Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and Remediation: Proceedings of the International Conference on Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and Remediation, 12-13 April 2005, Cambridge, UK

453 Pages·2005·9.6 MB·English

by  Abir Al Tabbaa

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STABILISATION/SOLIDIFICATION
TREATMENT AND REMEDIATION, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, UNITED KINGDOM,
12–13 APRIL 2005
Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment
and Remediation
Advances in S/S for Waste and Contaminated Land
Edited by
Abir Al-Tabbaa
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Julia A. Stegemann
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University College London,
United Kingdom
A.A. BALKEMA PUBLISHERS LEIDEN/ LONDON/ NEWYORK/ PHILADELPHIA/ SINGAPORE
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Front cover images:
Scanning electron micrograph: Ramesh Perera, University of Cambridge
Soil mixing auger (right) and soil-mixed wall (middle): May Gurney
Soil mixing auger (left): Bachy Soletanche
Back cover images:
Scanning electron micrograph: Marwa Al-Ansary, University of Cambridge
Mixers (right and middle): British Cement Association
Extruded cores from stabilised/solidified ground (left): Nathalie Boes, University of Cambridge
Organised by the UK EPSRC-funded network STARNET (Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and
Remediation)
Sponsored by:
Bachy Soletanche British Cement Association
British Geotechnical Association EDGE Consultants
Lhoist May Gurney
Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, by
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior permission from the publisher.
Although all care is taken to ensure the integrity and quality of this publication and the information herein,
no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any damage to property or persons as a
result of operation or use of this publication and/or the information contained herein.
Published by: A.A. Balkema Publishers, a member of Taylor & Francis Group plc
www.balkema.nl and www.tandf.co.uk
ISBN (set consisting of Book and CD-ROM): 04 1537 460 X
ISBN Book: 04 1537 460 X
ISBN CD-ROM: 04 1537 461 8
Printed in Great Britain
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and Remediation – Al-Tabbaa & Stegemann (eds)
©2005 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 04 1537 460 X
Table of Contents
Preface ix
Conference organising and technical committee xi
Keynote lectures
The Landfill Directive and its implications for the remediation of contaminated soils 3
J.R. Gronow
Deep mixing – properties and applications 7
G. Holm
Stabilisation/solidification experience in France 11
P-Y. Klein & M.C. Magnié
Test methods, modelling, field verification and impact evaluation of stabilised waste disposal 15
H. van der Sloot, A. van Zomeren & R. Bleijerveld
Theme 1: Binders and technologies
Stabilisation/solidification of synthetic drill cuttings representing Ras Shukier oil field in Egypt 19
M.S. Al-Ansary & A. Al-Tabbaa
Effect of different binder systems on the stabilisation/solidification of metal finishing wastes 31
C.R. Cheeseman, G.D. Fowler & X. Zhou
Specifying cement – standards and nomenclature 39
C.A. Clear
An evaluation of pozzolanic lead immobilization mechanisms in firing range soils 45
D. Dermatas, X. Xu, X. Cao, G. Shen, N. Menounou, P. Arienti & J.S. Delaney
Chemical treatment of soft soils containing Cr(VI) with different clay minerals 57
Y. Hayashi, M. Mizota, A. Suzuki, Y. Kitazono & H. Harada
Applications of rejected fly ash in stabilization and solidification processes 63
C.S. Poon, X.C. Qiao & C. Cheeseman
Remediation of soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons using quicklime mixing 69
V. Schifano, C.L. MacLeod, A.W.L. Dudeney & R. Dudeney
A new cement system for waste immobilisation – calcium sulfoaluminate cement system 79
Q. Zhou, N.B. Milestone & M. Hayes
Theme 2: Testing, QA/QC and guidance documents
UK guidance on stabilisation/solidification for the treatment of contaminated soil 89
B.D. Bone, L.H. Barnard & C.D. Hills
The Rietveld method as a tool for assessing heavy-metal immobilization in 97
S/S treatment investigations
D. Dermatas & M. Chrysochoou
v
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Modelling in support of setting the waste acceptance criteria for monolithic waste 107
D.H. Hall, D. Drury & J.R. Gronow
A review of scale-up factors potentially affecting the long-term performance 117
of s/s-treated materials
D. Johnson
Reduction in leaching of hazardous substances from coal ash by addition of solidification agent 125
A. Sato & S. Nishimoto
Theme 3: Long-term performance and environmental impact
Performance assessment of stabilised/solidified waste-forms: initial results from 133
site characterisation, sampling and testing
A. Antemir, C.D. Hills, P.J. Carey, J. Spear, K. Gardner, D.I. Boardman & C.D.F. Rogers
Characterisation of full-scale historic inactive cement-based intermediate level nuclear wasteforms 139
R.J. Caldwell, S. Rawlinson, E.J. Butcher & I.H. Godfrey
Accelerated ageing of a stabilised/solidified contaminated soil at elevated temperatures 149
B. Chitambira, A. Al-Tabbaa, A.S.R. Perera & X.D. Yu
The technical sustainability of in-situ stabilisation/solidification 159
M.J. Harbottle, A. Al-Tabbaa & C.W. Evans
Chromium (Cr3(cid:1)) leachability from monolithic solids under modified semi-dynamic 171
leaching conditions
D.H. Moon & D. Dermatas
The role of accelerated carbonation in the accelerated ageing of stabilised/solidified waste forms 181
A.S.R. Perera & A. Al-Tabbaa
Theme 4: Case studies
The development and operation of the BNFL Magnox encapsulation plant 195
N.J. Bowmer, I.H. Godfrey & E.J. Butcher
In-situ soil mixing treatment of contaminated soils at Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 199
C.W. Evans
Stabilisation/solidification of manufactured gas plant wastes: Part 1 – treatability study 205
M.A. Fleri, G.T. Whetstone & J.P. Bauman
Stabilisation/solidification of manufactured gas plant wastes: Part 2 – pilot test study 215
M.A. Fleri, G.T. Whetstone & J.P. Bauman
Stabilisation/solidification of manufactured gas plant wastes: Part 3 – selected case histories 223
M.A. Fleri, G.T. Whetstone & J.P. Bauman
Solidification of water treatment works sludge with ettringite cement and pulverised-fuel ash 235
D. Johnson
Stabilisation/solidification of dredging sludge containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 241
E. Mulder, L. Feenstra, J.P. Brouwer, J.W. Frenay & S. Bos
La Floridienne: the first large scale immobilization project in Belgium 249
S. Pensaert
The remediation of the acid tar lagoons, Rieme Belgium 255
S. Pensaert
vi
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
PIMS with Apatite II: A field scale demonstration on a lead contaminated soil 261
J. Wright, J.L. Conca & A.F. Slater
Industrial experiences in the use of S/S technology to remediate and reuse dredged sediments 267
E.P. Yates & W.J. Gush
Theme 5: Stabilisation of uncontaminated materials
Geosynthetic reinforcement of high-alkaline soils: Basics and two typical projects 277
D. Alexiew & G.J. Horgan
Influence of soil and binder properties on the efficacy of accelerated carbonation 285
L.H. Barnard, D.I. Boardman, C.D.F. Rogers, C.D. Hills, P.J. Carey, K. Canning & C.L. MacLeod
Properties of mixes of sugar cane fibre waste with cement binding 297
R. Jeetah, A. Seeboo, C.P. Khedun & T. Dusoruth
Recent advances in numerical modelling of deep-stabilized soil 303
M. Karstunen, H. Krenn & A. Aalto
Theme 6: Beyond conventional stabilisation/solidification
Lead contamination and immobilization at shooting range sites 313
X. Cao, D. Dermatas, G. Shen & L.Q. Ma
Effect of microbial activities on the mobility of copper in stabilised contaminated soil 323
U.E. Duru & A. Al-Tabbaa
Development of geomaterials with various immobilisation treatments for heavy
metals and evaluation of environmental impact 335
K. Omine, H. Ochiai & N. Yasufuku
Stabilization of chromium by reductase enzyme treatment 347
K.S.M. Rahman & M.A.V. Murthy
Stabilising inorganic contaminants in soils: considerations for the use of smart additives 357
H. Weigand, C. Gemeinhardt & C. Marb
State of practice reports
UK stabilisation/solidification treatment and remediation
Part I: Binders and technologies – basic principles 365
A. Al-Tabbaa & A.S.R. Perera
Part II: Binders and technologies – research 387
A. Al-Tabbaa & A.S.R. Perera
Part III: Binders and technologies – applications 399
A. Al-Tabbaa & A.S.R. Perera
Part IV: Testing and performance criteria 415
A.S.R. Perera, A. Al-Tabbaa, J.M. Reid & J.A. Stegemann
Part V: Long-term performance and environmental impact 437
A.S.R. Perera, A. Al-Tabbaa, J.M. Reid & D. Johnson
Part VI: Quality assurance and quality control 459
A.S.R. Perera, A. Al-Tabbaa & D. Johnson
Part VII: Good practice guidance documents 469
A.S.R. Perera, A. Al-Tabbaa & D. Johnson
Author index 487
vii
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and Remediation – Al-Tabbaa & Stegemann (eds)
©2005 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 04 1537 460 X
Preface
Stabilisation/Solidification (S/S) has emerged as an efficient method for the treatment of certain hazardous wastes
and contaminated ground and has become widely used. S/S technologies include a wide range of similar processes
that involve mixing inorganic cementitious or pozzolanic binders, such as Portland cement, coal fly ash or blast
furnace slag, into the waste or soil to transform it into a solid material of low leachability. The treated waste prod-
uct encapsulates potentially hazardous contaminants, reducing contact between the waste and any potential
leachant. In addition to physical encapsulation, various waste-binder interactions occur to chemically immobilise
contaminants in the product, further reducing the potential for pollutant transfer into the environment.
Although waste disposal to landfill is generally regarded as the least favoured waste management option,
hazardous industrial wastes that cannot be recycled or destroyed will continue to be produced and require
safe disposal. Despite incomplete information regarding the long-term durability and waste retention properties
of the materials produced by S/S, necessity, and the lack of other effective remediation methods, is driving these
types of technologies to become increasingly widely used in many countries. In France and the USA for example,
S/S is now seen as a major treatment technology for hazardous wastes. There has been some S/S used for waste treat-
ment in the UK during the last 15 years, but these technologies have, until now, not been able to compete with
direct co-disposal of hazardous and liquid industrial wastes and contaminated soils to landfill with municipal solid
wastes.
The EU Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC, implemented in the UK under the Landfill Regulations 2002, is
having a significant impact on UK waste management. Under the Directive, landfill sites are classified as being
restricted to hazardous, non-hazardous or inert wastes; co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes has
been banned from 16 July 2004. Consequently, waste treatment prior to landfill disposal is likely to be increas-
ingly required. An EU Technical Adaptation Committee has set waste acceptance criteria for different classes of
landfill which will determined the degree of pre-treatment required and will affect the choice of treatment tech-
nologies. S/S technologies will almost certainly represent the most cost-effective treatment method available for
major types of industrial wastes that are predominantly inorganic.
There is also a legacy of industrially contaminated sites in the UK that require some form of remediation
before they can be redeveloped. This has become increasingly important in recent years, as greater environ-
mental awareness and growing pressure on land resources have brought about the protection of greenbelt
and agricultural land. The government has stated that it requires the construction of 2.4 million new homes by
the year 2016, 60% on brownfield sites, much of which was originally used for industrial purposes. However,
as a result of past usage, increased levels of pollution within the soil and groundwater may preclude such sites
from immediate construction activity. Some type of ground remediation is therefore required, the choice of
which is governed by performance, speed and economics. These requirements have promoted research into fast,
effective and economical remediation techniques that enable future land commercialisation. Again, S/S is
emerging as a cost-effective and rapid remediation method and has been commercially employed on sites
worldwide.
This book contains refereed papers presented at the International Conference on Stabilisation/Solidification
Treatment and Remediation – Advances in S/S for Waste and Contaminated Land. The objective of the confer-
ence is to share and disseminate the latest developments in the research and applications of S/S technologies.
The conference is organised by the UK EPSRC-funded network on stabilisation/solidification treatment and
remediation (STARNET). The conference was held at Cambridge University Engineering Department and
Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge on 12–13 April 2005. In addition to the papers, the proceedings include
summaries of the keynote lectures and the seven state of practice reports on UK stabilisation/solidification
treatment and remediation produced as part of the STARNET activities over the past four years.
The papers in the proceedings are divided into the following six themes:
Binder and Technology Selection
Applicability of different types of binders and binder systems to wastes and contaminated soils
Testing,QA/QC and Good Practice Guidance Documents
Suitability of current test methods for evaluating performance of S/S systems, performance criteria, properties
of correctly treated S/S materials and guidance on the use of S/S
ix
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Long-Term Performance and Environmental Impact
Properties and degradation mechanisms of S/S materials in the long term, ageing of S/S materials and sustain-
ability issues
Case Studies
Commercial in-situ and ex-situ applications of S/S to a wide range of waste sites and contaminated land
Stabilisation of Uncontaminated Materials
Learning from stabilisation of uncontaminated materials and correlations with S/S of contaminated materials
Beyond Conventional S/S
Emerging S/S materials and techniques including biological stabilisation techniques
The topics covered in the seven state of practice reports on UK Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and
Remediation are:
Part I: Binders and Technologies – Basic Principles
Part II: Binders and Technologies – Research
Part III: Binders and Technologies – Applications
Part IV: Testing and Performance Criteria
Part V: Long-Term Performance and Environmental Impact
Part VI: Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Part VII: Good Practice Guidance Documents
STARNET was established in May 2001 to build a network of key participants to work together to promote
the development of research work on and implementation of UK stabilisation/solidification treatment and
remediation practices. STARNET has a core membership of 26, from 24 different organisations including aca-
demia, consultants, contractors and regulators. Its extended worldwide membership is currently at 94 members.
A website was established at www-starnet.eng.cam.ac.uk, which contains details of the STARNET activities
and publications. In addition to quarterly meetings, STARNET hosted a workshop in July 2002 to address
knowledge gaps and research needs, a summary of which was published in the Journal of Land Contamination
and Reclamation, 2003, Vol. 11 (1), pp 71–79.
On behalf of STARNET, we thank the many excellent contributors to our network, workshop and conference,
and trust that the body of knowledge in this book will be useful to the S/S community and to the wider
communities of contaminated land remediation and waste management.
Abir Al-Tabbaa and Julia Stegemann
Editors

x
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and Remediation – Al-Tabbaa & Stegemann (eds)
©2005 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 04 1537 460 X
Conference organising and technical committee
Dr Abir Al-Tabbaa Cambridge University Mr Hedley Greaves Buxton Lime Industries
Mr Ramesh Perera Cambridge University Ms Leslie Heasman MJCA
Dr Julia Stegemann University College London Dr Colin Hills University of Greenwich
Dr Murray Reid Viridis Dr David Johnson S/S Remediation Consultancy
Dr David Boardman Birmingham University Ms Joanne Kwan CIRIA
Dr Brian Bone Environment Agency Dr Gordon Lethbridge Shell Global Solutions
Mr Keith Bradshaw Enverity Dr Cecilia MacLeod ARCADIS
Dr Ed Butcher BNFL Dr Peter Mallory Lafarge Cement
Dr Chris Cheeseman Imperial College London Dr Sabeha Ouki University of Surrey
Dr Chris Clear BCA Prof. Chris Rogers Birmingham University
Dr Gev Eduljee SITA Mr Steve Roscoe Grundon
Dr Chris Evans May Gurney Dr Rob Sweeney CL:AIRE
Dr Stephanie Glendinning University of Newcastle Dr David Tonks EDGE Consultants

xi
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Stabilisation/Solidification Treatment and Remediation – Al-Tabbaa & Stegemann (eds)
©2005 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 04 1537 460 X
The Landfill Directive and its implications for the remediation of
contaminated soils
J.R. Gronow
Environment Agency, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, UK
ABSTRACT: The Landfill Directive requires the introduction of the characterisation and pre-treatment of
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes destined for landfill disposal. One consequence of the directive is that the
number of active landfills in the UK is decreasing significantly. These factors are having a considerable impact
on the current disposal options for contaminated soils. There is a need for a fundamental revision of the
approach taken to the remediation of contaminated sites away from the heavy dependency on landfill and
towards a much greater use of treatment technologies.
1 INTRODUCTION The main implications of these requirements are that
the economics and availability of landfill as a means
The implementation of the Landfill Directive (1999/ of dealing with contaminated soils will be altered.
31/EC) and the associated Decision (2003/33/EC) is This indicates that a basic change is required in the
having a very significant impact in those parts of remediation of contaminated sites. The dependency
Europe that do not have a waste management infra- on landfill should be reduced in favour of the use of
structure based on incineration. Planning for the treatment technologies.
required changes provides an opportunity to review
the cost and the sustainability of the measures that are
being put in place to meet the directive. 3 THE IMPACT OF THE NEW MEASURES
3.1 Classification
2 LANDFILL DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
Landfills must be classified for hazardous, non-haz-
The following requirements impact most on the reme- ardous or inert waste. Such sites will only be able to
diation of contaminated soils: accept wastes within these categories (although non-
– the classification of landfills and the end of the hazardous sites can also accept inert waste). Until 16
co-disposal of hazardous with non-hazardous wastes; July 2004 existing hazardous landfills were able to
– prohibition of certain waste types from landfill; continue to co-dispose hazardous waste with non-
– pre-treatment of wastes before landfill; hazardous waste. Now, they may only accept treated
– the general characterisation and testing of waste to hazardous wastes as defined by the Hazardous Waste
be landfilled that must be based on a three-level Directive (91/689/EEC).
hierarchy; At the time of writing, Defra is consulting on
– the setting of waste acceptance criteria for the changes to hazardous waste legislation in England, to
deposit of waste in inert sites and the landfilling of implement the new European Waste Catalogue (EWC,
hazardous waste. 2000/532/EC as amended by Decisions 2001/118/EC,
2001/119/EC and 2001/573/EC). However, the Landfill
In order to landfill a contaminated soil:
Regulations (SI 2002:1559 as amended) refer directly
– it must have been treated; to the Hazardous Waste Directive (HWD) for the def-
– the resultant product must not be a prohibited inition of hazardous. As the HWD incorporates the
waste; new EWC, it is this list which must be used to define
– the product must be characterised and assessed as hazardous for the purpose of classifying wastes des-
to whether it is hazardous or non-hazardous; and tined for landfilling.
– the product must comply with the acceptance crite- If a waste is hazardous, then it must comply with
ria for the most appropriate class of landfill. criteria for hazardous waste landfill, or for hazardous
3
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
waste deposited in a non-hazardous waste landfill. If Landfills for non-hazardous waste can accept:
it is not hazardous waste, then the decision is whether
– municipal waste;
it can be accepted at landfill for inert waste, or must
– non-hazardous wastes which fulfils national waste
go to landfill for non-hazardous waste. In choosing a
acceptance criteria, primarily based on leachate
treatment, it will therefore be sensible to have regard
concentrations; and
to the disposal cost and availability of the class of
– stable non-reactive hazardous wastes, which has a
landfill to which the product must be disposed.
leaching behaviour equivalent to that of non-
New categories for soil and dredging spoil were
hazardous waste and which fulfils the waste
established by the EWC. The soil and dredging types
acceptance criteria.
are coded as:
Landfills for inert waste can only accept waste that
are either on the list of inert wastes given in table 1 of
schedule 1 of the first Landfill Amendment Regulations
17 05 soil (including excavated soil from
contaminated sites), stones & dredging spoil or meet the criteria set out in tables 2 & 3 of those
regulations. These are updated in the draft second
17 05 03* soil & stones containing dangerous substances
17 05 04 soils & stones other than those mentioned in Landfill Amendment Regulations, which are out for
17 05 03 consultation at the time of drafting this paper. It
17 05 05* dredging spoil containing dangerous should be noted that these criteria include a low total
substances organic carbon content of 30,000mg/kg or a dissolved
17 05 06 dredging spoil other than those mentioned organic carbon value of 500mg/kg, which should be
in 17 05 05 evaluated against the appropriate standard leaching
test BS EN 12457:1-3 (available from the British
Standards Institute). They also contain total content
Any waste marked with an asterisk is considered to be limits for BTEX compounds, PCBs, PAHs and min-
a hazardous waste. Where an entry makes a reference eral oils. Many lightly contaminated soils are likely to
to dangerous substances, these entries are termed fail these criteria and will therefore have to undergo
‘mirror entries’as there is both a hazardous and non- further treatment to meet the criteria or be disposed of
hazardous entry for the waste on the list. These wastes at landfills for non-hazardous wastes.
have the potential to be hazardous or non-hazardous
depending on their actual composition and the con-
3.2 Prohibited wastes
centrations of dangerous substances within the wastes.
If the concentrations of dangerous substances exceed In general, wastes that are liquid, explosive, oxidis-
the relevant thresholds then the waste is hazardous ing, flammable, corrosive or infectious are prohibited
and the appropriate EWC entry is the one marked from landfill, should they have those characteristics
with an asterisk. Otherwise the non-hazardous entry in the conditions of a landfill. Therefore, such wastes
is appropriate. must either be eliminated at source, or subject to a
Contaminated soils are wastes that have the potential treatment that either obviates the need for landfill or
to be hazardous. If landfilled, when so classified, they that produces residue(s) that do not exhibit those
must comply with the waste acceptance criteria for characteristics under landfill conditions.
hazardous waste landfills, set out in the first Landfill
Amendment Regulations (SI 2004:1375). It is impor-
3.3 Treatment
tant to note that the waste acceptance criteria exclude
some wastes even from hazardous waste landfills. The Landfill Regulations require all wastes to be
Whether contaminated soils are hazardous or not treated prior to landfilling, regardless of whether they
will be determined by the nature and concentration of meet the waste acceptance criteria or not. Treatment
contaminants present within the soil. Implications for is not necessary for inert wastes where it is not tech-
the landfilling contaminated soils are that, in order to nically feasible, nor for any other wastes for which
determine whether they are hazardous or not, they treatment would not contribute to reducing the to be
must be assessed against all hazards H1–H14. This is treated before landfill quantity or hazardousness of
more onerous than the previous requirement for an the waste.
assessment to determine whether a soil was a special In the Landfill Regulations, treatment is defined as
waste or not. The Agency has published a technical physical, thermal, chemical, or biological processes
guidance note entitled criteria and protocols for the (including sorting) that change the characteristics of
assessment and classification of hazardous waste. waste in order to reduce its volume or hazardous nature,
This is available on the Agency’s website and pro- facilitate its handling or enhance recovery. Dilution
vides guidance on the use of the new EWC including of waste via mixing with uncontaminated media to
the assessment of hazards H1–H14. meet acceptance criteria is not an acceptable treatment
4
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC