NOVEMBER °1972      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY SERIES
      Acid  Mine Drainage  Treatment
      by Ion Exchange
                             Office of Research and Monitoring
                           U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                                       Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
            RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the  Office  of  Research  and
Monitoring,  Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series.  These  five  broad
categories  were'established to facilitate further
development  and  application   of   environmental
technology.   Elimination  of traditional grouping
was  consciously  planned  to  foster   technology
transfer   and  a  maximum  interface  in  related
fields.  The five series are:

   1.  Environmental Health Effects Pesearch
   2.  Environmental Protection Technology
   3.  Ecological Research
   H.  Environmental Monitoring
   5.  socioeconomic Environmental Studies

This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION   TECHNOLOGY   series.    This   series
describes   research   performed  to  develop  and
demonstrate   instrumentation,    equipment    and
methodology  to  repair  or  prevent environmental
degradation from point and  non-point  sources  of
pollution.  This work provides the new or improved
technology  required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality
standards.

-------
                                           EPA-R2-72-056
                                            November 1972
ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT BY ION EXCHANGE
                      By

          Jim Holmes and  Ed Kreusch
            Contract No. 14-12-887
               Project 14010  FNJ
                Project Officer

                  Ronald  Hill
        Environmental Protection Agency
   National Environmental  Research Center
            Cincinnati, Ohio ^5268
                 Prepared  for

      OFFICE OF RESEARCH  AND MONITORING
    U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            WASHINGTON, B.C.  20U60
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
            Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.78

-------
                       EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication.  Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommen-
dation for use.
                               ii

-------
                             ABSTRACT
Laboratory studies were conducted on synthetic acid mine drainage treat-
ment using ion exchange processes.  These studies were in two stages.
During the first stage, five representative ion exchange resins of the
various types which are commercially available were surveyed through
laboratory column test studies, to determine their applicability in the
treatment of acid mine drainage (AMD).  The second stage of the
laboratory studies selected the three resins which were feasible in the
treatment of AMD in the first stages.  These three selected resins were
then studied further in the treatment of synthetic AMD containing 100%
ferrous iron, and in separate tests, 100% ferric iron and to study a
total process for the production of potable water.

The resins studied in the first stage were as follows:

     Strong acid cation exchanger regenerated with sulfuric acid.
     Strong acid cation exchanger regenerated with sodium chloride.
     Weak base anion exchanger regenerated with caustic soda.
     Weak base anion exchanger regenerated with sodium hydroxide
       and carbon dioxide (modified Desal process).
     Strong base anion exchanger operated as in the SUL-biSUL process.

The following two resins were eliminated from further consideration.
The strong acid cation exchanger regenerated with sodium chloride pro-
duced an effluent which was increased in total dissolved solids:
regeneration with sulfuric acid was a better process.  The strong base
anion exchanger operated as in the SUL-biSUL process produced the
lowest volume of treated effluent per unit volume of exchanger.

The three recommended ion exchange resins were studied to establish
fundimental design parameters for treatment plants.  Process optimiza-
tion was not attempted; rather, feasibility and basic parameters were
established.

Based on the laboratory studies, two complete processes for the treat-
ment of AMD by ion exchange techniques were established; the two resin
system and the modified Desal system.  Treatment plants in three sizes?
0.1  0.5 and 1.0 MGD, were designed for each system so that cost
estimates could be established.  These estimates are presented in the
report.

Continuation of the work is recommended in the form of pilot plant
studies on the two resin system.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project 14010 FNJ, Contract
14-12-887, under the sponsorship of the Office of Research and Monitor-
ing, Environmental Protection Agency.

Key words:  Acid mine drainage, demineralization, ion exchange, cost.


                                 .   iii

-------
                              CONTENTS


Section                                                  Page

   1     Conclusions                                      1

   2     Recommendations                                  3

   3     Introduction                                     5

   4     Objectives                                       7

   5     Laboratory Test Apparatus Description            9

   6     Ion Exchanger Column and Laboratory Operating
         Procedures                                       15

   7     Analytical Procedures                            21

   8     Strong Acid Cation Exchanger Performance -
         Hydrogen Form                                    25

   9     Strong Acid Cation Exchanger Performance -
         Sodium Form                                      33

  10     Weak Base Anion Exchanger Performance -
         Free Base Form                                   41

  11     Weak Base Anion Exchanger Performance -
         Bicarbonate Form                                 47

  12     Strong Base Anion Exchanger Performance -
         Sulfate Form                                     53

  13     Complete Process Evaluation-Strong Acid Cation
         Exchanger (Hydrogen Form)                        59

  14     Complete Process Evaluation -  Strong Acid
         Cation Exchanger (Hydrogen Form)/Vfeak Base
         Anion Exchanger (Free Base Form)                 67

  15     Complete Process Evaluation -  Weak Base Anion
         Exchanger (Bicarbonate Form)/Lime Treatment      75

  16     Treatment Plant Design - Two Resin System        85

  17     Treatment Plant Design - Modified 'Desal1        127
         Process

-------
SECTION                                                           PAGE




18                     Acknowledgements                           167



19                     References                                 169



20                     Dafinitions                                171



21                     Appendix                                   177
                                   vi

-------
                              FIGURES
Figure                                                            Page
  No.                                                              No.

   1    Photograph of Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Test
        Apparatus                                                  ]_Q

   2    Photograph of Ion Exchanger Columns                        n

   3    Schematic of Acid Mine Drainage Test Apparatus             12

   4    AMD Treatment Process Schematic-Hydrogen Form Strong
        Acid Cation Exchanger/Free Base Form Weak Base Anion
        Exchanger                                                  26

   5    Schematic of Possible Process to Treat AMD Using
        Sodium Form Strong Acid Cation Exchanger                   34

   6    Effluent FMA Concentration vs Gallons of AMD Put
        Through a Sodium State Strong Acid Cation Exchanger        33

   7    AMD Treatment Process Schematic (Bicarbonate Form Weak
        Base Anion Exchanger/Hydrogen Form Weak Acid Cation
        Exchanger or Lime Treatment)                               48

   8    Material Balance for Strong Acid Cation Exchanger
        (H+ Form)/Weak Base Anion Exchanger  (Free Base Form)
        Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage                            73

   9    Material Balance For Weak Base Anion Exchanger
        (Bicarbonate Form)/Lime Treatment of Acid Mine
        Drainage          •                                         83

  10    Effect of Plant Size on Treatment Costs                    86

  11    Cost Estimates For Unassembled, Unerected Equipment to
        Treat AMD by the Two Resin System                          87

  12    Estimates of Daily Chemical Operating Costs to Treat
        AMD by the Two Resin System                                88

  13    Estimates of Electrical Labor Costs  for Erection  of
        Plants to Treat AMD by the Two Resin System                89

  14    Estimates of Plumbing Labor Costs  for Assembly and
        Erection of  Plants to Treat AMD by  the  Two  Resin  System   90

  15    AMD Treatment  Plant  Flow  Diagram,  Two Resin System,
        0.1 MGD                                                    102


                                   vii

-------
Figure                                                            Pa9e
  No.                                                              NO-

  16    AMD Treatment Plant Plan, Two Resin System, 0.1 MGD        103

  17    AMD Treatment Plant Flow Diagram, Two Resin System,
        0.5 MGD                                                    113

  18    AMD Treatment Plant Plan, Two Resin System, 0.5 MGD        114

  19    AMD Treatment Plant Flow Diagram, Two Resin System,
        1.0 MGD                                                    124

  20    AMD Treatment Plant Plan, Two Resin System, 1.0 MGD        125

  21    Cost Estimates for Unassembled,  Unerected  Equipment  to
        Treat AMD by the Modified Desal  System                     128

  22    Estimates of Daily Chemical Operating Costs to Treat
        AMD by the Modified Desal System                          129

  23    Estimates of Electrical  Labor Costs for  Erection  of
        Plants to Treat AMD by the Modified Desal  System           130

  24    Estimates of Plumbing Labor Costs  for Assembly and
        Erection of Plants to Treat AMD  by the Modified Desal
        System                                                     131

  25    AMD Treatment Plant Flow Diagram,  Modified Desal  System,
        0.1 MGD                                                    143

  26    AMD Treatment Plant Plan, Modified Desal System,
        0.1 MGD                                                    144

  27    AMD Treatment Plant Flow Diagram,  Modified Desal  System,
        0.5 MGD                                                    154

  28    AMD Treatment Plant Plan, Modified Desal System,  0.5 MGD  155

  29    AMD Treatment Plant Flow Diagram,  Modified Desal  System,
        1.0 MGD                                                    165

  30    AMD Treatment Plant Plan, Modified Desal System,  1.0 MGD  166
                                   Vlll

-------
                               TABLES
Table                                                              PaT9e
  No.                                                              -J52i

  1.      Reagent Chemicals Used to Prepare Synthetic AMD           9

  2.      Composition of Test AMD Solution                         13

  3.      Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Hydrogen Form.
          Performance Data                                         28

  4.      Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Hydrogen Form.
          Performance Data                                         29

  5.      Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Hydrogen Form.
          Performance Data                                         30

  6.      Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Sodium Form.
          Performance Data                                         36

  7.      Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Sodium Form.
          Analysis  of Composite Regenerant - Rinse Effluent        39

  8.      Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Sodium Form.
          Performance Data                                          39

  9.      Weak  Base Anion Exchanger - Free Base Form.
          Performance Data                                          43

  10.      Weak  Base Anion Exchanger - Iron Content Analysis         43

  11.      Weak  Base Anion Exchanger - Bicarbonate Form.
          Water Analysis of  Influent and Composite Effluent         49

  12.      Column Effluent Analyses - Run 44 B                       50

  13.      Weak  Base Anion Exchanger - Bicarbonate Form.
          Analysis  of Composite Regenerant Effluent                 51

  14.      Comparison  of Acid Removal Capacity  of Sulfate Form
          Strong Base Anion  Exchanger

  15.      Typical  Influent and  Effluent Analysis for  a Sulfate
          Form  Strong Base Anion  Exchanger                           56

  16.      Strong Acid Cation Exchanger  - Hydrogen Form.
          Performance Data

  17.      Strong Acid Cation Exchanger  - Hydrogen Form.              ,.
          Performance Data

                                      ix

-------
 Table
  No.

 18.        Strong Acid Cation Exchanger -  Hydrogen  Form.
            Performance Data                                            ,,.
                                                                        t>2.

 19.        Strong Acid Cation Exchanger -  Hydrogen  Form.
            Performance Data
                                                                        63

 20.        Strong Acid Cation Exchanger -  Hydrogen  Form.
            Performance Data                                            , .
                                                                        64
 21.        Effect of pH on Manganese  and Iron Removal Using
            Lime Treatment  and Filtration
                                                                        bo
 22.        Typical Effluent Analysis  During  Each Step of the AMD
            Treatment (100# Ferrous) using  a  Strong  Acid Cation Ex-
            changer (Hydrogen Form), a Weak Base Anion Exchanger
            (Free Base Form),  Liming and Filtration.                     ,_

 23.        Typical Effluent Analysis  During  Each Step of the AMD
            Treatment (100J« Ferric) Using a Strong Acid Cation Ex-
            changer (hydrogen Form), a Weak Base Anion Exchanger
            (Free Base Form)  Liming, Filtration and  pH Correction       69

 24.        Ion Exchange Column Operational Parameters - Strong Acid
            Cation Exchanger (Hydrogen Form)  - Weak  Base Anion
            Exchanger (Free Base Form) Treatment Process                71

 25.        Typical Effluent  Analysis  During  Each Step of the AMD
            Treatment  with  a Weak Base Anion  Exchanger (Bicarbonate
            Form),  a Weak Acid  Cation  Exchanger (Hydrogen Form),
            Aeration,  Liming  and Filtration                            -^

 26.         Weak  Acid Cation Exchanger Capacity and Regeneration
            Utilization vs  Sulfuric Acid Dosage                         76

 27.         Typical Effluent Analysis During Each Step of the AMD
            Treatment with  a Weak Base Anion Exchanger (Bicarbonate
            Form), Aeration, Liming, and Filtration (100# Ferrous)       78

 28.        Typical Effluent Analysis During Each Step of the AMD
           Treatment with a Weak Base Anion Exchanger (Bicarbonate
           Form), Aeration, Liming and Filtration (100$ Ferric)        78

 29.         Ion Exchange Column Operational  Parameters -  Weak Base
           Anion Exchanger (Bicarbonate Form) /Lime Treatment          82

30.        Hydrogen Cation Exchangers, Detailed  Specifications,
           0.1 MoD                                                     94

31.        Anion Exchangers, Detailed  Specifications, 0.1 MGD          96

-------
Table                                                               Page
 No.                                                                No.

 32.       Forced Draft Degasifiers or Aerator,  Detailed
           Specifications 0,1 MGD                                    98

 33.       Pressure Filters, Detailed Specifications 0,1 MGD         99

 34.       Miscellaneous Items Included:   Detailed Specifications,
           0.1 MGD                                                   101

 35.       Hydrogen Cation Exchangers,  Detailed Specifications,
           0.5 MGD                                                   105

 36.       Anion Exchangers, Detailed Specifications, 0.5 MGD        107

 37.       Forced Draft Degasifiers or Aerator,  Detailed
           Specifications,  0.5 MGD                                   109

 38.       Pressure Filters, Detailed Specifications, 0.5 MGD        110

 39.       Miscellaneous Items Included:   Detailed Specifications,
           0.5 MGD                                                   112

 40.       Hydrogen Cation Exchanger, Detailed Spec, 1.0 MGD         116

 41.       Anion Exchangers, Detailed Specifications, 1.0 MGD        us

 42.       Forced Draft Degasifiers or Aerator,  Detailed
           Specifications,  1.0 MGD                                   120

 43.       Pressure Filters, Detailed Specifications, 1.0 MGD        121

 44.       Miscellaneous Items Included:   Detailed Specifications,
           1.0 MGD                                                   123

 45.       Anion Exchangers, Detailed Specifications, 0.1 MGD        135

 46.       Forced Draft Degasifiers or Aerator,  Detailed
           Specifications,  0.1 MGD                                   138

 47.       Reactor - Clarifier, Detailed Specification, 0.1 MGD      139

 48.       Pressure Filters, Detailed Specifications, 0.1 MGD        140

 49.       Miscellaneous Items, Detailed Specifications, 0.1 MGD     142

 50.       Anion Exchangers, Detailed Specifications, 0.5 MGD        146

 51.       Forced Draft Degasifiers or Aerator,  Detailed
           Specifications,  0.5 MGD                                   149
                                     xi

-------
Table                                                              Pege
 No.                                                               Jjo^

 52.      Reactor - Clarifier, Detailed Specifications,  0.5 toGD    150

 53.      Pressure Filters, Detailed Specifications, 0.5 MGD       151

 54.      Miscellaneous Items, Detailed Specifications,  0.5 MGD    153

 55.      Anion Exchangers, Detailed Specifications, 1.0 MGD       157

 56.      Forced Draft Degasifiers or Aerator, Detailed
          Specifications, 1.0 MGD                                  160

 57.      Reactor - Clarifier, Detailed Specifications,  1.0 MGD    161

 58.      Pressure Filters, Detailed Specifications, 1.0 MGD       162

 59.      Miscellaneous Items, Detailed Specifications,  1.0 MGD    164

 60-97    Treated Effluent Analyses                             178-218
                                     xii

-------
                             SECTION 1

                            CONCLUSIONS
Based on the experimental data obtained in this study, we conclude the
following:

A potable water can be obtained from acid mine drainage by treatment
methods which incorporate the use of specific ion exchange processes.

One specific process (2 resin system) which was found successful used
a strong acid cation exchanger (hydrogen form), followed by a weak base
anion exchanger (free base form) followed by post treatment consisting
of pH elevation to 9.9, aeration, filtration and final pH correction.
The chemical costs for producing water by this process were estimated
at about 63<|:/1000 gallons when using a particular synthetic AMD
influent.  Liquid wastes from this process would be acidic requiring
subsequent treatment and disposal.  Estimated unerected, uninstalled
equipment costs for this process are $126,000 for a 0.1 MGD plant;
$256,000 for a 0.5 MGD plant; $428,000 for a 1.0 MGD plant.

A second process (modified Desal'1^process) which was found successful
used a weak base anion exchanger (Rohm and Haas IRA-68) in the
bicarbonate form followed by aeration, lime treatment, filtration and
final pH correction.  The chemical costs for producing water by this
process were estimated at about 48$/1000 gallons when using a synthetic
AMD influent similar to that used in the first treatment process
described above.  The wastes from this process would be an alkaline
liquid and a lime treatment sludge.  Estimated unerected, uninstalled
equipment costs for this process are $156,000 for a 0.1 MGD plant;
$323,000 for a 0.5 MGD plant; $465,000 for a 1.0 MGD plant.

The treatment process utilizing a strong acid cation exchanger in the
sodium form was studied and found to be less efficient than the hydrogen
form for the production of potable water from acid mine drainage.

The treatment process utilizing a strong base anion exchanger in the
sulfate form (SUL-biSUL process(2)) was studied also.  This process
appeared feasible for the production of potable water if coupled to  a
strong acid cation exchanger  (hydrogen form).  However, because of the
more promising outlook of the previously mentioned processes  (above),
this process was not selected for intensive  study.

-------
                             SECTION 2

                          RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that additional investigations be conducted to
establish the best weak base anion exchanger for use in the strong
acid cation (hydrogen form) - weak base anion (free base form) treat-
ment process.  This investigation should also include a study of
resin stability and the rate of iron accumulation on various weak
base anion exchangers when subjected to repeated cycles of regeneration
and treatment with a simulated cation effluent.  The new investigation
must also study efficient methods for disposal of regenerant wastes.
Analytical methods must be established to enable correct determination
of free mineral acidity as it affects the ion exchange reactions.

After performing the study described above, a pilot plant should be
constructed for the application of the complete process to an actual
acid mine drainage source.  The pilot plant should be designed and
operated for the following purposes:

     1.  Establish the economic comparison of sulfuric acid and
         hydrochloric acid regenerations taking into consideration
         the volume of waste regenerant, its treatment and ultimate
         disposal.

     2.  Establish all operating costs for producing potable water
         by this complete treatment process.  This will entail a
         consideration of expected ion exchanger life and the
         ability to restore the anion exchanger by iron removal
         processes.

     3.  Partially optimize the process to enable adequate design
         of larger plants.

     4.  Establish the economics of using hydrochloric acid and
         sulfuric acid (separately) as regenerants for cation
         exchange resins.

No recommendations are made relative to the weak base anion  (bicarbon-
ate form) - lime treatment process.  This process will produce a
potable effluent also.  However, a plant utilizing this process is
already under construction by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

-------
                             SECTION 3

                           INTRODUCTION
The demands for potable water are steadily increasing.   In areas where
acid mine drainage has diminished the available supplies,  processes
which are capable of producing potable water from this  drainage are of
particular interest.

Ion exchange processes have this capability.  Certain specialized ion
exchange processes (modified Desalt) and SUL-biSUlA2/ )have already
been employed for the treatment of acid mine drainage.   However, very
little attention has been given to the application of conventional
methods of ion exchange in solving this problem.

This investigation was intended to study several conventional ion
exchange processes, using commercially available materials and to
determine if any of these processes could be used to produce potable
water from acid mine drainage.

All the laboratory studies were performed in the research laboratories
of the Culligan International Company.  Laboratory studies were started
August 18, 1970 and were completed on August 27, 1971.

-------
                             SECTION 4

                            OBJECTIVES
This project was initiated to achieve the following objectives.   The
first objective was to study five different ion exchange processes for
the treatment of acid mine drainage in order to determine which of the
processes could be applied successfully to the treatment of acid mine
drainage.  One month was allotted for each process study.

A second objective was the further study of three processes selected
from the original five.  The three processes were to be selected on the
basis of predictable success as an entire process or as a portion of
an entire process for the production of potable water from AMD.  Two
months were allotted for each process study:  one month was to be spent
with ferrous iron, the second month was to be spent with ferric iron.

The third objective was to establish capital cost estimated for plants
by the design of three complete treatment plants in two sizes each
(1 MGD and 0.5 MGD) for the production of potable water from acid mine
drainage using three different treatment processes.  This was later
revised to cover two complete treatment plants in three sizes each
(l MGD, 0.5 MGD and 0.1 MGD).  This was done because two of the three
processes selected for further study were really component steps of a
single complete treatment process.

The accomplishment of these objectives provides a basis for determining
the merit of installing large plants to treat AMD by ion exchange
process.  That is, the project compared the technical feasibility,
operating costs and plant costs.

-------
                             SECTION 5

               LABORATORY TEST APPARATUS DESCRIPTION
The ion exchange processes were studied in 2-inch ID by 60 inches
acrylic columns.  The acrylic columns were fitted at the lower end
with a suitable strainer with openings small enough to prevent loss
of the 10 by 20 mesh flint gravel support for the ion exchanger.  A
strainer was used at the top of the column when upflow treatment
cycles were employed.  This was done to prevent loss of ion exchange
materials into the treated effluent.

Figures 1 and 2 are photographs showing the ion exchanger column
apparatus with the two columns used.  Figure 3 is a schematic diagram
of the entire apparatus.  The interconnecting piping consisted of
1/4-inch PVC pipe.  The 500 gallon and 20 gallon reservoirs were
fiberglass and polyethylene construction respectively.  The pumps used
to pressurize the solutions from the reservoirs were small, low head
centrifugal pumps (Eastern Industries).  Valving consisted of plastic
ball valves of appropriate sizes arranged so fluids from either of the
two reservoirs could be passed through the columns  in an upflow or
downflow direction.  Fluids could alternately be passed through one
column and then the next in either direction.  An alternate connection
was available for conducting any other source fluid (e.g., C02
saturated water) through the columns.

Flow indicator and control devices were plumbed into the piping at
convenient locations so that fluid flow rates could be observed.  The
waste effluents were led to neutralizing equipment  before being dis-
charged to waste.  Composite effluents were normally collected  in
polyethylene reservoirs before being mixed, sampled and discharged to
waste.

The following reagent grade chemicals and demineralized water were used
to prepare the synthetic acid mine drainage (AMD) solution.

     TABLE 1.  Reagent Chemicals Used to Prepare Synthetic AMD.

                         H2S04
                         CaS04  . 2H20
                         MnS04  . 1H20
                         A12(S04)3  . 18H20
                         MgS04  . 7H20
                         FeS04  . 7H20
                         Fe2(S04)3  . XH20

-------
      i.
Figure 1.  Acid Mine Drainage Treatment  Test  Apparatus
                        10

-------
Figure 2.   Ion Exchanger Columns


-------
ro
        m

        CO
        en
        o
        a>
o

o
>-h

>
o
H-
a.


M-
D
CD


S
O)
1-"
D
0)
iQ
(D

•H

        r«-
        C
        O)
                    Pressure	Q
                     Gauge
                        Valve
                            Raw

                           Water
   Acid
Mine Water
       500
       gal,
                                                          -
-------
These chemicals were added in sufficient quantities to achieve the
following approximate concentrations.

      TABLE 2.  Composition of Test AMD Solution.

         Free Mineral Acidity (FMA), ppm as CaCO^ 	 500
         Sulfate, ppm as 804 	1150
         Calcium, ppm as Ca  	 200
         Magnesium, ppm as Mg 	  24
         Aluminum, ppm as Al 	  15
         Manganese, ppm as Mn 	   B
         Iron, ppm as Fe 	 210

One of the objectives of this investigation was the determination of the
effect of variations of the relative concentrations of ferrous and ferric
ions in the synthetic AMD solutions.  These variations of concentrations
were obtained by varying the relative quantities of FeSC4 . 7H?0 and
Fe2(S04)3 . XH20.  However, it was intended that the total concentration
of both ferrous and ferric iron would always approximate the 210 ppm
(as Fe) value.

The regenerant solutions were routinely prepared from commercial
chemicals dissolved in demineralized water.  Some studies used regenerant
solution prepared with either acid mine drainage or ion exchanger column
effluents.  When this procedure was used, it was specified in the text
of this report.
                              13

-------
                              SECTION 6

      ION EXCHANGER COLUMN AND LABORATORY OPERATING PROCEDURES
The ion exchange column tests were conducted according to standard
operating procedures employed in the ion exchange industry.  The follow-
ing discussion is a review of these procedures so that the reader may
understand the cyclic nature of the process.  This review also attempts
to instruct the reader as to the nomenclature of certain operations which
are used repetitively in ion exchange processes and need no further
explanation in ensuing discussions.  Other definitions can be found in a
separate later section.

Ion Exchangers.  All the ion exchangers utilized in this study were com-
mercially available from the various manufacturers listed belows
    Ion Exchanger

       C-240



       WGR



       21K



       IRA-410



       IRA-68



       IRC-84
Type

Strong Acid
Cation Exchanger
Weak Base
Anion Exchanger
(primary amine)

Strong Base
Anion Exchanger
Type I - Porous

Strong Base
Anion Exchanger
Type 2

Weak Base
Anion Exchanger
(tertiary amine)

Weak Acid
Cation Exchanger
(carboxylic)
Manufacturer

lonac Chemical
Sybron Corporation
Birmingham, New Jersey 08011

Dow Chemical U. S. A.
Dow Chemical Company
Midland, Michigan 48640

Ditto
Rohm & Haas Company
Philadelphia, Pa. 19105
Ditto
 Ditto
 Ion  Exchanger  Bed.   The  sample  of  particulate  ion exchange  material  in
 the  test  columns  occupies  a  given  volume  within that  column because  the
 individual  particles settle  into a rather compact mass.   The compact
 column  of ion  exchange material including the  interstitial  volume,  is
 termed  the  ion exchanger "bed". Practically all ion  exchangers are  sold
 and  capacity rated  on the  basis of the volume  occupied by the bed,  which
 has  been  measured under  reproducible  conditions.
                               15

-------
The ion exchanger bed dimensions are naturally restricted by the inside
dimensions of the test column.  The test columns used in this study were
2 inches ID by 60 inches high.  The height of the ion exchanger bed
normally used in this study was 30 inches.  Thus, 30 inches of volume
above the ion exchanger bed was available for purposes to be revealed
below.  This volume above the bed is termed the "freeboard".

As stated above, the dimensions of the ion exchanger bed were normally 2
inches in diameter by 30 inches high.  This corresponds to an ion exchanger
volume of 0.055 cubic feet.

Ion Exchanger "Treatment" Process.  The passage of the solution to be
treated through the bed of ion exchange material is termed the "treatment
step".  During the treatment step, the ion exchange capacity is gradually
depleted.  When the usable capacity is completely used up. the ion
exchanger is said to be "exhausted".  Therefore, the treatment step is
sometimes termed the "exhaustion step".

Treatment flow rates are always expressed in relationship to the volume
of ion exchanger used.  In this study the treatment flow rate is always
expressed in gallons per minute per cubic foot of ion exchanger - gpm/cu
ft.

The treatment flows in ion exchange operation may occur either in an up-
flow or downflow direction.  Normal ion exchange processes utilize down-
flow treatment.  However, this investigation involved some studies of
upflow treatment processes.  Whenever treatment steps are specified, the
direction of flow is specified also.

The fluid which is to be treated by the ion exchanger and which is to be
introduced into the ion exchanger column in either an upflow or downflow
direction is termed the "influent".  The treatment fluid which emanates
from the ion exchanger column is termed the "effluent".

The treatment step is essentially a batch operation because it continues
only as long as the ion exchanger removes the particular ion in question.
Therefore a finite volume (batch) of treated water is obtained during the
treatment step.  The treatment step is normally terminated when the con-
centration of the contaminating ion in the effluent reaches an undesirable
level.  This level is usually established beforehand and is based upon
the maximum concentration allowable in the product (effluent).  The
appearance of the contaminating ion in the effluent is sometimes referred
to as "leakage".

Ion Exchange Backwash Process.  After the treatment step has been com-
pleted, a process may be applied to the ion exchanger to restore its
capacity for subsequent treatment.  Before this process is applied, the
ion exchanger bed is usually "backwashed".

Backwashing consists of the passage of water through the ion exchanger
                                16

-------
column in an upflow direction,  causing a fluidization of the bed.   This
expansion is a result of the particles being borne upward by the  flow
of water until they reach a zone in the column in which the upward
forces of the water match the gravitational pull on the particles.
Thus, regulation of backwash flow rates will produce various degrees
of expansion of the ion exchanger bed.  It is common to apply a
sufficient upflow rate to achieve a 50% expansion of the bed.  This was
the usual practice during this  study.

The purpose of the backwash process is to loosen the ion exchanger  bed
which may have become compacted by the flowage of water through the bed
during the treatment step.  A second purpose of the backwash process is
to remove insoluble materials which are either filtered from the  in-
fluent during the treatment step or which may be precipitated in  the
bed.  The backwash process was  always applied following a treatment step
regardless of the direction of flow of the treatment cycle.

Ion Exchange Regeneration Process.  The process of restoring the  capacity
of an ion exchanger by passing a regenerant chemical solution through
the ion exchanger bed is termed the "regeneration process" or "regener-
ation step".  The regeneration process may be carried out with various
chemicals depending upon the type of ion exchanger involved and the
desired form into which the ion exchanger is to be converted.  For
instance, a strong acid cation exchanger may be regenerated either to
the "hydrogen form" by using a strong acid regenerant or the "sodium
form" by using sodium chloride as a regenerant.  In this study, the
regenerant chemical is always specified as is the concentration of the
solution used for regeneration.

The flow of the regenerant solution is always related to the volume of
the ion exchanger.  Thus, the flow will always be specified  in this
study as gallons per minute per cubic foot of exchanger - gpm/cu ft.
The flow may be applied either upflow or downflow and this direction
will always be specified.

The actual quantity of chemical regenerant applied to the ion exchanger
may be specified in various ways.  The common method merely  indicates
the number of pounds of regenerant applied per  cubic foot of exchanger -
Ibs/cu ft.  This data is  frequently converted to the number  of Kilograins
of equivalent calcium carbonate  (CaCC^) per cubic foot  - Kgrs (CaCC^)/
cu ft.  This latter value  is used to  compare the actual  capacity
obtained by the ion exchanger with the theoretical  capacity  which  would
be obtained if regenerant  utilization were  100%.

Another method which will  be used to  express regenerant dosage will  be
in terms of per cent of the theoretical ion  exchange capacity obtained
during the previous treatment cycle.  This method of expression  is used
when weak base anion exchangers or weak acid cation  exchangers are
regenerated.  These exchangers  are highly  efficient  in  regenerant
utilization requiring only a light excess  above the  theoretical  or
stoichiometric quantity.   In this  study,  the dosages are  expressed as
                              17

-------
110% or 100% of the stoichiometric quantity based upon the capacity
obtained during the previous exhaustion.

Ion Exchanger Rinse Process.  After the regenerant solution has flowed
into the ion exchanger column, it is necessary to remove this solution
with a rinse fluid, normally in the same flow direction.  The rinse fluid
serves to displace the last portion of regenerant solution through the
ion exchanger bed and also serves to remove the last traces of regenerant
from the surface of the ion exchanger particles.

The fluid used to rinse the ion exchanger is usually the same fluid which
is to be treated by the ion exchanger.  In some of our studies the rinse
fluid was demineralized water.  The type of rinse fluid used and its flow
rate is always specified.  The flow rate was always the same flow rate
and direction that was used in the regeneration process.

Ion Exchange Capacity.  A complete regeneration-exhaustion cycle consists
of a regeneration step (backwash, regenerant and rinse) followed by a
treatment step.  The usual procedure for establishing the capacity of an
ion exchanger in the treatment of a given fluid is to perform several
complete cycles to reach a "steady state" condition with reproducible
results.  Two cycles are normally sufficient to reach steady state where
the capacity becomes rather constant, within experimental error.  In this
study, it was the usual practice to ignore data obtained during the
initial cycles except to establish that a steady state  (stabilized
capacity) was attained.  Then, the last regeneration-treatment cycle was
cited as being typical for the particular set of conditions studied.

Ion exchange capacity was calculated by determining the volume of exhaust-
ing AMD water which was passed through the ion exchanger to a pre-
determined endpoint.  The endpoint is that instant when the concentration
of contaminant in the treated effluent reaches a specified maximum.  As
exemplified below, the volume (in gallons) of water treated is multiplied
by the concentration (in grains per gallon as CaC03 - gpg) of the con-
taminant being removed by the ion exchanger to obtain the number of grains
of exchange.  This value is then related to the volume of the ion
exchanger to obtain grains per cubic foot of exchanger - grs/cu ft.  This
value usually is in the magnitude of the thousands.  Thus, it is more
common to express the capacity in terms of Kilograins (1000 grains) per
cubic foot - Kgrs/cu ft.

For example, 0.055 cubic feet of ion exchange material treated 20 gallons
of AMD to the endpoint.  The influent concentration of contaminants
removed was 33.6 gpg (as
      20 gallons x 33.6 grains i 0.055 cubic feet
                        gals .
         equals 12,219 grains per cubic foot; or 12.2 Kilograins
         per cubic foot.
                               18

-------
Aeration and Liming Procedures.  Whenever an aeration or liming process
was studied, it was carried out batchwise.  No attempt was made to
measure air flow during aeration.  These processes are well known to
those versed in the art.  Equipment needed to accomplish the processes
are predictable from a knowledge of the characteristics of the water to
be treated.  These processes were carried out on a lab scale only to
demonstrate that aeration and lime treatment will produce the desired
result.
                             19

-------
                             SECTION 7

                       ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The analytical procedures used for the analysis of all water solutions
are listed below:

    pH; Corning Model 7 or Model 10 pH meter with glass/calomel
    electrodes.

    Alkalinity; Titration with 0.02 N H2S04 to a pH of 4.2 with mixed
    methyl red-bromcresol green indicator endpoint (Standard Methods
    for the Examination of Water and Wastewater(3), Page 48).

    Free Mineral Acidity; Cold titration with 0.02 N NaOH to a pH of
    4.5 using methyl orange indicator (Standard Methods'3), Page 46).

    Free Mineral Acidity (Hot Titratiqn); Hot titration with 0.02 N
    NaOH to pH of 8.3 (Standard Methodsl'3), Page 438-439).

    Sulfate; Turbidimetric method using sulfate conditioning solution
    and barium chloride (Standard Methods'3', Page 291).

    Aluminum, Manganese, Sodium, Calcium, Magnesium, Total Iron,
    Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry.

    Ferrous Iron (Below 10 ppm); 0-Phenanthroline Method  (Standard
    Methods(3), Page 156).

    Ferrous Iron (10 ppm and over); Titration with 0.0125 N KMn04
    using Ferroin indicator (Ferrous 1-10, phenanthroline) in strong
    acid solution (modified Zimmerman - Reinhardt method).

The authors feel that it is appropriate at this time to discuss the
analytical methods and the relationship of the results obtained to the
ion exchange processes which were studied in this investigation.

One very serious problem which was encountered during  our studies was
the inability to achieve balance with the cation and anion concentra-
tions  in the solutions.  This was particularly true when  analyzing raw
AMD solutions or solutions containing large concentrations of iron and
aluminum.  Although  it may be superfluous to discuss the  obvious causes
for this problem, we feel it is appropriate to do so because an under-
standing of the problem will help in the  interpretation of  some of the
data.

Because of the difficulty in determining  equivalent concentrations of
cations and anions in AMD solutions by direct analysis of each  ion
specie, we believe that the method of determining acidity is yielding
                             21

-------
a false indication of the hydrogen ion concentration.  We contend that
the method not only yields a value corresponding to the amount of free
acidity in the sample but also includes the acidity resulting from the
hydrolysis of acidic salts of ferric iron and aluminum (equations 1, 2
and 3):

     H2S04      +   2NaOH - »- Na2S04   +   2H20        (l)

     Fe2(S04)3  +   6NaOH - •- 3Na2S04  +   2Fe(OH)3    (2)

     A12(S04)3  +   6NaOH - *- 3Na2S04  +   2Al(OH)3    (3)

The analysis is further complicated when the AMD solution contains sub-
stantial concentrations of ferrous iron.  AMD solutions are not produced
and stored under anaerobic conditions.  Therefore, some dissolved oxygen
will be present in this solution.  Although the oxygen will not react
with the ferrous iron in the acidic environment, it will react before
reaching the 4.2 pH endpoint of the acidity method.  Moreover, any
atmospheric oxygen introduced during the analytical determination will
result in even more acidity production (equation 4):

     2FeS04     +   ^O2   +   4NaOH   +   H20 — »- 2Na2S04  +  2Fe(OH)3 (4)
The determination of acidity by this method may be beneficial as an in-
dicator of the ultimate quantity of a neutralizing agent to be applied
to acid mine drainage.  However, it is of little value in determining
ionic loading factors to cation and anion exchange materials.  It is
likely that the hot method of determining FMA is even more erroneous even
though  this method stabilizes the ferrous iron oxidation at its maximum.
The error introduced by precipitation of magnesium is a possibility with
this method and this prevents accurate back calculations to obtain actual
acidity.

Because of these problems and also because of the unreliability of
sulfate determinations, we adopted the policy that sulfate concentrations
were to be calculated as the difference between the sum of the equivalent
cation concentration and the sum of the equivalent chloride and alkalinity
obtained by direct analysis.  When making this calculation, ferric iron
and aluminum were not included with the sum of the equivalent cation con-
centration because it was assumed that these ions would appear also as
free mineral acidity (equations 2 and 3).

The policy was adopted also in situations where FMA was not present (pH
above 4.2) because it was assumed that ferric iron and aluminum would be
precipitated.

In spite of the procedures described above, some abnormal analytical
data will be observed in this report.  Most of it is due to the ferrous
iron oxidation problem mentioned above.
                               22

-------
It is recommended that any future studies involving ion exchange treat-
ment of AMD include a method for the determination of the true acidity
concentration.  Such a procedure would involve the passage of a sample
through a column of a strong acid cation exchanger which is fully con-
verted to the hydrogen form.  This converts all metal salts to the
corresponding acids which may be determined by titration with sodium
hydroxide solutions to a pH of 4.2.  Metal ions will not interfere
because they are removed.  Metal ion determinations should be accom-
plished by direct methods and converted to calcium carbonate equivalents,
The sum of the calcium carbonate equivalents of metal ions subtracted
from the acidity of the hydrogen form cation exchanger effluent should
be equivalent to the true hydrogen ion concentration.
                               23

-------
                             SECTION 8

     STRONG ACID CATION EXCHANGER PERFORMANCE - HYDROGEN FORM
The ion exchange process which employs a strong acid cation exchanger
in the hydrogen form is capable of "splitting" ionized,  neutral salts
in water.  The reaction replaces the cationic portion of the neutral
salt with an equivalent hydrogen ion, forming the corresponding acid
in the solution phase while the cation is sorbed by the  ion exchanger.
The following equation (where H-R represents the cation  exchanger in
the hydrogen form) exemplifies the reaction which takes  place during
this treatment process:

    CaS04   +   2H-R	». Ca = Rp   +   H2S04              (l)

The reaction takes place in dilute solutions because of  the favorable
selectivity of the cation exchanger for multivalent cations.

The reaction can be reversed by the application of more  concentrated
solutions of strong mineral acids to the cation form of  the cation
exchanger.  The high concentration of hydrogen ions of the regenerant
reverses the cation-hydrogen selectivity causing the cation exchanger
to release the sorbed cations and return to its hydrogen form.

The process by which the cation exchanger is returned to its original
(hydrogen) form is termed the regeneration process.  Strong acid cation
exchange resins require strong acids for regeneration.  Sulfuric acid
is normally used because it is much cheaper than other acids.  The
regeneration is illustrated by the following equation:

    H2S04   +   Ca = Rg	»-CaS04   +   2H-R              (2)

Because high concentrations of acids are required for the regeneration
process, the concentration of the sulfate salt (calcium sulfate in
equation 2) resulting from the regeneration process will be high also.
If a high percentage of calcium ion is sorbed on the ion exchanger, the
calcium sulfate produced by the regeneration process could precipitate
in the exchanger bed owing to its relatively low solubility.  Because
of this fact, the usual ion exchange treatment practice is to limit the
concentrations of sulfuric acid regenerant to 2$ or less or to apply
2% sulfuric acid solutions followed by 5% sulfuric acid solutions  in a
stepwise fashion when waters containing high concentrations of calcium
sulfate are to be treated.

Figure 4 shows a schematic for an AMD treatment process using this
cation exchanger to produce a potable product.
                              25

-------
           Raw AMD
Cation
Exchanger
Column
H-Form
                  1
                                                        Weak Base Anion Exchanger
                                                        Column Free Base Form
                                                           Lime Addition
                                 Air Addition
                                                                            5 Micron
                                                                            Filter
                                 Cation Effluent Blend Line
                                 for pH Correction
                                                                     Treated
                                                                     Effluent
                Figure 4
AMD Treatment Process Schematic  Hydrogen
Form Strong Acid Cation Exchanqer/Free Base
Form Weak Base Anion Exchanger
                                      26

-------
Acid mine drainage inherently possesses relatively high concentrations
of calcium ion.  Thus, the study of this treatment process was concerned
with a determination of the characteristics of the treated effluent
which would be produced from regeneration procedures which prevented
calcium sulfate precipitation in the bed.

Another objective of this study was to determine the effect of varia-
tions of sulfuric acid regenerant dosages upon the treated effluent
characteristics.  This information would establish the minimum quantity
of chemical needed to obtain a satisfactory treated water and would be
helpful in determining treatment costs.

Our attempts to apply the hydrogen form of a strong acid cation
exchange resin to the treatment of AMD have indicated that this process
could be employed as the primary step of a complete process for pro-
ducing potable water.  The reason for this conclusion will become
apparent from the study which is described below.

All tests were made on an exchanger column measuring 31-33 inches high
in the 2" diameter ion exchanger columns.  This column represents an
exchanger volume of approximately 0.056-0.060 cubic feet.  The cation
exchanger used in this portion of the study was manufactured by lonac
Chemical Division of the Sybron Corporation and was made with Q%
divinyl benzene.

Regenerations of the ion exchanger columns were made with sulfuric acid
solutions only.  The effect of regenerant dosage, regeneration flow rate
and flow direction upon the ion exchange capacity of the resin and the
character of the treated water were studied.  A "stepwise" regeneration
process involving first 2% sulfuric acid followed by 5% sulfuric acid
was studied also.

The rinse operation following regeneration was carried out with demin-
eralized water at the same flow rate as was used for regeneration.
Demineralized water was used so that the rinse endpoint could be easily
recognized.

The backwash step was applied prior to the regeneration step and was
carried out with demineralized water at a flow rate sufficient to
achieve a 50% expansion of the ion exchanger column.

The AMD treatment step was always carried out in a downflow direction.
A study was made of the effect on ion exchanger capacity  and treated
effluent character when using treatment flow rates of 4 and 8 gpm  per
cubic foot of ion exchanger.

The effect of sulfuric acid regenerant dosage upon capacity and
effluent quality is revealed by the data  in Table 3.  The treated
effluent obtained from the use of a 3  Ib/cu ft  sulfuric acid  regenerant
dosage contained relatively high concentrations of  iron.   At  this  stage
of the investigation  it was believed that these high  iron concentrations

                              27

-------
                         TABLE 3

         Strong Acid Cation Exchanger -  Hydrogen Form
                       Performance data.
Run No.                              2A
Sulfuxic Acid Dosage,  Ibs/cu ft       3
Regeneration Flow Rate,  gpm/cu ft     0.5
Regenerant Flow Direction             Down
Exhaustion Flow Rate,  gpm/cu ft       8.0
8A
6
0.5
Down
4.0
12A
12
 0.5
Down
 4.0
Chemical Constituent Effluent 	
Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe
Ferric Iron, ppm F«
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppra CaC03
Total Metallic Cations, gpg (CaCOs)
Ion Exchange Capacity
Kilograins/cu ft
% Regenerant Utilization
Lbs Waste Acid/Kllograins

25.0
2.5
15.0
3.3
N.A.
1.0
28.0
1430
--

10.7
50
0.14

2.8
2.2
6.0
Of*
.8
N.A.
0.0
0.5
1540
--

12.7
30
0.28

1.0
1.6
3.5
OM
.3
N.A.
0.0
0.0
1575
—

19.2
22
0.49
Typical
Raw AMD
204
13
182
26
18
8.5
18
600
70.0

--
--
—
would cause problems during subsequent treatment  processes.   As  an
example, if the cation effluent were to be  passed through a  weak base
anion exchanger in the free base  form, the  iron would precipitate in
the ion exchanger bed.  The accumulation  of these precipitates over a
period of time could eventually result in impairment of the  efficiency
of the ion exchanger.

For this reason, very little time was  spent studying the 3 Ib/cu ft
dosage.  In fact, only 2 regeneration/exhaustion  cycles were produced
and were made at an exhaustion flow rate  of 8  gpm/cu ft.  However, as
will be demonstrated later, exhaustion flow rates between 4  and 8
gpm/cu ft have a negligible effect upon effluent  quality.  However, a
slight increase in capacity and regenerant  utilization could be
expected at the 4 gpm/cu ft exhaustion rate.

The data in Table 3 shows a marked decrease in metallic cation content
of the treated effluent as sulfuric acid  regenerant dosage is in-
creased.  The ion exchange capacity also  increases with increasing
                           28

-------
                         TABLE 4

       Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Hydrogen Form.
                        Performance data
Run No.                              12A      19A         12B        19B
Sulfuric  Acid Dosage,  Ibs/cu ft       12       12          12         12
Regenerant Flow Rate,  gpm/cu ft        0.5       0.5         1.0        1.0
Regenerant Flow Direction            Down      Down        Up         Up
Exhaustion Flow Rate,  gpm/cu ft        4.0       4.0         4.0        4.0
Regenerant Concentration, %            2       28, 5*       2         2 & 5*
Chemical Constituent Effluent
Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe
Ferric Iron, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Ion Exchange Capacity,
Kilograins/cu ft
% Regenerant Utilization
1.0
1.6
3.5
0.3
N.A.
0.0
0.0
1575

19.2
22
1.2
1.6
3.5
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
1560

19.2
22
3.0
1.1
1.9
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
1600

16.9
19
2.0
1.6
2.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
1600

19.2
22
* 6 Ibs/cu ft were applied first at a
  by another 6 Ibs/cu ft applied at a
                                       concentration followed
                                       concentration.
regenerant dosage as might  be  expected.   However, the above described
benefits derived from  increased regenerant dosage are obtained at the
expense of decreased regenerant utilization.  Thus, the amount of acid
discharged to waste per  Kilograin of exchange capacity appears to in-
crease in direct proportion to the increased acid regenerant dosage.
The amount of waste acid by-product discharged by any AMD treatment
process is an important  consideration both from an economic standpoint
and an environmental standpoint.

It appeared  at  this point that a minimum regenerant dosage of 6  Ibs/
cu ft was needed to obtain a satisfactory effluent quality for further
treatment.   It  was also  desirable to attain the regenerant utilization
(50$) achieved  by the  3  Ib/cu  ft dosage.  An effort was made to  increase
regenerant utilization at the  12 Ib/cu ft dosage by applying one half
the regenerant  at a 2% concentration followed by the second half of the
regenerant at a 5% concentration.  Such stepwise procedures are  used
in ion exchange practice to prevent calcium sulfate precipitation  in
the ion exchanger and  increase regenerant utilization.

                                29

-------
                                    TABLE 5

                    Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Hydrogen
                    Form, Performance Data.
Run No.
Sulfuric Acid Dosage, Ibs/cu ft
Regenerant Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft
Regenerant Flow Direction
Exhaustion Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft
4A
6
0.5
Down
8
8A
6
0.5
Down
4
4B
6
1.0
Up
8
8B
6
1.0
Up
4
Chemical Constituent Effluent

Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe
Ferric Iron, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Ion Exchange Capacity
   Kilograins/cu ft
% Regenerant Utilization
2.8
1.2
6.0
0.6
N.A.
0.2
4.7
2.8
2.2
6.0
0.8
N.A.
0.0
0.5
2.8
1.0
4.0
0.7
N.A.
0.2
8.5
2.1
1.1
2.4
0.6
N.A
0
0.5
1650  1540  1450   1510

  11.9  12.7  11.2   12.6
  28    30    27     30
Results of this effort are illustrated by the data in Table 4.  The raw
AMD water used as influent for these runs was approximately the same as
shown by the typical raw AMD analysis in Table 3.  These data show that
the stepwise regeneration process was no more efficient than when the
regeneration was performed with all the acid at the 2% concentration.
The use of a stepwise regeneration increased regenerant utilization when
upflow regenerations were carried out.  However, the increase merely
brought the efficiency of the process up to an equal status with the
downflow regeneration process.  It must be concluded from these results
that stepwise regeneration processes have little value in the treatment
of acid mine drainage by hydrogen form cation exchangers.

Table 5 presents data obtained when regeneration direction and exhaustion
flow rate were varied using sulfuric acid regenerant dosages of 6 Ibs/
cu ft.  The raw AMD water used as influents was again approximately
equivalent to that shown in Table 3.  Upflow regenerations produced
treated effluents which were slightly lower in metallic ion content.
Nearly equivalent capacity and percent regenerant utilization was
obtained regardless of the direction of flow at this regenerant dosage.

A flow rate of 8 gpm/cu ft showed a tendency to lower capacity and regen-
erant utilization.  Because it was believed that we should avoid any
                               30

-------
process which would reduce the percentage of regenerant utilization,
it was concluded that regenerations should be conducted downflow at
0.5 gpm/cu ft and treatment flow rates of 4 gpm/cu ft should always
be employed.

Tables 60 through 68 (in the Appendix) contain the results of the
analysis of effluent samples taken during the course of each run.
These data show the variations in concentration of the water con-
stituents during the treatment cycle and show the abrupt increase in
metal ion concentration which signals the endpoint of the run.  The
endpoint throughput gallonage for each run is noted in the tables and
was used to calculate the ion exchange capacity set forth in Tables 3
through 5.  The total metallic cation content (70.0 gpg as CaCOs)
shown in Table 3 for the typical raw AMD solution was used to calculate
capacity for all runs.

It should be noted that several runs were made for each set of variables
studied.  Data presented in this report is representative of a typical
"run" for each set of variables.  The typical run is usually the last
of a series of four or five runs produced to obtain "steady state".

It is apparent from these data that treatment of acid mine drainage
with a strong acid cation exchanger in the hydrogen form will remove a
substantial quantity of the metal ion impurities.  The removal process
involves an equivalent exchange of hydrogen ions for the metal ions
which are taken up by the cation exchanger.  Thus, the treated effluent
contained more free mineral acidity than was present in the raw  AMD.
However, the treated waters having the characteristics shown in  Tables
3, 4 and 5 could be subjected to further treatment with a weak base
anion exchanger in the free base form to produce a water with
characteristics which are nearly within the range of potability.  Such
a process is illustrated by the following equation:

     H2S04  +  2RNH0 —»•  (RNHo)0     '    HOSO^           (3)

The prospect of being able to produce a potable water using a hydrogen
form cation exchanger as part of a complete treatment method led to
the decision to include this process with those selected  for further
study.  The results obtained during these preliminary screening  tests
have indicated that the additional work should include methods which
would  increase regenerant utilization.  Such additional work under this
project is discussed  in Section 13.
                             31

-------
                            SECTION 9

       STRONG ACID CATION EXCHANGER PERFORMANCE - SODIUM FORM
This process employs a strong acid cation exchange resin.   In the
sodium state, a cation exchanger would be capable of removing di-
valent and trivalent metal ions from acid mine drainage according to
the following equations:

     CaS04  +  2Na-R  - *.  Ca = Ro  +  Na2S04          (l)
     Fe2(S04)3  +  6Na-R — »- 2Fe = Rq  +  3Na2S04      (2)

This removal process imparts an equivalent quantity of sodium ions to
the solution phase as the divalent and trivalent metal ions are
absorbed by the cation exchanger.

The regeneration process employs concentrated solutions of sodium
chloride to reverse the di- and trivalent ion selectivity of the ion
exchanger and return the exchanger to its sodium form.  The following
equations illustrate the regeneration reaction:

     Ca = R2  +  2NaCl  - »> 2Na-R   +  CaCl2          (3)

     Fe - R?  +  SNaCl  - +• 3Na-R   +  FeClg          (4)

The regeneration step of this treatment process should take place with-
out many difficulties because relatively soluble chloride salts are
produced by the regeneration.

Figure 5 shows a schematic for a possible process to treat AMD using
the sodium form exchanger followed by other exchangers.  The primary
objective of the study of this process was to establish the effect of
regenerant dosage, exhaustion flow rate and the proportion of ferrous
to ferric iron in the AMD upon the character of the treated effluent,
the capacity of the  ion exchanger and the extent of regenerant
utilization.

The results obtained from this study have shown that this process has
the capability for the removal of divalent and trivalent cations  from
AMD.  The extent of  the removal  of these cations is dependent upon the
quantity of sodium chloride regenerant applied.  Sodium chloride
dosages of 15 Ibs/cu ft produced treated effluents containing  less
than 10 ppm of multivalent  cations whereas the effluents from  regener-
ations with 8 Ibs/cu ft contain  approximately  25 ppm  of multivalent
cations.  However, the regenerant utilization  at the  15 Ibs/cu  ft dosage
is substantially lower than it is at 8 Ibs/cu  ft.
                             33

-------
                       Cation Exchanger
                       Column - H form
Raw Alu.D



Cation
Exchanger
Column -
Na form
x
\








1







X



















*









1

/
/
/
/
r


/

















i









1







^
Weak
Base
Anion
Exchanger
Column-
Free
Base
Form
/


                                       Treated Eff1 lent
 FIGURE 5.   Schematic of Possible AM) Treatment Process
            Using Sodium Form Cation Exchanger.
                  34

-------
The important aspect of this method of treatment is that the treated
effluent contains at least the same equivalent of metallic cations
that existed in the raw AMD.  If the finished water is to meet the
requirements for potability, the effluent from this process would
require additional treatment to lower the contaminant concentrations
to a potability level.   A demineralization process would normally be
used to accomplish this.  In view of the successful results obtained
with the hydrogen form of a strong acid cation exchanger, it would  be
more practical to start with that process because it will remove
metallic cations without adding sodium ions to the treated effluent.
Subsequent treatment with a weak base anion exchanger in the free base
form would lower most of the ionic constituents to the potability level.
These conclusions will become apparent from the description of the
study set forth below.  Therefore, studies on this sodium form resin
did not proceed beyond the first phase of the project.

The cation exchanger employed in this study was manufactured by the
lonac Chemical Division of the Sybron Corporation and possessed the
same physical and chemical characteristics as the exchanger used in
the hydrogen cycle studies.

Regeneration of the ion exchanger was accomplished with  15% (by weight)
sodium chloride solutions at a flow rate of 0.5 gpm/cu ft in the
downflow direction.

Salt dosages of 8 and 15 pounds of NaCl per cu  ft of  ion exchanger were
used to determine the effect of these variables upon  effluent charac-
teristics, ion exchange capacity and regenerant utilization.

After the sodium chloride solution had passed through the ion exchanger,
a demineralized water rinse was applied at the  same flow rate and
direction.  The ion exchanger column was backwashed prior to regener-
ation at a flow rate sufficient to achieve a  50% expansion of the ion
exchanger column.

The AMD treatment steps were always carried out  in a  downflow
direction.  Treatment flow  rates of 4 and 8 gpm/cu ft were employed  to
determine the effect of this variable upon the  quality of the treated
effluent, the ion exchange  capacity and the extent of regenerant
utilization.  The effect upon treated effluent  characteristics  caused
by varying the raw AMD ratio of ferrous iron  to ferric  iron was  studied
also.

Table 6 shows results obtained by  altering salt dosage  and  treatment
flow rate.  A comparison of the data  for Runs 23B  and 23A  indicate
that the content of iron, calcium  and magnesium in the  treated  effluent
obtained by the  15 Ibs/cu ft regeneration  is  much  lower  than  that which
is obtained by the 8 Ib/cu  ft regeneration.   Although the  ion exchange
capacity is lower with the  8 Ib/cu  ft regeneration than  it  is with the
15 Ib/cu ft regeneration, the per  cent  of  regenerant  utilization is
higher.  These trends were  also observed during the  study of  the strong

                             35

-------
                                    TABLE 6

                     Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Sodium
                     Form, Performance Data.
Run No.                           23B      23A     26A
Salt Dosage, Ibs/cu ft             8       15      15
Exhaustion Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft    4        4       8

                                                           Typical
Chemical Constituent	Composite Effluent    Raw AMD

Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe               5.8      0.5     1.0      213
Ferric Iron, ppm Fe                1.2      2.5     2.6        3
Calcium, ppm Ca                   19.1      5.0     6.6      200
Magnesium, ppm Mg                  1.1      0.4     0.5       36
Aluminum, ppm Al                   0.1      0.2     0.0       17
Manganese, ppm Mn                  0.3      0.1     0.1        7.3
Sodium, ppm Na                   475      500     460          2.1
FMA, ppm CaCOg                   410      435     445        590
Di & Trivalent metal              --       --      --         66.0
  content, gpg (CaCOg)
Volume Capacity, gals.           330      450     420
Ion Exchange Capacity,
  grains*                       22,000   30,000  28,000
Regenerant Utilization, %         46       34      31
^Divalent and trivalent metal ion exchange only
acid cation exchanger in the hydrogen form and are a normal occurrence
in ion exchange practice.  A decision involving the selection of
regenerant dosage requires the weighing of various factors including
cost of the treatment, the quality of the final water and the ability
to remove specific contaminants by subsequent treatment processes.  In
this case, if the level of sodium as exhibited by these results could
be tolerated, the 8 Ib/cu ft or an even lower salt dosage should be used
to obtain the maximum possible regenerant utilization.  Following this,
the FMA could be removed by weak base anion exchange and the iron,
manganese and aluminum could be removed by liming, aeration and filtra-
tion.

Table 6 also compares the results obtained when treatment flow rates of
4 and 8 gpm/cu ft are used.  The character of the treated effluent is
not materially affected by increasing flow rate from 4 to 8 gpm/cu ft.
However, a slight decrease in capacity and percent regenerant utiliza-
tion was observed.
                              36

-------
The free mineral acidity (FMA) content of the composite effluents  in
Table 6 shows a lower concentration than that of the raw AMD.   These
data represent the net effect of the behavior of FMA during the course
of the treatment cycle.  Figure 6 shows the FMA content of the treated
effluent during the treatment cycle comparing it to the influent con-
centration.  Note that FMA is almost completely removed during the
early stages of the treatment cycle, then gradually increases  in con-
centration and rises above the influent concentration.   This means that
during the period when the effluent concentration is above the influent
concentration, the hydrogen ion sorbed by the cation exchanger at  the
beginning of the treatment cycle (equation 5);

      2Na-R   +  HoSO. - »~ Na0SO,,   +   2H-R                (5)
is being displaced by the incoming di- and trivalent metal ions in the
raw AMD water (equation 6).

      2H-R   +   CaS04 - »» Ca-R2   +   H2S04                (6)

The net effect on the composite treated effluent is a modest reduction
in FMA content below the raw AMD concentration indicating that some
hydrogen form cation exchanger remains after the treatment cycle is
terminated.  An analysis of the composite regeneration effluent applied
after the treatment cycle shows this to be true (Table 7).

The data in Table 8 illustrates the effect of altering the ratio of
ferrous to ferric iron in the raw AMD upon the chemical characteristics
of the composite treated effluent and the capacity and regenerant
utilization of the ion exchanger.  These data indicate a negligible
effect due to this variable.

Tables 69 through 72 show results of the analysis of effluent samples
taken during the course of each run.  These data show the variation of
effluent ionic constituents as the treatment cycle progresses.  The
endpoints were characterized by substantial increases in the di- and
trivalent cation content of the effluent.
                             37

-------
     1400
     1200
ppm
                Influent FMA Cone
        0
                    100        200          300          400

                    Cumulative AMD Throughput, gallons/cu  ft
                                             500
         Figure 6
Effluent FMA Concentration vs.  Gallons of Acid
Mine Drainge Put Through a Sodium State Strong
Acid Cation Exchanger.
                             38

-------
                          TABLE 7

             Strong Acid Cation Exchanger-Sodium
             Form.  Analysis of Composite Regenerant-
             Rinse Effluent.

       Run No.                                  23A
PH
Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe
Ferric Iron, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
1.4
3,880
220
7,600
620
330
166
17,600
2,200
                          TABLE 8

        Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Sodium Form,
                   Performance Data

Run No.                             23A        30A
Salt Dosage, Ibs/cu ft              15         15
Exhaustion Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft      4          4
Raw AMD Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe       213        140
Raw AMD Ferric Iron, ppm Fe          3         67

Chemical Constituent Effluent
Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe
Ferric Iron, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCCL
Volume Capacity, gals.
Exchange Capacity, grains
Regenerant Utilization, %
0.5
2.5
5.0
0.4
0.2
0.1
500
435
450
30,000
34
0.6
2.1
2.7
0.5
0.1
0.2
520
—
420
28,000
33
                          39

-------
                      SECTION 10

WEAK BASE ANION EXCHANGER PERFORMANCE - FREE BASE FORM
This process employs a weak base anion exchange resin.  The free base
form of this resin is capable of absorbing strong acids.  These resins
are typically used in multi-column demineralization processes,  where
strong acids are produced by strong acid cation exchange.   However,
many acid mine drainage waters contain strong acids without any pre-
liminary treatment.  It was the objective of this section of the
investigation to study the direct application of acid mine drainage to
the free base form of the weak base anion exchanger.  We anticipated
precipitation of polyvalent cations on the bed, but did not know the
real effect on the operating characteristics.

Equation (l) exemplifies the reaction which takes place during the
acid removal treatment process.

     H2S04 + R-NH2— >» R-NH2  •  H2S04                             (l)

The exhausted form of the weak base anion exchanger as indicated on the
right side of equation (l) is termed the "sulfate salt form" or "salt
form" of the weak base anion exchanger.

The most important consideration of the treatment of acid mine drainage
by this process is the fate of certain metallic elements (ferric iron
and aluminum) which are also present in the acidic AMD solution but
which will precipitate when the acidity is removed.  Equation  (2) shows
how this can occur:

     Fe2(S04)3  +  6H20  +  3R-NHp — » 2Fe(OH)3  + SR-NHy HpSO^  (2)

It is a certainty that iron and aluminum hydroxides will precipitate in
the weak base anion exchanger during the treatment cycle.  Because
there is little chance that the backwash or regeneration cycle will
remove these precipitates completely,  (except  for the aluminum specie)
one of the objectives of this study was to determine  if the accumulation
was detrimental to the operation of the exchanger.  Another objective
was to determine if the rate of accumulation could be slowed by carry-
ing out the treatment process in an upflow direction.  Such a  procedure
would not allow as much insoluble material to  be  "filtered out" by  the
particular ion exchanger bed.

The regeneration process consists of the application  of a  solution  of
ammonium hydroxide or an alkali solution to the  salt  form  of the weak
base anion exchanger.  Equation  (3) illustrates  this  reaction.

              2S04 + 2NaOH-*>R-NH2 +  Na2S04 + 2H20                (3)
        HS0
                        41

-------
This reaction takes place because the resulting neutral salt
cannot be adsorbed by a weak base anion exchanger.  Weak base anion ex-
changers do not have the ability to  "split" neutral salts.  Because the
regeneration process is essentially  an acid/base neutralization reaction,
the regenerant utilization will approach 100%.  It is customary in ion
exchange practice to apply a regenerant dosage of 110% of the stoichio-
metric quantity of acid adsorbed during the previous treatment cycle
when using weak base anion exchangers.

Our attempts to apply weak base anion exchangers to the direct treatment
of acid mine drainage have been successful.  Although we were not able
to prevent rapid accumulation of iron hydroxides on the weak base anion
exchanger particles, the presence of these contaminants did not appear
to impair the efficiency of the ion  exchange process.  This led us to the
conclusion that any cation exchange  process which might precede the weak
base anion exchange process could be operated at low, more efficient
regenerant dosages.  This process was one of those selected for further
study in the second phase.of the project.

Figure 4 is a schematic for an AMD treatment process using this exchanger
to produce a potable product.  This  process was established as being
feasible during this project.  Initial studies with this weak base anion
exchanger considered using the exchanger in a three exchanger system:
As a "roughing exchanger" to remove  the majority of natural acidity in
AMD, followed by the process shown in Figure 5.

The weak base anion exchanger which was used in this series of tests was
manufactured by the Dow Chemical Company and is designated by them as
WGR.

All tests were made on an exchanger  column measuring 31-33 inches high
in the 2" diameter ion exchanger columns.  This represents an exchanger
volume of approximately 0.056-0.060  cu ft.

Regeneration of the columns was accomplished with 4% sodium hydroxide
solutions at a flow rate of 0.44 gpm/cu ft downflow.  The dosage of
sodium hydroxide was always 110% of the stoichiometric quantity of acid
adsorbed during the previous treatment cycle.

The rinse operation following regeneration was carried out with demineral-
ized water at the same flow rate as was used for regeneration.

The backwash step applied prior to the regeneration step was performed
using demineralized water at a flow rate sufficient to achieve a 50%
expansion of the ion exchanger column.

As  •  ted above,  the study of this process emphasized methods of retard-
ing  le accumulation of iron precipitates in the ion exchanger.bed.  Up-
flow treatment cycles were compared to downflow treatment.  A downflow
treatment flow rate of 4 gpm/cu ft is compared to the 2 gpm/cu ft down-
                              42

-------
                   TABLE 9

      Weak Base Anion  Exchanger  - Free Base Form
                  Performance Data
Run No.
Treatment Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft
Treatment Flow Direction

Chemical Constituent
Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe
Ferric Iron, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sulfate, ppm SO.
Chloride, ppm Cl
PH
FMA, ppm CaC03
FMA, gpg CaC03
Volume Capacity, gals/cu ft
Ion Exchange Capacity,
grains/cu ft
39B
4
39A
2
Downflow Downflow


34B
2
Upf low

Composite Effluent
77
6.3
200
30
8
7.8
500
195
4.5
0
—
720
23,400

58
3.0
200
30
14
7.0
480
184
5.0
0
—
970
31,500

66
22
200
30
8
8.0
493
183
5.1
0
—
850
27,500




Typical
Raw AMD
109
113
200
30
16
7.9
1197
206
2.45
555
32.5
—
--

                   TABLE 10

              Weak Base Anion Exchanger
              Iron Content Analyses
Sample No.
Iron content before cycling,
No. of downflow cycles
No. of upflow cycles
Iron content after cycling,
Iron content after iron
   removal  treatment,  %
 A
 0.037
10
 0
38.3
 0.09
 B
 0.037
 6
 4
32.7
 0.07
                           43

-------
flow treatment also.  Table 9 compares the data obtained by these varia-
tions .

The chemical characteristics of the composite effluent obtained by the
4 gpm/cu ft treatment flow rate (downflow) is very similar to that
obtained by the 2 gpm/cu ft flow rate (downflow).  The ferrous iron con-
centration is somewhat higher.  But, this could be explained by the
slightly lower pH.  The important consideration is the lower ion exchange
capacity which results from the higher treatment rate.  The lower
capacity does not affect regenerant utilization in this process because
regenerant dosages are always 110% of the stoichiometric amount required
     regenerant utilization).
It is apparent that a 4 gpm/cu ft treatment flow rate could be used for
the direct treatment of AMD solutions having the free mineral acidity
content exhibited in Table 9.  However, it was considered unlikely that
this flow rate could be used to treat hydrogen form cation effluents with
roughly three times the concentration of FMA.

Table 9 also shows the data obtained by an upflow treatment cycle at
2 gpm/cu ft.  The ferrous iron concentrations produced by the upflow and
downflow runs at the same flow rate are similar.  However, there is a
substantial difference in the ferric iron concentrations.  Because ferric
iron is considered the insoluble specie, while ferrous iron is the soluble
specie at this pH, it appears that the upflow exhaustion is permitting
more insoluble material to appear in the treated effluent.  Thus this
method could be useful in retarding the accumulation of insoluble material
in the ion exchanger bed when the direct treatment of AMD by this process
is attempted.  However, it was decided that the upflow process was not
needed when the weak base anion exchanger was required to treat a hydrogen
form cation exchanger effluent.   This decision was based upon the iron
concentrations being much lower in the cation effluent than they were in
the test water.  In turn, the iron retained by the bed would be much
smaller also — perhaps of less concern than the lower capacity obtained by
the upflow operation.

The weak base anion exchanger in each of the two columns was analyzed for
iron content after 10 exhaustion cycles were obtained.  Table 10 shows
results of the iron analysis made upon the ion exchanger samples before
cycling, after cycling and after iron removal treatments on the weak base
anion exchanger were attempted.

The iron accumulation in the anion exchange material caused a volume in-
crease of about 20% above the original volume.  This result indicates
that some method of removing iron from the ion exchanger may be required
at periodic intervals.  The iron removal treatment employed to obtain
the result shown in Table 10 consisted of soaking the ion exchange
material in 10% hydrochloric acid at 150°F for 2 hours.  Three such
treatments were required for these samples suggesting that iron removal
treatments should be applied before the iron content reaches the level
                               44

-------
attained in this study.

The interesting aspect of this process was the fact that although massive
accumulations of iron on the ion exchange particles were realized, there
was no apparent change in the ion exchange capacity or the kinetics of
the ion exchange material.  It would have been reasonable to expect the
coating of iron oxide on the ion exchanger particles to slow the
diffusion rate of acid through the coating or to block ion exchange
sites of the ion exchanger.  Apparently, the iron oxide (hydroxide) is
sufficiently porous to allow sulfuric acid to diffuse freely.

Tables 73, 74 and 75 are presented to show the character of the effluent
during the course of the treatment cycles.  The effluent analysis for
runs 39A and 39B indicate that very little alkalinity is imparted to the
treated effluent during the run.  This was the case with most of the
runs which were made.  However, a few runs produced results exemplified
in Table 74. Euring the initial portion of these runs, a significant
concentration of alkalinity was imparted to the treated water.  This
suggests that the WGR weak base anion exchanger may be capable of exist-
ing in the bicarbonate form in the same manner that IRA-68 does.
(See Chapter 11).
                              45

-------
                             SECTION 11

     WEAK BASE ANION EXCHANGER PERFORMANCE - BICARBONATE FORM
This process employs the unusual characteristics of a unique weak base
anion exchange resin, Amberlite IRA-68, manufactured by Rohm and Haas.
In the free base form, this resin (represented as R-NH in equation 1
below) is capable of adsorbing carbonic acid to form the bicarbonate
salt.  This bicarbonate salt has a bicarbonate/sulf ate, chloride
selectivity such that neutral salts in water can be converted to bi-
carbonate salts.  For example, the sulfate salt of calcium or magnesium
is converted to the corresponding bicarbonate salt as illustrated by
equation (l).

                  CaS04 - ».(R-NH2|2S04+ Ca(HC03)2            (l)
During the treatment of acid mine drainage, FMA would be removed by the
reaction illustrated by equation (2).

   2(R-NHo)HC03 + H2S04 - ». (R-NHo^SO^ 2H2C03               (2)

The effluent from this process would consist primarily of bicarbonate
salts of calcium, magnesium, ferrous iron and manganese.  In the
resultant alkaline environment, it is reasonable to expect ferric iron
and aluminum to be precipitated.  This precipitation will occur in the
exchange bed, or in the effluent liquid.  The effluent from the exchanger
can be aerated and lime treated to obtain a potable effluent as illus-
trated by equations (3), (4), (5) and (6).
    2Fe(HC03)2  +  ^O2  +  H20 — ^2Fe(OH)3  +  4C02          (3)

    Ca(HC03)2  +  Ca(OH)2 — » 2CaC03  +  2H20                 (4)

    Mg(HC03)2  +  2Ca(OH)2— *.2CaC03  +  Mq(OH)2 + 2H20       (5)

    Mn(HCOo)9  +  -^00  + 2Ca(OH)0— *• Mn00  +  2CaC00 + 3H00  (6)
          o z       2.           2.     - *-     - J     ^

Regeneration of the weak base anion exchanger is accomplished by first
contacting the exchanger with a sodium hydroxide solution to convert
the ion exchanger to the hydroxyl form (Equation 7).
    (R-NH2LS04  +  2NaOH -- ».2R-NH2OH  +  Na

Following a rinse operation to remove excess  sodium hydroxide,  the  anion
exchange resin is contacted with a solution containing  carbon dioxide  to
convert the exchanger to the bicarbonate form (Equation 8).

     R-NH0OH+  H0CO.  - m. (R-NHjHCO,  +  »0                (8)
     - ^ —     4.  3                          *•
                               47

-------
              Process
    \
           IRC-84
         H+ FormN
       \
         IRA-68
         fC03-
         Form
     \
                                    Process
                »

                              #2
                                                         Lime
                                                         Addition
  I >
AMD Water
                                   Air
                                   Addition
5 Micron
  Filter
                                                            Treated
                                                            Water
Figure 7
AMD Treatment Process Schematic  Bicarbonate Form
Weak Base Anion Exchanger/Hydrogen Form Weak Acid
Cation Exchanger or Li«ie Treatment
                             48

-------
Figure 7 is a schematic of an AMD treatment process to use this exchanger
to produce a potable product.

Our initial attempt in the first phase of the project +o apply the bi-
carbonate form of a weak base anion exchange resin to the treatment of
acid mine drainage was successful.  This treatment, method removed FMA
and converted approximately 60% of the remaining neutral salts to bi-
carbonate salts.  Because of these successes, this process was included
among those selected for further study in phase two of this project  (see
Section 15).

Regeneration of the ion exchanger was accomplished by backwashing
briefly, followed by passing a 4% sodium hydroxide solution through  the
bed at a flow rate of 0.45 gpm in a downflow direction.  The amount  of
caustic applied was 110% of the theoretical quantity of the total FMA
removed from the AMD plus that amount of alkalinity imparted to the
treated water.  The excess caustic was removed by rinsing with demin-
eralized water at the same flow rate.  The resin was then transformed
to the bicarbonate form by passing a saturated solution of carbon dioxide
under 50-60 psig pressure upflow through the bed at 0.5 gpm/cu ft until
the effluent pH was 4.5.  No rinse was applied after the carbonation
step.

Initially, downflow exhaustions at 2 gpm/cu ft were attempted for the
treatment cycle of this process.  Downflow exhaustions were abandoned
early because precipitates formed in the ion exchanger bed and caused
flow stoppages during the treatment cycle.  Upflow treatment cycles  at
a flow rate of 2 gpm/cu ft were used during the remainder of the study
and no problems were encountered with this method of operation.  No
other variables were studied other than the attempts at upflow and down-
flow treatment cycles.

                             TABLE 11

             Weak Base Anion Exchanger - Bicarbonate Form.
             Water Analyses of influent and composite effluent.
Chemical Constituent         Composite Effluent      Raw AMD

Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe                48                 64
                                                      136
                                                      190
                                                       30
                                                       16
      rerrous iron, ppm Jre                4«
      Ferric Iron, ppm Fe                 39
      Calcium, ppm Ca                    190
      Magnesium, ppm Mg                   29
      Aluminum, ppm Al                     9
      Manganese, ppm Mn                    7.4                  .*+
      Sulfate, ppm S04                    23              1,006
      Chloride, ppm Cl                   114                219
      pH                                  5.7                2.45
      Alkalinity, ppm CaC03              510                 0
      FMA, ppm CaC03                       0
      Volume Capacity, gals/cu ft        485
      Ion Exchange Capacity,          31,500
         qrains/cu ft
                                                      600
                      'cu ft        485
   grains/cu ft
                          49

-------
                                     TABLE     12
                ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                              Column Effluent Analyses
Run 44R fWk.  Base HCOrr)	

Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Sulfate, ppm SO 4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft



62
34
45
186
29
5.0
7.4
1.7
0

0
0
685
6.1

73





190
34
24
185
?9
2.6
7.4
2.1
0

0
0
690
6.3

1&.





380
39
35
186
29
6.6
7.9
0.9
0

0
68
590
6.6

74





445
48
65
195
28
9.8
8.2
1.3
0

295
190
130
5.7

74





475
53
37
195
28
11
8.1
0.7
0
210
390
213
5
4.4

74





485
53
97
196
28
12
8.0
0.7
20
300
390
222
0
3.3

74





490
56
94
189
28
13
7.4
0.7
100
380
370
222
0
3.0

74



Date:




















12/14/70










































-------
Table 11 shows analyses of the influent AMD and composite effluent
obtained on the fourth regeneration/exhaustion cycle using an upflow
exhaustion rate of 2 gallons per minute per cubic foot of exchanger.
Table 12 shows the characteristics of the treated effluent during the
course of the run.

These data show a large decrease in ferric iron concentration from the
influent concentration.  Because very little iron appears in the
regeneration effluent and backwash effluent, a significant amount of
iron must be retained by the ion exchanger particles.  The weak base
anion exchanger was analyzed after four complete regeneration/exhaustion
cycles and was found to contain 1.25% Fe based upon 105°C dried free
base form resin.  No apparent capacity losses were observed over the
four cycles.  However, this number of cycles may be insufficient to
establish a trend.  Additional work is necessary to study this affect.

Table 11 shows that metal ion concentrations other than iron and
aluminum are relatively unchanged by the treatment process.  Sulfate ion
is about 98% removed, while chloride ion is about 50% removed.  It
should be mentioned here again that chloride ion is normally absent in
acid mine drainage.  It was present in the synthetic AMD used here
because of the unavailability of ferric sulfate reagent.  This situ-
ation was corrected in the later studies of this process  (see Section 15).

The treated effluent from this process is shown to be free of FMA, while
a large concentration of alkalinity in the form of bicarbonate ion has
been imparted to it.  This indicates that further treatment with lime
should result in an acceptable water from a potability standpoint.

The ion exchange capacity shown in Table 11 was obtained by multiplying
the volume capacity (in gallons) by a loading factor.  This factor was
obtained by adding the concentration of FMA (in grains per gallon as
CaCOo) removed from the AMD to the concentration of alkalinity (also in
grains per gallon as CaCO^) created in the composite treated effluent.
This capacity agrees with the capacity claimed by the manufacturer of
IRA-68.

                             TABLE 13

             Weak Base Anion Exchanger - Bicarbonate Form.
             Analysis of Composite Regenerant Effluent.
          pH                                        6.6
          Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe                      3.0
          Ferric Iron, ppm Fe                       6.5
          Calcium, ppm Ca                           16
          Magnesium, ppm Mg                         0.4
          Aluminum, ppm Al                          26
          Manganese, ppm Mn                         0.2
          Sodium, ppm Na                         5400
          Alkalinity, ppm CaC03                   425
          Sulfate, ppm S04                       9650
          Chloride, ppm Cl                       1160

                              51

-------
Table 13 illustrates the characteristics of the combined sodium hydroxide
regeneration and rinse effluent obtained after a treatment cycle.  These
data indicate that the major constituents of the waste effluent are sodium
sulfate, sodium chloride (normally absent in natural AMD) and sodium bi-
carbonate.  The excess sodium hydroxide appears to be converted to sodium
bicarbonate by the residual bicarbonate ion remaining on the anion exchange
sites after the treatment step is ended.

Results obtained by this study indicate that this treatment process could
be capable of producing a potable effluent.  Thus, studies with this resin
were continued in phase two of this project, as discussed in Section 15.
                                52

-------
                            SECTION 12

       STRONG BASE ANION EXCHANGER PERFORMANCE - SULFATE FORM
The process utilizes the ability of conventional strong base anion ex-
changers to operate in a so-called sulfate-bisulfate cycle.  This
cycle is analogous to the second dissociation of sulfuric acid in water
(equation l):

    HS04" ^   *H+  +  S04"                                 (1)

In the presence of excess acid (H4"), this equilibrium is shifted to
give increased concentrations of HS04 .  In the resin, with non-acidic
solutions, the divalent sulfate ion occupies two exchange sites.  When
this form of resin is contacted by acidic solutions, the monovalent
bisulfate ion is formed freeing one resin site which then may be
occupied by another anion (equation 2):

    R = S04  +  H2S04 ^  *  R = (HS04)                     (2)

The regeneration of the anion exchange resin is essentially a reversal
of the treatment step, i.e., the conversion of the resin from the bi-
sulfate form back to the sulfate form.  A shift of the equilibrium in
favor of the sulfate ion can best be obtained by a lowering of the
acidity in the anion bed.  This lowering of acidity can be accomplished
by rinsing the anion exchanger with lime treated AMD water.  The
addition of lime to AMD neutralizes its free mineral acidity and
results in calcium sulfate formation.  The resulting solution is
separated from the insoluble material and is passed into the ion ex-
changer column.  The elevated pH of this solution causes the sulfate-
bisulfate equilibrium to shift in favor of sulfate ion  (equation 3):

    p — f HSO 1  ^^^tmm^^m R — ^O   -4-   H ^O                      \ 3 /

Theoretically, it is not necessary to neutralize the sulfuric acid
formed in equation 3 because this acid will contact resin sites already
in the bisulfate form as flow passes down through the ion exchanger bed.
However, the reaction rate of equation 3 may be increased by the
addition of alkali in the rinse solution applied to the anion exchanger.

The attempt to apply this process to the direct treatment of acid mine
drainage has been only partially successful.  The treatment process has
resulted in complete removal of FMA from the AMD.  However, we were
not able to obtain predicted FMA removal capacity from  regenerations
performed with limed AMD waters.  Predicted FMA capacity was approached
by the use of 2% ammonium hydroxide regenerating solutions.  Because  of
this result and the fact that the process was an inherently low
capacity, this process was not recommended for further  study beyond
phase one of this project.  A description of the study  follows.


                             53

-------
The anion exchangers used during this study were manufactured by the Dow
Chemical Company (exchanger designated as 21K) and the Rohm and Haas
Company (exchanger designated as IRA-410).   The 21K exchanger is con-
sidered a type 1 porous strong base anion exchanger and the IRA-410 is
considered a type 2 non-porous strong base  anion exchanger.

All tests were performed on columns measuring 2 inches in diameter by 30
inches in height (ion exchanger volume equals 0.055 cubic feet).

Regenerations were accomplished by backwashing and then by passing either
limed AMD water or a 2% ammonium hydroxide  solution through the exchanger
column in a downflow direction.

When limed AMD regenerations were performed, the limed solution was
passed through the exchanger at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm/cu ft until the
effluent pH was equal to the influent pH.  This period of time varied
between 60 and 75 minutes.  The column was  then rinsed with deionized
water.  Limed AMD solutions were prepared by adding lime to synthetic
AMD water until the pH was 8.5-8.8.  Then the resulting precipitates
were allowed to settle prior to decanting and filtering of the super-
natant.

When the NH.OH regenerations were performed, a quantity of 2% NH OH
solution corresponding to 100% of the stoichiometric quantity of acid
removed during the previous exhaustion was  passed through the exchanger
at a flow rate of 0.25 gpm/cu ft.  The column was then rinsed with
demineralized water at the same flow rate.

In all cases, exhaustions were carried out  downflow at a flow rate of
2 gpm/cu ft.  Exhaustions were performed with synthetic AMD waters having
FMA concentrations at two different levels  to study the effect of this
variable upon the capacity of the exchanger.

Table 14 compares the volume capacity and ion exchange capacity obtained
from the two anion exchangers when regenerated with limed AMD and with
2% ammonium hydroxide.  Table 14 also compares the capacity obtained
when the concentration of FMA in the acid mine drainage was varied.

The capacities derived from limed AMD regenerations are shown to be con-
siderably inferior to those obtained using  ammonium hydroxide regener-
ations.  Liming AMD to a higher pH may produce higher capacities.
However, the prospects for obtaining a practical capacity using limed
AMD appeared so remote that it was elected  to abandon this portion of
the study and concentrate on ammonia regenerations.

Table 14 shows a prominent superiority of the type 2 non-porous exchanger
(IRA-410) over the type 1 porous exchanger  (21K) in acid removal capacity
at either FMA concentration.  Table 14 also indicates a modest  (15%)
increase in acid removal capacity exhibited by the 21K exchanger when
the influent FMA was increased from 535 ppm to 860 ppm.  However, a
                             54

-------
                                             TABLE 14

                            COMPARISON OF ACID REMOVAL CAPACITY OF  SULFATE
                            FORM STRONG BASE ANION EXCHANGER
Run No.
Resin
Regenerant
Influent  FMA
Volume Capacity
Acid Removal Capacity

49A
50A
49 B
at 55 B
52A
55A

2 IK
IRA-410
2 IK
21K
IRA-410
IRA-410

Limed AMD
Limed AMD
2# NH,OH
4
2£ NH4OH
2# NH4OH
2# NH4OH
ppm CaCOq
535
540
535
86C
545
860
gallons/cu ft
27
21
49
35
70
58
*/
qrains/cu ft
840
660
1530
1760
2130
2920
  */,s CaCO,

-------
                                 TABLE 15

                   Typical Influent and Effluent Analysis For
                   a Sulfate Form Strong Base Anion Exchanger
                   Run No.                     52A


                   Chemical Constituent Effluent	Raw AMD
Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe
Ferric Iron, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sulfate, ppm S04
Chloride, ppm Cl
pH
FMA, ppm CaCOs
Alkalinity, ppm CaCOs
62
2
198
27
13
7.9
462
102
5.2
—
118
104
96
201
28
15
7.9
1048
196
2.40
545
--
substantial increase (37%) was exhibited by the IRA-410 with the same
influent FMA increase.  If this process were to be considered for AMD
treatment, the type 2 anion exchanger would be selected for use.

Table 15 displays the character of the composite effluent obtained by
this treatment method when the IRA-410 resin was regenerated with
ammonia.  The piocess removed nearly 100% of the ferric iron and sub-
stantial quantities of ferrous iron.  Ferric iron was undoubtedly pre-
cipitated and filtered in the ion exchanger bed.  Some of the ferrous
iron was probably oxidized because of the aerobic conditions under
which the AMD was prepared and met the same fate as the ferric iron in
the exchanger bed.

Note that a relatively large concentration of alkalinity was produced
in the effluent.  It was likely that the strong 2% ammonia solutions
were capable of converting some of the anion exchange sites to the
hydroxyl form.  Weaker solutions of ammonia probably would not have this
capability and may produce higher acid absorption capacities.  Tables
76 through 81 are presented to show the character of the treated
effluent during the course of the treatment cycle.  These data show that
a large amount of ferric iron is removed by this process.  The ferric
iron is precipitated and becomes deposited upon the ion exchanger as the
treatment process progresses.  The backwash operation and the regener-
ation operation do not remove all cf this precipitated iron.  Thus, an
                               56

-------
accumulation is expected requiring eventual removal treatments.

Based upon the results obtained above, this process was not selected for
further study.  This decision was based upon the success of other pro-
cesses which offer a greater chance for success in producing a potable
effluent from acid mine drainage.
                              57

-------
                            SECTION 13

                    COMPLETE PROCESS EVALUATION
            STRONG ACID CATION EXCHANGER (HYDROGEN FORM)
As stated earlier (Section 4), the second objective of this project was
to evaluate three of the most promising treatment processes selected
from the original five processes.  The process utilizing a strong acid
cation exchanger in the hydrogen form was one of the three selected for
further evaluation.

The hydrogen form cation exchanger process is not a complete treatment
method.  However, it will be incorporated as the primary treatment step
of a complete process utilizing a weak base anion exchanger in the free
base form (Section 14).  The purpose of the investigations covered by
this section was to determine the effects of applying this treatment
method to acid mine drainage containing iron either entirely in the
ferrous state or entirely in the ferric state.  Another objective of
this investigation was the determination of whether regenerant utiliza-
tion could be increased by recovering and reusing waste sulfuric acid
regenerant.  Still another objective of this study was an investigation
of the economics of using an alternate regenerant (hydrochloric acid)
in comparison to that obtained by using sulfuric acid.

The results of these investigations, as detailed below, have indicated
that the waste sulfuric acid or hydrochloric acid regenerant is not
suitable for reuse.  The study has also shown that cation regeneration
chemical costs would be approximately 45-60% higher if hydrochloric
acid were used rather than sulfuric acid.  The effect on this treatment
process of the type of iron  (ferrous or ferric) in the synthetic AMD on
the characteristics of the treated effluent were negligible.  However,
better iron removal was obtained when the iron was present entirely in
the ferric form.

Reactions involved with this treatment process are shown in Section 8
and the manipulation of the  ion exchanger columns was carried out as
described in that section.

The first phase of this investigation used AMD solutions containing iron
essentially in the ferrous state.  This phase emphasized the use of
hydrochloric acid as a regenerant and attempts were also made at waste
hydrochloric acid regenerant recovery-and reuse.

Table  16 compares the results obtained by varying hydrochloric acid
dosage.  Variations of regenerant concentration and flow rate were
studied also and the effect  of these variables is demonstrated by  com-
paring the data  from Runs No. 69A and 74A.  The data  indicates that
variations of regenerant concentration between 4.6% and 9.2% have  little
affect upon the  capacity of  the  cation exchanger or the character  of  the
                              59

-------
                               TABLE 16.

               Strong Acid Cation Exchanger  -  Hydrogen  Form.
               -Performance Data.
Run No.
Regenerant
Regenerant  Dosage, lbs*/cu ft
Regenerant  Dosage, Kgrs(CaC03)/cu  ft
Regenerant  Cone, %
Regenerant  Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft

Volume Capacity, gals/cu ft
AMD Metal Ion Cone, gpg (
Exchange Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft
% Regenerant Utilization
Lbs Waste Acid/Kilograin
Composite Treated Effluent
   Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe
   Ferric Iron, ppm Fe
   Calcium, ppm Ca
   Magnesium, ppm Mg
   Aluminum, ppm Al
   Manganese, ppm Mn
   Sodium,  ppm Na
   FMA, ppm CaC03
 64A
 HS1
  6
 57.6
  4.6
  0.50
   3.7
   0.2
   3.5
   0.5
   0.0
   0.1
   0.8
 69A
 VCl
  A
 38.4
  4.6
  0.50
   5.5
   1.2
   6.5
   0.9
   0.0
   0.2
   0.5
 74A
 HC1
  4
 38.4
  9.2
  0.25
  5.0
  0.1
  5.0
  0.7
  0.0
  0.1
  3.0
 77B
 JC1
  2
 19.2
  9.2
  0.25
380
69.2
26.3
46
0.12
310
67.1
20.8
54
0.09
309
68.4
21.2
55
0.09
230
64.3
14.8
77
0.03
  20
   2
  20
   2.9
   0.0
   0.7
   0.8
1500
1600
1500
1400
* Lbs of absolute  (100#) hydrochloric acid per cubic foot of exchanger.
   composite treated effluent.  This  is  not  unusual because the regener-
   ant flow rate was halved when the  concentration was doubled which
   resulted in the same regenerant contact time  with the ion exchanger bed.
   The higher concentration would be  preferred if hydrochloric acid regen-
   erations were to be used because a  smaller volume of waste effluent
   would be produced.  The regeneration  waste products produced by a hydro-
   chloric acid regeneration are highly  soluble  chloride salts.  Thus, the
   higher concentrations may be used with this regenerant.

   The effect of acid dosage upon capacity follows the usual trend of ion
   exchange processes.  Decreasing dosage causes a decrease in ion exchange
   capacity and an increase in regenerant utilization.  The use of an
   hydrochloric acid dosage of 2 Ibs/cu  ft achieves a regenerant utilization
   of 77%.

   Table 17 compares the results obtained in Section 8 using 3 Ibs of
   sulfuric acid per cubic foot (Run  2A) with those obtained here using 2
   Ibs of hydrochloric acid per cubic  foot.   Th» characteristics of the
  .composite effluent produced by these  two  acids are very similar.  The
                                  60

-------
                             TABLE 17

             Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Hydrogen Form.
             Performance Data.
Run No.
Regenerant
Regenerant Dosage, Ibs/cu ft
Regenerant Dosage, Kgrs (CaCOs)/cu ft
Volume Capacity, gals/cu ft
AMD Metal Ion Cone., gpg (CaCOa)
Exchange Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft
% Regenerant Utilization
Lbs Waste Acid/Kilograin

Composite Treated Effluent
Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe
Ferric Iron, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
2A
H2S04
3
21.4
153
70.0
10.7
50
0.14


25.0
2.5
15.0
3.3
N.A.
1.0
28.0
1430
77B
HC1
2
19.2
230
64.3
14.8
77
0.03


20.0
2.0
20
2.9
0.0
0.7
0.8
1400









Typical
Raw AMD
204
13
182
26
18
8.5
18
600
significant aspect of this comparison is the fact that the regenerant
utilization is much higher when hydrochloric acid is used for regener-
ation.  The greater regenerant utilization and higher exchange
capacity obtained with hydrochloric acid also results in a much smaller
quantity of unused acid discharged to waste per kilograin of exchange
capacity than would occur if sulfuric acid regenerant were used.

The encouraging result obtained by the use of hydrochloric acid
regenerant with AMD solutions containing essentially 100% ferrous iron
led to the study of the same regenerant on AMD solutions containing
100% ferric iron.  Table 18 compares the data obtained by the use of
hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid regenerants with AMD solutions
containing nearly 100$ ferric iron.  The data in this table indicates
that the exchange capacity obtained with this type of AMD solution
is slightly higher than that obtained with AMD solutions containing
100% ferrous iron (Table 17).  This result could be due to the greater
selectivity of the cation exchanger for ferric iron over ferrous iron. .
                              61

-------
                             TABLE 18

             Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Hydrogen Form.
             Performance Data.
Run Nos.                             83B-86B        83A-86A
Regenerant                            H2SC>4           HC1
Regenerant Dosage, Ibs/cu ft            3              2
Regenerant Dosage, Kgrs (CaCOs)        21.4           19.2

Volume Capacity, gals/cu ft           185            230
AMD Metal Ion Cone,  gpg (CaCOs)       74.2           74.2
Ion Exchange Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft      13.5           17.0
% Regenerant Utilization               63             89
Lbs Waste Acid/Kilograin                0.08           0.013
                                                                 Typical
Composite Treated Effluent                                       Raw AMD
   Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe                 0.6            0.7         0.3
   Ferric Iron, ppm Fe                  7.4           10.8       200
   Calcium, ppm Ca                     26             38         203
   Magnesium, ppm Mg                    6.6            6.9        27
   Aluminum, ppm Al                     0.0            0.0        17
   Manganese, ppm Mn                    1.5            1.6         8.8
   Sodium, ppm Na                       0.8            0.7         0,5
   FMA, ppm CaC03                    1560           1520         910
 A comparison of  the  character of  the composite  treated  effluents  in
 Tables  17 and 18 is  sufficient evidence of  this.   Effluents  are  lower
 in total  iron but higher in calcium and magnesium when  the AMD contains
 ferric  iron rather than ferrous iron.   This is  the expected  result
 because ferric iron  removal is superior to  ferrous iron removal.   As a
 consequence,  greater leakage of calcium and magnesium appears  before
 unacceptable iron concentrations  in the effluent.

 Table 18  illustrates again the greater percentage of  regenerant  uti-
 lization  which can be achieved by the  use of hydrochloric acid regener-
 ation.   Only minor differences in effluent  character  are observed from
 the use of this  regenerant also.

 Because of the results obtained above,  a comparison was made of  the
 chemical  costs (regenerant costs) which would be  required to achieve
 1000 grains (l kilograin) of ion  exchange capacity.  These data  are
 shown in  Table 19 and were rather discouraging  to the use of hydro-
 chloric acid.  The costs of using this acid would be  45-60%  higher than
 that incurred by the use of sulfuric acid.   This  figure would  represent
                              62

-------
                            TABLE 19

            Strong Acid Cation Exchanger - Hydrogen Form.
            Performance Data.
   AMD Iron                        100% Ferrous      100% Ferric
   Regenerant                      H2S04    HC1      H2S04   HC1
   Regenerant Dosage, Ibs/cu ft      3       2         32
   Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft             10.7    14.8      13.5   17.0
   % Regenerant Utilization         50      77        63     89
   Waste Regenerant, Ibs/Kgrs        0.14    0.03      0.08   0.013
   Regenerant cost, 
-------
                                      TABLE 20
                      Strong Acid Cation  Exchanger
                      Performance Data.
                      -  Hydrogen Form.
Run No.
Regenerant
AMD Iron
Regenerant Dosage
   Waste, Ibs/cu ft
   Fresh, Ibs/cu ft
Regenerant Cone, %
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft
% Regenerant Utilization
% Regenerant Utilization
   (overall)*
77B
ftl
0
2
9.2
14.8
77
71A 69B
H31 H31
100$ Ferrous
2
4
4.6
21.1
55
4
2
4.6
17.4
92
74B
HC1
4
2
9.2
17.8
92
77
68
66
68
                                                86B        89B
                                                           H2S04
                                                   100% Ferric
0
3
2.0
13.5
63
3
3
2.0
12.5
58
63
61
*Based upon the capacity and dosage  used to regenerate  the column from which the waste
 regenerant was obtained and the column to which the waste regenerant and fresh regenerant
 was applied.

-------
could have post-precipitated from the waste regenerant as it was applied
to the second column.  This only points up the fact that the sulfuric
acid waste regenerant has no further value from an ion exchanger regen-
eration standpoint.

Tables 82 through 87 show the character of the effluent during each of
the treatment cycles cited here as typical of each variable set.  These
data show the variation of the effluent cation concentration which
occurs during the treatment cycle.

The results of the study of the strong acid cation exchanger (hydrogen
form) have indicated that hydrochloric acid regeneration is impractical
from an economic standpoint if only regenerant cost is considered.
However, a consideration of the ultimate disposal of waste regenerants
could alter this opinion.  Regenerant waste disposal is not within the
scope of this study and some method of disposal will be required if
this AMD treatment process is to become a reality.  If the regenerant
waste is to be neutralized and/or hauled away, the neutralizing chemical
cost and hauling costs will be an important economic consideration.
The fact that hydrochloric acid regeneration results in substantially
less waste acidity and waste regenerant volume may bring this material
back into the picture.
                              65

-------
                            SECTION 14

          COMPLETE PROCESS EVALUATION - STRONG ACID CATION
          EXCHANGER (HYDROGEN FORM)/WEAK BASE ANION EXCHANGER
          (FREE BASE FORM)	
This complete process utilizes the combination of two separate ion
exchange processes.  The first step of the complete process incorpo-
rates the hydrogen form of a strong acid cation exchanger.  A study
of this process was carried out as described in Sections 8 and 13.
The effluent from the cation exchanger is treated further by the use
of a weak base anion exchanger in the free base form and this process
is described in Section 10 of this report.

It was recognized during the studies of the weak base anion exchanger
that the effluent from the weak base anion exchanger would not meet
the requirements for potability.  This failure would be due to the
presence of excessive concentrations of iron and manganese which are
abundantly present in the cation exchanger effluent and are not
completely removed by the weak base anion exchanger.  One of the
objectives of this study was to establish a post treatment method which
would render the water fit for human consumption.  Aeration at elevated
pH is a known procedure for removal of iron and manganese.  The complete
treatment process utilizing a strong acid cation exchanger followed by
a weak base anion exchanger followed by pH elevation, aeration and
filtration was evaluated in this study.  A schematic representation of
this process is shown in Figure 4.

This .evaluation involved the application of the complete process to the
treatment of acid mine drainage containing either 100% ferrous iron or
100% ferric iron.  During this study, raw AMD solutions were used to
backwash the cation exchanger, to prepare the sulfuric acid regenerant
solution and to rinse the cation exchanger after applying the regener-
ant.  The cation exchanger effluent was used to backwash the weak base
anion exchanger, prepare the sodium hydroxide regenerant and rinse the
weak base anion exchanger after applying the regenerant.

U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare potability specifica-
tions require that the manganese content be no greater than 0.05 ppm
and the iron content be no greater than 0.3 ppm.  Because oxidation and
precipitation of manganese is pH dependent, an investigation was con-
ducted to determine the minimum pH required for adequate manganese and
iron removal.  Table 21 shows results of this investigation and indi-
cates that a minimum pH of 9.9 is needed to remove manganese to the
desired level.  Data for Table 21 was obtained from water produced by
the addition of lime to the weak base anion effluent until the desired
pH was attained.  Then, the solution was aerated, the precipitate
allowed to settle and the supernatant filtered through a 5 micron
filter.  The iron and manganese analysis was performed on the filtered
sample.

                             67

-------
                                    TABLE 21

                Effect  of pH on Manganese and Iron Removal Using
                Lime Treatment and  Filtration
          pH  Levels               7.60     9.50     9.95      9.90

          Ferrous  Iron, ppm Fe    0.0      0.0      0.0       0.0

          Ferric Iron, ppm Fe     0.1      0.0      0.0       0.0

          Manganese, ppm Mn       0.17     0.17     0.5       0.04


Table 22 shows the chemical characteristics of the raw AMD and the various
effluents of  each  stage of the complete treatment process when the in-
fluent contained essentially 100% ferrous iron.  Table 23 is an example
of the various effluent characteristics obtained by the treatment of AMD
containing essentially 100% ferric iron.  The additional pH correction
step was added (as shown in Table 23) because the high pH resulting from
the manganese removal process would not be acceptable from a potability
standpoint either.  The correction of pH was accomplished here by blending
a portion of  the cation exchanger effluent with the filter effluent.  The
ratio of this blend was one volume of cation effluent to 100 volumes of
filter effluent.   This method of pH correction is shown to be acceptable
because it produces negligible increases in iron and manganese.

Tables 88 through 90 show the capacity and final product quality obtained
by each of the five complete treatment cycles produced with AMD contain-
ing 100% ferrous iron and by each of the fourteen complete treatment
cycles produced with AMD containing 100% ferric iron.  The analyses were
made on the final treated product of the complete process.  However, none
of the data shows the final product after pH correction to the neutral
range.  It has been demonstrated before that the final pH correction pro-
cess would not materially alter the chemical characteristics of the water.

It should be  noted that repetitive cycling produced an average of 36.0
Kgrs/cubic foot capacity for the weak base anion exchanger (overall
average of the last eighteen runs omitting the first run).  A capacity of
30.0 Kgrs/cubic foot was selected as the plant design criteria allowing
for some capacity losses to occur before having to institute resin
clean-up or replacement procedures.  There was no indication of a capacity
decline over the nineteen cycles produced during this study.  However,
this would be the expected result of exhausting a weak base anion ex-
changer with a hydrogen form strong acid cation exchanger effluent rather
than a raw AMD solution.  The total iron content of the weak base anion
exchanger influent (hydrogen form cation exchanger effluent) was typically
20-30 ppm with a  100% ferrous iron cation exchanger influent and was 3-6
ppm with a 100% ferric iron cation exchanger influent.
                               68

-------
                               TABLE  22    (Run  No.  98)
Typical Effluent Analysis During  Each Step of the AMD Treatment (100^ Ferrous) Using a
Strong Acid Cation  Exchanger  (Hydrogen Form), a Weak Base Anion Exchanger (Free Base Form),
Liming and Filtration.
PH

Iron, ppm

Iron, ppm Fe
                  i i
Magnesium, ppm Mg

Calcium, ppm Ca"1"*"

Manganese, ppm Mn*4"

Aluminum, ppm Al"*"1"1"

Sodium, ppm Na++

Sulfate, ppm S04=

Alkalinity, ppm 2aC03

FMA, ppm CaC03
Raw
AMD
2.35
190
10
27
205
8.9
15
0.5
1850
--
Cation
Effluent
1.85
10.2
1.8
1.5
13
0.47
0
8.7
1611
-_
Anion
Effluent
8.0
0.0
0.9
1.5
13
0.34
0
23
62
25
After liming, set-
tling & filtration
9.90
0.0
0.0
1.5
17
0.04
0
23
61
35
  945
   1540
                               TABLE 23    (Run  No.  105)
Typical Effluent Analysis During  Each Step of the AMD  Treatment (100$ Ferric)  Using a
Strong Acid Cation Exchanger  (Hydrogen Form), A Weak Base Anion Exchanger (Free Base Form)
Liming, Filtration and pH Correction.
PH

Iron, ppm Fe"1"1"

Iron, ppm Fe+++

Magnesium, ppm Mg"1"1"

Calcium, ppm Ca"*"*"

Manganese, ppm Mn++

Aluminum, ppm Al++

Sodium, ppm Na+

Sulfate, ppm S04"

Alkalinity, ppm

FMA, ppm CaCOa
Raw
AMD
2.10
0.3
210
28
200
8.9
14
0.9
1990
--
Cation
Ef f luent
1.65
0.3
2.9
2.4
20
0.77
0
2.9
2000
—
Anion
Effluent
9.5
0.1
0.5
2.2
28
0.18
0
39
129
30
After liming,
settling &
filtration
10.1
0.0
0.0
2.1
18
0.00
0
39
95
40
After
pH Cor-
rection
7.5
0.0
0.1
2.1
18
0.01
0
33
113
20
1440
2020
                                          69

-------
Tables 91 through 93 show the analysis of the hydrogen form strong acid
cation exchanger effluents.  No cation exchanger capacity data was accu-
lated during this study since this information has been established by
the study described in Section 13.

Studies should be conducted to investigate the effect of the iron accu-
mulation upon the weak base anion capacity over several hundred cycles.
The usuable resin life would thereby be established for AMD treatment.
In turn, the weak base anion amortization rate would be a factor in the
operating costs for a full scale plant.

During the course of this evaluation the information shown in Table 24
was obtained.  The data in Table 24 reflect  the results of studies
carried out to determine the minimum rinse requirement for the cation and
anion exchanger columns.  It was found that 7.5 gallons per cu ft of
anion exchanger was adequate to displace the regenerant from the inter-
stices of the ion exchanger bed and also to reduce any residual regenerant
to an acceptable level.  It should be noted that this volume of rinse
would be inadequate for most demineralization processes where waters with
substantially lower dissolved solids are to be produced.  However, in
this case, the process is attempting only to produce a potable water which
may contain relatively high concentrations of dissolved solids.  Thus, it
should be permissible to use the minimum quantity of rinse necessary to
reduce the dissolved solids only to a potable level.  Such a procedure
would minimize the volume of waste effluent and reduce the ionic load to
the ion exchanger.  An additional benefit is obtained by allowing some
of the sodium hydroxide regenerant from the anion exchanger to appear in
the treated water because this effluent will eventually require pH
elevation for manganese removal.  Thus the quantity of chemical needed to
raise the pH would be diminished.
         i       :
On the basis of the capacity data obtained in this study for the strong
acid cation exchanger and weak base anion exchanger, the chemical costs
required to obtain 1,000 gallons of treated effluent from AMD having the
chemical characteristics shown in Table 22 are

        Chemical        Lbs/1000 Gals  @  4/1 b   =   it/1000 Gals

        Sulfuric Acid        17.1         1.57           26.9

        Caustic Soda          9.8         3.7            36.2

        Lime                  0.1         1.0             0.1

                                            Total        63.2<|:

Suifuric acid costs are based upon a tank car cost of $31.50 per ton and
caustic soda costs are based upon a tank car 50% liquid cost of $3.70 per
100 Ibs (78% Na00-100% NaOH basis).
                                70

-------
                           TABLE 24
          Ion Exchange Column Operational Parameters - Strong
          Acid Cation Exchanger (Hydrogen Form)  - Weak Base Anion
          Exchanger (Free Base Form)  Treatment Process
PROCESS

Ion Exchanger Type

Regenerant

  Concentration

  Dosage, Ibs/cu ft

  Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft

  Direction

Rinse

  Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft

  Volume, gals/cu ft

Backwash

  Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft

  Volume, gals/cu ft

Treatment

  Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft

  Direction

  Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft
Cation Exchanger

Strong Acid

Sulfuric Acid

    2*

    3.0

    0.5

Downflow

AMD

    0.5

    7.5

AMD
Anion Exchanger

Weak Base

Caustic Soda

   4%

   3.5

   0.5

Downflow

Cation Effluent

   0.5

   7.5

Cation Effluent
    Depends upon unit dimension.

    Depends upon character of AMD.
    4.0

Downflow

    12.5
   2.0

Downflow

  30.0
                               71

-------
 Figure 8 represents the material balance for the complete treatment
 process with an input of 100,000 gallons of raw AMD.  This illustration
 does not attempt to show the exact quantities of waste materials which
 result from water producing reactions.  For example, the regeneration
 of the weak base anion exchanger involves the following reaction:

     R-NH2 • H2SO^  +  2NaOH —*- R-NH2  +  Na2S04 + 2H20.     (l)

 The water produced by this reaction is included with the solid waste
 weight in Figure 8.  Thus, the actual dehydrated weights of waste
 material may be somewhat lower than that shown.

 Although the ultimate disposal of the waste materials is not within the
 scope of this study,  the fate  of these materials is vital to the
 success of this process.  It would be difficult to speculate on a
 method for treatment  and/or disposal since  it seems likely that such
 methods would be governed by local waste disposal  laws in the area  to
 which the process  is  to  be applied.

 For the most part,  the solid wastes  are water soluble.  The acid waste
 contains  excess acids which if neutralized  by lime,  would produce some
 insoluble wastes.   It seems likely that the remaining water soluble
 wastes  (in solution) would either  have to be hauled to an approved
 disposal  site (if  available) or dewatered and the  solid  material dis-
 posed of  in  some manner  (not known).

 The economic aspects of  neutralizing  and/or hauling the  relatively
 large volume of acid wastes  from the  sulfuric acid  regeneration  could
 wipe  out  its  cost  advantage  over the  hydrochloric acid regeneration.
 The regeneration with hydrochloric acid would produce  approximately
 5000  gallons  of acid wastes  vs  the 12,850 gallons produced  by the
 sulfuric  acid regeneration  (based  upon 100,000  gallons AMD  input).
 Moreover,  the amount of  excess  acidity in the waste  would be  less with
 hydrochloric  acid regeneration  because  it is  more efficient  (reference
 Section 13).  Hydrochloric  acid  wastes  may  be neutralized with calcium
 carbonate because no insoluble materials are  formed  by this reaction.
 It  may be possible to neutralize the  hydrochloric acid wastes partially
with  calcium  carbonate and then  finish  the  neutralizing process  using
 the residual  caustic present in  the caustic waste from the weak  base
 anion^exchanger  regeneration.   Thus a  neutral waste  effluent  contain-
 ing mixed calcium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, sulfate and  chloride
 salts could be  achieved.   We would expect iron to precipitate as the
hydroxide and some calcium sulfate to precipitate when the sodium
sulfate wastes  (from the anion regeneration) are combined with the
calcium chloride wastes  (from the cation regeneration).

It  is recommended that the economics of the hydrochloric acid and
sulfuric acid regeneration be compared through the application of a
pilot plant on an actual  AMD source.  The comparison should consider
the requirement for waste treatment and disposal.
                              72

-------
Acid Mine Drainage
Flow, gpd         100,000
                            Cation Exchanger Effluent
                            Flow, gpd          87,150
Anion Exchanger Effluent
Flow,  gpd            81,530
Substance
         Ibs
                 815
|Mg,C8+Na Sulfates 829
Fe,Al+rtn Sulfates 673
Alkalinity       	0_
        Total  Ibs.
pH      2.35
        1934
I
Substance
H2S04
Mg.Ca+Na Sulfetes
Fe,Al+«in Sulfates
Alkalinity
Total Ibs
pH 1.85
mq/L
1890
54
35
0
Ibs
1580
46
30
0
1656
jSodiun
jHydroxicU
!950 Ibs
Mint i^B
Water -
—•J An ion
1 lExchanaei
Acid Wastes r (12,850 gals.
H2S04, Ibs 700
Mg,Ca+Na Sulfates, Ibs 646
Fe,Al+Mn Sulfates, Ibs 532
Alkalinity, Ibs 0
Total Ibs 1878
Treated Water
Clrm- nnH 82.400
Substance m9/L ibs
*2S04 0 0
,ig,Ca+Na Sulfates 108 90
^e.Al+ton Sulfates 0 0
Alkalinity 24 20
Total Ibs 110
)H 7.50

_Flow, gpd 870
)

Caustic Wa
H2S04
Mg,Ca+Na
Fe,Al+Mn
Alkalinit
T

Filter Effluent
Flow, aod 81,530


Substance
H2S04
Mg,Ca+Na Sulfat
Fe,Al+Un Sulfst
Alkalinity
Total Ibs
pH 9.90
mq/L Ibs
0 0
3S 92 77
BS 0 0
40 33
110

Filtra-
tion


                                                                       Total Ibs
                                                                           Aeratio
                                                                            and
                                                                           Settlinko-
                                                                    Air
                                                        -0
Substance
H2S04
Mg.Ca-t-Na Sul
Fe,Al-»-Mn Sul
Alkalinity
Total
pH 8
gals. )
0
2435
26
40
2501


.00




pH Adjusted
.Flow, gpd
Substance
H2S04
Mg,Ca+Na Su
Fe.Al+Mn Su
Aalinity
Total 1
mq/L ]
0
fates 90
fates 5
30
Ibs. 1
Lbs
0
76
4
25
LOS




Sodium
Hydroxid t 	 *•
B. Ibs
Effluent
81,530 '




mq/L Ibi
0 0
Ifates 90 76
Ifates 5 4
40 33
bs 113
pH 9.90
                                                                                   Solid Wastes
  FIGURE 8.
MATERIAL BALANCE FOR STRONG ACID CATION EXCHANGER (H+ FORM)/
WEAK BASE ANION EXCHANGER (FREE BASE FORM) TREATMENT OF ACID
MINE DRAINAGE
                                                                              Fe&Mn Oxides,  Ibs   _3
                                                                                       Total  Ibs  3

-------
                            SECTION 15

                    COMPLETE PROCESS EVALUATION
       WEAK BASE ANION EXCHANGER (BICARBONATE FORM)/LIME TREATMENT
This complete treatment process utilizes the special weak base anion
exchanger (Rohm & Haas' IRA-68) in the bicarbonate form.  This process
was discussed briefly in Section 11 and was found to produce an
effluent containing essentially bicarbonate salts of the divalent metal
ions which were originally present in the raw AMD.  A complete treatment
process for the production of a potable water would require additional
treatment of the weak base anion effluent.

Two alternative treatment methods are available for completing this
process.  One treatment involves the addition of lime to precipitate
iron, calcium, magnesium and manganese  (equations 3, 4, 5 and 6 of
Section 11).  A second treatment method utilizes a weak acid cation
exchanger in the hydrogen form to absorb only divalent metal ions
associated with alkalinity.  Weak acid  cation exchangers do not have
the ability to  "split" neutral salts.   Thus, these compounds remain
unchanged in solution after being subjected to this treatment.
Equation 1 illustrates the reaction which occurs with alkaline
(bicarbonate) salts.

     Ca(HCO,J   +  2R-COOH -»- (R-COO)0Ca  +  2H0C07             (l)
           j 2     	      	•*-—       ^  °
The carbonic acid formed in equation  1  can dissociate to form water
and carbon dioxide in  subsequent aeration processes  (equation 2).

                                                                 (2)

The regeneration process for the weak acid cation exchanger is carried
out by  contacting the  exchanger with  a  strong mineral acid solution
such as sulfuric acid  (equation 3).

     (R-COO) Ca  +   H  SO  —•- 2R-COOH  + CaS04                  (3)

As was  necessary when  regenerating  the  strong  acid  cation  exchanger,  the
sulfuric acid regenerant solution must  be maintained  at 2% or  less  in
order  to prevent calcium sulfate precipitation.   Because of the  favor-
able selectivity for hydrogen  ion by  the weak  acid  cation  exchanger,
regenerant  utilization is  very nearly 100%.   It  is  customary  to  apply
110% of the  theoretical  acid dosage to  weak  acid  cation exchangers.

Figure 7  is  a  schematic  representation  of  these  two complete  processes.
Post treatment  No.  1 consists  of the  weak  acid cation treatment  and
subsequent  lime treatment  of the  IRA-68 effluent.   Post treatment No. 2
consists  of aeration,  liming and  filtration  of the  IRA-68  effluent.
                                75

-------
                                      TABLE 25

                     Typical Effluent Analyses During Each Step of the
                     AMD Treatment with a Weak Base Anion Exchanger (Bi-
                     carbonate Form), a Weak Acid Cation Exchanger (Hy-
                     drogen Form), Aeration, Liming and Filtration (Run 121)
 pH
 Ferrous Iron, ppm Fe
 Ferric Iron, ppm Fe
 Calcium, ppm Ca
 Magnesium, ppm Mg
 Aluminum, ppm Al
 Manganese, ppm Mn
 Sodium, pprn Na
 Sulfate, ppm 804
 Alkalinity, ppm CaC03
 FMA, ppm CaC03
 Ion Exchange Capacity
     Kgrs/cu ft
 % Regenerant Utilization
Untreated
    AMD
    2.45
  210
   10
  190
   28
   15
    8.3
    0.9
 1430

  490
Weak Base
Anion Effluent
      6.80
     90
     20
    185
     28
      5
      8.1
      1.8
    105
    500
                   25.2*
                   91
Weak Acid
Cation Effluent
     4.05
     0.4
     0.2
     0.7
     0.4
     1
     0.06
     1.2
    13
                       7.7**
                      26
After aera-
tion, liming
& filtering
    10.9
     0.0
     0.0
    17
     0.3
     1
     0.03
     1.1
     6
    40
 *Based upon a loading factor of 58.0 grains/gallon (influent FMA concentration plus
  effluent alkalinity concentration).

**Based upon a loading factor of 29.0 grains/gallon (influent alkalinity concentration).
                                      TABLE 26

                     Weak Acid Cation  Exchanger Capacity and Regen-
                     erant Utilization vs  Sulfuric Acid Dosage
               Sulfuric  Acid Dosage,  Ibs/cu ft
               Sulfuric  Acid Dosage,  Kgrs/cu ft
               Ion  Exchange Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft
               % Regenerant Utilization
                                 2.05
                                14.6
                                 7.1
                                49
                             4.1
                            29.2
                             7.2
                            25
                    8.2
                   58.4
                    7.4
                   13
                                       76

-------
The weak acid cation exchanger used in the No. 1 post treatment study
was manufactured by the Rohm & Haas Company and is designated by them
as IRC-84.  The Rohm and Haas Company recommends that regeneration of
this exchanger be accomplished by passing a 0.5% solution of sulfuric
acid downflow through the ion exchanger bed at a flow rate of 1 gpm/
cu ft.  A 30 minute rinse was applied at the same flow rate and
direction after the regenerant was passed through.

The IRA-68 ion exchanger was regenerated with sodium hydroxide and con-
verted to the bicarbonate form using the same procedure as was used in
the study described in Section 11.

When a lime treatment was applied, the lime was added either at the
beginning or just prior to the end of the aeration process.  Then, the
mixture was allowed to settle for a 30 minute period followed by passage
of the supernatant through a 5 micron filter.

Treatment processes through the ion exchanger columns were carried out
at flow rates of 2 gpm/cu ft.  The weak base anion exchanger was
operated upflow and the weak acid cation exchanger (when used) was
operated downflow during the treatment cycle.

This evaluation has demonstrated that the process involving the weak
acid cation exchanger treatment has the ability to produce a potable
effluent.  However, this process is more costly than the treatment
involving only aeration, liming and filtration.  This  may have been
due in part to our inability to achieve the regenerant efficiency which
is predicted for the weak acid cation exchanger.

The process involving aeration and lime treatment also has the ability
to produce a potable product and has shown to be comparable to the
strong acid cation/weak base anion process insofar as chemical costs are
concerned.

Table 25 shows the characteristics of the waters before and after each
treatment step when post treatment No. 1  (weak acid cation exchanger)
was used.  These data illustrate the ability of this treatment process
to produce a potable effluent provided a final pH correction step was
applied.  Although the process appears successful from the water
quality standpoint, the capacity obtained by the weak acid cation ex-
changer was approximately 1/4 that which would be expected from the
amount of regenerant applied.  This ion exchanger has an operating
capacity of about 60 Kgrs/cu ft.  Thus, there was no concern that we
were operating too near its maximum capacity.

A  study was made to determine the effect on  capacity by variations  of
the sulfuric acid regenerant dosage.  Table  26 shows results of this
study and indicates that variations of regenerant dosage have  no
affect on capacity.  These data indicate that the weak acid  cation
exchanger probably does not have the kinetic  capabilities  to handle
-.he alkalinity load imposed by this type of  water at practical flow


                               77

-------
                                            TABLE 27    (Run 122)
Typical Effluent Analyses During Each Step of the AMD Treatment With A Weak  Base  Anion Ex-
changertBicarbonate Form), Aeration,  Liming and Filtration (100JK Ferrous)
pH
Iron, ppm Fe"1"*"
Iron, ppm Fe
Magnesium, ppm Mg"1"1"
Calcium, ppm Ca44
Manganese, ppm Mn44
Aluminum, ppm Al444
Sodium, ppm Na+
Sulfate, ppm S04=
Alkalinity, ppm CaC03
FMA, ppm CaC03

Typical Effluent Analysis
changer (Bicarbonate Form)
pH
Iron, ppm Fe44
Iron, ppm Fe444
Magnesium, ppm Mg44
Calcium, ppm Ca"*"1"
Manganese, ppm Mn"*"1"
1 1 i
Aluminum, ppm Al
Sodium, ppm Na+
Sulfate, ppm S04=
Alkalinity, ppm CaC03
FMA, ppm CaC03
Raw
AMD
2.5
179
21
28
180
8.0
15
0.9
1460
—
495
TABLE 28
Weak Base
Effluent
6.8
98
32
27
180
7.8
4
1.3
75
675
—
(Run 128)
After Aeration, Liming
Settling & Filterina
10.1
0.0
0.0
15
17
0.01
0.0
1.3
70
35.0
—

During Each Step of the AMD Treatment With A Weak Base Anion
.Aeration, Liming and Filtration ( 100# Ferric)
Raw
AMD
2.3
0.5
200
28
200
7.7
13
1.0
1670
--
1105
Weak Base
Efflunet
6.3
0.1
48
27
200
6.8
4
2.0
93
540
--












Ex-
After Aeration, Liming
Settling & Filterina
9.9
0.0
0.0
9
16.0
0.00
0
2.0
54
25.0
--











                                           78

-------
rates.  In view of these results, the study of this post treatment pro-
cess was abandoned.

The treatment process involving aeration, liming and filtration after
weak base anion exchange  (bicarbonate form) is capable of producing a
potable effluent as presented in Tables 27 and 28.  Table 27 shows the
character of the effluents before and after each treatment step when
the influent (raw AMD) iron was essentially 100% ferrous, while Table
28 shows the results obtained when the influent iron was nearly 100%
ferric.  Product water in either case was suitable for human consumption
with the exception of pH.  Correction of pH could be accomplished
simply by feeding approximately 10-15 ppm of an acid.

Tables 94 through 97 show the characteristics of the final treated
effluent (without pH correction) produced by successive runs on each
complete treatment process.  Table 94 shows the results of bicarbonate
form weak base anion - lime treatment with an AMD influent containing
essentially 100% ferrous iron.  The treated effluent obtained on each
of the six cycles would be suitable for human consumption after pH
correction.  A capacity in excess of 30.0 Kgrs/cu ft was obtained.

Table 95 shows results of the same treatment process when treating an
AMD containing essentially 100% ferric iron.  Potable treated effluents
were obtained from each of the six runs also.  However, a lower
capacity of the weak base anion exchanger was observed.  Subsequent
cost calculations and plant designs were based upon the 30.0 Kgr/cu ft
capacity value.  However, application of this process to waters con-
taining large concentrations of ferric iron could require a slight
reassessment of the size of the weak base anion exchanger quantities
and the cost of producing the treated water.

Tables 96 and 97 show results of the complete treatment process utiliz-
ing a bicarbonate form weak base anion exchanger followed by a hydrogen
form weak acid cation exchanger on AMD solutions containing 100% ferrous
iron and 100% ferric iron respectively.  In all runs the weak acid
cation effluent was limed to a pH of 9.9 or above to precipitate
manganese.  No pH correction was carried out.  Since this treatment
process was not an economic success, this data is presented for academic
interest only.

It was determined during the course of this investigation that con-
siderable savings in lime consumption could be achieved by aerating
the weak base anion effluent prior to the addition of lime.  The
reason for this is probably related to iron oxidation reactions which
produce water and carbon dioxide (equation 4).

     2Fe(HC03)2  +  £02  +  5H20 —»-.2Fe(OH)3 + 4H 20 + 4C02      (4)

If lime were added prior to aeration, some of the lime would react with
the free C02 as illustrated by equation 5,
                               79

-------
     Ca(OH)    +  CO —»~CaCO   +  HO                             (5)
          ^2         o       ^_
 Although  we  were able  to  reduce the lime  requirement  by  aerating prior
 to  lime addition,  we were not  able  to approach  the  theoretical  require-
 ment  for  lime.   Our results  have indicated  that 15  pounds  of  lime  would
 be  needed to produce 1000 gallons  of  treated  effluent whereas only 3.2
 pounds should be needed at 100% reactivity.   An investigation of this
 lime  inefficiency was  beyond the scope of the project.

 A practical  lime consumption estimate of 3.5  pounds per  1000 gallons of
 treated effluent has been calculated  based  upon calcium  bicarbonate and
 magnesium bicarbonate  concentrations  only.  It  has  been  assumed that
 iron  and  aluminum will already be  in  the precipitated form following the
 aerator.  Alkalinity will also have been diminished by an  equivalent
 amount while  free  carbon  dioxide content should  be  negligible.

 Therefore, precipitation  of  calcium and magnesium from their bicarbonate
 salts requires respectively  one  and two equivalents of lime as  shown in
 equations 6,  7 and  8.

    CaO   +   H20  -*- Ca(OH)2                                       (6)

    Ca(HCO,)0  +  Ca(OH)_  —*—  2CaCO  +   2H 0                   (7)
          o £           2.             3        2

    Mg(HC03)2  +  2Ca(OH)2 —*-  M2lOH_)2 +   2CaC03 + 2H20           (a)

 The requirements  for lime  (90% CaO) are calculated  as follows, where
 ppm*  is expressed  as CaCO^ equivalents.

    ppm* Ca(HCCL)   x 28 (eg wt CaO)    x     1        = ppm of 90%  CaO
                     50 (eq wt CaCOg)   0.9 (purity)

 A dosage of one  pound in  1000  gallons will  provide a concentration of
 120 ppm.   Therefore, dividing  ppm by  120 expresses the requirement in
 "pounds per 1000 gallons".  Thus, each ppm  of calcium (expressed as
CaC03), will require 0.00519 pounds of 90%  CaO  per 1000 gallons.

    1 ppm Ca(HCO  )  x 28 x  1  x  1   -  0.0519
                      50   0.9   120

Each ppm of magnesium (expressed as CaCOg) will  require twice as much;
or,  0.01038 pounds  of 90% CaO  per 1000 gallons.  These factors for
determining the  lime requirements have been used in subsequent calcu-
 lations involving this process.

    Calcium concentration = 450 ppm CaCO

                            450 x 0.00519 = 2.34 Ibs 90% CaO
                              80

-------
    Magnesium Concentration = 112 ppm CaCO,.
                                          O

                              112 x 0.01038 = 1.16 Ibs  90% CaO

    Total lime requirement per 1000 gal     = 3.50 Ibs  90% CaO

Puring the course of this investigation,  the information displayed in
Table 29 was obtained.  The capacity of the IRA-68 was  an average
obtained over ten regeneration-exhaustion cycles treating an AMD
solution containing essentially 100% ferrous iron and also containing
500-550 ppm of FMA.  When synthetic AMD solutions containing 100%
ferric iron were used, the FMA content was increased to 1000-1100 ppm
in order to effect the solution of ferric sulfate.  The capacity of the
IRA-68 exchanger over 12 complete exhaustion-regeneration cycles with
this AMD solution was only 23.3 Kgrs/cu ft.  These values indicate
that there will be some variations in capacity depending upon FMA
loading.  However, the 30 Kgr/cu ft value was selected for application
to the standard AMD solution prepared with 100% ferrous iron.

On the basis of the capacity data obtained above, the approximate
chemical costs required to obtain 1000 gallons of treated effluent
from AMD having the chemical characteristics shown in Table 25 are as
follows:

      Chemical         Lbs/1000 Gallons   @ 
-------
                          TABLE 29
Ion Exchange Column Operational Parameters - Weak Base Anion
Exchanger (Bicarbonate Form)/Lime Treatment
Process

Ion Exchange Type

Regenerants
  NaOH Dosage, Ibs/cu ft
  Concentration,  %
  Flow  Rate, gpm/cu ft
  Direction
  CC>2 Dosage, Ibs/cu ft
  Concentration
  Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft
  Direction

Rinse
  Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft
  Volume, gals/cu ft

Backwash
  Flow Rate, gpm/cu ft
  Volume, gals/cu ft
                                                  Weak  Base Anion
                                                     Exchanger

                                                      IRA-68
                                                      4.0
                                                      4
                                                      0.5
                                                      Downf low
                                                      3.3
                                                      Variable
                                                      0.5
                                                      Downf low
                                                      0.5
                                                      7.5
  Treatment
    Flow Rate,  gpm/cu ft
    Direction
    Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft

  Lime
    Lbs/1000 gals

 ^Depends upon tank dimension.
**Depends upon influent AMD
  characteristics.
                                                    2.0
                                                    Upflow
                                                   30.0
                                                    3.5
                        82

-------
oo
co
         Acid Mine Drainage
         Flow
                100,000
                       Anion Exchanger Effluent
                       Flow, qpd          100,000
Substance »q/L Ibs
H2S04 348 290
Ca, *»9+Na Sulfates 750 625
Fe,Al+Mn Sulfates 680 567
Alkalinity 0 0
Total Ibs 1482
pH 2.50
Carbon
Dioxide
760 Ibs


Anion

Exchanger
Substance »q/l Ibs
H2S04 0 0
Ca,Mg+Na Sulfates 91 76
Fe,Al+Mn Sulfates 0 0
Alkalinity 1120 935
Total Ibs 1011
pH 6.80
                                                                                                      Aerator
               Sodium
              -lydr oxide
               1035 Ibs
                        Dilution
                        Water
                                                 J
                                      Caustic Waste  f  (4720 gals)
                                           I
                                                    Air
                                                       J
                              Mg,Ca+Na Sulfates
                              Fe,Al+Mn Sulfates
                              Alkalinity
                                     Total Ibs
                     0
                  2162
                     0
                   104
                  2266
          Tr««t«d Effluent
          Flow, gpd          89,080
          Substance
                 mq/L    Ibs
Ca,Mg+Na Sulfates 111
Fe,Al+Mn Sulfates   0
Alkalinity         42
     Total Ibs
pH   7.50
                                     0
                                    93
                                     0
                                   _35
                                   128
                                    Flow
        gpd
93,800
                                              Substance
                  mq/L    Ibs
H2S04                0      0
Ca,Mg+Na Sulfates   86     72
Fe,Al+hn Sulfates    0      0
Alkalinity          57     48
     Total Ibs            120
pH   10.00
                                                                                              Solids Contact Reactor
          FIGURE   9     MATERIAL BALANCE FOR WEAK BASE ANION EXCHANGER (BICARBONATE
                         FORM)/LIME TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
Solids Wastes (6200 fqals)
Solids, Ibs
Total Ibs
1241
1241


-------
                            SECTION 16

             TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN - TWO RESIN SYSTEM
The system considered in this section is designed to treat acid mine
drainage to produce a water which will meet the mineral requirements
for potable water.  The system used two resins, employing a strongly
acidic cation exchange resin followed by a weakly basic anion exchange
resin and post treatment.  Supporting laboratory work for this process
has been previously discussed.  Sections 8, 10 and 13 discussed the
individual resins, while Section 14 discussed the complete process for
production of potable water.

The design parameters for plants employing this process were presented
in Table 24.  Those parameters have been used to design plants for the
treatment of acid mine drainage water.  Plants of three sizes have
been designed; namely, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 MGD (million gallons per day).

Summary of Costs;

Cost estimates have been made for the three plants which were designed
under this project.  The costs are presented for each plant later in
this section, but the costs are summarized here.

Figure 10 shows the effect of plant size on treatment costs for this
two resin system as well as for the modified Desal system.  The cost
data were totaled from the individual costs detailed in this and the
following section.  Equipment, installation labor and ion exchange
materials were amortized over ten years.

Figure 11 is a plot of the equipment costs, in hundreds of thousands
of dollars for the various size plants to treat AMD by this two resin
system.  These prices are for the equipment listed in the detailed
specifications, but exclude freight, building and land, assembly and
erection.

Figure 12 is a plot of the estimated chemical operating costs, in
hundreds of dollars per day for the plants to treat the AMD by the two
resin system.  All utility costs are excluded.

Figures 13 and 14 plot, respectively, the estimated erection labor costs
for the electrical and plumbing requirements.  These costs are based
upon our plant designs.

General Discussion of Plants:

The AMD treatment system is fully automatic.  Ion exchange and filtra-
tion are used to produce potable water from acid mine drainage contain-
ing excessive amounts of iron and sulfuric acid.  The process  is
essentially one of partial deionization, followed by oxidation, then


                                85

-------
 Treatment
  costs
cents per
1000 gal
            100
             80
             60
             40
             20
              0
               0
             \
              Two resin
              ystem
0.2
 0.4         0.6

Plant size, MED
0.8
                                                                           1.0
               Figure 10  Effect  of  plant  size  on  treatment  costs.   Includes
                          equipment  and installation labor amortized over  ten
                          years,  plus  chemical regeneration  costs.   Land,
                          building,  labor,  utilities, interest  costs excluded.

                                    86

-------
Equipment
costs, in
hundreds of
thousands
of dollars
           0.2
0.4
0.6
0,8
1.0
                  Plant size, in MGD

 Figure 11.    Cost estimates for unassembled, unerected
 equipment to treat AMD by the Two Resin System.

                        87

-------
           10
           8
Chemical
costs,
$/day,
in hundreds
               0
0.2        0.4         0.6

         Plant size,  in MGD
0.8
1,0
                  Figure 12     Estimates of daily chemical operating costs
                  to treat AMD by the Two Resin System.
                                 88

-------
10
 8
    Electrical
    costs,  in
    thousands
    of dollars
 0
             0.2
  0.4         0.6

Plant size,  in MGD
0.8
1.0
        Figure  13     Estimates of electrical labor costs
        for erection of plants to treat AMD by the Two Resin
        System.
                             89

-------
               42
               36
               30
               24
Plumbing costs
in thousands of
dollars
               18
               12
                         7
                                              .,•
                              0.2
0.4
0.6
                                                                  0.8
                                                                              1.0
                                      Plant  size  in MOD.
                      Figure 14   -   Estimates of plumbing  labor  costs  for
                      assembly and erection of plants to treat AMD by the Two
                      Resin System.
                                       90

-------
filtration, and finally pH adjustment.

The equipment will consist essentially of two or more pressure vessels
(tanks) containing cation exchange resin, two or more tanks containing
anion exchange resin, one aerator, and two or more tanks containing
granular minerals for final filtration of the product water.

The operation of this treatment system is predicated on the assumption
that the AMD will be supplied to the system at a pressure of 75-100
pounds per square inch, will be free of turbidity, and will conform to
the raw AMD analysis given elsewhere in this report.

The raw AMD first passes downflow through the cation exchange vessels
for removal of most of the polyvalent cations.  (Total removal of these
cations is not obtained until the process is completed.)  Cation leakage
occurs because low regeneration levels are used to increase operating
efficiency, thereby decreasing the operating costs.  Equipment costs
are reduced by designing the plant to regenerate each cation  (or anion)
exchange vessel several times a day.

Each cation and anion exchange vessel will be provided with a con-
ductivity monitor to measure effluent quality.  When the conductivity
reaches a predetermined value, the monitor will automatically remove
that vessel from service and initiate the regeneration process.  Several
regenerations will occur each day.  When an  ion exchange vessel is being
regenerated, the full service load will be maintained through the units
remaining in service.  An interlock system will be provided so that not
more than one exchange vessel can be  regenerated at a time.  When
regeneration is complete, the vessel  will automatically return to
service (or standby).

Regeneration of the  ion exchange  resins will  result in a waste which
must be treated before disposal.  The regenerant effluent  strength will
be  too highly mineralized for reuse.   Regenerant rinse time is minimized
in  view of the high  ionic content of  the effluent during service.
Therefore, no  "rinse tailings" are  available for possible  reuse.  While
it  is not  a part of  this  study or plant  design, all of the  backwash
wastes, regenerant wastes,  and rinse  water  should be  collected in a
common waste lagoon.

During regeneration, the  ion exchange resins must  first be  backwashed.
This will  remove  insolubles which have been  physically  removed by
filtration during  service.  The  cation exchange resin will  be backwashed
with  acid  mine drainage.

The cation exchange  resins  will  be  regenerated  downflow with  2%  sulfuric
acid.  An  acid-resistant  pump will  transfer  66°  Be  sulfuric acid  from
the bulk storage  facilities.   Dilution water will  be  AMD.   A conductiv-
ity meter  will  continuously indicate  the percent  strength  of  dilute
regenerant acid  influent  to the  vessel during regeneration.  Regenerant
rinse  water will  be  AMD.   The  regeneration  steps  will all  be time

                                  91

-------
controlled.  At the completion of rinse, the regenerated cation exchange
vessel will return to service automatically.

In the second step of the AMD treatment process,  the effluent from the
cation exchanger passes downflow through the multiple anion exchange
vessels where the mineral acids are removed.  In addition to treating
water for product, these anion exchangers will supply rinse water for
the final filters.

The anion exchange resin will be regenerated downflow with 4% caustic
soda (sodium hydroxide).  A caustic resistant pump will transfer 50%
caustic solution from the bulk storage facilities.  The caustic will
be diluted to the desired 4% solution with the treated effluent from the
cation exchange vessels.  A conductivity indicator will indicate the
percent concentration of the regenerant as it is introduced to the anion
exchanger.  The regeneration will be time controlled.  At the completion
of the rinse, the regenerated anion exchanger will return to service or
standby automatically.

The product from the anion exchangers still contains objectionable
amounts of manganese.  This is precipitated by raising the pH to about
10 and aerating.  The pH adjustment uses a chemical feed pump to add
sodium hydroxide solution.  The feed rate is pH controlled.  Aeration is
in a standard tray-type forced draft aerator, with air blown upward to
intimately contact the downward flow of water.  This counterflow design
assures oxidation of iron and manganese, which precipitate at the
elevated pH.  This aerator, rather than surface aeration, is selected
for its greater efficiency.

Water dropping through the aerator is collected in a reservoir, sized to
retain about five minutes flow.  The reservoir float control will
regulate the inlet valve to the aerator, thereby maintaining the water
level in the reservoir.  This level will be subject to significant
changes only when the filters are backwashed once a day.

A pump transfers the aerated water from the reservoir to the multiple
high velocity filters for final filtration.  The filtered water will
require pH reduction to meet the requirements of potable water.  To
accomplish this, a small amount of treated water from the cation ex-
changers will be blended with filtered effluent.  A pH recorder/controller
will control the cation exchanger effluent to maintain the proper final
pH level.

The filters will be backwashed with treated water from the cation
exchangers.  The conditioning rinse, prior to returning to service is
from the aerator clear well (as in service).  The backwash and rinse
effluents will be sent to the waste lagoon.  The backwash and rinse
operations will be time controlled, automatically initiated once a day
for each filter.  Filters are so sized that removal of one filter from
service will not overload the system, nor interrupt the product flow  of
water.

                              92

-------
Materials of construction were chosen in accordance with accepted
standards for the ion exchange industry.  PVC pipe has not been used
because of inherent physical weakness in the pipe sizes used.  Stain-
less steel pipe has not been used because of its excessive cost,
compared to saran lined steel.  The latter has been proven to be
thoroughly acceptable in such applications.  Concentrated sulfuric
acid is shipped and stored in unlined steel tanks:  moisture must be
avoided during storage; therefore, air vents must include a desiccant.
Caustic soda solutions are stored in unlined steel containers -
corrosion is negligible.

Individual Plant Specifications;

Plant to produce 0.1 MGD;

The equipment will consist essentially of two cation exchange vessels,
two anion exchange vessels, one aerator, and two final filters.

The plant is designed to produce a nominal 100,000 gallons per day of
water with mineral content not exceeding that specified for potable
water.  It is anticipated that there will be 20,900 gpd waste solutions,
This volume will contain approximately 620 pounds of 100% sulfuric acid,
The treatment and disposal of this material is not included in this
study, but consideration of this problem should be in the overall
concept of the project, and may be a major cost item.

The detailed specifications on the equipment for this 0.1 MGD plant  are*

    Table 30   Hydrogen Cation Exchangers  (Regenerations total 6/day)
    Table 31   Anion Exchangers  (Regenerations total 6/day)
    Table 32   Forced Draft Degasifier or Aerator
    Table 33   Pressure Filters
    Table 34   Miscellaneous  Items and Exclusions
    Figure 15  Flow Diagram
    Figure 16  Plant Plan

Chemical Operation costs are  estimated as  follows:

    Sulfuric acid, 66°  Be,  1,728  Ib/day, $0.016/lb = $27.65
    Caustic soda, 987  Ib/day, $0.37/lb             =  36.52
                     Total, $/day                  = $64.17

Cost estimates for the  equipment  as  specified in  Tables 30 through  34
for this 0.1 MGD size  plant,  excluding  freight, building  and  land,  and
assembly and erection,  total  $106,000.

Cost estimates for erection have  been made  as follows:

    Electrical         $6,200
    Plumbing            2,000
                               93

-------
 PERF-OKMANCE:
                                       TABLE  30
                     HYDROGEN CATION  EXCHANGERS
                         DETAILED  SPECIFICATIONS, 0.1  MGD
 ToVal System
 Total influent cation1;, yp
-------
Control System
                                TABLE 30A
                 HYDROGI-N CATION EXCHANGERS cor.tinued
                     DETAILED  SPECIFICATIONS,  0.1 MGD
Control
Initiation of regeneration
Backwash control

Auxiliaries
Metci, si?c nnd type
Meter register
Interconnecting piping between multiple units, inlet &
Pressuie gauges                        outlet
Sample cocks
Cpnduct a nee Ratio Meter
   LL Stop On Va 1 ve
None
3" Saran Lined
Chemical SealJType
1 Pair  Per Unit
ReqeneratkiLiERuir.-irient

Typo of recjencraiii introduction
Regenerant introduction strength
Regcnerciit tank size       bulk  storage
Material of construction
Pump	
       Dia  x 8  Ft
Unlined Steel
        R ^f1" if
Volts, Hertz, Phase
APDiTIONAL SPCCiriCATIOISiS:

Conductance  ratio bridges  to determine
      end of  cycle
Special sampling manifolds for ratio
      bridges
Solu-Bridge  to  monitor  acid regenerant
      strength with selector switch and
      two cells
Bypass type  rate of flow meter on each
      unit
Horizontal acid storage tank for concrete
      saddles
Regenerant acid piping  system
Waste discharge inter-connecting heads
Special Milton  Roy Acid Pump, 1/2 HP  -
      T. E. Motor
2 -  Model RE-18G
Screened Header-Lateral-PVC
Model  RD-226C	

Included	

Included	
1/2" Carpenter  20  SS
3"  Saran Lined

34  qph	

-------
                                          TABLE  31
                                ANION EXCHANGERS
                             DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS,  0.1  MGD
PERFORMANCE:

Total System
Total influent exchangeable ariions, gpg as
Design flow rate, gpm
Operating water pressure, psig
Number of units
                                                     84.0
                                                    "70
                                                     50
                                                    Two
 Per Unit_
 Design flow rate, gpm
 Peak flow rate, gpm
 Backwash rate, gpm
 Anion exchange material, type
                     quantity, cu. ft.
                     capacity, Kcjr per cu. ft.
                     capacity, Kcjr per unit
 Gallons treated per regeneration
 Regcnerant, type
          quantity per regeneration
Model Number

Tanks

Tank diameter
Straiijht side of tank
De-sign working pressure of tank
External surface
f.'ink lining, matoriyl and thickness
Tank supports
Access opening(s)

Internals
Inlet distributor, design and materials
R'-Kjentrant distributor, design and materials
Untlordi jin system, design and materials
Sup polling bed

Pipin
Main piping size
Main piping material
Main v;ilving air.jno,ement
Main valvii'Kj material
Table continued on  next  page
                                                    _70__
                                                    70
                                                   _
                                                   "30
                                                  _
                                               16,785
                                                 y_L.'
                                               N_aOH-50j; ...LiguM.
                                               	25j.8_galjifl5 ib,  100$)
                                               None
                                               __ 48" _____
                                                _I.96".._I _____ I"_
                                               -1 00  psi Non-Code
                                               Prime Painted
                                                        ''
                                                     .
                                               Adjustable  Jacks
                                               12""  x 16"  Manhole
                                               PVC  Header  LaJbea 1
                                               PyCJieader'lLa teira 1
                                               Silica  Gravel
                                                  -
                                               Saran Joined  Steel
                                               Ne st_ _qf _ Di aphra^m  Type
                                               Saran  Lined._Ca_st_ Iron
                                    96

-------
                       TABLE 31A
               ANION  EXCHANGERS continued
             DETAILED  SPECIFICATIONS,  0.1 MGD
Control System
                                    Automatic ___ _
                                    Conductance Ratio Meter
                                      -Jd-LL Stop on  Valve
                                     None
                                     Included
Control
Initiation of regeneration
Backwash control

Auxiliaries

Meter, si/e and type
Meier legislei
Inteiconnecting piping between multiple units
Pressure rjougcs    (inlet  &  outlet)
Sample cocks
Conductivity instrument, type
                   manufacturer
                   model number

Regeneration Equipment

Type of  regenerbnt introduction
Ri'tjenerarn introduction strength             _5	
Regent-rant tank size, inches,  bulk storage  5 ft dia x__Ll_f_t_
Matftrinl of ron'tnirttinn                   Unllne_d Steel	
                                     Chemical Seal  Type
                                     1  Pair Per  Unit
                                     Conductance Ratio
                                     Beckman	
                                     RE-18G
                                     Pump
Electrical Requirements

Volts, Hem, Phase

ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS:
                                     115/60/1
                                     Screened.  PVC Header  Lateral
Special  sampling manifolds for
    ratio bridges                      	
Solu-Bridge to monitor caustic
    regenerant strength with
    2  cells and selector switch   Model RD-227C
Bypass rate of flow meter on
    each unit
Caustic  storage tank for con-
    crete saddles
Regenerant caustic  piping system  3/4""Wrought Steel
Special  Milton Roy  Caustic Pump,
    1/2  HP T. E. Motor
Inlet  headers for cation effluent 3" Saran  Lined
Outlet header for anion effluent  3" Wrought Steel
Waste  discharge inter-connecting
    headers                         3" Saran  Lined
                                     Included
                                     Included
                                     78 gph
                               97

-------
                                    TABLE  32

              FORCED DRAFT  DEGASIFIERS OR  AERATOR
                   DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS, 0.1 MGD
PERFORMANCE:
Total System,

Function
lnfiueiit.iron.&_.mangane.se..
Influtjnt temperature. 'F.
De;ifj(i flcuv rate, gpm
Walur piesiure at inlet
Number of units
content,
Aeration
.?IL _""-—"
Ambient.
  '™'"
                  1.5 j?si	
                  One    	
Per Unit

Design flow rate, gpm
Peak flow rate, gpm

SPECIFICATIONS:

Townr

Si/e of tower
Height of tower
Materials of construction
                  ZQ
                  70.
                  36"	
                  144"	
                  Fir Staves
Internals

Material of packing
Depth of packing
Inlet distributor, design and materials
Support, design and materials
                  Redwood  Trays
                  _9_fi	
                  PVC Header Latera1
                  Wood	
Auxiliaries
Blower, type
       capacity, cfm
       static head, inches H^O
Motor, type
      voltage, current, phases
Level control, type - for  reservoir
Inlet valve, type
         material of construction
         size
                  Centrifugal
                  840	
                  2"
                  1 HP  -  OOP	
                  230-460/60/3	
                  Modulating "Leve11rol"
                  Modulated	
                  Cast  Iron, SS_Trim
                  1-T72"._	]	
Concrete reservoir  below floor level
Low water float  switch for  pump
    safety cutoff
Forwarding pump,  70 gpm §  100-120 TDH,
    7.5 HP-ODP Motor, all  stainless
    construction
                         98
                   Not Included
                   Included
                   Included

-------
TABLE 33
PRESSURE FILTERS
DETAILED  SPECIFICATIONS, ..0.1, ,MGD
PERr-ORiViANCt;:

     Total System
     Design flow rate, ijpm
     Operating wcicr prrssure, psig
     Number of units
     Type of units

     Per Unit
     Design flow rate, cjprn
     Peak f low rate, ppm
     Design rutc, gpni/ft2 of filter area
     Backwash rate, ppm
     Filter media, type
                 
-------
                                      TABLE 33A

                                      ^L FILTERS (Cont'c!)
liitorc;i-i;,iii_'.:tii
PiessuiT: fiatine
Sample cocks
i.'j piping
                        viiii! multiple units
_?." Wrought Steel
 2_Pa i r_In c_lude_d
 2 Pair  Included
    Ploctrrr,;i|
    Volt 7
    Hertz
    Phase
ADDITIONAL SI'ECIFICATIOWS:

 Bypass  type rate  of flow meter,  two on  each unit
 Waste Discharge  inter-connecting headers
                                                         Included
                                                         3" PVC
                                      100

-------
                               TABLE 34
                       MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS INCLUDED:

                       Detailed Specifications,  0.1 MGD
Air compressor for all plant control  needs
Modulating pH meter,  alarm,  pH flow cells and electrodes
    with milliamp output to control pH adjustment pump
Modulating pH meter as above but with transducer added
    for 3-15 psi air signal to control final acid
    blending - neutralizing valve
Two-pen strip chart records for pH instruments
Alloy 20 blending valve for cation effluent, which controls
    to modulate feed from 3-15 psi air signal
Caustic feed pump to adjust pH prior to aeration, equipped
    with controller station to modulate feed from milliamp
    input
All inter-plant piping needed to inter-connect ion exchange
    units, aerator and filters with saran lining steel, and
    black wrought steel, and PVC, of various sizes
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The following items are specifically excluded;

1.  The building, its foundations, concrete reservoir below aerator
2.  Auxiliary plumbing and plumbing fixtures for the building
3.  Electrical wiring of building and connections between electrical
    controls:  costs separately estimated
4.  All pump starters:  costs separately estimated
                               101

-------
                       /           \    ,•	u-t^u-
                       ICG»JC£>rSATEQ ACID V  IX I i f^K	SEOENtSANf C ONCENTRariON
                                             [\     UONITOS
O
 .
             AMD WATER
           STRONG ACID CATION

            EXCHANGERS
           WEAK StASE ANION

            EXCHANGERS
           HIGH VELOCITY

             DEPTH FILTERS
                               • TO WASTE LAGOliN
                          FIGURE  15.   AMD Treatment Plant Flow  Diagram,  2-Resin  System  0.1  MGD

-------
                                                                    ACID  TANK

                                                                     6OX 96
                                                                                         •LIMESTONE SAFETY  NEUTRALIZATION PIT
O
CO
                                       CAUSTIC TANK
                                         60 X 112
                                       CAUSTIC PUMP
                                                                                         ACID PUMP
                                                                                               CONTROL
                                                                                                 CABINET
                                                                                                                    OFFICE » LAB
                                                                       CHEMICAL FEED I	Hill   BELOW         '  ;
                                                                           PUMP   I	HJ|I lOXIO'XT1      | I1---*
                                                                      	      ll
I I
                                                                                                                                             29-0'
                                   FIGURE  16.    AMD Treatment Plant Plan,  2-Resin  system, 0.1  MOD

-------
Plant to produce 0.5 MGD;

The equipment will consist essentially of two cation exchange vessels,
two anion exchange vessels, one aerator, and three final filters.

The plant is designed to produce a nominal 500,000 gallons per day
of water with mineral content not exceeding that for potable water.
It is anticipated that there will be 106,000 gallons of waste per
day containing approximately 3,000 pounds of 100% sulfuric acid.
The treatment and disposal of this material is not included in this
study, but consideration of the problem should be in the overall con-
cept of the project.  This problem investigation is included in the
recommendations.

The detailed specifications of the equipment for this 0.5 MGD plant
are on the following pages:

    Table 35   Hydrogen Cation Exchangers (Regenerations total 6/day)
    Table 36   Anion Exchangers (Regenerations total 6/day)
    Table 37   Forced Draft Degasifier or Aerator
    Table 38   Pressure Filters
    Table 39   Miscellaneous Items and Exclusions
    Figure 17  Flow Diagram
    Figure 18  Plant Plan

Chemical operating costs are estimated as follows:

    Sulfuric acid, 66° Be,   8,532 Ib/day, $0.016/lb = $136.51

    Caustic soda, 50#,       4,914 Ib/day, $0.037/lb =  181.82

                                   Total $/day       = $318.33

Cost estimates for the equipment as specified in Tables 35 through
39 for this 0.5 MGD size plant, excluding freight, building and
land, and assembly and erection total $256,000.

Cost estimates for erection have been made as follows:

    Electrical         $ 7,800

    Plumbing            20,000
                            104

-------
                                    TABLE 35

                   HYDROGEN  CATION  EXCHANGERS
                       DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS, 0.5 MOD
PERFORMANCE:

Total System
Total iniluent cations, gpg as CaCOj
Design flow rate, gpm
Operating water pressure, psig
Number of units

Per Unit
Design flow rate, gpm
Peak flow rate, gpm
Backwash rate, gpm
Cation exchange material, type
                     quantity, cu. ft.
                     capacity, Kgi per cu. ft.
                     capacity, Kgr per unit
Gallons treated per regeneration (includes anion regeneration water)
Gallons treated to service (net)
Regenerant, type
          quantity per repeneration

SPECIFICATIONS:
Model number

Tanks
Tank diameter
Straight side of tank
Design working pressure of tank
External surface
Tank lining, material and thickness
Tank supports
Access opening(s)

Internals
Inlet distributor, design and materials
Regenerant distributor, design and materials
Underdrain system, design and materials
Supporting bed

Piping
Main piping size
Main piping material
Main valving arrangement
Main valving material
Table continued  on next page
                               105
  35,1
  60
  313
 Strong ly_;.c4
-------
                             TABLE 35A
Control System
                 HYDROGFN CATION EXCHANGERS continued
                 Detailed Specifications, 0.5 MGD
                                                 Automatic
Control
Initiation of regeneration
Backwash control

Auxiliaries

Meter, size and type
Meter register
Interconnecting piping between multiple units,
Pressure gauges
Sample cocks

Regeneration Equipment
                                  outlet
Type of regenerant introduction
Regenerant introduction strength
Regenerant tank size,      bulk  storage
Material of construction
                                                             "Ratio Meter
                                                 None
                                                           fTnecT
                                                 Chemical  SeaTType
                                                 1 pair per  unit
                                                 Pump
                                                 8 ft  diam  X 15 ft
                                                 Unlined  Steel
Volts, Hertz, Phase

ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS:

Conductance  ratio bridges  to  determine
      end of  cycle
Special sampling manifolds for ratio
      bridges
Solu-Bridge  to  monitor acid regenerant
      strength with selector switch and
      2 cells
Bypass type  rate  Of flow  meter on each
      unit
Horizontal acid storage tank  for concrete
      saddles
Regenerant acid piping system
Waste discharge inter-connecting heads
Special Milton  R0y  Acid Pump,  3/4 HP -
      T. E. Motor
                                                 115/60/1
                                                 2 -Model  RE-18G

                                                 Screened  header-lateral-PVC



                                                 Model RD-226C	

                                                 Included
                                                 Included
                                                 1/2" Carpenter  2Q_Sfi
                                                 6" Saran  Lined	

                                                 168 qph	
                          106

-------
                                      TABLE 36

                              ANION  EXCHANGERS
                                Detailed Specifications,  0.5 MGD
PERFORMANCE:
Total System
Total influent exchangeable anions, gpg as CaC03
Design flow rate, gpm
Operating water pressure, psig
Number of units
84.0
Two
Per Unit
Design flow rate, gpm
Peak flow rate, gpm
Backwash rote, gpm
Anion exchange material, type
                     quantity, cu. ft.
                     capacity, Kgr per cu. ft.
                     capacity, Kgr per unit
Gallons treated por icgcneration
Rtigenerant, type
          quantity per regeneration
351
351
Weakly Basic
          ~"
 30  "
7,014
      '
 Model Number

 Tanks
 Tank diameter
 Straight side of tank
 Design working pressure of tank
 External surface
 Tank lining, material and thickness
 Tank supports
 Access opening(s)

 Internals
 Inlet distributor, design and materials
 Heyeneriint distributor, design and materials
 Underdrain system, design and materials
 Supporting bed

 Piping
 Main piping size
 Main piping material
 Main waiving arrangement
 Main valving material
 Table  continued  on next page
                                               None
                                               108
       A non-Code
Prime painted, _____
3/32'^ fl a s t lso_i
^41" ! t ab le_j_ac_ks_
                                               pVC_hecder  lateral
  It     tt
 Sili_ca.-GraY£l_
 S a r an.. .1 ir\e d_S teel
 Nest-af.-Diaphragm type
 Saran.lined -casi-iron
                                     107

-------
                         TABLE 36A
                AIM ION EXCHANGERS ccnlimied
                Detailed  Specifications, 0.5 MGD
 Control System
 Control
 Initiation of reyem.'raiion
 Backwash control

 Auxiliaries
 Meter, size (;:id typi.1
 Mctei register
 Interconnecting piping between multiple units
 P.cssurc gauges     ^inlet & outlet)
 Sample- cocks
 Conductivity insliument, type
                   manufacluier
                   mode! number

 Regeneration Equipment
 Type of rccjenerani introduction
 Rcgc-ncrant introduction strength
 Regonerant tank size, bulk storage
 Matnrinl nf ronstrnn ion

 Electrical Requirements
Volts, l-lortz, Phase

ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS:

 Special  sampling manifolds  for
    ratio bridges
 Solu-Bridge to  monitor caustic
    regenerant  strength with
    2  cells and selector  switch
Bypass rate of  flow meter on each
    unit
Caustic  storage tank for  concrete
    saddles
Regenerant caustic  piping system
Special  Milton  Roy  caustic  pump,
    2  HP   T.E.  Motor
 Inlet headers  for cation  effluent
Outlet header  for Anion effluent
Waste discharge inter-connecting
    headers
 . Automatic 	
.. .CDJidujC±aH£fi-_3£.tio Meter
__-Ujn.it_s±ap ..QCLJva Ive
  None
  Chemical  sealjbype
  ijp5ii_ per unit
_Q°Jldujo tance_ jte_t i o
_Beckman_	
  RE-18G
  Pump
   40.'
   /q
 _8_ft	diam__X_20 ft
  Unlined steel
  115/60/1 &  230-460/60/3
  Screened,  PVC header  lateral
 Model RD-227C
  Included
  Included
 3/4" wrought  steel

 384 gph	
 6"  Saran lined
 6"  wrought  steel

 6"  Saran lined
                         108

-------
                                  TABLE   37

              FORCED  DRAFT  DFGASIFIEKS OR   AERATOR
                  Detailed  Specifications,  0.5 MGD
PERFORMANCE:
T'ot-l Sy»te-n
indent.
       _iron & manganese,
Influrn; lempi'Kituri.', "F.
Design flow ra'c, opr;i
Wiitei pressure lit inlet
iNlumbei of uniu
                           content, ppm
                                            / e rat ion
                                                 "~~~
                                            /.Mbienjt
                                            351""
                                            One
Per Unit
Design flow ratf-, gprn
Puuk flow rate, gprn

SPECIFICATIONS:
                                            351	
                                            351	
Size of tower
Height of towci
Materials of construction

InternaK
      »-^ —
Myteiial of packing
Depth of packing
Inlet distributor, design and materials
Support, design nncl materials

Auxiliaries

Blower, type ,  Two Units  Needed
       capacity, cfm
       static head, inches h^O
Motor, type
       voltaye, current, phases
 Level control, type - fop reservoir
 Inlet valve,  type
          material of construction
          size
                                             Fir  Staves
                                            Redwood trays
                                            Wood
                                            Centrifugal
                                            2100 each
ff
                                            1*5 .HP - ODP
                                            230-460/60/3
                                            Modulating "J.eveltro 1"
                                            Modu_lated	
                                            Cajt iron, S3  trim
                                            3'i	
 Storage
 Concrete  reservoir  below floor  level    Not included
 Low water float switch for pump safety
     cutoff                                Included
 Forwarding purnp,351 gpra @ 100-120 TDH,
     20  HP -ODP Motor,  all stainless       Included
     construction
                          109

-------
                                      TABLE  38

                                      PRESSURE FILTERS
                                     Detailed  Specifications,  0.5 MGD
     Totd
     lJe:K!n flow late, gpm
     Op'.:: ;;l iny water prcssun;, psicj
     Numbe'i of units
     Typ<; of units
_351_	
30 minimum
Three
Hi-Velocity
     Her (.'nit
     Dfisi.jM flow rale, gpm
     Peak flow roto, gpm
     Covert uiio, <;p:u'ft2 of filter area
     Bflcl-.vv.-iih rate, opm
     riltoi mocJia, type
                 quantity, en. ft.
                 depth of bod, inches

Si'HCIHCATiOMS:
     IViou'f.'!  N
Hi ____________
112 _____ _ ____
9.4 __„ ..... _____
190   _________
 35
 33
 None
     Tanks
     Tank dioiTiutor
     Straujht side of tank
     Design working pressure of tank
     External surface
     Internal surf act-
     Tank supports
     Access opcniny(s)

     Internals
     Inlet distributor, design and materials
     Undei drain system, design and materials
     Supporting bod

     Piping
     Main piping size
     Main piping material
     Main valving arrangement

     Control System
     Control
     Initiation of regeneration
     Backwash control
    Table continued  on next  page
                               110
 48"
 72"
 l2"  X 16"  Manhole
                                                       lateral
 Gravel
 3" :: 4"
 Saran Lined	
 Nesl.of  diaphragm valves
 Automatic	
 Timeclock	
 LJjnit.. siop_s. _o n_va 1 ve s

-------
                                     TABLE 38A
                            PRESSURE FILTERS (Cont'd)
   Auxiliaries
   Interconnecting piping between multiple units,  inlet  &  outlet            6"  wrought  st
   Pressure gauges                                                    3 pair included
   Sample cocks                                                      3  "	^|
   Electrical Requirements
   Volt 2                                                            115.
   Hertz                                                             60
   Phase                                                              1
ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS:
  Bypass  type rate  of flow meter                                2 per unit
  Waste discharge  inter-connecting headers                     6" Saran  lined
                                  111

-------
                           TABLE 39
                   IviISCELLANEOUS ITEMS INCLUDED:

                   Detailed Specifications,  0.5 MGD
Air compressor for all plant control needs
Modulating pH meter, alarm, pH flow cells and electrodes
    with milliamp output to control pH adjustment pump
Modulating pH meter as above but with transducer added
    for 3-15 psi air signal to control final acid
    blending - neutralizing valve
Two-pen strip chart records for pH instruments
Alloy 20 blending valve for cation effluent, which
    controls to modulate feed from 3-15 psi air signal
Caustic feed pump to adjust pH prior to airation, equipped
    with controller station to modulate feed from milliamp
    input
All inter-plant piping needed to inter-connect ion exchange
    units, aerator and filters with Saran lining steel, and
    black wrought steel, and PVC, of various sizes
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The following items are specifically excluded;

lc  The building, its foundations, concrete reservoir below aerator
2.  AuxHliary plumbing and plumbing fixtures for the building
3a  Electrical wiring of building and connections between electrical
    controls:  Costs  separately  estimated
4.  All pump starters  Costs  separately estimated
                         112

-------
                                     -ftEGENERANT CONCENTRATION
AMD WATER
STRONG ACID CATION
  EXCHANGERS
WEAK BASE ANION
 EXCHANGERS
HICH VCLOttT*
 DEPTH FILTERS
                                                         	-ORIFICE FLOW METEfl
                                                                                                                      PROCESSED WATER
                                                                                                                        0 SERVICE
                    , TO WASTE LAGOON
              FIGURE 17.   AMU Treatment  Plant Flow  Diagram,  2-Resin System,  0.5
MGD

-------
                                     ACID  TANK
I I


I I


II
                                                           — LIMESTONE  SAFETY

                                                           NEUTRALIZATION PIT
     CAUSTIC TANK


        tfx  20'
                            lv*L>/C BEST
                                                                              CtMTKOL

                                                                               CABIHET-
 CAUSTIC POMC  I   Ml
                                            CHEMICAL FEED

                                                PUMP
         | ICOLLECTIN6 RESERVOm

      I	Ht    BEL{W
      I—HI  \in izy r
FIGURE IS.   AMD  Treatment FJant Plan,  ?  Resin System,  0.5  MGD

-------
Plant to produce 1.0 MGD;

The equipment will consist essentially of four cation exchange vessels.
three anion exchange vessels, one aerator and three final filters.

The plant is designed to produce a nominal 1,000,000 gallons per day of
water with mineral content not exceeding that specified for potable
water.  It is anticipated that there will be 200,000 gallons of waste
per day containing approximately 6,300 pounds of 100% sulfuric acid.
The treatment and disposal of this material is not included in this
study, but consideration of the problem should be in the overall
concept of the project.

The detailed specifications of the equipment for this plant are on the
following pages:

   Table 40   Hydrogen Cation Exchangers  (Regenerations total  12/day)

   Table 41   Anion Exchangers  (Regenerations total 9/day)

   Table 42   Forced Draft Degasifier or  Aerator

   Table 43   Pressure Filters

   Table 44   Miscellaneous  Items and Exclusions

   Figure  19  Flow  Diagram

   Figure  20  Plant Plan

Chemical operating  costs  are estimated  as follows:

   Sulfuric  acid, 66°  Be,    17,172  Ib/day,  $0.016/lb = $274.75

   Caustic soda,  50%          9,855  Ib/day,  $0.037/lb =  364.64

                                 Total,  $/day         = $639.39

Cost estimates  for  the equipment as specified in Tables 40 through 44
 for  this  1.0 MGD size  plant, excluding  freight,  building and land,
and  assembly and erection,  total $428,000.

Cost estimates  for  erection have been made as follows:

    Electrical     $ 9,300

    Plumbing        40,000
                               115

-------
 PERFORMANCE:
                                      TABLE 40
                    HYDROGEN CATION  EXCHANGERS
                       Detailed Specfications,  1.0 MOD
 Total System
 Tolat influent rations, gpg as CaCO3
 Design flow rote, gprn
 Operating water pressure, psig
 Number of units
  63.7
 15. „_
 Four
 Per Unit

 Design flow rate, gpm
 Peak flow rate, gpm
 Backwash rate, gpm
 Cation exchange material, type
                      quantity, cu. ft.
                      capacity, Kgr per cu. ft.
                      capacity, Kgr per unit
 Gallons treated per regeneration (includes anion legeneration water!
 Gallons treated to service (net)
 Regcnerant, type
           quantity per ic generation

 SPECIFICATIONS;
 Model number

 Tanks
 Tank diameter
 Straight side of tank
 Design working pressure of tank
 External surface
 Tank lining, material and thickness
 Tank supports
 Access opening(s)

 Internals
 Inlet distributor, design and materials
 Regenerant distrihutor, design and materials
 Underdrain system, design and materials
 Supporting bed

Japing
 Main piping size
 Main piping material
 Main valving arrangement
 Main valving material
Table continued  on  next page
                         116
 176
      _
 Strongly acidic"
 47T — ~ -------
 1275
 57952
93^600
                                                           None
 120'
 1261'
 100 psi
 Prime
 3/3P"  Plastisol
 P dj-ustable  jacks-
 12!i X  16" Manhol-e
PVC Header  lateral
  II     II
Silic,a  grave]	
         -^i aphragm  type
Sa Z3ft -lifle
-------
Control Systi-.tn
                              TABLE  40A

                  HYDROGEN CATION UXCHANGERS continual!
                     Detailed Specifications   1.0 MGJ
Control
Initiation of ^generation
Backwash control

Auxiliaries
                                                 Automatic. ________
                                                 Co.ndiic_t2nce._Ratio Meter
                                                 Limit__sto^pn__valve
                                                 itone
Meter, size ai:d type                                          __
Meter register                                      _- _____ __
Interconnecting piping betwivn niulti|jle units » inlet ^< OU'C 6"  Saran lined
Pressure gjug^s-
Sample cocks
Regeneration Equipment

Type of rcc;
-------
                                      TABLE 41
                               ANION EXCHANGERS
                                Detailed Specifications, 1.0
PERFORMANCE:

Total System
Total influent exchangeable anions, gpg as CaC03
Design flow rate, gpm
Operating water pressure, psig
Number of units

Per Unit
Design flow rate, gpm
Peak flow i ate, fjprri~~~
Backwash late, gpm
Anion exchange material, type
                     quantity, cu. ft.
                     capacity, Kgr per cu. ft.
                     capacity, Kgr par unit
Gallons treated per regeneration
Regenerant, type
          quantity per legoneiation
                                               84.0
                                               50 ..... _  _____________
                                               TJbr.ee ______________
                                               23 b
                                               353
                                               Weakly Basic
                                               313	._
                                               30	„	
                                               9390	
                                               171.6 gal  (1095  Ib.  100#)
Model Number
Tanks
Tank diameter
Straight side of tank
Design working pressure of tank
External surface
Tank lining, material and thickness
Tank suppoi ts
Access opening(s)

Internals
Inlet distributor, design and materials
Recjencrant distributor, design ,
-------
                       TABLE 41A

               AN ION EXCHANGERS continued
               Detailed Specifications,  1.0  MGD
Conuol System
Control
Initiation of ruijanc.vi:iion
Backvvasli control

Auxiliaries
Meter, si?e and typ
Intr.-i connecting pipiny between raultinbjjims
Prcss'-iie (puncs.
Sample cocks
Conductivity instrument, type
                   rnanufactuicr
                   model number


Rogencration Equipment

Type of rpgunerant introduction
Regenerant introduction strength
Regenwant tank bulk  storage
Mi'Kcri.ll of ronstnininn
                                       Automatic	
                                      .Conductance Rat i o  Meter
                                                  _on_ v a Ive
                                       none
                                           JLr. per unjt
                                       Conductance Rgt io
                                       Beckman     	
                                      _RE-18G
                                        0*  diam  X 27'
                                       Unlined Steel
Electrical Requirements
Volts, Hem, Phase

ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS:
Special  Sampling  Manifolds for ratio
        bridges
Solu-Brdige to monitor caustic
     regenerant strengths with
     selector switch & 3 cells
Bypass rate of flow meter on
     each unit
Caustic  Storage  tank for concrete
     saddles
Regenerant caustic piping system
Special  Milton-Roy  Caustic pump,
      2 HP  T.E.  Motor
Inlet headers for cation effluent
Outlet   " for anion effluent
Waste discharge  inter-connecting
     headers
                                       115/60/1 &  230-460/60/3
                                       Screened header-lateral PVC
                                       1-Model RD-277C
                                        Included
                                       Unlined	
                                       3/4"  wrought  ste"eT

                                       516  gph	
                                       6" Saran lined
                                       6" wrought steel

                                       6" Saran lined
                               119

-------
                                     TABLE 42
               FORCED  DRAFT DEGASIFIERS  OR  AERATOR
               Detailed  Specifications,  1.0 MGD
PERFORMANCE:
Total System

Function
i n f i ue.u. Jjion JL_Manganfi.aa
Influent temporatun, °F.
Design flow i?.tf, gpm
Water pi ossuie u\ Inlet
Num!)!;r of mil Is
content, ppm
AeratjLpJl.
2,4  	
Ambieni—
105	
15-_p.si	
One	
Per Unit

Design flow iaU', (jpm
Peak flow rate, upm
                  7Q5	
SPECIFICATIONS:
Tower

Si/e of tower
Height of tower
Materials of constriction
                 Fir Staves
Internals

Material of packing
Depth of packing
Inlet distiibutoi, design and m;itf.jrials
Support, design ;md materials

Auxiliaries
Blower, type* three units  needed
      capacity, cfm
      static head, inches H2O
Motor, type
      voltage, current, phases
Level control, lype-for  reservoir
Inlet valve, type
         material of construction
         size
                  9_ft	
                  PVC header-latera1
                  Wood
                  Centrifugal _____
                  3,200 each ________
                  2!!, ______________
                  2  HP -  ODP ___
                  230-460/60/3  _.
                  Modulating "Leve 1 tro 1 "
            ,S$ .. ^...Tr im
                  Casi -
Storage
Concrete reservoir below floor level
Low  water float switch  for pump safety
cut-off
Forwarding pump,  705 gpm @ 120-100  TDH-
 30  H.P.,  ODP Motor,  all  stainless
           construction
                  Not Included
                  Included
                 Included
                        120

-------
PERFORMANCE:
                                         TABLE  43

                                      PRESSURE FILTERS
                                 Detailed  Specifications,  1.0  MGD
     Total System
     Design flow into, gpm
     Operating Water pressuie, psig
     Number of ur.its
     Typo ot units

     Per Unit
     Design flow rate, gpm
     Peak flow rate, gpm
     Design isle, gpm/fi7 of filter aic-a
     Backward i iVie, gpm
     Filter iTK.'di.j, typo
                 quantity, CD. ft.
                 depth of bed, inches
7Q5	
.3Q__mi_njjnum._
Three 	
Hi-Velocity
 235_
"235
TcT
 350
 65
 33
SPECIFICATIONS:
     MoHol Numhrr

     Tanks
     Tank diameter
     Straight side- of tank
     Design working pressure of tank
     External surface
     Internal surface;
     Tank supports
     Access opening(s)

     Internals
     Inlet distributor, design and materials
     Underdrain system, design and materials
     Supporting bed

     Piping
     Main piping size
     Main piping material
     Main valving arrangement
 None
 Prime  Painted.	
 3/3J2!L Rlastisnl-
 Adju stable-iacls
 i2"_X_l£!l.. MsnJl°-le

 PVC J;!eacLe.rilate_ra 1
 PVC_  J1	"	
 Gravel     	
  S.ar_a.n_ Lined ___________
  Ne_st_.0_f .Diaphjragm Valves
      Control
      Initiation of regeneration
      Backwash control
     Table continued on next  page
                                 121
  Automatic ___
  Time clock _______ •_
  ".. imi t  s t op _ p n_. v a 1 v e s

-------
                                   TABLE  43A

                            PRESSURE FILTERS (Cont'd)
                            Detailed Specifications,  1.0  MGD
   Auxiliaiior:
   Intoiconnecting piping between multipla units                             _°!!_M9JJ2ht_steel
   Pressure fluutjcs                                                     3 pair included
   Sample cocks                                                      .r_P=

   Electrical Requircm-jnts                                              ., , =
   Voltx                                                            —-
   Hen?                                                            -^
   Phase                                                            —-
ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS:

   Bypass type rate  of flow meter two on  each unit              Included
   Waste  discharge  inter-connecting headers                    6"  Saran lined
                                     122

-------
                                  TABLE 44

                       MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS  INCLUDED:

                       Detailed Specifications,  1.0 MGD
Air Compressor for all plant control needs
Modulating pH Meter, alarm, pH flow chamber and electrodes
   with milliamp output to control pH adjustment pump
Modulating pH Meter as above but with tranducer added for
   3-15 psi air signal to control final acid blending -
   neutralizing valve
Two-pen strip chart recorder for pH instruments
Alloy 20 blending valve for cation effluent with controls
   to modulate feed from 2-15 psi air signal
Caustic feed pump to adjust pH prior to aeration, equipped
   with controller station to modulate feed from milliamp
   input
All inter-plant piping needed to inter-connect ion exchange
   units, aerator & filters, Saran lined, black wrought
   steel, & PVC, 8", 6", 1", & 3/4"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The following items are specifically excluded;

1.  The building, its foundations, concrete reservoir below
    aerator
2.  Auxilliary plumbing and plumbing fixtures for the building
3.  Electrical wiring of building & connections between
    electrical controls :   costs separately estimated
4.  All pump starters s   costs separately estimated
                              123

-------
                                              RCGENEflANT CONCENTflfiTION
                                                  MONITOR
                                                                        ORIFICE FLOW METER-
   AMD WkTER
STRON6 ACID CATION  i    |
   EXCHANCERS
WEAK 1ASE ANION
  EXCHANOCRS
MI6M VELOCITY
   DEPTH FILTERS
                                                                                                        1  I—^ TO SFBVICE
                     WASTE LAGOON
          FIGURE  19.   AMD  Treatment Plant  Flow Diagram,  2-Resin  System,  1.0  MGD

-------
N>
(Jl
            CAUSTIC TANK
              ISO K 324
           CAUSTIC
              four
DO
                                 IVALVt NtiTl
                                                            ACID  TANK
                                                            120 X 240
                                                                                       -LIMESTONE SAFETY NEUTRALIZATION PIT
                                                                                                                CONTROL
                                                                                                               CABINET—
                                                                                                       D
                                                                                                                                OFFICE » LAB
                                                                                         IvALOENEST I
CHEMICAL    _ |y||    |2'x 12 X 10'
 FEED PUMP _ u
                                                                                                                 PUMP
                                                                                                                   II
                                                                                                                             41- O"
           FIGURE 20.   AwiD Treatment  Plant  Plan,  2-Resin  System,  1.0 MGD

-------
                           SECTION 17

        TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN -  MODIFIED DESAL PROCESS
This AMD treatment system is an automatic  ion exchange-precipitation-
filtration process to produce potable water from acid mine drainage
containing excessive amounts of iron and sulfuric acid.   The method
used is a modification of the Desal process and is essentially one
of anion exchange followed by precipitation and filtration with
final pH neutralization.

Section 11 of this report discussed the preliminary tests on only
the bicarbonate form of the weak base resin.  Section 15 discussed
the use of this resin and post treatment to effect a complete treat-
ment of AMD to produce potable water.

The design parameters for plants employing this process were
presented in Table 29.  Those parameters have been used to design
plants for the treatment of acid mine drainage water.  Plants of
three sizes have been designed; namely, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 MGD (million
gallons per day).

Summary of costs;

Figure 21 is a plot of the equipment costs, in hundreds of thousands
of dollars for the various size plants to treat AMD by this modified
Desal system.  These prices are for the equipment listed  in the
detailed specifications, but exclude freight, building and land,
assembly and erection.

Figure 22 is a plot of the estimated chemical operating costs, in
hundi-eds of dollars per day for the plants  to treat the AMD by the
modified Desal system.  All utility costs are excluded.

Figures 23 and 24 plot, respectively,  estimated erection  labor costs
for the electrical and plumbing requirements.

General Discussion of  Plantst

The equipment will consist  essentially of three pressure  vessels
(tanks) containing anion  exchange  resin, an aerator,  a  reactor-
clarifier, and two or  more  tanks containing granular  minerals  fcr
final  filtration  of the product water.

The operation  of  this  treatment plant  is predicated  on  the  assumption
that the AMD will be  supplied  to the  system at  75-100 psi pressure,
free of turbidity, and will  conform  to the  raw AMD analysis  given
elsewhere  in this report.
                             127

-------
Equipment
cost, in
hundreds of
thousands of
dollars
                              0.2          0.4        0.6


                                      Plant size, in MGD
0.8
            1.0
                         Figure 21.     Cost estimates for unassembled,  unerected
                          equipment to treat AMD by the modified Desal systen.
                                      128

-------
   10
    8

Chemical
  costs
$/day, in
 hundreds
    6
                     0.2
    0.4         0.6

Plant size, in MGD
0.8
                 Figure 22      Estimates of  daily chenical  operating  costs
                 to treat AMD by the modified Desal system.
                                   129

-------
             10
Electrica 1
costs, in
thousands
of dollars
                            0.2
0.4
0.6
                                    1.0
                                    Plant  size,  in  MGD

                    Figure 23      Estimates  of  electrics 1 labor  costs
                     for erection of plants to treat  AMD  by  the modified
                     Desal system.
                                      130

-------
   50
   40

 Plumbing
    costs
thousands
  dollars
   30
   20
   10
0          0.2         0.4         0.6         0.8
    Plant size in MGD.
    Figure 24     Estimates of plumbing  labor costs
    for assembly and erection of plants to treat AMD by
    the modified Desal system.
                                                                      1.0
                                  131

-------
The exchanger vessels will be arranged for parallel flow with a common
inlet header and a common outlet header.  The anion exchange resin
will remove all of the acid and much of the iron and sulfate from the
AMD.

After the anion exchange, the metal ions are associated essentially
with bicarbonate anions, making the water suitable for coagulation.

The anion exchange vessels are operated upflow in service at 2 gpm/cu
ft to prevent excessive pressure loss due to iron precipitation.
Upper take-off manifolds must be screened to prevent resin loss.  The
effluent quality is monitored by pH meters, the pH being recorded for
each exchanger throughout the cycle.  The exhaustion of the exchanger
is signaled by a pH drop.  The signal actuates the regeneration
controls which remove the exchanger from service, thereby initiating
regeneration.

The first step of regeneration is a normal backwash through a separate
collecting manifold.  The backwash and subsequent regeneration will
result in a waste which must be treated before disposal.  While it is
not a part of this study or plant design, all of the backwash wastes
and regenerant wastes in rinse water should be collected in a common
waste lagoon.

The anion exchange resin will be regenerated downflow with 4% caustic
soda (sodium hydroxide).  A caustic-resistant pump will transfer 50%
caustic solution from the bulk storage facilities.  The caustic will
be diluted to the desired 4% strength with water taken from the
clarifier effluent.  A separate forwarding pump is used to transfer
this dilution water, which is also used for regenerant rinse.  At
completion of the rinse, the anion exchange resin is converted to
the bicarbonate form by recirculating a carbon dioxide solution.
Rinse water in the exchanger is recirculated by a separate pump at
100 psi.  The closed loop recirculation rate is 0.5 in gpm per cubic
foot of resin.  Carbon dioxide is injected into this recirculating
flow until complete resin conversion to the bicarbonate form is
achieved.  A break in pH tells when this is reached.  High pressure
recirculation is used to provide a strong solution of carbon dioxide.
The estimated requirement for carbon dioxide is 3.3 pounds per cubic
foot of resin.  The fully regenerated anion exchange vessel is now
automatically returned to service, or standby, as dictated by indi-
vidual plant design.

The AMD which has been treated by the anion exchange resin next
enters the aerator, where oxygen is absorbed from the air.  This
oxygen will oxidize the iron and manganese.  Aeration is by means of
a standard tray type forced draft counter-flow aerator.  Water exists
by gravity from the aerator into the reactor-clarifier.
                              132

-------
The reactor-clarifier tank will be of concrete construction,  mostly
below ground level.  The clarifier should project above the ground
by 18-24" to reduce personnel hazards while permitting gravity flow.
Lime (slaked or unslaked calcium oxide depending upon plant size)
and coagulant aid are used to remove all of the iron and manganese,
while reducing calcium, magnesium, and alkalinity to low levels.
Resulting precipitates accumulate in a sludge blanket that is main-
tained in the reactor-clarifier, which is designed with a rise rate
of 1.0 gpm/cu ft.  The effluent pH from the clarifier is 10.1.  This
pH must be reduced for final use; we have designed this to be done
after filtration.

The clarifier outflow proceeds by gravity to the clear well which  is
at a lower level than the aerator.  A float control in the clear
well controls the aerator inlet valve, thus controlling the operation
of the aerator, clarifier and clear well.  The bottom of the aerator
is higher than the top of the clarifier and the following clear well,
so flow proceeds through these components by gravity.

Final product filtration requires a pump to transfer water from the
clear well of the reactor-clarifier to the filters.  The filters
remove any insoluble particles that have carried over from the clear
well.  Acid is fed to the filtered product by  a chemical pump con-
trolled by a pH meter and recorder.  Thus, a final product is
delivered which meets the mineral requirements  for potable water.

The filters will be backwashed and rinsed with treated water  from
the aerator clear well  (as  in  service).  The backwash and  rinse
effluents will be  sent to the waste  lagoon.  The backwash  and rinse
operations will be time controlled,  automatically  initiated  once a
day for  each  filter.   The  filters are  so sized that  removal  of  one
filter from  service will  not overload  the  system  or  interrupt the
flow  of  product water.

Designs  and  specifications  for  each  plant  (0.1, 0.5  and  1.0  MGD)
are detailed  on the following  pages.
                              133

-------
Details of Plant Designs;

Plant to produce 0.1 MOD;

The equipment will consist essentially of three anion exchange vessels,
one aerator, one reactor-clarifier and clear well, two final filters.

Three anion exchange vessels are required although the plant is designed
to schedule only one vessel in service at a time.  Three are required
because the total regeneration time of one vessel is longer than its
service run.  The complete cycle for one vessel is three hours service,
four hours regeneration, two hours standby.  Thus, if only one vessel
is on stream at a time and takes the full plant flow, eight regener-
ations per day is a workable schedule and produces the required plant
output.

The detailed specifications of the equipment for this plant to treat
0.1 MOD are on the following pages.

     Table 45     Anion Exchangers

     Table 46     Forced Draft Degasifiers or Aerator

     Table 47     Reactor-Clarifier

     Table 48     Pressure Filters

     Table 49     Miscellaneous Items and Exclusions

     Figure 25    Flow Diagram

     Figure 26    Plant Plan

Chemical operating costs are estimated as follows:

     Caustic Soda, 50%, 1,200 Ib/day, $0.037 per pound = $44.40

     Carbon Dioxide, 992 Ib/day, $0.015 per pound      =  14.88

     Lime, 350 Ib/day, $0.01 per pound                 =   3.50

                                Total, $/day           - $62.78

Cost, estimates for the equipment as specified in Tables 45 through 49
for this 0,1 MGD size plant, excluding freight, building and land, and
assembly and erection, total $156,000.

Cost estimates for erection have been made as follows:

     Electrical     $ 9,300

     Plumbing         5,000
                            134

-------
                              TABLE 45

                             ANION EXCHANGERS

                       DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS, 0.1 MGD
PERFORMANCE:

Total System

Total influent exchangeable anions, gpg as
Design flow rate, gpm
Operating water pressure, psig
Number of units

Per Unit

Design flow rate, gpm
Peak flow rate, gpm
Backwash rate, gpm
Anion exchange material, type
                          quantity, cu ft
                          capacity, Kgr per cu ft
                          capacity, Kgr per unit
Gallons treated per regeneration
Gallons net to service
Regenerant quantity per regeneration, Ibs.
      Sodium Hydroxide
      Carbon Dioxide
         84.0
         70
    40, minimum
    Three
         74.5
         74.5
         19
      IRA-68
         37.5
         30
      1,125
     13.390
     12.610
        150
        124
SPKIFICATIONS:

Model Number

Tanks

Tank diameter
Straight side of tank
Design working pressure of tank
External surface
Tank lining, material and thickness
Tank supports
Access opening(s)

Internals

Backwash collecting manifold, design & materials
Treated water collecting manifold, design & materials
Regenerant distributor, design and materials
Underdrain system, design and materials:
Supporting bed
        None
    42"
    108"
    100 psi Non-Code
    Prime painted
    3/32" Pla'stisol
    Adjustable jacks
    12" x 16" manhole
    PVC Header lateral
PVC-Screened header latera1
    PVC header lateral
    PVC header lateral
    Silica gravel	
                                   135

-------
                        TABLE 45A
ANION EXCHANGER (continued)
  Main piping size
  Main piping material
  Main valving arrangement
  Main valving material

  Control  System

  Control
  Initiation  of regeneration
  Backwash control

  Auxiliaries

  Meter, size  and type
  Meter register
  Interconnecting piping between multiple units,
       inlet and outlet
  Pressure gauges
  Sample cocks
  Conductivity instrument, type
                          manufacturer
                          model number

 Regeneration Equipment

 Type of  regenerant introduction
 Regenerant  introduction strength
 Regenerant  tank  size, vertical bulk storage
 Material  of  construction

 Electrical  Requirements

 Volts, Hertz, Phase
                            Saran  lined  steel
                            Nest of  auto  diaph type
                            Saran  lined cast Iron
                           Automatic	
                           pH meter
                           Limit  stop on valves
                           None
                           3" saran lined   _
                           chemical seal type
                           1 pair per unit
                           None
                           Positive displace numn
                           4%
                           8'  dia x 7'	
                           Unlined steel
                         115/60/1 & 230-460/6Q/3
ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS.

Regenerant caustic pump, Milton Rog  1/2 HP
Regenerant caustic piping system
Regeneration water header from clear well
Regeneration water pump - Gould #3196 all iron
    centrifugal for 18 gpm @ 50' head with
    1.5 HP OOP motor
Waste discharge piping
Bypass type rate of flow meters, 2 for each tank
Bypass type rate of flow meter,  1 for product output
Beckman Model 940 pH meter with flow chamber, and
    electrodes to detect endpoints
Three pen strip chart recorder
6 ton liquid C02 storage container with 4.5 KW
    vaporizer and regulator
                            60  qph
                           1" wrought steal
                           ]±" wrouoh By.«j
                           Included,  	
                              saran
                          l^for each tani-


                          Included	
                                 136

-------
                        TABLE 45B    ANION EXCHANGERS (continued)

    stainless steel sparger to dispurse C02 gas in
    recirculating line                                           1 per tank
Pressure relief and suction relief on each tank                  Included
Piping from C02 storage to points of use,  wrought steel          Included	
Pump to recycle water during C02 saturation,  Gould #3196
    all stainless steel, 15 HP, 3600 rpm,  230-460/60/3
    OOP motor for 19 gpm © 100 psi                               1 for each tank
                                    137

-------
                                TABLE 46

                      FORCED DRAFT DECASIFIERS OR AERATOR
                      DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS,  0.1 MGD
PERFORMANCE:

Total System

Function
Influent iron and manganese content, ppm msximum
Influent temperature, oF
Design flow rate, gpm
Water pressure at inlet
Number of units

Per Unit

Design flow rate, gpm
Peak flow rate, gpm
Aeration
 140
Ambient
  70
15 psi
One
  75
SPECIFICATIONS:

Tower

Size of tower
Height of tower
Materials of construction

Internals

Material of packing
Depth of packing
Inlet distributor, design and materials
Support, design and materials

Auxiliaries

Blower, type
        capacity, cfm
        static head, inches H20
Motor, type
       voltage, current, phases
Level control, type for clear well
Inlet valve, type
             material of construction
             size
36" diameter
 144"
Fir Staves
Red wood tray^
9 feet
PVC header
Wood
      lateral
Centrifugal
840
  2
1 HP - OOP
230-460/60/3
Modulating "levetrol"
Modulated
Cast
1.5"
iron - SS trim
STORAGEj  None.  Water flows directly to Reactor-Clarifier and from there to
concrete clear well.  Aerator is located above clear well.  Water level in clear
well controls aerator inlet valve and thus also feed to reactor-clarifier.
Modulating level control is itemized above.
                                 138

-------
                                  TABLE 47

                               REACTOR-CLARIFIER
                         DETAILED SPECIFICATION, 0.1 MGD
Size of Tank, diameter x side wall depth
Tank construction
Design flow rate, gpm
Rise rate, gpm per sq. ft.
Detention period, minutes
Bottom slope to central sludge cone
Provisions for mixing, internal recirculation,
   flocculation, settling,  clarification, positive
   sludge thickening and removal
Lime feeder and coagulant feeder
Sludge rake drive mechanism fully enclosed with motor
Turbine driving mechanism with motor
Beam type superstructure spanning tank
Conical reaction chamber
Peripheral effluent collection launder
Sampling pipes
Plug type sludge valve with pneumatic cylinder operator
Piping from aerator to reactor-clarifier, welded
Piping from reactor-clarifier to clear well, welded
Estimated lime dosage, Ibs. of 100% CaO per 1003 gal.
                       Ibs. of 100% Ca(OH)2 per day
Clarifier will be mostly below floor, only the top 18"
   to 24" of the concrete tank will be above floor level.
12' x 12'
Concrete
75
130
1 in 12
Included
Included
0.5 HP
0.5 HP
36" wide floor plate
Included	
Included	
Included	
Included	
3" -  Included
3" -  Included
3.2   	
458	
                                  CLEAR WATER

Concrete construction, below floor level of equipment building, size 6"  x 5'  x 10'
deep.  Nominal capacity 1,800 gallons.  Concrete construction is not included as
part of equipment design cost and should be included under building construction.
Two pumps are located in the pump pit adjacent to clear well.  One is for re-
generating the anion units and is described under Anion Exchangers.  The other
is a transfer or forwarding pump for regular service operation.  It is a Gould
#3196 all iron centrifugal pump for 70 gpm at 50 psi with 5 HP, 230-460/60/3
1750 rpm OOP motor.
                                     139

-------
                                 TABLE 48

                               PRESSURE FILTERS
                         DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS,  0.1  MGD
PERFORMANCE!

Total System

Design flow rate, gpm
Operating water pressure, psig
Number of units
Type of units
Per Unit
                  gpm
Design flow rate,
Peak flow rate, gp
Design rate, gpm/ft2 of filter area
Backwash rate, gpm
Filter media, type
              quantity, cu ft
              depth of bed, inches
                                                                   70 qpm
                                                                   30 psi min.
                                                                   Two
                                                                   Hi-Velocity
                                                                   35
                                                                   70
                                                                    7.2
                                                                   73
                                                                   Hi-Velocity
                                                                   13.5
                                                                   33
SPECIFICATIONS!

Model Number

Tanks

Tank diameter
Straight side of tank
Design working pressure of tank
External surface
Internal surface
Tank supports
Access opening(s)

Internals

Inlet distributor, design and materials
Underdrain system, design and materials
Supporting bed

Piping

Main piping size
Main piping material
Main valving arrangement
                                                                   None
                                                                   30"
                                                                   60"
                                                                 100 psi Non-Code
                                                                 Prime painted
                                                                 3/32" Plastisol
                                                                 Adjustable jacks
                                                                 12" x 16" manhole
                                                                 PVC Header lateral
                                                                 PVC Header lateral
                                                                 Gravel
                                                                    2"
                                                                    PVC
                                                                 Nest of Auto, valves
                                 140

-------
                         TABLE 48A     PRESSURE FILTERS (continued)

Control System

Control                                                          Automatic
Initiation of regeneration                                       Time Clock
Backwash control                                                 Limit  stop  on  valves

Auxiliaries

Interconnecting piping between multiple units                    2"  wrought  steel
Pressure gauges                                                  3 pr included	
Sample cocks                                                     3 pr	
Electrical Requirements

Volts, Hertz, Phase                                              115/60/1
ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS:

Bypass type rate of flow meters, 2 on each unit                    Included
Waste discharge interconnecting headers                            3" PVC
Filters are backwashed with raw AMD water.  Valve nest,
   waste lines, and AMD supplies are corrosion resis-
   tant for the service                                            Included
                                   141

-------
                                  TABLE 49

                             MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
                        DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS, 0.1 MGD


Air compressor for all plant control needs                         Included	
Modulating pH meter, alarm, pH flow cell  and electrodes
   with milliamps output to control pH correction pump.
   Also strip chart recorder                                       Included	
Acid feed pump with variable speed drive  nodulated by
   milliamp signal from pH meter                                   Included	

Acid storage tank will be container in which it is shipped         Not included
Acid supply and feed piping from storage  tank to pump
   and point of feed                                             A" carpentier 20SS
All interplant piping needed to interconnect ion exchange
   units, aerator, clarifier and filters  in saran lined
   and black wrought steel as required                             Included	


*****•***#*******#***#•*******************•*•*•

The following items are specifically excluded.

1.  The building, its foundations, concrete reservoir, concrete clarifier
    tank, and concrete tank saddles.

2.  Auxiliary plumbing and plumbing fixtures for the building.

3.  Electrical wiring of building and connections between electrical controls.

4.  All pump starters.

5.  Installation and erection of equipment.

6.  The equipment to handle bulk unslaked lime is not considered to be
    included as part of this plant design.

NOTE:  The handling and supply of the large quantities of carbon dioxide
       required would well be the subject of a separate study.  The reader
       should realize that other methods of supply might be usable and
       should conduct his own evaluation.
                                  142

-------
       WEAK BASE ANION EXCHANGERS
                               Hxj	f-i
                        RECIRCULATIN6
                               PUMP
                                                           SOLIDS
                                                          CONTACT
                                                           REACTOR
     HIGH VELOCITY
     DEPTH FILTERS
                                                                    SLUDGE BLOW
                                                                     DOWN
                                                                   CONTROLLER
                                                                            7
                                                                    H2 S04
             WASTE LASOON
PRODUCT
 WATER
FIGURE 25.   AmD Treatment Plant Flow Diagram, Modified
              Desal  System,   0.1
                                 143

-------
             LIQUID C02 STORAGE


                5 -3"X 11 '
     OFFICE & LAB
                   VALVE NEST -
                 n
                 n
CONTROL
 PANEL
                                        LIME FEEDER
                                                                    I  f
                                                                    I  I
                         CAUSTIC PUMP 1  tfl
                                ACID FEED PJMP
                                    on
                                   I  J  I 30X60
FIGURE 26.  Ai.iD Treatment Plant  Flan,  Modified Desal System, ,  0.1 iviGD
                                   144

-------
Plant to produce 0.5 MOD;

The equipment will consist essentially of three anion exchange vessels,
one aerator, one reactor-clarifier and three final filters.

Three anion exchange vessels are incorporated in the design although
only one will be in service operation at a time.  Three are required
because total regeneration time of one vessel is longer than its
service run.  The complete cycle for one tank is three hours service,
four hours regeneration, two hours standby.  Thus, if only one tank is
on stream at a time and takes the full plant flow, eight regenerations
per day is a workable schedule and produces the required plant output
of treated water.

The detailed specifications of the equipment for this plant to treat
0.5 MGD are on the following pages.

     Table 50      Anion Exchangers

     Table 51      Forced Draft Degasifier  or Aerator

     Table 52      Reactor-Clarifier

     Table 53      Pressure Filters

     Table 54      Miscellaneous Items  and  Exclusions

     Figure 27     Flow  Diagram

     Figure 28     Plant  Plan

Chemical  operating costs  are estimated  as  follows:

     Caustic Soda, 50%,  5,984  Ib/day, $0.037 per  pound  =  $221.41

     Carbon Dioxide,  4,936  Ib/day,  $0.015  per  pound     =    74.04

     Lime,  1,450 Ib/day,  $0.01  per  pound               -    14.50

                               Tota,  $/day               =  $309.95

Cost estimates  for  the  equipment  as  specified  in  Tables 50 through 54
for  this  0.5 MGD size plant,  excluding  freight, building  and land, and
assembly  and erection,  total  $323,000.

Cost estimates  for  erection have  been made as  follows:

     Electrical    $ 7,800

      Plumbing        25,000

                              145

-------
                                 TABLE 50
                            ANIGN  EXCHANGERS

                     DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS, 0.5 MOD
 K'ST-ORMANCE:

 Total System

 Total influent exchangeable anio.ns, gpc as CaCO^
 Design flow rate, gpm
 Operating water pressure, psig
 Number of units

 Per Unit

 Design flow rate, gpm
 Peak flow rate, gpm
 Backwash rate, gpm
 Anion exchange material, type
                          quantity, cu ft
                          capacity, Kgr per cu ft
                          capacity, Kgr per unit
 Gallons treated per regeneration
 Gallons net to service
 Regenerant quantity per regeneration,  Ibs
    Sodium Hydroxide
    Carbon Dioxide
           350
       40,  minimum
       Three
           371
           371
           100
           IRA-63
           187
            30
         j.610
       _67,785
       C. f\ 1  1 j"i/~i
       503.100
           748
                                                                     617
 SPECIFICATIONS:

 Model Number

 Tanks

 Tank  diameter
 Straight  side  of tank
 Design working pressure  of tank
 External  surface
 Tank  lining, material arid thickness
 Tank  supports
 Access opening(s)

 Internals

 Backwash collecting manifold, design & materials
 Treated water collecting manifold, design & materials
Regenerant distributor,  design and materials
 Underdrain system,  design and materials
Supporting bed
           None
           96"
          108"
     100 psi Non - Code
     Prime painted	
     3/32" Plastisol_
     Adjustable jacks _
     12" x 16"  .a
     PVC header__lgtgral
P/C-.^oreened header lateral
     PVC header latera
     Silica gravel
                               146

-------
                     TABLE 50A
ANION EXCHANGERS (continued)
Main piping size
Main piping material
Main valving arrangement
Main valving material

Control System

Control
Initiation of regeneration
Backwash control

Auxiliaries

Meter,  size and type
Meter register
Interconnecting piping between multiple units,
     inlet and outlet
Pressure gauges
Sample  cocks
Conductivity  instrument, type
                         manufacturer
                         model number

Regeneration  Equipment

Type  of regenerant  introduction
Regenerant introduction  strength
Regenerant tank  size, horizontal  bulk  storage
Material of construction

Electrical Requirements

Volts,  Hertz, Phase

ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS:

Regenerant caustic  pump, Milton Rog, 2HP
Regenerant caustic  piping  system
Regeneration  water  header  from clear well
Regeneration  water  pump-Gould #3196 all iron
     centrifugal  for 90 gpm @ 50'  head  with
     3 HP OOP  motor
Waste discharge  piping
 Bypass  type rate of flow meters,  2 for each tank
 Bypass  type rate of flow meter,  1 for  product  output
 Beckman Model 940 pH meter with flow chamber,  and
      electrodes  to detect  endpoints
 Three pen  strip  chart recorder
 12 ton  liquid C02 storage  container with  2 HP
      compressor,  9  KW vaporizer and regulator

Table continued  on next page
                             6" x 3"
                            Saran  lined steel
                            Nest of auto diaph type
                            Saran  lined cast iron
                            Automatic	
                            pH  meter	
                            Limit  stop  on  valves
                             None	

                             6"  Saran Lined

                             Chemical seal type
                             1 pair per  unit
                             None
                             Positive displace,  pump
                             4*	
                             10'  dia x 18'	
                             Unlined Steel  	
                             115/60/1 & 230-460/60/3
                             306 qph	
                             1"  wrought  steel
                             2k" wrouqh  steel"
                             Included	
                             3" Saran lined steel
                             3"
                             1 for each tank
                             4"
                             Included
                                    147

-------
                     TABLE  SOB   ANION  EXCHANGERS (continued)

3" stainless steel sparger  to dispurse C02 gas in
    recirculating line                                         1  per  tank
Pressure relief and suction relief on each tank                Included
Piping from CCU storage to points of use,  wrought  steel         Included	
Pump to recycle water during CO^ saturation,  Gould #3196                  "'
    all stainless steel, 5 HP,  3600 rpm,  230-460/60/3
    OOP motor for 95 gpm & 100  psi                             1  for  each tank
                                  148

-------
                             TABLE 51

                   FORCED DRAFT DEGASIFIERS  OR AERATOR
                   DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS,  0.5 MGD
PERFORMING Ei

Total System

Function
Influent iron and manganese content,  ppm maximum
Influent temperature, °F
Design flow rate, gpm
Water pressure at inlet
Number of units

Per Unit

Design flow rate, gpm
Peak flow rate, gpm
Aeration
  140
Ambient
  350
15 psi
One
  738
  638
SPKIFICATIONSi

Tower

Size of tower
Height of tower
Materials of construction

Internals

Material of packing
Depth  of packing
Inlet  distributor, design and materials
Support, design and materials

Auxiliaries

Blower, type two  units  needed
        capacity,  cfm
        static head, inches  ttfl
Motor, type
       voltage, current, phases
Level  control, type for clear well
Inlet  valve, type
             material  of construction
              size
 72"  diameter
 144"	
 Fir  Staves
 Red  wood tray
 9  feet
 PVC  header  lateral
 Wood	
Centrifugal	
2100  each	
    2	
1.5 HP  - P.P.P.
230-460/60/3
 Modulating  "levetrol"
 Modulated
Cast
3"
      iron -  SS trim
 STORAGEi   None.   Water  flows  directly  to Reactor-Clarifier  and  from there  to
 concrete  clear  well.  Aerator is  located above  clear  well.  Water  level  in
 clear well controls aerator  inlet  valve and  thus  also feed  to reactor-clarifier.
 Modulating level control  is  itemized  above.
                                     149

-------
                              TABLE 52
                            REACTOR-CLARIFIER
                     DETAILED SPECIFICATION,  0.5 MGD
Si?e of Tank,  diameter x side wall depth
Tank construction
Design flow rate, gpm
Rise rate,  gpm per sq. ft.
Detention, periods, minutes
Bottom slope to central sludge cone
Provisions for mixing, internal recirculation,
    f locculation, settling, clarification, positive
    sludge thickening and removal
Lime slaker and coagulant feeder
Sludge rake drive mechanism fully enclosed with motor
Turbine driving mechanism with motor
Beam type superstructure spanning tank
Conical reaction chamber
Peripheral effluent collection launder
Sampling pipes
Plug type sludge valve with pneumatic cylinder operator
Piping from aerator to reactor-clarifier, welded
Piping from reactor-clarifier to clear well, welded
Estimated lime dosage, Ibs. of 100% CaO per 1000 gal.
                       Ibs. of 100% CaO per day
Clarifier will be mostly below ground, only the top 18"
     to 24" of the concrete tank will be above ground level
24' x 12'
Concrete
371
105
1 in 12
Included
Included
1.0 HP
0.75 HP
36" wide floor plate
Included	
Included	
Included	
Included	
6" - Included	
6" - Included	
  3.2	
1.710	
                              CLEAR WATER

Concrete construction, below floor level of equipment building, size
7.5' x 18' x 10' deep.  Nominal capacity 8,000 gallons.  Concrete con-
struction is not included as part of equipment design cost and should be
included under building construction.  Two pumps are located in the pump
pit adjacent to clear well.  One is for regenerating the anion units and
is described under Anion Exchangers.  The other is a transfer or forwarding
pump for regular service operation.  It is a Gould #3196 all iron centrifugal
pump for 351 gpm at 50 psl with 20 HP, 230-460/60/3 1750 rpm OOP motor.
                                 150

-------
                               TABLE 53

                            PRESSURE FILTERS
                     DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS,   0.5 MGD
PERFORMANCE:

Total System

Design flow rate, gpm
Operating water pressure, psig
Number of units
Type of unit?

Pjir Unit

Design'flow rate, gpm
Peak'flow-rate,  gpm
Design rate, gpm/ft2 of  filter area
Backwash rate,  gpm
Filter media,  type
               quantity,  cu  ft
               depth  of  bed,  inches
350 qpm
30 psi min.
Three
Hi-Velocity
117
176
  9.4
 185
Hi-Velocitv
 34.5
 33
 SPECIFICATIONS:

 Model Number
    None
 Tanks

 Tank diameter
 Straight side of tank
 Design working pressure of tank
 External surface
 Internal surface
 Tank supports
 Access opening(s)

 Internals

 Inlet distributor, design and materials
 Underdrain system, design and materials
 Supporting bed
  48"
  72"
 100 psi  Non-Code
 Prime painted
 3/32" Plastisol
 Adjustable jacks
 12" x 16"  manhole
 PVC Header lateral
 PVC Header lateral
 Gravel	
 Main piping size
 Main piping material
 Main valving arrangement
                                                                 4"
 Saran lined
 Nest of Auto, valves
                                     151

-------
                     TABLE 53A      PRESSURE FILTERS (continued)

Control System

Control                                                         Automatic
Initiation of regeneration                                      Time Clock	
Backwash control                                               Limit stop on valves

Auxiliaries

Interconnecting piping between multiple units           4" wrought steel & saran^lined
Pressure gauges                                                3 pr included	
Sample cocks                                                   3 pr	

Electrical Requirement^

Volts, Hertz, Phase                                             115/60/1	
ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS:

Bypass type rate of flow meters, 2 on each unit                Included
Waste discharge interconnecting headers                        4" saran lined
Filters are backwashed with raw AMD water.   Valve nest,
   waste lines, and AMD supplies are corrosion resis-
   tant for the service                                        Included
                                152

-------
                             TABLE 54

                           MISCELLANHDUS ITEMS
                      DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS,  0.5  MGD
Air compressor for all plant control needs                     Included
Modulating pH meter, alarm, pH flow cell and electrodes
   with milliamps output to control pH correction pump.
   Also strip chart recorder                                   Included
Acid feed pump with variable speed drive modulated by
   milliamp signal from pH meter                               Included
Horizontal acid storage tank, black steel construction,
   unlined with breather for 66oBe H2S04.  Designed
   for concrete saddles which are not included                 5' dia. x 8'  long
Acid supply and feed piping from storage tank to pump
   and point of feed                                           ^' carpentier 20SS
All interplant piping needed to interconnect ion exchange
   units, aerator, clarifier and filters in saran lined
   and black wrought steel as required                         Included	
*************************** ***************

The following  items are  specifically excluded.

1.  The building,  its foundations, concrete reservoir,  concrete clarifier
    tank, and  concrete tank  saddles.

2.  Auxiliary  plumbing and plumbing fixtures for the building.

3.  Electrical wiring of  building  and  connections  between  electrical controls.

4.  All pump starters.

5.  Installation and erection of equipment.

6.  The equipment to handle  builk  unslaked  lime  is not  considered  to be
    included as part of  this plant design.


NOTE:  The  handling and  supply of  the  large quantities  of  carbon dioxide
       required would well be the  subject  of a separate study.  The reader
        should realize that other methods of  supply might be usuable and
        should conduct his own evaluation.
                                     153

-------
         WEAK BASE ANION EXCHANGERS
                                                           SOUDSN
                                                          'CONTACT
                                                           REACTOR
      HI8H VELOCITY
      OCPTM FILTERS
                                                                    SLUD4E BLOW
                                                                     DOWN
                                                                  CONTROLLER
                                                                            7
                                                                    MJ S04
             WASTE LA400N
PRODUCT
 WATER
FIGURE 27.  AmD Treatment Plant  Flow Diagram,  Modified  Desal  System
             0.5 iviGD
                              154

-------
                                          REACTOR- CLARIFIER

                                               24'X 12'
                                              PUMP PIT  I  AERATOR
                                                5'XIO'  \  72"X'44"
FIGURE  28.  AwD  Treatment  Plant Flan, Modified Desal System
             0.5  MGD
                                155

-------
Plant to produce 1.0 MOD;

The equipment will consist essentially of three anion exchange vessels,
one aerator, one reactor-clarifier and three final filters.

Three anion exchange vessels are incorporated in the design although
only one will be in service operation at a time.  Three are required
because total regeneration time of one vessel is longer than its
service run.  The complete cycle for one tank is three hours service,
four hours regeneration, two hours standby.  Thus, if only one tank is
on stream at a time and takes the full plant flow, eight regenerations
per day is a workable schedule and produces the required plant output
of treated water.

The detailed specifications of the equipment for this plant to treat
1.0 MGD are on the following pages.

     Table 55     Anion Exchangers

     Table 56     Forced Draft Degasifier or Aerator

     Table 57     Reactor-Clarifier

     Table 58     Pressure Filters

     Table 59     Miscellaneous Items and Exclusions

     Figure 29    Flow  Diagram

     Figure 30    Plant Plan

Chemical operating costs are estimated as follows:

     Caustic Soda, 50#, 11,904 Ib/day, $0.037  per pound =  $440.45

     Carbon Dioxide, 9,821 Ib/day, $0.015 per  pound     =   147.32

     Lime, 3,500  Ib/day, $0.01 per pound                =   35.00

                                Total, $/day            =  $622.87

Cost estimates for the  equipment as  specified  in  Tables 55 through 59
for this 1.0 MGD  size plant, excluding freight, building and  land,  and
assembly and erection,  total $465,000.

Cost estimates for erection have been made  as  follows:

     Electrical    $ 9,300

     Plumbing       50,000
                             156

-------
                            TABLE 55
                          ANION EXCHANGERS

                  DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS,  1.0  MGD
PERFORMANCE:

Total System

Total influent exchangeable anions,  gpg as CaC03
Design flow rate, gpm
Operating water pressure,  psig
Number of units

Per Unit

Design flow rate, gpm
Peak flow rate, gpm
Backwash rate, gpm
Anion exchange material, type
                         quantity, cu ft
                         capacity, Kgr per cu ft
                         capacity, Kgr per unit
Gallons treated per regeneration
Gallons net to service
Regenerant  quantity per regeneration,  Ibs.
    Sodium  Hydroxide
    Carbon  Dioxide
       84.0
      695
    40. minimum
    Three
      738
      738
      155
      IRA-68
      372
        30
      11.160
     132.855
     125.100
       1.488
       1.228
SPECIFICATIONS:

Model  Number

Tanks

Tank diameter
Straight  side  of  tank
Design working pressure  of  tank
External  surface
Tank  lining, material  and thickness
Tank  supports
Access opening(s)

 Internals

 Backwash  collecting manifold,  design & materials
Treated water  collecting manifold, design  & materials
Regenerant distributor,  design and materials
 Underdrain system,  design and  materials
 Supporting bed

 Table continued on next  page
      None
      120'
      126"
    100 psi Non-Code
    Prime Painted
    3/32" Plastisol
    Adjustable jacks
    12" x 16" manhole
    PVC header
lateral
     lateral
PVC-Screened header
    PVC header lateral
    PVC header lateral
    Silica gravel
                                   157

-------
                 TABLE 55A
AN ION EXCHANGERS (continued)
Main piping size
Main piping material
Main valving arrangement
Main valving material

Control System

Control
Initiation of regeneration
Backwash control

Auxiliaries

Meter, size and type
Meter register
Interconnecting piping between multiple units,
    inlet and outlet
Pressure gauges
Sample cocks
Conductivity instrument, type
                         manufacturer
                         model number

Regeneration Equipment

Type of regenerant introduction
Regenerant introduction strength
Regenerant tank size, horizontal bulk storage
Material of construction

Electrical Requirements

Volts, Hertz, Phase

ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS:

Regenerant caustic pump, Milton Rog, 2HP
Regenerant caustic piping system
Regeneration water header from clear well
Regeneration water pump-Gould #3196 all iron
     centrifugal for 175 gpm @> 50"  head with
     5 HP OOP motor
Waste discharge piping
Bypass type rate of flow meters, 2 for each tank
Bypass type rate of flow meter, 1 for product output
Beckman Model 940 pH meter with flow chamber, and
     electrodes to detect endpoints
Three pen strip chart recorder
25 ton liquid C02 storage container with 2 HP
     compressor, 18 KW vaporizer and regulator
                                                              6"  x 4"
                             Saran lined steel
                             Nest of  auto  diaph  type
                             Saran lined cast iron
                             Automatic	
                             pH meter	
                             Limit stop on vaIves
                             None	

                             8" saran lined

                             chemical seal type
                             1 pair per unit
                             None
                             Positive displace, pump
                               4%	
                             10'  dia  x 34'
                             Unlined steel
                             115/60/1 & 230-460/60/3
                             610 gph
                             1" wrought steel
                             4" wrought steel
                             Included	
                             4" saran lined steel
                                  4"	
                                  8"
                             1 for each tank
                                  4"	

                             Included
Table continued on next page

-------
                TABLE 55B     ANION EXCHANGERS (continued)

3" stainless steel sparger to dispurse CC>2 gas in
     recirculating line                                     1 per  tank
Pressure relief and suction relief  on each tank             Included	
Piping from C02 storage to points of use,  wrought steel     Included	
Pump to recycle water during C02 saturation,  Gould #3196
     all stainless steel, 25 HP, 3600 rpm, 230-460/60/3
     OOP motor for 186 gpm @ 100 psi                        1 for  each tank
                                  159

-------
                            TABLE 56
                   FORCED DRAFT DEGASIFIERS OR  AERATOR
                   DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS,  1.0  MGD
PERFORMANCE:

Total System

Function
Influent iron and manganese content,  ppm maximum
Influent temperature, °F
Design flow rate, gpm
Water pressure at inlet
Number of units

Per Unit

Design flow rate, gpm
Peak flow rate, gpm
Aeration
 140
Ambient
 695
15 psi
One
 738
 738
SPECIFICATIONSi

Tower

Size of tower
Height of tower
Materials of construction

Internals

Material of packing
Depth of packing
Inlet distributor, design and materials
Support, design and materials

Auxiliaries

Blower, type three units needed
        capacity, cfm
        static head, inches F^O
Motor, type
        voltage, current, phases
Level control, type for clear well
Inlet valve, type
             material of contruction
             size
 96" diameter
 144"	
 Fir Staves
Red wood tray
9 feet
PVC header lateral
Wood
Centrifugal
3200 each
2 HP - qnp
230-460/60/3
Modulating "levetrol"
Modulated	
Cast iron - SS trim
STORAGE:  None.  Water flows directly to Reactor-Clarifier and from there
to concrete clear well.  Aerator is located above clear well.  Water level in
clear well controls aerator inlet valve and thus also feed to reactor-clarifier.
Modulating level control is itemized above.
                              160

-------
                            TABLE 57

                          REACTOR-CLARIEER
                    DETAILED SPECIFICATION,  1.0 MGD
Size of Tank, diameter x side wall depth
Tank construction
Design flow rate, gpm
Rise rate, gpm per sq. ft.
Detention period, minutes
Bottom slope to central sludge cone
Provisions for mixing, internal recirculation,
   flocculation, settling,  clarification,  positive
   sludge thickening and removal
Lime slaker and coagulant feeder
Sludge rake drive mechanism fully enclosed with motor
Turbine driving mechanism with motor
Beam type superstructure spanning tank
Conical reaction chamber
Peripheral effluent collection launder
Sampling pipes
Plug type sludge valve with pneumatic cylinder operator
Piping from aerator to reactor-clarifier,  welded
Piping from reactor-clarifier to clear well, welded
Estimated lime dosage, Ibs. of 100$ CaO per 1000 gal.
                       Ibs. of 100$ CaO per day
Clarifier will be mostly below ground, only the top 18"
   to 24" of the concrete tank will be avoe ground level.
32' x 13'
Concrete
 738
 102
 1 in 12
 Included
 Included
 1.0 HP
 3.0 HP	
36" wide floor plate
 Included	
 Included	
 Included	
 Included	
8" - Included
8" - Included
  3.2
  3,401
                              CLEAR WATER

Concrete construction, below floor level of equipment building, size
9.5' x 25' x 10' deep.  Nominal capacity 14,000 gallons.  Concrete
construction is not included as part of equipment design cost and should
be  included under building construction.  Two pumps are located in the
pump pit adjacent to clear well.  One is for regenerating the anion units
and is described under Anion Exchangers.  The other is a transfer or
forwarding pump for regular service operation.  It is a Gould #3196
all iron centrifugal pump for 700 gpm at 50 psi with 40 HP, 230-460/60/3
1750 rpm ODP motor.
                                161

-------
                               TABLE 58

                             PRESSURE FILTERS
                      DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS,  1.0 MOD
  PERFORMANCE:

  Total System

  Design flow rate,  gpm
  Operating water pressure,  psig
  Number of units
  Type of units

  Per Unit

  Design flow rate,  gpm
  Peak flow rate,  gpm
  Design rate,  gpm/ft.2 of filter  area
  Backwash rate,  gpm
  Filter media, type
               quantity, cu. ft.
               depth  of bed, inches
  695 qpm
  30 psi min.
  Three	
  Hi-Velocitv
   233	
   350	
    10	
   350	
   Hi-Velocity"
    65	
    33
 SPECIFICATIONS:

 Model Number

 Tanks

 Tank diameter
 Straight side of tank
 Design working pressure of tank
 External surface
 Internal surface
 Tank supports
 Access opening(s)

 Internals

 Inlet distributor,  design and materials
 Underdrain  system,  design and materials
 Supporting  bed

 Piping

 Main piping size
 Main piping material
 Main valving arrangement

Table continued on next page
  None
   66"
   84"
100 psi Non-Code
Prime painted
3/32" PlastTIoT
Adjustable jacks
12" x 16" manhole
PVC Header lateral
PVC Header lateral
Gravel
 4" x 6"	
Saran lined   ~
Nest of Auto, jaIves
                              162

-------
            TABLE 58A     PRESSURE FILTERS (continued)


Control System

Control                                                      Automatic	
Initiation of  regeneration                                   Time  Clock
Backwash control                                            Limit  stop  on valves

Auxiliaries

Interconnecting piping between multiple units                6"  pr  steel
Pressure gauges                                              3 pr   induced
Sample cocks                                                 3 pr	

Electrical Requirements

Volts, Hertz,  Phase                                          115/60/1	


ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS:

Bypass type rate of flow meters, 2 on each unit              Included	
Waste discharge interconnecting headers                      6" saran lined
Filters are backwashed with raw AMD water.  Valve nest,
    waste lines, and AMD supplies are corrosion resis-
    tant for the service                                     Included
                                  163

-------
                              TABLE 59

                         MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
                    DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS, 1.0 MGD
Air compressor for all plant control needs                   Included
Modulating pH meter, alarm, pH flow cell and electrodes
   with milliamps output to control pH correction pump.
   Also strip chart recorder                                 Included
Acid feed pump with variable speed drive modulated by
   milliamp signal from pH meter                             Included

Horizontal acid storage tank, black steel construction,
   unlined with breather for 66°Be H2S04.   Designed
   for concrete saddles which are not included.
Acid supply and feed piping from storage tank to pump
   and point of feed.
Mil interplant piping needed to interconnect ion exchange
   units, aerator, clarifier and filters in saran lined
   and black wrought steel as required                       Included
                                                            6'  dia  x 12'  long

                                                            £"  carpentier 20SS
The following items are specifically excluded.

1.  The building, its foundations, concrete reservoir, concrete clarifier
    tank, and concrete tank saddles.

2.  Auxiliary plumbing and plumbing fixtures for the building.

3.  Electrical wiring of building and connections between electrical controls.

4.  All pump starters.

5.  Installation and erection of equipment.

6.  The equipment to handle bulk unslaked lime  is not considered to be
    included as part of this plant design.


NOTE:   The handling and supply of the large quantities of carbon dioxide
       required would well be the subject of a  separate study.  The reader
       should realize that other methods of supply night be usable and
       should conduct his own evaluation.
                             164

-------
            WEAK BASE ANION EXCHANGERS
                        T

AMD
                     \f
                -txl-
                     A
                                  Or*	'
                             RECIRCULATING
                                    PUMP
/\
                           I..  	I   J
A
                        NoOM
        HIGH VELOCITY
         DEPTH FILTERS-
         CLEAR
         WELL
                                                                     AERATOR
                                                                      HCOACULANT
                                                                        LIME
                                                               /CONTACT
                                                                REACTOR
                                 . SLUD3E BLOW
                                  DOWN
                                CONTROLLER-^
                 WASTE LACOON
                                     PRODUCT
                                     WATER
  FIGURE  29.  AwiD Treatment Plant Flow Desal  System   1.0  MGD
                                     165

-------
                         ACID rtEO PUN!' L_R]


                         C4'JSTiC PUMP  I   tjj
                LIMESTONE SAFETY

                 NEUTHO! >Z*riON PIT
FIGURE 30.   AiviD
              1.0 mGD
Treatment  Plant Hen, Modified Desel  Syster.
                                   166

-------
                           SECTION 18

                        ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors, Jim Holmes and Ed Kreusch, gratefully acknowledge the
varied assistance received from many sources in the completion of
this project.  Financial support was received from the Water Quality
Office, Environmental Protection Agency.  The guidance of the
Project Officer, Mr. Ron Hill of the National Environmental Research
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio was a firm foundation for the project's
inception.  Dr. James Shackelford from the Washington office of the
Environmental Protection Agency was helpful in consultation about
the progress as it was achieved.

Cost estimates for the erection of the plants were obtained from
separate organizations.  Their help in furnishing these erection
estimates is thankfully recognized.  The cost estimates for the
electrical installations were furnished by the following company:

                  Hyre Electric Company
                  Mr. Frank Parrel, Chief Field Engineer
                  Chicago, Illinois    60608

The cost estimates for the plumbing installation were furnished by
the following company:

                  Associated Piping Contractors, Inc.
                  Carmen Perna, President
                  Chicago, Illinois    60656

The services of Farouk Husseini and Willard Rakow were valuable in
performing the laboratory  tests with the ion exchange column.
Messrs. Dick Bezjian and James O'Malley were helpful  in providing
the analyses of the numerous varied samples collected during  the
laboratory studies.  Mr. Don Senger performed a significant portion
of the work for this project, by furnishing the designs and specifi-
cations for the six treatment plants.  Mr. Larry Coshenet provided
the drafting services which were required.  Other  services of
separate departments of the parent company, Culligan  International
Company, are gratefully recognized.  Their assistance, which  was
beyond their responsibilities in support of the commercial
organization, embraced areas^which were beyond the fields  of
specialization of  the authors.
                              167

-------
                           SECTION 19

                           REFERENCES
1.  Pollio, F.,  and Kunin, R., "Ion Exchange Processes for the
    Reclamation of Acid Mine Drainage Waters," Environmental Science
    & Technology, Vol. 1, pp 235-241, (March, 1967).

2.  Schmidt, K.,  Senger, D. , et. al., "SUL-biSUL Ion Exchange Process:
    Field Evaluation on Brackish Waters," Office of Saline Water,
    Research and Development Progress Report No. 446, U. S. Government
    Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

3.  Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-Water,
    12th Edition.  A. P. H. A., New York,~Tl965).
                              169

-------
                             SECTION  20
ACIDITY
ALKALINITY
ANION

BACKWASH



BED DEPTH


BED EXPANSION
 BED VOLUME
 BREAKTHROUGH
DEFINITIONS
Acidity is the capacity to donate hydrogen
ions.  The acidity is normally expressed  (in
the ion exchange industry) in terms of calcium
carbonate equivalents.  Acidity is quantita-
tively measured by titration to selected  endpoints
with a standard solution-usually of sodium
hydroxide.  The donation of hydrogen ions to
depress the pH below 8.3 is termed total  acidity:
below pH 4.3 is "free mineral acidity".
(see also FMA.)

Capacity to neutralize acids.  In water,  most
alkalinity is due to the water's content  of
bicarbonates, carbonates, or hydroxide.  The
alkalinity is normally expressed in terms of
calcium carbonate equivalents.

An ionic particle which  is negatively charged.

Reverse (normally upwards) flow through a bed
of mineral or  ion exchange resin to remove
insoluble particulates and to  loosen the bed.

The  height of mineral, or  ion  exchange resin
in a column.

The  amount of  expansion  given  to a bed of
mineral or ion  exchange  resin, by upflow passage
of water.  It  is usually expressed as a percent
of the unexpended bed.

The  amount of  mineral, or  ion  exchange resin,
in a column.

Refers to the  concentration  of a particular
ion, or other  substance  in the effluent  from
a treatment  system.   Breakthrough  occurs when
the  effluent  concentration rapidly  increases.
Normally, when the  breakthrough  concentration
reaches about  10% of the influent  concentration,
exhaustion has occurred.
                           171

-------
CALCIUM CARBONATE
EQUIVALENT
CAPACITY
CATION
COCURRENT
COMPOSITE SAMPLE
CONDUCTIVITY
COUNTERCURRENT
 DEMORALIZATION

 DOWNFLOW
An expression for the concentration of
constituents on a common basis for ease
of calculation.  Conversion of the
quantity expressed "as calcium carbonate"
to "as another form" requires multipli-
cation by the ratio of the chemical
equivalent weight of the desired form to
that of calcium carbonate.  For example,
80 mg/1 of magnesium as calcium carbonate
becomes 44.4 mg/1 (80 x 12.2/20) as
magnesium.

The quantitative ability of a treatment
component or system to perform.  With ion
exchange systems, this quantity is
expressed as kilograins per cubic foot.

An ionic particle which is positively
charged.

Operation of a column of ion exchange
resin or other mineral, with the service
cycle and the regeneration cycle per-
formed in the same direction, both either
upflow or downflow.

A sample collected to be representative
of a water  flow which continues for an
extended period of time.

Ability of water to conduct, electricity;
it is the reciprocal of resistivity.
Conductivity is measured in reciprocal
ohms per centimeter.  Water with a low
concentration of ionic solids will have
very low conductivity.

Operation of a column of ion exchange
resin or other mineral, with the service
cycle and the regeneration cycle per-
formed in opposite directions.

Reduction of the ionic content  of water.

Direction of flow of solutions  through
ion exchange, or mineral bed columns
during operation; in at the top and out
at the bottom of the column.
                              172

-------
DRIP SAMPLE
EFFLUENT
ELUATE
ELUEN1
ELUTION
ENDPOINT
EXHAUSTION CYCLE
 FMA
 FREE MINERAL ACIDITY
 gpg
 GRAINS  PER  GALLON
 GRAIN
A composite sample collected by slow
continuous sampling of a flowing stream.

The solution which emerges from a
component or system.

Effluent during regeneration of an
ion exchange resin.  (See "Elution").

Influent regeneration solution to an
ion exchange resin.  (See "Elution").

The removal of an adsorbed ion or ions
from an ion exchange resin during regen-
eration by using solutions containing
relatively high concentrations of other
ions.  This latter solution is called the
eluant.  During elution, the eluant
removes the adsorbed ions from the  ion
exchange resin; the effluent solution
which  contains the eluted ions is then
called the eluate.

The achievement of exhaustion.  With  ion
exchange resins,  the endpoint  of  the
service cycle  is  at  10% breakthrough.

The function of e  process component in
the service cycle.   The regenerated form
of a weak  base resin without adsorbed
acids.

Strong acids,  which  in  water are  formed
principly  by chloride or sulfate  ions
when the water has  been treated  by  a
cation exchange resin in the hydrogen form.

A unit of  concentration (weight  per
volume)  that is used  in the ion  exchange
 industry.   (See  "GRAIN".)   One gpg  is
 numerically  equal to 17.1 mg/1.

 A unit of  weight, being numerically equal
 to l/7000th  of a  pound.  (See  "GRAINS PER
 GALLON".)
                           173

-------
gpm

gpm/cu ft
   i/sq ft
gpm,
HARDNESS
ION EXCHANGE RESIN
kgr
KILOGRAINS
kgr/cu ft
Gallons per minute.

Gallons per minute per cubic foot of ion
exchange resin or other mineral in a
column.

Gallons per minute per square foot of
cross-sectional area.

The sum of the calcium and magnesium ions
although other polyvalent cations ar°
included at times.  Hardness is normally
expressed in terms of calcium carbonate
equivalents.

An insoluble material which can remove
ions by replacing them with an equiva-
lent amount of a similarly charged ion.


A unit of weight (1.000 grains) equal to
l/7th of a pound.
                              Kilograins
                              carbonate)
                              resin.
            (expressed as calcium
            per cubic foot of ion exchange
LEAKAGE
LIME
MICROMHOS
mg/1
MILLIGRAMS  PER LITER
 NEUTRALIZATION
                              The amount of unadsorbed ion present in
                              the effluent of a treatment component.

                              Lime refers to compounds of calcium.
                              Hydrated lime is calcium hydroxide. Lime
                              which is not hydrated is referred to as
                              quick lime, which is calcium oxide.

                              Unit of measurement of elect.rical con-
                              ductivity.

                              A unit of concentration referring to the
                              milligrams weight of a solute per liter
                              of solution.  The term is approximately
                              equal to the older "part per million"
                              term.

                              Mutual reaction of acids and alkalies
                              until the concentrations of hydrogen and
                              hydroxyl ions in solution are at the
                              desired value which is usually  approxi-
                              mately equal.

-------
ppm
PARTS PER MILLION
REGENERANT



REGENERATION


RINSE


SALT SPLITTING


SERVICE CYCLE


SLUDGE

SLUDGE BLANKET


SOFTENING


UPFLOW


WEAK ACID  RESIN


WEAK  BASE  RESIN
A unit of concentration, which in the
water treatment industry equals one part of
solute in one million parts by weight of
solvent.  It is approximately equal to the
more precise term mg/1.

A solution of relatively high ionic con-
centration used to restore an ion exchange
resin to its desired ionic form.

Restoration of an ion exchange resin to
its desired ionic form.

The removal of excess regenerant from an
ion exchange resin.

The conversion of neutral  salts to  their
corresponding  acids  or  bases.

The use  of  a process  component  to  perform
its desired  function.

Settled  precipitates  of large  amount.

A  layer  of  sludge which is suspended by
upflow  passage of water.

Removal  of  the hardness (calcium and
magnesium  ions)  from water.

 Direction  of flow  of water upwardly through
 a  component.

 A  cation exchange  resin which  cannot  split
 neutral  salts.

 An anion exchange  resin which  cannot  split
 neutral  salts, but  will merely absorb  free
 minpral acidity.

-------
       SECTION 21




        APPENDIX




COLUMN EFFLUENT ANALYSES
           177

-------
CD
                                                 TABLE   60
                             ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                          Column Effluent Analyses
—— — — — — — — — —
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCOs
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO-}
Sulfate, ppm 504
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO-^
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, °F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCOo
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


J 	
0
22.4
1.6
15.0
2.9

0.9
4.0
_ 1430

1470


1.80
130
67



	 Endpoir
J 	
153
28.0
i.o
15.0
3.7

1.1 j
52
Q^

1100


2.05
190
67


1
u 	
1
268
258
29
164
34

9.8
51
	 415

1600


2.45
305
67

	
1
'— ' • i «— ^


_
















1
	 i






























































Date:




















8/19/70
•^^~^^™^— i—™™«
• ^ •HI ,,


I"



	 	 ,



' 	 — — -









"• ' II 111 —



















-------
Run 4A (Cation H+)
                                         TABLE   61
                    ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                  Column Effluent Analyses

Run No.
Throughput, ga!s/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Ma
FMA, npmCaC03
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm SO4
Chloride, ppm CI
Alkalinity, ppm CaCC^
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft



0
2.8
0.9
7.0
0.6

0.2
0.6
1620

1500


1.75
	 l?Q
68.5





82
2.8
0.7
5.6
0.5

0.2
0.6
1668

1420


1.75
190




Endpoint

170
2.8
0.9
5.5
0.6

0.2
8.3
1652

1370


1.70
190






247
42
1.0
28.1
6.8

1.8
39
1452

1540


1.80
190



































































Date 8




















/21/70










































-------
00
o
                                                 TABLE   62
                             ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                           Column Effluent Analyses

Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot F MA, ppmCaCO3
Sulfate, ppm S04
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCC*3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, °F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC»3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft



0
2.8
1.5
7.3
0.9

0
0.4
1500

1470


1.70
120
64.0





60
2.8
2.3
5.8
0.8

0
0.4







65.0





120
2.8
2.0
5.5
0.8

0
0.4
1560

1520


1.70
120
65.5



Endooin

182
2.8
2.0
5.5
0.8

0
0.7
1564

1530


1.70
115
65.5



t

242
46
2.0
29
8.0

2.0
1.8
1430

1560


1.75
130
65.0













































Date:




















9/1/70































— — — — _










-------
                   TABLE    63
ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
             Column Effluent Analyses
Hun 12A (Cation H^J — 	 	 	
Endooint Date: 9/8/70 .
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric ppm Fe
Calcium ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA ppm CaCC>3
Hnt FMA Dom CaCOo
Sulfate, ppm $04 	
Phlnride DDm Cl
AllralinitV DDm CaCOl
pH 	
Temperature, °F 	
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO3
	 -^-^— ^— ^-^— ^~ — ~ "^"^ ^^
Capacity. Kgrs/cu ft
__— —— — — — — —

o
1.0
1.1
3.8
0.3
0.5
0.1
0
1SRO

If^'jn

_•. ^ — •••
1.73
115
77.0

M^^^^M^^

133
0
1.9
4.9
0.3
0
0.1
0
1580

1530


1.73
110
77 n





212
0
1.9
2.5
0.2
0.5
0.1
0







77 o





242
1.0
1.2
2.6
0.3
0
Q.l
0







77.0



274
3.0
1.8
3.6
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.1
1560

1510

••— • "
1.73
115
77.0



304
28
0
15
4.1
0.5
1.2
0.2
1540

1590


1.75
115
77.0














—. "
— -

^ — ^—i



•«— •• —
















































p*«^^^™^"™^^^«"








_ 	



-------
        Run  19A (Cation H+)
                                                TABLE   64
                            ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                          Column Effluent Analyses
..... Endpoint Date: 9/18/70
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCOy ,
Hot FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Sulfate, ppm SO 4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCC>3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, °F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


0
1.0
1.0
4.0
0.3
0
0.1
0
1500

1450


1.70
120
74.0


•

212
0
2.2
3.0
0.3
0
0.1
0







74.0




242
1.0
1.4
3.0
0.3
0
0.1
0.2







74, n




272
3.0
1.6
4.0
0.7
0
0.2
0.2







74.0




304
22
3
14
4.5
0.5
1.2
0.3
1560

1420


1.70
115
74.0







































































































CO
ro

-------
Run 4B (Cation H+)
                                            TABLE  65
                      ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                     Column Effluent Analyses
                                    Endooint
Date:   8/21/70
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Ai
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm SO^
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


0
0
1.0
2.6
0.2

0.1
0.4
1120

1090


1.85
160
68.5




77
0
0.9
2.3
0.3

0.1
1.7
1500

, 450


1.70
115





153
8.4
1.0
7.1
1.6

0.5
15
1400

149;,


1.70
115





230
16_5
32
103
26

6.6
35
1400

P060


1.70
120





























































































































-------
       Run 8B (Cation H+)
                                               TABLE   66
                           ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                         Column Effluent Analyses
FnHpmrvt- Date: 9/1/70
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCOg
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm SO^
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCC>3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


0
0
1.0
2.1
0.4

0
0.4
1456

1410


1.73
125
64.0




60
0
0.5
1.1
0.2

0
0.4







65.0




120
0
1.1
1.1
0.2

0
0.4
1540

1480


1.70
115
65.5




180
8.4
2.0
5.4
1.7

0
0.8
1540

1520


1.70
115
65.5




210
115
11
62
18

6.0
1.6
1235

1610


1 .85
150
65.0







































































































CO

-------
Run 12B (Cation
                                        TABLE  67
                    ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                  Column Effluent Analyses
                                  Endpoint
Date:   9/8/70
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Hot FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Sulfate. ppm SO4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCC>3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


0
0
0.8
1.8
0.1
0.5
0.1
0
1600

1540


1.70
110
77




180
0
1.5
1.5
0.2
0
0.1
0.1
1600

1540


1.73
110
77




210
5.0
0
2.4
0.7
0
0.3
0.1












240
14
0
6.7
2.0
0
0.6
0.1
1600

1580


1.74
no
77




























































































































-------
        Run  1QR  (Cation
                                                 TABLE   68
                             ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                           Column Effluent Analyses
	 	 	 	 	 — 	 Endpr>in+ 	 	 	 Date: 9/18/70
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm SO4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaC03
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC<3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


0
0
0.6
2.0
0.1
0
0
0.1
1620

1560


1.65
110
74




212
0
1.3
1.0
0.2
0
0
0.1







74




242
0
3.0
2.0
0.5
0
0.1
0.1







74




272
8.0
0.4
6.0
1.5
0
0.4
0.1







74




302
28
1.0
13
5.2
0
1.3
0.2
1580

1620


1.70
115
7A







































































































00

-------
Run 93A (Cation Na+)
                                        TABLE  69
                    ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                  Column Effluent Analyses
                                                Endpoint
Date: 10/1/70
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Sulfate, ppm SO^
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCC>3
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, p F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


120
0
3.3
6.7
0.4
0.1
0.1
735
0

1560


4.20
320
74




240
0
2.7
4.6
0.4
0.3
0.1
525
465

1560


2.30
99S
74




360
0
1.8
3.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
360
815

1450


2.05
i«n
74




420
2.0
1.1
4.2
0.5
0.4
0.1
320
890

1540


2.00
ivn
74




450
4.0
2.0
5.2
1.1
0.3
0.2
330
895

1570


2.00
170
74




480
18
1.0
11
3.3
0.3
0.7
290
920

1570


1.98
165
74



,
















































































-------
ION EXCHANGE
        Run 26A (Cation Na+)
                                                TABLE   70
                                         TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                         Column Effluent Analyses
	 	 	 . 	 Endpoint 	 Date: 10/9/70
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCX>3
Sulfate, ppm SO^
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCX>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


120
0
2.3
8.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
720
15

1540


3.75
330
73




240
0
2.3
5.7
0.2
0.0
0.1
500
495

1540


2.30
?9«=i
73




300
0
2.3
5.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
410
675

1520


2.15
19*1
73




360
0
2.9
5.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
360
815

1550


2.00
1RO
73




420
5.0
3.4
8.8
1.4
0.0
0.3
310
865

1500


1.97
IT'S
73




480
25
0
23
5.2
0.1
1.2
280
900

1600


1.97
17!^
73



















































































00
00

-------
        Run 30A (Cation Na+)
                                                 TABLE  71
                            ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                          Column Effluent Analyses
                                                 Endpoint
Date:  10/16/70
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate. ppm 804
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO^
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


120
0
1.4
2.7
0.4
0
0.2
660
10

1217
130

3.94
390
72




240
0
1.8
2.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
500







79




360
0
2.1
2.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
360
795

927
130

2.10
i7n
79




420
8.0
1.0
4.3
1.9
0.1
0.5
320
855
915
1537
130

2.05
1^
79




450
25
2.0
9.6
6.1
0.2
1.5
310
875
940
1397
130

2.06
i**
79







































































































to
vO

-------
         Run 23B (Cation Na+)
                                                TABLE  72
                            ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                         Column Effluent Analyses
Endcoint Date: 10/1/70
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCOg
Sulfate, ppm SO 4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCC>3
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCOg
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


120
8.0
1.0
19
1.4
0.1
0.4
655
65

1500


3.24
310
74




215
6.0
1.2
15
1.1
0.1
0.3
515
420

1520


2.36
230
74




240
4.0
1.8
13
0.9
0
0.2
400
700

1550


2.14
19 o
74




330
4.0
1.9
15
1.0
0.1
0.2
300
900

1540


2.00
165
74




360
14
0
15
2.2
0.1
0.5
280
930

1550


1.98
165
74




390
43
1.0
38
8.0
0.1
1.5
245
920

1600


1.98
165
74



















































































•o
o

-------
Run 39A (Wk.  Base NH?)
                                          TABLE   73
                     ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                   Column Effluent Analyses
                                                                           Date:   11/17/70
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm SO4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


58
0
0.7
199
15
0.1
0.0
14
0

385
131
8
5.30
960
72




178
3.0
4.1
226
38
0
3.1
7.0
0

460
179
8
JJ.3D
800
73




530
87
5.0
205
31
7.8
7.8
4.9
0

500
207
6
4.6F>
720
73




815
101
7.0
207
31
22
7.9
5.9
0

540
202
4
4.40
670
73




970
104
3.0
204
31
28
7.9
5.6
5
465
540
202
0
4.05
650
73








































































































-------
                                                  TABLE   74
                             ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                           Column Effluent Analyses
              Run 34B (Wk. Base NH?)	
                                                                                   Date:   1 1 /9 /7ft
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Hot FMA, ppm CaCC«3
Sulfate, ppm $04
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCOg
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO^
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


57
3.0
20
233
37
1.3
0.3
10
0

505
136
44
7.70
800
73




227
62
40
209
30
2.8
8.9
1.5
0

400
179
110
6.30
780
73




455
73
15
199
30
4.2
8.2
L.2.
0

432
196
42
5.55
770
73




550
87
10
209
30
5.4
8.2
6.4
0

515
199
16
4.85
750
73




680
92
20
206
30
11
8.1
1.4
0

505
202
0
4.50
720
73




790
98
15
201
30
17
8.2
1.2
0

516
202
0
4.20
700
73




850
104
14
208
30
19
8.2
1.4
5
395
545
202
0
4.00
670
73































































ro

-------
                                                TABLE   75
                            ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                         Column Effluent Analyses
            Run  39B (Wk.  Base NH2)	
	 	 	 Date: l i /i 7/70
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm 804
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
"emperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


124
0
1.0
238
35
0.0
0.8
11
0

495
173
6
5.70
790
72




378
81
12
213
33
2.4
7.8
13
0

560
193
4
4.90
740
73




496
81
11
207
31
11
7.8
6.5
0

525
193
2
4.55
730
73




600
87
9
202
31
16
7.8
7.0
0

515
199
2
4.30
710
73




720
90
7
203
31
18
7.8
6.6
5
385
530
199
0
4.00
700
73







































































































co

-------
                                     TABLE    76
                ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                               Column Effluent Analyses
Run 49A (Strong Base,  S04=)  - 21K with  limed AMD Regenerant	
                                                      Tnf1iion+ AMD
                                                                       Date:  1/6/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm SO^
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


0
64
2
155
24
0.3
5.8
1.2
0

410
119
20
4.95
880
72




21
98
32
188
28
14
7.3
1.1
0

545
148
0
4.30
720
72




27
101
19
185
29
19
7.4
0.8
10

535
156
0
3.70
670
72




33
101
19
185
29
20
7.6
0.8
45

535
156
0
3.20
610
72

























104
106
184
29
15
7.7
0.7
535

1010
196
0
2.40
320





















































































-------
                                             TABLE   77
                       ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                      Column Effluent Analyses
Rur. 50A (Strong Base SQ4~) - IRA-410 with limed AMD Hegenerant	

	FnHnni ni	Influent AMD	
                                                                                      Date:  1/1P/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm 864
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCC>3
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


0
95
15
180
28
0.0
7.3
0.5
0

515
145
10
4.80
780
72




21
101
9
180
28
17
7.8
0.4
20

490
159
0
3.40
640
72

























98
102
170
28
15
7.5
0.9
540
840
955
196
0
2.35
350




























































































































en

-------
                                         TABLE   78
                    ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                  Column Effluent Analyses
Run 52A (Strong Base SOr)  -  IRA-410 with NH40H reqenerant	
                                                                          Date:    1/14/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot FMA, ppm CaC03
Sulfate, ppm 804
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCOg
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


0
25
21
200
26
0.0
7.0
0.8
0

360
88
170
5.90
940





21
42
1.0
200
26
0.2
7.9
1.7
0

350
91
205
6.05
900





41
50
3.0
197
28
0.7
7.9
0.6
0

370
94
195
6. 10
870





62
95
0
192
27
6.7
7.9
0.5
0
255
570
128
15
4.80
770




Endpoirvt
70
98
2.0
192
29
26
7.9
0.9
0

575
136
0
4.25
700





79
101
5.0
180
29
31
7.8
0.4
30
480
570
142
0
3*50
640














































104
96
201
28
15
7.9
1.7
545

1048
196
0
2.40
330




AMD




















-------
                                      TABLE  79
                  ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                Column Effluent Analyses
Run 55A (Strong Base S0^=)  -  IRA-410 with NHdOH reqenerant	
                                                                       Date:  1 /2Q /71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm $04
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCOs
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


0
0
0.6
21
0
0
0
n.9
0

33
9
5
8.20
3900
70




21
0
0.5
210
0
0
0
n.^
0

370
94
10
8.70
880
70




31
20
0
207
33
0.8
25
nT<=,
0

530
97
45
6.20
830
70




41
78
8.0
198
31
1.6
12
DTR
0

580
102
40
6.00
810
70




52
98
4.0
209
28
7.6
9.0
n.3
0

640
111
5
4.60
760
70



EndDoirvtj
58 1 68
101
4.0
195
28
18
9.0
n.4
0
345
610
116
2.5
4.35
740
70



101
15
196
28
27
9.0
0.4
25
430
630
119
0
3.65
690
70











































Inf luerrt

104
114
210
27
18
8.4
0.3
860
1205
1360
201
0
2.15
215




                                                                                             AMD

-------
                                          TABLE   80
                      ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                   Column Effluent Analyses
Run 49B (Strong Base 504")  2IK with NfyOH Regenerant	
                                                                           Date:
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Hot FMA, ppm CaC03
Sulfate, ppm 864
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCOn
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft
!

0
0
0.4
92
17
0
0
1.6
0

203
48
25
6.10
^1200
72




21
59
2.0
182
26
0
7.0
3.7
0

530
68
40
5.20
850
72




43
98
22
180
28
15
7.9
4.0
0

635
74
--
4.25
710
72



Endpoirr
49
101
19
183
28
28
8.3
0.7
0

635
80
--
4.20
700
72




55
101
29
191
29
29
8.6
5.6
20

680
82
--
3.70
690
72
!
'





















Inf luenl

104
106
184
29
15
7.7
0.7
535

1010
196
0
2.40
320




AMD




























































-------
                                                 TABLE  81
                             ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                          Column Effluent Analyses
         Run 55B  (Strong Base S04=) 21K with NH4OH regenerant	
                                                         Enrinnlnt
Date:   1/90/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Hot FMA, ppm CaC03
Sulfate, ppm SO4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


0
0
0.2
20
0
0.3
0
0.3
0

40
3
5
7.90
2000
70




17
74
3
228
39
0.3
12
0.5
0

695
82
45
5.80
800
70




21
81
8
201
30
0.5
8.6
1.3
0

615
82
35
5.50
790
70




31
101
2
195
30
16
8.6
0.5
0

640
94
5
4.50
730
70




35
104
11
200
31
26
8.8
0.4
10
400
680
94
0
3.95
690
70




43
104
17
200
32
25
9.0
1.3
60
455
730
97
0
3.30
620
70























Inf luenl

104
114
210
27
18
8.4
0.3
860
1205
1360
201
0
2.15
215




AMD







































•-0

-------
                                                TABLE  82
                            ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                          Column Effluent Analyses
                Rim fiAA  (ration ttM	
	 	 : 	 • 	 	 	 . 	 Date: 2/11/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm A(
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot FMA, ppm CaC03
Sulfate, ppm SO4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaC03
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaC03
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


41
3.7
0.7
4.5
0.6
1
0.1
0.2
1500




1.70
115
68



•^^^••^^•^^••i
227
1.3
0
2.5
0.1
0
0.0
0.1












360
3.7
0
3.2
0.4
0
0.1
1.5












370
5.7
0.8
4.0
0.9
0
0.2
1.4












380
9.0
1.6
5.4
1.5
0
0.3
1.7
i4ftr>




1.70
120








































































































K>
O
o

-------
                                    TABLE  83
                ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                             Column Effluent Analyses
Run 69A  (Cation H+)	
                                                                   Date:  2/19/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCC»3
Hot FMA, ppm CaC03
Sulfate, ppm SO 4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCOo
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


41
3.9
1.2
4.8
0.6
0
0.1
1.0
1660




1.75
	 LI*"
70




227
2.1
0.3
3.1
0.2
0
0.0
0.2












302
9.0
3.5
8.0
2.0
0
0.5
0.9












310
14.8
7.2
12.7
3.7
0
0.9
1.1
iftnn




1.75
190





























































































































-------
                                    TABLE   84
               ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                             Column Effluent Analyses
Run 74A (Cation H+1	
Date: 2/26/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Hot FMA, ppm CaC03
Sulfate, ppm SO^
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCOo
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaC03
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


41
4.8
0.1
5.4
0.6
n
0.1
3.2
1500




1.75
120
71




123
3.3
0.1
4.0
0.3
n
0.1
1.5












227
3.1
0
3.9
0.3
n
0.1
3.8












302
9.6
0.4
7.5
1.5
n
0.3
38












309
13
3
8.8
2.2
r>
0.5
45
1360




1.80
130









































































































-------
                                               TABLE    85
                            ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                         Column Effluent Analyses
               Run 77B (Cation H+)	
Date: 3/3/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCO3
Hot FMA, ppm CaC03
Sulfate, ppm SO 4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


41
25
1
25
3.3
0
0.9
0.3
1400




1.80
l?fS
70




123
14
3
17
2.2
0
0.5
0.0












223
22
2
18
3.2
0
0.8
2.1












230
31
2
22
4.6
0
1.1
2.3
1380




1.80
1-50




























































































































ro
o
OJ

-------
                                               TABLE   86
                           ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                        Column Effluent Analyses
               Run 86A (Cation H+)
	 — 	 	 	 	 Date: 3/24/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Sulfate, ppm 504
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, °F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCOg
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


38
0.5
8.5
35
4.5
0
1.2
0.3
1540




1.70
100
70




115
0.9
4.0
23
2.8
0
0.7
0.2












203
0.6
12.4
41
8.1
0
2.0
1.2












210
0.8
18.2
52
12
0
2.6
1.2
1440




1.75
mo





230
2.0
31
80
18
0
4.4
1.6
1320




1.80
190








































































































ro
o

-------
                                  TABLE   87
               ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                            Column Effluent Analyses
Run 86B (Cation H+)       	
                                                                  Date:  3/24/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm SC"4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO^
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft


38
0.3
1.4
18
2.2
0
0.5
0.1
15RO




1.70
99
70




118
0.3
1.3
13
1.8
0
0.5
0.6












176
0.5
8.1
27
6.5
0
1.6
1.3












185
1.2
18.8
48
16
0
3.4
1.3
1400




1.75
110





























































































































-------
to
o
TABLE R8
ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
Column Effluent Analyses
Runs -94 thru 98 (Composite Cation, Weak Base, Lime, Filter Effluent) 100% Ferrous
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 __.... n»t«- 4/13/71 thru 4/9Q/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm 864
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCOg
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, °F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft

94
260
0.0
0.1
21
0.9
0
0.00
0.6
0

31

25
in.no
5900

Ra.n
21.6

95
400
0.0
0.0
18
1.5
0
0.17
8.9
0

43

25
Q.^n
6400

R4.n
33.6

96
420
0.0
0.1
13
1.7
0
0.17
44
0

110

22.5
7.60
—2400

R3.0
34.8

97
420
0.0
0.0
20
1.6
0
0.05
23
0

64

40
9.95
4400

85.0
35.6

98
420
0.0
0.0
17
1.5
0
0.04
23
0

61

35
9.90
4900

83.0
34.8








































































































-------
                                                  TABLE    89

                             ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE

                                           Column Effluent Analyses

       Runs 99 thru 107  (Composite Cation, Weak Base, Lime,  Filter Effluent) IQQ% Ferric	



       	-	 Date: 5/5/71 thru 6/1/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm SO 4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
.oading Factor, gpg CaCC<3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft

99
370
0.1
0.0
21
2.1
0
0.00
27
0

86

30
10.05
3800

102.0
37.7

100
360
0.1
0.0
23
1.8
0
0.01
26
0

83

35
9.85
4100

103.0
37.1

101
340
0.0
0.2
17
2.1
0
0.01
14
0

60

20
9.90
5300

105.0
35.7

102
360
0.1
0.1
21
2.1
0
0.01
24
0

80

30
10,15
4100

102.0
36.7

103
360
0.0
0.0
22
2.2
0
0.02
35
0

101

35
9,90
3200

107.0
38.5

104
360
0.0
0.0
18
2.2
0
0.01
55
0

129

40
10.00
3100

103.0
37.2

105
360
0.0
0.0
18
2.1
0
0.00
39
0

95

40
10.10
3200

105.0
37.8

106
340
0.0
0.0
26
2.3
0
0.00
61
0

160

40
10.00
2500

106.0
36.0

107
320
0.0
0.0
11
0.2
0
0.00
200
0

274

180
11.40
810

105.0
33.6





















ro
o
-j

-------
                                                   TABLE   90

                              ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE

                                            Column Effluent Analyses

       Runs 10R  thru  119  (Composite Cation. Weak Base. Lime.  Filter  Effluent) 100% Ferric
	 Date: 6/2/71 thru 6/14/7

Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm SO4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, " F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft

ina
320
0.1
0.0
9.5
2.1
0
0.01
100
0

184

60
10.30
1800

106.0
33.9

109
320
0.0
0.2
23
3.9
0
0.02
57
0

165

25
9.90
2400

106.0
33.9

no
320
0.1
0.0
15
2.4
0
0.01
43
XL 	

103

35
10.00
3600

103.0
34.5

111
366
0.0
0.0
14
2.3
0
0.01
65
0

136

45
10.00
2600

110.0
40.2

112
340
0.1
0.4
22
2.5
0
0.00
43
0

153

20
10.00
3100

112.0
38.0





































































































ro
o
oo

-------
                                                  TABLE  91
                             ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                           Column Effluent Analyses
        Runs 94 thru 98 (Composite Strong Acid  Cation Effluent)  100% Ferrous	

       	Date: 4/13/71 thru 4/29/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Hot FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Sulfate, ppm SO^
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft

94

5.5
1.1
13
1.5
0
0.48
0.3
1440
TSRO .
1430

__
1.70
120
69



95

7.4
2.6
12
1.8
0
0.59
5.7
1440
IfSQfi
1430

__
2.20
120
70



96

11.4
2.6
15
2.0
0
0.59
18
1420
l«S4fS
1430

_ —
1.80
120
70



97

11.4
1.6
15
1.7
0
0.54
14
1460
1545
1470

_ —
1.80
120
70



98

10.2
1.8
13
1.5
0
0.47
8.7
1420
1540
1420

__
1.85
120
70







































































































to
o

-------
                                                  TABLE  92
                              ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                           Column Effluent Analyses
       Runs 99 thru 107 (Composite  Strong Acid Cation Effluent)  100% Ferric
	 	 	 	 	 	 Dare^/^/7] thi-n A/1/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Hot FMA, ppm CaC03
Sulfate, ppm S04
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft

99

13
2.0
21
2.3
0
0.76
8.2
1760
2000
1770
--
—
1.80
100
70



100

5.1
2.2
21
2.3
0
0.76
4.5
1780
1980
1780
—
__
1.75
98
70



101

1.7
2.4
19
2.3
0
0.79
8.3
1800
2000
1930
__
_ _
1.75
98
70



102

1.2
2.4
21
2.4
0
0.85
8.9
1760
1980
1900
__
«_
1.65
98
70



103

0.4
3.1
20
2.5
0
0.87
8.9
1840
2000
1830
_. _
__
1.75
97
70



104

0.4
3.1
21
2.5
0
0.84
5.6
1780
2020
1770
_ _
— _
1.65
98
70



105

0.3
2.9
20
2.4
0
0.77
2.9
1800
2020
1790
— _
_ _
1.65
98
70



106

0.2
2.7
19
2.4
0
0.75
5.3
1820
2020
1800
— —
_ _
1.70
98
70



107

0.2
3.2
18
2.^
0
I 0.30
4.6
1800
2060
1780
— _
_ _
1.75
98
70























to
I—'
o

-------
                                            TABLE    93
                       ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                     Column Effluent Analyses
Runs 108 thru 112 (Composite Strong Acid Cation Effluent) 100% Ferric	

	Date: 6/2/71 thru 6/14/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCC-3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sutfate, ppm SO4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCC^
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft

108

0.2
3.1
14
2.6
0
0.85
15
1820
1980
1800


1.80
98
70



109

0.2
4.8
27
4.1
0
1.3
5.3
1820
1960
1830


1.70
96
70



110

0.2
3.5
16
2.6
0
0.81
6.9
1860
1980
1840


1.70
98
70



111

0.2
2.9
20
2.6
0
0.86
21
1880
2040
1860


1.85
98
70



112

0.2
3.8
21
2.8
1.0
0.90
13
1920
2020
1910


1.80
96
70








































































































-------
                                                  TABLE  94
                             ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                           Column Effluent Analyses
        Runs 113  thru  117 and 122 (Weak Base H30^-  -  Lime) 100% Ferrous
	 	 	 	 	 Date: 6/17/71 thru 7/1/7
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Sulfate, ppm 804
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCC>3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC<3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft

113
595
0.0
0.0
62
3.0
n
0.01
n.o
0

133

25
10.00
2700

64.0
33.0

114
440
0
0
30
2,2
— £
0.01
n.o
0

53

30
10.40
4400

70.5
31.0

115
465
0
0
10
1.9
n
0.00
0.7
0

5

30
10.10
5000

69.5
32.4

116
444
0
0
49
0.3
n
0.02
1.4
0

63

60
10.40
2500

70.0
31.1

117
448
0
0
21
1.2
n
0.00
1.1
0

28

30
10.00
4500

67.5
30.3

122
450
0
0
17
1.5
o
0.01
1.3
0

15

35
10.1
4700

68.5
30.8

















































































ro

-------
                                                 TABLE    95
                             ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                           Column Effluent Analyses
            Runs 123 thru 128 (Weak  Base H303~ - Lime)  100% Ferric	
                                                                                  Date: 7/21/71 thru 8/2/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Hot FMA, ppm CaCO3
Suit ate, ppm 864
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCC>3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft

123
260
0.1
0.0
18
2.8
1.0
0.01
1.7
0

30

30
10.30
6500

q.6. 5
9«S.1

124
281
0.0
0.0
39
0.2
1.0
0.00
2.1
0

27

75
10.20
2600

96.0
97.0

125
260
0.0
0.0
7.9
1.2
0
0.01
2.1
0

0

30
10.00
6500

97.0
25 2

126
281
0.0
0.0
110
0
2.0
0.01
2.0
0

13

265
10.80
850

95.0
26.7

127
194
0.0
0.0
110
0.1
1.0
0.00
2.4
0

58

220
11.60
1000

94.0
18.2

128
226
0.0
0.0
16
9.0
0
0.00
2.0
0

54

25
9.90
6400

96.5
21.8

















































































to
I-1
co

-------
                                                 TABLE   96
                             ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                           Column Effluent Analyses
                 iifi thru 191  (Weak Base HSCfr- - Weak Acid  H-Q  100% Ferrous
	 	 	 Date: 7/6/71 thru 7/19/7
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Hot FMA, ppm CaC03
Sulfate, ppm S04
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCO3
PH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO3
Capacity, Kgrs/cu ft

118
460
0.0
0.2
19
1./1.,
0
0.03
2.4
0

22

35
9.70
9300

68.5
31.5

119
404
0.0
0.0
12
— 3.3
0
0.01
1.4
0

11

25
9.80
8400

69.5
28.1

120
356
0.0
0.2
21
n.A
0
0.00
1.4
0

11

45
10.30
6000

64. n
22.8

121
440
0.0
0.0
17
n.3
1
0.03
1.1
0

6

40
10.90
5600

57.^
25.2

























































































































to

-------
                                                  TABLE  97
                             ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                                           Column Effluent Analyses
         Runs  129 thru 135 (Weak  Base rCCft- - Weak Acid -  Lime) 100% Ferric	
                                                                                  Date: 8/4/71 thru 3/20/71
Run No.
Throughput, gals/cu ft
Ferrous, ppm Fe
Ferric, ppm Fe
Calcium, ppm Ca
Magnesium, ppm Mg
Aluminum, ppm Al
Manganese, ppm Mn
Sodium, ppm Na
FMA, ppm CaC03
Hot FMA, ppm CaCC>3
Sulfate, ppm SO 4
Chloride, ppm Cl
Alkalinity, ppm CaCC*3
pH
Sp Resistance, ohm-cm
Temperature, ° F
Loading Factor, gpg CaCO3
Opacity, Kgrs/cu ft

129
240
0
0
10
1.0
0
0.00
0.1
0

4

25
9.80
12 t 500

Q5.0
22.8

130
250
0
0
11
0.2
0
0.00
0.1
0

9

20
10.00
16 T 000

QO.O
22.5

131
248
0
0
9.1
0.1
0
0.00
0.2
0

0

23
10.00
17.000

90.5
22.5

132
242
0
0
5.5
0.3
0
0.00
0.4
0

0

16
10.00
15.000

86.5
21.0

133
260
0
0
5.6
0.4
0
0.00
0.5
0

0

16
9.90
16,000

88.0
21.6

134
260
0
0
11
0.3
0.2
0.00
0.5
0

4

25
9.80
15,000

88.5
23.0

135
260
0
0
6.5
0.5
0
0.00
0.4
0

0

18
9.90
13,000

87.0
22.6





























































(S3
ci
o

-------
  SELECTED WATER
  RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
  INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
                     1. Report No.
  4. Title
        ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT BY ION EXCHANGE
  7. Author(s)
              Holmes, J. G. and  Kreusch,  E. G.
  9. Organization
              Culligan International Company
              Northbrook,  Illinois   60062


 12. Sponsoring Organization  Environmental Protection Agency

 15. Supplementary Notes
                    Environmental Protection Agency  report
                    number EPA-R2-72-056,  November  1972.
                       3.  Accession No.

                       w

                       5.  Report Date
                       f.
                       J.  Performing Organization
                          Report No.

                       10.  Project No. EPA
                          14010 FNJ
                                         11.  Contract/Grant No.

                                            14-12-887

                                         13. Type of Report and
                                            Period Covered
 16. Abstract
     Laboratory studies were  conducted on synthetic  acid mine drainage (AMD)  using
     five ion exchange processes as follows:  strong acid cation exchanger,  hydrogen
     form} strong acid cation exchanger, sodium formj  weak base anion exchanger,  free
     base form; weak base  anion exchanger, bicarbonate formj strong base  anion ex-
     changer, sulfate form.

     Studies in the first  stage eliminated two resins from further work:   strong acid
     cation exchanger, sodium form; and strong base  anion exchanger, sulfate form.
     The remaining three processes were studied additionally to establish fundamental
     design parameters for plants which can produce  potable water from AMD.

     Two processes have resulted.  These were used  as the basis for design of plants
     in three sizes (0.1,   0.5,  and 1.0 MGD) of  each process.

     Cost estimates have  been developed for operating costs, equipment (unassembled
     and unerected), erection costs based on  electrical and plumbing requirements.

     This report was submitted in fulfillment of  Project No. 14010 FNJ, Contract No.
     14-12-887 under the  sponsorship of Water Quality Office, Environmental Protection
                                                                                  Agency.
  17a. Descriptors

     Acid Mine Water*,  Ion Exchange*, Pollution Abatement, Cost*




  17b. Identifiers

     Water Recovery
  17c. COWRR Field & Group
  18. Availability
 05G

19. Security Class.
   (Report)

20. Security Class.
   (Page)
  Abstractor   £d KreUSCh
21. No. of
   Pages

22. Price
                                                        Send To:
                                                        WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
                                                        US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                                        WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240
                                        Institution
                          Culligan  International Company
VVRSIC 102 (REV. JUNE 1971)
                                                         GF> 0 9 13.281

-------