EPA/540/R-05/015
March 2006
Active and Semi-Passive
Lime Treatment of Acid Mine
Drainage at Leviathan Mine, California
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
/T~y Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-C-00-181 to Terra Tech EM, Inc. It has been subject
to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names of commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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 risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation of
technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten
human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and their
cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources;
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground
water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates
with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by:
developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and
engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical support and
information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the national,
state, and community levels.
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.
Sally C. Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
ill
-------
Abstract
As part of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), in cooperation with EPA
Region IX, the state of California, and the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) evaluated lime treatment of
acid mine drainage (AMD) and acid rock drainage (ARD) at the Leviathan Mine Superfund site located in
Alpine County, California. EPA evaluated two lime treatment systems in operation at the mine in 2002 and
2003: an active lime treatment system operated in biphasic and monophasic modes, and a semi-passive
alkaline lagoon treatment system. The treatment systems utilize the same chemistry to treat AMD generated
within the mine workings and ARD generated from surface seeps within waste rock; the addition of lime to
neutralize acidity and remove toxic levels of metals by precipitation. The primary metals of concern in the
AMD and ARD include aluminum, arsenic, copper, iron, and nickel; secondary water quality indicator
metals include cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, and zinc.
The technology evaluation occurred between June 2002 and October 2003, during the operation of both the
active lime treatment system (in biphasic and monophasic modes) and the semi-passive alkaline lagoon
treatment system. The evaluation consisted of multiple sampling events of each treatment system during
6 months of operation separated by winter shutdown. Throughout the evaluations, EPA collected metals
data on each system's influent and effluent streams, documented metals removal and reduction in acidity
within each system's unit operations, and recorded operational information pertinent to the evaluation of
each treatment system. EPA evaluated the treatment systems independently, based on removal efficiencies
for primary and secondary target metals, comparison of effluent concentrations to discharge standards
mandated by EPA in 2002, and on the characteristics of resulting metals-laden solid wastes. Removal
efficiencies of individual unit operations were also evaluated.
Both treatment systems were shown to be extremely effective at neutralizing acidity and reducing the
concentrations of the 10 target metals in the AMD and ARD flows at Leviathan Mine to below EPA
discharge standards. Although the influent concentrations for the primary target metals were up to 3,000
fold above the EPA discharge standards, both lime treatment systems were successful in reducing the
concentrations of the primary target metals in the AMD and ARD to between 4 and 20 fold below EPA
discharge standards. In general, removal efficiencies for the five primary target metals exceeded 95 percent.
In addition, the active lime treatment system operated in biphasic mode was shown to be very effective at
separating arsenic from the AMD prior to precipitation of other metals, subsequently reducing the total
volume of hazardous solid waste produced by the treatment system. Separating the arsenic into a smaller
solid waste stream significantly reduces materials handling and disposal costs.
Based on the success of lime treatment at the Leviathan Mine site, the state of California will continue to
treat AMD at the site using the active lime treatment system in biphasic mode and ARCO will continue to
treat ARD using the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system.
IV
-------
Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols ix
Conversion Factors xi
Acknowledgements xii
Section 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Project Background 1
1.2 The Site Demonstration Program and Reports 1
1.3 Purpose of the Innovative Technology Evaluation Report 3
1.4 Technology Description 3
1.5 Key Findings 4
1.6 Key Contacts 8
Section 2 Technology Effectiveness 11
2.1 Background 11
2.1.1 Site Description 11
2.1.2 History of Contaminant Release 13
2.1.3 Previous Actions 13
2.2 Process Description 13
2.2.1 Active Lime Treatment System 14
2.2.2 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 15
2.3 Evaluation Approach 15
2.3.1 Project Objectives 15
2.3.2 Sampling Program 16
2.4 Field Evaluation Activities 17
2.4.1 Mobilization Activities 17
2.4.2 Operation and Maintenance Activities 17
2.4.2.1 Active Lime Treatment System 17
2.4.2.2 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 18
2.4.3 Process Modifications 18
2.4.3.1 Active Lime Treatment System 18
2.4.3.2 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 19
2.4.4 Evaluation Monitoring Activities 19
2.4.4.1 Active Lime Treatment System 19
2.4.4.2 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 19
2.4.5 Demobilization Activities 20
2.4.6 Lessons Learned 20
2.5 Technology Evaluation Results 21
2.5.1 Primary Objective No.l: Evaluation of Metals Removal Efficiencies 21
2.5.2 Primary Objective No.2: Comparison of Effluent Data to Discharge Standards.. 23
-------
Contents (continued)
2.5.3 Secondary Objectives for Evaluation of Active Lime Treatment System Unit
Operations 25
2.5.3.1 Operating Conditions 26
2.5.3.2 Reaction Chemistry 27
2.5.3.3 Metals Removal By Unit Operation 29
2.5.3.4 Solids Separation 31
2.5.4 Secondary Objectives for Evaluation of Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment
System Unit Operations 32
2.5.4.1 Operating Conditions 32
2.5.4.2 Reaction Chemistry 33
2.5.4.3 Metals Removal By Unit Operation 34
2.5.4.4 Solids Separation 35
2.5.5 Evaluation of Solids Handling and Disposal 36
2.5.5.1 Waste Characterization and Handling Requirements 36
2.5.5.2 Active Lime Treatment System 36
2.5.5.3 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 38
Section 3 Technology Applications Analysis 39
3.1 Key Features 39
3.2 Applicable Wastes 39
3.3 Factors Affecting Performance 40
3.4 Technology Limitations 40
3.5 Range of Suitable Site Characteristics 41
3.6 Personnel Requirements 41
3.7 Materials Handling Requirements 42
3.8 Permit Requirements 42
3.9 Community Acceptance 42
3.10 Availability, Adaptability, and Transportability of Equipment 43
3.11 Ability to Attain ARARs 43
3.11.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 44
3.11.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 44
3.11.3 Clean Air Act 46
3.11.4 Clean Water Act 46
3.11.5 Safe Drinking Water Act 46
3.11.6 Occupational Safety and Health Act 46
3.11.7 State Requirements 47
3.12 Technology Applicability To Other Sites 47
Section 4 Economic Analysis 49
4.1 Introduction 49
4.2 Cost Summary 49
4.3 Factors Affecting Cost Elements 50
4.4 Issues and Assumptions 50
4.5 Cost Elements 51
4.5.1 Site Preparation 51
4.5.2 Permitting and Regulatory Requirements 51
4.5.3 Capital Equipment 51
4.5.4 Startup and Fixed Costs 53
4.5.5 Consumables and Supplies 53
4.5.6 Labor 53
4.5.7 Utilities 54
4.5.8 Residual Waste Shipping, Handling, and Disposal 54
4.5.9 Analytical Services 54
VI
-------
Contents (continued)
4.5.10 Maintenance and Modifications 54
4.5.11 Demobilization 55
Section 5 Data Quality Review 56
5.1 Deviations From TEP/QAPP 56
5.2 Summary of Data Evaluation and PARCC Criteria Evaluation 57
Section 6 Technology Status 59
References 60
Appendix A Sample Collection And Analysis Tables 61
Appendix B Data Used To Evaluate Project Primary Objectives 71
Appendix C Detailed Cost Element Spreadsheets 83
Tables
Table Page
1-1 Active Lime Treatment System Removal Efficiencies: Biphasic Operation in 2002 and 2003 9
1-2 Active Lime Treatment System Removal Efficiencies: Monophasic Operation in 2003 9
1-3 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System Removal Efficiencies in 2002 9
1-4 Determination of Hazardous Waste Characteristics for Solid Waste Streams at Leviathan Mine 10
2-1 Summary of Historical Metals of Concern 14
2-2 2002 and 2003 Removal Efficiencies for the Active Lime Treatment System - Biphasic Operation.... 22
2-3 2003 Removal Efficiencies for the Active Lime Treatment System - Monophasic Operation 22
2-4 2002 Removal Efficiencies for the Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 23
2-5 EPA Project Discharge Standards 23
2-6 Results of the Student's-t Test Statistical Analysis for Maximum Daily Effluent Data 24
2-7 Results of the Student's-t Test Statistical Analysis for 4-Day Average Effluent Data 25
2-8 Biphasic Unit Operation Parameters 26
2-9 Monophasic Unit Operation Parameters 27
2-10 Biphasic Phase I Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry 28
2-11 Biphasic Phase II Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry 29
2-12 Monophasic Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry 30
2-13 Biphasic Unit Operation Metals Removal Efficiencies 30
2-14 Monophasic Unit Operation Removal Efficiencies 31
2-15 Biphasic Phase I and Phase II Solids Separation Efficiencies 32
2-16 Monophasic Solids Separation Efficiencies 33
2-17 Alkaline Lagoon Unit Operation Parameters 33
2-18 Alkaline Lagoon Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry 34
2-19 Alkaline Lagoon Unit Operation Metals Removal Efficiencies 35
2-20 Alkaline Lagoon Solids Separation Efficiencies 35
2-21 Active Lime Treatment System Waste Characterization 37
2-22 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System Waste Characterization 38
3-1 Determination of Hazardous Waste Characteristics for Solid Waste Streams at Leviathan Mine 43
3-2 Federal Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for Both Lime Treatment Systems .... 45
3-3 Feasibility Study Criteria Evaluation for Both Lime Treatment Systems at Leviathan Mine 48
4-1 Summary of Total and Variable Costs for Each Treatment System 50
4-2 Summary of Cost Elements for the Active Lime Treatment System 52
4-3 Summary of Cost Elements for the Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 52
vil
-------
Figures
Figure Page
1-1 Site Location Map 2
1-2 Active Lime Treatment System Monophasic Schematic 5
1-3 Active Lime Treatment System Biphasic Schematic 6
1-4 Semi-passive Lagoon Treatment System Schematic 7
2-1 Site Layout 12
vin
-------
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols
ug/L Microgram per liter
umhos/cm Micromhos per centimeter
°C Degree Celsius
ACQR Air quality control region
AMD Acid mine drainage
AQMD Air quality management district
ARAR Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
ARCO Atlantic Richfield Company
ARD Acid rock drainage
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRDL Contract required detection limit
CUD Channel under drain
CWA Clean Water Act
DI Deionized water
DO Dissolved oxygen
DOT Department of Transportation
EE/CA Engineering evaluation cost analysis
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
g/L Gram per liter
HOPE High density polyethylene
HRT Hydraulic residence time
ICP Inductively coupled plasma
ITER Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
kg Kilogram
kg/day Kilogram per day
kW Kilowatt
L/min Liter per minute
MCL Maximum contaminant level
MCLG Maximum contaminant level goal
IX
-------
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols (continued)
MD Matrix duplicate
mg/kg Milligram per kilogram
mg/L Milligrams per liter
mL Milliliter
mL/min Milliliter per minute
MS Matrix spike
mV Millivolt
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
ORP Oxidation reduction potential
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PARCC Precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability
pH Negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration
POTW Publicly-owned treatment works
PPE Personal protection equipment
PQL Practical quantitation limit
PUD Pit under drain
QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RPD Relative percent difference
rpm Revolution per minute
RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Lahontan Region
SARA Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDG Sample delivery group
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SPLP Synthetic precipitation and leaching procedure
STLC Soluble threshold limit concentration
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TDS Total dissolved solids
TEP/QAPP Technology Evaluation Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan
Tetra Tech Tetra Tech EM Inc.
TOM Task order manager
TSD Treatment, storage, and disposal
TSS Total suspended solids
TTLC Total threshold limit concentration
USACE US Army Corp of Engineers
WET Waste extraction test
-------
Conversion Factors
To Convert From
To
Length:
Area:
Volume:
Mass:
Energy:
Power:
Temperature:
Centimeter
Meter
Kilometer
Square Meter
Liter
Cubic Meter
Cubic Meter
Kilogram
Metric Ton
Kilowatt-hour
Kilowatt
"Celsius
Inch
Foot
Mile
Square Foot
Gallon
Cubic Foot
Cubic Yard
Pound
Short Ton
British Thermal Unit
Horsepower
("Fahrenheit H
-32)
Multiply By
0.3937
3.281
0.6214
10.76
0.2642
35.31
1.308
2.2046
1.1025
3413
1.34
1.8
XI
-------
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared under the direction of Mr. Edward Bates, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) project manager at the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in Cincinnati, Ohio; and Mr. Kevin Mayer, EPA Region IX.
This report was prepared by Mr. Matt Udell, Mr. Neal Hutchison, Mr. Noel Shrum, and Mr. Matt Wetter of
Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech) under Field Evaluation and Technical Support (FEATS) Contract No. 68-
C-00-181. Field sampling and data acquisition was performed by Mr. Udell and Mr. Joel Bauman of Tetra
Tech.
This project consisted of the demonstration of two innovative technologies under the SITE program to
evaluate the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system developed by Atlantic Richfield Company
(ARCO) and the active lime treatment system developed by Unipure Environmental. The technology
demonstrations were conducted on acid mine and acid rock drainage at the Leviathan Mine Superfund site
in Alpine County, California. Both technologies are currently being used as interim actions at the site,
pending completion of a remedial investigation, feasibility study, and record of decision. This Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (ITER) interprets the data that were collected during the two-year
demonstration period and discusses the potential applicability of each technology to other mine sites.
The cooperation and participation of the following people are gratefully acknowledged: Mr. Scott Jacobs of
NRMRL, Mr. Chris Stetler and Mr. Doug Carey of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board-
Lahontan Region, Mr. Dan Ferriter of ARCO, Mr. Andy Slavik of Unipure Environmental, and
Ms. Monika Johnson of EMC2.
Xll
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This section provides background information about the
Superfiind Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program
and the SITE demonstration that was conducted at an
abandoned mine site in Alpine County, California, discusses
the purpose of this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
(ITER), and briefly describes the technology that was
evaluated. Key contacts are listed at the end of this section for
inquiries regarding additional information about the SITE
Program, the evaluated technology, and the demonstration
site.
1.1 Project Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the states,
and the Federal Land Management Agencies all need better
tools to manage acid mine drainage (AMD) and acid rock
drainage (ARD) at abandoned mine sites. Over a 12-month
period during 2002 and 2003, EPA evaluated the use of lime
for removal of high concentrations of metals from AMD and
ARD generated at an abandoned mine site, Leviathan Mine,
located northwest of Monitor Pass in northeastern Alpine
County, California (see Figure 1-1). The lime treatment SITE
demonstration was conducted by EPA under the SITE
Program, which is administered by EPA's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), Office of
Research and Development. The SITE demonstration was
conducted by EPA in cooperation with EPA Region IX, the
state of California, and Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO).
The lime treatment systems in operation at Leviathan Mine
include an active lime treatment system installed by the state
of California in 1999, and a semi-passive lagoon treatment
system installed by ARCO in 2001. The lime treatment
systems were specifically designed to treat high flow rates of
AMD and ARD containing thousands of milligrams per liter
(mg/L) of metals at a pH as low as 2.0. Without treatment, the
AMD and ARD from the mine would otherwise be released to
the environment. The SITE demonstration consisted of
multiple sampling events of each treatment system during
6 months of operation separated by winter shutdown.
Throughout the SITE demonstration, EPA collected metals
data on each system's influent and effluent streams,
documented metals removal and reduction in acidity within
each system's unit operations, and recorded operational
information pertinent to the evaluation of each treatment
system. EPA evaluated the treatment systems independently,
based on removal efficiencies for primary and secondary
target metals, comparison of effluent concentrations to
discharge standards mandated by EPA in 2002, and on the
characteristics of resulting metals-laden solid wastes.
Removal efficiencies of individual unit operations were also
evaluated. A summary of the SITE demonstration and the
results of the lime treatment technology evaluation are
presented in Sections 2 through 5 of this report.
1.2 The SITE Demonstration Program and
Reports
In 1980, the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), also known as Superfund. CERCLA is
committed to protecting human health and the environment
from uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. In 1986, CERCLA
was amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA). These amendments emphasize
the achievement of long-term effectiveness and permanence of
remedies at Superfund sites. SARA mandates the use of
permanent solutions, alternative treatment technologies, or
resource recovery technologies, to the maximum extent
possible, to clean up hazardous waste sites.
State and Federal agencies, as well as private parties, have for
several years now been exploring the growing number of
innovative technologies for treating hazardous wastes. EPA
has focused on policy, technical, and informational issues
related to the exploring and applying new remediation
technologies applicable to Superfund sites. One such
initiative is EPA's SITE Program, which was established to
accelerate the development, demonstration, and use of
innovative technologies for site cleanups. The SITE
-------
Figure 1-1. Site Location Map
-------
Program's primary purpose is to maximize the use of
alternatives in cleaning hazardous waste sites by encouraging
the development and demonstration of new, innovative
treatment and monitoring technologies. It consists of three
major elements: the Demonstration Program, the Consortium
for Site Characterization Technologies, and the Technology
Transfer Program.
The objective of the Demonstration Program is to develop
reliable performance and cost data on innovative technologies
so that potential users can assess the technology's site-specific
applicability. Technologies evaluated are either available
commercially or are close to being available for full-scale
remediation of Superfund sites. SITE demonstrations usually
are conducted at hazardous waste sites under conditions that
closely simulate full-scale remediation conditions, thus
assuring the usefulness and reliability of the information
collected. Data collected are used to assess: (1) the
performance of the technology; (2) the potential need for pre-
and post treatment of wastes; (3) potential operating problems;
and (4) the approximate costs. The demonstration also
provides opportunities to evaluate the long term risks and
limitations of a technology.
At the conclusion of a SITE demonstration, EPA prepares a
Demonstration Bulletin, Technology Capsule, and an ITER.
These reports evaluate all available information on the
technology and analyze its overall applicability to other
potential sites characteristics, waste types, and waste matrices.
Testing procedures, performance and cost data, and quality
assurance and quality standards are also presented. The
Technology Bulletin consists of a one to two page summary of
the SITE demonstration and is prepared as a mailer for public
notice. The Technology Bulletin provides a general overview
of the technology demonstrated, results of the demonstration,
and telephone numbers and e-mail address for the EPA project
manager in charge of the SITE evaluation. In addition,
references to other related documents and reports are
provided. The Technology Capsule consists of a more in-
depth summary of the SITE demonstration and is usually
about 10 pages in length. The Technology Capsule presents
information and summary data on various aspects of the
technology including applicability, site requirements,
performance, process residuals, limitations, and current status
of the technology. The Technology Capsule is designed to
help EPA remedial project managers and on-scene
coordinators, contractors, and other site cleanup managers
understand the types of data and site characteristics needed to
effectively evaluate the technology's applicability for cleaning
Superfund sites. The final SITE document produced is the
ITER. The ITER consists of an in-depth evaluation of the
SITE demonstration including details on field activities and
operations, performance data and statistical evaluations,
economic analysis, applicability, and effectiveness, as
discussed in the following section.
1.3 Purpose of the Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
The ITER is designed to aid decision-makers in evaluating
specific technologies for further consideration as applicable
options in a particular cleanup operation. The ITER should
include a comprehensive description of the SITE
demonstration and its results, and is intended for use by EPA
remedial project managers, EPA on-scene coordinators,
contractors, and other decision-makers carrying out specific
remedial actions.
To encourage the general use of demonstrated technologies,
EPA provides information regarding the applicability of each
technology to specific sites and wastes. The ITER includes
information on cost and desirable site-specific characteristics.
It also discusses advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of
the technology. However, each SITE demonstration evaluates
the performance of a technology in treating a specific waste
matrix at a specific site. The characteristics of other wastes
and other sites may differ from the characteristics at the
demonstration site. Therefore, a successful field
demonstration of a technology at one site does not necessarily
ensure that it will be applicable at other sites. Data from the
field demonstration may require extrapolation for estimating
the operating ranges in which the technology will perform
satisfactorily. Only limited conclusions can be drawn from a
single field demonstration.
This ITER provides information on new approaches to the use
of lime addition to reduce the concentration of toxic metals
and acidity in AMD and ARD at Leviathan Mine, and is a
critical step in the development and commercialization of lime
treatment for use at other applicable mine sites.
1.4 Technology Description
Lime treatment of AMD and ARD is a relatively simple
chemical process where low pH AMD/ ARD is neutralized
using lime to precipitate dissolved iron, the main component
of AMD and ARD, and other dissolved metals as metal
hydroxides and oxy-hydroxides. In the active lime treatment
system, the precipitation process is either performed in a
single stage (monophasic mode), or two stages (biphasic
mode). In the monophasic mode, the pH of the acid mine flow
is raised to precipitate out all of the target metals resulting in a
large quantity of metals-laden sludge. The precipitation
occurs under the following reaction:
" (aq) + H2S04 ->
CaSO4
-------
The optimum pH range for this precipitation reaction is
between 7.9 and 8.2. Along with metal hydroxides, excess
sulfate in the AMD and ARD precipitates with excess calcium
as calcium sulfate (gypsum). However, because sulfate
removal is not a goal of the process, the treatment system is
optimized for metals removal, leaving excess sulfate in
solution. The active lime treatment system consists of
reaction tanks, flash/floe mixing tanks, plate clarifiers, and a
filter press. The active lime treatment system operated in
monophasic mode was used at Leviathan Mine to treat a
mixture of AMD and ARD with varying concentrations of
arsenic. The monophasic configuration of the active lime
treatment system is shown in Figure 1-2.
The active lime treatment system operated in biphasic mode is
preferred at Leviathan Mine for treating AMD where
concentrations of arsenic are high enough to yield a solid
waste stream requiring handling as a hazardous waste. In this
case, the active lime treatment system generates a small
quantity of precipitate during the first reaction (Phase I) that
contains high arsenic concentrations. A large quantity of low-
arsenic content precipitate is generated during the second
reaction (Phase II). Separating the arsenic into a smaller solid
waste stream significantly reduces the cost of disposal.
During Phase I, lime is added to raise the pH high enough to
generate a ferric iron hydroxide precipitate, while leaving the
majority of other metals in solution.
3Ca(OH)2
(s)
2Fe3+
(aq)
3Ca2+(aq) + 2Fe(OH)3(s) (2)
The optimum pH range for this precipitation reaction is
between 2.8 and 3.0. During precipitation, a large portion of
the arsenic adsorbs to the ferric hydroxide precipitate. The
solution pH remains nearly constant in this zone as long as
excess soluble iron is available to buffer the addition of lime.
Given enough reaction time, it is in this zone (pH 2.8 to 3.0)
that maximum arsenic removal occurs. The small quantity of
iron and arsenic rich precipitate generated is dewatered using
a filter press. After dewatering, the small amount of Phase I
filter cake generated typically exhibits hazardous
characteristics due to the high concentration of arsenic and is
shipped off site for disposal at a treatment, storage, and
disposal (TSD) facility.
In Phase II of the biphasic process, the pH is further raised
through lime addition to precipitate out the remaining target
metals forming a large quantity of Phase II sludge, as
described in Reaction (1) above. Again, the optimum pH
range for the second precipitation reaction is between 7.9 and
8.2. The Phase II sludge typically does not exhibit hazardous
waste characteristics because the majority of the arsenic was
removed in Phase I. The Phase II pit clarifier sludge is
typically disposed of on site. The biphasic configuration of
the active lime treatment system utilizes the same equipment
as the monophasic configuration, though operated in a two-
step process, and includes the addition of an extended settling
pit clarifier, as shown in Figure 1-3.
The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system is a
continuous flow lime contact system, also designed for metal
hydroxide precipitation. This system was designed to treat the
ARD at Leviathan Mine, which has low arsenic content. The
system consists of air sparge/lime contact tanks where initial
precipitation occurs, and bag filters that capture approximately
60 percent of the precipitate. The system relies on iron
oxidation during mechanical aeration, optimization of lime
dosage, and adequate cake thickness within each bag filter to
filter precipitate from the treated ARD. The system also
includes a multi-cell settling lagoon for extended lime contact
and final precipitation of metal hydroxides. Bag filter solids
are typically disposed of on site. The reaction chemistry is the
same as the active lime treatment system operated in
monophasic mode, as described in Reaction (1). A process
flow diagram for the alkaline lagoon lime treatment system is
presented in Figure 1-4.
1.5 Key Findings
Both lime treatment systems were shown to be extremely
effective at neutralizing acidity and reducing the
concentrations of the 10 target metals in the AMD and ARD
flows at Leviathan Mine to below EPA discharge standards.
The active lime treatment system treated 28.3 million liters of
AMD operating in the biphasic mode using 125 dry tons of
lime; and 17.4 million liters of combined AMD and ARD
operating in monophasic mode using 23.8 dry tons of lime.
The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system treated
12.3 million liters of ARD using 19.4 dry tons of lime. The
active lime treatment system operated in Biphasic mode was
shown to be very effective al separating arsenic from the
AMD prior to precipitation of other metals, subsequently
reducing the total volume of hazardous solid waste produced
by the treatment system. Separating the arsenic into a smaller
solid waste stream significantly reduces materials handling
and disposal costs.
Although the influent concentrations for the primary target
metals were up to 3,000 fold above the EPA discharge
standards, both lime treatment systems were successful in
reducing the concentrations of the primary target metals in the
AMD and ARD to between 4 and 20 fold below the discharge
standards. For both modes of the active lime treatment
system, the average removal efficiency for the primary target
metals was 99.6 percent over 20 sampling events, with the
exception of lead at 74.6 to 78.3 percent removal. For the
semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system, the average
removal efficiency for the primary target metals in the ARD
was 99.2 percent over eight sampling events, with the
exception of lead at 66.4 percent removal and copper at 58.3
percent removal. Removal efficiencies for lead and copper
were less than other metals because the influent concentrations
of these two metals were already near or below the EPA
-------
Upper Leviathan Creek
(feed water)
Phase I Clanfier
(Flow through
only)
Flash/Floe
Mix Tank and
Chamber
Flash/Floe
Mix Tank
and Chamber
(Flow through
only)
Effluent Discharge
to Pond 4
Phase II
Reaction
Tank
Solids to
Off Site Disposal
FIGURE 1-2. ACTIVE LIME TREATMENT SYSTEM MONOPHASIC SCHEMATIC
-------
Upper Leviathan Creek
(feed water)
Phase I
Phase II
Solrds
Removed
Annually "^
to Drying Area
— 1 —
Pit
Clarifier
Solids to
Off Site Disposal
Decant
to Effluent
Box
Discharge to
Upper
Leviathan
Creek
FIGURE 1-3 ACTIVE LIME TREATMENT SYSTEM BIPHASIC SCHEMATIC
-------
^— —•~x s s s .
V******
Channelized
Leviathan
Creek
Channel Underdrain
Water
Storage Tank
! u
Diesel
* Generator
Alkaline Treatment
Lagoon
FIGURE 1-4. SEMI-PASSIVE ALKALINE LAGOON TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC
-------
discharge standards and the systems were not optimized for
removal of these metals at such low concentrations. In the
case of selenium in the AMD flow and selenium and cadmium
in the ARD flow, removal efficiencies were not calculated
because the influent and effluent metals concentrations were
not statistically different.
The average and range of removal efficiencies for filtered
influent and effluent samples collected from each lime
treatment system during the evaluation period are presented in
Tables 1-1 through 1-3. A summary of the average influent
and effluent metals concentrations for each lime treatment
system is also presented. The results of a comparison of the
average effluent concentration for each metal to the EPA
discharge standards is also presented; where a "Y" indicates
that either the maximum concentration (based on a daily
composite of three grab samples) and/or the average
concentration (based on a running average of four daily
composite samples) was exceeded; and an "N" indicates that
neither discharge standard was exceeded.
The lime treatment process produced a large quantity of metal
hydroxide sludge and filter cake. During operation in biphasic
mode in 2002 and 2003, the active lime treatment system
produced 43.8 dry tons of Phase I filter cake consisting mainly
of iron and arsenic hydroxides and 211.6 dry tons of Phase II
sludge consisting of metal hydroxides high in iron, aluminum,
copper, nickel, and zinc. In addition, gypsum is also a
component of the Phase II sludge. During operation in
monophasic mode in 2002, the active lime treatment system
produced 20.4 dry tons of filter cake consisting of metal
hydroxides and gypsum. The semi-passive alkaline lagoon
treatment system produced 12.6 dry tons of sludge consisting
of metal hydroxides and gypsum. The solid waste residuals
produced by the treatment systems were analyzed for
hazardous waste characteristics. Total metals and leachable
metals analyses were performed on the solid wastes for
comparison to California and Federal hazardous waste
classification criteria. The hazardous waste characteristics
determined for the solid waste streams are presented in
Table 1-4. The solid waste streams that were determined to be
hazardous or a threat to water quality were transported to an
off site TSD facility for disposal. Solid waste streams that
passed both state and Federal hazardous waste criteria were
disposed of in the mine pit.
1.6 Key Contacts
Additional information on this technology, the SITE Program,
and the evaluation site can be obtained from the following
sources:
EPA Contacts:
Edward Bates, EPA Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7774
bates, edwardfajepa.gov
Kevin Mayer, EPA Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street, SFD-7-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)972-3176
maver.kevin(a>epa.gov
Atlantic Richfield Contact:
Mr. Roy Thun, Project Manager
BP Atlantic Richfield Company
6 Centerpointe Drive, Room 6-164
La Palma, CA 90623
(661)287-3855
thunril@bp.com
State of California Contact:
Richard Booth, Project Manager
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Lahontan Region
2501 Lake Tahoe Blvd.
South Lake Tahoe, C A 96150
(530) 542-5474
RBooth(a),waterboards.ca.gov
-------
Table 1-1. Active Lime Treatment System Removal Efficiencies: Biphasic Operation in 2002 and 2003
Target
Metal
Primary Tar
Aluminum
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Nickel
Number of
Sampling
Events
;et Metals
12/1
12/1
12/1
12/1
12/1
Average
Influent
Concentration
(ug/L)
Standard
Deviation
Average
Effluent
Concentration
(ug/L)
Standard
Deviation
381,000
2,239
2,383
461,615
7,024
48,792
866
276
100,251
834
1,118
8.6
8.0
44.9
34.2
782
1.9
2.5
66.2
15.4
Exceeds
Discharge
Standards
(Y/N)
Average
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
Range of
Removal
Efficiencies
(%)
N
N
N
N
N
99.7
99.6
99.7
100
99.5
99.2 to 99.9
99.2 to 99.8
99.4 to 99.8
99.9 to 100
99.2 to 99.9
Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
12/1
12/1
12/1
12/1
12/1
54.4
877
7.6
4.3
1,469
6.1
173
3.6
3.9
176
070
5.7
20
3.8
19.3
0.28
12.2
1.1
1.5
8.9
N
N
N
N
N
98.7
99.3
78.3
NC
98.7
97 5 to 99.4
93.8 to 99.9
69.2 to 86.7
NC
97.4 to 99.4
NC = Not calculated as influent and effluent concentrations were not statistically different
ug/L = Microgram per liter
Table 1-2. Active Lime Treatment System Removal Efficiencies: Monophasic Operation in 2003
Target
Metal
Primary Tar
Aluminum
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Nickel
Number of
Sampling
Events
Average
Influent
Concentration
(Ug/L)
Standard
Deviation
Average
Effluent
Concentration
(HS/L)
Standard
Deviation
get Metals
7
7
7
7
7
107,800
3,236
2,152
456,429
2,560
6,734
252
46.4
49,430
128
633
6.3
3 1
176
46.8
284
3.5
1.5
, 130
34.7
Exceeds
Discharge
Standards
(Y/N)
Average
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
N
N
N
N
N
99.5
99.8
99.4
100.0
97.9
Range of
Removal
Efficiencies
(%)
99.0 to 99.8
99.7 to 99.9
99.0 to 99.7
99.9 to 100.0
95.7 to 99.3
Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
7
7
7
7
7
26.1
341
6.2
16.6
538
14.1
129
3.6
13.6
28.9
0.2
3.0
1.6
21
5.6
0.027
3.8
1.3
0.43
3.6
N
N
N
N
N
99.1
99.0
74.6
93.1
98.9
98.4 to 99 7
95.6 to 99.8
48 3 to 89.8
9 1.0 to 94.4
97.7 to 99.6
Hg/L = Microgram per liter
Table 1-3. Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System Removal Efficiencies in 2002
Target
Metal
Primary Tar
Aluminum
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Nickel
Number of
Sampling
Events
Average
Influent
Concentration
(HE/L)
Standard
Deviation
Average
Effluent
Concentration
(US/L)
Standard
Deviation
Exceeds
Discharge
Standards
(Y/N)
Average
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
get Metals
8
8
8
8
8
31,988
519
135
391,250
1,631
827
21.9
2.5
34,458
47.0
251
5.8
5.5
148
22.6
160
3.2
2.0
173
10.3
N
N
N
N
N
99.2
98.9
58.3
100
98.6
Range of
Removal
Efficiencies
(%)
98.0 to 99.5
97.6 to 99.5
27.7 to 74.5
99.9 to 100
97.2 to 99.1
Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
8
8
8
8
8
0.2988
19.3
5.1
3.3
356
0.0035
2.0
1.2
1.6
6.6
0.4
2.3
1.7
3.2
14.2
0.1
0.9
0.8
1.3
8.6
N
N
N
N
N
NC
88.5
66.4
NC
96.0
NC
83 1 to 92.3
37 7 to 78.9
NC
90.6 to 98 2
NC = Not calculated as influent and effluent concentrations were not statistically different
ug/L = Microgram per liter
-------
Table 1-4. Determination of Hazardous Waste Characteristics for Solid Waste Streams at Leviathan Mine
Treatment
System
Active Lime
Treatment System
Mode of
Operation
Biphasic
Monophasic
Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon
Treatment System
Operational
Year
2002
2003
2003
2002
Solid Waste
Stream
Evaluated
Phase I Filter Cake
Phase II Pit
Clarifier Sludge
Phase I Filter Cake
Phase II Pit
Clarifier Sludge
Filter Cake
Bag Filter Sludge
Total Solid
Waste
Generated
22 7 dry tons
1 1 8 dry tons
21.1 dry tons
93.6 dry tons
20.4 dry tons
Estimated 12.6
dry tons
TTLC
Pass or
Fail
F
P
F
P
F
P
STLC
Pass or
Fail
F
P
P
F
F
P
TCLP
Pass or
Fail
P
P
P
P
P
P
Waste
Handling
Requirement
Off-site TSD
Facility
On-site Disposal
Off-site TSD
Facility
On-site Storage
Off-site TSD
Facility
On-site Storage
STLC = Soluble threshold limit concentration TSD = Treatment, storage, and disposal
TTLC = Total threshold limit concentration TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
10
-------
SECTION 2
TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS
The following sections discuss the effectiveness of the lime
treatment technologies demonstrated at the Leviathan Mine
site. The discussion includes a background summary of the
site, descriptions of the technology process and the evaluation
approach, a summary of field activities, and results of the
evaluation.
2.1 Background
Leviathan Mine is a former copper and sulfur mine located
high on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada Mountain
range, near the California-Nevada border. Intermittent mining
of copper sulfate, copper, and sulfur minerals since the mid-
1860s resulted in extensive AMD and ARD at Leviathan
Mine. During the process of converting underground
workings into an open pit mine in the 1950s, approximately
22 million tons of overburden and waste rock were removed
from the open pit mine and distributed across the site.
Oxidation of sulfur and sulfide minerals within the mine
workings and waste rock forms sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which
liberates toxic metals from the mine wastes creating AMD and
ARD. AMD and ARD at Leviathan Mine contain high
concentrations of toxic metals, including arsenic, and
historically flowed directly to Leviathan Creek without
capture or treatment.
2.1.1 Site Description
The Leviathan Mine property occupies approximately 102
hectares in the Leviathan Creek basin, which is located on the
northwestern flank of Leviathan Peak at an elevation ranging
from 2,134 meters to 2,378 meters above mean sea level.
Access to the mine site is provided by unpaved roads (United
States Forest Service Road 52) from State Highway 89 on the
southeast and from US Highway 395 south of Gardnerville,
Nevada, on the northeast. Of the total property, approximately
1 million square meters are disturbed by mine-related
activities. With the exception of approximately 85 thousand
square meters on Forest Service lands, mine-related workings
are located on property owned by the State of California.
Figure 2-1 presents a map showing the layout of the Leviathan
Mine site.
The mine site lies within the Bryant Creek watershed and is
drained by Leviathan and Aspen creeks, which combine with
Mountaineer Creek 3.5 kilometers below the mine to form
Bryant Creek, a tributary to the East Fork of the Carson River.
The terrain in the Leviathan Creek basin includes rugged
mountains and high meadowlands. The area has a climate
typical of the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada range
characterized by warm dry summers with the bulk of the
precipitation occurring as winter snow. Vegetation at the site
is representative of the high Sierra Nevada floristic province,
with scattered stands of mixed conifers or Jeffery pine on
north-facing slopes. Aspen groves border parts of Leviathan
and Aspen creeks, while shrub communities dominate flats
and south facing slopes.
Precipitation in the area around Leviathan Mine varies with
elevation and distance from the crest of the Sierra Nevada
mountain range. The heaviest precipitation is from November
through April. Annual precipitation on western slopes of the
Sierras averages about 55 inches, varying from a low of about
20 inches to highs estimated in the range of 65 to 70 inches in
some of the more remote mountain areas near the easterly
boundary of Leviathan Creek basin. There is little
precipitation data for the mine site; therefore, a mean annual
precipitation was estimated at 27.8 inches per year using local
weather monitoring stations provided by the U.S. Geological
Survey (EMC2 2004a). A large percentage of the precipitation
which falls during the winter months occurs as snow. Snow
pack accumulates from about November through March, with
the maximum accumulation generally occurring about April 1.
The average April 1 snow line is below an elevation of 1,525
meters. The snow pack generally begins to melt during
March, but the period of major snowmelt activity is typically
April through July. Winter snow pack is the source of about
50 percent of annual runoff.
11
-------
r.
+ / +-
LEGEND
DIVERSION CHANNCC
OUTLEt
FIGURE 2-1. SITE LAYOUT
-------
2.1.2 History of Contaminant Release
Prior to 1984, the various sources of AMD and ARD
discharging from the Leviathan Mine site included AMD from
the floor of the mine pit flowing west into Leviathan Creek;
AMD from Adit No. 5, located below the mine pit, flowing
west into Leviathan Creek; ARD from the Delta Area (also
known as Delta Seep), located adjacent to Leviathan Creek
along the western edge of the mine area, flowing northwest
into Leviathan Creek; and ARD from Aspen Seep, located
along the northern portion of the site within the overburden
tailings piles, flowing north into Aspen Creek. Historically,
the concentrations of five primary target metals, aluminum,
arsenic, copper, iron, and nickel in the AMD and ARD
released to Leviathan and Aspen creeks have exceeded EPA
discharge standards up to 3,000 fold. Historical
concentrations for each source of AMD and ARD are
presented in Table 2-1.
When AMD was inadvertently released in large quantities
from the Leviathan Mine site in the 1950s, elevated
concentrations of toxic metals resulted in fish and insect kills
in Leviathan Creek, Bryant Creek, and the east fork of the
Carson River. The absence of trout among the fish killed in
Bryant Creek and in the east fork of the Carson River
immediately downstream from Bryant Creek indicated that
continuous discharges from mining operations had eliminated
the more sensitive trout fisheries that existed prior to open-pit
operations. Various efforts were made between 1954 and
1975 to characterize the impacts of Leviathan Mine on water
quality at and below the site during and after open-pit mining
operations (California Regional Water Quality Control Board
- Lahontan Region [RWQCB] 1995).
2.1.3 Previous Actions
The Leviathan Mine Pollution Abatement Project was initiated
by the state of California in 1979 with the preparation of a
feasibility study. In 1982, the State contracted the design of
the Pollution Abatement Program, which was then
implemented in 1984 with physical actions that significantly
reduced the quantity of toxic metals discharging from the mine
site. Work conducted at the site included regrading over-
burden piles to prevent impounding and infiltration of
precipitation and promote surface runoff; partially filling and
grading the open pit; constructing a surface water collection
system within the reworked mine pit to redirect
uncontaminated surface water to Leviathan Creek;
constructing a pit under drain (PUD) system beneath the pit
(prior to filling and grading) to collect and divert surface water
seeping into the pit floor; construction of five
storage/evaporation ponds to collect discharge from the PUD,
Delta Seep, and Adit No. 5; and rerouting Leviathan Creek by
way of a concrete diversion channel to minimize contact of
creek water with waste rock piles. During pond construction,
previously unrecognized springs were encountered. To
capture the subsurface flow from these springs, a channel
under drain (CUD) was constructed beneath Leviathan Creek
(RWQCB 1995).
Starting in 1997, EPA initiated enforcement actions at the
Leviathan Mine site to further mitigate potential releases of
AMD and ARD from the various sources. In response to
EPA's 1997 action memorandum, the state of California
implemented the active lime treatment system in 1999 to treat
AMD that collects in the retention ponds. Since the
installation of the active lime treatment system in 1999, no
releases of AMD have occurred from the retention ponds to
Leviathan Creek. Between 2000 and 2001, EPA initiated
further actions with three additional action memoranda. In
response to EPA's July 21, 2001, action memorandum, ARCO
implemented the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment
system to treat ARD from the CUD. Figure 2-1 presents a
detailed site map of the mine site as it exists in 2004, after
implementation of the lime treatment systems and other
physical work conducted at the mine site.
In 2002, EPA prepared an additional action memorandum
setting final discharge standards for the five primary target
metals and five secondary water quality indicator metals for
discharge of treated water from the treatment systems to
Leviathan Creek (EPA 2002). Discharge standards for the
five primary metals of concern are presented in Table 2-1.
The maximum daily standard equals the highest concentration
of a target metal to which aquatic life can be exposed for a
short period of time without deleterious effects. The four-day
average standard equals the highest concentration of a target
metal to which aquatic life can be exposed for an extended
period of time (4 days) without deleterious effects.
2.2 Process Description
Each lime treatment system evaluated at Leviathan Mine was
set up to treat a specific AMD, ARD, or combined AMD/ARD
flow captured at the mine site. Operated in monophasic mode,
the active lime treatment system was evaluated for its ability
to treat a combined moderate ARD/AMD flow from Adit
No.5, CUD, and Delta Seep sources of about 250 liters per
minute (L/min), without regard to metals species or
concentrations in the source. Operated in biphasic mode, the
active lime treatment system was evaluated for its ability to
treat a high AMD flow from the retention ponds of about 720
L/min where arsenic concentrations were high enough to
generate a hazardous solid waste stream. The alkaline lagoon
treatment system was evaluated for its ability to treat a low
ARD flow from the CUD of about 120 L/min with relatively
low metals content. Each treatment system was optimized for
flow rate and target metals precipitation based on the source
being treated. The following sections describe the processes
for each treatment system.
13
-------
Table 2-1. Summary of Historical Metals of Concern
Analyte
Aluminum
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Nickel
Aluminum
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Nickel
Number of
Samples
46
45
28
45
46
29
27
9
32
27
Detection
Percentage
Minimum
Concentration
(mg/L)
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/L)
Mean
(mg/L)
Adit No. 5
100
100
100
100
100
220
8.6
0.88
120
4.4
430
28
4.2
2,400
10
310.4
16.24
1.503
815.1
6.113
Combination of Ponds 1, 2 North, and 2 South
100
100
100
100
100
3
0.192
2.4
4
1.2
4,900
92
35
6,600
61
1,198.9
27.05
8.133
1,733.9
17.50
Standard
Deviation
(mg/L)
63.61
5.454
0.965
368.7
1.624
Discharge Standards
Maximum (a)
(mg/L)
4.0
0.34
0.026
2.0
0.84
1,036.2
19.88
10.19
1,449.7
11.96
4.0
0.34
0.026
2.0
0.84
Average (b)
(mg/L)
2.0
0.15
0016
1.0
0.094
20
0.15
0.016
1.0
0.094
Channel Under Drain
Aluminum
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Nickel
Aluminum
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Nickel
Aluminum
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Nickel
60
61
37
61
61
34
34
21
34
34
18
19
17
19
18
100
100
97.3
100
100
100
97.1
952
100
97.1
29
0.091
0
270
0.21
0.073
0
0
0.11
0
68
0.80
0.13
460
3.4
Aspen Seep
65
0 1
1.8
580
0.75
Delta Seep
100
84.2
35.3
100
100
0.89
0.052
0.0018
18.0
0.41
4.7
0.094
0.14
33.0
0.563
48.03
0.447
0.026
367
1.947
10.64
0.191
0.035
59.16
0.791
50.86
0.028
1.294
1239
0.554
1.68
0.067
0.0324
21.5
0.493
14.17
0.027
0.549
1132
0.181
0.879
0.012
0.054
3.93
0.051
4.0
0.34
0.026
2.0
0.84
|_ 4.0
0.34
0.026
2.0
0.84
4.0
0.34
0.026
2.0
084
(a) Based on a daily composite of three grab samples
(b) Based on the average of four daily composite samples
mg/L = Milligram per liter
2.0
0.15
0.016
1 0
0.094
2.0
0.15
0.016
1.0
0.094
20
0.15
0016
1 0
0094
2.2.7 Active Lime Treatment System
Influent to the active lime treatment system consists of AMD
pumped out of retention ponds 1, 2 north, and 2 south. In the
biphasic mode (Figure 1 -2), influent is pumped from Pond 1 at
a flow rate of up to 720 L/min into the 40,000 liter Phase 1
reaction tank. Forty-five percent lime slurry is then added at
up to 1.3 L/min to raise the pH to approximately 2.8 to 3.0. In
this pH range, a portion of the dissolved ferrous iron is
oxidized to ferric iron and precipitates out of solution (as
ferric hydroxide) along with the majority of dissolved arsenic.
Process water was drawn from upper Leviathan Creek to make
up the lime slurry used in the treatment process. The process
solution then flows to a 4,000 liter flash/floe mixing tank
where a polymer flocculent is added to promote growth of
ferric iron hydroxide and adsorbed arsenic floe. The process
solution then flows into the 40,000 liter Phase I clarifier for
floe settling and thickening. Supernatant from the Phase I
clarifier flows into the Phase II reaction tank for additional
lime treatment of remaining acidity and target metals. The
thickened ferric iron hydroxide and arsenic solids are
periodically pumped from the bottom of the Phase I clarifier
into sludge holding tanks, and then into a 550 liter-capacity
batch filter press for dewatering. The small volume of
arsenic-laden Phase I filter cake is disposed of as a hazardous
waste at an off site TSD facility. Supernatant from the sludge
holding tanks and filtrate from the filter press are pumped to
the Phase II reaction tank for additional treatment. The total
14
-------
hydraulic residence time (HRT) for Phase I of the active lime
treatment system is about 2 hours at maximum flow rate.
To complete the precipitation of metals during biphasic
operation, the pH of the process solution in the 40,000 liter
Phase II reaction tank is raised to approximately 7.9 to 8.2 by
adding up to 2.3 L/min of forty-five percent lime slurry. The
process solution then flows to a 4,000 liter flash/floe mixing
tank where a polymer flocculent is added to promote growth
of the metal hydroxide floe. The process solution then flows
into a 40,000 liter Phase II clarifier. The partially thickened
precipitate is pumped from the bottom of the Phase II clarifier
uphill to the 3.1 million liter pit clarifier, located within the
mine pit, for extended settling. Supernatant from the pit
clarifier that meets the discharge standards is released by
gravity flow to Leviathan Creek. If the supernatant from the
pit clarifier does not meet discharge standards, it is returned to
Pond 1 for additional treatment. The non-hazardous metals-
laden precipitate is removed from the pit clarifier annually,
dewatered and air dried, and disposed of on site. The total
HRT for Phase II of the active lime treatment system is about
3 to 6 days.
The active lime treatment system operated in the monophasic
mode (Figure 1-3) utilizes the same process equipment as the
system operated in biphasic mode; however, the precipitation
process results in a single "output stream" of metals-laden
precipitate that is thickened in the Phase II clarifier and
dewatered using the batch filter press. Other changes include
a lower influent flow rate of up to 250 L/min (due to HRT and
thickening limitations of the Phase II clarifier), a lower lime
dosage rate (0.35 L/min of forty-five percent lime slurry), and
a difference in the makeup of the source water. The source
water was comprised of a mixture of low-arsenic content ARD
(50 percent from the CUD and 17.6 percent from Delta Seep)
and high-arsenic content AMD (32.4 percent from Adit No.5).
Because of the elevated arsenic concentrations in the source
water, the resulting filter cake from operation of the active
lime treatment system in monophasic mode exceeds State
hazardous waste criteria and must be disposed of at an off site
TSD facility.
2.2.2 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment
System
ARCO first tested the alkaline lagoon treatment system in
2001 for treatment of ARD recovered from the CUD. During
operation of the alkaline lagoon treatment system (Figure 1-4),
the ARD from the CUD is pumped to the head of the alkaline
lagoon treatment system, which is located on a high density
polyethylene (HDPE)-lined treatment pad along the north
berm of the treatment lagoon. The influent is pumped uphill
from the CUD at a flow rate up to 120 L/min into three
4,000 liter lime contact reactors; the reactors have a combined
HRT of 1 hour and 40 minutes at maximum flow rate. Forty-
five percent lime slurry is added to each of the lime contact
reactors (combined dosage rate of 0.16 L/min) to raise the pH
to about 8.0. Process water was drawn from upper Leviathan
Creek to make up the lime slurry used in the treatment
process. The reactors are sparged with compressed air to
provide vigorous mixing of the lime/ARD solution. Air
sparging also helps to oxidize ferrous iron to ferric iron, which
reduces lime demand. During sparging, metal hydroxide floe
forms within the reaction tanks. The process solution then
flows by gravity through a series of six 5- by 5-meter spun
fabric bag filters to remove the metal hydroxide floe.
The bag filtration process relies on the build up of filter cake
on the inside of each bag to remove progressively smaller floe
particles. Effluent from the bag filters, including soluble
metals, unreacted lime, and floe particles too small to be
captured, flows by gravity into the 5.4 million liter multi-cell
settling lagoon. The settling lagoon is divided into two
sections using an anchored silt fence. Unsettled solids are
captured on the silt screen between the two cells. The settling
lagoon typically provides a HRT of 415 hours at a flow rate of
120 L/min. This extended residence time facilitates contact of
any remaining dissolved metals with unreacted lime. Effluent
from the settling lagoon that meets EPA discharge standards is
periodically discharged to Leviathan Creek. The non-
hazardous precipitate captured in the bag filters and settled in
the lagoon is periodically recovered and stored on site.
2.3 Evaluation Approach
Evaluation of the lime treatment technologies occurred
between June 2002 and October 2003, separated by winter
shutdown. During the evaluation period, multiple sampling
events were conducted for each of the treatment systems in
accordance with the 2002 and 2003 Technology Evaluation
Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plans (TEP/QAPP) (Tetra
Tech 2002 and 2003). During each sampling event, EPA
collected metals data from each systems' influent and effluent
streams, documented metals removal and reduction in acidity
within each systems' unit operations, and recorded operational
information pertinent to the evaluation of each treatment
system. The treatment systems were evaluated independently,
based on removal efficiencies for primary and secondary
target metals, comparison of effluent concentrations to EPA-
mandated discharge standards, and on the characteristics of
and disposal requirements for the resulting metals-laden solid
wastes. Removal efficiencies of individual unit operations
were also evaluated. The following sections describe in more
detail the project objectives and sampling program.
2.3.1 Project Objectives
As discussed in the TEP/QAPPs (Tetra Tech 2002 and 2003),
two primary objectives identified for the SITE demonstration
were considered critical to the success of the lime treatment
technology evaluation. Five secondary objectives were
identified to provide additional information that is useful, but
not critical to the technology evaluation. The primary
objectives of the technology evaluations were to:
15
-------
• Determine the removal efficiencies for primary target
metals over the evaluation period
• Determine if the concentrations of the primary target
metals in the treated effluent are below the discharge
standards mandated in 2002 Action Memorandum for
Early Actions at Leviathan Mine (EPA 2002)The
following secondary objectives also were identified:
• Document operating parameters and assess critical
operating conditions necessary to optimize system
performance
• Monitor the general chemical characteristics of the
AMD or ARD water as it passes through the
treatment system
• Evaluate operational performance and efficiency of
solids separation systems
• Document solids transfer, dewatering, and disposal
operations
• Determine capital and operation and maintenance
costs
2.3.2 Sampling Program
Over the duration of the demonstration, EPA collected
pretreatment, process, and post-treatment water samples from
each lime treatment system. These samples were used to
evaluate the primary and secondary objectives, as identified in
the TEP/QAPPs (Tetra Tech 2002 and 2003). Sludge samples
also were collected to document the physical and chemical
characteristics of the sludge and to estimate the volume and
rate of sludge generation by each treatment technology.
Summary tables documenting the water and sludge samples
collected and the analyses performed for each lime treatment
system are presented in Appendix A. In addition to chemical
analyses performed on the samples collected, observations
were recorded on many aspects of the operations of each
treatment system. The sampling program is summarized
below by objective.
Primary Objective 1: Determine the removal efficiency
for each metal of concern over the demonstration period.
To achieve this objective, influent and effluent samples from
each treatment system were collected from strategic locations
within the treatment systems. The samples were filtered,
preserved, and then analyzed for primary target metals:
aluminum, arsenic, copper, iron, and nickel and secondary
water quality indicator metals: cadmium, chromium, lead,
selenium, and zinc. When possible, effluent samples were
collected approximately one HRT after the influent samples
were collected. However, because the HRT of the different
treatment systems ranged from hours to days and changed
with operational conditions, it was not always practical to
implement such a time-separated pairing procedure. From the
influent and effluent data collected, overall average removal
efficiencies were calculated for each target metal over the
period of the demonstration. The results of the removal
efficiency calculations are summarized in Section 2.5.1.
Primary Objective 2: Determine if the concentration of
each target metal in the treated effluent is below the EPA
discharge standard. Results from effluent samples collected
to meet Primary Objective 1 were used to meet this objective.
The sampling schedule was designed so that a composite of
three grab samples were collected on each sampling day.
Results from daily composite samples were compared against
EPA's daily maximum discharge standards (EPA 2002). In
addition, 4-day running averages were calculated for each
target metal for comparison against EPA's four-day average
discharge standards. To determine if the discharge standards
were met, the effluent data were compared directly to the
applicable standards as specified in Table 2-1. In addition, a
statistical analysis was performed to determine whether or not
statistically the results were below the discharge standards.
The results of the comparison of effluent data to discharge
standards are summarized in Section 2.5.2.
Secondary Objective 1: Document operating parameters
and assess critical operating conditions necessary to
optimize system performance. To achieve this objective,
system flow rate data, chemical dosing and aeration rate data,
and contact and mixing time data were recorded by the system
operators and the SITE demonstration sampling team. The
performance of individual unit operations was assessed by
determining the reduction in target metal concentrations along
each treatment system flow path. A description of system
operating parameters and discussion of metals reduction
within individual unit operations are presented in
Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 for the active lime treatment system
and semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system,
respectively.
Secondary Objective 2: Monitor the general chemical
characteristics of the AMD or ARD water as it passes
through the treatment system. To achieve this objective, the
influent and effluent samples collected to meet Primary
Objectives 1 and 2 were analyzed for total iron, sulfate, total
suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), and total
and bicarbonate alkalinity. Field measurements were also
collected for ferrous iron, sulfide, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO),
temperature, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and
conductivity. A discussion of these data and associated
reaction chemistry for the active lime treatment system and
semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system are presented in
Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.4, respectively.
Secondary Objective 3: Evaluate operational performance
and efficiency of solids separation systems. To achieve this
objective, influent, intermediate, and effluent samples were
collected from the solids separation systems of each treatment
system. The samples were analyzed for filtered and unfiltered
metals, TSS, and TDS to assess target metal removal
16
-------
efficiencies, solids removal rates and efficiencies, HRT, and
residual levels of solids in the effluent streams.
The results of this evaluation for the active lime treatment
system and semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system are
presented in Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.4, respectively.
Secondary Objective 4: Document solids transfer,
dewatering, and disposal operations. To achieve this
objective, the system operators maintained a log of the volume
and rate of solids transferred from the solids separation
systems for dewatering and disposal. Solids samples were
collected after dewatering and analyzed for residual moisture
content and total and leachable metals to determine waste
characteristics necessary to select an appropriate method of
disposal. Leachable metals were evaluated using the
California Waste Extraction Test (WET) (State of California
2004), the Method 1311: Toxiciry Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) (EPA 1997), and Method 1312: Synthetic
Precipitation and Leaching Procedure (SPLP) (EPA 1997).
An evaluation of solids handling for each treatment system is
presented in Section 2.5.5.
2.4 Field Evaluation Activities
The following sections discuss activities required to conduct a
technical evaluation of each treatment technology at the
Leviathan Mine site. The discussion includes a summary of
mobilization activities, operation and maintenance activities,
process modifications, evaluation monitoring activities,
demobilization activities, and lessons learned.
2.4.1 Mobilization A ctivities
The active lime treatment system was constructed in 1999 and
was in operation for three years prior to technology evaluation
activities. Therefore, mobilization activities were limited to
system reassembly and shakedown conducted in the spring,
after winter shutdown. Mobilization activities typically
require a three week period and include the following:
• Removal of previous year's sludge accumulation
from the pit clarifier and disposal on site as a non-
hazardous waste.
• Pressure washing of gypsum coating on reaction
tanks and lamella clarifiers.
• Pipe and hose lay out and assembly.
• Modifications to source water capture and delivery
system and effluent discharge system.
• System filling, pressure testing, and leak repair.
• Removal of precipitation from fuel storage secondary
containment units.
• Delivery and setup of site support equipment,
supplies, and chemical reagents
The alkaline lagoon was constructed in 2001 and was in
operation for one year prior to technology evaluation
activities. Therefore, mobilization activities were limited to
system reassembly and shakedown conducted in the spring,
after winter shutdown. Mobilization activities typically
require a two week period and include the following:
• Removal of bag filters containing previous year's
sludge accumulation and placement in roll-off bins
for off site disposal as a non-hazardous waste.
• Pipe and hose lay out and assembly.
• Capture of Delta Seep and modification of the CUD
delivery system to include water from Delta Seep.
• Repair of liner underlying treatment system.
• System filling, pressure testing, and leak repair.
• Removal of precipitation from fuel storage secondary
containment units.
• Delivery and setup of site support equipment,
supplies, and chemical reagents.
2.4.2 Operation and Maintenance Activities
The following sections discuss operation and maintenance
activities documented during the evaluation of each treatment
technology. The discussion includes a summary of each
system's startup and shutdown dates, treatment and discharge
rates, problems encountered, quantity of waste treated,
reagents consumed, process waste generated, and percentage
of time each system was operational.
2.4.2.1 Active Lime Treatment System
The active lime treatment system was operated in the biphasic
mode in 2002, and in both the biphasic and monophasic modes
in 2003. A description of system operation and maintenance
activities for each mode of operation is presented below.
Biphasic Operations. During the 2002 treatment season, the
system began treating pond water on July 10, 2002. By July
18, 2002, up to 700 L/min of AMD was being treated.
Treatment rates ranged from 390 to 700 L/min. On July 22,
effluent began discharging from the pit clarifier to Leviathan
Creek. Discharge rates ranged from 290 to 460 L/min. The
system was shut down on August 1, due to a low lime supply
and clogs in the delivery system. The lime storage tanks and
delivery lines were flushed out and operations resumed on
August 6. On August 8, 2002 a pH probe in the Phase II
reaction tank was found to be out of calibration and was
replaced. On August 15, 2002 the pipelines carrying treated
slurry up to the pit clarifier were found to be constricted with
gypsum precipitate, reducing the system treatment rate. The
pipes were replaced to alleviate flow constrictions. Treatment
of pond water was completed on September 24, 2002. During
2002, the system treated 14.7 million liters of AMD using
17
-------
75 dry tons of lime and generated 22.7 dry tons of hazardous
solids and 118 dry tons of non-hazardous solids. The system
was operational approximately 84 percent of the time during
the 2002 treatment season. The system was operated 16 hours
per day, during two shifts, each shift staffed by an operator
and a helper.
During the 2003 treatment season, the system began treating
pond water on July 28, 2003. Treatment rates ranged from
620 to 700 L/min. On July 31, effluent began discharging
from the pit clarifier to Leviathan Creek. Discharge rates
ranged from 230 to 930 L/min. The system was shut down on
August 1 due to a viscous lime supply limiting the function of
the lime delivery system. Solidified lime was cleaned out of
the storage tanks, new lime was delivered, and operations
resumed on August 3. On August 5, a pH probe in the
Phase II reaction tank was found to be out of calibration and
was replaced. On August 6, minor polymer feed adjustments
were required during night time operations, potentially due to
cool overnight temperatures. Treatment of pond water was
completed on August 14, 2003. During 2003, the system
treated 13.6 million liters of AMD using 49.6 dry tons of lime
and generated 21.1 dry tons of hazardous solids and 93.6 dry
tons of non-hazardous solids. The system was operational
approximately 95 percent of the time during the 2003
treatment season. The system was operated 24 hours per day,
during three shifts, each shift staffed by an operator and a
helper.
Monophasic Operations. During the 2003 treatment season,
the system began treating combined flows from the CUD,
Delta Seep, and Adit No. 5 on June 18, 2003. Treatment rates
ranged from 220 to 250 L/min. System effluent was
discharged to Pond 4, in case of system upset, prior to batch
discharge to Leviathan Creek. On June 25 and July 14,
effluent was pumped out of Pond 4 and into Leviathan Creek.
Batch discharge occurred over a 3 to 4 day period at flow rates
of 500 to 890 L/min. Monophasic treatment of combined
flows from the CUD, Delta Seep, and Adit No. 5 was
discontinued on July 20, 2003 to begin treatment of pond
water under biphasic operational conditions. During 2003, the
system treated 17.4 million liters of combined AMD and ARD
using 23.8 dry tons of lime and generated 20.4 dry tons of
hazardous solids. The system was operational approximately
96 percent of the time during the 2003 treatment season. The
system was operated 24 hours per day, during three shifts,
each shift staffed by an operator and a helper.
2.4.2.2 Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System
During the 2002 treatment season, the semi-passive alkaline
lagoon treatment system began treating combined flows from
the CUD on June 26, 2002. Treatment rates ranged from 62 to
120 L/min. On June 27, the aeration system in each reaction
tank was modified to increase aeration efficiency. The bag
filters required one day to build up a sufficient layer of cake to
adequately filter floe from solution. Treated water in the
lagoon was recirculated to homogenize higher pH water
discharged to the lagoon during startup.
System effluent was periodically batch discharged from the
lagoon to Leviathan Creek. On July 25, system discharge was
temporarily suspended because the silt curtains separating the
two cells within the lagoon became clogged. Water was not
flowing readily through the silt curtain when effluent was
discharged from Cell 2, causing strain on the barriers. The silt
curtain between Cells 1 and 2 was cleaned to increase flow,
and system discharge resumed by the afternoon. A similar
problem occurred and was resolved on August 15. System
effluent was also discharged from the lagoon to Leviathan
Creek on September 4, September 23, and October 15, 2002.
Batch discharge generally occurred over a 2 to 3 day period at
flow rates of 320 to 430 L/min.
Between July 27 and July 28, the pipe carrying partially
treated slurry between Reaction Tank No. 1 and No. 2 became
clogged. Partially treated slurry from Reaction Tank No. 1
overflowed and spilled into the lagoon. Excess lime was
added to the treatment system to increase lagoon pH, and
water was re-circulated in the lagoon to balance pH and
facilitate precipitation. On October 10, a lime delivery line
broke, spilling approximately 1,950 liters of lime onto the
treatment system pad and into the lagoon. Treated water was
recirculated in the lagoon to balance the pH in the lagoon.
Treatment was discontinued on November 1, 2002 due to
freezing and breaking of system piping. During 2002, the
system treated 12.3 million liters of ARD using 19.4 dry tons
of lime and generated 12.6 dry tons of non-hazardous solids.
The system was operational approximately 89 percent of the
time during the 2002 treatment season. The system was
operated 24 hours per day; however, minimal staffing was
required for operation. Staff operating the active lime
treatment system conducted at least hourly checks on the
system.
2.4.3 Process Modifications
The following sections discuss process modifications
documented during the evaluation of each treatment
technology.
2.4.3.1 Active Lime Treatment System
A number of modifications were made to the Active Lime
Treatment System to alleviate problems encountered during
operations. The majority of the modifications were made to
alleviate problems related to lime delivery and process control.
Process modifications enacted during biphasic operations
included:
• New lime delivery pumps designed to handle solids
more efficiently were installed. However, the new
18
-------
pumps did not completely solve the lime clogging
problem.
• Flocculent was injected into the lines carrying slurry
from the Phase II clarifier to the pit clarifier. The
addition of flocculent after the Phase II clarifier
reduced sludge build-up in the clarifier and increased
operating efficiency. Because of restrictions due to
scale buildup, an additional pipeline was installed to
carry treated slurry from the Phase II clarifier to the
pit clarifier. The addition of the new 4-inch diameter
pipeline significantly increased flow capacity to the
pit clarifier.
Process modifications enacted during monophasic operations
included:
• In an effort to decrease lime consumption and
improve precipitate growth, a sludge recirculation
system was constructed. The system was designed to
collect a fraction of the sludge from the Phase II
clarifier, and re-circulate the sludge (generally
3 percent solids and 97 percent water) into the
reaction tank. Excess alkalinity and "seed" solids in
the re-circulated sludge increased reaction efficiency,
reduced lime consumption, and improved particulate
settling in the Phase II clarifier.
• Lime was added to Reaction Tank No. 1 to allow a
longer period for lime dissolution and reaction with
metals, reducing overall lime requirement and
treatment system scaling.
2.4.3.2 Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System
A number of modifications were made to the semi-passive
alkaline lagoon treatment system to alleviate problems
encountered during operations. The majority of the
modifications were made to alleviate problems related to
aeration and lime delivery and process control. Process
modifications implemented included:
• New aerators were installed in the reaction tanks to
increase aeration rate and mixing.
• The lime delivery system was modified on July 9,
2002, to supply lime automatically based on the pH
in Reaction Tank No.l, rather than at a specified
delivery rate. The pH-based system, similar to that
used on the active lime treatment system, operated
more effectively with minor variations observed in
the CUD flow rate and chemistry.
2.4.4 Evaluation Monitoring Activities
The following sections discuss monitoring activities
conducted during the evaluation of each treatment technology.
The discussion includes a summary of sampling dates and
locations for system performance, unit operations, solids
handling, and solids disposal samples outlined in the sampling
program (see Section 2.3.2). Summary tables documenting
the water and sludge samples collected and the analyses
performed for each lime treatment system are presented in
Appendix A.
2.4.4.1 Active Lime Treatment System
The active lime treatment system was operated in the biphasic
mode in 2002, and in both the biphasic and monophasic modes
in 2003. A description of evaluation monitoring activities for
each mode of operation is presented below.
Biphasic Evaluation Monitoring Activities. Both system
performance and unit operations sampling was performed in
2002. System performance samples were collected from the
system influent and effluent on July 18, 23, 25, and 30, August
1, 8, 15, 20, 22, 27, and 29, and September 4, 2002. Unit
operations samples of the Phase I reaction tank effluent, Phase
II reaction tank effluent, Phase II reaction tank influent, pit
clarifier influent, and sludge tank overflow were collected on
August 20, 2002. Solids handling samples of the pit clarifier
sludge, filter press effluent, and filter cake were collected on
August 27, 2002.
Limited monitoring was performed in 2003. Samples were
collected from the system influent and effluent, Phase I
reaction tank effluent, Phase II reaction tank effluent, Phase II
reaction tank influent, Phase II clarifier settled solids, filter
press decant, filter cake, Phase I flash/floe tank, Phase II flash/
floe tank, and Phase I clarifier settled solids on August 12,
2003.
Monophasic Evaluation Monitoring Activities. System
performance samples were collected from the system influent
and effluent on June 24 and 26, and July 1, 3, 9, 10, and 16,
2003. An effluent sample was collected from Pond 4 prior to
batch discharge on July 10, 2003. Unit operations samples of
the Phase I reaction tank effluent, Phase II reaction tank
influent, Phase II reaction tank effluent, Phase II clarifier
influent, Phase II clarifier settled solids, and filter cake were
collected on July 3, 2003. Solids handling samples of the
Phase I clarifier settled solids, filter press decant, Phase II
clarifier influent, and Phase II clarifier settled solids were
collected on July 10, 2003.
2.4.4.2 Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System
System performance samples were collected from the system
influent and effluent on July 18, 23, 25, and 30, and August 1,
6, 8, and 13, 2002. Water samples were collected from lagoon
Cell No.l and Cell No. 2 on July 30, 2002, to evaluate
particulate settling. Samples of the bag filter influent and bag
filter effluent were collected on July 23 and 30, and August 6
and 13, 2002, to evaluate solids filtration. A sludge sample
19
-------
was collected from bag filter No. 1 on August 27, 2002, for
waste characterization.
2.4.5 Demobilization Activities
Both treatment systems have been permanently constructed at
Leviathan Mine and are winterized at the end of the treatment
season to prevent damage during freezing conditions.
Therefore, demobilization activities were limited to system
disassembly and storage.
Demobilization activities required for the active lime
treatment system typically occur over a three week period and
include:
Draining untreated and partially treated AMD from
the reaction tanks, clarifiers, pumps, and lines back
into the AMD pond.
Cleaning solids and scale from the interior of the
reaction tanks, lime slurry tank, and clarifiers.
Discharging treated water from the pit clarifier to
Leviathan Creek.
Draining makeup water from the storage tank into the
AMD pond.
Draining and cleaning flocculent and lime from the
feed pumps and lines.
Storing flocculent and lime reagents.
Disassembling, cleaning, and storing transfer lines,
pumps, and electrical lines.
Shipping accumulated hazardous solids off-site to a
permitted TSD facility.
Removing office trailers, portable toilets, generators,
forklift, and man lift.
Demobilization activities required for the semi-passive
alkaline lagoon treatment system typically occur over a three
week period and include:
• Disassembling, cleaning, and storing CUD capture
lines, holding tanks, lift pumps, and transfer lines.
• Discharging treated water from the lagoon to
Leviathan Creek.
• Draining treated ARD from the reaction tanks, lines,
and bag filters into the lagoon.
• Draining lime from the feed pumps and lines.
• Disassembling, cleaning, and storing transfer lines,
pumps, and electrical lines.
• Cleaning solids and scale from the interior of the
reaction tanks and lime slurry tank.
• Shipping accumulated solids in the bag filters to an
off-site non-hazardous waste landfill.
• Removing office trailers, portable toilets, generators,
forklift, and man lift.
2.4.6 Lessons Learned
This section discusses the lessons learned during the technical
evaluation of each treatment system. The discussion includes
observations, recommendations, and ideas to be implemented
during future operations and for similar treatment systems.
Lessons learned during the operation of active lime
system include:
treatment
• Lime feed pumps periodically plugged due to lime
scaling. In addition, the lime slurry holding tank is
not mixed, so precipitates tend to cake and form
lumps that plug the outlet. The tank needs to be
mixed to minimize lumping and cake formation, a
higher purity lime needs to be used to improve
pumpability, and a new pumping system needs to be
designed that can handle high concentrations of lime
without plugging.
• Phase II slurry lines from the Phase II clarifier to the
pit clarifier continuously scale, restricting flow.
Better lime control is necessary in the Phase II
reaction tank to minimize excess calcium in the
slurry passing through and scaling pipe surfaces.
• Aeration bars at the bottom of reaction tanks are
undersized (too few holes and too small) and
consistently plug. The aeration system needs to be
redesigned to improve aeration mixing. A better
method is needed to retrieve, maintain, and clean
aeration bars. An alternative would be to use
mechanical means of mixing instead of aeration.
• All process-monitoring probes continuously coat with
scale and become ineffective within one to two
weeks causing the lime dosing system to
malfunction. Presently, pH samples are monitored
externally and lime dosing is manually controlled.
An alternate pH monitoring approach or different
monitoring locations should be evaluated.
• Flocculent dosage is marginally effective for Phase I
solids floe formation. A dosing study should be
conducted or a different flocculent used to improve
Phase I filter cake characteristics.
Lessons learned during the operation of the semi-passive
alkaline lagoon treatment system include:
• The peristaltic pump used for lime delivery
continually plugged due to viscous lime and lime
scaling. A different lirne delivery system needs to be
designed and a higher purity used to improve
pumpability.
20
-------
• Existing variable frequency device and submersible
pumps are under powered for the elevation head
difference between CUD and the treatment facility.
Larger pumps are needed to maintain efficient
transfer of CUD water up to the treatment system.
• Bag filters may limit operations during freezing
temperatures in fall and spring due to icing of the
filter fabric, which will create backpressure within
the system.
• The bag filters cannot be removed from the site until
the end of the treatment season. Solids removal from
the site requires dewatering the bag filters, cutting the
bag filters open, and using a loader to scrape up
material for placement in a roll off bin. A better
method for handling of bag filters is needed.
2.5 Technology Evaluation Results
This section summarizes the evaluation of the metals data
collected during the SITE demonstration with respect to
meeting project objectives. Attainment of project primary
objectives is described in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, while
secondary objectives are provided by treatment system in
Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.4. Solids handling and disposal for
each treatment system is discussed in Section 2.5.5.
Preliminary evaluation of the influent, effluent, and 4-day
average effluent metals data included an assessment of data
characteristics through quantitative and graphical analysis.
Influent, effluent, and 4-day average effluent concentrations
for the 10 metals of interest for each lime treatment system are
presented in Tables B-l through B-3 of Appendix B.
Summary statistics calculated for these data sets include:
mean, median, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation,
which are presented in Tables B-4 through B-6 of Appendix
B. Minimum and maximum concentrations are also presented.
Summary statistics for influent, effluent, and 4-day average
effluent data were determined using Analyze-It Excel
(Analyze-It 2004) and ProUCL (EPA 2004) statistical
software. In addition, frequency, box-and-whisker, and
probability plots were prepared to identify data characteristics
and relationships, evaluate data fit to a distribution (for
example, normal or lognormal), and to identify anomalous
data points or outliers for the 10 target metals for each of the
lime treatment systems. The results of statistical plotting
showed no significant outliers in the influent, effluent, and 4-
day average effluent data; therefore, no data were rejected
from the data sets. The statistical plots also showed the metals
influent and effluent concentrations to be normally distributed.
Statistical plots are documented in the Technology Evaluation
Report Data Summary (Terra Tech 2004).
2.5.7 Primary Objective No.l: Evaluation of
Metals Removal Efficiencies
The evaluation of the lime treatment systems focused on two
primary objectives. The first objective was to determine the
removal efficiencies for the primary metals of concern and the
secondary water quality indicator metals. To successfully
calculate removal efficiencies for each metal, influent
concentrations must be significantly different than effluent
concentrations. Based on preliminary statistical plots
described in Section 2.5, the influent and effluent metals data
sets were found to be normally distributed; therefore a paired
Student's-t test (as described in EPA guidance [EPA 2000])
was used to determine if the influent and effluent
concentrations were statistically different. For this statistical
evaluation, if the P-value (test statistic) was less than the 0.05
significance level (or 95 percent confidence level), then the
two data sets were considered statistically different. With a
few exceptions, influent and effluent concentrations from each
lime treatment system for the 10 metals were found to be
statistically different (P-value was less than 0.05), and for
these metals, removal efficiencies were calculated. Tables 2-2
through 2-4 present the average and range of removal
efficiencies for filtered influent and effluent samples collected
from each treatment system during the SITE demonstration
and also the P-value for the paired Student's-t test analysis.
The average influent and effluent metals concentrations for
each treatment system are also presented. Where influent and
effluent concentrations for a particular metal were not
statistically different (P-value was greater than 0.05), removal
efficiencies were not calculated for that metal, as indicated in
the summary tables. In addition, where one or both
concentrations for a metal were not detected in an individual
influent/effluent data pair, those data points were not included
in the determination of removal efficiencies.
For both modes of active lime treatment system operation, the
average removal efficiency for the primary target metals was
99.6 percent over 20 sampling events, with the exception of
lead at 74.6 to 78.3 percent removal. For the alkaline lagoon
treatment system, the average removal efficiency for the
primary target metals in the ARD was 99.2 percent over
eight sampling events, with the exception of lead at 66.4
percent removal and copper at 58.3 percent removal. Removal
efficiencies for lead during biphasic and monophasic treatment
and copper during alkaline lagoon treatment were less than
other metals because the influent concentrations of these two
metals were already near or below the EPA discharge
standards and the systems were not optimized for removal of
these metals at such low concentrations. In the case of
selenium during active biphasic treatment and selenium and
cadmium during alkaline lagoon treatment, removal
efficiencies were not calculated because the influent and
effluent metals concentrations were not statistically different.
21
-------
Table 2-2. 2002 and 2003 Removal Efficiencies for the Active Lime Treatment System - Biphasic Operation
Target Metal
Number of
Sampling
Events
Average
Influent
Concentration
(ug/L)
Average
Effluent
Concentration
(ug/L)
Paired
Student's-t test
P-value1
Average
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
Range of Removal
Efficiencies (%)
Primary Target Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Nickel
12/1
12/1
12/1
12/1
12/1
381,000
2,239
2,383
461,615
7,024
1,118
8.6
8.0
44.9
34.2
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
99.7
99.6
99.7
100
995
99.2 to 99.9
99.2 to 99.8
99.4 to 99.8
99.9 to 100
99.2 to 99.9
Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
12/1
12/1
12/1
12/1
12/1
54.4
877
7.6
4.3
1,469
0.70
5.7
2.0
3.8
19.3
<0.05
<0.05
O.05
0.65
<0.05
98.7
99.3
78.3
NC
98.7
97.5 to 99.4
93.8 to 99.9
69.2 to 86.7
NC
97.4 to 99.4
1 A P-value less than 0.05 indicates that influent and effluent data are statistically different
ug/L = Microgram per liter
% = Percent
NC = Not calculated as influent and effluent concentrations were not statistically different
Table 2-3. 2003 Removal Efficiencies for the Active Lime Treatment System - Monophasic Operation
Target Metal
Number of
Sampling
Events
Average
Influent
Concentration
(ug/L)
Average
Effluent
Concentration
(ug/L)
Paired
Student's-t test
P-value1
Average
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
Range of Removal
Efficiencies (%)
Primary Target Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Nickel
7
7
7
7
7
107,800
3,236
2,152
456,429
2,560
633
6.3
3.1
176
46.8
<0.05
<0.05
<005
<0.05
O.05
99.5
99.8
99.4
100.0
97.9
99.0 to 99.8
99.7 to 99.9
99.0 to 99.7
99.9 to 100.0
95.7 to 99.3
Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
7
7
7
7
7
26.1
341
6.2
16.6
538
0.2
3.0
1 6
2.1
5.6
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
99.1
99.0
74.6
93.1
98.9
98.4 to 99.7
95.6 to 99.8
48.3 to 89.8
91.0 to 94.4
97.7 to 99.6
1 A P-value less than 0.05 indicates that influent and effluent data are statistically different
Hg/L = micrograms per liter
% = Percent
22
-------
Table 2-4. 2002 Removal Efficiencies for the Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System
Target Metal
Number of
Sampling
Events
Average
Influent
Concentration
(ug/L)
Average
Effluent
Concentration
(ug/L)
Paired
Student's-t test
P-value1
Average
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
' Range of Removal
Efficiencies (%)
Primary Target Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Nickel
8
8
8
8
8
31,988
519
13.5
391,250
1,631
251
5.8
5.5
148
22.6
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
99.2
989
58.3
100
98.6
98.0 to 99.5
97.6 to 99.5
27.7 to 74.5
99.9 to 100
97.2 to 99.1
Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
8
8
8
8
8
0.2988
19.3
5.1
3.3
356
04
2.3
1.7
3.2
14.2
0.12
<0.05
<0.05
0.92
<0.05
NC
88.5
66.4
NC
96.0
NC
83.1 to 92.3
37.7 to 78. 9
NC
90.6 to 98.2
' A P-value less than 0.05 indicates that influent and effluent data are statistically different
NC = Not calculated as influent and effluent concentrations were not statistically different
ug/L = micrograms per liter
% = Percent
Table 2-5. EPA Project Discharge Standards
Target Metals
Maximum (a)
(ue/L)
Average (b)
(«g/D
Primary Target Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Nickel
4,000
340
26
2,000
840
2,000
150
16
1,000
94
Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
9.0
970
136
No Standard
210
4.0
310
5.0
5.0
210
(a) Based on a daily composite of three grab samples
(b) Based on the average of four consecutive daily composite samples
ug/L = micrograms per liter
2.5.2 Primary Objective No. 2: Comparison of
Effluent Data to Discharge Standards
The second primary objective was to determine whether the
concentrations of the primary metals of concern in the effluent
from the lime treatment systems were below EPA discharge
standards, as presented in Table 2-5. In addition, the
attainment of discharge standards for the secondary water
quality parameters was evaluated.
Although direct comparisons of the effluent data to the
maximum and 4-day average discharge standards show that
none of the concentrations exceeded the discharge standards,
additional statistical tests were used to evaluate whether
metals concentrations in the effluent streams were statistically
different from the maximum daily discharge standards. Based
on preliminary statistical plots described in Section 2.5, the
metals effluent and 4-day average effluent concentrations were
shown to be normally distributed; therefore, the one-sample
parametric Student's-t test (as described in EPA guidance
[EPA 2000]) was used in the comparison of the metals
concentrations to the discharge standards. The one-sample
parametric Student's-t test was used to determine if metals
effluent and 4-day average effluent concentrations were
significantly greater than the discharge standards (alternative
or Ha hypothesis). The maximum daily discharge standards,
maximum detected effluent concentrations, and average
effluent concentrations are summarized in Table 2-6 and the 4-
day average discharge standards and 4-day average effluent
concentrations are summarized in Table 2-7. For the metals
data sets that could be analyzed, the 1-tailed P-values (test
statistic) for all of the tests were above the 0.05 significance
level (or 95 percent confidence level) required for acceptance
of the alternative hypothesis. Therefore, none of the effluent
data for the lime treatment systems were considered
significantly greater than the maximum daily discharge
standards or the 4-day average discharge standards for any of
the 10 target metals. There is no maximum daily discharge
standard for selenium; therefore, there are no statistical results
for selenium in Table 2-6.
23
-------
In addition, cadmium was non-detect in all of the effluent
samples collected from the monophasic lime treatment system;
therefore, there are no statistical results for selenium in either
Table 2-6 or 2-7 for the monophasic system.
Although the influent concentrations for the primary target
metals were up to 3,000 fold above EPA discharge standards,
both lime treatment systems were successful in reducing the
concentrations of the primary target metals in the AMD and
ARD to between 4 and 20 fold below the discharge standards.
Table 2-6. Results of the Student's-t Test Statistical Analysis for Maximum Daily Effluent Data
Analyte
Maximum Daily
Discharge Limit
(HE/L)
Alkaline Lagoon Student's-t test Com
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
4,000
340
9
970
26
2,000
136
840
No Standard
210
Maximum Detected
Concentration in
Effluent Stream
(ug/D
Average
Concentration in
Effluent Stream
(UE/L)
1 -Tailed P-value
(Effluent Data >
Maximum Daily
Discharge Limit)
Effluent Concentration
Significantly Greater
than Maximum Daily
Discharge Limit?
(ug/L)
jarisons
639
13
0.70
3.8
8.6
163
3.3
47
6.3
33
251
5.8
0.38
2.3
5.5
148
1.7
23
3.2
14
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Not Tested
1.0
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Not Tested
No
Biphasic Student's-t test Comparisons
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel •
Selenium
Zinc
4,000
340
9
970
26
2,000
136
840
No Standard
210
2,860
12
1.3
46
13
243
4.4
55
7.3
38
1,118
8.6
0.71
5.7
8.1
45.9
2.0
34.2
3.8
19.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Not Tested
1.0
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Not Tested
No
Monophasic Student's-t test Comparisons
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
4,000
340
9
970
26
2,000
136
840
No Standard
210
1,090
11
ND
12
5.4
350
4.5
69
2.6
12
633
6.3
N/A
3.0
3.1
176
1.6
47
2.1
5.6
1.0
1.0
Not Tested
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Not Tested
1.0
No
No
Not Tested
No
No
No
No
No
Not Tested
No
ug/L = micrograms per liter
ND = Not detected (all results for cadmium in the effluent samples during monophasic operations were non-detect)
N/A = Not applicable
24
-------
Table 2-7. Results of the Student's-t Test Statistical Analysis for 4-Day Average Effluent Data
Analyte
4-Day Average
Discharge Limit
(Ug/L)
Alkaline Lagoon Student's-t test Com
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
2,000
150
4
310
16
1.000
5
94
5
210
Maximum
4-Day Average
Concentration in
Effluent Stream
(US/L)
Average
4-Day Average
Concentration in
Effluent Stream
(ne/L)
1 -Tailed P-value
(Effluent Data >
Maximum Daily
Discharge Limit)
Effluent Concentration
Significantly Greater
than Maximum Daily
Discharge Limit?
(HS/L)
parisons
308
6.9
04
2.6
6.3
203
2 1
24.9
3.7
18.4
226
5.3
0.4
2.2
5.3
140
1.7
20.7
3.1
12.4
1 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9996
1.0
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Biphasic Student's-t test Comparisons
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
2,000
150
4
310
16
1,000
5
94
5
210
1,820
9.8
1.0
13.4
9.6
94.3
2.4
498
4.6
27.5
971
8.8
0.77
7.1
8.4
52.4
1.8
35.5
3.9
20.0
0.9999
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Monophasic Student's-t test Comparisons
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
2,000
150
4
310
16
1,000
5
94
5
210
765
8.9
ND
3.9
3.3
250
1.8
67.7
2.2
6.5
579
6.7
N/A
2.7
25
202
1.2
53.9
2.0
5.0
0.9999
1.0
Not Tested
1.0
1.0
10
0.9998
0.9928
1.0
1.0
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
ug/L = micrograms per liter
ND = Not detected (all results for cadmium in the effluent samples during monophasic operations were non-detect)
N/A = Not applicable
In addition, the concentrations of the secondary water quality
indicator metals in the AMD and ARD were reduced to below
the discharge standards. In both cases, statistical analysis
showed that the effluent and 4-day average effluent
concentrations did not exceed the discharge standards.
Process water added during treatment accounted for less than
one-half of one percent of total flow and did not provide
treatment through dilution. These results demonstrate that the
lime treatment systems are extremely effective at neutralizing
acidity and reducing metals content in AMD and ARD to meet
EPA discharge standards for the Leviathan Mine site.
2.5.3 Secondary Objectives for Evaluation of
Active Lime Treatment System Unit
Operations
The evaluation of the active lime treatment system at
Leviathan Mine also included evaluation of four secondary
objectives. These secondary objectives included:
• Documentation of operating parameters and
assessment of critical operating conditions necessary
to optimize system performance.
25
-------
• Monitoring the general chemical characteristics of
the AMD or ARD water as it passes through the
treatment system.
• Evaluating operational performance and efficiency of
solids separation systems.
• Documenting solids transfer, dewatering, and
disposal operations.
Documentation of operating conditions, discussion of reaction
chemistry, evaluation of metals removal by unit operation, and
evaluation of solids separation are presented in the following
sections. The data presented were compiled from observations
during the demonstration as well as data summarized in the
2002 Year-End Report for Leviathan Mine (RWQCB 2003),
2003 Year-End Report for Leviathan Mine (RWQCB 2004),
and the 2003 Early Response Action Completion Report for
Leviathan Mine (ARCO 2004). Solids characterization and
handling is documented in Section 2.5.5.
2.5.3.1 Operating Conditions
Operating conditions for the active lime treatment system in
biphasic and monophasic modes are described below.
Biphasic Operations. Operation of the active lime treatment
system in biphasic mode (Figure 1-2) involved pumping AMD
out of the retention ponds to the head of the treatment system.
Influent was pumped from Pond 1 and discharged into the
Phase I reaction tank at an average flow rate of 638.7 L/min.
Forty-five percent lime slurry was injected into the reaction
tank at an average dose rate of 1,288 milliliter per minute
(mL/min) to increase the pH to approximately 2.8 to 3.0. In
this pH range, a portion of the dissolved ferrous iron is
oxidized to ferric iron and precipitates out of solution (as
ferric hydroxide) along with the majority of dissolved arsenic.
Process water was drawn from upper Leviathan Creek to make
up the lime slurry used in the treatment process. The
AMD/lime slurry was sparged with compressed air at 2,400
L/min and mixed with a stirrer at 60 revolutions per minute
(rpm) for approximately one hour. Following arsenic-rich iron
precipitate formation, the AMD slurry was gravity drained
into the Phase I flash/floe mixing tank where approximately
25 mL/min of Superfloc A-1849 RS (polymer) flocculent was
added to promote aggregation of the arsenic-rich iron
precipitate into a settleable floe. The AMD slurry was then
discharged into the Phase I clarifier for floe settling and
thickening. A floe settling rate of 23.1 mL/min was observed
in a 1,000 milliliter (mL) Imhoff cone, well within the clarifier
average HRT of 59 minutes. Approximately 19 L/min of
solids were recycled from the Phase I clarifier to the Phase I
reaction tank to provide seed for particle nucleation. Phase I
of the treatment process occurred in an average HRT of 124.4
minutes. The thickened arsenic-rich iron solids were
periodically pumped from the bottom of the Phase I clarifier
into sludge holding tanks at an average rate of 11.3 L/min, and
then into a batch filter press for dewatering. The thickened
sludge was pressed twice per day for up to 8 hours, generating
a total 1,320 kilogram (kg) of dry filter cake. Decant from the
filter press was discharge to the Phase II reaction tank at an
average rate of 11.6 L/min during pressing operations.
Supernatant from the Phase I clarifier was gravity drained into
the Phase II reaction tank for additional lime treatment of
remaining acidity and metals. Forty-five percent lime slurry
was injected into the Phase II reaction tank at an average dose
rate of 2,289 mL/min to increase the pH to approximately 7.9
to 8.2. The AMD/lime slurry was sparged with compressed
air at 2,400 L/min and mixed with a stirrer at 60 rpm for
approximately one hour. Following precipitate formation, the
slurry was gravity drained into the Phase II flash/floe mixing
tank where approximately 44 mL/min of polymer flocculent
was added to promote aggregation of the precipitate into a
settleable floe. The AMD slurry was then discharged into the
Phase II clarifier for floe growth and partial thickening;
however, floe was not settled in the clarifier. Instead, the
slurry was pumped at an average flow rate of 638.7 L/min
from the bottom of the Phase II clarifier to the pit clarifier for
extended settling. A floe settling rate of 21.1 mL/min was
observed in a 1,000 mL Imhoff cone, well within the clarifier
average HRT of 59 minutes. Phase II of the treatment process
occurred in an average HRT of 124.4 minutes. The pit
clarifier provided an additional 79 hours (on average) of HRT
for dissolution and reaction of any remaining lime with
dissolved metals, oxidation and precipitation of residual
ferrous iron, and precipitation of floe. Unsettled floe was
captured on a silt screen near the discharge structure. An
adjustable standpipe was used to control clarifier water
elevation and HRT. On average, the pit clarifier captured
5,544 kg of dry solids per day at an average flow rate of 638.7
L/min. A summary of the system operational parameters is
presented in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8. Biphasic Unit Operations Parameters
Parameter
System Influent Flow Rate
Phase I Lime Dosage Rate
Phase I Reaction Time
Phase I Aeration Rate
Phase I Flocculent Dosage Rate
Phase I Solids Recycle Rate
Phase 1 Solids Settling Rate
Phase I Residence Time
Filter Press Decant Rate
Filter Cake Generation Rate
Phase II Lime Dosage Rate
Phase 11 Reaction Time
Phase II Aeration Rate
Phase II Flocculent Dosage Rate
Phase II Clanfier Solids Settling Rate
Phase II Hydraulic Residence Time
Pit Clarifier Solids Accumulation Rate
Pit Clarifier Residence Time
System Effluent Flow Rate
Units
(L/min)
(mL/min)
(min)
(L/min)
(mL/min)
(L/min)
(mL/min)
(min)
(L/min)
(kg/day)
(mL/min)
(min)
(L/min)
(mL/min)
(mL/min)
(min)
(kg/day)
(hr)
(L/min)
Range
586.7 to 662.4
1,183 to 1,335
64.5 to 57.1
2,400
22.9 to 25.9
18.9
23.1
135.5 to 120
11.6
1,320.1
2, 103 to 2,374
64.5 to 57.1
2,400
40 to 45. 2
21.1
135.5 to 120
5,093 to 5750
86 to 76.2
227.1 to 908.4
Average
638.7
1,288
59.3
2,400
24.9
18.9
23.1
124.4
11.6
1,320.1
2,289
59.3
2,400
43.6
21.1
124.4
5,544.2
79
681.3
hr = hour mm = Minute
kg/day = Kilogram per day mL/mm = Milliliter per minute
L/mm = Liter per minute
26
-------
Monophasic Operations. The active lime treatment system
operated in the monophasic mode (Figure 1-3) utilizes the
same process equipment as the system operated in biphasic
mode; however, the precipitation process results in a single
output stream of metals-laden precipitate that is thickened in
the Phase II clarifier and dewatered using the batch filter
press. Other changes between operations include a lower
influent flow rate of up to 246 L/min (due to HRT and
thickening limitations of the Phase II clarifier), a lower lime
dosage rate, and a difference in the makeup of the source
water. Operation of the active lime treatment system in
monophasic mode involved pumping low arsenic content
ARD (50 percent from the CUD and 17.6 percent from Delta
Seep) and high-arsenic content AMD (32.4 percent from Adit
No.5) to the head of the treatment system. The blended
influent was pumped to the Phase I reaction tank at an average
flow rate of 222.6 L/min. Forty-five percent lime slurry was
injected into the reaction tank at an average dose rate of
228.8 mL/min to increase the pH from 3.4 to 5.0. The purpose
of this initial lime addition was to extend the period of lime
dissolution and reaction with target metals. The slurry was
sparged with compressed air at 2,400 L/min and mixed with a
stirrer at 60 rpm for 170 minutes. The first phase of the
monophasic treatment process occurred in an average HRT of
357 minutes.
The partially treated slurry was gravity drained from the
Phase I clarifier into the Phase II reaction tank for additional
lime treatment of remaining acidity and metals. Forty-five
percent lime slurry was injected into the Phase II reaction tank
at an average dose rate of 122.1 mL/min to increase the pH to
approximately 7.3 to 7.5. The ARD/lime slurry was sparged
with compressed air at 2,400 L/min and mixed with a stirrer at
60 rpm for 170 minutes. Following precipitate formation, the
slurry was gravity drained into the Phase II flash/floe mixing
tank where approximately 7 mL/min of polymer flocculent
was added to promote aggregation of the precipitate into a
settleable floe. The ARD slurry was then discharged into the
Phase II clarifier for floe settling and thickening. A floe
settling rate of 42.9 mL/min was observed in a 1,000 mL
Imhoff cone, well within the clarifier average HRT of
170 minutes. The second phase of the monophasic treatment
process occurred in an average HRT of 357 minutes. The
thickened solids were periodically pumped from the bottom of
the Phase II clarifier into sludge holding tanks at an average
rate of 11.3 L/min, and then into a batch filter press for
dewatering. The thickened sludge was pressed twice per day
for up to 8 hours, generating a total 431 kg of dry filter cake.
Decant from the filter press was discharge to the Phase II
reaction tank at an average rate of 11.8 L/min during pressing
operations. A summary of the system operational parameters
is presented in Table 2-9.
2.5.3.2 Reaction Chemistry
The reaction chemistry for the active lime treatment system in
biphasic and monophasic modes is described below.
Table 2-9. Monophasic Unit Operation Parameters
Parameter
System Influent Flow Rate
Phase I Lime Dosage Rate
Phase I Reaction Time
Phase I Aeration Rate
Phase I Hydraulic Residence Time
Phase II Lime Dosage Rate
Phase II Reaction Time
Phase II Aeration Rate
Phase II Flocculent Dosage Rate
Phase II Solids Settling Rate
Phase II Hydraulic Residence Time
Filter Press Decant Rate
Filter Cake Generation Rate
System Effluent Flow Rate
Units
(L/min)
(mL/min)
(min)
(L/min)
(min)
(mL/min)
(min)
(L/min)
(mL/min)
(mL/min)
(mm)
(L/mm)
(kg/day)
(L/min)
Range
210.5 to 246
216 to 253.2
179 8 to 153.9
2,400
377.6 to 323.1
115.4 to 134.7
179.8 to 153.9
2,400
6.4 to 7.4
42.9
377.6 to 323.1
11.8
408 to 476
210.5 to 246
Average
222.6
228.8
170
2,400
357.1
122.1
170
2,400
6.7
42.9
357.1
11.8
431
222.6
tg/day = Kilogram per day min = Minute
L/min = Liter per minute mL/min = Milliliter per minute
Biphasic Reaction Chemistry. Changes in AMD chemistry
within the Phase I reaction tank are driven by the addition of
lime and aeration of the AMD slurry. Lime addition
consumes mineral acidity, raises solution pH, shifts the iron
stability field toward ferric iron, and provides a source of
hydroxide ion for ferric hydroxide formation. During
precipitation, a large portion of the arsenic adsorbs to the
ferric hydroxide precipitate. Aeration of the AMD slurry
oxidizes ferrous iron to ferric iron and provides a source of
dissolved oxygen for iron oxide formation, reducing the
overall lime requirement. During Phase I of the biphasic
process, reaction pH increased from 2.75 to 3.37 after lime
addition, ferrous iron decreased from 8.2 to 7.8 mg/L, total
iron decreased 15 percent from 558 to 500 mg/L, and arsenic
decreased 94 percent from 2.93 to 0.171 mg/L. The data
indicate that the majority of the iron is already in the ferric
oxidation state, a small quantity of ferrous iron was oxidized
to ferric iron, and arsenic co-precipitated with the ferric
hydroxide. The data also indicate that mineral acidity was
reduced as evidenced by an increase in pH and a decrease in
solution ORP. Excess sulfate was removed from solution in
the presence of excess calcium to form gypsum.
Additional changes in AMD slurry chemistry were observed
in the Phase I clarifier, primarily due to the continued
dissolution and reaction of lime with dissolved metals as well
as settling of metal hydroxide and oxyhydroxide precipitates
within the clarifier. Clarifier effluent pH increased from 3.37
to 3.73, ferrous iron decreased from 7.8 to 5.5 mg/L, total iron
decreased 74 percent from 500 to 128 mg/L, and arsenic
decreased another 29 percent from 0.171 to 0.121 mg/L. Field
and analytical laboratory chemical parameters documenting
Phase I reaction chemistry are provided in Table 2-10.
Changes in AMD chemistry within the Phase II reaction tank
is also driven by the addition of lime and aeration of the AMD
slurry. Reaction pH increased from 3.73 to 6.84 after excess
27
-------
Table 2-10. Biphasic Phase I Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry
Parameter
pH
Oxidation Reduction Potential
Total Iron (dissolved)
Ferrous Iron
Specific Conductance
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Sulfate
Total Alkalinity
Total Dissolved Solids
Unit
(SU)
(mV)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(umhos/cm)
(mg/L)
(°C)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Phase I Reactor
Influent
2.75
504
553
8.2
4,407
4.3
19.9
4,830
< 0.002
8,710
Effluent
3.37
428
83.7
78
4,045
4.5
20.8
4,040
<2
6,360
Change
0.62
-76
-469.3
-0.4
-362
0.2
0.9
-790
NC
-2,350
Phase I Clarifier
Influent
3.37
428
83.7
7.8
4,045
4.5
20.8
4,040
<2
6,360
Effluent
373
396
61.8
5.5
3,645
4.4
20.8
4,130
<2
6,490
Change
0.36
-32
-21.9
-2.3
-400
-0.1
0
90
NC
130
Hmhos/cm = Micromhos per centimeter mV = Millivolt NC = Not calculated
°C = Degree Celsius mg/L = Milligram per liter SU = Standard unit
lime addition, ferrous iron decreased 71 percent from 5.5 to
1.6 mg/L, total iron decreased 99 percent from 61.8 to
0.285 mg/L, and arsenic decreased 92 percent from 0.121 to
0.089 mg/L. The data indicate that the majority of the iron
was converted to the ferric oxidation state, arsenic continued
to co-precipitate with the ferric hydroxide, and that 54 to
99 percent of all other metals were precipitated from solution
as metal hydroxides and oxyhydroxides. The remaining
mineral acidity was completely consumed by excess lime in
solution, yielding a bicarbonate alkalinity of 7 mg/L. Excess
sulfate continued to be removed from solution in the presence
of excess calcium to form gypsum.
Additional changes in AMD slurry chemistry were observed
in the pit clarifier, primarily due to the continued dissolution
and reaction of lime with dissolved metals as well as settling
of metal hydroxide and oxyhydroxide precipitates within the
pit clarifier. The extended HRT in the pit clarifier allowed
between 16 and 80 percent removal of dissolved metals after
initial settling. Total and ferrous iron was no longer detected
in solution. Clarifier effluent pH increased from 6.84 to 8.07
within the Phase II plate clarifier (pass through only) then
decreased to 7.64 in the discharge from the pit clarifier.
Bicarbonate alkalinity initially increased to 19.8 mg/L within
the Phase II plate clarifier, before decreasing to 12.8 mg/L in
the pit clarifier effluent. Approximately 30 percent of the
combined hydrated lime dose 4.45 gram per liter (g/L) was
used to neutralize acidity, while the remainder of the dissolved
lime was used for formation of metal hydroxide precipitates
and alkalinity. A small portion of the lime never dissolves,
remaining as inert solid. Field and analytical laboratory
chemical parameters documenting Phase I reaction chemistry
are provided in Table 2-11.
Monophasic Reaction Chemistry. Monophasic operation of
the active lime treatment system differs from biphasic
operation in that arsenic is not being selectively removed from
solution prior to precipitation of all other metals. In addition,
the Phase I reaction tank is used during Monophasic
operations, but only to increase the time available for
dissolution of lime. Finally, the source water treated was a
blend of ARE) and AMD. During Phase I of the monophasic
process, reaction pH increased from 3.44 to 5.1 after addition
of a large dose of lime, ferrous iron decreased from 8.2 to
6.4 mg/L, total iron decreased 58.5 percent from 485 to
201 mg/L, and 38 to 99 percent of all other metals (primarily
aluminum, arsenic, copper, chromium) were precipitated from
solution as metal hydroxides and oxyhydroxides. The data
indicate that the majority of the iron is already in the ferric
oxidation state, a small quantity of ferrous iron was oxidized
to ferric iron, and mineral acidity was reduced as evidenced by
an increase in pH and a decrease in solution ORP. Excess
sulfate was removed from solution in the presence of excess
calcium to form gypsum.
Changes in chemistry within the Phase II reaction tank was
driven by the addition of a second small dose of lime to the
ARD/AMD slurry. Reaction pH increased from 5.04 to 7.28
after excess lime addition, ferrous iron was completely
oxidized to ferric iron, total iron decreased 99 percent from
201 to 2.16 mg/L, and 77 to 99 percent of all remaining metals
were precipitated from solution as metal hydroxides and
oxyhydroxides. The remaining mineral acidity was
completely consumed by excess lime in solution, yielding a
bicarbonate alkalinity of 47.6 rng/L. Excess sulfate was not
substantially reduced, likely due to the limited amount of
calcium available for super saturation of the solution with
respect to gypsum.
Additional changes in ARD/AMD slurry chemistry were
observed in the Phase II clarifier, primarily due to the
continued dissolution and reaction of lime with dissolved
metals as well as settling of metal hydroxide and
oxyhydroxide precipitates within the clarifier. Clarifier
influent pH changed substantially after the ARD/AMD slurry
was discharged from the Phase II reactor, increasing from 7.28
to 8.01. Sulfate dropped 80 mg/L prior to entering the
clarifier, and another 150 mg/L prior to discharge. Both of
these observations demonstrate that additional lime dissolution
28
-------
Table 2-11. Biphasic Phase II Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry
Parameter
PH
Oxidation Reduction Potential
Total Iron (dissolved)
Ferrous Iron
Specific Conductance
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Sulfate
Total Alkalinity
Total Dissolved Solids
Unit
(SU)
(mV)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(nmhos/cm)
(mg/L)
(°C)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Phase II Reactor
Influent
3.73
396
61.8
5.5
3,645
4.4
20.8
4,130
<2
6,490
Effluent
6.84
227
0.285
1 6
3,765
3 1
20.5
2,890
7
3,960
Change
3.11
-169
-61.5
-3.9
120
-1.3
-0.3
-1,240
7
-2,530
Pit Clarifier
Influent
8.07
142
0.096
<0.1
3,500
3.3
20.9
2,610
19.8
3.800
Effluent
7.64
143
< 0.038
<0.1
3,400
3.6
21
2,520
12.8
3,670
Change
-0.43
1
-0.058
0
-100
0.3
0.1
-90
-7
-130
(imhos/cm = Micromhos per centimeter mV = Millivolt SU = Standard unit
°C = Degree Celsius mg/L = Milligram per liter
occurred and that gypsum formed with the dissolution of
calcium into solution. Approximately 67 percent of the
combined hydrated lime dose 1.29 g/L was used to neutralize
acidity, while the remainder of the dissolved lime was used for
formation of metal hydroxide precipitates and alkalinity. A
small portion of the lime never dissolves, remaining as inert
solid. Field and analytical laboratory chemical parameters
documenting monophasic reaction chemistry are provided in
Table 2-12.
2.5.3.3 Metals Removal by Unit Operation
Metals removal by each unit operation of the active lime
treatment system is described below for both the biphasic and
monophasic modes of operation.
Biphasic Operations. Aluminum, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, iron, nickel, and zinc are the metals of
concern in the AMD from the retention ponds. All of the
dissolved metals of concern exceeded their discharge
standards after lime addition, mixing, and air sparging in the
Phase I reaction tank. Phase I reaction tank metals removal
efficiencies ranged from -1.41 to 94.16 percent, with the
majority of the mass removal associated with arsenic,
chromium, and iron. All of the dissolved metals of concern
exceeded their discharge standards after settling in the Phase I
clarifier, with the exception of arsenic, which appears to have
continued co-precipitation with iron.
Following lime addition, mixing, and air sparging in the
Phase II reaction tank, only dissolved lead and nickel
exceeded their respective discharge standards. Phase II
reaction tank removal efficiencies ranged from 54 to
99.74 percent, with the majority of the mass removal
associated with aluminum, copper, iron, nickel, and zinc.
Almost all of the metals of concern met discharge standards in
the pit clarifier after an extended residence time for lime
dissolution, reaction, and precipitate settling. Aluminum
exceeded the 4 day moving average discharge standard, but
not the daily maximum standard due to a pH excursion above
7.5. Aluminum typically reenters solution in a basic solution
with low solution ionic strength. Treatment system removal
efficiencies for the metals of concern ranged from 99.26
percent for zinc to 99.99 percent for iron. A summary of unit
operations concentration and removal efficiency data for the
metals of concern is presented in Table 2-13 for both Phase I
and Phase II unit operations.
An evaluation of metals and sulfate load reduction was
prepared for biphasic operations based on unit operations data
collected on August 12, 2003. A total metals load of 1,287 kg
and a sulfate load of 4,541 kg entered the active lime
treatment system. A total of 524 kg of metals and 743 kg of
sulfate were precipitated out of solution, following the
addition of 1,507 kg of hydrated lime to the AMD in the Phase
I reaction tank, leaving 1,207 kg of metals and 3,798 kg of
sulfate in solution. The Phase I clarifier separated 498 kg of
metals and 658 kg of sulfate from solution, allowing 1,234 kg
of metals (1,131 kg in solution) to discharge to the Phase II
reaction tank. A total of 1,527 kg of metal precipitate,
gypsum, and undissolved hydrated lime (Phase I clarifier
settled solids) was discharged to the filter press for
dewatering, generating a filter cake containing 518.7 kg of
metals and a filter press decant containing 10.8 kg of metals.
The filter press decant was discharged to the Phase II reaction
tank for additional metals removal.
An additional 540 kg of metals and 1,166 kg of sulfate were
precipitated out of solution, following addition of 2,680 kg of
hydrated lime to the AMD slurry in the Phase II reaction tank,
leaving 1,532 kg of metals and 2,717 kg of sulfate in solution.
The Phase II clarifier was not used to separate metals from
solution, instead serving as a retention tank for additional
metals precipitate formation. A total of 7,188 kg of soluble
metals, metal precipitate, gypsum, and undissolved hydrated
29
-------
Table 2-12. Monophasic Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry
Parameter
pH
Redox Potential
Total Iron
Ferrous Iron
Specific Conductance
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Sulfate
Total Alkalinity
Total Dissolved Solids
Unit
(SU)
(mV)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(umhos/cm)
(mg/L)
(°C)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Phase I Reactor
Influent
3.44
349
485
8.2
2577
4.5
L_ 16
2510
<2
4370
Effluent | Change
5.1
101
201
6.4
2370
3.9
16.4
2030
<2
3450
1.66
-248
-284
-1.8
-207
-0.6
0.4
-480
0
-920
Phase II Reactor
Influent
5.04
147
201
3.2
2210
4.7
17.4
2020
<2
3440
Effluent
7.28
33
2.16
<0.1
2320
4.5
17.7
2070
47.6
3400
Change
2.24
-114
-198.8
-3.2
110
-0.2
0.3
50
46.6
-40
Phase II Clarifier
Influent
8.01
6
0.232
<0.1
2155
4.2
18.2
1990
47.6
3170
Effluent 1 Change
7.91
5
0.221
<0.1
2247
4.4
15.9
1840
43
3190
-0.1
-1
-0.011
0
92
0.2
-2.3
-150
-4.6
20
(imhos/cm = Micromhos per centimeter mV = Millivolt SU = Standard unit
°C = Degree Celsius mg/L = Milligram per liter
Table 2-13. Biphasic Unit Operation Metals Removal Efficiencies
Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Phase I Reactor
Influent
(ne/L)
371,000
2,930
55.6
1,000
2,210
553,000
1.7
6,490
<2.6
1,420
Effluent
(Hg/L)
347,000
171
51.2
529
2,090
83,700
5.3
6,230
4.8
1,440
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
6.47
94.16
7.91
47.10
5.43
84.86
-211.76
4.01
-72.92
-1.41
Phase I Clarifier
Effluent
(Hg/L)
335,000
121
52.3
549
2,080
61,800
15.0
6,480
<13
1,490
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
3.46
29.24
-2.15
-378
0.48
26.16
-183.02
-4.01
-26.15
-3.47
Phase II Reactor
Effluent
(Hg/L)
878
8.9
2.8
4
78
285
6.9
399
<2.6
15.2
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
99.74
92.64
94.65
99.27
99.63
99.54
54.00
93.84
80.00
98.98
Pit Clarifier
Influent
(Mg/L)
2,950
6.1
0.57
5
7.5
96.3
6.1
45.9
<2.6
12.5
Effluent
(Hg/L)
2,200
<7.7
0.35
3.9
<5.8
<38.4
4.4
25
<2.6
10.4
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
25.42
36.89
38.60
22.00
61.33
80.06
27.87
45.53
0.00
16.80
% = Percent (jg/L = Microgram per liter
lime was pumped out of the bottom of the Phase II clarifier up
hill to the pit clarifier for final settling, generating 5,642 kg of
clarifier solids. A total of 1,318 kg of metals (primarily
calcium), 2,369 kg of sulfate, and 228 kg of suspended solids
were discharge from the pit clarifier to Leviathan Creek. A
total of 4,187 kg of hydrated lime was required to neutralize
2,464 kg acidity (as hydrated lime) and precipitate 906 kg of
metals (excluding added calcium) and 2,172 kg of sulfate from
the AMD on August 12, 2003.
Monophasic Operations. Aluminum, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, iron, nickel, selenium, and zinc are the
metals of concern in the combined AMD and ARD from the
adit, PUD, CUD, and Delta Seep. All of the dissolved metals
of concern, with the exception of chromium, exceeded their
discharge standards after lime addition, mixing, and air
sparging in the Phase I reaction tank. Phase I reaction tank
removal efficiencies ranged from 38.77 to 99.42 percent, with
the majority of the mass removal associated with aluminum,
arsenic, chromium, copper, and iron. However, metals were
not settled out of solution in the Phase I clarifier; instead the
slurry was discharged to the Phase II reaction tank. Following
lime addition, mixing, and air sparging in the Phase II reaction
tank; only dissolved iron exceeded its discharge standard.
Phase II reaction tank removal efficiencies ranged from 77.06
to 99.47 percent, with the majority of the mass removal
associated with aluminum, arsenic, nickel, and iron. Arsenic
appears to have co-precipitated with iron in both the Phase I
and Phase II reaction tanks. Additional aluminum and iron
precipitation occurred in the flash/floe tank between the Phase
II reaction tank and the Phase II clarifier. All of the metals of
concern met discharge standards in the Phase II clarifier
effluent. Treatment system removal efficiencies for the metals
of concern ranged from 80.43 percent for lead to 99.95 percent
for iron. A summary of unit operations concentration and
removal efficiency data for the metals of concern is presented
in Table 2-14.
An evaluation of metals and sulfate load reduction was
prepared for monophasic operations based on unit operations
data collected on July 3, 2003. A total metals load of 294.3 kg
and a sulfate load of 779.8 kg entered the active lime
treatment system. A total of 119 kg of metals and 149 kg of
sulfate were precipitated out of solution, following the
addition of 260.7 kg of hydrated lime to the combined ARD
and AMD in the Phase I reaction tank, leaving 293.3 kg of
metals and 630.7 kg of sulfate in solution. The slurry passed
30
-------
Table 2-14. Monophasic Unit Operation Removal Metals Efficiencies
Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Phase I Reactor
Influent
(HB/L)
119,000
3,470
45.7
327
549
485,000
2.3
2,760
29.4
583
Effluent
(Hg/L)
4,360
709
15
1.9
52.7
201,000
3.8
1,690
13
342
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
96.34
79.57
67.18
99.42
90.40
58.56
-65.22
38.77
55.78
41.34
Phase 11 Reactor
Influent
(Hg/L)
4,360
709
15
1.9
52.7
201,000
3.8
1,690
13
342
Effluent
(H8/L)
1,000
17.6
<0 16
3.2
4.7
2,160
<0.9
68.2
<1.8
127
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
77.06
97.52
99.47
-68.42
91.08
98.93
96.54
95.96
93.08
96.29
Phase II Clarifler
Influent
(HK/L)
509
5.7
<0.16
0.79
2
232
<0.9
47.8
<1.8
7.8
% = Percent jag/L = Microgram per liter
Effluent
(MS/L)
584
<9.7
O.16
<0.67
<1.9
221
<0.9
41.8
<1.8
2.6
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
-14.73
1491
0.00
57.59
52.50
4.74
0.00
12.55
0.00
66.67
through the Phase I clarifier with minimal precipitate settling
and discharged into the Phase II reaction tank. An additional
159.6 kg of metals was precipitated out of solution, following
addition of 139.3 kg of hydrated lime to the ARD/AMD slurry
in the Phase II reaction tank, leaving 261.7 kg of metals and
643.1 kg of sulfate in solution. The sulfate load increased by a
total of 15 kg within the Phase II reaction tank. The Phase II
clarifier separated 141.6 kg of metals and 71.5 kg of sulfate
from solution, allowing 279.7 kg of metals (primarily calcium)
and 571.6 kg of sulfate to discharge to Leviathan Creek. A
total of 439.5 kg of metal precipitate, gypsum, and
undissolved hydrated lime (Phase II clarifier settled solids)
was discharged to the filter press for dewatering, generating a
filter cake containing 216.1 kg of metals and a filter press
decant containing 5.7 kg of metals. The filter press decant
was discharged to the Phase II reaction tank for additional
metals removal. A total of 400 kg of hydrated lime was
required to neutralize 300 kg acidity (as hydrated lime) and
precipitate 190.9 kg of metals (excluding added calcium) and
208.2 kg of sulfate from the AMD on July 3, 2003.
2.5.3.4 Solids Separation
Metals and solids removal by solids separation techniques
used during the operation of the active lime treatment system
is described below for both the biphasic and monophasic
modes of operation.
Biphasic Operations. Precipitate generated during operation
of the active lime treatment system in biphasic mode is
separated from AMD using plate clarifiers, a filter press, and a
pit clarifier with extended hydraulic residence time. Phase I of
the treatment process is optimized for precipitation of arsenic
and iron from solution; therefore, Phase I solids separation
techniques are focused on minimizing the mass of arsenic-rich
hazardous waste requiring disposal. Over 67 percent of
arsenic in solution was removed in the Phase I plate clarifier
and over 99 percent of the arsenic was removed from the
settled solids. Chromium, iron, and selenium were also
precipitated from solution during Phase I of the treatment
process. The Phase I plate clarifier removed over 99 percent
of suspended solids from solution. Additional suspended
solids removal could be achieved by adding more polymer
during the flocculation process. The filter press concentrated
arsenic, chromium, iron, selenium, and settled solids by 80 to
99 percent. Metals and solids removal efficiencies for Phase I
solids separation equipment are provided in Table 2-15.
The Phase I clarifier operated with a HRT of 59 minutes, well
within a solids settling time of 43 minutes. Metals and solids
were concentrated between 120 and 3,250 percent in the
Phase I clarifier. The clarifier operated with a 45 to
60 centimeter thick sludge blanket with periodic transfer of
settled solids (11.3 L/min for up to 7 minutes per hour
[min/hr]) to the sludge holding tanks for dewatering with a
filter press. Seed floe was provided to the Phase I reaction
tank through the transfer of settled solids from the clarifier at
19 L/min. .The filter press required approximately 8 hours per
pressing with two pressings per day at a feed rate of 19 L/min,
initially generating 11.6 L/min of decant that was discharged
to the Phase II reaction tank. The time required for filter
pressing could be reduced through generation of larger particle
sizes during the flocculation and clarification process. The
filter press generated 1,320 kg of cake per day with a moisture
content ranging from 54 to 63 percent. Filter cake was
dropped from the filter press into a roll-off bin for off-site
disposal as a hazardous waste.
Phase II of the treatment process is optimized for precipitation
of the remaining metals from solution, generating a non-
hazardous solid waste stream. The Phase II plate clarifier was
not operated for solids thickening, serving as a tank for
particle growth prior to extended settling in the pit clarifier.
Particle growth in the plate clarifier provided an additional 13
to 44 percent removal of dissolved metals (primarily
aluminum and iron) from solution. Extended settling in the pit
clarifier promoted removal of 96 to 99 percent of metals and
suspended solids from solution. Effluent from the pit clarifier
met EPA discharge criteria. Additional suspended solids
31
-------
Table 2-15. Biphasic Phase I and Phase II Solids Separation Efficiencies
Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
TSS
Phase I Clarifier
Until tered
Influent
(H8/L)
361,000
2,110
53.2
973
2.200
500,000
6.5
6,430
5.5
1,450
3,660,000
Unflitered
Effluent
(Hg/L)
339,000
688
50.4
499
2,060
128,000
7.0
6,110
3.0
1,420
268,000
Percent
Removal
(%)
6.09
,_ 67.39
5.26
48.72
6.36
74.40
-7.69
4.98
4545
2.07
99.99
Filter Press
Unflitered
Solids
(HS/L)
543,000
19,000
64.5
4,430
2,740
3,030,000
42.3
5,540
< 13
1,220
119,000,000
Unflitered
Effluent
(HB/L)
61,100
35.3
31 0
16.6
375.00
8,980.00
5.8
3,650
<2.6
766
67,000
Percent
Removal
(%)
8875
99.81
51.94
9963
86.31
99.70
86.29
34.12
8000
3721
99.94
Phase II Clarifier
Unflitered
Influent
(ne/L)
305,000
698
45.8
461
1,740
124,000
12.7
5,530
<26
1.300
6,990,000
Unflitered
Effluent
(ne/L)
239,000
412
37.2
344
1,360
79,000
7.1
4,780
<2.6
976
6,140,000
Percent
Removal
(%)
21.64
40.97
18.78
2538
21.84
36.29
44.09
1356
0.00
24.92
12.16
Pit Clarifier
Unflitered
Effluent
(ffi/L)
2,690
< 10.3
<0.39
4.0
6.6
289
6.0
32.6
<2.6
8.4
243,000
Percent
Removal
("/»)
98.87
97.50
98.95
98.84
9951
99.63
1549
9932
0.00
99.14
96.04
% = Percent Hg/L = Microgram per liter
removal could be achieved by adding more polymer during the
flocculation process. Metals and solids removal efficiencies
for Phase II solids separation equipment are provided in Table
2-15.
The Phase II plate clarifier operated with a HRT of
59 minutes, well within a solids settling time of 47 minutes.
However, the plate clarifier is unable to handle the solids load
generated at the system treatment rate. Therefore the solids
slurry was pumped out of the bottom of the plate clarifier and
up hill for extended settling in the 3.1 million liter pit clarifier.
The pit clarifier provided an average of 79 hours of HRT for
dissolution and reaction of any remaining lime with metals
and solids settling. Approximately 1 million liters of solids
slurry were discharged to the pit clarifier each day, generating
5,544 kg of solids. On average 23 centimeters of air dried
sludge is deposited in the pit clarifier during a treatment
season. Air dried, non-hazardous sludge is removed from the
pit clarifier every three years and disposed of on site.
Approximately six weeks was required to reduce the water
content of the sludge from 97.5 to 80.3 percent moisture.
Monophasic Operations. Precipitate generated during
operation of the active lime treatment system in monophasic
mode is separated from AMD using a plate clarifier and a
filter press. Phase I process equipment was used to provide an
initial bump in the pH of the combined ARD/AMD. The
Phase I plate clarifier was not operated for solids thickening,
serving as a tank for particle growth prior to discharge to the
Phase II reaction tank. The Phase II plate clarifier removed
between 83 and 99 percent of the metals and 99 percent of
suspended solids from solution prior to supernatant discharge
to Leviathan Creek. The filter press concentrated metals and
settled solids by 99 percent. Metals and solids removal
efficiencies for Phase II solids separation equipment are
provided in Table 2-16.
The Phase II clarifier operated with a HRT of 170 minutes,
well within a solids settling time of 23.3 minutes. Metals and
solids were concentrated between 720 and 2,770 in the
Phase II clarifier. The clarifier operated with a 60 to
75 centimeter thick sludge blanket with periodic transfer of
settled solids (11.3 L/min for up to 7 min/hr) to the sludge
holding tanks for dewatering with a filter press. The filter
press required approximately 8 hours per pressing with two
pressings per day at a feed rate of 19 L/min, initially
generating 11.6 L/min of decant that was discharged to the
Phase II reaction tank. The time required for filter pressing
could be reduced through generation of larger particle sizes
during the flocculation and clarification process. The filter
press generated 431 kg of cake per day with a moisture
content of 76 percent. Filter cake was dropped from the filter
press into a roll-off bin for off-site disposal as a hazardous
waste.
2.5.4 Secondary Objectives for Evaluation of
Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment
System Unit Operations
The evaluation of the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment
system at Leviathan Mine also included evaluation of four
secondary objectives (see Section 2.5.3). Documentation of
operating conditions, discussion of reaction chemistry,
evaluation of metals removal by unit operation, and evaluation
of solids separation are presented in the following sections.
The data presented were compiled from observations during
the demonstration as well as data summarized in the 2002
Early Response Action Completion Report for Leviathan Mine
(ARCO 2003). Solids characterization and handling is
documented in Section 2.5.5.
2.5.4.1 Operating Conditions
Operation of the alkaline lagoon treatment system (Figure 1-4)
involved pumping ARD from the CUD to the head of the
treatment system, adjacent to the settling lagoon. ARD was
32
-------
Table 2-16. Monophasic Solids Separation Efficiencies
Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
TSS
Phase II Clarifier
Unfiltered
Influent
(Hg/L)
77,900
1,850
24.6
213
330
267,000
2.7
1,860
16
386
1,490,000
Unfiltered
Effluent
(Hg/L)
910
<15.9
<0.16
<1.7
<2.5
1,360
<0.9
50.2
<1.8
5.8
< 10,000
Percent
Removal
(%)
98.83
99.57
99.67
99.60
99.62
99.49
83.33
97.30
94.38
98.50
99.66
Filter Press
Unfiltered
Clarifier
(Hg/D
632,000
16,100
220
1,800
2,750
2,500,000
74.8
13,400
<1.8
3,100
12,400,000
Unfiltered
Effluent
(Ug/L)
245
9.1
<0.16
7.6
<1.9
226
<0.9
60.8
<1.8
<1.3
< 10,000
Percent
Removal
(%)
99.96
99.94
99.96
99.58
99.97
99.99
99.39
99.55
0.00
99.98
99.96
% = Percent ug/L = Microgram per liter
pumped uphill from the CUD at an average flow rate of
78.7 L/min into the first lime contact reactor. Forty-five
percent lime slurry was injected into the reaction tank at an
average dosage rate of 52.4 mL/min to increase the pH of the
ARD to approximately 8.0. Process water was drawn from
upper Leviathan Creek to make up the lime slurry used in the
treatment process. The lime slurry was mixed with the ARD
by sparging compressed air into the tank at 378 L/min. The
partially treated ARD was then gravity drained into a second
reaction tank where additional lime (52.4 mL/min) was
injected in the slurry and sparged with air. The process was
repeated in a third reaction tank. Sequential addition of lime
in three reaction tanks was used to ensure lime dissolution and
maximize oxidation of ferrous iron to ferric iron, which
reduces lime demand. Following metal precipitate formation,
the ARD slurry was gravity drained to five bag filters for
separation of metal precipitate from solution. On average, the
five bag filters captured a total of 88.9 kg of dry solids per
day. ARD slurry passing through the five bag filters was
discharge to the settling lagoon at a combined average flow
rate of 78.7 L/min. The active portion of the treatment process
occurred in an average HRT of 144 minutes. The passive
settling lagoon provided an average of 16.7 days HRT (using
an operational volume of 1,892,500 liters) for dissolution and
reaction of any remaining lime with dissolved metals,
oxidation and precipitation of residual ferrous iron, and
precipitation of solids passing through the bag filters.
Unsettled solids are captured on two silt screens within the
lagoon. On average, the settling lagoon captured 29.2 kg of
dry solids per day at an average flow rate of 78.7 L/min. A
summary of the system operational parameters is presented in
Table 2-17.
2.5.4.2 Reaction Chemistry
Operation of the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment
system is similar to monophasic operation of the active lime
treatment system, in that selective precipitation of a single
metal prior to precipitation of all other metals is not necessary.
Lime addition occurs in three consecutive steps to provide
adequate time for lime dissolution and contact with dissolved
metals in the ARD. Aeration is used for both mixing of the
ARD slurry as well as to promote oxidation of ferrous to ferric
iron, thereby decreasing lime demand. Following lime
addition and aeration mixing, reaction pH increased from 4.59
to 8.02 after sequential addition of lime to the three reaction
tanks, ferrous iron decreased 89 percent from 6.75 to
0.7 mg/L, total iron decreased 99 percent from 394 to
1.5 mg/L, and 65 to 99 percent of all other metals (primarily
aluminum, arsenic, nickel, and zinc) were precipitated from
solution as metal hydroxides and oxyhydroxides. The data
indicate that the majority of the iron is already in the ferric
oxidation state, a small quantity of ferrous iron was oxidized
to ferric iron, and mineral acidity was reduced as evidenced by
an increase in pH. The remaining mineral acidity was
completely consumed by excess lime in solution, yielding a
bicarbonate alkalinity of 69.1 mg/L. Excess sulfate was not
reduced, likely due to the limited amount of calcium available
for super saturation of the solution with respect to gypsum.
Slight changes in ARD chemistry were observed in the
effluent from the bag filters, primarily associated with a slight
increase in total iron and specific conductance and a slight
decrease in ferrous iron.
Table 2-17. Alkaline Lagoon Unit Operation Parameters
Parameter
System Influent Flow Rate
Reactor Lime Dosage Rate
(per reactor)
Reaction Time (each reactor)
Aeration Rate (each reactor)
Bag Filtration Rate (per bag)
Bag Filter Solids Accumulation Rate
System Hydraulic Residence Time
Lagoon Hydraulic Residence Time
Lagoon Solids Accumulation Rate
System Batch Discharge Rate
Units
(L/min)
(mL/min)
(min)
(L/min)
(L/min)
(kg/day)
(min)
(day)
(kg/day)
(L/min)
Range
61.7 to 111
41 to 71
34.1 to 61.4
378
12.4 to 22.2
69 7 to 125.4
102.3 to 184.2
12 to 21. 3
22.9 to 4 1.2
311 to 424
Average
78.7
52.4
48.1
378
15.75
88.9
144.3
16.7
29.2
359
kg/day = Kilogram per day min = Minute
L/min = Liter per minute mL/min = Milliliter per minute
33
-------
Continued lime dissolution likely oxidized the remaining
ferrous iron to ferric iron. Increases in total iron as well as
other metals were likely related to fine particulates passing
through the bag filters.
Additional changes in ARD chemistry were observed in the
settling lagoon, primarily due to the continued dissolution and
reaction of lime with dissolved metals as well as settling of
metal hydroxide and oxyhydroxide precipitates. The extended
HRT in the settling lagoon allowed between 60 and 97 percent
removal of dissolved metals from bag filter discharge.
Ferrous iron was no longer detected in solution; however,
lagoon pH remained constant and sulfate actually increased
slightly, indicating completion lime dissolution (limited excess
calcium). Approximately 36 percent of the combined hydrated
lime dose 1.63 g/L added to the three reaction tanks was used
to neutralize acidity, while the remainder of the dissolved lime
was used for formation of metal hydroxide precipitates and
alkalinity. Field and analytical laboratory chemical parameters
documenting alkaline lagoon reaction chemistry are provided
in Table 2-18.
2.5.4.3 Metals Removal by Unit Operation
Aluminum, arsenic, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc are the metals
of concern in the ARD from the CUD. Only dissolved iron
exceed the discharge standards after sequential lime addition
and air sparging in the reaction tanks. Reaction tank removal
efficiencies ranged from 88.24 to 99.62 percent. The majority
of iron and the other metals of concern were accumulated in
the bag filters. However, aluminum, iron, and nickel reentered
solution in the bag filter effluent at concentrations exceeding
discharge standards. The increase in the dissolved
concentrations of these three metals is likely due to fine
particulates passing through the bag filters. All of the metals
of concern met discharge standards in the lagoon after an
extended time for additional lime dissolution, reaction, and
precipitate settling. Treatment system removal efficiencies for
the metals of concern ranged from 88.24 percent for lead to
99.88 percent for iron. A summary of unit operations
concentration and removal efficiency data for the metals of
concern is presented in Table 2-19.
An evaluation of metals load reduction was prepared based on
unit operations data collected on July 30, 2002. A total metals
load of 100.3 kg and a sulfate load of 216.4 kg entered the
treatment system. A total of 57.2 kg of metals was
precipitated out of solution, following the sequential addition
of 185.8 kg of hydrated lime to the ARD in the three reaction
tanks, leaving 90.7 kg of metals in solution. The slurry was
discharged from the third reaction tank and into five bag filters
for separation of metal precipitates. Sulfate was not tracked
through individual unit operations. The five bag filters
combined separated 20.7 kg of metals from solution, allowing
127.3 kg of soluble metals, metal precipitate, and undissolved
Table 2-18. Alkaline Lagoon Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry
Parameter
pH
Redox Potential
Total Iron (dissolved)
Ferrous Iron
Specific Conductance
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Sulfate
Total Alkalinity
Total Dissolved Solids
Unit
(SU)
(mV)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(umhos/cm)
(mg/L)
(°C)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
System
Influent
4.59
188
394
6.75
2,665
1.6
14.8
1,900
<2
2,660
Reactor
No.l
8.05
188
NM
NM
2,840
1.8
12.94
NM
NM
NM
Reactor
No. 2
8.18
190
NM
NM
2,820
46
12.43
NM
NM
NM
Reactor
No. 3
8.02
190
1.5
0.7
2,790
6
12.73
NM
NM
NM
Reactor
Change
3.5
2
-392.5
-6
125
4.4
-2.1
NC
NC
NC
System
Effluent
7.92
190
0463
0
3,000
6.6
18.07
2,040
69.1
2,910
System
Change
3.33
2
-393.5
-6.75
335
5.0
3.27
140
68.1
250
Parameter
pH
iiedox Potential
Total Iron
Ferrous Iron
Specific Conductance
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Sulfate
Total Alkalinity
Total Dissolved Solids
Unit
(SU)
(mV)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(umhos/cm)
(mg/L)
(°C)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Bag Filter
Influent
8.02
190
1.5
0.7
2,790
6
12.73
NM
NM
NM
Bag Filter
Effluent
7.93
190
18
0.2
2,810
5.34
17.96
NM
NM
2,840
Filter
Change
-0.1
0
16.5
-0.5
20
-0.66
5.23
NC
NC
NC
Lagoon
Cell No. 1
7.9
189
2.4
<0.1
2,950
NM
17.06
NM
NM
NM
Lagoon
Cell No. 2
7.9
189
0.462
<0.1
2,990
NM
17.55
NM
NM
NM
Lagoon
Cell No. 3
7.92
190
0.463
<0.1
3,000
6.6
18.07
2,040
69.1
2,910
Lagoon
Change
0.02
1
-1.94
0
50
NC
1.01
NC
NC
NC
umhos/cm = Micromhos per centimeter mg/L = Milligram per liter SU = Standard unit
°C = Degree Celsius NC = Not calculated
mV = Millivolt NM = Not measured
34
-------
Table 2-19. Alkaline Lagoon Unit Operation Metals Removal Efficiencies
Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Reaction Tanks
Influent
(U8/L)
33,600
510
<0.3
19.5
140
394,000
5.1
1,670
<2.5
360
Effluent
(UE/L)
470
9.7
<0.3
3.5
4.8
1,500
<1.2
64.1
<2.5
14 1
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
98.60
98.10
0.00
82.05
65.71
99.62
88.24
96.16
0.00
96.08
Bag Filters
Effluent
(WS/L)
2,100
340
0.3
46
2.5
18,000
1.5
129
<25
32.2
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
-77.62
-71.47
-50.00
-23.91
92.00
-91.67
-60.00
-50.31
0.00
-56.21
Lagoon
Effluent
(HS/L)
254
5.8
03
3.3
3.6
463
< 1.2
22.4
<2.5
9.6
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
87.90
82.94
0.00
28.26
-30.56
97.43
60.00
82.64
0.00
70.19
System
Effluent
(Hg/L)
254
5.8
0.3
3.3
3.6
463
< 1.2
22.4
<2.5
9.6
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
99.24
98.86
-50.00
83.08
74.29
99.88
88.24
98.66
0.00
97.33
% = Percent H8/L = Microgram per liter
hydrated lime to discharge to the alkaline lagoon for additional
reaction and final settling. A total of 97.9 kg of metals
(primarily calcium) and 232.4 kg of sulfate were batch
discharged from the alkaline lagoon to Leviathan Creek. A
total of 89 kg of solids were captured in the five bag filters;
while an additional 29 kg of solids settled in the alkaline
lagoon. A total of 185.8 kg of hydrated lime was required to
neutralize 65.9 kg acidity (as hydrated lime) and precipitate
53.6 kg of metals (excluding added calcium) from the ARD on
July 30, 2002.
2.5.4.4 Solids Separation
Precipitate generated during operation of the semi-passive
alkaline lagoon treatment system is separated from ARD using
bag filters and a settling lagoon with extended hydraulic
residence time. The bag filtration process is used to capture
the majority of the solids prior to discharge to the settling
lagoon. Solids handling following treatment is simplified
using bag filters in comparison to draining the settling lagoon,
air drying the sludge, and excavating the sludge from the
HDPE-lined basin. The bag filters removed between 52 and
79 percent of the metals and 58 percent of suspended solids
from solution prior to filtrate discharge to the settling lagoon.
Extended lime dissolution and reaction with residual metals
and settling in the lagoon promoted removal of 54 to
99 percent of metals and suspended solids from solution.
Effluent from the settling lagoon met EPA discharge criteria.
Neither solids separation approach was as effective as the
combination of polymer addition and settling in plate and pit
clarifiers. Additional suspended solids removal could be
achieved by adding a polymer to the final reaction tank to
improve floe growth rate and size. Metals and solids removal
efficiencies for bag filters and settling lagoon are provided in
Table 2-20.
Up to five bag filters were used at one time to remove the
initial load of suspended solids from the ARD slurry. The
HRT of each bag filter varies based on the thickness of the
Table 2-20. Alkaline Lagoon Solids Separation Efficiencies
Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
TSS
Bag Filter
Unfiltered
Influent
(MI/L)
31,500
508
<0.3
24.9
29.7
322,000
7.8
1,490
<2.5
343
1,100,000
Unfiltered
Effluent
(HE/L)
10,200
164
<0.3
11.8
87
99,900
1.6
506
<2.5
117
456,000
Percent
Removal
(%)
67.62
67.72
0.00
52.61
70.71
68.98
79.49
66.04
0.00
65.89
58.55
Separated
Solids
(mg/kg)
20,000
326
<0.52
19.9
9.4
205,000
3.1
924
5.9
213
NA
Lagoon
Unfiltered
Influent
(Hg/L)
10,200
164
<0.3
11.8
8.7
99,900
1.6
506
<2.5
117
456,000
Unfiltered
Effluent
(Ug/L)
307
7.2
<0.3
3.8
4.0
' 932
<1.2
27.2
<2.5
11.4
10,000
% = Percent mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram
ug/L = Microgram per liter NA = Not applicable
Percent
Removal
(%)
96.99
95.61
0.00
67.80
54.02
9907
62.50
94.62
0.00
90.26
97.81
Cumulative
Percent
Removal
(%)
99.03
98.58
0.00
84.74
86.53
99.71
92.31
98 17
0.00
96.68
99.09
35
-------
filter cake buildup on the bag interior. A fresh bag filter with
minimal filter cake build up provides approximately 5.3 hours
of HRT at one-fifth the treatment rate, while a full bag
provides less than 1 hour of HRT. Approximately
113,000 liters of ARD slurry was discharged to up to five bag
filters each day, generating a total of 89 kg of dry solids. On
average, the bag filters fill with solids and require change out
every 60 days. Approximately 1 day is required to obtain
adequate filtration from a new bag. A total of nine bag filters
were used over 128 days of operation. The bag filters were
allowed to gravity drain and air dry to a moisture content of
88 percent prior to solids handling. The bag filters were cut
open, the contents removed with a bobcat, and transferred to a
roll off bin for disposal.
The settling lagoon provided an average of 16.7 days of HRT
for dissolution and reaction of any remaining lime with metals
and solids settling. Approximately 113,000 liters of filtrate
was discharged from the bag filters to the settling lagoon each
day, generating approximately 29 kg of dry solids. On
average, 9 to 18 centimeters of wet sludge (98 to 99 percent
moisture content) is deposited in the settling lagoon during a
treatment season. Sludge has not been removed from the
settling lagoon to date due to the small quantity generated.
2.5.5 Evaluation of Solids Handling and
Disposal
The following sections describe solids handling activities
conducted during the operation of each treatment system. The
discussion includes a summary of waste characterization and
handling requirements, identifies the sources and quantity of
solids from each treatment system, identifies the
characteristics of each solid waste stream, and identifies the
method of disposal for each solids waste stream.
2.5.5.1 Waste Characterization and Handling
Requirements
Lime treatment of AMD and ARD generates a metal
hydroxide solid waste stream. The solid waste residuals
produced by both treatment systems were analyzed for
hazardous waste characteristics. Determination of waste
characteristics is necessary to determine appropriate handling
and disposal requirements. Therefore, total and leachable
metals analyses were performed on the solid waste streams for
comparison to California and Federal hazardous waste
classification criteria. To determine if the solid waste streams
are a Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) waste, TCLP results were compared to TCLP limits.
To determine whether the solid waste streams are a California
hazardous waste, total metals results (wet weight) were
compared to California total threshold limit concentration
(TTLC) criteria. If a solid waste stream exceeds either Federal
TCLP criteria or California TTLC criteria, then the waste is
considered to be hazardous and must be disposed of in a
permitted TSD facility.
If a solid waste stream is found to be non-hazardous, then the
potential to impact water quality must be evaluated. The
leachability of metals from a solid waste stream must be
determined using the California WET procedure if disposed of
in California or another accepted leaching procedure if
disposed of in other states. Deionized water (DI) was used as
the WET leaching solution. To determine whether a non-
hazardous solid waste stream poses a threat to water quality in
California, metals concentrations in WET leachate samples
were compared to California soluble threshold limit
concentration (STLC) criteria. Solid waste stream samples
were also subject to the SPLP, a commonly accepted leaching
procedure in other states. If a solid waste stream exceeds the
California STLC criteria, then the waste is considered to be a
threat to water quality and the waste must be disposed of in a
permitted TSD facility or engineering controls implemented to
protect water quality. Interpretation of SPLP data are state-
specific and are beyond the scope of this discussion.
Evaluation of the quantity, characteristics, and disposal of
solid waste streams generated by the active lime treatment
system is presented in Section 2.5.5.2 and the semi-passive
alkaline lagoon treatment system in Section 2.5.5.3.
2.5.5.2 Active Lime Treatment System
Biphasic operation of the active lime treatment system in 2002
and 2003 produced 44 dry tons of filter cake (54.6 to
63.1 percent moisture) for Phase I of the process and 212 dry
tons (77 to 84.4 percent moisture) of metal hydroxide sludge
in the Phase II pit clarifier. The Phase I filter cake consists
mainly of iron and arsenic hydroxides; while the Phase II pit
clarifier sludge consists of gypsum and metal hydroxides high
in iron, aluminum, copper, nickel, and zinc. During
monophasic operations in 2003, the active lime treatment
system produced 15.2 dry tons (75.9 percent moisture) of filter
cake consisting of gypsum and metal hydroxides high in iron,
aluminum, arsenic, copper, nickel, and zinc. No other waste
streams were generated during monophasic operations.
The characteristics of the solid waste streams generated during
biphasic and monophasic operations in 2003 are presented in
Table 2-21. The Phase I filter cake generated during biphasic
operations in 2002 and 2003 was determined to be a California
hazardous waste by RWQCB due to elevated arsenic
concentrations. However, our evaluation data indicate that
arsenic was slightly below the State TTLC criteria and was not
a hazardous waste. RWQCB shipped the filter cake off-site to
a permitted TSD facility in Beatty, Nevada. The Phase II pit
clarifier sludge generated during biphasic operations in 2002
and 2003 was found to be a non-hazardous waste. The non-
hazardous sludge was excavated from the pit clarifier prior to
36
-------
Table 2-21. Active Lime Treatment System Waste Characterization
Parameter
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Biphasic Phase I Filter Cake
Total Metals'
< 1.4
1,300
2
0.72
2.6
222
629
125
1.8
0.018
<0.46
184
<0.81
1.2
2.8
49.4
43.2
Total Metals2
(mg/kg)
<0.52
478
0.74
0.266
0.96
81.9
23.2
46.
0.66
0.007
<0.17
67.9
< 0.299
044
1.03
18.2
159
Exceed
TTLC?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
DI WET Metals
(mg/L)
< 0.013
0.448
0.0292
0.021 1
< 0.0054
2.87
1.92
2.81
0.0082
< 0.000025
< 0.0042
5.58
< 0.0075
0.0055
< 0.03 14
0.266
1.17
Exceed
STLC?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
TCLP
(mg/L)
< 0.005
< 0.0063
0.0166
< 0.00016
0.0054
< 0.0031
0.159
< 0.0149
0.0086
<0.000025
< 0.003
0.671
< 0.003
< 0.0097
0.0284
O.00076
0.0247
Exceed
TCLP?
NA
No
No
NA
No
No
NA
NA
No
No
NA
NA
No
No
NA
NA
NA
SPLP Metals
(mg/L)
< 0.0025
Rejected
0.0035
<0.000077
0.0017
Rejected
<0.00061
< 0.01 17
0.0151
< 0.000025
< 0.00084
0.0045
< 0.00 15
< 0.0058
0.0168
< 0.00038
0.0128
Biphasic Phase II Pit Clarifier Sludge
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
<32
224
4.2
5.6
21.4
242
1,100
837
42
0.12
<1.3
2,670
<3.2
<3.2
9.9
10.9
573
<5
34.9
0.66
0.87
3.34
37.8
172
131
0.66
0.019
< 0.203
417
<0.5
<0.5
1.54
1.7
89.4
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
< 0.050
0.522
0.0347
0.0744
0.188
3
13.5
9.2
< 0.0349
0.000059
< 0.025
30.6
< 0.0477
O0139
0.143
0.0734
6.78
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
< 0.020
< 0.0038
< 0.0202
< 0.00027
0.0351
0.0268
0.638
0.0257
<0.0033
0.000037
<0010
2.91
< 0.0152
O.010
0.0523
< 0.020
0.165
NA
No
No
NA
No
No
NA
NA
No
No
NA
NA
No
No
NA
NA
NA
< 0.010
< 0.0028
< 0.0052
< 0.002
< 0.002
< 0.0037
< 0.0021
< 0.0022
< 0.004
0.000071
< 0.005
<0.0072
< 0.010
< 0.0056
0.031
<0.010
< 0.012
Monophasic Filter Cake
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
<2
2,510
8.7
5.
25.7
244
858
373
5.9
0.17
<0.4
1,990
21.6
<0.36
74.
150
397
<0.48
605
2.1
1.2
6.2
58.8
207
89.9
1.4
0.041
< 0.096
480
5.2
< 0.087
17.9
36.2
95.7
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
O.0704
28.8
0.119
0.101
0.373
4.25
14.5
6.82
0.086
0.00029
< 0 0024
33.5
O.140
< 0.0022
0.935
1.83
5.5
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
< 0.01 29
< 0.0161
00257
< 0.00038
< 0.0046
< 0.0029
0.577
< 0.016
< 0.0059
< 0.00019
< 0.00097
1.43
< 0.0372
< 0.0034
0.272
< 0.0011
0.0599
NA
No
No
NA
No
No
NA
NA
No
No
NA
NA
No
No
NA
NA
NA
< 0.0039
< 0.00 19
< 0.0037
< 0.000 19
< 0.000 16
< 0.00054
< 0.00 18
< 0.00 19
< 0.0009
< 0.000 13
< 0.00048
< 0.0029
< 0.0026
< 0.00075
0.0859
< 0.00053
< 0.002
1 Metals data reported as dry weight 2 Metals data reported as wet weight for comparison to TTLC
DI WET = Waste extraction test using deiomzed water SPLP = Synthetic precipitation leaching procedure
mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram STLC = Soluble threshold limit concentration
mg/L = Milligram per liter TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
NA = Not applicable TTLC = Total threshold limit concentration
37
-------
2003 operations and disposed of on site after it was
determined not to pose a threat to water quality. The solids
generated in 2003 were found to pose a threat to water quality
due to leachable concentrations of nickel exceeding State
STLC criteria. The sludge remains in the pit clarifier awaiting
future excavation and on-site storage after stabilization. The
filter cake generated during monophasic operations in 2003
was determined to be a California hazardous waste due to
elevated arsenic concentrations. The filter cake was shipped
off-site to a permitted TSD facility in Beatry, Nevada.
2.5.5.3 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System
The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system produced
an estimated 12.6 dry tons of bag filter solids (88.4 percent
moisture). The bag filter solids consist mainly of aluminum,
iron, and manganese hydroxides, gypsum, and a significant
quantity of arsenic, cobalt, and nickel hydroxides. An
estimated 4.1 dry tons of sludge (98 percent moisture) was
settled in the lagoon; however, a sample for waste
characterization was not collected due to the small amount
generated.
The bag filter solids generated during 2002 operations were
determined to be non-hazardous and not a threat to water
quality. The solids were shipped off-site to a municipal
landfill for disposal. The characteristics of the solid waste
stream generated during 2002 operations are presented in
Table 2-22.
Table 2-22. Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System Waste Characterization
'arameter
Antimony
Arsenic
iarium
Jeryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
-ead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Bag Filter Solids
Total Metals'
(mg/kg)
<6.2
326
<4.5
3.6
<0.52
19.9
449
9.4
3.1
0.25
<1.7
924
5.9
<0.96
<2.6
28
213
Total Metals2
(rag/kg)
<0.72
37.8
<0.52
0.42
<0.06
2.3
52.1
1.1
0.36
0.029
<0.197
107
0.68
<0.111
<0.30
3.3
24.7
Exceed
TTLC?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
DI WET Metals
(mg/L)
< 0.018
3.14
0.113
0.0325
< 0.0015
0.151
4.37
< 0.067
0.0401
0.000038
< 0.0049
8.9
0.0788
< 0.0201
< 0.0075
0.246
2.27
Exceed
STLC?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
TCLP
(mg/L)
< 0.0072
< 0.003
< 0.0067
< 0.0003
< 0.00058
< 0.013
0.105
< 0.0048
< 0.0028
0.00003
< 0.00 19
0.278
< 0.0141
< 0.0066
< 0.0105
0.0013
0.0187
Exceed
TCLP?
NA
No
No
NA
No
No
NA
NA
No
No
NA
NA
No
No
NA
NA
NA
SPLP Metals
(mg/L)
< 0.0036
< 0.001 7
< 0.0066
< 0.0002
< 0.00029
< 0.0043
< 0.0035
< 0.0062
< 0.0019
0.000028
< 0.00 17
0.0053
< 0 0055
< 0.00062
< 00047
< 0.00066
0.0215
' Metals data reported as dry weight 2 Metals data reported as wet weight for comparison to TTLC
DI WET = Waste extraction test using deionized water SPLP = Synthetic precipitation leaching procedure
mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram STLC = Soluble threshold limit concentration
mg/L = Milligram per liter TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
NA = Not applicable TTLC = Total threshold limit concentration
38
-------
SECTION 3
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS
This section of the ITER describes the general applicability of
the lime treatment technologies to reduce acidity and toxic
levels of metals in water at AMD- and ARD-contaminated
mine sites. The analysis is based on the results from and
observations made during the SITE demonstration.
3.1 Key Features
Oxidation of sulfur and sulfide minerals within the mine
workings and waste rock forms sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which
liberates toxic metals from the mine wastes creating AMD and
ARD. Lime treatment of AMD and ARD is a relatively
simple chemical process where low pH AMD/ARD is
neutralized using lime to precipitate dissolved iron, the main
component of AMD and ARD, and other dissolved metals as
metal hydroxides and oxy-hydroxides. The precipitation
occurs under the following reaction:
Ca(OH)2 (B) + Me2+/Me3+
Me(OH)2/Me(OH)3 (
(aq) + H2SO4 -»
CaSO4 (s) + H2O
Where: Me2+/Me3+ = dissolved metal ion in either a
+2 or +3 valence state
Along with metal hydroxides, excess sulfate combines with
excess calcium to precipitate gypsum. Lime treatment can
occur in a single stage or multiple-stage process, depending on
the need to reduce the quantity of solids requiring handling
and disposal as a hazardous waste in an off-site TSD facility.
The active lime treatment system can be used to reduce acidity
and precipitate toxic metals using either a single stage
(monophasic) or dual stage (biphasic) lime addition process,
as demonstrated at the Leviathan Mine site. In monophasic
mode, the pH of the acid mine flow is raised to precipitate out
all of the target metals resulting in a large quantity of
hazardous metals-laden sludge. During biphasic operations,
the active lime treatment system creates a small quantity of
hazardous metals-laden filter cake from the first precipitation
phase (Phase I). The optimum pH range for Phase I
precipitation is between 2.8 and 3.0. In the second
precipitation phase (Phase II), the pH is further raised through
lime addition to precipitate out the remaining target metals
forming a large quantity of non-hazardous sludge. The
optimum pH range for Phase II precipitation is between 7.9
and 8.2. The Phase II sludge typically does not exhibit
hazardous waste characteristics because the majority of the
hazardous metals were removed in Phase I. The biphasic
configuration of the active lime treatment system utilizes the
same equipment as the monophasic configuration, though
operated in a two-step lime addition process, and includes the
addition of an extended settling pit clarifier.
The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system, also
demonstrated at Leviathan Mine, can be used to reduce acidity
and precipitate toxic metals using the same reaction chemistry
as the active lime treatment system. The system relies on iron
oxidation during mechanical aeration, optimization of lime
dosage, and adequate cake thickness within each bag filter to
filter precipitate from the treated ARD. The system also
includes a multi-cell settling lagoon for extended lime contact
and final precipitation of pin floe.
3.2 Applicable Wastes
Conventional methods of treating AMD and ARD involve the
capture, storage, and batch or continuous treatment of water
using lime addition, which neutralizes acidity and precipitates
metals. Lime treatment is applicable to any waste stream
containing metals, if the solubility of the metals is pH-
sensitive. Metals typically treated include aluminum, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc. The
active lime and semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment
systems in operation at the Leviathan Mine site are simply
improvements to conventional lime treatment technology.
Either treatment system can be modified to treat wastes of
varying metals type or concentration in a single or multi-stage
process. Active lime treatment appears to be applicable in
situations where flow rates are high and the treatment season
is short, while the semi-passive alkaline treatment lagoon
favors a lower flow rate and extended treatment season.
Where climate is a limiting factor, an active lime treatment
39
-------
system can be housed in a structure heated to temperatures
above freezing.
3.3 Factors Affecting Performance
Several factors can influence the performance of the lime
treatment systems demonstrated at Leviathan Mine. These
factors can be grouped into two categories: (1) mine drainage
characteristics, and (2) operating parameters. Both lime
treatment technologies are capable of treating a broad range of
metals in AMD and ARD. The level of acidity, ionic strength,
and metals composition directly impact the quantity and
timing of lime delivery required to neutralize acidity and
precipitate target metals. The quantity of lime required to
neutralize acidity is often greater than the hydroxide ion
required for metals precipitation. Increases in solution ionic
strength, often driven by iron and aluminum content, requires
additional lime for target metals precipitation. Finally, careful
control of lime addition is required above neutral pH to
prevent dissolution of target metals back into solution.
System design should include an AMD/ARD equilibration
basin upstream of the treatment system to reduce fluctuations
in acidity and solution ionic strength, allowing system
operators to more tightly control reaction chemistry.
Unit operating parameters also directly impact system
performance. The quality of lime, lime dose, duration of lime
contact, pH control, and HRT all impact removal of target
metals. Variations in the quality of lime used, poor lime feed
design, and inadequate maintenance can lead to formation of
caked lime within the lime slurry holding tank and the lime
feed pumps and delivery lines. Careful design, operation, and
maintenance of lime storage tanks, pumps, delivery lines, and
pH process monitoring probes is required to maintain stable
lime dosing rates and maximize system up time. A higher
purity lime should also be used to improve pumpability and
minimize maintenance. Lime overdosing can lead to
excessive scaling problems inside of reaction tanks, clarifiers,
pumps, and piping; while inadequate dosing can lead to excess
metals in the effluent streams that exceed discharge standards.
The method and duration of lime contact with AMD and ARD
in the reaction tanks also impacts system performance due to
incomplete lime dissolution, inadequate hydroxide contact
with target metals, and inadequate time required for
precipitate formation and growth. Careful sizing, design, and
maintenance of mixing devices such as aeration bars and
stirrers is required to ensure adequate lime dissolution and
contact with AMD and ARD. System operators must also
balance system influent flow rate, solids recycle rate, and
mixing rate to allow adequate time for precipitate growth.
Finally, the method and duration of precipitate separation and
settling also impacts system performance due to the extended
time required for complete lime dissolution and the settling of
pin floe. The active lime treatment system relies on a
flocculent to generate settleable solids, plate clarifiers to
concentrate settled solids, and a large pit clarifier to allow
settling of pin floe. If flocculent dosage is not adequately
controlled or system influent flow rates vary, then the
efficiency of the plate clarifiers decreases. Therefore, a large
extended settling basin, such as the pit clarifier, provides the
system operator some room for error during system upsets.
The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system relies on
bag filters to separate precipitate and a lagoon to allow
extended lime dissolution, contact with soluble target metals,
and settling of pin floe. The bag filters remove 40 to
60 percent of the precipitates, while the lagoon removes the
remaining precipitates and allows the system operator some
room for error during system upsets.
3.4 Technology Limitations
In general, the limitations of the lime treatment systems
implemented at Leviathan Mine were not related to the
applicability of the technology, but rather to operational issues
due to weather conditions, maintenance problems, and
remoteness of the site. Because of sub-freezing temperatures
encountered in the high Sierras during winter months, the
Leviathan Mine lime treatment systems were shut down from
late fall through late spring. The systems were completely
drained and winterized to prevent damage to pumps, tanks,
and system piping. The process of winterizing and de-
winterizing either treatment system is time consuming and
manpower intensive. The Stole and ARCO are currently
evaluating the feasibility of constructing an active lime
treatment system, enclosed within a heated shelter, for long
term year round operations. Year round operational capability
would allow downsizing of the treatment system for lower
continuous flow rates rather than large batch flow rates.
Lime treatment systems are maintenance intensive and have to
be monitored regularly to maintain proper operating
conditions. During extended operation, lime storage tanks,
reaction tanks, lime transfer and process water pumps, feed
and transfer piping, and process monitoring probes are
susceptible to plugging with lime clumps and gypsum scaling.
During operation of the lime treatment systems at Leviathan
Mine, on several occasions sections of piping were replaced,
pumps were upgraded, and monitoring devices were replaced
due to gypsum fouling. Continued optimization of lime
dosage and equipment improvements would likely reduce
downtime associated with lime and gypsum fouling.
The remoteness of the site also created logistical challenges in
maintaining operation of the lime treatment systems.
Consumable materials, such as lime and diesel fuel (to power
generators), were stored in bulk at the site. In one instance, a
shipment of lime had to be diverted to a secondary route
because of traffic issues; the diversion resulted in a half-day
delay in the delivery of the lime. During operation of the
treatment systems in early fall and late spring, unexpected
freezing temperatures can cause pipe breakage. In addition,
40
-------
early and late snowfall events can prevent site access. Careful
planning is essential to maintain supplies of consumable
materials and replacement equipment at remote sites.
3.5 Range of Suitable Site Characteristics
This section describes the site characteristics necessary for
successful application of either lime treatment technology.
Staging Area and Support Facilities: For full-scale lime
treatment systems such as those in operation at Leviathan
Mine, substantial staging areas and support facilities are
necessary for continuous operation of the treatment systems.
A staging area is needed for storage of consumable materials,
supplies, and reagents; loading and unloading equipment; and
for placement of Connex boxes, which are used for storage of
spare parts and equipment that are not weather resistant.
Additional space is necessary for placement of portable office,
laboratory, and health and safety facilities; portable toilets;
and power generating equipment. The staging and facilities
areas for a large treatment system may range between 1,000
and 4,000 square meters and are usually located near or
adjacent to the treatment system and holding ponds. These
areas should include pass-through access roads to
accommodate large tractor-trailer rigs that are used to drop off
and pickup equipment and facilities.
Treatment System Space Requirements: For the active
lime treatment system, space is needed for reagent storage
tanks, make-up water tanks, reaction tanks, clarifiers, floe mix
tanks, sludge holding tanks, a filter press, and various pumps
and piping. The sizing of equipment and the space necessary
for these systems is dependent on the flow rate of the ARD or
AMD to be treated. Additional level land may be necessary
for holding ponds, particularly if the systems are run
seasonally rather than year round. Overall, the space
requirement for the active lime treatment system at Leviathan
Mine is about 800 square meters. A pit clarifier, which
requires an additional 1,400 square meters of space, may be
necessary during biphasic operations.
For the alkaline lagoon treatment system, about 1,000 square
meters is needed for placement of reagent storage tanks,
reaction tanks, air compressors, bag filters, and various pumps
and piping. A large extended contact settling lagoon, capable
of containing at least 3 days worth of partially treated ARD, is
also required. The settling lagoon at Leviathan Mine covers
about 4,000 square meters and has a total volume of
5.4 million liters.
Climate: Operation of the lime treatment systems may be
affected by various climatological effects such as
precipitation, snowfall, and freezing temperatures. If holding
ponds are utilized to accumulate water for treatment,
excessive rainfall will likely increase the overall volume of
water to be treated; however, this may be offset by summer
evaporation. Water storage tanks may be necessary at sites
where excessive rainfall is expected, and evaporation rates are
low. Although limited snowfall will not generally affect
operating conditions, excessive snowfall may lead to freezing
of pipes and other process equipment resulting in significant
down-time. In areas where freezing temperatures are normal
throughout the winter months, such as at the Leviathan Mine
site, the lime treatment system must be completely drained
and winterized to prevent damage to pumps, tanks, and system
piping. The process of winterizing and de-winterizing either
treatment system is time consuming and manpower intensive.
Consideration should also be given to constructing a heated
shelter for treatment systems located at high altitude or in
areas with freezing temperatures to avoid labor costs
associated with winterization/dewinterization activities. Other
climatological effects such as wind and excessive heat do not
generally have an affect on the operation of the systems;
however, additional precautions should be observed during
these conditions to protect the operator health and safety.
Utilities: The main utility requirement for a lime treatment
system is electricity, which is used to operate electrical and
hydraulic pumps, stirrer motors, air compressors, process
monitoring equipment, portable office trailers, and site
lighting. Each lime treatment system at Leviathan Mine
requires up to 20 kilowatt (kW)-hours of electricity for
continuous operation. The main generators run continuously
during operation of both treatment systems. For the active
lime treatment system, a 180 kW diesel generator (including a
4,000-liter diesel fuel tank) is used to power the treatment
system and support facilities. A 150 kW diesel generator
(including a 4,000-liter diesel fuel tank) is used to power the
semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system and support
facilities. A spare 45 kW backup unit (with a 1,400-liter
diesel fuel tank) is also located onsite. Depending on the
remoteness of the site, cellular or satellite phone service may
be required.
3.6 Personnel Requirements
Personnel requirements for operation of each treatment system
following initial design and construction can be broken down
into the following activities: seasonal assembly, startup, and
shakedown; operation and maintenance; and seasonal
demobilization. System start-up and shakedown includes the
labor to setup pumps, pipes, and rental equipment, test system
hydraulics, startup the system, and optimize the system to
meet discharge standards. System startup and shakedown
occurs at the beginning of each treatment season as the system
is cleaned and disassembled each winter. After system
assembly and start up, a shake down is necessary to ensure
that any problems are identified and addressed prior to
optimization. The system is then optimized for the desired
source water, flow rate, and discharge standards. This process
generally requires 8 to 10 days of labor for a field crew of four
who are familiar with the system. After initial startup, a
41
-------
significant amount of additional time may be spent refining
lime and polymer dosages and for hydraulic balancing.
Field personnel are necessary to operate each treatment
system, perform daily maintenance, drop waste solids from the
filter press, collect discharge monitoring samples, monitor unit
operation pH and flow rates, and to adjust lime and polymer
dosage rates. The active lime treatment system, operated in
both monophasic and biphasic modes, require a minimum of
two personnel per shift and from two to three shifts per day
depending on stability of operations and maintenance
requirements. The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment
system requires a minimum of two personnel per day to ensure
proper operation and maintain equipment. This system
requires fewer personnel due to fewer, less complicated unit
operations.
Demobilization includes cleaning, disassembling, and storing
system components at the end of each treatment season.
Demobilization activities include draining unused reagents
from the system, cleaning the interior of reaction tanks, lime
slurry tanks, and clarifiers; disassembly, cleaning, and storage
of pumps and piping; returning of rental equipment; and
consolidation and off-site disposal of hazardous waste. This
process generally requires 8 to 10 days of labor for a field
crew of four who are familiar with the system.
In addition to field personnel, support staff is required for
project management, site management, engineering, and
administrative support functions. The level of effort required
for support staff ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the total
project level of effort, depending on the duration of the
treatment season.
3.7 Materials Handling Requirements
There is one process residual associated with lime treatment of
AMD and ARD. The process produces a large quantity of
metal hydroxide sludge and filter cake. During operation in
biphasic mode, the active lime treatment system produced
about 43.8 dry tons of Phase I filter cake consisting mainly of
iron and arsenic hydroxides and 212 dry tons of Phase II pit
clarifier sludge consisting of metal hydroxides high in iron,
aluminum, copper, nickel, zinc, and lime solids. In addition,
gypsum is also a large component of the Phase II sludge.
During operation in monophasic mode, the active lime
treatment system produced about 15.2 dry tons of filter cake
consisting of metal hydroxides and gypsum. The semi-passive
alkaline lagoon treatment system produced 12.6 dry tons of
bag filter sludge consisting of metal hydroxides and gypsum.
The solid waste residuals produced by the treatment systems
were analyzed for hazardous waste characteristics. Total
metals and leachable metals analyses were performed on the
solid wastes for comparison to California and Federal
hazardous waste classification criteria. To determine whether
the residuals are California hazardous waste, total metals
results were compared to TTLC criteria. To determine
whether metals concentrations in the solid waste residuals
pose a threat to water quality, DI WET leachate results were
compared to STLC criteria. To determine if the residuals are a
RCRA waste, TCLP leachate results were compared to TCLP
limits. The hazardous waste characteristics determined for the
solid waste streams are presented in Table 3-1.
The Phase I filter cake generated during biphasic operations
was determined to be a California hazardous waste due to
elevated arsenic concentrations. The Phase II pit clarifier
sludge generated during biphasic operations was found to be a
threat to water quality due to leachable concentrations of
nickel exceeding State STLC criteria. The filter cake
generated during monophasic operations was determined to be
a California hazardous waste due to elevated arsenic
concentrations. The bag filter solids generated during
operation of the alkaline lagoon treatment system did not
exceed any of the waste classification criteria. With the
exception of the Phase II pit clarifier sludge produced in 2003,
the solid waste streams that failed the TTLC, STLC, or TCLP
criteria were transported to an off-site TSD facility for
disposal. Solid waste streams; that passed both State and
Federal hazardous waste criteria were disposed of on site.
3.8 Permit Requirements
Actions taken on-site during a CERCLA cleanup action must
comply only with the substantive portion of a given
regulation. On-site activities need not comply with
administrative requirements such as obtaining a permit, record
keeping, or reporting. Actions taken off-site must comply
with both the substantive and administrative requirements of
applicable laws and regulations. All actions taken at the
Leviathan Mine Superfund site were on-site; therefore permits
were not obtained.
Permits that may be required for off-site actions or actions at
non-CERCLA sites include: a permit to operate a hazardous
waste treatment system, an National Pollutant Discharge and
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for effluent discharge, an
NPDES permit for discharge of storm water during
construction activities, and an operations permit from a local
air quality management district (AQMD) for activities
generating particulate emissions. Permits from local agencies
may also be required for grading, construction, and
operational activities; transport of oversized equipment on
local roads; and transport of hazardous materials on local
roads.
3.9 Community Acceptance
Community acceptance for the lime treatment systems
operated at Leviathan Mine is positive. The diversion and
treatment of AMD and ARD at the mine site is seen as
42
-------
Table 3-1. Determination of Hazardous Waste Characteristics for Solid Waste Streams at Leviathan Mine
Treatment
System
Active Lime
Treatment
System
Mode of
Operation
Biphasic
Monophasic
Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon
Treatment System
Operational
Year
2002
2003
2003
2002
Solid Waste Stream
Evaluated
Phase I Filter Cake
Phase II Pit Clanfier
Sludge
Phase I Filter Cake
Phase II Pit Clarifier
Sludge
Filter Cake
Bag Filter Sludge
Total Solid
Waste
Generated
22 7 dry tons
1 1 8 dry tons
21.1 dry tons
93.6 dry tons
15.2 dry tons
12. 6 dry tons
TTLC
Pass or
Fail
F
P
F
P
F
P
STLC
Pass or
Fail
F
P
P
F
F
P
TCLP
Pass or
Fail
P
P
P
P
P
P
Waste
Handling
Requirement
Off-site TSD
Facility
On-site
Disposal
Off-site TSD
Facility
On-site Storage
Off-site TSD
Facility
On- or Off-site
Disposal
STLC = Soluble threshold limit concentration TSD = Treatment, storage, and disposal
TTLC = Total threshold limit concentration TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
necessary and positive step towards reestablishing a quality
watershed within the Sierra Nevada mountain range.
Although ARD is returned to Leviathan Creek during the
winter months because reliable power is not available to lift
ARD from the bottom of the mine site to the retention ponds,
the community, EPA, ARCO, and the state of California are
evaluating options to ensure that ARD is removed from
Leviathan Creek year round. Continued community
involvement and regulatory agency support will be necessary
for long term treatment and monitoring at a mine site such as
Leviathan Mine.
Operation of the lime treatment system presents minimal to no
risk to the public since all system components and treatment
operations occur within a contained site. Hazardous chemicals
used in the treatment system include lime and diesel fuel. In
addition, hazardous solids in the form of metal hydroxide filter
cake are generated during the treatment process. These
chemicals pose the highest risk to the public during
transportation to and from the site by truck and trailer.
Appropriate Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations
are followed during shipment of these chemicals to minimize
potential impacts to the public. During operation, the diesel
generators used to power the treatment systems create the
most noise and air emissions at the site. Because of the
remoteness of the Leviathan Mine site, the public is not
impacted by these issues. Alternative power sources are
currently being evaluated, including wind and hydraulic
turbines, which will replace or augment the diesel-powered
generators.
3.10 Availability, Adaptability, and
Transportability of Equipment
The components of both the active lime treatment system and
i-passive alkaline treatment lagoon are generally available
semi
and not proprietary. System process components include
(1) reaction equipment such as pumps, pipes, and transfer
lines; reaction, flocculation, and reagent tanks; mixers; and
clarifiers; (2) control equipment such as pH monitoring
systems, lime dosage and feed systems, polymer dosage and
feed systems, mixer controls, and aeration controls; and
(3) solids handling equipment such as filter presses, roll-off
bins, and bag filters. This equipment is available from
numerous suppliers throughout the country and may be
ordered in multiple sizes to meet flow requirements and
treatment area accessibility. An integrated design is
recommended to properly size and assemble individual
components for proper system operation.
Transport of reaction and reagent tanks, clarifiers, and filter
presses to a site may require handling as oversize or wide
loads. Additional consideration should be given to the
stability of mine access roads, bridge clearances, and load
limits for large shipments. Process reagents and consumables,
such as lime and generator fuel, are considered hazardous
materials and will require stable site access roads for delivery.
3.11 Ability to Attain ARARs
Under CERCLA, remedial actions conducted at Superfund
sites must comply with Federal and state (if more stringent)
environmental laws that are determined to be applicable or
relevant and appropriate. Applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARAR) are determined on a site-
specific basis by the EPA remedial project manager. They are
used as a tool to guide the remedial project manager toward
the most environmentally safe way to manage remediation
activities. The remedial project manager reviews each Federal
environmental law and determines if it is applicable. If the
law is not applicable, then the determination must be made
whether the law is relevant and appropriate. Actions taken on-
43
-------
site during a CERCLA cleanup action must comply only with
the substantive portion of a given ARAR. On-site activities
need not comply with administrative requirements such as
obtaining a permit, record keeping, or reporting. Actions
conducted off-site must comply with both the substantive and
administrative requirements of applicable laws and
regulations.
On-site remedial actions, such as the lime treatment systems in
operation at the Leviathan Mine site, must comply with
Federal and more stringent state ARARs, however, ARARs
may be waived under six conditions: (1) the action is an
interim measure, and the ARAR will be met at completion;
(2) compliance with the ARAR would pose a greater risk to
human health and the environment than noncompliance; (3) it
is technically impracticable to meet the ARAR; (4) the
standard of performance of an ARAR can be met by an
equivalent method; (5) a state ARAR has not been
consistently applied elsewhere; and (6) ARAR compliance
would not provide a balance between the protection achieved
at a particular site and demands on the Superfund for other
sites. These waiver options apply only to Superfund actions
taken on-site, and justification for the waiver must be clearly
demonstrated.
The following sections discuss and analyze specific
environmental regulations pertinent to operation of both lime
treatment systems, including handling, transport, and disposal
of both hazardous and non-hazardous treatment residuals.
ARARs identified include: (1) CERCLA; (2) RCRA; (3) the
Clean Air Act (CAA); (4) the Clean Water Act (CWA);
(5) Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA); and (6) Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. These
six general ARARs, along with additional state and local
regulatory requirements (which may be more stringent than
Federal requirements) are discussed below. Specific ARARs
that may be applicable to the both lime treatment systems are
identified in Table 3-2.
3.11.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLA of 1980 authorizes the Federal government to
respond to releases or potential releases of any hazardous
substance into the environment, as well as to releases of
pollutants or contaminants that may present an imminent or
significant danger to public health and welfare or to the
environment. As part of the requirements of CERCLA, EPA
has prepared the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) for hazardous substance
response. The NCP, codified in Title 40 CFR Part 300,
delineates methods and criteria used to determine the
appropriate extent of removal and cleanup for hazardous waste
contamination.
The 1986 SARA amendment to CERCLA directed EPA to:
• Use remedial alternatives that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
• Select remedial actions that protect human health and
the environment, are cost-effective, and involve
permanent solutions and alternative treatment or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent possible.
• Avoid off-site transport and disposal of untreated
hazardous substances or contaminated materials
when practicable treatment technologies exist
(Section 121[b]).
In general, two types of responses are possible under
CERCLA: removal and remedial actions. Removal actions
are quick actions conducted in response to an immediate threat
caused by release of a hazardous substance. Remedial actions
involve the permanent reduction of toxicity, mobility, and
volume of hazardous substances or pollutants. The lime
treatment technologies implemented at the Leviathan Mine
Superfund site fall under the purview of CERCLA and SARA;
both lime treatment systems are operated on site and reduce
the mobility of toxic metals through chemical precipitation
and volume through metal concentration in filter cake and
sludge. The technologies are protective of human health and
the environment, cost effective, and permanent.
Both lime treatment technologies can be applied at sites such
as Leviathan Mine and operated as long-term CERCLA
remedial actions; however, they may also be designed and
operated for short term operation at a site in support of a
CERCLA removal action, where immediate removal of toxic
metals from a waste stream is necessary.
3.11.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA, an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, was
enacted in 1976 to address the problem of safe disposal of the
enormous volume of municipal and industrial solid waste
generated annually. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984, greatly expanded the scope and
requirements of RCRA. Regulations in RCRA specifically
address the identification and management of hazardous
wastes. Subtitle C of RCRA contains requirements for
generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste, most of which are applicable to CERCLA
actions. In order to generate and dispose of a hazardous
waste, the site responsible party must obtain an EPA
identification number. However, mining wastes are generally
not subject to regulation under RCRA (see the Bevill
Amendment at Section 3001(a)(3)(A)(ii)), unless the waste is
disposed of off-site. For treatment residuals determined to be
RCRA hazardous, substantive and administrative RCRA
requirements must be addressed if the wastes are shipped off
44
-------
Table 3-2. Federal Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for both Lime Treatment Systems
Characterization of
untreated AMD and ARD
Construction of
Treatment System
Treatment System
Operation
Determination of Cleanup
Standards
Waste Disposal
ARAR
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 261 or state
equivalent
OSHA- 29 CFR 1910.120
CAA: 40 CFR Part 50 or state
equivalent
CWA: 40 CFR Part 122
OSHA: 29 CFR 1910.120
RCRA- 40 CFR Part 264 or state
equivalent
CAA: 40 CFR Part 50 or state
equivalent
SARA: Section 121(d)(2)(A)(ii)
SDWA: 40 CFR Part 141
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 261 or state
equivalent
RCRA: 40 CFR Part 262 and
263
CWA: 40 CFR Part 125
Regulated Activity
Standards that apply to identification and characterization of
wastes.
Protection of workers from toxic metals during earth moving
activities and system construction
Standards that apply to the emission of participates and toxic
pollutants.
Standards for discharge of storm water generated during
construction activities. Requires compliance with best
management practices and discharge standards in nationwide
storm water discharge permit for construction activities.
Protection of workers from toxic metals during system operation
and dust emissions during lime and treatment residual handling.
Standards apply to treatment of wastes in a treatment facility.
Standards that apply to the emission of particulates and toxic
pollutants. .
Standards that apply to pollutants in waters that may be used as a
source of drinking water.
Standards that apply to identification and characterization of
wastes.
Standards that apply to generators of hazardous waste.
Standards for discharge of effluent to a navigable waterway.
Requires a NPDES permit for discharge to a navigable waterway.
Applicability
Not applicable as mine wastes are not subject to RCRA under the Bevill
Amendment.
Applicable. Provide air and noise monitoring and appropriate personnel
protective equipment.
Relevant and appropriate. Control emissions during earthwork using
engineering controls. May require air monitoring and record keeping.
Not applicable to a CERCLA action; however, the substantive requirements are
relevant and appropriate. Best management practices should be implemented to
meet discharge standards.
Applicable. Provide air appropriate personnel protective equipment.
Not applicable as mine wastes are not subject to RCRA under the Bevill
Amendment. However, may be relevant and appropriate. Requires operational
and contingency planning as well as record keeping.
Relevant and appropriate. Control emissions during lime transfer and treatment
residual handling using engineering controls. May require air monitoring and
record keeping.
Not applicable for removal actions. Effluent must meet interim discharge
standards specified in the action memorandum. Applicable for remedial actions
Effluent must obtain MCL and to the extent possible MCLOs.
Applicable only when treatment residuals are disposed of off-site May be
relevant and appropriate for determination of waste type to guide selection of
appropriate on-site disposal requirement.
Applicable for off-site disposal of hazardous treatment residuals. Requires
identification of the generator and disposal at a RCRA-permitted facility.
Not applicable to a CERCLA action; however, the substantive requirements are
relevant and appropriate. Discharge standards may be more stringent than
MCLs or MCLGs due to potential environmental impacts.
AMD — Acid mine drainage MCL = Maximum contaminant level
ARAR = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement MCLG = Maximum contaminant level goal
ARD = Acid rock drainage NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
CAA = Clean Air Act OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
CFR = Code of Federal Regulation SARA = Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
CWA = Clean Water Act SDWA = Safe Drinking Water Act
-------
site for disposal. If treatment residuals remain on-site, the
substantive requirements of state disposal and siting laws and
the Toxic Pits Control Act may be relevant and appropriate.
Criteria for identifying RCRA characteristic and listed
hazardous wastes are included in 40 CFR Part 261 Subparts C
and D. Other applicable RCRA requirements include
hazardous waste manifesting for off-site disposal and time
limits on accumulating wastes.
At Leviathan Mine, treatment residuals generated from the
lime treatment systems include both RCRA hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes. RCRA hazardous wastes are shipped
off-site for disposal at a permitted TSD facility. Non-
hazardous waste residuals are either stored or disposed of on
site. Appropriate RCRA regulations are followed for
generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of the
Leviathan Mine lime treatment residuals determined to be
RCRA hazardous.
3.11.3 Clean Air Act
The CAA establishes national primary and secondary ambient
air quality standards for sulfur oxides, particulate matter,
carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. It also
limits the emission of 189 listed hazardous pollutants. States
are responsible for enforcing the CAA. To assist in this, air
quality control regions (ACQR) were established. Allowable
emission limits are determined by the AQCR and AQMD
subunits. The emission limits are established based on
attainment of national ambient air quality standards.
The CAA requires that TSD facilities comply with primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards. Emissions
resulting from lime and solids handling during the operation of
both lime treatment systems may need to meet air quality
standards. For example, dust generated during lime and
residual solids handling may be regulated by a local AQMD.
No air permits are required for either lime treatment system
operated at the Leviathan Mine Superfund site; however, dust
emissions are limited through careful handling and
maintaining soil moisture during operation.
3.11.4 Clean Water Act
The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's
waters by establishing Federal, State, and local discharge
standards. If treated water is discharged to surface water
bodies or publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), CWA
regulations will apply. A facility discharging water to a
navigable waterway must apply for a permit under the
NPDES. NPDES discharge permits are designed as
enforcement tools with the ultimate goal of achieving ambient
water quality standards. Discharges to POTWs also must
comply with general pretreatment regulations outlined in 40
CFR Part 403, as well as other applicable state and local
administrative and substantive requirements.
Treated effluent from both lime treatment systems is
discharged to Leviathan Creek, if EPA discharge standards are
met. An NPDES permit is not required under CERCLA,
although the substantive requirements of the CWA are met.
3.77.5 Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA of 1974 and the Safe Drinking Water
Amendments of 1986 require EPA to establish regulations to
protect human health from contaminants in drinking water.
The law authorizes national drinking water standards and a
joint Federal-State system for ensuring compliance with these
standards. The National Primary Drinking Water Standards
are found at 40 CFR Parts 141 through 149. These standards
are expressed as maximum contaminant levels (MCL) and
maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG). Under CERCLA
(Section 121(d)(2)(A)(ii)), remedial actions are required to
meet MCLs and MCLGs when relevant and appropriate. State
drinking water requirements may also be more stringent than
Federal standards.
Effluent from both lime treatment systems discharges to
Leviathan Creek, a potential source of drinking water.
Effluent from the treatment systems meets the EPA discharge
standards; however, aluminum concentrations do not meet the
Federal MCL. Attainment of the MCL for aluminum is fully
achievable through addition of more lime or increased HRT;
however, under the current EPA action memorandum,
operation of the Leviathan Mine lime treatment systems to
meet MCLs is not required.
3.11.6 Occupational Safety and Health Act
CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions must
be conducted in accordance with OSHA requirements detailed
in 29 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926, in particular Part
1910.120, which provides for health and safety of workers at
hazardous waste sites. On-site construction at Superfund or
RCRA corrective action sites must be conducted in
accordance with 29 CFR Part 1926, which describes safety
and health regulations for construction sites. State OSHA
requirements, which may be significantly stricter than Federal
standards, also must be met. Workers involved with the
construction and operation of a lime treatment system are
required to have completed an OSHA training course and be
familiar with OSHA requirements relevant to hazardous waste
sites. Workers on hazardous waste sites must also be enrolled
in a medical monitoring program.
Minimum personal protective equipment (PPE) for workers at
the Leviathan Mine site includes gloves, hard hat, steel-toe
boots, and Tyvek® coveralls PPE, including respirators, eye
protection, and skin protection is required when handling lime.
46
-------
Based on contaminants and chemicals used at the site, the use
of air purifying respirators or supplied air is not required. A
man lift and personnel tie-off is suggested to reduce fall
hazards when inspecting tanks, clarifiers, and elevated piping.
Noise levels are generally not high, except during site
preparation and solids handling, both of which involve the
operation of heavy equipment. During these activities, noise
levels are monitored to ensure that workers are not exposed to
noise levels above a time-weighted average of 85 decibels
over an eight-hour day. If noise levels exceed this limit,
workers are required to wear hearing protection.
3.11.7 State Requirements
State and local regulatory agencies may require permits prior
to operation of a lime treatment system. Most Federal permits
will be issued by an authorized state agency. An air permit
from the local AQMD may be required if air emissions in
excess of regulatory standards are anticipated. State and local
agencies will have direct regulatory responsibility for all
environmental concerns. If a removal or remedial action
occurs at a Superfund site, Federal agencies, primarily EPA,
will provide regulatory oversight. If off-site disposal of
contaminated waste is required, the waste must be taken to the
disposal facility by a licensed transporter.
3.12 Technology Applicability to Other Sites
Lime treatment of AMD and ARD at Leviathan Mine was
evaluated for applicability to other mine sites based on the
nine criteria used for decision making in the Superfund
feasibility study process. The nine criteria and the results of
the evaluation are summarized in Table 3-3. The active and
semi-passive lime treatment systems evaluated were
specifically designed to treat AMD and ARD at the mine site
to EPA discharge standards for aluminum, arsenic, copper,
iron, and nickel. In addition to the five primary target metals
of concern, EPA identified cadmium, chromium, lead,
selenium, and zinc as secondary water quality indicator
metals. The lime treatment systems implemented at Leviathan
Mine were also successful at reducing concentrations of these
secondary metals in the AMD and ARD to below EPA
discharge standards. Either treatment system can be modified
to treat wastes with varying metals concentrations and acidity.
47
-------
Table 3-3. Feasibility Study Criteria Evaluation for Both Lime Treatment Systems at Leviathan Mine
Criteria
Technology Performance
Overall Protection of
Human Health and the
Environment
Lime treatment has been proven to be extremely effective at reducing concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, copper, iron, nickel,
and other dissolved metals in AMD and ARD. The lime treatment systems evaluated at Leviathan Mine reduced the
concentrations of toxic metals in AMD and ARD, which was histoncally released to Leviathan Creek, to below EPA discharge
standards, which were established to protect water quality- and the ecosystem in Leviathan Creek and down-stream receiving
waters. Resulting metals-laden solid wastes, that are determined to be hazardous based on State or Federal criteria, are
transported to an approved off site TSD facility for proper disposal, again protecting human health and the environment from
these hazardous materials.
Compliance with Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARAR)
Both lime treatment systems are compliant with EPA discharge standards for the Leviathan Mine site. However, the effluent
from the treatment systems does not meet the primary maximum contaminant limit (MCL) for aluminum or the secondary MCL
for iron, which could easily be met with additional lime dosing Hazardous process residuals must be handled in accordance
with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and/or state of California hazardous materials transportation and disposal
regulations
Long-term Effectiveness
and Performance
The active lime treatment system has been in operation at Leviathan Mine since 1999, and the semi-passive alkaline lagoon
since 2001. After implementation of the active lime treatment system in 1999, no overflows of metals-laden AMD have
occurred from the mine site. The treatment systems continue to be operated by the state of California and ARCO Long-term
optimization of the lime treatment system will likely reduce maintenance issues related to gypsum precipitation and lime feed
problems in the process equipment, which are the major performance issues for the systems. Neither system is operational
during the winter months due to freezing conditions and limited site access. During winter shutdown, ARD is discharged to
Leviathan Creek, while AMD is captured and stored in the on site retention ponds. Return of ARD to the creek limits long term
effectiveness of the treatment process; however, this will be addressed by capturing the ARD flow and redirecting it to the
storage ponds during the winter months, or to an active lime treatment system housed in a heated structure.
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
through Treatment .
Lime treatment significantly reduces the mobifity and volume of toxic metals from AMD and ARD at Leviathan Mine. The
dissolved toxic metals are precipitated from solution, concentrated, and dewatered removing toxic levels of metals from the
AMD and ARD However, lime treatment does produce a significant quantity of solid waste. Solid wastes generated from the
lime treatment systems that are determined to be non-hazardous are disposed of on site Solid wastes that exceed State or
Federal hazardous waste criteria are transported to an approved off site TSD facility for proper disposal
Short-term Effectiveness
The resulting effluent from the lime treatment systems does not pose a risk to human health. The hydrated lime solution and the
metal hydroxide precipitates, each having hazardous chemical properties, may pose a risk to site workers during treatment
system operation. Exposure to these hazardous chemicals must be mitigated through engineering controls and proper health and
safety protocols.
Implementabihty
The lime treatment technology relies on a relatively simple chemical process and can be constructed using readily available
equipment and materials. The technology is not proprietary, nor does it require proprietary equipment or reagents Once
installed, the systems can be optimized and maintained indefinitely. Winter shut downs and startups and routine maintenance
all require significant time and manpower. The remoteness of the site also necessitates organized, advanced planning for
manpower, consumables, and replacement equipment and supplies.
Cost
Total first year cost for the construction and operation of the active lime treatment system operated in biphasic mode was
S1.48M and 1.22M operated m monophasic mode. Total first year cost to construct and operate the semi-passive alkaline
lagoon was S0.81M. The operation and maintenance costs associated with the treatment systems are: $16.97 per 1,000 liters at
an AMD flow rate of 638.7 liters per minute (L/min) for the active lime treatment system operated in biphasic mode; $20.97 per
1,000 liters at a combined AMD/ARD flow rate of 222.6 L/min for the system operated in monophasic mode, and $16.44 per
1,000 liters at an ARD flow rate of 78.7 L/min for the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system. Costs provided for each
treatment system are dependent on local material, equipment, consumable, and labor costs, required discharge standards, and
solid waste classification and disposal requirements.
Community Acceptance
The lime treatment technology presents minimal to no risk to the public since all system components are located at and
treatment occurs on the Leviathan Mine site, which is a remote, secluded site. Hazardous chemicals used in the treatment system
include lime and diesel fuel These chemicals pose the highest risk to the public during transportation to the site by truck. The
diesel generators create the most noise and air emissions at the site, again, because of the remoteness of the site, the public is not
impacted.
State Acceptance
The state of California selected and is currently operating the active lime treatment system in biphasic mode, which indicates the
State's acceptance of the technology to treat AMD. Furthermore, the state of California concurs with the treatment of ARD by
ARCO using the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system. However, the state of California has expressed concern about
the return of ARD to Leviathan Creek during the winter months. Capture and on site storage of ARD over the winter months or
year-round treatment would alleviate State concerns and is currently being evaluated by ARCO.
AMD = Acid mine drainage
ARCO = Atlantic Richfield Company
ARD = Acid rock drainage
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
TSD = Treatment, storage, and disposal
48
-------
SECTION 4
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
This section presents an economic analysis of the active lime
treatment and semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment systems
used to treat AMD and ARD with chemistry, flow rates, and
site logistical issues similar to those at the Leviathan Mine.
4.1 Introduction
The information presented in this section has been derived
from (1) observations made and experiences gained during
each technology evaluation, (2) data compiled from the
Leviathan Mine Site Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
(EE/CA) (EMC2 2004a), and (3) personal communication with
EMC2 (EMC2 2004b). The costs associated with designing,
constructing, and operating the two lime treatment systems
have been broken down into the following 11 elements and are
assumed to be appropriate for extrapolation to other mine sites
with similar conditions. Each cost element is further broken
down to document specific costs associated with each
treatment system.
1) Site Preparation
2) Permitting and Regulatory Requirements
3) Capital Equipment
4) System Startup and Shakedown
5) Consumables and Rentals
6) Labor
7) Utilities
8) Residual Waste Shipping, Handling and Disposal
9) Analytical Services
10) Maintenance and Modifications
11) Demobilization
This economic analysis is based primarily on data collected
during the 2003 evaluation period for the active lime treatment
system and the 2002 evaluation period for the semi-passive
alkaline lagoon treatment system. During the 2003 evaluation
period the active lime treatment system operated in
monophasic mode for four weeks (June 18 to July 20, 2003)
and treated 9,538,200 liters of a blend of AMD and ARD
(adit, PUD, CUD, and Delta Seep) at an average rate of
222.6 L/min. The active lime treatment system also operated
in biphasic mode for approximately two weeks in 2003 (July
28 to August 14, 2003), treating 13,247,500 liters of AMD
from the retention ponds at an average rate of 638.7 L/min.
The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system operated
for 16 weeks in 2002 (June 26 to October 31, 2002), treating
11,998,450 liters of ARD from the CUD at an average rate of
78.7 L/min. Costs are presented for each system for their
respective period of operation. The cost per 1,000 liters of
water treated is presented as well as the present worth of the
cumulative variable costs over 5, 10, and 15 years of
treatment. Comparison of treatment costs between systems is
problematic because of different source waters and flow rates.
In addition, influent metals load and acidity varies
significantly between sources.
Section 4.2 presents a cost summary and identifies the major
expenditures for each treatment system (costs are presented in
2003 dollars). As with any cost analysis, caveats may be
applied to specific cost values based on associated factors,
issues and assumptions. The major factors that can affect
estimated costs are discussed in Section 4.3. Assumptions
used in the development of this economic analysis are
identified in Section 4.4. Detailed analysis of each of the 11
individual cost elements for both treatment systems is
presented in Section 4.5.
4.2 Cost Summary
The initial fixed costs to construct the lime treatment systems
are (1) $1,021,415 for the active lime treatment system
operated in monophasic mode, (2) $1,261,076 for the active
lime treatment system operated in biphasic mode, and (3)
$297,482 for the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment
system. Fixed costs consist of site preparation, permitting,
and capital and equipment costs. Site preparation includes
system design, project management, and construction
management. Capital and equipment costs include all
equipment, materials, delivery, and initial system construction.
Equipment and materials include reaction tanks, settling tanks,
piping, pumps, valves, pH control equipment, automation
equipment and satellite phone for reliable communication at a
49
-------
remote site. A breakdown of fixed costs for each system is
presented in Section 4.5.
Variable costs to operate the active lime treatment system are
$200,022 in monophasic mode and $224,813 in biphasic
mode. The variable costs for the semi-passive alkaline lagoon
treatment system are $195,151. Variable costs consist of
system startup and shakedown, consumable and rentals, labor,
utilities, waste handling and disposal, analytical services,
maintenance and system modifications, and system
winterization. A breakdown of variable costs for each system
is presented in Section 4.5.
The total first year cost to design, construct, and operate each
treatment system; yearly operational costs for each treatment
system; and the cumulative 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year
treatment costs for each treatment system are summarized in
Table 4-1.
4.3 Factors Affecting Cost Elements
A number of factors can affect the cost of treating AMD and
ARD with either the active or semi-passive lime treatment
systems. These factors generally include flow rate,
concentration of contaminants, discharge standards, physical
site conditions, geographical site location, and type and
quantity of residuals generated. Increases in flow rate due to
seasonal changes may raise operating costs of each system due
to proportional increases in lime and polymer consumption.
Flow rate increases can also impact fixed costs (number and
size of reaction and settling tanks) when the minimum system
or unit operation HRT is not sufficient to meet discharge
standards. Operating costs are slightly impacted by increases
in contaminant concentration, which may occur through
evaporative reduction during the summer months. Increases in
metals concentrations generally require additional lime dosing
to attain discharge standards. Higher contaminant
concentrations may also change the classification of a residual
waste from a non-hazardous to a hazardous waste, requiring
increased disposal costs. Restrictive discharge standards
impact both fixed and variable costs. System designers and
operators may be forced to extend system and unit operation
HRTs (number and size of reaction and settling tanks) and
increase lime dosage to meet stricter discharge requirements.
Physical site conditions may impact site preparation and
construction costs associated with excavation and grading of
the treatment area and associated AMD retention and solids
settling ponds. Cold climates may limit site access and
shorten the treatment season due to freezing of piping,
requiring AMD retention ponds and systems designed to
operate at a high treatment rate during a shorter treatment
season. The characteristics of the residual solids produced
during treatment may greatly affect disposal costs, where
production of hazardous solids will require off site disposal at
a permitted TSD facility.
4.4 Issues and Assumptions
The following assumptions have been used in the development
of this economic analysis:
• AMD collection ponds have been previously
constructed and do not require maintenance.
• Solids settling ponds have been previously
constructed and do not require maintenance.
• Standard sized tanks are used as reactors and mixing
tanks.
• An appropriate staging area is available for
equipment staging, setup and delivery.
• Water treatment will occur only when the site is
accessible.
• Construction and maintenance of access roads is no
required.
• Each system will be operated continuously during the
treatment period.
• Each system will be operated unmanned during the
night, but will not discharge without personnel on
site.
• All site power is obtained from on site diesel
generators.
• Utility water can be obtained on site.
Table 4-1. Summary of Total and Variable Costs for Each Treatment System
Description
Total First Year Cost
First Year Cost per 1,000 Liters Treated
Total Variable Costs
Variable Costs per 1,000 Liters Treated
Cumulative 5 -Year Total Variable Cost
(Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Cumulative 10- Year Total Variable Cost
(Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Cumulative 15-Year Total Variable Cost
'(Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Active Lime Treatment
System Monophasic Operation
$1,221,437
$128.05
$200,022
$20.97
$820,129
$1,404,871
$1,821,783
Active Lime Treatment
System Bipbasic Operation
$1,478,842
$111.63
$224,814
$1697
$921,780
$1,578,998
$2,047,585
Semi-Passive Alkaline
Lagoon Treatment System
$474,428
$39.54
$197,200
$1644
$808,559
$1,385,051
$1,796,081
50
-------
• Hazardous sludge will be disposed of at an off site
TSD facility.
• The site is located within 400 kilometers of the off-
site TSD facility.
• Non-hazardous sludge can be disposed of on site.
• Permitting for the treatment systems is not required
because of CERCLA status.
• Treatment goals and discharge standards apply to
those presented in Table 2-5.
• Samples are collected and analyzed daily during
discharge to verify attainment of discharge standards.
4.5 Cost Elements
Each of the 11 cost elements identified in Section 4.1 has been
defined and the associated costs for each treatment system
element presented below. The cost elements for the active
lime treatment system are summarized in Table 4-2, and in
Table 4-3 for the semi-active alkaline treatment lagoon. Cost
element details for each treatment system are presented in
Appendix C.
4.5.1 Site Preparation
Site preparation for each treatment system addresses only
system design, construction management and project
management. AMD retention and solids settling ponds and a
cleared and graded treatment area were already in place;
therefore costs for these activities are not provided in this
analysis. However, for other sites, site preparation may
require clearing vegetation, construction of AMD retention
and solids settling ponds, and grading of an area for the
treatment system.
Active Lime Treatment System. System design is estimated
at 20 percent of the capital and equipment cost for the active
lime treatment system. Construction management is estimated
at 15 percent and project management at 10 percent of the
capital and equipment costs for the system (US Army Corp of
Engineers [USAGE] 2000). The total site preparation cost for
the active lime treatment system operated in monophasic
mode is $316,991; the total site preparation cost for the active
lime treatment system operated in biphasic mode is $389,181.
Semi-Passive Alkaline Treatment Lagoon. The total site
preparation cost for the alkaline lagoon treatment system is
$88,812. Design, construction management, and project
management costs were estimated at 20 percent, 15 percent,
and 10 percent of the capital and equipment costs,
respectively. The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment
system did require minor berm extension and site grading as
well as pond liner installation; however, these costs are
included as general site work items in the capital and
equipment portion of this analysis rather than under site
preparation.
4.5.2 Permitting and Regulatory Requirements
Permitting and regulatory costs vary depending on whether
treatment occurs at a CERCLA-lead or a state- or local
authority-lead site. At CERCLA sites such as Leviathan
Mine, removal and remedial actions must be consistent with
environmental laws, ordinances, and regulations, including
Federal, State, and local standards and criteria; however,
permitting is not required.
At a state- or local authority-lead site, a NPDES permit, an air
permit, and a storm water permit will likely be required as
well as additional monitoring, which can increase permitting
and regulatory costs. National Environmental Policy Act or
state equivalent documentation may also be required for
system construction. For a treatment system similar to those
described here, constructed at a state- or local authority-lead
site, permitting and regulatory costs are estimated to be
$50,000.
4.5.3 Capital Equipment
Capital costs include delivery and installation of system
equipment and assembly of system components. Equipment
includes reaction, settling, and storage tanks; pumps, piping,
and valves; pH control equipment; and automation equipment.
This analysis assumes that an area of at least 4,050 to
6,070 square meters is available for installation of equipment,
system assembly, and staging supplies. The cost for
excavation or grading of such a staging area is not included in
this economic analysis.
Active Lime Treatment System. Total capital expenditure
for the active lime treatment system is $704,424 for the
monophasic system and $864,847 for the biphasic system.
The cost for installation of the active lime treatment system is
approximately $668,353 for the monophasic system and
$817,486 for the biphasic system. The cost to route AMD and
ARD from four different sources (CUD, Delta Seep, Adit, and
PUD) to the treatment system operated in monophasic mode is
$16,592. The CUD and Delta Seep require capture, pumping,
and routing of ARD approximately 500 meters to the
treatment system. Routing of Adit/PUD flows approximately
150 meters to the system does not require pumping. For
biphasic operations, AMD is pumped directly from the
retention pond adjacent to the treatment system at a cost of
$930. An additional cost of $26,952 is incurred for pumping
solids slurry from the Phase II clarifier to the pit clarifier for
settling. Automation components of the system include an
automatic pH control system and a remote monitoring/alarm
system at a cost of approximately $17,985, including
installation. A satellite phone to provide reliable
communication at a remote location is estimated at $1,495.
51
-------
Table 4-2. Summary of Cost Elements for the Active Lime
Treatment System
Table 4-3. Summary of Cost Elements for the Semi-
passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System
Description
Site Preparation
Permitting and Regulatory
Capital and Equipment
Conventional Lime Treatment
System
Phase I Reaction Module
Phase I Clarifier Module
Phase I Solids Separation
Phase 11 Reaction Module
Phase II Clarifier Module
Phase II Solids Separation
Lime Slurry Equipment
Utility Water Delivery/Storage
Fuel Storage
System Assembly
Collection Pumping and
Appurtenances
Capture and Route Delta Seep
Flows to Channel Under Drain
Route Delta Seep and Channel
Under Drain to System
Route Adit/ Pit Under Drain Flows
to System
Route Phase II Clarifier Slurry to
Pit Clanfier
Automation
Remote Monitoring/
Alarm System
pH Controller System
Communications
Total Fixed Cost
System Start-up and Shakedown
Consumables and Rentals
Labor
Utilities
Residual Waste Handling and
Disposal
Analytical Services
Maintenance and Modifications
Demobilization
Total Variable Cost
Total 1st Year Cost
Total 1st Year Cost/1 ,000-Liters
Total Variable Cost/1 ,000-Liters
Cumulative 5-Year Total Variable
Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent
Rate of Return)
Cumulative 10-Year Total Variable
Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent
Rate of Return)
Cumulative 15- Year Total Variable
Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent
Rate of Return)
Monophasic
Subtotal
$316,990.86
$0.00
$704,424.14
$668,352.64
$93,361 44
$000
$0.00
$102,611.28
$125,267.24
$116,662.36
$19,39404
$87,966.28
$6,150.00
$116,94000
$16,592.00
$6,214.00
$9,448.00
$930.00
$0.00
$17,984.50
$9,742.50
$8,242.00
$1,495.00
$1,021,415.00
$17,980.80
$41,993.12
$73,699.12
$20,982.00
$16,306.00
$3,080.00
$8,000.00
$17,980.80
$200,021.84
$1,221,436.84
$128.05
$20.97
$820,129.00
$1,404,871.00
$1,821,783.00
Biphasic
Subtotal
$389,181.24
$0.00
$864,847.22
$817,485.72
$93,361.44
$149,133.08
$116,66236
$102,611.28
$125,267.24
$0.00
$19,39404
$87,966.28
$6,150.00
$116,940.00
$27,882.00
$0.00
$0.00
$930.00
$26,952.00
$17,984.50
$9,742.50
$8,242.00
$1,495.00
$1,254,028.46
$22,400.00
$55,609.80
$66,760.00
$17388.80
$20,175.00
$2,080.00
$18,000.00
$22,400.00
$224,813.60
$1,478,842.06
$111.63
$16.97
$921,780.00
$1,578,998.00
$2,047,585.00
Description
Site Preparation
Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Capital and Equipment
General Site Work
Collection Systems
Equipment
Electrical
Miscellaneous
Total Fixed Cost
System Start up and Shakedown
Consumables and Rentals
Labor
Utilities
Residual Waste Handling and Disposal
Analytical Services
Maintenance and Modifications
Demobilization
Total Variable Cost
Total 1st Year Cost
Total 1st Year Cost/1 ,000-Liters
Total Variable Cost/1, 000-Liters
Cumulative 5- Year Total Variable Cost
(Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Cumulative 10- Year Total Variable Cost
(Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Cumulative 15- Year Total Variable Cost
(Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Subtotal
$88,812.03
$0.00
$188,415.25
$98,572.51
$30,776.23
$33,896.34
$3,384.30
$21,785.87
$277,227.28
$11,612.16
$41,715.52
$92,572.76
$15,922.66
$17,325.00
$1,040.00
$5,400.00
$11,612.16
$197,200.26
$474,427.54
$39.54
$16.44
$808,559.00
$1385,051.00
$1,796,081.00
Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System. Total
capital expenditures for the semi-passive alkaline lagoon
treatment system are approximately $188,415. These costs
have been broken down into general site work, collection
systems, equipment, electrical, and miscellaneous costs.
General site work ($98,573) makes up nearly one-half of the
total capital and equipment cost and includes general site
grading, lining of the alkaline lagoon, extending the northern
lagoon berm to increase space for reaction tanks and bag
filters, and installing silt curtains within the lagoon.
Approximately 16 percent of the capital costs ($30,776)
consist of the collection systems used to route CUD flow to
the treatment system. Approximately 18 percent of the capital
costs ($33,896) consist of the reaction and storage tanks,
pumps, compressors, and aerators used in system construction.
The remainder of the capital costs ($25,170) consists of
electrical equipment, monitoring equipment, and storage bins.
All alkaline lagoon treatment system capital costs are loaded
to account for system assembly. The total capital cost for the
semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system is
approximately one-quarter the cost of the active lime
treatment system.
52
-------
4.5.4 Startup and Fixed Costs
System start-up and shakedown includes the labor to setup
pumps, pipes, and rental equipment, test system hydraulics,
startup the system, and optimize the system to meet discharge
standards. System startup and shakedown occurs at the
beginning of each treatment season as the system is cleaned
and disassembled each winter. After system assembly and
start up, a shake down is necessary to ensure that any
problems are identified and addressed prior to optimization.
The system is then optimized for the desired source water,
flow rate, and discharge standards. This process generally
requires 1.5 to 2 weeks of labor for a field crew of four who
are familiar with the system. Additional time required for
additional optimization has been built into system assembly
costs.
Active Lime Treatment System. The estimated start up cost
for the active lime treatment system is $17,981 for operation
in monophasic mode and $22,400 for operation in biphasic
mode. It is assumed that assembly and shake down of either
system will take a four-person crew 10 8-hour work days to
complete. The cost difference between the two modes of
operation is due to the different documented labor rates for
system operators.
Semi-Passive Alkaline Treatment Lagoon. The estimated
start up cost for the alkaline lagoon treatment system is
$11,612. It is assumed that assembly and shake down of the
semi-passive alkaline treatment lagoon system will take a
four-person crew eight 8-hour working days to complete.
Startup and shakedown costs for this system are less than the
active lime treatment system due to the simplicity of system
design.
4.5.5 Consumables and Supplies
Consumables and rentals for each system consist of chemicals
and supplies required to treat AMD and ARD, including lime,
polymer, bag filters, health and safety equipment, field trailer
rental, storage connex rental, compressor rental, and heavy
equipment rental. It is assumed that field trailers, compressors
and heavy equipment will be used from the time system
assembly begins until winterization is complete. Storage
connexes will be rented year round.
Active Lime Treatment System. Total consumable and
rental costs for the active lime treatment system are $41,993
for monophasic operation and $55,610 for biphasic operation.
The largest consumable expenditure is lime. Lime was
consumed at a rate of approximately 1.294 grams of dry lime
per liter of AMD and ARD treated during monophasic
operation, at a cost of $4,978. Under biphasic operation,
3.397 grams of dry lime was consumed per liter of AMD
treated at a cost of $16,864. The largest rental cost is for
equipment storage from year to year. It is assumed that five
storage connexes will be necessary for this system, operated in
either mode. Storage connexes for either mode cost $19,500
per year, regardless of the duration of the treatment season.
One field trailer is used from the time of system mobilization
until winterization is completed. A mobilization and set-up
fee is included for each field trailer and connex.
Semi-Passive Alkaline Treatment Lagoon System. Total
consumable and rental costs for the semi-passive alkaline
treatment lagoon are $41,716. The largest consumable
expenditure is lime. Lime was consumed at a rate of
approximately 1.467 grams of dry lime per liter of ARD
treated, at a cost of $7,100. The largest rental cost is for
equipment storage year to year. Three storage connexes were
necessary for this system. Storage connexes cost $11,700 per
year, regardless of the duration of the treatment season. One
field trailer is used from the time of system mobilization until
winterization is completed. A mobilization and set-up fee is
included for each field trailer and connex.
4.5.6 Labor
Labor costs for each system include the field personnel
necessary to operate the system and to address day-to-day
maintenance issues. Labor associated with system startup and
shakedown and system winterization is included in
Sections 4.5.4 and 4.5.11, respectively. In addition to the full-
time field crew, approximately one-half of the labor cost is
dedicated to project and program management, engineering,
and administrative support.
Active Lime Treatment System. Field personnel are
necessary to operate the system, address day-to-day
maintenance issues, drop solid wastes from the filter press,
collect discharge monitoring samples, monitor unit operation
pH and flow rates, and to adjust lime and polymer dosage
rates. Field technicians accounted for $39,052 out of the total
labor expenditure of $73,699 for monophasic operations.
Field technicians accounted for $32,900 out of the total labor
expenditure of $66,760 for biphasic operations.
Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System. Labor
costs for the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system
include system operation, addressing day-to-day maintenance
issues, collecting discharge monitoring samples, monitoring
unit operation pH and flow rates, adjusting lime dosage and
aeration rates, and discharging treated water. Due to the more
passive nature of the alkaline lagoon treatment system, less
operating and maintenance labor is necessary in comparison to
the active lime treatment system. Field technician labor
accounted for $58,061 out of the total labor expenditure of
$92,573 during the evaluation period. Total field technician
labor exceeded that for the active lime treatment system due to
the longer period of operation.
53
-------
4.5.7 Utilities
Due to the remote nature of the site, utilities are not available.
Utility costs generally consist of the cost to lease generators,
generator fuel, portable toilet rental, and satellite phone
service. Water is gravity fed to the treatment system from
Leviathan Creek. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) service through a satellite uplink has also been
included for the active lime treatment system.
Active Lime Treatment System.. Generator rental for the
active lime treatment system includes one primary 125 kW
generator and one backup 125 kW generator. Utilities are
generally necessary from system assembly until system
winterization is complete. Utility costs to support operation of
the system in are $20,982 for operation in monophasic mode
and SI 7,389 for operation in biphasic mode.
Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System.
Generator rental for the treatment system includes one primary
40 kW generator and one backup 25 kW generator. Utilities
are generally necessary from system assembly until system
winterization is complete. Total utility costs to support
operation of the system are $15,923. Utility costs for the
system are lower than the active lime treatment system due to
the smaller number and size of pumps and mixers as well as a
lower flow rates.
4.5.8 Residual Waste Shipping, Handling, and
Disposal
The lime treatment process produces a large quantity of metal
hydroxide sludge and filter cake. Solid waste residuals
produced by the treatment systems were evaluated for
hazardous waste characteristics. Solid waste residuals that
were determined to be hazardous were transported to an off-
site TSD facility for disposal; while non-hazardous solids
were disposed of on-site or shipped to a non-hazardous waste
repository.
Active Lime Treatment System. The filter cake produced
during the active lime treatment process generally contains
levels of arsenic exceeding State hazardous waste criteria.
The active lime treatment system operated in monophasic
mode generated 15.2 dry tons of hazardous filter cake, while
biphasic operations generated 21.1 dry tons of hazardous filter
cake and 93.6 dry tons of pit clarifier solids. The cost to
remove this hazardous waste to an off-site TSD facility is
approximately $16,306 for monophasic filter cake and
$10,275 for biphasic filter cake. Non-hazardous waste from
the biphasic mode must be removed from the pit clarifier
approximately every third year and disposed of in an on site
storage pit. The cost to dispose of the dewatered
non-hazardous sludge is approximately $30,000 per event.
This cost is divided evenly between each year for this analysis
and assumed to be $9,900 for the evaluation period.
Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System. The
semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system generated
22.1 dry tons of non-hazardous bag filter and lagoon solids.
Removal of solids from the bag filters is performed at the end
of each treatment season; the solids disposed of off-site in a
non-hazardous waste repository at a total cost of $17,325.
Solids accumulation in the treatment lagoon occurs at a slow
enough rate to require removal once every five years.
Excavation and disposal of lagoon solids has not yet occurred,
therefore no associated cost has been included in this analysis.
4.5.9 Analytical Services
Analytical costs associated with each lime treatment system
consist of daily sampling to verify compliance with discharge
standards. One effluent grab sample is collected each day
during continuous discharge or prior to batch discharge and
analyzed for metals using EPA Methods 601 OB and 7470 to
demonstrate compliance with discharge standards. A grab
sample of each solid waste stream is also collected to support
waste characterization and disposal. Each grab solid sample is
analyzed for metals using EPA Methods 601 OB and 7471 and
leachable metals using the EPA Methods 1311, 6010B, and
7470 for comparison to Federal RCRA and TCLP criteria and
California DI WET/EPA Method 601 OB for comparison to
State TTLC and STLC criteria.
Active Lime Treatment System. The cost for daily
analytical services is $2,800 for the active lime treatment
system operated in monophasic mode and $ 1,520 for biphasic
operations. Analysis of one filter cake sample generated
during monophasic operations is required at a cost of $280;
while analysis of a filter cake and pit clarifier sludge sample
generated during biphasic operations is required at a cost of
$560. Solids samples are collected at the end of the treatment
season to support waste characterization and disposal.
Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System. The
semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system discharges in
batches approximately every 18 days. Six effluent grab
samples were analyzed during the evaluation period at a total
cost of $1,040. Analysis of bag filter and lagoon solids
samples, at a cost of $560, is required to support waste
characterization and disposal at the end of the treatment
season.
4.5.10 Maintenance and Modifications
Maintenance and modifications costs include regular
equipment replacement due to wear and tear. Equipment
expected to require replacement includes plugged lime and
polymer delivery lines, piping, pumps, mixers and filter press
plates.
54
-------
Active Lime Treatment System. The annual equipment
replacement cost for the active lime treatment system operated
in monophasic and biphasic modes is approximately $8,000
and $18,000, respectively. Equipment expected to be replaced
each treatment season includes: sludge pumps and piping,
aerators, pH probes, and lime and polymer delivery tubing.
Peristaltic pumps, filter press plates, clarifier plates, mixers
and water delivery pumps are expected to be replaced
approximately every five years.
Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System. The
annual equipment replacement cost for the alkaline lagoon
treatment system is approximately $5,400. The lime
recirculation pumps, lime delivery tubing, and pH probes are
expected to be replaced each treatment season. Water delivery
pumps, mixers and trash pumps are expected to be replaced
approximately every five years.
4.5.11 Dem obilization
Demobilization includes labor to clean, disassemble, and store
system components at the end of each treatment season.
Demobilization activities include draining unused reagents
from the system, cleaning the interior of reaction tanks, lime
slurry tanks, and clarifiers; disassembly, cleaning, and storage
of pumps and piping; returning of rental equipment; and
consolidation and off-site disposal of hazardous waste.
Active Lime Treatment System. The estimated cost for
demobilization of the active lime treatment is $17,981 for
monophasic operations, and $22,400 for biphasic operations.
It is assumed that demobilization of either mode of operation
will require ten 8-hour work days for a four-person crew to
complete. The cost difference is due to the different
documented labor rates for the system operators.
Semi-Passive Alkaline Treatment Lagoon. The estimated
cost for demobilization of the alkaline lagoon treatment
system is $11,612. It is assumed that demobilization of the
system will require eight 8-hour work days for a four-person
crew to complete. Demobilization costs for this system are
less than the active lime treatment system due to the simplicity
of system design and fewer overall components.
55
-------
SECTION 5
DATA QUALITY REVIEW
The analytical data collected during the SITE demonstration
were collected in accordance with the 2002 and 2003
TEP/QAPPs (Tetra Tech 2002 and 2003). As part of the
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements
specified in the TEP/QAPPs, any deviations from the
sampling plans, such as missed sampling events, changes in
sampling locations, or changes in analytical methods, were
documented throughout the duration of the demonstration and
are presented in Section 5.1. Documentation of these
deviations is important because of the potential effects they
have on data quality and on the ability of the data to meet the
project objectives.
As part of the QA/QC data review, sample delivery groups
(SDG) received from the laboratory underwent data validation
through a third-party validator to ensure that the data
generated is of a quality sufficient to meet project objectives.
As specified in the TEP/QAPPs, data packages underwent 10
percent full validation in accordance with EPA validation
guidance (EPA 1995). A Summary of the data validation
performed on the lime treatment technology SITE
demonstration data is presented in Section 5.2.
5.7 Deviations from TEP/QAPP
Due to various operating issues, several changes were required
in the operation and sampling of the lime treatment systems
during the SITE demonstration. One deviation from the
TEP/QAPP that affected the sampling design for both
treatment systems affected the ability to conduct the four-
consecutive-day sampling events. Although initially planned
so that discharge data could be compared to EPA's 4-day
average discharge standard, these consecutive day sampling
events were not conducted. As an alternative, the SITE
demonstration team determined that comparing the average
concentration from four consecutive sampling events would be
sufficient to complete the effluent discharge comparisons
against the four-day discharge standards. Deviations from the
TEP/QAPPs related to the operation of each treatment system
were documented throughout the duration of the SITE
demonstration and are presented below.
Active Lime Treatment System
• The daily order of sample collection was modified
due to system upsets and the need to sample the
system at equilibrium. Detailed internal sample
collection was also postponed until later in the
sampling season to ensure that the pit clarifier was
equilibrated.
• Samples were not collected at the AMD influent box
due to lack of accessibility, instead a sampling port
was installed in the system influent pipe.
• Samples were not collected from three locations due
to changes in system operation. Phase II clarifier
overflow (S6) has been discontinued; instead the
solids slurry is discharged to the pit clarifier. Sample
location S9 (pit clarifier effluent) is now equivalent
to sample location S2 (system effluent), as pH
adjustment no longer occurs at the effluent box above
location S2. Sample location S10 (the first Phase I
solids holding tank overflow) is no longer present,
instead sample location S11 (the second Phase I
solids holding tank overflow) combines the overflow
from both tanks.
• Analyzed an effluent split sample collected by
RWQCB to verify their laboratory findings.
• Analyzed 2002 monophasic trial samples collected
by RWQCB at the treatment system influent and
Phase I Clarifier effluent locations. Submitted both
filtered and unfiltered grab samples for analysis.
• Collected an unsettled solids slurry sample at the pit
clarifier influent (S7) for a field solids settling test.
• Collected samples at pit clarifier effluent (S2), Phase
II clarifier influent (S5), and pit clarifier influent (S7)
for total solids and TSS analyses. Data will be used
in conjunction with field solids settling test results to
assess clarifier efficiency.
• Collected a field blank and equipment rinsate sample
to assess the source of trace levels of mercury
showing up in the analytical data.
56
-------
• Collected pit clarifier sludge (S7), monophasic trial
sludge (S2), and filter cake (SI3) solids samples at
the direction of the EPA task order manager (TOM)
to assess the content and leachability of metals in the
treatment system waste streams. The solids samples
were analyzed for total metals and metals after TCLP
extraction, SPLP extraction, and California DI WET
extraction. The solids samples were also analyzed
for total solids and percent moisture in order to
estimate the likely increase in metals concentration
after drying.
Alkaline Treatment Lagoon
• Detailed internal sample collection was postponed
until later in the sampling season to ensure that the
lagoon had equilibrated.
• Samples were not collected at S7 (Cell 3) due to
changes in system operation. System effluent no
longer discharges through the snorkel in the lagoon,
instead the system effluent is periodically pumped
out of Cell 3. Therefore, the system effluent
sampling location (S2) was moved to Cell 3.
• Sample collection at locations SI la (bag filter
influent) and SI Ib (bag filter effluent) was moved to
the same day as sample collection at location S4
(lagoon influent). Collecting samples on the same
day allowed correlation of total suspended solids data
collected at Bag Filter No. 1 and from the lagoon
influent (discharge from all four bag filters).
• Collected a solids sample from Bag Filter No.l (SI 1)
at the direction of the EPA TOM to assess the content
and leachability of metals in the treatment system
waste stream. The solids sample was analyzed for
total metals and metals after TCLP extraction, SPLP
extraction, and California DI WET extraction. The
solids sample was also analyzed for total solids and
percent moisture in order to estimate the likely
increase in metals concentration after drying.
5.2 Summary of Data Validation and PARCC
Criteria Evaluation
The critical data quality parameters evaluated during data
validation include precision, accuracy, representativeness,
completeness, and comparability (PARCC). Evaluation of
these critical parameters provides insight on the quality of the
data and is essential in determining whether the data is of
sufficient quality to meet project objectives. A summary of
the data validation for the SITE demonstration data and an
evaluation of the PARCC parameters for the primary target
analytes are presented below.
Based on data validation, only two metals results were
rejected in the samples analyzed. Because the laboratory
failed to analyze an SPLP leachate method blank for one SDG,
detected results for arsenic and chromium were rejected in the
SPLP leachate extract for sludge sample 3-BP-08-2-S11-S-G.
No other sample results were affected. In addition to the
rejected data, some metals data were qualified as estimated
based on other QC issues. QC issues resulting in qualified
data typically consisted of problems with initial and
continuing calibration, calibration and method blank
contamination, inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference
check sample analysis, percent recovery and relative percent
difference values outside of acceptable values, ICP serial
dilution problems, and contract required detection limits
(CRDL) standard recovery problems, and/or method blank
contamination. An evaluation of the PARCC parameters
follows.
Precision: Precision for the SITE demonstration data was
evaluated through the analysis of matrix duplicates (MD)
samples for metals. The precision goal for MD samples was
established at less than or equal to 20 percent for relative
percent difference (RPD). Over the duration of the SITE
demonstration, a total of 20 aqueous samples and four sludge
samples were collected from the treatment systems and
analyzed in duplicate. Where one or both metals results in a
duplicate pair were below the practical quantitation limit
(PQL) or not detected, the RPD was not calculated. Out of the
five primary target metals and the five secondary water quality
indicator metals, RPDs for arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, iron, lead, selenium, and/or zinc exceeded the
20 percent RPD criteria in many samples. Corresponding
metals data for associated samples within each SDG were
qualified as estimated based on duplicate precision problems;
however, no data was rejected.
Accuracy: Accuracy for the SITE demonstration data was
evaluated through the analysis of matrix spike (MS) samples
for the metals analyses. The accuracy goal for MS samples
was established at 75 to 125 percent for percent recovery.
Over the duration of the SITE demonstration, a total of 17
aqueous samples were collected from the lime treatment
systems and analyzed as MS samples. In addition, two sludge
samples and six metals leachate samples were analyzed as MS
samples. No data for the primary target metals or the
secondary water quality indicator metals were qualified based
on MS recovery problems. However, in several MS samples
poor spike recoveries were observed when metals
concentrations in the sample greatly exceeded the spike
concentration. In several of the MS samples where poor
recoveries were observed for aluminum, arsenic, iron, and/or
nickel, the concentrations of these target metals in the samples
exceeded four times the spike concentration. Based on EPA
guidance (EPA 1995), sample data were not qualified based
on poor spike recoveries for these samples.
Representativeness: Representativeness expresses the degree
to which sample data accurately and precisely represent the
characteristics of a population, parameter variations at a
57
-------
sampling point, or an environmental condition that they are
intended to represent. Representativeness is a qualitative
parameter; therefore, no specific criteria must be met.
Representative data were obtained during the SITE
demonstration through selection of proper sampling locations
and analytical methods based on the project objectives and
sampling program described in Section 2.3. As specified in
the TEP/QAPPs, proper collection and handling of samples
avoided cross contamination and minimized analyte losses.
The application of standardized laboratory procedures also
facilitated generation of representative data.
To aid in the evaluation of sample representativeness,
laboratory-required method blank samples were analyzed and
evaluated for the presence of contaminants. Sample data
determined to be non-representative by comparison with
method blank data was qualified, as described earlier in this
section. With the exception of the rejected metals data, the
data collected during the SITE demonstration are deemed
representative of the chemical concentrations, physical
properties, and other non-analytical parameters that were
being sampled or documented.
Completeness: Completeness is a measure of the percentage
of project-specific data deemed valid. Valid data are obtained
when samples are collected and analyzed in accordance with
QC procedures outlined in the TEP/QAPPs and when none of
the quality control (QC) criteria that affect data usability are
significantly exceeded. The rejected data discussed above are
deemed invalid and affect the completeness goal. Other
factors not related to the validity of the data can also affect
completeness, such as lost or broken samples, missed
sampling events, or operational changes by the system
operator.
In 2003, the active lime treatment system was evaluated
primarily during monophasic operations; however, a single
day sampling event was conducted during biphasic operations.
A complete evaluation of the unit operations of the system
operated in biphasic mode was conducted during a single
event in 2003 for comparison to the 2002 biphasic evaluation
period.
Evaluation of the system during monophasic operations in
2003 represented a significant departure from the TEP/QAPP;
however, the sample design was retained and only modified
where a sampling location was no longer valid or duplicative.
The duration of the monophasic evaluation period was also
reduced from a planned six week period to four weeks by the
system operator.
In 2002, the planned six week evaluation period of the active
lime treatment system during biphasic operations, though
limited in scope, was fully achieved. Two planned sampling
events were canceled due to system failures; however, two
additional sampling events were added to the schedule. The
planned four week evaluation period of the semi-passive
alkaline treatment lagoon, though limited in scope, was also
fully achieved.
As specified in the TEP/QAPPs, the project completeness goal
for the SITE demonstration was 90 percent. Based on an
evaluation of the data that was collected and analyzed and
other documentation, completeness for the project was greater
than 99 percent. Deviations from the TEP/QAPP due to
unplanned changes in system operation by the system operator
did not impact the validity of the data. Instead, the unplanned
changes provided an opportunity to evaluate different modes
of system operation and system response to changes in source
water chemistry, flow rate, and HRT.
Comparability: The comparability objective determines
whether analytical conditions are sufficiently uniform
throughout the duration of the project to ensure that reported
data are consistent. For the SITE demonstration, the
generation of uniform data was ensured through adherence of
the contracted laboratory to specified analytical methods, QC
criteria, standardized units of measure, and standardized
electronic deliverables in accordance with the TEP/QAPPs.
Comparability for the SITE demonstration data was also
ensured through third party validation. As a result of these
efforts, no data comparability issues were documented by the
project team for this project.
58
-------
SECTION 6
TECHNOLOGY STATUS
The technology associated with the active and semi-passive
lime treatment systems is not proprietary, nor are proprietary
reagents or equipment required for system operation. Both
systems have been demonstrated at full-scale and are currently
operational at Leviathan Mine. The treatment systems are
undergoing continuous refinement and optimization to address
lime delivery and scaling problems. The semi-passive
alkaline lagoon treatment system has recently been
reconfigured to include a rotating cylinder treatment system
(RCTS) in place of the reaction tanks. Lime is combined with
ARD in a mixing tank, mixed for a short period of time, then
pumped to the RCTS for extend aeration. The new RCTS has
decreased the lime requirement by over 50 percent, resulting
in reagent and solids disposal cost savings of $0.52 per 1,000
liters (Tsukamoto 2004). Because of the success of lime
treatment at Leviathan Mine, the state of California and
ARCO are also evaluating the potential effectiveness,
implementability, and costs for year-round treatment. Applied
to other AMD- or ARD-impacted sites, the lime treatment
systems would require only bench scale testing to assess lime
requirement and flocculent dosage (as applicable) prior to
design and construction of operational systems. The systems
are fully scalable, requiring only modification of reaction tank
and clarifier size to achieve the required unit operation and
system HRT necessary for lime contact and precipitate
settling. The active lime treatment system has been operated
at flows ranging from 210.5 to 663 L/min using the same
process equipment. Lower flow rates (62 to 111 L/min) are
preferable for operation of the semi-passive alkaline treatment
lagoon due to limitations on the number of bag filters required
for initial precipitate removal.
59
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Analyze-It. 2004. Analyze-It Statistical Software.
Version 1.71. September. Available on-line:
http://www.analyse-it.com/
Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO). 2003. "Draft
Leviathan Mine Site 2002 Early Response Action
Completion Report." Prepared for ARCO by Unipure
Environmental. March.
ARCO. 2004. "Draft Final Leviathan Mine Site 2002 Early
Response Action Completion Report." Prepared for
ARCO by Unipure Environmental. April.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Lahontan
Region (RWQCB). 1995. "Leviathan Mine 5-year Work
Plan." July.
RWQCB. 2003. "2002 Year-End Report for Leviathan
Mine." February.
RWQCB. 2004. "2003 Year-End Report for Leviathan
Mine." February.
EMC2. 2004a. "Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for
Leviathan Mine." March 31, 2004.
EMC2. 2004b. Memorandum regarding 2001/2002 treatment
cost summary. Transmitted by Monika Johnson, EMC2 to
Matthew Wetter, Tetra Tech EM Inc. September 3, 2004.
State of California. 2004. "Waste Extraction Test."
California Code of Regulations. Title 22, Division 4-
Environmental Health. July.
Tetra Tech EM Inc (Tetra Tech). 2002. "2002 Technology
Evaluation Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan,
Leviathan Mine Superfund Site." Alpine County,
California. April.
Tetra Tech. 2003. "2003 Technology Evaluation Plan/
Quality Assurance Project Plan, Leviathan Mine
Superfund Site." Alpine County, California. August.
Tetra Tech. 2004. "Draft Technology Evaluation Report Data
Summary, Demonstration of Biphasic, Monophasic, and
Alkaline Lagoon Lime Treatment Technologies,
Leviathan Mine Superfund Site." Alpine County,
California. June.
Tsukamoto, Tim. 2004. Personal communication regarding
reduction in lime costs resulting from implementation of
the RCTS at the alkaline lagoon. August 5.
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE). 2000. A Guide to
Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates during the
Feasibility Study. July 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. "CLP
SOW for Inorganics Analysis, Multi-Media,
Multi-Concentration." Document Number ILM04.0.
EPA. 1997. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste/Chemical Methods, Laboratory, Volume 1A
through 1C, and Field Manual, Volume 2. SW-846,
Third Edition (Revision III). Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
EPA. 2000. "Guidance for Data Quality Assessment:
Practical Methods for Data Analysis." EPA QA/G-9.
EPA/600/R-96/084.
EPA. 2002. "Remedial Action Memorandum: Request for
Approval of Removal Action at the Leviathan Mine,
Alpine County, CA." From: Kevin Mayer, RPM, Site
Cleanup Branch, EPA Region 9, To: Keith Takata,
Director, Superfund Division, USEPA. July 18.
EPA. 2004. ProUCL Version 3.0. EPA Statistical Program
Package. April. Available on-line:
http://www.epa.gov/nerlesdl/tsc/form.htm
60
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TABLES
61
-------
Table A-1. 2003 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Monophasic Operations
3-BP-01-2-S01-W-C
3-BP-01-2-S01-W-C-F
3-BP-01-2-S02-W-C
3-BP-01-2-S02-W-C-F
3-BP-01-4-S01-W-C
3-BP-01-4-S01-W-C-F
3-BP-01-4-S02-W-C
3-BP-01-4-S02-W-C-F
3-BP-02-2-S01-W-C
3-BP-02-2-S01-W-C-F
3-BP-02-2-S02-W-C
3-BP-02-2-S02-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-S01-W-C
3-BP-02-4-S01-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-S02-W-C
3-BP-02-4-S02-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-S03-W-C
3-BP-02-4-S03-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-S04-W-C
3-BP-02-4-S04-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-S05-W-C
3-BP-02-4-S06-W-C
3-BP-02-4-S06-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-S14-W-C
3-BP-02-4-S14-W-C-F
3-BP-03-3-S01-W-C
3-BP-03-3-S01-W-C-F
3-BP-03-3-S02-W-C
3-BP-03-3-S02-W-C-F
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
6/26/2003
6/26/2003
6/26/2003
6/26/2003
7/1/2003
7/1/2003
7/1/2003
7/1/2003
7/3/2003
7/3/2003
7/3/2003
7/3/2003
7/3/2003
7/3/2003
7/3/2003
7/3/2003
7/3/2003
7/3/2003
7/3/2003
7/3/2003
7/3/2003
7/9/2003
7/9/2003
7/9/2003
7/9/2003
7/10/2003
Location
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Phase 1 Reactor Effluent
Phase I Reactor Effluent
Phase II Reactor Effluent
Phase II Reactor Effluent
Phase 11 Reactor Influent
Clarifier 11 Settled Solids
Clarifier II Settled Solids
Phase II Clarifier Influent
Phase II Clarifier Influent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Pond 4 Discharge
Filtered?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Project
Objective
P1,P2, SG2
P1.P2
P1.P2, SG2
P1,P2
P1.P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1.P2
P1.P2
P1,P2
P1,P2, SGI
P1,P2
P1,P2, SGI
PI,P2
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
P1,P2, SGI
F1.P2
P1,P2,SG1
P1,P2
P1,P2
Metals
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
TSS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TDS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sulfate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Alkalinity
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hardness
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments
MS/MD
MS/MD
MS/MD
ON
to
-------
Table A-1. 2003 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Monophasic Operations (continued)
Sample ID
3-BP-03-4-P4-W-G-F
3-BP-03-4-S01-W-C
3-BP-03-4-S01-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-S02-W-C
3-BP-03-4-S02-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-S06-W-C
3-BP-03-4-S06-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-S10-W-G
3-BP-03-4-S13-W-C
3-BP-03-4-S13-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-S14-W-C
3-BP-03-4-S14-W-C-F
3-BP-04-3-S01-W-C
3-BP-04-3-S01-W-C-F
3-BP-04-3-S02W-C
3-BP-04-3-S02-W-C-F
Date
7/10/2003
7/10/2003
7/10/2003
7/10/2003
7/10/2003
7/10/2003
7/10/2003
7/10/2003
7/10/2003
7/10/2003
7/10/2003
7/10/2003
7/16/2003
7/16/2003
7/16/2003
7/16/2003
Location
Pond 4 Discharge
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Clanfier II Settled Solids
Clarifier II Settled Solids
Filter Press Decant
Clarifier I Settled Solids
Clarifier 1 Settled Solids
Phase II Clarifier Influent
Phase II Clarifier Influent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Filtered?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Project
Objective
P1.P2
P1,P2
P1.P2
PI,P2
P1,P2
SG3
SG3
SG4
SG4
SG4
SG2
SG2
P1,P2, SG!
P1,P2
P1,P2, SGI
P1,P2
Metals
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TSS
X
X
X
X
X
X
TDS
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sulfate
X
X
X
Alkalinity
X
X
X
Hardness
X
X
X
Comments
MS/MD
MS/MD = Matnx spike/matrix duplicate TDS = Total dissolved solids TSS = Total suspended solids
Sample ID
3-BP-02-4-S11-SL-G
3-BP-03-4-S13-W-G
Date
7/3/2003
7/10/2003
Location
Filter Cake
Clarifier I Settled Solids
Filtered?
—
...
Project
Objective
SG4
SG4
Metals
X
X
TCLP
Metals
X
X
WET
Metals
X
X
SPLP
Metals
X
X
Moisture
Moisture
X
X
Comments
MS/MD
MS/MD = Matnx spike/matrix duplicate TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
SPLP = Synthetic precipitation and leaching procedure WET = Waste extraction test
-------
Table A-2. 2002 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Monophasic Trial
Sample ID
MP-6-4-S1-G
MP-6-4-SI-G-F
MP-6-4-S2-G
MP-6-4-S2-G-F
MP-6-4-S2-SD
Date
8/21/2002
8/21/2002
8/21/2002
8/21/2002
8/21/2002
Location
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Clarifier II Settled Solids
Filtered?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Project
Objective
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
SG4
Water
Metals
X
X
X
X
Total
Solids
X
Solids
Metals
X
TCLP
Metals
X
WET
Metals
X
SPLP
Metals
X
Moisture
X
SPLP = Synthetic precipitation and leaching procedure TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure WET = Waste extraction test
-------
Table A-3. 2003 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations
Sample ID
3-BP-08-2-S01-W-C
3-BP-08-2-S01-W-C-F
3-BP-08-2-S02-W-C
3-BP-08-2-S02-W-C-F
3-BP-08-2-S03-W-C
3-BP-08-2-S03-W-C-F
3-BP-08-2-S04-W-C
3-BP-08-2-S04-W-C-F
3-BP-08-2-S05-W-C
3-BP-08-2-S05-W-C-F
3-BP-08-2-S06-W-C
3-BP-08-2-S06-W-C-F
3-BP-08-2-S10-W-G
3-BP-08-2-S13-W-G
3-BP-08-2-S14-W-G
3-BP-08-2-S16-W-C
3-BP-08-2-S16-W-C-F
Date
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
8/12/2003
Location
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Phase I Reactor Effluent
Phase I Reactor Effluent
Phase II Reactor Effluent
Phase II Reactor Effluent
Phase II Reactor Influent
Phase II Reactor Influent
Clarifier 11 Settled Solids
Clarifier II Settled Solids
Filter Press Decant
Phase I Flash Floe Tank
Phase II Flash Floe Tank
Clarifier I Settled Solids
Clarifier I Settled Solids
Filtered?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Project
Objective
P1,P2, SGI
P1,P2
P1.P2, SGI
P1,P2
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SGI
SG3
SG3
Metals
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TSS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TDS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sulfate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Alkalinity
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hardness
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments
MS/MD
MS/MD
MS/MD = Matrix spike/matrix duplicate IDS = Total dissolved solids TSS = Total suspended solids
ON
Sample ID
3-BP-08-2-S11-S-G
3-BP-16-3-S12-SL-C
Date
8/12/2003
10/1/2003
Location
Filter Cake
Pit Clanfier
Filtered?
NA
No
Project
Objective
SG4
SG3, SG4
Metals
X
X
TCLP
Metals
X
X
WET
Metals
X
X
SPLP
Metals
X
X
Moisture
X
X
Comments
MS/MD
MS/MD = Matrix spike/matrix duplicate TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
SPLP = Synthetic precipitation and leaching procedure WET = Waste extraction test
-------
Table A-4. Z002 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations
BP-01-4-S01-W-C
BP-01-4-S01-W-C-F
BP-01-4-S02-W-C
BP-01-4-S02-W-C-F
BP-02-2-S01-W-C
BP-02-2-S01-W-C-F
BP-02-2-S02-W-C
BP-02-2-S02-W-C-F
BP-02-4-S01-W-C
BP-02-4-S01-W-C-F
BP-02-4-S02-W-C
BP-02-4-S02-W-C-F
BP-03-2-S01-W-C
BP-03-2-S01-W-C-F
BP-03-2-S02-W-C
BP-03-2-S02-W-C-F
BP-04-4-S01-W-C
BP-04-4-S01-W-C-F
BP-04-4-S02-W-C
BP-04-4-S02-W-C-F
BP-05-2-S01-W-C
BP-05-2-SOI-W-C-F
BP-05-2-S02-W-C
BP-05-2-S02-W-C-F
BP-06-2-S01-W-C
BP-06-2-S01-W-C-F
BP-06-2-S02-W-C
BP-06-2-S02-W-C-F
BF-06-2-S02-W-!7
BP-06-2-S02-W-1
BP-06-2-S02-W-2
BP-06-2-S03-W-C
BP-06-2-S03-W-C-F
Date
7/18/2002
7/18/2002
7/18/2002-
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/23/2002
7/23/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/25/2002
7/25/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
8/8/2002
8/8/2002
8/8/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
8/13/2002
8/13/2002
8/13/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
Location
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Phase 1 reactor effluent
Phase I reactor effluent
Filtered?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Project
Objective
P1.P2
P1.P2
P1,P2
P1.P2
P1,P2, SG3
P1,P2
PI, P2, SG3
P1,P2
P1,P2, SG3
P1.P2
P1.P2, SG3
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1.P2
P1,P2
P1.P2, SG3
P1.P2
P1.P2, SG3
P1.P2 1
P1.P2
P1.P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2, SG3
P1,P2
P1.P2, SG3
P1.P2
SG1.SG2
SG1,SG2
SG1.SG2
SG1,SG2
SG1,SG2
SG1,SG2
Metals
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TSS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TDS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sulfate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Alkalinity
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total
Solids
X
X
Comments
MS/MD
MS/MD
MS/MD
MS/MD
MS/MD
ON
ON
-------
Table A-4. 2002 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations (continued)
Sample ID
BP-06-2-S04-W-C-F
BP-06-2-S05-W-C
BP-06-2-S05-W-C-F
BP-06-2-S05-W-I
BP-06-2-S05-W-2
BP-06-2-S07-W-C
BP-06-2-S07-W-C-F
BP-06-2-S07-W-1
BP-06-2-S07-W-2
BP-06-2-S11-W-C
BP-06-4-S01-W-C
BP-06-4-S01-W-C-F
BP-06-4-S02-W-C
BP-06-4-S02-W-C-F
BP-07-2-S01-W-C
BP-07-2-S01-W-C-F
BP-07-2-S02-W-C
BP-07-2-S02-W-C-F
BP-07-2-S12-W-G
BP-07-4-S01-W-C
BP-07-4-S01-W-C-F
BP-07-4-S02-W-C
BP-07-4-S02-W-C-F
BP-08-3-SOI-W-C
BP-08-3-S01-W-C-F
BP-08-3-S02-W-C
BP-08-3-S02-W-C-F
BP-08-3-FB
BP-08-3-ER-F
Date
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/20/2002
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
8/27/2002
8/27/2002
8/27/2002
8/27/2002
^ 8/27/2002
8/29/2002
8/29/2002
8/29/2002
8/29/2002
9/4/2002
9/4/2002
9/4/2002
9/4/2002
9/4/2002
9/4/2002
Location
Phase II reactor effluent
Phase II reactor influent
Phase II reactor influent
Phase 11 reactor influent
Phase II reactor influent
Pit Clanfier Influent
Pit Clanfier Influent
Pit Clarifier Influent
Pit Clarifier Influent
Sludge Tank Overflow
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Filter Press Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Field Blank
Equipment Rinseate
Filtered?
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Project
Objective
SGI,SG2
SG1,SG2
SG1,SG2
SG1,SG2
SGI,SG2
SG1,SG2
SG1,SG2
SG1.SG2
SG1,SG2
SG1.SG2
P1,P2
P1.P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1.P2, SG3
P1,P2
P1,P2, SG3
P1,P2
SG2, SG4
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1.P2, SG3
P1.P2
P1,P2, SG3
P1.P2
QA/QC
QA/QC
Metals
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TSS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TDS
X
X
X
X
Sulfate
X
X
X
X
Alkalinity
X
X
X
X
Total
Solids
X
X
X
X
Comments
MS/MD
MS/MD
MS/MD
MS/MD = Matrix spike/matrix duplicate IDS = Total dissolved solids TSS = Total suspended solids
-J
-------
Table A-4. 2002 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations (continued)
Sample ID
BP-07-2-S7-S-G
BP-07-2-S13-S-G
Date
8/27/2002
8/27/2002
Location
Pit Clarifier Sludge
Filter Cake
Filtered?
No
No
Project
Objective
SG2, SG4
SG2, SG4
Moisture
X
X
Metals
X
X
TCLP
Metals
X
X
WET
Metals
X
X
SPLP
Metals
X
X
Total
Solids
X
X
Comments
SPLP = Synthetic precipitation and leaching procedure TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure WET = Waste extraction test
oo
-------
Table A-5. 2002 Sample Register for the Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System
Sample ID
AL-01-4-S01-W-C
AL-01-4-S01-W-C-F
AL-01-4-S02-W-C
AL-01-4-S02-W-C-F
AL-02-2-S01-W-C
AL-02-2-S01-W-C-F
AL-02-2-S02-W-C
AL-02-2-S02-W-C-F
AL-02-2-S04-W-C
AL-02-2-S04-W-C-F
AL-02-2-Slla-W-C
AL-02-2-SIIb-W-C
AL-02-4-S01-W-C
AL-02-4-S01-W-C-F
AL-02-4-S02-W-C
AL-02-4-S02-W-C-F
AL-03-2-SOI-W-C
AL-03-2-S01-W-C-F
AL-03-2-S02-W-C
AL-03-2-S02-W-C-F
AL-03-2-S3C-W-C
AL-03-2-S3C-W-C-F
AL-03-2-S04-W-C
AL-03-2-S04-W-C-F
AL-03-2-S05-W-C
AL-03-2-S06-W-C
AL-03-2-S11B-W-C
AL-03-4-S01-W-C
AL-03-4-S01-W-C-F
AL-03-4-S02-W-C
AL-03-4-S02-W-C-F
AL-04-2-S01-W-C
AL-04-2-S01-W-C-F
AL-04-2-S02-W-C
Date
7/18/2002
7/18/2002
7/18/2002
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/23/2002
7/23/2002
7/23/2002
7/23/2002
7/23/2002
7/23/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
LJY25/2002
7/25/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
7/30/2002
8/1/2002
8/1/2002
8/1/2002
8/1/2002
8/6/2002
8/6/2002
8/6/2002
Location
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
All Bag Filter Effluent
All Bag Filter Effluent
All Bag Filter Influent
Bag filter #1 Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
All Bag Filter Influent
All Bag Filter Influent
All Bag Filter Effluent
All Bag Filter Effluent
Cell!
Cell 2
Bag filter #1 Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Filtered?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Project
Objective
P1,P2
PI.P2
P1.P2
P1,P2
P1,P2, SG3
P1,P2
P1.P2.SG3
P1,P2
SG2, SG4
SG2, SG4
SG2, SG4
SG2, SG4
P1.P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
PI,P2, SG3
P1,P2
P1,P2,SG3
P1,P2
SGI
SGI
SG2, SG4
SG2, SG4
SGI
SGI
SG2, SG4
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1.P2
P1,P2, SG3
P1,P2
P1,P2, SG3
Metals
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TSS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TDS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sulfate
X
X
X
X
X
X
Alkalinity
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments
MS/MD
MS/MD
MS/MD
MS/MD
MS/MD
ON
-------
Table A-S. 2002 Sample Register for the Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System (continued)
Sample ID
AL-04-2-S02-W-C-F
AL-04-2-S04-W-C
AL-04-2-S04-W-C-F
AL-04-2-Slla-W-C
AL-04-2-Sllb-W-C
AL-04-4-S01-W-C
AL-04-4-SOI-W-C-F
AL-04-4-S02-W-C
AL-04-4-S02-W-C-F
AL-05-2-S01-W-C
AL-05-2-S01-W-C-F
AL-05-2-S02-W-C
AL-05-2-S02-W-C-F
AL-05-2-S03C-W-C
AL-05-2-S04-W-C
AL-05-2-S04-W-C-F
AL-05-2-S11B-W-C
Date
8/6/2002
8/6/2002
8/6/2002
8/6/2002
8/6/2002
8/8/2002
8/8/2002
8/8/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
8/13/2002
8/13/2002
8/13/2002
8/13/2002
8/13/2002
8/13/2002
8/13/2002
Location
Effluent
All Bag Filter Effluent
All Bag Filter Effluent
All Bag Filter Influent
Bag filter #1 Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
All Bag Filter Influent
All Bag Filter Effluent
All Bag Filter Effluent
Bag filter #1 Effluent
Filtered?
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Project
Objective
PI,P2
SG2, SG4
SG2, SG4
SG2, SG4
SG2, SG4
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2
P1,P2,SG3
P1,P2
P1,P2, SG3
P1,P2
SGI
SG2, SG4
SG2, SG4
SG2, SG4
Metals
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TSS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TDS
X
X
X
X
Sulfate
X
X
Alkalinity
X
X
Comments
MS/MD
MS/MD
MS/MD = Matrix spike/matrix duplicate TDS = Total dissolved solids TSS = Total suspended solids
Sample ID
AL-07-2-S11-S-G
Date
8/27/2002
Location
Bag filter #1 Sludge
Filtered?
No
Project
Objective
SG2, SG5
Metals
X
TCLP
Metals
X
WET
Metals
x
SPLP
Metals
X
Total
Solids
X
Moisture
X
SPLP = Synthetic precipitation and leaching procedure TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure WET = Waste extraction test
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA USED TO EVALUATE PROJECT PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
71
-------
Table B-l. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Active Lime Treatment System, Monophasic Operations
Sample Number'
3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-04-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-04-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-04-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-04-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-04-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-04-3-SOX-W-C-F
Sample
Date
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
7/1/2003
7/3/2003
7/9/2003
7/10/2003
7/16/2003
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
7/1/2003
7/3/2003
7/9/2003
7/10/2003
7/16/2003
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
7/1/2003
7/3/2003
7/9/2003
7/10/2003
7/16/2003
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
7/1/2003
7/3/2003
7/9/2003
7/10/2003
7/16/2003
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
7/1/2003
7/3/2003
7/9/2003
7/10/2003
7/16/2003
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
7/1/2003
7/3/2003
7/9/2003
7/10/2003
7/16/2003
Composite
or Grab?
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Analyte
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Influent \
Concentration J
(MS/L) f
107,000
105,000
114,000
119,000
107,000
98,600
104,000
3,430
3,310
3,410
3,470
2,970
2,810
3,250
16.4
15.5
46.3
45.7
23.2
22.6
13.2
299
293
629
327
280
266
291
536
526
539
549
476
434
454
392,000
456,000
463,000
485,000
433,000
421,000
545,000
Effluent J:
Concentration <*;
(HS/L) *
875
1,090
511
584
193
575
604
8
10.8
7.1
97
3.6
1.8U
2.9
0.2 1U
0.21U
0.1 6U
0.1 6U
0.1 6U
0.1 6U
0.2 1U
2.4
2.1
1.3
0.67
1.5
11.6
1.7
54
3.6
2.1
1.9U
1 9U
1.9U
4.7
5.7
350
336
221
92.9
129
99.9
4-Day Average Effluent |
Concentration jj
(Ug/L) 3
765
595
466
489
8.9
7.8
5.6
4.5
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.6
1.4
3.8
3.9
33
2.4
2.0
2.6
228
250
195
136
1 - For the influent sample, X in the sample number = 1 ; for the effluent sample, X=2
ug/L - Micrograms per liter NC - Not calculated U - Non-detect
72
-------
Table B-l. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Active Lime Treatment System, Monophasic Operations (continued)
Sample Number1
3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-04-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-04-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-04-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-3-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
3-BP-04-3-SOX-W-C-F
Sample
Date
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
7/1/2003
7/3/2003
7/9/2003
7/10/2003
7/16/2003
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
7/1/2003
7/3/2003
7/9/2003
7/10/2003
7/16/2003
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
7/1/2003
7/3/2003
7/9/2003
7/10/2003
7/16/2003
6/24/2003
6/24/2003
7/1/2003
7/3/2003
7/9/2003
7/10/2003
7/16/2003
Composite
or Grab?
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Analyte
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Influent
Concentration
(HB/L) \
8.3
10
44
2.3
8.8
0.9U
8.7
2,480
2,500
2,670
2,760
2,630
2,410
2,470
2.6U
2.6U
26.7
29.4
32.3
20
2.6U
536
539
559
583
533
490
524
Effluent *
'. Concentration ?
(ug/L) |
1.4U
1.4U
0.9U
0.9U
0.9U
0.9U
4.5
17.3
20.4
47.1
41.8
113
68.8
19.3
2.6U
2.6U
1.8U
1.8U
1.8U
1.8U
2.6U
12.1
7.7
3.5
2.6
7.6
3.1
2.7
- 4-Day Average Effluent j
' Concentration ;
1 (HS/L) \
1.2
1.0
0.9
1.8
31 7
55.6
67.7
60.7
2.2
2.0
1.8
2.0
6.5
5.4
4.2
4.0
1 - For the influent sample, X in the sample number = 1 ; for the effluent sample, X=2
ug/L - Micrograms per liter U - Non-detect
73
-------
Table B-2. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations
Sample Number1
3-BP-08-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F
BP-05-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F
BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F
3-BP-08-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F
BP-05-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F
BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F
3-BP-08-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F
BP-05-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F
BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F
Sample
Date
8/12/2003
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
8/15/2002
8/20/2002
8/22/2002
8/27/2002
8/29/2002
9/4/2002
8/12/2003
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
8/15/2002
8/20/2002
8/22/2002
8/27/2002
8/29/2002
9/4/2002
8/12/2003
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
8/15/2002
8/20/2002
8/22/2002
8/27/2002
8/29/2002
9/4/2002
Composite
or Grab?
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Analyte
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Influent
Concentration
(HB/L)
371,000
354,000
326,000
330,000
356,000
361,000
355,000
384,000
379,000
435,000
358,000
458,000
486,000
2,930
2,270
2,090
1,730
1,970
1,700
1,360
1,330
1,890
2,970
1,340
3,480
4,050
55.6
52.1
48.8
47.9
50.0
50.7
51.6
52.8
53.9
60.0
51.5
63.6
68.3
Effluent
Concentration
(Hg/L)
2,200
183
1,140
1,690
1,590
2,860
1,040
785
370
532
498
562
1,090
7.7
4.8
93
9.8
11.8
7.4
10.2
9.6
5.9
8.1
8.5
8.5
10.1
0.35
0.3U
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.8
1.3
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.7
4-Day Average Effluent
Concentration
(ug/L)
1,151
1,820
1,795
1,569
1,264
562
467
531
671
8.9
9.6
9.8
9.8
8.3
8.5
8.0
7.8
8.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
' - For the influent sample, X in the sample number = 1 ; for the effluent sample, X=2
(ig/L - Micrograms per liter U - Non-detect
74
-------
Table B-2. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations (continued)
Sample Number'
3-BP-08-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F
BP-05-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F
BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F
3-BP-08-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F
BP-05-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F
BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F
3-BP-08-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F
BP-05-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F
BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F
Sample
Date
8/12/2003
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
8/15/2002
8/20/2002
8/22/2002
8/27/2002
8/29/2002
9/4/2002
8/12/2003
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
8/15/2002
8/20/2002
8/22/2002
8/27/2002
8/29/2002
9/4/2002
8/12/2003
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
8/15/2002
8/20/2002
8/22/2002
8/27/2002
8/29/2002
9/4/2002
Composite
or Grab?
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Analyte
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Influent
Concentration
(H8/L)
1,000
807
760
738
807
779
729
785
819
1,030
742
1,170
1,240
2,210
2,350
2,150
2,110
2,300
2,260
2,180
2,350
2,330
2,660
2,240
2,850
2,990
553,000
466,000
414,000
435,000
485,000
398,000
336,000
359,000
399,000
541,000
357,000
605,000
653,000
Effluent
Concentration
(Mg/L)
3.9
1.6
28
2.4
26
1.7
46.3
2.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
1.4
2.4
5.8
3.7
7.3
10.2
5.6
8.6
12.8
10.2
6.9
5.7
9.2
8.5
10.1
38.4
39.6
36.4
1 9U
110
20.2
243
3.8U
8.8
30.5
3.8U
44.0
3.8U
4-Day Average Effluent
Concentration
(ug/L)
2.4
2.4
13.3
13.4
13.2
13.3
2.3
1.9
2.0
6.7
7.9
9.3
9.3
9.6
8.9
8.0
7.6
8.4
47.0
42.1
93.8
94.3
69.0
71.5
11.7
21.8
20.5
1 - For the influent sample, X in the sample number = 1; for the effluent sample, X=2
Hg/L - Micrograms per liter U - Non-detect
75
-------
Table B-2. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations (continued)
Sample Number1
3-BP-08-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F
BP-05-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F
BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F
3-BP-08-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-Ol-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F
BP-05-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F
BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F
3-BP-08-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-Ol-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F
BP-05-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F
BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F
Sample
Date
8/12/2003
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
8/15/2002
8/20/2002
8/22/2002
8/27/2002
8/29/2002
9/4/2002
8/12/2003
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
8/15/2002
8/20/2002
8/22/2002
8/27/2002
8/29/2002
9/4/2002
8/12/2003
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
8/15/2002
8/20/2002
8/22/2002
8/27/2002
8/29/2002
9/4/2002
Composite
or Grab?
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Analyte
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Influent
Concentration
(Hg/D
1 7
3.9
1.2U
95
9.0
77
12.2
6.4
6.9
11.8
8.0
10.2
10.8
6,490
6,860
6,420
5,980
6,540
6,600
6,490
7,080
7,040
7,890
6,720
8,430
8,770
2.6U
10.4
4.6
55
25U
25U
22U
2.2U
2.2U
2.2U
2.2U
14.5
2.2U
Effluent
Concentration
(Hg/L)
4.4
1 2U
1 2U
2.5
1.2U
1.2U
1.4U
3.6
1.4U
1.4U
3.3
1.4U
1 8
25
17.1
31.2
17.2
21.9
7.1
48.0
39.0
55.3
43.0
50.9
49.8
38.9
2.6U
4.0
3.7
5.3
2.5U
5.3
37
2.2U
7.3
2.2U
2.9
4.0
3.5
4-Day Average Effluent
Concentration
(ne^L)
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.4
1.9
2.0
21.9
19.4
23.6
29.0
37.4
46.3
47 1
49.8
45.7
3.9
4.2
42
34
4.6
3.9
3.7
4.1
3.2
1 - For the influent sample, X in the sample number = 1 ; for the effluent sample, X=2
ug/L - Micrograms per liter U - Non-detect
76
-------
Table B-2. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations (continued)
Sample Number1
3-BP-08-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F
BP-05-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-06-4-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-2-SOX-W-C-F
BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F
BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F
Sample
Date
8/12/2003
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
8/15/2002
8/20/2002
8/22/2002
8/27/2002
8/29/2002
9/4/2002
Composite
or Grab?
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Analyte
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Influent
Concentration
(HB/L)
1,420
1,320
1,280
1,250
1,370
1,370
1,440
1,520
1,500
1,650
1,410
1,760
1,810
Effluent
Concentration
(Mg/L)
10.4
8.3
25.1
9.7
16.8
11.8
25.4
17.6
15.2
38.4
19.4
21.5
30.7
4-Day Average Effluent
Concentration
(Ug/L)
15.0
15.9
15.9
17.9
17.5
24.2
227
23.6
27.5
1 - For the influent sample, X in the sample number = 1 ; for the effluent sample, X=2
Hg/L - Micrograms per liter
77
-------
Table B-3. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Lime Treatment System
Sample Number1
AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-05-2-SXW-C-F
AL-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F
AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F
AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F
AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F
Sample
Date
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/1/2002
8/6/2002
8/13/2002
8/8/2002
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/1/2002
8/6/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/1/2002
8/6/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/1/2002
8/6/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/1/2002
8/6/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
Composite
or Grab?
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Analyte
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Influent
Concentration
(Hg/L)
32,200
31,700
31,900
33,600
31,400
31,600
32,600
30,900
545
526
485
510
495
533
544
516
0.3U
03U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.29U
23.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
18.7
18.9
183
16.2
11.5
9.2
13.1
14.0
11.9
16.1
15.8
16.3
Effluent
Concentration
(ug/L)
639
160
177
254
219
210
160
185
12.9
5.1
3.8
5.8
6.7
3.2
2.6
6.6
0.7
0.3U
0.5
0.3U
0.4
0.3U
0.3
0.3U
3.8
1.5
1.9
3.3
2.0
1.6
2.5
1.4
7.7
3.1
4.3
3.6
8.6
4.1
6.2
6.1
1 - For the influent sample, X in the sample number = 1 ; for the effluent sample, X=2
ug/L - Micrograms per liter U - Non-detect
4-Day Average Effluent
Concentration
(Ug/L)
308
203
215
211
194
6.9
5.4
4.9
4.6
4.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.4
1.9
4.7
4.9
5.2
5.6
6.3
78
-------
Table B-3. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Lime Treatment System (continued)
Sample Number1
AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F
AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F
AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F
AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F
AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-02-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-03-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-2-SOX-W-C-F
AL-04-4-SOX-W-C-F
AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F
Sample
Date
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/1/2002
8/6/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/1/2002
8/6/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/1/2002
8/6/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/1/2002
8/6/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
7/18/2002
7/23/2002
7/25/2002
7/30/2002
8/1/2002
8/6/2002
8/8/2002
8/13/2002
Composite
or Grab?
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Analyte
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Influent
Concentration
(U8/D
373,000
365,000
375,000
394,000
425,000
378,000
460,000
360,000
5.7
2.7
3.9
5.1
6.3
5.7
5.3
5.7
1,690
1,680
1,580
1,670
1,570
1,610
1,650
1,600
4.0
7.0
3.4
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.2
353.0
352.0
350.0
3600
351.0
369.0
361.0
353.0
Effluent
Concentration
(UB/L)
241
24.2
1.9U
463
27.7
320
17.2
- 88.1
1.2U
1.2U
1.2U
1.2U
2.6
1.2U
3.3
1.4U
47.2
15.7
14.2
22.4
20.1
20.4
20.4
20.4
2.5U
2.5U
3.5
2.5U
2.5U
2.5U
6.3
3.6
13.7
10.3
6.2
9.6
12.2
19.0
9.3
33.2
4-Day Average Effluent
Concentration
(Hg/L)
183
129
203
183
1.5
1.2
1.6
1.6
2.1
2.1
24.9
18.1
19.3
20.8
20.3
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.5
3.7
10.0
9.6
11.8
12.5
18.4
1 - For the influent sample, X in the sample number = 1 ; for the effluent sample, X=2
ug/L - Micrograms per liter U - Non-detect
79
-------
Table B-4. Statistical Summary of Active Lime Treatment System, Monophasic Operations Data
Analyte
Influent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Minimum
Concentration
(Hg/L)
Maximum
Concentration
((ig/L)
Mean
Concentration
(Ug/L)
Median
Concentration
(UR/L)
98,600
2,810
13.2
266
434
392,000
2.3
2,410
20.0
490
119,000
3,470
46.3
629
549
545,000
10.0
2,760
32.3
583
107,800
3,235
26.1
341
502
456,428
7 1
2,560
27.1
538
107,000
3,310
22.6
293
526
456,000
8.5
2,500
280
536
Standard
Deviation
6,734
252
141
128
46.4
49429
3.0
128
5.3
289
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
6
8
54
38
9
11
43
5
19
5
Effluent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
103
1.8
U
0.67
1.9
5.7
0.9
17.3
1.8
2.6
1,090
10.8
U
11.6
5.4
350
4.5
113
2.6
12 1
633
6.27
NA
3.04
3.07
176
1.56
46.8
2.14
5.61
584
7.10
NA
1.70
2.10
129
0.90
41.8
1.80
3.50
284
3.52
NA
3 82
150
130
132
34.7
0.428
3.62
45
56
NA
126
49
74
85
74
20
65
4-Day Average Effluent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
466
4.5
U
1.4
2.0
136
0.9
31.7
1 8
4.0
765
8.9
U
3.9
3.3
250
1.8
67.7
2.2
6.5
579
6.69
NA
2.66
2.54
202
1.22
53.9
200
501
542
6.68
NA
2.69
2.49
211
1.09
58.2
2.00
4.78
136
202
NA
1.34
0.543
49.8
0.401
15.6
0 163
1 15
24
30
NA
50
21
25
33
29
8
23
% - Percent ug/L - Micrograms per liter NA - Not applicable
U - Not detected (all effluent samples were non-detect for cadmium)
80
-------
Table B-5. Statistical Summary of Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations Data
Analyte
Minimum
Concentration
(U8/D
Maximum
Concentration
(H8/L)
Mean
Concentration
(Hg/L)
Median
Concentration
(Hg/L)
Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
Influent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
326,000
1,330
47.9
729
2,110
336,000
1.7
5,980
4.6
1,250
486,000
4,050
68.3
1,240
2,990
653,000
12.2
8,770
14.5
1,810
381,000
2,239
54
877
2,383
461,615
8.2
7,024
8.8
1,469
361,000
1,970
52
807
2,300
435,000
8.5
6,720
8.0
1,420
48,792
866
6.1
173
275
100,251
3.1
833
4.6
175
13
39
11
20
12
22
38
12
53
12
Effluent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
183
4.8
03
1.4
3.7
1.9
1.2
7.1
2.2
8.3
2,860
11.8
1.3
46.3
12.8
243
4.4
55.3
7.3
38.4
1,118
859
0.71
5.70
8.05
44.9
2.00
34.2
3.78
19.3
1,040
8.50
0.78
2.40
8.50
30.5
1.40
38.9
3.70
!7.6
782
1.88
0.304
12.2
2.50
66.2
1.09
15.4
1.47
8.87
70
22
43
214
31
147
55
45
39
L_ 46
4-Day Average Effluent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zmc
396
8.0
0.6
1.9
6.7
11.7
1.5
19.4
3.2
15.0
1,820
9.8
1.0
13.4
9.6
94.3
24
49.8
4.6
27.5
971
8.82
0.77
7 11
8.41
52.4
1.84
35.5
3.90
20.0
869
8.80
0.78
2.38
8.38
47.0
1.88
37.4
3.88
17.9
481
0.760
0.162
5.86
0.957
31.3
0.284
12.2
0.447
4.52
50
9
21
83
11
60
15
34
11
23
% - Percent jig/L - Micrograms per liter
81
-------
Table B-6. Statistical Summary of Alkaline Lagoon Lime Treatment System Data
Analyte
Minimum
Concentration
(MS/L)
Maximum
Concentration
(HE/L)
Mean
Concentration
(Hi/L)
Median
Concentration
(HB/L)
Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
Influent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
30,900
485
U
16.2
9.2
360,000
2.7
1,570
2.2
350
33,600
545
U
23.5
16.3
,_ 460,000
6.3
1,690
70
369
31,988
519
NA
19.3
13.5
391,250
5 1
1,631
3.3
356
31,800
521
NA
19.2
13.6
376,500
5.5
1,630
2.5
353
827
21.9
NA
2.0
25
34,458
1 2
47.0
1 6
65
3
4
NA
10
19
9
24
3
48
2
Effluent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
160
2.6
0.3
1.4
3.1
1.9
1.2
142
2.5
6.2
639
12.9
0.7
3.8
8.6
463
3.3
47.2
6.3
33.2
251
5.84
0.38
2.25
5.46
148
1.66
22.6
3.24
14.2
198
5.45
0.33
1.95
5.2
57.9
1.20
20.4
2.50
11.3
160
3.24
0.131
0.883
2.00
173
0.819
10.3
133
8.56
64
55
34
39
37
117
49
46
41
60
4-Day Average Effluent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
194
4.6
0.3
1 9
4.7
1.5
1.2
18 1
28
9.6
308
6.9
0.4
2.6
6.3
203
2 1
24.9
3.7
18.4
226
5.30
0.36
2.25
5.32
140
1.70
20.7
3.09
12.5
211
4.88
0.37
2.20
5.15
183
1.55
20.3
2.75
11.8
46.4
0.941
0.049
0.274
0.628
82.1
0.393
2.57
0.469
3.56
21
18
14
12
12
59
23
12
15
29
% - Percent Hg/L - Microgram per liter NA - Not applicable
U - Not detected (all influent samples were non-detect for cadmium)
82
-------
APPENDIX C
DETAILED COST ELEMENT SPREADSHEETS
83
-------
Table C-1. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Monophasic Operation
I
II
III
1
a
b
c
d
e
f
8
h
Description
Site Preparation
Design (20% of capital cost)
Construction Management (15% of capital cost)
Project Management (10% of capital cost)
Subtotal
Permitting and Regulatory Requirements
Superfund Site, No Permitting Costs
Subtotal
Capital and Equipment
Conventional Lime Treatment System
Phase 1 Reaction Module:
10,000-GalIon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene
Tank, Mixer and Mixer Bridge, pH Probe and
Controller, Lime Injection Pump, Local Control
Panel, and Electrical Controls and Wiring
Phase 2 Reaction Module:
10,000-Oallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene
Tank, Mixer and Mixer Bridge, pH Probe and
Controller, Lime Injection Pump, Local Control
Panel, and Electrical Controls and Wiring
Phase 2 Clarifier Module:
Lamella Type Clarifier with Removable Plates,
Flash Mix Tank, Flash Mixer, Flocculation Mixer,
Variable Speed Controller for Flocculation Mixer,
Local Control Panel, Polymer Dosing System, Solids
Recycle Pump with Timer, Solids Transfer Pump
with Timer, and Electrical Controls and Wiring
Phase 2 Solids Separation:
(2) 10,000-Oallon, Polyethylene Tanks with Cone
Bottoms, Domed Tops, Epoxy Coated Steel Legs,
20-Cubic Foot Capacity Filter Press with Gasketed
Recessed Chamber Plates, Set of Clothes, Skid-
Mounted Air Diaphragm Feed Pumps, Air Blow
Down Manifold, (3) Pump Repair Kits, and Spare
Pump
Lime Slurry Equipment:
8,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene
Tank with Cone Bottom, Open Top, Access Ladder
with Safety Cage, Mixer and Mixer Bridge, Lime
Slurry Mixer, and Electrical Controls with Wiring
Utility water storage/Delivery:
(3) 15,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced
Polyethylene Tanks with Cone Bottom, Open Top,
(1) Access Ladder with Safety Cage, and Utility
Water Pump System
Fuel storage:
1 ,000-Gallon Diesel Fuel Storage Tank
System Assembly
Subtotal
Quantity |_ Unit
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
Unit cost
$140,884.83
$105,66362
$70,442.41
$93361.44
$102,611.28
$125,2(57.24
$116,662.36
$19,394.04
$87,966.28
$6,150.00
$116,940.00
Subtotal
$140,884.83
$105,663.62
$70,442.41
$316,990.86
$0.00
$0.00
$704,424.14
$93,361.44
$102,611.28
$125,267.24
$116,662.36
$19,394.04
$87,966.28
$6,150.00
$116,940.00
$668^52.64
84
-------
Table C-1. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Monophasic Operation (continued)
2
a
b
c
3
a
b
4
Description
Collection Pumping and Appurtenances
Capture & Route Delta Seep Flows to CUD
Earthwork and Sandbag Coffer Dam
Purchase/Place High Density Polyethylene liner
Berkeley 6AL3 Submersible Pump and 3 hp motor
Electric and Control Cable
3-mch Diameter High Density Polyethylene Pipe
3-inch Diameter Check Valve
Route Delta Seep and CUD to System
Berkeley 6AL3 Submersible pump and 3 hp motor
Electric and Control Cable
3-inch Diameter High Density Polyethylene Pipe
3-inch Diameter Check Valve
Route ADIT/PUD flows to System
4-mch Diameter High Density Polyethylene pipe
4-inch Diameter Check Valve
Subtotal
Automation
Remote Monitoring/Alarm System
Sensaphone SCADA 3000 (control system, logger,
alarm)
Miscellaneous Accessories for SCADA 3000
Personal Computer
Professional Series 900 MHz Data Transceivers
Miscellaneous Accessories for Transceivers
Installation Cost (assumes 50% of equipment cost)
pH Controller System
Pulse Output Controller
Electronic Diaphragm Pumps
pH Probe
pH Cable
Temperature Sensor
Temperature Cable
Accessories (cables, calibration solution)
Installation Cost (assumes 50% of equipment cost)
Subtotal
Communications
Motorola 9505 Satellite Phone
Subtotal
Total Fixed Cost
Quantity
20
150
1
700
700
1
1
1,650
1,650
1
500
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
Unit
cubic yard
square feet
each
linear feet
linear feet
each
cubic yard
linear feet
linear feet
each
linear feet
each
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
each
each
each
each
each
each
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
Unit cost
$25.00
$1.20
$2,500.00
$3.27
$0.85
$150.00
$2,500.00
$3.27
$085
$150.00
$1.56
$150.00
$2,495.00
$500.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$3,247.50
$1,160.00
$826.00
$175.00
$45 00
$155.00
$45.00
$150.00
$1,278.00
$1,495.00
Subtotal
$6,214.00
$500.00
$180.00
$2,500.00
$2,289.00
$595.00
$150.00
$9,448.00
$2,500.00
$5,395.50
$1,402.50
$150.00
S930.00
$780.00
$150.00
$16,592.00
$9,742.50
$2,495.00
$500.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$3,247.50
$8,242.00
$2,320.00
$3,304.00
$700.00
$90.00
$310.00
$90.00
$150.00
$1,278.00
$17,984.50
$1,495.00
$1,495.00
$1,021,415.00
85
-------
Table C-1. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Monophasic Operation (continued)
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
Description
System Start up and Shakedown
System Assembly
Start-up and Shake Down Labor
Subtotal
Consumables and Rentals
Lime Consumption (dry weight)
Polymer
Personal Protective Equipment
Compressor
Heavy Equipment Rental Including Fuel
Field Trailer
Storage Connex
Subtotal
Labor
Field Technicians
Administrative Support
Project Management
Engineering
Program Administrator
Subtotal
Utilities
Generator (125 Kilowatt)
Backup Generator (125 Kilowatt)
Generator Fuel
SCADA communication service
Satellite Phone Communications
Portable Toilets
Subtotal
Residual Waste Shipping, Handling and Disposal
Off-Site Hazardous Sludge Disposal (wet weight)
Subtotal
Analytical Services
Total Metals (Effluent Discharge)
Total and Leachable Metals (Waste
Characterization)
Subtotal
Maintenance and Modifications
Major Equipment Replacement
Subtotal
Demobilization
System Winterization Labor
Subtotal
Total Variable Cost
Quantity
160
160
13.6
143
145
2
2
2.5
60
695
42.3
104
145
82
2
2
4,630
2
2
2
62
35
1
2
320
Unit
hour
hour
ton
gallon
each
month
month
month
month
hour
hour
hour
hour
hour
month
month
gallon
month
month
month
ton
each
each
month
hour
Unit cost
$56.19
$56.19
$366.00
$13.64
$7.00
$2,400.00
$4,000.00
$700.00
$325.00
$56.19
$61.16
$90.00
$100.00
$100.00
$3,400.00
$3,400.00
$1.40
$75.00
$50.00
$325.00
$263.00
$80.00
$280.00
$4,000.00
$56.19
Subtotal
$8,990.40
$8,990 40
$17,980.80
$4,977.60
$1,950.52
$1,015.00
$4,800.00
$8,000.00
$1,750.00
$19,500.00
S41.993.12
$39,052.05
$2,587.07
$9,360.00
$14,500.00
$8,200.00
$73,699.12
$6,800.00
$6,800.00
$6,482.00
$150.00
$100.00
$650 00
$20,982.00
$16,306.00
$16306.00
$2,800.00
$280.00
$3,080.00
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
$17,980.80
$17,980.80
$200,021.84
86
-------
Table C-1. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Monophasic Operation (continued)
Description
Total 1st Year Cost
Total 1st Year Cost/1 000-Liters
Total Variable Cost/1 000-Liters
Cumulative 5-Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Cumulative 10-Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Cumulative 15-Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
% - Percent MHz - MegaHertz
CUD - Channel under drain PUD - Pit under drain
hp - Horsepower SCADA - Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
Total
$1,221,436.84
$128.05
$20.97
$820,129.00
$1,404,871.00
$1,821,783.00
87
-------
Table C-2. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Biphasic Operation
I
II
HI
1
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
Description
Site Preparation
Design (20% of capital cost)
Construction Management ( 1 5% of capital cost)
Project Management (10% of capital cost)
Subtotal
Permitting and Regulatory
Superfund Site, No Permitting Costs
Subtotal
Capital and Equipment
Conventional Lime Treatment System
Phase 1 Reaction Module:
10,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene Tank,
Mixer and Mixer Bridge, pH Probe and Controller, Lime
Injection Pump, Local Control Panel, and Electrical Controls
and Wiring
Phase 1 Clarifier Module:
Lamella Type Clarifier with Removable Plates, Flash Mix
Tank, Flash Mixer, Flocculation Mixer, Variable Speed
Controller for Flocculation Mixer, Local Control Panel,
Polymer Dosing System, Solids Transfer Pump with Timer,
Electrical Controls and Wiring, Spare Gaskets and Plates
Phase 1 Solids Separation:
(2) 10,000-Gallon, Polyethylene Tanks with Cone Bottoms,
Domed Tops, Epoxy Coated Steel Legs, 20-Cubic Foot
Capacity Filter Press with Gasketed Recessed Chamber
Plates, Set of Clothes, Skid-Mounted Air Diaphragm Feed
Pumps, Air Blow Down Manifold, (3) Pump Repair Kits,
and Spare Pump
Phase 2 Reaction Module:
1 0,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene Tank,
Mixer and Mixer Bridge, pH Probe and Controller, Lime
Injection Pump, Local Control Panel, and Electrical Controls
and Wiring
Phase 2 Clarifier Module:
Lamella Type Clarifier with Removable Plates, Flash Mix
Tank, Flash Mixer. Flocculation Mixer, Variable Speed
Controller for Flocculation Mixer, Local Control Panel,
Polymer Dosing System, Solids Recycle Pump with Timer,
Solids Transfer Pump with Timer, and Electrical Controls
and Wiring
Lime Slurry Equipment:
8,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene Tank with
Cone Bottom, Open Top, Access Ladder with Safety Cage,
Mixer and Mixer Bridge, Lime Slurry Mixer, and Electrical
Controls with Wiring
Utility Storage/Delivery:
(3) 15,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene Tanks
with Cone Bottom, Open Top, (1 ) Access Ladder with Safety
Cage, and Utility Water Pump System
Fuel Storage:
1,000-Gallon Diesel Fuel Storage Tank
System Assembly
Subtotal
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
Unit cost
$172,969.44
$129,727.08
$86,484.72
$93,361.44
$149,133.08
$116,662.36
$102,611.28
$125,267.24
$19,394.04
$87,966.28
$6,150.00
$116,940.00
Subtotal
$172,969.44
$129,727.08
$86,484.72
$389,181.24
$0.00
$0.00
$864,847.22
$93,361.44
$149,133.08
$116,662.36
$102,611.28
$125,267.24
$19,394.04
$87,966.28
$6,150.00
$116,940.00
$817,485.72
88
-------
Table C-2. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Bipbasic Operation (continued)
2
a
b
3
a
b
4
Description
Collection Pumping and Appurtenances
Route Pond Water to System
4-inch Diameter High Density Polyethylene pipe
4-inch Diameter Check Valve
Route Phase H Clarifier to Pit Clarifler
Submersible Pump
4-inch Diameter High Density Polyethylene pipe
4-inch Diameter Check Valve
Subtotal
Automation
Remote Monitoring/Alarm System
Sensaphone SCADA 3000 (control system, logger, alarm)
Miscellaneous Accessories for SCADA 3000
Personal Computer
Professional Series 900 MHz Data Transceivers
Miscellaneous Accessories for Transceivers
Installation Cost (assumes 50% of equipment cost)
pH Controller System
Pulse Output Controller
Electronic Diaphragm Pumps
pH Probe
pH Cable
Temperature Sensor
Temperature Cable
Accessories (cables, calibration solution)
Installation Cost (assumes 50% of equipment cost)
Subtotal
Communications
Motorola 9505 Satellite Phone
Subtotal
Total Fixed Cost
Quantity
500
1
2
1,700
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
Unit
linear feet
each
each
linear feet
each
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
each
each
each
each
each
each
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
Unit cost
$1.56
$150.00
$12,000.00
$1.56
$150.00
$2,495.00
$500.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$3,247.50
$1,160.00
$826.00
$175.00
$45.00
$155.00
$45.00
$150.00
$1,278.00
$1,495.00
Subtotal
$930.00
$780.00
$150.00
$26,952.00
$24,000.00
$2,652.00
$300.00
$27,882.00
$9,742.50
$2,495.00
$500.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$3,247 50
$8,242.00
$2,320.00
$3,304.00
$700.00
$90.00
$310.00
$90.00
$150.00
$1,278.00
$17,984.50
$1,495.00
$1,495.00
$1,254,028.46
89
-------
Table C-2. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Biphasic Operation (continued)
IV
V
VI
Vll
VIII
IX
X
XI
Description
System Start-up and Shakedown
System Assembly
Start up and Shakedown Labor
Subtotal
Consumables and Rentals
Fuel
Lime (dry weight)
Polymer
Personal Protective Equipment
Compressor
Heavy Equipment Rental Including Fuel
Field Trailer
Storage Connex
Subtotal
Labor
Field Technicians
Administrative Support
Project Management
Engineering
Program Administrator
Subtotal
Utilities
Generator (125 Kilowatt)
Backup Generator (125 Kilowatt)
Generator Fuel
SCADA communication service
Satellite Phone Communications
Portable Toilets
Subtotal
Residual Waste Shipping, Handling and Disposal
Off-site Hazardous Sludge Disposal (wet weight)
Pit Clarifier Clean Out
Subtotal
Analytical Services
Total Metals (Effluent Discharge)
Total and Leachable Metals (Waste Characterization)
Subtotal
Maintenance and Modifications
Major Equipment Replacement
Subtotal
Demobilization
System Winterization Labor
Subtota
Total Variable Cost
Quantity
160
160
320
496
275
1
2
2
2
60
470
40
104
145
82
2
2
2,117
1
2
2
41.1
0.33
19
2
1
320
Unit
hour
hour
gallon
ton
gallon
lump sum
month
month
month
month
hour
hour
hour
hour
hour
month
month
gallon
month
month
month
ton
lump sum
each
each
lump sum
hour
Unit cost
$70.00
$70.00
$2.39
$340.00
$13.64
$330.00
$2,400 00
$4,000.00
$800.00
$325.00
$70.00
$45.00
$90.00
$10000
$100.00
$3,400.00
$3,400.00
$1.40
$7500
$50.00
$325.00
$250.00
$30,000.00
$80.00
$280.00
$18,000,00
$70.00
Subtotal
$11,200.00
$11,200.00
$22,400.00
$764.80
$16,864.00
$3,751.00
$330.00
$4,800.00
$8,000.00
$1,600.00
$19,500.00
$55,609.80
$32,900.00
$1,800.00
$9,360.00
$14,500.00
$8,200.00
$66,760.00
$6,800.00
$6,800.00
$2,963.80
$75.00
$100.00
$650.00
$17^88.80
$10,275.00
$9,900.00
$20,175.00
$1,520.00
$560.00
$2,080.00
$18,000.00
$18,000.00
$22,400.00
$22,400.00
$224,813.60
90
-------
Table C-2. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Biphasic Operation (continued)
Description
Total 1st Year Cost
Total 1st Year Cost/1 000-Liters
Total Variable Cost/1 000-Liters
Cumulative 5- Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Cumulative 10- Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Cumulative IS- Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Total
$1,478,842.06
$111.63
$16.97
$921,780.00
$1,578,998.00
$2,047,585.00
% - Percent SCADA - Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
MHz - MegaHertz
91
-------
Table C-3. Cost Element Details for the Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System
I
II
III
1
2
3
4
5
Description
Site Preparation
Design (20% of Capital Cost)
Construction Management ( 1 5% of Capital Cost)
Project Management (10% of Capital Cost)
Survey and Drafting Services
Subtotal
Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Superfund Site, No Permitting Costs
Subtotal
Capital and Equipment
General Site Work
Lagoon Berm Extension, General Site Grading
Lagoon Bottom Lmer/Berm and Treatment Pad Liner
Lagoon Particle Settling Partitions
Collection Systems
Channel Under Drain Pump with Motor
Channel Under Drain Collection Tank Level Transducer
Channel Under Drain Collection Tank
Channel Under Drain Magnetic Flow Meter
Channel Under Drain Power and Control Wiring
Equipment
Reaction Tank
Lime Slurry Tanks and Mixer Tank Motors
Lime Recirculatmg Pump
Lime Delivery Pumps/Diffusers/ Aerator
Rotary Vane Compressor
Submersible Pumps
Submersible Dewatering Pump
Pacer/Honda Trash Pump and Hoses
Electrical
Variable Frequency Drive
Distribution Panel
5 Kilowatt Honda Gas Generator
Miscellaneous
Storage Bins Including Lock Box and Wind Tower
Constant-Monitoring pH Probes
Monitoring Equipment
Motorola 9505 Satellite Phone
Subtotal
Total Fixed Cost
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
Unit
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
lump sum
lump sum
Unit cost
$37,683.05
$28,262.29
$18,841.53
$4,025.16
$45,950.87
$48,278.30
$1,447.78
$3,665.91
$2,058.25
$459.93
$3,534.98
$17,391.24
$1,968.33
$6,415.02
$1,444.54
$1,639.22
$789.06
$848.80
$1,259.60
$2,880.36
$275.00
$500.00
$2,334.30
$2,911.82
$162.00
$11,231.41
$1,495.00
Subtotal
$37,683.05
$28,262.29
$18,841.53
$4,025 16
$88,812.03
$0.00
so.oo
$188,415.25
$98,572.51
$45,950.87
$48,278.30
$4,343.34
$30,776.23
$7,331.83
$2,058.25
$459.93
$3,534.98
$17,391.24
$33,89634
$5,904.98
$12,830.04
$2,889.08
$3,278.44
$3,156.24
$1,697.60
$1,259.60
$2,880.36
$3384.30
$550.00.
$500.00
$2,334.30
$21,785.87
$8,735.46
$324.00
$11,231.41
$1,495.00
$188,415.25
$277,227.28
92
-------
Table C-3. Cost Element Details for the Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System (continued)
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
Description
System Start up and Shakedown
System Assembly
System Start up and Shakedown Labor
Subtotal
Consumables and Rentals
Lime Consumption
Compressor
Heavy Equipment Rental Including Fuel
Field Trailer (Including Mobilization)
Storage Connex (Including Mobilization)
Solids Collection Fabric-Filter Bags
Health and Safety Equipment Including Personal
Protective Equipment
Subtotal
Labor
Field Technicians
Administrative Support
Project Management
Engineering
Program Administration
Subtotal
Utilities
Generator (40 Kilowatt)
Backup Generator (25 Kilowatt)
Diesel
Satellite Phone Communications
Portable Toilets
Subtotal
Residual Waste Handling and Disposal
Non-hazardous Solids Excavation and Off Site Disposal
(wet weight)
Subtotal
Analytical Services
Total Metals (Effluent Discharge)
Total and Leachable Metals (Waste Characterization)
Subtotal
Maintenance and Modifications
Major Equipment Replacement
Subtotal
Demobilization
System Wmterization Labor
Subtotal
Total Variable Cost
Quantity
128
128
19.4
4
4
6
36
6
1
1,280
42
104
145
82
4
4
1,023
2
6
63
6
2
1
256
Unit
hour
hour
ton
month
month
month
month
each
lump sum
hour
hour
hour
hour
hour
month
month
gallon
month
month
ton
each
each
lump sum
hour
Unit cost
$45.36
$45.36
$366.00
$2,400.00
$1,000.00
$466.67
$325.00
$252.52
$5,000.00
$45.36
$58.38
$90.00
$100.00
$100.00
$1,845.00
$1,260.00
$1.42
$50.00
$325.00
$275.00
$80.00
$280.00
$5,400.00
$45.36
Subtotal
$5,806.08
$5,806.08
$11,612.16
$7,100.40
$9,600.00
$4,000.00
$2,800 00
$11,700.00
$1,515.12
$5,000.00
$41,715.52
$58,060.80
$2,451.96
$9,360.00
$14,500.00
$8,200.00
$92,572.76
$7,380.00
$5,040.00
$1,452.66
$100.00
$1,950.00
$15,922.66
$17,325.00
$17,325.00
$480.00
$560.00
$1,040.00
$5,400.00
$5,400.00
$11,612.16
$11,612.16
$197,200.26
93
-------
Table C-3. Cost Element Details for the Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System (continued)
Description
Total 1st Year Cost
Total 1st Year Cost/1 000-Liters
Total Variable Cost/1 000-Liters
Cumulative 5- Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Cumulative 10-Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Cumulative 15-Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return)
Total
$474,427.54
S39.54
$16.44
$808,559.00
$1,385,051.00
$1,796,081.00
% - Percent
94
------- |