Section 3

Technology Applications Analysis

3.1 Introduction

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

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

3.2 Conclusions

The effectiveness of the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment
‘Washing System in separating the coarse fraction of material
(sand and gravel) from the humic (leaves, twigs, roots,
decaying vegetation, etc.) and fine (<45-micron, 325 mesh)
fractions of material was tested during the SITE
Demonstration. The SITE Demonstration Test was
conducted at the USACE’s Confined Disposal Facility
(CDF) in the Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron, just offshore of
Essexville, Michigan. The USACE also investigated the
performance of the Soil/Sediment Washing System as a

component of the Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program ‘initiated by the
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Breakdown of Costs for Feed Rate of 5 Tons/Hr *

LABOR COSTS
STARTUP & FIXED
Costs

SITE & FACILITY
PREPARATION COSTS

ANALYTICAL COSTS

EQUIPMENT COSTS

SUPPLIES COSTS

oO
BY

2.7% [N) consumasies costs
|

FACILITY MODIFICATIONS,
REPAIR, & REPLACEMENT
Costs

0.4%

Refer to Table 5 for additional information on these cost categories

Figure 6. Summary of Cost Categories for 5 Tons/Hr Unit. *

* Permitting & Regulatory Costs; Effluent Treatment & Disposal Costs; Residuals
& Waste Shipping: Handling, & Transport Costs; and Site Restoration Costs each
sum to less 1/Ton.

27



Table 5. Estimated Costs in $/Ton of the Bergmann USA Pilot-Scale Soil/Sediment Washing System**
Feed Rate = 5 tons/hr

On-line Percentage = 90%

Total Treatment Time = 12 months

Site and Facility Preparation Costs
Site design and layout —_
Survey and site investigations _
Legal searches _
Access rights and roads
Preparations for support facilities
Utility connections
Auxiliary buildings
Installation of major equipment
Technology-specific requirements
Transportation of waste feed

Total Site and Facility Preparation Costs

Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Permits eed
System monitoring requirements _
Development of monitoring and protocols ”

Total Permitting and Regulatory Costs _
Equipment Costs
Major equipment $74,077
Annualized equipment cost $9.06
Equipment rental . $3.67
Total Equipment Costs $12.73
Startup and Fixed Costs . :
On-line operation training” . $1.47
Waste-specific equipment testing $0.59
Working capital : . $12.01
Insurance and taxes $7.41
Initiation of monitoring programs _
Contingency $7.41
Total Startup and Fixed Costs $28.89
Labor Costs :
Supervisors $18.89
Lead Operators $16.35
Feed operators $7.62
Maintenance operators $15.24
Total Labor Costs - $58.10
Supplies Costs
Surfactant $1.00
Flocculent : $0.92
Miscellaneous $6.00
Total Supplies Costs 7 $7.92
Consumables Costs
Fuel $0.67
Water $0.67
Electricity . $2.76
Total Consumables Costs $4.10

Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs

On-site facility costs _
Off-site facility costs _
-wastewater di: _
-monitoring activities 0
Total Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs 0

23



4.3.11 Facility Modification, Repair and Replacement
Costs

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

4.3.12 Site Restoration Costs

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

References

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

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

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

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





Table C-1. Solids Dry Mass Balance Data

Mass In Mass Out
(Ibs) . Mass In

st Mass
Balance (%)

Test 1
Day 1* 48,600 4,730 252 * 101
Day 2* 44,600 4,360 272 101
Day 3* 47,400 5,490 245 107
Day 4* 55,100 13,600 297 5

Averaget 48,900 7,050 267

Test 2*

(Day 5)

Overall Averaget
(Days 1-5)

45,500 8,810 305

48,200 7,400 274

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

microns. during Test 1 and approximately 41.9% during Test 2).
This occurrence was not anticipated; the presence of

Table C-2 shows that particles <45 microns in size (fines) particles <45 microns in this stream is undesired. Better

were also found in the rotary trommel screen oversize, S2, _ separation of the fines from the trommel oversize may be.

during both tests (an average of approximately 34.5% achieved by the addition of a log washer or similar
deagglomeration unit operation.

Table C-2. Particle Size Analysis Summary (% <45 microns)**

Feed Rotary Trommel Humic Washed Coarse Clarifier
Screen Oversize Fraction Fraction Underflow (Fines)

81 S2 SS S6 S7
SS

Test 1
Day 1* 24.6 27.9 10.3

Day 2* 21.8 34.3 7.83
Day 3* 11.4 “36.0 5.93
Day 4* 22.0 39.8 5.39
Averaget 21.4 34.5 7.35
Lower 95% Confidence Intervalt 19.8 30.0 5.92
Upper 95% Confidence Interval 23.1 38.9 8.79
Test 2 (Day 5)* 29.0 41.9 9.72
Overall Average (Days 1-5) 22.9 36.0 7.83

* Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.

** For a discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
+ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.

$ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

42



The primary concerns with the handling of contaminated
soils are two-fold: 1) worker exposure, and 2) downwind,
off-site community exposure. Radionuclide and chemical
constituents which exhibit moderate to high volatility are of
principal concem. During excavation/removal of the
contaminated matrix, the majority of the anticipated release
of these low vapor pressure materials will occur prior to
preliminary screening and soil/sediment washing and
processing.

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

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

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

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

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

building can then be negatively vented through a vapor
collection/treatment system.

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



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

Rotary
Trommel Humic Washed Coarse
Screen Fraction Fraction
Oversize

SI $2 SS S6 S7

Clarifier
Underflow
(Fines)

Input Feed

—-

Test 1
Day 1* 64.9
Day 2* 45.7
Day 3* 51.7
Day 4* 58.3
Averaget 55.2
Lower 95% Confidence
Limitt
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitt
Test 2 (Day 5)* 40.9 66.6

Overall Average
(Days 1-5) 38.0 57.4

48.0

41.4 62.3

* Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.

** For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
f Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.

$ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

Table C-Sb. Barium Mass Balance Data

Mass In Mass Out Mass Out
(e) (g) Mass In

Si $2 SS S6 Mass
Balance (%)

EE
Test 1

Day 1* 12.9 52.6
Day 2* 90.4 7.74 66.5
Day 3* 129 7.98 58.6
Day 4* 360 11.4 778
Averaget 846 180 10.0 65.1
Test 2*
@ay 5)
Overall Avgt
@ays 1-5)

850 263 12.3 76.4

847 197 10.5 67.3

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

46



Table C-9a. Lead Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**

Rotary
Trommel
Screen
Oversize

SI $2 S§ S6 s7

Washed Clarifier
Humic Fraction Coarse Underflow
Fraction (Fines)

Input Feed

Test 1
Day 1* 25.2
Day 2* 18.0
Day 3* 21.7
Day 4* 18.0
Averaget 20.7
Lower 95% Confidence
Limit
Upper 95% Confidence
Limit}
Test 2 (Day 5)* 15.5 24.7

Overall Averaget
(Days 1-5)

17.1

17.5 24.3

15.3 21.5

Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.

For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.

Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

Table C-9b. Lead Mass Balance Data

Mass In
(g) Mass In

Mass

st Balance (%)

ee
Test 1

Day 1* 317 14.6 113
Day 2* 332 5.72 108
Day 3* 309 5.43 116
Day 4* 381 5.72 133
Average 335 7.87 118
Test 2*
@ay 5)
Overall Avg}
@ays 1-5)

319 106 8.36 . 129

331 72.2 7.97 A 120

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

50



B.2.7 Community & User Acceptance

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

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

B.2.8 Commercial Scale Systems

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

B.2.9 Rapid Mobilization/Demobilization

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

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

typically accomplished in 7 to 10 working days following
completion of site preparation activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attrition Scrubbing Module - a high energy unit
process operation which contacts -7/," contaminated
material with chemical wash additives to effectively
solubilize appropriate contaminants and to
“deslime” or mobilize the highly contaminated fines
(<74 micron [200 mesh]) material. The attrition
cells function at a 75 - 80 % solids content;

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

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



Fraction
$6, Washed Sand
And Gravel

ime Clarifier
Undertlow (fines)

Percentage < 45-Microns

n 1
TEST 1 TEST 2

<45-Micron Distribution Data for the
Output Streams

Figure 2.

3.3.2 Distribution of PCBs

During the Demonstration Tests, PCBs were detected in the
rotary trommel screen oversize (S2), the humic fraction
(S5), the washed coarse fraction (S6), and the clarifier
underflow (S7). As with the presence of fines in the rotary
trommel screen oversize, the presence of PCBs within the
rotary trommel screen oversize was also unexpected. It was
anticipated that the >6-mm debris in the dredged sediment
would only serve as a minor host to organic contaminants
given its small surface area-to-volume ratio and its inorganic
nature (shells, rocks, etc.). The PCBs appear, therefore, to
be carried by the fines in the rotary trommel screen
overflow. Redirecting the fines back into the main process
stream as previously discussed should redirect most of the
PCBs as well. Additional PCBs entering the system via the
fines would probably divide among the output product
streams in roughly the same proportions as seen in the
Demonstration Tests. As such, PCBs detected in the rotary
trommel screen overflow bave been excluded from this
discussion of PCB distributions.

‘The overall (Test 1 and Test 2) average concentration of
PCBs in the feed stream was approximately 1.35 mg/kg

with a 95% confidence interval of 1.20 to 1.51 mg‘kg. The
only PCB found during the testing was Aroclor 1242, A
detailed explanation of the identification and quantification
of this Aroclor is given in the companion document to this
report, the Technical Evaluation Report.

Figures 3a and 3b illustrate the distribution of PCBs among
the output product streams for Tests 1 and 2. Figure 3a
shows the PCB concentration in each output stream (SS, S6,
and $7), while Figure 3b shows the distribution of PCBs for
each output stream in terms of mass (as a percent of the
total PCB output, SS + S6 + S7).

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

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

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

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

3.3.3 Distribution of Metals
Demonstration Testing of the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment

Washing System identified eleven metals (specified in
Appendix C). Although the samples were analyzed for all

10



3B
T

Cost in $/Ton *
3
i

*sa10Zayeo 3509 Ssay} UO UONEULIOJUT JEUONIPPe JOJ 9 B1qQBL, 0) J2}2Y

Yl) WU: Li, Li

5 Tons/Hr 15 Tons/Hr 25 Tons/Hr 100 Tons/Hr
Feed Rate (Tons/Hr)

SITE & FACILITY EQUIPMENT COSTS STARTUP & FIXED mes LABOR COSTS
PREPARATION COSTS COSTS

| SUPPLIES COSTS CONSUMABLES COSTS ANALYTICAL COSTS

Refer to Table 6 for additional information on these cost categories

Figure 7. Summary of Overall Treatment Costs of Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment
Washing Systems. * .
* Permitting & Regulatory Costs; Effluent Treatment & Disposal Costs; Residuals
& Waste Shipping, Handling, & Transport Costs; Facility Moditications, Repair, &
Replacement Costs; and Site Restoration Costs each sum to less than $1/Ton.

“UOI/[$ TEMP sso] 0} WINS YoES SISOD UONEIO\seY og puE ‘sySOD yUoUIsoE|doy 7 ‘Iedoy ‘suoHeoyIpoW ArtpIoey {sysop

podsues | 7p ‘Surpuey ‘Burddiyg ose py 79 spenpisey ‘syso_ esodsiq] 7p quatuyeary juaNysA ‘s180D AroVEINBoy 7 Suny »
wn
oOo
T
!
'



Foreword

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation’s land,

air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and

“ implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems

to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA’s research program is providing data and technical

support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage

our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental
tisks in the future.

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

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

E, Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory

iti



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

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

As with any remediation technology, before this system can
be implemented or a Record of Decision is approved for a
particular hazardous waste site, treatability studies must be
performed. The treatability studies will enable the correct

selection and configuration of the separation modules to be’

employed if this technology is suitable for remediation of
that site.

21



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘The on-line factor of the system is high. Full-scale
Bergmann USA plants typically operate for

extended periods of time with an on-line factor of
90 to 95%.

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

. The cost of utilizing the Bergmann System is a
function of the required feed rate. The cost for a
S tons/hr unit with an on-line factor of 90% is
$1Si/ton. The cost for a 100 ton/hr system for the
same on-line factor is $42/ton. These costs include
excavation costs but do not include the final
disposal costs for the output streams.

3.3 Technology Evaluation

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

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

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



measure the flow of make-up water was actually calibrated
for another internal process stream which has a much higher

00 SS. Humic flowrate. Consequently, the water velocity within the make-
Sy eter up water pipe was not high enough to generate an accurate
Underflow (fines) signal within the meter. Therefore, it is very probable that
gob S6, Washed Sand the amount of water entering the system was much greater
And Gravel than the amount measured.
The failure to achieve an adequate total mass balance has
6oF little effect on the other component balances. This can be
shown by considering the solids balance. The average
E closure for the solids balance in Test 1 was 108 percent.
= The range was 101 to 115 percent. The value for Test 2
40 - was 103 percent. The accuracy of the solids balance was
100 gee cE pays Humic
Fraction
20 $7. Claritier
Underflow tines)
sol . . EE Washed Sand
And Gravel
0)
2
3
Figure Sa. Lead Concentration Distribution Data =
R

250%. Two items suggest that the source of the imbalance
is the input or "make-up" water stream. First, the amount
of water measured coming into the system was
approximately 2 gpm. This water constitutes the total fresh
supply to the system and is used to slurry the feed sediments
and to maintain adequate slurry densities throughout the
sediment washing process. The amount of watér entering
the system must match the amount of water leaving the
system via wet output product streams. Tablé 2 gives the
water content and rate for each of the output streams for
Tests 1 and 2. Clearly, the amount of water entering the er

system should be an order of magnitude higher. Second, Figure Sb. Lead Mass Distribution Data
Bergmann USA personnel indicated that the meter used to

TEST 2

Table 2. Water Content for Tests 1 and 2

Volume In Volume Out Volume Out
Volume In
si S8 Total $2 + S5 + S6+S7 Volume Balance
(gal) (gal) (gal) (gal) (%)
aS
TEST 1 1,260 1,080 2,340 14,500 619
TEST 2 1,150 1,360 2,510 13,400 534

13



Retoeeray

DREDGED
FEED
MATERIAL

ROTARY
TROMMEL,
SCREEN

ROTARY.

TROMMEL
SCREEN

OVERSIZE

< 6mm

SURFACTANT

SAMPLE
LOCATION
WATER LINE,

TOTALIZING|
FLOWMETER

SEPARATOR

roe :08

TOSUMP4

HUMIC FRACTION > 9 Sn

WASHED SAND
AND GRAVELTM

Figure 1.

reduced by a total of approximately 20%. This in turn
should impact the PCB and metals concentration by the
same amount. The impact on efficiency by adding stream
S2 is very small and almost negligible for most streams.

The objective of these tests was to concentrate the output
fines in the clarifier underflow. For Test 1, the average
distribution of output fines on a mass basis (as determined
by mass of <45-micron particles in underflow to mass of
<45-micron particles in all effluent streams) shows 70.4%
in the clarifier underflow, S7 (see Figure 2). The associated
range was 61.3 to 79.5%. The data show that the <45-
micron particle size dominates the clarifier underflow stream
and comprises an average of 94.4% of its solids. In
contrast, the fine particles remaining in the washed coarse
fraction are more dispersed and make up only 3.3% of its
total solids content.

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

Sampling Locations for the.Bergmann USA System

majority of the fines in this stream.

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

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

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



Section 4

Economic Analysis

4.1 Introduction

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

The actual Demonstration Test treated approximately 144
tons of contaminated soil and sediments at a feed rate of
approximately 4 tons/hr with an on-line percentage of
100%. However, the system is rated at 5 tons/hr and this
rate provides the basis for this economic analysis. Since the
Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System used during
the Demonstration Tests was pilot-scale, and not as cost-
effective as a full-scale unit, cost calculations were also
performed for other existing Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment
Washing Systems treating 15, 25, and 100 tons/hr. The
costs for the system used during the Demonstration Test are
presented in Table 5 and are based on:

a feed rate of 5 tons/hr;

an on-line percentage of 90%; and

an operating time of 14 hrs/day and 5 days/wk;
and a treatment time of 12 months.

The on-line percentage takes into account periodic
shutdowns to respond to maintenance or operational
problems. Although 100% on-line conditions cannot be
expected during extended periods of operating time, it is

common practice in the sand and gravel industry to achieve
an on-line factor as high as 90 to 95%. For the purposes of
this evaluation an on-line factor of 90% is assumed.

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

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

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

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

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



Section 2

Introduction

21 The SITE Program

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

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

Developers of innovative technologies apply to the
Demonstration Program by responding to the USEPA's
annual solicitation. The USEPA will also accept
proposals at any time when a developer has a treatment
project scheduled with Superfund waste. To qualify for
the program, a new technology must be at the pilot or full
scale and offer some advantage over existing
technologies. Mobile technologies are of particular
interest to the USEPA.

Once the USEPA has accepted a proposal, the USEPA
and the developer work with the USEPA Regional
Offices and state agencies to identify a site containing
wastes suitable for testing the capabilities of the
technology. The USEPA prepares a detailed sampling
and analysis plan designed to thoroughly evaluate the
technology and to-ensure that the resulting data are
reliable. The duration of a demonstration varies from a
few days to several months, depending on the length of
time and quantity of treated waste required to assess the
technology. After the completion of a technology
demonstration, the USEPA prepares two reports, which
are explained in more detail below. Ultimately, the
Demonstration Program leads to an analysis of the
technology's overall applicability to Superfund problems.

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

2.2 SITE Program Reports

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



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

Rotary Clarifier

Trommel Fumie Fraction Washed Coarse nderflow
Screen Fraction
(Fines)

Oversize
SI S2 SS S6 s7

Input Feed

a
Test 1

Day 1* 34.6 6.04
Day 2* 28.0
Day 3* 27.1 9.04
Day 4* 26.9

Averaget 29.2

Lower 95% Confidence

Limitt 25.3

Upper 95% Confidence 25.1 33.0

Limitt

Test 2 (Day 5)* 22.2 34.6

Overall Averaget
(ays 15) 22.4 30.3

Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.

For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluatio Report.
Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.

Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

Table C-7b. Copper Mass Balance Data

Mass In Mass Out
(g) Mass In

Si Mass
Balance (%)

Test 1

Day 1* 15.4 57.6
Day 2* 55.4 5.94 61.2
Day 3* 67.5 6.04 81.3
Day 4* 166 9.04 86.9
Averaget 502 91.1 7.02 11.8
Test 2*
@ay 5)

Overall Avgt
@ays 1-5) 494 101 7.46

462 139 9.21 87.8

* Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
f Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through S.

48



C-9a

C-9b

C-10a
C-10b
C-lla
C-1lb
C-12a
C-12b
C-13a
C-13b
C-l4a
C-14b

D-1

Tables (Continued)

Lead Concentration Distribution (mg/kg) 2.66.6. 50
Lead Mass Balance Data 6... lee cee eee eee nett nents 50
Magnesium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg) . 2.6... eee tee eee 51
Magnesium Mass Balance Data ...... Pee eee ee eee eee eee eee ete 51
Manganese Concentration Distribution (mg/kg) 0%... eee ce eee eee 52
Manganese Mass Balance Data 2... 1... eee cece eect eee tee t eee 52
Potassium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)... 6... 6 ec cee ee ee eee 53
Potassium Mass Balance Data 2... 06. ee eee cece eee eee een eee 53
Vanadium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)... 6. 6 ee eens 54
Vanadium Mass Balance Data... 6... eee eee eee eens 54
Zinc Concentration Distribution (mg/kg) 2... 60 eee eee ences 55
Zine Mass Balance Data... 1... ce cece ee ene ene eens 55
Summary of Toronto Harbour Commissioners SITE Demonstration Test Results (mg/kg) ...... 57

viii



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

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

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

3.6.1.4 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

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

The waste feed used for this Demonstration of the
Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System contained an
overall average level of 1.35 ppm PCBs. The levels of

PCBs in some of the output streams were elevated as a
result of the separation process. The humic fraction
contained an overall average of approximately 11.0 ppm and
the concentrated fines from the clarifier underflow contained
approximately 4.42 ppm. However, even the stream with
the highest levels of PCBs was below the TSCA limit for
PCB-contaminated material by a factor of 4.

3.6.1.5 Clean Water Act (CWA)

19

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

3.6.1.6 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

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



Table C-14a. Zinc Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**
roaey Humi Washed Clarifier
Input Feed Secon Fi sation Coarse Underflow

cree Faction Fraction (Fines)
Oversize

Si $2 S5 S6 s7

Test 1
Day 1* .! . 206
Day 2*
Day 3*
Day 4*
Averaget
Lower 95% Confidence
Limit}
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitt
Test 2 (Day 5)* 93.0 167

Overall Averaget
(Days 1-5)

104

85.4 132

80.8 128

Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.

For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.

Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

Table C-14b, Zinc Mass Balance Data

Mass In Mass Out
(g) Mass In

$1 ‘ Mass
Balance (%)

Test 1
Day 1* 1,650 267 . 47.8
Day 2* 1,570 187 .! 57.3
Day 3* 1,560 303 : 61.2
Day 4* 2,210 814 . 91.9
Averaget 1,750 393 22.9 , 64.6

.
eS) 1,910 691 31.1 , 89.2

Overall Avgt

@ays 1-5) 1,780 452 24.5 + 719

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

55



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

The Toronto Harbour Demonstration Tests found that the
Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System produces
two product streams with contaminant levels significantly
reduced in comparison to the feed soil. In addition, the
contaminants were found to be concentrated primarily in the
contaminated slurry which is then routed for further
processing. Table D-1 presents the average values of
selected parameters measured during the demonstration for
the feed and product streams.

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

Following the completion of the Canadian demonstration
project, it is anticipated that a full-scale plant will be
designed for installation of a three-year, 85-tons/hr

(300,000-tons/yr) remedial project of the Toronto Harbour
front area.

References for Appendices

1. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC),
San Diego, CA. April 17, 1992. “Demonstration
Plan for Bergmann USA‘s Soil/Sediment Washing
Technology.”

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

1992, Bergmann’ USA Project

3. Bergmann USA.
Descriptions.

4. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
Buffalo, NY. October 1992. “Soil Recycling
Treatment Train; The Toronto Harbour
Cornmissioners; Evaluation of the Attrition Soil Wash
Process."

Table D-1. Summary of Toronto Harbour Commissioners SITE Demonstration Test Results (mg/kg)

Feed Soil® Trommel

Oversize?

8,330 3,330
2,540 814
2.40

Oil & Grease
TRPH
Copper

Lead

Zinc

16.9
MS 23.0
82.5 24.4
11.2
6.91
5.06
1.91

Naphthalene 2.62

Phenanthrene 2.36

Pyrene 1.79

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.580

Contaminated
Fines?

Coal/Peat Clean Sand’

Fraction*

40,000
14,000
80.9

38,100 2,180
11,900 621
32.9 13.8
406 46.0 520
210 34.1 329
2.05 51.7
1.77 34.7
1.43 26.3
0.530 10.0

64.0
39.0
33.0
14.5

Feed soil characteristics were calculated from rock and fines analytical data using a weight basis.

Average of six composite samples.
Average of three composite samples.
TRPH Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

U.S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995-653-470





3.4.3. Topographical Characteristics

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

3.4.4 Site Area Requirements

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

3.4.5 Climate Characteristics

For outdoor operations, climate characteristics suitable for
this treatment technology include a moderate temperature
Tange and low wind conditions. Temperatures below
freezing would have a profound effect on the operation of
the system since the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing
System utilizes large amounts of water to "wash" the soil.
Windy conditions may be detrimental to the conveyor belts
and the 45-foot tower that houses the separators and other
Pieces of equipment. Windy conditions also make barge-
mounted activities very difficult due to rough waters and
wave motion.

Severe storms may result in hazardous operating conditions,
if the equipment is erected outdoors as it is fully exposed to
the weather. The tower, often standing alone or standing
taller than surrounding structures, provides a ready pathway
for lightning.

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

3.4.6 Geological Characteristics

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

3.4.7 Utility Requirements

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

Water requirements include an available supply of water
sufficient to fill the 5 tons/hr system with 10,000 gallons
initially, and then provide approximately 30 gpm; the 300
tons/hr unit requires 15,000 gallons of water initially, then

approximately 480 gpm during operation. Although the
system actually requires quantities of water much greater
than these specified parameters, a large amount of water is
recirculated through the system, thereby reducing water
usage through recycling. As discussed under
“Topographical Characteristics" earlier in this section, non-
potable water is acceptable for use and may be obtained
from a nearby lake, river, or well.

3.4.8 Size of Operation

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



Contents

Foreword 0... ee teen eee ete nee

Abstract .

Tables .

Figures

Abbreviations and Symbols oe

Acknowledgments ©. 06... cc ee ee eee eee ee eee eee xi

1. Executive Summary 1
1d Introduction 1
1.2 Conclusions + oe . . res |
1.3 Results... ec eee eee ete eee ee 2

2. Introduction 2... ee ee ee eee ee ene e eee eens 4
21 The SITE Program 66... c eee eee ee eee eee tet te eee ene

2.2. SITE Program Reports . .
2.3 Key Contacts

3. Technology Applications Analysis... 2.0... ee ee eee nee 6

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Conclusions
3.3 Technology Evaluation
3.3.1 Particle Size Separation
3.3.2 Distribution of PCBs .
3.3.3 Distribution of Metals .
3.3.4 Mass Balances
3.4 Ranges of Site Characteristics Suitable for the Technology
: Site Selection
Surface, Subsurface, and Clearance Requirements
Topographical Characteristics
Site Area Requirements ‘
Climate Characteristics :
Geological Characteristics . . . . oe we .
Utility Requirements 2.0.0.0... cece eee eee ee . see .
Size of Operation ©... 1. eee eee eens



Abstract

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

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

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

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

iv



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

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

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

2.3 Key Contacts

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

1. USEPA Technical Project Manager concerning the
SITE Demonstration:

Mr. Jack S. Hubbard

USEPA

Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

(513) 569-7507

2. Vendor concerning the process:

Mr. Richard P. Traver
Bergmann USA

1550 Airport Road
Gallatin, TN 37066-3739
(615) 452-5525



Tables

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

Water Content for Tests 1 and 2
Copper Mass Balance Data
Lead Mass Balance Data

Estimated Costs in $/Ton of the Bergmann USA Pilot-Scale Soil/Sediment Washing

Costs in $/Ton for Operation of Various Size Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Systems
Solids Mass Balance Data

Particle Size Analysis Summary (% <45 microns)
PCB Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)

PCB Mass Balance Data

Aluminum Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)
Aluminum Mass Balance Data

Barium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)
Barium Mass Balance Data

Calcium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)
Calcium Mass Balance Data

Copper Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)
Copper Mass Balance Data

Iron Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)

Iron Mass Balance Data



EXE Humic *
ojFraction
|S7, Clarifier
Underflow (Fines)

mi. Washed Sand
And Gravel

TEST 1 TEST2

Figure 3a. PCB Concentration Distribution Data

the metals specified by SW-846 Method 6010 and mercury,
only these eleven metals were present in high enough
concentrations to allow a suitable evaluation of the
technology. Three metals that are regulated under the
Resource. Conservation and’ Recovery Act (RCRA) were
detected too infrequently to be used to evaluate the

100 5, Humic
Fraction
6, Washed Sand
And Gravel
gob S7, Clarifier
Underflow (fines)
cob
g
we
40 fF - -
20- - -
0 n n
TEST 1 TEST 2
Figure 3b. PCB Mass Distribution Data

sot

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

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

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

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

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

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



United States Office of Research and EPA/540/AR-92/075
Environmenial Protection Development September 1995,
Agency Washington DC 20460

Bergmann USA Soil
Sediment Washing
Technology

Applications Analysis Report

SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE

TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION



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

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

p——— TRONMEL SPRAY
SOM MTEL SYFTON

remove light organic particles (specific gravity < 1.6) from
the sand fraction. Removal of these organics is important
because this fraction of material generally acts as a primary
host to contaminants.

The sand that exits the"DMS is directed, by gravity, to an
attrition scrubbing machine. This unit receives the sand
fraction at a high solids concentration (normally 65 to 75%
solids by weight) and, through a series of rotating impellers,
acts to remove surficial contaminants on the sand grains.
The particular unit in this demonstration plant consists of
three chambers, each equipped with three impellers that
rotate at a nominal tip speed of 800 rpm. Retention time
within the machine is about 15 minutes at a feed rate of 5
tons/hr dry solids. In order to aid the scrubbing process,
various reagents such as surfactants or pH mddifiers may be

“added to the feed of the attrition cell. Discharge from the

attrition cell is sent (by gravity) to Sump 2.

Sump 2 is a 450-gallon tank that receives material from the
attrition cell (or directly from the DMS when the attrition
cell is bypassed) as well as dilution water from the overflow
of the third separator. From this sump, the slurry is
pumped to the second stage separator for separation of
fines. Underflow (sand fraction) from the second separator

DREDGED
FEED

> bmn
MEDIA
ROTARY SEPARATOR
TROMMEL,
SCREEN
OVERSIZE

TOSUMP2

[ker
WATER LINE

Be PRocEss FLOW

7] SEPARATOR

SCREEN

To SUMP 4

HUMIC FRACTION > 0 4mm

WASHED SAND
AND GRAVEL

FROM ROTARY
SCREEN

Figure A-1, The Bergmann USA Process Flow Diagram

34



Abbreviations and Symbols

AQMD Air Quality Management District

ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ARCS Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
BDAT Best Demonstrated Available Treatment

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl benzene, and Xylene
CAA Clean Air Act

CDF Confined Disposal Facility

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
cf Cubic feet

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act

DMS Dense Media Separator

$ U.S. Dollar

°F degree Fahrenheit

FWQc Federal Water Quality Criteria

& gram

gal Gallons _

GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office

gpm Gallons per Minute

hr Hour

kg Kilograms

kW Kilowatts

Ib Pounds

mm Millimeter

mg Milligram

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NPDES National Pollutant discharge Elimination System
ORD Office of Research and Development

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Work

ppm Parts per million

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

% Percent

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

1pm Revolutions Per Minute

RREL Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory

SAIC Science Applications International Corporation
SARA Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

TSD Treatment Storage, and Disposal

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineerrs
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency



3a

3b

da

4b

Sa

Sb

Figures

Sampling Locations for the Bergmann USA System... 2.2... cece eee ee 9
<45-Micron Grain Size Distribution Data for the Output Streams ...........00--000000- i
PCB Concentration Distribution Data 2... 6... eee cee cee eens 11
PCB Mass Distribution Data... 1... cece eee cette ene 10
Copper Concentration Distribution Data... 1... eee ee eee 12
Copper Mass Distribution Data 12
Lead Concentration Distribution Data... 1... eee ee eens 13
Lead Mass Distribution Data 2.0... eee tee eee e eee 13
Summary of Cost Categories for 5 Ton/Hr Unit... 6... eee eee eee 27
Summary of Overall Treatment of a Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System ......... 28
The Bergmann USA Process Flow Diagram ... 0... 0... cece cece eee e eee eee eee 34

ix



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

Rotary

Clarifier
Trommel Humic Washed Coarse
Input Feed Screen Fraction Fraction Underflow
A (Fines)
Oversize
SI S2 Ss S6 s7
Test 1
Day 1* 29,500 44,900 23,500 12,200 73,100
Day 2* 26,100 28,300 18,800 14,300 94,200
Day 3* 24,300 30,800 19,800 14,700 72,000
Day 4* 27,600 34,400 23,100 14,700 67,600
Averaget 26,900 34,600 21,300 13,900 76,700
Lower 95% Confidence 25,200 28,100 19,700 13,200 63,700
Limit} ,
Upper 95% Confidence 28,500 41,100 22,900 14,700 90,300
Limit}
Test 2 (Day 5)* 27,700 35,400 23,500 16,300 70,400
Overall Averaget
(Days 1-5) 27,000 34,700 21,700 14,400 75,500
* Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
** For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation-Report.
F Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
Table C-6b, Calcium Mass Balance Data
Mass In Mass Out Mass Out
ke) (ke) Mass In
SI S2 SS S6 S7 Total Mass Balance
(%)
rr ES
Test 1
Day 1* 650 97.9 2.72 227 lil 438 67.4
Day 2* 528 55.8 2.40 241 146 445 84.3
Day 3* 525 76.5 2.18 282 71.4 438 83.5
Day 4* 695 212 3.05 291 173 679 97.7
Averaget 600 lil 2.60 260 127 500 83.4
Test 2*
(Day 5) 573 138 3.22 252 123 516 87.7
Overall Avg$
(ays 1-5) 594 116 2.73 259 123 501 84.3

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

47



4.3.3 Equipment Costs

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

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

i( +i)?

Capital re =(v-v¥) =
Ip: ‘ecovery = ( ‘a) CT Cary

Where V

fi

is the cost of the original equipment,
is the salvage value of the equipment,
is the equipment life (10 years), and
is the annual interest rate (6%) [2,3].

4.3.4 Startup and Fixed Costs

On-line training of the local hires (feed and maintenance
operators) is conducted by the supervisor and the lead

operator. Training is assumed to be conducted
simultaneously for all shifts over a period of 13 8-hour
days.

For each project for which the Bergmann USA
Soil/Sediment Washing System is commissioned, a period
of 3 days is required for waste-specific testing of the system
prior to the commencement of treatment. This includes
checking out each of the systems individually with respect
to the particular waste to be treated. Two shifts of 5
workers are required for a total of 16 hours a day during the
waste-specific equipment testing. Actual operating time
during this waste-specific testing will be 14 hours a day.
Costs of initial equipment tests are limited to labor charges
(see “Labor Costs," Section 4.3.5).

Working capital is the amount of money currently invested
in supplies and consumables. The working capital costs of
supplies and consumables is based on maintaining a one-
month inventory of these items. (See “Supplies Costs,”
Section 4.3.6, and "Consumables Costs,” Section 4.3.7, for
the specific amount of supplies and consumables required
for the operation of the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment
Washing System. These quantities were used to determine
the amount of supplies and consumables required to
maintain a one-month inventory of these items.)

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

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

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

4.3.5 Labor Costs

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

4.3.6 Supplies Costs.

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



3.6.1 Federal USEPA Regulations

3.6.1.1 Clean Air Act

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

3.6.1.2 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

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

long-term effectiveness and permanence,
short-term effectiveness,
implementability, and

cost.

The Bergmann USA system has demonstrated that
contaminants in the feed stream can be concentrated and
isolated by separating soil and sediment particles according

to grain size and density. Although this does not totally
eliminate the contamination from any particular waste feed
material, it does reduce the quantity of significantly
contaminated material and separates the feed into streams
with levels of contantination ranging from insignificant to
serious. This illustrates both long-term and, especially,
short-term effectiveness. In the immediate future, it reduces
the amount of contaminated material; in the long run, the
technology reduces the amount of contaminated waste
requiring treatment and subsequent landfill.

The short-term effectiveness of the Bergmann USA system
may be evaluated by examining analytical data obtained
from the various waste streams. The data indicate that the
contaminants present in the feed (i-e., PCBs and metals for
the Demonstration Test) were concentrated in two solid
streams, the fines and the humic fraction. These waste
streams may require treatment and must be disposed of
properly. For the Demonstration Test, levels of

contamination in both the solid streams and the liquid
streams were below regulated levels. This implies that, in
most cases (with the exception of “derived from” wastes
which are considered listed wastes regardless of their final
levels of contamination), these secondary waste streams may
be disposed of in a licensed landfill without the need for
additional treatment.

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

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

3.6.1.3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

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

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



is sent, by gravity, to Sump 3. This sump receives clarified
Process water from the inclined plate clarifier overflow.
From here, the slurry is pumped (through a 2-inch X 2-inch
slurry pump and 2-inch diameter hose) to the third stage
separator for final hydraulic separation of fines. The
underflow from the third separator falls by gravity onto a
dewatering screen in order to produce a material which is
suitable for discharge onto a 24-inch wide conveyor belt.

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

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

The fine fraction and water pass through the Rotary Velmet
screen flow by gravity to Sump 4. From this sump, the
slurry is pumped via a 2-inch x 2-inch pump into a Linatex

35

To aid in clarification, the
effluent from the classification plant is dosed with polymer

Model 4C2-400 Clarifier.

flocculants, (During the Demonstration Test -Percol 720
from Allied Colloids was used as the flocculant.) Sludge
containing approximately 15% solids is pumped out from
the clarifier at timed intervals to a receiving tank. Overflow
from the clarifier may be recycled back into the process.



Currently the largest system operated by Bergmann USA
can process up to 300 tons/hr.

The size of the facility itself is governed by the size of the
‘system chosen and ‘the selection of indoor or outdoor
construction and assembly (seg "Site Area Requirements").
The equipment layout is slightly restricted when operating
in an enclosure. In this case, overhead height becomes an
issue and some modifications may be required to alter the
configuration of the system to reduce the height of the
tower. With no overhead restrictions, Bergmann USA
utilizes gravity to aid in moving the feed throughout the
system.

3.5 Applicable Wastes

The Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System can be
used to treat both land-based soils as well as river and
harbor sédiments. The contaminated soil or sediment should
contain no more than about 40% silt and clay material
smaller than 45 micron. Solid organic content should not
exceed 20% by volume. The organic content is specified in
terms of volume because of the low specific gravity of this
media in relation to the other components of the
soil/sediment. The medium to be separated may be
contaminated with both organic and inorganic constituents.
Typical contaminant groups that can be effectively isolated
and concentrated include: petroleum and fuel residues,
radioactive contaminants, heavy metals, PCBs, creosote,
pentachlorophenols (PCPs), pesticides, and cyanides.

Materials handling requirements for operation of a
Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System include
containerization of the process feed and transport of this
material to the facility. Depending on the hazard and
volatility of the waste, containerization may entail the use of
small sealed containers such as 55-gallon drums or perhaps
larger vessels such as the holds of dredging barges for
dredged lake or river sediments. The use of small
containers is not likely since treatment will most often take
Place on-site, except when dredged sediments are being
Processed. Containerization of the concentrated solid wastes
(fines and humic fraction) and possibly the liquid waste
(clarifier underflow) must also be considered along with
transport of these residues and effluents for disposal. Since
the process isolates and concentrates contaminants into the
fines and the humic fraction, these residues (a reduced
volume of contaminated waste) and the effluent may require
additional treatment prior to final disposal.

17

3.6 Regulatory Requirements

Operation of the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing
System for pre-treatment of contaminated soil requires
compliance with certain Federal, state, and local regulatory
standards and guidelines. Section 121 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) requires that, subject to specified exceptions,
remedial actions must be undertaken in compliance with
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs), Federal laws, and more stringent state laws (in
response to releases or threats of releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants) as necessary to
protect human health and the environment.»

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

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

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

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

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

. USEPA air and water pollution regulations,

State air and water pollution regulations, and

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

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



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

wen, Humi Washed Clarifier
romme! mc Coarse Underflow
Screen Fraction - .
Fraction (Fines)
Oversize

SI S2 SS S6 s7

Input Feed

Test 1
Day I* 171
Day 2* 14.3
Day 3* 9.78
Day 4* 11.4
Averaget 13.2
Lower 95% Confidence
Limitt
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitt
Test 2 (Day 5)* 12.8
Overall Average}
(Days 1-5)

11.8

14.5

13.1 17.8

Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.

For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Reoprt.
Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.

Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

Table C-13b. Vanadium Mass Balance Data

Mass In Mass Out
(g) Mass In

Mass
si Balance (%)

Test 1
Day 1* 44.6 3.05 61.4
Day 2* 27.4 2.53 . 80.0
Day 3* 40.1 2.52 98.6
Day 4* 112 3.18 118
Average 56.0 2.82 89.5
Test 2*
@ay 5)
Overall Avgt
(ays 1-5) 287 60.5 2.86 x 89.5
* Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
+ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

265 78.5 3.01 . 102

54



Contents (Continued)

3.5 Applicable Wastes wees 7
3.6 Regulatory Requirements .......- eeee . wee . . . 2. 17
3.6.1 Federal USEPA Regulations . . . 18
3.6.2 State and Local Regulations . . . 20
3.7 Personnel Issues ....-.----+ +> see ‘ bees : : ++ 20
3.7.1 Operator Training ......---- . . see . . bee .. 20
3.7.2 Health and Safety . : wae 1. 2
3.7.3. Emergency Response bees + . wee . . wees +. 20
3.8 Summary... eee eee tee teen eee eee tees 20
4 Economic Analysis... 6... cc eee ee ee eter eee teen eee e tenn eee 22
41 Introduction £6... eee eee tee eee eee ete 22
4.2 Results of Economic Analysis . 26
4.3 Basis for Economic Analysis . 26
4.3.1 Site and Facility Preparation Costs . . see . . see -. 26
4.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs ©... 6.6.2... Se fee eee eee wee 2 29
4.3.3 Equipment Costs 2.1... -.- eee eee eee eee eee ee eee see +. 30
4.3.4 Startup and Fixed Costs . . . bee -+ 30
4.3.5 Labor Costs 30
4.3.6 Supplies Costs ..... - 30
4.3.7 Consumables Costs . . 31
4.3.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs . . 31
4.3.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling and Transport Costs . . 31
4.3.10 Analytical Costs . . - 31
4.3.11 Facility Modification, Repair and Replacement Costs . : see . «+ 32
4.3.12 Site Restoration Costs 2... 6c eee eee eee eee eee eee eee n eens 32
References . « 32
Appendix A - Process Description 33
Ad Process Overview - 33
A2 Process Description » 33
Appendix B - Vendor's Claims 2.2... ee te eee ee eee ee eens 36
BA Introduction ©... ee eee eee eee ete eee eens 36
B.2 Proposed Technology/Approach ... 6.6... eee ee eee eee eens bee e eee eevee eee 36
Appendix C - Site Demonstration Results’ 6... cece eee eee eee teen teens 41
Ci Solids Balance 2.2... eee eee eee eee
C.2 Particle Size Separation .
c.3 Distribution of PCBs . . . : seas : . sees : : .
C.4 Distribution of Metals 2.0... eee teeter eee eee nees
Appendix D - Case Studies ...........
DA Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program Testing
D.2 Toronto Harbour Commissioners SITE Demonstration Testing ..........-+e0005
References for Appendices 2... 2... cece eee eee teen eens 57



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

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

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

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

3.3.1 Particle Size Separation

The Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System used
during the Demonstration Testing is designed to reduce the
volume of contaminated sediments through the use of
particle size separation. The separation is accomplished

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

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

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

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



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

Rotary G
Input Feed Trommel Humic Washed Clarifier
inpu Screen Fraction Fracti Underflow (Fines)
‘raction
Oversize
Si $2 $5 S6 s7

a
Test 1

Day 1* 5,610 7,990 1,910 748 18,800
Day 2* 4,750 5,450 1,520 792 26,300
Day 3* 3,930 6,520 1,650 774 17,100
Day 4* 4,540 7,160 2,060 800 17,600
“Averaget 4,710 6,780 1,780 778 19,900
Lower 95% Confidence 4,300 5,890 1,630 760 16,100
Limitt
Upper 95% Confidence 5,120 7.670 1,930 797 24,000
Limitt .
Test 2 (Day 5)* 4.960 8.250 2,220 957 20.600
Overall Averaget
(bee 13) 4,760 7,070 1,870 814 20,100

* Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.

** For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
+ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.

$ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

Table C-4b, Aluminum Mass Balance Data

Mass In Mass Out ss Out
kg) kg) Mass In
S1 $2 Ss S6 $7 Total Mass

Balance (%)

anna inaemememmmmmmiememmmmmmmnmemmmmmmmmmmemmmeemsee ems mesteeeeeseseeenaeee= ee

Test 1

Day 1* 123 17.3 0.221 13.9 28.6 60.1 48.7
Day 2* 95.9 10.8 0.188 13.3 41.2 65.5 68.4
Day 3* 84.1 16.2 0.183 14.9 18.5 49.8 59.2
Day 4* 116 44.2 0.276 15.9 45.0 105 90.9
Averaget 105 22.1 0.217 14.5 33.3 70.2 67.0
Test 2*

ay 5) 103 32.1 0.305 14.7 32.0 79.1 76.4
Overall Avgt

ays 1-5) 105 24.1 0.235 14.6 33.1 72.0 68.8

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

45



Table C-11a. Manganese Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**

Rotary Washed Clarifier

Trommel & tio Coarse Underflow
cree von Fraction (Fines)

Oversize
SI $2 S5 S6 s7

Test 1
Day 1* 218 646
Day 2*
Day 3* 183 . 700
Day 4* 206
Averaget 200
Lower 95% Confidence
Limitt
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitt
Test 2 (Day 5)*

Overall Averaget
(Days 1-5)

Input Feed

187

206 304

Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.

For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
Calculated using available data points for Days 1 through 4.

Calculated using available data points for Days 1 through 5.

Table C-11b. Manganese Mass Balance Data

Mass In Mass Out
(g) Mass In

$1 Mass
Balance (%)
Test 1 .
Day 1* 4,820 776 50.0 57.4
Day 2* 3,930 461 45.1 72.7
Day 3* 3,920 681 43.4 68.3
Day 4* 5,220 1,910 62.4 96.7
Averaget 4,470 957 50.2 73.8
Test 2*
@ay 5)
Overall Avgt
@ays 1-5)

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

4,720 1,350 68.7 84,1

4,520 1,040 53.9

52



ST

Table 6. Costs in $/Ton for Operation of Various Sizes of Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing Systems”

Treatment Rate
Total Treatment Time
Total Volume Treated

Site Facility Preparation Costs

5 Tons/Hr
1 Year
16,200 Tons

15 Tons/Hr
2 Years

97,200 Tons

25 Tons/Hr

3 Years

243,000 Tons

100 Tons/Hr
S Years
1,620,000 Tons

including excavation $20.03 $17.86 $15.79 $14.76

(excluding excavation) ($0.28) ($0.10) ($0.07) ($0.05)
Permitting & Regulatory Costs _ _ _ _
Equipment Costs $12.73 $8.51 $7.29 $5.04
Startup & Fixed Costs $28.89 $19.64 $16.86 SUL.12
Labor Costs $58.10 $19.37 $11.62 $3.67
Supplies Costs $7.92 $6.67 $5.42, $4.12
Consumables Costs $4.10 $2.72 $3.00 $2.35
Effluent Treatment & Disposal Costs _ _ - o
Residuals & Waste Shipping, Handling, & Transport Costs _ - - -
Analytical Costs $19.05 $6.35 $3.81 $0.95
Facility Modifications, Repair, & Replacement Costs $0.54 $0.36 $0.30 “$0. 17
Site Restoration Costs ~ _ — -_
Total Costs $151.36 $81.48 $64.09 $42.18
(Total Costs excluding excavation) ($131.61) ($63.72) ($48.37) ($27.47)

* All costs estimated at 1993 prices.



were assumed to be the obligation of the responsible party
or site owner and were not included in the estimates.

4.2 Results of Economic Analysis

Data gathered during the Demonstration Test indicates that
the on-line factor of the Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment
Washing System was 100%. However, in order to account
for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, a 90% on-line
factor was assumed. Other data indicates that this is typical
of more extensive (longer) operations of the Bergmann USA
Soil/Sediment Washing System, therefore, all calculations
were performed based on a 90% on-line factor. The feed
rate during the Demonstration Test was approximately 4
tons/hr, but since the unit was sized for 5 tons/hr, this
higher feed rate has been assumed for the cost estimate.
For a feed rate of 5 tons/hr and a total treatment time of 12
months, the results of the analysis show a cost-per-ton
estimate of $151 for 90% on-line conditions. These costs
are considered to be order-of-magnitude estimates as defined
by the American Association of Cost Engineers, with an
expected accuracy within +50% and -30%. Since the 5
tons/hr Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System is at
the pilot-scale level, the cost per ton of soil treated is
relatively high. For other larger units with higher feed rates
and the same 90% on-line factor, the cost per ton is less:
$81 and $63 for the 15 and 25 tons/hr units, respectively.
For the 100 tons/hr unit, the cost per ton drops to $42 for
90% on-line conditions.

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

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

5, 15, 25, and 100 tons/hr, respectively. Ordinarily, these
costs can be reduced by increasing the on-line percentage
and feed rate, thus increasing the actual treatment rate and
decreasing the treatment time required. In this case, since
the on-line percentage, is already so high, it is unlikely that
this factor may be improved.

4.3 Basis for Economic Analysis

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

. Site and facility preparation costs,”
'Permitting and regulatory costs,
Equipment costs,
Startup and fixed costs,
Labor costs,
Supplies costs,
Consumables costs,
Effluent treatment and disposal costs,

Residuals and waste shipping, handling, and
transport costs,

Analytical costs,

Facility modification, repair, and replacement
costs, and

. Site restoration costs.

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

4.3.1 Site and Facility Preparation Costs

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



Appendix C

Site Demonstration. Results

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

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

The demonstration activities consisted of two separate tests
using the same feed soil throughout. The tests were
identical except Test 2 investigated the effect of using
surfactant while otherwise operating in the same fashion.
Sampling of all process input and output streams was carried
out in accordance with the Demonstration Plan [1]. Some
minor modifications to the sampling plan were implemented
in the field during the tests. These modifications are
detailed in Section 5 of the Technology Evaluation Report.

The tables presented in this section provide a summary of
the Demonstration Test data. Daily averages are presented
for each stream. For all streams except S2, information
presented for each day is an average of at least eight data
points (1 sample per hour, 8 hours per day.) The data
presented for S2 is an average of at least two data points
since S2 was only sampled twice per day (one 4-hour
composite in the morning and one 4-hour composite sample
in the afternoon). In order to provide the most
representative information, the averages and 95 % confidence
intervals presented for Test 1 have been calculated using all

41

available data (at least forty data points for all streams
except $2 where at least ten data points were utilized), and
thus may not directly correspond to the averages of the four
data points presented for Days 1 through 4 in the tables.
All available data points for Days 1 through 5 were used for
the calculation of the overall averages presented in the
tables.

C.1 Solids Balance

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

C.2 Particle Size Separation

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

The Test 1 input feed soil was comprised of approximately
21.4% <45-micron particles with a 95% confidence
interval of 19.8 to 23.1%. For Test 2, the input feed soil
was approximately 29.0% <45-micron particles. Particles
in this <45-micron range were detected in the following
output streams: the rotary trommel screen oversize (S2),
the humic fraction ($5), the washed coarse fraction (S6),
and the clarifier underflow or fines (S7).

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



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

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

The fine particles (<45-microns) balance for Test 1 was an
average of approximately 69.4% with a range of 53.2 to
99.4 percent. The closure for Test 2 was 66.0 percent.
The variability of the balance appears to stem from the
variability associated with the analysis of fines in the rotary
trommel screen oversize output. The relative range of
values for fines mass in the trommel oversize was higher
than any other output stream (27.9 to 41.9%). This is
understandable given that there is no consistent method to
sieve fines that adhere to other larger particles or fines that
compact with one another to form clay balls during this
screening process. This wide range could also be explained
by the fact that this stream is highly heterogeneous and it is
possible that representative samples may not have been
collected. ee

Table 3. Copper Mass Balance Data

The PCB mass balance closure for Test 1 was 59.1 percent.
with a range of 52.6 to 66.1 percent. The PCB closure for
Test 2 was 51.7 percent. The accuracy of the analytical
method used for the determination of PCBs was 50 to
150%. Therefore, the range of values for Test 1 suggest
that PCB mass closure could be acceptible. The closure for
Test 2 may indicate that a greater number of samples are
required to narrow the confidence range to estimate the true
mean for each of the streams (Test 1 had 32 samples, while
Test 2 had only 8 samples).

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

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

o Mass Out
Mass In Mass Out Mass In
si s2 ss S6 s7 Total Mass Balance
(g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%)
Jet!
Day 1* 530 75.4 7.08 112 1 305 51.6
Day 2* 487 55.4 6.94 109 128 298 61.2
Day 3* 387 67.5 6.04 174 67.2 315 81.3
Day 4* 603 166 9.04 192 157 524 86.9
Averaget 502 911 7.02 147 116 361 118
Test 2 (Day 5)* 462 139 9.21 146 11 405 87.8
oat SF 494 101 7.46 147 115 370 74.8

* Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.

t Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

14



Table C-3a. PCB Concentration Data (mg/kg)

Rotary i
. Clarifier
Trommel Humic Washed Coarse Underflow

Screen Fraction Fraction (Fines)
Oversize

SI S2 SS S6 s7
(eS,

Test 1
Day 1* 1.14
Day 2* 1.23
Day 3* 1.13
Day 4* 1.71
Averaget 1.30
Lower 95% Confidence
Limitt
ined Confidence 1.33 2.12
Test 2 (Day 5)* 1.57 1.35

Overall Average}
(Days 1-5) 1.35 1.56

Input Feed

1.27 Lu

* Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
+ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
= Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

Table C-3b. PCB Mass Balance Data

Mass In
(g) @)

SI $2 SS S6 Mass
Balance (%)
aS

Test 1
Day 1* 25.2 2.04
Day 2* 23.3 4.21
Day 3* 23.9 5.46
Day 4* 42.9 7.28
Averaget 28.8 4.75
Test 2 (Day 5)* 32.4 5.63
Overall Averaget
@ays 1-5)

* Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
+ Calculated from all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
} Calculated from all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

29.6 4.92 1.35

44



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

Rotary .
Tro! Humic Washed Clarifier
Input Feed , Coarse Undertlow
Screen Fraction . .
. Fraction (Fines)
Oversize
Sl $2 SS S6 s7

Test 1

Day 1* 980 1,220 872 244 3,590

Day 2* 802 842 669 251 4,890

Day 3* 547 1,090 683 242 2,880

Day 4* 662 1,060 722 236 2.870
Averaget 748 1,050 737 243 3,560
[ower 95% Confidence 664 925 675 240 2,880

mitt
Upper 95% Confidence 831 1,180 799 247 4.280
Limitt-
Test 2 (Day 5)* 738 1,340 804 241 3.640
Overall Average} z
(Days 1-5) 746 1,110 750 243 3,570

* Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.

** For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
t+ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.

$ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.

Table C-12b. Potassium Mass Balance Data

Mass In Mass Out Mass Out
(kg) (kg) Mass In
Si s2 SS S6 Ss7 Total Mass

Balance (%)

Sasa nneteeeememmmememmemmeemmenemeeneemmmmmemeenenmemeemst meme eee a a ey
Test 1

Day 1* 21.6 2.64 0.0978 4.55 5.56 12.8 59.5
Day 2* 16.2 1.67 0.0786 4.23 7.50 13.5 83.0
Day 3* 11.6 2.71 0.0723 4.67 3.09 10.5 90.6
Day 4* 17.0 6.55 0.0970 4.69 7.35 18.7 110
Averaget 16.6 3.39 0.0864 4.54 5.88 13.9 85.8
Test 2*

\ x . 7: a x .
ay 5) 15.5 5.31 0.110 3.72 6.23 15.4 99.2
Overall Avgt
(ays 1-5) 16.4 3.78 0.0911 4.37 5.95 14.2 86.6

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

53



Notice

The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) under Contract No, 68-C0-0048 and the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer review and administrative review, and it has
been approved for publication as a USEPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.

ii



Appendix A

Process Description

A.l Process Overview

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

The process- flow diagram for the Bergmann USA
Soil/Sediment Washing System used during the
Demonstration Tests is shown in Figure A-1.

A.2 Process Description

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

The trommel unit is an inclined, rotating cylinder that is
three feet in diameter and twelve feet long. The
unprocessed soil or sediment is fed into the high end of the
trommel. The unit contains two distinct zones: the first is
a washing/deagglomeration zone, and the second is a sizing
zone. As feed material enters the trommel headbox, it is
combined with the overflow water from a downstream
cyclone separator (approximately 100 gpm). From the
headbox, the slurry moves into the washing zone of the
trommel where it is tumbled with the aid of lifter bars that
run parallel to the long axis of the unit. Water sprays inside

33

the trommel to further deagglomerate and slurry the dredged
material. When the slurry reaches the seond zone in the
trommel, it is presented to a profile wire screen to effect a
6-mm cut. Material coarser than 6 mm is discharged out
the end of the trommel and collected in a drum. Water and
material less than 6 mm falls through the profile screen and
is collected in a 450-gallon sump.

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

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

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



consist of surfactant and flocculant for water treatment,
During the Demonstration Tests, flocculant was used at a
rate of less than 1 pound per ton of waste fed; surfactant
was used at a rate of approximately 2 pounds per ton of
waste fed.

4.3.7 Consumables Costs

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

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

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

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

° base charge per month
° charge per kilowatt-hour

$5.96
$0.0826
4.3.8. Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs

One effluent stream is anticipated from the Bergmann USA

Soil/Sediment Washing System. This is the clarifier
underflow generated by the system. The effluent is

31

anticipated to be non-hazardous and ‘suitable for disposal in
the local sewer system, therefore, no treatment or disposal
costs exist for the effluent stream. The fines and the humic
fraction generated. by the process are assumed to be
residuals; see "Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling,
and Transport Costs, “Section 4.3.9.

4.3.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling and
Transport Costs

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

4.3.10 Analytical Costs

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

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

It is assumed that the ©


Appendix D

Case Studies.

D.1 Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments Program Testing

Before the initiation of the SITE demonstration of Bergmann
USA's Soil/Sediment Washing Technology at the Sag

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

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

At the time this document was prepared, no data were
available from the spring ARCS demonstration.

Examination of the grain size distributions at various points
in the process during the 2-day fall run indicated that the
unit being used has the potential to successfully separate
sand from the finer and less dense materials. The cyclone
separators appeared to be separating the fine and coarse
material at a nominal grain size of about 38 microns. Based
on laboratory work, separation at about 75 microns would
result in a cleaner sand fraction. Separation at this smaller
grain size is a artifact of processing parameters including
cyclone separator diameter. The size of the pilot plant
effectively limited the diameter of cyclone separator which
could be used and ultimately affected the amount of PCBs
associated with the sand fraction. A full-scale unit would
likely be capable of improved results. The limited fall data
indicate that the PCBs in the feed sediments averaged about
1.6 ppm and concentrations in the processed sand product
were reduced to an average of 0.21 ppm.

D.2 Toronto Harbour Commissioners SITE
Demonstration Testing

During the first half of 1992, Bergmann USA participated
in another SITE Demonstration in which their Soil/Sediment
Washing Technology was part of an overall treatment
scheme involving several technologies working in
conjunction for final cleanup of contaminated material from
the Toronto Harbour, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (3,4). I

coordination with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners,
Bergmann USA installed a 5 to 10 tons/hr pilot-scale
Soil/Sediment Washing Unit for the demonstration of
volumetric remedial operations coupled with innovative
metals extraction and biodegradation technologies for the
treatment of the <63-micron fines fraction.

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



Section 1

Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction

This report summarizes the findings of an evaluation of the
Soil/Sediment Washing System developed by Bergmann
USA. The study was conducted under the Superfund

Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. A.

week-long Demonstration Test of the technology was
performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) as part of this Program. The results of these
tests, along with supporting data from other testing
performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and other background information, constitute the basis for
this report.

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

. A trommel unit to separate out fractions coarser
than 6 mm.
e A series of three cyclone separators.

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

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

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

. A clarifier to separate out the fines with the aid of
polymer flocculants.

Bergmann USA specializes in the process design,
engineering, and drafting of equipment that is used for
separating contaminated soils into individual size fractions.
The equipment is fabricated by a sister company for whom
Bergmann USA is a representative. As such, Bergmann
USA is not a remediation contractor, but the representative
of the supplier of the equipment for the remediation.

1.2. Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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



The humic fraction, $5, contained only small amounts of
particles <45 microns. Results from Test 1 show that an
average of approximately 7.35% (95% confidence interval
of 5.92 to 8.79%) of this stream was <45 microns. For
Test 2, approximately 9.72% of the ‘umic fraction was
finer than 45 microns.

The washed coarse fraction, $6, was anticipated to have a
very low percentage of particles <45 microns. This was
indeed the case as seen in Table C-1. Test results show the
percentage of particles <45 microns in the washed coarse
fractions to be approximately 3.31% (95% confidence
interval of 2.61 to 4.02%) and 5.04% for Test 1 and Test

2, respectively.

C.3 Distribution of PCBs

All input and output streams were evaluated for the presence
of PCBs during the Demonstration Test. PCBs were
detected in the rotary trommel screen oversize ($2), the
humic fraction (S5), the washed coarse fraction ($6), and
the clarifier underflow or fines (S7).

As seen in Table C-3a, PCBs were present in the feed, S1,
at levels of approximately 1.30 mg/kg (average) for Test 1,
and approximately 1.57 mg/kg for Test 2. After
Processing, PCBs were expected to be concentrated in the
fines and in the humic fraction. Test results indicate that
the concentration of PCBs in the humic fraction was higher
than that in the fines. This was expected due to the
preferential partitioning of PCBs to organic material within
SS, the humic fraction. The humic fraction contained an
average of approximately 10.4 mg/kg while the fines
contained an average of approximately 4.61 mg/kg for Test
1. For Test 2, the humic fraction contained approximately
13.4 mg/kg and the fines 3.68 mg/kg.

Table C-3b presents the data regarding mass balances for
PCBs for Tests 1 and 2. An average of 60.4% closure was
achieved for the Test 1 mass balance. The results from Test
2 provide 51.7% closure on the mass balance. The goal for
closure of the PCB mass balance (50 to 150%) was met for
both Test 1 and Test 2.

C.4 Distribution of Metals

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

43

Soil/Sediment Washing System identified eleven metals that
were present in high enough concentrations to allow a
suitable evaluation of the technology. Three metals that are
regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) were detected too infrequently to be used to
evaluate the technology. These metals were cadmium,
chromium, and mercury. One RCRA regulated metal
(arsenic) was analyzed for, but not detected.

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

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



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

Rotary Washed Clarifier
Input Feed Trommel Humic Fraction Coarse Underflow
Screen Oversize Fraction (Fines)
SI $2 SS S6 s7
—==
Test 1
Day 1* 8,910 12,900 17,700 2,190 25,000
Day 2* 7,720 8,680 12,300 2,380 33,700
Day 3* 6,770 9,960 13,000 2,300 25,700
Day 4* 7,600 11,100 14,600 2,350 25,500
Averaget 7,750 10,700 14,400 2,310 27,500
Tower 95% Confidence 7,170 9,110 13,000 2,240 22,800
imitt
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitt 8,320 12,200 15,800 2,370 32,400
Test 2 (Day 5)* 8,150 12,500 15,000 2,930 27,800
Overall Average}
Ways 1-5) 7,830 11,000 14,500 2,430 27,600

* Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.

** For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation’ Report.
+ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.

+ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

Table C-8b. Iron Mass Balance Data

Mass In Mass Out Mass Out
kg) kg) Mass In
Si S2 SS S6 s7 Total Mass
Balance (%)
Soa nAARnnimmemmemmmnmmmemmemmmmmmmmenemmeeeeeeme=ee emer aS eS
Test 1
Day 1* 196 28.0 2.06 40.8 37.7 109 55.3
Day 2* 156 17.2 1.51 40.2 52.5 ili 74
Day 3* 145 24.8 1.45 44.2 27.7 98.2 67.8
Day 4* . 193 68.6 1.89 46.6 65.3 182 94.5
Average} 173 34.6 1.73 43.0 45.8 125 72.5
Test 2*
(ay 5) 169 49.1 2.07 45.1 43.4 140 82.6
Overall Avg}
(ays 1-5) 172 37.5 1.80 43.4 45.3 128 74.3

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

49



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

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



EPA/540/AR-92/075
September 1995

Bergmann USA
Soil Sediment Washing Technology

Applications Analysis Report

NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OH 45268

& Printed on Recycled Paper



Table 5._Estimated Costs in $/Ton of the Bergmann USA Pilot-Scale Soil/Sediment Washing System*:* (cont.

Residuals & Waste Shipping, Handling & Transport Costs

Preparation
Waste disposal

Total Residuals & Waste Shipping, Handling & Transport Costs

Analytical Costs
Operations

Environmental monitoring
Total Analytical Costs

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

Total Facility Modification, Repair, & Replacement Costs

Site Restoration Costs
Site cleanup and restoration
Permanent storage

Total Site Restoration Costs

TOTAL OPERATING COSTS ($/TON)
{TOTAL OPERATING COSTS EXCLUDING

EXCAVATION (S/TON)]

$151.35
($131.60)

* ‘All costs estimated at 1993 prices.

* Costs for treating waste at 5 tons/hr for 12 months. Refer to Section 4.3 for information on how the costs in this table

were determined:

** Excavation costs may not be assessed by the vendor. They are included here because the waste feed must be excavated
prior to treatment. Total operating costs exclusive of excavation are presented for comparison at the end of the table.

+ This cost is reported in "$", not "$/ton”. It is not used directly, but is used for estimating other costs (j.e., annualized
equipment cost, insurance and taxes, scheduled maintenance, and contingency).

limit the treatment rate: the feed rate and the on-line

percentage,

All operations are assumed to be 14 hours a day, five days
a week. Two shifts of working crews are required each
day. Each shift is assumed to be 8 hours. On-line training
of local hires is assumed to be conducted 8 hours a day for
13 days. Excavation activities for site preparation will take
place concurrent with treatment and are assumed to be 16
hours a day, five days a week. Assembly is assumed to
require four 14-hour days. Waste-specific equipment testing
will occur before treatment is begun and is assumed to
require three 14-hour days.

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

Operations for a typical shift require 5 workers: 1
supervisor, 1 lead operator, 1 feed operator, and 2
maintenance operators.

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

estimating purposes.

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



Table 1, Summary of Clean-up Efficiencies and
Mass Balance Closures for Metals

Metal Clean-up Mass Balance

Efficiency (%) Closure (%)
Magnesium 44.7 87.8
Calcium 46.7 84.7
Vanadium 53.8 89.6
Copper 63.6 75.3
Potassium 67.4 86.5
Tron 69.0 75.1
Barium 81.6 68.0
Zine 82.7 71.7

content, the concentration of contaminants in the washed
sand and gravel should be low (assuming successful
operation of the system). On the contrary, if the feed soil
has a high clay content, then the concentration of
contaminants remaining in the washed sand and gravel after
processing will. be proportionally higher. This is because
clay has a high concentration of fines, and the process does

S7. Clarifier
|Underflow (fines)
ISS. Humic
Fraction

IS6, Washed Sand
And Gravel

Figure 4a.

Copper Concentration DistributionData _‘ Figure 4b.

12

not separate 100% of the fines into the clarifier underflow,
but leaves a fraction of the fines in all the output streams.

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

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

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

3.3.4 Mass Balances

For the Demonstration Tests, the ratio of the total mass of
all output streams to the total mass of all input streams was

100 -— Faz z a S$. Humic
ion
S. Clarifier
Undertlow (fines)
so . . 86. Washed Sand
And Gravel -
g “Tl : :
se
40
20

Copper Mass Distribution Data



CONTACT

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

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, and

is now responsible for research conducted by the Land Remediation and Pollution Control

Division in Cincinnati.



Appendix B

Vendor’s Claims

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

B.1 Introduction

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

B.2 Proposed Technology/Approach

B.2.1 The Bergmann Soil/Sediment Washing Process

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

destructive, immobilization, or disposal technologies such
as: °

incineration

chemical extraction

biodegradation

vitrification

low temperature thermal desorption
dechlorination
solidification/stabilization
regulated disposal

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

B.2.2 Applications

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

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



3.6.2 State and Local Regulations

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

. permitting requirements for construction/operation,
. prohibitions on emission levels, and
. nuisance rules.

3.7 Personnel Issues

3.7.1 Operator Training

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

3.7.2 Health and Safety

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

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

hazards may be greater than the chemical hazards depending
on the waste.

3.7.3, Emergency Response

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

3.8 Summary

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

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

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



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

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

Cost estimates for site preparation should be based on
operated heavy equipment rental costs, labor charges, and
equipment fuel costs. Excavation activities are assumed to
take place 16 hours a day, 5 days a week. To achieve an
excavation rate of approximately 10 tons/hr, it may be
assumed that the minimum rental equipment required is:
three excavators, one box dump truck, and one backhoe.
Estimated equipment rental rates and terms vary with
individual rental companies. An excavator is available for
approximately $2,800/mo, a box dump truck is available for
approximately $1,500/mo, and a backhoe is available for
approximately $2,000/mo. The minimum labor required is
one supervisor at $40/hr, three excavator operators at
$30/hr each, one box dump truck operator at $30/hr, and
one backhoe operator at $30/hr. Diesel fuel consumption is
estimated at 3 gals/hr/excavator, 2 gals/hr/box dump truck,
and 3 gals/hr/backhoe. Diesel fuel prices fluctuate with
supply and demand and current market prices; however, for
these calculations it is assumed to be $1/gal.

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

For the purposes of these cost calculations, installation costs
are limited to transportation and assembly costs of the
Bergmann USA Soil/Sediment Washing System. The
installation cost has been annualized based on a 10-year life
of the equipment and a 6% annual interest rate. The
annualized installation cost is based on the writeoff of the
total installation cost, using the following equation:

29

Annualized

i(a+ ij?
Installation Cost Tae 4a.

7 need

Where V- is the cost of installation (assumed to be
limitéd to transportation and assembly
costs),

n is the equipment life (10 years), and
i is the annual interest rate (6%).

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

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

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

4.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs

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



Table 4. Lead Mass Balance Data

Mass Out
Mass In Mass Out Mass In
sl $2 ss S6 s7" Total Mass Balance
(s) (s) (g) (gs) (g) (g) (%)
Test 1 .
Day 1* 317 54.7 14.6 227 61.7 358 113
Day 2* 332 35.5 5.72 212 105 358 108
Day. 3* 309 54.2 5.43 234 63.7 357 116
Day 4* 381 110 5.72 234 155 506 133
Averaget 319 63.7 7.87 227 96.5 395 118
Test 2 (Day 5)* 319 106 8.46 196 99.5 410 129
(ae! SF 331 72.2 7.97 221 97.1 398 120

* Value calculated from data collected throughout the day.

¢ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
} Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.

exceeded 100%, and progressively increased and moved
further away from 100% rather than approaching it. Since
the specific lead compound(s) in the soil is (are)-not known,
it is difficult to attribute this discrepancy to any single
source.

3.4 Ranges of Site Characteristics Suitable for
the Technology

3.4.1 Site Selection

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

15

3.4.2 Surface, Subsurface, and Clearance Requirements

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

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

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



Acknowledgments

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

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

xi



Table C-10a. Magnesium Concentration Distribution (mg/kg)**

Rotary Washed Clarifier
Input Feed Trommel Humic Fraction Coarse Underflow
Screen Oversize Fraction (Fines)
SI 82 SS S6 s7
Test 1
Day 1* 8,710 12,400 2,950 3,570 20.900
Day 2* 7,330 7,900 2,760 3,930 27.600
Day 3* 6,430 8,470 2,550 4,220 20,800
Day 4* 7,790 9,730 3,490 4,160 20,000
Averaget 7,560 9,630 2,940 3,970 22,300
Lower 95% Confidence
Limitt 6,960 7,840 2,700 3,760 18,400
Upper 95% Confidence
Limitt 8,160 11,400 3,180 4,180 26.400
Test 2 (Day 5)* 7,320 10,100 3,570 4,870 21.200
Overall Averaget m
(ays 1-5) 7,520 9,740 3,060 4,150 22,100
* — Average value calculated from data collected throughout the day.
** For discussion of these data, see Section 8 of the Technology Evaluation Report.
} Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 4.
$ Calculated using all available data points for Days 1 through 5.
Table C-10b. Magnesium Mass Balance Data
Mass In Mass Out Mass Out
tkg) kg) Mass In
Si $2 Ss S6 s7 Total Mass
Balance (%)
Test 1
Day 1* 192 27.1 0.339 66.4 31.6 125 65.5
Day 2* 148 : 15.6 0.354 66.3 43.0 125 84.5
Day 3* 137 214 0.291 81.4 22.4 125 91.0
Day 4* 193 60.1 0.468 82.5 51.3 194 101
Averaget . 168 31.0 0.363 74.2 37.1 142 85.5
Test 2*
5 x 75. 6.9 152 100
@ay 5) 150 39.5 0.491 5.1 3
Overall Avgt
(ays 1-5) 164 32.7 0.389 74.3 37.0 144 87.8

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

St



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

Petroleum/heavy fuel residuals
Heavy metals

PCPs (i.e, creosote)
Cyanides/Sulfides

Radioactive contaminants
PCBs

Pesticides

ee ey

B.2.3 Effectiveness

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

B.2.4 Waste Minimization

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

B.2.5 Produces an Enriched, Homogeneous Feed for
Downstream Processes

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

incineration

ion exchange

biodegradation

vitrification

low temperature thermal desorption
chemical dechlorination
Solidification/stabilization
regulated disposal

eer erecece

37

The performance of such ultimate treatment technologies can
be substantially enhanced by the use of a Bergmann washing
system which produces a preprocessed feedstock, uniform
size (<63 microns). “Difficult-to-process” oversized and
debris fractions are thereby eliminated, and a homogeneous
contaminant matrix blending highly concentrated "spikes”
with portions of “non-detect" material is produced.

B.2.6 Cost Effectiveness

On-site soil washing is a highly cost effective remedial
option.” Typical comparisons are given below for a clean-up
project involving 50,000 cubic yards of soil/sediment
contaminated with PCBs. The following illustrative example
assumes that residuals requiring further treatnitent or disposal
are 15% of the original volume processed.

Soil Wash Pretreatment
with incineration of
residuals

$12,250,000

Destruction by
Incineration Only
(50,000 yd?)
$50,000,000

Soil Wash Pretreatment
with landfill disposal of
residuals

$6,625,000

Disposal ina RCRA

designated landfill
(50,000 yd?)
$12,500,000

Soil Wash Pretreatment
w/dechlorination of
fines

$6,475,000

Destruction by
Dechlorination
{50,000 yd?)
$11,500,000

Soil Wash Pretreatment
with solidification/
stabilization of residuals

Solidification/
stabilization with
off-site landfill storage

(50,000 yd?) with off-site landfill storage
$8,000,000 $5,950,000
Unit Costs Used for Comparisons: Per yd?
Incineration - including residual removal and
haulage costs $1,000
RCRA Landfill - including excavation, haulage
and tipping costs $ 250
Chemical Dechlorination $ 230
Solidification/stabilization with disposal
at an off-site location $ 160
Soil Washing Pretreatment - excluding
excavation $ 95



of light and heavy media. Units deliver a coarse
underflow of approximately 70 to 75% solids
regardless of influent solids loading concentrations.

8. Reverse Slope Dewatering Module - a high frequency
mineral screen assembly specifically designed for
final rinsing, dewatering, desliming and removal of
very fine material from mineral slurries. Each unit
utilizes snap-in, modular screen deck panels and
replaceable, bolt-in, side liner plates.

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

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

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

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

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

B.2.10 Key Bench-Scale Treatability Modules

The bench-scale operation of key system unit operations
provides for a reasonably accurate estimate as to how a pilot
and/or full scale remedial system should behave. Key
elements of the bench soils washing technology are particle
size ‘separation operations (high frequency screening),
trommel washing and deagglomeration, attrition scrubbing,

39

dissolved air

elutriation, sedimentation, flocculation,
flotation and fines dewatering.

B.2.11. Integration/Linkages to Other Technologies

Asstated previously, the Bergmann soil/sediment technology
is not a stand alone remedial operation. Where applicable,
it is intended to be a waste minimization, volumetric
reduction, feedstock preparation, pre-treatment step for a
subsequent destructive, immobilization or disposal
technology. Bergmann works very closely with the client
and othér selected technology vendors in providing them
with an “enriched,” homogenous feedstock material for
subsequent innovative treatment or immobilization
evaluations.

B.2.12 Beneficial Recycle/Reuse of Process Products

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

“

B.2.13 Technology Familiarization, Environmental
Assessment and Track Record

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

B.2.14 Process Flow Schematic, Emission Controls and
Sampling Points

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

This technology is suitable for land-based soils as

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

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

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

The cost of utilizing the Bergmann USA System is
a function of the required feed rate. The cost for
a 5 tons/hr unit with an on-line factor of 90% is
$151/ton. The cost for a 100 ton/hr system for the
same on-line factor is $42/ton. These costs include

excavation costs but do not include the final
disposal costs for the output streams.

1.3 Results

The focus of the Applications Analysis is to assess the
ability of the process to comply with Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and to estimate the
cost of using the technology at a Superfund site. To
evaluate this technology, separation of media by grain size
(<45 microns) and isolation of the associated contamination
achieved by the technology are appraised as part of this
report. Appendix C presents detailed Demonstration Test
results and is supported by the data presented in the Case
Studies in Appendix D.

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

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

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

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