United Statas
Agency
Industrial Environmantal Reate^ii
tLgfearse®^
Cincinnati OH 45268
1PA-600/7
April 1980
Research and Davalopmant
Development of
Methods to Improve
Performance of
Surface Mine
Sediment Basins
Phase I
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-80-072
April 1980
DEVELOPMENT OP METHODS TO IMPROVE
PERFORMANCE OF SURFACE MINE
SEDIMENT BASINS
Phase I
by
Charles E. Ettinger
Skelly and Loy
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
Contract No. 68-03-2677
Project Officer
Roger C. Wilmoth
Resource Extraction and Handling Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names of commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
li
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, con-
verted, and used, the related pollutlonal Impacts on our environment and
even on our health often require that new and Increasingly more efficient
pollution control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory - Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating
new and Improved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently
and economically.
This study outlines methods to improve the performance of surface
mine sedimentation basins in order to meet the current effluent limita-
tions for suspended solids. This subject has been under study by the Re-
source Extraction and Handling Division of the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory which may be contacted for further information.
David G. Stephan
Dl rector
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iti
-------
ABSTRACT
This document presents findings of a study to determine methods to
improve the performance of surface mine sediment basins. During the course
of this study, two methods were investigated: physical and chemical.
Physical additions to sediment basins were Investigated in an attempt to
approach optimum removal potential. Various modifications have been
delineated Including inlet and outlet redesign along with additions to the
body of the pond. It Is obvious that even under ideal conditions very
small particles will not be removed by conventional sediment basins. It is
because of this fact that the use of coagulants has also been studied for
small particle removal.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No.
68-03-2677 by Skelly and Loy under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. This report covers the period June 1978 to
February 1979, and work was completed as of October 19, 1979.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i I i
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tab I es v i i 1
Appendix Tables ix
Acknow Iedgment x
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 2
3. Recommendations 5
4. Theory of Suspended Solids Removal 6
Sedimentation 6
Coagulation 13
5. Discussion of Study Findings 17
Selection and Evaluation of Model Sediment
Ponds 17
Physical Characteristics of Model
Ponds 21
Evaluation of Model Pond Efficiency 39
Review of Physical Modification
Alternatives 49
Inlet Modifications 51
Pond Modifications 60
Outlet Modifications 66
Summary 75
Evaluation of Coagulant Usage 79
CoaguI ant Test Ing Program 79
The Application of Coagulant Usage In
Suspended Sol Ids Removal 102
References 107
B i bIi ography 109
Append I x 112
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Discrete Particle Sett I ing 9
2 Determination of Trap Efficiency 12
3 Classification and Size Range of Particles Found
in Water 13
4 Concept of Zeta Potential Derived from the Diffuse
Double Layer Theory 15
5 Colloidal Suspension DestabiIization with High
Molecular Weight Organic Polymers 16
6 Excavated Sediment Pond 18
7 Excavated Sediment Dam 19
8 Embankment Sediment Pond 20
9 Location of Model Sediment Ponds 22
Sediment Pond:
10 PA-1 25
11 WV-1 27
12 WV-2A 30
13 WV-2B 33
14 WV-3 36
15 WV-4 38
16 KY-1 41
Particle Size Distribution:
17 PA-1 44
18 WV-1 45
19 WV-2A 46
20 WV-2B 46
21 WV-3 47
22 WV-4 47
23 KY-1 48
24 Influent Energy Dissipation by Dumped Rock 52
25 Log and Pole Silt Structure 53
26 Log Check Dam 55
27 Stone Check Dam 56
28 FIared Apron Entrance ChanneI 57
29 Sediment Pond Inlet Baffles 58
vi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Page
30 Baffle Detail 59
31 Multiple Inlets by Inlet Channel Branching 60
32 Straw BaI e Barr i er 61
33 Silt Fence 62
34 Sediment Pond Baffle Placement to Increase L:W
Ratio 67
35 Subsurface Drain 69
36 Single Perforation of Riser Barrier 70
37 Siphon Dewatering Methods 71
38 Riser and Trough Plan and Elevation 73
39 Riser and Trough Details 74
40 Exit Baffle 75
41 Suspended Sol id.s Removal by Anionic Coagulants 82
42 Suspended Solids Removal by Cationic Coagulants 83
43 Suspended Solids and Turbidity Removal by Lime
and AI urn 86
44 Turbidity Removal by Anionic Coagulants 87
45 Turbidity Removal by Cationic Coagulants 88
46 FIocculation by Baffle Placement 106
VI I
-------
TABLES
No.
Page
1 Effect of Water Temperature on Settling
Velocity 7
2 Settling Velocities of Sediment in Water 8
3 Minimum Sediment Pond Area Requirements to
Settle Particles of Selected Sizes 10
4 Short-Circuiting Factors for Settling Tanks 11
Physical Characteristics:
5 Sediment Pond PA-1 24
6 Sediment Pond WV-1 26
7 Sediment Pond WV-2A 29
8 Sediment Pond WV-2B 32
9 Sediment Pond WV-3 35
10 Sediment Pond WV-4 37
11 Sediment Pond KY-1 40
12 Model Sediment Pond Efficiency 42
13 Water Quality of Model Sediment Ponds 43
14 Sediment Pond Storage Capacity 49
15 Summary of Simulated Sediment Pond Performance 50
16 Scour Velocity vs. Particle Size 52
17 Summary of Sediment Pond Physical Modifications 76
18 Extended Sett I ing Time Results 92
19 Anionic & Catlonic Coagulant Removal Summary 93
20 Turbidity and Suspended Solids Removal Alum and Lime ... 93
21 Selected Coagulants for Bench Scale Testing 93
22 Coagulant Efficiency 94
23 Average Optimum Dosage 94
24 Effluent Suspended Solids at Controlled
Temperatures 96
25 Cost of Coagulant Usage 104
vl
-------
APPENDIX TABLES
No. Page
A-1 Coagulant Manufacturer Survey 112
A-2 Coagulant/Flocculant Data Form 124
A-3 Preliminary Laboratory Test Results 135
A-4 Bench-Scale TreatabiIity Study Results 158
A-5 Summary of Bench Scale TreatabiIity Study 172
ix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The data presented within this report would not have been possible
without the unprecedented cooperation provided by the personnel at the
study mine sites. Because these companies prefer to remain anonymous,
individuals or company affiliation will not be identified; we would, how-
ever, I ike those involved in this study to know that without their com-
plete cooperation and assistance this study would not have been possible.
Project officers for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during
the past year were Ronald 0. Hill and Roger C. Wilmoth. A special thanks
to James Kennedy and the staff of the Crown Environmental Research
Laboratory of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for their assis-
tance throughout the project.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The control of erosion and sedimentation from disturbed lands is
a subject of increasing interest, particularly in the area of surface
mining. Given the hydrologic conditions and the steep sloped terrain of
the Appalachian coal region, it is understandable that erosion is a severe
problem for surface coal mine operators. Current sediment control tech-
nology in this Industry is primarily in the use of sedimentation ponds.
A study of the regulatory design criteria has shown that coal
surface mine sedimentation ponds are generally designed based on two
parameters: 1) provide a specific required storage capacity depending
upon the amount of disturbed area in the contributing watershed; and 2)
provide a required storage capacity to retain the runoff from a particular
storm event for a specified period of time. Where Influent suspended
solid loads are extremely high, a sedimentation pond could meet the design
standards, yet the effluent may not be of acceptable quality. Since many
states and the Federal government are currently adopting water quality
criteria which include the regulation of suspended solids concentration in
the effluent, it would appear that the design of sedimentation basins
should consider the pond's ability to achieve a specific effluent quality.
A serious problem relating to the achievement of a specific
effluent quality, namely suspended solids limitations, relates to the
amount of small particulate matter present in the influent to the basin.
Disturbance of this material during active mining operations leads to
erosion and introduction of an approximately colloidal size suspended
solids fraction in the pond influent. Conventional settling procedures
will not permit these particles to settle out of suspension; therefore, new
procedures must be employed to remove this colloidal fraction. Two methods
of achieving this goal have been investigated during this study; physical
modifications to existing sediment pond configurations, and the use of
chemical coagulants to cause the colloidal particles to agglomerate and
settle in a mass. During the course of this study, six representative
sediment ponds throughout the Appalachian coal fields have been observed to
determine possible improvements to their design in conjunction with labo-
ratory testing of a wet-weather sediment-laden Influent sample from each
pond. This wet-weather water sample was collected during a moderate
rainfall event and was later subjected to a series of bench scale treat-
ability tests to determine the applicability of a group of selected chem-
ical coagulants. Through separate sections of the subsequent text, the re-
sults of these studies are discussed.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Current design criteria for sedimentation basins are based upon the
amount of disturbed area in the drainage area of the pond and/or the
retention of runoff from a particular storm event for a specified period
of time.
According to the theory of sedimentation, several interrelated factors
have a substantial effect on the performance of a settling basin:
- Water temperature;
- Characteristics of the particle to be removed;
Specific gravity
Size
Shape
Aggregation
- Flow rate of drainage into and through the pond;
- Depth;
- Surface area of the pond; and
- Non-ideal conditions in pond;
Short circuiting
Turbulence
Scouring.
. Col Ioida I-size particles will not settle from solution within normal
detention times.
. Colloids remain In solution and resist the forces of gravity because of
their extremely small size, chemical combination with water, or surface
electrical charge.
Three general types of sediment ponds are used in Appalachia:
- Excavated sediment ponds;
- Excavated sediment dams; and
- Embankment sediment ponds.
-------
The laboratory tests indicated the presence of settleable solids in the
effluent of each sediment pond studied.
All model sediment ponds, except KY-1, complied with the effluent limi-
tations for suspended solids during the sampling period. All ponds, ex-
cept KY-1, exhibited greater than 9Q% removal during the sampling peri-
od.
According to theoretical analysis, none of the model sediment ponds
would meet effluent limitations for suspended solids during the passage
of a 10-year 24-hour storm.
Physical modifications to a sediment pond may be made in three areas:
- Inlet;
- Pond Body; and
- Outlet.
Inlet modifications are undertaken with three objects In mind:
- Dissipation of energy of influent;
- Distribution of influent over the entire width of the
pond to maximize use of the cross-sectional area; and
- Filtration of the influent.
Pond configuration modifications are limited to two basic concepts;
- CompartmentaIization of the basin to induce staged
sett I ing; and
- Size, shape, and depth modifications.
Outlet Modifications include:
- Changes to standard riser barrels;
- Flared exit channels;
- Baffle outlets; and
- Vegetative filters.
During the laboratory resting phase of this study, cationic coagulants
were generally more effective in the removal of suspended solids than
an ionic coagulants.
Optimum coagulant dosage varies with characteristics of the subject
water but will generally increase with the colloidal suspended solids
concentration.
-------
The suspended solids removal at 4 C was generally less efficient than
that at 21 C.
The environmental impact of coagulant usage for suspended solids removal
would be minimal.
Based upon a flow rate of 0.0283 m /sec (1 cfs), the daily cost
(chemical purchase only) for the seven best coagulants tested would
range from $6.42 - $40.68.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Phase II and Phase 11 I of the study should be undertaken to demonstrate
the effect of physical modification alternatives on sedimentation basin
performance and the technical and economic feasibility of the usage of
coagulants for suspended solids removal.
The coagulants to be used in Phase III demonstration will be one of the
two best performing coagulants in the bench-scale treatability tests:
- American Cyanamid - Magnifloc 587C
- Calgon Corporation - M-502
Phase III demonstration should take place in at least two diverse geo-
graphic areas. One area to represent the steep topography of the Appa-
lachian region and one to represent the rolling topography of the mid-
west/western region.
Surface mine sedimentation basin design criteria should consider the
following:
- A sedimentation volume to settle particles of a specified size
depending upon the influent particle size distribution
- Sludge storage capacity
- Detention storage capacity for the runoff from a specified
storm event
Whenever possible, sediment control methods should be used as close to
the point of sediment origin as is feasible.
To compensate for non-ideality of sediment basins, physical modifica-
tions to the basin should be utilized as detailed In the section of this
study which discusses physical modification alternatives.
When the Influent particle size distribution contains high percentages
In the silt-clay range, chemical coagulants should be used to achieve
sufficient suspended solids removal In order to comply with the effluent
I Imitations.
-------
SECTION 4
THEORY OF SUSPENDED
SOLIDS REMOVAL
The removal of suspended solids from a liquid medium has been a
subject of study for engineers during the past two hundred years. Gener-
ally speaking, there are two basic methods of suspended solids removal-
physical straining processes and gravity separation. Physical straining
is the removal of suspended solids by mechanical filtration while gravity
separation refers to suspended solids removal by taking advantage of grav-
itational forces on the particles. The processes of physical straining
are not discussed here because of the inapplicability of this technique to
surface mine drainage. The principles of gravity separation are discussed
in two subsequent sections, Sedimentation and Coagulation. A discussion
of the theory of sedimentation and coagulation is necessary to lay the
groundwork for an understanding of the practical aspects of sediment pond
design. Without a basic comprehension of the principles of sedimentation,
one will not be able to offer criticism of existing sediment pond con-
struction techniques nor develop methods to improve their performance.
SEDIMENTATION
Sedimentation is a natural sequence of events involving erosion,
entrainment, transportation, deposition and compaction of particulate
matter in water. Deposition or settling is concieved as a gravitational
process. On the basis of concentration and particle interaction, four
general classifications of settling have been determined:
1) Free Sett I ing;
2) Flocculant Settling;
3) Zone Settling; and
4) Compression Settling.
Of primarv interest to this discussion is free settling, which is de-
scribed mathematically under ideal conditions by Stoke's Law and is the
basis for suspended solids removal by gravitational settling. It has been
shown that when a particle Is present in a liquid, the particle will move
in a verticle direction due to gravity forces, accelerating until a con-
stant velocity Is attained. This constant velocity is known as the
settling velocity of the particle and Is dependent upon the density, size
-------
and shape of the particle and the viscosity of the fluid, which is
strongly temperature dependent.
Vs = g/!8p (P - Pw ) D2
Vs = Terminal Settling Velocity, cm/sec
g = Acceleration due to gravity, 981 cm/sec^
^ = Water viscosity, poise (temperature dependent)
Pw = Water density, g/cm3
Pp = Particle density, g/cm^
D = Particle diameter, cm
As can be seen from the variables in the above formula, the set-
tling velocity of a particle is dependent upon the temperature of the
water it is carried in, the specific gravity of the particle itself, and
the shape of the particle (spherical, flat, or rod-shaped). Table 1 shows
the effect of water temperature on settling velocity using room temper-
ature (20* C) as a standard. The changes in settling velocity were
computed by Stoke's Law, varying the viscosity of water at different
temperatures and holding all other variables constant.
TABLE 1. EFFECT OF WATER TEMPERATURE ON
SETTLING VELOCITY1
Change in sett I ing
Temperature °C velocity (percent)
0' -44
10° -23
20° 0
30" +26
Specific gravity is also a factor which m.ay vary widely. For ex-
ample, the specific gravity for most soil particles is assumed to be 2.65;
however, the specific gravity of coal particles will range from 1.29-
1.32. Finally, the shape of the particle will affect the settling
velocity. Experimental data on the settling velocity of nonspherical
particles Indicates that a rod-shaped particle will have a settling
velocity that Is 73- 78% of a spherical particle. The range of settling
velocities, for particle sizes according to gradation of sand, silt and
clay size spheres in water at various temperatures, is shown in Table 2.
Sedimentation basin design is based upon the theory that all par-
ticles having a settling velocity greater than or equal to the design
settling velocity will be removed prior to exiting the basin. Figure 1
indicates this settling velocity relation. The settling velocity of a
particle that would be just removed (Vy = Vs ) can be related to the depth
of the tank and the retention time as follows:
-------
TABLE 2. SETTLING VELOCITIES OF SEDIMENT IN WATER
Diameter of particle
Classification
CD
Micron
10,000
1000
1000
10
1
0.45
0.10
cm
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
(TKtl
10
Gravel
1
Coarse sand
0.1
Fine sand
0.01
Silt
0.001
Clay
0.000045 0.00045
Clay
0.00001
*Conditions:
P =
Pw =
Pp =
g =
0 =
0.0001
Colloid
Temperature, °C
Water viscosity, poise 0.
Water density, g/cm^ o.
Particle density, g/cm3 2.
Gravitational constant,
cm/ sec2
9 0°C
5027 cm/ sec
(165) ft/sec
50.
(1.65)
0.50
(0.017)
0.005
(1.6x10~4)
5.03x10'5
(1 .6x10"6)
1.02x10"5
(3.34x10~7)
5.03x10~7
(1.6x10~8)
0° 10°
01787 0.01307
99987 0.99973
65 2.65
981 981
Particle Diameter, cm variable variable
i ioec
6874
(225^
68.7
(2.25)
0.69
(0.023)
0.0069
(2.3x10~4)
6.87x10"5
(2.3x10~6)
1.39x10"5
(4.57x10~7)
6.87x10~7
(2.3x10~8)
20°
0.01002
0.99823
2.65
981
variable
@20'C
8975
(294)
89.8
(2.94)
0.90
(0.029)
0.009
(2.9x10"4)
8.98xlO'5
(2.9x10~6)
1.82x10"5
(5.9x10~7)
8. 98x1 O'7
(2.9x10"8)
-------
v -Jl
s~ t
Depth of pond at outlet zone
Time the particle
(detention time)
Is In the pond
INLET ZONE
OUTLET ZONE
Vy = Settling Velocity of
Particle In Question
Design Settling Velocity of
Particle Just Removed
SLUDGE ZONE
Figure 1. Discrete particle settling.3
Under constant flow - ideal conditions, the time that the particle is in
the pond may be calculated as follows:
-rime _ Volume of pond
_ _hA
Flow rate of drainage ~ Q
A = Surface area of pond
Q = Inf low to pond
Jy combining the two previous equations, it can now be seen that
the settling velocity of a particle just removed, in a particular ideal
sedimentaHon basin, is related to the inflow rate and basin size as
f o I I ows :
0 Flow rate of drainage Into the pond _ mVsec
A Surface area of pond
- m/sec
The above relationship indicates that surface area of a sediment
pond ideally has a substantial effect on the removal efficiency. This
effect is Illustrated by the data in the following table, which shows the
minimum surface area required to settle particles of selected size for a
0.0283m3/ sec (1 cfs) outflow.
-------
TABLE 3. MINIMUM SEDIMENT POND AREA
REQUIREMENTS TO SETTLE
PARTICLES OF SELECTED SIZES4
Particle diameter Minimum area required
(millimeters) m 2 ft 2
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.001
0.0001
7.43
13.5
189
18,900
1,890,000
80
145
2030 (0.046 acres)
203,000 (4.6 acres)
20,300,000 (466 acres)
This value of settling velocity is also known as the surface
hydraulic loading or overflow rate. Hazen showed that the removal effi-
ciency of a basin is solely dependent on hydraulic loading (ideal set-
tling) when the following assumptions are true:^
1. Flow through the basin is quiescent.
2. Horizontal flow-through velocity is distributed
uniformly through a cross-section of the basin.
3. Suspended particles are discrete and non-Interacting.
4. Once the particles settle out, they do not become
resuspended.
If the preceding conditions hold true, theoretically 100$ of the
particles having a settling velocity greater than or equal to the design
settling velocity will be removed; however, as is the case more often than
not, conditions in actual sedimentation ponds do not follow theory. Among
the changes from theory occurring In many actual ponds are:
1. Short-circuiting due to currents within the pond.
2. Turbulence, due to flow-through velocity, retards
sett I ing.
3. Sludge may be scoured and resuspended at high
flow-through velocities.
Snort-circuiting, the flow of water directly t... Jugh a pond from
inlet to outlet in straight-line fashion, may have a great effect on the
removal efficiency of a sedimentation basin. The short-circuiting can be
caused by high inlet velocities, high outlet flow rates, location of in-
lets and outlets In close proximity to one another, exposure of surface
area to strong winds, uneven heating of basin by sunlight, and density
10
-------
differences between influent solids concentration and basin solids concen-
tration. Inlet and outlet conditions and basin geometry are factors which
cause steady short-circuiting while the other causes are intermittent.
Using salt tracer studies on four types of settling tanks, short-cir-
cuiting was minimized in narrow, rectangular, norizontal-flow tanks when
short-circuiting was due primarily to inlet and outlet conditions and tank
geometry. The most important considerations in the attempt to minimize
short-circuiting are dissipation of inlet velocity, location of inlet and
outlet structures relative to one another, and the reduction of outflow
velocity.
Research by Camp conducted on settling tanks of various shapes
and sizes has Ied to a short-circuiting compensation factor (F sc) for
basin geometry that diverges from the ideal as shown in Table 4. To com-
pensate for the non-ideal ity of a settling basin, the design surface area
for an actual pond should be increased as follows:
A =
-------
1OO
IDEAL QUIESCENT
CONDITION
TTTIIiilll!
TURBULENT FLOW
fit CONDITION
3 456
.3 .4 .5 .6 .8
V8 DESIGN
VALUES OF
V8 ACTUAL
Figure 2. Determination of trap efficiency.7
flow required to start in motion a free unattached particle of a specific
size. The formula to compute scour velocity is as follows:
g
S
D
F
•^ g(S-1)D;
= Scour velocity in cm/sec;
= Shield's Critical Shear Stress Parameter,
.04 for uniform sand, .06 for cohesive material;
= Acceleration due to gravity, 981 cm/sec?;
= Specific gravity of particle;
= Diameter of spherical particle (cm); and
= Darcy-Weisbach friction factor, usually .02-.03.
In order to retain the settled particles within the basin, the horizontal
velocity should be maintained at less than the scour velocity.
As detailed by the previous discussion on the theory of sedimen-
tation, several interrelated factors have a substantial effect on the per-
formance of a settling basin:
Water temperature;
Characteristics of the particle to be removed:
Spec I fie gravity;
Diameter (size);
Shape;
Aggregation;
1?
-------
Variation In flow rate of drainage into and through the pond;
Surface area of the pond;
Depth; and
Non-ideal conditions in pond
Short-circuiting
Turbulence
. Scouring.
In the process of designing a settling basin, one must take care
to consider all the variables having an effect on sedimentation.
COAGULATION
When suspended particles in water approach a very small size,
less than .001 mm, they are non-sett IeabIe and are described as colloidal
dispersions. Colloidal dispersions consist of discrete particles that
remain in suspension because of their extremely small size, chemical
combination with water, or surface electrical charge. The size of the
particle is an important factor In keeping the colloid in suspension
because larger particles have a lower surface area to mass ratio and
consequently are more affected by gravity forces causing sedimentation.
With colloids, the surface area to mass ratio is high and surface forces
such as electrostatic repulsion and chemical combination with water pre-
dominate over the forces of gravity. Figure 3 displays the classification
of particles by size.
CLASSIFICATION OF PARTICLE
DISSOLVED _
( COLLOIDAL ^
SUSPENDED OR
NONFILTERABLE
SIZE OF PARTICLE (microns)
1O-4 1O-3 1O-2 1O-1 1 1O 1OO
-H 1 1 1 1 1 H
10 • io-7 io-« io-» io-« 10-* 10-'
SIZE OF PARTICLE (centimeters)
REMOVABLE BY
COAGULATION _
_ SETTLEABLE _
Figure 3. Classification and size range of
particles found in water.8
13
-------
Colloidal dispersions can be subdivided into two types, hydro-
phi lie and hydrophobia. Hydrophilic colloids are stable in suspension due
to their affinity for water, while hydrophobic colloids have no affinity
for water and are stable because of their electric charge. The hydropho-
bic colloid becomes charged by adsorbing positive ions from the water
solution. The layer of positive relatively non-exchangeable Ions known as
the Stern layer is attracted to the negatively charged particle. The
Stern layer is then surrounded by a moveable, diffuse layer of counter
ions. The concentration of positive ions in this diffuse layer decreases
as the distance from the central particle Increases. Figure 4 depicts the
electric potential of the diffuse layer of counter ions and the Stern
layer. The electric potential increases from zero at the outer edge of
the counter ion layer to Its maximum at the surface of the particle. The
Zeta potential of the particle Is the magnitude of this charge at the sur-
face of shear between the Stern layer and the diffuse layer of counter
ions and can be estimated from electrophoretlc measurement of particle
mobility in an electric field.
When a high zeta potential exists, a stable colloidal dispersion
exists, i.e., the Individual particles do not tend to aggregate because of
the repulsive forces of the double layer of ions surrounding each parti-
cle. Removal of colloids from solution or destabiIization of the colloi-
dal dispersion can be accomplished by the addition of electrolytes. The
electrolytes which are most effective in destabiIization are multi-valent
ions with an opposite charge to the colloidal particles. Oppositely
charged counter Ions of the electrolyte decrease the double layer colloi-
dal charge to a point where particle contact is made and Van der Waal's
forces of attraction cause the particles to aggregate. Another method of
destabiIization is the bridging of particles with long chain organic poly-
electrolytes. The polyelectrolyte attaches to surfaces of colloidal par-
ticles causing a bridging effect, forming a larger particle. A third de-
stabi I izing agent is a hydrolyzed metal ion which acts both in compression
of the double layer and in bridging of the particles.
The removal of colloidal particles from solution using coagulants
depends upon several factors:
nature and concentration of colloid;
. type and dosage of coagulant;
. use of coagulant aid; and
characteristics of water
- pH
- temperature
- ionic character.
14
-------
SURFACE OF SHEAR
ELECTRIC
POTENTIAL
SURROUNDING
PARTICLE
ZETA POTENTIAL
4-
ELECTRIC POTENTIAL
FIXED LAYER _/
OF IONS
DISTANCE FROM
PARTICLE
DIFFUSE LAYER
OF COUNTER IONS
Figure 4. Concept of zeta potential derived from
the diffuse double layer theory.9
15
-------
Due to the complex nature of the chemistry of colloidal destabiIization,
the chemical treatment of water is usually based upon empirical data de-
rived from laboratory treatability tests. In the treatment of colloids,
the term coagulation Is generally used to describe the complete process of
colloid removal as depicted in Figure 5. This process generally Includes
two separate phases: 1) chemical addition and mixing during which the
coagulant is added to the water and dispersed, usually by violent agita-
tion, and 2) flocculat ion, occurring for a much longer period of time,
during which the water is slowly mixed and the particles are allowed to
agglomerate to form larger settleable particles.
COAGULATION
»
POLYMER COLLOID
A. Destabillzatlon
FLOCCULATION
B. Agglomeration
Figure 5. Colloidal suspension destablllzatlon
with high molecular weight organic
polymers.10
The removal of suspended solids by coagulation Is a point of
great interest due to the requirements of the 1977 Clean Water Act
specifying a limit of total suspended solids permitted In the effluent of
a surface mine sediment basin. Many existing basins will not be able to
meet the specified effluent limitations because of the particle size
distribution of the influent suspended solids. If the total amount of
particles contains high percentages in the non-sett IeabIe range, then the
process of coagulation must be used for their removal in order to comply
with existing regulations.
16
-------
SECTION 5
DISCUSSION OF STUDY FINDINGS
Ourlng the course of this study, the project was essentially dl
vlded Inta three separate phases:
- Selection and evaluation of model sediment ponds;
- Evaluation of physical modification alternatives; and
- Evaluation of the use and applicability of coagulants
to Improve sedimentation pond performance.
SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF MODEL SEDIMENT PONDS
In the construction of sediment ponds, the surface mine operator
has the option to choose among three basic variations of design. The
first and most basic of the three Is the excavated sediment pond or "dug-
out" as d3picted In Figure 6. An excavated sediment pond is essentially a
hole In the ground which acts as a sump. The water flows into the exca-
vated pond at one end and overflows the downstream end with no construc-
tion of detailed Inlet and outlet devices. The excavated pond is easily
constructsd by backhoe or dozer. As is evident by the limited use of this
technique, it Is only applicable in certain specific situations such as
the treatment of runoff from a small area or from an area with relatively
fI at terrsln.
The second type of sediment pond Is known In West Virginia as the
sediment dam, excavated type. With this type of pond, an embankment is
constructed In association with the excavation for additional storage ca-
pacity. The principal and emergency spillway are combined as an exit
channel through the embankment as shown In Figure 7. The one specific re-
quirement Is that the minimum outflow elevation through this spillway be
less than three feet above natural ground, in which case no more than
three feet of water will be impounded without discharge through the
outlet. This method Is used widely throughout West Virginia because of
it's ease of construction and limited cost.
The third method of construction also uses an embankment, but
makes use of a pipe and riser barrel for a principal spillway, with an ex-
cavated e-nergency spillway In natural ground as seen-in Figure 8. By the
17
-------
Figure 6. Excavated sediment pond
-------
Figure 7. Excavated sediment dam.
19
-------
Figure 8. Embankment sediment pond.
20
-------
use of this method in conjunction with excavation, a much larger storage
capacity can be attained. Because of the required size of many sedimenta-
tion ponds, a large number of surface mine operators use this method.
Six "model" sediment ponds were chosen as the basis of this study
to represent the methods currently used for sediment removal in the Appa-
lachian coal fields. These six ponds served as the sources of sediment-
laden influent upon which bench-scale coagulant testing was performed, as
will be discussed in depth later, and as examples of the various physical
design characteristics used in the study area. The geographic locations
of the sediment ponds are as follows: southwestern Pennsylvania, PA-1;
northeastern West Virginia, WV-3; central West Virginia, WV-4; two ponds
located in southwestern West Virginia, WV-1 and WV-2; and one located in
southeastern Kentucky, KY-1 (see Figure 9).
Physical Characteristics of Model Ponds
A field visit to each model sediment pond was arranged to gather
data on the physical characteristics and to obtain an influent and efflu-
ent water sample during wet-weather flow conditions. The method of physi-
cal data gathering was of a reconnaissance nature and as such was rather
general in scope. The physical measurements and observations made at each
location were as follows:
- general description and location;
- description and measurement of inlet area;
- measurement of pond size;
- shape of pond;
- description and measurement of outlet area; and
- general condition of the pond.
Additional data was gathered from the design plans for each pond
concerning items such as drainage area, disturbed area contributing to the
pond, and general design computations. Throughout the next section, phys-
ical characteristics of each model pond are listed and discussed.
Southwestern Pennsylvania PA-1 —
Sediment pond PA-1 is typical of the technique used to control
sediment from surface mines in Pennsylvania. In that state, most of the
runoff from the affected area of a mine is directed into the pit. From
the pit, it is pumped, along with active mine drainage generated within
the pit, fo a series of treatment ponds for neutralization and settling.
Through the use of storage and preliminary settling in the pit, the oper-
ator minimizes the sediment pond storage requirements. Finally, if it is
21
-------
I I COAL FIELDS
r-o
PENNSYLVANIA
\
NORTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
Figure 9. Location of model sediment ponds.
-------
difficult to direct runoff from part of a disturbed area, such as a haul
road, to the pit, a sediment pond will be constructed to treat the runoff
from that small affected area. The pond is located out of a natural drain-
way to avoid collecting runoff from undisturbed areas, thereby lowering
detention times by minimizing influent volume.
Sediment pond PA-1 is an excellent example of this type of pond.
It is used to treat the runoff from a section of haul road directly above
the pond. The pond is an excavated type (dugout) with a "flat lip" dis-
charge which consists of a depressed area at one end of the pond. The
pond's physical characteristics are detailed in Table 5.
Figure 10A is a photograph of sediment pond PA-1 showing the inlet
area of the pond in the foreground and the body of the pond and the dis-
charge in the background. Figure 10B is also a photograph of pond PA-1
with the inlet area in the foreground and the "flat-lip" discharge in the
right background.
Southwestern West Virginia WV-1 —
Sediment pond WV-1 Is located in the southwestern section of West
Virginia and is typical of the type of pond used in steep-sloped mining
areas. These ponds are located directly in the major drainage system down-
stream of the mine site. The pond is constructed through a combination of
excavation and embankment techniques. Use of this combination construction
technique increases the storage capacity of the excavated pond. The addi-
tional storage is limited by West Virginia regulations to three feet above
the original ground surface unless a principal pipe spillway and emergency
spiI I way is i ncluded in the design. The spiI I way i s general Iy a trape-
zoidal channel in the embankment with an invert elevation of three feet
above the natural ground.
The volume of the West Virginia sediment .pond is based upon the
requirement of a 0.125 acre-foot per acre of disturbed area above the pond.
This disturbed area in most cases consists of the face area of a valley
fill since on-bench sediment control and valley fill construction tech-
niques are practiced to limit the amount of sediment reaching the pond.
Sediment pond WV-1's specific physical characteristics are listed in Table
6.
Figures 11A through 11C are photographs of the pond taken during
the sampling period. Figure 11A is a photograph of the body of the pond
taken from the embankment - note the swamp-l ike vegetation at the crest of
the embankment. Figure 11B shows the entrance to the exit channel with
vegetation growing in the body of the pond, and Figure 11C is a photograph
of the concrete-Iined exit channel.
23
-------
TABLE 5. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS-
SEDIMENT POND PA-1
Physical characteristics
Descr i ption
Type
Location
Drainage Area
Disturbed Area
Inlet Configuration
Body of Pond
Storage Volume
Length : Width
Outlet Configuration
General Condition of Pond
- Excavated Pond (dugout)
- Off Main Drainage
- Less than 12.1 hectares
(30 acres)
- Less than 12.1 hectares
(30 acres)
- Random Inlet
- No Defined Channel
- No Erosion Control
- Rectangular 35m x 23.6m
(90 ft x 60 ft)
- Depth 1.5m (5 ft)
Verticle Side Slopes
- 764.6m3 (27,000 ft3)
(0.62 Acre-Ft)
- 1.5:1
- "Flat-Lip" Discharge
Depressed Swale at End of Pond
Width = 5.2m (17 ft)
Heavily Grassed, Clay,
Swampy Material
- No erosion control on inlet
No erosion control on outlet
Good general condition
Appeared to be recently con-
structed
24
-------
vT-
' "' / .' . "*
" \
• ^L . *•" .*Jtf>
-%
S L-
A. Main body of pond.
-------
TABLE 6. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS-
SEDIMENT POND WV-1
Physical characteristics
Descr i ption
Type
Locat ion
Drainage Area
(Stream Watershed)
Disturbed Area
Inlet Configuration
3ody of Pond
Storage Volume
Length : Width
Outlet Configuration
General Condition of Pond
- Excavated Sediment Dam
- On Main Drainage System
- 137.6 ha (340 Acres)
- 15.9 ha (64 Acres)
- Trapezoid
Concrete Lined
4.6m (15 ft) Bottom Width
6.7m (22 ft) Top Width
2Q% Slope
- Pear Shaped
82.3m (270 ft) Long By
53.3m (175 ft) Wide at
Embankment
Approx. 1.5m (5 ft) Deep
- 3330.8m3 (2.7 AF)
- 1.5:1
- Trapezoid
Concrete Lined
4.6m (15 ft) Bottom Width
8.2m (27 ft) Top Width
20% Slope
- At time of sampling, pond was
choked with sediment. Vege-
tation had grown throughout
25? of the surface area.
26
-------
A. View from embankment.
B. Top of exit channel.
Figure 1 1. Sediment pond WV-1
I
-------
C. Exit channel.
Figure 1 1 . (continued)
Central West Virginia WV-2—
Sediment pond WV-2 is a combination of two ponds in a series,
WV-2A and WV-2B. The first pond in the series is an excavated pond with an
embankment similar to sediment pond WV-1. It is located in the natural
stream channel and all drainage from the upstream area passes through the
pond. Data on the pond's physical characteristics are listed in Table 7.
Figures 12A through 12C are photographs of pond WV-2A taken during
a field visit to the mine site. The first figure indicates the inlet area
to the pond where a delta of sediment has formed because of low influent
velocity. Figure 12B shows the body of the pond and Figure 12C indicates
the embankment with rock lined exit channel.
The second pond in this series is an excavated one approximately
one kilometer downsteam from the first pond. It is located In an unusual
position at the confluence of the original stroom through the mine site and
another drainaqo aroa. Tho pond is approximately rectangular In shape,
115.8m (380 ft) long by 45.7m (150 ft) wide. It has two rock lined trape-
zoidal entrance channels and a rock lined trapezoidal exit channel. Physi-
cal data for the pond are detailed in Table 8.
28
-------
TABLE 7. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS-
SEDIMENT POND WV-2A
Physical characteristics
Descr iption
Type
Location
Drainage Area
Disturbed Area
Inlet Configuration
Body of Pond
Storage Volume
Length : Width
Outlet Configuration
General Condition of Pond
- Excavated Sediment Dam
- On Main Drainage System
- 174.4 ha (431 Acres)
- 18.6 ha (46 Acres)
- Culvert Under Haul Road
- Trapezoidal 109.7m
(360 ft) Long
48.8m (160 ft) Wide at Dam
18.2m (60 ft) Wide at
Upstream End
- 5550 m3 (4.5 AF)
- 3.3:1
- Dumped Rock in Original
Channel
- Good
Sediment accumulation at inlet
29
-------
A. View of inlet area.
B. View of body of the pond.
Figure 1 2. Sediment pond WV-2A
':
-------
C. View of outlet.
Figure 1 2. Ccontinued)
The photographs shown in Figures 1 3A through 130 were taken at
sediment pond WV-28. Figure 13A was taken at the inlet end and shows the
use of multiple rock lined entrance channels for erosion preotection and
velocity reduction. Figure 1 3B is a view of the body of the pond looking
from the inlet area, Figure 13C is a view looking from the outlet, and
Figure 130 is a photograph of the rock lined effluent channel. Having no
embankment, and being totally excavated, sediment pond WV-2B is an unusual
pond for Appalachian terrain. The material excavated during pond construc-
tion was used to reclaim a low lying area adjacent to the pond for farming
purposes.
Northeastern West Virginia WV-3—
Sediment pond WV-3 is an experimental pond designed, constructed,
and operated by the Environmental Protection Agency near Morgantown, West
Virginia. It is an embankment pond with a pipe principal spillway and
emergency spillway. Two modifications have been made to the pond in an
attempt to improve its removal efficiency. A weir trough has been added to
the riser barrel to decrease the effluent velocity, limit short circuiting,
and decrease weir loading. A baffle has been added near the pond entrance
to decrease influent velocity, aid in settling, and decrease short cir-
cuiting. Specific pond physical data are listed in Table 9.
-------
TABLE 8. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS-
SEDIMENT POND WV-2B
Physical characteristics
DescrIption
Type
Location
Drainage Area
Disturbed Area
Inlet Configuration
Body of Pond
Storage Volume
Length : Width
Outlet Configuration
General Condition of Pond
- Excavated Sediment Pond
- On Main Drainage System
- 562.9 ha (1391 Acres)
- 43.7 ha (108 Acres)
- Two Rock Lined Inlet Channels
- Rectangular 115.8m x 42.7m
(380 ft x 140 ft)
- 7524 m3 (6.1 Acre-Ft)
- 2.7:1
- Trapezoidal
Rock Lined
11.9m (39 ft) Wide at Top
1.5m (5 ft) Deep
- Very Good
Erosion control on inlet and
outlet
Large surface area
Figure 14A and 14B are photographs of sediment pond WV-3. Figure
14A is a view toward the inlet from the embankment and shows the weir
trough and riser barrel discharge device. Figure 14B is a closeup of the
weir trough and riser barrel.
Central West Virginia WV-4--
Sediment pond WV-4 is a prime example of a pond designed solely to
provide a specific amount of sediment volume without regard to detention
time. WV-4 is located downstream from most of this site's mining activity
and is designed to provide sediment control for a portion of the mine haul
32
-------
A. View of multiple inlets.
B. View from inlet.
Figure 1 3. Sediment pond WV-2B.
33
-------
C. View from effluent channel.
D. Effluent channel.
Figure 13. Ceontinued)
.54
-------
TABLE 9. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS-
SEDIMENT POND WV-3
Physical characteristics
Descr i ption
Type
Location
Drainage Area
Disturbed Area
Inlet Configuration
Body of Pond
Storage Volume
Length : Width
Outlet Configuration
General Condition of Pond
- Embankment Sediment Pond
- On Main Drainage System
- 55.1 ha (136 Acres)
- 25.9 ha (64 Acres)
- Natural Meandering Stream
Channel
- Rectangular 111.2m x 39.6m
(365 ft x 130 ft)
Baffle Located 8.5m (28 ft)
from Entrance
- 5674 m3 (4.6 AF)
- 2.8:1
- Riser 91.4 m (36 in) Smooth
Steel Pipe, No Perforations
- 0.3m x 0.3m (1 ft x 1 ft)
Wooden Broad Crested Weir
Trough 30.5m (100 ft) Long
Leading to Riser Barrel
- Principal Spillway - 61.0 cm
(24 in) Smooth Steel Pipe @
0.66? Slope
- 10.2 cm (4 in) Smooth Steel
Drai npi pe
- Trapezoidal Emergency Spillway
20.7m (68 ft) Bottom Width
0.9m (3 ft) Deep
- Pond area between entrance and
baffle has accumulated sedi-
ment to top of baffle.
35
-------
A, View from embankment.
. i= -v
^tf- -jjf
B. Effluent weir trough.
Figure 1 4. Sediment pond WV-3.
36
-------
TABLE 10. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS-
SEDIMENT POND WV-4
Physical characteristics
Descr iption
Type
Location
Drainage Area
Disturbed Area
Inlet Configuration
3ody of Pond
Storage Volume,
Length : Width
Outlet Configuration
General Condition of Pond
- Excavated Sediment Dam
- On Main Drainage System
-151 ha (375 Acres)
- 5.3 ha (13.2 Acres)
- Natural Stream Channel
1.2m (4 ft) - 3.1m (10 ft)
Wide
- Rectangular 64.0m x 14.6m
(210 ft x 48 ft)
- 2400m3 (1.9 Ac-ft)
- 4.4:1
- Concrete SpiI I way
2.4m (8 ft) - 3.6m (12 ft)
Wide
- Accumulated sediment should be
removed
Poor erosion control at inlet
road. It receives drainage, however, from the total area above the pond,
thereby severely limiting detention time. The pond is an excavated embank-
ment type rectangular in shape. Specific physical details are listed In
Table 10.
Figures 15A and 15B are photographs of sediment pond WV-4. Figure
15A is a photograph of the body of the pond with the embankment and spill-
way in the upper right background. Figure 15B is also a photograph of the
body of the pond but showing the inlet area In the left foreground.
Southeastsrn Kentucky KY-1—
Sediment pond KY-1 is located in the southeastern section of Ken-
tucky and is an example of a pond design based upon the requirements of fhe
Office of Surface Mining of the U.S. Department of the Interior in effect
at the time of design. The pond has a sediment storage volume equivalent
to 0.2 acre-feet per acre of disturbed area and runoff storage equivalent
37
-------
A. View of embankment and spillway.
B. Inlet area of pond.
Figure 1 5. Sediment pond WV-4,
...
-------
to the runotf from a 10-year 24-hour storm. It is an excavated pond with
an embankment, having a principal spillway of a pipe with riser barrel in
association with an excavated emergency spillway. The pond is situated
directly downstream from the tow of a valley fill and treats the runoff
from the fill and the mine bench above it. The physical details of the
pond are listed in Table 11.
Two photographs of sediment pond KY-1 are displayed in Figures 16A
and 16B. Figure 16A is a view of the pond body taken from the embankment
showing the inlet area in the background and the riser barrel with anti-
vortex device in the foreground. Figure 16B is a view taken from the inlet
area showing the embankment, riser barrel, and emergency spillway in the
background.
Evaluation of Model Pond Efficiency
The second phase in the evaluation of the model ponds was the de-
termination of their performance under the conditions observed during the
sampling period and their theoretical performance during three rare storm
events. The theoretical performance criteria was chosen because of the
current regulations regarding the effluent limitations from surface mine
sedimentation ponds. The effluent limitations are applicable for sediment
ponds during storm events up to and including the 10-year, 24-hour storm.
In order to determine sediment pond performance, certain labora-
tory tests must be performed on the influent and effluent water samples:
1. General chemical parameters
2. Total suspended solids
3. Particle size distribution
With the data from these tests and the physical characteristics of each
pond, the efficiency of each model pond was determined.
Laboratory Testing Results—
During the period August - November 1978, grab water samples were
obtained from the influent and effluent of the six model sediment ponds and
were analyzed for the following chemical parameters:
. pH
. Total alkalinity (mg/1 as Ca CO^)
. Hot acidity (mg/1 as Ca CO 3)
. Turbidity (JTU)
. S04 (mg/1 )
. Ca (mg/1)
39
-------
TABLE 11. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS-
SEDIMENT POND KY-1
Physical characteristics
Description
Type
Location
Drainage Area
Disturbed Area
Inlet Configuration
Body of Pond
Design Storage Volume
Sediment Storage
Runoff Storage
Length : Width
Outlet Configuration
General Condition of Pond
- Excavated Embankment Sediment
pond
- On Main Drainage System
- 18.2 ha (45 Acres)
- 4.6 ha (15 Acres)
- Natural Stream Channel
- Pear Shaped
21.3m (70 ft) at Dam x
24.4m (80 ft) Long
- 7067 m3(5.73 Ac-ft)
- 3823 m3(3.1 Ac-ft)
- 1233 m3(2.63 Ac-ft)
- 2.1:1
- Principal Spi11 way
38.1 cm (15 in) Corrugated
Metal Pipe with
53.3 cm (21 in) Corrugated
Metal Pipe Riser
- Trapezoidal Emergency Spillway
6.1 m (20 ft) Bottom Width
0.76 m (2.5 ft) Depth
- Recently Constructed
No energy dissipation on inlet
No erosion protection on
emergency spiI I way
40
-------
A. View of body of the pond.
B. View of embankment, riser barrel
and emergency spillway.
Figure 1 6. Sediment pond KY-1
41
-------
. Mg (mg/1)
. Total sol Ids (mg/1)
. Total suspended solids (mg/1)
. Settleable sol ids (mg/1)
. Total Fe (mg/1)
. Mn (mg/1)
The results of the chemical analyses are shown in Table 13.
Additional testing performed on the water samples included a par-
ticle size distribution analysis on the influent which are depicted in
Figures 17 thru 23. The particle size distribution analysis was performed
by first filtering the sample through a 45 micron filter to remove the
larger particles. After filtering, the filtrate was processed with a
Coulter Counter to measure the specific particle sizes.
Efficiency of Removal During Sampling Period—
As previously mentioned, the water samples were taken during or
directly after storm events in the drainage area of each pond. Table 12
shows the amount of rainfall associated with the precipitation events oc-
curring or preceding the sample period, the influent and effluent suspended
solids, and the percent removal of suspended solids by each sediment pond.
One must be cautioned when trying to draw conclusions from the
percent removals of the pond tabulated below. Due to the nature of the
sampling programs, grab samples vs continuous monitoring, a definite per-
cent removal cannot be determined with confidence; rather, only a prelimi-
nary indication of removal efficiency can be obtained from this data.
It should be noted that rainfall data was derived, not from on-
site measurements, but from the nearest meteorological station. Thus rain-
fall data shown could be quite inaccurate, depending on local weather con-
ditions, storm movement, and the distance from the measuring point to the
actual mine site, and is presented here only as a general Indication of the
type of rainfall event.
TABLE 12. MODEL SEDIMENT POND EFFICIENCY
Pond
Date
RainfalI
(cm) (in)
Suspended
Sol Ids (mg/1)
Influent Effluent
42
Removal
PA-1
WV-1
WV-2A
WV-2B
WV-3
WV-4
KY-1
8/29/78
8/15/78
10/13/78
10/13/78
11/27/78
10/26/78
11/16/78
3.25
0.43
1.27
1.27
1.17
2.41
1.65
1 .28
0.17
0.5
0.5
0.44
0.95
0.65
437
2300
148
8, (31)
4510
2454
606
22
21
6
47
45
39
183
95
99
96
99
98
70
-------
TABLE 13. WATER QUALITY OF MODEL SEDIMENT PONDS
Model sediment ponds
PA-1 PA-1 WV-1 WVO WV-2A WV-2A WV-2BL WV-2BR WV-2B WV-3 WV-3 WV-4 WV-4 KY-1 KY-1
(Inf) (Eft) (Inf) (Eff) (Inf) (Eff) (Inf) (Inf) (Eff) (Inf) (Eff) (Inf) (Eff) (Inf) (Eft)
pH
Total alkalinity
(mg/l as Ca CO,)
Hot acidity
(mg/l as Ca CO,)
Turbidity
(JTU)
SO4 (mg/l)
5.8 5.2 8.1 8.3 5.6 6.1 6.O 6.3 5.7 7.4 7.5 6.4 6.7 7.O 7.0
18 14 176 178 14 20 16 124 10 138 152 36
+ 12
82 52
+4 -168 -158 -4 -10 -6 -130 -2 -116 -136 +30 -12 -58 -32
880 34 44O 22 64 4.9 12 26 20 2OO 42 44O 33 680 92
215 195 290 260 39 41 27 39 7.8 180 1 5O 1 1 0 77 79 72
Ca (mg/l)
45 47 93.2 9O.3 11.4 17.5 9.7 10.8 3.5 9O 71 27
35 25
Mg (mg/l)
Total solids
(mg/l)
Total
suspended
SOlidS (mg/l)
Settleable
solids (mi/i)
Total Fe
(mg/l)
26 19.4 58 57 6.3 5.5 4.7 5.4 1.6 31.6 23.7 18.0 15.5 21.7 1o.2
1,413 433 3,447 817 253 106 93 128 108 4,975 423 3,089 230 996 376
437 22 2,3O6 21 148
31
47 4,510 45 2,454 '^ 6O6 183
5.0 O.1 24 0.3 2.5 2.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 40 <0.1 8.0
3.5 0.2
8.5 0.17 15.6 0.26 5.00 0.45 1 . 7O 1.76 1.13 34.3 0.46 13.5 0.59 4.04 1.39
Mn (mg/l)
2.10 3.3 0.97 0.18 0.56 0.26 0.33 0.21 O.11 2.25 O.53 4.2 2.5 2.49 0.31
-------
10O
E
Ul
LL
CD
Ul
fjf
it *
"• £
0£
ui
0
E
Ul
a
20
60 4O 2O 10 6 6 4 2
PARTICLE DIAMETER (microns)
Figure 17. Particle size distribution PA-1.
44
-------
6O 4O 20 10 8 6 4 2
PARTICLE DIAMETER (microns)
Figure 18. Particle size distribution WV-1.
45
-------
a.
ui
z
en
UJ
»
u. >
OS.
>-
u
u
oc
UJ
a
20
BO 4O
2O 1O 8 6 4 I
PARTICLE DIAMETER (microns)
Figure 19. Particle size distribution WV-2A.
EL
IS
SI
u
0
c
UJ
a
60 40
2O 1O 8 6 4 i
PARTICLE DIAMETER (microns)
Figure 2O. Particle size distribution WV-2B.
46
-------
cc
Ul
CO
u
UJ
8
s
tt
I
z
(0
Hi
81
u- £
0£
in
^
8!
20
6O 4O
2O 10 8 6 4 2
PARTICLE DIAMETER (microns)
Figure 21. Particle size distribution WV-3.
100
20
4O 2O 1O 8 6 4 2
PARTICLE DIAMETER (microns)
Figure 22. Particle size distribution WV-4.
47
-------
100
4O
2O 1O 8 6 4
PARTICLE DIAMETER (microns)
Figure 23. Particle size distribution KY-1,
Theoretical Efficiency During a Rare Storm Event—•
During a recent study, the six sediment ponds referred to in this
report were evaluated to determine size requirements to meet current OSM
specifications and to determine their effectiveness in sediment removal
during the occurrence of a variety of rare storm events. Through the use
of computer simulation techniques, the six sediment ponds, redesigned to
OSM specifications, were studied to determine their performance during the
experience of three discrete precipitation events, the 2-year, 5-year, and
10-year 24-hour storms.
First, sediment ponds meeting current OSM requirements were de-
signed to provide sediment storage of 0.1 AF/acre of disturbed area and a
detention storage equivalent to the runoff from a 10-year 24-hour storm.
The total storage of each sediment pond Is detailed In Table 14.
48
-------
TABLE 14. SEDIMENT POND STORAGE CAPACITY
Current storage OSM Increase in size
volume design volume %
(m3) (AF) (m3) (AF)
PA-1
WV-1
WV-2A
WV-3
WV-4
KY-1
764
3330
5550
5674
2400
7067
0.62
2.7
4.5
4.6
1.9
5.7
10,120
34,500
35,200
23,900
24,700
6,400
8.2
28.0
28.5
19.4
20.0
5.2
1220
937
533
322
952
-8.8
In order to evaluate the performance of these sediment ponds, a three-step
approach was employed. First, the gross erosion in tons from the watershed
tributary to the ponds was computed for the 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year 24-
hour storm events. Second, the inflow hydrograph for each sediment pond
was computed for the three storm events. Finally, the performance of each
sediment pond was evaluated using a computer program developed by the Uni-
versity of Kentucky Department of Agricultural Engineering. The results of
this computer evaluation are detailed in Table 15. The results of the 2-
year precipitation event are not Included In this summary because the com-
puter model simulated 100$ trap efficiency for the total runoff. Because
the computer model simulates flow through the basin as plug flow, the model
assumes that the runoff from the 2-year storm event displaces the permanent
pool of "clear" water. In an actual field situation, the pre-storm con-
tents of the permanent pool which will be discharged prior to storm dis-
charge will contain an unknown amount of colloidal material contributing to
suspended solids In the effluent. Review of the data presented in Table
shows that none of the enlarged basins met the suspended solids effluent
limitations for the 5- and 10-year storms. For example, sediment pond
PA-1, increased In size by 1220$, still produced a peak effluent concentra-
tion thirty-three times larger than the maximum allowable. It is obvious
that the existing sediment ponds would perform poorly during a rare storm
event.
REVIEW OF PHYSICAL MODIFICATION ALTERNATIVES
During the course of Phase I of this study, It has become apparent
that physical modification to sediment ponds may be made in any one of the
three distinct parts of the pond:
1. Inlet portion
2. Body of the pond
3. Outlet portion
49
-------
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF SIMULATED SEDIMENT POND
VJl
O
PERFORMANCE
11
Pond
PA-1
WV-1
WV-2A
WV-3
WV-4
KY-1
Prec i p i tat i on
event frequency
24 hr. duration
5-year
1 0-year
5-year
1 0-year
5-year
1 0-year
5-year
1 0-year
5-year
1 0-year
5-year
1 0-year
Detention time
(hours)
20.8
25.0
25.7
26.1
13.9
24.7
26.3
26.3
15.4
25.7
16.3
26.2
Suspended sol
peak inf.
52,300
54,300
21,000
22,630
5,700
6,180
41,300
41,300
15,100
17,100
10,700
10,400
ids (mg/l)
peak eff.
1730
2310
1240
1280
430
460
1590
2300
1240
1340
590
646
Basin trap
efficiency (%)
99.0
97.5
95.9
94.3
94.0
93.8
98.0
95.8
93.5
94.4
95.8
94.9
-------
The purpose of modifying the sediment pond's physical characteristics in
these three areas is twofold; an attempt to simulate as close as possible
the characteristics of an optimum theoretical sedimentation pond in the
real world and an attempt to lessen the loading of sediment entering the
basin. Simulation of near optimum performance can be accomplished by the
reduction of short circuiting by use of a flared modified inlet, by a large
surface area In the body of the pond or by the use of multiple outlets.
Reduction of sediment loading to the pond may be accomplished by erosion
control measures such as silt fences or log and pole structures. No matter
what modification is proposed, one of two themes will be present; simula-
tion of optimum conditions or reduction of sediment loading.
Inlet Modifications
Modifications to the Inlet of a sedimentation pond can be designed
with any or all of three primary options in mind: 1) dissipation of energy
in the Influent to the basin, 2) distribution of the Influent over the
width of the pond; and 3) filtration of the influent.
Energy Dissipaters—
An energy dissipation device decreases the inlet water velocity,
thereby causing a fraction of the incoming suspended solids to settle out
Immediately. A partial list of energy dissipation devices will include
dumped rock at the pond Inlet, log or pole structures, and stone check
dams.
The simplest energy dissipater consists of dumped rock placed at
the end of the inlet channel as It enters the body of the pond. This tech-
nique effectively reduces the water velocity at the Inlet causing some
sediment to settle out and a delta of sediment is created beyond the dissi-
pater as shown in Figure 24. Table 16 indicates the maximum size particle
which will be scoured from the bottom at the velocities shown. Reference
13 has a useful section on design of outlet protection using riprap which
would also be applicable here and should be consulted when using a riprap
energy dissipater.
Another technique which provides a combination of energy dissipa-
tion and staged settling Is a log or pole structure. This structure Is a
barrier constructed of logs or poles cut during clearing of the area. The
logs and poles are placed across a natural or constructed drainway in an
upright position as shown In Figure 25. The purpose of this structure Is
to retard stream flow and catch the larger particles of sediment. One
51
-------
problem encountered with the use of these structures is the removal of the
trapped sediment. Care must be taken that another structure is in place
downstream in order to trap sediment released during the removal of the up-
stream structure.
Figure 24. Influent energy dissipation by
dumped rock.
TABLE 16. SCOUR VELOCITY VS PARTICLE SIZE
SPECIFIC GRAVITY = 2.65
B = .04
F = .02
Velocity
(cm/ sec)
15.24
30.48
45.72
60.96
91.44
121.92
Particle size
(mi I I imeters)
0.009
0.036
0.080
0.143
0.323
0.574
52
-------
TOP OF STREAM
BANK
STREAM
BOTTOM
DUMPED
ROCK
Plan View
TOP OF STREAM
BANK
Section B-B
Downstream View
Figure 25. Log and pole silt structure.
53
-------
A third type of energy dissipation structure may also be used on
the upstream section of the inlet channel. This structure is a stone check
dam and is a barrier of large stone built across a drainway. The purpose
of this dam is to reduce stream velocity and form a small sediment catch
basin. Stone check dams are often used in natural drainways directly
adjacent to the disturbed area in order to trap the larger sediment parti-
cles before they reach the sediment pond. There are specific requirements
for stone check dams in the states of West Virginia and Kentucky as
f o I I ows :
1. 25$ of the rock must be 46 cm (18 in) or
larger with remaining to be well-graded
to fill voids.
2. The dam must be keyed into the sides and bottom
of channel a minimum depth and width of 0.91
meters (3 ft)
3. The upstream and downstream slope of the dam
may be no steeper than 3:1.
4. A weir must be constructed the average width of
the channel with a minimum depth of one foot at
the center of the dam.
5. Maximum height permitted is four feet from original
channel at center!ine of dam to crest of weir.
•)0
6. Minimum top width of the weir is five feet.
In Kentucky, a check dam may be constructed of logs six Inches or
greater in diameter, placed horizontally in the stream channel. Log and
stone check dams are shown in Figures 26 and 27 respectively.
Flow Distribution—
A second major means of modification again deals with inlet
structures and involves use of some method to discharge the Influent over
the total width of the sediment pond rather than at a single influent
point. This can be accomplished with three techniques, used either sep-
arately or in tandem. The three possible modifications include the use of
an apron Inlet, strategic placement of a baffle at the Inlet, or multiple
rather than single Inlets.
54
-------
V. J
Figure 26. Log check dam.
First, an apron can be built, as shown in Figure 28, at the end of
the inlet channel, where it enters the pond, to distribute the flow evenly
over the width of the pond. By doing this, short-circuiting through the
pond can be lessened. A second method of flow distribution involves use of
a baffle within the body of the pond located approximately one-third the
distance from the inlet to the outlet to allow for velocity reduction. The
baffle, if constructed along the entire width of the pond as shown in
Figure 29A, should be an overflow type baffle. In addition to distributing
the flow over the total width of the pond, an inlet overflow baffle gives
the added benefit of staged settling, since influent velocity reduction
occurs rapidly causing the heavier particles to settle out almost immedi-
ately. Several types of inlet "directional" baffles, which do not extend
the complete width of the pond, may also be used to direct the inflow to
the sides of the pond. Figure 298 shows the location and direction of
flow; with the inlet directional baffle mounted perpendicular to the
influent flow direction, and Figure 29C shows the inlet directional baffle
mounted at a 45° angle to the perpendicular of the flow direction. A
typical baffle constructed of exterior grade plywood is shown In Figure 30
and may be used as an overflow baffle or as a directional baffle.
Another influent modification for achieving increased influent
flow distribution would be the use of multiple inlets. If the sediment
55
-------
TOP OF
STREAM
BANK
SLOPE
0)
KEY .91 m (3' - O")
INTO SIDE SLOPES^, \
Upstream View
.30 m
Figure 27. Stone check dam.
15
56
-------
FLARED
APRON
ENTRANCE
CHANNEL
FLOW-
W2 = Wt + Li
N
Figure 28. Flared apron entrance channel.
16
pond to be constructed is of the type located off the main or natural
drainage system (away from the stream channel), then multiple inlet flow
distribution would be rather simple to add to the design. Construction of
multiple inlets In a relatively flat area would not be difficult because
there would be no limitations of excavation capability due to topographic
constraints. For example, rather than Introducing the flow to a rectang-
ular pond at a single point, a branching of the influent channel Is possi-
ble. If branching Is used, care must be taken to provide adequate channel
erosion control in order to direct the flow where desired. Figure 31 in-
dicates the branching of flow Into a rectangular basin. In this example,
two primary branches are shown which will handle normal flow to the basin.
The control channel is indicated as secondary and will be used only during
high flow conditions. An Inlet control device, such as a V - notch weir
should be used on the secondary channel to prevent a straight through flow
during low flow or a by-passing of the primary branches.
57
-------
OVERFLOW
BAFFLE
PROJECTED
FLOW PATH
A. Inlet overflow baffle.
DIRECTIONAL
BAFFLE
B. Inlet directional baffle.
(perpendicular)
DIRECTIONAL
BAFFLE
C. Inlet directional baffle.
(45° angle)
Figure 29. Sediment pond Inlet baffles.
58
-------
SHEETS OF 1.22 m x 2.44 m x 1.27 cm (4' * 8'
EXTERIOR PLYWOOD OR EQUIVALENT
MIN. POST SIZE 1O.16 cm (4") SQUARE
OR 12.7 cm (5") ROUND. SET AT LEAST
0.91 m (3') INTO THE GROUND.
Figure 3O. Baffle detail.
17
Filtration of Influent—
A final modification to the inlet area of a pond introduces the
filtration of the influent through a silt fence or straw bale barrier prior
to entering the pond. The applicability of this technique is limited to
very small drainage areas (.20 ha or less) leading into a sediment pond
located off the main drainage system. Figure 32 shows a detail of the
placement of a straw bale barrier and Figure 33 depicts the placement of a
silt fence both of which should be located on the immediate perimeter of
the disturbed area.
59
-------
NORMAL POOL
FLOW
A. Single point entrance
(promotes short circuiting)
NORMAL POOL
ENTRANCE
CHANNEL%
FLOW rr- «sr=
— -.^s^..
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
B. Multiple entrance
Figure 31. Multiple Inlets by Inlet channel
branching.
Pond Modifications
Physical modifications applicable to the main body of a sediment
pond are limited to two basic concepts:
1. Compartmentalization of the basin to induce
staged sett I Ing
2. Size and shape modifications
60
-------
FLOW
1O.2 cm
(4") VERTICAL FACE
Embedding Detail
ANGLE FIRST STAKE TOWARD
PREVIOUSLY LAID BALE
FLOW
WIRE OR NYLON BOUND
BALES PLACED ON
THE CONTOUR
2 RE-BARS, STEEL PICKETS, OR
5.1 cm x 5.1 cm (2" x 2") STAKES
O.46 m to O.61 m (1V2f to 2') IN GROUND
Anchoring Detail
Figure 32. Straw bale barrier.18
61
-------
WOOD OR STEEL
POSTS
WOVEN WIRE FIELD FENCE
PLASTIC
FILTER CLOTH
BACK FILL MATERIAL
Figure 33. Sift fence.
19
-------
As stated previously, the purpose of pond modifications is to sim-
ulate ideal conditions or compensate for non-ideal ity. Compartmental-
ization compensates for non-ideal ity by reducing turbulence and decreasing
short-circuiting, and size and shape modifications attempt to simulate
ideal conditions by directing the influent through a larger percentage of
the entire volume for settling, thus also reducing short-circuiting.
Compartmentalization of the Basin to Induce Staged Settling—
CompartmentaIization of the body of the pond refers to either the
use of separate and distinct sediment ponds in a series or the division of
a single pond through the use of baffle walls. The benefit of the use of
this concept is that a staged settling of suspended solids will occur. The
solids having a higher settling velocity (heavier particles) will settle in
the first pond or settling area with the final pond or area acting as a
polishing unit to remove the remaining finer grained sediment. By taking
advantage of this technique, the majority of sludge removal and disposal
will take place during maintenance of the first sediment pond, or pond
segment, while maintenance performed on the final pond will be mini-
mized. As stated above, CompartmentalIzation of a single pond can be
accomplishod through the use of a baffle wall constructed of wood or other
suitable material placed at a position, approximately one-third of the
total length of the pond from the inlet, so that a larger more quiescent
compartment Is formed as a final section for fine-grained sediment removal.
When designing series settling ponds, the following factors must
be considered:
1. Required total sediment storage for all ponds
may be considered additive;
2. Inlet and outlet structures must be sized
independently and must consider the total
drainage area of each pond, including the
outflow from previous ponds;
3. Required detention time for each pond must
be considered in light of the hydrograph
modification of upstream ponds.
Size and Shape Modifications— '
The use of size and shape modifications to the body of sediment
ponds refers in part to the consideration of surface area in sizing of
ponds, the use of a length: width ratio criteria to determine pond shape,
and alteration of depth of a pond.
63
-------
In the design of sedimentation basins, many methods are available
ranging from rather simple analyses to complex methods using computer
modelling. Generally speaking, all methods require the input of several
pieces of basic information including:
1. Determination of sediment storage volume;
2. Determination of detention volume and pond peak
outflow; and
3. Determination of trap efficiency.
Determination of Sediment Storage Volume—
Current requirements of the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) specify
a sediment storage volume equivalent to 0.1 acre-feet of storage for every
acre of disturbed area in the watershed. If so desired, the operator may
compute the volume of sediment which would be expected to be deposited in
the basin. A method to compute sediment yield from a watershed is the
modified universal soil loss equation (MUSLE) as developed by Williams.
This equation determines the gross erosion in tons from the watershed de-
livered to the sediment pond.
Determination of Detention Volume—
OSM currently requires a detention volume for sediment ponds which
will retain the runoff from a 10-year 24-hour precipitation event for a
period of 24 hours. This detention time may be lowered to 10 hours If the
operator can prove to the regulatory authority that the current effluent
limitations for suspended solids can be met. The detention time may be
lowered to less than 10 hours if chemical treatment is used.
After the desired detention time has been selected, the computa-
tion of required basin size Is begun. To determine basin volume, an inflow
hydrograph of the design storm must be computed. Several methods of hydro-
graph computation are available, all of which are discussed In detail In
available references. After determination of the Inflow hydrograph, the
next step in design involves the sizing of the basin and discharge device
to provide the required detention time. The gross volume of the basin may
be estimated by determining the total amount of runoff from the design
storm event. Ward et al, describe a simple procedure to determine the
required storage for various detention times plus the peak outflow which
will provide that detention time.20 After estimation of the required
storage volume and selection of an appropriate outlet device to provide the
desired peak outflow rate, a reservoir routing computation should be
64
-------
performed to determine the outflow hydrograph. The actual detention time
of the basin may then be determined by finding the time difference between
the centroids of the inflow and outflow hydrographs.
Determination of Trap Efficiency—
In order to design a sediment pond for a specific trap efficiency,
a design storm must be specified, the particle size distribution of the In-
coming sediment must be known as well as the incoming sediment load.
Methods to determine trap efficiency also vary between rather simple analy-
ses to the more complex methods, using computer simulation of basin perfor-
mance. Chen describes three methods of trap efficiency computation:
Brune's method; Churchill's method, and Camp's method. Camp's method is
probably most familiar to design engineers and describes the relation be-
tween the settling velocity of particles being removed and the surface
loading or overflow velocity of the basin. By dividing the outflow rate by
the surface area of the pond (QO/A), the settling velocity of particles
completely removed may be computed. After computing the settling velocity
of the removed particles, the trap efficiency of the reservoir may be de-
termined from the Influent particle size distribution. Among the more com-
plex methods of trap efficiency determination are those requiring computer
simulation. The University of Kentucky Department of Agricultural Engi-
neering has done extensive work In this area and has developed a computer
modelling technique for sediment pond performance entitled the "DEPOSITS"
model.21 The DEPOSITS model can be used to compute the effluent sediment-
graph which will specify the concentration of suspended solids in the
effluent at various times during the passage of the design event.
After determination of the sediment pond dimensions, the shape of
the pond can now be determined. Modifications to the shape of a pond are
done In the attempt to simulate optimum conditions. A quantitative
measurement of shape is the length:w!dth ratio of the pond surface area. A
length to width ratio of 5:1 for the surface area of a sediment pond has
been recommended to reduce the possibility of short-circuiting.22 Should
the terrain of the area preclude the construction of a standard rectangular
pond, the 5:1 length to width ratio may be attained through the use of
baffles placed in the pond. In computation of the length to width ratio of
an abnormally shaped pond, the effective width (We) is first computed as
follows:
A
WQ = L
A = surface area of pond
L = linear distance from point of Inflow
to point of outflow
65
-------
Subsequently the length to width ratio may be computed as
L
L:W = W
If the L:W ratio is less than 5:1, then it is advised that baffles be
placed for increased length of flow path. Figure 34 shows three cases
where a strategically placed baffle will increase the length of flow path.
In all cases of pond shape, the effective length to width ratio may be com-
puted and used to quantify the pond's attempt to simulate ideal conditions.
An additional modification to the body of a pond concerns the pro-
file of the depth from inlet to outlet. In previous discussion, it has
been indicated that the majority of settling occurs in the first one-third
of the basin. To account for this phenomenon by minimizing sludge removal
requirements in this area, a sloping pond bottom Is recommended, with the
greater depth being at the inlet. Several advantages of this modification
are obvious. The velocity of the influent will be reduced as it enters
this deep area, with a greater sludge storage capacity, the frequency of
sludge removal is decreased, and a shallow effluent area will allow smaller
size particles to settle out. When designing a pond to include the stag-
gered depth modification, one must also consider its affect on pond outlet
structures and dewatering devices.
Outlet Modifications
Outlets for sediment pond currently In use include:
1. A pipe with riser barrel as used in sediment ponds
WV-3 and KY-1.
2. An exit channel excavated In the embankment as in
sediment ponds WV-1, WV-2, and WV-4.
3. A "flat lip" discharge as used in sediment pond
PA-1.
A point outlet for a sediment pond is objectionable because of the tendency
to cause short-circuiting and excessive turbulence at the point of dis-
charge. The options to avoid single point discharges and associated short-
circuiting include modification of the standard riser barrel, flared exit
channels, baffled outlets, and a vegetative filter.
The use of perforated riser barrels In sediment ponds is required
in some states in order to drain the pond between storm events. The use of
perforations can lead to poor pond performance In that some sediment may be
66
-------
INFLOW
NORMAL POOL
RISER (Outlet)
NORMAL POOL
RISER
Le = TOTAL DISTANCE FROM THE
POINT OF INFLOW AROUND
THE BAFFLE TO THE RISER.
INFLOW
RISER
NORMAL POOL
INFLOW
Figure 34. Sediment pond baffle placement
to Increase L:W ratio.23
67
-------
carried out of the pond through the perforations if the sediment is allowed
to accumulate or if the perforations extend too far down the riser barrel.
Several modifications to the conventional perforated riser barrel are
available for dewatering of sediment ponds.
1. Use of a subsurface drain
2. One perforation in the riser at sediment
clean-out level, with associated use of a
skimming device
3. Use of a siphon arrangement to drain to the
sediment - clean-out level
In the subsurface drain arrangement, a 10-cm (4-in) perforated
plastic pipe network is laid in a trench in the bottom of the pond and
covered with a fabric filter and sand as shown in Figure 35. The pipe is
connected to the riser and the pond is dewatered through the sand filter
perforated pipe arrangement by gravity. One advantage of this method is
the possibility of thorough dewatering of the accumulated sediment to aid
in removal and disposal. A major consideration must be, however, the added
expense of installing this pipe arrangement.
A second type of modification to the standard perforated riser
barrel is the use of a single perforation at the sediment clean-out level
as shown in Figure 36. This modification can be used in association with a
skimming device to prevent clogging. The single perforation method is easy
to construct and is capable of completely draining the pool to the sediment
clean-out level; however, the perforation may clog with trash, it is not
capable of skimming surface debris, and will pass a base flow out of the
pond without detention if sediment storage capacity is full. The single
perforation with skimmer, on the other hand, is non-clogging, fairly easy
to construct, an efficient skimmer of surface debris, and Is capable of
draining -the detention pool to clean-out level; however, it also will pass
a base flow out of the pond without detention.
With the siphon methods of dewatering, as shown in Figure 37, a
10.2-cm (4-in) pipe siphon Is substituted for the single perforation as
described previously. In each case, the inlet to the siphon is placed at
the elevation of the sediment clean-out level to facilitate drainage with-
out removing sediment. In modification A, the siphon is primed at the
sediment clean-out level as opposed to modification B, which will only
prime and begin to flow when the water level reaches point A. The siphon
will then continue to drain the pond until the water level reaches the
sediment clean-out level and breaks the siphon. The short siphon Is also
an efficient skimmer of surface debris, will always drain the pond to the
sediment clean-out level, and has a higher discharge capacity than the
single perforation method. This technique will, however, also pass a base
68
-------
EDGE OF POOL
- PERFORATED PIPE
IN TRENCH
EMBANKMENT
RISER
BARREL
Plan
NOTE: S = 4.6 m to
7.6 m (15' to 25')
0.5% MINIMUM GRADE
PERFORATED PIPE
IN TRENCH
Section A-A
EMBANKMENT
7.6 cm (3") -
BEDDING
(10") MIN.
CLEAN MASONRY
SAND
r- 1O.2 cm (4")
PERFORATED
PLASTIC PIPE
PLACED WITH
PERFORATIONS DOWN
PLACE POLY-FILTER X,
NYLON FABRIC,
OR FIBERGLASS
FILTER OVER PIPE
MORTARED OR
WELDED JOINT
RISER
Cross-Section
Drain Pipe in Trench
Riser
Connection
Figure 35. Subsurface drain/
69
-------
RISER
FLOW
1O.2 cm
(4") MAX. DIA.
HOLE
MAXIMUM SEDIMENT
STORAGE LEVEL
SEDIMENT CLEANOUT
LEVEL
(6O% of maximum sediment
storage level)
Single Perforation
(Cross Section)
OPEN TOP
AND BOTTOM
TACK WELD
1O.2 cm
(4") DIA. HOLE
2O.3 cm
(8") DIA. PIPE,
CUT IN HALF
LENGTHWISE
MAXIMUM
SEDIMENT
STORAGE
LEVEL
Single Perforation With Skimmer
(Elevation)
Figure 36. Single perforation of riser barrel/
70
-------
RISER
FLOW
1O.2 cm
J(4") PIPE
SEDIMENT CLEANOUT LEVEL
0.64 cm (VV) HOLE AT
SEDIMENT CLEANOUT
LEVEL AND 2.5 cm (1")
FROM END OF PIPE.
A. Short siphon cross-section.
1O.2 cm
(4") PIPE
mocD —
FLOW
li
^ ~
SEDIMENT CLEANOUT LEVEL
0.64 cm (W) HOLE AT
SEDIMENT CLEANOUT
LEVEL AND 2.5 cm (1")
FROM END OF PIPE.
^-ELEV. OF TOP OF CONDUIT
B. Long siphon cross-section.
Figure 37. Siphon dewatering methods.
26
71
-------
flow without storage of water. The long siphon method has the added ad-
vantage of being able to store water in the pond above the sediment clean-
out level because of its siphon priming requirement.
One alternate choice to the standard riser barrel is the use of a
weir trough connected to the outlet structure as shown in Figure 14. This
photograph shows the use of a wooden weir trough as the primary outlet
leading to the riser barrel. The weir trough is supported along its length
by 10.2 cm (4 in) posts with braces located on 1.8 m (6 ft) centers. The
trough itself is constructed of treated 5.1 cm x 15.2 cm (2 in x 6 in)
lumber to form a trough 30.5 cm (12 in) wide by 14.0 cm (5 1/2 in) deep.
The braces are placed at least 0.92 m (3 ft) into the bottom of the pond,
the trough is mounted on the brace with a slope to the riser of 0.83 cm/m
(1 in/10 ft) and the lumber is thoroughly coated with roofing tar to pro-
tect against weathering. Figures 38 and 39 indicate the details of the
trough. The main advantage of using this weir type of outlet is the elim-
ination of turbulence at the discharge and the possibility of scouring pre-
viously settled solids from the pond.
All of the previously discussed modifications to the standard
riser barrel discharge have specific advantages and disadvantages related
to each technique. The decision to use or not use the techniques must be
made on an objective basis weighing the possible improvement of pond effi-
ciency vs additional cost.
In modification of the outlets of excavated ponds and excavated
sediment dams, the primary objective is to spread the outflow over a large
an area as possible. This can be done by using a flared entrance to the
exit channel similar to the flared entrance channel described previously.
One of the major advantages of this technique is the reduction of short-
circuiting associated with a restricted outlet in addition to the reduction
in effluent velocity with associated turbulence.
Should the construction of a flared effluent channel be undesir-
able, a strategically placed baffle, shown in Figure 40, placed in front of
the entrance to the exit channel may reduce short-circuiting. An addi-
tional modification to the exit channel would be the use of multiple out-
lets rather than one single outlet. An advantage to this technique would
also be the reduction of short-circuiting in the pond.
A final method of pond outlet modification is the use of a vege-
tative filter of marsh plants. Recent research in Poland has shown that
the flow of runoff from mine areas through an area covered with bog and
peat vegetation contributes to the removal of suspended solids to a great
extent. This removal ability has been determined for such plants as the
common reed, yellow flag, sweet flag, common rush, and redge. This vege-
tative filter would be used as a polishing pond prior to final discharge.
Its applicability would be limited to a relatively flat terrain where a
large surface area would be available for a very quiescent movement of flow
in the basin.
72
-------
r
5.O8 cm • 1O.16 cm
\ SPACE ON
\ (8' - 0") CEf
\
\
• t
1 5.24 m
(8
1.83 m
JTERS
K&
• •
l2S
O' - O") MAX.
•ri
I
METAL RISER
BAFFLE
BOLT TROUGH TO RISER
W/STEEL STRAPS -
4 PER SIDE
POST AND BRACE ASSEMBLY -
5.O8 cm « 2O.32 cm
(2" x 8") LUMBER
SPACE ON 1.83 m (6' - O") CENTERS
ON EACH SIDE OF RISER - SEE
SECTION A - A (Fig. 44)
STRUT
15.24 m (5O1 - O") MAX.
Plan
.j BAFFLE —v
1 TROUGH
/ / J
i '
\
)
SLOPE 2.54
cm (1")
9
•
^•MH
1
1
, — ' •
^
•
>
0
0)
N
N
L
1 5.24 cm
(6"
rl
~|
^^m
,
,
•
t\
l{
\
s
\
)
PER 3.O48 m (1C' - O")
[— 5.O8 cm x 15.24 cm
(2" x 6") LUMBER
FOR SECTION A-A
SEE FIG. 44
*
/—TROUGH
13.97cm
__ | / (SW)
\
I r
IA
AULK JOINTS
/ i
r
J SLOPE 2.54 cm (1")
""* PER 3.O48 m (1O' - O")
.
Elevation
Figure 38. Riser and trough plan and elevation.
NO SCALE
-------
^
1.5
(5--
m
0")
/^e.3 cm x e.3 cm x O.63 cm Zs
I
E
_
10
0
-
1
b
(4
r
E
N
n
d
^^
^
b
I
-
o
o
o
(
1
E
/
\
\
0
(M
10
1
1
X.
\
\<
/^
/
(2V2'
\
\
tf)
x-'
' « 2V2" " 'A")
\
\
\
/
/
/
\
\
_ O.38 m
(V-3")
^- —
<
O.91 m
*-
"••^
DIA.
~^N
'
o
0
o
O.31 m
-,_ r* A CC1
/ BAFFL
(v-o-r
OPF
NING FOR
TROUGH
(2 Required)
L1.2 cm x 3.2 cm
(V2" x iy.")
BOLTS OR WELD
0.59 m
(3' - O" Dia.)
Side Elevation
7.6 cm
-FT*
5.1 cm x 15.2 cm
(2" x 6") LUMBER
3.8 cm (1Vz") RADIUS
cm (4")
TREATED POSTS
(Round or Square)
1.3 cm x 2O.3 cm
(V*" - 8") CARRIAGE
BOLTS AND
WASHERS
(4 Per Location)
Section A-A
Figure 39. Riser and trough details.
28
NO SCALE
-------
SHORT-CIRCUITING
FLOW PATTERN
ENTRANCE
CHANNEL
EXIT BAFFLE
0.5W
NORMAL POOL
ELEVATION
EXIT
CHANNEL
BAFFLED FLOW
PATTERN
Figure 4O. Exit baffle.
Summary
Physical modifications to sediment ponds, as described in the pre-
vious section, may be undertaken in various phases of pond construction.
In order for a pond designer to make a dec Is ion,regard ing the selection of
a specific modification, several factors must be considered. The economics
of the design must be reviewed in light of any improvements or benefits
that may b3 realized. The required maintenance schedule must be considered
as well as the applicability of the modification to the local terrain. A
summary of the suggested physical modifications has been compiled in Table
9, and includes an estimated cost of each structure, required maintenance,
any improvements or benefits that may be realized and applicability of each
respective modification. A designer may refer to this table for assistance
in selecting a method to improve performance of a standard settling basin.
It should be noted that no one method is recommended over another as each
respective Improvement method must be judged based upon the characteristics
of each specific site.
Table 17 has been subdivided into four descriptive sections. The
Initial section is titled, Estimated Additional Cost. In this section, the
cost figures that are presented were developed based upon readily available
Information. For each modification, an estimate of manpower, equipment,
and material was made which would be required in excess of normal pond con-
struction requirements. The second section, titled Maintenance Require-
ments, describes, in general terms, the frequency of removing settled
matter and any maintenance of the structure. The Improvements/Benefits
section characterizes Improvements to settling efficiency by detailing
action of ;ach modification. Finally, the applicability of each modifica-
tion is derailed to describe its placement depending upon variations in
local terrain.
75
-------
TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT POND PHYSICAL
MODIFICATIONS
-J
o\
Inlet
modifications
Log and pole
structure
Rock check
dam
Dumped rock
at inlet
Silt fence
Straw bale
dike
Multiple
Inlets
Inlet apron
Baffle at
Inlet
Estimated . . . .
additional Maintenance
costs requirements
^ Periodic sediment
removal
$300 Periodic sediment
removal
*,_. Generally not
*1b° required
$2 10/ft2 Periodic sediment
removal
$3 00/LF Life exP«ctancy
$J.OU/LI- Qf three montns
£220 Generally not
required
$450 Generally not
required
$140 More frequent
sediment removal
Advantages/
disadvantages
- Velocity reduction
- Removes 5% of suspended
solids
- Velocity reduction
- Removes 5% of suspended
solids 29
- Velocity reduction
- Filters fine grained sediment
- Velocity reduction
- Velocity reduction
- Filtration
- Removes 5% of suspended
solids
- Inlet flow distribution
- Inlet flow distribution
- Velocity reduction
- Inlet flow distribution
- Reduction of short-circuiting
Applicability
- In natural drainway
- Steep sloped area
- In natural drainway
- Steep sloped area
- All locations
- Small drainage areas
- Alongside natural or
constructed drainways
- Very small drainage areas
- Along natural or con-
structed drainways
- On constructed
drainways
- On constructed
drainways
- All locations
(continued)
-------
TABLE 17. (continued)
Configuration
modification
Series settling
ponds
Divided settling
pond
Additional
pond
storage
Additional
surface
area
Baffle for UW
ratio
Staggered
depth
Estimated
additional
costs
Site
specific
$500
Site
specific
Site
specific
$140
None
Maintenance
requirements
Majority of sedi-
ment removal in
first pond
Majority of sedi-
ment removal in
first pond
Less frequent
sediment removal
None
Generally not
required
Majority of sedi-
ment removal at
inlet area
Advantages/
disadvantages
- Staged settling
- Staged settling
- Longer detention times
- Removes smaller particles
- Increased detention time
- Reduction of short-circuiting
- Less frequent sediment
removal
Applicability
- Flat to rolling terrain
- All locations
- Flat to rolling terrain
- Flat to rolling terrain
- All locations
- All locations
(continued)
-------
TABLE 17. (continued)
Outlet
modifications
Estimated
additional
costs
Maintenance
requirements
Advantages/
disadvantages
Applicability
Weir
trough
$450
Generally not
required
- Reduces effluent velocity
- Reduces turbulence
- Ponds with riser
Subsurface
drain
$450
Generally not
required
- Can totally dewater pond
- Easily clogged
- All locations
Single perfora-
tion In riser
and with skim-
ming device
$ 36
Generally not
required
Non-clogging
Drains to sediment level
- Ponds with riser
00 Riser barrel
with siphon
$ 50
Generally not
required
Skims debris
Drains to sediment level
Higher discharge capacity
- Ponds with riser
Flared exit
channel
$450
Generally not
required
Reduction of short-circuiting
Reduction of turbulence
- Excavated ponds
Baffled exit
channel
$170
Generally not
required
- Reduction of short-circuiting - All locations
Multiple
outlet
$220
Generally not
required
- Reduction of short-circuiting - All locations
Vegetative
filter
$160
Periodic sediment
removal
- Polishing of effluent
- Flat or rolling terrain
-------
EVALUATION OF COAGULANT USAGE
As discussed in the suspended solids removal section of the report,
the settling velocity of a particle decreases dramatically as the size of
the particle decreases. Conventional sedimentation techniques will general-
ly not remove particles less than ten microns in diameter and another alter-
native technique must be used. One alternative technique is the use of
chemical coagulants to cause the individual particles to agglomerate and
settle as larger particles. As an additional phase of this study, the
possible use of coagulants to improve the performance of surface mine sedi-
mentation ponds was investigated.
Coagulant Testing Program
The evaluation of commercially available coagulants was conducted
in a four-phase effort as follows:
1. Initial contact with manufacturers to determine
coagulant characteristics;
2. Prel iminary laboratory testing of 30 to 40 coag-
ulants;
3. Bench-scale treatability test of 6 to 10 coagulants
chosen from step 2; and
4. Evaluation of the potential environmental impacts
of coagulant use.
Step one involved a survey of coagulant manufacturers to tabulate specific
physical and chemical characteristics and an elimination process to choose
30 to 40 coagulants to use in preliminary testing. Step two consisted of
jar tests to determine the effectiveness of each coagulant in the removal of
turbidity and suspended solids from water samples from the influent of each
model sediment pond. From step two data, a list of 6 to 10 effective coag-
ulants was chosen .for a bench-scale treatability test during Step 3. The
final phase of the laboratory study was to determine the potential environ-
mental impacts occurring as the result of coagulant usage.
Step One - Initial Coagulant Manufacturer Survey—
The first step in the coagulant testing program was to contact
manufacturers of commercially available coagulants to obtain information on
their products and a sample for laboratory evaluation. A total of eighty
manufacturers were contacted during the survey to obtain preliminary data.
Samples of 144 commercially available coagulants were received along with
detailed data on the physical and chemical characteristics of each. A
79
-------
listing of the manufacturers contacted and the trade name identification
of each coagulant can be found in the Appendix - Table A-1 .
After receiving and tabulating the chemical and physical charac-
teristics of the 144 coagulants, a screening and elimination process was
begun to choose a group of 30 to 40 coagulants to use for preliminary
testing on influent samples from the six model sediment ponds. The 144
coagulants were screened and subjected to a process of elimination based
upon several criteria including:
Operating characteristics
- Chemical composition
- Tox i c i ty
- Range of appIi cab iI i ty
. Method of introduction to treatment system
Reaction time requirements
Sludge characteristics
Economics
From this list of 144 organic coagulants, thirty-one plus alum and lime
were chosen for the second phase of coagulant evaluation. The thirty-
three coagulants have been tabulated with their specific physical and
chemical characteristics in Table A-2 located in the Appendix.
A listing of the selected coagulants Includes the following:
Code # Manufacturer Trade Name
3M AlI led Colloids, Inc. Percol 727
6A American Cyanam Id Magnifloc 573C
6B American Cyanamid Magnifloc 577C
6C American Cyanamid Magnifloc 581C
60 American Cyanamid Magnifloc 585C
6E American Cyanamid Magnifloc 587C
6F American Cyanamid Magnifloc 589C
15A Buckman Laboratories HI cat 1
17A Calgon Corp. Cat-floe
17B Calgon Corp. Cat-floe T
17C Calgon Corp. Cat-floe T-1
17H Calgon Corp. M-502
22A Cities Service Company Ferri-floc
30A Dow Chemical Co. Separan MG-200
30B Dow Chemical Co. Separan MG-700
30C Dow Chemical Co. XD-30150.00
30D Dow Chemical Co. SC-30204
31A Drew Chemical Co. Amerfloc 485
80
-------
Code # Manufacturer Trade Name
44B Haviland Product Co. Poly Floe C
46A Hercules Inc. Hereof Ioc 812
468 Hercules Inc. Hereof Ioc 818
46C Hercules Inc. Hereof Ioc 821
46D Hercules Inc. Hereof Ioc 831
46E Hercules Inc. Hereof Ioc 849
46F Hercules Inc. Hereof Ioc 874
61F Nalco Chemical Co. Nalco 7107
61H Nalco Chemical Co. Nalco 7134
61K Nalco Chemical Co. Nalco 8851
61L Nalco Chemical Co. Nalco 8852
71C Rohm & Haas Co. Primafloc C-7
315 American Cyanamid Superfloc 315
Step Two - Prel iminary Laboratory Testing—
The second step in the evaluation of the coagulants consisted of
a laboratory jar test of each coagulant on all six of the model sediment
pond water samples. Standard jar tests were preformed by adding 500 ml of
the test water to 600 ml beakers and placing on a six position variable
speed multiple paddle stirrer. Various dosages of each coagulant were
added to the beakers followed by a rapid mix period of stirring the test
water at 100 rpm for two minutes followed by a slow mix period of stirring
at 50 rpm for five minutes. In addition to the coagulated samples, a con-
trol sample to which no coagulant was added was tested. After the slow
mix period was completed, the water sample was allowed to settle undis-
turbed for three hours to observe floe formation, size of floe, sludge
volume, settling rates, and any other noticeable characteristics. After
settlIng for three hours, the supernatant from each beaker was decanted
and analyzed for pH, turbidity, and suspended solids. The data for each
model sediment pond water sample are recorded in Table A-3 located in the
Appendix. Figures 41 through 45 graphically depict the percent removal of
turbidity and suspended solids for the thirty-three coagulants tested at
optimum dosage. A summary of the observations regarding the treatablllty
of each mine water Is as follows:
Coagulation of PA-1 Influent
Control sample and all coagulated samples had a
sludge volume of approximately 1$.
All liquid coagulants formed small-flocced particles.
All solid coagulants formed large-flocced particles
other than 46A.
81
-------
1OO
8O
Z 60
UJ
0
DC
UJ 4O
a
20
I
1
1
1
1
8
)
>
1
f
>
>
1
g
a
jj
- *
!
I
1
1
l:;:
Is
i
i
t
0
c
c
[
;
]
0
I i
1 |
§
S
f
|
t>
a
1
^
1
c
c^
H
•:•
t-'-
1
1? 1
1
0
D
C
IS
g
c
D
3M
3OA
30B
3OC
1OO
80
60 £
UJ
O
DC
4O UJ
Q.
20
COAGULANT CODE
100
Qf\
oO
h
2 fin
Ow
UJ
0
CC
UJ An
a 40
O/N
ZO
n
I i
J
•:•
L
I
[
[
1
V
•*•
Rt
i
s
"
--
«B»
*•*
1
.*.
•I-
:;:
•*•
I )::
Ilv
i:|:
1 Si
>•:
•:•
:|:
•«•
J«J
•-r
|
*** M
|:| |
•"• S
:i:: ^
¥- i
'.". '
•;i:
• i:
_
*
i
_
1UU
Oft
o\/
L
fiO 9
vj\^ 2
UJ
O
AC\ II 1
*HJ UJ
Q.
or>
£U
O
3OD
46B 46C
COAGULANT CODE
46D
SEDIMENT POND KEY
I £
i i
i i
PA-1 WV-1 WV-2 WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
Figure 41. Suspended solids removal
by anlonic coagulants.
82
-------
1OO
8O
Z 6O
UJ
o
cc
UJ 4O
Q.
2O
O
;;.
V !
v >
•:•
•:•
*•* i
**• i
if
s-
1
V
•:• [
I
I
*** 3
"*• ^
.;,
u :•:
0
£
R
=
1
;
;
t
i
;.;
•j«
•\* i
••""
•,• j
:•:
I
1
_
I
1
1 i
g
>
>
>
<
5
K
,;C; i
•'•' '
X i
J
!• ' >
1 : i
1 * !
• V i
1
1^
M
{/
B
I
-
1 W
8O
6O z
UJ
0
cc
4O UJ
Q.
2O
0
6A 6B 6C 6D
COAGULANT CODE
1OO
8O
Z 6O
UJ
O
cc
g 40
2O
0
, .
>:|
>|:
jj
!
1 |
1 |
|v |
• I
1
1
0
s
I
ii!
ii i
I:!:
liii
1
N
• * [
•p !
I-:'- i
|-:: !
• ••• :
r
l
D
rx
c
i
^
k
v !
•JL
.;.
l|
1 !
l§ i
mi.
in
100
8O
H
60 Z
UJ
O
cc
40 U.
2O
O
6E 6F 15A 17A
COAGULANT CODE
SEDIMENT POND KEY
1
|
1
1
PA-1 WV-1 WV-2 WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
Figure 42. Suspended solids removal
by catlonlc coagulants.
83
-------
1OO
oO
Ul
0
DC
III Af\
111 40
Q.
2O
n
• >:
M
D
1
5
!
j
i
0
1
1
i
a
!
1
1
I
1
!
;.;.
:•:
:•:
j .
1
i
|
|
jj
i .I.
1 WU
8O
6O 7
UJ
O
DC
4O UJ
40 m
2O
O
17B
17C 17H
COAGULANT CODE
22A
IUU
Of\
ou
H 60
2 ou
UJ
0
DC
in An
a
9f\
|
™ »•
1 H
• •"• §
1 *•' H
•'• N
' ll
1 ii;i 1
!
1 S 1
31A
Iv
|
44
i
!
i
B
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
>:|
|
|
•*•
•"•
•V
•:•
46
A
|
1
)
(
I
I
\
%
i!
_ x'
l:j:
IJ^
y
1
1
1::
1
l::;
46
E
I
)
8O
60 £
UJ
O
QC
4O Ul
a
20
o
COAGULANT CODE
PA-1
SEDIMENT POND KEY
1 s
i i
: i
I
A/V-1 WV-2 WV-3 WV-4
KY-1
Figure 42. (continued)
84
-------
1UU
can
t fin
UJ
O
CC
If! 4U
Q.
on
&u
*•*•
•>;
|
:$
$
n •-•
46
F
i
|
i
f
£
•i
1*1*
*•*
1*1*
•*•
• <£
61 F
s
•••
!
• i
!P
1^
I-;:
• •»•.
^.
61 H
§
i ,»,•
i «x
c
II
s
:|:
_ ft
61 K
3
i
!
j
§
1
j
j
1UU
8O
6O 9
UJ
O
QC
AO UJ
40 UJ
2O
o
COAGULANT CODE
1 W
An
t RO
UJ
O
CC
III AO
a
OQ
O
III •
19
I
J
I
V
1
1
8
:ft'
|
|
|
ifg
1 V/«J
on
6O £
»«•» Z
UJ
0
cc
4O 111
Q.
2O
O
61L 71C 315
COAGULANT CODE
SEDIMENT POND KEY
I $
i i
I i
PA-1 WV-1 WV-2 WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
Figure 42. (continued)
85
-------
100
8O
z 60
UJ
u
£ 40
a
2O
_J -I
0 0
H CC
H H
z z
0 0
o o
£
< <
I I
I- I-
CC CC
UJ UJ
I- h
< <
mni
CC DC
O O
iii :
_i _i
0 0
CC QC
t- h-
z z
0 O
O 0
z
j < <
I I
h I-
3 (t El
UJ UJ
I- I-
< <
III III
OC CC
o o
III •
III •
«
1OO
80
Z 6O
UJ
o
OC
a 4°
20
LIME ALUM
Suspended Solids
LIME
ALUM
Turbidity
SEDIMENT POND KEY
PA-1
I
I
I
WV-1
I
WV-4 KY-1
1OO
80
6O
I-
z
UJ
o
QC
4O UJ
Q.
2O
_l
0
QC
Z
O
o
z
<
I
H
cc
UJ
<
UJ
K 1
0 I
111 !
K
B
g
c
ft
L
1
j
rj
i
D
C
Q
C
[
C
[
n
d g
QC OC
1 K "~
§ g
o o
£ Z
< <
I I
1- H
QC Q-
UJ UJ
j- 1-
< <
ii III
UJ UJ
CC DC
o o
III !
!
t
t
i
•
(
c
s
[
n
^
J
3
3
3
1
>
1OO
8O
6O Z
UJ
O
QC
4O
20
UJ
Figure 43. Suspended solids and turbidity
removal by lime and alum.
86
-------
TOO
80
t-
UJ
O
cc
UJ 4O
Q.
20
O
;
• V
;
:
! i
;
'
X
X
v
;!;
•*•
•;•
i
5
j
'j
|
\
D
5
;
j
1
1
|
1
i
\
1
i
i
i
|
•*<
•:• i
;I; j
IX '•
*»' i
1 i
1
IS
:
1 i
1 i
re
jj
)
1;
;
J
g
j
1;
o
p
8O
,_
6O 7
UJ
O
CC
4O UJ
Q.
2O
0
3M 3OA 3OB 3OC
COAGULANT CODE
1 UU
PERCENT
* § 2
20
o
I;-.;
1
§
X
1$
•*•
:£
1
! i
1
E '***
ff
'•*•
%
i
1
f
c
J
J
J
!
j
s
Q
j
>•:
•J;
g
E :::
ru
H
3
u
|
3
no
S §
PERCENT
2O
O
3OD 46B 46C 46D
COAGULANT CODE
SEDIMENT POND KEY
1! i
• i
i i
•
i i
i i -
i
;
PA-1 WV-1 WV-2 WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
Figure 44. Turbidity removal by
anlonlc coagulants.
87
-------
1OO
8O
Z 6O
UJ
0
tr
g «<>
20
•*** i
>:
i
i
i
r
!
c
c
1
I
a
a
]
3
3
3
3
i
*!
I
_c
,
n
•
c
c
U
_c
\
u
1
•fi
1
1
1
1
1 !
Ii
!
I i
1 1
i
i
c
G
(
&
C
r
G
r
c
k
k
u
u
i
i
|
]
]
1
,v
ll
-
J
J
jj
6A
6B
6C
6D
1OO
8O
6O Z
UJ
O
CC
40 U.
20
COAGULANT CODE
100
80
£ 60
UJ
O
cc
UJ 4O
a.
20
1
.
:
i
J
1
K
':
'
'.
1
i
•*• !
1 $ !
1
SI
.v
1
•
$
j
I
3
p
v
.;.
I
•
;
:•
r
"fi
•i
1
6E
6F 15A
COAGULANT CODE
1OO
80
60 ^
UJ
O
4O £
20
17A
PA-1
SEDIMENT POND KEY
1
1
1
1
WV-1
:=:
I
WV-2 WV-3 WV-4
Figure 45. Turbidity removal by
cationlc coagulants.
88
-------
8O
Z 6O
£
0
n
UJ 40
Q.
2O
O
irl I '
|
1!
I
c
}
5
c
|
i
D
D
c
•X
i
>
i
I
1
I
R
!:•:
i
P
D
[
•S
c
i
i
!
1
; HI 1
17B
17C 17H
COAGULANT CODE
UJ
0
oc
o
22A
100
80
2 6O
UJ
0
EC
UJ 4O
a
2O
i
1
i
!
|
!
_
t
1
i
n
(
]
ft
• 8
g
,\*
1
RS
|
5
|
§
!
«
j
J
!
i
A
!
s
i
9
|
s
1
,•*•
•5
•*•
¥
1
|
i
i
>
i
5
X
1
9
?
B
h
]
\
1
!
|
!v
•J;
•X
•:•: |
~
3
3
J
!
i
b
31A
44B 46A
COAGULANT CODE
1OO
8O
6O ^
UJ
0
4O £
a
20
46E
SEDIMENT POND KEY
I $
i i
i i
i l:
PA-1 WV-1 WV-2 WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
Figure 45. (continued)
89
-------
Z
LU
o
cc
UJ
a
100
8O
60
4O
2O
1
•:•
if
c
c
K
I
C
r
c
R
D
C
C
[
[
[
H
i
I
1
1
1 i
1
Ivi
l|
•'•^
|
k
r
f
i
L
C
c
c
c
t
[
1
.
x
L
,
[j
I
[
j
46F
61F
61H
61K
1OO
8O
6O Z
UJ
O
DC
40 £
2O
COAGULANT CODE
IUU
on
Zftn
UJ
0
(L
UJ 40
Q.
9iO
^U
n
K
!
i
]
i
j i
:
J
!
I
j
i
[
1
I
.;.
X
1
Iii
>;:
11
1
S I i
[) ^
R i
j 1
i 1
jj
1
>
> I
s
8O
60 5
UJ
o
cc
4O UJ
Q.
2O
O
61L 71C
COAGULANT CODE
315
SEDIMENT POND KEY
I
I
I
I
I
PA-1 WV-1 WV-2 WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
Figure 45. (continued)
90
-------
Coagulant 46B formed small-flocced particles with
a 0.5 ppm dosage, medium-f locced particles with a
1.0 ppm dosage, and Iarge-flocced particles with a
1.5 ppm dosage.
Coagulant dosage had very little effect on pH.
Coagulation of WV-1 Influent
Control sample and all coagulated samples had a
sludge volume of 1-2/L
All liquid coagulants formed smalI-flocced particles.
All solid coagulants formed Iarge-flocced particles.
Increasing the coagulant dosage caused slight elevation
of the pH.
Coagulation of WV-2A Influent
All sludge volumes were less than 0.5$.
Most liquid coagulants formed small-flocced particles.
Most solid coagulants formed Iarge-flocced particles.
Coagulant dosage had very little effect on pH.
Coagulation of WV-3 Influent
All sludge volumes were in the range of 2-4$.
Coagulation of WV-4 Influent
Larger dosages of coagulant were required to cause
coagulation and settling.
Sludge volumes were approximately 2-5%.
91
-------
Although most coagulants removed large percentages
of suspended solids and turbidity, most of the super-
natants did not meet discharge limitations, using up
to 5 ppm of coagulant.
An additional test was performed using three coagulants
at a higher dosage with a longer sett I Ing time, the
results are listed in Table 18.
TABLE 18. EXTENDED SETTLING TIME RESULTS
Coagu I ant
315
315
31A
31A
46E
46E
Dosage
(mg/l)
5.0
10.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
10.0
Suspended
3 hr.
44
—
21
—
48
— —
sol ids (mg/l )
24 hr.
18
8
17
16
23
12
% Removal of
sol ids after
98
99
99
99
98
99
suspended
24 hours
Coagulation of KY-1 Influent
Sludge volumes were less than 1$.
The thirty-three coagulants tested consisted of eight anionic
polymers, 23 cationlc polymers, and alum and lime. The average percent
removal of turbidity and suspended solids for the anionic polymers and the
cationic polymers are listed in Table 19. The percent removal for alum
and lime for the waters tested are listed in Table 20.
From these prel iminary laboratory tests, a group of seven coag-
ulants was chosen to be used in the bench-scale treatability tests. These
seven were chosen based upon their turbidity and suspended solids removal
ability. This group includes the coagulants listed in Table 21.
92
-------
TABLE 19. ANIONIC AND CATIONIG COAGULANT
REMOVAL SUMMARY
Anionlc Cationic
percent removal percent removal
turb tss turb tss
PA-1
WV-1
WV-2
WV-3
WV-4
KY-1
70.7
56.5
53.0
78.5
84.1
78
86.4
33.5
53.5
58.4
87.4
70.8
66.5
79.7
29.9
83.7
90.4
76.1
70.1
49.1
67.5
65.7
94.3
72.4
TABLE 2O. TURBIDITY AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS
REMOVAL FOR ALUM AND LIME
Alum Lime
percent removal percent removal
Test water
PA-1
WV-1
WV-4
KY-1
turb
0
0
86
80
tss
0
0
85
65
turb
0
16
96
84
tss
0
0
94
60
TABLE 21. SELECTED COAGULANTS FOR BENCH
SCALE TESTING
Avg. % removal
Code # turb tss
6E
17H
31A
44B
46A
46D
315
71.2
76.3
75.3
77.7
78.3
71.2
82.5
80.5
75.8
74.8
73.8
85.1
67.0
76.0
Step Three - Bench-Scale Treatabllity Study—
The purpose of step-three testing was to determine the optimum
dosage of each of the seven coagulants for maximum turbidity and suspended
solids removal. The first series of tests to determine the optimum dosage
93
-------
was performed at 21° C. After determining the optimum dosage at this
temperature, the test was performed again; however, this time at 4° C to
simulate winter conditions to observe the effect of temperature on the
coagulation efficiency.
The laboratory procedure for these tests was identical to that
described for step two testing. The results of the testing for step three
are listed by dosage in Table A-4 and the percent removal at optimum do-
sage are listed in Table A-5. A summary of the average percent removals
of turbidity and suspended solids for each coagulant is as follows:
TABLE 22. COAGULANT EFFICIENCY
Avg. % removal
Coagulant turb tss
Magnifloc 587C
M-502
Amer i f 1 oc 485
Hereof loc 812
Hercofloc 831
Pol yf loc C
Superfloc 315
81.1
78.9
78.5
82.7
74.6
81.8
75.6
88.0
83.4
77.5
90.3
75.7
87.8
78.9
An additional important aspect of coagulant usage is the dosage
required to attain the maximum removal. Table 23 lists the average opti-
mum dosage required for each coagulant, as determined in the bench-scale
testing.
TABLE 23. AVERAGE OPTIMUM DOSAGE (mg/l)
Coagu I ant
Magnifloc 587C
M-502
Amer floe 485
Hercofloc 812
Hercofloc 831
Pol yf loc C
Superfloc 315
Turb
removal
3.6
3.3
3.25
3.8
2.4
3.1
4.8
Tss
removal
3.5
3.6
3.0
2.9
2.2
4.0
4.0
The following overall conclusions were reached as a result of the bench-
scale testing:
94
-------
Cationic polymers were generally more effective
than the an ionic polymer.
Magnifloc 587C performed efficient suspended solids
removal of all test waters both at room temperature
and at 4° C.
M-502 performed efficient suspended solids removal
of a I I test waters both at room temperature and at 4° C.
Amerfloc 485 reduced the suspended solids of every water
below discharge limitations except WV-3 at 4° C. A
significant increase In suspended solids concentration
was observed for WV-1 and WV-3 at 4 C using the 21° C
optimum dosage.
Hereof Ioc 812 sufficiently removed the suspended solids
from all waters at 21° C, but did not meet discharge
limitations at 4° C for WV-1, WV-3, and KY-1 using com-
parable dosages. Suspended solids concentration in-
creased at 4° C for all waters other than WV-4.
Hereofloc 831 sufficiently removed the suspended solids
at 21° C for all waters except WV-4 and KY-1.
Superfloc 315 sufficiently removed the suspended solids
from all waters at 21° C, but did not meet discharge
limitations at 4° C for WV-1, using the same dosage.
Suspended solids concentration increased at 4° C for all
waters.
Polyfloc C exhibited less suspended solids removal effi-
ciency at 4° C and did not meet discharge limitations
for WV-1, WV-2, WV-4, and KY-1 at the lower
temperature.
Optimum coagulant dosage varies with characteristics of
the subject water.
Coagulant dosage will generally increase with the
colloidal suspended solids concentration.
Sludge generated during coagulation will be a function
of the amount of solids in the water; however, under
laboratory conditions, a significant amount of sludge
could not be produced to obtain any data to characterize
coagulants.
Table 24 indicates the effect of water temperature and
suspended solids removal of the control and two best
performing coagulants.
95
-------
TABLE 24. EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS AT
CONTROLLED TEMPERATURES
Water
PA-1
WV-1
WV-2
WV-3
WV-4
KY-1
As a
study, the fol
their over a 1 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Polymer
Control
Magn i f 1 oc
587C
M-502
Control
Magni f loc
587C
M-502
Control
Magni floe
587C
M-502
Control
Magn I floe
587C
M-502
Control
Magni floe
587C
M-502
Control
Magni floe
587C
M-502
result of the
lowing is a II
performance:
Magni floe 587C
M-502
Amerfloc 485
Hereof loc 812
Superfloc 315
Pol yf loc C
Hereof loc 831
Dosage
(mg/l)
__
0.5
1.0
__
1.0
3.0
_-
1.0
0.5
__
5.0
3.0
_—
6.0
6.0
-—
6.0
8.0
prel imi nary and
st of the seven
Suspended
sol ids
(mg/l)
8 21° C
32
1
1
29
17
7
28
7
5
74
14
27
1176
12
11
186
12
21
bench-scale treatabi
tested coagulants in
Suspended
sol ids
(mg/l)
8 4°C
65
7
11
64
20
29
10
7
8
101
12
13
962
3
16
70
18
20
Mty
order of
96
-------
Step Four - Potential Environmental Impacts of Coagulant Use—
For each of the cationic coagulants used in the bench-scale test-
ing, two potential sources of environmental impacts were studied. These
were the supernatant or effluent of a pond in which the coagulants were
used, and the sludge generated from the flocculation and settling of the
suspended matter in the pond.
Information relative to the environmental impacts of the coagu-
lants mentioned above were concentrated on the highest dosages recommended
for each polymer in this study; however, potential effects of at least one
coagulant were studied for each of the six mine waters whether or not that
particular coagulant was required in the highest concentration.
The primary sources of information for the sludge related envi-
ronmental impacts were published information and data from various coagu-
lant producers, and phone conversations with producers' research and de-
velopment personnel. In addition to these sources, pond overflow impact
data was extracted from analytical testing of the clarified mine waters
obtained from the bench scale evaluations of optimum coagulant dosages.
Coagulants and Mine Waters Studied—As stated previously, the
environmental impacts of six separate cationic coagulants were studied
with respect to their maximum optimum dosage °n six separate mine
waters. Specific environmental impact data was analyzed for the following
systems: (1) 3.0 mg/l of M-502 added to mine water WV-1; (2) 3.0 mg/l of
Superfloc 315 added to mine water WV-2; (3) 7.0 mg/l of Hercofloc 812
added to mine water WV-3; (4) 10.0 mg/l of Superfloc 315 added to mine
water WV-3; (5) 6.0 mg/l of Amerfloc 485 added to mine water WV-4; (6) 6.0
mg/l of Magnifloc 587 C added to mine water WV-4; (7) 1.5 mg/l of Polyfloc
C added to mine water PA-1; (8) 6.0 mg/l of Polyfloc C added to mine water
KY-1; and (9) 8.0 mg/l of M-502 added to mine water KY-1.
General Toxicity and Stability Characteristics™
Of the six cationic polymers listed in this section, four are in
liquid form and two are in solid form. The two solid polymers are Poly-
floc C and Hercofloc 812. All of these are completely soluble in water
and all are stable within the pH ranges of 3.5 to 8.0. It should be noted
that all mine waters tested in this study were within the pH range of 5.6
to 7.4, and therefore no polymer stability problems were encountered.
Three of the four liquid polymers, Amerfloc 485, M-502 and Magnifloc 587C,
will freeze at -5° C in the concentrated form and therefore their use may
be limited in cold weather areas unless a heated building or other facil-
ity is provided.
97
-------
While most of these polymers exhibit a BOD of about 100,000 mg/l
and COD of about 200,000 mg/l in the concentrated form, they are normally
added in such small concentrations (less than 10.0 mg/l) that their effect
on BOD or COD in the total mine water system is negligible. In addition,
these materials exhibit very low toxicity characteristics. For instance,
the lethal dosage of M-502 on white rats is 16.0 grams per kilogram of
animal weight when injected directly into the stomach. This is approxi-
mately ]Q% of the toxicity of a concentrated salt solution injected into
the same animal.
With the exception of Polyfloc C for which no information could
be found, all polymers studied have received EPA approval for usage in
potable water. However, the EPA dosage limit for approval of Hereofloc
812 was exceeded in the findings for optimum coagulant dosage.
Environmental Impact of Sludge Containing Polymer—
In the coagulant/mine water systems which were studied, the ma-
jority of the various polymers injected in the laboratory-scale treatment
tests became adhered to floe particles and thus settled out with the
sludge. These polymers remain in a stable condition in this sludge as
long as it remains untouched in the bottom of the settling basin.
Since polymers are all extremely long chained organic molecules,
the introduction of any sludge removing device into the system will shear
these molecules, thus causing a significant degree of instability. With
the proper care and initiation of good sludge disposal practices, the im-
pact of this phenomenon on the environment can be minimal. For instance,
if a settling pond is full of sludge, the top layer of water should be
pumped off and no discharge be allowed from the pond while the sludge is
being pumped out and hauled away. This may require the re-routing of the
normal influent stream into another settling basin until the sludge
removal operation is completed.
If only one settling pond exists, it should be baffled so that
sludge cannot accumulate on the effluent end of the pond. That way, when
the influent side of the pond becomes filled with sludge, the influent
water stream can be reptped to the other section temporarily while the
sludge from the first section is pumped out. The baffle should be located
one third of the distance from the inlet to the outlet.
Even if these sludges would break down and return to the sus-
pended solids form during pond cleanout periods, the suspended solids con-
centration in the lagoon effluent should not be higher than if no coagu-
lant was added to the system at all unless the pond had been completely
overrun by sludge before an attempt was made to pump it out. In that
case, lack of retention time in the pond would result in high suspended
solids concentrations in the effluent no matter how well the polymer aided
sett I Ing time.
98
-------
One final comment is that alI five coagulant producers stressed
that their polymer, if broken down by strong shearing action, would not
form smaller toxic type molecules that could harm the environment in any
way.
Environmental Impact of Polymer in Pond Overflows—
Each of the six cationic polymers mentioned previously are com-
pletely soluble in water. Therefore, whatever amount of the polymer that
does not attach itself to the floe will be present in the pond overflow as
dissolved solids, COD, or soluble organic carbon. Normally, this repre-
sents less than 10$ of the total coagulant dosage added to the mine water
stream, therefore it is usually not too significant a quantity.
To determine what impact polymer addition has on the analyses of
certain pond effluents without knowing the exact chemical structure of
each coagulant is most difficult; however, to obtain some type of specific
environmental impact data for the coagulant systems discussed under the
sub-title "Bench-Scale Treatability Test", the study began by dosing de-
ionized water with the same concentrations of polymers as indicated in
these tests. The deionized water containing the polymers was analyzed for
total dissolved solids (TDS), total organic carbon (TOO, and chemical
oxygen demand (COD). The results were as follows:
Coagulant Dosage (mg/l) TDS (mg/l) TOC (mg/l) COD (mg/l)
M-502 8.0 1 6.4 1
Superfloc
315 10.0 36 5.4 8.0
Hereofloc
812 7.0 18 6.1 8.0
Magni floe
587C 6.0 72 9.8 1
Amerfloc
485 6.0 1 5.8 1
Polyfloc
C 6.0 22 5.8 8.0
These results indicate that M-502 and Amerfloc 485 do not add
dissolved solids to the water, and that M-502, Amerfloc 485, and Magnifloe
587C do not add COD to the water. Since there are at most 2.0 mg/l of TOC
in this deionized water, all polymers contributed in that respect.
Next, the supernatant samples produced from the optimum polymer
dosages were compared to the effluents of each mine water without polymer
99
-------
added (control samples), with respect to dissolved solids, suspended
solids and TOO. The results are summarized below.
System #1: 3.0 mg/l of M-502 added to WV-1
Effluent Analysis
Control With Polymer
TSS (mg/l) 29 7
IDS (mg/l) 670 606
TOC (mg/l) 6.2 7.8
Conclusion: Calgon M-502 added a slight amount of non-toxic
organ Ics to the WV-1 pond effluent stream, but more than compensated for
this removal of most of the suspended solids.
System #2: 3.0 mg/l of Superfloc 315 added to WV-2
Effluent Analysis
Control With Polymer
TSS (mg/l) 28 14
TDS (mg/l) 48 96
TOC (mg/l) 6.1 8.3
Conclusion: American Cyanamld Superfloc 315 added 2.0 mg/l of
non-toxic organlcs to the WV-2 pond effluent, and also added some dis-
solved solids, but again reduced the suspended solids to one half of that
obtained without the use of this polymer.
System #3: 7.0 mg/l of Hereofloc 812 added to WV-3
Effluent Analysis
Control With Polymer
TSS (mg/l) 74 4
TDS (mg/l) 332 374
TOC (mg/l) 11 11
Conclusion: Hercules Hereofloc 812 added dissolved solids to the
WV-3 pond overflow; however, the sharp drop In suspended solids makes the
effluent more environmentally aesthetic. Probably a tradeoff of organlcs
with more natural organics precipitating out while Hereofloc 812 added
some to the overflow.
100
-------
System #4: 10.0 mg/i of Superfloc 315 added to WV-3
Effluent Analysis
Control With Polymer
TSS (mg/l) 74 12
TDS (mg/l) 332 375
TOC (mg/l) 11 4.7
Conclusion: Same as System #3 except that American Cyanamid
Superfloc 315 pulled down a considerable amount of natural organics into
the sludge.
System #5: 6.0 mg/l of Amerfloc 485 added to WV-4
Effluent Analysis
Control With Polymer
TSS (mg/l) 1176 10
IDS (mg/l) 236 164
TOC (mg/l) 26 8.5
Conclusion: Drew Amerfloc 485 caused a tremendous improvement in
each case with respect to the environmental impact of the pond overflow.
System #6: 6.0 mg/l of Magnifloc 587C added to WV-4
Effluent Analysis
Control With Polymer
TSS (mg/l) 1176 12
TDS (mg/l) 236 146
TOC (mg/l) 26 11
System #7: 1.5 mg/l of Polyfloc C added to PA-1
Effluent Analysis
Control With Polymer
TSS (mg/l) 32 6
TDS (mg/l) 392 364
TOC (mg/l) 5.9 4.3
101
-------
System #8: 6.0 mg/l of Polyfloc C added to KY-1
EffIuent Analysis
Control With Polymer
TSS (mg/I) 186 14
IDS (mg/l) 264 238
TOC (mg/I) 12 11
Conclusions for systems 5, 6, 7, and 8 are similar.
System #9: 8.9 mg/l of M-502 added to KY-1
EffIuent Analysis
ControI With Polymer
TSS (mg/l) 186 21
IDS (mg/l) 264 248
TOC (mg/l) 12 15
Conclusion: Calgon M-502 added 3.0 mg/l of TX to the pond over-
flow for KY-1 with very little effect on environmental Impact for this
smalI amount of non-toxic organics.
Summary—
One must realize that the true environmental impact can not be
measured from laboratory data. A field analysis of Impact on an actual
ecosystem must be performed to conclusively indicate the impact of coagu-
lant usage. Preliminary indications are, however, that environmental
impact, if any, will be slight.
The Application of Coagulant Usage in Suspended Solids Removal
In order to make a decision regarding the usage of coagulants to
assist in the removal of suspended solids, several items must be consid-
ered including a laboratory treatability analysis to determine coagulant
optimum dosage, an economic analysis to determine feasibility of coagulant
treatment, and an engineering design of the method of applying the coagu-
lant to the pond.
Laboratory Treatability Analysis—
A laboratory analysis of a sample of water to be treated is an
integral part of the design process. Several basic steps are required:
102
-------
1. A coagulant screening process must be performed to
determine the most applicable products. The list
of thirty-three coagulants previously used for the
preliminary study may be consulted in conducting
this review. Results have shown that a cat ionic
liquid coagulant will give desirable results and
may be used as a basis for elimination.
2. A preliminary laboratory analysis should be per-
formed to determine the range of applicability of
each coagulant chosen during step one screening.
The laboratory procedure described in the previous
section may be utilized for this preliminary
analysls.
3. After determining a group of the most successful
coagulants, during preliminary testing, a bench-
scale treatability study should be performed to
determine the dosage at which maximum suspended
solids removal will occur. This can be performed
by using the same laboratory procedure as described
in step two with a variation of dosages. The data
from this step should be plotted on graph paper to
display the relationship between percent removal
and coagulant dosage. From this graph, the desired
dosage of coagulant may be picked depending upon
the amount of suspended solids removal required to
comply with the effluent limitations.
4. As a final laboratory test, a study should be per-
formed to determine the effect of cold weather on
coagulant effectiveness by simulating winter condi-
tions in the laboratory. This can be accomplished
by using a cold water bath to maintain low tempera-
tures In the reaction vessels.
After final laboratory analysis Is complete, a complete report of the
findings should be compiled along with recommendations generated during
the study.
Economic Feasibility—
The second phase of coagulant review entails the economic feasi-
bility of treatment. Detailed cost data should be obtained from the manu-
facturer of the selected coagulants. After receiving this data, a cost
comparison should be performed on a unit basis of flow rate. For example,
Table 25 is a summary cost comparison of the seven coagulants tested in
103
-------
the previous laboratory bench-scale treatability study. Table 25 was gen-
erated by computing the amount of required coagulant for a flow rate of
,0283m3/sec (1 CFS). It is interesting to observe that the two most-
effective coagulants were also the least expensive. The economic feasi-
bility analysis should also be done to determine the costs associated with
the hardware of the coagulant addition system.
Engineering Design of Coagulant Addition Systems—
As was previously detailed in the section discussing the theory
of suspended solids removal, the process of coagulation consists of two
separate phases: 1) chemical addition with rapid mixing and 2) floccu-
lation during which a very slow mix of the treated water takes place to
allow for particle aggregation. The method of chemical addition depends
upon the nature of the coagulant; i.e., whether It Is a solid powder or a
liquid.
TABLE 25. COST OF COAGULANT USAGE
CoaguI ant
Unit cost
Dosage
(mg/l)
Cost/day
Magnifloe
587C
M-502
$ .34/lb.
$ .45/lb.
3.5
3.6
$ 6.42
$ 8.74
Amerf loc
485
Hereof loc
812
Hereof loc
831
Pol yf loc
C
Super f loc
$1.00/lb.
$2.60/lb.
$2.40/lb.
$1. 45/lb.
$ .48/lb.
3.0
2.9
2.2
4.0
4.0
$16.18
$40.68
$28.48
$31 .29
$10.36
If a solid coagulant Is used, a stock solution must be prepared
as an Initial step. A typical system for makeup and metering of a coagu-
lant solution utilizes a platform scale (0 - 60 Ibs minimum), with the
container of powder attached to a 1890 liter (500 gal) make-up tank by a
vacuum hose, through which the powder is fed. This stock solution Is
104
-------
usually prepared at a concentration from 0.25 - Q.5% by weight with clean
water at near normal pH. An increased temperature will help facilitate
the dissolution of the powder, but should never exceed 40.5° C (105° F).
Water is added to the make-up tank and a mixer (3/4 hp) agitates the
solution for about 30 minutes. This mixture is then pumped to a 3790
liter (1000 gal) holding tank.
Actual addition of the solid coagulant stock solution should be
controlled by a metering pump to ensure proper dosage. A variable speed,
corrosion resistant, positive displacement pump is recommended. Prior to
addition to the waste stream, a second dilution (10:1) should take place.
This can be accomplished with a dilution tee Immediately after the pump.
A length of pipe sufficient to facilitate mixture (100-pipe diameters)
should be used between the tee and the point of addition. All equipment
should be stainless steel, fiberglass, or plastic wherever possible to
avoid clogging and/or corrosion. Care must be taken to maintain clean
fixtures.
For the addition of a liquid product, a transfer pump, mixing
tank, and equipment for final dilution are used. This process may be
operated manually or automatically, depending on whether suitable controls
are installed. Since most surface mine sedimentation ponds are located in
relatively remote areas, the manual method of addition is recommended. A
batch solution of liquid coagulant is prepared in the mixing tank at a
0.25 - 0.5% concentration. If electricity and a water supply is available
at the site, then a system identical to the powder stock solution addition
system, using a metering pump and dilution tee, should be used. If no
electricity Is available, a gravity feed system should be designed whereby
a preset volume of diluted coagulant solution Is allowed to drain from the
batch-mix tank.
The actual metering of the coagulant solution to the stream may
be accomplished by a combination of flow sensing device and variable speed
metering pump. A device such as a parshalI flume with level sensor should
be designed to control the variable speed pump thereby delivering the
correct dosage to the waste stream. In the event of a remote installa-
tion, an arrangement would be satisfactory In which a float-actuated
valve, with the float located In the measuring flume, would control the
amount of coagulant flowing from a gravity feed system.
When designing a sedimentation basin with a coagulant addition
system, an allowance must be made for preliminary settling of large size
particles. This can be accomplished by series settling ponds as described
In the physical modifications section of this report. If preliminary
sedimentation Is not used, the larger particles may Interfere with the
coagulant and require chemical addition in excess of that amount actually
required to settle the small particles. In the suspended solids removal
process, the coagulant addition system should be located after the pre-
liminary sH I mentation basin.
105
-------
After the addition of the coagulant, the water-coagulant mixture
must go through a short phase of violent rapid mixture followed by a
period of slow mix settling. As stated previously, because of the remote
location of surface mine sedimentation ponds, these rapid mix and slow mix
processes must be designed using non-mechanical techniques. If sufficient
head is available, a waterfall step-method of rapid mixing is possible.
By taking advantage of the natural fall In the stream channel, a series of
steps constructed of rock or logs, causing a cascade effect from one step
to the other, may be used to cause violent agitation of the treated
stream. If sufficient head is not naturally avalable, an artificial head
could be made available by construction techniques.
The period of rapid mix should be followed by a period of floc-
culatlon during which the particles in solution are mixed very slowly to
allow particle contact and aggregation. This phase must be designed to
minimize turbulence as the flocculated particles can be fragile and sus-
ceptible to resuspension if disburbed. The actual flocculation process
will take place in the final sedimentation basin with the slow mixing
occurring in the first one-half of the basin. Baffles should be placed in
the head end of the pond to cause the flow to be directed in a snake-1 ike
fashion as depicted In Figure 46. The final baffle should be placed so as
to outlet the flow in the central portion of the pond. The remaining two-
thirds of the basin would then be utilized for quiescent settling of the
flocculated material. Extreme care must be taken in the design of outlet
facilities so as to minimize turbulence and carry-over of the floe.
FLOCCULATION
FINAL SEDIMENTATION
Figure 46. Flocculation by baffle
placement.
106
-------
REFERENCES
1. Mai lory, C. W., and M. A. Nawrocki. Containment Area Facility Concepts
for Dredged Material Separation, Drying, and Rehandling, DACW 39-73-C-
0136, Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Columbia, Maryland,
1974.
2. Wilmoth, Roger C., Personal Communication. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.
3. Weber, N. J., Jr., Physiochemical Processes for Water Quality Control.
Wiley-Intenseience: New York, 1972.
4. Nawrocki, M., and J. Pietrzak. Methods to Control Fine-Grained Sedi-
ments Resulting from Construction Activity. EPA-440/9-76-026, Colum-
bia, Maryland, 1976.
5. Hazen and Sawyer, Engineers. Process Design Manual for Suspended
Solids Removal. EPA 625/1-75-003a, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975.
6. Nawrocki and Pietrzak. op. cit.
7. Chen, Charng-Ning. Design of Sediment Retention Basins. National Sym-
posium on Urban Hydrology and Sediment Control. University of Ken-
tucky, 1975.
8. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering: Collection-Treatment-
Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1972.
9. Clark, J. W., W. Viessman, Jr., and M. J. Hammer. Water Supply and
Pollution Control. International Text Book Company, Scranton, Penn-
sylvania, 1971.
10. Liptak, B. G., Ed. Environmental Engineers' Handbook: Vol. I Water
Pollution. Chllton Book Company, Radnor, Pennsylvania, 1974.
11. Ettinger, C. E., and J. E. Lichty. Evaluation of Performance
Capability of Surface Mine Sediment Basins. EPA 440/1-79/200, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, 1979.
107
-------
12. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Drainage Handbook for
Surface Mining. Division of Planning and Development and Division of
Reclamation, in Cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation District, Charleston, West Virginia, 1975.
13. ibid.
14. Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection,
Engineer's Handbook on Strip Mining in Eastern Kentucky. Frankfort,
Kentucky, 1975.
15. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, op. cit.
16. Environmental Protection Agency, op. c!t.
17. ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. HIM, R. D. Personal Communication. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
20. Ward, A., Haan, T., and Tapp, J. 1979. The Deposits Sedimentation
Pond Design Manual. Institute for Mining and Minerals Research,
Kentucky Center for Energy Research Laboratory, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky.
21. ibid.
22. Nawrocki and Pletrzak. op. cit.
23. Environmental Protection Agency. Erosion and Sediment Control, Vol. II
Design. EPA 625/3-76-006, 1977.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Sediment
Pond Design, SMA 2117 - Pond D. June 1977.
28. Ibid.
29. Reed, Lloyd A. Effectiveness of Sediment Control Techniques Used
During Highway Construction In Central Pennsylvania, U.S. Geological
Survey Open File Report 77-498, October 1977.
108
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. American Water Works Association, Inc., 1971. Water Qua IIty and Treat-
ment. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 654 pp.
2. Chen, Charng-Nlng. 1975. Design of Sediment Retention Basins.
National Symposium on Urban Hydrology and Sediment Control. University
of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 14 pp.
3. Clark, J. W., W. Viessman, Jr., and M. J. Hammer. 1971. Water Supply
and Pollution Control. International Textbook Company, Scranton. 661
pp.
4. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Erosion and Sediment Control,
Vol. I Planning. EPA-625/3-76-006. 102 pp.
5. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Erosion and Sediment Control,
Vol. II Design. EPA-625.3-76-006. 136 pp.
6. Ettlnger, C. E., and J. E. Llchty. Evaluation of Performance
Capability of Surface Mine Sediment Basins. EPA-440/1-79/200. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.
7. Gutcho, Sidney. 1977. Waste Treatment With Polyelectrolytes and Other
Flocculants. Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey. 274 pp.
8. Hazen and Sawyer, Engineers. 1975. Process Design Manual for
Suspended Solids Removal. EPA-625/1-75-003a, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 263 pp.
9. Hill, R. D. 1976. Sedimentation Ponds - A Critical Review Sixth Sym-
posium on Coal Mine Drainage Research National Coal Association,
Louisville, Kentucky. 190-199 pp.
10. HIM, R. D. 1978. Personal Communication. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
11. Janlak, H. 1975. Purification of Waters from Strip Lignite Mines.
EPA-05-534-3, Wroclaw, Poland. 10 pp,
12. Kathuria, D. C., M. A. Nawrockl, and B. C. Becker. 1976. Effective-
ness of Surface Mine Sedimentation Ponds. EPA-68-03-2139. U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 101 pp.
109
-------
13. Kent, K. M. 1969. Engineering Field Manual, Chapter 2, Estimating
Runoff. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservatin Service,
Washington, D.C. 2-76 pp.
14. Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection, n.d. Engineer's Handbook on Strip Mining in Eastern
Kentucky. Frankfort, Kentucky. 69 pp.
15. Liptak, B. G., Ed. 1974. Environmental Engineer's Handbook Vol. I
Water Pollution. Chi I ton Book Company, Radnor, Pennsylvania. 2018 pp.
16. Mai lory, C. W., M. A. Nawrocki. 1974. Containment Area Facility Con-
cepts for Dredged Material Separation, Drying, and Rehandllng. DACW
39-73-C-0136, Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Columbia,
Maryland. 259 pp.
17. McCarthy, R. E. 1973. Surface Mine Siltation Control. Mining
Congress Journal. 6 pp.
18. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1972. Wastewater Engineering: Collection-Treat-
ment-Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 782 pp.
19. Nawrocki, M. and J. Pietrzak. 1976. Methods to Control Fine-Graineo
Sediments Resulting from Construction Activity. EPA-440/9-76-026,
Columbia, Maryland. 74 pp.
20. Reed, Lloyd A. Effectiveness of Sediment Control Techniques Used
During Highway Construction In Central Pennsylvania, U.S. Geological
Survey Open File Report 77-498, October 1977.
21. Tyron, C. P., B. L. Parsons, and M. R. Miller. 1976. Excavated Sedi-
ment Traps Prove Superior to Damned Ones. Third Federal Inter-Agency
Sedimentation Conference, Water Resource Council, Denver, Colorado. 10
pp.
22. U.S. Department of Agriculture. I972. Soil Conservation Service SCS
National Engineering Handbook. Section 4 - Hydrology. 515 pp.
23. U.S. Weather Bureau. 1961. RalnfalI-Frequency Atlas of the United
States. Technical Paper 40, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
24. Vostrcll, J., and F. Juracka. 1976. Commercial Organic Flocculants.
Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey. 173 pp.
25. Ward, A. J., C. T. Haan, and B. J. Barfleld. 1977. Simulation of the
Sedlmentology of Sediment Detention Basins. Research Report No. 103.
University of Kentucky. U.S. Department of Interior, Lexington,
Kentucky. 133 pp.
110
-------
26. Ward, A., T. Haan, and J. Tapp. 1979. The Deposits Sedimentation Pond
Design Manual. Institute for Mining and Minerals Research, Kentucky
Center for Energy Research Laboratory, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky.
27. Water and Wastewater Chemistry, Part Two. Public Works. September,
1978. 103-110 pp.
28. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. 1975. Drainage Hand-
book for Surface Mining. Division of Planning and Development and
Division of Reclamation, in cooperation with U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Soil Conservation District. Charleston, West Virginia. 75
pp.
29. Weber, W. J., Jr. 1972. Physiochemical Processes for Water Quality
Control. WiIey-Intenseience, New York. 640 pp.
30. Wilmoth, Roger C. Personal Communication. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 1979.
31. Young, R. L. 1970. Above Lake Needwood. Trends in Parks and
Recreation. January/February, 1970. 17-20 pp.
Ill
-------
TABLE A-1. COAGULANT MANUFACTURER SURVEY
MANUFACTURER
TRADE NAME
ABCO Pool Industries
151 -23 34th Avenue
Flushing, N. Y. 11352
(212) 463 - 2100
Alken - Murray Corp.
109 - 111 Fifth Avenue
N. Y., N. Y. 10O29
(212) 777 - 6560
Allied Colloids, Inc.
One Robinson Lane
Ridgewood, N. J. 07450
(201) 447 - 4121
Allstate Chemical Co.
Box 3040
Euclid, Ohio 44117
(216) 382 - 390O
Percol 877
Percol 352
Percol 455
Percol 511
Percol 1011
Percol 351
Percol E 24
Percol 155
Percol 156
Percol 720
Percol 725
Percol 726
Percol 727
Percol 730
Percol 722
Percol 728
Percol 763
Percol 757
Percol 776
Percol 744
Percol 751
Percol 788 N
(continued)
112
-------
TABLE A-1. (continued)
MANUFACTURER
TRADE NAME
American Colloid Co.
5100 Suffield Court
Skokie, III. 60076
(312)966 - 5720
American Cyanamid
Water Treating Chemical Dept.
Berdan Avenue
Wayne, N. J. 07470
(201) 831 - 1234
Armour Industrial Chemical Co.
P. O. Box 1805
Chicago, III. 60690
(312) 242 - 2750
Arnold & Clark Chemical
Houston, Texas 77001
(713) 869 - 0541
Barotd Division
Box 1175
Houston, Texas 770O1
(713)527 - 1500
Berdell Industries
28 - 01 Thomson Avenue
Long Island City, N. Y. 11101
(212)361 - 7660
(continued)
113
Accofloc 361
Accof loc 352
Accofloc 350
Magnifloc
Magnifloc
Magnifloc
Magnifloc
Magnifloc
Magnifloc
Magnifloc
Magnifloc
573 C
577 C
581 C
585 C
589 C
1986 N
1849 A
587 C
Arquad 2c/75
Arquad 2HT/75
Arquad T2C/50
Ethoquad /12
Barochem
Barochem
Surflo
Surflo
Surflo
Surflo
Barafloc
Barafloc
Barafloc
Barafloc
Barafloc
Barafloc
AF452
AF454
A100
A116
A117
A119
800
802
804
806
808
810
-------
TABLE A-1. (continued)
MANUFACTURER
TRADE NAME
Betz Laboratories, Inc.
4636 Somerton Road
Trevose, Pa. 19047
(215) 355 - 3300
Bond Chemicals, Inc.
1500 Brookpark Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44109
(216) 741 - 6935
Borden Chemical
50 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(614) 225 - 4000
Brenco Corp.
704 North First Street
St. Louis, Mo. 63102
(314) 621 - 8457
Buckman Laboratories, Inc.
1256 North McLean Blvd.
Memphis, Tenn. 38108
(901) 278 - 0330
C. E. Minerals
Division of Combustion
901 East 8 Avenue
King of Prussia, Pa. 19406
(215) 265 - 6880
Calgon Corp.
Water Chemical Dept.
P.O. Box 1346
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222
(412) 923 - 2345
C77-120
C121-21 B
PR-450
PR-338
C163-86
C138-79
C163-86 +
C138-79
HCAT-1
HMWCP
WSCP-2
WSCP
NONI4
ANNI1
CATFLOC
CATFLOC T
CATFLOC T1
CATFLOC 21
CATFLOC 121
(continued)
114
-------
TABLE A-1. (continued)
MANUFACTURER
TRADE NAME
Calgon Corp.
(continued)
Carborundunn Co.
Water Mgmt. Div.
Niagara Falls, N. Y.
(716) 278 - 2572
14302
Carus Chemical Co., Inc.
1500 Eighth Street
LaSalle, III. 61301
(815) 223 - 1500
Celanese Polymer Specialties Co.
Stein Hall & Co.
Technical Center
9800 East Bluegrass Pkwy.
P.O. Box 99038
Jeffersontown, Ky. 40299
(502) 585 - 8101
CATPLOG B
CATPLOC S
M-502
CA-233
CA-243
CA-253
WT-2640
M-540
L-65C E
L-670 E
L-690 E
L-670
L-690
M-570
M-580
M-590
91-AP
95-AP
Polyhall 295
Polyhall 295 C
Polyhall 1320
Polyhall 1650
Polyhall 1430
Polyhall 1082
Polyhall 522 D
Jaguor C-13
(continued)
115
-------
TABLE A-1. (continued)
MANUFACTURER TRADE NAME
Chromalloy American Corp.
641 Lexington Avenue
N. Y., N. Y. 10001
(212) 838 - 1177
Cities Service Ferri-Floc
P. O. Box 50360
Atlanta, Ga. 30302
(4O4) 261 - 91OO
Commercial Chemical Products, Inc.
11 Patterson Avenue
Upper Saddle River, N. J. 07432
(201) 444 -9100
Crown Zellerbach Corp. Orzan A
Chemical Div. Orzan S
Camas, Washington 98607
(206) 834 - 4444
Crusader Chemical Co., Inc.
2330 Severn
Baltimore, Md. 21230
(301) 752 - 76O2
Cutter Laboratories, Inc.
Fourth & Parker Street
Berkley, Cal. 94701
(415) 841 - 0123
Dade Div.
1851 Del. Pky.
P. O. Box 52067
Miami, Fla. 33101
(305) 633 - 6461
(continued)
116
-------
TABLE A-1. (continued)
MANUFACTURER
TRADE NAME
Dearborn Chemical Co.
Div. W. R. Grace & Co.
Merchandise Mart Plaza
Chicago, III. 60654
(312) 438 - 8241
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
1415 East Marlton Pike
Route 70
Cherryhill, N. J. 08034
(609) 428 - 7035
Dow Chemical Co.
P. O. Box 1847
2040 Dow Center
Midland, Michigan 4864O
(517) 636 - 6053
Drew Chemical Corp.
One Drew Chemical Plaza
Boonton, N. J. 07005
(201) 263 - 7822
Dubois Chemicals
Div. of W. R. Grace & Co.
Dubois Tower
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 769 - 4200
E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
Wilmington, Del. 19898
(302) 774 - 1000
Electro - Chemical & Engineering
Emmaus, Pa. 18049
(215) 965 - 9061
Silica Sols
Separan MA-200
Separan MA-700
EPXD 30150
EPXD 3O204
Amerfloc 485
Amerfloc 2265
Drewfloc 495
Drewfloc 2306
Drewfloc 2270
Ferric Chloride
(continued)
117
-------
TABLE A-1. (continued)
MANUFACTURER
TRADE NAME
Exxon Chemicals
Box 222, Building 12
Room 312 A
Linden, N. J. 07036
(201) 474 - 7499
Fabcon International
1275 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco, Cal. 94133
(415) 928 - 24OO
Facet Enterprises
Newark, Del. 19711
(302) 731 - 4689
Henry W. Fink & Co.
6900 Silverton Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45235
(513) 891 - 5583
10O Kleer-
102 Kleer-
107 Kleer-
108 Kleer-
110 Kleer-
116 Kleer-
453 Kleer-
-Floe
•Floe
-Floe
-Floe
-Floe
-Floe
-Floe
G. A. F. Corporation
14O West 51st Street
N. Y., N. Y. 10020
(212) 582 - 7600
Gamlen Chemical
Elwood, N. J. O8217
Bergen County
(609) 894 - 9264
General Mills Chemicals
4620 West 77th Street
Minneapolis, Mn. 55435
(612) 830. - 7968
Galactasol 212
Galactasol SJM
Gendrix
Supercol
Galactasol-813
(continued)
118
-------
TABLE A-1. (continued)
MANUFACTURER
TRADE NAME
A. F. Gooman and Sons
21 - 07 41st Street
Long Island City, N. Y. 11101
(212)392 - 8400
B. F. Goodrich Chemical Co.
6100 Oak Tree Blvd.
Cleveland, Ohio 44131
(216) 524 - 02OO
Haviland Product Co.
421 Ann Street, N. W.
Grand Rapids, Mi. 49504
(616)361 - 6691
Heede International
Stamford, Conn. 06904
(203) 327 - 3320
Hercules Inc.
910 Market Street
Wilmington, Del. 19899
(302) 995 - 3860
Franz Herzel
150 East 58th Street
N. Y., N. Y. 10017
(212) 421 - 7O60
Hodag Chemical Corp.
7247 North Central Avenue
Skokie, III. 60076
(312) 675 - 3950
Polyfloc A
Polyfloc C
Ployfloc MP
Herofloc 812
Herofloc 818
Herofloc 821
Herofloc 831
Herofloc 849
Herofloc 874
(continued)
119
-------
TABLE A-1. (continued)
MANUFACTURER TRADE NAME
Hyland Laboratories
3300 Hytand Avenue
Costa Mesa, Cal. 92626
(714) 540 - 5000
ICI Americans
Wilmington, Del. 19899
(302) 575 - 3518
Illinois Water Treatment Co. IFA-313
4669 Shepherd Trail
Rockford, III. 61105
(815) 877 - 3041
KSH Chemicals Corp.
313 Cox Street
Rose He, N. J. O7068
(201) 245 - 8800
Kelco Co.
75 Terminal Avenue
Clark, N. J. O7066
(201) 381 - 6900
Key Chemicals, Inc.
4346 Tacony Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19124
(215) 744 - 5858
Klenzoid Equipment Co.
912 - T Avenue
Conshohocken, Pa. 19428
(215) 825 - 9494
F. B. Leopold Co.
Zelienople, Pa. 16063
(412) 452 - 6300
(continued)
120
-------
TABLE A-1. (continued)
MANUFACTURER TRADE NAME
Magna Corp.
Tech. Services Div.
Houston, Texas 770O1
(713) 795 - 4270
Miles Laboratories, Inc.
1127 Myrtle Street
Elkhart, Ind. 46514
(800) 356 - 9393
Moqul Corp.
2O600 Chagrin Blvd.
Cleveland, Ohio 44122
(216) 248 - 6914
Monsanto Company
8OO N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, Mo. 63141
(314) 694 - 1000
Nalco Chemical Co.
29O1 Butterfield Rd.
Oak Brook, III. 60521
(312) 887-750O
National Starch & Chemical Corp.
17OO West Front St.
Plainfield, N.J. 07063
(201) 685 - 5000
Oakite Products, Inc.
50 Valley Road
Berkeley Hts., N.J. 07922
(201) 464- 6900
O'Brien Industries, Inc.
513 W. Mt. Pleasant Ave.
Livingston, N.J. 07039
(201) 992 - 0660
(continued)
121
-------
TABLE A-1. (continued)
MANUFACTURER TRADE NAME
Oxford Chemical Division
Consolidated Foods, Corp.
P.O. Box 80202
Atlanta, Ga. 30341
(404) 452 - 1100
Permutit Co.
49 East Midland Ave.
Paramus, N.J. 07652
(201) 262 - 8900
Peter Cooper Corp.
Palmer St.
Gowanda, N.Y. 14070
(716) 532 - 3344
Petrolite Corp.
369 Marshall St.
St. Louis, Mo. 63119
(314) 9b1 - 3500
Philadelphia Quartz Co.
P.O. Box
Valley Forge, Pa. 19481
(215) 293 - 72OO
Reichhold Chemicals
523 North Broadway
White Plains, N.Y. 10602
(914) 682 - 5700
Rohm & Haas Co. PrimaFloc C-3
Independence Mall West PrimaFloc C-7
Philadelphia, Pa. 19105 PrimaFloc A-10
(215) 592 - 3000
A. E. Staley, MFC Co. Hamaco 196 Gum
P.O. Box 151 Potato Starch
Decatur, III. 62525
(217) 423 - 4411
(continued)
122
-------
TABLE A-1. (continued)
MANUFACTURER
TRADE NAME
Standard Brands Chemicals
625 Madison Avenue
N.Y., N.Y. 10022
(212) 759 - 4400
Techni-Chem.
East State Street
Box 428 T
Cherry Valley, III. 61O16
(815) 332 - 4987
Union Carbide Corp.
270 Park Avenue
N.Y., N.Y. 1O017
(212) 551 - 2345
Unitech Chemical, Inc.
Swift Products
115 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, III. 60604
(312) 431 - 3560
Val - Chem. Corp.
P.O. Box 172
Edison, N. J. 08817
(201) 985 - 3773
James Varley & Sons
1200 Switzer Avenue
St. Louis, Mo. 63147
(314) 383 - 4372
WitcoChem. Corp.
227 A. Park Avenue
N.Y., N.Y. 10001
(212) 644 - 6300
Zimmite Corp.
81O Sharon Drive
Westlake, Ohio 44145
(216) 871 - 9660
Polyox WSR-3O1
Polyox WSR
Coag
X-100
X-400
X-420
X-110
X-700
123
-------
TABLE A-2. COAGULANT/FLOCCULANT DATA FORM
rsi
COAGULANT
CHARACTERISTICS
CODE
0
CHEM
_J
O
5
a
zl
f j
8I
ORAOE
(0
Composition
Ionic Charge
Reagent Form
Molecular Weight
Freezing Point
Dilution
Mixing Time
Shelf Uf e
Reagent
Stock Solution
TYPICAL
APPLICATIONS
REAGENT TRADE NAME
Percol Magnlfloc Magnlfloc
727 573C 577C
3-M 6-A 6-B
Polyelectrolyte Polyelectrolyte Polyelectrolyte
Anionic . . (High)
(Medium to High) Cationic Cationic
(Granular)
Powder LlpULd Liquld
Ultra-High High
0° F (Can be used after it freezes) 0° F (Can be used after it freezes)
Stock; 0.10% -0.25% 100: 1 100:1
Handshake 10- 15 Sec., _,. „
_ , „. . . „„' .. 20-30 Minutes 20 - 3O Minutes
Occasional Shaking 30-6O Mm.
Solid: Up to 2 Years 0 _ iooO
Stock Solution; Up to 5 Days
Store in Glass, Stainless Steel, Store in Glass, Stainless Steel,
Plastic or epoxy-lined vessels Plastic or epoxy-hned vessels
Dark Place
Waste Treatment, primarily for
settling application either by it- Gravity settling; clarification; De-watering sludge; settling and
self or with inorganic primary settling basins clarifying
coagulants
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
ro
SJl
COAGULANT REAGENT TRADE NAME
CHARACTERISTICS Magnifloc Magnifloc
581 C 585C
CODE 6-C 6-D
-I
Q Composition Polyelectrolyte Polyelectrolyte
III
I Ionic Charge (High) Cationic
O Cationic
Reagent Form Liquid Liquid
O Molecular Weight . High LOW
CO
J Freezing Point O° F (Can be used after it freezes) -5° C (Can be used after freezing)
z Dilution 100:1 100:1
5 5 Mixing Time 20 - 3O Minutes 20 - 30 Minutes
J <
Bft
*" Shelf Life 12 - 14 Months 12 - 14 Months
Ul Store in Glass, Stainless Steel, Store in Glass, Stainless Steel,
O Reagent Plastic or Epoxy-hned vessels Plastic or Epoxy-lined vessels
DC
O
|jj Stock Solution
Gravity Settling;
Gravity Settling and other
TYPICAL Clarification; clarifiers
APPLICATIONS
Settling basins
Magnifloc
587C
6-E
Polyelectrolyte
(High)
Cationic
Liquid
Low
-5 C (Can be used after freezing)
100:1
20 - 30 Minutes
12-24 Months
Store in Glass, Stainless Steel
Plastic or Epoxy-Uned vessels
Particularly effective on low
turbidity water
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
COAGULANT
CHARACTERISTICS
CODE
CHEMICAL
_l
O
CO
a.
NJ
o> jj
Si
if
ro £
a
STORAGE
Composition
Ionic Charge
Reagent Form
Molecular Weight
Freezing Point
Dilution
Mixing Time
Shelf Life
Reagent
Stock Solution
TYPICAL
APPLICATIONS
REAGENT TRADE NAME
Magnifloc
589C meat i
6-F 1 5-A
Polyelectrolyte
Polyelectrolyte „ „, , , .
3 (25% polymer solids)
Cationic Cationic
Liquid Liquid
High
-5° C (Can be used after freezing)
Predilution 250: 1 to make
1OO: 1 sol'n no > 0. 1% polymer
solids
2O - 3O Minutes
12-24 Months
Store in Glass, Stainless Steel,
Plastic or Epoxy-lined vessels
Gravity Settling Operations; Clarify wastewater, sludge
Mechanical dewatering dewatenng; mineral and chemical
processing
Cat-Floe
17-A
Polyelectrolyte
Polydimethyldiallyl NH4 Cl
Cationic
Liquid
27° F; Low temp, may cause
feeding problems (viscosity)
> 10O; 1
Specially selected clay may be
needed if time is short
Heated Building
Clarification
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
ro
COAGULANT
CHARACTERISTICS Cat-Floe T
CODE 1 7-B
CHEMICAL
_i
O
CD
Q.
z
M
||
Wf ff
^l
ORAQE
S>
Composition Polyelectrolyte
Polydimethyldially NH4 Cl
Ionic Charge Catiomc
Reagent Form Liquid
Molecular Weight
27° F; Low temp, may cause
Freezing Point feeding problems (viscosity),
freezing may cause stratification
Dilution > 1 00: 1
Mixing Time
Shelf Life
Reagent Heated Building
Stock Solution
TYPICAL
APPLICATIONS Clarification
REAGENT TRADE NAME
Cat-Floe T-1 M-5O2
1 7-C 1 7-H
Polyelectrolyte Polyelectrolyte
Polydimethyldially NH4 Cl Polydimethyldially NH4 Cl
'High viscosity)
Liquid ; 3 y>
Liquid
26 F; Low temp may cause feeding 27 F; Low temps may create
problems (viscosity) feeding problems (viscosity)
> 100;1 > 100:1
Heated Building Heated Building
Clarification A/li-img industry clarification
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
COAGULANT
CHARACTERISTICS
CODE
O Composition
I
Ul
X Ionic Charge
V
Reagent Form
<
O Molecular Weight
0)
J Freezing Point
_ Dilution
Z O
o P
5 J Mixing Time
Q &•
•D SS
^^ ^L
a Shelf Life
lit
O Reagent
DC
O
{5 Stock Solution
TYPICAL
APPLICATIONS
Ferrl-Floc
22-A
Ferric sulfate
(Ferric hydroxide)
Cationic
Dry powder
30 Minutes
Reagent; 6-12 months
Cone. Sol'n; recommend 60 days
rbut can store indefinitely^
Slightly hygroscopic (avoid high
humidity and no contact with
water)
Turbidity removal; organic color
removal; with lime softening;
manganese removal; waste treat-
ment; toxic metal removal.
REAGENT TRADE NAME
Separan
MG-2OO
3O-A
(Slightly hydrolyzed)
Polyacrylamide
(Slightly)
Anionic
(Granular)
Solid
Very high
Maximum strength = 1%
Usually
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
S3
vo
COAGULANT
CHARACTERISTICS
CODE
$
O
rSICAL
I
,i
soumo
PREPARAT
STORAGE
Composition
Ionic Charge
Reagent Form
Molecular Weight
Freezing Point
ONutlon
Mixing Time
\
Shelf Life
Reagent
Stock Solution
TYPICAL
APPLICATIONS
REAGENT TRADE NAME
Experimental Polymer Experimental Polymer Amerfloc
XD-3O1 50.00 XD-3O2O4 485
30-C 30-D 31 -A
Polyacrylamide Polyacrylamide Organic
Polyelectrolyte
(Slightly) (Moderately)
Anion,/ Anionic Catl°niC
Powder Powder Liquid
High Very high Moderate
32° F
No rrr.ally 0.5-1.0% Normally 0.25-0.5% 5: 1
Stock sol'n: >0.25% = 1 month Stock sol'n: >0.25% = 1 month
<0.05% = 1 day <0.05% = 1 day Reagent: 12 - 14 Months
1OO° F and avoid high humidity 1OO° F and avoid high humidity Store at 40° - 10O° F
120° F 120° F
Tailings water recovery; acid Water and waste treatment.
leaching; potash brine clarifying; suspended solids; turbidity in
preleach thickening. wastewaters; heavy metals
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
COAGULANT
CHARACTERISTICS PolyflOC C
CODE 44-B
-I
0
I
Ul
Composition Synthetic
Polyelectrolyte
Ionic Charge cat ionic
<
0
55
I
z
0 •-
c <
5 '
3& ft
8&
a
Reagent Form Liquid
Molecular Weight High
Freezing Point Should not permit freezing
Dilution 10_20;1
Mixing Time
Shelf Life
u
1
0
6
Reagent
Stock Solution
TYPICAL Clarifying wastewater;
APPLICATIONS settling suspended clays
REAGENT TRADE NAME
Hercofloc
812
46-A
Synthetic organic
Polyelectrolyte
(Low)
Cationic
Powder
High
<0.5%
>1 hour
Reagent: 1 yr. (less if pH 6 of
solution water)
Sol'n: 1 week
Dry, cool area
Water and waste treatment
Hercofloc
818
46-B
Synthetic organic
Polyelectrolyte
(Low)
Anionic
Powder
High
lo.5%
> 1 hour
Reagent; 1 year
Sol'n: 1 week
Dry, cool area
Water and waste treatment
(continued)
-------
I/I
TABLE A-2. (continued)
COAGULANT
CHARACTERISTICS Hercofloc
821
CODE 46-C
ICAL CHEMICAL
CD
i
;i
Composition Synthetic organic
Polyelectrolyte
ionic Charge .
m Anionic
Molecular Weight High
Freezing Point
Dilution < 0 5%
REAGENT TRADE NAME
Hercofloc
831
46-D
Synthetic organic
Polyelectrolyte
(Medium)
Anionic
Powder
High
<0. 5%
Hercofloc
849
46-E
Synthetic organic
Polyelectrolyte
(Medium-High)
Cationic
Powder
High
<0.5%
I
Mixing Time
>, hour
> 1 hou r
Reagent: 1 year
Sol'n; 1 week
>.1 hour
Reagent: 1 yr. (less if pH 6 of
sol'n water) Sol'n: 1 week
U
S
Reagent
Stock Solution
Dryj cool area
Dry, cool area
Dry, cool area
TYPICAL
APPLICATIONS
Water and waste treatment
Water and waste treatment
Water and waste treatment
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
NJ
COAGULANT
CHARACTERISTICS
CODE
-i
s
IU
O
rSICAL
J
§|
8I
IU
O
1
Composition
Ionic Charge
Reagent Form
Molecular Weight
Freezing Point
Dilution
Mixing Time
Shelf Life
Reagent
Stock Solution
TYPICAL
APPLICATIONS
Hercofloc
874
46-F
Synthetic organic
Polyelectrolyte
(Medium)
Cat ionic
Powder
High
<0.5%
>1 hour
Reagent: 1 yr. (less if pH 6 of
sol'n water) SoPn: 1 week
Dry, cool area
Water and waste treatment
REAGENT TRADE NAME
Nalco Nalco
7107 7134
61 -F 61 -H
Cationic Jationic
Liquid Liquid
Low High
After freeze, thaw and use; Avoid freezing due to viscosity;
Freeze (cone.): 0° F freeze (cone.); -15° F
Reagent: 1 year Reagent: 1 year
1O% sol'n: 1 week Sol'n ( > 1O%): 1 week
Nonpotable water clarification and Waste treatment clarification
treatment systems .
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
COAGULANT
CHARACTERISTICS
CODE
NalCO
8851
61-K
REAGENT TRADE
Natoo
8852
61-L
NAME
Prlmafloc
C-7
71-C
Composition
tonic Charge
Reagent Form
ffim-m.-mti.t-ra. ^ — *—•*-
rrwzing i pun n
DHutkxi
Mixing Time
Shelf Life
Reagent
Stock Solution
TYPICAL
APPLICATIONS
Cationic
Liquid
m • «-»•• ria J^^ l^f • la^fc**
ivioiecuiiir weignc LOW
14
Cold: 5-10 minutes
Warm; 4-5 minutes
Reagent; 1 year
> 1O% Sol'n: several weeks
<_10% Sol'n: 1 day
Clarifications filtering and
dew ate ring
Cationic
Liquid
Moderate
14° F
2-e
Warm: 5 minutes
Cold; 5+ minutes
Reagent: 1 year
> 1O% Sol'n: several weeks
<.10% Sol'n: 1 day
Settling, clarifying, thickening
and dewatering mineral processing
slurries.
Polyelectrolyte
Cationic
Powder
Very high
30 minutes - 4 hours depending
upon size of tank and mixer
Stable in both reagent and sol'n as
long as pH is not increased
Cool, dry area
Flocculation of solids from water
and wastewater; conditioning of
sludge; when S.S. 50 pprr,, add
clay prior to C-7; also can use
with inorganics.
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
COAGULANT REAGENT TRADE NAME
CHARACTERISTICS Suo«rflru- •»•!«
superfloc 315 Alum Lime (Hydrated)
CODE 315
EMICAL
Composition Polyamine Al (SO ) -18 HO Ca (OH)2
243 2 82-98% Ca (OH)2
I Ionic Charge
O
I
«!
u
BC
§
Reagent Form
Molecular Weight
Freezing Point
Dilution
Mixing Time
Shelf Uf e
Reagent
Stock Solution
Highly Cationic
Liquid
0°F (-18°C)
Can be used after freezing
0.1 - 5.O ppm
12-24 months
In glass, stainless steel, plastic
or epoxy lined vessels
Dry granular powder (grayish white
crystallized solid) or alum syrup Granular powder (white)
600
5-50 ppm - application rate
15 - 3O min.
12 months
74.08
4O min. retention period
12 months
package in multiwall paper bags
(must be covered)
TYPICAL
APPLICATIONS
Thickening and dewatering
mineral concentrates and
tailings.
Effective for pH 5.5 to 8.0 removal
of suspended and colloridal solids.
-------
TABLE A-3. PRELIMINARY LABORATORY
TEST RESULTS
Abbreviations for Settling Characteristics
ABBREVIATIONS
DESCRIPTION
v.s.s.
s.s.
F.S.
G.S.
R.S.
C.S.
S.T.S.
T.S.
V.T.S.
S.F.P.
L.F.P.
Very Slow Settling
Slow Settling
Fair Settling
Good Settling
Rapid Settling
Clear Supernatant
Slightly Turbid Supernatant
Turbid Supernatant
Very Turbid Supernatant
Small Flocced Particles
Large Flocced Particles
Control
Turbidity and Suspended Solids
of Control Sample
MODEL
SEDIMENT
POND
PA1
WV1
WV2A
WV3
WV4
KY1
TURBIDITY
(JTU)
20
44
7
92
880
210
TSS
(mg/l)
32
29
28
74
1, 176
186
(continued)
135
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond PA-1
uj
i- -• O u J ri
t
Q
tn-. o O a o :=• o 0 Haw
- - i
UJ t Z< Z Z < 00
z
U Q & _ a _ i-3. a a: a)(o£ac wo"
3M 1.5 5.2 3.8 81 9 72 R.S.
6A 1.0 5.2 6.O 7O 10 69 F.S.
6A 1.5 5.2 5.3 73 12 63 F.S,
6B 0.5 5.2 5.6 72 8 21 F.S,
6B 1.5 5.2 7.4 63 8 75 F.S,
6C 1.5 6.0 4.4 78 9 72 R.S
6D 1.5 6.0 3.0 85 2 94 F.S,
6E 0.5 5.9 3.6 82 1 97 S.S,
6F 0.5 6.0 4.5 78 10 69 F.S
15A 1.0 5.7 4.3 79 8 75 F.S
15A 1.5 5.7 4.3 79 8 75 R.S.
(continued)
136
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond PA-1
COAGULANT 1
DOSAGE
(ppm)
pH
TURBIDITY
(JTU)
PERCENT
REMOVAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(mg/l)
PERCENT
REMOVAL
SETTLING
CHARAC-
TERISTICS
17A 0.5 5.9 4.7 77
15 53 F.S.
17A 1.5 5.7 6.4 68
5 84
R.S.
17B 1.0 5.6 6.1 70
12 63 S.S.
17B 1.5 5.6 4.0 80
19 41
F.S.
17C 0.5 5.5 5.7 72
1 96 S.S.
17C 1.5 5.4 3.8 71
7 78 F.S.
17H 1.O 5.4 3.3 84
1 97 R.S.
22A 1.0 5.0 19
5.0 36
O V.S.S
22A 1.5 4.9 20
30
6 V.S.S.
30A 1.0 5.1 10
50
2 94 R.S., T.S.
SOB 0.5 5.4 2.5 88
R.S., C.S.,
5 84 L.F.P.
(continued)
137
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond PA-1
COAGULANT
DOSAGE
(ppm)
PH
TURBIDITY
(JTU)
PERCENT
REMOVAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(mg/l)
PERCENT
REMOVAL
SETTLING
CHARAC-
TERISTICS
30C 1.5 5.2 2.8 86
3OD 1.0 5.1 12
40
1 1
97
50
F.S.
R.S., T.S.,
L.F.P.
SOD 1.5 5.0 9.0 55
19 41
R.S., T.S.,
L.F.P.
34A 0.5 6.0 4.3 80
81
R.S.
44B 1.0
5.1 2.8 86
19 41
R.S.
44B 1.5
5.1 3.6 20
6 81
R.S., L.F.P.
46A 0.5 5.3 6.9 66
5 84 S . S .
46B O.5 5.1 10
50
15 53 S.S., T.S
46B 1.0 5.1 12
40
1 97 F.S., T.S,
46C 0.5 5.4 2.0 90
1 97 S.S,
46C 1.0 5.4 3.9 81
1OO F.S
(continued)
138
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond PA-1
z °
5 u t £* i £<
3 a Q £> gw 5> £C 74 >C L.F.P.
(continued)
139
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond PA-1
COAGULANT
DOSAGE
(ppm)
PH
TURBIDITY
(JTU)
PERCENT
REMOVAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(mg/l)
PERCENT
REMOVAL
n • ®
§00
n < P
t5i
8151!!
Alum 106 3.2 72 >C 86 >C V.S.S..V.T.S
(continued)
140
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-1
COAGULANT
DOSAGE
(ppm)
3M 1.0
6A 0.5
6A 1.0
6B 1.5
6C 1.0
6C 1.5
6D 1.5
6E 1.5
6F 0.5
6F 1.5
15A 1.5
E $1
Is ll
X D t UJ Ul
Q. K 3 Q. OC
7.6 23 48
6.8 20 55
7.1 16 64
7.5 3.9 91
7.2 16 64
7.3 13 70
7.6 6.7 85
7.4 5.2 88
7.5 12 73
7.6 7.0 84
7.4 14 68
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(mg/l)
17
25
32
10
17
28
20
12
19
21
22
u -1 n • w
Z< §02
fi > T < K
00 rlccw
en 5 P < oc
UJ UJ UJ I Ul
0.1 (0 O H
41 R.S., S.T.S.
14 S.S., T.S.
0 S.S., T.S.
66 R.S., C.S.
41 F.S.
3.4 R.S.
31 F.S.
59 F.S.
34 F.S.
28 R.S.
24 S.S.
(continued)
141
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-1
COAGULANT
17A
17B
17C
17H
22A
30A
30A
30B
30C
30 D
30 D
DOSAGE
(ppm)
1.5
1 .5
1.5
1.5
1 .0
0.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1 .0
1.5
PH
TURBIDITY
(JTU)
7.6 3.4
7.3 5.3
7.4 12
7.6 4.9
7.7 37
7.6 21
7.7 24
7.5 29
7.6 24
7.5 22
7.7 26
PERCENT
REMOVAL
92
88
73
89
16
52
45
34
45
50
41
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(mg/l)
17
15
6
13
30
21
19
25
23
19
8
PERCENT
REMOVAL
41
48
79
55
O
28
34
14
21
34
72
SETTLING
CHARAC-
TERISTICS
F.S., C.S.
F.S.
R.S., C.S.
s.s.
v.s.s.
R.S.
R.S.
R.S., T.S.
R.S., T.S.
R.S., T.S.
R.S., T.S.
(continued)
142
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-1
Q
UJ
m t 4 i °o
s.
O 05 a (-3 a g (00)£ Q. g _ (00 H
31A 1.5 7.6 8.0 82 8 72 R.S.
44B 1.0 7.7 17 61 12 59 R.S.
46A 0.5 6.9 5.1 88 8 72 R.S.,C.S.
46A 1.0 7.1 5.2 88 1 97 R.S., C.S.
46B 0.5 7.3 8.0 82 13 55 R.S., S.T.
46C 0.5 7.4 11 75 23 21 S.S.
46D 1.0 7.5 15 66 26 10 R.S.
46E 0.5 7.0 6.2 86 16 45 S.S.
46E 1.0 7.1 9.0 80 12 59 R.S.
46F 1.0 7.4 8.2 81 9 69 R.S., T.S.
61F 2.5 7.4 16 64 22 24 R.S.
^^••^•••^^^^•^^•••^^^^^H
(continued)
143
-------
COAGULANT
DOSAGE
(ppm)
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-1
Q
CD
OC
PERCEN
REMOVA
O
w
0
D. =-
.
«3 o» c2
D 0 C Ul Ul
(0 (0 £ a oc
61H 2.5 7.4 7.1 84
19 34 R.S
61K 2.5 7.5 3.5 92
10 66 R.S.
61L 2.5 7.6 3.5 92
14 52 R.S.
71C 0.5 7.4 30
32
30
0 S.S., T.S,
71C 1.5 7.5 38
14
27
7 S.S., T.S.
Lime 2.4 10.8 37
16
6-1 >C L.F.P.
Alum 105
3.3 100
>C 130 >C V.S.S., V.T.S
(continued)
144
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-2
2W £ S< ! £< §60
3 O O uj > iii W iij •* — < P
o < p 5 *-» Q o Q. 9 =• o ^ h ^ —
O 09- Z D t IU (11 DOcliJUl lUXui
O Q& a H 3. Q. QC 0) (Q £ Q. PC (Q Q K
6A 1.0 6.0 5.4 23 10 64 S.S.
6B 1.0 6.1 6.5 7 8 71 S.S.
6C 0.5 6.2 5.1 27 4 86 S.S.
6D 0.5 5.9 4.7 19 6 79 S.S.
6E 1.0 5.8 5.2 27 7 75 F.S.
6F 1.0 5.9 5.2 27 13 54 R.S.
15A 0.5 5.9 4.3 39 13 54 S.S.
17A 0.5 5.8 3.7 47 9 68 S.S,
17B 0.5 5.8 4.9 30 17 40 F.S,
17B 1.5 5.8 6.1 13 14 50 R.S., L.F.P.
17C 0.5 6.0 4.6 34 12 57 S.S.
(continued)
145
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-2
COAGULANT
17H
30A
30A
30C
30C
SOD
31A
44B
46A
46A
46B
DOSAGE
(ppm)
0.5
0.5
1.0
1 .0
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
0.
5.8
5.8
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.0
5.9
TURBIDITY
(JTU)
5.5
5.9
4.6
2.5
2.8
3.4
5.3
2.7
1.9
2.7
2.6
PERCENT
REMOVAL
21
16
34
64
60
51
24
64
73
61
63
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(mg/l)
5
26
30
24
20
12
12
4
7
3
8
PERCENT
REMOVAL
82
7
70
14
29
57
57
86
75
89
71
§68
pSS
t < £
S5r
s.s.
F.S., T.S.
R.S.,L.F.
R.S.,L.F.
R.S. , L.F.
F.S.,L.F.
R.S.
R.S., L.F,
R.S. , L.F
R.S., C.S
L.F. P.
R.S.
P.
P
P
P.
P
P
(continued)
146
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-2
COAGULANT
46C
46D
46E
46 F
DOSAGE
(ppm)
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
PH
TURBIDITY
6.0 3.
6.0 2.
5.7 4.
5.9 5.
1
3
8
5
5
PERCENT
REMOVAL
46
60
36
21
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(mg/l)
10
2
10
7
PERCENT
REMOVAL
64
93
64
75
SETTLING
F.S.
R.S.,
F.S.
R.S..
CHARAC-
I
I
TERISTICS
F
F
P
P
61F 0.5 6.1 5.7 19 20 29 S.S., T.S.
61F 1.0 6.0 5.2 26 33 0 S.S., T.S.
61H 1.5 6.O 6.O 14 10 64 S.S.
61K 0.5 5.9 5.2 26 14 50 S.S.
71C 0.5 6.0 4.0 43 1 96 S.S.
(continued)
147
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-3
COAGULANT
3M
6A
6B
6C
6D
6E
6F
15A
17A
17B
17C
DOSAGE
(ppm)
0.5
3.0
3.0
3.O
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
pH
TURBIDITY
(JTU)
7.2 38
6.9 12
7.0 7.9
6.7 9.6
6.9 10
6.9 5.6
7.1 7.3
7.2 14
6.8 11
7.1 7.8
7.2 22
PERCENT
REMOVAL
59
87
91
90
89
94
92
85
88
92
76
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(mg/l)
35
24
19
18
14
20
24
26
19
19
44
PERCENT
REMOVAL
53
67
74
76
81
73
68
65
74
74
41
F.
S.
F.
F.
F.
F.
F.
F.
R.
R.
S.
SETTLING
CHARAC-
S.
s.,
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
s.,
TERISTICS
T.S.
T.S.
(continued)
148
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-3
COAGULANT
17H
30A
30B
30C
30D
31A
44B
DOSAGE
(ppm)
3.0
1.5
0.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
3.0
PH
TURBIDITY
(JTU)
7.3 7.9
6.9 32
7.1 38
7.2 20
7.1 28
7.0 9.3
7.3 28
PERCENT
REMOVAL
91
65
59
78
70
90
70
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(mg/l)
27
26
30
9
20
26
33
PERCENT
REMOVAL
64
65
59
88
73
66
55
SETTLING
R.S.
T.S.
T.S.
F.S.
F.S.
F.S.
s.s.
CHARAC-
TERISTICS
, T.S.
, G.S.
, G.S.
, T.S.
46A 3.0 6.7 24 74 27 64 F.S.
46B 1.5 7.0 51 84 64 14 R.S., T.S.
46C 0.5 6.5 20 78 20 73 F.S., S.T.S.
46D 0.5 7.0 36 61 43 42 F.S.
(continued)
149
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-3
COAGULANT
46E
46 F
61F
61H
61K
61L
71C
315
DOSAGE
(ppm)
1.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.5
3.0
pH
TURBIDITY
(JTU)
6.9 10
7.3 17
6.7 14
6.9 13
7.1 5.2
7.4 6.4
6.6 76
7.3 17
PERCENT
REMOVAL
89
82
85
86
94
93
21
82
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(mg/l)
21
34
25
20
7
13
68
31
s< §48
w > §< F
o O d DC W
W ip ^ ^f -•
OC 2 r- ^ CC
uj m UJ I 111
ac WOK
72 F.S.
54 F.S.
66 S.S., T.S.
73 F.S.
91 F.S.
82 F.S.
8 S.S., T.S.
58 F.S.
(continued)
150
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-4
2 ^_ m
< L! l_-
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-4
H E fe< S
O 0 5> U
o <^ 5
< w E S
O 0 g- i D
O o5 a 1-
D t: ujui DOcuiui uj i uj
1-3. o. oc 0)0) -E. Q. g (/) O »-
17C 5.0 6.3 30 97 47 96 F.S., T.S.
17H 5.0 6.1 22 98 40 97 F.S.
30A 3.0 6.3 180 80 146 88 S.S., T.S.
S.S., V.T.S.,
30B 5.0 6.1 12O 86 120 9O i p- p
i— • r^ • • •
S.S., V.T.S.,
30C 3.0 6.2 160 82 150 87 L.F.P.
S.S., V.T.S.,
30D 5.0 6.1 180 80 134 89 L F P
31A 5.0 6.1 25 97 21 98 R.S., S.T.S.
44B 5.0 6.3 32 96 36 97 R.S., T.S.
46A 5.0 6.O 98 89 62 95 R.S., V.T.S.
46B 5.0 6.'2 18O 8O 220 81 S.S., V.T.S.
46C 1.5 6.3 210 76 204 83 S.S., V.T.S.
(continued)
152
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-4
? °
*• - UJ
3 • t £< i £< 068
§ S? §- §5 S8. §S |lS
8 Si i ?! II 32! §i i^
C
T
46C 5.0 6.2 140 84 218 81 S.S., V.T.S.
46D 5.O 6.3 9O 90 148 87 S.S., L.F. P.
46E 1.5 6.2 32 96 43 96 F.S., S.T.S.
46E 5.0 6.2 17 98 48 96 R.S.
46F 3.0 6.3 24 97 35 97 S.S., T.S.
61F 5.0 6.0 16O 82 158 87 S.S., T.S.
61A 5.0 6.0 210 76 170 86 V.S.S., V.T.S
61K 5.0 6.0 53 94 46 96 R.S., T.S.
61L 5.0 6.0 74 92 88 93 R.S., T.S.
71C 5.0 6.3 400 54 232 80 S.S, V.T.S.
Lime 1.2 10.7 32 96 57 94 L.F. P.
(continued)
153
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond WV-4
COAGULANT
Alum
DOSAGE
(ppm)
110.6
PH
TURBIDITY
(JTU)
3.1 12O
PERCENT
REMOVAL
86
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
(mg/l)
180
PERCENT
REMOVAL
85
SETTLING
CHARAC-
TERISTICS
V.S.S., V.
T.S.
(continued)
154
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond KY-1
1-
COAGULAN
3M
6A
6B
6C
6D
6E
6F
15A
17A
17B
17C
DOSAGE
(ppm)
1.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
X
a
7.0
6.5
6.0
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
TURBIDITY
(JTU)
30
52
52
46
46
43
69
70
58
40
43
PERCENT
REMOVAL
86
75
75
78
78
80
67
67
72
81
80
Q
SUSPENDEI
SOLIDS
(mg/l)
18
52
34
40
50
35
60
70
67
92
43
PERCENT
REMOVAL
90
82
82
78
73
81
68
62
64
51
77
R
L
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SETTLING
CHARAC-
.s.,
.F.P
.s.,
.s.,
.s.,
.s.,
• s.,
• s.,
.s.,
.s.,
.s.,
• s.,
TERISTICS
T.S.,
•
T.S.
T.S.
T.S.
T.S.
T.S.
T.S.
T.S.
T.S.
T.S.
T.S.
(continued)
155
-------
8 §1
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond KY-1
z °
5 * t £< 1 £< §08
D 8 Q u> W<8 W> 3 1 . 5 . f
46D 3.0 6.9 33 84 60 73 L.F.P.
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Sediment Pond KY-1
z °
1 ii t z< § z< So8
§ 8 i- § SS. S = 2S
o x
O Q S a i- 3 p. cc o) (0 £ g
co u
46E 5.0 6.9 14 93 19 90 i'p p
i— • r^ • i *
R.S., T.S.,
46F 3.0 6.8 16 92 15 92 i cr p
L_ • r^ • i •
61F 5.0 6.0 69 67 64 66 S.S., T.S.
61H 5.0 6.1 85 60 82 56 S.S., T.S.
61K 5.0 6.6 92 56 62 67 S.S., T.S.
61L 5.0 6.6 86 59 81 56 S.S., T.S.
G.S., T.S.,
71C 5.0 6.6 14 93 16 91 c cr p
•J • I • I •
315 5.0 6.9 44 79 49 74 S.S., T.S.
Lime 1.7 1O.9 34 .84 74 60 R.S.
Alum 106.5 3.1 43 80 66 65 V.S .S. , V. T.S
157
-------
TABLE A-4. BENCH SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS
Magnffloc 587C
VJ)
Cn
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
(ppm) PA"1 WV~1 WV-2A WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TUf»B TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU> (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/1) 0 54 43
4.0 6.4 6
5.0 9.2 14 70 29 43 35
* Blank spaces indicate no test at this dosage
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-4. (continued)
Magnifloc 587C
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
PA-1 WV-1 WV-2A WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
(ppm)
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l)
^ . . .
10 6.0 9.6 12 12 12
7.0 26 33
8.0 8.8 12 12 19
1O.O 33 41 9.2 14 14 19
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-4. (continued)
M-5O2
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
(ppm) PA~1 WV~1 WV-2A WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l)
RAW 880 437 440 2,306 64 148 200 4,510 440 2,454 680 6O6
CONTROL 2O 32 44 29 7.0 28 92 74 88O 1,176 210 186
O.5 4.4 5 14 21 5.5 5 64 72
1.0 3.3 1 8.4 13 6.1 18
1.5 3.4 1 4.9 13 6.7 21 14 34 90 86 10O 102
2.0 5.2 4
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.3 7 7.9 27 31 52 80 92
6.5 15
27 44 22 40 52 74
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-4. (continued)
M-5O2
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
PA-1 WV-1 WV-2A WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
(ppm)
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l)
6.O
7.0
8.O
10. 0
16 11 2O 22
38 43
13 23 20 21
43 65 13 23 20 21
(continued)
-------
N)
TABLE A-4. (continued)
Amerfloc 485
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
. PA-1 WV-1 WV-2A WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) ^° 38 46 25 21 44 46
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-4. (continued)
Amerfloc 485
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
PA-1 WV-1 WV-2A WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
(ppm)
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l)
6.0 6.6 10 14 21
7.0 54 62
8.0 6.2 11 14 21
10.O 56 66 7.2 11 14 18
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-4. (continued)
Polyfloc C
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
(ppm) PA'1 WV'1 WV-2A WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (jTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l)
-------
TABLE A-4. (continued)
Polyfloc C
TEST WATER
DOSAGE wv.4
10.0
(ppm)
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l)
6>0 30 32 28 14
7.0 1° 24
10 30 32 25 32 34
36 50 33 44
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-4. (continued)
Hereofloc 812
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
(ppm) PA'1 WV'1 WV-2A WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (jjU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l)
RAW 880 437 440 2,306 64 148 2OO 4,510 440 2,454 680 606
CONTROL 20 32 44 29 7.O 28 92 74 880 1,176 210 186
- °'5 6-9 5 5.1 8 2.1 9 74 62
a\
1-° 12 9 5.2 1 1.9 7
1'5 9 8 6.5 6 2.7 3 29 26 360 24O 42 34
3<° 24 27 140 108 42 43
5'° 7.3 8 98 62 40 45
6'° 28 19
6.7
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-4. (continued)
Hercofloc 812
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
PA-1 WV-1 WV-2A WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
(ppm)
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l)
8.0 30 21
10.0 6.6 22 30 30
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-4. (continued)
Hercofloc 831
o\
CD
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
(ppm) PA~1 WV"1 WV-2A WV-3 tWV-4 KY-1
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l)
RAW 880 437
CONTROL 20 32
0.5 15 15
1.0 8.7 6
1.5 6.8 1
2.0
2.5 10 34
3 . 0 22 44
4.0
440 2,306 64 148 2OO 4,510 440 2,454 680 606
44 29 7.O 28 92 74 880 1,176 21 0 186
15 31 2.8 11 36 43 46 42
15 26 2.8 2 24 14 34 20
17 32 3.3 3 57 94 140 182 43 50
31 3O
34 20
32 3O 53 92 9O 152 33 6O
31 30
(continued)
-------
c*
VO
TABLE A-4. (continued)
Hereofloc 831
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
PA-1 WV-1 WV-2A WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
(ppm)
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l)
5.0 38 38 90 148 40 56
6.0 90 78
7.0 40 44
8.0 9O 64
1O.O 88 64 30 44
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-4. (continued)
Superfloc 315
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
(ppm) PA'1 WV'1 WV-2A WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l)
-------
TABLE A-4. (continued)
Superfloc 315
TEST WATER
DOSAGE
PA-1 WV-1 WV-2A WV-3 WV-4 KY-1
(ppm)
TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS TURB TSS
(JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l) (JTU) (mg/l)
6.0 12 13 18 19
7.0 7.2 19
8.O 14 2O 19 26
10.0 5.0 12 18 23 18 27
-------
N)
TABLE A-5. SUMMARY OF BENCH-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY
Optimum Dosage (21° C)*
===== «• » '
TEST MAGNIFLOC
WATER 587C M-5O2
PA-1
WV-1
WV-2A
WV-3
WV-4
KY-1
^^— — »^-^^p^-^
TURB
TSS
TURB
TSS
TURB
TSS
TURB
TSS
TURB
TSS
TURB
TSS
1.5
0.5
1.5
3.0
1.5
1.0
3.0
5.0
8.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
1
1
1
3
0
0
3
3,
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
8.0
6.O
6.O
8.
o
AMERFLOC
485
1.0
0.5
4.0
2.0
0.
1.
3.
3.
5.
6.
6.
6.
5
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
HERCOFLOC HERCOFLOC POLYFLOC
812 831 C
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
10.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
1.5
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
8,
.5
.5
.5
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
10.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
0.5
2.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
8.0
5.0
6.0
SUPERFLOC
315
3.0
0.5
4.0
4.0
1.0
0.5
10.0
10.0
5.0
3.0
6.O
6.0
* Optimum dosages In mg/l.
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-5. (continued)
At Optimum Dosage (21° C)*
TEST
WATER
PA-1
WV-1
WV-2A
WV-3
WV-4
KY-1
MAGNIFLOC . . _„
^K 587C M"5°2
TURB
TSS
TURB
TSS
TURB
TSS
TURB
TSS
TURB
TSS
TURB
TSS
83. 0
96.8
88.2
82.8
28.6
75. 0
93.9
81.1
99. 0
99.0
94.3
93.5
83.5
96.8
88.2
76.0
21.4
82.1
91.4
63.5
98.5
93.5
90.5
88.7
AMERFLOC
485
8O.5
81.3
83.6
69.0
24.3
60.7
90.2
66.2
99.3
99.1
93.3
88.7
HERCOFLOC
812
65.5
84.4
88.4
96.5
72.9
86.0
92.7
94.6
96.8
98.4
8O.O
81.7
HERCOFLOC
831
66.0
97.8
66.0
10.3
60.0
92.9
74.0
81.1
96.1
95.0
85.7
77.4
POLYFLOC
C
86.0
97.8
61.4
62.1
68.6
90.0
89.9
86.5
96.6
97.9
88.6
92.5
SUPERFLOC
315
68. 0
53.1
86.0
79.3
64.3
67.9
45.7
83.8
98.6
99.9
91.4
89.8
Efficiency of removal in percent
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleasv rend Instructions on the reverse helore completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-80-072
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
DEVELOPMENT OF METHODS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE
OF SURFACE MINE SEDIMENT BASINS - Phase I
April 1980 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
M7-H2
7 AUTHOR(S)
Charles E. Ettinger
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
SKELLY and LOY
Engineers - Consultants
2601 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2677
12. SPONSORING AGENCV NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Phase I - 8 months
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The control of erosion and sedimentation from disturbed lands is a subject
of increasing interest, particularly in the area of surface mining. Because of the
hydrologic conditions and steep terrain in Appalachia, a large share of the eroded
material comes from surface mines, largely controlled through the use of sedimen-
tation ponds. With the passage of the 1977 Clean Water Act which has a specific
effluent limitation of total suspended solids from surface mine sedimentation basins,
the Environmental Protection Agency has mandated that sediment basins be designed
to achieve a specific effluent quality. Two methods for achieving this goal have
been investigated during this study: physical modifications to sediment basin design
parameters and the use of chemical coagulants. As a result of this study, methods
have been determined for upgrading sediment pond efficiencies by physical modifica-
tions and coagulant usage.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Ftold/Group
Sedimentation
Flocculating
Coagulation
Surface Coal Mining
Ponds
Settling
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
Kentucky
Appalachia
68D
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS fThis Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
184
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
174
»US GOWWIMENT PUWTINS OFFICE. IMO-657-146/5670
-------
|