The Use of The Use of

Soil Amendments for Remediation, Soil Amendments for Remediation,

Revitalization, and Reuse
Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

(5203P) 

EPA 542-R-07-013 

December 2007 

www.epa.gov 

The Use of Soil Amendments for 

Remediation, Revitalization and Reuse 
Foreword 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosted a three-day Soil Amendments 

for Ecological Revitalization Workshop in August 2006 to assess known problems and 

potential solutions related to the use of soil amendments in revitalizing ecosystems on 

contaminated lands. This paper is a product of that workshop. Soil amendments of 

interest consist of waste residuals such as municipal biosolids, animal manures and litters, 

sugar beet lime, wood ash, coal combustion products, log yard waste, neutralizing lime 

products, and a variety of composted agricultural byproducts, as well as traditional 

agricultural fertilizers. This in situ soil remediation technology can be applied to 

Superfund and brownfields sites, large and small mining sites, and other sites with 

disturbed or degraded soils. Appropriate application of this technology has the potential 

to protect human health and the environment by reducing contaminant bioavailability and 

mobility at a considerably lower cost than other available options. This, in turn, allows 

for revitalization and reuse of these lands. 

Disclaimer 

This paper was prepared by the EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (OSRTI), with support under Contract Number 68-W-03-038. Although it has 

undergone EPA and external review by experts in the soil amendments field, information 

in this paper also was derived from a variety of sources, some of which have not been 

peer-reviewed. This document does not reflect Agency policy, nor is it a regulation. 

Thus, it does not change or substitute for any legal requirements. It also is not legally 

enforceable, and does not confer legal rights or impose legal requirements upon any 

member of the public, states, or any other federal agency. For further information, contact 

Ellen Rubin, EPA/OSRTI, at 703-603-0141 or, by email, at rubin.ellen@epa.gov. 

A PDF version of this paper is available for viewing or downloading at the Hazardous 

Waste Cleanup Information System (Clu-In) website at www.clu-in.org/pub1.cfm. A 

limited number of printed copies are available free of charge and may be ordered via the 

web site, by mail, or by fax from: 

EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications 

P.O. Box 42419 

Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419 

Phone: 513-489-8190 or 800-490-9198 

Fax: 513-489-8695 

Cover and document photos courtesy of Dr. Sally Brown, University of Washington; 

William Toffey, Philadelphia Water Department; City of Princeton, IN; City of 

Shoreview, MN; College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of 

Hawaii at Mānoa. 

i
Acknowledgements 

EPA would like to thank all the individuals and organizations that contributed their time, 

thought, and effort to the development of this paper. Without their efforts, the paper 

would not have come to fruition. The core group includes: 

Harry L. Allen, IV, U.S. EPA 

Dr. Sally Brown, University of 

Washington 

Dr. Rufus Chaney, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 

Dr. W. Lee Daniels, Virginia Tech 

Dr. Charles L. Henry, University of 

Washington 

Dennis R. Neuman, Montana State 

University 

Dr. Ellen Rubin, U.S. EPA 

Jim Ryan, U.S. EPA 

William Toffey, Philadelphia Water 

Department 

EPA also would like to thank all reviewers and collaborators to this work group: 

Harry Compton, U.S. EPA Ashfaq Sajjad, U.S. EPA 

Susan Mooney, U.S. EPA Mark Sprenger, U.S. EPA 

John Oyler, Consultant 

Lakhwinder Hundal, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 

Heather Henry, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

Development of this paper was supported by the U.S. EPA Technology Innovation and 

Field Services Division and the U.S. EPA Land Revitalization Office. 

ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 

BMP Best management practice 

CAFO Concentrated animal feeding operations 

CCA Chromated copper arsenate 

CCE Calcium carbonate equivalent 

CCP Coal combustion products 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (Superfund) 

C:N Ratio of carbon to nitrogen 

Ca:Mg Ratio of calcium to magnesium 

Cu:Mo Ratio of copper to molybdenum 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FBC Fluidized-bed combustion 

FGD Flue gas desulfurization 

NA Not applicable 

NAS National Academy of Science 

OM Organic matter 

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl 

PCP Pentachlorophenol 

% solids A weight measurement of the amount of solids and liquid in a sample 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

ppt Parts per thousand 

PWD Philadelphia Water Department 

SAR Sodium adsorption ratio 

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

t/ac Tons per acre 

TEQ Toxic equivalent 

TPM Technical performance measure 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

VDMME Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy 

WTR Water treatment residuals 

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Background ............................................................................................... 2 

1.2 How the Paper Is Organized.................................................................... 3 

2.0 TYPES OF PROBLEMS ADDRESSED BY SOIL AMENDMENTS ................ 5 

2.1 Exposure Pathways and Adverse Effects................................................ 8 

2.1.1 Contaminant Bioavailability/Phytoavailability Problems .................... 8 

2.1.1.a Phytotoxicity........................................................................................ 8 

2.1.1.b Food Chain Contamination................................................................ 9 

2.1.1.c Ingestion of Contaminated Soil ......................................................... 9 

2.1.1.d Runoff and Leaching .......................................................................... 9 

2.1.2 Poor Soil Health/Ecosystem Function Problems.................................. 10 

2.1.2.a High or Low pH ................................................................................ 10 

2.1.2.b Sodicity............................................................................................... 10 

2.1.2.c Salinity ............................................................................................... 11 

2.1.2.d Soil Physical Properties .................................................................... 11 

2.1.2.e Nutrient Deficiencies/Low Soil Fertility.......................................... 11 

2.2 Interactions .............................................................................................. 12 

2.3 Solutions................................................................................................... 12 

3.0 TYPES OF SITES WHERE AMENDMENTS CAN BE USED ....................... 13 

3.1 Hard Rock Mining Sites ......................................................................... 13 

3.2 Coal Mining Sites .................................................................................... 14 

3.3 Smelting and Refining Sites ................................................................... 14 

3.4 Construction and Mixed-Contaminant Sites........................................ 14 

3.5 Other Sites ............................................................................................... 14 

4.0 TYPES OF SOIL AMENDMENTS ..................................................................... 17 

4.1 Organic Soil Amendments ..................................................................... 17 

4.2 Soil Acidity/pH Soil Amendments ......................................................... 24 

4.3 Mineral Soil Amendments and Conditioners ....................................... 25 

4.4 Application Rates .................................................................................... 26 

5.0 LOGISTICS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ............................................. 28 

5.1 Availability............................................................................................... 28 

5.2 Transportation ........................................................................................ 28 

iv
5.3 Storage ..................................................................................................... 31 

5.4 Application............................................................................................... 31 

5.5 Blending ................................................................................................... 33 

5.6 Public Considerations............................................................................. 34 

5.7 Costs ......................................................................................................... 35 

6.0 REVEGETATION OF AMENDED SOIL .......................................................... 38 

6.1 Considerations with Site Revegetation.................................................. 38 

6.2 Native Plants............................................................................................ 39 

7.0 PERMITTING AND REGULATIONS ............................................................... 40 

8.0 BENEFITS OF USING SOIL AMENDMENTS................................................. 42 

9.0 MONITORING AND SAMPLING AMENDED SITES.................................... 43 

10.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 44 

Endnotes........................................................................................................................... 45 

Other Resources .............................................................................................................. 49

List of Tables 

Table 1. Types of Problems Addressed by Soil Amendments 

Table 2. Types of Sites Where Soil Amendments Can Be Used 

Table 3. Types of Soil Amendments 

Table 4. Logistics and Other Considerations in Using Soil Amendments 

Table 5. Comparison of Different Application Systems Used in Remediation 

Table 6. Regulatory Requirements for Selected Soil Amendments 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. The Role of Soil Amendments and Plants in the Amendment of 

Metal-Contaminated Soil 

v 
1.0 

INTRODUCTION 

Hundreds of thousands of acres of disturbed and contaminated land scar this country‘s landscape. 

Some of these lands are in remote locations making cleanup very difficult. Others have minimal 

funds for cleanup or are so large that cleanup becomes economically impractical. There is a need 

for cost-effective, low energy technologies that can be applied at these sites. This paper provides 

information on the use of soil amendments, a cost effective in situ process for remediation, 

revitalization, and reuse of many types of disturbed and contaminated landscapes. 

This paper focuses on amendments that are generally 

residuals from other processes and have beneficial 

properties when added to soil. Commonly used 

amendments include municipal biosolids, animal 

manures and litters, sugar beet lime, wood ash, coal 

combustion products such as fly ash, log yard waste, 

neutralizing lime products, composted biosolids, and a 

variety of composted agricultural byproducts, as well as 

traditional agricultural fertilizers. Applied properly, soil 

amendments reduce exposure by limiting many of the 

exposure pathways and immobilizing contaminants to 

limit their bioavailability. The addition of amendments 

restores soil quality by balancing pH, adding organic 

matter, increasing water holding capacity, re-establishing microbial communities, and alleviating 

compaction. As such, the use of soil amendments enables site remediation, revegetation and 

revitalization, and reuse. 

assist regulators, consultants, 

other stakeholders in 

understanding the principles of 

remediating and revegetating 

contaminated sites and to 

this alternative to revitalize 

and reuse contaminated land. 

The purpose of this paper is to 

site owners, neighbors, and 

soil amendment application for 

encourage widespread use of 

Superfund sites, large and small mining sites, landfills, and industrial sites such as refineries, 

smelters, foundries, milling and plating facilities, and other sites with contaminated or disturbed 

soils exhibit a variety of problems that often can be addressed effectively and directly through 

the use of soil amendments. These problems include: 

•	 The toxicity of various soil contaminants, principally metals, can be harmful to plants, soil 

animals, and soil microbial populations. 

•	 A higher- or lower-than-normal soil pH range can cause soil infertility and cause soil metals 

(low pH) and oxyanions (e.g., arsenate at high pH) to go into solution. 

•	 Excess sodium (Na) can cause toxicity to plants, a breakdown of soil physical structure, and 

dispersion, which limits root growth, aeration, and water infiltration through the soil. 

•	 Excess salts (e.g., sulfates and chlorides) limit plant rooting and water and nutrient uptake. 

•	 Changes in soil physical properties, such as density, aggregation, and texture, can reduce 

water infiltration and the moisture-holding capacity of the soil and stifle efforts to revegetate 

a site. 

1
•	 Deficiencies in essential micronutrients like Zn and Mn can lower soil fertility; however, the 

same elements can be toxic at higher concentrations. In some cases, soil treatments to reduce 

phytotoxicity of one contaminant may reduce the phytoavailability of another essential 

element. Adding that nutrient as a companion fertilizer can prevent the deficiency due to the 

soil treatment. 

Although soil amendments and associated enhancements in microbial activity can be used to 

address volatile and semivolatile contaminants that have left sites barren of vegetation, this paper 

focuses on the use of amendments on sites dominated by inorganic contaminants. 

1.1 Background 

The bioavailability of contaminants poses a health risk to animals and humans who may be 

exposed to contaminated sites. Possible exposure pathways include ingestion of contaminated 

soil or water from the site, direct contact with contaminated soil, inhalation of contaminants 

adhered to dust in the air, and ingestion of food items (i.e., plants or animals) that have 

accumulated contaminants from exposure to contaminated soil or water. Managing the risks 

posed by contaminants at a site involves understanding the possible pathways and applying 

appropriate remedial measures to mitigate, treat, or remove sources (Ref: 46). 

Figure 1 illustrates how soil amendments can help mitigate exposure to contaminants. With the 

addition of appropriate soil amendments, metals in the amended area are chemically precipitated 

and/or sequestered by complexation and sorption mechanisms within the contaminated substrate. 

Metal availability to plants is minimized, and metal leaching into groundwater can be reduced. In 

certain cases, metal availability below the treated area is also reduced. 

Active plant growth is an integral part of the soil amendment process; vegetation relocates water 

in the root zone and can transpire several hundred thousand gallons of water per acre during the 

greatly reducing surface water runoff and 

sediment loss to receiving streams. Plants 

y wind. 

Plants stabilize the landscape from erosion, 

also reduce erosion caused b

growing season. This relocation has a 

significant impact on the volumes of 

water and metals that are able to move 

toward the groundwater. The selection of 

plant species for amended soil is based on 

the availability of seed or seedlings, their 

ability to establish and grow in the newly created root zone, the species‘ inability to translocate 

(move) metals from roots into the above-ground biomass of the plant, and land use and 

management considerations. 

Because soil amendments have a wide range of uses, the knowledge presented in this paper may 

be applied to various situations ranging from time-critical contaminant removal actions to 

ecological revitalization projects. Practitioners can use soil amendments to —jump-start“ 

ecological revitalization at significant cost savings compared to traditional alternatives. In 

addition to eliminating exposure pathways and/or immobilizing metals and other contaminants, 

recycling these residual organic byproducts, instead of disposing of them, results in significant 

ecological benefits for the hydrosphere and atmosphere. 

2
Figure 1. The Role of Soil Amendments and Plants in the Amendment of 

Metal-Contaminated Soil (Ref. 3) 

1.2 How the Paper Is Organized 

This paper is divided into the 10 sections shown below. These sections are structured to expand 

on information provided in the quick-reference tables that begin Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 and 

present additional information about the use of amendments in a logical order. Each quickreference table can be used independently, however, depending upon the user‘s primary focus. 

•	 Section 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the soil amendments issue and describes the 

organization of the paper. 

•	 Section 2, Types of Problems Addressed by Soil Amendments, describes how soil 

amendments can be used to address toxicity, pH, salinity (excess salts), sodicity (excess 

sodium), poor soil physical properties, and nutrient and fertility issues. 

•	 Section 3, Types of Sites Where Soil Amendments Can Be Used, discusses hard rock mining 

sites, coal mining sites, refining and smelting sites, and construction sites and includes 

information on individual contaminants that may be present, the problems associated with 

them, and options for remediating them. 

•	 Section 4, Types of Soil Amendments, describes soil amendments suitable for use in 

remediating and restoring sites, including their availability, potential uses, and issues 

regarding public acceptance issues, costs, advantages, and disadvantages. 

3
•	 Section 5, Logistical and Other Considerations, focuses on a range of issues (e.g., site 

characteristics and operations, issues related to the public, and cost) that may need to be 

addressed in using soil amendments for remediation and revitalization at a specific site. 

•	 Section 6, Revegetation of Amended Soil, provides helpful information about planning for 

and implementing site revegetation efforts. 

•	 Section 7, Permitting and Regulations, reviews the regulatory requirements and authorities 

that may pertain to the use of soil amendments to remediate and revitalize sites. 

•	 Section 8, Benefits of Using Soil Amendments, summarizes the environmental, human 

health, economic, and other advantages of soil amendments in remediating and revitalizing 

sites. 

•	 Section 9, Monitoring and Sampling Amended Sites, describes an ongoing effort to delineate 

technical performance measures for use in verifying the effectiveness of soil amendments. 

•	 Section 10, Conclusions. 

In addition, this paper provides references to documents and Internet resources used in the 

preparation of this document, other relevant references, and useful links for obtaining additional 

information. 

4
2.0 

TYPES OF PROBLEMS ADDRESSED BY 

SOIL AMENDMENTS 

Soil amendments can be used to address two primary categories of problems at contaminated 

sites: (1) contaminant bioavailability/phytoavailability and (2) poor soil health and ecosystem 

function. Solutions to the specific types of problems within these categories depend on the nature 

of specific contaminants, known exposure pathways and adverse effects, and specific 

interactions involved with the various recommended soil amendments and other contaminants 

(see Table 1). 

Table 1: Types of Problems Addressed by Soil Amendments 

Exposure Pathways and 

Adverse Effects 

Interactions Solutions 

Contaminant Bioavailability/Phytoavailability Problems 

Aluminum (Al) 

Toxicity (inorganic) 

Phytotoxicity 

Runoff 

Leaching 

Low pH 2 = more 

toxic; Low P = more 

toxic; High calcium 

(Ca) = less toxic 

Raise pH greater than 6.0, add 

OM and P; add gypsum or 

other high soluble Ca source 

Arsenic (As) Soil Ingestion 

Runoff 

Leaching 

High pH 2 = more 

toxic; High P = more 

soluble 

Add organic matter (OM) and 

adjust pH to between 5.5-6.5 

Borate (BO3 

3-

) Phytotoxicity Low and High pH 2 = 

more toxic 

Add iron oxide and acidify 

(pH between 6.0-7.0) 

Cadmium-to-Zinc Ratio 

(Cd:Zn) 1 

Food chain High ratio = greater 

bioavailability (risk) 

of Cd 

Add Zn to reduce the Cd:Zn 

ratio 

Chromate (CrO4 

2-

) Phytotoxicity 

Runoff 

Leaching 

High pH 2 = more 

toxic 

Add reductants, e.g., OM, 

biosolids; also acidify to less 

than 6.5 

Copper (Cu) Phytotoxicity 

Runoff 

Leaching 

Aquatic receptors 

Low pH 2 = more 

toxic; low OM = 

more toxic 

Raise pH (6.0-7.0), add P, 

OM, and sorbents 

Lead (Pb) Soil ingestion Low phosphorus (P) 

= more toxic 

With no As present, raise pH 

to 6.0 or greater; with As 

present, raise pH to 5.5-6.5; 

add P, and iron oxide 

Manganese (Mn) Phytotoxicity 

Runoff 

Leaching 

Low pH 2 = more 

toxic 

Raise pH greater than 7.0 

Molybdenum (Mo) Food chain 

Cu:Mo ratio 

High pH 2 = more 

toxic; Low Cu = 

more toxic 

Acidify (pH between 5.5- 6.5) 

and add Cu 

5 
Exposure Pathways and 

Adverse Effects 

Interactions Solutions 

Nickel (Ni) Phytotoxicity Low pH 2 = more 

toxic; low P = more 

toxic 

Raise pH (7.0-8.0), add P, 

OM, and sorbents 

Selenium (Se) Food chain 

Runoff 

Leaching 

High pH 2 = more 

toxic 

Acidify (pH between 5.5-6.5) 

Sulfate (SO4 

2-

) Phytotoxicity to salt effects NA Irrigate soil 

Zinc (Zn) Phytotoxicity Low pH 2 = more 

toxic; low P = more 

toxic 

Raise pH (7.0-8.0), OM, and 

sorbents3, e.g., iron and 

manganese oxides, WTR4 

Toxicity (organic) 

Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbon (PAH) 

Soil Ingestion Low OM 5= more 

bioavailable 

Add OM and tillage 

Polychlorinated Biphenyl 

(PCB) 

Soil Ingestion Low OM 5= more 

bioavailable 

Add OM and tillage 

Poor Soil Health/Ecosystem Function Problems 

High or Low pH 

Active Acidity (as 

measured directly in a 

water:soil mixture) 

Runoff 

Leaching 

Controls metal 

solubility and 

microbial activity; 

increases metal 

availability 6 

Add lime and/or other alkaline 

soil amendments 

Alkalinity Anion solubility and metal 

micronutrient availability 

See Mo, Se, As listed 

above 

Add acid equivalent 

Potential Acidity (total acid 

production capacity with 

time; largely from 

unreacted sulfides) 

Runoff 

Leaching 

Metal and salt evolution and 

associated phytotoxicity 

Similar to active 

acidity (above) 6 

Estimate total lime demand 

and add 1.25 to 1.5 times the 

demand 

Sodicity or Salinity 

Electrical Conductivity Phytotoxicity, plant water 

stress, nutrient uptake 

imbalances 

High Na = more toxic Irrigate; OM may help 

Sodium (Na) Phytotoxicity 

Sodicity7 

High SAR = high soil 

dispersion 

Add any Ca:Mg-rich 

material1

; OM 

Changes in Soil Physical Properties 

Aggregation Rooting and moistureholding capacity Low OM 4= poor 

aggregation 

Add OM and gypsum 

Bulk Density Limits rooting and 

infiltration 

Low OM 4= high 

bulk density 

Add OM and deep tillage 

Texture Moisture-holding and soil 

strength 

High clay = poor 

tilth; High sand = low 

moisture-holding 

Modify with mineral soil 

amendments and add OM 

6
Exposure Pathways and Interactions Solutions 

Adverse Effects 

Nutrient Deficiencies and Low Fertility 

High Calcium-toMagnesium Ratio (Ca:Mg)1 Induced Mg deficiency in 

plants; Can reduce growth 

or kill plants 

Very strong acidity 

causes loss of 

exchangeable cations 

(Ca, K, Mg), which 

makes Mg deficiency 

more likely; Addition 

of only calcitic 

limestone to acidic 

site can more easily 

induce Mg 

deficiency. Dolomitic 

or Mg-containing 

calcitic limestones do 

not cause this Mg 

deficiency risk 

Add Mg 

High C:N 1 ratio Limits nitrate availability to NA Add N or high-N soil 

plants/limits growth amendments, e.g., manures, 

biosolids 

High N Nitrate leaching; NA Add cellulosic carbon, e.g., 

Suppresses legumes and sawdust, rice hulls, or wood 

conifers chips 

High P Runoff of soluble P or 

movement of soil particles 

to water can cause 

eutrophication; Limits Pb 

bioavailability; Reduces Cu, 

Cd, Ni, Zn 

Increases As 

availability9 

Add Al or Fe to acid soils or 

Ca to alkaline soils to bind P; 

Drinking Water Residuals may 

be an effective source of Al or 

Fe for this purpose 

phytoavailability; Supports 

legumes 

Low Carbon-to-Nitrogen 

Ratio (C:N) 1 

Runoff 

Nitrate leaching 

NA Add cellulosic C e.g., sawdust, 

rice hulls, or wood chips 

Low Nitrogen (N) Limits growth High C:N 1 ratio = Add N and/or high-nitrogen 

low N availability OM 

Low P Limits growth Increases metal 

availability8 

Add P or high-P organic soil 

amendments 

Manganese (Mn) Limits growth NA Add Mn or lower pH to less 

deficiency than 6.0 

1 Ratios: 

C:N ratio = 15-40:1 

Ca:Mg ratio = no greater than 20:1 

Cd:Zn = <0.015 on weight basis 

Cu:Mo = >2:1 for cattle and >5:1 for sheep. Recommended Cu levels in feed/forages are 8 to 11 mg/kg. 

This amount should provide adequate copper if the diet does not exceed 0.25 percent sulfur and 2 mg 

Mo/kg diet. In a Cu-deficient diet, Mo can be toxic. Sulfur status of feed and forage also is a co-factor (Ref. 

30, 26). Cu deficiency in cattle and sheep is easy to correct with mineral salt licks or supplements. 

2 Low pH = <5.5; High pH = >8 

3 WTR = water treatment residuals 

4 Target OM% for soil = >2.5%; target OM% for contaminated soil = >5% 

7 
5 The term sorbents, as used here, describes materials that can hold on to or sorb different contaminants. There are a 

range of these materials, with different materials better suited for absorption of different contaminants. Some 

examples of sorbents include charcoal for different organic contaminants, water treatment residuals for excess P 

and some heavy metals, and high surface area iron oxides for heavy metals including Pb and As. 

(Refs. 6, 13, 14, 58) 

6 All severely acidic soil systems are detrimental to plant growth because of Al and Mn toxicity. In cases where 

metal contaminants are present, acidity will increase metal availability. The toxicity of Al may be corrected by 

adding residuals high in cations such as Mg, Ca and K, even if these are in a form that does not increase soil pH. It 

is important in remediating these types of systems to make sure that sufficient Mg is available for plants. In cases 

where metal contaminants are present, acidity will increase metal availability. 

7 A measure of the excess sodium in a soil which imparts a poor physical condition to the soil. (Ref. 31) 

8 In cases where metal contaminants are present, insufficient P increases metal availability. Metals that are critical 

include Pb, Zn, and Cd. Agronomic tests for P availability to crops are useful to determine P status in soil where 

low P is suspected. 

9 High P is a concern in cases of As contamination. Since P and As are chemically related, high P increases As 

availability. Tests, including water soluble P and Fe strip P, are available to determine P status in cases where high 

P is suspected. For more information, see http://www.sera17.ext.vt.edu. 

2.1 Exposure Pathways and Adverse Effects 

2.1.1 Contaminant Bioavailability/Phytoavailability Problems 

Although chemicals may be present in soils, not all of them may be bioavailable or 

phytoavailable. Bioavailability and phytoavailability are terms used to describe the degree to 

which contaminants are available for absorption or uptake by and interaction with the 

metabolism of organisms that are exposed to them. These processes are quantifiable through the 

use of multiple tools (Ref. 23, 33). Several types of exposure pathways and/or adverse effects 

may need to be addressed to solve bioavailability and/or phytoavailability problems. 

2.1.1.a Phytotoxicity 

Harmful substances can accumulate in plant tissue to a level that affects its growth and 

development (Refs. 2, 8). Metal toxicity can occur when a metal (often a necessary plant 

nutrient) is present in high concentrations. Toxicity becomes more severe at acidic soil pH or 

when coupled with other nutrient 

deficiencies. 

Certain metals are more toxic to plants than 

they are to humans. An example of this is Zn. 

It will kill plants in concentrations that are too 

low to cause any negative human health 

effects. Some metals are necessary nutrients 

for animals. Plants with elevated 

concentrations of these nutrient metals 

generally will not cause detrimental effects to 

the animals that ingest them. These elements, 

even when essential for plants, can cause 

plant toxicities. Other metals, such as Pb, are 

8
generally not toxic to plants but can cause negative human health effects when soil is ingested 

directly. Most metals that are a threat to humans and wildlife are not necessary nutrients. For the 

majority of these (including Cr, As, and Hg) uptake by plants is minimal. The exception is Cd, 

due to its chemical similarity to Zn, a necessary nutrient. Cadmium is the most important 

example of a metal that is toxic to plants only at very high concentrations. Plants can take up Cd 

into foliar tissue. Foliar concentrations of Cd can be high enough to cause harm to wildlife 

before plants show any toxicity symptoms. Plant tissue tests can help to determine if there is 

metal toxicity. Commercial labs and land grant universities can generally do plant tissue 

analysis. Grab samples from young leaves of several plants in a field can be combined for 

analysis. They should be washed in soapy water, rinsed and air-dried before being sent to a lab. 

While toxic concentrations of metals in the above-ground portion of plants, including leaves and 

stems, vary across plant species, generally Zn > 400 mg/kg, Mn > 1000 mg/kg, and Cu > 40 

mg/kg are potentially toxic. 

2.1.1.b Food Chain Contamination 

When plant cover is restored to a site, the potential for food chain contamination should be 

considered. Food chain contamination refers to the potential for the soil metals to cause harm to 

animals that feed off of the plants and soil mesofauna (animals living among the litter and inside 

the microscopic crevices of the site soil). Soil particles on the plants or the soil mesofauna may 

result in high enough levels of contaminants that are toxic to animals that consume them. For 

example, if shrews at a restored site feed largely on earthworms, the shrews will be exposed to 

high concentrations of contaminants in the soils. This is the case because earthworms generally 

consist of over 50% soil by weight. Consumption of soil through earthworm ingestion has the 

potential to result in high body burdens for shrews. This then could lead to an increase in body 

burden for birds that prey on the shrews. Soil extractions, such as dilute Ca(NO3

-1)2, have been 

shown to be related to earthworm available metals and offer one way to evaluate this risk. 

2.1.1.c Ingestion of Contaminated Soil 

Ingestion of contaminated soil may result in an increased exposure to most elements. Examples 

of inorganic elements that may pose a risk include fluorine (F), lead (Pb), arsenic (As), and 

cadmium (Cd). Direct ingestion of soil by 

humans is generally not a risk for adults. 

Consumption of soil on an empty stomach 

will also result in greater contaminant 

adsorption due to the acidic gastric 

environment and a lack of competing ions. For wildlife, the situation is different. As stated 

earlier, some animals normally ingest high volumes of soil. Examples include worms and some 

water fowl. If the area that is being restored is expected to provide habitat to water fowl that 

dive into and feed on food, such as worms, in the sediment, the potential for contaminants to 

enter the food chain or to harm animals through direct ingestion is increased. 

Children, who are growing will absorb a 

greater portion of the ingested contaminant 

(particularly true for Pb) than adults. 

2.1.1.d Runoff and Leaching 

Soils devoid of vegetation are especially prone to water and wind erosion. Runoff refers to the 

movement of materials over the soil surface. Actual particles of soil can erode off of the surface. 

In addition, contaminants can come into solution and flow over the surface soils and off site. 

Leaching refers to the movement of contaminants through the soil profile. Although it is possible 

for contaminated particles to move through the soil though large pores, it is much more common 

9
for contaminants to come into solution and travel downwards through the soil with soil water. 

Runoff from these barren landscapes may contain contaminants, for example, copper (Cu) and 

Zn, at concentrations that may be lethal to aquatic resources in receiving streams. This problem 

is exacerbated if the runoff water is acidic. 

At many mine sites, the formation of acid rock or acid mine drainage is common. During mining, 

uncovered rock may be exposed to oxidation processes, and this rock can remain exposed after 

the mine is abandoned. The oxidation of sulfide minerals in the rock, especially iron sulfide 

(FeS2) produces acid that can solubilize metals. These low pH waters with elevated bioavailable 

metals can adversely impact receiving streams and aquatic receptors. Mine wastes and 

contaminated soil can be amended and vegetated to limit the loss of acidic, metal-rich runoff 

water to adjacent receiving streams. Studies compared 26 runoff events involving non-amended 

and contaminated soil to one event from lime-amended soil at a large Superfund site in Montana. 

The pH of runoff water from the untreated areas typically ranged from 3.8 to 5.3, while pH from 

the remediated soil was 6.2 during the single runoff event. Copper (Cu) and Zn levels in runoff 

water from the non-amended soil were several orders of magnitude higher than those observed 

from the treated site (Ref. 1). 

2.1.2 Poor Soil Health/Ecosystem Function Problems 

It is critical to revitalize soil health following drastic disturbance of a site through mining or 

other industrial activity. In most cases, appropriate organic and/or inorganic soil amendments can 

All components of an ecosystem 

are dependent on healthy soil for 

the system to function optimally. 

be used to revitalize soil by increasing water holding 

capacity, re-establishing microbial communities, and 

alleviating compaction. Refer to The Nature and 

Property of Soil by Brady and Weil for more details 

on soils (Ref. 4). 

2.1.2.a High or Low pH 

A higher- or lower-than-normal pH range (typically <5.5 or >8.5) in the soil, which could result 

from the runoff or leaching of industrial contaminants, acidic deposition, or exposure of acid- or 

alkaline-reactive geologic materials, can cause soil infertility and limit the microbial activity. 

Phytotoxicity is more likely with strongly acidic soil, such as soil where pyritic (containing 

sulfides) ores or acidic smelter emissions have caused local contamination. Pyrite and other 

sulfides in soil generate large amounts of sulfuric acid when they are oxidized. For example, in 

Butte, MT, and Leadville, CO, mine wastes reached a pH < 3.5 due to oxidation of pyrite in the 

soil. When soil is high in Zn, Cu, or nickel (Ni) contamination, soil pH may have to be raised to 

above 7.0 to reduce metal solubility enough to protect plant health and ensure food-chain safety. 

On the other hand, exposure of high Na subsoil or mine spoils can generate very high pH 

conditions that drastically limit phosphorus (P) availability and may induce high As, selenium 

(Se), and molybdenum (Mo) solubility. Similar problems may be found where waste limes (burnt 

lime and hydrolysis products) are found at elevated levels. 

2.1.2.b Sodicity 

Sodicity (high concentrations of Na) and/or high levels of exchangeable Na+ in soil has a 

detrimental affect on plants and, therefore, limit the use of salt-affected soils. Detrimental effects 

of sodicity or sodic soils are due to toxicity of Na+, HCO3-, and OH- ions and to reduced water 

infiltration and aeration. Excess Na can cause soil dispersion, which inhibits plant growth by 

10
hardening soil and blocking water infiltration, reducing soil hydraulic conductivity, and creating 

a cement-like surface layer that blocks growth of root systems and water infiltration through the 

soil (Ref. 22). Soil with an accumulation of exchangeable sodium is often characterized by poor 

tilth (physical condition of soil related to its ease of tillage, fitness as a seedbed, and its 

favorability to seedling emergence and root penetration) and low permeability making it 

unfavorable for plant growth (Ref. 21). 

2.1.2.c Salinity

Salinity, or excess salts, such as chlorides and 

sulfates in the root zone limits the ability of 

plants to withdraw water and nutrients from the 

soil. In this hypertonic micro-environment, 

water is lost from the roots to achieve osmotic 

equilibrium with the surrounding environment. 

In effect, the salts physically draw out water 

from the plant root leading to desiccation. Salts 

also interfere with active ion uptake 

mechanisms at the root interface requiring 

plants to exert more energy to extract water and 

nutrients. This decrease in plant-available water 

and nutrients in saline environments causes 

plant stress. 

2.1.2.d Soil Physical Properties 

Soil physical properties refer to the physical characteristics of the soil including, increased bulk 

density, poor aggregation, and textures that are too sandy or clayey. If a soil has a high bulk 

In order for the soil to support a healthy 

the soil must be able to maintain a sufficient 

vegetative cover and microbial community, 

amount of oxygen when wet and hold onto a 

sufficient amount of water during a dry spell. 

density (high weight per unit volume), it 

is generally too dense to contain enough 

pore space to allow oxygen to diffuse 

through a soil and keep it well aerated. In 

addition, pore space allows water to enter 

and move through a soil, helping avoid 

waterlogged conditions. A soil with high 

bulk density generally will have high clay content. Soils that consist of rocks and coarse 

fragments can have too much pore space, which allows water to flow through the soil very 

quickly. Roots have difficulty anchoring, and there is no habitat for soil microorganisms. 

Another important property is water infiltration capacity. If the soil surface is too crusted, water 

will pond or run off the surface. This increases the potential for the soil to be droughty. 

2.1.2.e Nutrient Deficiencies/Low Soil Fertility 

Striking the appropriate balance in metal concentrations is essential, since many of these metals 

also are toxic in high concentrations. Deficiencies in phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) limit 

growth. It is important to maintain sufficient available or labile N, P and K for the species of 

interest based on local (state) soil testing laboratory guidance. Deficiencies in Zn, Cu, manganese 

(Mn), and other metals that are necessary micronutrients also can lower soil fertility. In addition, 

proper ratios of Ca to Mg and carbon (C) to N are necessary for plant growth. As a rule-ofthumb, the C:N ratio is 15-40:1; the ideal Ca:Mg ratio is no greater than 20:1 (Ref. 5). Higher 

11
C:N ratios will lead to immobilization of N. Soil microbes will scavenge for nitrogen and limit 

its availability for plants. In the case of lower C:N ratios, N will be in excess. This can lead to N 

leaching through the soil. While a wider range for acceptable C:N ratios is shown above, an 

optimal range would be 20-30:1. Refer to Soil Fertility and Fertilizers by Havlin and Tisdale for 

more details (Ref. 18). 

2.2 Interactions 

Contaminants can be, and generally are, co-occurring. For example, Pb and Zn commonly occur 

together in sulfide ores, and there may be significant As and Se in the material as well. 

When two or more contaminants are present, the more protective solution should be applied. For 

example, Cd is almost always present at Zn-contaminated sites. Solutions to elevated Zn include 

raising soil pH. Adding sufficient P fertilizer also will reduce the bioavailability of Cd. 

Sometimes two solutions may be antagonistic or contradictory. In such cases, one should 

proceed based on the primary driver for ecosystem health. A good example would be a site that 

is co-contaminated with Pb and As. If the site were contaminated by Pb alone, addition of high 

rates of P would reduce Pb bioavailability. However, where As is a co-contaminant, adding high 

rates of P may increase As solubility. Here, if Pb is the primary driver and As concentrations are 

relatively low in comparison, P addition should be the preferred solution. When both Pb and As 

concentrations are high and both contaminants are risk drivers, an alternative solution, such as 

addition of a high-surface-area iron (Fe) oxide, such as ferrihydrite or high Fe biosolids compost, 

which is effective for both contaminants, would be the preferred alternative. 

2.3 Solutions 

Most of the solutions to the various problems presented in Table 1 include raising or lowering 

the pH of the soil; adding organic matter, phosphate and /or sorbents; tillage; and other listed 

management alternatives. Table 3 lists soil amendments that can be used to adjust the pH, add 

organic material, and act as a sorbent. Sorbents are a subset of amendments and have desirable 

chemical properties for reducing the solubility and bioavailability of various toxic elements or 

compounds. 

12
3.0 

TYPES OF SITES WHERE 

AMENDMENTS CAN BE USED 

Many contaminated sites that would benefit from revitalization fall into four broad 

categories⎯hard rock mining sites, abandoned coal mines, refining and smelting sites, and 

construction sites. Some of these categories can be further divided into specific site types. For 

each site type, Table 2 shows the contaminants and problems that are likely to be found and 

suggests soil amendments to solve the problems. For example, all types of sites within the hard 

rock category potentially will have mine wastes onsite or nearby. They also may have tailings 

present. Soils at these sites generally are infertile with poor physical properties. The general 

solution for revitalization of these sites is to add an organic soil amendment mixture rich in N 

and P, adjust the pH using neutralizing lime, followed by seeding and planting of vegetation 

species appropriate for the land use. 

3.1 Hard Rock Mining Sites 

Hard rock mining sites are sites where the desired mineral must be extracted from rock hosts. 

Examples of common hard-rock derived metals include Fe, Zn, Pb, cobalt (Co), Cu, gold (Au), 

and Mo, although some of these are mined from sedimentary deposits as well. The desired metal 

is present at an elevated concentration in a mineral matrix (ore) that is sufficiently above 

background to make extraction of the metal economically viable. In addition to the mined ore, 

hard rock mining sites must move large amounts of non-mineralized rock (overburden) to get to 

and remove the ore. These sites can include open pit and underground mining operations. In both 

cases, overburden or waste rock with low mineral concentration frequently makes up a large 

portion of the waste material onsite. Tailings, created when the ore-rich rock is ground up and 

the economic mineral is extracted via flotation or screening, also can be present onsite or in 

adjacent tailing disposal facilities. Adjacent soil also may be contaminated from fluvial 

deposition or, in some instances, the use of historical irrigation practices. For most of these sites, 

overburden or waste rock, which often is acidic and has elevated contaminant concentrations, is 

the material left that needs to be revegetated. 

Since many hard rock mining sites generate acidic soil conditions in their overburden and waste 

rock, addition of liming materials is usually an essential first step to site remediation. However, 

there are limitations associated with lime treatment of acid-forming mine waste. Problems 

achieving adequate mixing are commonly encountered in excessively rocky materials. 

Lime is not well mixed into the full depth of the profile, and tillage equipment tends to create a 

rock pavement veneer with repeated incorporation passes of soil with more than 40% rock. A 

second limitation encountered with lime treatment relates to contamination levels. When levels 

of trace metals are modest, bulk alkaline addition can neutralize pH enough to precipitate toxic 

metals and control phytotoxicity. However, when high levels of metals are present in the 

neutralized root zone following treatment, residual phytotoxicity has caused apparent vegetation 

failure. No rigid criteria have been developed to address this issue. Progressively more intensive 

treatments, adding more organic matter and fertilizer, have been employed with modest success. 

13
At the highest levels of total metals in the treated soil profile, very few plants will survive (Ref. 

29). 

3.2 Coal Mining Sites 

This category includes both eastern (dominantly acid-forming) and western (high salt and 

sodium) coal mining sites. It also includes piles of coal processing waste piles and fills, which 

tend to be much more difficult to reclaim and revegetate than the mine sites. 

Sand and gravel mining sites are included within this category, because vegetation challenges are 

similar to those at coal mining sites. For most of the sites within this category, contaminant 

concentrations are low. Obstacles to ecosystem revitalization are related to undesirable pH 

levels, low fertility, and poor soil physical properties. 

3.3 Smelting and Refining Sites 

Smelting and refining sites are facilities where different ores or fuels have been processed. 

Contaminated waste materials at these sites are confined to a smaller area than at hard-rock 

mining sites or coal mining sites; however, aerial deposition of contaminants at the processing 

facility can spread contamination over a very wide area. Localized and aerially dispersed 

contaminants or wastes are the two broad categories within this category of sites. Complex 

organic compounds are common contaminants at refining sites and these issues are not 

specifically addressed in this paper. 

3.4 Construction and Mixed-Contaminant Sites 

Construction sites are very common and include urbanized and industrialized areas, highway and 

utility corridors, and airports. Revitalization of these sites is significantly improved when soil 

amendments are used. Mixed-contaminant sites are those with elevated but relatively low 

concentrations of multiple metals and organics. Common examples include urban brownfields 

sites. 

3.5 Other Sites 

While the range of soil amendments listed in Table 2 can restore ecosystem function and a selfsustaining plant cover on the majority of sites, some disturbed sites do not respond to the 

addition of amendments. Sites with excess amounts of soluble salts or pyretic materials are 

examples. In both cases, the recommended approach is to cap the disturbed site and create a new 

soil horizon above the cap. This approach was used at a smelter waste site in Poland where 

excessive salts prevented plant establishment despite high application rates of biosolids and a 

high calcium carbonate residual (Ref. 11). As an alternative, the site was capped with 10 inches 

of the high lime material, and a new soil horizon was created with biosolids incorporated into the 

upper portion of the lime cap. For such highly contaminated sites, residuals and soil amendments 

are excellent alternatives to clean fill for building a new soil above the barrier to the damaged 

soil. 

14
Table 2: Types of Sites Where Soil Amendments Can Be Used 

Site Contaminant Problem Solution Mining Hard Rock (Ferrous and nonferrous) 

There are some common mixtures of contaminants at these sites. See below for specific combinations. 

Metal contamination; Soil generally is highly infertile; Acid mine drainage possibility; Poor physical properties1 . 

Commonly requires nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) rich organic soil amendment at high rate to improve soil physical properties and nutrient status; Neutralizing soil amendments may be necessary to raise pH. 

 Copper (Cu)/Arsenic(As)/Pb/ 

Molybdenum (Mo) 

Existing and potential acidity; Soil ingestion risk from As and Pb; Possible food chain risk from Mo; Aquatic risk from Cu 

Add lime to correct potential and existing acidity; Final target pH is 5.5 to 6.5 to limit As bioavailability. In cases where Mo is primary concern, final pH is <5.5. 

Cyanide (CN) Groundwater contamination and residual CN from leaching 

of gold (Au) using cyanide solutions 

Oxidation of cyanide solutions; Cover or cap waste piles with cover soils. 

 Lead (Pb)/Zinc (Zn)/ 

Cadmium (Cd) 

Zn induced phytotoxicity; P deficiency; Low pH acid generating potential; Soil ingestion Pb risk; Cd food chain risk 

Add lime to correct potential and active acidity plus additional 25 to 50% reserve factor; ensure sufficient P to inactivate Pb and provide fertility to support legumes. 

Mercury (Hg)/As Food chain (aquatic) risk from Hg; Soil ingestion risk from 

As; Concerns about volatilization of Hg. 

Surface apply organic or organic-mineral soil amendments without incorporation to eliminate volatilization potential and provide a barrier against soil ingestion. 

Nickel(Ni)/Cobalt(Co) Ni induced phytotoxicity; P deficiency; Existing and 

potential acidity 

Add lime to correct potential and active acidity plus additional 25 to 50% reserve factor; Ensure sufficient P to provide fertility to support legumes. 

 Pyrite (FeS2)/As/Selenium 

(Se)/Ni/Cu 

Existing and potential acidity; Soil ingestion risk from As; Se leachability and food chain risk; Wide range of other metals possible 

Add lime to correct active and potential acidity plus 25 to 50% reserve factor (this will also reduce availability of other metals); If high As, lower target pH to less than 6.5. 

Selenium (Se) Increased Se solubility and bioavailability at phosphate 

mines due to changes in oxidation state of Se 

Achieve reducing conditions; Cover and cap waste piles. 

Coal Pyrite-based acidity and 

exchangeable Sodium (Na) and salts, soluble Se 

Metal contamination; Rocky, compacted and infertile soil See below 

Coal waste piles Pyrite-based acidity Existing and potential acidity; physical problems; acid mine 

drainage; Dark color (which causes heat kill of seedlings); low moisture-holding 

Add lime to correct existing and potential acidity plus additional safety factor of 20 to 30% is sufficient; Add organic soil amendments to revitalize soil; Modify surface texture by adding OM or adding amendment with sand or clays, such as biosolids; Lighten surface color of pile to prevent heat-kill of seedlings. 

15 
1 Poor soil physical properties, such as density, aggregation, and texture, can reduce water infiltration and the moisture-holding capacity of the soil and stifle efforts to 

revegetate a site. 

2 Modify Physical Properties = If the soil is too coarse, add fines, sand or silt. If the soil is too fine, add OM or a course material. Site Contaminant Problem Solution Eastern (acidforming) Pyrite and associated metals Existing and potential acidity; Physical problems; Acid mine drainage Add lime to correct existing and potential acidity plus additional 25 to 50% safety factor is sufficient; Add organic 

soil amendments to revitalize soil; Modify surface texture where possible. 

Sand/Gravel mines 

In Eastern sites, may have associated acidity problems 

Coarse texture or rocky and very infertile; Heavy soil compaction and low water retention and/or rooting depth 

Add lime and organic soil amendment (generally high application rate beneficial) with appropriate C:N ratio to minimize nitrate leaching. 

Western (Na and salts) 

Na, salts, Se Salinity, sodicity, and physical problems; Se leaching and 

aquatic biomagnification 

Add OM and Ca-rich soil amendments; Irrigate to remove salts where possible; Segregate Se bearing materials and avoid Se accumulating plant species for revegetation. 

Refineries/Smelters Aerial Deposition Metals (see mining sites 

above) 

Metal toxicity; Acidity, Possible infertility; In urban environment, soil ingestion may be dominant risk 

See metals-specific remedies above. 

Smelter Process Waste/Slag 

Metal acidity; Salts; Dark color (which causes heat kill of 

seedlings); Cementation 

See metals-specific remedies above; For color, surface mulch to modify temperature or surface apply light-colored mixtures of alkaline fly ash and biosolids; For cementation, modify physical properties; For salts, irrigate and if electrical conductivity (EC) is excessive, capping may be necessary. 

Tailings Metals (see mine sites 

above); Cyanide 

Metal toxicity; Acidity (associated acid drainage) or alkalinity; Infertility; Physical properties; Cyanide in gold (Au) tailings 

See metals-specific remedies above; modify physical properties. 1 

Construction Sites 

See sand and gravel; urban contaminants 

See sand and gravel; Compaction, mixed soil and geologic materials, imbalanced pH and low fertility all common 

Site-specific remedies based on contaminants. 

Mixed Contaminants 

Low levels of metals and organics 

Often former industrial sites will have soil physical and nutrient problems 

Soil amendments to improve nutrient and physical characteristics and pH adjustment as needed can often reduce contaminant availability; Site-specific evaluation necessary. 

16 
4.0 

TYPES OF SOIL AMENDMENTS 

This section briefly describes soil amendments and organizes them by use: organic soil 

amendment, pH soil amendment, and mineral soil amendment. Table 3 lists the various soil 

amendments along with their availability, uses, public acceptance, cost, advantages, and 

disadvantages. Note that specific regulatory or permitting requirements for various types of 

amendments are addressed in Section 7 of this document. 

The type, mix, and amounts of soil amendments will vary from site to site in response to the 

local mix of site contaminants, soil conditions, and type of desired vegetation. The first and most 

essential components of any soil amendment strategy are an accurate assessment of existing sitesoil conditions and knowledge of the range of target soil conditions appropriate for the 

revegetation species of interest. Post-revitalization land use also is an important consideration in 

choosing soil amendments and remedial strategies. Additionally, it is essential that potential soil 

amendments be carefully characterized for all important physical, chemical and microbiological 

properties. 

4.1 Organic Soil Amendments 

A wide array of organic soil amendments, with varying levels of processing and characterization 

is available in most regions. Organic amendments most frequently are used to provide essential 

nutrients (such as N and P), to rebuild soil organic matter content, and re-establish microbial 

populations. Benefits directly associated with improved organic matter content are: enhanced 

water infiltration and moisture-holding, aggregation, aeration, nutrient supply for plant growth, 

and microbial activity (Refs. 44, 56, 57). 

Biosolids. Biosolids are the primary organic solid byproduct produced by municipal wastewater 

treatment processes that have been treated to meet federal and state land-application standards 

(Refs. 25, 53). Over 7 million tons of biosolids are 

generated annually by municipal wastewater 

treatment plants in the United States, and about 55% 

of this material is land applied in one form or another, 

primarily to agricultural land (Ref. 32). Compared to 

many other organic soil amendments, biosolids are 

highly characterized and often are readily available at 

low cost for use as a soil amendment on disturbed lands (Ref. 17). Biosolids characteristics can 

be quite variable between sources, but are very predictable from any one source. In addition to 

available nutrient and organic soil amendment benefits, biosolids often possess significant liming 

and sorbent properties as well. Use of biosolids may be limited by excessive nutrient loading 

concerns at higher loading rates, and odors occasionally cause public acceptance issues. The 

nitrogen content of biosolids is generally of the —slow-release“ type and becomes available to 

vegetation slowly over several years following application. For more information on biosolids, 

go to http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/biosolids/. 

industrial pretreatment programs 

over the years, biosolids tend to 

have metal concentrations much 

Because of advancements in 

lower than regulations require. 

17
Table 3: Types of Soil Amendments 

Amendment Availability Uses Public 

Acceptance 

Cost Advantages Disadvantages Links 

Organics Biosolids Sustainable 

supply; Higher quantities in urban areas 

Nutrient source; Organic matter (OM) source; Sorbent1 properties 

increase with increasing iron content. 

Largely odordriven; Pathogen concerns; Concerns largely driven by perception. 

Materials generally free; Municipalities may pay for transport and use. 

Multi-purpose, multibenefit soil amendment; highly cost-effective; EPA regulated2; well 

characterized consistent quality. 

Public concern/public perceptions; High nutrient loadings in some settings; Some sources have high moisture content. 

National Biosolids Partnership (http://www.biosolids.org/in dex.asp) 

Manures Sustainable 

supply; Higher quantities near CAFOs 

Nutrient source; OM source. 

Well accepted. Materials 

generally free; Transport and application fee. 

Widespread and readily available. 

Not consistently regulated2; Variable 

quality; Not routinely treated for pathogen reduction; Generally uncharacterized. 

Industry Residuals: How They Are Collected, Treated and Applied (http://www.cluin.org/studentpapers/) 

Compost Locationdependent; 

Volumes limited; Competing users 

Nutrient source; OM source. 

Readily accepted. 

Product and transport costs can be high. 

Readily accepted; Stable product; Can be used in or near water. 

High cost; Limited availability; N quantity usually significantly lower than non-composted materials. 

U.S. Composting Council (http://www.compostingcou ncil.org/section.cfm?id=37) Association of Compost Producers 

Digestates3 New material; 

Very location dependent 

Nutrient source; OM source. 

May have odor problems. 

To be determined; Transport and application fee. 

New enough so that 

not regulated2; 

Variable quality; Not routinely treated for pathogen reduction; Generally uncharacterized. 

18 
Amendment Availability Uses Public 

Acceptance 

Cost Advantages Disadvantages Links 

Pulp Sludges Material 

available locally (Northwest and East) 

OM source; Slope stabilizer. 

May have odor problems; May have dioxins; May be nutrient limiting. 

Materials generally free; Transport and application fee. 

High C content; Large volumes; Locally available. 

Highly variable quality; May contain other residuals, e.g., fly ash, waste lime, clay, which can be benefit or detriment for intended use. Total C may not reflect available C. Very low nutrient value. 

American Forest and Paper Association (http://www.afandpa.org/Te mplate.cfm?section=Pulp_a nd_Paper) 

Yard/Wood Waste 

Material available locally 

OM source; Can be high C; Can be used for bulking and structure. 

Yard waste can be odorous. 

Materials may be free; Transport may be partially covered. 

May be used to control erosion; Variable sizes available. 

Large category; High variability; May be hard to obtain; Can contain herbicides. 

Ethanol Production Byproducts 

New material; Very location dependent 

Nutrient source; OM source. 

May have odor problems. 

To be determined; Transport and application fee. 

New, not regulated2; 

Variable quality; Not routinely treated for pathogen reduction; Generally uncharacterized. 

pH Lime Widespread Increase pH; 

Increase Ca. 

Highly accepted. 

Product, transport and application is $8-30/ton based on transport distances. 

Regulated2; Well 

characterized; Very uniform; soil aggregation. 

Agricultural limestone has low solubility and can become coated and ineffective at severely acidic sites. Can be source of fugitive dust. 

National Lime Association (http://www.lime.org/ENV0 2/ENV802.htm#BioS) 

19
Amendment Availability Uses Public 

Acceptance 

Cost Advantages Disadvantages Links 

Wood Ash Locally available Increase pH; 

Source of mineral nutrients, Ca, Mg, K; Can work for odor control. 

Accepted. Materials 

generally free; Locally variable cover and transport costs. 

Acceptance; Cost; Multi-purpose; Can limit odor of organic soil amendments. 

Highly variable; Lime equivalent will vary by burn temperature and age of material; Dioxins should not be a problem but tests should be conducted to verify. 

Coal Combustion Products 

Most available in eastern U.S. 

Increase pH; Source of mineral nutrients (e.g., Ca). 

Variable. Materials 

generally free; Transport and application fee. 

Regulated2; Well 

characterized; Soil aggregation; Light color reduces surface temperature for seedlings; Increases moisture-holding capacity; Reduces odor of organic soil amendments. 

Varies plant to plant; can be high B and salts; can leach Se and As. 

American Coal Ash Association (http://fp.acaausa.org/CCP.htm) The Fly Ash Resource Center (http://www.geocities.com/c apecanaveral/launchpad/209 5/mar_index.html) 

Sugar Beet Lime 

Locally available - primarily in west 

Increase pH. Accepted. Materials 

generally free; Transport and application fee. 

More reactive than agricultural limestone. 

Potential fugitive dust. 

Cement Kiln; Lime Kiln 

Locally available Increase pH; High 

Ca. 

Variable. Materials can 

have associated cost; Transport and application fee. 

Highly soluble and reactive. 

Potential fugitive dust; Highly caustic; Variable content; May contain contaminants. 

20
Amendment Availability Uses Public 

Acceptance 

Cost Advantages Disadvantages Links 

Red Mud Locally available 

in TX and AR in U.S. 

Increase pH; Sorbent. 

Variable. Commercial 

product from a residual under development. 

Demonstrated effective in limited testing in Australia and other sites at moderating pH and sorbing metals. 

Potentially costly, High salt content; Variable CCE. 

I-99 ARD Remediation Status, June 8, 2005 (http://www.dep.state.pa.us/ dep/deputate/fieldops/nc/I_9 9/Reports_Documentation/5 _PennDOT_Acid_Rock_Re mediation_Plan/I99_ARD_Pres._Tran_Sub_ Final.ppt#274 ,8,Interim Remediation Measures) International Aluminum Institute (http://www.worldaluminium.org/environment /challenges/residue.html) Red Mud Project (http://www.redmud.org/ho me.html) 

Lime-stabilized Biosolids 

Locally available Increase pH; OM 

and nutrient source; Potential sorbent. 

See biosolids. See biosolids. See biosolids; 

Potential multipurpose soil amendment. 

Can have high odor; Lower N content than conventional biosolids; Variable lime content. 

National Lime Association (http://www.lime.org/ENV0 2/ENV802.htm#BioS) 

Mineral Foundry Sand Large quantities 

locally available 

Modifies texture; Sorbent. 

Variable. Materials 

generally free; transport and handling fee. 

Good filler; Sand replacement. 

Can have trace metals, Significant Na; Only Fe and steel sands currently acceptable. 

21
Amendment Availability Uses Public 

Acceptance 

Cost Advantages Disadvantages Links 

Steel Slag Locally available CCE, sorbent, and 

Mn fertilizer. 

Accepted. Materials 

generally free; Transport and grinding fee. 

Combination of CCE and sorbent, including Mn. 

May volatilize ammonia. 

National Slag Association (http://www.nationalslag.or g/slagsites.htm) 

Dredged Material 

Large quantities locally available 

Modifies texture; Top soil substitute useful for covering sites. 

Variable. Materials 

generally free; Transport may be paid by generator. 

Can be top soil substitute; Ideal for blending with other residuals. 

Needs dewatering; Can have wide range of contaminants; Can have Na. 

Gypsum Large quantities 

locally available 

Good for sodic soil; Good for low pH soil; Good for soil structure. 

Variable. Materials 

generally free; Transport fee. 

Improves aggregation; Offsets aluminum toxicity. 

Different sources of waste gypsum and wide range of potential contaminants, many of which are regulated2 . 

Water Treatment Residuals (WTR) 

Available wherever water is treated 

Good for binding P; Potential sorbent. 

Accepted. Materials 

generally free; Transport costs may be covered by generator. 

Moderates P availability when mixed with high P soil amendments. 

Different materials have variable reactivities; May contain As and radioactive isotopes. 

Coal Combustion Products (CCP) 

Available where coal is burned 

Sorbent; Improve water-holding capacity; Excellent mix for biosolids; Compost to create cover soil. 

Variable. Materials 

generally free; Transport and application fee. 

May have CCE value; Large volumes available. 

Large quantities generally necessary to achieve benefits; Can have contaminants including Se, B, As and metals. 

1 The term sorbents, as used here, describes materials that can hold on to or absorb different contaminants. There are a range of these materials, with different materials better suited 

to absorption of different contaminants. Some examples of sorbents include charcoal for different organic contaminants, water treatment residuals for excess P and some heavy metals and high surface area iron oxides for heavy metals including Pb and As (Refs. 6, 13, 14, 58). 

2 See Table 6. Regulatory Requirements for Sites Using Selected Soil Amendments 3 Digestate, as used here, is defined as a general category for organic wastes that have been partially treated through anaerobic digestion. 

22 
Manures. Over 25 million tons of animal manures are generated annually in the United States 

(Ref. 57). Manures vary widely in moisture, nutrient content, and relative stability. Some 

manures are dewatered or otherwise stabilized for beneficial use, but most are applied —as is“ on 

nearby agricultural lands as nutrient and organic matter amendments. The nitrogen content of 

manures is usually readily available to vegetation and does not persist in the soil as long as the 

nitrogen from biosolids or other types of manures. 

Composts. Compost is the stable soil conditioning product that results from aerobically 

decomposing raw organic materials, such as yard trimmings, food residuals, or animal 

byproducts (http://www.epa.gov/compost/). The composting process involves a proper carbonto-nitrogen ratio, a favorable temperature regime, water, and air to yield the compost end-product 

that is less in volume than the original material and free from offensive odors. Composting is 

used frequently to significantly reduce pathogens in organic waste streams since the process 

generates temperature hot enough to achieve this reduction. Compost availability and 

composition varies widely, but in general, compost is generated in much smaller volumes 

nationally than manures or biosolids. Composts generally have a lower N content than biosolids 

or manures. 

Digestates. The term —digestates“ is used in this paper as a general category for organic wastes 

that have been partially treated through anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion of organics is a 

way to reduce volume, destroy pathogens, and generate methane for energy recovery. This type 

of digestion is status quo for many municipal biosolids and is becoming increasingly common 

for animal manures and food residuals. The material that comes out of digesters typically is a 

high-organic-matter semi-solid that can have a relatively high nutrient content. This type of 

treatment is commonplace for municipal biosolids; however, biosolids are considered separately 

from digestates in this paper, even though their properties and potential uses are likely to be 

similar. 

Papermill Sludges. Papermill (pulp) sludges also are available for use as soil amendments on 

disturbed lands (Refs. 16, 40), but tend to vary from source to source. In general, papermill 

sludges are much lower in N and P than biosolids and composts, but can provide large amounts 

of organic matter. Many papermills also combine other residuals such as waste lime, fly ash, or 

kaolin with their pulp sludges, which may greatly enhance their soil amendment potential (Ref. 

20). 

Yard and Wood Waste. Many localities collect yard waste (lawn, garden, shrub/tree trimmings, 

etc.) and make it available for local reuse. Similarly, large amounts of wood waste (bark chips, 

sawdust, whole tree chips, etc.) may be available from wood processing facilities or from rightof-way maintenance activities. Collectively, these materials tend to vary greatly in composition, 

size, and relative decomposition/stability, but can serve as significant and beneficial organic 

matter amendments or mulching materials. In recent years, wood products have been 

increasingly utilized as fuel in industrial boilers and, therefore, are not as readily available. 

Ethanol Production Byproducts. Because this is a relatively new source of soil amendments, its 

availability is very location specific. It is generally uncharacterized and there is very little 

information available about it. 

23
4.2 Soil Acidity/pH Soil Amendments 

Many degraded sites are plagued by low soil pH conditions and associated problems, including 

heavy metal bioavailability and direct toxicity to microbes. Fortunately, a wide array of alkaline 

soil amendments is available. All liming/alkaline soil amendments should be tested for their net 

neutralizing power. This is commonly expressed on a calcium-carbonate-equivalent (CCE) basis. 

The particle size of liming materials also is very important in that sand-sized or larger (> 0.05 

mm) particles are much slower to react than finer-textured materials. 

Many soil amendments (e.g., lime) 

have important positive effects on 

runoff and leachate water quality in 

addition to ameliorating adverse 

plant growth conditions. 

Lime. pH-neutralizing soil amendments include 

ground calcium carbonate (CaCO3), or limestone; 

calcium oxide (CaO), or burnt lime; calcium 

hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), or hydrated lime; and 

industrial waste products, such as cement kiln dust 

and sugar beet precipitated calcium carbonate, are 

widely available. The applicability of each soil 

amendment is subject to chemical analysis of CCE, moisture content, and particle size. 

Additionally, lime amendments should not contain phytotoxic characteristics. Phytotoxicity 

effects of industrial waste products can be determined by greenhouse testing, and should not be 

determined by chemical analysis alone. Pure alkaline products such as ground limestone, calcium 

oxide, and calcium hydroxide do not need independent greenhouse evaluation prior to field use 

(Ref. 29). Liming is commonly used to reverse phytotoxicity of Zn, Cu, or Ni. However, 

excessive liming may reduce phytoavailability of soil Mn and other essential micronutrients, and 

induce Mn deficiency depending on Mn levels present in the contaminated soil. 

Wood Ash. Wood ash is locally available in small to moderate amounts from wood-fired utilities. 

Wood ash provides K and certain micronutrients to the treated soil/plant system. CCE varies by 

source and the degree to which the ash product has been weathered and hydrated. Wood ash may 

contain contaminants if other fuels, such as tires or waste oil, have been co-combusted with the 

wood. The ash of wood treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA) or pentachlorophenol 

(PCP) is not acceptable for use on land because of the contaminants present in these materials. 

Coal Combustion Products (CCPs). Over 100 million tons of coal fly ash and flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) lime sludge are produced annually in the United States (Ref. 24). These 

products can provide a low-cost alkaline alternative to conventional lime sources. The CCE of 

fly ash can vary from 0 to > 50%, so appropriate testing of all land-applied materials is essential. 

FGD materials typically are higher in CCE than fly ashes, and the two are commonly co-mingled 

at generating facilities. Gypsum also is commonly a major component of FGD. High levels of 

soluble salts and boron (B) in both products may limit the application rate. Boron and soluble 

salt levels are reduced in weathered material, if this is locally available. Heavy metal 

concentrations should be determined in these materials prior to use. Metals levels can vary 

considerably between sources. 

Sugar Beet Lime. During purification of sugar from sugar beets or cane, lime is added to 

neutralize organic acids present in the plant materials along with sugar. Sugar beet lime, the 

limestone byproduct of this process, is available wherever sugar is produced or packaged. It 

usually has a fine particle size, and may include byproduct organic matter needing application. 

These byproduct limestones contain organic matter and have relatively high CCE values. They 

24
are an underutilized resource mainly because of additional transportation costs resulting from 

remote locations and relatively high water content. 

Cement Kiln Dust. A highly soluble and reactive byproduct of the cement industry, kiln dust is 

also locally available in moderate quantities. This product may contain higher than desirable 

concentrations of contaminants. Like all lime substitutes, these materials should be carefully 

characterized before use. This material can vary considerably between sources. 

Red Mud. Red mud is a highly alkaline byproduct of the aluminum industry found in very large 

quantities near active refineries in Arkansas, Texas, and other states. Several commercial 

products (e.g. BauxsolTM), based on processed red 

mud, are currently available. BauxsolTM has been 

pilot tested on three acid rock drainage (ARD) sites 

in Pennsylvania (Ref. 38). 

Red mud is known for its combined 

liming and sorbent properties. 

Lime-stabilized Biosolids. This is a product of secondary treatment of biosolids via addition of 

CaO or other lime (alkaline)-based reactive products. Lime-stabilized biosolids have a variable 

CCE (10 to > 50%) but also contribute significant nutrient and organic-matter benefits. Limestabilized biosolids may be available in large quantities near cities that use lime stabilization in 

their wastewater treatment facilities. 

4.3 Mineral Soil Amendments and Conditioners 

While organic matter and lime/alkaline soil amendments are used most often, a wide range of 

mineral byproduct materials with significant soil amendment, conditioning, or even soil 

substitute properties may be available locally (Ref. 56). All materials should be characterized 

prior to use. 

Foundry Sand. A byproduct of the metal casting industry, foundry sand is available locally in 

moderate amounts. It is used primarily as a soil conditioner to improve texture but may contain 

various heavy-metal residues from the casting process. 

Steel Slag. Steel slag is available locally in moderate quantities. It often is used as a combined 

alkaline soil amendment, sorbent, and micronutrient source. 

Dredged Materials. Available in very large quantities near commercial waterways and estuaries, 

dredged materials may be used to modify surface soil texture or, in thicker lifts, to form an entire 

soil profile. Dredged materials can be highly variable in physical and chemical properties and 

may contain organic contaminants, including herbicides. 

Gypsum. Very large amounts of gypsum are produced in the manufacturing of P fertilizers, 

titanium pigment production, and a range of other industries that neutralize sulfuric acid extracts 

in their processes. Gypsum is used to enhance soil aggregation, offset aluminum (Al) toxicity, 

and ameliorate sodic soil conditions. The product varies by industrial process and location and 

can contain trace contaminants of concern, such as Cd, F, and uranium (U). 

Water Treatment Residuals (WTR). Alum and other compounds are used in drinking water 

plants to flocculate or precipitate P, fine clays, silts, and organics from the raw water feed. The 

25
resultant water treatment sludges can be used as a soil conditioner to improve texture, or as a 

sorbent for excess P or other contaminants of concern. 

Coal Combustion Products (CCPs). CCPs are generated in large volumes nationwide and are 

frequently employed as liming alternatives for ameliorating acidic soil. However, CCPs also are 

used for their metal-sorption ability, as soil conditioners to modify soil texture and improve 

water-holding, or as simple dry-bulking agents to improve the handling properties of wetter 

byproducts such as biosolids. 

4.4 Application Rates 

There are several approaches that can be used to determine the appropriate application rate for 

the soil amendments to be used. 

depend on the specific 

Appropriate application rates 

concern to be addressed. 

One approach is to look at healthy soil in the environment 

at the site. The total organic matter of such soil can be used 

as a target value for the target site. If this approach is 

taken, a significant portion of the organic matter applied 

will decompose to carbon dioxide (CO2) and water in a 

relatively short time frame. If a nearby soil has 2% organic matter, adding 4% to the site is a way 

to compensate for the initial rapid decomposition. Another approach is to look at rates that have 

been used at similar sites. For example, coal mining sites have been successfully restored with a 

range of biosolids products added at 22 to about 100 dry tons per acre (Ref. 17). Metalcontaminated sites (primarily hard rock mining sites) have been restored with mixtures of 

biosolids and lime, with biosolids added at rates of about 25-100 tons per acre and higher. The 

appropriate rates at other hard rock sites with low probability of metal toxicities where soil 

fertility and poor physical properties are the primary impediments to plant growth will be similar 

to those for coal sites. 

A heavily contaminated, barren mountainside adjacent to a large smelting complex in Palmerton, 

PA. was revegetated using a blend of 105 wet tons/acre anaerobically digested biosolids (21 dry 

tons/acre), 52.5 tons/acre fly ash and 10 tons/acre agricultural limestone (Ref. 37). In this case, 

the application rates were determined primarily based on the organic nitrogen content of the 

biosolids, then using half that amount of fly ash and twice the required amount of limestone 

needed to neutralize the soil (pH 7.0). The blend, 167.5 dry tons/acre, was surface applied with 

seed mixed in. It provided a uniform cover about 2 inches in depth and was very successful. The 

organic nitrogen content of the biosolids was used as a determining factor because that nitrogen 

component would provide the slow-release nitrogen needed by the vegetation. The 2000 lbs/acre 

applied would be slowly mineralized by soil bacteria to plant-available nitrate and ammonia, 

providing an annual amount of 100 œ 200 lbs/acre for a five to seven year period. This was the 

amount of nitrogen required by the grass/legume vegetation that was seeded, preventing a loss of 

nitrogen from the site. The fly ash amount was determined based on lab, greenhouse and field 

trials, and supplied numerous benefits to the blend. The heavy metal content of the fly ash was 

added to the metals content of the biosolids for the metals loading calculations for the project and 

none exceeded the amounts allowed by Pennsylvania regulations (Ref. 35). 

Another approach is to follow laboratory protocols. For example, laboratory protocols for 

calculating the acid-base account from field soil samples; determining lime-quality CCE, 

26
moisture content, and particle size; and delineation of spatial variation in the lime rate observed 

in the field, are used for determining the application rate for neutralizing acid-forming mine 

waste to ensure that appropriate amounts of soil amendments are applied spatially at proper 

depths. Analytical tests that measure active and potential acidity have been documented (Refs. 

42, 43). 

In other cases, however, the amount of amendments added to the soil can be a qualitative rather 

than a quantitative decision. This is generally the case for amendments used to increase soil 

organic matter or to rebuild soil. 

Some states regulate the use of different soil amendments. These regulations often are 

formulated to protect against excessive leaching of N to groundwater while still allowing 

application of soil amendments at high enough rates to assure success of the revegetation effort. 

For example, Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy (VDMME) developed 

guidelines limiting application of biosolids for revitalization to 33 tons per acre for class B 

biosolids or 51 tons per acre if the C:N ratio of the soil amendment was 25:1 or greater (Ref. 55). 

Similar maximum rates are in place for reclamation of mined land in Maryland and 

Pennsylvania. 

In rebuilding soil, it is important to 

include a mixture of N-rich materials with 

C-rich materials to reduce the potential for 

N leaching while providing sufficient 

organic matter. In general, a bulk 

amendment C:N ratio between 20:1 and 40:1 is recommended, but higher C additions may be 

viable in certain scenarios. It also may be appropriate to include a mineral soil amendment like 

foundry sand or wood ash as part of the amendment mixture respectively for inorganic bulk and 

plant nutrients. Here, operational considerations and budget often can be the limiting factors in 

determining appropriate application rates. The functional A horizon, also called topsoil, is where 

seeds germinate and plant roots grow. It is made up of a mineral particle matrix with a significant 

(1 to 10%) humus (decomposed organic matter) content. This layer is generally > 4 inches. The 

goal should be to create a surface layer (A horizon) that is close to or greater than this depth. 

Higher application rates of soil amendments 

are required when rebuilding soil rather 

than simply enhancing damaged soil. 

27
5.0 

LOGISTICS AND OTHER 

CONSIDERATIONS 

Availability, transportation, storage, and blending are the key logistical issues to evaluate when 

using soil amendments for site remediation and revitalization (see Table 4). Other essential 

concerns discussed in this section are public acceptance and cost. 

5.1 Availability 

Soil amendment materials are available almost everywhere. Sources include Publicly Owned 

Treatment Works (POTWs), concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), coal-fired power 

plants, and pulp and paper mills, as well as retail sources. A limited list of sources for various 

types of soil amendment materials is available on U.S. EPA‘s Clean-Up Information System 

website at www.clu-in.org (Ref. 9). Also see the links to sources of information on the various 

types of amendments in Table 3. 

5.2 Transportation 

Truck-delivery of residuals to a project site requires good access including roads kept clear of 

snow and ice during periods of delivery, roads built to withstand heavy truck weights, bridges 

when planning for the use of soil 

and reuse of disturbed sites. 

Transport logistics (identifying sources and 

delivery costs) should be considered first 

amendments for remediation, revitalization, 

that legally can carry truck weights, and 

sites with unloading areas that are level 

and firm for safe truck dumping. Other 

project-specific considerations may 

include the need for a truck scale, 

sampling apparatus and an on-site lab for 

rapid field characterization of material. 

Specialized transport vehicles may be needed for soil amendments that are highly hydroscopic 

(have high moisture content), caustic, or have other special characteristics. This can translate to 

high unit costs for transportation. Liners should be considered for loads of high-moisture 

materials for safer dumping. 

Where sources of soil amendments are within 200 miles of a project site, dump trailers or dumptruck delivery of amendments is economically viable. Longer distances make rail hauling 

practical, but development of short-line rail service, or rail-to-truck transfer, can be costly. The 

potential impact of concentrated truck traffic on homeowners directly adjacent to the haulage 

route, including access, also should be considered. 

28
Table 4: Logistics and Other Considerations in Using Soil Amendments 

Amendment Transport On-site Storage Blending Application Application 

Equipment 

Organics 

Biosolids Can be costly 

due to high 

Extended storage 

of high moisture 

Can be mixed 

with high C 

Industrial disks will 

be needed for surface 

Range of options 

available. 

moisture materials can material to or incorporated high Generators may 

content for generate offensive reduce N moisture content of have expertise. 

some odors. Can use leaching some materials, Options include 

materials; 

High potential 

storage as 

treatment with 

potential. Can 

also be mixed 

chisel plow or 

rippers; Material can 

dump truck + 

dozer, side cast 

for cost-share onsite processing with lime be surface applied spreader, 

with to compost or materials for and allowed to dry aerospreaderTM, 

municipality; stabilize with lime. complete before incorporation; and custom 

Rail haul is Blending with fly amendment or If blended with dry biosolids 

possible; Intramodal ash prior to storage 

can reduce odors. 

CCPs. mineral materials, 

e.g., fly ash, the 

application 

vehicles 

transport moisture content is including 

containers similar to topsoil (50- terragators. May 

(rail/truck) 55%) and can be also be bulldozed 

may simplify surface applied down steep 

transfers from 

rail to truck. 

without 

incorporation. 

slopes. 

Manures See biosolids. See biosolids. See biosolids; See biosolids; less See biosolids; 

less stable than stable than biosolids. less stable than 

biosolids. biosolids. 

Compost Due to low 

bulk density 

and high water 

content, high 

transport costs. 

See biosolids. Blowers, 

pneumatic 

spreaders, 

manure 

spreaders, 

aerospreaderTM, 

etc. 

Digestates1 See biosolids. See biosolids. See biosolids. See biosolids. 

Pulp Sludges See compost. Can become 

anaerobic and 

odorous. 

Can have very 

high C:N ratio2 

which may 

necessitate 

See biosolids. See biosolids. 

blending with Nrich material for 

plant growth. 

Yard/Wood 

Waste 

See biosolids. See pulp sludges. Check C:N ratio. 

If >30:1, will 

 See compost; 

Standard 

necessitate 

mixing with a 

high N material 

like manure or 

agricultural 

tillage to12 

inches. 

biosolids. 

Ethanol See pulp sludges. Too new. 

Production 

Byproducts 

29
Amendment Transport On-site Storage Blending Application Application 

Equipment 

pH 

Lime Cost varies 

with distance 

and water 

Lime pile should 

be covered to avoid 

dusts and 

Can be blended 

with an organic 

soil amendment. 

Lime spreader. Lime spreader; 

aerospreaderTM; 

hydro-mulcher; 

content; 

Usually by 

precipitation. Rip prior to 

incorporation; 

truck or rail. Incorporation 

equipment may 

include tillage to 

12 inches, rotary 

mixers (24 

inches), or 

specialized 

plows (up to 47 

inches). 

Wood Ash pH will decrease to 

8.3 as material is 

Can also be a 

source of K and 

 See lime. 

exposed to air; Will 

be slower reacting 

and less soluble; 

P; If pH is > 8.3 

can drive off N 

from manures or 

This process will 

occur quickly if 

lime material is 

biosolids and 

decrease nutrient 

value; If blended 

mixed with an with manures or 

organic residual for 

storage. 

biosolids and 

seeded 

immediately, the 

ammonia 

generated can 

kill the seed. 

Fly Ash See wood ash. Can be source of 

K. 

Sugar Beet See compost. See wood ash. See lime. 

Cement Kiln 

Dust 

See lime. See wood ash; In 

addition nutrient 

Can also be a 

source of K and 

Can be caustic. See lime. 

value, N can 

decrease with 

P; If pH is > 8.3 

can drive off N 

volatilization over from manures or 

time. biosolids and 

decrease nutrient 

value. 

Red Mud Can be salty. 

Lime- See biosolids. See biosolids. 

stabilized 

Biosolids 

Mineral 

Foundry Sand Generally high 

application 

rates will 

High volume soil 

amendments; Should 

be handled in bulk. 

Loaders, haulers, 

pans, dozers. 

involve high 

cost; Cost may 

be covered by 

generator. 

30
Amendment Transport On-site Storage Blending Application Application 

Equipment 

Dredged See foundry See foundry sand. See foundry 

Material sand. sand. 

Gypsum See foundry 

sand. 

See lime. See lime. 

Water See lime. 

Treatment 

Residuals 

1 Digestate, as used here, is defined as a general category for organic wastes that have been partially treated through 

anaerobic digestion. 

2 Ratio of carbon to nitrogen; C:N ratio is 15-40:1 

5.3 Storage 

Temporary stockpiling of soil amendments in advance of application is often necessary. The 

stability of a soil amendment is an important factor in planning for on-site storage. Exposure to 

rainfall while in storage may affect the quality of some soil 

amendments. Other amendments are biologically active, 

and their nutrient properties or odor characteristics may 

change while in storage. Some materials may be composted 

at an on-site storage facility, but regulatory restrictions may 

apply. In some states, on-site storage for any protracted 

period of time (e.g., > 14 days or over winter) may require 

a compacted pad below and low berms around the base of 

the stockpile to retain leachates and seepage. In some 

instances, blending two soil amendments prior to storage 

(e.g., biosolids and fly ash) can overcome odor problems 

and alleviate reduced usability due to rainfall exposure 

while being stored. Other admixtures likely will show 

similar characteristics if the soil amendments are paired to 

be synergistic, i.e., each overcoming negative aspects of the 

other. 

5.4 Application 

For some materials, such as biosolids, regulatory requirements may limit the steepness of a site 

that can be approved for reclamation. In other cases, using soil amendments on sites with 

The gradient or slope of a 

project site influences 

selection of soil amendments. 

unusually steep gradients may have advantages. For 

example, a blend of fly ash and biosolids has been shown 

to become partially cemented onto a hillside at slopes 

approaching 1:1 (100%) and, hence, highly resistant to 

movement. Many of the state regulatory requirements for 

maximum slope on a project site were developed with equipment limitations and runoff 

considerations in mind. If a project can be designed to allow the equipment to remain on fairly 

moderately sloping access roads on an otherwise steep site and limit surface water impacts, it 

may be possible to obtain regulatory approval. 

31
Project plans should reflect seasonal differences in potential adverse impacts from soil 

amendment use. For example, excessive nitrate-N loss in winter may occur if nutrient-rich soil 

amendments are applied after the growing season. The workability of the land surface may 

degrade if soil amendments are applied during a rainy season, and seedling germination may be 

inhibited by excessive drought if applied in the dry season. In addition, temperature may impact 

the feasibility of onsite composting. 

The amount of moisture in the soil amendment, commonly reported as % solids, is the 

predominant characteristic that dictates application procedures and timing. Typical ranges of 

solids content of biosolids applied to revitalization sites have included liquid sludge at 2-8% 

solids, which can be pumped easily; semi-solid biosolids at 8-18% solids, which also can be 

pumped (though less efficiently than liquids); and solid biosolids cake at 20-40% solids, which 

may be flung from a manure-type spreader or end-dumped (Ref. 5). 

Application rates typically are calculated on a dry-weight basis. This means that, for an average 

dewatered biosolids (20% solids), application of 90 dry tons per acre would involve applying 

450 tons per acre of material. This is a significant amount of material that can complicate 

incorporation efforts. A variety of equipment technologies are available to perform direct 

spreading, including farm manure wagons, all-terrain vehicles with rear tanks, and dump trucks. 

Heavy applications like these can be accomplished using two basic techniques, both of which are 

relatively easy and relatively inexpensive. 

•	 Single application. The fastest and most cost-effective method is to make the total 

application in a single —lift“ (an application that is immediately incorporated into the soil). 

Depending upon the application rate and % solids, this may be as little as 1 to 30 inches in 

depth. Soil amendment mixtures can be allowed to dry on the surface before incorporation. 

This may take a complete summer period. Drying can be enhanced by seeding with a grass 

that can germinate and withstand the 

anaerobic conditions of the soil 

amendments. A cereal grass such as 

annual rye or wheat generally is very 

effective for this purpose. Once the 

soil amendment has dried, normal 

farm disks or chisel plows can be used 

to incorporate the mixture into the 

subsoil. If the amendments are 

incorporated into the soil when wet, 

high moisture materials added at high 

application rates will involve use of 

heavy duty equipment (e.g., mine 

disks) capable of deep mixing and 

incorporation. 

•	 Multiple lifts. Soil amendment applications also can be made in smaller or partial lifts. In 

fact, some states require incorporation of biosolids within a certain time period. When 

multiple heavy applications are needed within a short period of time, working the soil 

becomes a challenge, because repeated applications followed by mixing without drying will 

32
turn the soil into a deep quagmire (potentially far deeper than the actual depth of amendment 

added). Costs will be significantly higher, because the soil is worked many more times in this 

method. 

There are several technologies that are effective for applying and incorporating materials at these 

rates. Site topography, soil strength, evenness (including debris), and proximity to waterways are 

the physical features that affect equipment selection. Easy access, stable soil, and a clear site 

favor the simple methods, while rockiness, obstructions, or steep slopes necessitate special 

equipment. The application rate also is important, as light applications need a more precise 

method. Table 5 summarizes the common types of equipment available to make applications to 

disturbed soil (Ref. 5). 

•	 Incorporation. Incorporation of high rates of biosolids mixtures similarly require the 

proper equipment and equipment operators. The low % solids of the biosolids means that 

when making a 100 dry t/ac application, more than 500 wet t/ac of material may actually 

be applied. Generally a large track bulldozer pulling a 36-inch disk is required. Smaller 

equipment will just float on the surface of the biosolids mixture. Large chisel plows also 

are capable of incorporating amendments. Achieving a completely homogenous mixture 

is not possible when incorporating high rates of amendments. Although not always 

necessary, maximizing soil-amendment contact whenever possible can increase the 

effectiveness of the amendment. 

In most cases, the municipality or private contractor that has applied the soil amendments for a 

municipality or generator will have appropriate application equipment and operators. Arranging 

for application and incorporation as part of the agreement to use biosolids from a municipality 

may be the best way to ensure appropriate and cost effective application of the materials. If the 

particular municipality does not have the appropriate equipment, others will. Examples of 

municipalities and states that have large scale application equipment include: Chicago (contact 

Thomas Granato, (708)222-4063); Virginia (contact Lee Daniels, wdaniels@vt.edu); Denver 

(contact Bob Brobst, brobst.bob@epamail.epa.gov); and Philadelphia (contact Bill Toffey, 

William.Toffey@phila.gov). Bob Bastian (U.S. EPA Washington, DC, 

bastian.robert@epamail.epa.gov) also has information on application equipment across the 

country. For more information on application equipment go to 

http://faculty.washington.edu/clh/whitepapers/biosolidswhite.pdf. 

5.5 Blending 

Individual soil amendments can be combined with other residuals to produce characteristics 

optimal for revitalization of a particular type of site. For example, the target may be to produce a 

blend containing a full range of nutrients with optimal soil pH and texture, or to moderate the pH 

of an amendment mix or achieve a desired balance of C and N in order to reduce the risk of 

nitrate leaching. Blending equipment may be required to achieve proper soil conditions when 

using amendments. Two basic approaches are in situ mixing of soil amendments into the 

receiving surface or a priori blending of a soil mix made from amendments followed by 

emplacement onto the receiving surface. Both operations involve large-scale equipment. The 

former requires large fixed pieces, such as pug mills or tub grinders, which may be movable 

around the site but essentially blend and shred from a designated location that has a power 

source. The use of tracked or wheeled vehicles to pull farm-like equipment for spreading and 

33
plowing also can be used for in situ blending of amendments and soil. In either case, care should 

be taken to avoid over mixing, particularly with biosolids, as this can result in a loss of flocculent 

structure that makes the material difficult to apply. Operators also should monitor closely to 

verify that proper ratios of materials are maintained. Experience with one large-scale remedial 

action using blends of biosolids and fly ash in Pennsylvania revealed that the use of a large, fixed 

mixing station was detrimental to the vegetation process, because the material was over-blended. 

The resulting mix was difficult to apply and crusted after application, which slowed vegetation 

emergence significantly. This was overcome by using a front-end loader to do much reduced 

blending and by placing alternating buckets of amendments into the spreader truck. The action of 

being thrown from the spreader achieved a uniform mixing of the amendments when applied 

(Ref. 37). 

Table 5. Comparison of Different Application Systems Used in Remediation (Ref. 5) 

System Range 

* 

% 

Solids** 

Relative Costs Advantages Disadvantages 

Biosolids dump truck 

discharge, spreading 

with dozer 

10-15‘ > 12% Low capital, low 

O&M 

Simple to operate, fast 

for high application 

rates. 

Need cleared, relatively 

flat site, acceptable to 

heavy equipment, difficult 

to get even applications 

for low application rates. 

Application vehicle 

with mounted cannon 

Up to 

125‘ 

< 12% Moderate capital, 

high O&M 

Can make even 

applications for low 

rates, any terrain. 

May need special trails 

with strength for repeated 

trips, slow. 

Application vehicle 

with rear splash plate 

10‘ 15-35% Moderate capital, 

moderate O&M 

Can make even 

applications for low 

rates, moderate terrain. 

May need special trails 

with strength for repeated 

trips, slow. 

Application vehicle 

with side discharge 

Up to 

200‘ 

15-90% Moderate capital, 

moderate O&M 

Can make even 

applications on any 

terrain and at any rate, 

including low rates. 

May need special trails 

with strength for repeated 

trips, moderate speed. 

Manure-type spreader -

rear discharge 

10‘-30‘ > 25% Low capital, low 

O&M 

Can make even 

applications for low 

rates, moderate terrain. 

Limited to high % solids, 

trails may need to be close 

together, moderate speed. 

* Range is defined as the distance away from the equipment that the amendment material can be thrown. 

** It is best to check with POTW about the equipment they use, because % solids may vary for different equipment. 

NOTE: Injection may be applicable in particular situations, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

5.6 Public Considerations 

Issues affecting the community living near or affected by a site where soil amendments will be 

used should be taken into account when planning and implementing remediation and 

revitalization plans. These include: 

stakeholders in the decision-making 

process is a key element in projects 

to remediate and revitalize a site 

using soil amendments. 

The involvement of community Public outreach. Public outreach in projects 

involving the use of soil amendments should 

include two-way communication⎯communicating 

with/informing affected stakeholders about plans 

and soliciting/listening to input from the 

community on project plans. This is particularly 

34
important when remedial or revitalization work is to be done on private property. Effective 

public outreach can include the use of site tours, fact sheets, public meetings, media tours of 

project sites, websites, and telephone hotlines. Public outreach is very important for projects with 

significant potential for community impact, where health and environmental concern is high, 

where costs and complexity are extraordinary, and where the final use of the site is a matter of 

community concern. 

Odor. Odor emissions can be a major cause of public dissatisfaction with projects using soil 

amendments. Selection of amendments should take into account the potential for release of 

odorants at malodorous intensities beyond the project boundary. Odor management, including 

applying well stabilized material, avoiding land application when wind conditions favor transport 

of odors to residential areas, minimizing the length of time that amendment materials are stored, 

reducing visibility, maximizing the distance of the storage area from occupied dwellings, and 

training all staff to identify and mitigate odors, should be a high priority throughout the project if 

odorous soil amendments are used. More information on the causes of odor and a comparison of 

various odor treatments can be found in EPA‘s Biosolids and Residuals Management Fact Sheet: 

Odor Control in Biosolids Management (Ref. 51). 

Demonstrations. Because revitalization projects frequently focus on sites of heightened 

community or regulatory concern, and project managers may be held to a high standard of proof 

when selecting amendments for in situ treatment, demonstrations of different residuals and 

different ratios of residual mixtures may be warranted. Reviewing demonstration projects or pilot 

studies in which various types of soil amendments have been used also may be helpful in 

determining whether a particular type of amendment is appropriate for a similar site. 

5.7 Costs 

The volume of soil amendments needed, their availability, transportation, and onsite storage 

issues are among the most important factors in determining per-acre costs of using soil 

amendments to remediate and revitalize a site. These costs can vary widely. A project in which 

amendments suitable for revitalization are already on site may cost up to $1,000 per acre treated; 

a project requiring organic material alone to be delivered may cost $10,000 per acre treated; and 

a site requiring a variety of soil amendments to cover and treat may exceed $100,000 per acre 

treated. 

One of the first large-scale demonstration of biosolids and lime addition at a Superfund site was 

conducted in 2005 on about 40 acres at the California Gulch Superfund Site, Operable Unit 11, 

in Leadville, CO (Ref. 49). The cost of the one-year field demonstration was estimated at about 

$100,000 per acre. This cost included road construction through remote areas and extensive hard 

engineering with rip-rap boulders, root wads, and bend-way weirs in areas that were treated. As 

with many large demonstration projects, the cost of this demonstration included the capital 

expended learning the best management practices (BMPs) that would serve to bring costs down 

in future projects. 

The Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) has used at least some of its biosolids for reclaiming 

coal mines in Pennsylvania for over 25 years. Reclamation project sites receive approximately 

200 tons (60 dry tons) of biosolids per acre. PWD uses contracted services on behalf of the 

landowner, and these services include transporting biosolids to the site, final grading, liming, 

35
temporary product storage, spreading, disking, seeding, and other services. Environmental 

monitoring is not usually required, although the contractor should ensure that an adequate 

vegetative cover is achieved across the entire treatment area and that soil pH is maintained for 

two years after treatment. This bundle of services is charged to the city on the basis of the unit 

cost of biosolids handled. The range in prices over the past ten years has been $40 to $50 per ton 

of biosolids. At typical application rates, this converts to a cost of $8,000 to $10,000 per acre 

(Ref. 45). 

Similarly, costs for in-place treatment of acid metalliferous mine wastes using lime and compost 

at the Clark Fork Superfund site in Missoula County, MT, are estimated to be in the range of 

$6,000 to $10,000 per acre (Ref. 28). Costs for using soil amendments to reclaim approximately 

1,000 acres of the Blue Mountain Operable Unit at the Palmerton Zinc Superfund Site in 

Palmerton, PA, in the 1990s, ranged from $4,500 to $5,500 per acre (Refs. 36, 41). 

In some cases, the cost of treatment can be reduced significantly if soil amendments can be 

obtained without cost. For example, construction of the Stafford Regional Airport between 1998 

and 2000 disturbed over 400 acres of land. Approximately 300 of these acres were contaminated 

by sulfidic Coastal Plain sediments, which were intentionally spread across the final surface due 

to their dark —organic-like“ color. These materials contained approximately 1% reactive iron 

sulfides with virtually no inherent neutralizing capacity (Refs. 34, 15). By the fall of 2001, the 

average soil pH across the site was around 3.0 with many locations having a pH of less than 2.0. 

The main stem of the Potomac Creek, the second-order stream draining the airport‘s watershed, 

was high in Fe and S and had an in-stream pH of 3.7. 

Over the fall and winter of 2001, three rehabilitation alternatives were considered for this site. In 

all cases, it was estimated that seed and mulch would add no cost. Alternative 1 involved the use 

of lime stabilized biosolids. The biosolids sources bore the cost of the biosolids utilization 

through biosolids management, transportation, and utilization contractual arrangements already 

in place, resulting in a net price per acre of this option of $0 (Ref. 39). Alternative 2 involved the 

use of agricultural lime and compost (Ref. 12). Studies on revegetation of sulfidic materials 

indicated that these materials could be successfully revegetated/remediated via the application 

and incorporation of 15 tons per acre of lime plus 35 tons per acre of yard waste compost (or 

similar high quality organic soil amendment), plus minimal additional N-P-K fertilizer. 

Estimated costs for these combined soil amendments (based on Virginia Tech Extension Service 

Farm Budgets and proprietary information from the contractor would be $330,000, or about 

$1,100 per acre. Alternative 3 involved use of an agricultural lime (applied at 100% of potential 

acidity) treated/barrier layer in the surface of the acid-forming materials under a reduced 

thickness (6 inch) soil cover for revegetation. Such covers are now routinely used in the 

coalfields of southwestern Virginia on similar materials and have been quite successful. The 

estimated cost for this conventional option would be $6,793,500, or $22,645 per acre (Ref. 10). 

The utilization of lime-stabilized biosolids was elected as the optimal remedy due to obvious 

economies, the presence of able and willing contractors, and the willingness of regulatory 

agencies to allow Virginia Tech to monitor the site remediation as a research project. In the 

spring of 2002, lime-stabilized biosolids from Blue Plains (Washington, D.C.), Upper Occoquan 

(VA), and several smaller plants in Maryland were applied to various areas of the site according 

to predicted potential acidity/lime demand of the upper 6 inches of the soil (Ref. 35). Due to 

36
biosolids management and utilization arrangements with the contractors, all land application and 

incorporation costs were borne by the biosolids sources (Ref. 10). 

Even in cases where soil amendments themselves are donated, other costs may be incurred. Daily 

cost for hiring a tractor trailer is about $600 (2006). The typical load capacity for a trailer over 

the highway is about 23 tons. The number of daily 

delivery trips and the possibility of splitting costs 

with back-hauled deliveries are factors that 

influence the unit charge for residual delivery to a 

reclamation project. Distances of over 150 miles 

between the origin of the residual and its destination make two deliveries per day unlikely; 

distances less than 50 miles make three deliveries daily a possibility. As a result, unit costs may 

range from $10 per ton for short haul, to $20 per ton for medium range, and $30 or more per ton 

for long haul. Congestion in urban areas, tolls, traffic restrictions, and special truck equipment 

needs may add a premium to vehicular costs (Ref. 45). 

The cost of transporting residual 

amendments may be the largest 

budget item in a remediation project. 

Costs for handling residuals at an application site will depend on the size of the field crew and 

the number of pieces of equipment. An operator with a piece of field equipment (e.g., spreader or 

front-end loader) may cost about $1,000 per day. Depending on the complexity of a field 

operation (e.g., the extent of final grading and the number of passes with incorporation 

equipment), a team of three operators may complete work at a rate of between 1 and 10 acres a 

day. As a result, the cost per acre for equipment operation has a wide range of costs, from $300 

to $3,000 per acre, with higher costs reflecting sites with extreme conditions of slope, poor soil 

cover, or inadequate drainage (Ref. 45). 

Costs for administrative and monitoring tasks also should be considered. These expenses will 

vary considerably. At sites where contamination is not the primary issue, little environmental 

monitoring is needed. At sites where daily testing is undertaken, as may be the case where 

regulated residuals are used, the costs of monitoring may be significant, and the cost of 

monitoring and administration may be $100 to $500 per acre (Ref. 45). 

37
6.0 

REVEGETATION OF AMENDED SOIL 

While ecological function should be considered early in the site remediation process to ensure it 

is properly implemented, revegetation is one of the final actions taken at a site. All site 

revegetation involves careful planning that considers soil conditions, plant species, and past 

experiences. Plans should address land uses that affect plant establishment. In addition, the postrevitalization land use will have a significant influence on designs, implementation, and costs. 

6.1 Considerations with Site Revegetation 

A variety of issues should be considered when revegetating sites where soil amendments have 

been used. These include: 

•	 Seedbed preparation is necessary to facilitate seeding and improve the probability of seeding 

success. This includes leveling, breaking up large clods, and reducing soil seedbank and 

competitive plants. 

•	 Obtaining plants, from seed or growing stock, is best done with as much lead time as 

possible. The availability of native plant materials from reliable sources is often limited. 

Also, plants should be planted at the most opportune time. The Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) has Plant Material Centers which can augment commercial 

nurseries, but need advance notice (Ref. 27). The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center 

(Ref. 19) and NRCS both maintain a list of native plant suppliers. 

•	 Seeding of vegetation without supplemental irrigation should be done either in the spring, in 

advance of wet weather, or in the fall after the growing season. Three principal seeding 

methods⎯drilling, broadcasting, and hydraulic seeding⎯can be used. Certified weed-free 

seed with known germination rates should be used to avoid introduction of weeds or invasive 

species that are difficult to eliminate after the fact. The seed source and quality should be 

reported in post construction documentation. 

•	 Including legumes in the seeding mixtures can prevent N deficiency. Legume species are 

adapted to different soil conditions, so regional and soil-specific characteristics may have to 

be taken into consideration in selecting legumes for the seeding mixture. Legumes should be 

inoculated with their specific Rhizobium symbiont prior to application. 

•	 Mulch can be used to stabilize reseeded areas prior to establishment of the seeded vegetation. 

Mulch serves to decrease water erosion, reduce wind velocity, reduce soil crusting, decrease 

rainfall impact, and decrease soil surface temperature and evaporation. 

•	 Irrigation may need to be considered in planning for revegetation in some regions to ensure 

successful plant establishment and avoid the potential for replanting in case of drought. 

•	 Weed species represent one of the greatest threats to long-term success of soil-based 

revitalization efforts. Close monitoring of the habitat during establishment and control of 

invasive species is important because weeds and other invasive species can quickly disperse 

and invade disturbed land, causing problems ranging from destruction of habitat for animals 

native to the area, to pushing out native plants that help control erosion, to impacting land 

value by limiting its use (Ref. 47, 48). Developing a weed management plan is 

recommended. 

38
•	 Managing wildlife, such as deer and beavers, is often overlooked but can be an issue. 

Wildlife can over-browse a newly planted site and leave it vulnerable to invasive species. 

Control options should be identified and explored with the local community to ensure they 

are acceptable. 

6.2 Native Plants 

An Executive Order signed April 12, 1994, recognizes the need to conserve the biodiversity and 

health of native plants to sustain the natural resource base in the United States. The 

Native plant communities are best in 

providing the ecological diversity and 

long-term sustainability of the landscape. 

reestablishment of native species and plant 

communities should be emphasized where 

appropriate and if commensurate with postrevitalization land use. However, for 

landscapes that have been severely disturbed, 

it is ecologically unrealistic to expect a return to baseline biological conditions. In some 

situations, use of native plants in revitalizing a site may not be possible. One example is a site 

that had heavy metal contamination of the soil. The native soil was very acidic, with a pH of 3.5 

to 4.5. Following remediation, a soil pH of 6.5 or higher had to be maintained to prevent the 

metals from going into solution. Even though the site was revegetated, the species that 

previously existed there could not remain due to the dramatic soil pH change. The objective of in 

situ treatment of contaminated lands using soil amendments is to establish a self-sustaining 

system that does not rely on artificial inputs and, ideally, is similar to and provides nearly equal 

ecological value as the undisturbed adjacent landscape. The production of native plant materials 

for use in revitalizing lands is a rapidly expanding industry (Refs: 7, 47, 48). 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s Natural Resource Conservation Service Plant Material 

Centers (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/plantmaterials/) provide native plants that can be 

used in many revitalization projects (Ref. 27). 

Scientists at the centers seek out and test the 

performance of plants that show promise for 

meeting an identified conservation need. After 

species are proven, they are released to the 

private sector for commercial production. The 

work at the 26 centers is carried out 

cooperatively with state and federal agencies, 

commercial businesses, and seed and nursery 

associations. 

39
7.0 

PERMITTING AND REGULATIONS 

A variety of regulatory requirements may pertain to the use of soil amendments for ecological 

revitalization (see Table 6). The type of amendment chosen will determine the pertinent 

regulatory authorities. For example, biosolids are regulated under a "self implementing" rule 

issued by U.S. EPA (40 CFR Part 503) under the joint authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 

the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA). At the 

federal level, regulations are implemented by the EPA‘s Water Program, while the states regulate 

and implement biosolids management programs through their water and/or solid waste 

management programs. The federal biosolids rule (40 CFR Part 503) requires that land-applied 

biosolids meet these strict regulations and quality standards (Refs. 50, 54). The 503 rule governs 

the use and disposal of biosolids. It also specifies numerical limits for metals in biosolids and 

pathogen reduction standards, site restrictions, crop harvesting restrictions and monitoring, and 

record-keeping and reporting requirements for land applied biosolids, as well as similar 

requirements for biosolids that are surface disposed or incinerated. 

Soil amendments, such as foundry sand, may be regulated as hazardous wastes under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), but are exempt from Subtitle C restrictions if 

they pass certain screening tests such as the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). 

Regulations for these types of nonhazardous soil amendments are implemented primarily by state 

solid waste programs. While federal RCRA regulations do not address using these materials as 

soil amendments for revitalization, many states do regulate land application or beneficial 

utilization of these products. In addition, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund, or state cleanup 

requirements should be addressed. 

Beware of regulatory situations when two or more soil amendments are blended for use as a 

remedial material. For example, when blending biosolids with fly ash, the biosolids are regulated 

under the Clean Water Act self-implementing Part 503 rule as well as state water and/or solid 

waste programs, and the fly ash is regulated as a solid waste under RCRA. If these types of 

blends are envisioned, regulatory issues should be identified early in the project. At the 

Palmerton, PA Zinc Smelter Superfund Project, which revegetated approximately 1,000 acres of 

the nearby Blue Mountain, issues were identified concerning the blending of not only biosolids 

and fly ash, but also blending the regulatory impact due to the biosolids being regulated under 

the Clean Water Part 503 regulations, fly ash being regulated under RCRA, and the entire project 

being regulated under Superfund. This site was on the Superfund list for excessive zinc, lead and 

cadmium contamination of the soil. All biosolids and fly ash contain zinc, lead and cadmium. 

The final resolution of the regulatory dilemma was to count the metals concentration contributed 

by the fly ash added to the metals in the biosolids, and require that the total metals loading of the 

blend could not exceed the maximum amount of metals allowed under the Part 503 biosolids 

regulations for land application. It was also important to have this codified in a Consent Decree 

to protect all parties involved (Ref.36). 

40
Table 6: Regulatory Requirements for Sites Using Selected Soil Amendments 

Organics 

Biosolids Clean Water Act (40 CFR Part 503) Class B permit required (site restrictions); may be 

possible to compost or otherwise treat the biosolids on site to reach Class A quality 

(with no site restrictions); 

For CERCLA actions, no permit required, but should adhere to spirit of state and local 

permit requirements (ARARs) when possible; 

State-specific regulations also may apply. 

Manures Federal and state BMP nutrient management; 

CAFOS may have bookkeeping requirements. 

Pulp Sludges Dioxin concentrations restricted - voluntary or required by state standard 10 ppt TEQ 

(toxic equivalent) for dioxin incorporated; may have high sodium which can limit 

applications. 

pH 

Lime State-specific lime labeling requirements. 

Wood Ash May be regulated as a caustic material; pH will decrease to 8.3 with exposure to air; 

state-specific soil amendment or liming material regulations. 

Coal Combustion 

Products 

State-specific regulations; NAS recommended increased study; coal mining site 

regulation under SMCRA expected by 2008. 

Red Mud Regulated as mining waste in situ, but labeled for application as soil amendment by 

many states/localities. 

Mineral 

Foundry Sand and 

Steel Slag 

State-specific; different states may have restriction by grade. 

Dredged Materials USACE regulations (to pull out of waterway) as well as State-specific (to land apply). 

WTR State solid waste permits may be required to land apply. 

41
8.0 

BENEFITS OF USING SOIL 

AMENDMENTS 

The use of soil amendments has the potential to protect human health and the environment and 

allows remediation, revitalization, and reuse of disturbed sites by reducing contaminant 

bioavailability at lower cost than other available options. At many sites, this technology may be 

the only economically viable treatment option. In addition, this approach offers the benefit of 

recycling municipal and industrial residuals to reclaim damaged or disturbed land rather than 

disposing of what is generally considered to be waste in landfills or by incineration. 

The benefits of restoring contaminated land to natural habitats include: creating green space such 

as wildlife sanctuaries; improving the aesthetic beauty and cultural stimulation for communities; 

improving economic value; cleansing air and water; mitigating flooding; reducing wind and 

water erosion of contaminated soil; generating and preserving soil; increasing evapotranspiration 

of water from a site and reducing the amount of potentially contaminated water recharging 

aquifers; cycling and moving nutrients; and partially stabilizing climate (carbon sequestration). 

Benefits of Amendments 

• Restore soil health and structure 

vegetation 

• Recreate ecological function of 

soils 

• Decrease bioavailability of toxic 

pollutants 

•

• Decrease erosion and improve 

soil drainage 

• Reduce costs compared to 

traditional remediation 

techniques 

• May abate acid mine drainage 

Benefits of Revitalized Land 

• Provides wildlife habitat 

• Provides improved water quality 

in receiving streams 

•

• Reuses of devoid and damaged 

lands 

• Improves property values 

• Reduces wind- and water-borne 

contaminants leaving the site 

•

• Reduces the amount of possibly 

contaminated water recharging 

allowing establishment of 

 Decrease leachability and 

mobility of contaminants 

 Sequesters carbon 

 Increases evapotranspiration 

local aquifers 

42
9.0 

MONITORING AND SAMPLING 

AMENDED SITES 

EPA has developed a Webbased tool to help site project 

managers select appropriate 

technical performance 

measures (TPMs) for use in 

demonstrating whether soil 

amendments are functioning 

as designed to reduce 

contaminant mobility and/or 

bioavailability. Remediation, 

Revitalization, and Reuse: 

Technical Performance 

Measures contains a range of 

potentially applicable TPMs. 

These measures draw on the 

collective knowledge and 

experience of experts to 

identify and document a core 

set of commercially 

available, cost effective, and 

proven measures that are 

consistent from region to 

region, state to state, and site 

to site. The range of TPMs 

provides site managers the flexibility they need to design the most appropriate testing for their 

sites while providing consistency and comparability between sites. Users can search a database 

of TPMs by using criteria relevant for their particular sites. The search results provide 

information about each TPM method that matches the selection criteria and provides comments 

on issues to consider when using the method and references for additional information. These 

TPMs will help site managers and other stakeholders assess if and when sites, where soil 

amendments have been used for remediation, are ready for reuse⎯that is, to determine when 

contaminant bioavailability and or mobility are reduced such that the remediation is protective of 

human health and the environment. To view or use the TPM tool, visit http://www.cluin.org/products/tpm/. 

43
10.0 

CONCLUSIONS 

Many soils, particularly those found in urban, industrial, mining, and other disturbed areas suffer 

from a range of physical, chemical, and biological limitations. These include soil toxicity, too 

high or too low pH, lack of sufficient organic matter, reduced water-holding capacity, reduced 

microbial communities, and compaction. Appropriate soil amendments may be inorganic (e.g., 

liming materials), organic (e.g., composts) or mixtures (e.g., lime-stabilized biosolids). When 

specified and applied properly, these beneficial soil amendments limit many of the exposure 

pathways and reduce soil phytotoxicity. Soil amendments also can restore appropriate soil 

conditions for plant growth by balancing pH, adding organic matter, restoring soil microbial 

activity, increasing moisture retention, and reducing compaction. However, the appropriate use 

of soil amendments is completely dependent upon appropriate characterization of both the site 

and the residual materials to be employed. 

Soil amendments can reduce the bioavailability of a wide range of contaminants while 

simultaneously enhancing revegetation success and, thereby, protecting against offsite movement 

of contaminants by wind and water. As such, they can be used in situations ranging from timecritical contaminant removal actions to long-term ecological revitalization projects. Using these 

residual materials (industrial byproducts) offers the potential for significant cost savings 

compared to traditional alternatives. In addition, land revitalization using soil amendments has 

significant ecological benefits including benefits for the hydrosphere and atmosphere. 

44
Endnotes 

1. ARCO. 2000. Clark Fork River Governor‘s Demonstration Project Monitoring Report 

(1993-1996). Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company (AERL), Anaconda, MT. 

Administrative Record for the Clark Fork River OU of the Milltown Reservoir NPL Site. 

U.S. EPA Region 8 Montana Office, Helena, MT. 

2. Beckett, P.H.T. and R.D. Davis. 1977. Upper critical levels of toxic elements in plants. 

New Phytologist 79: 95-106. 

3. Berti, W.R. and S.D. Cunningham. 2000. Phytostabilization of Metals. pp. 71-88. In: 

Raskin, I., and B. D. Ensley (Eds.) Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals-Using Plants to 

Clean Up the Environment. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 234 pp. 

4. Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil. 2002. The Nature and Properties of Soils (13th Edition). 

Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 960 pp. 

5. Brown, S.L. and C.L. Henry. Not dated. Using Biosolids for Reclamation/Remediation of 

Disturbed Soils (White Paper). University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 26 pp. 

6. Brown, S.L., R.L. Chaney, J. Halfrisch, and Q. Xue. 2003. Effect of Biosolids Processing 

on Lead Bioavailability in an Urban Soil. J. Environ. Qual. 32:100-108. 

7. Brown, S.L. and J. Dorner. 2000. A Guide to Restoring a Native Plant Community (White 

Paper) University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 59 pp. 

8. Chaney R.L. 1993. Zinc phytotoxicity. pp. 135-150. In A.D. Robson (ed.) Zinc in Soils and 

Plants. Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht. 

9. Corker, A. 2006. Industry Residuals: How They Are Collected, Treated and Applied. Intern 

Paper. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation. 52 pp. http://www.clu-in.org/studentpapers/ 

10. Daniels, W. L. 2006. Personal Communication. 

11. Daniels, W.L., T. Stuczynski, R.L. Chaney, K. Pantuck and F. Pistelok. 1998. Reclamation 

of Pb/Zn smelter wastes in Upper Silesia, Poland. pp. 269-276 In: H.R. Fox et al. (Eds.), 

Land Reclamation: Achieving Sustainable Benefits. Balkema, Rotterdam. 

12. Daniels, W.L., B.R. Stewart and D.C. Dove. 1995. Reclamation of Coal Refuse Disposal 

Areas. Va. Coop. Ext. Pub. 460-131. 15 pp. http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/mines/460-

131/460-131.html 

13. Dayton, E.A. and N.T. Basta. 2005a. Using Drinking Water Treatment Residuals as a Best 

Management Practice to Reduce Phosphorus Risk Index Scores. J. Environ. Qual. 2005 34: 

2112-1117. Invited manuscript for the special JEQ publication —Phosphorus Workshop: 4th 

International Phosphorus Workshop: Critical Evaluation of Options for Reducing 

Phosphorus Loss from Agriculture, Wagingenen, The Netherlands, August, 2004.“ 

14. Dayton, E.A. and N.T. Basta. 2005b. A method for determining phosphorus sorption 

capacity and amorphous aluminum of Al-based drinking water treatment residuals. J. 

Environ. Qual. 34: 1112-1118. 

45
15. Fanning, D., M. Rabenhorst, C. Coppock, W. Daniels and Z. Orndorff. 2004. Upland active 

acid sulfate soils from construction of new Stafford County, Virginia, USA, Airport. 

Australian Journal of Soil Res. 42:527-536. 

16. Feagley, S.E., M.S. Valdez and W.H. Hudnall. 1994. Papermill sludge, phosphorus, 

potassium, and lime effect on clover grown on a mine soil. J. Env. Qual. 23-759-765. 

17. Haering, K.C., W.L. Daniels and S.E. Feagley. 2000. Reclaiming mined land with 

biosolids, manures and papermill sludge. p. 615-644 In: R.I. Barnhisel et al. (Eds.), 

Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed Lands. American Soc. Of Agron. Monograph #41, 

Madison WI. 1082 pp. 

18. Havlin, J.L., S.L. Tisdale, W.L. Nelson and J.D. Beaton. 2005. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers: 

An Introduction to Nutrient Management (Seventh Edition). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle 

River, NJ. 515 pp. 

19. Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. 2006. http://www.wildflower.org/?nd=articles_rf 

20. Li, R.S. and W.L. Daniels. 1997. Reclamation of coal refuse with a papermill sludge 

amendment. pp. 277-290. In: J. Brandt (ed.), Proc., 1997 Annual Meeting of the Amer. 

Soc. For Surf. Mining and Rec., Austin, TX, May 10-15, 1997. ASMR, 3134 Montavesta 

Rd., Lexington, KY, 40502. 

21. Montana State University. 2006a. Ecosystem Restoration. 

http://ecorestoration.montana.edu/mineland/guide/analytical/chemical/solids/sar.htm 

22. Montana State University. 2006b. The Basics of Salinity and Sodicity Effects on Soil 

Physical Properties. http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/methane/basics_highlight.shtml 

23. National Academy of Science. 2003. —Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soils and 

Sediments: Processes, Tools, and Applications“ National Academy of Science. Water 

Science and Technology Board. National Academies Press. Washington, D.C. 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10523.html 

24. National Research Council. 2006. Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines. National 

Research Council. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11592.html 

25. National Research Council. 2002. Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and 

Practices. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/10426.html 

26. National Research Council. 2000. Nutrient Requirements for Beef Cattle, 7th Revised 

Edition: Update 2000. Subcommittee on Beef Cattle Nutrition, Committee on Animal 

Nutrition. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9791 

27. Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov 

28. Neuman, D.R. 2006. Personal Communication. 

29. Neuman, D.R., F.R. Munshower, and S.R. Jennings. 2005. In-Place Treatment of Acid 

Metalliferous Mine Wastes, Principles, Practices, and Recommendations for Operable Unit 

11 of the California Gulch NPL Site. Montana State University. Prepared for U.S. EPA 

Region 8. http://www.montana.edu/reclamation/Leadville%20In-Place%20Treatment.pdf 

46
30. Neuman, D.R., J.L. Schrck, and L.P. Gough. 1987. Copper and Molybdenum. pp 215-232. 

In: R.D.Williams and G.E. Schuman (Ed). Reclaiming Mine Soils and Overburden in the 

Western United States: Analytic Parameters and Procedures. Soil Conservation Society of 

America, Ankeny, IA. 

31. Nevada Division of Water Resources, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 

2006. Water Words Dictionary. http://water.nv.gov/Water%20Planning/dict-1/wwindex.htm 

32. North East Biosolids and Residuals Association. 2007. Biosolids Management Trends in 

the U.S. BioCycle. 48(5):47. 

33. Nwosu, J.U., H.C. Ratsch, and L.A. Kapustka. 1991. A Method for On-Site Evaluation of 

Phytotoxicity at Hazardous Waste Sites. pp. 333-341. In: J.W. Gorsuch, W.R. Lower, M.A. 

Lewis, and W. Wang (Eds.). Plants for Toxicity Assessment: Second Volume. ASTM STP 

1115. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. 

34. Orndorff, Z.W. and W.L. Daniels. 2004a. Evaluation of acid-producing sulfidic materials 

in Virginia highway corridors. Environmental Geology 46:209-216. 

35. Orndorff, Z.W. and W.L. Daniels. 2004b. Reclamation of disturbed sulfidic coastal plain 

sediments using biosolids at Stafford Regional Airport in Virginia. pp. 1389-1407. In: R.I. 

Barnhisel, (ed.) Proc., 2004 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and 

Reclamation, Morgantown, WV, April 18-24, 2004. Published by ASMR, 3134 pp. 

36. Oyler, J.A. 2006. Personal Communication. 

37. Oyler, J. A.1988. Reclamation of Site Near a Smelter Using Sludge: Fly Ash Amendments: 

Herbaceous Species. In. Proc. 1988 Mine Drainage and Surface Mine Reclamation 

Conference, U.S. Dept. of Interior. April 17-22, 1988, Pittsburgh, PA. 

38. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. I-99 ARD Remediation 

Status, June 8, 2005. PowerPoint Presentation. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection, Harrisburg. PA. 

39. Peot, C. 2007. Personal Communication. 

40. Pichtel, J.R., W.A. Dick and P. Sutton. 1994. Comparison of amendments and management 

practices for long-term reclamation of abandoned mined lands. J. Environ. Qual. 23:766-

772. 

41. Pluta, B. 2006. Personal Communication. 

42. Smith, R. M., W. E. Grube, T. Arkle, and A. Sobek. 1974. Mine spoil potentials for soil 

and water quality. U. S. EPA-670/2-74-070, National Environmental Research Center, 

Cincinnati, OH. 303 pp. 

43. Sobek, A.A., W.A. Schuller, J.R. Freeman, and R.M. Smith, 1978. Field and Laboratory 

Methods Applicable to Overburden and Minesoils. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. EPA-600/2-78-054. 

44. Stofella, P.J. and B. A. Kahn. 2001. Compost Utilization in Horticultural Cropping 

Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 414 pp. 

45. Toffey, W. 2006. Personal Communication. 

47 
46. U.S. EPA. 2006a. Exposure Pathways. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/er/hazsubs/pathways.htm 

47. U.S. EPA. 2006b. Green Landscaping: Greenacres. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/greenacres/ 

48. U.S. EPA. 2006c. Revegetating Landfills and Waste Containment Areas Fact Sheet. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA 542-F-06-001. 

www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/revegetating_fact_sheet.pdf 

49. U.S. EPA. 2005. Cost and Performance Summary Report: In Situ Biosolids and Lime 

Addition at the California Gulch Superfund Site, OU 11, Leadville, CO. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 

www.brownfieldstsc.org/pdfs/CaliforniaGulchCaseStudy_2-05.pdf 

50. U.S. EPA. 2003. A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA 832-R-93-003. 

www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biosolids/503pe/index.htm 

51. U.S. EPA. 2000a. Biosolids and Residuals Management Fact Sheet: Odor Control in 

Biosolids Management. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA 

832-F-00-067. http://www.epa.gov/owmitnet/mtb/odor_control-biosolids.pdf 

52. U.S. EPA. 2000b. Poland Biosolids Smelter Waste Reclamation Project Report. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA832-R-00-009. 

www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biosolids/polabroc.pdf 

53. U.S. EPA. 1995. A Guide to the Biosolids Risk Assessments for the EPA Part 503 Rule. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA832-B-93-005. 

54. U.S. EPA. 1994. Land Application of Sewage Sludge: A Guide for Land Appliers on the 

Requirements of the Federal Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR 

Part 503. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA 831-B-93-002b 

55. VDMME, 1995. Guidelines for Use of Biosolids on DMME/DMLR Permits. Division of 

Mined Land Reclamation. Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Big Stone 

Gap, VA. 10 pp. 

56. Wallace, A. and R. E. Terry (Eds). 1998. Handbook of Soil Conditioners. Substances that 

Enhance the Physical Properties of Soil. Marcel Dekker, NY. 596 pp. 

57. Wright, R.J., W.D. Kemper, P.D. Millner, J.F. Power and R.F. Korcak. 1998. Agricultural 

Uses of Municipal, Animal and Industrial Byproducts. USDA-ARS Conservation Research 

Report #44. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. 127 pp. 

58. Zimmerman, J.R., U. Ghosh, R.N. Millward, T.S. Bridges, and R.G. Luthy. 2004. Addition 

of carbon sorbents to reduce PCB and PAH bioavailability in marine sediments. Environ. 

Sci. Tech 38:20:5458-5464. 

48
Other Resources 

Brown, S., B. Christensen, E. Lombi, M. McLaughlin, S. McGrath, J. Colpaert, and J. 

Vangronsveld. 2005. An Inter-laboratory study to test the ability of amendments to reduce the 

availability of Cd, Pb, and Zn in-situ. Environmental Pollution, 138:34-45. 

Brown, S.L., C.L. Henry, R.L. Chaney, H. Compton and P.S. DeVolder. 2003. Using municipal 

biosolids in combination with other residuals to restore metal-contaminated mining areas. Plant 

Soil 249:203-215. 

Basta. N.T., J.A. Ryan and R.L. Chaney. 2005. Trace element chemistry in residual-treated soil: 

key concepts and metal bioavailability. J. Environ. Qual. 34:49-63. 

Bell, P.F., C.A. Adamu, C.L. Mulchi, M. McIntosh, and R.L. Chaney. 1988. Residual effects of 

land applied municipal sludge on tobacco. I: Effects on heavy metals concentrations in soils and 

plants. Tob. Sci. 32:33-38. 

Beyer, W.N. and C. Stafford. 1993. Survey and evaluation of contaminants in earthworms and in 

soils derived from dredged material at confined disposal facilities in the Great Lakes region. 

Environ. Monitor. Assess. 24:151-165. 

Beyer, W.N. 1988. Damage to the forest ecosystem on Blue Mountain from zinc smelting. Trace 

Subst. Environ. Health 22:249-262. 

Beyer, W.N. 1986. A reexamination of biomagnification of metals in terrestrial food chains. 

Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5:863-864. 

Boawn, L.C., and P.E. Rasmussen. 1971. Crop response to excessive zinc fertilization of alkaline 

soil. Agron. J. 63:874-876. 

Brown, S.L., J.S. Angle and R.L. Chaney. 1997. Correction of limed-biosolid induced 

manganese deficiency on a long-term field experiment. J. Environ. Qual. 26:1375-1384. 

Brown, S.L., R.L. Chaney, C.A. Lloyd and J.S. Angle. 1997. Subsurface liming and metal 

movement in soils amended with lime-stabilized biosolids. J. Environ. Qual. 26:724-732. 

Brown, S.L., R.L. Chaney, M. Sprenger and H. Compton. 2002. Soil Remediation using 

biosolids: Soil-Plant-Animal Pathway. BioCycle 43(6):41-44. [ARS-135547] 

Brown, S.L., R.L. Chaney, M. Sprenger and H. Compton. 2002. Assessing impact to wildlife at 

biosolids remediated sites: Soil-Animal pathway. BioCycle 43(8):50-58. [ARS-135547] 

Brown, S.L., R.L. Chaney, M. Sprenger, and H. Compton. 2002. Assessing impact to wildlife at 

biosolids remediated sites: Soil-animal pathway. BioCycle 43(8):50-58. 

Cary, E.E., and J. Kubota. 1990. Chromium concentration in plants: Effects of soil chromium 

concentration and tissue contamination by soil. J. Agr. Food Chem. 38:108-114. 

Carter, D.B. and H. Loewenstein. 1978. Factors affecting the revegetation of smeltercontaminated soils. Reclamation Review 1:113-119. 

Chaney, R.L. 1980. Health risks associated with toxic metals in municipal sludge. pp. 59-83. In 

G. Bitton, B.L. Damron, G.T. Edds and J.M. Davidson (eds.). Sludge S Health Risks of Land 

Application. Ann Arbor Sci. Publ. Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. 

49
Chaney, R.L. 1983. Potential effects of waste constituents on the food chain. pp 152-240. In J.F. 

Parr, P.B. Marsh and J.M. Kla (eds.) Land Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. Noyes Data Corp., 

Park Ridge, NJ. 

Chaney, R.L., P.G. Reeves, J.A. Ryan, R.W. Simmons, R.M. Welch and J.S. Angle. 2004. An 

improved understanding of soil Cd risk to humans and low cost methods to remediate soil Cd 

risks. BioMetals 17:549-553. 

Chaney, R.L. and J.A. Ryan. 1993. Heavy metals and toxic organic pollutants in MSWcomposts: Research results on phytoavailability, bioavailability, etc. In: Hoitink, A.J. and H.M. 

Keener, eds. Science and engineering of composting: Design, environmental, microbiological 

and utilization aspects. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, pp. 451-506. 

Chaney, R.L. and J.A. Ryan. 1994. Risk Based Standards for Arsenic, Lead and Cadmium in 

Urban Soils. (ISBN 3-926959-63-0) DECHEMA, Frankfurt. 130 p. 

Chaney, R.L., J.A. Ryan, Y.-M. Li, and J.S. Angle. 2001. Transfer of cadmium through plants to 

the food chain. pp. 76-81. In J.K. Syers and M. Gochfeld (eds.) Proceedings Workshop 

AEnvironmental Cadmium in the Food Chain: Sources, Pathways, and Risks.@ (13-16 Sept., 2000, 

Brussels, Belgium). Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, Paris. 

Chaney, R.L., G.S. Stoewsand, A.K. Furr, C.A. Bache and D.J. Lisk. 1978a. Elemental content 

of tissues of Guinea pigs fed Swiss chard grown on municipal sewage sludge-amended soil. J. 

Agr. Food Chem. 26:944-997. 

Chaney, R.L., G.S. Stoewsand, C.A. Bache and D.J. Lisk. 1978b. Cadmium deposition and 

hepatic microsomal induction in mice fed lettuce grown on municipal sludge-amended soil. J. 

Agr. Food Chem. 26:992-994. 

Committee on Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soils and Sediments, National Research 

Council. 2003. Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soils and Sediments: Processes, Tools, and 

Applications. National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10523.html. 

Cotter-Howells, J.D., P.E. Champness and J.M. Charnock. 1999. Mineralogy of Pb-P grains in 

the roots of Agrostis capillaris L-by ATEM and EXAFS. Mineral. Mag. 63:777-789. 

Cotter-Howells, J.D., P.E. Champness, J.M. Charnock and R.A.D. Pattrick. 1994. Identification 

of pyromorphite in mine-waste contaminated soils by ATEM and EXAFS. Europ. J. Soil Sci. 

45:393-402. 

Dickinson, S.J. and P. M. Rutherford. 2006. Utilization of biosolids during the phytoremediation 

of hydrocarbon-contaminated soil JEQ35:982-991. 

Elinder, C.-G., T. Kjellström, L. Friberg, B. Lind and L. Linmann. 1976. Cadmium in kidney 

cortex, liver, and pancreas from Swedish autopsies: Estimation of biological half time in kidney 

cortex, considering calorie intake and smoking habits. Arch. Environ. Health 31:292-302. 

Hansen, J.E. and J.E. Mitchell. 1978. The role of terraces and soil amendments in revegetating 

steep, smelter-affected land. Reclam. Rev. 1:103-112. 

Harrison, R.B., C.L. Henry and D. Xue. 1994. Magnesium deficiency in Douglas-fir and Grand 

fir growing on a sandy outwash soil amended with sewage sludge. Water Air Soil Pollut. 75:37-

50. 

50 
Healy, W.B. 1974. Ingested soil as a source of elements to grazing animals, pp. 448-450 In: 

W.G. Hoekstra et al. (Ed.) Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Trace Element Metabolism in Animals, 

Madison, WI. June 18-22, 973. Univ. Park Press, Baltimore, MD. 

ITRC. 2006. Planning and Promoting Ecological Land Reuse of Remediated Sites. Interstate 

Technology Regulatory Council. Washington, D.C. ECO-2. http://www.itrcweb.org/gd_EE.asp 

ITRC. 2004. Making the Case for Ecological Enhancements. Interstate Technology Regulatory 

Council. Washington, D.C. ECO-1. http://www.itrcweb.org/gd_EE.asp 

Koeppe, D.E. 1981. Lead: Understanding the minimal toxicity of lead in plants. pp 55-76. In 

N.W. Lepp (ed.) Effect of Heavy Metal Pollution on Plants. Vol. 1. Effects of Trace Metals on 

Plant Function. Applied Science Publ. London. 

Kukier, U. and R.L. Chaney. 2000. Remediating Ni-phytotoxicity of contaminated muck soil 

using limestone and hydrous iron oxide. Can. J. Soil Sci. 80:581-593. 

Kukier, U. and R.L. Chaney. 2001. Amelioration of Ni phytotoxicity in muck and mineral soils. 

J. Environ. Qual. 30:1949-1960. 

Li, Y.M., R.L. Chaney, G. Siebielec and B.A. Kershner. 2000. Response of four turfgrass 

cultivars to limestone and biosolids compost amendment of a zinc and cadmium contaminated 

soil at Palmerton, PA. J. Environ. Qual. 29:1440-1447. 

Malone, C., D.E. Koeppe and R.J. Miller. 1974. Localization of lead accumulated by corn plants. 

Plant Physiol. 53:388-394. 

Mayland, H.F, A.R. Florence, R.C. Rosenau, V.A.Lazer, H.A. Turner. 1975. Soil ingestion in 

cattle on semiarid range as reflected by titanium analysis of feces. J. Range Manage. 28: 448-

452. 

Munshower, F.F. and D.R. Neuman. 1979. Metals in soft tissue of mule deer and antelope. Bull. 

of Environ. Contam. and Toxicol. 22:827-832. 

National Research Council. 2005. Mineral Tolerance of Domestic Animals: Second Revised 

Edition. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 510 pp. 

Reeves, P.G. and R.L. Chaney. 2004. Marginal nutritional status of zinc, iron, and calcium 

increases cadmium retention in the duodenum and other organs of rats fed a rice-based diet. 

Environ. Res. 96:311-322. 

Ryan, J.A., W.R. Berti, S.L. Brown, S.W. Casteel, R.L. Chaney, M. Doolan, P. Grevatt, J.G. 

Hallfrisch, M. Maddaloni and D. Mosby. 2004. Reducing children=s risk from soil lead: 

Summary of a field experiment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38:18A-24A. 

Scheckel, K.G. and J.A. Ryan. 2004. Spectroscopic speciation and quantification of lead in 

phosphate-amended soils. J. Environ. Qual. 33:1288-1295. 

Simmons, R.W., P. Pongsakul, R.L. Chaney, D. Saiyasitpanich, S. Klinphoklap and W. 

Nobuntou. 2003. The relative exclusion of zinc and iron from rice grain in relation to rice grain 

cadmium as compared to soybean: Implications for human health. Plant Soil 257:163-170. 

Smith, R.A.H. and A.D. Bradshaw. 1979. The use of metal tolerant populations for the 

reclamation of metalliferous wastes. J. Appl. Ecol. 16:595-612. 

51
Stuczynski, T., W.L. Daniels, K. Pantuck and F. Pistelok. 1997. Stabilization and revegetation of 

metal smelter wastes in Poland. pp. 291-298. In J.E. Brandt (ed.) Proc. 1997 Annu. Mtg. Amer. 

Soc. Surface Mining and Reclamation; May 10-15, 1997, Austin, TX). Texas Railroad 

Commission, Austin, TX. 

Thornton, I. 1974. Biogeochemical and soil ingestion studies in relation to the trace element 

nutrition of livestock, pp. 451-454 In: W.G. Hoekstra et al. (Ed.) Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Trace 

Element Metabolism in Animals, Madison, WI. June 18-22, 1973. Univ. Park Press, Baltimore, 

MD. 

Tyler, G. and T. Olsson. 2001a. Concentrations of 60 elements in the soil solution as related to 

the soil acidity. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 52:151-165. 

Tyler, G. and T. Olsson. 2001b. Plant uptake of major and minor mineral elements as influenced 

by soil acidity and liming. Plant Soil 230:307-321. 

U.S. EPA. 1993. 40 CFR Part 257 et al. Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge; 

Final Rules. Fed. Reg. 58(32):9248-9415. 

U.S. EPA. 2006. Frequently Asked Questions about Ecological Revitalization of Superfund 

Sites. http://www.clu-in.org/s.focus/c/pub/i/1399/ 

U.S. EPA. 2007. Ecological Revitalization and Attractive Nuisance Issues. http://www.cluin.org/s.focus/c/pub/i/1438/ 

Whiting, S.N., R.D. Reeves, D. Richards, M.S. Johnson, J.A. Cooke, F. Malaisse, A. Paton, 

J.A.C. Smith, J.S. Angle, R.L. Chaney, R. Ginocchio, T. Jaffre ́, R. Johns, T. McIntyre, O.W. 

Purvis, D.E. Salt, H. Schat, F.J. Zhao and A.J.M. Baker. 2004. Research priorities for 

conservation of metallophyte biodiversity and their potential for restoration and site remediation. 

Restor. Ecol. 12:106-116. 

52