WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES • 14010 ECC 08/71
The Effects of Various Gas
Atmospheres on the Oxidation
of Coal Mine Pyrites
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • WATER QUALITY OFFICE
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Reports describe
the results and progress in the control and abatement
of pollution in our Nation's waters. They provide a
central source of information on the research, develop-
ment, and demonstration activities in the Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, through inhouse
research and grants and contracts with Federal, State,
and local agencies, research institutions, and industrial
organizations.
A tripilicate abstract card sheet is included in the
report to facilitate information retrieval. Space is
provided on the card for the user's accession number
.and for additional uniterms.
Inquiries pertaining to Water Pollution Control Research
Reports should be directed to the Head, Project Deports
System, Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, Washington, L. C.
2G242.
-------
The Effects of Various Gas Atmospheres
on the Oxidation of Coal Mine Pyrites
by
Cyrus Wm. Rice Division
NUS Corporation
Manor Oak Two
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220
for the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Program 14010 ECC
Contract 14-12-877
August, 1971
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.25
Stock Number 5501-0111
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents neces-
sarily reflect the views and policies of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
A number of experiments up to 150 days in length were
conducted to study the acid production rate of coal mine
pyrites under various gas atmospheres. The gas atmospheres
studied were air, nitrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide.
The lower limits of the oxidation process were studied by
introducing small amounts of oxygen along with the inert
blanketing gas and by studying the effects of deaerated
versus air saturated feedwater. Acid production was found
to be proportional to the available oxygen partial pressure.
The acid parameters monitored continued to change and had not
completely reached a steady state by the termination of the
work. The acid production of nitrogen blanketed pyrite
decreased to less than 1% of that of identical columns
under an air atmosphere. Nitrogen and methane gases were
equally effective in reducing acid production. Both of
gases were slightly more effective than carbon dioxide.
A large amount of detailed experimental data is presented.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No.
14-12-877 between the Environmental Protection Agency,
Water Quality Office and Cyrus Wm. Rice Division - NUS
Corporation
Key Words: Acid mine water, inert gas blanketing of
coal mines, pyrite oxidation, acid production
in coal mines, pyrite, water pollution control,
water quality, and acid mine drainage.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction 5
IV Column Design 9
V Column Operation 11
VI Results 13
VII Glossary 23
VIII Acknowledgements 25
IX References 27
X Appendix 29
-------
FIGURES
No.
I Flow Diagram - Pyrite Column Study -
9 Column System
II Column Assembly - (Typical 9 Columns)
III Top Inlet Block
IV Bottom Outlet Block
V Retaining Plate Assembly
VI Column Support Plate
VII Wastewater & Waste Gas Disposal System
VIII Feed & Cooling Water Supply
IX Deaerator
X Aerated Feedwater System (Column No. 2)
XI Compressed Gas Supply
XII Bill of Material
XIII Wastewater and Waste Gas Disposal
System (Photograph)
XIV Deaerator (Photograph)
XV Column Cooling Arrangement (Photograph)
XVI Apparatus and General Arrangement of
Equipment (Photograph)
XVII Acid Production, Iron Production and
Conductivity Versus Oxygen Content of
Carrier Gas
XVIII Typical Column Performance on Air
XIX Typical Curve for Rate of Falloff of Acid
& Iron for Fresh Packed Columns with Inert
Gas
Page
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No.
Page
XX
XXI
XXII
XXIII
XXIV
XXV
XXVI
XXVII
XXVIII
XXIX
Typical Curve for Rate of Falloff of
Acid & Iron Production When Blanketing
Gas Was Switched From Air to Either
Nitrogen or Methane
Concentration of Acid Parameter Versus
Time For Column I
Concentration of Acid Parameter Versus
Time For Column II
Concentration of Acid Parameter Versus
Time For Column III
Concentration of Acid Parameter Versus
Time For Column IV
Concentration of Acid Parameter Versus
Time For Column V
Concentration of Acid Parameter Versus
Time For Column VI
Concentration of Acid Parameter Versus
Time For Column VII
Concentration of Acid Parameter Versus
Time For Column VIII
Concentration of Acid Parameter Versus
Time For Column IX
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Vlll
-------
TABLES
No. Page
I Column Operating Conditions 60
II Column-Gas and Water Flow Data 61
III Pyrite Analysis 62
IV Influent Gas Analyses, 63
Manufacturers Specifications
V Analysis of the Variance of Effluent 64
Total Iron Concentration Between
Nitrogen Blanketed Pyrite Columns
VI Analysis of the Variance of Effluent 65
Total Iron Concentration Between Air
Blanketed Pyrite Columns (Col.4,6)
VII Analysis of the Variance of Effluent 66
Total Iron Concentration Between Air
Blanketed Pyrite Columns (Col.4,5,6)
VIII Analysis of the Variation of Effluent 67
Total Iron Concentration Between An
Air Blanketed Control Column in Phase
I and Phase II.
IX Analysis of the Variance of Effluent gg
Total Iron Concentration Between Nitrogen
and Methane Blanketed Pyrite Columns in
Phase I
X Analysis of the Variance of Effluent 69
Total Iron Concentration Between Nitrogen
Blanketed Pyrite Columns in Phase I and
a Nitrogen Blanketed Pyrite Column in
Phase II Atmosphere.
IX
-------
TABLES
No. Pa9e
XI Analysis of the Variance of Effluent 71
Total Iron Concentration Between Methane
and Carbon Dioxide Blanketed Columns
XII Analysis of the Variance of Effluent 72
Total Iron Concentration Between Methane
and Nitrogen Blanketed Columns Following
Steady State Operation in an Air
Atmosphere
XIII Operating Log 73
XIV Acid Production, Iron Production and 77
Conductivity as a Function of Oxygen
Content of Carrier Gas
XV Cation-Anion Balance Air Control JQ
Column 6
XVI Column 1, Phas-e I - Daily Sample Data 79
(Major Constituents)
XVII Column 2, Phase I -Daily Sample Data 82
(Major Constituents)
XVIII Column 3, - Daily Sample Data 85
(Major Constituents)
XIX Column 4, Phase I - Daily Sample Data 89
(Major Constituents)
XX Column 5, Phase 1 - Daily Sample Data 91
(Major Constituents)
x
-------
TABLES
No. Page
XXI Column 6, - Daily Sample Data 94
(Major Constituents)
XXII Column 7, Phase I - Daily Sample 93
Data (Normal Water Flow Rate)
XXIII Column 7, Phase I - Daily Sample 1QO
Data (Reduced Water Flow Rate)
XXIV Column 7, Phase I - Daily Sample 10']
Data (Normal Water Flow Rate)
XXV Column 8, Phase I - Daily Sample 102
Data (Major Constituents)
XXVI Column 9, Phase I - Daily Sample 105
Data (Major Constituents)
XXVII Column Feedwater, Daily Analytical Data ]ns
XXVIII Column I, Phase II - Daily Sample Data 112
(Major Constituents)
XXIX Column 2, Phase II - Daily Sample 114
Data (Major Constituents)
XXX Column 4, Phase II - Daily Sample 116
Data (Major Constiuent)
XXXI Column 5, Phase II - Daily Sample 118
Data (Major Constituent)
XXXII Column 7, Phase II - Daily Sample 120
Data (Normal Water Flow Rate)
XXXIII Column 7, Phase II Daily Sample 121
Data (Reduced Water Flow Rate)
XI
-------
TABLES
No.
XXXIV Column 8, Phase II - Daily Sample
Data (Reduced Water Flow Rate)
XXXV Column 9, Phase II - Daily Sample
Data (Reduced Water Flow Rate)
XXVI Column 2, Phase II - Dissolved Oxygen
Data
XXXVII Column I - Weekly Sample Data
(Minor Constituents)
XXXVIII Column 2 - Weekly Sample Data
(Minor Constituents)
XXXIX Column 3 - Weekly Sample Data
(Minor Constituents)
XL Column 4 - Weekly Sample Data
(Minor Constituents)
XLI Column 5 - Weekly Sample Data
(Minor Constituents)
XLII Column 6 - Weekly Sample Data
(Minor Constituents)
XLIII Column 7 - Weekly Sample Data
(Minor Constituents)
XLIV Column 8 - Weekly Sample Data
(Minor Constituents)
XLV Column 9 - Weekly Sample Data
(Minor Constituents)
XLVI Column I, Phase II - Inlet and
Outlet Gas Analyses, (Nitrogen
+ 0.523% Oxygen)
Page
122
124
126
128
129
T-30
131
132
133
134
135
1-36
138
XII
-------
TABLES
No.
XLVII
XLVIII
XL IX
Column 8, Phase II - Inlet and
Outlet Gas Analyses, (Methane
+ 0.11% Oxygen)
Column 9, Phase II - Inlet and
Outlet Gas Analyses, (Carbon
Dioxide + 1.07% Oxygen)
Column 6 - Air Control - Inlet
and Outlet Gas Analyses, (Nitrogen
+ 20.9% Oxygen)
Page
138
139
140
Xlll
-------
Comments From The Project Officer
It is profitable for the reader to compare the results from this
project with those given in project H010 DKN 11/70. This latter
work, performed by Dr. R.A. Baker, at Mellon Institute, describes
some similar, but not identical experiments.
A comparison of column 2, of the Rice study (page 52) and the
Mellon Institute experiments (see page 58 of the former work)
indicates a very close correlation. Both experiments provide
a pyrite, exposed to water which was saturated with air.
The effluent concentrations are listed below:
Rice Mellon
pH 4-5 4.1
iron (mg/l) 0.8-0.9 1.3
acidity (mg/l) 6-8 7
sulfate (mg/l) 6* 7
* varies from 1 to 29 but the average is 6.
The close correlation between two independent studies lends credence
to the conclusions expressed in this report.
xiv
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions were drawn based on the results
obtained during this study:
1. The acid drainage from coal mine pyrite, in terms of
iron, sulfate, acidity and conductivity is proportional to
the oxygen partial pressure in the gas phase in contact with
the pyrite.
2. Nitrogen and methane are superior to carbon dioxide as
blanketing gases in reducing the acid production from coal
associated pyrites.
3. Acid production by pyrite under an inert gas atmosphere
is affected by the dissolved oxygen content of the feedwater.
4. Within the range of gas and water flow rates studied,
the amount of water available did not influence the rate of
oxidation of pyrite
5. Inert gas blanketing of coal mine pyrites is an effec-
tive method of reducing pyrite oxidation.
6. The rate of change of acid production of pyrite as a
function of time appears to be influenced by the history of
the pyrite particle prior to its exposure to an inert
atmosphere. This can be seen by comparing Figures XIX and .
XX with each other.
-------
SECTION II
•RE'COMMENDATI ON S
This study was limited to laboratory investigations on the
effects of various gas atmospheres on coal mine pyrite
oxidation. A practical application of the findings of this
study would be full scale testing in an actual abandoned
deep mine.
In such a study, inert gas blanketing could be accomplished
by the use of a fuel-fired inert gas generator. Preliminary
investigations presently underway at a small drift mine in
southwestern Pennsylvania indicate that the gas require-
ments to pressurize this mine may be economically favorable
for the prevention of acid mine drainage over conventional
treatment methods. The results of this laboratory study
indicate that the discharge from such a test mine under an
inert gas atmosphere would be reduced to essentially ground-
water limits while most conventional treatment methods, on
the other hand, produce a rather low quality effluent.
In view of the possible advantages of such a preventative
program, it is recommended that field testing be carried
out.
Another area in which the information, techniques, and
equipment used in this study could be applied is in the
prediction of the relative polluting potential of new
mining operations. This study has shown that the pounds
of acid produced per unit of time is relatively independent
of the water flow rate (over the range studied).
Samples of pyritic material from existing mines could be
collected along with water samples of the discharge from
the mine. The pyritic samples could then be subjected to a
standardized column test and the quality of the effluent
from the column correlated with the discharge from the mine.
If a correlation between the discharge from the mine, and
the discharge for the column could be developed, this data
could be used to predict the relative pollution potential
of future mines by subjecting core samples from the new
areas to the same standard column test. The data could also
be used in evaluating the pollution potential of highway
cuts through coal seams, and other similar earth moving
operations where pyritic material may be exposed.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
The formation of iron salts and sulfuric acid by the oxida-
tion of pyrites is the major source of pollution from coal
mining in the Eastern and Mid-Atlantic States. Pyrites,
which are minerals containing sulfide, generally occur in
association with various minerals and ores; such as coal,
copper, gold, sulfur, etc. The mining of these minerals
and ores exposes the pyritic materials which subsequently
oxidize in the presence of moisture and air to form sulfuric
acid and metallic sulfates. Where coal is mined these
chemicals then dissolve in ground or surface waters to form
dilute solutions of sulfuric acid and iron sulfate commonly
known as "acid mine drainage." It has been estimated (D that
more than 5,000 miles of streams and 13,000 acres of ponds
in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Alabama have been polluted with coal mine
drainage. The total mine drainage discharge has been esti-
mated © at more than 3.2 million tons of acid per year.
The chemical reaction
2 FeS2 + 7 02 + 2 H20 >2 FeS04 + 2 H2SO4
generally describes the oxidation reaction of pyrite. In
studying the chemical reactions that take place, it is ob-
vious that the exclusion of oxygen at the reactive pyritic
sites should prevent the basic acid production reaction from
occurring. Leitch Q) proposed air sealing of underground
mines as a solution to the problem as early as 1927. This
preventative technique was widely employed by the Works Pro-
gress Administration under the direction of the United
States Public Health Service during the 1930's. It has been
estimated that more than 20,000 air and water seals (D were
constructed by this Administration in order to prevent the
discharge of acid mine drainage. The effectiveness of this
sealing was not systematically evaluated and there is little
factual information on the success of the program, however,
the information available indicates a substantial reduction
in acid production.
-------
Studies conducted by K. S. Shumate (J) and S. A. Bealey (f)
have documented this theory on the reduction or prevention
of acid formation in deep mines by the reduction of oxygen.
Laboratory studies by S. A. Braley(7)W. E. Bell (f) have
further demonstrated that acid production can be controlled
by the exclusion of oxygen, and that acid production will
immediately start if air is admitted and will terminate
shortly after the air introduction ceases.
Based on previous work, it is evident that if the atmosphere
in abandoned deep mines could be maintained in an inert con-
dition; that is, free from oxygen, the formation of acid by
the oxidation process would be stopped and the production
of acid mine drainage effectively eliminated. As has been
pointed out, acid production will be induced as oxygen comes
in contact with the pyritic material; however, the lower
limits of the oxidation process have not been determined.
The overall objective of this project was to determine the
effect of various gas atmospheres on the oxidation of coal
mine pyrite so that guidelines for field application of this
technique can be set.
Specifically, this study was designed to answer the follow-
ing questions:
1. How does the inclusion of small amounts of oxygen,
along with a blanketing gas, effect pyrite oxidation?
2. What is the effect of air saturated versus deaerated
water on pyrite under'the same atmosphere?
3. Will changing from an air to an inert gas atmosphere
alter the production of acid by pyrite?
4. What part does water flow play in pyrite oxidation?
5. Would a carbon dioxide blanket be reactive with pyrite?
6. If pyrite under a carbon dioxide blanket is nonreactive,
will small amounts of oxygen in the gas blanket have any
effect?
-------
7. If carbon dioxide is reactive, would the introduction
of 90% nitrogen in place of carbon dioxide decrease the
reaction.
8. How long does it require for a bed of coal mine pyrite
under dynamic water and gas flow conditions to reach a
steady state of acid production under different gas blankets?
9. What happens to chemical species such as iron, sulfate,
aluminum, magnesium, calcium and manganese?
The experimental approach used in this study involved load-
ing insulated glass columns with pyrite and trickling
deionized water through the columns while controlling the
gaseous atmospheres.
The acid production of the various atmospheres were studied
by daily analysis of the effluent water quality of each
column.
-------
SECTION IV
COLUMN DESIGN
Nine (9) pyrex glass columns, each 6' x 4" I.D., were ver-
tically mounted on a test rack and outfitted with separate
inlet gas and water tubes at the top and a common gas-water
exit tube at the bottom for each column. Initially, all
columns were outfitted with inlet water and outlet gas
tubes at the top and inlet gas and outlet water tubes at
the bottom. The gas and water exited at opposite ends to
produce countercurrent flow. After 24 hours of operation
it was observed that shallow flooding was occurring in the
columns; to eliminate this situation, the inlet gases were
introduced at the top of each column and a common outlet
was provided at the bottom to produce cocurrent downward
flow. Effluent gas and water separation took place in the
first effluent water trap. Upon separation, gases were
passed through a second water trap designed to prevent
atmospheric air from entering the columns as well as to set
the total column back pressure at about 12" of H20. The
wastewater and gas disposal system is illustrated in Figures
VII and XIII. Thick walled rubber tubing, stainless steel
fittings and glass tubing were used for the various connec-
tions between columns and water traps to eliminate corrosion
and the possibility of oxygen diffusion into the columns.
The exterior support rack was arranged so that the dis-
charge line from each column was approximately one foot from
the floor. The overall column arrangement and associated
hardware can be seen in Figures I and XVI.
The water flow rate to each column was controlled through
polyethylene capillary tubing encased in aluminum tubing
and fed from a common manifold. Except for programmed
changes to Column No. 7, water flow rate into the columns
was controlled at approximately 8.5 ml/minute. The common
water source was deionized Pittsburgh tap water, deaerated,
and dechlorinated by passage through the deaerator shown
in Figures IX and XIV. After deaeration, the water was
chilled and then passed through a second deionizer and
-------
distributed to each column (See Figure VIII). The second
deionization was used to "polish" the water to insure its
quality. The only exception to the exclusive use of deaer-
ated feedwater was the use of air saturated water in Column
No. 2, Phase II. A schematic arrangement of the aerated
feedwater system is shown in Figure X. Each column was
wrapped with fifty feet of 3/8" I.D. polyethylene tubing
followed by fiberglass insulation (See Figure XV). _ Water
was circulated from a chiller unit through the tubing in
order to maintain a column temperature of approximately 55 F
(the approximate year-round temperature in deep coal mines
in the Pennsylvania area).
Inlet gas flows were controlled by a combination of regula-
tors, valves and rotameters (See Figure XI). Gas flow rates
to the various columns were adjusted to between 30 and 50
cc/minute. A "T" fitting was placed in both the inlet and
outlet gas lines to permit monitoring of gas quality
throughout the project. A schematic arrangement of a
typical pyrite column assembly is shown in Figure II and
the associated hardware is shown in Figures III, IV, V and
VI.
The pyritic material used in this study was obtained from
the Shawville Power Station of the Pennsylvania Electric
Company, near Clearfield, Pennsylvania. This material was
rejected at the coal crusher, and is believed to have been
originally taken from strip mining operation in the Lower
Kittanning Seam. The material was crushed and sized to a
size of 3/8"-5/8". Each column was charged with 45 pounds
of pyrite. A representative sample of the pyritic material
was examined by X-ray diffraction. Iron pyrites, FeS2,
was identified as the principal crystalline component (the
intensity of the pyrite pattern indicated that probably at
least 75% of the sample was pyrite). Based on this analysis
the total available iron present in each column was approxi-
mately 15.7 pounds. A portion of the sample was heated to
about 500° overnight to convert it to the oxide form. The
weight loss was 38.06%. A more detailed analysis of the
pyrite is shown in Table III.
10
-------
SECTION. V
COLUMN' OPERATION
The study was divided into two phases, each phase lasting
approximately 75 days. Table I summarizes the column-gas-
water flow data used in the project. As indicated, two
columns were operated as control columns; Column No. 3 was
operated in a nitrogen atmosphere and Column No. 6 in an
air atmosphere throughout both phases of the study.
The lower limits of the oxidation process were investigated
by introducing small amounts of oxygen along with the blan-
keting gas. Daily effluent water samples were collected and
analyzed for pH, conductivity, total iron, hot phenolphtalein
acidity and sulfate; influent samples were analyzed daily
for pH and conductivity and spot checks were made of the hot
phenolphthalein acidity and dissolved oxygen (See Tables XVI
through XXXVI). Weekly water samples were analyzed for alum-
inum, manganese, calcium, magnesium and ferric iron (See
Tables XXXVII through XLV. Tables XVI through XLIX are
published separately as Volume II.
Initial startup of all columns was begun by flooding the
columns with deionized water to displace all air. The gas
used in each particular column was then used to displace
the water and normal operations were started. The various
gases and gas mixtures used were supplied by commercial
sources (See Table IV for analyses). The initial gas flow
rates were set at approximately 10 cc/minute and water
flow rates were controlled by calibrated polyethylene
capillary tubing at 8.5 ml/minute. Frequent monitoring of
the influent and effluent gases during the first several
days of operation indicated that there was a noticeable
oxygen consumption in the four columns operating with an
air atmosphere, (discussed further under results). To
insure an adequate oxygen supply for the oxidation reaction,
gas flow rates were increased to 45 cc/minute in all columns.
Generally this flow rate was maintained throughout the study
however, the inavailability of some gases necessitated a
decrease in the gas flow to several columns later in the
study (refer to Table II).
11
-------
As previously mentioned, the quality of the feedwater to all
columns was controlled by a second "polishing" deionization
and the mean temperature of the column atmospheres was regu-
lated at 55°F to simulate actual mine conditions. Feedwater
analyses can be seen in Table XXVII.
The role of water flow rate on pyrite oxidation was studied
by varying the water flow rate in an air blanketed column
in Phase I and the same column in a nitrogen atmosphere
in Phase II (See Table II).
Aerated water was used in Phase II on Column No. 2 in order
to determine the effects of air saturated versus deaerated
water on acid production under the same atmosphere (See
Table XXXVI for Column No. 2 influent and effluent dis-
solved oxygen concentrations).
The total iron leached out in an air atmosphere for the
entire 149 days of operation was 129.5 grams or less than
1.90% of the total available iron. The total iron removed
under a nitrogen atmosphere for the same period of time was
less than 0.085% of the available iron.
A detailed log of the column operation is presented as
Table XIII and graphic representation of the major para-
meters as a function of time is shown in Figures XXI
through XXIX.
12
-------
SECTION VI
'RESULTS
Internal Con's is ten cy
The data obtained throughout this study was evaluated pri-
marily by a statistical analysis of the variance between the
total iron concentrations in the effluent water discharge
from the various columns. The 1% level of significance was
used as the predetermined rejection level in all cases.
Total iron concentrations were chosen as the test parameter
because of the relatively high degree of accuracy of this
analysis (total iron was analyzed according to ASTM methods
with a sensitivity of 0.1 ppm). Sulfate analyses made
during this study were found to be much less reliable than
the other parameters.
The sequence of operation followed in this study resulted in
triplicate operation in Columns 1, 2, and 3 under a nitrogen
atmosphere and in Columns 4, 5 and 6 under an air atmosphere
in Phase I. In order to verify the internal consistency of
the test results, the variance of total iron concentrations
between the related columns was determined. The difference
in the effluent between the three nitrogen columns was
found to be negligible at the 1% level of significance
(refer to Table V), therefore, Column 3 will be used as the
basis for all further discussions regarding nitrogen blank-
eted pyrite since this was a control column and the operat-
ing conditions were not varied between Phase I and Phase II.
The effluent total iron concentration from the air columns
was found to be significantly different. (See Table VII).
Theoretically, the acid production from these three columns
should have been the same since the pyrite bed and operating
conditions were identical (corrections were made for differ-
ences in water flow rate). For the purpose of further dis-
cussions, Column 6 will be considered representative of an
air blanketed pyrite column. Column 6 was chosen because
it was operated as a control column without any departures
from the planned procedure for the duration of the study.
13
-------
Nitrogen Atmosphere
The log of the acid concentration in the effluent from a
column under a nitrogen atmosphere was found to decrease
linearly with the log of time. This effect is shown in
Figure XIX. Conductivity and iron concentration were also
found to fall off in essentially the same manner.
The actual iron sulfate and sulfuric acid generated under^a
nitrogen atmosphere during the course of this study repre
sents an insignificant fraction of the total available. I±
one assumes a discharge of 8.5 ml/min with an average con-
centration of 3.17 ppm of Fe, 149 days of operation repre-
sents only 5.79 grams or 0.013 pounds of iron over that
period of time. This is only about 0.08% of the total avail-
able iron in the pyrite column.
An analysis of the variance between nitrogen blanketed columns
in Phase I and Phase II, based on effluent total iron con-
centrations, reveals that acid production was significantly
lower in the columns that had been initially operated under
an air atmosphere (See Table X). It is interesting to note
that the shape of the curves for rate of fall off of concen-
tration is also different for pyrite which had been operated
under an air atmosphere and for the fresh pyrite with which
the columns were packed. This can be seen by comparing
Figures XIX and XX. It is possible that oxidation during
air stage resulted in a partial blinding of the most active
pyrite sites, thereby reducing the oxidation reaction in the
second phase. Since only a small fraction of the available
iron sulfate and sulfuric acid was actually generated the
possibility of iron depletion under the air atmosphere
can be ruled out. A visual observation of pyrite removed
from the subject columns at the termination of this study
seems to substantiate the theory of reduced active surface
area due to blinding of the pyrite by oxidation products.
Air Atmosphere
The data obtained from daily analysis of the effluent water
discharge from pyrite under an air atmosphere is shown in
Figure XVIII.
14
-------
As previously stated, the air atmosphere control column
(Column 6) will be used as the basis for conclusions of
air blanketed pyrite in this study. A cation-anion balance
was made based on the average results for Column No. 6 for
the period project day 111 through 132 in order to determine
the accuracy of the analytical results (See Table XV).
The calculated error was less than 8% indicating a rela-
tively close agreement.
Acid production under an air atmosphere decreased rapidly
during the first eight to ten days of operation and then
started to climb very slowly for the rest of the operating
period (See Figure XVIII). By a comparison of the analysis
of variance between the periods project day 59 through 73
and project day 120 through 134 (See Table VIII), we can
conclude that there was not a significant difference between
the variances of effluent total iron concentrations for
those periods and that the column had reached a state of
equilibrium. This result does not agree with the data
shown in Figure XVIII. An inspection of the means for the
two periods shows the mean for the later period to be
higher than the mean for the earlier period as shown in
Figure XVIII. However, when the variability of the data
is taken into account, the two means cannot be established
as being different. The quality of the early discharge,
in terms of acid, sulfate, total iron, and conductivity
appears to be substantially worse than that of near steady
state conditions at the end of the run. This is believed
to be due to the leaching of oxidation products which had
accumulated prior to column startup. This trend is evident
in all cases (Phase I and Phase II) where the pyrite had
been exposed to an oxidizing atmosphere prior to startup.
Assuming an average daily discharge of 12.25 liters, 149
days of operation with an average discharge of 71 ppm Fe
represents only 129.5 grams or 0.29 pounds of iron over that
period of time. This is less than 1.9% of the total avail-
able iron in the pyrite column. If one assumes the same
rate of production, that is, 0.29 pounds per 149 days, it
would take approixmately 4 years of operation to leach all
of the available iron from the column.
Methane and Carbon Dioxide Atmospheres
The acid production in the column blanketed with methane
(Column 8) follows the same pattern as the columns blanketed
15
-------
with nitrogen gas (See Figure XIX). This is not the case
with carbon dioxide (Column 9). As can be seen from Figure
XIX the conductivity and iron in the effluent of the carbon
dioxide column is not the same as the nitrogen and methane
columns. However, the acidity of the carbon dioxide was
the same as the others. This results from the fact that
the acidity was measured by the hot phenolphthalein test.
In this test dissolved gases do not contribute to the
result. The conductivity was measured on the cold samples
so the contribution to conductivity of the dissolved carbon
dioxide began to become more significant as the concentration
of non-gaseous dissolved matter decreased. This causes the
conductivity curve for carbon dioxide to drift off to the
right. The iron concentration in the effluent from the
carbon dioxide column was found to fall off at a different
rate from the nitrogen and methane columns. This is pre-
sumably caused by the formation of a small amount of iron
carbonate.
An analysis of variance between the three nitrogen blan-
keted columns (1,2,3) in Phase I and the methane column (8)
in Phase I shows a difference at the 5% level but not at
the 1% level (See Table IX). The same analysis performed
on the nitrogen column (4) and the methane column (5) in
Phase II does not show a difference at either level of
significance. This indicates that the performance of
nitrogen and methane as blanketing gases are very nearly
the same, with methane possibly being very slightly inferior
to nitrogen.
An analysis of the variance between the methane column (3)
in Phase I and the carbon dioxide column (9) in Phase I
shows the carbon dioxide to be definitely inferior to
methane (and by implication also inferior to nitrogen) as
a blanketing gas (See Table XI).
Neither the nitrogen, the methane, nor the carbon dioxide
blanketed columns had reached a steady state of acid pro-
duction by the termination of the study. Iron, acidity,
sulfate and conductivity continued to decrease at a very
slow rate; it is believed that acid production would have
reached undetectable values had the experiment been carried
out for a longer period of time.
16
-------
As has been noted previously, the rate of response of
columns under a nitrogen atmosphere is much slower than
columns under an air atmosphere. The time schedule of
the experiment called for reducing the water flow rate to
the nitrogen column about 25 days after the start of Phase
II. However, the data shows that the iron concentration
was still noticeably falling when the water flow rate was
reduced. Therefore, there is no solid base against which
to compare the effect of the change. For this reason, no
similar conclusions can be drawn for changes in water flow
on a nitrogen column, but the expected result would be the
same.
Gas Mixtures
The lower limits of the oxidation process were studied in
Phase II by introducing small amounts of oxygen along with
the various blanketing gases. The oxygen concentrations of
the primary carrier gases are shown in Table IV. The
findings of this study are graphically illustrated in
Figure XVII. While it has been already acknowledged that,
statistically, acid production varies under different inert
gas atmospheres, the gas mixtures have been compared on an
equal basis in order to determine the effects of oxygen
concentration. From the graphical analysis, it is apparent
that acid production is clearly a function of the oxygen
partial pressure in the carrier gas and that a decrease in
oxygen will decrease the amount of acid formed.
It is difficult to determine how long it would take to
reach a steady state of acid production under the subject
atmospheres. An examination of the daily effluent water
analyses seems to indicate a slight increase in acidic
parameters throughout the study. Analyses may have been
influenced on several occasions by exhaustion of the prim-
ary deionizer resin bed (See Table XIII). One can only
speculate on the effect of this interference. The graphical
representation (Figure XVII) of the data was made on the
assumption that an equilibrium had been reached in these
columns and that there were no significant interferences
from the feedwater deionizer.
The almost perfect agreement of the actual points for
acidity, and the straight line through them is striking.
17
-------
Using the mean value reported for the period between project
day 54 and 73, the total iron concentration in the nitrogen
blanketed column had been reduced to 0.68% of the total
iron concentration in the effluent of an air blanketed
column; this is in comparison with 0.75| with methane and
1.3% with carbon dioxide.
Water Flow Versus Acid Production
The effects of water flow rate of pyrite oxidation were to
be studied by decreasing the water flow to an air and a
nitrogen blanketed column under approximate steady state
conditions by 80% (See Tables XXIII and XXXIII for detailed
data). The effect of this reduction on an air column was
an immediate increase in the acid concentration of the
effluent discharge. While this appears to be a substantial
increase in acid production, a closer analysis shows that
the weight rate of leaching under the two flow conditions
is practically identical. The means and flow rates of air
column No. 7 for the periods under study were:
Project Days Iron Means Flow Rate
36 - 4662.8 ppm 8.5 ml/min.
56 - 66 315.8 ppm 1.8 ml/min.
81-91 72.4 ppm 8.5 ml/min.
The average iron concentration before and after the change
in flow is 67.6 ppm. It can be seen that the weight rate
if iron dischage is virtually uneffected by the change in
water flow:
67.6 x 8.5 = 574.6
315.8 x 1.8 = 568.4
The difference between the above two weight rates is 1%.
The average of the before and after value is used because
the iron curve was still rising slowly at the time of the
test.
Upon returning the water flow rate to normal in an air
atmosphere, the iron concentration immediately returned to
the levels which would have been expected if the change in
flow rate had not occurred.
18
-------
The points for carbon dioxide which do not fall on the
curves occur at a very low value. As previously explained,
this is believed to be caused by the contribution of the
dissolved carbon dioxide in the water. The two points on
the iron curve which are for carbon dioxide atmospheres
are slightly above the curve also. This iron deviation
for carbon dioxide as well as the conductivity deviation
for carbon dioxide are exactly as would be predicted by the
data shown in Figure XIX.
Analyses of the influent and effluent gases (See Tables
XLVI through XLIX) indicate that not all of the available
oxygen present in the influent gases reacted with the
pyrite; this is presumably due to the relatively short
contact time within the columns. In a typical air column
with an air flow of 45 cc/min, approximately 19.35 grams of
oxygen per day would be applied. The dissolved oxygen
content of the effluent water of an air blanketed column
was increased by approximately 7 ppm. This solubility
reduces the available gaseous oxygen to 19.27 g/day. The
average daily discharge water from a column operated under
an air atmosphere contained 0.87 g/day of iron or 0.01566
moles of iron per day. Since one mole of iron reacts with
3.5 moles of oxygen, the oxygen reacting with the pyrite
was approximately 1.74 g/day. This represents a calculated
9.1% reduction of the gaseous oxygen in the effluent gas.
The actual oxygen reduction observed in the air column
was 10.8%. The calculated error is 16% which may be due
to an error in the gas sampling procedure, gas chromato-
graph sensitivity or effluent iron analyses. The calculated
error for the results of the theoretical oxygen consumption
versus actual oxygen consumption is approximately the same
in the Column 1, Phase II (nitrogen +0.5% oxygen) and in
Column 9, Phase II (carbon dioxide + 1.07% oxygen) as in the
air column. The error involved in the column blanketed by
methane + 0.11% oxygen is considerably higher (38%); how-
ever, in considering the extremely low oxygen concentration
being studied, a 38% error may well be the result of gas
sampling error. Analyses of the influent and effluent
gases of the inert gas blanketed columns indicated a trace
amount of oxygen in the effluent gases for the first week
of operation; oxygen was not detected in subsequent analyses
19
-------
Deaerated Versus Air Saturated Water
The results of the investigation of the effects of deaerated
versus air saturated water can be seen by comparing the data
in Tables XVII and XXIX. The dissolved oxygen content of
the influent and effluent water is presented in Table XXXVI.
The test column (Column No. 2) was operated under a nitrogen
atmosphere using deaerated water in Phase I and under the
same atmospheres using air saturated water in Phase II. Acid
production, in terms of sulfate, iron, acidity, and con-
ductivity, increased slightly upon switching to an air
saturated feedwater. While there is an obvious response to
the use of air saturated feedwater, the effluent water
quality does not appear to be significantly changed. Again,
the questionable influence of the deionizer upsets through-
out Phase II make it difficult to accurately assess whether
or not an equilibrium had been established by the termination
of the study. If we were to assume that steady state con-
ditions had been established, the total iron concentration
in the effluent water discharge was increased by 55% by the
use of air saturated water. Although this appears to be a
substantial increase in the total iron content, the discharge
water still contains less than 1 ppm of iron.
The average daily iron discharge from a nitrogen blanketed
column using air saturated feedwater was 0.86 mg/1 of iron.
Based on Figure XVII this iron concentration in the effluent
is equivalent to an oxygen concentration in the gas stream
of 0.092% when using deaerated water.
The incoming nitrogen gas to the column contained 0.02%
oxygen. The incoming water contained 8.5 ppm of dissolved
oxygen. If this dissolved oxygen is converted back to an
equivalent concentration and in the gas stream, it is
equivalent to applying gas with 0.11% C>2 content and
deaerated feedwater as was done with the other columns.
The disagreement between the 0.092% oxygen calculated from
the iron content of the effluent and the 0.11% oxygen
content calculated from the input conditions is 16%. This
is generally the same level of accuracy as has been found
in other measurements. With only this very limited data
as a guide, it must be concluded that only the total
oxygen applied controls the oxidation of the pyrite, and
that it makes no difference whether the oxygen is gaseous
or dissolved in the Water.
20
-------
In summary, the following conclusions were drawn from the
experimental data;
1. The rate of acid production, in terms of sulfate, iron,
acidity, and conductivity, are directly proportional to the
oxygen partial pressure.
2. Nitrogen and methane are slightly more effective than
carbon dioxide as blanketing gases in reducing the acid
production from coal mine pyrites. This is particularly
true when dealing with low concentrations of iron, acidity,
etc.
3. The performance of pyrite in production of acid seems to
be influenced to some extent by its history prior to being
tested for acid production.
4. Water flow rate did not affect the amount of iron
leached from coal mine pyrites within the range of flow
rates studied.
5. There is no difference in acid production between
applying oxygen in the gaseous phase versus applying
oxygen dissolved in the water phase.
21
-------
SECTION VII
GLOSSARY
Analysis of Variance - The degree of dispersion of the
results of two or more groups from their means.
Deaerator - Hot water heater used to remove the dissolved
oxygen from the water supply -
Deionizer - Mixed-bed ion exchange resin used to polish the
water supply.
Dispersion - Extent to which a collection of data spreads
around its central tendency.
Equilibrium - A steady state or balance between opposing
influences.
Level of Significance - The probability, given in percen-
tages, that a statistical statement is invalid.
Mean - Average value.
Pyrite - A common mineral that is found in association with
most coal seams and consists of iron disulfide.
Rejection Level - The tabulated value, corresponding to the
level of significance and sample conditions, which is used
as the basis for acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis.
When the calculated value exceeds the tabulated value, th
variance between the groups being studied is deemed signi-
ficant.
23
-------
SECTION VIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mr. E. Dennis Escher, formerly of the Rice Division - NUS
Corporation, assisted in the design, operation, and data
evaluation of the work which was the basis for this report.
The pyrite used in this project was obtained through the
cooperation of the management of the Shawville Station of
the Pennsylvania Electric Corporation located near Clear-
field, Pennsylvania.
The support of the project by the Water Quality Office of
the Environmental Protection Agency and the help provided
by Mr. Donald J. O1Bryan, Jr., Mr. Eugene Harris, Dr. James
Shackelford, the Grant Project Officer and Ernst P. Hall,
Chief of the Pollution Control Analysis Branch, is acknow-
ledged with sincere thanks.
The primary investigators on this work were Joseph C. Troy
and John D. Robins of the Cyrus Wm. Rice Division - NUS
Corporation.
25
-------
SECTION IX
'REFERENCES
1. Kinney, Edward C., "Extent of Acid Mine Pollution in
the United States Affecting Fish and Wildlife, " U. S.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Circular 191, 1964,
Page 27.
2. U. S. Public Health Service, "Acid Mine Drainage,"
87th Congress House Committee Print No. 183 April 16, 1962.
3. Leitch, R. D., and Yart, W. P., "A Comparison of the
Adicidity of Water from Some Acitve and Abandoned Coal
Mines," Bureau of Mines Publication No. 2895, 1928.
4. "Substantial Progress Reported in Mine Sealing Program,"
Coal Mining, XV (February, 1938), pages 8-10.
5. Shumate, K. S., and Smith, E. E., 2nd Symposium on Coal
Mine Drainage Research, Mellon Institute, May 1968.
6. Braley, S. A., "An Evaluation of Mine Sealing, " Mellon
Institute Special Report on the Coal Industry Advisory
Committee to Orsanco, Research Project No. 370-8, February,
1962.
7. Braley, S. A., "Summary Report of Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Industrial Fellowship Nos. 1 to 7 Inclusive,"
Mellon Institute fellowship No. 326B, 1954, pages 192-93.
8. Bell, W. E., "Report of Studies of the Effect of Gas
Atmospheres on Pyrite Oxidation," C. W. Rice Division -
NUS Corporation report to FWPCA, Contract No. 14-12-404,
April, 1969.
27
-------
SECTION X
APPENDIX
29
-------
DEMORALIZED
WATER SUPPLY -
FLOAT VALVE
STEAM
SAMPLE
LINE
ELEVATION OF WATER SUPPLY TO BE
5'-0" ABOVE COLUMN INLET TO
ACHIEVE GRAVITY FLOW
TO OTHER
COLUMNS
-WARM ^HOT DRAIN
WATER WATER
FROM OTHER
COLUMNS i—*
^
/
-CONDUCTIVITY
SENSOR
UNI-BED
POLISHER
COOLING
WATER
RETURN
COOLING
CONTROL UNIT
COOLING
WATER SUPPLY
COOLING \ COOLING
RESERVOIR—* WATER PUMP-
SECTION OF .032" I. D.CAPILLARY TUBING
ENCASED IN 1/4" O.D. ALUMINUM TUBING
LENGTH AS REQUIRED
4
VENT
BUBBLE
TUBE
: *—SAMPLE
SEPTUM
FLOWMETER
FILTER
— GAS SUPPLY
TO OTHER
COLUMNS
REGULATOR
GAS
COMPRESSED GAS
CYLINDERS
WASTE
WATER TRAP a
SEPARATOR
INSULATION
BLOCK
SAMPLE
FLASK
FLOW DIAGRAM-PYRITE COLUMN STUDY-9 COLUMN SYSTEM
FIGURE I
-------
COOLING WATER
RETURN TO
RESERVOIR
SEE FIGURE
mk.-AK
SECTION OF .032"I.D.
CAPILLARY TUBING
ENCASED IN I/4"O.D.
ALUMINUM TUBING-
LENGTH AS REQUIRED
FEED WATER
SUPPLY-SEE FIGURE "2IE
(FIGURE X COLUMN 2 ONLY
1/4"O.D. ALUMINUM
TUBING
3/8" ID. PLASTIC
TUBING
COOLING WATER
FROM PUMP
SEE FIGURE
mk.-AH
SEE FIGURE 12
mk-AA
SEE FIGURE 3ZL
1/4" O.D. POLYETHYLENE
TUBING
mk-AA
SEE FIGURE
mkr-AB
SEE FIGURE HT
GAS SUPPLY
SEE FIGURE Xt
1/4" 0. D. ALUMINUM
TUBING
mk-AG
SEE FIGURE Y
GAS AND WATER TO WATER
TRAP-SEE FIGURE 3ZH
NOTE: FOR MARK NO.
DESCRIPTION SEE
BILL OF MATERIAL
FIGURE
COLUMN ASSEMBLY-(TYPICAL 9 COLUMNS)
FIGURE H
31
-------
GAS INLET
oo
o>
DRILL 7/16"DIA.X
5/8" DEEP
B
mkrAB
SEE FIGURED:
WATER INLET
PLAN
DR|L|_ |/8" DIA. XI 3/8" DEEP
DRI LL ,7/16" DIA.X S/&" DEEP
TAP 1/4 'N.P.T.— r
1
J
c
c
J
s~
c
1
5 I/'
•^
1 „
,1 1/4",
< 2
roiA.
oma
V^
5/8" %
... -^.
^
SECTION A-A
DRILL 1/8" DIA.X
5/8 DEEP
DRILL 1/8" DIA. X 2 5/8" DEEP
DRILL 7/l6"DIA.X 5/8" DEEP
TAP 1/4" N.P.T.-
dtBffi
SECTION B-B
TOP INLET BLOCK
NOTE: FOR MARK NO.
DESCRIPTION SEE
BILL OF MATERIAL
FIGURE ZH
FIGURE TH
32
-------
SLOPE TO CENTER
OF BLOCK
oo
mk.-AH
SEE FIGURE E
DRILL 1/8" DIA.X
9/16" DEEP
PLAN
DRILL 1/8" DIA. X 2 11/16" DEEP
DRILL 7/16" DIA.X 5/8"DEEP
TAP 1/4" N.P.T.
5 I/4UDIA.
"co "ao "oo
ro
L
t 1
^|
c "f
f
^
^\ 4" DIA.
, \ 33/4"DIA. ^
\
^^
,_ — '
w
-^"iniBm1
-\HIIIH
Xo
/i
SECTION A-A
NOTE: FOR MARK NO.
DESCRIPTION SEE
BILL OF MATERIAL
FIGURE
BOTTOM OUTLET BLOCK
FIGURE IS
33
-------
13 HOLES-1/2"DlA
DRILL
mk-AG
SEE FIGURE H
000 HH
.3/4", 1.3/4". 1,3/4". 1,3/4",
I 15/16"
PLAN
FIBERGLASS SCREEN
mk.-AF
THIS SIDE UP WHEN
INSTALLED IN BOTTOM
OUTLET BLOCK,SEE
FIGURE
SECTION A-A
UJ
i
T
NOTE" FOR MARK NO.
DESCRIPTION SEE
BILL OF MATERIAL
FIGURE 2H
RETAINING PLATE ASSEMBLY
FIGURE Y
34
-------
7 1/2 DIA.
BOLT CIRCLE
mk.-AA
SEE FIGURE
UJ
oo
8 HOLES
DRILL 5/16" DIA.
t
NOTE: FOR MARK NO.
ASCRIPTION SEE
BILL OF MATERIAL
FIGURE 231
COLUMN SUPPORT PLATE
FIGURE TEL
35
-------
&
oir
0=)
cruj
>-UJ
0.05
VENT
DRAIN
I/4"O.D.
POLYETHYLENE TUBE
8 WATER
38X 200mm
TEST TUBE
WATER TRAP a
THERMOMETER
INSULATION
BLOCK
AM
CO
-GAS
GLASS TUBE-22mm O.D.
X 4-0" LONG (STANDARD
WALL) BUBBLE TUBE
-SEPTUM (SAMPLE)
-TAPERED TO FINE POINT
•CLAMP
- 1/4" I.D. RUBBER TUBE
(TYPICAL)
—
•TAPERED TO FINE POINT
/ i— 38 X 200mm TEST TUBE
/ / WATER TRAP
•VENT
WATER
vn
WASTE
1000 ml
SAMPLE
FLASK
FLOOR LINE
WASTE WATER ft WASTE GAS DISPOSAL SYS
FIGURE
36
-------
U)
SAMPLE LINE
1/4"O.D. ALUMINUM
TUBE (TYPICAL)
FEED WATER MANIFOLD
1/2" O.D. ALUMINUM
TUBE
WARM WATER
FROM DEAERATOR
SEE FIGURE IX
TO COLUMNS
SEE FIGURE E
A.
COOLING
CONTROL UNIT
mk.-AQ
3/8" I.D. PLASTIC
TUBE (TYPICAL)
COOLING WATER
RETURN MANIFOLD
1/2"O.D. ALUMINUM
TUBE
CONDUCTIVITY
SENSOR
FROM COOLING COIL ON
COLUMNS SEE FIGURE E
TO COOLING COIL ON
COLUMNS SEE FIGURE H
_A_
3/8"l.D. PLASTIC
TUBE (TYPICAL)
COOLING WATER
SUPPLY MANI.FOLD
COOLING WATER
PUMP mk.-AS
NOTE: FOR MARK NO.
DESCRIPTION SEE
BILL OF MATERIAL
FIGURE 2H
FEED a COOLING WATER SUPPLY
FIGURE VTTT
-------
I 2" 0. D. ALUMINUM
TUBING (TYPICAL)
STEAM VENT
FLOAT VALVE
mk.-AV
6 W.X5 D. XI2 LG.
FLOAT BOX
•DEMINERALIZED
WATER
HEAT EXCHANGER
mk.-AU
WARM DEAERATED WATER
TO COOLING RESERVOIR
SEE FIGURE 10JJ
HEAT EXCHANGER
rnk.-AU
-WARM WATER
-HOT DEAERATED
WATER
CONDENSATE
DRAIN
NOTE: FOR MARK NO.
DESCRIPTION SEE
BILL OF MATERIAL
FIGURE ZTI
DEAERATOR
FIGURE IK
38
-------
GAS SUPPLY
SEE FIGURE
AIR SUPPLY
FROM LAB.
COMPRESSOR
WATER
o
, r i—THERMOMETER
O
AIR-
is 8
or
>-
D.
LJ
uj
CO
V
4-
VENT-
TAPER TO
FINE POINT
L—1000 ml
SAMPLE FLASK
FEED WATER SUPPLY -
SEE FIGURE WE
GLASS TUBE Z2mm O.D
X4-0" LONG (STANDARD
WALL) BUBBLE TUBE
TAPER TO FINE POINT
CLAMP
AERATED FEEDWATER SYSTEM (COLUMN NO 2)
FIGURE z
39
-------
TO TOP INLET BLOCK
ON COLUMNS SEE
FIGURE H
mmi
1/4" O.D, ALUMINUM
TUBING (TYPICAL)
FLOWMETER
mk-AM
(TYPICAL)
1/4"LINE FILTER
mk.-AN
(TYPICAL)
REGULATOR
mk.-AP
(TYPICAL)
NOTE: FOR MARK NO.
DESCRIPTION SEE
BILL OF MATERIAL
FIGURE TTT
COMPRESSED GAS SUPPLY
FIGURE
40
-------
Mark No.
No. Reg'd Description Mat'l
AA 18 Plate 1/8" x 8 1/2" x C. Stl.
10 1/4" Long
AB 91 1/8" Thick x 5 1/4" Acrylic
Diameter Plastic
AC 18 4" Gaskets Kimax No. Rubber
7256
AD 18 4" Flanges Kimax No. Alum.
7151
AE 9 4" Glass Pipe x 6'-0" Glass
Long Kimax
AF 93 7/8" Diameter Fine
Mesh Fiberglass Screen
AG 9 Plate 1/8" x 3 7/8" S. Stl.
Diameter
AH 91 1/8" Thick x 5 1/4" Acrylic
Diameter Plastic
AK 144 1/4" Diameter Bolts Stl.
w/nuts x 2 1/2" Long
AL 9 1" Thick Insulation x
l'-3" x 5'-10" Long
Fiberglass Insulation
AM 9 Flowmeter-Matheson
No. 610 - Mounting Type
No. 620 - Model No.
622PB-1
AN 9 Line Filter - Matheson Brass
No. 410X
AP 4 Single State General
Purpose Regulator -
Matheson Model No.
1L-320
AQ 1 Constant Flow Portable
Cooling Unit Blue M
Electric Co. Model No.
PCC-24A-2
AR 1 Demineralizer Culligan
Unibed Model No.
E68-9223
AS 1 Cooling Water Pump
Eastern Centrifugal
Model No. D-6
Remarks
See Fig VI
See Fig III
See Fig II
See Fig II
See Fig II
See Fig V
See Fig V
See Fig IV
See Fig II
See Fig II
See Fig XI
See Fig XI
See Fig XI
See Fig VIII
See Fig VIII
See Fig VIII
BILL OF MATERIAL
FIGURE XII
41
-------
Mark No.
No. Req'd Description Mat'1 Remarks
AT 1 Water Heater - A.O. See Fig IX
Smith Mark III
Model No. GED-40
40 Gal. Cap. or Equal
AU 2 Heater Exchangers See Fig IX
AV 1 MPT Float Valve 1/2" See Fig IX
Grainger Stock No.
2x524 with 4 1/2"
Diameter Float Stock
No. 2x526
AW 1 Gate Valve - 1/4" See Fig VIII
BILL OF MATERIAL (Continued)
FIGURE XII
42
-------
FIGURE XIII
WASTEWATER AND WASTE GAS DISPOSAL SYSTEM
43
-------
FIGURE XIV
DEAERATOR
44
-------
FIGURE XV
COLUMN COOLING ARRANGEMENT
45
-------
FIGURE XVI
APPARATUS AND GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF EQUIPMENT
-------
ACID PRODUCTION. IRON PRODUCTION
8 CONDUCTIVITY Vs Oa CONTENT OF
CARRIER GAS
1000
II
5 W
Q. O
Q. I
-g "oo
z o
Q >
< o 10
1 g
z z
o o
UJ
o
z
o
o
1.0
O.I
0.01
A
FIGURE YVTT
*>
CARRIER GAS
0 NITROGEN
A METHANE
m CARBON DIOXIDE
1.0
10
100
CONCENTRATION OF OXYGEN IN
CARRIER GAS IN PERCENT
= x
47
-------
IOOO
TYPICAL COLUMN PERFORMANCE ON AIR
FIGURE XVIII
100
z
o
<
a:
UJ
u
z
o
o
10
CONDUCTIVITY IN MICROMHOSj
ACIDITY IN PPM i
IRON IN PPM I
10
LO
10
TIME IN DAYS
100
150
48
-------
TYPICAL CURVE FOR RATE OF FALLOFF OF
ACID 8 IRON PRODUCTION FOR FRESH
PACKED COLUMNS WITH INERT GAS
tlJ
o
z
o
o
1000
100
FIGURE
CONDUCTIVITY IN MICROMHOS
ACIDITY IN PPM
IRON IN PPM
N2,CH4,C02
10
TIME IN DAYS
49
-------
TYPICAL CURVE FOR RATE OF FALLOFF OF ACID
8 IRON PRODUCTION WHEN BLANKETING GAS
WAS SWITCHED FROM AIR TO EITHER
N2 OR CH4
FIGURE
1000
100
o
I-
<
LU
o
z
o
o
CONDUCTIVITY
ACIDITY IN
IRON IN
IN MICROMHOS
PPM
PPM
1.0
100
TIME
50
-------
1000
100
10
<
a:
o
o
O.I
0.01
OPERATING CONDITIONS
DAYS 0 TO 79 - NITROGEN GAS
DAYS 80 TO 150 - NITROGEN + 0.5 %
OXYGEN
WATER FLOW CONSTANT
11 LI III1TI1111 ItlHTI II1
CONDUCTIVITY- IN MICROMHOS
ACIDITY IN mo/I
IRON IN mg/l
PROJECT DAY NUMBER
COLUMN 1-TIME VS CONCENTRATION FOR
CONDUCTIVITY. ACIDITY, IRON & PH
FIGURE 331
-------
KX>0
ui
100
10
i
iu
o
o
0.1
0.01
OPERATING CONDITIONS
DAYS 0 TO 83 - NITROGEN GAS
DAYS 84TO ISO-NITROGEN GAS +
AIR SATURATED
WATER
WATER FLOW CONSTANT
CONDUCTIVITY- IN MICROMHOS
ACIDITY IN mg/l
IRON IN mg/l
m
CONDUCTIVITY I
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 ISO
PROJECT DAY NUMBER
COLUMN 2-TIME VS CONCENTRATION FOR
CONDUCTIVITY, ACIDITY, IRON 81 PH
FIGURE
-------
1000
Ul
U)
100
10
o
0. I
aoi
OPERATING CONDITIONS
DAYS 0 TO ISO-NITROGEN GAS
WATER FLOW CONSTANT
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-mtttiiiiiiuti:
CONDUCTIVITY - IN MICROMHOS
ACIDITY IN ma /I
IRON IN ma/I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 I4O ISO
PROJECT DAY NUMBER
COLUMN 3-TIME VS CONCENTRATION FOR
CONDUCTIVITY, ACIDITY, IRON S pH
FIGURE
-------
Ln
§
CONDUCTIVITY
•
OPERATING CONDITIONS
I DAYS 0 TO 77 — AIR
DAYS 78 TO 150 - NITROGEN GAS
WATER FLOW CONSTANT
CONDUCTIVITY - IN MICROMHOS
ACIDITY IN mg/l
IRON IN mo/1
0.01
PROJECT DAY NUMBER
COLUMN 4 - TIME VS CONCENTRATION FOR
CONDUCTIVITY, ACIDITY, IRON a PH
FIGURE
-------
woo
(J1
to
OPERATING CONDITIONS
DAYS 0 rO 80 - AIR
DAYS 81 TO ISO — METHANE GAS
WATER FLOW CONSTANT
CONDUCTIVITY- IN MICROMHOS
IN mg/l
IN mg/l
O.I
0.01
PROJECT DAY NUMBER
COLUMN 5 - TIME VS CONCENTRATION FOR
CONDUCTIVITY, ACIDITY. IRON a PH
FIGURE
-------
1000
Ul
(Ti
100
10
o
I
8
5
o
O.I
0.01
OPERATING CONDITIONS
DAYS 0 TO 150-AIR
WATER FLOW CONSTANT
CONDUCTIVITY - IN MCROMHOS
ACIDITY IN mg/l
IRON IN mg/l
10 20 30 40 50 60
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 ISO
PROJECT DAY NUMBER
COLUMN 6 - TIME VS CONCENTRATION FOR
CONDUCTIVITY, ACIDITY. IRON & PH
FN3JRE XXVI
-------
1000
U1
<
a:
8
.COLUMN OPERATING
DIFFICULTIES
OPERATING CONDITIONS
DAYS 0 TO 105-AIR
DAYS 106 TO 150-NITROGEN
WATER FLOW REDUCED
DAYS 50 TO 77
DAYS 134 TO 150
HF
CONDUCTIVITY- IN MICROMHOS
ACIDITY IN mj/l
IRON IN ing/ I
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
PROJECT DAY NUMBER
COLUMN 7 - TIME VS CONCENTRATION FOR
CONDUCTIVITY, ACIDITY, IRON a PH
FIGURE
-------
01
CO
10
u
o
I
OPERATING CONDITIONS
IDAYS 0 TO 80-METHANE
DAYS 81 TO ISO-METHANE +
QJSfc OXYGEN
WATER FLOW CONSTANT
CONDUCTIVITY- IN MCROMHOS
ACIDITY IN mg/l
IRON M mo/I
O.I
0.01
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 ISO
PROJECT DKf NUMBER
COLUMN 8 - TIME VS CONCENTRATION FOR
CONDUCTIVITY. ACIDITY, IRON a pH
FIGURE
-------
1000
Cn
100
10
UJ
o
O.I
0.01
«-CONDUCTIVITY
OPERATING CONDITIONS
DAYS 0 TO 83-CARBON DIOXIDE GAS
DAYS 84 TO 150-CARBON DIOXIDE
GAS+I.O %OXYGEN
WATER FLOW CONSTANT
CONDUCTIVITY- IN MICROUHOS
ACIDITY IN mg/l
IRON IN mg/l
PROJECT DAY NUMBER
COLUMN 9 - TIME VS CONCENTRATION FOR
CONDUCTIVITY, ACIDITY, IRON & pH
FIGURE XXIX
-------
TABLE I
COLUMN OPERATING CONDITIONS
PHASE I
Column
1
2
3d)
4
5
Gas
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Air
Air
Air
Air
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
Gas Flow
cc/minute
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45(2)
45
Water Flow
ml/minute
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.7
8.5
8.5(3)
1.8
8.5
8.5
8.5
PHASE II
Column
2
3(D
4
5
6(D
7
8
9
Gas
Nitrogen +0.5%
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Methane
Air
Nitrogen
Gas Flow
cc/minute
45
45
45
45
30
45
45
Methane +0.1% 45
Oxygen
99% Carbon Dioxide 30
1% Oxygen
Water Flow
ml/minute
8.5
8.5C4)
8.5
8.5
8.7
8.5
8.50)
1.8
8.5
8.5
8.5
(1)These columns serve as controls.
(2)Gas Flow was decreased to 30 cc/minute on project day 63,
(3)water flow rate was varied in order to determine the
effects on acid production.
(4)Air saturated water.
60
-------
TABLE II
COLUMN GAS AND WATER FLOW DATA
Water Flow Rate
(ml/minute)
Column Temp.
Dissolved Oxygen
In Feedwater^i)
Column Phase IPhase II Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II Phase IPhase II
Gas Flow Rate
(cc/minute)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45'
45
45
45
45
45
30
45
45
45
30
8.5
8.5
8.5
8,5
8.7
8.5
8.5(2)
8,5
8,5
8.5
8
8
8.5
8.7
8.5
8.5(2)
8,5
8.5
55
55
55
55
55
55
55(3)
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55(3)
55
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
(!)A deaerator drain line problem occurred on project day 136 causing an increase in
the dissolved oxygen concentration of approximately 1,0 ppm. This condition was
corrected on project day 141.
(2)The water flow rate was reduced to 1.8 ml/minute on project day 49, returned to
8.5 ml/minute on project day 77 and reduced again to 1.8 ml/minute on project day
133 in order to study the effects of water flow rate on acid production.
(3)The reduced water flow rate (refer to (2) above) resulted in an effluent water
temperature of approximately 65°F. This value, which is higher than expected, is
believed to be due to the increased detention time in the effluent water receiving
vessel rather than the actual effluent water temperature.
(4)The gas reserve became very low on project day 63 and the gas flow rate was
decreased to 30 cc/minute and remained at this rate through project day 81.
-------
TABLE III
PYRITE ANALYSIS
A sample of ground iron pyrite was examined by X-ray diffrac-
tion and iron pyrites, FeS2/ was identified as the principal
crystalline component.
Five very weak lines could not be assigned. The intensity
of the pyrite pattern indicates that probably at least 75%
of the sample is pyrite.
A portion of the sample was heated to about 500°C overnight
to convert it to the oxide form. The weight loss was 38.06%.
Semi-quantitative spectrochemical analysis of the ignited
sample revealed the following information:
Element Approximate %
Fe 25
Si 1
Al 0.1
Mn 0.05
Ti 0.03
Ca,Cu,Ni,Sn Traces (less than 0.01%)
The following elements were looked for but not found: Ag,
As, B, Ba, Be, Fi, Cd, Co, Cr, Hg, Mg, Mo, Na, Pb, Sb, V,
Zn, and Zr.
62
-------
TABLE IV
INFLUENT GAS ANALYSES
MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS
Constituent Gases
Cylinder Gas N2 C02 CH^_ 02
Nitrogen (1)
Carbon Dioxide (1)
Methane (!)
Air(D
Nitrogen + 0.5%
Oxygen (2)
Methane + 0.1%
Oxygen ( 3 )
Carbon Dioxide +
1% Oxygen*4)
99.5
Trace
-
78.9
99.477
—
-
0.002
99.8
-
0.03
—
-
98.9300
-
-
99.5
-
-
99.8875
-
0.02
0.05
0.05
20.9
.5230
.1125
1.0700
Manufacturers minimum guaranteed purity
(2)Certified Analytical Report Lab. No. 56-10579-70
(Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.)
(3)Certified Analytical Report Lab. No. 56-10628-70
(Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.)
(4)certified Analytical Report Lab. No. 56-11982-70
(Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.)
NOTE: The percentage not accounted for in the above
analyses is composed of varying amounts of argon,
ethane, propane and higher hydrocarbons and water
63
-------
TABLE V
ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE OF EFFLUENT TOTAL IRON
CONCENTRATION BETWEEN NITROGEN BLANKETED PYRITE COLUMNS
Time Period - Project Day 54 through 73(2)
Means - Column 1 (Phase I - Nitrogen) .......... 0.445 ppm of Fe
Column 2 (Phase I - Nitrogen) .......... 0.490 ppm of Fe
Column 3 (Phase I - Nitrogen) .......... 0.475 ppm of Fe
Computation:
CTl
Between
Within
Total
Sum of Squares
0.02
0.27
0.29
df
2
57
59
Mean Square
.01
.005
F Ratio
F = ' =20
.005 Q5 (2,57) = 3.16
F-01 (2,57) = 5.0
Conclusion: There is not a significant difference between the effluent total
iron concentrations from pyrite under nitrogen atmospheres at
either the 5% or 1% level of significance.
Note: (1)Total iron was chosen as the test parameter because of the high degree of
accuracy of the total iron analysis.
(2)The time period used is believed to represent a near steady state of acid
production.
-------
TABLE VI
ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE OF EFFLUENT TOTAL IRON
CONCENTRATION BETWEEN AIR BLANKETED PYRITE COLUMNS
(Columns 4 & 6)
Time Period - Project Day 54 through 73(2)
Means - Column 4 (Phase I - Air) 77.3 ppm of Fe
Column 6 (Phase I - Air) 69.5 ppm of Fe
Computation:
Ul
Between
Within
Total
Sums of Squares
608.4
37267.2
37875.6
df
1
38
39
Mean Square
608.40
980.72
F Ratio
F _ 608.40 _ 600
* 980.72
F>Q5 (1,38) = 4.10
F.oi (1,38) = 7.35
Conclusion: There is not a significant difference between the effluent total
iron concentrations from pyrite under air atmospheres in Columbus
4 and 6 at either the 5% or 1% level of significance.
Note: (1)Total iron was chosen as the test parameter because of the high degree of
accuracy of the total iron analysis.
(2)The time period used is believed to represent a near steady state of acid
production.
-------
TABLE VII
ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE OF EFFLUENT TOTAL IRON
CONCENTRATION BETWEEN AIR BLANKETED PYRITE COLUMNS(1)
(Columns 4, 5, & 6)
Time Period - Project Day 54 through 73(2)
Means - Column 4 (Phase I - Air) 77.3 ppm of Fe
Column 5 (Phase I - Air) 65.2 ppm of Fe
Column 6 (Phase I - Air) 69.5 ppm of Fe
Computation:(3)
Between
Within
Total
Sum of Squares
.082
.17
.252
df
2
56
58
Mean Square
.041
.003
F Ratio
F _ .041 _ ,3 —
F .003 1J>6/
F
-------
TABLE VIII
ANALYSIS OF THE VARIATION OF EFFLUENT TOTAL IRON CONCENTRATION
EFTWEEN AN AIR BLANKETED CONTROL COLUMN IN PHASE I AND PHASE II(D
Time Period - Project day 59 through 73 in Phase I and 120 through 134 in Phase II
Means - Phase I - Air 70.63 ppm of Fe
Phase II - Air 82.77 ppm of Fe
Computation:
Between
Within
Total
Sum of Squares
1096.87
13924.48
15021.35
df
1
28
29
Mean of Square
1096.87
497.30
F Ratio
v 1096.87 0 01
* 497.30
F>Q5 (1,28) = 4.20
F>01 (1,28) = 7.66
Conclusion:
Note:
There is not a significant difference between the effluent total
iron concentration in Phase I and Phase II of an air blanketed column
at either the 5% or 1% level of significance indicating that a
steady state of acid production has been reached.
Total iron was chosen as the test parameter because of the high degree of
accuracy of the total iron analysis.
(2)The time period used is believed to represent a near steady state of acid
production.
-------
TABLE IX
ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE OF EFFLUENT TOTAL IRON CONCENTRATION
BETWEEN NITROGEN AND METHANE BLANKETED PYRITE COLUMNS IN PHASE I (1)
Time Period - Project day 54 through 73 (2)
Means - Column 1 (Nitrogen) ............... 0.445 ppm of Fe
Column 2 (Nitrogen) ............... 0.490 ppm of Fe
Column 3 (Nitrogen) ............... 0.475 ppm of Fe
Column 8 (Methane) ............... 0.520 ppm of Fe
Computation:
CO
Between
Within
Total
Sum of Squares
0.06
0.36
0.42
df
3
76
79
Mean Square
0.02
0.005
F Ratio
F _ 0.02 = 4 0
0.005 *U
F<05 (3,76) = 2.74
F.01 (3,76) = 4.09
Conclusion: There is a significant difference in the total iron concentration
between nitrogen and methane atmospheres at the 5% but not at the 1%
level of significance.
Note: (1)Total iron was chosen as the test parameter because of the high degree of
accuracy of the total iron analysis.
(2)The time period used is believed to represent a near steady state of acid
production.
-------
TABLE X
ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE OF EFFLUENT TOTAL IRON CONCENTRATION
BETWEEN NITROGEN BLANKETED PYRITE COLUMNS IN PHASE I AND A
NITROGEN BLANKETED PYRITE COLUMN IN PHASE II WHICH HAD
ORIGINALLY BEEN UNDER AN AIR ATMOSPHERE (!) (2)
Time Period - Project Day 43 through 57 for Columns 1, 2, and 3 and Project
Day 120 through 134 for Column 4<3)
Means - Column 1 (Phase I - Nitrogen) 0.600 ppm of Fe
Column 2 (Phase I - Nitrogen) 0.679 ppm of Fe
Column 3 (Phase I - Nitrogen) 0.686 ppm of Fe
Column 4 (Phase II - Nitrogen) 0.552 ppm of Fe
Computation:
Between
Within
Total
Sum of Squares
.18
.62
.80
df
3
53
56
Mean Square
.06
.012
F Ratio
F _ 0. 6 -so
0.12 b*U
F<05 (3,53) - 2.79
F>01 (3,53) = 4.20
Conclusion:
There is a significant difference between the effluent total
iron concentration from pyrite under a nitrogen atmosphere in
Phase I and pyrite under a nitrogen atmosphere in Phase II at
both the 5% and 1% level of significance.
-------
TABLE X (Continued)
Note: (1)Total iron was chosen as the test parameter because of the high degree
of accuracy of the total iron analysis.
(2)Column 4 was under an air atmosphere in Phase I and a nitrogen atmosphere
in Phase II.
'3)Project days 120 through 134 were chosen for Phase II since this represents
a near steady state of acid production and a period when most daily
samples were analyzed. Project days 43 through 57 were chosen for Phase
I in order to match the Phase day of operation.
-------
TABLE XI
ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE OF EFFLUENT TOTAL IRON CONCENTRATION
BETWEEN METHANE AND CARBON DIOXIDE BLANKETED COLUMNS(D
Time Period - Project days 54 through 73(2)
Means - Column 8 (Phase I - Methane) 0.52 ppm of Fe
Column 9 (Phase I - Carbon Dioxide) 0.795 ppm of Fe
Computation:
Between
Within
Total
Sum of Squares
.759
.681
1.440
df
1
38
39
Mean Square
.759
.018
F Ratio
F = -759 = 45.17
.018
F.05 (1,38) = 4.10
F.oi (1,38) = 7.35
Conclusion: There is a significant difference between the variance of effluent
total iron concentrations from pyrite under a methane and a carbon
dioxide atmosphere at both the 5% and 1% level of significance.
Note: (DTotal iron was chosen as the test parameter because of the high degree of
accuracy of the total iron analysis.
(2)The time period used is believed to represent a near steady state of acid
production.
-------
TABLE XII
ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE OF EFFLUENT TOTAL IRON CONCENTRATION
BETWEEN METHANE AND NITROGEN BLANKETED COLUMNS FOLLOWING
STEADY STATE OPERATION IN AN AIR ATMOSPHERE
Time Period - Project days 120 through 134(2)
Means - Column 4 (Phase II - Nitrogen)
Column 5 (Phase II - Methane)
.545 ppm of Fe
.533 ppm of Fe
Computation:
to
Between
Within
Total
Sum of Squares
.02
.65
.67
df
1
27
28
Mean Square
.02
.046
F Ratio
F - • 02 _ *-,<-
.046 ' b
F>Q5 (1,27) = 4.21
F.oi (1,27) = 7.68
Conclusion:
Note:
There is no significant difference between the variance of effluent
total iron concentration from pyrite under a nitrogen and methane
atmosphere following a steady state of acid production in an air
atmosphere.
(1)Total iron was chosen as the test parameter because of the high degree of
accuracy of the total iron analysis.
(2)Project days 120 through 134 were chosen in Phase II since this represents
a near steady state of acid production and a period when most daily samples
were analyzed.
-------
TABLE XIII
OPERATING LOG
Project
Day Date Remarks
7/14 Project start-up
All columns were alternately flooding
to a depth of 6-8" and siphoning
1 7/15 Water trap to column No. 9 was broken
Gas flow was increased from 8 to 13 cc/min
2 7/16 Gas flow in air columns (4, 5, 6 and 7)
was increased to 86 cc/min
5 7/19 Gas flows were readjusted to 15 cc/min
in the inert columns (1, 2, 3, 8 and 9)
and 80 cc/min in the air columns (4, 5,
6 and 7)
11 7/25 Column No. 7 was modified to eliminate
the shallow flooding noted earlier (refer
to Figure II)
15 7/29 Gas flow to all columns readjusted to
45 cc/min
16 7/30 Column Nos. 6, 7 and 9 were modified
as column No. 7
Insulation on the effluent water trap
was removed from these columns for
observation purposes
17 7/31 All remaining columns were modified as
column No. 7
All effluent water trap insulation was
removed for observation purposes
18 8/1 Column No. 5 continued to flood to a
depth of 8-10"
73
-------
TABLE XIII (Continued)
Project
Day Date Remarks
20 8/3 The tygon tubing connecting the gas
separator and column discharge line was
found to be leaking in column Nos. 1, 2,
5 and 7 (replacement of this tubing
eliminated the flooding condition pre-
viously noted in column No. 5)
28 8/11 The primary water trap to column No. 5
was broken
48 8/31 Primary deionizer exhausted
49 9/1 Water flow to column No. 7 was decreased
by 80%
57 9/9 Water sample for column No. 5 was ac-
cidently discarded
63 9/15 Gas flow in column No. 8 was decreased
to 30 cc/min for remainder of Phase I
70 9/22 Coal particles in column No. 8 water
separator caused effluent water to dis-
charge through the effluent gas line
rather than the sample receiving flask
77 9/29 Operational problems with the chiller
control unit
Water flow to column No. 7 increased to
original flow rate
Column No. 4 changed to Phase II
atmosphere
80 10/2 Column Nos. 1, 5 and 8 changed to Phase
II atmospheres
81 10/3 Gas flow to column No. 5 decreased to
30 cc/min
83 10/5 Column No. 9 changed to Phase II
atmosphere
74
-------
TABLE XIII (Continued)
Project
Day
Date
Remarks
84
92
94
105
106
108
111
113
10/30
11/2
11/4
125
128
133
136
10/6 Column No. 2 changed to Phase II
conditions (aerated feedwater)
10/14 Primary deionizer exhausted
10/16 Project pH meter inoperative - pH's were
recorded from any one of three alternate
meters during the period October 16-26,
1970
10/27 Column No. 7 changed from air to
nitrogen atmosphere
10/28 Gas supply to column No. 9 became low
resulting in decreased flow rates during
the period October 28 - November 2, 1970
Primary deionizer exhausted
Column No. 9 gas cylinder replaced
Operational problems with the chiller
control unit
11/16 Project conductivity meter inoperative -
conductivities were recorded on an alter-
nate meter during the period November 16
to 23, 1970
11/19 Primary deionizer exhausted
11/24 Water flow to column No. 7 decreased
by 80%
11/27 Deaerator problems resulting in abnor-
mally high dissolved oxygen concentration
in the column feedwater
75
-------
TABLE XIII (Continued)
Project
Day Date Remarks
137 11/28 Project pH meter inoperative - pH's were
recorded from any one of three alternate
meters during the period November 28 -
December 10, 1970
141 12/2 Column No. 8 atmosphere changed from
CH4 + 0.11% 02 to N2 + 0.52% O2
Deaerator drain line problem corrected -
dissolved oxygen concentration returned
to 0 ppm
149 12/10 Deionized water supply interrupted
Phase II terminated
76
-------
TABLE XIV
ACID PRODUCTION, IRON PRODUCTION AND
CONDUCTIVITY AS A FUNCTION OF OXYGEN
CONTENT OF CARRIER GAS
Time Period
Column
6
9
1
8
5
9
3
of Data
Project Days
111-139
111-138
111-138
111-138
111-138
51-83
111-138
Carrier
Gas
N2
(Air)
C02
N2
CH4
CH4
C02
N2
Oxygen
20.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Content
9
07
523
11
05
05
02
Iron
82
8.2
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1
72
61
8
23
Acidity
ppm
230
29
15.
6.
4.
3.
2.
8
8
7
9
3
Conductivity
micromhos
691
127
67
24
11
28
8.
4
-------
TABLE XV
CATION-ANION BALANCE AIR CONTROL COLUMN NO. 6
Time Period - Project Days 111 through 132(1)
CATIONS
Calcium (Ca)
Magnesium (Mg)
Iron Total (Fe)
Manganese (Mn)
Aluminum (Al)
Hydrogen (H)
Factor To ppm
ppm Ion CaC03 Equivalent as CaCO3
0.698 2.500 1.745
0.085 4.100 0.349
82.140 1.790 147.031
0.035 1.820 0.064
0.168 3.704 0.622
1.008 50.000 50.400
Total Cations
200.211
ANIONS
Sulfate (804)
Factor To ppm
ppm Ion CaC03 Equivalent as CaCO3
208.180 1.040 216.507
Total Anions
216.507
(l)This time period was chosen since it represents a near
steady state of acid production and a period when most
daily samples were analyzed.
78
-------
TABLE XVI
COLUMN NO. 1
PHASE I - NITROGEN GAS
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Operation
Project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Phase I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
EH
3.30
3.50
3.80
3.90
3.95
4.00
4.10
4.05
4.15
4.20
4.10
4.15
4.20
4.25
4.10
4.20
4.25
4.20
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.40
4.00
4.30
4.35
4.45
4.45
4.55
4.55
4.50
4.55
4.55
4.55
4.55
4.50
4.65
4.55
4.55
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
480
285
220
160
140
120
95
75
70
63
56
47
45
47
45
43
38
42
35
31
27
35
28
26
23
22
22
23
20
20
19
18
18
18
17
16
16
15
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
272
150
96
68
60
44
36
28
26
22
20
18
16
16
14
14
11
13
11
9
9
10
10
9
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
5
6
Iron
as Fe
114.0
55.7
41.0
27.2
21.5
17.0
14.6
10.3
8.2
7.4
6.7
5.7
4.9
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.9
4.0
3.3
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
Sulfate
as S04
235.0
113.0
71.8
56.5
23.0
40.0
35.7
25.8
16.6
15.8
14.3
13.9
1.4
1.4
12.2
11.7
11.9
2.5
3.7
6,9
7.1
3.3
3.7
10.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
13.2
5.3
13.2
8.8
1.0
5.7
9.3
9.1
1.0
-------
TABLE XVI (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 1
PHASE I - NITROGEN GAS
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Operation
Project
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Phase I
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
£H
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.65
4.65
4.70
4.60
4.60
4.27
4.60
4.70
4.75
4.70
4.60
4.70
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.75
4.80
4.60
4.75
5.00
4.85
5.05
4.85
4. 80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.95
4.90
4.95
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
15
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
21
14
13
14
13
13
12
12
11
11
12
12
12
11
11
11
16
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
11
10
Hot
Acid
as
CaCO-3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
5
5
4
5
4
4
5
5
4
5
Iron
as Fe
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0. 6
0.6
0. 6
0. 6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0. 5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0. 4
0. 4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
Sulfate
as 804
7.6
6. 0
1.0
6. 6
1.0
2. 6
1.2
1. 0
11.3
6. 5
7 0
/ • \J
1 0
j_ • \j
1 0
-L • \J
8 9
U • If
1 0
-J_ • \J
i n
j_ • \j
8 n
o • u
O C
£* • D
t: n
D • U
1.0
5.0
1.0
i n
JL • U
1 7
J- . J
1.0
1.5
6.1
1.0
4.1
1.0
1.0
4.2
1.0
1.0
13.2
11.0
-------
TABLE XVI (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 1
PHASE I - NITROGEN GAS
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project Phase I
77
78
79
80
77
78
79
80
pH
5.00
5.10
4.80
4.85
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
9
9
12
11
Hot
Acid
as
CaC03
4
4
4
Iron
as Fe
0.3
0.3
0.3
Sulfate
as 304
4.4
1.0
2.1
81
-------
TABLE XVII
COLUMN NO. 2
PHASE I - NITROGEN GAS
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Operation
Project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Phase I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
£S
3.30
3.50
3.80
3.85
3.90
3.95
4.10
4.00
4.10
4.00
4.10
4.15
4.10
4.05
4.00
4.10
4.25
4.10
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.20
4.35
4.30
4.35
4.45
4.45
4.45
4.45
4.45
4.60
4.55
4.45
4.40
4.40
4.55
4.50
4.50
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
630
310
235
190
155
140
105
80
75
70
63
57
52
57
53
47
43
48
43
37
35
35
28
28
25
25
24
27
24
22
21
20
20
20
19
19
17
17
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
284
180
108
76
64
52
52
34
28
24
22
22
20
18
18
17
13
16
13
15
10
12
10
11
7
10
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
7
Iron
as Fe
125.0
66.3
45.5
30.7
24.4
19.2
17.2
12.3
10.4
9.3
7.6
7.4
5.8
5.5
5.3
4.7
4.2
4.9
3.5
3.1
3.0
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
Sulfate
as S04
189-0
96.3
91.6
63.2
47.2
43.8
41.6
32.7
13.4
17.4
15.0
18.4
2.9
8. 6
7.5
15.2
15.1
9 . 2
9 . 9
7. 3
9 . 5
6. 9
3.1
10 . 0
10 . 0
5.1
1.0
1. 0
3 . 4
4. 1
2. 7
7 . 8
11.2
5.4
9.5
8.3
7.0
1.0
o
32
-------
TABLE XVII (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 2
PHASE I - NITROGEN GAS
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Operation
Project
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Phase I
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
ES
4.50
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.65
4.70
4.70
4.60
4.50
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.60
4.65
4.70
4.80
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.65
4.75
4.70
4.80
4.70
4.75
5.00
4.90
4.90
4.85
4.80
4.75
4.75
4.80
5.00
4.90
5.00
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
16
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
14
14
15
15
15
13
13
12
13
12
16
13
12
11
12
14
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
12
12
10
11
10
Hot
Acid
as
CaC03
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
5
5
4
5
4
4
5
Iron
as Fe
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Sulfate
as S04
2.1
8. 4
1.0
3. 3
3. 6
2.7
1.0
6. 5
5.9
5. 8
2.4
1.0
1.0
5.4
8.1
6.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.0
4.5
1.1
1.0
3.9
3.3
9.1
1.0
3.4
7.1
1.0
2.5
83
-------
TABLE XVII (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 2
PHASE I - NITROGEN GAS
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Phase I
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
pH
5.00
5.10
4.75
4.75
4.90
4.95
5.00
4.90
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
10
10
12
11
10
10
10
10
Hot
Acid
as Iron
CaCO^ as Fe
4 0.3
4 0.3
4 0.3
Sulfate
as S04
4.4
1.0
1.0
-------
TABLE XVIII
COLUMN NO. 3
NITROGEN GAS
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day of Operation
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
pH
3.40
3.50
3.80
3.90
3.95
4.05
4.15
4.00
4.15
4.10
4.10
4.20
4.15
4.20
4.20
4.15
4.20
4.25
4.20
4.25
4.30
4.30
4.50
4.35
4.40
4.40
4.50
4.45
4.50
4.55
4.50
4.50
4.60
4.45
4.45
4.55
4.55
4.55
Sp.
Cond.
nunhos
500
300
230
190
155
125
100
80
75
66
58
52
48
52
48
43
37
42
40
35
32
31
27
26
24
24
23
25
22
21
20
19
18
19
18
18
17
16
Hot
Acid
as
CaC03
260
170
108
80
64
52
48
32
30
24
22
20
18
18
16
14
11
14
12
14
10
10
10
10
8
8
6
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Iron
as Fe
114.0
66.3
45.5
30.1
25.1
19,2
17.2
11.8
10.2
9.0
7.6
6.8
5.6
5.3
5.0
4.3
3.7
4.6
3.8
3.2
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
1,1
Sulfate
as 804
190.0
126.0
81.3
56.3
25.0
42.3
39.5
30.6
16.6
3.4
17.4
6.7
11.4
1.4
59.6
13.0
11.8
10.7
10.3
7.4
11.7
5.2
1.4
10.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.6
7.8
10.7
6.1
12,7
1.0
1.0
9.1
6.5
1.0
85
-------
TABLE XVIII (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 3
NITROGEN GAS
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day of Operation
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
pH
4.55
4.55
4.55
4.60
4.60
4.70
4.65
4.55
4.50
4.20
4.60
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.60
4.70
4.70
4.75
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.65
4.70
4.70
4.75
4.45
4.75
5.05
4.90
4.85
4.80
4.80
4.75
4.80
4.80
4.95
4.85
4,95
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
16
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
15
22
14
14
15
14
14
13
13
12
12
12
15
13
12
11
12
19
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
11
10
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
3
4
4
4
5
4
6
6
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
7
4
4
4
3
8
7
4
5
5
4
4
Iron
as Fe
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0. 8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 .5
0.5
0 . 5
0.5
0.5
0 .5
0.5
0.5
0. 5
0 . 4
0 . 4
0.4
0. 4
0,5
0. 4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Sulfate
as 304
1.0
8.1
1.0
1.3
1.0
3.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.5
2.7
1.0
2.8
1.0
1.0
3.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.2
1.0
1.0
2.6
1.0
11.2
1.0
7.9
6.2
1.0
2.6
pc
Ov..'
-------
TABLE XVIII (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 3
NITROGEN GAS
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day of Operation
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
p_H
5.00
5.05
4.75
4.65
4.90
4.95
5.00
4.95
4.95
4.85
4.80
4.70
4.95
4.80
4.65
4.90
4.75
4.80
5.00
5.05
4.90
4.80
4.95
5.10
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.90
4.95
4.90
4.90
4.80
4.70
4.85
4.80
4.95
4.90
4.95
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
10
10
12
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
9
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
9
8
8
9
9
15
12
10
13
9
7
7
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
5
6
3
3
6
3
4
3
3
6
3
4
4
3
4
2
5
8
Iron
as Fe
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Sulfate
as 804
1.0
1.8
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
12.9
5.3
1.0
4.4
14.5
1.0
11.7
7.1
1.1
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
14.3
8.8
1.0
1.0
5.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
8.5
87
-------
TABLE XVIII (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 3
NITROGEN GAS
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day of Operation
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
pH
4.90
4.95
4.95
4.95
5.00
5.00
4.95
4.95
4.95
5.00
4.85
4.95
5.00
4.85
4.95
4.95
4.95
4.85
4.75
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.80
4.50
5.00
4.95
Sp.
Cond.
nunhos
10
7
9
7
9
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
10
9
8
8
8
8
10
9
8
13
9
8
9
Hot
Acid
as
CaC03
2
8
2
5
1
2
3
4
2
4
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
5
4
5
2
3
2
Iron
as Fe
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
Sulfate
as SO4
7.1
1.4
1.0
1.0
3.1
9.2
17.6
5.4
14.0
6.7
8.3
1.0
1.7
1.0
1.4
7.0
11.5
8.6
4.7
4.4
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
5.3
4.8
4,95
5.00
5.00
4.70
11
9
9
12
4
3
4
5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
8.9
6.9
6.2
L4.9
-------
TABLE XIX
COLUMN NO. 4
PHASE I - AIR
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Phase I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
PH
3
3
3,
3,
,00
,20
30
20
3.25
3.25
3.35
3,
3,
3,
3.
10
20
05
05
3.10
3
3,
05
00
2.95
2.95
05
90
2.85
2.85
2.95
90
90
2.95
2.95
90
00
90
3
2,
2,
2,
2.90
2,
2,
.90
.90
2.95
2.95
2.85
2.95
2.90
2.85
2.85
Sp.
Cond.
nunhos
900
550
500
520
490
485
425
420
420
490
505
500
550
580
555
540
515
740
710
680
640
659
610
636
620
640
620
645
650
650
640
655
650
670
635
645
630
615
Hot
Acid
as
CaCO-,
420
264
200
176
176
168
160
136
148
140
152
152
152
160
156
158
152
211
209
201
185
189
201
193
193
189
193
185
193
228
188
200
212
200
196
188
200
184
Iron
as Fe
175.0
108.0
79.2
67.4
61.4
56.2
56.9
50.4
49.4
49.6
48.3
50.4
51.1
52.4
53.7
51.0
50.5
69.1
65.3
67.6
65.1
63.7
61.6
64.1
62.2
61.6
63.1
65.5
66.2
64.0
66.0
64.0
66.0
67.0
67.0
68.0
66.0
65.0
Sulfate
as S04
247.0
236.0
192.0
183.0
151.0
155.0
142.0
139.0
122.0
95.1
82.5
114.0
80 Q
*~* \J • _/
127.0
128.0
152.0
136.0
197.0
185.0
174.0
179.0
174.0
175.0
180.0
163.0
176.0
176.0
180.0
172.0
179.0
172.0
181.0
180.0
190.0
179.0
188.0
184.0
172.0
-------
TABLE XIX (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 4
PHASE I - AIR
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Operation
Project
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Phase I
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
pH
2.90
2.90
2.95
2.95
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.95
2.95
2.90
2.90
2.80
2.85
2.90
2.90
2.85
2.90
2.90
2.70
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.90
2.85
2.90
3.25
3.05
3.05
3.00
3.00
2.95
2.90
2.95
3.05
3.00
3.05
3.05
Sp.
Cond.
mirth os
630
620
630
605
630
630
640
645
650
690
655
710
750
760
710
680
660
655
660
670
1065
825
755
750
760
820
830
850
840
850
845
780
810
875
820
705
745
705
650
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
196
192
196
192
204
200
200
196
192
217
228
228
220
208
196
192
200
200
264
250
220
220
208
208
212
204
208
204
212
220
224
232
224
212
204
192
Iron
as Fe
67.0
66.0
67.0
66.0
70.0
67.0
67.0
66.0
67.5
75.0
76.0
79.0
78.0
86.0
87.0
86.0
71.0
72.0
112.0
76.0
76.0
73.0
68.0
71.5
72.0
72.0
69.0
72.0
71.0
76.0
77.0
82.0
76.0
74.0
69.0
66.0
Sulf ate
as 804
183.0
175.0
183.0
180.0
186.0
183.0
179.0
182.0
173.0
195.0
217.0
217.0
209.0
196.0
191.0
188.0
187.0
198.0
245.0
225.0
210.0
203.0
203.0
204.0
202.0
202.0
199.0
200.0
196.0
209.0
212.0
233.0
213.0
190.0
192.0
182.0
-------
TABLE XX
COLUMN NO. 5
PHASE I - AIR
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
1
9
£^
0
o
A
*±
C
o
c
D
7
/
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
«-i M
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Phase I pH
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
2.95
3.10
3.20
3.25
3.25
3.30
3.30
3.15
3.10
3.05
3.10
3.00
3.00
2.95
3.00
2.95
3.00
3.00
3.15
3.30
3.05
2.90
3.05
3.05
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.95
2.90
2.95
3.00
2.95
2.85
2.90
2.90
2.85
2.85
Sp.
Cond.
iranhos
840
560
480
510
495
475
440
420
415
480
495
500
540
575
560
520
510
500
350
255
505
570
550
570
570
575
570
600
605
605
600
600
600
620
590
600
580
570
Hot
Acid
as
CaCO^
440
264
204
180
172
172
156
148
144
140
148
152
152
156
152
148
140
129
98
70
156
168
160
168
176
176
164
181
176
172
136
172
172
172
172
180
176
168
Iron
as Fe
181.0
109.0
81.9
68.4
63.5
58.5
56.9
49.3
47.8
48.4
51.5
51.6
49.5
51.6
52.6
49.8
49.5
42.0
29.1
21.2
53.5
54.5
56.1
56.7
56.7
56.4
56.3
58.2
57.0
58.0
56.0
58.0
57.0
59.0
58.0
59.0
60.0
58.0
Sulfate
as 304
381.0
254. 0
188.0
147.0
111.0
146.0
140. 0
128. 0
94.4
88.9
107.0
110.0
62.4
106.0
130.0
142.0
136.0
121.0
83. 6
58. 9
143.0
151.0
151.0
153. 0
147.0
152. 0
150.0
159.0
155.0
154. 0
148.0
157.0
158.0
167.0
154.0
162. 0
163.0
153.0
-------
TABLE XX (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 5
PHASE I - AIR
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Operation
Project
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Phase I
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
pH
2.95
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
3.00
2.90
2.95
2.90
2.85
2.95
3.00
2.90
2.85
2.85
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.95
3.30
3.05
3.10
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.05
2.95
3.05
Sp.
Cond.
ramhos
590
585
580
580
600
600
595
610
610
655
610
680
740
710
670
650
620
615
610
600
650
650
670
675
680
770
720
770
750
745
745
710
735
740
735
640
685
640
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
172
172
176
180
188
184
180
176
177
192
200
208
204
192
180
184
176
200
200
200
190
182
186
184
184
180
184
192
188
200
212
204
184
174
Iron
as Fe
60.0
59.0
61.0
61.0
62.0
61.0
62.0
61.0
60.7
72.0
72.0
69.0
70.0
65.0
63.0
62.0
64.0
66.0
64.0
65.0
65.0
62.0
63.9
62.0
63.0
63.0
63.0
63.0
71.0
70.0
74.0
70.0
66.0
62.0
Sulfate
as SO4
157.0
156.0
160.0
171.0
168.0
163.0
162.0
151.0
158.0
181.0
192.0
204.0
192. 0
180.0
174.0
175.0
179.0
173.0
183.0
182.0
180.0
180 . 0
180.0
182.0
181.0
174.0
180.0
181. 0
183 . 0
189.0
203 . 0
192.0
170. 0
171.0
-------
TABLE XX (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 5
PHASE I - AIR
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project Phase I
77 77
78 78
79 79
80 80
El
3.10
3.15
3.00
3.05
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
600
575
760
770
Hot
Acid
as
CaC03
172
174
200
Iron
as Fe
60.0
57.0
67.0
Sulfate
as 504
159.0
161.0
183.0
93
-------
TABLE XXI
COLUMN NO. 6
AIR
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day of Operation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
ES
2.95
3.10
3.25
3.25
3.20
3.20
3.30
3.10
3.10
3.05
3.15
3.00
2.95
2.90
2.95
3.00
3.05
2.85
2.90
3.00
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.95
2,85
2.95
3.00
3.00
2.95
2,95
2,90
3.00
2.90
2,90
2.90
2,90
2,85
2.85
Sp.
Cond,
itunhos
962
595
525
525
490
505
440
445
435
515
500
515
570
595
590
555
455
675
650
625
600
630
570
590
595
600
590
620
630
630
610
615
610
640
600
620
605
595
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
490
276
208
188
176
168
180
144
156
170
152
160
156
156
164
160
128
194
189
180
180
185
180
176
189
176
185
177
177
204
176
180
180
180
176
184
180
176
Iron
as Fe
196.0
117.0
79.9
72.4
64.0
60.6
58.3
50.5
50.7
51.2
52.8
54.2
53.2
51.6
56.1
54.1
43.3
64.1
64.4
61.6
58.9
61.0
61.0
59.8
61.6
59.8
60,6
60,6
60,7
60.0
61,0
58,0
61,0
63.0
62.0
64.0
64.0
65.0
Sulfate
as SO4
362.0
261.0
230.0
108.0
166.0
156.0
148.0
133.0
128.0
137,0
109.0
130.0
99.8
106.0
157.0
158.0
112.0
175.0
170.0
168.0
164.0
168.0
160.0
164.0
162.0
159.0
163.0
165.0
164.0
161.0
162.0
168,0
165.0
175.0
171.0
176,0
177,0
169.0
?4
-------
TABLE XXI (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 6
AIR
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day of Operation
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
BE
2,90
2.90
2.90
2.90
3.00
2,90
3.00
2.90
2.90
2.85
2.95
3.00
2.90
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2,90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
3.20
3.00
3,10
3,00
3.00
3.00
2,95
3,00
3,10
2.95
3.10
Sp,
Cond.
mmhos
605
600
600
600
615
620
610
630
630
680
640
705
760
730
685
655
635
615
610
615
650
695
690
690
700
740
770
796
770
775
760
725
745
780
745
650
695
650
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOS
180
184
184
193
188
200
192
188
184
204
208
224
208
196
192
190
188
186
188
200
200
200
188
194
188
1S6
184
200
190
200
212
216
204
204
194
Iron
as Fe
61.0
64.0
64.0
66,0
65,0
66.0
64,0
65.0
64.3
74,0
75.0
78.0
75.0
69.0
64.0
63.0
67.0
67,0
71,0
71.0
69.0
70.0
67.0
70.5
67.0
69.0
68,0
70.0
69-0
72,0
73.0
80,0
73,0
73,0
68,0
Sulfate
as SO^
166.0
170.0
175.0
177.0
167.0
178.0
174.0
170,0
172,0
192.0
198.0
209.0
200.0
190.0
188.0
184.0
177.0
179.0
180.0
194.0
193.0
189.0
189.0
195.0
194.0
191.0
188.0
197.0
190.0
186.0
193.0
204.0
199.0
180,0
184.0
-------
TABLE XXI (Continued)
COLUMN NO, 6
AIR
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day of Operation
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
PH
3.05
3.15
3.00
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.00
3.00
2.95
3.05
3.00
3.00
2.95
2.95
3.00
3.30
3.20
3.00
3.00
3.15
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.15
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.10
2.95
2.95
2.90
3.00
3.05
3.00
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
615
600
760
755
685
670
630
670
650
640
670
700
680
700
740
735
750
640
630
690
735
680
730
675
725
710
710
705
705
615
600
680
850
675
730
675
570
570
Hot
Acid
as
CaC03
188
184
212
216
200
202
198
208
204
204
196
200
194
210
220
232
221
200
192
204
208
208
220
208
228
216
220
216
216
216
220
216
296
276
264
236
228
228
Iron
as Fe
64.0
66.0
74.0
77.0
73.0
75.0
74.0
75.0
77,0
74.0
74.0
74.0
60.0
61.0
72.0
74.0
78.0
71.0
67,0
79.0
63.0
69.0
72.0
71.0
81.0
59.0
67.0
59.0
71,0
55.0
72.0
68.0
99,0
92.0
84.0
88.0
83.0
79.0
Sulfate
as 304
174.0
156.0
184.0
175.0
177.0
181.0
187.0
193.0
216.0
165.0
188.0
187.0
187.0
195.0
213.0
229.0
204.0
182.0
173.0
188.0
205.0
211.0
219.0
222.0
202.0
216.0
220.0
235.0
233.0
216.0
232.0
184.0
247,0
243,0
261.0
118.0
204.0
200.0
-------
TABLE XXI (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 6
AIR
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of Operation
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
PH
3.00
3.00
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.00
3.05
3.05
3.05
2.85
3,00
3.00
3.00
2.95
2.95
2.95
2.90
2.90
3.00
3.00
2.95
3.05
2.90
2.95
2.95
Sp.
Cond,
rrtrahos
605
635
645
630
660
660
670
710
705
700
705
705
675
675
780
740
745
740
705
705
685
790
770
710
750
720
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOa
224
208
168
204 '
229
232
250
225
232
232
224
236
216
220
244
228
236
296
236
236
216
244
252
248
248
244
Iron
as Fe
79.
77.
79.
79.
81,
84.
86.
88.
83.
82.
81,
81.
83.
71.
88.
84.
84.
83.
85.
78.
74.
87.
88.
89.
88.
80.
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
3
Sulfate
as
208
201
199
203
222
225
226
223
226
178
189
191
205
189
232
220
228
232
214
186
183
200
203
198
207
186
S04
.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
3.00
2.95
2.95
2.75
760
760
750
840
244
254
246
264
80.0
90,0
89.0
94.0
214.0
239.0
220.0
240,0
-------
TABLE XXII
COLUMN NO. 7
PHASE I - AIR
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Operation
Project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Phase I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
PS
3.10
3.10
3.25
3.50
3.25
3.25
3.30
3.10
3.10
3.05
3.10
3.05
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.75
2.80
2.80
2.85
2.85
2.90
2.90
2.85
3.00
3.00
2.90
2.90
3.00
2.85
2.90
2.90
2.95
2.90
2.85
2.90
2.90
2.85
2.85
Sp.
Cond .
mmhos
750
565
510
480
465
480
430
425
415
495
515
505
740
715
820
805
755
750
695
670
600
660
655
605
605
615
605
650
645
650
630
635
635
660
630
645
615
605
Hot
Acid
as
CaCO'3
370
252
216
180
168
160
152
140
140
170
152
192
204
208
240
228
212
217
203
197
176
189
197
185
185
185
185
189
181
180
176
184
184
192
180
188
200
184
Iron
as Fe
145.0
109.0
81.2
68.4
62.0
58.2
56.2
50.1
49.3
49.3
53.2
51.7
69.0
54.2
79.3
79.3
73.4
70.8
69.1
64.4
58.0
63.1
68.4
61.6
61.0
59.8
61.9
61.9
60.7
63.0
61.0
59.0
64.0
59.0
62.0
64.0
63.0
Sulfate
as S04
302.0
235.0
191.0
165.0
156.0
152.0
136.0
132.0
96.3
90.1
122.0
114.0
61. 5
138.0
230. 0
220.0
198 . 0
192.0
190.0
171.0
166. 0
172.0
184.0
169. 0
167.0
164. 0
163 . 0
166.0
162. 0
167. 0
162. 0
166 . 0
169 0
_l_ \J _/ • \J
173.0
170. 0
174. 0
172. 0
164.0
93
-------
TABLE XXII (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 7
PHASE I - AIR
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Operation
Project
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Phase I
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
pH
2.85
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
630
615
615
600
620
610
610
625
625
650
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
188
184
180
184
188
188
192
192
188
180
Iron
as Fe
63.0
62.0
63.0
63.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
62.0
63.0
61.2
Sulfate
as S04
175.0
166.0
169.0
171.0
172.0
170.0
168.0
166.0
168.0
164.0
no
-------
TABLE XXIII
COLUMN NO. 7
PHASE I - AIR
(REDUCED WATER FLOW RATE)
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Operation
Project
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Phase I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
pH
2.95
2.40
2.25
2.25
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.25
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.35
2.30
2.35
2.75
2.40
2.55
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.45
2.40
2.45
2.55
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
630
2900
2950
3100
3050
3000
2925
2950
2900
2900
3000
2975
2950
2975
3050
3250
3200
3100
3050
3250
3000
3050
3000
3000
2950
2950
2950
2450
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
668
880
884
910
864
844
818
836
796
932
910
920
910
888
928
884
908
932
928
964
936
984
1044
996
984
928
860
Iron
as Fe
284.0
351.0
333.0
306.0
293.0
293.0
297.0
303.0
295.0
333.0
314.0
315.0
315.0
340.0
325.0
321.0
316.0
334.0
325.0
356.0
367.0
367.0
359.0
331.0
326.0
301.0
Sulfate
as S04
675.0
802.0
886.0
873.0
835.0
798.0
818.0
773.0
822.0
839.0
846.0
848.0
851.0
901.0
875.0
864.0
879.0
877.0
859.0
960.0
964.0
985.0
968.0
913.0
871.0
828.0
100
-------
TABLE XXIV
COLUMN NO. 7
PHASE I - AIR
(NORMAL WATER FLOW RATE)
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Operation
Project
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Phase I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
p_H
3.10
3.00
3.05
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.00
3.05
2.95
3.05
3.00
3.00
2.95
2.95
3.00
3.30
3.20
3.00
3.05
3.15
3.20
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.05
3.05
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
655
810
830
705
700
690
700
680
700
700
710
700
730
735
775
780
650
635
700
740
710
750
700
750
740
740
730
720
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
184
214
212
180
208
204
198
212
208
204
208
196
208
224
244
229
200
180
222
212
220
224
240
220
220
216
212
228
Iron
as Fe
61.0
72.0
75.0
72.0
76.0
71.0
73.0
75.0
74.0
74.0
74.0
70.0
72.0
65.0
78.0
80.0
72.0
67.0
81.0
65.0
74.0
76.0
67.0
82.0
58.0
60.0
58.0
76.0
Sulfate
as S04
164.0
183.0
143.0
176.0
186.0
186.0
208.0
186.0
187.0
190.0
192.0
188.0
199.0
211.0
220.0
215.0
179.0
187.0
204.0
205.0
190.0
153.0
245.0
197.0
219.0
228.0
222.0
224.0
101
-------
TABLE XXV
COLUMN NO. 8
PHASE I - METHANE
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Operation
Project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Phase I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
pH
3.20
3.50
3.70
3.90
3.95
4.00
4.10
4.00
4.15
4.10
4.10
4.15
4.15
4.20
4.10
4.15
4.10
4.10
4.20
4.25
4.25
4.20
4.40
4.40
4.35
4.45
4.40
4.45
4.50
4.55
4.50
4.55
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.55
4.50
4.55
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
600
325
235
190
150
125
105
85
60
65
59
53
53
50
47
43
48
46
40
35
31
34
25
23
24
23
23
23
21
20
19
20
17
18
20
17
18
16
Hot
Acid
as
CaC03
310
170
104
76
60
48
52
56
26
24
22
20
18
16
18
14
15
14
13
11
9
11
9
8
9
4
8
8
6
5
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
Iron
as Fe
135.0
73.8
45.8
30.2
24.8
19.0
17.0
12.4
10.1
9.0
8.0
6.8
5.8
5.4
5.5
4.4
5.2
4.2
3.8
3.2
3.0
2.6
2. 4
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
Sulfate
as S04
217.0
155.0
97.3
63.5
52.3
47.1
40.2
18.1
15.1
1.4
18. 1
12. 2
1.4
16 . 2
15. 9
14 . 7
7 . 8
3. 4
9. 5
6 f,
\J » \J
9 7
—' * /
5.6
1 4
_!_ « ^
10 . 0
1 0
-L. m- \J
1 0
-1- * \J
1 0
-!-•«_/
1 0
J- • \J
13. 4
10 6
-L \J • \J
9 C
-f • \J
3 4
*J • *±
6 fi
\J • \J
1 5
-U • ^)
1 8
-L •
-------
TABLE XXV (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 8
PHASE I - METHANE
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Hot
Sp. Acid
Operation
Project
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Phase I
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
pH
4.55
4.55
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.70
4.65
4.55
4.50
4.25
4.55
4.60
4.60
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.45
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.50
4.40
4.45
4.50
4.65
4.50
4.85
4.85
4.35
4.45
4.40
4.60
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.45
4.50
Cond.
mmhos
16
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
15
22
15
15
15
16
16
15
14
13
14
12
12
14
13
15
16
16
15
12
11
16
15
16
13
15
16
13
14
13
as
CaC03
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
5
4
4
3
4
4
5
5
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
4
4
5
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
5
Iron
as Fe
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
0. 8
0.8
0. 8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
Sulfate
as S04
1 0
j- • \j
1 6
JL • \J
8. 7
1 0
-U * \J
1. 0
1. 0
4.3
1.0
1.0
4.6
4. 5
1.0
5.3
1.0
2.5
7.2
6.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
11.7
3.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.5
6.6
6.5
1.0
103
-------
TABLE XXV(Continued)
COLUMN NO. 8
PHASE I - METHANE
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
77
78
79
80
Phase I
77
78
79
80
PH
4.50
4.70
4.90
4.70
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
13
11
12
11
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOq
4
4
4
Iron
as Fe
0.3
0.3
0.3
Sulfate
as S04
1.0
1.0
1.0
-------
TABLE XXVI
COLUMN NO. 9
PHASE I - CARBON DIOXIDE
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
Of
Operation
Project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Phase I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
El
3.10
3.40
3.65
3.75
3.85
3.85
3.90
3.80
3.75
3.70
3.75
3.75
3.70
3.80
4.15
3.75
3.75
3.80
3.75
3.75
3.80
3.75
3.75
3.80
3.75
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.85
3.90
3.90
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.80
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
650
330
240
200
150
145
120
100
87
97
85
83
85
83
79
72
73
74
69
65
62
64
57
59
57
55
55
56
56
56
54
53
53
53
52
52
51
50
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
380
156
92
68
72
44
44
64
24
24
22
20
20
16
14
15
14
18
23
11
10
12
10
19
116
7
8
24
17
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
6
Iron
as Fe
141.0
67.8
40.3
26.7
23.1
17-0
15.5
10.6
9.2
8.6
7.1
6.4
5.5
5.0
5.0
4.6
5.2
4.7
4.1
3.6
3.3
3.0
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.2
1.8
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.5
Sulfate
as SO4
300.0
128.0
67.5
63.9
35.3
38.7
37.7
15.9
9.1
1.4
13. 0
8.4
1.4
4.9
14.0
15.6
9.2
4.5
8.8
10.4
11.1
7.8
1.4
10.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
9.3
12.2
12.0
8.1
4.6
15.9
1.0
4.8
14.4
105
-------
TABLE XXVI (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 9
PHASE I - CARBON DIOXIDE
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Phase I
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
pH
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
.80
.80
.85
.90
.80
.80
.90
.80
.85
.80
.90
.90
.95
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.85
.90
.90
.90
.85
.90
.50
.90
.00
.00
.05
.00
.00
.00
.95
.95
.00
.00
.00
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
50
48
48
46
47
47
47
47
48
53
48
49
50
48
46
46
46
45
45
43
47
49
50
50
50
53
52
51
52
53
48
47
46
48
46
48
46
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
5
5
6
3
3
4
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
Iron
as Fe
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
.4
.3
.3
.3
.1
.1
.0
.0
.0
.9
.0
.0
.0
.8
.9
.8
.7
.8
.2
.3
.9
.9
.8
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.6
.7
.7
.7
.7
.1
.8
Sulfate
as S04
4.
1.
1.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
4.
3.
2.
4.
5.
1.
6.
9.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
7.
3.
5.
1.
1.
4.
6.
1.
7.
1
0
0
2
9
0
0
0
0
5
5
2
5
4
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
5
7
0
9
IOC
-------
TABLE XXVI (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 9
PHASE I - CARBON DIOXIDE
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project Phase I
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
4.00
4.05
3
4
4
4
90
00
00
00
4.04
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
45
4-
47
53
47
47
47
Hot
Acid
as
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
Iron
as Fe
0.8
0,
0,
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
Sulfate
as S04
1.2
2.1
0
0
1,
1,
1.0
1.0
1.0
in?
-------
TABLE XXVII
COLUMN FEEDWATER
DAILY ANALYTICAL DATA
Specific
Day of Conductance Hot Acid Dissolved
Operation pH mmhos as CaCO^ Oxygen
1
2
3
4
5
6 6.35 1.7 0
7 6.70 1.3 6 0
8 6.50 1.1 0
9 6.40 1.2 0
10
11
12
13
14 6.40 1.2 0
15 5.75 1.3 0
16
17
18
19
20 5.95 0.8 0
21 5.65 1.0 0
22
23
24
25
26
27 6.20 0.9 0
28 0
29 6.20 1.1 0
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
10t
5.80
6.40
6.10
6.50
6.20
6.35
6.70
6.50
6.40
6.20
6.45
6.75
6.40
6.40
5.75
5.75
5.80
5.75
6.05
5.95
5.65
6.10
5. 85
5.65
6.00
6.15
6.20
6.20
6.00
6.25
6.20
6.15
5.65
5.90
5.60
5.50
5.90
1.0
0.9
1.4
0.9
1.2
1.7
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.9
1.4
1.3
1.7
1.2
1.3
0.8
1.3
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.7
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.2
1.2
-------
TABLE XXVII (Continued)
COLUMN FEEDWATER
DAILY ANALYTICAL DATA
Specific
Day of Conductance Hot Acid Dissolved
Operation pH mmhos as CaC03 Oxygen
39 6.00 1.1
40 6.30 1.0
41 6.50 1.1 0
42 6.35 1.2
43 6.35 1.1
44 5.70 0.9 0
45 6.00 1.0
46 5.65 1.3
47 5.60 2.5
48 5.00 2.0
49 5.50 1.2
50 6.30 1.0
51
52
53
54
55
56 5.75 1.5
57 5.80 0.9 0
58 5.80 1.0
59 0
60 5.90 0.9
61 5.55 1-4
62 5.60 1.0 0
63 6.00 1-2 0
64 5.70 1-2
65 6.00 1-2
66 5.90 0.9
67 6.25 1-5
68 5.60 1.3
69 5.50 1.0 3.5
70 5.90 1-1 °
71 5.65 1.1 °
72 5.60 1.4
73 5.40 1.5
74 5.55 1.3
75 5.25 2.5
76 5.55 1.3
1Q9
-------
TABLE XXVII (Continued)
COLUMN FEEDWATER
DAILY ANALYTICAL DATA
Specific
Day of Conductance Hot Acid Dissolved
Operation pH mmhos as CaCO^ Oxygen
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.4 0
1.2
1.0
1.1
0.9 o
1.0
1.2
1.0 o
1.5 o
1.2 5.0
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.0
1-1 2.0 0
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.9 o
1.4
1.3
0.6 4.0
2.0
0.8 2.0
0.5
8.0
9.0
5.0
5.0 2.0 o
5.0
3.5
4.0 n
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
5.40
5.80
5.85
5.85
5.50
5.60
5.80
5.50
5.50
5.70
5.45
5.40
5.40
5.95
5.70
5.80
6.00
5.80
5.90
5.80
5.70
6.00
6.10
5.80
5.85
6.20
5.75
5.70
6. 60
5.05
5.95
5.65
5.95
6.05
-------
TABLE XXVII (Continued)
COLUMN FEEDWATER
DAILY ANALYTICAL DATA
Specific
Day of Conductance Hot Acid Dissolved
Operation pH mmhos as CaC03 Oxygen
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
6.05
5. 80
6.05
5.85
6.05
6.10
6.00
6.05
5.95
5.75
5.40
5.55
5.60
5.60
5.45
5.85
5.65
5.75
6.50
5.85
5.75
5.75
5.70
5.70
1.0 0
2.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.0 1.0 0
3.0
3.5
4.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0 1.0
2.5 0
3.5
2.5 1-2
1.2
3.0 0
2.5 0
3.0 0
3.0 0
3.0 0
3.0 0
111
-------
TABLE XXVIII
COLUMN NO. 1
PHASE II - 99.5% NITROGEN + 0.5% OXYGEN
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
Phase II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
pH
4.95
4.75
4, 55
4.45
4.40
4.15
4.15
4.05
4.15
4.10
3.95
4.40
3.80
4.20
4.20
4.40
4.10
4.00
4.35
4.55
4.60
4.20
4.30
4.10
4.20
4.15
4.10
4.00
3.90
3.90
3.85
4.10
4.05
4.10
4.00
4.00
4.05
4.00
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
13
17
24
28
31
37
39
42
41
45
46
48
53
44
40
48
52
48
52
50
51
50
51
60
60
57
54
63
83
67
68
56
48
46
63
55
60
55
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
6
7
8
10
9
11
10
11
11
11
12
13
15
11
11
12
13
12
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
12
13
17
16
16
14
16
18
14
16
14
15
Iron
as Fe
1.1
1.7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.5
2.1
2.6
2.0
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.6
3.6
3.5
6.5
3.2
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.5
2.6
Sulfate
as S04
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.1
1.0
7.8
13.2
17.1
11.8
11.7
8.2
5.5
17.5
12. 0
16.9
15.4
1. 0
8 . 8
2. 4
13.0
12. 0
12. 0
19. 8
12. 6
19 . 0
18.5
14. 8
11. 6
14. 2
4.3
5. 6
11. 6
17. 6
1 0
-i- • \J
6 0
\J • \J
7.8
112
-------
TABLE XXVIII (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 1
PHASE II - 99.5% NITROGEN +0.5% OXYGEN
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Phase II
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
pH
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.95
3.95
3.95
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.80
3.95
3.95
3.95
3.90
4.00
3.95
4.00
3.95
4.00
3.70
3.95
3.95
3.90
3.95
3.95
3.65
Sp.
Cond .
mmhos
65
63
65
63
67
65
67
65
67
72
72
85
77
70
70
74
74
80
80
82
75
76
75
78
75
95
Hot
Acid
as
CaC03
16
15
16
19
17
16
15
15
17
12
16
15
17
19
14
15
19
17
18
15
17
17
16
16
17
24
Iron
as Fe
2.6
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.9
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.2
4.3
Sulfate
as SO4
1.0
12.2
16.9
11.1
18.0
19.3
29.7
13.0
5.2
9.7
5.0
13.0
14.2
22.3
12.7
8.9
12.0
10.5
14.6
6.2
6.2
12.5
11.9
12.3
13.9
28.3
11:
-------
TABLE XXIX
COLUMN NO. 2
PHASE II - NITROGEN GAS
(AIR SATURATED WATER)
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
of
Operation
Project
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
Phase II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
El
5.05
4.80
4.80
4.50
4.65
4.65
4.40
4.70
4.20
4.50
4.75
4.80
4.50
4.50
4.35
4.75
4.55
4.55
4.60
4,50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.30
4.65
4.40
4.40
4.45
4.50
4.40
4.45
4.45
4.45
4.55
4.50
4.50
4.45
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
10
11
12
14
14
15
18
18
18
17
16
18
20
16
20
20
20
20
20
23
23
22
22
26
30
23
26
21
20
19
21
18
20
19
22
21
23
23
Hot
Acid
as
CaC03
4
5
4
5
5
6
6
5
8
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
4
6
7
5
5
7
7
5
7
6
6
5
8
8
5
19
5
7
5
5
5
6
Iron
as Fe
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
1,1
1.0
0. 9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0. 8
0.8
0.8
Sulfate
as SO4
1.0
1.0
8.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
8.3
1.0
1.2
1.0
11.8
19.0
5.6
10.8
6.1
6.4
1.0
4.0
12.0
18.0
29.0
7.0
13.0
6.7
1.0
5.2
1.0
1,0
1.0
6,6
1.0
1.0
2.8
1.0
6,1
6.7
14.8
1.0
114
-------
TABLE XXIX (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 2
PHASE II - NITROGEN GAS
(AIR SATURATED WATER)
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
of
Operation
Project
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Phase II
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
El
.45
.45
.35
.45
.35
.15
.35
.30
.30
.30
.40
.35
.95
.30
.45
.90
.40
.30
.20
.30
.15
.85
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
24
23
23
23
24
28
27
25
27
26
27
30
33
28
30
31
30
35
40
45
45
55
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOj
5
7
5
5
6
5
7
7
7
8
7
6
8
7
8
5
6
8
9
10
11
14
Iron
as
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Fe
.8
.7
.7
.8
.8
.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.9
.8
.2
.2
.3
.2
,3
.5
.8
,4
Sulfate
as
15
28
21
5
1
1
1
1
3
16
4
13
1
1
1
3
4
1
11
6
7
18
S04
.0
.7
.0
.3
.4
.0
.0
.5
.7
.3
.6
.1
.2
.0
.0
.4
.4
.0
.6
.5
.7
.7
115
-------
TABLE XXX
COLUMN NO. 4
PHASE II - NITROGEN
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Phase
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
II pH
3.65
3.95
4.10
4.15
4.25
4.30
4.30
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.45
4.60
4.40
4.40
4.20
4.45
4.70
4.80
4.40
4.35
4.70
4.80
4.75
4.80
4.75
4.70
4.75
4.70
4.70
4.55
4.55
4.70
4.65
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
Sp.
Cond.
inmhos
200
130
80
51
43
39
37
30
28
27
25
23
24
24
23
23
18
17
17
18
16
17
16
15
15
14
16
15
13
14
19
19
15
16
14
11
11
14
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
62
40
28
28
18
16
13
12
10
11
10
9
9
9
9
10
8
7
7
6
3
5
5
6
7
4
4
4
4
5
4
6
5
5
4
6
6
4
Iron
as Fe
18.0
11.0
7.6
6.1
5.3
4.6
3.9
3.4
3.0
2.6
2.4
2.4
1.8
1.9
1.6
2.3
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
Sulfate
as S04
51.0
23.9
13.6
9.0
4.9
7.8
2.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
9.8
8.9
1.6
11.6
7.7
14.7
3.6
9.2
16.8
4.7
3.2
7. 5
9.1
1 0
_i_ • \j
7. 0
1 0
•J- • V
13.0
12. 3
13.3
3. 9
3. 3
1. 0
1 0
-J- • \j
3 6
*J • \J
1.0
1 0
-J- • \j
9 . 8
1.0
lie
-------
TABLE XXX(Continued)
COLUMN NO. 4
PHASE II - NITROGEN
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day
of
Operation
Project
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Phase II
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
El
4.80
4.85
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.85
4.85
4.85
4.70
4.85
4.80
4.70
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.70
4.80
4.75
4.60
4.45
4.75
4.75
4.85
4.80
4.80
4.65
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
10
15
10
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
11
13
12
10
11
10
13
15
15
15
20
12
13
13
10
11
10
13
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOi
11
4
2
2
4
6
5
4
5
3
4
5
4
4
5
5
4
7
6
7
6
7
5
6
4
4
4
3
5
Iron
as Fe
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
Sulf ate
as S04
1.0
1.0
1.0
11.1
4.7
11.9
5.1
6.2
9.6
9.1
5.9
1.0
4.2
1.0
4.1
12.1
6.9
11.0
15.8
5.2
4.3
2.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
5.0
4.6
3.0
5.2
117
-------
TABLE XXXI
COLUMN NO. 5
PHASE II - METHANE
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
Phase II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
pH
3.55
3.90
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.30
4.40
4.30
4.30
4.50
4.40
4.40
4.20
4.30
4.75
4.80
4.40
4.40
4.75
4.80
4.75
4.80
4.75
4.70
4.74
4.70
4.80
4.50
4.60
4.50
4.70
4.90
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
230
115
70
56
44
37
36
30
28
26
25
25
23
18
14
17
17
16
16
15
15
14
13
16
15
13
13
17
15
18
15
13
10
10
14
10
14
9
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOa
72
42
32
20
16
14
22
12
11
10
9
9
10
8
6
8
7
5
7
5
6
5
6
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
6
3
4
10
4
3
Iron
as Fe
24.0
14.0
9.1
7.2
5.8
4.8
4.1
3.4
2.7
2.4
2.5
2,0
2,2
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1,0
0.8
0,9
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.0
0,9
0,8
0.8
0,7
0.7
0.6
0.6
Sulfate
as S04
54.5
18.5
5.2
6.3
10.7
1.2
1.0
10.8
12.0
3.0
4.8
12.4
5.7
3.4
10.6
24.2
5.9
6.1
24.3
1.0
1.0
4.0
9.0
9.0
12,6
8,4
2.8
12.0
1.8
1,0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1,0
10,0
3.1
1,0
12.0
-------
TABLE XXXI (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 5
PHASE II - METHANE
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Phase
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
II pH
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.90
4.90
4.85
4.70
4.90
4.85
4.70
4.75
4.80
4.80
4.85
4.85
4.75
4.80
4.80
4.70
4.60
4.75
4.75
4.85
4.80
4.80
4.80
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
11
10
10
10
10
9
11
10
10
12
11
9
11
9
11
14
10
10
14
10
14
12
10
12
10
12
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
3
2
7
4
5
3
4
4
4
7
4
4
4
5
7
5
5
5
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
5
Iron
as Fe
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
0,7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
Sulfate
as S04
*±
2 .0
11.5
12.1
3.4
1. 0
4.4
9 .1
16.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
1 0
_i_ » v/
8 .6
10,6
4.7
1,0
3,6
1.2
1,0
1.0
1.0
2.0
4.8
2.9
3.5
11'
-------
TABLE XXXII
COLUMN NO. 7
PHASE II - NITROGEN GAS
(NORMAL WATER FLOW RATE)
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day of
Operation
Project
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Phase II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pH
3.40
3.40
3.80
4.05
4.10
4.10
4.25
4.25
4.20
4.40
4.45
4.40
4.45
4.60
4.50
4.50
4.45
4.45
4.45
4.25
4.45
4.60
4.55
4.60
4.60
4.65
4.60
4.60
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
311
115
109
88
64
68
57
44
38
29
31
22
29
22
26
28
26
25
25
24
24
24
24
17
15
17
15
16
Hot
Acid
as
CaCO-3
144
48
32
28
22
17
13
14
11
9
15
9
8
6
7
9
6
8
7
6
6
9
9
8
8
6
9
10
Iron
as Fe
26.0
12.0
8.9
8.2
7.4
5.4
4.6
3.9
3.3
3.4
2.6
2.4
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.8
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.1
Sulfate
as SO^
99.0
43.0
18.7
18.3
12.4
17.9
1.0
5.1
7.9
13.0
1.0
1.0
17.2
7.3
0.6
2.2
6.2
2.6
8.5
1.3
4.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.4
11.5
5. 4
12'
-------
TABLE XXXIII
COLUMN NO. 7
PHASE II - NITROGEN GAS
(REDUCED WATER FLOW RATE)
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Phase II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ES
4.20
4.20
4.20
3.80
4.25
4.15
4.15
4,20
4.20
4.00
Sp.
Cond,
iranhos
50
60
61
63
64
60
53
49
50
53
55
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
16
18
20
21
17
16
20
14
15
15
16
Iron
as Fe
4.1
4.6
4.2
6.0
5.5
5.4
3.9
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.5
Sulfate
as S04
^t
17.7
21.8
10.7
18.4
6 5
w • _/
11.3
10.9
12. 4
12.1
11.2
20.2
121
-------
TABLE XXXIV
COLUMN NO. 8
PHASE II - METHANE +0.1% OXYGEN
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
Phase II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
PH
4.65
4.60
4.60
4.65
4.50
4.60
4.45
4.40
4.30
4.45
4.35
4.35
4.10
4.60
4.55
4.55
4.25
4.40
4.20
4.55
4.45
4.40
4.50
4.50
4.40
4.35
4.40
4.40
4.30
4.35
4.30
4.40
4.35
4.50
4.50
4.45
4.45
4.45
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
12
13
14
17
15
17
17
18
20
20
21
25
24
18
18
20
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
25
26
22
29
33
29
32
24
25
24
18
25
19
23
Hot
Acid
as
CaC03
4
5
5
5
5
7
6
7
6
6
7
7
6
5
6
8
5
6
5
7
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
6
7
6
6
8
5
6
5
15
6
Iron
as Fe
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0,8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0,7
0.7
Sulfate
as S04
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.3
9.4
1.0
10.8
5.6
6.4
14,0
1.0
10.8
9.3
17.8
11.1
9.5
35,0
4,0
25.0
20.0
14.0
9.1
6.5
1.0
1.0
6.1
9.4
3,2
1.0
4.9
9.2
2,6
16.7
1.0
122
-------
TABLE XXXIV (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 8
PHASE II - METHANE + 0.1% OXYGEN
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Phase II pH
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
.55
.45
.45
.40
.45
.40
.20
.35
.30
.35
.30
.35
.30
.30
.40
.40
.35
.35
,20
.30
.35
.30
.10
.15
.15
.90
Sp.
Cond.
mmhos
20
24
25
25
24
25
25
27
27
28
23
23
25
23
22
23
26
25
29
23
26
35
52
49
55
71
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
6
8
6
5
7
5
5
5
5
9
8
7
8
8
10
7
5
6
9
7
7
11
12
12
13
18
Iron
as Fe
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
.7
.7
.7
.8
.7
.7
.7
.6
.7
.7
,3
.8
.7
.7
.8
.8
.7
,8
.1
.1
.0
.7
.2
.3
.5
.6
Sulfate
as
13
1
6
6
7
8
35
5
1
1
1
1
11
7
3
8
1
3
5
1
1
7
17
11
7
22
S04
.7
.0
.9
.1
.2
.7
.7
.3
.0
.0
,0
.0
,6
.1
.7
.9
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
.6
.1
.2
.7
,8
123
-------
TABLE XXXV
COLUMN NO, 9
PHASE II - 99% CARBON DIOXIDE + 1% OXYGEN
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
Phase II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
PH
3.90
3.80
3.65
3.65
3.65
3.70
3.65
3.60
3.60
3.55
3.90
3.90
3.85
3.65
3.70
3.85
3.85
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.70
3.80
3.80
3.85
3.75
3.60
3.70
3.70
3.65
3.85
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.90
3.80
3.80
Sp.
Cond.
nunhos
73
110
120
125
125
125
130
140
145
140
120
120
125
135
125
130
135
125
130
125
125
125
110
115
130
88
130
165
180
125
120
105
115
110
114
110
120
120
Hot
Acid
as
CaCOs
10
17
19
19
25
21
22
30
27
25
22
24
23
22
23
23
23
30
30
26
23
24
22
24
22
20
42
49
42
31
24
24
32
22
25
26
31
23
Iron
as Fe
1.8
3.4
1.6
4.4
5.0
5.0
5.0
5,1
5.4
6,2
5.8
5,8
6.6
5.8
6.3
5.7
5.8
7.1
6.0
6.8
6.5
6.6
5.9
5.8
5.8
6.2
25,0
16.0
14,0
9.0
8.7
7.8
8.0
9.0
7.4
7.7
7.9
7.9
Sulfate
as S04
1.0
9.9
10.5
1.0
19.3
18.5
18.5
22.1
18.5
18.5
19.2
22.0
36,1
20,1
11,4
19.0
20.7
9.8
26.0
13.4
21.0
9.4
39.0
14.2
1.0
15.0
26,8
42.9
26.0
22.5
22.0
10.1
7.1
10.4
30,5
19,6
24.0
I O/i
I C-"r
-------
TABLE XXXV (Continued)
COLUMN NO, 9
PHASE II - 99% CARBON DIOXIDE + 1% OXYGEN
ANALYTICAL AND OTHER DATA
Day Of
Operation
Project
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Phase II
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
EH
3.75
3.75
3.80
3.70
3.70
3.65
3.70
3.65
3.70
3.65
3.60
3.70
3.80
3.70
3.70
5.10
3.60
3.80
3.65
3.70
3.70
3.70
3.50
Sp.
Cond.
nutthos
120
120
125
125
125
130
135
125
130
125
125
125
130
125
130
138
130
130
125
125
125
125
150
Hot
Acid
as
CaC03
22
27
24
22
24
22
27
24
23
29
28
32
24
31
27
31
32
29
56
29
29
28
41
Iron
as Fe
8.2
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.6
7.3
3,0
7,8
7.7
7,6
7,7
7.8
8.0
8.1
8.6
8.3
8.8
8.2
8.4
8.5
8.3
11.1
Sulfate
as SO4
33.2
2.5
10.7
14.9
20.3
15.2
18.8
21.5
21.2
16.5
27.8
20.1
20.5
31.7
18.4
23.1
28,9
14.2
20.1
20.6
23.1
21,3
47.2
125
-------
TABLE XXXVI
COLUMN NO. 2
PHASE II - NITROGEN GAS
(AIR SATURATED WATER)
FEEDWATER & EFFLUENT WATER
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DATA
Day Of Dissolved Oxygen
Operation Water mg/1
Project Phase II Temp. °C Tn OTTE
85 1 14 6.4
86 2 14
87 3 14 8.4 4.4
88 4 14 8.4 5.6
89 5 14 8.4 2.6
90 6 14 8.2 3.2
91 7 14 7.8 2.4
92 8 15 8.2 1.8
93 9 14
94 10 12 8.6 2.8
95 11 12 8.6 2.8
96 12 14 8.6 3.5
97 13 13 8.4 2.8
98 14 14 8.5 3.4
99 15 15 8.8 3.2
100 16 14 8.6 2.4
101 17 14 8.0 2.6
102 18 14 7.6 2.2
103 19 14 8.2 3.4
104 20 15 8.0 3.2
105 21 14 7.6 4.8
106 22 13 8.4 5.8
107 23 13 8.4 2.8
108 24 14
109 25 14
110 26 14
111 27 14 8.5 3.2
112 28 14 8.2 3.0
113 29 13 8.4 2.8
114 30 12 8.6 3.0
115 31 12
116 32 13
117 33 13
118 34 13
119 35 13 8.5 3.0
120 36 14 8.5 2.9
121 37 14 8.3 3.0
12G
-------
TABLE XXXVI (Continued)
COLUMN NO. 2
PHASE II - NITROGEN GAS
(AIR SATURATED WATER)
FEEDWATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN DATA
Day Of Dissolved Oxygen
Operation Water mg/1
Temp. °C In Out
14 8.4 2.8
14 8.3 3.0
14 8.4 2.9
13 8.3 2.8
13 8.5 2.9
13 8.6 3.0
13 8.5 2.7
14 8.2 2.7
13 7.9 3.0
14
14 8.3 3.0
13 8.2 3.0
13 8.1 3.1
14 8.5 2.9
13 8.6 3.0
14 2.8
14 8.5 2.9
14 8.5 2.9
14 8.4 2.9
14 8.3 2.7
14 8.4 2.8
14 8.3 3.1
Project
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Phase II
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
127
-------
TABLE XXXVII
COLUMN NO. 1
WEEKLY SAMPLE DATA
MINOR CONSTITUENTS
Day Of Operation Al
49
56
62
69
83
90
97
104
111
118
125
132
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
18
04
02
02
07
07
18
40
16
08
14
06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mn
.02
.02
.02
.02
.03
.02
.02
.03
.04
.05
.01
.01
Mg
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
34
22
03
03
07
04
02
04
05
06
09
01
Ca
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
33
30
30
33
88
39
30
32
82
66
82
16
Fe++
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
2.
1.
5.
2.
2.
3.
6
5
4
3
1
1
0
7
9
6
8
0
-------
TABLE XXXVIII
COLUMN NO. 2
WEEKLY SAMPLE DATA
MINOR CONSTITUENTS
Day Of Operation
49
56
62
69
83
90
97
104
111
118
125
132
Al
0.15
0.04
0.14
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.16
0.36
0.14
0.16
0.05
0.11
Mn
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.01
Mg
0.41
0.22
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
Ca
0.34
0.30
0.30
0.60
0.36
0.44
0.28
0.34
0.44
0.44
0.27
0.16
Fe++
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
129
-------
TABLE XXXIX
COLUMN NO. 3
WEEKLY SAMPLE DATA
MINOR CONSTITUENTS
Day of Operation Al
49
56
62
69
83
90
97
104
111
118
125
132
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
11
25
12
02
05
06
15
15
17
05
05
02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mn
.02
.02
.02
.02
.04
.03
.02
.02
.02
.05
.01
.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mg
.43
.27
.02
.03
.05
.04
.02
.03
.02
.10
.03
.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Ca
.37
.35
.30
.38
.39
.30
.21
.20
.22
.20
.38
.13
Fe++
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6
5
5
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
130
-------
TABLE XL
COLUMN NO. 4
WEEKLY SAMPLE DATA
MINOR CONSTITUENTS
Day Of Operation Al
49 0.
56 0.
62 0.
69 0.
83 0.
90 0.
97 0.
104 0.
Ill 0.
118 0.
125 0.
132 0.
39
34
16
16
05
05
24
30
09
05
05
02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mn
.04
.04
.02
.05
.04
.02
.02
.02
.03
.05
.01
.01
Mg
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
34
31
08
09
04
05
02
04
02
02
02
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ca
.81
.73
.80
.80
.44
.27
.16
.29
.21
.33
.20
.11
Fe++
61.
83.
69.
70.
4.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
9
0
0
0
4
8
2
2
9
5
5
4
131
-------
TABLE XLI
COLUMN NO. 5
WEEKLY SAMPLE DATA
MINOR CONSTITUENTS
Day Of Operation AT
49
56
62
69
83
90
97
104
111
118
125
132
0.11
0.16
0.24
0.08
0.13
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.02
Mn
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.01
Ma
^j_
0.31
0.41
0.04
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.01
Ca
\~rG.
0.51
0.38
0.04
0.60
0.25
0.21
0.10
0.36
0.60
0.77
0.20
0.11
FP>
J- t=
57
58
64
63
8.
2.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
++
.9
.0
.0
.0
,9
1
3
4
0
6
5
5
132
-------
TABLE XL 11
COLUMN NO. 6
WEEKLY SAMPLE DATA
MINOR CONSTITUENTS
Day Of Operation
49
56
62
69
83
90
97
104
111
118
125
132
Al
0.07
0.36
0.20
0.08
0.21
0.18
0.45
0.69
0.29
0.20
0.16
0.02
Mn
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.09
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.02
M£
0.41
0.48
0.10
0.11
0.13
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.14
0.07
0.05
Ca
0.69
0.73
1.00
0.77
0.68
0.54
0.41
0.43
0.43
1.30
0.40
0.66
Fe++
62.2
61.0
67.0
63.0
60.0
54.0
58.0
40.0
53.0
54.0
55.0
55.0
133
-------
TABLE XLIII
COLUMN NO. 7
WEEKLY SAMPLE DATA
MINOR CONSTITUENTS
Day Of Operation
49
56
62
69
83
90
97
104
111
118
125
132
Al
0.05
0.11
0.30
0.42
0.28
0.13
0.29
0.64
0.12
0.05
0.05
0.02
Mn
0.03
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.13
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.01
Mg
-*
0.31
3.20
0.18
0.21
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
Ca
0.51
2.80
1.30
1.60
0.54
0.34
0.46
0.26
0.19
0.55
0.16
0.12
Fe++
58.0
250.0
235.0
212.0
61.0
50.0
53.0
45.0
5.2
2.1
1.3
0.9
134
-------
TABLE XLIV
COLUMN NO. 8
WEEKLY SAMPLE DATA
MINOR CONSTITUENTS
Day Of Operation
49
56
62
69
83
90
97
104
111
118
125
132
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Al
.04
.15
.04
.02
.05
.05
.15
.10
.12
.10
.08
.04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mn
.02
.02
.02
.03
.03
.02
.02
.02
.03
.05
.01
.01
Mg
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
II.-
33
22
06
02
03
05
02
03
05
02
03
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ca
.43
.32
.40
.38
.45
.35
.23
.46
.55
.33
.36
.14
Fe++
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.7
.5
.5
.4
.8
.7
.7
.7
.9
.7
.7
.7
-------
TABLE XLV
COLUMN NO. 9
WEEKLY SAMPLE DATA
MINOR CONSTITUENTS
Day Of Operation Al
49
56
62
69
83
90
97
104
111
118
125
132
0.18
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.30
.23
,03
05
05
35
32
37
06
08
02
Mn
0
.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
02
02
02
08
02
05
01
01
Mg
0
.33
0.24
0.03
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
,05
07
05
03
05
01
02
05
01
Ca
0
0
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.58
.50
.50
.60
61
49
37
27
22
44
50
22
Fe++
0.9
0.
0.
0.
0.
5.
5.
5.
15.
7.
6.
7.
.7
.8
6
6
0
8
4
0
4
8
6
13C
-------
TABLE XLVI
COLUMN NO. 1 - PHASE II
NITROGEN + 0.523% OXYGEN
INLET AND OUTLET GAS ANALYSES
Day Of
Operation
CO
Project
125
127
128
129
132
133
134
136
137
141
142
146
147
148
149
*142
146
147
148
149
Phase II
45
47
48
49
52
53
54
56
57
61
62
66
67
68
69
62
66
67
68
69
% Oxygen In
Inlet Gas
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
0.523
% Oxygen In
Outlet Gas
0.500
0.500
0.440
0.440
0.469
0.483
0.479
0.436
0.361
0.384
0.418
0.436
0.441
"0.390
0.392
0.418
0.447
0.441
0.397
0.403
Difference
0.023
0.023
0.083
0.083
0.054
0.040
0.044
0.087
0.162
0.139
0.105
0.087
0.082
0.133
0.131
0.105
0.076
0.082
0.126
0.120
*The column operating on a methane-oxygen mixture (Column No,
to nitrogen + 0.523% oxygen on 12/2/70.
Gas Flow Rate
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
8) was changed
-------
TABLE XLVII
COLUMN NO. 8 - PHASE II
METHANE + 0.11% OXYGEN
INLET AND OUTLET GAS ANALYSES
Day Of
Operation
CO
co
Project
125
133
134
136
137
141
Phase
45
53
54
56
57
61
II
% Oxygen In
Inlet Gas
0.112
0.112
0.112
0.112
0.112
0.112
% Oxygen In
Outlet Gas
0.087
0.098
0.077
0.092
0.066
0.060
Difference
0.025
0.014
0.035
0.020
0.046
0.052
Gas Flow Rate
30 cc/min
30 cc/min
30 cc/min
30 cc/min
30 cc/min
30 cc/min
-------
TABLE XLVIII
COLUMN NO. 9 - PHASE II
CARBON DIOXIDE + 1.07% OXYGEN
INLET AND OUTLET GAS ANALYSES
Day Of
Operation
CO
115
Project
121
125
127
128
134
136
137
141
146
147
149
Phase II
38
42
44
45
51
53
54
58
63
64
66
; Oxygen In
Inlet Gas
1,
1,
1,
1,
1.
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
1.07
% Oxygen In
Outlet Gas
0.390
0.514
0.871
0.924
0.659
0.993
0.963
0.856
0.781
0.996
0.927
Difference
0.680
0.556
0.199
0.146
0.411
0.077
0.107
0.214
0.289
0.074
0.143
Gas Flow Rate
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
-------
TABLE XL IX
COLUMN NO. 6 - AIR CONTROL
NITROGEN + 20.9% OXYGEN
Day of Operation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-- 8
o 44
121
125
127
129
132
133
134
137
141
142
146
147
148
; Oxygen In
Inlet Gas
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
% Oxygen In
Outlet Gas
19.8
19.8
19.9
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
19.6
19.2
19.5
18.1
19.2
18.4
19.3
18.4
18.9
17.5
17.3
17.0
18.7
19.6
Difference
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.3
1.7
1.4
2.8
1.7
2.5
1.6
2.5
2.0
3.4
3.6
3.9
2.2
1.3
Gas Flow Rate
10 cc/min
86 cc/min
86 cc/min
86 cc/min
86 cc/min
86 cc/min
86 cc/min
86 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
45 cc/min
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC:
Cyrus Wm. Rice Division
NUS Corporation, The Effects of Various Gas Atmosphere
On The Oxidation of Coal Mine Pyrites, Final Report,
FWQA Grant No. 14010 ECC, 1971
ABSTRACT:
A number of experiments up to 150 days in length were
conducted to study the acid production rate of coal
mine pyrites under various gas atmospheres. The gas
atmospheres studied were air, nitrogen, methane, and
carbon dioxide. The lower limits of the oxidation
process were studied by introducing small amounts of
oxygen along with the inert blanketing gas and by
studying the effects of deaerated versus air saturated
feedwater. Acid production was found to be propor-
tional to the available oxygen partial pressure.
The acid parameters monitored continued to change and
had not completely reached a steady state by the ter-
mination of the work. The acid production of nitrogen
blanketed pyrite decreased to less than 1% of that of
identical columns under an air atmosphere. Nitrogen
and methane gases were equally effective in reducing
acid production. Both of these gases were slightly
more effective than carbon dioxide. A large amount
of detailed experimental data is presented.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract
No. 14-12-877 between the Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Quality Office and Cyrus Wm. Rice
Division - NUS Corporation.
ACCESSION NO.
KEY WORDS:
Acid mine water
Inert gaa blanketing
Pyrite oxidation
Acid production
Pyrite
Water Pollution Control
Water Quality
Acid mine drainage
BIBLIOGRAPHIC:
Cyrus Wm. Rice Division
NUS Corporation, The Effects of Various Gas Atmospheres
On The Oxidation of Coal Mine Pyrites, Final Report,
FWQA Grant No. 14010 ECC, 1971
ABSTRACT:
A number of experiments up to 150 days in Length were
conducted to study the acid production rate of coal
mine pyrites under various gas atmospheres. The gas
atmospheres studied were air, nitrogen, methane, and
carbon dioxide. The lower limits of the oxidation
process were studied by introducing small amounts of
oxygen along with the inert blanketing gas and by
studying the effects of deaerated versus air saturated
feedwater. Acid production was found to be propor-
tional to the available oxygen partial pressure.
The acid parameters monitored continued to change and
had not completely reached a steady state by the ter-
mination of the work. The acid production of nitrogen
blanketed pyrite decreased to less than 1% of that of
identical columns under an air atmosphere. Nitrogen
and methane gases were equally effective in reducing
acid production. Both of these gases were slightly
more effective than carbon dioxide. A large amount
of detailed experimental data is presented.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract
No. 14-12-877 between the Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Quality Office and Cyrus Wm. Rice
Division - NUS Corporation.
ACCESSION NO.
KEY WORDS:
Acid mine water
Inert gas blanketing
Pyrite oxidation
Acid production
Pyrite
Water Pollution Control
Water Quality
Acid mine drainage
BIBLIOGRAPHIC:
Cyrus Wm. Rice Division
NUS Corporation, The Effects of Various Gas Atmosphere
On The Oxidation of Coal Mine Pyrites, Final Report,
FWQA Grant No. 14010 ECC, 1971
A number of experiments up to 150 days in length were
conducted to study the acid production rate of coal
mine pyrites under various gas atmospheres. The gas
atmospheres studied were air, nitrogen, methane, and
carbon dioxide. The lower limits of the oxidation
process were studied by introducing small amounts of
oxygen along with the inert blanketing gas and by
studying the effects of deaerated versus air saturated
feedwater. Acid production was found to be propor-
tional to the available oxygen partial pressure.
The acid parameters monitored continued to change and
had not completely reached a steady state by the ter-
mination of the work. The acid production of nitrogen
blanketed pyrite decreased to less than 1% of that of
identical columns under an air atmosphere. Nitrogen
and methane gases were equally effective in reducing
acid production. Both of these gases were slightly
more effective than carbon dioxide. A large amount
of detailed experimental data is presented.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract
No. 14-12-877 between the Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Quality Office and Cyrus Wm. Rice
Division - NUS Corporation.
ACCESSION NO.
KEY WORDS:
Acid mine water
Inert gas blanketing
Pyrite oxidation
Acid production
Pyrite
Water Pollution Control
Water Quality
Acid mine drainage
-------
1
5
Accession Number
(x)
2
Subject Field & Group
OSG
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
Cyrus Win. Rice Division - NUS Corporation (Contractor)
r«t;e
THE EFFECTS OF VARIOUS ATMOSPHERES ON THE OXIDATION OF COAL MINE PYRITES
10
Authors)
Robins, John D.
Troy, Joseph C.
16
Project Designation
14010 EGG 08/71
21
Note
22
Citation
Descriptors (Starred First)
'
*Acid mine water/*inert gas blanketing/*pyrite oxidation/*acid production/
*pyrite/water pollution control/water quality
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
*oxygen free atmospheres/mine drainage/pyrite depletion
27
Abstract
A number of experiments up to 150 days in length were conducted to study the
acid production rate of coal mine pyrites under various gas atmospheres. The gas
atmospheres studied were air, nitrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide. The lower
limits of the oxidation process were studied by introducing small amounts of oxygen
along with the inert blanketing gas and by studying the effects of deaerated versus
air saturated feedwater. Acid production was found to be proportional to the avail-
able oxygen partial pressure.
The acid parameters monitored continued to change and had not completely reached a
steady state by the termination of the work. The acid production of nitrogen
blanketed pyrite decreased to less than 1$ of that of identical columns under air
atmosphere. Nitrogen and methane gases were equally effective in reducing acid
production. Both of these gases were slightly more effective than carbon dioxide.
A large amount of detailed experimental data is presented.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 14-12-877 between the
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office and Cyrus Wm. Rice Division -
NUS Corporation.
Abstractor
Institution
Cyrus Wm. Rice Division-NUS Corporation
WR:102
------- |