Welcome to ITRC's Internet Training

Welcome to ITRC's Internet Training

Welcome Thanks for joining this ITRC Training Class Solidification/Stabilization ITRC Technical And Regulatory Guidance Document: Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification/Stabilization (S/S-1, 2011) Sponsored by: Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (www.itrcweb.org) Hosted by: US EPA Clean Up Information Network (www.cluin.org) Housekeeping Course time is 2 hours Question & Answer breaks Phone - unmute *6 to ask question out loud Simulcast - ? icon at top to

Move through slides Arrow icons at top of screen List of slides on left Feedback form available from last slide please complete before leaving This event is being recorded type in a question Turn off any pop-up blockers Download slides as

PPT or PDF Go to slide 1 Move back 1 slide Move forward 1 slide Go to last slide Go to seminar homepage Submit comment or question Report technical problems Copyright 2012 Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 50 F Street, NW, Suite 350, Washington, DC 20001 ITRC Disclaimer

This material was sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof and no official endorsement should be inferred. The information in ITRC Products was formulated to be reliable and accurate. However, the information is provided "as is" and use of this information is at the users own risk. Information in ITRC Products is for general reference only; it should not be construed as definitive guidance for any specific site and is not a substitute for consultation with qualified professional advisors. ITRC Product content may be revised or withdrawn at any time without prior notice. ITRC, ERIS, and ECOS make no representations or warranties with respect to information in its Products. ITRC, ERIS, and ECOS will not accept liability for

damages of any kind that result from acting upon or using this information. ITRC, ERIS, and ECOS do not endorse or recommend the use of specific technology or technology provider through ITRC Products. ITRC (www.itrcweb.org) Shaping the Future of Regulatory Acceptance Host organization Network State regulators

All 50 states, PR, DC Federal partners DOE DOD Wide variety of topics EPA ITRC Industry Affiliates Program Technologies Approaches Contaminants Sites

Products Technical and regulatory guidance documents Internet-based and Academia Community stakeholders classroom training ITRC Course Topics Planned for 2012 More information at www.itrcweb.org Popular courses from 2011

New in 2012 Green & Sustainable Bioavailability Considerations for Remediation Contaminated Sediment Sites Biofuels: Release Prevention, Environmental Incremental Sampling Behavior, and Remediation Methodology Decision Framework for Applying Attenuation Processes to Metals and Radionuclides Integrated DNAPL Site Development of Performance Specifications Strategy for Solidification/Stabilization LNAPL 1: An Improved Understanding of 2-Day Classroom Training:

LNAPL Behavior in the Subsurface Light Nonaqueous-Phase LNAPL 2: LNAPL Characterization and Liquids (LNAPLs): Recoverability - Improved Analysis Science, Management, LNAPL 3: Evaluating LNAPL Remedial and Technology Technologies for Achieving Project Goals October 16-17, 2012 in Novi, Mine Waste Treatment Technology Selection Phytotechnologies Michigan (Detroit Area) Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB): Technology Update Project Risk Management for Site Remediation Use and Measurement of Mass Flux and Mass Discharge Use of Risk Assessment in Management of Contaminated Sites Meet the ITRC Instructors Wilmer Reyes Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

New Castle, DE 302-395-2630 [email protected] Raj Singh Kleinfelder Exton, PA 610-594-1444 x107 [email protected] Tom Plante Andy Garrabrants Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 615-322-7226 [email protected] vanderbilt.edu Haley & Aldrich, Inc. Portland, ME 207-482-4600 [email protected]

Jim Harrington New York State Dept of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY 518-402-9624 [email protected] Solidification/Stabilization (S/S) Guidance - Presentation Outline Technical Introduction Sections 1 & 2 S/S Technology Overview Section 3 Performance of S/S Treated Materials Section 4 Performance Specifications in the S/S

Design and Implementation Process Q & A Break Section 5 Treatability Studies Section 6 Implementation Section 7 Long-Term Stewardship and Case Study Wrap Up Q&A Solidification/Stabilization (S/S) Solidification Entrap contaminants within a solid matrix Coating of contaminant molecule Organics are generally immobilized due to reduced hydraulic conductivity Stabilization Bind or complex contaminants

May involve chemical transformation Metallic contaminants are stabilized by precipitation or by interaction (e.g. sorption) with cement matrix Example: Lead Pb(HCO3)2+CaSO4.2H2O PbSO4 + CaCO3 +3H2O +CO2 S/S Technology Process Source Zone Footprint Solidified Columns Contaminants Water Table Groundwater Flow Direction

Before S/S Low Hydraulic Conductivit y Soil Bedrock After S/S S/S Transformation of Waste Material S/S Treatment Strength Hydraulic Conductivity Leachability Oily Soil Before S/S S/S Treated Soil Site Examples

Auger-mixed in situ S/S treatment of a former manufactured gas plant (MGP) site with coal tar contaminants at Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA, United States. Excavator bucket mixing of contaminated sediment of a former steel mill operation, Sydney Tar Ponds, Sydney, NS, Canada. S/S Used Frequently at CERCLA Sites EPA, 2009 S/S Technology Advantages Effective in treating many contaminants

Applicable for in situ or ex situ treatment Treatment period relatively short Can improve structural property of soil Can be applied in dry or wet conditions May be more cost-effective than Former manufactured gas plant (MGP) off-site disposal

site in Cambridge, Massachusetts S/S Technology Challenges Contaminants are not destroyed or removed Uncertainties associated with prediction of long-term performance Potential changes in physical settings Volume increases in the treated mass may require management Options for treatment or posttreatment modifications limited Requires removal of debris or underground obstructions prior to treatment

Excavation of S/S column Applicability to Organics Contaminants ITRC S/S-1: Table 2-1. Documented Effectiveness of S/S Treatment Chemical Groups Contaminants EPA 1993/2009 Other Refs Halogenated VOCs, NonHalogenated VOCs (i.e. solvents, aromatics) No documented effectiveness Pre-treat volatiles HSVOCs, N-HSVOCs (i.e. chlorinated benzenes, PAHs)

Documented effectiveness Pre-treat volatiles PCBs, Pesticides Documented effectiveness (in 2009 document) Dioxins/Furans Potential effectiveness Demonstrated effectiveness Organic Cyanides, Organic Corrosives Potential effectiveness*

Demonstrated effectiveness Pentachlorophenol, Creosotes, Coal Tar, Heavy Oils Not evaluated Demonstrated effectiveness * effectiveness not evaluated in EPA for 2009, therefore assumed to be same as 1993 evaluation Applicability to Inorganic Contaminants ITRC S/S-1: Table 2-1. Documented Effectiveness of S/S Treatment Chemical Groups Contaminants EPA 1993/2009 Volatile and Non-Volatile Metals

Documented effectiveness Asbestos Documented effectiveness* Radioactive Materials Documented effectiveness* Inorganic Corrosives, Inorganic Cyanides, Mercury Documented effectiveness* Oxidizers, Reducers Documented effectiveness* Other Refs * effectiveness not evaluated in EPA for 2009, therefore assumed to be same as 1993 evaluation

ITRC S/S Guidance Addresses Technical and Regulatory Barriers Inconsistent criteria for development of performance specifications Uncertainties associated with prediction of long-term performance Lack of methodologies for measure of long-term compliance ITRC S/S Team members collective experience addressed barriers in guidance

ITRC S/S Team members collective experience addressed barriers in guidance What is Included in the ITRC Guidance and Training Performance specifications Concepts Identification and selection Assessment methodology Technology performance Treatability studies Implementation Long-term stewardship Considerations Criteria for compliance

ITRC Development of Performance Specifications for Solidification / Stabilization (S/S-1, July 2011) Training Benefits by User Group Regulators Identify and select appropriate performance specifications for design, implementation and monitoring of S/S remedies Anticipate stakeholders potential concerns Consultants Regulatory acceptance when using a consistent approach for developing performance specifications Owners and stakeholders Better understanding of the benefits and limitations of the technology

Presentation Outline Technical Introduction Sections 1 & 2 S/S Treatment Overview Section 3 Performance of S/S Treated Materials Section 4 Performance Specifications in the S/S Design and Implementation Process Q & A Break Section 5 Treatability Studies Section 6 Implementation Section 7 Long-Term Stewardship and Case Study

Wrap Up Q&A How do Performance Specifications differ from Performance Goals? Performance Specifications Sets of Parameters + Tests + Criteria Describe performance of S/S treated material Bench scale - Material Performance Specifications Field scale - Construction Performance Specifications Applications to S/S mix design, treatment effectiveness, product consistency, modeling Material performance goals Pre-established material targets based on site remediation goals Describe how S/S fits into overall remedial approach Retention of Contaminants in S/S

Materials S/S remedy does not remove contaminants Chemically and physically retained in material with improved characteristics Inorganic Contaminants Stabilized by alkalinity Adsorbed to mineral surfaces Incorporated into mineral structure Organic Contaminants Partitioned with solid organic phases Adsorbed to mineral surfaces Absorbed by certain additives S/S Materials in the Environment Distributed Load (e.g., overlying soil)

Groundwater flow S/S Treated Material Point of Compliance (POC) Contaminants may leach; move with groundwater; disperse, dilute and attenuate Three Key Performance Parameters Strength Withstand overlying loads

Hydraulic Conductivity Manage water exposure Leachability Retain contaminants Strength: Ability to Withstand Loads Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Most commonly-used parameter for S/S Indicator of chemical reaction or binding Indirect indication of durability 50 UCS (MPa) 40 7d 14d

30 20 10 0 0 28d Strength increases with early-age cure 3d 1d Source: U.S. DOT 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 Maturity, TTF (oC-Hours)

ASTM D1633: UCS for soil-cement cylinders Hydraulic Conductivity: Water Movement Through a Porous Material DArcys Law H Q A K L Hydraulic conductivity (K) K relates groundwater flow (Q) to hydraulic head (H/L) Water supply

Relative hydraulic conductivity Difference in K between adjacent materials Determines water contact mode primary leaching mechanism Flow Rate (Q) (L) H) Sample Overflow Cross sectional area (A) Screen plates

ASTM D5084: Why is Relative Hydraulic Conductivity Important? KS/S << Ksoil groundwater KS/S ~ Ksoil contaminants transfer across external surface area Water is diverted around material Exposed surface area limited to external surface Contaminant release rate controlled by Rate of Mass Transfer groundwater contaminants leach

at equilibrium concentration Water percolates through material Continuous pore area exposed Release concentrations based on Liquid-Solid Partitioning (local equilibrium) Contaminant release under equilibrium conditions will always be greater than under mass transfer conditions. Leachability: Potential to Release Contaminants Leachability Extent of Leaching - mass release (mg/kg solid) Rate of Leaching - mass transport or flux (mg/m2 s) Leaching

Process of solid material constituents moving into a contacting liquid phase Principle pathway for inorganic and non-volatile organic contaminants Based on results of one or more leaching tests Promulgated Leaching Protocols (e.g., TCLP, SPLP) Consensus Standards (ASTM, American Nuclear Society) Emerging EPA Leaching Methods (LEAF) Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) LEAF consists of: Four leaching test methods Data management tools Assessment approaches Provides a material-specific source term for release Demonstration of treatment effectiveness

Release estimation Fate and transport modeling Leaching tests define characteristic leaching over a broad range of release-controlling factors Factors Influencing S/S Material Leaching Performance Moisture Transport Leachant Composition Leaching Factors (Sulfate, Carbonation) Physical Factors Strength (durability) Hydraulic conductivity

(water contact) Physical Degradation (Erosion, Cracking) 1.E-09 Flux (mg/m2 s) Chemical Degradation Water, Acids, Chelants, DOC Equilibrium or Mass Transport pH Liquid-to-solid ratio Rates of mass transport (flux) 1.E-10 1.E-11

1.E-12 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Leaching Time (days) LEAF Test Methods PreMethod 1313 Liquid-Solid Partitioning as a Function of Eluate pH using a Parallel Batch Procedure PreMethod 1314 Liquid-Solid Partitioning as a Function of Liquid-Solid Ratio (L/S) using an Up-flow Percolation Column Procedure PreMethod 1315 Mass Transfer Rates in Monolithic and Compacted Granular Materials using a Semi-dynamic Tank Leaching Procedure PreMethod 1316 Liquid-Solid Partitioning as a Function of Liquid-Solid Ratio using a Parallel Batch

Procedure Notes: PreMethod designates these methods as preliminary versions of EPA methods under review for publication in SW-846. Where Are Leaching Tests Useful? Mix Design Selection of reagents Comparative assessment of candidate recipes Baseline for comparison to field materials Compliance Demonstration of treatment effectiveness Consistency

Field materials compared to bench-scale baseline Release Prediction and Modeling Source term for fate and transport modeling Support for establishing monitoring schedules Cumulative Release from Treated and Untreated MGP* Soil Phenanthrene (PHE) Release (mg/m2) 100,000 Total PHE in Untreated Soil 10,000 1,000 Total PHE in S/S Material 100 PreMethod 1315

(modified for organic species) Untreated Soil Data from 10 1 0.1 S/S Material Data from 0.01 PreMethod 1314 S/S Material (percolation column) Untreated Soil Site-specific information relating 0.1 1

10 100 L/S percolation rate Leaching Time (days) *MGP Manufactured Gas Plant S/S treatment significantly decreases both the total content and the rate of PHE release Mix Design Selection Using Flux from S/S Treated MGP* Soil 2 wt% Organoclay results in lower flux of PAHS (increased retention) 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 0.01 0.1 1

10 100 Leaching Time (days) *MGP Manufactured Gas Plant 1.E-04 Xylene Flux (mg/m2s) Phenanthrene Flux (mg/m2s) 1.E-03 1.E-05 1.E-06 No significant effect for BTEX compounds 1.E-07 0.01 0.1

1 10 100 Leaching Time (days) Baseline Mix Design Baseline w/ Bentonite (2 wt%) Baseline w/ Organoclay (2 wt%) Example Performance Tests (ITRC S/S-1, Table 3-3) Performance Parameter Performance Measurement Example Performance Test(s) Strength

UCS ASTM D1633 Hydraulic Conductivity ASTM D5084 Hydraulic Conductivity Leachability Treatability Study Local Equilibrium Treatability Study Mass Transfer (flux) Consistency Testing various PreMethod 1313 PreMethod 1314 PreMethod 1316 PreMethod 1315 PreMethod 1315 (modified) ANSI 16.1 PreMethod 1316

SPLP abbreviated mass transfer tests S/S Process Flow Chart (ITRC S/S-1, Figure 4-1) S/S Process Flow Chart Process Actions Steps and benchmarks Supported by inputs Completed in light of proper considerations S/S Process Flow Chart Process Inputs Information required to adequately support an action item Usually known or established prior to start of S/S process

Conceptual models Remedial goals Revisions (as needed) S/S Process Flow Chart Process Considerations Information used to guide decisions Pre-established goals or guidelines Key performance parameters Common practice Experience-based knowledge Material Performance Goals Action Define Material Performance Goals Material Performance Goals How is the treated material expected to meet site remediation goals?

Inputs Site Model What are current site conditions? Remedial Goals What will remediation accomplish? Process/Product Concepts How will remediation be completed? Considerations Basis for Meeting Goals How will goals be assessed? Point of Compliance Where will goals be assessed? Materials Performance Goals Distributed Load Point of Compliance (POC) (e.g., overlying soil)

Groundwater flow S/S Treated Material Contaminant may leach and move with groundwater Example Material Performance Goals Support overlying subsurface, operational loads, future use loads Provide for diversion of groundwater around the material Address remedial goals for release/groundwater quality at a POC Material Performance Specifications

Action - Develop S/S Material Performance Specifications Used to define acceptable material for bench-scaled treatability Considerations Key Performance Parameters Performance Tests Which are appropriate and applicable? How to Establish Criteria Absolute values? Averages? Allowance for out-of-spec values? Things to Remember Performance specifications Material Performance Specifications Construction Performance Specifications Key performance parameters

Strength Hydraulic Conductivity (relative to surrounding soil) Leachability LEAF Example Performance Tests (ITRC S/S-1, Table 3-3) Flowchart of S/S Process (ITRC S/S-1, Figure 4-1) Question and Answer Break

Technical Introduction Sections 1 & 2 S/S Treatment Overview Section 3 Performance of S/S Treated Materials Section 4 Performance Specifications in the S/S Design and Implementation Process Q & A Break Section 5 Treatability Studies Section 6 Implementation Section 7 Long-Term Stewardship and Case Study Wrap Up Q&A Presentation Outline

Technical Introduction Sections 1 & 2 S/S Treatment Overview Section 3 Performance of S/S Treated Materials Section 4 Performance Specifications in the S/S Design and Implementation Process Q & A Break Section 5 Treatability Studies Section 6 Implementation Section 7 Long-Term Stewardship and Case Study Wrap Up Q&A Treatability Studies Purpose and objective of treatability studies

Bench-scale testing Pilot tests/field demonstrations Scale-up considerations S/S Process Flow Chart Treatability Studies conducted to evaluate performance and to assess: Feasibility Effectiveness, Implementability Cost Revisions may be needed Treatability Studies Objectives

Develop S/S formulation to meet project objectives Determine impact of selected reagents on contaminants Optimize the reagents/admixtures dosages Assess contaminant emissions Finalize material handling criteria Determine physical and chemical uniformity of the material Determine the volume increase Finalize construction parameters and performance criteria Bench and Pilot-Scale Treatability Testing Bench-scale provides important information

Pilot-scale confirms the full-scale approach Selection of candidate reagents requires knowledge of: Process track record Interference and chemical incompatibilities Metals chemistry Compatibility with disposal or re-use Cost Sample Collection Critical and Requires Careful Planning

Appropriate locations Sample compositing Method for collecting representative samples Full-scale implementation approach Sample Collection Example Existing arsenic liner Principal threat arsenic area Low level threat arsenic area Principal threat NAPL zone Low level threat NAPL zone Extent of Operable Unit 1 Tar boils Sample Characterization

Total waste analysis for target contaminants including those that may leach in S/S process Leaching tests on untreated material Other pH, redox potential, oil & grease Baseline physical characteristics specific gravity, bulk density, permeability, m. content, particle size distribution, geo-tech properties, debris Heterogeneity of contaminant distribution Bench-Scale Testing Tiered Testing Approach Tier 1 Physical tests UCS, and Hydraulic Conductivity using candidate reagents, narrow the range of reagents.

Tier 2 Testing the selected reagents and combination of reagents and additives (if used) to assess contaminant immobilization. Tier 3 Optimizing the reagents and additives to minimize the quantity required to meet the performance criteria. Tier 4 Scale-up considerations, development of QC parameters, baseline consistency tests, and performance criteria acceptance limits. Laboratory Testing

Untreated Sample in the Field Sample Characterization Sample Collection S/S Sediment Sample Laboratory Analysis Treated Samples Chemical testing Total chemical analysis Leaching Test Documenting pH of extract Other testing

Strength Hydraulic conductivity Treatability Testing Evaluation Key Performance Parameter Performance Measurement Strength Unconfined 344.7 kN/m2 (50 psi) to Compressive Strength 689.4 kN/m2 (100 psi) Hydraulic Conductivity 5x10-6 to 1x10-6 cm/sec Hydraulic Conductivity (relative K)

Leachability Site conceptual model Remedial goals Risk-based limits % leaching reduction MCL or other goals Point of compliance Example Criteria S/S Process Flow Chart Once treatability studies confirm that criteria can be met, results are used to develop and test construction performance specifications Pilot Test Studies / Field Demonstrations

Verifies the process variables selected as part bench-scale testing Further develops and optimizes the process and construction parameters for full-scale implementation Preparing test samples in the field Field curing specimens in a humid atmosphere (water bath). Scale Up Considerations Generally focused on the materials handling aspects of the S/S process Auger mixing at a former MGP site. Treatment by rotary blender at former wood-preserving site

Port Newark, NJ Jet grouting Treatability Tests Key Points Bench-scale testing is important for developing and optimizing the mix design/formulation Sampling for treatability testing is crucial Worst-case and average case samples Testing should mimic the field implementation approach (depth, reagent form, sequence) Appropriate characterization test(s) to obtain data as input in the GW model (if needed)

Key performance parameters Strength Relative hydraulic conductivity Leachability Presentation Outline Technical Introduction

Sections 1 & 2 S/S Treatment Overview Section 3 Performance of S/S Treated Materials Section 4 Performance Specifications in the S/S Design and Implementation Process Q & A Break Section 5 Treatability Studies Section 6 Implementation Section 7 Long-Term Stewardship and Case Study Wrap Up Q&A Implementation Performance verification during implementation Sampling and testing considerations Test data evaluation Long-term performance considerations Performance Verification During

Implementation Critical Step Sampling and Testing During Implementation Observations, sampling, testing Demonstrate that the treated material achieves the projects performance specifications Documents that the proper reagents were mixed in accordance with the approved mix design Allows for adjustments to be made as needed to respond to variations in material and/or site conditions Getting it right the first time Documenting Mix Cells and Test Data

Sampling of Treated Material for Testing Types of Performance Verification Testing Consistency testing Real-time or short-term evaluation of treated material through observation and testing Does treated material exhibit characteristics consistent with bench and pilot baseline observations? Compliance testing Evaluate cured material properties using performance tests for direct

comparison to project performance criteria Consistency Test Examples Slump Short-term strength gain Visual observation Leaching consistency tests SPLP type Monolith leach

Other Compliance Tests Based on Design Performance Criteria Compliance tests may include: Strength at specified cure time Hydraulic conductivity at specified cure time Leaching performance Other chemical tests for stabilization reactions Evaluating Field Performance Data Performance criteria statements

Require all results to pass OR Accept some limited variability without compromising the overall success of the remedy (i.e., tolerance intervals) Extra samples for testing is useful Consider remedial objectives and reality check Bulk performance of the treated mass Material to be treated will vary in both physical and chemical properties Sample Performance Data Tracking 200 Unconfined Compressive Strength Quality Control Tests 180 UCS (psi)

160 140 120 100 80 60 Performance Criteria = 50 psi 40 Tolerance Limit = 40 psi 20 0 Unacceptable Results 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 Cumulative Volume Treated (Cubic Yards) Long-Term S/S Performance

Properly designed S/S remedies can be expected to last on the order of decades to centuries. Success tied to remedial goals! Research studies have been conducted to evaluate the long-term performance of S/S remedies. EPRI studies PASSiFy project Other literature EPA has used S/S effectively on many sites. EPA Use of Solidification/Stabilization EPA, 2009 Implementation Key Points

Performance verification during implementation is critical to remedy success Sample collection, observation, and testing includes both consistency and compliance testing Extra samples are useful Performance data tracking is a useful tool to managing the construction process S/S is a viable long-term remedy and has been selected by EPA on numerous sites

Presentation Outline Technical Introduction Sections 1 & 2 S/S Treatment Overview Section 3 Performance of S/S Treated Materials Section 4 Performance Specifications in the S/S Design and Implementation Process Q & A Break Section 5 Treatability Studies Section 6 Implementation Section 7 Long-Term Stewardship and Case Study

Wrap Up Q&A Long-Term Stewardship and Case Study Importance of site model and review of project goals Long-term stewardship objectives Groundwater monitoring Peak Oil case study Importance Of Site Model And Goals

The site model, remedial and performance goals influence the design of long-term stewardship programs Conceptual Site Model Infiltration through unsaturated solidified material Plane representing the property boundary Cap Leachate being diluted by ground water Water Table Leachate infiltrating through

saturated solidified material ection Ground Water Flow Dir Low permeability unit (top of Hawthorne) Long-Term Stewardship Objectives Confirm the S/S monolith is performing as designed Assure that groundwater meets targets Before S/S Treatment After S/S Treatment Groundwater Monitoring Design Monitoring points

Compliance may be at one or more specific points or everywhere onsite within an impacted aquifer Monitoring parametersusually the key COCs Monitoring locations Site conditions Potential changes in the groundwater flow regime induced by the treated material Time of travel to compliance points Contamination in groundwater prior to treating Frequency and Duration of Monitoring Superfund (CERCLA) requirements Often quarterly to start, changing to annual As needed for Five-Year Reviews

State Programs Usually follow CERCLA frequency for quarterly and annual monitoring May vary in requirement for Five-Year Review periods Predictive modeling can be used to further identify appropriate monitoring frequency and duration Interpreting Monitoring Data Evaluation of concentration trends over time should confirm Decreasing or acceptable low concentration of COCs near the monolith Decreasing concentrations at points of compliance Achievement of GW goals over time at POCs

Achievement of other criteria such as % reduction Institutional and Engineering Controls Institutional controls Environmental covenants to the property deed Engineering controls Impervious caps Vertical walls Installing Vertical Wall With A Panel Cutter Reuse Examples

Battery Recycling Site Wildlife Habitat Wood Preserving Site Storage Yard Peak Oil Superfund Site Case Study Treatment of contaminated soil, sludge and ash Post Remediation Peak Oil Site Model Infiltration through unsaturated solidified material Plane representing the property boundary Cap Leachate being diluted

by ground water Water Table Leachate infiltrating through saturated solidified material ection Ground Water Flow Dir Low permeability unit (top of Hawthorne) Peak Oil Groundwater Modeling Objective To determine allowable concentrations of lead in leachate from S/S treated material (SPLP test) to meet groundwater goals Groundwater goal 15 g/L lead

Point of compliance at site boundary Result 282 g/L of lead allowable in the leachate to achieve 15 g/L at the POC (18.8 dilution-attenuation factor) Peak Oil Construction Performance Parameters and Criteria Action Levels Lead at > 521 mg/kg S/S Mix Composition 6 wt% Portland Cement 1-2 wt% Triple Super Phosphate (from Treatability Testing)

S/S Specifications Avg. Allowance Method Strength (USC; psi) >50 None ASTM D 1633 Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s) <1x10-6 1x10-5 ASTM D 5084

Leaching Lead (g/L) <282 SPLP Method 1312 <500 All performance criteria at the site were met Peak Oil Site Following Remediation Presentation Outline

Technical Introduction Sections 1 & 2 S/S Treatment Overview Section 3 Performance of S/S Treated Materials Section 4 Performance Specifications in the S/S Design and Implementation Process Q & A Break Section 5 Treatability Studies Section 6 Implementation Section 7 Long-Term Stewardship and Case Study Wrap Up Q & A Break Overall Course Summary

S/S treatment has demonstrated long-term effectiveness for a number of contaminants Performance specifications - critical for S/S Treatability studies assess S/S treatment feasibility QA/QC, consistency, and compliance testing during implementation Long-term stewardship typically used with S/S Use guidance for understanding, developing, and using performance specifications to ensure success of S/S remedies Thank You for Participating Second question and answer break Links to additional resources

http://www.clu-in.org/conf/itrc/SS/resource.cfm Feedback form please complete http://www.clu-in.org/conf/itrc/SS/feedback.cfm Need confirmation of your participation today? Fill out the feedback form and check box for confirmation email.

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Chapter Ten Making Capital Investment Decisions  2003 The

    Chapter Ten Making Capital Investment Decisions 2003 The

    However, we will also NOT receive $10,000 in 5 years The appropriate number to use in the NPV analysis is the net salvage value Always consider after-tax cash flows You can use your calculator for the cash flows and salvage,...
  • An introduction to animal diversity - Biology at Mott

    An introduction to animal diversity - Biology at Mott

    Acoelomate animals, such as flatworms lack an enclosed, fluid-filled body cavity, the space is filled with masses of cells called mesenchyme. Pseudocoelomate animals have a body cavity called a pseudcoel, in which many of the internal organs are suspended. It...
  • Chapter 4 Understanding Interest Rates Present Value Four

    Chapter 4 Understanding Interest Rates Present Value Four

    Bond with high initial interest rate can still have negative return if i Conclusion from Table 2 Analysis 1. Prices and returns more volatile for long-term bonds because have higher interest-rate risk 2.
  • Alliance for Child Welfare Excellence

    Alliance for Child Welfare Excellence

    The Alliance for Child Welfare Excellence is Washington's first comprehensive statewide training partnership dedicated to developing professional expertise for social workers and enhancing the skills of foster parents and caregivers working with vulnerable children and families.
  • Latin American Independence

    Latin American Independence

    Letter from Jamaica "More than anyone, I desire to see America fashioned into the greatest nation in the world, greatest not so much by virtue of her area and wealth as by her freedom and glory. Although I seek perfection...
  • A Holographic Interpretation of Entanglement Entropy

    A Holographic Interpretation of Entanglement Entropy

    AdS/CFT Correspondence and Entanglement Entropy Tadashi Takayanagi (Kyoto U.) Based on hep-th/0603001 [Phys.Rev.Lett.96(2006)181602] hep-th/0605073 [JHEP 0608(2006)045] by Shinsei Ryu (KITP) and T.T hep-th/0611035 to appear in JHEP by Tatsuma Nishioka (Kyoto U.) and T.T. ① Introduction In quantum mechanical systems,...
  • Exam 3 Review - BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy

    Exam 3 Review - BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy

    Q=mcT. Q=mL. If you're not sure what the final state of the object is (fluid, gas, etc.) guess! If you guessed wrong, your answer won't make sense. Heat transfer mechanisms (2 problems) Thermal Conduction. ... Exam 3 Review Last modified...
  • A LEVEL MEDIA STUDIES COMPONENT 2 Media Forms

    A LEVEL MEDIA STUDIES COMPONENT 2 Media Forms

    Visual Codes (costume, setting, colour palette, framing & proxemics - (mise-en-scène); performance and NVC) Todorov's. ... There are other intertextual references - e.g. stylistically it is heavily influenced by film noir. Representationin Life on Mars .