Abstract
The occurrence of contaminated materials encountered during harbour dredging is becoming increasingly problematic for harbour and port authorities. The risks to human health, wildlife and port infrastructure of exposure to such contaminants necessitates the removal or containment of such risks. As with contaminated terrestrial sites the solidification and stabilization (S/S) of this material has been proven to be an effective alternative to disposing of contaminants off-site, typically via dumping at sea or in a landfill. Research, to date, on S/S has been focused on heavily contaminated sediments in large industrial ports. However, with tightening environmental regulations, the limits of acceptable contamination are generally decreasing. This means the number of port dredging projects requiring contaminant remediation is increasing. There is now a need to examine the effectiveness of S/S on harbour sites that are mildly contaminated from both an environmental and project feasibility viewpoint. To that end, this study examines the effectiveness of various S/S mix percentages of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) in retarding the leaching of contaminants from a mildly contaminated harbour site.
Highlights
There is a dual benefit to mixing cementitious binders with contaminated dredge material
We considered the high mercury concentrations observed for the 4% and 12% ordinary Portland cement (OPC) samples to have derived from variations in the contamination of the dredged material
The increase in arsenic in this study was contrary to recent work [20], where the leaching of arsenic was shown to decrease, relative to pH, when ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) was tested on aggregates in combination with flyash and OPC binder
Summary
There is a dual benefit to mixing cementitious binders with contaminated dredge material. The effective contaminant binding and increased engineering properties transforms an otherwise costly waste into a valuable construction material The trialling of this approach has been well documented in heavily contaminated marine projects [1] where the cost benefit of solidification and stabilization (S/S) has been justified by the expensive alternatives to disposing of heavily contaminated hazardous waste, >€ 200/m3 [2]. Another alternative is contaminated soil remediation methods ranging from Electro- chemical separation, thermal treatment, bio remediation and sediment washing. A significant driver of the variation of costs of S/S on contaminated soil is the quantity of the binder required
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
