Technical Memorandum- Treatabiiity Study Report Lava · PDF fileTreatabiiity Study Report Lava Cap Mine Superfund Site Nevada County, ... Each jar test consisted of a series of six

1i

SDMSDocID 2003216

Technical Memorandum-Treatabiiity Study Report

Lava Cap Mine Superfund SiteNevada County, California

Prepared for:

Contract No. 68-W-98-225/WA No. 21-RICO-093YU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

75 Hawthorne StreetSan Francisco, California 94105

Prepared by:

CH2M HILL, Inc.2525 Airpark Drive

Redding, California 96001

April 2002

T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M CH2MHILL

Treatability Study ReportLava Cap Mine Superfund SitePREPARED FOR: David Seter/U.S. EPA

PREPARED BY: Rebecca Maco/CH2M HILLKevin Porter/CH2M HILL

COPIES: David Bunte /CH2M HILLDavid Towell/CH2M HILL

DATE: April 5,2002

1.0 IntroductionThis technical memorandum presents the results of Lava Cap Mine Treatability Study. Thetreatability study was conducted in accordance with the Work Plan for Treatability Study, LavaCap Mine Superfund Site (CH2M HILL, 2001a).

The Lava Cap Mine Treatability Study included bench-scale studies for iron coprecipitationof the mine seepage and tailings dewatering and solidification for the mine tailings on thesite.

These tests were conducted by CH2M HILL's Applied Sciences Laboratory (ASL) inCorvallis, Oregon, on samples collected from the Lava Cap Mine site. The tests wereconducted between August 2001 and October 2001.

The purpose of the tests was to collect data to support the Feasibility Study (FS) for the LavaCap Mine. The FS is being prepared as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA's) ongoing Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the Lava Cap MineSuperfund Site. This memorandum describes the objectives, methods, results, and conclu-sions of the treatability study.

2.0 Objectives

2.1 Mine Seepage TreatmentThe objective of the bench-scale tests on mine seepage was to identify ferric chloride copre-cipitation parameters for treatment of the mine adit seepage that would result in an effluentquality below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic. Parameters to be identi-fied included:

• Oxidation requirements to convert arsenic to As*5 oxidation state• Required ferric chloride dose without additional pH adjustment• Required ferric dose with pH adjustment by addition of sulfuric acid

ROO\LAVA CAP TREAT DOC

TREATABIUTY STUDY REPORTLAVA CAP MINE SUPERFUND SITE ^^^^

• Optimum treatment pH• Resultant water quality after treatment• Estimated sludge production rate and residual sludge characteristics

2.2 Tailings Dewatering and SolidificationThe objectives of the bench-scale tests on tailings were to:

• Obtain information on how the tailings could be dewatered and solidified .• Evaluate the strength characteristics of the solidified materials• Evaluate the effectiveness of the solidification process in reducing contaminant mobility• Evaluate the revegetation potential of the raw tailings

3.0 MethodsThe test plan and methods for the treatability study are described in the Work Plan forTreatability Study, Lava Cap Mine Superfund Site (CH2M HILL, 2001a). Several changes weremade to the Work Plan in response to EPA comments. These changes are documented in theLava Cap Treatability Study Workplan Response to EPA Comments dated August 21, 2001(CH2M HILL, 2001b). Treatability study methods and procedures for both the iron copre-cipitation study and the tailings dewatering and solidification study are summarized in thissection.

3.1 iron Coprecipitation Study on Mine Adit SeepageThe iron coprecipitation study included the following steps, which are described below:

• Sample collection• Raw water characterization• Raw water oxidation• Iron coprecipitation jar tests• Residual sludge characterization

A water sample (approximately 20 gallons) was collected from the collapsed adit seepage atLava Cap Mine on August 21,2001, and shipped to ASL for use in this study. Several testsand analyses were conducted on the raw water, including:

• Alkalinity-pH titration curve• Dissolved arsenic - As+3 & As+5

• Total metals (TCLP and STLC list metals)• Chloride• Hardness• Iron (total and dissolved)• Nitrate• Silica• Sulfate• Turbidity• Total organic carbon (TOC)• UV254

RDD/LAVA CAP TREAT.DOC

TREATABIUTY STUDY JREPORTLAVA CAP MINE SUPERFUND SITE

Arsenic speciation performed during raw water characterization revealed that all arsenicwas already present in the oxidized form (As+5); therefore, oxidation was not required. Priorspeciation tests conducted on the adit seepage water have shown that 23 percent of thearsenic present in the adit seepage water is As+3 (CH2M HILL, 2002a); therefore, it is sus-pected that the sample for the current test was oxidized during collection and transportprior to speciation analysis, and that the speciation test results for the treatability studysample are not representative of the seepage waters. As a result, pre-oxidation requirementswere not evaluated as part of this study and will require further study prior to systemdesign.

Following raw water characterization, three sets of jar tests were performed to evaluatearsenic treatment with iron coprecipitation. General procedures for each jar test included:

• Ferric chloride addition• Flocculation• Gravity settling• Filtration (0.45 micron filter)• Resultant water quality analyses: pH, chloride, sulfate, arsenic• Resultant sludge analyses: volume, weight, total suspended solids (TSS)

Each jar test consisted of a series of six jars, each with different treatment conditions. The jartests are summarized as follows:

• Test 1: Evaluate an optimum ferric chloride dose (as FeCla) for arsenic treatment at lowpH, by adding varying ferric chloride concentrations at a constant test pH of 6.0.

• Test 2: Evaluate an optimum treatment pH, using the optimum ferric chloride dose fromTest 1, over pH range of 5.5 to 7.5.

• Test 3: Evaluate treatment effectiveness by the addition of ferric chloride without pHadjustment.

At the conclusion of the jar tests, the optimum treatment conditions were selected (44 mg/Lferric chloride and pH 6.5), and a larger batch of water (12 liters) was treated, using theseoptimum conditions, to create a large enough volume of sludge with which to perform totalmetals analyses.

3.2 Tailings Dewatering and Solidification StudyThe tailings dewatering and solidification study included the following steps, which aredescribed below:

• Sample collection• Raw tailings characterization• Tailings dewatering« Tailings solidification• Analyses of solidified tailings

Tailings samples were collected in late August 2001 from four tests pits on the Lava Cap Site(Samples TP6, TP7, TP8, and TP9 as described in the Lava Cap Mine RI/FS Data Gaps

RDOU-AVA CAP TREAT DOC

TREATABILITY STUDY REPORTLAVA CAP MINE SUPERFUND SITE

Investigation - Geotechnical Exploration (CH2M HILL, 2002b)). Samples were placed in5-gallon buckets and shipped to ASL for use in the treatability study. Tailings from TP7were selected for use in the treatability study as they were determined to be the most repre-sentative of tailings at the site. The sample comprised moist gray clays and sands.

Several tests and analyses were conducted on the raw tailings, including:

• Soil-water characteristic curve• Grain size• Specific gravity of solids• In situ moisture• Total arsenic and metals• Nitrogen (NO3-N)• Ortho-phosphate• pH• Organic matter content• Cation exchange capacity

Following characterization of the raw tailings, the tailings were dewatered by gravity, andthe following analyses were performed on the dewatered tailings:

• In situ moisture• Unit weight• Shear strength

Shear strength of the raw tailings and compaction of the dewatered tailings were not evalu-ated as part of this work (as stated in the Work Plan), but were included in the geotechnicalexploration portion of the data gaps investigation conducted in 2001 (CH2M HILL, 2002b).

Dewatered tailings were solidified at three different amendment ratios (5,10, and 20 per-cent, by weight) of Portland cement. At each amendment ratio, three batches of tailings andcement were prepared. Samples from each of the three batches were then composited tocreate one batch of solidified material at each amendment ratio. The following parameters ofthe solidified materials were measured:

• Unit weight• Compressive strength• Permeability• Arsenic and metals leachability

4.0 Summary of DataThis section summarizes the data collected during the iron coprecipitation and tailingsdewatering and solidification treatability studies. Data packages are provided in Attach-ments 1 and 2, respectively.

4.1 Iron Coprecipitation StudyThis section presents the results of the iron coprecipitation bench-scale studies, includingthe results of raw water characterization, jar test results, and residual sludge characteristics.



4.1.1 Raw Water Characterization

Results of the raw water characterization are presented in Table 4-1. The pH-alkalinity titra-tion curve is provided in Attachment 1. In general, the sample water is characterized as veryhard, containing a high concentration of minerals. The high mineral content of the wateralso contributes to high alkalinity, or buffering capacity. The water is also relatively high iniron, although the vast majority (more than 93 percent) is not dissolved, but rather presentas suspended solids and colloidal matter.

TABLE 4-1Summary of Results - Raw Water Analyses (detected constituents only)Lava Cap Mine Treatability Study Report

Parameter

Arsenic, dissolved (all As*5)

Barium, total

Iron, total a

Magnesium, total

Silica, total

Zinc, total

Turbidity

Alkalinity

Hardness

Chloride

Sulfate

PHTOG

Units

ng/Lng/Lng/L

Hg/L

ng/LH9/Lntu

mg/L as CaCO3

mg/L as CaCOa

mg/L

mg/L

units

mg/L

Value

320

62.8

1,430

10,700

22,000

20.9

5.4

171

220

1.0

68.3

7.85

0.78a Dissolved iron was not detected (detection limit 100 ng/L).

4.1.2 Ferric Chloride Coprecipitation Jar Tests

A summary of results for each of the three sets of jar tests is presented in this section. Com-plete jar test results are provided in Attachment 1. Results are slightly variable from one jartest to another; for example, at a pH of 6.0 and a ferric chloride dose of 44 mg/L, the finalarsenic concentration was 4.42 pig/L for Test No. 1, and 1.32 fig/L for Test No. 2. Thisvariation could be attributed to a number of factors, including incomplete mixing andchemical or biological changes within the solution over time (the jar tests were performedup to 2 weeks apart). General trends, however, are consistent among the three jar tests.

Jar Test No. 1The first jar test utilized sulfuric acid to maintain the solution pH at 6.0 while ferric chloridedose was varied between 30 and 100 mg/L. The results of this test are presented in Fig-ure 4-1 (all figures are provided at the back of this document). All ferric chloride dosesevaluated, with the exception of the 30 mg/L dose, resulted in final effluent arsenic concen-trations below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 ug/L. At a ferric chloride doseof 30 mg/L, the final effluent arsenic concentration was 13 ug/L. The lowest ferric chloridedose that resulted in an effluent arsenic concentration less than the MCL was 44 mg/L.

RDO\LAVA CAP TREAT DOC


Minimal benefit was achieved with ferric chloride doses greater than 44 mg/L; therefore44 mg/L was selected as the optimum dose.

Jar Test No. 2The objective of the second jar test was to determine an optimum treatment pH within therange of 5.5 to 7.5, using the optimum ferric chloride dose determined during Jar Test No. 1(44 mg/L). Results of Jar Test No. 2 are presented in Figure 4-2. As shown in the figure, thehighest degree of arsenic removal was achieved at a pH of 6.2. However, it should be notedthat effluent concentrations below the MCL were achieved for the entire range of pH tested.The maximum effluent arsenic concentration for the series of jar tests was 3.3 ug/L at a pHof 7.4.

Jar Test No. 3The objective of the third jar test was to determine the effectiveness of ferric chloride copre-cipitation without pH adjustment. Results of this test could be used to determine whether itis more cost-effective to control pH with acid addition or excess ferric chloride addition. Theresults of Jar Test No. 3 are presented in Figure 4-3. Effluent arsenic concentrations werebelow the MCL for all ferric chloride doses evaluated (15 to 140 mg/L). The pH of thesolution ranged from a high of 7.3 at a ferric chloride dose of 15 mg/L to a low of 6.0 at aferric chloride dose of 140 mg/L. Residual sludge production ranged from 15 to 88 dry mil-ligrams (mg) per liter of treated water.

4.1.3 Residual Sludge Characteristics

As demonstrated in Figure 4-3, the rate of sludge production is highly dependent on ferricchloride dose. Based on the results of the three jar tests, a set of optimum treatment condi-tions was selected for use in preparing a larger volume of treated water for analysis ofresidual sludge characteristics. The greatest arsenic removal was achieved in jar test No. 2with pH 6.2 and a ferric chloride dose of 44 mg/L. However, at the same ferric chloridedose, the final arsenic concentration was also well below the MCL at pH higher than 6.2 (seeFigure 4-2). Full-scale iron chloride plants typically operate around pH 6.5; therefore, for thelarger batch study, the selected test conditions were pH 6.5 (controlled by sulfuric acid addi-tion) and a ferric chloride dose of 44 mg/L.

Twelve liters of raw water were treated, and 1,800 mg (dry) of sludge were produced. Thistranslates into a sludge production rate of 150 mg per liter of water treated, or 1.25 poundsof sludge per 1,000 gallons of water treated.

As part of this test, and to support a metals mass balance for the treatment process, thefollowing samples were analyzed for total metals (sample IDs listed in parentheses areincluded in the Attachment 1 data package):

• Raw water (LC-Raw)• Raw, filtered water (LC-Raw-Filt)• Treated water (LC-JT-4-Settled)• Treated, filtered water (LC-JT-4-Filt)• Residual sludge (LC-JT-4-Sludge)

None of the metals analyzed for, including arsenic, were detected in the treated, filteredwater, with the exception of barium, which was detected at 50.3 jig/L. The detection limit


TREATABILITY STUDY REPORTLAVA CAP MINE SUPERFUNO SITE

for arsenic was 2 Mg/L- Metals concentrations detected in the sludge are presented inTable 4-2 in mg/kg dry weight. Based on these results, corresponding metals concentrationsfor a variety of dewatered sludge solids concentrations were calculated and presented inTable 4-2. As discussed in the Preliminary Draft Feasibility Study Report for the Lava Cap MineSuperfund Site (CH2M HILL, 2002a), the expected sludge solids content at disposal is 22 per-cent. It should be noted that iron was not analyzed for in the sludge, and is therefore notpresented in Table 4-2, although a significant quantity is likely present in the sludge.

TABLE 4-2Residual Sludge Metals Content (Detects Only)Lava Cap Mine Treatability Study Report

Calculated Sludge MetalsSludge Total Concentration (mg/kg wet weight) for

Metals Various Sludge SolidsConcentration Concentrations

AluminumArsenic

Barium

Cobalt

Copper

Lead

Mercury

Zinc

\lli^/i\y ui y

weight)

841

5,330

106

10.6

28.3

13.9

76.7

52.5

1%

8.4

53

1.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.8

0.5

5%

42.1

267

5.3

0.5

1.4

0.7

3.8

2.6

10%

84.1

533

10.6

1.1

2.8

1.4

7.7

5.3

22%

185

1,173

23.3

2.3

6.2

3.1

16.9

11.6

1 1 *wr

(mg/kg)

NS

500

100

NS

NS

1,000

20

5,000

1 W f\. W 1 b-W

(mg/kg)

NS

50

1,000

NS

NS

50

2

2,500

f.V SV I \^l_l~

(mg/kg)

NS

100

2,000

NS

NS

100

4

NS

TTLC = Total Threshold Limit Concentration

STLC = Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration

TCLP = Toxicity Charactenstics Leaching Procedure

NS = Not Specified

Also presented in Table 4-2 are the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC), ten timesthe Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC), and 20 times the Toxicity CharacteristicsLeaching Procedure (TCLP) limit for each compound detected. The TTLC and STLC areused when determining the hazardous waste characterization under California state regula-tions. The TCLP is used when determining a hazardous waste characterization under fed-eral regulations.

Neither the STLC nor TCLP tests were conducted as part of this treatability study becausethe tests each require 50 to 100 grams of sludge to perform the analysis. At the observed rateof sludge production (150 mg per liter treated), 667 liters (approximately 175 gallons) ofwater would need to be treated to generate 100 grams of sludge, which was not feasible forthis bench-scale study. However, the total metals results obtained can be compared withTTLC, STLC, and TCLP limits to assess the hazardous characteristics of the sludge. A briefexplanation of TTLC, STLC, and TCLP, and how the results of this study may be comparedto each, is provided in the following paragraphs.

RDCALAVA CAP TREAT DOC


TTLCThe total metals test performed on the sludge measured the total concentration of the targetanalyte in the sample and is identical to the TTLC test; the only difference being that thetotal metals test is reported in mg/kg dry weight and the TTLC test is reported in mg/kgwet weight. Therefore, if the concentration obtained from the total metals test is scaled toaccount for the anticipated percent moisture in the sludge, the results of the two tests aredirectly comparable.

STLCThe intent of the STLC test is to simulate the conditions that may be present in a landfillwhere water may infiltrate into the landfill waste and migrate to the groundwater, carryingthe soluble materials with it. The STLC (California) test is similar to the TCLP (federal) test,although the methods and limit concentrations are slightly different. The extraction fluidused in the STLC test is a sodium citrate buffer solution. During the STLC test, the sample isdiluted 1:10; therefore, when comparing total metals results, the comparison should bemade to 10 times the STLC criteria. It could be anticipated that less than 100 percent of themetals present in the sludge would leach during an STLC test. Therefore, if the total metalsconcentration is greater than 10 times the STLC, the sludge could potentially be hazardousbut it is not necessarily so. An STLC analysis will be required to make the determination.Conversely, if the total metals concentration is less than 10 times the STLC, it can be rea-sonably assumed that the sludge would pass an STLC analysis.

TCLPThe TCLP test is similar to the STLC test in theory as discussed above. One of two extractionfluids is used in the TCLP test, depending on the initial alkalinity of the sample. For lowalkalinity samples, a sodium acetate solution at pH 4.93 is used; for high alkalinity samples,an acetic acid solution at pH 2.8 is used. The dilution factor for the TCLP test is 1:20; there-fore, total metals results should be compared to 20 times the TCLP criteria. As with theSTLC, if the total metals concentration is greater than 20 times the TCLP criteria, the sludgecould be hazardous and would require a TCLP analysis. If the total metals concentration isless than 20 times the TCLP criteria, it can be reasonably assumed that the sludge wouldpass a TCLP analysis.

In summary, if the total metals results (on a wet basis) do not exceed the TTLC, 10 times theSTLC limit, or 20 times the TCLP limit, then normally no further analysis is required, andthe material is classified as non-hazardous. Based on the results presented in Table 4-2,arsenic and mercury concentrations could cause the sludge to be classified as hazardous.Leaching analyses, such as TCLP or STLC, should be performed to determine the actualhazardous waste classification of the residual sludge.

4.2 Tailings Dewatering and SolidificationThis section presents the results of the tailings dewatering and solidification bench-scalestudies, including the results of raw tailings characterization, and analyses performed ondewatered and solidified tailings.

4.2.1 Raw Tailings Characterization

Laboratory data packages for the raw tailings characterization are provided in Attachment 2and summarized in this section. The soil water characteristic curve is presented in

RDD/LAVA CAP TREAT DOC


Figure 4-4. According to the characteristic curve performed on the raw tailings, dewateringbased on gravity drainage may be accomplished, but moisture contents would not beexpected to decrease below about 12 percent.

Shear strength of the raw tailings (with as-received moisture content) was not investigatedas part of this work, but was analyzed as part of the geotechnical component of the datagaps investigation (CH2M HILL, 2002b). All other raw tailings characterization parametersare summarized in Table 4-3.

TABLE 4-3Summary of Results - Raw Tailings CharacterizationLava Cap Mine Treatability Study Report

Parameter

Grain size a

In Situ Moisture

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Lead

Mercury

Molybdenum

Nickel

Selenium

Silver

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

Nitrate-N

pH

Ortho-phosphate

Organic Matter Content

Cation Exchange Capacity

Units

-

% dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg dry weight

mg/kg

units

mg/kg

%

meq/100g

Value

36% Sand, 51% Silt, 13% Clay

22.2

1.5

549

20.3

<0.98

2.6

40..3

4.6

34.9

44.3

0.11

<6.2

13.7

<10

6.3

<2.5

9.2

235

1.47

7.89

< 0.01

0.29

1.4a Particle size distribution curve provided in Attachment 2.

The results presented in Table 4-3 can also provide a basis for a preliminary review ofrevegetation strategies for the Lava Cap Mine Site. Tailings revegetation/restoration is analternative that will be explored in the FS for Lava Cap Mine. Revegetation can help tophysically stabilize cohesiveless tailings, accelerate soil formation processes, and create con-ditions that can stimulate soil biological activity; all of which can contribute to a sustainablesoil ecosystem.

RDDUAVA CAP TREAT.DOC


In general, no major concerns appear to exist regarding revegetation that cannot be over-come with the proper tailings restoration design. The texture of the tailings is a silty-sandwith medium to large pore space that may limit water-holding capacity. In those areas ofthe site where groundwater is too deep to be accessed by restoration vegetation and water-holding capacity of the tailings is low, irrigation may be required during establishment ofvegetation or as a permanent system to supplement seasonal rainfall.

Based on the results presented in Table 4-3, nutrient concentrations are very limited. Thiscan be overcome with a regular fertigation (a practice which can be used to supply muchneeded essential nutrients to the restoration vegetation) system. The cation exchangecapacity of the tailings (1.4 meq/lOOg) is low for soils but typical for unweathered tailings.

To further assess the potential for revegetation/restoration of tailings at the Lava Cap Site,the following tests are recommended for the raw tailings: salinity, electrical conductivity,sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), and growth tests (both germination tests and longer-termgrowth tests).

4.2.2 Dewatered Tailings Characterization

The shear strength of the dewatered tailings (initial water content of 11.7 percent) wasevaluated, and results are presented in Attachment 2. Dry unit weight of the dewateredtailings was 95 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3). Compaction of the dewatered tailings was notinvestigated as part of this work, but was included in the geotechnical component of thedata gaps investigation (CH2M HILL, 2002b) conducted in February 2002.

4.2.3 Solidified Tailings Characterization

Results of unit weight and compressive strength analyses performed on solidified tailingsare summarized in Table 4-4. Complete results are provided in Attachment 2.

TABLE 44Unit Weight, Compressive Strength, and Permeability Test Results - Solidified TailingsLava Cap Mine Treatability Study Report

Results at Each Amendment RatioParameter

Wet Density

Dry Density

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Average Permeability

Unit

lb/ft 3

lb/ft 3

psi

cm/sec

5%

117.1

97.9

124.3

3x1 0'6

10%

121.9

102.3

427

1X10"6

20%

114

97.7

729

4x1 0"6

The wet density was measured on the solidified material at the water content at which itwas received. To measure the dry density, the solidified material was dried in a 110°C ovento a constant weight prior to density measurement.

As described in the Work Plan for Treatability Study. Lava Cap Mine Superfund Site (CH2MHILL, lOOla), Type 2 Portland cement was selected as a stabilizing agent. Three amendmentratios, 5,10, and 20 percent by weight, were tested. The amendment ratios were based onthe "as received" weight of the materials. As shown in Table 4-4, unconfined strengthresults increased with cement content, as expected. However, based on the data obtained,

10 RDD/LAVA CAP TREAT.DOC

TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT• LAVA CAP MINE SUPERFUND SITE

there was no obvious decrease in permeability with increasing cement content. Permeabil-ities were consistently in the 10"6 cm/sec range. Permeabilities were expected to decreasewith increasing cement content. However, laboratory personnel indicated nothing unusualwas observed during testing, and that there was no leakage along the sample /membraneinterface.

A study of the characteristics of the solidified tailings was performed to evaluate the feasi-bility of leaving the solidified tailings in place at the Lava Cap Site. One primary concernwith this alternative is leaching of metals from the solidified tailings into surface water andgroundwater. Metals' teachability of the solidified tailings was evaluated using the SyntheticPrecipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP).

The SPLP procedure is particularly useful in those situations where a determination must bemade if a potentially contaminated material, left in situ, will leach toxic substances whenexposed to normal weathering. Instead of the landfill leachate simulating acetic acid mixtureused in the TCLP method, nitric and sulfuric acids are used in an effort to simulate the acidrains resulting from airborne nitric and sulfuric oxides. Results of the SPLP analysis may becompared to TCLP (federal) and STLC (California) limits to evaluate the feasibility of leav-ing the solidified materials in situ. Results of the solidified tailings SPLP analyses (detectedconstituents only), and the corresponding TCLP and STLC limits are presented in Table 4-5.As shown in the table, all amendment ratios tested resulted in solidified materials withmetals leachability well below regulatory limits. Leaching analyses were not performed onthe raw tailings, although such analyses are recommended for future studies as it is possiblethat the raw tailings would pass STLC and TCLP limits without amendment.

TABLE 4-5Solidified Tailings Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure Results (Detected Constituents Only)Lava Cap Mine Treatability Study Report

SPLP Result (mg/L) for Various Cement Amendment Ratios

Arsenic

Barium

Chromium

Copper

5%

0.0166

ND

0.0417

ND

10%

0.0152

0.138

0.0367

0.0289

20%

0.0133

0.266

0.0227

0.0226

STLC (mg/L)

5

100

5

25

TCLP (mg/L)

5

100

5

NS

STLC = Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration; TCLP = Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure; ND = Not Detected;NS = Not Specified

5.0 ConclusionsThe following conclusions resulted from an analysis of the treatability study data. Theseconclusions have been used to support the development of the Preliminary Draft FeasibilityStudy Report for the Lava Cap Mine Superfund Site (CH2M HILL, 2002a).

RODUAVA CAP TREAT DOC II

TREATABIUTY STUDY REPORTLAVA CAP MINE SUPERFUND SITE

5.1 Iron Coprecipitation Treatability Study• Pre-oxidation requirements require further study. The water sample collected for this

study was oxidized during sample collection and transport and therefore could not beused to determine oxidation requirements. Additional bench-scale or pilot-scale tests arerecommended to estimate oxidant dosage requirements.

• Optimum treatment conditions are 44 mg/L ferric chloride dose (as FeCla) and pH 6.2.Adequate treatment was also realized during Jar Test No. 3 with 15 mg/L ferric chloridedose, which could theoretically be a more cost-effective process than the 44 mg/L dose;however, Jar Test No. 1 demonstrated inadequate treatment at a dose of 30 mg/L.Therefore, optimum treatment conditions were conservatively selected to be 44 mg/Lferric chloride and pH 6.2.

• Under optimum treatment conditions, sludge is produced at a rate of 1.25 dry poundsper 1,000 gallons of water treated.

• Total metals tests performed on the residual sludge as part of this study indicate that theresidual sludge could be hazardous, although STLC and TCLP testing is required to fur-ther evaluate the leaching potential and waste classification of the sludge.

• Effluent arsenic concentrations below the MCL are achievable with iron coprecipitationat Lava Cap Mine.

5.2 Tailings Dewatering and Solidification Treatability Study• The tailings may be dewatered by gravity drainage methods to a moisture content of

about 12 percent. Dewatering the tailings provides an increase to the material shearstrength.

• With increased cement content, material shear strength increases and permeabilityremains consistently low.

• The metals leaching rate from the solidified tailings (solidification with Portland cementin amendment ratios of 5,10, and 20 percent) is well below STLC and TCLP limits.Therefore, leaving the solidified materials in situ is a feasible alternative and will beevaluated further in the FS.

• In general, there do not appear to be any major concerns regarding revegetation thatcannot be overcome with the proper tailings restoration design. Additional testing,including salinity, electrical conductivity, SAR, and growth tests (both germination testsand longer-term growth tests) is recommended.

6.0 ReferencesCH2M HILL, 2002a. Preliminary Draft Feasibility Study Report for the Lava Cap Mine SuperfundSite. January.

CH2M HILL, 2002b. Lava Cap Mine RI/FS Data Gaps Investigation - Geotechnical Exploration.February.

12 RDD/LAVA CAP TREAT.DOC


CH2M HILL, 2001b. Lava Cap Treatability Study Workplan Response to EPA Comments. August.

CH2M HILL, 2001a. Work Plan for Treatability Study, Lava Cap Mine Superfund Site. July 2001.

RODVUW A CAP TREAT DOC 13

Figures

30 40 50 60 70

FERRIC CHLORIDE DOSE, AS FeCI3 (mg/L)

80 90 100

LC_treat-figs.xls\Figure 4-1

FIGURE 4-1JAR TEST NO. 1 RESULTSTREATABILITY STUDY REPORTLAVA CAP MINE SUPERFUND SITENEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

3.5

Ferric Chloride Dose, as FeCI3 = 44 mg/L

5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5

pH (units)

7.0 7.5



100

80 100 120 140 160


O

ui zoc

Q Oui zf- O< OUIQC

RESIDUAL ARSENIC CONCENTRATION

- - pH

60 80 100 120 140 160



LC_treat-figs xlsVFigure 4-3

UJ

OULUCC

C/3O

V)(3

20

18

16

14

12

10

4 --

8 10

PRESSURE (bars)

12 14 16


FIGURE 4-4SOIL-WATER CHARACTERISTIC CURVE, RAWTAILINGSTREATABILITY STUDY REPORTLAVA CAP MINE SUPERFUND SITENEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

ATTACHMENT 1

Iron Coprecipitation Study Data

Raw Water Characterization

16

CH2MHILL Titration Curve

Sample InformationClientSourceSample Date/TimeProject NumberClient Sample IDLab Sample ID

Lava Cap

LC-Raw602001

Test InformationAnalystTest Date/TimeSample Volume

ET8/29/2001 1:00

50 mL

Titration Curve

Reagent Characteristics

TypeChemical

Reagent Strength

Acid

H2SO4

0.02 N

Base

NaOH

Total Alkalinity

171 mg/L as CaCO3

Measurements |

pH7.857.807.737.677.607.567.487.407.347.277.217.147.097.036.986.956.906.856.816.76

H2SO4(mL)0.000.100.250.500.751 001.251 501.752002.252.502.753003.253503.754004.25450

NaOH(mL)

Alkalinitymg/L as CaCO3

171.0169.0166.0161.0156.0151.0146.0141.0136.0131.0126.0121.0116.0111.0106.0101.096091.086081 0

PH6.736.666.626.616.546.466.426.386.306.206.126.025.905.655.224.554.50

H2SO4(mL)4.755.005.255.505.756.006256.506.757.007.257.507.758.008.258.508.55

NaOH(mL)

Alkalinity |mg/L as CaCO3;

76.071.066.061.056.051.046.041.036.031.026.021.016.011.0601.000

Alkalinity 30: end point = pH 4.9Alkalinity ISO: end point = pH 4.6Alkalinity 500: end point = pH 4 3

LC trtration curve xls. Raw Page I of 1 01/17/2002 2 24 PM

CH2MHILL Characterization

ClientSourceDate/Time CollectedProject Number (login)Laboratory ID (login)Project Number (analysis)Laboratory ID (analysis)

Sample InfLava Cap Mine

Raw

1561 97 00 LC602001

ormation

ParametersAntimony, total ug/LBarium, total ug/LBeryllium, total ug/LCadmium, total ug/LChromium, total ug/LCobalt, total ug/LCopper, total ug/LIron, total ug/LIron, dissolved ug/LLead, total ug/LMagnesium, total ug/LMolybdenum, total ug/LNickel, total ug/LSelenium, total ug/LSilica, total ug/LSilver, total ug/LThallium, total ug/LVanadium, total ug/LZinc, total ug/LTurbidity ntuAlkalinity mg/L as CaC03

Hardness mg/L as CaC03

Chloride mg/LNitrate-N mg/LSulfate mg/LrOC mg/LUV-254 cm 1

<5628<4<5<10<10<101430<100<3

10700<25<20<7

22000<10<10<2520954

171

220

1 0< 0 1683078

<0009

—

LC Characterization water xls Page 1 of PrntDate 01/30/2002

Jar Test Results

CH2MHILL LAVA CAP JAR TEST

Test Infor

Client

Source

Sample Location

Sample Date/Time

Project Number

Series Number

Analyst

Test Date/Time

nation

Lava Cap

ADIT

ADIT

8/21/2001 1808

151319 IT 01

1

DAH

9/6/2001 1500

Test Waler Ch,

Temperature 9/6/01 1500

pH 9/6/011500

Turbidity 9/6/011500

Alkalinity mg/LasCaC03

UV254 cm-1

TOC mg/L

SUVA Umg-m

Arsenic, soluble ug/L

iracteristics

23 °C

7 60 units

54ntu

171

0006

078

076

320

Test Objectives

Evaluate various ferric chloride doses (ranging from 30-100 mg/L) at a constant pH of 6 0


Type

Chemical

Stock Strength

Stock Reagent Basis

Jar#

Target pH units

Alkalinity mg/L as CaC03

Volume

Sulfuric Acid Stock Added

Dose

Lime Stock Added

Dose

Ferric Chloride Stock Added

Dose

Stock Added

Dose

pH after coag addition

pH after adjustment

Rapid Mix RPM

Duration

Flocculation RPM

Duration

Floe Observations

Settling Period

Settling Observations

Settled Water Pretreatment

pH units

ORP mV

Chloride mg/L

Sulfate mg/L

ron, soluble ug/L


Sludge @ 30 min mL

Sludge @ 30 min cm

TSS (sludge) mg

TSS (sludge) mg/L

Acid

Sulfuric Acid

lOOOmeq/L

H2SO,

1

60

21

20L

600 mL

30 mg/L

696

602

Base

Lime

lOOOmeq/LCa(OH)2

2

60

21

2 0 L

880mL

44 mg/L

676

607

Coagulant

Ferric Chloride

10000 mg/L

FeCI33

60

21

20L

1160mL

58 mg/L

668

603

Polymer

4

60

21

20L

1440mL

72 mg/L

Oxriant

5

60

21

2 0 L

1720mL

86 mg/L

656 644

606 | 603

6

60

21

20L

2000mL

100 mg/L

632

605

200

1 mm

60/40/20

5 mm each

- @ 60 RPM pin floe formed in all jars- Q 40 RPM floe grew to small size in all )ars, fluffy fioc density- @ 20 RPM floe grew to medium size in all jars, remained fluffy

15 mm

- Fluffy sludge density- Ma|onty of floe settled in the 15 mm settling period

0 45 um filtered

683

334

220

168

<100

1297

19

35

37

19

693

320

320

147

<100

442

37

66

60

30

689

310

417

138

<100

331

31

5 7

77

39 _,

695

310

51 7

122

<100

342

58

107

93

47

690

290

609

111

<100

204

58

107

109

55

702

290

704

985

<100

1 10

J50

99

129

65

Lava Cap Jartrel 9 2001 xls LC JT 1 (dose) Pago 1 of 3 PrmlOate OK24200?


Client

Test Information

Source

Sample Location

Sample Date/Time

Project Number

Series Number

Analyst

Test Dateffime

Lava Cap

ADIT

ADIT

8/21/2001 1808

151319TT01

2

TBMY

9/27/2001 PM

Temperature

Test Water Characteristics

9/27/2001 PM

pH 9/27/2001 PM

Turbidity 9/27/2001 PM

Alkalinity mg/L as CaCOS

UV254 cm-1

rOC mg/L

SUVA Umg-m


235°C

7 70 umts

54ntu

171

0006

078

076

320

Test Objectives

Evaluate various pH conditions with a constant ferric chloride dose at 44 mg/L


Type

Chemical

Stock Strength

Stock Reagent Basis

Jarf

Target pH

Volume

Sulfuric Acid

Lime

Ferric Chloride

)H after adjustment

Rapid Mix

Flocculation

Floe Observations

units

Stock Added

Dose

Stock Added

Dose

Stock Added

Dose

Stock Added

Dose

RPM

Duration

RPM

Duration

Settling Period


pH after flocculation units


pH units

ORP mV

Chloride

Sulfate

Iron, soluble

Arsenic, soluble

Sludge @ 30 mm

Sludge @ 30 mm

rSS (sludge)

rSS (sludge)

mg/L

mg/L

ug/L

ug/L

mL

cm

mg

mg/L

Acid

Sulfuric Acid

1000meq/L

H2S04

1

550

20L

Base

Lime

10000 mg/L

Ca(OH)2

2

600

20L

520mL I 315mL

2 6 meq/L ' 1 6 meq/L

880 mL

44 mg/L

55

880mL

44 mg/L

60

Coagulant

Feme Chloride

10000 mg/L

FeCI3

3

625

20L

255 mL

13 meq/L

880mL

44 mg/L

63

4

650

20L

132mL

07meo/L

880mL

44 mg/L

65

5

700

20L

063 mL

3 2 mg/L

880mL

44 mg/L

6

750

20L

457mL

229mg/L

880 mL

44 mg/L

70 1 75

200

1 mm

60/40/20

5 mm each

Fine sized Floe Fine Medium sized Floe Fine Sized Floe

15 mm

Most of the floe settled in 15 minutes leaving a slightly turbid supernatant The settled sludge had a fluffy density

54 ]~ 60 ] 62 ~~]~ 65 | 69 | 74

58

185

266

63

192

265

163 128

<100

1 86

21

40

61

30

<100

132

19

37

55

27

0 45 um f

65

185

269

113

<100

094

21

42

64

32

tered

68

180

271

888

<100

230

30

57

61

30

71

185

269

604

<100

209

34

66

63 '

77

180

273

596

<100

332

24

4 6

79

31 ~~f 40

Lava Cap Jartest 9 ZQOUIs LC JT 2 (pH) Page 2 ol 3 PnnlOate 01/24/2002


Test Infor

Client

Source

Sample Location

Sample Date/Time

Project Number

Series Number

Analyst

Test Date/Time

nation

Lava Cap

ADIT

ADIT

8/21/2001 1808

151319 TT 01

3

TBMY

10/02/2001 PM

Temperature

PH

Test Water Ch

10/02/2001 PM

10/02/2001 PM

Turbidity 10/02/2001 PM

Alkalinity mg/L as CaCOS

UV254 cm 1

TOC

SUVA

Arsenic, soluble

mg/L

L/mg m

ug/L

aractenstics

22 0 °C ~~

7 50 units

54ntu

171

0006

078

076

320

Test Objectives

Evaluate various pH conditions using feme chloride only (no acid addition)


Type

Chemical

Stock Strength

Stock Reagent Basis

Jar*

Target pH units

Volume

Sulfuric Acid Stock Added

Dose

Lime Stock Added

Dose

Ferric Chloride Stock Added

Dose

Stock Added

Dose

pH after ferric chloride addition

Rapid Mix RPM

Duration

Flocculation RPM

Duration

Floe Observations

Settling Period


)H after flocculation units


pH units

ORP mV

Chloride mg/L

Sulfate mg/L

Iron, soluble ug/L


Sludge @ 30 mm mL

Sludge @ 30 mm cm

TSS (sludge) mg

TSS (sludge) mg/L

Acid

Sulfuric Acid

1000 meq/L

H2S04

1

724

Base

Lime

10000 mg/L

Ca(OH)2

2

698

20L 20L

300mL

15 mg/L

73

75

193

992

593

<100

612

10

22

31

L 15

600mL

30 mg/L

Coagulant

Ferric Chloride

10000 mg/L

FeCI33

672

2 0 L

1100mL

55 mg/L

4

646

20L

1600mL

80mg/L

5

620

20L

2200mL

110 mg/L

6

590

2 0 L

2800mL

140 mg/L

200

1 mm

7 1

73

180

336

591

<100

195

19

36

51

25

60/40/20

5 mm each

15m

69

0 45 um f

7 1

186

189

592

<100

150

50

96

78

39

n

67

Itered

68

198

496

586

<100

1 04

68

126

111

56

64

66

194

681

588

<100

1 17

76

143

120

60

60

63

204

862

577

<100

125

61

11 7

175

88

LavaTap J.)rtesl9 2001 xls LC JT3( I rrrpH) Page 3 on Print Dale 01 2*2002

Residual Sludge Data

18

CH2M Hill

Applied Sciences Group

2300 NW Walnut Blvd

Corvalhs. OR

97330-3538

P O. Box 428

Cc«vallls.OR

97339-0428

Tel S41.752.4271

Fax Ml 7520276

CH2MHILLApplied Sciences Group

October 22, 2001

Lava Cap

156197.00.LC

RE: Laboratory Report for Lava CapApplied Sciences Group Reference No. 6267

Rebecca Maco/SAC:

On October 10, 2001, CH2M HILL Applied Sciences Group received five samples with arequest for analysis of selected parameters. All analyses were performed by CH2M HILLunless otherwise indicated below.

The analytical results and associated quality control data are enclosed. Any unusualdifficulties encountered during the analysis of your samples are discussed in the casenarrative.

CH2M HELL Applied Sciences Group appreciates your business and looks forward toserving your analytical needs again. If you should have any questions concerning the data, orif you need additional information, please call Ms. Kathy McKinley at (541) 758-0235,extension 3120.

Sincerely,

Q

Judy GreydanusLaboratory Representative

Enclosures

cc:Tim Maloney/CVO

OR100022

PAGE 1 of

CLIENT SAMPLE CROSS-REFERENCE

CH2M HILL Applied Sciences Group Reference No. 6267

Sample ID626701626702626703626704626705

Client Sample ID/LC-JT-4-Filt -^

LC-JT-4-Sludee/LC-JT-4-Settled/ LC-Raw ~-TW£w

/ LC-Raw-Filt -^

DateCollected10/10/200110/10/2001

, /^ 10/10/2001VCW> 10/10/2001

10/10/2001

TimeCollected

AMAMAMAMAM

\jj^"', ntt^ ^%f*l ^t

& 3

CASE NARRATIVEMETALS

Lab Reference No.: 6267

Client/Project: Lava Cap

I. Holding Time:All acceptance criteria were met.

II. Digestion Exceptions:None.

HI. Analysis:

A. Calibration:All acceptance criteria were met.

B. ICP Interference Check Sample:All acceptance criteria were met.

C. Spike Sample(s):All acceptance criteria were met.

D. Duplicate SampleCsV.All acceptance criteria were met.

E. Laboratory Control Sample(s):All acceptance criteria were met.

F. ICP Serial Dilution:Not Required.

G. Other.None

IV. Documentation Exceptions:None

V. I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and conditions agreed to by theclient and CH2M HELL, both technically and for completeness, except for the conditions detailedabove. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package has been authorized by theLaboratory Manager or his designee, as verified by the following signature.

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

CH2M HILL Applied Sciences Laboratory

Client Information

Client Sample ID:

Project Name:Project Manager:

Sampled By:Sampling Date:Sampling Time:

Type:Matrix:Basis:

Analyte

Aluminum, AlAntimony, SbArsenic, AsBarium, BaBeryllium, BeCadmium, CdChromium, CrCobalt, CoCopper, CuLead, PbMercury, HgMolybdenum, MoNickel, NiSelenium, SeThallium, TlVanadium, VZinc, Zn

Lab Information

LC-JT-4-Fitt

Lava Cap

Lab Sample ID:

Date Received:Rebecca Maco/SACTim Maloney10/10/01AMGrabWaterAs Received

MRL

1005.02.0

25.04.05.010.010.010.03.00.1025.020.07.010.025.020.0

SampleResult

1005.02.0

50.34.05.010.010.010.03.0

0.1025.020.07.010.025.020.0

Qualifier

UUU

UUUUUUUUUUUUU

Report

Units

A/g/LA/g/L

pgfl-//g/LA/g/L

A/g/LA/g/L

jug/L//g/LA/g/LA/g/LA<g/LA/g/LA>g/L//g/LA/g/LA/g/L

Revision No.:Reported By:Reviewed By:

AnalysisMethod

EPA 200.7EPA 200.7SM3113BEPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 245.1EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7

626701

10/10/20010JG/YL/SH.^d&-

DateAnalyzed

10/15/0110/15/0110/16/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/12/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/01

U=Not detected at specified reporting limits

CH2M HILLApplied Sciences Group

230ONW Walnut Blvd., Conallls. OR 97330-3538P O Box 428. Corra/fe OR 97339-O42B

Tel 541 7524271 fax 54! 7520276


Client Information

Client Sample ID:



Type:Matrix:Basis:

Analyte


LC-JT-4-Sludge

Lava Cap

Lab Information

Lab Sample ID:

Date Received:Rebecca Maco/SACTim Maloney10/10/01AMGrabSoilDry Weight (99%

MRL

1005.010.025.04.05.010.010.010.03.00.1025.020.07.010.025.020.0

s/fsfv&/^/£f^ *\f^ / J

moisture) r U

SampleResult Qualifier

8415.0 U

53301064.0 U5.0 U10.0 U10.628.313.976.725.0 U20.0 U7.0 U10.0 U25.0 U52.5

Report

<O" 1^ ezsXfiz^T*'^^°cJ

Units

mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg


AnalysisMethod

EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 245.1EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7

626702

10/10/20010JG/YL/SH2>t&^~

DateAnalyzed

10/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/12/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/01



- 5

230ONW Walnut Blvd. Corvollls. OR 97330-3538PO Box 428 Corvallis. OH 97339-0428

1 752427! fox 541 7520276


Client Information

Client Sample ID:



Type:Matrix:Basis:

Analyte


Lab Information

LC-JT-4-SettIed

Lava Cap

Lab Sample ID:


MRL

1005.02.0

25.04.05.0

•10.010.010.03.00.1025.020.07.010.025.020.0

SampleResult

1005.036.352.14.05.010.010.010.03.00.1025.020.07.010.025.020.0

Qualifier

UU

UUUUUUUUUUUUU

Report

Units

A/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/L//g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/L


AnalysisMethod

EPA 200.7EPA 200.7SM3113BEPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 245.1EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7

626703

10/10/20010JG/YL/SH-5>^4-

DateAnalyzed

10/15/0110/15/0110/16/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/12/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/01



2300 NW Walnut Blvd. CorraWs. OR 97330-3538PO Box 428. Corvo/te OR 97339-W28

Tel 541 752 4271 Fox 541 752 0276


Client Information

Client Sample ID:



Type:Matrix:Basis:

Analyte


Lab Information

LC-Raw

Lava Cap

Lab Sample ID:


MRL

1005.010.025.04.05.0

-10.010.010.03.0

0.1025.020.07.010.025.020.0

SampleResult

1235.070764.64.05.010.010.010.03.00.1025.020.07.010.025.024.1

Qualifier

U

*

UUUUUUUUUUUU

Report

Units

A/g/LA/g/LA/g/L//g/L//g/L//g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/L


AnalysisMethod


626704

10/10/20010JG/YL/SH

-S*o4-

DateAnalyzed

10/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/12/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/01



- 7

2300 NW Walnut Blvd Corvallls. OR 97330-3538PO Box 428 CorvatHs. OR 97339-0428

Tel 541 752 4271 Fox 54 ? 752 0276


Client Information

Client Sample ID:



Type:Matrix:Basis:

Analyte

Aluminum, AlAntimony, SbArsenic, AsBarium, BaBeryllium, BeCadmium, CdChromium, CrCobalt, CoCopper, CuLead. PbMercury, HgMolybdenum, MoNickel, NiSelenium, SeThallium, TlVanadium, VZinc, Zn

Lab Information

LC-Raw-Filt

Lava Cap

Lab Sample ID:


MRL

1005.010.025.04.05.0

10.010.010.03.0

0.1025.020.07.010.025.020.0

SampleResult

1005.030854.64.05.010.010.010.03.0

0.1025.020.07.010.025.020.0

Qualifier

UU

UUUUUUUUUUUUU

Report

Units

A/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/L


AnalysisMethod


626705

10/10/20010JG/YL/SH^4-

DateAnalyzed

10/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/12/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/01



2300 NW Walnut Blvd. Corvollis. OR 97330-3538P O Box 428. Corvallis. OR 97339-0428

Tsl 54) 752 4271 Fax 541 752 0276


Client Information

Client Sample ID:



Type:Matrix:Basis:

Analyte

Aluminum, AlAntimony, SbArsenic, AsArsenic, AsBarium, BaBeryllium, BeCadmium, CdChromium, CrCobalt, CoCopper, CuLead, PbMercury, HgMolybdenum, MoNickel, NiSelenium, SeThallium, TlVanadium, VZinc, Zn

Lab Information

METHOD BLANK

Lava CapRebeccaNANANAQCWater

Maco/SAC

Lab Sample ID:

Date Received:Report Revision No.:

Reported By:Reviewed By:

6267

NA0JG/YL/SH* Njl'* \ —j *"J M

As Received

MRL

1005.010.02.025.04.0•5.010.010.010.03.00.1025.020.07.010.025.020.0

SampleResult

1005.010.02.025.04.05.010.010.010.03.00.1025.020.07.010.025.020.0

Qualifier

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Units

A/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/LA/g/L

AnalysisMethod

EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7SM3113BEPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 245.1EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7EPA 200.7

DateAnalyzed

10/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/16/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/12/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/0110/15/01


CH2M HILLAppned Sciences Group

23OONW Wo/nut Blvd. CcwaWs. OR 97330-3538PO Box 428 Corvatlls. OR 97339-0428

Tel 541 7524271 fox 541 7520276

CH2MHILL Applied Sciences LabCHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORDAND AGREEMENT TO PERFORM SERVICES

CVO 2300 NW Walnut BoulevardCorvallls, OR 97330-3538(541)752-4271 FAX (541) 752-0276

coc#Project #

l5UT7.Ofl.t-C.Purchase Order*

Project Name

G\/pme ICompany Name

CHZMJrteLL /SACReport to:

irnRequested Completion Date:

Sampling

Date Time

Type Matrix

Sample Disposal:

Dlapoa« Rfltuma n

CLIENT SAMPLE ID(8 CHARACTERS)

LABQC

Requested Analytical Method #

V-1

Preservative

THIS AREA FOR LAB USE ONLY

Page of

EPA Tier QC Level

1 (Screening) 2 3

Alternate Description Lab ID

to XX>3

L± /- — X Xr/

££.-:^

•-T, X XLC- ftxto y

J* XX /-C- ^XK x

Relinquished By Date/Time Received By Date/Time

.Sampled By and Title

/yrn /VU 1Relinquished By ™n») Date/Time /

inlm/ntReceived By (Pl««s« sign and prim name) Date/Time Relfnqulsheti By ' (Pl»ase »lgn and print nam«)) 7 Date/Time'

Shipping #

Special Instructions:

Instructions and Agreement Provisions on Reverse Side DISTRIBUTION: Original • LAB, Yellow • LAB, Pink • ClientPo./ ?/ni I ah firm I/in

CH2IV1HILLApplied Sciences Group Sample Receipt Record

Batch Number | (0 2JJ. Date/Time Received: J

Client/Project I fijjG( Temperature: | f_ "

VERIFICATION OF SAMPLE CONDITIONS (verify all items) * HD = Client Hand delivered Samples

ObservationWere custody seals intact and on the outside of the cooler?Was the Chain of Custody inside the cooler?Was the Chain of Custody property filled out?Were, the sample containers In good condition?Was there Ice in the cooler? f(jUUfH&/ i V/Z/

YES NO

If the answer to any of the questions above is NO, a Sample ReceipyExceptions Report Must be written.

VERIFICATION OF SAMPLE PRESERVATION (verify all preserved samples except HAAs, HANs and CH)

SampleNo1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829$0^

NutrientspH<2

X

Metals pH<2

£2-(

M /W

"

/

Volatiles

pH<2CyanidespH>12

-

TOCpH<2

-

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

N/A(soils/unpraa)

-

'// LOGIN AND pH VERIFICATIONS PERFORMED BYittMM to/io/A,Dale/Tune I 7 /


Dat&Tum

2300 NW Walnut Blvd. Corvo/fe. OR 973303538P.O. Box423. CotvaOls. OR 97339^)428

Tel 541.752.4271 Fax541.7S2.0276

ATTACHMENT 2

Tailings Dewatering and SolidificationStudy Data

U/21/01 13:« ®541 752 °276CH2M HILL

^ SACRAMENTO @002/002

5TP7-COMP

Report of Analytical

•a-ssssssssssB Reference NO:tab S«wple ID!

^<<w ~»sk»Cm fel 5«i«M.K

. . j^-A < •« -W^v V J« < y. J-y*X«*t X V>;*^ X }< < XA ^X ' v^

•* V5 <<<*s!!> **"* y^ j* * **i>*:**'<'>''J ** "tix *.*'*'X 'h < x xg*-> ' < > vj !-^x> Â Xxx; ><£. <xv x-t < > '-"I, >< x( Wwx x-xy x « X xx?xXjXjo' xx"x-x x v < f y > A X x' .•••<

< ' H^>^» < xvi*--. X X* < Xx^Vx XÂH^ f v X *• (Xx?-x-X X^ M X^x x X* x x XV>VA » X S v * ^ ^ A

</ y xv»-1x>--x---*nX>4X*<'.>x-;J)!:x>;*x<-< x ^ > > < A; x xj AV..X* <j> X>HJ x*-*x-j'J

117716)

fORM t0016

•

•

100

90

8O

70crUJ

H 60u.

z 50UJo£40Q-

30

2O

10

02C

Test20

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORTc

c c c:

C C C \ C ~ OO— - ~ *- — •<*- OJ OO O O OO •<*- O

i \ \ \ --fr «— (N -«f <O •<- (N

)O 1OO 1O.O

% + 3"0. 0

LL

% GRAVEL0.0

•q •M "Sv\\1\

V^v\

''sS»••-*X

^

1 .O O. 1 O . O 1 O .OO1

GRAIN SIZE - mm

% SAND36. 1

% SILT50.8

% CLAY

13. 1

PI DBSO. 136

^60 D50

O O48;

D30

> 0.0233

DI

O.OOf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

' Sandy s I t

Project No.: 2016014-610

Pro jec t : Lava Cap Bench Study

• Locat on. Ca fo rn i a

Date: 1O-O8-01

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT

EEI TESTING AND INSPECTION, INC.

5 D O52 O O019

usesML

Cc

4.27

cu

34. 7

AASHTO

A-4(0 0)

Rema rks :

Samp e- 5TP7

E i g No 4

FEI Testing & Inspection, Inc.Lava Cap Bench StudyProject 2016014-610

Table 1. Specific Gravity of Soils

(ASTM D 854)

SampleNumber

SampleDepth (feet)

Temperature

5TP7

20

20

Table 2. Natural Water Contents

SampleNumber

5TP7

SampleDepth (feet)

Natural WaterContent (percent)

22.2

Table 3. Sieve Analysis

Sieve Size

#10

#20

#40

#60

#100

#200

Percent Passing

5TP7

100.0

99.6

99.3

98.2

88.0

63.9

5H2IVIHILLipptied Sciences Group

CH2M Hill


2300 NW Walnut Hvd

CorvalNs. OR

97330-3538

PO Box 428

Cocvaltls. OR

97339-0428

Tel 541.752.4271

fax 541 7520276November 1, 2001

Lava Cap

156197.00.LC


Tim Maloney/CVO:

On September 20, 2001, CH2M HILL Applied Sciences Group received one sample with arequest for analysis of selected parameters. All analyses were performed by CH2M HILLunless otherwise indicated below.


This report does not meet NELAC requirements for the following reasons:• Samples were received at a temperature of 22C with no ice.• NELAC has not provided our lab with accreditation for the following tests:

E245.5.

CH2M HILL Applied Sciences Group appreciates your business and looks forward toserving your analytical needs again. If you should have any questions concerning the data, orif you need additional information, please call Ms. Kathy McKinley at (541) 758-0235,extension 3120.

Sincerely,

(7Doug HardyLaboratory Representative

Enclosures

OR100022

PAGE 1

CH2MHILL Applied Sciences Lab CVO 2300 NWWalnut Boulevard

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD ^TSZ^'^W) 752-0278AND AGREEMENT TO PERFORM SERVICES ( ] ™ *™ FAX (541) 7

coc#Project #

^N l n A^N I CI ~A/0 \ \ j - ( L.) • LA—'

Purchase Order*

Project Name ,

uwrtv CA/P EWvh Su V^MCompany Name | /

Ctt?OA HTZL AS4CReport to:

_r -' /Phone No:

Requested Completion Date: I

C--A<£i

Sampling

Date

rH^Time

Type

COHP

X

QRAB

Matrix

WATER

S01L

X

A1R it

(

Sample Disposal:

Dlipos* ReturnD D


517P7.' Cr

Relinquished By

Sampled By and Title (Plea» »lgn and print name)

/TOM i m tfTFHIffiffi**CVBtfcelved By \ (Pleaie ilgn and Jrlnt name

U

mtD

LABQC

Date/Time

Date/Time

fttofc/t/Date/rlme

T0TAL

*0F

C0NTA1NERS

Requested Analytical Method #

p-x

-7i

J'?. 0 1.

t

Preservative

X X X X,

Received By

Relinquished By (Please aign and print name)

Relinquished By (Please algn and print name)

Shipped ViaUPS Fed-Ex CVh*r



Lab# '

EPA Tier QC Level

1 (Screening ) 2

Page,

"I

3 4

Alternate Description .

* AS , Sb;R•»*

C<\, Be -\A .Pk'.

Ha Ân Mt 5s. Aa,'Tl V .n x x —; ^

Lab ID

K- jf

'

Date/Time

Date/Time

Date/Time

Shipping #

Instructions and Agreement Provisions on Reverse Side DISTRIBUTION: Original • LAB, Yellmt • LAB, Pink - ClientRev 2/01 Lab form 340

CH2MHILLApplied Sciences Group Sample Receipt Record

Batch Number

Client/Project £M)

Date/Time Received:

Temperature: I

VERIFICATION OF SAMPLE CONDmONS (verify all items) * HD = Client Hand delivered Samplles

ObservationWere custody seals Intact and on the outside of the cooler?Was the Chain of Custody inside the cooler?Was the Chain of Custody properly filled out?Were the sample containers In good condition?Was there Ice In the cooler?

YES NO

If the answer to any of the questions above is NO, a Sample Receipt Exceptions Report Must be written.


SampleNo123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

NutrientspH<2

Metals pH<2

\

VolatilespH<2

CyanidespH>12

TOCpH<2

Other(specify)

-

Other(specify)

N/A(soils/unpt s)

^

_

/ \ LOGIN AND pH VERIFICATIONS PERFORMED BY

{MimMflti/Jj 3MMCH2M HILL


23CO NW Walnut Blvd. Comjfc OR 97330-3538PO Box 428 Con/offi OR 97339-0428

rel541 7524271 fax54} 7520276

Mr. Tim MaloneyCH2M HILL/CVO2300 NW Walnut BLVD.CH2M HILLCorvallis, OR 97339-3538

ColumbiaAnalyticalServices

Employee-Owned Company

Columbia Analytical Services ReportLava Cap Bench Study

D0105689/D5689

October 9, 2001

Submitted by:

Bryan JonesProject Manager/Client Services

This report contains a total of 1^ pages. (• ' . ; " : J_

5090 Caterpillar Rood • Redding, CA 96003 • Telephone (500) 244-5227 • Fax (530) 244-4109

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAS Lab Reference No.: D5689Level 1C

PageNo.

Cover Page 1Table of Contents 2Current CAS Redding Accreditation Programs 3Sample Identification Cross-Reference 5

GENERAL CHEMISTRY 6Case narrative 7Sample results 8

Chain of Custody Documentation 10

0002

Sample ID Cross-reference Table

CAS Client Receive CollectLab Sample ID Sample 10 Date Date Sample Matrix Additional Description

FS = Field Sample

D5689001 FS 5TP7-COMP 09/31/01 09/17/01 00:00 Soil

The above lab sample ID'S and cross reference information apply to samples as received by the laboratory. Modifiersto the lab sample ID may be added for internal tracking purposes. Any modified sample ID w i l l be reflected in theappropriate case narrative only.

0005

GENERAL CHEMISTRY

0006

Case NarrativeGeneral Chemistry

CAS Lab Reference No./SDG.: D5689

Project: Lava Cap Bench Study

I. RECEIPTNo exceptions were encountered unless a Sample Receipt Exception Report isattached to the Chain-of-Custody included with this data package.

II. HOLDING TIMESAll holding times were met.

III. METHODThe method used is cited in the corresponding Form I.

IV. PREPARATIONSample preparation proceeded normally, if applicable.

V. ANALYSISA. Calibration: All acceptance criteria were met.

B. Blanks: All acceptance criteria were met.

C. Spikes: All acceptance criteria were met.

D. Duplicates: All acceptance criteria were met.

E. Laboratory Control Samples: All acceptance criteria were met.

F. Samples: Sample analyses proceeded normally.

G. Other: No QA/QC except client requested QA/QC has been reported.

I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and conditions agreedto by the client and CAS, Inc., both technically and for completeness, except for theconditions noted above. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data packagehas been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or designated person, as verified by thefollowing signature.

SIGNED: TS<Jw /*•***•*"— DATE: |Q /I /P |RicKy \JensenResource Chemist

Columbia 5090 Caterpillar Rd Phone No.: (530)244-5227Analytical Services Redding, CA 96003-1412 Fax No : (530)244-4109

0007

Report of Analytical Results

Client Sample ID: 5TP7-COMPSample Description: None

Sample Matrix: SoilSite: N/A

Date Collected: 09/17/01 00:00 (Mon)Date Received: 09/21/01 09:45 (Fri)

Reference No: D5689Lab Sample ID: D56S9001

CATEGORY NAMEAnalytical Parameter Result

Reporting Date/Time AnalyticalUnits Level of Analysis Hethod(s)

GENERALOrganic Matter

AGRICULTURALCation Exchange capacity

fl.10 10/01/01

roeq/lOOg 0.8 10/09/01 OQtOO SU9080

(17518)

Columbia Analytical Services -- ReddingFORM I

0008

Report of Analytical Results

Client Sample ID: METHOD BLANKSample Description: None

Sample Matrix: SoilSite: N/A

Date Collected: NoneDate Received: None

Reference No: LABQCLab Sample ID: Various

CATEGORY NAMEAnalytical Parameter Result

Reporting Date/Time AnalyticalUnits Level of Analysis Method(s)

GENERALOrganic Matter

AGRICULTURALCation Exchange Capaci ty < 0.8 meq/100g 0»8 10/09/Ot OOtPO SW9080

(17518)

Columbia Analytical Services -- ReddingFORM I

0009

CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENTATION

0010

CH2MHILL Applied Sciences LabCHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORDAND AGREEMENT TO PERFORM SERVICES

CVO 2300 NW Walnut BoulevardCorvallis, OR 97330-3538(541)752-4271 FAX (541) 752-0276

coc#Project #

ISUTKoo.LCPurchase Order #

Project Name

Lcwo,Company Name

C 2 M

Ewch,

/SAC

Requested Completion Date: 1

Sampling

Date Time

Type Matrix

Sample Disposal:

OltpoM R«uirnn n


LABQC

M

o

Requested Analytical Method *

/JLJCT

Preservative


Lab* Page of

EP^TieKQC Level"

1 (Screening ) 2 3


Y I £21 K. X-

OO


Instructions and Agreement Provisions on Reverse Side DISTRIBUTION: Original• LAB, Yellow- LAB, Pink• ClientRev 2/01 Lab form 340

Dewatered Tailings Data

01/16/2002 12:01 FA1 5302431654 CH2M DILL

—£ee~i0-2001 09:53 FT^: FOUNDATION ENGINEER 5417577650

-» SAC

TO: a

@002/002

P. 002'005

-O.Q10

* _/l ft/It

eO Dilation

Q °

O

ft

O n 1 A

O 0 1 5

4-

—

H*rf-

It

/I

-J- *|

_J

L

.. . ...

..4y_

-t-i-

i

i—

-.„. , A * r\

"i..i

?''

'if...

t*.

-- ~i§

--

*,,

,jIF-

-

„

•

-

-

-

:

-L

^

. ™-

h —

•

..,

. L

...

.

.H-

t*' "**

i

..

— -i

,..• • -

....

** ~~

"•

!/;

.-

:

F*

._»

»

t

-

\",.,

-~*

-|

._

"t"

_„.!

1

-..,

.«

t"

0 0.02500500.0790.100

Hortz. D t a p . , in

1 2.

4 f\

CL Q

«0V- A

v»

2 AJCCO

O

B

:

. .If.

._..

«- nr «i

Y

- -Y-

—

fr

7Ji

•ft'

/"nji

T-t

"r~r

tt

4-_4_

"V

4J T

.„

/:" •

^

i i

fi\~,

-—V,

~i~

i-

•-

/

f» =

..

.«!

...

!^

--

— «tr

. J

-.,

-. ~

i:

:±ti•tt

—

t

.-

...

-

-

:

:

î^

T

1"

«• •

|

~t

0 0. 025 0.050 0. 075 0,1OO

Hor z . Dtsp l . . In

SAMPLE TYPE! eutk =ampi«DESCRIPTION: Grey sandy s i l t

ASSUMED SPECIFIC GRAVITY-. 2.65

REMARKS: Sample: 5TP7-Comp

Fig. No . : 4

RtSULIS

C. pal -0,00 ....... .

4- J | ^ Q ^ gg ..„-.*,., „„.*

c x . i A r » _ ^ ..^ _ ^

to y^ _ , „ ^ , « . .j, -^^ „ -.^,,,^ . - - - j, « * *.

£- J ^tA /

/ *UJ x* "tt R n — — . i - - « _ - _ «,_^ - _ _ _ „ - , . „ . _ / — - - , - ^^ - - . , — -. -

y . _ , _ . . s „, ,.i i2 " : : , 1 2: ; " i "u, ,-, yp « - -

/

"Jw

/ L^1 i

n t? jL0 8.0 16.0

Normal S trass, pat

/

p ~

* "

24.0

SAMPLE NO . : 1 2 3

WATER CONTENT ,7. 11.7 11.7 11.7

J DRY DENSITY, pcf 95.9 95.9 95.9

H SATURATION. % 42.6 42-6 42.6

S VOID RATIO 0.725 0.725 0.725R DIAMETER, in 2.51 2.51 2.51

HEIGHT, in 0.86 O.86 O.86

WATER CONTENT, % D.O O.O O.O

\- DRY DENSrTY, pcf 96. 0 96.4 97.1

U SATURATION, % O.O O.O O.O

^ VOID RATIO 0.72.3 0.717 O.7O5< DIAMETER. In 2.51 2.51 2.51

HEIGHT, in 0.86 0,85 0.85NORMAL STRESS, pal -V5 6.3 13.8FAILURE STRESS, psi 2.9 S.9 11.7

DISPLACEMENT, in O.O2 O.04 O.07ULTIMATE STRESS, pal

DISPLACEMENT, in

Stroin rote. %/m\r\ O.03 0.03 0.03

CLIENT: CH2M HI 1

PROJECT: Lava Cop Bench Study

SAMPLE LOCATION: CorvaMla, Oregon

PROJ . NO.: 2O16O14-61O DATE: 12-O5-O1

DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT

FEI TESTING AND INSPECTION, INC,

Solidified Tailings Data

22

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST160 0

1 2O . Oa

w

Q)>COWQ)v_Q.EOO

80.0

40.0

0.00 O.3 0.6

Ax i a I S t ra i n ,

O.9 1 2

SAMPLE NO.: 1

Unconfined strength, psi 124.3

Undrained shear strength, psi 62.2

Fa i lure strain, % 0.9

Strain rate, %/min 0.25

Water content, 19.6

Wet density. pcf 1 1 7 1

Dry dens i ty, pcf 97.9

Satu ratian, % 75 4

Void ratio O 69O7

Specimen diameter, i n 2.86

Specimen height, in 5.71

Height/diameter ratio 2.00Description: 5% Lime Treated

ASS. GS= 2.65 Type: She I by Tube

Project No.: 2016014-610

Date: 11-21-O1

Rema rks

Fig No

Cl ien t : CH2M H i l l

Pro jec t : Lava Cap Bench Study

Location Co rva l I is, Oregon

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

TEE 1ES1LNG AND INSPECTION, INC.

UNCONFTNED COMPRESSION TEST440

330Q.

(D\_-H"

<D

WWQ)\_Q.EOO

220

1 10

0O 0.5 1 1

Ax iaI St ra i n, %

SAMPLE NO.: 1

Unconfined strength, psi 427

Undrained shear strength, psi 214

Fa i t ure st ra i n , 1 .5

Strain rote, %/n 0.25

Water content, 7, 19.2

Wet density, pcf 121 9

Dry density, pcf 102.3Satu rat i on , % 82 2

Void ratio O.6178

Specimen diameter, in 2.86

Specimen height, 5.73

Height/diameter ratio 2.00

Description: 10% Lime Treated

ASS. GS= 2.65 Type: Shelby Tube

Project No.: 2016014-610

Date: 11-22-O1

Rema r ks:

Fig No 3

C l i e n t : CH2M H i l l

Project: Lava Cap Bench Study

Location CorvalI is, Oregon


F t_L TESTING AND INSPECTION, INC.

UNCONFINED COMPRI SSION TEST760

570a

COwV-

00

0)

aeou

380

190

0O O 4

Ax i a

O 8 1 2

St ra i n , %

1 6

SAMPLE NO 1

Unconfined strength, psi 729

Und ra ined shears t renc j th , psi 365

Failure strain, % 1

Strain rate, %/mii 0 25

Water content, % 1 6 6

Wet density. pcf 1140

Dry density, pcf 97 7

Saturation, % 63 6

Vo id ratio O 6931

Specimen diameter, in 2 87

Specimen height, i n 5 74

Height/diameter ratio 2 00

Description 20% Lime Treated

ASS GS= 2 65 Type Shelby Tube

Project No 2016014-610

Date- 11-21-O1

Rema rks

Fi g No

C l l e n t CH2M H i l l

Project Lava Cap Bench Study

Loca tion Corva Mis, Oregon


f L 1 11 S I ENC AND JNSPf C ELON , INC

DEC-10-2001 09:53 FROM:FOUNDPTION ENGINEER 5417577650 TO: 2

Table 1. Permeability Test Specimen Data

P. 003-" 005

2-24

SampleIdentification

5%

Length(inches)

2.6BS

Diameter(inches)

#353

Water Content(percent)

Initial

1R.4

Final

3H5

Wet UnitWeight

(pcf)

us. a.

Dry UnitWeight

(pcH

*1&.&

RelativeCompaction

(percent)

X

Table 2. Permeability Test Data


/* **7& /o

*

Cell Pressure(psi)

Ho

HO

Head Pressure(psi)

$S

37

Back Pressure

3<?

3*

k(cm /sec)

3 £ ~0&

3£"°^

DEC-10-2001 09:54 FROM:FOUNDATION ENGINEER 5417577650 TO: P.004'005

2-24



*o%

Length(inches)

ass^

Diameter(inches)

3.86%


Initial

I5,S

Final

X"

Wet UnitWeight

(pcf)

\)~7-H

Dry UnitWeight

<pcf>

\&\>&

RelativeCompaction

(percent)

-

Table 2, Permeability Test Data


*°z

Cell Pressure(psi)

40

10

Ho

Head Pressure(psi)

23

35

3?

Back Pressure(psi)

3o

3o

3=

k(cm/sec)

2 H -6

« e - - ?

-7 £• "7

DEC-10-2001 09:54 FROM:FOUNDATION ENGINEER 5417577650 TO: 2 P.005'005

2-24



°7°

Length(Inches)

Diameter(Inches)

P- $S&


Initial Final

Wet UnitWeight

(pcf)

Dry UnitWeight

(pcf)

t&3.6

RelativeCompaction

(percent)

Table 2. Permeability Test Data


2°Z

Cell Pressure(psi)

10

w

fo

Head Pressure(psi)

33

35

37

Back Pressure(psi)

30

3o

k(cm/sec)

36"*

5 £ '*'


November 8, 2001

Lava Cap

156197.00.LC


Rebecca Maco/S AC:

CH2M Hill


2300 NW Walnut Btvd

Cowallis OR

97.330-3538

PO Box 428

Ccxvallis. Of!

97339-0428

Tel 541.752 4271

Fax 541 7520276

On October 22, 2001, CH2M HILL Applied Sciences Group received three samples with arequest for analysis of selected parameters. All analyses were performed by CH2M HULLunless otherwise indicated below.


This report does not meet NELAC requirements for the following reasons:• NELAC has not provided our lab with accreditation for the following tests: EPA

1312.

CH2M HILL Applied Sciences Group appreciates your business and looks forward toserving your analytical needs again. If you should have any questions concerning the data, orif you need additional information, please call Ms. Kathy McKinley at (541) 758-0235,extension 3120.

Sincerely,

Doug HardyLaboratory Representative

EnclosuresCc: Tim Maloney/CVO

OR100022

PAGE 1 of _L

CLIENT SAMPLE CROSS-REFERENCE

CH2M HILL Applied Sciences Group Reference No. 6330

Date TimeSample ID Client Sample ID Collected Collected

633001 LC5 10/22/2001 PM633002 LC10 10/22/2001 PM633003 LC20 10/22/2001 PM

CASE NARRATIVEMETALS

Lab Reference No.: 6330

Client/Project: Lava Cap

I- Holding Time:All acceptance criteria were met.

n. Digestion Exceptions:None.

HI. Analysis:

A. Calibration:All acceptance criteria were met.

B. ICP Interference Check Sample:All acceptance criteria were met.

C. Spike Sample(s):All acceptance criteria were met.

D. Duplicate Sample(s):All acceptance criteria were met.

E. Laboratory Control Sampte(s):All acceptance criteria were met.

F. ICP Serial Dilution:Not Required.

G. Other:None

IV. Documentation Exceptions:Samples are identified by their blend ratios with cement (ie. LC5 = 5% cement).

V. I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and conditions agreed to by theclient and CH2M HILL, both technically and for completeness, except for the conditions detailedabove. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package has been authorized by theLaboratory Manager or his designee, as verified by the following signature.

Prepared by:

,: -^L_/xi' J: xO_yReviewed by: .

C/


Client Information

Client Sample ID: LC5

Project Name: Lava CapProject Manager: Rebecca Maco/SAC

Sampled By: Doug HardySampling Date: 10/22/01Sampling Time: PM

Type: GrabMatrix: SPLP ExtractBasis: Extracted

Analyte

Antimony, SbArsenic, AsBarium, BaBeryllium, BeCadmium, CdChromium, CrCobalt, CoCopper, CuLead, PbMercury, HgMolybdenum, MoNickel, NiSelenium, SeSilver, AgThallium, TlVanadium, VZinc, Zn

MRL

5.010.01004.05.010.010.020.03.00.1025.020.07.010.010.025.050.0

SampleResult

5.016.61004.05.0

41.710.020.03.00.1025.020.07.010.010.025.050.0

Qualifier

U

UUU

UUUUUUUUUUU

Lab Information

Lab Sample ID: 633001

Date Received: 10/22/2001Report Revision No.: 0

Reported By: JG/SHReviewed By: -!>il -~

Units

//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L

AnalysisMethod


DateAnalyzed

11/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/01



2300 NW Walnut Blvd Conallis. OR 97330-3538P O Box 428 Corvofti OR 97339-0423

Tel 541 7524271 fox 541 7520276


Client Information

Client Sample ID; LC10

Project Name: Lava CapProject Manager: Rebecca Maco/SAC

Sampled By: Doug HardySampling Date: 10/22/01Sampling Time: PM

Type: GrabMatrix: SPLP ExtractBasis: Extracted

Analyte

Antimony, SbArsenic, AsBarium, BaBeryllium, BeCadmium, CdChromium, CrCobalt, CoCopper, CuLead, PbMercury, HgMolybdenum, MoNickel, NiSelenium, SeSilver, AgThallium, TlVanadium, VZinc, Zn

MRL

5.010.01004.05.010.0io.o20.03.0

0.1025.020.07.010.010.025.050.0

. SampleResult

5.015.21384.05.036.710.028.93.00.1025.020.07.010.010.025.050.0

Qualifier

U

UU

U

UUUUUUUUU

Lab Information

Lab Sample ID: 633002

Date Received: 10/22/2001Report Revision No.: 0

Reported By: JG/SHReviewed By: 2*^

Units

//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L//g/L

AnalysisMethod


DateAnalyzed

11/06/011 1/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/011 1/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/0111/06/011 1/06/0111/06/01



23OONW Walnut BM. Corvoffls. OR 9733O-3538PO Box 426. Corvollls. OR 97339-O42S

Tel 54! 752 4271 Fax 541 752 0276

CH2MHILL Applied Sciences Lab CVO 2300 NW Walnut BoulevardCorvallls, OR 97330-3538

UMA N Uf UUS 1 UUY HtUJHU C5411 7S? 4?71 FAX fMD 75!" n?7fi J*>AND AGREEMENT TO PERFORM SERVICES (541)7524271 FAX (541) 752 0276

..<Project # Purchase Order #

Project Name

Company Name

Report to: Phone No:

Requested Completion Date:

Sampling

Date

/C/Z2.

|

Jfi-

Time

f/Y\

Type

C0MP

QRAB

X/i

Matrix

WATER

S01L

[

r

A1R S

Sample Disposal:

Di«po«« Return


L

L

L

^C.

c.

<z11

o0

Relinquished By

*5a?ftpledBy andTttle (Pjiaia «ign and prlnl namal -,

•*- — • A / /

^fffM^^/fi^l^ff xReceived" BV ' (Ptoasesldnandn/inTnama) /

LABQC

Date/Time

DateOlme,*

, (Sate/Time

YLl/O/^Date/Time


T0TAL

f

0F

C0NTA

NERS

coc#^Requested Analytical Method #

V)Ih* 0-o

Preservative

X1i

yîL

Received By

FjBllngulshed By . 1 (Plea»« »lgn and print nama)

Rellnqulshecf&y ^Please sign and print name)

( JT*\Shipped Via ,—UPS Fed-Ex C^wher l *^*-*^*-

^^'


Lab#

It&b

EPA Tier QC Level

1 (Screenlng^Z)

Page of

3 4


^1-1.

"?>

Date/Time

Date/T my

Date/Time

Shipping #

Instructions and Agreement Provisions on Reverse Side DISTRIBUTION: Original - LAB, Yellow- LAB, Pink • ClientRev 2/01 Lab form 340

GH2MHILLApplied Sciences Group Sample Receipt Record

Batch Number

Client/Project [

Date/Time Received:

Temperature: A//VERIFICATION OF SAMPLE CONDITIONS (verify all items) * HD = Client Hand delivered Samples

ObservationWere custody seals Intact and on the outside of the cooler?Was the Chain of Custody Inside the cooler?Was the Chain of Custody properly filled out?Were the sample containers .In good condition?Was there tee In the cooler?

YES NO

If the answer to any of the questions above is NO, a Sample Receipt Exceptions Report Must be written.


SampleNo123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

NutrientspH<2

/~\

Metals pH<2

*

VolatilespH<2

CyanidespH>12

TOCpH<2

Other(specify)

Other(specify)

N/A(soils/unpres)

f

.

^

LOGIN AND DH VERIFICATIONS PERFORMED BY


Oate/Tlme

23OONW Walnut Blvd, Corvallls. OR 97330-3538PO Box 42d Corvallls. OR 97339-0428

Tel 541 752 4271 fax 541 752 0276

CH2M HILL

2525 Airpark Drive

Redding, CA 96001

Tel 530.243.5831

Fax 530.243.1654

CH2MHILL

April 5,2002

151319.TT.01

Mr. Dave Seter (SFD-7-4)U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX75 Hawthorne StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Dave:

Subject: Technical Memorandum-Treatability Study ReportLava Cap Mine Superfund Site

Please find enclosed two (2) copies of the Technical Memoradum-Treatability Study Report,Lava Cap Mine Superfund Site, dated April 2002 for your review. This Report summarizesthe treatability study conducted between August 2001 and October 2001 on mine seepagetreatment and tailings dewatering and solidification for the Lava Cap Mine site.

Please call me at 775 329-7238 x213 if you have any questions on the attached document or ifyou require additional copies.

Sincerely,

CH2M HILL

David TowellProject Manager

RDD/tsJtr.doc

Documents

Technical Memorandum- Treatabiiity Study Report Lava · PDF fileTreatabiiity Study Report Lava Cap Mine Superfund Site Nevada County, ... Each jar test consisted of a series of six