American creosote site case study: Solidification/stabilization of dioxins, PCP, and creosote for $64 per cubic yard

Abstract

Solidifiication/Stabilization (S/S) is a low-cost remedialtechnology that has been used extensively for decades to treat soil contaminated with metals on Superfund sites. Increasingly, it is being used with success to remediate sites that contain higher molecular weight organic compounds. This case study describes the development of S/S formations and their application to remediate the American Creosote Superfund Site in Jackson, Tennessee. The U S . EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory conducted successfultreatability tests of innovative solidiJi:cation/stabilization (S/S) formulations to treat soils contaminated with dioxins, pentachlorophenol (PCP), and creosote from four wood preserving sites. Formulations developed during these studies were successful in reducing the mobility (leaching) of contaminants of concern by 95% to 99%. For one of these sites, the American Creosote Superfund site in Jackson, Tennessee, the U S . EPA, in cooperation with the State of Tmnessee, conducted a successful remediation of 45,000 cubic yards during 1998 and 1999. i%e costs to excavate, treat, replace, and cap soil contaminated with dioxin, PCP, and creosote averaged $64per cubic yard (about $40 ton). Formulations, design, operations, performance specifications, and costs are presented in this paper.

Solidification–stabilization of organic and inorganic contaminants using portland cement: a literature review

“…Although S-S treatment of inorganic contaminants has been practiced for many years, and there are many studies on the application of S-S technology in the remediation of inorganic contaminants, studies on the use of S-S with organic contaminants are comparatively less extensive (Al-Tabbaa and Rose Gitipour et al 1997;Hwang and Batchelor 2002;Bates et al 2002;Sora et al 2002;Yilmaz et al 2003;Botta et al 2004). The suitability of S-S treatment for organic contaminants has been reviewed by Pollard et al (1991), and a recent extensive review of this technology by Bone et al (2004) is also available.…”

“…The result showed that a maximum of about 75% of 2-MCA was released in the leachate solution, which indicates that the treatment is not suitable for that compound without using any adsorbent. Bates et al (2002) reported the results of S-S treatment of various organic contaminants, including dioxins, Table 8. Selected results of the ACW treatability study (Bates et al 2002 pentachlorophenol (PCP), and creosote, using cement formulations containing activated carbon or other proprietary reagents at the American Creosote site (ACW site) in Jackson, Tennessee.…”

“…Bates et al (2002) reported the results of S-S treatment of various organic contaminants, including dioxins, Table 8. Selected results of the ACW treatability study (Bates et al 2002 pentachlorophenol (PCP), and creosote, using cement formulations containing activated carbon or other proprietary reagents at the American Creosote site (ACW site) in Jackson, Tennessee. As shown in Table 8, the case study results show that the method is successful in reducing the concentration of organics to a target level in the leachate.…”

Performance assessment of stabilised/solidified waste-forms

“…Consequently, the USEPA conducted the site assessment and its subsequent remedial operation, which took place in 1999, after the removal of the excess water and creosote from the site. The remaining contaminated soil was treated by ex situ S/S to a depth of 1.5m, using a formulation of 5 % Portland cement, 4.5 % fly ash and 1.3 % powdered activated carbon (percentage by weight of untreated soil) (Bates et al, 2002). The treated soils were compacted and covered with a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), capped with 0.6 m of clean fill and 0.12 m of topsoil (Bates et a/., 2002).…”

“…The remaining contaminated soil was treated by ex situ S/S to a depth of 1.5m, using a formulation of 5 % Portland cement, 4.5 % fly ash and 1.3 % powdered activated carbon (percentage by weight of untreated soil) (Bates et al, 2002). The treated soils were compacted and covered with a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), capped with 0.6 m of clean fill and 0.12 m of topsoil (Bates et a/., 2002). The last stage of the remedial operation was seeding with grass, to improve the water drainage, and the installation of protective fencing to restrict the access to the site.…”