United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
           Office of Research and
           Development
           Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/AR-92/075
September 1995
4vEPA
Bergmann USA Soil
Sediment Washing
Technology

Applications Analysis Report
                 SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
                 TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

-------
                                      CONTACT

S. Jackson Hubbard is the EPA contact for this report. He is presently with the newly organized
National Risk Management Research Laboratory's new Land Remediation and Pollution
Control Division in Cincinnati, OH (formerly the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory).
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, and
is now responsible for research conducted by the Land Remediation and Pollution Control
Division in Cincinnati.

-------
                                            EPA/54Q/AR-92/075
                                               September 1995
                 Bergmann USA
        Soil Sediment Washing Technology
             Applications Analysis Report
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
      OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                CINCINNATI, OH 45268
                                             Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                                       Notice
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) under Contract No. 68-CO-0048 and the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer review and administrative review, and it has
been approved for publication as a USEPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                           u

-------
                                            Foreword
        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land,
air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and
implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems
to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage
our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental
risks in the future.

        The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation  of
technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the environment.
The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems ; remediation  of
contaminated sites and ground water; and prevention and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research
effort is to catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies;
develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
provide  technical support and information transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies.

        This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and
to link researchers with their clients.

                                              E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
                                              National Risk Management Research Laboratory
                                                 m

-------
                                          Abstract
This document provides an evaluation of the performance of the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment
Washing System and its applicability for the treatment of soils or sediments contaminated with organic
and/or inorganic compounds.  Both the technical and economic aspects of the technology were
examined.

A demonstration of the Bergmann USA unit was conducted under the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation Program at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Confined Disposal Facility in
the Saginaw Bay of Like Huron.  Operational data, along with sampling and analysis information,
were carefully compiled to establish a data base against which other available data, as well as the
vendor's claims for the technology, have been compared and evaluated. Conclusions concerning the
applications at other sites with different contaminants and soil types were drawn.

The following conclusions were derived mainly from the results of the Demonstration Tests and
supported by other available data: (1) the process effectively separates the <45-micron particles, the
coarse fraction (>45-microns), and the humic fraction from the input feed; (2) PCB contamination in
the input feed was concentrated and isolated in the output fines and output humic fraction; the larger
coarse fraction was greatly reduced in PCB contamination; (3) the distribution of inorganic
contaminants hi the output streams echoed  that of the PCBs; (4) the volume reduction of contaminated
material in the output streams is a cost effective approach to site remediation prior to utilizing more
expensive treatment technologies.

This demonstration was conducted for the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (now the National
Risk Management Research Laboratory) in May-June 1992, and work was completed as of August
1993.
                                              IV

-------
                                                  Contents
Foreword	Ui
Abstract	jv
Tables	vii
Figures  	jx
Abbreviations and Symbols	x
Acknowledgments	xi

1.      Executive Summary  	1

        1.1     Introduction	1
        1.2     Conclusions	1
        1.3     Results	 2

2.      Introduction ,	4

        2.1     The .SITE Program  	4
        2.2     SITE Program Reports	4
        2.3     Key Contacts	 5

3.      Technology Applications Analysis	6

        3.1     Introduction	6
        3.2     Conclusions	6
        3.3     Technology Evaluation	7
                3.3.1     Particle Size Separation	8
                3.3.2     Distribution of PCBs  	  10
                3.3.3     Distribution of Metals	  10
                3.3.4     Mass Balances   	  12
        3.4     Ranges of Site Characteristics Suitable for the Technology	  15
                3.4.1    Site Selection	  15
                3.4.2    Surface,  Subsurface, and  Clearance Requirements	  15
                3.4.3    Topographical Characteristics	  16
                3.4.4    Site Area Requirements   	.,	  16
                3.4.5    Climate Characteristics	  16
                3.4.6    Geological Characteristics	  16
                3.4.7    Utility Requirements	  16
                3.4.8    Size of Operation	  16

-------
                                        Contents (Continued)

        3.5    Applicable Wastes	  I7
        3.6    Regulatory Requirements	  17
               3.6.1    Federal USEPA Regulations	  18
               3.6.2    State and  Local Regulations	  20
        3.7    Personnel Issues	  20
               3.7.1    Operator Training  	  20
               3.7.2    Health and Safety   	  20
               3.7.3    Emergency Response  	  20
        3.8    Summary	  20

4.      Economic Analysis	  22

        4.1    Introduction	=.	  22
        4.2    Results of Economic Analysis	•	  26
        4.3    Basis for Economic Analysis	  26
               4.3.1   Site and Facility Preparation Costs   	  26
               4.3.2   Permitting and Regulatory Costs	: .	  29
               4.3.3   Equipment Costs	  30
               4.3.4   Startup and Fixed Costs	  30
               4.3.5   Labor Costs  	  30
               4.3.6   Supplies Costs	  30
               4.3.7   Consumables Costs	  31
               4.3.8   Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs	  31
               4.3.9   Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling and Transport Costs	  31
               4.3.10  Analytical  Costs		  31
               4.3.11  Facility Modification, Repair and Replacement Costs	  32
               4.3.12  Site Restoration Costs	  32

        References	32

Appendix A - Process Description	  33

        A.I    Process Overview	 .  33
        A.2    Process Description	  33

Appendix B - Vendor's Claims	  36

        B.I    Introduction	  36
        B.2    Proposed Technology/Approach	  36

Appendix C - Site Demonstration Results"	41

        C.I    Solids Balance  	41
        C.2    Particle Size Separation	41
        C.3    Distribution of PCBs  	43
        C.4    Distribution of Metals	43

Appendix D - Case Studies	56

        D. 1    Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program Testing  	  56
        D.2    Toronto Harbour Commissioners SITE Demonstration Testing	  56

References for Appendices 	57
                                                     VI

-------
                                            Tables
   1       Summary of Clean-up Efficiencies and Mass Balance Closures for Metals	  12

   2       Water Content for Tests 1 and 2  	  13

   3       Copper Mass Balance Data	  14

   4       Lead Mass Balance Data	  15

   5       Estimated Costs in $/Ton of the Bergmann USA Pilot-Scale Soil/Sediment Washing
          System*'*	23

   6       Costs in $/Ton for Operation of Various Size Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Systems	  25

 C-l       Solids Mass Balance Data 	  42

 C-2       Particle Size Analysis Summary (% < 45 microns)  	:	  42

 C-3a     PCB Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)  	  44

 C-3b     PCB Mass Balance Data	44

 C-4a     Aluminum Concentration  Distribution (mg/kg)	  45

 C-4b     Aluminum Mass Balance Data	45

 C-5a     Barium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)	  46

 C-5b     Barium Mass Balance Data	  46

 C-6a     Calcium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)	  47

 C-6b     Calcium Mass  Balance Data	  47

 C-7a     Copper Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)	  48

C-7b     Copper Mass Balance Data  	48

C-8a     Iron Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)	  49

C-8b     Iron Mass Balance Data   	49
                                              vu

-------
                                   Tables (Continued)








C-9a      Lead Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)	  50




C-9b      Lead Mass Balance Data	  50




C-lOa     Magnesium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)	  51




C-lOb     Magnesium Mass Balance Data	  51




C-lIa     Manganese Concentration Distribution (mg/kg) .  . *.	  52




C-llb     Manganese Mass Balance Data	  52
C-12a
Potassium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)	,	  53
C-12b    Potassium Mass Balance Data	 53




C-13a    Vanadium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)	 54




C-13b    Vanadium Mass Balance Data	 54




C-14a    Zinc Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)  	,	 55




C-14b    Zinc Mass Balance Data  	 55




D-l      Summary of Toronto Harbour Commissioners SITE Demonstration Test Results (mg/kg)  	  57
                                             VIII

-------
                                          Figures








  1       Sampling Locations for the Bergmann USA System  	9




  2       <45-Micron Grain Size Distribution Data for the Output Streams	  11




  3a      PCB Concentration Distribution Data  	  11




  3b      PCB Mass Distribution Data	  10




  4a      Copper Concentration Distribution Data	  12




  4b      Copper Mass Distribution Data	  12




  5a      Lead Concentration Distribution Data	  13




 5b      Lead Mass Distribution Data  	  13




 6       Summary of Cost Categories for 5 Ton/Hr Unit	  27




 7       Summary of Overall Treatment of a Bergmann  USA Soil/Sediment Washing System  	   28




A-l      The Bergmann USA Process Flow Diagram	  34
                                             IX

-------
                                   Abbreviations and Symbols
AQMD        Air Quality Management District
ARAR         Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ARCS         Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
BOAT         Best Demonstrated Available Treatment
BTEX         Benzene, Toluene. Ethyl benzene, and Xylene
CAA           Clean Air Act
CDF           Confined Disposal Facility
CERCLA       Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation, and Liability Act
cf             Cubic feet
CFR           Code of Federal Regulations
CWA          Clean Water  Act
DMS           Dense Media Separator
$              U.S. Dollar
°F             degree Fahrenheit
FWQC        Federal Water Quality Criteria
g              gram
gal             Gallons
GLNPO        Great Lakes National Program Office
gpm           Gallons per Minute
hr             Hour
kg             Kilograms
kW            Kilowatts
Ib             Pounds
mm            Millimeter
mg            Milligram
NAAQS        National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NPDES        National Pollutant discharge Elimination System
ORD           Office of Research and Development
OSWER        Office of Solid Waste and Emergency  Response
PCB           Polychlorinated Biphenyls
POTW         Publicly Owned Treatment Work
ppm           Parts per million
PSD           Prevention of Significant Deterioration
%             Percent
RCRA         Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
rpm            Revolutions Per Minute
RREL         Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
SAIC           Science Applications International Corporation
SARA         Superfund  Amendment and Reauthorization Act
SDWA         Safe Drinking Water Act
SITE           Superfund  Innovative Technology Evaluation
TSCA         Toxic Substances Control Act
TSD           Treatment  Storage, and Disposal
USAGE        United States Army Corps of Engineerrs
USEPA        United States Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                      Acknowledgmen ts


This report was prepared under the direction and coordination of Jackson S. Hubbard, USEPA
Superfimd Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program Manager in the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (formerly the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory) in
Cincinnati, Ohio.  Contributors and reviewers for the report: were Gordon Evans, Teri Richardson, and
Robert Stenberg of the EPA-NRMRL in Cincinnati, Ohio; and Jim Galloway and Frank Snitz of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Detroit, Michigan.

This report was prepared for USEPA's SITE Program by the Process Technology Division of Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for the USEPA under Contract No. 68-CO-0048.
                                             XI

-------

-------
                                                 Section 1
                                          Executive Summary
1.1  Introduction

This report summarizes the findings of an evaluation of the
Soil/Sediment Washing System developed  by Bergmann
USA.   The study was  conducted  under the Superfund
Innovative Technology  Evaluation (SITE)  Program.   A
week-long Demonstration  Test  of the technology  was
performed by the  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) as part of this Program.  The results of these
tests,  along with  supporting  data  from  other  testing
performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
and other background information, constitute the basis for
this report.

The  Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System  is a
separation technology which relies on the grain size and
density variations within a waste matrix to separate organic
and metal contaminated waste into clean and concentrated
output streams.  Thus, reducing the volume of the initial
waste  that requires  treatment prior to disposal.   This
separation  is  accomplished  by  adding  water to  the
contaminated solids  and directing the  resultant slurries
through a series of separating devices including:

  •      A trommel unit to separate out fractions coarser
        than 6 nun.

  •      A series of three cyclone separators.

  •      A dense media separator  (DMS) to  facilitate the
        removal of light organic particles.

  •      A three-stage attrition scrubbing cell to remove
        surficial contaminants from the sand grains.

  •      A partitioned dewatering screen to recover both the
        humic fraction and the washed coarse fraction from
        their respective slurries.

  •      A clarifier to separate out the fines with the aid of
        polymer flocculants.
Bergmann   USA  specializes  in  the  process   design,
engineering, and drafting of equipment that  is used  for
separating contaminated soils into individual size fractions.
The equipment is fabricated by a sister company for whom
Bergmann USA is a  representative.  As such, Bergmann
USA is not a remediation contractor, but the representative
of the supplier of the equipment for the remediation.
1.2  Conclusions

A number of conclusions may be drawn from the evaluation
of this innovative technology.  The most extensive data were
obtained during the SITE  Demonstration Tests; data from
other testing activities have been evaluated in relation to
SITE Program objectives.  The conclusions drawn are:

  •      The process  can  successfully separate the <45-
        micron grain  size   fraction  from  the   input
        soil/sediment, concentrate this  fraction into the
        output fines, and produce two other output streams:
        (1)  a  humic fraction and  (2)  a washed  coarse
        fraction.

  •      PCB   contamination  in  the   input  stream  is
        concentrated  in the output fines and the humic
        fraction.   It  is  anticipated  that  other  organic
        compounds would follow  this trend.

  •      On  a mass basis,  the largest output stream is the
        washed coarse fraction.  The total mass  of this
        fraction is a function of the grain size distribution
        in the input feed.

  •      The concentration of organic contaminants (PCBs)
        in  the washed  coarse  fraction during  the
        Demonstration Tests  was a small fraction of the
        input feed  concentration.

-------
 Inorganic  concentration  in the  washed  coarse
 fraction is  dependent on the particular element.
 The  concentration  of compounds in the washed
 coarse fraction is a function of the clay content of
 the input feed because the Bergmann USA System
 does not completely separate the input feed into the
 specified output streams and fines may be found in
 the washed  sediment.

 Depending  on initial concentrations in the feed,
 both the contaminated fines and the humic fraction
 may require treatment by extractive, destructive or
 immobilization processes prior to disposal.

 When water soluble substances are present in the
 input feed,  the washwater may require treatment
 prior to disposal (carbon adsorption, ion exchange,
 reverse osmosis, etc.).

 If volatile compounds are found in the  input feed,
 then some form of protection is required to ensure
 that ambient air regulatory levels are not exceeded.

 The rotary trommel unit did not perform according
 to expectations.  The addition of a deagglomeration
 unit (not used due to space limitations) should aid
 in  redirecting contaminated "fines'' in stream S2
 back into the washing process.

 The process is modular in design so that additional
 equipment can be added or removed to improve the
 efficiency of  the  soil/sediment separation.   All
 modules used in the separation process  are proven
 technologies commonly  used  in  the  mineral
 processing industry.

 This technology is suitable for land-based soils as
 well  as river and  harbor sediments.  The feed
 should contain no  more than 40% silt and clay
 (<4S-micron) material; the solid humic content of
 the feed should not exceed 20% by volume.

 The on-line factor of the system is high. Full-scale
 Bergmann   USA  plants  typically  operate  for
 extended periods of time with an on-line factor of
 90  to 95%.

 Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing  Systems
 are available in sizes from 5 tons/hr to 300 tons/hr.

The cost of utilizing the Bergmann USA System is
a function of the required feed rate.  The cost for
a 5 tons/hr unit with an on-line factor of 90%  is
$151/ton. The cost for a 100 ton/hr system for the
same on-line factor is $42/ton. These costs include
        excavation costs  but do  not include the
        disposal costs for the output streams.
final
1.3  Results

The focus  of the  Applications Analysis is to assess the
ability of the process to comply with Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and to estimate the
cost of using the  technology at  a Superfund site.  To
evaluate this technology, separation of media by grain size
(<4S microns) and isolation of the associated contamination
achieved by the technology are appraised as part of this
report.  Appendix C presents detailed  Demonstration Test
results and  is supported by the data presented in the Case
Studies in Appendix D.

  •      On a mass  basis, an average  of approximately
        22.9%   of  the   input  feed   used  during  the
        Demonstration Tests were particles <45 microns
        in diameter.  Of these input particles, 0.419% were
        found in the  output humic  fraction (S5), 29.2%
        were found in the washed coarse fraction (S6), and
        70.4%  were found  in the clarifier underflow or
        contaminated "fines" (S7) in Test 1.  For Test  2
        (system  in  operation   with   surfactant)  the
        distribution was: 0.738% in the humic fraction,
        32.9% in the washed coarse fraction, and 66.4% in
        the clarifier underflow.

  •      Neglecting  the output contribution of the  rotary
        trommel  screen   oversize,  the  washed  coarse
        fraction (sand and gravel) output mass made up an
        average of approximately 91% of the  total  mass
        output for Test 1 and Test 2.

  •      The overall average concentration of PCBs in the
        inlet feed was approximately 1.35 mg/kg. During
        Test 1, the average concentrations of the PCBs in
        the output streams were as follows: humic fraction
        (S5), 10.4  mg/kg; washed  coarse fraction (S6),
        0.194 mg/kg; clarifier underflow or fines (S7),
        4.61  mg/kg.  During  Test  2,  the concentrations
        were:  humic fraction,  13.4 mg/kg; washed coarse
        fraction, 0.189  mg/kg; and clarifier underflow,
        3.68 mg/kg.

 •      Eleven  metals were  identified  in the feed stream.
       The  overall  (Test  1  and  Test  2)  average
        concentration  of these metals  in  the feed  ranged
        from a low of 13.1 mg/kg for  vanadium to a high
       of 27,000 mg/kg for calcium. The overall average
       distribution of vanadium in the  output streams was:
       23.3 mg/kg in the humic fraction (S5), 6.20 mg/kg
        in the washed coarse fraction (S6), and 50.8 mg/kg

-------
in  the  clarifier underflow (S7),   The  overall
average distribution for calcium was: 21,700 mg/kg
in the humic fraction, 14,400 mg/kg in the washed
coarse fraction, and 77,900 mg/kg in the clarifier
underflow.   Other metals  detected in the feed
sediment, with the exception of aluminum and lead,
tended to follow  the general  trend of these two
elements.

During the week-long (five days,  eight hours/day)
Demonstration, the Bergmann  USA Soil/Sediment
Washing System operated with an  on-line factor of
100%.

-------
                                                Section 2

                                              Introduction
2.1 TJte SITE Program

In  1986, the USEPA's  Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) and Office of Research
and Development (ORD) established the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program to
promote  the  development  and  use of  innovative
technologies  to clean up  Superfund  sites  across the
country.  Now in its  eighth year, SITE  is helping to
provide  the  treatment  technologies  necessary  to
implement new federal and state cleanup standards aimed
at permanent remedies, rather than quick fixes. The
SITE Program is composed of four major elements: the
Demonstration  Program,  the Emerging Technology
Program, and the  Measurement  and Monitoring
Technologies Program and the Technology Transfer
Program.

The major focus of the SITE Program has been on the
Demonstration Program, which is designed to provide
engineering and cost data on selected technologies. To
date, the demonstration  projects  have  not  involved
funding  for  technology  developers.    USEPA and
developers participating in the program share the cost of
the demonstration.  Developers are responsible for
demonstrating their innovative systems at chosen sites,
usually Superfund sites. The USEPA is responsible for
sampling, analyzing, and evaluating all test results. The
result is an assessment of the technology's performance,
reliability, and cost This information will be used in
conjunction with other data to select the most appropriate
technologies for the cleanup of Superfund sites.

Developers  of innovative technologies  apply to the
Demonstration Program by responding to the USEPA's
annual  solicitation.   The USEPA will also accept
proposals at any time when a developer has a treatment
project scheduled with Superfund waste.  To qualify for
the program, a new technology must be at the pilot or full
scale  and  offer  some  advantage  over  existing
technologies.  Mobile technologies are  of  particular
interest to the USEPA.
Once the USEPA has accepted a proposal, the USEPA
and  the developer work with the  USEPA Regional
Offices and state agencies to identify a site containing
wastes suitable  for  testing the capabilities  of the
technology. The USEPA prepares a detailed sampling
and analysis plan designed to thoroughly evaluate the
technology and to  ensure that the  resulting data are
reliable. The duration of a demonstration varies from a
few days to several months, depending on the length of
time and quantity of treated waste required to assess the
technology.   After the  completion of a technology
demonstration, the USEPA prepares  two reports, which
are explained in more detail below.  Ultimately, the
Demonstration Program  leads to an analysis of the
technology's overall applicability to Superfund problems.

The second principal element of the SITE Program is the
Emerging Technology Program, which fosters the further
investigation and development of treatment technologies
that are still at the laboratory scale. Successful validation
of these technologies could lead to the development of a
system ready  for  field  demonstration.    The  third
component of the SITE Program, the Measurement and
Monitoring Technologies Program, provides assistance
in the development and demonstration of  innovative
technologies to better characterize Superfund sites.
2.2  SITE Program Reports

The  analysis  of technologies  participating  in  the
Demonstration Program is contained in two documents:
the Technology Evaluation Report and the Applications
Analysis Report.  The Technology Evaluation Report
contains   a   comprehensive  description   of  the
demonstration sponsored by the SITE Program and its
results.  It  gives  a  detailed   description  of  the
technology,the site and waste used for the demonstration,
the sampling and analyses performed during the test, the
data generated, and the quality assurance program.

-------
The scope of the Applications Analysis Report is broader
and encompasses estimation of the Superfund applications
and costs of a technology based on all available data.  The
Applications Analysis Report compiles and summarizes the
results of the SITE demonstration, the vendor's design and
test data, and other laboratory,  and field applications of the
technology.  It discusses the advantages, disadvantages, and
limitations of the technology.

Based on available data on pilot- and full-scale applications,
costs  of the  technology  for different  applications  are
estimated in the Applications Analysis Report. The Report
discusses factors such as site and waste characteristics that
have a major impact on costs and performance.

The amount of available data for the evaluation of  an
innovative technology varies widely.  Data may be limited
to laboratory tests  on  synthetic  waste, or may include
performance data on actual wastes treated at the pilot or full
scale..  In addition, there are limits to conclusions that can
be  drawn  from  a  single  field  demonstration regarding
Superfund applications.  A  successful field demonstration
does not necessarily assure that a technology will be widely
applicable or fully developed to the commercial scale.  The
Applications  Analysis  Report  attempts  to  synthesize
whatever information  is  available  and  draw reasonable
conclusions.  This document will be very useful  to those
considering  the technology for Superfund  cleanups and
represents  a   critical   step  in  the  development  and
commercialization of the treatment technology.
2.3  Key Contacts

For more information on the demonstration of the Bergmann
USA Soil/Sediment Washing Technology, please contact:

1.      USEPA Technical Project Manager concerning the
        SITE Demonstration:

        Mr. Jack S. Hubbard
        USEPA
        Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
        26 West Martin Luther King Drive
        Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
        (513) 569-7507

2.      Vendor concerning the process:

        Mr. Richard P. Traver
        Bergmann USA
        1550 Airport Road
        Gallatin.TN 37066-3739
        (615) 452-5525

-------
                                                  Section 3
                                  Technology  Applications  Analysis
 3.1  Introduction

 This section of the report addresses the applicability of the
 Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System towards pre-
 treatment  of various potential  types  of soil  and soil
 contaminants  and  is  based primarily  upon  the  results
 obtained from the SITE demonstration as well as additional
 tests performed  by  U.S.  Army Corps of  Engineers
 (USAGE).  Since the results of the Demonstration Tests
 provide the most  extensive data base, conclusions about the
 technology's effectiveness and applicability to other potential
 cleanups  are  based  mainly   on  those  results.    The
 Demonstration Test results  are presented  in detail in the
 Technology Evaluation Report.  Additional information on
 the Bergmann USA technology, including vendor's claims,
 a brief process description, a summary of the Demonstration
 Test results, and reports on outside sources of data using the
 Bergmann USA technology  are provided in Appendices A
 through D.

 Following are the overall conclusions  drawn on  the
 Bergmann USA technology.  The  "Technology Evaluation"
 subsection  discusses   the   available  data  from   the
 Demonstration Test,  the  USAGE  tests,  and  literature
 provided by Bergmann USA. This subsection also provides
 more details on  the conclusions and applicability of the
 Bergmann USA process.
3.2  Conclusions

The effectiveness of the Bergmann  USA Soil/Sediment
Washing System in separating the coarse fraction of material
(sand and  gravel) from  the mimic (leaves, twigs, roots,
decaying vegetation, etc.) and fine (<45-micron, 325 mesh)
fractions  of  material   was  tested  during  the  SITE
Demonstration.    The  SITE  Demonstration Test  was
conducted  at  the USAGE'S Confined  Disposal  Facility
(CDF) in the Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron, just offshore of
Essexville, Michigan.  The USAGE also  investigated the
performance  of the Soil/Sediment Washing System  as  a
component  of the  Assessment  and   Remediation  of
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program initiated by the
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO).

The objective of the SITE Demonstration was to investigate
if the Bergmann USA  Soil/Sediment Washing System is
capable of:

  •     Separating the  <45-micron  particle size  fraction
        from the bulk feed material;

  •     Concentrating organic  contamination of the feed
        material into the output fines and humic  fraction
        and leaving a washed coarse fraction; and

  •     Concentrating inorganic contamination of the feed
        in the same manner as  the organic contamination.

In genera],  this  innovative  technology  is successful  in
separating the waste feed into a series of physically unique
streams  (liquid, solid,  and  slurry).   Each  stream was
consistent in its particle size, density, and moisture content.
Nonetheless, each stream was significantly different than the
other streams.    PCB  and  metals  contamination were
effectively concentrated  in the humic fraction and the fines.

The conclusions drawn from reviewing all available data on
the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System are:

  •    The process  can successfully separate the <45-
       micron grain  size  fraction  from  the input
       soil/sediment, concentrate this  fraction into the
       output fines, and produce two other output streams:
       (1)  a  humic fraction  and (2) a washed coarse
       fraction.

  •    PCB  contamination  in  the  input stream  is
       concentrated  in- the  output fines and the humic
       fraction.    It is  anticipated  that  other  organic
       contaminants would follow this trend.

-------
 On a mass basis, the largest output stream  is the
 washed coarse  fraction.  The total mass of this
 fraction is a function of the grain size distribution
 in the input feed.

 The concentration of organic contaminants (PCBs)
 in  the  washed   coarse   fraction  during  the
 Demonstration Tests was a small fraction of the
 input feed concentration.

 Inorganic  concentration  in the washed coarse
 fraction is dependent on the particular element.
 The concentration of compounds in the washed
 coarse fraction is a function of the clay content of
 the input feed because the Bergmann USA System
 does not completely separate the input feed into the
 specified output streams and fines may be found in
 the washed sediment.

 Depending on initial concentrations  in the  feed,
 both the contaminated fines and the humic fraction
 may require treatment by extractive, destructive or
 immobilization processes prior to disposal.

 When water soluble substances are present in  the
 input feed, the washwater may require treatment
 prior to disposal (carbon adsorption, ion exchange,
 reverse osmosis, etc.).

 If volatile compounds are found in the input feed,
 then some  form of protection is required to ensure
 that ambient air regulatory levels are not exceeded.

 The rotary trommel unit did not perform according
 to expectations.  The addition of a deagglomeration
 unit (not used due to space limitations) should aid
 in redirecting contaminated "fines" in stream  S2
 back into the washing process.

 The process is modular in design so that additional
 equipment can be added or removed to improve the
 efficiency  of the  soil/sediment separation.   All
 modules used in the separation process are proven
 technologies  commonly  used in   the  mineral
 processing  industry.

 This technology is suitable for land-based soils as
 well as river and  harbor sediments.  The  feed
 should contain no  more than 40% silt and clay
 (<45-micron) material; the solid humic content of
 the feed should not exceed 20% by volume.

The on-line factor of the system is high. Full-scale
Bergmann  USA  plants  typically   operate  for
         extended periods of time with an on-line factor of
         90 to 95%.

         Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment  Washing Systems
         are available in sizes from 5 tons/hr to 300 tons/hr.

         The  cost of utilizing the Bergmann System  is a
         function of the required feed rate.  The cost for a
         5 tons/hr unit with an  on-line factor of 90% is
         $15I/ton. The cost for a 100 ton/hr system for the
         same on-line factor is $42/ton. These costs include
         excavation  costs  but do not  include  the final
         disposal costs for the output streams.
 3.3  Technology Evaluation

 The following discussions utilize all available information to
 provide  more  detailed conclusions on  the  process.   A
 summary of  the  data from  the  Demonstration Tests is
 presented in Appendix C; limited data from other tests
 conducted on this technology may be found in Appendix D,
 "Case Studies."  Detailed estimates regarding the cost of
 using this technology are presented in Section 4, "Economic
 Anatysis."

 The system evaluated during the Demonstration Test was a
 barge-mounted pilot-scale unit.  The barge was moored at
 the CDF and  the input soil was fed from the CDF  to the
 system by means of a series of conveyors.  The feed rate
 for  the  Soil/Sediment  Washing  System   during  the
 Demonstration Test was approximately 4 tons/hr; the unit is
 sized for up to 5 tons/hr.  The water used for the process
 was taken directly from the Saginaw Bay. For this sized
 unit, the process  initially requires approximately 10,000
 gallons of water, with a constant make-up of approximately
 28  gpm during operation.  The  water required for the
 soil/sediment washing unit need not be potable; however, it
 must be free of debris.   Therefore,  the water fed to the
 system was passed through a 40-micron basket strainer to
 remove mussels, fish,  and other debris.  Other Bergmann
 USA units have undergone analysis, but this unit has been
 subjected to the most extensive testing. For the purposes of
 this Applications Analysis Report, only an evaluation of this
 Soil/Sediment Washing System has been performed.

 The Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System is made
 up of individual components (trommel, cyclone separators,
attrition scrubbers, etc.) that, when combined, are used to
separate the input feed  into the various output streams.  All
of  the  components  used  in the  process   are  proven
technologies used  extensively in  the  mineral processing
industry.

-------
The washed coarse fraction (sand and gravel) output stream
may be used for a variety of purposes. These include, but
are not restricted to:  beach supplement, road fill, or landfill
cover.   The  washed coarse fraction is only capable of
supporting limited vegetation; therefore, nutrients must be
added if it is to be used for horticultural purposes.

The  feed  soil used for the  SITE  Demonstration Test
consisted of sediments previously dredged from the Saginaw
River.  These sediments are considered to be granular in
nature.  The material is defined as a silty or clayey sand.
Other constituents such  as mussel shells, twigs,  leaves,
bark, etc.  were also present.   The soil was contaminated
with  low levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
heavy metals  from industrial activities along the Saginaw
River.

The Demonstration was conducted over a five-day period
and was divided into two Tests.  During  Test  1, the unit
operated for at optimum conditions four consecutive eight-
hour days with a feed rate of approximately 4 tons/hr. Test
2 was similar to Test 1 except that it was conducted over a
one-day  period and  a surfactant was added to the system.
The surfactant used was Moncosolve 210 and  was added at
the  approximate  rate  of  2 Ib surfactant/ton  feed soil.
Bergmann USA's objective in adding  surfactant was to
demonstrate that this can be accomplished without disrupting
system operations (e.g., without foam buildup).  Bergmann
USA recognized that due to low input concentrations and the
absence of any "tar balls" in the feed, the surfactant would
have little bearing on the distribution of PCBs in the output
streams.  In applications where the starting concentrations
are much higher and where these concentrations are found
in selected areas  of the  input  feed,  Bergmann  USA
anticipates the use of surfactant will increase the system's
ability to distribute organic contaminants into the appropriate
output  streams  by  solubilizing and  removing  residual
organics from the washed sediments.

The evaluation  presented in  this Applications Analysis
Report focuses on the separation of the <45-micron particle
size  fraction from  the bulk feed material.  In addition, the
distribution of PCBs and specific metals in all of the input
and  output streams are  evaluated to determine if the
contaminants were concentrated and isolated in the fines and
the humic fraction.  Mass balances are also  discussed for
total mass, total solids, total PCBs, and specific metals.
3.3.1  Particle Size Separation

The Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System used
during the Demonstration Testing is designed to reduce the
volume of  contaminated sediments  through the use  of
particle size separation.  The  separation is  accomplished
largely through the use of cyclone separators, mechanical
devices used for many years in the  mineral processing
industry.  It is generally assumed that the contaminant-rich
fines are associated with particles with a diameter of < 74-
microns (200 mesh), fa full-scale operation (>20 tonslir),
Bergmann USA utilizes 26-inch cyclone separators designed
to make a particle size break at 74 microns.   For this
Demonstration, a finer cut was made at 45 microns due to
constraints imposed on the cyclone separator's diameter by
the selected feed  rate.   Since the Demonstration  feed rate
was planned for 5 tons/hr,  Bergmann USA selected a 9-inch
diameter cyclone separator to make a split at 45  microns.
To a  large degree, it  is the efficiency of this separation
which determines the amount of fines  associated with the
corresponding contamination level of the *coarse  fraction.
For the  Demonstration Tests, particle-size analysis was
performed to determine the quantity of <45-micron material
within the solids content of each  output stream.

For these tests,  simple gravity and size separations were
used  to  clean  the input feed.    However,  if  the  feed
contamination was of a different form (i.e., lead shot), then
other   standard   separation  processes  such  as   spiral
concentrators, mineral jigs, or  froth  flotators  could be
employed instead.

The average proportion of  < 45-micron particles in the input
feed was approximately 22.9% with an associated range of
9.90 to 35.2%.   Particles in the <45-micron range were
detected  in the rotary  trommel  screen oversize (S2), the
humic fraction (S5), the washed coarse fraction (S6),  and
the clarifier underflow or fines (S7).  Figure  1 shows the
locations of these sampling points and Appendix A gives a
detailed process description.

The occurrence of a large  portion of fines within the rotary
trommel  screen   oversize  was  both  unexpected   and
undesired.  This  stream is supposed to carry only  leaves,
twigs, shells and other >6-mm debris found in the  raw
dredged sediments.  The addition of a log washer or similar
deagglomeration  unit  operation to the  oversize product
discharge of the rotary  trommel  screen should  aid in
redirecting the fines from  the oversize stream back into the
sediment washing process. This was not possible during the
Demonstration Tests due to  space limitations on the barge.
Data  suggest that any additional fines introduced to the
sediment  washing  process  through  improved  trommel
operation would be divided  among the  output product
streams (S5, S6, and S7) in roughly the same proportions as
described below.   As such, fines detected in the  rotary
trommel screen overflow have  been excluded  from  this
discussion of  particle size  data  and  subsequently  all
contaminant calculations.  If the fines rejected by the rotary
trommel screen  oversize  (S2) are not neglected then the
distribution of fines in all other  effluent  streams  would be

-------
                     TKOMMEL SPRAY
                      M wmnn
                                Figure 1.   Sampling Locations for the Bergmann USA System
reduced by  a  total of approximately 20%.   This in turn
should impact the PCB and  metals concentration  by the
same amount.  The impact on efficiency by adding stream
S2 is very small and almost negligible for most streams.

The objective  of these tests was to concentrate the output
fines in the  clarifier underflow.  For Test 1, the average
distribution of output fines on a mass basis (as determined
by mass of  <45-micron particles in underflow to mass of
<45-micron particles in all effluent streams) shows 70.4%
in the clarifier underflow, S7 (see Figure 2). The associated
range was 61.3 to 79.596.  The data show that the <45-
micron particle size dominates  the clarifier underflow stream
and  comprises an average of 94.4%  of its solids.   In
contrast, the fine particles remaining ia the washed coarse
fraction are  more dispersed and make up only 3.3% of its
total solids content.

The  average proportion of output fines on a mass basis
during Test 2 shows 66.4% in the clarifier underflow (see
Figure 2).  The clarifier underflow solids contain  94.4%
fine particles, whereas fine particles make up 5.0% of the
washed  coarse  fraction.     The  results  indicate  that
concentration of the output fines in the clarifier underflow
is possible, and that the process does  indeed concentrate a
majority of the fines in this stream.

As shown in Figure 2, during Test 1, the average relative
distribution of fines (<45-microns) among the other output
product streams was as follows: 0.4% in the humic fraction
(S5), and 29.2% in the washed coarse  fraction (sand and
gravel),  the  remainder  being in the clarifier underflow.
Data show that the dominant  grain sizes in the washed
coarse fraction stream are similar to those  found in the
humic fraction.  It is the difference in density between
heavy sand in  the washed sediments and the light humic
participate matter which makes  separation  of these  two
streams possible.

The results for Test 2 are similar.   On a mass basis, the
humic fraction contained 0.8% of the <45-micron particles
in the output streams and the washed coarse  fraction (sand
and gravel) contained 32.9% (see Figure 2).

There is reason  to  believe  that  the  Bergmann  USA
Soil/Sediment Washing System Evaluated during the SITE
Demonstration can consistently separate the majority of the
<45-micron  fines independent of the type of soil providing
Jhat the soil contains no more than 40% silt and clay and the
humic content is less than 20%.

-------
   100
    80
 60
 a
 2
 Q
V
a>
I
o>
I
    60
40
                                 TT~jS5. Humit
                                 '..'•] Fraction
•                                    S6. Washed Sand
                                    And Gravel
                                    S7. Claritier
                                 	(Underflow (fines)
           TEST1
                        TEST 2
Figure 2.
            <45-Micron Distribution Data for the
            Output Streams
3.3.2 Distribution of PCBs

During the Demonstration Tests, PCBs were detected in the
rotary trommel screen  oversize (S2), the humic fraction
(SS), the washed coarse fraction (S6),  and the clarifier
underflow (S7). As with the presence of fines in the rotary
trommel screen oversize, the presence of PCBs within the
rotary trommel screen oversize was also unexpected.  It was
anticipated that the >6-mm debris in the dredged sediment
would only serve as a minor host to organic contaminants
given its small surface area-to-volume ratio and its inorganic
nature (shells, rocks, etc.). The PCBs appear, therefore, to
be  carried by the fines  in  the rotary trommel  screen
overflow. Redirecting the fines back into the main process
stream as previously discussed should redirect most of the
PCBs as well. Additional PCBs entering the system via the
fines would  probably  divide  among  the output product
streams in roughly the same  proportions as  seen  in the
Demonstration Tests. As such, PCBs detected in the rotary
trommel screen  overflow have been excluded  from this
discussion of PCB distributions.

The overall (Test  1 and Test 2) average concentration of
PCBs in the feed stream  was approximately  1.35  mg/kg
with a 95% confidence interval of 1.20 to 1.51 mg'kg.  The
only PCB found during the testing was Aroclor 1242.  A
detailed explanation of the identification and quantification
of this Aroclor is given in the companion document to this
report, the Technical Evaluation Report.

Figures 3a and 3b illustrate the distribution of PCBs among
the output product streams for Tests 1  and 2.   Figure 3a
shows the PCB concentration in each  output stream (SS, S6,
and S7), while Figure 3b shows the distribution of PCBs for
each output stream in  terms of mass (as a percent of the
total PCB output, S5 + S6 + S7).

During Test 1, the average relative distribution of PCB mass
among output  product streams was as follovre: 59.3 % in the
clarifier underflow; 30.0% in the washed coarse fraction;
and  10.7% in  the humic fraction.  The data also show that
the  clarifier  underflow   stream  had  an  average  PCB
concentration  of 4.61  mg/kg on  a  dry  weight basis.   In
contrast,  the  PCB  concentration of  the washed coarse
fraction was only 0.194 mg/kg, approximately 24 times less
than the concentration in  the fines.

Results for Test 2 are similar and imply that the surfactant
had no measurable effect on the distribution of PCB mass.
During Test 2, the process separated the PCBs as follows:
57.2%  in the clarifier underflow;  26.2% in  the  washed
coarse  fraction; and 16.6% in the  humic  fraction.  The
clarifier underflow  solids contained  3.68 mg/kg PCBs,
whereas the concentration of PCBs in the washed coarse
fraction was 0.189 mg/kg, approximately 19 times less than
the concentration in the fines.

The highest concentration of PCBs is in the humic fraction,
with an average concentration of 10.4 mg/kg for Test 1 and
 an average concentration of 13.4 mg/kg for Test 2.  This
 was expected  and was due to the preferential partitioning of
 PCBs, an organic compound, to organic material within the
 solid humic stream.

 The preferential partitioning of the PCBs into the fines and
 the humic fraction is indicative of the partitioning that can
 be  expected  for  any  similar organic  compound in this
 soil/sediment washing system.   If  high levels of organic
 compounds (PCBs,  PAHs, PCP, etc.)  or  "tar balls"  are
 present in the feed, then  the addition of surfactants into the
 unit can aid in the removal of contaminants from the coarse
 particles.
                                                      3.3.3  Distribution of Metals

                                                      Demonstration Testing of the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment
                                                      Washing System  identified  eleven  metals (specified in
                                                      Appendix C).  Although the samples were analyzed for all
                                                       10

-------
ID





l«

4
2
0








.- -







0-


^






- -









	

_ - _
•••






~


'!




*

-

- .







- - -

- - _
•Mt_
I^WIS.'i,. Humic
£LU Fraction
I 1ST. Clarifier
1 	 I Underflow (Fines)
• S6. Washed Sand
And Gravel






          TEST 1        TEST 2

Figure 3a.       PCB Concentration Distribution Data

the metals specified by SW-846 Method 6010 and mercury,
only  these  eleven metals were  present  in  high enough
concentrations  to  allow  a  suitable  evaluation of  the
technology.   Three metals that  are regulated  under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) were
detected   too  infrequently  to be  used  to  evaluate  the
   100
   80
   60
   40
   20
Sj,.Humic.
Fraction
S6, Washed Sand
And Gravel
S7, Clarifier
Underflow (fines)
           TEST 1        TEST 2

Figure 3b.      PCB Mass Distribution Data
 technology.  These metals were cadmium, chromium, and
 mercury.   One  RCRA regulated  metal  (arsenic)  was
 analyzed for. but not detected.  For  the purpose of the
 discussion presented in this report, only results for copper
 and lead will be included.   All other identified metals
 (except aluminum) followed the general trend of copper and
 are discussed further in the Technical Evaluation Report.
 Aluminum  is included  in  the summary presented  in
 Appendix C.

 The analytical methods employed during the Demonstration
 Tests to determine the metals content of each  stream only
 report 'the metals as elements and not as any compound of
 that element.  It  is known, however, that the  metals were
 present in the form of compounds that behaves differently
 than  the elements themselves.   This limitation of  the
 analytical  methods  employed  for  metals  determinations
 highlights  the need  for treatability  studies  due to  the
 composition of contaminants in the soil being treated and
 other factors before full-scale remediation of a site can be
 initiated.

 All identified metals were detected in  the rotary trommel
 screen oversize (S2), the humic fraction (S5), the washed
 coarser fraction (S6), and the clarifier underflow (S7).  As
 noted for PCBs, the occurrence of metals within the rotary
 trommel screen oversize was also unexpected,  and like the
 PCBs, the metals also appear to be carried by the fines in
 the rotary trommel screen overflow.

 The distribution of copper into the various output streams is
 presented  schematically  in  Figure  4a   in  terms  of
 concentration  and in Figure 4b in terms  of  mass.   The
 average input concentration of copper over the testing period
 was approximately 22.5 mg/kg.  The figure shows that the
 washed coarse fraction has a concentration of approximately
 7.81 mg/kg of copper during Test 1 and 9.49 mg/kg during
 Test 2.   The overall average concentration of copper in the
 washed  coarse fraction  was approximately 8.15 mg/kg.
This leads to a cleanup efficiency of approximately 63.6%.

Table 1 presents a summary of the cleanup efficiencies for
 the metals detected except aluminum and lead.   Aluminum
and lead are not included in this table because their behavior
was not consistent with the other metals.  Alumina  is a
component of clay and therefore, the behavior of aluminum
with respect to the soil/sediment washing of a clay material
 (i.e.,  the feed) could  not  be evaluated.  The  unusual
behavior of  lead  is  discussed  in Section 3.3.4,  'Mass
 Balances."

The cleanup efficiency is based on the  effectiveness of the
system to separate the input feed into  the required output
streams  and  the grain  size  distribution of  the feed
soil/sediment.  That  is, if the feed soil  has  a low clay
                                                        11

-------
 Table 1.  Summary or Clean-up Efficiencies and
           Mass Balance Closures for Metals
Metal
Magnesium
Calcium
Vanadium
Copper
Potassium
Iron
Barium
Zinc
Clean-up
Efficiency (%)
44.7
46.7
53.8
63.6
67.4
69.0
81.6
82.7
Mass Balance
Closure (%)
87.8
84.7
89.6
75.3
86.5
75.1
68.0
71.7
 content, the concentration of contaminants in the washed
 sand  and  gravel  should be  low (assuming successful
 operation of the system). On the contrary, if the feed soil
 has  a high  clay  content,  then  the  concentration  of
 contaminants remaining in the washed sand and gravel after
 processing will be proportionally higher.  This is because
 clay has a high concentration of fines, and the process does
not separate 100% of the fines into the clarifier underflow,
but leaves a fraction of the fines in all the output streams.

Figure 4a shows that the concentration of copper is evenly
distributed between the clarifier underflow and the humic
fraction.   Other metals typically show  that the  highest
concentration of a particular metal is found in the clarifier
underflow.   The  humic  fraction,  although  possessing
significant  contamination, does not have the  same affinity
for metals as it does for organic compounds.

Figure 4b  shows that  a  large amount of contaminant,  in
terms of mass,  is  found in  the  washed  coarse  fraction.
However, since this stream is also the largest output stream
in terms of mass, the corresponding concentration is very
low as seen in Figure 4a.  This behavior was  typical of the
metals investigated during the Demonstration  Tests.

Lead  was distributed in the  various output  streams in a
similar manner to that of the other elements.  Figures 5a
and 5b show this distribution.
3.3.4 Mass Balances

For the Demonstration Tests, the ratio of the total mass of
all output streams to the total mass of all input streams was
      100
       so
       20
                                        IS7. Clarifier
                                        lUnderflow (fines)
                                        S5. Humic
                                        Fraction
                                        S6. Washed Sand
                                        And Gravel
                                          S5. Humic
                                          Fraction
                                          S". Clarifier
                                          Underflow (finesi
                                          S6. Washed Sand
                                          And Gravel •
              TEST1
                          TEST 2
                                                                         TEST 1        TEST 2
Figure 4a.      Copper Concentration Distribution Data    Figure 4b.      Copper Mass Distribution Data

                                                        12

-------
     100
     80
     60
     40
20 - -
                                          S5. Humic
                                          Fraction
                                          S7, Claritier
                                          Underflow (fines)
                                          And Gravel
             TEST 1
                          TEST 2
 Figure 5a.       Lead Concentration Distribution Data


 250%.  Two items suggest that the source of the imbalance
 is the input or "make-up" water stream.  First, the amount
 of  water  measured  coming  into  the  system  was
 approximately 2 gpm. This water constitutes the total fresh
 supply to the system and is used to slurry the feed sediments
 and  to  maintain  adequate slurry densities throughout the
 sediment washing process.  The amount of water entering
 the system  must match the amount  of water leaving the
 system via wet output product streams.  Table 2 gives the
 water content and rate for each of the output streams for
 Tests 1 and 2.  Clearly, the amount of water entering the
 system should be an order of magnitude higher.   Second,
 Bergmann USA personnel indicated that the meter used to
                                                      measure the flow of make-up water was actually calibrated
                                                      for another internal process stream which has a much higher
                                                      flouTate.  Consequently, the water velocity within the make-
                                                      up  water pipe was not high enough to generate an accurate
                                                      signal within the meter. Therefore, it is very probable that
                                                      the amount of water entering the system was much greater
                                                      than the amount measured.

                                                      The failure to achieve an  adequate total mass balance has
                                                      little effect on the other component balances.  This can be
                                                      shown by considering  the solids balance.   The  average
                                                      closure  for the solids balance in Test 1 was 108 percent.
                                                      The range was 101 to 115 percent.   The value for Test 2
                                                      was 103 percent.  The accuracy of the solids balance was
                                                                                                       Fraction
                                                                                                       S". Clarilier
                                                                                                       Underflow c Imw'sl
                                                                                                       S6. Washed Sand
                                                                                                       And Gravel
                                                               3
                                                                    TEST I       TEST 2
                                                        Figure 5b.      Lead Mass Distribution Data
Table 2.  Water Content for Tests 1 and 2




TEST 1
TEST 2


SI
(gal)
1,260
1,150
Volume In

S8
(gal)
1,080
1,360


Total
(gal)
2,340
2,510
Volume Out

S2 -I- S5 + S6 + S7
(gal)
14,500
13,400
Volume Out
Volume In
Volume Balance
(*)
619
534
                                                       13

-------
 seemingly unaffected by the incomplete measurement of the
 input water.  This is explained by  the fact that the input
 water carries very few solids.  If it is assumed that the rate
 of water entering the system  was approximately 28 gpm
 (i.e., output water rate minus water content of the dredged
 sediments), then the amount, of solids entering the system
 with the make-up water should constitute fewer than 1 %  of
 the solids entering the system with the dredged sediments.

 (Note: The value of performing  materials balances  is  to
 ensure that there are no significant and undetected emissions
 from the system. Since the solids do  balance, it may be
 assumed that  no emissions existed.)

 The fine particles (<45-microns) balance for Test 1 was an
 average of approximately 69.4%  with  a range of 53.2  to
 99.4 percent.  The  closure for Test 2 was  66.0 percent.
 The  variability of the balance appears to  stem  from the
 variability associated with the analysis of fines in the rotary
 trommel screen  oversize output.   The relative  range of
 values  for fines mass in  the trommel oversize was higher
 than  any other output stream  (27.9  to 41.9%).  This  is
 understandable given that there is no consistent method  to
 sieve fines that adhere to  other larger particles or fines that
 compact with one another to form  clay balls during  this
 screening process. This wide range could also be explained
 by the fact that this stream is highly heterogeneous and it is
 possible that  representative  samples may not have been
 collected.
The PCB mass balance closure for Test 1 was 59.1 percent.
with a range of 52.6 to 66.1 percent.  The PCB closure for
Test 2 was 51.7 percent.   The accuracy of the analytical
method used for the determination  of PCBs was  50 to
150%.  Therefore,  the range of values for Test 1 suggest
that PCB mass closure could be acceptible.  The closure for
Test 2 may indicate that a  greater number of samples are
required to narrow the confidence range to estimate the true
mean for each of the streams (Test 1 had 32 samples, while
Test 2 had only 8 samples).

The results  of the  mass balances for metals during the
Demonstration Tests depended on the particular element of
interest.  For Test 1, the mass balance closure for copper
was approximately 71.8% and for Test 2 .the copper mass
balance closure was 87.8%.  On this basis, it appears that
the addition of surfactant aided in the metals mass balance.
However, inspection of Table 3 shows that the mass balance
improved  daily as  testing  activities  proceeded.   Further
investigation of hypotheses of why the metals mass balance
improved  daily is beyond the scope of this project.  All
metals identified showed this distribution with the exception
of aluminum and lead.

Table 4 shows the variation  of the mass balance for lead for
both the tests.  The average mass balance for Test 1 was
approximately 118%. Although Test 2 had a higher mass
(poorer) balance closure,  the trend  shown  by  the  other
metals was not  followed. That is, mass balances for lead
Table 3. Copper Mass Balance Data




Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Overall Avgt
(Days 1-5)

Mass In
SI
(g)

530
487
387
603
502
462
494


S2
(g)

75.4
55.4
67.5
166
91.1
139
101


S5
(g)

7.08
6.94
6.04
9.04
7.02
9.21
7.46

Mass Out
S6
(g)

112
109
174
192
147
146
147


S7
(g)

111
128
67.2
157
116
111
115


Total
(g)

305
298
315
524
361
405
370
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass Balance
(%)

57.6
61.2
81.3
86.9
71.8
87.8
74.8
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
f  Calculated using all available data points for Days  1 through 4.
t  Calculated using all available data points for Days  1 through 5.
                                                        14

-------
 Table 4.  Lead Mass Balance Data

Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Overall Avg$
(Days 1-5)
Mass In
si
(g)

317
332
309
381
319
319
331

S2 ..-;
(£)

54.7
35.5
54.2
110
63.7
106
72.2

S5
(g)

14.6
5.72
5.43
5.72
7.87
8.46
7.97
Mass Out
S6
(g)

227
212
2^4
234
227
196
221

S7*
(g)

61.7
105
63.7
155
96.5
99.5
97.1

Total
(g)

358
358
357
506
395
410
398
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass Balance
(%)

113
108
116
133
118
129
120
 * Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
 t Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
 $ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
 exceeded 100%, and progressively increased and moved
 further away from 100% rather than approaching it.  Since
 the specific lead compound(s) in the soil is (are)-not known,
 it is  difficult to attribute this discrepancy to any single
 source.
3.4  Ranges of Site Characteristics Suitable for
      the  Technology
3.4.1  Site Selection

The selection of sites with potential for utilization of the
Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing  System  is  not
restricted by  the geological  features  of the site  as  the
equipment may  be erected within the confines of  the
contaminated area or placed elsewhere so that the waste can
be  transported  to  the unit.   A fixed facility  may  be
constructed to house the equipment, or the  equipment may
simply  be operated in  the open.   In the case of  the
Demonstration Test, the equipment was mounted on a barge
for  treatment of material on a remote island.   Usually,
operation is most cost-effective if the system is erected on-
site.  The site  should be  suitable for construction with
appropriate access as described below.
3.4.2 Surface, Subsurface, and Clearance Requirements

Surface requirements  for the operation  of the Bergmann
USA Soil/Sediment Washing System include a level, graded
area capable of supporting the equipment.. Foundations are
required to support between  85 tons (for the  5 tons/hr
system) and 280 tons (for the  300  tons/hr system)  of
soil/sediment washing equipment,  including the weight of
the power  supply, any ancillary equipment, and structural
steel.

In most cases, subsurface preparation is not required since
all treatment activities take place above the  soil surface.  If
the feed material is to be excavated and then treated on-site,
all subsurface obstacles (i.e.,  underground  piping, cables,
etc.) must be removed prior to excavation.

The site must be cleared to allow assembly and operational
activities to take place.  The extent of the clearing depends
on the operational configuration selected.  If the treatment
is to take place on-site, the treatment site must be cleared to
allow construction of and access to the facility. This is not
an issue if the equipment is to be operated off-site, as in the
case when the equipment was barge-mounted during the
Demonstration Test.  In any case, a cleared treatment area
is required for stockpiling, storage, and loading/unloading
activities.   Macadam roads  may be necessary to provide
support for oversize and heavy equipment.
                                                       15

-------
 3.4.3 Topographical Characteristics

 The  facility site must be  flat, level, and stable although
 complete immobility of the site is not required.  That is, the
 location of the facility need not be on land; the technology
 can Function in a barge-mounted configuration, and therefore
 may  also be operated in  a marine environment.  However,
 if a clarifier or dense media separator is to be used on a
 barge, then site activities can only be conducted during calm
 weather to ensure correct  operation of  the clarifier and
 dense media separator.   Elevation with respect to sea level
 need not be a consideration. The topographical setting will
 not have a consequential  impact on  the accessibility  of
 electrical power since the system is equipped  to operate
 using a generator.  However, an abundant water supply
 must be readily available and easily accessible.  The water
 need not be potable, however, it must be free of debris.
 Water streams containing debris may still be used with the
 addition of a basket filter to  the  pumping system.  To
 eliminate the cost of purchasing water from the local utility
 company, the water may be obtained from a nearby source
 such  as a river or lake, if feasible, or a well may be drilled
 to provide water for use by the system.
3.4.4 Site Area Requirements

The site requires sufficient surface area for soil/sediment
washing equipment measuring approximately 65 feet X 20
feet for the 5 tons/hr unit and up to 120 feet X  100 feet for
the 300  tons/hr unit.  Both structures also extend 45  feet
vertically. Depending on the scale of the system selected
and its location, a concrete pad may or may not be required
prior to assembly.  A pad will most likely be required for
any system set up as a fixed facility.  Additional space must
be available for storage of stockpiled feed and any waste
generated  during the treatment process.  All equipment
should be situated  in  a manner  to facilitate convenient
access.
3.4.5  Climate Characteristics

For outdoor operations, climate characteristics suitable for
this treatment  technology include a moderate temperature
range  and  low  wind conditions.  Temperatures below
freezing would have a profound effect on the operation of
the system since the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing
System utilizes large amounts of water to "wash" the soil.
Windy conditions may be detrimental to the conveyor belts
and the 45-foot tower that houses the separators and other
pieces of equipment.   Windy conditions also make barge-
mounted activities very difficult due to  rough waters and
wave motion.
Severe storms may result in hazardous operating conditions,
if the equipment is erected outdoors as it is fully exposed to
the weather.  The tower, often standing alone or standing
taller than surrounding structures, provides a ready pathway
for lightning.

To diminish  the effect of many climactic attributes,  the
system may be  erected in an enclosure.  This may be a
fixed structure,  or this may be a tent covering  the system as
was the  case during operation  at Toronto Harbour (see
Appendix D).   Steam lines  may be used  to maintain an
acceptable operating temperature within the enclosure and
alleviate problems associated  with freezing temperatures.
3.4.6 Geological Characteristics

Major geological constraints that can render a site unsuitable
for the soil/sediment washing technology include landslide
potential, volcanic activity, and fragile geological formations
that may be disturbed by heavy loads or vibrational stress.
3.4.7 Utility Requirements

The   utility   requirements  for  the  Bergmann  USA
Soil/Sediment Washing System include electricity and water.
The  system is equipped to operate using a generator to
supply electrical power. Otherwise, a 3-phase power supply
from the local electric company is required.  The 5 tons/hr
system pulls approximately 150 kW during operation. This
requirement is increased to 2,200 kW for the 300 tons/hr
system.

Water requirements include an available  supply of water
sufficient to fill the 5  tons/hr system with 10,000 gallons
initially, and then provide approximately 30 gpm;  the  300
tons/hr unit requires 15,000 gallons of water initially, then
approximately 480  gpm during  operation.  Although the
system actually requires quantities of water much greater
than  these specified parameters, a large amount of water is
recirculated through the system,  thereby reducing  water
usage   through   recycling.      As   discussed    under
"Topographical Characteristics" earlier in this section, non-
potable  water  is  acceptable for use  and may be obtained
from a nearby lake, river, or well.
3.4.8 Size of Operation

The capacity of the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing
System utilized during the Demonstration Test was 5 tons/hr
feed  soil  input (pilot-scale).   Larger systems  are  also
available in a wide range of sizes.  Full-scale systems are
identified  as  those processing  more than  20 tons/hr.
                                                        16

-------
  Currently the largest system operated by Bergmann USA
  can process up to 300 tons/hr.
 3.6  Regulatory Requirements
  The size of the facility itself is governed by the size of the
  system chosen and 'the selection of  indoor  or outdoor
  construction and assembly (see "Site Area Requirements").
  The equipment layout is slightly restricted when operating
  in an enclosure.  In this case, overhead height becomes an
  issue and some modifications may be required to alter the
  configuration  of  the system to  reduce the height of the
  tower.   With no overhead restrictions,  Bergmann USA
  utilizes gravity to aid in moving the feed throughout the
  system.
 3.5 Applicable Wastes
 The Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System can be
 used to treat both  land-based soils as well as river and
 harbor sediments. The contaminated soil or sediment should
 contain  no more than about 40%  silt and clay material
 smaller  than 45 micron.  Solid organic content should not
 exceed 20% by volume. The organic content is specified in
 terms of volume because of the low specific gravity of this
 media   in  relation  to the  other  components  of  the
 soil/sediment.    The  medium to be  separated  may be
 contaminated with both organic and inorganic constituents.
 Typical  contaminant groups that can be effectively isolated
 and concentrated include:  petroleum and  fuel  residues,
 radioactive contaminants, heavy metals, PCBs, creosote,
 pentachlorophenols (PCPs),  pesticides,  and cyanides.

 Materials  handling  requirements  for  operation  of  a
 Bergmann USA  Soil/Sediment  Washing System include
 containerization of the process feed and transport of this
 material  to the facility.  Depending on the hazard  and
 volatility of the waste, containerization may entail the use of
 small sealed containers such as 55-gallon drums  or perhaps
 larger vessels such  as the  holds of dredging  barges for
 dredged  lake or river sediments.   The  use  of small
 containers is not likely since treatment will most often take
 place on-site, except when  dredged sediments are being
 processed. Containerization of the concentrated solid wastes
 (fines and humic fraction) and possibly the liquid waste
 (clarifier underflow) must also be considered along with
 transport of these residues and effluents  for disposal. Since
 the process isolates and concentrates contaminants into the
 fines and  the humic fraction, these residues  (a  reduced
volume of contaminated waste) and the effluent may require
additional treatment prior to  final disposal.
 Operation of the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing
 System for pre-treatment  of contaminated soil  requires
 compliance with certain Federal, state, and local regulatory
 standards and guidelines. Section 121 of the Comprehensive
 Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
 (CEiRCLA) requires that, subject to specified  exceptions,
 remedial actions  must be undertaken in compliance with
 Applicable or  Relevant and  Appropriate  Requirements
 (ARARs), Federal laws, and more stringent state laws  (in
 response to releases or threats  of releases  of hazardous
 substances, pollutants,  or contaminants) as necessary  to
 protect human health and the environment.'.

 The ARARs that must  be followed in treatinc  Superfund
 waste on-site  are outlined  in  the  Interim  Guidance  on
 Compliance with  ARARs, Federal Register, Vol.  52, pp.
 32496 et seq.  These are:

  •      Performance,    Design,   or   Action-Specific
         Requirements.      Examples    include   RCRA
         incineration standards and Clean Water Act (CWA)
         pretreatment standards for discharge to Publicly
         Owned  Treatment  Works  (POTWs).    These
         requirements  are  triggered  by the  particular
         remedial  activity selected to clean a site.

  •      Ambient/Chemical-Specific Requirements.  These
         set health-risk-based concentration limits based on
         pollutants and contaminants, e.g., emission limits
         and ambient  air quality standards.   The most
         stringent ARAR must be complied with.

  •      Locational Requirements.  These set restrictions on
         activities because of site location and environs.

Deployment of the Bergmann USA system will be affected
by three main levels of regulation:

  •      USEPA air and  water pollution regulations,

  •      State air and water pollution regulations, and

  •      Local   regulations,   particularly  Air  Quality
         Management District (AQMD) requirements.

Thesie regulations govern the operation of all technologies.
Other Federal, state, and local regulations are discussed in
detail below as they apply to the performance, emissions,
and iresidues evaluated from measurements taken during the
Demonstration Test.
                                                       17

-------
3.6.1 Federal USEPA Regulations
3,6,1,1 Clean Air Act

The Clean  Air  Act  (CAA)  establishes primary and
secondary ambient air  quality standards for protection  of
public health, and emission limitations for certain hazardous
air pollutants.  Permitting requirements under the Clean Air
Act  are administered  by  each state as  part  of State
Implementation Plans developed to bring each state into
compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).  The  ambient air quality  standards listed for
specific pollutants may be applicable to  operation of the
Bergmann USA system due to its potential emissions when
processing volatile compounds.  Therefore, when volatile
organic compounds are present in the feed, an  air pollution
control  device, including  a  carbon bed  or  comparable
means,  must be utilized for cleanup of these  compounds.
Other regulated emissions may also be produced, depending
on the  waste feed.    A  Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment
Washing System built in any state may be required to obtain
an air permit.  The allowable emissions will be established
on a case-by-case basis depending upon whether or not the
site is  in  attainment of the NAAQS.   If the area is in
attainment,  the  allowable  emission  limits may  still  be
curtailed by the available increments under Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations. This can only
be determined on  a site-by-site basis.
3.6.1,2 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
        Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

The   Comprehensive  Environmental   Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986 provides for Federal funding to respond to releases of
hazardous substances to air, water, and land.  Section 121
of SARA,  entitled Cleanup Standards,  states  a  strong
statutory preference for remedies that are highly reliable and
provide long-term protection.  It strongly recommends that
remedial actions use on-site treatment that  "...permanently
and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility
of hazardous substances."   In addition,  general  factors
which must be addressed by CERCLA remedial actions are:

  •      long-term effectiveness and permanence,
  •      short-term effectiveness,
  •      implementability, and
  •      cost.

The  Bergmann  USA  system   has   demonstrated  that
contaminants in the feed stream can be concentrated and
isolated by separating soil and sediment particles according
to grain size and density.  Although this does not totally
eliminate the contamination from any particular waste feed
material,  it  does  reduce  the quantity  of significantly
contaminated material and separates  the feed into  streams
with levels of contamination ranging from insignificant to
serious.  This  illustrates both  long-term  and,  especially,
short-term effectiveness. In the immediate future, it reduces
the amount of contaminated material; in the long run.  the
technology  reduces  the  amount  of contaminated waste
requiring treatment and subsequent landfill.

The short-term effectiveness of the Bergmann USA system
may be evaluated by examining  analytical data obtained
from the various waste streams. The data indicate  that  the
contaminants present in the feed (i.e., PCBS and metals  for
the Demonstration Test) were  concentrated  in two solid
streams, the fines and the humic fraction.  These waste
streams may require treatment and  must  be disposed of
properly.     For  the  Demonstration  Test,  levels  of
contamination in both the solid  streams  and the liquid
streams were below regulated levels.  This implies that, in
most cases (with the exception of "derived from"  wastes
which are considered listed wastes regardless of their final
levels of contamination), these secondary waste streams may
be disposed of in a  licensed landfill without the need  for
additional treatment.

The implementability of the system appears favorable. The
5 tons/hr system is relatively mobile and easily assembled.
The ease of mobility decreases with larger scale systems,
indicating that larger scale systems may be better suited to
fixed  facilities where ongoing treatment is required rather
than for facilities where short-term treatment  is required.

Based  on  the Economic  Analysis of the  Bergmann USA
system (see Section 4),  the cost of this  technology is a
competitive means  of pre-treating contaminated material.
Although  soil/sediment washing concentrates the level of
contamination,  it also  isolates  the contamination,  and
therefore,  use  of this technology reduces the  amount of
contaminated material requiring treatment prior to disposal.
3.6.1,3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

The Resource  Conservation  and  Recovery  Act  is  the
primary  Federal legislation governing  hazardous waste
activities.  Subtitle C of RCRA contains requirements for
generation, transport, treatment,  storage, and disposal of
hazardous  waste,  most  of which  are also applicable to
CERCLA activities.

Depending on the waste feed and the effectiveness of the
treatment process, the Bergmann USA system may generate
several hazardous  waste streams:   the fines (material less
                                                       18

-------
   than 45 microns in size), the humic fraction (twigs, leaves,
   bark, etc.), and potentially the clarifier underflow.  These
   streams contain the concentrated contaminants which have
   been washed from the feed  material and isolated from the
   other streams.

   For generation of any hazardous waste, the site responsible
   party must obtain a USEPA  identification  number  and
   comply with accumulation requirements for generators under
   40 CFR 262 or have been granted interim status, or issued
   a  hazardous waste facility permit  for the treatment and
   storage activities.  Compliance with RCRA is required for
   CERCLA  sites.    A hazardous   waste manifest  must
  accompany any off-site shipment of waste. Transport must
  comply with Federal Department of Transportation (DOT)
  hazardous waste transportation regulations.  The receiving
  Treatment, Storage, and  Disposal (TSD) facility must be
  permitted and in compliance with RCRA standards.

  Technology or treatment standards have been established for
  many hazardous wastes; those appropriate for the Bergmann
  USA process will be determined  by the type of waste
  generated.  The RCRA land disposal restriction regulations,
  found in 40 CFR 268, mandate that hazardous wastes that
  do not  meet  the  required  treatment  standards  receive
  treatment after removal from a contaminated site and  prior
  to land disposal, unless a variance is granted.   If the fines,
  the humic fraction,  or the clarifier underflow are hazardous
  wastes that  do not meet their pertinent treatment standards
  (a likely scenario for the solid streams),  treatment  will be
  required  prior to land disposal.  Incineration  may be the
  Best Demonstrated  Available Treatment (BOAT) prior to
  disposal  of any solid residue in  a  certified landfill.
  Precipitation and/or carbon adsorption may be necessary for
 any waste clarifier underflow.
 3.6.1.4 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

 The  Toxic Substances  Control  Act (TSCA)  grants  the
 USEPA  the  authority to   prohibit  or  control   the
 manufacturing, importing, processing, use, and disposal of
 any chemical substance that presents an unreasonable risk of
 injury  to  human  health  or  the  environment.    These
 regulations may be found in 40 CFR 761.  With respect to
 hazardous  waste regulation, TSCA focuses on  the use,
 management,  disposal, and cleanup of PCBs.   Materials
 with  <50 ppm  PCB are classified as non-PCB; those
 containing PCB between 50 and 500 ppm are classified as
 PCB-contaminated; and those with 500 ppm or greater PCB
 are classified as PCB.

 The  waste  feed  used  for  this  Demonstration  of   the
 Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System contained an
overall average level of 1.35  ppm PCBs.   The levels of
  PCBs in some of the output streams were  elevated as a
  result of the  separation process.   The humic  fraction
  contained an overall average of approximately 11.0 ppm and
  the concentrated fines from the clarifier underflow contained
  approximately 4.42 ppm. However, even the stream with
  the highest levels  of P~CBs was below the TSCA limit for
  PCB-contaminated material by a factor of 4.
  3.6.1.5  Clean Water Act (CWA)

  The Clean Water Act regulates direct discharges to surface
  water through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
  System (NPDES) regulations.  These regulations require
  point-source discharges of wastewater to meet  established
  water quality standards. Typical operation of the Bergmann
  USA system generates one liquid discharge stream, the
  clarifier underflow.   All other liquid streams are  recycled
  throughout the system.  Unless the feed material  contains
  soluble contaminants, it is anticipated that this overflow will
  be  discharged  into  the  sanitary sewer.    Discharge  of
  wastewater to the sanitary sewer requires a discharge permit
  or,  at  least, concurrence from state  and local  regulatory
  authorities  that  the  wastewater is   in compliance  with
  regulatory limits.  The wastewater may contain flocculants,
 surfactants, or other water conditioners at unregulated
 levels.
 3.6,1.6 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

 The  Safe  Drinking Water  Act establishes  primary and
 secondary national drinking water standards.  Provisions of
 the  Safe Drinking Water Act  apply  to  remediation of
 Superfund  sites.  CERCLA Sections 121(d)(2)(A) and (B)
 explicitly  mention  three  kinds  of surface  water or
 groundwater standards with which compliance is potentially
 required -. Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs),
 Federal  Water  Quality Criteria (FWQC), and  Alternate
 Concentration Limits (ACLs) where human exposure is to
 be limited.  CERCLA describes those requirements and how
 they may be applied to Superfimd remedial actions.   The
 guidance is based on Federal  requirements and  policies;
 more stringent, state requirements may result in application
 of even stricter standards  than those specified in Federal
 regulations.   The  Bergmann USA  system generates  one
 liquid discharge stream, the clarifier overflow.  Although
anticipated to be nonhazardous, this stream must meet the
above described standards as applicable for each particular
operation.
                                                       19

-------
 3.6.2 State and Local Regulations

 Compliance  with  ARARs  may  require  meeting  state
 standards that are more stringent than Federal standards or
 may be the  controlling  standards  in  the case of  non-
 CERCLA  treatment activities.   Several types of state and
 local regulations that may affect operation of the Bergmann
 USA system are cited below:

  •      permitting requirements for construction/operation,
  •      prohibitions on emission levels, and
  •      nuisance rules.
 3.7  Personnel Issues

 3.7.1  Operator Training

 Operator training specific to the Bergmann USA system is
 required, particularly for all local hires.  Other workers,
 such as supervisors and lead operators, are Bergmann USA
 employees already intimately  familiar with the  system.
 These employees will perform on-line training of the local
 hires.   This is necessary in order  to develop  a  safe and
 effective operating technique for this technology.
3.7.2  Health and Safety

The  U.S.  Department  of Labor  (USDOL)  specifies
occupational health and safety standards for general industry
in 29  CFR 1910.  Within these regulations  are detailed
sections applying to occupation protection of employees at
hazardous  waste  treatment  sites.    Health  and  safety
regulations for construction are specified by the USDOL in
29  CFR 1926.  The  health and safety issues involved in
using the Bergmann USA system for waste treatment include
those  presented  in  the  above mentioned  regulations.
Additional issues are generally the same as those that apply
to all hazardous waste treatment facilities as detailed in 40
CFR 264 Subparts B through G, and Subpart X.  It should
be noted that  the SITE Demonstration Tests did not take
place at a hazardous waste treatment site, and accordingly,
hazardous waste treatment rules, neither USEPA (40 CFR)
nor USDOL (26 CFR) apply.

The principal  occupational hazard of the Bergmann USA
Soil/Sediment  Washing  System is probably not the health
risk from exposure to toxic substances (except in extreme
cases), but rather the  risk of injury.  Although it poses no
significant threat of explosion, fire, etc., the Bergmann USA
system  is  comprised of equipment  with great heights,
moving machinery, high voltage, pinch  points, conveyor
belts, and other safety  hazards.  Therefore,  the physical
hazards may be greater than the chemical hazards depending
on the waste.
3.7.3 Emergency Response

The  emergency response training for using the Bergmann
USA system is the same general training  required for
operating a TSD facility as detailed in 40 CFR 264 Subpart
D.   Training must address fire and containment-related
issues such as  extinguisher operation, hoses, sprinklers,
hydrants, smoke detectors and alarm systems, self-contained
breathing apparatus use, hazardous material spill control and
decontamination equipment use, evacuation,  emergency
response planning, and coordination with outside emergency
personnel (e.g., fire/ambulance).
3.8 Summary

The Bergmann  USA  Soil/Sediment  Washing  System
evaluated during the SITE Demonstration activities consisted
of a number of different proven  technologies used in the
mineral processing industry to successfully  separate  the
contaminant-rich fines from the washed coarse fraction. For
the purposes of the SITE  Demonstration, the gravity and
size separation technologies employed with a countercurrent
washwater mode of operation was sufficient to isolate and
concentrate  the contaminants  effectively.  However,  the
soil/sediment washer could  have also  been  used in  the
cocurrent mode or with any  of the individual technologies
taken out of the system.  The effectiveness of the washer in
different modes of operation was the subject of the  USAGE
testing.   Surfactant was  successfully  used  during  the
Demonstration activities. Because of the nature of the feed.
the surfactant  had no  effect on  the  performance of the
technology.  However,  the Demonstration  Test did show
that surfactant could  be  used   by  the system  without
disrupting operations.

Bergmann USA manufactures a variety of technologies for
use in separating contaminated soils and sediments into clean
and concentrated fractions.  These technologies are  then
assembled into a soil/sediment washing system dependent on
the soil type and  the form  of contamination. Different
assemblies of these other technologies have not been subject
to evaluation under the SITE Demonstration Program.

The soil/sediment  washing systems are available  in sizes
ranging from pilot-scale at 5  tons/hr to full-scale at 300
tons/hr. Obviously, the size of unit selected for a particular
site is dependent on the volume of soil/sediment required to
be separated.
                                                       20

-------
 The  effectiveness  of the Bergmann  USA Soil/Sediment
 Washing System (or  any other aqueous based soil washing
 system) for the distribution of water soluble compounds is
 affected by  the moisture content  of  the output streams.
 However,  if the water  can  be easily separated  from the
 output, then this water  can .undergo  secondary  treatment
 prior to disposal.

 The sediment used for the feed during the  Demonstration
 Testing did not contain volatile compounds.  In other cases,
 however, if volatile compounds are  present in the feed soil,
 precautions must be taken to ensure that fugitive emissions
 do not exceed  ambient  air quality standards.  This may
 include housing the system in an enclosure and passing all
 the  local  air  through  activated carbon or  some other
 collection  or  destructive  technique.   If  water  soluble
 compounds are present in the feed soil, then the washwater
 from the process may require treatment before discharge of
 the water to a sanitary sewer is permitted.

 As with any remediation  technology, before this system can
 be implemented or  a  Record of Decision is approved for a
 particular hazardous waste site, treatability studies must be
performed.  The treatability studies will enable the correct
selection and configuration of the separation modules to be
employed if this technology is suitable for remediation of
that site.
                                                       21

-------
                                                  Section 4
                                            Economic Analysis
4.1  Introduction
The primary purpose of this economic analysis is to estimate
costs (not including profits) for a commercial-size treatment
utilizing the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System.
The soil/sediment washer used during the Demonstration
Test was a small pilot-scale unit  (feed rate of 5 tons/hr).
This economic analysis investigates systems ranging from 5
to 100 tons/hr.  The costs associated with the Bergmann
USA Soil/Sediment Washing System, as presented in this
economic analysis, are defined by 12 cost categories that
reflect typical cleanup  activities encountered on Superfund
sites.   Each of these cleanup  activities  is defined and
discussed, forming the basis for the estimated cost analysis
presented in Tables 5 and 6. The  costs presented are based
upon  installing  and   operating  the  Bergmann   USA
Soil/Sediment Washing System at a facility for a period of
12 months.

The actual Demonstration Test treated approximately 144
tons of contaminated soil and sediments at a feed rate of
approximately  4 tons/hr  with an  on-line percentage of
100%.  However, the  system is rated at 5  tons/hr and this
rate provides the basis for this economic analysis.  Since the
Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System used during
the Demonstration Tests was pilot-scale, and not as cost-
effective as a  full-scale unit, cost  calculations were also
performed for other existing Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment
Washing Systems treating  15, 25, and  100 tons/hr.   The
costs for the system used during the Demonstration Test are
presented in Table 5 and are based on:
        a feed rate of 5 tons/hr;
        an on-line percentage of 90%; and
        an operating time of 14 hrs/day and 5 days/wk;
        and a treatment time of 12 months.
The  on-line  percentage  takes  into   account  periodic
shutdowns  to respond  to  maintenance  or  operational
problems.   Although  100%  on-line conditions cannot be
expected during extended periods of operating time,  it is
common practice in the sand and gravel industry to achieve
an on-line factor as high as 90 to 95 %. For"the purposes of
this evaluation an on-line factor of 90% is assumed.

Table 6 shows the costs for Bergmann USA  Soil/Sediment
Washing Systems operating with feed rates of 5, 15, 25. and
100 tons/hr and 90% on-line conditions. The-cost estimates
presented  in Table 6 are based on the same assumptions
listed for Table 5 with the exception of the feed rate and the
associated project duration  which vary for each case (see
Table 6).

Costs  which are assumed to  be the obligation  of  the
responsible party or site owner have been  omitted from this
cost estimate and are indicated by a  line  (—) on Tables 5
and  6.   Categories  with  no costs associated  with this
technology are indicated by a zero (0) on Tables 5 and 6.

Important assumptions  regarding  operating conditions and
task responsibilities that could significantly impact the cost
estimate results are presented below.

The cost estimates presented in this analysis are representa-
tive of charges typically assessed to the client by the vendor
and do not include profit.  Costs such as preliminary site
preparation, permits and regulatory requirements, initiation
of monitoring programs,  waste  disposal,  sampling and
analysis, and site cleanup and restoration are considered to
be the responsible party's (or site owner's)  obligation and
are  not included in  the estimate presented.  Although not
necessarily assessed by the vendor, costs for excavation are
included in this estimate since excavation of the waste feed
is always required.  The costs mentioned above tend to be
site-specific and in most cases the calculations are left for
the  reader to perform in a manner relevant to his specific
case.  Whenever possible,  applicable information on these
topics is provided to assist the reader in these calculations.

For hypothetical 100%  on-line conditions, the treatment rate
is  the same  as the  feed  rate  of the Bergmann  USA
Soil/Sediment  Washing System. Generally, two factors
                                                        22

-------
  Table 5. Estimated Costs in $/Ton of the Bergmann USA Pilot-Scale Soil/Sediment Washing System*'
  Feed Rate = 5 tons/hr
  On-line Percentage = 90%
  Total Treatment Time = 12 months   	

  Site and Facility Preparation Costs
   Site design and layout
   Survey and site investigations
   Legal searches
   Access rights and roads
   Preparations for support facilities
   Utility connections
   Auxiliary buildings                                                            	
   Installation of major equipment                                                 $0.28
   Technology-specific requirements                                              $19.75**
   Transportation of waste feed                                                    „'
  Total Site and Facility Preparation Costs                                       $20.03

  Permitting and Regulatory Costs
   Permits
   System monitoring requirements                                                 	
   Development of monitoring and protocols                                       	
  Total Permitting and Regulatory Costs

  Equipment Costs
   Major equipment!
   Annualized equipment cost
   Equipment rental
  Total Equipment Costs

 Startup and Fixed Costs
   On-line operation training
   Waste-specific equipment testing
   Working capital
   Insurance and taxes
   Initiation of monitoring programs
   Contingency
 Total Startup and Fixed Costs

 Labor Costs
   Supervisors
   Lead Operators
   Feed operators
   Maintenance operators
 Total Labor Costs

 Supplies Costs
  Surfactant
  Flocculent
  Miscellaneous
 Total Supplies Costs

 Consumables Costs
  Fuel
  Water
  Electricity
 Total Consumables Costs

 Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs
  On-site facility costs
  Off-site facility costs
   -wastewater disposal
   -monitoring activities
Total Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs
 $74.07t
  $9.06
  $3.67
 $12.73
 $1.47
 $0.59
$12.01
 $7.41

 $7.41
$28.89
$18.89
$16.35
 $7.62
$15.24
$58.10
 $1.00
 $0.92
 $6.00
 $7.92
 $0.67
 $0.67
 $2.76
 $4.10
  0
  0
                                                      23

-------
Table S  Estimated Costs in $/Tpn of the Rerpmann USA Pilot-Scale Soil/Sediment Washing Systt-™*1* fconL.1.
Residuals & Waste Shipping, Handling & Transport Costs
  Preparation
  Waste disposal
Total Residuals & Waste Shipping, Handling & Transport Costs                 _
Analytical Costs
  Operations
  Environmental monitoring
Total Analytical Costs

Facility Modification, Repair, & Replacement Costs
  Design adjustments
  Facility modifications
  Scheduled maintenance (materials)
  Equipment replacement
Total Facility Modification, Repair, & Replacement Costs

Site Restoration Costs
  Site cleanup and restoration
  Permanent storage
Total Site Restoration Costs
                                                    $19.05

                                                    $19.05
                                                      0
                                                      0
                                                     $0.54
                                                      0
                                                     $0.54
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS ($/TON)
[TOTAL OPERATING COSTS EXCLUDING
EXCAVATION (S/TON)]
                                                   $151.35
                                                  ($131.60)
*  All costs estimated at  1993 prices.
*  Costs for treating waste at 5 tons/hr for 12 months.  Refer to Section 4.3 for information on how the costs in this table
   were determined:
** Excavation costs may not be assessed by the vendor.  They are included here because the waste feed must be excavated
   prior to treatment.  Total operating costs exclusive of excavation are presented for comparison at the end of the table.
f  This cost is reported 'in "$", not "$/ton". It is not used directly, but is used for estimating other costs (i.e., annualized
   equipment cost, insurance and taxes, scheduled maintenance, and contingency).
limit  the  treatment rate:
percentage.
the feed rate and  the on-line
All operations are assumed to be 14 hours a day, five days
a week.  Two shifts of working crews are required each
day. Each shift is assumed to be 8 hours. On-line training
of local hires is assumed to be conducted 8 hours a day for
13 days. Excavation activities for site preparation will take
place concurrent with treatment and are assumed  to be 16
hours a day, five days a week.  Assembly is assumed to
require four 14-hour days.  Waste-specific equipment testing
will occur before  treatment is begun and  is assumed to
require three 14-hour days.

Transportation costs of the waste feed from a waste site to
the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System are site-
and waste-specific, and have not been included in these cost
calculations.
Operations  for a typical  shift require  5 workers:   1
supervisor,   1  lead  operator,  1  feed  operator, and  2
maintenance operators.

Capital costs for equipment are not used  directly, and are
limited to the cost of the Soil/Sediment Washing System.
Percentages  of the  total  equipment cost are  used for
estimating purposes.

Many actual or potential costs that exist were not included
as part of this estimate.  They were omitted because site-
specific engineering  designs that are beyond the scope of
this SITE project would be  required.  Certain  functions
                                                      24

-------
to
      Treatment Rate
      Total Treatment Time
      Total Volume Treated
Table 6.  Costs in $/Ton for Operation of Various Sizes of Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment
                                                     5 Tons/Mr      15 Tons/Hr
                                                        1 Year          2 Years
                                                   16,200 Tons     97,200 Tons
Washing Systems*
   25 Tons/Hr      100 Tons/Hr
      3 Years          5 Years
 243,000 Tons   1,620,000 Tons
Site Facility Preparation Costs
including excavation
(excluding excavation)
Permitting & Regulatory Costs
Equipment Costs
Startup & Fixed Costs
Labor Costs
Supplies Costs
Consumables Costs
Effluent Treatment & Disposal Costs
Residuals & Waste Shipping, Handling, & Transport Costs
Analytical Costs
Facility Modifications, Repair, & Replacement Costs
Site Restoration Costs
Total Costs
(Total Costs excluding excavation)
$20.03
($0.28)
—
$12.73
$28.89
$58.10
$7.92
$4.10
—
—
$19.05
$0.54
—
$151.36
($131.61)
$17.86
($0.10)
—
$8.51
$19.64
$19.37
$6.67
$2.72
...
—
$6.35
$0.36
—
$81.48
($63.72)
$15.79
($0.07)
—
$7.29
$16.86
$11.62
$5.42.
$3.00
—
—
$3.81
$0.30
—
$64.09
($48.37)
$14.76
($0.05)
—
$5.04
$11.12
$3.67
$4.12
$2.35
—
—
$0.95
"$0.17
—
$42.18
($27.47)
      All costs estimated at 1993 prices.

-------
 were assumed to be the obligation of the responsible party
 or site owner and were not included in the estimates.
 4.2 Results of Economic Analysis
 5, 15, 25, and 100 tons/hr, respectively.  Ordinarily, these
 costs can be reduced by increasing the on-line percentage
 and  feed rate, thus increasing the actual treatment rate and
 decreasing the treatment time required.  In this case, since
 the on-line percentage's already so high, it is unlikely that
 this  factor may be improved.
 Data gathered during the Demonstration Test indicates that
 the on-line  factor of the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment
 Washing System was 100%.  However, in order to account
 for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, a 90% on-line
 factor was assumed. Other data indicates that this is typical
 of more extensive (longer) operations of the Bergmann USA
 Soil/Sediment Washing System, therefore, all calculations
 were performed based on a 90% on-line factor.  The feed
 rate during the Demonstration Test was  approximately 4
 tons/hr, but since the unit was sized for 5 tons/hr,  this
 higher feed rate has been assumed  for the cost estimate.
 For a feed rate of 5 tons/hr and a total treatment time of 12
 months, the results of the analysis show a cost-per-ton
 estimate of $151 for 90% on-line conditions.  These costs
 are considered to be order-of-magnitude estimates as defined
 by the American  Association of Cost Engineers, with an
 expected accuracy within +50% and -30%.  Since the 5
 tons/hr Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System is at
 the pilot-scale level, the cost per ton of soil  treated is
 relatively high. For other larger units with higher feed rates
 and the same 90% on-line factor,  the cost per ton is less:
 $81 and $63 for the 15 and 25 tons/hr units, respectively.
 For the 100 tons/hr unit, the cost per ton drops to $42  for
 90% on-line conditions.

 Figure 6 presents the costs for each  of the twelve cost
 categories for feed rates of 5 tons/hr. Figure 7 presents  the
 relative treatment cost of Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment
 Washing Systems operating at feed rates of 5 to 100 tons/hr
 and 90% on-line conditions.

 The results show that, in each case, site facility preparation
 costs (including excavation) make up a large portion of  the
 costs ranging from 13 % for the 5 tons/hr unit up to 35 %  for
 the  100 tons/hr unit.  The results also indicate that, for
 lower feed rates, labor is a cost primary factor. For higher
 feed  rates,  the impact of labor  costs  decreases.   For
 example, with a feed rate of 5 tons/hr, approximately 38%
 of the total cost can be attributed to labor; with a feed rate
 of 100 tons/hr, labor costs are reduced to approximately 9 %
 of  the  total cost.   Startup and  fixed costs are another
 important factor, becoming more dominant with higher feed
 rates.   The startup and  fixed  costs  of  the  full-scale
 Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System operating at
 100 tons/hr make  up approximately 26%  of the total cost
Together, labor and startup and fixed costs make up 58%,
48%, 44%,  and  35%  of the total operating  cost of a
Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System operating at
4.3  Basis for Economic Analysis


The cost analysis  was prepared  by breaking down  the
overall cost into 12 categories:

  •      Site and facility preparation costs,*"

  •    '  Permitting and regulatory costs,

  •      Equipment costs.

  •      Startup and fixed costs,

  •      Labor costs,

  •      Supplies costs,

  •      Consumables costs,

  •      Effluent treatment and  disposal costs,

  •      Residuals  and waste   shipping,  handling,  and
         transport costs,

  •      Analytical costs,

  •      Facility  modification,   repair,  and replacement
         costs, and

  •      Site restoration costs.

The 12 cost factors examined as they apply to the Bergmann
USA  process, along with the assumptions  employed, are
described in detail below. Except where specified, the same
assumptions were  made  for  the  costs of operating a
Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System at 5, 15, 25,
and 100  tons/hr.


4.3.1  Site and Facility Preparation Costs

For the purposes of these cost calculations,  "site" refers to
the location of the contaminated waste and "facility" refers
to the location where  the Bergmann USA  Soil/Sediment
Washing  System is operated. In  many cases,  the waste must
be transported from the site to the facility.
                                                       26

-------
        Breakdown of Costs  for Feed Rate of 5 Tons/Hr *
                                                              38.4%  [_J  LABOR COSTS
19.1%


13.2%


12.6%


8.4%


5.2%
                                                              2.7%  [\
                                                             0.4%
                                                                         STARTUP & FIXED
                                                                         COSTS


                                                                         SITE i FACIIJTY
                                                                         PREPARATION COSTS
                                                                        ANALYTICAL COSTS
                                                                        EQUIPMENT COSTS
                                                                        SUPPLIES COSTS
           CONSUMABLES COSTS
           FACILITY MODIFICATIONS,
           REPAIR, & REPLACEMENT
           COSTS
            Refer to Table 5 for additional information on these cost categories
                Figure 6. Summary of Cost Categories for 5 Tons/Hr Unit. *
* Permitting &. Regulatory Costs; Effluent Treatment & Disposal Costs; Residuals
& Waste Shipping, Handling, & Transport Costs; and Site Restoration Costs each
sum to less than $ I/Ton.
                                           27

-------
                           200
to
00
                rj "


            O   *Tl £"

            g  |f


            5*  «5 Rf>

            o*  >• w
            s.
            o
            o
            p
            o
|
I'
    3) £
Sj  E n

    I?

i  il
1   -" e
     O  3

     §i
     CO  r+
     °  R?

     92
                SP. s
                O  51


                II
                 p OQ

                 '•8
                   a
                            150
                         a
                         o
                        H
                         O
                        u
                            100
                            50
                                         5 Tons/Hi
                                  SITE & FACILITY

                                  PREPARATION COSTS

                                  SUPPLIES COSTS
                                                   15 Tons/Hr
25 Tons/Hr
                                                               Feed Rate  (Tons/Hr)
                                              EQUIPMENT COSTS
                                              CONSUMABLES COSTS
0<

s\
STARTUP & FIXED
COSTS
ANALYTICAL COSTS
$

100 Tons/Hr
                       LABOR COSTS
                                      Refer to Table 6 for additional information on these cost categories

                            Figure 7. Summary of Overall Treatment Costs of Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment

                                     Washing Systems.  *

                                * Permitting & Regulatory Costs; Effluent Treatment & Disposal Costs; Residuals
                                & Waste Shipping, Handling, & Transport Costs; Facility Modifications, Repair, &
                                Replacement Costs; and Site Restoration Costs each sum to less than $I/Ton.

-------
 It  is  assumed  that preliminary site preparation  will be
 performed  by the responsible party  (or site owner).  The
 amount of  preliminary site preparation will depend on the
 site. Site preparation responsibilities include site design and
 layout,  surveys  and site logistics, legal searches,  access
 rights   and   roads,   preparations   for   support   and
 decontamination facilities, utility connections, and auxiliary
 buildings.  Since these costs are site-specific, they are not
 included as part of the site preparation costs in this estimate.

 Additional  site  preparation requirements peculiar  to the
 Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System are assumed
 to  be performed by  the prime  contractor.  These site
 preparation activities include excavation of hazardous waste
 from  the  contaminated  site  and storing   the  waste in
 appropriate containers prior to treatment.   The costs for
 excavation  are included in this cost  estimate because the
 waste must always be  excavated prior to treatment.

 Cost estimates  for  site preparation  should be  based on
 operated heavy equipment rental costs, labor charges, and
 equipment fuel costs.  Excavation activities are assumed to
 take place 16 hours a  day,  5 days a week.  To achieve an
 excavation  rate  of  approximately  10 tons/hr, it may be
 assumed that the minimum rental equipment required is:
 three excavators, one  box dump truck,  and one backhoe.
 Estimated  equipment  rental  rates and  terms vary  with
 individual rental  companies. An excavator is available for
 approximately $2,800/mo, a box dump truck is available for
 approximately $l,500/mo, and a backhoe is available for
 approximately $2,000/mo.  The minimum labor required is
 one supervisor  at $40/hr, three excavator operators at
 $30/hr each, one box  dump truck operator  at $30/hr, and
 one backhoe operator at $30/hr. Diesel fuel consumption is
 estimated at 3 gals/hr/excavator, 2 gals/hr/box dump truck,
 and 3 gals/hr/backhoe.  Diesel fuel  prices  fluctuate  with
 supply and demand and current market prices; however, for
 these calculations it is  assumed to be  $l/gal.

 Transportation costs of the contaminated waste from the site
 to the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing  System are
 very site- and waste-specific and have not been  included in
 these cost calculations.

 For the purposes  of these cost calculations, installation costs
 are  limited  to transportation and  assembly costs of the
 Bergmann  USA  Soil/Sediment Washing System.    The
 installation cost has been annualized based on a 10-year life
of  the equipment and a 6%  annual interest  rate.   The
annualized installation cost is based on the writeoff of the
total installation cost, using the following equation:
            Annualized
        Installation Cost
                                                                                                     i)
                                   (1 + i) " - 1
Where  V       is the cost of installation (assumed to be
                 limited to transportation  and assembly
                 costs),

        n        is the equipment life (10 years), and

        i        is the annual interest rate (6%).

Transportation costs to convey the system to the facility are
limited to trucking costs. Trucking charges include drivers
and are based on a 40,000 pound, 48-foot long, 8-foot high
legal load.  Ten  tractor/trailers are required'to transport the
5 tons/hr Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System;
12, 15, and 30  trailers are required to transport the larger
Bergmiann  USA Soil/Sediment Washing Systems (15,  25,
and  100 tons/hr, respectively).   A  1,000-mile basis is
assumed at a rate of $1.65/mile/legal load.

Assembly  consists  of  unloading  the  Bergmann  USA
Soil/Siediment Washing System from the trailers, assembling
the system and conducting shakedown testing to check out
each of the  individual subsystems.   Assembly costs  are
limited to a 40 ton crane rental charge, and labor charges.
Estimated rental rates for a 40  ton crane with an 8-foot
boom are $150/hr.  The crane is required 8 hours/day for
3 days  for the 5 tons/hr,  15 tons/hr ,  and  25 tons/hr
systems.   The crane  is  required for  5 days  for the  100
tons/hr system.   For  4 days, 2 shifts of 5 workers  are
required  for  16 hours a day (total) during the assembly
activities.  See "Labor Costs," Section 4.3.5.

Utility connections and auxiliary buildings necessary for the
Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System to operate
at a fixed  facility can be  very  expensive.  These  costs
depend on the fixed facility, and must be considered in site-
specific cost calculations.
4.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs

Permitting and regulatory costs are generally the obligation
of the, responsible party (or site owner), not that  of the
vendor.   These  costs may include actual  permit  costs,
system monitoring requirements, and the development of
monitoring  and  analytical  protocols.    Permitting  and
regulatory costs can vary greatly because they are site- and
waste-specific.   No  permitting costs are included in this
analysis, however depending on the treatment site, this may
be a significant factor since permitting activities can be very
expensive and time-consuming.
                                                        29

-------
 4.3.3  Equipment Costs

 Equipment costs include major pieces of equipment (attrition
 scrubber, clarifier, dense media separator, Derrick screen,
 trommel, separators, sumps, split deck, and rotary screen);
 purchased support equipment (none); and rental equipment
 (generator, front-end loader, bobcat).  Support equipment
 refers  to pieces of purchased equipment  necessary  for
 operation.  In  this  case, all support  equipment has been
 optionally rented.

 The Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System used
 during the Demonstration Tests was a  pilot-scale unit, with
 a maximum feed rate of about  5  tons/hr.  The equipment
 cost of this system is estimated at $1,200,000.  For the 15
 tons/hr system,  the  equipment  cost  is  approximately
 $2,410,000.  Full-scale (more than 20 tons/hr) systems are
 also available.   The  cost  for a  25 tons/hr system  is
 approximately $3,367,000.   For a 100 tons/hr system, the
 equipment  cost is  estimated  to  be   $7,500,000.   The
 annualized equipment cost is based on a 10-year life of the
 equipment and a 6% annual interest rate.  The annualized
 equipment cost is based upon the writeoff of the total initial
 capital  equipment cost and scrap value  [2,3] (assumed to be
 10% of the original equipment cost)  using  the following
 equation:
      Capical recovery-  (V -  Vt)
                                      id.
                                     (1 + i) " - 1
 Where  V       is the cost of the original equipment,
         V,      is the salvage value of the equipment,
         n       is the equipment life (10 years), and
         i        is the annual interest rate (6%) [2,3].
4.3.4  Startup and Fixed Costs

On-line training of the local  hires (feed and maintenance
operators) is  conducted by the supervisor and the lead
operator.     Training  is  assumed  to   be   conducted
simultaneously for all shifts  over  a  period of  13  8-hour
days.

For  each  project  for  which  the  Bergmann  USA
Soil/Sediment Washing System  is commissioned, a period
of 3 days is required for waste-specific testing of the system
prior to the commencement of treatment.   This includes
checking out each of the systems individually with respect
to the particular waste to  be treated.  Two shifts of 5
workers are required for a total of 16 hours a day during the
waste-specific equipment testing.  Actual  operating time
during this waste-specific testing will be 14 hours  a day.
Costs of initial equipment tests are limited to labor charges
(see "Labor Costs," Section 4.3.5).
 Working capital is the amount of money currently invested
 in supplies and consumables.  The working capital costs of
 supplies and consumables is based on  maintaining a one-
 month  inventory of these items.  (See "Supplies Costs,"
 Section 4.3.6. and "Consumables Costs," Section 4.3.7, for
 the specific amount of supplies and consumables required
 for  the  operation  of  the Bergmann USA  Soil/Sediment
 Washing System.  These quantities were used to determine
 the  amount of  supplies  and  consumables  required to
 maintain a one-month inventory of these items.)

 The annual costs of insurance and of taxes are usually
 approximately  1% and 2 to 4%  of the  total equipment
 capital costs, respectively. However, the cost of insurance
 of a hazardous waste process can be several times  more.
 For the purposes of this estimate, annual  insurance and taxes
 together are assumed to be 10% of the equipment capital
 costs [3],  These costs have been prorated  for the length of
 the project.

 The cost for the initiation of monitoring programs has not
 been included in this estimate.  Depending on the site and
 the location of the system, however, local authorities may
 impose specific guidelines for monitoring  programs.  The
 stringency and frequency of monitoring  required  may have
 significant impact on the project costs.

 An annual contingency cost of 10% of the equipment capital
 costs is  allowed for any unforeseen or  unpredictable cost
 conditions,  such  as  strikes,  storms,   floods,  and price
 variations  [3,4].   Contingency is also prorated for the
 duration of the project.
4.3.5  Labor Costs

Labor costs are limited to salaries along with airfare and per
diem for non-local personnel.  For  each  shift, required
personnel are estimated to be:  1  supervisor at $60/hr, 1
lead operator  at $50/hr,  1  feed  operator  at  $30/hr,  2
maintenance operators  at  $30/hr.  Two  shifts  will  be
required with an allotment of one hour for overlap between
shifts. Rates include overhead and administrative costs.
4.3.6 Supplies Costs

Based on data from previous operations, over a period that
reflects  operating conditions  similar to those experienced
during the Demonstration Tests, the costs for spare parts,
and office/general supplies that are actually used to process
each ton of waste using the 5 tons/hr system are estimated
at $6.   These costs drop to $4.75, $3.50, and $2.20 for
operation  of  the  15,   25,  and  100  tons/hr systems,
respectively.  Chemicals, also included in this cost category,
                                                       30

-------
  consist of surfactant and flocculant • for water treatment.
  During the Demonstration Tests, flocculant was used at a
  rate of less than I  pound per ton of waste fed; surfactant
  was used at a  rate of approximately 2 pounds per ton of
  waste fed.
 4.3.7  Consumables Costs

 Consumables required for the operation of the Bergmann
 USA Soil/Sediment Washing System are limited to diesel
 fuel, water, and electricity.  For the 5 tons/hr system, fuel
 consumption for operation is  limited to that used by the
 rented support equipment (i.e., the front-end loader and the
 bobcat).  The system may, if desired be operated via an on-
 board generator.  In this case, generator fuel (approximately
 8 gallons per hour) will be required.  The front-end loader
 utilizes approximately 2 gallons of diesel fuel per hour and
 the bobcat  requires approximately 1 gallon per hour.  The
 cost of diesel fuel varies with current market value but  is
 assumed  to be $1/gallon.

 Although large amounts of water pass through the process,
 much of this water is recycled, thereby reducing potentially
 high costs for water supply.  For the purposes of the cost
 calculations, a 2-inch meter was assumed.   For a 2-inch
 meter, a base  allowance of 30,000  cubic  feet (cO per
 quarter exists. Once this  allowance is exceeded, additional
 charges are assessed.  The following water rates,  available
 for commercial   use  in  Bay  City,  Michigan are  used
 assuming a 2-inch meter:

  •     base charge per quarter               $272
  •     meter-reading charge per quarter        $36
  •     charge per cf beyond base allowance      $0.014

 The Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System utilized
 during the Demonstration Tests was a mobile facility that
 operated  using  a generator to  supply-electric  power.
 However, long term operations greater than 4 months justify
 the use of electricity from the local power company.  The
 5 tons/far  unit requires approximately 150 kW (300 kW for
 the 15 tons/hr, 600 kW for the 25 tons/hr, and 1,800 kW
 for the 100 tons/hr systems.)  The electricity rates from the
 local power company in Bay City, Michigan are as follows:

  •     base charge per month                  $5.96
  *     charge per kilowatt-hour                $0.0826
4.3.8  Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs

One effluent stream is anticipated from the Bergmann USA
Soil/Sediment  Washing  System.   This  is  the  clarifier
underflow generated by the system.   The effluent  is
 anticipated to be non-hazardous and suitable for disposal in
 the local sewer system, therefore, no treatment or disposal
 costs exist for the effluent stream. The fines and the humic
 fraction generated • by the  process are  assumed  to be
 residuals;  see "Residuals and  Waste Shipping,  Handling,
 and Transport Costs, "Section 4.3.9.
 4.3.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling and
       Transport Costs

 Waste disposal costs include storage, transportation, and
 treatment costs and are assumed to be the obligation of the
 responsible party (or site owner).   It is assumed that the
 only residual or solid wastes generated from this process are
 the fines and the humic fraction.  Since the*Bergmann USA
 Soil/Sediment  Washing  System  isolates and  concentrates
 contaminants into a reduced  volume of hazardous waste
 without actually treating the feed material, these residuals
 may  require treatment such as  incineration prior to their
 ultimate disposal.   The  cost for incineration  and disposal
 may range  from $200 up  to  $1,000 per 55-gallon drum.
 Landfill is the anticipated ultimate disposal method for these
 materials.   Transportation  costs  must also be considered.
 Rates are generally  in the vicinity of $3,000 for a full  truck
 load and $1,500 for a half truck load.
4.3.1CI  Analytical Costs

Standard operating procedures for Bergmann USA include
collection and analysis of 4-hour composite samples from
three different streams (the fines,  the humic fraction, and
the wijshed coarse  fraction) four times each day.  This
results in the collection and analysis of 12 samples per day.
Each analysis costs approximately $100.   Periodic  spot
checks may also be executed at Bergmann USA's discretion
to verify that  equipment is performing properly and that
specified criteria  are being met.   Additionally, the client
may elect, or  may be required  by  local authorities,  to
initiate an independent sampling and analytical program at
their own expense.

The  analytical   costs  associated  with  environmental
monitoring have not been included in this estimate due to
the fact that monitoring programs are not typically initiated
by  Bergmann  USA.   Local  authorities may,  however,
impose  specific  sampling and  monitoring criteria whose
analytical requirements could contribute significantly to the
cost of the project.
                                                       31

-------
4.3.II  Facility Modification, Repair and Replacement
        Costs

Maintenance labor and materials costs vary with the nature
of the waste and  the performance of the equipment.  For
estimating  purposes,  total  maintenance costs (labor and
materials) are assumed to be 10% of the equipment costs on
an annual basis. The  ratio of labor costs to materials costs
is typically 40:60. Maintenance labor has previously been
accounted  for under  "Labor  Costs,"  Section   4.3.5;
maintenance materials costs are  estimated at 60%  of the
total annual maintenance costs and prorated for the time
required for  treatment.   Costs for design adjustments,
facility modifications,  and  equipment replacement  are
included here.
4.3.12 Site Restoration Costs

Site cleanup and restoration is limited to the removal of all
excavation  equipment from the site.  Filling, grading or
recompaction requirements of the soil will vary depending
on  the future use of the site and  are  assumed  to be the
obligation of the responsible party.
References

1. Test  Methods  for  Evaluating  Solid  Waste,  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Office  of Solid
     Waste and Emergency Response.  U.S. Government
     Printing Office: Washington,  D.C., November 1986,
     SW-846, Third Edition, Volume IB.

2. Douglas,  James  M.   Conceptual Design of Chemical
     Processes; McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York, 1988.

3. Peters, Max S.; Timmerhaus, Klaus D. Plant Design
     and Economics for Chemical Engineers; Third Edition;
     McGraw-Hill, Inc.:  New York, 1980.

4. Garrett, Donald E.  Chemical Engineering Economics;
     Van Nostrand Reinhold:  New York; 1989.
                                                      32

-------
                                                Appendix A

                                           Process Description
 A.I  Process Overview

 The basic concept of soils and  sediment washing may be
 envisioned by viewing  the contaminated deposit as an ore
 body and the contaminants as the "valuable constituent."  As
 such, the barge-mounted Bergmann USA plant incorporates
 a wide  range of standard  mineral  processing and ore
 enrichment unit operations that  can be brought on-line or
 taken  off-line as  required to remove these  contaminants
 effectively.  This flexibility  thus allows for  "customized"
 site- and/or contaminant-specific unit operations required for
 full-scale remediation at each site where it is employed.

 The  process  flow  diagram for the Bergmann   USA
 Soil/Sediment   Washing   System   used   during   the
 Demonstration Tests is  shown in Figure A-l.

 A.2  Process Description

 Unprocessed soil or sediment is  retrieved from a stockpile
 by a front-end loader. The loader empties its bucket into an
 8-foot x  8-foot feed hopper. This hopper is designed to
 cope  with the viscous character of the feed  material and
 deliver a particle,  nominally two inches in size, maximum.
 From the feeder module, material is transferred on a series
 of 24-inch wide conveyor belt to the head box of a rotary
 trommel screen. The first conveyor belt is equipped with a
 belt  scale  to monitor the amount of  material fed to the
 system.

 The  trommel unit is an inclined, rotating cylinder that is
 three  feet  in  diameter  and twelve  feet   long.    The
unprocessed soil or sediment  is fed into the high end of the
 trommel.  The unit contains two  distinct zones:  the first is
a washing/deagglomeration zone, and the second is a sizing
zone.  As feed material enters the trommel headbox, it is
combined with  the overflow water from  a  downstream
cyclone separator (approximately  100 gpm).  From the
headbox,  the slurry moves into the washing zone of the
trommel where it is tumbled with the aid of lifter bars that
run parallel to the long axis of the unit.  Water  sprays inside
 the trommel to further deagglomerate and slurry the dredged
 material.  When the slurry reaches the sec*ond zone in the
 trommel,  it is presented to a profile wire screen  to effect a
 6-mm cut.  Material coarser than 6 mm is discharged out
 the end of the trommel and collected in a drum.  Water and
 material less than 6 mm falls through the profile screen and
 is collected in a 450-gallon sump.

 A 2-inch X 2-inch Linatex Model SC horizontal centrifugal
 slurry pump is connected to this sump.  This pump is lined
 with  Linatex  natural  rubber to ensure long  life when
 handling abrasive slurries. The drive  on this slurry pump
 (along with three other identical pumps on the plant) is a
 standard 7.5 HP, 1750 RPM, TEFC motor connected to a
 variable pitch V-Belt setup.   The duty of  this pump is to
 deliver a  nominal   130  gpm  of   slurry  containing
 approximately 15% solids by weight to the first cyclone.

 In order  to minimize water usage while  simultaneously
 utilizing several stages of washing through  the  cyclone
 separators, die  Bergmann USA plant  was  designed  to
 operate in a countercurrent scenario.  The soil moves in one
 direction through the plant, and the water moves in the
 opposite direction.  In this manner, the washing potential of
 the process is maximized.  Overflow from the third cyclone
 separator  is used as dilution water to the  second  cyclone
 separator, and similarly, overflow from the second cyclone
 separator is introduced to the trommel feed  for ultimate use
 in the first cyclone separator.

 The cyclone separators used in the Bergmann USA plant are
 9-inch  diameter  Linatex  Separators.    They include  a
 tangential  feed entry, a continuous length of overflow pipe
 that breaks to atmosphere several feet below the  cyclone
 apex, and an underflow regulator. These features enable the
units  to provide a  consistently dense  underflow (coarse)
product regardless of variations  in the feed slurry solids
content.  This  greatly reduces the bypass  of unclassified
 material  to  the  underflow.    The   density (or  solids
concentration) of the underflow slurry is regulated by the
balancing of forces  between a vacuum  created by the long
overflow pipe and the weight of solids that accumulate in
                                                      33

-------
 the underflow regulator below the spigot. An air bleed is
 provided on the overflow pipe to allow on-line adjustment
 of the underflow solids  concentration.   Because of these
 distinctions from a standard cyclone, these units are referred
 to as separators.

 The first stage separator is fed from the #1 pump via a 2-
 inch diameter slurry hose.  Inlet pressure at the separator is
 7  to 10 psi.   The coarse  fraction exiting  the separator
 underflow  is directed to a Linatex Dense Media Separator
 (DMS) Hydrosizer". The DMS is a rectangular-shaped tank
 with approximate dimensions of 2 feet  x 2 feet  x 16 feet
 tall. Water is injected near the base of the DMS at 30 gpm,
 thus creating an upward current.  As the solid particles
 exiting the Separator 1 meet this rising current,  a teetered
 bed  of soils (analogous to a quick sand) begins to form.
 Control of the  density of  this  bed  is maintained via a
 differential pressure cell (located on  the  side of the tank)
 that acts together with a pneumatic controller and underflow
 valve.  As the density of the bed rises above a set point, the
 DMS underflow valve opens to purge some solids from the
 tank. Conversely, as the density of the sand bed drops, the
underflow valve responds by closing down and restricting
solids from exiting the tank.  This bed of sand  thus acts as
an autogenous  dense media that allows the operator to
remove light organic particles (specific gravity < 1.6) from
the sand fraction.  Removal  of these organics is important
because this fraction of material generally acts as a primary
host to contaminants.

The sand that exits the*DMS is directed, by gravity, to an
attrition  scrubbing machine.   This unit  receives the sand
fraction at a high solids concentration (normally 65 to 755?
solids by weight) and, through a series of rotating impellers,
acts to remove surficial contaminants on the  sand grains.
The particular unit in this demonstration plant consists of
three chambers, each equipped with three impellers that
rotate at a nominal tip speed of 800 rpm.  Retention time
within the machine is about  15 minutes at a feed rate of 5
tons/hr dry solids.  In order to aid the scrubbing process,
various reagents such as surfactants or pH mfidifiers may be
added to the feed of the attrition cell.  Discharge from the
attrition cell is sent (by gravity) to Sump 2.

Sump 2 is a 450-gallon tank that receives material from the
attrition cell (or directly from the DMS when the attrition
cell is bypassed) as well as dilution water from the overflow
of the third  separator.   From this sump,  the  slurry  is
pumped  to the  second stage separator  for separation of
fines. Underflow (sand fraction) from the second separator
                                                                                          HUMIC FRACTION > 0 
-------
 is sent, by gravity, to Sump 3.  This sump receives clarified
 process water from the  inclined  plate clarifier overflow.
 From here, the slurry is pumped (through a 2-inch X 2-inch
 slurry  pump  and 2-inch  diameter hose) to the third stage
 separator  for final  hydraulic  separation  of  fines.   The
 underflow from  the third separator falls by gravity on.to a
 dewatering screen in order to produce a material which is
 suitable for discharge onto a 24-inch wide conveyor belt.

 The dewatering screen used in this plant is a model VD-6
 Linatex-Velco screen.  It is 2-feet x  7-feet and inclined 5
 degrees from the feed  end up  to  the discharge end.  The
 screen  is powered by two counter-rotating vibratory motors
 to effect a nominal 6 mm stroke at 900 RPM.  The screen
 deck is a profile  wire system with 0.25 mm slots that yield
 an open area  of approximately  13%.  Along its length, the
 screen  surface is divided  by a polyurethane wall. On one
 side of this wall, sand from Separator 3 is dewatered.  On
 the  opposite side of the wall, the organic fraction recovered
 by  the unit operations is dewatered and conveyed  to a
 discharge chute.

 As previously mentioned, organic matter is removed from
 the  system by the DMS.   However,  organics  are  also
 removed  to  a lesser degree by  the separators.  In  the
 separators, classification mechanism is ultimately tied into
 the  settling velocity of  the particles through the liquid
 medium.  Therefore, low  gravity organics tend to go to the
 separator overflow along  with fine sand and clay fraction.
 The organics that appear in the overflow of Separator 1 are
 removed by passing the overflow slurry through a rotating
 wire mesh  screen. The rotating screen, known as a Linatex
 Rotary  Velmet screen, is equipped with 0.5 mm X 0.5 mm
 wire mesh cloth.  It revolves at a speed of 1  RPM.  The
 overflow from Separator  1 is directed to the inside of the
 revolving cylinder.  Water and fine solids pass through the
 wire surface.  The organics, which are typically fibrous in
 morphology, are  trapped on the surface of the wire mesh.
 As the  screen revolves, the organics are washed from the
 screen surface via a spray bar located  on the outside of the
 cylinder. The organics and wash water fall into a chute that
 directs the  stream to the Linatex-Velco dewatering screen.
 Prior to reporting to the  dewatering  screen, the overs
 (humic and coarse fraction) from the DMS are also screened
 on a 2-foot X  3-foot Derrick vibrating screen.  This allows
 recapture of any fine sand which will inevitably report to the
 overflow of the DMS. Again, the Derrick screen overs are
 dropped directly onto the Linatex-Velco dewatering screen.
 Unders  (fines) from both the Derrick screen  and   the
 Linatex-Velco  screen fall  by  gravity to  Sump 3   (or
optionally Sump 2) for recombining with the sand fraction.

The  fine fraction and water pass through the Rotary Velmet
screen flow by gravity  to Sump 4.  From this sump,  the
slurry is pumped via a 2-inch X 2-inch pump into a Linatex
Model 4C2-400  Clarifier.   To  aid in c/arificafion,  me
effluent from the classification plant is dosed with polymer
flocculants.  (During the  Demonstration Test  -Percol 720
from  Allied Colloids was used as the flocculant.)   Sludge
containing approximately  15%  solids is pumped out from
the clarifier at timed intervals to a receiving tank.  Overflow
from the clarifier may be recycled back  into the process.
                                                       35

-------
                                                 Appendix B

                                             Vendor's Claims
 This  appendix  summarizes  the claims  made  by  the
 developer,  Bergmann USA, regarding the  Soil/Sediment
 Washing Technology, the technology under  consideration.
 This  appendix  was  generated  and  written  solely  by
 Bergmann  USA. and the statements presented  herein
 represent the vendor's point of view.  Publication here does
 not represent the USEPA's approval or endorsement of the
 statements made in this section; the USEPA's point of view
 is discussed in the body of this report.
 B.I  Introduction

 The primary objective of the operation of a soils washing
 system is to process contaminated soil to remove metals,
 radioactivity, or organic contaminants from soil  particles
 greater than 63 microns (230 mesh) to acceptable  cleanup,
 or release  levels.   Soils/sediment  washing  is  a waste
 minimization and volumetric reduction process in support of
 remediation activities at Super fund, RCRA, ACOE, DOD
 and DOE sites. The goal of this process is to separate clean
 coarse  material  from contaminated  fines  for  further
 processing by others.
B.2  Proposed Technology/Approach

B.2.1  The Bergmann Soil/Sediment Washing Process

Soil and  sediment  washing is  an aqueous/water-based,
volume reduction process whereby hazardous contaminants
are extracted and concentrated into a small residual portion
of the original volume using physical and chemical methods.
The process concept involves transfer of the contaminants
from  the  soil  or sediment  to the washwater and  their
subsequent removal from the water. Cleaned coarse sand
and gravel portions of the  treated  soil/sediment  may  be
redeposited  on  site or  otherwise beneficially  used  as
construction fill material, concrete and asphalt aggregate, or
daily landfill cover.  The small volume of contaminated
residual  concentrate  is  subsequently  treated  by  other
 destructive, immobilization, or disposal technologies such
 as:

  •  incineration
  •  chemical  extraction
  •  biodegradation
  •  vitrification
  •  low temperature thermal desorption
  •  dechlorination
  •  solidification/stabilization
  •  regulated disposal

 The physical  techniques  that have been employed by the
 Bergmann  technology  have included crushing, screening,
 wet  classification,  attrition   scrubbing,   dense   media
 separation, heavy media separation, elutriation, dissolved air
 flotation, gravity separation  and mechanical  dewatering.
 Associated   chemical   additives   include  detergents,
 surfactants,   chelating  agents,   solvents,   coagulants,
 flocculants and pH  adjustment.
B.2.2  Applications

The Bergmann  USA  technology has  been successfully
applied for full-scale treatment and remediation of organic
and inorganic contaminated material  occurring not only at
hazardous waste sites, but within bays,  harbor and  river
areas.  Bergmann USA provides clients with state-of-the-art
pilot-scale (250 kg/day) or full-scale (10 to 50+  tons/hr)
soils/sediments washing systems for utilization as the
primary  feedstock  preparation   system  and  volumetric
reduction step prior to treatment, regulated destruction or
disposal of the contaminated fines.

The process  is an  effective  and  economical  remedial
technology when the contaminated soil or sediment contains
no more that 40% silt and clay material smaller  than 63
micron (230 mesh). Solid organic material  (leaves, twigs,
roots, wood chips, etc.) should not exceed  approximately
20% by volume.
                                                       36

-------
 Typical  hazardous contaminant groups which have  been
 effectively (90% +) removed from coarse soil and sediment
 fractions include:

   •  Petroleum/heavy fuel residuals
   •  Heavy metals
   •  PCPs (i.e. creosote)
   •  Cyanides/Sul fides
   •  Radioactive contaminants
   •  PCBs
   •  Pesticides
 B.2.3  Effectiveness

 Contaminant extraction efficiencies of 90 to 99% have been
 achieved by employing Bergmann commercial soil washing
 systems. Cleanup performance is in all cases site-specific,
 and dependent  upon the  particular physical and chemical
 properties  of the  contaminated soil  or  sediment.    A
 laboratory treatability study is an essential first step.  On
 occasion,  on-site tests  are  conducted  using mobile or
 transportable Bergmann 250 kg/day pilot plant equipment.
 B.2.4  Waste Minimization

 Soils  and  sediment  washing  can  make an  important
 contribution  to  waste  minimization  when  used  for
 pretreatment  in conjunction with  other destructive  or
 immobilizing processes.  Normally, this process results in
 the concentration of hazardous contaminants into a residual
 (<63-micron) product representing only 10 to 30% of the
 original volume.   The  washed  (decontaminated)  coarse
 fractions  (>63  microns), representing 70 to 90% of the
 original volume,  can either be  redeposited on site  or
 otherwise beneficially used.
B.2.5  Produces an Enriched, Homogeneous Feed for
       Downstream Processes

The residual contaminant concentrates produced  from the
soils/sediment washing operations provide a highly efficient
feedstock  for  downstream  or   "trained"   destructive,
immobilization,  or disposal technologies such as:

 •  incineration
 •  ion exchange
 •  biodegradation
 •  vitrification
 •  low temperature thermal desorption
 •  chemical dechlorination
 •  solidification/stabilization
 •  regulated disposal
 The performance of such ultimate treatment technologies can
 be substantially enhanced by the use of a Bergmann washing
 system which produces a preprocessed feedstock, uniform
 size (<63 microns).  "Difficult-to-process" oversized  and
 debriis fractions are thereby eliminated, and a homogeneous
 contaminant  matrix blending highly concentrated "spikes"
 with portions of "non-detect" material is produced.
 B.2.6  Cost Effectiveness

 On-site soil washing  is a highly cost effective remedial
 option.*1 Typical comparisons are given below fora clean-up
 project  involving  50,000  cubic  yards  of soil/sediment
 contaminated with PCBs. The following illustrative example
 assumes that residuals requiring further treatment or disposal
 are 15% of the original volume processed.
 Destruction by
 Incineration Only
  (50.000 yd')
  $50,000,000

 Disposal in a RCRA
 designated landfill
  (50,000 yd3)
  $12,500,000

 Destruction by
 Dechlorination
   (50,000 yd3)
   $11,500,000

 Solidification/
 stabilization with
 off-site landfill storage
   (50,000 yd3)
   $8,000,000
 Soil Wash Pretreatment
 with incineration of
 residuals
   $12,250,000

 Soil Wash Pretreatment
 with landfill disposal of
 residuals
   $6,625,000

 Soil Wash Pretreatment
 w/dechlorination of
 fines
   $6,475,000

 Soil Wash Pretreatment
with solidification/
stabilization of residuals
with off-site landfill storage
 $5,950,000
Unit Costs Used for Comparisons:                 Per yd3

Incineration - including residual removal and
        haulage costs                             $1,000

RCRA Landfill - including excavation, haulage
        and tipping costs                         $ 250

Chemical  Dechlorination                          $ 230

Solidification/stabilization with disposal
        at an off-site location                     $ 160

Soil Washing Pretreatment  - excluding
        excavation                                $  95
                                                       37

-------
  B.2.7  Community & User Acceptance

  Soils washing is a safe,  non-offensive, publicly accepted
  technology which is not viewed  with the multitude of
  community concerns associated with incineration and large-
  scale hazardous landfill operations.

  On-site  treatment has become  a highly desirable option
  owing to the much higher costs of transportation for off-site
  treatment, minimization of long term  liabilities, negative
  community response  to offensive large-scale trucking, and
  the  benefit which can be realized  from backfilling the
  washed  (clean) material  in  the  area from  which it  was
  excavated.
 B.2.8 Commercial Scale Systems

 Bergmann  BV (Holland) is the world's leading company in
 the field of soils and sediment washing technology, having
 designed and fabricated  eighteen  full-scale, commercial
 installations  ranging  in  size from 5  to  350  tons/hr.
 Bergmann  USA has been established as the soils/sediment
 washing and volumetric reduction technology center for all
 North American projects.  Bergmann USA has provided two
 10 tons/hr  transportable systems and a 250 kg/day mobile
 pilot  plant  for  radioactive  applications;  additionally,
 Bergmann  USA  is fabricating  a  new  10 tons/hr  soils
 washing plant for a lead battery Superfund site remedial
 project.   Our staff  includes  internationally  recognized
 specialists in the field.
 B.2.9  Rapid Mobilization/Demobilization

 Bergmann skid-mounted, transportable equipment modules
 (or trailer-mounted pilot-scale mobile units) can be readily
 placed on-site and easily moved to the next project location.
 Of the twenty full-scale Bergmann plants in operation today,
 ten exclusively process contaminated harbor, river, lake,
 canal, and bay sediments.  A number of these plants are on
 floating barge platforms allowing for close  proximity to
 dredge operations.

 Bergmann  transportable,   full-scale,  treatment   systems
 consist  of equipment  modules  which  can  be  readily
 transported from site-to-site.  Special attention is given to
 ease of mobilization and  decommissioning following  the
 completion of a project.   Modules are pre-piped and pre-
 wired with quick interconnections.  A Bergmann engineer
and technician provide technical assistance with the erection,
start-up and on-site training of operators.  Mobilization and
assembly of a 25  to 50 tons/hr Bergmann  plant can be
 typically accomplished in 7 to  10 working days following
 completion of site preparation activities.

 The complete erection and assembly of the modularized
 Bergmann 10 tons/hr-plant aboard the U.S.  Army Corps of
 Engineers'  (USAGE)  120'  x  33'  barge  for the  PCB
 sediment washing demonstration  in the  Saginaw  River
 required   four   days.      Total   plant   disassembly.
 decontamination and off-site demobilization required four
 days.

 The  Bergmann  soil  and  sediment  technology  utilizes
 standardized  "modules"  which  can be  incorporated  or
 deleted from a full-scale remedial operation based upon site-
 specific material and contaminant characteristics. Examples
 of specific modules which  are interchangeable  within the
 basic system configuration are:

 1.  Dual Step  Grizzly Bar Screen   -   classification.
         separation and removal  of + 2" oversized debris
         material from raw  feed;

 2.  Tramp Metal  Separator   -  removal of ferrous tramp
         iron and steel from  +3/g" feed material;

 3.  Rotary Trommel  Screen  -  system utilized for initial
         break-up   and   deagglomeration   of   lumpy
         contaminated  soil  fractions.   Primary  feed  is
         approximately  2" with  screened  coarse  product
         fractions occurring at +3/8";

4.  Oil & Grease Separation System  - concentration and
         removal  of  light  and  heavy  hydrocarbon  oil
         products from wastewater system for separate
        concentration and disposal;

5.  Attrition Scrubbing Module  -  a high energy  unit
        process operation which contacts -3/8" contaminated
         material with chemical wash additives to effectively
        solubilize  appropriate  contaminants  and   to
         "deslime" or mobilize the highly contaminated fines
        (<74 micron [200 mesh]) material.  The attrition
        cells function at a 75 - 80 % solids content;

6.  Dense Media Separator  Module  -  for separation and
        removal of vegetative and marine organic materials
        (leaves, twigs,  roots, wood chips,  plants, shells,
        etc.) based upon differential  specific gravities;

7.  Cyclone  Separator   Units   -    a high   efficiency
        solids/liquid flash separation device utilized for the
        desliming (<  74 microns clay silt and colloidal
        material)  from  coarse  (sand  and gravel)  soils
        fractions.   Unit operates with no internal  moving
        parts on the basis of differential specific gravities
                                                        38

-------
         of light and heavy media.  Units deliver a coarse
         underflow of  approximately  70 to 75% solids
         regardless of influent solids loading concentrations.
 8.  Reverse Slope Dewatering, Module  -  a high frequency
         mineral screen assembly specifically designed for
         final rinsing, dewatering, desliming and removal of
         very fine material from mineral slurries.  Each unit
         utilizes snap-in, modular screen  deck panels and
         replaceable,  bolt-in, side liner plates.

 9.  Washwater Clarifier Treatment Module   - a compact
         water  treatment system  specifically  designed  for
         flocculation/sedi mentation and gravity separation of
         fine (<74  micron) contaminated clay,  silt and
         colloidal materials.   System  utilizes a  quiescent
         settling zone for preliminary sludge densification
         prior to remove by a screw auger conveyor.  Unit
         incorporates  a pH  adjustment system and polymer
         mix tank and chemical feed pump for coagulation
         operations.

 10.  Dissolved Air Flotation Module - for  the precipitation,
         flocculation and removal of dissolved heavy metal
         hydroxide fractions from wastewater;

 11.  Sludge  Densifier   -   gravity  conditioner  to bring
         residual solids content within sludge to a maximum
         of   30%   to  35%   for  subsequent   residual
         management  technologies' requiring a thickened
         slurry  feed,  such  as:   biodegradation;  chemical
         extraction; or solidification/stabilization;

 12.  Continuous  Belt  Filter   -    module for continuous
         dewatering operation of mineral  (<  63 micron)
         sludges and intermittent metal hydroxide Dissolved
         Air Flotation scum dewatering.   Solids content of
         filter cakes will range from 60-70% solids.

Bench-scale treatability evaluations are critical in not only
identifying applicable chemical additives for wash solutions,
but  also identified  which  critical unit process operation
treatment module  needs to be  included in a  full-scale
remedial system.
B.2.10  Key Bench-Scale Treatability Modules

The bench-scale operation of key system unit operations
provides for a reasonably accurate estimate as to how a pilot
and/or full  scale remedial  system should  behave.   Key
elements of the bench soils washing technology are particle
size 'separation  operations  (high frequency  screening),
trommel washing and deagglomeration, attrition scrubbing,
 elutriation.  sedimentation,  flocculation,
 flotation and fines dewaterinc.
dissolved  air
 B.2.11  Integration/Linkages to Other Technologies
                       IT

 As stated previously, the Bergmann soil/sediment technology
 is not a stand alone  remedial operation.  Where applicable,
 it is intended  to  be  a  waste  minimization, volumetric
 reduction, feedstock preparation, pre-treatment step for a
 subsequent   destructive,   immobilization   or   disposal
 technology.   Bergmann works very closely with the client
 and  other selected  technology vendors  in providing them
 with an  "enriched,"  homogenous feedstock material  for
 subsequent   innovative   treatment   or   immobilization
 e%ralual:ions.
 B.2.12  Beneficial Recycle/Reuse of Process Products

 As has been stated previously, the washed, "clean," >63-
 micron coarse sediment fractions (gravel & sand), typically
 can be  reused  as fill  material  directly to the  original
 excavation,  or beneficially  reused as  a clean,  graded
 construction  foundation  material,  or  Hanford  on-site
 concrete/asphalt sand aggregates.
B.2.13 Technology Familiarization, Environmental
         Assessment and Track Record

Bergmann has designed, constructed, and delivered 20 full-
scale soil and sediment  washing  plants:  18 throughout
Europe, ranging in size from 10 to 350 tons/hour; and two
additional plants were delivered within North America.  In
October 1991 a 10 tons/hr plant was shipped to the Toronto
Harbour Commission and a  10 tons/hr sediment washing
plant was  installed  for the  USACE  at  Saginaw  Bay,
Michigan.
B.2.14 Process Flow Schematic, Emission Controls and
        Sampling Points

The control, collection and treatment of fugitive dusts and
emissions has been readily accomplished  in the 10 tons/hr
Bergmann  USA system operated at the Toronto  Harbour
Soils Recycling Project through the engineered application
of  covers  and  shroud assemblies  incorporated  into the
conveyor, hopper bin, and tank designs along with a 5,000
scfm large volume air handling systems into Calgon Vapor
Pack  10 Adsorbers containing 12,000 pounds of activated
carbon.
                                                       39

-------
The primary concerns  with the handling of contaminated
soils are two-fold: I) worker exposure,  and 2) downwind,
off-site community exposure.  Radionuclide and chemical
constituents which exhibit moderate to high volatility are of
principal  concern.   During  excavation/removal  of  the
contaminated matrix, the majority of the anticipated release
of these low vapor pressure  materials will occur prior to
preliminary  screening  and  soil/sediment  washing  and
processing.

The USEPA  has  issued a  report evaluating numerous
techniques for the control and treatment of fugitive dusts
and emissions in the handling and treatment of contaminated
soils  from Superfund  sites.   Preliminary  wetting  or
"fogging" of dry contaminated soils during excavation will
effectively  suppress  the  majority  of volatile   organic
chemicals  and  virtually  any  associated  "dusting"  and
blowing of inorganic fine fractions.    Obviously, during
dredging operations, the contaminated  sediments are totally
saturated,  thereby  negating any possibility of  dusting
occurring.

Semi-volatile and non-volatile organic  chemicals (i.e., oils,
greases, diesel  fuels) pose  little  to no environmental or
health threat to the site workers or the off-site community
at large.  Due to their inherently low vapor pressure, little
to no volatilization is generally detected. All volatilization
rates are temperature dependent.   The colder the ambient
operational temperature,  the less volatilization will occur.

Control methods that have been and are being applied, when
required, in the soils and sediment washing system,  involve
the  covering  or  shrouding of  piles,  bins,  hoppers,
conveyors,  and tanks.   These subcomponent systems  are
then negatively vented through the application of explosion-
proof  induced  draft air fans.  Any volatile emissions or
nuisance vapors  are totally collected and  drawn  through
granular, vapor phase, activated carbon  packs or canisters.
Once  the  carbon has  been exhausted  or experiences
"breakthrough,"  it can  be removed from  the system  for
either  on-site or off-site regeneration and then placed back
into service.

For  extremely  toxic or dusty  materials (i.e.,  dioxin,
radionuclides)  high  efficiency  particulate  air  (HEPA)
systems have been very successfully  applied in full  scale
remedial operations.

A final alternative to fugitive volatile  emission and dust
control is the erection of a temporary  structure over either
the excavation site,  treatment system, or both.   These
temporary  buildings can be  either of sheet  metal,  (i.e.,
Bulter Buildings),  or a supported  fabric,  internal frame
design structure, (i.e.,  Rubb or Sprung Structures).  The
building can then be negatively vented through a  vapor
collection/treatment  system.

Each  site must he assessed  for fugitive vapor and dust
emissions through a Jong-term  ambient  air  monitoring
program.  This is accomplished  through the positioning ot
long-term (24-hour) air sampling stations around the site and
at the face of the contaminated  soil/sediment excavation.
Once adequate  data is obtained to identify primary volatile
chemical  constituents and their concentrations,  properly
sized vapor/dust emission collection and control systems can
be  readily  incorporated  into  the site-specific remedial
technology design and operating procedures.
                                                        40

-------
                                               Appendix C

                                     Site Demonstration  Results
This  section  summarizes  the  results  of  the   SITE
demonstration of the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing
Technology  as  they pertain  to the evaluation  of  the
developer's claims.  These results are further discussed in
Section 3 of this  report.  A more detailed account of the
demonstration  is  found  in the companion  Technology
Evaluation Report.

Bergmann   USA  claims  that their  technology,   the
Soil/Sediment Washing  system, can separate 90%  of the
<45-micron particle size fraction from  the bulk  feed
material. These tests were conducted to evaluate this claim.
Additionally,  the  tests were  devised to  determine  the
distribution of organic contaminants (PCBs) and of inorganic
contaminants  (metals  detected  using USEPA  SW-846
Method 6010 and mercury) in all input and  output streams.
Therefore, the results of these tests focus primarily on the
particle size distribution, the  PCB distribution, and  the
metals distribution in the output streams.

The demonstration activities consisted of two separate tests
using the  same feed soil throughout.  The  tests were
identical except Test 2 investigated  the effect of using
surfactant while otherwise operating  in the same fashion.
Sampling of all process input and output streams was carried
out in accordance with the Demonstration Plan [1].  Some
minor modifications to the sampling plan were implemented
in the  field  during the tests.   These  modifications  are
detailed in Section 5 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
The tables presented in this section provide a summary of
the Demonstration Test data.  Daily averages are presented
for each stream.  For all streams except S2, information
presented for each day is an average of at least eight data
points (1 sample per hour, 8 hours per  day.)  The data
presented for S2 is an average of at least two  data points
since S2 was only  sampled twice  per day (one 4-hour
composite in the morning and one 4-hour composite sample
in  the  afternoon).     In  order to  provide  the  most
representative information, the averages and 95 % confidence
intervals presented for Test 1 have been calculated using all
available data (at least  forty data points  for all  streams
except S2 where at least ten data points were utilized), and
thus may not directly correspond to the averages of the four
data points presented for Days 1  through 4 in the tables.
All available data points for Days 1 through 5 were  used for
the calculation of the  overall averages presented in the
tables.
C.I  Solids Balance

The solids balance is presented in Table C-l.  The total
closure  for the solids balance in Test 1 was  106%.  The
range was 101 to 115%.  The value for Test 2 was 103%.
The objective for total solids balance was 85 to 115%.
C.2 Particle Size Separation

Particle size separation was determined for  all input and
output streams.  Specifically, information was collected to
delineate the amount of material <45 microns in size for
each strisam.  Table C-2 presents a summary of the percent
of each stream that was <45 microns.  (See Figure 1 for
the locations of  each of the streams and their appropriate
sampling locations.)

The Test 1 input feed soil was comprised of approximately
21.4%  <45-micron  particles  with  a 95%  confidence
interval of 19.8  to 23.1 %.  For Test 2, the input feed soil
was approximately 29.0% <45-micron particles.  Particles
in this  <45-micron range were detected in  the following
output streams:  the rotary trommel screen oversize (S2),
the huniic  fraction  (S5), the washed coarse  fraction (S6),
and the clarifier  underflow or fines (S7).

During both tests, the majority of the particles in the < 45-
micron range were in the fines, S7, as expected.  During
Test  1, an average of approximately 94.4%  (confidence
interval of 93.1 to 95.6%) of this stream was  <45 microns.
During Test 2, fines were also approximately 94.4%  <45
                                                      41

-------
 Table C-l.  Solids Dry Mass Balance Data




Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Test 2*
(Day 5)
Mass In
(Ibs)
Sf


48,600
44,600
47,400
55,100
48,900
45,500


S2


4,730
4,360
5,490
13,600
7,050
8,810


S5


252
272
245
297
267
305
Mass Out
(Ibs)
S6


41,000
37,100
42S,500
43,700
41,100
34,000


S7


3,340
3.170
2,360
5,640
3.630
3,630


Total


49,300
44,900
50,600
63,300
52,000
46,700
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass
Balance (%)

101
101
107
115
106
103
  Overall Average^
  (Days 1-5)
48,200
7,400
274
39,700
3,630
51,000
106
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
t  Calculated using all available data point for Days 1  through 4.
$  Calculated using all available data point for Days 1  through 5.
microns.
Table C-2 shows that particles <45 microns in size (fines)
were also found in the rotary trommel screen oversize, S2,
during  both tests (an  average of approximately  34.5%
                                   during Test 1 and approximately 41.9% during Test 2).
                                   This occurrence  was  not anticipated;  the presence  of
                                   particles  <45 microns in this stream is undesired.  Better
                                   separation of the fines from the  trommel oversize may  be,
                                   achieved  by  the  addition of a log washer  or similar
                                   deagglomeration unit operation.
Table C-2. Particle Size Analysis Summary (% <45 microns)**
_ , Rotary Trommel
Feed . ~ .
Screen Oversize

Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Lower 95% Confidence Intervalf
Upper 95% Confidence Interval f
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Overall Average (Days 1-5)$
SI

24.6
21.8
17.4
22.0
21.4
19.8
23.1
29.0
22.9
S2

27.9
34.3
36.0
39.8
34.5
30.0
38.9
41.9
36.0
Humic
Fraction
S5

10.3
7.83
5.93
5.39
7.35
5.92
8.79
9.72
7.83
Washed Coarse
Fraction
S6

4.69
2.19
3.26
3.11
3.31
2.61
4.02
5.04
5.04
Clarifier
Underflow (Fines)
S7

94.3
95.1
94.1
94.1
94.4
93.1
95.6
94.4
94.4
*   Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
**  For a discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
t   Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$   Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
                                                       42

-------
 The humic  fraction, S5, contained only small  amounts of
 particles < 45 microns.  Results from Test 1 show that an
 average of approximately 7.35% (95% confidence interval
 of 5.92 to 8.79%) of this stream was <45 microns.  For
 Test 2, approximately 9.72% of the 'iumic fraction  was
 finer than 45 microns.

 The washed coarse fraction, S6, was anticipated to have a
 very low percentage of particles < 45 microns. This  was
 indeed the case as seen in Table C-l.  Test results show the
 percentage of particles < 45 microns in the washed coarse
 fractions to  be approximately 3.31%  (95%  confidence
 interval of 2.61 to 4.02%) and 5.04% for Test 1 and Test
 2, respectively.
 C.3  Distribution of PCBs

 All input and output streams were evaluated for the presence
 of PCBs during  the  Demonstration Test.  PCBs  were
 detected  in  the rotary  trommel screen oversize (S2),  the
 humic  fraction (S5),  the washed coarse fraction (S6), and
 the clarifier  underflow or fines (S7).

 As seen in Table C-3a,  PCBs were present in  the feed, SI,
 at levels of approximately 1.30 mg/kg (average) for Test 1,
 and  approximately  1.57  mg/kg  for  Test  2.     After
 processing, PCBs were expected to be concentrated in the
 fines and in the humic  fraction.  Test results indicate that
 the concentration of PCBs in the humic fraction was higher
 than  that in the  fines.  This was expected due to the
 preferential partitioning of PCBs to organic material within
 S5, the humic fraction.  The  humic fraction  contained an
 average of  approximately  10.4 mg/kg   while the  fines
 contained an average of approximately 4.61 mg/kg for Test
 1.  For Test 2, the humic fraction contained approximately
 13.4 mg/kg and the fines 3.68 mg/kg.

 Table C-3b presents the data regarding mass  balances for
 PCBs for Tests 1 and 2. An average of 60.4% closure was
 achieved for  the Test 1 mass balance. The results from Test
 2 provide 51.7 % closure on the mass balance.  The goal for
 closure of the PCB mass balance (50 to 150%) was met for
 both Test 1 and Test 2.
 Soil/Sediment Washing System identified eleven metals that
 were present in high enough concentrations to allow a
 suitable evaluation of the technology.  Three metals that are
 regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
 Act (RCRA) were detected too infrequently to be used to
 evaluate the technology.  These  metals  were cadmium,
 chromium,  and mercury.   One  RCRA  regulated  metal
 (arsenic) was analyzed for, but not detected.

 Tables C-4a through  C-14a  present the average  metals
 concentrations for eleven metals which were present in high
 enough concentrations  to allow a suitable evaluation of the
 technology.   In the discussion in Section 3, copper is
 considered to be a typical metal. Copper is therefore used
 to  show  contaminant  fate  of  inorganic  compounds.
 Aluminum was the only  inorganic  that  behaved  quite
 differently as referred to  in  Section 3.   Alumina is a
 component of clay and therefore the behavior of aluminum
 with respect to the  soil/sediment washibg of a clay material
 could not be evaluated.

 Tables C-4b through C-14b present the metals mass balances
 for these  same eleven metals.  (Note that the tables are
 presented in  different  units; some are reported in  g and
 some are reported in kg). The results of the mass balance
 for metals depended on the particular element of interest.
The miss balance tables indicate that the mass balances  for
each metal identified (with the exception of lead) improved
each day with the progression of testing.
C.4  Distribution of Metals

All input and output streams were evaluated for the presence
of metals during the Demonstration Test.  The samples were
analyzed for all the metals specified by SW-846 Method
6010  and mercury.  Metals  were detected  in the rotary
trommel screen oversize (S2), the humic fraction (S5), the
washed coarse fraction (S6), and the clarifier underflow or
fines (S7).  Demonstration Testing of the  Bergmann USA
                                                       43

-------
Table C-3a.  PCB Concentration Data (mg/kg)
Rotary
_ , Trommel
Input Feed ^^
Oversize
SI S2
Test 1
Day 1* 1.14 0.953
Day 2* 1.23 2.13
Day 3* 1.13 2.20
Day 4* 1.71 1.17
Averagef 1.30 1.61
Lower 95% Confidence , __ ...
— •".• 1 •£ I L t L L
Limitf
Upper 95% Confidence . ,, 2 12
Limitf
Test 2 (Day 5)* 1.57 1.35
Overall Average:}: -,. . -6
(Days 1-5)
* Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
f Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
t Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
Table C-3b. PCB Mass Balance Data

Humic
Fraction

S5

8.33
7.58
14.7
11.2
10.4
10.0

10.8

13.4
11.0






Washed Coarse
Fraction

S6

0.253
0.213
0.147
0.164
0.194
0.188

0.200

0.189
0.193





Mass In Mass Out
(g)
SI S2 S5

Test 1
Day 1* 25.2 2.04 0.953
Day 2* 23.3 4.21 0.891
Day3* 23.9 5.46 1.59
Day 4* 42.9 7.28 1.49
Averagef 28.8 4.75 1.23
Test 2 (Day 5)* 32.4 5.63 1.84
Sa^fl^r"86* 29.6 4.92 1.35
* Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
t Calculated from all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
J Calculated from all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
44
(g)
S6


4.71
3.59
2.85
3.24
3.60
2.91
3.46





S7 Total


8.42 16.1
6.73 15.4
4.17 14.1
10.5 22.5
7.46 17.0
6.36 16.7
7.24 17.0



•^^••H
Clarifier
Underflow
(Fines)

S7

5.57
4.93
3.91
4.03
4.61
4.53

4.70

3.68
4.42





Mass Out
Mass In
Mass
Balance (%)

63.9
66.1
58.8
52.6
59.1
51.7
57.4



^^^^H

-------
 Table C-4a.  Aluminum Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)++


Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Average!
Lower 95%
Limitf
Upper 95%
Limitt
Test 2 (Day








Confidence
Confidence
5)*
Overall Average^
(Days 1-5)
Input Feed
si

5,610
4,750
3,930
4,540
4,710
4,300
5,120
4.960
4,760
rvviai j
Trommel Humic
Screen Fraction
Oversize
S2 S5

7,990 1,910
5,450 1,520
6,520 1,650
7,160 2,060
6,780 1,780
5,890 1,630
7.670 1,930
8,250 2,220
7,070 1,870
Washed
Coarse
Fraction
S6

748
792
774
800
778
760
797
957
814
Clarifier
Underflow (Fines)
S7

18,800
26,300
17,100
17,600
19,900
16,100
24,000
20.600
20,100
* Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
** For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
t Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5. •
Table C-4b.



Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Average!
Test 2*
(Day 5)
Aluminum Mass Balance Data
Mass In
(kg)
SI


123
95.9
84.1
116
105
103
Overall Avg$
(Days 1-5) 1U3


S2


17.3
10.8
16.2
44.2
22.1
32.1
24.1
Mass Out
(kg)
S5 S6 S7


0.221 13.9 28.6
0.188 13.3 41.2
0.183 14.9 18.5
0.276 15.9 45.0
0.217 14.5 33.3
0.305 14.7 32.0
0.235 14.6 33.1


Total


60.1
65.5
49.8
105
70.2
79.1
72.0
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass
Balance (%)

48.7
68.4
59.2
90.9
67.0
76.4
68.8
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
t  Calculated using all available data points for Days  1 through 4.
$  Calculated using all available data points for Days  1 through 5.
                                                       45

-------
 Table C-5a.  Barium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**


Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Lower 95% Confidence
Limitf
Upper 95 % Confidence
Limitt
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Overall Average*
(Days 1-5)
Input Feed
SI

39.1
35.5
32.0
42.6
37.3
33.2
41.4
40.9
38.0
Rotary
Trommel
Screen
Oversize
S2

64.9
45.7
51.7
58.3
55.2
48.0
62.3
66.6
57.4
Humic
Fraction
S5

127
62.2
70.9
85.0
86.3
65.2
107
90.2
87.1
Washed Coarse
Fraction
S6

5.51
6.15
6.21
7.54
6.35
5.85
6.85
8.91
6.86
Clarifier
Underflow
(Fines)
S7

130
177
135
135
140
120
170
152
146
 *   Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
 **  For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
 t   Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
 t   Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
Table C-5b. Barium Mass Balance Data




Testl
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Test 2*
(Day 5)
Overall Avg$
(Days 1-5)
Mass In
(g)
SI


863
719
686
1,120
846
850
847
Mass Out

S2


141
90.4
129
360
180
263
197

S5


12.9
7.74
7.98
11.4
10.0
12.3
10.5
(g)
S6


103
104
120
149
119
137
123

S7


197
276
145
347
242
264
241

Total


453
478
401
868
550
676
570
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass
Balance (%)

52.6
66.5
58.6
77.8
65.1
76.4
67.3
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
f  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
t  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
                                                       46

-------
 Table C-6a.  Calcium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**


Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Lower 95 % Confidence
Limitf
Upper 95 % Confidence
Limitf
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Overall Average^
(Days 1-5)
Input Feed
SI

29,500
26,100
24,300
27,600
26,900
25,200
28,500
27,700
27,000
Rotary
Trommel
Screen
Oversize
S2

44,900
28,300
30,800
34,400
34,600
28,100
41,1.00
35,400
34,700
Humic
Fraction
S5

23,500
18,800
19,800
23,100
21,300
19,700
22,900
23,500
21,700
Washed Coarse
Fraction
S6

12,200
14,300
14,700
14,700
13.900
13,200
14,700
16,300
14,400
Clarifier
Underflow
(Fines)
S7

73.100
94.200
72,000
67.600
76,700
63.700
90.300
70.400
75,500
*    Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
**   For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
t    Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$    Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
Table C-6b.  Calcium Mass Balance Data


Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Test 2*
(Day 5)
Overall Avg$
(Days 1-5)
Mass In
(kg)
SI

650
528
525
695
600
573
594


S2

97.9
55.8
76.5
212
111
138
116


S5

2.72
2.40
2.18
3.05
2.60
3.22
2.73
Mass Out
(kg)
S6

227
241
282
291
260
252
259


S7

111
146
77.4
173
127
123
123


Total

438
445
438
679
500
516
501
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass Balance

67.4
84.3
83.5
97.7
83.4
87.7
84.3
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
t  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
                                                        47

-------
 Table C-7a. Copper Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**


Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Lower 95% Confidence
Limitf
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitt
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Overall Average^
(Days 1-5)
Input Feed
SI

24.1
24.0
18.1
23.6
22.5
19.9
25.1
22.2
22.4
Rotary
Trommel
Screen
Oversize
S2

34.6
28.0
27.1
26.9
29.2
25.3
33.0
34.6
30.3
Hutnic Fraction
S5

65.5
47.7
53.9
67.9
58.8
51.3
66.2
66.7
60.3
Washed Coarse
Fraction
S6

6.04
6.47
9.04
9.70
7.81
7.10
8.52
9.49
8.15
Clarifier
Underflow
(Fines)
S7

72.2
85.3
63.3
60.8
70.4
60.6
80.6
70.5
70.4
*    Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
**  For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluatio Report.
f    Calculated using all available data points for Days  1 through 4.
$    Calculated using all available data points for Days  1 through 5.
Table C-7b. Copper Mass Balance Data




Testl
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Test 2+
(Day 5)
Overall Avg$
(Days 1-5)
Mass In
(g)
SI


530
487
387
603
502
462

494


S2


75.4
55.4
67.5
166
91.1
139

101


S5


7.08
5.94
6.04
9.04
7.02
9.21

7.46
Mass Out
(g)
S6


112
109
174
192
147
146

147


S7


111
128
67.2
157
116
111

115


Total


305
298
315
524
361
405

370
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass
Balance (%)

57.6
61.2
81.3
86.9
71.8
87.8

74.8
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
f  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1  through 4.
t  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1  through 5.
                                                       48

-------
  Table C-8a.  Iron Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**


Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Lower 95% Confidence
Limitf
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitf
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Overall Average^:
(Days 1-5)
Input Feed
SI

8,910
7,720
6,770
7,600
7,750
7,170
8,320
8,150
7,830
Rotary
Trommel
Screen Oversize
S2

12,900
8,680
9,960
11,100
10,700
9,110
12,200
12,500
11,000
Humic Fraction
S5

17,700
12,300
13,000
14,600
14,400
13,000
15,800
15,000
14,500
Washed
Coarse
Fraction
S6

2,190
2,380
2,300
2,350
2,310
2,240
2,370
2,930
2,430
Clarifier
Underflow
(Fines)
S7

25,000
33,700
25,700
25,500
27.500
22,800
32,400
27,800
27,600
 *   Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
 **  For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
 t   Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
 $   Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
 Table C-8b.  Iron Mass Balance Data




Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Test 2*
(Day 5)
Overall AvgJ
(Days 1-5)
Mass In
(kg)
SI


196
156
145
193
173

169
172


S2


28.0
17.2
24.8
68.6
34.6

49.1
37.5


S5


2.06
1.51
1.45
1.89
1.73

2.07
1.80
Mass; Out
(kg)
S6


40.8
40.2
44,,2
46,,6
43,0

45,1
43.4


S7


37.7
52.5
27.7
65.3
45.8

43.4
45.3


Total


109
111
98.2
182
125

140
128
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass
Balance (%)

55.3
71.4
67.8
94.5
72.5

82.6
74.3
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
t  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
                                                        49

-------
  Table C-9a.  Lead Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**
Rotary
, . •- . Trommel TT . _
Input Feed c Humic Fraction
Screen
Oversize

Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
DayS*
Day 4*
Averaget
Lower 95% Confidence
Li mitf
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitt
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Overall Average^
(Days 1-5)
SI

14.4
17.1
14.5
14.9
15.2
12.9
17.5
15.5
15.3
S2

25.2
18.0
21.7
18.0
20.7
17.1
24.3
24.7
21.5
* Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
** For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Eva!
t Calculated using all available data points for Davs 1 through 4.
S5

188
47.1
48.3
43.1
81.7
12.2
151
61.8
77.7
luation Report.
Washed
Coarse
Fraction
S6

12.2
12.6
12.1
11.8
12.2
12.0
12.4
12.7
12.3

Clarifier
Underflow
(Fines)
S7

41.0
67.9
59.6
61.0
57.4
47.3
68.4
62.9
58.5

      Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
 Table C-9b.  Lead Mass Balance Data


Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Test 2*
(Day 5)
Overall Avgij:
(Days 1-5)
Mass In
(g)
SI
317
332
309
381
335
319
331


S2
54.7
35.5
54.2
111
63.7
106
72.2


S5
14.6
5.72
5.43
5.72
7.87
8.36
7.97
Mass Out
(g)
S6
227
212
234
234
227
196
221


S7
61.7
105
63.7
155
96.5
99.5
97.1


Total
358
358
357
506
395
410
398
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass
Balance (%)
113
108
116
133
118
129
120
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
t  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
                                                       50

-------
 Table C-lOa.  Magnesium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)"


Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Lower 95 % Confidence
Limitf
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitt
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Overall Averagef
(Days 1-5)
Input Feed
SI

8,710
7,330
6,430
7,790
7,560
6,960
8,160
7,320
7,520
Rotary
Trommel
Screen Oversize
S2

12,400
7,900
8,470
9,730
9,630
7,840
11,400
10,100
9,740
Humic Fraction
S5

2,950
2,760
2,550
3,490
2,940
2,700
3,180
3,570
3,060
Washed
Coarse
Fraction
S6

3,570
3,930
4,220
4,160
3.970
3,760
4,180
4,870
4,150
Clarifier
Underflow
(Fines)
S7

20.900
27.600
20,800
20,000
22,300
18,400
26.400
21.200
22.100
*    Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
**  For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
t    Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
t    Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
Table C-lOb.  Magnesium Mass Balance Data

Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day3*
Day 4*
Averagef .
Test 2*
(Day 5)
Overall Avg$
(Days 1-5)
Mass In
(kg)
SI

192
148
137
193
168
150
164

S2

27.1
15.6
21.1
60.1
31.0
39.5
32.7

S5

0.339
0.354
0.291
0.468
0.363
0.491
0.389
Mass Out
(kg)
S6

66.4
66.3
81.4
82.5
74.2
75.11
74.3

S7

31.6
43.0
22.4
51.3
37.1
36.9
37.0

Total

125
125
125
194
142
152
144
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass
Balance (%)

65.5
84.5
91.0
101
85.5
100
87.8
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
t  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
t  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
                                                       51

-------
 Table C-lla.  Manganese Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**


Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day3*
Day 4*
Average!
Lower 95% Confidence
Limitt
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitf
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Input Feed
SI

218
195
183
206
200
187
214
228
Rotary
Trommel
Screen
Oversize
S2

357
233
274
309
293
249
338
345
Humic
Fraction
S5

472
370
391
470
426
389
462
501
Washed
Coarse
Fraction
S6

51.6
57.8
62.3
64.8
59.1
56.4
61.9
80.7
Clarifier
Underflow
(Fines)
S7

646
885
700
698
732
610
862
752
  Overall Average:*:
  (Days 1-5)
206
304
441
63.4
      Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
      For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
      Calculated using available data points for Days 1 through 4.
      Calculated using available data points for Days 1 through 5.
Table C-llb.  Manganese Mass Balance Data
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
f  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
|  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
736



Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Average!
Test 2*
(Day 5)
Overall Avg$
(Days 1-5)
Mass In
(g)
SI


4,820
3,930
3,920
5,220
4,470
4,720
4,520


S2


776
461
681
1,910
957
1,350
1,040


S5


50.0
45.1
43.4
62.4
50.2
68.7
53.9
Mass Out
(g)
S6


961
974
1,200
1,290
1,110
1,240
1,130


S7


977
1,380
755
1.790
1,230
1,310
1,230


Total


2,760
2,860
2,680
5,050
33,40
3,970
3,450
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass
Balance (%)

57.4
72.7
68.3
96.7
73.8
84.1
76.3
                                                       52

-------
 Table C-12a.  Potassium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**


Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Lower 95% Confidence
Limitf
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitt
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Overall Average^:
(Days 1-5)
* Average value calculated
** For discussinn nf thasa H;
Input Feed
SI

980
802
547
662
748
664
831
738
746
from data collected
ata ««». Sftt^tinn R nl
Rotary
Trommel Humic
Screen Fraction
Oversize
S2

1,220
842
1,090
1,060
1,050
925
1,180
1,340
1,110
throughout the day.
" fh*» TW*hnr»1nov Pvsil
S5

872
669
683
722
737
675
799
804
750
iiatinn Pp>rw-ii
Washed
Coarse
Fraction
S6

244
251
242
236
243
240
247
241
243
rt
Clarifier
Underflow
(Fines)
S7

3.590
4.890
2,880
2.870
3.560
2.8SO
4.280
3.640
3.570

t     Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
|     Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
Table C-12b.  Potassium Mass Balance Data



Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Test 2*
(Day 5)
Overall Avg$
(Days 1-5)
Mass In
(kg)
si


21.6
16.2
11.6
17.0
16.6
15.5
16.4


S2


2.64
1.67
2.71
6.55
3.39
5.31
3.78


S5


0.0978
0.0786
0.0723
0.0970
0.0864
0.110
0.0911
Mass Out
(kg)
S6


4.55
4.23
4.67
4.69
4.54
3.72
4.37


S7


5.56
7.50
3.09
7.35
5.88
6.23
5.95


Total


12.8
13.5
10.5
18.7
13.9
15.4
14.2
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass
Balance (%)

59.5
83.0
90.6
110
85.8
99.2
86.6
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
t  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
                                                        53

-------
Table C-13a.  Vanadium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**


Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Lower 95% Confidence
Limitt
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitt
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Overall Average^
(Days 1-5)
Input Feed
SI

17.1
14.3
9.78
11.4
13.2
11.8
14.5
12.8
13.1
Rotary
Trommel
Screen
Oversize
S2

20.5
13.9
16.1
18.2
17.2
14.6
19.8
20.1
17.8
Humic
Fraction
S5

26.4
20.8
23.0
24.2
23.6
21.6
25.7
21.9
23.3
Washed
Coarse
Fraction
S6

6.12
6.28
6.07
5.93
6.10
6.01
6.19
6.61
6.20
Clarifier
Underflow
(Fines)
S7

46.4
62.4
43.9
43.4
49.0
40.7
57.9
49.9
49.2
*    Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
**   For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Reoprt.
t    Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$    Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
Table C-13b.  Vanadium Mass Balance Data



Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Test 2*
Pay 5)
Mass In
(g)

SI

378
290
210
291
292
265


S2

44.6
27.4
40.1
112
56.0
78.5


S5

3.05
2.53
2.52
3.18
2.82
3.01
Mass Out
(g)

S6

114
106
117
118
114
102


S7

70.7
96.5
47.2
111
81.4
86.7


Total

232
232
207
344
254
270
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass
Balance (%)

61.4
80.0
98.6
118
89.5
102
                        287
60.5
2.86
 Overall Avg$
 (Days 1-5)
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
t  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$  Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
Ill
82.4
257
89.5
                                                      54

-------
Table C-14a.  Zinc Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**


Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Lower 95% Confidence
Limitf
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitt
Test 2 (Day 5)*
Overall Average*
(Days 1-5)
* Average value calculated
** For discussion of these d
Input Feed
SI

73.9
77.8
72.5
86.9
77.8
70.1
85.4
93.0
80.8
from data collected
ata. see Section 8 bl
Rotary
Trommel Humic
Screen Fraction
Oversize
S2

124
94.3
122
132
118
104
132
167
128
throughout the day.
: the Technology Eval
S5

192
155
192
229
192
170
214
229
199
uation Reno
Washed
Coarse
Fraction
S6

10.1
11.9
13.8
15.7
12.9
12.0
13.7
21.0
14.5
rt.
Clarifier
Underflow
(Fines)
S7

206
316
336
342
300
255
349
376
315

t    Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$    Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
Table C-14b. Zinc Mass Balance Data




Test 1
Day 1*
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averagef
Test 2*
(Day 5)
Overall AvgJ
(Days 1-5)
Mass In
(g)
SI


1,650
1,570
1,560
2,210
1,750
1,910
1,780


S2


267
187
303
814
393
691
452


S5


21.1
19.0
21.3
30.1
22.9
31.1
24.5
Mass Out
(g)
S6


188
201
266
311
242
323
258


S7


312
493
361
880
512
661
541


Total


788
899
951
2,040
1,170
1,710
1,280
Mass Out
Mass In
Mass
Balance (%)

47.8
57.3
61.2
91.9
64.6
89.2
71.9
*  Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
t  Calculated using all available data points for Days  1 through 4.
$  Calculated using all available data points for Days  1 through 5.
                                                        55

-------
                                                Appendix D

                                                Case Studies
 D.I  Assessment and Remediation of
        Contaminated Sediments Program Testing

 Before the initiation of the SITE demonstration of Bergmann
 USA's Soil/Sediment Washing Technology at the Saginaw
 Bay Confined Disposal Facility (CDF),  the  U.S. Army
 Corps   of  Engineers  (USAGE)  monitored  a  similar
 demonstration under the USEPA  Great  Lakes  National
 Program  Office's  Assessment  and   Remediation  of
 Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program [2]. The ARCS
 pilot-scale  demonstration was  performed  on  material
 dredged from the same approximate  area of the  Saginaw
 River as sediment used for the SITE demonstration using the
 same 5 tons/hr unit (equipped with a different clarifier).
 Sediments were  mechanically dredged and placed on the
 CDF to dewater in October  1991.   Plans called  for the
 processing of approximately  290 cubic yards of material
 within a 2-week period.  High winds and low temperatures
 forced suspension of the demonstration after only two days.
 Processing  was  resumed in  May 1992  and  completed
 immediately before the  initiation of the SITE operation.

 Monitoring planned  for  the  ARCS  demonstration  was
 designed to look at the performance of various components
 of the Bergmann USA process rather than just the input and
 output streams.  In order to accomplish this, samples were
 taken   less  frequently,  and   analyses  were  generally
 performed on composites of four-hour samples.  Sampling
 conducted  in  the fall of 1991  may  reflect some of the
 problems encountered during startup. These problems were
 largely related to a clay content in the feed material that was
 higher than expected, the inability to regulate feed rates, and
 a clarifier which was too small to adequately handle the
 volume of slurry containing  fines.   The  feed unit  was
 modified  prior to spring operations  to provide  a more
 uniform feed rate and to partially break up large chunks of
 clay. The clarifier used in the fall was also replaced with
a larger unit prior to spring operations.

At th'e  time this document was prepared, no data were
available   from   the   spring   ARCS   demonstration.
 Examination of the grain size distributions at various points
 in the process during the 2-day fall run indicated that the
 unit being used has  the potential  to successfully separate
 sand from the finer and less dense materials.  The cyclone
 separators appeared  to be  separating the fine and coarse
 material at a nominal grain size of about  38 microns.  Based
 on laboratory work,  separation at about 75 microns would
 result in a cleaner sand fraction. Separation at this smaller
 grain size is a artifact  of processing parameters  including
 cyclone  separator diameter.  The  size  of the pilot plant
 effectively limited the diameter of cyclone separator which
 could be used and ultimately affected the amount of PCBs
 associated with the sand fraction.  A full-scale unit would
 likely be capable of improved results.  The limited fall data
 indicate that the PCBs in the feed sediments averaged about
 1.6 ppm and concentrations in  the processed sand product
 were reduced to an average of 0.21 ppm.
 D.2  Toronto Harbour Commissioners SITE
      Demonstration  Testing

 During the first half of 1992, Bergmann USA participated
 in another SITE Demonstration in which their Soil/Sediment
 Washing  Technology was  part of an  overall treatment
 scheme   involving   several  technologies  working  in
 conjunction for final cleanup of contaminated material from
 the Toronto Harbour, Toronto, Ontario, Canada [3,4].  In
 coordination  with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners,
 Bergmann  USA installed a 5 to 10  tons/hr pilot-scale
 Soil/Sediment Washing   Unit for the  demonstration  of
 volumetric remedial  operations coupled with innovative
 metals extraction and biodegradation technologies for the
 treatment of the <63-micron fines fraction.

 A modular plant was transported and erected in-place on the
 site.  The system  was completely shrouded by a Rupp
 Fabric Building, and a tube heat exchanger was installed to
 raise the temperature of process operation  wash water to
 approximately 80 to 90°F.  Treatment  commenced  in
January  1992 and continued for an initial 18-week period
                                                      56

-------
  during which the SITE demonstration was performed. The
  sampling associated with this SITE project  took place in
  April and  May  of 1992 when the pilot-scale  unit was
  processing  soil from a site that had been  used for metals
  finishing and refinery and petroleum storage.

  The  Toronto Harbour Demonstration Tests found that the
  Bergmann  USA Soil/Sediment  Washing System produces
  two product streams  with contaminant  levels significantly
  reduced in  comparison  to the feed soil.   In addition, the
  contaminants were found to be concentrated primarily in the
  contaminated slurry which  is then  routed  for  further
  processing.    Table D-l presents  the  average values  of
  selected parameters measured during the demonstration for
  the feed and product streams.

  To date, this Bergmann  USA Soil/Sediment Washing plant
  has processed approximately 3,000 tons of heavy metal,
  polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), polynuclear  aromatic
  (PNA), and  petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated materials.
  Additionally, Bergmann  USA will process approximately
  500 tons of contaminated dredge  spoil  from the Toronto
  Harbour for the Wastewater  Treatment Technology Centre
  of the Ontario Ministry of the Environmental.  Therefore,
  a total of 3,500 tons of material  will  be volumetrically
  reduced by  the Bergmann USA plant.

  Following the completion of the Canadian demonstration
  project, it  is anticipated that  a full-scale plant will  be
  designed  for  installation  of  a  three-year,   85-tons/hr
(300,000-tons/yr) remedial project of the Toronto Harbour
front area.
References for Appendices
                   tr

1. Science Applications International Corporation (SAlC).
     San Diego, CA.   April  17, 1992.  "Demonstration
     Plan  for  Bergmann  USA's Soil/Sediment Washing
     Technology."

2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).  October 5,
     1992.  Facsimile transmission  from Jim Galloway,
     USACE, Detroit District.

3. Bergmann  USA.    1992.    Bergmann'' USA  Project
     Descriptions.

4. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
     Buffalo,  NY.   October  1992.    "Soil Recycling
     Treatment   Train;   The   Toronto   Harbour
     Commissioners; Evaluation of the Attrition Soil Wash
     Process."
  Table D-l.  Summary of Toronto Harbour Commissioners SITE Demonstration Test Results (mg/kg)

Oil & Grease
TRPH
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Feed Soil'-b
8,330
2,540
16.9
115
82.5
11.2
6.91
5.06
1.91
Trommel
Oversize*1
3,330
814
2.40
23.0
24.4
2.62
2.36
1.79
0.580
Coal/Peat
Fraction"
38,100
11,900
32.9
406
2110
64.0
:i9.o
33.0
114.5
Clean Sand*
2,180
621
13.8
46.0
34.1
2.05
1.77
1.43
0.530
Contaminated
Fines'"
40,000
14,000
80.9
520
329
51.7
34.7
26.3
10.0
 •        Feed soil characteristics were calculated from rock and fines analytical data using a weight basis.
 b    •    Average of six composite samples.
 e        Average of three composite samples.
 TRPH   Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

                                                        57
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:  1995-653-470

-------

-------