13.01.2013 Views

Dames & Moore, 1999 - USDA Forest Service

Dames & Moore, 1999 - USDA Forest Service

Dames & Moore, 1999 - USDA Forest Service

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

the vicinity with differences probably caused by dilution. Attenuation of MI concentrations appears to<br />

be caused principally by precipitation of aluminum hydroxides. Attenuation by adsorption in soils is not<br />

. apparent. Seeps SP-24 and SP-25 may be influenced by the lagoon area.<br />

Seeps SP-8 to SP-19<br />

Seep SP-8 flows from the east waste rock pile and then flows partly overland and subsurface, re-emerging<br />

at SP-19 (Figure 6.1-3a). The differences for magnesium (which acts as a conservative ion)<br />

concentrations between these two points are consistent with dilution by a non-buffering water source<br />

(e.g., snow melt). The water is probably well-oxidized at SP-8 as shown by low iron concentrations.<br />

MINTEQA2 predicts that aluminum minerals would be expected to precipitate. As pH was not observed<br />

to change between the two points (4.6 S.U.), and aluminum concentrations decreased in proportion to<br />

conservative ions, no additional precipitation appears to occur between these points.<br />

Significant metal attenuation between SP-8 and SP-19 does not appear to occur.<br />

Seeps SP-19 to SP-1OE and SP-1OW<br />

Seep SP-19 flows from the western portion of tailings pile 1 into the Copper Creek diversion near the<br />

river sauna (Figure 6.1-3a). Seeps. SP-IOE and SP-1OW flow from the south bank of Railroad Creek<br />

north of the river sauna. SP-IOW closely resembles SP-19 and MlNTEQA2 predicted similar controlling<br />

conditions. The pH of the water appears to be controlled by aluminum minerals. Conservative ions<br />

indicate that SP-19 and SP-1OW are nearly identical. Zinc and copper concentrations were, however,<br />

lower than other seeps nearby. This implies either that the water mixed with a source containing<br />

comparable sulfate, etc. and very low zinc and copper, or that zinc and copper were adsorbed by contact<br />

with soil.<br />

Seep SP-1OE indicated 20 percent less sulfate, 80 percent less zinc and 64 percent less copper than SP-<br />

1 OW in May 1997. However, pH was 3.3 for SP-1 OE compared to 4.5 for SP- 1 OW. MINTEQA2 indicate<br />

that SP-IOE water is in equilibrium with iron hydroxide as a result of 14 mg Fen. Field measured Eh for<br />

both SP-1OW and SP-I OE were comparable'and indicated that the waters are well-oxidized.<br />

The difference between the SP-IOW and SP-1OE waters could be explained by the mixing of a water<br />

containing high iron concentrations with water of the SP-IOW. If the water contained reduced iron, it<br />

would oxidize and hydrolyze upon emergence (equations 6-5 and 6-6 presented earlier in this section),<br />

buffering pH near 3 and causing fenic hydroxide to precipitate. Copper and zinc would co-precipitate.<br />

The iron-rich water would have to contain less sulfate than SP-IOW to produce the lower sulfate in SP-<br />

10E.<br />

Attenuating mechanisms between seeps SP- 19, SP- 1 OE and SP- I OW include:<br />

Precipitation of aluminum hydroxides (implied by MINTEQA2 and field observations)<br />

Precipitation of ferric hydroxides (implied by MINTEQA2 and field observations)<br />

Co-precipitation of copper and zinc with femc hydroxides (implied by observations from<br />

elsewhere that indicate ferric hydroxide precipitates also contain these ,metals)<br />

~\DM-SUIWOLI\COMMOMWR~U)O~\~~I~~.Q~ 6-34<br />

17693-005-019Uuly 27,199?;4:11 -RAFT FINAL RI REPORT<br />

DAMES & MOORE<br />

a 1

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!