittenberg of Natural Resource Technology for authoring Case Study #1 (“Modeling
of Groundwater Impacts for an S/S Remedy”) in Appendix C and Matt Tonkin and Vivek
Bedekar of S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. for authoring Case Study #3 (“Graded Modeling
Approach”) in Appendix C. The efforts of all those who took valuable time to review and
comment on it are also greatly appreciated.

The team recognizes the efforts of the following state environmental personnel who contributed
to the development of this guidance document:

• Lucas Berresford, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
• Kevin Collins, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
• Jim Harrington, New York Department of Environmental Conservation
• Wilmer Reyes, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
• Nirupma Suryavanshi, California Environmental Protection Agency
• Araya Vann, Oklahoma Corporation Commission
• Tedd Yargeau, California Department of Toxic Substances Control
• Gwen Zervas, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

The team recognizes the valuable contributions to the development of the document by the
following stakeholder and academic representatives:

• J. R. Capasso, City of Trenton
• Andy Garrabrants, Vanderbilt University

ii
The team also recognizes the contributions of the following federal agencies, who provided
valuable comments, input, and suggestions for this document’s improvement during its
development and draft reviews:

• Carol Dona, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Linda Fiedler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Mike Fitzpatrick, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Doug Grosse, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Greg Helms, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Pamela Innis, U.S. Department of Interior
• Terrence Lyons, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Bill Major, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
• Steve Rideur, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Mark Rothas, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The team recognizes the contributions of the following consultants and industry representatives,
who provided valuable expertise and contributed significantly to the writing of the document:

• Ed Bates
• Vivek Bedekar, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
• Jeff Clock, Electric Power Research Institute
• Richard Galloway, Honeywell International, Inc.
• Brian G. Hennings, Natural Resource Technology
• Mavis Kent, Plateau Geoscience Group, LLC
• Vera Langer, British Petroleum
• Thomas Plante, Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
• Michael Rafferty, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
• Jim Rehage, URS Corporation
• Christopher A. Robb, Natural Resource Technology
• Jonathan Scott, Scott Environmental Services, Inc.
• Ed Seger, DuPont
• Rajesh Singh, Langan Engineering & Environmental Services
• Matt Tonkin, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
• Charles Wilk, CETCO Contracting Services Company
• Norvell Wisdom, Scott Environmental Services, Inc.
• Roy Wittenberg, Natural Resource Technologies


Finally, the S/S Team would like to thank the representatives of the following organizations who
responded to our national survey/questionnaire and provided valuable information:

• Alabama Department of Environmental Management
• Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
• Arkansas State Department of Environmental Quality
iii
• Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
• Georgia Department of Natural Resources
• Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
• Indiana Department of Environmental Management
• Kansas Department of Health and Environment
• Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection
• Maine Department of Environmental Protection
• Maryland Department of the Environment
• Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
• Missouri Department of Natural Resources
• Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
• New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
• New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
• New Mexico Environment Department
• New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
• North Dakota Department of Health, Division of Water Quality
• Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
• Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
• South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
• South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
• Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
• Utah Department of Environmental Quality
• Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
• Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
• West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The ITRC Solidification/Stabilization (S/S) Team was formed in 2009 to develop the technical
and regulatory guidance needed to support the use of S/S technologies for the on-site treatment
of contaminated soil, sediment, sludge, and waste (i.e., contaminated material). S/S remedies are
designed to reduce the flux of contamination that leaches from a contaminant source to within
acceptable parameters set forth in a site-specific remediation goal.

Abundant literature describes the S/S process and test methods for design and implementation.
However, guidance on applicable contaminants, effectiveness, comprehensive performance
specifications, and long-term performance is not widely available. Because these issues have
long been a concern of regulators and site owners, the lack of readily available guidance
represents a regulatory barrier with respect to the use of S/S technologies. Of particular concern
is the assessment of contaminant leaching to the environment and the relationship of leaching
test results to the performance of the remedy over time.

S/S technology may be applicable for a wide range of contaminants. To determine site- and
contaminant-specific potential effectiveness of S/S technology, performance specifications
should be used to ensure protectiveness of the remedy. Performance specifications refer to the
collection of performance-related parameters, tests, and criteria used to develop an S/S treatment
recipe that meets performance goals (i.e., the design targets that describe a treated material that
will meet specific site remediation goals). These specifications have two purposes: (a) to guide
the evaluation of the ability of the treated material to meet remediation goals and (b) to establish
a minimal set of properties for evaluation during field operations to verify consistency with
materials characterized in the laboratory.

As an illustration of performance specifications, leachability may be considered a primary
performance parameter used to assess the ability of a material to retain a specific set of site
contaminants of concern. Several different performance tests have been used to measure
leachability of S/S materials, including both recognized and draft U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency methods. The resultant eluate concentrations represent performance measurements
describing the leachability of the S/S material. These performance measurements are typically
compared to a set of predefined concentrations or action levels used as performance criteria to
determine whether the solid material will leach beyond acceptable limits.

A key part of the S/S process is the role of treatability studies in providing site-specific
information to evaluate the technology and to develop process design parameters and scale up for
full-scale implementation. Treatability testing typically involves characterizing the untreated
contaminated material and evaluating the technology performance under different operating
conditions. Testing may include both bench-scale and pilot testing, although full-scale pilot
testing may be considered during startup of field implementation. Once treatability testing is
completed, a plan for treating the full extent of the contaminated material in the implementation
phase is based on those testing results.

vi
During implementation, achievement of material performance goals is documented through
quality control testing for both compliance with material performance specifications and
consistency through construction. Once a remedy has been implemented and safeguards are put
in place, long-term stewardship programs are typically used to verify the remedy continues to
meet material performance goals and therefore remains effective and protective of human health
and the environment.

Long-term stewardship of a completed S/S remedy may include monitoring of environmental
media in contact with and potentially affected by the remedy, monitoring of institutional
controls, monitoring and maintenance of engineering controls, financial assurances, and periodic
review(s) by the controlling environmental agency. Because the most common impact from a
treated mass is to groundwater, the key long-term stewardship component is typically
groundwater monitoring programs. Groundwater modeling is a valuable method for assisting in
the design and evaluation of a groundwater monitoring program. An S/S remedy should be
considered successful if it meets material performance goals designed to meet site groundwater
cleanup criteria at established points of compliance and groundwater monitoring data show that
the cleanup criteria have been met.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................v
1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Document Purpose ............................................................................................................1
1.2 Document Scope ...............................................................................................................1
1.3 Intended Audience .............................................................................................................2
1.4 Framing the Guidance Document .....................................................................................3
1.5 Document Organization ....................................................................................................6
2. SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ..................................6
2.1 Technology Description ....................................................................................................7
2.2 Contaminant Types Treated Using S/S .............................................................................7
2.3 General S/S Process ..........................................................................................................9
2.4 S/S Technology Advantages and Limitations .................................................................11
2.5 Long-Term Performance .................................................................................................12
3. PERFORMANCE OF S/S-TREATED MATERIALS ............................................................12
3.1 S/S-Treated Materials in Subsurface Environments .......................................................13
3.2 Performance Specifications .............................................................................................19
3.3 Key Performance Parameters for S/S-Treated Materials ................................................19
3.4 Performance Tests ...........................................................................................................22
3.5 Recommended Performance Parameters and Performance Test for S/S-Treated
Materials .........................................................................................................................26
4. PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE S/S DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS ...........................................................................................28
4.1 Flowchart of the S/S Design and Implementation Process .............................................28
4.2 Material Performance Goals ............................................................................................30
4.3 Performance Specifications .............................................................................................34
4.4 Performance Specifications in Treatability Studies ........................................................36
4.5 Performance Specifications During Implementation ......................................................36
5. TREATABILITY TESTING PROGRAM ..............................................................................36
5.1 Reagent Selection Considerations ...................................................................................37
5.2 Bench-Scale Testing ........................................................................................................38
5.3 Pilot-Test Studies/Field Demonstrations .........................................................................40
5.4 Scale-Up Considerations .................................................................................................41
6. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION DURING S/S IMPLEMENTATION ...........................41
6.1 Reagent and Equipment QA/QC Considerations ............................................................42
6.2 Treated Material Performance QA/QC ...........................................................................43
6.3 Assessing Field Performance Test Data ..........................................................................50
viii
7. LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP .............................................................................................52
7.1 Long-Term Durability and Performance of S/S-Treated Materials ................................53
7.2 Groundwater Monitoring Program ..................................................................................54
7.3 Institutional and Engineering Controls ...........................................................................59
7.4 Periodic Review ..............................................................................................................60
8. STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS ..............................................................................................62
8.1 Health and Safety Issues .................................................................................................63
8.2 Land Use Issues ...............................................................................................................65
9. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................67


LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Documented effectiveness of S/S treatment for chemical groups .................................8
Table 3-1. Impact of internal and external factors on S/S performance ........................................14
Table 3-2. Hydraulic conductivity of select porous media ...........................................................21
Table 3-3. Performance parameters and performance tests for S/S materials ...............................26
Table 4-1. S/S site characterization considerations in the development of performance
goals and specifications ...............................................................................................31
Table 8-1. Stakeholder considerations ..........................................................................................63

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Conceptual in situ S/S model ....................................................................................11
Figure 3-1. Internal and external stresses influencing the performance of S/S-treated
materials ....................................................................................................................13
Figure 3-2. Solubility of cationic metals (hydroxides) and oxyanions (calcium salts) as a
function of solution pH .............................................................................................15
Figure 3-3. pH-dependent leaching of DOC and associated PAH concentrations from
contaminated sediment ..............................................................................................16
Figure 4-1. S/S design and implementation process as discussed in Sections 4–7 of this
document ...................................................................................................................29
Figure 4-2. Mass flux approximation showing relationship between leaching test flux and
concentrations in groundwater at the treated material and at a downgradient
POC ...........................................................................................................................33
Figure 5-1. Hydraulic conductivity measurement and UCS measurement tests conducted
in the laboratory on treatability test samples ............................................................40
Figure 6-1. Example of overlap of in situ auger-mixed S/S ........................................................44
Figure 6-2. Field preparation of cylinder molds of freshly treated material ...............................45
Figure 6-3. Specialized sampler for S/S column mix areas .........................................................45
Figure 6-4. Sample collection of freshly mixed material from an excavator bucket ..................45
Figure 6-5. Sieve screening of treated material sample in preparation of UCS cylinder
molding .....................................................................................................................46
Figure 6-6. Field curing of S/S material specimens in a humid atmosphere (water bath) ..........46
ix
Figure 6-7. Slump test on freshly treated material ......................................................................47
Figure 6-8. Five-gallon bucket-molded sample cleaved, exposing successful encapsulation
of contaminant ..........................................................................................................47
Figure 6-9. Example consistency testing using PreMethod 1313 on coal combustion fly
ash samples collected at four different times from the same source .........................49
Figure 6-10. Sample QC test results tracking chart .......................................................................51
Figure 8-1. Auger-mixed in situ S/S treatment of a former MGP site in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, and post-treatment ..................................................................................66
Figure 8-2. Auger-mixed in situ S/S treatment of a former MGP site in at Kendall Square,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, and after redevelopment ...............................................66
Figure 8-3. Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site near Brunswick, Georgia, during S/S
treatment and redeveloped into an automobile dealer parking lot ............................66

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Equipment
Appendix B. Overview of Leaching Tests and Assessment of Leachability Using the Leaching
Environmental Assessment Framework
Appendix C. Groundwater Modeling Case Studies and Methods
Appendix D. Solidification/Stabilization Team Contacts
Appendix E. Glossary
Appendix F. Acronyms
DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
1. INTRODUCTION
Solidification/stabilization (S/S) is a well-established remediation technology for treatment of
contaminated soil, sediment, sludge, and waste (i.e., contaminated material). S/S is a process of
blending treatment reagents
1
into contaminated material to impart physical and/or chemical
changes that result in reduced environmental impact of the contaminated material to groundwater
and/or surface water. Section 2 of this document provides an overview of S/S technology. S/S is
one of the most common in situ technologies used at Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites for source control and was the second most
commonly used in situ source treatment control in fiscal years 2005–2008 (EPA 2010d).
1.1 Document Purpose
Abundant literature describes the S/S process in technical papers, guidance manuals, and case
study applications; research into mineralogical and chemical process aspects; and test methods
for design and implementation. However, guidance on comprehensive performance
specifications, applicable contaminants, effectiveness, and long-term performance is not widely
available.

Because these issues have long been a concern of regulators and site owners, the lack of readily
available guidance represents a regulatory barrier with respect to the use of S/S technologies. Of
particular concern is the assessment of contaminant leaching to the environment and the
relationship of leaching test results to the performance of the remedy over time. Therefore, the
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) S/S Team has developed, and presents in
this guidance document, an approach to the development of performance specifications to meet
the need to confidently identify and select appropriate performance specifications for design,
implementation, and monitoring of S/S remedies.
1.2 Document Scope
This document specifically focuses on processes and approaches for the treatment of
contaminated materials on site, mixed with inorganic cementitious/pozzolanic reagents (the most
common application of S/S) and cured in place to create a solid mass with a reduced potential for
leaching and typically a lowered hydraulic conductivity. Therefore, the technology as discussed
in this document is based on on-site, in situ S/S applications. Although the processes and
approaches presented can often be applied more broadly to other types of S/S applications, these
applications are generally not discussed in this document.


1
The terms “binder,” “reagent,” and “additive” are sometimes used interchangeably with respect to S/S. In this
document the term “reagent” is used as a general term describing a product used to accomplish S/S treatment;
“additive” refers to a product used to target specific compounds.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
2
The approach developed by the ITRC S/S Team for developing, testing, and evaluating
appropriate site-specific performance specifications and the considerations for designing
appropriate long-term stewardship programs for S/S remedies will provide a useful tool for
establishing an appropriate degree of treatment and regulatory confidence in the performance
data to support decision making. To provide guidance on applying this approach, this document
includes the following:

• an overview of the S/S technology with numerous references for more detailed information
on each step in the S/S process (design, testing, implementation, etc.)
• a process for selecting appropriate performance specifications to allow practitioners to apply
a consistent assessment methodology that considers the physical (e.g., strength, hydraulic
conductivity), chemical (e.g., constituent retention and transport mechanisms) and site- or
scenario-specific management characteristics (e.g., infiltration rate, water contact mode) of
the treated materials to meet remedial action objectives (RAOs) and minimize post-treatment
impacts to groundwater
• the use of treatability tests to demonstrate compliance with performance specifications and
consistency between laboratory and field samples results
• a process for ensuring achievement of material performance goals through compliance with
performance specifications during implementation
• long-term stewardship considerations to aid practitioners and regulators in determining site-
specific approaches that provide relevant and reliable measures of remedy success
• potential stakeholder concerns in general and those concerns that may impact the
development of performance specifications
• appendices to facilitate the understanding, evaluation, and selection of key performance
specifications and long-term stewardship strategies described in the document text and
illustrated using case study examples

This document does not include the following:

• S/S technology selection considerations (it assumes that the technology has already been
selected for further evaluation)
• sufficient details on the technology to support detailed design and implementation of S/S as a
remedy or detailed review of work plans for design and implementation of S/S (such as dust
control and health and safety issues)
• regulatory requirements for materials taken off site or relocated on site after treatment, which
may involve additional considerations such as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) waste generation or land disposal restriction (LDR) regulations
• recommendations of performance specification values or cleanup criteria applicable to S/S
remediation projects
1.3 Intended Audience
This guidance can be used by regulators, site owners, and environmental practitioners as follows:

• State regulators with oversight responsibility for remediation projects where S/S is proposed,
implemented, or monitored can use this guidance to do the following:
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
3
o evaluate site-specific proposed performance specifications
o evaluate site-specific treatability study work plans with respect to technology design
o review construction-complete reports to ensure performance specifications were met
during implementation
o assess predicted long-term performance
o review long-term stewardship work plans and reports
o anticipate potential stakeholder concerns

• Environmental practitioners who prepare plans and designs, implement S/S, or monitor S/S
long-term performance can use this guidance to apply an appropriate degree of treatment,
develop long-term monitoring programs, and understand regulator expectations for this
technology.

• Site owners with responsibility for remediation and long-term management can use this
guidance to understand state regulator expectations, long-term performance, and potential
stakeholder concerns.

Other audiences include the regulated community, community stakeholders, and federal
regulators. This guidance will provide these readers with a common understanding of the
application and limitations of S/S for site cleanup as well as an understanding of common
regulator expectations for performance and monitoring criteria to measure its effectiveness.
1.4 Framing the Guidance Document
The ITRC S/S Team used several sources of input to formulate the scope and content of this
document. During September and October 2009, the team conducted a survey of state regulators
to identify uncertainties that may pose a potential barrier to the use of the technology. In
addition, the team informally surveyed industry practitioners to ascertain real or perceived
regulatory barriers and experiences in implementing S/S technology. Additional input on S/S
was provided through technical sessions with the broader ITRC membership conducted in the
spring of 2010. Team members reviewed and evaluated the results of these surveys to identify
key issues to discuss in this document.

1.4.1 State Survey
Thirty-one states responded to the survey, with 26 states reporting implementation of S/S
technologies as follows:

• the majority of states reported using the technology for treating contaminated material in situ
and above the groundwater table
• the majority of identified S/S projects were performed to treat source areas
• the second greatest reported use of S/S technology was for controlling migration of
nonaqueous-phase liquid (NAPL)

Only a few states that completed the survey reported having established regulations or policies
related to S/S treatment; exceptions include regulations in Illinois and New Hampshire and S/S
policy in Kansas. None of the responding states reported having published S/S-specific guidance;
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
4
however, some of the states that did not respond to the survey have or may have guidance or
policies related to S/S. For example, Louisiana has a rule specifically related to the treatment of
oil and gas exploration and production waste (Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 43, Part
XIX, Chapter 313).

Most states reported using at least one parameter, such as strength, hydraulic conductivity, or
leaching potential, for remedy performance specifications. However, the parameters and criteria
were not consistently applied across the responding states. In addition, some states noted that S/S
may not be allowed for some contaminants or is considered too difficult to implement. When
asked to select one or more topics of most value for inclusion in an ITRC guidance document,
71% of reporting states identified developing performance criteria, 61% identified an approach
to assessing performance, and 30% identified a discussion of ex situ versus in situ
implementation.
1.4.2 Industry Concerns
A screening poll was conducted by team members of select industry practitioners to identify key
regulatory barriers encountered by industry practitioners when implementing S/S. Some of the
identified perceived regulatory barriers were as follows:

• requirements to achieve drinking water standards within or near the treated material
• understanding and effectively working with federal RCRA and LDR regulations to benefit
S/S implementation
• length of time for review of S/S work plans (where required)
• determining appropriate locations for points of compliance (POCs)

When asked what information ITRC guidance could provide to break down these perceived
regulatory barriers, the industry responders indicated the following:

• an understanding of the mechanics and limitations of S/S technology for reducing
contaminant mobility, but not necessarily achieving drinking water standards
• flexibility to use S/S under the EPA Area of Contamination (AOC) Policy (EPA 1998) for
RCRA cleanups regarding the consolidation and in situ treatment of materials within a
defined AOC without triggering LDR (see box on page 5)
1.4.3 Other Concerns
Based on their collective experience, ITRC S/S Team members also identified monitoring of
long-term performance as another barrier to the use of S/S technology because of the uncertainty
regarding long-term durability of the treated material and potential for release of contaminants to
groundwater. This same issue was identified as a barrier to use of S/S by the broader ITRC
membership and in the United Kingdom (Environment Agency 2004a).

In reviewing all of the input on regulatory barriers as described above, ITRC S/S Team members
identified the following key points to be addressed by this technical and regulatory guidance
document to eliminate the barriers to technology usage:

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
5
• approach to identify and evaluate appropriate performance specifications, tests, and
parameters
• appropriate implementation and post-implementation sampling and testing
• long-term stewardship to measure and verify long-term performance

Regulators and site owners must
evaluate remedial technologies
against appropriate criteria to
determine the most effective,
implementable, and appropriate
technology for a site. Perceived
barriers regarding the uncertainties
of the evaluation and performance
of the S/S technology could
influence the selection of realistic,
efficient, and cost-effective
remedial technologies. However,
the degree and likely sources of
uncertainty for S/S are not different
from those for many other remedial
technologies. Common sources of
uncertainty include errors,
variations or heterogeneities in data
inputs from site assessment and
site models, subsurface materials
and contamination levels, leaching
test results, decision-support
information, implementation,
conceptual models, performance
projections, and monitoring data.
These uncertainties present
challenges with respect to their
impact on the effectiveness and
performance evaluation process;
however, the degree of uncertainty
a project may tolerate should be
balanced with the associated risks
determined on a site-by-site basis.
Data uncertainties can be
minimized through (a) adequate
site characterization to define
heterogeneity in the subsurface, (b)
well-designed treatability programs
focusing on collection of
appropriately representative
materials to determine how best to
RCRA and S/S

Hazardous wastes that are treated using S/S technology may
be subject to regulation under RCRA and as amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
RCRA regulates the disposal of hazardous waste and sets
treatment standards. The LDRs included in the HSWA
prohibit land disposal of hazardous waste without prior
treatment as specified in the regulations. Land disposal is
defined by RCRA as “‘placement’ of hazardous waste in a
landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land
treatment facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation,
underground mine or cave, and concrete bunker or vault”
(EPA 1993c). LDRs may apply to a cleanup if “placement”
occurs after the effective date of the regulations.

A simple approach to determine whether RCRA and LDRs
apply to a cleanup is to step through a series of four
questions:

1. Does the cleanup action constitute placement?
2. If placement occurs, is the waste a RCRA hazardous
waste?
3. If the waste is a RCRA hazardous waste, is it also
restricted under the LDRs?
4. Was the waste originally disposed or released after the
effective date of the regulation?

When considering the first question, “placement” occurs if
waste is disposed off site, such as in a landfill. For on-site
disposal, determining “placement” relies on the concept of an
area of contamination (AOC) or the defined areal extent of
contiguous contamination. The movement of waste within the
confines of an individual AOC does not, in itself, constitute
“placement.” But once a waste has been removed from the
AOC, it cannot be returned without “placement” taking place.
In the case of the fourth question, if the waste was originally
disposed or released after the effective date of the
regulations, then the LDRs already apply and those wastes
must meet the LDR requirements regardless of whether or
not they are confined to an AOC.

The focus of this guidance document is to present a process
for developing performance criteria for S/S treatment that is
not itself directly linked to RCRA or LDR regulations. Because
the process for development of performance criteria also may
be applied to ex situ treatment of contaminated material, site
managers considering ex situ application of S/S should work
closely with the regulating agency(s) to determine whether
and how RCRA and LDRs may apply.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
6
apply the treatment and the most appropriate methods for evaluation of treatment effectiveness,
(c) appropriate performance specifications acting as a guide for the evaluation of S/S material
performance, (d) quality control (QC) and consistency testing during implementation to provide
field observation and verification during construction, and (e) long-term stewardship as a
benchmark for demonstrating and monitoring long-term performance. This document provides
background information and guidance which can reduce the uncertainties listed above associated
with evaluation of the S/S process such that barriers to S/S technology use may be minimized.
1.5 Document Organization
The document is organized following the general sequence of an S/S remediation project:

• Section 2 presents an overview of S/S technology.
• Section 3 describes the behavior of treated materials in subsurface environments and defines
performance specifications, key performance parameters, and available performance tests.
• Section 4 establishes a flowchart of the S/S design and implementation process, used as a
guide for subsequent sections, and describes how performance specifications are used.
• Sections 5 and 6 describe the treatability testing and implementation in the context of using
performance specifications.
• Section 7 discusses long-term stewardship considerations following implementation.
• Section 8 addresses potential stakeholder concerns related to the development of
performance specifications for S/S-treated materials.

Appendixes are included at the end of the document to present additional information as follows:

• Appendix A—common equipment used for S/S implementation
• Appendix B—emerging EPA leaching approaches, including examples addressing
contaminant release from S/S-treated materials
• Appendix C—case studies of S/S technology applications with particular emphasis on the
role of groundwater modeling in long-term stewardship strategies
2. SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
This section presents a brief overview of S/S. In-depth information on S/S can be found in the
literature cited in this document and elsewhere. Several useful references on the technology
include Conner (1990 and 1997), the United Kingdom Environment Agency
2
(2004a, 2004b),
EPA (1986, 1989, 1999a, 2009b, 2010d), Paria and Yuet (2006), Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI 2009a), and several state-of-the-practice reports produced by the U.K.
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s Stabilization/Solidification Treatment
and Remediation Network (STARNET), available at www-starnet.eng.cam.ac.uk. These
documents also contain numerous literature references for in-depth information on many
technical aspects of S/S.


2
Environment Agency is the environmental regulatory body of the United Kingdom.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
7
2.1 Technology Description
S/S is a remediation technology used to treat contaminated material. Typically, S/S includes
processes that mix inorganic cementitious/pozzolanic reagents into contaminated material to
transform it into a durable, solid, low–hydraulic conductivity material that reduces the rate of
contaminant migration through leaching. Although solidification and stabilization are defined
separately, they are often implemented simultaneously through a single treatment process. EPA
defines each as follows (EPA 2000):

Solidification involves the processes that encapsulate contaminated material to
form a solid material and restricts contaminant migration by decreasing the
surface area exposed to leaching and/or by coating the contaminated material with
low-permeability materials. Solidification can be accomplished by mechanical
processes that mix the material and one or more reagents. Solidification entraps
the contaminated material within a granular or monolithic matrix.

Stabilization involves the processes where chemical reactions occur between the
reagents and contaminated material to reduce the leachability of contaminated
material into a stable insoluble form. Stabilization chemically binds free liquids
and immobilizes contaminated materials or reduces their solubility through a
chemical reaction. The physical nature of the contaminated material may or may
not be changed significantly by this process.

The on-site application of S/S technology, as discussed in this document, leaves treated material
in place. Therefore, long-term stewardship is often required and is discussed in detail in
Section 7 of this document.
2.2 Contaminant Types Treated Using S/S
S/S technology has been used to treat both inorganic and organic contaminants (EPA 1993a).
Inorganic contaminants include metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, antimony, uranium, and zinc. Common organic contaminants present in
soil or waste include pesticides/herbicides, petroleum or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins/
furans.

Early literature concerning effectiveness of S/S on organic hazardous constituents noted the
possibility of the interference by organics with the setting of cement-based mixtures, and as a
result, a majority of S/S remedies were used for source control of inorganic contaminants (EPA
2007b), possibly leading readers to conclude that S/S treatment is not effective on organics.
However, current published case studies and other literature indicate that S/S technology can be
effective or potentially effective for a wide range of contaminants (see Table 2-1).

Frequently, contaminants at a site may be a complex mix of chemicals including both inorganic
and organic contaminants. The presence of multiple contaminants can complicate the
determination and application of this technology for effective S/S. Some examples of sites with
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
8
both inorganic and organic contaminants include manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites, wood-
treating sites, refineries, oil recycling facilities, and pesticide/herbicide manufacturing plants.

Table 2-1. Documented effectiveness of S/S treatment for chemical groups
Chemical groups
Citations for treatment effectiveness
a

EPA
1993a
b

EPA
2009b
b

Other references
c

Organic chemicals
HVOCs
d
N N D, with pretreatment (Paria and Yuet 2006)
N-HVOCs
d
N N D, with pretreatment (Paria and Yuet 2006)
HSVOCs
d
D D
N-HSVOCs, N-VOCs
d
D D
PCBs P D
Pesticides P D
Dioxins/furans P P D (Bates, Akindele, and Sprinkle 2002, PASSiFy
Project 2010)
Organic cyanides P P* D (Wilk 2007)
Organic corrosives P P* D (Wilk 2007)
Pentachlorophenol – – D (Bates, Akindele, and Sprinkle 2002, Wilk 2007)
Creosotes, coal tar – – D (Bates, Akindele, and Sprinkle 2002,Wilk 2007)
Heavy oils – – D (Wilk 2003)
Inorganic chemicals
Volatile metals D D*
Nonvolatile metals D D
Asbestos D D*
Radioactive materials D D
Inorganic corrosives
d
D D*
Inorganic cyanides
d
D D*
Mercury D D* EPA 2007b
Reactive chemicals
Oxidizers D D*
Reducers D D*
a
Key:
• N = no expected effectiveness, P = potential effectiveness, D = demonstrated effectiveness.
• P*/D* = S/S effectiveness was specifically stated in EPA 1993a but not in EPA 2009b; effectiveness is
assumed to be the same in 2009. EPA 2007b documents the selection and use of S/S at National Priorities List
(NPL) sites, but EPA does not indicate the effectiveness of the remedy.
• – = This chemical was not specifically discussed in EPA 1993a or 2009b, but effectiveness has been
documented in other references (see rightmost column).
b
See EPA references (EPA 1993a, 1993c, 2009b) on use of S/S for organics and inorganics and for site
remediation.
c
Other references provide S/S effectiveness for specific chemical groups for which EPA (1993a, 2009b) has not
specifically stated S/S effectiveness as “D.”
d
Halogenated volatile chemicals (HVOCs) include solvents, gases; nonhalogenated volatile chemicals (N-HVOCs)
include ketones/furans, aromatics; halogenated semivolatile chemicals (HSVOCs) include PCBs, pesticides,
chlorinated benzenes, chlorinated phenols; nonhalogenated semivolatile chemicals (N-HSVOCs) include PAHs,
nonchlorinated phenols; inorganic corrosives include hydrochloride (HCL), sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide,
potassium hydroxide; inorganic cyanides include salts of cyanide (CN

). N-VOCs = nonvolatile organic compounds.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
9

Table 2-1 summarizes how broad classes of inorganic and organic chemicals generally respond
to S/S treatment. This information is based on EPA reports evaluating the effectiveness of S/S
treatment technologies at Superfund sites (EPA 1993a, 2009b). For contaminant types not
included in these EPA documents (such as creosote and coal tars), additional documentation was
used to indicate effectiveness as shown in the table. In some cases, discrepancies exist in the
documented effectiveness reported in EPA references and other references. For example, the
EPA documents report no expected effectiveness for halogenated and nonhalogenated VOCs,
while Paria and Yuet (2006) document the effectiveness of S/S used along with pretreatment of
volatiles. This particular example illustrates that one integral part of a successful S/S treatment is
to determine site-specific and chemical-specific effectiveness through bench-scale treatability
studies (see Section 5).
2.3 General S/S Process
The S/S process involves the incorporation of reagents, additives, and water with contaminated
media to produce a material with improved physical and chemical properties. The overall process
commonly includes (a) the establishment of material performance specifications based on
remediation goals, (b) treatability studies intended to develop an appropriate mix design of
reagents and additives which addresses material performance specifications and refines
implementation techniques and construction performance specifications, (c) mobilization of field
equipment and implementation of the S/S mix design on a field scale, and (d) monitoring of
material performance after the remediation process is completed.
2.3.1 Reagents and Additives
S/S process options can generally be grouped into cementitious reagent processes and/or surface
adsorption reagent processes (organophilic clay and thermoplastics or other synthetic polymers).
Cementitious reagents are the most common commercially employed S/S process options due, in
part, to low cost and availability. Cementitious and/or pozzalanic reagents include portland
cement, fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, silica fume, cement kiln dust, various
forms of lime, and lime kiln dust. Although these reagents may be used singly or in various
combinations, portland cement is by far the most widely used.

Since most organic compounds do not bond with cementitious minerals produced by hydration
of S/S reagents, these contaminants are typically physically entrapped with the treated material.
However, the use of additives with sorptive properties can improve the efficiency of S/S
treatment for organics and, along with proper mixing technique, may offset interferences noted
in the literature between organic compounds and setting properties of cement-based materials
(Conner 1997). For example, the adsorptive properties of organophilic clay, when added to the
S/S mix design, can result in reduced leaching of the organic compounds through chemical
adsorption onto clay particles (Faschan, Tittlebaum, and Cartledge 1996). The clay particles are
typically not involved in cementitious setting reactions but are encapsulated into the treated
material. In addition to organophilic clay, other examples of useful additives include bentonite,
activated carbon, phosphates, rubber particulates, and chemical gellants.

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
10
Further detail on the types and properties of various reagents and additives can be found in Paria
and Yuet (2006), Environment Agency (2004b), and Conner (1990, 1997), among others.
Decisions regarding the use of reagents and additives should be made on a site-specific basis.
2.3.2 Mixing
The S/S process typically involves either the addition of reagents to water (to form a grout or
paste) or the addition of dry reagents. The addition of dry reagents is more common. The
selection of the type of reagent is influenced by contaminant characteristics and site conditions
such as depth of mixing and moisture content. Dry addition is typically feasible for only
relatively shallow mixing operations; however, the generation of fugitive dust may be a concern
unless it is mitigated by use of suitable equipment and controls. The S/S process then involves
mixing the dry reagent or grout or paste with the contaminated material, using mechanical
mixing equipment.
2.3.2.1 Mixing equipment
The selection of the type of mixing equipment is influenced by contaminant characteristics and
site conditions, such as the depth and geometry of the impacted media; the presence of
subsurface debris or very dense soil; the presence of buildings, railways, utilities, and other
structures; and the proximity of surface water bodies. Appendix A of this document provides an
overview of equipment options for shallow and deep soil S/S applications. Detailed descriptions
can be found in Al-Tabbaa and Perara (2002), Environment Agency (2004b), and EPRI (2009a),
among others.
2.3.2.2 Mixing process
For shallow S/S applications with contaminated material depths of approximately 6 m (20 feet)
or less, the area to be treated is typically divided into grid cells. The size of a grid cell is often
determined by the area and depth that the mixing equipment can reach with minimal need for
relocation, the type of equipment used for mixing, the grout batch volume capacity of the batch
plant equipment, and the frequency of QC sampling and testing.

When the contaminated material is at depths greater than approximately 6 m (20 feet), the S/S
project is a candidate for in situ treatment through deep soil mixing (DSM) applications using a
single large-diameter auger or a multiple auger tool. In these applications, the mix column depth
and diameter dictate the volume per unit of production and the corresponding grout volume/
batches required for each setup location. Figure 2-1 is a conceptual illustration of an in situ S/S
DSM application.

In both shallow and deep in situ S/S applications, the overall production rate is often controlled
by the production rate of the batch plant and the mixing time required for thorough
homogenization of the contaminated material and reagents to achieve the desired solidification
and/or stabilization reactions.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
11
Figure 2-1. Conceptual in situ S/S model. Source: Modified from Palaia 2007.

If mixing occurs in situ, the treated material is left in place to “cure” or “set.” When mixed ex
situ, the treated material is placed into an on-site waste consolidation cell, spread into lifts of
uniform thickness, compacted, and allowed to cure. Assuming the reagents and water are
adequately mixed into the contaminated material, the ultimate physical and chemical properties
of the treated material are determined largely by the ratio of the dry weight of reagent (content or
dosage) to the initial in-place soil mass before mixing.

In addition to the mixing system, a typical S/S project also uses a batch/grout plant that consists
of storage silos, metering and blending devices, and pumps. Auxiliary equipment that may be
used for S/S projects includes specialty equipment such as shrouds equipped with air controls to
capture fugitive emissions during the mixing operation.
2.4 S/S Technology Advantages and Limitations
Use of S/S to treat contaminated material has resulted in development of reliable information
regarding effectiveness and other factors that are typically considered in the process to evaluate
and select site remedial actions. In considering use of S/S technology, a sound understanding of
site conditions is important, as well as an understanding of the practical outcomes and limitations
of the technology.

S/S technology is applicable for a relatively broad range of contaminants and may be feasible
when limitations to other technologies are imposed by site or contaminated material conditions.
General non-site-specific advantages and challenges of S/S technology are listed below
(Environment Agency 2004a, EPRI 2009a). As with use of any technology, site-specific
conditions determine the potential feasibility and effectiveness of S/S and therefore also
determine the applicability of the advantages and challenges listed.

S/S Technology Advantages
• effective in treating many inorganic contaminated materials
• has been shown effective in treating some materials contaminated with organic chemicals
• option for treating recalcitrant or mixed contaminants
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
12
• may address NAPL through S/S treatment process
• often reaches fixed treatment end point in a relatively short period of time
• can improve structural property of soil, waste, and sludge (e.g., strength) to facilitate
consideration of land beneficial reuse
• applicable for in situ or ex situ treatment
• has been applied in dry or wet conditions, reducing dewatering and waste management issues
• generally uses simple, readily available equipment and materials
• on-site management of contaminated materials conserves landfill space and does not require
transportation off site
• may be more cost-effective than excavation and off-site disposal

S/S Technology Challenges
• contaminants are not destroyed or removed; long-term stewardship may be required
• effectiveness for certain contaminants (such as some organics or highly mobile species) may
require additional measures in testing and design
• potential changes in physical setting (e.g., groundwater flow, mounding) may need to be assessed
• uncertainties associated with prediction of long-term behavior
• options for treatment or post-treatment modifications limited by time for field performance
testing and changed properties of treated material
• volume increases that occur in the treated mass may require management
• requires removal of debris or underground obstructions prior to treatment
2.5 Long-Term Performance
As outlined in Section 1, uncertainty over the long-term performance, durability, and reliability
is a barrier to selection of S/S in some instances, due in part to limited knowledge of research
and literature available on the subject. Several useful references address this topic in detail, both
from case studies and predictive modeling (Perara et al. 2004a, EPRI 2003, Environment Agency
2004b). The combined experience of the ITRC S/S Team indicates that some in the regulatory
community perceive that solidified materials will degrade over time as a result of one or more of
the following: internal chemical reactions; geochemical and/or biological reactions with the
surrounding environment; and physical mechanisms such as settlement, wet-dry cycling, or
freeze-thaw cycling. However, degradation mechanisms for S/S materials typically are slow to
manifest significant alteration of material properties which control contaminant release. Section
7.1 describes long-term durability and performance in more detail.
3. PERFORMANCE OF S/S-TREATED MATERIALS
This section provides a detailed discussion of how S/S-treated materials behave when placed in
the subsurface, the key parameters that best describe performance of S/S-treated materials, and
tests that can be used to measure these key parameters. The term “performance,” in this context,
refers to the ability of the S/S-treated material or remedy to maintain its function of minimizing
release of contaminants to the environment. Thus, performance of S/S-treated materials should
consider the behavior of the material both immediately after implementation as well as the
longer-term aspects of material durability and site monitoring/maintenance.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
13
3.1 S/S-Treated Materials in Subsurface Environments
Several factors may play a role in the physical and environmental performance of cement-based
materials, as shown schematically in Figure 3-1. Although this figure is complex, performance
relies on combinations of these factors such that small variances in the internal or external
stresses typically to not lead to catastrophic failure of the treated material performance. Internal
and external factors affecting S/S performance are also described in Table 3-1.
Figure 3-1. Internal and external stresses influencing the performance of S/S-treated
materials. Source: Modified from Garrabrants and Kosson 2005.
3.1.1 Internal Stresses
Internal stresses listed within the cube include chemical and physical factors inherent to the
material as well as site-specific parameters which are based on the placement of the S/S material
into the subsurface. Many of the chemical and physical factors may be addressed during the
treatability to maximize retention of contaminants.

The primary physical factors that can affect performance of S/S-treated material are its unit
particle size (e.g., granular or monolithic material), hydraulic conductivity, and porosity. Of
these, hydraulic conductivity is the most important in that the way in which groundwater
contacts the material is controlled by the relative hydraulic conductivity of the soil and S/S-
treated material.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
14
Table 3-1. Impact of internal and external factors (see Figure 3-1) on S/S performance
Factor Impact on performance
C
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

f
a
c
t
o
r
s

Equilibrium vs. kinetics Equilibrium-controlled (e.g., steady-state) concentrations are generally higher than kinetic-controlled (e.g.,
time-based) concentrations such as some hydration and degradation reactions.
pH Solubility of inorganic species and organic carbon can be a strong function of pH.
Liquid-to-solid ratio (L/S) At low L/S, ionic strength increases, which can increase the solubility of some species.
Maximum leachability Fraction of total content that is leachable (i.e., availability) provides driving force for leaching.
Complexation Some contaminants form soluble complexes (e.g., CdCl
2
, Pb-acetate, dissolved organic carbon [DOC]–
PAHs), which increase aqueous concentrations and leaching rates.
Redox potential S/S mix designs may result in reducing conditions. Oxidation of reduced contaminant speciation, such as
Cr(III)→Cr(IV), can increase concentrations, toxicity, and leaching rates.
Sorption Surface interactions with mineral phases (e.g., iron, aluminum, and manganese oxides; calcium silicates)
can reduce porewater concentrations of some contaminants.
Biological activity Acids produced by biological activity can alter pore chemistry and locally degrade minerals.
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

f
a
c
t
o
r
s

Particle size Unit particle size dictates whether material is monolithic or granular. Mean particle size of contaminated
material (e.g., finely grained or gravely) may influence selection of reagents.
Hydraulic conductivity Water contact mode (e.g., flow through or flow around) is dictated by relative hydraulic conductivity of S/S
material and surrounding soil.
Pore structure Materials with large, connected pores generally have higher hydraulic conductivity, whereas lower
hydraulic conductivity may be seen in materials with smaller or disconnected pores.
S
i
t
e

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Groundwater flow rate Fast-moving groundwater limits contact time with the surface of S/S materials but may result in sufficient
hydraulic head to force groundwater through the material pore structure.
Fill geometry Flux-based release of contaminants is proportional to the bulk surface area of the S/S fill.
Temperature Higher temperatures increase the rate of chemical reactions (e.g., mineral dissolution).
Hydrogeological conditions Determine water contact mode, liquid-to-solid ratios, infiltration rates, active surface area for leaching.
Moisture transport Leaching from an S/S material is discontinued during drying; gas-phase reactions (e.g., oxidation,
carbonation) require a pore vapor space for transport (i.e., partially dried material).
Leachant composition Acids, chelants, and organic carbon may alter solubility of surface/near-surface minerals and contaminants.
Environmental attack Several species in the surrounding environment may accelerate leaching or degradation of the mineral
structure through pH or redox changes and expansive precipitation reactions.
Leaching Release of mineral phases increases pore diameters and connectivity, potentially leading to increase in
hydraulic conductivity and increased release rates.
Cracking All S/S materials have cracks on the micro and macro scales; formation of larger-aperture through-cracks
may increase hydraulic conductivity but does not equate to catastrophic failure as complete through-cracks
simply result in two monoliths of the same performance characteristics.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
15
Although Figure 3-1 shows many chemical factors influencing performance, the most important
chemical factor with respect to S/S-treated material is the pH of the material as it relates to both
leaching performance (e.g., contaminant speciation) and structural performance (e.g., dissolution
of strength-providing mineral phases). In cement-based materials, alkalinity and the ability of the
material to buffer acids, known as the acid neutralization capacity, are based on precipitation and
dissolution of Ca(OH)
2
and calcium silicate hydrate minerals, which form during hydration and
curing of reagents.

Inorganic constituents in the S/S mass may be initially incorporated within mineral structures
(e.g., strontium or barium substituting for calcium), adsorbed to mineral surfaces or organic
matter, precipitated as solids within pore spaces, or dissolved within the liquid phase held within
the pore structure (i.e., the porewater). Since several of these retention mechanisms (e.g., mineral
and precipitate dissolution, adsorption/desorption reactions, and aqueous solubility of inorganic
species) may be strongly pH dependent, porewater pH is considered a controlling variable for the
equilibrium-based leaching of many inorganic contaminants.

The pH of the alkaline porewater within the treated material directly affects retention of
inorganic constituents by changing speciation of contaminants. Porewater pH also affects the
sorption characteristics of the mineral surfaces of the material (van der Sloot 2002; Garrabrants,
Sanchez, and Kosson 2004; Dijkstra, van der Sloot, and Comans 2006; Carter, van der Sloot, and
Cooling 2009). The combined effects lead to changes in the solubility of inorganic contaminants
with pH, as shown in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2. Solubility of cationic metals (hydroxides) and oxyanions (calcium salts) as a
function of solution pH.

Most heavy metals form cationic hydroxide species in the porewater of S/S-treated materials.
Figure 3-2 shows that the solubility of these hydroxides is strongly affected by pH and passes
through a point of minimal solubility in the pH range 9–12. However, oxyanionic contaminants
such as arsenates, chromates, and molybdates are less influenced by pH in the same pH range.

When organic contaminants are of concern, pH plays only an indirect but equally important role
in leaching. Organic contaminants in S/S materials tend to be concentrated in isolated organic
0.00000001
0.0000001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
6 8 10 12 14
pH
C
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
o
l
/
L
]
Pb
Zn
Cd
Cu
Ni
Co
0.0000001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10 11 12 13 14
pH
O
x
y
a
n
i
o
n

[
m
o
l
/
L
]
CaSeO
4
CaMoO
4
Ca
4
(OH)
2
(AsO
4
)
2
CaCrO
4
Ca
2
(AsO
4
)
2
2H
2
O
CaHAsO
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
16
phases (e.g., tars and greases) or adsorbed to particulate organic matter. S/S formulations may
include additives which specifically target organic constituents through sorption and reduce
leaching. Thus, the solubility of organic contaminants is not directly affected by changes in pH.
However, highly alkaline regimes promote dissolution of particulate organic matter (e.g., humic
and fulvic acids) and release of DOC, which can lead to increased contaminant concentrations in
the porewater (Butler 2009; Dijkstra, Meeussen, and Comans 2004; Roskam and Comans 2007,
and Raber et al. 1998). DOC can form aqueous complexes with some forms of organic
chemicals, especially PAHs, which in effect increase measured contaminant concentrations in
the porewater (EPRI 2009b).

To illustrate the potential for a
significant effect of organic-DOC
complexes at high pH, Figure 3-3
shows the relative concentrations of
DOC and total PAHs measured in a
leachate before and after removal
of the organic carbon through
flocculation.

Typically, addition of lime or
portland cement to under-
performing S/S recipes is thought
to improve performance. In some
cases, addition of portland cement
can help to stabilize a material into
forming a more monolithic
material; however, the highly alkaline porewater in the material may result in increased leaching.
Properly conducted and evaluated treatability studies (see Section 5) are essential to best tailor
the properties of S/S-treated material for retention of both inorganic and organic contaminants.
3.1.2 External Stresses
External stresses include those interactions or reactions shown outside the cube in Figure 3-1 that
tend to affect the long-term performance of the S/S treatment. These stresses may change the
chemical or physical properties of the material and influence performance in the long run. For
example, the physical durability of the S/S material may be influenced by cracking of the
monolithic structure (e.g., from freeze/thaw cycles or mechanical stress), whereas the ability of
the material to retain contaminants is more influenced by changes in chemistry (e.g.,
neutralization of porewater, precipitation reactions, changes in oxidation/reduction potential)
through interaction with the surrounding environment. However, depending on the specific
condition of the placement scenario, many of these aging and degradation processes are slow to
develop such that S/S treatment may remain effective for extended periods.
3.1.3 S/S Placement Relative to the Water Table
Since many S/S applications extend through the unsaturated or vadose zone into the water table,
the external conditions that influence an S/S material may lead to different performance outcomes.
Figure 3-3. pH-dependent leaching of DOC and
associated PAH concentrations from contaminated
sediment. Source: After Roskam and Comans 2003.
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 5 10 15
pH
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
D
O
C

(
m
g
/
L
)
PAH
PAH after flocculation
DOC
DOC after flocculation
Σ
1
6

P
A
H
s
[
µ
g
/
L
]
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 5 10 15
pH
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
D
O
C

(
m
g
/
L
)
PAH
PAH after flocculation
DOC
DOC after flocculation
PAH
PAH after flocculation
DOC
DOC after flocculation
Σ
1
6

P
A
H
s
[
µ
g
/
L
]
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
17

• Saturated zone. Groundwater flows as a result of hydraulic gradients. Depending on the
relative hydraulic conductivity between the S/S material and surrounding soils, groundwater
may either percolate through an S/S mass or be diverted around an S/S mass. As long as
upstream conditions (e.g., hydraulic head, groundwater composition) remain constant,
material properties will not change significantly with time and release from the S/S material
should be relatively predictable using a combination of equilibrium and mass transport
assessments. If the hydraulic conductivity is low relative to that of the surrounding material,
the rate of mass transport through the pore structure of the S/S material is often the rate-
limiting step in the release process.

• Vadose zone. Saturation and water contact is dependent on infiltration or recharge rates so
that S/S materials may be wetted only a portion of the time. The rate of infiltration is
typically much slower than the flow of groundwater, resulting in relatively long residence
times in the vadose zone. For materials with high hydraulic conductivity (e.g., most soils),
the mode of water contact in the vadose zone is percolation through the porous material;
however, materials with low hydraulic conductivity (e.g., S/S applications) may see limited
percolation. Under percolation conditions, release in the vadose zone is typically dominated
by equilibrium between solids and infiltrating liquids. In vadose zone placement situations,
vertical transport models, such as percolation modeling approaches, may be useful in
determining infiltration parameters.

The most significant aging processes for S/S materials placed in the saturated zone are
primarily the result of contact with constituents in the groundwater. For example, although
the formation of ettringite during hydration of reagents may be beneficial for contaminant
retention (Klemm 1998), delayed ettringite formation resulting from contact of cured
material with high sulfate concentrations can lead to cracking and spalling of the monolithic
material (Collepardi 2003). However, degradation processes that can strongly influence long-
term performance of S/S materials are common in the vadose zone as well. Seasonal rise and
fall of the water table may result in fatigue associated with cycles of wetting and drying,
cycles of freezing and thawing, and interaction/reactions with soil gas components.

• Moisture cycling (wetting/drying). As in any cementitious material, shrinkage cracking
inevitably occurs upon curing and cyclic wetting and drying. However, these cracks are not
likely to compromise the integrity of the S/S material until cracking is sufficiently advanced
to increase the hydraulic conductivity, resulting in a more significant preferential
groundwater flow through the S/S mass. In terms of leaching, intervals of drying where no
continuous external aqueous solution exists result in a lower overall release compared to
continuously wetted materials; however, relaxation of diffusion profiles in the porewater may
still occur which ultimately leads to redistribution of contaminants toward the surface of the
S/S material (Garrabrants 2001). When the material is saturated during the next wetting
period, contaminants may readily partition into the infiltrating water and be carried by
gravity into the subsurface. The durability of S/S materials upon wetting and drying may be
evaluated using ASTM D4843 (ASTM 2009), while the effect of wetting and drying on the
leaching process may be characterized following literature approaches (Garrabrants et al.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
18
2002; Garrabrants and Kosson 2003; Sanchez, Garrabrants, and Kosson 2003; Gervais et al.
2004).

• Temperature cycling (freezing/thawing). The constrained expansion of porewater upon
freezing can lead to significant stress or loading in brittle small-pore material such as S/S-
treated contaminated material. The stress caused by the increase in molar volume of ice over
water causes a strain or deformation within the pore structure. If the strain is greater than the
strength of the material, the material inelastically deforms by cracking. Testing of S/S
materials for freezing and thawing durability may be conducted using ASTM C1262 (ASTM
2010a). The primary effect of freezing and thawing is an increase in hydraulic conductivity,
leading to potentially higher infiltration. Since freezing occurs only above the frost line,
however, subsurface applications of S/S materials are not especially susceptible to cracking
via freeze/thaw cycles.

• Gas-phase reactions. Carbonation and oxidation are common gas-phase reactions that have
the potential to change material properties and leaching characteristics over time. These
reactions occur when cementitious materials are exposed to a soil gas in the unsaturated
zone. Carbonation results from the reaction of carbon dioxide with hydroxides in the alkaline
porewater of the S/S material, and several studies explain the carbonation process and its
effects on S/S materials (Ho and Lewis 1987; Papadakis, Vayenas, and Fardis 1991;
Krishnan and Sotirchos 1994; Bonen and Sarkar 1995; Ngala and Page 1997; Johannesson
and Utgenannt 2001; Garrabrants, Sanchez, and Kosson 2004; van Gerven et al. 2007; Chen
et al. 2009). Oxidation via the soil gas phase may be a concern, especially in the cases where
a reducing agent was added to treat a redox-sensitive contaminant (e.g., chromium, arsenic,
technetium, etc.). Testing of material properties for the effects of gas-phase reactions usually
involves comparison of exposed materials to unexposed materials using otherwise standard
performance parameter tests.

• Physical degradation (cracking and erosion). Although not commonly considered a
significant degradation mechanism for subsurface S/S materials, the perceived catastrophic
failure of S/S materials due to the cracking or erosion has been noted. The formation of
cracks in S/S materials (and all cement-based materials) is expected as water is incorporated
into mineral phases as a result of forces or loads working on the S/S mass due to seismic
activity or to expansive precipitation reactions occurring within the pore structure as a result
of aging. Discontinuous micro- and macro-scale cracks are normal and do not affect the
performance of S/S materials. Wide-aperture through-cracks (i.e., a single crack traversing
the entire monolith with a width sufficient to allow water to pass) may be observed.
However, the effect on contaminant retention is minimal as the through-crack simply results
in two monoliths with the same performance characteristics and slightly more exposed
surface area. Taken to an extreme, cracking could result in erosion into a granular material;
however, this case is not likely to happen for most well-designed S/S applications with the
timeframe of most environmental assessment intervals. As a source of cracking and erosion,
seismic activity is considered a low-probability occurrence; however, some states may have
requirements concerning the ability of the S/S material to withstand seismic forces.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
19
3.2 Performance Specifications
The performance of S/S-treated materials may be described, monitored, and demonstrated by
following a few critical performance specifications. “Performance specifications” refer to the
collection of performance-related parameters, tests, and criteria used to develop an S/S treatment
recipe and implementation plan that meets material performance goals after implementation. The
different components of a performance specification are defined as follows:

• Performance Parameters—the material properties characteristic of the ability of an S/S-
treated material to carry out its intended purpose.
• Performance Tests—protocols or challenges used to characterize a performance parameter of
an S/S-treated material and which return one or more measurements considered
representative of the performance parameter.
• Performance Criteria—design values of a performance parameter used for comparison to
performance measurements to evaluate whether acceptable performance has been achieved.
Performance criteria may be regulatory goals established for cleanup of a contaminated site
or material parameter values considered adequate for meeting established site remediation or
regulatory goals.

As an illustration of these definitions, leachability may be considered a primary performance
parameter used to assess the ability of a material to retain a specific set of site contaminants of
concern (COCs). A common performance test that may be used to measure leachability of S/S
materials is the EPA’s Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP), also known as SW-
846 Method 1312 (EPA 1994). The resultant SPLP eluate concentrations represent performance
measurements describing the leachability of the S/S material. These performance measurements
are typically compared to a set of predefined concentrations or action levels used as performance
criteria to determine whether the solid material will leach beyond acceptable limits.
3.3 Key Performance Parameters for S/S-Treated Materials
This section describes relevant performance criteria that may be used as indicators of the
performance and long-term permanence of S/S applications and provides specific
recommendations on methods to measure these criteria. Users of this document will not always
include all of the performance criteria in every project, and specific recommended methods may
not be useful or appropriate in every case. However, these recommended methods provide the
best available determination of relevant performance criteria and, thus, are preferred in most
situations.
3.3.1 Strength
The strength of a material represents the ability of the material structure to withstand an applied
physical stress without incurring structural deformation leading to structural failure. Several
different measurements of strength, including flexural, tensile, and compressive strength, may be
important for S/S materials. However, compressive strength, which relates to the capacity of a
material to withstand axially directed pushing forces, typically measured as unconfined
compressive strength (UCS), is the most common strength parameter for S/S materials.

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
20
Compressive strength is typically monitored as an S/S performance parameter to ensure that a
chemical reaction of binder and water has taken place. Criteria for minimum compressive
strength are established such that the S/S material will have at least as much bearing strength as
the surrounding soil to support the loads imposed by the equipment used in implementation;
however, high strength values may be required depending on other considerations, such as future
use of the site. A secondary purpose for testing strength during the S/S treatment process is as an
indirect indicator of durability. As a rule of thumb, materials with higher initial compressive
strength are typically considered to be more resistant to aging. Thus, strength may be used as an
indicator during treatability studies for selecting appropriate S/S treatment additives to maximize
durability as well as a monitor of performance during S/S application.
3.3.2 Hydraulic Conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity
3
is a measureable material property related to ease of movement of water
through a porous medium under groundwater flow conditions governed by Darcy’s Law (Bear
1972). However, the parameter that controls the mode of water contact is not simply the
hydraulic conductivity of the S/S material, but the relative hydraulic conductivities of the S/S
material (K
S/S
) and the surrounding soil (K
soil
). In the subsurface, groundwater flows along the
path of least resistance and, thus, is diverted around lower–hydraulic conductivity materials and
through material with high hydraulic conductivity. The following three possible water contact
scenarios exist based on relative hydraulic conductivity between S/S-treated materials and
surrounding soils:

• K
S/S
<< K
soil
—For most S/S materials, the hydraulic conductivity is significantly less than
that of the surrounding soil. Thus, groundwater is diverted around the compacted granular or
monolithic materials of low hydraulic conductivity such that the majority of contacting water
flows around the solid matrix. In such “flow-around” water contact scenarios, the material
surface area exposed to leaching is minimized to the outer surface of the material, and the
rate of contaminant mass transport (i.e., diffusion plus associated physical and chemical
retention) through the pore structure of the low–hydraulic conductivity material limits the
release into the groundwater. In these scenarios, leaching may be represented as a time-
dependent flux or cumulative release of a constituent across a unit surface area.

• K
S/S
>> K
soil
—When the hydraulic conductivity of the treated material is significantly greater
than that of the surrounding soil (e.g., if the treated material is unconsolidated granular or
poorly engineered monolithic material), groundwater flows through the highly permeable
material. In this “flow-through” or percolation water contact mode, the pore surface area of
the material is exposed to groundwater. The rate of percolation may be slow enough that the
release of constituents into infiltrating water may be well described by the partitioning


3
“Hydraulic conductivity” is often used interchangeably with the more general term “permeability” relating to the
ease with which a fluid (e.g., water, oil, air, etc.) will pass through a porous medium. Although similar, permeability
depends on the properties of both the material and the penetrating fluid, whereas hydraulic conductivity depends on
only the properties of the material structure. Hydraulic conductivity is recommended as more appropriate as the S/S
performance parameter, as it is more easily measured independent of fluid properties, and thus “permeability” will
be used in this document only as a relative term (e.g., one material is more permeable than another).
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
21
between the solid and liquid phases. As groundwater passes through the material, more
soluble mineral phases are dissolved, and release can be expressed as a function of the
amount of liquid passing through the material (e.g., the liquid-to-solid ratio under percolation
release).

• K
S/S
≈ K
soil
—In cases where the hydraulic conductivity values of the treated material and
surrounding soil are approximately the same, both percolation and flow-around water contact
modes exist, and both release mechanisms should be considered.

The impact of water contact mode on S/S-treated material performance is linked to leaching
concentrations. Since contaminant concentrations are significantly higher for partitioning
between solid and liquid phases than typical concentrations resulting from mass transport
release, the mode of water contact is extremely important, and relative hydraulic conductivity of
the S/S material is recommended as a key performance parameter.

Table 3-2 presents the typical hydraulic conductivity values for several material types.
Permeability is used to empirically relate the hydraulic conductivity of one material to another. The
hydraulic conductivity value can range from approximately 10
–2
cm/s for sandy soils to 10
–9
cm/s
for rocks and clays. In many cases, S/S-treated materials with hydraulic conductivity values
similar to silty clay (e.g., on the order of 10
–7
cm/s) are desirable to reduce the potential for
contaminant migration.

Table 3-2. Hydraulic conductivity of select porous media (Source: Dagan 1989)
Soil type
Hydraulic conductivity, K
(cm/s)
Degree of permeability
Gravel >10
–1
Very high
Sandy gravel, clean sand, fine sand 10
–1
–10
–3
High to medium
Sand, dirty sand, silty sand 10
–3
–10
–5
Low
Silt, silty clay 10
–5
–10
–7
Very low
Clay, limestone, dolomite 10
–7
–10
–9
Virtually impermeable
3.3.3 Leachability
“Leaching” is defined as the process of release of a constituent from a solid into a contacting
liquid. The term “leachability” may be used to describe either the extent of leaching (e.g.,
percentage of total content that has leached) or rate of release (e.g., the time-dependent release)
from materials. The mechanisms controlling the extent and rate of leaching include a combination
of chemical reactions at the material surface and mass transport through the material pore structure.
Chemical reactions determine the partitioning between the solid and liquid phases (e.g., using the
local equilibrium assumption) whereas the mass transport (i.e., the summation of diffusion,
hindered diffusion, tortuosity effects, effective surface area, etc.) describes the movement of a
contaminant through the pore structure of the material to the environment. Depending on material-
specific factors and release scenario conditions (see Figure 3-1), equilibrium and/or mass transfer
may control the leaching process in S/S-treated materials.

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
22
Leaching of contaminants into groundwater or infiltrating precipitation may be considered the
principal pathway for the release of nonvolatile contaminants into the environment. The release
of VOCs is determined by a combination of both leaching and volatilization into subsurface air
space. Since a principal objective of S/S treatment is to reduce contaminant mobility, leaching is
a key performance parameter for S/S materials in most cases.
3.4 Performance Tests
For most performance parameters, the recorded value is somewhat determined by the test used to
measure the parameter. For example, hydraulic conductivity may be determined by a falling head
method or a constant head method, which can provide slightly different results. The following
paragraphs discuss available test methods for each of the key performance parameters.
3.4.1 Unconfined Compressive Strength
ASTM D1633 (ASTM 2007) is a UCS measurement method specific to soil-cement material
molded into cylindrical test specimens that is appropriate for monolithic S/S-treated materials.
The ASTM method provides two alternative procedures based on specimen size and component
particle size. UCS is expressed as the load per unit area in units of pounds per square inch (psi)
or kilonewtons per square meter (kN/m
2
) at structural failure of the material. The UCS of an S/S-
treated material is likely to increase with curing time until setting is complete (e.g., the measured
UCS values of a material cured for 3 days and 28 days are not expected to be the same).
Therefore, the duration of cure time and quality of the curing conditions should be taken into
consideration when interpreting the results of UCS tests.

When S/S treatment results in an encapsulated granular material, ASTM D2166 (ASTM 2006)
may be used to provide an approximate measure of the compressive strength in a cohesive
molded sample in terms of total stresses. For granular materials, UCS is expressed as the load per
unit area in units of pounds per square inch or kilonewtons per square meter at 15% axial strain.
3.4.2 Hydraulic Conductivity
The hydraulic conductivity of S/S materials and surrounding soils may be determined by either
field or laboratory tests. ASTM D5084 (ASTM 2010b) is the most common method used for
determining saturated hydraulic conductivity of S/S material and saturated soils. However, if
surrounding soils are unsaturated or are coarse-grained, field tests rather than laboratory methods
may be needed to accurately measure hydraulic conductivity.

In general, hydraulic conductivity tests measure the rate at which water passes through a sample
relative to an applied hydraulic head. The hydraulic conductivity of the material is calculated
from the test results using formulas based on Darcy’s Law (Ho and Lewis 1987; Papadakis,
Vayenas, and Fardis 1991; Krishnan and Sotirchos 1994; Bonen and Sarkar 1995; Ngala and
Page 1997; Johannesson and Utgenannt 2001; Garrabrants, Sanchez, and Kosson 2004; van
Gerven et al. 2007; Chen et al. 2009).

In the laboratory, hydraulic conductivity tests are carried out on small samples of material
formed in the laboratory or field-collected during implementation. Field collection of specimens
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
23
drilled or cored from cured materials should be avoided as the integrity of the sample cannot be
guaranteed. Depending on the flow pattern imposed through the soil sample, the laboratory
methods for measuring hydraulic conductivity may be classified as either constant-head tests
with a steady-state flow regimen or falling-head tests with a non-steady-state flow regimen. The
constant head test method is best applied to permeable materials (K > 10
–4
cm/s), and the falling
head test is mainly used for less permeable materials (K < 10
–4
cm/s). Because of the small
sample sizes, the results of these tests are considered a point representation of the material
properties. If the samples used in the laboratory test are considered undisturbed specimens of
field materials (e.g., soils sampled using Shelby tubes), the measured value of hydraulic
conductivity may be a true representation of the in situ saturated hydraulic conductivity at a
particular sampling point. Complex sites with varying soil stratigraphy may require extensive
hydraulic conductivity testing to adequate characterize site materials.
3.4.3 Leachability
The leachability of a material is most often characterized from the results of one or more
leaching tests. Van der Sloot, Heasman, and Quevauviller (1997) have noted that more than 50
leaching tests exist in the literature. However, of the available test methods designed for various
purposes and materials, many tests differ in only minor ways such that a limited number of
carefully selected tests can cover a wide range of possible exposure conditions.

Current EPA regulatory leaching tests are intended to provide a leachate that is representative of
field leachates found either in a municipal solid waste landfill in the case of the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, EPA Method 1311) or after contact with acid rain in
the case of SPLP. These leaching tests often are required at the state and federal regulatory levels
for environmental purposes.
4
With respect to TCLP in particular, the EPA Science Advisory
Board (EPA 1991, 1999b) and others (Kosson et al. 2002; Garrabrants and Kosson 2005) have
noted several additional limitations which have bearing on leachability assessment for S/S
materials. Although directed at TCLP, many of these limitations are equally applicable to SPLP.

• TCLP is over-broadly applied as the basis for leaching assessment for scenarios and
materials for which the method was not designed (e.g., leaching assessments on S/S
materials).
• The end-point pH of the TCLP or SPLP extraction is not required to be reported by the
method; however, the final-extraction pH is essential if the test results are to be compared
either between materials (e.g., treated and untreated materials) or in the context of the results
other leaching tests.
• Simulation scenarios used to develop acceptance or action levels are not realistic and do not
consider the long-term chemical and physical reactions (e.g., neutralization, carbonation,
oxidation) which can significantly alter release and are common to many disposal or
placement scenarios.


4
Other similar procedures (e.g., California Waste Extraction Test, or WET) may be required on a state-by-state
basis.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
24
• Like many equilibrium-based tests, the TCLP and SPLP methods require particle size
reduction and, thus, do not account for time-dependent release of contaminants from
monolithic low–hydraulic conductivity materials.

Both TCLP and SPLP are single-batch extraction procedures which are broadly used, in part,
because they are easy to conduct and provide results that are simple to interpret relative to
permissible concentration limits. However, each of these procedures yields only a single data
point and provides no understanding of the underlying release-controlling mechanisms (e.g.,
equilibrium or mass transfer) or rate of leaching. Thus, there is no way to account for how the
many influential material properties (e.g., alkaline buffering, monolithic nature of S/S materials)
or external factors (e.g., groundwater diversion, low hydraulic conductivity) affect the release of
contaminants into groundwater.
3.4.3.1 Flux-based leaching tests
S/S treatment technology often relies on the formation of a monolithic treated material such that
the majority of the contacting groundwater flows around the treated material. Within the pore
structure of S/S-treated materials, contaminants partition between solid surfaces and the
porewater. Dissolved contaminants move by diffusion through the pore structure of the material
toward the material surface exposed to groundwater. Since the rate of diffusion typically is slow
compared to the rate of chemical reactions at the porewater/solid interface, mass transport of
contaminants through the material often controls the rate of release from S/S-treated materials.
Thus, leaching methods which use particle size reduction to approach equilibrium do not fully
describe the dominant rate-controlling release mechanism in S/S materials. Thus, flux-based
leaching tests are considered more appropriate for monolithic materials as these tests capture the
time-dependent release of contaminants.

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) test method ANS 16.1, Measurement of the Leachability
of Solidified Low-Level Radioactive Wastes by a Short-Term Test Procedure (ANS 2003), is a
common flux-based test, initially designed for cement-stabilized low-activity waste in the
nuclear waste industry. ANS 16.1 is often used to estimate the time-dependent release of
contaminants from other solidified materials, including S/S materials. Variations on the basic
tank leaching method have addressed one concern of ANS 16.1: that release rates may be
suppressed if concentrations in the leachate are allowed to build up. This concern has been
addressed by adjusting the schedule of exchanges to provide a net-forward rate of release (e.g.,
ASTM C1308 Accelerated Leach Test, 2002) or by using ion-exchange resin to remove ions
from solution during longer-duration leaching intervals (e.g., the Simulated Infinite Dilution
Leach Test).
3.4.3.2. Emerging EPA leaching tests
In an effort to better support environmental management decisions, the EPA Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery
5
has selected the four leaching methods of the Leaching
Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF; www.vanderbilt.edu/leaching) for inclusion into


5
Formerly the EPA Office of Solid Waste.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
25
SW-846, the EPA compendium of laboratory methods (EPA 2010a). Each of the four LEAF
leaching tests is design to characterize leaching as a function of a primary controlling factor
shown in Figure 3-1. Preliminary versions of EPA methods or premethods
6
of the LEAF
leaching test are described in brief below; details of LEAF can be found in Appendix B.

• PreMethod 1313. Liquid-solid partitioning (LSP) is determined as a function of the eluate
pH in a short-duration, equilibrium-based, parallel-batch leaching procedure. Similar to most
equilibrium-based leaching tests, the procedure requires particle size reduction to facilitate
the approach to equilibrium. The method can be adapted for organic constituents if steps are
taken to minimize adsorption of organics onto surfaces of the leaching vessels.

• PreMethod 1314. PreMethod 1314 is an equilibrium-based, up-flow percolation column test
used to characterize the LSP between a high–hydraulic conductivity material and a
percolating liquid phase as a function of the L/S. For S/S materials, eluate concentrations at
low L/S ratio provide an estimate of porewater concentrations. A modest degree of particle
size reduction is required to accommodate a column diameter of 5 cm. Column and tubing
materials may be easily modified to minimize absorption of organic constituents. Methods
development is ongoing to adapt collection techniques to address volatilization losses for
some organic compounds.

• PreMethod 1315. PreMethod 1315 is a flux-based leaching test for monolith or compacted
granular materials. This method is similar in structure to ANS 16.1 with minor variations in
the schedule of leachant collections and interpretation of results. Test samples are cast or
compacted into standard cylindrical molds and tested without particle size reduction to
determine the rate of mass transport of constituents through the material. Leaching data are
used to determine the mass flux and cumulative release across the material surface area
exposed to the leaching solution. Although this method is specified for inorganic
constituents, leachate collection modifications using absorption phases to manage low–
aqueous solubility compounds and minimize volatility losses have been developed and
applied to the leaching assessment of PAHs from soil/cement cores (EPRI 2009b).

• PreMethod 1316. The LSP is determined as a function of L/S in a manner analogous to
PreMethod 1314 but conducted in short-duration, parallel-batch structure. The results provide
an estimate of porewater concentrations at low L/S and show how equilibrium concentrations
change as water passes through a material. Particle size reduction is required to facilitate the
approach to equilibrium. PreMethod 1316 is well-suited for consistency testing in that the
results of this simple, short-term leaching method provide some indication of equilibrium
concentrations when the alkalinity of the material controls eluate pH. The method can be
adapted for organic constituents if adsorption of organics onto surfaces of the leaching
vessels is minimized.



6
Preliminary version denotes that this method has not been endorsed by EPA but is under consideration for
inclusion in SW-846. These methods have been submitted to the EPA Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery for interlaboratory validation studies to develop precision and bias information. The four LEAF
premethods are expected to be posted as draft methods on the EPA SW-846 website by the end of 2012.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
26
The LEAF leaching methods may be used and interpreted individually; however, considerable
advantages in predictive ability are provided by integration of the multiple LEAF methods with
leaching assessment approaches to establish a “source term” for contaminant release. Although
EPA guidance on the use of these tests remains outstanding, these alternative test methods are
likely to be recommended for environmental purposes where TCLP is not required by regulation
or best suited (e.g., demonstration of alternative treatment, beneficial-use applications, corrective
action).
3.5 Recommended Performance Parameters and Performance Test for S/S-Treated
Materials
Several test methods may be useful during the process of designing an appropriate S/S treatment
formulation and implementing an S/S technology. Table 3-3 presents recommended performance
parameters for treated materials, the associated performance measurement for each performance
parameter, and examples of appropriate performance tests to provide the required performance
measurement.

Table 3-3. Performance parameters and performance tests for S/S materials
Performance
parameter
Performance
measurement
Example performance test(s)
Strength Compressive strength ASTM D1633
Hydraulic
conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity ASTM D5084 (constant head)
ASTM D5084 (falling head)
Leachability
Treatability study LSP as function of pH PreMethod 1313
LSP as function of L/S PreMethods 1314, 1316
Mass transfer (flux) PreMethods 1315, 1315 (modified); ANSI 16.1
Consistency testing LSP at natural pH,
mass transfer (flux)
PreMethod 1316, SPLP, abbreviated flux tests
LSP = liquid-solid partitioning, L/S = liquid-solid ratio

Test methods for strength and hydraulic conductivity are straightforward in that the available test
methods tend to be of short duration and require little to no interpretation of the results. These
tests may be conducted on S/S material samples after short cure times and compared directly to
performance criteria as long as it is recognized that these performance parameters will continue
to develop as the S/S material ages. With respect to leachability, the proper selection of an
appropriate test method is somewhat less straightforward due to the complexity of the leaching
process.

The choice of one or more leaching tests depends on the degree of specificity required for the
purpose of defining leachability:

• If a mechanistic understanding of the how constituents are released into the environment is
desired, leachability testing should be focused on defining the leaching response of the
material to the release-controlling parameters (e.g., pH, L/S, and time). This approach
requires integration of the results of some multiple leaching tests over a broad range of test
conditions as proposed in LEAF. With respect to S/S treatment, this level of comprehensive
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
27
testing might be conducted at the bench scale during treatability testing to provide technical
personnel with additional information to support selection of effective reagents and additives.

• If the purpose of leach testing is to describe leaching in the context of the most likely release
scenario, a single characterization test may be used. The conditions imposed by the test
should be representative of the anticipated conditions in the field.
3.5.1 Selection of Leaching Tests
Because applicability of a particular leaching test depends on the intent of the test and how the
results are interpreted, no single leaching test is applicable for all purposes. For example,
PreMethod 1315 is a good indicator of leachability from S/S-treated materials for use in refining
S/S treatment mix designs during treatability testing and demonstrating compliance when a
finalized mix design is established, but it is not a practical field test due to the 63-day testing
duration. Thus, different tests may be needed at various stages in the design and implementation
process (see Section 4) for different purposes.

• Development of S/S treatment mix designs. A well-designed S/S formulation typically is the
result of a treatability study where various reagents/additives and mix designs are tested for
treatment of contaminants materials (see Section 5 for more detail). Since one goal of
treatability testing is to highlight differences between additives or binder recipes and to
support the selection of viable candidate formulations, comparative testing of formulations
with the results compared to material performance criteria is appropriate. Thus, reagent
selection may be based on equilibrium tests which reflect contaminant retention, whereas
mix design should also be finalized against flux-based leaching tests, which better reflect
mechanisms controlling release in the field.

• Baseline performance determination. During the final stages of a treatability study, full
detailed material characterization for leachability establishes a performance baseline for
comparison of materials created during field pilot-scale studies and implementation.
Recommended detailed leaching characterization at the bench scale includes the following:
o equilibrium-based tests to predict porewater composition in the treated material (e.g.,
using either PreMethod 1314 or PreMethod 1316) and to determine how changes in
acidity/ alkalinity will influence porewater concentrations (e.g., using PreMethod 1313)
o mechanistic tests designed to account for the primary release-controlling mechanisms
anticipated for field materials, including percolation column tests (e.g., PreMethod 1314
or ASTM D4784) for granular treated materials and flux-based tank leaching (e.g.,
PreMethod 1315, PreMethod 1315m, ANS 16.1) for monolithic materials with low
hydraulic conductivity

Characterization of the intrinsic leaching behavior using this approach provides a
comprehensive measure of material performance for communicating with stakeholders;
setting realistic, obtainable performance criteria; and comparing laboratory-derived behavior
to field consistency testing during the implementation process. In addition, detailed leaching
characterization can provide the source term for subsequent scenario- or site-specific impact
assessment modeling.

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
28
• Consistency testing. Often, some measure of material consistency is required during
implementation to ensure that the performance parameters of materials applied in the field
are consistent with laboratory-formulated materials from the treatability study or that batch-
to-batch variability is within acceptable tolerances. When the purpose of leach testing is to
compare field materials to laboratory formulations, short-term compliance or consistency
tests (e.g., PreMethod 1316, PreMethod 1313 at natural pH, shortened duration of PreMethod
1315, TCLP, SPLP, etc.) are recommended. The results of such tests can be used to
determine batch-to-batch consistency and assess overall site compliance.
4. PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE S/S DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
This section presents an overview of the material performance goals and the general role of
performance specifications in the design and implementation process. The S/S design process
begins after the site-specific remedial goals have been established and S/S has been selected as a
suitable remedy. Detailed discussions of the individual steps in the design and implementation
process are presented in Sections 5–7.
4.1 Flowchart of the S/S Design and Implementation Process
Figure 4-1 illustrates a generalized presentation of the design and implementation process for S/S
technology. Although each site is different and the process may be adapted as needed, this figure
is intended to serve as a roadmap through the major steps, decision points, and operations
conducted for a typical S/S technology.

The flowchart consists of three columns representing inputs to the process (green shading),
action items within the process (blue shading), and considerations used to inform decisions for
each action item (orange shading). The basic action items shown in the center column include
operation steps (blue rectangles) and milestones representing finalization of pertinent
performance specifications (orange parallelograms). For many of the action items, inputs (green
rounded rectangles) shown in the left column are used to inform the practitioner of key guiding
information. These inputs may include both qualitative and quantitative measurements,
regulations as well as other concepts related to the S/S treatment process. At each action item,
considerations (white, rounded rectangles) in the right column help shape decisions by providing
either established guiding information or recommended concepts.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
29
Figure 4-1. S/S design and implementation process as discussed in Sections 4–7 of this document.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
30
4.2 Material Performance Goals
The S/S design process begins with setting material performance goals, which are design targets
used to describe a treated material that is anticipated to meet specific site remediation goals. In
some cases, these design targets may directly correspond with established remedial goals;
however, since S/S may not be the only remedy used to meet cleanup criteria, material
performance may contribution to only a portion of the remedial impact. For a groundwater
remediation component, attainment of material performance goal may be established in several
ways, including the following:

• demonstrating the percent reduction in concentration flux from the treated material
• calculating acceptable attenuation between the treated material and the POC
• hydrogeologic modeling to simulate groundwater flow and concentration flux attenuation

Material performance goals serve as the underlying basis for development of performance
specifications that meet specific site remediation goals. The design target created by the material
performance goals are used to formulate a list of characteristics for treatability testing and as a
basis for the performance specifications for the design and implementation process. Several
factors should be considered in the process of setting material performance goals, including the
existing site model, the site remedial goals, and the vertical and horizontal location of the POC.
Often, material performance goals are qualitative values (e.g., a low–hydraulic conductivity
material that reduces the leaching rate by 50% while treating 90% of the contaminated material
source) that serve as a framework for developing specific performance specifications.
4.2.1 Site Model
The existing conceptual site model (CSM) is composed of the primary information collected
during site characterization and any supplementary data that may be collected on a site-specific
basis to support a feasibility study or a remedial design. Table 4-1 shows the respective impacts
of this information on development of S/S material performance goals and specifications. A firm
understanding of the impact of pertinent site characteristics allows for the development of
appropriate performance goals and specifications for the technology and provides insight into
how the performance specifications influence the development of a long-term monitoring
program for a particular site. Primary considerations beyond the site characterization that
influence the formulation of performance goals and specifications include future land use and
any state or federal requirements.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
31
Table 4-1. S/S Site characterization considerations in the development of performance goals and specifications
S/S evaluation factor Analyses/observations Significance to technology performance and monitoring
Soil classification/
physical characteristics
Useful measurements:
• Gradation
• Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS) classification
• Atterberg limits
• Moisture content
• Debris content
• Porosity
• Density
• Suspended solids
• Free liquid (paint filter)
Property values for each measurement and their variability may have
significant impact of overall behavior of the S/S material and on expected
outcomes
Soil and groundwater pH Controlling variable for inorganic solubility and S/S material durability
Geochemistry Organic content Key variable for organic concentrations due to complexation with DOC,
which is soluble at high pH (Roskam and Comans 2003, 2007)
Contaminant levels High concentrations of some contaminants may affect S/S cure, requiring
additives to overcome interference (Conner 1997)
Sulfate content Sulfate attack of portland cement blends may lead to aggressive degradation
through delayed ettringite formation (Little, Herbert, and Kungalli 2005)
Contaminant
characterization
Leaching behavior of untreated material Defines baseline against which treatability studies and full-scale application
may be compared
Class(es) of contaminants Defines list of COCs, defines detection limits for analysis
Presence/distribution of NAPLs Defines phases/location of source and expected outcomes
Hydrogeology Hydraulic conductivity Controlling value in comparison to hydraulic conductivity of S/S material
for mode of water contact (e.g., infiltration vs. flow-around)
Water table depth and seasonal variability Defines division between vadose zone, capillary fringe, and saturated zone;
NAPL impacts at water table
Geologic strata (including geometry of
geology units)
Location of contaminant distribution/accumulation zones
Groundwater flow direction and gradients Hydraulic head on S/S mass, evaluate fate and transport with respect to POC
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
32
4.2.2 Point of Compliance
The POC, where applicable, is another factor to be considered when setting material
performance goals. The POC refers to the location where the S/S-treated material must comply
with site remediation goals. Often, the POC is defined with respect to compliance with
groundwater remediation goals at a downgradient well located near the site boundary and
screened to sample the aquifer that contacts the contaminated material. However, other possible
locations for a POC may include the groundwater at the boundary of the treated material or at a
surface feature (e.g., a river or lake). Indirect POCs, such as contaminants in flora or fauna,
should be avoided as these are difficult to correlate to treatment of the source materials. When
selected, the POC vertical and horizontal location and hydrogeology should be added to the
existing CSM. Depending on the remedial goals for S/S, a POC for groundwater may or may not
be a component of the project.
4.2.3 Relating Leaching Performance to Established Cleanup Goals
Often, remedial goals are established at a POC that is somewhat removed from the S/S treatment
area. In these cases, it is often difficult to determine with certainty what permissible upper
bounds on leaching at the treated material source will allow for attainment of goals at the POC
due to limited resources regarding the ability to predict the behavior of contaminants in the
subsurface between the release at the source and concentrations at the POC.

Although leaching tests can provide an estimate of leaching performance at the source of
contamination, the results of leaching tests are not indicative of how released constituents travel
through the subsurface. Thus, leaching test concentrations should not be considered to directly
represent POC values
7
or be compared directly to water quality criteria for any purpose other
than screening. In addition, flux-based leaching tests are recommended to predict release rates
for monolithic materials with low hydraulic conductivity. However, current practice is to base
leachability testing on single-batch extraction equilibrium tests such as SPLP or TCLP. When
using equilibrium tests for leachability in the field, it is very important to consider how these
results will compare with results obtained from the contaminant flux test in the laboratory since
these testing methods are not the same.

Given the above statements, a remaining significant concern is how to relate leaching
performance with established criteria at a POC. Figure 4-2 shows an example of how the linkage
between leaching tests of S/S-treated materials and cleanup goals at a POC can be defined. In the
figure, a rectangular mass of treated material is shown in the middle of an aquifer with
groundwater moving with linear velocity q [m/d]. All faces of the block are exposed to
groundwater. The total mass flux F released from the treated material over an exposed surface
area A
exp
is converted to a groundwater concentration C
n
passing through a cross-sectional area
A
n
located at the treated mass.



7
The exception to this statement is the case where the POC is directly adjacent to the source material and, therefore,
no dilution or attenuation is assumed to occur between the source and the POC.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
33
Figure 4-2. Mass flux approximation showing relationship between leaching test flux and
concentrations in groundwater at the treated material and at a downgradient POC.


q A
A F
C
n
n


=
exp
(Eq. 1)

where

C
n
= concentration in the groundwater (mg/L)
F = mass flux at the surface of the treated material (mg/m
2
s) (as provided by a flux-based
leaching test)
A
exp
= exposed surface area of the treated material (m
2
)
A
n
= cross-sectional area of groundwater (m
2
)
q = linear flow rate of the groundwater (m/d)

The concentration in the groundwater is then related to a concentration at the POC through a
dilution-attenuation factor (DAF). This approach is consistent with the 2010 ITRC guidance on
the calculation, measurement, and use of mass flux and mass discharge in subsurface
environments (ITRC 2010).

In applying a DAF, it is recognized that groundwater concentrations in the pore space just
outside the material and at a POC may differ by several orders of magnitude due to dilution,
dispersion, adsorption, and attenuation. The rate of transport relative to the groundwater flow and
the fraction of contaminants leaving the treated material that arrive at the POC depend on several
site-specific parameters:

• site geometry—location of the treated material relative to the water table, dimensions of the
treated material, location of the well downgradient and off-center of any groundwater plume
• soil characteristics—pH, particulate organic matter




l
h
w
groundwater
flow
q [m/d]
C
n

C
POC

POC
DAF depends on site-
specific factors

cross-section area A
n
[m
2
]
constituent flux F [mg/m
2
s] from exposed
surface area A
exp
[m
2
] of treated material
1.E-12
1.E-11
1.E-10
1.E-09
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
F
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n

F
l
u
x

[
m
g
/
c
m
2
s
]
Leaching Time [d]
Method 1315m Sample 1
Method 1315m Sample 2
Fluoranthene flux from S/S
treated MGP Soil (EPRI 2009a)
treated
material
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
34
• chemical retardation—soil/water partitioning coefficients
• hydrogeological conditions—groundwater flow rate, hydraulic conductivity, aquifer
characteristics, subsurface strata, infiltration (recharge rates)

The combined effects of these parameters are typically empirically lumped into a single DAF (a
multiplier <1), which is applied to the concentration in the groundwater at the treated material
(i.e., the source term) to calculate the anticipated concentration at the POC.
4.3 Performance Specifications
As discussed in Section 3, performance specifications are a critical component of an S/S
remediation project, providing the basis for the development of an appropriate S/S treatment and
consistency between field and laboratory materials. Two types of performance specifications are
defined in this document. Although these specifications may be identical for some applications,
they differ in their intended use.

• Material performance specifications are design targets developed based on the material
performance goals and used during treatability studies as evaluation of whether a developed
treated material will meet the material performance goals established at the start of the S/S
design and implementation process. The performance parameters most commonly used in
material performance specifications include UCS as a strength parameter, hydraulic
conductivity (in comparison to the hydraulic conductivity of surrounding soil) as an indicator
of water contact conditions, and leachability. Section 3 provides more detail on these
performance parameters and example performance tests for each.

• Construction performance specifications are developed for use during field operations. These
implementation targets are established at the conclusion of treatability testing or after field/
pilots studies have identified appropriate specifications for implementation of a designed S/S
formulation. These performance specifications are used to verify that the treated material
created in the field is consistent with the materials developed and characterized during
treatability testing. Thus, the intent of testing is not to predict the performance of the material
but rather to ensure that field materials behave in the same manner as the materials testing in
the laboratory.

In many cases, the performance parameters used for implementation purposes are similar to
those applied at the laboratory scale (e.g., UCS, hydraulic conductivity, and leachability);
however, the selection of performance tests should reflect that decisions regarding acceptance of
field materials must be made quickly as cured S/S-treated material is difficult to remove or
retreat. Construction performance specifications should be on the selection of limited set of
performance parameters already used in the treatability testing applying short-term tests which
can be conducted on wet-prepared field samples after a couple of days of cure time. The results
of these tests should be compared to the baseline performance developed at the end of the tiered
treatability study (see Section 6.2 for information on QC).

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
35

Developing a Material Performance Specification for Leaching

This approach can be particularly useful for setting a material performance specification for leaching
from an established cleanup goal and dilution-attenuation factor.

Assume: A treated mass (12 m high x 10 m wide x 20 m long) is anchored 2 m into saprolite
(weathered bedrock). which acts as an aquiclude. The surface of the material not buried in saprolite is
exposed surface to an aquifer moving at 18 m/d (see figure).





groundwater
flow
q = 18 [m/d]
C
n

C
POC
= 5 [mg/L]
POC
DAF = 100x
cross-sectional area, A
n



S/S treated material
length (l = 20 m)
height (h = 12 m)
width, not shown (w = 10 m)
embedded
depth (d = 2 m)
saprolite (weathered bedrock)


Since no, or relatively little, groundwater passes through the saprolite, the surface area of the treated
mass embedded into saprolite does not participate in leaching, and the exposed surface area is

end 2 side 2 top
exp
× + × + = A
w d h l d h l w × − × + × − × + × = ) ( 2 ) ( 2
| |
2
800 10 ) 2 12 ( 2 20 ) 2 12 ( 2 20 10 m = × − × + × − × + × =

Using the sample concept, the cross-sectional area to the groundwater flow would be

| |
2
100 10 ) 2 12 ( 1 ) ( 1 end 1 m w d h A
n
= × − × = × − × = × =

For a hypothetical constituent, a groundwater cleanup goal of 5 mg/L is established at a downgradient
water feature (e.g., a well or surface body), and a DAF between the POC and treated material 100x is
determined to be reasonable and protective. The DAF is calculated, estimated, or otherwise
established to take into consideration groundwater chemistry and dynamics as well as the location of
POC relative to source and groundwater flow.

Concentration at the Source: By multiplying the cleanup goal by the DAF, the maximum concentration
of a constituent released from the treated material C
max
is calculated:.

(
¸
(

¸

= ×
(
¸
(

¸

=
L
mg
L
mg
C 500 100 5
max


Maximum Flux: Using C
max
for C
n
in Eq. 1 (p. 33), the maximum allowable flux F
max
may be determined:

| |
| |
2
2
3
3
exp
max
max
800
1
3600 24
18 100
10
500
m s
h
h
d
d
m
m
m
L
L
mg
A
q A C
F
n
×
(
¸
(

¸

|
.
|

\
|
× ×
(
¸
(

¸

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
× ×
=
(
¸
(

¸

=
s m
mg
F
2 max
0 . 13

From this analysis, a conservative material performance specification of a maximum flux of 10 mg/m
2
s
using a flux based leaching test (e.g., ANS 16.1, EPA PreMethod 1315) can be applied with some
degree of confidence that cleanup goals can be achieved based on established values.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
36
4.4 Performance Specifications in Treatability Studies
Typically, treatability studies are bench-scale investigations used to determine whether the
proposed remedial technology will be effective in meeting the remedial goals and to develop an
appropriate mix design and construction performance specifications. Material performance
specifications are used to provide feedback on selection of reagents and additives that result an
appropriate formulation for retention of COCs. The performance parameter results from testing
on laboratory-created specimens are used to refine treatment mix designs and to demonstrate
compliance of the finalized mix design with material performance specifications. Comprehensive
guidance on physical and chemical tests for treatability studies as applied to S/S technology is
described in published guidance documents (EPA 1989, USACE 1995).
4.5 Performance Specifications During Implementation
Implementation of an S/S remedy should be performed only after determining that the S/S is
consistent with the remedial goals for the project, an S/S mix design has been developed and
tested that can meet the material performance goals, and a design appropriate for the size of the
remedy is completed. Construction performance specifications are used to determine whether the
key parameters of the material created in the field are consistent with the finalized mix design
characterized during treatability studies. QC testing both for compliance with material
performance specifications and consistency throughout construction is a key implementation
component to document achievement of material performance goals. Key performance-related
considerations for implementation of the S/S remedy at the field scale are presented in Section 6.
5. TREATABILITY TESTING PROGRAM
For many technologies including S/S, effectiveness, implementability, and cost are site specific.
Site-specific treatability studies in the laboratory and/or the field provide valuable information
needed to evaluate the feasibility and establish the design of treatment remedies. Treatability
testing develops the S/S formula to meet project objectives and verifies the feasibility of using
S/S by characterizing the untreated contaminated material and evaluating the technology
performance under different operating conditions. Treatability testing provides valuable site-
specific information to support selection and implementation of a remedial action. Therefore,
treatability tests may be conducted both to evaluate technologies prior to selection and to develop
process design parameters and scale up for full-scale implementation. Additional information for
conducting treatability testing is provided in published documents and guidance (EPA 1992a,
USACE 1995, Environment Agency 2004a, EPRI 2009a).

Treatability testing for S/S should be performed in a systematic manner to ensure that data
generated can be used for evaluation, identification of information for further testing, and full-
scale implementation.

The goal of the S/S treatability testing is typically to develop the S/S design and to verify the
feasibility of using S/S at a particular site. The objectives, which should be clearly defined prior
to testing, typically include the following:

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
37
• selection of correct reagent(s) (a list of common reagents is presented in Section
2.3.1)
• determination of the impact of selected reagents on other contaminants
• optimization of the reagent(s) dosages
• identification of emission of contaminants
• identification of material handling issues
• assessment of the physical and chemical uniformity of the contaminated material
• determination of the volume increase due to addition of reagent(s)
• finalization of performance criteria
• finalization of construction parameters (e.g. moisture content, slump)

A typical treatability testing program is an iterative process which determines the optimal
formulation and associated design parameters that meet the project objectives. Treatability
testing for S/S may include both bench-scale and pilot testing, although full-scale pilot testing
may be considered during startup of field implementation. Once treatability testing is completed,
a plan for treating the full extent of the contaminated material in the field is based on the results
of the tests. The plan also takes into account scale-up considerations, as discussed in Section 5.4.
5.1 Reagent Selection Considerations
Potentially applicable reagents should be identified prior to bench-scale treatability testing. The
identification of potentially applicable reagent depends on several factors, including contaminant
to be treated, concentration of contaminants in soil/sediment and soil/sediment geotechnical
properties, required performance parameters, and minimum acceptable performance criteria for
the site.

Identification of potentially applicable reagents is typically based on the practitioner’s
experience in implementation of S/S projects. In the absence of previous experience, a survey of
technical literature to identify appropriate reagents is a good starting point for treatability testing.
Because a number of candidate reagents may be identified, narrowing down the number of
reagents results in reduced cost and less time-consuming treatability testing. Selection of
candidate reagents requires knowledge of the following:

• interferences and chemical incompatibilities
• metal chemistry considerations
• compatibility with the disposal or reuse environment
• cost
• process track record

A more detailed discussion on the above considerations is provided in EPA’s Technical
Resource Document: Solidification/Stabilization and Its Application to Waste Materials (EPA
1993c).
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
38
5.2 Bench-Scale Testing
Bench-scale testing is usually performed in the laboratory, where a comparatively small amount
of contaminated material is tested for individual parameters of the treatment technology. In
general, the testing is used to determine the efficacy of the chemistry of the process and usually
consists of a series of tests using a tiered approach. In this tiered approach to treatability testing,
the results of each test determine the next steps and next set of parameters and conditions to be
evaluated, with the first set of tests usually covering a broad range of potential operating
parameters and establishing of baseline parameters. This tiered approach (as described in EPRI
2009a) is as follows:

• Tier 1—testing previously identified candidate reagents (as described in Section 5.1) to
narrow the range of reagents by eliminating those not meeting the performance criteria
• Tier 2—testing the selected reagents and combination of reagents and additives (if used) to
assess contaminant immobilization
• Tier 3—optimizing the promising reagent or combination of reagents and additives (if used)
to minimize the quantity required to meet the performance criteria
• Tier 4—assessing scale-up considerations for full-scale implementation and development of
QC parameters, baseline consistency tests, and performance criteria acceptance limits

S/S bench-scale treatability studies include the following steps:

• prepare a work plan
• collect test samples
• characterize initial samples
o homogenize raw materials/samples
o perform chemical testing
o perform physical testing
• perform treatability testing
o conduct tests by mixing reagents with contaminated material and prepare formulations
for further testing
o optimize mix design
o selection of mix design verification phase (three replicates)
o prepare final mix design and test
• analyze, assess, and validate data
• prepare treatability study report
5.2.1 Sample Collection
Selection of the samples to be collected for bench-scale testing is critical and must be carefully
planned to best represent the site conditions. Planning sample collection for treatability testing
must consider a number of factors, including the following:

• appropriate locations for collection of representative samples
• methods for collecting representative samples
• type of implementation method
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
39
• whether or not samples will be composited

Sampling for treatability testing should use technical expertise to determine the most appropriate
sampling locations based on previous site characterization results, operational history, and visual
survey. Evaluation of site characterization data should include considerations of the following:

• contaminant types
• contaminant concentrations
• lateral variation of contamination
• depth of contamination

The sampling plan should include highly contaminated material, material representative of
average site conditions, and minimally contaminated material. Sampling should also include the
reasonably most difficult to treat soil that will be encountered during full-scale treatment
implementation. Determination of the most difficult to treat soil depends on the physical nature
of the soils as well as the COCs and the extent of blending that will occur during full-scale
treatment. Although sampling using only the most highly contaminated or difficult to treat
material provides assurance that these can be treated using S/S, it can result in overdesign and
unrealistic high cost estimates. Therefore, while these samples may be used to establish the
treatability of the material, additional treatability testing should be performed on material
representative of average site conditions. Furthermore, the costs should be developed based on
these representative samples.

Sample collection for treatability testing must also consider the lateral variation of contamination
and depth of contamination. The depth of contamination also influences the selection of
appropriate methods for collecting representative samples. Samples can be collected using direct-
push Geoprobe equipment, hollow-stem augers, backhoes, or hand auger tools. A minimum of
40 L (10 gal) should be sampled to perform a treatability testing; however, the amount of sample
will depend of the number and type of test to be performed during the study. No matter how well
the site is characterized, heterogeneity makes the samples collection for treatability testing
challenging. Once samples are collected, proper homogenization of the samples must be
performed prior to initial (baseline) characterization.

If the site is highly variable in contaminant types and concentrations, consideration should be
given to how the full-scale treatment will be implemented, such as full-scale treatment
implemented separately for each impacted area versus mixing and homogenizing all material
before implementing S/S. If the full-scale implementation approach dictates, compositing of
samples collected for treatability testing may be required and is based on the quantity of
contaminated material for each impacted area. Advantages to composite sampling include
reduction in the variability in contaminant concentration and more accurate data on soil that may
be treated after homogenization of all the material. Compositing is usually appropriate for
nonvolatile contaminants; however, if target contaminants are volatile, care should be exercised
in compositing.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
40
5.2.2 Initial Sample Characterization
After sample collection, a baseline analysis should be performed on the samples collected for
testing at the bench-scale level through a process of chemical and physical testing. The physical
characterization test usually includes moisture content, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits,
and compaction. Chemical characterization may include total chemical analysis of the samples
collected.
5.2.3 Laboratory Testing
Selected reagents are mixed with the samples to evaluate the preliminary performance
parameters (such as strength, hydraulic conductivity, and leachability). Preliminary testing in the
laboratory may include testing for strength by use of a pocket penetrometer over a period of
time, visual observation, chemical testing, and/or geotechnical testing (Figure 5-1). The
information obtained from performing laboratory tests results in identification of reagents that
can solidify/stabilize the contaminated material.
Figure 5-1. Hydraulic conductivity measurement (left) and UCS measurement (right) tests
conducted in the laboratory on treatability test samples. Source: CETCO Contracting Services Co.
5.2.4 Data Analysis, Assessment, and Validation
Once the treatability tests are completed, if the data meet the performance criteria, pilot test
studies or field demonstrations may be considered prior to full-scale implementation. If the
performance criteria are not met, the specifications, process, or performance goals may need to
be revised and the treatability study repeated (see Figure 3-1). If the criteria cannot be met, the
remedy selection may need to be revised. Validation of the laboratory data is a step that is always
included before analyzing data results. Often, data validation is provided by the laboratory.
5.3 Pilot-Test Studies/Field Demonstrations
Following selection of the design mixes obtained from bench-scale treatability testing, the next
phase of the project may involve a pilot test in the field. The pilot test is intended to verify the
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
41
process variables selected as part of bench-scale testing and, if required, further develop and
optimize the process and construction parameters for full-scale implementation.

The pilot test scales up the design mixes developed during bench-scale treatability testing for
application under actual field conditions based on the ability to meet the performance criteria,
implementability, and cost. Because pilot-scale testing is intended to simulate the physical as
well as chemical parameters of a full-scale testing process, the treatment unit size and the volume
of contaminated material to be processed in a pilot scale is much greater than for bench-scale
testing.

The development of a pilot study begins with preparation of work plans. Work plans specify the
approved reagents to be used, their dosages, type of mixing devices to be employed, and data to
be collected. The results obtained from the pilot testing are evaluated to confirm that
performance criteria can be met in the field while implementing the full-scale system. However,
if the identified performance criteria are not met during pilot testing, the reagent mix design
should be adjusted as a first step. The selected performance criteria, goals, and processes should
also be reevaluated if adjustment of reagents does not produce desired results.
5.4 Scale-Up Considerations
Since the S/S chemistry is already established, the scale-up from bench-scale to full-scale field
implementation is generally focused on the materials-handling aspects of the S/S process. Scale-
up from bench scale to full-scale field implementation should address the following:

• equipment selection and sizing
• type of equipment and mixing time/energy departed for homogenization
• chemical reagents storage and delivery methods
• evaluation of treated material consistency tests and strength gain rates
• pretreatment of soil/sediment
• presence of debris
• presence of underground utilities
• mixing and curing time and methods employed
• method and measurement for delivering correct reagent quantity
• quality assurance (QA)

Scale-up considerations are the last step of the trial approach of the treatability test programs.
After completion, the next step is to implement a verification process during S/S implementation.
6. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION DURING S/S IMPLEMENTATION
The overall success or failure of an S/S remedy depends on successful implementation of the
construction phase. The following key areas should be monitored and documented as necessary
during the implementation phase to ensure that performance specifications have been achieved:

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
42
• consistent preparation of the designed reagent blend in the correct proportions in accord with
the mix design determined through the bench and pilot testing
• sufficient mixing of the reagents with the contaminated materials in the correct proportions to
create a treated material
• sampling of treated materials to verify compliance with S/S performance specifications
• verification of treatment of the entire volume of contaminated materials

QC and QA are vital in S/S treatment to demonstrate that the treated material achieves the
performance specifications of the project and that the proper reagents were mixed in accord with
the approved mix design. In addition, the implementation of a QA/QC program during remedial
construction allows for adjustments to be made as needed to respond to variations in material
and/or site conditions. The QC plan describes the specific procedures by which the
implementation of sampling and analytical procedures designed to result in reliable data are
documented (LaGrega, Buckingham, and Evans 1994). The QA plan describes the procedures by
which the QC implementation is audited to ensure that the work and documentation is being
conducted in accord with established QC procedures.

Effective implementation of S/S requires a comprehensive construction quality assurance (CQA)
program that addresses each phase of the project from bench-scale testing through full-scale field
operations. Monitoring of S/S performance in the field is essential to ensure that the project
objectives are met and S/S work is conducted in accord with contract requirements. Lack of an
effective CQA program can lead to rapid and uncontrolled cost increases caused by the lag time
between S/S sample collection and receipt of testing results due to the curing time required. A
CQA program allows the owner to rapidly assess construction performance and identify potential
problems early in the process to allow for field adjustments or corrections (Wittenberg and Covi
2007).

While the QA/QC procedures may vary from project to project based on the specifics of the
design and performance specifications, solidification QA/QC guidance documents and published
articles should be consulted when preparing a QA/QC program for S/S (EPA 1989, 1986, 1999a;
Perera, Al-Tabbaa, and Johnson 2004; Perara et al. 2004b; USACE 2010; Larsson 2005;
Wittenberg and Covi 2007).
6.1 Reagent and Equipment QA/QC Considerations
Reagents to be delivered in bulk to the site for full-scale S/S should be tested or otherwise
verified to ensure they meet the project specifications. Reagents should be tested at the beginning
and midpoint of the project to ensure that no COCs are imported with the reagents. Requirements
concerning storage of reagent stockpiles may be included in construction performance
specifications. Physical properties such as dry unit weight may require periodic verification if
mixing involves dry reagent addition. An on-site batch plant for mixing of S/S reagents or
additives is typically necessary for in situ applications that inject reagents as a liquid slurry.

For pugmills that blend dry reagents along with water, the dry reagents are typically fed from the
storage silos using a screw auger. The feed rate of these augers should be calibrated at least once
per day at the start of operations for that day. Reagents and additives are typically delivered to a
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
43
site in bulk quantities and must be transferred to the storage pigs and silos at the pugmill or batch
plant for processing. A batch plant for preparing liquid slurry may consist of mixing and staging
tanks, scales, mixers and agitators, and pumps. Scales and flow meters must be field-calibrated
periodically throughout the project to ensure appropriate reagent/additive injection rates.
Furthermore, the addition of water, a critical reagent, should be carefully monitored and the
amount recorded. Mixing and delivery procedures should include QA/QC methodology to verify
that the reagents are within the mix design parameters. For reagent delivery in a water-based
grout, parameters such as grout density (mud balance) and viscosity (Marsh Funnel) should be
checked periodically to verify grout batch consistency with the recommended design. For
pugmills where the reagents are fed in a dry state, the feed rate of the feed augers is usually
calibrated in pounds/second.

S/S mixing equipment comes in many forms for shallow or deep in situ and ex situ mixing.
Appendix A provides a brief description of some of the more common S/S mixing equipment.
Parameters which affect the blending of contaminated materials, such as mixing speed, reagent
delivery rate, soil treatment rate, and mixing time, should be incorporated into the QA/QC
monitoring program to maintain consistency in mixing equipment operation. The precise location
and depth of placed treated material should be recorded. For in situ treatment using vertical
augers, each column is numbered and the location recorded. For ex situ treatment, the deposition
location for each day’s production is recorded.
6.2 Treated Material Performance QA/QC
Procedures for ensuring sufficient mixing of contaminated materials with S/S reagents should be
established in the pilot scale and/or demonstration phase and may involve consistency tests of
freshly mixed materials. Depending on the type of mixing equipment and the reagent delivery
method used (i.e., wet or dry), construction parameters such as mixing time, auger penetration
rate and rotation speed, number of up and down auger strokes, and reagent delivery rates should
be incorporated into field QC monitoring procedures. Consistency testing of freshly mixed
materials based on visual observations and slump tests are commonly used during construction
as control tests to identify batches or areas that appear to be outside the normal range expected
and may require adjustments to the S/S mixing or reagent addition processes. For in situ mixing,
overlap of treatment zones is critical to ensuring treatment of the entire volume and can be
monitored through survey control and representative post S/S test pits or borings to verify
complete mixing and overlap (Figure 6-1).

Observation and testing of treated material involves two types of testing as discussed in
Section 4 of this document: (a) consistency testing to monitor treated material properties in real
time or in a short duration to demonstrate that treated materials are consistent with properties
established during treatability testing and (b) compliance testing to document that performance
criteria for the treated material are met. Sampling considerations as well as field and laboratory
consistency and compliance testing are briefly described in the next section.

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
44
Figure 6-1. Example of overlap of in situ auger-mixed S/S. Source: Portland Cement Association.
6.2.1 Sampling of Treated Material
The frequency of sampling freshly treated material depends on the overall size of the S/S project,
the daily treatment rate, the observed consistency of mixing by the remediation contractor,
observed changes in the contaminated material properties, and other factors. A higher frequency
of sampling is generally performed during the pilot phase and/or the start of S/S production to
develop a test results data set confirming the ability to meet the performance criteria and further
assessing the variability of the material to be treated and the variability expected in the test
results. While the sampling frequency for a specific project is determined by the designer and/or
the regulator, as a general guideline, it is recommended that performance sampling of treated
material be conducted considering the following:

• Sample at least once per day of production and once per shift (if there are multiple shifts) and
any time the batch plant or mixing equipment operator changes.
• Sample every 400–800 m
3
(500–1000 yd
3
) of treated material (alternate frequencies may be
appropriate based on overall volume to be treated for a site, anticipated contaminated
material characteristics heterogeneity, and test results review as project progresses).
• Sample any time the contaminated material or blended material physical characteristics
appear to change significantly (e.g., greater contaminant level, significant variation in
moisture content, significant variation in material gradation, etc.).
• Some additional discussion on performance sampling is provided in Bates (2010), among
other references.

If failing test results occur, modifications to the mix design or blending method may be required
and the sampling frequency increased until acceptable results are consistently achieved. The
failed material may need to be reworked or properly disposed of, if practical, based on S/S plan
design. Regardless of the outcome, procedures for documenting and addressing any failures must
be in place.

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
45
The method of collection of freshly mixed
material (i.e., contaminated material blended
with S/S reagents) depends initially on
whether the material is treated in situ or ex
situ. For ex situ treatment methods, a bulk
sample is typically collected from the
discharge of the pug mill, from a stockpile
of treated material, or from a freshly treated
area (e.g., when mixing excavated material
within a containment area or a work pad
area). The bulk sample is collected in a 20-L
(5-gal) bucket and relocated to the sample
preparation area for further processing,
testing, and sample specimen preparation
(Figure 6-2).

For in situ mixing, fresh samples should be
collected from different locations and depths
within the treatment area in a statistically
valid manner. Specialized sampling tools for
discrete-depth interval sampling of freshly
mixed soils allow for evaluation of vertical
mixing homogeneity. Typically, an
excavator is used to slowly push a metal tube
into the freshly mixed material to the depth
desired for sample retrieval (Figure 6-3). The
tube is equipped with a hydraulically
activated valve which is opened as the
sampler reaches the desired interval.

The sampler is then withdrawn from the treated
material and the sample discharged to a 20-L
(5-gal) bucket (Figure 6-4). Sufficient sample
volume should be collected to accommodate
field and laboratory testing in accord with the
CQA plan. Other sampling methods exist and
may be appropriate as long as the sampling can
be accomplished at the location and depth
interval desired. Following sample collection,
specimens are prepared for field testing and/or
curing and laboratory testing.

Many tests on treated material require curing in
cylinder molds of a specific geometry and for a
Figure 6-2. Field preparation of cylinder molds
of freshly treated material. Source: Ed Bates.
Figure 6-3. Specialized sampler for S/S
column mix areas. Source: Ed Bates.
Figure 6-4. Sample collection of freshly
mixed material from an excavator bucket.
Source: CETCO Contracting Services Co.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
46
minimum period of time for hydration reactions to
occur and the material to solidify. Preparation of
sample specimens should follow standard procedures
such as ASTM D1632 (or procedures required by
specific test methods) to ensure consistent specimen
preparation for the tests specified. Bulk material is
typically initially screened through a 1.3-cm (0.5-inch)
mesh to remove oversize particles that would interfere
with the specimen testing (Figure 6-5) due to the
relatively small size of test specimens. Note that the
screen mesh size required may vary based on the size
cylinder molds that will be prepared as specified in the
ASTM cylinder preparation methods. Use of 7.6 ×
15.2 cm (3 × 6 inch) or larger cylinder molds is
recommended as smaller cylinder molds are more
susceptible to testing variations due to sample
heterogeneities. Proper preparation of cylinder molds
by tamping in lifts and proper field curing conditions
are critical to the testing outcomes (Figure 6-6).
Specimens with voids or cured under adverse
conditions typically have poor test results (i.e.,
lower strength and higher hydraulic conductivity).

A sufficient number of replicate samples should be
prepared in the field. These replicates are used for
the following:

• evaluating curing progress within the first few
days of curing
• as replicate test specimens should a failing
performance test result be obtained
• samples for QA testing by an independent
laboratory
6.2.2 Consistency Testing
Consistency testing is used during construction for real-time or short-term evaluation of treated
material to determine whether the material properties are consistent with those established during
the bench and pilot phases that result in a material that meets the project performance criteria.
Therefore, it is important that the test methods, test conditions, specimen geometry, sample
specimen preparation methods, and curing conditions be consistent between the bench-, pilot-,
and full-scale implementation phases to reduce test results variability to the extent practical.
While test results will have some inherent variability due to product heterogeneities, it is
important to minimize induced variability due to specimen or test condition variability.

Tests typically used to establish compliance with performance criteria (e.g., compressive
strength, hydraulic conductivity, and leachability) are performed on specimens that have been
Figure 6-5. Sieve screening of treated
material sample in preparation of
UCS cylinder molding. Source: CETCO
Contracting Services Co.
Figure 6-6. Field curing of S/S material
specimens in a humid atmosphere
(water bath). Source: Ed Bates.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
47
cured for 7–28 days or longer, and the tests themselves
can take a few days to a few weeks to perform.
Consequently, the time lag between material treatment
and verification of compliance can be very long and a
large volume of additional material treated before
determining whether the material meets the performance
criteria. Therefore, consistency test protocols are
typically established in the bench and pilot phases for
use during the construction phase. Consistency tests can
be performed on freshly mixed material or cured
specimens, and a combination of both is recommended.
Real-time testing of freshly mixed material is intended to
identify significant variations in material properties that
can affect performance test results and may include tests
such as slump, material moisture content, grout density
and viscosity, mixing thoroughness (mixed material
homogeneity) (Figure 6-7).

Short-term tests on specimens as curing
progresses may include, but are not
limited to, strength gain rate using a
pocket penetrometer, visual observation
of bulk sample specimens cured in a
20-L (5-gal) bucket (Figure 6-8), and
short-term leaching tests, including an
SPLP test, an abbreviated monolith
leaching test, or other leaching tests
that may be deemed appropriate for a
specific project. If SPLP tests are
conducted, results are used to
determine only whether the leaching of
contaminants falls within the range
established for this same test during the
bench-scale testing, not as a performance criteria. Abbreviated monolith leaching tests are
described using an example below. Use of consistency tests allows for real-time or short-term
adjustment in reagent addition rates or mixing procedures to maintain material properties in a
range where the risk of failing performance tests is low.
Leaching consistency testing example
To show consistency during implementation of an S/S remedy, leaching tests may be used to
show that there is no significant deviation in leaching behavior between field samples and bench-
scale samples characterized during treatability testing. Since decisions in the field to re-treat any
particular zone of the implementation require a relatively rapid testing response, full-duration
mass transport testing (ANS 16.1 or PreMethod 1315) may not be practical. However, these tests
may be modified to shorten the duration of the test as in the treatability example above.
Alternatively, batch extraction tests applied to both bench-scale and field samples may be used
Figure 6-7. Slump test on freshly
treated material. Source: Ed Bates.
Figure 6-8. Five-gallon bucket-molded sample
cleaved, exposing successful encapsulation of
contaminant. Source: Portland Cement Association.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
48
as a consistency indicator based on the equilibrium-based leaching behavior of samples. To
further reduce testing requirements of field samples, the number of extractions in the equilibrium
methods provided in LEAF (i.e., PreMethods 1313 and 1316) may be limited to target specific
test conditions. (See Appendix B for more information on LEAF tests.)

This example illustrates the concept of using limited equilibrium-based leaching characterization
to show consistency. The subject material is a coal combustion fly ash sampled from the same
collection point over three one-month intervals. The first collection was considered to be a
baseline with full characterization using PreMethod 1313. For subsequent collections, a limited
version of PreMethod 1313 using four extraction points (instead of the nine used in the full
characterization) was used to compare back to the baseline. Although this example does not
show data conducted on materials associated with an S/S remedy, the same concept of
consistency testing can be applied to S/S materials.

The data in Figure 6-9 indicate that over a three-month interval, the leaching behavior of both
major constituents (i.e., those making up the matrix of the fly ash like calcium and silicon) and
trace constituents is very consistent. The key to this type of consistency is not that levels change
due to minor variation in material (see arsenic data), but that the general trend in data is the
same. This fact indicates that the geochemical speciation of the constituents is constant in all
time-dependent samples.
6.2.3 Compliance Testing
Compliance testing is used to evaluate cured material properties for direct comparison to project
performance criteria. The types of compliance tests can vary on a project-specific basis based on
the remedial objectives. The most common compliance tests for solidified materials are strength
and hydraulic conductivity. Leachability compliance testing is used somewhat less often, and the
need for compliance testing depends on the mechanism of treatment employed (i.e.,
solidification versus stabilization). When hydraulic conductivity reduction is the primary
mechanism used for leaching reduction (i.e., solidification as opposed to chemical stabilization)
and leaching performance has been adequately demonstrated in the treatability study phase,
consistency tests can be used in lieu of leachability compliance tests during construction. Where
stabilization reactions are the primary mechanism of treatment, leaching tests such as SPLP may
be appropriate as compliance tests.

At the various stages of the S/S treatment development process, different levels of material
property and leaching characterization may be needed. Thus, the performance specification,
especially the selected test and performance criteria, may differ based on the stage of the
remediation process. For example, compressive strength sufficient to support implementation
equipment after a couple of days might be a high priority, whereas after closure, compressive
strength would not be as critical as hydraulic conductivity and leachability. Likewise,
leachability tests during the treatability stage of the project might include a more comprehensive
leach testing scheme than can be conducted and interpreted in a timely manner for compliance
testing during implementation. Therefore, during implementation a shortened testing protocol for
field compliance tests for leachability is recommended.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
49
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
E
l
u
a
t
e

p
H
Aci d Added [ meq/ g- dr y]
Baseline
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
C
a
l
c
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
pH
Baseline
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
MDL
ML
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S
i
l
i
c
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
pH
Baseline
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
MDL
ML
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
A
r
s
e
n
i
c

(
m
g
/
L
)
pH
Baseline
Time 1
Time 1
Time 3
MDL
ML
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
C
a
d
m
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
pH
Baseline
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
MDL
ML
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
M
o
l
y
b
d
e
n
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
pH
Baseline
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
MDL
ML

Figure 6-9. Example consistency testing using PreMethod 1313 on coal combustion fly ash samples collected at four different
times from the same source.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
50
6.3 Assessing Field Performance Test Data
Sampling and testing of treated S/S material should be performed to adequately assess
representative samples from the entire area, volume, and depth of the S/S treatment area. The
total number of samples collected and tested should enable statistical evaluation of test results if
necessary. Sampling guidance is provided in USACE 2010.

Historic practice for many S/S projects has been to set performance criteria expressed in
statements that require all results to pass, as expressed in statements such as the following:

• All specimens must exhibit UCS of not less than 344.7 kN/m
2
(50 psi) (or other site-specific
performance criteria).
• Hydraulic conductivity shall not exceed 1 × 10
–6
cm/s (or other site-specific performance
criteria).

It should be noted that when provided in statements specifying or implying that all samples must
meet the performance criteria, failure of any individual test result can result in the need for re-
treatment. Re-treatment can be expensive and difficult on previously cured materials and may
not result in significant improvement as it breaks up previously solidified material and attempts
to resolidify larger particles (i.e., fractured solidified soil). This problem also underscores and
demonstrates the value of preparing replicate specimens for retesting if a failing result is
obtained.

Alternatively, performance criteria statements can be written to recognize that some limited
variability in test results is acceptable without compromising the overall success of the remedy
(see box). This approach is based on assessing failures based on the overall aggregate
performance of the treated material and the potential contaminant loading from the entire S/S
mass to the environment. Considerations such
as the location of a failing test specimen may
be of significance. For example, a poorly
treated area located within the middle of an S/S
monolith surrounded by properly treated
material will have little or no impact on the
completed remedy performance. Conversely, a
poorly treated area located on the edge of the
monolith will have contact with surrounding
groundwater and may have a more direct
influence of overall remedy performance. It is
sometimes desired for in situ S/S that the outer
zone of the S/S monolith receive a higher level
of treatment (i.e., a richer mix) to ensure that
the zone in direct contact with passing
groundwater has an increased safety factor
against leaching as compared to the bulk of the
treated material.

Examples of tolerance intervals that may be
considered for inclusion in performance criteria
are as follows:

• Strength: Average of all performance
samples must not be less than 344.7 kN/m
2

(50 psi), no individual sample shall be less
than 275.8 kN/m
2
(40 psi), and no more than
20% of the performance samples shall be
less than 344.7 kN/m
2
(50 psi).

• Hydraulic conductivity: Average of all
performance samples must not be greater
than 1 x 10
–6
cm/s, no individual sample shall
be greater than 1 x 10
–5
cm/s, and no more
than 20% of the performance samples shall
be greater than 1 x 10
–6
cm/s.

Note: Actual performance criteria and
percent acceptable variation must be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
51
Field construction performance specifications using tolerance intervals can be developed to
allow for the inevitable variation of properties of individual test specimens. An example of the
use of tolerance intervals is provided in the Peak Oil Case Study (see Appendix C). The designer
and regulator should develop a consensus on what is acceptable based on the remedial objectives
for the project and considering the location of failing test results, among other factors. For
example, a few failing test results that meet the lower tolerance limit and that are randomly
scattered throughout the S/S area may be less of a concern than a cluster of failing test results
occurring in one general area (possibly indicating differing soil/contaminant conditions,
inadequate reagent batch preparation, or inadequate mixing) or along the outer edge (where
groundwater or infiltration exposure may be greatest).

Figure 6-10 illustrates a sample QC testing performance tracking chart. In this example, five
samples out of 30 failed to meet the minimum strength performance criteria of 344.7 kN/m
2

(50 psi). Three of the five failing samples were between the tolerance limit of 275.8 kN/m
2

(40 psi) and the performance criterion of 344.7 kN/m
2
(50 psi). These failures would be
considered acceptable since fewer than 20% (determined acceptable for the example site) of the
samples were below the performance criterion, the failing results did not occur sequentially
(which may indicate a batch process or treatment area condition requiring attention), and the
average of all test results was above the performance criterion. Two results were below the
tolerance limit. The areas in which the failures occurred should be evaluated (e.g. center of the
matrix or on the edge of the treated matrix; failures on the edge of the matrix may be of greater
concern) and testing of field replicate specimens conducted to further assess the nature of the
failing test results to determine whether these areas should be retreated or additional volume
surrounding the failing area warrants treatment. Additional examples are provided in the box on
page 52.
Figure 6-10. Sample QC test results tracking chart.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
52
7. LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP
Once a remedy has been implemented and safeguards are put in place, additional work is
typically necessary to verify that the remedy remains effective and protective of human health
and the environment. Long-term stewardship of a completed S/S remedy may include monitoring
of environmental media in contact with and potentially affected by the remedy, monitoring of
institutional controls (ICs), monitoring and maintenance of engineering controls (ECs), financial
assurances, and periodic review(s) by the controlling environmental agency.

The main goal of S/S remedies is to reduce the flux of contamination that leaches from a
contaminant source to within acceptable parameters set forth in the site-specific remediation
goal. Monitoring programs are an important part of the S/S process to determine whether the rate
of leaching is within the formulated performance criteria.

Because the most common impact from a treated mass is to groundwater, this guidance focuses
on development of groundwater monitoring programs following S/S implementation. The
following subsections discuss long-term durability (Section 7.1), development of groundwater
monitoring programs for S/S remedies (Section 7.2), typical institutional and engineering
controls and their inspection and maintenance (Section 7.3), and considerations for periodic
remedy reviews (Section 7.4).
Additional examples of consistency testing interpretation follow using the following scenario:
Implementation of an S/S remedy resulted in 100 confirmatory samples. The performance criterion for
strength is assumed to be 344.7 kN/m
2
(50 psi):

• Example 1—95 of the samples exceeded the strength criteria of 344.7 kN/m
2
(50 psi). The five
samples that did not exceed the strength criteria were all greater than 275.8 kN/m
2
(40 psi). The
nonconforming samples were randomly distributed throughout the treated matrix. The
determination was that the treatment was acceptable.

• Example 2—95 of the samples exceeded the strength criteria of 344.7 kN/m
2
(50 psi). The five
samples that did not were all greater than 275.8 kN/m
2
(40 psi). The nonconforming samples were
all adjacent to each other on the western edge of the treated matrix. The determination was that
this area needed to be retreated.

• Example 3—95 of the samples exceeded the strength criteria of 344.7 kN/m
2
(50 psi). The five
samples that did not were all greater than 275.8 kN/m
2
(40 psi). The nonconforming samples were
all adjacent to each other in the center of the treated matrix. The determination was that the
treatment was acceptable.

• Example 4—98 of the samples exceeded the strength criteria of 344.7 kN/m
2
(50 psi). The two
samples that did not were less than 206.8 kN/m
2
(30 psi). The nonconforming samples were
randomly distributed throughout the treated matrix and none on the edge. The determination was
that the treatment was acceptable.

• Example 5—98 of the samples exceeded the strength criteria of 344.7 kN/m
2
(50 psi). The two
samples that did not were less than 206.8 kN/m
2
(30 psi). The nonconforming samples were not
together but on the edge of the treated matrix. The determination was that re-treatment of those
areas or additional protective measures was needed.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
53
7.1 Long-Term Durability and Performance of S/S-Treated Materials
7.1.1 Durability of the Monolith
As with most technologies used in the environmental field, S/S has its roots in processes and
equipment developed for different purposes (Conner and Hoeffner 1998). Monoliths formed by
S/S meet the definition of concrete—a mass formed by concretion or coalescence of separate
particles of matter into one body. The earliest man-made concrete discovered to date is a
concrete floor uncovered near Yiftah El in Galilee, Israel, dating to around 7000 BC (Kosmatka,
Kerkhoff, and Panarese 2002). Notable concrete structures include Rome’s Pantheon built in 118
AD, the Erie Canal constructed in 1818, and Thomas Edison houses built in 1908. Portland
cement was first patented by Joseph Aspdin in 1824. Much of today’s built environment relies on
portland cement–based concrete. The first uses of cement-based S/S in the United States were for
the disposal of radioactive or nuclear waste in the 1950s. Disposal of radioactive material by
cement-based S/S, including surplus U.S. weapons plutonium, relies on mix designs that form a
monolith able to last through multiple half-lives to ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment.

A number of studies and predictive modeling suggest that a properly designed S/S remedy which
accounts for the contaminant properties and the disposal/management scenario conditions can be
expected to last on the order of decades to centuries (Environment Agency 2004a, Perara et al.
2004b, PASSiFy Project 2010). Because contaminants remain in place, a gradual release of some
contaminants over a long period of time should be anticipated. Significant or complete release
over a relatively short time period would constitute a failure of the technology and would
typically be the result of inadequate site or contaminant characterization, poor design, or poor
implementation of the S/S remedy.

Research on the structural integrity of S/S treated monoliths has led to several conclusions: the
properties of the treated material typically do not change significantly; if the properties do
change, those changes do not significantly affect remedy performance; and methods for sampling
the monolith impact sample quality (such as through fracturing) and thus alter the measured
properties as recorded in the laboratory (PASSiFy 2010). Therefore, while monitoring of the
structural integrity of the treatment monolith through direct sampling has been conducted at
some sites, such as the American Creosote site in Tennessee (PASSiFY 2010), this approach is
generally not recommended. However, direct evaluation of the structural integrity of the
monolith could be warranted if groundwater monitoring data show unexpected increases in
contaminant concentrations.
7.1.2 Long-Term Performance
Several research studies have been conducted to evaluate the long-term performance of S/S
remedies. An Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)–funded project conducted at a former
MGP site 10 years after S/S implementation included geotechnical, chemical, leaching, and
solid-phase geochemical analyses of samples taken from the site. Using the sampling data,
contaminant transport modeling was used to predict the leaching potential at the site and
concluded that the treated contaminated material still met the performance standards as designed.
In addition, contaminant concentrations at the monitoring POC were predicted to continue
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
54
meeting performance criteria for at least 10,000 years. Short-term groundwater monitoring
results supported this hypothesis (EPRI 2003).

In another study, a research consortium led by the University of Greenwich (United Kingdom),
the University of New Hampshire, and INERTEC (France) conducted a research project entitled
Performance Assessment of Solidified/Stabilized Waste-forms (PASSiFy). The objective of the
PASSiFy Project was to assess the time-dependent performance of the S/S remedy at 10 sites
where S/S was implemented between 1989 and 2006. Contaminant classes represented by these
study sites included heavy metals, PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, acid wastes, creosote
and coal tar constituents, and dioxins. Samples from each site were subjected to geotechnical,
chemical, leaching, geochemical, and microstructural analyses. Geochemical modeling was also
performed to evaluate solubility-controlling phases for metals. The report concluded that all the
sites sampled were still performing well and met their RAOs (PASSiFy 2010). Additionally, the
report affirmed the viability of S/S as an effective long-term treatment as long as the nature of
the soils and contaminated materials are known and an effective binder system is developed
(Hills et al. 2010).
7.2 Groundwater Monitoring Program
Groundwater monitoring is usually required, but may not always be (such as small-volume waste
sites). Groundwater monitoring decisions are state or site specific. Considerations for monitoring
plan design, monitoring parameters, locations, duration of monitoring, and monitoring data
interpretation are presented in the following subsections.

Groundwater modeling using site characterization and treatability study data can be used to
evaluate the anticipated flux of contaminant leaching from S/S-treated material and therefore
provide valuable information for use in groundwater monitoring programs. Appendix C of this
document presents discussions on the use of groundwater modeling approaches for evaluation of
S/S remedies. The appendix presents selected case studies to illustrate how groundwater
modeling was used on sites where S/S remedies were implemented to contribute to the design
and monitoring of the remedy. In addition, other modeling methodologies are presented that may
be useful to the evaluation, design, and monitoring of S/S remedies.
7.2.1 Monitoring Program Objectives and Criteria
Developing monitoring objectives and criteria provides the basis for design of a monitoring
program and should use the data quality objective (DQO) process (EPA 2006). The DQO
process provides a systematic approach for defining the criteria for a monitoring plan design that
will yield data of acceptable quality and quantity.
7.2.1.1 Monitoring objectives
Monitoring programs are conducted to verify that the treatment was successful in preventing,
reducing, or eliminating the impact of the contaminated mass on groundwater. Monitoring
programs also determine whether the treatment continues to be effective over time. The
monitoring plan should be designed to meet the effectiveness and protectiveness evaluation
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
55
objective of the monitoring program and should also provide a basis for decisions to modify or
cease monitoring.
7.2.1.2 Monitoring criteria
Groundwater cleanup criteria are a key component of the monitoring plan design and are
typically established in the site remedy selection process. The criteria may include state or
federal groundwater and/or surface water standards. However, it should be noted that because
S/S is typically implemented as a source control remedy to minimize contaminant flux to
groundwater, other technologies or approaches may be used in conjunction with S/S to meet site
remedial goals.

Depending on state or federal remedial goals, cleanup criteria may be applied differently at a
site. The application of cleanup criteria can range from compliance at one or more specific POCs
everywhere on site within an impacted aquifer, demonstration of a percent reduction in
concentration flux from the treated material, calculating acceptable attenuation between the
treated material and the POC, hydrogeologic modeling to simulate groundwater flow, and
concentration flux attenuation. For most sites, specific cleanup criteria for contaminants and
demonstration that these criteria are met by the S/S remedy are typical regulatory requirements.
7.2.2 Monitoring Plan Design
Following the DQO process, groundwater monitoring plans should be designed for the collection
of the data necessary to evaluate the S/S remedy performance and protectiveness over time. Site-
specific data acquired during the site characterization and treatability study phases and developed
during the design of the S/S remedy should be used in the monitoring plan design, such as the
following:

• baseline conditions prior to S/S remedy implementation
• changes in site conditions, including land use, that may influence performance of the S/S
remedy
• changes in site conditions resulting from the S/S remedy that may influence nature and extent
or fate and transport of existing contamination adjacent to a treated mass (Environment
Agency 2004a)

For example, if other sources of contamination are present, site characterization data need to be
reviewed with respect to differentiating between contamination from other sources and migration
from the treated material to the extent possible. Other sources of contamination may include
separate sources outside the area to be treated with S/S that may already have impacted
groundwater or may in the future impact groundwater at or downgradient from the S/S-treated
material.

Other considerations for monitoring plan design could include site-specific conditions that may
cause physical impacts to a site from the remedy implementation. For example, water table
mounding or flooding is possible at a site after remedy implementation. See Appendix C for a
case study example where groundwater modeling was conducted to evaluate post-
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
56
implementation changes to the water table and support design of a storm-water collection
system.
7.2.3 Monitoring Parameters
An integral component of monitoring plan design is determining the appropriate suite of
contaminants and other parameters to monitor and evaluate for long-term performance
evaluation of the S/S remedy. The COCs for groundwater or surface water will have been
established prior to site remedy selection during site characterization and development of the
CSM and therefore will follow through design and implementation and into the groundwater
monitoring program.

One consideration in monitoring site contaminants after S/S treatment, particularly when
numerous chemicals are involved, is whether all contaminants should be included in monitoring
or a subset of contaminants may provide adequate representation of contaminant flux from the
S/S-treated material to demonstrate compliance. This determination can be based on results of
treatability studies and construction performance monitoring showing level of effectiveness of
S/S treatment for each contaminant. Initial post-treatment monitoring data may also support use
of a smaller subset of contaminants, or indicator contaminants, in longer-term monitoring. In any
case, the selection of contaminants for groundwater monitoring should be based on the potential
for contaminants to be released into groundwater and to exceed established cleanup criteria as
determined from data collected during such steps as site characterization, treatability studies,
construction monitoring, and groundwater modeling (if conducted).

Other groundwater parameters that could impact the stability of the S/S-treated material and may
be considered for the groundwater monitoring plan include the composition of downgradient
groundwater, changes in groundwater levels, or overall changes to the site. For example, pH may
be a parameter of interest because for some contaminants (i.e., inorganic chemicals) solubility is
directly related to the pH of groundwater. As a second example, monitoring water levels
upgradient from the S/S-treated material may be important if flooding may be a concern because
of a shallow groundwater table.

7.2.4 Selecting Monitoring Locations
Sufficient baseline information is necessary to evaluate changes in surrounding groundwater
quality and impact on relevant receptors resulting from flux from the S/S-treated material.
Therefore, monitoring points are typically located up- and downgradient of the treatment area to
compare baseline versus post-treatment monitoring data and may be established on site or
beyond the property limits. Exact locations of monitoring points and the number of points
needed are based on site-specific factors such as the following:

• site conditions
• potential changes in the groundwater flow regime induced by the treated material
• time of travel to POCs
• presence of contamination in groundwater prior to treatment

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
57
For example, establishing downgradient monitoring well locations closer to the treated material
will detect groundwater impacts sooner than wells located at a more distant POC. Closer
monitoring wells where downgradient groundwater contamination exists prior to treatment may
also detect improvement in groundwater quality sooner than more distant wells, making it easier
to interpret relative change in mass flux.

If the S/S-treated area is adjacent to a surface water body such as a river or lake, downgradient
groundwater monitoring may be more difficult or impossible. Depending on site-specific
regulatory requirements, other approaches can be used to monitor groundwater discharging into
the surface water, such as monitoring sediment porewater, surface water, and sediment at various
depths.

Upgradient monitoring should also be considered as part of the monitoring program. Upgradient
monitoring can provide insight to the interpretation of monitoring data, especially in cases where
groundwater contamination exists in areas in addition to those treated with S/S. For example, if
groundwater concentrations increase for both up- and downgradient monitoring, taking into
consideration travel time between the two, the source of the increase may well be the upgradient
groundwater going around the treated mass rather than the treatment failing.
7.2.5 Frequency and Duration of Monitoring
Guidance is generally not available specifically for S/S remedies with respect to the appropriate
frequency or duration for a groundwater monitoring program. Groundwater monitoring for the
first five years generally starts with quarterly monitoring and diminishes in frequency depending
on results and site conditions. Five-year reviews are generally conducted as part of periodic
review or required by CERCLA (EPA 2001). For state programs, monitoring requirements
usually follow the same frequency of monitoring used under the CERCLA program but may vary
in the requirement of five-year review periods. For example, the State of Texas only requires one
five-year review (G. Beyer, personal communication, 2010). The State of Delaware requires
monitoring only up to the point that eight quarters of groundwater data at the POC demonstrate
attainment of the remediation goals, after which time monitoring is not required. Compliance can
occur at any time before or after the first five-year review (W. Reyes, personal communication,
2010).

Monitoring frequency and duration requirements should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
In keeping with the regulatory requirements, predictive modeling can be used to further identify
appropriate monitoring frequency and duration. Modeling data may allow estimation of the
length of time that concentrations in groundwater or surface water near the S/S-treated material
may exist above acceptable levels and to predict peak concentrations over time at specific points
downgradient from the S/S-treated mass (EPRI 2009a). Modeling can also take into
consideration the different chemicals that may be present in the treated material in terms of their
fate and transport characteristics.

Conclusions regarding compliance over time can potentially be drawn from comparison of
measured concentrations with predicted peak concentrations at monitoring points. Based on
consistency between measured concentrations and modeled concentrations, monitoring decisions
can be evaluated, such as decisions to cease monitoring, reduce the number of chemicals
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
58
monitored, and significantly reduce the frequency of monitoring and to use alternate remedial
methods to address residual downgradient groundwater concentrations, such as monitored
natural attenuation.
7.2.6 Interpreting Monitoring Data
Immediately following S/S implementation, dramatic improvement in groundwater quality is
unlikely to be reflected in groundwater monitoring data because of reduced hydraulic
conductivity of the contaminated material, fate and transport, and potential presence of other
sources of contamination.

S/S treatment reduces the hydraulic conductivity of contaminated material, thereby increasing
the travel time for contaminants from the center to the margin of the treated mass. The rate of
release of contaminants from an S/S-treated mass may be limited by diffusion processes and will
likely be significantly less than the flux from the previously untreated contaminated mass. Once
released into groundwater, the fate and transport of contaminants is controlled by factors
including chemical properties, groundwater and aquifer characteristics, existing biological
processes, and presence of other sources of contamination. In addition, if groundwater
contamination is migrating from other sources, these sources need to be considered in the
evaluation of the monitoring data.

Given the variability of natural groundwater quality, monitoring data should be evaluated in
terms of trends and not absolute numbers. Evaluation of groundwater concentration trends can be
done through simple time versus concentration plots, or more rigorously using statistical
methods for data trend analysis. For more rigorous statistical analysis, EPA’s Statistical Analysis
of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities Unified Guidance (EPA 2009a) may be
useful.

Evaluation of concentration trends over time can be used to show continuing compliance where
concentrations do not exceed the cleanup criteria in the groundwater or at a specified POC or to
show changes in concentrations over time that will demonstrate compliance or progress toward
compliance. Groundwater modeling, in conjunction with treatability study data (concentration
flux from the S/S-treated material as a source term), may be used to help predict peak
concentrations of contaminants that may be released from an S/S-treated material and how those
concentrations may change over time and distance. Modeled predictive results can be used to
evaluate actual groundwater monitoring data and compliance with cleanup criteria.

If the main source of contamination is treated (per the remedial design), over time the
downgradient monitoring data trends should show improvement in groundwater quality and
continue showing improvement until concentrations stabilize. Should groundwater contaminant
concentrations appear to increase over time, the frequency of groundwater monitoring may need
to be increased to determine whether the remedy is failing or another cause for the increase
exists.

An S/S remedy should be considered successful if it meets material performance goals designed
to meet site groundwater cleanup criteria at established POCs and groundwater monitoring data
show that the cleanup criteria have been met.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
59
7.3 Institutional and Engineering Controls
EPA defines institutional controls as “non-engineering measures, such as administrative and/or
legal controls, that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or to
protect the integrity of a remedy by limiting land or resource use” (EDSC 2006). ICs, which may
be used when contamination is first discovered and when remedies are ongoing, may also be
needed when residual contamination remains on site and to meet regulatory requirements.

Engineering controls are barriers or systems that control downward migration, infiltration or
seepage of surface runoff and rain, or natural leaching/migration of contaminants through the
subsurface over time. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300) emphasizes that ICs, such as water use
restrictions, are meant to supplement ECs during all phases of cleanup and may be a necessary
component of the completed remedy; ICs will rarely be the sole remedy at a site.

Site reuse has a significant influence on the design of the protective measures to ensure that any
changes to land do not compromise the long-term structural and overall performance of the
treated material. Requirements, such as the development of contaminated materials management
plans, may also exist to protect site workers in the event of potential future excavation of the
treated material. In general, ICs may include the establishment of environmental covenants to the
property deed, and ECs may include the establishment of soil or impervious caps over the treated
material.

ICs and ECs are intended to continue until no longer needed, which in the case of S/S is as long
as the treatment material is in place. ICs usually require ongoing evaluation to determine whether
they provide the restrictions necessary for the site to remain protective of human health and the
environment. ECs usually require site inspections to determine performance over time. These
procedures are documented in long-term operations and maintenance (O&M) plans.
7.3.1 Institutional Controls
When implemented, maintained, and enforced properly, ICs serve a critical role in the
management of risks associated with residual contamination by preventing the disturbance of
contaminated material, by providing notification to the appropriate governmental entities when
breaches occur, and by providing important information to the local community and other
interested stakeholders regarding use restrictions. ICs can include government controls, such as
zoning restrictions, ordinances, and groundwater management zones; property controls, such as
easements and environmental covenants; enforcement and permit tools with IC components,
such as administrative orders and consent decrees; and informational devices, such as registries
and fish advisories. ICs may require legal and administrative implementation, management
(tracking and monitoring), and financial assurance that may require enforcement. Establishing an
effective management system for ICs is a challenging task that requires planning, coordination,
and funding among multiple governmental agencies, communities, and other stakeholder groups
(ITRC 2008).

Most states track and monitor ICs at some level. Tools available for tracking the status of IC
implementation and maintenance may include five-year reviews and other long-term inspections
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
60
and registries, state one-call systems, and third-party notification systems (ITRC 2008). Controls
could be maintained in a searchable database accessible to stakeholders. The O&M plans and
periodic remedy evaluations usually document reporting requirements associated with ICs (EPA
2010c).
7.3.2 Engineering Controls
Common practice for implementing S/S includes a cover system that exists between the treated
material and the exposed surface to prevent human contact. The need for an EC such as a soil,
gravel, or impervious cover (such as asphalt) on top of the treated material depends on land use,
S/S remedy implementation (deep versus shallow), public concerns, or other factors. For deeper
S/S applications where the treated material remains in the subsurface covered by on-site or
imported soil, ECs are generally not necessary. For shallow S/S applications, cover systems may
include soil, asphalt, gravel, geosynthetic clay liner, and/or flexible membranes. Considerations
for designing and implementing covers include the following: final grading, hydraulic
conductivity and stabilization of the cover system, and erosion and sediment controls permits and
requirements. Similar management controls (tracking, monitoring, and documenting) as those
described for ICs generally apply to ECs. Long-term inspections and reporting are usually
required and documented in O&M plans and periodic remedy evaluations.
7.4 Periodic Review
Periodic reviews evaluate the performance of the S/S technology upon implementation to
determine whether the remedy continues to be protective of human health and the environment.
The EPA five-year review requirement for CERCLA sites is based on the review requirement for
remedial actions which result in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining
at the site above levels that allow for unrestricted use. Many states have adopted EPA’s model of
periodic reviews.

A schedule should be established for routine reviews of the monitoring results against the
established objectives of the corrective action and revised accordingly, if necessary. The
monitoring program should also be reviewed on a regular basis to assess whether the objectives
and approach are still valid. Updates to the monitoring program may include additional
monitoring locations and variation in testing parameters and frequency, if needed.
7.4.1 Long-Term Performance Evaluation
Long-term performance evaluation determines whether the remedy is still functioning as
designed. Information from monitoring activities/reports, sampling and monitoring plans, and
O&M plans are key documentation for the technical assessment of S/S performance and
protectiveness. Evaluation of the contaminant trend versus the established criteria and remedial
objectives should provide a clear understanding of remedy performance.

EPA (2001) recommends using three questions for determining the protectiveness of the remedy:

• Question A—Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
61
• Question B—Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at
the time of the remedy selection still valid?
• Question C—Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?

For S/S technology, some aspects to be taken in consideration while responding to the three EPA
questions are discussed below.

Question A: Remedial action performance—Determining whether the remedial action continues
to operate and function as designed is a key component of the remedy performance assessment.
Two approaches can be used in this determination: a direct measure of the performance
parameters (e.g., strength, hydraulic conductivity, leachability) versus the established
performance criteria or evaluation of the groundwater concentrations at the POC. The first
approach is not commonly used on S/S applications, and only a few examples of this approach
exist, such as the EPRI project (EPRI 2003). Field inspections to evaluate ICs, ECs, and/or
potential indicators of remedy failure (such as a settlement) are also recommended.

Question B: RAOs—In conducting five-year reviews under CERCLA, EPA recommends the
evaluation of the effects of significant changes in standards and assumptions used at the time of
remedy selection as changes in promulgated standards may impact the protectiveness of the
remedy. Although it is unlikely that a change in a contaminant standard will require changes in
implemented S/S remedies, an evaluation of any changes to groundwater standards should be
evaluated. If a new standard has been established and groundwater concentrations at the POC
exceed this standard, an evaluation of other remedial alternatives in addition to S/S may be
required. Similarly, any changes in exposure pathway should be evaluated to determine
protectiveness over time.

Question C: New information—This includes an evaluation of any changes that could have an
impact on the protectiveness of the remedy, such as potential mounding, flooding, earthquakes,
or land use changes.

In addition, the final remedy should contain a requirement for a contingency plan in the event
that the selected remedy fails.
7.4.2 Frequency
In general, the frequency of periodic review varies over time and is either state or federally
mandated. For example, CERCLA mandates that the first five-year review be conducted within
five years after completion of the remedial action. Subsequent reviews must be performed no
later than five years following the previous five-year review report(s).
7.4.3 Drawing Conclusions from Periodic Reviews
Typically, the conclusions of the periodic review include issues identified during the review,
recommendations and follow-up actions for each identified issue, and a determination of whether
the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. The conclusions are based on the
technical assessment of the information discussed in Section 7.4.1. The conclusions should also
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
62
present any opportunities to improve the remedy performance, including any changes in the
monitoring system, if applicable. The EPA five-year review guidance provides a valuable
reference for developing a review framework, including guidance on additional response actions,
improving O&M activities, optimizing the remedy, enforcing access and institutional controls,
performing additional studies or investigations as potential recommendations items for five-year
review, and period review documentation (EPA 2001).
8. STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS
The selection and implementation of any remedial action must typically and primarily satisfy
requirements mandated by the parties responsible for remediation (the regulated community) and
the regulators. In addition, the opinions of the local community, local community groups, and
individual neighbors should be (and sometimes must be, as required by law) considered
throughout the various phases of the remediation process.

The relative impact of community involvement or action on a remediation project may be
minimal or significant depending on various site-specific factors such as location relative to the
community, perceived environmental or public health
concerns, prior relationships between parties, prior
communications (including bad press), and the
remedial action activities (including noise, visible
heavy equipment or truck activity, etc.). Therefore, it
can be expected that the level of potential community
concern or action with respect to a remedial action
will be proportional to the impact it may have on the
community.

The many variables relating to site remediation and the potential impact on the community
should be considered early and often to avoid potential problems during the development of
performance specifications and implementation. This section discusses factors important to local
communities that may invariably become partners in the implementation of S/S in their
communities. The scope of the discussion is not limited to performance criteria and long-term
stewardship but includes all general aspects of S/S implementation (Table 8-1).

Community interest may range from very low to very high, largely depending on project
location. For example, a large-scale S/S project implemented in a remote and/or secure location
such as a military installation may escape notice from the nearest communities. Conversely,
implementing S/S on a former MGP site located near the center of an historic or densely
populated urban community will certainly be noticed. In such cases, community notification,
public outreach, and meetings—and perhaps significant public relations efforts—may be
required to allay the concerns of local officials and the general public.

Although community involvement in site remediation activities is not a new process, having
been previously mandated and implemented at the federal level under various programs (such as
CERCLA and Base Realignment and Closure), public notification and even public input on site
remediation activities is becoming more common.
Some states have mandated public
notification and community input
regarding contaminated sites and even
in the selection of remedial methods. For
example, New Jersey’s Public
Notification and Outreach Requirements
are included as amendments to the
state’s Technical Requirements for Site
Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:26E).
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
63
Table 8-1. Stakeholder considerations
Consideration Relevance
Significance to S/S technology performance
and monitoring
Acute health
and safety
Implementation Use of certain materials, especially hazardous,
respirable, or toxic materials, may require special
health and safety monitoring. Therefore, certain
types of operations may be contraindicated due to
health and safety considerations.
Current and
future land use
• Proposed future land use
• Local zoning/land use
ordinance/regulations
• Long-term stewardship
• Community impacts/concerns
(environmental justice, health
risks, economic development)
Performance criteria may differ based on
proposed future land use, affecting risk-based
permissible leaching levels and remedy
performance standards (e.g., compressive strength
requirements should be consistent with future land
use).
• Site and surrounding land use
• Institutional controls
• Ecological status
• Proximity to sensitive receptors
(sensitive populations, water
bodies, endangered species)
• Local groundwater use
Performance criteria may differ based on land use
(e.g., industrial park vs. greenway) and sensitive
receptors, affecting risk-based permissible
leaching levels and remedy performance
standards.
Potential future intrusive work
(e.g., construction, boring, etc.)
May affect design strength criteria of S/S material
and supplementary remediation steps (e.g.,
thickness of clean soil buffer, placement of
geomembrane or a vapor intrusion barrier).
Institutional controls May affect access for long-term performance
monitoring.
Groundwater
and surface
water regulation
Regulatory classification of
groundwater and surface waters
Affects remedial goals, cleanup criteria, and
determination of practicability to achieve cleanup
criteria (e.g., performance criteria could include
reduced leachability and hydraulic conductivity to
be protective of ground and surface waters).

The introduction of communities, including local governments, individuals, local environmental
advocates, and others can add a significant level of complexity to the remediation decision-
making process. In addition to typical factors upon which remedial action decisions are made
(effectiveness, protectiveness, cost, cost/benefit, etc.), the addition of local communities may
lead to discussion of other factors, such as environmental justice, community health, impact on
future land use, impact on property values, economic development, and the use of nonpermanent
versus permanent remedies.
8.1 Health and Safety Issues
Health and safety is of primary importance in the design, implementation, and monitoring of all
remediation methods. As a fairly unique technology and methodology, S/S has its own
technology-specific health and safety aspects that require address in all phases of design
(including development of performance criteria), implementation, and post-implementation
monitoring. Specific factors requiring consideration are as follows:
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
64

• use of mobile heavy earthmoving equipment and (mineral and other) processing equipment
• use of various construction materials that may generate respirable and/or irritant dust and
other fugitive emissions
• potential for disturbance of utilities/infrastructure, both overhead and subsurface
• disturbance and possible mobilization of contaminants to the air, soil, groundwater, or
surface water
• disturbance of local soils, affecting their physical characteristics
• disturbance of local groundwater flow and quality
• natural resource damages
• implementing a process that does not “destroy” the contaminant

Some of these concerns are conditions inherent in the S/S process, which is specifically
designed, in most cases, to “disturb” local groundwater flow and/or to change the physical
properties of soils. Therefore, some of the health and safety concerns associated with the S/S
process require specific attention to alleviate concerns of the regulatory and local communities.
8.1.1 Ensuring Health and Safety During Implementation
Maintaining a link with the public may be especially important for S/S projects that have the
potential to impact the public, which may include any site at which the public is aware of an
imminent short- or long-term operation. This link may include providing information to local
officials, neighborhood groups, and/or neighboring property owners. Planning for public
notification and outreach may include the development of a written plan or standard operating
procedure that includes contact information of various stakeholders, contingency plans for
various potential events/scenarios, and instructions for dealing with the media and any potential
emergencies. Giving thought to potential problems of this nature and planning for certain events
or emergencies prior to the implementation phase may save significant downtime or even save a
project from being shut down due to local concerns.

The S/S process, especially the mixing and milling of fine-grained materials such as fly ash and
cement, has the ability to generate fugitive emissions and respirable dust. Under certain
conditions, fugitive emissions can present a potential exposure issue to on-site personnel and can
potentially migrate beyond the work area and site boundary. Monitoring for dust and other
potential fugitive emissions or vapors, accurate recordkeeping, and/or use of ECs is
recommended, where appropriate. These measures ensure work place safety and provide a record
of safe operating conditions during implementation. Appropriate health and safety practices also
provide a means to generate positive information to release as part of keeping the public notified
and assured of their safety.
8.1.2 Ensuring Long-Term Health and Safety Post-Implementation
As discussed in Section 7, S/S sites often require long-term stewardship to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy and public and environmental health. Although the long-term
monitoring plan design requires regulatory oversight, the proximity of communities and sensitive
populations may affect the required level of monitoring and O&M. Therefore, the key to
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
65
successful S/S implementation includes an appropriate level of preimplementation planning for
stakeholder issues (communication/outreach, sensitivity to specific concerns, developing
relationships, etc.).
8.2 Land Use Issues
Land use is an extremely important issue to stakeholders, especially local governments, citizens,
and organizations of all types. Land use management through planning and zoning laws/
ordinances, building codes, land use laws, etc. is typically a primary function for local
governments. Anything that affects land use affects a community. Changes in land uses have the
ability to alter neighborhoods, affect tax revenues, and/or change public safety and infrastructure
requirements (police, fire, utilities, water/sewer, etc.). Furthermore, any event that impacts local
land use is likely to generate concern, press coverage, and local involvement.

Environmental laws and the resultant environmental remediation industry exist primarily to
address the historic operations by industries, government agencies, and commercial and other
operations that have impacted land with hazardous materials. Future land uses are affected by the
existence of contaminated land, and if permanent remedies are not implemented, future land use
of a particular site can be permanently negatively affected. Impacts to future land use can foster
stakeholder concerns regarding the remediation technology, particularly when implemented
proximal to populated areas, as is the case with many former MGP sites. Therefore, the
remediating party and regulatory agency must address future land use impacts upon which S/S is
proposed.

S/S can be engineered to accommodate a variety of land uses by considering land use in the
selection of performance criteria (as described in Section 4 of this document). However, S/S may
not be deemed suitable for certain uses, such as those that may impact future homeowners
(residential use) or sensitive populations (day care centers, schools, etc.), usually to avoid
potential public perception and other problems associated with remedies where contaminants are
not removed or destroyed.

When designing S/S for use at sites in areas where local governments have identified future land
reuse potential, the following stakeholder-oriented guidelines should be considered:

• Design the S/S remedy so that it does not render the site unusable unless other site conditions
preclude reuse.
• Consider local community desires for the redevelopment of a particular contaminated site.
• Do not assume that conducting remediation in accord with state regulations will
automatically be acceptable to the local community or in accord with local land use laws.
• Design remediation with future land use in mind. If the remedial action will accommodate
potential or planned redevelopment in accord with local land use laws, the potential for local
acceptance is greater.
• Anticipate community needs for information and outreach, and provide accurate information,
in a simple format, using common terminology.
• Develop contingency plans for emergencies, including plans for hazard communication, and
media and local government relations.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
66
Figures 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3 depict examples of successful land reuse following S/S implementation.
Figure 8-1. Auger-mixed in situ S/S treatment of a former MGP site in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin (left) and post-treatment (right). Source: Portland Cement Association.
Figure 8-2. Auger-mixed in situ S/S treatment of a former MGP site in at Kendall Square,
Cambridge, Massachusetts (left) and after redevelopment (right).
Source: Portland Cement Association; Carleo, Clark, and Wilk 2006.
Figure 8-3. Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site near Brunswick, Georgia, during S/S
treatment (left) and redeveloped into an automobile dealer parking lot.
Source: Portland Cement Association, Lear and Wilk 2008.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
67
9. REFERENCES
Al-Tabbaa, A., and A. S. R. Perera. 2002. UK Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and
Remediation. STARNET State of Practice Report. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Engineering Department.
Amoozegar, A., and A. W. Warrick. 1986. Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Soils: Field
Methods, Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. A. Klute,
ed. Madison, Wisc.: American Society of Agronomy.
ANS (American Nuclear Society). 2003. Measurement of Leachability of Solidified Low-Level
Radioactive Wastes by a Short-Term Test Procedure. ANSI/ANS-16.1-2003.
ASTM (ASTM International, formerly American Society for Testing and Materials). 2006.
Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil. ATSM
D2166.
ASTM. 2007. Standard Test Methods for Compressive Strength of Molded Soil-Cement
Cylinders. ASTM D1633.
ASTM. 2009. Standard Test Method for Wetting and Drying Test of Solid Wastes. ATSM
D4843.
ASTM. 2010a. Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Freeze-Thaw Durability of Dry-Cast
Segmental Retaining Wall Units and Related Concrete Units. ASTM C1262.
ASTM. 2010b. Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated
Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter. ASTM D5084.
Bates, E. 2010. “Selecting Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization,” presented
at the International Solidification/Stabilization Technology Forum, Sydney, Canada, June
14–17.
Bates, E., F. Akindele, and D. Sprinkle. 2002. “American Creosote Site Case Study:
Solidification/Stabilization of Dioxins, PCP, and Creosote for $64 per Cubic Yard,”
Environmental Progress 21(2): 79–84.
Bear, J. 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. New York: American Elsevier.
Bonen, D., and S. L. Sarkar. 1995. “The Effects of Simulated Environmental Attack on
Immobilization of Heavy Metals Doped in Cement-Based Materials,” Journal of Hazardous
Materials 40(3): 321–35.
Butler, B. A. 2009. “Effect of pH, Ionic Strength, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Time and Particle
Size on Metals Release from Mine Drainage Impacted Streambed Sediments,” Water
Research 43(5): 1392–1402.
Carleo, C., T. Clark, and C. M. Wilk. 2006. Phoenix-Award Winning Kendall Square Rises from
Cement-Treated Brownfield Site. Publication No. SR854. Skokie, Ill.: Portland Cement
Association.
Carter, C. M., H. A. van der Sloot, and D. Cooling. 2009. “pH-Dependent Extraction of Soils and
Soil Amendments to Understand the Factors Controlling Element Mobility,” European
Journal of Soil Science 60(4): 622–37.
Chen, Q., L. Zhang, Y. Ke, C. Hills, and Y. Kang. 2009. “Influence of Carbonation on the Acid
Neutralization Capacity of Cements and Cement-Solidified/Stabilized Electroplating
Sludge,” Chemosphere 74(6): 758–64.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
68
Collepardi, M. 2003. “A State-of-the-Art Review on Delayed Ettringite Attack on Concrete,”
Cement and Concrete Composites 25(4–5): 401–07.
Conner, J. R. 1990. Chemical Fixation and Solidification of Hazardous Wastes. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Conner, J. R. 1997. Guide to Improving the Effectiveness of Cement-Based Stabilization/
Solidification. Publication No. EB211. Skokie, Ill.: Portland Cement Association.
Conner, J. R., and S. L. Hoeffner. 1998. “The History of Stabilization/Solidification,” Critical
Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 28(4): 325–96.
Dagan, G. 1989. Flow and Transport in Porous Formations. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Dijkstra, J. J., J. C. L. Meeussen, and R. N. J. Comans. 2004. “Leaching of Heavy Metals from
Contaminated Soils: An Experimental and Modeling Study,” Environmental Science and
Technology 38: 4390–95.
Dijkstra, J. J., H. A. van der Sloot, and R. N. J. Comans. 2006. “The Leaching of Major and
Trace Elements from MSWI Bottom Ash as a Function of pH and Time,” Applied
Geochemistry 21(2): 335–51.
EDSC (Environmental Data Standards Council). 2006. Institutional Control Data Standard.
Standard No. EX000015.1.
Environment Agency. 2004a. Guidance on the Use of Stabilisation/Solidification for the
Treatment of Contaminated Soil. Science Report SC98003/SR1. Bristol, UK.
Environment Agency. 2004b. Review of Scientific Literature on the Use of Stabilisation/
Solidification for the Treatment of Contaminated Soil, Solid Waste and Sludges. Science
Report SC980003/SR2. Bristol, UK.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification
of Hazardous Wastes. EPA/540/2-86/001. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory.
EPA. 1989. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes: Physical Tests, Chemical
Testing Procedures, Technology Screening, and Field Activities. EPA/625/6-89/022. Office
of Research and Development.
EPA. 1991. Leachability Phenomena: Recommendations and Rationale for Analysis of
Contaminant Release by the Environmental Engineering Committee. EPA-SAB-EEC-92-
003. Science Advisory Board.
EPA. 1992a. Guidance for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCLA. EPA/540/R-
92/071a. Office of Research and Development.
EPA. 1992b. Method 1311: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure.
www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/1311.pdf.
EPA. 1993a. Engineering Bulletin: Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and Inorganics.
EPA/540/S-92/015. Office of Research and Development.
EPA. 1993b. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report, 5
th
ed. EPA/542/R-
93/003. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 1993c. Technical Resource Document: Solidification/Stabilization and Its Application to
Waste Materials. EPA/530/R-93/012. Office of Research and Development.
EPA. 1994. Method 1312: Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure.
www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/1312.pdf.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
69
EPA. 1998. Management of Remediation Waste under RCRA Memorandum. EPA/530/F-98/026.
www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/530f-98026-s.pdf.
EPA. 1999a. Solidification/Stabilization Resource Guide. EPA/542/B-99/002.
EPA. 1999b. Waste Leachability: The Need for Review of Current Agency Procedures. EPA-
SAB-EEC-COM-99-002. Science Advisory Board.
EPA. 2000. Solidification/Stabilization Use at Superfund Sites. EPA/542/R-00/010. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 2001. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. EPA/540/R-01/007. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process.
EPA/240/B-06/001. Office of Environmental Information. www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g4-
final.pdf.
EPA. 2007a. Treatment Technologies for Mercury in Soil, Waste, and Water. EPA/542/R-
07/003.Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.
www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/542r07003.pdf.
EPA. 2007b. Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report, 12
th
ed.
EPA/542/R-07/012. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 2009a. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities Unified
Guidance. EPA/530/R-09/007. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
EPA. 2009b. Technology Performance Review: Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization
Treatment for Site Remediation. EPA/600/R-09/148. Office of Research and Development.
EPA. 2010a. Background Information for the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework
(LEAF) Test Methods. EPA/600/R-10/170. Office of Research and Development.
EPA. 2010b. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes (Draft). Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA. 2010c. Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and
Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites, Interim Final. EPA/540/R-09/001.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/pdfs/PIME-IC-Guidance-Interim.pdf.
EPA. 2010d. Superfund Remedy Report, 13
th
ed. EPA/542/R-10/004. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2003. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of In Situ
Solidification/Stabilization at the Columbus, Georgia Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Site.
Product ID 1009095. http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001009095.
EPRI. 2009a. An Integrated Approach to Evaluating In-Situ Solidification/Stabilization of Coal
Tar Impacted Soils. Product ID 1018612.
http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001018612.
EPRI. 2009b. Leaching Assessment Methods for the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of In-situ
Stabilization of Soil Material at Manufactured Gas Plant Sites. Product ID 1015553.
http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001015553.
Faschan, A., M. Tittlebaum, and F. Cartledge. 1996. “A Model to Predict the TCLP Leaching of
Solidified Organic Wastes,” Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials 13(3): 333–50.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
70
Fuhrmann, M., R. Pietrzak, E. Franz, J. H. Heiser, and P. Colombo. 1989. Optimization of the
Factors that Accelerate Leaching. BNL-52204. Upton, N.Y.: Brookhaven National
Laboratory.
Garrabrants, A. C. 2001. Assessment of Inorganic Constituent Release from a Portland Cement
Matrix as a Result of Intermittent Wetting, Drying and Carbonation, Chemical and
Biochemical Engineering. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers State University.
Garrabrants, A. C., and D. S. Kosson. 2003. “Modeling Moisture Transport from a Portland
Cement–Based Material During Storage in Reactive and Inert Atmospheres,” Drying
Technology 21(5): 775–805.
Garrabrants, A. C., and D. S. Kosson. 2005. “Leaching Processes and Evaluation Tests for
Inorganic Constituent Release from Cement-Based Matrices,” pp. 229–79 in Stabilization/
Solidification of Hazardous, Radioactive and Mixed Wastes, R. D. Spence and C. Shi, eds.
Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.
Garrabrants, A. C., F. Sanchez, C. Gervais, P. Moszkowicz, and D. S. Kosson. 2002. “The Effect
of Storage in an Inert Atmosphere on the Release of Inorganic Constituents During
Intermittent Wetting of a Cement-Based Material,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 91(1–3):
159–85.
Garrabrants, A. C., F. Sanchez, and D. S. Kosson. 2004. “Changes in Constituent Equilibrium
Leaching and Porewater Characteristics of a Portland Cement Mortar as a Result of
Carbonation,” Waste Management 24(1): 19–36.
Gervais, C., A. C. Garrabrants, F. Sanchez, R. Barna, P. Moszkowicz, and D.S. Kosson. 2004.
“The Effects of Carbonation and Drying During Intermittent Leaching on the Release of
Inorganic Constituents from a Cement-Based Matrix,” Cement and Concrete Research 34(1):
119–31.
Hills, C. D, A. Antemir, S. E. Leonard, and P. J. Carey. 2010. “Applications of Stabilization/
Solidification for the Treatment of Organically Contaminated Soil and Waste,” presented at
the International Solidification/Stabilization Technology Forum, Sydney, Canada, June 14–
17.
Ho, D. W. S., and R. K. Lewis. 1987. “Carbonation of Concrete and Its Prediction,” Cement and
Concrete Research 17(3): 489–504.
ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). 2008. An Overview of Land Use Control
Management Systems. BRNFLD-3. Washington, D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory
Council, Brownfields Team. www.itrcweb.org.
ITRC. 2010. Use and Measurement of Mass Flux and Mass Discharge. MASSFLUX-1.
Washington, D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Integrated DNAPL Site
Strategy Team. www.itrcweb.org.
Johannesson, B., and P. Utgenannt. 2001. “Microstructural Changes Caused by Carbonation of
Cement Mortar,” Cement and Concrete Research 31(6): 925–31.
Klemm, W. A. 1998. Ettringite and Oxyanion-Substituted Ettringites—Their Characterization
and Applications in the Fixation of Heavy Metals: A Synthesis of the Literature. Research
and Development Bulletin RD116. Skokie, Ill.: Portland Cement Association.
Klute, A., and C. Dirksen. 1986. Hydraulic Conductivity and Diffusivity: Laboratory Methods,
Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I: Physical and Mineralogical Methods, A. Klute, ed.
Madison, Wisc.: American Society of Agronomy.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
71
Kosmatka, S. H., B. Kerkhoff, and W. C. Panarese. 2002. Design and Control of Concrete
Mixtures, 14
th
ed. Skokie, Ill.: Portland Cement Association.
Kosson, D. S., H. A. van der Sloot, F. Sanchez, and A. C. Garrabrants. 2002. “An Integrated
Framework for Evaluating Leaching in Waste Management and Utilization of Secondary
Materials,” Environmental Engineering Science 19(3): 159–204.
Krishnan, S. V., and S. V. Sotirchos. 1994. “Effective Diffusivity Changes During Calcination,
Carbonation, Recalcination, and Sulfation of Limestones,” Chemical Engineering Science
49(8): 1195–208.
LaGrega, M. D., P. L. Buckingham, and J. C. Evans. 1994. Hazardous Waste Management,
pp. 641–704, “Stabilization and Solidification.” New York: McGraw-Hill.
Larsson, S. 2005. “State of Practice Report—Execution, Monitoring and Quality Control,”
presented at the International Conference on Deep Mixing: Recent Advances and Best
Practice, Stockholm, May 23–25.
Lear, P. R., and C. M. Wilk. 2008. Remediation of Hercules 009 Landfill. Publication No.
SR857. Skokie, Ill.: Portland Cement Association.
Little, D., B. Herbert, and S. Kungalli. 2005. “Ettringite Formation in Lime-Treated Soils:
Establishing Thermodynamic Foundations for Engineering Practice,” Transportation
Research Record No. 1936, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, pp. 51–59.
Ngala, V. T., and C. L. Page. 1997. “Effects of Carbonation on Pore Structure and Diffusional
Properties of Hydrated Cement Pastes,” Cement and Concrete Research 27(7): 995–1007.
Palaia, T. 2007. “Resurgence of In Situ Soil Mixing for Treating NAPL Source Areas,”
presented at the Air Force ESH Training Symposium, Pittsburgh, Mar. 18–23.
Papadakis, V. G., C. G. Vayenas, and M. N. Fardis. 1991. “Experimental Investigation and
Mathematical Modeling of the Concrete Carbonation Problem,” Chemical Engineering
Science 46(5–6): 1333–38.
Paria, S., and P. K. Yuet. 2006. “Solidification–Stabilization of Organic and Inorganic
Contaminants Using Portland Cement: A Literature Review,” Environmental Reviews 14(4):
217–55.
PASSiFy Project. 2010. Performance Assessment of Solidified/Stabilised Waste-Forms: An
Examination of the Long-Term Stability of Cement-Treated Soil and Waste.
www.gre.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/541198/PASSiFY.pdf.
Perera, A. S. R., A. Al-Tabbaa, and D. Johnson. 2004. State of Practice Report: Stabilisation/
Solidification Treatment and Remediation, Part VI: Quality Assurance and Quality Control.
www-starnet.eng.cam.ac.uk.
Perera, A. S. R., A. Al-Tabbaa, J. M. Reid, and J.D. Johnson. 2004a. State of Practice Report:
Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and Remediation, Part V: Long-Term Performance
and Environmental Impact. www-starnet.eng.cam.ac.uk.
Perera, A. S. R., A. Al-Tabbaa, J. M. Reid, and J. A. Stegemann. 2004b. State of Practice
Report: Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and Remediation, Part IV: Testing and
Performance Criteria. www-starnet.eng.cam.ac.uk.
Raber, B., I. Kogel-Knabner, C. Stein, and D. Klem. 1998. “Partitioning of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons to Dissolved Organic Matter from Different Soils,” Chemosphere 36(1), 79–
97.
ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011
72
Roskam, G. D., and R. N. J. Comans. 2003. “Leaching of PAHs from Waste Materials and the
Role of Dissolved Organic Matter,” presented at WASCON 2003, the 5
th
International
Conference on the Environment and Technical Implications of Construction with Alternative
Material, San Sebastian, Spain, 4–6 June.
Roskam, G. D., and R. N. J. Comans. 2007. “Availability and Leaching of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons: Controlling Processes and Comparison of Testing Methods,” Waste
Management 29(1): 136–42.
Sanchez, F., A. C. Garrabrants, and D. S. Kosson. 2003. “Effects of Intermittent Wetting on
Concentration Profiles and Release from a Cement-Based Waste Matrix,” Environmental
Engineering Science 20(2): 135–53.
Schwantes, J. M., and B. Batchelor. 2006. “Simulated Infinite-Dilution Leach Test,”
Environmental Engineering Science 23(1): 4–13.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1995. Engineering and Design Treatability Studies for
Treatability Studies for Solidification/Stabilization of Contaminated Material. Technical
Letter No. 1110-1-158.
USACE. 2010. Unified Facilities Guide Specifications: Solidification/Stabilization (S/S) of
Contaminated Material. UFGS-02 55 00.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1990a. “Procedure for Constant-Head Hydraulic Conductivity Tests
in Single Drill Holes (USBR 7310-89),” in Earth Manual, Part 2, A Water Resources
Technical Publication, 3
rd
ed. Denver: Bureau of Reclamation.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1990b. “Procedure for Performing Field Permeability Testing by the
Well Permeameter Method (USBR 7300-89),” in Earth Manual, Part 2, A Water Resources
Technical Publication, 3
rd
ed. Denver: Bureau of Reclamation.
van der Sloot, H. A. 2002. “Characterization of the Leaching Behaviour of Concrete Mortars and
of Cement-Stabilized Wastes with Different Waste Loading for Long-Term Environmental
Assessment,” Waste Management 22(2): 181–86.
van der Sloot, H. A., L. Heasman, and P. Quevauviller. 1997. Harmonization of
Leaching/Extraction Tests. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
van Gerven, T., G. Cornelis, E. Vandoren, and C. Vandecasteele. 2007. “Effects of Carbonation
and Leaching on Porosity in Cement-Bound Waste,” Waste Management 27(7): 977–85.
Wilk, C. 2003 “Principles of Solidification/Stabilization and Examples of the Technology’s Use
at Brownfield Sites,” presented at the Remediation Technology Symposium 2003, Banff,
Alberta, Canada.
Wilk, C. 2007. “Principles and Use of Solidification/Stabilization Treatment for Organic
Hazardous Constituents in Soil, Sediment, and Waste,” presented at the Waste Management
2007 Conference, Tucson, Ariz., Feb. 25–Mar. 1.
Wittenberg, R. E., and A. Covi. 2007. CQA Methodologies for In-Situ S/S at Former
Manufactured Gas Plants. Publication No. SR855. Skokie, Ill.: Portland Cement Association.










Appendix A

Equipment

A-1
EQUIPMENT


A variety of mixing methods using S/S
treatment equipment have been used for
on-site treatment of contaminated
materials, as briefly described in this
appendix. Treatment can be accomplished
while the material remains in place (in
situ, Figure A-1) or on excavated material
(ex situ, Figure A-2). Ex situ treated
material can be returned to its original
location or placed on another part of the
project area. At some projects, material
subject to S/S treatment has been
excavated and placed at the final location
prior to use of in situ mixing equipment to
treat the relocated material.

A.1 COMMON EX SITU MIXING
EQUIPMENT
A.1.1 Pugmills
Pugmills consist of a trough-like
mixing chamber with two horizontal
shafts with paddles affixed to the
counter-rotating shafts (Figures A-3
and A-4). Material to be treated and
S/S binding agents enter the mixing
chamber at one end and exit the other
end as a mixture. Generally, these are
continuous-flow devices. Pugmills are
commonly used in asphalt and concrete
paving. and many are sized to be
transported by tractor trailers along
with binding agent silos, conveyers,
hoppers, and size-screening equipment. Pugmill mixing systems are often automated, with
weight belt systems and controlled feed silos to provide quality control of the mixing process.
A.1.2 Batch Mixing
A variety of vessels, in sizes ranging from 200 L (55 gal) drums to truck-sized vessels, have been
used to mix batches of subject material with S/S binding agents. Batch mixing is not as common
as pugmill mixing for mixing and placing treated material back on site. Care should be taken in
the selection of batch-mixing equipment to ensure that mixed material can be easily discharged
from the mixing vessel.
Figure A-2. Pugmilled S/S-treated soil from former
wood-preserving site Port Newark, N.J., reused on
site as pavement base. Source: Key Environmental, Inc.
Figure A-1. S/S treatment of contaminated soil by
rotary blender at former wood-preserving site,
Port Newark, N.J. Source: Portland Cement Association.

A-2

A.2 COMMON IN SITU MIXING EQUIPMENT

A.2.1 Rotary Mixing

Rotary mixers are known by various names, including road reclaimer, road recycler, soil
stabilizer, and pulverizer. In pavement construction, these machines recycle pavement in place.
Rotary mixers consist of a milling drum on a transversely mounted shaft in a specialized piece of
heavy equipment. Rotary mixers
have been used in S/S treatment to
mix binding agents into subject
material (Figures A-5 and A-6).
Material subject to S/S is placed in
layers or “lifts” (200–300 mm [8–
12 inches]) on an area. Binding
agent(s) and additives are spread
onto the lift usually by a spreader
truck that precedes the rotary mixer.
The rotary mixer is operated over
the lift. Water can be added either
in front of the rotary mixer, into a
port on the mixing chamber, or
spread behind the mixer as
necessary. Subsequent lifts can be
mixed in place over previously
treated lifts to form thicker
monoliths.
Figure A-5. S/S treatment of relocated dioxin-
contaminated sediment by rotary mixer at Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi.
Source: ECC.
Figure A-3. Pugmill mixing S/S treatment for
lead-contaminated soil at 90
th
South Battery
Site, West Jordan, Utah. Source: S3 Engineers LLC.
Figure A-4. Pugmill mixer trough opened
showing mixing paddles at Peak Oil Co./
Bay Drum Co. Superfund Site, Tampa,
Florida. Source: Portland Cement Association.

A-3
Figure A-6. Drawing of S/S treatment by rotary mixer.
Source: Modified by CETCO from Portland Cement Association Publication EB234.
A.2.2 Excavator Mixing/Bucket Mixing
S/S treatment can be performed with a
common excavator (Figures A-7 and
A-8). Mixing of soil, sludge, or sediment
with an excavator bucket is applicable to
shallow depths, generally less than 6 m
(20 feet), depending on the equipment
size. This approach requires no specialty
mixing equipment but does require a
skilled operator. Generally, the treatment
area is divided into grid cells. Binding
agents are added as a liquid grout or dry
with the addition of supplemental water.
The excavator operator mixes the
binding agents into the subject material
to the desired depth. Mix homogeneity is
often determined by the amount of time
spent mixing in one area/cell. Use of
standard bucket excavators for S/S is
applicable to areas where significant
debris may be encountered and can be used to
blend size-reduced demolition debris with the
treated soil to reduce the need for off-site
demolition debris disposal.
Figure A-7. Excavator bucket mixing of
contaminated sediment, Sydney Tar Ponds,
Nova Scotia. Source: CETCO Contracting Services Co.
Figure A-8. Finished surface
after excavator bucket mixing,
Sydney Tar Ponds, Nova Scotia.
Source: CETCO Contracting Services Co.

A-4
A.2.3 Excavator-Mounted Rake Injecting

Excavator-mounted injectors (Figure A-9) use a set of hollow “forks” or “rake” attachments to
treat contaminated soil and/or sediments (Al-Tabbaa and Perara 2002a). The rakes are mounted
on a conventional hydraulic excavator for in situ mixing and treatment of soil and/or sludge at
depths up to 3 m (10 feet). Liquid grout is injected through the hollow “forks” and mixed in situ
with soil or sediments through the rake motion of the excavator. This technology is well suited
for shallow treatment of soft sediment, sludge, or soils.
Figure A-9. Rake injector (left) and grout plant and rake injector (right) for treating
contaminated sediment at Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) Superfund Site,
Charleston, S.C. Source: Williams Environmental Services, Inc.
A.2.4 Excavator-Mounted Rotary Blending
High-speed rotary stabilization
equipment is also available
(Figures A-1 and A-10). This
equipment mixes S/S binding
agents into the soil or sludge
through the rotating action of a
bladed or toothed mixing head.
This type of S/S is applicable to
soil and sludge with a moderate to
high solids content and involves
processing wastes in controlled
layers or directly in place.
Processing steps may include
preexcavation, layering,
conditioning, and stabilization.
Binding agents can be delivered
directly to the mixing head via
hydraulic or pneumatic pressure.
Figure A-10. S/S treatment by rotary blender at
former wood-preserving site, Port Newark, N.J.
Source: Key Environmental, Inc.

A-5
A.2.5 Auger Mixing
Auger mixing treats an approximately 0.6–3.7 m (2–12 foot) diameter vertical soil column up to
approximately 20 m (60 feet) below ground surface (bgs) by physically mixing the soil with
injected grout via a rotating auger or array of augers (Figure A-11). There are two methods of
auger mixing: wet and dry. In the wet method, the binders and/or fillers and/or additives are
mixed with water to prepare a grout slurry, which is pumped to the mixing tool and mixed with
soil in situ. The wet method is typically used for soils with moisture content less than about 60%.
In the dry method, the binders and/or fillers and/or additives are delivered to the mixing tool
using compressed air. Dry mixing is used commonly in low-strength soils with high moisture
content. Very soft soils with high moisture content, such as soft clays, organic soils, or sludge,
may dictate the use of the dry method.

The single-auger mixing method involves the use of a crane-mounted rotary table (turntable) or a
track-mounted earth drill rig to rotate a large-diameter (as great as 3.7 m [12 feet]) cutting head.
Similar to equipment used to construct cast-in-place concrete piles for bridges and dams, this
equipment can treat soil to depths as great as 18 m (60 feet). As the cutting head is rotated and
moved up and down, grout is injected through the hollow stem or a separate pipe. An in situ
column of treated soil is created when the mixing is completed. The process is completed by
executing a series of overlapping columns across the desired treatment area surface until the
entire project area is treated.

Vertical drill rigs using an array of smaller-diameter helical augers while injecting binding
agents can be used for deep soil mixing projects as well. For either type of vertical drilling,
subsurface debris and foundations must be removed earlier to prevent damage to the drill tools.
Binding agent delivery can either use the dry or wet method described above.
Figure A-11. S/S treatment using an auger with mixing blades exposed (left) and at a
depth of 22 feet as indicated by markings on auger shaft, at a former MGP plant,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Source: Portland Cement Association.

A-6
A.2.6 Jet Grouting
Jet grouting uses high pressure (40 MPa [6,000 psi]) to
pump grout through a specialized drill tool called a
“monitor” attached to a rotating drill rod. This is the most
effective system for S/S applications where surgical
treatment or treatment to great depths is necessary.

Jet grouting treats soil in typical 0.6–1.8 m (2–6 foot)
diameter vertical columns via a rotating shaft that injects
grout/air/water (in various combinations) into the
subsurface as the shaft is removed (Figure A-12).
Treatment to great depths (over 30 m [100 feet]) is
possible. The water:solids ratio of the binding agent grout,
the composition of the binders and fillers in the grout, and
the quantity of grout incorporated control the ultimate
strength and permeability of the columns. Similar to
vertical auger mixing, the jet grouting process is repeated
throughout the affected zone to develop a series of
overlapping vertical elements (Figure A-13). Jet grouting
is particularly useful for treating isolated zones of waste or
contaminated soil and for grouting around buried utilities
or below permanent structures.

Superjet grouting is a modified double-
fluid jet grouting system that takes
advantage of tooling design efficiencies
and increased energy to create high-
quality, large-diameter (3–5 m [10–
15 foot]) elements. These processes entail
inserting the monitor to a required depth
using a rotary drilling technique and then
slowly withdrawing it while injecting
grout into the soil through horizontal
nozzles at very high velocity
(approximately 200 m/sec [650 feet/sec]).
This energy erodes the soil fabric and
replaces it with a mixture of grout and
soil. Rotational speed and withdrawal rate
of the monitor control the diameter of the columns, which encapsulate the soil particles when the
grout hardens.
Figure A-13. Exposed jet-grouted columns.
Source: Geo-Con, Inc.
Figure A-12. Jet grouting showing
exposed nozzles. Source: Geo-Con, Inc.









Appendix B

Overview of Leaching Tests and Assessment of Leachability
Using the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework

B-1
OVERVIEW OF LEACHING TESTS ANDASSESSMENT OF LEACHABILITY USING
THE LEACHING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK


B.1 INTRODUCTION

The leachability of a porous material is often determined from the results of one or more
leaching tests designed to measure either the extent or the rate of contaminant release. When
developing a leachability testing program, an important distinction should be made between the
thermodynamics of the system and kinetics or time-dependence of the release.

In the leaching environment, the duration of the water-solid contact and the sample size define
two distinct release-controlling release mechanisms: equilibrium-based release (thermo-
dynamics) and mass transfer-based (kinetics) release.

• Equilibrium-based release. If the particle size of the subject material is small relative to the
time that the material is in contact with a leaching solution, release continues until an
equilibrium
1
is established. The equilibrium concentration is determined by the
thermodynamics of the system with regard to the LSP. The partitioning between the solid and
liquid phases is a function of pH, L/S, and all associated interfacial chemical reactions (e.g.,
dissolution, desorption, complexation). Thus, the extent of leaching can be estimated using
one or more of available “equilibrium-based” leaching tests (e.g., ASTM D3987, EPA
Method 1312).

• Mass transfer-based release. In some cases (e.g., groundwater flow around an S/S-treated
material), the size of the subject material is large while the contact time with the leaching
solution may be short. The rate of the partitioning reactions may be relatively fast compared
to the kinetics of mass transport (van der Sloot and Dijkstra 2004; Dijkstra, van der Sloot,
and Comans. 2006). [NOTE: References for this appendix are in Section B.7, beginning on
p. B-24.] Therefore, the local equilibrium assumption is used to estimate concentrations
within the porewater of the subject material, and one of several available mass transfer tests
(e.g., ANS 16.1, EPA PreMethod 1315 currently being validated by EPA and described later
in this appendix) may be used to describe the overall leaching process.

Based on the above distinction, leaching tests are designed to either (a) estimate some
equilibrium between the solid and liquid phases or (b) measure the rate of mass transfer release
as a function of time. In both cases, it is important to realize that the applicability of the results is
limited to the conditions (e.g., particle size, leachant composition, contact time) incorporated into
the test design. Equilibrium-based leaching tests do not provide information on the kinetics of
contaminant release, and mass transfer-based leaching tests cannot be used to address
thermodynamics.


1
Due to the complexity of the solid mineralogy, the assumed local equilibrium is not a true chemical equilibrium in
that a dissolved mineral phase will reprecipitate; rather, it is pseudoequilibrium in that the concentration in the
aqueous phase approaches a constant value with time.

B-2

Van der Sloot, Heasman, and Quevauviller (1997) noted that of the 50 or more leaching tests in
the literature, most differ in only minor ways. Thus, a limited number of carefully selected
leaching tests can cover a wide range of possible exposure conditions. The results of this
leaching characterization can be combined with default or site-specific scenario information to
provide a more robust description of contaminant release than any single test. These concepts
were the basis for the development of the LEAF, a collection of leaching test methods, data
management tools, and assessment approaches that can be used to characterize a subject solid
material and integrated to provide a “source term” for contaminant release to the environment.

This appendix provides a more detailed description of the LEAF than that presented in Section 4
of this guidance. As illustrations of the framework applied to S/S-treated materials, example test
results and interpretation of leaching data relevant are included when appropriate.


B.2 OVERVIEW OF LEACHING TESTS

Garrabrants and Kosson (2005) have reviewed leaching tests with respect to leaching assessment
methodologies for cement-treated materials and have noted several other important ways to
group leaching tests. One such method classification is based on whether the test is intended to
provide leachates representative of field conditions (simulation tests) or an intrinsic leaching
response of the material to environmental conditions (characterization tests). Procedurally,
leaching test procedures may be designed as “batch extraction methods” or “dynamic leaching
methods” depending on how the leaching solution is introduced to the solid material.
B.2.1 Simulation Tests
Simulation tests are designed to measure leaching under a specific set of experimental
conditions, usually in an attempt to mimic field conditions. Typically, the concentrations of
constituents in the leachate are compared to a set of predetermined threshold limits considered
acceptable for the simulated scenario. By nature, the release conditions anticipated in the field
are inherent to the design of simulation leaching tests such that test conditions and procedures
need to be adapted on a case-by-case basis to best describe performance in the field. In addition,
since no two leaching scenario are identical, a new test needs to be designed for each new
scenario. Thus, standardization of a single simulation-based leaching procedure for applicability
over a wide range of materials or release scenarios is impossible.
B.2.2 Characterization Tests
The intent of characterization leaching tests is to remove the dependence of specific field
conditions from the behavior of the subject material such that the results provide information on
characteristic or fundamental behavior of the subject material. Characterization tests expose the
subject material to a broad range of experimental conditions so that the results may be
considered to describe leaching characteristics over a range of field conditions. When site-
specific parameters (e.g., fill dimension, groundwater flow rate, infiltration rate) are known, the
results of characteristic leaching tests can be tailored to a particular field scenario. In other cases,
results may be applied to general or default scenario parameters based on the anticipated mode of

B-3
water contact (i.e., flow-around or percolation). Due to the broader range of testing conditions,
characterization tests require more effort in testing and interpretation than simulation tests;
however, characterization tests are generally considered to provide a more accurate and flexible
assessment of leaching from solid materials. When site-specific conditions for a selected release
scenario are known a priori, characterization tests may also provide built-in flexibility in that the
range of test conditions may be tailored to conservatively cover the range of release conditions in
the scenario.
B.2.3 Batch Extraction Tests
In batch extraction methods, a subsample of subject material is contacted by a single aliquot of
leaching solution over a specified duration. Panels in Figure B-1 show two examples of batch
tests. The basic procedure for a batch test is shown as a single-point batch test (a), while several
batch extractions under different test conditions may be conducted at one time using a parallel-
batch extraction structure (b). After extraction, the solid material may be discarded, recovered for
analysis, or contacted with another aliquot of the same or different leaching solution. Batch
extraction tests are most often performed to achieve pseudoequilibrium between the solid
material and the leaching solution; therefore, the material subsample used in batch extraction
tests is often particle-size-reduced by crushing or grinding to minimize the rate limitation of
diffusion through large particles.
(a)
discard or
analyze solid
1 leachate for
chemical analysis
A
1 solid
subsample
agitation
L
1 leachant
(b)
n analytical
solutions
L
n
L
B
L
A
n subsamples
S
2
S
n
n B A
S
1
n extraction
conditions

Figure B-1. Schematic representations of a two batch extraction tests: (a) single batch and
(b) parallel batch. Source: Modified from Garrabrants and Kosson 2005.
B.2.4 Dynamic Leaching Tests
Dynamic leaching tests rely on continuous or semicontinuous refreshing of the leaching solution.
Often, the purpose of dynamic leaching methods is to record time-dependent data regarding the
rate of release without establishing equilibrium between the solid and liquid phases. Dynamic
leaching tests may also be used to measure the rate of release during the approach to equilibrium.
The panels in Figure B-2 show several approaches for conducting dynamic leaching tests,
including (a) contacting the subsample with a single aliquot of leaching solution that is
recirculated and analyzed periodically until equilibrium is achieved, (b) passing the leaching
solution around or (c) through the subsample once in a flow-around or flow-through setup,
respectively, or (d) moving the subsample progressively through a series of leaching solutions
aliquots in a semidynamic process.

B-4
Figure B-2. Schematic representation of several dynamic leaching tests: (a) flow-around
tank test with recycle, (b) single-pass flow-around tank test, (c) flow-through column test in
downflow and upflow modes, and (d) semidynamic static tank test.
Source: Modified from Garrabrants and Kosson 2005.


B.3 CURRENT REGULATORY TESTING METHODS

Leaching tests for regulatory purposes have been promulgated from the EPA Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery with regard to hazardous waste classification. The EPA compendium
of test methods, SW-846 (Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods), contains two commonly used extraction procedures:

• Method 1311—Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
• Method 1312—Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP)

The EPA methods are single-batch, equilibrium-based simulation tests consisting of a single-batch
extraction of particle-size-reduced (<9.5 mm) material with dilute acid at an L/S of 20 mL/g-dry.
The test conditions for these methods are supposed to simulate release under defined regulatory
(a)



leachate sampled
periodically
leaching fluid
flows around
monolithic
sample
recycle
(a) (b)


leachant
leaching
fluid flows
around
monolithic
sample
leachate


(d)
1 sample


n leachates for chemical analysis
A
1

L
1

A
2
A
n

L
2
L
n

Δt
1

Δt
n

n leaching intervals (Δt
1
thru Δt
n
)
Δt
2


. . .













leachate
leachate
leachant
leachant
downflow
simulates
rainfall
upflow
minimizes
channeling,
pore plugging
(c)




B-5
scenarios. For example, TCLP mimics the result of codisposal of the tested material with
municipal solid waste, while SPLP simulates the contact of the material with acid rain.

For assessment purposes, the tests are assumed to produce a leachate representative of field
concentrations under the specified test conditions, and therefore, leachate concentrations may be
compared directly to acceptable release concentrations. Although these tests are promulgated for
hazardous waste classification (e.g., to provide a degree of protection between the public and
waste materials containing potentially hazardous constituents), these leaching tests see daily use
in areas for which these tests were not strictly designed.


B.4 EPA PREMETHODS—LEACHING TESTS INCLUDED IN LEAF

The characterization leaching test methods within LEAF are designed to define intrinsic leaching
behavior of a wide range of solid materials. As such, the test conditions and applications are
somewhat more broad-based than simulation tests. The four LEAF leaching test methods have
been derived from published leaching methods (Kosson et al. 2002) and international standard
methods in various states of development and validation for waste materials (CEN/TS 14405
2004, CEN/TS 14429 2005, CEN/TS 14997 2005, CEN/TS 15863 2009), construction products
(CEN/TS-2 2009, CEN/TS-3 2009), and soils (ISO/TS 21268-3 2007; ISO/TS 21268-4 2007;
ISO/DIS 12782 2010, parts 1–5) as well as some U.S. test methods (ASTM 4784, ASTM 1308,
ANS 16.1).

Drafts of the LEAF leaching tests are currently available online (www.vanderbilt.edu/leaching)
as preliminary versions of EPA test methods, denoted here as “premethods.” The following
sections provide a brief description of each method, including example results and interpretation.
B.4.1 PreMethod 1313
PreMethod 1313 (EPA 2010a) is an equilibrium-based leaching test designed to provide the LSP
of constituents as a function of pH. The test also provides a titration curve which can be used to
assess the acid or base neutralization capacity of the subject material. For most inorganic
contaminants, the pH of the leaching environment can have a strong influence on the LSP, such
that release concentrations under the local equilibrium assumption changes as pH shifts (e.g.,
when the material buffering capacity is depleted due external sources of acidity or alkalinity).
B.4.1.1 Procedure Description
The procedure consists of 10 parallel extractions of a particle-size-reduced solid material (to
facilitate the approach to equilibrium) in dilute acid or base designed to provide eluates at
specific pH targets over the range 2–13. A subsample of the subject material is added to each of
10 extraction vessels along with specified volumes of deionized water and aliquots of either acid
or base. The final L/S of each extract is 10 mL/g-dry. The extraction vessels are sealed and
tumbled end over end for a contact time that varies 24–72 hours depending on the particle size of

B-6
the material.
2
After the specified contact time, eluate pH and conductivity are measured from an
aliquot taken from each extraction, and the remaining solution is filtered through a 0.45-µm pore
size filtration membrane. Analytical samples are saved for chemical analysis in a manner
consistent with target constituents and selected analytical methods.
B.4.1.2 Modifications for Organic Contaminants
Although the procedure was initially designed to determine the pH-dependence of the LSP for
inorganic contaminants, the method can be easily modified to address organic contaminants. The
container materials may be altered to minimize sorption (e.g., borosilicate glass or steel vessels
rather than plastic or fluoropolymer vessels), and container designs and filtration methods may
be modified to minimize volatilization.
B.4.1.3 Typical Results and Interpretation
The constituent concentrations in the PreMethod 1313 eluates are plotted as a function of the
final extract pH, resulting in a curve that represents the pH-dependence of the LSP across a
broad range of pH values. The shape of the LSP curve (i.e., relative locations of maxima and
minima) is indicative of the geochemical speciation of the constituent in the solid phase over the
pH range. The LSP results for inorganic contaminants usually can be recognized as one of the
four characteristic shapes described below and presented schematically in Figure B-3.

• cationic species—The LSP curve of cationic species (e.g., Cd) typically has a maximum
concentration in the acidic pH range that decreases to lower values at alkaline pH values.
• amphoteric species—Although similar in shape to the LSP curve for cationic species, the
LSP concentrations for amphoteric species [e.g., Pb, Cr(III), Cu] pass through a minimum in
the near-neutral pH range and increase with pH into the alkaline range. The increase in LSP
concentration in the alkaline range is typically associated with soluble hydroxide complexes
(e.g., [Pb(OH
3
)]

).
• oxyanionic species—The LSP curves for oxyanions (e.g., [AsO
4
]

, [SeO
4
]

, [CrO
4
]
–2
)
typically show maxima in the neutral to slightly alkaline range.
• highly soluble species—The LSP curve for highly soluble species (e.g., Na
+
, K
+
, Cl

) is not a
strong function of pH; thus, it appears to be relatively flat across the pH range.

For inorganic contaminants, the idealized LSP curves in Figure B-3 can be compared with the
general shape of the test data to infer the speciation of the constituent in the solid matrix.
However, geochemical speciation models should be used to confirm these observations. The
eluate concentration results from PreMethod 1313 may be simulated with geochemical
speciation models to infer the mineral phases, adsorption reactions, and soluble complexes that
control the release of the constituent.



2
The contact time depends on the maximum particle size of the solid sample under the assumption that larger
particles take longer to reach equilibrium.

B-7
Figure B-3. Generic behaviors of several inorganic contaminant types showing
generalized minima/maxima as a function of pH.

For organic contaminants, measured LSP concentrations are associated with partitioning between
organic and aqueous phases, as well as complexation with dissolved carbon in the aqueous
phase. The organic-aqueous partitioning of a contaminant is described in the literature using the
octanol-water partitioning coefficient, K
ow
. This partitioning is relatively tolerant of changes in
pH; however, the dissolution of organic carbon, and hence the complexation with organic
contaminants, are strongly dependent on pH, especially in the alkaline range. In Figure B-4, the
relative concentrations of DOC and total PAHs in a leachate are shown before and after removal
of the organic carbon through flocculation.
Figure B-4. pH-dependent leaching of DOC and associated PAH concentrations from
contaminated sediment. Source: After Roskam and Comans 2003.
B.4.2 PreMethod 1314
This percolation column method (EPA 2010b) is designed to provide the LSP of constituents as a
function of L/S under conditions where water percolates through the solid material.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
l
o
g

s
c
a
l
e
)
pH
Cationic
Oxyanionic
Amphoteric
Highly Soluble
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 5 10 15
pH
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
D
O
C

(
m
g
/
L
)
PAH
PAH after flocculation
DOC
DOC after flocculation
Σ
1
6

P
A
H
s
[
µ
g
/
L
]
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 5 10 15
pH
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
D
O
C

(
m
g
/
L
)
PAH
PAH after flocculation
DOC
DOC after flocculation
PAH
PAH after flocculation
DOC
DOC after flocculation
Σ
1
6

P
A
H
s
[
µ
g
/
L
]

B-8
B.4.2.1 Procedure Description
A 5 cm diameter × 30 cm column is moderately packed with solid material, and leaching
solution is introduced to the column in upflow pumping mode to minimize air entrainment and
flow channeling (Figure B-5). The default
leaching solution for most materials is
deionized water; however, a solution of
1.0 mM calcium chloride in deionized
water is used when testing materials with
either high clay content (to prevent
deflocculation of clay layers) or high
organic matter (to minimize mobilization
of DOC). The liquid flow rate is be
maintained at 0.5–1.0 L/S per day to
increase the likelihood of local equilibrium
within the column. Liquid fractions are
collected as a function of the cumulative
L/S and saved for chemical analysis. The
cumulative mass release is plotted as a
function of cumulative L/S.
B.4.2.2 Modifications for Organic Contaminants
Although this method was primarily designed to address LSP of inorganic contaminants, the
method can be easily modified to address organic contaminants. The column materials need to be
altered to minimize sorption (e.g., borosilicate glass or steel surfaces rather than plastic or
fluoropolymer), and container designs and filtration methods should be modified to minimize
volatilization.
B.4.2.3 Typical Results and Interpretation
Figure B-6 shows column eluate concentrations for calcium and chromium obtained using
PreMethod 1314 on a coal combustion fly ash, along with cumulative mass release derived from
the leaching test results. Eluate concentrations are compared to QC values: the method limit,
which is sometimes considered a practical quantifiable limit, and the method detection limit,
which indicates the lowest detectable concentrations. Cumulative release values are calculated by
summing up the mass released in each eluate fraction up to the L/S value of interest (e.g.,
cumulative release at L/S = 2 mL/g-dry includes the mass release during the first four intervals).
Cumulative release may be compared to a line with a slope of 1, which indicates solubility-
controlled release in that if the solubility of the constituent is a limiting factor in the release,
concentrations remain constant and doubling the liquid volume results in doubling the mass
released.

Figure B-5. Schematic of PreMethod 1314
upflow percolation column test apparatus.

B-9
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0 2 4 6 8 10
C
a
l
c
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
L/ S ( L/ kg)
(a)
MDL
ML
Calcium depletion

100
1000
10000
0.1 1 10
C
a

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

R
e
l
e
a
s
e


(
m
g
/
k
g
)
L/ S ( L/ kg)
(b)
slope = 1.0
Availablilty (PreMethod 1313)
Calcium depletion

0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
C
h
r
o
m
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
L/ S ( L/ kg)
MDL
ML
(c)
Calcium depletion
1
10
100
0.1 1 10
C
r

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

R
e
l
e
a
s
e


(
m
g
/
k
g
)
L/ S ( L/ kg)
slope = 1.0
(d)
Calcium depletion

Figure B-6. Example PreMethod 1314 results for a coal combustion fly ash as a function of
L/S showing (a) calcium concentration, (b) calcium release, (c) chromium concentration,
and (d) chromium release.

To aid in interpretation of the results shown in Figure B-6, a vertical, dashed line is used to
indicate a critical point in the leaching where calcium concentrations decrease dramatically. The
change in concentration is likely due to depletion of leachable calcium, although eluate
concentrations have not yet decreased to the QC limits (i.e., method limit or method detection
limit). In the calcium release plot, the depletion assessment is confirmed by plotting the
maximum release value from the PreMethod 1313 data, which is indicative of the available
fraction of calcium in the material. Figure B-6(b) shows that the limit on calcium release in the
column test corresponds to the release of the available calcium.

Comparison between calcium and chromium concentration plots shows an obvious connection
between the depletion of calcium concentrations and a significant increase in chromium
leaching. Since progressive L/S ratios are related to time under groundwater flow in the
subsurface, chromium release is likely to increase with time as more liquid is passed through the
column and calcium is depleted.
B.4.3 PreMethod 1315
PreMethod 1315 (EPA 2010c) determines mass transfer release rates of constituents containing
low-permeability material under diffusion-controlled release conditions.

B-10
B.4.3.1 Procedure Description
The procedure consists of continuous leaching of a monolithic or compacted granular material in
a liquid-filled tank with periodic renewal of the leaching solution. The vessel and sample
dimensions are chosen such that the sample is fully immersed in the leaching solution at a
liquid–surface area ratio of 9 mL/cm
2
. Monolithic samples may be cylinders or parallelepipeds;
granular materials are compacted into cylindrical molds at optimum moisture content using
modified Proctor compaction methods. At nine predetermined intervals, the leaching solution is
exchanged with fresh reagent water, and the previous leachate is collected. For each leaching
interval, the pH and conductivity are measured, and analytical samples are saved for chemical
analysis. Solution concentrations are plotted as a function of time, as a mean interval flux, and as
cumulative release as a function of time. Observed diffusivity and tortuosity may be estimated
through analysis of the resulting leaching test data.
B.4.3.2 Modifications for Organic Contaminants
One principle of any mass transport-based leaching test is that a concentration gradient between
leaching solution and the porewater within the material must be maintained as a driving force for
mass transport. However, the low aqueous solubility of many organic compounds, such as PAHs,
results in leaching solution concentrations that approach equilibrium quickly such that the
driving force for mass transport is diminished. This condition can lead to erroneous estimation of
mass transport release rates for organic contaminants. Additionally, volatile organics may be lost
to headspace and vessel leaks during the procedure. Thus, the method for PreMethod 1315
testing of materials containing organic contaminants requires more extensive modification than
other test methods. A modified PreMethod 1315 approach (EPRI 2009), denoted here as
PreMethod 1315m, uses a siliceous gel coating within the leaching vessel to act as an absorption
sink for organic constituents. The gel is coated on the inside surface of an airtight borosilicate
glass jar such that organic constituents that transport through the subject material into the
aqueous phase are absorbed into the gel and trapped until extracted with a solvent. Using this
approach, volatility losses are minimized, and the mass release is considered to better represent
the mass transfer of organic contaminants into freely moving groundwater, where concentrations
typically build up.
B.4.3.3. Typical Results and Interpretation
Figure B-7 shows an example of PreMethod 1315 data for the release of aluminum from an S/S-
treated wastewater stream containing heavy metals. The four panels in the figure represent a
common way to present mass transfer data by including (a) the pH evolution during the leaching
test since pH is an important parameter controlling porewater solubility of inorganic
contaminants, (b) leachate concentrations in each test interval as a function of leaching time,
(c) mass flux or the rate of release across a unit exposed surface area as a function of leaching
time, and (d) cumulative mass release per unit exposed surface area as a function of leaching
time. The values for mass flux and cumulative release are derived directly from leachate
concentrations and compared to indicator lines with slopes of –0.5 (flux) and +0.5 (cumulative
release). These lines are based on the time-dependence of a diffusion-controlled release
mechanism where diffusion is related to the square root of time. In the example shown in

B-11
Figure B-7, the flux and mass release of aluminum are “consistent” with a diffusion-controlled
mechanism represented by the indicator lines.
3


10
10.5
11
11.5
12
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
L
e
a
c
h
a
t
e

p
H
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
(a)
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
A
l
u
m
i
n
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
ML
MDL
(b)
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
A
l
u
m
i
n
u
m

F
l
u
x

(
m
g
/
m
²
s
)
t i me ( days)
slope = -0.5
(c)
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
A
l

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
(
m
g
/
m
²
)
t i me ( days)
slope = +0.5
(d)

Figure B-7. Example PreMethod 1315 results for aluminum leaching from an S/S-treated
material showing (a) leachate pH evolution, (b) leachate concentrations, (c) mass flux, and
(d) cumulative mass release.

The release behavior of a material under conditions of mass transport can be described by either
the mass flux or cumulative mass release. Either parameter may be used to provide a comparison
of release behavior for different constituents as shown in Figure B-8. In this figure, the
cumulative release for several select constituents from the S/S-treated wastewater is compared to
the indicator line with slope of +0.5. The following generalizations may be made:

• Aluminum, selenium, and antimony cumulative releases are consistent with a diffusion-
controlled mechanism.



3
Since other release mechanisms are also related to the square root of time and may be represented by the same
lines, caution should be used during interpretation, and proclamations without supporting information that release of
a species is controlled by diffusion should be avoided.

B-12
• The cumulative release of iron is not consistent with diffusion control and may be solubility-
controlled. Confirmation of this observation requires additional tests or geochemical
speciation modeling.

• The cumulative release curve for selenium appears to be limited to a fixed value of
approximately 1,000 mg/m
2
. Plotting the available content as determined by PreMethod 1313
(converted to the proper units) on the cumulative release graph shows that the release limit
corresponds to the availability of selenium. Thus, the cumulative release of selenium in the
PreMethod 1315 test is limited by the depletion of available selenium.

Antimony release appears to be suppressed for the initial testing fractions but shows a
significant and sudden increase between 14 and 28 days of leaching. The increase in
antimony release may be due to depletion of another constituent; however, additional tests
and geochemical speciation modeling may be required to confirm this observation.

10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
A
l

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
(
m
g
/
m
²
)
t i me ( days)
slope = +0.5
(a)
0.1
1
10
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
F
e

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

(
m
g
/
m
²
)
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
slope = +0.5
(b)
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
S
e

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

(
m
g
/
m
²
)
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
slope = +0.5
(c)
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
S
b

C
u
m
u
l
a
i
v
e

R
e
l
e
a
s
e


(
m
g
/
m
²
)
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
slope = +0.5
(d)

Figure B-8. Example PreMethod 1315 data showing cumulative release for (a) aluminum,
(b) iron, (c) selenium, and (d) antimony.
B.4.4 PreMethod 1316
This parallel-batch equilibrium test (EPA 2010d) is designed to provide the LSP of constituents
as a function of L/S at five values between 10 and 0.5 mL/g-dry. At low L/S (e.g., S/S material

B-13
pore water), ionic strength is high such that the equilibrium chemistry is different from that
measured under laboratory conditions of 10 mL/g-dry.
B.4.4.1 Procedure Description
This procedure consists of five parallel extractions of a particle-size-reduced solid material (to
facilitate the approach to equilibrium) in reagent water. No acid or base is added so that the final
extract pH reflects the buffering capacity of the solid material. Samples of solid material and
volumes of deionized water are added to 10 extraction bottles at L/S values of 10, 5, 2, 1, and
0.5 mL/g-dry. The extraction vessels are sealed and tumbled end over end for a contact time
between 24 and 72 hours. The contact time depends on the maximum particle size of the solid
sample under the assumption that larger particles take longer to reach equilibrium. After the
specified contact time, pH and conductivity of the eluates are measured, and the remaining
solution is filtered through a 0.45-µm pore size filtration membrane under pressure or vacuum.
Analytical samples are saved for chemical analysis depending on target constituents and selected
analytical methods. The concentrations of constituents in the analytical solutions are reported
and plotted as a function of L/S.
B.4.4.2 Modifications for Organic Contaminants
Although this method was primarily designed to address L/S-dependence of inorganic
contaminants, the method can be easily modified to address organic contaminants. The container
materials need to be altered to minimize sorption (e.g., airtight glass or steel vessels rather than
plastic or fluoropolymer vessels), and container designs and filtration methods should be
modified to minimize volatilization.
B.4.4.3 Typical Results and Interpretation
The results of PreMethod 1316 are similar in presentation and interpretation to those of the
column test (PreMethod 1314) with leachate concentrations and release presented for each
constituent. However, because this method is a parallel-batch extraction procedure, release is not
cumulated over several leaching fractions as in the column tests. In PreMethod 1316, release is
reported in the same manner as in the pH-dependence test (i.e., batch concentration multiplied by
the corresponding L/S value for each extraction).

Figure B-9 shows PreMethod 1316 results for arsenic and boron from a contaminated smelter
plant soil. As L/S values decrease from 10 mL/g-dry toward 0.5 mL/g-dry, the concentration of
inorganic constituents tends to increase.
4
In some cases, the increase may be significant, one to
two orders of magnitude greater than concentrations from the extract specified in typical batch
extraction leaching methods (e.g., 10 ≤ L/S ≤ 20).


4
While the concentrations of most inorganic constituents increase, some constituents in certain matrices (e.g.,
calcium in cement-based materials) may decrease with decreasing L/S.

B-14
0.01
0.1
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
A
r
s
e
n
i
c

(
m
g
/
L
)
L/ S ( L/ kg)
MDL
ML
(a)
0.01
0.1
1
10
0.1 1 10
A
s

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

(
m
g
/
k
g
)
L/ S ( L/ kg)
(b)
slope = 1.0

0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0 2 4 6 8 10
B
o
r
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
L/ S ( L/ kg)
MDL
ML
(c)
10
100
1000
0.1 1 10
B
o
r
o
n

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

(
m
g
/
k
g
)
L/ S ( L/ kg)
slope = 1.0
Release at Natural pH & L/S 10
(PreMethod 1313)
(d)

Figure B-9. Example PreMethod 1316 results as a function of L/S showing (a) arsenic
concentration, (b) arsenic release, (c) boron concentration, and (d) boron release.

Plots of the mass release as a function of L/S show two distinctly different behaviors when
compared to a line with a slope of 1.0 representing solubility control. Figure B-9 illustrates these
two behaviors for arsenic and boron.

• solubility control—The arsenic release curve is consistent with the solubility line, indicating
that solubility controls release. The concentration of arsenic is relatively constant such that
release scales with L/S ratio. If the L/S ratio between two extractions is different by a factor
of 2, the release of arsenic will also be different by a factor of 2.

• availability control—In contrast, the release of boron in the subject soil is limited by the
available amount of boron that can be released from the material at the pH and L/S ratio
imposed by PreMethod 1316. This fact can be confirmed by plotting the release value from
PreMethod 1313 at natural pH (i.e., when no acid or base is added) over the release curve as
shown in Figure B-9(d). The correspondence between the release at natural pH and the
release asymptote in PreMethod 1316 indicates that release of boron is availability
controlled.



B-15
B.5 LEACHING ASSESSMENT

Test methods alone are not sufficient to accurately predict leaching from a source material,
through the environment, to a receptor. Leaching test results need to be linked to field conditions
that represent a release scenario. This linkage requires a conceptual and computational
framework to extrapolate laboratory test results to field scenarios. Under the integration
approach proposed by LEAF, an important distinction is made between percolation scenarios
(e.g., when groundwater flows through a granular material or material with a hydraulic
conductivity that is similar to that of surrounding materials) and flow-around scenarios (e.g.,
when groundwater is diverted around a monolith).

• In the former case, groundwater percolates through the material at a low flow rate such that
partitioning between the solid and liquid phases can be described by equilibrium-based tests.
• In flow-around scenarios, the rate of release is dictated by the rate of mass transport to the
groundwater/material interface such that flux-based leaching tests best describe release.

Based on this distinction, a generic testing approach has been developed for percolation
scenarios and flow-around scenarios, as shown in Figure B-10. In most cases, chemical analysis
should include all relevant contaminants as well as matrix constituents and organic/inorganic
carbon.

In both scenarios, the most basic level
of characterization is to determine the
pH dependence of the LSP using
PreMethod 1313. This test provides
the following:

• insight into the chemical
speciation of the constituents in
the solid phase of the materials by
evaluation of constituent release in
response to different end-point pH
conditions
• an estimate of the potentially
leachable fraction, or availability,
of a constituent determined at the
maximum of the LSP curve
• a method for screening
constituents to determine a list of
constituents with potential
environmental impact by
comparing leachate concentrations
to desired concentrations or action
levels with the relevant release
scenario pH range

Material
Water
Contact
Scenario?
Mass Transport
EPA Method 1315
CEN TS 15863
Percolation
Scenario
Flow-around
Scenario
pH-dependence
EPA Method 1313
PrEN 14429
Percolation
EPA Method 1314
PrEN 14405
pH-dependence
EPA Method 1313
PrEN 14429
Percolation
EPA Method 1314
PrEN 14405
titration, LSP (pH),
available content
LSP (LS), pore
solution estimate
mass transport
flux/Σ release
Figured B-10. Flowchart indicating test method
selection based on material type used in integrated
assessment approach.

B-16
When used as a screening tool, pH-dependent LSP concentrations well below action levels
within the relevant pH range are not likely to be an environmental concern. On the other hand,
constituents with concentrations at or exceeding action levels indicate a need for further testing
to quantify the impacts under percolation or mass transfer controlled conditions.

Although the test conditions of PreMethod 1313 result in a broad range of pH values, not all of
the pH range is applicable for every scenario. Thus, during interpretation, the total pH range can
be divided into appropriate case-specific target zones, as shown in Figure B-11. For this figure,
the measured LSP curve is shown in terms of a “release basis” (i.e., mass released per unit total
material mass) to allow comparison to total composition and potentially leachable (i.e.,
available) fraction. To convert from concentrations (mg/L) to release (mg/kg), the test method
leachate concentrations (mg/L) are multiplied by the test-specific L/S (L/kg). Plotting data on the
basis of mass release also allows for comparison of data from a variety of batch tests conducted
at different L/Ss.
Figure B-11. Relevant pH ranges for various environmental materials superimposed over a
schematic LSP pH-dependence curve.

Although the data in Figure B-11 are schematic, this comparison indicates why it is not
recommended to base environmental assessment on total or available content as the mass that is
released for many release scenarios is often only a small fraction of the total amount in the solid
(total content) or that can be released under extreme environmental conditions (potentially
available content).
B.5.1 Testing Based on Water-Contact Mode
When the mode of water contact is anticipated to be percolation through the material, release as a
function of L/S using the acid/base neutralization capacity of the material is determined using a
percolation test. Release from this test can be roughly related to field release as a function of the
amount of liquid passing through a bed of high–hydraulic conductivity material if infiltration
rates and bed parameters are known. Alternatively, similar information may be obtained through

B-17
parallel-batch testing (e.g., PreMethod 1316) to determine LSP as a function L/S, although very
low L/S is difficult to achieve using batch extraction approaches.

For low–hydraulic conductivity materials (e.g., monoliths, including many S/S-treated materials
or well-compacted granular fills), a flux-based mass transfer test with periodic leachant renewal
(e.g., ANS 16.1, PreMethod 1315) is recommended. Eluate concentrations at low L/S as
resulting from a percolation column test may provide additional information by estimating
porewater concentrations with the low–hydraulic conductivity material.
B.5.2 Leaching Assessment Empirical Methods
Simplified, semiempirical, and semianalytical approaches, which are knowingly conservative
(i.e., overpredict release), can be used for initial screening purposes with the caveat that results
should be verified against field observations.

Release in a percolation scenario may be
estimated directly from PreMethod 1314
results if groundwater flow rates can be
related to the amount of water passing through
a mass of material. In this case, time can be
mapped over the L/S ratio in the test, and
release can be predicted as a function of time.

For mass transfer scenarios, flux or
cumulative mass release results from
PreMethod 1315 can be directly scaled to the
exposed surface area of a subject material.
Appendix C presents an illustration of how
this can be done for a subsurface material.
Mass transport through the material pore
structure to the exposed surface of the
material dictates the rate of release under the
assumptions that groundwater flows around
the material such that the concentrations in the
groundwater remain essentially “zero”
compared to concentrations in the subject
material. The concept of a zero concentration
boundary condition is often referred to as the
“infinite bath assumption” (Crank 1975). If
groundwater concentrations build up and mass transport is suppressed due to a lack of diffusional
driving force (i.e., the gradient between groundwater concentrations and porewater
concentrations within the material), release may be better described by equilibrium rather than
kinetics.
Example of Relating Groundwater Flow to L/S

A mass of contaminated material with
dimensions of 1 × 1 × 1 m is lying in an aquifer
with a linear flow rate of 0.4 m/day, or
approximately 150 m/year. The dry density (ρ) of
the subject material is 1,500 kg-dry/m
3
. The
volume (v) of the contaminant fill is 1 m
3
; thus,
mass of the fill (m) is 1,500 kg (m = v * ρ). The
cross-sectional area exposed to the groundwater
flow is 1 m
2
such that the volumetric flow rate of
the aquifer (Q) is 150 m
3
/year, or 150,000 L/year
(using the conversion that 1 m
3
= 1000 L).

The percolation rate of water passing through
the contaminated material is the calculated as
the volumetric flow rate (Q) divided by the mass
of the fill (m), which results in a percolation rate
of 100 L/S per year.

For these relatively small fill dimensions, the
cumulative release at an L/S of 10 mL/g-dry from
PreMethod 1314 column test relates to the
release from the fill at approximately 35 days of
leaching. For larger contaminated fills or slower
aquifer systems, the percolation rate could be
significantly lower.

B-18
B.5.2.1 Reactive Transport with Geochemical Speciation
Coupled chemical reaction-transport modeling is the preferred and most robust option available
to provide insight in the long-term behavior of materials under changing exposure conditions in
the field (Kosson et al. 2002; van der Sloot and Dijkstra 2004; Dijkstra et al. 2005; Dijkstra, van
der Sloot, and Comans 2006; Dijkstra et al. 2008). The sequence of steps ranges from problem
definition, through test method selection and leaching simulation, to laboratory-to-field
validation (Kosson et al. 2002, CEN EN-12920 2003).
B.5.2.2 Hydrogeological Fate and Transport Modeling
Leaching test data (e.g., mass flux from transport tests or concentrations with percolating liquid
volume from column tests) may be used directly in hydrogeological fate and transport models for
contaminant transport to describe release from a source (S/S-treated material) to a downgradient
POC.


B.6 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF LEAF LEACHING TESTS FOR S/S-TREATED
MATERIALS

The following section shows several examples of applications of LEAF leaching tests. Much of
the data shown in these examples are taken from privately funded research and reproduced here
without reference to specific sites or material descriptions. As an illustration of S/S treatment on
organic contaminants, some of these examples show testing and interpretation of S/S-treated
materials containing single-ring and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
B.6.1 Example 1: S/S Treatability Study
During treatability testing, the chosen leaching test should represent the primary release
mechanism anticipated in the final application. Thus, the comparison of S/S-treated materials
designed to provide a low hydraulic conductivity relative to surrounding soils should be based on
one of several mass transport–based tests.

In the following example, a time-shortened version of PreMethod 1315 was used to compare the
flux of BTEX chemicals (e.g., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes) and PAHs from several
S/S treatment recipes. Since the constituents of interest for assessment were volatile and
semivolatile organics, the method was modified as described above and denoted as
PreMethod 1315m. The goal of the treatability comparison was to downselect recipes for further
characterization and testing by selecting those recipes that minimize flux while balancing all
other considerations including cost of materials, ease of implementation, etc.
B.6.1.1 S/S Recipes
Five recipes of S/S treatment were formulated in the laboratory for this comparison. Prior to
leach testing, the recipes were screened to ensure that each resultant material passed material
performance criteria for strength and hydraulic conductivity. The five recipes included the
following:

B-19

• baseline recipe, consisting of portland cement (6 wt%) and ground granulated blast furnace
slag (2 wt%).
• baseline recipe with added bentonite clay (1 wt%)
• baseline recipe with added bentonite clay (2 wt%)
• baseline recipe with added organoclay (1 wt%)
• baseline recipe with added organoclay (2 wt%)

Two duplicate samples of the baseline recipe were tested in parallel to indicate the potential for
variation in treatment. For all other recipes, only a single sample was tested.
B.6.1.2 Flux Comparison
Figure B-12 shows mass flux from the six treatability samples xylene, naphthalene, phenanthrene,
and benzo(a)anthracene. In all, the flux of these contaminants from all S/S-treated materials
follows the indicator line representing a diffusion-controlled process. Based on these results,
organoclay seems to provide a better basis for retention of PAH contaminants over the other
recipes; however, there is no clear trend among the various S/S recipes in the case of xylene flux.
For phenanthrene, addition of 2 wt% organoclay reduced the flux over most of the test duration by
a factor of ~2. Thus, it was noted that an S/S treatment recipe using organoclay would probably
best minimize contaminant release. However, the costs associated with organoclay adds to the total
cost of treatment for a somewhat small return on treatability. Thus, both the baseline recipe and the
recipe with 2 wt% addition of organoclay were selected for further testing.
B.6.2 Example 2: Comparison of Leaching “Before” and “After” Treatment
When a qualitative demonstration of the improvement in the environmental impact at a site is
required, leaching tests may be reduced to a single set of defined release conditions to provide a
“before” and “after” treatment assessment. This process provides a snapshot of the release of
critical constituents to answer the question, “Is leachability decreased when this remedy is
applied?”

This example illustrates how LEAF leaching tests can be used to compare cumulative release
from an untreated coal tar–impacted soil and an S/S-treated material based on the same soil. The
soil was samples from a boring hole at a former MGP site where subsurface soils were found to
contain high levels of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes and PAH contaminants.
B.6.2.1 Release Scenario
Usually, interpretation of leaching data within a properly defined leaching scenario is required
when the physical properties of the untreated and treated material differ greatly. For example,
when freely percolating soil is treated by S/S to a low hydraulic conductivity, release for the soils
should be based on a percolation scenario using PreMethod 1314 or PreMethod 1316 data, while
release from the S/S-treated material should be based on mass transfer using PreMethod 1315
data. This approach requires defining a single release environment that can be applied to both
release scenarios. A conceptual release scenario (Figure B-13) was defined to provide a common
basis for comparison. Release from both materials was calculated for a 1 m
3
volume of material.

B-20
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
X
Y
L

F
l
u
x

(
m
g
/
m
2
s
)
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
Baseline-A
Baseline-B
Bent onit e( 1%)
Bent onit e( 2%)
Organoclay( 1%)
Organoclay( 2%)

1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
N
A
P

F
l
u
x

(
m
g
/
m
2
s
)
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
Baseline-A
Baseline-B
Bent onit e( 1%)
Bent onit e( 2%)
Organoclay( 1%)
Organoclay( 2%)

1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
P
H
E

F
l
u
x

(
m
g
/
m
2
s
)
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
Baseline-A
Baseline-B
Bent onit e( 1%)
Bent onit e( 2%)
Organoclay( 1%)
Organoclay( 2%)
1.E-10
1.E-09
1.E-08
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
B
A
A

F
l
u
x

(
m
g
/
m
2
s
)
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
Baseline-A
Baseline-B
Bent onit e( 1%)
Bent onit e( 2%)
Organoclay( 1%)
Organoclay( 2%)

Figure B-12. Example 1: S/S treatability test results (PreMethod 1315m) for a contaminated soil from a former MGP showing
xylene (XYL), naphthalene (NAP), phenanthrene (PHE), and benzo(a)anthracene (BAA) flux for a cement/slag baseline and
baseline with bentonite and organoclay additives.

B-21
Figure B-13. Example 2: Scenario used in comparison of untreated soil and S/S-treated
material.

In the case of the untreated soil (left side of Figure B-13), groundwater percolates through the
contaminated “fill,” and the L/S data obtained from PreMethod 1314 are related to time using the
empirical approach described above. In addition, PreMethod 1314 release values were converted
from units of mg/kg to units of mg/m
2
of surface area cross sectional to groundwater flow. By
converting the L/S-dependent column test data to a time and area–based release, no conversions
or alterations were required to the PreMethod 1315 cumulative release data for the S/S-treated
material.
B.6.2.2 Release Comparison
Figure B-14 compares release for xylene and several PAHs from contaminated untreated soil and
S/S-treated materials. Also shown in each panel of the figure are horizontal lines representing the
“total content” of each contaminant in the soil and S/S-treated material as determined by
pressurized fluid extraction using EPA Method 3545.

The data in Figure B-14 show that overall release from S/S-treated materials is several orders of
magnitude less than that of the untreated material, indicating that S/S treatment of the soil is
effective in reducing the rate of release. For xylene, naphthalene, and fluorene, the total content
given by EPA Method 3545 is somewhat less than the cumulative release at the end of
PreMethod 1314. This differential does not mean that the column test data are in error as the total
content as determined by the EPA Method 3545 is operationally defined. Since the EPA method
is essentially just one form of extraction technique, other, potentially more aggressive extraction
techniques may yield a higher “total content.”
B.6.3 Example 3: Leaching Data Linked to Hydrogeological Modeling
Often the purpose of leach testing and environmental assessment is to parameterize site- or
scenario-specific release models that simulate the release of contaminants of concern integrated
with hydrogeological conditions. In this case, leach testing should cover the widest possible
range of test conditions so that all potential mechanisms of constituent release may be considered
and combined into a groundwater fate and transport model.
Untreated Soil S/S-Treated Material






groundwater flow
150 [m
3
/yr]

1 m
3

groundwater flow
150 [m
3
/yr]

1 m
3


water percolates
through fill
water flows
around S/S mass
on all sides

B-22

0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
X
Y
L

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

(
m
g
/
m
2
)
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
S/ S-1315m
Unt reat ed-1314m
Total S/S
Total Untreated Soil
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
N
A
P

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

(
m
g
/
m
2
)
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
S/ S-1315m
Unt reat ed-1314m
Total S/S
Total Untreated Soil

0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
F
L
U

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

(
m
g
/
m
2
)
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
S/ S-1315m
Unt reat ed-1314m
Total S/S
Total Untreated Soil

0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
P
H
E

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

(
m
g
/
m
2
)
Leachi ng Ti me ( days)
S/ S-1315m
Unt reat ed-1314m
Total S/S
Total Untreated Soil

Figure B-14. Example 2: Comparison of cumulative release for untreated soil (PreMethod 1314) and cement/slag/bentonite
S/S-treated materials (PreMethod 1315m) taken from a former MGP showing xylene (XYL), naphthalene (NAP), fluorene
(FLU), and phenanthrene (PHE).

B-23
In the following example, leaching data on recovered cores of S/S-treated materials from a
former MGP site were used as a source term for contaminant transport and combined with
groundwater flow using hydrogeological fate and transport model. MIKE-SHE is an advanced
integrated hydrological modeling system for simulation of water flow in entire land-based
systems from rainfall to river flow. The model has the capability to integrate surface water and
groundwater flow with environmental impacts to predict downgradient concentrations at a POC.
B.6.3.1 Scenario Description
MIKE-SHE was used to model groundwater flow around an S/S-treated material embedded into
weathered bedrock as shown in Figure B-15. In this scenario, the majority of groundwater flows
around an S/S-treated material (76 m wide × 76 m long × 10 m high) while a small fraction of
groundwater is allowed to percolate through the material. The amount of water that percolates is
determined in the model by the hydraulic
gradient and the relative hydraulic
conductivities of the S/S-treated material
and surrounding soil.

The flow pattern provides an axis of
symmetry along the centerline of the S/S-
treated material such that the results can be
displayed at two horizontal locations, as
shown in the lower half of Figure B-15.
Location 1 and Location 2 lay 20 m
downgradient of the S/S-treated material
and 12 m and 24 m off the axis of
symmetry, respectively. In this scenario, the
area above the S/S-treated material is
capped such that the only infiltration that
affects downgradient concentration is
infiltration that reaches groundwater
between the S/S-treated material and the
POCs. However, since this infiltration will
have a diluting effect only near the water
table, two 5-m vertical zones of interests
(i.e., Zones A and B) are established as
shown in the upper half of Figure B-15.
The two locations and two zones result in
four POCs for this simulation, specifically
named 1A, 1B, 1A, and 2B.
B.6.3.2 Simulation Results
Figure B-16 shows the simulation results for POC concentrations naphthalene, phenanthrene,
anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene. In the MIKE-SHE simulation, the mass of
pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene released from the S/S-treated material into the groundwater is
attenuated onto particulate organic matter in downgradient soils before getting to the POCs.
ground water
inf iltration
ISS
Material
(76m x 76m x 10m)
POC
saprolite
(weathered bedrock)
5m
10m
76m 20m
no inf iltration
60 mil HDPE liner
86m x 86m
ISS
Material
(76m x 76m x 10m)
3m
axis of
symmetry
TOP VIEW
ELEVATION VIEW
gradient
inf iltration
Zone B
Zone A
12m
12m
Location 2
Location 1
5m
~5m
percolation
through ISS
f low around
ISS
not to scale
not to scale
Figure B-15. Example 3: Schematic of MIKE-
SHE simulation scenario showing
groundwater flow around and through the
S/S-treated material and combinations of
location and zone (i.e., 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B)
representing four different simulation POCs).

B-24
Thus, all concentrations at the POCs are less than 1 pg/L. For all other contaminants, the highest
POC concentrations are predicted at POC 2B, which is the outermost and deepest POC. At this
POC, the diluting influence of the infiltrating water is minimal, and the mass released from the
material and carried by groundwater flowing around the S/S monolith has the most influence.
Conversely, the lowest concentrations are predicted for POC 1A, where the dilution effect is
maximized and the flow-around mass transport minimized.

While the integration leaching tests and hydrological flow models may be beyond the scope of
many S/S remediation projects, simulations such as those shown in this example may be useful,
not only for predicting groundwater concentration in aquifers downgradient of an S/S-treated
material, but also for locating groundwater monitoring wells and establishing a monitoring plan
that captures potential releases.


B.7 REFERENCES

CEN (European Committee for Standardization) EN-12920. 2003. Methodology Guideline for
the Determination of the Leaching Behaviour of Waste under Specified Conditions. CEN/TC
292 WG6. Brussels, Belgium.
CEN/TS-2. 2009. Generic Horizontal Up-Flow Percolation Test for Determination of the
Release of Substances from Granular Construction Products. CEN/TC 351. Brussels,
Belgium.
CEN/TS-3. 2009. Generic Horizontal Dynamic Surface Leaching Test (DSLT) for Determination
of Surface-Dependent Release of Substances from Monolithic or Plate-like or Sheet-like
Construction Products. CEN/TC 351. Brussels, Belgium.
CEN/TS 14405. 2004. Characterization of Waste—Leaching Behavior Tests—Up-Flow
Percolation Test (under Specified Conditions). Brussels, Belgium.
CEN/TS 14429. 2005. Characterization of Waste—Leaching Behavior Tests—Influence of pH on
Leaching with Initial Acid/Base Addition. Brussels, Belgium.
CEN/TS 14997. 2005. Characterization of Waste—Leaching Behavior Tests—Influence of pH on
Leaching with Continuous pH Control. CEN/TC 292. Brussels, Belgium.
CEN/TS 15863. 2009. Characterization of Waste—Leaching Behavior Tests—Dynamic
Monolithic Leaching Test with Periodic Leachant Renewal. CEN/TC 292. Brussels, Belgium.
Crank, J. 1975. The Mathematics of Diffusion. London: Oxford University Press.
Dijkstra, J. J., J. C. L. Meeussen, H. A. van der Sloot, and R. N. J. Comans. 2008. “A Consistent
Geochemical Modeling Approach for the Leaching and Reactive Transport of Major and
Trace Elements in MSWI Bottom Ash,” Applied Geochemistry 23(6): 1544–62.
Dijkstra, J. J., H. A. van der Sloot, and R. N. J. Comans. 2006. “The Leaching of Major and
Trace Elements from MSWI Bottom Ash as a Function of pH and Time,” Applied
Geochemistry 21(2): 335–51.
Dijkstra, J. J., H. A. van der Sloot, G. Spanka, and G. Thielen. 2005. How to Judge Release of
Dangerous Substances from Construction Products to Soil and Groundwater. ECNC-05-045.
Petten, the Netherlands: Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands.

B-25

Figure B-16. Example 3: Scenario-specific simulation results using the MIKE-SHE model
considering a combined “flow around + flow through” regime for naphthalene,
phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthrene, pyrene, and benzo(a)pyrene.

B-26
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Method 1313: Liquid-Solid Partitioning
(LSP) as a Function of Extract pH Using a Parallel Batch Extraction Procedure.
EPA. 2010b. Method 1314: Liquid-Solid Partitioning (LSP) as a Function of Liquid-to-Solid
Ratio Using an Up-Flow Percolation Column Procedure.
EPA. 2010c. Method 1315: Mass Transfer Rates in Monolithic or Compacted Granular
Materials Using a Semi-Dynamic Tank Leaching Procedure.
EPA. 2010d. Method 1316: Liquid-Solid Partitioning (LSP) as a Function of Liquid-to-Solid
Ratio Using a Parallel Batch Extraction Procedure.
EPRI. 2009. Leaching Assessment Methods for the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of In-situ
Stabilization of Soil Material at Manufactured Gas Plant Sites. Product ID 1015553.
http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001015553.
Garrabrants, A. C., and D.,S. Kosson. 2005. “Leaching Processes and Evaluation Tests for
Inorganic Constituent Release from Cement-Based Matrices,” pp. 229–79 in Stabilization/
Solidification of Hazardous, Radioactive and Mixed Wastes, R. D. Spence and C. Shi, eds.
Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization)/DIS 12782. 2010. Soil Quality—
Parameters for Geochemical Modeling of Leaching and Speciation of Constituents in Soils
and Soil Materials, Parts 1–5. Geneva.
ISO/TS 21268-3. 2007. Soil Quality—Leaching Procedures for Subsequent Chemical and
Ecotoxicological Testing of Soil and Soil Materials, Part 3: Up-Flow Percolation Test.
Geneva.
ISO/TS 21268-4. 2007. Soil Quality—Leaching Procedures for Subsequent Chemical and
Ecotoxicological Testing of Soil and Soil Materials, Part 4: Influence of pH on Leaching
with Initial Acid/Base Addition. Geneva.
Kosson, D. S., H. A. van der Sloot, F. Sanchez, and A. C. Garrabrants. 2002. “An Integrated
Framework for Evaluating Leaching in Waste Management and Utilization of Secondary
Materials,” Environmental Engineering Science 19(3): 159–204.
Roskam, G. D., and R. N. J. Comans. 2003. “Leaching of PAHs from Waste Materials and the
Role of Dissolved Organic Matter,” presented at WASCON 2003, the 5
th
International
Conference on the Environment and Technical Implications of Construction with Alternative
Material, San Sebastian, Spain, 4–6 June.
van der Sloot, H. A., and J. J. Dijkstra. 2004. Development of Horizontally Standardized
Leaching Tests for Construction Materials: A Material-based or Release-based Approach?
ECNC-04-060. Petten, the Netherlands: Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands.
van der Sloot, H. A., L. Heasman, and P. Quevauviller. 1997. Harmonization of
Leaching/Extraction Test. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.












Appendix C

Groundwater Modeling Case Studies and Methods

C-1
GROUNDWATER MODELING CASE STUDIES AND METHODS


Groundwater models are mathematical conceptualizations of hydrologic and hydrogeologic flow
systems. Models have become an important tool that can be used in environmental evaluations of
the fate and transport of contaminants in various media, including groundwater. Models may also
be a useful tool for use with S/S remedies, for example, to provide input for remedial selection
and design, to evaluate potential impacts to groundwater or surface water from S/S treatment of
contaminated materials, or to demonstrate in conjunction with field measurements compliance
with cleanup criteria.

A wide range of groundwater models are available that have been used for environmental
evaluations and can be applied to S/S remedy evaluations. These include one-, two- or three-
dimensional models, numerical and/or analytical models, models to estimate the flux of
contaminants that are present in unsaturated soil to underlying groundwater, water infiltration
rates through caps to underlying soil and groundwater, the flux of contaminants released from a
source area and transported via groundwater to a receptor or to surface water, and the
containment and recovery of contamination in groundwater by one or more pumping well(s)
and/or to assist in determining when groundwater monitoring may be modified or discontinued.
Abundant literature is available that describes the function and capabilities of groundwater
models, and therefore a detailed discussion of groundwater modeling will not be presented in this
guidance document or appendix. EPA’s Center for Subsurface Modeling Support (CSMOS),
located at the Robert S. Kerr Center for Environmental Research in Ada, Oklahoma, provides
public domain models and information on its website at www.epa.gov/ada/csmos.

The following sections in this appendix illustrate some actual uses of models for select sites and
other methodologies that may be applicable to modeling for S/S remedies. Case Study #1
describes the use of modeling to estimate the degree of dilution that would be expected to occur
beneath S/S-treated material as flux from the treated material entered groundwater, and how that
modeling was used to predict compliance with the cleanup criteria by setting an allowable flux
from the treated mass. Case Study #2 describes the use of modeling at a site where shallow
groundwater indicated the possibility of groundwater mounding and flooding after S/S treatment
and how modeling was used to assist in design of the site storm-water control system.

Subsection C.3 presents a graded modeling methodology that can be used to identify suitable
modeling methods or codes to evaluate the efficacy of S/S remedies and estimate likely resulting
potential impacts to groundwater. This is a relatively new approach, recently presented at the
2010 American Geophysical Union conference. This graded approach provides a template for
selecting the modeling method or code to be used at a site such reasonably accurate results may
be obtained at a lower level of effort and cost than a priori selection and application of more
complex modeling methods and/or codes.


C-2
C.1 CASE STUDY #1—MODELING OF GROUNDWATER IMPACTS FOR AN S/S
REMEDY
C.1.1 Introduction and Overview
In situ S/S applications can pose unique challenges for the management of post–environmental
construction surface water and groundwater conditions. Construction of an S/S monolith may
significantly alter hydrogeologic and hydrologic conditions and have potentially detrimental
impacts beyond the limits of the project site. These impacts could include the following:

• Hydraulic mounding (water table rising) along the upgradient side of the monolith due to the
placement of S/S material (reagent mixed with soil) with significantly lower permeabilities
than the surrounding soil. This concern may be further heightened in the presence of coarse-
grained soil and shallow groundwater elevations.
• Creation of localized conditions that could increase the potential for flooding due to the
construction of a relatively impermeable surface that will increase surface water runoff to
other areas and loss of land surface for compensating flood storage.
• Increase in the potential for flooding or surface water ponding upgradient of the S/S monolith
due to hydraulic mounding and alterations to the previously existing groundwater flow paths,
which could slow upgradient surface water infiltration during storm events.

Based on these considerations, it is recommended that groundwater modeling be integrated early
in the design process using existing available groundwater elevation and flow data to assess the
following:

• complying with local and state permitting requirements for storm-water management
• assessing potential impacts to the surrounding community
• modifying existing storm and sanitary infrastructure
• designing new groundwater and surface-water management facilities such as storm-water
retention ponds and/or compensating flood storage basins
• developing final plans for site restoration and landscaping
• establishing a conceptual model for long-term groundwater monitoring

To better illustrate how groundwater modeling can be used to address the S/S design
considerations outlined above, the following sections present a case study for a large S/S project
at a former gasification plant site located northeast of Orlando, Florida. Pertinent topics
addressed in this case study consist of the following:

• site-specific parameters that needed to be considered during model development
• key assumptions made to develop the model
• modeling methodologies and results
• development of design recommendations for surface-water and groundwater management
and long-term groundwater monitoring
• design recommendations for future S/S projects

C-3
C.1.2 Site Background and Setting
In situ S/S was selected by EPA Region IV to address remaining soil and groundwater
contamination from historic MGP operations at the site. Contaminant conditions included coal
tar that occurred in discrete zones and various depths overlain by uncontaminated soils. The S/S
operations encompassed approximately 140,000 yd
3
up to depths of approximately 30 feet bgs
over an area of approximately 4–5 acres.

The study area includes the former MGP property, a number of properties that were affected by
the environmental cleanup operations, and a perennial creek that drains the area (gaining stream).
The creek is characterized as an urban stream and has been impacted by intensive development
of the watershed. The creek discharges to a large lake at the northern edge of the site. Land use
in the surrounding area consists primarily of residential homes and light commercial businesses.
In this urban environment, potable water is supplied by the local municipality, and no production
wells are located near the site. Figure C-1 provides a plan view of the study area, illustrating one
of the major design challenges for the project: the original creek alignment passed through the
design limits for the S/S monolith and needed to be rerouted prior to completing the S/S
operations. The remediation limits indicated in black represent the approximate limits for the S/S
monolith. As will be discussed below, rerouting the creek outside the limits of the monolith
included installation of a box culvert, which required careful consideration as part of the
groundwater modeling.
Figure C-1. Plan view of the case study area.


C-4
The climate of the area is humid subtropical, with warm wet summers and mild dry winters.
Rainfall represents the largest input into the hydrologic system. The hydrostratigraphy of the site
includes a shallow water table aquifer and a deep bedrock aquifer separated by a laterally
continuous clay confining layer. The shallow unconfined aquifer system is present in sandy
beach and shell deposits overlain by fill material. The deep confined aquifer system is present in
limestone bedrock that underlies the region. The deep aquifer is the most commonly used source
of groundwater in the area. Vertical gradients between the shallow and deep aquifers are upward.
The shallow aquifer was the only unit modeled because the deep aquifer system was sufficiently
isolated from the shallow system and not directly impacted by the S/S operations.

The shallow aquifer is within the shallow fine sand and shell encountered at the site from land
surface to generally 30 feet bgs. The water table ranges 1–10 feet bgs. The general groundwater
flow direction within the shallow aquifer is toward the creek with a northward component toward
the lake at the end of the creek.
C.1.3 Modeling Objectives
The objectives for the modeling included the following:

• evaluate the potential for water table rise due to the construction of the S/S monolith and
placement of a perennial gaining creek into a box culvert
• simulate mitigation efforts (groundwater relief drains and storm-water attenuation/retention
ponds) designed to alleviate water table rise and manage surface water flow predicted by the
model
• assist with design of the groundwater monitoring network

Water table rise (mounding) and potential ground surface expressions of groundwater associated
with placement of the S/S monolith were of particular concern at this site for the following reasons:

• The water table at the site is 1–10 feet bgs.
• Portions of the monolith fully penetrate the shallow aquifer, preventing normal flow.
• A portion of the stream that drains the area would be diverted into a culvert, and the aquifer
below the stream would be stabilized, effectively preventing groundwater discharge along a
roughly 500-foot section of the stream.
• The monolith is relatively large, extending across 4–5 acres and to depths of up to 30 feet bgs
to a lower clay confining layer.
• The location for the monolith is in an area that provided significant storm-water drainage for
the surrounding area. This drainage included what was known as the unnamed tributary,
which continuously drained from areas south of the site to the creek.
C.1.4 Modeling
Groundwater flow was modeled in three dimensions using MODFLOW. MODFLOW uses a
finite-difference approximation to solve a three-dimensional head distribution in a transient,
multilayer, heterogeneous, anisotropic, variable-gradient, variable-thickness, confined or
unconfined flow system—given user-supplied inputs of hydraulic conductivity, formation/layer

C-5
thickness, recharge, wells, and boundary conditions. The program also calculates a global water
balance, including contributions from wells, rivers, and drains, and any other boundary-type
packages used in the simulation. Three steady-state groundwater models were created to achieve
the model objectives. The models were created prior to construction of the monolith and updated
with design changes during construction:

• calibration model—Created and calibrated to simulate observed groundwater and surface-
water conditions prior to initiation of remedial activities.
• design model—Created from the calibration model to simulate and predict changes in
groundwater flow resulting from designed construction of the S/S monolith, associated
storm-water detention ponds, and modifications to the creek. This model was used to
evaluate the potential for water table rise (mounding) associated with construction activities.
• design model with drains—The design model was modified to include groundwater relief
drains to address potential groundwater mounding and support the groundwater screening
program. This model was updated during remedial construction to incorporate changes from
the original design plans.

The modeled area was approximately 14,500 × 17,000 feet and bounded to the north by a lake.
The east, west, and south boundaries of the model approximate the outer edge of the watershed
in which the site is located (Figure C-2). The distal portions of the watershed boundary were left
out of the model grid to improve computing efficiency.

The upgradient and lateral edges of the model, representing the watershed boundaries, were no-
flow (Neumann) boundaries. The lower boundary (top of clay confining layer) was also a no-
flow (Neumann) boundary. The lake at the downgradient edge of the model was a constant-head
(Dirichlet) boundary placed in the bottom layer of the model. Streams were represented using
MODFLOW river (mixed) boundaries in the top layer of the model. The upper boundary was a
time-dependent specified flux (Neumann) boundary, with specified flux rates equal to the
recharge rate. Features that potentially remove water from the model, such as storm-water
management ponds or groundwater relief drains, were simulated as MODFLOW drains (mixed).

For the calibration model, a sampling event was scheduled when groundwater elevations were
relatively high. Water levels were collected from site wells, and river elevations were surveyed at
this time so that the model would be calibrated to high-water levels and result in higher potential
mounding near the monolith, thus making the model conservative with respect to predicted
mounding. The calibrated steady-state model was then modified to create the design models.
C.1.5 Special Considerations for Model Construction and Input Values
Because surface expressions of groundwater were of concern, extra attention was paid to ground
surface elevation and aquifer thickness in the model. The grid cells of the model near the
monolith were spaced tightly (12.5 feet apart), and the top layer of the model was created by
gridding and importing existing ground surface elevation data from construction plans. A surface
was created in CAD (computer-aided design) based on surveyed ground surface elevations (1-
foot contour interval). That surface was gridded into 12-foot cells similar to the model cells and
imported to the model grid as XYZ points. Using this method, ground surface elevations near the
monolith very closely approximated actual elevations. The same method was used to simulate

C-6
the final construction ground surface elevations from the design plans (e.g., storm-water ponds,
drainage swales, and river channel reconstruction). Figure C-2 illustrates the very tight grid
spacing near the site.
Figure C-2. Model grid. The red box indicates the location of the S/S monolith. The orange line
indicates the watershed boundary. Blue lines are base map features, such as roads, streams, large
ponds, and the footprint of the monolith.

The bottom of the model was created in a similar fashion to the top of layer 1. The top of clay
elevation (top of confining layer) data collected from the site were surfaced in CAD, gridded,
and imported into the model. Once the top and bottom of the aquifer were defined, the model
was further subdivided into a three-layer model to accommodate monolith placement and spatial
variations in lithology.

The creek running through the site drains the eastern half of the watershed and therefore strongly
influences groundwater flow direction. Site visits also indicated that there were several pools and
elevation drops giving the creek a step-like appearance as is passed though the site. To further

C-7
refine groundwater flow in the model, the creek was surveyed at the same time the groundwater
elevations were collected for calibration. Coordinates, top-of-water, and riverbed elevations were
collected from the upper and lower ends of the creek and from pools and drops (steps).

The location of the proposed S/S monolith was added to the model by importing CAD design
drawings. The hydraulic conductivity value of the monolith was originally based on construction
specifications and results of bench-scale testing. The design specification for the hydraulic
conductivity was 1 × 10
–6
cm/s. In the design model with drains, the conductivity values were
updated with QA/QC data collected during placement of the monolith. Actual hydraulic
conductivities were lower than design specification. The sensitivity of this value was tested in
this model by increasing and decreasing the value by a factor of 10. At this site, the changes in
permeability did not affect the predicted result (i.e., it did not significantly increase the extent or
magnitude of groundwater mounding). The initial conductivity value of 10
–6
cm/s is three orders
of magnitude lower than that of the surrounding sands and four orders of magnitude lower than
that of the shell.

Site-specific data were used whenever possible for initial input values (such as hydraulic
conductivity values derived from aquifer tests). Other initial input values were based first on
regional publications or referenced from other publications if no other information was available.
C.1.6 Calibration Model Results
The calibration model (simulated flow prior to monolith construction) achieved the following
targets: modeled heads were within 1 foot of observed heads near the monolith; cumulative mass
balance of the model (0.00%) was less than the goal of 1% discrepancy between inputs and
outputs; observed versus computed targets exhibited a linear 1:1 trend; and the graph of observed
head versus modeled residuals exhibited a high degree of scatter, which indicated that the
residuals were evenly distributed across the range of observed heads.
C.1.7 Design Model Results
The design model (predicted flow after placement of the monolith) suggested that groundwater
mounding was likely to occur along the upgradient and side-gradient sides of the monolith and
could result in surface expressions of groundwater upgradient of the site; particularly east of the
site where groundwater was observed approximately 1 foot bgs. The model predicted a
maximum head increase of approximately 7 feet along the eastern side-gradient edge of the
monolith, as indicated in the Figure C-3.

C-8
Figure C-3. Design model prediction for flooding along the eastern and upgradient portion
of the monolith after installation of the monolith. Yellow, pink, and green cells represent
construction phases of the monolith. Orange cells are storm-water ponds represented by drain
boundary cells. Blue contours represent changes in groundwater elevation in feet relative to the
original (calibration) model. Negative values indicate increasing head. Light blue cells indicate
“flooded” areas where groundwater intersects land surface.
C.1.8 Simulation of Groundwater Relief Drains (Design Model with Drains)
The design model with drains (predicted flow with groundwater relief drains) was developed to
alleviate predicted groundwater mounding. Two groundwater relief drains were placed in the
model just upgradient of the eastern side-gradient edge of monolith to intercept groundwater and
route it to a box culvert, thus reducing the risk of groundwater surface expressions. The box
culvert was planned to contain the stream as it passed over the monolith. Each drain was
simulated to tie into the storm-water drainage system associated with the box culvert as part of
the final construction plan. To maximize groundwater relief, the drains were simulated by
starting with the elevation from the tie-in location (lowest possible drain elevation). The drains

C-9
were modeled as 3 × 3 foot trenches filled with gravel (1 cm/s hydraulic conductivity) that grade
0.5% toward the tie-in. Figure C-4 indicates the effect of the drains on the mounding.
Figure C-4. Design model with drains results. Yellow, pink, and green cells represent
construction phases of the monolith. Orange cells represent storm-water ponds and new
groundwater relief drains represented by drain boundary cells. Blue contours represent changes
in groundwater elevation in feet relative to the preconstruction (calibration) model. Negative
values indicate increasing head. Light blue cells indicate “flooded” areas where groundwater
intersects land surface.

Note the significant reduction in the blue cells compared to the model conditions provided in
Figure C-3. The groundwater relief drains reduced the maximum increase in head from 7 feet to
2 feet, and modeled groundwater elevations remained below ground surface (eliminated surface
expressions of groundwater). The model also indicated that the drains would remove water at a

C-10
combined rate of approximately 10 gallons per minute (gpm) (i.e., the drains would contribute a
constant flux of 10 gpm to the storm-water drains and ultimately the box culvert). This additional
flux of groundwater did not require alteration of the existing storm-water design plans. As a
result of this modeling effort, the groundwater relief drains were incorporated into the design and
construction plans for remedial construction.

This model was updated during construction of the monolith to incorporate modifications from
the original design plans and to include conductivity data from QC samples of the monolith. The
model indicated these modifications would not significantly impact groundwater flow or
mounding; therefore, the design of the groundwater relief drains did not require alteration.
Figure C-4 is a screen capture from the last update of the design model with drains.
C.1.9 Application toward Placement of Monitoring Well Network
Prediction of post-remedial groundwater elevation contours and particle tracking were used to
support development of a new monitoring well network. Projected groundwater flow contours
indicated that groundwater would continue to flow toward the former stream bed after placement
of the monolith and diversion into the box culvert (Figure C-5). The groundwater flow pathways
and, by extension, potential post-construction plume migration pathways were generated using
MODPATH to generate particle traces in the upper and lower portions of the aquifer. Particle
tracking results (Figure C-6) indicated that particles from upgradient of the monolith would
travel toward the monolith and either become captured by the groundwater relief drains or travel
along the edge of the monolith until they reached the stream as it exited the box culvert
downstream of the monolith. Particles that were not captured by the drains would move very
closely along the monolith and be captured within 200 feet of the downstream edge of the
monolith. This information was used to design a groundwater screening program that will be
used to establish the number and locations for the final monitoring well network.

Based on the particle tracking and the projected groundwater contours, a monitoring well
network with side-gradient wells located in close proximity along the length of the monolith
combined with wells located directly downgradient of the monolith was considered for post-
remedial groundwater monitoring. The groundwater screening program that was developed to
evaluate the proposed monitoring well network targeted areas along the perimeter and directly
downgradient of the monolith. At this writing, the screening program has not been completed.
The data generated from the screening program will be used to calibrate a new version of the
design model with drains to verify the conditions predicted by the flow model and refine
recommendations for the monitoring well network.

C-11
Figure C-5. Calibrated and predicted groundwater flow contours. This figure shows
calibrated flow contours (on the left) and predicted groundwater elevation contours (on the right)
after construction of the monolith with drains in place to mitigate increases in groundwater
elevation. The green cells represent the creek, orange cells represent the storm-water attenuation
ponds or relief drains, and the blue cells indicate places where the groundwater elevation could
exceed land surface. Note that predicted flow contours do not deviate significantly from those of
the calibrated model.
C.1.9 Recommendations and Considerations for Future S/S Projects
The groundwater modeling results discussed in the case study provided important data that were
used to support the S/S design efforts for post-remedial groundwater/surface-water management.
Collection of sufficient groundwater elevation and quality data should be conducted early in the
design process to develop a viable CSM to guide the design efforts and support decision making
for monitoring long-term performance of the S/S monolith. Plans should be included during and
following the S/S operations to monitor changes in groundwater elevations and flow direction so
the groundwater model can be periodically updated and initial design assumptions can be
confirmed and/or revised, appropriate.
C.1.10 Case Study #1 Reference
Hennings, B. G., C. A. Robb, and R. E. Wittenberg. 2011. Draft In Situ Stabilization/
Solidification Design Considerations and Applications for Groundwater Modeling. Natural
Resource Technology, Technical Memorandum.

C-12
Figure C-6. Model results for particle tracking. Yellow, pink, and green cells represent the
monolith. Light green cells represent the creek. Particle tracking is indicated in red. Orange cells
represent storm-water attenuation ponds or the groundwater relief drains.


C.2 CASE STUDY #2—PEAK OIL/BAY DRUM SUPERFUND SITE

The Peak Oil/Bay Drum EPA Superfund site, located near Tampa, Florida, implemented S/S as
part of the site remedy to treat contaminated soil, sludge, and ash. This site case study is
presented as an example of groundwater modeling used to determine acceptable concentrations
of site contaminants that could leach from the S/S-treated material into groundwater and still
meet cleanup goals at the site POC. This concentration was then used as a performance criterion
to be met during treatment.
C.2.1 Background
The site consists of two adjacent properties that represent separate historical operations, Peak Oil
Company and Bay Drum Company. The separate properties were ranked by EPA and listed

C-13
jointly on the NPL in 1986 as the Peak Oil/Bay Drum Superfund Site.
1
The site was divided into
four operable units (OUs): OU 1, the source areas at the Peak Oil property; OU 2, groundwater
beneath both properties; OU 3, the source areas at the Bay Drum property; and OU 4, wetland
areas adjacent to both properties. This case study focuses on the groundwater modeling
conducted to establish acceptable concentrations for contaminants in leachate from the treated
material entering groundwater.

A remedial investigation and feasibility study was conducted for the site, and remedies were
selected in 1993 for each of the OUs and documented in separate records of decision (RODs).
The RODS for OUs 1–3 and the first EPA five-year review (see references for this case study in
Section C.2.7, beginning on p. C-19) provided the site information that is summarized in the
following sections. Additional work was performed during design of the remedies for OUs 1 and
3 that led to a modification to the OU 1 source (Explanation of Significant Difference) and OU 2
groundwater remedy, documented in an amendment to the 1993 ROD (EPA 2005).

The site terrain is relatively flat, ~25–45 feet above mean sea level. Land use in the area of the
site is industrial or undeveloped with residences (at the time of the 1993 RODs) located at about
one-third mile distant or greater.

Materials beneath the site surface include two unconsolidated sedimentary units overlying
bedrock. The uppermost unconsolidated unit is the surficial sand unit, consisting of poorly
graded fine sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel and is up to ~40 feet thick.
Groundwater is encountered at 2–4 feet bgs. Underlying the surficial sand unit is a low-
permeability unit, a component of the upper Hawthorne Group that consists of clay and clayey
sand and ranges 15–40 feet thick. At the site it contains intermittent clay lenses. The Tampa
Limestone and underlying Suwannee Limestone Formations compose the bedrock beneath the
unconsolidated sedimentary units.

Two groundwater aquifers are identified for the site: the surficial aquifer and the deeper Upper
Floridian Aquifer. The surficial aquifer is the saturated portion of the surficial sand unit; water
levels and groundwater flow directions vary seasonally in response to infiltration of rainfall. The
surficial aquifer does not have a current use but is hydraulically connected to area wetlands and
streams. The Upper Floridian Aquifer underlies the low-permeability sedimentary unit and is
associated with the Tampa Limestone and underlying Suwannee Limestone formations. Regional
groundwater flow in the Upper Floridian Aquifer is to the southwest, but groundwater flow in the
area of the site is to the northwest, likely in response to influence of the nearby Tampa Bypass
Canal. The Upper Floridian Aquifer is also the regional municipal water supply source.
C.2.2 Site Use and Detected Contaminants
Peak Oil Company conducted an oil re-refining operation at the property (OU 1) for used oils
and lubrication fluids using an acid/clay purification and filtration process. Low-pH sludge and
oil-saturated clay waste containing lead were generated and stored on site in unlined lagoons. A


1
Additional information about this site can be found at www.epa.gov/region4/waste.npl.index.htm#FL.

C-14
1986 removal action at the Peak Oil property consisted of removal of 4,000 yd
3
of acidic oily
sludge from one of the three lagoons using a mobile incinerator and generating residual ash that
remained on site. The remaining two lagoons had been filled in.

Contaminants detected in Peak Oil property soil and lagoon sludge include VOCs, primarily
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes; semivolatile organic chemicals (SVOCs), primarily PAHs;
PCBs; inorganics, notably barium, lead, chromium, and zinc; and a thick oily residue within the
surficial sand unit associated with the areas of the unlined lagoons. Lead was detected in former
lagoon areas at up to 2,950 mg/kg and in the residual ash at an average 3,525 mg/kg. Other
inorganics detected in former lagoon areas above background concentrations included arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, manganese, mercury, and cyanide.

Bay Drum Company conducted a drum-reconditioning operation at the property (OU 3), which
included a reconditioning area in a small portion of the site, with the remainder of the property
used for drum storage. In the last two years of activity at the property, waste roofing shingles
were stored on the property in a layer up to 19 feet thick. A 1989 removal action at the Bay
Drum property removed about 70,000 yd
3
of roofing shingles, leaving 27,000 yd
3
on site due to
high water table conditions, and later that year removed for off-site disposal buried drums and
4,000 yd
3
of soil and sludge contaminated with VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals.

Contaminants detected in Bay Drum property surface and subsurface soil included VOCs,
SVOCs or PAHs, PCBs, pesticides (mainly dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, chlordane, and
ethion), and inorganics (mainly arsenic, chromium, lead, and zinc). Lead was detected in
subsurface soil at up to 2,500 mg/kg. Other inorganics detected above background concentrations
but not above cleanup levels included barium, chromium, and zinc.
C.2.3 Site Remedial Action Objectives
COCs for soil at the Peak Oil property include beryllium, benzo(a)pyrene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, lead, and PCBs for soil and lead for the residual ash. Site concentrations
of COCs did not exceed remedial action objectives for the 10
–4
to 10
–6
risk range. Lead was
detected at concentrations above the groundwater protection soil concentration of 284 mg/kg and
was therefore a primary COC for leaching to groundwater.

COCs for soil at the Bay Drum property include arsenic, lead, chlordane, ethion, PCBs, and
PAHs. Cleanup levels for this property were set at 10
–4
for soil exposure for an industrial worker;
concentrations for COCs did not exceed this risk criterion. Groundwater protection criteria were
calculated for five COCs, including ethylbenzene, toluene, naphthalene, and lead, with only lead
exceeding the groundwater protection soil concentration of 284 mg/kg. Therefore, lead was also
the primary COC for groundwater.

RAOs were established for the Peak Oil/Bay Drum Site to be protective of human health and
groundwater and to meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. RAOs (action
levels) were 521 mg/kg for lead and 180 mg/kg for chlordane in soil, with any soil exceeding
these levels to be treated using S/S soil with concentrations of chlordane 9.6–180 mg/kg to be
placed without treatment beneath the site cap.

C-15
C.2.4 Overview of Remedial Action
Remedial actions for both the Peak Oil and Bay Drum properties included use of S/S treatment
for contaminated soil, sludge, sediment, and a residual ash pile. The main elements of source
control remedial measures at both the Peak Oil and Bay Drum properties included installation of
an attapulgite clay slurry wall around the contaminated soil area, excavation of soil and sludge
contaminated with lead above concentrations of 521 mg/kg, S/S treatment for excavated soil/
sludge and residual ash using a pozzolanic portland cement mix, placement of a multimedia cap
over the S/S-treated material, enhanced in situ bioremediation and localized air sparging for the
surficial aquifer for the Peak Oil property, enhanced bioremediation of groundwater for the Bay
Drum property, groundwater monitoring, ICs, and five-year reviews.

Table C-1 summarizes performance parameters and criteria developed for the site S/S treatment.

Table C-1. Performance parameters and criteria for S/S treatment
Action levels (mg/kg) Lead >521
Aroclor 1260 >25
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate >0.58
S/S mix composition
a
6% Portland cement, 1%–2% super triple phosphate
S/S specifications Average Allowance Method
Strength (USC psi) >50 None ASTM D 1633
Permeability (cm/s) <1 × 10
–6
1 × 10
–5
ASTM D 5084
Leaching lead (µg/L) <282 <500 SPLP Method 1312
a
C. Wilk, personal communication with S. Birdwell, RECON, January 19, 2011.
C.2.5 Modeling of Impact to Groundwater
EPA conducted groundwater modeling for the Peak Oil/Bay Drum Site to determine the
maximum contaminant load and concentrations of contaminant that could leach from the S/S-
treated material and still meet groundwater protection standards of 15 µg/L for lead and 2 µ/L for
chlordane at the POCs. The POCs were the downgradient property boundaries, 15–30 feet
downgradient for the Bay Drum property and 70–120 feet downgradient for the Peak Oil
property. The modeling was conducted prior to treatment of contaminated material to support
design of the S/S formulation.

EPA used the HELP3 (Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance) model to calculate the
volume of rainwater infiltration through the site cap and proposed S/S monolith entering
groundwater and horizontal groundwater flow through the low-permeability monolith in the
saturated zone and compared to the volume of groundwater flow between the monolith and the
POC to calculate a site-specific dilution factor. (The HELP3 model is typically used to analyze
water balances and assist in design of landfill profiles [Schroeder et al. 1994].) EPA conducted
modeling for the site in late 1999 and early 2000. Figure C-7 depicts the CSM.


C-16
Figure C-7. Schematic of conceptual model for development of an SPLP performance
standard for the solidified mass at Peak Oil and Bay Drum.

Several assumptions were made regarding infiltration and configuration of the cap and monolith
forming the basis of the modeling exercise:

• Rainwater infiltrates through the site cap, moves through the S/S-treated material producing a
leachate that reaches groundwater in the saturated zone along with a small volume of leachate
produced by groundwater moving through the proposed low-permeability monolith, is diluted
as groundwater flows beneath the site, and moves downgradient to the property boundary.
• The S/S-treated material is located within the saturated zone, and the groundwater protection
standards for lead and chlordane are achieved at the property boundary.
• The multilayer cap consists of 6 inches of topsoil over 6 inches of compacted backfill over a
geosynthetic clay liner with a vertical permeability of less than 10
–7
, grass cover is on the
topsoil, the cap slope is 2.
• No liner or leachate system is installed.
• The cap includes a lateral drainage layer, the landfill cover consists of a bentonite mat
(geosynthetic clay liner), and chlordane is eliminated as a COC for the Peak Oil property
since it was not detected in soil.
• The treated material will be located within the saturated zone.

Input values for model parameters were developed using site- and area-specific values obtained
from standard climate and water resource sources, using model functions to calculate some
derivative values (such as solar radiation) based on actual data, soil type characteristics (such as
porosity), and design specifications for the cap and proposed monolith. The dimensional
parameters for the surficial aquifer were derived based on site groundwater monitoring data and
are shown on the maps of Figures C-8 and C-9. Figure C-8 shows groundwater flow directions,
cap area, and groundwater flow cross-sectional lengths. Figure C-9 shows the surface soil and
cap areas used to calculate recharge areas.

C-17
Figure C-8. Groundwater flow directions, cap area, and groundwater flow cross-sectional lengths.

C-18
Figure C-9. Area designations for computation of dilution to leachate coming from the solidified material.

C-19
C.2.6 Modeling Results and Conclusions
The results of the HELP3 modeling provided a site dilution factor which was used to calculate
allowable leachate concentrations for lead and chlordane for the S/S-treated material. Chlordane
was eliminated as a COC for Peak Oil based on its low rate of detection in soil. Table C-2
summarizes the modeling results.

Table C-2. Allowable leachate concentrations for lead and chlordane in S/S-treated
material
Chemical
Groundwater protection standard
(µg/L)
Allowable leachate concentration
(µg/L)
Peak Oil Bay Drum
Lead 15 282 179
Chlordane 2 NA 24

Groundwater modeling results for the site (allowable leachate concentrations) were used as
performance criteria for treatability studies to evaluate and develop potential S/S design
formulations that would not exceed the calculated maximum leachate concentration. The
treatability study identified the most effective formula for the S/S treatment that would be able to
meet remediation goals at the compliance point. For example, concentrations of lead in leachate
below the performance criteria (or allowable leachate concentration) of 282 µg/L would be
expected to meet the remediation goal of 15 µg/L at the POC.

An initial five-year review of the completed site remedy was conducted in 2005 and a second in
2010. The 2010 review (www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f2010040003559.pdf) indicates
that the S/S treatment is adequately containing contaminated soil and materials and is performing
as designed. Groundwater monitoring at the site confirms that there are no exceedances of site
COCs in groundwater.

The approach in this case study is reflected in the S/S treatment design process discussed in
Sections 4–6 of this guidance document. S/S treatment design begins with identified site
remediation goals that are represented by performance criteria. The design of the actual S/S
formulation is accomplished through treatability testing to identify effective formulations that
can achieve the performance criteria.
C.2.7 Case Study #2 References
EPA. 1993a. Superfund Record of Decision: Peak Oil Co./Bay Drum Co. Operable Unit 1.
EPA/ROD/R04-93/146.
EPA. 1993b. Superfund Record of Decision: Peak Oil Co./Bay Drum Co. Operable Unit 3.
EPA/ROD/R04-93/148.
EPA. 2000. Recalculation of SPLP Levels for Peak/Bay. EPA Memorandum, March 28.
EPA. 2005. Final Amendment to the 1993 Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit 2, Peak
Oil/Bay Drum Site, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Region 4, Atlanta, Ga.

C-20
EPA. 2009. Potential for Future Use, Tampa Former Industrial Property. EPA Reuse Fact
Sheet.
EPA. 2010. Second Five-Year Review Report for Peak Oil Company/Bay Drum Company. EPA
Region 4.
Schroeder, P. R., C. M. Lloyd, P. A. Zappi, and N. M. Aziz. 1994. The Hydrologic Evaluation of
Landfill Performance (HELP) Model. EPA/600/R-94/168a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station and Clemson University Department of Civil Engineering,
under contract to U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati.


C.3 GRADED MODELING APPROACH

Modeling calculations typically consider three phases in the life cycle of an S/S remedy to enable
comparison of the relative efficacy of alternative remedies and, on occasion, the likely times
required to achieve defined RAOs: preremediation, to describe current site conditions; mid-
remediation, to estimate expected conditions during active remediation; and post-remediation, to
describe expected conditions after active remediation is completed.

A common modeling objective at sites implementing S/S remedies is to estimate the possible
impact to an underlying aquifer of various S/S remediation strategies, typically in terms of
possible impacts on groundwater conditions immediately below a source zone and at some
distance downgradient of the impacted area where one or more receptors may exist. A variety of
calculation techniques can be used to evaluate the efficacy of an identified remedy or to compare
the relative efficacy of different remedies, with these design considerations in mind.

Modeling calculations can become complex, involving sophisticated three-dimensional (3D)
numerical models of flow and transport that require a large computational burden to execute.
While sophisticated methods provide valuable insight, complexity is not always warranted,
particularly when comparing the relative benefits of different approaches or when conducting
screening-level analyses aimed at ranking sites or remedial technologies. For this reason,
methods and codes that can be used to make defensible screening-level calculations using site-
specific parameters prior to undertaking rigorous and sophisticated numerical analyses can be
beneficial. The existence of different methods that span a wide range of sophistication and
complexity naturally lends itself to the development and application of a graded approach to
undertaking calculations in support of remedy design and evaluation.

The following sections describe some important considerations when undertaking modeling
analyses of S/S remedies and outline one example of a graded approach that could be considered
at a many sites for which S/S remedies are under consideration or already implemented. The
specific elements of the graded approach described are not always suitable or applicable to a
particular site; however, the concepts and terms have broad-ranging applicability. The
demonstrative examples that are presented focus on impacts to groundwater although the
concepts are also applicable to evaluating impacts to other media, such as soil and air.

C-21
C.3.1 Definitions
The following terms are used throughout the discussion of remedy design calculations and the
graded approach:

• method—One or more mass-balance or constitutive relationships, described using one or a
sequence of equation(s) that enable the method to be quantified. Examples of methods range
from a simple three-phase partitioning equation to finite-difference numerical models that
require computers to evaluate.
• code—An executable program or a spreadsheet that implements a method or a sequence of
methods and produces outputs. An example of a code is the program VS2DT, which
simulates flow and transport in variably saturated media in two dimensions.
• model—A code that implements one or more methods and that, together with the assignment
of parameter values, can be used to make site-specific calculations.
• parameter—A value that is fundamental to a method and that must be assigned as an input to
a model implemented via a specific code. An example of a parameter is the distribution
coefficient (K
d
) that describes the relative affinity of a contaminant to partition from the
dissolved phase on to adjacent soils.

The graded modeling approach presented here includes the following:

• a description of methods that can be used to evaluate the likely fate of contaminants in the
subsurface
• some example codes that implement these methods
• the role that some parameters play in determining when to progress from simpler to more
sophisticated calculations

It is not the intent here to be prescriptive regarding the use of codes that implement specific
methods. Although generic implementations of some codes using default parameter values may
occasionally be used, on most occasions a site-specific model is developed and parameterized
using site-specific information and data.
C.3.2 Requirements of a Graded Modeling Approach
A graded modeling approach includes methods and codes that enable the development of
cleanup levels enabling decisions regarding remedial actions to be reached within the context of
CERCLA, RCRA, and/or other applicable standards. It should ideally do the following:

• integrate with the exposure/risk assessment process
• guide the selection and engineering of appropriate remedies
• support the development of long-term performance monitoring
• support the development of ICs

The principal requirements of a graded modeling approach, as outlined below, encompass
methods and codes that enable relatively simple (“abstract”) to relatively complex (“realistic”)
calculations. Such a graded approach accomplishes the following:

C-22

• Encompasses both (a) “look-up” analyses based upon previously compiled results obtained
using generic or reasonably representative assumptions and parameters and (b) site-specific
analyses that generate new results specific to an individual waste site or group of waste sites
sharing characteristics using parameters more site specific than those used for the “look-up”
type of analyses.
• Encompasses methods, models, and codes that enable calculations ranging from relatively
simple to relatively complex to be completed.
• Incorporates inherent conservatism in the simpler methods and models. As the complexity of
the methods, codes and models increase and conservatism decreases. As a result, calculations
become increasingly realistic and less conservative as the complexity increases.
• Avoids overly conservative methods; methods that are simple but not necessarily
conservative; and unnecessarily complex methods, codes, and models.
• Includes identifiable, communicable, and verifiable justification for progressing from simpler
methods and codes to more complex methods and codes. Justification for progressing from
simpler (abstract) methods and codes to complex (realistic) methods and codes should be
consistent with applicable regulations.
• Uses fully documented and verified (benchmarked) codes that can be made available for
review by third parties.
• Ensures that calculations completed using any method or code are documented and
independently verifiable, enabling independent reproduction and verification of results.

Use of a graded calculation approach should proceed in a stepwise manner commencing with
simple, conservative calculations (i.e., using methods that overpredict likely impacts to the
environment) and progress to more complex calculations more representative and inclusive of
the conditions likely to be encountered (i.e., rigorous or “realistic” calculations). Progression
between calculation levels occurs under the following conditions:

• The current calculation step suggests that the soil or other concentrations required to be
protective of groundwater are overly conservative.
• The next calculation step incorporates one or more features, events, and/or processes (FEPs)
that
o are necessary and appropriate
o are verifiable
o can be reasonably expected to significantly impact the calculated impact to groundwater

Implementation of any method and code to a specific site in the form of a site-specific model
should be accompanied by description of the CSM, documentation of the basis for the values
assigned to parameters, a discussion of assumptions and the level of conservativeness associated
with the analysis, and a discussion of reducible and irreducible uncertainties.
C.3.3 Key Features, Events, and Processes of a Conceptual Site Model
Completion of calculations requires the development of a site-specific CSM. This in turn
requires the identification, documentation, and understanding of key FEPs that govern(ed) the
release, migration, and fate of contaminants in the subsurface as well as the risk to potential

C-23
receptors. FEPs are site specific and must be identified and documented as part of the
development of the site-specific CSM prior to determining appropriate methods, applicable
codes, and site-specific parameters for inclusion in the modeling analysis. Table C-3 shows some
example FEPs that are commonly encountered at sites considered for S/S remedies.

Table C-3. Example features, events, and processes of a CSM
Category Examples
Features • distribution of residual contamination within a discrete soil block of specified
dimensions
• vertical variation of soil media (heterogeneity)
Events • implementation of a soil removal action
• implementation of a capping action, considering an effective life cycle for the
capping action
Processes • transient depletion and partitioning of a finite mass of contaminant from a
discrete soil block of specified dimensions
• transient vadose zone transport of water and dissolved solutes
• transient mixing of water and contaminants from the vadose zone with lateral
groundwater flux
• saturated zone migration of water and advective-dispersive-reactive transport of
the dissolved solute

By way of example, an instantaneous multiphase partitioning equation might be used to assess
the likely partitioning of contaminants from an emplaced waste. However, progression from the
use of an instantaneous partitioning equation that uses site-specific parameters to the use of an
integrated treatment of flow and contaminant transport enables the inclusion of several FEPs
pertinent at many sites, such as the following:

• site-specific geometry, including a significant vadose zone
• a finite, depleting source of contaminants
• variably saturated flow and transport through the vadose zone
• convolution of the contaminant flux calculated at the base of the vadose zone
• advection, retardation, degradation, and dispersion of dissolved contaminants within the
vadose and saturated zones
C.3.4 Example Methods of Calculation
Calculation methods range from simple to complex and differ with respect to their ability to
include common FEPs and the level of expertise required to design and execute calculations.
Most sites contain common elements, although the extent to which each element is included in a
calculation depends on the objective of the analysis and the complexity of the methods and codes
employed. These common elements are as follows:

• source zone—The area in which the contaminants are known or believed to exist and from
which they are hypothesized as emanating in the predictive calculations.
• vadose zone—The path from the source zone to the water table below.

C-24
• mixing zone—The volume at the top of the unconfined aquifer beneath the source zone,
within which infiltrating water containing contaminants mixes with through-flowing
groundwater.
• saturated zone—The (unconfined) aquifer beneath the source zone, within which
contaminants migrate.
• receptor—A water body, well, faucet, or other location at which exposure to contamination
occurs.

Calculation outputs vary depending on the sophistication of the method and the complexity of
the site, as follows:

• Simple methods may include a concentration independent of time and space.
• Intermediate methods may include a groundwater concentration over time at a given distance
from the contaminant release.
• Sophisticated methods may include maps of contaminant concentration over time and space
and/or concentrations to which potential receptors may be exposed.

Depending on the transport properties of the contaminant, release scenario, and site geometry, a
significant difference may exist between groundwater concentrations calculated immediately
beneath a site versus concentrations calculated some distance downgradient, such as at the site
boundary. For this reason, either the points of calculation and/or POCs should be agreed on prior
to making decisions on the basis of calculations, or the method should be able to provide outputs
describing concentrations versus time at various distances from the release to ensure that the
location of peak impacts is identified.
C.3.4.1 Look-Up Type Analyses
Look-up type analyses typically comprise tabulated values published in guidance documents
and/or regulations. These values are sometimes used as cleanup levels, but the decision on
whether a look-up value can be relied on for this purpose depends on the pertinent state and
federal regulations and/or other site-specific requirements. Look-up type analyses are easy to
implement and require relatively little expertise. However, their applicability to site-specific
decisions can be questionable since the underlying assumptions may not be valid. Since little or
no site-specific information is required to use look-up type analyses, they are by design very
conservative (protective), and as a result, the outputs of look-up type analyses usually indicate
that very low concentrations of contaminants remaining in source zones may contaminate
groundwater.
C.3.4.2 Site-Specific Analyses
Calculations are typically made using site-specific parameters, particularly when evaluating the
likely efficacy of an existing remedy or attempting to determine whether a remedy has been
sufficiently effective as to warrant consideration for site closure. The use of site-specific
parameters is conditional on meeting a reasonable burden of proof that the information used in
the analysis is appropriate; that site-specific parameters are defensible; and that any new
scientific information, method, or code is reliable. Site-specific analyses can themselves include

C-25
a wide variety of simple to sophisticated calculations, some examples of which are described in
the following subsections.
Batch or “flash” calculations
Batch or flash calculations are usually based on partitioning of a contaminant between two or
more phases, such as from a soil into the air and/or groundwater. Partitioning equations typically
assume that partitioning is instantaneous (i.e., they do not explicitly consider time or space) and
that the target media—in this case, groundwater—is adjacent to the source zone. These
calculations allow the use of some site-specific parameters, such as the distribution coefficient.

On some occasions, these calculations may be combined with other calculations, such as
infiltration rates or groundwater flow rates, enabling dilution factors and approximate
concentrations in groundwater to be determined. For example, the State of Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 173-340-747, “Deriving Soil Concentrations for Ground Water
Protection,” presents methods for establishing soil concentrations that will not contaminate
groundwater above levels established under WAC 173-340-720. [NOTE: References for Section
C.3 are in Section C.3.8, beginning on p. C-31.] In particular, WAC 173-340-747(3) lists several
methods for deriving soil concentrations,
including the use of a variable-parameter,
three-phase partitioning model and the use
of an alternate fate-and-transport model.

The box to the right presents the basic three-
phase partitioning equation provided in
WAC 173-340-747 (equation 747-1). Use of
the three-phase partitioning equation is
generally accompanied by the use of
equations to estimate the K
d
, groundwater
Darcy flux, infiltration rate, and
groundwater dilution factor. Site-specific
leaching tests may also be used as a basis
for establishing an appropriate K
d
. The
three-phase partitioning equation provides
simple, though relatively abstract, estimates
of the likely impact of residual
contamination on the concentration of
contaminants at the water table. The use of
this and similar equations is usually most
appropriate for only screening-level
calculations, since the method does not
readily accommodate site-specific geometry
and other potentially important FEPs.

C-26
Analytical models
Analytical models are mathematical models that have a closed-form solution; i.e., the solution to
the equations used to describe changes in a system can be expressed as an analytic function of
one or more parameters. Analytical models typically provide fairly concise representations of the
principal FEPs at a site in a way that is more readily available than when using numerical
models. Nonetheless, although analytical models for simple systems are themselves simple,
analytical solutions to equations that describe complex systems can become complicated.

The use of analytic models can be justifiable at sites where the groundwater flow field is fairly
uniform; source area, vadose zone, and aquifer geometries are fairly regular; and key parameters
can be reasonably approximated using single (usually average but at other times bounding)
values. Because of their relative simplicity and the requirement that an analytical equation has a
closed solution, analytical methods usually simulate source, vadose, mixing, and saturated zones
separately using a series of process-specific models. Therefore, it is necessary to combine the
results of several process-specific analytical models to obtain results that encompass all principal
FEPs at a site. Example analytical codes that are used to evaluate the fate and transport of
contaminants include BIOSCREEN and BIOSCREEN-AT, screening models that simulate
contaminant transport in groundwater.

Analytical models require more expertise to use than simple partitioning equations; however, the
expertise required is generally significantly less than that required to use numerical models.
Numerical models
Numerical models typically solve large systems of simultaneous (coupled) partial-differential
equations that describe flow and transport processes using a discretized (i.e., grid) representation
of the real-world site. Numerical models have been developed using finite difference, finite
element, and finite volume techniques. Numerical models are theoretically capable of
incorporating all relevant FEPs and simulating these relevant FEPs on any spatial or temporal
scale. Because of their theoretically unlimited capability, numerical methods can integrate
source, vadose, mixing, and saturated zones within a single site-specific model and can even
integrate calculations to estimate likely impacts at receptors.

The use of numerical models is often justified for sites at which the groundwater flow field is
nonuniform; the source area, vadose zone, and aquifer geometries are irregular; or key
parameters cannot be reasonably approximated using single (usually average) values. Example
numerical codes that are used to simulate the fate and transport of contaminants include
MT3DMS, a finite difference code that considers only saturated transport and reactions, and
STOMP (Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases), an integrated-volume finite-difference
code that solves partial-differential equations that describe the conservation of mass or energy
throughout one to four phases (i.e., aqueous, gaseous, NAPL, ice, and solid phases).

Numerical codes and models require significant expertise to use, and as a result, justification for
their use must consider the implications of selecting or designing a code or model that can be
used by only a small number of subject-matter experts.

C-27
C.3.5 An Intermediate Method: Integrated Analytical Solutions
While the three-phase partitioning equation is a fundamental calculation that provides basic
information regarding partitioning of chemicals in the immediate vicinity of contaminated soil, it
generally neglects common FEPs that are encountered at many sites. On the opposite end of the
spectrum, numerical simulators are sophisticated and essentially fully capable codes with the
potential to realistically simulate the widely ranging conditions and contaminants encountered at
any site. However, their technical and computational requirements, coupled with the level of
expertise required to complete such calculations, renders the use of complex numerical
simulators at every site a demanding undertaking that is less readily verifiable and transparent to
independent review than simpler calculations.

Integrated analytical solutions (IASs) offer an intermediate level of sophistication that can
consider many of the FEPs that are usually incorporated in numerical models but retain the
relative simplicity of analytical methods. An IAS essentially comprises a sequence of compatible
analytical solutions whose inputs and outputs are designed to enable sequential or simultaneous
execution with outputs from some analytical equations providing inputs to other analytical
equations. Due to the relative simplicity of each analytical equation, integrated analytical
solutions can be readily implemented within one or more simple programs or spreadsheets that
describe source, vadose, mixing, and saturated zone flow and contaminant FEPs. Thus, the use of
IASs as an intermediate method lies comfortably between the use of simple partitioning
equations and analytical solutions and the use of sophisticated numerical models.

Bedekar, Neville, and Tonkin (2010, in press) describe an IAS implemented within an EXCEL
spreadsheet for wide accessibility and transparency that comprises analytical equations
describing the following:

• partitioning of contaminants from a source zone
• migration of contaminants vertically through a vadose zone
• mixing of contaminants with actively flowing groundwater at an underlying water table
• migration of the dissolved contaminants in the underlying aquifer

The vadose zone and saturated capabilities of this intermediate IAS method above can incorporate
time-varying conditions to consider the implementation of soil remedial actions, such as soil
removal and capping. The IAS
method can therefore evaluate,
through the use of appropriate
infiltration rates, (a) current
conditions for a specified
number of years; (b) capped
conditions, with assumed cap
life cycle and effective depth,
for a specified number of years;
and (c) post-cap conditions for a
specified number of years.
While the method is not as

C-28
realistic as the use of sophisticated
numerical models, the level of
expertise and the computational
burden required are also
substantially less. For this reason,
the use of the intermediate IAS
method will often be appropriate
when sufficient site-specific
information is available to undertake
more rigorous calculations than are
offered by simple partitioning
equations but when there is
insufficient justification to warrant
the use of sophisticated numerical
models. The IAS method described
by Bedekar, Neville, and Tonkin
(2010, in press) is freely available
for use and possesses similar
capabilities to the GWSCREEN
program developed by Idaho
National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL
1998).
C.3.6 Summary—A Graded
Modeling Approach
The graded calculation approach discussion has three principal methods that enable the
construction of models of varying complexity from simple to realistic. Table C-4 briefly
describes these levels of the proposed graded approach. In developing a graded calculation
approach, incorporating levels such as those that are illustrated in Table C-4, it is assumed that
evaluation of a site for each COC proceeds in a stepwise manner and that the appropriate
calculation level incorporates relevant processes while acknowledging that the calculations
represent simplifications of the actual conditions. Accordingly, the graded approach commences
with simple calculations that by their nature and design are conservative (i.e., overpredict likely
impacts to groundwater) and progresses to more complex calculations more representative/
inclusive of the conditions likely to be encountered. For example the progression from the three-
phase partitioning equation using site-specific parameters to the vertically integrated analytical
treatment of steady-state variably saturated flow and transient contaminant transport enables the
inclusion of several FEPs, including the following:

• site-specific geometry, including discrete extents for the contaminated soil and a thick vadose
zone
• a finite, depleting source of contaminants
• variably saturated flow and transport through the thick vadose zone
• convolution of the contaminant flux calculated at the base of the vadose zone

C-29
• advection, retardation, degradation, and dispersion of dissolved contaminants within the
vadose and saturated zones

Table C-4. Graded modeling approach description
Description Format Notes
Level 1
Partitioning
equation
with site-
specific
dilution
factor and
parameters
Spreadsheet • Lumped parameter analytical partitioning
• Considers bulk properties and conditions
• Uses site-specific parameters and dilution factor(s)
• Can help to screen, rank, or identify drivers for unacceptable risk
• Unlikely that this method/code can demonstrate compliance under
anything other than the simplest of conditions
Level 2
IAS for flow
and
transport
Spreadsheet • Relatively sophisticated but simple to implement
• Vertically integrated site properties
• Considers depletion of the source over time, 1D mass-conserved
partially saturated transport through the vadose zone, mixing at
the water table, and 2D advective-dispersive-reactive transport in
the aquifer to a POC and/or receptor
• Can demonstrate compliance and/or identify drivers for
unacceptable risk under specific remedial alternatives and guide
refinement of potential remedies
Level 3
Integrated
numerical
solutions for
subsurface
flow and
transport
Command
prompt or
graphical
user
interface
(GUI)
• Sophisticated and relatively complex to implement
• Spatially variable properties in 1D, 2D, or 3D
• Considers depletion of the source over time; variably saturated
flow and advective-dispersive-reactive transport in 1D, 2D, or 3D
using finite-difference/finite-volume/finite-element solution
techniques
• Can complete realistic evaluations of future impacts under a
variety of remedial alternatives when more conservative methods/
models lead to outcomes that are impractical to implement
• Can demonstrate compliance and/or identify drivers for
unacceptable risk under specific remedial alternatives and guide
refinement of potential remedies
C.3.7 Quality Assurance and Other Implementation Considerations
As described earlier, there are numerous other considerations for implementing any calculations
at a site, whether or not the graded approach that is described here is employed, another graded
approach is used, a single deterministic calculation is made, or multiple stochastic-type
calculations are made. These additional considerations include, but are certainly not limited to,
the following:

• How will the burden of proof on parameter values used in the calculations be met?

C-30
• How will parameters used
in the calculations be
defined—as point values,
as distributions? Or will
bounding values be used?
Hence, will “best-
estimate” calculations be
provided, or will an effort
to consider bounding
values be made?
• How will (a) variability
and (b) uncertainty be
considered in the
calculations? These are
important and distinct
concepts.

These considerations are
outside the scope of this
appendix. The reader is
therefore referred to other
guidance documents that have
been published by leading
agencies and groups such as
EPA, U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), National Research
Council (NRC), and ASTM.
Recent guidance document released by EPA and ASTM include the following:

• Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Modeling (EPA 2002).
• Guidance on the Development, Evaluation, and Application of Environmental Models (EPA
2009). This guidance “recommends best practices to help determine when a model, despite
its uncertainties, can be appropriately used to inform a decision.” The guidance also
identifies model corroboration using independent data as a specific element of the model
evaluation step. The guidance states that “[m]odel corroboration includes all quantitative and
qualitative methods for evaluating the degree to which a model corresponds to reality.”
• Standard Guide for Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to a Site-Specific Problem
(ASTM 2010) lists eight primary steps in the application of a groundwater model.

Finally, it is noted that the use of models is accompanied by uncertainty and that although most
models are deterministic (i.e., a single set of outputs is produced on the basis of a single set of
inputs, and the model performs the same way for a given set of initial conditions), the results
should not be misconstrued as the best possible answer. The use of simple methods and codes
can be accompanied by more, or less, error and uncertainty than the use of complex methods—
oversimplification can result in exclusion of FEPs that impact the fate of contaminants, while
overcomplication can lead to the specification of parameter values for which no information is

C-31
available and therefore are accompanied by great uncertainty. While the degree of uncertainty
that accompanies model calculations is method, code, model, and site specific and therefore
outside the scope of this appendix, it is common practice to undertake some form of evaluation
of the goodness (suitability) of the model for its intended purpose. And, although the subjects of
model calibration, verification, validation, and uncertainty analysis are all outside the scope of
this appendix, the following paragraph provides some perspective on the use of data to
corroborate or otherwise test the representativeness of a model.

In their 1992 book Applied Groundwater Modeling: Simulation of Flow and Advective
Transport, Drs. M. P. Anderson and W. Woessner state that “continual improvement of the
conceptual model by collection of new field data will improve the numerical model.” In his 2003
article “From Models to Performance Assessment: The Conceptualization Problem,” Dr. J.
Bredehoeft states that “[g]ood modeling is an iterative process. As new data are acquired, the
model is revisited and adjusted (or recalibrated) so that the model predictions are consistent with
all the data, including the new data.” Finally, in 2007 the NRC Committee on Models in the
Regulatory Decision Process published Models in Environmental Regulatory Decision, assessing
scientific and technical criteria that should be considered in deciding whether a model and its
results could serve as a reasonable basis for environmental regulatory activities. This document
states that “[m]odels also can evolve through multiple versions that reflect new scientific
findings, acquisition of data, and improved algorithms,” and that “[t]he interdependence of
models and measurements is complex and iterative for several reasons. Measurements help to
provide the conceptual basis of a model and inform model development, including parameter
estimation. Measurements are also a critical tool for corroborating model results.”
C.3.8 Section C.3 References
Anderson, M. P., and W. Woessner. 1992. Applied Groundwater Modeling: Simulation of Flow
and Advective Transport. San Diego: Academic Press.
ASTM (ASTM International, formerly American Society for Testing and Materials). 2010.
Standard Guide for Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to a Site-Specific Problem.
ASTM D5447.
Bedekar, V., C. J. Neville, and M. J. Tonkin. 2010. “Analysis of Contaminant Transport through
the Vadose and Saturated Zones for Source Screening,” presented at the American
Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, Abstract #H53C-1059.
Bedekar, V., C. J. Neville, and M. J. Tonkin. In press. “Source Screening Module for
Contaminant Transport Analysis through Vadose and Saturated Zones,” submitted to Ground
Water.
Bredehoeft, J. D. 2003. “From Models to Performance Assessment: The Conceptualization
Problem,” Ground Water 41(5): 571–77.
Cleary, R. W., and M. J. Ungs. 1978. Analytical Models for Groundwater Pollution and
Hydrology. Report 78-WR-15. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Department of Civil
Engineering.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project
Plans for Modeling. EPA QA/G-5M.

C-32
EPA. 2009. Guidance on the Development, Evaluation, and Application of Environmental
Models. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/100/K-09/003.
INEEL (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory). 1998. GWSCREEN: A
Semi-Analytical Model for Assessment of the Groundwater Pathway from Surface or Buried
Contamination, Theory and User’s Manual, Vers. 2.5. INEEL/EXT-98-00750.
National Research Council of the National Academies. 2007. Models in Environmental
Regulatory Decision Making. Committee on Models in the Regulatory Decision Process,
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies.
Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Neville, C. J. 2005. ATRANS: Analytical Solutions for Three-Dimensional Solute Transport from
a Patch Source, Vers. 2. Waterloo, Ontario: S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
www.sspa.com/Software/atrans.shtml.
Ogata, A., and R. B. Banks. 1961. A Solution of the Differential Equation of Longitudinal
Dispersion in Porous Media. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 411 A.
Rowe, R. K. 1991. “Contaminant Impact Assessment and the Contaminating Lifespan of
Landfills,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 18: 244–53.
Salhotra, A. M., P. Mineart, S. Sharp-Hansen, T. Allison, R. Johns, and W. B. Mills. 1995.
Multimedia Exposure Assessment Model (MULTIMED 2.0) for Evaluating the Land Disposal
of Wastes: Model Theory Final Report. Athens, Ga.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory.
Sudicky, E. A., T. D. Wadsworth, J. B. Kool, and P. S. Huyakorn, 1988. PATCH3D: Three-
Dimensional Analytical Solution for Transport in a Finite Thickness Aquifer with First-Type
Rectangular Patch Source. Prepared for Woodward-Clyde Consultants, HydroGeoLogic,
Inc., Herndon, Va.
WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 173-340-474. n.d. “Deriving Soil Concentrations for
Ground Water Protection,” in Model Toxics Control Act—Cleanup (WAC 173-340).
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-340-747.
Wexler, E. 1992. “Analytical Solutions for One-, Two, and Three-Dimensional Solute Transport
in Groundwater Systems with Uniform Flow,” Chap. B-7 in Techniques of Water Resources
Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Bk. 3, Applications of Hydraulics.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey.
White, M. D., and M. Oostrom. 2006. STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases,
Version 4.0, User’s Guide. Richland, Wash.: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Zheng, C., and G. D. Bennett. 2002. Applied Contaminant Transport Modeling, 2
nd
ed. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.









Appendix D

Solidification/Stabilization Team Contacts

D-1
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION TEAM CONTACTS


Wilmer Reyes, Team Leader
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
391 Lukens Dr.
New Castle, DE 19720
302-395-2630
wilmer.reyes@state.de.us

Stacey Kingsbury, Program Advisor
HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
3294 Bethlehem Church Rd., NE
Floyd, VA 24091
540-250-1578
skingsbury@hgl.com

Edward Bates
26 Springfield Pk.
Cincinnati, OH 45215
513-317-9691
erbates@hotmail.com

Lucas Berresford
South Carolina Dept. of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201
803-896-4071
berresjl@dhec.sc.gov

J. R. Capasso
City of Trenton
319 East State St.
Trenton, NJ 08608
609-989-3501
jcapasso@trentonnj.org

Jeff Clock
Electric Power Research Institute
54 Lakeshore Dr.
Willsboro, NY 12996
845-608-0642
jclock@epri.com
Kevin Collins
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr., SE
Suite 1462 East
Atlanta, GA 30334
404-657-8600
kevin_collins@dnr.state.ga.us

Carol Dona
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1616 Capitol Ave., Suite 9200
Omaha, NE 68102
402-697-2582
carol.l.dona@usace.army.mil

Linda Fiedler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., MS5203P
Washington, DC 20460
703-603-7194
fiedler.linda@epa.gov

Mike Fitzpatrick
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., MS5303P
Washington, DC 20460
703-308-8411
fitzpatrick.mike@epa.gov

Richard Galloway
Honeywell International Inc.
101 Columbia Rd.
Morristown, NJ 07962
973-455-4640
Rich.Galloway@Honeywell.com

Andrew Garrabrants
Vanderbilt University
VU Station B351831
2301 Vanderbilt Pl.
Nashville, TN 37235
615-322-7226
a.garrabrants@vanderbilt.edu

D-2
Christopher Griggs
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3909 Halls Ferry Rd.
Vicksburg, MS 39180
601-634-4821
Chris.S. Griggs@usace.army.mil

Doug Grosse
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7844
grosse.douglas@epa.gov

Jim Harrington
New York Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12309
518-402-9624
jbharrin@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Pamela Innis
Department of Interior
P.O. Box 25007 (D-108)
Denver Federal Center, Building 67
Denver, CO 80225-0007
303-445-2502
Pamela_Innis@ios.doi.gov

Mavis Kent
Plateau Geoscience Group, LLC
P. O. Box 1020
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-521-2592
maviskent@comcast.net

Vera Langer
British Petroleum
501 Westlake Park Blvd.
Houston, TX 77079
281-366-8058
vera.langer@uk.bp.com
Terrence Lyons
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., MS-489
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7589
lyons.terry@epa.gov

William Major
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1100 23
rd
Ave.
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805-982-1808
william.major@navy.mil

Thomas Plante
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
75 Washington Ave., Suite 203
Portland, ME 04101
207-482-4600
tplante@haleyaldrich.com

Christopher Poulsen
AMEC Earth and Environmental
7376 SW Durham Rd.
Portland, OR 97239
503-639-3400
christopher.poulsen@amec.com

Michael Rafferty
S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
45 Belden Place, 4
th
Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94104
415-760-0428
mrafferty@sspa.com

Jim Rehage
URS Corporation
P.O. Box 201088
Austin, TX 78729
512-419-5336
jim_rehage@urscorp.com

D-3
Jonathan Scott
Scott Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 6215
Longview, TX 75608
903-663-4635
jbscott@scottenv.com

Ed Seger
DuPont
22 Palomino Tr.
Vernon, NJ 07462
973-827-0160
Edward.S.Seger@USA.DuPont.com

Kevin Shaddy
California Dept. of Toxic Substances
Control
1515 Tollhouse Rd.
Clovis, CA 93611
559-297-3929
kshaddy@dtsc.ca.gov

Rajesh Singh
1356 Wooded Knoll
West Chester, PA 19382
484-919-8599
rsingh12@verizon.net

Nirupma Suryavanshi
California Environmental Protection Agency
5796 Corporate Ave.
Cypress, CA 90630
714-484-5375
nsuryava@dtsc.ca.gov

Araya Vann
Oklahoma Corporation Commission
2101 North Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
405-522-5799
a.vann@occemail.com
Charles Wilk
CETCO Contracting Services Company
2870 Forbs Ave.
Hoffman Estates, IL 60192
847-851-1786
charles.wilk@cetco.com

Norvell Wisdom
Scott Environmental Services, Inc.
P. O. Box 6215
Longview, TX 75608
903-663-4635
nwisdom@scottenv.com

Tedd Yargeau
California Department of Toxic Substances
Control
9211 Oakdale Ave.
Chatsworth, CA 91311
818-212-5340
tyargeau@dtsc.ca.gov

Gwen Zervas
New Jersey Dept. of Environmental
Protection
401 E. State St.
P.O. Box 028
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-633-7261
gwen.zervas@dep.state.nj.us











Appendix E

Glossary

E-1
GLOSSARY


additive—A substance added in small amounts to something else to improve, strengthen, or
otherwise alter it.
adsorption—Partitioning of a dissolved species onto a solid surface.
cementitious—Of, or relating to, a chemical precipitate, especially of carbonates, having the
characteristics of cement.
compliance testing—Tests to evaluate cured material properties for direct comparison to project
performance criteria.
consistency testing—Real-time or short-term evaluations of treated material during
implementation used to adjust reagent addition rates or mixing procedures to maintain
material properties consistent with construction performance specifications.
construction performance specifications—Associated with S/S treatment implementation in
the field to verify that the final treated material is consistent with the specifications
developed during treatability testing.
contaminated material—Toxic or potentially harmful substances that may be present in soil,
groundwater, and/or building materials.
dilution attenuation factor—The ratio of original soil leachate concentration to the receptor
point concentration.
eluate—The liquid solution that results from an elution process. In this guidance, “eluate” refers
to the liquid phase resulting from laboratory leaching tests. For example, the liquid that elutes
through a column of granular material is considered an eluate. The term is similar to “field
leachate” and differentiates laboratory test liquids from field leachates.
engineering controls—Barriers or systems that control downward migration, infiltration, or
seepage of surface runoff and rain or natural leaching/migration of contaminants through the
subsurface over time.
ettringite—The mineralogical name for calcium sulfoaluminates, Ca
6
Al
2
(SO
4
)
3
(OH)
12
· 26H
2
O.
This mineral commonly precipitates in the pores of cementitious materials when sources of
calcium sulfate (e.g., gypsum) are present. Petrographic analysis of ettringite shows the
needle-like structure of the mineral. Since the molar volume of ettringite is greater than the
sum of the molar volumes of its reactants, precipitation of ettringite is an expansive reaction.
Formation of ettringite may occur during hydration, where it is generally considered to be
harmless or even beneficial to the cement matrix, or after formation of a rigid mineral
structure, where it is considered one form of sulfate attack.
ex situ S/S—Stabilization and solidification technologies that apply S/S treatment to excavated
material. Ex situ treated material can be returned to its original location or placed on another
part of the project area (e.g., reuse of S/S-treated material as paving base). At some projects,
treated material has been excavated and placed at the final location prior to use of in situ
mixing equipment to treat the relocated material. Ex situ S/S-treated materials may also be
taken off site; however, this kind of ex situ S/S treatment is beyond the scope of this
document because of the additional regulatory considerations for this kind of ex situ S/S
treatment.

E-2
hydraulic conductivity—A measureable material property related to ease of movement of water
through a porous medium under groundwater flow conditions governed by Darcy’s Law
(Bear 1972). This term is often used interchangeably with the more general term
“permeability,” which relates to the ease with which a fluid (e.g., water, oil, air, etc.) will
pass through a porous medium.
inorganic compounds—Chemicals that do not contain carbon; for example, metals are
inorganic.
in situ S/S—Stabilization and solidification technologies that apply S/S treatment to in situ
materials using auger-type and injector-head systems.
institutional controls—“Non-engineering measures, such as administrative and/or legal controls
that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or to protect the
integrity of a remedy by limiting land or resource use,” as defined by EPA.
leachability—The ability of the material to retain contaminants of concern through a
combination of chemical and physical mechanisms. May be used to describe either the extent
of leaching (e.g., percentage of total content that have leached) or rate of release (e.g., the
time-dependent release) from materials.
leaching—The process of constituent movement from the solid when a solid material is
contacted with a liquid.
mass flux—A rate measurement specific to a defined area, which is usually a subset of a plume
cross section. Mass flux is expressed as mass/time/area (e.g., g/d/m
2
).
material performance goals—Design targets that describe a treated material that will meet
specific site remediation goals.
material performance specifications—Material performance needs to adequately address
performance goals and to guide the treatability study phase.
monolith—Solid matrix with high structural integrity.
organic compound—Any compound containing carbon.
performance—Refers to the ability of the material or remedy to maintain its function of
minimizing release of contaminants to the environment.
performance criteria—Design values of a performance parameter used for comparison to
performance measurements to evaluate whether acceptable performance has been achieved.
performance parameters—The material properties characteristic of the ability of an S/S-treated
material to carry out its intended purpose.
performance tests—Protocols or assessments used to characterize a performance parameter of
an S/S-treated material and which return one or more values considered representative of
performance measurement.
pocket penetrometer—Test instrument used to measure compressive strength of soil or
concrete.
point of compliance—The location where the S/S-treated material must comply with site
remediation goals.
porewater—The water filling the spaces between grains of sediment.
pozzolanic reagents—Siliceous or siliceous and aluminous material that reacts chemically with
an alkali in the presence of water to produce a cementitious material at standard
temperatures.

E-3
pugmill—A machine in which materials are simultaneously ground and mixed with a liquid.
reagent—A substance or compound used in a chemical reaction to detect, measure, or produce
other substances.
slump test—A test used to determine the consistency of fresh concrete and to ensure uniformity
for different batches of similar concrete under field conditions.
solidification—The processes that encapsulates contaminated material to form a solid material
and restricts contaminant migration by decreasing the surface area exposed to leaching and/or
by coating the contaminated material with low-permeability materials. Solidification can be
accomplished by mechanical processes that mix the material and one or more reagents.
Solidification entraps the contaminated material within a granular or monolithic matrix.
(EPA definition)
solubility—The relative capacity of a substance to serve as a solute, usually in reference to water
as the solvent.
sorption—The process of being taken up or held by either adsorption or absorption.
stabilization—The processes where chemical reactions occur between the reagents and
contaminated material to reduce the leachability of contaminated material into a stable
insoluble form. Stabilization chemically binds free liquids and immobilizes contaminated
materials or reduces their solubility through a chemical reaction. The physical nature of the
contaminated material may or may not be changed significantly by this process. (EPA
definition)
stakeholder—May include people in communities living near contaminated sites, site-specific
advisory boards, local governments, and a variety of nongovernmental organizations.
stewardship (long-term stewardship)—The physical controls, institutions, information, and
other mechanisms needed to ensure protection of people and the environment.
strength—The ability of a material to withstand an applied physical stress without incurring an
inelastic strain leading to structural failure.
treatability studies—Tests to characterize the untreated contaminated material and evaluate the
technology performance under different operating conditions.
unconfined compressive strength—A common performance parameter in S/S treatment used to
ensure that treated material has at least as much bearing strength as surrounding material.










Appendix F

Acronyms

F-1
ACRONYMS


ANS American Nuclear Society
AOC area of contamination
ASTM ASTM International, formerly American Society for Testing and Materials
bgs below ground surface
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
COC contaminant of concern
CQA construction quality assurance
CSM conceptual site model
DAF dilution-attenuation factor
DOC dissolved organic carbon
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
DQO data quality objective
DSM deep soil mixing
EC engineering control
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPACMTP EPA Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FEP feature, event, and/or process
HCL hydrochloride
HSVOCs halogenated semivolatile chemicals
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments [to RCRA] of 1984
HVOC halogenated volatile chemical
IAS integrated analytical solution
IC institutional control
ITRC Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council
KOH potassium hydroxide
K
ow

octanol-water partitioning coefficient
LDR land disposal restriction
LEAF Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework
L/S liquid-solid ratio
LSP liquid-solid partitioning
MGP manufactured gas plant
NAPL nonaqueous-phase liquid
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
N-HSVOC nonhalogenated semivolatile chemical
N-HVOC nonhalogenated volatile chemical
NPL National Priorities List
NRC National Research Council
N-VOC nonvolatile organic compound
O&M operations and maintenance
OU operating unit
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PASSiFy Performance Assessment of Solidified/Stabilized Waste-Forms

F-2
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
POC point of compliance
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
RAO remedial action objective
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ROD record of decision
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
S/S solidification/stabilization
STARNET Stabilization/Solidification Treatment and Remediation Network
SVOC semivolatile organic chemical
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
UCS unconfined compressive strength
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
VOC volatile organic chemical
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WET [California] Waste Extraction Test

ABOUT ITRC
Established in 1995, the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) is a state-led, national coalition of personnel from the environmental regulatory agencies of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, three federal agencies, tribes, and public and industry stakeholders. The organization is devoted to reducing barriers to, and speeding interstate deployment of, better, more cost-effective, innovative environmental techniques. ITRC operates as a committee of the Environmental Research Institute of the States (ERIS), a Section 501(c)(3) public charity that supports the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) through its educational and research activities aimed at improving the environment in the United States and providing a forum for state environmental policy makers. More information about ITRC and its available products and services can be found on the Internet at www.itrcweb.org.

DISCLAIMER
ITRC documents and training are products designed to help regulators and others develop a consistent approach to their evaluation, regulatory approval, and deployment of specific technologies at specific sites. Although the information in all ITRC products is believed to be reliable and accurate, the product and all material set forth within are provided without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of the accuracy or completeness of information contained in the product or the suitability of the information contained in the product for any particular purpose. The technical implications of any information or guidance contained in ITRC products may vary widely based on the specific facts involved and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional and competent advisors. Although ITRC products attempt to address what the authors believe to be all relevant points, they are not intended to be an exhaustive treatise on the subject. Interested parties should do their own research, and a list of references may be provided as a starting point. ITRC products do not necessarily address all applicable health and safety risks and precautions with respect to particular materials, conditions, or procedures in specific applications of any technology. Consequently, ITRC recommends also consulting applicable standards, laws, regulations, suppliers of materials, and material safety data sheets for information concerning safety and health risks and precautions and compliance with then-applicable laws and regulations. The use of ITRC products and the materials set forth herein is at the user’s own risk. ECOS, ERIS, and ITRC shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential, or punitive damages arising out of the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process discussed in ITRC products. ITRC product content may be revised or withdrawn at any time without prior notice. ECOS, ERIS, and ITRC do not endorse or recommend the use of, nor do they attempt to determine the merits of, any specific technology or technology provider through ITRC training or publication of guidance documents or any other ITRC document. The type of work described in any ITRC training or document should be performed by trained professionals, and federal, state, and municipal laws should be consulted. ECOS, ERIS, and ITRC shall not be liable in the event of any conflict between ITRC training or guidance documents and such laws, regulations, and/or ordinances. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of use by ECOS, ERIS, or ITRC. The names, trademarks, and logos of ECOS, ERIS, and ITRC appearing in ITRC products may not be used in any advertising or publicity, or otherwise indicate the sponsorship or affiliation of ECOS, ERIS, and ITRC with any product or service, without the express written permission of ECOS, ERIS, and ITRC.

S/S-1

Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization

July 2011

Prepared by The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council Solidification/Stabilization Team

Copyright 2011 Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council 50 F Street NW, Suite 350, Washington, DC 20001

www. . Solidification/Stabilization Team. D.Permission is granted to refer to or quote from this publication with the customary acknowledgement of the source.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization.org.C.itrcweb. The suggested citation for this document is as follows: ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). S/S-1. 2011. Washington.

Wittenberg of Natural Resource Technology for authoring Case Study #1 (“Modeling of Groundwater Impacts for an S/S Remedy”) in Appendix C and Matt Tonkin and Vivek Bedekar of S. Inc. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection The team recognizes the valuable contributions to the development of the document by the following stakeholder and academic representatives: • • J. and agencies that contributed to this technical and regulatory guidance document. Hennings. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Wilmer Reyes. California Environmental Protection Agency Araya Vann. Department of Energy. Robb. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Jim Harrington. Department of Defense and the U. for authoring Case Study #3 (“Graded Modeling Approach”) in Appendix C.S. the team would like to thank Brian G. ITRC operates as a committee of the Environmental Research Institute of the States (ERIS). Vanderbilt University i . City of Trenton Andy Garrabrants. and Roy E. The S/S Team. organizations. Papadopulos & Associates. The efforts of all those who took valuable time to review and comment on it are also greatly appreciated. In addition. Capasso. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Kevin Collins. Christopher A.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The members of the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) Solidification/ Stabilization (S/S) Team wish to acknowledge the individuals.S. Oklahoma Corporation Commission Tedd Yargeau.S. wishes to recognize the efforts of specific team members who provided valuable written input in the development of this document. Significant financial support was also provided by the Electric Power Research Institute. Additional funding and support have been provided by the U. The team recognizes the efforts of the following state environmental personnel who contributed to the development of this guidance document: • • • • • • • • Lucas Berresford. Environmental Protection Agency. As part of the broader ITRC effort. California Department of Toxic Substances Control Gwen Zervas. R. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Nirupma Suryavanshi. the S/S Team effort is funded primarily by the U. a Section 501(c)(3) public charity that supports the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) through its educational and research activities aimed at improving the environment in the United States and providing a forum for state environmental policy makers.S. whose members are listed in Appendix D.

Robb. Department of Interior Terrence Lyons. S. Scott Environmental Services. Environmental Protection Agency Mark Rothas. Army Corps of Engineers Linda Fiedler.S. Jeff Clock. Inc. LLC Vera Langer. Natural Resource Technology Jonathan Scott. Army Corps of Engineers The team recognizes the contributions of the following consultants and industry representatives. Papadopulos & Associates. Brian G. Ed Seger. U. Honeywell International.S. S. U. Natural Resource Technologies Finally.S.S. Langan Engineering & Environmental Services Matt Tonkin.S. Charles Wilk. who provided valuable expertise and contributed significantly to the writing of the document: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ed Bates Vivek Bedekar. Environmental Protection Agency Greg Helms. S.S. Plateau Geoscience Group. U. Haley & Aldrich. Environmental Protection Agency Bill Major. CETCO Contracting Services Company Norvell Wisdom. Natural Resource Technology Mavis Kent. U. Hennings. Inc.S. Michael Rafferty. Inc.S. Electric Power Research Institute Richard Galloway. Inc. U. U.S. Jim Rehage. who provided valuable comments. input. the S/S Team would like to thank the representatives of the following organizations who responded to our national survey/questionnaire and provided valuable information: • • • Alabama Department of Environmental Management Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arkansas State Department of Environmental Quality ii . British Petroleum Thomas Plante. and suggestions for this document’s improvement during its development and draft reviews: • • • • • • • • • • Carol Dona. Inc. Papadopulos & Associates. U. Environmental Protection Agency Doug Grosse. Papadopulos & Associates. U. Scott Environmental Services. Roy Wittenberg. Environmental Protection Agency Mike Fitzpatrick.S. URS Corporation Christopher A. U. Environmental Protection Agency Pamela Innis.S.S. Inc. Inc. DuPont Rajesh Singh. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Steve Rideur.The team also recognizes the contributions of the following federal agencies.

Division of Water Quality Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Utah Department of Environmental Quality Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Virginia Department of Environmental Quality West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources iii .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Georgia Department of Natural Resources Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Indiana Department of Environmental Management Kansas Department of Health and Environment Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection Maine Department of Environmental Protection Maryland Department of the Environment Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Missouri Department of Natural Resources Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Mexico Environment Department New York State Department of Environmental Conservation North Dakota Department of Health.

S/S technology may be applicable for a wide range of contaminants. and criteria used to develop an S/S treatment recipe that meets performance goals (i. S/S remedies are designed to reduce the flux of contamination that leaches from a contaminant source to within acceptable parameters set forth in a site-specific remediation goal. Testing may include both bench-scale and pilot testing. Several different performance tests have been used to measure leachability of S/S materials. As an illustration of performance specifications. The resultant eluate concentrations represent performance measurements describing the leachability of the S/S material.e. Abundant literature describes the S/S process and test methods for design and implementation.e. These specifications have two purposes: (a) to guide the evaluation of the ability of the treated material to meet remediation goals and (b) to establish a minimal set of properties for evaluation during field operations to verify consistency with materials characterized in the laboratory.S. and waste (i. A key part of the S/S process is the role of treatability studies in providing site-specific information to evaluate the technology and to develop process design parameters and scale up for full-scale implementation.and contaminant-specific potential effectiveness of S/S technology. effectiveness. comprehensive performance specifications. Environmental Protection Agency methods. although full-scale pilot testing may be considered during startup of field implementation. performance specifications should be used to ensure protectiveness of the remedy.. contaminated material). To determine site. sediment. tests. and long-term performance is not widely available. including both recognized and draft U. These performance measurements are typically compared to a set of predefined concentrations or action levels used as performance criteria to determine whether the solid material will leach beyond acceptable limits.. Once treatability testing is completed. a plan for treating the full extent of the contaminated material in the implementation phase is based on those testing results. Of particular concern is the assessment of contaminant leaching to the environment and the relationship of leaching test results to the performance of the remedy over time. leachability may be considered a primary performance parameter used to assess the ability of a material to retain a specific set of site contaminants of concern. the lack of readily available guidance represents a regulatory barrier with respect to the use of S/S technologies. Because these issues have long been a concern of regulators and site owners. However. v . guidance on applicable contaminants.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ITRC Solidification/Stabilization (S/S) Team was formed in 2009 to develop the technical and regulatory guidance needed to support the use of S/S technologies for the on-site treatment of contaminated soil. sludge. Treatability testing typically involves characterizing the untreated contaminated material and evaluating the technology performance under different operating conditions. the design targets that describe a treated material that will meet specific site remediation goals). Performance specifications refer to the collection of performance-related parameters.

Because the most common impact from a treated mass is to groundwater. the key long-term stewardship component is typically groundwater monitoring programs. Long-term stewardship of a completed S/S remedy may include monitoring of environmental media in contact with and potentially affected by the remedy. long-term stewardship programs are typically used to verify the remedy continues to meet material performance goals and therefore remains effective and protective of human health and the environment. financial assurances. vi . achievement of material performance goals is documented through quality control testing for both compliance with material performance specifications and consistency through construction. Once a remedy has been implemented and safeguards are put in place. monitoring of institutional controls.During implementation. monitoring and maintenance of engineering controls. An S/S remedy should be considered successful if it meets material performance goals designed to meet site groundwater cleanup criteria at established points of compliance and groundwater monitoring data show that the cleanup criteria have been met. and periodic review(s) by the controlling environmental agency. Groundwater modeling is a valuable method for assisting in the design and evaluation of a groundwater monitoring program.

................7 Contaminant Types Treated Using S/S .2 1..................................................................................................43 6.................11 Long-Term Performance ....4 1.....................................................................................................1 5.................................................................................................................................3 2....5 2.......................50 vii .2 Treated Material Performance QA/QC ....9 S/S Technology Advantages and Limitations ..................................36 6...........1 1.............................................................36 Reagent Selection Considerations .......................12 S/S-Treated Materials in Subsurface Environments .........................................................................................................................42 6........................6 Technology Description .....3 Document Organization ....................36 Performance Specifications During Implementation ............................v 1...... PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE S/S DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS . i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .1 1.......................2 4.......................19 Key Performance Parameters for S/S-Treated Materials ......37 Bench-Scale Testing........7 General S/S Process ...............................1 Document Scope ....................................................3 5..........12 4..1 3.............................1 4.....................................................1 2...........................................................................30 Performance Specifications ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................3 3.......................13 Performance Specifications .........26 2......2 3...............................................34 Performance Specifications in Treatability Studies ..........................4 3..........22 Recommended Performance Parameters and Performance Test for S/S-Treated Materials .............................3 1.... TREATABILITY TESTING PROGRAM ...................41 5.............................................................2 2.........1 Reagent and Equipment QA/QC Considerations ........28 4...TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............2 Framing the Guidance Document .......... PERFORMANCE OF S/S-TREATED MATERIALS .........5 Document Purpose ..5 5........................4 2.........5 3.......1 Intended Audience.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................28 Material Performance Goals............................. SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW .............. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION DURING S/S IMPLEMENTATION ...4 4..............................................2 5................................................19 Performance Tests ..............................3 4..............................................................40 Scale-Up Considerations .................3 Assessing Field Performance Test Data ..........................................................................41 6...........................................................................................................................................................38 Pilot-Test Studies/Field Demonstrations........................... INTRODUCTION ...............4 Flowchart of the S/S Design and Implementation Process .............6 3................................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................63 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1.................................................16 Figure 4-1..........8 Impact of internal and external factors on S/S performance........60 8.......................... Table 3-3..............................29 Figure 4-2......................................................... REFERENCES ....................................... Sample collection of freshly mixed material from an excavator bucket .....................................................................................2 7...................................................................................... Stakeholder considerations ..........................................................40 Figure 6-1.......................................................... Internal and external stresses influencing the performance of S/S-treated materials ...................................26 S/S site characterization considerations in the development of performance goals and specifications ... Conceptual in situ S/S model .........................21 Performance parameters and performance tests for S/S materials........................53 Groundwater Monitoring Program ....................44 Figure 6-2... Example of overlap of in situ auger-mixed S/S ....... Hydraulic conductivity measurement and UCS measurement tests conducted in the laboratory on treatability test samples ...1 7..............................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Land Use Issues .............................................65 9.............67 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1.........13 Figure 3-2.............................................31 Table 8-1........................................................................................3 7............... Field preparation of cylinder molds of freshly treated material ............................................................................................................... S/S design and implementation process as discussed in Sections 4–7 of this document .......................................46 viii ........59 Periodic Review .14 Hydraulic conductivity of select porous media ..................................................15 Figure 3-3............................33 Figure 5-1........................4 Long-Term Durability and Performance of S/S-Treated Materials ............................................................................... LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP ...63 8...........................45 Figure 6-5..........................54 Institutional and Engineering Controls ........ Field curing of S/S material specimens in a humid atmosphere (water bath) ........... Specialized sampler for S/S column mix areas ............................................................ Sieve screening of treated material sample in preparation of UCS cylinder molding .....52 7............................................. Table 3-2.................................................................................................................................. Solubility of cationic metals (hydroxides) and oxyanions (calcium salts) as a function of solution pH ...................... STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS ...............45 Figure 6-3..................................................1 Health and Safety Issues ......................... Mass flux approximation showing relationship between leaching test flux and concentrations in groundwater at the treated material and at a downgradient POC ............................................................. Documented effectiveness of S/S treatment for chemical groups .................................................................11 Figure 3-1........ Table 3-1..7................................45 Figure 6-4........... Table 4-1......62 8............................................................46 Figure 6-6.......................... pH-dependent leaching of DOC and associated PAH concentrations from contaminated sediment...................

... Wisconsin.....................47 Figure 6-9. and post-treatment ...................................................... Auger-mixed in situ S/S treatment of a former MGP site in at Kendall Square............. Massachusetts..........................................66 APPENDICES Appendix A. Acronyms ix .66 Figure 8-3........ Slump test on freshly treated material ............49 Figure 6-10.......... Solidification/Stabilization Team Contacts Appendix E................66 Figure 8-2..51 Figure 8-1............... Example consistency testing using PreMethod 1313 on coal combustion fly ash samples collected at four different times from the same source.................. Groundwater Modeling Case Studies and Methods Appendix D..... Five-gallon bucket-molded sample cleaved......... Sample QC test results tracking chart ................. Equipment Appendix B.............................47 Figure 6-8............. Overview of Leaching Tests and Assessment of Leachability Using the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework Appendix C..... Glossary Appendix F. Auger-mixed in situ S/S treatment of a former MGP site in Milwaukee..................... exposing successful encapsulation of contaminant ........... and after redevelopment ........................Figure 6-7.............................................................. Cambridge......... Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site near Brunswick..... Georgia............. during S/S treatment and redeveloped into an automobile dealer parking lot ..........

contaminated material).DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION 1. sediment. and test methods for design and implementation. and presents in this guidance document.2 Document Scope This document specifically focuses on processes and approaches for the treatment of contaminated materials on site.” and “additive” are sometimes used interchangeably with respect to S/S. “additive” refers to a product used to target specific compounds. Compensation. and waste (i. and case study applications. In this document the term “reagent” is used as a general term describing a product used to accomplish S/S treatment. However. Therefore. 1. and monitoring of S/S remedies. the lack of readily available guidance represents a regulatory barrier with respect to the use of S/S technologies. Of particular concern is the assessment of contaminant leaching to the environment and the relationship of leaching test results to the performance of the remedy over time. the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) S/S Team has developed. and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites for source control and was the second most commonly used in situ source treatment control in fiscal years 2005–2008 (EPA 2010d). 1 . Because these issues have long been a concern of regulators and site owners. applicable contaminants. the technology as discussed in this document is based on on-site. S/S is one of the most common in situ technologies used at Comprehensive Environmental Response. Although the processes and approaches presented can often be applied more broadly to other types of S/S applications. an approach to the development of performance specifications to meet the need to confidently identify and select appropriate performance specifications for design. The terms “binder. 1. mixed with inorganic cementitious/pozzolanic reagents (the most common application of S/S) and cured in place to create a solid mass with a reduced potential for leaching and typically a lowered hydraulic conductivity. and long-term performance is not widely available.e. guidance manuals. implementation. guidance on comprehensive performance specifications. S/S is a process of blending treatment reagents1 into contaminated material to impart physical and/or chemical changes that result in reduced environmental impact of the contaminated material to groundwater and/or surface water. these applications are generally not discussed in this document. sludge.1 Document Purpose Abundant literature describes the S/S process in technical papers. in situ S/S applications..” “reagent. effectiveness. research into mineralogical and chemical process aspects. Therefore. Section 2 of this document provides an overview of S/S technology. INTRODUCTION Solidification/stabilization (S/S) is a well-established remediation technology for treatment of contaminated soil.

this document includes the following: • • an overview of the S/S technology with numerous references for more detailed information on each step in the S/S process (design. and environmental practitioners as follows: • State regulators with oversight responsibility for remediation projects where S/S is proposed. strength.g. water contact mode) of the treated materials to meet remedial action objectives (RAOs) and minimize post-treatment impacts to groundwater the use of treatability tests to demonstrate compliance with performance specifications and consistency between laboratory and field samples results a process for ensuring achievement of material performance goals through compliance with performance specifications during implementation long-term stewardship considerations to aid practitioners and regulators in determining sitespecific approaches that provide relevant and reliable measures of remedy success potential stakeholder concerns in general and those concerns that may impact the development of performance specifications appendices to facilitate the understanding.g.g. implementation. etc. or monitored can use this guidance to do the following: 2 .. which may involve additional considerations such as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste generation or land disposal restriction (LDR) regulations recommendations of performance specification values or cleanup criteria applicable to S/S remediation projects Intended Audience This guidance can be used by regulators. To provide guidance on applying this approach. site owners. infiltration rate. chemical (e. and evaluating appropriate site-specific performance specifications and the considerations for designing appropriate long-term stewardship programs for S/S remedies will provide a useful tool for establishing an appropriate degree of treatment and regulatory confidence in the performance data to support decision making.3 S/S technology selection considerations (it assumes that the technology has already been selected for further evaluation) sufficient details on the technology to support detailed design and implementation of S/S as a remedy or detailed review of work plans for design and implementation of S/S (such as dust control and health and safety issues) regulatory requirements for materials taken off site or relocated on site after treatment.. constituent retention and transport mechanisms) and site. evaluation.or scenario-specific management characteristics (e. implemented.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 The approach developed by the ITRC S/S Team for developing.) a process for selecting appropriate performance specifications to allow practitioners to apply a consistent assessment methodology that considers the physical (e. hydraulic conductivity). testing.. and selection of key performance specifications and long-term stewardship strategies described in the document text and illustrated using case study examples • • • • • This document does not include the following: • • • • 1. testing.

Team members reviewed and evaluated the results of these surveys to identify key issues to discuss in this document. None of the responding states reported having published S/S-specific guidance. and federal regulators. with 26 states reporting implementation of S/S technologies as follows: • • • the majority of states reported using the technology for treating contaminated material in situ and above the groundwater table the majority of identified S/S projects were performed to treat source areas the second greatest reported use of S/S technology was for controlling migration of nonaqueous-phase liquid (NAPL) Only a few states that completed the survey reported having established regulations or policies related to S/S treatment. exceptions include regulations in Illinois and New Hampshire and S/S policy in Kansas.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 o evaluate site-specific proposed performance specifications o evaluate site-specific treatability study work plans with respect to technology design o review construction-complete reports to ensure performance specifications were met during implementation o assess predicted long-term performance o review long-term stewardship work plans and reports o anticipate potential stakeholder concerns • Environmental practitioners who prepare plans and designs. In addition. 1. 3 .1 State Survey Thirty-one states responded to the survey. and potential stakeholder concerns. • Other audiences include the regulated community. implement S/S. 1. and understand regulator expectations for this technology. community stakeholders. the team conducted a survey of state regulators to identify uncertainties that may pose a potential barrier to the use of the technology. or monitor S/S long-term performance can use this guidance to apply an appropriate degree of treatment. Site owners with responsibility for remediation and long-term management can use this guidance to understand state regulator expectations. This guidance will provide these readers with a common understanding of the application and limitations of S/S for site cleanup as well as an understanding of common regulator expectations for performance and monitoring criteria to measure its effectiveness.4. During September and October 2009. Additional input on S/S was provided through technical sessions with the broader ITRC membership conducted in the spring of 2010.4 Framing the Guidance Document The ITRC S/S Team used several sources of input to formulate the scope and content of this document. develop long-term monitoring programs. the team informally surveyed industry practitioners to ascertain real or perceived regulatory barriers and experiences in implementing S/S technology. long-term performance.

some of the states that did not respond to the survey have or may have guidance or policies related to S/S. the parameters and criteria were not consistently applied across the responding states. or leaching potential. Some of the identified perceived regulatory barriers were as follows: • • • • requirements to achieve drinking water standards within or near the treated material understanding and effectively working with federal RCRA and LDR regulations to benefit S/S implementation length of time for review of S/S work plans (where required) determining appropriate locations for points of compliance (POCs) When asked what information ITRC guidance could provide to break down these perceived regulatory barriers.3 Based on their collective experience. Louisiana has a rule specifically related to the treatment of oil and gas exploration and production waste (Louisiana Administrative Code. the industry responders indicated the following: • • an understanding of the mechanics and limitations of S/S technology for reducing contaminant mobility. Title 43. 61% identified an approach to assessing performance.4. for remedy performance specifications. ITRC S/S Team members identified the following key points to be addressed by this technical and regulatory guidance document to eliminate the barriers to technology usage: 4 . This same issue was identified as a barrier to use of S/S by the broader ITRC membership and in the United Kingdom (Environment Agency 2004a). such as strength. Most states reported using at least one parameter. ITRC S/S Team members also identified monitoring of long-term performance as another barrier to the use of S/S technology because of the uncertainty regarding long-term durability of the treated material and potential for release of contaminants to groundwater. However. In reviewing all of the input on regulatory barriers as described above. Part XIX. hydraulic conductivity. When asked to select one or more topics of most value for inclusion in an ITRC guidance document. For example.2 Industry Concerns A screening poll was conducted by team members of select industry practitioners to identify key regulatory barriers encountered by industry practitioners when implementing S/S.4. Chapter 313). In addition. 1. and 30% identified a discussion of ex situ versus in situ implementation. but not necessarily achieving drinking water standards flexibility to use S/S under the EPA Area of Contamination (AOC) Policy (EPA 1998) for RCRA cleanups regarding the consolidation and in situ treatment of materials within a defined AOC without triggering LDR (see box on page 5) Other Concerns 1. some states noted that S/S may not be allowed for some contaminants or is considered too difficult to implement.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 however. 71% of reporting states identified developing performance criteria.

Does the cleanup action constitute placement? 2. If the waste is a RCRA hazardous waste. These uncertainties present challenges with respect to their impact on the effectiveness and performance evaluation process. (b) well-designed treatability programs focusing on collection of appropriately representative materials to determine how best to 5 . LDRs may apply to a cleanup if “placement” occurs after the effective date of the regulations. and monitoring data. tests. efficient. implementation. variations or heterogeneities in data inputs from site assessment and site models. The focus of this guidance document is to present a process for developing performance criteria for S/S treatment that is not itself directly linked to RCRA or LDR regulations. injection well. However. For on-site disposal. salt dome formation. performance projections. it cannot be returned without “placement” taking place. surface impoundment. in itself. Because the process for development of performance criteria also may be applied to ex situ treatment of contaminated material. site managers considering ex situ application of S/S should work closely with the regulating agency(s) to determine whether and how RCRA and LDRs may apply. and parameters appropriate implementation and post-implementation sampling and testing long-term stewardship to measure and verify long-term performance RCRA and S/S Hazardous wastes that are treated using S/S technology may be subject to regulation under RCRA and as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). The movement of waste within the confines of an individual AOC does not. land treatment facility. and cost-effective remedial technologies. however. waste pile. Perceived barriers regarding the uncertainties of the evaluation and performance of the S/S technology could influence the selection of realistic. implementable. and appropriate technology for a site. and concrete bunker or vault” (EPA 1993c). salt bed formation. RCRA regulates the disposal of hazardous waste and sets treatment standards. If placement occurs. decision-support information. is it also restricted under the LDRs? 4. underground mine or cave. the degree of uncertainty a project may tolerate should be balanced with the associated risks determined on a site-by-site basis. such as in a landfill. Common sources of uncertainty include errors. Was the waste originally disposed or released after the effective date of the regulation? When considering the first question. leaching test results. Data uncertainties can be minimized through (a) adequate site characterization to define heterogeneity in the subsurface. Land disposal is defined by RCRA as “‘placement’ of hazardous waste in a landfill. if the waste was originally disposed or released after the effective date of the regulations. is the waste a RCRA hazardous waste? 3. then the LDRs already apply and those wastes must meet the LDR requirements regardless of whether or not they are confined to an AOC. In the case of the fourth question. The LDRs included in the HSWA prohibit land disposal of hazardous waste without prior treatment as specified in the regulations.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 • • • approach to identify and evaluate appropriate performance specifications. A simple approach to determine whether RCRA and LDRs apply to a cleanup is to step through a series of four questions: 1. conceptual models. Regulators and site owners must evaluate remedial technologies against appropriate criteria to determine the most effective. the degree and likely sources of uncertainty for S/S are not different from those for many other remedial technologies. “placement” occurs if waste is disposed off site. determining “placement” relies on the concept of an area of contamination (AOC) or the defined areal extent of contiguous contamination.” But once a waste has been removed from the AOC. constitute “placement. subsurface materials and contamination levels.

and (e) long-term stewardship as a benchmark for demonstrating and monitoring long-term performance. Paria and Yuet (2006).K. 2 Environment Agency is the environmental regulatory body of the United Kingdom. Sections 5 and 6 describe the treatability testing and implementation in the context of using performance specifications. Section 4 establishes a flowchart of the S/S design and implementation process. including examples addressing contaminant release from S/S-treated materials Appendix C—case studies of S/S technology applications with particular emphasis on the role of groundwater modeling in long-term stewardship strategies SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW 2. 2009b. Section 7 discusses long-term stewardship considerations following implementation. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s Stabilization/Solidification Treatment and Remediation Network (STARNET). These documents also contain numerous literature references for in-depth information on many technical aspects of S/S.eng. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI 2009a).cam. used as a guide for subsequent sections. 2010d). Appendixes are included at the end of the document to present additional information as follows: • • • Appendix A—common equipment used for S/S implementation Appendix B—emerging EPA leaching approaches. This section presents a brief overview of S/S. (c) appropriate performance specifications acting as a guide for the evaluation of S/S material performance. (d) quality control (QC) and consistency testing during implementation to provide field observation and verification during construction. the United Kingdom Environment Agency2 (2004a. and available performance tests. Section 8 addresses potential stakeholder concerns related to the development of performance specifications for S/S-treated materials. 2004b).5 Document Organization The document is organized following the general sequence of an S/S remediation project: • • • • • • Section 2 presents an overview of S/S technology. 1989. Section 3 describes the behavior of treated materials in subsurface environments and defines performance specifications. 1999a. available at www-starnet. 6 . Several useful references on the technology include Conner (1990 and 1997). and several state-of-the-practice reports produced by the U. In-depth information on S/S can be found in the literature cited in this document and elsewhere. key performance parameters. EPA (1986.uk. This document provides background information and guidance which can reduce the uncertainties listed above associated with evaluation of the S/S process such that barriers to S/S technology use may be minimized. and describes how performance specifications are used.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 apply the treatment and the most appropriate methods for evaluation of treatment effectiveness. 1.ac.

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Some examples of sites with 7 . Solidification entraps the contaminated material within a granular or monolithic matrix. However. long-term stewardship is often required and is discussed in detail in Section 7 of this document. volatile organic chemicals (VOCs).ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 2. selenium. solid.1 Technology Description S/S is a remediation technology used to treat contaminated material. The on-site application of S/S technology. antimony. Early literature concerning effectiveness of S/S on organic hazardous constituents noted the possibility of the interference by organics with the setting of cement-based mixtures. possibly leading readers to conclude that S/S treatment is not effective on organics. they are often implemented simultaneously through a single treatment process. low–hydraulic conductivity material that reduces the rate of contaminant migration through leaching. Although solidification and stabilization are defined separately. and zinc. a majority of S/S remedies were used for source control of inorganic contaminants (EPA 2007b). current published case studies and other literature indicate that S/S technology can be effective or potentially effective for a wide range of contaminants (see Table 2-1). Stabilization chemically binds free liquids and immobilizes contaminated materials or reduces their solubility through a chemical reaction. and as a result. Stabilization involves the processes where chemical reactions occur between the reagents and contaminated material to reduce the leachability of contaminated material into a stable insoluble form. EPA defines each as follows (EPA 2000): Solidification involves the processes that encapsulate contaminated material to form a solid material and restricts contaminant migration by decreasing the surface area exposed to leaching and/or by coating the contaminated material with low-permeability materials. Typically. cadmium. nickel. The physical nature of the contaminated material may or may not be changed significantly by this process. petroleum or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). leaves treated material in place. uranium. 2. S/S includes processes that mix inorganic cementitious/pozzolanic reagents into contaminated material to transform it into a durable. chromium. Common organic contaminants present in soil or waste include pesticides/herbicides. contaminants at a site may be a complex mix of chemicals including both inorganic and organic contaminants. Therefore. Solidification can be accomplished by mechanical processes that mix the material and one or more reagents. copper. and dioxins/ furans. Inorganic contaminants include metals such as arsenic. mercury.2 Contaminant Types Treated Using S/S S/S technology has been used to treat both inorganic and organic contaminants (EPA 1993a). as discussed in this document. Frequently. lead. The presence of multiple contaminants can complicate the determination and application of this technology for effective S/S.

and Sprinkle 2002. nonchlorinated phenols. with pretreatment (Paria and Yuet 2006) N-HVOCsd N N D. nonhalogenated semivolatile chemicals (N-HSVOCs) include PAHs. • P*/D* = S/S effectiveness was specifically stated in EPA 1993a but not in EPA 2009b. but EPA does not indicate the effectiveness of the remedy. sodium hydroxide. Wilk 2007) Creosotes. Akindele. PASSiFy Project 2010) Organic cyanides P P* D (Wilk 2007) Organic corrosives P P* D (Wilk 2007) Pentachlorophenol – – D (Bates. oil recycling facilities.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 both inorganic and organic contaminants include manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. chlorinated benzenes. inorganic cyanides include salts of cyanide (CN–). effectiveness is assumed to be the same in 2009.” Halogenated volatile chemicals (HVOCs) include solvents. 8 . Akindele. halogenated semivolatile chemicals (HSVOCs) include PCBs.Wilk 2007) Heavy oils – – D (Wilk 2003) Inorganic chemicals Volatile metals D D* Nonvolatile metals D D Asbestos D D* Radioactive materials D D d Inorganic corrosives D D* Inorganic cyanidesd D D* Mercury D D* EPA 2007b Reactive chemicals Oxidizers D D* Reducers D D* a b c d Key: • N = no expected effectiveness. P = potential effectiveness. and pesticide/herbicide manufacturing plants. inorganic corrosives include hydrochloride (HCL). Akindele. • – = This chemical was not specifically discussed in EPA 1993a or 2009b. but effectiveness has been documented in other references (see rightmost column). aromatics. 1993c. See EPA references (EPA 1993a. 2009b) has not specifically stated S/S effectiveness as “D. sulfuric acid. EPA 2007b documents the selection and use of S/S at National Priorities List (NPL) sites. and Sprinkle 2002. woodtreating sites. Documented effectiveness of S/S treatment for chemical groups Citations for treatment effectivenessa Chemical groups EPA EPA Other referencesc 1993ab 2009bb Organic chemicals d HVOCs N N D. pesticides. N-VOCsd D D PCBs P D Pesticides P D Dioxins/furans P P D (Bates. and Sprinkle 2002. 2009b) on use of S/S for organics and inorganics and for site remediation. refineries. gases. D = demonstrated effectiveness. nonhalogenated volatile chemicals (N-HVOCs) include ketones/furans. Table 2-1. Other references provide S/S effectiveness for specific chemical groups for which EPA (1993a. coal tar – – D (Bates. N-VOCs = nonvolatile organic compounds. with pretreatment (Paria and Yuet 2006) d HSVOCs D D N-HSVOCs. potassium hydroxide. chlorinated phenols.

In addition to organophilic clay. 2.1 Reagents and Additives S/S process options can generally be grouped into cementitious reagent processes and/or surface adsorption reagent processes (organophilic clay and thermoplastics or other synthetic polymers). and Cartledge 1996). and chemical gellants. discrepancies exist in the documented effectiveness reported in EPA references and other references. and lime kiln dust. Tittlebaum. The clay particles are typically not involved in cementitious setting reactions but are encapsulated into the treated material. silica fume. This particular example illustrates that one integral part of a successful S/S treatment is to determine site-specific and chemical-specific effectiveness through bench-scale treatability studies (see Section 5). various forms of lime. to low cost and availability. additives.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Table 2-1 summarizes how broad classes of inorganic and organic chemicals generally respond to S/S treatment. 9 . while Paria and Yuet (2006) document the effectiveness of S/S used along with pretreatment of volatiles. 2009b). cement kiln dust. Cementitious reagents are the most common commercially employed S/S process options due. This information is based on EPA reports evaluating the effectiveness of S/S treatment technologies at Superfund sites (EPA 1993a. can result in reduced leaching of the organic compounds through chemical adsorption onto clay particles (Faschan. ground granulated blast furnace slag. the EPA documents report no expected effectiveness for halogenated and nonhalogenated VOCs.3. In some cases. For example. For contaminant types not included in these EPA documents (such as creosote and coal tars). and water with contaminated media to produce a material with improved physical and chemical properties.3 General S/S Process The S/S process involves the incorporation of reagents. Although these reagents may be used singly or in various combinations. in part. other examples of useful additives include bentonite. when added to the S/S mix design. these contaminants are typically physically entrapped with the treated material. (b) treatability studies intended to develop an appropriate mix design of reagents and additives which addresses material performance specifications and refines implementation techniques and construction performance specifications. The overall process commonly includes (a) the establishment of material performance specifications based on remediation goals. portland cement is by far the most widely used. However. fly ash. rubber particulates. activated carbon. 2. Since most organic compounds do not bond with cementitious minerals produced by hydration of S/S reagents. and (d) monitoring of material performance after the remediation process is completed. may offset interferences noted in the literature between organic compounds and setting properties of cement-based materials (Conner 1997). additional documentation was used to indicate effectiveness as shown in the table. the adsorptive properties of organophilic clay. For example. Cementitious and/or pozzalanic reagents include portland cement. (c) mobilization of field equipment and implementation of the S/S mix design on a field scale. along with proper mixing technique. phosphates. the use of additives with sorptive properties can improve the efficiency of S/S treatment for organics and.

and the frequency of QC sampling and testing. and other structures. In both shallow and deep in situ S/S applications.3. and Conner (1990. 2.1 Mixing equipment The selection of the type of mixing equipment is influenced by contaminant characteristics and site conditions. The selection of the type of reagent is influenced by contaminant characteristics and site conditions such as depth of mixing and moisture content. the overall production rate is often controlled by the production rate of the batch plant and the mixing time required for thorough homogenization of the contaminated material and reagents to achieve the desired solidification and/or stabilization reactions. such as the depth and geometry of the impacted media. The size of a grid cell is often determined by the area and depth that the mixing equipment can reach with minimal need for relocation. 2. utilities. The S/S process then involves mixing the dry reagent or grout or paste with the contaminated material. 1997). Appendix A of this document provides an overview of equipment options for shallow and deep soil S/S applications.3. the type of equipment used for mixing.2. the S/S project is a candidate for in situ treatment through deep soil mixing (DSM) applications using a single large-diameter auger or a multiple auger tool. railways. The addition of dry reagents is more common. however. 2. In these applications.2 Mixing process For shallow S/S applications with contaminated material depths of approximately 6 m (20 feet) or less. the generation of fugitive dust may be a concern unless it is mitigated by use of suitable equipment and controls. 10 . When the contaminated material is at depths greater than approximately 6 m (20 feet). Dry addition is typically feasible for only relatively shallow mixing operations. among others. the area to be treated is typically divided into grid cells. Figure 2-1 is a conceptual illustration of an in situ S/S DSM application. Detailed descriptions can be found in Al-Tabbaa and Perara (2002). Environment Agency (2004b).2. the presence of buildings. using mechanical mixing equipment.3.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Further detail on the types and properties of various reagents and additives can be found in Paria and Yuet (2006). and the proximity of surface water bodies.2 Mixing The S/S process typically involves either the addition of reagents to water (to form a grout or paste) or the addition of dry reagents. Environment Agency (2004b). the grout batch volume capacity of the batch plant equipment. the mix column depth and diameter dictate the volume per unit of production and the corresponding grout volume/ batches required for each setup location. among others. and EPRI (2009a). Decisions regarding the use of reagents and additives should be made on a site-specific basis. the presence of subsurface debris or very dense soil.

S/S technology is applicable for a relatively broad range of contaminants and may be feasible when limitations to other technologies are imposed by site or contaminated material conditions.” When mixed ex situ. S/S Technology Advantages • effective in treating many inorganic contaminated materials • has been shown effective in treating some materials contaminated with organic chemicals • option for treating recalcitrant or mixed contaminants 11 . As with use of any technology. compacted. a typical S/S project also uses a batch/grout plant that consists of storage silos. In addition to the mixing system. In considering use of S/S technology. Assuming the reagents and water are adequately mixed into the contaminated material. Source: Modified from Palaia 2007. spread into lifts of uniform thickness. and allowed to cure. If mixing occurs in situ. as well as an understanding of the practical outcomes and limitations of the technology. 2. and pumps. EPRI 2009a). the treated material is placed into an on-site waste consolidation cell. a sound understanding of site conditions is important. metering and blending devices. the ultimate physical and chemical properties of the treated material are determined largely by the ratio of the dry weight of reagent (content or dosage) to the initial in-place soil mass before mixing.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Figure 2-1.4 S/S Technology Advantages and Limitations Use of S/S to treat contaminated material has resulted in development of reliable information regarding effectiveness and other factors that are typically considered in the process to evaluate and select site remedial actions. the treated material is left in place to “cure” or “set. Auxiliary equipment that may be used for S/S projects includes specialty equipment such as shrouds equipped with air controls to capture fugitive emissions during the mixing operation. site-specific conditions determine the potential feasibility and effectiveness of S/S and therefore also determine the applicability of the advantages and challenges listed. General non-site-specific advantages and challenges of S/S technology are listed below (Environment Agency 2004a. Conceptual in situ S/S model.

uncertainty over the long-term performance. geochemical and/or biological reactions with the surrounding environment. groundwater flow. degradation mechanisms for S/S materials typically are slow to manifest significant alteration of material properties which control contaminant release. refers to the ability of the S/S-treated material or remedy to maintain its function of minimizing release of contaminants to the environment. The combined experience of the ITRC S/S Team indicates that some in the regulatory community perceive that solidified materials will degrade over time as a result of one or more of the following: internal chemical reactions. and physical mechanisms such as settlement. Several useful references address this topic in detail. EPRI 2003. 2004a.5 Long-Term Performance As outlined in Section 1. The term “performance. 3. 12 . reducing dewatering and waste management issues generally uses simple.” in this context. However..g.. mounding) may need to be assessed • uncertainties associated with prediction of long-term behavior • options for treatment or post-treatment modifications limited by time for field performance testing and changed properties of treated material • volume increases that occur in the treated mass may require management • requires removal of debris or underground obstructions prior to treatment 2. due in part to limited knowledge of research and literature available on the subject. performance of S/S-treated materials should consider the behavior of the material both immediately after implementation as well as the longer-term aspects of material durability and site monitoring/maintenance. long-term stewardship may be required • effectiveness for certain contaminants (such as some organics or highly mobile species) may require additional measures in testing and design • potential changes in physical setting (e. or freeze-thaw cycling. wet-dry cycling. waste. PERFORMANCE OF S/S-TREATED MATERIALS This section provides a detailed discussion of how S/S-treated materials behave when placed in the subsurface.g. Thus. and reliability is a barrier to selection of S/S in some instances. and tests that can be used to measure these key parameters. durability. Section 7. both from case studies and predictive modeling (Perara et al. and sludge (e. readily available equipment and materials on-site management of contaminated materials conserves landfill space and does not require transportation off site may be more cost-effective than excavation and off-site disposal S/S Technology Challenges • contaminants are not destroyed or removed. strength) to facilitate consideration of land beneficial reuse applicable for in situ or ex situ treatment has been applied in dry or wet conditions. Environment Agency 2004b).1 describes long-term durability and performance in more detail.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 • • • • • • • • may address NAPL through S/S treatment process often reaches fixed treatment end point in a relatively short period of time can improve structural property of soil. the key parameters that best describe performance of S/S-treated materials.

performance relies on combinations of these factors such that small variances in the internal or external stresses typically to not lead to catastrophic failure of the treated material performance.g. as shown schematically in Figure 3-1.1. 3. hydraulic conductivity.1 S/S-Treated Materials in Subsurface Environments Several factors may play a role in the physical and environmental performance of cement-based materials. hydraulic conductivity is the most important in that the way in which groundwater contacts the material is controlled by the relative hydraulic conductivity of the soil and S/Streated material. granular or monolithic material). The primary physical factors that can affect performance of S/S-treated material are its unit particle size (e. Figure 3-1.. Internal and external factors affecting S/S performance are also described in Table 3-1. Internal and external stresses influencing the performance of S/S-treated materials. Although this figure is complex. Many of the chemical and physical factors may be addressed during the treatability to maximize retention of contaminants. 13 .1 Internal Stresses Internal stresses listed within the cube include chemical and physical factors inherent to the material as well as site-specific parameters which are based on the placement of the S/S material into the subsurface. and porosity.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 3. Source: Modified from Garrabrants and Kosson 2005. Of these.

Leaching from an S/S material is discontinued during drying. and leaching rates. which increase aqueous concentrations and leaching rates.g. Surface interactions with mineral phases (e.. and manganese oxides.g.g. oxidation.g. Unit particle size dictates whether material is monolithic or granular. Pb-acetate. Release of mineral phases increases pore diameters and connectivity. Acids produced by biological activity can alter pore chemistry and locally degrade minerals.e. Fraction of total content that is leachable (i. partially dried material). Higher temperatures increase the rate of chemical reactions (e. All S/S materials have cracks on the micro and macro scales. At low L/S. Some contaminants form soluble complexes (e.. liquid-to-solid ratios. Flux-based release of contaminants is proportional to the bulk surface area of the S/S fill.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Table 3-1.g. chelants.. Several species in the surrounding environment may accelerate leaching or degradation of the mineral structure through pH or redox changes and expansive precipitation reactions.g. Mean particle size of contaminated material (e. steady-state) concentrations are generally higher than kinetic-controlled (e. Determine water contact mode. Impact of internal and external factors (see Figure 3-1) on S/S performance Factor Equilibrium vs. ionic strength increases.g. toxicity. aluminum. Fill geometry Temperature Hydrogeological conditions Moisture transport Leachant composition Environmental attack Leaching Cracking Site conditions 14 .. which can increase the solubility of some species. connected pores generally have higher hydraulic conductivity. time-based) concentrations such as some hydration and degradation reactions... Oxidation of reduced contaminant speciation. calcium silicates) can reduce porewater concentrations of some contaminants. finely grained or gravely) may influence selection of reagents. whereas lower hydraulic conductivity may be seen in materials with smaller or disconnected pores. flow through or flow around) is dictated by relative hydraulic conductivity of S/S material and surrounding soil. carbonation) require a pore vapor space for transport (i. and organic carbon may alter solubility of surface/near-surface minerals and contaminants. availability) provides driving force for leaching. Solubility of inorganic species and organic carbon can be a strong function of pH. such as Cr(III)→Cr(IV). iron. Materials with large.. Acids. mineral dissolution). dissolved organic carbon [DOC]– PAHs). CdCl2. can increase concentrations. Water contact mode (e. formation of larger-aperture through-cracks may increase hydraulic conductivity but does not equate to catastrophic failure as complete through-cracks simply result in two monoliths of the same performance characteristics. potentially leading to increase in hydraulic conductivity and increased release rates.. Fast-moving groundwater limits contact time with the surface of S/S materials but may result in sufficient hydraulic head to force groundwater through the material pore structure.. active surface area for leaching. S/S mix designs may result in reducing conditions.. infiltration rates.g. kinetics Chemical factors pH Liquid-to-solid ratio (L/S) Maximum leachability Complexation Redox potential Sorption Biological activity Particle size Physical factors Hydraulic conductivity Pore structure Groundwater flow rate Impact on performance Equilibrium-controlled (e.e. gas-phase reactions (e.

000001 Ni Cu Cd Co Pb Zn Oxyanion [mol/L] 0.g.001 Ca4(OH)2(AsO4)2 0. and Comans 2006. and Kosson 2004.. Inorganic constituents in the S/S mass may be initially incorporated within mineral structures (e. When organic contaminants are of concern. Carter. as shown in Figure 3-2.1 1 0. precipitated as solids within pore spaces. or dissolved within the liquid phase held within the pore structure (i. which form during hydration and curing of reagents.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Although Figure 3-1 shows many chemical factors influencing performance. The pH of the alkaline porewater within the treated material directly affects retention of inorganic constituents by changing speciation of contaminants. pH plays only an indirect but equally important role in leaching. dissolution of strength-providing mineral phases). Sanchez. the porewater). However.. chromates.0001 0. and Cooling 2009). porewater pH is considered a controlling variable for the equilibrium-based leaching of many inorganic contaminants. and aqueous solubility of inorganic species) may be strongly pH dependent. known as the acid neutralization capacity. oxyanionic contaminants such as arsenates.000001 0. van der Sloot.0000001 0. The combined effects lead to changes in the solubility of inorganic contaminants with pH. In cement-based materials.. contaminant speciation) and structural performance (e..01 0. the most important chemical factor with respect to S/S-treated material is the pH of the material as it relates to both leaching performance (e. adsorption/desorption reactions. Organic contaminants in S/S materials tend to be concentrated in isolated organic 15 . Dijkstra. mineral and precipitate dissolution.01 0. are based on precipitation and dissolution of Ca(OH)2 and calcium silicate hydrate minerals. strontium or barium substituting for calcium). Garrabrants. Solubility of cationic metals (hydroxides) and oxyanions (calcium salts) as a function of solution pH. adsorbed to mineral surfaces or organic matter.g.0001 0.e.00000001 6 8 0. Since several of these retention mechanisms (e. Most heavy metals form cationic hydroxide species in the porewater of S/S-treated materials. van der Sloot.00001 CaMoO4 Ca2(AsO4)2 2H2O 0.001 0..1 CaSeO4 CaHAsO CaCrO4 Cation [mol/L] 0. 1 0.00001 0.g.g. alkalinity and the ability of the material to buffer acids. and molybdates are less influenced by pH in the same pH range. Figure 3-2 shows that the solubility of these hydroxides is strongly affected by pH and passes through a point of minimal solubility in the pH range 9–12. Porewater pH also affects the sorption characteristics of the mineral surfaces of the material (van der Sloot 2002.0000001 10 pH 12 14 10 11 12 pH 13 14 Figure 3-2.

Thus.. 16 DOC (mg/L) . depending on the specific condition of the placement scenario. 14 700 PAH PAH after flocculation DOC DOC after flocculation Σ 16 PAHs [µg/L] 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 600 500 400 300 200 100 To illustrate the potential for a significant effect of organic-DOC complexes at high pH.. Figure 3-3 shows the relative concentrations of DOC and total PAHs measured in a leachate before and after removal of the organic carbon through flocculation. Typically. the external conditions that influence an S/S material may lead to different performance outcomes. 5 10 15 3. and Comans 2004. Properly conducted and evaluated treatability studies (see Section 5) are essential to best tailor the properties of S/S-treated material for retention of both inorganic and organic contaminants. precipitation reactions. pH-dependent leaching of DOC and cases. DOC can form aqueous complexes with some forms of organic chemicals. S/S formulations may include additives which specifically target organic constituents through sorption and reduce leaching. and Raber et al. many of these aging and degradation processes are slow to develop such that S/S treatment may remain effective for extended periods. However. the highly alkaline porewater in the material may result in increased leaching. In some Figure 3-3. which can lead to increased contaminant concentrations in the porewater (Butler 2009. addition of lime or portland cement to underpH performing S/S recipes is thought to improve performance. the solubility of organic contaminants is not directly affected by changes in pH. the physical durability of the S/S material may be influenced by cracking of the monolithic structure (e. humic and fulvic acids) and release of DOC. highly alkaline regimes promote dissolution of particulate organic matter (e. neutralization of porewater. 3. Roskam and Comans 2007.. For example. addition of portland cement associated PAH concentrations from contaminated can help to stabilize a material into sediment. however.g.g. These stresses may change the chemical or physical properties of the material and influence performance in the long run.g. from freeze/thaw cycles or mechanical stress). forming a more monolithic material.3 S/S Placement Relative to the Water Table Since many S/S applications extend through the unsaturated or vadose zone into the water table.2 External Stresses External stresses include those interactions or reactions shown outside the cube in Figure 3-1 that tend to affect the long-term performance of the S/S treatment.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 phases (e. especially PAHs. tars and greases) or adsorbed to particulate organic matter.1. However. whereas the ability of the material to retain contaminants is more influenced by changes in chemistry (e.g. changes in oxidation/reduction potential) through interaction with the surrounding environment.1. 1998). Dijkstra. which in effect increase measured contaminant concentrations in the porewater (EPRI 2009b). Source: After Roskam and Comans 2003.. Meeussen.

and interaction/reactions with soil gas components. For materials with high hydraulic conductivity (e. In terms of leaching. In vadose zone placement situations. while the effect of wetting and drying on the leaching process may be characterized following literature approaches (Garrabrants et al. material properties will not change significantly with time and release from the S/S material should be relatively predictable using a combination of equilibrium and mass transport assessments.g. cycles of freezing and thawing.. the mode of water contact in the vadose zone is percolation through the porous material. For example. groundwater composition) remain constant. Under percolation conditions. Depending on the relative hydraulic conductivity between the S/S material and surrounding soils. however. release in the vadose zone is typically dominated by equilibrium between solids and infiltrating liquids. resulting in relatively long residence times in the vadose zone. The durability of S/S materials upon wetting and drying may be evaluated using ASTM D4843 (ASTM 2009). the rate of mass transport through the pore structure of the S/S material is often the ratelimiting step in the release process. If the hydraulic conductivity is low relative to that of the surrounding material.. degradation processes that can strongly influence longterm performance of S/S materials are common in the vadose zone as well. When the material is saturated during the next wetting period.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 • Saturated zone. The most significant aging processes for S/S materials placed in the saturated zone are primarily the result of contact with constituents in the groundwater.. As long as upstream conditions (e. shrinkage cracking inevitably occurs upon curing and cyclic wetting and drying. vertical transport models.g. Groundwater flows as a result of hydraulic gradients.g. resulting in a more significant preferential groundwater flow through the S/S mass. these cracks are not likely to compromise the integrity of the S/S material until cracking is sufficiently advanced to increase the hydraulic conductivity. hydraulic head. however. • • Moisture cycling (wetting/drying). As in any cementitious material. relaxation of diffusion profiles in the porewater may still occur which ultimately leads to redistribution of contaminants toward the surface of the S/S material (Garrabrants 2001). Seasonal rise and fall of the water table may result in fatigue associated with cycles of wetting and drying. contaminants may readily partition into the infiltrating water and be carried by gravity into the subsurface. Saturation and water contact is dependent on infiltration or recharge rates so that S/S materials may be wetted only a portion of the time. although the formation of ettringite during hydration of reagents may be beneficial for contaminant retention (Klemm 1998). S/S applications) may see limited percolation. However. Vadose zone. intervals of drying where no continuous external aqueous solution exists result in a lower overall release compared to continuously wetted materials. such as percolation modeling approaches. groundwater may either percolate through an S/S mass or be diverted around an S/S mass. The rate of infiltration is typically much slower than the flow of groundwater. most soils). delayed ettringite formation resulting from contact of cured material with high sulfate concentrations can lead to cracking and spalling of the monolithic material (Collepardi 2003). materials with low hydraulic conductivity (e. may be useful in determining infiltration parameters. 17 . However.

The stress caused by the increase in molar volume of ice over water causes a strain or deformation within the pore structure. Ngala and Page 1997.e. seismic activity is considered a low-probability occurrence. this case is not likely to happen for most well-designed S/S applications with the timeframe of most environmental assessment intervals. Testing of material properties for the effects of gas-phase reactions usually involves comparison of exposed materials to unexposed materials using otherwise standard performance parameter tests. however. and Kosson 2004. the perceived catastrophic failure of S/S materials due to the cracking or erosion has been noted. Testing of S/S materials for freezing and thawing durability may be conducted using ASTM C1262 (ASTM 2010a).. chromium. technetium. Gas-phase reactions. however. 2004). Oxidation via the soil gas phase may be a concern. Sanchez. Bonen and Sarkar 1995. subsurface applications of S/S materials are not especially susceptible to cracking via freeze/thaw cycles. the material inelastically deforms by cracking. Carbonation and oxidation are common gas-phase reactions that have the potential to change material properties and leaching characteristics over time. Krishnan and Sotirchos 1994. van Gerven et al. and several studies explain the carbonation process and its effects on S/S materials (Ho and Lewis 1987. arsenic. Garrabrants and Kosson 2003. • Temperature cycling (freezing/thawing). • • 18 . Although not commonly considered a significant degradation mechanism for subsurface S/S materials. Wide-aperture through-cracks (i. These reactions occur when cementitious materials are exposed to a soil gas in the unsaturated zone. Gervais et al. Papadakis. As a source of cracking and erosion. Since freezing occurs only above the frost line. The formation of cracks in S/S materials (and all cement-based materials) is expected as water is incorporated into mineral phases as a result of forces or loads working on the S/S mass due to seismic activity or to expansive precipitation reactions occurring within the pore structure as a result of aging. Carbonation results from the reaction of carbon dioxide with hydroxides in the alkaline porewater of the S/S material. leading to potentially higher infiltration. cracking could result in erosion into a granular material. and Fardis 1991.. The primary effect of freezing and thawing is an increase in hydraulic conductivity. however.g.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 2002. Taken to an extreme.and macro-scale cracks are normal and do not affect the performance of S/S materials. Vayenas. Garrabrants. 2007. especially in the cases where a reducing agent was added to treat a redox-sensitive contaminant (e. If the strain is greater than the strength of the material. Discontinuous micro. etc. The constrained expansion of porewater upon freezing can lead to significant stress or loading in brittle small-pore material such as S/Streated contaminated material. Sanchez. Garrabrants. However.). 2009). Johannesson and Utgenannt 2001. Physical degradation (cracking and erosion). Chen et al. and Kosson 2003. a single crack traversing the entire monolith with a width sufficient to allow water to pass) may be observed. some states may have requirements concerning the ability of the S/S material to withstand seismic forces. the effect on contaminant retention is minimal as the through-crack simply results in two monoliths with the same performance characteristics and slightly more exposed surface area.

tensile. and demonstrated by following a few critical performance specifications. The different components of a performance specification are defined as follows: • • • Performance Parameters—the material properties characteristic of the ability of an S/Streated material to carry out its intended purpose. These performance measurements are typically compared to a set of predefined concentrations or action levels used as performance criteria to determine whether the solid material will leach beyond acceptable limits. also known as SW846 Method 1312 (EPA 1994). compressive strength.2 Performance Specifications The performance of S/S-treated materials may be described.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 3. including flexural. However. Performance criteria may be regulatory goals established for cleanup of a contaminated site or material parameter values considered adequate for meeting established site remediation or regulatory goals. and criteria used to develop an S/S treatment recipe and implementation plan that meets material performance goals after implementation. are preferred in most situations.1 Strength The strength of a material represents the ability of the material structure to withstand an applied physical stress without incurring structural deformation leading to structural failure. and specific recommended methods may not be useful or appropriate in every case. is the most common strength parameter for S/S materials. As an illustration of these definitions. Performance Criteria—design values of a performance parameter used for comparison to performance measurements to evaluate whether acceptable performance has been achieved. thus.3. typically measured as unconfined compressive strength (UCS). which relates to the capacity of a material to withstand axially directed pushing forces.3 Key Performance Parameters for S/S-Treated Materials This section describes relevant performance criteria that may be used as indicators of the performance and long-term permanence of S/S applications and provides specific recommendations on methods to measure these criteria. Performance Tests—protocols or challenges used to characterize a performance parameter of an S/S-treated material and which return one or more measurements considered representative of the performance parameter. these recommended methods provide the best available determination of relevant performance criteria and. 3. “Performance specifications” refer to the collection of performance-related parameters. leachability may be considered a primary performance parameter used to assess the ability of a material to retain a specific set of site contaminants of concern (COCs). monitored. The resultant SPLP eluate concentrations represent performance measurements describing the leachability of the S/S material. tests. and compressive strength. may be important for S/S materials. 19 . Users of this document will not always include all of the performance criteria in every project. 3. A common performance test that may be used to measure leachability of S/S materials is the EPA’s Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP). Several different measurements of strength. However.

the hydraulic conductivity is significantly less than that of the surrounding soil. is diverted around lower–hydraulic conductivity materials and through material with high hydraulic conductivity.3. groundwater flows along the path of least resistance and.. such as future use of the site.g. A secondary purpose for testing strength during the S/S treatment process is as an indirect indicator of durability. In such “flow-around” water contact scenarios. and thus “permeability” will be used in this document only as a relative term (e. Thus. the parameter that controls the mode of water contact is not simply the hydraulic conductivity of the S/S material.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Compressive strength is typically monitored as an S/S performance parameter to ensure that a chemical reaction of binder and water has taken place. the material surface area exposed to leaching is minimized to the outer surface of the material. however. In these scenarios. whereas hydraulic conductivity depends on only the properties of the material structure. strength may be used as an indicator during treatability studies for selecting appropriate S/S treatment additives to maximize durability as well as a monitor of performance during S/S application. one material is more permeable than another). diffusion plus associated physical and chemical retention) through the pore structure of the low–hydraulic conductivity material limits the release into the groundwater. Thus.. groundwater flows through the highly permeable material.g.. permeability depends on the properties of both the material and the penetrating fluid.) will pass through a porous medium. However. if the treated material is unconsolidated granular or poorly engineered monolithic material). air. as it is more easily measured independent of fluid properties. The following three possible water contact scenarios exist based on relative hydraulic conductivity between S/S-treated materials and surrounding soils: • KS/S << Ksoil—For most S/S materials. and the rate of contaminant mass transport (i. In the subsurface. As a rule of thumb. high strength values may be required depending on other considerations. 3. oil. the pore surface area of the material is exposed to groundwater. but the relative hydraulic conductivities of the S/S material (KS/S) and the surrounding soil (Ksoil). thus. Although similar. 3 20 . In this “flow-through” or percolation water contact mode. water. KS/S >> Ksoil—When the hydraulic conductivity of the treated material is significantly greater than that of the surrounding soil (e. groundwater is diverted around the compacted granular or monolithic materials of low hydraulic conductivity such that the majority of contacting water flows around the solid matrix. leaching may be represented as a timedependent flux or cumulative release of a constituent across a unit surface area.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Hydraulic conductivity3 is a measureable material property related to ease of movement of water through a porous medium under groundwater flow conditions governed by Darcy’s Law (Bear 1972). The rate of percolation may be slow enough that the release of constituents into infiltrating water may be well described by the partitioning • “Hydraulic conductivity” is often used interchangeably with the more general term “permeability” relating to the ease with which a fluid (e. Criteria for minimum compressive strength are established such that the S/S material will have at least as much bearing strength as the surrounding soil to support the loads imposed by the equipment used in implementation.g. etc. Hydraulic conductivity is recommended as more appropriate as the S/S performance parameter. materials with higher initial compressive strength are typically considered to be more resistant to aging..e.

g.) describes the movement of a contaminant through the pore structure of the material to the environment. tortuosity effects. and relative hydraulic conductivity of the S/S material is recommended as a key performance parameter. The impact of water contact mode on S/S-treated material performance is linked to leaching concentrations. clean sand.e. the summation of diffusion.g. the time-dependent release) from materials.g.. In many cases. etc. Permeability is used to empirically relate the hydraulic conductivity of one material to another.3 Leachability “Leaching” is defined as the process of release of a constituent from a solid into a contacting liquid. S/S-treated materials with hydraulic conductivity values –7 similar to silty clay (e. both percolation and flow-around water contact modes exist. Hydraulic conductivity of select porous media (Source: Dagan 1989) Hydraulic conductivity.. silty clay 10 –10 Very low –7 –9 Clay. Table 3-2. • KS/S ≈ Ksoil—In cases where the hydraulic conductivity values of the treated material and surrounding soil are approximately the same. dirty sand.. silty sand 10–3–10–5 Low –5 –7 Silt. equilibrium and/or mass transfer may control the leaching process in S/S-treated materials. fine sand 10 –10 High to medium Sand. on the order of 10 cm/s) are desirable to reduce the potential for contaminant migration.g.3. As groundwater passes through the material. and both release mechanisms should be considered. dolomite 10 –10 Virtually impermeable 3. Since contaminant concentrations are significantly higher for partitioning between solid and liquid phases than typical concentrations resulting from mass transport release. percentage of total content that has leached) or rate of release (e. Chemical reactions determine the partitioning between the solid and liquid phases (e. hindered diffusion.. and release can be expressed as a function of the amount of liquid passing through the material (e. Depending on materialspecific factors and release scenario conditions (see Figure 3-1). The term “leachability” may be used to describe either the extent of leaching (e. Table 3-2 presents the typical hydraulic conductivity values for several material types. limestone. K Soil type Degree of permeability (cm/s) Gravel >10–1 Very high –1 –3 Sandy gravel. The hydraulic conductivity value can range from approximately 10–2 cm/s for sandy soils to 10–9 cm/s for rocks and clays.. 21 ..g.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 between the solid and liquid phases. effective surface area. using the local equilibrium assumption) whereas the mass transport (i. more soluble mineral phases are dissolved. the liquid-to-solid ratio under percolation release). The mechanisms controlling the extent and rate of leaching include a combination of chemical reactions at the material surface and mass transport through the material pore structure. the mode of water contact is extremely important.

if surrounding soils are unsaturated or are coarse-grained. However. the duration of cure time and quality of the curing conditions should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results of UCS tests. Garrabrants. leaching is a key performance parameter for S/S materials in most cases. Since a principal objective of S/S treatment is to reduce contaminant mobility. 2009). Vayenas. hydraulic conductivity tests are carried out on small samples of material formed in the laboratory or field-collected during implementation. In general. Bonen and Sarkar 1995. and Fardis 1991. 3. For example.4 Performance Tests For most performance parameters. ASTM D5084 (ASTM 2010b) is the most common method used for determining saturated hydraulic conductivity of S/S material and saturated soils. Papadakis.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Leaching of contaminants into groundwater or infiltrating precipitation may be considered the principal pathway for the release of nonvolatile contaminants into the environment.4. Chen et al. The release of VOCs is determined by a combination of both leaching and volatilization into subsurface air space.g. 3. The ASTM method provides two alternative procedures based on specimen size and component particle size. Ngala and Page 1997. For granular materials. UCS is expressed as the load per unit area in units of pounds per square inch or kilonewtons per square meter at 15% axial strain. ASTM D2166 (ASTM 2006) may be used to provide an approximate measure of the compressive strength in a cohesive molded sample in terms of total stresses.2 Hydraulic Conductivity The hydraulic conductivity of S/S materials and surrounding soils may be determined by either field or laboratory tests. The UCS of an S/Streated material is likely to increase with curing time until setting is complete (e.. The following paragraphs discuss available test methods for each of the key performance parameters. Field collection of specimens 22 . 2007.4. 3. UCS is expressed as the load per unit area in units of pounds per square inch (psi) or kilonewtons per square meter (kN/m2) at structural failure of the material. In the laboratory.1 Unconfined Compressive Strength ASTM D1633 (ASTM 2007) is a UCS measurement method specific to soil-cement material molded into cylindrical test specimens that is appropriate for monolithic S/S-treated materials. Therefore. which can provide slightly different results. the recorded value is somewhat determined by the test used to measure the parameter. The hydraulic conductivity of the material is calculated from the test results using formulas based on Darcy’s Law (Ho and Lewis 1987. the measured UCS values of a material cured for 3 days and 28 days are not expected to be the same). hydraulic conductivity tests measure the rate at which water passes through a sample relative to an applied hydraulic head. Krishnan and Sotirchos 1994. Johannesson and Utgenannt 2001. When S/S treatment results in an encapsulated granular material. field tests rather than laboratory methods may be needed to accurately measure hydraulic conductivity. van Gerven et al. Sanchez. hydraulic conductivity may be determined by a falling head method or a constant head method. and Kosson 2004.

Depending on the flow pattern imposed through the soil sample.. and the falling head test is mainly used for less permeable materials (K < 10–4 cm/s). neutralization. of the available test methods designed for various purposes and materials. EPA Method 1311) or after contact with acid rain in the case of SPLP.. the final-extraction pH is essential if the test results are to be compared either between materials (e. carbonation. Current EPA regulatory leaching tests are intended to provide a leachate that is representative of field leachates found either in a municipal solid waste landfill in the case of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP. • • TCLP is over-broadly applied as the basis for leaching assessment for scenarios and materials for which the method was not designed (e.g. 3.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 drilled or cored from cured materials should be avoided as the integrity of the sample cannot be guaranteed.. many of these limitations are equally applicable to SPLP. Garrabrants and Kosson 2005) have noted several additional limitations which have bearing on leachability assessment for S/S materials.4. 1999b) and others (Kosson et al. Complex sites with varying soil stratigraphy may require extensive hydraulic conductivity testing to adequate characterize site materials.. the measured value of hydraulic conductivity may be a true representation of the in situ saturated hydraulic conductivity at a particular sampling point. and Quevauviller (1997) have noted that more than 50 leaching tests exist in the literature. 4 23 . However. Because of the small sample sizes. Heasman. soils sampled using Shelby tubes). Although directed at TCLP.g. oxidation) which can significantly alter release and are common to many disposal or placement scenarios.g. If the samples used in the laboratory test are considered undisturbed specimens of field materials (e. leaching assessments on S/S materials). The constant head test method is best applied to permeable materials (K > 10–4 cm/s). however. the laboratory methods for measuring hydraulic conductivity may be classified as either constant-head tests with a steady-state flow regimen or falling-head tests with a non-steady-state flow regimen. 2002. These leaching tests often are required at the state and federal regulatory levels for environmental purposes.g. • Other similar procedures (e. Simulation scenarios used to develop acceptance or action levels are not realistic and do not consider the long-term chemical and physical reactions (e.3 Leachability The leachability of a material is most often characterized from the results of one or more leaching tests. The end-point pH of the TCLP or SPLP extraction is not required to be reported by the method. California Waste Extraction Test. or WET) may be required on a state-by-state basis.4 With respect to TCLP in particular. the results of these tests are considered a point representation of the material properties. Van der Sloot. treated and untreated materials) or in the context of the results other leaching tests..g. the EPA Science Advisory Board (EPA 1991. many tests differ in only minor ways such that a limited number of carefully selected tests can cover a wide range of possible exposure conditions.

. each of these procedures yields only a single data point and provides no understanding of the underlying release-controlling mechanisms (e.4.g.. Emerging EPA leaching tests In an effort to better support environmental management decisions.1 is often used to estimate the time-dependent release of contaminants from other solidified materials. ASTM C1308 Accelerated Leach Test.edu/leaching) for inclusion into 5 Formerly the EPA Office of Solid Waste.. The American Nuclear Society (ANS) test method ANS 16. contaminants partition between solid surfaces and the porewater. Thus. 24 .. alkaline buffering. the EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery5 has selected the four leaching methods of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF. because they are easy to conduct and provide results that are simple to interpret relative to permissible concentration limits. Variations on the basic tank leaching method have addressed one concern of ANS 16.1.1 Flux-based leaching tests S/S treatment technology often relies on the formation of a monolithic treated material such that the majority of the contacting groundwater flows around the treated material.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 • Like many equilibrium-based tests. 2002) or by using ion-exchange resin to remove ions from solution during longer-duration leaching intervals (e. 3. thus. equilibrium or mass transfer) or rate of leaching. is a common flux-based test.3. Both TCLP and SPLP are single-batch extraction procedures which are broadly used. Measurement of the Leachability of Solidified Low-Level Radioactive Wastes by a Short-Term Test Procedure (ANS 2003). However.1: that release rates may be suppressed if concentrations in the leachate are allowed to build up. monolithic nature of S/S materials) or external factors (e. Since the rate of diffusion typically is slow compared to the rate of chemical reactions at the porewater/solid interface. flux-based leaching tests are considered more appropriate for monolithic materials as these tests capture the time-dependent release of contaminants. Thus.g. the Simulated Infinite Dilution Leach Test).3. the TCLP and SPLP methods require particle size reduction and. Dissolved contaminants move by diffusion through the pore structure of the material toward the material surface exposed to groundwater. www. low hydraulic conductivity) affect the release of contaminants into groundwater. Thus. in part. Within the pore structure of S/S-treated materials.g. groundwater diversion. initially designed for cement-stabilized low-activity waste in the nuclear waste industry. This concern has been addressed by adjusting the schedule of exchanges to provide a net-forward rate of release (e. mass transport of contaminants through the material often controls the rate of release from S/S-treated materials. including S/S materials.g. do not account for time-dependent release of contaminants from monolithic low–hydraulic conductivity materials. there is no way to account for how the many influential material properties (e. ANS 16.vanderbilt.g.2.. 3. leaching methods which use particle size reduction to approach equilibrium do not fully describe the dominant rate-controlling release mechanism in S/S materials.4.

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 SW-846. short-term leaching method provide some indication of equilibrium concentrations when the alkalinity of the material controls eluate pH. the procedure requires particle size reduction to facilitate the approach to equilibrium. PreMethod 1316. up-flow percolation column test used to characterize the LSP between a high–hydraulic conductivity material and a percolating liquid phase as a function of the L/S. These methods have been submitted to the EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery for interlaboratory validation studies to develop precision and bias information. The results provide an estimate of porewater concentrations at low L/S and show how equilibrium concentrations change as water passes through a material. 25 . Each of the four LEAF leaching tests is design to characterize leaching as a function of a primary controlling factor shown in Figure 3-1. leachate collection modifications using absorption phases to manage low– aqueous solubility compounds and minimize volatility losses have been developed and applied to the leaching assessment of PAHs from soil/cement cores (EPRI 2009b). The four LEAF premethods are expected to be posted as draft methods on the EPA SW-846 website by the end of 2012. PreMethod 1314 is an equilibrium-based. PreMethod 1314. Although this method is specified for inorganic constituents. eluate concentrations at low L/S ratio provide an estimate of porewater concentrations. The LSP is determined as a function of L/S in a manner analogous to PreMethod 1314 but conducted in short-duration. PreMethod 1315. the EPA compendium of laboratory methods (EPA 2010a). PreMethod 1316 is well-suited for consistency testing in that the results of this simple. Column and tubing materials may be easily modified to minimize absorption of organic constituents. Test samples are cast or compacted into standard cylindrical molds and tested without particle size reduction to determine the rate of mass transport of constituents through the material. Particle size reduction is required to facilitate the approach to equilibrium. PreMethod 1315 is a flux-based leaching test for monolith or compacted granular materials. This method is similar in structure to ANS 16. equilibrium-based. The method can be adapted for organic constituents if steps are taken to minimize adsorption of organics onto surfaces of the leaching vessels. parallel-batch structure. Preliminary versions of EPA methods or premethods6 of the LEAF leaching test are described in brief below. • • • 6 Preliminary version denotes that this method has not been endorsed by EPA but is under consideration for inclusion in SW-846. • PreMethod 1313. details of LEAF can be found in Appendix B. The method can be adapted for organic constituents if adsorption of organics onto surfaces of the leaching vessels is minimized. For S/S materials. Liquid-solid partitioning (LSP) is determined as a function of the eluate pH in a short-duration. Similar to most equilibrium-based leaching tests.1 with minor variations in the schedule of leachant collections and interpretation of results. A modest degree of particle size reduction is required to accommodate a column diameter of 5 cm. Leaching data are used to determine the mass flux and cumulative release across the material surface area exposed to the leaching solution. Methods development is ongoing to adapt collection techniques to address volatilization losses for some organic compounds. parallel-batch leaching procedure.

These tests may be conducted on S/S material samples after short cure times and compared directly to performance criteria as long as it is recognized that these performance parameters will continue to develop as the S/S material ages. however.g. beneficial-use applications. these alternative test methods are likely to be recommended for environmental purposes where TCLP is not required by regulation or best suited (e. the proper selection of an appropriate test method is somewhat less straightforward due to the complexity of the leaching process. 1315 (modified). Although EPA guidance on the use of these tests remains outstanding. the associated performance measurement for each performance parameter. Table 3-3 presents recommended performance parameters for treated materials. and examples of appropriate performance tests to provide the required performance measurement. pH.. With respect to S/S treatment. and time). considerable advantages in predictive ability are provided by integration of the multiple LEAF methods with leaching assessment approaches to establish a “source term” for contaminant release. With respect to leachability. this level of comprehensive 26 . The choice of one or more leaching tests depends on the degree of specificity required for the purpose of defining leachability: • If a mechanistic understanding of the how constituents are released into the environment is desired. L/S. 3. Performance parameters and performance tests for S/S materials Performance Performance Example performance test(s) parameter measurement Strength Compressive strength ASTM D1633 Hydraulic Hydraulic conductivity ASTM D5084 (constant head) conductivity ASTM D5084 (falling head) Leachability Treatability study LSP as function of pH PreMethod 1313 LSP as function of L/S PreMethods 1314. PreMethod 1316. corrective action).. demonstration of alternative treatment.5 Recommended Performance Parameters and Performance Test for S/S-Treated Materials Several test methods may be useful during the process of designing an appropriate S/S treatment formulation and implementing an S/S technology. abbreviated flux tests mass transfer (flux) LSP = liquid-solid partitioning. L/S = liquid-solid ratio Test methods for strength and hydraulic conductivity are straightforward in that the available test methods tend to be of short duration and require little to no interpretation of the results. ANSI 16. This approach requires integration of the results of some multiple leaching tests over a broad range of test conditions as proposed in LEAF.g. 1316 Mass transfer (flux) PreMethods 1315. Table 3-3. SPLP.1 Consistency testing LSP at natural pH. leachability testing should be focused on defining the leaching response of the material to the release-controlling parameters (e.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 The LEAF leaching methods may be used and interpreted individually.

obtainable performance criteria. In addition. full detailed material characterization for leachability establishes a performance baseline for comparison of materials created during field pilot-scale studies and implementation. no single leaching test is applicable for all purposes. using PreMethod 1313) o mechanistic tests designed to account for the primary release-controlling mechanisms anticipated for field materials.or site-specific impact assessment modeling. For example.. A well-designed S/S formulation typically is the result of a treatability study where various reagents/additives and mix designs are tested for treatment of contaminants materials (see Section 5 for more detail).. During the final stages of a treatability study. • Development of S/S treatment mix designs. Selection of Leaching Tests 3. different tests may be needed at various stages in the design and implementation process (see Section 4) for different purposes. using either PreMethod 1314 or PreMethod 1316) and to determine how changes in acidity/ alkalinity will influence porewater concentrations (e. including percolation column tests (e. PreMethod 1315m. setting realistic.5. • 27 . detailed leaching characterization can provide the source term for subsequent scenario. Since one goal of treatability testing is to highlight differences between additives or binder recipes and to support the selection of viable candidate formulations. but it is not a practical field test due to the 63-day testing duration. PreMethod 1314 or ASTM D4784) for granular treated materials and flux-based tank leaching (e. PreMethod 1315.1 Because applicability of a particular leaching test depends on the intent of the test and how the results are interpreted. Recommended detailed leaching characterization at the bench scale includes the following: o equilibrium-based tests to predict porewater composition in the treated material (e. comparative testing of formulations with the results compared to material performance criteria is appropriate. Thus.1) for monolithic materials with low hydraulic conductivity Characterization of the intrinsic leaching behavior using this approach provides a comprehensive measure of material performance for communicating with stakeholders.g. Baseline performance determination.. The conditions imposed by the test should be representative of the anticipated conditions in the field.g. whereas mix design should also be finalized against flux-based leaching tests. PreMethod 1315 is a good indicator of leachability from S/S-treated materials for use in refining S/S treatment mix designs during treatability testing and demonstrating compliance when a finalized mix design is established. ANS 16. • If the purpose of leach testing is to describe leaching in the context of the most likely release scenario. a single characterization test may be used. which better reflect mechanisms controlling release in the field. Thus.. reagent selection may be based on equilibrium tests which reflect contaminant retention.g.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 testing might be conducted at the bench scale during treatability testing to provide technical personnel with additional information to support selection of effective reagents and additives. and comparing laboratory-derived behavior to field consistency testing during the implementation process.g.

short-term compliance or consistency tests (e. considerations (white. At each action item. 4. action items within the process (blue shading). PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE S/S DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS 4. 28 . rounded rectangles) in the right column help shape decisions by providing either established guiding information or recommended concepts. shortened duration of PreMethod 1315.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 • Consistency testing.) are recommended. For many of the action items. inputs (green rounded rectangles) shown in the left column are used to inform the practitioner of key guiding information. some measure of material consistency is required during implementation to ensure that the performance parameters of materials applied in the field are consistent with laboratory-formulated materials from the treatability study or that batchto-batch variability is within acceptable tolerances. PreMethod 1316. These inputs may include both qualitative and quantitative measurements. The basic action items shown in the center column include operation steps (blue rectangles) and milestones representing finalization of pertinent performance specifications (orange parallelograms). The S/S design process begins after the site-specific remedial goals have been established and S/S has been selected as a suitable remedy.. SPLP. The results of such tests can be used to determine batch-to-batch consistency and assess overall site compliance. etc. decision points. Detailed discussions of the individual steps in the design and implementation process are presented in Sections 5–7. TCLP. This section presents an overview of the material performance goals and the general role of performance specifications in the design and implementation process. regulations as well as other concepts related to the S/S treatment process.1 Flowchart of the S/S Design and Implementation Process Figure 4-1 illustrates a generalized presentation of the design and implementation process for S/S technology.g. The flowchart consists of three columns representing inputs to the process (green shading). PreMethod 1313 at natural pH. When the purpose of leach testing is to compare field materials to laboratory formulations. Although each site is different and the process may be adapted as needed. Often. this figure is intended to serve as a roadmap through the major steps. and considerations used to inform decisions for each action item (orange shading). and operations conducted for a typical S/S technology.

29 . S/S design and implementation process as discussed in Sections 4–7 of this document.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Figure 4-1.

these design targets may directly correspond with established remedial goals. since S/S may not be the only remedy used to meet cleanup criteria. attainment of material performance goal may be established in several ways. including the following: • • • demonstrating the percent reduction in concentration flux from the treated material calculating acceptable attenuation between the treated material and the POC hydrogeologic modeling to simulate groundwater flow and concentration flux attenuation Material performance goals serve as the underlying basis for development of performance specifications that meet specific site remediation goals.1 Site Model The existing conceptual site model (CSM) is composed of the primary information collected during site characterization and any supplementary data that may be collected on a site-specific basis to support a feasibility study or a remedial design. 4. A firm understanding of the impact of pertinent site characteristics allows for the development of appropriate performance goals and specifications for the technology and provides insight into how the performance specifications influence the development of a long-term monitoring program for a particular site. Several factors should be considered in the process of setting material performance goals.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 4. the site remedial goals..g.2. material performance may contribution to only a portion of the remedial impact. The design target created by the material performance goals are used to formulate a list of characteristics for treatability testing and as a basis for the performance specifications for the design and implementation process. including the existing site model.2 Material Performance Goals The S/S design process begins with setting material performance goals. In some cases. For a groundwater remediation component. material performance goals are qualitative values (e. and the vertical and horizontal location of the POC. which are design targets used to describe a treated material that is anticipated to meet specific site remediation goals. however. Often. 30 . a low–hydraulic conductivity material that reduces the leaching rate by 50% while treating 90% of the contaminated material source) that serve as a framework for developing specific performance specifications. Primary considerations beyond the site characterization that influence the formulation of performance goals and specifications include future land use and any state or federal requirements. Table 4-1 shows the respective impacts of this information on development of S/S material performance goals and specifications.

NAPL impacts at water table Location of contaminant distribution/accumulation zones Hydraulic head on S/S mass. Herbert. and Kungalli 2005) Defines baseline against which treatability studies and full-scale application may be compared Defines list of COCs. requiring additives to overcome interference (Conner 1997) Sulfate attack of portland cement blends may lead to aggressive degradation through delayed ettringite formation (Little. defines detection limits for analysis Defines phases/location of source and expected outcomes Controlling value in comparison to hydraulic conductivity of S/S material for mode of water contact (e. S/S Site characterization considerations in the development of performance goals and specifications S/S evaluation factor Analyses/observations Soil classification/ Useful measurements: physical characteristics • Gradation • Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) classification • Atterberg limits • Moisture content • Debris content • Porosity • Density • Suspended solids • Free liquid (paint filter) Soil and groundwater pH Geochemistry Organic content Contaminant levels Sulfate content Contaminant characterization Leaching behavior of untreated material Class(es) of contaminants Presence/distribution of NAPLs Hydraulic conductivity Water table depth and seasonal variability Geologic strata (including geometry of geology units) Groundwater flow direction and gradients Significance to technology performance and monitoring Property values for each measurement and their variability may have significant impact of overall behavior of the S/S material and on expected outcomes Hydrogeology Controlling variable for inorganic solubility and S/S material durability Key variable for organic concentrations due to complexation with DOC. 2007) High concentrations of some contaminants may affect S/S cure. flow-around) Defines division between vadose zone. evaluate fate and transport with respect to POC 31 .ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Table 4-1. which is soluble at high pH (Roskam and Comans 2003. infiltration vs.. capillary fringe.g. and saturated zone.

When selected. All faces of the block are exposed to groundwater. Given the above statements. it is very important to consider how these results will compare with results obtained from the contaminant flux test in the laboratory since these testing methods are not the same. Although leaching tests can provide an estimate of leaching performance at the source of contamination. other possible locations for a POC may include the groundwater at the boundary of the treated material or at a surface feature (e.g. In these cases. In the figure.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 4.2 Point of Compliance The POC. flux-based leaching tests are recommended to predict release rates for monolithic materials with low hydraulic conductivity. should be avoided as these are difficult to correlate to treatment of the source materials. is another factor to be considered when setting material performance goals. 7 32 . 4. remedial goals are established at a POC that is somewhat removed from the S/S treatment area. such as contaminants in flora or fauna. a POC for groundwater may or may not be a component of the project.3 Relating Leaching Performance to Established Cleanup Goals Often. therefore. leaching test concentrations should not be considered to directly represent POC values7 or be compared directly to water quality criteria for any purpose other than screening. When using equilibrium tests for leachability in the field. a rectangular mass of treated material is shown in the middle of an aquifer with groundwater moving with linear velocity q [m/d]. a remaining significant concern is how to relate leaching performance with established criteria at a POC. Depending on the remedial goals for S/S. where applicable. Indirect POCs.2. In addition. current practice is to base leachability testing on single-batch extraction equilibrium tests such as SPLP or TCLP. the POC is defined with respect to compliance with groundwater remediation goals at a downgradient well located near the site boundary and screened to sample the aquifer that contacts the contaminated material. Thus. Often. the results of leaching tests are not indicative of how released constituents travel through the subsurface. The total mass flux F released from the treated material over an exposed surface area Aexp is converted to a groundwater concentration Cn passing through a cross-sectional area An located at the treated mass. However.. the POC vertical and horizontal location and hydrogeology should be added to the existing CSM. Figure 4-2 shows an example of how the linkage between leaching tests of S/S-treated materials and cleanup goals at a POC can be defined. no dilution or attenuation is assumed to occur between the source and the POC. a river or lake). However.2. The exception to this statement is the case where the POC is directly adjacent to the source material and. it is often difficult to determine with certainty what permissible upper bounds on leaching at the treated material source will allow for attainment of goals at the POC due to limited resources regarding the ability to predict the behavior of contaminants in the subsurface between the release at the source and concentrations at the POC. The POC refers to the location where the S/S-treated material must comply with site remediation goals.

dispersion. it is recognized that groundwater concentrations in the pore space just outside the material and at a POC may differ by several orders of magnitude due to dilution. dimensions of the treated material. and use of mass flux and mass discharge in subsurface environments (ITRC 2010).E-11 1.E-12 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Fluoranthene flux from S/S treated MGP Soil (EPRI 2009a) Leaching Time [d] Figure 4-2.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 POC groundwater flow q [m/d] h 1. 1) The concentration in the groundwater is then related to a concentration at the POC through a dilution-attenuation factor (DAF).01 0. adsorption. Mass flux approximation showing relationship between leaching test flux and concentrations in groundwater at the treated material and at a downgradient POC. This approach is consistent with the 2010 ITRC guidance on the calculation. particulate organic matter 33 . and attenuation. In applying a DAF.E-09 w l cross-section area An [m ] DAF depends on siteCn specific factors 2 2 treated material CPOC Fluoranthen Flux [mg/cm2s] 1. Cn = where Cn F Aexp An q = concentration in the groundwater (mg/L) = mass flux at the surface of the treated material (mg/m2 s) (as provided by a flux-based leaching test) = exposed surface area of the treated material (m2) = cross-sectional area of groundwater (m2) = linear flow rate of the groundwater (m/d) F ⋅ Aexp An ⋅ q (Eq.E-10 constituent flux F [mg/m s] from exposed surface area Aexp [m ] of treated material Method 1315m Sample 1 Method 1315m Sample 2 2 1. measurement. The rate of transport relative to the groundwater flow and the fraction of contaminants leaving the treated material that arrive at the POC depend on several site-specific parameters: • • site geometry—location of the treated material relative to the water table. location of the well downgradient and off-center of any groundwater plume soil characteristics—pH.

34 . UCS. they differ in their intended use. 4. and leachability. aquifer characteristics. which is applied to the concentration in the groundwater at the treated material (i. • Material performance specifications are design targets developed based on the material performance goals and used during treatability studies as evaluation of whether a developed treated material will meet the material performance goals established at the start of the S/S design and implementation process.2 for information on QC). the intent of testing is not to predict the performance of the material but rather to ensure that field materials behave in the same manner as the materials testing in the laboratory. Section 3 provides more detail on these performance parameters and example performance tests for each. hydraulic conductivity. however.. providing the basis for the development of an appropriate S/S treatment and consistency between field and laboratory materials. Although these specifications may be identical for some applications. Two types of performance specifications are defined in this document. hydraulic conductivity. hydraulic conductivity (in comparison to the hydraulic conductivity of surrounding soil) as an indicator of water contact conditions. The results of these tests should be compared to the baseline performance developed at the end of the tiered treatability study (see Section 6.. the source term) to calculate the anticipated concentration at the POC. subsurface strata. These implementation targets are established at the conclusion of treatability testing or after field/ pilots studies have identified appropriate specifications for implementation of a designed S/S formulation. Thus. Construction performance specifications are developed for use during field operations. infiltration (recharge rates) The combined effects of these parameters are typically empirically lumped into a single DAF (a multiplier <1). These performance specifications are used to verify that the treated material created in the field is consistent with the materials developed and characterized during treatability testing. Construction performance specifications should be on the selection of limited set of performance parameters already used in the treatability testing applying short-term tests which can be conducted on wet-prepared field samples after a couple of days of cure time.g. the selection of performance tests should reflect that decisions regarding acceptance of field materials must be made quickly as cured S/S-treated material is difficult to remove or retreat. and leachability).3 Performance Specifications As discussed in Section 3.e. The performance parameters most commonly used in material performance specifications include UCS as a strength parameter.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 • • chemical retardation—soil/water partitioning coefficients hydrogeological conditions—groundwater flow rate. performance specifications are a critical component of an S/S remediation project. • In many cases. the performance parameters used for implementation purposes are similar to those applied at the laboratory scale (e.

0 2  m s From this analysis. or relatively little. not shown (w = 10 m) S/S treated material DAF = 100x Cn CPOC= 5 [mg/L] embedded depth (d = 2 m) saprolite (weathered bedrock) Since no. 1 (p. which acts as an aquiclude. a groundwater cleanup goal of 5 mg/L is established at a downgradient water feature (e. Concentration at the Source: By multiplying the cleanup goal by the DAF. cross-sectional area. 33). and a DAF between the POC and treated material 100x is determined to be reasonable and protective. Assume: A treated mass (12 m high x 10 m wide x 20 m long) is anchored 2 m into saprolite (weathered bedrock). groundwater passes through the saprolite. An groundwater flow q = 18 [m/d] POC length (l = 20 m) height (h = 12 m) width.. a conservative material performance specification of a maximum flux of 10 mg/m2s using a flux based leaching test (e.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Developing a Material Performance Specification for Leaching This approach can be particularly useful for setting a material performance specification for leaching from an established cleanup goal and dilution-attenuation factor. the cross-sectional area to the groundwater flow would be [ ] For a hypothetical constituent.. EPA PreMethod 1315) can be applied with some degree of confidence that cleanup goals can be achieved based on established values. or otherwise established to take into consideration groundwater chemistry and dynamics as well as the location of POC relative to source and groundwater flow. estimated.g.g. the surface area of the treated mass embedded into saprolite does not participate in leaching. the maximum concentration of a constituent released from the treated material Cmax is calculated:. a well or surface body).  mg   mg  Cmax = 5  × 100 = 500   L   L  Maximum Flux: Using Cmax for Cn in Eq. and the exposed surface area is Aexp = top + 2 × side + 2 × end = w × l + 2 × (h − d ) × l + 2 × (h − d ) × w = 10 × 20 + 2 × (12 − 2) × 20 + 2 × (12 − 2) × 10 = 800 m 2 An = 1 × end = 1 × ( h − d ) × w = 1 × (12 − 2) × 10 = 100 m 2 [ ] Using the sample concept. ANS 16. The DAF is calculated. 35 .1. The surface of the material not buried in saprolite is exposed surface to an aquifer moving at 18 m/d (see figure). the maximum allowable flux Fmax may be determined: Fmax =  mg  103 L  Cmax × An × q h  1 m  d  3  × 100 m 2 × 18  = 500  × 2  m  Aexp  d  24h 3600s  800 m   L  [ ] [ ]  mg  Fmax = 13.

which should be clearly defined prior to testing. Material performance specifications are used to provide feedback on selection of reagents and additives that result an appropriate formulation for retention of COCs. 5. and a design appropriate for the size of the remedy is completed. Additional information for conducting treatability testing is provided in published documents and guidance (EPA 1992a.4 Performance Specifications in Treatability Studies Typically. effectiveness. Site-specific treatability studies in the laboratory and/or the field provide valuable information needed to evaluate the feasibility and establish the design of treatment remedies. Key performance-related considerations for implementation of the S/S remedy at the field scale are presented in Section 6. 4. The goal of the S/S treatability testing is typically to develop the S/S design and to verify the feasibility of using S/S at a particular site. USACE 1995). USACE 1995. Treatability testing for S/S should be performed in a systematic manner to ensure that data generated can be used for evaluation. treatability studies are bench-scale investigations used to determine whether the proposed remedial technology will be effective in meeting the remedial goals and to develop an appropriate mix design and construction performance specifications.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 4. EPRI 2009a). QC testing both for compliance with material performance specifications and consistency throughout construction is a key implementation component to document achievement of material performance goals. Environment Agency 2004a. The performance parameter results from testing on laboratory-created specimens are used to refine treatment mix designs and to demonstrate compliance of the finalized mix design with material performance specifications. and cost are site specific. Comprehensive guidance on physical and chemical tests for treatability studies as applied to S/S technology is described in published guidance documents (EPA 1989. Construction performance specifications are used to determine whether the key parameters of the material created in the field are consistent with the finalized mix design characterized during treatability studies.5 Performance Specifications During Implementation Implementation of an S/S remedy should be performed only after determining that the S/S is consistent with the remedial goals for the project. Treatability testing provides valuable sitespecific information to support selection and implementation of a remedial action. TREATABILITY TESTING PROGRAM For many technologies including S/S. typically include the following: 36 . identification of information for further testing. Therefore. implementability. an S/S mix design has been developed and tested that can meet the material performance goals. and fullscale implementation. treatability tests may be conducted both to evaluate technologies prior to selection and to develop process design parameters and scale up for full-scale implementation. Treatability testing develops the S/S formula to meet project objectives and verifies the feasibility of using S/S by characterizing the untreated contaminated material and evaluating the technology performance under different operating conditions. The objectives.

3. a survey of technical literature to identify appropriate reagents is a good starting point for treatability testing. Once treatability testing is completed. 37 . a plan for treating the full extent of the contaminated material in the field is based on the results of the tests. concentration of contaminants in soil/sediment and soil/sediment geotechnical properties. 5. Identification of potentially applicable reagents is typically based on the practitioner’s experience in implementation of S/S projects. including contaminant to be treated. slump) A typical treatability testing program is an iterative process which determines the optimal formulation and associated design parameters that meet the project objectives.g.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 • • • • • • • • • selection of correct reagent(s) (a list of common reagents is presented in Section 2. moisture content. The identification of potentially applicable reagent depends on several factors. as discussed in Section 5.1) determination of the impact of selected reagents on other contaminants optimization of the reagent(s) dosages identification of emission of contaminants identification of material handling issues assessment of the physical and chemical uniformity of the contaminated material determination of the volume increase due to addition of reagent(s) finalization of performance criteria finalization of construction parameters (e. Because a number of candidate reagents may be identified. Selection of candidate reagents requires knowledge of the following: • • • • • interferences and chemical incompatibilities metal chemistry considerations compatibility with the disposal or reuse environment cost process track record A more detailed discussion on the above considerations is provided in EPA’s Technical Resource Document: Solidification/Stabilization and Its Application to Waste Materials (EPA 1993c).1 Reagent Selection Considerations Potentially applicable reagents should be identified prior to bench-scale treatability testing.4. and minimum acceptable performance criteria for the site. Treatability testing for S/S may include both bench-scale and pilot testing. The plan also takes into account scale-up considerations. In the absence of previous experience. although full-scale pilot testing may be considered during startup of field implementation. narrowing down the number of reagents results in reduced cost and less time-consuming treatability testing. required performance parameters.

In this tiered approach to treatability testing. and validate data prepare treatability study report Sample Collection • • • 5. assess.1 Selection of the samples to be collected for bench-scale testing is critical and must be carefully planned to best represent the site conditions. where a comparatively small amount of contaminated material is tested for individual parameters of the treatment technology.2 Bench-Scale Testing Bench-scale testing is usually performed in the laboratory. In general. with the first set of tests usually covering a broad range of potential operating parameters and establishing of baseline parameters. the testing is used to determine the efficacy of the chemistry of the process and usually consists of a series of tests using a tiered approach.2. including the following: • • • appropriate locations for collection of representative samples methods for collecting representative samples type of implementation method 38 . the results of each test determine the next steps and next set of parameters and conditions to be evaluated. and performance criteria acceptance limits S/S bench-scale treatability studies include the following steps: • • • prepare a work plan collect test samples characterize initial samples o homogenize raw materials/samples o perform chemical testing o perform physical testing perform treatability testing o conduct tests by mixing reagents with contaminated material and prepare formulations for further testing o optimize mix design o selection of mix design verification phase (three replicates) o prepare final mix design and test analyze. This tiered approach (as described in EPRI 2009a) is as follows: • • • • Tier 1—testing previously identified candidate reagents (as described in Section 5.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 5. Planning sample collection for treatability testing must consider a number of factors.1) to narrow the range of reagents by eliminating those not meeting the performance criteria Tier 2—testing the selected reagents and combination of reagents and additives (if used) to assess contaminant immobilization Tier 3—optimizing the promising reagent or combination of reagents and additives (if used) to minimize the quantity required to meet the performance criteria Tier 4—assessing scale-up considerations for full-scale implementation and development of QC parameters. baseline consistency tests.

Furthermore. Determination of the most difficult to treat soil depends on the physical nature of the soils as well as the COCs and the extent of blending that will occur during full-scale treatment. additional treatability testing should be performed on material representative of average site conditions. consideration should be given to how the full-scale treatment will be implemented. the costs should be developed based on these representative samples. heterogeneity makes the samples collection for treatability testing challenging. Although sampling using only the most highly contaminated or difficult to treat material provides assurance that these can be treated using S/S. and visual survey. while these samples may be used to establish the treatability of the material. however. Evaluation of site characterization data should include considerations of the following: • • • • contaminant types contaminant concentrations lateral variation of contamination depth of contamination The sampling plan should include highly contaminated material. the amount of sample will depend of the number and type of test to be performed during the study. if target contaminants are volatile. Samples can be collected using directpush Geoprobe equipment. however. hollow-stem augers. or hand auger tools. No matter how well the site is characterized. Advantages to composite sampling include reduction in the variability in contaminant concentration and more accurate data on soil that may be treated after homogenization of all the material. it can result in overdesign and unrealistic high cost estimates. material representative of average site conditions. Compositing is usually appropriate for nonvolatile contaminants. and minimally contaminated material. Once samples are collected. such as full-scale treatment implemented separately for each impacted area versus mixing and homogenizing all material before implementing S/S. If the site is highly variable in contaminant types and concentrations. compositing of samples collected for treatability testing may be required and is based on the quantity of contaminated material for each impacted area. 39 .ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 • whether or not samples will be composited Sampling for treatability testing should use technical expertise to determine the most appropriate sampling locations based on previous site characterization results. A minimum of 40 L (10 gal) should be sampled to perform a treatability testing. Sampling should also include the reasonably most difficult to treat soil that will be encountered during full-scale treatment implementation. care should be exercised in compositing. backhoes. operational history. proper homogenization of the samples must be performed prior to initial (baseline) characterization. Sample collection for treatability testing must also consider the lateral variation of contamination and depth of contamination. If the full-scale implementation approach dictates. Therefore. The depth of contamination also influences the selection of appropriate methods for collecting representative samples.

2. or performance goals may need to be revised and the treatability study repeated (see Figure 3-1).2. hydraulic conductivity. Chemical characterization may include total chemical analysis of the samples collected.3 Laboratory Testing Selected reagents are mixed with the samples to evaluate the preliminary performance parameters (such as strength. visual observation. Hydraulic conductivity measurement (left) and UCS measurement (right) tests conducted in the laboratory on treatability test samples.2. chemical testing. If the criteria cannot be met. the remedy selection may need to be revised. process. If the performance criteria are not met. and/or geotechnical testing (Figure 5-1). Often. Preliminary testing in the laboratory may include testing for strength by use of a pocket penetrometer over a period of time. and compaction. pilot test studies or field demonstrations may be considered prior to full-scale implementation. The pilot test is intended to verify the 40 . a baseline analysis should be performed on the samples collected for testing at the bench-scale level through a process of chemical and physical testing. The physical characterization test usually includes moisture content. and Validation Once the treatability tests are completed. Figure 5-1.2 Initial Sample Characterization After sample collection. the next phase of the project may involve a pilot test in the field. if the data meet the performance criteria. grain size distribution. Source: CETCO Contracting Services Co.4 Data Analysis.3 Pilot-Test Studies/Field Demonstrations Following selection of the design mixes obtained from bench-scale treatability testing. data validation is provided by the laboratory. 5. Atterberg limits.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 5. Validation of the laboratory data is a step that is always included before analyzing data results. and leachability). Assessment. The information obtained from performing laboratory tests results in identification of reagents that can solidify/stabilize the contaminated material. 5. the specifications. 5.

and processes should also be reevaluated if adjustment of reagents does not produce desired results.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 process variables selected as part of bench-scale testing and. 6. goals. the treatment unit size and the volume of contaminated material to be processed in a pilot scale is much greater than for bench-scale testing. The development of a pilot study begins with preparation of work plans. implementability.4 Scale-Up Considerations Since the S/S chemistry is already established. Scaleup from bench scale to full-scale field implementation should address the following: • • • • • • • • • • equipment selection and sizing type of equipment and mixing time/energy departed for homogenization chemical reagents storage and delivery methods evaluation of treated material consistency tests and strength gain rates pretreatment of soil/sediment presence of debris presence of underground utilities mixing and curing time and methods employed method and measurement for delivering correct reagent quantity quality assurance (QA) Scale-up considerations are the last step of the trial approach of the treatability test programs. their dosages. However. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION DURING S/S IMPLEMENTATION The overall success or failure of an S/S remedy depends on successful implementation of the construction phase. the scale-up from bench-scale to full-scale field implementation is generally focused on the materials-handling aspects of the S/S process. The results obtained from the pilot testing are evaluated to confirm that performance criteria can be met in the field while implementing the full-scale system. After completion. The pilot test scales up the design mixes developed during bench-scale treatability testing for application under actual field conditions based on the ability to meet the performance criteria. The selected performance criteria. and cost. the reagent mix design should be adjusted as a first step. further develop and optimize the process and construction parameters for full-scale implementation. if the identified performance criteria are not met during pilot testing. Because pilot-scale testing is intended to simulate the physical as well as chemical parameters of a full-scale testing process. Work plans specify the approved reagents to be used. the next step is to implement a verification process during S/S implementation. and data to be collected. if required. The following key areas should be monitored and documented as necessary during the implementation phase to ensure that performance specifications have been achieved: 41 . type of mixing devices to be employed. 5.

Perara et al. Al-Tabbaa.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 • • • • consistent preparation of the designed reagent blend in the correct proportions in accord with the mix design determined through the bench and pilot testing sufficient mixing of the reagents with the contaminated materials in the correct proportions to create a treated material sampling of treated materials to verify compliance with S/S performance specifications verification of treatment of the entire volume of contaminated materials QC and QA are vital in S/S treatment to demonstrate that the treated material achieves the performance specifications of the project and that the proper reagents were mixed in accord with the approved mix design. the dry reagents are typically fed from the storage silos using a screw auger. Buckingham. and Evans 1994). and Johnson 2004. Physical properties such as dry unit weight may require periodic verification if mixing involves dry reagent addition. Wittenberg and Covi 2007). The QC plan describes the specific procedures by which the implementation of sampling and analytical procedures designed to result in reliable data are documented (LaGrega. The QA plan describes the procedures by which the QC implementation is audited to ensure that the work and documentation is being conducted in accord with established QC procedures. An on-site batch plant for mixing of S/S reagents or additives is typically necessary for in situ applications that inject reagents as a liquid slurry. While the QA/QC procedures may vary from project to project based on the specifics of the design and performance specifications. Reagents and additives are typically delivered to a 42 . A CQA program allows the owner to rapidly assess construction performance and identify potential problems early in the process to allow for field adjustments or corrections (Wittenberg and Covi 2007). 1986. Requirements concerning storage of reagent stockpiles may be included in construction performance specifications. Reagents should be tested at the beginning and midpoint of the project to ensure that no COCs are imported with the reagents. USACE 2010. 6. Effective implementation of S/S requires a comprehensive construction quality assurance (CQA) program that addresses each phase of the project from bench-scale testing through full-scale field operations. The feed rate of these augers should be calibrated at least once per day at the start of operations for that day.1 Reagent and Equipment QA/QC Considerations Reagents to be delivered in bulk to the site for full-scale S/S should be tested or otherwise verified to ensure they meet the project specifications. the implementation of a QA/QC program during remedial construction allows for adjustments to be made as needed to respond to variations in material and/or site conditions. Lack of an effective CQA program can lead to rapid and uncontrolled cost increases caused by the lag time between S/S sample collection and receipt of testing results due to the curing time required. Perera. 2004b. Monitoring of S/S performance in the field is essential to ensure that the project objectives are met and S/S work is conducted in accord with contract requirements. solidification QA/QC guidance documents and published articles should be consulted when preparing a QA/QC program for S/S (EPA 1989. For pugmills that blend dry reagents along with water. 1999a. Larsson 2005. In addition.

Parameters which affect the blending of contaminated materials. should be incorporated into the QA/QC monitoring program to maintain consistency in mixing equipment operation. For pugmills where the reagents are fed in a dry state. For reagent delivery in a water-based grout.2 Treated Material Performance QA/QC Procedures for ensuring sufficient mixing of contaminated materials with S/S reagents should be established in the pilot scale and/or demonstration phase and may involve consistency tests of freshly mixed materials. each column is numbered and the location recorded. The precise location and depth of placed treated material should be recorded. the deposition location for each day’s production is recorded. reagent delivery rate. number of up and down auger strokes. S/S mixing equipment comes in many forms for shallow or deep in situ and ex situ mixing. parameters such as grout density (mud balance) and viscosity (Marsh Funnel) should be checked periodically to verify grout batch consistency with the recommended design. For in situ treatment using vertical augers. construction parameters such as mixing time. soil treatment rate. 43 . Scales and flow meters must be field-calibrated periodically throughout the project to ensure appropriate reagent/additive injection rates.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 site in bulk quantities and must be transferred to the storage pigs and silos at the pugmill or batch plant for processing. Depending on the type of mixing equipment and the reagent delivery method used (i. For ex situ treatment. Consistency testing of freshly mixed materials based on visual observations and slump tests are commonly used during construction as control tests to identify batches or areas that appear to be outside the normal range expected and may require adjustments to the S/S mixing or reagent addition processes. Sampling considerations as well as field and laboratory consistency and compliance testing are briefly described in the next section. and mixing time. should be carefully monitored and the amount recorded. such as mixing speed. overlap of treatment zones is critical to ensuring treatment of the entire volume and can be monitored through survey control and representative post S/S test pits or borings to verify complete mixing and overlap (Figure 6-1). and pumps.. Furthermore. mixers and agitators. a critical reagent. scales. For in situ mixing. Mixing and delivery procedures should include QA/QC methodology to verify that the reagents are within the mix design parameters. wet or dry). Observation and testing of treated material involves two types of testing as discussed in Section 4 of this document: (a) consistency testing to monitor treated material properties in real time or in a short duration to demonstrate that treated materials are consistent with properties established during treatability testing and (b) compliance testing to document that performance criteria for the treated material are met. A batch plant for preparing liquid slurry may consist of mixing and staging tanks. and reagent delivery rates should be incorporated into field QC monitoring procedures. the addition of water. Appendix A provides a brief description of some of the more common S/S mixing equipment. auger penetration rate and rotation speed.e. 6. the feed rate of the feed augers is usually calibrated in pounds/second.

among other references. A higher frequency of sampling is generally performed during the pilot phase and/or the start of S/S production to develop a test results data set confirming the ability to meet the performance criteria and further assessing the variability of the material to be treated and the variability expected in the test results.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Figure 6-1. Regardless of the outcome. procedures for documenting and addressing any failures must be in place. and other factors. anticipated contaminated material characteristics heterogeneity.g.1 Sampling of Treated Material The frequency of sampling freshly treated material depends on the overall size of the S/S project. greater contaminant level. modifications to the mix design or blending method may be required and the sampling frequency increased until acceptable results are consistently achieved. as a general guideline. significant variation in moisture content. Some additional discussion on performance sampling is provided in Bates (2010). observed changes in the contaminated material properties.2. Example of overlap of in situ auger-mixed S/S. it is recommended that performance sampling of treated material be conducted considering the following: • • • • Sample at least once per day of production and once per shift (if there are multiple shifts) and any time the batch plant or mixing equipment operator changes. the observed consistency of mixing by the remediation contractor. 6. the daily treatment rate. Sample every 400–800 m3 (500–1000 yd3) of treated material (alternate frequencies may be appropriate based on overall volume to be treated for a site. 44 .. While the sampling frequency for a specific project is determined by the designer and/or the regulator. Source: Portland Cement Association.). Sample any time the contaminated material or blended material physical characteristics appear to change significantly (e. and test results review as project progresses). If failing test results occur. etc. significant variation in material gradation. The failed material may need to be reworked or properly disposed of. based on S/S plan design. if practical.

Other sampling methods exist and may be appropriate as long as the sampling can be accomplished at the location and depth interval desired.. Typically. Source: Ed Bates. Sample collection of freshly mixed material from an excavator bucket. fresh samples should be collected from different locations and depths within the treatment area in a statistically valid manner. Following sample collection. and sample specimen preparation Figure 6-2. The sampler is then withdrawn from the treated material and the sample discharged to a 20-L (5-gal) bucket (Figure 6-4). Figure 6-3. Figure 6-4. testing. Sufficient sample volume should be collected to accommodate field and laboratory testing in accord with the CQA plan. Source: CETCO Contracting Services Co. The tube is equipped with a hydraulically activated valve which is opened as the sampler reaches the desired interval. Source: Ed Bates. For ex situ treatment methods. a bulk sample is typically collected from the discharge of the pug mill. Field preparation of cylinder molds (Figure 6-2). an excavator is used to slowly push a metal tube into the freshly mixed material to the depth desired for sample retrieval (Figure 6-3). Specialized sampler for S/S column mix areas. Many tests on treated material require curing in cylinder molds of a specific geometry and for a 45 .g.. For in situ mixing.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 The method of collection of freshly mixed material (i. The bulk sample is collected in a 20-L (5-gal) bucket and relocated to the sample preparation area for further processing. contaminated material blended with S/S reagents) depends initially on whether the material is treated in situ or ex situ. or from a freshly treated area (e. Specialized sampling tools for discrete-depth interval sampling of freshly mixed soils allow for evaluation of vertical mixing homogeneity. when mixing excavated material within a containment area or a work pad area).e. specimens are prepared for field testing and/or curing and laboratory testing. from a stockpile of treated material. of freshly treated material.

3-cm (0.2. These replicates are used for the following: • • Figure 6-6.e. lower strength and higher hydraulic conductivity). pilot-. test conditions.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 minimum period of time for hydration reactions to occur and the material to solidify. Bulk material is typically initially screened through a 1. Tests typically used to establish compliance with performance criteria (e. Sieve screening of treated recommended as smaller cylinder molds are more material sample in preparation of susceptible to testing variations due to sample UCS cylinder molding. Preparation of sample specimens should follow standard procedures such as ASTM D1632 (or procedures required by specific test methods) to ensure consistent specimen preparation for the tests specified. and curing conditions be consistent between the bench-.2 Consistency Testing • evaluating curing progress within the first few days of curing as replicate test specimens should a failing performance test result be obtained samples for QA testing by an independent laboratory Consistency testing is used during construction for real-time or short-term evaluation of treated material to determine whether the material properties are consistent with those established during the bench and pilot phases that result in a material that meets the project performance criteria.6 × 15.g. A sufficient number of replicate samples should be prepared in the field. Source: CETCO heterogeneities. Source: Ed Bates. Use of 7.. Field curing of S/S material specimens in a humid atmosphere (water bath). Note that the screen mesh size required may vary based on the size cylinder molds that will be prepared as specified in the ASTM cylinder preparation methods. Specimens with voids or cured under adverse conditions typically have poor test results (i. by tamping in lifts and proper field curing conditions are critical to the testing outcomes (Figure 6-6). Therefore. specimen geometry.5-inch) mesh to remove oversize particles that would interfere with the specimen testing (Figure 6-5) due to the relatively small size of test specimens. it is important to minimize induced variability due to specimen or test condition variability.. While test results will have some inherent variability due to product heterogeneities. and leachability) are performed on specimens that have been 46 . sample specimen preparation methods. it is important that the test methods.2 cm (3 × 6 inch) or larger cylinder molds is Figure 6-5. and full-scale implementation phases to reduce test results variability to the extent practical. Proper preparation of cylinder molds Contracting Services Co. 6. compressive strength. hydraulic conductivity.

Since decisions in the field to re-treat any particular zone of the implementation require a relatively rapid testing response. material moisture content. Alternatively. and short-term leaching tests. visual observation of bulk sample specimens cured in a 20-L (5-gal) bucket (Figure 6-8). Figure 6-7. If SPLP tests are conducted. mixing thoroughness (mixed material homogeneity) (Figure 6-7). Short-term tests on specimens as curing progresses may include. leaching tests may be used to show that there is no significant deviation in leaching behavior between field samples and benchscale samples characterized during treatability testing. Consistency tests can be performed on freshly mixed material or cured specimens.1 or PreMethod 1315) may not be practical. Source: Portland Cement Association. but are not limited to. Consequently. results are used to Figure 6-8. not as a performance criteria. However. exposing successful encapsulation of contaminants falls within the range contaminant. grout density and viscosity. Use of consistency tests allows for real-time or short-term adjustment in reagent addition rates or mixing procedures to maintain material properties in a range where the risk of failing performance tests is low.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 cured for 7–28 days or longer. strength gain rate using a pocket penetrometer. and a combination of both is recommended. these tests may be modified to shorten the duration of the test as in the treatability example above. Leaching consistency testing example To show consistency during implementation of an S/S remedy. Five-gallon bucket-molded sample determine only whether the leaching of cleaved. Source: Ed Bates. or other leaching tests that may be deemed appropriate for a specific project. Slump test on freshly treated material. an abbreviated monolith leaching test. the time lag between material treatment and verification of compliance can be very long and a large volume of additional material treated before determining whether the material meets the performance criteria. and the tests themselves can take a few days to a few weeks to perform. including an SPLP test. batch extraction tests applied to both bench-scale and field samples may be used 47 . consistency test protocols are typically established in the bench and pilot phases for use during the construction phase. Therefore. established for this same test during the bench-scale testing. Abbreviated monolith leaching tests are described using an example below. Real-time testing of freshly mixed material is intended to identify significant variations in material properties that can affect performance test results and may include tests such as slump. full-duration mass transport testing (ANS 16.

Where stabilization reactions are the primary mechanism of treatment. different levels of material property and leaching characterization may be needed.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 as a consistency indicator based on the equilibrium-based leaching behavior of samples. compressive strength would not be as critical as hydraulic conductivity and leachability. but that the general trend in data is the same. The most common compliance tests for solidified materials are strength and hydraulic conductivity.3 Compliance Testing Compliance testing is used to evaluate cured material properties for direct comparison to project performance criteria. leaching tests such as SPLP may be appropriate as compliance tests.. The types of compliance tests can vary on a project-specific basis based on the remedial objectives. the same concept of consistency testing can be applied to S/S materials. For example. compressive strength sufficient to support implementation equipment after a couple of days might be a high priority.. (See Appendix B for more information on LEAF tests. 6. whereas after closure. and the need for compliance testing depends on the mechanism of treatment employed (i. solidification versus stabilization).. For subsequent collections. a limited version of PreMethod 1313 using four extraction points (instead of the nine used in the full characterization) was used to compare back to the baseline. may differ based on the stage of the remediation process.e. Thus. the number of extractions in the equilibrium methods provided in LEAF (i.) This example illustrates the concept of using limited equilibrium-based leaching characterization to show consistency. the performance specification. PreMethods 1313 and 1316) may be limited to target specific test conditions.e. those making up the matrix of the fly ash like calcium and silicon) and trace constituents is very consistent. The data in Figure 6-9 indicate that over a three-month interval. To further reduce testing requirements of field samples. The subject material is a coal combustion fly ash sampled from the same collection point over three one-month intervals. especially the selected test and performance criteria. solidification as opposed to chemical stabilization) and leaching performance has been adequately demonstrated in the treatability study phase. The first collection was considered to be a baseline with full characterization using PreMethod 1313. Likewise. Therefore. consistency tests can be used in lieu of leachability compliance tests during construction. The key to this type of consistency is not that levels change due to minor variation in material (see arsenic data). the leaching behavior of both major constituents (i. 48 . Although this example does not show data conducted on materials associated with an S/S remedy.. This fact indicates that the geochemical speciation of the constituents is constant in all time-dependent samples.2.e. At the various stages of the S/S treatment development process. Leachability compliance testing is used somewhat less often.e. during implementation a shortened testing protocol for field compliance tests for leachability is recommended. When hydraulic conductivity reduction is the primary mechanism used for leaching reduction (i. leachability tests during the treatability stage of the project might include a more comprehensive leach testing scheme than can be conducted and interpreted in a timely manner for compliance testing during implementation.

01 0.001 ML 0. Example consistency testing using PreMethod 1313 on coal combustion fly ash samples collected at four different times from the same source.1 0.001 0 0.1 Baseline Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 ML MDL 0.5 1.1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 ML MDL Baseline Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Silicon (mg/L) 10 1 0.01 MDL 0. 49 .001 0 10 2 4 6 ML MDL Baseline Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Eluate pH 8 6 4 2 0 -1.5 0.1 0.0 8 10 12 14 Acid Added [meq/g-dry] 100 Baseline Time 1 Time 1 Time 3 pH Baseline Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 pH Arsenic (mg/L) Cadmium (mg/L) 10 0.001 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 pH pH pH Figure 6-9.01 Molybdenum (mg/L) 1 1 0.00001 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0001 0.01 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.01 0.0 -0.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization 1000 Baseline Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 July 2011 1000 100 14 12 10 100 Calcium (mg/L) 10 1 0.1 ML MDL 0.

volume. The total number of samples collected and tested should enable statistical evaluation of test results if necessary. fractured solidified soil). 50 . a richer mix) to ensure that be greater than 1 x 10–6 cm/s. Sampling guidance is provided in USACE 2010.7 kN/m2 material will have little or no impact on the (50 psi).7 kN/m2 (50 psi). and no more than poorly treated area located on the edge of the 20% of the performance samples shall be monolith will have contact with surrounding less than 344. This approach is based on assessing failures based on the overall aggregate performance of the treated material and the potential contaminant loading from the entire S/S mass to the environment.. This problem also underscores and demonstrates the value of preparing replicate specimens for retesting if a failing result is obtained. treated material. It should be noted that when provided in statements specifying or implying that all samples must meet the performance criteria. Historic practice for many S/S projects has been to set performance criteria expressed in statements that require all results to pass.e. It is • Hydraulic conductivity: Average of all performance samples must not be greater sometimes desired for in situ S/S that the outer than 1 x 10–6 cm/s. performance criteria statements can be written to recognize that some limited variability in test results is acceptable without compromising the overall success of the remedy (see box). a than 275.8 kN/m2 (40 psi).e. failure of any individual test result can result in the need for retreatment.3 Assessing Field Performance Test Data Sampling and testing of treated S/S material should be performed to adequately assess representative samples from the entire area. no individual sample shall be less completed remedy performance. groundwater and may have a more direct influence of overall remedy performance. For example. and no more than 20% of the performance samples shall of treatment (i.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 6. a poorly considered for inclusion in performance criteria treated area located within the middle of an S/S are as follows: monolith surrounded by properly treated • Strength: Average of all performance samples must not be less than 344. Alternatively. Hydraulic conductivity shall not exceed 1 × 10–6 cm/s (or other site-specific performance criteria). Conversely. the zone in direct contact with passing groundwater has an increased safety factor Note: Actual performance criteria and against leaching as compared to the bulk of the percent acceptable variation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. no individual sample shall zone of the S/S monolith receive a higher level be greater than 1 x 10–5 cm/s. as expressed in statements such as the following: • • All specimens must exhibit UCS of not less than 344. Re-treatment can be expensive and difficult on previously cured materials and may not result in significant improvement as it breaks up previously solidified material and attempts to resolidify larger particles (i..7 kN/m2 (50 psi) (or other site-specific performance criteria). Considerations such as the location of a failing test specimen may Examples of tolerance intervals that may be be of significance. and depth of the S/S treatment area.

Figure 6-10 illustrates a sample QC testing performance tracking chart. or inadequate mixing) or along the outer edge (where groundwater or infiltration exposure may be greatest). An example of the use of tolerance intervals is provided in the Peak Oil Case Study (see Appendix C). The designer and regulator should develop a consensus on what is acceptable based on the remedial objectives for the project and considering the location of failing test results.g. Sample QC test results tracking chart. Three of the five failing samples were between the tolerance limit of 275. Two results were below the tolerance limit. a few failing test results that meet the lower tolerance limit and that are randomly scattered throughout the S/S area may be less of a concern than a cluster of failing test results occurring in one general area (possibly indicating differing soil/contaminant conditions. center of the matrix or on the edge of the treated matrix. among other factors. In this example.8 kN/m2 (40 psi) and the performance criterion of 344. inadequate reagent batch preparation.7 kN/m2 (50 psi). For example. and the average of all test results was above the performance criterion. The areas in which the failures occurred should be evaluated (e. 51 . Figure 6-10. five samples out of 30 failed to meet the minimum strength performance criteria of 344. Additional examples are provided in the box on page 52. the failing results did not occur sequentially (which may indicate a batch process or treatment area condition requiring attention). These failures would be considered acceptable since fewer than 20% (determined acceptable for the example site) of the samples were below the performance criterion. failures on the edge of the matrix may be of greater concern) and testing of field replicate specimens conducted to further assess the nature of the failing test results to determine whether these areas should be retreated or additional volume surrounding the failing area warrants treatment.7 kN/m2 (50 psi).ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Field construction performance specifications using tolerance intervals can be developed to allow for the inevitable variation of properties of individual test specimens.

The following subsections discuss long-term durability (Section 7. The five samples that did not were all greater than 275. Example 4—98 of the samples exceeded the strength criteria of 344.8 kN/m2 (40 psi). additional work is typically necessary to verify that the remedy remains effective and protective of human health and the environment.4). 52 . The determination was that re-treatment of those areas or additional protective measures was needed. Monitoring programs are an important part of the S/S process to determine whether the rate of leaching is within the formulated performance criteria. financial assurances. monitoring and maintenance of engineering controls (ECs). and periodic review(s) by the controlling environmental agency. this guidance focuses on development of groundwater monitoring programs following S/S implementation. The five samples that did not were all greater than 275.3). monitoring of institutional controls (ICs). The main goal of S/S remedies is to reduce the flux of contamination that leaches from a contaminant source to within acceptable parameters set forth in the site-specific remediation goal. The performance criterion for strength is assumed to be 344. The determination was that the treatment was acceptable. Example 2—95 of the samples exceeded the strength criteria of 344. typical institutional and engineering controls and their inspection and maintenance (Section 7.7 kN/m2 (50 psi). Example 5—98 of the samples exceeded the strength criteria of 344. The nonconforming samples were not together but on the edge of the treated matrix. The nonconforming samples were randomly distributed throughout the treated matrix. Example 3—95 of the samples exceeded the strength criteria of 344.7 kN/m2 (50 psi). The five samples that did not exceed the strength criteria were all greater than 275. The nonconforming samples were all adjacent to each other on the western edge of the treated matrix. The two samples that did not were less than 206. • • • • 7.8 kN/m2 (40 psi). The nonconforming samples were randomly distributed throughout the treated matrix and none on the edge.1). The nonconforming samples were all adjacent to each other in the center of the treated matrix. Long-term stewardship of a completed S/S remedy may include monitoring of environmental media in contact with and potentially affected by the remedy.2).7 kN/m2 (50 psi). The determination was that the treatment was acceptable. The determination was that this area needed to be retreated. The determination was that the treatment was acceptable. and considerations for periodic remedy reviews (Section 7. Because the most common impact from a treated mass is to groundwater. development of groundwater monitoring programs for S/S remedies (Section 7.8 kN/m2 (30 psi).8 kN/m2 (30 psi).ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Additional examples of consistency testing interpretation follow using the following scenario: Implementation of an S/S remedy resulted in 100 confirmatory samples. LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP Once a remedy has been implemented and safeguards are put in place.7 kN/m2 (50 psi).7 kN/m2 (50 psi): • Example 1—95 of the samples exceeded the strength criteria of 344.8 kN/m2 (40 psi).7 kN/m2 (50 psi). The two samples that did not were less than 206.

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization

July 2011

7.1 7.1.1

Long-Term Durability and Performance of S/S-Treated Materials Durability of the Monolith

As with most technologies used in the environmental field, S/S has its roots in processes and equipment developed for different purposes (Conner and Hoeffner 1998). Monoliths formed by S/S meet the definition of concrete—a mass formed by concretion or coalescence of separate particles of matter into one body. The earliest man-made concrete discovered to date is a concrete floor uncovered near Yiftah El in Galilee, Israel, dating to around 7000 BC (Kosmatka, Kerkhoff, and Panarese 2002). Notable concrete structures include Rome’s Pantheon built in 118 AD, the Erie Canal constructed in 1818, and Thomas Edison houses built in 1908. Portland cement was first patented by Joseph Aspdin in 1824. Much of today’s built environment relies on portland cement–based concrete. The first uses of cement-based S/S in the United States were for the disposal of radioactive or nuclear waste in the 1950s. Disposal of radioactive material by cement-based S/S, including surplus U.S. weapons plutonium, relies on mix designs that form a monolith able to last through multiple half-lives to ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment. A number of studies and predictive modeling suggest that a properly designed S/S remedy which accounts for the contaminant properties and the disposal/management scenario conditions can be expected to last on the order of decades to centuries (Environment Agency 2004a, Perara et al. 2004b, PASSiFy Project 2010). Because contaminants remain in place, a gradual release of some contaminants over a long period of time should be anticipated. Significant or complete release over a relatively short time period would constitute a failure of the technology and would typically be the result of inadequate site or contaminant characterization, poor design, or poor implementation of the S/S remedy. Research on the structural integrity of S/S treated monoliths has led to several conclusions: the properties of the treated material typically do not change significantly; if the properties do change, those changes do not significantly affect remedy performance; and methods for sampling the monolith impact sample quality (such as through fracturing) and thus alter the measured properties as recorded in the laboratory (PASSiFy 2010). Therefore, while monitoring of the structural integrity of the treatment monolith through direct sampling has been conducted at some sites, such as the American Creosote site in Tennessee (PASSiFY 2010), this approach is generally not recommended. However, direct evaluation of the structural integrity of the monolith could be warranted if groundwater monitoring data show unexpected increases in contaminant concentrations. 7.1.2 Long-Term Performance

Several research studies have been conducted to evaluate the long-term performance of S/S remedies. An Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)–funded project conducted at a former MGP site 10 years after S/S implementation included geotechnical, chemical, leaching, and solid-phase geochemical analyses of samples taken from the site. Using the sampling data, contaminant transport modeling was used to predict the leaching potential at the site and concluded that the treated contaminated material still met the performance standards as designed. In addition, contaminant concentrations at the monitoring POC were predicted to continue

53

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization

July 2011

meeting performance criteria for at least 10,000 years. Short-term groundwater monitoring results supported this hypothesis (EPRI 2003). In another study, a research consortium led by the University of Greenwich (United Kingdom), the University of New Hampshire, and INERTEC (France) conducted a research project entitled Performance Assessment of Solidified/Stabilized Waste-forms (PASSiFy). The objective of the PASSiFy Project was to assess the time-dependent performance of the S/S remedy at 10 sites where S/S was implemented between 1989 and 2006. Contaminant classes represented by these study sites included heavy metals, PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, acid wastes, creosote and coal tar constituents, and dioxins. Samples from each site were subjected to geotechnical, chemical, leaching, geochemical, and microstructural analyses. Geochemical modeling was also performed to evaluate solubility-controlling phases for metals. The report concluded that all the sites sampled were still performing well and met their RAOs (PASSiFy 2010). Additionally, the report affirmed the viability of S/S as an effective long-term treatment as long as the nature of the soils and contaminated materials are known and an effective binder system is developed (Hills et al. 2010). 7.2 Groundwater Monitoring Program

Groundwater monitoring is usually required, but may not always be (such as small-volume waste sites). Groundwater monitoring decisions are state or site specific. Considerations for monitoring plan design, monitoring parameters, locations, duration of monitoring, and monitoring data interpretation are presented in the following subsections. Groundwater modeling using site characterization and treatability study data can be used to evaluate the anticipated flux of contaminant leaching from S/S-treated material and therefore provide valuable information for use in groundwater monitoring programs. Appendix C of this document presents discussions on the use of groundwater modeling approaches for evaluation of S/S remedies. The appendix presents selected case studies to illustrate how groundwater modeling was used on sites where S/S remedies were implemented to contribute to the design and monitoring of the remedy. In addition, other modeling methodologies are presented that may be useful to the evaluation, design, and monitoring of S/S remedies. 7.2.1 Monitoring Program Objectives and Criteria

Developing monitoring objectives and criteria provides the basis for design of a monitoring program and should use the data quality objective (DQO) process (EPA 2006). The DQO process provides a systematic approach for defining the criteria for a monitoring plan design that will yield data of acceptable quality and quantity. 7.2.1.1 Monitoring objectives

Monitoring programs are conducted to verify that the treatment was successful in preventing, reducing, or eliminating the impact of the contaminated mass on groundwater. Monitoring programs also determine whether the treatment continues to be effective over time. The monitoring plan should be designed to meet the effectiveness and protectiveness evaluation

54

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization

July 2011

objective of the monitoring program and should also provide a basis for decisions to modify or cease monitoring. 7.2.1.2 Monitoring criteria

Groundwater cleanup criteria are a key component of the monitoring plan design and are typically established in the site remedy selection process. The criteria may include state or federal groundwater and/or surface water standards. However, it should be noted that because S/S is typically implemented as a source control remedy to minimize contaminant flux to groundwater, other technologies or approaches may be used in conjunction with S/S to meet site remedial goals. Depending on state or federal remedial goals, cleanup criteria may be applied differently at a site. The application of cleanup criteria can range from compliance at one or more specific POCs everywhere on site within an impacted aquifer, demonstration of a percent reduction in concentration flux from the treated material, calculating acceptable attenuation between the treated material and the POC, hydrogeologic modeling to simulate groundwater flow, and concentration flux attenuation. For most sites, specific cleanup criteria for contaminants and demonstration that these criteria are met by the S/S remedy are typical regulatory requirements. 7.2.2 Monitoring Plan Design

Following the DQO process, groundwater monitoring plans should be designed for the collection of the data necessary to evaluate the S/S remedy performance and protectiveness over time. Sitespecific data acquired during the site characterization and treatability study phases and developed during the design of the S/S remedy should be used in the monitoring plan design, such as the following: • • • baseline conditions prior to S/S remedy implementation changes in site conditions, including land use, that may influence performance of the S/S remedy changes in site conditions resulting from the S/S remedy that may influence nature and extent or fate and transport of existing contamination adjacent to a treated mass (Environment Agency 2004a)

For example, if other sources of contamination are present, site characterization data need to be reviewed with respect to differentiating between contamination from other sources and migration from the treated material to the extent possible. Other sources of contamination may include separate sources outside the area to be treated with S/S that may already have impacted groundwater or may in the future impact groundwater at or downgradient from the S/S-treated material. Other considerations for monitoring plan design could include site-specific conditions that may cause physical impacts to a site from the remedy implementation. For example, water table mounding or flooding is possible at a site after remedy implementation. See Appendix C for a case study example where groundwater modeling was conducted to evaluate post-

55

monitoring water levels upgradient from the S/S-treated material may be important if flooding may be a concern because of a shallow groundwater table. is whether all contaminants should be included in monitoring or a subset of contaminants may provide adequate representation of contaminant flux from the S/S-treated material to demonstrate compliance. or overall changes to the site.e. 7. construction monitoring.3 Monitoring Parameters An integral component of monitoring plan design is determining the appropriate suite of contaminants and other parameters to monitor and evaluate for long-term performance evaluation of the S/S remedy. Other groundwater parameters that could impact the stability of the S/S-treated material and may be considered for the groundwater monitoring plan include the composition of downgradient groundwater. Initial post-treatment monitoring data may also support use of a smaller subset of contaminants.2. the selection of contaminants for groundwater monitoring should be based on the potential for contaminants to be released into groundwater and to exceed established cleanup criteria as determined from data collected during such steps as site characterization.. 7. The COCs for groundwater or surface water will have been established prior to site remedy selection during site characterization and development of the CSM and therefore will follow through design and implementation and into the groundwater monitoring program. For example.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 implementation changes to the water table and support design of a storm-water collection system. Therefore. particularly when numerous chemicals are involved. pH may be a parameter of interest because for some contaminants (i. As a second example. and groundwater modeling (if conducted). treatability studies. Exact locations of monitoring points and the number of points needed are based on site-specific factors such as the following: • • • • site conditions potential changes in the groundwater flow regime induced by the treated material time of travel to POCs presence of contamination in groundwater prior to treatment 56 . monitoring points are typically located up.2. changes in groundwater levels. One consideration in monitoring site contaminants after S/S treatment. in longer-term monitoring.and downgradient of the treatment area to compare baseline versus post-treatment monitoring data and may be established on site or beyond the property limits. This determination can be based on results of treatability studies and construction performance monitoring showing level of effectiveness of S/S treatment for each contaminant. inorganic chemicals) solubility is directly related to the pH of groundwater.4 Selecting Monitoring Locations Sufficient baseline information is necessary to evaluate changes in surrounding groundwater quality and impact on relevant receptors resulting from flux from the S/S-treated material. or indicator contaminants. In any case.

Conclusions regarding compliance over time can potentially be drawn from comparison of measured concentrations with predicted peak concentrations at monitoring points. 2010). For example. Reyes. For example. In keeping with the regulatory requirements. 7. Upgradient monitoring can provide insight to the interpretation of monitoring data. Closer monitoring wells where downgradient groundwater contamination exists prior to treatment may also detect improvement in groundwater quality sooner than more distant wells. reduce the number of chemicals 57 . Compliance can occur at any time before or after the first five-year review (W. Beyer.2. Modeling can also take into consideration the different chemicals that may be present in the treated material in terms of their fate and transport characteristics. especially in cases where groundwater contamination exists in areas in addition to those treated with S/S. monitoring requirements usually follow the same frequency of monitoring used under the CERCLA program but may vary in the requirement of five-year review periods. Groundwater monitoring for the first five years generally starts with quarterly monitoring and diminishes in frequency depending on results and site conditions. making it easier to interpret relative change in mass flux. establishing downgradient monitoring well locations closer to the treated material will detect groundwater impacts sooner than wells located at a more distant POC. such as decisions to cease monitoring. the State of Texas only requires one five-year review (G. Five-year reviews are generally conducted as part of periodic review or required by CERCLA (EPA 2001). Depending on site-specific regulatory requirements.and downgradient monitoring. Based on consistency between measured concentrations and modeled concentrations. Upgradient monitoring should also be considered as part of the monitoring program. surface water. If the S/S-treated area is adjacent to a surface water body such as a river or lake. For state programs.5 Frequency and Duration of Monitoring Guidance is generally not available specifically for S/S remedies with respect to the appropriate frequency or duration for a groundwater monitoring program. taking into consideration travel time between the two. personal communication. downgradient groundwater monitoring may be more difficult or impossible. monitoring decisions can be evaluated. other approaches can be used to monitor groundwater discharging into the surface water. 2010). Monitoring frequency and duration requirements should be determined on a case-by-case basis.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 For example. The State of Delaware requires monitoring only up to the point that eight quarters of groundwater data at the POC demonstrate attainment of the remediation goals. predictive modeling can be used to further identify appropriate monitoring frequency and duration. after which time monitoring is not required. Modeling data may allow estimation of the length of time that concentrations in groundwater or surface water near the S/S-treated material may exist above acceptable levels and to predict peak concentrations over time at specific points downgradient from the S/S-treated mass (EPRI 2009a). personal communication. if groundwater concentrations increase for both up. the source of the increase may well be the upgradient groundwater going around the treated mass rather than the treatment failing. and sediment at various depths. such as monitoring sediment porewater.

monitoring data should be evaluated in terms of trends and not absolute numbers. groundwater and aquifer characteristics.2.6 Interpreting Monitoring Data Immediately following S/S implementation. may be used to help predict peak concentrations of contaminants that may be released from an S/S-treated material and how those concentrations may change over time and distance. EPA’s Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities Unified Guidance (EPA 2009a) may be useful. in conjunction with treatability study data (concentration flux from the S/S-treated material as a source term). the frequency of groundwater monitoring may need to be increased to determine whether the remedy is failing or another cause for the increase exists. 58 . If the main source of contamination is treated (per the remedial design). Groundwater modeling. such as monitored natural attenuation. thereby increasing the travel time for contaminants from the center to the margin of the treated mass. and presence of other sources of contamination. Once released into groundwater. over time the downgradient monitoring data trends should show improvement in groundwater quality and continue showing improvement until concentrations stabilize. and significantly reduce the frequency of monitoring and to use alternate remedial methods to address residual downgradient groundwater concentrations. In addition. and potential presence of other sources of contamination. Given the variability of natural groundwater quality. S/S treatment reduces the hydraulic conductivity of contaminated material. Evaluation of groundwater concentration trends can be done through simple time versus concentration plots. existing biological processes. if groundwater contamination is migrating from other sources. The rate of release of contaminants from an S/S-treated mass may be limited by diffusion processes and will likely be significantly less than the flux from the previously untreated contaminated mass. fate and transport. 7. these sources need to be considered in the evaluation of the monitoring data. the fate and transport of contaminants is controlled by factors including chemical properties. Modeled predictive results can be used to evaluate actual groundwater monitoring data and compliance with cleanup criteria.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 monitored. For more rigorous statistical analysis. dramatic improvement in groundwater quality is unlikely to be reflected in groundwater monitoring data because of reduced hydraulic conductivity of the contaminated material. Evaluation of concentration trends over time can be used to show continuing compliance where concentrations do not exceed the cleanup criteria in the groundwater or at a specified POC or to show changes in concentrations over time that will demonstrate compliance or progress toward compliance. Should groundwater contaminant concentrations appear to increase over time. An S/S remedy should be considered successful if it meets material performance goals designed to meet site groundwater cleanup criteria at established POCs and groundwater monitoring data show that the cleanup criteria have been met. or more rigorously using statistical methods for data trend analysis.

communities. infiltration or seepage of surface runoff and rain. In general. ICs serve a critical role in the management of risks associated with residual contamination by preventing the disturbance of contaminated material. ICs.1 Institutional Controls When implemented. such as registries and fish advisories. ICs will rarely be the sole remedy at a site. management (tracking and monitoring).3. and funding among multiple governmental agencies. such as easements and environmental covenants. and enforced properly. such as administrative and/or legal controls. such as administrative orders and consent decrees.3 Institutional and Engineering Controls EPA defines institutional controls as “non-engineering measures. by providing notification to the appropriate governmental entities when breaches occur. ordinances. Engineering controls are barriers or systems that control downward migration. are meant to supplement ECs during all phases of cleanup and may be a necessary component of the completed remedy. and groundwater management zones. and ECs may include the establishment of soil or impervious caps over the treated material. which may be used when contamination is first discovered and when remedies are ongoing. Requirements. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP. 7. maintained. may also exist to protect site workers in the event of potential future excavation of the treated material. and by providing important information to the local community and other interested stakeholders regarding use restrictions. such as water use restrictions. that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or to protect the integrity of a remedy by limiting land or resource use” (EDSC 2006).ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 7. ICs and ECs are intended to continue until no longer needed. ECs usually require site inspections to determine performance over time. ICs may include the establishment of environmental covenants to the property deed. Establishing an effective management system for ICs is a challenging task that requires planning. and informational devices. which in the case of S/S is as long as the treatment material is in place. Most states track and monitor ICs at some level. Tools available for tracking the status of IC implementation and maintenance may include five-year reviews and other long-term inspections 59 . coordination. ICs may require legal and administrative implementation. and other stakeholder groups (ITRC 2008). Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300) emphasizes that ICs. and financial assurance that may require enforcement. enforcement and permit tools with IC components. may also be needed when residual contamination remains on site and to meet regulatory requirements. ICs can include government controls. ICs usually require ongoing evaluation to determine whether they provide the restrictions necessary for the site to remain protective of human health and the environment. such as the development of contaminated materials management plans. such as zoning restrictions. These procedures are documented in long-term operations and maintenance (O&M) plans. or natural leaching/migration of contaminants through the subsurface over time. Site reuse has a significant influence on the design of the protective measures to ensure that any changes to land do not compromise the long-term structural and overall performance of the treated material. property controls.

3. and O&M plans are key documentation for the technical assessment of S/S performance and protectiveness. The EPA five-year review requirement for CERCLA sites is based on the review requirement for remedial actions which result in any hazardous substances. and third-party notification systems (ITRC 2008). cover systems may include soil.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 and registries. Evaluation of the contaminant trend versus the established criteria and remedial objectives should provide a clear understanding of remedy performance. geosynthetic clay liner.2 Engineering Controls Common practice for implementing S/S includes a cover system that exists between the treated material and the exposed surface to prevent human contact. S/S remedy implementation (deep versus shallow). A schedule should be established for routine reviews of the monitoring results against the established objectives of the corrective action and revised accordingly. or impervious cover (such as asphalt) on top of the treated material depends on land use. 7. Many states have adopted EPA’s model of periodic reviews. asphalt. if needed.4 Periodic Review Periodic reviews evaluate the performance of the S/S technology upon implementation to determine whether the remedy continues to be protective of human health and the environment. Updates to the monitoring program may include additional monitoring locations and variation in testing parameters and frequency. or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unrestricted use. 7. gravel. or other factors. Similar management controls (tracking. Considerations for designing and implementing covers include the following: final grading. hydraulic conductivity and stabilization of the cover system.4. Controls could be maintained in a searchable database accessible to stakeholders. The O&M plans and periodic remedy evaluations usually document reporting requirements associated with ICs (EPA 2010c). monitoring. gravel. Information from monitoring activities/reports. and documenting) as those described for ICs generally apply to ECs. The need for an EC such as a soil. sampling and monitoring plans. and erosion and sediment controls permits and requirements. if necessary. The monitoring program should also be reviewed on a regular basis to assess whether the objectives and approach are still valid. pollutants. and/or flexible membranes.1 Long-Term Performance Evaluation Long-term performance evaluation determines whether the remedy is still functioning as designed. public concerns. state one-call systems. For deeper S/S applications where the treated material remains in the subsurface covered by on-site or imported soil. ECs are generally not necessary. Long-term inspections and reporting are usually required and documented in O&M plans and periodic remedy evaluations. 7. EPA (2001) recommends using three questions for determining the protectiveness of the remedy: • Question A—Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 60 . For shallow S/S applications.

toxicity data. Similarly. the final remedy should contain a requirement for a contingency plan in the event that the selected remedy fails. and only a few examples of this approach exist. recommendations and follow-up actions for each identified issue.g. ECs. and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? Question C—Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? For S/S technology. Although it is unlikely that a change in a contaminant standard will require changes in implemented S/S remedies. such as potential mounding. Subsequent reviews must be performed no later than five years following the previous five-year review report(s). Question A: Remedial action performance—Determining whether the remedial action continues to operate and function as designed is a key component of the remedy performance assessment. In addition. 7.3 Drawing Conclusions from Periodic Reviews Typically. The conclusions are based on the technical assessment of the information discussed in Section 7.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 • • Question B—Are the exposure assumptions.4. the conclusions of the periodic review include issues identified during the review. the frequency of periodic review varies over time and is either state or federally mandated. leachability) versus the established performance criteria or evaluation of the groundwater concentrations at the POC.4. hydraulic conductivity. The first approach is not commonly used on S/S applications.1. and a determination of whether the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. 7. and/or potential indicators of remedy failure (such as a settlement) are also recommended. Question B: RAOs—In conducting five-year reviews under CERCLA. earthquakes.4.2 Frequency In general. Field inspections to evaluate ICs. some aspects to be taken in consideration while responding to the three EPA questions are discussed below. flooding. CERCLA mandates that the first five-year review be conducted within five years after completion of the remedial action. an evaluation of any changes to groundwater standards should be evaluated. any changes in exposure pathway should be evaluated to determine protectiveness over time. The conclusions should also 61 . such as the EPRI project (EPRI 2003).. an evaluation of other remedial alternatives in addition to S/S may be required. For example. or land use changes. Question C: New information—This includes an evaluation of any changes that could have an impact on the protectiveness of the remedy. strength. Two approaches can be used in this determination: a direct measure of the performance parameters (e. cleanup levels. If a new standard has been established and groundwater concentrations at the POC exceed this standard. EPA recommends the evaluation of the effects of significant changes in standards and assumptions used at the time of remedy selection as changes in promulgated standards may impact the protectiveness of the remedy.

visible regarding contaminated sites and even in the selection of remedial methods. and meetings—and perhaps significant public relations efforts—may be required to allay the concerns of local officials and the general public. a large-scale S/S project implemented in a remote and/or secure location such as a military installation may escape notice from the nearest communities. including any changes in the monitoring system. prior Some states have mandated public communications (including bad press). and period review documentation (EPA 2001). Conversely. local community groups.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 present any opportunities to improve the remedy performance. community. 7:26E). 8. community notification. In addition. the opinions of the local community. For example. and individual neighbors should be (and sometimes must be.A. public outreach. For heavy equipment or truck activity. This section discusses factors important to local communities that may invariably become partners in the implementation of S/S in their communities. The many variables relating to site remediation and the potential impact on the community should be considered early and often to avoid potential problems during the development of performance specifications and implementation. it example. optimizing the remedy. public notification and even public input on site remediation activities is becoming more common. as required by law) considered throughout the various phases of the remediation process. Therefore. The EPA five-year review guidance provides a valuable reference for developing a review framework. including guidance on additional response actions. enforcing access and institutional controls. prior relationships between parties. etc. Community interest may range from very low to very high. largely depending on project location. implementing S/S on a former MGP site located near the center of an historic or densely populated urban community will certainly be noticed. The relative impact of community involvement or action on a remediation project may be minimal or significant depending on various site-specific factors such as location relative to the community. In such cases. New Jersey’s Public can be expected that the level of potential community Notification and Outreach Requirements concern or action with respect to a remedial action are included as amendments to the will be proportional to the impact it may have on the state’s Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (N. Although community involvement in site remediation activities is not a new process. perceived environmental or public health concerns. having been previously mandated and implemented at the federal level under various programs (such as CERCLA and Base Realignment and Closure).J. The scope of the discussion is not limited to performance criteria and long-term stewardship but includes all general aspects of S/S implementation (Table 8-1).). and the notification and community input remedial action activities (including noise. 62 . performing additional studies or investigations as potential recommendations items for five-year review. STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS The selection and implementation of any remedial action must typically and primarily satisfy requirements mandated by the parties responsible for remediation (the regulated community) and the regulators.C. improving O&M activities. if applicable.

In addition to typical factors upon which remedial action decisions are made (effectiveness. and the use of nonpermanent versus permanent remedies.g. implementation. cost. water bodies. health risks. construction.. the addition of local communities may lead to discussion of other factors. boring. including local governments. protectiveness. local environmental advocates. Therefore.. such as environmental justice. S/S has its own technology-specific health and safety aspects that require address in all phases of design (including development of performance criteria).). industrial park vs. thickness of clean soil buffer. economic development) • Site and surrounding land use • Institutional controls • Ecological status • Proximity to sensitive receptors (sensitive populations. etc. impact on future land use. May affect access for long-term performance monitoring. Affects remedial goals. compressive strength requirements should be consistent with future land use). performance criteria could include reduced leachability and hydraulic conductivity to be protective of ground and surface waters). Performance criteria may differ based on proposed future land use. etc. community health. certain types of operations may be contraindicated due to health and safety considerations. As a fairly unique technology and methodology.g. affecting risk-based permissible leaching levels and remedy performance standards (e. Stakeholder considerations Consideration Acute health and safety Relevance Implementation Significance to S/S technology performance and monitoring Use of certain materials. especially hazardous. and monitoring of all remediation methods.g. cleanup criteria. 8. respirable.) Institutional controls Groundwater Regulatory classification of and surface groundwater and surface waters water regulation May affect design strength criteria of S/S material and supplementary remediation steps (e. cost/benefit. may require special health and safety monitoring.g.g. and others can add a significant level of complexity to the remediation decisionmaking process. and determination of practicability to achieve cleanup criteria (e. impact on property values..ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Table 8-1.1 Health and Safety Issues Health and safety is of primary importance in the design. placement of geomembrane or a vapor intrusion barrier). economic development. Specific factors requiring consideration are as follows: 63 . or toxic materials.. greenway) and sensitive receptors. endangered species) • Local groundwater use Potential future intrusive work (e. and post-implementation monitoring. Performance criteria may differ based on land use (e.. Current and future land use • Proposed future land use • Local zoning/land use ordinance/regulations • Long-term stewardship • Community impacts/concerns (environmental justice. The introduction of communities. individuals. affecting risk-based permissible leaching levels and remedy performance standards. implementation.

which may include any site at which the public is aware of an imminent short. the key to 64 . Although the long-term monitoring plan design requires regulatory oversight. to “disturb” local groundwater flow and/or to change the physical properties of soils. or surface water disturbance of local soils. Therefore. 8. especially the mixing and milling of fine-grained materials such as fly ash and cement. and instructions for dealing with the media and any potential emergencies. which is specifically designed.1. in most cases.1. and/or neighboring property owners. Planning for public notification and outreach may include the development of a written plan or standard operating procedure that includes contact information of various stakeholders.1 Ensuring Health and Safety During Implementation Maintaining a link with the public may be especially important for S/S projects that have the potential to impact the public. soil. neighborhood groups. fugitive emissions can present a potential exposure issue to on-site personnel and can potentially migrate beyond the work area and site boundary. 8. Giving thought to potential problems of this nature and planning for certain events or emergencies prior to the implementation phase may save significant downtime or even save a project from being shut down due to local concerns. where appropriate. This link may include providing information to local officials. groundwater.or long-term operation. both overhead and subsurface disturbance and possible mobilization of contaminants to the air. the proximity of communities and sensitive populations may affect the required level of monitoring and O&M. Monitoring for dust and other potential fugitive emissions or vapors. Under certain conditions. The S/S process.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 • • • • • • • • use of mobile heavy earthmoving equipment and (mineral and other) processing equipment use of various construction materials that may generate respirable and/or irritant dust and other fugitive emissions potential for disturbance of utilities/infrastructure. accurate recordkeeping. Appropriate health and safety practices also provide a means to generate positive information to release as part of keeping the public notified and assured of their safety. contingency plans for various potential events/scenarios. These measures ensure work place safety and provide a record of safe operating conditions during implementation. some of the health and safety concerns associated with the S/S process require specific attention to alleviate concerns of the regulatory and local communities.2 Ensuring Long-Term Health and Safety Post-Implementation As discussed in Section 7. S/S sites often require long-term stewardship to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy and public and environmental health. has the ability to generate fugitive emissions and respirable dust. and/or use of ECs is recommended. Therefore. affecting their physical characteristics disturbance of local groundwater flow and quality natural resource damages implementing a process that does not “destroy” the contaminant Some of these concerns are conditions inherent in the S/S process.

and/or change public safety and infrastructure requirements (police. citizens. Anything that affects land use affects a community. affect tax revenues. However. fire.). S/S may not be deemed suitable for certain uses. Develop contingency plans for emergencies. Future land uses are affected by the existence of contaminated land. etc.2 Land Use Issues Land use is an extremely important issue to stakeholders.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 successful S/S implementation includes an appropriate level of preimplementation planning for stakeholder issues (communication/outreach. 8. any event that impacts local land use is likely to generate concern. future land use of a particular site can be permanently negatively affected. the potential for local acceptance is greater. usually to avoid potential public perception and other problems associated with remedies where contaminants are not removed or destroyed. If the remedial action will accommodate potential or planned redevelopment in accord with local land use laws. utilities. and organizations of all types. developing relationships. as is the case with many former MGP sites. and commercial and other operations that have impacted land with hazardous materials.). Environmental laws and the resultant environmental remediation industry exist primarily to address the historic operations by industries. etc. including plans for hazard communication. the following stakeholder-oriented guidelines should be considered: • • • • • • Design the S/S remedy so that it does not render the site unusable unless other site conditions preclude reuse. and if permanent remedies are not implemented. sensitivity to specific concerns. and local involvement. press coverage. especially local governments. etc. in a simple format. water/sewer. Design remediation with future land use in mind.). particularly when implemented proximal to populated areas. land use laws. building codes. Consider local community desires for the redevelopment of a particular contaminated site. government agencies. such as those that may impact future homeowners (residential use) or sensitive populations (day care centers. When designing S/S for use at sites in areas where local governments have identified future land reuse potential. and media and local government relations. Do not assume that conducting remediation in accord with state regulations will automatically be acceptable to the local community or in accord with local land use laws. Therefore. 65 . S/S can be engineered to accommodate a variety of land uses by considering land use in the selection of performance criteria (as described in Section 4 of this document). Land use management through planning and zoning laws/ ordinances. Impacts to future land use can foster stakeholder concerns regarding the remediation technology. Anticipate community needs for information and outreach. etc. Furthermore. is typically a primary function for local governments. Changes in land uses have the ability to alter neighborhoods. and provide accurate information. schools. the remediating party and regulatory agency must address future land use impacts upon which S/S is proposed. using common terminology.

Auger-mixed in situ S/S treatment of a former MGP site in at Kendall Square. Figure 8-1. Clark. 66 . and 8-3 depict examples of successful land reuse following S/S implementation. Source: Portland Cement Association. during S/S treatment (left) and redeveloped into an automobile dealer parking lot. Wisconsin (left) and post-treatment (right). Auger-mixed in situ S/S treatment of a former MGP site in Milwaukee. Figure 8-3. Georgia. Source: Portland Cement Association. Source: Portland Cement Association. 8-2. and Wilk 2006. Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site near Brunswick. Lear and Wilk 2008. Figure 8-2.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Figures 8-1. Cambridge. Massachusetts (left) and after redevelopment (right). Carleo.

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization

July 2011

9.

REFERENCES

Al-Tabbaa, A., and A. S. R. Perera. 2002. UK Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and Remediation. STARNET State of Practice Report. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Engineering Department. Amoozegar, A., and A. W. Warrick. 1986. Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Soils: Field Methods, Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. A. Klute, ed. Madison, Wisc.: American Society of Agronomy. ANS (American Nuclear Society). 2003. Measurement of Leachability of Solidified Low-Level Radioactive Wastes by a Short-Term Test Procedure. ANSI/ANS-16.1-2003. ASTM (ASTM International, formerly American Society for Testing and Materials). 2006. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil. ATSM D2166. ASTM. 2007. Standard Test Methods for Compressive Strength of Molded Soil-Cement Cylinders. ASTM D1633. ASTM. 2009. Standard Test Method for Wetting and Drying Test of Solid Wastes. ATSM D4843. ASTM. 2010a. Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Freeze-Thaw Durability of Dry-Cast Segmental Retaining Wall Units and Related Concrete Units. ASTM C1262. ASTM. 2010b. Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter. ASTM D5084. Bates, E. 2010. “Selecting Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization,” presented at the International Solidification/Stabilization Technology Forum, Sydney, Canada, June 14–17. Bates, E., F. Akindele, and D. Sprinkle. 2002. “American Creosote Site Case Study: Solidification/Stabilization of Dioxins, PCP, and Creosote for $64 per Cubic Yard,” Environmental Progress 21(2): 79–84. Bear, J. 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. New York: American Elsevier. Bonen, D., and S. L. Sarkar. 1995. “The Effects of Simulated Environmental Attack on Immobilization of Heavy Metals Doped in Cement-Based Materials,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 40(3): 321–35. Butler, B. A. 2009. “Effect of pH, Ionic Strength, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Time and Particle Size on Metals Release from Mine Drainage Impacted Streambed Sediments,” Water Research 43(5): 1392–1402. Carleo, C., T. Clark, and C. M. Wilk. 2006. Phoenix-Award Winning Kendall Square Rises from Cement-Treated Brownfield Site. Publication No. SR854. Skokie, Ill.: Portland Cement Association. Carter, C. M., H. A. van der Sloot, and D. Cooling. 2009. “pH-Dependent Extraction of Soils and Soil Amendments to Understand the Factors Controlling Element Mobility,” European Journal of Soil Science 60(4): 622–37. Chen, Q., L. Zhang, Y. Ke, C. Hills, and Y. Kang. 2009. “Influence of Carbonation on the Acid Neutralization Capacity of Cements and Cement-Solidified/Stabilized Electroplating Sludge,” Chemosphere 74(6): 758–64.

67

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization

July 2011

Collepardi, M. 2003. “A State-of-the-Art Review on Delayed Ettringite Attack on Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Composites 25(4–5): 401–07. Conner, J. R. 1990. Chemical Fixation and Solidification of Hazardous Wastes. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Conner, J. R. 1997. Guide to Improving the Effectiveness of Cement-Based Stabilization/ Solidification. Publication No. EB211. Skokie, Ill.: Portland Cement Association. Conner, J. R., and S. L. Hoeffner. 1998. “The History of Stabilization/Solidification,” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 28(4): 325–96. Dagan, G. 1989. Flow and Transport in Porous Formations. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Dijkstra, J. J., J. C. L. Meeussen, and R. N. J. Comans. 2004. “Leaching of Heavy Metals from Contaminated Soils: An Experimental and Modeling Study,” Environmental Science and Technology 38: 4390–95. Dijkstra, J. J., H. A. van der Sloot, and R. N. J. Comans. 2006. “The Leaching of Major and Trace Elements from MSWI Bottom Ash as a Function of pH and Time,” Applied Geochemistry 21(2): 335–51. EDSC (Environmental Data Standards Council). 2006. Institutional Control Data Standard. Standard No. EX000015.1. Environment Agency. 2004a. Guidance on the Use of Stabilisation/Solidification for the Treatment of Contaminated Soil. Science Report SC98003/SR1. Bristol, UK. Environment Agency. 2004b. Review of Scientific Literature on the Use of Stabilisation/ Solidification for the Treatment of Contaminated Soil, Solid Waste and Sludges. Science Report SC980003/SR2. Bristol, UK. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous Wastes. EPA/540/2-86/001. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory. EPA. 1989. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes: Physical Tests, Chemical Testing Procedures, Technology Screening, and Field Activities. EPA/625/6-89/022. Office of Research and Development. EPA. 1991. Leachability Phenomena: Recommendations and Rationale for Analysis of Contaminant Release by the Environmental Engineering Committee. EPA-SAB-EEC-92003. Science Advisory Board. EPA. 1992a. Guidance for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCLA. EPA/540/R92/071a. Office of Research and Development. EPA. 1992b. Method 1311: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/1311.pdf. EPA. 1993a. Engineering Bulletin: Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and Inorganics. EPA/540/S-92/015. Office of Research and Development. EPA. 1993b. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report, 5th ed. EPA/542/R93/003. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA. 1993c. Technical Resource Document: Solidification/Stabilization and Its Application to Waste Materials. EPA/530/R-93/012. Office of Research and Development. EPA. 1994. Method 1312: Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure. www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/1312.pdf.
68

ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization

July 2011

EPA. 1998. Management of Remediation Waste under RCRA Memorandum. EPA/530/F-98/026. www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/530f-98026-s.pdf. EPA. 1999a. Solidification/Stabilization Resource Guide. EPA/542/B-99/002. EPA. 1999b. Waste Leachability: The Need for Review of Current Agency Procedures. EPASAB-EEC-COM-99-002. Science Advisory Board. EPA. 2000. Solidification/Stabilization Use at Superfund Sites. EPA/542/R-00/010. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA. 2001. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. EPA/540/R-01/007. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA/240/B-06/001. Office of Environmental Information. www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g4final.pdf. EPA. 2007a. Treatment Technologies for Mercury in Soil, Waste, and Water. EPA/542/R07/003.Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/542r07003.pdf. EPA. 2007b. Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report, 12th ed. EPA/542/R-07/012. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA. 2009a. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities Unified Guidance. EPA/530/R-09/007. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. EPA. 2009b. Technology Performance Review: Selecting and Using Solidification/Stabilization Treatment for Site Remediation. EPA/600/R-09/148. Office of Research and Development. EPA. 2010a. Background Information for the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) Test Methods. EPA/600/R-10/170. Office of Research and Development. EPA. 2010b. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes (Draft). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA. 2010c. Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites, Interim Final. EPA/540/R-09/001. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/pdfs/PIME-IC-Guidance-Interim.pdf. EPA. 2010d. Superfund Remedy Report, 13th ed. EPA/542/R-10/004. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2003. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of In Situ Solidification/Stabilization at the Columbus, Georgia Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Site. Product ID 1009095. http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001009095. EPRI. 2009a. An Integrated Approach to Evaluating In-Situ Solidification/Stabilization of Coal Tar Impacted Soils. Product ID 1018612. http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001018612. EPRI. 2009b. Leaching Assessment Methods for the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of In-situ Stabilization of Soil Material at Manufactured Gas Plant Sites. Product ID 1015553. http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001015553. Faschan, A., M. Tittlebaum, and F. Cartledge. 1996. “A Model to Predict the TCLP Leaching of Solidified Organic Wastes,” Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials 13(3): 333–50.

69

Kosson. S. Garrabrants. Fla. H. Part I: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Methods of Soil Analysis. and D..Y. C.C. A. B.. 229–79 in Stabilization/ Solidification of Hazardous. A. C. 1987.” presented at the International Solidification/Stabilization Technology Forum. F. J. 2002. N.. Lewis. “Modeling Moisture Transport from a Portland Cement–Based Material During Storage in Reactive and Inert Atmospheres. C. Johannesson.. A. 2004. A. Madison. and D. 1989.J. E. Assessment of Inorganic Constituent Release from a Portland Cement Matrix as a Result of Intermittent Wetting. M. E. “Microstructural Changes Caused by Carbonation of Cement Mortar. Research and Development Bulletin RD116. Garrabrants. 1998. Shi. K. and D. and D. Ettringite and Oxyanion-Substituted Ettringites—Their Characterization and Applications in the Fixation of Heavy Metals: A Synthesis of the Literature. A. Chemical and Biochemical Engineering. Barna. C. 1986. C. Garrabrants. Sydney. 2001. Antemir. W. Moszkowicz. 2004. Kosson. 2001. Kosson. A. Garrabrants. Drying and Carbonation.: CRC Press. D. Sanchez. Klute. Franz.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council..org.S.” Waste Management 24(1): 19–36. C. 2005. C. 2010. and D. D. BRNFLD-3. and P.: American Society of Agronomy. Ill. Wisc. www. Gervais. R. Dirksen. Spence and C. D.. S. Hills. BNL-52204.itrcweb. Sanchez. S.” Drying Technology 21(5): 775–805. eds. W. An Overview of Land Use Control Management Systems.: Rutgers State University. A.. “The Effect of Storage in an Inert Atmosphere on the Release of Inorganic Constituents During Intermittent Wetting of a Cement-Based Material. “Leaching Processes and Evaluation Tests for Inorganic Constituent Release from Cement-Based Matrices. S.” Cement and Concrete Research 17(3): 489–504. and C.org. Sanchez. ed.C. “The Effects of Carbonation and Drying During Intermittent Leaching on the Release of Inorganic Constituents from a Cement-Based Matrix. Klute. Canada. MASSFLUX-1. and P.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. Kosson.” pp. 2010. Boca Raton. Brownfields Team. 2008.” Cement and Concrete Research 31(6): 925–31.: Portland Cement Association. P. “Applications of Stabilization/ Solidification for the Treatment of Organically Contaminated Soil and Waste. and R.. A. R. D. Integrated DNAPL Site Strategy Team. Upton.: Brookhaven National Laboratory. C. Use and Measurement of Mass Flux and Mass Discharge. R. 2003. Optimization of the Factors that Accelerate Leaching. June 14– 17. S. Garrabrants.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Fuhrmann. Moszkowicz.” Cement and Concrete Research 34(1): 119–31. Skokie. Gervais. 70 . Washington. New Brunswick. Pietrzak. A. ITRC. Utgenannt. Klemm. D. A. ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). P. www.itrcweb. Garrabrants. F. and P.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 91(1–3): 159–85. S. Washington. Leonard. Heiser. J.. “Carbonation of Concrete and Its Prediction. C. Carey. Hydraulic Conductivity and Diffusivity: Laboratory Methods. Kosson. Radioactive and Mixed Wastes. N. Ho. F. Colombo. “Changes in Constituent Equilibrium Leaching and Porewater Characteristics of a Portland Cement Mortar as a Result of Carbonation.

1997. S. B. S.. C. 2002.” Environmental Reviews 14(4): 217–55.ac. 1994.ac.” presented at the Air Force ESH Training Symposium. S. and J. www-starnet. V. 1994. and D. Performance Assessment of Solidified/Stabilised Waste-Forms: An Examination of the Long-Term Stability of Cement-Treated Soil and Waste. L.” Chemical Engineering Science 49(8): 1195–208. and P. Sanchez. Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. www-starnet. May 23–25.cam. and S.gre.” Cement and Concrete Research 27(7): 995–1007.eng.: Portland Cement Association. and J. Yuet. and C. 2004.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Kosmatka.eng. 2005. Reid. C. M. Sotirchos. Paria. T. Kogel-Knabner. Carbonation. Ngala. 1991. A. and S.... S. Vayenas.: Portland Cement Association.pdf. L. J. S. Larsson. 2010. 51–59. “Effective Diffusivity Changes During Calcination. Buckingham. 2008.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/541198/PASSiFY. State of Practice Report: Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and Remediation. Ill. J. S. 2004a. 2007. A. Pittsburgh.” Chemosphere 36(1). Perera.” Transportation Research Record No.cam. and J. Wilk. pp. Evans. A. Papadakis. K. Al-Tabbaa. “Experimental Investigation and Mathematical Modeling of the Concrete Carbonation Problem. “Stabilization and Solidification. and W. Krishnan. Stockholm.uk. Herbert. Recalcination. A. Reid. C. 2002. Skokie. State of Practice Report: Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and Remediation. and D. 1998. R. B. 14th ed.. N. State of Practice Report: Stabilisation/ Solidification Treatment and Remediation. Ill. Part VI: Quality Assurance and Quality Control. A. “Effects of Carbonation on Pore Structure and Diffusional Properties of Hydrated Cement Pastes. Publication No. www-starnet. C. Kungalli. Panarese.. Remediation of Hercules 009 Landfill.uk.. 1936. M. Perera. Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Part IV: Testing and Performance Criteria. 79– 97.” New York: McGraw-Hill. SR857.. G. Stein. Klem. Stegemann. V. PASSiFy Project. P. M. Part V: Long-Term Performance and Environmental Impact. Al-Tabbaa.ac. Fardis. “Solidification–Stabilization of Organic and Inorganic Contaminants Using Portland Cement: A Literature Review. Raber.uk.. “State of Practice Report—Execution. G. A. Hazardous Waste Management. R. S. V. D. 71 . H. R.. Monitoring and Quality Control. D.” presented at the International Conference on Deep Mixing: Recent Advances and Best Practice. and Sulfation of Limestones. V. I. and C.” Environmental Engineering Science 19(3): 159–204. F. LaGrega. “An Integrated Framework for Evaluating Leaching in Waste Management and Utilization of Secondary Materials. T. Johnson.ac. D. “Resurgence of In Situ Soil Mixing for Treating NAPL Source Areas.D. 18–23. A. Lear.cam. B. P. and M. 2006.. S. and A. “Partitioning of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Dissolved Organic Matter from Different Soils. “Ettringite Formation in Lime-Treated Soils: Establishing Thermodynamic Foundations for Engineering Practice.eng. A. pp. Mar. R. Kerkhoff. Little. van der Sloot. 2004b. C. Perera. Johnson... M. 2005. Al-Tabbaa. Garrabrants. Palaia. H. 641–704. Kosson.” Chemical Engineering Science 46(5–6): 1333–38. Skokie. www. Page.

“Simulated Infinite-Dilution Leach Test. N. Part 2. van Gerven. U. R. C. SR855. Sediment. “Principles and Use of Solidification/Stabilization Treatment for Organic Hazardous Constituents in Soil. “Effects of Carbonation and Leaching on Porosity in Cement-Bound Waste. 3rd ed. 4–6 June. UFGS-02 55 00.S. J. Wilk. Batchelor. 2003. Roskam. 1997. 1990b.ITRC – Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization July 2011 Roskam. Ill. and B. Kosson. D. 2007. Engineering and Design Treatability Studies for Treatability Studies for Solidification/Stabilization of Contaminated Material.” Waste Management 27(7): 977–85. Quevauviller.. Feb. and C. “Procedure for Performing Field Permeability Testing by the Well Permeameter Method (USBR 7300-89). A. Cornelis. CQA Methodologies for In-Situ S/S at Former Manufactured Gas Plants.” Environmental Engineering Science 20(2): 135–53. H. “Availability and Leaching of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Controlling Processes and Comparison of Testing Methods.. A. 2010. 2003 “Principles of Solidification/Stabilization and Examples of the Technology’s Use at Brownfield Sites.” in Earth Manual. Tucson. Department of Interior. 2007. Spain. 1.” Waste Management 22(2): 181–86. H. “Procedure for Constant-Head Hydraulic Conductivity Tests in Single Drill Holes (USBR 7310-89). Technical Letter No. Denver: Bureau of Reclamation. 2003. Comans. Denver: Bureau of Reclamation. A Water Resources Technical Publication. 2006. 2002. S.” presented at WASCON 2003. Vandecasteele. Ariz. “Effects of Intermittent Wetting on Concentration Profiles and Release from a Cement-Based Waste Matrix.. 1990a. Sanchez. E. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. 2007. Alberta. and P. van der Sloot. and D. C. San Sebastian.S. Garrabrants. Banff. “Leaching of PAHs from Waste Materials and the Role of Dissolved Organic Matter.. C. the 5th International Conference on the Environment and Technical Implications of Construction with Alternative Material. “Characterization of the Leaching Behaviour of Concrete Mortars and of Cement-Stabilized Wastes with Different Waste Loading for Long-Term Environmental Assessment. Comans. A Water Resources Technical Publication. 3rd ed. M.. Vandoren. D. 72 .” Waste Management 29(1): 136–42. 1110-1-158.. van der Sloot. Harmonization of Leaching/Extraction Tests. F. E. Heasman. Army Corps of Engineers). and A. G. Schwantes.S.” Environmental Engineering Science 23(1): 4–13.” presented at the Remediation Technology Symposium 2003. and R. Wittenberg.. 1995. Publication No. L. J.. USACE (U. 25–Mar. Covi. Canada.: Portland Cement Association. Unified Facilities Guide Specifications: Solidification/Stabilization (S/S) of Contaminated Material. Part 2. J. Wilk.” in Earth Manual. U. 2007. USACE. Skokie. and R. A. and Waste. Department of Interior.” presented at the Waste Management 2007 Conference. N. T. G. G.

Appendix A Equipment

EQUIPMENT

A variety of mixing methods using S/S treatment equipment have been used for on-site treatment of contaminated materials, as briefly described in this appendix. Treatment can be accomplished while the material remains in place (in situ, Figure A-1) or on excavated material (ex situ, Figure A-2). Ex situ treated material can be returned to its original location or placed on another part of the project area. At some projects, material subject to S/S treatment has been excavated and placed at the final location prior to use of in situ mixing equipment to Figure A-1. S/S treatment of contaminated soil by rotary blender at former wood-preserving site, treat the relocated material. Port Newark, N.J. Source: Portland Cement Association. A.1 COMMON EX SITU MIXING EQUIPMENT A.1.1 Pugmills Pugmills consist of a trough-like mixing chamber with two horizontal shafts with paddles affixed to the counter-rotating shafts (Figures A-3 and A-4). Material to be treated and S/S binding agents enter the mixing chamber at one end and exit the other end as a mixture. Generally, these are continuous-flow devices. Pugmills are commonly used in asphalt and concrete Figure A-2. Pugmilled S/S-treated soil from former paving. and many are sized to be wood-preserving site Port Newark, N.J., reused on transported by tractor trailers along site as pavement base. Source: Key Environmental, Inc. with binding agent silos, conveyers, hoppers, and size-screening equipment. Pugmill mixing systems are often automated, with weight belt systems and controlled feed silos to provide quality control of the mixing process. A.1.2 Batch Mixing A variety of vessels, in sizes ranging from 200 L (55 gal) drums to truck-sized vessels, have been used to mix batches of subject material with S/S binding agents. Batch mixing is not as common as pugmill mixing for mixing and placing treated material back on site. Care should be taken in the selection of batch-mixing equipment to ensure that mixed material can be easily discharged from the mixing vessel.

A-1

Figure A-3. Pugmill mixing S/S treatment for lead-contaminated soil at 90th South Battery Site, West Jordan, Utah. Source: S3 Engineers LLC. Figure A-4. Pugmill mixer trough opened showing mixing paddles at Peak Oil Co./ Bay Drum Co. Superfund Site, Tampa, Florida. Source: Portland Cement Association. A.2 COMMON IN SITU MIXING EQUIPMENT A.2.1 Rotary Mixing Rotary mixers are known by various names, including road reclaimer, road recycler, soil stabilizer, and pulverizer. In pavement construction, these machines recycle pavement in place. Rotary mixers consist of a milling drum on a transversely mounted shaft in a specialized piece of heavy equipment. Rotary mixers have been used in S/S treatment to mix binding agents into subject material (Figures A-5 and A-6). Material subject to S/S is placed in layers or “lifts” (200–300 mm [8– 12 inches]) on an area. Binding agent(s) and additives are spread onto the lift usually by a spreader truck that precedes the rotary mixer. The rotary mixer is operated over the lift. Water can be added either in front of the rotary mixer, into a port on the mixing chamber, or spread behind the mixer as Figure A-5. S/S treatment of relocated dioxinnecessary. Subsequent lifts can be contaminated sediment by rotary mixer at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi. mixed in place over previously treated lifts to form thicker Source: ECC. monoliths.

A-2

Figure A-6. Drawing of S/S treatment by rotary mixer.
Source: Modified by CETCO from Portland Cement Association Publication EB234.

A.2.2 Excavator Mixing/Bucket Mixing S/S treatment can be performed with a common excavator (Figures A-7 and A-8). Mixing of soil, sludge, or sediment with an excavator bucket is applicable to shallow depths, generally less than 6 m (20 feet), depending on the equipment size. This approach requires no specialty mixing equipment but does require a skilled operator. Generally, the treatment area is divided into grid cells. Binding agents are added as a liquid grout or dry with the addition of supplemental water. The excavator operator mixes the binding agents into the subject material to the desired depth. Mix homogeneity is often determined by the amount of time Figure A-7. Excavator bucket mixing of spent mixing in one area/cell. Use of contaminated sediment, Sydney Tar Ponds, standard bucket excavators for S/S is Nova Scotia. Source: CETCO Contracting Services Co. applicable to areas where significant debris may be encountered and can be used to blend size-reduced demolition debris with the treated soil to reduce the need for off-site demolition debris disposal.

Figure A-8. Finished surface after excavator bucket mixing, Sydney Tar Ponds, Nova Scotia.
Source: CETCO Contracting Services Co.

A-3

2. This equipment mixes S/S binding agents into the soil or sludge through the rotating action of a bladed or toothed mixing head.C.4 Excavator-Mounted Rotary Blending High-speed rotary stabilization equipment is also available (Figures A-1 and A-10). Source: Key Environmental. S. sludge. The rakes are mounted on a conventional hydraulic excavator for in situ mixing and treatment of soil and/or sludge at depths up to 3 m (10 feet). A-4 . Inc. Inc. A. conditioning. Port Newark. Source: Williams Environmental Services.A. (Charleston Plant) Superfund Site. Binding agents can be delivered directly to the mixing head via hydraulic or pneumatic pressure. This type of S/S is applicable to soil and sludge with a moderate to high solids content and involves processing wastes in controlled layers or directly in place.J. or soils. Rake injector (left) and grout plant and rake injector (right) for treating contaminated sediment at Koppers Co. Processing steps may include preexcavation. Liquid grout is injected through the hollow “forks” and mixed in situ with soil or sediments through the rake motion of the excavator. S/S treatment by rotary blender at former wood-preserving site.3 Excavator-Mounted Rake Injecting Excavator-mounted injectors (Figure A-9) use a set of hollow “forks” or “rake” attachments to treat contaminated soil and/or sediments (Al-Tabbaa and Perara 2002a).. N. Charleston. and stabilization. Figure A-9. layering.2. Inc. Figure A-10. This technology is well suited for shallow treatment of soft sediment.

at a former MGP plant. may dictate the use of the dry method. the binders and/or fillers and/or additives are mixed with water to prepare a grout slurry. organic soils.6–3. grout is injected through the hollow stem or a separate pipe. the binders and/or fillers and/or additives are delivered to the mixing tool using compressed air. There are two methods of auger mixing: wet and dry. Source: Portland Cement Association. In the wet method. As the cutting head is rotated and moved up and down. An in situ column of treated soil is created when the mixing is completed. subsurface debris and foundations must be removed earlier to prevent damage to the drill tools.5 Auger Mixing Auger mixing treats an approximately 0. Dry mixing is used commonly in low-strength soils with high moisture content. Milwaukee. Very soft soils with high moisture content. which is pumped to the mixing tool and mixed with soil in situ. Vertical drill rigs using an array of smaller-diameter helical augers while injecting binding agents can be used for deep soil mixing projects as well.7 m (2–12 foot) diameter vertical soil column up to approximately 20 m (60 feet) below ground surface (bgs) by physically mixing the soil with injected grout via a rotating auger or array of augers (Figure A-11). Figure A-11. such as soft clays. The process is completed by executing a series of overlapping columns across the desired treatment area surface until the entire project area is treated. In the dry method.A.2. this equipment can treat soil to depths as great as 18 m (60 feet). Similar to equipment used to construct cast-in-place concrete piles for bridges and dams. or sludge.7 m [12 feet]) cutting head. S/S treatment using an auger with mixing blades exposed (left) and at a depth of 22 feet as indicated by markings on auger shaft. For either type of vertical drilling. Wisconsin. Binding agent delivery can either use the dry or wet method described above. A-5 . The wet method is typically used for soils with moisture content less than about 60%. The single-auger mixing method involves the use of a crane-mounted rotary table (turntable) or a track-mounted earth drill rig to rotate a large-diameter (as great as 3.

This is the most effective system for S/S applications where surgical treatment or treatment to great depths is necessary. large-diameter (3–5 m [10– 15 foot]) elements. Jet grouting is particularly useful for treating isolated zones of waste or contaminated soil and for grouting around buried utilities Figure A-12. Inc. Jet grouting showing or below permanent structures. and the quantity of grout incorporated control the ultimate strength and permeability of the columns. Treatment to great depths (over 30 m [100 feet]) is possible. This energy erodes the soil fabric and Figure A-13.6 Jet Grouting Jet grouting uses high pressure (40 MPa [6. soil. Source: Geo-Con. the composition of the binders and fillers in the grout. Jet grouting treats soil in typical 0.8 m (2–6 foot) diameter vertical columns via a rotating shaft that injects grout/air/water (in various combinations) into the subsurface as the shaft is removed (Figure A-12).000 psi]) to pump grout through a specialized drill tool called a “monitor” attached to a rotating drill rod. These processes entail inserting the monitor to a required depth using a rotary drilling technique and then slowly withdrawing it while injecting grout into the soil through horizontal nozzles at very high velocity (approximately 200 m/sec [650 feet/sec]).6–1. the jet grouting process is repeated throughout the affected zone to develop a series of overlapping vertical elements (Figure A-13). Exposed jet-grouted columns.A. which encapsulate the soil particles when the grout hardens. Inc. Rotational speed and withdrawal rate of the monitor control the diameter of the columns. replaces it with a mixture of grout and Source: Geo-Con. exposed nozzles. Superjet grouting is a modified doublefluid jet grouting system that takes advantage of tooling design efficiencies and increased energy to create highquality. A-6 . Similar to vertical auger mixing.2. The water:solids ratio of the binding agent grout.

Appendix B Overview of Leaching Tests and Assessment of Leachability Using the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework .

leachant composition. leaching tests are designed to either (a) estimate some equilibrium between the solid and liquid phases or (b) measure the rate of mass transfer release as a function of time. beginning on p. Thus. the size of the subject material is large while the contact time with the leaching solution may be short. B-24. release continues until an equilibrium1 is established. [NOTE: References for this appendix are in Section B.1 INTRODUCTION The leachability of a porous material is often determined from the results of one or more leaching tests designed to measure either the extent or the rate of contaminant release. • Based on the above distinction. • Equilibrium-based release. particle size.. Dijkstra. EPA PreMethod 1315 currently being validated by EPA and described later in this appendix) may be used to describe the overall leaching process. the local equilibrium assumption is used to estimate concentrations within the porewater of the subject material.1.7. In the leaching environment. desorption. and one of several available mass transfer tests (e. contact time) incorporated into the test design.] Therefore. L/S. The equilibrium concentration is determined by the thermodynamics of the system with regard to the LSP. In both cases. In some cases (e. it is important to realize that the applicability of the results is limited to the conditions (e..g. the extent of leaching can be estimated using one or more of available “equilibrium-based” leaching tests (e. an important distinction should be made between the thermodynamics of the system and kinetics or time-dependence of the release. EPA Method 1312). The rate of the partitioning reactions may be relatively fast compared to the kinetics of mass transport (van der Sloot and Dijkstra 2004.g. Mass transfer-based release. and mass transfer-based leaching tests cannot be used to address thermodynamics. 1 B-1 . rather. groundwater flow around an S/S-treated material). When developing a leachability testing program.g..g. Due to the complexity of the solid mineralogy. The partitioning between the solid and liquid phases is a function of pH.g. it is pseudoequilibrium in that the concentration in the aqueous phase approaches a constant value with time. ASTM D3987. and Comans. complexation).. the assumed local equilibrium is not a true chemical equilibrium in that a dissolved mineral phase will reprecipitate. If the particle size of the subject material is small relative to the time that the material is in contact with a leaching solution. 2006). van der Sloot. dissolution. the duration of the water-solid contact and the sample size define two distinct release-controlling release mechanisms: equilibrium-based release (thermodynamics) and mass transfer-based (kinetics) release.OVERVIEW OF LEACHING TESTS ANDASSESSMENT OF LEACHABILITY USING THE LEACHING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK B. and all associated interfacial chemical reactions (e. ANS 16. Equilibrium-based leaching tests do not provide information on the kinetics of contaminant release..

Typically. In addition. B. the concentrations of constituents in the leachate are compared to a set of predetermined threshold limits considered acceptable for the simulated scenario. This appendix provides a more detailed description of the LEAF than that presented in Section 4 of this guidance. B. most differ in only minor ways. The results of this leaching characterization can be combined with default or site-specific scenario information to provide a more robust description of contaminant release than any single test.2 OVERVIEW OF LEACHING TESTS Garrabrants and Kosson (2005) have reviewed leaching tests with respect to leaching assessment methodologies for cement-treated materials and have noted several other important ways to group leaching tests. One such method classification is based on whether the test is intended to provide leachates representative of field conditions (simulation tests) or an intrinsic leaching response of the material to environmental conditions (characterization tests). data management tools. When sitespecific parameters (e. results may be applied to general or default scenario parameters based on the anticipated mode of B-2 ..g. Thus. since no two leaching scenario are identical. In other cases. B. example test results and interpretation of leaching data relevant are included when appropriate. a limited number of carefully selected leaching tests can cover a wide range of possible exposure conditions. Characterization tests expose the subject material to a broad range of experimental conditions so that the results may be considered to describe leaching characteristics over a range of field conditions.2. infiltration rate) are known.2 Characterization Tests The intent of characterization leaching tests is to remove the dependence of specific field conditions from the behavior of the subject material such that the results provide information on characteristic or fundamental behavior of the subject material.2. usually in an attempt to mimic field conditions. Procedurally. the release conditions anticipated in the field are inherent to the design of simulation leaching tests such that test conditions and procedures need to be adapted on a case-by-case basis to best describe performance in the field. Heasman. a new test needs to be designed for each new scenario. the results of characteristic leaching tests can be tailored to a particular field scenario.Van der Sloot. standardization of a single simulation-based leaching procedure for applicability over a wide range of materials or release scenarios is impossible. groundwater flow rate. fill dimension. a collection of leaching test methods. leaching test procedures may be designed as “batch extraction methods” or “dynamic leaching methods” depending on how the leaching solution is introduced to the solid material. As illustrations of the framework applied to S/S-treated materials. and assessment approaches that can be used to characterize a subject solid material and integrated to provide a “source term” for contaminant release to the environment. These concepts were the basis for the development of the LEAF. By nature. and Quevauviller (1997) noted that of the 50 or more leaching tests in the literature. Thus.1 Simulation Tests Simulation tests are designed to measure leaching under a specific set of experimental conditions.

. Batch extraction tests are most often performed to achieve pseudoequilibrium between the solid material and the leaching solution. When site-specific conditions for a selected release scenario are known a priori. Often. B. or contacted with another aliquot of the same or different leaching solution. the purpose of dynamic leaching methods is to record time-dependent data regarding the rate of release without establishing equilibrium between the solid and liquid phases.3 Batch Extraction Tests In batch extraction methods. a subsample of subject material is contacted by a single aliquot of leaching solution over a specified duration.water contact (i. respectively.2. Source: Modified from Garrabrants and Kosson 2005. including (a) contacting the subsample with a single aliquot of leaching solution that is recirculated and analyzed periodically until equilibrium is achieved. the solid material may be discarded. flow-around or percolation). Due to the broader range of testing conditions. while several batch extractions under different test conditions may be conducted at one time using a parallelbatch extraction structure (b). B. recovered for analysis.4 Dynamic Leaching Tests Dynamic leaching tests rely on continuous or semicontinuous refreshing of the leaching solution. agitation n subsamples 1 solid subsample A 1 leachant S1 discard or analyze solid S2 Sn n extraction conditions A LA B LB n Ln (a) 1 leachate for chemical analysis L (b) n analytical solutions Figure B-1. After extraction. Schematic representations of a two batch extraction tests: (a) single batch and (b) parallel batch. Panels in Figure B-1 show two examples of batch tests. characterization tests may also provide built-in flexibility in that the range of test conditions may be tailored to conservatively cover the range of release conditions in the scenario. characterization tests are generally considered to provide a more accurate and flexible assessment of leaching from solid materials. B-3 . Dynamic leaching tests may also be used to measure the rate of release during the approach to equilibrium.2. (b) passing the leaching solution around or (c) through the subsample once in a flow-around or flow-through setup. The basic procedure for a batch test is shown as a single-point batch test (a). characterization tests require more effort in testing and interpretation than simulation tests.e. or (d) moving the subsample progressively through a series of leaching solutions aliquots in a semidynamic process. however. therefore. The panels in Figure B-2 show several approaches for conducting dynamic leaching tests. the material subsample used in batch extraction tests is often particle-size-reduced by crushing or grinding to minimize the rate limitation of diffusion through large particles.

(c) flow-through column test in downflow and upflow modes. Source: Modified from Garrabrants and Kosson 2005. Schematic representation of several dynamic leaching tests: (a) flow-around tank test with recycle. (b) single-pass flow-around tank test. Physical/Chemical Methods). equilibrium-based simulation tests consisting of a single-batch extraction of particle-size-reduced (<9. The EPA compendium of test methods. A n L (c) leachate leachant 1 L 2 L n (d) n leachates for chemical analysis Figure B-2. and (d) semidynamic static tank test. B. SW-846 (Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.3 CURRENT REGULATORY TESTING METHODS Leaching tests for regulatory purposes have been promulgated from the EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery with regard to hazardous waste classification.. contains two commonly used extraction procedures: • • Method 1311—Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Method 1312—Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) The EPA methods are single-batch.. The test conditions for these methods are supposed to simulate release under defined regulatory B-4 . pore plugging upflow A 1 sample 1 A 2 .5 mm) material with dilute acid at an L/S of 20 mL/g-dry.leachate sampled periodically recycle leaching fluid flows around monolithic sample leachant leaching fluid flows around monolithic sample (a) (a) leachant leachate (b) Δt1 Δt2 leachate n leaching intervals (Δt1 thru Δtn) Δtn downflow simulates rainfall minimizes channeling.

CEN/TS-3 2009). The test also provides a titration curve which can be used to assess the acid or base neutralization capacity of the subject material.4. the tests are assumed to produce a leachate representative of field concentrations under the specified test conditions. Drafts of the LEAF leaching tests are currently available online (www. ANS 16. such that release concentrations under the local equilibrium assumption changes as pH shifts (e. while SPLP simulates the contact of the material with acid rain.1 Procedure Description The procedure consists of 10 parallel extractions of a particle-size-reduced solid material (to facilitate the approach to equilibrium) in dilute acid or base designed to provide eluates at specific pH targets over the range 2–13..1). For assessment purposes. these leaching tests see daily use in areas for which these tests were not strictly designed.vanderbilt. A subsample of the subject material is added to each of 10 extraction vessels along with specified volumes of deionized water and aliquots of either acid or base. to provide a degree of protection between the public and waste materials containing potentially hazardous constituents). CEN/TS 15863 2009). test methods (ASTM 4784. denoted here as “premethods. ISO/DIS 12782 2010.g.. Although these tests are promulgated for hazardous waste classification (e. parts 1–5) as well as some U. B.scenarios. CEN/TS 14429 2005. ASTM 1308. leachate concentrations may be compared directly to acceptable release concentrations. ISO/TS 21268-4 2007.1. and soils (ISO/TS 21268-3 2007.” The following sections provide a brief description of each method. For example. B. The four LEAF leaching test methods have been derived from published leaching methods (Kosson et al. CEN/TS 14997 2005. and therefore. construction products (CEN/TS-2 2009.edu/leaching) as preliminary versions of EPA test methods. TCLP mimics the result of codisposal of the tested material with municipal solid waste. when the material buffering capacity is depleted due external sources of acidity or alkalinity). the test conditions and applications are somewhat more broad-based than simulation tests.4 EPA PREMETHODS—LEACHING TESTS INCLUDED IN LEAF The characterization leaching test methods within LEAF are designed to define intrinsic leaching behavior of a wide range of solid materials. B. the pH of the leaching environment can have a strong influence on the LSP. The extraction vessels are sealed and tumbled end over end for a contact time that varies 24–72 hours depending on the particle size of B-5 .1 PreMethod 1313 PreMethod 1313 (EPA 2010a) is an equilibrium-based leaching test designed to provide the LSP of constituents as a function of pH. The final L/S of each extract is 10 mL/g-dry. For most inorganic contaminants.g. As such. 2002) and international standard methods in various states of development and validation for waste materials (CEN/TS 14405 2004.4.S. including example results and interpretation.

Analytical samples are saved for chemical analysis in a manner consistent with target constituents and selected analytical methods.. oxyanionic species—The LSP curves for oxyanions (e. thus. eluate pH and conductivity are measured from an aliquot taken from each extraction.g.4. The increase in LSP concentration in the alkaline range is typically associated with soluble hydroxide complexes (e. The LSP results for inorganic contaminants usually can be recognized as one of the four characteristic shapes described below and presented schematically in Figure B-3. Pb..1.1. and the remaining solution is filtered through a 0.2 Modifications for Organic Contaminants Although the procedure was initially designed to determine the pH-dependence of the LSP for inorganic contaminants.the material. 2 B-6 . Cu] pass through a minimum in the near-neutral pH range and increase with pH into the alkaline range.g. However.g. the LSP concentrations for amphoteric species [e..g. and container designs and filtration methods may be modified to minimize volatilization. [AsO4]–. The eluate concentration results from PreMethod 1313 may be simulated with geochemical speciation models to infer the mineral phases. geochemical speciation models should be used to confirm these observations... The contact time depends on the maximum particle size of the solid sample under the assumption that larger particles take longer to reach equilibrium. [SeO4]–. the idealized LSP curves in Figure B-3 can be compared with the general shape of the test data to infer the speciation of the constituent in the solid matrix.45-µm pore size filtration membrane.4. borosilicate glass or steel vessels rather than plastic or fluoropolymer vessels). The container materials may be altered to minimize sorption (e. Na+. [CrO4]–2) typically show maxima in the neutral to slightly alkaline range.g. Cd) typically has a maximum concentration in the acidic pH range that decreases to lower values at alkaline pH values. highly soluble species—The LSP curve for highly soluble species (e. it appears to be relatively flat across the pH range.2 After the specified contact time. resulting in a curve that represents the pH-dependence of the LSP across a broad range of pH values. the method can be easily modified to address organic contaminants.e.. Cr(III). B. relative locations of maxima and minima) is indicative of the geochemical speciation of the constituent in the solid phase over the pH range.g. The shape of the LSP curve (i.. [Pb(OH3)]–). K+. and soluble complexes that control the release of the constituent. adsorption reactions. amphoteric species—Although similar in shape to the LSP curve for cationic species. • • For inorganic contaminants.3 Typical Results and Interpretation The constituent concentrations in the PreMethod 1313 eluates are plotted as a function of the final extract pH. Cl–) is not a strong function of pH. B. • • cationic species—The LSP curve of cationic species (e.

The organic-aqueous partitioning of a contaminant is described in the literature using the octanol-water partitioning coefficient. however. the dissolution of organic carbon. 14 700 PAH PAH after flocculation DOC DOC after flocculation Σ 16 PAHs [µg/L] 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 600 500 400 300 200 100 5 pH 10 15 Figure B-4. and hence the complexation with organic contaminants. In Figure B-4.4. Kow. B-7 DOC (mg/L) . the relative concentrations of DOC and total PAHs in a leachate are shown before and after removal of the organic carbon through flocculation. This partitioning is relatively tolerant of changes in pH. B. especially in the alkaline range. For organic contaminants. Source: After Roskam and Comans 2003. pH-dependent leaching of DOC and associated PAH concentrations from contaminated sediment. measured LSP concentrations are associated with partitioning between organic and aqueous phases. Generic behaviors of several inorganic contaminant types showing generalized minima/maxima as a function of pH. are strongly dependent on pH. as well as complexation with dissolved carbon in the aqueous phase.2 PreMethod 1314 This percolation column method (EPA 2010b) is designed to provide the LSP of constituents as a function of L/S under conditions where water percolates through the solid material.Highly Soluble Concentration (log scale) Cationic Oxyanionic Amphoteric 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 pH Figure B-3.

4. function of cumulative L/S. Schematic of PreMethod 1314 cumulative mass release is plotted as a upflow percolation column test apparatus.2. the method can be easily modified to address organic contaminants.2 Modifications for Organic Contaminants Although this method was primarily designed to address LSP of inorganic contaminants. The liquid flow rate is be maintained at 0. borosilicate glass or steel surfaces rather than plastic or fluoropolymer).2. Cumulative release values are calculated by summing up the mass released in each eluate fraction up to the L/S value of interest (e.g. and leaching solution is introduced to the column in upflow pumping mode to minimize air entrainment and flow channeling (Figure B-5). and the method detection limit.4..0 L/S per day to increase the likelihood of local equilibrium within the column. which is sometimes considered a practical quantifiable limit. and container designs and filtration methods should be modified to minimize volatilization. however. Cumulative release may be compared to a line with a slope of 1. The default leaching solution for most materials is deionized water.0 mM calcium chloride in deionized water is used when testing materials with either high clay content (to prevent deflocculation of clay layers) or high organic matter (to minimize mobilization of DOC). concentrations remain constant and doubling the liquid volume results in doubling the mass released.g. which indicates the lowest detectable concentrations.3 Typical Results and Interpretation Figure B-6 shows column eluate concentrations for calcium and chromium obtained using PreMethod 1314 on a coal combustion fly ash. a solution of 1. Eluate concentrations are compared to QC values: the method limit. which indicates solubilitycontrolled release in that if the solubility of the constituent is a limiting factor in the release.5–1. The Figure B-5.4. cumulative release at L/S = 2 mL/g-dry includes the mass release during the first four intervals)..1 Procedure Description A 5 cm diameter × 30 cm column is moderately packed with solid material. The column materials need to be altered to minimize sorption (e. Liquid fractions are collected as a function of the cumulative L/S and saved for chemical analysis.B.2. B. along with cumulative mass release derived from the leaching test results. B-8 . B.

01 0.0 ML MDL 1 4 6 8 10 0. The change in concentration is likely due to depletion of leachable calcium.0001 0 2 L/S (L/kg) Calcium depletion (b) 100 L/S (L/kg) Calcium depletion Cr Cumulative Release (mg/kg) Chromium (mg/L) 10 slope = 1. Figure B-6(b) shows that the limit on calcium release in the column test corresponds to the release of the available calcium.e.0 100 0. Example PreMethod 1314 results for a coal combustion fly ash as a function of L/S showing (a) calcium concentration. although eluate concentrations have not yet decreased to the QC limits (i. which is indicative of the available fraction of calcium in the material. chromium release is likely to increase with time as more liquid is passed through the column and calcium is depleted.001 0 2 4 6 8 ML MDL Ca Cumulative Release (mg/kg) Calcium (mg/L) Availablilty (PreMethod 1313) 1000 slope = 1.1 0.4.1 0. the depletion assessment is confirmed by plotting the maximum release value from the PreMethod 1313 data. (c) chromium concentration. B-9 . Comparison between calcium and chromium concentration plots shows an obvious connection between the depletion of calcium concentrations and a significant increase in chromium leaching. To aid in interpretation of the results shown in Figure B-6. (b) calcium release..1000 100 Calcium depletion 10000 Calcium depletion 10 1 0. Since progressive L/S ratios are related to time under groundwater flow in the subsurface.01 0. dashed line is used to indicate a critical point in the leaching where calcium concentrations decrease dramatically.001 0.3 PreMethod 1315 PreMethod 1315 (EPA 2010c) determines mass transfer release rates of constituents containing low-permeability material under diffusion-controlled release conditions. a vertical.1 1 10 10 (a) 10 1 0. method limit or method detection limit). In the calcium release plot.1 1 10 (c) L/S (L/kg) (d) L/S (L/kg) Figure B-6. B. and (d) chromium release.

Typical Results and Interpretation Figure B-7 shows an example of PreMethod 1315 data for the release of aluminum from an S/Streated wastewater stream containing heavy metals. This condition can lead to erroneous estimation of mass transport release rates for organic contaminants. where concentrations typically build up.4. and analytical samples are saved for chemical analysis. For each leaching interval.2 Modifications for Organic Contaminants One principle of any mass transport-based leaching test is that a concentration gradient between leaching solution and the porewater within the material must be maintained as a driving force for mass transport. volatility losses are minimized. B. such as PAHs. The gel is coated on the inside surface of an airtight borosilicate glass jar such that organic constituents that transport through the subject material into the aqueous phase are absorbed into the gel and trapped until extracted with a solvent. the leaching solution is exchanged with fresh reagent water. However. Using this approach. as a mean interval flux. results in leaching solution concentrations that approach equilibrium quickly such that the driving force for mass transport is diminished. Monolithic samples may be cylinders or parallelepipeds. the pH and conductivity are measured. Observed diffusivity and tortuosity may be estimated through analysis of the resulting leaching test data.3. Thus.5 (flux) and +0. At nine predetermined intervals.3. The values for mass flux and cumulative release are derived directly from leachate concentrations and compared to indicator lines with slopes of –0. and (d) cumulative mass release per unit exposed surface area as a function of leaching time.4. The vessel and sample dimensions are chosen such that the sample is fully immersed in the leaching solution at a liquid–surface area ratio of 9 mL/cm2.5 (cumulative release). (c) mass flux or the rate of release across a unit exposed surface area as a function of leaching time.4. (b) leachate concentrations in each test interval as a function of leaching time. the method for PreMethod 1315 testing of materials containing organic contaminants requires more extensive modification than other test methods.3. uses a siliceous gel coating within the leaching vessel to act as an absorption sink for organic constituents. denoted here as PreMethod 1315m. In the example shown in B-10 . and the previous leachate is collected.1 Procedure Description The procedure consists of continuous leaching of a monolithic or compacted granular material in a liquid-filled tank with periodic renewal of the leaching solution. and as cumulative release as a function of time. These lines are based on the time-dependence of a diffusion-controlled release mechanism where diffusion is related to the square root of time. Solution concentrations are plotted as a function of time. volatile organics may be lost to headspace and vessel leaks during the procedure.3.B. A modified PreMethod 1315 approach (EPRI 2009). the low aqueous solubility of many organic compounds. granular materials are compacted into cylindrical molds at optimum moisture content using modified Proctor compaction methods. and the mass release is considered to better represent the mass transfer of organic contaminants into freely moving groundwater. B. Additionally. The four panels in the figure represent a common way to present mass transfer data by including (a) the pH evolution during the leaching test since pH is an important parameter controlling porewater solubility of inorganic contaminants.

and antimony cumulative releases are consistent with a diffusioncontrolled mechanism.01 0.1 1 10 100 (a) 0. In this figure.1 Leaching Time (days) (b) 10000 Leaching Time (days) Aluminum Flux (mg/m²s) 0. and (d) cumulative mass release.0001 0.5 0.Figure B-7. Either parameter may be used to provide a comparison of release behavior for different constituents as shown in Figure B-8. the cumulative release for several select constituents from the S/S-treated wastewater is compared to the indicator line with slope of +0.01 0. (b) leachate concentrations.001 ML MDL 11 10.01 Al Cumulative Release (mg/m²) slope = -0. Example PreMethod 1315 results for aluminum leaching from an S/S-treated material showing (a) leachate pH evolution. (c) mass flux. Since other release mechanisms are also related to the square root of time and may be represented by the same lines.5 Leachate pH 10 0.1 0. 3 B-11 .001 100 0.5 1000 slope = +0.01 0. The release behavior of a material under conditions of mass transport can be described by either the mass flux or cumulative mass release.1 1 10 100 (c) time (days) (d) time (days) Figure B-7. the flux and mass release of aluminum are “consistent” with a diffusion-controlled mechanism represented by the indicator lines.1 1 10 100 0. The following generalizations may be made: • Aluminum.01 0.3 12 10 1 0.01 0. caution should be used during interpretation. selenium.5.1 1 10 100 10 0. and proclamations without supporting information that release of a species is controlled by diffusion should be avoided.0001 0.5 Aluminum (mg/L) 11.

01 0. (b) iron. and (d) antimony. 10000 100 • Fe Cumulative Release (mg/m²) Al Cumulative Release (mg/m²) 1000 slope = +0. Confirmation of this observation requires additional tests or geochemical speciation modeling. The cumulative release curve for selenium appears to be limited to a fixed value of approximately 1.5 10 slope = +0.1 0.5 100 100 10 10 0. Antimony release appears to be suppressed for the initial testing fractions but shows a significant and sudden increase between 14 and 28 days of leaching.4. Plotting the available content as determined by PreMethod 1313 (converted to the proper units) on the cumulative release graph shows that the release limit corresponds to the availability of selenium. At low L/S (e. Thus. Example PreMethod 1315 data showing cumulative release for (a) aluminum.5 100 1 10 0.01 0..01 0.1 1 10 100 (c) Leaching Time (days) (d) Leaching Time (days) Figure B-8.01 0.5 mL/g-dry.1 1 10 100 0. The increase in antimony release may be due to depletion of another constituent. (c) selenium.5 slope = +0. S/S material B-12 . the cumulative release of selenium in the PreMethod 1315 test is limited by the depletion of available selenium.• The cumulative release of iron is not consistent with diffusion control and may be solubilitycontrolled. however.g. additional tests and geochemical speciation modeling may be required to confirm this observation. B.1 1 10 100 (a) 10000 time (days) (b) 10000 Leaching Time (days) Se Cumulative Release (mg/m²) Sb Cumulaive Release (mg/m²) 1000 1000 slope = +0.1 1 10 100 1 0.000 mg/m2.4 PreMethod 1316 This parallel-batch equilibrium test (EPA 2010d) is designed to provide the LSP of constituents as a function of L/S at five values between 10 and 0.

the increase may be significant.45-µm pore size filtration membrane under pressure or vacuum. Samples of solid material and volumes of deionized water are added to 10 extraction bottles at L/S values of 10. No acid or base is added so that the final extract pH reflects the buffering capacity of the solid material. the concentration of inorganic constituents tends to increase. 4 While the concentrations of most inorganic constituents increase.e. and 0.. some constituents in certain matrices (e. because this method is a parallel-batch extraction procedure. airtight glass or steel vessels rather than plastic or fluoropolymer vessels). 1.4.4 In some cases. 10 ≤ L/S ≤ 20). 2. one to two orders of magnitude greater than concentrations from the extract specified in typical batch extraction leaching methods (e.pore water).4. B-13 . B. Analytical samples are saved for chemical analysis depending on target constituents and selected analytical methods.3 Typical Results and Interpretation The results of PreMethod 1316 are similar in presentation and interpretation to those of the column test (PreMethod 1314) with leachate concentrations and release presented for each constituent.. The container materials need to be altered to minimize sorption (e.g. and container designs and filtration methods should be modified to minimize volatilization.1 Procedure Description This procedure consists of five parallel extractions of a particle-size-reduced solid material (to facilitate the approach to equilibrium) in reagent water.4. After the specified contact time.5 mL/g-dry.. The extraction vessels are sealed and tumbled end over end for a contact time between 24 and 72 hours. Figure B-9 shows PreMethod 1316 results for arsenic and boron from a contaminated smelter plant soil.4. B. The concentrations of constituents in the analytical solutions are reported and plotted as a function of L/S.4. 5.5 mL/g-dry. release is not cumulated over several leaching fractions as in the column tests. batch concentration multiplied by the corresponding L/S value for each extraction).2 Modifications for Organic Contaminants Although this method was primarily designed to address L/S-dependence of inorganic contaminants. However. In PreMethod 1316. B. As L/S values decrease from 10 mL/g-dry toward 0. calcium in cement-based materials) may decrease with decreasing L/S.g. ionic strength is high such that the equilibrium chemistry is different from that measured under laboratory conditions of 10 mL/g-dry. The contact time depends on the maximum particle size of the solid sample under the assumption that larger particles take longer to reach equilibrium. the method can be easily modified to address organic contaminants. pH and conductivity of the eluates are measured.g.. and the remaining solution is filtered through a 0.4. release is reported in the same manner as in the pH-dependence test (i.

• B-14 .1 ML 0. the release of boron in the subject soil is limited by the available amount of boron that can be released from the material at the pH and L/S ratio imposed by PreMethod 1316.01 0. availability control—In contrast. Plots of the mass release as a function of L/S show two distinctly different behaviors when compared to a line with a slope of 1. The correspondence between the release at natural pH and the release asymptote in PreMethod 1316 indicates that release of boron is availability controlled.1 0. (b) arsenic release.01 0 2 4 6 8 10 0. the release of arsenic will also be different by a factor of 2. If the L/S ratio between two extractions is different by a factor of 2. (c) boron concentration. • solubility control—The arsenic release curve is consistent with the solubility line. and (d) boron release. The concentration of arsenic is relatively constant such that release scales with L/S ratio. indicating that solubility controls release.001 0.0 0.e. when no acid or base is added) over the release curve as shown in Figure B-9(d).0 representing solubility control. This fact can be confirmed by plotting the release value from PreMethod 1313 at natural pH (i.1 MDL 0.01 0.0001 0 2 4 6 8 10 ML MDL 100 Release at Natural pH & L/S 10 (PreMethod 1313) 10 0. Figure B-9 illustrates these two behaviors for arsenic and boron.1 1 10 (c) L/S (L/kg) (d) L/S (L/kg) Figure B-9.1 1 10 (a) 100 10 L/S (L/kg) (b) 1000 L/S (L/kg) Boron Release (mg/kg) slope = 1. Example PreMethod 1316 results as a function of L/S showing (a) arsenic concentration.0 Boron (mg/L) 1 0.1 10 As Release (mg/kg) Arsenic (mg/L) 1 slope = 1..

LSP (pH). when groundwater is diverted around a monolith). when groundwater flows through a granular material or material with a hydraulic conductivity that is similar to that of surrounding materials) and flow-around scenarios (e. of a constituent determined at the maximum of the LSP curve a method for screening constituents to determine a list of constituents with potential environmental impact by comparing leachate concentrations to desired concentrations or action levels with the relevant release scenario pH range Percolation Scenario pH-dependence EPA Method 1313 PrEN 14429 Material Water Contact Scenario? Flow-around Scenario titration.B. the most basic level of characterization is to determine the pH dependence of the LSP using PreMethod 1313. B-15 . a generic testing approach has been developed for percolation scenarios and flow-around scenarios. groundwater percolates through the material at a low flow rate such that partitioning between the solid and liquid phases can be described by equilibrium-based tests. Based on this distinction.g. an important distinction is made between percolation scenarios (e. This linkage requires a conceptual and computational framework to extrapolate laboratory test results to field scenarios. Flowchart indicating test method selection based on material type used in integrated assessment approach. Under the integration approach proposed by LEAF. or availability. available content LSP (LS)..5 LEACHING ASSESSMENT Test methods alone are not sufficient to accurately predict leaching from a source material. the rate of release is dictated by the rate of mass transport to the groundwater/material interface such that flux-based leaching tests best describe release. as shown in Figure B-10. through the environment. In most cases. • • In the former case. pore solution estimate mass transport flux/Σ release pH-dependence EPA Method 1313 PrEN 14429 • EPA Method 1314 PrEN 14405 Percolation EPA Method 1314 PrEN 14405 Percolation • Mass Transport EPA Method 1315 CEN TS 15863 Figured B-10. This test provides the following: • insight into the chemical speciation of the constituents in the solid phase of the materials by evaluation of constituent release in response to different end-point pH conditions an estimate of the potentially leachable fraction. In flow-around scenarios.g. In both scenarios.. Leaching test results need to be linked to field conditions that represent a release scenario. to a receptor. chemical analysis should include all relevant contaminants as well as matrix constituents and organic/inorganic carbon.

B. Relevant pH ranges for various environmental materials superimposed over a schematic LSP pH-dependence curve. similar information may be obtained through B-16 .. pH-dependent LSP concentrations well below action levels within the relevant pH range are not likely to be an environmental concern. Release from this test can be roughly related to field release as a function of the amount of liquid passing through a bed of high–hydraulic conductivity material if infiltration rates and bed parameters are known. Although the data in Figure B-11 are schematic. Although the test conditions of PreMethod 1313 result in a broad range of pH values. not all of the pH range is applicable for every scenario. Figure B-11. On the other hand.. as shown in Figure B-11.When used as a screening tool. this comparison indicates why it is not recommended to base environmental assessment on total or available content as the mass that is released for many release scenarios is often only a small fraction of the total amount in the solid (total content) or that can be released under extreme environmental conditions (potentially available content).1 Testing Based on Water-Contact Mode When the mode of water contact is anticipated to be percolation through the material.e. release as a function of L/S using the acid/base neutralization capacity of the material is determined using a percolation test. Plotting data on the basis of mass release also allows for comparison of data from a variety of batch tests conducted at different L/Ss. mass released per unit total material mass) to allow comparison to total composition and potentially leachable (i. To convert from concentrations (mg/L) to release (mg/kg). available) fraction. Alternatively.e. For this figure.5. the test method leachate concentrations (mg/L) are multiplied by the test-specific L/S (L/kg). the measured LSP curve is shown in terms of a “release basis” (i. Thus. during interpretation. constituents with concentrations at or exceeding action levels indicate a need for further testing to quantify the impacts under percolation or mass transfer controlled conditions. the total pH range can be divided into appropriate case-specific target zones.

The dry density (ρ) of the subject material is 1.. the percolation rate could be boundary condition is often referred to as the significantly lower. or approximately 150 m/year. In this case.e. and release can be predicted as a function of time. semiempirical. and semianalytical approaches. PreMethod 1316) to determine LSP as a function L/S. Appendix C presents an illustration of how The percolation rate of water passing through this can be done for a subsurface material.1. the contaminated material is the calculated as Mass transport through the material pore the volumetric flow rate (Q) divided by the mass of the structure to the exposed surface of the of 100fill (m).000 L/year (using the conversion that 1 m3 = 1000 L).. material dictates the rate of release under the assumptions that groundwater flows around For these relatively small fill dimensions. The concept of a zero concentration aquifer systems. B-17 . the the material such that the concentrations in the cumulative release at an L/S of 10 mL/g-dry from PreMethod 1314 column test relates to the groundwater remain essentially “zero” release from the fill at approximately 35 days of compared to concentrations in the subject leaching.e.2 Leaching Assessment Empirical Methods Simplified.500 kg (m = v * ρ).g.g. For larger contaminated fills or slower material.5. Eluate concentrations at low L/S as resulting from a percolation column test may provide additional information by estimating porewater concentrations with the low–hydraulic conductivity material. a flux-based mass transfer test with periodic leachant renewal (e. Example of Relating Groundwater Flow to L/S A mass of contaminated material with dimensions of 1 × 1 × 1 m is lying in an aquifer with a linear flow rate of 0. or 150.4 m/day.. the gradient between groundwater concentrations and porewater concentrations within the material). release may be better described by equilibrium rather than kinetics. Release in a percolation scenario may be estimated directly from PreMethod 1314 results if groundwater flow rates can be related to the amount of water passing through a mass of material. If groundwater concentrations build up and mass transport is suppressed due to a lack of diffusional driving force (i. including many S/S-treated materials or well-compacted granular fills). thus. which results in a percolation rate L/S per year. For low–hydraulic conductivity materials (e. ANS 16. overpredict release).. time can be mapped over the L/S ratio in the test. flux or cumulative mass release results from PreMethod 1315 can be directly scaled to the exposed surface area of a subject material. mass of the fill (m) is 1. “infinite bath assumption” (Crank 1975). can be used for initial screening purposes with the caveat that results should be verified against field observations. The cross-sectional area exposed to the groundwater flow is 1 m2 such that the volumetric flow rate of the aquifer (Q) is 150 m3/year.. B.g. The volume (v) of the contaminant fill is 1 m3. PreMethod 1315) is recommended.500 kg-dry/m3. although very low L/S is difficult to achieve using batch extraction approaches.parallel-batch testing (e. which are knowingly conservative (i. For mass transfer scenarios. monoliths.

the chosen leaching test should represent the primary release mechanism anticipated in the final application.2. The five recipes included the following: B-18 . Dijkstra. xylenes) and PAHs from several S/S treatment recipes. 2005.5. Dijkstra et al. As an illustration of S/S treatment on organic contaminants. and Comans 2006.6 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF LEAF LEACHING TESTS FOR S/S-TREATED MATERIALS The following section shows several examples of applications of LEAF leaching tests. 2002. some of these examples show testing and interpretation of S/S-treated materials containing single-ring and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.5. through test method selection and leaching simulation.g.g.1. Thus. the method was modified as described above and denoted as PreMethod 1315m. van der Sloot and Dijkstra 2004. CEN EN-12920 2003). Since the constituents of interest for assessment were volatile and semivolatile organics. 2002.. B.1 Reactive Transport with Geochemical Speciation Coupled chemical reaction-transport modeling is the preferred and most robust option available to provide insight in the long-term behavior of materials under changing exposure conditions in the field (Kosson et al. a time-shortened version of PreMethod 1315 was used to compare the flux of BTEX chemicals (e.1 S/S Recipes Five recipes of S/S treatment were formulated in the laboratory for this comparison. the comparison of S/S-treated materials designed to provide a low hydraulic conductivity relative to surrounding soils should be based on one of several mass transport–based tests. The goal of the treatability comparison was to downselect recipes for further characterization and testing by selecting those recipes that minimize flux while balancing all other considerations including cost of materials. benzene.B. toluene.2 Hydrogeological Fate and Transport Modeling Leaching test data (e. ease of implementation. Dijkstra et al. B.. Prior to leach testing. mass flux from transport tests or concentrations with percolating liquid volume from column tests) may be used directly in hydrogeological fate and transport models for contaminant transport to describe release from a source (S/S-treated material) to a downgradient POC. B.2. The sequence of steps ranges from problem definition. van der Sloot. to laboratory-to-field validation (Kosson et al. Much of the data shown in these examples are taken from privately funded research and reproduced here without reference to specific sites or material descriptions. 2008). In the following example.1 Example 1: S/S Treatability Study During treatability testing.6.6. ethylbenzene. B. etc. the recipes were screened to ensure that each resultant material passed material performance criteria for strength and hydraulic conductivity.

and xylenes and PAH contaminants. and benzo(a)anthracene. B-19 . leaching tests may be reduced to a single set of defined release conditions to provide a “before” and “after” treatment assessment. B.6. Based on these results. addition of 2 wt% organoclay reduced the flux over most of the test duration by a factor of ~2.• • • • • baseline recipe.6. when freely percolating soil is treated by S/S to a low hydraulic conductivity. there is no clear trend among the various S/S recipes in the case of xylene flux. In all. “Is leachability decreased when this remedy is applied?” This example illustrates how LEAF leaching tests can be used to compare cumulative release from an untreated coal tar–impacted soil and an S/S-treated material based on the same soil.6. Thus. ethylbenzene. only a single sample was tested. phenanthrene. consisting of portland cement (6 wt%) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (2 wt%).1 Release Scenario Usually. B.2 Flux Comparison Figure B-12 shows mass flux from the six treatability samples xylene. release for the soils should be based on a percolation scenario using PreMethod 1314 or PreMethod 1316 data. interpretation of leaching data within a properly defined leaching scenario is required when the physical properties of the untreated and treated material differ greatly.2. The soil was samples from a boring hole at a former MGP site where subsurface soils were found to contain high levels of benzene. This approach requires defining a single release environment that can be applied to both release scenarios.2 Example 2: Comparison of Leaching “Before” and “After” Treatment When a qualitative demonstration of the improvement in the environmental impact at a site is required. organoclay seems to provide a better basis for retention of PAH contaminants over the other recipes.1. baseline recipe with added bentonite clay (1 wt%) baseline recipe with added bentonite clay (2 wt%) baseline recipe with added organoclay (1 wt%) baseline recipe with added organoclay (2 wt%) Two duplicate samples of the baseline recipe were tested in parallel to indicate the potential for variation in treatment. both the baseline recipe and the recipe with 2 wt% addition of organoclay were selected for further testing. naphthalene. however. toluene. For phenanthrene. Release from both materials was calculated for a 1 m3 volume of material. Thus. For example. the flux of these contaminants from all S/S-treated materials follows the indicator line representing a diffusion-controlled process. the costs associated with organoclay adds to the total cost of treatment for a somewhat small return on treatability. it was noted that an S/S treatment recipe using organoclay would probably best minimize contaminant release. However. This process provides a snapshot of the release of critical constituents to answer the question. A conceptual release scenario (Figure B-13) was defined to provide a common basis for comparison. For all other recipes. B. while release from the S/S-treated material should be based on mass transfer using PreMethod 1315 data.

Example 1: S/S treatability test results (PreMethod 1315m) for a contaminated soil from a former MGP showing xylene (XYL).E-06 1.E-08 1. phenanthrene (PHE).E-03 1.01 1.E-05 Leaching Time (days) BAA Flux (mg/m2s) PHE Flux (mg/m2s) 1.E-04 1.E-07 0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100 Leaching Time (days) 1.E-05 1.E-04 Baseline-A Baseline-B Bentonite(1%) Bentonite(2%) Organoclay(1%) Organoclay(2%) 1.01 Baseline-A Baseline-B Bentonite(1%) Bentonite(2%) Organoclay(1%) Organoclay(2%) Baseline-A Baseline-B Bentonite(1%) Bentonite(2%) Organoclay(1%) Organoclay(2%) 0.E-04 1.01 0.E-06 1.1.E-09 1.E-05 1.1 1 10 100 Leaching Time (days) Leaching Time (days) Figure B-12. and benzo(a)anthracene (BAA) flux for a cement/slag baseline and baseline with bentonite and organoclay additives.E-06 1. B-20 . naphthalene (NAP).1 1 10 100 1.E-07 1.E-07 0.01 0.E-06 0.E-05 Baseline-A Baseline-B Bentonite(1%) Bentonite(2%) Organoclay(1%) Organoclay(2%) NAP Flux (mg/m2s) XYL Flux (mg/m2s) 1.E-10 0.E-03 1.E-04 1.

or scenario-specific release models that simulate the release of contaminants of concern integrated with hydrogeological conditions.Untreated Soil groundwater flow 150 [m /yr] 1m 3 3 S/S-Treated Material groundwater flow 150 [m /yr] 1m water percolates through fill 3 3 water flows around S/S mass on all sides Figure B-13. the total content given by EPA Method 3545 is somewhat less than the cumulative release at the end of PreMethod 1314. no conversions or alterations were required to the PreMethod 1315 cumulative release data for the S/S-treated material. groundwater percolates through the contaminated “fill.2. PreMethod 1314 release values were converted from units of mg/kg to units of mg/m2 of surface area cross sectional to groundwater flow. leach testing should cover the widest possible range of test conditions so that all potential mechanisms of constituent release may be considered and combined into a groundwater fate and transport model. Also shown in each panel of the figure are horizontal lines representing the “total content” of each contaminant in the soil and S/S-treated material as determined by pressurized fluid extraction using EPA Method 3545.6. potentially more aggressive extraction techniques may yield a higher “total content. The data in Figure B-14 show that overall release from S/S-treated materials is several orders of magnitude less than that of the untreated material.2 Release Comparison Figure B-14 compares release for xylene and several PAHs from contaminated untreated soil and S/S-treated materials. By converting the L/S-dependent column test data to a time and area–based release. indicating that S/S treatment of the soil is effective in reducing the rate of release. For xylene. naphthalene. other. Since the EPA method is essentially just one form of extraction technique. This differential does not mean that the column test data are in error as the total content as determined by the EPA Method 3545 is operationally defined. and fluorene.” B.6. Example 2: Scenario used in comparison of untreated soil and S/S-treated material. In addition.3 Example 3: Leaching Data Linked to Hydrogeological Modeling Often the purpose of leach testing and environmental assessment is to parameterize site. In this case. In the case of the untreated soil (left side of Figure B-13). B. B-21 .” and the L/S data obtained from PreMethod 1314 are related to time using the empirical approach described above.

1 1 10 100 Leaching Time (days) Leaching Time (days) Figure B-14.01 S/S-1315m Untreated-1314m Leaching Time (days) 100000 10000 Total Untreated Soil Total S/S FLU Release (mg/m2) PHE Release (mg/m2) Total S/S 1000 100 10 1 0.1 1 S/S-1315m Untreated-1314m Total S/S NAP Release (mg/m2) 10000 S/S-1315m Untreated-1314m 10 100 0.01 0. and phenanthrene (PHE). B-22 . naphthalene (NAP).1 0.1000000 100000 100000 Total Untreated Soil 10000 1000 100 10 1 0. Example 2: Comparison of cumulative release for untreated soil (PreMethod 1314) and cement/slag/bentonite S/S-treated materials (PreMethod 1315m) taken from a former MGP showing xylene (XYL).01 Total S/S XYL Release (mg/m2) Total Untreated Soil 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.1 1 10 100 Leaching Time (days) 10000 Total Untreated Soil 1000 100 10 1 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 S/S-1315m Untreated-1314m 0. fluorene (FLU).1 0.01 0.

as shown in the lower half of Figure B-15. phenanthrene. ISS Material (76m x 76m x 10m) ~5m Zone A 10m ground water 5m Zone B saprolite (weathered bedrock) not to scale ELEVATION VIEW 76m f low around ISS ISS Material (76m x 76m x 10m) axis of symmetry percolation through ISS 20m Location 2 12m 12m Location 1 not to scale TOP VIEW Figure B-15..6. respectively. 3m gradient 5m The flow pattern provides an axis of symmetry along the centerline of the S/Streated material such that the results can be displayed at two horizontal locations. B. Example 3: Schematic of MIKESHE simulation scenario showing groundwater flow around and through the S/S-treated material and combinations of location and zone (i. In the MIKE-SHE simulation. leaching data on recovered cores of S/S-treated materials from a former MGP site were used as a source term for contaminant transport and combined with groundwater flow using hydrogeological fate and transport model. Location 1 and Location 2 lay 20 m downgradient of the S/S-treated material and 12 m and 24 m off the axis of symmetry. The two locations and two zones result in four POCs for this simulation. the area above the S/S-treated material is capped such that the only infiltration that affects downgradient concentration is infiltration that reaches groundwater between the S/S-treated material and the POCs. the mass of pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene released from the S/S-treated material into the groundwater is attenuated onto particulate organic matter in downgradient soils before getting to the POCs. 1B. Zones A and B) are established as shown in the upper half of Figure B-15. B-23 . and 2B.6.e. since this infiltration will have a diluting effect only near the water table. 1A. However.3. 2A.2 Simulation Results Figure B-16 shows the simulation results for POC concentrations naphthalene. pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene.1 Scenario Description MIKE-SHE was used to model groundwater flow around an S/S-treated material embedded into weathered bedrock as shown in Figure B-15.In the following example. In this scenario. In this scenario. 1B. The amount of water that percolates is determined in the model by the hydraulic inf iltration inf iltration no inf iltration gradient and the relative hydraulic 60 mil HDPE liner POC 86m x 86m conductivities of the S/S-treated material and surrounding soil. and 2B) representing four different simulation POCs). specifically named 1A. two 5-m vertical zones of interests (i. the majority of groundwater flows around an S/S-treated material (76 m wide × 76 m long × 10 m high) while a small fraction of groundwater is allowed to percolate through the material.. The model has the capability to integrate surface water and groundwater flow with environmental impacts to predict downgradient concentrations at a POC. MIKE-SHE is an advanced integrated hydrological modeling system for simulation of water flow in entire land-based systems from rainfall to river flow. 1A.e. anthracene. B. fluoranthene.3.

Characterization of Waste—Leaching Behavior Tests—Influence of pH on Leaching with Initial Acid/Base Addition. CEN/TS 15863. but also for locating groundwater monitoring wells and establishing a monitoring plan that captures potential releases. 2008. Comans. 2009. CEN/TC 292. ECNC-05-045. J. 2005. and G. H. CEN/TC 292. At this POC. J. J. CEN/TS-2. van der Sloot. While the integration leaching tests and hydrological flow models may be beyond the scope of many S/S remediation projects. J. Characterization of Waste—Leaching Behavior Tests—Up-Flow Percolation Test (under Specified Conditions). Comans. J.” Applied Geochemistry 21(2): 335–51. J. and the mass released from the material and carried by groundwater flowing around the S/S monolith has the most influence. 2005. Belgium. 2005. and R. N. simulations such as those shown in this example may be useful. A. Brussels. N. the diluting influence of the infiltrating water is minimal. and R. Thielen.. Characterization of Waste—Leaching Behavior Tests—Influence of pH on Leaching with Continuous pH Control. where the dilution effect is maximized and the flow-around mass transport minimized. The Mathematics of Diffusion. C. London: Oxford University Press. Brussels. 2003.. Brussels. Dijkstra. CEN/TC 292 WG6. Belgium. “The Leaching of Major and Trace Elements from MSWI Bottom Ash as a Function of pH and Time. 1975. Generic Horizontal Dynamic Surface Leaching Test (DSLT) for Determination of Surface-Dependent Release of Substances from Monolithic or Plate-like or Sheet-like Construction Products. J. Methodology Guideline for the Determination of the Leaching Behaviour of Waste under Specified Conditions. J. Brussels. not only for predicting groundwater concentration in aquifers downgradient of an S/S-treated material. A. H. 2004. Conversely. CEN/TS 14405. For all other contaminants. van der Sloot. Belgium. Generic Horizontal Up-Flow Percolation Test for Determination of the Release of Substances from Granular Construction Products. Meeussen. which is the outermost and deepest POC. “A Consistent Geochemical Modeling Approach for the Leaching and Reactive Transport of Major and Trace Elements in MSWI Bottom Ash. van der Sloot. 2009. CEN/TS-3. Belgium. B. the lowest concentrations are predicted for POC 1A. CEN/TS 14429. Crank. all concentrations at the POCs are less than 1 pg/L. J. CEN/TS 14997.” Applied Geochemistry 23(6): 1544–62. CEN/TC 351.Thus. Characterization of Waste—Leaching Behavior Tests—Dynamic Monolithic Leaching Test with Periodic Leachant Renewal. Belgium. G. Brussels. Spanka. Dijkstra. 2009.. Brussels. Dijkstra. B-24 . 2006. L. CEN/TC 351. How to Judge Release of Dangerous Substances from Construction Products to Soil and Groundwater. H. the highest POC concentrations are predicted at POC 2B. A. Belgium. Petten. Belgium. J.7 REFERENCES CEN (European Committee for Standardization) EN-12920. the Netherlands: Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands. Brussels.

phenanthrene. Example 3: Scenario-specific simulation results using the MIKE-SHE model considering a combined “flow around + flow through” regime for naphthalene. anthracene.Figure B-16. fluoranthrene. B-25 . pyrene. and benzo(a)pyrene.

J. and D. Soil Quality— Parameters for Geochemical Modeling of Leaching and Speciation of Constituents in Soils and Soil Materials. Fla. 1997. Comans.. Part 4: Influence of pH on Leaching with Initial Acid/Base Addition. San Sebastian. van der Sloot. Dijkstra. EPA. Radioactive and Mixed Wastes. F. Product ID 1015553.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001015553... Boca Raton. Soil Quality—Leaching Procedures for Subsequent Chemical and Ecotoxicological Testing of Soil and Soil Materials. C. A. R. Spain. Geneva. 2010c. 2010a. Part 3: Up-Flow Percolation Test. “Leaching Processes and Evaluation Tests for Inorganic Constituent Release from Cement-Based Matrices.S. 2003. ISO/TS 21268-4. N. D.” presented at WASCON 2003. Soil Quality—Leaching Procedures for Subsequent Chemical and Ecotoxicological Testing of Soil and Soil Materials. H. 2010d. Garrabrants. Method 1316: Liquid-Solid Partitioning (LSP) as a Function of Liquid-to-Solid Ratio Using a Parallel Batch Extraction Procedure.epri. H. 2002. 2010b. Kosson. L. Heasman. EPA. and J. Leaching Assessment Methods for the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of In-situ Stabilization of Soil Material at Manufactured Gas Plant Sites. A.EPA (U. D. “An Integrated Framework for Evaluating Leaching in Waste Management and Utilization of Secondary Materials. 2007. 2005. Method 1314: Liquid-Solid Partitioning (LSP) as a Function of Liquid-to-Solid Ratio Using an Up-Flow Percolation Column Procedure. Development of Horizontally Standardized Leaching Tests for Construction Materials: A Material-based or Release-based Approach? ECNC-04-060. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. H. A.com/portal/server. 2004. and A. Garrabrants.” pp.” Environmental Engineering Science 19(3): 159–204. Harmonization of Leaching/Extraction Test. “Leaching of PAHs from Waste Materials and the Role of Dissolved Organic Matter. J. Kosson. 2010. the 5th International Conference on the Environment and Technical Implications of Construction with Alternative Material. and P. Petten. Environmental Protection Agency). eds. the Netherlands: Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands. G. ISO/TS 21268-3. EPRI. Roskam. van der Sloot. S.: CRC Press. Method 1313: Liquid-Solid Partitioning (LSP) as a Function of Extract pH Using a Parallel Batch Extraction Procedure. Geneva. http://my. Spence and C. Parts 1–5. C.. EPA. Geneva. Method 1315: Mass Transfer Rates in Monolithic or Compacted Granular Materials Using a Semi-Dynamic Tank Leaching Procedure.S. D. and R. 4–6 June. 2009. 229–79 in Stabilization/ Solidification of Hazardous. Shi.. A. Sanchez. van der Sloot. B-26 . 2007.. ISO (International Organization for Standardization)/DIS 12782. Quevauviller.

Appendix C Groundwater Modeling Case Studies and Methods .

Subsection C. Kerr Center for Environmental Research in Ada. Models have become an important tool that can be used in environmental evaluations of the fate and transport of contaminants in various media. Abundant literature is available that describes the function and capabilities of groundwater models. Case Study #2 describes the use of modeling at a site where shallow groundwater indicated the possibility of groundwater mounding and flooding after S/S treatment and how modeling was used to assist in design of the site storm-water control system. The following sections in this appendix illustrate some actual uses of models for select sites and other methodologies that may be applicable to modeling for S/S remedies. and how that modeling was used to predict compliance with the cleanup criteria by setting an allowable flux from the treated mass. or to demonstrate in conjunction with field measurements compliance with cleanup criteria.3 presents a graded modeling methodology that can be used to identify suitable modeling methods or codes to evaluate the efficacy of S/S remedies and estimate likely resulting potential impacts to groundwater. including groundwater. EPA’s Center for Subsurface Modeling Support (CSMOS). to provide input for remedial selection and design. and the containment and recovery of contamination in groundwater by one or more pumping well(s) and/or to assist in determining when groundwater monitoring may be modified or discontinued. two. Models may also be a useful tool for use with S/S remedies. recently presented at the 2010 American Geophysical Union conference. Case Study #1 describes the use of modeling to estimate the degree of dilution that would be expected to occur beneath S/S-treated material as flux from the treated material entered groundwater. for example. water infiltration rates through caps to underlying soil and groundwater. These include one-. and therefore a detailed discussion of groundwater modeling will not be presented in this guidance document or appendix. This is a relatively new approach. models to estimate the flux of contaminants that are present in unsaturated soil to underlying groundwater. Oklahoma. A wide range of groundwater models are available that have been used for environmental evaluations and can be applied to S/S remedy evaluations. located at the Robert S. C-1 . provides public domain models and information on its website at www. numerical and/or analytical models. the flux of contaminants released from a source area and transported via groundwater to a receptor or to surface water.GROUNDWATER MODELING CASE STUDIES AND METHODS Groundwater models are mathematical conceptualizations of hydrologic and hydrogeologic flow systems.gov/ada/csmos. This graded approach provides a template for selecting the modeling method or code to be used at a site such reasonably accurate results may be obtained at a lower level of effort and cost than a priori selection and application of more complex modeling methods and/or codes.or threedimensional models. to evaluate potential impacts to groundwater or surface water from S/S treatment of contaminated materials.epa.

it is recommended that groundwater modeling be integrated early in the design process using existing available groundwater elevation and flow data to assess the following: • • • • • • complying with local and state permitting requirements for storm-water management assessing potential impacts to the surrounding community modifying existing storm and sanitary infrastructure designing new groundwater and surface-water management facilities such as storm-water retention ponds and/or compensating flood storage basins developing final plans for site restoration and landscaping establishing a conceptual model for long-term groundwater monitoring To better illustrate how groundwater modeling can be used to address the S/S design considerations outlined above. which could slow upgradient surface water infiltration during storm events.1. • • Based on these considerations. Increase in the potential for flooding or surface water ponding upgradient of the S/S monolith due to hydraulic mounding and alterations to the previously existing groundwater flow paths. This concern may be further heightened in the presence of coarsegrained soil and shallow groundwater elevations.1 Introduction and Overview In situ S/S applications can pose unique challenges for the management of post–environmental construction surface water and groundwater conditions. Florida.1 CASE STUDY #1—MODELING OF GROUNDWATER IMPACTS FOR AN S/S REMEDY C.C. Pertinent topics addressed in this case study consist of the following: • • • • • site-specific parameters that needed to be considered during model development key assumptions made to develop the model modeling methodologies and results development of design recommendations for surface-water and groundwater management and long-term groundwater monitoring design recommendations for future S/S projects C-2 . These impacts could include the following: • Hydraulic mounding (water table rising) along the upgradient side of the monolith due to the placement of S/S material (reagent mixed with soil) with significantly lower permeabilities than the surrounding soil. Construction of an S/S monolith may significantly alter hydrogeologic and hydrologic conditions and have potentially detrimental impacts beyond the limits of the project site. the following sections present a case study for a large S/S project at a former gasification plant site located northeast of Orlando. Creation of localized conditions that could increase the potential for flooding due to the construction of a relatively impermeable surface that will increase surface water runoff to other areas and loss of land surface for compensating flood storage.

1.2 Site Background and Setting In situ S/S was selected by EPA Region IV to address remaining soil and groundwater contamination from historic MGP operations at the site. The S/S operations encompassed approximately 140. Land use in the surrounding area consists primarily of residential homes and light commercial businesses. Contaminant conditions included coal tar that occurred in discrete zones and various depths overlain by uncontaminated soils. As will be discussed below. C-3 . The creek discharges to a large lake at the northern edge of the site. and no production wells are located near the site. rerouting the creek outside the limits of the monolith included installation of a box culvert.C. potable water is supplied by the local municipality. Figure C-1 provides a plan view of the study area. Plan view of the case study area. a number of properties that were affected by the environmental cleanup operations. Figure C-1. The study area includes the former MGP property. and a perennial creek that drains the area (gaining stream). illustrating one of the major design challenges for the project: the original creek alignment passed through the design limits for the S/S monolith and needed to be rerouted prior to completing the S/S operations. In this urban environment. The remediation limits indicated in black represent the approximate limits for the S/S monolith. The creek is characterized as an urban stream and has been impacted by intensive development of the watershed.000 yd3 up to depths of approximately 30 feet bgs over an area of approximately 4–5 acres. which required careful consideration as part of the groundwater modeling.

The hydrostratigraphy of the site includes a shallow water table aquifer and a deep bedrock aquifer separated by a laterally continuous clay confining layer. multilayer. anisotropic.3 Modeling Objectives The objectives for the modeling included the following: • • • evaluate the potential for water table rise due to the construction of the S/S monolith and placement of a perennial gaining creek into a box culvert simulate mitigation efforts (groundwater relief drains and storm-water attenuation/retention ponds) designed to alleviate water table rise and manage surface water flow predicted by the model assist with design of the groundwater monitoring network Water table rise (mounding) and potential ground surface expressions of groundwater associated with placement of the S/S monolith were of particular concern at this site for the following reasons: • • • • • The water table at the site is 1–10 feet bgs. The deep aquifer is the most commonly used source of groundwater in the area.1. The general groundwater flow direction within the shallow aquifer is toward the creek with a northward component toward the lake at the end of the creek. Rainfall represents the largest input into the hydrologic system. and the aquifer below the stream would be stabilized. MODFLOW uses a finite-difference approximation to solve a three-dimensional head distribution in a transient. formation/layer C-4 . The deep confined aquifer system is present in limestone bedrock that underlies the region. preventing normal flow. The location for the monolith is in an area that provided significant storm-water drainage for the surrounding area. The water table ranges 1–10 feet bgs.1. effectively preventing groundwater discharge along a roughly 500-foot section of the stream. The shallow aquifer was the only unit modeled because the deep aquifer system was sufficiently isolated from the shallow system and not directly impacted by the S/S operations. Portions of the monolith fully penetrate the shallow aquifer. Vertical gradients between the shallow and deep aquifers are upward. variable-thickness. A portion of the stream that drains the area would be diverted into a culvert. extending across 4–5 acres and to depths of up to 30 feet bgs to a lower clay confining layer. variable-gradient.The climate of the area is humid subtropical. The shallow unconfined aquifer system is present in sandy beach and shell deposits overlain by fill material. confined or unconfined flow system—given user-supplied inputs of hydraulic conductivity. This drainage included what was known as the unnamed tributary. with warm wet summers and mild dry winters. heterogeneous. The shallow aquifer is within the shallow fine sand and shell encountered at the site from land surface to generally 30 feet bgs. C. which continuously drained from areas south of the site to the creek. C. The monolith is relatively large.4 Modeling Groundwater flow was modeled in three dimensions using MODFLOW.

This model was updated during remedial construction to incorporate changes from the original design plans. For the calibration model.500 × 17. wells. recharge. and the top layer of the model was created by gridding and importing existing ground surface elevation data from construction plans. The upper boundary was a time-dependent specified flux (Neumann) boundary. were noflow (Neumann) boundaries. design model—Created from the calibration model to simulate and predict changes in groundwater flow resulting from designed construction of the S/S monolith. including contributions from wells. and river elevations were surveyed at this time so that the model would be calibrated to high-water levels and result in higher potential mounding near the monolith. The east. The distal portions of the watershed boundary were left out of the model grid to improve computing efficiency. The lower boundary (top of clay confining layer) was also a noflow (Neumann) boundary.5 feet apart). were simulated as MODFLOW drains (mixed). and any other boundary-type packages used in the simulation. The lake at the downgradient edge of the model was a constant-head (Dirichlet) boundary placed in the bottom layer of the model. C. rivers. and south boundaries of the model approximate the outer edge of the watershed in which the site is located (Figure C-2). associated storm-water detention ponds. design model with drains—The design model was modified to include groundwater relief drains to address potential groundwater mounding and support the groundwater screening program. • The modeled area was approximately 14. The grid cells of the model near the monolith were spaced tightly (12. Three steady-state groundwater models were created to achieve the model objectives. The models were created prior to construction of the monolith and updated with design changes during construction: • • calibration model—Created and calibrated to simulate observed groundwater and surfacewater conditions prior to initiation of remedial activities. Streams were represented using MODFLOW river (mixed) boundaries in the top layer of the model. thus making the model conservative with respect to predicted mounding. such as storm-water management ponds or groundwater relief drains. Using this method. The upgradient and lateral edges of the model. extra attention was paid to ground surface elevation and aquifer thickness in the model. and boundary conditions. a sampling event was scheduled when groundwater elevations were relatively high.1. and modifications to the creek.5 Special Considerations for Model Construction and Input Values Because surface expressions of groundwater were of concern. The calibrated steady-state model was then modified to create the design models. west. That surface was gridded into 12-foot cells similar to the model cells and imported to the model grid as XYZ points. The same method was used to simulate C-5 . Water levels were collected from site wells. This model was used to evaluate the potential for water table rise (mounding) associated with construction activities. with specified flux rates equal to the recharge rate. and drains.thickness. The program also calculates a global water balance. Features that potentially remove water from the model. representing the watershed boundaries. A surface was created in CAD (computer-aided design) based on surveyed ground surface elevations (1foot contour interval). ground surface elevations near the monolith very closely approximated actual elevations.000 feet and bounded to the north by a lake.

and imported into the model. Figure C-2 illustrates the very tight grid spacing near the site.. large ponds. The orange line indicates the watershed boundary. The creek running through the site drains the eastern half of the watershed and therefore strongly influences groundwater flow direction. Blue lines are base map features. streams. To further C-6 . and river channel reconstruction). the model was further subdivided into a three-layer model to accommodate monolith placement and spatial variations in lithology. Figure C-2.g.the final construction ground surface elevations from the design plans (e. such as roads. The bottom of the model was created in a similar fashion to the top of layer 1. drainage swales. Once the top and bottom of the aquifer were defined. gridded. Site visits also indicated that there were several pools and elevation drops giving the creek a step-like appearance as is passed though the site. Model grid. The top of clay elevation (top of confining layer) data collected from the site were surfaced in CAD. The red box indicates the location of the S/S monolith. storm-water ponds. and the footprint of the monolith.

Actual hydraulic conductivities were lower than design specification.6 Calibration Model Results The calibration model (simulated flow prior to monolith construction) achieved the following targets: modeled heads were within 1 foot of observed heads near the monolith. Coordinates. it did not significantly increase the extent or magnitude of groundwater mounding). The model predicted a maximum head increase of approximately 7 feet along the eastern side-gradient edge of the monolith. The location of the proposed S/S monolith was added to the model by importing CAD design drawings. top-of-water. Site-specific data were used whenever possible for initial input values (such as hydraulic conductivity values derived from aquifer tests). The design specification for the hydraulic conductivity was 1 × 10–6 cm/s.00%) was less than the goal of 1% discrepancy between inputs and outputs. particularly east of the site where groundwater was observed approximately 1 foot bgs. the conductivity values were updated with QA/QC data collected during placement of the monolith. the creek was surveyed at the same time the groundwater elevations were collected for calibration. observed versus computed targets exhibited a linear 1:1 trend. and riverbed elevations were collected from the upper and lower ends of the creek and from pools and drops (steps). cumulative mass balance of the model (0. the changes in permeability did not affect the predicted result (i.refine groundwater flow in the model. Other initial input values were based first on regional publications or referenced from other publications if no other information was available. The initial conductivity value of 10–6 cm/s is three orders of magnitude lower than that of the surrounding sands and four orders of magnitude lower than that of the shell. C.e. The hydraulic conductivity value of the monolith was originally based on construction specifications and results of bench-scale testing. At this site.1. The sensitivity of this value was tested in this model by increasing and decreasing the value by a factor of 10. as indicated in the Figure C-3.. C. C-7 .7 Design Model Results The design model (predicted flow after placement of the monolith) suggested that groundwater mounding was likely to occur along the upgradient and side-gradient sides of the monolith and could result in surface expressions of groundwater upgradient of the site. and the graph of observed head versus modeled residuals exhibited a high degree of scatter. which indicated that the residuals were evenly distributed across the range of observed heads. In the design model with drains.1.

To maximize groundwater relief.1. Light blue cells indicate “flooded” areas where groundwater intersects land surface. The drains C-8 . Orange cells are storm-water ponds represented by drain boundary cells. Yellow. pink. Negative values indicate increasing head. the drains were simulated by starting with the elevation from the tie-in location (lowest possible drain elevation). C.Figure C-3. thus reducing the risk of groundwater surface expressions. Design model prediction for flooding along the eastern and upgradient portion of the monolith after installation of the monolith. Blue contours represent changes in groundwater elevation in feet relative to the original (calibration) model. and green cells represent construction phases of the monolith.8 Simulation of Groundwater Relief Drains (Design Model with Drains) The design model with drains (predicted flow with groundwater relief drains) was developed to alleviate predicted groundwater mounding. The box culvert was planned to contain the stream as it passed over the monolith. Each drain was simulated to tie into the storm-water drainage system associated with the box culvert as part of the final construction plan. Two groundwater relief drains were placed in the model just upgradient of the eastern side-gradient edge of monolith to intercept groundwater and route it to a box culvert.

Yellow. and green cells represent construction phases of the monolith. pink. Orange cells represent storm-water ponds and new groundwater relief drains represented by drain boundary cells. Blue contours represent changes in groundwater elevation in feet relative to the preconstruction (calibration) model. and modeled groundwater elevations remained below ground surface (eliminated surface expressions of groundwater). Figure C-4. Negative values indicate increasing head.were modeled as 3 × 3 foot trenches filled with gravel (1 cm/s hydraulic conductivity) that grade 0. The groundwater relief drains reduced the maximum increase in head from 7 feet to 2 feet.5% toward the tie-in. Figure C-4 indicates the effect of the drains on the mounding. The model also indicated that the drains would remove water at a C-9 . Light blue cells indicate “flooded” areas where groundwater intersects land surface. Note the significant reduction in the blue cells compared to the model conditions provided in Figure C-3. Design model with drains results.

The data generated from the screening program will be used to calibrate a new version of the design model with drains to verify the conditions predicted by the flow model and refine recommendations for the monitoring well network. The groundwater flow pathways and. The groundwater screening program that was developed to evaluate the proposed monitoring well network targeted areas along the perimeter and directly downgradient of the monolith. Figure C-4 is a screen capture from the last update of the design model with drains.. C. Projected groundwater flow contours indicated that groundwater would continue to flow toward the former stream bed after placement of the monolith and diversion into the box culvert (Figure C-5). C-10 . by extension.9 Application toward Placement of Monitoring Well Network Prediction of post-remedial groundwater elevation contours and particle tracking were used to support development of a new monitoring well network. Particle tracking results (Figure C-6) indicated that particles from upgradient of the monolith would travel toward the monolith and either become captured by the groundwater relief drains or travel along the edge of the monolith until they reached the stream as it exited the box culvert downstream of the monolith. The model indicated these modifications would not significantly impact groundwater flow or mounding.1. This model was updated during construction of the monolith to incorporate modifications from the original design plans and to include conductivity data from QC samples of the monolith. the groundwater relief drains were incorporated into the design and construction plans for remedial construction. therefore. the drains would contribute a constant flux of 10 gpm to the storm-water drains and ultimately the box culvert). Particles that were not captured by the drains would move very closely along the monolith and be captured within 200 feet of the downstream edge of the monolith. the screening program has not been completed. potential post-construction plume migration pathways were generated using MODPATH to generate particle traces in the upper and lower portions of the aquifer. As a result of this modeling effort. the design of the groundwater relief drains did not require alteration. This information was used to design a groundwater screening program that will be used to establish the number and locations for the final monitoring well network.e. Based on the particle tracking and the projected groundwater contours. a monitoring well network with side-gradient wells located in close proximity along the length of the monolith combined with wells located directly downgradient of the monolith was considered for postremedial groundwater monitoring. This additional flux of groundwater did not require alteration of the existing storm-water design plans.combined rate of approximately 10 gallons per minute (gpm) (i. At this writing.

C. Wittenberg. B. E. and the blue cells indicate places where the groundwater elevation could exceed land surface. 2011. Plans should be included during and following the S/S operations to monitor changes in groundwater elevations and flow direction so the groundwater model can be periodically updated and initial design assumptions can be confirmed and/or revised. Robb.Figure C-5.1.. G. This figure shows calibrated flow contours (on the left) and predicted groundwater elevation contours (on the right) after construction of the monolith with drains in place to mitigate increases in groundwater elevation. Note that predicted flow contours do not deviate significantly from those of the calibrated model. Natural Resource Technology. Calibrated and predicted groundwater flow contours.1. C. and R.9 Recommendations and Considerations for Future S/S Projects The groundwater modeling results discussed in the case study provided important data that were used to support the S/S design efforts for post-remedial groundwater/surface-water management. Technical Memorandum. orange cells represent the storm-water attenuation ponds or relief drains. Draft In Situ Stabilization/ Solidification Design Considerations and Applications for Groundwater Modeling.10 Case Study #1 Reference Hennings. The green cells represent the creek. C-11 . C. appropriate. Collection of sufficient groundwater elevation and quality data should be conducted early in the design process to develop a viable CSM to guide the design efforts and support decision making for monitoring long-term performance of the S/S monolith. A.

This site case study is presented as an example of groundwater modeling used to determine acceptable concentrations of site contaminants that could leach from the S/S-treated material into groundwater and still meet cleanup goals at the site POC. C. Orange cells represent storm-water attenuation ponds or the groundwater relief drains. This concentration was then used as a performance criterion to be met during treatment. sludge. C. Particle tracking is indicated in red.Figure C-6. Light green cells represent the creek. Yellow. and ash. implemented S/S as part of the site remedy to treat contaminated soil. located near Tampa. Model results for particle tracking. Peak Oil Company and Bay Drum Company. pink. The separate properties were ranked by EPA and listed C-12 .2. and green cells represent the monolith.1 Background The site consists of two adjacent properties that represent separate historical operations.2 CASE STUDY #2—PEAK OIL/BAY DRUM SUPERFUND SITE The Peak Oil/Bay Drum EPA Superfund site. Florida.

The uppermost unconsolidated unit is the surficial sand unit. the source areas at the Bay Drum property.epa. wetland areas adjacent to both properties. groundwater beneath both properties. C-19) provided the site information that is summarized in the following sections. and OU 4. A 1 Additional information about this site can be found at www. beginning on p. Additional work was performed during design of the remedies for OUs 1 and 3 that led to a modification to the OU 1 source (Explanation of Significant Difference) and OU 2 groundwater remedy. The site terrain is relatively flat.jointly on the NPL in 1986 as the Peak Oil/Bay Drum Superfund Site.1 The site was divided into four operable units (OUs): OU 1. The surficial aquifer is the saturated portion of the surficial sand unit. documented in an amendment to the 1993 ROD (EPA 2005).index. water levels and groundwater flow directions vary seasonally in response to infiltration of rainfall.2.gov/region4/waste. The RODS for OUs 1–3 and the first EPA five-year review (see references for this case study in Section C.2 Site Use and Detected Contaminants Peak Oil Company conducted an oil re-refining operation at the property (OU 1) for used oils and lubrication fluids using an acid/clay purification and filtration process. Materials beneath the site surface include two unconsolidated sedimentary units overlying bedrock. The Upper Floridian Aquifer underlies the low-permeability sedimentary unit and is associated with the Tampa Limestone and underlying Suwannee Limestone formations. OU 3. Groundwater is encountered at 2–4 feet bgs. The Tampa Limestone and underlying Suwannee Limestone Formations compose the bedrock beneath the unconsolidated sedimentary units. The surficial aquifer does not have a current use but is hydraulically connected to area wetlands and streams.npl.2. A remedial investigation and feasibility study was conducted for the site. and remedies were selected in 1993 for each of the OUs and documented in separate records of decision (RODs). a component of the upper Hawthorne Group that consists of clay and clayey sand and ranges 15–40 feet thick. Low-pH sludge and oil-saturated clay waste containing lead were generated and stored on site in unlined lagoons. C-13 . This case study focuses on the groundwater modeling conducted to establish acceptable concentrations for contaminants in leachate from the treated material entering groundwater. consisting of poorly graded fine sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel and is up to ~40 feet thick. but groundwater flow in the area of the site is to the northwest.7. Regional groundwater flow in the Upper Floridian Aquifer is to the southwest. Underlying the surficial sand unit is a lowpermeability unit. At the site it contains intermittent clay lenses. Two groundwater aquifers are identified for the site: the surficial aquifer and the deeper Upper Floridian Aquifer. C. the source areas at the Peak Oil property. Land use in the area of the site is industrial or undeveloped with residences (at the time of the 1993 RODs) located at about one-third mile distant or greater. OU 2. The Upper Floridian Aquifer is also the regional municipal water supply source.htm#FL. ~25–45 feet above mean sea level. likely in response to influence of the nearby Tampa Bypass Canal.

2. PCBs. PCBs. PCBs. and lead.1986 removal action at the Peak Oil property consisted of removal of 4. and inorganics (mainly arsenic. chlordane.525 mg/kg. Lead was detected in subsurface soil at up to 2. lead. notably barium. with any soil exceeding these levels to be treated using S/S soil with concentrations of chlordane 9. Lead was detected in former lagoon areas at up to 2. Groundwater protection criteria were calculated for five COCs. inorganics. cadmium. and PAHs. and later that year removed for off-site disposal buried drums and 4. ethylbenzene. Bay Drum Company conducted a drum-reconditioning operation at the property (OU 3). semivolatile organic chemicals (SVOCs). chromium. Other inorganics detected above background concentrations but not above cleanup levels included barium. and metals. with only lead exceeding the groundwater protection soil concentration of 284 mg/kg. Other inorganics detected in former lagoon areas above background concentrations included arsenic. and zinc. Lead was detected at concentrations above the groundwater protection soil concentration of 284 mg/kg and was therefore a primary COC for leaching to groundwater. Site concentrations of COCs did not exceed remedial action objectives for the 10–4 to 10–6 risk range. and cyanide. chromium. RAOs (action levels) were 521 mg/kg for lead and 180 mg/kg for chlordane in soil. mercury.h)anthracene.950 mg/kg and in the residual ash at an average 3. PCBs.000 yd3 on site due to high water table conditions. C-14 . and PCBs for soil and lead for the residual ash. Cleanup levels for this property were set at 10–4 for soil exposure for an industrial worker. Contaminants detected in Bay Drum property surface and subsurface soil included VOCs. benzo(a)pyrene. chlordane. In the last two years of activity at the property. SVOCs. Therefore. and zinc. beryllium. The remaining two lagoons had been filled in.6–180 mg/kg to be placed without treatment beneath the site cap. lead. primarily toluene. with the remainder of the property used for drum storage. pesticides (mainly dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene. chromium. and xylenes. cobalt. Contaminants detected in Peak Oil property soil and lagoon sludge include VOCs.000 yd3 of roofing shingles.3 Site Remedial Action Objectives COCs for soil at the Peak Oil property include beryllium. C. toluene. pesticides. manganese.000 yd3 of acidic oily sludge from one of the three lagoons using a mobile incinerator and generating residual ash that remained on site. primarily PAHs. leaving 27. copper. waste roofing shingles were stored on the property in a layer up to 19 feet thick. lead. including ethylbenzene.000 yd3 of soil and sludge contaminated with VOCs. and ethion). ethion. and a thick oily residue within the surficial sand unit associated with the areas of the unlined lagoons. COCs for soil at the Bay Drum property include arsenic. A 1989 removal action at the Bay Drum property removed about 70. which included a reconditioning area in a small portion of the site. SVOCs or PAHs. and zinc). naphthalene. dibenzo(a.500 mg/kg. RAOs were established for the Peak Oil/Bay Drum Site to be protective of human health and groundwater and to meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. lead was also the primary COC for groundwater. concentrations for COCs did not exceed this risk criterion. lead.

1994]. Figure C-7 depicts the CSM. EPA used the HELP3 (Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance) model to calculate the volume of rainwater infiltration through the site cap and proposed S/S monolith entering groundwater and horizontal groundwater flow through the low-permeability monolith in the saturated zone and compared to the volume of groundwater flow between the monolith and the POC to calculate a site-specific dilution factor. placement of a multimedia cap over the S/S-treated material. ICs. S/S treatment for excavated soil/ sludge and residual ash using a pozzolanic portland cement mix. The main elements of source control remedial measures at both the Peak Oil and Bay Drum properties included installation of an attapulgite clay slurry wall around the contaminated soil area. (The HELP3 model is typically used to analyze water balances and assist in design of landfill profiles [Schroeder et al. RECON. sediment. 15–30 feet downgradient for the Bay Drum property and 70–120 feet downgradient for the Peak Oil property. enhanced in situ bioremediation and localized air sparging for the surficial aquifer for the Peak Oil property. groundwater monitoring. personal communication with S. 1%–2% super triple phosphate S/S specifications Average Allowance Method Strength (USC psi) >50 None ASTM D 1633 Permeability (cm/s) <1 × 10–6 1 × 10–5 ASTM D 5084 Leaching lead (µg/L) <282 <500 SPLP Method 1312 a C. and five-year reviews. The POCs were the downgradient property boundaries. Table C-1.2. sludge. Performance parameters and criteria for S/S treatment Action levels (mg/kg) Lead >521 Aroclor 1260 >25 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate >0.58 S/S mix compositiona 6% Portland cement. enhanced bioremediation of groundwater for the Bay Drum property. excavation of soil and sludge contaminated with lead above concentrations of 521 mg/kg. Table C-1 summarizes performance parameters and criteria developed for the site S/S treatment. The modeling was conducted prior to treatment of contaminated material to support design of the S/S formulation.5 Modeling of Impact to Groundwater EPA conducted groundwater modeling for the Peak Oil/Bay Drum Site to determine the maximum contaminant load and concentrations of contaminant that could leach from the S/Streated material and still meet groundwater protection standards of 15 µg/L for lead and 2 µ/L for chlordane at the POCs. Birdwell. C-15 .2.) EPA conducted modeling for the site in late 1999 and early 2000. 2011.4 Overview of Remedial Action Remedial actions for both the Peak Oil and Bay Drum properties included use of S/S treatment for contaminated soil. and a residual ash pile. January 19. C. Wilk.C.

Schematic of conceptual model for development of an SPLP performance standard for the solidified mass at Peak Oil and Bay Drum. and design specifications for the cap and proposed monolith.and area-specific values obtained from standard climate and water resource sources. The dimensional parameters for the surficial aquifer were derived based on site groundwater monitoring data and are shown on the maps of Figures C-8 and C-9. grass cover is on the topsoil. Several assumptions were made regarding infiltration and configuration of the cap and monolith forming the basis of the modeling exercise: • Rainwater infiltrates through the site cap. and groundwater flow cross-sectional lengths. The treated material will be located within the saturated zone. Figure C-8 shows groundwater flow directions. The cap includes a lateral drainage layer.Figure C-7. C-16 . cap area. soil type characteristics (such as porosity). The S/S-treated material is located within the saturated zone. the landfill cover consists of a bentonite mat (geosynthetic clay liner). using model functions to calculate some derivative values (such as solar radiation) based on actual data. • • • • • Input values for model parameters were developed using site. and chlordane is eliminated as a COC for the Peak Oil property since it was not detected in soil. Figure C-9 shows the surface soil and cap areas used to calculate recharge areas. and the groundwater protection standards for lead and chlordane are achieved at the property boundary. The multilayer cap consists of 6 inches of topsoil over 6 inches of compacted backfill over a geosynthetic clay liner with a vertical permeability of less than 10–7. the cap slope is 2. and moves downgradient to the property boundary. No liner or leachate system is installed. moves through the S/S-treated material producing a leachate that reaches groundwater in the saturated zone along with a small volume of leachate produced by groundwater moving through the proposed low-permeability monolith. is diluted as groundwater flows beneath the site.

Groundwater flow directions. cap area. C-17 .Figure C-8. and groundwater flow cross-sectional lengths.

Figure C-9. C-18 . Area designations for computation of dilution to leachate coming from the solidified material.

C.epa. 1993b. Atlanta. Peak Oil/Bay Drum Site. Superfund Record of Decision: Peak Oil Co. March 28. Ga. The 2010 review (www. Region 4.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f2010040003559. EPA/ROD/R04-93/146. EPA Memorandum. Chlordane was eliminated as a COC for Peak Oil based on its low rate of detection in soil. EPA. Groundwater monitoring at the site confirms that there are no exceedances of site COCs in groundwater.2. 2005. Operable Unit 1./Bay Drum Co. EPA. Table C-2.pdf) indicates that the S/S treatment is adequately containing contaminated soil and materials and is performing as designed.7 Case Study #2 References EPA.2. C-19 . Allowable leachate concentrations for lead and chlordane in S/S-treated material Allowable leachate concentration Groundwater protection standard (µg/L) Chemical (µg/L) Peak Oil Bay Drum Lead 15 282 179 Chlordane 2 NA 24 Groundwater modeling results for the site (allowable leachate concentrations) were used as performance criteria for treatability studies to evaluate and develop potential S/S design formulations that would not exceed the calculated maximum leachate concentration. Superfund Record of Decision: Peak Oil Co. 2000. S/S treatment design begins with identified site remediation goals that are represented by performance criteria. Hillsborough County. Florida. The design of the actual S/S formulation is accomplished through treatability testing to identify effective formulations that can achieve the performance criteria. concentrations of lead in leachate below the performance criteria (or allowable leachate concentration) of 282 µg/L would be expected to meet the remediation goal of 15 µg/L at the POC./Bay Drum Co. Final Amendment to the 1993 Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit 2. Recalculation of SPLP Levels for Peak/Bay. An initial five-year review of the completed site remedy was conducted in 2005 and a second in 2010. The treatability study identified the most effective formula for the S/S treatment that would be able to meet remediation goals at the compliance point. Table C-2 summarizes the modeling results. Operable Unit 3. 1993a. The approach in this case study is reflected in the S/S treatment design process discussed in Sections 4–6 of this guidance document. EPA/ROD/R04-93/148. C. For example. Tampa. EPA.6 Modeling Results and Conclusions The results of the HELP3 modeling provided a site dilution factor which was used to calculate allowable leachate concentrations for lead and chlordane for the S/S-treated material.

The specific elements of the graded approach described are not always suitable or applicable to a particular site. The demonstrative examples that are presented focus on impacts to groundwater although the concepts are also applicable to evaluating impacts to other media. Lloyd. complexity is not always warranted.S. A. While sophisticated methods provide valuable insight. For this reason. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station and Clemson University Department of Civil Engineering. methods and codes that can be used to make defensible screening-level calculations using sitespecific parameters prior to undertaking rigorous and sophisticated numerical analyses can be beneficial. U. Office of Research and Development.3 GRADED MODELING APPROACH Modeling calculations typically consider three phases in the life cycle of an S/S remedy to enable comparison of the relative efficacy of alternative remedies and. Second Five-Year Review Report for Peak Oil Company/Bay Drum Company. Schroeder. M. 2010. under contract to U. A variety of calculation techniques can be used to evaluate the efficacy of an identified remedy or to compare the relative efficacy of different remedies. particularly when comparing the relative benefits of different approaches or when conducting screening-level analyses aimed at ranking sites or remedial technologies. EPA Reuse Fact Sheet. 1994. A common modeling objective at sites implementing S/S remedies is to estimate the possible impact to an underlying aquifer of various S/S remediation strategies. the likely times required to achieve defined RAOs: preremediation.. P. however. M.S. EPA Region 4. C. The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model. Aziz. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. to describe current site conditions. Zappi. R. The following sections describe some important considerations when undertaking modeling analyses of S/S remedies and outline one example of a graded approach that could be considered at a many sites for which S/S remedies are under consideration or already implemented. EPA/600/R-94/168a. such as soil and air. involving sophisticated three-dimensional (3D) numerical models of flow and transport that require a large computational burden to execute. The existence of different methods that span a wide range of sophistication and complexity naturally lends itself to the development and application of a graded approach to undertaking calculations in support of remedy design and evaluation. with these design considerations in mind. typically in terms of possible impacts on groundwater conditions immediately below a source zone and at some distance downgradient of the impacted area where one or more receptors may exist. Tampa Former Industrial Property. Cincinnati. to describe expected conditions after active remediation is completed. C. 2009. and post-remediation. midremediation. Modeling calculations can become complex. to estimate expected conditions during active remediation.EPA. and N. EPA. the concepts and terms have broad-ranging applicability. C-20 . P. on occasion. Potential for Future Use.

3. RCRA. encompass methods and codes that enable relatively simple (“abstract”) to relatively complex (“realistic”) calculations. code—An executable program or a spreadsheet that implements a method or a sequence of methods and produces outputs. model—A code that implements one or more methods and that. as outlined below. and/or other applicable standards. • • • The graded modeling approach presented here includes the following: • • • a description of methods that can be used to evaluate the likely fate of contaminants in the subsurface some example codes that implement these methods the role that some parameters play in determining when to progress from simpler to more sophisticated calculations It is not the intent here to be prescriptive regarding the use of codes that implement specific methods. together with the assignment of parameter values. described using one or a sequence of equation(s) that enable the method to be quantified.2 Requirements of a Graded Modeling Approach A graded modeling approach includes methods and codes that enable the development of cleanup levels enabling decisions regarding remedial actions to be reached within the context of CERCLA.C.1 Definitions The following terms are used throughout the discussion of remedy design calculations and the graded approach: • method—One or more mass-balance or constitutive relationships. can be used to make site-specific calculations. Although generic implementations of some codes using default parameter values may occasionally be used. An example of a code is the program VS2DT. It should ideally do the following: • • • • integrate with the exposure/risk assessment process guide the selection and engineering of appropriate remedies support the development of long-term performance monitoring support the development of ICs The principal requirements of a graded modeling approach. Examples of methods range from a simple three-phase partitioning equation to finite-difference numerical models that require computers to evaluate. C. An example of a parameter is the distribution coefficient (Kd) that describes the relative affinity of a contaminant to partition from the dissolved phase on to adjacent soils. on most occasions a site-specific model is developed and parameterized using site-specific information and data. Such a graded approach accomplishes the following: C-21 .3. which simulates flow and transport in variably saturated media in two dimensions. parameter—A value that is fundamental to a method and that must be assigned as an input to a model implemented via a specific code.

codes and models increase and conservatism decreases. The next calculation step incorporates one or more features. and fate of contaminants in the subsurface as well as the risk to potential C-22 . events.3. Ensures that calculations completed using any method or code are documented and independently verifiable. communicable. calculations become increasingly realistic and less conservative as the complexity increases. documentation. migration. using methods that overpredict likely impacts to the environment) and progress to more complex calculations more representative and inclusive of the conditions likely to be encountered (i. a discussion of assumptions and the level of conservativeness associated with the analysis. Progression between calculation levels occurs under the following conditions: • • The current calculation step suggests that the soil or other concentrations required to be protective of groundwater are overly conservative. codes.e. and/or processes (FEPs) that o are necessary and appropriate o are verifiable o can be reasonably expected to significantly impact the calculated impact to groundwater Implementation of any method and code to a specific site in the form of a site-specific model should be accompanied by description of the CSM.. Includes identifiable. Uses fully documented and verified (benchmarked) codes that can be made available for review by third parties. and models. methods that are simple but not necessarily conservative.• • • • • • • Encompasses both (a) “look-up” analyses based upon previously compiled results obtained using generic or reasonably representative assumptions and parameters and (b) site-specific analyses that generate new results specific to an individual waste site or group of waste sites sharing characteristics using parameters more site specific than those used for the “look-up” type of analyses. and understanding of key FEPs that govern(ed) the release. and codes that enable calculations ranging from relatively simple to relatively complex to be completed. C. Use of a graded calculation approach should proceed in a stepwise manner commencing with simple. and Processes of a Conceptual Site Model Completion of calculations requires the development of a site-specific CSM. As a result. models.. enabling independent reproduction and verification of results. Avoids overly conservative methods. and verifiable justification for progressing from simpler methods and codes to more complex methods and codes. Events. and a discussion of reducible and irreducible uncertainties. Justification for progressing from simpler (abstract) methods and codes to complex (realistic) methods and codes should be consistent with applicable regulations. conservative calculations (i. This in turn requires the identification. documentation of the basis for the values assigned to parameters.e. Incorporates inherent conservatism in the simpler methods and models. and unnecessarily complex methods.3 Key Features. rigorous or “realistic” calculations). Encompasses methods. As the complexity of the methods.

an instantaneous multiphase partitioning equation might be used to assess the likely partitioning of contaminants from an emplaced waste. such as the following: • • • • • site-specific geometry. Table C-3 shows some example FEPs that are commonly encountered at sites considered for S/S remedies. Table C-3.4 Example Methods of Calculation Calculation methods range from simple to complex and differ with respect to their ability to include common FEPs and the level of expertise required to design and execute calculations. These common elements are as follows: • • source zone—The area in which the contaminants are known or believed to exist and from which they are hypothesized as emanating in the predictive calculations. C-23 . FEPs are site specific and must be identified and documented as part of the development of the site-specific CSM prior to determining appropriate methods. progression from the use of an instantaneous partitioning equation that uses site-specific parameters to the use of an integrated treatment of flow and contaminant transport enables the inclusion of several FEPs pertinent at many sites. Example features. events. considering an effective life cycle for the capping action Processes • transient depletion and partitioning of a finite mass of contaminant from a discrete soil block of specified dimensions • transient vadose zone transport of water and dissolved solutes • transient mixing of water and contaminants from the vadose zone with lateral groundwater flux • saturated zone migration of water and advective-dispersive-reactive transport of the dissolved solute By way of example. depleting source of contaminants variably saturated flow and transport through the vadose zone convolution of the contaminant flux calculated at the base of the vadose zone advection. degradation. and dispersion of dissolved contaminants within the vadose and saturated zones C. and processes of a CSM Category Examples Features • distribution of residual contamination within a discrete soil block of specified dimensions • vertical variation of soil media (heterogeneity) Events • implementation of a soil removal action • implementation of a capping action. vadose zone—The path from the source zone to the water table below.3. Most sites contain common elements. However. although the extent to which each element is included in a calculation depends on the objective of the analysis and the complexity of the methods and codes employed.receptors. applicable codes. retardation. and site-specific parameters for inclusion in the modeling analysis. including a significant vadose zone a finite.

Site-specific analyses can themselves include C-24 . their applicability to site-specific decisions can be questionable since the underlying assumptions may not be valid. or code is reliable. release scenario. faucet. well. within which contaminants migrate. Look-up type analyses are easy to implement and require relatively little expertise. Intermediate methods may include a groundwater concentration over time at a given distance from the contaminant release. that site-specific parameters are defensible.1 Look-Up Type Analyses Look-up type analyses typically comprise tabulated values published in guidance documents and/or regulations.• • • mixing zone—The volume at the top of the unconfined aquifer beneath the source zone. and that any new scientific information.4. C.4. they are by design very conservative (protective).3. or the method should be able to provide outputs describing concentrations versus time at various distances from the release to ensure that the location of peak impacts is identified.2 Site-Specific Analyses Calculations are typically made using site-specific parameters. Calculation outputs vary depending on the sophistication of the method and the complexity of the site. The use of site-specific parameters is conditional on meeting a reasonable burden of proof that the information used in the analysis is appropriate. within which infiltrating water containing contaminants mixes with through-flowing groundwater. However. either the points of calculation and/or POCs should be agreed on prior to making decisions on the basis of calculations. but the decision on whether a look-up value can be relied on for this purpose depends on the pertinent state and federal regulations and/or other site-specific requirements. and site geometry. and as a result. such as at the site boundary. a significant difference may exist between groundwater concentrations calculated immediately beneath a site versus concentrations calculated some distance downgradient. For this reason. or other location at which exposure to contamination occurs. C. Sophisticated methods may include maps of contaminant concentration over time and space and/or concentrations to which potential receptors may be exposed. particularly when evaluating the likely efficacy of an existing remedy or attempting to determine whether a remedy has been sufficiently effective as to warrant consideration for site closure. receptor—A water body.3. Depending on the transport properties of the contaminant. as follows: • • • Simple methods may include a concentration independent of time and space. These values are sometimes used as cleanup levels. method. the outputs of look-up type analyses usually indicate that very low concentrations of contaminants remaining in source zones may contaminate groundwater. saturated zone—The (unconfined) aquifer beneath the source zone. Since little or no site-specific information is required to use look-up type analyses.

though relatively abstract. Site-specific leaching tests may also be used as a basis for establishing an appropriate Kd. For example. On some occasions. C-25 . some examples of which are described in the following subsections. such as infiltration rates or groundwater flow rates. The box to the right presents the basic threephase partitioning equation provided in WAC 173-340-747 (equation 747-1). Partitioning equations typically assume that partitioning is instantaneous (i.. C-31. and groundwater dilution factor. such as from a soil into the air and/or groundwater. these calculations may be combined with other calculations. since the method does not readily accommodate site-specific geometry and other potentially important FEPs. These calculations allow the use of some site-specific parameters. [NOTE: References for Section C.] In particular. The use of this and similar equations is usually most appropriate for only screening-level calculations.e. Use of the three-phase partitioning equation is generally accompanied by the use of equations to estimate the Kd. enabling dilution factors and approximate concentrations in groundwater to be determined. “Deriving Soil Concentrations for Ground Water Protection. estimates of the likely impact of residual contamination on the concentration of contaminants at the water table. infiltration rate. The three-phase partitioning equation provides simple.a wide variety of simple to sophisticated calculations.” presents methods for establishing soil concentrations that will not contaminate groundwater above levels established under WAC 173-340-720. groundwater Darcy flux.3. including the use of a variable-parameter.3 are in Section C.8. such as the distribution coefficient. WAC 173-340-747(3) lists several methods for deriving soil concentrations. groundwater—is adjacent to the source zone. the State of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-340-747. beginning on p. Batch or “flash” calculations Batch or flash calculations are usually based on partitioning of a contaminant between two or more phases. three-phase partitioning model and the use of an alternate fate-and-transport model. they do not explicitly consider time or space) and that the target media—in this case.

Numerical models have been developed using finite difference. justification for their use must consider the implications of selecting or designing a code or model that can be used by only a small number of subject-matter experts. analytical methods usually simulate source.. or key parameters cannot be reasonably approximated using single (usually average) values. Because of their theoretically unlimited capability. and finite volume techniques. C-26 . mixing. and aquifer geometries are fairly regular. the solution to the equations used to describe changes in a system can be expressed as an analytic function of one or more parameters. finite element.Analytical models Analytical models are mathematical models that have a closed-form solution. Example numerical codes that are used to simulate the fate and transport of contaminants include MT3DMS. vadose zone. although analytical models for simple systems are themselves simple. and solid phases).. a finite difference code that considers only saturated transport and reactions. and as a result. i. Nonetheless. Numerical codes and models require significant expertise to use. numerical methods can integrate source. the expertise required is generally significantly less than that required to use numerical models.e. Numerical models Numerical models typically solve large systems of simultaneous (coupled) partial-differential equations that describe flow and transport processes using a discretized (i. Therefore. and saturated zones within a single site-specific model and can even integrate calculations to estimate likely impacts at receptors. however. Numerical models are theoretically capable of incorporating all relevant FEPs and simulating these relevant FEPs on any spatial or temporal scale. and aquifer geometries are irregular. and saturated zones separately using a series of process-specific models. vadose zone. the source area. analytical solutions to equations that describe complex systems can become complicated. aqueous. mixing. and STOMP (Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases). gaseous.e. it is necessary to combine the results of several process-specific analytical models to obtain results that encompass all principal FEPs at a site.. Example analytical codes that are used to evaluate the fate and transport of contaminants include BIOSCREEN and BIOSCREEN-AT. ice.e. source area. The use of numerical models is often justified for sites at which the groundwater flow field is nonuniform. vadose. Because of their relative simplicity and the requirement that an analytical equation has a closed solution. Analytical models typically provide fairly concise representations of the principal FEPs at a site in a way that is more readily available than when using numerical models. NAPL. an integrated-volume finite-difference code that solves partial-differential equations that describe the conservation of mass or energy throughout one to four phases (i. screening models that simulate contaminant transport in groundwater. grid) representation of the real-world site. and key parameters can be reasonably approximated using single (usually average but at other times bounding) values. The use of analytic models can be justifiable at sites where the groundwater flow field is fairly uniform. vadose. Analytical models require more expertise to use than simple partitioning equations.

The IAS method can therefore evaluate. An IAS essentially comprises a sequence of compatible analytical solutions whose inputs and outputs are designed to enable sequential or simultaneous execution with outputs from some analytical equations providing inputs to other analytical equations.5 An Intermediate Method: Integrated Analytical Solutions While the three-phase partitioning equation is a fundamental calculation that provides basic information regarding partitioning of chemicals in the immediate vicinity of contaminated soil. renders the use of complex numerical simulators at every site a demanding undertaking that is less readily verifiable and transparent to independent review than simpler calculations. However. with assumed cap life cycle and effective depth. (a) current conditions for a specified number of years. mixing. and (c) post-cap conditions for a specified number of years. While the method is not as C-27 . through the use of appropriate infiltration rates.3. Neville. coupled with the level of expertise required to complete such calculations. it generally neglects common FEPs that are encountered at many sites. their technical and computational requirements. for a specified number of years. Thus. Integrated analytical solutions (IASs) offer an intermediate level of sophistication that can consider many of the FEPs that are usually incorporated in numerical models but retain the relative simplicity of analytical methods. and saturated zone flow and contaminant FEPs. such as soil removal and capping. On the opposite end of the spectrum. numerical simulators are sophisticated and essentially fully capable codes with the potential to realistically simulate the widely ranging conditions and contaminants encountered at any site. vadose. in press) describe an IAS implemented within an EXCEL spreadsheet for wide accessibility and transparency that comprises analytical equations describing the following: • • • • partitioning of contaminants from a source zone migration of contaminants vertically through a vadose zone mixing of contaminants with actively flowing groundwater at an underlying water table migration of the dissolved contaminants in the underlying aquifer The vadose zone and saturated capabilities of this intermediate IAS method above can incorporate time-varying conditions to consider the implementation of soil remedial actions. Due to the relative simplicity of each analytical equation. Bedekar. and Tonkin (2010. integrated analytical solutions can be readily implemented within one or more simple programs or spreadsheets that describe source. the use of IASs as an intermediate method lies comfortably between the use of simple partitioning equations and analytical solutions and the use of sophisticated numerical models. (b) capped conditions.C.

in press) is freely available for use and possesses similar capabilities to the GWSCREEN program developed by Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL 1998). including the following: • • • • site-specific geometry.realistic as the use of sophisticated numerical models. incorporating levels such as those that are illustrated in Table C-4. Neville.3. and Tonkin (2010. In developing a graded calculation approach.6 Summary—A Graded Modeling Approach The graded calculation approach discussion has three principal methods that enable the construction of models of varying complexity from simple to realistic. the use of the intermediate IAS method will often be appropriate when sufficient site-specific information is available to undertake more rigorous calculations than are offered by simple partitioning equations but when there is insufficient justification to warrant the use of sophisticated numerical models. Table C-4 briefly describes these levels of the proposed graded approach.e. C. the level of expertise and the computational burden required are also substantially less. including discrete extents for the contaminated soil and a thick vadose zone a finite. For this reason. The IAS method described by Bedekar. Accordingly. it is assumed that evaluation of a site for each COC proceeds in a stepwise manner and that the appropriate calculation level incorporates relevant processes while acknowledging that the calculations represent simplifications of the actual conditions.. depleting source of contaminants variably saturated flow and transport through the thick vadose zone convolution of the contaminant flux calculated at the base of the vadose zone C-28 . For example the progression from the threephase partitioning equation using site-specific parameters to the vertically integrated analytical treatment of steady-state variably saturated flow and transient contaminant transport enables the inclusion of several FEPs. overpredict likely impacts to groundwater) and progresses to more complex calculations more representative/ inclusive of the conditions likely to be encountered. the graded approach commences with simple calculations that by their nature and design are conservative (i.

2D. another graded approach is used. variably saturated subsurface user flow and advective-dispersive-reactive transport in 1D. whether or not the graded approach that is described here is employed. mixing at the water table. but are certainly not limited to. or identify drivers for unacceptable risk • Unlikely that this method/code can demonstrate compliance under anything other than the simplest of conditions Description Partitioning equation with sitespecific dilution factor and parameters Level 2 IAS for flow Spreadsheet • Relatively sophisticated but simple to implement and • Vertically integrated site properties transport • Considers depletion of the source over time. or 3D flow and interface using finite-difference/finite-volume/finite-element solution transport (GUI) techniques • Can complete realistic evaluations of future impacts under a variety of remedial alternatives when more conservative methods/ models lead to outcomes that are impractical to implement • Can demonstrate compliance and/or identify drivers for unacceptable risk under specific remedial alternatives and guide refinement of potential remedies C. or multiple stochastic-type calculations are made. degradation. the following: • How will the burden of proof on parameter values used in the calculations be met? C-29 . rank.3. there are numerous other considerations for implementing any calculations at a site. a single deterministic calculation is made. or 3D solutions for graphical • Considers depletion of the source over time. and 2D advective-dispersive-reactive transport in the aquifer to a POC and/or receptor • Can demonstrate compliance and/or identify drivers for unacceptable risk under specific remedial alternatives and guide refinement of potential remedies Level 3 Integrated Command • Sophisticated and relatively complex to implement numerical prompt or • Spatially variable properties in 1D. 2D. retardation. Graded modeling approach description Format Notes Level 1 Spreadsheet • Lumped parameter analytical partitioning • Considers bulk properties and conditions • Uses site-specific parameters and dilution factor(s) • Can help to screen. and dispersion of dissolved contaminants within the vadose and saturated zones Table C-4.• advection.7 Quality Assurance and Other Implementation Considerations As described earlier. 1D mass-conserved partially saturated transport through the vadose zone. These additional considerations include.

while overcomplication can lead to the specification of parameter values for which no information is C-30 . Guidance on the Development. or less.” Standard Guide for Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to a Site-Specific Problem (ASTM 2010) lists eight primary steps in the application of a groundwater model. Evaluation. National Research Council (NRC). U. as distributions? Or will bounding values be used? Hence. The guidance states that “[m]odel corroboration includes all quantitative and qualitative methods for evaluating the degree to which a model corresponds to reality. These considerations are outside the scope of this appendix.. it is noted that the use of models is accompanied by uncertainty and that although most models are deterministic (i. can be appropriately used to inform a decision. error and uncertainty than the use of complex methods— oversimplification can result in exclusion of FEPs that impact the fate of contaminants. This guidance “recommends best practices to help determine when a model. and the model performs the same way for a given set of initial conditions). despite its uncertainties. will “bestestimate” calculations be provided. • Finally. or will an effort to consider bounding values be made? How will (a) variability and (b) uncertainty be considered in the calculations? These are important and distinct concepts. a single set of outputs is produced on the basis of a single set of inputs. The use of simple methods and codes can be accompanied by more.S.• • How will parameters used in the calculations be defined—as point values.” The guidance also identifies model corroboration using independent data as a specific element of the model evaluation step. the results should not be misconstrued as the best possible answer. Recent guidance document released by EPA and ASTM include the following: • • Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Modeling (EPA 2002). and ASTM. The reader is therefore referred to other guidance documents that have been published by leading agencies and groups such as EPA. and Application of Environmental Models (EPA 2009). Geological Survey (USGS).e.

Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Modeling. While the degree of uncertainty that accompanies model calculations is method.” In his 2003 article “From Models to Performance Assessment: The Conceptualization Problem. Measurements help to provide the conceptual basis of a model and inform model development. Neville. 2003.S. Woessner state that “continual improvement of the conceptual model by collection of new field data will improve the numerical model. it is common practice to undertake some form of evaluation of the goodness (suitability) of the model for its intended purpose. J. assessing scientific and technical criteria that should be considered in deciding whether a model and its results could serve as a reasonable basis for environmental regulatory activities. ASTM (ASTM International. Standard Guide for Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to a Site-Specific Problem. in 2007 the NRC Committee on Models in the Regulatory Decision Process published Models in Environmental Regulatory Decision. the model is revisited and adjusted (or recalibrated) so that the model predictions are consistent with all the data. model. and M. “Source Screening Module for Contaminant Transport Analysis through Vadose and Saturated Zones. and M. C. Neville. J. Tonkin. “Analysis of Contaminant Transport through the Vadose and Saturated Zones for Source Screening. J. J. N.” C.” presented at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting. 2010. 1978. and improved algorithms. validation. C-31 . and site specific and therefore outside the scope of this appendix. including parameter estimation. 1992.” and that “[t]he interdependence of models and measurements is complex and iterative for several reasons.: Princeton University Department of Civil Engineering. Drs. Anderson and W. This document states that “[m]odels also can evolve through multiple versions that reflect new scientific findings.available and therefore are accompanied by great uncertainty. including the new data.. 2010. EPA (U. R. “From Models to Performance Assessment: The Conceptualization Problem. verification.J. V. and uncertainty analysis are all outside the scope of this appendix. acquisition of data. P. And.” Ground Water 41(5): 571–77. San Diego: Academic Press. Woessner. V.” submitted to Ground Water. J. although the subjects of model calibration. In press. Ungs. Report 78-WR-15.” Finally. 2002. and M. Tonkin. Bredehoeft. As new data are acquired. M. Bedekar.8 Section C. M.” Dr. C. and W. Analytical Models for Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology. J.3. Measurements are also a critical tool for corroborating model results.. EPA QA/G-5M. code..3 References Anderson. Bedekar. J. D. P. Abstract #H53C-1059. In their 1992 book Applied Groundwater Modeling: Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport. formerly American Society for Testing and Materials). Bredehoeft states that “[g]ood modeling is an iterative process. Cleary. Applied Groundwater Modeling: Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport. Princeton. Environmental Protection Agency). W. ASTM D5447.. the following paragraph provides some perspective on the use of data to corroborate or otherwise test the representativeness of a model.

and Three-Dimensional Solute Transport in Groundwater Systems with Uniform Flow. E. C-32 . 2007. R.. T. C. D. B. Washington.C. INEEL/EXT-98-00750. Kool. 1995.” in Model Toxics Control Act—Cleanup (WAC 173-340). 2.. and P. A. 2nd ed. Inc. STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases. Ogata. R. C. A Solution of the Differential Equation of Longitudinal Dispersion in Porous Media. Version 4. EPA/100/K-09/003. WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 173-340-474. INEEL (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory). Geological Survey Professional Paper 411 A.” Chap. B-7 in Techniques of Water Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey.. and W. Papadopulos & Associates. Bennett. and Application of Environmental Models. Applications of Hydraulics. Sharp-Hansen. and G.shtml. Allison. Models in Environmental Regulatory Decision Making. Athens. Salhotra. Vers. http://apps. Division on Earth and Life Studies.EPA.. 3. Va. “Analytical Solutions for One-. 2009. S. 2002. Neville.S. Zheng. Applied Contaminant Transport Modeling. 2005. www. Guidance on the Development. Theory and User’s Manual. GWSCREEN: A Semi-Analytical Model for Assessment of the Groundwater Pathway from Surface or Buried Contamination. Evaluation. T. National Research Council of the National Academies.S. Sudicky. Bk. Environmental Research Laboratory. Committee on Models in the Regulatory Decision Process. HydroGeoLogic. Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. D.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 18: 244–53.sspa. M. Ontario: S. 1998.: U. 1961. Richland.: U.. 1991. B. 1992.C. Multimedia Exposure Assessment Model (MULTIMED 2.5. “Contaminant Impact Assessment and the Contaminating Lifespan of Landfills. S.aspx?cite=173-340-747. A.wa. K.S. Huyakorn. Geological Survey. Vers. A. P. Wexler. Mineart. n. Herndon. User’s Guide. Waterloo. Inc. Environmental Protection Agency..d. Ga. 1988. PATCH3D: ThreeDimensional Analytical Solution for Transport in a Finite Thickness Aquifer with First-Type Rectangular Patch Source. Wash. Banks.gov/WAC/default. and M. White. M. D. B. U. 2. 2006.S.: The National Academies Press. Johns. J. Washington. E. Two.0.: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.0) for Evaluating the Land Disposal of Wastes: Model Theory Final Report. Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared for Woodward-Clyde Consultants.S.com/Software/atrans. D. D. and R. Oostrom. ATRANS: Analytical Solutions for Three-Dimensional Solute Transport from a Patch Source. Wadsworth.leg. “Deriving Soil Concentrations for Ground Water Protection. U. New York: John Wiley & Sons. J. Rowe. Mills. Office of Research and Development.

Appendix D Solidification/Stabilization Team Contacts .

army.. Capasso City of Trenton 319 East State St.us Carol Dona U..Galloway@Honeywell.com Andrew Garrabrants Vanderbilt University VU Station B351831 2301 Vanderbilt Pl.mil Linda Fiedler U. OH 45215 513-317-9691 erbates@hotmail.. DC 20460 703-603-7194 fiedler.com Edward Bates 26 Springfield Pk. TN 37235 615-322-7226 a.garrabrants@vanderbilt. MS5303P Washington. 3294 Bethlehem Church Rd. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.us Stacey Kingsbury. Suite 9200 Omaha.org Jeff Clock Electric Power Research Institute 54 Lakeshore Dr. DE 19720 302-395-2630 wilmer..S.edu D-1 . NY 12996 845-608-0642 jclock@epri. Cincinnati. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 391 Lukens Dr.gov Mike Fitzpatrick U.SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION TEAM CONTACTS Wilmer Reyes.de. GA 30334 404-657-8600 kevin_collins@dnr. NE Floyd. NJ 08608 609-989-3501 jcapasso@trentonnj. Willsboro. 101 Columbia Rd. Morristown.mike@epa. Columbia.reyes@state. Jr. of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull St. Team Leader Delaware Dept.l. NE 68102 402-697-2582 carol.state.dona@usace.S. of Natural Resources 2 Martin Luther King.sc.gov J. SE Suite 1462 East Atlanta. New Castle. DC 20460 703-308-8411 fitzpatrick. SC 29201 803-896-4071 berresjl@dhec. Inc.linda@epa. Nashville. Dr. MS5203P Washington. NJ 07962 973-455-4640 Rich. Program Advisor HydroGeoLogic. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.ga.S.com Lucas Berresford South Carolina Dept. R.com Kevin Collins Georgia Dept..gov Richard Galloway Honeywell International Inc. Trenton. VA 24091 540-250-1578 skingsbury@hgl. Army Corps of Engineers 1616 Capitol Ave.

S. Box 25007 (D-108) Denver Federal Center. Box 201088 Austin. TX 78729 512-419-5336 jim_rehage@urscorp. OH 45268 513-569-7844 grosse. Box 1020 Battle Ground.dec.com D-2 . Port Hueneme.ny. Inc. CO 80225-0007 303-445-2502 Pamela_Innis@ios. Environmental Protection Agency 26 W.O. Suite 203 Portland.S. Portland. 4th Fl.Christopher Griggs U. TX 77079 281-366-8058 vera. NY 12309 518-402-9624 jbharrin@gw. MS 39180 601-634-4821 Chris. of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany.com Terrence Lyons U. Houston. 45 Belden Place.douglas@epa. O. Martin Luther King Dr.net Vera Langer British Petroleum 501 Westlake Park Blvd. Papadopulos & Associates.S.gov Mavis Kent Plateau Geoscience Group.. Cincinnati. OH 45268 513-569-7589 lyons. ME 04101 207-482-4600 tplante@haleyaldrich. San Francisco. Inc.doi. MS-489 Cincinnati.com Michael Rafferty S.com Jim Rehage URS Corporation P.army. Martin Luther King Dr.state.us Pamela Innis Department of Interior P. CA 93043 805-982-1808 william. Building 67 Denver. Environmental Protection Agency 26 W.bp. WA 98604 360-521-2592 maviskent@comcast.poulsen@amec.S.gov Jim Harrington New York Dept.O.langer@uk.mil Doug Grosse U. OR 97239 503-639-3400 christopher. Vicksburg.Griggs@usace.major@navy.terry@epa. CA 94104 415-760-0428 mrafferty@sspa.S.com Christopher Poulsen AMEC Earth and Environmental 7376 SW Durham Rd. 75 Washington Ave..mil Thomas Plante Haley & Aldrich. LLC P. Army Corps of Engineers 3909 Halls Ferry Rd.gov William Major Naval Facilities Engineering Command 1100 23rd Ave.

P. CA 93611 559-297-3929 kshaddy@dtsc. of Toxic Substances Control 1515 Tollhouse Rd. Clovis. CA 91311 818-212-5340 tyargeau@dtsc.net Nirupma Suryavanshi California Environmental Protection Agency 5796 Corporate Ave. Chatsworth.Jonathan Scott Scott Environmental Services. Inc. Box 6215 Longview. TX 75608 903-663-4635 nwisdom@scottenv.com Charles Wilk CETCO Contracting Services Company 2870 Forbs Ave. OK 73105 405-522-5799 a.gov Rajesh Singh 1356 Wooded Knoll West Chester. State St.state.gov Gwen Zervas New Jersey Dept. P.com Ed Seger DuPont 22 Palomino Tr.us D-3 . NJ 08625 609-633-7261 gwen. of Environmental Protection 401 E. CA 90630 714-484-5375 nsuryava@dtsc. IL 60192 847-851-1786 charles. TX 75608 903-663-4635 jbscott@scottenv.nj. Inc. Box 6215 Longview. PA 19382 484-919-8599 rsingh12@verizon. Cypress.ca.Seger@USA. Oklahoma City. NJ 07462 973-827-0160 Edward. Box 028 Trenton. P.gov Araya Vann Oklahoma Corporation Commission 2101 North Lincoln Blvd.zervas@dep.ca.vann@occemail. Vernon.com Tedd Yargeau California Department of Toxic Substances Control 9211 Oakdale Ave.O.wilk@cetco.com Kevin Shaddy California Dept.O.S. Hoffman Estates.ca.DuPont.com Norvell Wisdom Scott Environmental Services. O.

Appendix E Glossary .

ettringite—The mineralogical name for calcium sulfoaluminates. or seepage of surface runoff and rain or natural leaching/migration of contaminants through the subsurface over time. “eluate” refers to the liquid phase resulting from laboratory leaching tests. strengthen. this kind of ex situ S/S treatment is beyond the scope of this document because of the additional regulatory considerations for this kind of ex situ S/S treatment. having the characteristics of cement. or after formation of a rigid mineral structure.. ex situ S/S—Stabilization and solidification technologies that apply S/S treatment to excavated material. compliance testing—Tests to evaluate cured material properties for direct comparison to project performance criteria. especially of carbonates. Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12·26H2O. Ex situ treated material can be returned to its original location or placed on another part of the project area (e. E-1 . where it is generally considered to be harmless or even beneficial to the cement matrix. Petrographic analysis of ettringite shows the needle-like structure of the mineral. treated material has been excavated and placed at the final location prior to use of in situ mixing equipment to treat the relocated material. At some projects.g.g.GLOSSARY additive—A substance added in small amounts to something else to improve. Since the molar volume of ettringite is greater than the sum of the molar volumes of its reactants. however. or relating to. precipitation of ettringite is an expansive reaction. Formation of ettringite may occur during hydration. contaminated material—Toxic or potentially harmful substances that may be present in soil. cementitious—Of. construction performance specifications—Associated with S/S treatment implementation in the field to verify that the final treated material is consistent with the specifications developed during treatability testing. gypsum) are present. infiltration. The term is similar to “field leachate” and differentiates laboratory test liquids from field leachates. or otherwise alter it. In this guidance. engineering controls—Barriers or systems that control downward migration. groundwater.. where it is considered one form of sulfate attack. Ex situ S/S-treated materials may also be taken off site. adsorption—Partitioning of a dissolved species onto a solid surface. dilution attenuation factor—The ratio of original soil leachate concentration to the receptor point concentration. the liquid that elutes through a column of granular material is considered an eluate. reuse of S/S-treated material as paving base). a chemical precipitate. For example. and/or building materials. This mineral commonly precipitates in the pores of cementitious materials when sources of calcium sulfate (e. eluate—The liquid solution that results from an elution process. consistency testing—Real-time or short-term evaluations of treated material during implementation used to adjust reagent addition rates or mixing procedures to maintain material properties consistent with construction performance specifications.

” as defined by EPA. May be used to describe either the extent of leaching (e. inorganic compounds—Chemicals that do not contain carbon.. oil. water.g.g.g...hydraulic conductivity—A measureable material property related to ease of movement of water through a porous medium under groundwater flow conditions governed by Darcy’s Law (Bear 1972). g/d/m2). porewater—The water filling the spaces between grains of sediment. performance parameters—The material properties characteristic of the ability of an S/S-treated material to carry out its intended purpose. institutional controls—“Non-engineering measures. such as administrative and/or legal controls that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or to protect the integrity of a remedy by limiting land or resource use. percentage of total content that have leached) or rate of release (e. etc. leachability—The ability of the material to retain contaminants of concern through a combination of chemical and physical mechanisms. which is usually a subset of a plume cross section. metals are inorganic. pocket penetrometer—Test instrument used to measure compressive strength of soil or concrete. in situ S/S—Stabilization and solidification technologies that apply S/S treatment to in situ materials using auger-type and injector-head systems. organic compound—Any compound containing carbon. air. This term is often used interchangeably with the more general term “permeability. the time-dependent release) from materials. for example. point of compliance—The location where the S/S-treated material must comply with site remediation goals.” which relates to the ease with which a fluid (e. performance criteria—Design values of a performance parameter used for comparison to performance measurements to evaluate whether acceptable performance has been achieved. leaching—The process of constituent movement from the solid when a solid material is contacted with a liquid. performance—Refers to the ability of the material or remedy to maintain its function of minimizing release of contaminants to the environment. performance tests—Protocols or assessments used to characterize a performance parameter of an S/S-treated material and which return one or more values considered representative of performance measurement. mass flux—A rate measurement specific to a defined area.. Mass flux is expressed as mass/time/area (e. material performance specifications—Material performance needs to adequately address performance goals and to guide the treatability study phase.g. E-2 .) will pass through a porous medium. monolith—Solid matrix with high structural integrity. material performance goals—Design targets that describe a treated material that will meet specific site remediation goals. pozzolanic reagents—Siliceous or siliceous and aluminous material that reacts chemically with an alkali in the presence of water to produce a cementitious material at standard temperatures.

local governments. treatability studies—Tests to characterize the untreated contaminated material and evaluate the technology performance under different operating conditions. Stabilization chemically binds free liquids and immobilizes contaminated materials or reduces their solubility through a chemical reaction. (EPA definition) solubility—The relative capacity of a substance to serve as a solute. The physical nature of the contaminated material may or may not be changed significantly by this process. sorption—The process of being taken up or held by either adsorption or absorption. (EPA definition) stakeholder—May include people in communities living near contaminated sites. usually in reference to water as the solvent. E-3 . strength—The ability of a material to withstand an applied physical stress without incurring an inelastic strain leading to structural failure. solidification—The processes that encapsulates contaminated material to form a solid material and restricts contaminant migration by decreasing the surface area exposed to leaching and/or by coating the contaminated material with low-permeability materials. measure. reagent—A substance or compound used in a chemical reaction to detect. or produce other substances. Solidification can be accomplished by mechanical processes that mix the material and one or more reagents.pugmill—A machine in which materials are simultaneously ground and mixed with a liquid. information. site-specific advisory boards. and a variety of nongovernmental organizations. stabilization—The processes where chemical reactions occur between the reagents and contaminated material to reduce the leachability of contaminated material into a stable insoluble form. institutions. slump test—A test used to determine the consistency of fresh concrete and to ensure uniformity for different batches of similar concrete under field conditions. Solidification entraps the contaminated material within a granular or monolithic matrix. and other mechanisms needed to ensure protection of people and the environment. stewardship (long-term stewardship)—The physical controls. unconfined compressive strength—A common performance parameter in S/S treatment used to ensure that treated material has at least as much bearing strength as surrounding material.

Appendix F Acronyms .

Compensation. and Liability Act contaminant of concern construction quality assurance conceptual site model dilution-attenuation factor dissolved organic carbon U. event. Environmental Protection Agency EPA Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products Electric Power Research Institute feature. and/or process hydrochloride halogenated semivolatile chemicals Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments [to RCRA] of 1984 halogenated volatile chemical integrated analytical solution institutional control Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council potassium hydroxide octanol-water partitioning coefficient land disposal restriction Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework liquid-solid ratio liquid-solid partitioning manufactured gas plant nonaqueous-phase liquid National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan nonhalogenated semivolatile chemical nonhalogenated volatile chemical National Priorities List National Research Council nonvolatile organic compound operations and maintenance operating unit polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon Performance Assessment of Solidified/Stabilized Waste-Forms F-1 .S.S. Department of the Interior data quality objective deep soil mixing engineering control U.ACRONYMS ANS AOC ASTM bgs CERCLA COC CQA CSM DAF DOC DOI DQO DSM EC EPA EPACMTP EPRI FEP HCL HSVOCs HSWA HVOC IAS IC ITRC KOH Kow LDR LEAF L/S LSP MGP NAPL NCP N-HSVOC N-HVOC NPL NRC N-VOC O&M OU PAH PASSiFy American Nuclear Society area of contamination ASTM International. formerly American Society for Testing and Materials below ground surface Comprehensive Environmental Response.

PCB POC QA QC RAO RCRA ROD SPLP S/S STARNET SVOC TCLP UCS USACE USCS VOC WAC WET polychlorinated biphenyl point of compliance quality assurance quality control remedial action objective Resource Conservation and Recovery Act record of decision Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure solidification/stabilization Stabilization/Solidification Treatment and Remediation Network semivolatile organic chemical Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure unconfined compressive strength U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Unified Soil Classification System volatile organic chemical Washington Administrative Code [California] Waste Extraction Test F-2 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful