uriiieU states Great Lakes National Program Office EPA-905-R-99-006
Environmental Protection 77 West Jackson Boulevard September 1999
Agency Chicago, Illinois 60604
&EPA Physical Separation (Soil
Washing) for Volume
Reduction of Contaminated Soils and
Sediments Processes and Equipment
Trudy J. Olin and Susan E. Bailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
Michael A. Mann, Christopher C. Lutes,
Carl A. Seward and Carl F. Singer
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
14497 North Dale Mabry Highway
Suite 240
Tampa, Florida 33624
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
4915 Prospectus Drive
Durham, North Carolina 27713
EPA 905-R-99-006 c.2

-------
- - —
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER STATUS SHEET
INSTRUCT IONS
The author(s) of a. docuaent based on WES research and written for publication or presentation should
attach one copy of this sheet to the docusent when the first draft is prepared. Docuaéñt include
reports, abstracts, journal axticlea and aeteeted proposals and pro gress reports. The sheet wjfl
remain with the most recent draft of the docunent.
1. COEMIS JOB NUMBERS — —
a. WORD PROCESSING SECTION
b. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS CENTER
c VISUAL PRODUCTION CENTER
2. TITLE Physical Separation Equipment for
Volume Reduction (Soil Jashing) of Contatnin
Soils & Sediments: Equipment Types, Select
3. AUTHOR(S)
ted Trudy 3. Olin, Susan E. Bailey, Mike Mann,
on Chris Lutes, Carl Seward, Carl Singer
R. flpntg_P irtnr Vendprw ‘- Oparator , C
4. PRESENTATION (CONFERENCE NAME & DATE)
s Treatnen Trains
5. PUBLICATION (It It HP, JOURNAL NAME. ETC.)
6. SPONSOR OR PROGRAM WORK UNIT 7. DATE REQUIRED BY SPONSOR
EPA — CLNPO 12/10/98

8. DATE DRAFT COMPLETED BY AUTHOR(S) AND READY FOR SECURITY OR TECHNICAL REViEW
11/24/98
9. SECURITY REVIEW (MILITARY PROJECTS)
a. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEER REVIEWED FOR SECURITY CLASSIFICATION FOLLCMIHG GUIDELINES SPECIFIED IN
AR 350-5, DEPARTMENT OF ThE ARMY INFORMATION SECURITY PROGRAM, AND FOUND TO BE:
CLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL SECRET TOP SECRET
UNCLASSIFIED X SENSITIVE DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED
b. CLASSIFICATION WAS BASED ON TIlE
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION GUIDE DATED
10. AUTHOR
Ø;(44- 6. 8 zL
12. GROUP/DIVISION CHIEF
1L DATE
-
13.tDATE
14. IN—HOUSE TECHNICAL REVIEW (TO BE COMPLETED BY TWO OR MORE REVIEWERS 1*40 ARE GS-12 OR ABOVE, EXPERT,
OR CONTRACTOR)
/ I________________
DA 2 TO REVIEWER DATE RETURN REQUESTED (SATE RETURNED TEC HKICAL REVIEWER
- ACCEPTABLE W/HIHOR REVISIONS ACCEPTABLE W/M,AJQR REVISIONS UNA EP ABLE
b.
DAT TO REVIEWER DATE RETURN REZ ESTED DATE RETURNED TECHNICAL REVIEWER
ACCEPTABLE WfMthOft REVISIONS MCEPTABLE K/MAJOR REVISIONS UNACCEPTABLE
C. -
RATE TO REVIEWER ‘ -k- GATE RET%mN REQUESTED -VATE :fl7tJ p4fl TECHNICAL REVIEWER
ACCEPTABLE. H/MINOR REVISIONS; ACCEPTABLE 14/MAJOR REVISIONS - UNACCEPTABLE
ROTE: RETURN TO AUTHOR WHEN TECKNICAL REVIEW IS COMPLETED.
FORM
23T8
fl r%nr
PREVIOUS EDITIOHS ARE OBSOLETE.
(CONTINUED OH REVERSE)

-------
15. SUPERVISORY REVIEW
THE DOCUMENT IS TECHNICALLY SUITABLE AND REVIEWERS’ C01*4ENTS HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED. IT IS SUBMITTED FOR
EDITORIAL REVIEW AND CLEARANCE FOR PUBLICATION OR PRESENTATION AS INDICATED. THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO
COPYRIGHTED INFORMATION.* ENO FORM 4329-R OR 4330—R HAS BEEN COMPLETED, IF REQUIRED. AND IS ATTACHED TO
THE DOCUMENT.
a. ___________________________ _______________________ ________________
DATE TO GROUP CHIEF DATE RETURN REQUESTED DATE RETURNED GROUP CHIEF
DATE TO DIVISION CHIEF DATE RETURN REQUESTED DATE RETURNED DIVISION MEF
16. PROGRAM MANAGER REVIEW (IF APPROPRIATE)
DATE TO PROGRAM MANAGER DATE RETURN REQUESTED DATE RETURNED PROGRAM MANAGER
17. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING FOR ALL REPORTS
a. RECOMMENDED TYPE OF REPORT (TR, IR, HP, OR OTHER):
b. LEVEL OF EDITING (TYPE 1, 2, 3, OR 4):
C. IF TYPE I OR 2 EDITING IS INDICATED, ADD A BRIEF JUSTIFICATION:
SIGNATURE OF DIVISION CHIEF
S IF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IS USED, STRIKE WORD NO. SOURCE!OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD -BE ACKNOWLEDGED IN
THE TEXT. IT IS ThE AUTHORS RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER TO USE
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL -(SEE CURRENT INSTRUCTION REPORT OH PREPARING TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORTS FOR FORM
LETTER). CORRESPONDENCE ON RELEASE OF THE MATERIAL MUST SE SUBMITTED WITH A REPORT WHEN IT GOES TO THE
VISUAL PRODUCTION CENTER FOR PUBLICATION.
Reverse of WES Form 2378, R OCT 89

-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
March 1999 Final Report
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Physical Separation (Soil Washing) for Volume Reduction
of Contaminated Soils and Sediments — Processes &
Equipment
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
6. AUTHOR(S)
Olin, Trudy J.; Bailey, Susan E. of USAE WES and
Mann, Michael A.; Lutes, Christopher C.; Seward, Carl A.;
Singer, Carl F. of ARCADIS Geraghty—Miller
1. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Lab
3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180—6199
8. ERFORMING ORGANIZATION —
REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60604
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
I 2a. DISTRIBUT ION I AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
1 2b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
Physical separation processes have long been used in the mining industry for
selective separation of minerals from gangue. In recent years, these technologies
have been adapted for volume reduction of contaminated soils and sediments. Physi
separation processes are generally technically simple techniques by which the most
contaminated fraction of a soil and sediment can be separated from the uncontamina
volume. Volume reduction is a viable consideration where a portion of the
contaminated material is not readily treatable, where significant savings could be
realized in reducing the volume requiring treatment or disposal, or where some
benefit can be obtained by recovering reusable material. This document is intende
as a consolidated reference for planning—level process feasibility evaluations.
An overview of the standard unit processes, general equipment selection and
operating considerations, and equipment and technology sources are provided.
Summaries from the literature and field experiences and sample treatment trains
are also included.
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
Unc lass if led
i8. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE
Unclassified
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRaCT.
Unclass it ied
Public reporting burdms for this collection of infol’mation is estimated to average I hour per response, including the time for reviewing Instructions, searching ensting data sour ’
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments reaarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of thit
collection of information, including wggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services. Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 iefierson
Davis Highway. Suite 1204. Arlington. VA 22202-4302. and to the Office 1 Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Prolect (0704-0188). Washington, DC 20503.
Form Approved
0MB No. 0704-0788
al
ed
14. SUBJECT TERMS
15.
NUMBER
OF PAGES
Physical Separation
Soil Washing
flr dgmd Material
Equipment
Contaminated
Sediments
Treatment Cost
Vendors Density
Particle Size
139
16.
PRKE
CODE
20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been subject to the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) peer and
administrative review, and it has been approved for
publication as a USEPA document. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by USEPA or any
of the contributing authors.
I I

-------
Acknowledgments
This document provides a consolidated reference for planning-level process feasibility
evaluations, intended for both technical and nontechnical staff responsible for decision making
in the management or treatment of contaminated soils and sediments. This report was
prepared with funding from USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO). Project
manger for GLNPO was Mr. Scott Cieniawski. Mr. Jan Miller, U.S. Army Engineer Division,
Great Lakes and Ohio River, served as Corps liaison to USEPA GLNPO. Additional funding
was provided by the Installation Restoration Research Program (IRRP), managed by Dr. M.
John Cullinane of Environmental Laboratory (EL), U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station (WES).
This report was prepared by Trudy J. Olin and Susan E. Bailey of the Environmental
Engineering Resources Branch (EE-A), Environmental Engineering Division (EED), EL, WES,
and by Michael A. Mann, Christopher C. Lutes, Carl A. Seward and Cart F. Singer of the A&E
firm, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. of Tampa, FL. Mr. Mitch A. Granat of USAE District,
Jacksonville provided information on several case studies. Technical review was provided by
Mr. Tony Dardeau (EE-A) and Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, Special Projects Group (EE-P), EED.
Ms. Cheryl M. Lloyd (EE-A) and Ms. C. Evette Guice (EE-P) provided editing.
III

-------
Abstract
Physical separation processes have long been used in the mining industry for selective
separation of minerals from gangue. In recent years, these technologies have been adapted
for volume reduction of contaminated soils and sediments. Physical separation processes are
generally technically simple techniques by which the most contaminated fraction of a soil and
sediment can be separated from the uncontaminated volume. Volume reduction is a viable
consideration where a portion of the contaminated material is not readily treatable, where
significant savings could be realized in reducing the volume requiring treatment or disposal, or
where some benefit can be obtained by recovering reusable material. This document is
intended as a consolidated reference for planning-level process feasibility evaluations. An
overview of the standard unit processes, general equipment selection and operating
considerations, and equipment and technology sources are provided. Summaries from the
literature and field experiences and sample treatment trains are also included.
This report should be cited as follows:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. “Physical Separation (Soil Washing) for Volume
Reduction of Contaminated Soils and Sediments - Processes & Equipment .“ EPA xxx-xxx-xxx.
Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
iv

-------
Contents
Page
Acknowledgments
Abstract
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Overview of Unit Processes
Introduction
Overview of Soil Washing Processes
Definition of Terms
Field Oversize
Process Oversize
Coarse Products
Fine Products
Contaminated Residuals
Introduction to Unit Processes
Pre-screening
Primary Physical Size Separation
Density Separation
Solid/Liquid Separation
Solids Dewatenng
Treatment Trains
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
iv
VIII
Planning for Field Operations: Material Handling and Processing Interfaces 6
Interface between Excavation/Dredging, Staging, Blending and Processing .. 6
Containment of Feed, Products, and Residuals 1 0
Residuals 10
Bench-Scale Process Validation 1 0
Field Analytical Support 10
Overview of Feasibility Evaluation Process for Physical Separation 11
Step 1 Gathering Preliminary Information 11
Step 2 Preliminary Materials Characterization 13
Step 3 Preliminary Technical and Budgetary Feasibility Evaluation 1 5
Step 4 Evaluation of Level of Certainty 1 5
Step 5 Gathering Additional Data 1 5
Step 6 Detailed Feasibility Evaluation 1 6
V

-------
2 Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
17
Solids Dewatering
Centrifuges
Rotary Vacuum Filters
Fitter Presses
Screens
Hydroseparators
Screw Classifiers
Auxiliary Equipment
Conveyors
Process Tanks
Sumps and Pumps
Controls
Weighing Devices
17
18
18
19
20
22
23
23
26
31
32
33
33
35
36
41
41
41
42
42
44
47
47
49
51
53
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
56
3 Treatment Trains and Cost Estimation
57
Factors Affecting Soil Washing Effectiveness .
Type and Mechanism of Contamination
Volume of Matenal to be Processed
Clay Content
Organic Content
Preliminary Cost Analysis
Degree of Heterogeneity of Soil/Sediment Deposit
Treatment Trains
Treatment Train 1, Simple Physical Separation
Treatment Train 2, Physical Separation
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
58
58
60
General Selection Criteria
Pre-Processing
Feed Hoppers
Gnzzlies (Fixed-Bar Screens)
Trommels
Comminution
Particle-Size Separators/Classifiers
Screens
Hydrocyclones
Hydraulic Classifiers
Sieve Bends
Density Separation
Spiral Concentrators
Jigs
Shaking Tables
Multi-Gravity Separators
Dense Media Separation
Pinched Sluice
Liquid/Solid Separations
Settling Basins/Clanfiers/Lamella Separators
Flotation
vi

-------
Treatment Train 3, Treatment with Fines Extraction 60
Case Studies 60
Cost Estimating 60
Case Studies as a Cost Estimating Tool 63
Equipment Cost Multipliers for Total Project Cost Estimation 63
Extensive, Design Level Estimation 64
A&E Proposals 64
4 Case Studies 66
US Army Corps of Engineers 66
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, Minneapolis, MN 66
USAE District, Jacksonville, Canaveral Harbor, FL 67
USAE District, Jacksonville, Miami River, FL 68
USAE District, Jacksonville, Fort Myers, FL 69
USAE District, Detroit, Erie Pier Demonstration, MN 70
USAE District, Detroit, Saginaw River Pilot Scale Demonstration, Ml 72
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller 75
The Hanford Site, Richland, WA 75
King of Prussia Technical Corporation, Winslow Township, NJ 78
FUSRAP, Maywood, NJ 81
The Monsanto Company, Everett, MA 83
The RMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant, Ashtabula, OH 85
Lordship Point, Stratford, CT 88
Literature 91
Escambia Treating Company Superfund Site, Pensacola, FL 91
Bench-Scale Study at New York University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 92
Feather River Site, Oroville, CA 93
5 Summary 94
References 95
Appendix A: Detailed Cost Estimates Al
Appendix B: Equipment & Technology Sources Bi
vii

-------
List of Figures
Pacie
Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-2.
Figure 1-3.
Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-3.
Figure 2-4.
Figure 2-5.
.9
• 12
19
21
24
27
30
31
33
37
37
43
45
47
50
59
61
General aspects of a physical separation treatment train
Treatment Train 1, simple physical separation
Feasibility evaluation process
Gnzzty in series with a screen
Trommel
Vibrating screen with wash water
Section view of a hydrocyclone
Bank of four fines separation hydrocyclones in the foreground with
of two sand dewatenng hydrocyclones in background
Figure 2-6. Two monosizer hydraulic classifiers fed by hydrocyclones
Figure 2-7. Bank of spiral concentrators
Figure 2-8. Typical final tabling in a gold application .
Figure 2-9. Distribution of table products by particle size
Figure 2-10. Two lamella clanfiers operating in parallel
Figure 2-11. Froth flotation (mechanical) cells
Figure 2-12. Four decanter centrifuges
Figure 2-13. Rotary disc filter
Figure 3-1. Treatment Train 1, simple physical separation .
Figure 3-2. Treatment Train 2, physical separation
bank
and density
vu’

-------
Figure 3-3.
Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-5.
Figure 4-6.
Figure 4-7.
62
73
75
78
81
83
85
88
Treatment Train 3, treatment with fines extraction
General process flow diagram for the Bergmann USA System
used at Saginaw Bay, Ml
View of soil washing pilot plant at the Hanford site
The soil washing plant in operation at the King of Prussia site
Pilot plant at the Envirocare of Utah site, Clive, Utah
View of the soil washing plant at the Everett site
Pilot plant-ion exchange tanks and precipitation tank
View of land and marine areas to be remediated at Lordship Point
ix

-------
List of Tables
Paue
Table 2-1. Cost Ranges of Several Jig Types 36
Table 2-2. Table Operating Parameters Suggested by Manufacturers 39
Table 2-3. Wilfley Concentrating Table Operating Parameters 40
Table 2-4. Concentrating Table Cost Ranges 40
Table 3-1. Itemized Cost Estimates of Three Treatment Train Scenarios 65

-------
1 Overview of Unit Processes
Introduction
Physical separation processes have long been used in the mining industry for selective
separation of minerals from gangue. In recent years, these technologies have been adapted
for volume reduction of contaminated soils and sediments, and collectively referred to as soil
washing. (This is distinct from soil flushing, an in-situ process.) Physical separation processes
are generally technically simple techniques by which the most contaminated fraction of a soil
and sediment can be separated from the uncontaminated volume. Depending on its
characteristics, the “clean” fraction may require less rigorous treatment or disposal measures
or may be suitable for commercial uses without treatment. The most contaminated fraction
typically requires further treatment or restricted disposal.
Volume reduction is a viable consideration where a portion of the contaminated material is not
readily treatable, where significant savings could be realized in reducing the volume requiring
treatment or disposal, or where some benefit can be obtained by recovering reusable material.
The relative volumes of “clean” to “contaminated” fractions, the waste streams produced in
separation, and the subsequent treatment or disposal requirements of the respective fractions
are all critical considerations in determining the viability of physical separation as a
management alternative. In cases where a commercially viable product results, potential
revenue production or cost avoidance should also be factored into the economic evaluation.
This document is not a comprehensive design guide but, rather, a consolidated reference for
planning-level process feasibility evaluations. It is intended for both technical and nontechnical
staff responsible for decision making in the management or treatment of contaminated soils
and sediments. Feasibility evaluations and development of an effective physical separation
treatment train require consideration of many site-specific conditions including, but not
necessarily limited to, the following:
• project budget and objectives,
• applicable state and Federal regulations,
• soil and sediment types and volumes,
• contaminant type and distribution,
• potential end use or disposal options, and associated criteria, of process streams,
• equipment cost, availability and operating limitations, and
• location and climatic considerations.
Comprehensive treatment of these design considerations is beyond the scope of this
document. An overview of the standard unit processes, information requirements, general
equipment selection and operating considerations, and equipment and technology sources is
provided. Summaries from the literature and field experiences and sample treatment trains are
1

-------
Chapter 1 Overview of Unit Processes
also included. An extensive search was conducted to identify vendors and locate case
histories. Sources within the consulting industry contributed from their expertise and field
experiences. Equipment cost ranges, where available, were compiled from the literature,
vendor information and a commercial estimating guide (Western Mine Engineering 1996). Unit
costs and cost breakdowns were estimated for three treatment scenarios by ARCADIS
Geraghty & Miller Inc., of Tampa, FL.
Chapter 1 provides an overview of physical separation, the basic unit processes utilized in
typical physical separation treatment trains, and a systematic methodology for conducting
feasibility evaluations. Chapter 2 contains a more detailed discussion of the unit processes,
and selection and operating factors of individual pieces of equipment within these categories.
Chapter 3 contains sample treatment trains and cost estimation advice. Chapter 4 contains
case studies from the literature, US Army Corps of Engineers project records, and the
consulting industry. From these case studies, the reader should be able to develop a technical
and economic sense of scale, and where potential problems may be encountered in the field
when applying physical separation processes to contaminated soils and sediments. Appendix
A contains examples of detailed cost estimates. Appendix B is an equipment and technology
source listing. While every effort was made to ensure that this would be a comprehensive
listing, all potential sources could not be identified within the constraints of the project.
Overview of Soil Washing Processes
Definition of Terms
Some working terminology is needed to descnbe the range of materials that will be
encountered in a soil or sediment remediation project. The following are working definitions
that can be modified locally as necessary.
Field Oversize
Field oversize refers to material generally larger than 50 mm effective diameter. This material
can include, but is not limited to, boulders, concrete rubble, tree cuttings, debris, scrap metal,
reinforcing bar, structural steel scrap, appliances and parts, automotive debris, and industrial
scrap. Every site will be different in terms of the characteristics of this fraction. The field
oversize can be difficult to handle because of irregular shapes and comingling with soils; it can
block feed hoppers and process equipment. Oversize must be removed from the feed stream
before the soil is introduced into the process plant. Field oversize is staged and segregated.
In most cases, unless this fraction is highly organic, it will test as uncontaminated and can be
disposed locally.
Process Oversize
The process oversize is the fraction < 50 mm and generally larger than 2 mm. This fraction
generally consists of gravel and broken or downsized debris, including plastic, metal chips, and
so on. This component of the feed is also found to meet site treatment standards in most
cases. As such, it can be used as backfill when mixed with other clean products, or it can be
disposed locally.
2

-------
Chapter 1 Overview of Un Processes
Coarse Products
The coarse products are that portion of the feed stream <2 mm and greater than the “cut-point”
between sands and silts. By definition, the cut point between sand and silt is approximately 75
pm (U.S.C.S.). Clays are approximately 3 pm and smaller. For practical purposes, the cut-
point ranges from 38 to 75 jim (0.038 to 0.075 mm). The coarse product is a sandy material
often comingled with particles lighter and/or heavier than sand. These non-sand materials can
consist of shredded natural organics like grass, leaves, and roots (a light fraction) or particulate
materials such as lead, comprising a heavier component. The coarse fraction may be either
clean or contaminated. If clean, no further treatment is required, of course, but if contaminated,
further treatment may be required, and that will be discussed later in this chapter.
Fine Products
Fine products are those materials less than the selected cut-point and consist of clays and silts.
In many cases contaminants exhibit a propensity to be concentrated in the fines (clays and
silts), primarily because of the very large surface area presented by this fraction. The fines are
also difficult to handle, treat and dewater. The dewatered fines are normally contaminated
and, due to the concentrating effect of separating them from the bulk matrix, may be
reclassified as hazardous waste, requiring disposal at a Resource, Conservation, and Recovery
Act (RCRA) facility.
Contaminated Residuals
Any fraction that does not meet the site-specific treatment standard is referred to as a
contaminated residual. This may include liquid process streams as well as contaminated soil
or sediment fractions.
Introduction to Unit Processes
The purpose of this section is to provide the reader with an understanding of some of the tools
available to achieve the desired volume reduction. Much of the philosophy of volume reduction
comes from hundreds of years of mining experience worldwide. Miners are faced with
problems similar to those encountered in remediation. Miners must handle a very diverse
range of feed materials to recover small amounts of valuable minerals. The remediation
engineer has the same challenge; to remove small amounts of contaminants from complicated
and diverse feeds. Central to all mining operations is sizing. Sizing is central to processing
since oversize interferences must be removed prior to further treatment. The development of
a process flowsheet for the miner or remediator progresses first from simple operations to more
complicated. The most complicated (and costly) steps are reserved for the smallest (and most
prepared) fraction. Volume reduction uses a fundamental understanding of the physical and
chemical characteristics of the feed soil or sediment and a simple, inexpensive treatment train
to remove clean material. This results in a smaller mass of contaminated material to be either
further treated or disposed. When properly employed, this process results in significant cost
savings. The major flowsheet dMsions can be referred to as physical separation, physical and
chemical separation, and chemical extraction. These major divisions represent increasing
complexity and cost. The focus for this document is on physical separation, but
physical/chemical and extraction processes may be referred to peripherally.
3

-------
Chapter 1 Overview of Unit Processes
Physical separation in the strictest sense is separation on the basis of differences in physical
characteristics of materials, particularly size, density and magnetic properties. Inherent surface
chemistry differences are also sometimes utilized, as in froth flotation. Flotation and chemical
extraction processes may be used in conjunction with physical separation. Particle-size and
density separations are overwhelmingly the most useful types of separations. This document
will concentrate predominantly on equipment supporting these two types of separation. Soil
washing treatment trains are generally composed of sequential treatment processes as dictated
by the nature of material being handled, the type and distribution of contamination, the end
objectives of the treatment process (regulatory requirements and material specifications), and
the ultimate disposition of processed material and residuals. There are five principal
components: pre-screening, size separation, density separation, solid/liquid separation and
solids dewatenng. Additional components, such as chemical extraction, may be required in
some cases. The five components are introduced here, and further discussed, along with
candidate equipment and equipment selection criteria, in Chapter 2.
Pre-Screening
Pre-screening refers to the removal, or reduction in size, of oversize materials from the bulk soil
or sediment that would interfere with downstream processing operations. Oversize materials
are roughly 50 mm in size or larger and require separate handling or disposal. Depending
upon the history of the site, oversize materials may consist chiefly of stones, tree limbs and
large clumps of soil, but may also include rubbish such as tires, concrete, plastics and even
refrigerators. Dredged material and landfill soils are typically replete with a variety of non-
natural objects. Firing ranges may harbor large unexploded ordnance.
The pre-screening stage of the treatment train may involve one or more of the following
elements: feed hoppers, fixed bar screens (grizzlies), rotating trommel screens, comminutors,
attntioners, log washers and hand picking. Fixed bar screens, trommels and hand picking are
processes for achieving gross size separation. Comminutors and log rollers are size reduction
processors. Attntioners are somewhat analogous to grinding mills, but their function is to free
the particles from within agglomerated materials rather than reduce the size of the mineral
particles. Handpicking is the utilization of manual labor to visually observe incoming materials
and to remove, by hand, designated components. Handpicking of field oversize is the most
unsophisticated, yet often the most efficient, method of removing troublesome debris. The
laborers may be assigned to work at the point of excavation or along a particular run of
conveyor belt. Handpicking should be considered when equipment design is very difficult,
unavailable, or costly.
Primary Physical Size Separation
Size separation is the core of the soil washing process. Because many contaminants associate
chiefly with the finer soil fractions, separation of sand size particles (> 75 pm) from silts and
clays (75 pm and smaller) is typically the foundation on which the remainder of the soil washing
treatment train is established and refined. (Pre-screening is, in part, a preliminary size
separation step.) Sands, silts and clays also differ mineralogically, and therefore chemically.
Separation of these soil fractions permits tailoring of subsequent treatment processes to the
fraction being treated. In some cases, a portion of the soil will be relatively uncontaminated.
Size separation then reduces the volume which must undergo further treatment or controlled
disposal, resulting in significant cost savings. In other cases, size separation might be utilized
4

-------
Chapter 1. Overview of Unit Processes
to remove a contaminated fraction which cannot be successfully treated from uncontaminated
fractions, or fractions which are amenable to treatment.
Size separation equipment may include one or more of the following processes: screens (fixed
or vibrating, wet or dry), hydrocyclones and sieve bends. Screens separate particles
predominantly on the basis of size and shape, as distinct from classifiers, which separate on
the basis of size, shape and density. Certain screen configurations may be influenced by
material density as well, however.
Density Separation
Density separations are useful in cases where there are significant density differences between
contaminated and uncontaminated soil or sediment fractions, or between the soil/sediment
matrix and the contaminants (as with fractions contaminated with heavy metals, or containing
residual munitions fragments). Minimum specific gravity differences between the materials to
be separated are required for density separation to be effective. This minimum value is a
function of the equipment utilized to effect the separation. A density separation circuit might
include: spiral concentrators, mineral jigs, multi-gravity separators, dense media, shaking
tables, or a pinched sluice. Spiral concentrators and jigs are the most commonly utilized in
soiVsediment remediation processes. Shaking tables are useful for diagnostic work, but would
typically not be included in a full scale treatment train. Dense media is used at full scale in
mining processes, but media is expensive and the residuals likely to be problematic in most
soil/sediment processing operations.
Solid/Liquid Separation
Soil washing, as the name suggests, requires processing the soil or sediment in an aqueous
slurry. The volumes of water introduced to the process to achieve effective separations can
be considerable. Gross separation of the solids and liquids is necessary to prepare solid
residuals for more extensive dewatering treatments and to permit treatment or recycle of the
process water. The distinction between solid/liquid separation and solids dewatering is not
entirely clear cut, but is largely a function of the efficiency of the process. Processes resulting
in a thickened sludge (perhaps 25% to 35% solids) are classified here as solid/liquid separation
processes. More efficient processes, resulting in dryer product, are treated under dewatering.
A solid/liquid separation stage might include one or more of the following: clarifiers,
sedimentation basins, lamella clarifiers and flotation cells.
Solids Dewatering
Dewatering of solid residuals is necessary to produce a final product with good handling
characteristics. Solids concentrations of 45% to 80% are possible, depending upon the size
of the material and the dewatenng processes used. Fine materials are most difficult to dewater
and typically represent a significant portion of overall processing costs. A dewatering circuit
might utilize one or more of the following: screens, belt filter presses, plate and frame filter
presses, centrifuges, screw classifiers and rotary vacuum filters.
5

-------
Chapter 1. Overview of Unit Processes
Treatment Trains
The principal soil washing processes would be assembled in a treatment train according the
decision process outlined in Figure 1-1. A schematic representation of a typical treatment train
is illustrated in Figure 1-2. A more complete discussion of treatment trains and the factors
influencing the addition of various unit processes is contained in Chapter 3 Treatment Trains
and Cost Estimation.
Planning for Field Operations: Material Handling and Processing
Interfaces
In addition to selecting suitable unit processes for the material to be treated, consideration must
be given to field operations. Materials management for a soil washing plant is particularly
important if field operations are to progress smoothly and treatment is to be effective.
Operational interfaces, containment, residuals management and process validation are all
important elements of the planning/feasibility evaluation process.
Interface between Excavation/Dredging, Staging, Blending and Processing
Recognizing that material handling activities are directly related to processing is important.
Excavation should not proceed independently of planning for effective pre-treatment, staging,
plant feeding and treatment. If the interdependence of excavation and treatment is not
considered and anticipated, soils could become piled in a huge staging area, where potential
“hot-spots” (highly contaminated areas) are lost, problem soils are masked, and the pre-
treatment/treatment manager has lost flexibility to control plant feeds.
The excavation plan will define locations for the placement of soils awaiting treatment. Staging
areas for the feed material should be identified and should be located near the plant to optimize
loading/hauling/feeding. Several staging areas may be required depending upon the source
material, distances to the treatment facility, and the amount of pre-treatment required prior to
introduction of the soils into the plant. Any treatment plant, irrespective of the unit operations
used, will be designed for a certain range of feed characteristics. For soil treatment plants
described herein, the most important feed control parameters are soil type and contaminant
concentration. Thus, the remediator should do everything practical to arrange the feed piles
to match the design feed characteristics of the treatment plant. This is done by managing the
feed pile in discrete volumes, using field analytical tools to measure important parameters, and
blending discrete piles to match, as well as possible, the design feed requirements. This
blending should not be confused with dilution. Feed soils are blended to balance the
contaminant load to the plant and optimize performance.
A common scenario is as follows: soils are excavated and placed on a raw soil pad; raw soils
are prescreened to remove gross oversize material; the oversize is moved to a designated
staging area; the undersize is moved to a feed soil staging pad to await introduction into the
plant. On upland sites, soils may have already been excavated and staged, white others may
be in urban industrial areas with large amounts of backfilled debris. Also, hydraulically and
mechanically dredged feeds will differ substantially. Knowledge of the excavation/dredging plan
can suggest methods and requirements of material handling and transfer that will simplify the
pre-treatment and make the processing interfaces more efficient.
6

-------
I Prescreening
grizzlyl to 6”
I 2” screening plant feed
Trommel Vibrating screen
I Plant feed hopper I
• Variable speed floor
r Course deck: 318” to 314 ”
o further
Single or triple deck{ Mid deck: 4mm Coarse and 4 , ,
wet-vibrating
eatment
oversize fraction
screen Sand deck: Ito 2 mm
Sludge cake
• direct disposal Sludge Fines and and fines fraction Treat with d
_____________________________ ensity separation:
- further treatment ________________ ______
-blo jDewatering}4— settling single or in series coarse or fine jigs
____ Fines clarification arid]4 IHydrocyclone separation:
- stabilization _______________________________
4 ,Sand
- extraction ter See sheet 2:
Water W
Yes 0
Sand treament
Water——- fDewater I
Cleatroduct
(p
Figure 1-la. General aspects of a physical separation treatment train (continued on the following page).
C
-‘:1
C-)
C D
0)
(1)
CD

-------
C’ean product
Figure 1 -lb. General aspects of a physical separation treatment train (continued from previous
page).
C)
CD
0
CD
0
C
-o
0
C)
( 0
0
0
CD
0

-------
0
:r
CD
CD
0
Figure 1-2. Treatment Train 1, simple physical separation.
TROMMEL FIELD
SCREEN OVERSIZE
PRE-SCREENED FEED
PUMP
PUMP

-------
Chapter 1 Overview of Unit Processes
Containment of Feed, Products, and Residuals
Staging areas may require a liner/concrete pad arrangement to protect groundwaters or surface
waters from run-off or infiltration. In cases where the contaminants can be demonstrated as
immobile, the pad/liner arrangement may be avoided. Consideration must also be given to
weather conditions and periods of operation to protect feeds from heavy rains or freezing
conditions. Feed piles are usually managed with front-end loaders; consideration must be
given to bucket scraping on the underiayment such that liners or subbase are not damaged in
the process. Staging areas can be easily segregated by the use of precast concrete dividers
to maintain the integrity of the produced volumes.
Residuals
Both solid and liquid residuals produced by soil washing processes should be given serious
consideration prior to implementation of soil washing as a remediation process. Considerable
volumes of water are introduced during the soil washing process. While process water is
frequently recycled through the treatment train to minimize water usage, treatment to remove
solubilized and particulate contaminants is typically required both prior to recycle and prior to
ultimate release. Processing costs associated with this treatment can be significant. Further
separation of the most contaminated soil or sediment fraction results in a concentration effect.
Contaminant concentrations per unit mass will be higher in the contaminated fraction after
separation than they were in the bulk soil or sediment matrix. As a result, the regulatory
classification of the material may be affected, requiring additional treatment or controlled
disposal. Again, significant costs can be incurred as a result.
Bench-Scale Process Validation
All soil remediation projects require bench-scale validation work before implementation. It is
essential to work with the soil matrix, to perform particle-size distribution tests, to analyze the
chemical constituents, to determine the form of the contamination, and to run each unit
operation in the proposed flowsheet. It is important that each contractor bidding on a project
be allowed to perform indMdual testing. If one set of data is to be used, common agreement
on such data is essential. More information on process validation is found under the headings
“Step 2’ and “Step 5” in the feasibility evaluation process section of this chapter.
Field Analytical Support
While a voluminous amount of analytical data has been generated on most sites, the
characterization data often does not fully represent soils delivered to a treatment plant. Thus,
simple, quick-turnaround analytical capability must be provided to the plant to quantify actual
key contaminant feed concentrations. The principal analytical tools available include x-ray
fluorescence (XRF) for metals, field gas chromatography (GC) for organics, soil gas detectors,
portable radiological survey meters, colorimetnc devices, and immunoassay for organics. All
of these tools can be correlated with full laboratory protocol methods to provide a reasonable
level of confidence in the results. These tools are not intended to replace standard analytical
protocols for regulatory compliance. They are used to control and manage the feed in a
balanced manner.
10

-------
Chapter 1. Overview of Unit Processes
Overview of Feasibility Evaluation Process for Physical
Separation
A systematic conceptual procedure for evaluating the suitability of physical separation for a
given soil or sediment is requisite to successful implementation. Figure 1-3 provides a
conceptual overview of this procedure, which begins with preliminary information gathering and
materials characterization followed by preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of physical
separation. If this evaluation is favorable, then more in depth information is gathered to support
a more detailed feasibility evaluation whose results can be assigned a greater degree of
confidence.
Step 1
Preliminary information needs, including the problem for which physical separation is being
considered, the volume of material and its sources, and the anticipated time line for handling
the material, must be clearly defined. The budgetary constraints, typically expressed either in
cost per unit volume, costs for the entire project, or as a cost/benefit analysis, must also be
assessed.
A review of existing site documents and discussions with personnel experienced in working on
the site should be used to define the contaminants or other undesirable characteristics of the
material that motivate the use of physical separation. The primary contaminants and pathways
for any ecological or human health risks that are important with regard to the material must be
kept in mind during the feasibility evaluation process. The site’s history (as well as published
information about similar sites) should be reviewed for clues to the distribution and disposition
of contaminants. All available information on how evenly the contaminants are likely to be
distributed should be gathered. For example, with regard to metals contamination, the
determination made must include if they were introduced to the environment in dissolved or
particulate form, what compounds/valence state they were in at that time and how long the
material has had to transform or “weather” in the environment. Data on the characteristics of
the bulk matrix, such as solids/moisture content, particle-size distribution (sand, silt, clay), redox
potential, concentrations of total organic carbon, acid volatile sulfide, and dissolved oxygen
should be collected. Even qualitative observations of the nature of the bulk matrix (e.g.,
“tarry’), if available, are better than a total absence of information.
The nature of the bulk matrix is important in drawing preliminary conclusions about the forms
in which the contaminants exist in the environment, how they may contribute to any observed
toxicity, and thus how they can best be separated or immobilized. Also, as part of the first
preliminary information gathering step, the potential beneficial-use applications for clean/treated
material should be assessed. Potential applications including shoreline stabilization, fill for
infrastructure projects (e.g., roads), wetlands creation, landfill cover and soil improvement for
agriculture should be considered in the context of the local/regional economy, geography
(Landin 1997) and regulatory climate. The requirements in terms of volume, scheduling, cost,
physical materials characteristics, toxicity, and contaminant concentration/mobility for each
application that appears feasible should be assessed. Similar information should be gathered
about non-beneficial disposal options that can serve as a basis for comparison of the beneficial-
use options or could be used for disposal of the contaminated fraction of the material following
a physical separation process. Disposal options may include open water disposal
(EPNUSACE 1991 and 1998), confined disposal facilities either upland, near-shore or in-water,
11

-------
Step 2:
PRELIM NARY
MATERIALS
CHARACTERIZATION
* Define type, number. and
alao of aemple
• S Iect 101(1 based on
Step wWcin will include
the Iotowing.
a) PartIcle ,ize dlattibutlort
b Contaminant dlslrlb ,(lon
icroe; particle izsa
c) Meacuree Of
coi,tamlnant mobility
(Ieachlrr testa?) arid
toxIcIty
Step 5:
DETAILED
ES IS I I. IT
EVALUATION
the malarIal amenable to
physIcal treatment or to phy lcaI
treatment corn gined wIth another unIt
— process?
What unIt proceoses!treatment trains appear
feasible?
Can the tnctrnlcaily tsa Ible
approach meet ptrr}ec.t
bud ge tlco s t -be r metit
requirements 7
Step 3:
PRELIMINARY
TECHNICAL AND
BU D D EIARY
FEESIE1LITY
EVALUATION
Is the material amenable to phynical Evaluate other
treatment or to phySical treatment combined technology types or
with anolh,r jnit process? re-evaluate project
What unit proceea.eftreatm.ot (caine requirements
appear feasible?
Can tire technically feasIble
approach meet project
b t idget/cQ Ot -banefi t
requirem ants?
Yes
Step 5:
GAThERING ADDITIONAL
0 ETA
* More detalted speciFIcation For a
given end use
Characterize addilieha sample,
for particle size, contaminant
di5tributiOn, or
Do more in-depth trealability
tests For specific Unit processes or
treatment trains
Yes (actonresI,lt8 result8
Slap 1:
GATHERtNG PRELIMINARY
INFORMATION
What volume oF material mud be
handled, and from whet location?
What end-use opeorta islet tot
th, material?
What critoriC miter hi mel (or
each and u se?
What 1* the sites history?
What risk pathwayalcontaminanta
appear moat Imp rtaflt at this
site?
What technology optiOne can be
considered?
What ar, lire economic.
budgetary, and poilical
requirements?
Wirer ptrysical sod chemical
materials ctnaracteri?ation is
available?
Figure 1 -3. Feasibility evaluation process.
C-)
(0
1
0
0
C
-El
C
C)
CD
U)
(It
(1 ?
0)

-------
Chapter 1 Overview of Un Processes
and upland disposal in municipal or hazardous waste landfills. As a rule of thumb, upland
disposal and beneficial reuse options have traditionally been regulated based on a comparison
between measured concentrations of contaminants of concern in the bulk material (or eluted
concentrations) and ‘look-up” tables of values developed based on risk considerations. On the
other hand, aqueous disposal options for sediments are generally regulated based on the
toxicity of the whole material (EPNUSACE 1991 and 1998). In either case, determination of
available disposal alternatives is a regulatory issue which may significantly impact process
economics.
In addition, the range of technologies available to address the handling of the material in
question needs to be defined. While this document will provide a good overview of the
available physical technologies and their stage of development, chemical, biological and
thermal processes should also be considered both as alternatives to and complements to the
physical technologies.
Step 2
The second step as shown on Figure 1-3 is a preliminary materials characterization. This step
is analogous to the “Physical Prescreening” described in EPA’s “Guide for Conducting
Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Washing, Interim Guidance” (USEPA 1991 b). The
data needs that this step will address will be defined in large part by the information gathered
in Step 1. In most cases, the volume of the material requiring treatment and the level of
contamination it contains will have been defined well enough to support a preliminary feasibility
evaluation. However, in many cases vital information for the evaluation of physical separation
processes such as particle-size distribution and the distribution of contaminants among particle-
size classes is not available from site documents. At this stage, characterizing the mobility
(leaching) of the contaminants of interest or their toxicity (depending on applicable regulatory
scheme) for each particle-size class may be beneficial. An evaluation of the handling
characteristics of the bulk material may also be desirable, either based on the qualitative
observations of laboratory personnel or on geotechnical testing. Other parameters such as clay
content, liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) may be of qualitative interest but may not be of
practical use if they cannot be directly correlated to equipment selection.
Soils will always be characterized by type (gravels, sands, clays, silts, and so on) and quantified
by the soil particle-size distribution (ASTM 422D). The particle-size distribution curve will
typically be generated by sieving the material through each of ten successively smaller sieves.
The material retained on each sieve is dried and weighed. The masses are then plotted on
semilog paper, and the particle-size curve results. A particle-size curve always reports masses
with 0% moisture or 100% dry matter. When mass balances are created, moisture must be
factored back in. Contaminant distribution with respect to particle size and/or density will be a
determining factor in the feasibility of achieving product specifications using only physical
separation. Soils and sediments with contamination distributed over all particle sizes may
require additional treatment to produce a clean product. Materials with contamination chiefly
confined to a limited size fraction can typically be treated with physical separation alone. The
relative volume of contaminated to clean material, however, is a key determinant to the
economic viability of the process. Disposal costs of contaminated materials and process
streams must be factored into the economic analysis.
Characterizing the material to be processed is also a critical intermediate step between
determining product specifications and developing a treatment train. Guidance has been
13

-------
Chapter 1. OveMew of Unit Processes
developed and is being further refined for addressing this step but at a minimum will require
particle-size distribution and contam nant distribution analysis. Demonstrated approaches to
this intermediate step were developed in the Netherlands (where some of the earliest
application of soil washing to soils and sediments took place). Two such procedures are the
Fingerprint Method (developed by Heidemij Realisatie, now ARCADIS Realisatie) and the TDG
test (developed by ARCADIS Realisatie and TNO Institute of Environmental and Energy
Technology). The Fingerprint Method is a pilot-scale method that uses sequential hydrocyclone
separations to fractionate a sample into various (typically six) particle-size classes. These
classes may then be further subdivided according to density by gravity separation. The
distribution of contaminants across all the various size and density fractions (11 in one case)
is then determined. The results of this procedure are then used to design a full-scale treatment
system that is optimized to isolate the most contaminated material from the bulk of the material,
which can often be beneficially reused. This procedure has been applied more than twenty
times by ARCADIS in the Netherlands (Bovendeur et al. 1991, Bovendeur and Mozley 1993,
Bovendeur and Visser 1993).
The TDG test is a more simplified, small-scale procedure in which a wet screening step is used
to produce three size fractions. The intermediate fraction (63 to 500 microns) is then gravity
separated into three subtractions. The contaminant distribution over the resulting five fractions
is then determined, and the results are used similarly to determine the optimum remedial
approach (Feenstra et al. 1995).
The Waterways Experiment Station (WES) is working to develop a method to streamline the
analysis and reduce costs. The method involves limiting the size and density of the cuts to only
the critical fractions (i.e., cuts that separate the mineralogically different size and density
fractions). For example the transition from silt to sand occurs at 63 or 75 microns, depending
upon the standard used, and from clay to silt at roughly 2 to 3 microns. These fractions behave
differently in their ability to hold contaminants. Significant density separations would be made
to separate organic material (SG < 1.8) and metal particulates (SG> 3.0) from the mineral
fraction.
No list of tests applicable to every site can be formulated. Rather, the list of required tests
should be formulated using the professional judgment of persons familiar with physical
separation technologies and the background of the sites. Once a set of tests to be perlormed
is selected, the right number, volume, and type of soil or sediment samples should be collected
to be tested so that they will be representative. In this sampling stage the most major problems
with physical separation projects occur. The sampling and compositing must be guided by a
well-thought-out plan prepared by an engineer with experience in full-scale physical separation
and by an environmental chemist or geologist. The sampling plan must be executed by well-
trained, motivated personnel who understand the objectives of the project. In formulating a
sampling plan, careful consideration should be given to representing the type and range of
material that a hypothetical full-scale physical separation plant would receive as an input.
Serious errors can be made either by compositing portions of the site that would not be
composited during the excavation or dredging process, and thus potentially underestimating
the peak concentrations of contaminants, or by failing to composite areas of the site that would
be composited during the excavation or dredging process and thus potentially overestimating
the peak concentrations of contaminants that the plant would be required to treat. Sample
quantities, holding times, preservation methods, etc., must be coordinated with the analytical
and treatabifity laboratories involved during the writing of a sampling plan. Historic practices
at the site and its geographic and geologic nature are important considerations in formulating
14

-------
Chapter 1 Overview of Unft Processes
a sampling plan that will adequately represent the diversity of materials found at the site.
Statistical and practical considerations involved in representative sampling are beyond the
scope of this document. However, guidance can be found for sediments in the work of
Mudroch and Azcue (1995) and for surface soil in manuals prepared by USEPA (1996), USEPA
(1986), ASTM (1995), and the Soil Science Society of America (Petersen and Calvin 1996).
Step 3
Step 3 as shown in Figure 1-3 is the preliminary technical and budgetary feasibility evaluation.
Most of the material in this document is designed to help answer the questions that must be
posed in this step: “Is the soil or sediment amenable to physical treatment or to physical
treatment combined with another unit process? It so, which processes or treatment trains
appear feasible? Can any of the technically feasible processes which have been identified
meet budgetary or cost/benefit requirements?” Further guidance in addressing these questions
can be found in USEPA (1 991 a) and Anderson and Mann (1993).
If the answers to the questions posed in Step 3 indicate that no feasible physical process
exists, then other types of technologies (e.g., biological, chemical or thermal) must be
considered or the budgetary and technical goals for the project must be reexamined in light of
practicality. If the answers to the questions posed in Step 3 suggest that physical separation
is a feasible alternative for the site, then the certainty of that determination should be assessed.
Step 4
In this step, the confidence or certainty surrounding the preliminary positive feasibility
evaluation made in Step 3 should be assessed. Both the personnel involved in the work of
Steps 1 through 3 and independent technical reviewers should attempt to address the question,
“Is the basis for the positive evaluation sufficiently certain, given the stage of the
project/purpose of the evaluation?” If the answer to this question is positive, then the feasibility
evaluation has been successfully completed. If the confidence in the evaluation is not high,
most likely due to gaps in the information available on which to base the evaluation, the process
should continue to the next step.
Step 5
In Step 5 additional data is gathered to support a more detailed feasibility evaluation. Again
no “one size fits all” set of data gathering activities can be described. However, the preliminary
feasibility analysis by this point has probably narrowed the range of beneficial reuse and
disposal options, allowing a more detailed study to be made of the specifications and
requirements for a treated product to be put to a given end use, and the amount of material that
a given end use can handle at a given time.
Cost considerations may have forced compromises in the number of samples or types of tests
performed in Step 2. After a preliminary positive feasibility determination has been made, the
costs for a thorough program of sampling and analysis may be more easily justified.
The most important information gathering activity in Step 5, however, is likely to be more
extensive treatability testing in which the capabilities of individual unit processes and entire
treatment trains to handle the material of interest is assessed either at the lab pilot or field pilot
15

-------
Chapter 1 Overview of Unit Processes
scales. For example, where in Step 2 a bench-scale sieve and hydrometer based particle-size
separation was used, here in Step 5 a pilot scale separation involving sieves, hydrocyclones,
and spiral density separators may be carried out. Further information on this process can be
found in later sections of this document as well as in USEPA (1991 b), Feenstra et al. (1995),
and Bovendeur et a!. (1991). This step can be considered to roughly parallel the remedy
selection treatability studies described by USEPA.
Step 6
Based on the further information obtained in Step 5, the technical and budgetary feasibility
evaluation would be revised. The questions addressed here are the same as in Step 3: “Is the
soil or sediment amenable to physical treatment or to physical treatment combined with another
unit process? If so, which processes or treatment trains appear feasible? And can any of the
technically feasible processes which have been identified meet budgetary or cost and benefit
requirements?” Step 6 will result in a more detailed determination of the feasibility of the
process which, after an evaluation of the confidence level of that determination, can lead to
appropriate action (i.e., proceed to engineering design of a treatment system).
16

-------
2 Equipment Selection and Operating
Factors
General Selection Criteria
Equipment selection for physical separation of contaminated soils and sediments requires that
a number of interdependent parameters be reconciled. As discussed in chapter 1, selection
should begin with the desired product specifications (e.g., percent fines, maximum acceptable
contaminant levels for a given beneficial use) and maximum allowable capital and operating
costs. Then work backwards to identify equipment options suitable to the characteristics of the
material being processed, capable of providing the necessary capacity and efficiencies, and
with capital and operating costs falling within the proposed project budget.
None of the unit processes available is capable of producing a perfect “cut.” All are subject to
varying levels of efficiency which are a function of the type of equipment, material
characteristics, and the loading. Series installations may be necessary to refine the separation
to satisfactory levels, or parallel installations may be required for sufficient capacity. These
determinations are best made by testing the material to be treated in equipment of the same
size selected for the treatment train and optimizing the operating parameters. Since these
determinations are not always possible without first purchasing equipment, the planner must
rely heavily on the expertise of the equipment and technology vendors in making reasonable
initial equipment choices and the results of bench or pilot scale testing. The system so
assembled will probably require some additional modifications once set up and running in the
field.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide more detailed information about key unit processes
in a standardized format. This information was mostly derived from vendor literature and
handbooks. Each unit process for which there is adequate information is treated in a common
format that provides information such as:
1) a brief restatement of the nature of the unit process,
2) a photo (if available),
3) feed material specifications,
4) capacity,
5) description of the various types of equipment available for each unit process,
6) waste/product streams produced,
7) operating variables,
8) physical size of the equipment,
9) cost (if available),
10) general comments,
17

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
11) position in flow sheet, and
12) vendor names. (Address and phone information are given in Appendix B, Equipment
and Technology Sources.)
Costs were converted to January 1998 US dollars, using Chemical Engineering Plant Cost
Index (CE Index). In many cases, vendors are reluctant to provide generalized cost estimates.
Therefore, cost estimates are based on best available information and must be confirmed and
refined for specific applications. One limitation of the Western Mine Engineering (1996) cost
reference is that some of the equipment is of a type and scale relevant chiefly to large mining
operations. This limitation does not present a problem for much of the milling equipment such
as screens, screw classifiers and filters, but conveyor size and costs contained in this reference
are clearly beyond the scale required for most soil or sediment treatment plants. In addition,
there are a wide variety of pumps, hydrocyclones, and other pieces of equipment available in
the marketplace, all of which could not be represented in a consolidated reference such as this.
Ultimately, the only way to assess the breadth of equipment available is to contact vendors
individually about equipment tailored to specific project needs. Generic cost references,
however, do a reasonable job of defining the broad ranges of capacities available and
associated cost as a function of capacity.
The reader should be aware that while physical separation is applicable to sediments as well
as soils, much of the information discussed here is taken from mineral processing technology,
which is more closely related to soils than to sediments. Sediments tend to present additional
handling concerns and possible increased expense. For example, sediments often have a
“sticky” nature that could be problematic in equipment such as a grizzly or trommel where the
material is not yet in slurry form. Clay balls are commonly encountered in hydraulically dredged
sediments and could pose processing problems. Transport and storage of wet sediment may
also require different handling and containment procedures. As would also be true for some
uncompacted soils, confined disposal facilities (CDFs) may not provide a stable staging area,
and off site operations may be necessary.
Pre-Processi ng
Feed Hoppers
Feed hoppers are the logical starting point of moving raw, “as-excavated” soils into the
treatment train. Feed hoppers are one of the most overlooked aspects of most plants because
they are believed to be simple boxes that start soils to the more complicated downstream steps.
Nothing could be further from the truth. More projects have failed because of poorly designed
feed hoppers than any other aspect of the process. Feed hoppers must be selected with an
awareness of the type of soil to be introduced.
The predominant feed hopper design for soil washing is the walking floor or conveyor. A sloped
bottom hopper is mounted above a variable speed chevron conveyor belt. The hopper should
have an adjustable feed discharge door. This adjustable door and the variable speed belt allow
control of the feed rate by controlling the cross-sectional area of the feed on the belt as well as
the belt speed. Feed characteristics will determine the preferred control method.
18

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment
Grizzlies (Fixed-Bar Screens)
One of the first unit operations in the typical pre-screening treatment train is the fixed-bar
screen or grizzly. Gnzzlies are large screens (grates) consisting of fixed parallel bars, usually
100 to 200 mm apart (Osborne 1990). In mineral processing operations, grizzlies appear
before the primary crushing operations to minimize the material passing through the crusher
by removing the oversize material. In soil/sediment treatment operations, gnzzlies primarily
serve to screen out large cobbles and debris often present in feed materials. A grizzly may be
incorporated as part of the first feed hopper or may be a stand alone piece of equipment, fed
by front end loader and evacuated by loader or conveyor as shown in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1. Grizzly in series with a screen (provided courtesy of
Powerscreen of Florida, Inc.).
Feed material specifications -
Specific gravity - n/a
Solids content - Usually fed dry or at prevalent site water content.
Washwater - Not typically applied to gnzzlies.
Particle-size ranges - Grizzly bars are usually spaced 1 “to 2” (2.54 to 5.08 cm) apart.
Capacity - Limited primarily by loading equipment.
Type - Site built gnzzlies are usually stationary bars. Vibrating grizzly bars promote product
and oversize movement.
19

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Waste/product streams - Oversize material is either retained on the grizzly for hand picking
or slides from the inclined face of the grizzly bars.
Operating variables/parameters - Parameters for vibrating grizzlies include amplitude and
frequency of vibration. The dimensions of oversize material will be determined by the spacing
of the bars.
Size - Not limited with respect to size but may typically be approximately 12’ x 12’ (3.66 m by
3.66 m).
Cost, capital and operating - Western Mine Engineering (1996) gives capital costs for
vibrating gnzzlies with deck sizes ranging from 3’ x 5’ to 6’ x 20’ (1 m x 1.5 m to 1.8 m by 6 m)
as $19,230 to $86,920 with operating and maintenance costs ranging from $1.38 to $6.25/hr.
General comments - Grizzly bars may be installed on vibrating assemblies; undersize product
flowing between the bars. Minimum spacing nominally 1.5” (3.81 cm). Stationary bars are
often installed over bins and hoppers. They are typically fed with a front end loader.
Flowsheets - Gnzzlies are normally the first stage in the treatment train as shown in the
generalized process flow diagram, Figure 1-1.
Vendors - Triple/S Dynamics Inc.
Trommels
Trommels (Figure 2-2) are rotating screens consisting of cylindrical, slotted drums. Oversize
material passes through the central axis of the drum, while undersize material passes through
the slots of the drum. Trommel screens can be removed and modified to provide a removal
range of 25 to 75 mm. Trommels can be arranged in series to achieve successively larger or
smaller separations by feeding either the oversize or the undersize to the next trommel. The
angle of the drum and the rotating speed can be adjusted to improve performance. Moderately
sized trommels have a throughput rate of approximately 100 tons per hour. While trommels
are relatively inefficient, they are ideal for preparing feed soils for further treatment. Clay can
be problematic, and attention must be given to application of enough energy to force feeds to
their natural particle size to overcome agglomeration.
Feed material specifications -
Specific gravity - Not limited.
Solids content - Feed to trommel is normally dry or at prevailing site conditions.
Washwater - Not typically used in soiVsediment separations.
Particle-size ranges - EPA’s ARCS guidance document (1 994b) indicates a maximum
feed size of 4 cm and a target separation range of 0.006 to 0.055 cm.
20

-------
C apts 2. Equipment Se’ection and Operating Factors
Capacity - Western Mine Engineering (1996) gives capacities for fixed trommels at 40 to 720
cy/hr and for mobile trommels at 25 to 500 cylhr.
Type - Trommels may be equipped with spikes or knives to aid in de-agglomeration or size
reduction.
Waste/product streams - Oversize material travels down the inside of the rotating trommel
and is discharged through a hopper at the end of the drum. Large agglomerates will discharge
with the oversize if they have not been reduced. Undersize material passes through the grate
of the trommel and is discharged through a separate hopper.
Size - Fixed trommels described range in size from 36-inch (91 .44-cm) diameter and 12 feet
(3.66 m) in length to 96-inch (243.84-cm) diameter and 44 feet (13.41 m) in length. (Western
Mine Engineering 1996)
Cost - capital and operating - Cost information is provided for both fixed and mobile trommels
(Western Mine Engineering 1996). Capital costs for fixed trommels range from $20,330 to
$203,300 and operating costs from about $1.00 to almost $1 3.20/hr. Unit capacity costs range
from approximately $300 to $500/cy/hr, with unit cost decreasing with increasing capacity.
Motors are additional.
Capital costs for mobile trommels range from approximately $81,000 to $1,321,000, and
operating costs from approximately $4.00 to $63.00/hr. Unit capacity costs range from
approximately $2,540 to $3,250/cy/hr. Additional capital cost is attributed to skid mounting and
auxiliary equipment included for the trommel operation. The reason for the higher operating
costs is not given. OthOr assumptions on which these cost ranges were based are contained
in Western Mine Engineering (1996).
Figure 2-2. Trommel (provided by ARCADIS Geraghty-Miller).
21

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Flowsheets - Trommets are typically used following a grizzly and, in soil and sediment
separations, in front of a screen.
Vendors - Triple/S Dynamics Inc.
Powerscreen of Florida, Inc.
Comminution
Comminution is a general term for size reduction that may be applied without defining the
actual mechanisms involved. The equipment that could be used in this area includes a wide
array of crushers, grinders, and mills. Even explosive shattering is, in fact, a comminution
technique. In soil treatment, these methods are rather infrequently employed. In remedial
applications, the field or prtcess oversize may be contaminated, requiring crushing or grinding
to process for the removal of target contaminants.
A reasonable rule of thumb for the lower size limit resulting from various size reduction
techniques is as follows: 1 m for explosives, 100 mm for primary crushing, 10 mm for
secondary crushing, 1 mm for coarse grinding, and 100 pm for fine grinding. Fine grinding will
create a small enough particle size such that treatment can be affected in most soil treatment
facilities. These processes are used on large volumes and are expensive on both capital and
operating cost levels. Power consumption is high. Common machines in this category include
jaw crushers, gyratory crushers, cone crushers, hammer mills, ball mills, rod mills, and
autogenous mills.
Autogenous grinding is the grinding of feeds by natural contact, rather than by using special
metallic or non-metallic grinding bodies distinct from the feed. Tumbling mills are autogenous
mills used where the ore (in remediation, feed soils) is used as the grinding media to produce
a feed of the desired size range. The mining industry learned that when autogenous grinding
was not effective, performance could be improved by adding a quantity of steel balls to the mill
in an amount of 2% to 10% of the mill volume. The use of the steel balls reduced the retention
time and energy requirement in the mill while producing an improved discharge.
Dispersion of agglomerates can often be performed effectively in comminution equipment. For
soil remediation applications, clay soils and agglomerated soils may require additional input
energy to produce acceptable treatment plant feed. Hard rock oversize can work nicely instead
of steel balls. Trommel screens, modified to increase retention time, with the addition of field
oversize rock, are referred to in this document as SAG (semi-autogenous grinder) mills.
A log washer is another device used to break up clumps of agglomerated soil. It consists of two
rotating parallel logs with steel projections (spikes). This action results in coarse attntioning of
the material.
Attritioners or attrition mills are machines that are used in remediation applications to grind
materials in the coarse fraction to insure that agglomerated materials are driven to their natural
particle size. Often, clays and silts can be bound together from waste formation pressures or
in-place stress making the agglomerated mass appear to a screen or hydrocyclone as sand
particles. Through the use of the attntioner, grinding forces are placed upon the input soils,
reducing the materials to inherent particle sizes. Attritioning is synonymous with abrading, that
22

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
is using the soils as the media affecting the grinding. Attritioners can be classified as rotating-
disk, fluid, and abrading sand machines. The most commonly used in remediation applications
are of the rotating-disk type.
Particle-Size SeparatorslClassifiers
Screens
In a volume reduction operation, screens will be used for grading (sizing) material, though they
may also have dewatenng applications. When slurry is fed onto a screen, particles larger than
the screen apertures (oversize matenal) pass across the screen. Particles smaller than the
aperture (undersize) pass through. Because contaminants very often (but not always)
associate predominantly with fine materials, which have high surface area and activity,
coarse/fine separations are typical of the majority of volume reduction operations. Desirable
“cuts” will be determined by the contaminant distribution with respect to particle-size and the
required fines content in the finished material.
Screens will usually appear at more than one point in the treatment train, beginning with very
large screens to remove field oversize materials, followed by finer screens to make the desired
coarse and fine cut(s). The smallest practical size for screening is approximately 1 mm (1000
pm). While vibrating screens are available down to 500 pm, they are very large and difficult
to operate. It is not feasible to use mechanical screens for separations smaller than 500
microns.
Screens may be stationary, reciprocating, or vibrating, and either wet or dry operation. High
pressure spray bars on the screens are advantageous to break up agglomerated materials.
(See Figure 2-3.) Deck material and configuration vary. Primary selection factors are required
aperture and percentage of open area, which varies in practice from 30 to 80% of the total
screen area (Osborne 1990). However, aperture shape, weave and hole pattern must also be
considered. Screen manufacturers are the best resource for these determinations. Ultimately,
a pilot test of the material to be processed is advisable if performance is to be adequately
evaluated prior to selection.
The most widely applicable deck is the wedge wire cross-flow deck (Osborne 1990). Other
mediums are rubber, polyurethane, woven wire (square or slotted holes), and perforated plates
(round, square or slotted holes). While demonstrating good wear characteristics, the non-
metallic surfaces all share the disadvantage of reduced open area with decreasing aperture.
Screens are very durable, with long useful lives, and are generally designed so that the
perforated decks can be replaced for process changes or when worn.
Feed rate and separation efficiency are the two primary design criteria for screens (Osborne
1990). There are a number of empirical relations for sizing screens. Because screen capacity
is somewhat affected by the characteristics of the feed, however, capacity calculations should
be based on a pilot run of representative feed materials (Osborne 1990). In general, capacity
is a function of the open area. Open area is, in turn, related to wire bar profile, in the case of
wire screens, and inclination. For feasibility level evaluations, only familiarity with the aperture
ranges of the different types of screens, typical separation and operational efficiencies, and
23

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
relative advantages and disadvantages of each type is necessary. Manufacturers are typically
in the best position to size equipment for final selection.
t eed material specifications -
Vibrating screen with wash water (provided
ARCADIS Geraghty-Miller).
Specific gravity - No restrictions were found in the vendor literature.
Solids content - Virtually any solids content may be fed to a screen. Moist solids tend to
cause blinding on the screen restricting throughput. Accessories such as heaters or ball
decks are often available to reduce blinding.
Washwater - A well-designed water spray system can increase screening capacity. Water
spray systems can generally be installed on any deck.
Particle-size ranges - Particle-size separation will be dependent on the cloth chosen for
the screen. Feed material should be free of particles greater than about 300 mm, or
smaller depending on screen size, to avoid damaging the screen. Screens may be
considered when the desired cut size is greater than about 25 pm.
Characteristics - Though not discussed extensively in vendor information, screens
generally remove top sizes from fines. Some nearsize fines entrainment can generally be
expected with the oversize because nearsize particulate will rarely strike the cloth at the
center of an opening. Physical damage to the screens may allow oversize particles to
discharge on lower screens or with the undersize product. Agglomerates will tend to
behave as a large particle unless broken up by washwater or other mechanical action.
-
Figure 2-3.
courtesy of
24

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Capacity - Screen capacity is a function of the feed particle-size distribution, density, moisture,
end product specifications, and other factors. Operational factors affecting capacity may
include screen selection, vibration frequency and amplitude, wash water distribution, and
flowrate. Pilot tests are often necessary to properly size equipment. Capacity may be up to
approximately 4.5 short tons per hour per sq. ft. for metallic ores and will vary for different
materials (Deurbrouck and Agey 1985).
Type -
Fixed Mechanical Screens - Fixed screens are mounted directly to the supporting
structure and rely on the input energy to the loading process to stratify the bed and to
perform the separation. Fixed screens are generally used for field screening to remove
field oversize. The screens in this category are relatively inefficient, but the low capital and
operating costs support their use.
Vibrating Screens - Vibrating screens, both inclined and horizontal, produce motion
perpendicular to the plane of the screen surface. Vibrating screens are shaken by low-
frequency motors mounted to the supporting frame. As the screening surface is vibrated,
the bed of the material tends to develop fluid-like characteristics. Smaller particles sift
through the void spaces and find their way to the bottom of the bed while larger particles
remain on the screen. This effect, called stratification, improves screening efficiency and
reduces on-deck retention time. Vibrating screens are enhanced by high pressure spray
bars that add an additional dimension to the stratification while also forming a slurry in the
bottom tank or “trough” of the screen. The wet, vibrating screen is particularly useful in
diverse soils with reasonable mass fractions of process oversize and coarse grained
materials.
Multiple-Decked Screens - Screening systems can be combined with multiple decks with
different slot sizes. Double-decked and triple-decked screens are commercially available.
These multiple-decked screens are particularly useful when a range of process oversize
products is desired.
Waste/product streams - Undersize material passes through the screens and discharges from
a chute or hopper with the bulk of slurry or washwater. Oversize material travels over the
screen discharging from the end of the screen which is usually fitted with a chute. Oversize
material is substantially dewatered when discharged from the screen.
Operating variables/parameters - The amount of water spray can be adjusted to affect the
screening capacity. The amplitude of vibration may generally be adjusted with weights
designed by the vendor. Some models are available with frequency adjustment as well. On
vibrating gyratory screens, the flow pattern may be adjusted with eccentric weights.
Size - Width 20” to 8’ (50.8 cm to 2.44 m). Length 4’ to 25’ (1.22 to 7.62 m). Inclined and
horizontal vibratory screens are available in discrete elements by vendor. Larger sizes can be
provided by some vendors when necessary. Vibrating gyratory screens are available from 24”
to 72” diameter (60.96 to 182.88 cm).
25

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operatinq Factors
Cost - capital and operating - Cost information is available for horizontal and inclined screens
and polyurethane and woven wire decks (Western Mine Engineering 1996). Capacity is given
in tons/hr sq.ft for screen openings ranging from 0.838 mm to approximately 100 mm, different
screen levels, and both wet and dry feed. Wet screening is typically necessary in soil/sediment
processing because of the need to break up agglomerated materials, and those costs are
referenced here. Horizontal screens with single or multiple decks ranging in size from 4 ft by
12 ft to 6 ft by 20 ft (1.22 m by 3.66 m to 1.83 m by 6.10 m) have capital costs ranging from
approximately $20,330 to $60,990 and operating costs of $1.52 to $4.57/hr. Inclined screens
with polyurethane decks ranging in size from 4 ft by 8 ft to 8 ft by 20 ft (1 .22 m by 2.44 m to
2.44 m by 6.10 m) have capital costs ranging from approximately $17,300 to $97,600 and
operating costs ranging from approximately $1.00 to $6.60/hr. Capital costs for inclined deck
with woven wire screens range from approximately $14,700 to $81,300; operating costs range
from approximately $1.00 to $6.10/hr. Motors are included in these costs.
Unit capacity costs are difficult to estimate because capacity is a function of deck material as
well as operating conditions, and given capacities are not referenced to a specific deck.
However, if a double deck is assumed with a screen opening of 0.838 mm and a capacity of
0.21 tons/hr sq.tt. average, 1) cost for a horizontal screen will range from approximately $1,010
to $1 ,220/ton/hr capacity, 2) cost for an inclined screen, polyurethane deck, will range from
approximately $1,220 to $1 ,420/tonfhr capacity, and 3) cost for an inclined screen, woven wire
deck, will range from approximately $690 to $71 0/ton/hr capacity. Generally, the larger screens
have slightly lower unit capacity costs, but this is not true in every case. Unit capacity cost
spread is relatively small, however, when compared to other equipment. Other assumptions
on which these cost ranges were based are contained in Western Mine Engineering (1996).
General comments - Accessories to effect feed distribution such as chutes or spreaders are
generally available. Additional accessories include ball trays to reduce blinding with damp and
nearsize matenal, screen heaters to prevent blinding with damp material, and dust enclosures.
Units may generally be suspended or platform mounted. Models are available with one to five
decks.
Flowsheets - Vibrating screens are typically placed after a grizzly and before processes which
classify contaminated sands and fines.
Vendors - Triple/S Dynamics Inc.
Midwestern Industries, Inc.
Dorr-Oliver Inc.
W. S. Tyler, Inc.
SW EGO Products
Macon Wire/DEWCO
Hydrocyclones
A hydrocyclone is a simple cone shaped device with no internal moving parts used primarily to
classify but also to clarify or dewater solids from a slurry feedstream. Slurry is fed into the cone
of the hydrocyclone (Figure 2-4), entering tangentially at the side. The heavy material is forced
to the interior wall of the cone and moves downward in a spiral path, exiting at the bottom
through the apex or spigot (underflow). As a result of the strong centrifugal forces, a central
26

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Se’ection anu Operaunq 1-aciors
MoIdd
Ap.x ss..rnbly
Figure 2-4. Section view of a hydrocyclone (provided courtesy of
Krebs Engineers).
27
InI.t pr..sur. gauge
Vortex flnd.r
Metal

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operatinq Factors
vortex is formed into which smaller materials are carried by the fluid out the top of the cone
through the vortex finder (overflow).
Feed material specifications -
Specific gravity - Separation requires a difference in specific gravity of the fluid and the
particulate. All else being equal, greater differences in specific gravity result in easier
separations. Most nomographs are generated assuming a specific gravity of 2.7 for solids
in water.
Solids content - Hydrocyclone feed slurry solids content typically ranges from
approximately 15 to 30% solids by weight. Operation is most efficient with a dilute, low-
viscosity feed which results in a finer particle size cut. General recommendations are to
maintain slurry below 35% solids by volume.
Washwater - n/a
Particle-size ranges - Approximately 2 - 250 pm cut. No information was identified in the
product literature regarding top size; however, the diameter of the apex, where coarse
solids are discharged, should be considered when evaluating feed suitability. Largest
particles entering hydrocyclone should generally be no more than half the size of the apex.
Capacity - 0.2 - 2500 m 3 lhr (0.9 - 1100 gpm). Throughput is roughly correlated to size; smaller
diameter units are required to achieve fine cut sizes. Pressure drop (head) can also be
adjusted to manage throughput but this alters the cut size. Capacities for Mozley brand
hydrocydones are 0.1 - 1.2 m 3 /hr for Cl 55-one inch (2.54 cm), 8 - 28 m 3 /hr for 0516-five inch
(12.7 cm), 20 - 110 m 3 /hr for C630-ten inch (25.4 cm) (Carpco, Inc.).
Type - Available in poly and metal bodies, lined or unlined. Some models have
interchangeable or adjustable vortex finders and/or apex orifices and other interchangeable
hydrocyclone body parts.
Waste/product streams - Undert low discharge contains the “oversize” fraction. Underfiow
concentrations are usually limited to not more than 60% solids by volume. Overflow contains
the fine particulate and the bulk of the water. Nomographs give liquid and solid split for
hydrocyclones.
Operating variables/parameters - Operating variables include feed slurry solids content,
pressure, and inlet, apex and vortex finder areas. The primary operating variables affecting
hydrocyclone performance include pressure drop and viscosity. Changes in pressure drop are
generally affected by changing throughput. Pressure increase will increase throughput and
reduce the size of the cut point. Efficiency of separation is also increased, but at the expense
of energy consumption and component wear. Flow rate and pressure are also related to inlet
area. It is also important to maintain a constant feed rate. Constant volume pumps are
recommended for this application.
28

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Viscosity is affected by the solids content of the slurry. Temperature can also have a large
impact on viscosity. In addition, some models have an adjustable apex which helps control the
solids content of the undert low.
Size - Hydrocyclones are typically sized using the D 50 cut point. At this particle size, 50% of
the material will report to the underf low and 50% to the overflow. The result is a distribution,
rather than an absolute cut point. A smaller size cut can also be achieved by reducing the
vortex finder size. However, the cut is less sharp (a wider distribution) and the underilow
density also decreases because more water is then diverted to the apex. Underflow density
is also an important parameter. For a dilute undert low, the discharge from the spigot will form
a spray pattern. Higher underf low density will result in a “ropey” discharge, which has the effect
of minimizing the fines entrained in the underilow, but will force coarser material into the
overflow (lower efficiency of separation). It can be seen that these variations are opposite sides
of the same coin. The operating conditions will therefore be determined by whether the
characteristics of the overflow or the underf low are most important.
The nominal size (as listed by the manufacturer) of the cyclone selected is a function of the
particle-size cut desired. Within limits, the operating variables can be adjusted to achieve
different cut sizes and efficiencies. As a rule, the larger the diameter the coarser the cut:
roughly, 500 mm for 150 m cut, 250 mm for 75 m, 100 mm for 40 tim, and 25 mm for down
to 5 tm (Elliot 1991). This will vary, however, depending upon the arrangement of the
interdependent operating variables. Efficiency curves (percentage of a given particle size
reporting to undert low), capacity curves (throughput as a function of pressure and vortex finder
diameter) and volume split curves (volume of feed liquid to underf low at a given pressure, as
a function of vortex finder and spigot diameter) are performance indicators. These should be
used, at least initially, in hydrocyclone selection followed by pilot testing with a volume of
material large enough to be representative. (Selection is largely a judgement call, but will be
based on documented heterogeneity of the materials to be separated, total volume to be
treated, and budget). System verification is required because efficiency curves are established
for a given set of conditions. Actual performance may vary significantly.
Cost — capital and operating - Cost information is given for hydrocyclones ranging in size
from 4 to 28 inches (10.2 to 71.1 cm) in diameter. A 12-inch (30.5-cm) diameter is probably
the maximum encountered in soil/sediment processing) (Westem Mine Engineering 1996).
Costs differ depending on housing construction, including rubber lined cast iron/steel and
fiberglass/polyester, and unlined polyurethane. Capacity ranges from 20 to 2200 gpm, capital
costs from approximately $4,070 to $12,200, and operating costs from $0.05 to $0.1 5/hr. As
for centrifuges, unit capacity cost decreases with increasing size. For 10-inch (25.4 cm)
diameter and smaller hydrocyclones, costs range from roughly $23.40 to $230.00/gpm. For
12 inch (30.48 cm) and larger hydrocyclones, costs range from roughly $5.00 to $66.OOIgpm.
The overlap in unit cost ranges is a reflection of the effect of capacity ranges for individual
hydrocyclones, which may vary from 40 to over 1500 gpm from low to high end per unit,
depending upon operating conditions. Other assumptions on which these cost ranges were
based are contained in Western Mine Engineering (1996). Typical costs for hydrocyclones for
soil and sediment remediation are estimated by EPA in 1998 dollars to be between $4,050 and
$8,100 for a throughput of 18 to 55 dry tonnes per hour. Operating costs are estimated at
$0.13 to $0.38 per dry tonne.
29

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
General comments - Cut size and sharpness of the cut in hydrocyclones are related to feed
composition and hydrocyclone geometry and size. Hydrocyclones with small-cut sizes are
generally smaller and have lower throughput than units for large cut sizes. Manufacturers often
have interchangeable components that affect throughput, cut size, and the sharpness of the
cut. Hydrocyclones are typically manifolded in parallel to obtain the desired throughput, as in
Figure 2-5. Hydrocyclones made with special materials or with liners are available to resist
wear from abrasion.
Figure 2-5. Bank of four fines separation hydrocyclones in
foreground with bank of two sand dewatering hydrocyclones in
background (provided courtesy of ARCADIS Geraghty-Miller) .
Flowsheets - Hydrocydones are used to separate the contaminated sand or fines size fraction.
They are typically located after an oversize removal on a screen but before other classification
equipment. They are also used after attrition scrubbing to separate fine contaminated material
from the clean sand.
Vendors -
Bailey-Parks Urethane
Encyclon Inc.
Dorr-Oliver Inc.
Krebs Engineers
Technequip Limited
Richard Mozley Limited (distributor: CARPCO, INC.)
METPRO Supply, Inc.
Yardney Water Management Systems, Inc.
30

-------
Uflapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operatinq Factors
Hydraulic Classifiers
Hydraulic classifiers (Figure 2-6) are countercurrent settling chambers, which may be used to
classify solids based on settling velocity. Typically, slurry is fed in from the top, and a column
of water rises from the bottom. Solids with a settling velocity less than the velocity of the rising
water are carried out in the overflow. Solids with a greater settling velocity are carried out in
the underfiow.
Feed material specifications -
Specific gravity - Separation requires there be a difference in specific gravity of the
fluid and the particulate. All else being equal, greater differences in specific gravity
result in easier separations.
Solids content - 800 to 1000 gIl
Washwater - Clean or clarified water must be provided to entrain underf low product at
a minimum, or fines will contaminate the undertlow.
Figure 2-6. Two monosizer hydraulic
classifiers fed by hydrocyclones (provided
courtesy of Dorr-Oliver).
31

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Particle-size ranges - Nominal top size should not exceed 4 mm. Cut sizes down to
75 pm are achievable.
Characteristics - In hydraulic separators, particles with a lower settling velocity than the fluid
flow will report to the overflow while particles with higher settling velocity will report to underf low.
Settling velocity is determined by particle size, shape and density and by fluid density and
viscosity.
Capacity - Units are available with nominal capacities up to 50 tons/hr. Capacity will vary with
feed concentration and the desired cut size.
Type - Single-cell and multiple-cell units are available.
Waste/product streams - Fine particulate reports to the overflow while oversize or fast settling
particulate reports to the undertlow. Both streams are generally discharged as slurry.
Operating variables/parameters - Upflow velocity can be adjusted to vary cut size, within
limits.
Size - Single-cell vertical flow settling basins are available from 0.2 to 24 m 2 cross sectional
area.
General comments - Hydraulic classifiers are available as a single cell or “pocket” or in an
eight pocket in series classifier unit.
Flowsheets - Hydraulic classifiers may be considered in a flowsheet after oversize removal and
before other classification processes in the same locations considered for hydrocyclones.
Vendors - Dorr-Oliver Inc.
Floatex Separations Ltd.
Sieve Bends
Sieve bends are types of screens in which separation is affected not only by size and shape
but also by density. A sieve bend is typically composed of a curved wedge wire deck. Feed
is directed against the upper portion of the screen, which passes particles of a diameter
approximately one half the distance between the wires. This separation is achieved in part by
centrifugal effects, hence the dependence upon density. As the screen becomes worn, the
edges of the wires become rounded, with an attendant decrease in the size of matenal passing
through the screen. Regular turning of the screen can usually address this problem. The
included angle of the bend vanes. For mineral separations, the included angle is typically 45
to 60 degrees, with a capacity of 5 to 100 Vhr per meter of screen width for particle size
separations in the range of 200 to 2000 jim. Variables in the use of sieve bends include
opening size, slurry density, inclination and open area (Osborne 1990). The sieve bend is
frequently useful in soil remediation woric for the removal of natural organic materials (grasses
and roots) from the sand fraction of the feed.
32

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Density separation
Spiral Concentrators
A spiral concentrator is a multi-turn helical trough. Spiral concentrators are flowing film-
concentrating devices. Figure 2-7 is an example from coal processing but is applicable to soil
washing. Slurry is fed into the top of the spiral. Depending upon the channel configuration of
the spiral, separation of dense from light material occurs across the channel as slurry flows
down the spiral. The spiral itself has no moving parts except for the flow splitters inside the
channel. Test rigs are usually equipped with a hopper and centrifugal pump. Spirals
incorporated as part of a larger treatment train will typically be fed by the previous unit
operation and discharge to holding or settling basins for dewatering or subsequent processing.
Because of their low capacity, spirals are often operated in parallel. Their use in processing
of soil for remediation purposes is well established.
Efficiency may be improved by restricting the feed to a narrow size range and may be preceded
in the treatment train by a hydrocyclone for that purpose. Spirals require a consistent feed rate
at roughly 30% solids by weight. Spirals are adjusted with a knife-point separation tool that
directs the separated fraction at the discharge end of the spiral. Spirals are equipped with two
such devices that, when considering the inside and outside walls, can create three products:
a heavy, a middling, and a light product. As the slurry comes down the spiral, particles heavier
than sand tend to come to the inside of the spiral, while light material tends to move to the
outside of the spiral. The knife-blade cutter devices can be adjusted visually to make the
heavy, middling, and light separations. These three products can be directed to three
segregate sumps for disposal, recycling, or further treatment. Spirals have two configurations
intended for the primary removal of light or heavy materials optimized to emphasize heavy or
light removals. Spirals are particularly effective for the removal of lead particles from sand, for
example, or the removal of light, small-particle organic debris from the sand fraction.
Figure 2-7. Bank of spiral concentrators
(provided courtesy of ARCADIS Geraghty-Miller).
33

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Feed material specifications -
Specific gravity - 1 .0 to 1 .5 differential sp. gr.
Solids content - Carpco, Inc. (1993) indicates that their spiral operates with the
greatest efficiency when the slurry density is between 15 and 45% solids.
Washwater - Not required for all models.
<0.1 m 3 /hr (0.5 gpm) Humphreys Mini-Spiral
Particle-size ranges - 0.075 to 3.0 mm (for coal) (Mishra and Klimpel 1987)
20 X 200 mesh (Humphreys Mini-Spiral)
Approximately 50 to 1000 pm (Carpco, Inc. 1992)
Capacity - Spirals are available in laboratory and full size. The Humphreys mini-spiral operates
with as little as 20 lbs of sample for execution of feasibility studies. Spirals require a consistent
feed rate and, like concentrating tables, may be more efficient for a limited size range feed.
Spirals are sometimes preceded by a hydrocyclone for this reason. Capacity is increased with
additional spirals (starts) operating in parallel.
1 to 1.5 tph/start (Mishra and Klimpel 1987)
2.3 m 3 /hr(10 gpm) (Humphreys Mini Spiral)
(Not given for Humphreys full size spiral)
Type - Spiral concentrators vary in pitch depending on the density of the desired product.
Steeper spirals are typically used for dense material, such as particulate lead, while less steep
spirals are used for separation of less dense materials such as organics. Spirals are also
available with multiple starts, usually two helical troughs around the same axis.
Waste/product streams - Like the concentrating tables, material coming off the spiral is
generally separated into three product streams. The division of the matenal occurs as the
material leaves the spiral through a flow splitter. Any of the process streams can be
reprocessed through spirals in series for cleaner separation. Each stream must ultimately
undergo dewatering. Coarser materials can be separated by simple primary settling or
filtration. Fine material may require coagulation followed by lamellar settlers and filtration.
Operating variables/parameters — Flow splitters are manually adjusted.
Size - Full scale spirals typically have a footprint of nominally 3’ x 3’ (1 m x 1 m). They are
typically purchased with multiple spirals to achieve desired capacity.
Cost - capital and operating - USEPA (1994b) estimates a typical 91 tonne/day circuit
employing spirals for density separation to have a capital cost of $292,000. Operating costs
are estimated at $6.54 per tonne.
Capital cost for a 5 ft to 8 ft (1 .52 m to 2.44 m) single helix unit, with distributor, framing, etc.
is approximately $3,050. (Western Mine Engineering 1996). Operating costs (other than labor)
34

-------
—— Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
are limited to parts replacement, and range from $0.01 to $0.05/hour. Other assumptions on
which these cost ranges were based are contained in Western Mine Engineering (1996).
Flowsheets - As spirals are generally most effective for dense particulate of the sand fraction,
they are typically used after removal of fines and clean sand fractions. Therefore, they are
generally considered for use after hydrocyclones.
Vendors - Carpco, Inc.
Jigs
Jigs provide density-based separation of particulate larger than 1 mm. Essentially, a jig is an
open tank filled with water with a horizontal jig screen at the top and with a spigot in the bottom
for concentrate removal. The jig bed consists of a layer of coarse, heavy particles, or ragging
placed on the jig screen onto which the slurry is fed. The feed flows across the ragging, and
the separation takes place in the jig bed so that grains with a high specific gravity penetrate
through the ragging and screen to be drawn off as a concentrate, while the light grains are
camed away by the cross-flow. Separation is accomplished in the bed which is rendered fluid
by a pulsating current of water so as to produce stratification. The motion can be obtained
either by using a fixed sieve jig and pulsating the water or employing a moving sieve.
Feed material specifications -
Specific gravity - Jigs classify largely on the basis of density. Separations are more
effective when there is a large difference in density between contaminants and clean
material (i.e. gravel).
Solids content - Solids in the jig are generally quite high, 30 to 50%.
Particle-size ranges - Generally applied to particulate larger than 1 mm but can
provide concentration down to about 200 mesh for some dense materials such as gold.
Characteristics - Pulses of water expand a solid bed. Classification is a function of
differences in settling rates.
Capacity - Capacity is dependent upon the degree of separation required. For high
concentrations, rates are between 0.5 to 1 cubic yards per square foot of jig area per hour.
Waste/product streams - The waste will be a slurry concentrated with the dense contaminant.
The product stream will be cleaned gravel or sand slurry. Classification will not be 100 percent
efficient, and some gravel/sand should be expected with the waste stream and some dense
material in the product stream.
Operating variables/parameters - Classification is dependent upon the feed rate and upon
the intensity and frequency of the water pulsation. Higher pressures to the jig result in greater
concentration (grade) of the waste stream. Lower pressures result in lower grade.
35

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Size - Circular jigs are available with 3 to 9 square feet (0.279 to 0.836 sq m) of bed area.
Cost - capital and operating - Western Mine Engineering (1996) gives the following costs.
Table 2-1. Cost Ranges of Several Jig Types.
Type Size Range Capital Cost Hourly O&M Cost
(1998 dollars) (1998 dollars)
Baum 72-220 sq.ft. $337,100 -S674,100 Si 4.23- S29.74
Bendelari* 6’x8 ’ (1 cell) - 42’x42 (3 cell) S3,810 - S28,500 S0.14 - SI .35
Circular 1.4 sq.ft. (1 cell) - 448 sq.ft. (12 cells) Si 875 - $296,800 S0 .07 - Si 0.27
Duplex 12 cell - 42 cell S3,314 - $13,300 $0.11 -$0.56
Fine Coal 178 -267 sq.ft. S832,1 00 - S990,200 S32.54 - S4i .92
Shot Separator S4,1 90 S0.13
*Price does not include mounting platforms. Add 30% to 50% for mounting platform, maintenance catwalk and
discharge launders.
General comments - There appear to be several types and manufacturers of jigs not found
in the vendor literature reviewed for this document.
Flowsheets - Jigs perform density separations on oversize matenal. They should be
considered for location after removal of sands and fines, which is generally after a screen.
Vendors - AMS-Ross Corporation
Shaking Tables
Shaking tables, like the one in Figure 2-8, also known as wet concentrating tables, consist of
rectangular or semi-rectangular grooved decks which may be mounted either horizontally or
on a slight incline and which operate with a reciprocating motion. Slurry is fed onto the table
where it separates according to size and specific gravity of the particles. The operative
mechanisms of separation are fluid flow and asymmetrical acceleration. The idealized
distribution of the particles across the table is as pictured in Figure 2-9. This distribution can
be affected by the height and placement of the riffles (grooves) and any irregularities of
operation. The coarse low-density particles are entrained in the upper flowing fluid film where
velocities are highest. The fine high-density particles report to the bottom of the fluid layer
where velocities are lowest. Coarse, high-density and tine, low-density particles move through
the middle fluid layer at an intermediate velocity (Deurbrouck and Agey 1985).
Tables are available in laboratory and full size. Based on the lack of references in the
literature, concentrator tables are not considered to be field proven in applications involving
soils or sediments. Some work has been done at lab scale with firing range soils at WES
indicating potential for treatment of heavy metals contaminated soils. However, based on the
literature and lab experience, it appears that concentrator tables may require more monitoring
and adjustment during processing than other classifiers and may be more sensitive to changes
in feed. However, if a pretest indicates suitability to a specific material, tables could provide a
cost effective component of the treatment train.
36

-------
Charter 2. Ec u mi’ . H
Figure 2-8. Typical final tabling in a gold
application (provided courtesy of Humphreys
Division of Carpco Inc.).
cQ
0
Size particles
Q Coarse
o Intermediate
o Fine
Specific gravity particles
Low
J Intermediate
0 High
Figure 2-9. Distribution of table products by
particle size and density (provided courtesy of
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration).
3
37

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Feed material specifications -
Specific gravity - Specific gravity differences of at least 1.0 are typicaily required for
efficient separation, if size and shape differences are not so significant as to govern.
For soils, specific gravity differences are typically less than 1.0 (2.65 for sand, 2.65 to
2.80 for clay and silt), unless heavy metals (sp. gr. > 3.0±) or organic materials (sp. gr.
1 .8) are associated with the particles. This specific gravity difference of less than 1 .0
may account for the lack of references in the literature to the use of tabling in soil
separation, as well as the monitoring required to maintain the desired cut. Tables may
be more useful for treatability evaluation than in a continuous flow treatment train.
Solids content - Required feed solids content vanes; however, the range given for
slime ore is 800 to 1000 gal per ton (Deurbrouck and Agey 1985). For materials with
a specific gravity of 2.65, this corresponds roughly to 25 to 30% solids by weight
(W i /Wwater). Soil processing would be expected to require this much, and possibly
more, given the cohesiveness of clay materials, but this parameter does not appear to
have been established for soils. Carpo, Inc. (Humphreys) recommends a 20% solids
mixture for their 1 3A sand deck. Large top sizes (19 mm or ¾ inch) or a high proportion
of fines in the feed typically impose the higher water requirements.
Particle-size ranges - Feeding a limited particle size range will improve tabling
efficiency. For a given feed, the finest material is least efficiently washed (Deurbrouck
and Agey 1985). Maximum top size for coal is approximately 19 mm (¾ inch) down to
10 mesh (2 mm, 0.08 inch) for heavier minerals. For materials with the density of coal
(1.15 to 1.5 g/cc), ¾ inch (0.9525 cm) to 100 mesh, or in some cases 200 mesh, is
acceptable. For higher density materials, the range may be larger, ¾ inch (0.9525 cm)
to finer than 325 mesh, for example (Deurbrouck and Agey 1985). The presence of fine
materials (slimes) increases the viscosity of the bed on the table and slows the
stratification. Most soil components will probably f all between these two ranges.
Optimum feed particle-size range must be determined on a case by case basis.
Carpco, Inc. (1992) suggests a range of approximately 40 to 1000 pm. Jigs or heavy
separators are more efficient for coarser materials.
Characteristics - Tabling was originally developed for mineral processing, where fine
materials (referred to as slimes) are normally removed prior to tabling to improve
efficiencies. For remediation processing of soils and sediments, however, removal of
the fine fraction on the table may be one of the objectives and the feed will therefore be
non-ideal frDm a mineral processing perspective. Operating parameters may need to
be adjusted to compensate for this.
Capacity - Capacity is a function of table size, slurry solids concentration, and material particle
size and characteristics. Capacities are highest for low density matenals such as coal and
larger particle sizes. Capacity of mineral processing tables for soils has not been established,
but will probably be similar to that for minerals, which ranges from as little as 0.1 tons per hour
to 1.2 tons per hour for a 6.5 by 14 foot deck (1.98 by 4.27 m). Capacity for a given efficiency
level must be determined by pilot testing. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 give some examples for mineral
processing, which range from less than 1 ton per hr per deck to over 15 ton/hr/deck. Capacities
are also given by individual manufacturers/distributors.
38

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Waste/product streams - In mineral processing applications, material coming off the table is
typically separated into three product streams: cons, mids and tails. Cons are the highest
density materials; mids are the mid range; and tails are the lightest particles (see Figure 2-9
for distribution of product on the table). To increase efficiency, any of these process streams
may be reprocessed on tables in series. Ultimately, these streams must undergo dewatering.
Coarser materials can be separated by simple primary settling or filtration. Fine material may
require coagulation followed by lamella settlers and filtration.
Operating variables/parameters - Operating parameters for concentrating tables include riffle
design, capacity, speed and stroke, tilt, and feed solids content. Sand tables are characterized
by deep and extensive riffles, and slime tables by shallow riffles. Slime tables would most likely
be suitable to soil separation, but the selection will be dictated by the desired material cut and
the expected particle-size range of the feed.
Table type - Sand table, deep riffles: coarse material
Slime table, shallow riffles: fine material
Speed and Stroke - Variable. Length and frequency of stroke are interdependent
variables (Deurbrouk and Agey 1985).
230 to 285 rpm and 1 1/4 to 3/4 inch (3.175 to 1 .905 cm) stroke for coarse sands
285 to 325 rpm and ¾ to ¾ inch (1 .905 to 0.9525 cm) stroke for fine material
Table tilt - Set at the minimum inclination necessary to achieve good distribution of
material across the table.
Table 2-2. Table Operating Parameters Suggested by Manufacturers (Deurbrouck and
Agey 1985).
Feed
Speed, Stroke,
rpm in.
Deck size
Horsepower
.
Fine size Coarse size
Installed Operating
Table Model Type Capacity, Capacity,
tonperhr tonperhr
Top size per deck Top size per deck
Super duty and Concenco Tables, Deister Concentrator Co.
No. 6 Ore 100 mesh 0.25 6 mesh 2.0
285-300 ½- %
6 ft 5 in. X 14 ft 1 in.
2 ½
No. 666 Ore 100 mesh 0.25 6 mesh 2.0
285-295 1/2.3/4
6 It 5 in. X 14 ft 1 in.
3 3
(3 decks)
No. 7 Coal 28 mesh 5.0 3/4 in. 15.0
280-290 1/211/2
8 ft 1/4 in. X 16 ft 91% in.
3 1
No. 77 Coal 28 mesh 5.0 3/4 in. 15.0
280-290 3/4
8 It 1% in. X 16 ft 91% in.
3 3
(2 decks)
Wilfley and Holman Tables, Wilfley Mining Machinery Co., Ltd.
Wilfley No.20 Ore 100 mesh 0.25 6 mesh 2.0
300-325 ¾ -i/B
6 ItO in. X 15 1t6 in.
3 1
Wilfley No. 21 Ore 100 mesh 0.125 6 mesh 1.0
300-325 % 7/5
4ftOin.XOItOin.
2 1
Holman Ore 100 mesh 0.25 6 mesh 2.0
270-280 %- /e
5 ft 6 in. X 18 ft 0 in.
2 A-l
Wilfley No. 20C Coal 28 mesh 5.0 3/4 in. 13.0
230-270 1-1%
7ftoin. Xl5ft6in.
3* 1
(3 decks)
Wilfley Tables (MSI Industries, Inc.)
No. 6A and lID Ore (t) 0.5 (t) 6.25
240-300 A-1 1%
6 ft 0 in. X 15 ItO in.
1½ 1/33%
(standard)
(oversize) Ore (t) 0.75 (t) 7.25
240-300 3% 11%
7ItOin. Xl5ftOin.
2 A-1
No. 12 Ore (fl 0.25 (t) 0.75
260-300 ¾ 11%
3 ft 6 in. X 7 ft 0 in.
1 1%1/2
* Per deck
t Not available
39

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Table 2-3. Wilfley Concentrating Table Operating Parameters (Carpco, Inc. 1992).
Water
Coarse Feed
Fine Feed
Max
Max
Model
Particle
Size
Range
Requirements
Llmin
(gpm)
Deck Size
mm
(in)
Stroke
mm
(in)
Freq
RPM
Capacity
kg/hr
(lbsIhr)
Stroke
mm
(in)
Freq
RPM
Capacity
kg/hr
(Ibs/hr)
6A Standard
19-76
(5-20)
1829 X 4496
(72 X 177)
19-25
(3/4-1)
260-280
1800
(4000)
13-19
(1/2-3/4)
300
750
(1600)
6AOversize
19-76
(5-20)
2134X4496
(84 X 177)
19-25
(3/4-1)
260-280
1900
(4200)
13-19
(1/2-314)
300
800
(1800)
12
11-57
(3-15)
1168X2337
(46 X 92)
10-16
(3/8-5/8)
260-300
450
(1000)
10-16
(3/8-518)
260-
300
180
(400)
13A Sand
-20+200
6-13
250-350
70
.
.
-
Deck
Mesh
4-15
457 X 1016
(1/4-1/2)
(150)
13A Slimes
-200+235
(1-4)
(18 X 40)
.
.
.
6-13
250-
45
Deck
Mesh
350
(100)
l3BSand
-20+200
610X 1270
6-13
250-350
115
-
.
.
Deck
Mesh
4-23
(24 X 50) Sand
(1/4-1/2)
(250)
13B Slimes
-200÷325
(16)
Deck
6-13
250-
90
Deck
Mesh
(1/4-1/2)
350
(200)
Size - Sizes range from 5 to 90 sq.ft./deck (0.465 sq.m to 8.36 sq.mldeck) with single, double,
and triple deck units available (Western Mine Engineering 1996).
Cost - capital and operating - Operating costs for concentrating tables are low relative to
other methods of concentration and include supervision, utilities and maintenance. Supervision
costs will be a function of uniformity of feed. Significant changes in table feed require changes
in table settings. Single-deck tables typically use 1- to 3-hp motors. Double- and triple-deck
tables typically use 3-hp motors. Actual power consumption is somewhat less than installed
horsepower (Deurbrouck and Agey 1985). Maintenance costs are reasonably low.
Complete, single deck concentrating tables range in capacity from 0.4 to 1.0 tons per hour for
fine sand and 0.6 to 3.0 tons per hour for coarse sand for a table area of 32 sq ft (2.97 sq. m)
and 0.8 to 2.1 and 1.25 to 6.25 tons per hour respectively for fine and coarse sand for an 80
sq ft table (Western Mine Engineering 1996). Capital cost for the 32 sq ft (2.97 sq. m) unit is
given as $11,000, and $14,400 for the 80 sq ft (7.43 sq. m) unit. Unit capacity costs range from
$3700 to $27,400/tor ’hr for the smaller unit, and from approximately $2300 to $1 8,300/ton/hr
for the larger unit. Operating costs range from approximately $0.85 to $1 .13/hour. Other
assumptions on which these cost ranges were based are contained in Western Mine
Engineering (1996).
Table 2-4. Concentrating Table Cost Ranges (Western Mine Engineering 1996) .
Concentrating Tables Area 1998 Capital Costs 1998 Operating Costs
(ft 2 ) (hourly)
Single Deck 5-90 S4570-17,100 S0.35 1.462
Tnple Deck 240 (80/deck) S34500 1 S2.69
1) Including deck, base, frame. launders (some sizes). drive mechanism and motor.
2) Including parts. labor for maintenance, power (electric), lubrication. Operator costs are not included and will vary
with the type and amount of material being processed and the number of units on-line.
General comments - Primarily useful as a diagnostic tool.
40

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Flowsheets - Shaking tables may be considered for density separation after removal of fines
(de-sliming). This typically would place shaking tables immediately after hydrocyclones in a
generalized flowsheet.
Vendors - Carpco, Inc.
Multi-Gravity Separators
The Mozley Multi-Gravity separator is an enhanced gravity device for the separation of fine
(dense) particles down to one micron in size. The principle of the Multi-Gravity Separator may
be explained by considering the shaking action of a shaking-table in cylindrical form. The
rotating action of the drum provides a high “g” force which pins the heavy particles to the drum
surface to be removed by the drum scrapers. The basic variables in operation of Multi-G
Separator are stroke frequency, rotational speed, surface profile on the inside of the drum and
addition of wash water. The Multi-Gravity Separator may be used for removal of fine dense
contaminated particles from the silt or fines fraction (< 75 microns) where other more common
gravity separation techniques are ineffective.
Dense Media Separation
The most common means of making a dense media separation is to use a suspension of fine,
heavy particles in water or dense salt solution as a pseudo fluid. The use of this heavy medium
at a selected density (specific gravity up to 3.0) will allow the separation of different density
materials. Typically, a heavy medium suspension is prepared using very fine ferrous media (<
65 mesh) suspended in water. The fine magnetic media can be recycled from the heavy media
suspension by magnetic separators. The basic features of this technology are (1) ability to
make sharp separations in the specific gravity range 1.25 to 3.8, (2) ability to make rapid
changes in the suspension specific gravity to meet changing feed characteristics, (3) ability to
remove the sink product continuously, (4) ability to treat a wide range of sizes, (5) ability to
start-up and shutdown the operation quickly with minimum loss of separation efficiency, (6)
ease of recovery of medium from the separated products with relatively low media losses, (7)
modest medium cost, (8) low operating and maintenance cost, and (9) large capacity units
occupying relatively small floor space. Dense media separation may be used for separation
of contaminant material from coarse soil fraction (>2 mm). The contaminant material must
have a higher density as compared to native gravel. Significant quantities (in excess of a
couple thousand tons) of coarse soil material to be separated are required in order for this
technique to be considered for implementation on a project.
Pinched Sluice
The pinched sluice, or sluice box, is essentially an inclined trough through which feed is washed
after large stones have been removed by means of a grizzly or trommel. Riffles are placed in
the bottom to create bed turbulence, establish a hindered settling zone, and retain heavy
minerals and particulate metals (e.g. lead shot, metallurgical slag) or metals associated with
heavy minerals. Variables in the use of sluice boxes are width, length, and slope, selected
principally by the character of the material to be concentrated. Coarse and very high specific
density particles (e.g., lead) settle quickly and require a short length. Slope must be adequate
to transport the pebbles and also prevent sand packing within the riffles. Common slope is
41

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
about 1/2 inch per ft (1.27 cm per 0.3048 m) of length. The total width may be 4 to 6 feet (1.22
to 1.83 m) and total length up to 120 feet (36.58 m). Removal of dense material (concentrate)
takes place every 7 to 10 days. The sluice box may be used to remove metals occurring in
particulate form or metals associated with heavy minerals. The sluice box may be considered
for remedial projects with a large volume of materials to be processed in which coarse
predominates (70% of the particles to be removed are coarser than 30 mesh).
LiquidlSolid Separations
Settling BasinslClarifiers/Lamella Separators
Solids clarification is a process that separates fine solids from a slurry stream producing a
thickened sludge and a clarified liquid. There are many types of process equipment to
accomplish the separation including circular tank clanfiers, rectangular tank clanfiers and
lamella clarifiers. Some system variables that are related to solids clarification are solids
concentration and particle size, liquid specific gravity and viscosity, density of the solids, flow
rates and the desired clarity of the liquid. Solids clarification is used in soil remediation to
separate fine solids, typically from a sand screw or hydrocyclone overflow. The solids from
clarification can be dewatered as a sludge product or further processed by bioremediation or
other techniques to remove a contaminant.
Sedimentation basins, a type of clarifier, are tanks installed either in or above ground for the
purpose of making separations of solids and liquids. Sedimentation basins are commonly used
in wastewater treatment applications for municipal and commercial customers. Sedimentation
basins must be designed to introduce feed slurries in a uniform manner, achieving a quiescent
period for durations adequate to allow solids to settle and thicken while removing the relatively
solids-free water as an overflow. In remediation applications, sedimentation basins can be
constructed from constwction materials (concrete and steel) or from excavating and lining
designated areas. Field expedient “swimming pool” tankage has been constructed for use in
the sedimentation step for relatively low flows. For higher flows, such as those that might be
encountered in a dredging operation, sedimentation basins have been contoured or excavated
into existing site profiles to provide this solids-liquid separation facility.
The lamella clarifier (Figure 2-10) is a tilted stacked plate clarifier used primarily to remove
solids from a clay slurry. The tilted plate design provides a large effective settling area with a
small footprint. A lamella with a 20 ft by 12 ft (6.10 m by 3.66 m) footprint can have an
equivalent effective settling area of a 35-ft (10.67 m) diameter circular clarifier. Typically, a
flocculator and flash mixer are provided with the lamella clarifier. The design parameters
include input flowrate and solids content, settling rate of the solids, and desired clarity of the
overflow. The lamella clarifier is used to concentrate the fine solids slurry from less than 5%
solids to a thickened sludge of 25% solids. The sludge is then further dewatered.
42

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operatinq Factors
Feed material specifications -
Specific gravity - Generally applicable.
Particle-size ranges - Particles reporting to the clarifier must be large enough to
settle. For fine particulate this may require a flocculation step before the clarifier.
Some clarifiers incorporate flocculation equipment prior to the settling chamber.
Capacity - Prefabricated lamella clarifier units are available with between 5 and 1500 gpm
nominal capacity. Larger units and conventional clarifiers are site built.
Type - Conventional clarifiers are essentially large circular or rectangular settling basins with
mechanical rakes to move sludge to a central discharge point. Lamella clarifiers collect sludge
on vertically angled plates, resulting in dramatically reduced footprints.
Waste/product streams - Clarified liquid exits the top of the clarifier through an overflow
launder. Sludge is discharged from the bottom of the clarifier. A sludge pump or an auger are
sometimes used to transport the sludge. Sludge concentration is a function of the sludge
properties and clarifier features, such as sludge residence time, geometry, and mechanical
action.
Operating variables/parameters - Performance of the clarifier is generally dependent upon
the flow rate and the settling velocity of the particulate. The settling velocity is greatly
influenced by flocculation, by the amount and type of flocculant, and by the hydraulic forces
during flocculation. In lamella clanfiers, the plates can often be removed to increase spacing
Figure 2-10. Two lamella clarifiers operating in parallel (provided
courtesy of ARCADIS Geraghty-Miller).
43

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
between remaining plates to control re-entrainment, though this results in decreased collection
area. Increased sludge residence times generally result in denser sludges. Sludge level may
be controlled with a level controller to maintain appropriate residence times.
Size - Size is a function of expected flowrate and the settling velocity of the smallest particles.
Sedimentation tank sizes for wastewater treatment typically range from 3- to 5-rn (10- to 16-f t)
depths with 3- to 60-rn (10- to 200- ft) diameters for circular tanks and 15- to 90-rn (50- to 300-
ft) lengths by 3- to 24-rn (10- to 80-ft) widths for rectangular tanks (Metcalf and Eddy 1979).
Prefabricated larnella clarifiers are available as small as 7’ high, 7’ long and 3’ wide (2 rn x 2 m
x 1 m).
General comments - Performance of a clarifier is dependent on both the settling
characteristics of the solids and on the flow patterns within the clarifier. Settling characteristics
of the slurry must generally be evaluated by lab tests to establish settling time and sludge
consolidation. In lamella claritiers, the settled solids must be able to flow down the incline of
the plates. Bypassing and re-entrainment must generally be minimized in clarifier design. In
addition, clarifiers are generally designed to minimize floc dispersion. It is important to consider
that flocculation may cause bulking in which the volume of the solids is increased.
Flowsheets - Clantiers produce a clarified liquid and a thickened sludge, typically from a fine
teed slurry. Clanfiers would generally be encountered after hydrocyclones and immediately
prior to final dewatenng.
Vendors - Filtration/Treatment Systems, LTD
Carpco, Inc.
Graver Water Systems, Inc.
Westech Engineering, Inc.
Flotation
Soil remediation flotation is a process that separates a contaminated residual from the sand-
sized soil fraction. Flotation may be used to classify solids having similar settling and density
characteristics based on differing surface properties. The floated material can be contaminated
organic mass or an undesired mineral. A froth flotation tank (Figure 2-11) is equipped with air
diffusers and mixers. The sand is chemically and/or mechanically treated to cause the
contaminant to become hydrophobic. The diffused air bubble can then “attach” itself to the
particle and allow it to float. The soil feed rate, contamination concentration/particle size,
chemical selection/dosing, air flow rate, and retention time are design and process variables
that can affect flotation.
44

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operatinq Factors
Feed material specifications -
Specific gravity - Specific gravity of flotation is related to particle size of flotable
fraction. Increasing specific gravity decreases the particle size that can be floated.
Solids content - Variable, typically dilute slurries about 20% solids.
Washwater - Flotation equipment may be equipped with washwater which generally
sprays over the foam enhancing the separation.
Particle-size ranges - Flotation is not generally effective on fines (slimes) as fine
particulate will tend to concentrate at the air water interface irrespective of the
composition. Ores are often deslimed before beneficiation by flotation. Averett et al.,
as cited in Olin and Preston (1995), indicate maximum size separated is roughly 50 to
65 mesh.
Characteristics - Flotation equipment exploits differences in wetting properties of
different solids. These differences are usually enhanced with chemicals. When a
hydrophobic particle encounters a rising air bubble, it is caught on the surface of the
bubble and entrained to the top of the tank. The rising bubbles form a froth above the
water surface which contains the hydrophobic material. Since not every contaminated
particle will be impacted and entrained by air, the cleaned product will typically have
some residual contamination. In addition, the air will entrain to the froth some particles
which would not be considered contaminants.
Figure 2-11. Froth flotation (mechanical) cells (provided
courtesy of ARCADIS Geraghty-Miller).
45

-------
Chapter 2 Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Type - There are two general types of froth flotation machines: mechanical cells and columns.
Froth is swept off the mechanical cells with sweeping arms. Columns produce a variable depth
froth that is allowed to overflow the vessel.
Wastelproduct streams - Hydrophobic particles tend to concentrate at the air water interface
of rising bubbles and discharge in a froth. Hydrophilic particles tend to remain in the slurry and
are discharged as the cleaned product. Reagent residuals may be found in both fractions, and
toxicity of reagents is a consideration in selection.
Operating variables/parameters - Primary operating variables include selection and dose of
chemicals, the amount of air introduced, mixing intensity, and the throughput. Slurry
concentration and composition will also affect flotation effectiveness. In addition, some units
allow for varying degrees of washwater for additional concentration of the hydrophobic
particles. Columns generally provide more washing capability than mechanical cells.
Size - Mechanical cells found in literature range between 1 and 5300 ft 3 (0.28 and 1501 m 3 ).
No data was found on column size.
Cost - capital and operating - As described in Western Mine Engineering (1996), individual
self aerating flotation cell volumes range from 11 to 3000 cubic feet (0.31 to 85 m 3 ), requiring
a corresponding floor space of 9 to 185 sq ft. (1 to 17 m 2 ). Flotation cells utilized in mineral
circuits are normally installed in multiple banks, and this is assumed in the cost information
given. Capital costs range from approximately $7,100 to $165,000 per cell, and operating costs
from $0.30 to $13.20/hr. Motor and launders are additional. Unit costs range from
approximately $50 to $660/cu ft, with unit cost decreasing with increasing size. Capital costs
of standard flotation cells are marginally less than for self aerating, but require blowers in
addition to motors and launders for operation. Operating costs are comparable. Other
assumptions on which these cost ranges were based are contained in Western Mine
Engineering (1996).
EPA estimates capital cost in 1998 dollars of a 91-tonneslday froth flotation plant at $810,100
based on mineral industry experience. Operating costs are estimated at about $1 3/tonne.
General comments - Flotation is a complex process and should be considered in consultation
with a vendor. It will only be applicable when the contaminant is not distributed over all particle-
size ranges but rather, a discreet fraction of particles. In addition, the contaminant must be
rendered more hydrophobic than the rest of the matrix, usually through the use of chemical
additives since the contaminant is to be removed with the froth. Design and operation of the
flotation cyde must proceed with due consideration to the acceptable amount of contaminant
in the clean product. Pilot tests are required to evaluate the feasibility of flotation and for
process design.
Flowsheets - Flotation is typically considered for use after the removal of fines in
hydrocyclones for removal of organics from sand. The contaminated fraction would then
typically be sent to clarification or dewatering.
46

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Vendors -
Dorr-Oliver Inc.
Osna Equipment
MIM Technologies GPO
EIMCO Process Equipment
Cominco Engineering Services Ltd
JETFLOTE Pty Limited
Solids Dewatering
Centrifuges
Centrifuges (Figure 2-12) are used to dewater or clarify slurries by enhancing sedimentation
in rapidly rotating equipment. Operation of a centrifuge is not labor intensive; however, it does
require a consistent feed source. Centrifuges are used for fines dewatering in soil remediation.
They may be used to classify solids, analogous to hydroseparators, by adjusting operating
parameters.
Specific gravity - Specific gravity of particulate should be more dense than fluid in
order to discharge in the underflow.
Solids content - No feed limitations were found in vendor literature. Svarovsky (1990)
indicates decanter (scroll type) centrifuges are limited to 2 to 50 percent solids by
volume, disk centrifuges are limited to 2 to 6 percent solids by volume, and tubular bowl
centrifuges are limited to less than 1 % solids. The feed slurry can range from 1 to 70%
solids, but must be uniform both in solids content and input rate for optimum
performance.
Figure 2-12. Four decanter centrifuges (provided courtesy of NOXON).
Feed material specifications -
47

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Washwater - May generally be employed if required. Typical application of washwater
in soil washing would occur when using centrifuge as a classifier.
Particle-size ranges - Centrifuges can clarify down into the sub-micron range.
Maximum size should be discussed with the vendor.
Characteristics - Centrifuges have small footprints compared to settling basins or
lamella clarifiers.
Capacity - Decanter centrifuges: 1 to 200 m 3 slurry/hr. Disk centrifuges: 2 to 225 m 3 slurry/hr.
Drum centrifuges: 9 to 15 m 3 slurry/hr.
Type - There are two main types of centrifuges: sedimentation centrifuges and centrifugal
filters. The vendor literature reviewed included three types of sedimentation centrifuges:
decanter, disk, and tubular bowl centrifuges; no information was found on centrifugal filters in
the collected literature. Decanter centrifuges have a horizontal drum with an independently
rotating auger to move settled sludge to discharge. Decanter and disk centrifuges are primarily
continuous devices while tubular bowl centrifuges are continuous, semi-continuous, or batch,
depending on equipment design. A centrifugal filter is a solids/liquid separator that uses a bowl
rotating at high speeds. The slurry is discharged into the bowl; the solids form a bed against
the screen on the inner wall of the bowl; and the liquid passes through the solids and out the
system. The solids either collect and are removed as a batch or are continuously removed
while the drum is rotating.
Waste/product streams - Centrifuges produce an underf low in the form of a sludge or slurry
containing the particulate clarified or classified from the feed. The overflow or centrate is the
clean liquid that does not contain the most settleable particles.
Operating vanables/parameters - In all continuous and semi-continuous centrifuges, the flow
rate through the unit will affect the degree of clarification or classification, analogous to
reducing the residence time in a settling basin. Machines are generally designed to operate
at one drum or disk rotational frequency which may sometimes be changed by switching belts
or gears. Settling velocity of particles is influenced not only by the acceleration induced by
rotation, but also by size, shape, and density of the particulate, particle-size distribution, density
and viscosity of the fluid, and solids content. Some units are available allowing flocculant
addition; shear forces will generally disperse flocculated material entering the centrifuge, but
flocculation may be performed within the acceleration field. Other important parameters for
design and operation are desired cake dryness and filtrate clarity.
In continuous units, the rate of centrate (clarified liquid) discharge relative to feed may be
adjusted to alter sludge concentration. In decanter centrifuges, the sludge concentration is
affected by the speed of the rotating auger relative to the drum and the height of the dam
controlling settling distance.
Size - Units in reviewed literature were within the following size ranges including drives and
supports:
48

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Se’ection and Operatinq Factors
1300 to 6260 mm length x 620 to 1635 mm width x 800 to 3370 mm height (decanter)
1525 to 3200 mm length x 915 to 1855 mm width x 1 675 to 2870 mm height (disk)
660 to 1270 mm length x 406 to 1270 mm width x 2032 to 2921 mm height (drum)
Cost — capital and operating - The centrifuges described in Western Mine Engineering (1 996)
appear to be primarily designed for coarse material dewatering. The typical feed size range
referenced for the centrifuges given is 150 m (100 mesh) to approximately 76 mm, at 30 to
40% moisture or less. Capacities range from 25 to 325 tons solids/hour, with capital costs
ranging from approximately 76 to 142 thousand dollars and operating costs from approximately
4 to 7 dollars per hour. Cost per ton solids capacity per hour decreases with increasing
capacity, ranging from a low of approximately $400 to a high of $3050. Other assumptions on
which these cost ranges were based are contained in Western Mine Engineering (1996).
Installed capital costs for solid bowl centrifuges for wastewater applications using 8 pounds of
polymer per ton are estimated by EPA in 1998 dollars:
20 gpm $253,000
100 gpm $470,000
SOOgpm $1,019,000
O&M costs in 1 998 dollars for two municipal wastewater treatment plants using solid bowl
centrifuges were $31 .97 and $95.12 per ton of dry solids.
General comments - Centrifuges enhance sedimentation by increasing the force acting on the
particles through centrifugal acceleration; the magnitude of this force is often expressed in
multiples of the acceleration of gravity or “g”s. The decanter centrifuges reviewed produce
between nominally 1 ,900 and 5,600 g, and the disk centrifuges produce between nominally
3,900 and 10,000 g. Insufficient data were available to estimate the force produced by the
tubular drum centrifuges. Centrifuges must be supplied stable support in accordance with
vendor recommendations.
Flowsheets - Centrifuges may be considered for dewatering applications, typically applied to
the fines fraction. Centrifuges would typically be placed after hydrocyclones in a soil treatment
train.
Vendors - SANBORN Technologies
Noxon
Dorr-Oliver Inc.
Veronesi Separatori s.p.a.
Separators, Inc. (used/reconditioned)
Rotary Vacuum Filters
Two common types of rotary vacuum filters are disc and drum filters. Vacuum drum filtration
is a continuous process in which a drum covered with filter media is partially submerged in a
slurry, and a vacuum is applied to the inside of the drum, causing flow through the drum. Solids
cake forms on the outside of the filter and is scraped off. The continuous filters can be divided
into two basic categories: those forming their cake against gravity, normally called bottom feed,
49

-------
Chaijter 2. Eauilment See:t on and O eratina Factors
and those forming their cake with gravity, sometimes called top feeding or top loading. Rotary
disc filters, as in Figure 2-13, consist of filter elements (discs) mounted vertically on a central
shaft and connected to a vacuum filter valve. As the panels rotate, they go through similar
pick-up and dewatenng operations as on drum filters. At the discharge point, the cake removal
is assisted by means of blades or knives. The cake is discharged by a scraper blade mounted
parallel to the drum surface. Cake discharge is assisted by a blow back of compressed air
through the geotextile. A rotary vacuum filter may be considered in soil remediation projects
for dewatenng of the sand and/or clay fraction. The use of a rotary drum filter for dewatering
of the clay fraction will require the use of filtering aids, and its performance will be less efficient
as compared to a belt filter press, plate and frame filter press or centrifuge.
Feed material specifications -
Specific gravity - None specified.
Solids content - Any density that is pumpable and that can maintain particle
suspension, economically the highest density practical. Filters almost always follow a
thickener.
Washwater - None specified.
Particle-size ranges - Range zero to 20 mesh (Petersen Filters Corp.).
Figure 2-13. Rotary disc filter (Minerals
Processing Technologies Inc.).
50

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Capacity - Rotary vacuum filters are sized on filtration rates determined by laboratory and or
pilot work and are reported in units of lbs/hr/ft 2 . Horsepower ranges from 30 to 610 HP
(Petersen Filters Corp.).
Waste/product streams - Cake, 15 to 30 percent moisture. Aqueous filtrate may contain
fine suspended solids and dissolved contaminants.
Operating variables/parameters - Operating parameters are the use of filtering aids,
percent vacuum, the geotextile, rotational speed, and thickness of filter cake.
Size - Drum filters 2 ft dia x 9 inches length (0.6096 m by 22.86 cm) (pilot) to 14 ft dia x 1 8 ft
length (6 ft 2 to 792 tt2 or 4.27 m to 5.49 m). Disc filters 4 ft (1.22 m) dia x 1 disc (pilot) to 12.5 ft
(3.81 m) dia x 14 discs (25 ft 2 to 3080 ft 2 ) (Petersen Filters Corp.).
Cost - capital and operating - Maintenance costs vary widely with abrasiveness and
corrosiveness of slurry. Primary operating cost is power. Capital cost ranges from
approximately $25,085 to $501 ,709 US 1 998 (including accessories, excluding installation)
(Petersen Filters Corp.).
General comments - One technician can monitor several filters at once. Rotary vacuum filters
have limited application in soil and sediment treatment despite their widespread use in industrial
applications. It is generally not possible to justify the higher capital and operating costs for the
improvement in cake properties for a low value product or waste stream.
Flowsheets - Rotary vacuum filters would typically be considered for final dewatering of fines
after a thickener such as a lame lla clarifier.
Vendors - Petersen Filters Corporation
Filter Presses
Filter presses express liquid by compressing filter cake against geotextile. The resulting cake
acts like a filter media resulting in much finer retention than that resulting from the pore size of
the filter. Two common types are belt filter presses and plate and frame presses.
The belt filter press is a continuous device that separates solids from liquids using three
sequential processes: solids conditioning, gravity dewatering and pressure filtration. In solids
conditioning, a polymer is mixed with the slurry to neutralize the electrical charges between the
solids, thus allowing the solid particles to form small lumps called flocs. In gravity dewatering,
the flocculated slurry is discharged onto a moving belt, and the free liquid is allowed to drain
through the belt by gravity. In pressure filtration, the gravity dewatered sludge is pressed
between two belts and is passed through a series of rollers with decreasing diameters. The
decreasing diameters gradually increase the pressure exerted on the sludge, causing additional
solids/liquid separation. The process variables affecting belt filter press design and
performance are sludge charactenstics, feed solids concentration, sludge age, sludge feed
rate, and polymer dosing. The sludge characteristics determine the roller pressure required
to obtain a dry filter cake. The feed solids concentration and feed rate determine the size of
the belt press and will cause poor performance if the parameters are out of the design range.
51

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Se’ection and Operating Factors
The age of the sludge can cause poor filtration as flocs tend to break down with time. The belt
filter press can be used in applications that require water removal from a fine soil fraction
(<200 microns).
A plate and frame filter press is a batch solids/liquid separator that uses a series of plates
covered with a filter media. Plate and frame type filters use the pressure of the incoming slurry
as the driving force for filtration. A slurry is pumped under pressure between the plates with
the liquid passing through the filter media to the drain zone. When the filter pressure (typically
100 psig) is reached, the slurry pump is stopped; air is blown through the filter cake for drying;
and the cake is dropped to a conveyor for removal. A cake of up to 8 inches (20.32 cm) thick
can be produced, but for soil remediation applications a 1- to 3-inch (2.54 to 7.62 cm) thickness
is usually desired. In most applications, the cake dryness can range between 40 to 65% solids.
Parameters that affect the design and operation of a plate and frame filter are solids feed
consistency, throughput rates, filterability of the solids and desired filter cake dryness. The
plate and frame press is more labor intensive than other filter systems but can handle large
fluctuations in feed slurry. The plate and frame filter can be used in most soil remediation
applications for solids/liquid separation.
Feed material specifications -
Specific gravity - Not limited.
Solids content - Belt filter presses are applicable from 1 to 40% solids in the slurry
feed (Olin and Preston 1995).
Washwater - Presses are generally equipped for washwater. However, washing will
have limited application in soil/sediment remediation since the principal application is
dewatenng.
Particle-size ranges - WASTE-TECH indicates a maximum teed size of 100 microns
for their Python Press.
Characteristics - The finer the material, the more quickly the filter will blind. Thus,
clays are more problematic than coarse soils.
Capacity - The maximum hydraulic loading rate for belt filter presses tends to be around 50
gprnfm (11.4 m 3 /hr/m), with belt widths ranging form 0.5 to 3 m (Viessman and Hammer 1993).
Type - Literature reviewed included belt filter presses and a Python Pinch Press. The
mechanisms for compression vary from vendor to vendor as well as the maximum pressure
exerted on the cake. The belt filter presses are continuous with moving cloth. The Python
Pinch Press is semi-continuous with a stationary geotextile.
Waste/product streams - Filter presses produce a dry cake of soil/sediment solids. Expressed
water and washwater must be disposed of or recycled and may contain fine solids and
dissolved contaminants.
52

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Operating variables/parameters - Operation of presses is quite dependent on the feed
material. Material properties can often be amended by additives to affect porosity of the cake.
The concentration and feedrate of the sludge are important input variables which affect the
speed or cycle of the press and the pressure applied.
Size - The belt filter presses found in the vendor literature require a floor area of 151” x 126”
to 259” x 165” (384 cmx 320cm to 658 cmx 419 cm).
Cost - capital and operating - EPA estimates cost of a 40 to 50 gpm filter press at $343,500
and a 80 to 100 gpm filter press at $470,000 in 1998 dollars representing 1 and 2 meter widths,
respectively. EPA’s limited survey also indicated that contracted costs for filtering are typically
in the range of $3 to $1 1 per hundred gallons of feed.
Cost information for belt filter presses in Western Mine Engineering (1996) are provided for
units with belt widths ranging from 3.0 to 12.0 feet (0.914 to 3.658 m). Capital costs range from
approximately $88,000 to $173,000, and operating costs from $3.05 to $6.10/hr. Estimated
capacities given are for various coal circuits. Capacity ranges from 11 to 33 tons/hr for a circuit
with feed material composed of 90% ash and over 80% less than 325 mesh. Unit capacity
costs were roughly estimated from this information to range from $4570 to $91 50/ton/hr. Other
assumptions on which these cost ranges were based are contained in Western Mine
Engineering (1996).
Plate and frame filter presses are described in terms of nominal size and corresponding
filtration area and volume. The pressure filters described in Western Mine Engineering (1996)
range from 30 sq ft to 798 sq ft (3 sq m to 74 sq m), and 1 to 30 cu ft filtration volume (0.028
to 0.850 cu m). Capital costs range from approximately $13,200 to $122,000, and operating
costs from approximately $0.50 to $6.60/hr. Corresponding unit costs are then approximately
$150 to $460/sq ft filtration area, with unit cost decreasing with increasing size. Other
assumptions on which these cost ranges were based are contained in Western Mine
Engineering (1996).
General comments - EPA (1994b) indicates that belt filter presses are generally the best
suited devices for mobile treatment systems. Furthermore, contract filter services are generally
available. Characterization tests are generally required to size the unit.
Flowsheets - Filter presses are generally the final stage of sludge dewatering.
Vendors - Waste-Tech Inc.
LAROX
Bethlehem Corporation
Screens
A solid/liquid separation differs from grading screening (solid/solid separation). Screens are
used for dewatenng for materials ranging from coarse down to about 0.1 mm but are most
commonly applied to material below 1 mm (Osborne 1990). For material greater than 0.5 mm
in diameter, effective drainage with no material losses through the screen can be achieved with
screen apertures smaller than the smallest particle size. For finer materials, a range of particle
53

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
sizes in the feed is necessary to facilitate formation of a filter bed. The coarser particles bridge
the screen apertures, creating a cake, which retains fine particles while passing the water
through the cake. In general, this requires an aperture size 40% larger than the mean particle
size (Osborne 1990).
In cases where the specific gravity of the solid and liquid are similar, a fixed screen with low
flow rate will perform better than a moving screen. This will not typically be the case in
soil/sediment remediation operations. Efficiency of this operation will vary with screen type,
material characteristics, and solid to liquid ratio. A typical dewatering configuration is a
classifying cyclone followed by a sieve bend and a flat or inclined deck type screen. The
function of the cyclone is to present a feed low enough in fluid volume to permit drainage by
capillary action (Osborne 1990). In the case of less than 0.5 mm material, this translates to 30
to 40% fines.
Hydroseparators
Hydroseparators are devices that serve two purposes: clarification and separation. A simple
hydroseparator is a vertical tank with a tapered bottom for solids removal and an overflow
collector to collect the clarified liquid or the finer fraction from separation. To act as a clarifier
the upward liquid velocity must be such that the smallest particle can settle against the current.
A polymer can be used to increase the settling velocity and the thickening of the clarified solids.
The use of hydroseparators for separation was previously discussed under hydraulic classifiers.
Screw Classifiers
A screw classifier is a separation device that consists of a sloped bottom tank with parallel
sides equipped with one or two spirals mounted parallel to the tank bottom. The rotating spiral
provides agitation for the pool and a conveyance mechanism to the sand discharge for the
settled sand. Sands drain as they are conveyed. A separation of fine particulate is made by
a constant agitation of the solids in the pool and the upflow of water to the overflow weirs. The
oversize traction (sand) with 80% solids can be obtained. Factors that affect the design and
operation of the screw classifier are liquid viscosity, specific gravity, and flow rate of the liquid
phase. Soil parameters that affect the design and operation of the unit are chemical and
physical composition, density, feed rate, particle-size distribution, and desired separation size.
In soil remediation applications the screw classifier can be used to remove up to a 100-mesh
particle from the soil or dewater for further processing or as a plant discharge.
Auxiliary Equipment
This section will address types of auxiliary equipment that are required in virtually all fully
functional soil washing plants. Other auxiliary elements of an operating soil washing facility
such as pads, electrical service, security, road access and decontamination facilities are
adequately covered in other facilities and environmental engineering references and thus will
not be addressed in detail in this document. However, most of these elements will be
necessary for the successful completion of the project and should be considered in any cost
estimation or planning exercise.
54

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
Conveyors
A belt conveyor is a transport device consisting of a continuous rubber or fabric belt supported
by pulley assemblies at each end and idlers and troughing rollers along the profile. The rollers,
idlers, and pulleys are mounted in a support frame structure suitable to maintain belt alignment.
Belt conveyors are used as an economic transport for soil through the plant. Belt conveyors
in a soil washing plant can range from a short horizontal stationary conveyor used to move soil
internally, to a radial stacker to pile and stage processed soils. Design criteria should include
environment, belt type, slope, belt trough and width, belt speed and material transported.
Weighing belts are also available.
Process Tanks
Soil washing plants require tanks for process storage of slurries, sludges and process water.
These can be a simple horizontal or vertical cylindrical tank for process water or a sophisticated
sludge consolidation/holding tank. Process tanks in a soil washing plant are used to isolate
equipment and allow various unit operations to operate independently. An example can be the
sludge press. In some operations, the sludge production is greater than the sludge dewatering
system can process. Scheduling the dewatering operation to more operating hours than the
main processing plant can accommodate the production rate differences. Buffering of process
flows can also prevent upsets and pulsating discharge streams that affect downline equipment
feed streams. Design parameters for process should include material stored, flow rates in and
out, and desired holding volume and time.
Sumps and Pumps
Liquid sumps and pumps are needed in a soil washing process to transfer slurries in the plant.
Sumps are usually open vessels used to collect flows from one or more sources and provide
a flooded suction to pumps for proper operation. The sunips are typically slanted bottom tanks
and are designed to channel any solids in the process stream to the inlet of the pump. Most
pumps used in a soil washing plant are either centrifugal or positive displacement type.
Centrifugal pumps are used to transfer slurries with low viscosities. Consolidated or thickened
sludges require a positive displacement pump. Typical subtypes of this pump type are
diaphram and screw pumps. The design criteria for pumps for soil washing include slurry
characteristics, system piping requirements and required pressure or flow of the receiving
equipment.
Controls
Process controls for a soil washing plant can be as sophisticated as a Programmable Logic
Controller (PLC) monitoring and controlling all phases of the process to a simple manual valve
control adjusting and maintaining tank levels. PLC systems can monitor and maintain tank
levels, process flows, pressures, temperatures and make decisions based on input parameters.
The drawback to this system is the cost, additional effort for process changes and maintenance
of the sensors, controllers and hardware. Manual control plants are usually less complicated
to operate, and the equipment can be easily modified, replaced or removed without any control
changes. The manual control system is less costly than a PLC system but may cost more in
the manpower needed to monitor and control the process. A plant design that relies on both
55

-------
Chapter 2. Equipment Selection and Operating Factors
manual and automatic controls along with sensors and alarms to aid in manual control is a
compromise that usually is the best design for soil washing plants.
Weighing Devices
Weighing of the soil in a soil washing plant can easily be done by either of two methods.
Hauling soil in trucks and weighing of each truck prior to placing soil in a feed staging area is
used in some operations. This method can quantify the soil treated but cannot indicate plant
feed rates for plant control. The preferred method for weighing material processed is using a
conveyor belt weigh scale. This device mounts on a belt conveyor and measures the weight
of load on a moving belt. The weight scale has the capability to display the feed rate in real
time but also can integrate the feed rates for a total feed processed. These scales can be
adjusted to deliver an accuracy of within 0.5%.
56

-------
3 Treatment Trains and Cost
Estimation
This chapter discusses how the unit processes discussed eartier can be combined to form an
overall physical separation process. Factors that may affect performance, typical treatment
trains (soil washing plants), and estimation of costs are addressed.
Factors Affecting Soil Washing Cost Effectiveness
The technical and economic viability of soil washing is quite varied depending on site-specific
factors. There is no single “recipe” for application of soil washing, and effectiveness may
depend on one or more factors. Some of the most significant are discussed below.
Type and Mechanism of Contamination
Contaminants distribute differently, depending upon the manner in which they are introduced
to the soil or sediment. A firing range soil, for example, may have particulate lead throughout,
as well as lead deposited by smearing and chemically sorbed metals solubilized by leaching.
Although fines are typically considered to have the highest associated contaminant
concentrations, sands may not be entirely clean in grossly contaminated environments or where
the contaminants, such as oil and grease, are sticky or viscous. A review of site history is,
therefore, essential before beginning any lab or field work with the site materials.
Volume of Material to be Processed
Because site preparation and mobilization/demobilization costs are relatively insensitive to the
volume to be processed, low volume projects will reflect much higher unit costs than high
volume projects.
Clay Content
Soil washing is generally only economical when clay and organic content is low. A significant
portion of the cost attributable to clays is a result of increased dewatering costs. For sediment
reclamation projects, where dewatering may be accomplished in lagoons rather than settlers
or filter presses, this cost factor may be significantly reduced provided adequate storage area
is available to meet the requirements of extended settling times. Clay content may result in
diminished processing rates, however, with respect to separation and extraction processes.
57

-------
Chapter 3. Treatment Trains and Cost Estimation
Organic Content
Natural organic materials act as sinks for contamination. Organic materials are not confined
to a single size range and may result in high contaminant concentrations in mineralogical
fractions that would otherwise be relatively uncontaminated.
Preliminary Cost Analysis
The importance of conducting the preliminary feasibility evaluation in a manner that is
representative of field operations cannot be overstressed. For example, wet sieving is
commonly used for preliminary contaminant distribution studies. While the information obtained
in this manner is useful for preliminary evaluation of process feasibility, the separation is not
representative of what can be achieved in the field using, for example, hydrocyclones. A
stepwise approach to feasibility evaluations, beginning with bench scale testing and
progressing to pilot scale, is therefore advisable. Evaluating the material to be processed in
a manner representative of what the process will “see” in the field is important. If materials are
to be blended, they should be composited for feasibility evaluations as well. However, this
requires advance planning of excavation operations; sufficient staging area, and blending
equipment. Compositing must be approached very carefully. If no blending is planned, then
each matrix must be separately evaluated.
Degree of Heterogeneity of Soil/Sediment Deposit
Small scale testing, such as bench and pilot scale feasibility tests, may not fully address the
effects of heterogeneity within the soil/sediment deposit to be processed. In some cases,
additional pilot testing may be required, even after operations have progressed to full scale, to
assess different matrices encountered during excavation. Blending operations may be
required, as previously mentioned.
Treatment Trains
Due to the complexity of soil contamination, physical separation treatment trains may be equally
complex. In Chapter 1, Figure 1-1 gives an overview of how physical separation equipment can
be put together to create a physical separation treatment train. Three examples of realistic
configurations of increasing complexity are discussed below.
Treatment Train 1, Simple Physical Separation
One of the simplest treatment train configurations is shown in Figure 3-1. This treatment train
is designed to make a simple physical separation of the field oversize, the process oversize,
and the sand and fines. The configuration is appropriate for situations where there is a desire
to minimize the volume of material stored in a confined disposal facility (CDF) and where there
may be an opportunity to recycle oversize materials and sand. This configuration assumes that
the oversize and sand products meet the specified treatment standards without treatment. The
quality of the products must be confirmed in treatability studies performed on actual feed
materials.
58

-------
RECYCLED WATER
TROMMEL
SCREEN
PRE-SCREENED FEED
C-)
C)
CD
H
CD
C)
CD
Figure 3-1. Treatment Train 1, simple physical separation.
(same as figure 1-3)
‘ IIBRATU4G
WET SCREEN
HOPPER
SAND DEWATERING
TRANSFER
PUMP

-------
Chapter 3. Treatment Trains and Cost Estimation
Treatment Train 2, Physical Separation
Treatment Train 2 (Figure 3-2) is similar to Treatment Train 1 with the exception that a density
separation step has been added on the sand stream after hydrocyclone separation. In this
case, the feed material has a contaminant in the sand stream that exhibits physical density
differences from the sand and can be removed by the use of a spiral concentrator or mineral
jig. This contaminant may be either more or less dense than the sand and is often represented
by lead (as a heavy) or naturally occurring organic matter (as a light). Oversize products are
similarly removed, and it is the intention of this flowsheet to reuse or recycle the recovered
products meeting the treatment standards. Contaminated fines are returned for storage to the
CDF.
Treatment Train 3, Treatment with Fines Extraction
In Figure 3-3, all of the features of Treatment Train 2 are included. Oversize products are
removed; separations of the sand and fines are performed with the hydrocycione; and the sand
is density separated. in this case, a decision has been made to avoid the use of the CDF and
further treat the sand and fines. Also, the sand usually needs additional treatment to achieve
the required standards. Froth flotation has been added to function in conjunction with
surfactants to remove residual contaminants from the sand. The froth concentrate is
recombined with the fines. The fines are thickened in a lamella clarifier and are further treated
with wet oxidation to destroy remaining organic contaminants. A final wet oxidation step is
included as an example of the way nonphysical technologies can be integrated into soil
washing plants.
Case Studies
Some actual treatment trains with varying levels of complexity can be found in the case studies
presented in Chapter 4.
Cost Estimating
Estimating treatment costs is perhaps the most difficult task facing the planner and design
engineer. Because physical separation is still a young technology as a soil or sediment
remediation technique and because costs are always highly site specific, dependable cost
numbers are the most difficult information to obtain. Equipment vendors are often reluctant to
provide generic equipment cost ranges, and few are published. Planning-level cost estimates
can be approached, however, in a number of different ways so that the economics of
separation technologies can be compared to other treatment or management alternatives. A
tiered approach is recommended, beginning with the least labor intensive estimating method
and progressing to the most detailed and certain methods, if it appears to be justified. Four
approaches in increasing order of effort and expected reliability follow:
• Extrapolating unit costs ($/unit volume soil/sediment) from case studies of other projects.
• Application of various multipliers to equipment cost estimates to obtain rough total project
costs.
60

-------
FINES
COF )SETTLING BASIN)
PERMANENT OR
TEMPORARY STORAGE
SAND DEWATERING
SCREEN
-
2
PRE-SCREENED FEED
HOPPER
PUMP
Figure 3-2. Treatment Train 2, physical separation.
TRANSFER
PUMP
SAND
0
0)
(0
H
(0
0)
(0
H
0)
(T I
0)
0
0
(I)
m
C I )
0)
0

-------
TR. R ASFER CLEAN DENSE SPIRAL
PROCESS OWRS{ZE RESIDUAL
Figure 3-3. Treatment Train 3, treatment with fines extraction.
C)
0)
CD
H
CD
CD
B
(0
H
CD
(I )
0)
C-
0
0
(I )
m
(0
B
0)
0
C

-------
Chapter 3. Treatment Trains and Cost Estimation
• Extensive, design level, estimation of project requirements.
• A&E proposals.
Case Studies as a Cost Estimating Tool
A range of unit costs for physical separation can be obtained from a review of case studies.
Care must be exercised to determine what is included in reported costs (site preparation,
mobilization-demobilization, equipment purchase and operation versus fully contracted
operations, processing volume, and site specific conditions that may have influenced costs) to
arrive at meaningful unit costs that can be applied to other sites. The value of this as a first step
in developing cost estimates is obtaining an indication for the sensitivity of physical separation
costs to processing volume, technical complexity, and site considerations. Because of the
extreme variability that is normally encountered in reported unit treatment costs, this is typically
not a definitive cost estimating tool, however.
Equipment Cost Multiphers for Total Project Cost Estimation
Equipment capital and operating costs can be developed from cost estimating guides (e.g.,
Western Mine Engineering 1996) or from vendor specifications and quotes. In both cases, at
least a preliminary treatment train must be developed identifying major pieces of equipment.
Developing this treatment train, in turn, requires at least preliminary site and material data
acquisition efforts. Costs developed based on equipment recommendations and estimates
obtained from vendors for site specific requirements will undoubtedly have a higher level of
certainty than costs developed from generic data. Vendors may require more extensive site
data; however, the information gathering effort is offset by shifting the burden of specifying and
costing the equipment to the vendor.
Once costs for all the major equipment have been estimated, estimating the total capital cost
of the project (including design, engineering, installation, and ancillary equipment of the entire
facility) by multiplying this base cost by a factor typical for the industry is often helpful. Cost of
installation is often proportional to the cost of the major equipment. The factor estimates costs
such as piping, foundations, painting, etc. typical to all installations. Factor estimates are
available for the sourte of expense (Perry 1 984) from which components could be increased
or eliminated depending on site complexity or accounting (e.g., not including corps labor in
costs). Care should be taken that the equipment costs are all estimated on the same basis so
inflation and delivery are taken into account. Without a typical factor for remediation or mining
plants, a factor of 4.1 (Peny 1984) may be a reasonable approximation for physical separation.
By applying this methodology, the remediation engineer can quickly evaluate the tradeoffs in
capital expenditure and O&M costs with plant throughput. In addition, a reasonable equipment
recovery value for short-term projects could be incorporated in economic evaluation. This may
be useful to evaluate equipment which may be used on subsequent projects or to approximate
an anticipated use fee if a vendor is to perform the project.
63

-------
Chapter 3. Treatment Trains and Cost Estimation
Extensive, Design Level Estimation
Extensive, design-level estimation of site preparation requirements, mobilization-demobilization
and operating schedules, manpower, supplies and materials requirements, and capital and
operating cost estimates for individual pieces of equipment is likely to give more precise results
than the previous two estimating methods and is ultimately necessary. However, itemized
estimation may require a time and manpower investment that may not be justifiable in early
planning-level cost estimating efforts. The treatment train and material take-offs must be more
fully developed. Even then, there is an inherent level of uncertainty in all cost estimates, no
matter how rigorously prepared because site conditions may necessitate process or schedule
changes and impact costs. The technical and field expertise of the estimator will also be a
factor. The level of effort justified for initial planning-level comparisons then must be measured
against the additional accuracy that can be expected in light of these unknowns. Itemized cost
estimating also parallels the effort that A&E firms preparing project proposals will invest and
may be duplicative and premature for planning-level comparison of alternatives.
Itemized cost estimates for the three treatment train scenarios (Figures 3-1 through 3-3) are
presented in Table 3-1. The details of these cost calculations are shown in Appendix A.
A&E Proposals
Requests for proposals (RFPs) from reputable A&E firms with experience in physical separation
will likely provide the closest estimate of actual project costs. However, because of the
influence of site-specific conditions on treatment costs, contractors may not be willing to provide
a fixed fee bid. The planners should develop some preliminary cost estimates as a reference
so that bids which clearly underestimate the complexity and difficulty of the proposed project
can be identified, and excessive change orders and cost overruns can be avoided. While RFPs
will ultimately provide the most precise estimate of project costs, they represent a significant
time investment on the part of the preparer, require completion of treatability studies for
determination of design requirements, and are typically not obtained until there is relative
certainty that the project will proceed to bid.
64

-------
Chapter 3 . Treatment Tranis and Cost Estimation
Table 3-1. Itemized Cost Estimates of Three Treatment Train Scenarios .
Cost Component Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Mobilization, Site Preparation, Demobilization 140,000 140,000
Plant Depreciation 120,000 240,000
Plant Labor 292,775 425,010
108,714 108,714
90,000 90,000
114,092 174,092
120,000 120,000
30,000 30,000
50,000 50,000
284,419 362,184
Total 1,350,000 1,740,000
1998 Unit Puce, $fton 22.50 29.00
Assumptions:
Processing rate is 25 tons per hour
Feed soils or sediments are delivered to the processing plant by others.
No residual disposal is provided.
Processing plant is owned by the contractor and depreciated.
A 50,000 cubic yard project is the baseline.
Travel and Per Diem
Utilities
Plant Consumables
Maintenance
Process Sampling
Project Administration
Contractor Overhead and Profit
Scenario 3
315,000
510,000
623,364
217,429
180,000
474,092
240,000
50,000
50,000
700,115
3,360,000
56.00
65

-------
4 Case Studies
This chapter presents summanes of several case studies where soil separation has been used
for treatment of a variety of contaminated soils and sediments. Case studies are briefly
summarized to facilitate identification of important correlations, such as volume, treatment
objectives, complexity of treatment trains and cost. The objective is to provide a general
background in common practice, representative treatment trains, potential limitations and
problems with the technology, as well as documented successes. The following case studies
are taken from US Army Corps of Engineers sites, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller experience, and
literature.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, Minneapolis, MN
Site History: World War II - present: Munitions production facility (no longer active)
Site F: former open burning area
Unspecified date: Classified as Minnesota’s #1 Superfund Site
Contaminants and Treatment Objectives:
Analyte
Contaminant Levels
Treatment Objectives
Lead
1600 ppm avg
86,000 ppm max
300
40 ppm initially
175 ppm negotiated
ppm enforceable standard
Antimony
Not given
4 ppm
Cadmium
Not given
4 ppm
Chromium
Not given
100 ppm
Copper
Not given
80 ppm
Mercury
Not given
0.3 ppm
Nickel
Not given
45 ppm
Silver
Not given
5 ppm
66

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Project Volume: Not given
6-15 ton per hour processing rate
Site Ownership: Department of Defense - Army
Federal Cartridge Co. - Operating Contractor
Consultants/Contractors: Bescorp
COGNIS
Wenck Associates, Keith W. Benker, RE., project manager
Project Status & Outcome: Completed.
Most soil returned to site following treatment. One year before closure, contractors were
estimating that 95% of the soil would pass the enforceable lead standard of 300 ppm.
Remaining soil was to be landfilled. The treatment was less successful for the other metals and
could not achieve the stringent background-based cleanup goals. Cleanup levels based art
health risk, roughly 10 to 100 times higher than objectives, are potentially achievable.
Design processing rate was 20 tons per hour. Higher contaminant concentrations and clay
content were encountered at the site. At the time of publication (Benker 1994), soil was being
processed at 6 to 15 tons per hour.
Treatment Train: Bulk material entered a hopper and then a trommel. The oversize material
was then handpicked for munitions or cartridges. The undersize went through sand-fines
separation. The fines were then extracted (Terramet, a proprietary soil leaching process
developed by COGNIS). The sand went through a spiral classifier and jig for metal fragment
removal before counter current extraction. The cleaned material was then dewatered and re-
blended. Spent leachate from the counter current extraction went through an electrochemical
reduction system where the metals were precipitated into a cake, and the cleaned leachate was
recycled.
Costs: None given
Information Source(s): Benker 1994.
USAE District, Jacksonville, Canaveral Harbor, FL
Site History: Not given.
Contaminants and Treatment Objectives: The US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville
District, was requested by the Canaveral Port Authority (CPA) to assess hydrocyclone
technology for possible use in the maintenance dredging/disposal operation at Canaveral
Harbor. According to the State of Florida beach quality sand was defined as containing less
than 10 percent fine-grained materials. (Fine-grained materials are typically considered to be
less than 63 to 75 microns, depending upon the classification system, although the Florida
definition of fines was not cited.) The project proposed to integrate dredging with processing.
67

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Analyte
Contaminant Levels
Treatment Objectives
Uncontaminated materials N/A
<10% fines
Project Volume: Not given.
Site Ownership: Not given.
Consultants/Contractors: Not given.
Project Status: January 1994 - Workshop involving Port Dredging industry, hydrocyclone
industry, State and US Army Corps of Engineers representatives. Concern over
interdependence of processing rates between the dredging operation and the processing
operation and the present availability of lower cost disposal options prevented progression
beyond feasibility planning for a pilot study.
Treatment Train: Proposed maximum density separators (MDS) - hydrocyclone with vacuum
applied to overflow.
Costs: Not given.
Comments: Not given.
Information Source(s): Heibel et al. 1994
USAE District, Jacksonville, Miami River, FL
Site History: Not given.
Contaminants and Treatment Objectives: This was a small pilot run to determine the
feasibility of partitioning sand and silt and to determine the characteristics of the sand.
Samples were prescreened through a 3/8-inch screen and then fractionated using #100, 200,
and 325 mesh screens. Grain size analysis indicated 19 to 52% sand and highest contaminant
levels in the less than 200 mesh (75 micron) fraction.
Analyte
Contaminant
Levels
Treatment Objectives
Heavy
metals
Not given
Not
given
Project Volume: Five - 30 gallon samples were tested.
Site Ownership: Not given.
Consultants/Contractors: METRPO, Inc., Bartow, FL - MDS separation testing.
68

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Project Status: March 1997 - Bottom samples collected from various locations in the project
area.
April 1997 - Samples were processed through a 6-inch (1 5-cm) MDS test stand, for a 200
mesh split (75 microns). Two to three 5-gallon drums of sample were mixed with approximately
1 00 gallons of untreated groundwater (11 to 15% solids). Underflow percent solids were
generally 70 to 75%. Visually, the sands appeared clean. Both underf low (sand) and overflow
(fines) samples underwent chemical and bioassay sampling. The overflow demonstrated two
distinct phases: a high organic settlable material and non-settlable colloidal phase.
Sediment bioassays indicated that the sand was non-toxic, suitable for commercial grade sand.
Use as beach material seems unlikely because of negative public perception. Supernatant was
also non-toxic. The settled organic rich overflow was thought to be suitable for use as a sealing
cap between layers at an upland confined landfill. Flocculation studies of the colloidal
suspension indicated that rapid settling can be achieved and a clear, non-toxic supernatant
produced, with the use of cationic polymers.
Pilot project - Planned.
Treatment Train: Proposed Pilot: Water jet and eductor pump with a grizzly screen to slurry
and remove clamshell dredged sediments from a scow into a feed weir. Slurry would be
processed through a 12-inch (30-cm) MDS stand with 550 gpm capacity at 20 percent solids.
Predicted feed split at 50 gpm underf low, 70% solids and 500 gpm overflow at 11 .5 % solids.
Storage capacity requirements: 150 cy/hr or 2500 cy/1 6 hr day. A 0.25-acre disposal area six
feet in depth, or 3000 cy scow, was proposed. Assumptions: 1 to 2 days settling time for
organic solids, one day drainage and excavation time, one day processing through
hydrocyclone, and a four bin disposal site, or four scows to permit continuous operation.
Costs: Not given.
Comments: The proposed Miami River pilot demonstration project has not been implemented
because of the stringent sediment disposal constraints imposed by Dade County, Department
of Environmental Resources Management (DERM). DERM’s criteria are sometimes greater
than two orders of magnitude more stringent than the standard EPA TCLP criteria. Although
well below national TCLP criteria, the MDS-produced undertlow sand did not meet the stringent
DERM criteria for clean till, and the overflow material did not meet DERM’s landfill disposal
criteria.
Information Source(s): Personal Communication: Mr. Mitch A. Granat, USAE District,
Jacksonville, telephone conversation, August 1997 and e-mail communication, October 1998.
USAE District, Jacksonville, Fort Myers, FL
Site History: Not given.
Contaminants and Treatment Objectives: Clean, non-toxic sediments were used in a
demonstration on 21-23 September 1998.
69

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Analyte
Contaminant Levels
Treatment Objectives
Heavy
metals
Clean
Not
given
Project Volume: Not given.
Site Ownership: Not given.
Consultants/Contractors: Not given.
Project Status: Grain size and TCLP results are awaited. Pending procurement of a Water
Quality Certificate from the State, production application using a 14-inch (36-cm) pipeline
dredge and several 24-inch (61-cm) MDSs to dredge and process Ft. Myers maintenance
dredged material is planned for spring of 1999.
Treatment Train: A six-inch (15-cm) slurry pump was used to pump in-situ slurry from
adjacent to the Ft. Myers Beach Navigation Channel through a V2-inch (1 .27-cm) grizzly into a
30 second tank feeding a 12-inch (30-cm) maximum density hydrocyclone.
Costs: Not given.
Comments: Total processing time was about 4 hours, some of which was pumping straight
water. A pile of beach sand was produced and an almost filled retention site of about 30 by 70
ft (9 by 21 m).
Information Source(s): Personal Communication: Mr. Mitch A. Granat, USAE District,
Jacksonville, October 1998.
USAE District, Detroit, Erie Pier Demonstration, MN
Site History:
• Duluth-Superior Harbor designated by the International Joint Commission as one of 43
Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin due partially to contaminated sediments.
• Erie Pier handles> 76,000 m 3 of dredged material annually from Duluth-Superior Harbor.
• 1988 - dredged material washing procedure implemented.
Contaminants and Treatment Objectives: Soil washing was implemented on a trial basis to
evaluate the feasibility of recovering sand for use as construction fill, thus reducing the volume
of dredged material to be stored in the CDF.
70

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Analyte
Dredged Material (avg.)
Washed Material (avg.)
Total solids. %
55.0
86.0
Silts/clays (passing No. 200 sieve), %
69.0
14.0
Total volatile solids, %
2.81
0.58
PCBs, mg/kg
0.10
<0.02
Oil & grease, mg/kg
762
263
Total organic carbon, mg/kg
19,300
2,206
Arsenic, mg/kg
1.64
0.866
Cadmium, mg/kg
2.98
1.10
Chromium, mg/kg
31.7
10.3
Copper, mg/kg
32.6
22.0
Iron, mg/kg
22,200
7,220
Lead, mg/kg
65.2
17.4
Mercury, mg/kg
0.108
0.0136
Nickel, mg/kg
20.4
7.62
Zinc, mg/kg
84.8
20.8
Cyanide, mg/kg
0.098
0.06
Ammonia n rogen, mg/kg
278
164
Project Volume: Not given.
Site Ownership: US Army Engineer District, Detroit.
Consultants/Contractors: Not given.
Project Status: Testing demonstrated the washed sand to be suitable for use as construction
fill. As a result, the washed material is no longer required to undergo extensive testing before
removal from the CDF. It must only meet the criterion for use as fill (< 15% fines). Soil
washing is now incorporated as a contractual requirement and is performed annually. An
average of 20 to 25% of the Erie Pier dredged material is removed each year and used as
construction fill in projects near Duluth-Superior Harbor.
Treatment Train: Dredged material was off-loaded in a catchment area. Water from the CDF
pond was pumped over the dredged material to create a slurry that was allowed to flow down
a sluiceway constructed from previously dredged material. Heavy particles settled out in the
sluiceway, and the fines were carried to the ponded area. The washed sand was recovered
from the sluiceway with a front-end loader.
Costs: Not given.
71

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Comments: Not given.
Information Source(s): Olin and Bowman 1996.
USAE District, Detroit, Saginaw River Pilot Scale Demonstration, Ml
Site History:
• Navigational reach of Saginaw River, and Saginaw Bay. Sediments were freshly dredged
for the pilot and stockpiled in the Saginaw Bay confined disposal facility.
• 1988 Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Remedial Action Plan
• Designated as one of 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOC) (1987 amendments to the
Clean Water Act, Section 11 8(c)(3) & Great Lakes Water Quality Board of the International
Joint Commission).
Contaminants and Treatment Objectives: According to EPA (USEPA 1 994a), most
contamination is a result of agricultural run-off and municipal and industrial discharges in Flint,
Saginaw, Bay City and Midland, Michigan. Sediments are considered contaminated but not
toxic or hazardous as defined by regulatory definitions of the Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA) or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). A wide variety of
contaminants are found in these sediments, including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane (DDT),
polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), poly-chloro dioxins, and a variety of metals. PCBs in the
navigation channel are typically in the < 0.1 to 5 mg/kg range. Some “hot spots” have PCBs
exceeding 500 mg/kg (MDNR 1988). Chemical analysis of material used as feed material for
the pilot is given in the following table (USEPA 1994a).
Anatyte Contaminant Levels Separated Sand
(mean) (mean)
Separated Fines
(mean)
Separated Organics
(mean)
PCB 1182 ng/g 214 ng/g
2156 nglg
3860 n Ig
Cd 0.SOmgJg 0.O6mgig
1.64mg/g
1. l6mgJg
Cr 23.9 mgig 10.8 mg/g
88 1 mg/g
33.6 mg/g
Cu 17.9 mg/g 6.3 mglg
63.6 mglg
40 8 mg/g
Hg 0.061 mg/g 0.008 mg ’g
0.199 mg/g
0.210 mglg
Ni 11.5 m ig 3.3 mg/g
43.2 mg/g
36.4 mg/g
Pb 204 mg/g 7.42 mg/g
70.8 mg/g
41.4 mg/g
Zn 96.1 mgig 17.7 mg/g
431 mg/g
191.4 mg/g
Project Volume: Approximately 800 cubic yards
dredged.
Site Ownership: Not given.
Consultants/Contractors: Bergmann USA
Thermo Analytical Inc/Environmental Research Group
72

-------
Chaniter 4. Case Studies
Project Status:
Sep 16 - Oct 1, 1991: Site Preparation
Oct 3-9, 1 991, May 2-8, 1992: Dredging and Transport of Feed Material
Oct 15-28, 1 991: Erection of Pilot Plant
Oct 31 - Nov 1, 1991, May 17 - Jun 1, 1992: ARCS Treatment and Sampling
May30- Jun 3, 1992: SITE Treatment and Sampling
Jun 4-5, 1992: Site Closure
Sep 9-15, 1992: Disassembly of Pilot Plant
Treatment Train:
Water—s
Figure 4 -1. General process flow diagram for the Bergmann USA System used at
Saginaw Bay, MI (USEPA 1994a).
73

-------
Chapter 4. Case Stud es
Costs:
Activity Aprroximate Cost
Project Management S 75,000
Health and Safety Plan 5,000
Sampling and Analysis Plan 10,000
Site Preparation 51,000
Sediment Excavation 40,000
Including Tug, Barge, and
Sediment Sampling to Locate Site
Grain-size Demonstration 148,000
Including Vendor, Shipping, Equipment
Rental (Barge, Tug, Crane, Loader), COE
Field Support and Site Preparation
Sample Collection Ducing Demonstration 32,000
Sample Analysis 146,000
Data Analysis and Report Preiaration 40,000
Total 547,000
Note that in this demonstration, site preparation costs are greatly elevated by the location of
the demonstration on an island.
Comments: One lesson learned from the pilot scale demonstration is that when clay is present,
preprocessing should be done to eliminate formation of “clay balls” during removal of oversized
materials using a log washer, high pressure sprayer, or similar device.
Information Source(s): USEPA 1 994a, MDNR 1988
74

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller
The Hanford Site, Richiand, WA
Client
Westinghouse-
Hanford
Company
Project Services
Soil Washing
Contact
Ronald D. Belden
Senior Engineer
(509) 373-1982
Contaminants:
• Uranium, Metals, Organics
Quantity of Soil:
• 380 tons
Operations Period:
• March 1994- July 1994
This was the first soil washing pilot study perlormed at the United States Department of Energy
Hanford, Washington, site. The ART Division was responsible for all phases of the pilot study
including:
• Mobilization and setup of the pilot plant
• Plant shakedown
• Preparation of site manuals including: Site Operations Manual, Qual;ty Assurance Project
Plan, and Test Procedures
• Performance of the three phases of the soil washing pilot test
• Plant decommissioning and decontamination
• Project Technical Report
The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the capability and effectiveness of soil washing
on soils at the 300-FF-1 Operable Unit (OU). Specifically, the pilot test was designed to
Figure 4-2. View of soil washing pilot plant at the Hanford site.
75

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
determine the capability of soil washing to reduce the volume of contaminated material to <
90% by weight and to meet the specified treatment standards. The results of the soil washing
operation were incorporated into the Phase Ill Feasibility Study in the context of evaluating soil
washing for full-scale remediation at specified areas of the site.
The test was conducted on soils contaminated with low-level uranium, metals and organics.
Contamination originated from nuclear weapons production operations at the site from World
War I I until 1 975. Soils from two areas within the OU were processed:
1) 300 tons of soil containing metals, organic materials and low-level uranium and,
2) 80 tons of soil containing elevated concentrations of copper and uranium.
The tests for the 300 tons of soil were conducted in three segments: 1) the pre-test run, 2) the
verification run, and 3) the replication run, as follows:
1) The pre-test run provided for startup of the equipment and initial processing of soil.
Adjustments and fine-tuning to the plant were made, based on the results of the pre-test
run. During this run, 50 tons of soil were processed.
2) The goal of the verification run was to demonstrate that the equipment and process
could achieve the specified 90% reduction by weight of contaminated material and to
meet the treatment standards. During this run 125 tons of soil were processed.
3) The goal of the replication run was to confirm that the results achieved in the verification
run could be replicated. During this run, an additional 125 tons of soil were processed.
A test on 80 tons of soil containing significantly higher levels of uranium due to the presence
of a uranium-copper carbonate precipitate was also performed. Attrition scrubbing was tested
on these soils to achieve improved treatment performance.
The pilot plant utilized at this site had a throughput capacity of 10 to 15 tons per hour in a
mobile, easily erectable configuration. The plant consisted of a feed hopper, a double-decked
wet screen, hydrocyclones, attrition scrubber, sand dewatenng screen, sludge thickening and
dewatering units, and the required supporting peripheral equipment. The pilot study was
successful in meeting the goal of > 90% reduction by weight and was also successful in
achieving the specified test performance standards.
Upon completion of the tests, ART submitted a written report to Westinghouse-Hanford
Company for incorporation into the Feasibility Study.
76

-------
Chapter 4 Case Studies
The following test results were attained.
Concentration
Contaminant
Test
Performance
Standard
Feed
Process
Oversize
(Clean)
Sand
(Clean)
Fines
(Residual)
Cu (ppm)
11,840
2,800
199
1,180
22,000
U-238
(pCi/g)
50
132
5.5
28.5
1,660
U-235
(pCilg)
15
4.5
0.3
1.4
58
Cs-137
(pCiIg)
3.0
0.13
0.05
0.3
0.68
Co-60
(pCi/g)
1.0
0.08
<0.04
<0.06
0.93
77

-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Site, Winslow Township, NJ
Client
The King of
Prussia
Technical
Corporation
Cooperating
Group
Scope of
Services
Soil Washing
Contact
Frank J. Opet
Chairman, King
of Prussia
Technical
Corporation
Cooperating
Group
(609) 384-7222
Contaminants:
• Heavy Metals - Chromium, Copper and Nickel
Quantity of Soil:
• 19,200 tons
Operations Period
• June - October 1993
Background
The King of Prussia (KOP) Technical Corporation Site is located in Winslow Township, New
Jersey, about 30 miles southeast of Philadelphia. The site is situated on approximately ten
acres within the Pinelands National Reserve and adjacent to the State of New Jersey’s Winslow
Wildlife Refuge. The KOP Technical Corporation purchased the site in 1970 to operate an
industrial waste recycling center. The operation was not successful, and in 1985, the site was
placed on the National Priorities List. In 1990, a Record of Decision (ROD) was issued for the
site, and soil washing was specified as the cleanup technology to be used for remediating the
soils. A group of Potentially Responsible Parties was issued a unilateral Administrative Order
to implement the requirements of the ROD.
Figure 4-3. The soil washing plant in operation at the King of Prussia
site.
78

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Preliminary Activities
Two major preparatory steps were taken prior to beginning full-scale soil washing activities:
1) a treatability study to determine the applicability of soil washing to the site, and
2) a “demonstration run” of actual site soils prior to final design of the soil washing plant.
During the Treatability Study, site soils were separated into particle-size fractions, and
particle-size distribution curves were constructed. Each resulting fraction was analyzed for the
target contaminants, and bench-scale studies were conducted to determine the treatment unit
operations to be implemented in the full-scale operation.
Demonstration Run
Because this was a new technology to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), some questions were left from the treatability and bench-scale studies. Therefore,
to fully confirm the effectiveness of the technology on KOP soils, a “demonstration run” was
planned and implemented for actual KOP site materials at the ARCADIS Heidemij Realisatie
full-scale fixed facility in Moerdijk, The Netherlands. With EPA and VROM (the equivalent
Dutch agency) approval, 165 tons of KOP site soils were shipped to Moerdijk. A one-day
treatment operation was performed with the equipment configured as recommended in the
preliminary design for the KOP soil washing plant. The operation was successful in
demonstrating the effectiveness of soil washing in treating the KOP soils. Soils were
remediated to levels well below the ROD-specified standards.
Preparation for Full-Scale Operations
Following the demonstration run, the firm of SALA International was contracted by ART to
manufacture a 25-tons-per-hour soil washing plant, and the plant was delivered to the site in
May 1 993. After erection of the plant on-site, a pilot run was conducted on 1,000 tons of
contaminated soils excavated from the site. The pilot run was successful, again with cleanup
levels well below the ROD-specified standards. As a result, USEPA granted prompt approval
to proceed with full-scale remediation.
Full-scale operations at the KOP site began on June 28, 1993. The project was performed with
full EPA oversight and in accordance with the approved Site Operations Plan. The process and
products were controlled by on-site X-ray fluorescence using previously prepared site
matrix-matched standards and confirmed by off-site CLP analysis. Correlation between the
approaches was excellent. The soil washing operation was completed on October 10, 1993,
and the facility was disassembled and removed from the site. The project treated 19,200 tons
of soil with a volume reduction of greater than 90% on a dry solids basis. The overall analytical
results were as follows.
Avg. Conc. (mg/kg)
contaminant Feed Range (mg/kg) ROD Standard Clean Product Residual Product
Nickel 300-3.500 1,935 25 2.300
Chromium 500-5.500 483 73 4,700
cooper 800-5.500 3.571 110 5.900
79

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Awards Received for Work at the King of Prussia Site
The soil washing capabilities have been recognized with three major environmental engineering
awards for the soil washing operation at the King of Prussia Superfund site, Winslow Township,
New Jersey.
• American Academy of Environmental Engineers “Excellence in Environmental Engineering”
Honor Award for Operations/Management.
• Hazmacon Award “Best Site Remediation Nationwide.”
• Engineering News-Record “Those Who Made Marks.”
80

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
FUSRAP, Maywood, NJ
Contaminants:
• Radium, Thorium
Quantity of Soil:
• 1,000 tons
Operations Period:
• August 1997 - November 1997
Client
Environcare of Utah.
Inc.
Project Services
Soil Washing
Contact
Al Rafati
Vice President
(801) 532-1330
A pilot-scale demonstration of soil washing was performed on soils from the U.S. Department
of Energy’s FUSRAP site in Maywood, NJ. Appropriate soils were identified at the Maywood
site and shipped to the Envirocare low-level radioactive waste disposal site at Clive, Utah, for
processing. Separations were made on the basis of radioactivity levels; matenals higher than
the treatment target were staged for the additional testing and served as the feed soil for the
demonstration.
The pilot plant was mobilized to the Envirocare site from Ashtabula, Ohio. While the plant was
in transit, the site was prepared and a holding pad was constructed by the Envirocare site
contractor, Broken Arrow, Inc. The plant components were prepared outside the radiologically
controlled area and moved into the work area. The plant was then erected on the pad; utility
connections were made; and testing was completed. Operating plans, health and safety plans,
and a sampling and analysis plan were prepared to support the work.
Soil exceeding the treatment standards was pre-screened at 2” (5.08 cm) using a Reed
Screen-All. Material > 2” was staged for analysis as clean material, and material <2” was
staged for introduction into the treatment plant.
Figure 4-4. Pilot plant at the Envirocare of Utah site, Clive, Utah.
81

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
The treatment plant for this project consisted of a feed hopper, a double-decked wet screen,
sump and pump arrangements for water management, hydrocyclones, spiral concentrators,
liquid/solids separation units, and dewatering equipment. The plant was operated by company
personnel with direct support from Envirocare and Broken Arrow, the site contractor. The
project goal of a volume reduction of more than 80% based upon the physical separation of
uranium, radium, and thorium was achieved. The following results were attained.
Contaminant
Feed Soil
(pCl/g)
Sand
(pCl/g)
Oversize
(pCl/g)
Fines
(pCl/g)
Standard
(pCl/g)
Ra-226
1.5
90.6
0.5
4.7
-
Th-232
15.1
4.1
3.6
49.1
-
Total Activity
16.7
4.7
4.1
53.8
5.0
82

-------
Charter 4. Case Studies
The Monsanto Company, Everett, MA
Contaminants:
• Bis (2-ethyihexyl) phthalate (BEHP)
• Phthalic anhydride process residues (PAPR) containing Naphthalene
Quantity of Soil:
. 9,600 tons
Operations Period:
• May 1996- November 1996
Client
The Monasanto
Company
Project Services
Soil Washing
Contact
Bruce Yare
Manager,
Remedial
Technology
(314) 694-6370
The Monsanto Company operated a chemical plant at this 84-acre brownfield site from the
mid-i 800s to 1992. Manufactunng activities resulted in soil impacted with Naphthalene, BEHP,
arsenic, lead and zinc. Since operations ceased, the plant facilities have been dismantled or
demolished, and the site was remediated for construction of a 650,000 square foot shopping
mall. Monsanto performed the cleanup at this site under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan.
Preparations for soil treatment operations began in May 1996 with a treatability study to provide
data for design of the plant. The study showed that the fines fraction (<2 mm) contained
BEHP, and the oversize fraction (>2 mm) contained PAPR. The process flow diagram design
included a trommel, feed hopper, double-decked wet screen, hydrocyclones, attntioning,
secondary hydrocycloning, sand dewatering, fines thickening and consolidation, sludge
dewatenng, and jig. The fines stream was further treated in bioslurry reactors.
Figure 4-5. View of the soil washing plant at the Everett site.
83

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
The 15 tons-per-hour soil washing plant was mobilized to the site and configured in accordance
with the optimized process flow diagram. Soils consisting primarily of oversize and coarse
material with less than 20% silt and clay, including construction debris, demolition rubble and
other fill, were excavated from several areas around the site and delivered to the plant for
processing. The soil was field-screened to remove gross oversize material, producing a plant
feed < 2”. This material was fed into the plant and through the wet screening unit, producing
a process oversize > 2 mm, and a wet slurry < 2 mm. The process oversize, containing PAPR,
was staged outside the plant for further treatment. The wet slurry was fed to the hydrocyclone
separation unit, producing a coarse sand fraction and a fines fraction. The coarse sand fraction
was directed to a dewatenng screen and, after testing, was returned to the site as clean
backfill. The fines fraction was degraded in a bioslurry system operated by another contractor.
The oversize material > 2” contaminated with naphthalene concentrations higher than treatment
targets was further treated by attntioning. The following results were attained.
*
PAPA
SOILS
Feed
Range
(mg/kg)
Treated Soil
(mg/kg)
Treatment
Goal
(mg/kg)
Oversize
Sand
Fines*
._____________
Naphthalene
5,000-
40,000
22,000
520
2,900
3,000
BEHP
-
-
-
-
-
BEHP
SOILS
Feed Soil
(mg/kg)
Treatment Soil
(mg/kg)
Treatment
Goal
(mg/kg)
Oversize
Sand
Fines*
Naphthalene
<3,000
160
39
3,300
3,000
BEHP
5,000
2,700
390
10,000
3,000
Fines treated in bioslurry reactors
84

-------
Chapter 4. case Studies
The RMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant, Ashtabula, OH
Client
RMI
Environmental
Services
Project
Services
Soil Washing
and Extraction
Contact
James W.
Henderson
DMs,on
Manager
(440) 993-1973
Contaminants:
• Uranium
Quantity of Soil:
• 20,000 tons
Operations Period:
• August 1995 - Ongoing
Background
The RMI Titanium Company (RMI) Extrusion Plant is located in Ashtabula Township,
approximately one mile south of Lake Erie, in the northeast corner of the State of Ohio. The
28.5-acre property is privately owned by the RMI Titanium Company. RMI held contracts with
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies to process uranium metal
into forms for use in nuclear and non-nuclear weapons production at the Ashtabula site. A
decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) plan for the site has been approved by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
During uranium extrusion operations from 1962 to 1988, particulate uranium was discharged
from roof vents and stacks to the surrounding soil. The DOE owns half the buildings on the site
and is responsible for funding the cleanup of all contamination associated with work performed
under its contracts with RMI Titanium Company.
Figure 4-6. Pilot plant-ion exchange tanks and precipitation tank.
85

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
The cleanup of the site is being conducted under the RMI Decommission Project (RMIDP)
sponsored by the DOE Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40). EM-40 established the
Innovative Treatment Remediation Demonstration (ITRD) Program to help accelerate the
adoption and implementation of new and innovative soil and groundwater remediation
technologies.
Technical Summary
The RMI site generally consists of high clay-content soils, which added to the complexity of the
project. Because the contaminants tend to bind to the fine soil fractions and because these
fractions make up a high pen entage of the Ashtabula soils, typical soil treatment technologies,
such as physical separation, are not effective at this site because they do not result in
significant volume reduction of the contaminated soils.
In 1996, the ITRD Program sponsored a bench-scale treatability study on RMIDP soils to
explore alternatives to a baseline remediation approach of excavation, transport, and off-site
disposal. After extensive experimentation, the processing approach narrowed on a
carbonate-bicarbonate process which demonstrated a viable technical and cost-beneficial
alternative. Efficiencies of up to 90% were attained, and the treatment standard of 30 pCi/g,
as established in the D&D plan for the site, was met. The potential benefit of the process is its
ability to treat the fine fractions of the soil matrix and separate the uranium contamination from
the soil matrix, thereby significantly reducing the volume of contaminated soil requiring off-site
disposal.
To validate the results of the treatability study, the DOE Ashtabula Environmental Management
Project (AEMP) office and the ITRD program co-sponsored a pilot project in January and
February 1997. The primary objectives of the pilot project were to prove that chemical
extraction could be successful on a large scale and to obtain operational data to support
full-scale soil remediation.
The equipment was erected and operated in a portion of an existing on-site building. The
design consisted of an innovative mix of existing processes. During the project, 38 batches
(approximately 64 tons) of soil were processed. The soil was loaded into a rotary batch reactor
with a heated carbonate-bicarbonate solution to form a 30% solids slurry. The leaching solution
was allowed to contact the soils for 1 to 2 hours. A wet screening process separated oversize
material (> 1 mm), and the remaining slurry was transferred into sequential thickeners to
separate soils from the uranium-bearing liquids. The soil fraction was dewatered by filter press
and underwent no further treatment. The radiological activity of these treated soils was
measured by x-ray fluorescence (XRF) and verified by alpha spectroscopy to determine the
effectiveness of the chemical extraction process. An ion-exchange system was used to remove
the uranium from the liquid. The uranium eluted from the ion exchange resin, and a
“yellowcake” product was recovered by chemical precipitation. Key parameters that were
varied included feed-soil type and activity, reaction temperature, and leaching time. Important
information that was studied for full-scale operations included leaching performance, ion
exchange performance, resin loading, resin regeneration, and uranium precipitation. The
system is close looped, and no adverse air or water problems were created as a result of the
process.
86

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Results
• Ashtabula soils can be effectively treated for uranium by using a sodium carbonate
extraction process.
• Removal efficiencies of up to 94% were achieved, with a volume reduction of up to 95%.
• AJI soils selected for treatment met the free release standard of 30 p011g.
• Full-scale implementation of the process would result in significant schedule reduction and
cost savings for the DOE over the baseline approach.
• As a result of the pilot project, planning and design to initially process 20,000 tons is
underway.
a This was the first time that this process had been successfully implemented on a DOE site
with uranium contamination.
Benefits
Cleanup of RMIDP soils is a component of the D&D plan for the site. Full-scale implementation
of the chemical extraction process will result in significant cost savings and acceleration of
schedule over the planned remedy of excavation and off-site disposal of the soil. Soil meeting
the 30 pCVg cleanup level for total uranium, expected to equal 90+% of the processed soil, will
be released as clean material for backfill on the site, thus minimizing the volume of soil
requiring off-site disposal, and avoiding purchase of backfill material.
Because of a unique combination of facility resources, operating experience of the participants,
and deployment strategies, the site is positioned to be an excellent candidate for success in a
new mission built around providing processing services for contaminated media for DOE and
other sites in the future.
Results are tabulated below.
Treated Soil Removal Efficiency
Pile
Area
Uranium Activity of Feed
by Alpha Spec
(pCliq)
Leaching
Time
(hours)
XRF
(pCl/g)
Alpha Spec
(pCl/g)
XRF
(“a)
Alpha
Spec
(so)
2
Run 1
Area D
129
1
8
12
94
91
3
Run2
Area U
90
2
11
12
88
87
4
Run 1
Area C
133
1
10
13
92
90
5
Run2
145
1
17
4
88
90
Average
90
89
87

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Lordship Point, Stratford, CT
Client
American Marine
Constructors,
Inc.
Project
Services
Soil Washing -
Marine and Land
Based
Contact
Jack Parmater
(616) 926-1717
Contaminants:
• Lead shot and target fragments
Quantity of Soil:
• 300,000 cubic yards soil and sediment
Operations Period:
• October 1996 - Ongoing
In late 1996, the ART Division of ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller was subcontracted by American
Marine Constructors, Inc., a comprehensive marine construction, dredging, and specialty heavy
construction services company, to provide marine-based and land-based treatment equipment
for the removal of lead shot and trap/skeet target fragments from over 300,000 cubic yards of
sediment and soil at the former Remington Arms Gun Club located at Lordship Point in
Stratford, Connecticut. American Marine is prime contractor to DuPont Environmental
Remediation Services (DERS). The site borders Long Island Sound and was formerly a trap
and skeet shooting range where lead shot was directed over the Sound. As a result of those
actMties, the lead shot and target fragments have been deposited in the sediment and intertidal
zone surrounding the property.
Remediation of the property and adjacent Sound areas will be conducted using standard
dredging and excavation procedures, with the dredged and excavated sediment being
processed through a plant to separate the lead shot and target fragments from the sediments.
Figure 4-7. View of land and marine areas to be remediated at Lordship
Point.
88

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
The project consists of the following major activities.
• Process Design and Project Work Plans
• Application for Permits
• Process Plant Fabrication
• Mobilization of Process Plant
• Process Plant Validation Test
• Mobilization of Excavation and Dredging Equipment
• Excavation/Dredging Operation
• Process the materials to extract the lead shot and target fragments
• Return of remediated sediment to their approximate original location
• Transport of the lead shot to an approved off-site recycler
• Transport of the target fragments and organic material to the designated solid waste landfill
• Demobilization
• Site restoration
ART/American Marine prepared and submitted the process design and project work plans to
DERS for approval. The process plant design has been approved by DERS and is now at the
permitting phase. The design shows in detail the location of the plant, the process flow
diagram and mass balances for the land-based and marine-based operations. The plant
comprises the following major units.
• Triple deck vibrating wet screen for size separation
• Fine and coarse mineral jigs for density separation
• Underf low scavenger columns
ARTs responsibilities also include process plant fabrication, mobilization of the process plant
to the site, plant validation test, operation of the plant and dismantling and removal from the
site. American Marine will mobilize the excavation and dredging equipment to the site and
perform the dredging and excavation and preliminary screening of plant feed.
Permitting activities by DERS are underway and are continuing at this time. On-site remediation
is expected to begin in 1998. All project activities are scheduled for completion in 1999.
89

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Remediation will begin with excavation of material from the intertidal zone and will be
accomplished using conventional land-based equipment. After these sediments have been
excavated, they will be transported to the land-based process plant for removal of the lead shot,
target fragments, organic material, and man-made debris. The remediated soil will be replaced
in its approximate original location. Unremediated material containing dense plant growth or
other living and non-living organic materials will be processed to separate the non-organic
material from the organic and will be cleaned of lead shot, target fragments. Large rocks with
adhered unremediated sediment will be washed and the sediment processed through the plant.
The cleaned rocks will be returned to their original location with the remediated soil. Residual
products will be containerized for recycling and disposal.
Following completion of the land-based remediation, the process plant will be mounted on a
barge for the marine-based remediation phase of the project. Dredging will be accomplished
from the low tide mark to a distance of approximately 600 feet (183 m) from shore to a
maximum sediment depth of approximately 10 feet (3 m). Dredged sediment will be processed
through the plant for removal of the lead shot, target fragments and debris, and the remediated
sediments will be replaced at approximately the original location by discharge from the barge.
Rocks segregated during the dredging operation will be placed back in their approximate
original location. Large rocks will be left in place and sediments dredged from around the rock.
Again, residual products will be containerized for recycling and disposal.
Recovered lead shot will be containerized and transported to an approved off-site facility for
recycling. Target fragments will be disposed at a solid waste landfill. Upon completion of
remediation activities, the process plant will be demobilized and removed from the site. All
land-based disturbed areas will be restored to original conditions according to the Site
Restoration Plan. Wetland areas will be replanted with native species and native grass, and
cover will be re-established.
90

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Literature
Escambia Treating Company Superfund Site, Pensacola, FL
Site History:
1943-1982: Treated wood products using pentachlorophenol (POP) and creosote
Nov. 1992: Demonstration of mobile Volume Reduction Unit (VRU)
Present: Undergoing a Superfund cJeanup being managed by EPA Region IV
Contaminants and Treatment Objectives: The mobile VRU was developed to demonstrate
the capabilities of soil washing and to provide data that facilitate scale-up to commercial-size
equipment.
Analyte
Contaminant
Levels
Treatment
Objectives
Resu
Its (
Average % Reductions)
Condition
1
Condition 2
Condition 3
PCP
140 ppm
> 90 % removal
76
92
97
Creosote -
fraction PAH
550-1,700 ppm
> 90 % remova’
70
83
90
Project Volume: 3600 lbs.
Site Ownership: Not given.
Consultants/Contractors: US EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL).
Project Status: Not given.
Treatment Train: After excavation, soil was processed through a ¼” screen before fed to the
VRU. The < 1/4” soil was transferred to a feed surge bin and then conveyed through a screw
conveyor to a trommel screen miniwasher at 100 lbs/hr with filtered wash water being sprayed
onto the screen (2-mm slot opening). Flow was adjusted up to an approximately 13 to 1 overall
water-to-soil ratio. Two vibrating screens (set at 2 mm and 0.150 mm for the demonstration)
were used to segregate the soil into various size fractions. Overflow from the miniwasher
(containing the courser solids) falls onto the 2-mm vibrascreen. The underf low is pumped to
the second (0.150 mm) vibratory screen.
The overflow from the 2-mm vibratory screen flowed by gravity to a recovery drum. The
overflow from the second vibratory screen (0.150 mm to 2 mm) was gravity fed to the recovery
drum. The underf low from the second vibrascreen (< 0.150 mm) drained into a mixing tank and
was pumped to a CPI (Corrugated Plate Interceptor). Materials lighter than water flow over a
weir in the CPI and drain into a drum for disposal. CPI-settled solids are discharged to a
recovery drum. A slurry containing fines < 38 mm overflows the CPI and gravity feeds into a
mixing tank and is further pumped to a static mixer where flocculating chemicals are added.
The slurry is then discharged to the I bc chamber and then overflows into the clarifier where the
bottom solids are augured to a drum for disposal. Clarified water is polished using cartridge-
type polishing filters and activated carbon so that it can be recycled.
91

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Costs: No cost information was given for the demonstration. However, from the
demonstration, it was estimated that cost for a 1 0-tph VRU that was on-line 90% of the time
would be $1 71/ton to process 10,000 tons, or $1 37/ton to process 20,000 tons, or $1 06/ton to
process 200,000 tons.
Comments: Water and energy usage for the demonstration at 100 lb/hr feed rate were 66
kWh/ton and 71 gph of water (with no recycling).
Information Source(s): USEPA 1993.
Bench-Scale Study at New York University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
Site History: Seven soils from industrial sites were tested. The locations of the soils were not
given.
Contaminants and Treatment Objectives: All seven soils were contaminated with Pb.
Soil
Contaminant Levels,
mg Pb/kg
Treatment Objectives,
mg Pb/kg
Unwashed Jig/Table
Tailings, mg Pb/kg
Washed Jig/Table
Tailings, mg Pb/kg
1
11,933
250
2,185+1,477
203+ 16
2
2,307
1000
1,401+196
611 ±67
3
5,913
1000
1,535+210
200±12
4
3,199
250
2,195±477
1218±82
5
4,808
1000
1,369 ± 166
98 ±8
6
1,394
1000
500 ±73
391 ±38
7
4,249
1000
2,755±214
1,033±55
Project Volume: Not given.
Site Ownership: Not given.
Consultants/Contractors: Not given.
Project Status: Not given.
Treatment Train: The soils were wet-sieved to produce coarse (4 to 20 mesh) and fine (20
to 200 mesh) soils. Fine sand was processed by tabling and coarse sand by jigging. The
tailings were combined for analysis. Soil washing tests were also conducted in which the jigged
or tabled soils were mixed with hydrochloric acid at pH = 1, 25°C, and liquid to solid ratio of 20
for a duration of 24 hours, and then filtered for analysis.
Costs: Not given.
Comments: Soils consisted mostly of coarse and fine sands.
92

-------
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Information Source(s): Van Benschoten et at. 1997.
Feather River Site, OroviUe, CA
Site History: 1948-Present: Chemical preserving of railroad ties and telephone poles
1984: Listed, Superfund National Priorities List
Contaminants and Treatment Objectives:
Analyte
Contaminant Levels
Treatment Objectives 1
Pentachiorophenol (PCP)
Not given
17 ppm
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Not given
0.19 ppm (carcinogenic PAHs)
Dioxins
Not given
30 ppt
Heavy metals - arsenic, chromium, copper
Not given
Not given
‘1992 federal cleanup agreement
Project Volume: Approximately 250,000 cubic yards.
Site Ownership: Beazer East, Inc., Michael Tischuk Project Manager.
Consultants/Contractors: Dames & Moore, Jeff Bensch Project Manager
Westinghouse Remediation Service Inc.
Project Status: Bench scale testing and a 400-ton pilot were completed by Westinghouse
Remediation Service. Current project status is unknown.
Treatment Train: Unknown.
Costs: Bench-scale treatability studies, Pilot studies, Full scale treatment
Total cost (1994): $78 million (Daniels 1994).
Comments: Treatment levels were established based on a 1987 risk based assessment using
the assumption of possible future residential use of the site. Beazer asserts that this
assumption resulted in extremely conservative values for the site. Beazer cited two other
superfund sites with less stringent treatment requirements: 1) Beazer-owned, Houston wood
treating plant, PAHs target level 700 ppm, and 2) American Creosote Works Superfund Site,
Pensacola, FL, groundwater PAH5 level 1100 ppb vs 0.007 ppb PAHs and 0.53 ppq dioxins at
OrovUle, CA.
Information Source(s): Daniels 1994.
93

-------
References
Anderson, W., Ed. 1993. “Innovative Site Remediation Technology: Soil Washing/Soil Flushing
(Volume 3),” WASTECH/ American Academy of Environmental Engineers.
ASTM. 1995. “Standard Guide for Soil Sampling from the Vadose Zone,” Standards for
Environmental Sampling, ASTM D4700-91, Philadelphia, PA.
Benker, K. W. 1994. ‘Treating Metals in Soil,” The Military Engineer, Vol. 86, No. 562.
Bovendeur, J., B. J. Visser, and G. Childs. 1 991. ‘The Fingerprint Method- A Practical Tool in
Linking Characterization and Treatment of Polluted Dredged Material,” CATS Conference
(Characterization and Treatment of Contaminated Dredged Material), Ghent, Belgium.
Bovendeur, J. and R. Mozley. 1993. “Characterization and Treatment of Polluted Material by
Environmental Application of Mineral Processing Technology,” XVIII International Mineral
Processing Congress, Sydney, Australia.
Bovendeur, J. and B. J. Visser. 1993. U.S. Patent #5,203,212, “Method for Determining the
Composition of a Sample,” United States Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC.
Carpco, Inc. 1992. “Which Process Fits Your Need,” Bulletin No. 9210, Carpco, Inc.,
Jacksonville, FL.
Carpco, Inc. 1993. Operating Instructions for the Humphrey Spiral Concentrator. Carpco, Inc.,
Jacksonville FL.
Daniels, S. H. 1994. ‘Tough Recipe at Toxic Cleanup Site,” Engineering News-Record, Volume
232, No. 2.
Deurbrouck, A.W. and W.W Agey. 1985. ‘Wet Concentrating Tables,” SME Mineral
Processing Handbook, Volume I, N.L. Weiss, Ed., Society of Mining Engineers, pp 4-32 to 4-
39.
Elliot, A.J. 1991. Slurry Handling. NigI P. Brown and Nigel I. Heywood, eds., Elsevier Applied
Science, New York.
EPA/USACE. 1991. “Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed For Ocean Disposal,” EPA-
503/8-91/001, Washington, DC.
95

-------
References
EPNUSACE. 1998. “Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the
U.S. - Testing Manual,” EPA 823-B-98-004, Washington, DC.
Feenstra, L., J. Joziasse and M. Pruijn. 1995. “A Standard Method for Characterizing
Contaminated Soil and Sediment for Processing by Particle Separation Techniques,” TNO
Institute of Environmental Sciences, Energy Research and Process Innovation Publication
Reference Number P95-001.
Heibel, D.R., M. A. Granat and M. Wolff. 1994. “Coordinating the Feasibility of a Dredged
Material Separation System Using Hydrocyclones for the Maintenance Dredging Operation at
Canaveral Harbor,” Dredging ‘94, Volume 1, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,
NY.
Landin, M. C., Ed. 1997. “Proceedings: International Workshop on Dredged Material Beneficial
Uses,” Baltimore, Maryland.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1979. Wastewater Engineering Treatment’Disposal/Reuse, 2 nd Edition,
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, NY.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1988. “Remedial Action Plan for Saginaw River
and Saginaw Bay Area of Concern,” MDNR Surface Water Quality Division, Lansing, Ml.
Mishra, S. K. and R. R. Klimpel. 1987. Fine Coal Processing, Noyes Publications, Park Ridge,
NJ.
Mudroch, A. and J. M. Azcue. 1995. Manual of Aquatic Sediment Sampling, Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, FL.
Olin, T. J. and D. W. Bowman. 1996. ‘Soil Washing Potential at Confined Disposal Facilities,”
Environmental Effects of Dredging, Vol D-96-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Olin, T. J. and K. T. Preston. 1995. “Solid Residuals Management at Centralized Vehicle Wash
Facilities (CVWF),” Miscellaneous Paper EL-95-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Osborne, D.G. 1990. Solid-Liquid Separation, Ladislav Svarovsky, Ed., Butterworths, Boston,
MA, pp 279-310.
Perry and Green, eds. 1984. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, Sixth Edition, McGraw-
Hill, St. Louis, MO.
Petersen, R.G. and L.D. Calvin. 1996. ‘Sampling,” Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Chemical
Methods, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.
Svarovsky, L., ed. 1990. ‘Separation by Centrifugal Sedimentation,” Solid-Liquid Separation,
Butterworths, London, England, pp. 251 -278.
96

-------
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1 986. ‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste - Physical/Chemical Methods,” Third Edition, SW-846, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991 a. “Handbook: Remediation of Contaminated Sediments,” EPN625/6-91/028,
Center for Environmental Research Information, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991 b. “Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Washing,
Interim Guidance,” EPA/540/2-91/020A, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Hazardous Site Control Division, Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA. 1993. “EPA RREL’s Mobile Volume Reduction Unit Applications Analysis Report,”
EPA/540/AR-93/508, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA. 1 994a. “Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Sediment Washing for the Treatment of Saginaw
River Sediments,” EPA 905-R94-O1 9, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
USEPA. 1 994b. “Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program
Remediation Guidance Document,” EPA 905-R94-003, Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL.
USEPA, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Environmental Investigations
Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, May 1996.
Van Benschoten, J. E., M. R. Matsumoto and W. H. Young. 1997. “Evaluation and Analysis of
Soil Washing for Seven Lead-Contaminated Soils,” Journal of Environmental Engineering. Vol.
123, No. 3, pp. 21 7-224.
Viessman, W. F. and M. J. Hammer. 1993. Water Supply and Pollution Control, 5 th edition,
Harper Collins College Publishers, New York, NY.
Western Mine Engineering. 1996. Mine and Mill Equipment Costs — An Estimators Guide,
Western Mine Engineering, Spokane, WA.
97

-------
Appendix A: Detailed Cost Estimates
Appendix A: Detailed Cost Estimates
Al

-------
1 .1 Treatment Train 1, Cost Estimate Summary
ART A Division of Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Soil Washing Cost Estimate
WES Scenario 1
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
Soil Mass (cy)
50,000
Density (tons/cy)
1 .2
Soil Processed (tons)
60,000
Plant Size (tons/hour)
25
Shift Schedule (days/week-hours/day)
5-10
Plant Availibility (%)
80%
Treatment Duration (weeks)
60
Mobilization/Site Preparation/Demobilization (weeks)
9
Total Project Duration (weeks)
69
Feed - Dry Solids Concentration (%)
87%
Sludge - Dry Solids Concentration (%)
50%
ESTIMATED TREATMENT PRICES
Mobilization (Plant)
99,000
Site Preparation
61,000
Plant Depreciation
198,000
Plant Labor
661,000
Utilities
148,000
Chemicals / HAS
99,000
Maintenance
198,000
Office Expense
89,000
Process Analytical (Plant)
37,000
Demobilization (Plant)
71,000
Insurance
0
Contingency
50,000
Total Estimated Treatment Price
$1,711,000
Estimated Treatment Price, $1 Ton
85 - 100
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
$1,723,000
Estimated Project Cost, $ I Ton
85 - 100
OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS
this estimate focuses on treatment only:
- Excavation and Prescreening to -2” not included
- Process Analytical not included
- Sludge (residual) disposaVtreatment not included
A2

-------
1 .2 Treatment Train 1 Detailed Cost Estimate
Proforma
PROJECT: WES Scenario 1
Key Assumptions: ___________
Volume (Cubic Yards) 0 000
Density
Mass (Tons) 60,000
Production (Tons/Hour) 25 Pilot Plant ____________ _______
Shift Schedule - # of Shifts ( Days/Wk):( /: :7 ’ ( Hrs/Day):(: .
Plant Availibility 80.0° ,
Treatment Duration (Weeks) 42.9 (Months): 9.9 (Years): 0.8
Mobilization (Weeks) 5 0
Demobilization (Weeks) 40
Total Project Duration (Wks) 51.9 (Months): 12.0 (Years): 1.0
Feed Dry Solids Conc (0/0) 87 %
Sludge- Dry Solids Conc
***REVENUE***
Soil Volume (tons) 60,000
Processing Fee Per Ton
Total Site Revenue 1.350.000
***COST OF OPERATIONS***
Project Labor 292.775
Travel! Per Diem 108.714
Plant Depreciation 120.000
MOB. Site Prep. Demob 140.000
Excavation, Prescreening 0
Transportation 0
Plant Consumables 114.092
Equipment Rental 0
Maintenance 120,000
Utilities 90000
Process Sampling 30.000
Sludge Disposal 0
Sludge Transportation 0
Security __________
Insurance 0
Contingency __________
Total Cost of Operations 1,065.581
Cost/ton 1776
***GROSS pRoFlr 0 284,419
GROSS PROFIT % 21.1%
A3

-------
1.2 Treatment Train I Detailed Cost Est mate
OPERATING COSTS
Project Management Labor***
Title
Plant Engineer
Prooess Eng
Process Eng Back-up
Chemist
“TOTAL PROJECT LABOR
and Site Prep
MobikzatiorVErection
Site Prep (BuiIding.Pads.Asphalt. Liner. Bins)
Revegetation
Demob
TOTAL
Site PreD Details
Site Grading :.: ‘ 5000 ’
Liner ..H..:0::::: -:
Asphalt/Stone
Building ‘. ‘..
Building & Sludge Pad 20,0Q
Power Extension 5QQQ.
Water Extension 2 .0OC
Office Prep .:.:.::..::Ø :. ’ :...:
Miscellaneous 5 Q
Installation of Well . ..: : ‘. “.Q:. ’ ’
TOTAL 37.000
292,775
160.000
37.000
I.
L °°°
140,000
Assembly/Disassembly
Dieren
Edmonton
Wastewater Disposal
Misc
TOTAL
***Di t Rant Labor***
fltle
Number
Plant Manager
Carl Seward
1
Plant Engineer
Randall Lipham
1
Asst Plant Eng
Local Hire
0
Shift Supervisor
Local Hire
0
I : . :I I
Sal+Frinoes
Schedule In Weeks :
Run Report # Total
Pre-Mob Mob Time De-Mob Writincj Adi. Time
Plant Operator
Local Hire
1
Plant Operator
Local Hire
0
Trommel Operator
Local Hire
0
Heavy Equip Operator
Local Hire
0
Laborer
Local Hire
1
Secretary
Local Hire
0
Subtotal
10
50
429
00
00
00
489
00
50
429
40
00
00
519
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
50
429
40
00
00
519
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
50
429
40
00
00
519
00
00
00
00
00 00
00
4 ‘‘‘ 292.775
Sal.
!wk
1275
1275
1275
1275
1275
600
1.0 20.0 171.4 12.0
Total Out-of-Town Labor Time: 151.6
Sal+Fr inges
Name Number
ART Employee 0
EricG 0
Marc Pruijn 0
Frank Corden 0
0.0
0.0
Weeks
Subtotal
P e-Mob
Mob
Run
Time
De-Mob
204.4
Total
Time
0 0
Report 00
Writin Adj.
00
00
00
00
0.0 0%
00
10
50
20
00
00
100%
SO
QQ.:::
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0%’
0:Ô
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 Q
0%
0.0
1.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
Salaries per Pliase: Pbo e
OiLed
indiredi
IQidI
Pre-Mob
2129
1.623
3.752
Mob
28,845
8.116
36.961
Run Time
247.240
3.246
250,487
De-Mob
14.561
0
14.561
Report Writing
0
0
0
Total
292.775
12.986
305.761
***Travel I Per Diem
***plant Depreciation***
I. ’. ’ : iI o 0:..:I/wk
fl
108,714
120,000
8.0 \Vk .
Weeks
Travel Weeks For Plant Labor 100.7 (Includes Pre-Mob)
Mgmt Labor ( 8 0
Total 108.7
Details Demob
Mob
Trucking
:3 OO0
:0.:’
0:
:0
‘0 .1 : ::’
60.000
per Vineland Pro Forrna
per A.E. Steel Erectors
3O ,00O.
:0:.::::
43.000
A4

-------
1.2 Treatment Train 1 Detailed Cost Estimate
***Plant Consumables***
Field Office Expense____________
Chemicals 0Ci
Health and Safety : 5 :
***Equipment Rental***
***Utjlities*** _________________
Electrical(2000KVA) tOO j S/ton
Water (35gpm) 5O j S/ton
Septic Service 0.00 S/mo
Diesell 0,0005: jS/gallon
TOTAL UTILITIES
0 Laboro/EquipOlMisco
0
54.092
0
60.000
114.092
Generator:
— Baker Tanks
Compressor:
120,000 Boiler:
— Steam Cleaner:
Mobs:
Loader:
Filter Press:
0 /mo.
0 /mo.
0 Imo.
0 /mo.
0 /day
0 each
0 /wk.
0 Iday
o mob
***Excavatiorjstagelprescre :::::: j : :<.:
Transportation . :::: ;OD
S/ton
S/ton
S/ton
S/ton
S/ton
Equipment Maintenance*j :.::.:: : 2 O0J
Field Office Detail: Supplies ,50O:. /Mo.
Furniture ..
____________ Office Rent : s .Y2S . /Mo. per WHC GE Capital
60.000
30. 000
0 Transformer: 0 I?
0 for I loader and 1 trommel
90.000
“IN PROCESS SAMPLING***
Process and Residuals Analytical
Treatability Studies
TOTAL
***RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT***
Sludge Disposal: Disp S/ton
# of tons (Inci. Tax)
I SO Hazardous
F .9Ø Non—I—laz
Sludge Transportation:
# of tons
0
0
• &..
30,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
S/Load
Hazardous
Non - Haz
A5

-------
1 .3 Treatment Train 1, Project Data Sheet
Proiect Data Sheet
Project Name WES Scenano 1 Project Bid Price,
Project Number: Type: Soil Washing
Time & Materials plus Fee
Project Address: Subcontractors:
Site Phone Number: 403-450-1478 Plant Used:
Site FAX Number: 403-450-0909 Tonnage:
Pilot Plant
60,000
Time Frame:
Additional Equ
prnent:
Start
Trommel
Own
End
Mob
SO
I
Gravity_Jig
$0
:
Mob
SO
Other Contacts:
Name Position Phone
FAX
Conference Room n/a
Site Construction Manager
Project Manager
Technical Manager
Apartment Address:
Apartment_Phone: -
Apartment fAX:
A6

-------
2.1 Treatment Train 2, Cost Estimate Summary
ART A Division of Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Soil Washing Cost Estimate
WES Scenario 2
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
Soil Mass (cy) 50 000
Density (tons/cy) 1 .2
Soil Processed (tons) 60,000
Plant Size (tons/hour) 25
Shift Schedule (days/week-hours/day) 5-10
Plant Availibility (%) 80%
Treatment Duration (weeks) 60
Mobilization/Site Preparation/Demobilization (weeks) 9
Total Project Duration (weeks) 69
Feed - Dry Solids Concentration (%) 87%
Sludge - Dry Solids Concentration (%) 50%
ESTIMATED TREATMENT PRICES
Mobilization (Plant) 99,000
Site Preparation 61,000
Plant Depreciation 395,000
Plant Labor 879,000
Utilities 148,000
Chemicals / HAS 198,000
Maintenance 198,000
Office Expense 89,000
Process Analytical (Plant) 37,000
Demobilization (Plant) 71,000
Insurance 0
Contingency 50,000
Total Estimated Treatment Price $2,225,000
Estimated Treatment Price, $ I Ton 85 - 100
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $2,237,000
Estimated Project Cost, $ I Ton 85 - 100
OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS
this estimate focuses on treatment only:
- Excavation and Prescreening to -2 not included
- Process Analytical not included
- Sludge (residual) disposal/treatment not included
A7

-------
2.2 Treatment Train 2. Detailed Cost Estimate
Proforma
PROJECT:
WES Scenario 2
42.9 (Months):
(Months):
9.9 (Years): 0.8
12.0 (Years): 1.0
•**REVENUE***
Total
Soil Volume (tons)
Processing Fee Per Ton
60,000
I. 29.001
Total Site Revenue 1,740000
C0ST OF OPERATIONS**
Project Labor
Travel I Per Diem
Plant Depreciation
MOB, Site Prep, Demob
Excavation, Prescreening
Transportation
Plant Consumables
Equipment Rental
Maintenance
Utilities
Process Sampling
Sludge Disposal
Sludge Transportation
Security
Insurance
Contingency
Total Cost of Operations
Cost/ton
GROSS PRoAr
GROSS PROFIT %“
425,010
108,714
240,000
140,000
0
0
174,092
0
120,000
90,000
30,000
0
0

0
. o ooj
1,377,817
22.96
362,183
20.8%
Key Assumptions: ___________
Volume (Cubic Yards) 50 0001
Density ______
Mass (Tons) 60,000
Production (Tons/Hour) 2 Pilot Plant ____________ _______
Shift Schedule - # of Shifts 1:.:;::.:i::. . T (Days/Wk): III . 71 (HrslDay)’ .1
Plant Availibility 80.0%
Treatment Duration (Weeks)______________
Mobilization (Weeks)
Demobilization (Weeks) 401
Total Project Duration (Wks) 51.9
Feed Dry Solids Conc (%)
Sludge - Dry Solids Conc ( °‘b .: . 500%
A8

-------
2.2 Treatment Train 2, Detailed Cost Estimate
OPERATING COSTS
____________ Schedule In Weeks :
0irect Plant Labor*** ( :..:.::H35 0% ::i Run Report # Total Sal.
Title Name Number Sal+Fringes Pie-Mob Mob Time De-Mob Writing Adj. Time /wk
lant Manager Carl Seward 1 5 0 42 9 0 0 00 00 48 9
ntEngineer Randall Lipham 1 50 42 9 40 00 00 51 9
tsstPlant Eng Local Hire 0 00 00 00 00 00 00
3i4tSupervisor Local Hire 0 00 00 00 00 00 00
i0perator Local Hire 1 50 42 9 40 00 00 51 9 1275
lant0perator Local Hire 1 50 429 40 00 00 519 1275
Tç mmel Operator Local Hire 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 1275
eavy Equip Operator Local Hire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 1275
jborer Local Hire 2 50 429 40 00 00 519 1275
cretary Local Hire 0 ____ 00 00 00 00 oo 00 600
Subtotal 6 425,010 1.0 25.0 214.3 16.0 0.0 0.0 256.3
Total Out-of-Town Labor Time: 151.6 Weeks
“Project Management Labor*** Run Report % Total
Title Name Number Sal+Frincies Pre-Mob Mob Time De-Mob Writing Adj. Time
tint Engineer ART Employee 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0% 00
cessEng EricG 0 10 50 20 00 00 100% 80
iocess Eng Back up Marc Pruijn 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0% 00
iemist Frank Corden 0 : 0.0.:.::. 0.0 0.0 0.0 :::.0.Q:: 0% 0.0
Subtotal 0 0 1.0 5.0 2.0 0 0 0.0 8.0 Wk’-
“‘TOTAL PROJECT LABOR*** 425,010
Salaries per Phase Phose D rect lnd rect LQt !
Pro-Mob 2,129 1.623 3,752
Mob 41,595 8,116 49,711
Run Time 356,526 3,246 359,772
Do-Mob 24,761 0 24,761
Report Writing 0 0 0
Total 425,010 12,986 437,996
Weeks
“‘Travel! Per Diem*** [ .. . 1 ,Q0 ..:1Iwk 108,714 Travel Weeks For: Plant Labor 100.7 (Includes Pro-Mob)
Mgmt Labor I.:I::::::::: P.1
Total 108.7
fl
1I t Depreciation”” 1 4,00:. . .J 240,000
“MOBIDEMOB and Site Prep*** ___________
f izationJErection 60.000
Prep(Building,Pads,Asphalt, Liner, Bins) 37,000
evegetation .: .
mob 43,000
TOTAL 140,000
Site Prori Details Mob Details Demob
Site Grading 5,000 30000 Trucking 30000 per Vineland Pro Forma
Liner 0 0 0
AsphaltlStone 0 25 000 Assembly/DisassemblY
Building 0 0 Dieren 0 per A E Steel Erectors
Building & Sludge Pad 20,000 0 Edmonton 0
Power Extension 5,000 0 Wastewater Disposal 5,000
Water Extension 2,000 0 0
Office Prep 0 5 ,000 Misc 5 000
Miscellaneous 5,000 60 000 TOTAL 43 000
Installation of Well 0
TOTAL 37,000
A9

-------
2.2 Treatment Train 2, Detailed Cost Estimate
Excavation/Stage/Prescre [ aOQ S/ton 0 Labor 0 / Equip 0 / Misc 0
Transportation . 0G... . S/ton 0
**Plant Consumables***
Field Office Expense____________ 54 092 Field Office Detail Supplies 3 500 /Mo
Chemicals tOO S/ton 60 000 Furniture 3500
Health and Safety S/ton 60,000 Office Rent I . I I : JMo. per WHC GE Capita
174,092
***Equipment Rental*** E::::I:G.: I::. II Generator: 0 /mo.
— Baker Tank: 0 /mo.
____________ Compressor: 0 /mo.
* Equipment Maintenance 200J S/ton 120 000 Boiler 0 /mo
Steam Cleaner: 0 /day
Mobs: 0 each
***Utilities*** _____________ Loader: 0 fwk.
Electncal(2000KVA) t0( S/ton 60 000 Filter Press 0 /day
Water (35gpm) : :I 5G S/ton 30,000 0 mob
Septic Service 0 00 S/mo 0 Transformer: 0 I?
Dieselt . : $/gallon 0 for 1 loader and 1 trommel
TOTAL UTILITIES 90,000
“IN PROCESS SAMPLING” _________
Process and Residuals Analytical
Treatability Studies . . . .
TOTAL 30,000
• RES(DU MANAGEMENT
Sludge Disposal: Disp S/ton
It of tons (IncI Tax)
0 : I. 1 O Hazardous 0
O NonHaz 0
Sludge Transportalion: 0
#of tons S/Load
0 .. 40O Hazardous 0
0 : .:.150 Non-Haz 0
0
Al 0

-------
2.3 Treatment Train 2, Project Data Sheet
Project Name:
Project Number:
Project Address:
Prolect Data Sheet
Site Phone Number:
403-450-1478
Plant Used:
P11
ot Plant
Site FAX Number:
Time Frame:
403-450-0909
Tonnage:
Additional Equ
60,000
pment:
Start
End
Trommel
— Mob
Own
$0
Gravity Jig
$0
Mob
SO
Other Contacts:
Name
Position
Phone
EA
Conference Room
n/a
Site_Construction_Manager
Project Manager
Technical_Manager
f tment Address:
—
Apartment Phone:
Apartment FAX:
WES Scenario 2
Project Bid Price:
Type:
Subcontractors:
Soil Washing
Time & Mater11
us plus Fee
Al 1

-------
3.1 Treatment Train 3, Cost Estimate Summary
ART A Division of Geraghty & Mi//er, Inc.
Soil Washing Cost Estimate
WES Scenario 3
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
Soil Mass (cy)
50,000
Density (tons/cy)
1.2
Soil Processed (tons)
60,000
Plant Size (tons/hour)
25
Shift Schedule (days/week-hours/day)
5-10
Plant Availibility (%)
80%
Treatment Duration (weeks)
60
Mobilization/Site Preparation/Demobilization (weeks)
9
Total Project Duration (weeks)
69
Feed - Dry Solids Concentration (%)
87%
5 O/
ESTIMATED TREATMENT PRICES
Mobilization (Plant)
140,000
Site Preparation
226,000
Plant Depreciation
840,000
Plant Labor
1,385,000
Utilities
296,000
Chemicals / HAS
692,000
Maintenance
395,000
Office Expense
89,000
Process Analytical (Plant)
62,000
Demobilization (Plant)
i 53,000
Insurance
o
Contingency
so,ooo
Total Estimated Treatment Price
$4,328,000
Estimated Treatment Price, $ I Ton
85 - 100
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
$4,349;000
Estimated Project Cost, $ / Ton
85 - 100
. .
OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS
this estimate focuses on treatment only:
- Excavation and Prescreening to -2 not included
- Process Analytical not included
- Sludge (residual) disposal/treatment not included
Al 2

-------
3.2 Treatment Train 3, Detailed Cost Estimate
Prof orma
PROJECT: WES Scenario 3
Key Assumptions: ____________
Volume (Cubic Yards) 5t OO
Density 12
Mass (Tons) 60,000
Production (Tons/Hour) 2 Pilot Plant ____________ _______
Shift Schedule # of Shifts I (Days/Wk) I 71 (Hrs/Day) _______
Plant Availibility 80.0%
Treatment Duration (Weeks) 42.9 (Months): 9.9 (Years): 0.8
Mobilization (Weeks)
Demobilization (Weeks) 40
Total Project Duration (Wks) 51.9 (Months): 12.0 (Years): 1.0
Feed Dry Solids Conc(%) [
9uclge — Dry Solids onc ( _____________________________________
***REVENUE*** Total
Soil Volume (tons) 60,000
Processing Fee Per Ton I % 00 1
Total Site Revenue 3,360,000
COST OF OPERATIONS***
Project Labor 623,364
Travel/ Per Diem 217,429
Plant Depreciation 510,000
MOB, Site Prep, Demob 315,000
Excavation, Prescreening 0
Transportation 0
Plant Consumables 474,092
Equipment Rental 0
Maintenance 240,000
Utilities 180,000
Process Sampling 50,000
Sludge Disposal 0
Sludge Transportation 0
Secunty I
Insurance 0
Conlingency [ 5o,o0c ]
Total Cost of Operations 2,659,885
Cost/ton 44.33
GROSS PROFIT*** 700 115
GROSS PROFIT %*** 20.8%
Al 3

-------
3.2 Treatment Train 3, Detailed Cost Estimate
OPERATING COSTS
____________ Schedule In Weeks .
* Direct Plant Labor** I 3 0% .1 Run Report # Total Sal
The Name Number Sal+Frinpes Pre-Mob Mob Time De-Mob Writing Adj Time /wk
Plant Manager Carl Seward 1 10 5.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.9
Plant Engineer Randall Lipham 1 0.0 5.0 42.9 4.0 0.0 0.0 51.9
Asst Plant Eng Local Hire 0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;0 0.0 0.0
Shift Supervisor Local Hire 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Plant Operator Local Hire 2 0.0 5.0 42.9 4.0 0.0 0.0 51.9 1275
Plant Operator Local Hire 2 0,0 5.0 42.9 4.0 00 . 0.0 51.9 1275
Trommel Operator Local Hire 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1275
Heavy Equip Operator Local Hire 0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 : 0,0 0.0 1275
Laborer Local Hire 3 0.0 5.0 42.9 4.0 0 .4 0.0 51.9 1275
Secretary Local Hire 0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 . 0.0 600
Subtotal 9 623,364 1.0 25.0 214.3 16.0 0.0 0.0 256.3
Total Out-of-Town Labor Time: 151.6 Weeks
***Project Management Labor*** Run Report % Total
Name Number Sal+Frincies Pre-Mob Mob Time De-Mob Writing Adj. Time
Plant Engineer ART Employee 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0% 0 0
Process Eng Eric G 0 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 00 100% 8 0
Process Eng Back up Marc Prui;n 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0% 0 0
Chemist Frank Corden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :..0 0... • S 0.0
Subtotal 0 0 1.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 Wk
***TOTAL PROJECT LABOR*** 623,364
Salaries per Phase: Phase Direct Indirect Ii tci1
Pre-Mob 2,129 1,623 3,752
Mob 60,720 8,116 68,836
Run Time 520,455 3,246 523,701
De-Mob 40,061 0 40,061
Report Writing 0 0 0
Total 623,364 12,986 636,350
________ Weeks
***Trav JI Per Diem*** 217,429 Travel Weeks For: Plant Labor 100.7 (Includes Pre-Mob)
Mgmt Labor ______
Total 108.7
***Plant Depreciation* * I s
-------
3.2 Treatment Train 3, Detailed Cost Estimate
S/ton 0 Labor 0 / Equip 01 Misc 0
S/ton 0
“Plant Consumables***
Field Office Expense _____________
ChemicalsE 500
Health and Safety 200
54,092
300,000
120,000
474,092
t:. Generator:
— Baker Tank:
Compressor:
240,000 Boiler:
— Steam Cleaner:
Mobs:
Loader:
120,000 Filter Press:
60,000
0 Transformer:
0 jfor 1 loader and 1 trommel
180,000
0 /mo
0 /mo.
0 Imo.
0 Imo,
0 /day
0 each
0 /wk.
0 /day
0 mob
0 I?
Excavation/S1age/Prescre
Transportation 000
Field Office Detail: Supplies S 50U /Mo.
Furniture ::: :3:5OO:
Office Rent 72 /Mo per WHC GE Capital
S/ton
______________ S/ton
Equipment Rental**
Equipment S/ton
Utilities*** _______________
Electrical(2000KVA) ZOO S/ton
Water (35gpm) 1 00 S/ton
Septic Service 0.00 S/mo
Diesel [ 0000 IS/gallon
TOTAL UTILITIES
iN PROCESS SAMPLING***
Process and Residuals Analytical
Treatability Studies
TOTAL
‘ RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT***
Sludge Disposal: Disp S/ton
# of tons (IncI. Tax)
[ 0 150 Hazardous
N4on—l—Iaz
Sludge Transportation:
#of tons S/Load
0 400 Hazardous
0 l5 ONonHaz
i 1 iii
50,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
Al 5
-------
3.3 Treatment Train 3, Project Data Sheet
Project Data Sheet
:
I’
Project Name:
WES Scenario 3
Project Bid Price:
Project Number:
Type:
Soil Washing
Time & Materials
plus Fee
Project Address:
Su
bcontractors:
i___________
Site Phone Number:
403-450-1478
Plant Used:
Pilot Plant
Site FAX Number:
403-450-0909
Tonnage:
60,000
Time
Frame:
Additional Equ
ipment:
Start
Trommel
Own
End
Mob
SO
Gravity Jig
SO
Mob
SO
Other Contacts:
Name
Position
Phone
EA
Conference Room
n /a
Site_Construction_Manager
Project_Manager
Technical_Manager
p rtment Address:
Apartment Phone:
Apartment FAX:
Am
-------
Appendix B. Equipment and Technology Sources
Appendix B: Equipment and
Technology Sources
The following is a 1998 worldwide alphabetical listing of manufacturers and distributors of
physical separation equipment, consulting/contracting firms having expertise or capability in
physical separation equipment selection and operation, and other information sources. Every
effort was made to ensure that this was a comprehensive listing. However, due to project
constraints or lack of response from some entities, some firms have undoubtedly been omitted.
Product lines of any of the companies listed may be broader than indicated. Only those
products and services considered relative to physical separation and for which information was
provided are listed here. Given the dynamic nature of business and consulting, any business
listing is bound to be obsolete within a short period unless continuously updated. The following
listing will serve as a starting point; however, the user is encouraged to pursue all information
sources available to identify other equipment and technology sources. See for example the
other information sources at the end of this appendix. In addition to the consulting firms listed
here, many of the equipment manufacturers and distributors are also equipped to assist with
pilot testing and design recommendations. The user is strongly encouraged to ascertain the
performance record of both companies and equipment. Inclusion here is not an endorsement.
Aaron Equipment Company
735 E. Green Street
Bensenville, IL 60106
(630) 350-2200
(630) 350-9047 (1 ax)
Products: Centrifuges
Alfa Laval Separations, Inc.
North American Headquarters
955 Mearns Road
Warminster, PA 1 8974-0556
(800) 862-0508
(215) 443-4112 (fax)
Products: Centrifuges
Allied Colloids Inc. (Allied Colloids Americas)
P.O. Box 820
2301 Wilroy Road
Suffolk, VA 23439
(757) 538-3700
(757) 538-3989 (fax)
Products: Chemical reagents (flocculants/coagulants, filtration aids, dust control, flotation
reagents, and others)
Bi
-------
Appendix B: Equipment and Technology Sources
Bailey-Parks Urethane
184 Gilbert Avenue
Memphis, TN 38106
(901) 774-7930
(901) 774-8444 (fax)
Product Line: Hydrocyclones
Baker Tanks
(800) BAKER 12
Product Line: Containment rental nationwide, mobile and stationary
Barrett Centrifugals Inc.
Box 15059
Worcester, MA 01 61 5-0059
(508) 755-4306 or (800) 228-6442
(508) 753-4805 f ax
Products: Centrifuge technology for recovery of industrial fluids, solid/liquid separation
Bateman Equipment Limited (BEQ)
see OSNA Equipment Inc.
Belteville Wire Cloth Co., Inc.
18 Rutgers Ave.
Cedar Grove, NJ 07009
(201) 239-0074
(201) 239-3985 (fax)
Product Line: Wire cloth
Benemax Mining Chemicals
Glenn Corporation
325 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1013
(612) 292-1234 or (800) 453-6267
(612) 221-1926 (fax)
Product Line: Chemical reagents (flotation, dispersants, wetting agents, flocculants, solvents,
and others)
Bergmann, A Division of Linatex, Inc.
1550 Airport Road
Gallatin, TN 37066-3739
(615) 230-2217
(615) 452-5525 (fax)
B2
-------
Appendix B: Equipment and Technology Sources
Products: Commercial soil and sediment washing systems
Bethlehem Corporation
25 th and Lennox Streets
Easton, PA 18045
(610) 258-7111
(610) 258-8154
bethcorp @ bethcorp.com
Product line: Tower filter press
Bird Machine Company, Inc.
100 Neponset Street
South Walpole, MA 02071 -91 03
(508) 668-0400
(508) 668-6855 (fax)
Products: Centrifuge and filtration equipment
Brandi/EPI
P.O. Box 2327 77305-2327
2800 N. Frazier 77303
Con roe, TX
(409) 756-4800
(409) 756-8102 (f ax)
Product Line: Linear motion screen separators, decanting centrifuges, hydrocyclones,
dewatenng systems
Carpco, Inc.
4120 Haines Street
Jacksonville, FL 32206
(904) 353-3681
(904) 353-8705 (fax)
Product/Service Line: Testing/equipment for: Spirals, concentrating tables, Mozley multi-
gravity separator, Floatex classifier, Mozley hydrocyclones. Equipment only: Jigs and
centrifugal jigs.
CESL
Cominco Engineering Services Ltd
1636 West 75th Avenue
Vancouver, B.C.
Canada V6P 6G2
(604) 264-5610/264-5500
(604) 264-5555 (f ax)
Expertise/Services: Operating internationally in the mining, pulp, paper and petrochemical
industries. Process equipment supply, metallurgical and environmental testing and
B3
-------
Appendix B: Equipment and Technobqy Sources
engineering, including: column flotation, oil/water separation, organic recovery, waste/water
treatment (acid rock drainage and metals contaminated industrial effluents)
Compass Wire Cloth
629 Ryan Avenue
P.O. Box 305
Westville, NJ 08093
(609) 853-7616, or (609) 583-1387 ,or (800) 257-5241
Product Line: Wire cloth
Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company
P.O. Box 400
Winfield, AL 35594
(205) 487-6492
(205) 487-4233
Telex 59769
Product Line: Conveyors, conveyor idlers, dynamic modeling of conveyor systems
Dorr-Oliver Inc.
612 Wheeler’s Farm Rd
P.O. Box 3819
Milford, CT 06460-8719
(203) 876-5400
(203) 876-5412
Product Line: Hydrocyclones, flotation equipment, belt filters, sand horizontal pan filter,
stationary inclined screens, Hydrosizer multi-pocket classifier, Monosizer single-pocket
classifier, decanter centrifuges, MERCO Disc-nozzle centrifuges
EIMCO Process Equipment
1951 Creelman Avenue
Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6J 1B8
(604) 731-7030
(604) 738-8818
Product Line: WEMCO flotation cells
Encyclon Inc.
6705 14th Avenue
Kenosha, WI 53143
(414) 654-0032
(414) 657-7435
Product Line: Cyclonic filtration systems (Hydrocylones), Oil skimmers
B4
-------
Appendix B: Equipment and Technology Sources
Ferguson Perforating and Wire Company
130 Earnest Street
Providence, RI 02905
(401) 941-8876
(401) 941-2950 (fax)
1-800-341-9800
TELEX: 92-7539
Product Line: Perforated metal/screening materials
Filtration /Treatment Systems, LTD.
204 First Avenue South
Third Floor
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 652-2424
(206) 652-9333 (fax)
Products: Lamella and reactor clarifiers, rotary vacuum filter, filter press, basket centrifuges,
etc.
Floatex Separations Ltd.
Buswel l’s House
Crick, Northampton
NN6 7TT UK
0788 822387/823754
0788 823753 (fax)
Product Line: Floatex density separator (hydroseparator)
Flottweg GmbH
P.O. Box 1160
D-841 31 Vilsbiburg
Germany
+49 -8741/301-0
+49-8741/301-300 (fax)
Products: Decanter centrifuges, belt presses
Fluid Systems Inc.
2808 Engineers Road
Belle Chasse, LA 70037
(504) 393-1804
(504) 393-7080 (fax)
1-800-232-1804 (USA only)
fsinola aol.com
Products: Shaking screens
B5
-------
Appendix B: Equipment and Technology Sources
Franklin Miller
60 Okner Parkway
Livingston, NJ 07039
(201) 535-9200
(201) 535-6269 (fax)
Products: Size reduction equipment (crushers, shredders, delumpers)
Gilson Company, Inc.
P .O. Box 677
Worthington, Ohio 43085-0677
(614) 548-7298 or (800) 444-1508
(614) 548-5314 (fax) or (800) 255-5314 (fax)
Product Line: Laboratory scale testing screens, rifflers, etc.
Graver Water Systems Inc.
750 Walnut Avenue
Cranford, NJ 07016
(908) 653-4200
(908) 653-4300 (fax)
Product Line: Lamella clarifier
Hendrick Screen
3074 Medley Rd
P.O. Box 22075
Owensboro, KY 42304-2075
(502) 685-5138
(502) 685-1729 (fax)
Product Line: Sludge thickeners, screen components
Humphreys (A division of Carpco, Inc.)
4120 Haines Street
Jacksonville, FL 32206
(904) 353-3681
Telex. 5-6367
Product Line: Wilfley concentrating tables, spirals
IHC Holland
P0 Box 204-3360
AE Sliedrecht
The Netherlands
TEL.+31 (184)411555 - TELEX 26734
TELEFAX +31(184)411884
B6
-------
Appendix B: Equipment and Technology Sources
Products: Washing, classification and separation plants for the sand and gravel industry
Infilco Degremont Inc. (lDI)
P.O. Box 71390
Richmond, VA 23255-1390
(804) 756-7600
(804) 756-7643 (fax)
1-800-446-1150
Products/Services: Full service equipment and system design and supply, pilot testing,
treatability studies for wastewater. Clarifiers, filters, thickeners.
Innovat Limited
P.O. Box 61018
Oakville, ON L6J 7P5 Canada
(905) 469-1062 (fax)
innovat. limited © sym patico.ca
Product Line: Leaching vats
JETFLOTE Pty Limited
Engineering Building EB
University Drive
Callaghan, NSW 2308 Australia
Product Line: Wastewater engineering and design featuring Jameson cell floatation
Johnson Screens
(a U.S. Filter Company)
P .O. Box 64118
St. Paul, MN 55164
1 -800-VEE-WIRE
(612) 638-3184
johnsonscreens.com/
Product Line: Vibrator screens
Knelson Gold Concentrators, Inc.
20321 -86 Avenue
Langley, B.C.
Canada V3A 6Y3
(604) 888-4000
(604) 888-4001 (fax)
Products: Knelson concentrators
B7
-------
Appendix B: Equipment and Technology Sources
Krebs Engineers
5505 West Gillette Road
Tucson, AZ 85743
(520) 744-8200
(520) 744-8300 (fax)
Product Line: Hydrocylones, Krebs VariSieve (variable sieve bend), Liquid/Liquid Separators
Lakefield Research
185 Concession St.
Postal Bag 4300
Lakefield, ON, Canada KOL 2H0
(705) 652-2000
(705) 652-6365
Services: Pilot plant testing: flotation, spirals, tables, centrifugal separators. Water and solids
characterization.
Larox
8655 East Via de Ventura Rd
Suite G227
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
(602) 922-2444
(602) 922-8470 (f ax)
Product Line: Belt pressure filters
Macon W1reIDEWCO
2913 Joycliff Road
Macon, GA 31211-2805
(912) 745-5419
(912) 741-1394 (fax)
1-800-768-9155
Product Line: Vibro-separators (circular shaking screens)
McNichols Co.
2161 Kingston Court
Marietta, GA 30067-8901
(770) 952-0800
(770) 952-0858 (f ax)
1-800-237-3820
Product Line: Wire cloth, perforated metal, expanded metal
B8
-------
Appendix B; Equipment and Technology Sources
Merrick Industries, Inc.
10 Arthur Drive
Lynn Haven, FL 32444
(904) 265-3611
(904) 265-9768 (fax)
Products/Services: Gravimetric heavy duty weigh feeder, other material feeders and
controllers, belt conveyor scales, water treatment systems, material testing
METPRO Supply Inc.
1 550 Centennial Blvd.
Bartow, FL 33830
(813) 533-7155
(813) 533-7401 (f ax)
Product Line: Hydrocyclones, static screens, vibrating screens, pumps, tanks, stackers,
crushers
Midwestern Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 810
Massillon, OH 44648-0810
(330) 837-4203
(330) 837-4210 (f ax)
Product Line: Vibrating screens, porta-sifters, gyra-vibratory separators, scalpers (grizzlies),
wire cloth
MIM Technologies GPO
Box 1433
Brisbane Old 4001 Australia
+617 3833 8394
+617 3833 8311 (fax)
Product Line: Jameson flotation cell
Minerals Processing Techniques, Inc. (MPh)
P.O. Box 545
Auburn, NH 03032
(603) 483-5686
(603) 483-0315 (fax)
Product Line: Disk filters
Mozley (Richard Mozley Limited)
Card rew, Red ruth
Cornwall, TR15 1SS, UK
÷44 (0)1209211081
+44 (0)1209 211068 (fax)
B9
-------
Appendix B. Equipment and Technology Sources
Products/Services: Multi-gravity separators, hyd rocyclones
Newark Wire Cloth Company
351 Verona Avenue
Newark, New Jersey 07104-1798
(201) 483-7700
(201) 483-6315 (fax)
1-800-221-0392
Product Line: Wire cloth, sieves, strainers
Noxon
Box 10024
S-434 21 Kungsbacka, Sweden
+46 300-710 65 (telephone)
+46 300-196 04 (fax)
Products: Decanter centrifuges
Osna Equipment
7550 West Yale, #B-1 00
Denver, CO 80227
(303) 985-0238
(303) 985-0624 (f ax)
Product Line: Flotation machines, linear screens/vibrating screens, belt filters, grizzlies,
feeders, auxiliary equipment (agitators, mixers), magnetic separators
Outokumpu Mintec OY Automation
P.O. Box 84
SF-02201 Espoo, Finland
+358 0 4211 (telephone)
Telex 123677 0mm Sf
Telefax 358 0 421 2614
Product Line: Automatic elemental analysis (XRF real time analysis of product streams),
particle-size analysis of continuous processes
Peterson Filters Corporation
1949 South 3rd West
P.O. Box 606
Salt Lake City, Utah 94110
(801) 407-7761
Product Line: Rotary vacuum filters (disc and drum type), flocculators, attntioning equipment
Bi 0
-------
Appendix B. Equipment and Technology Sources
Phillips Chemical Company
309 Short Street
Bartlesville, OK 74004
(918) 661 -0323
(918) 661-5174 (fax)
TELEX: 49-2455
Product Line: Flotation chemicals
Pleiger Plastics Company
P.O. Box 1271 - Crile Road
Washington, PA 15301-1271
(412) 228-2244
(800) PLEIGER
(412) 228-2253 (fax)
Product Line: Impact beds, polyurethane parts, including transport rollers, liners, hydrocyclone
internals, valve balls
Powerscreen of Florida, Inc.
P.O. Box 5802
Lakeland, FL 33807-5802
(941) 687-7153
(941) 680-1289
Product Line: Portable screening and washing equipment, trommels
RAHCO International
N. 8700 Crestline
P.O. Box 7400
Spokane, WA 99207-0400
(509) 467-0770
(509) 466-0212 (1 ax)
Products/Services: System design and equipment manufacture for environmental remediation
and bulk material handling
Richard Mozley Limited
Cardrew, Redruth, Cornwall TR 15 1 SS
United Kingdom
(01209) 211081
(01209) 211068 (fax)
Product Line: Manufacturer, Mozley Hydrocyclones
B11
-------
Appendix B: Equipment and Technology Sources
RMS-Ross Corporation
44325 Yale Road West
Chilliwack, BC V2R 4H2
(604) 792-5911
(604) 792-7148 (fax)
Product line: Jigs
SANBORN Technologies
9 Industrial Drive
Medway, MA 02053-1796
(508) 533-8800
(508) 533-1440 (fax)
Products: Turbo separators (high-efficiency industrial centrifuges)
Soil Pac Separators (solids removing centrifuges)
Separators, Inc.
747 E. Sumner Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46227
(317) 786-7832
(317) 782-3384 (f ax)
(800) 233-9022
Products/Services: Centrifuges (sales/service of reconditioned units), test centrifuges, process
test engineers, consultation
SWECO Products, Division of Emerson Electric Company
7120 New Buffington Road
Florence, KY 41022
800-849-3259
(606) 727-5122 (fax)
Product Line: Vibrating screens, sieve bends
T-Systems International, Inc.
7545 Carroll Road
San Diego, CA 92121-2401
(619) 578-1860
(619) 578-2344 (fax)
Products: T-Tape (perforated tape for heap leaching)
Technequip Limited (Subsidiary of Fuller-Traylor Inc.)
297 Garyray Drive
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M9L 1 P2
(416) 749-3991
(416) 749-9767 (fax)
B12
-------
Appendix B: Egu pment and Technology Sources
Product Line: Hydrocylones, Tech-Taylor valves
Techpro Mining Products Limited
2125 Wyecroft Rd.
Oakville, Ontario, Canada, L6L 5L7
(905) 847-6620
(905) 847-9052 (f ax)
Products/Services: Laboratory/pilot plant/process equipment: Attrition equipment, conveyors,
filters, flotation cells, jigs, spirals, thickeners, heavy media separation systems, hydrocyclones,
hydraulic classifiers. Pilot plant/process design. Equipment refurbishing and rebuilding,
removal or relocation, supervision, installation supervision, plant liquidation and appraisals.
Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc.
(Headquarters)
2801 W. Osborn Road
Pheonix, AZ 85017
(800) 669-0559
(602) 528-0683 (fax)
Products: Sulfur chemicals for the mining industry including xanthates, filter aids, depressants,
cyanide destruction chemicals
Technical and Laboratory Services
2840 W. Twin Buttes Rd
Sahuarita, AZ 85629
(520) 791-2940
(520) 625-8091 (fax)
Products: Chemical reagents (Flotation, filter aids, water treatment)
TOYO Pumps
3807 Howland Ave.
Schofield, WI 54476
(71 5) 359-3428
(715) 359-9828 (fax)
Product Line: Slurry pumps
Triple/S Dynamics Inc.
P.O. Box 151027 75315-1027
1031 5. Haskell Ave. 75223
Dallas, Texas
(214) 828-8600
(214) 828-8688 (fax)
1-800-527-2116
Product Line: Trommels, vibrating screens, conveyors, fluidized-bed dry separator
B13
-------
Appendix B: Equipment and Technology Sources
Veronesi
Via Don Minzoni, 1
40050 Villanova di Castenaso
Bologna, Italy
(051) 6054511 (telephone)
Telex 511029 VERSEP I
(051) 6053183 (fax)
Products: Self-cleaning centrifuges (food and beverage applications)
Warman International, Inc.
2701 South Stoughton Rd.
Madison, WI 53716
(608) 221-2261
(608) 221-5810 (fax)
Product Line: Slurry pumps, slurry valves, hydrocyclones, agitators
Waste-Tech Inc.
1931 Industrial Drive
Libertyville, IL 60048
(708) 367-5150
(708) 367-1787 (fax)
Product Line: High pressure dewatenng equipment (Python pinch press)
Wedge Wire
P.O. Box 157
22069 Fairgrounds Rd
Wellington, OH 44090
(216) 647-3341
(216) 647-5887 (fax)
1-800-344-9473
Product Line: Screening material
WesTech
P.O. Box 65068
Salt Lake City, Utah 84165-0068
(801) 265-1000
(801) 265-1080 (fax)
Product Line: Clarifiets, thickeners, belt, disc and pressure filters, screw type and reciprocating
rake classifiers
Bi 4
-------
Appendix B: Equipment and Techno oqy Sources
Western Mine Engineering Inc.
222 West Mission Ave., Suite 218
Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 328-8023
(509) 328-2028 (fax)
1 -800-400-MINE
Services: Mine and mill equipment cost estimating guide, software.
The Western States Machine Co.
1798 Fairgrove Ave.
Hamilton, OH 45011
(513) 863-4758
(513) 863-3846 (fax)
Products: Centrifuges
Westfalia Separator, Inc.
100 Fairway Ct.
Northvale, NJ 07647
(201) 767-3900
(201) 784-4399 (fax)
Products: Centrifuges
Westpro Sales Inc.
1760 Bonhill Road
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5T 1C8
(905) 795-9606
(905) 795-9608 (fax)
1-800-667-1111
sales © westproequip.com
Product line: Remanufactu red equipment: crushers, flotation cells, vibrating screens, filters,
hyd rocyclones
Witco Corporation
One American Lane
Greenwich, CT 06831 -2559
(800) 948-2695
(203) 552-2893 (fax)
Products: Chemical reagents (Flotation, surf actants, dust suppression, and others)
B15
-------
Appendix B Equipment and Technology Sources
WS. Tyler Inc.
3200 Bessemer City Rd
P.O. Box 8900
Gastonia, NC 28053-9065
(704) 629-2214
(704) 865-6533 (fax)
1 -800-238-9537
Product Line: Vibrating screens, high-speed, high-capacity screens, rock screens, circle throw
vibrating machine, solution (dewatenng) screen.
Yardney Water Management Systems, Inc.
6666 Box Springs Blvd.
Riverside, CA 92507-0736
(909) 656-6716
(800) 854-4788
(909) 656-3867 (fax)
Product Line: Sand media filters, Multi-media filters, Centrifugal separators
Other Information Sources
“Innovative Site Remediation Technology: Soil WashingfSoil Flushing”
Edited by William C. Anderson, Monograph Task Group Chair: Michael J. Mann, American
Academy of Envfronmental Engineers,1 993.
Information: Appendix A, List of vendors and contacts
SEDTEC (Sediment Technology Directory)
do Ian Orchard
Environment Canada
4905 Duffenn St, 2 Floor
Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4
(416) 739-5879
(416) 739-4342 (fax)
csr aestor.am.doe.ca
Information: Directory of contaminated sediment removal and treatment technologies
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT)
US EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office
http://clu-in.com/visitt. htm
Information: A database of innovative treatment technologies compiled by USEPA, Version 6.0
December 1997
B16
-------