&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/AR-93/503
January 1995
BESCORP Soil Washing
System for Lead Battery
Site Treatment
Applications Analysis Report
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
-------
-------
EPA/540/AR-93/503
January 1995
BESCORP Soil Washing System for
Lead Battery Site Treatment
Applications Analysis Report
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under the auspices of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program under Contract No.
68-C9-0033 to Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program was authorized in the 1986 Superfund
Amendments. The Program is a joint effort between EPA's Office of Research and Development and Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. The purpose of the program is to enhance the development of
hazardous waste treatment technologies necessary for implementing new cleanup standards that require
greater reliance on permanent remedies. This is accomplished by performing the technology
demonstrations designed to provide engineering and economic data on selected technologies.
This project consists of an evaluation of the BESCORP Soil Washing System (BSWS). The Demonstration
Test took place at the Alaskan Battery Enterprises (ABE) Site in Fairbanks, Alaska. The primary technical
objective of this project was to determine the ability of the process to produce washed soil that would
comply with EPA's lead cleanup goals for redeposit at the site (less than 1,000 mcj/kg total lead a*nd less
than 5 mg/L TCLP lead). The goals of the study were (1) to evaluate the technical effectiveness and
economics of this technology relative to its ability to treat soils contaminated with lead, lead compounds,
and battery casing chips from broken lead batteries; and (2) to establish the potential applicability of the
process to other wastes and Superfund sites. The results are summarized in this Applications Analysis
Report.
Additional copies of this report may be obtained at no charge from EPA's Center for Environmental Research
Information, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268, using the EiPA document number
found on the report's front cover. Once this supply is exhausted, copies can be purchased from the
National Technical Information Service, Ravensworth Building, Springfield, Virginia, 22161, (703) 487-4600.
Reference copies will be available at EPA libraries in their Hazardous Waste Collection.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
-------
Abstract
This report evaluates the Brice Environmental Services Corporation (BESCORP) Soil Washing System
(BSWS) and Its applicability in remediating lead-contaminated soil at lead battery sites. It presents
performance and economic data, developed from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Demonstration (three test runs) and additional data provided by
the developer. The Demonstration took place at the Alaskan Battery Enterprises (ABE) Site in Fairbanks,
Alaska.
The original BSWS, built to process 20 tons per hour (tph) of soli when removing silt and clay from
uncontamlnated sandy soil, was a water-based, volume-reduction unit that employed agitation, attrition
scrubbing, high pressure washing, and particle size separation. This system was modified to remove lead,
lead compounds, and battery casing chips through the addition of a density separator and a casing chip
separator. The modified system capacity is about 5 tph, primarily due to restricted flow in the casing chip
separator.
Products from the process included washed gravel and sand, a metallic-lead fraction, battery casing chips,
a water effluent suitable for discharge to a POTW, and a lead-contaminated sludge effluent for RCRA
disposal or posttreatment. The metallic lead and casing chips were potentially recyclable to lead smelters.
However, this is not a current industry practice.
The system, operating from 2 to 4 tph, generated a washed gravel product, free of fine material, that passed
EPA's redeposit cleanup goals for total lead (less than 1,000 mg/kg) and TCLP lead (less than 5 mg/L).
The washed sand did not achieve the cleanup goals due to the presence of contaminated fines that the
system did not separate from the sand fraction. BESCORP did not anticipate this result during the
Demonstration because the feed soil differed significantly from the soil samples tested in the pre-
Demonstratton treatability study.
Economic data for a commercial 20-tph unit processing wastes similar to those treated in the SITE
Demonstration, Including disposal of waste effluents, project operating costs to be about $165/ton of soil
(dry basis) containing 6.6 wt percent moisture. This figure does not reflect any revenue from recycling of
metallic lead or casing chips.
IV
-------
Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Tables viii
Figures x
Abbreviations xi
Acknowledgements xiii
1, Executive Summary 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Overview of the SITE Demonstration 1
1.3 Results and Conclusions 2
2. Introduction 5
2.1 The SITE Program 5
2.2 SITE Program Reports 5
2.3 Key Contacts 6
3. Technology Applications Analysis 7
3.1 Introduction 7
3.2 Conclusions 7
3.3 Technology Evaluation 9
3.3.1 Lead Battery Sites 9
3.3.2 Soil Washing Process 10
3.3.3 Feed Soil Characterization , 10
3.3.4 Mass Balances and Process Stream Characterization :.. 12
3.3.5 Process Performance 12
3.3.6 Scale of Operation and Reliability 12
3.4 Ranges of Site Characteristics Suitable for the Technology 17
3.4.1 Site Selection , 17
3.4.2 Topographical Characteristics 17
3.4.3 Site Area Requirements 17
3.4.4 Climate and Geological Characteristics 17
3.4.5 Utility Requirements 17
3.4.6 Size of Operation 17
3.5 Applicable Media 17
3.6 Environmental Regulation Requirements 18
3.7 Personnel Issues 18
3.7.1 Training 18
3.7.2 Health and Safety 18
3.8 References 19
-------
Contents (Continued)
Page
4. Economic Analysis 20
4.1 Introduction 20
4.2 Conclusions 20
4.3 Issues and Assumptions 20
4.3.1 Costs Excluded from Estimate 21
4.3.2 Utilities 21
4.3.3 Operating and Maintenance Schedules 21
4.3.4 Labor Requirements 21
4.3.5 Capital Equipment and Fixed Costs 21
4.3.6 System Design and Performance Factors 21
4.3.7 System Operating Requirements 21
4.4 Basis of Economic Analysis 21
4.4.1 Site Preparation Costs 24
4.4.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs 24
4.4.3 Equipment Costs 24
4.4.4 Startup Costs 24
4.4.5 Labor Costs 27
4.4.6 Supplies and Consumables 27
4.4.7 Utilities 27
4.4.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs 27
4.4.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling, and Disposal Costs 27
4.4.10 Analytical Costs 27
4.4.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs 28
4.4.12 Site Demobilization and Decontamination Costs 28
4.5 Results of Economic Analysis 29
4.6 References 29
Appendices
A Process Description 30
A.1 Introduction 30
A.2 Process Description 30
B Vendor Claims for the BESCORP Soil Washing System 33
B.1 Introduction 33
B.2 Technology Description ' 33
B.3 Claims 33
B.4 Description of Demonstration Conditions 35
B.5 BSWS Modified Commercial Unit for ABE-Type Lead Removal ., 35
VI
-------
Contents (Continued)
Page
C SITE Demonstration Results 37
C.1 Introduction 37
C.2 Soil Washer Performance 39
C.2.1 Overview 39
C.2.2 Process Monitoring and Control 39
C.2.3 Performance Summary 52
C.2.4 Input and Output Flow Rate Stability 53
C.3 References 54
D Case Studies 55
Case D.1 Treatability Study and Site Remediation: Army Ammunition Plant 55
Case D.2 Removal of Minus 100 Micron (150 Mesh) Material:
Hanford Simulated Soil 57
Case D.3 Discrete Partial Recovery Plant: Tramway Bar Mine, Alaska 58
Case D.4 On-Site Field Test: Radium-Contaminated Soil at Oklahoma Mr Force
Base 59
Case D.5 Copper Wire Incineration and Recovery Site Treatability Study:
Lead-Contaminated Soil 59
Case D.6 Lead-Contaminated Metal Recycling Facility 60
Case D.7 Lead-Contaminated Target Range Sites 61
Case D.8 Treatability Study: Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils 62
Case D.9 Uranium-Contaminated Soils 62
Case D.10 ABE Treatability Study 62
VII
-------
Tables
Number Page.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
B-1
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
BESCORP SITE Demonstration Test Results
SITE Lab Data for Washed -1/4C1 to +10 Mesh Sand
BESCORP Lab Data for Washed -V? to +80 Mesh Sand
Vendor's Projected Commercial Performance
Summary of Key Process Stream Characterization Data
Lead Distribution
Mass Balances for the Three SITE Demonstration Test Runs
Mass Balance for Commercial Unit
Lead Removal (Process) Efficiencies
Lead Removal (Total) Efficiencies
Process Efficiency
Casing Chip Removal
BSWS Average System Mass Balance for Commercial Unit
Utilities and Consumables
Treatment Costs for the BSWS Modified Commercial Unit
BSWS Capital Equipment Cost Breakdown
Excavation Labor Requirements
BSWS Assembly Labor Requirements '.
Operations Labor Requirements
BESCORP Attrition Washing and Screening Vendor Bench-Scale Data
Key Process Stream Characterization Data
Statistical Summary of Lead In Feed Soil, Gravel, and Sand Fractions
Detailed Mass Balances for the Three SITE Demonstration Runs
Lead Partitioning
Performance Summary
Downtime Summary for the Three Runs
2
3
3
4
8
9
13
15
16
16
16
17
23
23
25
26
28
28
28
36
41
42
43
52
53
54
viii
-------
Tables (Continued)
Number . Page
D-1 Particle Size and Lead Distribution at an Army Ammunition Site 56
D-2 Cleanup Levels for TCAAP 57
D-3 Size Separation Efficiency 58
D-4 Material Balance for a 150-tph Plant 58
D-5 Particle Size and Metals Distribution at a Copper Wire Site 59
D-6 Particle Size and Lead Distribution at a Lead Recycling Facility 60
D-7 Particle Size and Lead Distribution before and after Treatment 60
D-8 Particle Size and Lead Distribution at Target Ranges 61
D-9 Particle Size and Lead Distribution in Rl Raw Sample 63
D-10 Lead Distribution in Rl Sample After Processing 63
D-11 Lead Distribution in Second Fraction of Rl Sample after Processing 63
D-12 Particle Size and Lead Distribution in Rl Sample after Simulated Processing 64
IX
-------
Figures
Number Page
1 The BESCORP Soil Washing System 11
2 Simplified BSWS flow diagram for the SITE Demonstration 14
3 BSWS modified commercial-scale flow diagram 22
A-1 BESCORP Soil Washing System (isometric drawing) 31
B-1 BESCORP block flow diagram 34
C-1 ABE site map 38
C-2 Detailed BSWS flow diagram for SITE Demonstration 40
C-3 Plant layout 44
C-4 Run 1 - total lead concentration in feed soil and washed gravel and sand 45
C-5 Run 2 - total lead concentration in feed soil and washed gravel and sand 46
C-6 Run 3 - total lead concentration in feed soil and washed gravel and sand 47
C-7 Lead TCLP in washed gravel and sand 48
C-8 Run 1 - solid stream flows 49
C-9 Run 2 - solid stream flows 50
C-10 Run 3 - solid stream flows 51
-------
Abbreviations
AAR
ABE
ARAB
avg.
BESCORP
BSWS
CEC
CERCLA
yd3
EPA
FWEI
gpm
H2SO4
HSWA
kwh
Ib/ft3
meq/L
mg/kg
mg/L
NPL
OERR
ORD
OSHA
OSWER
POTW
ppb
ppm
QAPP
Applications Analysis Report
Alaskan Battery Enterprises (Superfund NPL Site)
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
average
Brice Environmental Services Corporation
BESCORP Soil Washing System
cation exchange capacity, meq/L
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
cubic yards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc.
gallons per minute
sulfuric acid
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA -1984
kilowatt-hour
pounds per cubic foot
milliequivalents per liter
milligrams per kilogram (ppm)
milligrams per liter (ppm)
National Priorities List
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
EPA Office of Research and Development
Occupational Safety and Health Act
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
publicly owned treatment works
parts per billion
parts per million
Quality Assurance Project Plan
XI
-------
Abbreviations (Continued)
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RFP Request for Proposal
Rl Remedial Investigation
RREL Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
sp gr specific gravity, gr/cc
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
TCI.P toxicity characteristic leaching procedure, mg/L
TER Technology Evaluation Report
TM trademark
TOC total organic content
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
tph (short) tons per hour
XII
-------
Acknowledgements
This project was directed and coordinated by Hugh Masters, EPA SITE Project Manager in the Releases
Control Branch of the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Edison, New Jersey.
This report was prepared for EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program by Roger
J. Gaire, P.E., of Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. (FWEI) under Contract No. 68-C9-0033. FWEI,
supervised by Michael Merdinger, performed field activities, including sampling. Laucks Testing
Laboratories, Inc. performed the chemical analyses for this SITE Demonstration. Dr. James Stumbar of
FWEI conducted a technical review. The cooperation and participation of BESCORP throughout the course
of the project and in the review of this report are gratefully acknowledged.
Keith Rose, Remedial Project Manager of EPA Region 10, provided assistance and guidance in initiating the
project and in interpreting and responding to regulatory requirements.
xiii
-------
Intentionally
-------
Section 1
Executive Summary
7.7 BACKGROUND
In 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agenqy
(EPA) established the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program to promote the development
and use of innovative technologies to remediate
Superfund sites. Technologies in the SITE Program are
analyzed in two documents, the Technology Evaluation
Report and the Applications Analysis Report. This
Applications Analysis Report evaluates the applicability
of the Brice Environmental Services Corporation
(BESCORP) Soil Washing System (BSWS), and
estimates the costs of operating it based on available
data. Data not generated from the SITE Demonstration
were provided by BESCORP, the technology developer.
The BSWS was evaluated under EPA's SITE Program,
based on a Demonstration Plan agreed to by EPA and
BESCORP. The Demonstration was conducted at the
Alaskan Battery Enterprises (ABE) Site in Fairbanks,
Alaska on the basis of a remedial investigation (Rl)
report and the site's inclusion on the National Priorities
List (NPL). The primary objectives of the BSWS SITE
Demonstration consisted of the following:
Assess the ability of the process to comply with
EPA's lead cleanup goals for redeposit of washed
soil at the site (less than 1,000 mg/kg total lead and
less than 5 mg/L TCLP lead),
Determine if the BSWS can achieve greater than 75
percent process efficiency by cleaning sufficient
percentages of contaminated gravel and sand to the
levels suitable for redeposit, and
Develop economic data for the BSWS.
Secondary objectives were as follows:
Determine if the washed battery casing chips meet
the cleanup goals,
Evaluate the BSWS reliability, and
Document the operating conditions of the BSWS
for application to other hazardous waste sites.
This report provides information based on the results
from the SITE Demonstration and related case studies.
This information is necessary if the BSWS technology is
to be considered for use on Superfund and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous
waste sites. Section 2 of this report presents an
overview of the SITE Program, explains how the SITE
Program results are documented, and lists key contacts.
Section 3 discusses the SITE Demonstration objectives,
describes the Demonstration, and relates its findings to
the technology's application. This includes potentially
applicable state and federal environmental regulations,
the effects of waste characteristics and operating
parameters on technology performance, applicable
media, and personnel issues. Section 4 summarizes the
costs of implementing the1 technology. The Appendices
provide A) a description of the BSWS technology, B)
BESCORP's claims regarding this technology, C) a
summary of the SITE Demonstration results, and D)
information from case studies prepared by BESCORP.
12 OVERVIEW OF THE SITE
DEMONSTRATION
The BSWS was demonstrated at the ABE Site in August
1992. About 46 tons of soil contaminated with broken
lead batteries were treated during the program. The soil
-------
was excavated, passed through a 2W screen, and
stockpiled as feed for the unit. The Demonstration
Included a series of shakedown tests and three test
runs. As shown in Table 1, the feed soil analyses
differed, to a minor degree, for each of the three runs.
They necessitated certain proprietary process
adjustments, but no major modifications.
Extensive data were collected to assess process
performance. Liquid and solid samples were analyzed
to determine lead partitioning and leaching potential of
the process streams. Operating data were monitored
and recorded, Including the raw waste feed rate,
washed gravel and sand rates, electrical consumption,
water make-up, pH, and temperature.
1.3 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the BESCORP Demonstration was a partial
success in terms of removing large battery casings,
casing chips, and discrete, metallic-lead particles from
the washed gravel and sand fractions. The process
effectively washed the gravel fraction (Table 1) to meet
the cleanup goals after process adjustments during the
first run.
Although significant lead reduction was achieved in the
sand fraction, the cleanup goals were not attained.
However, Table 2 SITE laboratory analytical data for the
minus 14" to plus 10 mesh sand fractions, which were
extracted from Table 5, Indicate that this coarser portion
TABLE 1. BESCORP SITE DEMONSTRATION TEST RESULTS
Run
1
2
3
Feed soil
Total Pb
mg/kg
Avg.
4,210
10,400
2,280
Range
2,290 - 8,870
2,910-45,500
951 -4,710
Standard
deviation*
2,600
12,700
1,130
Pb TCLP
mg/L
Avg,
72
132
50
Range
42-170
61-440
26-90
Standard
deviation
42
117
21
Washed gravel
1
2
3
2,540
903
15
32 - 9,630
17 - 6,640
5-32
3,200
2,070
8
1.0
0.8
0.2
0.4-1.6
0.5 - 1.1
0.1 - 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
Washed sand
-%" to 150 mesh
1
2
3
1,810
1,670
1,510
1,450-2,000
963 - 2,480
830 - 1,900
260
530
310
42
40
26
37-48
30-47
21 -29
3
5
3
*Tho presence of metallic lead particles caused wide variations in the standard deviation. This is discussed in Appendix C.
-------
TABLE 2. SITE LAB DATA FOR WASHED -W TO +10 MESH SAND
(Extracted from Table 5)
SITE Run 1
SITE Run 2
SITE Run 3
Total
Pb
Avg.
191
162
69
Pb
TCLP
Av9-
4.8
5.7
1.7
Washed sand dry basis
wt. %
Avg.
44.3
43.7
38.3
TABLE 3. BESCORP LAB DATA FOR WASHED -1/4" TO +80 MESH SAND*
SITE Run 1
SITE Run 2
SITE Run 3
Total Pb
mg/kg
Avg.
184
185
225
Pb TCLP
mg/L
Avg.
2.6
4.4
2.5
*The data above were not generated during the SITE Demonstration, but developed in
vendor laboratory tests that did not employ U.S. EPA QA/QC procedures.
of the washed sand (about 40%) is substantially within
the cleanup goals.
The data in Table 3 suggest process performance could
be improved; however, no SITE data were developed to
verify this conclusion. In Appendix B, BESCORP
discusses post-Demonstration tests on the washed sand
fraction. Based on these tests, BESCORP claims that
the addition of an attrition scrubber, plus size separation
(at plus 80 mesh) in a third separation chamber, would
improve the performance of the BSWS.
The data provide a basis for the following conclusions:
Lead removal (process) efficiencies in the three
Demonstration test runs, measured as the
percentage of lead removed from the gravel and
sand fractions of the feed, were 28, 91, and 77,
respectively. The higher removal efficiencies during
Runs 2 and 3 are traceable to process adjustments
made during the first run. Total lead removal,
based on the lead content of all the feed fractions,
reached 61, 93, and 85 percents.respectively.
Calculations are presented in Section C.2.3.
The process efficiency, which is represented by the
washed gravel and sand (minus 2W to plus 150
mesh) that meet EPA cleanup goals, expressed as
a percentage of the Feed that was greater than 150
mesh, improved significantly from 11 to 32 to 49
percent during the three runs. However, process
efficiency did not approach the 75 percent SITE
objective. The failure of the sand fraction to meet
the cleanup goals contributed significantly to the
loss in process efficiency.
The three runs produced the following battery
casing chip removal efficiencies (measured as the
percentage of chips removed from the gravel and
sand fraction): 97, 100, and 70, respectively. As
expected, none of the Demonstration runs
produced a washed casing chip fraction that met
the EPA cleanup goals for redeposit.
-------
The cost to remediate 30,000 yd3 or 56,362 tons
(dry) of contaminated soil, using a 20-tph modified
commercial BSWS, is estimated at $165/ton,
assuming the system is on-line 80 percent of the
time. This cost excludes solid-waste effluent-
shipping costs to a RCRA landfill. The modified unit
adds an attrition scrubber and a third separation
chamber to yield a smaller washed gravel/sand
fraction (minus 2V£" to plus 80 mesh), which
BESCORP claims will meet the cleanup goals as
shown in Table 4.
On this basis, BESCORP projects a process
efficiency of about 71 percent for the ABE-Site-type
soil. In addition, BESCORP projects both lead and
casing chip removal efficiencies in the 20-tph unit to
be greater than 90 percent, due to improved
process control and elimination of bottlenecks in the
Demonstration unit. No SITE Demonstration data
are available to verify these projections.
The BSWS is adaptable to soils containing battery
casings, casing chips, or metallic lead. Much of
the lead removal is achieved by separation of the
battery casings and metallic lead from the feed
soil.
The unit operated at feed rates from 2.4 to 4.2 tph
with a process on-line reliability of 87 percent.
Scale-up risk to a 20-tph commercial unit is
minimal, even with the addition of equipment for
sand washing and a clarifier sludge vacuum filter
for minimizing water loss.
The effectiveness of the BSWS as a volume
reduction unit is dependent on (1) the insolubility
of the lead compounds in the washing medium, (2)
the lead separation from the gravel and sand
fractions by density separation that removes
discrete, metallic-lead particles and by sieving that
removes the contaminated fines, and (3) the feed
soil particle size distribution.
Treatability studies on representative feed soil are
required to determine the cut point of washed
gravel/sand fraction that meets the EPA cleanup
goals and to predict the effectiveness of the BSWS
on other feedstocks.
TABLE 4. VENDOR'S PROJECTED COMMERCIAL PERFORMANCE
Feed soil
Total Pb
mg/kg
Avg.
5,600
Pb TCLP
mg/L
Avg.
85
Washed gravel
Total Pb
mg/kg
Avg.
150*
Pb TCLP
mg/L
Avg.
0.5*
Washed sand
-1A" to +80 mesh
Total Pb
mg/kg
Avg.
200*
Pb TCLP
mg/L
Avg.
3*
"The data above were not generated during the SITE Demonstration, but developed in vendor laboratory tests that did not employ
U.S. EPA QA/QC procedures.
-------
Section 2
Introduction
2.1 THE SITE PROGRAM
The EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) and the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) established the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program in
1986 to promote the development and
commercialization of innovative . technologies to
remediate Superfund sites across the country. Now. in
its eighth year, the SITE Program is helping to provide
the treatment technologies necessary to meet new
federal and state cleanup standards aimed at permanent
remedies, rather than short-term corrections. The SITE
Program includes four major elements:' the
Demonstration Program, the Emerging Technologies
Program, the Measurement and Monitoring
Technologies Program, and Technology Information
Services.
The major focus has been on the Demonstration
Program, designed to provide engineering and cost data
on selected technologies. EPA and the technology
developers participating in the program share the. cost
of the demonstration. Developers are responsible for
demonstrating their innovative systems, usually at
Superfund sites agreed upon by EPA and the developer.
EPA is responsible for sampling and analysis activities
and test result evaluation. The outcome is an
assessment of the technology's performance, reliability,
and cost. This information, used in conjunction with
other data, enables EPA and state decision-makers to
select the most appropriate technologies to remediate
Superfund sites.
Innovative technology developers apply to the
Demonstration Program by responding to the annual
EPA solicitation. To qualify for the program, a
technology developer must have a pilot- or full-scale unit
and offer some advantage over existing technologies.
Mobile technologies are of particular interest to the EPA.
Once EPA has accepted a proposal, the SITE Program,
the developer, the EPA Regional offices, and state
agencies work together to identify a site containing
wastes suitable for testing the capabilities of the
technology. The EPA SITE Program prepares a detailed
sampling and analysis plan designed to thoroughly
evaluate the technology and to ensure that the
demonstration test data are reliable. A demonstration
may require from a few days to several months,
depending on the type of process and the quantity of
waste needed to assess the technology.
In regard to the BSWS, where steady state can be
achieved within an hour from startup, a minimum of
three demonstration runs, each requiring 5 to 6 hours of
steady state operation, \vere necessary to evaluate this
process. Ultimately, the Demonstration Program leads
to an analysis of the technology's overall applicability to
Superfund sites.
The Emerging Technologies Program focuses on
conceptually proven, but untried technologies. These
technologies are in an eaily stage of development
involving laboratory or pilot testing. Successful
technologies are encouraged to advance to the
Demonstration Program.
The Measurement and Monitoring Technologies
Program identifies existing technologies that can
improve field monitoring and site characterizations. It
supports the development and demonstration of new
technologies that provide 'faster, more cost-effective real-
time data on contamination and cleanup levels. Finally,
it formulates the protocols and standard operating
procedures for demonstrated methods and equipment.
As part of the SITE Program's Technology Information
Services, an Applications Analysis Report and
Technology Evaluation Fleport are published at the
conclusion of each demonstration. Research reports on
-------
emerging technology projects are also produced.
Results and status updates are distributed to the user
communityEPA Regions, state agencies, remediation
contractors, and responsible parties-through many
media and activities.
2.2 SfTE PROGRAM REPORTS
The evaluation of technologies demonstrated in the SITE
Program Is presented in two documents: the
Technology Evaluation Report (TER) and the
Applications Analysis Report (AAR): The TER contains
a comprehensive description and complete results of
the demonstration sponsored by the SITE Program. It
details the technology process, the waste used for the
demonstration, sampling and analysis activities during
the demonstration, the data generated, and the quality
assurance program.
The scope of the AAR Is broader than the TER. It
encompasses discussions of Superfund applications and
estimation of technology costs. The AAR compiles and
summarizes the results of the SITE Demonstration, the
vendor's design and test data, and information gathered
from other laboratory and field applications of the
technology. In addition to discussing the technology's
advantages, disadvantages, and limitations, it estimates
the costs of the technology for different situations,
based on data available from pilot- and full-scale
applications. The AAR discusses factors that have a
major Impact on costs and performance, such as site
and waste characteristics.
The amount of data available 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 level. Regarding Superfund
applications, there are limits to conclusions that can be
drawn from a single field demonstration. A successful
field demonstration does not necessarily ensure that a
technology will be widely applicable or fully developed
to the commercial scale. The AAR attempts to integrate
whatever information is available and draw reasonable
conclusions. The AAR Is useful when considering the
selection of a Superfund cleanup technology; it
represents a critical step in the technology's
development and commercialization.
2.3 KEY CONTACTS
EPA SITE Demonstration Project Manager
Mr. Hugh Masters
U.S. EPA - ORD
Releases Control Branch (MS-104)
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, New Jersey 08837-3679
Telephone: (908)321-6678
Process Vendor
Mr. Craig Jones, Project Manager
BESCORP
3200 Shell Street
P.O. Box 73520
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 456-1955
For more information on the development of BSWS for
contaminated soil, please contact the following
Individuals:
-------
Section 3
Technology Applications Analysis
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This analysis addresses the potential applicability of the
BSWS to Superfund sites and other locations where
contamination from lead batteries is of primary interest.
The EPA tracks the development of control technologies
[1,4,5] for remediation of lead battery recycling sites
because these sites represent a major source of
hazardous material. BESCORP is currently developing
applications of their process to treat radioactive wastes
and organic contaminants. However, these activities are
outside the scope of this MR.
The SITE Demonstration at ABE provides a limited
database for conclusions on the effectiveness and the
applicability of the technology to other cleanups. To
understand the potential applicability of the BSWS, the
database needs to be expanded with information from
recent particle-size separation tests, conducted
subsequent to the SITE Demonstration. These data
have resulted in system modifications incorporated into
the commercial-scale plant in order to improve the
BSWS performance.
The observations and conclusions, summarized below,
are drawn from the SITE study and the above-
mentioned supplemental information. Discussions cover
site and soil characteristics, impact of state and federal
environmental regulations, applicable media, and
personnel factors. Additional information about the
BESCORP process (a process description, vendor
claims, a summary of the Demonstration test results,
and case studies of treatability tests), is provided in the
Appendices.
3.2 CONCLUSIONS
The BESCORP Demonstration was partially successful
in removing large battery casings, battery casing chips,
and discrete, metallic-lead particles from the washed
gravel and sand fractions. The process effectively
washed the gravel fraction to meet the cleanup goals
(Table 5) after process adjustments during the first run.
Although significant lead reduction was achieved in the
sand fraction, the cleanup goals were not attained.
However, SITE analytical data for the minus 14" plus 10
mesh sand fraction (Table 6) indicate that the coarser
portion of the washed sand (about 40%) is substantially
below the cleanup limits. These data suggest process
performance could be improved; however, no SITE data
were developed to veriify this conclusion. In Appendix
B, BESCORP discusses post-Demonstration tests on the
washed sand fraction. EJased on these tests, BESCORP
claims that the addition of an attrition scrubber, plus
size separation (at plus 80 mesh) in a third separation
chamber, would improve the performance of the BSWS.
The specific conclusions are as follows:
Lead removal (process) efficiencies in the three
Demonstration test runs, measured as the
percentage of lead removed from the gravel and
sand fractions of the feed, were 28, 91, and 77,
respectively. The higher removal efficiencies
during Runs 2 and 3 are traceable to process
adjustments made during the first run. Total lead
removal measurements, based upon the lead
content of all feed fractions, were 61, 93, and 85
percents, respectively. Calculations are presented
in Section C.2.3.
The process efficiency, which is represented by the
washed gravel and sand (minus 2V£" to plus 150
mesh) that meets EPA cleanup goals, expressed
as a percentage of the Feed that was greater than
150 mesh, improved siginificantly from 11 to 32 to
49 percent during the threeruns. However,
process efficiency did not approach the 75 percent
-------
TABLES
SUMMARY OF KEY PROCESS STREAM CHARACTERIZATION DATA
Stream 1A**
feed soil
average
SSI analysis
Run1*
Run 2*
Run3*
Casing
chips
wt%
dry
6.0
5.0
1.7
Total
moist
wt%
7.3
7,1
5.S
pH
6.6
6.7
7.1
Soil fraction
2.5 to 1/4" mesh
Pb
ma/ka
1,080
11,600
497
Wt%
dry
57.2
48.1
45.1
1/4" to 10 mesh
Pb
mfl/ka
3.650
8,900
824
Wt%
dry
7.8
9.5
9.7
10 to 150 mesh
Pb
ma/ka
5,670
6,840
3.340
Wt%
dry
23.9
31.3
35.7
< 150 mesh
Pb
ma/ka
17,700
16,000
8.210
Wt%
dry
11.0
11.3
9.5
Composite
Pb
mo/ka
4,210
10,400
2,280
Std.
dev."*
2,600
12,700
1,130
TCLP
Pb
mart.
72
132
50
Std.
dev.»**
42
117
21
Stream 2**
gravel
average
SS2 analysis
Run1*
Run 2*
Run 3*
Casino
chips
wt%
dry
0.4
0.0
1.2
Total
moist,
wt%
1.7
1.3
3.9
pH
7.2
7.0
6.7
2.4 to 1/4"
mesh
wt%
dry
98.3
96.9
96.3
1/4" to 150
mesh
wt%
dry
1.7
1.1
1.6
<150
mesh
wt%
dry
0.02
0.04
0.04
Composite
Pb
ma/kei
2,540
903
15
Std.
dev.***
3,230
2,070
8
TCLP
Pb
mg/L
1.0
0.8
0.2
Std.
dev.***
0.4
0.2
0.2
Stream 3**
sand
average
SS3 analysis
Run1*
Run 2*
Runs*
Casinc
chips
wl%
dry
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
moist.
wt%
11.7
11.4
12.7
PH
6.3
6.4
6.6
Soil faction
1/4' to 10 mesh
Pb
mg/kg
191
162
69
Pb, TCLP
mg/L
4.8
5.7
1.7
Wt%
dry
44.3
43.7
38.3
< 10 mesh
Pb
mg/kg
3,110
2,820
2,400
Wt%
dry
55.7
56.3
61.7
< 1 50 mesh Composite
Wt%
dry
0.5
1.0
1,3
Pb
mg/kg
1,810
1,670
1,510
Std.
dev.***
256
526
306
TCLP
Pb
mg/L
42
40
26
Std.
dev.***
3
5
3
CEC TOO TPH
Wt%
tnea/L dry ma/kq
2,7 2.0 240
2,7 1.5 228
7.1 1.2 117
00
* Run 1 - average of 7 data points
Run 2 - average of 9 data points
Run 3 - average of 8 data points
** See Figure 2 for stream identification.
*** The presence of metallic lead particles caused wide variations in the standard deviation. This is discussed in Appendix C.
-------
TABLE 6. LEAD DISTRIBUTION
Run
1
2
3
1
2
3
-W to +10 mesh fraction
Feed soil - SS1*
Total Pb
mg/kg
3,650
8,899
824
Standard
deviation
3,207
9,012
872
Sand fraction - SS3*
Total Pb
mg/kg
191
162
69
Standard
deviation
24
36
31
Pb TCLP
mg/L
4.8
5.7
1.7
Standard
deviation
1.0
1.0
1.1
-10 mesh to +150 mesh fraction
5,671
6,844
3,338
1,446
2,118
1,900
3,114
2,822
2,400
549
865
485
*See Rgure 2 for sample location.
SITE objective. The failure of the sand fraction to
meet the cleanup goals contributed significantly to
the loss In process efficiency.
The three runs produced the following battery
casing chip removal efficiencies (measured as the
percentage of chips removed from the gravel and
sand fraction): 97, 100, and 70, respectively. As
expected, none of the Demonstration runs produced
a washed casing chip fraction that met the EPA
cleanup goals for redeposit.
The BSWS is adaptable to soils containing battery
casings, casing chips, or metallic lead. Much of the
lead removal is achieved by separation of the
battery casings and metallic lead from the feed soil.
The unit operated at feed rates from 2.4 to 4.2 tph
with a process on-line reliability of 87 percent.
Scale-up risk to a 20-tph commercial unit is minimal,
even with the addition of equipment for sand
washing and a clarifier sludge-vacuum filter for
minimizing water loss.
The effectiveness of the BSWS as a volume
reduction unit depends on (1) the insolubility of the
lead compounds in the washing medium, (2) the
lead separation from the gravel and sand fractions
by density separation that removes discrete,
metallic-lead particles and by sieving that removes
the contaminated fines, and (3) the feed soil particle
size distribution. Treatability studies on representative
feed soil are required to determine the cut point of
washed gravel/sand that meets the EPA cleanup goals
and to predict the effectiveness of the BSWS on other
feedstocks.
3.3 TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
3.3.1 Lead Battery Sites
A total of 44 CERCLA lead battery sites are located
throughout the United States, including 22 on the
Superfund National Priority List (NPL). The ABE Site is
on the NPL. Batteries account for over 80 percent of
the lead used in the United States; about 50 percent of
it is recycled lead from battery-breaking operations.
There are 29 forms of commercially recyclable lead [2]
including five from batteries and two found in
Superfund-type soils and cleanup materials/wastes.
Battery casings and chips are also sources of potentially
recyclable material, primarily as a fuel supplement in
secondary (and possibly primary) lead smelters.
However, no such commercial operations exist.
Lead is the primary contaminant found in soils,
sediments, and sludges at these sites. Concentrations
ranging up to seven percent have been encountered.
(The highest at ABE was 4.5 percent.) Metallic lead
(Pb), lead sulfate (PbSO4), lead oxide (PbO), and lead
dioxide (PbO2)'are the predominant lead species found
at lead battery sites; these species were found at ABE
-------
by electron microscope analyses in the Remedial
Investigation (R!) [3].
Sites with carbonate soils generally contain lead
carbonate (PbCCy, hydrocerussite (Pb3(COa)2(OH)a), or
lead hiilite (Pb
-------
RECYCLE WATER
-2 1/2 " TO +0
CONTAMINATED
SOIL
1 r >
FEEDER
-1
1
WAS
CASING
i
MAKE-UP
WATER
1
fc TROMMEL/WASH SEPARATION _
* UNIT * CHAfo
/4" TO +10 MESH
>
^ CASINC
* SEPAF
HED l
CHIPS -21/2" 1
WASHE
QR/
FRAC
CHIPS .1/4" JO
+150 MESH ,
3 CHIP DEN
^ATOR SEpAf
rn 1 1 /4" '
:p SOIL DEWATERINQ
^EL SPIRAL
'TION CLASSIFIER
1BERS A " <-"J1"
1
COAGULANT
IFIER >
FILT
i
flV^a -150 MESH SLUDGE SOLIDS
TOR TO DRUMS
> r
CLARIFIER
FILTER RESIDUES
f
METALLIC
LEAD FRACTION
-1/4" TO +150 MESH
C/"MI
SAND FRACTION
Figure 1. The BESCORP Soil Washing System.
-------
effectively clean (to EPA goals) the soil down to 150
mesh. However, lead analyses of the washed sand
fraction (minus %" to plus 150 mesh) from the three
test runs Indicated lead contamination above the
EPA limits (Table 5), which was traced by
BESCORP, after the Demonstration, to high lead
levels in the minus 80 to plus 150 mesh portion of
the washed sand (Table 3).
The Rl sample was determined to have possessed
different characteristics from the actual soil
excavated for the Demonstration. BESCORP claims
that the washed sand fraction from ABE soil
excavated for the SITE tests, sized at minus V4" to
plus 80 mesh, will meet EPA cleanup goals. An
attrition scrubber and a third separation chamber
have been added to the commercial 20-tph BSWS
unit to produce this sand fraction.
* Adaptability to handle heterogeneous feedstocks,
as demonstrated at ABE, showed the flexibility of
the BSWS in handling feed soil containing any size
or quantity of battery casings, casing chips, or
discrete, metallic-lead particles (battery posts, grid
plates, etc.). intermittently throughout the
Demonstration, operators observed large quantities
of these materials in the feed.
* Particle size distribution of feed affects process
performance. At ABE, the BSWS is projected to
clean soil down to 80 mesh (cut point). In a typical
soil washing system, 20 to 35 percent fines are
normally acceptable, assuming negligible attrition in
the process. This would set 20 to 35 percent of
minus 80 mesh soil as the fines target content in the
feed. The ABE soil was subjected to significant
attrition; the minus 80 mesh fines increased from
about 12 percent of the feed material before
processing to about 30 percent of the feed material
after processing. This factor is significant and
should be part of future soil washing treatabiiity
studies.
3.3.4 Mass Balances and Process Stream
Characterization
For the three SITE runs, Table 5 presents the stream
characterization data and Table 7 shows the
corresponding mass balances for the streams illustrated
by Figure 2. Table 8 presents the mass balance for the
commercial unit. Mass balances for the three runs,
expressed as the percentage of total out based on total
in, were 107, 99, and 98 percents (dry solids basis),
respectively. These high levels of accuracy were the
result of the strict EPA SITE QA/QC standards.
3.3.5 Process Performance
Lead Removal Efficiency
Table 9 summarizes the lead removal (process)
efficiencies; Table 10, the total lead removal, including
lead in fines. Both are based on the mass balance data
in Table 7.
The higher removal efficiencies in Runs 2 and 3 are
traceable to process adjustments, made during Run 1,
to the casing chip separator. More detailed discussion
on lead removal is presented in C.2.3,
Process Efficiency
Table 11 summarizes the process efficiency for the three
test runs, based on the mass balance data in Table 7
and detailed characterization data.
Failure to meet cleanup goals for the sand fraction con-
tributed significantly to the loss in process efficiency.
Section C.2.3. discusses process efficiency in detail.
Battery Casing Chips Removal Efficiency
Table 12 summarizes the casing chip removal efficiency
for the three test runs, based on the mass balance data
in Table 7. The washed casing chip fraction (Stream 7)
did not achieve the EPA cleanup goals in any of the
three test runs. This was expected, based on the high
porosity of the plastic casing material.
3.3.6 Scale of Operation and Reliability
The three SITE test runs processed throughputs from
2.4 to 4.2 tph. A substantial amount of the BSWS
equipment has run at 20 tph, including the trommel
washer, dewatering spiral classifier, separation
chambers, vibrating screen, and conveyors. Scale-up to
the commercial 20-tph unit should entail minimal risk.
Throughout the test runs, the BSWS demonstrated a
high degree of process reliability at 87 percent average
on-line time.
12
-------
TABLET
MASS BALANCES FOR THE THREE SITE DEMONSTRATION RUNS
Stream
Description
Wet
total
Ibs/hr
Dry
total
Ibs/hr
Lead
-2 1/2" to
+150 mesh
Ibs/hr
Composite
Ibs/hr **
Casing chips
-2 1/2" to
+150 mesh
Ibs/hr
Composite
Ibs/hr **
1A
5
2
3
4
7
8
g
Feed soil
Make up water
Total in
Gravel
Sand
Clarifier sludge*
Washed casing chips
Heavy metal (lead) fraction
Clarifier filter residue
Total out
Total in
4,660
1,580
6,240
2,140
1,080
3,340
382
46
12
7,000
Run1
Streams in
4,320
4,320
Streams out
2,100
954
1,150
357
44
6
4,611
9.7
;
18.2
18.2
5.3
1.7
12.1
39.0
1.7
0.02
59.8
259
-
8.4
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
_
259
259
8.4
0.0
~~
1A
5
2
3
4
7
8
9
Run 2
Streams in
Feed soil
Make-up water
Total in
4,950
2,540
7,490
4,590
4,590
39
-
47.7
47.7
230
-
Streams out
Gravel
Sand
Clarifier sludge*
Washed casing chips
Heavy metal (lead) fraction
Clarifier filter residue
Total out
Total outx 100 = % balance
Total in
1,810
1,210
3,930
333
60
25
7,368
98%
1,790
1,070
1,290
321
55
8
4,534
99%
-
1.6
1.8
10.9
32.8
2.1
0.02
49.2
103%
0.0
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
230
230
0.0
0.0
1A
5
2
3
4
7
8
9
Run 3
Streams in
Feed soil
Make up water
Total in
8,260
3,410
1 1 ,670
7,830
-
7,830
11.7
-
17.8
-
17.8
133
-
-
133
-
133
Streams out
Gravel
Sand
Clarifier sludge*
Washed casing chips
Heavy metal (lead) fraction
Clarifier filter residue
Total out
Total out x 100 = % balance
Total in
3,540
1,960
5,510
375
162
64
11,611
3,440
1,710
1,950
364
145
24
7,633
99% I 97%
i
-
-
-
-
-
-
*~
0.1
2.6
11. J>
0.5
5.7
0.02
20.4
115%
41.3
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
41.3
0.0
-
-
-
-
~
* Unsettled Clarifier sludge. This sludge settled/dewatered to about 40 wt% moisture in 48 hours.
** Composite of all feed fractions.
N/A not analyzed
13
-------
MAKE-UP
WATER
CLARIFIER
FILTER RESIDUE
Figure 2. Simplified BSWS flow diagram for SITE demonstration.
-------
TABLE 8
MASS BALANCE FOR COMMERCIAL UNfT
Average system
balance
Solids (tph-dry)
Water-gpm
Feed soil
Dry total
Ib/rr
40,000
(20)
Water
Ib/hr
3,020
Make-up
Water
Ib/hr
2,960
6
Washed grave!/
sand
Dry total
Ib/hr
25,400
(12.7)
Water
Ib/hr
1,470
Cterifier
dewatered sludge
cake/residue
Dry total
Ib/hr
1 1 ,400
(5.7)
Water
Ib/hr
2,850
Casing chips
Dry total
Ib/tr
2,670
(1.3)
Water
Ib/hr
131
Metallic
lead fraction
Dry total
Ib/hr
545
(0.3)
Water
Ib/hr
50
Treated
waste
Water
Ib/hr
1,480
3
Ol
-------
TABLE 9. LEAD REMOVAL (PROCESS) EFFICIENCIES
Run
1
2
3
Le
-2%" to +150
mesh
feed fraction
9.7
39.0
11.7
ad, Ib/hr
-2V2" to +150 mesh
washed gravel and sand
7.0
3.4
2.7
Process removal
efficiency
%
28
91
77
TABLE 10. LEAD REMOVAL (TOTAL) EFFICIENCIES
Run
1
2
3
-2M "total feed
18.2
47.7
17.8
-2^"to+150 mesh
washed gravel and sand
7.0
3.4
2.7
Total removal
efficiency*
61
93
85
*For composite feed, all fractions.
TABLE 11. PROCESS EFFICIENCY
Run
1
2
3
Washed gravel fraction
% Meeting
cleanup goals
20
71
100
Ibs/hr
dry
2,100
1,790
3,440
Feed soil
-2y2" +150 mesh
Ibs/hr (dry)
3,870
4,040
7,070
Process
efficiency (%)
11
32
49
16
-------
TABLE 12. CASING CHIP REMOVAL
Run
1
2
3
Casing chips, ib/hr
-21/2Bto +150 mesh
Feed fraction
259
230
133
-21/2"to +150 mesh
Washed gravel and sand
8.4
0
41.3
Removal efficiency
%
97
100
70
3.4 RANGES OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
SUITABLE FOR THE TECHNOLOGY
3.4.1 Site Selection
The BSWS commercial-scale unit is trailer-mounted; ft
can be moved from site to site. The following discus-
sion of suitable site characteristics applies to this
commercial-scale unit. Although the geological features
of a site determine what equipment may be used within
the contaminated area, the BSWS is usually assembled
within the confines of the contaminated area or
positioned so that the contaminated soil can be easily
transported to the unit. Ultimately, the characteristics of
the site must allow assembly of the system.
3.4.2 Topographical Characteristics
A level, graded area capable of supporting the trailer-
mounted equipment is needed. The site must be clear
to allow access to the facility. The topographical
characteristics of the site should be suitable for the
assembly of the unit and the feed system, including
stockpiles.
3.4.3 Site Area Requirements
A minimum area of 1,000 square feet is required for the
BSWS. Additionally, separate areas should be provided
for storage of wastes generated during treatment and
for feed preparation activities. Since the unit can be
configured into many positions, the shape of the site is
inconsequential, except where it limits access to the
equipment.
3.4.4 Climate and Geological Characteristics
This treatment technology is limited to operating at
temperatures above freezing. Generally, any site that is
sufficiently stable to handle the weight of the trailers is
suitable for this technology.
3.4.5 Utility Requirements
The BSWS requires access to electrical power and
water. A 3-phase electrical source capable of providing
440 volts at 200 amps is required to install and to
operate the unit. A minimum water flow rate of 10
gallons per minute (gpm) is also required. Finally,
based on the BSWS Demonstration, wastewater
disposal to a POTW, at Ihe rate of about 10 gpm, is
required. BESCORP claims that a commercial unit will
not require a wastewater discharge. (See Appendix B.)
3.4.6 Size of Operation
The contaminated soil feed rate for the SITE
Demonstration was approximately 2.4 to 4.2 tph. The
projected soil feed rate for the commercial-scale unit is
20 tph. The layout of Ihe commercial-scale system may
be adjusted somewhat to conform to an optimum facility
design plan. The area needed for on-site assembly of
the system will vary with i.he configuration, requiring at
least 1,000 square feet. The area for the feed stockpile
should be sufficient to store 700 yd3 of soil.
3.5 APPLICABLE MEDIA
The BSWS can treat soils contaminated with lead from
broken lead batteries found at lead battery recycling
sites. The Demonstration test indicated that the unit is
capable of separating battery casings, casing chips, and
lead/lead compoundsfrom gravelly/sandy soil fractions.
BESCORP projects that a commercial unit, treating ABE-
type soil, could process material from 2V£" to about 80
mesh (cut point) and meet the EPA cleanup goals
proposed for ABE. Treatability tests on representative
soil samples can determine site-specific performance
17
-------
and the corresponding cut point to meet the cleanup
goals at other sites.
The process Is not effective in treating sludges or
sediments because they contain a high percentage of
fines. BESCORP claims to have applied their process,
either In bench-scale or pilot-scale operation, to other
contaminated feeds including radioactive wastes
(Appendices B and D).
3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
REQUIREMENTS
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA), EPA Is responsible for determining the
methods and criteria for removal of waste and residual
contamination from a site. The utility and cost
effectiveness of the BSWS depends on the extent of
decontamination necessary for site restoration and on
the treatment appropriate to achieve the required
cleanup levels for the particular site. If a waste exhibits
a characteristic hazard (e.g., lead toxicity), treatment will
be required. For the ABE site, EPA goals for redeposit
of soil were established (i.e., total lead less than 1,000
mg/kg and TCLP lead less than 5 mg/L).
Since the use of remedial action that "... permanently
and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility
of hazardous substances" is strongly recommended
(Section 121 of SARA), the BSWS would appear to be
an attractive candidate for remediation of sites
contaminated by lead batteries.
SARA also added a criterion for assessing cleanups that
includes consideration of potential contamination of the
ambient air. This supplements the general criteria
requiring that remedies be protective of human health
and the environment. Other than normal concerns
about volumes of contaminated soils handled by
workers and the dust generated during those
operations, there appears to be minimal risk of
contaminant exposure for workers or neighbors. Since
the soH washing is a wet process, air emissions are
minimal. BSWS-treated wastewater effluent (containing
less than 1 mg/L Pb) during the SITE Project was
suitable for discharge to the Fairbanks POTW.
White the SITE Project is exempt from formal permit
requirements under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 and equivalent
state regulations may require a RCRA permit for the
entire commercial or large-scale system to operate as a
hazardous waste treatment facility. In addition, a state-
issued air permit and a water permit may be required to
cover discharges from the system. Local requirements
for these permits vary from state to state. Therefore, it
is important to review specific state regulations early in
the planning stage.
3.7 PERSONNEL ISSUES
3.7.1 Training
Since personnel involved with sampling or other
activities close to the unit are required to wear Level D
protection, 40-hour OSHA training that covers Personal
Protective Equipment Applications, Safety and Health,
Emergency Response Procedures, and Quality
Assurance/Quality Control is required. Additional
training to address site activities, procedures,
monitoring, and equipment associated with the
technology is recommended. Personnel should also be
briefed when new operations are planned, work
practices change, or site conditions change.
3.7.2 Health and Safety
Personnel should be instructed on the potential hazards
associated with the operation of the BSWS,
recommended safety work practices, and standard
emergency plans and procedures. Health and safety
training should cover the potential hazards of exposure,
monitoring, provisions for response to exposure, and
the use and care of personal protective equipment.
When appropriate, workers should have routine medical
exams to monitor for exposure to lead. Health and
safety monitoring and incident reports must be routinely
filed; records of occupational illnesses and injuries
(OSHA Forms 101 and 200) must be maintained. Audits
ensuring compliance with the health and safety plan
should be performed.
Proper personal protective equipment should be
available for proper use by on-site personnel. Different
levels of personal protection will be required, based on
the potential hazards associated with the site and the
work activities.
Site monitoring should be conducted to identify the
extent of hazards and to document exposures at the
site. The monitoring results should be maintained and
posted.
18
-------
3.8 REFERENCES
1. USEPA Engineering Bulletin. "Selection of Control
Technologies for Remediation of Lead Battery
Recycling Sites." EPA/540/S-92/011. September
1992.
2. Lead Recycling: 1992 Directory, The Lead
Industries Association, Inc. New York, NY. [Lead
Media Hotline 1-800-922-LEAD]
3. Remedial Investigation Report for ABE, Volume I.
Prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc. March
1992 for EPA Region 10.
4. Raghavan, R., D.H. Dietz, E. Coles. Excavated Soil
Using Extraction Agents: A State-of-the-Art Review.
Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. for EPA/RREL
Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/2-89-034. December
1988.
5. Gaire, R., A. Selvakumar, and T. Basu. Selection of
Control Technologies for Remediation of Lead
Battery Recycling Sites. Foster Wheeler
Enviresponse, Inc. for EPA/RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA/540/2-91 /014. July 1991.
6. Dragun, J. The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous
Materials. Hazardous Materials Control Research
Institute. 1988.
19
-------
Section 4
Economic Analysis
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this economic analysis is to
estimate costs (excluding profit) for BSWS commercial-
scale remediation. With realistic knowledge of test
costs, ft should be possible to estimate the economics
of operating similar-sized systems at other sites. The
feed rate of the BSWS for the SITE Demonstration was
2.4 to 4.2 tph. The commercial unit is projected to
operate at 20 tph.
This economic analysis is based on assumptions and
cost figures provided by BESCORP, results of the SITE
Demonstration, and best engineering judgement. The
conclusions are presented In such a manner that the
reader can vary the assumptions, as needed, and thus
draw other conclusions.
This analysis assumes that the commercial-scale system
Is essentially the same soil washing .equipment
evaluated in the Demonstration, with certain additions
detailed In Appendix B. It also assumes that the
performance of the modified commercial-scale
equipment will improve over the SITE Demonstration
performance (Appendix C), so that the gravel and sand
fractions meet the cleanup goals that allow their
redeposit on site.
Order-of-magnitude cost estimates provided in this
section are generally +50 to -30 percent; they are
representative of charges typically billed to the client by
the vendor, exclusive of profit.
4.2 CONCLUSIONS
The commercial-scale BSWS appears to be applicable
to remediation of soils contaminated with lead from lead
batteries. The treatment cost to remediate 30,000 yd3 or
56,362 tons (dry) of contaminated soil, using a 20-tph
modified commercial BSWS unit, is estimated at a total
of $9.3 million, or $165/ton, when the system is on-line
80 percent of the time. This amount includes the solid-
waste effluent cost for RCRA landfill disposal but
excludes the expenses for manifesting and shipping to
the RCRA landfill. It also does, not cover total cleanup
cost because 4 out of the 12 categories for complete
cleanup were not included.
The modified BSWS unit adds an attrition scrubber and
third separation chamber to yield a smaller washed
gravel/sand fraction (minus 2Vz" to plus 80 mesh) that
BESCORP claims (See Appendix B.) will meet the
cleanup goals. [The washed sand fraction, minus !4" to
+ 150 mesh in the SITE test runs, did not meet cleanup
goals.] On this basis, BESCORP projects a process
efficiency of about 71 percent for the ABE-type soil. In
addition, BESCORP projects both lead and casing chip
removal efficiencies, in the 20-tph unit, to be greater
than 90 percent, due to improved process control and
elimination of bottlenecks in the unit. Recycling markets
for casing chips and the metallic-lead fraction would
further reduce treatment costs. However, at this time,
recycling markets for BESCORP casing chips and
metallic lead have not materialized. Therefore, these
materials have been included in the solid-waste effluent
cost.
4.3 ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS
This section summarizes the major issues and
assumptions used to develop the costs of the BSWS
[1]. In general, assumptions are based on information
provided by BESCORP. Certain assumptions account
for variable site and waste parameters; they will need to
be refined to reflect site-specific conditions. For
purposes of this economic analysis, a hypothetical
commercial-scale cleanup of the ABE site was assumed.
The volume of contaminated soil to be treated is
approximately 30,000 yd3 with 6.6 wt% moisture and a
bulk density of 149 ib/ft3. The soil weight on a dry basis
is then 56,362 short tons. About 46 tons were treated
in the SITE Demonstration program.
20
-------
4.3.1 Costs Excluded from Estimate
4.3.5 Capital Equipment and Fixed Costs
The cost estimates represent the charges typically billed
to the client by the vendor but do not include profit.
Many other actual or potential costs were not included
in this estimate because site-specific engineering
designs, beyond the scope of this SITE project, are
required to determine those added costs. Certain costs
that are considered to be the responsible party's (or site
owner's) obligation, such as preliminary site preparation,
permits, regulatory requirements, initiation of monitoring
programs, waste disposal, sampling and analyses, and
posttreatment site cleanup and restoration, are not
included. These expenses tend to be site-specific.
Calculations must be performed for each specific case.
Wherever possible, applicable information is provided on
these topics to facilitate site-specific calculations.
4.3.2 Utilities
To support the operation of the BSWS, a site must have
clean water available at a flow rate of at least 40 gpm.
Electric power at 440 volts is also required for the
operation. A POTW trunk line is assumed to be located
at the site boundary for discharge of treated wastewater.
4.3.3 Operating and Maintenance Schedules
Operating and maintenance schedules are based on the
BSWS operations, conducted at 20 tph, 24 hours per
day, 7 days per week. Excavation is scheduled at 84
tph, 8 hours per day, 5 days per week; assembly, 12
hours per day, 7 days per week. Excavation activities
for feed preparation are concurrent with assembly,
shakedown, and treatment operations. Time
requirements for assembly, shakedown, startup, testing,
and disassembly/decontamination are forecast at 1
week, 3 weeks, and 1 week, respectively, or about 35
days.
To treat 30,000 yd3 of feed soil at 20 tons/hr (dry) will
take about 118 days. To account for both scheduled
maintenance and unscheduled shutdowns, a 20 percent
downtime is included, for an actual treatment time
forecast of 148 days. Scheduled maintenance would be
performed by a mechanic during the day shift. Total
time on-site is estimated to be 183 days.
4.3.4 Labor Requirements
Labor requirements for excavation, equipment assembly,
startup, treatment operations, decontamination, and
demobilization are detailed in Section 4.4.5.
Annualized equipment and associated costs are pro-
rated for the period that the equipment is on-site.
4.3.6 System Design and Performance Factors
Figure 3 shows a process flow diagram of a 20-tph
mobile BESCORP commercial plant. This plant requires
about 6 gpm (18 gal/Ion dry soil) of make-up water and
discharges about 3 gpm (9 gal/ton dry soil) of treated
wastewater to a POTW where the expected lead
content, based on the SITE Demonstration, is less than
1 mg/L Pb. The washed gravel/sand fraction Is
assumed to be clean enough for redeposit on-site. The
metallic-lead fraction, plus the casing chips and battery
casings, may be candidates for recycling to a secondary
lead smelter. However, this issue was not part of the
SITE Program, nor has it been investigated to date.
Site-specific studies are required to determine the
feasibility of recycling these materials. This study
assumes that these materials will be disposed at a
RCRA landfill. The darifier- dewatered sludge cake will
be contaminated and, therefore, will also require
disposal at a RCRA landfill.
4.3.7 System Operating Requirements
Table C-3 (Appendix C) summarizes the mass balances
for the three BSWS SITE Demonstration runs. An
average system mass, balance (Table 13) for the 20-tph
BSWS commercial plant is developed from projected
feed/product streams from Table C-3 with adjustments
made for system modifications. Table 14 summarizes
operating utilities and consumables.
4.4 BASIS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
For economic analysis EEPA breaks down the overall
cost into 12 categories:
Site preparation
Permitting and regulatory
Equipment (amortized over 10 years)
Startup
Labor
Supplies and consumables
Utilities
Effluent treatment and disposal
Residuals/waste shipping, handling, disposal
Analytical activities
Facility modification, repair, and replacement
Demobilization and decontamination
21
-------
(18 QAUTON)
6 QPM
MAKE-UP WATER
* SUHQE/W
TANt
> r
CLEAN
WATER -^
TANK £
WATER
PUMP
oc
oc
3
to
til
COAGULANT <
DRUM 5
>
OJ ^ COAQ
MIX CH
l^w PIIMP - - ..
*> CLARIFIER -Ji-
gs FILTER nxn ^
o
' i N
TREATED WASTE
WATER TO POTW 1
^^ 20 TPH (DRY)
/SPS f?*0*0"-*, A s>lto-riPHRis
EXCAVATED r^~^\ - X // CAS»NQ SOflEEN
SOIL /K=K====rfs T // 1
ATER J^"1";"::'";
; BATTEHY CASINGS
(UNSPECIFIED QUANTITY)
DIRTY WATER RECIRCULATION
A
T CLtAN RINSE WATbH
"\ F
J HC
V V > '
SLURRY *___nDRUM ^ TROMMEL/WASH
v , , TANK * | SCREEN * UNIT * fT
"\ f 1 ' '
* Oz QZ* rA ' 1
i^cc 1 gd- ^~- ' ^ f < i ^ PA^INO;
<« L ^*r 5S SLURRY ' r Y f "K CHIP
SS J- -S§n f^ PUMP ^Q V J \ VX SEPARATOR
tor g * col FC CONVEYOR ~| \
i- yS ATTRITION _^ ' , k DEWATERINQ
WASHED SEPARATOR WASHED RilsfilPIFR
^_^_^ rnNTAMINATfin FINFS ^ '
h
SCREENED
FEED
21/2' TO +0
> f
"EED
)PPER
^ '
/ 'X
^
1
> ' ^?>
' "r xO. >.
JLANT < * , O CONVEYOR ( l/fy*k, WASHbO
» i? n r-ri ... «... . i TOU in fel V-.JL... «____»«,.. ^ -"^ O' /v o A i/e?i »tf.Ak,^
AMBER ^1 "*"'"" """""
»... . -«^
MESH CASINGS * 1'3 TPH (DRY5 CASINQ CHIPS
A »
1 v 0-3 TPH (DRY) METALLIC LEAD FRACTION
CLARIFIER
\ / S.F. RECYCLE WATER
^f SLUDGE
FILTER (S,R) rt 57 TPH (DRY) ^
C.F. RESIDUE 80 MESH SLUDGE ^ f
3 6PM
(9 GAl/TON)
ARIFIER DEWATERED
UDGE CAKE/RESIDUE
Figure 3. BSWS modified commercial-scale flow diagram.
-------
TABLE 13. BSWS AVERAGE SYSTEM MASS BALANCE
FOR COMMERCIAL UNIT
Average system
balance
Solids (tph-dry)
Water - gpm
Feed soil
Dry total
Ib/hr
40,000
(20)
Water
Ib/hr
3,019
Make-
up
water
Ib/hr
2,958
6
Washed gravel/
sand
Dry total
Ib/hr
25,364
(12.7)
Water
Ib/hr
1,470
Clarifier
dewatered sludge
cake/residue
Dry total
Ib/hr
11,383
(5.7)
Water
Ib/hr
2,846
Casing chips
Dry total
Ib/hr
2,688
(1.3)
Water
Ib/hr
131
Metallic
lead, fraction
Dry
total
Ib/hr
545
(0.3)
Water
Ib/hr
50
Treate
d
waste
Water
Ib/hr
1,478
3
W
TABLE 14. UTILITIES AND CONSUMABLES
Process operating utilities
and consumables
Make-up water
Treated wastewater
Electric power (440V)
Coagulant
Diesel fuel
Units
18 gal /ton dry feed
9 gal/ton*
4 kwh/ton
0.026 gal/ton
$0.25/ton
"This estimate is based on 1he BSWS Demonstration. BESCORP claims that a commercial unit will not
require a wastewater discharge.
-------
Some of these categories do not affect the costs of
operating the BSWS. The 12 cost factors examined, as
they apply to the BSWS, along with the assumptions
used, are summarized in Table 15.
4.4.1 Site Preparation Costs
The analysis assumes that preliminary site preparation
has been performed by the responsible party (or site
owner). The amount of preliminary site preparation
depends on the site. Site preparation includes site
design and layout, surveys and site logistics, legal
searches, obtaining access rights and/or adding roads,
preparing support and decontamination facilities,
installing utility connections, and erecting auxiliary
buildings. These costs are site-specific; they are not
Included in the site preparation costs.
Site preparation activities, such as excavating
hazardous-waste feed from the contaminated site, will
be required at all sites. Therefore, they are included in
this estimate. Estimates for site preparation are based
on rental costs for heavy equipment, labor charges, and
equipment fuel costs. Assuming a rate of 84 tph,
excavation activities should be conducted for 8 hours
per day, 5 days per week, over a period of 17 weeks.
Rental equipment required to achieve the 84 tph rate
Includes an excavator at $1,260/week and a dump truck
at $700/week. This equipment consumes approximately
5 gal/hr of diesel fuel.
4.4.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Permitting and regulatory costs are generally the
obligation of the responsible party (or site owner).
These costs may include expenses for applications,
actual permit, system monitoring requirements, and/or
the development of monitoring and analytical protocols.
Permitting and regulatory costs can vary greatly
because they are site- and waste-specific. No
permitting or regulatory costs are included in this
analysis. Depending on the treatment site, however,
such costs may be both expensive and time-consuming
factors.
4.4.3 Equipment Costs
Soil Washing
Soil washing is not an "off-the-shelf process; it must be
modified for site-specific conditions on a case-by-case
basis. Factors such as contaminant type and level,
cleanup criteria, soil mineralogy, and soil particle-size
distribution must be considered when designing a
treatment system. The soil is first characterized to
determine the nature and location of the contaminants.
A strategy is then developed to effect the separations
necessary to achieve the volume reduction required to
meet regulatory goals. This is accomplished by
concentrating the contaminants in a small volume of
material while producing a washed soil product that
meets appropriate cleanup criteria. The number, size,
and type of unit operations required to accomplish the
necessary separations will have an impact on the capital
costs.
BESCORP estimates the construction cost of a
commercial, 20-tph mobile soil washing system to be
$770,000. This was independently verified, using
outside sources, purchasing experience, and good
engineering judgement. Table 16 summarizes this
estimate. The equipment list and quantities were
compiled from Figure 3.
4.4.4
Startup Costs
Startup costs include assembly of the BESCORP unit,
shakedown, operator training, startup, performance
tests, and initiation of health and safety monitoring.
Assembly
The BESCORP unit will be delivered to the site on two
mobile trailers. Site-specific cost of transportation to the
site is excluded. Estimates assume that a level and
bermed location has been prepared at the site for the
two BESCORP trailers.
Three mechanics, a boom truck operator, and a front-
end loader operator will be required for 1 week (7 days,
12 hours per day in two 6-hour shifts) to assemble the
unit and connect utilitieswater, wastewater (POTW)
lines, and power (440 volts). A boom truck at $5,000
per week and a front-end loader at $3,000/week will be
rented. Diesel fuel consumption is estimated at 4
gal/hr. The labor is itemized in Section 4.4.5.
Shakedown, Operator Training, Startup, and
Performance Tests
BESCORP's experience from the SITE Program showed
that 3 weeks will be sufficient time to shake down the
unit, start it up, train operations personnel, and perform
several capacity tests to ensure that the unit meets
performance criteria. Labor encompasses one project
24
-------
TABLE 15. TREATMENT COSTS FOR THE BSWS MODIFIED COMMERCIAL UNIT*
Cost component
1. Site preparation (feed excavation only)
2. Permitting & regulatory
3. Equipment (amortized over 10 years)
4. Startup
5. Labor
6. Consumables and supplies
Health & safety gear
Flocculant/coagulant
Fuel and lubricants
7. Utilities
Process make-up water
Electric power
8. Effluent treatment & disposal
Treated wastewater
Solid wastes
9. Residuals/Waste shipping, handling,
and disposal
10. Analytical
1 1 , Facility modification, repair/
maintenance, and replacement
12. Decontamination and demobilization
TOTAL
Cost
33,300($)
31,200
32,000
1,131,000
50,000
74,100
19,400
1,000
18,200
1,700
7,900,000
-
5,700
8,000
9,305,600
Cost distribution
%
0.36
0.34
0.34
12.14
0.54
0.80
0.21
0.01
0.20
0.02
84.89
--
0.06
0.09
100.00
*Based on treatment of 30,000 yd3 of contaminated soil by the 20-tph unit, operating with an 80% on-line factor.
manager (day shift) who also performs health and safety
functions, one lead operator, one equipment operator
(payloader), three operators per 8-hour shift, and one
mechanic for one 8-hour shift per day.
These personnel are included in the total labor cost
component (Section 4.4.5), which also covers living
expenses for managers and supervisors. Maintenance
staff, the boom/pay-loader operator, and operations
personnel are locally hired. Personnel must be OSHA-
trained in hazardous-waste operations.
Health and Safety
The cost of health and safety equipment is assumed to
be similar to that used at ABE during the SITE
Demonstration, where the only pollution issues
concerned noise and lead-contaminated soil.
25
-------
TABLE 16. BSWS CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COST BREAKDOWN
Equipment
Feed hopper/conveyor
Trommel washer unit
Attrition scrubber
Separation chambers
Clarifier
Sludge filter
Pumps
Casing chip separator
Conveyor
Density separator
Dewatering spiral classifier (sand screw)
Clarifier filter
2!£M vibrating screen
Miscellaneous equipment
Quantity
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
1
5
1
1
1
1
..
Total equipment cost
Installation labor/material**
Total installed
Contingency
Installed grand total equipment cost
1993
Cost, $*
20,000
50,000
30,000
30,000
24,000
90,000
12,000
27,000
30,000
6,000
16,000
10,000
92,000
19,000
456,000
220,000
676,000
94,000
770,000
Costs developed from January 1993 vendor quotes.
"Use 50% installation factor reference [2].
The project manager doubles as the health and safety
officer on day shifts and a lead operator doubles at
night. Personnel on-site must wear Level D protection
as noted below. The cost is presented in Section 4.4.6.
Depending on the site, however, local authorities may
Impose more stringent health and safety regulations,
which may have significant impact on the project cost.
Health and Safety Equipment
Tyvek suits Safety glasses
Double gloves Decibel meter
Safety boots
Hard hats
Ear plugs
Air RAM monitor
Eyewash station
Decontamination supplies
26
-------
4.4.5 Labor Costs
4.4.7
Utilities
Labor costs are divided into salaries and living
expenses. Salaries include benefits and
administrative/overhead costs but exclude profit. Living
expenses ($130 per day per person) for all on-site
personnel (project manager, lead operators, and
supervisors) include sharing a rental car. Other
employees are locally hired.
Excavation Labor Requirements and Rates
From Section 4.4.1, the labor requirements are shown in
Table 17.
BSWS Equipment Assembly Labor and Rates
From Section 4.4.4, the labor requirements are
summarized in Table 18.
BSWS Operations Labor and Rates (Shakedown and
Production)
Referring to Section 4.4.4, operations staff will consist of
1 lead operator, 3 operators, and 1 equipment operator
(payioader). The BSWS will operate 24 hours per day
(three 8-hr shifts per day), 7 days per week. Four crews
will be assigned to a standard shift rotation, with each
person working 40 hours per week and 8 scheduled
overtime hours during each 4-week rotation. A project
manager (who also performs health and safety
functions) and a maintenance mechanic are scheduled
for 5 days per week on the day shift. The BESCORP
operations labor requirements and rates are detailed in
Table 19. These requirements are the same for both
shakedown and full production operations. Note that
each operator works an average of 42 hours per week
(one overtime shift every 4 weeks).
4.4.6 Supplies and Consumables
Health and safety equipment (Level D), a
consumable item, costs about $40,000 for the 183-
day project.
Fuel and lubricants should total about $19,400.
Coagulant consumption is about 0.026 gal/ton (dry
feed).
Make-up water costs about $0.02/ton of dry feed
based on 18 gal/ton at $1.00/1,000 gai.
Electric power costs $0.32/ton based on 4 kwh/ton
at $0.08 kwh.
4.4.8
Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs
The treated wastewater, containing less than 1 mg/L
total lead, should be suitable for discharge to a POTW.
The responsible party or site owner must obtain a
discharge permit from the local municipality. Typical
cost (Fairbanks) is $3.35/1,000 gal. Cost per ton (dry
feed) is then $0.03 at 9 gal/ton consumptionassuming
a POTW trunk line is available at the site.
Contaminated solid effluent wastes including casing
chips, metallic-lead fractions, and clarifier
residue/dewatered sludge cake will be sent for disposal
to a RCRA-permitted facility. In Table 13, these wastes
total about 0.44 wet Ions/ton of dry feed. This estimate
includes the landfill cost of $138.60/ton of dry feed,
based on a tipping fee al a RCRA landfill of $315/ton of
lead-contaminated waste.
However, shipping, handling, manifesting, and waste
profile analyses are assumed to be the obligation of the
responsible party and, therefore, are not included in this
estimate.
4.4.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling,
and Disposal Costs
Disposal costs for contaminated health and safety gear,
protective plastic sheeting, and other residuals are
assumed to be the obligation of the responsible party
(or site owner). They are not included in this estimate.
4.4.10 Analytical Costs
Analytical costs are not included in this estimate.
Standard operating procedures for the BSWS do not
require sampling and analytical activities. The client
may elect, or may be required by local regulatory
agencies, to initiate and fund a sampling and analytical
program. If specific sampling and monitoring criteria
are imposed by local regulatory agencies, the analytical
27
-------
TABLE 17. EXCAVATION LABOR REQUIREMENTS
Position
Excavator operator
Dump truck operator
Number
1
1
Hours
per week
40
40
Rate
$/hour
30
30
TABLE 18. BSWS ASSEMBLY LABOR REQUIREMENTS
Position
Boom & front-end loader operators
SupervIsor/H&S officers
Mechanics
Number
2
2
6
Hours
per week
42
42
42
Rate
$/hour
30
50
30
Note: Each person works 6 hrs/day for 7 days.
TABLE 19. OPERATIONS LABOR REQUIREMENTS
Position
Project Manager/H&S officer
Process Lead Operators
Process Operators
Equipment Operators
Mechanic
Number
1
4
12
4
1
Hours
per week
40
42
42
42
40
Rate
($/hour)
60
50
40
30
30
requirements could significantly increase the cost of the
project.
4.4.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and
Replacement Costs
Maintenance labor and material costs vary with'the
nature of the waste and the performance of the
equipment. For estimating purposes, total annual costs
of maintenance (labor and materials) are assumed to be
10 percent of annualized equipment costs. Main-
tenance labor typically accounts for two-thirds the total
maintenance costs, as previously discussed in Section
4.4.5. Maintenance material costs are estimated at one-
third the total maintenance cost and are prorated to the
entire treatment period. Costs for design adjustments,
facility modifications, and equipment replacements are
included in the maintenance costs.
4.4.12 Site Demobilization and Decontamination
Costs
Based on the SITE Program experience, decontamina-
tion of mobile equipment and demobilization requires
28
-------
seven days. A boom truck at $5,000/week and a front-
end loader at $3,000/week will be rented for one week.
Fuel consumption is estimated at four gal/hr. These
costs are limited to equipment decontamination and
demobilization; transportation is excluded.
Site cleanup and restoration are limited to equipment
removal from the site. Requirements regarding the
filling, grading, or recompaction of the soil will vary
depending on the future use of the site; they are
assumed to be the obligation of the responsible party
(or site owner).
4.5 RESULTS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Table 15 presents the total BSWS treatment cost, at 80
percent on-line, to be $9.3 million, itemized by cost
category. It should be noted that the dollar total does
not add up to the total cleanup cost because some cost
categories (i.e., complete site preparation, permitting,
sampling, analyses, and residuals/waste shipping and
disposal) were not included. The disposal cost for the
solid waste effluent streams (clarifler residue/dewatered
sludge, casing chips and metallic lead fraction)
represents about 85 percent of the treatment costs. The
next largest cost components are labor (12 percent) and
consumables and supplies (1.5 percent).
Based on 56,362 tons (dry basis) of contaminated soil
treated, the total unit cost is $165 per ton. BESCORP
believes it is feasible to develop recycling markets for
casing chips and the metallic-lead fraction, which would
further reduce treatment costs. However, at this time,
the recycling markets have not materialized.
4.6
REFERENCES
1. Evans, G.E. "Estimating Innovative Technology
Costs for the SITE Program." EPA/RRELforJourna/
of Air Waste Management Association. July 1990.
Volume 40, No. 7.
2. Peters, M.S. and K.D. Timmerhaus. Plant Design
and Economics for Chemical Engineers. Third
Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. 1980.
29
-------
Appendix A
Process Description
A.1 INTRODUCTION
A.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Genera!
Previous treatability tests indicate that the BSWS, a
continuous flow process, can remove metals such as
lead, lead compounds, and certain radioactive waste
from coarse/sandy soil through a combination of
trommel agitation, high-pressure washing, density
separation, and particle-size segregation. Typically, the
heavy metals concentrate in the fines fraction (less than
1SO mesh), a small portion of the original soil, thus
reducing the volume of material requiring disposal or
further treatment. The BSWS effectively separates
washed coarse/sandy soil particles from the fines.
Contaminant solubility in the process water can be a
significant factor both in contaminant distribution and
wastewater treatment. The arrangement and operation
of the process will depend on site contaminant(s)
characteristics.
ABE Site
The contamination at the ABE Site was primarily metallic
lead and lead compounds from broken batteries found
In a gravelly/sandy soil. The soil was a heterogeneous
feedstock that contained large pieces of battery casings,
various size pieces of metallic-lead battery posts, battery
casing chips, together with fine particles of lead and
lead compounds.
For the SITE Demonstration, the soil was prescreened
from material that would not pass a 21/6" x 2V£" square
grating, eliminating some rocks and the large battery
casings. Previous tests by BESCORP indicated water
(no additives) was sufficient as the washing medium. A
mobile 20-tph unit was used to perform this SITE
Demonstration, though flow rates for the test runs were
significantly below 20 tph, at 2.4 to 4.2 tph, due to flow
limitations (bottleneck) in the casing chip separator.
Figure A-1 presents an isometric flow diagram of the
BSWS SITE Demonstration. A more detailed flow
diagram with sampling points and mass balance
streams is presented in Appendix C, Figure C-2. A
modified commercial-scale flow diagram is presented in
Section 4.
Contaminated soil, screened from battery casings and
consisting of particles less than 2V6" in diameter, falls
from a hopper to a conveyor that feeds the revolving
trommel wash unit. The washer breaks the soil apart
through deagglomeratlon and attrition washing.
Soil ranging from minus 214" to plus 14" diameter (gravel
fraction) passes from a drum screen to a conveyor,
which ends at a casing chip separator that removes
battery casing chips from the gravel. This unit also
takes out any heavy metallic-lead particles, which then
fall into a drum for recycling. The washed gravel is
stockpiled.
Material smaller than 1/4" passes through the drum
screen into a slurry tank from which the slurry is
pumped into the first counter-flow separation chamber.
The small casing chips (less than 1/4"), separated from
the soil by a 10-mesh screen, travel to the chip pile.
The fine slurry flows through the 10-mesh screen and
passes to the second counter-flow separator for further
particle size separation.
The minus %" to plus 150 mesh soil particles (sand
fraction) recovered from the two separators pass over a
density separator. This device removes discrete,
metallic-lead particles, which are stored in drums with
the larger particles of metallic lead from the chip
separator. The remaining soil enters a dewatering spiral
classifier where the washed sand exits on a conveyor to
a washed sand stockpile.
30
-------
No. Description No. Description
1 Excavated soil
2 Debris screen -2V4"
3 Battery casings and debris
4 Screened feed pile (-ZW to +0)
5 Feed hopper
6 Feed conveyor
7 Trommel wash unit
8 Drum screen
9 Slurry tank
10 Slurry pump
11 Separation chamber No. 1
No. Description
12 Screen -10 mesh
13 Density separator
14 Heavy metal fraction (Pb) drum
15 Dewatering spiral classifier
16 Product conveyor
17 Washed sand pile (-W to + ISO mesh)
18 Separation chamber No. 2
19 Product conveyor
20 Casing chip separator
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Washed casing chips (-2W to 10 mesh) 31
Washed gravel stockpile (-2W to + W1)
Coagulation mix chamber
Clarlfler
Liquid discharge to POTW
Sludge drum
Coagulation drum and pump system
Make-up water
Filter and surge/water storage tank
Clean water tank
Water circulation pump
Figure A-1. BESCORP Soil Washing System (isometric drawing).
31
-------
The finest particles, small enough to pass through a
150-mesh screen, mix with a coagulant and enter a
clarifier. There they form a dense sludge, which is
discharged to waste storage drums for proper disposal
at an EPA-approved landfill. The liquid recycles in the
system from the clarifier through a filter and surge/water
storage tank. Clean make-up water enters through the
surge/water storage tank.
32
-------
Appendix B
Vendor's Claims for the BESCORP Soil Washing System
B.1 INTRODUCTION
The concept of reducing the volume of soil
contaminated with chemicals is based on the tendency
of many organic and inorganic contaminants to bind
chemically or physically to clay and silt particles. These
particles may attach to larger soil particles (sand and
gravel) through chemical precipitation that coats
particles, or through physical processes such as
adsorption, absorption, or compaction of soil mass
(agglomeration),
B.2 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The BESCORP Soil Washing System (BSWS) is a water-
based process for mechanically scrubbing excavated
soils. The process uses a variety of treatment methods,
depending on the contaminant type(s), as follows:
Particle size separation:
- Concentration of contaminants with the fine soil
fraction
Gravity separation:
Liberation and removal of dense or light
paniculate contaminants
Attrition scrubbing:
- Liberation of chemical coatings (such as PbSO4)
from soil particles
Contaminant dissolution in the wash solution:
- Partitioning contaminants to the wash solution,
and removing them in the wastewater treatment
system
Figure B-1 depicts a simplified block flow diagram of the
BSWS, which can vary based on the characteristics of
both the soil and the contaminants). In addition, the
approach can vary depending on whether a physical
volume-reduction process (resulting in a smaller volume
of more contaminated material) is requested, or if total
remediation of the site material is specified.
B.3 CLAIMS
BESCORP can separate soils and contaminants by
virtue of the size and density character of each, based
on physical principles and treatability tests that
BESCORP has performed.
1. The BSWS can segregate fine material from the
coarse material, alter the "size" cut within minutes,
and produce a coarse fraction that is free from
undersize. This is a very important capability
because the fines very often are the contaminants,
or are very contaminated. The ability to produce
the oversize iree from fines is not easily
achievable with other sizing devices such as
hydrocyclones or sand screws.
2. The BSWS can recover material from the soils
based on the density of the contaminant as well
as the particle size so it can recover the dense
metals as well as light material that might be
contaminated (such as the battery casings that
are permeated with lead).
3. The BSWS can remove contaminated surface
coatings from soil, sand, and gravel particles, thus
moving the contamination from the oversize to the
fine fraction.
The above processes are able to provide a washed
sand and gravel fraction (2V& in x 150 mesh) that is
suitable for placement back on-site in many instances.
In other cases, ft will be necessary to provide post-
treatment to complete remediation. The BSWS process
provides a more amenable material for post-treatment.
Soil fractions can be processed through a series of
steps optimized for each individual feed requirement.
33
-------
Contaminated
Soil Feed
Initial Screening
+2 1/2" Oversize Material
Battery Casings and Debris
Solids Deagglomeration/
Wash Process
Casing Chips
Coarse Particle Size
Separation/High-Pressure
Rinse
-2 1/2" to +1/4"
Material
1
Gravity Separator
Fine Particle Size
Separation
-1/4" to +150
Mesh Soil
Gravity Separator
Discrete Metallic Lead
150 Mesh Contaminated
Fines to Disposal or Post Treatment
Water Recycle
Figure B-1. BESCORP block flow diagram.
-2 1/2' to +1/4"
Washed Gravel
Fraction
-> Metallic-Lead
Fraction
-> -1/4" to+150
Mesh Washed
Sand
34
-------
B.4 DESCRIPTION OF DEMONSTRATION
CONDITIONS
Soil washing is a flexible processing approach for
contaminated soil volume reduction. This flexibility can
only be utilized when the material has been properly
evaluated through effective sample collection and site
assessment. The proper configuration of the plant is
dependent on the lab evaluation of the material at the
site, as represented by the remedial investigation and
treatability samples provided to the soil washing
contractor. This must be determined before the plant
can be built or modified for that particular application.
If the sampling program that generates the samples
and/or data that are used to design the plant Is in error,
then the plant performance will be compromised.
The BESCORP participation in the EPA SITE
Demonstration Program provided an opportunity to
operate the BSWS with very concentrated oversight on
the application of the plant to a contaminated material
that was perfect for a size-separation-only process. This
was the concept until the site was excavated for the
material to be processed.
The excavated material was observed to be dramatically
different from the ABE Treatability Study samples
(Appendix D Case D.10). There were nearly whole
battery casings and every size smaller; there were
metallic lead pieces as large as 5-pound battery buses.
BESCORP immediately realized that the plant would not
be able to provide a passing product. As mentioned
elsewhere, the plant was modified to remove dense
metallic lead in every imaginable size and configuration,
and to remove every size casing particle from half
casings down, in both ebonite and polyethylene.
BESCORP made best estimate projections from the
evaluation of this material as to the split required at 150
mesh to provide a clean sand fraction. After the
shakedown period, BESCORP felt that they were within
the design envelope for this material to process through
the BSWS plant and meet the redeposit goals; however,
subsequent SITE test data revealed that the sand cut
should have been set at 80 mesh.
After the first run through the plant, no further alterations
were allowed under the SITE Program oversight, as the
three runs needed to be consistent to measure plant
performance. The weather allowed only marginal
operating temperatures for the plant; freezing
temperatures prevented processing of all the material
stockpiled on-site. BESCORP was able to complete the
test runs and began decontamination of the plant with
6 inches of snow on the ground and many components
frozen. No attempt to rerun the tests was possible at
that point.
B.5 BSWS MODIFIED COMMERCIAL UNIT
FOR ABE-TYPE LEAD REMOVAL
As discussed in Appendix C, the SITE analytical data in
Tables C-1 and C-3 indicate that the BSWS is effective
in removing lead from the minus %" to plus 10 mesh
fraction of the feed soil to produce a corresponding
fraction of washed sand that meets the cleanup goals.
The minus 10 mesh to plus 150 mesh sand fraction will
not meet the established EPA goals due to the presence
of excessive contaminated fines. Therefore, the washed
sand fraction (that will meet EPA goals) must be cut
somewhere between 10 and 150 mesh to maximize the
quantity of material that meets these goals.
Based on recent bench-scale tests in Table B-1,
BESCORP claims that the addition of an attrition
scrubber plus size separation (at plus 80 mesh) in a
third separation chamber will produce a minus 1/4" to
plus 80 mesh sand fraction that will meet these goals
(these equipment items are discussed below). From
these data, BESCORP projects the following process
efficiencies for the three Demonstration runs: 76, 67,
and 69 percent, respectively. This has not yet been
demonstrated by the BSWS unit.
To upgrade the BESCORP unit to a full commercial size,
and to achieve the performance objectives, the following
equipment items are included in Figure 3:
Performance Objective: Remove large battery
casings from soil.
A 2W vibrating screen unit is included. This item
was used at ABE but was not within the scope of
the BSWS SITE Demonstration unit.
» Performance Objective: Clean sand to meet EPA
cleanup goals.
Downstream of the density separator, add an
attrition scrubber that contains slurry agitation
cells in series, each with a large variable speed
agitator.
Downstream of the attrition scrubber, add a third
separation chamber that produces a minus 1/4" to
plus 80 mesh sand fraction.
35
-------
TABLE B-1. BESCORP ATTRITION WASHING AND SCREENING
Vendor Bench-Scale Data*
Run
1
1
Average
2
2
Average
3
Average
Bench
test
1-5
1-C
2-7
2-C
3-1
-1/4" to +80 mesh sand fraction
Dry wt.% of
total sand fraction
83.3
88.4
85.9
. 91.8
87.9
89.9
84.2
84.2
Total Pb
mg/kg
98
270
184
390
185
288
225
225
Pb, TCLP
mg/L
1.2
3.9
2.6
4.1
4.6
4.4
2.5
2.5
*Da!a not validated under SITE Program.
» Performance Objective: Reduce water loss in
clariffer sludge.
Add a rotary vacuum sludge filter to reduce the
water loss. Filter vendor claims ABE sludge could
achieve 80 to 85 percent dry solids content.
36
-------
Appendix C
SITE Demonstration Results
C.1 INTRODUCTION
The goal of this SITE Demonstration was to determine
the effectiveness of the BSWS in remediating lead-
contaminated soil at a lead battery site. ABE was
selected as a representative site on the basis of a
Remedial Investigation (Rl) and the site's inclusion on
the NPL (Figure C-1) in 1989, SITE Demonstrations
emphasize meeting the EPA cleanup levels (and/or
ARARs) for the hazardous contaminants) present.
The established EPA cleanup levels for redeposit of the
ABE Site soil were less than 1,000 mg/kg total lead and
less than 5 mg/L TCLP lead. Soil excavations at three
different locations resulted in three marginally different
feed soil analyses.
The primary objectives of the BSWS SITE Demonstra-
tion consisted of the following:
Assess the ability of the process to comply with
EPA's lead cleanup goals for redeposit of washed
soil at the site;
Determine if the BSWS can achieve greater than 75
percent process efficiency by washing sufficient
percentages of contaminated gravel and sand to the
levels suitable for redeposit;
Develop economic data for the BSWS.
Secondary objectives were as follows:
Determine if the washed battery casing chips meet
the cleanup goals;
Evaluate the BSWS reliability;
Document the operating conditions of the BSWS for
application to other hazardous waste sites.
The Rl analytical data plus Initial treatability tests
(Appendix D) performed by BESCORP in 1991 on ABE
soil samples (used for 1 he Rl analyses) indicated that the
site was ideal for the BSWS because lead contamination
consisted primarily of fine particles (minus 150 mesh) in
a gravelly/sandy soil. However, feed soil excavated for
the Demonstration differed significantly from the Rl
samples due to sizable quantities of whole battery
casings, casing chips, and metallic lead discovered in
the soil, plus contamination of a portion of the sand
fraction above 150 mesh, BESCORP modified their
system to remove these materials by adding a casing
chip separator and a density separator. Whole battery
casings were eliminated with a 2!£" screen prior to the
Demonstration runs.
A portable BSWS unit with a design capacity of 20 tph
was used to evaluate the process effectiveness. The
original BSWS, built to process 20 tph of soil when
removing silt and clay From uncontaminated sandy soil,
was a water-based, volume-reduction unit that used
agitation, attrition scrubbing, high pressure washing, and
particle size separation. This system was modified to
remove lead, lead compounds, and battery casing chips
through the addition of a density separator and a casing
chip separator. The modified system capacity is about
5 tph, primarily due to restricted flow in the casing chip
separator.
The BSWS was demonstrated at the ABE Site in August
1992. About 46 tons of soil contaminated with broken
lead batteries were treated during the program. The
Demonstration included a series of shakedown tests and
three test runs. Prior to initial system startup, the EPA
and the SITE contractor (FWEI) reviewed the final
Demonstration Test Plan (including the approved Quality
Assurance Project Plan) with BESCORP personnel [1].
Pilot plant shakedown and blank runs started the first
week in August and continued for three weeks. During
this time, a field audit was made by S-Cubed, Inc. for
the EPA.
37
-------
X
X
X
-X
CO
CO
30TH AVENUE
DOWNED POWER POLES
ELECTRICAL
SUB-STATION
LEGEND
x EXISTING FENCE LINE
BESCORP UNIT
FWEl
OFFICE
ALASKAN
BATTERY
ENTERPRISES
CONCRETE PORCH
i
OLD RICHARDSON HIGHWAY
SCALE.r-SQ'-e-
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRESPONSE, INC,
ALASKAN BATTERY ENTERPRISES
EPA SITE PROGRAM
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
SITE MAP
RiV. B 7/0/S2 a AuW
RiV. I 3/23/M J. DaHno
tag, A?y-BAT
Figure C-1. ABE site map.
-------
The three SITE test runs were conducted during the last
two weeks in August.
C.2 SOIL WASHER PERFORMANCE
C.2.1 Overview
Figure C-2 presents a detailed flow diagram of the
BSWS SITE Demonstration Unit with identification and
location of sample points and mass balance streams.
Process stream characterization and associated
statistical data are presented in Tables C-1 and C-2.
The detailed mass balances for the three test runs are
shown in Table C-3. Appendix A contains a description
of the process. Figure C-3 presents the plant layout.
Total Lead
Figures C-4, C-5, and C-6 plot the total lead
concentration in the feed soil (SS1), washed gravel
(SS2), and sand fractions (SS3) as a function of total
lapsed time for the three Demonstration runs. In Run 1,
three gravel samples contained discrete pieces of
metallic lead due to improper operation of the casing
chip separator. Minor equipment adjustments, made to
this separator after Run 1, improved metallic lead
removal. By Run 3, no metallic lead was present in the
washed gravel. With the improved metallic lead
removal, the washed gravel easily met the EPA goals for
both total lead and TCLP (Figures C-6 and C-7).
Effect of Metallic Lead on Heterogeneity
The presence of metallic lead particles was the largest
contributing factor in producing heterogeneous lead
removal data. Table C-2 summarizes the total lead and
TCLP measurements for both the untreated feed soil
and the treated gravel and sand fractions. Samples that
contained visible metallic lead particles had much higher
lead content and much greater variability (heterogeneity)
than the samples where no visible metallic lead was
detected. This effect was most obvious in the gravel
fraction, where both the average total lead content and
the standard deviation are two orders of magnitude
greater for samples with visible metallic lead. The
bimodal population containing visible metallic lead and
no visible metallic lead indicates the importance of
efficiently removing the metallic lead from the gravel
fraction. The sand fraction contained no visible metallic
lead.
Total Lead and TCLP Profiles
The total lead and TCLP concentration profiles of the
washed sand fractions did not meet EPA goals in any of
the three runs (Figures C-4, C-5, C-6, and C-7) because
the sand fraction was improperly sized due to the
presence of excessively contaminated fines. This
conclusion is substantiated by the data presented in
Tables C-1 and C-4 (Lead Partitioning). Table C-1
indicates that the washed composite sand fraction
(SS3), consisting of minus 1/4" to plus 150 mesh material,
failed both TCLP lead (42, 40, and 26 mg/L) and total
lead (1,808, 1,670, and 1,509 mg/kg) cleanup goals.
However, if the washed material is split into a coarse
(minus W to plus 10 mesh) and a fine (minus 10 to plus
150 mesh) fraction, the coarse sand fraction meets the
EPA goals, with Ihe exception of one TCLP
measurement that slightly exceeded the TCLP goal. The
sand fines fraction (minus 10 mesh to plus 150 mesh)
failed to meet the EPA goals. Appendix B discussed
modifications to the BSWS unit in washing the sand to
improve operation for a commercial unit.
C.2.2 Process Monitoring and Control
Mass Balances
Washed gravel (Stream 2, Figure C-2) and sand (Stream
3) were weighed on a truck scale at about 10-minute fill
times (45- to 60-minute intervals) to develop flow rate
data. The feed soil (Stream 1) was also weighed by
truck scale and dumped into the feed hopper by a front-
end loader on a fairly consistent, although intermittent,
batch basisas presented in Figures C-8, C-9, and C-10.
These figures show the total lapsed time for each run
including shutdowns.
The feed flow rate to the trommel washer (Stream 1A)
was controlled by the combination of variable speed of
the conveyor and adjustable discharge port opening.
Feed rate was calibrated before each test run. The
mass balance flow rates in Table C-3 represent the
average rates calculated over the actual operating time
of the unit (excluding downtime). Clarifier sludge
(Stream 4) was collected in drums, at a fairly uniform
rate. When filled, 1hese drums were immediately
sampled with a Coliwasa tube to obtain a representative
sample (SS4). The drums were weighed and analyzed
at the end of a run. The total sludge weight was then
divided by the operating hours to develop the average
39
-------
MAKE-UP
WATER
SCREENED
FEED
STOCKPILE
-21/2' TO +0
CONTAMINATED
FEED SOIL
VARIABLE
FLOW
CONVEYOR
-2V2" TO +1/4"
WASHED SOIL
GRAVEL FRACTION
STOCKPILE
CLARIFIER
FILTER RESIDUE
SLUDGE DRUMS
FOR DISPOSAL
WASHED
CASING
CHIPS
2V2' TO +0
DRUM
1/4" TO +150 MESH
WASHED SOIL
SAND FRACTION
STOCKPILE
LEGEND
SAMPLE POINT
MATERIAL BALANCE STREAM
Figure C-2. Detailed BSWS flow diagram for SITE demonstration.
-------
TABLE C-1
KEY PROCESS STREAM CHARACTERIZATION DATA
Stream 1A
feed soil
average
SS1 analysis
Run1*
Run a*
Runs*
Casing
chips
wt%
drv
6.0
5.0
1.7
Total
moist
wt%
7.3
7.1
5.3
pH
6.6
6.7
7.1
Soil fraction - modified lead digestion without grinding
2.5 to 1/4 'mesh
Pb
ma/kq
1,080
11,600
497
Wt%
drv
57.2
48.1
45.1
1/4" to 10 mesh
Pb
mq/kq
3,650
8,900
824
Wt%
drv
7.8
9.5
9,7
10 to 150 mesh
Pb
ma/ka
5,670
6,840
3,340
Wt%
drv
239
31 3
357
< 150 mesh
Pb
mq/ka
17,700
16,000
8,210
Wt%
drv
11.0
11.3
9.5
Composite
Pb
ma/kq
4,210
10,400
2,280
Pb
TCLP
mq/L
72
132
50
Stream 2
gravel
average
SS2 analysis
Run1*
Run 2*
Run 3*
Casing
chips
wt%
drv
0.4
0.0
1.2
Total
moist.
wt%
1.7
1.3
3.9
pH
7.2
7.0
6.7
2.4 to 1/4"
mesh
wt%
drv
98.3
96.9
96.3
1/4"to150
mesh
wt%
drv
1.7
1.1
1.6
<150
mesh
wt%
drv
0.02
0.04
0.04
Composite
Pb
ma/ka
2,540
903
15
Pb
TCLP
mg/L
1.0
0.8
0.2
Streams
sand
average
SS3 analysis
Run1* '
Run 2*
Runs*
Casing
chips
wt%
dry
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
moist
wt%
11.7
11.4
12.7
pH
6.3
6.4
6.6
Soil fraction - modified lead digestion without grinding
1/4 to 10 mesh
Pb
mg/kg
191
162
69
Pb. TCLP
mg/L
4.8
5.7
1.7
Wt%
dry
44.3
43.7
38.3
<10mesh
Pb
mg/kg
3,110
2,820
2,400
Wt%
dry
55.7
56.3
61.7
< 150 mesh
Wt%
dry
0.5
1.0
1.3
Composite
Pb
mg/kg
1,810
1,670
1.510
Pb
TCLP
mg/L
42
40
26
* Run 1 average of 7 data points
Run 2 average of 9 data points
Run 3 average of 8 data points
41
-------
TABLE C-2. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF LEAD IN FEED SOIL,
GRAVEL, AND SAND FRACTIONS
Run
Food Soil
1
2
3
Gravel Fraction
1
2
3
Sand fraction*
1
2
3
Metallic
lead
No
Yes
Total
No
Yes
Total
No
Yes
Total
No
Yes
Total.
No
Yes
Total
No
Yes
Total
Total
Total
Total
Data
points
5
2
7
4
5
g
7
1
8
3
3
6
7
2
9
8
0
8
7
9
8
Total lead
mg/kg
Avg.
2,649
8,318
4,211
4,516
14,322
10,374
2,116
3,223
2,276
33
4,423
2,541
26
3,972
903
15
NA
15
1,808
1,670
1,509
Range
2,293-3,362
7,765-8,870
2,293-8,870
3,686-6,590
2,911-45,450
2,911-45,450
951-4,709
3,223
951-4,709
32-35
1,078-9,631
32-9,631
17-35
1,302-6,641
17-6,641
5-32
NA
5-32
1,449-2,172
963-2,477
833-1,903
Standard
deviation
400
553
2,600
1,201
14,322
12,686
1,145
NA
1,132
1.4
3,167
3,283
6.2
2,670
2,067
8.2
NA
8.2
256
526
308
Pb TCLP
mg/L
Avg.
75
63.5
72
156
113
132
46
72
50
0.6
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.2
NA
0.2
42
40
26
Range
42-170
45^2
42-170
50-440
48-190
48-440
26-90
72
26-90
0.4-0.7
1.2-1.6
0.4-1.6
0.5-1.1
0.8-1,0
0.5-1.1
0.1-0,6
NA
0.1-0.6
37-48
30-47
21-29
Standard
deviation
47.8
18.5
42.0
164
48.2
117
20.3
NA
20.8
0.14
0.19
0.40
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.15
NA
0.15
3.4
5.0
3.0
*No metallic lead found in sand fraction.
-------
TABLE C-3
DETAILED MASS BALANCES FOR THE THREE SITE DEMONSTRATION RUNS
Stream
Description
Wet
total
Ibs/hr
Dry
total
Ibs/hr
Water
Ibs/hr
Lead
mfl/kfl
TCLP
ma/L
Ibs/hr
Casing chips
Wt%
dry
Ibs/hr
1A
5
2
3
4
7
8
9
Run 1
Streams in
Feed soil
Make up water
Total in
4,660
1,580
6,240
4,320
4,320
340
1,580
1,620^
Streams ou
Gravel
Sand
Clarrfiof sludge*
Washed casing chips**
Heavy metal (lead) fraction***
ClarMer filter residue
Total out
TolaTout x 1 00 = * Balance
Total in
2,140
1,080
3,340
382
46
12
7,000
2,100
954
1,150
357
44
6
4,611
36
126
2,190
25
2
7
2,386
4,210
~
72
~
t
2,540
1,810
10,500
102,000
39,000
2,600
~.
112% T T07% I 124% 1 -
1.0
42.0
85
613
380
N/A
~
18.2
18.2
5.3
1.7
12.1
39.0
1.7
0.02
59.8
329%
6.0
~
0.4
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
"~"
259
259"
8.4
0.0
.
"I
1A
5
Z
3
4
7
8
9
i
Ruri""2 ' '
Streams in
Feed soil
Make -up water
Total in
Gravel
Sand
Clarrfier sludge*
Washed casing chips**
Heavy metal (lead) fraction***
Clarffier filter residue
Total out
I otai out x i do = % balance
Total in
4,050
2,540
7,490
1,810
1,210
3,930
333
60
25
7,368
aS%
4,590
4,590
1,790
1,070
1,290
321
55
8
4,534
»9%
351
2,540
2,891
Streams ou
24
130
2,640
12
5
17
2,828
88%
10,400
~
t
903
1,670
8,500
102,000
39,000
2,100
132
~
0.8
40.0
52
613
380
WA
*~
47.7
47.7
t.6
1.8
10.9
32.8
2.1
0.02
48.2
103%
5.0
~
0.0
0,0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
230
230
0.0
0.0
1A
5
2
3
4
7
8
9
Huns
Streams in
Feed soil
Make-up water
Total in
8,250
3,410
11,670
7,830
7,830
438
3,410
3,848
2,280
50
~
17.8
17.8
1.7
"~
Streams out
Gravel
Sand
Clarrfier sludge*
Washed casing chips**
Heavy metal (lead) fraction***
Ctarifier filter residue
Total out
1 otal out x 1 00 = % balance
Total in
3,540
1,960
5,510
375
162
64
11,611
»9%
3,440
1,710
1,950
364
145
24
7,633
87%
82
249
3,560
11
17
40
3,959
103%
15
1,510
5,900
1,500
39,000
850
~
0.2
26.0
60
36
380
N/A
~
~
0.1
£.6
11.5
0.5
5.7
0.02
1.2
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20.4
115%
mm.
133
133
41.3
0.0
""**
* Unsettled clarifier sludge. This sludge settled/dewatered to about 40 wt% moisture in 48 hours.
** TCLP and total lead analyses were averaged for the first 2 runs (same feed stockpile).
*** TCLP and total lead analyses were averaged over the three runs
N/A not analyzed
43
-------
CLARIFIER/
THICKENER
CLEAN WATER
TANK
CHEMICAL INJECTION PUMP/^ WATER
PUMPS
WATER
TANK
COAGULANT
TANK
CHEMICAL
MIXING
CHAMBER
SEPARATION
CHAMBERS
l
TROMMEL/WASH
PLANT
SLURRY TANK
HOPPER
FEEDER
Q=,
SLURRY
PUMP
SPIRAL
CLASSIFIER
DENSITY
SEPARATOR
r
CONVEYOR BELTS l FOR CLEAN
MATERIAL l DISCHARGE
l
l
l
CASING CHIP
SEPARATOR
TRAILER DIMENSIONS 8' x 40'
Figure C-3. Plant layout.
-------
Figure C-4
Run 1 - Total Lead Concentration in
Feed Soil and Washed Gravel and Sand
10
38
o
o
0»
£
6
c
o
o 4
T3
0)
0
0
1
234
Total Elapsed Time (Mrs)
Legend
~A- Feed Soil
~H~ Washed Sand
Washed Gravel
EPA Cleanup Goal
(1,000 mg/kg Total Pb)
* Sample contained metallic lead
45
-------
Figure C-5
Run 2 - Total Lead Concentration in
Feed Soil and Washed Gravel and Sand
1
2 3 4
Total Elapsed Time (Hrs)
Legend
-^- Feed Soil
Washed Sand
* Sample contained metallic lead
Washed Gravel
EPA Cleanup Goal
(1,000 mg/kg Total Pb)
46
-------
Figure C-6
Run 3 - Total Lead Concentration in
Feed Soil and Washed Gravel and Sand
10
o
o
o
X
o
*L
o
c
o
o 4
CJ
0
-0-
2345
Total Elapsed Time (Mrs)
Legend
-^^ Feed Soil -©-
~H~ Washed Sand
* Sample contained metallic lead
Washed Caravel
EPA Cleanup Goal
(1,000 mg/kg Total Pb)
47
-------
Figure C-7
Lead TCLP in Washed Gravel and Sand
50
40
-a 30
a.
a>
E
*«
a.
_j
O
i-
20
10
0
0
-A.
1
Legend
WG Run 1-
WS Run 2
2345
Total Elapsed Time (Hrs)
e- WG Run 2-B- WG Run 3~
WS Run 1
WS Run 3-
WG - Washed Gravel
WS - Washed Sand
EPA Cleanup Goal
(5 mg/L Pb)
48
-------
Figure C-8
Run 1 - Solid Stream Flows
2.5
-------
Figure C-9
Run 2 - Solid Stream Flows
2.5
1.5
cd
o:
0.5
o
e
o
a
ts
c
o
a>
C
o
o
c
o
09
c
o
a
c
o
SB
C
O
05
C
o
09
C
O
J J
I I
I
0
0
234
Total Elapsed Time (Hrs)
Feed Soil
Stream 1A
" Washed Gravel
Stream 2
Washed Sand
Stream 3
50
-------
Figure C-10
Run 3 - Solid Stream Flows
c: O
CDC
1!
-a Sen
£ oo
CO
a
w
c
o
II
c
o
c
o
CO
cr
0
CM <»
0 -<
-------
TABLE C-4. LEAD PARTITIONING
Run
1
2
3
-1/4" to +10 mesh fraction
Feed soil
SS1
Pb
mg/kg
3,650
8,899
824
Sand fraction
SS3
Pb
mg/kg
191
162
69
Pb
TCLP
4,8
5.7
1.7
-10 mesh to +150 mesh
Feed soil
SS1
Pb
mgAg
5,671
6,844
3,338
Sand fraction
SS3
Pb
mg/kg
3,114
2,822
2,400
hourly flow rate. Similarly, the casing chips (Stream 7)
and metallic-lead fraction (Stream 8) were each
collected in drums and weighed at the end of a run.
The average hourly flow rate was calculated.
The high QA/QC standards of the EPA SITE Program
resulted in accurate mass balances for the three runs
(107, 99, and 98 percent) as measured by percent
balance (output/input) in Table C-2 for total dry solids.
The balances for lead were acceptable for Runs 2 and
3: 104 and 115 percent respectively. But the Run 1
balance at 330 percent demonstrated the difficulty in
analyzing heterogenous soil mixtures that contain
metallic lead. The dilemma is caused by the need to
determine low lead concentrations in mg/kg (parts per
million) due to the high toxicity of lead. Thus, small
amounts of metallic lead can greatly influence the lead
analyses. This problem was particularly apparent in
several washed gravel samples from Runs 1 and 2 in
Figures C-4 and C-5. These high lead concentrations
underscore the importance of efficient metallic-lead
removal, not only in the chip separator for the washed
gravel, but also in the density separator for the washed
sand.
Sampling
Streams 1A, 2, and 3 were sampled every 45 minutes
during process operations (Samples SS1, SS2, and
SS3). A siudge sample (SS4) was collected from every
drum (51 drums in Run 3) and composited for each run.
A composite sample was collected at the end of each
run for casing chips (SS7) and the metallic-lead fraction
(SS8).
pH Monitoring
Every 2 hours, a field pH reading was taken of the
aqueous streams; dirty water recirculation (SS9), clean
water recycle (SS10), and chip separator recycle water
(SS12). The overall system pH remained in the 6.3 to
7.1 range.
C.2.3 Performance Summary
Three key performance criteria for this project were:
lead removal efficiency (both process and total),
process efficiency, and battery casing chips removal
efficiency. A summary of the performance data is
presented in Table C-5.
Lead removal (process) efficiency is measured as
the amount of lead In the feed soil (expressed as
Pb1A) contained In the minus 2W to plus 150 mesh
fraction, less the lead in the washed gravel (Pb2)
and sand (Pb3) fractions, divided by the lead in this
feed fraction (Pb1A).
% lead removal (process) =
pb1A-pb2-PD3
Pb1A
X 100
This is a true measure of the BSWS lead removal
capability because it discounts the lead in the feed
soil fines fraction (minus 150 mesh) that could be
removed by simple screening (i.e., without
washing). Table C-3 shows the lead distribution
among the various process streams.
Lead removal (total) efficiency Total lead removal
efficiency, including the fines, is reported in Table
C-5. This is measured as the total amount of lead
in the feed soil (PbT1A) less the lead in the washed
gravel (Pb2) and sand (Pb3) fractions, divided by
the total amount of lead in the feed soil.
% lead removal (total) =
PbT1A-Pb2-Pb3
X100
PbT
1A
52
-------
TABLE C-5. PERFORMANCE SUMMAFIY
Form of measurement
Lead removal efficiency (process +150 mesh)
Lead removal efficiency (total, including fines)
Process efficiency
Battery casing chips removal efficiency
Performance achieved
%
Run 1
28
61
11
97
Run 2
91
93
32
100
Run 3
77
85
49
70
Process efficiency represents the amount of the
washed gravel fraction plus the sand fraction,
expressed as the percent of feed greater than 150
mesh (dry weight basis) that meets the EPA cleanup
goals on an hourly-flow basis (totalled for each run
cycle). The total lead and TCLP values are
averaged for each time interval (for each washed
fractiongravel and sand) to determine the amount
of soil that meets these goals.
In Run 1, only 20 percent of the washed gravel met
the cleanup goals. This is equivalent to 11 percent
process efficiency. In Run 2, 71 percent of the
washed gravel met the goals (32 percent process
efficiency). In Run 3, 100 percent of the washed
gravel passed (49 percent process efficiency).
None of the washed sand from any of the three
runs met the cleanup goals (Table C-3). Although
the process did not meet the 75 percent target
efficiency, performance improved significantly as the
Demonstration progressed.
This approach to process efficiency is very rigorous
because it rejects any hourly average analysis of
either total lead or TCLP lead that exceeds the
cleanup goals. Note that for Run 2, the overall
composited average total lead and TCLP analyses
for the gravel from Table C-3 are 903 mg/kg and
0.8 mg/L, which meet the cleanup goals. However,
Figure C-5 shows excessive total lead concentration
in one sample. This causes a reduction in
performance for the gravel fraction from 100 percent
to 71 percent. On the other hand, this approach
eliminates the possibility of the whole run being a
failure, if, for example, the overall composited
average had been 1,003 mg/kg total lead.
Battery casing chips removal efficiency is
calculated as the weight percent of chips in the
feed soil (C1A) contained in the minus 21/£" to plus
150 mesh fraction, less chips in the washed gravel
(C2) and sand (C3) fractions, divided by the weight
of chips in this feed fraction (C1A), expressed as
% casing chips removal ==
C1A-C2-C3
X100
"1A
Table C-3 shows the casing chips distribution
among the feed, washed gravel, and sand
fractions. No attempt was made to develop an
overall casing chip mass balance. Note that the
amount of chips in the whole feed was equal to the
amount in the minus 2M>" to plus 150 mesh fraction
because the lab only reported the chips that could
be manually removed from a sample aliquot (i.e.,
down to about 10 mesh). As expected, none of
the washed casing chips from any of the three
runs met the cleanup goals (Table C-3).
C.2.4 Input and Output Flow Rate Stability
Figures C-8, C-9, and C-10 present the stream flows for
the three Demonstration runs for feed soil, washed
gravel, and sand. These data show that, at 2,4 to 4.2
tph, the BESCORP unit operated satisfactorily most of
the time. From the data in Table C-6, process downtime
was about 13 percent and nonprocess downtime was 8
percent for a total of 21 percent. Therefore, process on-
line time was 87 percent. In Section 4, the economics
for a commercial 20-tph BSWS unit are developed on
the basis of 80 percent on-line time.
53
-------
TABLE C-6. DOWNTIME SUMMARY FOR THE THREE RUNS
Cumulative
total (3 runs)
Shutdowns Process Oriented
Conveyor jam
4 pluggings in chip separator
Process total
Shutdowns Nonprocess Oriented
Low make-up water flow
City power failure
Nonprocess total
OVERALL DOWNTIME
Time*
(min.)
91
46
137
62
29
91
228
Downtime
13
8
21
"Total run time 18 hours.
C.3 REFERENCES
1. Guide to Conducting Treatability Studies Under
CERCLA: Soil Washing Interim Guidance.
EPA/540/2-91/020A. September 1992.
54
-------
Appendix D
Case Studies: Full-scale Demonstrations and Treatabiiity Studies
[Provided by Vendor]
Using various process approaches, BESCORP
performed full-scale demonstrations and treatability
studies to determine contaminant removal efficiencies.
The studies focused on contaminant removal from soils
of varying characteristics. The most important aspect
regarding soil washing is an in-depth analysis of the
contaminated soil through treatability studies and pilot-
scale feasibility demonstrations. No soil-contaminant
combination will establish a generic treatment process;
a specific soil characteristic warrants a site-specific
process approach. As illustrated at ABE, representative
sampling is mandatory; a sampling plan that does not
characterize the site adequately may prescribe a
treatment process for site conditions that do not exist.
Lead Site Remediations
BESCORP tested material from five different lead-
contaminated sites. Analytical results established a
need for different process approaches for each site.
BESCORP analyzed soils contaminated with lead in
various forms: discrete metallics, battery casings,
vegetation matrix, iron hydroxide precipitate, and
mixed metals at an ammunition destruction site.
Radium-Contaminated Soils
BESCORP conducted an on-site treatability
demonstration involving Radium-226 contaminated
soil, in which 50 percent of the material was minus
400 mesh. The field data demonstrated a qualitative
ability to partition radium to 20 percent of the soil.
Depleted Uranium-Contaminated Soils
BESCORP conducted treatability testing for the
removal of uranium metal and oxides from soil at a
munitions testing site. The treatability testing
targeted a combination of density separation and
chemical leaching.
* Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils
BESCORP demonstrated cleaning hydrocarbon-
contaminated soils with and without surfactants.
Results demonsl rated the use of high pressure and
warm water as a stand-alone volume reduction
process, or as a pretreatment for separating and
feeding the contaminated fines to a bloslurry
reactor.
CASE D.1 TREATABILITY STUDY AND SITE
REMEDIATION: ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
Location:
Plant Size:
Quantity:
Process:
Overview
New Brighton, Minnesota
20-tph mobile plant
1,900 tons (to be continued in summer
1994)
Water-based, physical separation
system, using a coagulant only
Soil at a munitions manufacturing and testing site was
expected to contain only process residue, with
contamination by lead stypphnate and other forms
associated with initiators. A company, contracted to
provide a leach process, (discovered metallic lead in the
soil, which would extend the leach time for processing
the material to a prohibitive length. BESCORP was
contracted to confirm the presence of metallic lead and
establish a process for removal.
Bench-Scale Study
The material was sized and treated to obtain a dense
material fraction and a clean fraction. Size distribution
of the material is presented in Table D-1.
The soil was contaminated with discrete, metallic-lead
particles from plus 8 mesh to minus 200 mesh.
55
-------
TABLE D-1. PARTICLE SIZE AND LEAD DISTRIBUTION
AT AN ARMY AMMUNITION SITE
Size
+14 inch
-Winch to +8 mesh
-8 to +30 mesh
-30 to +50 mesh
-50 to +100 mesh
-100 to +140 mesh
-140 to +200 mesh
-200 mesh
TOTAL
%
11.3
4.7
12.1
25.4
20.9
4.6
1.4
19.6
100.0
Pb, ppm
0
0
1,436
1,025
901
948
940
679
Duplicate process runs resulted In removal efficiencies
from 43 to 91 percent, with final lead concentrations
ranging from 138 to 739 ppm Pb. The minus 200 mesh
fraction was the most contaminated. This high
concentration of lead Is quite amenable to leaching.
Subsequent leaching tests were conducted on
composite material of all mesh sizes, where removal of
80 to 90 percent of the remaining lead was
accomplished. This easily met the anticipated 300 ppm
Pb discharge limit.
Full-Scale Application
At the Twin CWes Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP),
located In New Brighton, Minnesota, BESCORP Is
providing excavation and soil-washing services for soils
contaminated with eight metals. BESCORP's process,
coupled with the COGNiS TerraMet leaching system, is
performing complete soil remediation. Lead extracted
from the processed soil is being recovered and shipped
to a smelter for reuse. All processed soil is being
returned to the site.
Site "F," located within the four-square-mile TCAAP site,
was originally a munitions burning and burial area. The
site Is part of the Army's $370 million Installation
Restoration Program. Remediation is being conducted
under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
permit. Remedial Investigations determined that lead
levels In trenches and shallow soils over the three-acre
area exceeded 4,000 ppm. While lead was identified as
the primary metal of concern, seven other sites were
discovered at high levels throughout Site F. Ash,
residues, metallic lead, and copper spread over the site.
In addition, 0.30 and 0.50 caliber casings and cyanide
pots were buried in trenches throughout the plant.
Remedial alternatives, such as solidification/stabilization
and land filling, were evaluated and dismissed because
these techniques leave the metals in the soil and
continue the risk for long-term liability. The involved
parties determined to evaluate soil-washing as the long-
term solution.
Soil-Washing Activities
In the spring of 1993, COGNIS and BESCORP
conducted joint treatability and bench-scale studies in
order to determine the applicability of their processes to
complete soil remediation. The studies determined the
following:
BESCORP's Soil Washing System could be linked
with the COGNIS TerraMet process to treat the
separated fines as a continuous and complete soil
treatment process.
Site "F" soils could be successfully treated to meet
the required cleanup levels specified below In
Table D-2.
BESCORP commenced construction of a high-
throughput plant designed around the process
demonstrated at the ABE Superfund Site under the EPA
56
-------
TABLE D-2. CLEANUP LEVELS FOR TCAAP
1 Metal:
Performance goal
(mg/kg):
Sb
4
Cd
4
Cr
100
Cu
80
Pb
300
Hg
0.3
Ni
45
Ag
5
SITE Program in 1992. The new plant was completed
in July 1993. In the fall of 1993, 2,000 yds of material
were processed and the material stockpiled on-site until
the remainder of the material could be processed and
the cleaned soils graded back onto the site. The time
(shipping the unit, on-site set-up, and shakedown)
totalled 17 days.
The five-trailer, full soil treatment process (BSWS and
COGNIS) was situated at Site "D," a 185 ft x 100 ft
cement pad equipped with sumps and bins for holding
processing soil. The pad, originally built for a PCB-
treatment process, was an ideal location for processing
as it was located only 1,500 ft from the excavation area.
Process Performance
The full-scale, soil washing and leaching system
acceptance period started on September 17, 1993 with
340 tons of excavated and stockpiled material. The
cleanup goals were met, and material processed until
temperatures dropped to freezing and activity had to be
interrupted until the spring of 1994.
It is believed that Site *F" contains approximately 7,500
tons (5,000 yds) of metal-contaminated soil. To date,
approximately 1,900 tons have been successfully
remediated; clean, processed soil has been transported
from the soil-washing area back to Site "F" for
redepositing and seeding with native vegetation.
CASE D.2 REMOVAL OF MINUS 100 MICRON (150 MESH) MATERIAL: HANFORD SIMULATED SOIL
Location:
Plant Size:
Quantity:
Process:
Overview
Prosser, Washington
20-tph mobile plant
500 yards (900 tons) processed
Water-based, physical separation
system, using a coagulant only
Analysis, by Westinghouse Hanford Company, of
Hanford soils contaminated with heavy metals (including
Uranium 238, 235, cobalt, and cesium) determined that
contaminants can be partitioned to the minus 100
micron (-150 mesh) soil fraction. In 1991, BESCORP
conducted laboratory tests for determining the
applicability of using a water-based physical process for
removing minus 100 micron soil particles from Hanford-
type (gravely-sandy) soils. Based on those results,
BESCORP constructed a 20-tph plant in Prosser,
Washington, for testing and demonstration purposes.
Using the 20-tph plant, BESCORP achieved verification
of the particle size cut by washing 900 tons of
noncontaminated Hanford simulated soil.
Documented Evidence (Process Approach and
Efficiency)
Informal demonstrations were conducted for Ebasco
Environmental, Westinghouse, and Battelle personnel
with the 20-tph plant in Prosser, Washington. Based on
those demonstrations and an evaluation of the system's
efficiency using water in conjunction with a coagulant,
the BESCORP System was included in a presentation by
R.L. Treat at Environmental Restoration (ER) '91.
Efficiency data (below) were included in the presentation
at ER '91 regarding the ability of the system to produce
an excellent separation of coarse and fine soil. While
the plant was processing material at 20 tph,
Intermountain Materials Testing, Inc. collected samples
and performed the analysis in accordance with ASTM
C136, D422, and D1140, respectively.
The results highlight the ability of the BSWS to separate
the fine soil fraction, using a water-based process.
Essentially no fines in the coarse fraction were leaving
the plant, and no coarse material was associated with
the separated fines (Table D-3).
57
-------
TABLE D-3. SIZE SEPARATION EFFICIENCY
Sieve size
(mesh)
4 in.
10
20 -
40 (0.42 mm)
80 (0.177 mm)
200 (0.074 mm)
270 (0.053 mm)
400 (0.037 mm)
635 (<0.037 mm)
Stream 1
(coarse discharge)
% passing
100
95
84
33
1
0.3
0
0
0
Stream 2
(fine discharge)
% passing
100
100
100
100
100
99
97
84
62
CASE D.3 DISCRETE PARTIAL RECOVERY PLANT: TRAMWAY BAR MINE, ALASKA
Location: Tramway Bar, Alaska
Plant Size: 150 tph
Quantity: 71,400 tons processed
Process: Water-based, physical separation
system, using a coagulant only
Overview
A 150-tph plant was built in 1989, processing 42,000
yards (71,400 tons) of material. Designed originally for
separating gold fines, the process was adapted for use
In the soil remediation arena. The system operated
successfully, classifying material, and appealed to both
miners and the regulatory agencies, because of its low
water requirements and high classification efficiency.
The 150-tph plant generated the results shown in Table
D-4, where recovered clean material totalled 97.5 wt
percent.
TABLE D-4. MATERIAL BALANCE FOR A 150-TPH PLANT
Material
Clean material
Soil fines (to waste container)
Secondary waste
TPH
146.3
3.75
0.56
150 - 3.75 - 0.56
wt. percent recovered = x 100 = 97.5%
150
58
-------
CASE D.4 ON-SITE FIELD TEST: RADIUM-CONTAMINATED SOIL AT OKLAHOMA AIR FORCE BASE
Overview
In conjunction with a teaming partner, BESCORP
conducted on-site demonstrations at a site
contaminated with radium as a result of manufacturing
activities. The area was partially excavated, samples
were collected, and the remaining material stored.
Demonstration Results
Soil samples were collected from storage drums and
screened for activity wilh a Nal scintillation gamma
detector. Two of the samples were sized and monitored
for radiation. Relative Geiger counter rates were
recorded as an indication of residual radium in each
fraction. The test showed that activity was primarily
confined to 20 percent of the soil.
The soil consists almost entirely of clay; however,
radium was found to consist of medium-sized, dense
particles. High attrition breakdown of the clay, along
with a highly efficient gravity separation process, was
determined to be an effective remedial approach.
CASE D.5 COPPER WIRE INCINERATION AND RECOVERY SITE TREATABILITY STUDY:
CONTAMINATED SOIL
LEAD-
Overview
A wire burning site was the location of a previous
copper recycling effort. BESCORP's testing was
performed as a joint treatability study with a teaming
partner that has metal leaching and recovery processes.
BESCORP provided an' up-front physical process,
removing 50 to 75 percent of the total lead and 50
percent of the initial copper. The initial material
contained 12,000 ppm Pb (1.2 percent) and 100,000
ppm copper (10 percent).
Bench-Scale Study
The initial screening tests consisted of material sizing to
obtain a soil histogram and to determine the extent of
lead contamination. The material contained obvious
pieces of copper wire, and occasionally a chunk of
melted and solidified so!der. Treatability test results
determined that remediation could be accomplished
with a combination of soil sizing and gravity separation,
with a chemical leach of the soil fines. Typical results
on replicate samples for size distribution and resulting
lead and copper concentrations are presented in Table
D-5.
Removal efficiency v/ith a mineral jig (based on the
percentage in the concentrate) was 86.8 percent for
lead, and 77.7 percent for copper. Typical amounts of
soil incorporated into the gravity concentrate were from
4.3 percent to 8.9 percent of the feed. This was
achieved with a single pass. It is expected that the feed
percentage in the concentrate will decrease with a full-
scale process, which will incorporate a secondary
concentration process.
TABLE D-5. PARTICLE SIZE AND METALS DISTRIBUTION
AT A COPPER WIRE SITE
Particle mesh
size
+40
-40 to +140
-140
Jig concentrate
TOTAL
Feed soil
wt %
15.8
6.2
48.9
NA
70.9
Pb
(ppm)
2,500
2,500
3,330
80,000
Copper
(ppm)
31,600
60,000
2,3,000
324,000
59
-------
CASE D.6 LEAD-CONTAMINATED METAL RECYCLING FACILITY
Overview
The site was previously used for automobile metal
recovery and recycling, with deposition debris on-site.
The contaminant of prime concern is lead.
Bench-Scale Study
The soil consists of debris that one might imagine to be
present at a site where complete cars were hydraulically
smashed for compaction prior to shipment for repro-
cessing: plastic bits and pieces, metal, bits of debris
(wood chips, paper, and cardboard), and a tremendous
amount of iron hydroxide precipitate.
Lead contamination, as a function of particle size, is
depicted in Table D-6.
Soil washing of the material with magnetic separation
did not improve lead segregation. An attrition scrubber
removed iron hydroxide from the surface of the material,
and segregated the lead to the finer fractions. The
treatment results are presented in Table D-7.
Preliminary results indicate decreased levels of lead
contamination in the material. Further improvement of
the attrition process to remove lead from the coarse
fractions should improve the subsequent leach process
and potentially reduce the fraction that must be leached.
Current treatability tests indicate lead concentration after
leaching to be in the range of 50 ppm.
TABLE D-6. PARTICLE SIZE AND LEAD DISTRIBUTION
AT A LEAD RECYCLING FACILITY
Particle mesh size
+4
-4 to +8
-8 to +40
-40 to +140
-140
TOTAL
%
35.5
14.3
18.4
14.0
17.8
100.0
Pb (ppm)
4,000
3,050
3,450
5,450
NA
TABLE D-7. PARTICLE SIZE AND LEAD DISTRIBUTION
BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT
Particle
size
+4 mesh
-4 to +8 mesh
-8 to +20 mesh
-20 to +40 mesh
-40 to +140 mesh
Pb
ppm
(prior to attrition)
4,000
3,050
3,100
3,450
5,450
Pb
ppm
(after attrition)
ND
1,065
500
1,980
5,400
*ND - Nondetectable
60
-------
CASE D.7 LEAD-CONTAMINATED TARGET RANGE SITES
Overview
The site (conisting of three areas) was used for skeet
and small arms shooting; lead shot was distributed over
a large field,
Bench-Scale Treatability
The soil was sized to obtain an initial split of the material
for delineating lead distribution. Large quantities of lead
shot were found at the site, and extremely large
amounts of lead bullets were found in a small portion of
the site. Shot was also found in samples from areas
that were supposedly not used for skeet activity.
Table D-8 shows that analysis of organic material (grass,
etc.) revealed lead concentrations exceeding 4 percent,
which was surprising since this level of bioaccumulated
lead had not been encountered at any other site. Work
has yet to be performed to determine how the lead is
bound in the vegetation.
With exception of the Site 3 material, the BESCORP
process is expected to achieve 65 to 75 percent volume
reduction, the remainder of the soil consisting of dense
metallic material suitable for recycling. BESCORP is
investigating the possibility of the vegetation being used
for lead recovery by thermal destruction in a lead
smelter. This would eliminate the need for off-site
disposal.
TABLE D-8. PARTICLE SIZE AND LEAD DISTRIBUTION
AT TARGET RANGES
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Particle mesh size
+4
-4 to +40
-40 to +140
-140
TOTAL
%
4.8
16.0
67.6
11.6
100.0
Pb, ppm
(335
545
3,1570
Particle mesh size
+4
-4 to +40
-40 to +140
-140
TOTAL
%
6.3
1.0
79.1
13.6
100.0
Pb, ppm
1,500
1,000,000
25
1,452
Particle mesh size
+4
-4 to +40
-40 to +140
-140
TOTAL
%
14.7
7.7
67.0
10.6
100.0
Pb, ppm
1,000,000
1,000,000
7,387
24,000
61
-------
CASE D.8 TREATABIL1TY STUDY: HYDROCARBON-CONTAMINATED SOILS
by a bio-slurry reactor to destroy the hydrocarbons
Overview removed from the oversize. The entire process is
accomplished either with a surfactant-augmented water
wash or a steam wash.
Treatability studies on hydrocarbon-contaminated soils
were performed at military facilities in Alaska. The work
focused on successfully cleaning the soil oversize and
processing the hydrocarbon-contaminated fines with a
bio-slurry reactor.
Bench-Scale Study
The bench-scale study of hydrocarbon removal from
soils has consisted of determining the ability of the
system to clean the plus 40 mesh material to a
hydrocarbon contamination level that will allow for
redeposit on-site (<100 mg/kg total petroleum
hydrocarbon). The minus 40 mesh soil will be treated
Volatilization of the organic material and associated
health hazards are potential problems with the steam
wash. However, the contaminated samples consisted of
residual diesel and jet fuel. BESCORP achieved a
cleaner fraction with steam (96 and 108 ppm) than with
a surfactant wash (270 ppm).
The studies to date have investigated the ability to treat
residual hydrocarbons, which are the largest volume of
contamination in our locale. BESCORP plans to expand
the BSWS treatment capabilities to handle diesel-range
and, eventually, gasoline-range hydrocarbons.
CASE D.9 URANIUM-CONTAMINATED SOILS
Overview
The site was used by an armament manufacturer for
testing depleted uranium munitions. The contamination
Is limited to a catch box and surrounding area where
vibration has spread the contamination. The uranium
exists as discrete metallic pieces and uranium oxides,
which are quite friable and can be segregated to the fine
soil fractions.
Treatability Study
The treatability study Is a joint effort using physical
processing for the removal of discrete uranium in con-
junction with chemical leaching of soil fines for removal
of metallic and oxide uranium.
The sample was initially sized and uranium
concentrations in each fraction were measured by
gamma spectroscopy. The material did not show any
significant distribution of uranium versus size. Gravity
separation of the material within each size range
produced a uranium concentrate of a consistent and
appreciable fraction. Analysis revealed uranium
concentrations as high as three percent in the sample.
The results are proprietary. However, a combination of
physical and chemical processes will remediate the soil
to acceptable release criteria.
CASE D.10 ABE TREATABILITY STUDY
Overview
The ABE NPL site was chosen for the BESCORP SITE
Demonstration based on the Remedial Investigation (Rl)
that was performed in 1988. The Rl stated that the lead
was in the fine soil material on the site (i.e., no discrete
metallic-lead, no battery casings, and no casing chips),
which would have been a perfect match for the BSWS.
However, the material excavated for the SITE
Demonstration was considerably different from this
material. The stockpile of material excavated was
approximately 10 to 15 percent battery casings with
visible metallic portions of lead acid batteries.
Treatability Tests on Rl Sample
Initial BESCORP work was performed on a sample from
the Ri (Sample B-7), which was sized to determined the
distribution of the material and the lead content of each
fraction. The data for the minus V4- inch raw sample are
shown in Table D-9.
62
-------
TABLE D-9. PARTICLE SIZE AND LEAD DISTRIBUTION IN Rl RAW SAMPLE
Particle mesh size
+8
-8 to +30
-30 to +50
-50 to +100
-10010 +140
-140 to +200
-200
TOTAL
Soil wt. %
7.58
2.80
7.79
12.44
9.30
10.89
40.83
100.00
Pb, ppm
190
19,300
1,190
548
772
1,090
1,820
TABLE D-10. LEAD DISTRIBUTION IN Rl SAMPLE AFTER PROCESSING
Material
(s.g. 0.9-1 .3) float (casing chips)
(s.g. 1.3-2.5) light
(s.g. 2.5-5.0) mid
(s.g. 5.0-10.0) heavy (lead)
TOTAL
%
1.9
82.0
14.6
1.5
100.0
Pb (ppm)
6,850
252
862
9,117
TABLE D-11. LEAD DISTRIBUTION IN SECOND FRACTION OF Rl
SAMPLE AFTER PROCESSING
Material
(s.g. 0.9-1.3) float (casing chips)
(s.g. 1.3-2.5) light
(s.g. 2.5-5.0) mid
(s.g. 5.0-10.0) heavy (lead)
TOTAL
%
2.1
87.6
10.1
0.2
100.0
Pb (ppm)
3,975
354 .
t,040
51,282
When a portion of this material was processed by
gravity and density separation, products contained the
lead distribution indicated in Table D-10. The specific
gravity ranges are approximations, as the size of the
particle and the density determine where the material
will collect. Good results are expected for the gravity
process at this site. A second size fraction, minus 50 to
plus 100 mesh, was distributed as shown in Table D-11.
A second portion of the B-7 sample was processed on
a mineral jig, and the concentrate measured 164,000
ppm Pb. The tails analysis was found to contain 848
ppm Pb. After the tails, were washed to remove the -200
mesh material, the analysis was 261 ppm lead. The
fines themselves were analyzed to 2,200 ppm Pb. This
data further supports the gravity separation as a
reasonable approach to process this material. The size
63
-------
separation Is also shown to be important. With a total
lead content of 261 ppm, the maximum TCLP lead value
would be 13 ppm if 100 percent of the lead was
dissolved.
BESCORP was proceeding with this evaluation when
they were advised that they would need to remove the
battery casings from the on-site material, as well as
needing a circuit to remove the discrete, metallic-lead
particles that were present in the excavated material.
With a short time frame to develop and implement both
a dense and a light fraction circuit capable of operating
over a size range of minus 21/6 inch to plus 150 mesh,
attention was focused on the processing rather than the
further analysis.
Further sample work was performed on the excavated
material to verify the process approach and the
effectiveness on the "real" ABE Site soil.
Treatability Tests on Feed Pile for SITE
Demonstration
The samples treated in the BESCORP plant simulation
were taken randomly from the surface and subsurface
of the excavated stockpile. Typical results from the
simulated process are listed in Table D-12.
In retrospect, these data show how important the cut
point for the size classification is, but BESCORP did not
anticipate prior to the SITE Demonstration that the small
portion of minus 100 to plus 140 mesh material (two
percent of the sand screw discharge) would have such
a high lead content and that it would exert the
subsequent adverse effect on the product (sand) stream
analysis. This lead content exceeded the redeposit
limits for the washed sand fraction. Post-SlTE Program
treatabilfty tests, presented in Appendix B, show the
preferred cut point for the sand fraction to be about plus
80 mesh.
TABLE D-12. PARTICLE SIZE AND LEAD DISTRIBUTION
IN Rl SAMPLE AFTER SIMULATED PROCESSING
Particle mesh size
-8 + 100 mesh
-100 + 140 mesh
-140 + 200 mesh
-200 mesh
Pb (ppm)
256
2,540
1,600
8,420
64
-------
Intentionally
-------
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
United
enfa! Prefecton A§t}ncy
for ErWkftnmaptaf ftes
------- |