Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/11681/4814Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor | Installation Restoration Research Program (U.S.) | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Bricka, R. Mark | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Williford, Clint W., 1952- | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Jones, L. W. (Lawrence W.) | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-03-17T18:44:27Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2016-03-17T18:44:27Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 1993-12 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11681/4814 | - |
| dc.description | Technical Report | - |
| dc.description | Abstract: Past military and industrial activities have contaminated numerous U.S. Anny installations with metals, solvents and explosives. The Army's Installation Restoration Research Program (IRRP) seeks to clean up contaminated soils and groundwater that could adversely impact the environment and restrict the use of Army land. Early studies revealed an immense scope of needed restoration and many contaminants unique to the Army. In response, the Army initiated research to develop more effective, economical, and environmentally responsible technologies for treating contaminated soils. This report reviews treatment technologies for heavy metal-contaminated soil for development and use at U.S. Army installations. Assessment criteria included treatment effectiveness, long-term stability/performance, residuals treatment/disposal requirements, adaptability, scale up potential, and potential disqualifiers. Where available, cost estimates are given. The technologies are grouped in four categories: physical/chemical, thermal, immobilization/stabilization/disposal processes, and vegetative uptake. Results show that only two methods are widely practiced: dig-and-haul and immobilization/stabilization. While effective in the near term, costs associated with these approaches are increasing. Also, these approaches carry long-term liabilities consume secure landfill space, and may not satisfy future regulation. A number of promising technologies are available that could be developed within a 5-year time frame. However, questions and uncertainties exist for a number of them. Appropriate research and development should be directed at the most promising technologies. | - |
| dc.publisher | Environmental Laboratory (U.S.) | - |
| dc.publisher | Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.) | - |
| dc.relation | http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/en_US/search/asset/1004529 | - |
| dc.rights | Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. | - |
| dc.source | This Digital Resource was created from scans of the Print Resource | - |
| dc.subject | Contaminated soils | - |
| dc.subject | Heavy metals | - |
| dc.subject | Metals cleanup | - |
| dc.subject | Metals contamination | - |
| dc.subject | Soils | - |
| dc.subject | Treatment | - |
| dc.subject | Treatment technologies | - |
| dc.subject | Soil pollution | - |
| dc.title | Technology assessment of currently available and developmental techniques for heavy metals-contaminated soils treatment | - |
| dc.type | Report | en_US |
| Appears in Collections: | Technical Report | |
