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

-------