oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/R-19/194 | January 2020 | www.epa.gov/research
Evaluation of Rotating Cylinder
Treatment System™ at
Elizabeth Mine, Vermont
Office of Research arid Development
Land Remediation and Technology Division
-------
EPA/600/R-19/194
January 2020
Evaluation of the Rotating
Cylinder System™ at
Elizabeth Mine, Vermont
by
Barbara A. Butler
U.S. EPA/Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency
Response, Land Remediation and Technology Division, Cincinnati, OH
45268
Ed Hathaway
U.S. EPA/Region 1, Boston, MA 02109
Land Remediation and Technology Division
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and Development,
conducted the data analyses and interpretations described herein under an approved Quality Assurance
Project Plan (Quality Assurance Identification Number G-LMMD-0031208-QP-1-2). Data were
provided by EPA Region 1; therefore, no funding was required. The cover photo of the rotating cylinder
was taken by Kevin Countryman (EPA) and the aerial cover photo of the site (tailings pile embankment,
treatment plant, and sedimentation basin) was taken by Nobis Engineering, Inc.
This document has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, and approved for publication. Any mention of trade names, products, or services does
not imply an endorsement by the U.S. Government or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
EPA does not endorse any commercial products, services, or enterprises.
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents a case study of the rotating cylinder treatment system™ (RCTS™) operated at the
Elizabeth Mine in Strafford, Vermont. Historical mining at the Elizabeth Mine resulted in mining wastes
and mine drainage contaminating Copperas Brook, Lord Brook, and the West Branch of the
Ompompanoosuc River, which led to the mine site being listed on the Superfund list in 2001. Lime
treatment of mining-influenced water is a conventional and effective treatment; however, there are
historical issues with high-volume lime treatment plants being energy-intensive, requiring constant
monitoring, having low lime-efficiency rates due to less than ideal mixing, and presenting significant
challenges for locations that are remote or have limited available space. The RCTS™ is an innovative
system designed to address those issues. An RCTS™ system, followed by a sedimentation basin, was
constructed to treat high concentrations of iron discharging from the tailing impoundment. For the
Elizabeth Mine, the RCTS™ provided interim treatment during the time required for the source control
measures (capping and surface water/groundwater diversion) to reduce the flow and concentration of
iron to levels that would allow for the installation of a passive treatment system at the space limited site.
Performance of the RCTS™ was evaluated from eight years of data (2009-2017). Over this eight-year
period, the maximum annual total iron concentration treated was approximately 1,700 mg/1 and the
minimum annual total iron concentration treated was 50 mg/1. The system effectively removed iron to
low concentrations, with generally less than the site-specific cleanup criteria of 1 mg/1 in the effluent
from the sedimentation basin. This report covers operation of the treatment system from May 2009
through November 2017 and data analysis was completed August 22, 2018.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response (CESER) within the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) is the Agency's center for investigation of technological and
management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health
and the environment. The focus of the Center's research program is on methods and their cost-
effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources;
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and
ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. CESER
collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of
compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. CESER's research provides solutions to environmental
problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
Documenting studies of treatment technologies at Superfund and other sites is important in providing an
understanding of how these technologies remove contaminants and can aid a reader, such as a site
manager, in determining if the technology would be effective under the conditions of their site of
interest. This publication has been produced as part of the Center's long-term strategic research plan. It
is published and made available by US EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist readers in
the remediation community in understanding the capabilities and limitations of active lime treatment of
water using the Rotating Cylinder Treatment System™ technology.
Gregory Sayles, Director
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notice and Disclaimer ii
Abstract iii
Foreword iv
Table of Contents v
Table of Figures viii
Table of Tables ix
Acronyms and Abbreviations x
Acknowledgments xi
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Study Site 1
1.2 Water T reatment 3
1.3 Purpose 4
2.0 Materials and Methods 5
2.1 Treatment System 5
2.2 Data Analysis 8
2.4 Quality Assurance 9
3.0 Results 11
V
-------
3.1 Field Data Derived Figures 11
3.2 Laboratory Data Derived Figures 16
3.3 Tables 20
4.0 Discussion 24
4.1 Water Chemistry 24
4.1.1 Field Data 24
4.1.2 Laboratory-Analyzed Data 25
4.2 Treatment System Costs 26
4.3 Lessons Learned 27
5.0 Concluding remarks 29
6.0 References 30
7.0 Appendices 32
7.1 Appendix A: 2009 Field Data from System Sampling Locations 32
7.2 Appendix B: 2010 Field Data from System Sampling Locations 33
7.3 Appendix C: 2011 Field Data from System Sampling Locations 34
7.4 Appendix D: 2012 Field Data from System Sampling Locations 35
7.5 Appendix E: 2013 Field Data from System Sampling Locations 36
7.6 Appendix F: 2014 Field Data from System Sampling Locations 37
vi
-------
7.7 Appendix G: 2015 Field Data from System Sampling Locations 38
7.8 Appendix H: 2016 Field Data from System Sampling Locations 39
7.9 Appendix I: 2017 Field Data from System Sampling Locations 40
7.10 Appendix J: Laboratory Data from System Sampling Locations 41
7.11 Appendix K: Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Concentrations in 2009 at Primary System
Sampling Locations 42
vii
-------
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Elizabeth Mine in Strafford, VT 05070 1
Figure 2. Confluence of Copperas Brook and the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River
before (October 2007; left side photo) and after (October 2013; right side photo)
remediation efforts. Approximate location 43.83138889, -72.32666667 2
Figure 3. Aerial view of TP-1 and treatment system location (November 2015) 3
Figure 4. Neutralization/mixing tank with dark blue-green color of ferrous hydroxide particles.. 5
Figure 5. Funnel and grinder pump for mixing water with quicklime and recirculating back to
the neutralization/mixing tank (left-side of photo) 6
Figure 6. RCTS™ unit with orange/rust colored discharge water 6
Figure 7. Layout inside building: RCTS™ unit on left hand side; funnel, grinder pump, and
recirculation plumbing on right-hand side; neutralization tank right-hand side at back 7
Figure 8. Treatment system components and water flow through the system with sampling
locations 7
Figure 9. Field measured iron load (solid brown circles) and flow rates (solid blue squares)
from tailings pile (TP-1) over time 11
Figure 10. Field measured total (ferrous + ferric) iron concentration and flow over time 12
Figure 11. Field measured ferrous iron concentration and flow over time 13
Figure 12. Field measured pH in the combined influent (solid blue circles), effluent from the
RCTS™ (solid green diamond), and effluent from the sedimentation basin (blue asterisks)
for each sampling date 14
Figure 13. Monthly average percentage removals of field measured unfiltered ferrous iron
(solid blue circles) between the influent and the sedimentation basin effluent and monthly
average pH values (solid orange squares) in the sedimentation basin effluent 15
Figure 14. Monthly average percentage removals of field measured unfiltered total (ferrous +
ferric) iron concentrations (solid blue circles) between the influent and the sedimentation
basin effluent and monthly average pH values (solid orange squares) in the sedimentation
basin effluent 16
Figure 15. Laboratory results of total recoverable iron (solid orange triangles) and dissolved
(filtered, 0.45 |jm) iron (open black squares) concentrations in the combined influent over
time 17
Figure 16. Laboratory results of total recoverable iron (solid orange triangles) and dissolved
(filtered, 0.45 |jm) iron (open black squares) concentrations in the RCTS™ effluent over
time 18
Figure 17. Laboratory results of total recoverable iron (solid orange triangles) and dissolved
(filtered, 0.45 |jm) iron (open black squares) concentrations in the sedimentation basin
effluent over time 19
Figure 18. Percentage removals of total recoverable and dissolved (filtered, 0.45 |jm) iron over
time between the influent and the RCTS™ effluent (total recoverable iron: solid blue
circles; dissolved iron: solid orange triangles) and between the influent and the
sedimentation basin effluent (total recoverable iron: solid gray squares; dissolved iron: red
asterisks) based on laboratory results 20
viii
-------
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Average annual concentrations of total (ferrous + ferric) iron and ferrous iron (field
data) 21
Table 2: Average of each year's influent flow rates 21
Table 3: Maximum annual influent concentrations of total and ferrous iron and their
corresponding effluent concentrations from the RCTS™ and sedimentation basin (field
data) 22
Table 4: Minimum annual influent concentrations of total and ferrous iron and their
corresponding effluent concentrations from the RCTS™ and sedimentation basin (field
data) 23
Table 5: Operational Costs 26
ix
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
DO
Dissolved oxygen
ft
Feet
gpm
Gallons per minute
Inc
Incorporated
lb/day
Pound per day
kg/day
Kilogram per day
LLC
Limited liability company
m3
Cubic meters
m3/hr
Cubic meters per hour
mg/1
Milligram per liter
RCTS™
Rotating Cylinder Treatment System™
TM
Trademark
TP
Tailings Pile (Tailings Facility)
|im
Micrometer or micrometer
U.S. EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VI
Vermont
yd
Yard
X
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
System data and operations information used to develop this report were documented by several plant
operators over time (Weston Solutions, Inc., Nobis Engineering, and Koman Government Solutions,
LLC) under contract to the Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, and provided to the EPA
Region 1 Remedial Project Manager, Ed Hathaway. The Army Corps of Engineers was managing the
work pursuant to an inter-agency agreement with EPA. Discussions with Michele Mahoney of the
EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management prompted development of this report to add to the
knowledge-base of treatment technologies for cleanup at Superfund sites. The following individuals are
acknowledged for their technical reviews of an earlier draft of this report: Randy Parker and Dr. Robert
Ford of U.S. EPA ORD, and Dr. Robert Seal of the U.S. Geological Survey.
xi
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Site
The Elizabeth Mine is in Vermont's Orange County's historic Copper Belt near Strafford, VT (Figure
1). The mine was operated intermittently from 1809 to 1958 and began as a site where iron sulfide ore
was mined, heaped, roasted, and leached to create an iron sulfate product known as copperas, which
historically was an important industrial chemical (U.S. EPA, 2015). In the early 1880s, mining of the
iron sulfide ceased due to low market prices, competition from other newer sources, and high production
costs from use of older technology (U.S. EPA, 2015). In the early 1820's, copper mining began and by
the 1880's had replaced iron sulfide mining at the Elizabeth Mine. The 149 years of mining resulted in
mining wastes and mine drainage contaminating the Copperas Brook, Lord Brook, and the West Branch
of the Ompompanoosuc River, which led to the site being listed as a Superfund site in 2001 (U.S. EPA,
2015). Much work has been conducted between 2003 and 2019 at the site to clean up the sources of
metals and acidity to the environment, and remediation has resulted in recovery of the macroinvertebrate
communities in Copperas Brook and the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River (U.S. EPA, 2015).
Figure 2 shows the contrast between the pre-remediation iron precipitate load (October 2007) and the
clearer water post-remediation (October 2013) at the confluence of Copperas Brook and the West
Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River.
©
Strafford
©
t
©
(m)
©Thetford
-V (ID (m)\
JP — Lyme
Sharon
©
(5D ®
w
Norwich
Pomfret ^ Hanover
Qj Etna
4
Hartford . (jo) ^
WHITE RIVER (4j
QUECHEE pr*) JUNCTION ,
UJ UO gle Lebanon ^ @ Enfield
© ^ Map data ©2018 Google
Figure 1. Location of the Elizabeth Mine in Strafford, VT 05070. Map data ©2018 Google.
1
-------
Figure 2. Confluence of Copperas Brook and the West Branch of the Qmpompanoosuc River before (October
2007; left side photo) and after (October 2013; right side photo) remediation efforts. Approximate location
43.83138889,-72.32666667.
One of the initial response actions at the Elizabeth Mine Superfund Site was to stabilize the tailings dam
associated with Tailings Pile 1 (TP-1). This was implemented in 2004 and 2005 and involved installing
a soil buttress against the dam, creating a surface channel to drain standing water from the top of the
impoundment, and grading the side slopes to minimize erosion. To prevent water from becoming
trapped behind the buttress, a toe drain was installed at the downgradient base of TP-1, with a series of
eight lateral 20.32 cm (8-inch) diameter pipes running beneath the buttress to discharge the water from
the toe drain. During construction of the toe drain and removal of tailings that had eroded from the face
of the dam, four historical decant structures for the impoundment were uncovered. A 10.16 cm (4-inch)
pipe was installed within each of these decant structures to allow them to function similarly to a
horizontal drain.
The improved drainage at the toe of TP-1 resulted in an average of 12.3 m3/hr (54 gpm) of leachate
containing very high concentrations of ferrous iron, with releases of up to 362.9 kg/day (800 lb/day) of
iron (peak month July 2007, Figure 9) into Copperas Brook and the West Branch of the
Ompompanoosuc River. Other than iron and sulfur (as sulfate), elements generally found in mine-
drainage and requiring treatment, such as cadmium, copper, and zinc, were either not present or present
at trivial concentrations in the leachate. Vermont has an average allowable concentration - chronic
criterion of 1 mg/1 total iron for protection of aquatic biota (State of Vermont, 2016), which is the site-
2
-------
specific cleanup criteria for iron.
The Elizabeth Mine cleanup plan included the construction of a passive treatment system for the
drainage from TP-1 (U.S. EPA, 2006). Passively treating inorganic constituents requires enough space
to accommodate retention times necessary for biological and chemical reactions to occur. The iron
concentration and overall iron load in 2008 was determined to be too high to be effectively treated in the
space available using a passive system. As a result, passive treatment was postponed until the
concentration and flow would be decreased enough that a passive system could be sized sufficiently to
treat the drainage. In the interim, an active water treatment system was designed and installed in 2008 to
treat combined flows from the toe and horizontal drains. An aerial view of the treatment system and TP-
1 is shown in Figure 3.
TP-1 Tailings Pile
RCTS in_
building
V
r
Lime silo
TP-1 Leachate drains and
collection
rf-
Sedimentation
Basin
f .V- - ..V-'
Figure 3. Aerial view of TP-1 and treatment system location (November 2015).
Prior to the treatment system's construction, four horizontal drains were installed in 2008 to facilitate
drawdown of the water within TP-1. Between 2010 and 2012, a multi-layered low permeability cover
system was constructed over TP-1 to limit infiltration and perimeter drainage channels were constructed
to divert surface flow and shallow groundwater around TP-1. These measures led to further improved
drawdown of water within the impoundment.
1.2 Water Treatment
The typical active treatment for ferrous iron involves adding oxygen to oxidize ferrous iron to ferric iron
and increasing the pH above about 3.5, commonly with lime, to precipitate ferric hydroxide. Ferrous
hydroxide also will precipitate with the addition of lime (pFF> 8) but will oxidize to ferric hydroxide
3
-------
when exposed to oxygen. The abiotic oxidation rate of ferrous to ferric iron depends on the dissolved
oxygen concentration ([02(aq)]), ferrous iron concentration ([Fe2+]), and the pH according to the Equation
1 (modified from Stumm and Lee, 1961), which is rearranged in terms of pH in Equation 2:
d[Fe2+]
—L^fJ- = kFe[Fe2+][02(aq)][0H-]2
Equation 1
d[Fe2+] kFe[Fe2+][02aq][ 10"28]
dt ~ 10-(2*pH)
Equation 2
The rate of ferrous oxidation is first order in terms of ferrous iron concentration and dissolved oxygen
concentration, and second order in terms of hydroxyl ion concentration. Therefore, an increase of one
pH unit will increase the oxidation rate by 100 times and a doubling of the oxygen concentration will
double the oxidation rate. Additionally, higher concentrations of ferrous iron are oxidized faster than
lower concentrations at constant pH and dissolved oxygen concentration.
Conventional lime treatment plants use mixers in reaction tanks to form a lime slurry and compressors,
diffusers, and agitators to provide oxygen to oxidize ferrous iron and other reduced ions. (Tsukamoto
and Moulton, 2006). A more compact and mobilizable Rotating Cylinder Treatment System™
(RCTS™) technology for lime treatment was developed by Ionic Water Technologies, Inc. The
technology replaces conventional agitators, compressors, diffusers, and reaction vessels with a
perforated cylinder that rotates through a trough containing the lime slurry and water being treated
(Tsukamoto and Moulton, 2006; Tsukamoto and Weems, 2010). A film of water adheres to the inner
and outer surfaces of the cylinder as it rotates, where oxygen exchange occurs, and agitation created by
the impact of the perforations with water in the trough enhances lime mixing and dissolution and oxygen
transfer (Tsukamoto and Moulton, 2006). The RCTS™ technology has been successful at treating high
concentrations of iron in mine drainage while using minimal space, power, and lime (Tsukamoto and
Moulton, 2006), has been deployed as a portable unit (California Water Boards, 2019), and in direct
comparison to conventional lime treatment in 2004 at the Leviathan Mine, the technology had lower
lime consumption (105.7 kg/day vs. 180.5 kg/day), higher average DO concentration in the effluent
(7.86 mg/1 vs. 4.22 mg/1), a shorter hydraulic residence time (58.5 min vs. 131.7 min), and less energy
consumption (2640 W vs. 8640 W) (Tsukamoto and Weems, 2009). Due to its smaller footprint,
mobility, potential for decreased costs (versus a conventional treatment plant), and the anticipation that
the treatment would be temporary, the RCTS™ was chosen to treat the drainage from TP-1.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to describe the performance of the RCTS™ in removing high
concentrations of iron from mining-influenced water (tailings pile leachate) over an 8-year (2009-2017),
seasonal (spring through fall) operating time. The report includes an assessment of the treatment
system's efficiency, using both field and laboratory data, and documents operating and maintenance
requirements from lessons learned at the Elizabeth Mine site. This type of information is expected to be
useful to project managers or other practitioners in evaluating the use of the RCTS™ technology for
sites with similar issues.
4
-------
2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Treatment System
The treatment facility at Elizabeth Mine was designed to operate during non-winter months (April to
November) with an average influent flow of 6.8 m3/hr (30 gpm), a maximum influent flow of 9.1 m3/hr
(40 gpm), an average influent iron concentration of 900 mg/1, a maximum effluent iron concentration of
< 50 mg/1, and an anticipated operating life of five years (Weston Solutions, 2016). Operation during
only the non-winter months was determined to be more economical due to the location and climate of
the site, where insulating and heating the building housing the treatment system would have been
expensive and it would have been difficult to keep the water from freezing, both before and after being
treated.
The water treatment system comprises several processes, which include collection, neutralization,
aeration, precipitation, and settling of iron solids. Photos of system components are provided in Figures
4-6, the layout of components inside the building are shown in Figure 7, and a schematic of the process
with sampling points is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 4. Neutralization/mixing tank with dark blue-green color of ferrous hydroxide particles.
5
-------
Figure 5. Funnel and grinder pump for mixing water with quicklime and recirculating back to the
neutralization/mixing tank (left-side of photo).
Figure 6. RCTS™ unit with orange/rust colored discharge water.
6
-------
Figure 7. Layout inside building: RCTS™ unit on left hand side; funnel, grinder pump, and recirculation
plumbing on right-hand side; neutralization tank right-hand side at back.
Figure 8. Treatment system components and water flow through the system with sampling locations.
Combined toe and horizontal drain leachate flows into a manifold that drains by gravity into a pump
station wet well. The treatment system flow is controlled by floats in the pump station. The pumps
operate at a higher rate than the leachate flow from TP-1 to maintain a wet well level, which results in
7
-------
intermittent operation over the course of each day; since 2011, operation time typically is 9-10 hours per
day. From the wet well, the leachate is pumped to a neutralization/mixing tank (Figure 4) to raise the
pH, with some of the leachate going first into a funnel (Figure 5) where it is mixed with quicklime in a
grinder pump and then that slurry is recirculated back into the neutralization/mixing tank, which
increases residence time to allow neutralization of the water before exiting to the RCTS™ unit. The lime
is stored in a silo (Figure 3) and fed to the grinder pump through the funnel system. A visual check on
the neutralization step is observation of the color of the water in the neutralization tank, with the
expected color being blue-green to indicate the presence of fine particles of ferrous hydroxide (Figure
4). From the neutralization/mixing tank, the water flows by gravity to the RCTS™ unit (on left in Figure
7) where it is aerated as a thin layer of water around the inside of two rotating cylinders to oxidize
ferrous iron to ferric iron. A visual check of performance of the RCTS™ is observation of an orange/rust
color in the effluent (Figure 6). The aerated alkaline water from the RCTS™ is then gravity fed to the
sedimentation basin (Figure 3) where iron precipitates settle out. In troubleshooting the system in July
2011, Nobis Engineering, Inc. (2016a) conducted a red dye tracer test to assess the retention time of the
RCTS™ and the sedimentation basin and found that the red dye appeared at the outlet of the RCTS™ in
less than one minute and that the dye took approximately 1.5 hours to travel across the sedimentation
basin, although there was no discussion of the depth of the water column containing the dye. The
RCTS™ contained precipitates and wind caused some short-circuiting across the sedimentation basin;
therefore, observed retention times were shorter than what would be expected under typical operating
conditions. Overlying water from the sedimentation basin discharges to a channel that then feeds into
Copperas Brook, and eventually feeds into the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River.
Operation and maintenance of the system includes maintaining equipment in accordance with
manufacturer's instructions (including pumps and motors); maintaining accurate records of data from
operations, process operation monitoring using field analytical methods, removing precipitates from
system components; and troubleshooting and repairing/replacing faulty equipment. Additionally, since
the treatment system was operated seasonally, commissioning and decommissioning of the system was
required each year. Additional information on these activities is available in Nobis Engineering Inc.
(2016b) and Weston Solutions (2012), among other publicly-available documents on EPA's Elizabeth
Mine Superfund Site webpage.
Process operation monitoring included field testing for total (ferrous + ferric) and ferrous iron and pH at
locations throughout the system: the combined influent (IT-01), the effluent from the neutralization tank
(IT-02), the rotating cylinder effluent (IT-03), the water within the sedimentation basin (IT-04), and the
sedimentation basin effluent (IT-05) (Figure 8). Process operation monitoring occurred at least once per
week during months of operation (typically April to November), generally at each location.
2.2 Data Analysis
This study uses field data from the combined influent (IT-01), effluent from the rotating cylinder (IT-
03), and effluent from the sedimentation basin (IT-05) from 2009-2017. The field sampling raw data are
provided in Appendices A-I. In addition to operational field samples for pH and total (ferrous + ferric)
and ferrous iron, several samples were collected from the combined influent, the rotating cylinder
effluent (RCTS™), and sedimentation basin effluent over the course of time for laboratory analysis of
total sulfate and total recoverable and dissolved (filtered, 0.45 |im) analytes. Laboratory raw data for
alkalinity, total sulfate, and total and dissolved Al, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, and Zn are provided in
Appendix J. This study includes discussion of laboratory results for total recoverable iron and dissolved
iron (field-filtered, 0.45 jam) in combination with field monitoring results for total iron (ferrous + ferric),
ferrous iron, and pH.
8
-------
2.4 Quality Assurance
Contractor-collected iron field data (total [ferrous + ferric], and ferrous) indicated that RCTS™ effluent
(IT-03) samples were filtered (0.45 |im), but influent (IT-01) and sedimentation basin effluent (IT-05)
samples were not indicated as such, so were assumed to be unfiltered. Influent samples were diluted
500:1 and RCTS™ effluent and sedimentation basin effluent samples were undiluted. Field samples
were analyzed using a Hach 890 colorimeter. Ferrous iron was analyzed using Hach Method 8146 and
total (ferrous + ferric) iron was analyzed using Hach Method 8008. EPA-collected laboratory samples
were analyzed at the EPA Region 1 laboratory in North Chelmsford, MA for inorganic anions (EPA
300.0), total recoverable and dissolved (field-filtered at 0.45 |im) metals by ICP-OES (EPA 3010A or
3005A and 6010B), and alkalinity (EPA 310.1).
Both filtered and unfiltered field data are presented, but only unfiltered total (ferrous + ferric) iron and
unfiltered ferrous iron concentrations were compared between the system influent and the sedimentation
basin effluent for determining percentage removal by the treatment system. Field data excluded from
processing and analysis included the following:
• those reported as suspect by the system operators,
• those appearing to be in error when compared to surrounding sampling dates or typical values
(e.g., typographical errors),
• those with "> x" values, where "x" was an upper reporting limit,
• those where a corresponding pH was not reported,
• any sampling date where no concentrations were provided for the combined influent location or
that had data for influent but no data for RCTS™ effluent or sedimentation basin effluent, and
• any sampling date where there was clear notation of the system not operating (e.g., October
2012, where there was data for only a single date due to a two-week downtime to replace the
grinder pump in the early part of the month).
On several occasions (July 1 and 2, 2009, June 7, 2010, April 19 and 21, 2011, and September 16 and
19, 2013), the pH of the sedimentation basin effluent was 5-6 and effluent total iron (unfiltered, ferrous
+ ferric) concentrations were much higher than typical (23 to 178 mg/1 versus 0 to < 10 mg/1), indicating
that something in the system was not working properly, but data were not indicated as suspect in field
notes. However, system shutdown notes indicated that there were various issues with the supply of lime
on or around these dates. Therefore, data from those dates were excluded from monthly averages (and
associated calculations) to not skew assessment of typical monthly operating capability, but they were
included in graphs where concentration data were presented over time (Figures 10-12) to be inclusive of
times when the system was not operating properly but was not completely shut down.
Ferrous iron concentrations often were higher than total (ferrous + ferric) iron concentrations in the
RCTS™ effluent samples, and occasionally in the sedimentation basin effluent samples (see graphs in
Section 3.1). This was evident for most samples in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 (June through
August), with all but 3 of 52 measurements in 2015 having ferrous iron concentrations higher than total
iron concentrations in the RCTS™ effluent. Yearly average concentrations also show this trend for
2012-2014, although standard deviations suggest there is no difference between the means (Table 1).
The grouping of total (filtered, ferrous + ferric) iron concentrations in RCTS™ effluent was higher in
9
-------
2016 and 2017 than in previous years and this trend of increased concentration was also observed for
filtered ferrous iron in 2016, and more visible in the 2017 data (see Section 3.1). In these years, several
dates had reported ferrous and total (ferrous + ferric) iron concentrations that exceeded method ranges
(0.02 to 3.00 mg/1 Fe2+, Hach Method 8146 and 0.02 to 3.00 mg/1 Fe, Hach Method 8008, respectively),
but no notes regarding whether samples had been diluted were provided. Most field sediment basin
effluent samples contained less than 1 mg/1 total iron, except for 2011 where all but one sample
exceeded 1 mg/1. These observed anomalies in the data likely are due to differences in field analytical
techniques between different system operators (three different contractors operated the system over the
years covered in this report) or to other analytical issues. For some of the sampling dates where ferrous
concentrations were higher than total (ferrous + ferric), field notes indicated the ferrous iron samples
were cloudy, which may have influenced the measurement; however, an unambiguous reason for the
anomalies cannot be given because notes were not provided for all sampling dates when they occurred.
10
-------
3.0 RESULTS
Figure 9 presents field measured total iron load (unfiltered, ferrous + ferric) from all TP-1 drains and the
corresponding total leachate flow. Figures 10-14 present treatment system field monitoring data, and
Figures 15-18 present laboratory data from the treatment system.
3.1 Field Data Derived Figures
Unfiltered total (ferrous + ferric) iron loads and flows of leachate from TP-1 are provided in Figure 9,
along with the annual average loads and flows. Figure 10 presents flows and concentrations of unfiltered
(IT-01 and IT-05) and filtered (0.45 |im, IT-03) total (ferrous + ferric) iron; Figure 11 presents flows and
concentrations of filtered (0.45 |im, IT-03) and unfiltered (IT-01 and IT-05) ferrous iron; and Figure 12
presents pH. The figures include each of the days sampled where field data were provided and the data
were not stated as suspect in contractor reports or determined to be erroneous (e.g., typographical
errors).
400
Iron Leachate Load from Tailings Pile (TP-1)
16
¦•-Iron (kg/day)
A Annual Average Iron (kg/day)
¦-Flow (m3/hr)
O Annual Average Flow (m3/hr)
14
12
10
C >> Q- C >y Q. d >» D- C >» Q- C >» Q- C >. Q. C Q. C >, Q. C >» Q. C >» Q. C >» Q. C >-. CL C >sCLC >>
(D
CO
(D
CO
(D
CO
(D
CO
(D
CO
(D
CO
(D
CO
(D
CO
(D
CO
(D
CO
0 03 ro 0 03 03
CO -> ^ CO -5 ^
0 03 03
CO ^
Date
Figure 9. Field measured iron load (solid brown circles) and flow rates (solid blue squares) from tailings pile (TP-
1) over time. Average annual iron loads are represented by yellow triangles and average annual flows are
represented by yellow diamonds. To convert to pounds per day, multiply load values by 2.20462; to convert to
gallons per minute, multiply flow values by 4.4029.
11
-------
10000
1000
(V
o
c
o
O
100
0.01
Total (Ferrous + Ferric) Iron
• Combined Influent, IT-01 (unfiltered)
O RCTS Effluent, IT-03 (filtered)
X Sedimentation Basin Effluent, IT-05 (unfiltered)
-Influent FlowTreated
Mar-09
Mar-10
Mar-17
14
10
o<>
o e*
8 -o
Ws
CO
<#0°
E,
3
o
6 n:
Figure 10. Field measured total (ferrous + ferric) iron concentration and flow over time. Solid blue circles
represent the treatment system influent, solid green diamonds represent effluent from the RCTS™, blue asterisks
represent effluent from the sedimentation basin, and the solid black lines represent flow. Concentrations are
plotted on a log-scale for ease of viewing.
12
-------
Ferrous Iron
• Combined Influent, IT-01 (unfiltered)
O RCTS Effluent, IT-03 (filtered)
X Sedimentation Basin Effluent, IT-05 (unfiltered)
Mar-09 Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-15 Mar-16 Mar-17
Date
Figure 11. Field measured ferrous iron concentration and flow over time. Solid blue circles represent the
treatment system influent, solid green diamonds represent effluent from the RCTS™, blue asterisks represent
effluent from the sedimentation basin, and the solid black lines represent flow. Concentrations are plotted on a
log-scale for ease of viewing.
13
-------
13
12
11
10
9
"c
13
"O
¦g 8
c
.2
i. 7
6
5
4
PH
~
> P111 hi I
^j| i§| '0 ^
> ~ X 4 * ~
- ~ Sj,
1 «X A „
• H
• Combined Influent, IT-01
~ RCTS Effluent, IT-03
XSedimentation Basin Effluent, IT-05
Mar-09 Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-15 Mar-16 Mar-17
Date
Figure 12. Field measured pH in the combined influent (solid blue circles), effluent from the RCTS™ (solid green
diamond), and effluent from the sedimentation basin (blue asterisks) for each sampling date.
The percentages of the average monthly unfiltered ferrous iron concentrations removed by the overall
system (i.e., between the influent and the sedimentation basin effluent) are plotted in Figure 13, along
with monthly averages of the corresponding effluent pH values. The percentages of the average monthly
total iron concentrations (ferrous + ferric, unfiltered) removed are plotted in Figure 14, along with the
monthly averages of the corresponding effluent pH values. For each of these figures, only sampling
dates having measurements for both iron concentrations and pH were used. Percentage removals were
calculated using Equation 3.
t-. * (influent concentration (IT-01) -sedimentation basin effluent concentration (IT-OS))
Removal % = 100 x ^ - —)J- -1
influent concentration (IT-01)
Equation 3
14
-------
110
100
t 90
% Removal
Monthly Average - Ferrous Iron
v y
i
i
J
• Ferrous Iron
PH
2009 (June-Oct); 2010 (May-Nov); 2011 (Apr-Nov); 2012 (May-Sept); 2013 (June-Nov); 2014 (May-Nov); 2015
(June-Nov); 2016 (June-Nov); 2017 (May-Nov)
-+-
-+-
-+-
-+-
-+-
-+-
-+-
Mar-09
Mar-10
Mar-11
Mar-12
Mar-13
Date
Mar-14
Mar-15
Mar-16
Mar-17
15
14 —
¦E
a;
3
E
13 w
c
'«)
ro
m
c
o
12
ro
¦E
a;
11 I
0)
CO
10
¦<
s
<
¦E
o
Figure 13. Monthly average percentage removals of field measured unfiltered ferrous iron (solid blue circles)
between the influent and the sedimentation basin effluent and monthly average pH values (solid orange squares)
in the sedimentation basin effluent. Error bars represent the standard deviations of the average values over the
sampling dates within each month. Note: more variability is evident in pH measurements than in removal
percentages; non-visible error bars for pH indicate those months where data for only a single sampling date was
used for both iron and pH.
15
-------
110
90
70
Total Iron
PH
i
i
i J*
J
15
14
¥
-------
900
800
P
D
A
1
7/6/2009
Concentrations in Combined Influent (IT-01)
~
aa
~
B
4 Total Iron
~ Dissolved Iron
~nP
~
~
~
%
—i—
11/18/2010
1
12/27/2014
1
5/10/2016
1
9/22/2017
2/22/2008
4/1/2012 8/14/2013
Date
Figure 15. Laboratory results of total recoverable iron (solid orange triangles) and dissolved (filtered, 0.45 |_im)
iron (open black squares) concentrations in the combined influent overtime.
17
-------
Concentrations in RCTS Effluent (IT-03)
A
At
J Total Iron
~ Dissolved Iron
A A
2/22/2008
~~
7/6/2009 11/18/2010
4/1/2012 8/14/2013
Date
~ ~ ~
12/27/2014 5/10/2016
1
9/22/2017
Figure 16. Laboratory results of total recoverable iron (solid orange triangles) and dissolved (filtered, 0.45 |_im)
iron (open black squares) concentrations in the RCTS™ effluent over time. Except for 10/14/2009 (value
0.293 mg/1), all dissolved iron data were qualified as being below the detection limit and reported at detection
limit values ranging from 0.100 to 0.180 mg/1.
18
-------
Concentrations in Sedimentation Basin Effluent (IT-05)
5
4
2
1
i Total Iron
~ Dissolved Iron
~
~ A
A
aa
m
A
~
-I-
11/18/2010
QMD
dnb cP
h
12/27/2014
A
QD
~~
-t
5/10/2016
1
9/22/2017
2/22/2008
7/6/2009
4/1/2012 8/14/2013
Date
Figure 17. Laboratory results of total recoverable iron (solid orange triangles) and dissolved (filtered, 0.45 |_im)
iron (open black squares) concentrations in the sedimentation basin effluent over time. Only 6/11/2013 (1.3 mg/1)
and 7/1/2015 (3.5 mg/1) dissolved iron data are above detection; all other samples were qualified as being below
the detection limit and reported at detection limit values ranging from 0.090 to 0.220 mg/1.
19
-------
110
90
70
¦E
a;
o 50
<1)
CL
30
10
-10
XX X
Percent Removals
yyy yyy
AAA AAA
X
• Total Recoverable Iron (% removal from RCTS)
4 Dissolved Iron (% removal from RCTS)
¦ Total Recoverable Iron (% removal from overall system)
XDissolved Iron (% removal from overall system)
2/22/2008
1
7/6/2009
1
11/18/2010
4/1/2012 8/14/2013
Date
1
12/27/2014
1
5/10/2016
1
9/22/2017
Figure 18. Percentage removals of total recoverable and dissolved (filtered, 0.45 |_im) iron overtime between the
influent and the RCTS™ effluent (total recoverable iron: solid blue circles; dissolved iron: solid orange triangles)
and between the influent and the sedimentation basin effluent (total recoverable iron: solid gray squares; dissolved
iron: red asterisks) based on laboratory results.
3.3 Tables
Table 1 presents average annual concentrations and standard deviations for 2009-2017 and Table 2
presents average system influent flows and standard deviations for those years. Tables 3 and 4,
respectively, present the maximum and minimum field measured treatment system influent
concentrations for each year with their corresponding RCTS™ effluent and overall system
(sedimentation basin) effluent concentrations.
20
-------
"able 1: Average annua
concentrations of tota
(ferrous + ferric) iron and ferrous iron (field data)
Year3
Analyteb
Combined Drainage
Influent (mg/l) -
unfiltered
IT-01
RCTS™ Effluent (mg/l) -
filtered
IT-03
Sedimentation Basin
Effluent (mg/l) -
unfiltered
IT-05
2009
Total Iron
850.57 ±239.84
8.92 ±20.41
1.05 ±0.74
2009
Ferrous Iron
388.04 ±204.33
0.95 ±2.16
0.14 ±0.16
2010
Total Iron
858.45 ±189.55
0.52 ±0.59
0.94 ±1.32
2010
Ferrous Iron
360.48 ± 121.03
0.34 ±0.63
0.13 ±0.17
2011
Total Iron
856.24 ± 126.83
1.98 ±6.85
2.89 ±1.81
2011
Ferrous Iron
492.63 ± 125.90
0.63 ±0.69
0.37 ±0.36
2012
Total Iron
879.55 ± 181.09
0.37 ±0.29
0.96 ±0.44
2012
Ferrous Iron
554.05 ± 175.39
1.81 ±1.16
0.42 ±0.34
2013
Total Iron
461.65 ±74.47
0.24 ±0.58
0.68 ±1.07
2013
Ferrous Iron
266.02 ±119.49
0.93 ±0.90
0.27 ±0.32
2014
Total Iron
309.32 ±51.68
0.35 ±1.01
0.81 ±1.48
2014
Ferrous Iron
213.56 ±72.83
0.47 ±0.61
0.30 ±0.44
2015
Total Iron
214.35 ±96.21
1.61 ±11.05
0.66 ±1.68
2015
Ferrous Iron
79.94 ±26.85
1.19 ±1.73
0.26 ±0.32
2016
Total Iron
183.62 ±53.93
10.46 ± 17.95
0.52 ±0.29
2016
Ferrous Iron
110.16 ± 31.59
0.78 ±1.52
0.13 ±0.11
2017
Total Iron
199.15 ±64.75
12.28 ± 12.74
0.41 ±0.25
2017
Ferrous Iron
136.26 ±56.05
2.67 ±4.98
0.07 ±0.12
aMonths included for RCTS™ effluent: May-Oct (2009); Apr-Oct (2010, 2012); Apr-Nov (2011); May-Nov (2013, 2014,
2015, 2016 [no total iron provided for July], 2017. Months included for sedimentation basin effluent: Apr-Nov (2011); May-
Nov (2010, 2014, 2017); May-Sept (2012); June-Oct (2009); June-Nov (2013, 2015, 2016).
Table 2: Average of each year's influent flow rates
Year3
Influent Flow (m3/hr)
IT-01
2009
8.42 ±1.01
2010
7.36 ±1.24
2011
6.00 ±1.64
2012
5.12 ±0.79
2013
5.10 ±0.51
2014
4.39 ±0.34
2015
3.93 ±0.43
2016
4.58 ±0.60
2017
5.37 ±0.57
aMonths included: May-Oct (2009); Apr-Oct (2010); May-Oct (2012); May-Nov (2011, 2013-2017).
21
-------
Table 3: Maximum annual influent concentrations of total and ferrous iron and their corresponding effluent
concentrations from the RCTS™ and sedimentation basin (fie d data)
Year3
Analyte
Combined Drainage
Influent (mg/l) -
unfiltered
IT-01
RCTS™
Effluent (mg/l) -
filtered
IT-03
Sedimentation Basin
Effluent (mg/l) -
unfiltered
IT-05
Date of
Occurrence
2009
Total Iron
1710
23.6
No data
05/13/2009
2009
Ferrous Iron
1208
2.77
No data
05/13/2009
2010
Total Iron
1480
0.52
0.15
07/28/2010
2010
Ferrous Iron
680
No data
0.23
09/08/2010
2011
Total Iron
1280
0.55
No data
09/21/2011
2011
Ferrous Iron
810
1.61
No data
09/01/2011
2012
Total Iron
1340
0.72
0.91
09/06/2012
2012
Ferrous Iron
790
0.88
0.13
05/09/2012
2013
Total Iron
745
0.06
1.29
10/14/2013
2013
Ferrous Iron
525
2.39
0.1
05/28/2013
2014
Total Iron
430
0.14
No data
05/16/2014
2014
Ferrous Iron
365
0.86
No data
07/14/2014
2015
Total Iron
875
0.01
No data
05/18/2015
2015
Ferrous Iron
215
0.06
No data
05/26/2015
2016
Total Iron
395
No data
0.2
07/26/2016
2016
Ferrous Iron
200
1.53
0.15
10/01/2016
2017
Total Iron
445
11
1.25
10/24/2017
2017
Ferrous Iron
310
9
0
06/16/2017
aMonths included for RCTS™ effluent: May-Oct (2009); Apr-Oct (2010, 2012); Apr-Nov (2011); May-Nov (2013, 2014,
2015, 2016 [no total iron provided for July], 2017. Months included for sedimentation basin effluent: Apr-Nov (2011); May-
Nov (2010, 2014, 2017); May-Sept (2012); June-Oct (2009); June-Nov (2013, 2015, 2016).
22
-------
Table 4: Minimum annual influent concentrations of total and ferrous iron and their corresponding effluent
concentrations from the RCTS™ and sedimentation basin (fie d data)
Year3
Analyte
Combined Drainage
Influent (mg/l) -
unfiltered
IT-01
RCTS™ Effluent
(mg/l) -
filtered
IT-03
Sedimentation Basin
Effluent (mg/l) -
unfiltered
IT-05
Date of
Occurrence
2009
Total Iron
460
No data
3.3
06/24/2009
2009
Ferrous Iron
40
No data
0.57
06/19/2009
2010
Total Iron
360
0
0.72
07/22/2010
2010
Ferrous Iron
125
0
0.03
06/18/2010
2011
Total Iron
600
No data
2.86
06/24/2011
2011
Ferrous Iron
295
0.3
No data
11/02/2011
2012
Total Iron
535
0.08
0.55
06/13/2012
2012
Ferrous Iron
60
3.02
0.08
08/08/2012
2013
Total Iron
300
0.04
0.06
09/03/2013
2013
Ferrous Iron
50
2.69
0.3
09/03/2013
2014
Total Iron
155
0.11
0.57
10/06/2014
2014
Ferrous Iron
65
0.25
0.27
10/06/2014
2015
Total Iron
118
0.18
0.22
11/02/2015
2015
Ferrous Iron
40
2.61
0.02
08/27/2015
2016
Total Iron
50
4
0.4
10/25/2016
2016
Ferrous Iron
35
0
0.03
07/29/2016
2017
Total Iron
85
0
0.01
06/02/2017
2017
Ferrous Iron
25
4
0
08/01/2017
aMonths included for RCTS™ effluent: May-Oct (2009); Apr-Oct (2010, 2012); Apr-Nov (2011); May-Nov (2013, 2014,
2015, 2016 [no total iron provided for July], 2017. Months included for sedimentation basin effluent: Apr-Nov (2011); May-
Nov (2010, 2014, 2017); May-Sept (2012); June-Oct (2009); June-Nov (2013, 2015, 2016).
23
-------
4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 Water Chemistry
4.1.1 Field Data
Improved drainage of TP-1 from initial response actions led to leachate containing very high
concentrations of iron, with a peak load in July 2007 of 362.9 kg/day (800 lb/day) (Figure 9). Over time,
there has been a 97 % decrease in observed average iron load to 10.9 kg/day (24 lb/day) in October
2017, as well as a 78 % decrease in discharge from an annual average of 12.3 m3/hr (54 gpm) in 2007 to
an annual average of 2.7 rnVhr (12 gpm) in 2017.
The decrease in iron leached from TP-1 over time is reflected also in the decreasing combined treatment
system influent concentrations shown in Figures 10 and 11 and in the average annual concentrations
provided in Table 1. Table 2 provides the average annual treatment system inflow rates, which were
highest in 2009-2011, and lower, but similar, for years 2012 through 2017. The differences between the
values of average annual flows of leachate observed from TP-1 (Figure 9) and the average annual flows
at IT-01 (Table 2) are because the flows used for Figure 9 were total drain flows and the flows for the
treatment system were reported flows into the process (controlled by floats in the pump station), which
may have been higher or lower than the total seepage flow for any given date.
The highest maximum total (unfiltered, ferrous + ferric) iron and ferrous iron leachate concentrations
were treated in 2009-2012 (Figure 10 and Table 3). The decrease in leachate concentrations since 2012
is due to additional remedial activities that occurred at the site from 2010-2012 when the multi-layered
low permeability cover system was constructed over the impoundment to minimize infiltration into the
tailings pile, along with continued dewatering by the drains. A sample in 2015 had the highest maximum
total (unfiltered, ferrous + ferric) influent iron concentration (875 mg/1) after 2012, but this is still quite a
bit lower than the lowest maximum value of 1,280 mg/1 in 2011 (Table 3) before the cover was
completed. Minimum total (unfiltered, ferrous + ferric) iron concentrations treated also decreased over
time (Figure 10 and Table 4).
The trend of decreased maximum and minimum concentrations over time is true also for influent ferrous
iron (Figure 11 and Tables 3 and 4), although there are more exceptions than for total iron, possibly due
to inconsistent changes in amounts of oxygen entering the drain openings over time. Dissolved oxygen
(DO) from TP-1 drains ranged from < 1 mg/1 to about 12 mg/1 over 2007-2010. DO data collected in
2009 (Appendix K) indicate an average concentration of 4.3 mg/1, with a range of 2.7 to 5.5 mg/1 in the
combined influent, an average of 6.4 mg/1 and range of 5.0 to 7.6 mg/1 in the RCTS™ effluent, and an
average of 6.3 mg/1 and range of 4.3 to 9.1 mg/1 in the sedimentation basin effluent. The average DO
concentration achieved by the RCTS™ in 2009 (6.4 mg/1) was not as high as what was achieved in the
Tsukamoto and Weems (2009) comparison of the RCTS™ with conventional lime treatment (7.86 mg/1,
Section 1.2). The DO concentration of the influent was not provided in Tsukamoto and Weems (2009),
but comparison of the RCTS™ effluent (IT-03) and the combined system influent (IT-01) in this study
indicates an increase of 2 mg/1 in the average DO concentration achieved by the RCTS™.
Combined field influent pH remained mostly within the range of about 4.5 to 6.8 over the nine years
(Figure 12). There is more variability in pH values over time in both the RCTS™ effluent (IT-03) and
sedimentation basin effluent (IT-05) within each year and over 2009-2017 (Figures 12-14), with
maximum pH values occurring in the RCTS™ effluent. Generalized values based on field data from the
24
-------
2015 operating season suggest that the optimal pH range for the RCTS™ is 8.5 to 11, 8.5 to 9.5 for the
sedimentation basin, and 8.5 to 11 for the neutralization tank; although operational experience also
demonstrated that system operation below pH 8.0 leads to high amounts of iron in the sedimentation
basin effluent and operation at pH about 9.5 leads to an increase in gypsum formation and scaling on the
rotating cylinder (Nobis Engineering Inc., 2016b). Issues with scaling were often observed and reported
in monthly reports, and Figure 12 shows that the pH of the RCTS™ effluent generally exceeded 9.5.
Total recoverable sulfate concentration was observed to decrease by 100 to 1800 mg/1 following
quicklime addition and aeration from the RCTS™ (see Appendix J); however, because calcium
concentration increased (Appendix J) from dissolution of the lime, a correlation between loss of sulfate
and formation of gypsum could not be determined. It is also possible that some sulfate loss is due to
formation of iron oxyhydroxysulfate minerals, but mineralogical testing of the precipitates was not
conducted.
The monthly average percentages of unfiltered ferrous iron and total (unfiltered, ferrous + ferric) iron
removed by the overall treatment system (difference between the influent and the sedimentation basin
effluent) exceeded 98% for all years of operation (Figures 13 and 14). Data in Tables 3 and 4 show that
the neutralization plus RCTS™ can treat a wide range of influent ferrous iron concentrations to less than
about 3 mg/1, except for the maximum treated in 2017, where the RCTS™ effluent concentration was 9
mg/1. However, the 9 mg/1 ferrous iron was reduced to 0 mg/1 by the overall system (neutralization +
RCTS™ + sedimentation basin) from additional oxygen transfer occurring within the sedimentation
basin. The overall treatment system could remove a wide range of total (ferrous + ferric) iron
concentrations to below 1 mg/1 with two exceptions previous to 2012, during startup of operations in
2009 and in 2011, where concentrations in the sedimentation basin effluent were close to 3 mg/1, and
two exceptions in 2013 and 2017 where maximum influent concentrations were treated to about 1.3 mg/1
(Tables 3 and 4).
4.1.2 Laboratory-Analyzed Data
System influent total recoverable and dissolved (filtered, 0.45 |im) iron concentrations each show a
decreasing trend (Figure 15) beginning with the 2013 samples, as was observed in the field iron data
(Table 1). The concentration of total recoverable iron is essentially the same in the RCTS™ effluent (IT-
03) as in the combined influent (IT-01) and dissolved (filtered, 0.45 |im) iron concentration is much
lower in the RCTS™ effluent as compared to the combined influent (compare Figures 15 and 16), with
only one sample (October 2009, see Appendix J) identified as being above the laboratory's detection
limit. The dissolved (filtered, 0.45 |im) iron results at IT-03 suggest that the aeration from the RCTS™
is effectively oxidizing dissolved and particulate ferrous iron in the alkaline water to ferric
oxyhydroxides.
Comparison of Figure 17 with Figures 15 and 16 shows that total recoverable iron concentration is much
lower in the sedimentation basin effluent (IT-05) than in the system influent and RCTS™ effluent,
indicating effective settling of precipitated iron oxyhydroxides. Dissolved (filtered, 0.45 jam) iron
concentrations in the sedimentation basin effluent were reported at below detection for all but two
sampling dates (June 11, 2013 and July 1, 2015), where concentrations were 1.3 and 3.5 mg/1,
respectively (Figure 17 and Appendix J). Field samples within a day or two of each of these sampling
dates also showed > 1 mg/1 ferrous iron. The 2013 sample was collected within about a week from the
start of discharge from the system after starting up in May, which may be why ferrous iron was present
above detection. The field pH in the sedimentation basin effluent was 6.88 on 6/29/2015 and it was 6.38
in the RCTS™ effluent and 6.62 in the effluent from the neutralization tank (data not shown) preceding
the RCTS™. This suggests that there was an issue with lime dosing that resulted in a decrease in pH
throughout the system, which could have resulted in dissolution of any precipitated unoxidized ferrous
25
-------
iron (at typical pH of the sedimentation effluent, both ferrous and ferric oxyhydroxide would
precipitate), although no field notes indicated a problem, so the reason is not known. The field sample
collected on 7/2/15 still had ferrous iron at 1.17 mg/1 (3.78 mg/1 total iron) and a pH of 6.60 in the
sedimentation basin effluent, but the sample obtained on 7/6/15 had only 0.52 mg/1 total iron and 0.08
mg/1 ferrous iron with a pH of 8.64, indicating the system was again operating effectively.
The percentage of total recoverable iron removed between the RCTS™ effluent and the treatment
system influent was < 10% and sometimes was negative (Figure 18). This result is expected because the
neutralization and aeration steps will change the oxidation state of the iron and its solubility, and it is
expected that most of the settling of precipitates will occur in the sedimentation basin as the water
velocity from the RCTS™ to the basin should keep the forming precipitates in suspension. The small
amount removed indicates coating of the neutralization/mixing tank and/or the rotating cylinder, which
did occur over time and was periodically cleaned off along with gypsum scale that formed. The
laboratory samples also showed high removal percentages for the overall system (neutralization +
RCTS™ + sedimentation basin) for both total recoverable and dissolved (filtered, 0.45 |im) iron (Figure
18), with the lowest removals of 97% for total recoverable iron and 98% for dissolved iron occurring on
July 1,2015.
4.2 Treatment System Costs
The water treatment system construction costs were reported as $1,446,100 by Weston Solutions (2012).
These costs included preparation of the site for construction of the building to house the system,
treatment plant and sedimentation basin construction, project management, quality assurance, health and
safety considerations, and other administrative costs.
Major categories of operating costs are maintenance, labor, utilities (electric and phone/internet),
process chemicals, equipment, and supplies. Labor includes operation, administration, and maintenance;
chemicals are quicklime and field test supplies; and supplies are cleaning materials, maintenance
equipment and supplies, tools, and other such expendable items. Operational costs are provided in Table
5.
Table 5: Operational Costs
Year
Costs
Reference
2008-2010
$537,200
Weston Solutions, 2012
2011-2012
$760,488
Nobis Engineering Inc., 2016b
2013
$261,923
Nobis Engineering Inc., 2016b
2014
$213,105
Nobis Engineering Inc., 2016b
2015-2016
$263,962
Nobis Engineering Inc., 2016b
Electricity usage was about 40,000 kilowatts during each 6-month operating period and costs varied
from $0.11 to $0.16 per kilowatt over the years of operation. Maintenance included cleaning the
RCTS™ drums to remove precipitated iron and gypsum scaling three to four times per year and yearly
commissioning and decommissioning due to seasonal operation. Grinder pumps required frequent
replacement (one to two per operating season) and accounted for the highest annual maintenance
equipment cost of a little more than $4,000 each (Nobis Engineering Inc., 2016b).
Sludge management also contributes to operational costs. The sludge generated at the Elizabeth Mine
was sampled and tested and did not contain any constituents that would require special handling.
Approximately 764.6 m3 (1,000 yd3) of sludge accumulated in the sediment basin each year during the
26
-------
early years of operation, which was excavated yearly and placed on the tailing impoundment until the
cover system was completed in 2012. From 2012 onward, sludge was accumulated in the sedimentation
basin and by 2018 the basin contained approximately 1,529 m3 (2,000 yd3) of soft, non-weight bearing
sludge at a depth of up to 1.5 m (5 ft). Although the sedimentation basin is fenced to prevent access,
onsite sludge disposal included adding Portland cement to stabilize the sludge and further minimize the
safety hazard of someone sinking into it if walked upon. Stabilization and final closure of the
sedimentation basin cost approximately $150,000 ($98.10 / m3).
From data in Table 5, typical average annual operational costs (excluding the 2011-2012 costs and
excluding sedimentation basin closure cost) for the system were about $232,000. Operational costs
reported for 2011-2012 were higher than typical due to revisions made in 2012 to improve the system
and running a 2-week pilot of a weir tank to evaluate its ability to minimize maintenance of the
RCTS™. The revisions included installation of two new RCTS™ drums with larger perforations,
installation of an overhead crane/lift system for the RCTS™ drums to decrease manpower and to
improve efficiency and safety of conducting maintenance on the system, replacement of pump station
plumbing, installation of a new sedimentation outlet, and installation of remote monitoring cameras
(Nobis Engineering Inc., 2016b).
As of November 31, 2017, a total of 183,312 cubic meters (48,425,871 gallons) of leachate had been
treated since the beginning of operation in late summer 2008. Using the estimated typical average annual
operational costs and the system construction cost, the average annual cost of treating 3.785 liters (one
gallon) of water was approximately $0,071 ([$1,446,100 + 8.5-yr * $232,000]/48,425,871).
4.3 Lessons Learned
Neutralization of acidity with abase (e.g., limestone, lime, sodium hydroxide) and subsequent
precipitation of metals and metalloids is a conventional active treatment method for mining-influenced
water. Generally, there is a preference to use lime over sodium hydroxide (also called caustic soda),
based on the former creating a denser sludge and having a higher neutralization capacity (U.S. EPA,
1983). Sodium hydroxide in water treatment is a liquid and can cause serious chemical burns and
therefore its use requires careful storage and handling. Control of pH is more difficult with sodium
hydroxide than with lime, because small amounts can cause rapid and large changes in pH, whereas use
of lime allows slower changes in pH with each incremental dose. In addition, there may be
environmental concerns with discharging large quantities of sodium. At this site, lime was chosen as
more suitable due to safety concerns and other disadvantages of sodium hydroxide (Nobis Engineering
Inc., 2016b).
A disadvantage of using lime in treating mining-influenced water is that the calcium released will react
with sulfate to form gypsum when sulfate is present in the mining-influenced water at concentrations of
greater than about 1,500-2000 mg/1 (Runtti et al., 2018; Bowell, 2004). Gypsum precipitation is a
common cause of scaling and plugging in treating this type of water and results in increased monitoring
and maintenance costs. At this site, gypsum buildup affected nearly all components of the treatment
system, including clogging of pipes, chunks of gypsum falling off sides of tanks clogging outlets,
cracking of seams of RCTS™ drums, failure of bearings due to drums being out of balance from scale
buildup, and blocking of the sedimentation basin effluent pipe (Nobis Engineering Inc., 2016b). In one
instance, a clogged plastic pipe melted from extended exposure to the lime as it reacted with water in an
exothermic reaction. An additional cause of clogging was buildup of unground lime in pipes between the
grinder pump and the neutralization tank and between the neutralization tank and the RCTS™, resulting
from inefficient grinding of the lime after the first few months of grinder pump use (Nobis Engineering
Inc., 2016b).
27
-------
Several lessons learned are that system plumbing and equipment should be as accessible as possible to
allow for easier maintenance, the design should consider potential future upgrades, and configuration of
pumps should be designed to allow use of universal motors. Several factors need to be considered
together in optimizing both treatment efficiency and costs for the lime RCTS™ treatment, including
identifying and minimizing potential safety hazards of reagents, identifying and understanding any
required specifications for piping and other system components contacting the lime, and identifying
ways to minimize complications of gypsum formation. It is important to closely monitor pH to allow
sufficient neutralization followed by effective aeration with minimal scaling of the RCTS™ unit, which
allows conversion of the ferrous iron to ferric oxyhydroxides that will settle within the sedimentation
basin. Monitoring ferrous iron concentration in the RCTS™ effluent allows assessment of the
performance of the RCTS™ at oxidizing the ferrous iron to ferric iron. Although not done at this site,
monitoring DO also may be beneficial in assuring oxidation in the RCTS™ is maximized to minimize
the potential for any oxidation needing to occur in the sedimentation basin where efficiency of oxidation
is dependent on the basin's surface area for oxygen transfer.
Disposal of sludge also can be a challenge. Factors needing to be considered are whether there are any
hazardous constituents and whether it can be disposed on-site or if a dry cake needs to be created for
transportation and disposal off-site. Safety hazards with respect to trespass need to be mitigated if sludge
is disposed on-site, because the consistency does not support being walked upon.
Some other considerations for this type of treatment system, which are common to other active treatment
systems, include that there is a need for access to power and a level space for construction of the pad,
assembly may be difficult if the location is very remote with limited access, and economics of year-
round operation in locations with cold winters should be considered as well as economics of long-term
treatment. A final note is that the harsh environment within the treatment plant created challenges with
power equipment. At the time of decommissioning in 2018, several treatment system components
(neutralization tank) and the RTCS drums were approaching the end of their useful life and would have
required replacement to continue treatment. For long-term operation, a replacement cost schedule would
be appropriate to ensure capital funds were available acquire the equipment in time to avoid loss of
treatment capability.
28
-------
5.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The wide range of total (ferrous + ferric) iron and ferrous iron concentrations treated over the eight years
of data analyzed is evident in Figures 10 and 11 and in Tables 3 and 4. Comparison of the field-
measured influent maximum and minimum concentrations with their corresponding effluent
concentrations (Tables 3 and 4) indicates that neutralization and aeration using the RCTS™ followed by
settling is highly effective in removing high (and low) concentrations of iron to low levels, generally to
less than 1 mg/1, which was a greater than 99% removal of the iron. Laboratory data also support this
conclusion.
The Phase 3 Non-time-critical removal action at the site involves the construction of a passive treatment
system to remove iron from the leachate originating from TP-1. Concentrations of total iron in the
combined leachate from horizontal and toe drains averaged about 900 mg/1 in 2007. High concentrations
of iron are difficult to treat passively at sites that have limited land space to accommodate the retention
times necessary to allow biological and/or chemical reactions to occur. Therefore, the choice of
constructing an active system at Elizabeth Mine in 2008 was due to the very high loading of iron
needing to be treated (362.9 kg/day (800 lb/day) at its highest in 2007, Figure 9) and limited space, and
was intended to be a temporary system. The temporary system provided effective iron treatment for 10
years with sedimentation basin effluent concentrations that met the instream Vermont state aquatic biota
water quality criterion (1 mg/1) for total iron. It successfully treated the leachate discharge from the
tailing impoundment during the period when flows (and related loads) were reducing due to the cleanup
actions. The treatment system along with the greater than 90% reduction in aluminum, copper, and zinc
in Copperas Brook due to the mine waste consolidation and capping, resulted in the West Branch of the
Ompompanoosuc River achieving the Vermont water quality standards for the first time since
monitoring began in the 1960, and likely since the early 1800's. The West Branch of the
Ompompanoosuc River was removed from the federal impaired waters list in 2014. Because loads are
much lower (10.9 kg/d (24 lb/day) in October 2017) now than what they were in 2007, passive treatment
is now a viable, long-term strategy for the site. EPA installed a passive treatment system to replace the
RCTS™ treatment plant that became operational in summer 2019.
29
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
Bowell, Robert J., 2004. A review of sulphate removal options for mine waters. In: Jarvis, A.P.,
Dudgeon, B.A., & Younger, P.L. (eds), Mine Water 2004 - Proceedings of the International Mine Water
Association Symposium. Volume 2. pp. 75-91, Newcastle upon Tyne (University of Newcastle).
California Water Boards. 2019. Year-end report for the 2018 field season at Leviathan Mine. Prepared
by: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. Submitted to U.S. EPA Region
9.
Nobis Engineering, Inc., 2016a. Phase II Non-Time Critical Removal Action Interim Completion
Report, Elizabeth Mine Superfund Site, South Strafford, Vermont, Revision 2. Appendix M, Water
treatment system operations. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District.
EPA's Elizabeth Mine Superfund Site Reports and Documents. Doc ID 605863.
Nobis Engineering, Inc., 2016b. Phase II Non-Time Critical Removal Action Interim Completion
Report, Elizabeth Mine Superfund Site, South Strafford, Vermont, Revision 2. Prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, New England District. EPA's Elizabeth Mine Superfund Site Reports and
Documents. Doc ID 605853.
Runtti, Hanna, Tolonen, Emma-Tuulia, Tuomikoski, Sari, Luukkonen, Tero, and Lassi, Ulla, 2018. How
to tackle the stringent sulfate removal requirements in mine water treatment - A review of potential
methods. Environmental Research. 167:207-222.
State of Vermont, 2016. Appendix C, Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human and Aquatic
Biota, In: Vermont Water Quality Standards Environmental Protection Rule Chapter 29A. Appendix C.
Water Quality Criteria. Montpelier, VT.
Stumm, Werner and Lee, G. Fred, 1961. Oxygenation of Ferrous Iron. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry. 53:143-146.
Tsukamoto, Timothy K. and Moulton, Patrick, 2006. High efficiency modular treatment of acid mine
drainage field applications at Western U.S. sites with rotating cylinder treatment system™ (RCTS™).
Paper presented at the 27th West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force Symposium, Morgantown,
WV.
Tsukamoto, Timothy K. and Weems, Vance, 2009. Multiple site evaluation of RCTS™ acid mine
drainage treatment, emergency mobilization and lime utilization. Paper presented at the 2009 National
Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Billings, MT.
Tsukamoto, Timothy K. and Weems, Vance, 2010. Lime delivery and methodology in mining impacted
water treatment. In: Wolkersdorfter, Christian & Freund, Antje (eds), Proceedings 2010 of International
Mine Water Association Symposium - Mine Water and Innovative Thinking. Sydney, Nova Scotia,
Canada, pp. 191-195. CBU Press.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983. Design Manual: Neutralization of Acid Mine Drainage.
Office of Research and Development, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Chicago, IL.
EPA-600/2-83-001.
30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Superfund record of decision summary: Elizabeth Mine,
Strafford, VT. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1. Administrative Records. Doc ID
259304.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015. Elizabeth Mine Interpretive Panels. Doc ID 626322.
Weston Solutions, Inc., 2012. Non-Time Critical Removal Action, Elizabeth Mine Superfund Site,
South Strafford, Vermont. Final Phase I and Partial Phase II Completion Report. Prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, New England District. EPA's Elizabeth Mine Superfund Site Reports and
Documents. Doc ID 605854.
Weston Solutions, Inc., 2016. Elizabeth Mine water treatment system final operations and maintenance
manual. Elizabeth Mine Superfund Site Non-Time Critical Removal Action, South Strafford, Vermont,
Revision 1. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District and Nobis
Engineering, Inc.
31
-------
7.0 APPENDICES
7.1 Appendix A: 2009 Field Data from System Sampling Locations
Date
Total iron (mg/l)
Ferrous Iron (mg/l)
PH
Influent
Flow (gpm)
Notes for data usage
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
5/13/2009
1710
23.6
1208
2.77
5.88
7.64
38
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/15/2009
1080
0.05
710
0.21
5.16
9.74
38
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/20/2009
845
0.46
535
0.41
5.87
9.34
40
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/22/2009
950
0.71
355
0.23
5.92
8.42
31.58
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/26/2009
830
>3.3
440
0.03
5.84
9.92
32.2
Greater than values provided for total iron at IT-03; no data for IT-05, date not used
for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/29/2009
815
0.21
370
0.06
6.57
7.86
39.72
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
6/1/2009
870
0.89
1.64
345
0
0.02
6.52
8.95
6.49
39.72
6/3/2009
715
2.1
1.77
340
0.17
0
5.59
8.19
8.14
39.32
6/5/2009
735
0.22
1.33
270
0.1
0
6.21
9.9
7.27
40.12
6/8/2009
680
0.86
1.14
355
0.9
0.07
6.72
7.37
6.75
41.62
6/10/2009
660
2.25
1.57
200
0.85
0.14
5.29
7.71
8.61
39.23
6/12/2009
655
0.22
1.5
395
0
0.21
6.56
9.19
6.9
38.31
6/15/2009
760
0.13
0.62
420
0.01
0.03
6.27
8.72
9.12
35.53
6/17/2009
1315
0.79
385
0.22
6.07
8.69
8.85
37.4
No data for IT-03
6/19/2009
590
1.64
40
0
6.33
9.56
7.2
36.69
No data for IT-03
6/24/2009
460
3.3
185
0.57
6.01
8.46
6.6
35.8
No data for IT-03
6/26/2009
840
0.11
0.29
380
0.05
0
5.85
10.53
8.02
37.72
7/1/2009
1000
178
475
46
5.9
5.8
51.04
pH values and concentrations at IT-05 suggest that the system was not operating
properly as values are much higherthan typical - operations log indicates system
was down 5 hours for repairs - data excluded from comparisons and averages, but
retained in plots of individual data overtime
7/2/2009
990
135
125
385
1.48
90
5.95
8.83
6.72
40.54
pH values and concentrations at IT-05 suggest that the system was not operating
properly as values are much higherthan typical - operations log indicates system
was down 2.5 hours for repairs - data excluded from comparisons and averages, but
retained in plots of individual data overtime
7/7/2009
930
8.21
550
0.33
5.32
8.93
39.4
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
7/16/2009
943
36.4
1.04
390
10.4
0.14
5.47
7.09
9.11
38.3
7/24/2009
823
3.9
0.7
349
0.36
0.19
5.94
9.91
9.3
35.8
7/29/2009
897
3.6
0.6
322
0.95
0.47
5.86
9
9.37
35.9
8/3/2009
796
91
0.82
289
1.01
0.33
6.1
9.84
9.32
34
8/14/2009
871
12
0.29
364
1.2
0.21
5.76
10.24
9.28
33.78
8/26/2009
881
0.19
378
0.02
6.26
7.72
8.97
33.94
No data for IT-03
9/17/2009
475
0.04
0.23
75
0
0
6.21
9.73
8.3
28.32
10/7/2009
700
0.31
0.46
355
0.81
0
5.45
10.12
8.91
26.59
Key for Table: total = ferrous + ferric; IT-01 = combined influent, unfiltered; IT-03 = RCTS effluent, filtered at 0.45 |im; IT-05 = sedimentation basin effluent, unfiltered
32
-------
7.2 Appendix B: 2010 Field Data from System Sampling Locations
Date
Total iron (mg/l)
Ferrous Iron (mg/l)
PH
Influent
Flow (gpm)
Notes for data usage
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
4/7/2010
815
0.21
415
0.11
6.06
8.99
27.85
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
4/8/2010
820
1
420
0.06
5.46
10.41
31.2
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
4/12/2010
760
>3.3
510
2.06
5.6
6.6
26.71
Greater than values provided for total iron at IT-03; no data for IT-05, date not used
for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
4/16/2010
905
0.32
250
0
6.11
10.2
25.43
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
4/21/2010
840
0.17
460
0
5.88
9.57
24.75
no data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/5/2010
780
0.07
1.38
270
0
0.22
6
10.55
9.39
26.7
5/14/2010
735
0.59
1.41
245
0.37
0.03
5.83
11.09
9.73
31.1
5/19/2010
680
0.27
1.42
205
0.08
0
5.86
9.58
9.17
33.72
6/2/2010
860
0.46
0.5
420
0.16
0.19
5.87
10.03
9.45
36.42
6/7/2010
845
118
320
18
6
5.85
35.76
No data for IT-03,and appears suspect for IT-05 with low pH and very high iron
concentrations; issue noted for feeder in shutdown notes - data excluded from
comparisons and averages, but retained in plots of individual data overtime
6/18/2010
1030
6.49
125
0.09
5.3
10.3
8.5
29.99
No data for IT-03
6/30/2010
960
0.69
1.36
470
0.41
0.18
5.79
11.36
8.95
32.6
7/8/2010
960
2.71
0.99
440
2.52
0.21
6.09
9.46
8.63
39.17
7/14/2010
810
0.61
0.18
145
0.17
0
5.83
9.51
8.61
36.8
7/22/2010
360
0
0.72
184
0
0.03
5.8
9.32
8.92
36.8
7/28/2010
1480
0.52
0.15
305
0.23
4.63
8.65
9.09
35.3
No data forferrous at IT-03
8/4/2010
1090
0.63
285
0.32
6.3
6.88
8.7
37.4
No data for IT-03
8/11/2010
905
0.79
0.47
350
0.44
0.76
5.93
10.12
8.75
34.1
8/25/2010
885
0
0.43
315
0.22
0
6.03
9.93
9.18
24.98
9/2/2010
695
0.08
0.12
435
0.17
0.07
5.83
9.71
8.28
24.98
9/8/2010
1140
0
0.56
680
0
0.08
5.97
10.06
9.03
24.98
9/15/2010
880
0.09
430
0.01
6.03
8.71
31.28
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
9/22/2010
940
0
0.65
420
0
0
5.94
9.77
8.77
31.3
9/28/2010
995
1.37
0.53
320
0.64
0.37
5.04
9.93
8.6
27.3
10/8/2010
840
0.76
2.35
365
0.24
0.1
5.06
8.14
8.21
35.14
Total iron data for IT-05 stated as "suspect data", date not used for IT-01/IT-05 total
iron comparison
10/13/2010
640
0.91
0.79
330
0.13
0.03
5.83
9.78
9.03
37.6
10/20/2010
800
0.24
0.01
480
0.14
0
5.85
9.77
9.05
44.3
10/27/2010
790
0.03
0
525
0.11
0.03
5.81
10.3
9.21
43.2
IT-03 data stated as "suspect data"
11/3/2010
655
0.2
0.95
335
0.05
0
5.85
11.28
9.3
no data
IT-03 data stated as "suspect data"
Key for Table: total = ferrous + ferric; IT-01 = combined influent, unfiltered; IT-03 = RCTS effluent, filtered at 0.45 |im; IT-05 = sedimentation basin effluent, unfiltered
33
-------
7.3 Appendix C: 2011 Field Data from System Sampling Locations
Date
Total iron (mg/l)
Ferrous Iron (mg/l)
PH
Influent
Flow (gpm)
Notes for data usage
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
4/14/2011
755
0.74
725
0.17
5.76
10.65
40
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
4/19/2011
800
1185
695
390
5.75
5.94
58
pH values and concentrations at IT-03 suggest that the system was not operating
properly as values are much higherthan typical - operations log indicates system
was down many hours between 4/15 and 4/26due to flume issues - data excluded
from comparisons and averages, but retained in plots of individual data overtime
4/21/2011
630
237
490
0.3
5.67
9.88
39
pH values and concentrations at IT-03 suggest that the system was not operating
properly as values are much higherthan typical - operations log indicates system
was down many hours between 4/15 and 4/26due to flume issues - data excluded
from comparisons and averages, but retained in plots of individual data overtime
4/27/2011
705
0.16
2.27
615
0.12
0.24
5.9
9.97
9.61
36.5
4/29/2011
775
0.3
2.28
610
0.29
0.38
5.59
10.48
8.84
no data
No flow provided
5/4/2011
930
0.24
10
610
0.25
0.26
5.41
10.56
9.94
no data
No flow provided
5/12/2011
735
0.14
2.92
535
0.19
0.07
5.58
9.8
9.35
no data
No flow provided
5/18/2011
745
0.27
1.46
510
0.08
1.01
5.86
10.14
9.63
no data
No flow provided
5/25/2011
980
3.08
18
515
0.45
1.46
5.85
9.56
8.98
29
Total iron was flagged by contractor for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 total iron
comparisons
5/26/2011
805
0.13
2.04
465
1.04
1.08
5.6
9.58
8.79
28
5/27/2011
8
1.44
1.52
420
1.7
0.15
5.78
10.26
8.75
27
Value fortotal iron at IT-Olappears suspect, date not used fortotal iron
comparisons
6/7/2011
845
0.2
2.42
400
0.6
0.44
6.05
10.09
9.2
27.5
6/15/2011
900
2.59
490
0.29
6.1
8.8
32
6/22/2011
880
0.52
4.52
480
0.59
0.81
5.92
9.9
8.82
no data
No flow provided
6/24/2011
600
2.86
360
0.21
6
10.48
8.94
32.53
No data for IT-03
6/29/2011
685
0.24
2.1
325
0.05
0.21
5.91
9.43
8.56
33.5
7/6/2011
765
0.12
1.53
315
0.57
0.63
5.31
9.25
8.24
32.5
7/13/2011
850
0.28
1.84
355
0.47
0.16
5.93
10.5
9.48
31.5
7/20/2011
935
39
1.72
320
0.76
0.35
5.24
8.37
7.77
28
7/28/2011
1030
0.24
5.12
460
0.15
0.29
5.75
9.5
8.38
no data
No flow provided
8/3/2011
925
0.4
4.08
420
0.24
0.65
5.51
9.17
8.33
27.53
8/10/2011
965
1.7
1.4
480
1.56
0.16
5.83
7.16
8.71
25.7
8/17/2011
890
0.44
1.68
595
0.52
0.1
5.38
9.86
9.07
24.8
8/24/2011
805
0.2
2.54
455
0.27
0.09
5.23
8.41
8.67
23.7
9/1/2011
1010
5.4
4.56
810
1.46
0
5.57
9.42
8.14
25.3
9/7/2011
800
0.12
1.97
655
0.24
0.08
5.42
9.46
8.97
23
9/14/2011
890
2.35
1.91
560
0.03
0.85
5.16
9.42
8.92
23.9
9/21/2011
1280
0.55
645
1.61
5.19
9.48
22.09
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
9/29/2011
950
0.11
560
3.27
5.38
9.79
14.3
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
10/5/2011
927
1.16
5.32
357
1.16
0.01
6.1
9.06
9.26
23.6
10/12/2011
895
0.27
500
0.07
5.51
9.84
20.13
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
10/19/2011
860
0.2
2.77
310
0.08
0.28
5.53
9.14
8.34
20.13
10/27/2011
920
0.3
4.34
420
0
0.09
5.69
10.35
8.41
13.24
11/2/2011
895
0.19
2.19
295
0.57
0.14
5.67
10.15
9.24
no data
No flow provided
11/10/2011
750
0.91
0.83
485
0.83
0.11
5.47
9.59
9.24
8.97
Key for Table: total = ferrous + ferric; IT-01 = combined influent, unfiltered; IT-03 = RCTS effluent, filtered at 0.45 |im; IT-05 = sedimentation basin effluent, unfiltered
34
-------
7.4 Appendix D: 2012 Field Data from System Sampling Locations
Date
Total iron (mg/l)
Ferrous Iron (mg/l)
PH
Influent
Flow (gpm)
Notes for data usage
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
4/13/2012
895
1.03
605
0.25
5.8
10.25
25.8
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
4/18/2012
1100
0.84
260
0.13
5.74
9.79
26.2
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/9/2012
985
0.93
2.36
790
3.04
0.24
5.79
10.87
9.66
24.47
5/16/2012
925
0.32
0.95
685
2.45
0.11
5.63
10.67
9.09
25
5/24/2012
865
0.56
1.14
605
3
0.68
5.41
11.9
10.34
no data
No flow provided
6/1/2012
770
0.24
725
3
5.87
9.99
27.26
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
6/6/2012
1165
0.17
1.34
740
0.17
1.34
5.38
10.72
9.71
27
6/13/2012
535
0.08
0.55
585
3.02
0.08
5.16
11.48
9.47
no data
No flow provided
6/20/2012
895
0.47
0.94
615
1.28
0.54
5.16
11.45
9.97
23.73
6/27/2012
895
0.08
1.16
450
3.3
0.13
5.7
11.82
10.29
21.24
7/3/2012
710
0.11
1.17
405
3.18
0.48
5.55
11.65
10.69
22.8
7/11/2012
805
0.4
0.71
545
2.69
0
5.29
11.63
10.55
24.6
7/18/2012
830
0.02
0.78
600
3.3
1.02
5.55
11.95
11.32
22.2
7/25/2012
1065
0.22
0.44
620
2.22
0.46
5.26
11.22
11.32
22.99
8/8/2012
760
0
1.33
60
0
0.47
4.82
9.4
10.51
26.7
8/15/2012
580
0.45
0.82
295
1.19
0.39
5.55
1.54
9.34
21.8
pH for IT-03 not used as suspect data
8/23/2012
1045
0.22
1.01
500
1.88
0.54
5.43
10.54
10.52
18
8/29/2012
835
0.17
0.86
500
2.04
0.45
5.25
11.03
9.95
19
9/6/2012
1340
0.72
0.91
745
0.88
0.13
5.14
11.6
9.57
15.8
9/13/2012
805
0.5
0.38
0
1.51
0.5
4.78
11.44
10.46
17.88
No data for ferrous iron at IT-01, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 ferrous comparisons
9/20/2012
745
0.2
0.51
635
1.11
0
4.76
10.84
10.43
16
10/18/2012
800
0.41
186
670
0.21
124
6.63
10.63
5.06
22.22
Notes on system shutdowns indicates system wasn't running 10/8-10/15; this
appears to have created anomolous values at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05
comparisons, but retained in plots of individual data overtime
Key for Table: total = ferrous + ferric; IT-01 = combined influent, unfiltered; IT-03 = RCTS effluent, filtered at 0.45 |im; IT-05 = sedimentation basin effluent, unfiltered
35
-------
7.5 Appendix E: 2013 Field Data from System Sampling Locations
Date
Total iron (mg/l)
Ferrous Iron (mg/l)
PH
Influent
Flow (gpm)
Notes for data usage
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
5/17/2013
615
1.08
290
5.76
12.02
18.76
No data forferrous iron at IT-03; no data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05
comparisons
5/21/2013
550
2.65
345
2.26
6.23
11.95
20.72
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/22/2013
550
0.04
515
5.89
11.93
20.72
No data forferrous iron at IT-03; no data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05
comparisons
5/23/2013
510
0.13
365
5.86
12.05
23.22
No data forferrous iron at IT-03; no data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05
comparisons
5/24/2013
520
0.13
445
6.02
12.29
31.3
No data forferrous iron at IT-03; no data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05
comparisons
5/28/2013
499
0.12
525
0.27
6.15
8.08
22.68
No data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/31/2013
435
0.01
420
6.24
12.2
21.69
No data forferrous iron at IT-03; no data for IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05
comparisons
6/3/2013
430
0.07
1.43
425
1.12
0.14
6.19
11.01
9.54
23.81
6/7/2013
495
0.06
1.21
505
0.13
6.38
11.85
10.76
23.29
No data forferrous iron at IT-03
6/10/2013
500
0.02
1.17
445
0.025
0.39
6.21
10.26
10.96
23.65
6/14/2013
500
0.04
0.58
455
0.35
0.25
6.09
11.42
10.81
22.9
6/17/2013
455
0.08
0.81
415
>3.3
0.24
6.24
11.81
10.96
21.6
Greaterthan value provided forferrous iron at IT-03
6/21/2013
465
0.13
0.81
515
0
0.21
6.06
10.84
10.72
23.97
6/24/2013
480
0
0.46
235
1.5
0.15
6.02
9.09
10.56
24.9
6/28/2013
495
0.07
0.25
450
2.33
0.73
5.96
11.44
10.02
23.24
7/1/2013
455
0
0.55
235
>3.3
0.21
5.88
11.78
11.01
23.11
Greaterthan value provided forferrous iron at IT-03
7/5/2013
505
0
0.4
210
>3.3
0.32
6.16
11.85
10.62
22.28
Greaterthan value provided forferrous iron at IT-03
7/8/2013
425
0.14
0.57
180
0.55
0.18
6.14
8.89
9.21
23.69
7/12/2013
335
>3.3
0.38
195
>3.3
0.39
6.05
11.04
10.29
22.95
Greaterthan value provided fortotal and ferrous at IT-03
7/15/2013
470
0.12
0.2
225
>3.3
0.21
6.02
12.83
11.18
22.83
Greaterthan value provided forferrous iron at IT-03
7/19/2013
380
0
0.19
55
>3.3
0.33
6.01
11.96
10.64
20.73
Greaterthan value provided forferrous iron at IT-03
7/22/2013
465
0.01
0
145
>3.3
0.13
6.06
12.2
11.08
19.51
Greaterthan value provided forferrous iron at IT-03
7/26/2013
505
0.19
0.6
190
0.15
0.33
6.08
10.66
11.18
23.26
7/29/2013
565
0.25
0.12
190
>3.3
0.24
5.8
12.05
11.06
19.75
Greaterthan value provided forferrous iron at IT-03
7/31/2013
520
0.75
0.16
285
>3.3
0.13
5.86
11.99
11.08
19.54
Greaterthan value provided forferrous iron at IT-03
8/2/2013
315
0
0.2
115
0.85
0.26
5.99
10.19
11
24.51
8/5/2013
520
0.04
0.43
220
0.95
0.22
5.97
10.71
10.08
24.24
8/9/2013
455
0
0.13
180
2.26
0.71
5.62
11.32
9.87
21.4
8/12/2013
425
0.21
0.45
180
>3.3
0.24
5.87
11.58
10.79
21.7
Greaterthan value provided forferrous iron at IT-03
8/16/2013
490
0.03
0.42
285
2.28
0.08
6.18
11.34
10.01
22.63
8/19/2013
390
0.13
0.15
180
0.46
0.17
5.86
10.03
10.01
23.9
8/23/2013
475
0
0.17
205
>3.3
1.9
5.97
12.02
10.71
19.15
Greaterthan value provided forferrous iron at IT-03
8/26/2013
420
0.11
0.04
150
0.53
0.3
5.77
10.19
11.1
21.4
8/29/2013
535
0
0.07
160
1.07
0.37
5.75
11.12
10.26
21.15
9/3/2013
300
0.04
0.06
50
2.69
0.3
5.94
11.4
10.3
19.4
9/5/2013
435
2.7
0.49
110
>3.3
0.21
5.91
12.5
10.31
19.54
Greaterthan value provided forferrous iron at IT-03
9/9/2013
395
1.96
0.07
90
0.55
0
5.86
10.66
9.5
19.3
9/12/2013
335
0.28
0.35
160
0.37
0.01
6.08
9.97
8.85
26.12
9/16/2013
550
0.01
10.6
235
0.01
15.8
6.11
8.46
6.98
26.1
Contractor noted "no lime feed/surge" for IT-05 (or IT-04), date not used for any
averages since lime feed would have affected all sampling locations, but data are
retained for time graphs
9/19/2013
355
0.15
22.8
175
0.03
1.57
5.63
10.23
5.89
23.24
Contractor noted "no lime feed/surge" for IT-04 and IT-05 on 9/16, which appears to
have carried overto issues with IT-05 on this date also based on pH; also noted issue
with neutralization tank on the 19th - data excluded from comparisons and
averages, but retained in plots of individual data overtime
9/23/2013
465
0
6
285
0
0.98
6.12
9.15
6.71
23.04
9/26/2013
465
0.17
4.7
290
1.99
0.8
6.16
11.1
6.84
20.91
9/30/2013
455
0
0.55
240
0.91
0.1
6.33
11.01
8.95
23.7
10/3/2013
390
0
0.89
215
0
0.05
6.33
9.8
8.8
22.9
10/7/2013
445
0.06
0.34
260
0.24
0.12
6.87
9.6
8.61
27.62
10/10/2013
460
0.1
0.26
230
1.89
0.07
6.76
11.44
9.55
23.4
10/14/2013
745
0.06
1.29
300
2.39
0.1
6.26
11.55
9.61
20.65
10/21/2013
415
0.03
0.73
260
2.7
0.02
6.55
11.27
9.12
20.9
10/24/2013
400
0.11
0.53
245
0.02
0.08
6.45
9.94
9.07
21.8
10/28/2013
445
0.1
0.47
290
0.04
0.1
5.38
10.44
9.19
20.8
10/31/2013
435
0.16
0.72
250
0.12
0
6.55
10.19
9.49
21.88
11/4/2013
400
0
0.41
260
0
0
6.49
10.04
9.17
23.8
11/7/2013
465
0.1
0.58
285
0.51
0.02
6.38
11.11
9.2
21.4
11/11/2013
425
0.1
0.32
200
1.04
0.09
6.44
10.64
9.44
21.58
Key for Table: total = ferrous + ferric; IT-01 = combined influent, unfiltered; IT-03 = RCTS effluent, filtered at 0.45 |im; IT-05 = sedimentation basin effluent, unfiltered
36
-------
7.6 Appendix F: 2014 Field Data from System Sampling Locations
Date
Total iron (mg/l)
Ferrous Iron (mg/l)
PH
Influent
Flow (gpm)
Notes for data usage
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
5/16/2014
430
0.14
310
0.86
6.42
10.42
23.14
No discharge at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/19/2014
415
0.05
265
0.71
6.48
10.6
21.7
No discharge at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/22/2014
360
0.07
215
0.35
6.4
10.9
21.9
No discharge at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/27/2014
340
0.04
160
0.04
6.48
10.43
22.7
No discharge at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/29/2014
260
1.71
0.52
145
0.59
0.35
6.19
10.38
9.74
22.5
6/2/2014
295
2.03
1.7
160
2.03
1.7
6.18
11.74
10.18
20.43
6/5/2014
345
0
1.22
170
0.21
0.33
6.43
10.6
9.15
20.51
6/9/2014
280
5.98
1.53
155
2.33
0.54
6.47
10.64
9.57
19.91
6/12/2014
365
0.7
0.54
305
1.43
0.17
6.28
10.31
9.38
19.61
6/16/2014
300
2.48
0.67
180
0
0.91
6.39
11.49
10.31
19.41
7/14/2014
280
0.15
9.7
365
0.78
2.3
6.2
10.73
8.17
19.39
7/17/2014
325
0
0.92
345
0.36
0.11
6.13
10.89
8.38
18.52
7/21/2014
350
0
0.14
355
0.21
0.11
6.32
11.42
9.95
19.49
7/24/2014
255
0.54
0.46
265
1.13
0.19
5.79
9.81
9.54
18.89
7/31/2014
425
0.06
2.12
230
0.07
0.56
6.16
9.75
7.93
17.53
8/4/2014
295
0.04
0.4
270
0.63
0.05
6.34
10.15
8.83
17.5
8/7/2014
1405
0.17
0.38
310
0.07
0.14
6.25
9.47
8.53
18.08
Total iron at IT-01 appears anomolous, contractor didn't include in their calculated
averages, so excluded total iron comparisons
8/11/2014
295
0
0.57
115
0.5
0.57
6.24
9.96
8.99
18.03
8/14/2014
355
0.1
0.79
330
0.19
0.15
6.34
9.13
8.92
19.63
8/18/2014
320
0.04
0.56
290
0.06
0.08
6.34
9.83
8.94
18.4
8/21/2014
325
0.05
0.31
305
0.37
0.1
6.24
10.09
8.9
19.91
8/25/2014
290
0
0.23
290
0.05
0.33
6.23
10.17
9.17
18.11
8/28/2014
230
0
0.36
220
0
0.08
6.22
9.28
8.77
19.35
9/2/2014
310
0.07
0.24
285
1.59
0.29
6.38
10.4
8.53
18.78
9/4/2014
335
0.08
0.26
205
0.95
0.11
6.2
10.15
9.59
18.22
9/8/2014
305
0
0.46
170
0
0.11
6.16
8.36
9.09
21.24
9/11/2014
320
0.08
0.49
190
0.28
0.06
6.24
9.89
9.1
18.5
9/15/2014
185
0.07
0.72
170
0.12
0
6.41
9.76
8.48
18.14
9/18/2014
280
0.03
0.44
105
2.18
0.04
6.24
11.12
8.98
17.03
9/22/2014
355
0.1
0.25
190
0.26
0.11
6.35
10.46
9.07
18.07
9/25/2014
335
0.13
0.08
185
1.11
0.7
6.5
10.56
10.93
19.58
9/29/2014
295
0
0.53
90
0
0.52
6.48
8.86
10.21
17.22
10/2/2014
325
0.05
0.58
165
0.03
0.41
6.05
8.3
10.13
18.93
10/6/2014
155
0.11
0.57
65
0.25
0.27
6.41
8.72
10.71
18.05
10/9/2014
275
0
0.1
145
0.02
0.29
6.22
7.82
10.25
18.9
10/16/2014
325
0
0.23
160
0.01
0.16
6.32
10.75
8.7
17.65
10/20/2014
275
0.07
0.3
145
0.55
0
6.26
9.75
9.53
18.78
10/23/2014
305
0.03
0.5
230
0.1
0.06
5.99
8.6
8.57
22.34
10/27/2014
320
0.05
0.44
235
0.18
0.06
6.19
10.05
9.33
18.73
10/30/2014
265
0
0.55
160
0.06
0.13
6.28
9.85
9.22
19.54
11/3/2014
330
0.19
0.76
180
0.18
0.03
6.22
10.22
9.19
18.34
11/6/2014
310
0
0.53
160
0
0.06
6.12
9.66
8.52
18.78
11/10/2014
305
0
0.63
200
0
0.05
6.26
9.46
8.61
20.65
11/13/2014
260
0.11
0.66
205
0.07
0.05
6.19
10.76
9.61
18.15
11/17/2014
305
0.1
0.23
215
0.07
0.05
6.36
9.18
9.1
18.65
Key for Table: total = ferrous + ferric; IT-01 = combined influent, unfiltered; IT-03 = RCTS effluent, filtered at 0.45 |im; IT-05 = sedimentation basin effluent, unfiltered
37
-------
7.7 Appendix G: 2015 Field Data from System Sampling Locations
Date
Total iron (mg/l)
Ferrous Iron (mg/l)
PH
Influent
Flow (gpm)
Notes for data usage
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
5/18/2015
875
0.01
80
0.06
5.44
9.38
17.62
Total iron at IT-01 appears anomolous, but contractor did include in their calculated
averages, so did not exclude from comparisons; No data at IT-05, date not used for IT
01/IT-05 comparisons
5/21/2015
225
0.11
140
1.01
6.86
11.36
16.6
No data at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/26/2015
240
0.03
215
0.04
5.61
10.36
17.97
No data at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/28/2015
208
0.02
88
1.14
5.42
10.33
16.68
No data at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
6/1/2015
209
0.07
69
0.06
5.3
9.74
16.1
No data at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
6/4/2015
202
0
83
0.02
5.4
9.68
15.46
No data at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
6/8/2015
222
0.04
1.76
108
0.11
0.13
6.38
9.44
9.01
16.27
6/11/2015
229
0
0.41
88
0.16
0.13
6.2
10.16
8.9
16.5
6/15/2015
186
0
0.52
90
0.26
0
6.42
10.17
9.17
15.79
6/18/2015
226
0
0.52
63
0.75
0.1
6.29
9.7
8.98
15.5
6/22/2015
183
0
0.31
89
0.4
0.25
6.05
10.22
9.2
15
6/25/2015
193
0
0.69
62
0.28
0.2
6.34
10.49
8.92
14.75
6/29/2015
174
79.75
11.1
60
12.05
1.48
6.13
6.38
6.88
15.8
7/2/2015
221
0.01
3.78
77
1.74
1.71
6.27
10.56
6.6
23.31
7/6/2015
172
0.12
0.52
67
0.85
0.08
6.4
10.24
8.64
19.97
7/9/2015
195
0.11
0.28
85
1.11
0.14
6.43
10.94
9.1
17.5
7/13/2015
237
0.05
0.57
78
0.67
0.56
6.28
10.04
9.16
18.8
7/16/2015
177
0
0.47
74
1.85
0.16
6.39
11.1
9.88
16.6
7/20/2015
195
0.11
0.49
53
2.58
0.46
6.39
10.23
9.27
17.17
7/23/2015
212
0
0.58
73
1.38
0.42
6.05
10.34
9.34
17.57
7/27/2015
202
0
0.45
98
0.37
0.13
6.44
10.23
9
17.53
7/30/2015
224
0.07
0.29
51
1.75
0.22
6.14
10.48
9.28
17.85
8/3/2015
223
0.12
0.43
67
1.78
0.31
6.39
10.17
8.98
17.17
8/6/2015
198
0
0.41
68
0.38
0.03
5.99
10.24
9
17.59
8/10/2015
210
0
0.35
89
0.24
0.03
6.05
10.06
8.63
17.36
8/13/2015
203
0.25
0.44
64
1.18
0.12
6
10.46
8.73
17.46
8/17/2015
204
0
0.17
59
0.26
0.09
6.41
10.05
9.03
17.5
8/20/2015
196
0.05
0.27
63
0.38
0.1
6.32
10.22
8.94
18.06
8/24/2015
191
0
0.19
67
2.07
0.14
6.11
11.42
9.25
17.65
8/27/2015
183
0.03
0.31
40
0.94
0.19
6.24
10.15
8.91
16.97
8/31/2015
194
0.03
0.22
68
1.06
0.22
6.18
10.05
9.18
16.6
9/3/2015
179
0.03
0.2
51
2.36
0.2
6.23
10.94
8.92
13.87
9/8/2015
206
0.04
0.1
84
2.38
0.27
5.87
11.06
9.33
13.65
9/10/2015
236
0.11
0.14
87
2.64
0.36
6.18
10.76
9.72
13.68
9/14/2015
211
0.01
0.25
69
1.57
0.43
6.13
10.91
9.31
14.39
9/17/2015
188
0
0.04
66
0.64
0.2
6.17
10.65
8.98
19.17
9/21/2015
164
0.01
0.24
105
0.99
0.02
5.89
10.32
10
20.44
9/24/2015
206
0.17
0.54
97
1.43
0.27
5.87
9.8
9.63
17.84
9/28/2015
195
0.19
0.62
113
0.1
0.67
6.41
10.19
9.36
17.65
10/1/2015
178
0.01
0.42
59
0.17
0.17
5.78
10.23
9.34
18.42
10/4/2015
210
0.05
0.25
109
0.07
0.2
6.08
10.04
9.56
16.74
10/8/2015
183
0
0.36
63
1.36
0.07
6.01
10.16
8.91
16.54
10/12/2015
180
0.07
0.07
60
0.27
0.24
6.3
10.04
9.53
14.39
10/14/2015
196
0.04
0.12
68
0.16
0.08
6.12
10.13
9.3
19.65
10/19/2015
230
0.03
0
109
0.63
0
6
9.99
9.41
21.13
10/22/2015
220
0.02
0
86
0.25
0.15
6.28
9.91
8.79
19.73
10/26/2015
188
0.13
0
86
1.28
0.23
6.13
10.28
9.11
19.43
10/29/2015
166
0.14
0
80
2.68
0.32
6.06
10.44
9
18.7
11/2/2015
118
0.18
0.22
51
2.61
0.02
6.48
11.4
9.54
17.97
11/9/2015
237
0.01
0.33
71
0.75
0.2
6.36
10.31
9.47
17.8
11/12/2015
232
0.01
0.27
87
1.46
0.18
6.27
10.23
9.25
19.62
Key for Table: total = ferrous + ferric; IT-01 = combined influent, unfiltered; IT-03 = RCTS effluent, filtered at 0.45 |im; IT-05 = sedimentation basin effluent, unfiltered
38
-------
7.8 Appendix H: 2016 Field Data from System Sampling Locations
Date
Total iron (mg/l)
Ferrous Iron (mg/l)
PH
Influent
Flow (gpm)
Notes for data usage
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
5/20/2016
276
0.05
63
0.06
6.33
9.84
22.71
No data at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/23/2016
105
0.5
57
0.2
6.37
10.99
22.39
No data at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/26/2016
185
0.11
115
0.2
6.41
9.42
23.46
No data at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
5/31/2016
246
0.15
112
0.04
6.3
10.07
22.22
No data at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
6/2/2016
212
0.08
109
0.04
6.36
9.75
21.06
No data at IT-05, date not used for IT-01/IT-05 comparisons
6/6/2016
163
0.13
0.83
111
0.17
0.16
6.32
9.88
8.54
20.63
6/9/2016
179
0.04
1.06
117
0.08
0.12
6.46
9.73
8.34
19.65
6/14/2016
181
0.09
0.83
114
0.14
0.06
6.36
9.93
8.65
18.6
6/16/2016
112
0.06
0.41
104
0.31
0.15
5.86
9.96
8.56
18.65
6/20/2016
161
0.11
1.47
69
0.16
0.11
5.97
10.12
8.99
18.3
6/22/2016
292
0.05
0.78
141
0.68
0.03
6.46
10.17
9.12
18.2
6/27/2016
176
0.15
0.67
144
0.23
0.19
6.46
9.86
00
00
20.55
6/29/2016
172
0.07
0.34
138
0.16
0.08
6.47
10.03
8.83
20.44
7/5/2016
210
131
3.3
0.24
6.57
8.43
8.51
20.83
No data fortotal iron at IT-03 or IT-05, date not used fortotal iron IT-01/IT-05
comparisons
7/9/2016
185
111
0.5
0.17
6.63
9.97
8.82
20.83
No data fortotal iron at IT-03 or IT-05, date not used fortotal iron IT-01/IT-05
comparisons
7/12/2016
123
126
3.3
0.21
6.54
9.69
8.65
20.53
No data fortotal iron at IT-03 or IT-05, date not used fortotal iron IT-01/IT-05
comparisons
7/15/2016
182
0.38
113
0.38
6.42
9.72
8.54
20.58
No data for IT-03
7/19/2016
211
97
0.64
0.6
6.35
10.25
8.51
20.53
No data fortotal iron at IT-03 or IT-05, date not used fortotal iron IT-01/IT-05
comparisons
7/22/2016
200
0.41
140
1.68
0.24
5.93
10.1
8.45
20.5
No data fortotal iron at IT-03, date not used for IT-01/IT-03total iron IT-01/IT-05
comparisons
7/26/2016
395
0.2
115
1.53
0.15
6.42
10.43
8.45
19.72
No data fortotal iron at IT-03, date not used for IT-01/IT-03total iron IT-01/IT-05
comparisons
7/29/2016
225
0.12
35
2
0.12
6.53
11.92
10
12.29
No data fortotal iron at IT-03, date not used for IT-01/IT-03total iron IT-01/IT-05
comparisons
8/2/2016
180
0.58
0.42
85
0.2
0.07
6.43
10.68
9.43
19.8
8/5/2016
155
12
0.48
120
0
0.05
6.32
9.23
8.11
24.11
8/9/2016
245
0.36
0.74
140
0.05
0.07
6.43
10.07
8.54
22.1
8/12/2016
120
13
0.51
57
0.41
0.14
6.53
9.49
8.46
22.5
8/16/2016
81
17
0.74
69
6
0.29
6.26
12.14
8.62
22.8
8/19/2016
180
39
0.5
135
1
0.17
6.55
11
8.86
22.4
8/26/2016
165
0
0.3
130
0.02
0.14
6.51
10.77
9.09
20.54
8/30/2016
140
0
0.54
75
0
0
6.62
10.94
8.27
21.43
9/6/2016
225
9
0.23
125
0
0.06
6.53
10.58
8.42
18.8
9/9/2016
205
2
0.16
70
0
0.13
6.47
11
9.04
18.5
9/13/2016
140
84
0.36
120
0
0.12
6.41
11.99
10.08
19.02
9/16/2016
215
38
0.27
150
8
0.11
6.69
10.82
9.95
18.8
9/20/2016
160
2
0.68
140
0
0.04
6.6
12.18
9.56
17.5
9/23/2016
191
27
0.71
145
2
0.11
6.68
12.01
9.63
15.5
9/27/2016
190
30
0.59
135
0
0.03
6.5
12.07
9.56
12.4
10/1/2016
115
22
0.98
200
0
0
6.5
11.98
11.01
20.02
10/4/2016
196
16
0.1
110
0
0.2
6.6
11.01
10.03
22.3
10/7/2016
212
66
0.18
100
2
0
6.7
10.86
9.99
25.6
10/11/2016
165
2.04
1.13
40
0.47
0.06
6.61
10.82
10.13
19.72
10/14/2016
214
16.6
0.23
102
0.38
0
6.77
11.07
9.86
18.95
10/18/2016
198
3.3
0.67
112
0.17
0.16
6.66
10.48
9.66
20.19
10/21/2016
188
14
0.34
138
0.15
0.17
6.75
10.34
9.63
21.9
10/25/2016
50
4
0.4
75
0
0.03
6.84
10.27
8.95
19.1
10/28/2016
167
12
0.36
88
0.36
0
6.69
10.1
8.84
16.8
11/1/2016
210
0.42
0.37
150
0.07
0.19
6.92
10.62
9.24
22.6
11/4/2016
180
0.2
0.55
100
0.15
0.06
6.64
12.14
9.56
23.09
11/8/2016
195
0.23
0.47
120
0.21
0.08
6.7
11.51
9.52
14.1
11/11/2016
178
0.19
0.44
90
1.1
0.03
6.56
11
9.59
23
11/14/2016
130
7
0.2
125
0
0.11
6.54
12.35
10.69
21.47
Key for Table: total = ferrous + ferric; IT-01 = combined influent, unfiltered; IT-03 = RCTS effluent, filtered at 0.45 |im; IT-05 = sedimentation basin effluent, unfiltered
39
-------
7.9 Appendix I: 2017 Field Data from System Sampling Locations
Date
Total iron (mg/l)
Ferrous Iron (mg/l)
PH
Influent
Flow (gpm)
Notes for data usage
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
IT-01
IT-03
IT-05
5/26/2017
160
5
0.74
95
0
0
6.49
10.7
9.37
21.49
5/30/2017
300
23
0.16
215
23
0
6.08
11.43
9.57
28.72
6/2/2017
85
0
0.01
30
4
0
6.56
11.34
10.26
25.03
6/9/2017
175
3
0.08
290
0
0.01
6.42
11.37
10.4
28.81
6/13/2017
220
28
0.2
135
8
0.2
6.45
10.72
23.25
6/16/2017
435
0
0.15
310
0
0.58
6.49
10.72
9.79
23.3
6/20/2017
180
17
0.23
140
0
0.13
6.49
11
9.46
23.4
6/23/2017
215
12
0.11
110
0
0.09
6.54
10.85
9.42
23.26
6/27/2017
175
46
0.03
155
3
0.36
6.51
11.48
9.58
21.47
6/30/2017
195
0
0.2
115
20
0
6.46
10.06
9.23
21.85
7/4/2017
165
0
0.2
130
1
0.06
6.53
10.18
9.03
22.85
7/7/2017
158
17
0.92
80
2
0.22
6.57
10.07
8.75
23.2
7/10/2017
175
19
0.66
145
1
0.16
6.56
10.13
8.7
21.15
7/14/2017
140
1
0.33
175
1
0.26
6.42
10.19
8.98
23.52
7/18/2017
160
3
0.44
95
3
0.03
6.56
10.17
8.73
22.2
7/21/2017
185
0
0.2
175
0
0.03
6.53
10.14
9.01
30.52
7/24/2017
220
11
0.69
145
3
0
6.56
8.44
8.22
27.65
7/28/2017
200
10
0.32
140
0
0.04
6.45
10.03
8.41
22.65
8/1/2017
210
4
0.52
25
8
0.03
6.56
10.09
8.68
22.25
8/4/2017
185
3
0.3
150
0
0.03
6.43
9.81
8.6
21.64
8/8/2017
170
13
0.36
115
0
0.05
6.49
10.48
8.68
23.5
8/11/2017
210
0
0.56
150
0
0
6.55
10.12
8.72
22.95
8/15/2017
275
1
0.33
35
0
0
6.47
9.81
8.64
22.69
8/18/2017
150
0
0.31
130
0
0
6.57
10.11
8.68
26.42
8/22/2017
160
55
0.2
65
3
0
6.47
9.97
8.7
21.4
8/25/2017
155
17
0.59
120
0
0
6.51
8.64
8.49
25.91
8/29/2017
166
18
0.48
165
1
0.07
6.48
10.32
8.75
18.31
9/1/2017
185
5
0.48
145
0
0
6.56
10.26
8.7
21.13
9/5/2017
169
21
0.57
118
1
0.09
6.58
00
00
8.38
24.86
9/8/2017
255
10
0.35
160
0
0.03
6.53
8.49
8.53
26.76
9/12/2017
185
31
0.33
130
0
0.07
6.44
8.95
8.36
22.5
9/15/2017
225
28
0.45
115
0
0.06
6.49
8.57
8.25
22.67
9/19/2017
180
21
0.61
140
0
0.02
6.56
8.37
8.18
26.53
9/22/2017
125
4
0.38
125
0
0
6.59
8.33
8.01
25.6
9/26/2017
143
2
0.39
45
0
0.07
6.52
8.15
8.01
23
9/29/2017
165
7
0.59
170
0
0
6.55
8.72
8.31
23.63
10/3/2017
200
5
0.55
170
2
0.03
6.61
9.13
8.41
23.76
10/6/2017
225
0
0.54
90
0
0
6.67
8.91
8.22
24.19
10/10/2017
220
6
0.31
170
0
0.19
6.54
8.65
8.28
25.86
10/13/2017
165
7
0.92
145
0
0
6.77
8.65
8.16
24.92
10/24/2017
445
11
1.25
140
9
0
6.6
10.8
8.3
22.92
10/27/2017
150
30
0.49
90
5
0.05
6.56
10.05
8.46
16.57
10/31/2017
210
34
0.54
180
6
0
6.55
8.98
8.51
22.25
11/3/2017
205
20
0
110
6
0
6.63
9.12
8.51
22.26
11/7/2017
205
0
0.42
145
0
0.34
6.75
9.26
8.46
24.91
11/10/2017
280
17
0.43
245
13
0.07
6.51
8.63
8.49
24.5
Key for Table: total = ferrous + ferric; IT-01 = combined influent, unfiltered; IT-03 = RCTS effluent, filtered at 0.45 |im; IT-05 = sedimentation basin effluent, unfiltered
40
-------
7.10 Appendix J: Laboratory Data from System Sampling Locations
Sample Date
Sample
ID
Total Al
(mg/l)
Dissolved
Al (mg/l)
Total Ca
(mg/l)
Dissolved
Ca (mg/l)
Total Fe
(mg/l)
Dissolved
Fe (mg/l)
Total K
(mg/l)
Dissolved
K (mg/l)
Total Mg
(mg/l)
Dissolved
Mg (mg/l)
Total Mn
(mg/l)
Dissolved
Mn (mg/l)
Total Na
(mg/l)
Dissolved
Na (mg/l)
Total Zn
(mg/l)
Dissolved
Zn (mg/l)
Alkalinity
(mg/l as
CaC03)
Total Sulfate
(mg/l)
5/12/2009
IT-01
0.77
ND
460
ND
720
ND
43
ND
200
ND
11
ND
15
ND
0.16
ND
ND
3500
IT-03
1.4
ND
1200
ND
690
ND
43
ND
190
ND
10
ND
15
ND
0.2
ND
ND
3100
6/9/2009
IT-01
0.83
ND
420
ND
650
ND
40
ND
190
ND
9.9
ND
14
ND
0.12
ND
ND
3500
IT-03
1.6
ND
1100
ND
670
ND
44
ND
180
ND
9.7
ND
15
ND
0.15
ND
ND
2800
IT-05
0.220 U
ND
760
ND
1.5
ND
41
ND
140
ND
0.65
ND
14
ND
0.040 U
ND
ND
2800
7/27/2009
IT-01
0.768
0.200 U J
416
414
779
724
43.1
42.3
189
184
11.5
11.5
15.8
14.6
0.14
0.138
42
3700
IT-03
1.39
0.200 U J
1350
1090
755
0.100UJ
43.6
43.7
187
73.7
11.2
8.2J
15.6
15.7
0.146
1.3 J
1200
2400
IT-05
0.200 U J
0.200 U J
972
978
0.213
0.100UJ
41.7
41.3
85.6
84.5
11.6 J
6.2J
15
14.8
1.8J
1.2 J
13
2800
8/11/2009
IT-01
0.84
ND
430
ND
700
ND
ND
ND
190
ND
11
ND
ND
ND
0.11
ND
ND
3600
IT-03
1.7
ND
1400
ND
700
ND
ND
ND
180
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
0.12
ND
ND
1800
IT-05
0.220 U
ND
860
ND
0.44
ND
ND
ND
73
ND
0.28
ND
ND
ND
0.040 U
ND
ND
2600
9/8/2009
IT-01
0.78
ND
450
ND
760
ND
ND
ND
200
ND
11
ND
ND
ND
0.14
ND
ND
3600
IT-03
1.3
ND
1200
ND
750
ND
ND
ND
190
ND
11
ND
ND
ND
0.14
ND
ND
2800
IT-05
0.330 U
ND
910
ND
0.72
ND
ND
ND
77
ND
0.060 U
ND
ND
ND
0.060 U
ND
ND
2800
10/14/2009
IT-01
0.603 U
0.200 U
442
435
792
784
44.6
44
206
201
10.8
10.7
15.8
15.5
0.148
0.156
5.300 J
3600
IT-03
1.25
0.200 U
1350
1110
781
0.293
44.3
46.6
194
87
10.4
0.0075 J
15.3
16.2
0.148
0.0036 J
910
2200
IT-05
0.200 U
0.200 U
1020
970
0.474
0.100 U
44.8
43.8
84.1
84.2
0.0088 J
0.0041 J
15.8
15.3
0.002 J
0.0027 J
11
2600
11/9/2009
IT-01
0.73
ND
470
ND
790
ND
49
ND
210
ND
11
ND
17
ND
0.12
ND
ND
3300
IT-03
1.6
ND
1500
ND
720
ND
46
ND
190
ND
9.9
ND
16
ND
0.13
ND
ND
1600
IT-05
0.550 U
ND
1000
ND
0.25
ND
45
ND
86
ND
0.14
ND
16
ND
0.100 U
ND
ND
2600
8/16/2010
IT-01
1.2
0.490 U
450
440
690
690
43
43
200
200
8.9
8.9
15
15
0.080 U
0.090 U
ND
3500
9/8/2010
IT-01
0.440 U
ND
480
ND
720
ND
47
ND
210
ND
9.4
ND
17
ND
0.080 U
ND
ND
3100
10/4/2010
IT-01
0.75
0.490 U
500
470
850
800
49
49
220
210
11
11
17
18
0.09
0.098
ND
3400
IT-05
0.440 U
0.490 U
940
910
0.54
0.180 U
47
45
130
120
0.080 U
0.090 U
17
16
0.080 U
0.090 U
ND
2800
11/3/2010
IT-01
0.330 U
ND
500
ND
740
ND
50
ND
210
ND
10
ND
18
ND
0.088
ND
ND
4200
6/6/2011
IT-01
0.330 U
0.370 U
450
460
650
660
45
47
190
190
9.1
9.3
17
17
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
3400
IT-05
0.220 U
0.250 U
820
850
1.4
0.090 U
43
44
140
140
0.040 U
0.045 U
16
16
0.040 U
0.045 U
ND
2700
7/12/2011
IT-01
0.330 U
0.370 U
490
450
650
620
46
44
200
200
9.5
9.1
16
17
0.075
0.067 U
ND
1500
IT-05
0.220 U
0.250 U
870
800
3.7
0.090 U
46
42
150
140
0.057
0.045 U
16
16
0.040 U
0.045 U
ND
530
8/16/2011
IT-01
0.7
0.490 U
450
460
760
770
46
47
200
210
10
10
17
17
0.1
0.11
ND
3300
IT-05
0.220 U
0.250 U
810
790
4.9
0.090 U
44
44
150
150
0.08
0.045 U
16
16
0.040 U
0.045 U
ND
2700
8/29/2011
IT-01
0.45
0.1
410
440 B
770 B
810
40
43
180
190
9.800 B
9.700 B
15
15.000 B
0.090 B
0.100 B
ND
3500
9/6/2011
IT-01
1.3
0.370 U
450
460
770
750
49
47
210
210
10
10
18
17
0.33
0.1
ND
3500
IT-05
0.220 U
0.250 U
740
760
5.6
0.090 U
39
38
140
140
0.1
0.045 U
15
14
0.040 U
0.045 U
ND
2700
10/3/2011
IT-01
0.51
0.370 U
460
510
750
820
47
53
200
220
11
12
17
19
0.11
0.12
ND
3400
IT-05
0.220 U
0.250 U
800
800
1.5
0.090 U
41
40
100
100
0.058
0.045 U
15
15
0.040 U
0.045 U
ND
2500
4/11/2012
IT-01
0.91
0.990 U
480
480
740
730
48
45
210
200
10
9.9
18
17
0.160 U
0.180 U
ND
3600
6/5/2012
IT-01
1.2
1.200 U
450
450
730
730
43
44
190
190
10
10
17
17
0.100 U
0.110U
ND
3600
IT-05
0.660 U
0.370 U
900
920
3
0.130 U
44
42
26
26
0.060 U
0.067 U
17
17
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
2600
8/13/2012
IT-01
0.68
0.490 U
470
470
720
740
46
46
200
210
9.8
10
18
18
0.092
0.096
ND
3600
IT-05
0.550 U
0.620 U
900
890
0.97
0.220 U
42
41
11
11
0.100U
0.110 U
16
16
0.100 U
0.110U
ND
2600
10/10/2012
IT-01
1
0.740 U
480
470
720
700
48
47
200
200
9.7
9.6
18
18
0.1
0.097
ND
4000
IT-05
0.660 U
0.740 U
960
950
3.2
0.130 U
42
42
7.5
7
0.067
0.067 U
16
17
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
2900
6/11/2013
IT-01
0.43
0.370 U
470
470
450
470
ND
ND
170
180
7.1
7.3
ND
ND
0.044
0.067 U
ND
ND
IT-05
0.330 U
0.370 U
860
830
1.3
1.3
ND
ND
2.3
2.3
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
ND
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
ND
8/12/2013
IT-01
0.220 U
0.250 U
460
450
420
420
ND
ND
170
170
6.8
6.7
ND
ND
0.042
0.045 U
ND
2400
IT-05
0.330 U
0.370 U
850
830
0.26
0.130 U
ND
ND
7.8
7.7
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
ND
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
2000
10/22/2013
IT-01
0.330 U
0.370 U
440
470
400
400
ND
ND
170
160
6.5
6.5
ND
ND
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
2600
IT-05
0.330 U
0.490 U
800
850
1.3
0.180 U
3.000 U
4.500 U
23
24
0.060 U
0.090 U
3.000 U
4.500 U
0.060 U
0.090 U
ND
2400
7/1/2015
IT-01
0.330 U
0.370 U
490
470
200
210
49
ND
140
130
4.6
4.5
16
ND
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
2200
IT-03
1.100 U
0.370 U
1100
820
210
0.130 U
40
ND
130
0.340 U
4.8
0.067 U
15
ND
0.200 U
0.067 U
ND
2000
IT-05
0.660 U
0.370 U
650
590
5.7
3.5
39
ND
58
55
0.64
0.61
15
ND
0.120 U
0.067 U
ND
1700
9/16/2015
IT-01
0.330 U
0.370 U
470
470
200
210
43
ND
140 J
140
4.6
4.8
17
ND
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
2300
IT-05
0.330 U
0.370 U
690
690
0.19
0.130 U
41
ND
20
20
0.060 U
0.067 U
16
ND
0.060 U
0.110U
ND
1900
10/26/2015
IT-01
0.220 U
0.250 U
460
450
210
190
38
ND
140
140
4.7
4.4
16
ND
0.040 U
0.045 U
ND
2200
IT-03
0.59
0.490 U
890
670
210
0.180 U
42
ND
130
52
4.5
0.090 U
16
ND
0.060 U
0.090 U
ND
2100
IT-05
0.330 U
0.370 U
660
580
0.57
0.130 U
40
ND
69
65
0.060 U
0.067 U
15
ND
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
1800
7/12/2016
IT-01
0.330 U
0.370 U
470
460
180
180
39
ND
130
130
4.1
4.2
16
ND
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
2100
IT-03
0.44
0.370 U
800
640
190
0.130 U
36
ND
130
67
4.2
0.067 U
16
ND
0.040 U
0.067 U
ND
2000
IT-05
0.330 U
0.370 U
580
570
0.45
0.130 U
40
ND
72
71
0.060 U
0.067 U
15
ND
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
1800
10/19/2016
IT-05
0.330 U
0.370 U
610
620
0.250 B
0.130 U
39
ND
30
30
0.060 U
0.067 U
15
ND
0.060 U
0.067 U
ND
1900
Dissolved = filtered at 0.45 urn; IT-01 = combined influent; IT-03 = RCTS effluent; IT-05 = sedimentation basin effluent. ND = No Data; B = detected in blank; J = quantitation is approximate due to limitations
identified in quality control review; U =value is not detected and detection limit is reported; U J =value is not detected and detection limit is estimated. Total and dissolved Ag, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Hg, Mo,
Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sr, Tl, and V were analyzed but all were below detection so not included in this table.
41
-------
7.11 Appendix K: Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Concentrations in 2009 at Primary System
Sampling Locations
Sample Date
Sample ID
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
Temperature (°C)
5/12/2009
IT-01
2.72
11.9
IT-03
6.93
13
6/9/2009
IT-01
5.53
10.5
IT-03
6.53
11.4
IT-05
6.04
16.4
7/27/2009
IT-01
5.13
14.8
IT-03
6.22
14.9
IT-05
6.02
22.9
8/11/2009
IT-01
4.5
15.2
IT-03
7.01
15.2
IT-05
5.3
21.7
9/8/2009
IT-01
4
12.7
IT-03
5
12.8
IT-05
4.27
18
10/14/2009
IT-01
5
12.5
IT-03
7.61
12.1
IT-05
9.1
10
11/9/2009
IT-01
3.3
12.3
IT-03
5.8
11.9
IT-05
7.06
9.2
Average
IT-01
4.3
12.8
IT-03
6.4
13.0
IT-05
6.3
16.4
Minimum
IT-01
2.7
10.5
IT-03
5.0
11.4
IT-05
4.3
9.2
Maximum
IT-01
5.5
15.2
IT-03
7.6
15.2
IT-05
9.1
22.9
42
-------
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED
STANDARD POSTAGE
& FEES PAID EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research arid
Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |