Web-based Class Project

on Geoenvironmental Remediation
Soil Washing
Prepared by:

Jonathan Hubler Ken Metz

With the Support of:

Report prepared as part of course

CEE 549: Geoenvironmental Engineering
Winter 2013 Semester
Instructor: Professor Dimitrios Zekkos
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Michigan
 Outline
• Main Concept
• Theoretical Background
• Applicability
• Advantages/Disadvantages
• Field Setup
• Examples of Different Systems
• Costs
• Case Histories

2
 Main Concept
• Ex-Situ Remediation Technique
• Contaminants are prone to bind to fine
grained soils, which are prone to bind to
coarse grained soils
• General Process:
– Wash soil with liquid (often with chemical)
– Scrub Soil
– Separate clean soils from contaminated soil and
washwater

3
 Main Concept
• Volume reduction process
• Washed soil may be reused as backfill
• Six Steps:
– Pretreatment
– Separation
– Coarse-grained treatment
– Fine-grained treatment
– Process water treatment
– Residuals management
4
Process

Source: US EPA 1996 5

 Theoretical Background
• Contaminants adhere to fine grained soils,
which adhere to coarse grained soils
(adhesion and compaction)
• Physiochemical processes involved:
– Desorption (contaminants desorbed from soil)
– Dissolution/solubilization (pH changes from
reactions with washwater)
– Oxidation reduction (results in desorption or
solubilization of contaminants)

6
 Theoretical Background
• Equation to determine contaminant
concentration:

• At equilibrium:

• Equation to determine removal efficiency:

7
 Applicability
• Proven to effectively remove:
– Petroleum and fuel residues
– Radionuclides
– Heavy metals
– PCBs
– PCP
– Pesticides
– Cyanides
– Creosote
– Semivolatiles
– Volatiles

8
 Applicability
• Good to excellent at removing VOCs and
metals from sandy and gravelly soils
• The lower the silt/clay content the more
effective soil washing will be
• May not be applicable if contaminants
adsorbed strongly
• Large sites - at least 5000 tons of
contaminated soil

9
 Advantages
• Cost effective
• Under ideal conditions – volume reduction of
90%
• Reuse of cleaned soil
• Closed system that can be controlled (pH,
temp)
• High rate - 100 cubic yards per day
• Only a few permits
10
 Disadvantages
• Large area for system
• Predominantly effective for very coarse soils
• Ineffective for soils containing more than 30-
50% fines
• Washwater may need special treatment ($)
• May produce contaminated sludge
• Air emissions from equipment ($)
• Exposure of public to contaminants

11
 Field Setup

• Varies depending
upon site and
project
• Typical plant:
– 125’ x 250’
– Process 25-50
tons per hour

12
Field Setup

Source: ART Engineering

13
Harbauer Soil Washing System

14
Source: US EPA 1996
Mobile Soil Washing System

Source: US EPA 1996

15
 Cost
• Average: $150 to $250 per ton
• More cost effective for larger site
• Costs:
– Initial (bench scale)
– Operational
– Set-up and break down
– Chemical analysis
– Disposal

16
 17
Source: FRTR 2006
 Case Histories
• Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant
– Remediation of high levels of VOCs and heavy
metals
– Combination of soil leaching and soil washing used
successfully
– 20,000 tons of soil treated (every 10 tons tested)
– 8 heavy metals removed, less than 175 ppm
(initial level of lead 86,000 ppm)
– Soil reused at site

18
System used at Twin Cities Site

Source: Fristad 1995 19

 King of Prussia Technical Corp Site
• Used for processing industrial liquid waste
• 19,200 tons of contaminated soil
• Soil washing system – 25 tons/hr
• First full-scale use of soil washing to a
Superfund Site
• Clean up levels met (e.g. – Cu (9070 mg/kg
before, 860 mg/kg after)
• Total cost $7.7 million
20
System used at KOP site

Source: US EPA 1995 21

 Summary
• Ex-situ technique
• Volume reduction process
• Good/Excellent for VOCs and heavy metals
• Coarse grained soils more effective
• At least 5000 tons to be cost effective
• Average cost - $150-250 per ton

22
 References
• ART Engineering. “Soil Washing at King of Prussia Superfund Site” <
http://www.art-engineering.com/Projects/KOP-Soil/Photos.htm> (Mar. 16, 2013).
• Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE). (2007, September). “Understanding Soil Washing.” TB13.
<http://www.claire.co.uk/index.php?
option=com_resource&controller=article&article=14&category_id=10&Itemid=61> (Mar. 16, 2013).
• Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR). (2006). “Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference
Guide: 4.19 Soil Washing.” < http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-19.html> (Mar. 16, 2013).
• Fristad, W. E. (1995). “Case Study: Using soil washing/leaching for the removal of heavy metal at the twin cities army
ammunition plant.” Remediation, 5(4), 61-72.
• Griffiths, Richard A. (1995). “Soil-washing technology and practice.” Journal of Hazardous Materials. 40. 175-189.
• Sharma, Hari D., and Krishna R. Reddy (2004). "Soil Remediation Technologies." Geoenvironmental Engineering: Site
Remediation, Waste Containment, and Emerging Waste Management Technologies. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 413-421.
• United States Department of Energy (USDOE). (1998, July). “Cost and Performance Report: Chemical Extraction for
Uranium Contaminated Soil, RMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant Ashtabula Ohio.” USDOE.
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1996, April). “A Citizen's Guide to Soil Washing.” EPA 542-F-96-
002.
• USEPA. (1995, March). “Cost and Performance Report: Soil Washing at the King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Superfund Site Winslow Township New Jersey”. < http://clu-in.org/PRODUCTS/COSTPERF/SOILWASH/KOP.HTM> (Mar. 16,
2013)
• USEPA. (1991, September). “Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Washing.” Washington D.C.,
EPA/540/2-91/020A.
• USEPA. (1993, November). “Innovative Site Remediation Technology: Soil Washing/Soil Flushing.” EPA 542-B-93-012.
• USEPA (1983, September). “NPL Site Fact Sheet: King of Prussia, New Jersey.”
<http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/0200551c.pdf> (Mar. 16, 2013).
• USEPA (2010, September). “Superfund Remedy Report.” 13. EPA-542-R-10-004.

23
 More Information
More detailed technical information on this project can be found at:
http://
www.geoengineer.org/education/web-based-class-projects/geoenvironmenta
l-remediation-technologies