1 / 24

Web-based Class Project on Geoenvironmental Remediation

Soil Washing. Web-based Class Project on Geoenvironmental Remediation. Prepared by:. Report prepared as part of course CEE 549: Geoenvironmental Engineering Winter 2013 Semester Instructor: Professor Dimitrios Zekkos Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

gpike
Download Presentation

Web-based Class Project on Geoenvironmental Remediation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Soil Washing Web-based Class Projecton Geoenvironmental Remediation Prepared by: 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 Jonathan Hubler Ken Metz With the Support of:

  2. Outline • Main Concept • Theoretical Background • Applicability • Advantages/Disadvantages • Field Setup • Examples of Different Systems • Costs • Case Histories

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Process Source: US EPA 1996

  6. 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)

  7. Theoretical Background • Equation to determine contaminant concentration: • At equilibrium: • Equation to determine removal efficiency:

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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

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

  13. Field Setup Source: ART Engineering

  14. Harbauer Soil Washing System Source: US EPA 1996

  15. Mobile Soil Washing System Source: US EPA 1996

  16. 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

  17. Source: FRTR 2006

  18. 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

  19. System used at Twin Cities Site Source: Fristad 1995

  20. 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

  21. System used at KOP site Source: US EPA 1995

  22. 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

  23. 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.

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

More Related