Soilworks products are the industry’s top standard due to our insistence on creating high performance soil stabilization and dust control products that stand up to rigorous testing – both in the lab and in the field. Our commitment to quality and performance has led to our involvement and testing in hundreds of real-world situations. The following library of reports, presentations, specifications, approvals and other similar documents provide you, our customer, the transparency and dependable assurance that is expected from Soilworks.
PUBLIC WORKS TECHNICAL BULLETIN 200-1-133 31 OCTOBER 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTING COST-EFFECTIVE DUST CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Public Works Technical Bulletins are published by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. They are intended to provide information on specific topics in areas of Facilities Engi- neering and Public Works. They are not intended to establish new Department of Army policy.
Facilities Engineering Environmental
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTING COST-EFFECTIVE DUST CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Purpose
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_cat.php?o=31&c=215
Applicability
This PWTB applies to engineering activities at all US Army facilities.
References
Discussion
Points of Contact
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) ATTN: CEERD-CN-N, Dr. Dick L. Gebhart
PO Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
Tel. (217) 373-5847
FAX: (217) 373-7266
e-mail: Dick.L.Gebhart@usace.army.mil
FOR THE COMMANDER:
JAMES C. DALTON, P.E., SES
Chief, Engineering and Construction Directorate of Civil Works
APPENDIX A:
OVERVIEW OF DUST CONTROL
Background
Chronology of Investigations
Since 1946, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been conducting a comprehensive research program on pavement maintenance, soil stabilization, and trafficability that has included companion studies to investigate the development and evaluation of dust control materials on roads, trails, landing strips, and helipads.
From 1966 to 1974, the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), formerly called the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, pursued a program to identify suitable dust control materials for use in the Southeast Asia theater of operation. Numerous promising materials were developed from these efforts. During the mid-1980s, results of several small-scale Facilities Technology Application Test (FTAT) demonstrations were published by WES concerning procedures and techniques for dustproofing unsurfaced roads and other areas on military installations using common, industry- standard suppressants.
During the early 1980s, the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center — Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (ERDC-CERL) in Champaign, Illinois, began investigating fugitive dust and dust control relating to compliance issues with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The primary objective of this work involved developing designs and monitoring criteria for using high-volume air sampling systems to collect total suspended and respirable particulate air quality data associated with various dust control techniques and training activities at Fort Carson, Colorado.
During the early 1990s, WES conducted further investigations to develop and/or evaluate new dust control materials that had become available since the related efforts of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Results of these studies suggested that equipment, manpower, and logistical requirements associated with the proper use of dust control materials could be reduced by at least 30%.
During fiscal year (FY)96, in cooperation with the US Army Environmental Center (USAEC), ERDC-CERL demonstrated the performance, durability, and characteristics of several commercially available dust control products at Fort Hood, Texas, and Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Results from these two demonstrations, a similar study at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and the previous research conducted by WES, provided the necessary data to begin summarizing and developing Army-wide documentation for dust control products.
During FY97, ERDC-CERL conducted additional research on dust control technologies as they relate to sandy soils at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, and Fort Drum, New York. Results from these studies provided much-needed data on dustproofing and stabilization of sandy-textured soils in colder regions of the United States.
In the early 2000s, researchers at ERDC Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory (ERDC-GSL) continued the testing and evaluation of commercial and experimental dust control products for dust abatement in arid and semiarid environments as part of Joint Rapid Airfield Construction Program, thereby producing invaluable data for water-limited environments. Follow-on work conducted at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Midwest Research Institute, and ERDC-CERL provided Environmental Technology Verification reports for several next-generation dust suppressant chemicals. More recent work for dust control and soil stabilization in FY09-10 by ERDC-GSL involved experimental compounds derived from microbiological processes, and this work continues to provide important data relative to dust control products for the future.
This report compiles and summarizes this vast but obscure set of data resources, including those from academia and state and federal agencies, and then uses them to develop guidance for selecting dust control technologies for environmental concerns. The summarized data were also used to develop a question-based worksheet that allows Army and Civil Works personnel to select appropriate and cost-effective dust control technologies based on site-specific climate and soil characteristics.
Literature Search
To compile the objective data necessary to produce this dust control guidance and technology-selection worksheet (Appendix B), a review of existing dust control research and data resources was conducted. Sources for this review included: (1) published research in scientific and popular journals and trade magazines; (2) manufacturing and service company product evaluations and promotional literature; (3) unpublished theses and dissertations from universities and colleges; (4) published and unpublished reports associated with DoD entities such as major commands, research laboratories, and individual installations; (5) published and unpublished reports from other federal agencies such as the US Department of Agriculture (including Forest Service, Agricultural Research Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service)and the US Department of Interior (Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, and Fish and Wildlife Service); (6) the US Department of Transportation; and (7) published and unpublished reports from state and local agencies involved with transportation, agriculture, environmental quality/conservation, air quality, and natural resources management.
Data Requirements
To assure that data obtained from the literature search were unbiased and reliable, careful attention was devoted to retrieving data that: (1) provided descriptions of site characteristics such as climate, soil type/texture, surface characteristics, and traffic patterns; (2) identified the chemical composition of dust control products used; (3) reported application rates and techniques; (4) detailed how performance, durability, cost, and upkeep requirements were evaluated; (5) compared two or more types of products; and (6) were quantitative in nature and clearly supported recommendations of one product over another. Literature meeting these requirements was then incorporated into a spreadsheet referencing the above criteria and subsequently used in the development of the dust control guidance and question-based worksheet (Appendix B).
Dust Generation and Control
Excessive dust generation on unsurfaced roads, helicopter landing zones, firing lines, and assembly areas on military installations contributes significantly to reduced air quality and associated Clean Air Act (CAA) compliance violations as CAA regulations have become more restrictive relative to particle size. Dust also increases safety hazards, health and respiratory problems, and vehicle maintenance requirements, and thus can reduce mission success. For example, dust can interfere with weapons targeting systems, landing clearance, and training delays. Dust generation is a preventable environmental problem that can often be controlled by proper road grading, surfacing, and maintenance practices. Preventing dust generation is a cost-effective way to avoid problems that can result in mission failure during training operations (Styron et al. 1985).
Treating Dust Problems
The main factors that lead to dust problems are loose surface materials, strong winds generated by atmospheric pressure changes, and vehicle movement (Figure A-1 and Figure A-2). Loose roadway materials are easily removed through wind action, resulting in surface degradation and enhanced dust generation because smaller particles (fines) necessary for proper bonding and surface strength have been eliminated. This situation will eventually lead to excessive road subsurface wear, thereby accelerating further surface destabilization and environmental concerns such as erosion (Figure A-3). In addition, climatic factors (e.g., low rainfall and high temperatures) contribute to dust problems, especially in arid and semiarid regions.
Figure A-1. Military vehicles can generate dust by their operation on unpaved surfaces or in arid and semi-arid environments.
Figure A-2. Military vehicles can generate significant amounts of dust pollution due to their size and their intensity of use.
Figure A-3. Multiple vehicle convoys across unpaved roads and trails destabilize surfaces and result in heavy dust production.
When its subgrade deteriorates, the road will require work such as regrading, the addition of fines to promote surface bonding and strength, geometric shaping, and compaction to recreate a hard surface layer and a properly crowned cross section. Frequently, only specific sections of roads, trails, and landing strips are problematic for excessive dust generation and can be treated individually as needed. Some examples of problem areas include (a) road/trail intersections, (b) road/trail segments close to high-speed paved roads or near housing and administrative areas, and (c) fuel and ammunition supply routes. This individual treatment approach specifically targets problem areas and assures that valuable personnel, equipment, and material resources are not wasted on areas with only marginal dust problems.
Chemical dust suppressants are considered a secondary solution, to be used only after maintenance practices have been implemented to the greatest extent possible (Figure A-4). The question-based worksheet in Appendix B provides guidelines for determining whether chemical dust suppressants are warranted, based on predominant and site-specific surface characteristics, soil types/textures, climate, and vehicle types.
Figure A-4. Various products can be applied for dust control. Here, soybean oil is being applied to a properly graded and very heavily trafficked main supply route at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
Dust control methods can be categorized into the three major areas listed below. Applying these methods should follow the order given below, with the possibility that it may be necessary to employ all three methods to reduce dust emissions to a satisfactory level for environmental compliance. Note that, as stated below, the use of chemical dust suppressants is not recommended if intrinsic factors such as proper grading, drainage, and maintenance have not been utilized or are not adequate.
Categories of Chemical Dust Suppressants
Chemical dust suppressants (palliatives) are classified in the following general categories.
Limitations of Dust Suppressants
Depending on which state the military installation or civil works site is located in, there may be limitations as to which product category can be used. Prior to actually applying any chemical dust suppressants, it is imperative to determine if there are any regulatory limitations concerning its use. Most state departments of transportation, environmental quality, or environmental conservation can provide details concerning the application of specific dust suppressants. For example, the State of New York prohibits the use of salts (e.g., CaCl, MgCl) within 100 ft of regulated wetlands and limits yearly application rates for non-wetland areas. There are programs in the United States that have developed guidelines specific to the use of dust palliatives. These programs include the USEPA’s Environmental Technology Verification Program, state-level programs in California, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Pennsylvania, and a county-level program in Clark County, Nevada (where dust control in the rapidly developing desert region near Las Vegas is of prime importance). These programs have stringent requirements for testing product chemistry, toxicity, uniformity, application rates, curing times, and particulate matter (PM) control efficiency. These programs have been embraced by manufacturer and consumer alike, and are often used voluntarily by others outside of the program areas. At a minimum, it is always advisable to obtain a record of environmental consideration or other similar document prior to purchasing and applying any dust suppressant.
It is also important to note that similar products within a given product category are not necessarily equal in terms of performance, durability, cost, and ease of application. Vendors capable of providing dual services to supply and apply dust palliatives are not necessarily equal in terms of reliability, timeliness, and adherence to application specifications. This is why the above-mentioned technology verification programs are so important to both vendors and customers alike. Because the mention of specific trade names could be perceived as exclusionary by competing vendors, it is the responsibility of the end user of these products to ascertain whether a given vendor or product trade name can provide high-quality results or services. For this reason, details and contacts pertaining to each product category derived from the question-based worksheet (Appendix B) can be found in Appendix C. These references will often cite specific products within product categories by trade name, which should aid the user in identifying products with proven performance characteristics.
Guidelines for Dust Control
Construction of New Roadway Surfaces
The best way to provide long-term dust control is proper design and construction of new roads, trails, and landing zones.
Special consideration should be given to the factors listed below.
Existing Roadway Surfaces
Regular maintenance of existing roads and landing zones is the most cost-effective method to control dust emissions at a military installation or civil works site. According to Army guidance, special attention should be paid to:
Water Application
Spraying water on a problem area usually gives immediate results and is inexpensive for short-term dust control. Water surrounds and adheres to dust particles making their movement more difficult. However, the effectiveness of water applications is short-lived, and it may cause the pumping of fines to the wearing surface if continual wetting conditions occur. In arid climates, conservation of water may be regulated so as to prohibit this method of dust control. In any case, application of water is only recommended as a short-term solution to dust emission problems.
APPENDIX B:
DUST SUPPRESSANT SELECTION WORKSHEET
Background for Worksheet
The following question-based worksheet is designed to allow a military installation or civil works site that is experiencing dust control problems to evaluate various solutions. Chemical dust suppressant categories are recommended if warranted by traffic volumes, climatic factors, and soil types/textures. The recommended palliative categories are those that have shown best results from empirical studies and surveys of current literature done for this report. Product performance standards cited from these references should be reduced by an estimated 50%–75% if the predominant use is from tracked vehicles.
After working through the series of questions, the result will be a determination of the most effective chemical dust suppressant category for conditions at the installation. Once the proper palliative category has been established, application rates and concentrations are available from commercial manufacturers of the various products. Important information regarding cost-effective application of chemical dust suppressant on military installations or civil works sites can be found in Gebhart, Hale and Michaels-Busch (1996), Gebhart and Hale (1997), Styron, Hass and Kelley (1985), Hass (1986), Armstrong (1987), and Rushing et al. (2005, 2006), which are listed in Appendix C as references 17, 18, 38, 24, 4, and 34, respectively. Other references given after some of the questions in the worksheet below also correlate to the numbered list in Appendix C.
In order to make the most effective use of this worksheet, the following information should be readily available before answering the questions: (1) predominate type of traffic the area supports; (2) estimated traffic volume during the periods of most intense use; (3) characteristics of the trafficked surface including surface geometry, subgrade composition, materials used for its construction, drainage patterns, and maintenance schedules — all of which should be readily available from the Roads and Grounds Branch of the Directorate of Public Works (DPW); (4) average annual precipitation; and (5) predominant soil texture of the trafficked surface.
Dust Suppressant Worksheet
Dust Control by Product Category Cost and Vendor
Range of Material Costs
A range of material costs for each dust control product category is presented below. The lowest value of the range is for materials only and does not include labor, equipment, or application costs. The highest value of the range would be typical for having a contractor/vendor perform the work and includes all materials, labor, and equipment for application.
Costs are presented on a volume or weight basis due to differences in soil types which influence dilution rates and final application rates. It should be noted that product costs can and will vary due to transportation distances and product volumes required. For example, the per-gallon cost associated with a 10,000 sq yd job will be higher than that associated with a 100,000 sq yd job. Some products, most notably those within the organic non-bituminous category, are waste products from other industrial activities; their cost and availability will fluctuate with the magnitude of those industrial activities and their proximity to the site in need of dust control.
Dust Control Product Category |
Cost Range,* Materials Only |
Cost Range,* Materials and Equipment for Custom Application |
Salts, Brine Solutions |
$0.40 to $0.70 per gallon |
$1.40 to $1.80 per gallon |
Organic, Non- bituminous |
$0.50 to $1.30 per gallon |
$1.60 to $2.60 per gallon |
Petroleum-based |
$3.00 to $7.00 per gallon |
$10.00 to $15.00 per gallon |
Electrochemical |
$5.00 to $13.00 per gallon $60.00 to $90.00 per ton |
$15.00 to $30.00 per gallon $110.00 to $170.00 per ton |
Polymers |
$2.20 to $4.50 per gallon |
$7.00 to $10.00 per gallon |
* Products within a category will have different costs due to the manufacturing process they are derived from and also because some products with a given category may have different application requirements and equipment types.
Vendor Selection Information
Many dust control product manufacturers have regional distributors that can provide current information regarding availability of multiple product types/categories, application recommendations and procedures, material and/or application costs, and expected performance under a given set of variables. Internet searches using combinations of keywords or phrases will provide a listing of vendors capable of supplying dust control products and services.1
Frequently, these vendors support detailed websites that include information regarding (1) experience with specific product categories; (2) case studies; (3) customer reviews, references, and points of contact; and (4) current regulatory data for each product category. This online information should help make comparisons between vendors and product categories very straightforward.
APPENDIX C:
REFERENCES
NOTE: A few references in the numbered list that follows Table C-1 were cited in text, but most relate only to the numbers used for product information in the question-based worksheet in Appendix B, which is summarized in Table C-1.
The order of product information given in Table C-1 for each product category is: product type, concentration, application rate, and durability of performance (in days) for predominately wheeled vehicle traffic (reduce durability performance by 50%– 75% if used in area receiving predominately tracked vehicle movement).
Table C-1. Road products and information summarized by source.
Ref. No. |
Author(s) |
Salts |
Organic Non- Bituminous |
TS |
Petroleum |
Electrochemical |
Polymers |
1 |
Addo and Sanders |
32% MgCl; 0.25 gal/sq yd; 140 days |
25% solids calcium lignosulfonate; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 140 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
2 |
Apodaca and Huffman |
35% CaCl; 0.25 gal/sq yd; 70 days |
25% solids calcium lignosulfonate; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 70 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
3 |
Aquin et al. |
32% CaCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
35% solids ammonium lignosulfonate; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 70 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
4 |
Armstrong |
——— |
——— |
38% CaCl; 0.35 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
5 |
Bassel |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Asphalt emulsion; 5:1 water:product ratio; 0.60 gal/sq yd; 75 days |
——— |
——— |
Ref. No. |
Author(s) |
Salts |
Organic Non- Bituminous |
TS |
Petroleum |
Electrochemical |
6 |
Bennett and Gleeson |
——— |
Tall oil pitch emulsion; 1:3 water:product ratio; 2.08 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
7 |
Bergeson and Brocka |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Bentonite clay; 7-9% w:w ratio or 126-162 tons/mile; 365 days |
8 |
Bergeson et al. |
32% CaCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 180 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
9 |
Bergeson and Wahbeh |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Bentonite clay; 8% w:w ratio or 150 tons/mile; 365 days |
10 |
Bolander |
32% MgCl; 0.75 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
25% solids ammonium lignosulfonate; 0.75 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
asphalt emulsion; 5:1 water:product ratio; 0.80 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
——— |
——— |
11 |
Boyd |
35% CaCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
25% solids calcium lignosulfonate; 0.44 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
12 |
Brown and Elton |
35% CaCl; 0.66 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
25% solids calcium lignosulfonate; 1.00 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
13 |
Cleghorn |
35% CaCl; 0.35 gal/sq yd; 30 days |
25% solids calcium lignosulfonate; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 30 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
14 |
Edvardsson et al. |
32% MgCl; 0.02 gal/sq yd; 150 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Ref. No. |
Author(s) |
Salts |
Organic Non- Bituminous |
TS |
Petroleum |
Electrochemical |
Polymers |
15 |
Gebhart et al. |
38% CaCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
25% solids calcium lignosulfonate; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Polyvinyl acrylic; 7:1 water to product ratio; 1.0 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
16 |
Gebhart and Hale |
38% CaCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
50% solids soybean oil; 0.40 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
(Same as for #17) |
17 |
Gebhart |
38% CaCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 120 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
18 |
Gebhart |
(Same as for #19) |
25% solids calcium lignosulfonate; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
19 |
Giles et al. |
——— |
——— |
——— |
non- hazardous crude oil; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 240 days |
——— |
emulsified acrylic; 1:1 water to product ratio; 0.050 gal/sq yd; 240 days |
20 |
Grau |
——— |
25% solids calcium lignosulfonate; 2.00 gal/sq yd; 270 days |
——— |
petroleum resin emulsion; 0.25 gal/sq yd; 270 days |
——— |
polyvinyl acrylic; 5:1 water to product ratio; 1.0 gal/sq yd; 180 days |
21 |
Hass |
SALTS: 32% MgCl; 0.60 gal/sq yd; 120 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
22 |
Hass |
32% MgCl; 0.80 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Ref. No. |
Author(s) |
Salts |
Organic Non- Bituminous |
TS |
Petroleum |
Electrochemical |
23 |
Purdue University |
——— |
30% solids beet molasses; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 180 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
24 |
Hoover |
38% CaCl; 0.25 gal/sq yd; 100 days |
25% solids ammonium lignosulfonate; 0.25 gal/sq yd; 100 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
25 |
Johnson and Olson |
32% MgCl; 0.30 gal/sq yd; 120 days OR 38% CaCl; 0.30 gal/sq yd; 200 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
26 |
Lohnes and Coree |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Bentonite; 2.0 lb/sq yd; >200 days |
27 |
Marks and Petermeier |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Ground roofing shingles; 1000 tons/mile, 365 days |
——— |
28 |
Marshall |
42% CaCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
——— |
——— |
|
——— |
29 |
Monlux |
29% MgCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 100 days |
——— |
——— |
Asphalt emulsion; 0.39 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
——— |
30 |
Muleski and Cowherd |
38% CaCl; 0.82 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
——— |
——— |
Petroleum emulsion; 5:1 water:product ratio; 1.78 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
——— |
Ref. No. |
Author(s) |
Salts |
Organic Non- Bituminous |
TS |
Petroleum |
Electrochemical |
Polymers |
31 |
Rushing et al. |
38% CaCl; 0.08 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
Synthetic fluid/rosin; 0.80 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Acrylic emulsion; 50% solids; 0.80 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
32 |
Rushing et al. |
Isoalkanes; 0.36 gal/sq yd; 7 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
33 |
Rushing and Tingle |
38% CaCl; 0.40 gal/sq yd admixed; 220 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Acrylic emulsion; 0.80 gal/sq yd; 80 days |
34 |
Rushing and Newman |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Emulsified acrylic; 0.25 gal/sq yd; 30 days |
35 |
Sontowski and Vliet |
——— |
25% solids calcium lignosulfonate; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
36 |
Styron et al. |
32% MgCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
37 |
Sudahl et al. |
——— |
25% solids magnesium lignosulfonate; 2.0 gal/sq yd; 360 days OR corn oil + MgCl; 2.0 gal/sq yd; 360 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
38 |
Tetteh- Wayoe |
32% CaCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 120 days |
25% solids calcium lignosulfonate; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 120 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Ref. No. |
Author(s) |
Salts |
Organic Non- Bituminous |
TS |
Petroleum |
Electrochemical |
Polymers |
39 |
Thompson and Visser |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Bitumen tar emulsion; 0.80 gal/sq yd; 90 days |
——— |
——— |
40 |
Troedsson |
——— |
——— |
——— |
50% solids soybean oil; 0.25 gal/sq yd; 180 days |
——— |
——— |
41 |
USEPA |
——— |
Emulsified resin; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 105 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
42 |
USEPA |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Asphalt emulsion; 0.40 gal/sq yd; 105 days |
——— |
——— |
43 |
USEPA |
20% MgCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 120 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
44 |
USEPA |
——— |
Synthetic fluid isoalkane; 0.25 gal/sq yd; 120 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
45 |
USEPA |
——— |
Synthetic oil; 0.25 gal/sq yd; 119 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
46 |
Watson et al. |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Non- hazardous crude oil; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 365 days OR petroleum emulsion; 5:1 water:product ratio; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 120 days |
——— |
——— |
47 |
Westway Trading Corp |
30% CaCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 180 days |
35% solids soybean oil; 0.25 gal/sq yd; 180 days |
——— |
——— |
——— |
——— |
Ref. No. |
Author(s) |
Salts |
Organic Non- Bituminous |
TS |
Petroleum |
Electrochemical |
Polymers |
48 |
Zaniewski and Bennett |
35% MgCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 60 days OR 32% MgCl; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
25% solids calcium lignosulfonate; 0.50 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
——— |
Petroleum emulsion; 5:1 water:product ratio; 0.75 gal/sq yd; 60 days |
——— |
——— |
NOTE: Details of references used in this table are given in list below. |
ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS
Term |
Spellout |
AR |
Army Regulation |
CAA |
Clean Air Act |
CaCl |
calcium chloride |
CECW |
Directorate of Civil Works, United States Army Corps of Engineers |
CEMP-CE |
Directorate of Military Programs, United States Army Corps of Engineers |
CERL |
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory |
CFR |
Code of the Federal Regulations |
DPW |
Directorate of Public Works |
DoD |
Department of Defense |
EPA |
Environmental Protection Agency; also USEPA |
ERDC |
Engineer Research and Development Center |
FTAT |
Facilities Technology Application Test |
FY |
fiscal year |
GSL |
Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory |
HQUSACE |
Headquarters, United States Army Corps of Engineers |
MgCl |
magnesium chloride |
MSDS |
Material Safety Data Sheet |
NAAQS |
National Ambient Air Quality Standards |
POC |
point of contact |
PM |
particulate matter |
PWTB |
Public Works Technical Bulletin |
USACE |
United States Army Corps of Engineers |
USAEC |
United States Army Environmental Center |
WES |
Waterways Experiment Station |
Copyright Soilworks, LLC 2003-. All Rights Reserved. Soilworks®, Soiltac®, Gorilla-Snot®, and Durasoil®are registered trademarks of Soilworks, LCC.
Copyright Soilworks, LLC 2003-. All Rights Reserved. Soilworks®, Soiltac®, Gorilla-Snot®, and Durasoil® are registered trademarks of Soilworks, LCC.