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
------- |