vxEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
     Demonstration of Aquafix and
     SAPS Passive Mine Water
     Treatment Technologies at the
     Summitville Mine Site
     Innovative Technology
     Evaluation Report
             SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
             TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

-------
                                    EPA/540/R-04/501
                                    June 2004
 DEMONSTRATION OF AQUAFTX AND
      SAPS PASSIVE MINE WATER
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AT THE
       SUMMITVILLE MINE SITE
 Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
          National Risk Management Research Laboratory
             Office of Research and Development
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Cincinnati, Ohio
                               /T~y Recyeled/Beeyclable
                                   Printed with vegetable-based ink on
                                   paper that contains a minimum ot
                                   50% post-consumer fiber content
                                   processed chlorine free.

-------
                                           Notice

The information in this document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under Contract Number 68C00-181. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative reviews
and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                                           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 s ystems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and
groundwater; 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.
                                           Lawrence W. Reiter, Acting Director
                                           National Risk Management Research Laboratory
                                                  ill

-------
                                         Abstract

As part of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) evaluated passive water treatment (PWT) technologies for metals removal from
acid mine drainage (AMD) at the Summitville Mine Superfund Site in Southern Colorado.

PWT technologies have been demonstrated to be effective in removing high concentrations of metals
(aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc) from AMD. These systems supply alkalinity to the mine
drainage along with aeration to precipitate metals such as aluminum and iron as oxides and hydroxides
(oxyhydroxides). The technology is waste-stream specific, requiring characterization of all organic and
inorganic constituents. Two technologies were evaluated for this project: the Successive Alkalinity Producing
System (SAPS), a PWT technology, and the Aquafix treatment system, which is a semi-passive treatment
technology.

In consideration of the severity of the AMD quality at the Summitville site, an iron settling pond pretreatment
system was constructed upstream from the SAPS pond.  This pond provided a means to aerate the AMD,
allowing oxidation and precipitation of ferric ion prior to SAPS treatment. From the Reynolds Adit collection
sump, AMD was delivered as influent to the SAPS at a rate of 5 gallons per minute (gpm).  This influent was
aerated by passage through a spray nozzle to atomize the AMD as it settled into the pond. The iron, and
potential co-precipitated metals, settled to the bottom of this pond prior to delivery into the SAPS.

The SAPS consists of a pond that contains three sections or layers: ponded water, compost, and crushed
limestone. AMD effluent enters the pond just above the compost layer and flows down through the compost
and limestone. Discharge from the SAPS enters a settling pond approximately 2 feet below the pond surface.
Discharge from the settling pond was routed to a rock drain or limestone channel for final treatment
(polishing).

The Aquafix system consists of a water wheel mechanical distribution system for addition of alkaline material
to the AMD; ideally, the treated drainage stream would be delivered to a settling pond. The Reynolds Adit
collection sump provided AMD influent for the Aquafix system at a rate of 19 gpm.  Due to a lack of
sufficient surface area at the site, Baker tanks were used in place of settling ponds. The Aquafix machine
provides the addition of lime at a rate proportional to the AMD flow rate. After the lime has been added, the
AMD is routed through a rock drain to promote mixing and dissolution of the lime and aeration of the AMD,
which causes the metals to precipitate.

The results of the PWT technology evaluation demonstrated that the treatment systems removed the metals
from the AMD. Removal efficiencies  ranged from 11 percent to 97 percent for the SAPS, and as much as
97 percent to 99 percent for the Aquafix treatment system.

Economic data indicate that the costs for both the SAPS and Aquafix systems is $0.005 per gallon for the 25
gpm systems.
                                                IV

-------
                                          Contents

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols	vii
Acknowledgments	,	ix

Executive Summary	,	ES-1

       SAPS Technology	ES-1
       Aquafix Technology	ES-1
       Objectives of the SAPS and Aquafix Technology Evaluation	ES-2
       Technology Applications Analysis	,.	,	,	,	,	ES-2
       Economic Analysis	,	ES-3
       Treatment Effectiveness	ES-3
       Lessons Learned	ES-4
       Theory	ES-4
       Design	ES-4
       Construction	 ES-4
       Operation and Maintenance.	ES-4
       Analytical	ES-4

1      Introduction	,	1
       1.1     Purpose and Organization of the ITER	,	1
       1.2     Site Description	2
       1.3     Passive Water Treatment Technologies	2
       1.3.1   Technology System Components and Function	2
                      1.3.1.1   SAPS Technology	2
                      1.3.1.2   Aquafix System	...4
                      1.3.1.3   Zeolite System	8
               1.3.2   Key Features of the PWT Technology	8
                      1.3.2.1   SAPS Technology	8
                      1.3.2.2   Aquafix Technology	8
       1.4     Key Contacts	11

2      Technology Application Analysis	,	12
       2.1     Applicable Wastes and Conditions	12
       2.2     Factors Affecting Performance	12
               2.2.1   Mine Drainage Characteristics	 12
               2.2.2   Operating Parameters	13
               2.2.3   Aeration of the AMD	 13
       2.3     Site Characteristics	13
               2.3.1   Support Systems	14
               2.3.2   Site Area, Access, and Preparation	 14
               2.3.3   Climate	14
               2.3.4   Utilities	14
               2.3.5   Services and Supplies	14
       2.4     Availability, Adaptability, and Transportability of Equipment	14
       2.5     Material Handling Requirements	15
       2.6     Personnel Requirements	 15

-------
                                  Contents (Continued)

       2,7     Potential Community Exposures	,	15
       2.8     Evaluation of Technology Against RI/FS Criteria	15
       2,9     Potential Regulatory Requirements	16
               2.9.1   Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
                      Liability Act	16
               2.9.2   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act	16
               2.9.3   Clean Water Act	18
               2.9.4   Occupational Safety and Health Act	,	18
       2.10    Limitations of the Technology	18

3      Treatment Effectiveness	20
       3,1     Background	20
       3.2     Review of SITE Evaluation	,	20
               3.2.1   PWT Preliminary Design and Treatability Study	20
               3.2.2   Technology Evaluation	21
               3.2.3   Operational and Sampling Problems and Variations from the
                      WbrkPlan.....	21
               3.2.4   Site Demobilization	21
       3.3     Demonstration Methodology	22
       3.4     Sampling, Analysis, and Measurement Procedures	22
       3.5     SITE Evaluation Results	25
               3.5.1   Summitville Mine Drainage Chemistry	..25
               3.5.2   Trend Analysis and Data Reduction	25
               3.5.3   Toxicity Testing Results	,	28
               3.5.4   Attainment of Evaluation Objectives	32
                      3,5.4.1    Removal Efficiencies	32
                      3.5.4.2   Pond Sludge Characteristics and Estimated Volume	32
                      3.5.4.3   Use and Degradation of Materials in SAPS	32
                      3.5.4.4   Effectiveness of the SAPS Rock Drain Polishing
                               Trench	,	35
                      3.5.4,5   Changes in Aquatic Toxicity	35
                      3.5.4.6   Flow Rate and Mass Metals Loadings	35
               3.5,5   Design Effectiveness	,	,	35

4      Economic Analysis	37
       4.1     Basis of Economic Analysis	37
       4,2     Cost Categories	,	38
               4.2.1   Site Preparation Costs	38
               4.2.2   Permitting and Regulatory Requirements	38
               4.2.3   Capital Equipment	41
               4.2.4   Startup	42
               4,2,5   Labor	,	,	,	.42
               4.2.6   Consumables and Supplies	,	,	42
               4.2.7   Utilities...	42
               4.2.8   Residual Waste Shipping and Handling	42
               4.2.9   Analytical Services	42
                                                   VI

-------
                          Contents (Continued)

           4.2,10 Maintenance and Modifications	, 42
           4.2.11 Demobilization	43

5     Technology Status	44

6     References	45

Appendix

A     ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES AND PLOTS
B     SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

                         List of Figures and Tables

Figure                                                             Page


1     SITE LOCATION MAP	3
2     PWT TECHNOLOGIES PROCESS SCHEMATIC	 5
3     SAPS FLOW DIAGRAM	6
4     SAPS HYDRAULIC PROFILE	7
5     AQUAFDCUNTT	...9
6     AQUAFIX FLOW DIAGRAM	10

Table                                                              Page

1     EVALUATION OF PWT TECHNOLOGIES VERSUS RI/FS CRITERIA	17
2     SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR REYNOLDS ADIT
      MINE DRAINAGE	...19
3     DEMONSTRATION SAMPLE COLLECTION SUMMARY	23
4     SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL METHODS	26
5     SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR METALS	27
6     TOXICITY TEST WATER QUALITY	30
7     COMPARISON OF  SURVIVAL RESULTS FOR C. DUBIA, P. PROMELAS,
      AND O. MYKISS USING SAMPLES FROM SUMMITVILLE MINE DRAINAGE
      AND PILOT TREATMENT EFFLUENTS	31
8     REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES WITH 95% UPPER AND LOWER CONFIDENCE
      LIMITS	.....33
9     AVERAGE METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN SLUDGE SAMPLES FROM
      AQUAFIX AND  SAPS SYSTEMS	,	34
10     AVERAGE TCLP METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN SAPS POND SLUDGE
      SAMPLES	,	34
11     SAPS TECHNOLOGY COSTS FOR DIFFERENT TREATMENT VOLUMES	39
12     AQUAFIX TECHNOLOGY COSTS FOR DIFFERENT TREATMENT VOLUMES	 40
                                VII

-------
                        Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols

0 C           Degrees Celsius
°F           Degrees Fahrenheit
%RE         percent removal efficiency
AMD         Acid mine drainage
ARAR        Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
CDPHE       Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
CERCLA      Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR          Code of Federal Regulations
CWA         Clean Water Act
EPA          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FS           Feasibility study
gpm          Gallons per minute
HSWA        Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
ITER         Innovative technology evaluation report
LC50          Lethal concentration for 50 percent of the test organisms
mg/kg         Milligrams per kilogram
ug/L          Micrograms per liter
mg/L         Milligrams per liter
MS           Matrix spike
N C P          National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NOAEL       No observed acute effect level in 48-hour period
NOEC        No observed effect concentration in 7-day period
NPDES       National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRMRL       National Risk Management Research Laboratory
O&M         Operation and maintenance
O SHA        Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PPE          Personal protective equipment
ppm          Parts per million
PVC          Polyvinyl chloride
PWT         Passive water treatment
Q APP        Quality assurance project plan
QA/QC       Quality assurance/quality control
RCRA        Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI           Remedial investigation
SAPS         Successive Alkalinity Producing System
SARA        Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SITE         Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SWDA        Solid Waste Disposal Act
TCLP         Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TDS          Total dissolved solids
TOC          Total organic carbon
TSS          Total suspended solids
                                         Vlli

-------
                                   Acknowledgments

This report was prepared under the direction of Mr. Edward Bates, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program project manager at the National
Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in Cincinnati, Ohio; Victor Ketellapper, EPA Region 8;
and Angus Campbell, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).

The cooperation and participation of the following people are gratefully acknowledged: Mr. Vicente Gallardo,
Ms. Ann Vega, and Dr. James Lazorchek of NRMRL; Ms. Austin Buckingham of CDPHE; and Mr. Darwin
Nelson and Ms. Karen Taylor of Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM).
                                               IX

-------
                                       Executive Summary
This Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (ITER)
documents the results of an evaluation of passive water
treatment (PWT) technologies at the Summitville Mine
Superfimd  Site  in southern Colorado.   The  PWT
technologies  were  evaluated  from  August  through
October  2000.    Two  remedial  technologies were
evaluated under  the  U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency's (EPA)  Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation  (SITE)  Program  for  removing  h igh
concentrations  of rnetals  (aluminum, copper, iron,
manganese, and zinc) from acid mine drainage (AMD): a
successive alkalinity producing  system (SAPS), and a
lime addition approach known as the Aquafix system. A
third treatment technology, an ion exchange system using
a  mixture  of natural  zeolites,  was  also  slated  for
evaluation,  but   construction  delays  precluded  the
collection of data from that system.   This executive
summary discusses technology applications and system
effectiveness, and presents an evaluation of the costs
associated with the system and lessons learned during the
field demonstration. The two technologies evaluated are
discussed in more detail below.

SAPS Technology

The SAPS technology has been developed in the public
domain over the past 10 years for remediation of AMD.
A SAPS  is a pond that  contains a  combination  of
limestone and compost overlain by several feet of water.
Mine drainage enters at the top of the pond; flows down
through the compost, where the drainage gains alkalinity
and the oxidation-reduction potential decreases; then
flows into the  limestone  below.   Dissolution of the
limestone increases the alkalinity of the water, resulting in
the precipitation of aluminum, copper, iron, manganese,
and zinc. The precipitated metals collect at the base of the
SAPS pond and in the subsequent settling pond. Removal
of collected precipitate from the ponds is required in order
to maintain sufficient conditions for the reaction.  The
frequency of this maintenance is dependent on the metals
loading in the AMD, the size and configuration of the
ponds, and the efficiency of the precipitation removal.
These conditions are evaluated and optimized in order to
limit the need for cleaning out the ponds to an annual or
seasonal maintenance or longer.  The SAPS is fairly
simple and economical to implement and is self operating,
which makes  it ideally suited for remote sites that have
sufficient space for the large ponds needed.

The SAPS was constructed  downstream  of an iron
settling pond where AMD was aerated through a spray
nozzle to oxidize the ferrous iron, allowing the ferric iron to
precipitate. This settling pond may be necessary for sites
where high iron content will generate larger volumes of
precipitate  that can clog SAPS components  if  not
pretreated.  After the pretreatment of the settling pond,
AMD fed into the SAPS pond for alkalinity treatment that
caused a precipitation of metal ions in the waste stream.
Precipitated metals were  collected in a  subsequent
settling pond; discharge from the settling pond was then
routed through a polishing channel for final treatment
The total treatment time through the entire treatment
system was between 14 and 15 days and about 4 days
through the SAPS ponds.

Aquafix Technology

The Aquafix system uses the recognized effectiveness of
lime addition  to raise the pH of the AMD to precipitate
metals.  For this evaluation, a rock drain was designed
downstream  from  the  treatment  unit  to  promote
dissolution of the lime; the effluent from the rock drain
was further  aerated  in a  mixing  tank, and  was
subsequently  sent to two settling tanks  connected in
series.  The calculated total residence time of the system
was about 2 days, but the flow rate in this system tended
to fluctuate, thereby affecting residence time.
                                                 ES-1

-------
Objectives of the SAPS and Aquafix  Technology
Evaluation

The primary objective of the SITE Program's evaluation
of the SAPS and Aquafix system was to determine the
removal efficiency of each technology for aluminum,
copper,  iron,  manganese,  and zinc  in  the AMD.  A
summary of these results  is presented in  Table ES-L
Secondary objectives were to (1) monitor the general
characteristics of the AMD as it passed through each
system; (2) characterize the sludge from the SAPS and
Aquafix settling ponds and estimate the volumes  of
sludge; (3) monitor the use and degradation of materials in
the SAPS; (4) evaluate the effectiveness of the SAPS
polishing trenches; (5) measure the  change in aquatic
toxicity  attributable  to  each  treatment  system; (6)
measure and record flow rates for each technology and
estimate mass metals loadings; and (7) estimate capital
and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for each
technology,

Technology Applications  Analysis

PWT technologies  have  been  demonstrated   to  be
effective in removing high concentrations of metals
(aluminum, copper, iron,  manganese, and zinc) from
AMD. These systems supply alkalinity to the AMD,
along with  aeration, to  precipitate metals such  as
aluminum  and   iron  as  oxides   and   hydroxides
(oxyhydroxides).  Aeration may consist of atomization
         (forcing water under pressure from collection behind the
         bulkhead through a spray nozzle) or simple movement of
         the  AMD through the treatment system.   Aeration
         promotes elimination of metals co-precipitated with iron,
         such as arsenic, from  the AMD.  PWT may also be
         effective in treating other types  of acidic metal-laden
         waste streams.   The  technologies are waste-stream
         specific,  requiring characterization  of organic  and
         inorganic constituents prior to implementation.
         The primary reasons for utilizing a PWT system include
         remote site  location, limited access, and little to or no
         infrastructure available. These performance factors may
         or may not be relevant to PWT systems designed to treat
         organic or inorganic (nonmetal)  contamination,   PWT
         systems applicability  to waste streams is  limited at
         locations where there is low flow rate or lack of constant
         flow;  variable  temperature  conditions  of the  waste
         stream; and sites with  little land  area for the treatment
         pond.

         The  operating  parameters that  are  designed in the
         treatment process  include the controlled flow rate for
         alkalinity production,  metals  reduction, and metals
         precipitation. A hydraulic residence time of 96 hours was
         found to work well for these types of alkalinity producing
         systems, as was determined in the preliminary design
         study.

         Maintaining proper hydraulic residence time is one of the
         most important factors for the success of a PWT system.
            Table ES-1. Summary of Contaminant Removal Efficiency of Total Metals
                         Metal
SAPS Removal*
   (Percent)*
Aquafix Removal1"
    (Percent)*
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
97
90
64
11
57
97
99
99
97
99
Notes:
• The average pH in the waste stream for the SAPS system was 6.3.
b The average pH in the waste stream for the Aquafix system was 8.4.
* Bias-corrected estimation method used to determine percent removal efficiencies.
                                                 ES-2

-------
For these systems, a short residence time may not allow
metals to oxidize and precipitate from the AMD into the
settling pond.  This short residence time may result in
lower metal removal rates.  In chemical  precipitation
systems, compounds that precipitate slowly may not be
removed to the same  extent as rapidly  precipitating
compounds.

Economic  Analysis

An economic analysis was conducted to examine 11 cost
categories for the PWT technologies. The  11 categories
include (1) site preparation; (2) permitting and regulatory
requirements;  (3) capital equipment and  construction;
(4) startup;  (5) labor; (6) consumables and supplies;
(7) utilities; (8) residual and waste shipping and handling;
(9) analytical services; (10) maintenance and modifications;
and (11) demobilization.

A number of factors affect the estimated costs of treating
mine drainage with the PWT technology. These factors
generally include AMD flow rate, type and concentration
of  contaminants,  water  chemistry,  physical  site
conditions, site location, and treatment goals. In addition,
the characteristics of the pond sludge produced by these
systems will affect disposal costs since these materials
may require treatment for off-site disposal.

Based on the criteria evaluated in the cost analysis, the
average estimated cost for a SAPS based  on a 15 year
system life range from $53,400 for a 5 gallons per minute
(gpm) system to $ 111,3 00 per year for a 100 gpm system.
For the 5 gpm system treatment cost is estimated at $0.02
per gallon of AMD and for the 100 gpm system the cost
is estimated at $0.002 per gallon.

The  average cost for  a permanent Aquafix system
designed to  treat  25   gpm  are  expected  to  be
approximately $72,400 per year,  based on  a 15 year
system life. For this 25 gpm system, the treatment cost is
estimated at $0.005 per gallon of treated AMD and for the
100 gpm system the cost is estimated at $0.003 per gall
Ion.
Treatment  Effectiveness

Based on this demonstration, the following conclusions
may be drawn about the effectiveness of the  SAPS
technology.

•   The Summitville Mine Site is in a remote location at a
    high altitude of 11,500 feet with AMD  quality
    extremely high in metals concentration. Significant
    percentages of aluminum, copper, iron, manganese
    and zinc were removed from the AMD  in these
    conditions during the demonstration. The removal
    efficiency, which ranged from a low of 11 percent to
    97 percent, was not sufficient to meet Summitville site
    project objectives.

•   Corresponding toxicity results were also observed for
    this demonstration. Although toxicity of the AMD
    was reduced by the SAPS, a sufficient amount of
    toxicity remained in the post-treatment Summitville
    water.   A  100-times  greater  reduction  in  the
    concentration of metals is needed to remove acute
    toxicity  in the rainbow trout,  and a  1,000-times
    reduction in metals is needed to remove acute toxicity
    in the freshwater invertebrate. A 50-times reduction
    in metals is needed to achieve a level of no acute
    effects in the fathead minnows.

«   One or more  pretreatment ponds may be required
    upstream of a SAPS at sites where AMD is of severe
    quality in order to meet project objectives.

»   The SAPS is relatively easy to construct with readily
    available materials.

The following conclusions may be drawn about the
effectiveness of the Aquafix system.

•   Significant percentages of aluminum, copper, iron,
    manganese, and zinc were removed from the AMD.
    During  the  demonstration,  the  metals removal
    efficiency ranged from 97 percent to 99  percent.
    This performance  was  limited  to short term
    performance, due to the severe quality of the AMD
    and the limitations of the system at the Summitville
    site to  properly  aerate and  permit  settling  of
    precipitate.    Limited  space at the site  for this
    demonstration prohibited the ability to provide a
    sufficiently sized rock drain and Baker tanks were
    substituted for settling ponds.

*   Fluctuations of AMD flow rate and temperature can
    significantly impact treatment system performance.

*   Due to poor mixing in the rock drain, the effluent was
    fed into a mixing tank, where aeration was achieved
    by means of a sparging nozzle to simulate cascade
    mixing of the effluent to further enhance dissolution
    and aeration.   After sparging,  the effluent was
                                                 ES-3

-------
    collected in two Baker tanks, which were used for
    this demonstration due to limited space at the site for
    construction of a settling pond, which is more typically
    employed with this technology. System design to
    accommodate sufficient mixing and settling time of
    the effluent is essential for meeting project objectives.

•   The Aquafix system is relatively easy to purchase
    and constructed with readily available materials.

In summary, results from this SITE demonstration of the
PWT technologies suggest  that  these  systems  are
capable of reducing the toxicity of contaminated mine
drainage by removing metals such as zinc, cadmium, iron,
lead, nickel, and silver. In addition, application of this
technology to mine drainage containing high concentrations
of iron may require pretreatment to remove the iron. If
not removed, the iron could precipitate in the treatment
pond and could lead to loss of treatment efficiency.

Lessons  Learned

The following items highlight lessons learned during the
PWT system demonstration at the Summitville Mine
Superfund Site.   The list is  partitioned  among five
categories of considerations (or concerns): theory, design,
construction, operation and maintenance, and analytical.
PWT  technologies  have been demonstrated  to be
effective in removing high concentrations of metals from
AMD.  These systems supply alkalinity to the AMD,
along  with aeration, to  precipitate  metals such  as
aluminum   and  iron  as  oxides  and   hydroxides
(oxyhydroxides). Sites that possess severe AMD water
quality may require additional  pretreatment and post-
treatment systems to supplement the treatment system
performance.
Bench-scale treatability testing is an important first step
for evaluating design parameters for application of PWT
systems at a specific site.  Design variables include:  1)
amount and composition of alkaline chemical needed to
achieve target pH conditions, 2) the volume and mass of
precipitant sludge from settling for various pH conditions
and settling times, 3) time required for optimal precipitant
flocculation and settling, and 4) evaluation of the metals in
solution before and after the addition of lime at target pH
values.

A hydraulic residence time of 96  hours (estimated)
provided good metal removal in the settling ponds in the
beginning of the demonstration. Aeration, mixing, and
settling time are critical factors for the success of PWT
system removal efficiency.

Construction

Effluent collection  pipes  (polyvinyl chloride  [PVC])
should be larger than 1-inch  in  diameter  to  prevent
clogging from precipitated material. In addition, the
effluent collection  structure should include  cleaning
maintenance  to  allow precipitated material  to  be
periodically removed without driving the precipitate back
into the treatment pond.

Ability to collect and maintain a constant flow rate of
AMD  influent  is critical  for optimized PWT system
performance.

Operation and Maintenance

PWT systems can require  regular  inspections to ensure
that proper  flow of AMD is maintained through the
treatment systems.   However, properly designed and
constructed influent distribution and effluent collection
networks may reduce inspection frequency.

Treatment system downtime with PWT  systems is not
high.  Effluent piping networks should be cleaned out
periodically (once or twice a year may be appropriate).
For the SAPS,  the frequency of compost removal and
replacement will depend on contaminant loading, metal
removal efficiencies, and the desired performance level
of the treatment system.
Analytical

Routine (monthly) total metals analysis in conjunction with
quarterly    dissolved   metals   analysis   were
useful in evaluating  the  performance  of the  PWT
systems. The mine drainage and effluents were sampled
and analyzed every 2 days during the demonstration due
to  the limited time  available  for  collecting  such
information; however, monthly sampling is adequate to
track treatment performance.
                                                  ES-4

-------
Routine aquatic toxicity testing of the mine drainage and
PWT effluent  also  provides  useful  water  quality
information.  During the SAPS demonstration, these
analyses  were  conducted  near  the  end  of  the
demonstration due to the short evaluation time, but semi-
annual analyses  could also be used.   Demonstration
aquatic toxicity testing used three test organisms, fathead
minnows   (Pimephalus  promelas),   water  fleas
(Ceriodaphnia   dubia),   and   rainbow   trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss); however, other test organisms
could also be used.

All aqueous field analyses conducted during the PWT
systems demonstration including  pH, Eh (effluent),
dissolved oxygen (influent), conductivity, and temperature
were useful measurements.
                                                ES-5

-------

-------
                                                   1
                                            Introduction
This section provides background information about the
Superfiind  Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program,  discusses  the  purpose  of this  Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (ITER), and describes the
Passive Water  Treatment (PWT) technologies.   Key
contacts  for additional  information about  the  SITE
program, this technology, and the demonstration site are
listed at the end of this section.

Passive  water  treatment  technologies  (PWT)  are
designed to remove or neutralize high concentrations of
metals (aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc)
from acid mine drainage (AMD). These systems supply
alkalinity to the mine drainage along with  aeration to
precipitate  metals such as aluminum and iron as oxides
and hydroxides (oxyhydroxides). Two PWT technologies
were evaluated at the Summitville Mine Superfund Site
(Summitville) in southern Colorado.  A Zeolite system
PWT technology was also attempted to be included in this
demonstration;  however, construction delays during
installation of the system resulted in insufficient time to
collect data. The evaluation was conducted by the U.S.
Environmental   Protection   Agency's  (EPA)   SITE
Program  in cooperation with EPA Region  8 and the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE).

The technology evaluation occurred from August through
October  2000.    The project  evaluated a  successive
alkalinity-producing system (SAPS) and a semi-passive
lime addition system produced by Aquafix Treatment
Systems (Aquafix), The SAPS and Aquafix systems use
lime to supply alkalinity to the AMD for neutralization and
metals precipitation. This ITER summarizes the results of
that evaluation and provides other pertinent technical and
cost information for potential users of the technology. For
additional  information  about  the  technologies,  the
evaluation  site,  and  the  SITE  Program,  refer to key
contacts listed at the end of this section.
1.1    Purpose and Organization of the ITER

The purpose of this ITER is to present information that
will  assist decision-makers  in  evaluating the  PWT
technologies for application to a particular site cleanup.
This  report  provides  background  information  and
introduces the PWT technologies (Section 1.0), analyzes
the technology's applications (Section 2.0), analyzes the
PWT technologies'  effectiveness in treating  AMD
(Section 3.0), provides an economic analysis (Section
4.0), summarizes the technology's status (Section 5.0),
and presents  a  list of references used to prepare the
ITER. Data summary tables and plots are provided  in
Appendix A, and photographs taken during the evaluation
are provided in Appendix B.

The ITER provides information on the PWT technologies
and  includes a  comprehensive description  of the
demonstration and its results.  The ITER is intended for
use by EPA remedial project  managers, EPA on-scene
coordinators,  contractors, and other decision-makers for
implementing specific remedial actions.  The ITER is
designed to aid decision-makers in evaluating specific
technologies for further consideration as an option in a
particular cleanup  operation.  This report represents a
critical step in the development and commercialization of
a treatment technology.  To encourage the general use of
demonstration technologies, EPA provides information
regarding the applicability of each technology to specific
sites  and  wastes.   Therefore,  the  ITER  includes
information on cost and site-specific characteristics.  It
also discusses advantages, disadvantages, and limitations
of the technology.  Each SITE demonstration evaluates
the performance of a technology in treating a specific
waste. The waste characteristics at other sites may differ
from the characteristics of the treated waste. Therefore,
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.

1.2    Site Description

EPA Region 8 and  the CDPHE  are  responsible  for
remediating  the  Summitville site.   These parties
recognized a need to identify cost-effective methods for
AMD remediation to support long-term site remediation
objectives, and   worked with EPA's National Risk
Management  Research  Laboratory  (NRMRL)  to
construct  the evaluation systems and to  design  the
evaluation. The SAPS and Aquafix technologies were
evaluated  in  a  SITE  Program  evaluation at  the
Summitville  site,  which was carried out  under a
cooperative agreement among EPA NRMRL, CDPHE,
and EPA Region 8.

The Summitville site is an abandoned gold mine located in
the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado. The
mine occupies approximately 1,400 acres at an elevation
of 11,500 feet on the  northeastern flank of South
Mountain  in Rio Grande County, Colorado (Figure 1).
The site is located approximately 25 miles from Del Norte,
Colorado.  The mine is drained by three streams: Cropsy
Creek, Wightman Fork, and an unnamed tributary to
Wightman Fork. From its confluence with Cropsy Creek,
Wightman Fork flows east approximately four miles and
empties into the Alamosa River. The Summitville area
has long cold winters  and short, cool summers.

A major source of contamination at the Summitville site is
AMD from the  Reynolds adit. The Reynolds Adit was
built as a  dewatering tunnel to lower the water  table,
thereby allowing  deeper mining without pumping  out
water.  AMD occurs when sulfide minerals in a mine are
exposed to oxygen and water.  Although sulfide mineral
oxidation  is a natural process, the amount of material
exposed to oxidizing conditions has increased as a result
of excavations into the sulfide-bearing rock. Catalyzation
of sulfide oxidation  reactions by naturally occurring
bacteria,  such  as  Thiobacittis  ferroxidam,  may
accompany  the process and further accelerate  the
production of AMD (EPA 1983).
1.3    Passive Water Treatment  Technologies

PWT technologies allow naturally occurring chemical and
biological reactions that aid in AMD treatment to occur
within a controlled environment of the technology system,
and not in the receiving water body.  Passive treatment
conceptually offers many advantages over conventional
active treatment systems. The use of energy-consuming
treatment processes are virtually eliminated with passive
treatment systems. Additional advantages to the passive
systems are lower labor  requirements, lower energy
usage, gravity flow through systems,  and the operation
and  maintenance (O&M)  requirements  of  passive
systems  are considerably less than active treatment
systems.  PWT technologies are most beneficial for
AMD treatment at remote locations,  such as sites that
possess difficult terrains or lack utilities, and sites  with
limited or no winter access.

1.3.1  Technology  System  Components   and
       Function

The two  PWT technologies evaluated consisted of the
SAPS  technology and a semi-passive lime addition
system produced by Aquafix. The SAPS and Aquafix
systems use lime to supply alkalinity to the AMD for
neutralization  and  metals precipitation.  The SAPS
technology  incorporates compost and  limestone  in a
down-flow  pond.  The Aquafix system deposits  lime
pellets into the AMD stream. A process schematic of the
demonstrated technologies at the Summitville site is
shown in Figure 2. A valve off of the mine seal at the
Reynolds Adit was used to obtain an AMD flow stream
from the mine pool collected behind the seal. The AMD
flow stream was split to deliver an average flow  of 5
gallons per minute (gpm) to the SAPS and 19 gpm to the
Aquafix system.

1.3.1.1 SAPS Technology

The SAPS technology has been developed over the past
10 years for remediation of AMD. A SAPS is a pond
containing  a combination of limestone  and compost
overlain by several feet of water. Mine drainage enters
the top of the pond, flows down through the compost,
where the drainage gains alkalinity and the oxidation-
reduction potential   decreases,  then flows  into  the
limestone below. Water serves to prevent direct contact
of oxygen  with the compost  layer to moderate the
temperature and to minimize oxygen diffusion. These
factors assist in reducing oxygen content and boosting the

-------
              RIO  GRANDE
              NATIONAL  FOREST
                                                 SCALE: 1" » 25'
                                               APPROXIMATE SCALE
         COLORADO
Figure 1. Site Location Map

-------
alkalinity production in the SAPS,  Dissolution of the
limestone increases the alkalinity in the water, resulting in
the precipitation of aluminum and possibly copper. The
precipitated metals collect at the base of the SAPS pond
or in a  subsequent settling pond.  These systems are
limited by the dissolution rate of the limestone and only
remove  a portion of the metal contamination from mine
drainage.    As  a result,  these  systems  are  often
constructed  in series to gradually remove the metal
contamination.

The  treatment components of the SAPS tested at the
Reynolds Adit consisted of an iron settling pond preceding
a compost/limestone downflow pond, and a final settling
pond. Figure 3 shows a flow diagram of the SAPS. The
purpose of the iron settling pond was to aerate the mine
drainage and oxidize the ferrous iron, allowing the ferric
ion to precipitate.  The AMD influent gravity controlled
flow rate to the iron settling pond was about 5 gpm. The
AMD in the iron settling pond had an estimated residence
time of about 96 hours. To provide aeration, the influent
to the pond was pumped through a spray nozzle into the air
and then allowed to rain back into the  pond.  Pressure
from AMD collected behind the bulkhead was used to
force water through the spray nozzle in the pretreatment
pond. The hydraulic profile of the treatment system is
constructed  to provide gravity feed of AMD.   The
hydraulic profile of the SAPS is demonstrated in Figure 4.

The  compost/limestone downflow pond, also called the
SAPS pond, contained 2.5 feet of ponded water, about 1.5
feet  of  compost, and 3 feet of 1- to 2-inch-diameter
limestone pellets. The SAPS pond was 60-feet long, 40-
feet wide, and 7-feet deep.  The effluent from the iron
settling pond entered the top of the SAPS pond through a
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, valve,  or standpipe to
control  flow.  The water flowed  down through the
compost layer and then through the limestone  layer at a
flow rate of 5 gpm. The hydraulic residence time of the
water within the compost layer was estimated to be 32
hours (assuming a 60 percent water content), and the
hydraulic residence time in the  limestone layer was
estimated to be 32 hours (assuming a 40 percent void
volume). The SAPS was constructed using 30 tons of
limestone for each gpm of AMD to be treated.  The
amount of limestone at the Summitville SAPS pond was
estimated at  158 tons.

The  SAPS settling pond was 52-feet long, 36-feet wide,
and 6.5-feet deep.  This pond was shaped in a trapezoidal
configuration, had a capacity of 36,000 gallons, and the
influent residence time was about 5 days. Water flowed
across  the pond to the primary effluent line, located
approximately 6 inches below the top of the pond.
Discharge from the SAPS  settling pond was routed to
either the rock or limestone channels (polishing trenches)
for final treatment.

1.3,1.2 Aquafix System

The Aquafix system uses lime to increase the pH of the
AMD, in a fashion similar to the SAPS technology. The
differences between the two systems are in the method
and conditions of lime addition. The Aquafix system,
shown in Figure 5, mechanically delivers lime by diverting
a portion of the AMD to drive  a water wheel. As the
water wheel spins it drives an auger suspended above a
channel. The auger uses gravity to cause lime pebbles to
drop slowly from a hopper into the mine drainage flowing
below. The AMD used to drive the water wheel is then
returned to the channel.  The amount of lime added is
proportional  to the speed  of the water wheel, so the
system can be optimized  and  can even  account for
moderate changes in AMD flow. Following lime addition,
the mine drainage is routed through arock drain to mix the
lime and AMD, and to aerate  the AMD.  The  more
alkaline and aerobic conditions  of the rock drain cause
metals such  as aluminum, copper, iron,  and zinc to
precipitate from solution.

For the Summitville demonstration, the Aquafix system
was  constructed alongside the SAPS  pond.  AMD
flowing at an average rate of 19 gpm was diverted to the
Aquafix lime addition system from a valve in the mine seal
at the Reynolds Adit. After lime addition, the AMD flow
was channeled down a 200-foot-long slope rock drain to
mix the water and lime. The mixing time was estimated to
be 5 to 7 minutes for lime to breakdown after coming in
contact with water and agitation created by rock drain.
The  water then flowed into two settling tanks (Baker
tanks) connected in series,  designed to simulate settling
ponds for purposes of the evaluation. A process flow of
the Aquafix system is shown in Figure 6.

Based on a preliminary design study completed prior to
the Summitville demonstration, a hydraulic residence of
96 hours was determined to be optimum for these types of
alkalinity  producing  systems.   However, the  total
residence  time for AMD  in the  Aquafix  system was
approximately 2 days. Due to the limited space available
on the Summitville site, Baker tanks were used in place of
properly  sized settling ponds that did not allow for

-------
TO
i
I
H
o
o
I*
                       OVERFLOW
    INFLUENT
    FROM
    REYNOLDS
    AttT

       MINE SEAL AND
        GATE VALVE
                                                                                                                                                          ROUTE TO'
                                                                                                                                                          EXISTING
                                                                                                                                                          DRAINAGE
                                                                                              BYPASS
                                                  iNFLUENT TO AQUAfiX
                                                  LJME FEEDER
                                                                                                     4" GATE VW.WS

                                                                                                     4" PVC PIPE
                                                                                                                               BAKER
                                                                                                                               TANKS
                                                                    ROCK DRAIN
                                                           AQUAFIX UMC
                                                           AOOTON SYSTEM
                                                        REMAINING FLOW RECEIVES LIME
                                                        DOSAGE BENEATH UME HOPPER
                                                                                                                                                           ROUTE TO
                                                                                                                                                           EXISTING
                                                                                                                                                           DRAINAGE
         O
          (I)


          (2}
                DENOTES APPROXIMATE SAMPLING LOCATION


                DENOTES SLUOCE SAMPLING LOCATION


                INFLUENT SAUPUNG LOCATION FOR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE PI


                EFFLUENT SAMPLING LOCATION FOR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE P<

-------
jet

 "t
 n
 W
 05
 •fl

 1
 D

f
                         ©
        REYNOLDS ADIT
        (wstmc)
               UME SEAL AND
               C*TE V*IVE
*PPROX. LOCATION OF ZEOLITE SWUM,  /
TANK OUEKSONS: 38* X JJf » S'
                                                                        APPROXlUATt LIMITS
                                                                        OF GRADING
                                 PRESSURIZED 1.25"  SCH 40 PVC
                                 NFtUENT LIC TO MOM SETTUMC
                                 POND
EYNOLDS TUNNEL
    (EXISTING)
                                                                                                                                                                                                     
-------
 3
TO"
 i
 o"
 I
K1NCUK 1O1
                                                                                                                                                       «OOU8»«tt V MOKX
                                                                                                                                                                   OlMKMKt Vtt«£*KO-
                                                                                                                                                                   MAMM WeMMi

-------
sufficient settling  time and collection of precipitate.
Results of a treatability study conducted by the vendor
determined that 0.004143 pound of lime was required to
neutralize 1 gallon of AMD. The selected lime pebble size
for the evaluation  was approximately 0.375  inch  in
diameter.

1,3.1.3  Zeolite System

For the Summitville demonstration, a single zeolite cell
was used. The cell consisted of a 38-foot-long, 7.8-foot-
wide, 5-foot-deep tank filled with approximately 29 tons
of Z-blend zeolite.  AMD flowing at 5 gpm from the iron
settling pond was diverted  to the zeolite system.  The
residence time for the AMD in the zeolite cell was
approximately 9 hours. The system treated approximately
36,000 gallons of water in a 5-day period. After this time,
the zeolite required regeneration.

To  regenerate the  zeolite,  the treated water was first
drained from the zeolite cell. A 3 percent sodium chloride
solution was pumped from holding tanks into the zeolite
cell and allowed to remain in the cell for 8 to 24 hours. The
sodium chloride regeneration solution was reused several
times, and was eventually pumped to the Summitville
impoundment along with effluent from the zeolite system.

The zeolite system was  not evaluated as part of this
demonstration  due to  construction  delays  during
installation of the system. No further discussion of this
technology or data was available to be included in this
report.

1.3.2   Key Features of the PWT Technologies

Technology features can permit an adaptation to a wide
variety of settings,  as well as limitations to applicability.
These features are described in the following sections.

1.3.2.1  SAPS Technology

Certain features of the SAPS technology allow it to be
adapted to a variety of settings:

•   The hardware  components (geosynthetic materials,
    PVC piping, and flow control units) of the SAPS are
    readily available.

•   Compost substrate materials can be  composed of
    readily  available  materials;  however, the  actual
    composition of a substrate material for a site-specific
    SAPS is best determined through pilot studies. Spent
    mushroom   compost  was   used  during   this
    demonstration.

•   O&M costs are low since the systems are generally
    self-contained, requiring only periodic changes of
    substrate materials, and periodic removal of sludge,
    depending on site-specific conditions.

Other features that should be thoroughly evaluated before
constructing a SAPS include the following:

»   Chemical properties of the AMD must be evaluated,
    including pH, metals, total suspended solids (TSS),
    and anion concentration.  Some  AMD may need
    pretreatment  before  entering the  SAPS.    For
    example, AMD with high iron or aluminum content
    will generate larger volumes of precipitate that can
    clog the  SAPS components  if not pretreated to
    remove some of the metal.

•   Climate conditions must be evaluated to assess the
    potential for reduced efficiency of the system during
    different seasons of the year, as well as high altitude
    conditions.

•   Proximity to a populated area-odors are generally
    associated with AMD treatment.

•   Land availability near the source of the contaminated
    water is desirable to avoid extended transport for
    pond construction. The SAPS typically requires more
    land than   a  conventional  treatment  system.
    Consequently, locations with steep  slopes  and
    drainage would make construction more difficult and
    costly.

•   Cost of constructing the system may increase if
    substrate  and  other  materials  are  not  readily
    available.

•   Seasonal fluctuation of water flow or chemistry must
    be evaluated,  as well as  the potential impact to the
    SAPS.

1.3.2.2  Aquafix Technology

Certain features of the Aquafix  system allow it to be
adapted to a variety of settings:

-------

Figure 5.  Aquafix Unit

-------
re
 B
 31
 5*


 g
 5"

 5
               FROM COLLECTION

               SYSTEU DRAIN
               V   ,     IT   TT  TT
                   ^WBOHBHEIRE
                     • AOUAFiX SKID


                       -PVC TROUGH
                                                                                    CHU9CD ROCK
J
-------
•   The hardware components (geosynthetic materials,
    PVC piping, and flow control units) for the Aquafix
    system are readily available.

Other features that should be thoroughly evaluated before
implementing the Aquafix system include the following:

*   Chemical properties of the AMD must be evaluated,
    including pH, metals, TSS, and anion concentration.
    Some AMD   sources  may  need  pretreatment
    upstream from the PWT. For example, drainage with
    high iron or aluminum content might prematurely clog
    the equipment and settling pond if not pretreated to
    remove some of the metal.

•   Climate conditions must be evaluated to assess the
    potential for reduced efficiency of the system during
    different seasons  of the year.

•   Land availability near the source of the contaminated
    water is desirable to avoid extended transport.  Land
    is required for placement of the settling pond;
    consequently, locations with steep slopes and AMD
    sources would make construction more difficult and
    costly.

•   Cost of  constructing the system  may  increase  if
    substrate   and  other materials  are not  readily
    available.

•   Fluctuation of water flow or  chemistry may impact
    the Aquafix system performance.

«   Stream standard conditions should be evaluated for
    discharge of produced nutrients.

1.4    Key Contacts

Additional information on the PWT technology, the SITE
Program, and the Summitville site can be obtained from
the following sources:

Aquafix

Mike Jenkins
Aquafix Treatment Systems
301 Maple Lane
Kingwood, West Virginia 26537
Telephone: (304) 329-1056
www.aquafix.com
SAPS

George Watzlaf
U.S. Department of Energy
Federal Energy Technology Center
626 Cochrans Mill Road
P.O. Box 10940
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236
Telephone (412) 386-6754
watzlaf@netl.doe.gov

The SITE Program

Edward Bates, Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Telephone: (513)569-7774
Fax: (513)569-7676

The Summitville Mine Superfund Site

Victor Ketellaper, Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 312-6578
Fax:(303)312-6897

JimHanley
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionS
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 312-6725
Fax:(303)312-6897

Austin Buckingham, Project Manager
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
HMWMD-RP-82
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
Telephone:  (303)692-3390
Fax: (303)759-5355
                                                 11

-------
                               Technology Applications Analysis
This  section  of  the  ITER  describes  the general
applicability of the PWT technologies to contaminated
waste sites. The analysis is based primarily on the SITE
Program evaluation results. A detailed discussion of the
treatability study and evaluation results is presented in
Section 3.0 of this report.

2.1    Applicable Wastes and Conditions

PWT  technologies have  been  demonstrated  to  be
effective in removing  high concentrations  of metals
(aluminum, copper, iron, and zinc) from AMD.  These
systems supply alkalinity to the AMD, along with aeration,
to precipitate metals such as aluminum and iron as oxides
and hydroxides (oxyhydroxides). Aeration may consist of
atomization (forcing pressurized AMD through a spray
nozzle) or simple  movement of AMD  through the
treatment system.   Aeration promotes elimination of
metals co-precipitated with iron, such as arsenic, from the
AMD. PWT may also be effective in treating other types
of acidic metal-laden waste streams.  The technologies
are waste-stream specific, requiring characterization of
organic and inorganic constituents prior to implementation.

The primary reasons for utilizing a PWT system include
remote site location, limited access, and little or no
infrastructure available. PWT systems  applicability to
waste streams is limited at locations with low flow rate or
lack of constant flow and temperature conditions of the
waste stream, as well as sites with little land area for the
treatment pond.

Due to the elevated iron content of the  AMD at the
Summitville site, an iron settling pond pretreatment system
was constructed upstream from the SAPS pond. This
pond promoted  aeration of the AMD, which in  turn
promoted the oxidation and precipitation of ferric ion prior
to treatment. The influent was aerated by a spray nozzle
to atomize the pressurized AMD as it settled into the pond.
The iron, and potential co-precipitated metals, such as
arsenic present in the AMD settled to the bottom of this
pond prior to delivery into the SAPS. Effectiveness of the
iron settling pretreatment at  the Summitville site was
hampered due to the low pH of the influent water.

The results of the  PWT  technology evaluation (see
Section 3.0) demonstrated the ability of the treatment
system to remove most metals from the AMD.  Removal
efficiencies ranged from 11 percent to 97 percent for the
SAPS, and  from as much as 97 percent to 99 percent for
the Aquafix treatment system.

2.2     Factors Affecting Performance

Given the diverse nature of PWT system designs, several
parameters affect their operation.   The  following
discussion focuses on the performance factors pertinent
to this SITE Program evaluation of the SAPS or Aquafix
technologies or to similar systems in treating metal-
contaminated mine  drainage.  Three primary  factors
influenced  the  performance of  the SITE  Program
evaluation  of  the PWT systems:   (1) mine drainage
characteristics, (2) operating parameters, and (3) aeration
of the AMD.

2.2.1   Mine  Drainage Characteristics

Four  commonly held chemical reactions  represent the
chemistry of pyrite weathering to form AMD. The first
reaction is that of  weathering and oxidation through
oxygenation of the  pyrite.  Next, ferrous iron in the
drainage is oxidized to form ferric  ion. Certain bacteria
also increase the rate of oxidation of ferrous iron. The
rate of the oxidation reaction proceeds more slowly with
increasing acidity (pH) in the drainage. The next reaction
that may occur is the hydrolysis of the oxidized metal ions.
The final reaction is the oxidation of additional pyrite by
ferric ion. Solids form when the pH is in the range of 3.5
                                                   12

-------
or higher, with little or no  solids precipitating at pH
conditions less than 3.5. The ferric ion generated in the
beginning process propagates until either the ferrous iron
or the pyrite are depleted. In this propagation reaction, the
iron is the oxidizing agent rather than oxygen, which
served to initiate pyrite oxidation.

The PWT technologies are capable of treating a range of
contaminated waters containing heavy metals. However,
the effectiveness of a PWT  system can be reduced as
solids precipitate and clog the system. Contaminated coal
mine drainage sources, considered as a typical application
for this technology often contain elevated concentrations
of iron or aluminum. When the  pH of these solutions is
raised  during passive  treatment,  iron and aluminum
hydroxides can form and precipitate (Hedin and Others
1994).

The precipitates that are generated during treatment can
lead to a loss of permeability or scaling, and gradual filling
of the treatment system, which  may ultimately lead to
system failure. A maintenance schedule that includes
removal of precipitate from the treatment system must be
implemented to ensure project required system lifetime.
Treatment and settling ponds and  associated piping are
designed and sized to accommodate a specific solids load;
therefore, variability in the flow rate of the AMD may also
impact treatment efficiency.

2.2,2  Operating  Parameters

The operating parameters  that are designed  in the
treatment process include the controlled flow rate for
alkalinity  production,  metals  reduction,  and  metals
precipitation.  A hydraulic residence time of at least 96
hours was found to work well for these types of alkalinity
producing systems, as was determined in the preliminary
design study  (Tetra Tech  1998).  The calculation was
based on the volume of the treatment pond system and a
flow rate of 5 gpm for the SAPS system and 19 gpm for
the Aquafix system.

Maintaining proper hydraulic residence time is one of the
most important factors for the success of a PWT system.
For these systems, a short residence time may not allow
metals to oxidize and precipitate from the AMD into the
settling pond. This short residence time may result in
lower metal removal rates.  In chemical precipitation
systems, compounds that precipitate slowly may not be
removed to  the same  extent as  rapidly precipitating
compounds.
Alkalinity increase in the AMD is adjusted in the design of
the treatment system.  Alkalinity may be added through
placement of limestone in the treatment pond (as in the
SAPS), or through addition to the mine drainage as lime,
which is the basis for the Aquafix system.

2.2.3  Aeration of the  AMD

High concentrations  of  iron  in  AMD  may  require
additional treatment for enhanced removal efficiency.
For the demonstration at  the Summitville site, aeration
was  utilized with the PWT technologies  at  various
positions within the treatment train.  In this aeration
process, AMD is infused with air in order to promote the
oxidation of aqueous ferrous ion to ferric ion, resulting in
precipitation and reduction of the excessive iron loading.

For the SAPS treatment technology, an iron settling pond
was used as a pretreatment technique for the iron-laden
AMD. Settling  pond influent was aerated by passage
through a spray nozzle that directed atomized droplets of
the water stream into the air. Droplets settled down onto
the pond surface, and the  resulting precipitate settled to
the pond bottom. For this demonstration, the removal
efficiency of the iron loading in the AMD through this
pretreatment technique was low.

In the Aquafix  treatment system, a  post  treatment
aeration tank consisting of a rotary pump and fine bubble
diffuser was used for oxidation of the treated AMD
stream. In this operation, the aeration system was utilized
to enhance the conditions to facilitate the oxidation of
ferrous ion to ferric ion, rather than as a source for the
oxidation. In this case, aeration enhanced the conditions
for the formation of metal hydroxide precipitate.

2.3    Site  Characteristics

Site characteristics are important when considering PWT
system technology because  they can affect  system
application.  Site characteristics should be considered
before selecting  any technology  to  treat AMD at a
specific site.   Site-specific  factors include support
systems, site area and preparation, site access, climate,
hydrology,  utilities, and the availability of services and
supplies.
                                                   13

-------
2.3.1  Support Systems

If on-site facilities are not already available, a small
storage  building  equipped  with  electricity may  be
desirable near the treatment system. The on-site building
could be used for  storing operating and  sampling
equipment (tools, field instrumentation, and health and
safety gear) and providing shelter for sampling personnel
during inclement weather. Sampling personnel also may
use the building when needing to calibrate field equipment
for system monitoring.

2.3.2  Site Area, Access, and Preparation

PWT systems typically require a relatively larger level
area compared with other treatment systems. The size of
the treatment and settling pond, site location, grading, and
leveling may become cost prohibitive.

Piping or other mechanisms for conveying mine drainage
to the treatment system is also necessary. In addition, a
relatively constant rate of flow is desirable to maintain
treatment system effectiveness. Thus, site conditions
may require mine  drainage collection,  storage, and
distribution  structures.  Piping  is also  required  for
movement of flow through the system and for bypass flow
around the treatment systems. This bypass  piping or
conveyance should be oversized to manage 200  percent
of the predicted maximum mine drainage discharge.

Access roads  for  heavy equipment  (excavation and
hauling) are required for installation and O&M of a PWT
system.

2.3.3  Climate

The climate at potential PWT system sites  can be a
limiting factor. Extended periods of severe cold, extreme
hot and arid conditions, and frequent severe  storms or
flooding will affect system performance.  Extreme cold
can freeze portions of the PWT  system, resulting in
channeling of the mine drainage through the substrate,
which reduces the hydraulic residence time. In addition,
cold temperatures  may reduce microbial activity  or
populations. Reductions in hydraulic residence time and
microbial activity will reduce the ability of the PWT
systems  to  remove metals and may require it to  be
oversized.

Constructing PWT  systems in  areas with frequent
flooding  or severe  storms can  lead   to  hydraulic
overloading or washout of substrate materials.  The
engineering controls required to overcome these climatic
or geographic limitations may eliminate the low cost and
low maintenance advantages that make SAPS appealing.

2.3.4  Utilities

PWT treatment systems do not require the use of utilities
to operate  the system. Any need for electricity will
typically require a passive generator or other energy
source, since PWT systems are most often applicable for
remote locations.   In remote areas, an on-site storage
building  should be provided if possible.  A satellite
telephone may be required for maintenance and sampling
personnel to contact emergency services if needed and
for routine communications.

2.3.5  Services and Supplies

The main services required by PWT treatment systems
are periodic adjustment of system flow rates, cleaning of
effluent pipes, and removal and replacement of substrate
materials. Due to the limited time available for testing the
PWT system during the SITE Program evaluation, flow
rate adjustments and effluent pipe cleaning were not
required after the start-up of operations, although they are
required for extended operations. Both PWT systems in
the evaluation were operated from a collection valve on
the seal at the Reynolds Adit, which delivered AMD by
pipe to each treatment system. The time between change
out of the substrate materials depends on the chemical
constituents of the influent water, the configuration and
capacity of the treatment pond, and the preferred method
of disposal.   The  substrate lifetime, estimated  from
nutrient loss and the development of armoring during this
evaluation,  is estimated to be 2 to 3 years.

2.4    Availability, Adaptability, and
       Transportability of Equipment

The components of the PWT systems,  except for the
Aquafix distribution equipment, are generally available
locally. The components include standard construction
materials for the treatment  and  settling  ponds,  liner
materials available from several sources, and compost
materials,  the types  of  which will depend  on the
contaminants in the mine drainage.  The most suitable
compost for a given application can be identified during a
treatability study using materials that are available locally.
                                                  14

-------
2.5    Material Handling Requirements

The PWT systems generate spent substrate and settling
pond precipitate. These materials will require testing to
evaluate disposal options.   Depending on the disposal
option,  dewatering  or  other pietreatment  may be
necessary prior  to  shipment for  off-site  disposal.
Depending on regulatory requirements, the effluent water
generated during dewatering may also require additional
treatment prior to discharge.

Some PWT compost materials may contain high levels of
water-soluble nitrogen or phosphorus compounds. These
compounds  can be  readily leached  from the fresh
compost during startup of the PWT system. Thus, the
PWT system at startup may require treatment to reduce
or remove excess nitrogen or phosphorous. Treatment
may include land application, if permitted, or effluent
collection for  subsequent recycling  through the PWT
system.

2.6    Personnel Requirements

Construction of treatment cells and substrate replacement
require heavy equipment  operators, laborers, and  a
construction supervisor. After the treatment and settling
ponds are installed, personnel requirements include  a
sampling team and personnel to adjust system flow rates.
Sampling personnel should be able to collect water and
substrate samples for laboratory analysis and measure
field parameters using standard instrumentation.

All personnel should have completed an Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) initial 40-hour
health and safety training course with annual 8-hour
refresher courses,  if applicable, before constructing,
sampling,  replacing compost, or removing a PWT at
hazardous waste sites. They should also participate in a
medical monitoring program as specified under OSHA
requirements.

2.7    Potential Community Exposures

Fencing and signs should be installed around a PWT
system to restrict access to the system for both humans
and wildlife. The potential routes of exposure include the
mine drainage or waste stream, the compost material, and
the PWT system effluent.   The  actual exposure risk
depends on the constituents of the specific waste being
treated and the effectiveness of the treatment.
The PWT system may also generate low concentrations
of hydrogen sulfide gas, depending on the time of year and
the biological activity of the SAPS treatment pond. Odors
caused by hydrogen sulfide and volatile fatty acids from
the decaying compost material may be a nuisance to a
local community.

2.8    Evaluation of Technology Against Remedial
       Investigation/Feasibility  Study Criteria

EPA has  developed nine  evaluation  criteria to  fulfill
the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
as well as additional technical and policy considerations
that have proven  important  for  selecting  potential
remedial alternatives.  These criteria serve as the basis
for conducting bench-scale testing during the remedial
investigation (RI) at  a  hazardous  waste  site,  for
conducting the detailed analysis during the feasibility
study (FS), and for subsequently selecting an appropriate
remedial action.  The features of each SITE technology
are evaluated against the  nine criteria considered  as
potential remedial alternatives.

The following are the nine evaluation criteria:

•   Overall  protection  of  human  health  and  the
    environment

•   Compliance  with applicable  or  relevant  and
    appropriate requirements (ARAR)

•   Long-term effectiveness and permanence

•   Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume

    Short-term effectiveness

•   Capability for implementation

•   Cost

*   State acceptance

•   Community acceptance

Table 1 presents the results of this evaluation for the PWT
systems.   The  evaluation results  indicate  the  PWT
systems are capable of providing short-term protection of
the environment; can reduce contaminant  mobility,
toxicity,  and volume; are cost-effective; are readily
                                                  15

-------
implemented; and provide an acceptable remedy to the
community and state regulators. However, the evaluation
testing  was  insufficient  to  demonstrate  long-term
effectiveness. The Summitville site was associated with
extremely poor water quality, limited area available for
installation of a settling pond and more sufficient ditch line
for the Aquafix system, and limited time available for
testing.

The average metals removal efficiency was in the range
of 80 percent for the SAPS. The Aquafix system removal
efficiency was in the range of 97 percent. The Aquafix
system was shut down early due to clogging in the system
by the reacted metal precipitate from the AMD.

2.9    Potential Regulatory Requirements

This section discusses specific environmental regulations
pertinent to operation of a PWT, including the transport,
treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes and treatment
residuals, and analyzes these regulations in view of the
evaluation  results.   State  and  local  regulatory
requirements, which may be more stringent, must also be
addressed by remedial managers.

ARARs include the following:  (1)  CERCLA; (2) the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
(3) the Clean Water  Act (CWA);  and (4) OSHA
regulations.  These four general ARARs are discussed
below; specific ARARs must be identified by remedial
managers for each site.

2.9.1  Comprehensive   Environmental  Response,
       Compensation, and Liability Act

CERCLA, as amended by the Superrund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA), 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 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 at Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 300, delineates
methods and criteria used to determine the appropriate
extent  of removal  and cleanup for hazardous waste
contamination.
In general, two types of responses are possible under
CERCLA: removal actions and remedial actions.  The
PWT technology is  likely to be part of a  CERCLA
remedial action.  Remedial actions are governed by
CERCLA as amended by SARA. As stated above, these
amendments promote remedies that permanently reduce
the  volume,  toxicity,  and  mobility  of  hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

On-site remedial actions must comply with federal and
state ARARs.  ARARs  are identified on a site-by-site
basis and may be waived under six conditions: (1) the
action is an interim measure, and an ARAR will be met at
completion; (2) compliance with an ARAR would pose a
greater risk to human health and the environment than
noncompliance; (3) it is technically impracticable to meet
an 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 Superfiind for other sites. These waiver options
apply only to Superfund  actions taken on site,  and
justification for the waiver must be clearly demonstrated.

2.9,2  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRA, an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA), was enacted in 1976 to address the problem of
safe disposal of the enormous volume of municipal and
industrial  solid waste  generated  annually.  RCRA
specifically addressed the identification and management
of hazardous wastes. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of  1984 (HSWA) greatly expanded the
scope and requirements  of RCRA.

The presence of  RCRA-defined  hazardous waste
determines  whether RCRA regulations apply to  the
PWT technology. RCRA regulations define and regulate
hazardous waste transport,  treatment,  storage,  and
disposal. Wastes defined as hazardous under RCRA
include  characteristic and listed wastes.  Criteria for
identifying characteristic hazardous wastes are included
in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C.  Listed wastes from
nonspecific  and  specific  industrial  sources,  off-
specification products, spill cleanups, and other industrial
sources are itemized in 40  CFR Part 261, Subpart D.

The PWT system evaluation treated AMD from the
Reynolds Adit of the Summitville site.  The manure
compost was tested regularly to determine  whether it
                                                 16

-------
                                              Table 1
            Evaluation of Passive Water Treatment Technologies Versus Remedial
                             Investigation/Feasibility  Study Criteria
                Criterion
                        Discussion
1.  Overall Protection of Human Health
2,  Compliance with Applicable or Relevant
    and Appropriate Requirements
3,  Long-Term Effectiveness and
    Permanence
4.  Short-term Effectiveness


5.  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
    volume of Contaminates Through
    Treatment

6,  Impiementability

7.  Cost
8.  Community Acceptance
9,  State Acceptance
The PWT technologies reduced total concentrations of
contaminants in the waste streams, indicating that the technologies
may be protective by reducing overall risk. However, results with
regard to specific criteria for each technology were variable.

The PWT reduced target parameter concentrations in the AMD;
however, did not achieve CDPHE standards, PWT system effluent
discharge may require compliance with CWA regulations. The
PWT technologies remove contamination from mine drainage, but
may not meet low-level discharge requirements. However, use of
PWT with other technologies may be effective in meeting low-level
discharge requirements.

The PWT technologies remove contaminants from AMD and
therefore is permanent. Long-term effectiveness is dependent on
ongoing maintenance and was not evaluated in this demonstration
time frame.

Implementation of this technology presents few short-term risks to
community or wildlife,

PWT reduces contaminant mobility, toueity, and volume,
demonstrated in the short term.
PWT is readily implemented given appropriate site conditions.

Construction cost of the 5-gpm SAPS is estimated to be $221,700.
Operating cost of this system is estimated at $38,660 per year.

Construction cost of the 18-gpm Aqua fix System is estimated to be
$393,000, Operation cost of this system is estimated at $38,030 per
year.

The public usually views the technology as a natural approach to
treatment; therefore, the public generally accepts this technology.

The CDPHE found that the technology shows promise for treating
acid mine drainage.

Based on constraints at the Summitville site, including the high
altitude, cold climate and remote location, CDPHE recommended
not implementing a full-scale, permanent system at the site.

Colorado's Division of Minerals and Geology has previously buih a
PWT system to treat acid mine drainage.
                                                 17

-------
would become a hazardous waste during the evaluation.
The concern was that sorption and precipitation of metals
could cause the substrate to become a hazardous waste,
thus restricting options and increasing cost for material
disposal. The substrate did not exhibit the characteristics
of hazardous waste at the end of the demonstration.

2.9.3  Clean Water Act

The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's
waters. To achieve this objective, effluent limitations of
toxic  pollutants from point sources were established.
Wastewater discharges are most commonly controlled
through  effluent  standards  and  discharge  permits
administered through the  National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) by individual states with
input from the federal EPA. Under this system, discharge
permits are issued with limits on the quantity and quality of
effluents.  These limits are based on a case-by-case
evaluation  of potential environmental impacts and  on
waste loading allocation  studies aimed at distributing
discharge allowances fairly.   Discharge permits are
designed as an enforcement tool with the ultimate goal of
achieving ambient water quality standards.

NPDES permit requirements must be evaluated for each
PWT system when the effluent water is discharged into a
waterway  or  water body.   The requirements and
standards that must be met in the effluent for each PWT
will be based on the waterway or water body into which
the PWT  discharges.   The  effluent limits will  be
established through the NPDES permitting process by the
state in which the PWT is constructed and by EPA.

CDPHE  has  identified water  quality standards for
Reynolds Adit of Summitville mine discharge into the
Alamosa River. Table 2 provides these standards for both
low- and high-flow conditions.  The zinc standard for both
low- and high-flow conditions is 200 micrograms per liter
(ug/L) in the river. To meet this standard, the discharge
from Reynolds Adit must contain less than 13,650 ug/L
zinc under low-flow conditions and less than 65,700 ug/L
under high-flow conditions.

2.9.4   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,
especially Part 1910.120,  which provides for health and
safety of workers at hazardous waste sites.  On-site
construction at Superfimd or RCRA corrective action
sites must be conducted in accordance with 29 CFR Part
1926, which provides safety and health regulations for
construction sites. State OSHA requirements, which may
be significantly stricter than federal standards, must also
be met.

Construction and maintenance personnel and sampling
teams for the Summitville PWT system evaluation all met
the OSHA requirements for hazardous waste sites. For
most sites, the minimum personal protective equipment
(PPE) required would include gloves, hard hats (during
construction), steel-toed  boots,  and eye  protection.
Additional PPE may be required during summer or winter
months to protect against extreme temperatures.

2.10   Limitations of the Technology

Land required for PWT systems is typically extensive
compared to conventional treatment systems. As a result,
a PWT system may be inappropriate in areas with high
land values.  Land availability relatively close to the
source of contaminated  water is preferred to  avoid
extended transport.

The climate at potential PWT sites can also be a limiting
factor. Extended periods  of severe cold, extreme heat,
arid conditions, and frequent severe storms or flooding
can result in performance problems. Contaminant levels
in treated and discharged water can vary in response to
variations  of influent   volumes,  temperature, and
chemistry. These levels may also be a limiting factor if
there  is no  tolerance  in  contaminant  level discharge
requirements.
                                                  18

-------
                                            Table 2
              Summary of Analytical Results for Untreated Reynolds Adit Mine
                             Drainage Summitville Site, Colorado
Anatyte
Aluminum
Arsenic
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Sulfate
Chloride
Total Suspended Solids
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Conductivity
Temperature
Average Concentration"
WD
241,000
2,100
168,000
1 13,000
669,000
0,044
63,000
33,000
3,800
16,000
32,000
3,340
3.6
15,2
14.9
3.0 pH units
4159 pS/cm
5,8 °C
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment Water
Quality Standards (ug/L)
-
1 50 (low and high flow)
0.49 (low flow) - 0 J4 (high flow)
4.7 (low flow) - 8.5 (high flow)
J»000 (low and high flow)
0.84 (low flow) - 2,25 (high flow)
_
1,000 (low and high flow)
_
~
200 (low and high flow)
„
-
_
—
6.5 (low flow) - 8.5 (high flow)
_
—
Notes;
ugrt.

pS/cm
Average concentrations for analytes listed in table are based on data collected during a preliminary design study
conducted in October 1997, prior to the Sutnmitville evaluation.
Micrograms per liter
Mo standard established
Micro Siemens per centimeter
                                                 19

-------
                                    Treatment  Effectivemess
The following sections discuss the treatment effectiveness
of the PWT systems based on the demonstration at the
Summitville site. The discussion includes a review of the
evaluation  methodology, site  evaluation results,  and
evaluation conclusions.

3.1    Background

The Summitville site is an abandoned gold mine that
occupies approximately 1,400 acres on the northeast flank
of South Mountain in  Rio Grande County, Colorado
(Figure 1).  n Fork flows east for approximately 4 miles
and empties into the Alamosa River. The site is bounded
by the town of Summitville and Wightman Fork on the
north, Cropsy Creek on the east, and the summit of South
Mountain on the southwest (Tetra Tech 1998).

A major contamination  source at the Summitville site is
AMD from the Reynolds tunnel. This tunnel or "adit" was
constructed in 1897. It was built as a dewatering tunnel to
lower the water table and allow deeper mining without
pumping out water. AMD occurs when sulflde materials
in the mine are exposed to water and oxygen. Although
sulfide mineral oxidation is a natural process, the amount
of material exposed to oxidation has increased as a result
of mining activity in the sulfide-bearing rock. Catalyzation
of sulfide oxidation reactions by naturally occurring
bacteria,  such  as  Thiobacillis  ferroxidans,   may
accompany  the  process and further  accelerate  the
production of AMD (EPA 1983).

Although historic releases from this tunnel have always
had  high metal concentrations,  the  level of  metal
concentrations in the  effluent dramatically increased
starting in 198 8. It appears that excavation of an open pit
approximately 300 feet  above the Reynolds  tunnel
stimulated increased infiltration and oxidation of the ore
body, resulting in increased release of acid and metals
contamination to the Reynolds tunnel (Tetra Tech  1998).
The Summitville Mine area has long, cold winters and
short, cool summers. Whiter snowfall is normally heavy
and thunderstorms are common in the summer.  The site
is very ragged and access to the site is limited in the
winter, since one road is maintained to the site during the
winter season.

3.2    Review of SITE Evaluation

The SITE evaluation was divided into three phases: (1)
PWT preliminary design and treatability study; (2) PWT
technology evaluation; and (3) site demobilization. These
activities are discussed in the following sections, which
also discuss variations  from the work plan and the PWT
performance during the technology evaluation phase.

3.2.1  PWT Preliminary Design and Treatability
       Study

Bench-scale testing was conducted  at the Colorado
School of Mines to evaluate the effectiveness of the PWT
technologies to remove  metals from  the AMD at the
Summitville site. The bench-scale testing was performed
to evaluate design variables for application of the PWT
system to the Summitville site conditions. These variables
included (1) amount and composition of alkaline chemical
needed to achieve the target pH of treated water, (2) the
volume and mass of precipitant sludge from settling for
various pH conditions and settling times, (3) time required
for optimal precipitant flocculation and settling, and (4)
evaluation of the metals in solution before and  after the
addition of lime at each of the target pH values,

Jar testing was conducted for neutralizing AMD to the
following pH values:  6.5, 7.5, 8.5, and 9.5. From the
results at these test conditions, the optimum design criteria
were  determined  for  implementing  PWT   at  the
Summitville site.
                                                  20

-------
A treatability  study for the  Aquafix  system was
conducted by the vendor. This study determined the
amount of lime needed per gallon of water treated as well
as the selected lime pebble size for the site-specific
application.

3.2.2  Technology  Evaluation

The  treatment  systems  were constructed adjacent to
each other at the Summitville  site  in the spring and
summer months in 2000; data collection commenced in
August 2000.

Site  preparation  requirements  for  the PWT  system
evaluations were minimal because of previous mining and
treatability study activities. Moreover, the area east of the
Reynolds Adit is level and required only minor grading to
install the settling and treatment ponds for both the SAPS
and Aquafix systems. Construction and installation of the
PWT systems and all drainage conveyances was the
responsibility of the state (CDPHE).

Throughout the evaluation, mine drainage influent and
treatment pond effluent samples were collected for
analysis of total metals,  anions,  TSS, and  total organic
carbon (TOC).  In addition, pond sludge samples were
collected during the evaluation for analysis of total metals
and toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)
metals.

3.2.3  Operational and Sampling  Problems and
       Variations from the Work Plan

The  PWT experienced  several operational problems
during the technology  evaluation.   Some of these
problems  resulted in changes  to the schedule  and
sampling events. Problems encountered and resolutions
effected during the evaluation are described below.

The major drawbacks of PWT system design observed
during the evaluation centered on the flow control valves,
and AMD collection from the Reynolds Adit for PWT
treatment, as well as treated water management systems.
Specifically, collection sumps, ditch lines, and settling
tanks (Baker tanks) were insufficient for the evaluation.
The  collection  sump used at the Reynolds Adit was
insufficient to provide the proper volume  and constant
rate  of flow of AMD to the treatment systems.  As
corrective action, the Aquafix unit was relocated prior to
testing.  Additionally,  a new  tap was designed and
installed at the Reynolds Adit bulkhead to increase back
pressure  on the head through reducing the feed pipe
diameter resulting in an increased flow rate.  Feed lines
were split directly off of this bulkhead tap  to provide
sufficient drainage for the evaluation.

The ditch line for the Aquafix system did not provide
adequate mixing and aeration for oxidation of the AMD.
Also, the Baker tanks used in place of settling ponds, due
to space limitations, were of insufficient volume to permit
settling and collection of metal hydroxide precipitate. As
corrective action, an aeration tank was designed and
constructed for the evaluation. This tank was situated into
position upstream of the Baker tanks  to permit gravity
feeding of the treated wastewater stream. A rotary vane
pump was used to move the water stream into the bottom
of this aeration tank and to force the water stream through
a fine  bubbler to  permit aeration of  the stream.   The
aeration tank provided some relief to the problem of
insufficient aeration for precipitation.  However, after
about three  weeks  into the  demonstration,  the Baker
tanks became saturated and were unable to capture the
reaction generated material.

The demonstration objectives outlined in  the project's
quality assurance project plan (QAPP) (Tetra Tech 2000)
were not adversely impacted as a result of the changes
described above.

3.2.4  Site Demobilization

The evaluation-scale treatment system was removed by
CDPHE at the end of the demonstration.  PWT system
removal entailed the following:

    Removal and disposal of the treatment and settling
    ponds and disposal of substrate and pond sludge

•   Backfilling treatment ponds with site material

    Removal of treatment system piping and other system
    hardware.

The PWT evaluation substrate and  sludge materials
generated under conditions of the evaluation were not
hazardous materials,  and potential  disposal  options
included:

«   Disposal at a municipal landfill

«   Disposal in landfill biobeds (compost piles)
                                                  21

-------
«   Mixing with site mining waste rock and soil to provide
    needed organic matter

•   Reuse in an interim ponded treatment system.

For this demonstration, the PWT system substrate and
sludge waste materials were disposed of in a nearby
municipal landfill.

3.3    Demonstration  Methodology

The primary objective of the PWT technology evaluation
was to determine  the  removal  efficiency  of each
technology for the primary metal contaminants of interest
(aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc) in the acid
mine drainage. Influent and effluent samples from each
of the technologies were collected and analyzed  for
aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc.  For each
technology, a removal efficiency was calculated for each
pair of metal concentration data (influent and effluent) for
each metal.   In addition, an overall average removal
efficiency was calculated using the average influent and
average effluent concentration for each metal over the
period of the evaluation. A 95 percent confidence interval
was also constructed around the overall average removal
efficiency for each metal.   In  addition, secondary
objectives of the evaluation included the following:

    Characterize sludge from the settling ponds of the
    SAPS and Aquafix systems.  Sludge samples were
    collected with a long handled, wide-mouth bottle (1
    liter) sampler from several locations within each
    pond, and a composite sample was submitted for total
    metals (including cations)   and   water  content
    analyses. The results of the water content analyses
    were used to evaluate sludge drying  and disposal
    options.   Finally, TCLP metals  analyses were
    conducted on a sludge composite sample to determine
    RCRA hazardous waste characteristics.

»       Determine  the  effectiveness   of the  SAPS
    polishing trenches.  During the  first half of the
    evaluation (7-8  weeks), the  SAPS effluent was
    channeled through the limestone channel. During the
    second half of the evaluation, the SAPS effluent was
    channeled through the rock channel.  Influent and
    effluent polishing trench samples were collected and
    analyzed for total metals, anions, alkalinity, TSS, and
    pH. Paired influent and effluent sample results were
    compared to determine  the  percent  reduction of
    metals during polishing.  The paired sample results
   were also used to determine increases or decreases
   in alkalinity and TSS as a result of polishing.

*  Monitor use and degradation  of the limestone and
   compost components of the SAPS pond, including
   microscopic observations of microbes in compost and
   gravimetric testing of limestone. This objective was
   not  evaluated due  to the short  duration of the
   Summitville demonstration, which did not allow
   sufficient time for gravimetric and microbial testing.

   Determine the change hi aquatic toxicity attributable
   to each treatment system.   Toxicity  studies on
   Rainbow  trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Fathead
   minnows  (Pimephales promelas), and water fleas
   (Ceriodaphnia  dubia)  were conducted  with
   samples of both influent and effluent water for the
   SAPS  technology.    The toxicity  tests  with P.
   promelas and C. dubia were 48-hour, renewed,
   acute tests, A second series of tests using all three
   aquatic species were conducted using a 7-day growth
   and survival  chronic  test method.   Influent and
   effluent water samples for toxicity testing were not
   collected from the Aquafix system due to the short
   duration of the Summitville demonstration.

*  Estimate  the  capital  and  O&M costs for each
   technology.

3.4     Sampling,  Analysis,   and   Measurement
        Procedures

Samples were collected at pre-determined points for each
of the three technologies (see Figure 2). Table 3 provides
a summary of the demonstration sampling locations. The
location, number, and frequency  of sample collection
were defined in the project QAPP  (Tetra Tech 2000), as
were the matrices, analytical parameters, and analytical
methods.

Due to the onset of winter and sub-freezing temperatures,
evaluation participants determined that the evaluation
would have to be terminated prematurely. Consequently,
the frequency and number of samples were modified to
collect a sufficient number of samples to allow for an
evaluation of the technologies.  The number of samples
specified  in  the  QAPP and  the number of samples
collected during this evaluation are provided on Table 3.
                                                  22

-------
               Tables
Demonstration Sample Collection Summary
Treatment
System
SAPS
Sampling
Location
SW-02
SW-04
SW-02
SW-04
SW-01
SP-01
SP-02
SP-03
L501
CM01
SW-02
SW-03
LCW
RCW
SW-01
Matrix
Influent water
Effluent water
Influent water
Effluent water
Influent water
Pond sludge
Pond sludge
Pond sludge
Limestone
Compost
Influent water
Effluent water
Effluent water from
polishing trenches
Influent water
Objective
PI
PI
SI
SI
SI
S2
S2
S2
S3
S3
S3
S3
S5
S6
Parameters
Metals
Metals
Alkalinity, anions,
IDS, TSS, pH
Alkalinity, metals
Metals, percent solids, TCLP
Gravimetric testing
Microbial evaluation
Metals precipitation
Metals, anions, alkalinity, TDS, TSS,
pH
Toxicity
Number
Samples
Specified
26
26
26
26
13
4
4
4
2
2
1
1
26
26
2
Number
Samples
Collected
12
12
12
12
9
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
7
1
Percent
Complete
46
46
46
46
69
75
25
50
0
0
0
0
8
27
50

-------
                                                           Table 3 (Continued)

                                                       Sample Collection Summary
Treatment
System
SAPS (Continued)
Aquafix
Sampling
Location
SW-04
AW-01
AW-02
AW-01
AW-02
AP-01
AP-02
AW-01
AW-02
Matrix
Effluent water
Influent water
Effluent water
Influent water
Effluent water
Sludge
Sludge
Influent water
Effluent water
Objective
S6
PI
PI
SI
SI
S2
S2
S6
S6
Parameters
Toxicity
Metals
Anions, alkalinity, TDS, TSS, pH
Metals, percent solids, TCLP
Toxicity
Number of
Samples
Specified
2
28
28
28
28
4
4
2
2
Number of
Samples
Collected
1
16
16
16
16
2
2
1
1
Percent
Complete
50
57
57
57
57
50
50
50
50
Notes:
TDS - Total dissolved solids
TCLP - Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TSS - Total suspended solids

-------
The evaluation of the SAPS and Aquafix technologies
required collection of samples of water and sludge. Water
samples were collected twice  daily from the sampling
ports into dedicated polyethylene dippers. Each individual
sample was poured into a larger dedicated container for
compositing. The composite sample was mixed gently
and transferred to the sample containers and preserved.
The samples for aquatic toxieity testing were collected in
the same manner, but without preservatives.

Sludge samples  were collected from the  SAPS and
Aquafix systems.  The sludge samples were collected
using a wide mouth bottle attached to a long rod. The rod/
bottle sampler was submerged into the sludge and  the
bottle was opened to allow the sludge to fill the bottle.
Sludge samples were collected from five locations within
each pond or tank and composited into  a dedicated
container. The samples were analyzed using the methods
presented on Table 4.

3.5     SITE  Evaluation  Results

This section presents the results of the PWT technology
evaluation conducted from August through October 2000.
Aqueous chemistry data for the Reynolds Adit mine
drainage at the Summitville site are presented, followed
by the evaluation results for the two PWT technologies.
Data indicate that both the SAPS and Aquafix  systems
removed significant percentages of aluminum, copper,
iron, manganese,  and zinc from the AMD even though the
amount removed  by  both   systems  did not  meet
Summitville site project objectives.  Data for  the iron
settling pond indicated a low removal efficiency from the
pretreatment system. The low removal efficiency may
have been attributable to  the low pH of the AMD.
Removal efficiencies varied for each system,  and  the
relative efficiencies  of each, are described in  the
following  paragraphs.  The average removal rates  for
metals in the Aquafix, SAPS iron settling pond, and SAPS
pond are presented in Table 5.

Successive Alkalinity Producing System

Removal efficiencies for the SAPS ranged from a low of
11 percent for manganese to 97 percent for aluminum.
The removal efficiency for the  SAPS appeared to be
declining at the end of the evaluation. This decline may
have been due to a problem with the system, an indication
the system needed to  be flushed, or an  artifact of
chemistry changes in the influent source. Because of the
short amount of time available to operate  the system
before winter, and the length of time required to refill the
SAPS with water, the SAPS was not flushed until the end
of the evaluation.

Aquafix System

Removal efficiencies of the initial short-term operation of
the Aquafix system ranged from 97 percent for aluminum
and manganese to 99 percent for copper, iron, and zinc.
The system was shut down prematurely due to clogging of
the system.

3,5.1  Summitville Mine Drainage Chemistry

Summitville surface and mine waters are characterized
by high concentrations of metals such as aluminum, iron,
and copper; high sulfate  levels; and, low pH.  These
conditions result when sulfide minerals come in contact
with oxygen and water to produce metal contaminated
acid mine drainage.  The acidity permeates the rock and
further releases more metals. The metals, sulfate, and
acidity (protons) are taken up by infiltration water and
transported in surface groundwater, to seeps or deeper
into the mine workings and eventually discharged from
the Chandler, Iowa, or Reynolds Adits.

Water from the Reynolds Adit was selected to evaluate
the PWT technologies at the Summitville site. In general,
the pH of the site water ranges from  2.7  to  3.5.
Aluminum, copper, and iron are the primary contaminant
metals, with lesser concentrations of manganese, nickel,
and zinc. Table 2 summarizes analytical results for the
Reynolds Adit and compares the results against CDPHE
water quality standards.

3.5.2  Trend Analysis and Data Reduction

This  section provides trend analyses and data reduction
information  for data  from both PWT technology
evaluations.

SAPS Technology

Figures la through le in Appendix A display the inflow
and outflow trend plots for the SAPS technology (for
aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc, respectively).
Also, Figure 1 f shows the trend plot for pH. In each plot,
the inflow sample data collected on September 13 is
shown as  day  1.   Additionally,  since the assumed
residence tune for this system was 4 days, the outflow
levels have been shifted 4 days in to align with their
                                                  25

-------
                                              Table 4
                                 Summary of Analytical Methods
Matrix
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Parameter
Total Metals
Major Anions (chloride and sulfate)
Alkalinity
PH
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Toxicity
Moisture Content
TGLPd Metals
Metals (total) c
Analytical Method
SW-846, 301 0.601 OB"
MCAWW* Method 300.0
MCAWWb Method 310.1
SW-846 9040
MCAWW b Method 160.2
MC AWW b Method 1 60. 1
WET Method6
SMEWW 2540B
SW-846 13 11 301/6010 b
SW-846 3050 6010B "
Notes:
SMEWW
a
b
c
d
e
Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater
EPA SW846 (1997)
Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes
Whole effluent toxicity test
Toxicity characterization Leaching Procedure
Metals (total) aluminum, calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, and zinc
                                                 26

-------
                     Table 5
Summary of Contaminant Removal Efficiency for Metals
Metal
Al
Cu
Fe
Mfl
Zn
Aquafix (Percent)
97
99
99
97
99
SAPS Iron Settling
Pond (Percent)
3
0
6
<1
3
SAPS Pond Removal
(Percent)
97
90
64
11
57
                       27

-------
corresponding inflow levels in each plot. In each plot, the
inflow concentration levels represent the influent samples
collected entering the SAPS pond (location SW-02).
Likewise, the outflow concentration levels represent the
effluent samples leaving the SAPS settling pond (location
SW-04).  It should also be noted that data collected after
day 39 is out of control likely due to a problem with the
SAPS system or chemistry changes in the influent source
as mentioned in Section 3.5. Up to this point, all outflow
concentration levels appeared relatively stable.

Aquafix  System

Figures 2a through 2e in Appendix A display the inflow
and outflow  trend plots  for the Aquafix system  (for
aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc, respectively).
Also, Figure 2f shows the trend plot for pH. In each plot,
the sample data collected on September 19, 2000 are
shown as day 1.   Additionally, since the  assumed
residence tune for this system is 2 days, the outflow levels
have been shifted 2 days to align with their corresponding
inflow levels in each plot.  In each plot, the inflow
concentration  levels represent the  influent samples
collected from the Reynolds Adit location (location AW-
01). Likewise, the outflow concentration levels represent
the effluent samples collected from the Aquafix  storage
tanks (Baker tanks) (location AW-02).

All five of these plots reveal similar patterns;  that is,
extremely reduced outflow concentration levels through
day 20 (October 9), and then a corresponding rapid
increase  hi  outflow  concentration levels  starting  on
October  10  (day 21).  These latter outflow "spikes"
represent the Aquafix system going out of control, due to
the depletion of the lime additive. Note the increase in pH
as shown in Figure 2f as  a result.  Up to this point, all
outflow concentration levels appeared relatively stable.
Additionally, most of the inflow levels over this same time
frame  also appeared to  be relatively stable, although
clearly more variable.

The systematic collection of inflow and outflow samples
occurred between September 19 to September 29  (on a 2-
day interval) and October 4 to October  12 (on a 1-day
interval). Within the October 4 to October 12time frame,
eight paired inflow/outflow observations exist. It should
be noted that data collected from October 9 through
October 12 appears to be out of control likely due to the
depletion of the lime additive for the Aquafix system as
described above.  Within the September 19 to 29 time
frame, three paired inflow/outflow observations exist, and
a fourth pair  can be derived for September 21 by
averaging the September 19 and September 23 influent
samples.

Figures la - If (SAPS) and 2a - 2f (Aquafix system)
displays the chemical concentration levels for the above-
mentioned 10 inflow/outflow observations for aluminum,
copper, iron, manganese, zinc, and arsenic, respectively.
These  reduced data sets  were used for all statistical
analyses. As explained above, the influent concentration
levels shown for  September 21 represent interpolated
values. Additionally, note that non-detects were reported
on October 7 for the copper and manganese outflow
(effluent) concentration levels.

3.5.3  Toxicity  Testing  Results

Three water samples from the Summitville site were
shipped to the U.S. EPA Andrew W. Briedenbach
Environmental Research Center's laboratory in Cincinnati,
Ohio. These samples consisted of influent and effluent
water samples from the SAPS system. A series of acute
aquatic toxicity tests wiihPimephalespromelas (fathead
minnows) and Ceriodaphnia dubia (water fleas), and
chronic aquatic toxicity tests with Oncorhynchus mykiss
(rainbow trout) were conducted on these samples.  The
purpose of these tests was to establish the level of toxicity
for the discharge from the mine site and to evaluate the
effectiveness of the SAPS treatment process.  Influent
and effluent water samples from the Aquafix  system
were also expected to be collected for toxicity testing but
due to the short duration of the Summitville demonstration
the samples were not collected.

Samples were collected on October 14 and transported
from the site back to Denver for shipment. Due to the
type of container originally used  for collection, the
samples were transferred on October  15  into 20-liter
containers. The samples were shipped on October 16 and
arrived at EPA's laboratory on October 19.  Tests using
all three samples  were started  on the same day.  The
chemistry data from these samples were used to estimate
the  dilution series to  use with each sample for  each
species in the acute tests. After the first 24 hours of
exposure, the mortality in the low concentration of each
sample was excessive for both species, so all tests were
restarted using a lower dilution series. These tests were
successful.  The toxicity levels found in the P. promelas
acute tests were then used to develop the dilution series
used with each sample in the O, mykiss chronic tests,
started on October 23. No problems were encountered
                                                  28

-------
with the dilution series used for each of these samples. In
addition to the tests with the samples, zinc acute and/or
chronic reference  toxicity tests  were  conducted to
provide a measure  of the sensitivity of the test animals
when compared to  a standard toxicant.

Routine  initial chemical  parameters (Table 6)  were
determined and toxicity tests were started on arrival of the
samples. The tests with P. promelas and C. dubia were
48-hour, renewed, acute tests,  conducted

at 20 °C.  Each sample was analyzed using both acute
tests.  In addition, all three samples were analyzed using
an O. mykiss 7-day, growth and survival test to provide a
measure of the sensitivity of this method versus the two
acute methods, as  well  as to provide a subsample of
chronic test data.

All  tests were conducted  using moderately  hard
reconstituted water as the control and dilution water. Test
conditions were maintained in accordance with method
requirements. The P, promelas used in this study were 3
days old, provided from EPA's laboratory culture unit.
The C. dubia were less than 24 hours old, provided from
EPA's laboratory culture unit.  The O,  mykiss used were
18 days old, 5 days post swimup, provided by Troutlodge,
Sumner, Washington.   The  trout were received  on
October 19 and held at 15 °C for 3 days until the start of
the trout tests on October 23.

All values for a lethal concentration for 50 percent of the
population (LC50) were  determined using Trimmed
Spearman-Karber, version 1.5, which adjusts for control
mortality. The survival No Observed Acute Effect Level
(NOAEL), the chronic  survival No  Observed Effect
Concentration (NOEC), and the chronic growth NOEC
were  determined using Dunnett's, version 1.5, and the
IC25 values were determined using ICP version 2.0.

Results and Discussion

As stated above, both the C. dubia  and P. promelas
acute tests needed to be restarted, after the 24-hour
results  showed  excessive  mortality  in the low  test
concentration in each sample for both species. The tests
restarted with lower dilution concentrations for each
sample/species produced  survival/mortality results that
could be used to generate LC50 values for all species in all
tests.  These results also produced data that allowed the
determination of NOAEL values, either through actual
data analysis, or through the use of the  estimation
guidelines described above.

The results  from the three  C.  dubia tests (Table 7)
showed a high level of toxicity from all three samples to
the animals.  For the mine discharge sample, SW-01, the
LC50 value was 0.01 percent, with an estimated NOAEL
of 0.005 percent. For the first treatment sample, SW-04,
the LC50  value was  0,08 percent, with an NOAEL of
0.05 percent. For the second treatment sample, RCW,
the LC50 value was 0,07 percent, with an estimated
NOAEL of 0.025 percent.   The results from the zinc
reference toxicant test showed an LC50 value of 270.8
micrograms per liter (ug/L).  This value was somewhat
high compared to the historical  data  for this toxicant,
which shows an average LC50 value of 193.4 ng/L, with
a range of 103 ng/L (-2 standard deviation) to 284 ug/L
(+2 standard deviation).  While high, the zinc reference
toxicant value was in the acceptability range.

The results for the three P. promelas tests (Table 7) also
showed a high level of toxicity from all three samples to
the animals. For sample S W-01, the LC50 value was 0.29
percent, with an NOAEL of  1.56 percent.  For the first
treatment  sample,  SW-04, the LC50 value was 2.18
percent, with an NOAEL of 1.56 percent. For the second
treatment  sample,  RCW,  the LC50  value was  2.12
percent, with an NOAEL  of 1.56  percent.  The zinc
reference toxicant test resulted in an LC50 value of 957.6
u.g/L. The historical data for this toxicant and test method
shows an average LC50 value of 722.2 p,g/L, with a range
of 208 u.g/L (-2 standard deviation) to 1,236 u.g/L (+2
standard deviation).

The results from the rainbow trout tests showed high
levels of toxicity as well. For sample SW-01, the survival
NOEC value was 0.1 percent, the growth NOEC value
was greater than 0.1  percent, and the IC25 value 0.18
percent.  For the first treatment sample  (SW-04), the
survival NOEC was 1 percent, the growth NOEC greater
than 1 percent, and the IC25 value 1.18 percent. For the
second treatment sample, RCW, the survival NOEC was
1 percent,  the growth NOEC  greater than 1 percent, and
the IC25  1.29 percent.  For the zinc reference toxicant
test, the survival NOEC was 125 ng/L, the growth NOEC
value was 62.5 ug/L, and the TC25 value was 159.8 u.g/L.
This compares  well to  the historical zinc reference
toxicant data for this test method, which has an IC25 value
of 138.1 ug/L, with a range of 5 5.1 (-2 standard deviation)
to 221.1 (+2 standard deviation).
                                                  29

-------
                                                       Table 6
                                         Toxicity Test Water Quality
Sample

SW-01

SW-04

RCW

LCW

Matrix

Influent water to iron
settling pond
Effluent water from
SAPS settling pond
Rock channel
effluent water
Limestone channel
effluent water
Temperature
(C)
15.1

14.9

15.4

23.5

pH

-------
                                            Table 7
 Comparison of Survival Results for Ceriodaphniadubia, Pimephales promelas, and Oncorhynchus
      mykiss using Samples from Summitville Mine Drainage and Pilot Treatment Effluents
Sample
SW-01
SW-04
Matrix
Influent water to iron
settling pond
Effluent water from
SAPS settling pond
Cerio
48-hour
LC50
0.01%
0,08%
FH
48-hour LC50
0,29
2,18
Trout
7-day LC50
0.25%
1.57%
Trout
NOEC
0.1%
1%
Notes:
Hg/L   Micrograms per liter
Cerio   Ceriodaphnia dubia
FH     Fathead minnow
LC50   Lethal concentration for 50 percent of the population
NOEC  No observed effect concentration in 7-day period
                                              31

-------
Conclusions

Table 7 summarizes the results of all species tested with
Summitville drainage with the SAPS treatment. Based on
these results, the order of sensitivity to the Summitville
drainage is as follows:

C dubia is more sensitive than rainbow trout and the
fathead minnow. The SAPS system reduced toxicity by
7-8 fold for C. dubia, at 10-fold for rainbow trout, and
about  5-fold  for the  fathead minnow.   However,  a
substantial amount of toxicity remains. A 100-fold greater
reduction  needs to be accomplished to have a no acute
toxicity to rainbow trout, a 1,000-fold reduction in both
treatments is needed to have a  no acute effect on C.
dubia,  and a  50-fold reduction is  needed for no acute
effects on fathead minnows.

3.5.4  Attainment of Evaluation Objectives

This section  summarizes  the preliminary laboratory
analytical  data  from  field  sampling  and   in-field
observations as they relate to assessment of the primary
and secondary objectives.

3.5.4.1 Removal Efficiencies

The primary objective of this PWT technology evaluation
was to determine removal efficiencies for the SAPS and
Aquafix technologies.  Data indicate that both the SAPS
and Aquafix systems removed significant percentages of
aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc from the
AMD. Data for the iron settling pond indicated a low
removal efficiency from the pretreatment system.  The
low removal efficiency may have been due to the low pH
of the AMD (ferric iron may have been soluble at the pH
of the oxidation pond used  in pretreatment of  the
Reynolds Adit AMD).  Removal efficiencies varied for
each system and the relative efficiencies are described
below.   Data trends  and efficiency calculations are
discussed in this subsection by treatment system. Table 8
presents the removal efficiencies with 95 percent upper
and lower confidence limits for aluminum, copper, iron,
manganese, and zinc.

Successive Alkalinity  Producing  System

Removal efficiencies for the SAPS ranged from a low of
11 percent for manganese to 97 percent for aluminum.  It
should be noted that the removal efficiency for the SAPS
appeared to be declining at the end of the evaluation. This
decline may have been  an indication that the system
needed to be flushed or

an artifact of chemistry changes in the influent source.
Because of the short amount of time available to operate
the system before winter, and the length of time required
to refill the SAPS with water, the SAPS was not flushed
until the end of the evaluation.

Aquafix System

Removal efficiencies for the Aquafix ranged from 97
percent for aluminum and manganese to 99 percent for
copper, iron, and zinc.

Secondary objectives of this PWT technology evaluation
were to characterize the resulting sludge, determine the
effectiveness of the SAPS polishing trenches, determine
the change in aquatic toxicity  of the  mine drainage
attributable to each system, and estimate  capital and
operations and maintenance costs for each technology.
These secondary objectives are discussed below.

3.5.4.2 Pond Sludge  Characteristics and Estimated
       Volume

A summary of average  concentrations  for aluminum,
copper,  iron,  manganese, and zinc in sludge samples
collected from the Aquafix and SAPS systems during the
evaluation is provided in Table 9. Sludge samples from the
SAPS pond were also characterized for disposal using
TCLP at the conclusion  of the evaluation.  The sludge
samples met RCRA criteria for disposal as unregulated
solid waste. Consequently, the  SAPS pond sludge, as
tested, would not need to be disposed  of at a RCRA
Subtitle C landfill. The average concentrations of TCLP
metals in the SAPS pond sludge samples along with the
RCRA regulatory  criteria are provided in Table 10.
Sludge  from  the  Aquafix  settling tanks  was  not
characterized using TCLP.  The majority of solids in the
settling tanks remained suspended, and  the high water
content in the sludge precluded sampling the solids for
TCLP analysis.

3.5.4.3 Use and Degradation of Materials in SAPS

A cage that contained a preweighed amount of lime was
inserted  into  the SAPS  pond at the beginning of the
evaluation, but the pond froze before the cage could be
retrieved for post-evaluation weighing and pore-space
evaluation. (Eventual clogging of the pore spaces in the
                                                  32

-------
                                           Table 8
              Removal Efficiencies with 95% Upper and Lower Confidence Limits
Metal
Al
Cu
Fe
Mn
Zn
SAPS
95% LCL
95,99
85.29
52.94
3.37
12,49
Mean RE
97.60
90.51
65.35
14.79
42.54
95% UCL
99.21
95,73
77.76
26.21
72.58
Aqua fix
95% LCL
95,76
97.59
96.86
96.18
97.37
Mean RE
97.24
98.66
98.15
97.76
98.44
95% UCL
98.71
99.73
99,44
99.33
98.44
Notes:
RE     Removal Efficiency
UCL   Upper Confidence limit
LCL   Lower Confidence Limit
                                              33

-------
                                         Table 9
       Average Metals Concentrations in Sludge Samples from Aquafix and SAPS Systems
Metal
Al
Cu
Fe
Mn
Zn
Aquafix Baker
Tank Sludge
(rag/kg)
78,700
27,525
193,250
7,125
7,870
SAPS Iron Setting
Pond Sludge (rag/kg)
12,900
2,340
221,500
722
654
SAPS Pond Sludge
(mg/kg)
5,240
1,146
136,850
103
101
SAPS Settling Pond
Sludge (mg/kg)
53,733
15,333
120,667
2,110
3,107
Notes;
rng/kg   milligrams per kilogram
                                         Table 10
             Average TCLP Metals Concentrations in SAPS Pond Sludge Samples
TCLP Metal
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Mercury
SAPS Pond Sludge (mg/L)
ND
0.12
0.012
0.005
0.061
ND
ND
NA
RCRA Regulatory Criteria (mg/L)
5.0
100
1.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
0.2
Notes:
mg/L   milligrams per liter
ND    Not detected
NA    Not analyzed
                                            34

-------
limestone with precipitated metal hydroxides and gypsum
can be a limiting factor with the SAPS system),

3.5.4.4 Effectiveness of the  SAPS  Rock  Drain
       Polishing Trench

Data from the channel samples to determine polishing
effectiveness  are   inconclusive.     Fluctuating  pH
measurements  and  low removal efficiencies were
obtained  that  could  be attributed  to  site  specific
construction features or polishing system performance.

3.5.4.5 Changes in Aquatic Toxicity

At the end of the evaluation period, bulk samples were
obtained  from  the  SAPS for toxicity testing.  Post-
treatment samples showed that toxicity was reduced by 7
to 8 times for C. dubia, about 10 times for rainbow trout,
and about 5 times for the fathead minnow. A substantial
amount of toxicity remained in the post-treatment water.
A 100-times greater reduction in the concentration of
metals is needed to remove acute toxicity to rainbow trout,
and a 1,000-times reduction in metals is needed to remove
acute toxicity to C. dubia.   A 50-times  reduction is
required to achieve the level of no acute effect to fathead
minnows.

3.5.4.6 Flow Rate  and  Mass Metals Loadings

Flow rates were recorded for both PWT systems during
every sampling event. Flow rates for the SAPS remained
relatively constant at about 5  gpm.  Influent for the SAPS
came from the  Reynolds Adit sumps from  evaluation
startup until low water levels prohibited using the sumps as
the source of water in early September.  The water pumps
were shut down and the system plumbing was redesigned
to use water from the Reynolds Adit Plug under gravity
feed. At the time the systems were shut down, 42 percent
of the total flow had originated from  the sump, where
water had lower concentrations of metals than the water
in the Reynolds Adit. Therefore, the metals in the influent
concentrations were averaged for each source of influent,
then weighted by the percentage of the total flow for each
source of influent water. Concentrations of metals in the
influent averaged 240 mg/L per liter of aluminum, 102 mg/
L of copper, 570 mg/L of iron, 28 mg/L of manganese, and
26.7 mg/L of zinc. Flow rates through the Aquafix system
fluctuated frequently affecting pH levels (as a result of the
varying amounts of lime being added) and residence time
in the system.  Flow rates in the Aquafix system varied
from about 16 gpm to 21 gpm, with an average goal of flow
at 19 gpm. The influent to the Aquafix system was all
from the Reynolds Adit during the period it was sampled.

The influent metals concentrations to the Aquafix system
averaged 247 mg/L of aluminum, 112 mg/L of copper, 684
mg/L of iron, 33 mg/L of manganese, and 32 mg/L of zinc.
Because  of the  length of time needed to  settle the
precipitate in the Baker tanks, the inflow to the tanks was
split, with about 50 percent of the flow going to the tanks
and 50 percent directed back into untreated surface flow
drainage.  Removal efficiencies of the Aquafix system
were much higher than for the SAPS for copper, iron,
manganese, and zinc, and was the  same for aluminum.
However, the Aquafix removal  efficiencies decreased
when the pH could not be maintained at the optimal level
of around 8.0.  Precipitate was drained from the second
Baker tank as the volume  of precipitate in  the tank
increased.  This drainage flowed to the Summitville
Drainage  Impoundment,  where it was captured and
subsequently treated by the on-site treatment plant.

3.5.5  Design  Effectiveness

The following sections discuss the effectiveness of the
PWT systems tested at the Summitville site.  This
discussion focuses on general design  parameters and
factors that affect each cell.

The basic design of the PWT evaluation system consisted
of a sump for collection of AMD at the Reynolds Adit,
piping from the sump to the influent weir, the SAPS
settling  pond,  and a bypass pipe.  The system  was
designed to be driven by gravity flow. The sump collected
the mine drainage and provided adequate hydraulic head
to drive the mine drainage to the SAPS pond and Aquafix
units. The influent weir partitioned the mine drainage.
From the influent weir, the mine drainage was channeled
to a ball  valve that separated flow to the  treatment
systems.

Construction materials associated with this design were
generally  inexpensive,  readily  available, and easily
transported to remote areas. Installation techniques were
also straightforward.

The major drawbacks of this design observed during the
evaluation at the Summitville site centered on the flow
control valves, and AMD collection from the Reynolds
Adit for PWT treatment,  as well as treated water
management systems. Specifically, the collection sump,
ditch lines, and settling tanks (Baker tanks) were not
                                                  35

-------
sufficient for the evaluation. The collection sump utilized
at the Reynolds Adit was not sufficient to provide the
proper volume and constant rate of flow of AMD delivery
to the treatment systems.  For the Aquafix system, the
ditch line did not provide adequate mixing and aeration for
oxidation of the AMD.  Further, the Baker tanks used in
the  evaluation  did  not provide sufficient volume or
residence time for long-term precipitation and removal of
the  metals from the treatment system discharge.  The
limestone  and  rock  polishing  channels   were  not
sufficiently sized to  provide added removal efficiency to
the  PWT systems.

In summary, PWT technologies are suitable for treatment
of AMD.  The  application of these technologies at the
Summitville site proved extremely challenging due to the
severity in quality of the AMD, high altitude conditions,
limited  site access,  and limited land area for system
installation.
                                                   36

-------
                                       Economic Analysis
This section presents cost estimates for using PWT
systems to treat mine drainage with water chemistry
similar to the AMD from the Reynolds Adit at the
Summitville  site.   The baseline  scenario  used for
developing this cost estimate was a 5 gpm flow rate for
the SAPS, an 18 gpm flow rate for the Aquaflx system ,
and a 15-year system life. The baseline costs were then
adjusted for varying flow rates and treatment periods to
develop cost estimates for other cases. Additional cases
based on a system life of 15 years were determined for 25
gpm and 100 gpjn flow rates.

Cost  estimates presented in  this  section are based
primarily on data compiled during the SITE demonstration
at the Summitville site.  Additional cost data were
obtained  from standard engineering cost  reference
manuals (Means 2000).   Costs have  been assigned to
11 categories applicable  to typical cleanup activities at
Superfund and RCRA sites  (Evans 1990).  Costs are
presented  in year 2000 dollars and are considered
estimates, with an accuracy of plus 50 percent and minus
30 percent.

4.1    Basis of Economic  Analysis

Several factors affect the costs of treating AMD  with
PWT systems. These factors generally include flow rate,
type and concentration of contaminants, physical  site
conditions, geographical site location,  and  treatment
goals.  Treatment pond sludge will  require off-site
disposal, which may include pre-treatment costs.  The
characteristics of the  sludge generated  by the PWT
system will also affect disposal costs. Mine drainage
containing aluminum at 240 mg/L, arsenic at 1.5 mg/L,
copper at 102 mg/L, iron at 570 mg/L, manganese at 28
mg/L, and zinc at 27 mg/L was selected forthis economic
analysis.  The following paragraphs present additional
assumptions and conditions as they apply to each case.
For each case, this analysis assumes that the SAPS and
Aquafix systems will treat contaminated mine drainage
continuously, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.  An
average metals removal efficiency of 96 percent was
assumed for all cases.

Further assumptions about application of PWT systems
for each case include the following:

«   A residence time of 3 3 6 to 3 60 hours for the baseline
    SAPS application, and a minimum of 48 hours for the
    baseline Aquafix application is recommended for
    adequate metals removal.

•   The SAPS pond, which was assumed to be 9 feet
    deep and 13,500 cubic feet in volume, will provide
    336- to 360-hours of residence time at a flow rate of
    5 gpm (pond size is directly proportional to flow rate).
    The water level in the pond must also be sufficiently
    deep so that diffusion of dissolved oxygen at depth is
    prevented.

•   A mechanism is assumed to be required to maintain
    the water level and flow rates for both the SAPS and
    Aquafix systems at appropriate levels.

«   Organic compost and limestone material will require
    removal every five years.

•   Residual substrate is not a RCRA hazardous waste;
    thus, it will be dewatered on site and can be recycled
    or disposed of at an industrial or municipal landfill.

•   Treatment pond  sludge,  depending  on  the site
    conditions and period of  operation may  require
    classification under RCRA as hazardous waste, even
    though the limited sludge samples that were evaluated
    in the evaluation were not hazardous.  Pond sludge
    must be sampled and  evaluated for RCRA criteria
                                                  37

-------
    prior  to  disposal  to  determine  the  need  for
    pretreatment, handling, and disposal requirements.

This analysis assumes that aquatic-based standards are
most appropriate and the attainment of these standards
depends on the affected organisms, receiving waters, and
volume of mine drainage. Attainment of aquatic based
standards  may  not  be  feasible in all  cases for the
technology as tested during this evaluation.

The following assumptions were also made for each case
in this analysis:

•   The site is located within 200 miles  of the disposal
    location.

»   The site will allow for gravity flow of the mine
    drainage through the treatment system.

•   There is a minimum of 1 to 1.5 acres  available at the
    site to accommodate treatment and settling ponds and
    staging areas, construction equipment, and sampling
    and maintenance storage area.

•   A  staging area is available for dewatering spent
    substrate.

•   Access roads exist at the site.

»   The treatment goal for the site will be to reduce metals
    contaminant levels by 96 percent.

•   Spent substrate will be dewatered and disposed of off
    site.

•   One influent water sample and two effluent water
    samples will be collected monthly and two composite
    substrate samples will be collected  quarterly to
    monitor system performance.

•   One part-time operator will be required to inspect the
    system, collect all required  samples, and conduct
    minor maintenance and repairs.

4.2    Cost  Categories

Cost data associated  with the PWT technologies have
been assigned to one of the following 11  cost categories:
(1)  site  preparation; (2) permitting  and  regulatory
requirements; (3) capital equipment and construction; (4)
startup; (5) labor;  (6) consumables and supplies; (7)
utilities; (8) residual and waste shipping and handling;
(9) analytical services; (10) operation maintenance and
modifications; and (11) demobilization. Costs associated
with each category are presented in the sections that
follow. Some sections end with a summary of significant
costs within the category.  Table 11 presents the cost
breakdown for the SAPS variable treatment volumes at
varying flow rates. Table 12 presents the cost breakdown
for the Aquafix variable treatment volumes at varying
flow rates.  The tables also present total one-time, fixed
costs, and total variable O&M costs; the total project
costs; and the costs per gallon of water treated for each
system.

4.2.1   Site Preparation  Costs

Site   preparation  for  both   technologies   include
administration, pilot-scale testing, and mobilization costs.
Additional space would be needed beyond the assumed 1
to 1.5 acres if additional pretreatment ponds are required.
A solid gravel (or ground) surface is preferred for any
remote treatment project. Pavement is not necessary, but
the surface must be  able to  support construction
equipment. This analysis was performed on the basis that
only  moderate  modifications  will  be  required  for
construction of the treatment and settling ponds.

Administrative  costs, such as legal searches and access
rights, are estimated to be $10,000.

A pilot-scale study involves an assessment of AMD
characteristics  and an evaluation  to  determine  the
properties for the alkaline producing systems to provide
optimized treatment. This treatability study is estimated to
cost $3 5,000.

Mobilization involves  transporting  all construction
equipment and materials to the site. For this analysis, it is
assumed that the site is located within 100 miles of a city
where construction equipment is available.  The  total
estimated mobilization cost will be $5,000.

For each case, total site preparation costs are estimated to
be $50,000.

4.2.2  Permitting and Regulatory Requirements

Permitting and regulatory costs vary  depending  on
whether treatment occurs at a Superfund site and on the
disposal method selected for treated effluent and any solid
wastes generated.  At Superfund sites, remedial actions
                                                   38

-------
                                              Table 11
                     SAPS Technology Costs for Different Treatment Volumes*
Cost Categories
System Life at 15 years
5 epni
25 earn
100 epm
Fixed Costs
Site Preparation
Administrative
Pilot-Scale Treatability Study
Mobilization
Permitting and Regulatory Requirements
Capital Equipment
System Design
Excavation and Site
Preparation
Compost and Limestone Substrate
SAPS Treatment Pond
Construction
Piping and Valves
Storage Building
Startup
Demobilization
Excavation and Backfilling
Treatment Pond Sludge Disposal
Substrate Disposal
Total Fixed Costs
Variable Costs
Labor
Operations and Maintenance Staff
Consumables and Supplies
Personal Protective Equipment
Construction Management
Analytical Services
Maintenance and Modifications
Annual Maintenance
Pond Sludge Removal
Substrate Removal and
Replacement
Total Variable Costs
Total Costs 15 Year Life
Cost Per Year
Total Cost Per Gallon Treated
$50,000
5,000
138,100
1,500
27,100
221,700

153,000
10,000
25,000
324,300
67,600
579,900
801,600
53,400
S0.020
$10,000
35,000
5,000

50,000
11,000
11,500
54,300
8,800
2,500

7,000
8,100
12,000


153,000



25,000
32,400
10,200




$50,000
5,000
162,600
3,000
114,500
335,100

153,000
10,000
51,000
324,300
110,400
648,700
983,800
65,600
$0.005
$10,000
35,000
5,000

50,000
16,000
30,600
54,300
9,200
2,500

14,000
12,500
60,000


153,000



40,000
50,000
20,400



$50,000
5,000
373,900
6,000
370,000
804,900

153,000
10,000
76,000
324,300
300,800
864,100
1,669,000
111,300
1 $0,002
$10,000
35,000
5,000

50,000
32,000
161,700
108,600
17,600
4,000

28,000
50,000
180,000


153,000



60,000
200,000
40,800




Note: *Costs are based on September 2000 dollars, total costs rounded to the nearest $ 100.
                                                 39

-------
                                             Table 12
                   Aquaflx Technology Costs for Different Treatment Volumes*
Cost Categories
System Life 15 Years
ISgpm
25gpm
100 gpm
Fixed Costs
Site Preparation
Administrative
Pilot-Scale Treatability Study
Mobilization
Permitting and Regulatory Requirements
Capital Equipment
System Design
Excavation and Site Preparation
Settling Pond Construction
Aquafix Unit
Pebble Quicklime
Piping and Valves
Storage Building
Startup
Demobilization
Excavation and Backfilling
Settling Pond Sludge Disposal
Substrate Disposal
Total Fixed Costs
Variable Costs
Labor
Operations Staff
Consumables and Supplies
Personal Protective Equipment
Construction Management
Analytical Services
Maintenance and Modifications
Annual Maintenance
Pond Sludge Removal
Substrate Removal and Replacement
Total Variable Costs
Total Costs - 15 Year Life
Cost Per Year
Total Cost Per Gallon Treated
$50,000
5,000
274,600
3,000
60,400
$393,000

153,000
10,000
12,000
324,300
71,200
$570,500
$963,500
$64,200
$0.007J
$10,000
35,000
5,000

50,000
14,000
75,000
21,800
103,300
8,000
2,500

8,000
30,400
22,000


153,000



25,000
36,000
10,200




$50,000
5,000
323,300
3,000
80,500
$462,800

153,000
10,000
26,000
324,300
110,400
$623,700
$1,085,500
$72,400
$0.005
$10,000
35,000
5,000

50,000
16,000
81,400
21,800
143,600
8,000
2,500

10,000
40,500
30,000


153,000



40,000
50,000
20,400




$50,000
5,000
913,300
6,000
272,000
$1,246,300

153,000
10,000
42,000
324,300
295,200
$824,500
$2,070,800
$138,000
$0.003
$10,000
35,000
5,000

50,000
32,000
240,000
21,800
547,500
18,000
4,000

20,000
162,000
90,000


153,000



60,000
194,400
40,800




*Costs are based on September 2000 dollars, rounded to the nearest $ 100.
                                                40

-------
must be consistent with ARARs, environmental laws,
ordinances, and regulations, including federal, state, and
local standards and criteria. In general, ARARs must be
identified on a site-specific basis. At an active mining site,
a NPDES permit will likely be required and may require
additional monitoring records and sampling protocols,
which can increase permitting and regulatory costs.  For
each  case  represented in Tables  11  and  12,  total
permitting and regulatory costs are estimated to be $5,000.

4,2.3   Capital Equipment

Capital  costs include all PWT  systems design  and
construction materials and a  site building for housing
sampling,  monitoring,  and  maintenance  equipment.
Construction  materials for each system  include sand,
synthetic liners, geotextile liners, PVC piping, valves,
concrete vaults or sumps, weirs, and other miscellaneous
materials specific to each technology.  Capital costs for
the baseline PWT systems are presented in Tables 11 and
12.

Site preparation and excavation includes clearing the site
of brush and trees, excavation of the treatment ponds,
grading the site, and construction of the ponds. The total
cost  of site preparation and excavation for  the SAPS
system is $11,000. The total cost of site preparation and
excavation for the Aquafix system is $ 14,000.

Construction  of the SAPS treatment ponds involves
subgrade preparation and installation of a sand layer, liner,
piping distribution, and collection systems. Also included
is piping to and from the treatment ponds as well as system
bypass piping and weirs at the influent of the treatment
and settling ponds to control flow through the system. The
estimated cost for construction of the treatment ponds is
$54,300. The cost of distribution piping is estimated at
$8,800,  and the cost of substrate materials is $11,500.
System design is estimated to be $50,000.

A small building is required for storing sampling equipment
and providing work space for the SAPS operator. The
cost  for a  simple building  with electricity has been
estimated at $2,500.

Total fixed costs, for installation  of  the 5 gpm SAPS
system,  as tested, is $221,700,  This cost also includes
startup and demobilization and these costs are discussed
further in the following sections.
Variable costs for the SAPS include labor for operations
and maintenance staff, consumables and supplies, annual
construction management support, analytical services,
annual maintenance and modifications that includes pond
sludge removal and replacement of substrate.  The total
variable  costs  for the baseline system is  $579,900.
Variable costs  are discussed  in more detail  in the
following sections.

The total capital cost for the baseline 5 gpm SAPS system
for the 15-year system life is $801,600. For the 25 gpm
SAPS system, this cost is increased to $983,800 primarily
from increases  in both the fixed and variable materials
costs with  larger quantities.  For the 100 gpm SAPS
system, the total cost is $1,669,000, with the increases in
material quantities.

For the baseline Aquafix system, substrate costs and
capital equipment  costs will differ  from those  for the
SAPS system, since distribution equipment  is used in
place of the treatment pond. Pebble quicklime was used
to increase alkalinity in place of compost and crashed
limestone.  The annual cost of pebble quicklime for the
baseline Aquafix system is $103,300 and the cost of the
Aquafixunitis$21,8QO. Settling pond construction, which
includes subgrade preparation and installation of a sand
layer, liner, piping distribution and collection systems cost
is $75,000 for the baseline Aquafix system. Distribution
piping from dispensing unit to the source and the settling
pond cost is $8,000 for the baseline system.

A small building is also  required for storing sampling
equipment  and  providing work space for the Aquafix
operator. The cost for a simple building with electricity
has been estimated at $2,500.

Total fixed costs for installation of the baseline 18 gpm unit
is $393,000.   This  cost  also includes  startup and
demobilization and these costs are discussed further in the
following sections.

Variable costs for the Aquafix system are similar to the
SAPS system with the exception of maintenance and
modifications  costs.   For  the baseline  system  the
maintenance costs, which includes costs for  annual
maintenance, substrate removal and replacement, and
pond sludge removal and disposal are $71,200. The total
variable  costs  for the   baseline  Aquafix system  is
$570,500, and the total capital cost for this 18 gpm system,
for the 15-year system life is $963,500. For the 25 gpm
system, the capital  cost is increased to $1,085,500 with
                                                   41

-------
increased quantity of materials. For the 100 gpm system,
the increase in material quantity drives the capital cost to
$2,070,800.

4,2.4  Startup

Startup requirements are minimal for a PWT system.
System startup involves introducing flow to the PWT with
frequent inspections to verify proper hydraulic operation.
Operators are assumed to be trained in health and safety
procedures. Therefore, training costs are not incurred as
a direct startup  cost.  The only costs directly related to
system startup  are labor costs associated  with more
frequent system inspection, and will increase with the size
of the system. Startup costs are estimated at $1,500 for
the SAPS  system and $3,000 for the Aquafix system.

4.2.5  Labor

For  either  system,  labor  costs  include  a part-time
technician to sample, operate, and maintain  the system.
Once the system is functioning, it is assumed to operate
continuously at the design flow rate. One technician will
monitor the system on a weekly basis. Weekly monitoring
will require several hours 2 to 3 times per week to check
flow rate  and overall system operation.  Sampling is
assumed to be conducted once a month and will require
two technicians for 2 hours.   Based on average labor
rates, these requirements equate to an estimated cost of
$153,000  for each system over a 15-year period.

4.2.6  Consumables and Supplies

For either system, the only consumables and supplies used
during PWT operations are disposable PPE.  Disposable
PPE includes Tyvek coveralls, gloves, and boot covers.
The  treatment  system operator will wear  PPE when
required  by health  and safety plans during  system
operation. The estimated cost of PPE for each system
over a 15-year period is $ 10,000.

4.2.7  Utilities

For either system, utilities used by the PWT systems are
negligible.  The PWT systems require no  utilities for
operation. The only utility required is for electricity for
lights  in the on-site  storage building and for charging
monitoring equipment. For this analysis, utility costs are
assumed to be 0.
4.2.8  Residual Waste Shipping and Handling

The residual waste for both PWT systems are assumed to
be spent substrate and treatment and settling pond sludge.
This analysis assumes that substrate will require removal
and replacement once every 5 years for both systems. It
is assumed that spent substrate will be dewatered on site
and disposed of at a recycling facility or landfill. Substrate
removal and replacement and pond sludge removal costs
for  both  systems  are  covered  in Section  4.2.10,
maintenance and modifications. The total cost for pond
sludge and substrate disposal for the SAPS  system is
estimated to be $20,100 over a 15-year period. The total
cost  for pond sludge and  substrate disposal  for  the
Aquafix system is estimated to be $52,400 over a 15-year
period. Costs for residual waste shipping and handling are
based solely on substrate volume.  Costs for different
sized treatment and settling ponds are proportional to the
baseline system.

4.2.9  Analytical  Services

Analytical  costs associated with either PWT system
include laboratory analysis, data reduction and tabulation,
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), and reporting.
For each system, this analysis assumes that one influent
sample and two effluent samples will be collected once a
month and that two substrate and sludge samples from
each pond will be collected  quarterly. The  pond sludge
samples will be analyzed for total metals, and substrate
samples evaluated  for microbial activity.  Influent and
effluent samples  will  be  analyzed for total  metals,
alkalinity, anions,  TSS, and pH.  Monthly laboratory
analysis will cost about $1,170, and quarterly substrate
and pond sludge analysis will cost about $2,920 per year.
Data reduction, tabulation,  QA/QC, and reporting  are
estimated to cost about $4,660 per year.  Total annual
analytical services  for each system are estimated to cost
about $21,620 per year and $324,300  over  a  15-year
period.

4.2.10 Maintenance and  Modifications

Total costs for maintenance and modifications over a 15-
year period for the SAPS and Aquafix systems including
repair and maintenance,  pond  sludge removal, and
substrate removal  and replacement is estimated  to be
$67,600 (SAPS) and $71,200 (Aquafix), respectively. No
modification  costs  are assumed to be incurred.   The
removal and replacement cost will vary proportionally
with the treatment and settling pond size.
                                                   42

-------
4.2.11 Demobilization

Site  demobilization  costs  for  either system  include
excavation of the substrate and concrete vaults and weirs,
disposal of substrate, pond sludge removal, and backfilling
the ponds. Costs for backfilling of the ponds is based on
the assumption that  native material from the  original
wetland  excavation  was  left  on  site.    The total
demobilization cost is estimated to be $27,100 for the
SAPS system and $60,400 for the Aquafix system. This
cost will vary proportionally with treatment and settling
pond size.
                                                   43

-------
                                                  5
                                        Technology  Status
About 200  Aquafix  units  of  various  sizes  and
configurations are currently treating AMD in the United
States,  The  effectiveness of these systems has been
reviewed by Mine Safety Engineering (MSB), and was
discussed in several publications, including Skousen and
Jenkins 1993, and  "The Proceedings  of Fourteenth
Annual West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task
Force Symposium" (Jenkins and Skousen 1993).

SAPS technology has been in the public domain for many
years and has been used in various locations in the
midwestera and eastern U.S. The effectiveness of this
technology has been discussed in several publications,
including Kepler and McCleary 1994 and Watzlaf 1997.

In addition, PWT systems have been constructed and
tested or are being tested by EPA, various state agencies,
and  industry.  In Colorado,  the  State's Division  of
Minerals and Geology has constructed several PWT
systems to treat AMD. These PWT technologies were
also being considered, but not selected, for sources of
contaminated water located in remote portions of the
Summitville site where it would otherwise be difficult to
direct flow into the active treatment plant.
                                                  44

-------
                                          References
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
       (CDPHE), 1995. Facsimile Communication with
       Garry Farmer, Tetra Tech. February,

CDPHE. Proposed Plan for Summitville Mine, Denver,
       Colorado.   Hazardous  Materials and  Waste
       Management Division. June.

Evans, G. 1990.  "Estimating Innovative Technology
       Costs for the SITE Program."  Journal of Air
       and Waste Management Association. 40:7:1047-
       1051.

Hedin, R.S., R.W. Narin, and R.L.P. Kleinmann. 1994.
       "Passive Treatment of Coal Mine Drainage."
       United  States  Bureau of Mines  Information
       Circular 9389.

Jenkins, M. and J. Skousen. 1993. "Acid Mine Drainage
       Treatment  with  the   Aquafix System,"
       Proceedings, Fourteenth Annual West Virginia
       Surface  Mine   Drainage   Task  Force
       Symposium.     West Virginia  University,
       Morgantown, WV.

Kepler, D,A.and McCleary, E.C.  1994.  "Successive
       Alkalinity-Producing  Systems (SAPS) for the
       Treatment  of  Acid   Mine   Drainage."
       International Land  Reclamation  and Mine
       Drainage Conference, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
       SP 06A-94, Pittsburgh, PA. April 24-29.

Means, R.S,   2000.  Means Building Construction
       Cost Data.    Construction  Consultants  and
       Publishers, Kingston, Massachusetts.

PRC Environmental Management, Inc.  1995.  CDPHE
       Constructed  Wetlands System Demonstration
       Plan. July.
Skousen, J., and M. Jenkins. 1993. "The Aquafix System:
       New AMD Treatment System."  Green Lands.
       Vol. 23(3): pp. 36-38.

Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech).  1998. Summitville
       Mine Passive Treatment Preliminary Design.
       December 30.

Tetra Tech. 2000. Quality Assurance Project Plan for
       the   Aquafix  and   SAPS  PWT  Treatment
       Technologies  at  the  Summitville Mine  Site.
       August.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1983.
       Neutralization of Acid Mine Drainage, Design
       Manual. EPA-600/2/83-001, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Watzlaf, G.  1997.  "Passive Treatment of Acid Mine
       Drainage in Downflow Limestone  Systems."
       Proceedings of the National Meeting of the
       American  Society  of Surface  Mining  and
       Reclamation, Austin, Texas.  May 10-15.
                                                45

-------
                Appendix A




Analytical Results Summary Tables and Plots

-------
                300
                250
                                       &AAAAAAA.AAA
                                                  Day Sam pled
                                 • Mluent Water (SW-02)   -*— Bf luent Water (SW-04)
Month/Day
Day I
DayS
Day 14
Day 23
Day 27
Day 31
Day 35
Day 39
Day 42
Day 44
Day 46
Day 48
Day SO
Day 52
Day 54
Influent Concentration!
(«8/L)
0.29
225
231
242
250
257
239
272
267
251
248
240
230
219
21*
Effluent Concentration
(«g/L)*
0.08
0.09
0.13
1.06
0.31
0.47
U4
1.78
248
12.6
8,31
6.47
148
10.9
11.4
% Reduction
72.4
99.9
99.9
99.6
99.9
99.8
99.4
99,3
90.0
95.0
96,7
9:7.3
97.6
95.0
94.7
                 *EfQuent sample collected four days after influent sample to accommodate pond residence time,
Figure la.  SAPS System, Aluminum

-------
                  140
              I
                       *»   <0   .>   »°J   A    •>
                                                     Day Sam pied
                                   -Influent Water (SW-02)
• Hfluent Water (SW-04)
Month/Day
t%l
Day5
Day 14
Day 23
Day 27
Day 31
Day 35
Day 39
Day 42
Day 44
Day 46
Day 48
Day 50
Day 52
Day 54
Isilucnt Concentration
(™g/L)
0.85
90.7
81.4
89
103
116
115
119
115
102
121
120
102
120
115
Effluent Concentration
(mg/L)*
0.19
0.30
0.23
0.76
0.55
0.97
3.36
3.36
24.9
20.9
19.9
19.7
18.1
23.8
24.1
% Reduction
77.7
99.7
99.7
99.2
99.5
99.2
97.1
97.2
78.4
79,5
83.6
83.6
82.3
80.2
79.0
                   'Effluent sample collected four days after influent sample to accommodate pond residence time.
Figure Ib. SAPS System, Copper

-------
O
u
               800




               700




               600



               500




               400



               300




               200 -



               100
                         v


                       
                                                   Day Sampled
                                       • Influent (SW-02)
                                                      • Effluent (SW-04)
Month/Day
Dayl
DayS
Day 14
Day 23
Day 27
Day 31
Day 35
Day 39
Day 42
Day 44
Day 46
Day 48
Day 50
Day 52
Day 54
Influent Concentration
(mg/L)
17.4
369
412
537
632
669
645
735
712
674
692
672
640
613
600
Effluent Concentration
(Blg/L)*
18.1
33
65
59.5
67.7
97.7
147
236
340
339
386
378
298
412
417
% Reduction
0
91.1
84.2
88.9
89.3
85.4
77.2
67.9
52.3
49.7
44.2
43.8
53.4
32.8
30.5
               •Effluent sample collected four days after influent sample to accommodate pond residence time.
Figure Ic. SAPS System, Iron

-------
                40
                35  -
                30
            I2'
            f 20
                15
                10
                 5  -
                   .N   ,*>   K*   f£>  (&
                                                 Day Sam pled
                              - Influent Water (SW-02)
• Bf luent Water (SW-04)
Month/Day
Dayl
DayS
Day 14
Day 23
Day 27
Day 31
Day 35
Day 39
Day 42
Day 44
Day 46
Day 48
Day 50
Day 52
Day 54
Influent Concentration
(mg/L)
9.6
21.4
20.8
26.4
33.9
34.8
32
32.8
31.7
29.1
33.9
30.8
28.7
34.4
35.5
Effluent Concentration
(ng/L)*
9.8
11.9
14.8
16.1
18.2
21.1
25.9
28.4
27.2
33.7
34.2
28.1
27.6
37.3
38.0
% Reduction
0
44.4
28.9
39.0
46.3
39.4
19.1
13.4
14.2
0
0
8.8
3.8
0
0
                  'Effluent sample collected four days after influent sample to accommodate pond residence time.
Figure Id. SAPS System, Manganese

-------
                  45 -




                  40




                  35 -




              g-  30 -


               I

              ^  25 -





              I  *°
               8


              $  15




                  10.-




                   5




                   0
                                                    Day Sampled
                                    .Influent Water (SW-02)
• Bf luent Water (SW-04)
Month/Day
Dayl
Day5
Day 14
Day 23
Day 27
Dsy3l
Day 35
Day 39
Day 42
Day 44
Day 46
Day 48
Day 50
Day 52
Day 54
Influent Concentration
(mg/L)
1.1
21.1
20.5
25.6
33.8
35.6
31.4
38.4
32.6
30.1
34.9
31.6
33.3
16.2
15.9
Effluent Concentration
(Mg/W*
1,26
0.89
0.93
0.99
2.64
5.31
10.6
16.2
17.7
20.7
22.1
18.9
18.4
26.3
27.4
% Reduction
0
95.8
95.5
96.1
92.2
85.1
66.2
57.8
45.7
31.2
36.7
40.2
44.7
0
0
                     'Effluent sample collected four days after influent sample to accommodate pond residence time.
Figure le. SAPS System, Zinc

-------
      I*
      as,
     x
      Q.
3 -
             2 -
             1 -
                                        \
                                       
-------
           300
           250
         -. 200

         o>
         E
         2 150
         E
         u

         o 100
            50
                                                      OaySanpted

Month/Day
Day 1
Day5
Day?
Day 9
Day 11
Day 16
Day 17
Day 18
Day 19
Day 20
Day 21
Day 22
Day 23
Day 24
Day 25
Day 26
Influent Concentration (mg/L)
260
255
246
243
273
259
249
255
245
248
245
235
228
219
204
207
Effluent Concentration (mg/L)*
3.81
5.9
5.9?
18.5
No Sample Taken
2.18
6.09
7.38
6.07
5.94
7.65
94.4
58.6
124,0
No Sample Taken
No Sample Taken
% Reduction
98.5
97.7
97.6
92.4

99.2
97.6
97.1
97.5
97.6
96.9
59.8
74.3
93.4


              *Effluent sample collected two days after influent sample to accommodate pond residence time.
Figure 2a. SAPS System, Aluminum

-------
        140
                                                        Day Sampled




                                          - hffcient Water (AW-01) -m— Hfiueni Water (AW-02)
Month/Day
Day!
DayS
Day?
Day 9
Day il
Day 16
Day 17
Day 18
Day 19
Day 20
Day 21
Day 22
Day 23
Day 24
Day 25
Day 16
Influcn t Concentration (mg^L)
116
109
128
118
115
112
116
128
124
119
109
tog
94.7
118
105
100
Effluent Concentration (mg/L) "
0.65
1.53
0.62
3.52
5.53
0.39
1.56
1.54
No Sample Taken
0.26
1.01
43.3
47.5
73.9
No Sample Taken
No Sample Taken
% Reduction
99.4
98.6
99.5
97.0
9S.2
99.7
98.7
98.8

99.8
99.1
59.9
49.8
37.4


                       •Effluent sample collected wo days after influent sample to accommodate pond residence time
Figure 2b.  SAPS System, Copper

-------
                                                          Day Sampled
                                           • Influent Water (AW-Q1)
-efluent Water (AW-02)
Month/Day
Day!
Day5
Day?
Day 9
Day 11
Day 16
Day 17
Day 18
Day 19
Day 20
Day 21
Day 22
Day 23
Day 24
Day 25
Day 26
Influent Concentration (tng/L)
694
706
684
671
737
693
668
717
693
689
684
666
650
616
580
587
Effluent Concentration ( rag/L)'
3.69
9.43
4.01
24,1
37.8
2.94
10.6
7.46
1.6?
1.14
5.3
253.0
239.0
400.0
No Sample Taken
No Sample Taken
% Reduction
99.5
98.7
99.4
9«.4
94.9
99.6
98.4
99.0
99.8
99.8
99.2
62.0
63.2
35.1


           'Effluent sample collected two days after influent sample to accommodate pond residence time.
Figure 2c.  SAPS System, Iron

-------
                                           ^    4    N*    $    *    ,T>     &    &
                                                        Day Sampled




                                           Influent Water (AW-01) —•— Bfkjent Water (AW-02)
Month/Day
9/19
9/23
9/25
9/27
9/29
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
10/8
10/9
10/10
10/11
10/12
10/13
10/14
Influent Concentration (mg/L)
34.0
31.1
33.6
32.9
31.5
30.6
33.9
35.3
34.2
32.7
30.5
32.0
27.2
35.2
35.0
33.6
Effluent Concentration (mg/L)*
0.52
1.33
0.25
No Sample Taken
1.7
1.49
0.58
0.46
No Sample Taken
0.12
0.37
20.4
24.8
29.3
No Sample Taken
No Sample Taken
% Reduction
98.5
95.7
99.3

94.6
95.1
98.3
98.7

99.6
98.8
36.3
8.8
16.8


            •Effluent sample collected two days after influent sample to accommodate pond residence time.
Figure 2d.  SAPS System, Manganese

-------
                                                    Day Sam pled
                                      • Influent Water (AW-01) -•— iffluent Water (AV^02)
Month/Day
Day 1
DsyS
Day 7
Day 9
Dayll
Day 16
Day 17
Day 18
Day 19
Day 20
Day 21
Day 22
Day 23
Day 24
Day 25
Day 26
Influent Concentration (mg/L)
35.2
32.7
34.0
34.3
39.3
31.4
34.6
36.4
35.0
35.6
35.6
35.0
34.1
32.5
15.4
15.6
Effluent Concentration (mg/L)*
31.2
0.23
0.42
0.17
1.8
0.91
No Sample Taken
0.15
0.56
0.37
0.80
0.05
0.28
13.1
16.9
24.1
% Reduction
11.4
99.3
98.8
99.5
95.4
97.1

99.6
98.4
99.0
97.7
99.9
99,2
59.7
0
0
          'Effluent sample collected two days after influent sample to accommodate residence time.
Figure 2e.  SAPS System, Zinc

-------
      12
      10 -
  3   6
  Z
                                                   Day Sam pled
                                    -Influent Water (AW-01) —•— Effluent Water (AW-02)
Month/Day
Day]
Day5
Etey?
Day 9
Dayl!
Day 16
Day 17
Day 18
Day 19
Day 20
Day 21
Day 22
Day 23
Day 24
Day 25
Day 26
Influent pH
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.9
3,0
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
Effluent pH*
4.4
L 8.6
7.9
9.5
9.3
No Sample Taken
No Sample Taken
7.7
9.6
8.5
8.2
7.9
8.0
5.7
4.6
4.1
pH Unit Increase
1.5
5.7
4.9
6.6
6.2


4.6
6.7
5.5
5.2
4.9
4.9
2.6
1.5
1.0
              'Effluent sample collected two days after influent sample to accommodate pond residence time.
Figure 2f.  SAPS System, pH

-------
 Appendix B




Site Photographs

-------

-------
Aquafix System as set up at Summitville.

-------
Oxidizing Aquafix effluent and discharge into Baker Tank for sludge setting.

-------
Photograph shows rock trench and plastic liner in foreground and Aquafix system in background.

-------
Limestone rock lined channel.

-------
TABLE 8-12: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES
All Graundwater Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9, 13,1i, 22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Page 1 of 8
Anatyte
Number of Average of Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Number of Number of
Samples Number of Percent of Detected Detected Detected Non-detected Non-detected Detections Non-defects Tap Water
Analyzed Detections Detections Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Over PRG Over PRG PRO
MCL
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1 .1.1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Waa-TETSACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TOICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1 -DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
	
1 ,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
1 .2-DIBROMO-3-CHL.OROPROPANE
1.2-CHCHLOROBEMZENE
1.2-DieHU»OETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL)
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DlCHLOROPROPANE
1.4-DICHLOROBEMZENE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-BUTANONE
2-CHLOROTOLUENE
2-HEXANONE
4-CHLOROTOLUENE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
ACETONE
BENZENE
BROMOBENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
8
73
73
73
73
73
8
8
8
20
8
20
36
73
S3
73
8
36
8
36
a
32
8
69
8
73
31
80
8
20
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
35
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
44
0
0
-0.5
2 0.7 J 3 0.5
- OJ
- OJ
o.s
0.5
0.5
0.5
— — — 0,5
- 0.5
0.5
- 0.5
2 0.8J 3J 0,5
17 0.8 38 O.S
1
""* """ ~™ Qi5
- 0.5
_0.5
- OJ
- 0.5
- 0.5
__ _ — 2
0.5
_ „ 2
- 0.5
_ _ _ 2
2,300 1J 9.100J 0.9
4.700 0.3 J 34,000 0.5
0.5
- O.S
8
500
250
500
130
500
8
8
8
8
8
8
500
130
500
500
8
500
8
500
8
500
8
500
8
500
500
5
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
_
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
_
0
™
_
_
«
_
_
1
34
0
—
8
0
73
73
17
4
_
_
8
0
0
20
4
67
6
73
0
9
„
31
„
_
_
_
_
„
0
45
0
_
0.4
3,200
0.06
0.2
2 (CAL-modified)
340
NA
MA
0.006
190
12
0.002 (CAL-modified)
370
0.1
61 (ds)
0.2
12
6
NA
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
610
0.3
20
NA
NA
200
1
5
5
6
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
0.2
600
0.5
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
                              73
                                                                           0.5
                                                                                    500
                                                                                                 73
                                                                                                         0.2
                                                                                                                     80

-------
TABLE 8-12: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES
All Groundwater Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9,13,19,22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Page 2 of 8
Anatyte
Number of Average of Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Number of Number of
Samples Number of Percent of Detected Detected Detected Non-detected Non-detected Detections Non-detects Tap Water
Analyzed Detections Detections Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Over PRG Over PRO PRG
MCL
Volatile Organic Compounds (MB/U
BROMOFORM
BROMOWETHANE
CARTON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBEMZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CtS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DHSOPROPYL ETHER
ETHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHER
ETHYLBiNZENI
ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOPROPYLBENZENE
M.P-XYLENE
HETHYL-T-BUTYL ETHER
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
N-BUTYLBENZENE
N-PROPYLBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
0-XYLENE
P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE
SEC-BUTYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TERT-AMYL METHYL ETHER
TERT-BUTANOL
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
20
65
73
8
8
a
8
80
30
8
8
8
26
73
8
8
8
8
8
8
73
8
8
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
34
0
0
4
3
5
0
4
4
4
1
0
4
0
0
3
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
43
0
0
50
38
19
0
50
50
SO
13
0
50
0
0
38
—
0.6
2,900
_
—


19
0.2
_
_
_
__
—
0.3
_
870
—
_
110
4
2
_
20
270
330
0.7
_
14


_
150
_
0.6J
1,200
_
—
_
19
0.2J
-
_
_
_
_
0.3J
_
0.7J
_
_
100
2
0.7J
—
18
260
280
0.7
_
3J
_
—
110J
_
0.6 J
_-A!fiL_

—
_
19
0.2 J
—
_
—
_
_
0.3J
_
__JilOJL_
_
_
120
8J
5J
-
21
280
380
0.7
_
18
_
_
210
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0,5
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
2 '
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
10
500
600
500
130
500
500
500
500
8
130
500
8
17
8
8
400
17
8
0.5
4
1,300
500
0.5
0.5
2
8
8
0.5
500
8
330
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
_
0
_
_
31
_
0
_
0
0
0
_
4
4
0
_
0
0
_
-
13
15
0
73
4
17
67
56
0
65
73
_
0
_
_
3
™
3
_
0
7
21
_
0
0
0
_
0
0
_
-
8
9
1,000
0.2
110
5
0.5 (CAL-modified)
2
61
0.4(notcis)
0.1
MA
390
MA
MA
3
NA
0.9
NA
210(xylenes)
6 (CAL-modified)
4
NA
240
6
210(xytenes)
NA
240
1,600
NA
NA
80
NA
NA
0.5
70
NA
80
NA
6
0.5
SO
NA
NA
NA
NA
300
0.05
NA
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
NA
NA

-------
TABLE 8-12: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES
AH Groundwater Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9, 13, 19, 22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Page 3 of 8
Number of Average of Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Number of Number of
Samples Number of Percent of Detected Detected Detected Non-detected Non-detected Detections Non-detects Tap Water
Analyte Analyzed Detections Detections Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Over PRG Over PRO PRG
MCL
Volatile Organic Compounds (\>QfL)
TERT-BLfTYLBENZENE
TrrRAeHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE (TOTAL)
8
73
80
20
65
73
8
5
73
72
0
1
20
0
0
2
0
0
0
19
0 - -
13 3J 3J
25 5,200 0.3J 34,000
0 - -
0 - -
3 11 2J 20J
Q ^ _ 	
0 - -
Q — «~ —
26 5,100 1 38,000
0,5
0,5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
5
0.5
1
8
500
400
8
130
500
17
50
100
0
1
6
0
0
2
_
0
Q
8
0
67
0
0
65
71
_
0
73
0
240
0.7
720
120
0.4 (not trans)
0.03
NA
410
0 02 (child or adutt)
210
NA
5
150
10
0.5
5
NA
NA
0.5
1,800
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (M9"-)
1 ,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DtCHLOROBEN2HNE
1 ,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
1.3-DICHLOROBENZENE
14-DICHLOROBENZENE
2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLOROPROPANE)
2,4,5-TRICHLORQPHENOL
2.4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLPHENOL
2-NITROANIUNE
2-NITROPHENOL
29
29
3
29
29
24
29
29
29
29
23
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0 - -
o _ _
0 -
o _ _
0 - -
0 - -
o _ _
0 - _ _
0 — — —
3 39 39 39
0 — — —
0 - _ _
0 _ -
0 - -
Q __ ___ _
24 17 1J 60
0 - -
0 - -
n „ __ _
10
5
10
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
25
10
30
15
10
15
15
30
75
30
30
30
75
30
30
30
30
30
30
75
30
0
0
„
0
0
_~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
0
_
0
0
_
0
0
_
e
29
_
0
29
0
0
1
0
0
_
0
_
0
29
_
190
370
NA
6
0.5
MA
3,600
1 (CAL-modified)
110
730
73
73
36
NA
30
NA
1,800
1
NA
5
600
NA
NA
5
NA
50
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

-------
TABLE 8-12: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES
All Groundwater Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9,13, 19, 22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Page 4 of 8
                                 Number of                 Average of   Minimum    Maximum     Minimum    Maximum Number of Number of
                                 Samples  Number of Percent of   Detected    Detected    Detected   Non-detected Non-detected Detections Non-detects  Tap Water
                 Anar/te           Analyzed  Detections Detections Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Over PRO Over PRO    PRO          MCL
Semivoiatlle Organic Compounds (|ig/L)
J,3'-DICHLOROBENZDINE
3-NITROANILINE
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL
4-BROMOPHENYL-PHENYLETHER
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROANILINE
4-CHLOROPHENYL-PHENYLETHER
4-METHYLPHENOL
4-NITROANILINE
4-NITROPHENOL
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANILINE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BEN2O(A)PYRENE
BENZOIB)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO1C ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
BISI2-CHLOROETHYUETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL1PHTHALATE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
CHRYSENE
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
DI-N-OCWLPHTHALATE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
5
29
29
29
29
29
29
5
5
29
29
29
29
24
29
29
29
29
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 10
~, ~ 25
- 10
10
10
- 10
10
- 10
-25
- 10
- 10
- 10
10
- 10
10
_ _ "1
- 10
10
10
-SO
- 10
10
10
_ 4
10
10
10
- 10
10
- 10
10
30
75
75
30
30
30
30
30
75
75
30
30
10
30
30
30
30
30
30
50
10
30
30
32
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
0
—
_
_
_
0
0
_
_
0
_
—
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
__
0
0
0
0
0
_
_
0
0
29
_
_
_
—
0
_
0
™
„
0
_
_
0
29
29
29


29
0
0
™
__2J_
8
0
_J1_
29
„
_
29
1
0.2
MA
NA
NA
NA
150
NA
180
NA
NA
370
NA
NA
1,600
0.09
0,009
0.09
NA
0.06 (CAL-modified)
150,000
11,000
NA
0.01
5
7,300
3
0.6 (CAL-moditied)
NA
NA
0.009
24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

-------
TABLE 8-12: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES
All Groundwater Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites i, 13, 19,22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Page 5 of 8
Number of
Samples Number of
Analyte Analyzed Detections
Average of Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Number of Number of
Percent of Detected Detected Detected Non-detected Non-detected Detections Non-detects Tap Water
Detection* Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Over PRG Over PRG PR6
MCL
Semivolatite Organic Compounds (pg/L)
DIETHYLPHTHALATE
DIMETHYLPHTHALATE
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
INDENO(1.2.3-CD)PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
N-NITROSO-DI-N-PROPYLAMINE
W-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITHOSODIPHENYLAMINE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PYRENE
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
26
5
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


0
0
0
28 94
0
3 100
0
17 30
0
10
10
-10
- 10
10
10
10
10
- 10
10
10
10
- 10
15 380 10
10
100 100 25
10
4J 54 10
- 10
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
10
30
30
30
T5
30
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
0
B
0
1
_
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
29
0
29
29
0
26
_
7
21
29
28
_
0
0
29,000
360,000
1,500
240
0.04
0.9
220
5
0.09
71
0.01
NA
14
6
3
0.6
NA
22,000
180
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
Potynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (|ig/L)
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
AMTHRACENE
SENZOIAJANTHRACENE
BENZOIA1PYRENE
BENZOIBffLUORANTHiNE
BENZO(G,H,I)P£RYLENE
BENZO[K)FLUORANTHENE
CHRYSENE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
7
7
7
7
7
_Z_
7
7
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-5
_ 	 2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
~~ ~ 0.5
25
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
0
_
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
0
_
0
7
7
7
_
7
1
7
370
NA
1,800
0.09
0.009
0.09
NA
0.06 (CAL-modled)
0.6 (CAL-modified)
0.009
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

-------
TABLE 8-12: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES
AH Groundwater Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9, 13, 19, 22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Page 6 of 8
Anatyte
Number of
Samples Number of
Analyzed Detections
Average of Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Number of Number of
Percent of Detected Detected Detected Non-detected Non-detected Detections Non-detects Tap Water
Detections Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Over PRG Over PRG PRO
MCL
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (pg/L)
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
INDENOd ,2,3-CD]PYRENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
7
7
7
7
7
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
14 140
0
0
	 __ 02
_ _ •)
0.2
140 140 5
1
0.2
1
5
1
5
5
t
0
0
0
1
_
0
0
0
7
0
_
0
1,500
240
0.09
e
NA
180
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PCBs/Pesticides (ng/L)
4.4--DDD
4.4--ODE
4,4'-DDT
ALDRIN
ALPHA-BHC
AROCLOR-1016
AROCLOR-1221
AROCLOR-1232
AROCLOR-1242
AROCLOR-1Z48
AROCLOR-1254
AROCLOR-1260
BETA-BHC
CHLORDANE
DELTA-BHC
DIELDRIN
ENDOSULFAN I
ENDOSULFAN II
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
ENDRIN KETONE
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
5
5
3
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
OAS
0.05
0.8
2
2
OM
-0.5
_ 1
1
0.05
0.2
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.1
o.os
0.1
0.05
0.05
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
8
20
20
8
5
10
10
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.5
1
1
0.6
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
™
—
0
_
_
_
1
1
1
3
_
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
—
3
3
0
_
™
0
_
—
_
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.004
NA
1
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
NA
0.2
NA
O.OM
220
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA

-------
TABLE 8-12: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES
All Groundwater Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9, 13, 19, 22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Page 7 of 8
Number of
Samples Number of Percent of
Analyte Analyzed Detections Detections
Average of Minimum
Detected Detected
Concentration Concentration
Maximum Minimum Maximum Number of Number of
Detected Non-detected Non-detected Detections Non-dtt>cts Tap Water
Concentration Concentration Concentration Over PRG Over PRG PRO
MCL
RGBs/Pesticides (pg/L)
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
METHOXYCHLOR
TOXAPHENE
3
5
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
._
_
—
_
™
_
—
_
_
„
-
0.02
0.05
0.1
1
0.2
0.5
1
10
0
0
0
0
3
5
0
3
0.02
0.007
180
0.06
0.01
0.01
30
3
Metals (pg/L)
Filtered
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
TITANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
47
52
52
52
49
51
52
52
5
52
52
16
8
37
50
9
11
52
10
18
19
27
3
52
51
1
11
22
47
6
3
52
	 5 	
5
13
19
31
15
71
96
17
21
100
19
35
37
52
6
100
98
2
21
42
90
12
6
100
10
100
25
37
58,400
2.B
17.6
254
1.9
1.5
69,100
4,120
27.7
51.0
45,400
46.1
52,300
2,490
0.15
5.7
165
12,700
38.3
9.7
161,000
9.6 _
4,340
158
141
3.5J
0.079 J
0.96 J
17.4J
0.75 J
0.18J
7,170
0.23 J
0,34 J
0,62 J
46.0J
0.33 J
4,770
2.1 J
0.15J
0.30J
1.3J
1,200
0.38 J
0.21J
8.300J
4.2 J
2,500
3.4J
4.1 J
305.000
7.1J
86.0
1,900
7.0
9.0
156,000
39.000
160
260
376,000
82.0
132,000
12,100
0.15J
17.4J
1.100
32,600
150
17.0
388,000
20.3
7,700
690
680
8.4
0.70
0.80
9.9
0.10
0.11
0.0
0.20
0.26
0.35
3.2
0.2B
0.0
3.9
0.10
0.55
7.5
1,420
1.0
0.15
0.0
0.056
0.0
0.43
1.4
66.6
60.0
100
14.6
5.0
5.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
21,5
211
50,0
0.0
3.9
0.20
50.0
23,0
2,840
58.0
10,0
0,0
100
0.0
11.9
50.7
5
0
37
0
0
0
_
_
0
0
7
_
_
35
0
0
1
_
0
0
_
5
_
5
0
0
7
15
0
0
0
_
_
	 CL
0
	 0_

0
0
0
0
_
0
0
_
27
_
0
0
36,000
15.0
0.045
2,600
73.0
18,0
NA
MA
730
1,500
11,000
NA
NA
880
11.0
180
730
NA
180
180
NA
2.4
NA
260
11,000
NA
6.0
10.0
1,000
4.0
5.0
NA
50.0
NA
1,300
NA
15.0
NA
NA
2.0
NA
100
NA
50.0
NA
NA
2.0
NA
NA
NA

-------
TABLE 8-12: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES
All Groundwater Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites i, 13, 19,22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California


NOTES:

   Bold denotes values elevated above the PRO
          Not detected
   BMC    Benzene Hexachloride
   ODD    Dichlorodiphenyidichloroethane
   DDE    Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene
   DDT    DIchlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
   J      Estimated value
   MCL    Maximum Contaminant Level
   NA    No criteria available
   PCB    Polychlorinated biphenyl
   PRO   Preliminary Remediation Goal, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region i or CAL-modifled
   pg/L    Micrograms per liter
                                                                    Page 8 of 8

-------
TABLE 8-11: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES
All Soil Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9, 13, 19, 22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Pagel of 7
Analyte
Number of
Samples
Analyzed
Number of
Detections
Percent of
Detections
Average of Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Number of Number of
Detected Detected Detected Non-detected Non-detected Detections Non-detects Residential
Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Over PRG Over PRG PRG
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/kg)
1 , 1 , 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 .1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,1 -CHCHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1.2-DICHLOROET>IENE (TOTAL)
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-BUTANONE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
2-HEXANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
ACETONE
BENZENE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
BROMOMETHANE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
55
55
55
61
55
19
60
55
55
19
19
55
18
55
53
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
15
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
5
_ _ _ 5
- - 5
_ __ _ 5
- - 5
_ _ _ 5
11 7 14 5
_ _ _ 5
- - 5
— — — 5
- - 5
- - 10
- - 10
- - 10
72,000 72,000 72,000 6
690 690 690 10
570 6J 3,300 5
— — — 5
- - 5
- - 10
- - 5
_ _ _ 5
- - 5
- - 10
- - 5
- - 10
— — — 5
5
47,000 3J 570,000 5
— — — 5
- - 5
140,000
140,000
140,000
140,000
140,000
7
140,000
140.000
140,000
7
7
140,000
13
140,000
140,000
170,000
140,000
140,000
140,000
140,000
140,000
140,000
140,000
140.000
140.000
140,000
140.000
140.000
6,600
72,000
140,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
_
_


0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
—
0
0
5
4
3
1
0
6
1
5
0
0
_
_
_


0
4
4
1
3
0
5
0
3
4
5
4
4
0
_
2
1,200,000
410
730
2,800 (CAL-modified)
120,000
370,000
280
43,000 (cis)
340
16,000
3,400
MA
MA
MA
MA
1,600,000
600
820
62,000
3,900
360,000
250
150,000
3,000
940 (CAL-modified)
1,200
780 (not cis)
1,100
8,900
MA
9,100

-------
TABLE 8-11: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES (Continued)
All Soil Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9, 13, 19, 22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Page 2 of 7
Analyte
Number of
Samples
Analyzed
Number of
Detections
Percent of
Detections
Average of Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
Detected Detected Detected Non-detected Non-detected
Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration
Number of Number of
Detections Non-defects Residential
Over PRG Over PRG PR6
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg'kg)
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROiTHENE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE (TOTAL)
55
55
60
55
55
18
42
55
55
0
0
47
0
3
0
0
0
17
0
0
78
0
5
0
0
0
31
"™ -~ — 5
- - 5
20,000 2J 840,000 6
_ _ _ 5
5 2J 11 5
5
10
- - 10
170,000 2J 2,600,000 S
140,000
i«JSi^
160
140,000
140,000
7
14,000
140,000
27
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
4
6
0
0
5
0
1,700,000
1,500
520,000
780 (not trans)
53
390,000
430,000
79 (child or adult)
270,000
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (\iglkg)
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DIPHEMYLHYDRAZI NE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBEhlZENE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLOROPROPANE)
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRieHLOROPHiNOL
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-DlNtTROTOLUENE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-METHYLPHENOL
2-NITROANIUNE
2-NITROPHENOL
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZlDINE
3-NITROANIUNE
79
79
32
79
79
16
79
79
79
79
79
78
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2,000 2.000J 2,000 J 330
- 330
- - 330
- 330
- 330
- - 340
- 820
- 330
- 330
- 330
820
- 330
330
- 330
3,100 3.100J 3,100 J 330
- 330
- 820
- 330
340
- 820
14,000
24,000
720
24.000

24,000
67,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
87,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
14,000
24,000
•7,000
24,000
28.000
67,000
0
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
™
0
™.
0
-
0
0
1
1
2
_
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
_
0
_
53
_
9
-
650,000
370,000
610
16,000
3,400
NA
6,100,000
6,900 (CAL-modified)
180,000
1,200,000
120,000
120,000
81,000
NA
63,000
NA
1,700
NA
1,100
NA

-------
TABLE 8-11: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES (Continued)
All Soil Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9,13,19,22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Page 3 of 7
Anatyte
Number of
Samples
Analyzed
Average of
Number of Percent of Detected
Detections Detections Concentration
Minimum Maximum Minimum
Detected Detected Non-detected
Concentration Concentration Concentration
Maximum Number of Number of
Non-detected Detections Non-detects
Concentration Over PRO Over PRO
Residential
PRG
Semlvolatile Organic Compounds (|ig/kg)
4.6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL
4-BROMOPHENYL-PHENYLETHER
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROANIUNE
4-CHLOROPHENYL-PHENYLETHER
4-METHYLPHENOL
4-NITROANILINE
4-NITROPHENOL
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
BISI2-CHLOROETHYDETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
Di-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
DIBENZOFURAN
DIETHYLPHTHALATE
DIMETHYLPHTHALATE
HEXACHLOROBEN2ENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
ISOPHORONE
N-NITROSO-D)-N-PROPYI_AMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
NITROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
79
73
79
78
79
79
78
79
83
63
79
79
79
79
16
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1 §,700
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13 21
1 6,300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 	
3 200
820
- 330
8,700 J 5,700 J 330
330
330
330
820
820
1,600
-330
330
- 330
330
- 330
18J 24 J 340
6,300 6,300 330
330
330
- 330
- 330
330
330
330
- 330
330
- 330
330
330
820
100J 300 J 330
67,000
24,000
14,000
24,000
24.000
24,000
67,000
67,000
87,000
14,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24.000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
67,000
24,000
_
_.
_
0
_
0
_
_
0
0
_
0
0
0
0
_
_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
_
_
0
_
0
_
_
0
0
_
79
0
0
0
_
_
0
0
0
79
2
0
0
0
79
0
1
9
0
NA
NA
NA
240,000
NA
310,000
NA
NA
100,000,000
18,000,000
NA
210
35,000
12,000,000
24,000
NA
NA
290,000
49,000,000
100,000,000
300
6,200
370,000
35,000
510,000
69
99,000
20,000
3,000
37,000,000

-------
TABLE 8-11: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES (Continued)
All Soil Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9, 13, 19, 22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Page 4 of 7
Analyie
Number of Average of
Samples Number of Percent of Detected
Analyzed Detections Detections Concentration
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Number of Number of
Detected Detected Non-detected Non-detected Detections Non-detects Residential
Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Over PRO Over PRO PRG
Polynuctear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (pa/kg)
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
lENZOJAJPYRENE
BENZOtBlFLUORANTHENE
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
BENZOOCJFLUORANTHENE
CHRYSENE
DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
INOENO<1^>CDJPYRENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
68
74
88
74
79
79
82
81
78
81
88
82
74
76
88
78
83
67
31
38
45
68
72
74
71
67
74
47
74
33
63
69
66
71
76
42
43
61
86
91
90
88
86
91
S3
90
45
83
78
85
86
630
6
4
7
12
19
14
17
12
14
4
28
9
18
820
27
41
0.001 J
0.001J
0.002J
0.002J
O.D03J
0.002J
0.002 J
0.003J
0.003 J
0.002J
0.002J
0.002J
0.002J
Q.003J
0.001 J
0.002 J
0.002J
22,000
49
30
59
160
510
300
440 J
240
220
51
460
81
330
25,000
540 J
820
0.005
0.02
0.01
0.005
O.OQ5
0.005
0.005
0.005
O.OOS
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.005
0.01
0.005
0.005
5
55
55
55
55
6
6
55
6
6
55
55
55
55
5
55
6
_
0
_
0
_
51
39
_
38
28
™
0
0
35
7
_
0
_
0
_
0
—
3
4
_
5
3
_
0
0
11
0
_
0
MA
3,700
MA
22,000
NA
0.06
0.6
NA
0.4 (CAL-modMed)
4 (CAL-modrfied)
NA
2,300
2,700
0.6
56
NA
2,300
PCBs/Pesticides (ug/kg)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
ALDRIN
ALPHA-BHC
ALPHA-CHLORDANE
AROCLOR-1016
AROCLOR-1221
AROCLOR.1232
AROCLOR-1242
AROCLOR-1248
AROCLOR-1254
61
61
61
61
61
31
61
61
61
61
61
61
2
4
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
7
5
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
14
22
_
_
14
_
_
™
_
~
-
2
6
3J
_
_
0.9J
_
_
_
_
—
-
SJ
23 J
53 J
_
»,
27 J
_
—
„
_
_
-
2
2
2
1
1
82
26
26
26
26
26
S3
200
200
200
SB
99
990
990
990
880
990
990
2,000
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
_
0
0
6
6
6
6
8
2,400
1,700
1,700
29
NA
1,600(chlordane)
3,900
220
220
220
220
220

-------
TABLE 8-11; SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES (Continued)
All Soil Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9,13,19,22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Page 5 of 7
Anatyte
Number of
Samples
Analyzod
Number of Percent of
Detections Detections
Average of
Detected
Concentration
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
Maximum Minimum Maximum
Detected Non-detected Non-detected
Concentration Concentration Concentration
Number of Number of
Detections Non-detects Residential
Over PRG Over PRG PRO
PCBs/Pesticides (|ig/kg)
AROCLOR-1260
BETA-BHC
CHLORDANE
DELTA-BHC
DIELDRIN
ENDOSULFAN I
ENDOSULFAN II
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
ENDRIN KETONE
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)
GAMMA-CHLORDANE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
METHOXYCHLOR
TOXAPHENE
61
61
30
61
61
60
62
61
61
30
32
61
31
61
63
61
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
3
0
„
„
—
„
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
12
_
_
16
-
~
_
.»
„
_
_
™
—
_
_
_

1J
_
_
11
_
__
_
—
„
—
_
_
—
_
_
_

22J
_
_
20
_
53
1
11
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
17
1
82
1
1
5
53
^JJfift
99
52
99
200
99
200
200
200
10
200
99
990
99
990
2,000
0
„
0
_
0
0
0
_
0
_
—
™
0
0
0
0
0
8
_
0
_
7
0
0
_
0
_
_
_
0
0
4
0
6
220
NA
1,600
NA
30
370,000
370,000 (endosuHan)
NA
18,000
NA
NA
NA
1 .600 (chlordane)
110
S3
310,000
440
Metals (mg/kg)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
0
40
78
37
35
78
78
56
78
78
40
100
0
51
100
47
45
100
100
72
100
100
51
8,190
—
7.8
66.5
0.57
0.49
2,760
37.5
6.7
15.2
12,100
264
3,120
_
1.4J
0.30
0.20
0.10J
15,3
11.4
3.6
5.6
760
2.1 J
26,800
_
24.0
200
1.8
4.3
15,500
71.8
17.0
86.2
29 JM
9,890
0.0
0,48
0.59
0.0
0.20
0.080
0,0
0.0
5.1
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
10,0
13.0
0.0
1.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
7.9
0.0
0.0
60.0
0
0
40
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
38
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
0
0
76,000
31.0
0.39
5,400
150
37.0
NA
210
900
3,100
23,000
150 (CAL-modffled)

-------
TABLE 8-11: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES (Continued)
All Soil Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9,13,19, 22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
Page 6 of 7
Analyte
Number of
Samples Number of
Analyzed Detections
Percent of
Detections
Average of
Detected
Concentration
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
Maximum Minimum Maximum
Detected Non-detected Non-detected
Concentration Concentration Concentration
Number of Number of
Detections Non-detects
Over PRO OverPRG
Residential
PRG
Metals (mg/kg)
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
TITANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
78
78
16
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
62
78
78
78
78
1
0
76
75
6
2
56
D
62
78
78
100
100
6
0
97
96
8
3
72
0
100
100
100
3,310
172
0.46
,.
36.1
929
1.6
0.95
455
_
439
2S.7
85.3
1,510
72.4
0.46
—
11.6
497
Q.66J
0.70
74.6J
_
183
13.9
14.0
42,400
734
0.46
_
890
2,300
5.7
1.2
1,810
_
704
62.3
3,880
0.0
0.0
0.15
1.0
17.1
530
0.54
0.18
520
0.40
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.19
8.4
18.7
610
17.0
8.4
630
17.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


0
0
0
0
_
0
0
_
0
_
0
0
_
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
_
29
—
0
0
MA
1,800
23.0
390
1,600
MA
390
390
NA
5.2
NA
550
23,000

-------
TABLE 8-11: SITE 22 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES
All Soil Investigations
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 9, 13,19,22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California


NOTES:

    Bold denotes values elevated above the PRG
          Not detected
    BHC   Benzene Hexachloride
    ODD   Dichlorodiphenyldidiloroethane
    DDE   Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene
    DDT   Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
    J      Estimated value
    mg/kg  Milligrams  per kilogram
    NA    No PRG available
    PCB   Polychlorinated biphenyl
    PRG   Preliminary Remediation Goal, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 or CAL-modified
          Mlcrograms per kilogram
                                                                      Page 7 of 7

-------