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

-------