EPA/540/AR-93/517
                                                     April 1993
Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC)
      Soil Recycle Treatment Train
         Applications Analysis Report
        Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
         Office of Research and Development
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
              Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
                                         Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                                                  Notice
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-CO-
0048 and the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program.  It has been subjected to the Agency's peer
review and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as a U.S. EPA document. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                                     11

-------
                                                 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 & Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. The purpose of the program is to assist the development of hazardous waste treatment technologies necessary to
implement new cleanup standards which require greater reliance on permanent remedies.  This is accomplished through
technology demonstrations designed to provide engineering and cost data on selected technologies.

This project consists of a demonstration of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) Soil Recycle Treatment Train. The
Treatment Train consists of three processes. The first process utilizes an attrition soil wash process to separate relatively
uncontaminated soil from a more heavily contaminated fine slurry. The contaminated fine slurry is then further processed
in a metals removal process or a bioslurry reactor process  or both to remove organic contaminants and heavy metals
contamination. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners conducted a long-term evaluation of this treatment train at a 55 tons per
day pilot plant at 185 Cherry Street in the port of Toronto, located in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The SITE project examined
in detail the processing of soil from one of the sites being evaluated in the overall project.  THC has estimated that as much
as 2,200,000 tons of soil from locations within the Toronto Port Industrial District may require some form of treatment due
to heavy metals and/or organic contamination.  The goals of this study were to evaluate the technical effectiveness and
economics of a treatment process sequence and to assess the potential applicability of the process to other wastes and/or other
Superfund and hazardous  waste sites.

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 EPA 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
Bldg., Springfield, VA, 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
                                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                  Abstract

The Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) have developed a soil treatment train designed to treat inorganic and organic
contaminants in soils. THC has conducted a large-scale demonstration of these technologies in an attempt to establish that
contaminated soils at the Toronto Port Industrial District can be treated to attain contaminant levels below the THC Criteria
Levels for Industrial Soils without utilizing incineration processes.

The THC's treatment train  evaluated during this SITE Demonstration consists of three soil remediation technologies:  an
attrition soil washing technology, inorganic removal by chelation, and a chemical and biological treatment to reduce organic
contaminants.  The overall process sequence is determined by the specific contaminants in the soil to be treated.

Sampling, data collection and analysis as part of the THC demonstration were conducted under the SITE program utilizing
appropriate analytical procedures as specified in SW846 to provide a consistent basis for comparing these technologies to other
technologies evaluated under the SITE program.

Based on the results of the SITE demonstration project at the THC Soil Recycling Demonstration Project, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada and information concerning the overall THC project, several conclusions can be drawn.

•   The primary developer's claim that the gravel, sand, and fine soil products will meet the THC criteria for reuse as fill
    material at industrial/ commercial sites was achieved by the gravel and sand products, representing 79.6 percent of
    products. The fine soil  representing 18.8 percent of the products exhibits significant reduction in PAH compounds as  a
    result of biological processing but did not meet the criteria level of 2.4 mg/kg for benzo(a)pyrene.

•   The attrition soil wash plant produced a gravel (<1.97 in; >0.24 in) and a sand (<0.24 in; >0.0025 in) that achieved the
    primary THC criteria.  It should be noted that the only parameter which  exceeded this THC criteria in the feed was
    naphthalene. The process exhibited removal rates for organic contaminants of 67 percent or greater for the gravel product
    which accounted for 11.5 percent of the product output.  The sand product exhibited organic removal rates of 78 percent
    or greater while accounting for 68.1 percent of the product output The process concentrated the organic contaminants
    into a contaminated fine slurry (<0.0025 in) which  accounted for 18.8 percent of the process output while accounting for
    74 percent or more of the organic contaminants.

•   The metals contamination levels actually encountered during pilot-scale processing of the test soil were so low that there
    was no need to use the  metals removal process. Limited data were developed for the efficiency of the metals removal
    process by sampling a  run of a metals-rich slurry from another soil.  The reactor achieved the following removal
    efficiencies:  copper-96  percent, lead-71 percent, nickel-71 percent and zinc-64 percent. Higher removal efficiencies are
    claimed by the developer when processing more highly contaminated soils.

•   The bioslurry process exhibited limited reduction in oil and grease.  A similar comparison for other parameters yielded
    the following: TKPH reduction of 60 percent, naphthalene at least 97 percent, and benzo(a)pyrene approximately 70
    percent.
                                                       IV

-------
                                                Contents
                                                                                                       Page

Foreword	 .  iii
Abstract  .	,  iv
Tables . . .	..>.....	  ix
Figures	  xi
Abbreviations	xii
Conversion Factors		  xiii
Acknowledgment	xiy

1.     Executive Summary	 .  1

        1.1  Introduction	.1
        1.2  Conclusions  . :	1
            1.2.1  THC Treatment Train	  2
            1.2.2  Soil Wash Process	2
            1.2.3  Bioslurry Process	2
            1.2.4  Metals Removal Process	3
            1.2.5  Process Costs	3
        1.3  Summary of Suitability of THC Treatment Train for CERCLA Corrective Actions	3
            1.3.1  Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment	3
            1.3.2  Compliance with ARARs	3
            1.3.3  Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence	. . .	3
            1.3.4  Reduction of Toxicity Mobility and Volume Through Treatment	  3
            1.3.5  ShortJTerm Effectiveness	3
            1.3.6  Implementability	4
            1.3.7  Cost		4
        1.4  Discussions of Conclusions	4
            1.4.1  Soil Washing	 . .	4
            1.4.2  Bioslurry Reactor	5
            1.4.3  Metals Removal Process	5
        1.5  Costs			5

2.      Introduction  	7

        2.1  The SITE Program	  7
        2.2  SITE Program Reports	8
        2.3  Key Contacts	8

3.      Technology Applications Analysis	9

        3.1  Introduction	9
        3.2  Conclusions  . . .	9
            3.2.1  Overall Process Train	9

-------
                                           Contents (Cont'd)
                                                                                                         Page

            3.2.2  Individual Process	9
                  3.2.2.1    Soil Washing	9
                  3.2.2.2    Bioslurry Process	10
                  3.2.2.3    Metals Removal Process	10
        3.3  Technology Evaluation	10
            3.3.1  Soil Washing	11
            3.3.2  Bioslurry Reactor	13
            3.3.3  Metals Removal Process	13
        3.4  Applicable Wastes  	14
        3.5  Site Characteristics	15
        3.6  Environmental Regulation Requirements 	15
        3.7  Materials Handling Requirements	16
        3.8  Personnel Issues	17

4.      Economic Analysis	18

        4.1  Introduction	18
        4.2  Conclusions	,	18
        4.3  Issues and Assumptions	 19
            4.3.1  Waste Volumes and Site Size	19
            4.3.2  System Design and Performance Factors	19
                  4.3.2.1    Soil Wash	19
                  4.3.2.2    Bioslurry Process	19
                  4.3.2.3    Metals Removal Process	19
            4.3.3  Manpower Requirements	'.	19
            4.3.4  Financial Assumptions	20
        4.4  Results	,	20
            4.4.1  Remediation of Hypothetical Site	20
            4.4.2  Sensitivity of Costs to Fines Content of Soil	21
            4.4.3  Other Limitations of Cost Analysis	22
        4.5  Full Scale (55 ton/hour) Facility	22

Appendix A - Process Description of THC Soil Recycling Treatment Train	23

        A.I Attrition Soil Washing	23
        A.2 Biological Treatment System  	24
        A.3 Metals Removal Process	24
        A.4 Water Use	25
        A.5 Air Supply and Emissions Control	25

Appendix B  - Vendor's Claims	27

Appendix C  - Site Demonstration	28

        C.I  Introduction	28
        C.2 Feed Characteristics and Variability	28
            C.2.1   General	28
            C.2.2   SITE Sampling	28
                                                      VI

-------
                                          Contents  (Cont'd)
                                                                                                        Page

       C.3  Attrition Soil Wash Process	1	.	29
            C.3.1   Feed  	29
            C.3.2   Products	29
                   C.3.2.1  Gravel (Through 1.97 inch; greater than 0.24 inch)	29
                   C.3.2.2  Sand (Through 0.24 inch; greater than 0.0025 inch)	31
                   C.3.2:3  Coal/Peat Waste (Through 0.24 inch, greater than 0.0025 inch)	31
                   C.3.2.4  Contaminated Fines (Less than 0.0025 inch)	31
                   C.3.2.5  Waste Water Streams	31
            C.3.3   Mass Balance	33
                   C.3.3.1  Site Demonstration Sampling	33
                   C.3.3.2  Discussions of Mass Balance Results	 . •.	33
            C.3.4   Discussion of Soil Wash Process Results	33
       C.4  Bioslurry Reactor Process	34
            C.4.1   Results and Discussions	 34
       C.5  Metals Removal Process	37
       C.6  Emissions Sampling   	?. .	 38

Appendix D-l - Cost Analysis for Treatment of 22,000 Tons of Contaminated Soil Using the THC
               Treatment Plant	39

       D.I  Introduction	39
       D.2 Basis for Economic Analysis	40
            D.2.1   Permitting and Regulatory Costs	40
            D.2.2   Site Preparation Costs	40
            D.2.3   Equipment Costs	41
                   D.2.3.1  Attrition Soil Washer	41
                   D.2.3.2  Biological Treatment Process	.41
                   D.2.3.3  Metals Removal Process	•.	41
            D.2.4   Start-Up	 .		41
            D.2.5   Labor   		.41
            D.2.6   Consumables and Supplies	42
                   D.2.6.1  Attrition Soil Wash	 . .		42
                   D.2.6.2  Biological Treatment Process	42
                   D.2.6.3  Metals Removal Process	42
            D.2.7   Utilities	,	42
            D.2.8   Effluent Treatment and Disposal	;	43
            D.2.9   Residuals/Waste Shipping, Handling and Transport Costs	43
            D.2.10 Analytical Costs	43
            D.2.11 Demobilization Costs	43
        D.3 Results	44

Case Study-2 - Attrition Soil Wash Process Results for Soil B	46

Case Study-3 - Attrition Soil Wash Process Results for Soil A	47
                                                     Vll

-------
                                        Contents (Cont'd)
                                                                                                 Page

Appendix D-4 - Bioslurry Reactor Process Results at the THC Recycle Treatment Plant for Soil B	48

           D.4.1   Oil and Grease	48
           D.4.2   PAH Compounds	48

Appendix D-5 - Metals Removal Process Evaluation for Soil A  	'.	51
                                                 vui

-------
                                          Tables
Number

1.     THC Target Criteria for Selected Parameters for Soils for
       Commercial/Industrial Land Use and Results of Demonstration
                                                                                                Page
2.     Selected Feed and Product Characteristics of the Attrition Soil Wash Process	12

3.     Characteristics of Soil Wash Product Streams (based on SITE mass balance and SITE
       demonstration analytical results)	.-	12

4.     Selected Feed and Product Characteristics of the Bioslurry Reactor Process	13 -

5.     Selected Heavy Metals Data for Removal of Metals for the Liquid Stream by the
       THC Metals Removal Process	•	^
6.     Summary of Manpower Requirements THC Treatment Train

7,     Capital Cost for THC Treatment Train	
20

20
 8.     Treatment Cost Summary for a Hypothetical Remediation of 22,000 tons of Soil with 16.5
       Percent Fines and Both Organic and Inorganic Contaminants	,	21

 B-l   THC Target Criteria for Commercial/Industrial Land Use  	27

 C-l   Concentration of Selected Parameters in the Feed Soil THC Attrition Soil Wash Process	29
 C-2   THC Attrition Soil Wash Process Concentration of Selected Parameters in Gravel <1.97 in.,
       >0.24 in	•	

 C-3   THC Attrition Soil Wash Process Concentration of Selected Parameters in Clean Sand <0.24
       in., >0.0025 in	
30
32
 C-4   THC Attrition Soil Wash Process Concentration of Selected Parameters in Coal/Peat Waste  ....... 32
 C-5   THC Attrition Soil Wash Process Concentration of Selected Parameters in Contaminated Fines
       <0.0025 inch  ............................................. •
 C-6   Selected Characteristics of Water Recycled to THC Attrition Wash Process
 C-7    Selected Feed and Product Characteristics of the Attrition Soil Wash Process	35

 C-8    Partition of Selected Parameters in the Product Streams of the Attrition Wash Process
        (based on THC estimates of overall product yields for this soil)	35
                                               IX

-------
                                     Tables  (Cont'd)
 Number
                                                                                                Page
 C-9    Partition of Selected Parameters in the Product Stream of the Attrition Wash Process
        based on data developed during SITE demonstration	35

 C-10   Concentration of Selected Parameters of the Contaminated Slurry Feed to the THC
        Bioslurry Reactors	36

 C-ll   THC Bioslurry Process Concentration of Selected Parameters in Discharge Slurry from
        Bioslurry Reactors - Batch 2C  	. ..	36

 C-12   THC Bioslurry Process Concentration of Selected Parameters in Discharge Slurry from
        Bioslurry Reactors - Batch 2A	 36

 C-13   THC Bioslurry Process Bioslurry Reactor Inlet and Outlet Concentrations for Selected
        Parameters	.....'	37

 C-14   Metals Removal Process - Inlet and Outlet to Tubular Reactor Data for Selected Metals	 38

 D-l    Treatment Cost Summary for a Hypothetical Remediation of 22,000 tons of Soil with 16.5
       Percent Fines and Both Organic and Inorganic Contaminants	40
                                       i,
 D-2   Cost Per Ton of Feed Soil Based on 53 Tons per Day of Feed and 33 Percent Fines in the
       THC Treatment Train	45

 D-3   Cost Per Ton of Feed Soil Based on 106 Tons per Day of Feed Soil and 16.5 Percent Fines
       in the THC Treatment Train	;	45

 D-4   Cost per Ton of Feed Soil Based on 159 Tons Per Day of Feed Soil and 11 Percent Fines
       in the THC Treatment Train	;	45

 D-5   Cost Per Ton of Soil Actually Processed Based on Throughput rate of 0.73 Tons/hr.
       and Continuous Operation   	45

 D-2-1  Selected Feed and Product Stream Parameters for Attrition Soil Wash Process Soil B,
       THC Soil Recycle Treatment Plant	46
D-3-1  Selected Feed and Product Stream Parameters for the Attrition Soil Wash Process, Soil A,
       THC Soil Recycle Treatment Plant	
47
D-4-1  Oil and Grease Results for the Biological Treatment of Contaminated Fines from the High
       Pressure Wash Process	4	49

D-4-2  Comparative Data for Specific PAH's for the Processing of Soil B Contaminated Fines from
       the Attrition Soil Wash Process	49

D-4-3  Comparative Data for Specific PAH's for the Processing of Contaminated Fines for the High
       Pressure Wash Process	50

D-5-1  Metals Removal Process Results Soil A Feed for Attrition Soil Wash Process  . ..	51

-------
                                         Figures
Number
Page
1.    Partition of Feed Soil to Product Streams THC Treatment Train (Based on SITE
      Demonstration Data)	;....  10

2.    Simplified Process Flow Diagram	,	11

3.    Simplified Process Flow Diagram for Soil Wash Process Showing Product Fractions on a
      Weight Basis	11

A-l   Simplified Process Flow Diagram for Soil Wash Process	,	24

A-2   Simplified Process Flow Diagram for Bioslurry Reactor Process	;.	24

A-3   Simplified Process How Diagram Metals Removal Process	..  25

C-l   Simplified Process Flow Diagram for Soil Wash Process Showing Product Fractions on a
      Weight Basis	33

D-l   Daily Mass Flows for Hypothetical Case Treatment of 22,000 Tons of Contaminated Soil	  39

D-2-1 Partition of Feed Soil to Product Streams in Attrition Soil Wash Process,  Soil B, Overall
      THC Project	46

D-3-1 Partition of Feed and Product Stream in Attrition Wash Process, Soil A Overall THC
      Project	.'•	•	47
                                              XI

-------
                                          Abbreviations
ARAR    Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements




CERCLA  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980



cfm       Cubic feet per minute




EPA      Environmental Protection Agency




HSWA    Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA - 1984




ORD      Office of Research and Development




OSWER   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response




PAH      Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon




PID       Port Industrial District




POTW    Publicly-Owned Treatment Works




mg/kg     Milligrams per kilogram




MOE      Ontario Ministry of the Environment




NPDES    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System




RCRA    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act




SARA     Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act




SITE      Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation




TCLP     Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure




THC      Toronto Harbour Commissioners




TRPH     Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
                                                 Xll

-------
                                         Conversion Factors
                   English (US)
Factor
Area:
Flow Rate:
Length:
Mass:
Volume:
1ft2
Iin2
1 gal/min
1 gal/min
1 Mgal/d
1 Mgal/d
1 Mgal/d
1ft
lin
lyd
lib
lib
1 ton
1ft3
1ft3
Igal
Igal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9.2903 x 10'2
6.4516
6.3090 x lO'5
6.3090 x 10'2
43.8126
3.7854 x 103
4.3813 x 10'2
0.3048
2.54
0.9144
4.5359 x 102
0.4536
0.9072
28.3168
2.8317 x lO'2
3.7854
3.7854 x 10"3
Metric
                             m'
                             cm2

                             m3/s
                             L/s
                             L/s
                             m3/d
                             m3/s

                             m
                             cm
                             m
                             g
                             kg
                             Kkg
                                                                     m
ft = foot, ft2 = square foot, ft3 = cubic feet
in = inch, in2 = square inch
yd = yard
Ib = pound
gal = gallon
gal/min (or gpm) = gallons per minute
Mgal/d (or MOD) = million gallons per day
m = meter, m2 = square meter, m3 = cubic meter
cm = centimeter, cm2 = square centimeter
L = liter
g = gram
kg = kilogram
m3/s = cubic meters per second
L/s = liters per second
m3/d = .cubic meters per day
                                                     xm

-------
                                            Acknowledgment
This report was directed and coordinated by Ms. Teri Richardson, EPA SITE Project Manager in the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory - Cincinnati, Ohio.

This report was prepared for EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program by Mr. Leo C. Ehrenreich,
Mr. Andrew Matuson, Mr. Joseph Peters, Mr. Joseph Evans and supporting staff at Science Applications  International
Corporation (SAIC) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-CO-0048.  The Work Assignment
Manager for this project was Mr. Leo Ehrenreich.

The cooperation and participation of Mr. Dennis Lang of the Toronto Harbour Commissioner staff, Dr. Diana Murato of
Zenon Environmental Inc., Ms. Natalie Dame, Ms. Lucille Hicks and Mr. Al Rouse of SNC-Lavalin, Dr. Irving DeVoe of
DeVoe Environmental Laboratory throughout  the course of the project and in review  of this  report are gratefully
acknowledged.

Finally, the project could not have been carried out without the  efforts of the many SAIC, S-Cubed, and Aerovironment
personnel who were responsible for the actual sample collection and analyses.
                                                    xiv

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

The Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) have developed
a soil treatment train designed to treat inorganic and organic
contaminants  in  soils.  THC has conducted a large-scale
demonstration of  these  technologies  in  an  attempt  to
establish that contaminated  soils at  the  Toronto  Port
Industrial District can be treated to attain contaminant levels
below  the  Ontario Ministry of  the Environment (MOE)
Criteria Levels  for  Industrial  Soils  without  utilizing
incineration processes.  Table 1 presents the MOE Criteria
plus additional target criteria set by the developer, the THC.
Collectively,  these criteria are referred to as the "THC
criteria".

The  THC's  treatment train  evaluated during the  SITE
demonstration consists of three soil remediation technologies:
an  attrition  soil  washer to  segregate  the  soil  into
uncontaminated coarse material and highly contaminated
fines, a metals removal process by chelation, and chemical
and   biological   treatment  for  reduction   of  organic
contaminants.  The overall process sequence is determined
by the specific contaminants in the soil to be treated.

Sampling, data collection, and analysis were conducted under
the SITE  program  to provide a  consistent  basis  for
comparing these technologies to other technologies.
1.2  Conclusions

Based on the results of the SITE demonstration project at the
THC Soil Recycling Demonstration Plant, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada and information concerning the overall THC project
several conclusions can be drawn:
     Table 1.  THC Target Criteria for Selected Parameter for Soils for Commercial/Industrial Land Use and Results of Demonstration
                         THC Target   THC Target Medium
     Parameter          Course Textured   & Fine Textured      Feed4                               Fine*
                            Soil1             Soil           Soil         Gravel4      Sand4        Soil
Conventional
Oil and Grease (%) 1 1
TRPH (mg/kg)
Total Metals (mq/kq)
Copper 225 300
Lead 750 1000
Zinc 600 800
Organic Compounds (mg/kg)
Naphthalene 8.03 8.03
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.42 2.4*
1 . Defined as greater than 70% sand and less than 1 7%
organic matter.
2. Clean-up levels are shown for organic compounds.
If soils exceed these levels.then the soil is
considered hazardous and remediation is required.
3. If these trigger levels are exceeded, the MOE
will make a determination on a case by case basis
regarding the need for remediation.
0.82 0.33 0.22 2.5
2500 800 620 5400
18.3 6.4 13.8 84
115.0 45.3 46.0 548
82.5 46.0 34.0 343
11.2 2.5 2.1 1.3(6)
1.9 0.6 0.5 (2.6)(7)
4. Average of six composite samples.
5. Average of six sample's from biosluny reactor batch 2.
6. Values reported is estimated detection limit for this parameter.
7. Values shown is below quantitation limit for procedures.
Values shown is estimated.

-------
1.2.1 THC Treatment Train

•   The primary developer's  claim for the production of
    gravel and sand that meet the THC Target criteria for
    medium to fine soil suitable for industrial/commercial
    sites was  achieved  for the sand and gravel products.
    The fine soil from the biological treatment  process
    exhibited  anomalous oil and grease behavior  and,
    although  exhibiting  significant  reduction  in  PAH.
    compounds,  did not meet the target level of 2.4 ppm
    for benzo(a)pyrene.

•   An  assessment  of the developer's  claims relative to
    metals treatment was not possible since soil excavated
    for this study did not exhibit the metal contamination
    levels  expected  based  on  earlier  field  sampling.
    Limited data was obtained for this process by sampling
    another soil  with moderate metals contamination.

•   The hydrocyclone device used for final dewatering of
    the  fine soil did not produce a dry product.  As  a
    result, the final product from the process was a slurry.
    The use of this technology was an  attempt to find a
    less expensive  alternative  to  filter  press technology,
    and was  not  a significant  component  in the  total
    treatment train demonstration.
1.2.2  Soil Wash Process

•   The attrition soil wash plant produced a gravel (<1.97
    in; >0.24 in) and a sand  (<0.24  in; >0.0025  in) that
    met the THC Target  criteria.  The only parameter
    which exceeded the THC criteria in the feed soil was
    naphthalene.  The process exhibited removal rates for
    organic contaminants  (oil & grease, total recoverable
    petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), naphthalene, benzo
    (a) pyrene)  of 67 percent or greater  for the gravel
    product.  This product accounted for 11.5 percent of
    total  process  mass  output while  accounting for 4
    percent or less of the organic contaminants  in  the
    product streams.

*   Removal rates for organic contaminants (oil & grease,
    TRPH, naphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene) were 78 percent
    or greater for the sand.   This product  accounted  for
    about  68.1  percent  of  the process  output while
    accounting  for 15  percent  or  less of  the  organic
    contaminants in the product stream.

•   The process concentrated the organic contaminants into
    a  contaminated  fine  slurry  (<0.0025   in)  which
    accounted  for about 18.8 percent of the process output
    mass while accounting for 74 percent  or more of the
    organic contaminants.
   The  process  also  produced a  contaminated coal/peat
   product (<0.24  in;  >0.00025  in)  which  represented
   about  1.6  percent   of  the   process   output  while
   accounting  for  6 percent  or more  of the organic
   contaminants.  This waste stream will require disposal
   (most likely by incineration).

   The feed soil exhibited low heavy metals contaminant
   levels  (copper  18 ppm, lead  115  ppm and zinc: 83
   ppm).     The   wash  process  concentrated   these
   contaminants in the fine slurry (18.8  percent  of the
   process mass output) accounting for 59 percent or more
   of these metals  hi the process output streams.
1.2.3  Bioslurry Process

•  The clean fine soil product resulting from the bioslurry
   process  did  not meet  the  primary objective when
   assessed  using the appropriate  analytical  procedures
   from  SW-846   as   universally  applied  in  SITE
   evaluations.    The  developer has  investigated other
   analytical  procedures  they believe may be appropriate
   for slurries with high biomass content that may yield
   different results.  The problem parameters were oil &
   grease  and  benzo(a)pyrene.    The  benzo(a)pyrene
 •  concentration,  although reduced by the process, did not
   meet the  THC Target Criteria level of 2.4 ppm.

•  The bioslurry process provided limited reduction in oil
   and grease when comparing inlet to output samples. A
   similar comparison  for  other parameters   yields the
   following  reductions:   Total Recoverable  Petroleum
   Hydrocarbons  (TRPH) 60 percent;  naphthalene at least
   97  percent;  and  benzo(a)pyrene   approximately  70
   percent.

•  Emission sampling of the ventilation system serving the
   biological  treatment  system did  not  detect PAH
   compounds,  but detection limits  were very high due to
   a high concentration  of  light  hydrocarbons  in the
   exhaust   stream.    These  light hydrocarbons  were
   tentatively identified  as  a petroleum distillate in the
   range of  diesel  oil to  Stoddard solvent  (C9 - C16
   paraffins).    Total  gaseous,  non-methane  organic
   compounds were  detected at levels which indicate 220
   Ibs  per day of emissions.   (The data  illustrate  that
   significant air stripping  is  occurring in the bioreactor,
   and this must be accounted for in the design.)   The
   bioslurry  process was developed to  collect and treat
   volatilized hydrocarbons in two biofilters. These active
   filtration  units were followed by an  activated carbon
   bed  to  polish  the  air  and  remove   any  residual
   contaminant.  Stack testing by the developer indicates
   hydrocarbon emissions are below detection levels.

-------
1.2.4  Metals Removal Process

•  The metals contamination levels actually encountered
   eliminated the  need for  utilizing the metals removal
   process for this soil. Limited data were developed for
   the efficiency of the metals removal process by sampling
   a process run of a metal-rich slurry from  another soil.
   The reactor achieved the following removal efficiencies
   based on metals concentrations in the inlet versus the
   outlet  samples:  copper-96 percent,  lead-71 percent,
   nickel-71 percent and zinc-64 percent.

•  The metals removal process became fouled with oil and
   grease forcing the operation to shut down  prematurely.
   This may be a limitation on the process in that  slurries
   with free oil and grease cannot be processed directly.
   This problem may be overcome by treating the  organic
   contaminant first and then utilizing the metals removal
   process.
1.2.5  Process Costs

•  The costs of the treatment system were examined on
   both an integrated and on a unit process basis. This will
   allow the decision maker to estimate costs for other soil
   applications based  on the processes that  would be
   required  for treating  the  specific  soil.   The  cost
   information was developed by THC based on analysis of
   the overall THC demonstration.  The overall cost of
   operation of a 6.6 tons per hour soil  wash, metals
   removal  and bioslurry treatment train is estimated at
   $219 per ton. The individual process costs that make up
   this estimate are:

   Soil Washing:       $80/ton of feed soil.

   Metals Removal:     $96/ton of feed soil.

   Bioslurry Process:   $43/ton of feed soil.

•  The developer estimates that treatment costs using a 50-
   60 tons per hour fixed facility operating continuously at
   full capacity would be about $116 per ton of raw feed
   assuming the fines require metals removal and organics
   reduction.

1.3  Summary of Suitability of THC Treatment
Train for CERCLA Corrective Actions

1.3.1   Overall Protection of Human  Health and the
Environment

The technology provides a means of removing organic and
metallic contaminants from the soil which should leave the
remaining soil relatively uncontaminated and suitable for a
broader range of uses.
1.3.2  Compliance with ARARs

Data developed during this study suggests the soil washing
can reduce organic contaminants by 65 percent or more of
the levels in  the  feed soil,  and  also  reduce metals
contaminant levels by 50 percent or more in the products
that represent 70 to 80 percent of the feed.  Fines can be
further treated using the metals removal process which can
achieve removals of 60 to 90 percent of the metals present
in the fines.  Higher metals removal can be achieved using
a multiple pass configuration but with an attendant increase
in cost. The bioslurry reactor process exhibits removal in
the 70 percent range for  PAH  contaminants.   Where
contaminant removal of these magnitudes would be useful at
a specific site, a treatability experiment to establish likely
removal rates may be warranted.
13.3  Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence

The   processes   remove  significant  portions  of  the
contaminants  from the soil with the fines.  If the residual
levels  in the  treated  soil  do  not  pose  a health  or
environmental risk, this represents a permanent remediation.
13.4   Reduction of Toxicity,  Mobility,  and  Volume
Through Treatment

•  While some reductions in toxicity are accomplished as a
   function  of  the  removal  rates,   highly  hazardous
   constituents may require more complete removal.

•  The process  does not appear to provide any additional
   immobilization of the remaining contaminants.

•  Two products, other than treated soil, which represent a
   small fraction of the feed soil are produced. A coal/peat
   waste stream which amounts to 1.6 percent of the feed
   will require disposal, most likely by incineration.  The
   heavy metals will represent a very small fraction of the
   feed  and   are   recovered   in  metallic  form  by
   electrowinning.  This product may represent a recycling
   opportunity.
1J.5  Short-Term Effectiveness

•  The protection of the community during remedial actions
   will center on the excavation and  transportation of the

-------
   soil to the process units.  Vapor releases and fugitive
   dust would be the primary concerns.

   Worker protection would require careful attention to
   health and safety and workplace monitoring.

   Environmental releases to wastewater and air emissions
   are expected to be minimal during processing.
1.3.6  Implementability

•  Reliability  of the soil washing process  has been
   established by a decade of use in Europe. The long term
   reliability of the metals removal and bioslurry reactor
   processes have not been established.

•  The unit evaluated is capable of processing 50 to  150
   tons per day of feed soil. Actual production levels will
   be a function of the amount of fines in the soil and the
   removal levels required to achieve acceptable levels of
   contaminants in the clean soil products.

•  The process units  evaluated have been designed to be
   trailer transportable.  Assembly will require the use of a
   crane and experienced personnel. Process operation will
   require experienced operators.

•  The soil  washing technology could  be utilized with
   incineration of the contaminated fines for total organics
   removal.  If necessary, the metals removal process could
   be used after incineration for removal of heavy metals
   from the incineration residue.

•  The effectiveness  of the process can  be monitored by
   sampling  of the soil product streams.
13.7  Cost

•   Capital cost of the 6.6 ton per hour trailer transportable
    process units is estimated at $2,250,000.

•   Operating  costs  are a  function  of the  amount  of
    throughput  fines  in  the  soil  to  be  treated,  the
    contaminants present, and the removal rates required to
    treat the contaminated slurry. In the case of 33 percent
    fines,  single pass  metals  removal  and  biological
    treatment with 10 days detention, the total costs have
    been estimated at $219 per ton  of feed  soil.  This
    includes $80 per ton of feed soil for soil washing, $96
    per ton of feed soil for metals removal, and $43 per ton
    of feed soil for biological treatment
   THC has provided an estimate of the cost of treatment in
   a fixed facility with a 55 ton/hour continuous soil feed
   rate of $116 per ton of feed.
1.4  Discussion of Conclusions

The  SITE program evaluation and the developer's more
extensive   demonstration   at   the   Toronto   Harbour
Commissioners Soil  Recycling  Demonstration  plant  at
Toronto, Ontario, Canada has utilized a process scheme that
concentrates contaminants in a fine slurry stream using a soil
wash process and subsequent treatment of the fine slurry
with processes that remove a significant portion  of the
contaminants.  Because of the nature of this SITE study and
the process scheme  itself, the  following discussion  is
presented in terms of  the process units evaluated, i.e. Soil
Washer, Bioslurry Reactor and Metals Removal Process.

An  extensive  Quality  Assurance  (QA)  program  was
conducted by SAIC in conjunction with EPA's QA program,
including audits and data review along with corrective action
procedures  and special  studies  to resolve  specific  data
quality problems.  These programs are the basis  for the
quality of the  data derived from the SITE  demonstration.
Discussion of the QA program and the results of audits, data
reviews, and special studies can be found in the Technology
Evaluation Report.
1.4.1  Soil Washing

The conclusions presented earlier in this section are based
primarily  on  the  data  developed  during  the  SITE
demonstration.

The development of true mass balance data was precluded
by the size of the pilot facility and its 6.6 ton per hour feed
rate and the fact that the SITE demonstration sampling was
not the primary objective of the operator.  Rough  material
balance data  were developed by using the same  volume-
based approach the operator used in monitoring production.

The developer's overall mass balance for feed and products
for the entire 1040 ton run of this soil compared well with
data gathered during the processing of 122 tons of this soil
during the SITE sampling event.

When evaluating removal efficiencies, the SITE developed
estimates for mass  balance were used.   The conclusions
drawn would not  be  materially  affected  if the  THC-
developed findings were used.

The analysis of samples of the recycled water stream used
in the soil wash process indicates that the contaminants of

-------
interest do not report to the aqueous phase.  Therefore the
assessment of removal efficiencies was based on the analysis
of the product samples  and the mass balance.
1.4.2  Bioslurry Reactor

The soil wash process produces a fine slurry product stream
containing  about 70 percent of the organic contaminants
originally present in the feed soil while accounting  for a
small fraction of the  original soil mass.   In the  SITE
demonstration, the  contaminated fine  soil accounted  for
about 19 percent of the feed by weight The THC project
has established an objective of using processes other than
incineration, which they recognize would have acceptance
problems in the  Toronto area.  This led the developer to
consider  a biological  treatment  system,  which  has  the
additional potential advantage of reduced cost.

The developer planned to use a continuous process for this
biological treatment system  but early  experience  with  the
bioslurry reactor process disclosed variable analytical results.
As a result, the developer had not moved beyond batch
evaluations at the time of the SITE sampling. EPA's plan,
which was  designed to sample the process during steady-
state operation was, therefore, not possible to achieve.  An
alternative  approach was adopted for the  SITE sampling,
which involved extensive sampling of the discharge from
two  bioslurry reactor  batches.   The  first  batch  was
accumulated  from  the first  four days  of  fine  slurry
production  from  the soil wash process.  A total residence
time in the biosystem of 41 days was utilized.  The second
batch, accumulated primarily during the SITE demonstration,
had a total residence time in the system of 30 days. Erratic
analytical results made an assessment of optimum residence
time very difficult.  As a result, the residence times used
should not be considered as optimized.

The conclusions listed earlier in this section for the bioslurry
reactor process are based primarily on the data developed
during the  SITE  demonstration and reinforced by similar
results obtained by the developer.

The developer believes that anomalously high oil and grease
analytical results are caused by extraction of the biomass in
the analytical procedure. The Total Recoverable Petroleum
Hydrocarbon (TRPH) reductions observed during the  SITE
study provide  some support for this hypothesis since  the
TRPH reduction is considerably greater than  the oil and
grease reduction.  TRPH levels achieved suggest that  some
hydrocarbon contamination remains after treatment.   The
developer is continuing  the evaluation and development of
analytical procedures that may be appropriate for soils with
high biomass content. At this point, however, the fine soil
product does not meet the THC Target Criteria for oil and
grease when  this parameter  is  assessed  using SW-846
Method 9071.

The benzo(a)pyrene concentration in the biologically treated
fine soil slightly exceeds the THC  Target Criteria  when
assessed utilizing SW-846 techniques.  Different results may
be obtained with other procedures.  It may be possible to
further optimize the biological  system, perhaps with the
addition  of other  cultures specifically selected for  PAH
digestion capability.
1.4.3 Metals Removal Process

The actual soil processed during the SITE demonstration was
not contaminated with heavy metals.  As a result, there was
no need to run this soil through the metals removal process.
At  the time  of the SITE evaluation, the metals removal
process was  just being restarted  after a long  period  of
inactivity.   The acidified fine  slurry from another soil
produced by  the soil wash process had been sitting in  the
tank for about one month. Because the sampling team was
on site for the SITE demonstration,  sampling of this material
was used to provide some information concerning the metals
removal process.  The process also  differed from normal
operation in  that the tank agitator was shut down.  It was
only possible to sample the inlet and outlet of the tubular
reactor.  Sampling of  the original soil feed and effective
sampling of soil particles which settled in the feed tank was
not possible.  The data developed are, therefore, limited to
use  in  assessing   the  effectiveness  of  the  tubular
reactor/contactor and its solid chelating agent in reducing the
metals content of a slurry stream. The SITE demonstration
results were consistent  with the developer's experience.

1.5 Costs

Cost data were developed for the system as demonstrated at
the  Toronto  Harbour  Commissioners   Soil   Recycling
Demonstration Plant by THC.  The estimate is based on an
analysis  of  the cost  information developed during  the
approximately nine months of operation of the facility. The
costs developed assume the facility is  being  operated  to
process  soil  without  conflicting  information-gathering
objectives.

The THC cost estimates were developed in Canadian dollars.
The costs presented in this report  have been converted to
U.S. dollars by multiplying by an  exchange rate factor of
0.8.

The cost estimates for  the current  pilot facility, as well  as
the full- scale plant, do not include the cost of disposal  of
the coal/peat fraction  or costs  associated with effective
dewatering of the final  fine product.

-------
The cost estimates for the current pilot facility, as well as
the full- scale plant,  do not include the cost of disposal of
the coal/peat fraction or costs associated with  effective
dewatering  of the final fine product.

-------
                                                  Section  2

                                               Introduction
2.1   The SITE Program

The   EPA's  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  use  of  innovative
technologies  to  clean up  Superfund  sites  across  the
country.  Now in its seventh year, the SITE  Program  is
helping to provide the treatment technologies necessary to
meet  new federal and state clean-up standards  aimed  at
permanent remedies, rather than  short-term corrections.
The   SITE Program includes three components:   the
Demonstration   Program,  the  Emerging  Technologies
Program   and   the   Measurements   and   Monitoring
Technologies Program.

The major focus has been on the Demonstration  Program,
which is designed to provide engineering and cost data on
selected   technologies.     EPA   and   the  developers
participating  in  the  program  share  the  cost  of  the
demonstration.       Developers    are   responsible   for
demonstrating their innovative systems at  sites, usually
Superfund sites agreed to by EPA and the developer. EPA
is responsible for sampling, analyzing,  and  evaluating all
test  results.   The  outcome  is   an  assessment  of  the
technology's  performance,  reliability,  and cost.   This
information, used hi conjunction with other data, enables
EPA  and state   decision-makers  to  select  the most
appropriate technologies  for  the  clean-up  of Superfund
sites.

Developers of  innovative  technologies apply  to  the
Demonstration  Program  by responding to EPA's  annual
solicitation. To qualify for the program, a new technology
must be at the pilot- or full-scale and offer some advantage
over   existing   comparable   technologies.     Mobile
technologies are of particular  interest to EPA.

Once EPA accepts  a  proposal,  EPA and the developer
work with the EPA Regional Offices and state  agencies to
identify a  site containing wastes suitable  for testing the
capabilities of the technology.  EPA prepares a detailed
sampling   and analysis  plan designed  to evaluate  the
technology thoroughly and to ensure that the resulting data
are reliable. This project had a somewhat different nature.
The Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) had developed
a  demonstration  project to  evaluate  an  approach  for
remediation of a large number  of industrial/commercial
sites located in the Toronto  Port Industrial District (PID).
This  demonstration  involved the  operation  of a Pilot
Demonstration Plant  for approximately nine months to
demonstrate the  feasibility  of recycling  soil  with  both
organic and inorganic, contamination as well as developing
information for the eventual design of a full-scale facility
based on the technologies evaluated.  -THC, in this case,
did not fit  the classical developers role in a typical SITE
demonstration.  When the program was initiated, THC had
no  business interest hi the technologies being evaluated.
During the course of the demonstration some changes hi
the relationship between THC  and its contractors  took
place which resulted in THC taking a partnership interest
hi the metals removal process technology.

EPA  was  offered the opportunity  to • participate  in  this
project. After meeting with the THC and discussing then-
plan,  an  approach was developed by EPA.  Normally a
demonstration may require a few days to several months,
depending  on the type of process and the quantity of waste
needed to  assess the technology.  Thus, while it may be
possible to obtain meaningful results in a demonstration of
one  week  using  an  incineration  process,  where
contaminants are destroyed hi seconds, this is not the case
for  a process sequence  such  as that offered by the Toronto
Harbour  Commissioners Soil Recycling  Demonstration,
where  operational  reliability, integration of outputs from
one unit to others, and biological and system acclimation
and stability must be examined.  In order to evaluate such
parameters, THC  determined  that  a minimum  of six
months of operations  was necessary  to  evaluate  the
complete process  train while processing  three different
soils from  the  PID.  EPA elected to  sample the process

-------
during the processing of Soil B, which based on field
sampling was expected to exhibit relatively high organic
(oil and grease, PAH compounds) and inorganic  (heavy
metals) contaminants.  The  sampling undertaken by EPA
was of relatively short duration but it was expected that
when the results were combined with THC data, a sound
basis  for analysis  of the technology would be  obtained.
Ultimately,  the  Demonstration  Program  leads  to  an
analysis  of  the  technology's  overall  applicability  to
Supcrfund problems.

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

The  results  of the SITE  Demonstration  Program  are
reported in two documents, the Technology Evaluation
Report  and  the Applications  Analysis  Report.   The
Technology Evaluation Report provides a comprehensive
description  of  the  demonstration  and  its  results  for
engineers  responsible  for detailed  evaluation  of  the
technology  relative  to other  specific  sites  and  waste
situations.    These  technical  evaluators  will  want  to
understand thoroughly the  performance  of the technology
during the demonstration,  and the advantages, risks, and
costs of the technology for the given application.

The Applications Analysis Report is directed to  officials
responsible  for selecting   and  implementing  remedial
actions  for specific sites.   This report provides sufficient
information for a preliminary determination of whether the
technology merits  detailed consideration as an option in
cleaning up a specific site.  If the candidate technology
described in the Applications Analysis appears to meet the
needs of the site engineers, a more  thorough assessment
can be made based on the  Technology Evaluation Report
and  information from remedial  investigations  for  the
specific site.  In summary,  the Applications Analysis will
assist in  determining  whether the   specific  technology
should be considered further as an option for a particular
clean-up situation.

Each SITE demonstration evaluates the performance of a
technology while treating the particular waste matrix found
at the  demonstration  site.  Additional data  from other
projects carried  out by the  developer  also are presented
where available.

Usually,  the waste  and/or  soil at other sites requiring
remediation will differ in some way from the waste matrix
tested. Waste characteristic  differences could affect waste
treatability and  use of the  demonstration  technology at
other sites.  Successful demonstration  of a technology at
one  site  does not  ensure  that the  same technology or
configuration  will work equally well  at other locations.
The  operating range over which the technology performs
satisfactorily can only be determined by examining a broad
range  of wastes and sites.   This report  provides  an
indication of the applicability of the Attrition Soil Washer,
the Bioslurry-Reactor,  and the Metals Removal Process,
both as individual  operating units and as an integrated
system,  by  presenting   and  examining   the   SITE
demonstration test data and data from the developer  that
are available from other applications of the technology.

To enable and encourage the general use of demonstrated
technologies, EPA considers the probable applicability of
each technology to sites and wastes in addition to those
tested, and strives to estimate the technology's  likely costs
hi these applications.  The  results  of these analyses  are
made available through the Applications Analysis Report.
2.3  Key Contacts

For more information  on the  demonstration  of the THC
Soil Recycle System for contaminated soil please contact:

1. Technology Developer concerning the process:

        Mr. Dennis Lang
        The Toronto Harbour  Commissions
        60 Harbour Street
        Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 1B7
        (416)  863-2047
        FAX:   (416) 863-4830

2. EPA  Project   Manager    concerning  the   SITE
   Demonstration:

        Ms. Teri Richardson
        Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
        26 West Martin Luther King Drive
        Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
        (513)  569-7949

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

This section addresses  the potential applicability  of the
Toronto Harbour Commissioners Soil Recycle System to
other soils and Superfund site situations where petroleum
hydrocarbons,  polynuclear aromatic  hydrocarbons  and
heavy metals  are the pollutants of primary interest.  The
demonstration at the Toronto Harbour Commissioners'  Soil
Recycle Demonstration  Plant provides a data base for use
in assessing the effectiveness  and  applicability of the
technology  to  other  cleanups.    This  data  base  is
complemented  by information from further studies of the
same soil, as well as  other soils and wastes conducted by
THC during the first  nine months of 1992.
3.2  Conclusions

3.2.1 Overall Process Train

Based on the  results of the testing conducted during this
evaluation, the primary developer claim, the production of
gravel, sand and fine soil that meet the THC Target criteria
(see  Table  1)  for medium to  fine  soil  suitable  for
industrial/commercial  sites, was  not achieved.    The
problem  appears to center  on  the biological  treatment
process, which exhibited variable behavior with regard to
the  oil  and  grease  parameter.    Although  exhibiting
significant reduction in PAH compounds,  the process  did
not meet the target level of 2.4 ppm for  benzo(a)pyrene.
An assessment of the developer's claims relative to metals
treatment  was not  possible  since the  1040 tons of soil
excavated  for this study  did  not  exhibit  the metals
contamination levels expected based on the field sampling.

The developer employed a hydrocyclone  device for final
dewatering  of the  clean fine soil.  This  technology was
not successful and  as a  result the final product from  the
process  was  a slurry.    Fine  product  dewatering  will
require further evaluation by the developer or will require
another technology.
3.2.2 Individual Processes

3.2.2.1  Soil Washing

The attrition soil wash plant produced a gravel and a sand
product that  met the primary THC  Target criteria.   It
should be noted that the only parameter that exceeded the
THC criterion in the feed was naphthalene.  Nevertheless,
the  process   exhibited   removal  rates  for  organic.
contaminants   (oil   &  grease,  TRPH,  naphthalene,
benzo(a)pyrene) of 67 percent or greater for the gravel
product.  This product accounted  for 11.5 percent of total
process  mass output (dry weight basis) and 4 percent or
less of the organic contaminants in the product streams.

This  process  exhibited   removal   rates  for  organic
contaminants (oil & grease, TRPH, naphthalene, benzo(a)
pyrene) of 78 percent or greater for the sand product.  This
product accounted for 68.1 percent  of the process mass
output while accounting for  15 percent  or less of the
organic  contaminants  in the product stream.

The process concentrated the organic contaminants  into a
fine slurry stream that accounted for about 18.8 percent of
the process  mass output and  74 percent  or more of the
organic  contaminants.

The  process  also  produced  a  contaminated  coal/peat
product which represented 1.6  percent  of the process
output and accounted  for 6  percent or more of the organic
contaminants.   This waste stream will require  disposal
(most likely by incineration).

The  feed  soil  exhibited low  heavy metals contaminant
concentrations (copper-17 ppm, lead-115 ppm andzinc-83
ppm).  The wash process concentrated these contaminants
in the fine slurry which accounted for 18.8 percent of the

-------
process output and 59 percent or greater of these metals in
the process output streams.

32.22  Biosluny Process

The clean fine soil product resulting from  the bioslurry
process did not meet the primary objective when assessed
using the appropriate analytical procedures from SW846 as
universally applied in SITE evaluations. The developer has
investigated other analytical procedures they believe may be
appropriate for soils with high biomass concentrations that
may yield different results.  The problem parameters were
oil & grease  and benzo(a)pyrene.   The benzo(a)pyrene
concentration, although reduced by the process, did not meet
the THC Target Criteria level of 2.4 ppm.

The bioslurry process provided limited reduction in oil and
grease when comparing inlet to output samples. A similar
comparison  for  other parameters  yields  the following
reduction:   Total Recoverable  Petroleum  Hydrocarbons
(TRPH)  52 percent; naphthalene  at least 97 percent; and
benzo(a) pyrene approximately 70 percent.
objective was to determine whether the processes operating
in an integrated manner can meet the THC criteria for return
of the soil to the site. The primary process is a soil attrition
wash process that segregates a contaminated  soil into (a)
washed gravel, (b)  sand, and (c) fine soil.  Each output
retains whatever contaminants are absorbed,  adsorbed or
otherwise integrally  mixed with the solids.  Because of the
increasing surface area per unit weight, the fine soil contains
a disproportionate fraction of most contaminants, while the
gravel is relatively uncontaminated.   Investigations carried
out by others have established that such soil wash processes
can typically handle feed soils with up to 25-35%  fine soil.
For the fine soil to be returned as "clean" further treatment
would usually be required, such as the biodegradation of
organics and/or heavy metals removal  also studied in this
demonstration.   Figure 1 presents  a  simplified diagram
illustrating the partition of feed and contaminants to the
product streams.
                       FIGURE 1
             PARTITION OF FEED SOIL TO PRODUCT STREAMS.
     THC TREATMENT THAIN(BASED ON SITE DEMONSTRATION DATA)
3223  Metals Removal Process

The metals contamination concentrations of the soil that was
moved  to the pilot facility  for processing were low and
eliminated the need for utilizing the metals removal process
for this soil. Limited data were developed for the efficiency
of the solid chelating agent and tubular reactor process by
sampling a process run of a metal-rich slurry for another soil
which had been processed earlier.  The reactor achieved the
following   removal  efficiencies   based   on   metals
concentrations  in the inlet versus the outlet samples  -
copper-96 percent, lead-71  percent, nickel-71 percent and
zinc-63 percent.   No assessment  of the process ability to
achieve the THC Target Criteria was possible because of the
sampling circumstances.

During  the sampling,  the metals  removal process became
fouled with oil and grease forcing premature termination of
the operation. This represents an operational constraint in
that if slurries  exhibit free oil  and  grease  and  metal
contamination the free oil  and grease should be reduced
prior to  application  of the  metals extraction process.
Optimization of the materials management at that specific
site may also avoid this constraint.
                                   2000 « OF FEED
                                   16.4 * OF O&G
                                   9.0 * OF TRPH
                                   .23 * OF LEAD
                                 OF BENZO(>)PYRENE (B(a)P)
ATTRITION SOIL WASH PROCESS



                     COAL/
                     PEAT
                   CONTAMINATED
                  FINE SLURRY(I)

WEIGHT %
OtG (2)
TRPH (2)
LEAD (2)
(B(«)P) (2)

210 *
10.5
3.7 %
2.7 %
3.5 %
2.5%
1
90*
2.9
10 %
8.4%
3.3%
14.7%

1405 •
70.2
16.1%
13.8%
38.7 %
15.1%
I
335*
16. 7
70.2%
74.1%
55.4%
87.7%

           RETURN
           TO SITE
I INCINERATION I
OR LANDFILL I
RETURN
TO SITE
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT I
     1.MASS FRACTION OF CONTAMINATED FINES ESTIMATED. BASED ON DIFFERENCE
          (CONTAMINATED FINES:FEED-( GRAVEL«COAUPEAT» SAND)
  2.PERCENTAGE OF CONTAMINANT BASED ON TOTAL CONTAMINANTS IN PRODUCT STREAMS
3.3  Technology Evaluation

This  SITE program evaluation demonstrated a  process
scheme that involves three processes to remediate  soils
contaminated  with  organics  and/or  heavy  metals.   The
Figure 2 provides a more detailed schematic of the overall
treatment train in a configuration that would be used for a
soil  with significant  organic and inorganic heavy metals
contamination.
                                                         10

-------
                      FIGURE 2
             SIMPLIFIED PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
        Aetd  I    r""""™™"•"!      Nautralln
        Laacb  	H  I"1"""  	»   and
             I    |  Raactor        Dawatar
               n	n  i—
               1           1 Chalatlng
               I           T  Ag.nl
               •— Raganarattng -^
The results  and discussion focus  on  naphthalene  and
benzo(a)pyrene because these contaminants exceeded  the
THC Criteria in the feed or one of the products. Other PAH
contaminants were examined but did not exceed the THC
criteria in the feed or products.  For simplicity, the results
are presented only for naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene.
33.1 Soil Washing

The conclusions presented earlier in this section are based
primarily  on  the  data developed  during  the  SITE
demonstration.  Additional data are presented in Appendix
D.

The THC evaluation of the  attrition soil wash process for
this soil was conducted over a two month period. The feed
soil exhibited much higher (by a factor of 3) oil and grease
contamination than  observed during  the site  evaluation.
THC's results indicated that the gravel product did not meet
the THC, oil and grease criterion, however the sand product
did meet the criteria during the THC evaluation.

The development of true mass balance data was precluded
by  the size of the pilot facility and its 6.6 ton per hour feed
rate and the fact that the SITE demonstration sampling was
not a primary objective of the operation.  Rough material
balance data were developed by using data the operator used
in monitoring production.

A mass balance for the three day SITE demonstration using
bucket counts and actual  density measurement also was
determined.  The mass balance results are presented in
Figure 3.
                                                                                  FIGURE 3
                                                                 SIMPLIFIED PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR SOIL WASH PROCESS
                                                                  SHOWING PRODUCT FRACTIONS ON A WEIGHT BASIS
                                                               Coal/
                                                                Paat
                                           SOIL >.24 IN
                                           THC-0.105
                                           SITE-0.115
Sand
>.Q025 IN
THC-0.702
SITE-0.681
•
-------
Table 2. Selected Feed and Product Characteristics of the Attrition Soil Wash Process

Percent of Output Based
on Site Demo. Data
Percent of Output Based
on THC Overall Analysis
OH & Grease (mg/kg)
TRPH (mg/kg)
Copper (mg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Zinc (mg/kg)
Naphthalene (mg/kg)
Benzo (a) Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Feed
Soil"'

—
8,200
(6.708-9.700)3
2,500
(2,270-3,430)
18.3
(9.2-42.2)
115
(63.3-127)
82.5
(40.4-181)
11.2
(5.3-18)
1.9
(0.9-2.9)
THC
Criteria
—
—
10,000
—
225
750
600
8
2.4
<1.97 in.
>0.24 in.
Gravel'1'
11.5
10.5
3,300
(1,200-10,400)
800
(270-1,370)
6.4
(0.7-12.1)
45.3
(3.2-117)
46
(2.3-98.6)
2.5
(0.9-2.9)
0.6
(0.2-1.0)
<0.24 in.
Coal/Peat
Fraction'2'
1.6
2.5
38,000
(17,600-51,600)
11,900
(4,760-16,280)
32.9
(22.8-41.7)
406
(12.9-749
210
(46.8-406)
64
(34-1.10)
14.5
(9.6-23)
<0.24 in.
>0.0025 in.
Sand'1'
68.1
70.2
2,200
(1 ,400-3,900)
620
(380-960)
13.8
(32-32.4)
46
(23.6-82.9)
34.1
(15.9-71.4)
2.1
(1.5-3.1)
0.5
(0.2-1.2)
<0.0025 in.
Contam.
Fines'1'
18.8
16.7
40,000
(26,900-50,500)
14,000
(8,500-19,800)
83.1
(48.2-135)
522
(421-680)
344
(192-593)
51.7
(17-82)
10.0
(9.0-12.0)
(1)  Average of six composite samples.
(2)  Average of three composite samples.
(3)  Range of results.
Table 3. Characteristics of Soil Wash Product Streams (based on SITE mass balance and Site Demonstration Analytical
         Results)

Fraction of Output
Oil & Grease
TRPH
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
<1.97in.
>0.24 in.
Gravel
0.115
0.038'1'
. (33)'2'
0.028
(24)
0.028
(24)
0.037
(32)
0.053
(50)
0.024
(21)
0.028
(24)
<0.24 in.
Coal/Peat
Fraction
0.016
0.061
(381)
0.057
(356)
, 0.020
(125)
0.046
(289)
0.057
(230)
0.082
(513)
0.091
(569)
<0.24 in.
>0.0025 in.
Sand
0.681
0.149
(22)
0.127
(19)
0.358
(53)
0.223
(33)
0.262
(38)
0.113
(17)
0.142
(21)
<0.0025 in.
Contaminated
Fines
0.188
0.752
(400)
0.788
(419)
0.594
(316)
0.694
. (369)
0.628
(334)
0.781
(415)
0.740
(394)
(1) Weight fraction of the specific parameter found in the product stream as a fraction of the total weight in all product streams.
(2) Percent of expected value based on feed concentration of respective contaminants  and weight fraction of product stream.
                                                     12

-------
33.2  Bioslurry Reactor Effectiveness

The soil wash process produces a contaminated fine soil
slurry.  This product stream contains much of the organic
contaminants originally present in  the  feed soil  while
accounting for a small fraction of the original soil.  In the
SITE demonstration, the contaminated fine soil accounted for
about 19 percent of the feed by weight.  The THC project
has established an objective of using processes other than
incineration, which they recognize would have acceptance
problems in the Toronto area. This led the developer to the
use of a biological treatment system which has the additional
potential advantage  of reduced  cost, particularly  when
compared to incineration.

The developer's early experience with the bioslurry reactor
process disclosed variable results. As a result, the developer
had not moved beyond batch evaluations at the time of the
SITE  sampling.  The SITE project plan, that was designed
to sample a continuous process when it approached steady-
state operation, was, therefore, not possible. An alternative
approach was adopted that involved extensively sampling the
discharge from two  bioslurry reactor batches.   The first
batch  accumulated from the first four days of fine slurry had
a total process time in the biosystem of 41 days; the second
batch  had a total process time in the system of 30 days. The
information available for evaluation is therefore somewhat
restricted.   The  inlet  and outlet  results  for  selected
parameters are presented in Table 4.
Erratic analytical results with process samples taken by THC
The conclusions listed earlier in this section for the bioslurry
reactor process are based primarily on these data and are
confirmed by similar results obtained by the developer.

The developer believes that anomalously high oil and grease
analytical results are caused by the extraction of  biomass in
the analytical procedure with a resultant high oil and grease
analytical  result.    The Total  Recoverable  Petroleum
Hydrocarbon (TRPH) reductions observed provide some
support for this hypothesis since  this parameter exhibits
much higher reductions then does oil and grease.  The TRPH
levels still present do suggest that considerable hydrocarbon
contamination remains after the treatment.  The fine soil
product does not meet the THC Target Criterion of oil and
grease when this parameter is assessed  using SW-846
Method 9071.

The benzo(a)pyrene concentration in the treated fine soil just
exceeds the THC Target Criterion.  It may be  possible to
further optimize the biological  system, perhaps with the
addition  of other  cultures specifically selected for PAH
digestion capabilities.
3.3.3  Metals Removal Process

The actual soil processed during the SITE demonstration was
not contaminated with concentrations of heavy metals that
exceeded the THC criteria. Consequently, there was no need
to operate the metals removal  process.  At the time of the
    Table 4.  Selected Feed and Product Characteristics of the Bioslurry Reactor Process.
Contaminated Bioslurry Bioslurry
MOE Fine Reactor Reactor
Criteria Slurry"' Batch 1ra Batch 2(2)
Oil & Grease 1.0% 4.00% 4.98% 2.53%
(2.7-S.4)4 (3.96-6.08) (3.98-2.17)
TRPH .- 1.4% .78% .54%
(.85-1.98) (.68-.9S) (.S9-.76)
Naphthalene 8 mg/kg 51.7mg/kg <14!5) mg/kg <13(5) mg/kg
(17-82) <16-<11
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.4 mg/kg 10 mg/kg 3.1 mg/kg 2.6 mg/kg
(8.4-12) (2.0-5.1) (2.3-3.4)
Removal
Efficiency
%n
6
52
9>>
71
(1) Average of 6 composite samples.
(2) Average of 6 samples taken at 20 minute intervals during discharge of batch.
(3) Removal efficiency based on average value for both batches.
(4) Range of results.
(5) Value reported is average of quantitation limit reported. Detection limit is at least a factor 10 less than the quantitation limit.
(6) Removal efficiency calculated from detection limit estimated by dividing quantitation limit by 10.
made an  assessment of the residence time required to
achieve satisfactory results very difficult.  As a result, the
residence time utilized should not be considered as optimum.
SITE demonstration sampling, the metals removal process
was just being restarted after a long shut-down period.  The
metals removal feed tanks contained material from the end
of a  soil wash run on a different soil concluded about one
month earlier.  Because the sampling team was on site for
                                                       13

-------
the SITE demonstration, a decision was made to sample the
inlet and outlet of the tubular reactor even though samples
of the soil fed to the system could  not be obtained.  In
addition, no method to effectively sample any soil particles
which settled in the feed tank was available.  The process
also differed from normal operation in that the tank agitator
was shut down prior  to starting to pump the slurry to the
tubular contactor.  The data developed is, therefore, limited
to providing information on which to assess the effectiveness
of the tubular reactor contactor and its solid chelating agent
in reducing the metals content of a slurry stream.   Our
results were consistent with the developers experience.
Selected heavy metal data for removal of metals from the
liquid stream by the THC metals  removal  process is
presented in Table 5.
  Table 5. Selected Heavy  Metals Data for Removal of
          Motals from the Liquid Stream by the THC
          Metals Removal Process.
Metal
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Influent
mg/kg
51.1
(49.2-53.2)1
100.5
(94.2-112)
11.7
(10.7-12.7)
277
(264-294)
Effluent
mg/kg
1.8
(0.9-3.0)
29.0
(13.5-46)
3 3
(0.9-7.3)
101
(53-183)
Removal %
96
71
71
63
  1 Range of values.

The developer has information on this process as applied to
several soils. In general, the particular solid chelating agent
used removes copper most effectively, while lead and nickel
are removed at a somewhat lower effectiveness, followed by
zinc with a removal rate of about 60 percent.
3.4 Applicable Wastes

It should be emphasized that  treatability tests  should be
undertaken with any candidate soil.   In the case of this
technology  train,  an  evaluation  of  each  process  being
considered to  treat a specific candidate soil  would be
required.

There are some general applicability  guides that may be
useful   in  assessing  if  treatability  testing  should  be
considered.

The  overall   treatment   approach   requires  that  the
contamination of interest can be concentrated in a fine soil
fraction which then can be economically processed.  This
requires that the fine soil fraction not represent too great a
percentage of the overall soil.  The developer, estimates that
soil fines  should not normally exceed 30 to 35 percent  by
weight of the overall soil  feed.  The lower the fine soil
concentration in  the specific soil, the more  favorable the
potential economics of the process should be.

The soil wash process is generally tolerant of normal swings
in soil particle size.  Potential problems arise if metal wire
or fibrous vegetation (roots) in the feed soil  are  common.
This  leads  to operational  problems, particularly for the
cleanup of the gravels and fine sand fraction and can affect
production costs adversely.   Another  problem  could  be
encountered if the soil exhibits wide swings  in the coarse
material content If the maximum concentration  of coarse
material is known at the design phase, it can  be accounted
for, but if the design  capacity of the trommel washer is
exceeded, this could limit the production rate.

The soil wash process is not suited to reduce inorganic target
compounds  in a soil in which the target  compounds are
present as a result of the minerals widely dispersed in the
soil particles. In this case, little partition by particle size can
be expected.

The  process configuration  utilized depends  on  the target
contaminants being essentially non-soluble  in water.  If
soluble components are present, the ability to reuse water
may be affected and some treatment for the aqueous phase
may be necessary.

The metals treatment process is not tolerant of free oil and
grease.  In order to be useful for a soil with free oil and
grease, prior treatment will be required.

The  metals  treatment process may be tailored to specific
metals by the selection of ion exchange chelating media.  In
general, the process depends on being able to dissolve the
metals of interest at acidity levels compatabile  with the
chelating resin system.

The metals treatment process uses an acid solubilization step
to make the metals available for removal.  The developer has
indicated  that if the soil matrix contains considerable free
calcium carbonate or other carbonates foaming  problems
may arise when the soil is acidified. In addition, the soluble
components may cause handling or dewatering  problems
when the  process effluent is neutralized.
3.5  Site Characteristics
                                                        14

-------
 The size and nature of a site that requires remediation may
 have a considerable effect on the decision to utilize this
 treatment approach. The volume of material that must be
 remediated should be in  the tens of thousands of tons in
 order  to  warrant  the  use of  these  technologies.   The
. technology should produce a large volume of clean product
 soil that can be returned  to the excavation site.   The type
 and  amount  of  debris  on the  site  may  also  be  a
 consideration.   Material larger than 2  inches  must  be
 removed before the soil  can be fed  to the wash process.
 Metal fragments  must  also be  removed  as part of  a
 pretteatment operation.   If the  amount of material or the
 operational difficulty in removing the debris is excessive, the
 site may not be suitable for this technology.

 This SITE demonstration did not investigate the impact of
 soil characteristics and particle size distribution on the
 properties  of the output stream.  These factors can  be
 expected to have an effect on  the masses  of the various
 output streams and may affect  throughput rates and the
 partition of the contaminants to the various product streams.
 The need  for treatability evaluation  is  therefore further
 emphasized.

 The THC demonstration plant was located on a prepared site
 in close proximity to the location of the soil sites  to  be
 evaluated.   The  soil wash plant and the metals removal
 process were designed in trailer transportable modules that
 can be transported and reassembled for use at a specific site.
 The bioslurry reactors require relatively large tanks (20,000
 gallons), which were designed to be  the largest tanks that
 could still be transported by trailer. The facility at Toronto
 was located on  a paved pad  and  fully enclosed  in  a
 temporary  building to allow operation during the relatively
 harsh Ontario winter season. The facility requires power and
 a water source.    A source of fuel, to maintain  water
 temperature above 55° F, such as natural gas, propane, or
 fuel oil would provide a cost saving when compared to
 water heating with electric power.  The site is designed to
 collect all storm runoff and to store it for use in the process.
 The specific water balance at a site would depend on rainfall
 and amount of water that leaves the  process with product
 streams.   If  water must be  discharged,  a  site-specific
 determination will be required to determine  if treatment is
 necessary prior to discharge to a POTW or to surface waters.
 In  general,  a provision  should be  available   to  allow
 discharge if required. The recycled water at the  THC site
 did not show partition of the pollutants to the aqueous phase,
 but this will be  a factor controlled by  the nature of the
 contaminants present.

 The use of contaminated water in the process may provide
 a net benefit at specific sites.  For example, if groundwater
 at a site is contaminated, the metals removal process may
 also treat this water.
Climate may play a role in determining the type of structure
in which the process train would be housed. The soil wash
and metals removal process wiU require at least a covered
structure.  The  bioslurry  reactors are closed tanks, and,
therefore, could be located on an open pad. If the climate
at  a  site would  be  expected to exhibit severe  winter
temperatures, the overall process  should be located in an
enclosure or heating of tanks and the transfer line may be
required.   Adverse  winter conditions  could also cause
problems due to the soil freezing, which could effect soil
excavation and external materials transfer operations at the
facility.

Generally, the  process will  consume water'  due  to the
moisture leaving with the product streams.   In  climates
where seasonable imbalances  in precipitation are common,
a provision to obtain water for use during dry periods may
be appropriate.
3,6 Environmental Regulation Requirements

The THC program is aimed at providing an approach for soil
remediation at industrial and commercial sites. The primary
regulatory  agency responsible is  the Province of Ontario
Ministry of the Environment. The specific permit issues for
the Toronto facility have been addressed by THC.

In   the   United   States,  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 the removal of
waste and residual contamination from a site.  The utility
and cost  effectiveness of the THC Treatment System would
be dependent on the extent of decontamination necessary for
site  restoration and the  combination of  treatment units
appropriate to achieve the required clean-up levels for a
particular site.  If a waste exhibits  a characteristic hazard
(e.g., TCLP leachate toxicity) or is a listed hazardous waste,
treatment will be required.  Specific treatment levels to allow
the return of product streams to the excavation site must be
established at  each site  by  the  responsible agency or
agencies. Nevertheless, since the use of remedial actions by
treatment that".... permanently and significantly reduces the
volume,  toxicity,  or mobility of hazardous substances" is
strongly  recommended (Section 121 of SARA), the THC
Attrition Soil Washer System would appear  to be  an
attractive candidate for consideration for remediation of sites
contaminated with hydrophobic organic chemicals  and/or
heavy metals.

SARA also added a new criterion for assessing cleanups that
includes  consideration of potential contamination of the
ambient air. This is in addition to general criteria requiring
                                                        15

-------
 that remedies  be protective  of human  health and the
 environment.   Other than normal  concerns for  workers
 handling large volumes of contaminated soils and the dust
 generated during the excavation and movement of soil to the
 plant, there appears to be minimal opportunity for exposure
 by workers or neighbors to the contaminants.  Since the soil
 washing  is a wet process and all conveyors and process
 vessels are hooded and ventilated, exposure in the facility
 Should be limited. The ventilating system for the plant will
 require treatment of the air prior to discharge.  Air drawn
 from the bioslurry reactors does contain hydrocarbons from
 stripping action. The ventilating air collected from the soil
 wash plant also contains volatile organics and the metals
 treatment process requires treatment to control acid gases.
 Permits will be required for each of the emission points from
 the air treatment systems employed.

 Additional regulatory aspects that might be addressed include
 permits for wells that might be drilled to treat groundwater
 (and provide water for soil processing) and any excavation
 authorization that may be necessary.  Runoff from soil piles
 awaiting  treatment may require treatment in systems that
 require permits.  Depending on the size of the  site being
 remediated  and the roles  of the bioslurry reactor, storage
 tanks may be necessary as reservoirs and to provide needed
 equalization.    Such  tanks  may require permits,  spill
 contingency plans, etc. depending on their size and whether
 they are above or below ground. For a large site and a large
 soil  washer system processing as much as 55  tons/hour,
 water storage capacity  would be large enough to require
 basins instead  of tanks.   This  would  raise  additional
 regulatory questions about liners, secondary  containment,
 leachate collection, etc.

 Even if  the overall  process  train achieves a  condition
 whereby all water would be recycled during operation,
 discharge of the residual water  and decontamination of all
 equipment will be necessary at the termination of operation.
 Depending on the contaminants present, this water may be
 suitable for direct discharge or discharged to a POTW with
 some treatment.   A  NPDES permit or sewer  discharge
 permit would be  required.  While the SITE project is
 exempted from  permit  requirements under the  Resource
 Conservation and Recovery Act  of 1976 (RCRA), the
 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA),
and state regulations, a commercial site will require a RCRA
permit for the entire treatment system  to operate  as a
hazardous waste treatment facility.  This would include
storage tanks, all treatment equipment/reactors, effluents, and
if applicable, air emissions.
 3.7 Materials Handling Requirements

 Soil Excavation - The soil to be treated is excavated and
 transported to a  covered  shed  prior to processing.   The
 excavation and transport involve conventional earth moving
 equipment, such as front-end loaders and a dump truck.

 Soil Washer - Materials handling is a significant labor and
 therefore cost factor for both the feed to the process, as well
 as the removal of solid product stream at the THC soil wash
 plant. The soil is removed from the storage shed utilizing a
 front-end loader and is then slowly fed to a vibratory grizzly.
 The soil drops to a belt conveyor that runs the soil to a
 rotating permanent magnetic separator.  The output from this
 magnetic separator drops to a belt conveyor and constitutes
 the feed to the soil wash process.  The sand product is
 conveyed by belt conveyors from the density separators to
 its product bin.  The solid products are  collected in three
 sided bins, which  allows  the  periodic  removal  of  the
 products using a small front-end  loader.   The coal/peat
 product is collected in  a self-dumping hopper.  The product
 solids are loaded into a dump  truck and returned  to the
 excavation site.   Slurry product from the wash plant is
 pumped to the metals  removal process or to the bioslurry
 reactor process depending on the nature of the contaminants.

 The pilot facility materials handling was dictated by the need
 to maintain flexibility  and meet  space constraints.  During
 the design phase of a- full-scale facility project, significant
 materials handling  changes  would  allow  considerable
 savings.

 Bioslurry Reactors - Material is moved from tank to tank
 utilizing diaphragm pumps. Material is  discharged using
 permanently installed centrifugal pumps.  The process was
 equipped with an automatic nutrient feeder operated by
 peristatic pumps, however the operator preferred to add the
 nutrients manually through ports on the  top of the tanks.
 Filtered air for the aeration system is fed from a compressor
 located  outside the  building through  a  manifold to  the
 bioslurry reactors.

 Metals removal process - Material  handling in the metals
 removal  process involves pumping  of slurries.   The final
 product is a slurry that is either pumped to the bioslurry
 reactor  process  or returned to the excavation site  after
 dewatering depending on the prior processing history of the
 soil and the contaminants originally  present.

Fine Product Dewatering - The  developer incorporated a
system for dewatering using high pressure hydrocyclones to
evaluate the performance of this technology that promised a
considerable cost saving.  The system was not successful in
achieving meaningful dewatering of the fine soil product.
As a result, the slurry product was returned by tank truck to
                                                      16

-------
the excavation  site or  pumped  directly  to the site if
geography allowed.  The developer will need to evaluate
other dewatering processes such as sedimentation or other
forms of filtration. The very fine particle size of the slurry
may make this a difficult  dewatering problem but an
acceptable technology  from mineral processing  or sludge
dewatering almost certainly can be found.
3.8  Personnel Issues

Soil Washer - The attrition soil washer evaluated as part of
the soil recycling demonstration is automated in the sense
that the material moves through the system without  direct
action by the operator.  The wash plant itself is not labor
intensive but does generally require the availability of two
operators  to monitor  soil,  slurry, and water flows and to
make equipment adjustments and repairs as required.

The materials handling labor requirements for this unit are
one front-end loader operator on a full-time basis to move
soil to the soil washer to load the pretreatment grizzly and
remove solid products from the plant.

The processing of soils with hazardous contaminants will
demand a high level of attention to worker health and safety.
The pilot unit has been provided with extensive hoods and
ventilation to handle  volatile organics released during  the
wash  process and associated handling.  In all cases,   a
comprehensive workplace and personnel health monitoring
program tailored to the particular contaminants found in the
soil being treated will  be  required.   In general, worker
contact with the feed or products is incidental to their work
rather than routinely necessary.
Bioslurry Reactor Process - The bioslurry reactors utilize
manually operated pumps for the transfer of slurries. There
is little direct contact with the slurry in routine operation.  A
single operator, working half time on the bioslurry process
and half time on the plants water treatment and management,
is used on a one shift a day basis.  If overflows from the
reactors occur as  a result  of  foaming,  which has been
encountered  periodically,  the operator  is assisted by  a
general laborer in clean-up efforts. Spill response and clean-
up must be appropriate for the particular hazards associated
with the specific contaminants present in the soil being
treated.
  V
Metals Removal Process - The metals removal process  is
highly  automated  and  incorporates  modern computer
monitoring and control. Dkect contact by the operator with
the process equipment  or material is not routine.   The
process does require two full-time operators to make any
adjustments that may be required as  well  as to initiate
repairs and to respond to spills or other upsets. This process
is a continuous  process'and runs well  once  equilibrium
conditions are established.  Therefore, by its nature it should
be a round-the-clock operation and operators are required for
120 hour per week of operation.  An additional operator may
be  required  to   handle   periodic  operation   of  the
electrowinning process as well  as support for  the primary
process.

This process utilizes acids and bases to  effect the metals
removal process. Routine contact with these materials or the
soil being processed is not  .required.  Personal protective
clothing and.gear is required for non-routine situations. Spill
and emergency response plans and training are a necessity.
                                                        17

-------
                                                  Section 4
                                            Economic Analysis
 4.1  Introduction

 The primary purpose of this economic analysis is to provide
 cost information useful in understanding the likely costs of
 applying the THC treatment train at a production level of
 approximately 6.6 tons of dry soil feed per hour to the initial
 soil wash  process.   With this  cost  information  and a
 knowledge of the basis  for its development, it should be
 possible to  develop  cost estimates  for other soil  or
 production levels. An overall cost estimate for a plant with
 a soil feed rate of 55 ton per hour is also provided.

 This economic analysis is based on assumptions and costs
 provided by THC or its contractors. This estimate is based
 on an analysis of costs incurred during the 9 months of plant
 operation experience accumulated in 1992. THC  provided
 a cost analysis based on  an assumption of 33 percent fines
 in the soil. This represents a worst case scenario for costs.
 Several other cases have been examined in order to highlight
 the importance of the amount of fines in the overall costs for
 the treatment train.  The THC  analysis was  provided  in
 Canadian dollars.  We have converted to U.S.  currency by
 using an exchange rate of $0.80 U.S. to  $1.00 Canadian.
 Comments on the cost  analysis and  discussion of  cost
 Clements in  general represent  the  author's  engineering
judgement  An effort has been made  to  present the  cost
 analysis in a manner that will allow the reader to vary the
 basis to fit a particular situation or to evaluate the sensitivity
 of cost to a particular assumption.

 Certain costs have not been included in this  analysis because
 they would be  site specific.   These  include plant  site
preparation, soil excavation, and transportation  to the plant
 for treatment.  The cost  of disposal  of the two  waste
products from the process have not been included because
 they will be site specific.  The wastes involved are the
coal/peat  product  and  the  metals recovered  in  the
clectrowinning used in the metals removal  process.
Cost figures provided here are based on an analysis of the
actual operation of the actual plant and actual personnel.
The analysis  involved identifying  achievable  long term
production levels and utilizing actual cost experience to
project costs when  production is  the  primary  goal  of the
operation.
4.2  Conclusions

•  Based on an assumption of 33 percent fines and a 6.6
   ton per hour dry solids feed rate, the estimated total cost
   for the THC treatment train is $220 per ton.

•  The individual process costs on the same basis are:

   Soil Washing:     $80/ton of soil  treated.

   Bioslurry Process: $43/ton of soil  feed.

   Metals Removal:  $96/ton of soil  feed.
   TOTAL:
$219/ton of soil feed.
   Projected costs of a dedicated full scale 55 ton per hour
   of feed soil (33% fines) facility are:
   Soil Wash
   Bioslurry
   Metals Removal
   Total
  $ 43/ton
   23
   51
  $117/ton
   The projected costs  for the pilot-scale unit are quite
   sensitive to the percentage of fines in the feed soil.  This
   occurs  because the  bioslurry  and  metals  removal
   processes are required to treat all the fine slurry. These
   process throughput rates therefore can limit the amount
   of time the wash plant can be operated. Assuming 16.5
   percent fines, consistent with THC results for several
   soils, the total costs  would  drop to about $ 136/ton.
                                                       18

-------
   If  11  percent fines  is  assumed, the  total  costs  are
   estimated at about $109/ton.

   The actual cost for a specific soil will also be a function
   of  the relative difficulty in treatment in the bioslurry
   reactor system.   The THC cost estimate is based on
   throughput rate that would result in a retention time in
   the reactors of about 10 days.  If longer retention is
   required, more reactors will be required or the amount of
   time the soil wash process operates must be decreased.

   The actual cost for a specific soil will also be a function
   of the relative difficulty in treatment for metals removal.
   Soils  with higher  metals  contamination levels may
   require lower throughput rates or multiple passes through
   the tubular contractor.
4.3  Issues and Assumptions

This section summarizes the major issues and assumptions
used to evaluate the cost of the THC soil treatment process.
In general, the assumptions  are based on  information
provided by THC or  its contractors.   The  basic  cost
information provided has been  used in an analysis  to
iilusbate the sensitivity  of costs to the percent fines in the
soil.    The costs  discussed are  based on  the  experience
developed during the first 9 months of 1992 during which
the plant was operated  for the THC  demonstration.  The
process units used are the units included in the nominal 6.6
ton per hour of feed soil plant discussed.  THC has also
provided an overall estimate for a 55 ton/hour plant.
43.1  Waste Volumes and Site Size

The volume of soils that may require treatment at the Port
Industrial District (PID) have  been estimated at  a level
approaching 2,200,000 tons. For purposes of this analysis,
a hypothetical case for a site that contains 22,000 tons of
soil requiring remediation will be examined. Soil from the
site is assumed to have a fines content of 16.5 percent and
to contain  contaminants which will  require biological
treatment and  metals  removal  treatment   This  case  is
developed in detail in Appendix D.
4.3.2  System Design and Performance Factors

The THC treatment train consists of three  process units.
Each  of the process units  has  been designed so that  the
system consists of a number of trailer transportable modules.
The individual processes are discussed below.
4.3.2.1  SoU Wash

The soil wash plant has a demonstrated throughput rate of
about 6.6 tons per hour. At that rate it produces enough fine
slurry to feed the 24 hour throughput of the metals removal
process during an 8 hour shift, if the soil feed contains  33
percent  fines.   In the  event the  soil  being  processed
contained about  16.5 percent fines, the wash plant could be
operated for 16 hours per day, and, similarly, if the soil
contained about  11 percent fines, the plant could be operated
on a 24 hour basis and the metals removal process could be
operated at a sufficient rate to maintain the fines production.
43.2.2  Bioslurry Process

The biological system has a total of 6 tanks with a total
capacity of approximately 120,000 gallons.  This includes 2
tanks normally used as feed hold tanks and one tank which
was intended for digestion of the biomass.  If all of these
tanks are  operated as batch bioslurry reactors, a detention
time of about 10 days based on a rate of 475 gallons per
hour is implied. If longer detention is required to treat either
high   contaminant  levels  or  biologically   refractory
contaminants,  then the capacity of the other plant processes
will have  to be reduced.
43.23  Metals Removal Process

The metals removal process appears to perform satisfactory
when operating at a feed rate of about 475 gallons per hour
of slurry with a solids content of about 24 percent by
weight. This feed level results in the treatment of 0.56 tons
per hour of solid on a dry basis.  If contamination levels are
such that high removal rates are not required, then higher
throughput rates  can be used.  Conversely, if very high
removals are required, a multiple pass configuration may be
required with a resulting decrease in the throughput rates.
43.3 Manpower Requirements

The staffing levels required are presented in Table 6.  The
biological process operator manages the water in the plants
collection  and recirculation  system  in addition to  the
operation in  the biological  system.   The maintenance
mechanic monitors the air handling system and assists the
process  operators, in  maintaining  their  systems.   The
maintenance  mechanic  is scheduled  for  the  day  shift.
Routine  preventative maintenance  is  performed by  the
operator at shift change.  Major maintenance is performed on
the soil washer on the off shift by using the operators on
overtime. Labor  rates were not provided by THC in their
cost analysis.  Instead, overall labor cost was provided with
                                                       19

-------
staffing information.  A technical manager at one half time
and  a site manager and clerk as well  as a scientist who
provides sampling and data analysis service are allocated
equally to the three processes in the total labor cost'
Table 6. Summary of Manpower Requirements THC Treat-
        ment Train.
                         Per Shift
               Total
             Per Day"'
Attrition Son Wash


Motals Removal

Biological Process

Maintenance

Sits Supervision


Material Handling

Technical Supervision

Sampling & Analysis
2 Operators
1 Laborer
4 Operators
2 Laborers
2 Operators
1 Operator
1 Mechanic
1 Manager
1 Clerk
2 Laborers
0.5 Manager
1 Scientist
6 Operators
1 Operator
1 Mechanic
1 Manager
1 Clerk
3 Laborers
0.5 Manager
1 Scientist
                                    11 Operators
                                    5 Laborers
                                    1 Mechanic
                                    1 Site Manager
                                    1 Clerk
                                    1 Scientist
                                    1/2 Technical Manager
(1)  Based upon operation of wash plant 16 hours per day and
    operation of metals removal and biological system 24
    hours per day.
4.3.4 Financial Assumptions

For the purposes of this analysis, capital equipment costs are
separated for the complete process units. Capital equipment
costs were amortized over a 10 year period with no salvage
value taken at the end of the period.  An interest rate, to
reflect the  time-value  of money  was  included by the
developer.  The interest rate used by the developer based on
an analysis of the developer's data is 20%.  The reader is
cautioned that  interest  rates in  Canada are considerably
higher than in the U.S. at this time. However, it is clear that
a  return  on  capital is  also included.    Capital  costs
information supplied by THC is presented in Table 7.
                                   Table 7.  Capital Cost for THC Treatment Train.


                                   Attrition Soil Wash            $1,200,000

                                   Biological Treatment System     240,000

                                   Metals Removal Process        800,00

                                   Total                      $2,240,000
4.4 Results

4.4.1 Remediation of Hypothetical Site

Table 8 shows the total cleanup cost for the hypothetical
treatment of 22,000 tons of contaminated  soil described in
detail in Appendix D-l in the existing THC Treatment Plant
of $3,217,800.   The remediation of this  hypothetical  site
would require 229 operating days or just under one year to
complete soil processing.  The costs are  also itemized by
cost category and treatment process. The soil wash process
accounts for about 50 percent of the total cost while the
metals removal  process  accounts for about 35 percent of
total cost and  the biological treatment accounts for the
remaining 15 percent  The soil wash process will process
the entire 22,000 tons of feed while the other processes are
required to treat only the contaminated fines, which, for our
analysis, amounted to approximately 3650  tons.   When
considering the overall  treatment  train,  the largest cost
components are labor  (56%),  equipment  costs (20%)  and
electrical energy (12%); consumables (10%) and analytical
cost (3%)  account for the remaining costs.

Based on the hypothetical case of 22,000  tons dry basis of
contaminated soil  treated, the total estimated unit cost is
$147/ton;  the breakdown of costs by technology  is shown
below.

                             Unit Cost
                                  Ton
                                   Attrition Soil Washer
                                   Slurry Bioreactor Process
                                   Metals Removal Process
                                   Total.
                                                       73
                                                       22
                                                       52
                                                     $147
                                   These estimates do not include site preparation; permitting
                                   and startup costs. Cost for disposal or treatment of effluents
                                   and residuals also did not apply at this demonstration.  One
                                   of the waste products, the  coal/peat material may require
                                   disposal  by  incineration;  and  thus  could  represent  a
                                   significant'cost factor.
                                                        20

-------
      Table 8.  Treatment Cost Summary for a Hypothetical Remediation of 22,000 tons of Soil with 16.5 Percent Fines and Both Organic
              and Inorganic Contaminants.
      Cost Component
                                      Soil
                                     Wash
                     Biological             Metals
                    Treatment     %      Removal
                                         Total
      1.  Site Preparation Costs

      2.  Permitting & Regulatory
         Costs

      3.  Equipment Costs

      4.  Startup

      5.  Labor

      6.  Consumables & Supplies
           Chemicals
           Maintenance Supplies

     . 7.  Utilities
           Electric

      8.  Effluent Treatment &
         Disposal

      9.  Residuals/Waste Shipping,
         Handling & Transport Cost

      10. Analytical Costs

      11. Facility Modification,
         Repair & Replace

      12. Demobilization  Cost

         Total

         Cost/Ton
                                      N/A
                                                          N/A
                                                                             N/A
                                                                                                  N/A
N/A
$317,300
N/A
$872,300
$66,800
$53,400

20

55
4
3
N/A
$71,100
N/A
$259,800
$26,800
$13,800

15

54
6
3
N/A
$246,900
N/A
$656,900
$100,000
$43,400

22

57
9
4
N/A
$635.300
N/A
$1,789,000
$193,600
$110,600

20

56
6
3
 $233,200     15


   N/A


   N/A

 $53,200     3


   N/A

    0

$1,596,200   100%

  $72.55
$83,400     17     $66,800
  N/A


  N/A

$26,800     6
  N/A


  N/A

$26,800
$383,400      12


  N/A


  N/A

$106,800      3
  N/A                N/A                  N/A

   00                    0

$481,700    100%   $1,140,800    100%    $3,218,700   100%

 $21.90              $51.85               $146.30
4.4.2 Sensitivity of Costs to Fines Content of Soil

The hypothetical case cost estimate is based on a fines
content of 16.5 percent  The estimated cost per ton is quite
sensitive to the percent of fines present. This occurs because
the metals removal and or biological treatment capacity can
limit the utilization rate of the wash plant.

If the feed  soil contains 33 percent fines, the wash plant
would  be operated  40 hours per  week to support the
operation of the  metals removal process for  120 hours per
week.  Similarly, at 16.5 percent fines the wash plant could
be operated 80 hours per  week and at 11 percent fines the
wash plant could be operated for 120 hours per week.
                          Cost estimates for these cases are summarized below.

                                                   Cost $/ton of feed soil
                                                    33%      16.5%      11%
                                                   Fines      Fines     Fines

                          Attrition Soil Process       80         67        63
                          Biological Treatment       43         21        14
                          Metals Removal Process    96         48        32
                          Total      .               219        136        109

                          These  cost estimates  do  not  have  any allowance for
                          operating downtime other than that already built into the
                          THC analysis.  The cost  in  the  hypothetical case study
                          provides for an additional 10 percent downtime.

                          The metals removal process and  the  biological treatment
                          system are only required to process the fine slurry. The
                                                          21

-------
cost of  operating  these processes  at  the  nominal 0.73
Ion/hour process rates for fines are:

                                   Unit Cost
                            $/Ton Actually Processed

    Biological Treatment Process        128
    Metals Removal Process            287
4.4.3 Other Limitations of Cost Analysis

The reader is cautioned that the costs accounted for in this
analysis  do not include some site specific elements that
could significantly effect final costs. In addition capital and
operating cost for an appropriate dewatering process must
also be included. THC has assumed an operating throughput
rate for the metals removal process somewhat higher than
those observed during the  demonstration.  The  relatively
long process times for the bioslurry reactor process actually
used  during the  demonstration  would result  in the cost
estimate  given for  the  biological  process being low.   If
retentions of 30 to  40 days as observed are required, the
biological process cost could increase by a factor of 3 to  4.
Careful treatability  experiments will be required to refine
cost estimates.

The developer has included the costs of the ion  exchange
chelating resin in the capital cost of the facility.   If the
chclating resin must be replaced before the 10 year life
assumed, or replenished, a significant additional cost could
be incurred. Data on the expected life of the chelating resin
has not been developed at this time.
4,5  Full Scale (55 Ton/Hour) Facility

THC has provided a cost estimate for a facility that would
process 55 tons per hour on a dry weight basis of feed soil
on a continuous basis. The general scale-up assumptions are
discussed by process below.

Soil Washing - The 55 ton/hr plant would employ a scaled-
up wash plant that would be operated on a continuous basis.
A single large process unit is planned.  Improvement in
materials handling for the feed and product solids such as
transportable product hoppers, would be employed, to return
soil  to the excavation site. Operator labor is  expected to
remain almost the same as with the 6.6  ton/hr plant.  A full
time mechanic would be assigned to each shift.

Biological Treatment System - The scaled-up plant would
utilize bioreactors of increased diameter and thus achieve
greatly increased capacity.  Transfer and nutrient additions
could be automated so that only minimal operator input is
required.

Metals Removal Process - The scaled-up plant would utilize
somewhat scaled up process units but multiple units still will
be required.  The high level of automation and computer
control are expected to allow continued operation with two
operators per shift supported  by  the  availability  of the
mechanic mentioned above.

The THC cost estimates for this facility are given below.

                                Treatment Cost
                               $/Ton of Feed Soil
    Attrition Soil Wash
    Biological Treatment Process
    Metals Removal Process
    Total
  43
  23
  11
$117
These estimates are based on the discussion above and the
use of a scaling  algorithm by  THC and  they are not as
reliable as the costs discussed for the existing system.
                                                       22

-------
                                                Appendix A

                                     Process Description of THC
                                   Soil Recycling Treatment Train
The overall  project  includes  the  evaluation  of a high
pressure soil wash  process and an attrition wash process
integrated with the metals removal process and a bioslurry
reactor.   The  treatment  facilities  are  enclosed  in  a
temporary building approximately 90 feet wide, 200 feet
long and 40 feet high.  The  SITE demonstration focused
on the treatment of soil from a refinery site in the PID.

The THC, through its contractor, excavated approximately
1040  tons of the top 6 feet of this soil using a front-end
loader.  The soil was transported  to an enclosed storage
building at  the test  facility.  The  soil  was  fed to the
treatment plant at a rate of about 6.6 tons per hour.  The
feed process consists of using a front-end loader to move
the soil from the storage building and dumping it onto a
vibratory grizzly with 1.97 inch openings. The output of
the grizzly  is then  run over a rotating  permanent type
magnetic separator  to remove  tramp iron.  The  material
leaving the magnetic separator is then fed to the attrition
wash plant by conveyor.  THC is simply putting the rejects
from  the grizzly and the tramp  iron  aside  during this
demonstration.    This  is, therefore, considered  a pre-
treatment and was  not sampled as part of this program.
When a full-scale plant is designed, the  material separated
in the pre-treatment would be washed with a spray device
and then be recycled as scrap iron,  or,  in the case  of the
plus  1.97 inch debris (concrete,  bricks, etc.),  will  be
crushed for return to the soil site from which, it came.
A.1  Attrition Soil Washing

Soil washing  is  the first of  the  technologies  in the
integrated treatment train.  Because  the large majority of
contaminated soils encountered at the FED are sandy, silty
soils, soil washing is an economical  and effective process
to separate contaminants from the bulk of the soil. The
soil washing method used during the demonstration uses
scrubbing  action  and selected chemicals  to separate
contaminants from the larger soil particles.   The  rotary
trommel washer removes particles larger than 0.24 inch as
a gravel fraction.  The contaminated  <0.24 inch soil and
washwater pass through the screen in the trommel washer
into a holding tank where belt-type oil skimmers remove
free oil from the water. The remaining soil and washwater
are pumped through a separation hydrocyclone where the
contaminated fines (less than 0.0025 inch) are  separated
from the coarser soil particles.  Larger sand particles are
easily separated from the fines where the contaminants are
concentrated. The fines are pumped to a lamellar separator
and then to a gravity thickener, while the coarse sand is
pumped to the attrition scrubbers.

There are three attrition scrubbing  cells that act  to agitate
the soil particles, causing them to rub against each other
and scrub the  fine particles  and contaminants off the
surfaces of the soil particles.  The slurry of the soil and
washwater is scrubbed in the first cell, then pumped to the
second  cell for further scrubbing, and then pumped  to the
third cell for final scrubbing.  Potentially, detergents  or
surfactants may be added  to  the third cell and acids or
bases, if required,  to aid in dislodging contaminants from
the soil particles  or in dissolving certain contaminants.
The treatment processes subsequently  used to  treat the
contaminated slurry restrict  the types of chemicals which
can be used in this treatment train.

Scrubbed particles  and washwater  from the  attrition
scrubbing units are pumped to a second hydrocyclone at
the top  of the plant, where  sand particles (>0.0025 inch)
are separated from the process water and the remaining
fines.   The sand stream from this separator  is then put
through a density separator to remove the light materials,
such as  coal, wood, and peat particles from the heavier soil
particles.  The coal and peat are collected separately, as a
potentially contaminated  waste  stream.   The  sand is
discharged by conveyor to a collection bin and is combined
with the gravel from the trommel washer for return  to the
                                                       23

-------
 original site. This "clean" material is expected to include
 approximately 70 to 80 percent of the soil feed to the wash
 plant.

 Contaminated fines with a grain size smaller than 0.0025
 inch,  pass  through the  lamellar  separator  and sludge
 thickener to remove water.  The contaminated  slurry from
 the sludge thickener is fed into two large holding tanks at
 the front end of the metals removal system or directly to
 the bioslurry reactor process.  The contaminated  slurry is
 expected to represent approximately 15 to 30 percent of the
 soil feed to the wash plant.

 The contaminated process  water removed  by the  lamellar
 separator and sludge thickener is discharged to an outdoor
 storage pond for recycle.  Any sludge recovered from the
 ponds is then added  to the deep cone sludge thickener
 where it joins the slurry for further  treatment.  The  soil
 washing flow diagram  is shown in Figure  A-l.
                      FIGURE A.I
        SaWUflEO PHOCEM FLOW OIAORAM FOR SOU. WASH PROCESS
FMd
H.pp.r
«1.9T IN

Trammel
Wither
                                         SOIL >M IN
I






Thlokttntr
 The biological system is prepared by culturing  a bacteria
 population from the bacteria that have developed in the soil
 on-site.   This  is  accomplished by pumping  a  limited
 amount of fine slurry obtained from the soil wash process
 directly  to  the  bioreactors  without passing through the
 metals   extraction  process  where  the  highly  acidic
 conditions would destroy the desired bacteria.  This allows
 the development  of a bacterial population in the bioreactor
 based on strains in the soil to  be treated.   Fine slurry is
 accumulated until a single reactor is fully charged.

 Nutrients in the form of urea and phosphoric acid solutions
 are added periodically.  In addition, periodic additions of
 oxidant may be made.

 The final slurry is dewatered once the organics content in
 the slurry is reduced to a target  level, or no further bio-
 reduction is  occurring, as indicated by periodic sampling
 and analysis.  During this study the slurry was returned to
 the excavation site  without dewatering because the  high
 pressure cyclone dewatering system employed was not able
 to achieve meaningful dewatering.

 The biological treatment process  is shown in Figure A-2.
                                                                               FIGURE A-2
                                                                          SIMPLIFIED FLOW OIAQRAM
                                                                          BIOSLURRY REACTOR PROCESS
                                    SLURRY TO BIOLOGICAL OR
                                    METALS REMOVAL PROCESS
                                                                     SLURRY TO DEWATEHINO
                                                                    • OR METALS REMOVAL PROCESS
A.2  Biological Treatment System

The biological  treatment  technology  being evaluated is
referred to as the Bioslurry Reactor Process.  This process
involves  a  series  of  reactors  (tanks)  where  organic
contaminants  are treated.  Prior to the introduction to the
reactor, the slurry is pretreated with a proprietary inorganic
oxidant.

The slurry awaiting treatment of its organic contaminants
is gently  mixed in two surge  tanks  to promote contact
between the  contaminants  and the oxidant.  The slurry is
then  pumped  to  one  of three  20,000 gallon  upflow
bioreactor tanks   normally  used  in  pilot  operation.
Submerged pumps  and the upflow of air for the medium to
fine bubble aerators provide constant mixing conditions
and the suspension of fines.
A.3  Metals Removal Process

The contaminated slurry from the attrition wash plant or
the bioslurry reactor process is fed into two large holding
tanks in the central area of the facility, at the front end of
the metals  removal  process.   The  slurry consists of
approximately  24% solids by weight and  76% process
water.  Mild acid  is added to the slurry  from the  acid
storage  tanks  to  desorb  and  solubilize  any  metal
contaminants from  the  soil particles.  The  identity of the
acids used has not been disclosed.

The contaminated  slurry  is then pumped into the  first
tubular reactor.  This screw-type rotary reactor  brings the
slurry  into   countercurrent  contact  with  solid  metals
chelating  agents  that have  an affinity for  specific  metal
contaminants.  From here,  the slurry, which now contains
only soil particles,  organic contaminants, residual metals
not removed  by the process, and process water,  is pumped
to a holding tank, where it is neutralized.
                                                        24

-------
The solid dictating agent, which moves countercurrent to
the slurry, now contains  the extracted metals.  The solid
chelating  material  is  selected  from  a family of metals
specific  ion exchange  chelating  resins  to  preferentially
remove heavy  metals.  It is washed to remove solid soil
particles and is fed through a second tubular reactor where
a mild acid is used to break the bond between the chelating
agent and the contaminant metals.   The chelating agent is
then recycled to the first reactor for reuse  in the metals
extraction process.   Meanwhile, the metal/acid mixture is
recycled hi the second reactor until it becomes  sufficiently
rich hi metals  to be pumped  to  an electrowinning unit,
where the metals are then removed by electrolysis.  The
result  of the  build-up  of metal  concentration  in the
regenerating acid will be  some reduction hi the absorption
capacity of the resin beads being  returned to the slurry
contactor,  however  the  system  has  been designed to
provide excess  absorption capacity of the chelating resin hi
relationship to the metals  being absorbed.  Little change hi
performance is  expected.   Another,  more  long term
deterioration of the resins absorption capacity is associated
with the oxidation of the active sites on the  resin bead.
This is expected to be a reaction measured in months to
years   and  should  not  effect   this  demonstration.
Nevertheless, resin replacement costs can be a significant
cost factor hi such a system. The metals may  be removed
singly  or   as   one  composite   mass.    During  the
electrowinning the metals-depleted acid is  then pumped
back to the holding tanks either for reuse as regenerating
acid  or it  may  be  neutralized and  become a part of
contaminated slurry.   The metals  extraction  process  is
shown schematically in Figure A-3.
                        FIGURE A-3
                SIMPLIFIED PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
                   METALS REMOVAL PROCESS
  CONTAMINATED SLURRY

Tubular
Raaotor


"1



                                         TO DEWATERINQ
                                       OR BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
A.4 Water Use

The facility was designed with an integrated water recycle
scheme.   The site was graded  and paved to collect • all
precipitation in lined ponds which would supply water for
the operation.  The design called for minimal discharge of
water primarily because considerable water was expected
to leave the plant with the clean soil fractions.  The design
also provided for a process water pond that would receive
water from the wash plant  and the water separated  from
the final treated slurry.  The process pond would recycle
water for use hi the soil wash plant and for ion exchange
resin bead washing  hi the  metals  extraction  process.
Approximately 60 percent of the water hi the tested  fines
is recovered and recycled. During the THC demonstration
excess water was  accumulated at tunes  due to heavy
rainfall.  This water was treated prior to discharge to the
sanitary sewer.

Water can  be pumped from  Lake Ontario to use for make-
up during periods hi which  make-up water was required.
A. 5  Air Supply and Emissions Control

The air for the bioslurry reactors  is taken hi through two
intake units, filtered, and pumped to the bioslurry reactors.
It is then exhausted into an air treatment  system consisting
of two biofilters and a carbon adsorption unit.  Power for
drawing the  ah from the bioslurry  reactors through the
biofilters is provided  by one of two 5,000 cfm pumps.

Air collected  from the metals  removal  process is passed
through  a caustic scrubber unit to remove  any acid that
might otherwise  be  taken  into the biofilters.   The air
stream results from maintaining a slight negative pressure
on all tanks and reactors which contain acid. In addition
both tubular reactors  are open  to the atmosphere to allow
feed of materials.  The ends of the reactor are hooded to
collect any acid gases so that they do not cause health or
safety problems in the work area.  The acid removed is
either recycled  or is neutralized  and   discharged  to  a
holding tank as an addition to the slurry.  The air itself is
then passed through the common  system of biofilters.

The "biofilters" consist of modules  10 x by 10 ft x 40 ft.
The module is filled with peat.  The ah is introduced into
a  perforated  pipe distribution system on the floor of the
module. These filters are expected to provide adsorption
of organics   and  continuing  biological activity  under
summer conditions  to consume  the material  adsorbed.
Under the cold conditions actually experienced  during the
demonstration, biological activity  is unlikely,  but the
elimination of any mists  or particles is expected then when
the warm temperatures occur in the summer this adsorbed
material undergoes biodegradation.  The air is collected
from the ah space at the top of the module  and routed to
the final 10ftxlOftx20ft activated carbon filter.  Air
exhausted  from the activated  carbon filter  is discharged
through a 39  foot high stack.  The developer reports that
no measurable contaminant emissions were  ever detected
                                                        25

-------
leaving  the   biofilters.     The   absence  of  organic
contaminants  upon analysis of the carbon, hi the carbon
filter following the biofilters, at the  end of the 9-month
project has confirmed that all volatile hydrocarbons were
retained and actively biodegraded within the biofilters.  In
a full scale plant requiring year-round biodegradation in the
biofilters  the  biofilters could  be   heated to  promote
biodegradation.   This capability  was  available  for  the
demonstration  project but  heating the biofilters never
became necessary.
Air is collected from the conveyors and open tanks in the
soil wash area by  enclosing these areas with hoods  and
shrouds.  This ah-  is drawn through an activated  carbon
filter by one  of, the  5000  cfm fans and  mixes with air
drawn  off the metals removal  and biological systems for
treatment hi the common biological filter system and final
activated  carbon   filter before   discharge  through  the
common stack.
                                                        26

-------
                                                 Appendix B
                                              Vendor's Claims
The THC  demonstration was conducted  to  evaluate the
ability of an integrated soil treatment train, which includes
a soil washing process, a biological treatment process, and
a metals removal process to treat contaminated soils so that
the treated soil meets target criteria for proposed land use
applicable  to soils for  commercial/industrial sites.   The
criteria have been developed by THC by combining existing
criteria for conventional pollutants and metals with a site
specific criteria developed for a contaminated soil associated
with a refinery site. Collectively, these criteria are referred
to as the THC Criteria.

The THC  claims  the technology will meet  the  following
performance criteria.

    1.  Produce the following soil fractions  from the soil
        washer, each of which will meet the THC Target
        criteria for coarse textured soils described in Table
        B-l for both organic and  inorganic compounds
        independent of the soils initial contaminant levels.

        A. Clean gravel (less than 1.97 in; greater than
           0.24 inch).
        B.  Clean sand  (less than 0.24  in;  greater than
           0.0025 inch).

    2.  Produce a fine  soil fraction (less  than 0.0025 in)
        after metals removal and/or biological  treatment
        which will meet the THC Target  criteria for fine
        textured soils described in  Table B-l  for both
        organic and inorganic compounds independent of
        the soil's initial contaminant levels.
Table B-1.
THC Target Criteria for Soils for Commercial/
Industrial Land Use
Coarse Textured Medium and Fine
Parameter
Conventional
pH (recommended range)
Oil and Grease (%)
Total Metals
(Units mg/kg)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Organic Compounds
(Units mg/kg)
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a,h)anthracene
1 . Defined as greater than 70%
matter.
Soil1

6-8
1


40
1500
6
750
80
225
750
1.5
40
150
10
40
600


(8.0)3
(28.0)3
(12.0)3
302
(48)3
(15.8)3
(28)*
(2.4)3
13.22
2.42
1.82
sand and

2. Clean-up levels are shown for organic <
Textured Soil

6-8
1


50
2000
8
1000
100
300
1000
2
40
200
10
50
800


(8.0)3
(28.0)3
(12.0)3
302
(48)3
(15.8)3
(28)*
(2.4)3
13.22
2.42
1.82
less than 17% organic

compounds. If soils
                                                               exceed these levels, then the soil is considered hazardous and
                                                               remediation is required.
                                                           3.   If these trigger levels are exceeded, the THC will make a deter-
                                                               mination  on a case  by  case  basis regarding the  need for
                                                               remediation.
                                                        27

-------
                                              Appendix C

                                         Site Demonstration
                                 Soil Recycling Treatment Train
                             The Toronto Harbour Commissioners
C.I Introduction

The Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) have developed
a soil treatment train designed to treat inorganic and organic
contaminants in soils.  THC has conducted a large-scale
demonstration  of these technologies in an  attempt  to
establish that  contaminated  soils at the Toronto  Port
Industrial District can be treated to attain contaminant levels
below the THC Target  Criteria Levels for Industrial Soils
without utilizing incineration processes.   This Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) of the on-going
THC Demonstration was undertaken to provide a consistent
basis for comparing these technologies to other technologies
evaluated under the SITE program.
C.2 Feed Characteristics and Variability

C.2.1 General

The soil  processed  during the  Sum  evaluation  was
designated as Soil B by THC. It was excavated from a site
immediately adjacent to the process plant.  Characterization
of the site and limited predemonstration sampling conducted
in early 1992 indicated that the soil exhibited relatively high
organic and inorganic contamination.  When large volumes
of the soil were excavated and processing initiated, the
inorganic contamination levels were found to be quite low.
Another long term  variation in  the soils composition was
noted in the under 1.97 inch, greater than 0.24 inch fraction
removed by the trommel washer. During apresampling visit
and  familiarization sampling early in the soil run this
fraction  was relatively minor in volume and was  largely
pebble-like material not much over the 0.24 inch in size.
When sampling was conducted,  this fraction accounted for
approximately  10 percent of the feed mass and included
relatively large coal and wood fragments as well as much
larger smooth (river gravel-like) pebbles.  As a result of the
appearance of  this  fraction,  the  analytical  extraction
procedure was modified and an approach for separating these
large  particles from  the  feed  soil and  extracting them
separately in bulk was also adopted.
C.2.2 SITE Sampling

During the course of the three day sampling event, four hour
composite samples  were accumulated  by  hourly grab
sampling of the feed soil from the conveyor that feeds the
wash plant trommel  washer.   Therefore,  each day'two
composite samples were taken during the normal 8 hours of
wash plant operation. The composite samples were analyzed
for the following characteristics:  O&G (oil and grease),
TRPH (Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons), SVOC
(Semi Volatile Organic Compounds), total metals, mercury,
total  cyanide,  reactive  sulfide,  PSD,  (Particle Size
Distribution), pH and % moisture.  The total metals and
SVOC analyses call for the extraction of several grams of
sample. The presence of the relatively large "rocks" in the
feed led to  a modification  of the procedure for these
analyses. The samples-were separated into a "soil" fraction
and a "rock" fraction using a number 4 sieve.  The soil was
extracted using the usual 2 gram sample while the entire
"rock" fraction from a 500 ml sampling bottle was extracted
without crushing the "rock".

Table C-l presents the results  of these analyses for selected
parameters. The feed soil appears to just exceed the THC
Target Criterion for naphthalene and to just approach  the
criterion level for oil and grease and benzo(a)pyrene.  The
conventional parameters (pH, % moisture, O&G and TRPH)
exhibit moderate variability while the metals and the two
PAH compounds of interest exhibit considerable variability.
A comparison of the data for the soil and "rock" fraction
                                                    28

-------
     TABLE C-1. CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED PARAMETERS IN THE FEED SOIL THC ATTRITION SOIL WASH PROCESS
Soil
pH
% Moisture .
Oil & Grease
mg/kg
TRPH mg/kg
Cu mg/kg
Pb mg/kg
Zn mg/kg
Naphthalene
mg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
Rocks
Cu mg/kg
Pb mg/kg
Zn mg/kg
Naphthalene
mg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
THC
Criteria
6-8
'
10,000
—
225
750
600
8.02
2.4

225
750
600
8.02
2.4
Sample
1
8.49
7.49
7800
2270
9.2
106
40.4
15
(1.6)'

4.3
26.4
19.3
7.6
(1.1)
Sample
2
8.59
8.51
6700
2700
12.3
63.3
56.6
7.7
(0.93)

6.8
93.7
28.3
6.6
(0.55)
Sample
3
8.69
7.53
9000
3250
9.9
68.4
40.9
18.0
(1.7)

20.5
112
94.3
16.0
(1.1)
Sample
4
8.28
9.07
8100
3430
15.4
97.4
83.5
13.0
2.9

19.6
114
72.7
5.1-
(1.2)
Sample
5
8.17
12.6
9700
2550
20.6
177
92.8
8.0
(2.5)

24.7
195
219
8.8
2.2
Sample
6
8.22
9.88
8100
2040
42.2
177
181
5.3
(1.9)

34.9
175
211
16.0
4.4
Average

9.18
8200
2540
18.3
115
72.5
11.15
(1.92)

18.45
119
107
10.0
(1.76)
Standard
Deviation

1.91
1030
416
12.4
50.8
52.9
4.9
.(0.7)

11.4
60.3
87.8
4.8
(1.4)
    1. () Indicates value reported is below quantitation limit but above detection limit.  Value should be considered an estimate.
    2. If these trigger levels are exceeded, the MOE will make a determination on a case by ease basis regarding the need for further
      remediation.
indicates the two fractions are equivalent for the metal and    C.3.2 Products
PAH compounds examined.
C.3  Attrition Soil Wash Process

C.3.1 Feed

The feed soil discussed for the overall process is the feed
soil for the  attrition wash process.
C.3.2.1  Gravel (Through 1.97 inch, greater than 0.24
inch)

This product is produced by the trommel washer, which
removes  material smaller than  0.24 inch from the coarse
material.   THC estimated this fraction as 10.5 percent of
the feed  on a dry basis.   Data  collected during the SITE
sampling  indicated that  this product accounted for 11.5
percent of the feed on a dry weight basis. Considering the
limitation on the estimating technique used, this would
appear to be excellent agreement.  During  the three day
                                                       29

-------
sampling event, six composite samples were developed by
compositing four hourly grabs.  This resulted in two 4 hour
composites  for each  day of operation.   Each of these
composites was analyzed for the same group of parameters
listed  for the feed samples.   SVOC  and total  metals
extractions  were  performed on bulk  samples  without
sample crushing.

Table   C-2   presents  analytical   results   for selected
parameters for these samples.  The average values reported
meet all the  THC Target criteria for coarse  soils.  An
examination  of this data indicates  that  Sample  No.  6
exhibited higher oil  and grease contamination and very
much   higher  (10   tunes   or  more)   heavy   metals
contamination than for the other samples.  TRPH and PAH
values did not exhibit the same behaviors.  The sample
team had noted that this product stream  had become very
dirty during the course of the third day of sampling  and
appeared to be coated with an oily paste of fines.  An
examination of feed soil data for the same tune  frame
(Sample No. 6 Table 1) shows this same tendency but not
nearly as dramatically as does "clean gravel" Sample No.
6. If the data  are excluded, it results in a dramatic drop in
the average as well as the standard deviation.  Sample No.
6 appears to be from a different population than the other
five samples; since it appeared visually to be contaminated,
the analytical results  should not be suspect.   Possible
explanation centers around two possibilities.

1. During  the third sample  day it was raining  steadily.
   The soil is fed to the grizzly by  slowly  dumping  the
   contents of the front end loader bucket onto the grizzly.
   The grizzly is located  outside of the building so the soil
   was exposed to the  rain  for the period of  8  to 10
   minutes required to feed the material  slowly. This may
   have caused fines and oil material to  concentrate  on the
   large gravel  in such a manner that  it was difficult to
   remove  in the trommel washer.

2. Soil had been moved from the excavation  site to an
   enclosed  shed  for  drying   and  to facilitate  feed
   pperations. It is possible that some migration of oily
   fine contaminated  materials caused a concentration of
   these materials in the bottom  areas of the storage piles.
   The material  being fed during this  sample  may have
   contained more of this material than normal because the
   loader was raking the bottom of depleted  piles.

   There is no proof that  either explanation  is valid but the
   second hypothesis  appears to be more sound.
    Table C-2.  THC Attrition Soli Wash Process Concentration of Selected Parameters in Gravel <1.97in.; >0.24in.

OH & Grease
mg/kg
TRPH mg/kg
Cu mg/kg
Pb mg/kg
Zn mg/kg
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
pH
% Moisture
Sample
1
1200
269
.72
3.22
2.26
2.9
(700)2
8.79
7.48
Sample
2
1900
579
7.57
56
36.1
2.1
(380)
8.82
10.29
Sample
3
1300
543
1.84
9.84
7.6
1.8
(170)
8.68
3.00
Sample
4
1800
1481
9.8
117
85.5
1.3
(250)
8.62
6.47
Sample
5
3400
1571
12.1
40.4
98.6
2.8
990
8.43
8.43
Sample
6
10400
443
52,1
702
544 '
3.8
1000
9.11
7.38
Average
3333
814
14.0
155
129
2.5
(582)
8.74
7.18
Standard
Deviation
3550
562
19.2
271
207
896
368
0.23
2.4
    1  Values of X and SX calculated without data from composite sample No. 6.

    2  Indicates value reported is below quantitation limit but above detection limit. Value should be considered an estimate.

                                                        30

-------
Since the contamination level  in the "clean gravel"  was
visible by inspection, it would be possible in practice to
recycle  this material to the feed and reprocess  it.   In
addition, the sample only exceeded the THC Target Criterion
for oil and grease by a slight amount and would have met all
other criteria.  In subsequent analysis of the data,  data from
Sample No. 6 were excluded for the three metal parameters
where the results  deviated most  from the prior samples.
This anomalous behavior may be important if the soil to be
treated is very high in  oil and grease contents.  In such
cases,  the  use  of surfactants  may be a  necessity,  or,
alternately, modification of the trommel  washer may be
required.
C.3.2.2  Sand (Through 0.24 inch; greater than 0.0025
inch)

The sand product is separated from the fines in the soil by
utilizing  a hydrocyclone classifier. The nominal cut point
for this classification is reported to be 0.0025 inch.  The
coarse cut from the classification is passed over a vibratory
sieve that dewaters and removes low density particles (coal
& wood  fragments, peat).

THC reported that this fraction accounted for 70.2 percent of
the feed on a dry basis. Data collected during the three days
of SITE  sampling indicated 68.1  percent of feed on a dry
basis for this product.

Once again composite samples were obtained in the same
manner as  the feed and gravel and analyzed for the same
parameters.                       •

Table C-3 presents the analytical results. The average values
and the individual composite data all meet the THC Criteria
for fine soil.

Metals levels for Samples No. 5  and 6 appear higher  than
the prior two days'  samples but do not exhibit the wide
departure seen hi Sample No. 6 for the clean gravel fraction.
reporting to this fraction.  A single composite sample for
each day of sampling was accumulated by taking a grab
sample every two hours during the course of a normal 8
hour operating day.   The  samples were submitted for
analysis for oil & grease,  TRPH, SVOC and total metals.
Table C-4 presents the analytical results for these samples.
This waste exceeds  the THC Target criteria for oil and
grease, also naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrenei
C.3.2.4 Contaminated Fines (Less than 0.0025 inch)

The fines separated from the coarse soil particles by the
classifying cyclones  are treated with a flocculent to aid
settling and are accumulated in a slurry underflow from an
inclined  plate  settling  tank.   The  slurry is transferred
continuously to a deep cone settling tank, which was  to be
used for further concentration of the solids but is being used
simply as a holding tank.   THC reports the approximate
solid content of the  slurry is 24 percent by weight.  An
estimate of the solids content for the SITE sampling period
based on mass balance information and estimated volume of
slurry produced is 34 percent solids.  An estimate of the
solids content based on calculations using moisture content
levels in the samples of contaminated slurry leads to a 33
percent solid by weight  estimate.  It therefore appears that
the 33-34 percent solid level is most representative for our
sampling period.

THC reports  an overall estimate for this product of 16.7
percent of the feed on a dry basis.  Data collected during the
SITE sampling resulted in an estimate of 18.8 percent of the
feed on a dry basis for this product stream.

The contaminated slurry was sampled by combining four
hourly grabs into a composite sample.  This produced two
composites per  day for each of the three days of sampling.
The samples were analyzed for the same parameters as ,the
other fractions.  The results of these analyses are presented
in Table  C-5. They indicate the contaminated fines exceed
the THC criteria for O&G, naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene.
C.3.2.3 Coal/Peat Waste (Through 0.24 inch, greater than
0.0025 inch)

Coal/peat waste is separated from the clean sand fraction
using a vibratory dewatering screen.  The lighter particles
are vibrated up a screen to separate them from the heavier
soil particles. This stream is expected by THC to be a waste
product that they hope to find a use for as boiler fuel.  It is
predominantly  coal  particles and fragments of wood in
various stages of decay. THC reported about 2.5 percent of
the feed on a dry basis reports to this waste product SITE
sampling  found 1.6 percent of the feed  on a  dry basis
C.3.2.5 Waste Water Streams

The wash water utilized in the THC attrition wash process
is recycled from a holding  pond located adjacent to the
building.  A grab sample of the pond waste water was
obtained on the first and third day of sampling in the area
near the intake for the recycle pump.  The samples were
analyzed for  the primary parameters being tracked in the
soil.  Table C-6 presents the results of these analyses for
selected parameters.  In  general,  it appears that  the
                                                       31

-------
Table C-3. THC Attrition Soil Wash Process Concentration of Selected Parameters in Clean Sand <0.24 in.; >0.0025in.

Oil & Grease
mg/kg
TRPH mg/kg
Cu mg/kg
Pb mg/kg
Zn mg/kg
Naphthalene
mg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
PH
Sample
1
1.500
561
3.6
27.9
15.9
1.5
(0.24)1
9.01
Sample
2
1,400
383
3.1
42.4
18.5
1.5
(0.57)
8.38
Sample
3
1,500
684
4.6
23.6
20.1
2.0
(0.24)
8.06
Sample
4
2,500
731
6.3
31.0
31.4
2.3
(0.50)
8.95
Sample
5
2,300
561
32.7
82.9
71.4
3.1
1.20
8.51
Sample
6
3,900
963
32.4
68.4
47.5
1.9
(0.41)
8.33
Average
2,183
647
13.8
46.0
34.1
2.050
(0.53)

Standard
Deviation
960
196
14.6
24.2
21.7
599
356

1      () Indicates value reported is below the quantitation but above the detection limit. Value reported should be considered an
       estimate.
Table C-4. THC Attrition Soil Wash Process Concentration of Selected Parameters in Coal/Peat Waste

Oil & Grease mg/kg
TRPH mg/kg
Cu mg/kg
Pb mg/kg
Zn mg/kg
Naphthalene mg/kg
Benzo(a)pyreno
mg/kg
Sample
1
17,600
4,740
22.8
129
46.8
34.0
(11.0)1
Sample
2
45,200
16,200
34.1
339
176
110.0
(23.0)
Sample
3
51,600
14,600
41.7
749
406
48.0
(9.6)
Average
38,100
11,850
32.9
406
210
64.0
(14.5)
Standard
Deviation
18,070
6,210
9.5
315
182
40.45
7.4
1    () Indicates value is below quantitation limit for procedure. Value shown is estimated.
Table C-5. THC Attrition Soil Wash Process Concentration of Selected Parameters in Contaminated Fines <0.0025 inch

Oil & Grease
mg/kg
TRPH mg/kg
Cu mg/kg
Pb mg/kg
Zn mg/kg
Naphthalene
mg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
Sample
1
40,000
12,300
57.4
421
217
49.0
(9.0f
Sample
2
33,300
8,500
48.2
334
192
52.0
<32.0
Sample
3
50,500
19,800
76
525
250
82.0
(9.6)
Sample
4
54,300
18,100
..(')
..«)
..(')
45.0
(11.0)
Sample
5
35,300
13,600
135
680
593
65.0
(12.0)
Sample
6
26,900
12,200
99
651
467
(17.0)
(8.4)
Average
40,000
14,080
83.1
522
344
51.7
(10.0)
Standard
Deviation
10,520
4,170
34.9
148
177
21.7
11.5
1    Sample bottle broken in shipping.
2    () indicates value is below quantitation limit for procedure. Value shown is estimated.
                                                        32

-------
contaminants of interest do not partition to the waste water
stream for this soil.

Table C-6.  Selected Characteristics of Water Recycled to THC
           Attrition Wash Process

Oil & Grease mg/1
TRPH mg/l
Cu ug/1
Pb ug/1
Znug/l
Naphthalene ug/1
Benzo(a)pyrene ug/1
Day
1
<5
<.44
(12)
<21
61
<10
<10
Day
3
<5
1.15
11
(50)
46
<10
<10
C.3.3  Mass Balance

Overall Soil B Run:

THC provided a summary of their overall run on Soil B.  A
summary of that data is presented in Figure C-i.
                       FIGURE C-1
    SIMPLIFIED PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR SOIL WASH PROCESS
     SHOWING PRODUCT FRACTIONS ON A WEIGHT BASIS
  Coil/
  P..I
        THC-0.025
       SITE-0.016
I Density
Separator
  I
  Sand
».0025 IN
THC-0.702
SITE-0.681
C.3.3.1  Site Demonstration Sampling

A mass balance was calculated for the period during which
the SITE sampling occurred.  This data is also summarized
in Figure C-1.
C.3.3.2 Discussion of Mass Balance Results

The mass balance is based on an engineering approach to
estimate the mass balance when the volume  of materials
being handled and an existing plant configuration preclude
actual measurements. The approach involved counting the
number of front end loader buckets of feed and products
each day, measuring volumes and bulk densities of feed and
products periodically, and using this information to estimate
the mass balance of solids. The slurry solids are estimated
by  the  difference  between the feed and product   solids.
Considering these limitations, the overall THC estimate and
that developed for the SITE sampling  time period agree
quite well.  Determining slurry solids by  difference  is a
weakness in  this  approach.   Water sampling data does
suggest little loss to the wash water.
C.3.4  Discussion of Soil Wash Process Results

Table C-7 presents a summary of the data from analytical
results for the  individual feed and product stream.   The
values presented are the averages for the composite samples.
The data for the feed soil were used without adjustment for
"rocks" since the data suggested no  such adjustment was
needed.  The trommel  oversize fraction  metals  data  are
based on the averages of 5 composites with metals data from
the sixth sample excluded as discussed earlier.  The percent
recovery columns on the right were calculated by summation
of  the mass of each constituent  accounted for in each
product stream  and dividing by the mass of the constituent
in the feed soil.  That is:
                      CiXi
    % Recovery = I,  	  x 100
                        Cf

where   Ci = concentration of a contaminant in a product
              stream
        Xi = mass fraction of the product stream
        Cf = concentration of the contaminant in the feed
Percent recovery was calculated based on the overall THC
mass balance as well as the mass balance developed during
the SITE sampling. All of the percent recoveries exceed 100
percent,  but  in general  the deviation  from  100 is not
alarming when one considers the uncertainties in sampling,
analyses, and the mass balance estimates.   In  general, the
percent recovery values agree quite well between the overall
mass balance approach (THC) and the SITE sampling mass
balance.
                                                       33

-------
The data from Table  C-7  were  used to  calculate  the
percentage of each contaminant by product  stream. This
information is presented in Table C-8 on the basis of THC
overall mass balance estimate and  in Table C-9 based on
the SITE demonstration mass balance.  In each  case, the
process shows the recovery of a high proportion of the
contaminants in the fine slurry with significant reductions
in  the  contaminants  in the product  gravel and sand.
Removal  percentages for individual contaminants  can be
calculated from the number in parentheses  in Table  C-8
and C-9 by subtracting  that number from 100%. Negative
numbers result when there is an apparent concentration of
the contaminant.  In general, the contaminated fine slurry
contains  about 4 times  the  concentration of organic
constituents as present  in the feed soil.
C.4  Bioslurry Reactor Process

The developer  had configured  the  biological treatment
system to allow either batch or continuous operation. The
developer planned to run batches  of slurry to define desired
operating and retention  times  and then  to shift  to  a
continuous  or at least semi-continuous  operation.  The
sampling plan had been developed for a continuous process
so that a steady state or near steady state condition would
be available for sampling.  In fact, THC had problems with
analytical turnaround time and erratic analytical results for
oil and grease and benzo(a)pyrene which turned out to be
controlling parameters  for the process.  As a result, THC
had not progressed beyond batch operation of the system
at the time of the SITE sampling. The procedure  in effect
was to accumulate a biotreatment batch over a period of
several days of 8 hour per day operation of the soil wash
plant. Contaminated slurry was pumped periodically from
the wash plant and treated with the proprietary oxidant hi
a flash mix tank. The slurry from a days production was
held overnight  in a agitated  storage tank before being
transferred to the bioslurry reactor. In some cases, several
days of slurry production were accumulated in the storage
tank before transfer  to  the bioreactor.   The bioslurry
reactor   is  aerated  to keep  the slurry in  suspension.
Nutrient addition is begun' after  the. entire batch has been
transferred to the bioslurry reactor. A batch would consist
of  13,000 to 18,500 gallons  of slurry.   This means that
three to five days of operation  of the  soil wash plant might
constitute a batch depending upon the operation time of the
soil wash plant, the amount of fines and the concentration
of fines in the slurry. Nutrients are added in solution form
at a dosing  level based on the solids  content usually every
other day.  THC will not provide specific information on
the nutrient or oxidant additions  for each batch based on  a
claim that it is proprietary process information.
A sampling team returned on two different dates to sample
the discharge of two bioslurry batches.  The first batch was
identified as batch 2c which was accumulated during the
period of March 25  through March  31,  1992 and was
initiated  on nutrients  on April 1, 1992.  This batch was
discharged  by  pumping   the   slurry  to  the  original
excavation site  on May  11,  1992.    This  results  in a
retention from the time of nutrient addition to discharge of
41 days.  Seven grab samples were taken over the 100
minutes required for discharge.

The  second batch sampled was identified as batch 2a.  It
was  accumulated  primarily during the period of SITE
sampling of the soil wash process.  The actual dates are
April 14 through April 21, 1992.  Nutrient addition was
initiated on April 22,  1992. This batch was discharged to
the original excavation site on May 22, 1992.  This results
in a retention time from first nutrient addition to discharge
of 30 days.  Seven  grab  samples  were taken over the 120
minutes required for discharge.

The  developer determined the retention time required by
periodically sampling the batch and comparing the results
to the criteria. Erratic.analytical results that the developer
believes  resulted from the high biological content of the
samples  prevented  reliable, optimization  of the retention
times.
C.4.1  Results and Discussion

Characterization data for the contaminated slurry from the
attrition soil wash process are applicable to the feed to the
bioslurry process.  These  data are reproduced in Table C-
10.  Data from the sampling of the discharge of the batch
2c are presented in Table C-ll and similar data for batch
2a are presented in Table C-12.

Both bioslurry batches exceeded the THC Target Criterion
for oil and grease  which is 1 percent for medium and fine
soils. Batch 2c exhibited an oil and grease value of about
5 percent while batch 2a showed  an average value of 2.5
percent.  The  developer believes this is occurring because
the oil and grease procedure is extracting biological fats
and oils from the  biomass present.

Both batches  also exceed the THC Target Criterion for
benzo(a)pyrene  which is 2.4 mg/kg.   Batch 2c had  an
average benzo(a)pyrene  level of 3.2 mg/kg and batch 2a
had 2.6 mg/kg. The benzo(a)pyrene levels in the discharge
were above the detection limit but below the quantitation
level for this analysis. This occurred because the samples
had a much higher than expected  organic content perhaps
because  of high  microbial  content.   This required the
laboratory to extract only 10 percent of one original size
                                                        34

-------
  Table C-7. Selected Feed and Product Characteristics of the Attrition Soil Wash Process.

Percent of Feed Based
on Site Demo. Data
Percent of Feed Based
on THC Overall Analysis
Oil & Grease mg/kg
TRPH mg/kg
Copper mg/kg
Lead mg/kg
Zinc mg/kg
Naphthalene mg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg
Feed
, Soil01*

-
8233
2542
18.3
115
82.5
11.15
(1.91)m
<1.97in.;
>0.24 in.
Clean
Gravef91
11.5
10.5
3333
814
6.4
45.3
46
2.62
(0.58)
<0.24 in.
Coal/Peat
Fraction1*
1.6
2.5
38,100
11,850
32.9
406
210
64
(14.5)
<0.24 in.;
>0.0025 in.
Clean
Sand®
68.1
70.2
2183
621
13.8
46
34.1
2.05
(0.53)
<0.0025 in.
Cent.
Fines'"
18.8
16.7
40,000
14,000
83.1
522
344
51.7
(10.0)
%
Recovery1*


116
124
. 137
117
111.
107
129
%
Recovery"1


120
131
144
122
117
112
133
   (1)  Feed soil characteristics were calculated from rock and fines analytical data using a weight basis.
   (2)  Average of six composite samples.
   (3)  Average of three composite samples.
   (4)  Percent recovery determined by comparison of the total contaminant accounted for in each product with the feed material based
       on overall product fraction analysis provided by THC.
   (5)  Percent recovery determined by comparison of the total contaminant accounted from each product with the feed material based
       on measurements during the SITE demonstration.
   (6)  () indicates value reported is below quantitation limit but above detection limit, value should be considered an estimate.
              Partition ot Sttocud Paranuun In the Product Strum of the Attrition Won
                                                                                 Tibia C-9.
                                                                                               Partition of Sotoctod Parameter. In tin Product Strum of the Attrition Won

Fraction of Feed
Oil i Grease
TRPH
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
<1.97 in;
>.24in
Trommel
Oversize
.105
.037"'
(35)«
.027
(26)
.027
(26)
.035
(34)
.055
(52)
.023
(22)
.025
(24)
<.24 in;
Coat/Peat
Fraction
.025
.100
(400)
.094
(376)
.033
(131)
.076
(302)
.035
(139)
.134
(536)
.147
(588)
<.24 in;
>0.0025 in
Clean
, Sand
.702
.161
(23)
.138
(20)
.387
(55)
.241
(34)
.262
(38)
.121
(22)
.151
(22)
>0.0025 in
Contaminated
Fines
.167
.702
(420)
.741
(444)
.554
(332)
.647
(388)
.628
(334)
.723
(433)
.677
(405)
nuuw
r Fraction of Feed
Oil & Grease
TRPH
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Naphthalene
, Benzo(a)pyrene
rm B**TO vn IMIV «
<1.97in;
>0.24 in
Trommel
Oversize
.115 '
.038"'
(33>'»
.028
(24)
.028
(24)
.037
(32)
.053
(50)
.024
(21)
.028
(24)
<.24in
Coal/Peat
Fraction
.016
.061
(381)
.057
(356)
.020
(125)
.046
(289)
.057
(230)
.082
(513)
.091
(569)
<.24 in;
>0.0025 in.
Clean
Sand
.681
.149
(22)
.127
(19)
.358
(53)
.223
(33)
.262
(38)
.113
(17)
.142
(21)
>0.0025 in
Contaminated
Fines
.188
.752
(400)
.788
(419)
.594
(316)
.694
(369)
.628
(334)
.781
(415)
.740
(394)
(1)  Weight fraction of the specific parameter found in the product stream as a fraction of the
    total weight in aK product streams.
(2) Percent of expected value based on feed concentration of respective contaminants and weight
    fraction of product stream.
(1)  Weight fraction of the specific parameter found in the product stream as a fraction of the
    total weight in all product streams.
(2) Percent of expected value based on food concentration of respective contaminants and weight.
    fraction of product stream.
                                                                        35

-------
Table C-10. Concentration of Selected Parameters of the Contaminated Slurry Feed to the THC Biosluny Reactors.

Oil & Grease
mg/kg
TRPH mg/kg
TOC mg/kg
Cu mg/kg
Pbmg/kg
Znmg/kg
Naphthalene
mg/kg
Banzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
Sample
1
40,000
12,300
117.000
57.4
421
219
49.0
(9.0)
Sample
2
33,300
8,500
102,000
48.2
334
192
52.0
<32.0
Sample
3
50,500
19,800
143.000
76.0
525
250
82.0
(9.6)
Sample
4
54,300
18,100
113,000



45.0
(11.0)
Sample
5
35,300
13,600
130,000
135
680
593
65.0
(12.0)
Sample
6
26,900
12,200
94,700
99
651
467
(17.0)*
(8.4)
Average
40,000
14,100
116,600
83.1
522
344
51.7
- (10.0)
Standard
Deviation
10,500
11,417
17,800
34.9
148
177
21.7
1.48
•() Indicates value la below quantitaSon limit for procedure.  Value shown is estimated.
 Table C-11.       THC Bloslurry Process Concentration of Selected Parametera In Discharge Slurry from Bloslurry Reactors
                  - Batch 2c

                  Sample    Sample   Sample   Sample   Sample   Sample   Sample             Standard
                      1         2         3         4         5         6         7      Average   Deviation    No
Oil & Grease
mg/kg
TRPH mg/kg
Cu mg/kg
Pbmg/kg
Znmg/kg
Naphthalene
mg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
60,800*

9530
113
846
469
<16.0

(2.3)'

47,300

7260.
99.4
718
420
<14.0

(4.5)

NR

7400
91.5
643
385
<12.0

(2.0)

56,600

7620
111
769
464
<16.0

(5.7)

39,600

6870
91.6
652
389
<13.0

(2.7)

40,500

6800
89.8
477
462
<15.0

(2.7)

54,1003

9270
111
719
504
<16.0

(2.1)

49,800

7820
101
689
442
-

(3.15)

8750

1120
10.4
116
447
--

1.41

6

7
7
7
7


7

 1    () indicates value is below quantitaBon limit for procedure.  Value shown is estimated.
  Tabto C-12.       THC Bloslurry Process Concentration of Selected Parametera in Discharge Slurry from Biosluny Reactors
                   - Batch 2a
                   Sample     Sample     Sample     Sample     Sample   Sample    Sample           Standard
                      1          2-3          4 "        5         6          7     Average  Deviation   No
Oil & Grease
mg/kg
TRPH mg/kg
Cu trig/kg
Pb mg/kg
Znmg/kg
Naphthalene
mg/kg
23.100

4320
898
574
370
<14.0

39,600

6580
89.4
583
360
<14.0

NR

7560
108
713
438,
<16.0

22,000

3930
75.9
505
316
<11.0

23,300

5380
69.3
452
285
<12.0

21.700

5470
70
474
293
<11.0

22,2003

4870
82.5
534
340
<12.0

25,300

5440
83.6
548
343


7030

1270
13.6
87.4
52.7


6

7
7
7
7


6enzo(a)pyrene    (2.4)'
mg/kg
                               (2.3)
                                          (2.8)
                                                     (2.9)
(3.4)
                                                                          (2.6)
(2.6)     (2.6)     0.212
       0 Indicates value is below quantitation limit for procedure. Value shown is estimated.
                                                   36

-------
sample and resulted in much higher quantitation levels than
were expected.  A NBS library search was conducted in an
attempt  to distinguish  the  identity of the compounds
causing the large background interference in these samples.
It is difficult  to narrow  down the  exact  nature of the
interfering  compounds  but  there appears  to be large
amounts  of unsaturated  hydrocarbons  and oxygenated
hydrocarbons present.  This observation  fits  well with the
THC biomass theory.

The THC target criteria for benzo(a)pyrene  of 2.4 mg/kg
is based on the proposed Province of Ontario target level.
Canadian (federal)  and European criterion  for  benzo(a)
pyrene is 10 mg/kg.

The  same  interference   had  an   adverse  effect  on
naphthalene  analysis which is a compound  that exceeded
the THC Target Criterion  in the feed soil.  Naphthalene
was not detected in the discharge from either bioslurry
reactor batch but the quantitation limits did not allow  a
definitive statement.  As  a partial  remedial action,  the
extracts from one sample of each batch were  reanalyzed to
establish  that  storage of the extracts  had not  had  a
significant effect on the GC/MS results.  The  extracts were
then  spiked  with 5 ppm of naphthalene  and benzo  (a)
pyrene and reanalyzed.   The analytical  variability of the
replicates was  quite  low, and  the spike recovery was
excellent.  The purpose of analyzing these samples was to
demonstrate  that the instrument  detected  concentrations
below the quantitation limit with a reproducible degree of
precision.  The net result is  that we can conclude that if
naphthalene was present at the THC Target Criterion level
of  8  ppm,   it  would  have  been   detected.     The
reprbducibility  and excellent  spike  recovery  for  the
benzo(a)pyrene   suggest  the  levels  reported are  good
estimates.

Another  approach to estimating actual naphthalene  levels
was to examine the minimum estimated  values reportable
by  the method.  The rationale being that if naphthalene
were  present  at that level it would  have  also been
estimated.  Therefore, the naphthalene level must be below
the lowest estimated value.  This  results in  a conclusion
that naphthalene concentration is  below 1.6 mg/kg.

Table C-13 summarizes the comparison of bioslurry system
inlet  and outlet  for bioslurry batch 2a.   The results  for
bioslurry batch 2c are not directly related to the SITE inlet
concentrations  but appear  to provide similar  results.
C.5  Metals Removal Process

The low level of metals  contamination found in Soil B
resulted in THC not running this soil through the metals
     Table C-13. THC Blotluny ProcM* Bkwluny Reactor Into! and
             Outlet Concentration* for Selected Parameter*

                    Contaminated      Bioslurry      Apparent
                     Fine Slurry   Batch 2a Discharge  Removal %
Oil & Grease mg/kg
TRPH mg/kg
Cu mg/kg
Pb mg/kg
Zn mg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg
Naphthalene mg/kg
Naphthalene mg/kg
Naphthalene mg/kg
40,000
14,000
83.1
522
344
(10.0)'
57.7
<8.4'
<{1.6)
25,300
5,440
83.6
548
343
(2.6)
<13.
-------
Composite  samples  of the influent  and  effluent were
accumulated by taking hourly grabs  over a four hour
period. During the first sampling day, two composites (#1,
#2)  were  accumulated.    During  the  second  day  of
sampling,  the  first  four  hour  composite  (#3)  was
accumulated as  planned.  During the accumulation of the
second composite (#4), the contents of the first tank were
exhausted.   The feed was  initiated from  the second tank.
Composite #4  which  was  the  second -composite  of the
second sampling day was  terminated after  2 hours and a
new composite  sample  (#5) for the new feed tank was
initiated. After  accumulating 2 hourly grabs, the operator
noticed that the media was being fouled  with  oil and the
run was terminated.   The reactor and  media  required
extensive cleanup and,  as  a result, operations were  not
resumed during  the SITE sampling time frame. The cause
of the oil contamination was later identified as the contents
of the second feed  tank.   THC had processed the fines
generated by the  soil  wash  process  while  processing
roughly  830 tons of this  soil without encountering this
problem.   A good  explanation  has not emerged but  a
definite process limitation has been identified.  Plans to
confirm operating flow rates on the third  day of sampling
were precluded  by the process shutdown. The developer
reports that slurry feed  rate was normally  8 gallons  per
minute with a 24 percent solids level.   This results in the
actual processing of about 0.55 tons per hour of dry solids.

The composite  samples were  analyzed for total metals.
The slurries proved amenable  to extractions as  a liquid.
Table C-14 presents the analytical results for the composite
samples.    The  inlet  metals   concentrations   are very
consistent  including composite  sample  #5  which  was
obtained during operation  from the  second  feed tank.
Outlet metals values exhibit greater variation from
                             composite, sample  to composite sample.  Table C-14 also
                             presents percentage removal information by metal based on
                             comparison  of the composite average  inlet and outlet
                             concentrations.   The values obtained are in the range of
                             expected results based on THC experience.
                             C.6  Emissions Sampling

                             The  ventilation system  for the bioslurry process  was
                             sampled for gaseous emissions in an effort to establish the
                             types  of emission control which might be required. Minor
                             amounts  of volatile organics were detected.  Analysis of
                             SVOC's  was handicapped by the poor detection limits as
                             a result of high concentrations of non-target hydrocarbons
                             which were  tentatively  characterized  between   diesel
                             distillates and Stoddard solvent (C9 to C16 parafines). Total
                             gaseous non-methane organic compounds were detected at
                             levels which indicate 220 pounds  per  day of emissions
                             from  the overall bioslurry  system.   It is reasonable to
                             expect this  emissions  rate  would be  highly variable
                             depending  upon the specifics characteristics  of the  soil
                             being   processed  as  well   as  operating   rates.     The
                             significance  of this result  is that air stripping  in  the
                             bioslurry reactors is responsible for removing at least  part
                             of the hydrocarbons present.  Adequate  emissions  control
                             will be essential in application of this  technology.   The
                             THC  facility has in place  a biological  filter system  and
                             carbon adsorption beds  for emissions control.  These
                             treatments  were  intentionally over  designed  to meet
                             regulatory  concerns.   No effort was  made to  assess the
                             effectiveness of the control measure.  Stack testing by the
                             developer  indicates  hydrocarbon emissions  are  below
                             detection.
     TaW« C-14. Matals Removal Process - Inlet and Outlet to Tubular Reactor Data for Selected Metals.

                                                   Total Metal (mg/L)

INLET METALS
Copper
Lead 100
Nickel 11.2
Zkic 264
Sample
1

49.2
97.8
12.7
270
Sample
2

50.2
94.2
10.7
264
Sample
3

50.0
98.4
11.7
273
Sample
4

53.2
112.0
12.0
294
Sample
5

52.2
100.5
11.7
277
Standard %
Average Deviation Removal

51.0 1.53
6.8
.8
12
     OUTLET METALS

     Copper

     Lead  22.0

     Ntekal 4.7

     2nc  55.4
 1.6

41.6

 7.3

 103
3.0
28.6
(1.2)*
110
(.9)*
13.5
(.9)*
53
1.76
39.3
2.6
183
1.7
29.0
3.3
100.9
1.8
11.8
2.7
52.9
.8
71
77
64
     ' () Indicates value is below quantrtatlon limit for procedure.  Value shown is estimated.
                                                       38
                                                                    96

-------
                                             Appendix D-l

                        Cost Analysis for Treatment of 22,000 Tons of
                     Contaminated Soil Using the THC Treatment Plant
D.I Introduction

The volume of soil that may require treatment at the Port
Industrial District has been estimated at 2,200,000 tons.  For
purposes of this analysis we have constructed a hypothetical
case in which 22,000 tons of soil on a dry basis with a fines
content of 16.5 percent which requires treatment for heavy
metals  and organic contaminants will be processed in the
existing THC Treatment Plant.

Figure  D-l presents a process flow diagram with average
daily flows indicated for this hypothetical case.
                      FIGURE  D-1
         DAILY MASS FLOWS FOR HYPOTHETICAL CASE TREATMENT
              OF 22,000 TONS OF CONTAMINATED SOIL
         Coil/
    Sind   p.lt
  73 TONS 2.6 TONS



•)"H Blorvaetor
17.6 TONS
L*
Acid
L..ch
Flocculatlon
S«dlm«nl«1


* 1 Cont.minat.d J Qrcvltv
on 1 Fin** n Thfekcner

L 	 I" CtT.micil
P |Pr«tr*ilm«nt


17.6 TONS
Cont.mln.ted .lurry to


R>
r
bul*r
actor
Nautrallz*
_^ D*wat«r
* Fine J
17.6 TONS
                c
     R*g«n«ratlng
        Acid
This economic analysis is based on assumptions and costs
provided by THC or its contractors. This estimate is based
on an analysis of costs incurred during the 9 months of plant
operation experience accumulated in 1992. THC provided
a cost analysis based on an assumption of 33 percent fines
in the soil.  This represents a worst case scenario for costs.
Several other cases have been examined in order to highlight
the importance of the amount of fines in the overall costs for
the treatment traim  The THC analysis was provided in
Canadian dollars. It has been converted to U.S. currency by
using an exchange rate of $0.80 U.S. to  $1.00 Canadian.
Comments  on the cost analysis and  discussion of cost
elements in  general represent  the  author's engineering
judgement  An  effort has been made to  present the cost
analysis in  a manner that will allow the reader to vary the
basis to fit a particular situation or to evaluate the sensitivity
of cost to a particular assumption.

Cost figures provided here are based on analysis of the
actual operation  of the actual plant and actual  personnel.
The  analysis  involved identifying  achievable  long  term
production  levels and utilizing actual  cost  experience to
project costs  when production is the primary goal of the
operation.  The  costs presented  include  a  profit for the
developers. This "profit" is recovered in the equipment cost
as well as  a  loading on labor.   The exact  nature of the
"profit" has not been disclosed.

Utilization  Rates  and  Maintenance  Schedules  -  The
processing  of 22,000 tons of soil  would require about 208
days  of  operation.   In order to account for  scheduled
maintenance and unscheduled shutdowns due to  equipment
problems, a 10  percent factor has been  assumed.   This
results in 229  day operation being required and an effective
operating rate of 96 tons/day of feed soil.  Costs for labor
and equipment were increased to reflect this allowance.
Consumables, utilities, and analytical costs were not factored
since  these elements  are not consumed during  downtime
periods.
                                                     39

-------
Financial Assumptions - For the purposes of this analysis,
capital  equipment costs  are  separated for the complete
process units. Capital equipment costs were amortized over
a 10 year period with no salvage value taken at the end of
the period.   Interest rates,  time-value of  money were
included by the developer.  The effective rate used by the
developer, based on an analysis of the data provided is 20%.
The reader is cautioned  that interest rates in Canada are
considerably higher than in U.S. at this time, however it is
clear that a return on capital is also included here.
D.2  Basis for Economic Analysis

In order to compare the cost effectiveness of technologies in
the  SITE program, EPA breaks  down  costs  into  12
categories shown in Table D-l using the assumptions already
discussed. The assumptions  used for each cost factor are
described in more detail below.
                            D.2.1  Permitting and Regulatory Costs

                            Permitting and regulatory costs are generally the obligation
                            of the responsible party (or site owner).  These costs may
                            include actual permit costs, system health/safety monitoring
                            and analytical protocols. Permitting and regulatory costs can
                            vary greatly because they are very site- and waste-specific.
                            No permitting costs are included in this analysis; however,
                            depending on the treatment site, this may be a significant
                            factor since  permitting  can  be  expensive and a  time-
                            consuming activity.  THC has obtained the permits required
                            for its facility however,  they are based  upon  the facility
                            being completely removed after the evaluation.
                             D.2.2 Site Preparation Costs

                             The amount of preliminary preparation will depend on the
                             site and is assumed to be performed by the responsible party
                             (or site owner). Site preparation responsibilities
Table D-1. Treatment Cost Summary for a Hypothetical
          Organic and Inorganic Contaminants.
                   Remediation of 22,000 tons of Soil with 16.5 Percent Fines and Both '
Cost Component
1. Site Preparation Costs
Soil
Wash <
N/A
Biological
/o Treatment %
N/A
Metals
Removal %
N/A
Total %
N/A
2.  Permitting & Regulatory
    Costs

3.  Equipment Costs

4.  Startup

5.  Labor

6.  Consumables & Supplies
      Chemicals
      Maintenance Supplies

7.  Utilities
      Electric

8.  Effluent Treatment &
    Disposal

9.  Residuals/Waste Shipping,
    Handling & Transport Cost

10. Analytical Costs

11. Facility Modification,
    Repair & Replace

12. Demobilization Cost

    Total

    Cost/Ton
   N/A

$317,300     20
       •   (•

   N/A

$872,300     55
 $66,800
 $53,400
4
3
 $233,200     15


   N/A


   N/A

 $53,200      3


   N/A

    0

$1,596,200   100%

  $72.55
          N/A

        $71,100

          N/A

        $259,800
            15
            54
          N/A


          N/A

        $26,800      6
  N/A

$246,900

  N/A

$656,900
                                22
                                57
        $83,400     17      $66,800
                     N/A


                     N/A

                   $26,800
          N/A                 N/A

           0                   0

        $481,700   100%    $1,140,800

         $21.90             $5.1.85
   N/A

 $635.300

   N/A

$1,789,000
                               100%
                                                     20
                                                     56
$26,800     6      $100,000       9      $193,600      6
$13,800     3      $43,400       4      $110,600      3
                      $383,400      12


                        N/A


                        N/A

                      $106,800      3


                        N/A

                         0

                     $3,218,700    100%

                       $146.30
                                                         40

-------
 include site design  and layout, surveys and site logistics,
 legal searches, access rights and roads, and preparations for
 support   facilities,   decontamination   facilities,   utility
 connections,  and auxiliary buildings.  These preparation
 activities  have been undertaken  by THC at this location.
 A specific provision has therefore not been included in the
 cost analysis.
D.2.3 Equipment Costs

Capital equipment costs are  broken down into the three
technologies demonstrated  under the SITE program, i.e.,
Attrition Soil Washer, Biological Treatment Process, and
a Metals Removal Process.  The equipment was acquired
in 1991 and the capital installed costs for each technology
has  been provided  by THC  in Canadian  dollars.   This
estimate includes the allocation of the primary plant air
handling system costs equally among the three processes.
D.2.3,1 Attrition Soil Washer

The unit utilized during the THC demonstration  is the
same unit which is  used in this hypothetical  case.   It
utilizes a  system of  trailer transportable  modular  units
which are  assembled  at the site into an integrated unit.  It
is designed to provide  flexibility so that it can be used with
a variety of feed soils. The unit was supplied as a package
by  a supplier who designed  the unit based on experience
with similar  units in Europe.  The unit employs mineral
processing equipment from  North America, if available.
THC  leased  the  unit  with  the  operators   for this
demonstration. The cost analysis is based on the purchase
of an equivalent unit with operation by THC. The capital
cost for the  installed unit, including a carbon adsorption
unit for ah" emissions is reported  to be  $1,200,000 U.S.
The cost  recovery for  the  22,000  ton case would be
$317,300, which  includes the amortized cost of equipment
plus rental equipment  and building charges.
D.2.3.2  Biological Treatment Process

The biological treatment system has a reported installed
cost of $240,000 U.S.  The equipment cost for our case of
$71,100  U.S.  includes the cost of rental equipment  and a
building charge.
D.2.3.3  Metals-Removal Process

This unit is  also a trailer transportable modular design.
The unit incorporated by THC is the first unit of this size
manufactured anywhere.   The equipment  is  of a unique
 design which  allows  the contacting  of metals-rich high
 solids  content  slurry with  solid  chelating  agent beads
 without plugging  or fouling  and  restricting  the flow
 through the media.  The installed cost of the unit, including
 an acid gas scrubber  for air emissions, is reported to be
 $800,000 U.S.  This results in a equipment  cost for this
 case of $246,900 U.S., which includes the amortized  cost
 of equipment plus rental  equipment and building charges.
 D.2.4 Start-up

 The facility being utilized in the hypothetical case is the
 one currently  located at the THC facility.  Start-up with a
 new soil is very rapid  with adjustments to accommodate
 the soil tending to evolve during early operation.  Starting
 costs have not been broken out by THC and have not been
 included here.

 If the plant  is relocated  to a  new  site,  the following
 considerations  should  be   made.    In   general,  the
 transportation cost for the process units will be a function
 of  how  far the  units  must  be  moved  to the new site.
 Assembly  is  a labor  intensive  operation  consisting  of
 unloading  modules   from truck and trailers used for
 transportation, as well as the actual assembly.  A crane will
 be required for these operations.   A two'week time frame
 for set-up which would involve operators familiar with the
 assembly of the plant would be required as a minimum.

 The cost of health and safety training and monitoring have
 not been included in this analysis.  Depending upon the
 specific contaminants present in the soil to be treated, these
 costs would be significant.   As a minimum,  any  local
 manpower utilized will require OSHA 40 hour hazardous
 waste training if a superfund  site is involved or hazardous
 materials are to be processed.
D.2.5  Labor

THC has provided labor cost data in Canadian dollars by
process and staffing levels but has not provided specific
cost per  hour for  the  various  labor  classifications.
Additional  labor  included  an  allocation  of materials
handling  labor and  a  maintenance  (parts  and  labor)
element.  One-half of  the  maintenance  cost  has been
allocated to labor and the other half to maintenance parts
and consumables. The labor dollars reported include labor
rate  and fringe benefits  and an  allocation of technical
management, site supervisor, a QC person, and a clerk.
Included in overhead  are elements such as potable water,
telephones,  office trailer rentals, site security and  snow
removal.  The cost  data provided by  THC were based on
operations with a feed soil  fine concentration of 33.30
                                                        4.1

-------
percent.  This example is based on a 16.67 percent  fines
soil, such as encountered during the SITE demonstration.
The costs presented are based on operating the wash  plant
for two shifts.  THC labor cost elements were doubled for
the wash plant.  The cost data provided by THC results in
a fully loaded average of $42 per hour for the 17.5 people
normally included.

Estimate labor cost for the hypothetical case are:

        Soil Wash               $872,300
        Biological Treatment     $259,800
        Metals Removal         $656,900
D.2.6 Consumables and Supplies

The three processes each consume chemicals utilized in the
respective treatments.  THC has not disclosed the identity
of specific chemicals being utilized so the cost information
is aggregated  by process.  The cost information provided
by  THC  aggregated  maintenance,  labor,  and parts  and
materials in one cost element.  This element has split one-
half to maintenance materials and the other half as labor.
Safety equipment and supplies were included  in the .site
overhead  which was  allocated to labor.  A discussion of
the chemicals  utilized  and  maintenance materials  by
process follows.
D.2.6.1  Attrition Soil Wash

Chemicals utilized are flocculents consumed in thickening
the  contaminated slurry.   Total  cost of  chemicals  of
$66,800 was calculated for this process in this hypothetical
case.

The  maintenance  supplies   would   include  fuel  for
equipment, lubricants, and parts such as bearing and seal
materials  as well  as parts for the conveyor system which
feeds the trommel washer.  The wash plant is a damp,
harsh environment with a considerable  number of high
speed  pumps and washer  cells.  In  addition,  vibratory
equipment  is utilized.   Maintenance  expense for this
hypothetical case  was estimated as $53,400.
D.2.6.2 Biological Treatment Process

The biological treatment system  consumes  the  inorganic
oxidant, phosphoric acid solution and urea  solution in
processing the slurry.  Chemicals costs for the hypothetical
case are estimated to total $26,800.
Maintenance parts and supplies would include lubricants
for the primary compressor,  spare parts for the compressor
and  the transfer  pumps  utilized.    These  costs  were
estimated at $13,800.
D.2.6.3  Metals Removal Process

The cost of the solid chelating agent beads is included hi
the capital cost and thus amortized over a 10 year period.
This assumes little attrition or chemical degradation of the
media will occur.  It is too early to judge the wisdom of
this assumption  since a considerable period of operation
will be required to establish useful life information for the
media.  This process  utilizes a mineral acid to dissolve
heavy metals prior to its removal by the chelating agent.
A second acid is utilized to regenerate the solid chelating
agent. The slurry is neutralized using a caustic solution
prior  to being pumped to the biological treatment system
or  returned to the excavation  site.   The  total cost for
process chemicals  for the hypothetical case is estimated at
$100,000.

Maintenance materials for this process can be expected to
primarily center on the pumps used to transfer the acidified
slurry through the process.  This is a very harsh application
and parts  availability did cause delays during the overall
THC  demonstration.   The estimated maintenance supply
cost for the hypothetical case is $43,400.

D.2.7 Utilities

The  THC demonstration  plant was designed  utilizing
electrical energy for all requirements.  This approach was
adopted since permits were required for any fossil fueled
boilers or process  equipment.   The attrition soil  wash
process  requires water at a temperature  of at least  55°F
(13°C).   This facility utilized an electric powered steam
boiler to generate steam for heating the soil wash plant
water recycle stream.   Operations  of the facility through
the first  half of 1992  suggest that this boiler  consumes
more electrical  energy  than  the  rest  of the facility
combined.   THC  took this into  consideration   and  than
allocated  the remaining electrical  energy cost to  the
respective  processes  based on  installed  horsepower  and
operating  tunes.    Common support,  primarily the air
handling system, was allocated equally among  the three
processes.   Bioslurry  process costs are primarily for the
compressor to provide  process air.  The cost of electrical
energy at the site is $0.104  U.S. per KWH.  The resulting
electrical cost allocations for our hypothetical case are:

      Attrition Soil Wash               $233,200
      Biological Process               $83,400
      Metals Removal Process          $68,800
                                                        42

-------
Process  water  was  obtained  from  the  collection  of
precipitation runoff supplemented as  required by pumping
water directly from Lake Ontario.   No specific  cost for
water was included.
D.2.8  Effluent Treatment & Disposal

The process, even with effective dewatering in place, can
be expected to use some water since a considerable amount
of water leaves the process with the products.  In the case
of the demonstration, the contaminants  present did not
partition to the aqueous phase.   During the nine month
THC demonstration water from excess precipitation was
discharged  to  the  local  POTW.    The  sedimentation
available hi the basin system was sufficient to meet TSS
and oil and grease  discharge criteria.  No significant cost
factor was involved.

Air emission  controls for the  overall system include  a
multichamber biological filter system followed by a carbon
adsorption bed polishing  step.  THC has developed data
which  suggest  this system results  in emissions  without
detectable hydrocarbons.  In addition, the carbon appeared
new.  Additional operating experience  will be  required to
establish the frequency at which the biological media (peat)
and the  carbon must be  replaced and disposed of.  No
attempt was made to estimate these  costs.

The overall process generates  two solid waste streams that
will require use or disposal approaches.  The first stream
is the coal/peat  material removed in the soil washer density
separator.  This material  is primarily <.24 inch coal  and
fragments of wood and roots which  are hi various stages
of decay.  Depending on the contaminants present,  this
material  could  be used as a fuel hi an industrial boiler. If
hazardous  contaminants  are  present,  it  may require
disposal,  most  likely by  incineration.    The  stream
accounted  for 2-3 percent of the feed soils examined by
THC.  This waste was not disposed  of  during  the THC
demonstration  but could result in considerable cost if
incineration  were  required.    For   example,   hi this
hypothetical case this waste would amount to 550 ton. If
incineration could be assumed to cost $1000/ton the cost
incurred  would  be  $550,000  and  would represent  a
significant cost factor.

In a full scale  facility it may be desirable, depending on
the characteristics of the soil, to remove the coal and wood
debris  that reports to the coarse gravel product (1.97 inch
>.24 inch).  This could be achieved with a  vibratory
density separator similar to that employed on the clean fine
sand.   This would  generate  an additional  waste  stream
which  would require a use or disposal.
The metals  removed by the electrowinning in the metals
removal process generally represent a small fraction of the
feed soil on a weight basis. The developer believes that
the metals  values  may  be  recoverable.  In any event the
heavy metals removed are  highly concentrated so that the
volume of  hazardous material is  greatly  reduced.   No
estimate of cost associated with utilizing or disposing of
this waste has been developed.
D.2.9     Residuals/Waste  Shipping,  Handling  and
Transport Costs

Waste  disposal costs including storage, transportation and
treatment costs would be the obligation of the responsible
party.   Because of the nature of the  soils  treated at the
THC demonstration, residuals  requiring special  handling
were not generated.

In  cases where  hazardous  contaminants   are  present,
residual  or  solid wastes would  consist of contaminated
health  and  safety gear,  used filters,  personal protective
clothing, activated carbon, etc.  Landfilling or incineration
would  be the anticipated disposal method for these types
of materials.  In cases where such materials will require
disposal the costs may  be  significant  and  should be
included.
D.2.10 Analytical Costs

Analytical costs have been estimated for the treatment train
based on a weekly provision  for process assessment and
quality control. The budgets provided for this hypothetical
case are:

      Attrition Soil Wash      $53,200
      Biological Process       $26,800
      Metal Removal          $26,800

If hazardous  components  are present in the  feed soil,
sampling of the products  prior to  their return to  a site
would be required by the  appropriate regulatory  agency.
The cost for the testing will require assessment based on
the specific  contaminants  and the requirements  of the
regulatory agency.
D.2.11  Demobilization Costs

Some of these costs would be site-specific. See Section D
2.4 on  start-up for an understanding  of what may be
involved.  No demobilization costs have been included hi
this analysis.
                                                        43

-------
D.3  Results
                    These cost estimates  are summarized below.
Table D-l  shows a total cleanup cost for the hypothetical
treatment  of  22,000 tons  of contaminated soil  in the
existing THC Treatment  Plant of $3,218,000.   The  costs
are also itemized by cost category and treatment process.
The soil wash process accounts for about 50 percent of the
total cost while the metals  removal process accounts for
about 35 percent of total cost and the biological treatment
accounts for the remaining 15 percent.  The  soil wash
process will process the entire 22,000  tons  of feed while
the  other  processes  are  required to treat  only  the
contaminated  fines, which  for this analysis amounted to
approximately  3650 tons..  When considering  the  overall
treatment  train, the largest cost  components  are  labor
(56%),  equipment  costs (20%),  and  electrical  energy
(12%),  consumables  (10%) and analytical  cost  (3%)
account for the remaining costs.

Based on this hypothetical case of 22,000 tons dry basis of
contaminated  soil treated, the total estimated unit cost  is
$147/ton; the breakdown  of costs by technology is shown
below.
                                          Cost $/ton of feed soil
                                     33% Fines 16.5% Rnes11% Fines
  Attrition Soil Washer
  Biological Treatment Process
  Metals Removal Process
  Total
Unit Cost
  $/ton

    73
    22
   • 52
  $147
This  cost estimate is based  on a fines content of 16.5
percent.  The estimated cost  per ton is quite sensitive to
the percent  of fines present.  This occurs  because the
metals removal and or biological treatment capacity can
limit the utilization of the wash plant  if this treatment is
operated at .73 ton per hour throughput.  There is no magic
in that throughput rate  since the throughput required to
meet  a  specific  required metal removal or  biological
treatment may vary. The .73 ton throughput rate is simply
a good operating  assumption.  Tables  D-2, D-3 and D-4
illustrate the effect of different fines concentration  on cost
if the metals removal and biological system are limited to
.73 ton/hr throughput. The case illustrated in Table D-2 is
for a soil fine  concentration of 33  percent  which  THC
provided as  the base case. In  general, this is considered
the upper limit of fines content applicability for the overall
treatment strategy.   This case would utilize the  wash
process only about 40 hours per week.  Table D-3 and D-4
illustrate the cases in which the soil wash plant could be
operated 80 hours per week  and  120 hours per  week
respectively  as a result of the respective fine contents.
                    Attrition -Soil Process   80
                    Biological Treatment   43
                    Metal Removal Process 96
                    Total
                   219
67
21
48

136
63
14
32

109
                    These cost  estimates  do not  have  any allowance  for
                    operating downtime other than  that already built into the
                    THC analysis.

                    Cost of the  metals   removal  process   and  biological
                    treatment system are expressed on a per unit of throughput
                    basis.  Table D-5 is based on a 0.73 ton dry basis per hour
                    throughput.  Viewed  on this basis  the estimated costs are
                    as follows:
                                                             Unit Cost
                                                           $/ton actually
                                                             processed
                                                           Attrition Wash Plant
                                                          .Biological Treatment  Process
                                           287
                                           128
The reader is cautioned that the costs accounted for in this
analysis do not include some site specific elements which
could significantly  effect final costs.  In addition  capital
and operating cost  for an appropriate dewatering process
must  also  be included.   If incineration of the coal/peat
waste is required, the cost would be a significant  factor.
THC  has  assumed an operating throughput rate for the
metals  removal  process somewhat  higher  than  those
observed during  the  demonstration.  The relatively  long
process times used for the bioslurry reactor process  during
the demonstration  if required would result  in  the cost
estimate for the biological process being low. If retentions
of 30 to 40 days are  required, the biological process cost
could increase by a factor of 3  to 4.  Careful treatability
studies  to establish technical suitability and to refine the
cost estimates will be necessary.
                                                        44

-------
Tabla 0-2.
                 Coat Par Ton of Feed Soil Baaad on S3 Tona Par Day of Faad and 33
                 Percent Finaa In tha THC Treatment Train
                                    Attrition     Biological     Metals
                                   Soil Wash    Treatment   Removal
                                    Process      Process    Process
                                                                          Total
Table D-4.        Coat Par Ton of Feed Soil Baaad on 159 Tona Per Day of Feed Soil and
                11 Percent Flnee In the THC Treatment Train.
                                  Attrition       Biological      Metals
                                 Soil Wash      Treatment     Removal
                                  Process       Process       Process     Total
Labor
Manpower
Maintenance
Materials Handling
Purchased Material & Services
Analytical Charges

Chemicals

Energy
Electrical

Equipment & Building
Equipment
Rental Equipment
Building

$28.36
4.84
5.19

2.41

3.03


10.58


21.81
2.27
1.81

$17.14
2.49
3.03

2.41

1.51


7.57


4.36
2.27
1.81

$47.14
7.86
3.03

' 2.41

9.07


6.64


14.53
3.78
1.81

$92.64
15.19
11.25

7.23

13.61


24.19


40.70
8.30
5.43
labor
Manpower
Maintenance
Materials Handing
Purchased Material a Services
Analytica] Charges
Chemicals

Enemy
Electrical

Equipment & Building
Equipment
Rental Equipment
BuBdng
Total

$28.36
4.84
5.19

2.41
3.03


10.58


7.28
.75
.60
$63.04

$5.72
.83
1.01

.81
.50


2.52


1.45
.75
.60
$14.19

$15.71 $49.79
2.62 8.29
1.01 7.21

.81 4.03
3.03 6.56


2.01 15.11


4.84 13.57
1.26 2.76
.60 1.80
$31.89 $109.12
Total
                                    $80.30
                                                 $42.54
                                                            $95.67
                                                                         $218.56
   Table CM.
                   Coat Per Ton of Feed Soil Baeed on 108 Tone Per Day of Feed Soil and
                   18.5 Percent Fine* In the THC Treatment Train.
Attrition Biological Metals
SoH Wash Treatment Removal
Process Process Process
Labor
Manpower $28.36 _ $8.57 $23.57
Maintenance 4.84 1.24 3.44
Materials Handing 5.19 1.52 1.52
Purchased Material & Services
Analytical Charges 2.41 1'.22 1.22
Chemicals 3.03 1.22 4.54
Energy
Electrical 10.58 3.78 3.03
Equipment a Building
Equipment 10.90 1.10 7.29
Rental Equipment 1.14 1.14 1.90
Building .91 .91 .91
Total

$60.50
10.02
8.23

4.85
8.74

17.39

' 19.28
4.18
2.73
      Tabte D-5.        Coat Per Ton of Soil Actually Proteased Baaed on Through-
                        put Rate of .73 Ton/Hr and Continuous Operation.
                                                                                                                                            Biological
                                                                                                                                            Treatment      Metals Removal
                                                                                                                                            Process           Process
                                                                                                                                             ($/Ton)           ($/Ton)
  Total
                                 $67.36
                                              $20.70
                                                            $47.91
                                                                           $135.97
      Labor

      Manpower

      Maintenance

      Materials Handing


      Purchased Material & Services

      Analytical Charges

      Chemicals


      Enemy

       Electrical


       Equipment & Building

       Equipment

       Rental Equipment

       Building
$51.40

 7.44

 9.07





 7.26

 4.54





 82.68





 13.08

  6.80

  5.44
                                                                                                                                                              $141.40

                                                                                                                                                               23.59

                                                                                                                                                                9.07





                                                                                                                                                                7.26

                                                                                                                                                               27.22
43.62

11.34

 5.44
                                                                                                     Total
                                                                                                                                             $127.71
                                                                                                                                                               $287.08
                                                                                        45

-------
                                              Case Study  D-2

                         Attrition Soil Wash Process Results for Soil B
THC's contractors excavated and processed 1040 tons of a
soil designated Soil B from a former refinery site located in
the PID.  The soil was processed in the attrition soil wash
plant during the period including March 19, 1992 to May
14, 1992.

Xenon Environmental Laboratories, Inc. was  retained to
sample the process feed and product streams on four days
during the course of the run.  The sampling dates were at
least  one week apart.   Samples  were  accumulated by
compositing hourly grab samples over an eight hour period.

Table D-2-1 presents the average results for the four sample
events for selected parameters.  The  partitioning of some
key contaminants in the product streams based on this data
             FIGURE  D-2-1
PARTITION OF FEED SOIL TO PRODUCT STREAMS IN ATTRITION
    WASH PROCESS., SOIL B, OVERALL THC PROJECT
                   FEED 2000 •
                   75.6 * OtQ
                  .298 * LEAD
                 .0094 » BENZO (I) PYflENE
ATTRITION SOIL WASH PROCESS



           COAL/
           PEAT
CLEAN
SAND
CONTAMINATED
FINE SOIL "••
in Figure D-2-1.
WEIGHT
WEIGHT %
OtO(1)
LEAD(I)
(• (•) P)
210 *
10.5
18.9 %
43.« %
13 %
50*
2.S
18.2 %
9%
, 1.9%
1404 t
70.2
10.4%
20 %
19.1%
	
334*
t».r
54.8%
30.4%
0%

BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
             Ttbl» D-M.
                        StIMM FMd md Product Stnrni PimrMtcra tor Attrition Soil Wuh Prae*M,
                        Soil B, THC Soil Rcoyeto TiMtmrnt Ptant
                              FMdSol
                                       Gnvtf
                                                                Contimin»t»d
                                                       Cl**n S«nd     Finn
P*re*M of F*«d la
Tronnntl Wtshtr
040, X
Copptr, mg*g
Lt»dmg/i
-------
                                               Case Study D-3

                          Attrition Soil Wash Process Results for Soil  A
THC's contractor processed 820 tons of a soil designated
Soil A from a former auto/metal salvage site located in the
PID.  The soil was processed in the attrition soil wash plant
during the period including February 11,1992 to March 18,
1992.  This soil contained wire and roots from  vegetation
which caused problems when this fibrous material blinded
screens or caused flow restrictions in process piping.

Xenon Environmental Laboratories, Inc.  was  retained  to
sample the process feed and product streams on four days
during the course of the run.  The sampling dates were at
least one  week apart.    Samples  were  accumulated by
compositing hourly grab samples over an eight hour period.

Table D-3-1 presents the average results for the four sample
events for selected parameters.  The partitioning  of some
key contaminants in the product streams based on  this data
is illustrated in Figure D-3-1.
               FIGURE D-3-1
   PARTITION OF FEED AND PRODUCT STREAMS IN ATTRITION
      WASH PROCESS. SOU. A, OVERALL THC PROJECT
                     FEED 2000 f

                     5.6 * OiG
                     .58 *  COPPER
                     .44 *  LEAD
                     .79 *  ZINC
                     .001  « BENZO (•) PYRENE  (B (1) P)
ATTRITION SOIL WASH PROCESS



              COAL/
              PEAT
CLEAN
SAND
CONTAMINATED
 FINE SOIL
WEIGHT
% OF FEED
oto
COPPER
LEAD
ZINC
IB («) P)
280 »
1 4
18.9 *0)
20.4 %
14.7 *
22.9 %
2.1 %
30*
1.5
5.2 %
8.4%
2.5%
2.1 %
11.5 %
1326 *
66.3
18.1 %
29.7 %
36.6 %
32.3 %
9.8 %
3 6 4 It
18.2
56.8 *
41.5 %
46.2 %
42.7 %
69.6 %
                                                                ( 1 )PERCENTAGE OF CONTAMINANT BASED OH TOTAL CONTAMINANT IN PRODUCT STREAMS
                Table D-3-1.    Selected Feed and Product Stream Parameters for the Attrition Soil Wash Process,
                             Soil A, THC Soil Recycle Treatment Plant
                                     Feed Soil
                                                 Gravel
                                                          Coal/Peat
           Contaminated
Clean Sand     Fines
Percent of Feed to
Trommel Washer
O&G, %
Copper, mg/kg
Lead mg/kg
Zinc, mg/kg
Phenanthrene mg/kg
Pyrene, mg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene, mg/kg

0.28
282
219
394
0.92
0.76
0.51
14
0.68
331
315
1057
ND
,,HD
0.20
1.5
1.65
1268
499
917
28.8
18.3
16.8 ,
66.3
0.15
102
166
314
0.34
0.22
0.20
18.2
1.49
518
763
1515
5.9
8.6
5.2
                                                          47

-------
                                             Case Study D-4

                            Bioslurry Reactor Process Results  at the
                        THC Soil Recycle Treatment  Plant  for  Soil  B
An assessment of the bioslurry reactor process for the
treatment of contaminated fines produced by the attrition
soil wash process and the high pressure wash process for
Soil B from  a refinery site  located in the PID  was
conducted  during the THC  Soil Recycle project.  The
evaluation  consisted of the treatment of a series  of soil
batches.
below the 5000 mg/kg THC criteria for mineral O&G attained.
This was achieved after 50 days of biodegradation, a lengthy
time  for treatment.   On  the  other hand, it is  the limit of
contamination  which  would  be treatable  hi  mesophilic
bioreactors such as the ones operated here.  Faster treatment
could be obtained with thermophilic bioreactors,  but it would
involve heating to startup the high-temperature biodegradation.
D.4.1  Oil and Grease

Considerable effort was devoted to the development of
analytical procedures to allow reporting of total oil and
grease as well as the separate mineral (oil) and animal
(grease) components of this parameter.  In general, the
attainment of total oil  and grease at the 1.0 percent
target level  was not achievable.  At least a part of the
problem  is  associated with relatively high  levels of
animal grease resulting  from extraction of the biomass
in the treated soil.

Table  D-4-1  presents  oil  and  grease  (O&G)  and
component data for the processing  of a batch of Soil B
from the high pressure soil wash process  evaluation.

The initial levels of oil and grease  were high, but these
levels  were  brought down steadily as a  result of
biodegradation,  with residual  mineral  O&G  levels
(further corrected for the presence of polar compounds)
D.4.2  PAH Compounds

The analysis of PAH compounds also required the development
of  sampling  and analytical procedures that will  allow the
reliable determination of PAH concentration levels hi the slurry
from  the bioslurry  reactors.    The  development  of these
procedures is an ongoing program.

Results of the PAH treatment of several  batches  of Soil B
contaminated fines generated by the attrition soil wash process
are presented in Table  D-4-2.  Similar data for contaminated
fines  generated  using  the  high pressure  wash  process  are
presented in fable D-4-3.

The biodegradation of benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) to the 2.4 mg/kg
level has shown to be  an obstacle in the THC refinery soils.
Although the  percentage  of reduction  of BAP  is  significant
(above 60%),  the criteria level of 2.4 mg/kg has  only been
achieved for Batch  #4, for  fines from the attrition soil wash
process.
                                                      48

-------
Table D-4-1.   Oil and Grease Results for the Biological Treatment of Contaminated Fines from the
               High Pressure Wash Process

Date
Days of Biodeg.
Component
Oil (Mineral)
Oil (Mineral -
Methanol)
Grease (Animal)
Total Oil & Grease
(Freon)
Average 6
Samples
4-Aug.
0
Stand. Method
mg/kg
52167
42500
52500*
105167
4278-1196
TK-101
8-Aug.
4
Stand. Method
mg/kg
35000
29000
140000
170000
4278-1303
TK-101
20-Aug.
16
Stand. Method
mg/kg
30000
30000
23000
54000
4278-1451
TK-101
2-Sep.
29
Stand. Method
mg/kg
16000
16000
22000
38000
4278-1497
TK-101
9-Sep.
36
Stand. Method
mg/kg
11000
6000
9000
20000
4278-1504
TK-101
23-Sep.
50
Stand. Method
mg/kg
4500
3700
8500
13000
   ' Note: Samples had undergone some anaerobic biodegradation during shipping, explaining the initial high animal O&G counts
Table D-4-2.   Comparative  Data for Specific PAHs for the Processing  of Soil B Contaminated
               Fines from the Attrition Soil Wash Process



# days biodegradation
Component
Phenanthrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
4278-0581
Fines '
Before tmt
0
mg/kg
32
19
26
15
1.2
16
ND
4278-0649
R2B
Batch #1
30
mg/kg
5.9
4.9
8.6
9.4
2.7
10
2.0
4278-0769
R2C
Batch #2
37
mg/kg
3.9
1.1
1.0
2.3
ND
3.9
ND
4278-1038
R2B
Batch #4
34
mg/kg
3.4
0.55
0.83
0.96
ND
1.2
ND
                                                49

-------
Table D-4-3.   Comparative Data for Specific PAHs for the Processing of Contaminated Fines for
              the High Pressure Wash Process



# days biodegradation
Component
Phenanthrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
4278
1182
Before tmt
0
mg/kg
72
13
22
9.1
2.3
12
ND
4278-1042
R3

27
mg/kg
44
8.5
16
6.8
1.5
6.3
1.6
4278-1497
TK-101

30
mg/kg
3.5
1.6
2.3
3.1
0.74
5.7
1.3
                                            50

-------
                                                  Case Study D-5
                            Metals  Removal  Process Evaluation  for Soil A
    THC's contractors  excavated  about 820 tons of soil from
    a  site within the  PID  which  had been  utilized as an
    automobile  and metal  salvage yard.   This  soil  was
    designated  as Soil A.  The soil  was  processed  in the
    attrition, soil washer incorporated in the THC Soil Recycle
    Project. The contaminated fines produced by the soil wash
    processes  were  processed  hi  the metals removal  process
    prior to treatment hi the bioslurry reactor process.
                            Table D-5-1 presents feed concentrations and treated fines
                            concentrations for two 24-hour processing periods for Soil
                            A contaminated fines prepared with the attrition soil wash
                            process.   Percent  removals  calculated  from the feed
                            properties are also presented in Table D-5-1.
                   Table D-5.1   Metals Removal Process Results Soil A Feed for Attrition Soil Wash Process
                      Metals
         Run #1(1) 2/20/92                   Run#2(1> 2/21/92
   Feed      Product    %(2)        Feed      Product        %(2)
Total Metals Total Metals Removal   Total Metals Total Metals    Removal
Cu mg/kg
Ni mg/kg
Pb mg/kg
Zn mg/kg
-s 568
298
800
1601
120
46
150
300
79
84
81
81
1223
469
1687
3072
169
84
211
211
86
82
87
93
                      1 Each run represented a 24-hour operating period composite sample

                                                                     product concentration
                      2 Percent removal for specific metal removal = 1.0 -
                                                                      feed concentration
                                                             x100
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993-753-008
                                                            51

-------

-------