GROUP II,

       Development Document for
interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
  and New Source Performance Standards
                  for the
              COAL MINING
          Point Source Category
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              OCTOBER 1975

-------

-------
            DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT

                    for

          INTERIM FINAL EFFLUENT
          LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES

                    and

     NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

                 for the

               COAL MINING
          POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

              Russell Train
              Administrator

       Andrew W. Breidenbach, Ph.D.
   Acting Assistant Administrator for
     Water and Hazardous Materials
              Allen Cywin
 Director, Effluent Guidelines Division

            Baldwin M. Jarrett
            Project Officer
              October 1975

      Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
                          ABSTRACT
This document presents findings of an  exhaustive  study  of
the  coal  mining  and  coal  preparation industries for the
purpose of developing effluent  limitations  guidelines  and
standards   of   performance   for  new  sources  to  enable
implementation of Sections 304, 306, and 307 of the  Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.

Effluent  limitations  guidelines contained herein set forth
the  degree  of  reduction  of   pollutants   in   effluents
achievable  by  application of the "best practicable control
technology currently  available"  and  the  "best  available
technology economically achievable." These standards must be
attained  by existing point sources by July 1, 1977 and July
1, 1983, respectively,  standards  of  performance  for  new
sources  contained  herein set forth the degree of reduction
of pollutants  in  effluents  which  is  achievable  through
application  of  the  "best  available  demonstrated control
technology,   processes,   operating   methods,   or   other
alt erna tives."

This  report  details findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions on control and treatment technology relating to  waste
water   from   coal   mines  and  coal  preparation  plants.
Supporting  data  and  rationale  for  development  of   the
proposed  effluent  limitations and standards of performance
are contained herein.

-------
                          Contents

Section                                             Page

I        CONCLUSIONS                                 1

II       RECOMMENDATIONS                             5

III      INTRODUCTION                                9

         Purpose                                     9
         Summary of Methods used  for                10
         Development of Effluent  Limitations
         Guidelines and Standards of
         Performance
         Description of American  Coal Fields         13
         Description of Facets of the Coal           28
         Industry
         Coal Mining                                 28
         Coal Mining Services or  Coal                35
         Preparation

IV       INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION                     47

V        WASTE CHARACTERIZATION                      51

VI       SELECTION OP POLLUTANT PARAMETERS           61
         Constituents Evaluated                      61
         Guidelines Parameter Selection              61
         Criteria
         Major Parameters - Rationale for           61
         Selection or Rejection

VII      CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY           73
         Control Technology                          73
         Treatment Technology

VIII     COST, ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY        173
         ASPECTS
         Mine Drainage Treatment                     173
         Preparation Plant Water  Reciruclation
IX       BEST PRACTICABLE  CONTROL  TECHNOLOGY       18?
         CURRENTLY AVAILABLE,  GUIDELINES AND
         LIMITATIONS              •

X        BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY    209
        , ACHIEVABLE, GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS

XI       NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND       215
         PHETREK1MENT STANDARDS

-------
XII      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                            219




XIII     BIBLIOGRAPHY                                229




XIV      GLOSSARY                                    243

-------
                      List of Figures


Figure                                                    Page

 1  Coal Deposits in the United States                    16

 2  Anthracite and Lignite Coal Deposits                  17

 3  Bituminoius and Subbituminous coal  Deposits           17

 1  Contour Stripping                                     34

 5  Area Mining with Successive Replacement               36

 6  Stage 1 - Coal Preparation Plant                      39

 7  Stage 2 - Coal Preparation Plant                      41

 8  Stage 3 - Coarse Coal Preparation Plant               43

 9  Stage 3 - Fine Coal Preparation Plant                44

10  Stage 3 - Coal slime Preparation Plant               45

11  Cross Section of Box Cut                              74

12  Block-Gut                                              76

13  Ctoss Section of Non-Contour Regrading                      78

14  Typical Head-of-Hollow Fill                           79

15  Cross Sections - Typical Head-of-Hoilow  Fill         80

16  Water Diversion and Erosion Control                  83
       (Contour Regrading)

17  Borehole and Fracture Sealing                         91

18  Water Infiltration Through Unregraded                91
       Surface Mine

19  Preplanned Flooding                                   92
    Schematic Diagrams for Treatment Facilities

20       Mine A-l                                          101

21       Mine A-2
                              vi 1

-------
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Mine A- 3
Mine A- 4
Mine B-2
Mine D-3
Mine D-4
Mine E-6
Mine F-2
Mine K-6
Mine K-7
Mine D-l
Mine D-5
Mine J-2
Mine J-3
Mine F-8
Mine D-6
Mine N-6
Mine 0-5
Mine W-2
                                                           107

                                                           HO

                                                           U3

                                                           116

                                                           119

                                                           122

                                                           125

                                                           128
                                                            134
                                                            13I

                                                            147

                                                            150

                                                            153

                                                            157

                                                            160

                                                            l63

                                                            166

flO  Construction cost vs.  Capacity - Acid Mine             180
    Drainage Treatment Plants
                                                            1 89
Ql  Historical  Data  - Monthly Total Iron -
    Treatment Plant  A-l (1969 - 1971)

H2  Historical  Data  - Monthly pH -                         190
    Treatment Plant  A-l (1969 - 1971)

13  Historical  Data  - Monthly Total Iron -                 191
    Treatment Plant  A-l (1972 - 197i»)

HH  Historical  Data  - Monthly pH -                         192
                              vi 11

-------
    Treatment Plant A-l (1972 - 197U)

US  Historical Data - Monthly Total Iron -                193
    Treatment Plant A-3 (1969 - 1971)

U 6  Historical Data - Monthly pH -
    Treatment Plant A-3 (1969 - 1971)

*7  Historical Data - Monthly Total Iron
    Treatment Plant A-3 (1972 - 197U)

U 8  Historical Data - Monthly pH -                        196
    Treatment Plant A-3 (1972 -
 9  Historical Data - Daily Total Iron -                  197
    Treatment Plant K-7  (1973 - 197U)
                               ±x

-------

-------
                       List of Tables


Table                                                    Page

  1 Raw Wine Drainage Characteristics - Underground       56
      Mines - Alkaline

  2 Raw Mine Drainage Characteristics - Underground       57
    Mines - Acid or Ferruginous

  3 Raw Mine Drainage Characteristics - Surface Mines -   58
    Acid or Ferruginous

  4 Raw Mine Drainage Characteristics - Surface Mines -   59
    Alkaline

  5 Raw Waste Characteristics - Coal Preparation          60
    Plant Effluent

  6 Potential Constituents of Coal Industry               61a
      Waste water

  7 Analytical Data - Mine Code A-l                       102

  8 Analytical Data - Mine Code A-2                       105

  9 Analytical Data - Mine Code A-3                       108

 10 Analytical Data - Mine code A-*                       HI

 11 Analytical Data - Mine Code B-2                       H4

 12 Analytical Data - Mine code D-3                       117

 13 Analytical Data - Mine Code D-*                       120

 14 Analytical Data - Mine Code E-6                       123

 15 Analytical Data - Mine Code F-2                       126

 16 Analytical Data - Mine Code K-6                       I2g

 17 Analytical Data - Mine Code K-7                       132

 18 Analytical Data - Mine code D-l

 19 Analytical Data - Mine Code D-5                       138
                               xi

-------
20 Analytical Data - Mine Code J-2                        148

21 Analytical Data - Mine Code J-3                        151

22 Analytical Data - Mine Code F-8                        154

23 Analytical Data - Mine Code D-6                        158

24 Analytical Data - Mine Code N-6                        !5l

25 Analytical Data - Mine Code U-5                        164

26 Analytical Data - Mine Code W-2                        167

27   Water Effluent Treatment Costs - Coal Mining
     Industry - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment
     Plants

28   Water Effluent Treatment Costs - Coal Mining
     Industry - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment
     Plants

29   Water Effluent Treatment Costs - coal Mining
     Industry - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment
     Plants

30   Typical Construction Costs - Acid Mine
     Drainage Treatment Plants

31   Coal Preparation Plant Water Circuit
     Closure Cost

 32  Winter-Spring  (1975) Analytical Data                 201

 33  22 Best Plants (1974)  Analytical Data                202

34   Effluent Levels Achievable Through Application       207
     of the Best Practicable Control Technology
     Currently Available

35   Effluent Levels Attainable Through Application       212
     of the best Available Technology Economically
     Achievable

36   New Source Performance Standards                     21

37   Conversions Table - English to Metric
                                                          247
                              xll

-------
                         SECTION I

                        ODNCLUSICNS
Based on the findings of this study, the  following  conclu-
sions have been made:

The ooal industry point source category was divided into two
subcategories  -  ooal production and ooal preparation - for
the  purpose  of  establishing  effluent   limitations   and
standards of performance.

Pollutant  parameters  whose  concentrations most frequently
exceed acceptable levels in waste water from coal production
facilities  are:   acidity,  total  iron,  dissolved   iron,
manganese,,  aluminum,  nickel, zinc/ total dissolved solids,
total suspended solids, sulfates,  ammonia,  fluorides,  and
strontium.

Concentrations of fluoride, strontium, ammonia, and sulfate,
although  occasionally  above  accepted  standards,  are not
normally  high  enough  to  have  deleterious  effects.   In
addition,  the  cost  of  technology  for reduction of these
constituents  in  the   concentrations   observed   is   not
considered  feasible.  Total dissolved solids pose a similar
problem as the cost of the technology does not  warrent  the
reduction obtained.

Pollutant  parameters  whose  concentrations most frequently
exceed acceptable  levels  in  waste  water  from  the  coal
preparation  subcategory  of  the  industry  include:  total
iron,  dissolved  iron,  total   dissolved   solids,   total
suspended solids, and sulfates.

Subcategorization  of  the  coal  production  portion of the
industry is  limited  to  differentiation  between  acid  or
ferruginous  drainage  and  alkaline drainage, which in turn
reflects local or regional coal and  overburden  conditions;
and   is   directly  related  to  the  treatment  technology
required.  Alkaline drainage is most frequently found in the
Interior  and  Western  coal   fields   and   is   generally
characterized  only  by total dissolved and suspended solids
in  excess  of  acceptable  levels.   Acid  or   ferruginous
drainage,  typically  found in Northern Appalachia, exhibits
high concentrations of all critical  parameters  defined  in
this report  (see Section VI),

-------
Generally, water quality analyses indicated  no  significant
differences  between  untreated waste water from surface and
underground mining operations in similar geologic  settings.
Several parameters namely total and dissolved iron and total
suspended  solids  did  vary  within  the  classes  of  mine
drainage, however, this is believed  to  be  the  result  of
precipitation patterns.  (heavy rainfall on surface mines).

The  most  serious  water  related mining problem associated
with development  of  western  coal  fields  appears  to  be
disruption of aquifers resulting in lowered water tables and
well levels.

The  coal  production  segment  of  the industry has already
developed technology to solve its most serious  waste  water
problem: neutralization of acidity with concurrent reduction
of other pollutants to safe concentrations.  This is usually
achieved  with  lime neutralization followed by aeration and
sedimentation.

Other reagents occasionally utilized by  the  coal  industry
for  neutralization  include  limestone,  caustic soda, soda
ash, and anhydrous ammonia.  Anhydrous ammonia can result in
eutrophication of receiving waters  if  used  for  prolonged
time periods or relatively high mine drainage volumes.

Mine    drainage   neutralization   treatment   plants   can
successfully control  acidity,  iron,  manganese,  aluminum,
nickel, zinc, and total suspended solids.

While  neutralization  successfully  controls most acid mine
drainage pollutant parameters,  final  effluents  frequently
contain  suspended  solids  in  excess of those exhibited by
unneutralized  settling   pond   effluent   (alkaline   mine
drainage).   This  occurs  for  two  reasons:   1)   physical
addition  of  solids   (neutralizing   agents)    during   the
treatment  process;  and  2)  the increased pH resulting from
the  neutralization  process  initiates   precipitation   of
previously dissolved constituents.

Operating costs of mine drainage neutralization plants are a
function  of  the  volume  treated.   As a result, operating
costs were found to vary from 3 to  10  cents  per  thousand
liters  (11 to t*0 cents per thousand gallons) .

Neutralization  plant  construction costs were found to have
an inverse relationship to  the  volume  of  drainage  being
treated.    All  plants  must  provide  the  same  essential
equipment   including   lime   storage,   feeders,   control
facilities,  and housing regardless of the flow encountered.

-------
Associated facilities such as aeration basins  and  settling
ponds  have a proportional increase in cost with an increase
in flow.  Settling ponds construction cost for alkaline mine
drainage have  a  direct  relationship  to  flow  or  volume
treated.

The  coal  production  portion  of  the  industry  has  also
controlled a  second  serious  waste  water  problem  -  the
presence   of  excessive  total  suspended  solids  in  both
alkaline drainage and acid or ferruginous drainage - through
utilization of settling basins and coagulants prior  to  the
discharge of mine waters.    The concentrations of suspended
solids  in the final effluent can be further reduced through
deep bed, mixed media filtration.  Although such  filtration
techniques  have not been demonstrated in the coal industry,
the technology has been used extensively in other industries
for removal of total suspended solids.

The only  adverse  nonwater  quality  environmental  factors
associated  with  treatment  of  waste  waters from the coal
industry are occasional  monopolization  of  otherwise  pro-
ductive  land  for treatment facility siting and disposal of
solid waste  (sludge) generated during the treatment process.

Routine maintenance and cleaning of sedimentation basins  is
essential  to  efficient  operation.  Accumulated sludge can
actually increase effluent suspended  solids  concentrations
above   influent  concentrations,  particularly  in  surface
mining operations during periods of heavy rainfall.

Sedimentation  ponds  installed  for  "polishing11  otherwise
acceptable  drainage can result in increased total suspended
solids loadings as a result of carry-over of algae blooms in
the final effluent,  such basins are  not  installed  unless
warranted   by   degraded   water   quality,   or  for  flow
equalization.

Control of waste  water  pollution  from  surface  mines  is
successfully achieved by implementation of effective mining,
regrading,    water   diversion,   erosion   control,   soil
supplementation and revegetation techniques.  These  control
techniques   may  be  augmented  with  treatment  techniques
including  neutralization  plants  or  sedimentation   basins
during mining and reclamation.

Infiltration  control  can occasionally reduce the volume of
waste water discharged from active underground mines and  is
achieved  by  implementation  of  mine roof fracture control
including the design of the  mine's  pillars  and  barriers,
sealing  of boreholes and fracture zones, and backfilling of

-------
overlying  abandoned  surface   mines.    Concentration   of
pollutants  is  also  significantly  reduced by limiting the
contact time of the waste water within  the  mine  workings,
control  of  waste water pollution on closure of underground
mines can be affected with proper mine sealing.

Through a combination of efficient plant  design,  inprocess
controls  and  end-of-process  treatment,  coal  preparation
plants can utilize a closed-water  circuit  and,  therefore,
achieve   zero   discharge   of   waste   water.   This  was
demonstrated at the majority of the coal preparation  plants
visited during this study.

Waste  water  from  coal  preparation plant ancillary areas,
including coal storage areas and refuse  storage  areas,  is
controlled and treated with techniques similar to techniques
employed by surface mines.

Dust  presents  a  temporary  nonwater environmental problem
during mining and reclamation,in western coal  fields.   The
impact  of this temporary aspect is reduced by the fact that
most western mine developments  are  in  sparsely  populated
regions.   Dust  problems also occur in Eastern and Interior
coal fields where dust occasionally blows  from  trucks  and
railroad cars.

Waste  loads  from  coal  production  are unrelated, or only
indirectly related,  to  production  quantities.   Therefore
effluent limitations are expressed in terms of concentration
rather than units of production.

-------
                             SECTION II

                         RECOMMENDATIONS
Extensive  study of all existing methods for the treatment  of
coal   industry    waste    water   indicates   that   the  best
practicable control technology   currently  available  is   in
widespread use by the coal industry.

Based  upon  the   information   obtained  in   the  study  and
presented  in this report,  the following effluent limitations
guidelines are recommended for  the major categories  of  the
coal  industry.    Since   data   analyzed  during  this  study
indicated  no significant differences  in each  of the raw mine
drainage   categories,  bituminous  and  lignite  mining  and
anthracite mining categories are combined, as are bituminous
and   lignite mining services and anthracite mining  services.
Separate   standards  are  proposed  for   suspended   solids
limitations   in    alkaline   mine    drainages  since  lower
concentrations can be  achieved  in   unneutralized   alkaline
drainages.
                    EFFLUENT LEVELS ACHIEVABLE THROUGH APPLICATION OF THE
                   BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURREWHY AVAILABLE
    Parameter
                Bituminous, Lignite, and Anthracite
                       Mining Set-vices
                               Bituminous, Lignite, and
                                 Anthracite Mining
                Coal Preparation
                   Plant
             Coal Storage,
              Refuse Storage
              and Coal Prep-
              aration Plant
              Ancillary Area
 Acid or Ferrugi-
nous Mine-Drainage
Alkaline Mine
  Drainage
                30 Day   Daily   30 Day *  Daily *  30 Day *  Daily *  30 Day.*  Daily *
               Average   Maximum  Average  Kairauro  Average  Maximum  Average  Maximum
  PH


  IROM, TOTAL


  DISSOLVED IROM


  ALUMINUM,.TOTAL


  MANGANESE, TOTAL


  NICKEL, TOTAL


  ZINC, TOTAL

  TOTAL SUSPENDED
  SOLIDS
t.
o
Q
u
2
o-
u
I/I
s.

2
s .
VI
*/»
o
o
t.
V-
0
01
a
•5
VI
5
Si


6-9
3,5
0.30

2.0

2,0
0,20
0.20
35
6-9
7.0
0,60

4;0

4,0
0,40
0.40
70
6-9
3.5
0.30

,2.0

2.0
0.20
0.20
35
                                   6-9    6-9
                                   7,0
                                   4.0
                                   4.0
               3.5
                                   0.60   0.30
               2.0
               2.0
                                   0.40   0.20
                       6-9
       7.D
                       0.60
       4.0
       4.0
                       0.40
                                   0-.40   0,20     0.40

                                     70     25       50

                                    *A11 values except pH in rag/1.

-------
     BAT effluent limitations are based on iirpletnentation of  the
     best  control or  treatment  technology orployed by a  specif ic
     point source, or   readily   transferable  from  one   industry
     process    to   another.   Although  economically  achievable
     technology does   not  exist  for   significant  reduction  of
     additional  pollutant  parameters,   design   refinements  and
     better control of the  treatment   operation   can  result  in
     lower ooncentrations of those parameters controlled with BET
     technology.   Also,   the state-of-the-art has been developed
     and is in use in  other industries  for further  reduction  of
     suspended solids  concentrations.   Based upon the information
     presented in this report, a determination has been made that
     the  reduction  of pollutants attainable through application
     of  the  best  available  control  technology   economically
     achievable is presented below.
                    EFFLUENT LEVELS ATTAINABLE THROUGH APPLICATION OF THE
                      BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
   Parameter
                 Bituminous, Lignite, and Anthracite
                         Mining Services
                                    Bituminous, Lignite, and
                                       Anthracite Mining
                Coal Preparation
                    Plant
               Coal Storage,
                R^/use Storage
                and Coal Prep-
                aration Plant
                Ancillary Araa
                      Acid or Ferrugi-
                     nous Mine Drainage
                                  Alkaline Mine
                                    Drainage
                30 Day    Daily   30 Day *  Daily *  30 Dey * '  Daily *  30 Day *   Daily *
               Average   Maximum  Average   Maximum   Average   Maximum  Average  Kaxisnrai
PH


IROIJ, TOTAL


DISSOLVED IfiOS


ALUMISUH, TOTAL


KANGAKESE, TOTAL


81CKR. TOTAL
u
o
v.
o.
ej
a
o
         0
         E1
6-9


3.0


0.30


2.0


2.0


0.20
6-9.
3.5
0.60
4.0
4.0
0.40
6-9
3.0
0,30
2.0
2.0
0.20
                                         6-9     6-9
                                         3.5     3.0
                                         0.60    0.30
                                         4.0
                                         4.0
                                       2.Q
                                       2.0
                                         0.40    0.20
                                                6-9
                                                3.5
                                                0.60
4.0
4.0
                                                O.AO
 ZINC, TOTAL

 TOTAL SUSPENDED
 SOLIDS
                0.20      -0.40    0.20      0.4D     0.20     0.10

                  20        40      20        40      20       40

                                          *A11 values except pH 1n rag/1,

-------
The  filtration   technology   upon which BUT suspended  solids
limitations  were based  has   not   been  applied  in  a  coal
industry  operation,  thus its adaptabilityt suitability, and
economics have not   yet   been  fully   demonstrated.    It  is
recommended   that  New  Source Performance Standards for the
coal industry be the  same   as  those  identified   for  BAT,
except   for   suspended solids which shall  be the same  as for
BPT-
     Parameter
                                SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
                         , lignite, and Anthracite
                         Mining Services
                    Bituminous, Lignite, and
                      Anthracite Mining
                 Coal Preparation
                     Plant
Coal Storage,
 Refuse Storage
 and Coal  Prep-
 aration Plant
 Ancillary Area
 Acid or Ferrugi-
nous Mi/IB Drainage
                                                              Alkaline Hine
                                                                Drainage
                 30 Day   Dally   30 Day *  Daily *  30 .Day *  Daily *. 30 Day *  Daily *
                Average •  Maximum  Average  Maximum  Averege- • Maximum"  Average  Maximum
pH


IflOH, TOWL


DISSOLVED IRON .


ALlffilKUK, .TOTAL


MAKSANESE, TOTAL


NICKELt TOTAL


ZINC, TOTAL

TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS

(.
Of
5:
Vt
ra
u
o
(X
4-
e>
&
ff
o
u
S



t,
01
a
**
u
Ck
o
01
l>
w
*f"
5
&


6-9
3.0

0:30'

2.0
2.0

0.20
0.20
35
6-9
3.5

o.so

4.0
4.0

0.40
0.40
70
6-9
3,0

0.30

2.0
2.0

0,20
0.20
35
                                                        6-9    6-9
                                                        3.S    3.0
                                                        0,60    0.30
                                                        4.0
                               2.0
                                                        4.0    2.0
                                                        0.40    0.20
                                       6-9
                                       3.S
                                       0.60
                        4.0
                                       4.0
                                       0.40
                                                        0.40    0.20     0,40

                                                          70      25       50

                                                         *A11 values except pH in ng/1,

-------
In  order  to  assure  maximum  efficiency   and   continual
operation,  it  is  recommended  that adequate safeguards be
incorporated at  critical  locations  throughout  each  mine
drainage  treatment  plant.  These safeguards should consist
of automatically  pH-adjusted  feed  controls  and  effluent
monitors   equipped   with  emergency  alarms  and  shutdown
features.   Turbidity  meters  should  continually   monitor
settling pond effluent drainage to reduce the possibility of
accidental   discharge   of   excessive   concentrations  of
suspended solids.  Such instrumentation  requires  attention
to plant maintenance to assure effective operation.

An  inventory  should  be  maintained of critical or hard to
locate  parts,  and  emergency  auxiliary  units  should  be
readily  available.  Storage should be provided for adequate
supplies  of  raw  materials  (neutralizing  reagents),  and
alternative sources of supply should be identified.

Operating   schedules   should  include  adequate  time  for
preventive maintenance, including routine cleaning of sludge
ponds and  basins,  to  insure  adequate  detention  and  to
prevent carryover of accumulated solids.
                             8

-------
                        SECTION III

                        INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE

The  Federal  Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
require the United States Environmental Protection Agency to
establish effluent limitations which  must  be  achieved  by
point  sources  of  discharge  into the navigable waters, or
tributaries of navigable waters of the United States.

Specifically, Section 301 (b)  of the Act  requires  achieve-
ment by not later than July 1, 1977, of effluent limitations
for  point  sources,  other  than  publicly  owned treatment
works, which  are  based  on  implementation  of  the  "best
practicable   control  technology  currently  available"  as
defined by the administrator pursuant to Section 304 (b)  of
the  Act.   Section  301 (b) further requires achievement by
not later than July 1, 1983,  of  effluent  limitations  for
point  sources  which  are based on application of the "best
available technology economically  achievable".   This  will
result  in  further  progress  toward  the  National goal of
eliminating discharge of all pollutants.  Section 306 of the
Act requires  achievement  by  new  sources  of  control  of
discharge  reflecting the application of the "best available
demonstrated  control   technology,   processes,   operating
methods,    or    other   alternatives,   including,   where
practicable,  a  standard   permitting   no   discharge   of
pollutants."

Within  one year of enactment, the Administrator is required
by Section 301  (b) of  the  Act  to  promulgate  regulations
providing guidelines for effluent limitations setting forth:

    1.   The degree of effluent reduction attainable through
         application  of  the   best   practicable   control
         technology currently available.

    2.   The degree of effluent reduction attainable through
         application  of  the  best  control  measures   and
         practices     achievable     (including    treatment
         techniques,  process  and  procedure   innovations,
         operation methods, and other alternatives).

The   regulations   proposed   herein   set  forth  effluent
limitation guidelines pursuant to Section 30H  (b) of the Act
for coal industry point sources  in  anthracite  mining  and

-------
mining services and bituminous and lignite mining and- mining
services.

Section  306  of  the Act requires the Administrator, within
one year after a category of sources is included in  a  list
published pursuant to section 306 (b)  (1)  (A)  of the Act, to
propose   regulations   establishing  Federal  standards  of
performance for new sources  within  such  categories.   The
Administrator  published, in the Federal Register of January
16, 1973  (38FR  16 21)   a  list  of  27  source  categories.
Publication  of an amended list will constitute announcement
of  the  Administrator's  intention  of  establishing  under
Section  306  standards  of  performance  applicable  to new
sources within the coal mining industry.  The list  will  be
amended  when  interim final regulations for the coal mining
industry are published in the Federal Register.

The  guidelines  in  this  document  identify  in  terms  of
chemical,    physical,   and  biological  characteristics  of
pollutants, the  level  of  pollutant  reduction  attainable
through   application   of   the  best  practicable  control
technology  currently  available.    The   guidelines   also
consider  a  number  of  other factors, such as the costs of
achieving the proposed  effluent  limitations  and  nonwater
quality     environmental    impacts    (including    energy
requirements)   resulting   from   application    of    such
technologies.

SUMMARY   OF   METHODS  USED  FOR  DEVELOPMENT  OF  EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AMD STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

The  effluent  limitations  guidelines  and   standards   of
performance  proposed  herein  were developed in a series of
systematic tasks.  The Coal Industry was  first  studied  to
determine  whether  separate  limitations  and standards are
appropriate for different segments within the  point  source
category.   Development-of reasonable industry categories and
subcategories,  and establishment of effluent guidelines and
standards requires a sound understanding  and  knowledge  of
the  Coal  Industry,  the  processes  involved,  waste water
generation and characteristics, and capabilities of existing
control and treatment methods.

Initial categorizations and subcategorizations were based on
the  suggested  Standard  Industrial  Classification  Groups
(SIC)  which  categorize the mining and preparation segments
of the industry and  on  such  factors  as  type  of  mining
operation    (surface   mine/underground   minej,  geographic
location,   size  of  operation,  and  rank  of  coal   mined
(anthracite/bituminous/lignite).
                             10

-------
On-site  visits and interviews were made at selected surface
mines,  underground  mines,  and  coal  preparation   plants
throughout  the  United  states  to  gather  new data and to
confirm  and  supplement   compiled   data.    All   factors
potentially   influencing  industry  subcategorization  were
represented at the selected sites.  Detailed information  on
production,  water  use,  waste water control practices, and
waste water treatment practices was obtained.  Flow diagrams
were prepared indicating the course of waste water  streams.
Control  and  treatment  plant  design  and  cost  data were
compiled.  Raw and treated waste water streams were  sampled
and  analyzed  and  historical  effluent  quality  data  was
obtained wherever possible.  Duplicate samples were analyzed
by the National Coal Association to confirm  the  analytical
results.

Raw  waste  characteristics  were  then  identified for each
category or subcategory.  This included an analysis  of  all
constituents  of  waste waters which may be expected in coal
mining or preparation plant waste water.

Each of these constituents found to be present was initially
evaluated against  maximum  concentrations  recommended  for
agriculture  and livestock, public water supply, and aquatic
life and wildlife.  Based on  this  evaluation  constituents
which   should   be  subject  to  effluent  limitations  and
standards of performance were identified.

Raw waste characterization was based on a detailed  analysis
of  samples  collected  during  this  study  and  historical
effluent quality data supplied  by  the  coal  industry  and
Federal and State regulatory agencies.

Based   on   a   critical   review   of   the   waste  water
characteristics of the initial  industry  subcategories,  it
was  determined  that  there  are  generally  two  types  of
untreated waste water for the mining segment of the industry
- alkaline, and acid or ferruginous - determined largely  by
regional  and local geologic conditions and not by mine size
or type of mine.  Water quality within  a  particular  class
(acid  or  ferruginous/alkaline)  is reasonably uniform, and
the class of raw  mine  drainage  determines  the  treatment
technology  required.   For  the  most  part, the quality of
discharge effluent from acid mine drainage treatment  plants
did  not  exceed  the  standards  initially  established for
reference.  The quality of untreated alkaline mine  drainage
was  found  to be commonly superior to effluent quality from
acid mine drainage treatment plants.
                              11

-------
It  was  therefore  determined  that  the  initial  industry
subcategorization  was  not warranted and categorization was
based on SIC Code and the two classes of raw mine drainage.

It was also determined  after  review  of  coal  preparation
plant  visits  and  review  of  information  supplied by the
industry that the existing  practice  and  standard  of  the
industry  was  closed  water circuits in the wet cleaning of
coal in coal preparation plants.  This practice  obtains  no
discharge of pollutants for the actual cleaning of coal.

Waste  water  from  coal preparation plant yards, coal stock
piles, and refuse disposal areas was either treated  in  the
same treatment facility as the mine drainage, or was treated
in  a separate facility using similar techniques and methods
as used for the mine drainage from the mine  served  by  the
preparation plant.

It   was  therefore  determined  that  the  mining  services
category (coal preparation plants)  should be  subcategorized
as   to  the  actual  coal  cleaning  process  itself  (coal
preparation) and ancillary areas (coal stock  piles,  refuse
disposal areas, and coal preparation plant yards).

The  full  range of control and treatment technologies util-
ized  within  the  major   SIC   industry   categories   was
identified.   The  problems,  limitations and reliability of
each treatment and control technology and the required time,
cost,  and  energy   requirements   of   implementing   each
technology  were  also identified.   In addition, this report
addresses all  nonwater  quality  environmental  effects  of
application   of  such  technologies  upon  other  pollution
problems, including air, solid waste, noise and radiation.

All data was then evaluated  to  determine  what  levels  of
treatment  constituted  "best practicable control technology
currently    available,"    "best    available    technology
economically  achievable,11  and  "best  demonstrated control
technology,   processes,   operating   methods,   or   other
alternatives."    Several   factors   were   considered   in
identifying   such   technologies.     These   included   the
application costs of the various technologies in relation to
the  effluent reduction benefits to be achieved through such
application,  engineering  aspects  of  the  application  of
various  types of control techniques or process changes, and
nonwater quality environmental impact.

The data and effluent limitation  guideline  recommendations
presented  in  this  report  were  developed  based  upon an
exhaustive review and evaluation  of  raw  waste  water  and
                             12

-------
treated  effluent  sample  data,  available  literature, and
visits to more than two hundred  individual  mine  sites  or
coal  preparation  facilities  in  twenty-two coal producing
states.   The  recommended  effluent  limitation  guidelines
represent  an  analysis  of these facilities, and a detailed
analysis of seven selected AMD treatment facilities and  six
surface  mine  settling  basins  for  90 consecutive days to
verify historical data.

DESCRIPTION OF AMERICAN COAL FIELDS

The process of coal formation entails the  accumulation  and
compaction of organic materials beneath layers of sediments.
Such  materials  can  accumulate  in  either  fresh water or
marine environments, particularly  where  water  levels  are
subject  to fluctuation and subsequent sediment influx.  The
degree of compaction plays an extremely  important  role  in
the  classification  of coals by rank.  Coals are classified
according to relative percentages of fixed carbon,  moisture
and  volatile matter.  Depending on the specific classifica-
tion system, this categorization can be general or extremely
detailed.  Four general categories are discussed.

Minimal compaction of accumulated organic materials  results
in  formation  of peat, which is not considered to be a type
of coal.  The  first  major  stage  of  compaction  of  peat
produces  lignite,  the  lowest  coal  rank.   The following
average characteristics are typical of lignite:  1) 30  per-
cent  fixed carbon;  2) 25 percent volatiles;  3) US percent
moisture; and H) 6500 BTUs.

Compaction of lignite produces a higher rank of  coal   (sub-
bituminous) ,  which  is  still considered to be low quality.
Average characteristics of subbituminous coal  are:   1)  12
percent fixed carbon;  2)  34 percent volatile matter;  3) 23
percent moisture content; and  4) 9700 BTUs.

Bituminous  coal  is  produced  by the continued increase of
pressure and compaction on the  organic  materials.   Bitum-
inous coal as described here encompasses a large majority of
all  coal  mined  today.  Characteristics of bituminous coal
vary widely, and this rank can consequently  be  extensively
subcategorized.   The  range  of general characteristics for
bituminous coal are:  1) 47 to 85 percent fixed  carbon;  2)
22  to  41  percent volatiles;  3) 3 to 12 percent moisture;
and 4) 9,700 to 15,000 BTUs.

The highest coal rank - anthracite, requires extreme amounts
of heat and compaction for formation.  The extremes required
seldom occur in nature and, as a result, anthracite coal  is
                              13

-------
not common.  Locally or regionally-confined areas of intense
folding  or  igneous  intrusion,  where  they occur in coal-
bearing strata, may result in the development of  anthracite
coal.  General characteristics of anthracite coal follow: 1)
greater  than  85  percent  fixed  carbon;   2)   less than 3
percent moisture;  3) less than 12 percent volatile  matter;
and  4) 12,000 to 15,000 BTUs.

Sulfur  content  is  another  important constituent of coal,
although it fluctuates greatly and cannot be related to coal
rank.  The fluctuations in sulfur content  are  attributable
to  variations  in  environmental  conditions at the time of
deposition,  accumulation  and  initial  compaction  of  the
organic  material.   Sulfur  content is discussed in greater
detail in the description of each coal producing region.

Coal rank, geologic occurrence, estimated reserves,  general
mining  procedures  and  economic conditions for the various
American coal-producing regions and provinces are  discussed
in  detail  in  the following section.  Figure 1 illustrates
the location of major coal deposits in the United States.

Anthracite Coal

Although not a major fuel source for today's energy  produc-
tion,  anthracite  coal has been historically significant in
the economic and industrial growth  of  the  United  States.
The   United   States   is   completely  self-sufficient  in
anthracite, with nearly all  coal  reserves  and  production
centered  in  Northeastern Pennsylvania (see Figure 2).  The
coal lies within four  individual  fields  -  the  northern,
eastern-middle,  western-middle,  and  southern - located in
the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian  Highlands.
These  coal  fields  cover a total of 1240 square kilometers
(^80 square miles) and each consists of one or  more  small,
U-shaped   basins   trending   northeast-southwest   between
adjacent ridges.

The basins or synclines are structural in nature,  resulting
from  downfolding  of  the  rock  units and coal seams.  The
extent or degree of this downfolding is directly related  to
the  depths  below the surface at which the coal seams lie -
as deep as 1800 meters (6000 ft) in the southern field where
folds are extremely tight.

The northern coal field encompasses the Scranton and Wilkes-
Barre region and underlies Lackawanna and  Wyoming  Valleys.
Coal  reserves occur in a curved, canoe-shaped syncline with
a flat bottom and steep sides outcropping along the mountain
ridges.  There are 18 workable seams lying at depths  up  to
                             H

-------
640 meters (2,100 ft), and the bulk of this field's reserves
can only be recovered by underground mining techniques.   The
northern    field    has   been   extensively   mined   with
interconnecting workings that are largely  inundated  today.
As  a  result, the threat of massive water handling problems
due  to  seepage  or  flow  from  adjacent  abandoned  mines
prohibits  economic extraction by deep mining of any of this
field's reserves.  All current production in this  field  is
from bank recovery and strip mining operations, which do not
have  prohibitively high pumping and mine drainage treatment
costs.

The eastern-middle field is  centered  around  the  Hazleton
area  and  consists  of  numerous  long,  narrow,  east-west
trending  coal  basins.   Mined  portions  of   this   field
generally  lie  above drainage along mountain ridges and are
gravity  drained  by  specially   driven   tunnels.    Total
stratigraphic  thickness  of  the  coal bearing formation in
this field is approximately 610 meters  (2000 ft).  The major
coal seam. Mammoth, ranges in thickness from 9 to 15  meters
(30 to 50 ft) and is one of Pennsylvania's most economically
important anthracite seams.

The western-middle anthracite field encompasses the Mahanoy-
Shamokin  region  and contains the same major seams found in
the eastern-middle field.  All coal seams  in  the  western-
middle  field  are  contained  stratigraphically  within 760
meters  (2,500 ft) of rock.  Seams  are  flat-lying  in  some
areas  and  steeply  pitching  in others.  Coal seams in the
Shenandoah and Mahanoy basins, including  the  Mammoth,  are
folded  over  upon  themselves,  doubling  the  thickness of
mineable coal and locally achieving thicknesses of 60 meters
(200 ft).  Coal basins in  this  field  are  almost  totally
beneath   natural   drainage  channels.   Consequently,  the
abandoned  mines  are  inundated  and  mine  pool  overflows
account for most of the mine drainage pollution.

The  southern  field  is the largest of the four coal fields
with an area of 520 square kilometers   (200  square  miles).
This  field  is  extremely  long,  extending from the Lehigh
River valley westward almost to the Susquehanna River.   The
26  workable  coal  seams in the southern field lie within  a
670 meter  (2200 ft)  rock  section.   Coal  seams  dip  very
steeply  to  depths  of  nearly 1800 meters  (6000 ft)*  Deep
mine workings in the southern field  occupy  positions  both
above and below natural drainage.  Consequently, mine drain-
age  emanates  from  both  mine  pool overflows and drainage
tunnels.
                              15

-------
en
                                                                         LEGEND

                                                                      COAl  DEPOSITS

                                                                      SCATTERED COAL  DIPOSITS
                 Adapted from illustration
                 in KEYSTONE COAL       COAL  DfPOSITS  IN  THI  UNITED STATES
                 INDUSTRY MANUAUI974)   tWAL  W*rW»ll»  IN  Ifll  UfMMtU dIAICd

-------
                                              LEGEND
                                                 Anthracite
                                                 Lignite
                                                 Scattered
                                                 Lignite
   ANTHRACITE a LIGNITE COAL DEPOSITS
                   Figure  2
                                               LEGEND
                                              • Bituminous
                                                 Subbltumlnwt
BITUMINOUS ft SUBBITUMINOUS COAL  DEPOSITS
                    Figure  3
Mooted from illustration
fn KEYSTONE COAL
INDUSTRY MANIML{!974)
                       17

-------
Coal mining operations were present in  nearly  all  of  the
major  anthracite  fields  by  the early 1800fs.  The use of
shaft mining for extraction of  deep-lying  coal  was  first
employed  in  these  anthracite  fields,  and by 1870, total
annual anthracite production by deep mine methods alone  was
about  13 million kkg (14 million tons).  By the turn of the
century, there was a four-fold increase in total production,
still primarily by deep mine methods.  World War I saw total
annual production reach  a  high  of  91  million  kkg  (100
million  tons),  with  a  rapid post-war decline until about
1930.  Anthracite production  then  remained  stable  at  50
million  kkg  (55 million tons)  annually until 1948.  During
this time strip mining  gained  importance,  and  production
from  surface  mines reached a high of nearly 10 million kkg
(11 million tons) in 1944.

Both surface and deep mine  production  of  anthracite  coal
have  steadily  decreased since the 1940's, although produc-
tion per square mile of coal field remains  at  least  three
times greater than that for bituminous mining.  The Pennsyl-
vania Department of Environmental Resources reported a total
anthracite production of 8,4 million kkg (9.25 million tons)
for  1970,  and  an  annual  production  decline of about 10
percent annually in subsequent years.  In  1973,  anthracite
production  was  estimated  at  5.8 million kkg (6.U million
tons) from 37 surface and underground mines and 10 secondary
recovery operations.  At that time, underground, surface and
bank, mining accounted for approximately  0.6,  3.1  and  2.1
million kkg (0.7, 3.4 and 2.3 million tons), respectively.

Preliminary  production figures for 1974 show, however, that
despite the energy crisis and increasing demand  for  fossil
fuels,  anthracite  production  continues to decline.  These
figures show an increase of 6.9 percent in  bituminous  coal
production and a decrease of 14.8 percent in anthracite coal
production.   Consumer  demand  for  anthracite  from public
utilities and the iron and steel industry is limited,  rela-
tive  to  the  bituminous  industry.   As  a result of these
factors, anthracite production is not expected  to  increase
greatly   in  the  near  future.   In  addition,  production
increases are limited by labor shortages, lack of investment
incentive, high mining costs, lack of easily  mineable  coal
and  environmental  considerations.  Although a great number
of problems  affect  the  anthracite  mining  industry,  the
increased  demand for cleaner burning fuels could revitalize
the industry.

Total estimated coal reserves as of January, 1970,  for  the
four  anthracite  fields,  were  about  15  billion  kkg  (14
billion tons).  Recoverable anthracite reserves, those seams
                             18

-------
oyer 0,6 meters (2 ft)  thick, were estimated  at  7  billion
kkg (8 billion tons).   This figure indicates that 23 percent
of Pennsylvania's total recoverable coal reserves lie within
3 percent of its coal land.

Bituminous Coal, Subbituminous Coal and Lignite

Bituminous  coal  has  been the major source of the Nation's
energy  for  the  past  three  centuries.   Production   and
utilization  of this resource has always been vitally linked
to the economic and industrial growth of the nation and,  as
a  result,  trends in soft coal production have closely par-
alleled   trends   in   nationwide   industrial    activity.
Bituminous  coal, until recent years, was the only soft coal
product that was mined on a major scale.  Its production has
peaked during each major war in the last century - World War
I, World War II, and the Korean Conflict - with an  all-time
high  of  572  million  kkg  (630  million  tons)  in  1947.
Production has also generally  declined  following  each  of
those   periods,  recovering  only  gradually.   Since  1947
bituminous production has climbed at a fairly  steady  rate,
but  has  remained  below 544 million kkg (600 million tons)
annually, except for one year.

The slow recovery of the coal industry to World War II  pro-
duction  levels  has been in part caused by rapid, extensive
changes in consumer utilization of coal between 1947 and the
mid 1960's.  During this  period,  the  railroads  converted
from coal-fired to diesel locomotives and much of the domes-
tic heating market converted from coal to oil or gas.  These
demand  declines were partially offset, however, by steadily
increasing use of  coal  in  electrical  generating  plants.
Demand  for low sulfur coal has increased substantially with
increasing concerns for cleaner stack emissions from  gener-
ating  stations.   Low sulfur subbituminous and lignite coal
production  is  rapidly  expanding  to  meet  these   needs.
Although  these  materials  have  lower heating capabilities
than higher grade bituminous, large deposits of  low  sulfur
material  can  be mined and sold to distant markets at costs
competitive with higher grade low  sulfur  bituminous  coal,
which is much less common.  Since deposits in several of the
major producing areas contain bituminous coal, subbituminous
coal,  and  lignite,  all  are  "discussed  together  in  the
following description of the Nation's major  coal  producing
regions.

Appalachian  Basin.  The Appalachian or Main Bituminous Coal
Basin is the easternmost, and currently most important, coal
producing region in the United States.   The  basin  extends
from  North-central  Pennsylvania  through portions of Ohio,

-------
Maryland,  West  Virginia,   Virginia,   Eastern   Kentucky,
Tennessee,  and  Northern  Alabama.   This  bituminous  coal
producing region consists of a major, elongated depositional
basin containing a series of local,  parallel,  northeast
southwest  trending synclinal basins, occasionally offset by
faulting.

The southern two thirds of the basin  lies  higher  and  has
been  more  severely eroded than the northern section.  As a
result, many of the younger, stratigraphically higher  seams
were  eroded  away, and only the older, deeper coal remains.
The younger, uneroded seams are  generally  limited  to  the
north-central  portion  of the basin, lying in West Virginia
and small adjacent portions of  surrounding  states.   These
younger seams are thicker and of above-average quality.

The thickest strata in the basin lie along its eastern edge,
while  the percentage of limestone and calcareous overburden
material increases to the west and south.  These trends  are
directly  related  to the depositional history of the strata
in the basin.  The  exposed  land  surface,  which  was  the
source of sediments and coal-producing organic material, lay
to  the  east  of the inland sea in which the materials were
deposited; and the deeper, marine portions of that sea  were
located  to  the  south  and  west.   These  trends are also
closely related to the pollution  production  potentials  of
the  coal  strata.   Many of the coal seams in the basin are
high sulfur and constantly produce  acid  during  and  after
mining.   The limestone and calcareous units, where they are
present,  have  the  ability  to  neutralize  a  substantial
portion  of  the  acid  produced.   As  a  result,  there is
generally  a  less  serious  acid  mine  drainage  pollution
problem in western and southern portions of the basin.

Broad  regional  variations  within, the  basin have been an
important factor in determining trends  of  coal  extraction
and  resultant mine drainage patterns.  Most major coal for-
mations outcrop, at least intermittently, around the rim  of
the  basin and lie at great depth at its center.  Mining was
initiated along coal outcrops, particularly in thicker seams
in the northern portion of the  basin  -  the  Pennsylvania,
West  Virginia,  Ohio region.  Here, surface mining has been
an extremely important extraction technique, since seams are
thick and relatively shallow.  Farther south in  the  basin,
coal  seams  generally  follow  the  basin's  dip and lie at
greater depths,  necessitating  slope  or  drift  mining  to
maximize  coal  extraction.   The  bulk of Appalachian Basin
coal resources lie at depth in or near  its  center.   As  a
result,  many  newly  opened  or  planned  mines  are  being
designed with shaft entrances to reach deeper seams.
                             20

-------
The number of coal seams present in any  single  portion  of
the   Main   Bituminous   Basin   is   determined  by  local
depositional, structural and erosional conditions and, as  a
result,  is  highly variable.  Much of the basin has a large
number of seams, but many of those are local, discontinuous,
or too thin to mine.  There are  generally  about  5  to  10
commercially  mineable  seams  in  any portion of the basin.
For example. Southeastern Ohio has over 50  identified  coal
seams, but only about 11 of those are commercially mineable.
Coal  quality  also  varies  considerably  according  to the
original depositional environment.  Quality of a single seam
can change quite drastically between geographic  areas,  and
different  coal  seams  may be even more dissimilar.  Sulfur
content of Appalachian coals ranges from 0.2%  to  10%,  and
all other important parameters have equally large ranges.

One  of the most important and valuable coal deposits in the
Nation is the Pittsburgh seam, which underlies approximately
15,500 square kilometers (6000 square miles) in  the  north-
central  portion of the Main Bituminous Basin.  This coal is
characterized by a consistent average thickness of 2  meters
(6  ft) and high quality.  It was extremely important during
the development of the early American steel industry.

Total coal reserves  in  the  Appalachian  Basin  have  been
estimated  at  238  billion  kkg  (262 billion tons), most of
which is bituminous coal.  This  reserve  figure  is  second
only  to  that  of  the  Western Region - the Northern Great
Plains and Rocky Mountain Provinces -  where  vast  untapped
lignite deposits in North Dakota increase the total reserves
to 787 billion kkg  (868 billion tons).

Since  this  basin  has  been the primary source of American
bituminous coal for many  years,  trends  in  national  coal
production have been those evidenced in Appalachia.  Produc-
tion  declined  following  the Korean War and has slowly and
steadily climbed since then.  Recently passed  environmental
restrictions  and  more  strictly  enforced safety laws have
significantly increased production costs,  and,  along  with
labor  disputes,  have  slightly depressed production in the
past few years.  Bituminous coal production in  this  region
far surpassed that from any other coal-producing region, but
still  decreased  from  351  to  3*0 million kkg  (387 to 375
million tons) between 1972 and 1973.

Interior Region.  The Interior Coal Region consists  of  two
major  basins  - the Eastern and western - that underlie all
or part of nine states.  The coal  seams  in  this  province
contain relatively high percentages of sulfur, but acid mine
waters  are  not  as  common  as  in  the Appalachian Basin.
                              21

-------
Limestones and other calcareous rock units  overlying  coal-
bearing strata produce naturally alkaline surface waters and
neutralize  any  acid  formed around the pyritic coal.  Thus
mine effluents are  often  of  acceptable  quality  in  many
respects.

The  Eastern  Interior  Coal  Basin is a single, large basin
which  underlies  flat  or  gently  rolling   farmlands   in
Illinois, Western Indiana, and Western Kentucky.  Rock units
are  relatively flat-lying throughout much of the basin, but
are found  along  the  Ohio  River  in  several  overturned,
severely  faulted folds.  The basin locally contains as many
as 35 different bituminous seams, but only about eight  high
volatile,  high  sulfur seams are major coal producers.  BTU
content of the coals generally increases to  the  Southeast,
but  ash and sulfur are unsystematically variable throughout
this field.  Many of the economically important  seams  here
are  shallow, and a substantial portion of this basin's coal
production is from large area-type surface  mines  utilizing
high capacity stripping equipment.

The Western Interior Coal Basin is substantially larger than
the  eastern,  extending  from  North-central Iowa southward
through portions of Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and
Arkansas.   Coal  seams  in  this  basin  are  predominantly
bituminous  with high sulfur, moisture, and ash content, and
have  been  correlated  with  seams  found  in  the  Eastern
Interior  Basin.   In  addition  to  these bituminous seams,
there is also a small pocket of  anthracite  coal  found  in
Arkansas.

Characteristics  of  coal  and  overburden  material  in the
Western Basin show significant geographical variation.  Coal
seams  in  Iowa   are   generally   thin,   lenticular   and
discontinuous, andr as a result, mining operations are small
and  mobile.   Much  of the northern portion of the basin is
overlain by glacial drift, which locally reaches  depths  of
150  meters   (500  ft).  Farther south, in Kansas, coals are
flat-lying and persistent  with  little  faulting,  but  are
often too deeply buried to economically mine.  The number of
seams  identified  in  this portion of the basin exceeds 50,
but  only  seven  are  economically  important.   Overburden
thicknesses  decrease eastward in the basin, and much of the
coal produced in Missouri can be surface mined.  Area mining
techniques and large strip mining equipment make  the  mines
in  this  region highly productive.  The interior Region has
been actively  mined  for  many  years  and,  as  a  result,
production  trends  have  been  closely  aligned  with those
observed in the  Main  Bituminous  Basin.   The  conflicting
needs  of  recently  passed  clean  air requirements and the
                             22

-------
energy crisis have caused coal production  to  fluctuate  in
recent   years,  with  a  net  production  decline  in  this
province.  Production totaled 140 million kkg  (154  million
tons)   in  1972  and dropped to 134 million kkg (148 million
tons)  in  1973.   Western  Interior  operations,   which  are
predominantly  surface mines, showed an increase from 8.4 to
8.6 million kkg (9.25  to  9.5  million  tons)   during  that
period.  Production from the Eastern Interior Basin, however
declined  from  132  to  126 million kkg (145 to 139 million
tons) .

The Interior Province contains an estimated 238 billion  kkg
(262  billion  tons) of coal reserves, and will certainly be
an extremely important factor in future coal production.  As
energy  and  fossil  fuel  demands  continue  to   increase,
production is expected to show a corresponding increase.
Western  Region.   The  Western  Region of the American coal
field consists of three  coal  provinces  -  Northern  Great
Plains, Rocky Mountain, and pacific Coast - underlying eight
western  states.   These  provinces  are discussed in detail
below.

The Northern  Great  Plains  Province  consists  of  a  vast
expanse of lignite and subbituminous coal deposits extending
into  portions  of  Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota.  This
coal province contains by far the largest  coal  reserve  in
the Nation.  Strata are generally flat-lying, with steepened
dips  only  along  mountain  flanks.  The lignite fields are
defined  or  subdivided  according  to  type  of  overburden
material  above  the mineral deposits - glacial drift in the
north  and  poorly  consolidated,  fine-grained,  nonglacial
materials  farther  south.   Due  to  the  relatively recent
deposition of these lignite and subbituminous beds  and  the
lack   of   subsequent   tectonic  disturbance   (folding  or
faulting), the rank of Northern Great Plains Province  coals
increases  with depth of burial, which is in turn determined
by age of the deposits.  Sulfur contents are one percent  or
less and ash values are correspondingly low.

The  Montana  and  Wyoming portions of this province contain
more subbituminous  coal  than  lignite.   Seam  thicknesses
average 6.1 meters  (20 ft), occasionally exceeding 30 meters
 {100  ft)f  and  many  of  the  deposits have unconsolidated
overburden.   Surface   mining   is   therefore   relatively
inexpensive.   The  low rank and heating capabilities of the
coal or lignite are effectively countered by the  low  costs
at  which  that  coal  can  be produced.  Nearly all lignite
                              23

-------
currently produced is used for  electrical  generation,  but
future intended uses for this material include gasification.

The  Rocky Mountain Coal Province consists of a large number
of relatively  small  coal  basins  underlying  portions  of
Arizona,  New  Mexico,  Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Montana.
Coals in the northern and central portions of this  province
occur  in broad, asymetric, synclinal folds lying between or
paralleling various ranges of the Rocky Mountains.  The coal
seams here are relatively flat-lying  and  deep  in  central
portions  of  the  province,  with  steeper dips along basin
flanks.  In  several  instances,  coal  deposits  have  been
warped upward by the regional tectonics that have formed the
mountains.   As  a  result, many of the seams in the central
portion, particularly in Colorado and Utah, have steep dips,
severely limiting the amount of strippable coal.

Many of the seams in the southern portion  of  the  province
are  not  persistent,  extending only eight to 
-------
mines, is the 1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety  Act.
In  1969 the average kkg per man day for deep coal mines was
14.7 kkg/man (15.6 tons/man).  In 1973 this dropped to  10.2
kkg/man   (11.2  tons/man)  with  a corresponding increase in
production cost.  A marked increase  in  capital  costs  for
equipment  and  cost  of  materials to meet the 1969 Act has
also been experienced.  These increased  costs  resulted  in
mine  closures  which are continuing even with the increased
realization per  ton  of  coal,  and  have  discouraged  the
opening  of small independent mines which can not absorb the
increased costs.  Since World War II the  Nation's ' 50  top-
producing  companies  have increased their share of national
coal production from 42 percent to 69 percent.  In 1972  the
top 15 companies produced 51* of the bituminous tonnage.  In
1972, 80 percent of all underground coal production was from
mines  with  annual  tonnages exceeding 181,400 KKG  (200,000
tons).  In 1973, 95 percent of total surface mined coal  was
from  mines  producing  more  than 90,700 KKG  (100,000 tons)
annually, and 70  percent  was  from  mines  producing  over
181,400  KKG  (200,000  tons)  annually.   This  trend  will
apparently continue in the future/ as small mining companies
are gradually forced to close due to more stringent environ-
mental and safety restrictions.

Coal is recognized as a major source of energy to  meet  the
nation's increasing demand for energy.

A  recent study by the National Academy of Engineering  (NAE)
concludes that, if the coal industry is to double production
by 1985 to meet increased energy demands, it must:

1.  Develop 140 new  1,814,000  kkg/yr.   (2,000,000-ton-per-
year) underground mines in the eastern states.

2.  Open 30 new 1,614,000  kkg/yr.   (2,000,000-ton-per-year)
surface  mines  in  the eastern states and 100 new 4,535,000
kkg/yr.   (5,000,000-ton-per-year)  mines  in   the   western
states.

3.  Recruit and train 80,000 new coal miners in the  eastern
states and 45,000 coal miners in the western states.

U.  Manufacture 140 new 25.2 cu m   (100-cubic-yard)  shovels
and draglines.

5.  Build 2,400 new continuous mining machines.

Also  of  interest  are  the  NAE  study's  projections  for
expansion  in the transportation area to haul a doubled coal
output by 1985.  They would entail the following:
                              27

-------
1.  Construction of 60 new 1,81«,000 kkg/yr.  (2f000,000-ton-
per-year) eastern rail-barge systems of 161  km  to  805  km
(100 to 500 miles) each.

2.  Construction of 70 new 2,721,000 kkg/yr   (3,000,000-ton-
per-year)  western  rail-barge systems of 1609 km to 1931 km
(1,000 to 1,200 miles) each.

3.  Building of four new 22,675,000 kkg/yr   (25,000,000-ton-
per-year) slurry pipelines of 1609 km  (1,000 milesy each.

1.  Installation of two new 70,000,000  cum   (2,500,000,000-
cubic-feet-per-day)  gas pipe lines of 1609 km (1,000 miles)
each to transport synthetic gas from coal.

5.  Manufacture  of  8,000  new  railroad  locomotives   and
150,000 new gondola and hopper cars.

This  last  point is particularly important because the poor
financial condition of the country's railroads  will   limit
their  ability  to  provide  sufficient  rolling stock  (coal
cars) to move the needed quantity of coal from the mines  to
the point of consumption.

DESCRIPTIONS OF FACETS OF THE COAL INDUSTRY

As  the major SIC categories imply, the coal Industry can be
divided into two segments -  coal  mining  and  coal  mining
services  (coal  cleaning  or  preparation).   Each of these
categories is discussed in detail in the following section.

COAL MINING

Mining Techniques

Coal mines are classified according to the methods  utilized
to  extract  coal.   Methods selected to mine a coal seam in
any specific  area  depend  on  a  number  of  physical  and
economic  factors:   1) thickness, continuity and quality of
the coal  seam;   2)  depth  of  coal;   3)   roof  rock  and
overburden  conditions;   4)  local hydrologic conditions as
they relate to water handling requirements;   5)   topography
and  climate; 6) coal market economics;  7)  availability and
suitability   of   equipment;    8)   health   and    safety
considerations; and  9) any environmental restrictions which
could affect the mine.

Surface  or strip mining is employed where the coal is close
enough to the land surface to  enable  the  overburden   (the
rock  material  above  the  coal)  to  be  removed and later
                              28

-------
attributable to the low ash and sulfur contents and the ease
with  which  much  of the coal can be rained.  With increased
demand for low sulfur  power  generating  coal  to  decrease
stack   emissions,  the  subbituminous  and  lignite  mining
portions of the coal  industry  have  mushroomed  in  recent
years.   Between  1972  and  1973  the  following production
increases were noted for the  Western  Region:   1)  Pacific
Coast  Province - 2.4 to 3.4 million kkg (2.6 to 3.7 Billion
tons),  2}  Rocky Mountain Province 29.1 to 33.7 million  kkg
(32.4  to  37.2 million tons), and  3) Northern Great Plains
Province - 42.8 to 49.5 million kkg (47.2  to  5*.6  million
tons).   For  the  sane basic reasons, the Western Region is
also  expected  to  show  the  greatest  future   production
increases.  The most comprehensive coal exploration and mine
development  programs  are  currently  in-, progress here, and
this  region  contains  an  extremely  large  reserve  -  an
estimated   793  billion  kfcg  (874  billion  tone).   These
characteristics  combine  to  make  the  Western  Region   a
potential future leader in American coal production.
Future  production  Tr grids .   There  are a number of factors
that will  be  extremely  important  in  determining  future
production  trends  of the coal industry.  The energy crisis
has produced a steady, dramatic increase in demand for coal,
which in  turn  provides  a  strong  incentive  to  increase
production.   The  value  of a ton of coal has significantly
increased  to  the  point  where  previously  uneconomic  or
marginal  coal  deposits can now be profitably extracted and
marketed.  However, increased demands for  coal  and  avail-
ability  of  economically  mineable  coal  have not inspired
increased production as they should have.  These factors are
tempered by several  other  important  considerations  which
have actually reduced production slightly.
Environmental  aspects  of  coal  utilization  iww* aweefttly
become critical in de-termini ng current  mining  trends,  and
will  continue  to gain importance in th« future.  Stringent
clean air restrictions have  been  imposed  on  coal-burning
electric  generating  plants,  which  used 90 percent of all
coal produced in 1973.  Most of these plants are located  in
the   eastern  United  states,  near  major  population  and
industrial  centers,  an&  the  coal  they  burn  is  almost
exclusively  high-sulfur  Appalachian Basin bituminous coal.
Equipment has  been  developed  to  reduce  the  undesirable
emissions  caused  by  burning  high-sulfur  coal,  but  the
technology has not yet been fully perfected and ecpiipm^Tit is
costly.  At present, a financially feasible  alternative  to
installation  of  this  emission equipment is Btilizatioa of
low-sulfur «4tttffi3l £oal or lignite.  This 00*1 ill  -Q£
                              25

-------
rank  and  commonly  has  a  lower  BTD  value  than eastern
bituminous coal, meaning that more lower rank material  must
be burned to obtain the same amount of heat.  These low rank
bituminous  coals  and  lignite  deposits  are  found in the
western coal fields, where seams are thicker, overburden  is
thinner,  and  water problems are minimal.  As a result, the
coal can be more easily mined, shipped  east,  and  sold  at
prices that are competitive with those for Appalachian high-
sulfur  coal.   Western coal fields have been experiencing a
rapid mining  expansion,  which  should  continue  for  some
years.   As  these  western  fields achieve full production,
annual tonnages for national surface mining of  coal  should
increase significantly.

One  of  the  major  deterrents  to  expansion  of  the coal
industry is availability of transport for the  coal  to  the
consumer.   The  present  transportation system, particulary
railroad systems, are operating at  capacity.   Alternatives
suggested  for  railroad  transportation include slurry pipe
lines, mine mouth power plants, and mine mouth  gasification
and liquification plants.

The  immediate  demand  for  coal is not expected to greatly
increase the percentage of coal  produced  from  underground
mines.   Many  active  deep  mines  are already operating at
maximum  potential,  with  no  practical  way  to   increase
production.   The  reserves  of  coal  that can be extracted
utilizing   current   underground   mining   technology   at
competitive  costs  is relatively small when compared to the
total deep mine reserve.  Large scale percent  increases  in
underground mine production can only occur if the technology
is  perfected  to enable economic, safe extraction of deeper
lying coal seams which comprise the bulk of  this  country's
reserves.    If  these  technological  breakthroughs  occur,
underground mine production  can  be  expected  to  increase
substantially  not  only on an annual basis, but also on the
percent extracted by underground methods.

Economic considerations have also had an important  role  in
establishing  a  trend toward the prominence of larger mines
and  mining  companies.   Environmental   restrictions   and
regulations  on  surface mines have increased production and
capital costs substantially.  It  is  frequently  impossible
for smaller mining operations to comply.  As a result, small
operations  are  becoming  scarce,  because their owners are
forced by economic conditions to  close.   Larger  companies
are more capable of absorbing these production costs.

A major effect on the productivity of individual deep mines,
which  has  reflected  in  the  number  of mines and size of
                             26

-------
replaced or regraded while still realizing a profit from the
coal sale.  Extraction of coal with large augers, which  can
be  accomplished  without  removing  overburden material, is
also occasionally utilized at surface mines.  Where the coal
is too deep to permit profitable strip  mining,  underground
mining  techniques  are  utilized.   These  major methods of
extracting coal are discussed in  detail  in  the  following
pages.

It  should be noted that regardless of the method of mining,
water use is generally limited to dust suppression,  and  in
the  United  states  is  not used as an integral part of any
major'mining technique.  Water removal is required as it  is
a   nuisance  and  hinderance  to  mining.   As  such,  mine
dewatering and handling is a required  part  of  the  mining
plan  at  most  coal  mines,  and, as such, mine drainage is
considered a waste water for the coal production segment  of
the industry.

tlnderxiround  Mining.   Underground  mines  are  developed by
driving entryways  into  a  coal  seam  and  are  classified
according to the manner in which the seam is entered.  Drift
mines  enter  the coal at an outcrop, the point at which the
coal seam is exposed on the land surface.   Drifts  are  the
cheapest  method  of  access  to  underground  mines,  where
conditions are suited,  and  provide  horizontal  or  nearly
horizontal  access  to  the  mine workings.  Slope mines are
found where the coal is at an intermediate  depth  or  where
the  coal  outcrop condition is unsatisfactory or unsafe for
drift entry.  Slope mines employ  an  inclined  slope  entry
driven to the coal from the land surface above.  Slope entry
use  allows  the coal to be entered from above while permit-
ting continuous haulage of coal from  the  workings  up  the
slope , to  the  surface.  Shaft mines are utilized where the
coal lies too far below the surface to outcrop.   The  shaft
itself  is  a  vertical entry driven tos a coal seam from the
land surface above.  Access to the workings and  mined  coal
must  then  be transported via elevators in the mine's shaft
or shafts.

The method of entry employed to gain access to a  coal  seam
can  be extremely important in development of an underground
mine.  Drift entries must be driven from the  coal  outcrop,
regardless  of  where  the  remaining extractable coal lies.
Slope entry locations are also restricted with  relation  to
the  remainder  of  a  proposed  mine  by  the  thickness of
overburden,  A shaft entry  can  be  located  to  facilitate
entry  and  coal  haulage  while  minimizing any anticipated
problems.  However, the cost of a shaft is directly  related
to the depth of the shaft.
                              29

-------
The  mining  techniques employed in the mines themselves are
not dependent on the type of entryway in use, and are fairly
uniform in all underground mines.  Most American coal  mines
utilize  room  and  pillar  extraction.   Main  tunnels,  or
headings, are first driven from points of entry.  From these
main    headings,    secondary    headings    are     driven
perpendicularly.    configuration   of   crossheadings,   or
crosscuts, must be  carefully  planned  to  permit  adequate
ventilation,  support of headings, drainage of the workings,
and to facilitate coal haulage,  Blocks  of  coal  are  then
extracted in some systematic pattern along both sides of the
headings,  and  pillars  of intact coal are left between the
mined out rooms to support the mine roof and prevent surface
subsidence above the workings,  configurations of rooms  and
pillars  are designed to consider roof conditions, equipment
utilized, depth of the  seam  and  other  physical  factors.
Room  and  pillar  mining  permits  extraction  of  40 to 60
percent of the coal in the mine, with the remainder left  in
the form of pillars.

Room  and  pillar  mining  is  also  effectively employed in
extraction of very steeply dipping anthracite coal seams  in
northeastern  Pennsylvania.   In  these  mines,  terminology
differs but the technique is  quite  similar.   The  primary
change  required  for  steep  dip  mining  is in the type of
haulage employed, particularly from the coal  face.   Suffi-
ciently  steep  workings  are able to rely solely on gravity
for haulage from the face to some collection  point.   Where
other  special  haulage  plans  or  equipment  are required,
mining costs may increase  significantly, .but  the  general
mining  system  is  still  adaptable  for  use  under  these
circumstances.

There  are  two  predominant  coal   extraction   procedures
currently  employed  in American underground bituminous coal
mines - conventional and  continuous  mining.   Conventional
mining  consists  of  a  repeated  series  of  steps used to
simultaneously advance a series  of  rooms.   The  procedure
rotates  a  set of mining equipment from one room to another
so that each piece of equipment in the set, or mine  "unit™,
is  always  working  somewhere.   In  this manner, no men or
equipment in the unit sit idle waiting for their step of the
procedure.

The sequence of events that lead to extraction of  coal  and
advancement  of the room is:  1) undercutting or overcutting
the coal seam with a  mechanized  "cutter"  as  required  to
permit  expansion of the coal upon blasting while minimizing
damage to the roof rock;  2) horizontally drilling the  coal
at predetermined intervals to enable placement of explosives
                              30

-------
and  blasting;  3)  breakage of the coal by either explosives
or high pressure air; 4)  loading coal onto haulage  vehicles
or  conveyor  belts;  and   5)   roof bolting or timbering to
support overburden material where the coal has been removed.

Conventional mining as described above  is  gradually  being
replaced by continous mining equipment.  A "continous miner"
is  a  single  mechanized  unit  which  breaks  or cuts coal
directly from the  coal  face  and  loads  it  onto  haulage
vehicles  or belts.  This eliminates equipment and operating
personnel.for cutting, drilling,  and  blasting.   Secondary
coal  haulage from a coal face can be accomplished by rubber
tired electric shuttle cars or by  small  conveyor  systems.
Primary haulage from these secondary systems to mine portals
is  generally  accomplished  by  specially designed electric
rail equipment or by conveyor systems.

Initial development in an underground mine may leave as much
as 60 percent of the coal in pillars.  Following development
of entries, it is often possible to safely  remove  some  of
those  pillars as the machinery retreats from an area of the
mine,  when pillars are "pulled" coal recovery for the  mine
significantly  increases.   However, resultant roof collapse
and fracturing can greatly increase overburden permeability,
facilitating  mine  water  infiltration   and   subsequently
increasing  mine  drainage  problems.   This is particularly
true when operating under shallow cover or overburden.
Another  deep  mining   technique,   longwall   mining,   is
relatively  new to the American mining industry, although it
is  extensively  used  in  Europe.   An  advantage  of  this
technique  is  that  it  permits increased recovery of coal.
Coal is extracted along a single "face" which is much longer
than those used in room and pillar mining.  The longwall can
range from 30 to 200 meters  (100 to 700 feet) in  width  and
up to 2,000 meters  (6,600 feet) in length.

Longwall   mining   equipment  consists  of  hydraulic  roof
supports, traveling coal cutter, conveyors and power supply.
Parallel headings of variable length  are  driven  into  the
coal  and  a  crossheading  is  driven between them at their
maximum  length.   Equipment  is  installed  in  this  third
heading  and  working of the new face is initiated.  Cutters
move along the face and the cut  coal  falls  onto  a  chain
conveyor  which  parallels  the face.  Roof supports advance
with the longwall face, restricting the size of the  working
area  adjacent  to  the face, but permitting controlled roof
collapse  as  the  longwall  progresses.   Longwall   mining

-------
generally increases percent of recovery over room and pillar
methods.

Front  this  brief description, it. is obvious there is a wide
range of mine types and equipment that can fee  utilized  for
              coal  extraction.   Equipment  and  techniques
employed at a particular mine are largely dependent  on  the
physical  and economic conditions at that site.  Since these
factor* are subject to wide local variations, each  existing
or propoe*
-------
The  sequence of operations, that occurs in a typical surface
mining operation is the mine site is cleared  of  trees  and
brush,  overburden  is  vertically drilled from the surface,
explosive charges - generally ammonium nitrate - are  placed
and  the overburden is blasted or "shot".  This sufficiently
fractures the overburden material to permit its  removal  by
earth   moving  equipment  such  as  draglines,  shovels  or
scrapers. Removal of this  overburden  generally  takes  the
greatest  amount of time and frequently requires the largest
equipment.  Specific sizes and types of  equipment  utilized
vary  according  to  conditions  at  each  mine, with bucket
capacities of the largest shovels  and  draglines  currently
exceeding 150 cubic meters (200 cubic yards).

Following removal of the overburden material, coal is loaded
onto  haulage  trucks  or  conveyors  for  transport.  Spoil
backfilling follows coal extraction, and can  be  done  with
draglines,  shovels,  dozers,  or  scrapers depending on the
conditions of the material  and  the  amount  that  must  be
moved.   The backfilled spoil is then regraded and seeded to
establish vegetative growth and minimize erosion.

There are two general categories of strip  mines  which  are
defined  largely  by  topography of the mined area - contour
and area.  The sequence of strip mining operations described
above is utilized in both types  of  mines.   Contour  strip
mining   (see  Figure  4)  is most common where coal deposits
occur in rolling or hilly country, and is widely employed in
Pennsylvania,  West  Virginia,  Virginia,  Maryland,   Ohio^
Eastern   Kentucky,   Tennessee  and  Alabama.   In  contour
stripping, an initial cut is made along a hillside,  at  the
point  where  the  coal  outcrops, or is exposed at the land
surface.  Successive cuts are made into the  hill  until  it
becomes  uneconomical to remove further overburden.  In this
manner, the strip  cuts  follow  the  contour  of  the  coal
outcrop  around the hillside, generally resulting in a long,
sinuous band of strip mined  land  around  an  entire  hill.
Contour  strip  mining  results  in  a bench or shelf on the
hillside where the coal has been removed,  bordered  on  the
inside by a highwall and on the outer, downslope side by the
piled  spoil  material.   Prior  to recent passage of strict
mining regulations, much of this spoil material remained  on
the natural slope below the bench, creating a spoil outslope
much   steeper   than   the   natural   land   slope.   Such
unconsolidated spoil banks can  create  severe  erosion  and
landslide problems.

The  area  strip  mining  technique , is  used extensively in
relatively flat-lying lands of the Midwest and  West,   Area
stripping,  as  the  name  implies,  affects large blocks of
                              33

-------
Bench
Bsflssftstf
. •'. ¥ -j^< H> •'<: .3^<".* ^ *>.'~i.(..-. '. ". *,.s ^. e TV 4.* . i
            ••• •^i/*-'/''va'A.'j')1 ,*i* 7"^V Mr* v" > «*.J'i"-"-,<-'*?"''*7',*H''**'i'<"^"<.*-''""*v
               %»-,*.,.• '<««x»*»VLvrt'-.'<•" *;••'.•«;?-<,..v.'«v-i> '" ::*"•-.'.*- •
          CONTOUR  STRIPPING
                    Figure 4

-------
land, rather than the sinuous bands  of  contour  stripping.
The  first  cut  in  an  area  mine is generally made to the
limits of the property to be mined.  Coal is extracted  from
this  cut  and mining proceeds in a series of cuts, parallel
to the first and adjacent to one another.  Spoil  from  each
new  cut  is placed in an adjacent completed cut, from which
the coal has been removed.  Thus the final cut  in  an  area
mine is the only one with either an exposed highwall or open
cut,  ridges.   Until  recently, the last cut was frequently
developed  into  a  large  lake.   However,  with   stricter
reclamation  laws, area mines must also be entirely regraded
to approximate original contour.  Figure 5  illustrates  the
sequence  of  operations  in  an  area  mine with concurrent
regrading.

Auger mining is most commonly associated with contour  strip
mining, and is thus largely confined to eastern coal fields.
Augering is one of the least expensive methods of extracting
coal,  but  is  limited  to horizontal and shallowly dipping
seams where easily accessible outcrops or  highwalls  exist.
Large  augers  drill  horizontally into a coal seam from the
outcrop or the base of the highwall,  after  the  overburden
becomes too thick to remove economically.  Auger heads range
from 41 to 213 centimeters  {16 to 84 inches)  in diameter and
can  penetrate  more  than 60 meters  (200 ft) into the coal.
Depending upon the thickness of the coal and spacing of  the
holes,  auger  mining  can  recover  50  to 80% of the coal.
Generally overburden collapses  into the empty holes.

COAL MINING SERVICES OR COAL PREPARATION

Coal  cleaning  has  progressed  from  early  hand   picking
practices  for  removal  of gross refuse material to present
technology capable of mechanically processing coal fines and
slimes,   permitting   greater    recovery    of    selected
compositions.   These technological advances were introduced
with mechanization of the mines and were stimulated by  more
stringent  market  quality  requirements  and increased coal
production rates.  Approximately 
-------
CO
CFJ
                      iOHglnal Ground
                      !   Surface   5^S^S=^
AREA  MINING  WITH SUCCESSIVE REPLACEMENT

                      Figure  5
                                                                   Adapted from drawing in
                                                                   STUDY OF STRIP AND
                                                                   SURFACE MINING IN
                                                                   APPALACHIA (1966)

-------
metallurgical coal.  This is because the coke  industry  has
the  most  stringent  standards  of all major coal consuming
industries.  Detailed preparation provides a uniform product
with reduced sulfur and ash content important to coke plant,
blast  furnace,  and  foundry-cupola  operations.   Although
utility  coal  must  have  relatively uniform size, economic
benefits accrued  from  extensive  cleaning  have  not  been
sufficient to offset additional preparation costs.  However,
more  complete cleaning of utility coal may be required with
increased enforcement of sulfur dioxide emission limitations
for power generating plants.  Responsibility for controlling
stack emissions  will  be  placed  on  electric  and  mining
companies.   Generating stations will eventually be required
to install scrubbers or similar equipment for sulfur removal
from gases, and the  mining  companies  will  be  forced  to
supply a cleaner, lower sulfur coal.

Coal Preparation Plants
Three   general  stages  or  extent  of  coal  cleaning  are
practiced within the coal mining industry.  Coal preparation
plants are individually grouped in these stages according to
degree of cleaning and unit operations.   Transportation  of
raw  coal  from  a  mine  site  to  a preparation plant, and
transportation of clean coal and refuse from the  plant  are
unit  operations common to all stages of preparation.  These
transport operations do not enhance coal quality  or  affect
the    cleaning    processes.    Thus,   coal   and   refuse
transportation procedures and environmental controls are not
delineated in the analysis of each stage of preparation.

Stage I:.  Crushing and Sizing - Basic Cleaninf.  This  stage
of  coal  cleaning  is  basic and involves only crushing and
sizing.  Preparation plants grouped  in  this  stage  always
perform  primary  crushing,  and in many instances secondary
crushing is also employed to effect  further  size  control.
The  two  major objectives in Stage 1 preparation are:  1)  a
reduction of raw coal to uniform market sizes; and  2)  seg-
regation  of refuse material which usually appears as reject
from  the  first   screening.    Since   these   goals   are
accomplished  with  removal  of  only large refuse material.
Stage 1 cleaning plants achieve maximum  calorific  recovery
 (approximately   95   percent   clean   coal)   but  minimal
improvement in ash and sulfur contents.

Equipment used in this cleaning process  is  common  to  all
stages  of  preparation.  A variety of comminution units are
employed, including single and double roll crushers,  rotary
breakers,  hammer mill and ring crushers, and pick breakers.
                              37

-------
Rotary breakers  (Bradford breakers) serve a dual function by
breaking coal to  a  predetermined  top  size  and  removing
refuse  and  trap  iron.   Thus, this particular comminution
unit  receives  wide  use  throughout  the  coal   industry.
Screens are usually employed in conjunction with crushers to
provide  additional  segregation  or sizing of coal.  Moving
and stationary screens are available to  accomplish  desired
sizing.  The most common screens are punched plate and woven
wire vibrating screens.

Flow paths of coal and refuse within a typical Stage 1 prep-
aration  plant  are  shown  in  Figure 6.  This flow diagram
illustrates the location of standard and optional  equipment
in an entire cleaning system.

A  water  circuit  is  not  included in plant design because
Stage 1 preparation is usually a dry process.  Lack of plant
process water limits water pollution  potential  to  surface
runoff near the plant and from refuse disposal areas.

Stage  2:.   Hydraulic Separation Standard Cleaning.  Stage 2
coal preparation is a standard system that provides a  clean
coal  product  usually  for  the  utility coal market.  This
process typically incorporates  comminution  and  sizing  to
about  8  to  10  centimeters   (3 to H inches) top size, and
optional by-pass of minus 1 centimeter (3/8 inch)   material.
Coal  cleaning  is  usually  accomplished  by  jigs  using a
pulsating fluid flow inducing  particle  stratification  via
alternate  expansion and compaction of a bed of raw coal.  A
density segregation is effected  with  dense  impurities  in
bottom layers and clean coal in upper layers of the particle
bed.   A primary objective of Stage 2 preparation is removal
of liberated mineral matter by  cleaning  at  high  gravity.
This  provides a uniform product with reduced ash and sulfur
content.  Coal  preparation  plants  employing  this  system
accrue  a high calorific recovery with some inherent loss of
combustible material (80 percent clean coal recovery).

Fine coal is usually not cleaned  and  is  directly  blended
with coarse clean coal.  However, Stage 2 preparation plants
can  be modified to include a fine coal circuit for cleaning
minus 1 centimeter (3/8 inch) material.   Cleaning  of  fine
coal  involves  either  wet  or  dry processing and provides
additional quality control.


A very limited number of fine coal cleaning circuits utilize
air cleaning tables.  A thermal dryer may be incorporated to
reduce moisture in advance of air cleaning because excessive
moisture can lower the efficiency of air cleaning processes.
                              38

-------
Deep or Surface

  Mine Area
                                      Trash
                                     Removal
                                     (optional)
 Storage
 bptioran
"V
                                           Rotl Crusher
                                         {optional additional \
                                         v  size control  '
                                               QJ
 Barge


Unit Train
                                               Consumer
                      Truck
      STAGE  I-COAL  PREPARATION PLANT
                        Figure  6
                     39

-------
Most fine coal  cleaning  circuits  employ  shaking  tables,
hydrocyclonesf  or  heavy media cyclones for cleaning fines,
and extreme fines are by-passed to refuse  or  blended  with
coarse  coal.   Mechanical  drying  (centrifuge)  is usually
required with wet cleaning of fine coal.  Thermal drjf^rs are
vised for fine clean coal only when necessary.

Unit operations in a Stage 2 preparation plant are:  Primary
crushing; sizing; gravity separation of coarse  coal;  dewa-
tering  of  clean coal and refuse; and removal of fines from
process  waters.   The  following  equipment  is  frequently
employed  to  perform individual unit operations:  single or
double roll crushers and vibrating screens  for  comminution
and  sizing;  jigs for gravity separation; vibrating screens
for dewatering; and drag tanks and  thickeners  or  settling
ponds to remove coal fines.

Material  transfer  and  equipment  locations  for a Stage 2
preparation plant are shown in Figure 7.  Since Stage 2 coal
preparation utilizes wet processing, degradation of  process
water  will  undoubtedly  occur.   Suspended  solids are the
greatest pollutant, and inclusion of a  fine  coal  cleaning
circuit  intensifies  this  problem.   closed water circuits
with either thickeners or settling  ponds  to  remove  fines
will ameliorate most of the water pollution problems.

A  majority  of  Stage  2 preparation plants surveyed during
•this study had  closed  water  circuits.   In  addition,  pH
control  was occcasionally used to limit acid concentration.
This usually involves addition of lime to make-up water.

Stage _3:  Dense Medium Separation - Complete Cleaning.  Coal
preparation plants grouped in Stage 3 provide  complete  and
sophisticated  coal  cleaning.   Most  metallurgical coal is
subject  to  this  detailed  preparation,  resulting  in   a
superior  quality,  uniform  product  having reduced ash and
sulfur to meet prescribed specifications.  Sized raw coal is
cleaned in a Stage 3 preparation plant by immersing it in  a
fluid  acting at a density intermediately between clean coal
and reject.  This  produces  a  stratification  of  material
according to specific gravity.  Magnetite is the most common
dense  media  employed  for  cleaning coal, although sand is
still occasionally used.

These processes are predicated on a size reduction to attain
the maximum liberation  (freeing of particles)   that  can  be
economically  justified.   The  resultant  increase  of fine
particles requires additional processes to  achieve  maximum
coal  recovery   (approximately  70  percent),  meet moisture
specification for tfce clean coal, and  to  close  the  water
                              40

-------
Raw Coal
                              Breaker
                              (optional)
                                                             Refuse
                                                             Disposal
  Fine
  Coal
 Storage
                             Primary
                             Crusher
       Air Tobies
          T*
        Refuse
       Disposal
               ShaKing Table,
                H.M. Cyclone
                    or
               Hydro-Cyclone
       ewatennq
       Screens
                                    Clean
                                   Coarse
                                    Cool
                                   Storage
 Clean,
  Dry,
  Fine
  Coal
Storage
                                                    Sieve Bin,
                                                    Classifier
                                                       or
                                                    Cyclone
                                                   To Refuse Disposal
                Thickener

              Settling Pond
                              LEGEND
 * • •
         - Route of Fine Coa I
                 Route of Fine Coal
               of Refuse
•-Route of Fresh Make-up Wafer
• -Route of Dirty process Water
• -Route of Clean Process Water
                      1111111111%-Route of Coarse Coal


       STAGE  2-COAL  PREPARATION  PLANT
                              Figure 7
                          41

-------
circuit.  Major unit operations involved in the complexities
of  stage  3  preparation are:  comminutions sizing; gravity
separation; secondary separation;  dewataring;  heavy  media
recovery; and water control.

Equipment   used   in  Stage  3  preparation  plants  varies
according to product requirements  and  individual  operator
preferences  based on raw coal characteristics.  Comminution
is primary crushing usually by a  single  roll  crusher  and
secondary  crushing  using  a double roll crusher.  Material
from the crushers  is  screened  with  topsize  3.8  to  1.9
centimeters  (1  1/2  to  3/4  inches)  going to coarse coal
cleaning and undersize to fine  coal  and  slimes  cleaning.
Coarse  coal separation is generally accomplished with heavy
media  vessels  (1.35  -  1.05  gravities),  and  fine  coal
separation  by heavy media cyclones (1.32 - l.ftS gravities) .
Slimes cleaning usually  involves  hydrocyclones  and  froth
flotation cells.

Clean  coarse  coal  and refuse from heavy media vessels are
dewatered on drain and rinse  screens.   Dewatering  of  the
fine  coal  and  refuse  from  heavy media cyclones includes
sieve bends and centrifuges  as  well  as  drain  and  rinse
screens.   Proper  dewatering  of  slimes  usually  requires
filtering and  thermal  drying.   Thermal  dryers  are  also
occasionally employed to dewater fine coal from centrifuges.
Since  magnetite is a common heavy media used for coal sepa-
ration,  recovery  and  reuse  of  media  is   an   economic
necessity.   The last process in a Stage 3 cleaning plant is
removal  of  particulate  matter  from  process  waters   by
thickeners  (sometimes  settling  ponds)  prior to recycling.
Figures 8, 9, and 10 depict a typical stage 3 coal  prepara-
tion plant for coarse, fine, and coal slime recovery.

Most  Stage  3 preparation plants have closed water circuits
using thickeners to maintain acceptable loads  of  suspended
solids in recycled water.  Froth flotation commonly utilizes
pH  control because both product quality and recovery can be
affected.  Lime is often added to make-up water to  maintain
a  pH between 6.0 and 7.5.  Treatment of small quantities of
make-up water  is  less  costly  than  treatment  of  larger
quantities of water not recycled.
                             42

-------
Raw CoaI
•  Trash
  Removal
iinnuniinnnj
*
                                         Secondary
                                          Crusher
                             Primary
                             Crusher
                              Make-up
                               Water
                              Storage
           |Medium Sump] 5
          Heavy Medio Vessel
                                       .__JL
                                     FINl COAL

              •(See Figure No.9)!
     Drain-Rinse
      Screens
      *
              ,  COAL SH ME
              • PREPARATION
              (See Figure No. I0)i
              I— _ „ ^— _H.— __, _. ^^_. _ _ ^_
                                                LEGEND
    To
  Refuse
  Disposal
{Medium ThicKener] **

      A	
                 Magnetic Separator]
    *+
                         Route of Fine Coal
                         Route of Coarse Coal
                         Route of Refuse
                         Route of Heavy Media Slurry
                      ^-Optional Route-Smk-Roat+Media
                       »>- Route of Sink- Float+Media
                       » -Route of Magnetite
                        - Route of Dirty Process Water
                        - Route of Clean Process Wafer
                        - Route of Fr e sh Make -up Water
 STAGE  3-COARSE COAL PREPARATION PLANT
                              Figure  6
                          43

-------
        BS Rom Deslimtng Scr
        (See Figure No. 8)
         Make-up
          Water
         Storage
                           Heavy Media ,~
                            Cyclone «**
         t
      To Refuse
       Disposal
                     »
                      ^JMagnetic Separator!
              To Desliming Screen
               (See Figure No,8)
                           LEGEND
— — —*- Route of Sink- Float -t-Mtdta
 »*«»»«>-Routeof Magnetite
       ^-Route of Dirty ProcetiWater
       ••-Route of Clean Process Wrier
        Route of Fine Cool •
    ii^-Opt'ionat Route of Fine Coal
 • • • • 
-------

(Hydro
'5£P*


i
i
i
|^--r \Sieve/ "1
1 MS/ |
^ ™^**- Route af Coal Slime
r
terp? t ,,,,,,, ,^
! .
r? ^ 1
Dfsposol

-------

-------
                         SECTION IV

                  INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION
The  development  of effluent limitation guidelines can best
be realized by categorizing the  industry  into  groups  for
which  separate  effluent  limitations  and  new source per-
formance standards should be developed.  This categorization
should represent groups that  have  significantly  different
water pollution potentials or treatment problems.

In  order  to  accomplish  this  task, initial coal industry
categorization was based on four important  characteristics:
1)  rank of coal mined;  2) geographic location;  3)  type of
mine; and  U) size of mine.  Categorization by rank of  coal
mined  was  based  upon the following previously established
Standard Industrial Classification  (Sicy groups:

    SIC 1111 Anthracite Mining
    SIC 1112 Anthracite Mining Services
    Sic 1211 Bituminous Coal and Lignite Mining
    SIC 1213 Bituminous coal and Lignite Mining Services

Bituminous and lignite mining was further subcategorized  by
geographic  region, which was originally believed necessary,
because of anticipated  variations  in  raw  mine  drainage.
These  variations  in mine discharges are determined by such
factors as climate and chemical characteristics of the  coal
and overburden.

Anthracite,    bituminous    and    lignite    mining   were
subcategorized by  mine  type  and  size.   underground  and
surface mining operations were differentiated because of the
obvious  gross  differences  in  mining  techniques.   These
differences could result in significant  variations  in  raw
mine  drainage.  Mine size was also deemed important because
economic considerations, particularly capital and  operating
costs   of  treatment  facilities,  could  prohibit  smaller
operations   from   complying   with    proposed    effluent
limitations.

For the purpose of developing effluent limitation guidelines
the  term  coal  mine  means an active area of land, and all
property placed upon, under or above  the  surface  of  such
land,  used in or resulting from the work of extracting coal
from its natural deposits by any means or  method  including
secondary  recovery  of  coal  from  refuse or other storage

-------
piles derived from the mining, cleaning, or  preparation  of
coal.

A  coal operation is considered as one mine if the pits are:
owned  by  the  same  company,  supervised   by   the   same
superintendent, and located in the same county.

The  term  mine  drainage means any water drained, pumped or
siphoned from a coal mine.

The preliminary  industry  categorization  resulted  in  the
following breakdown:

    I.   Anthracite Mining - Pennsylvania only
         A.   Surface Mines
                   Large - greater than 136,000 KKG
                        (150,000 tons) per year

              2.   Small - less than  136,000 KKG
                                  (150,000 tons) per year
         B.   underground Mines
              1.   Large - greater than 136,000 KKG
                                  (150,000 tons) per year
              2.   Small - less than  136,000 KKG
                                  (150,000 tons) per year
    II.  Anthracite Mining Services   (Preparation Plants)

    III. Bituminous coal and Lignite  Mining
         A.   Eastern and Interior Area - Pennsylvania, Ohio,
              Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky,
              Tennessee, Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
              Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas
              1.   Surface Mines
                   a.   Large - greater than 136,000 KKG
                                  (-150,000 tons) per year
                   b.   small - less  than 136,000 KKG
                                  (150,000 tons) per year
              2.   Underground Mines
                   a.   Large - greater than 136,000 KKG
                                  (150,000 tons) per year
                   b.   small - less  than 136,000 KKG
                                  (150,000 tons) per year
         B.   Western Area - Montana, North Dakota, South
              Dakota, Wyoming, Utah,  Colorado, Arizona, New
              Mexico, Washington, Alaska.
              1.   Surface Mines
                   a.   Large - greater than 136,000 KKG
                                  (150,000 tons) per year
                   b.   Small - less  than 136,000 KKG
                                  (150,000 tons) per year
                             48

-------
              2.   Underground Mines
                   a.   Large - greater than 136,000 KKG
                                  (150,000 tons)  per year
                   b.   Small - less than 136,000 KKG
                                  (150,000 tons)  per year
    IV.  Bituminous and Lignite Mining Services
         (Preparation Plants)
One  of the initial goals of this study was determination of
the validity of this categorization.  The primary source  of
data  utilized  for this evaluation was information obtained
during the study's sampling program and mine  visits.    This
information  was  supplemented  with  data  obtained through
personal  interviews,  literature  review,  and   historical
effluent  quality  data  supplied  by  the coal industry and
regulatory agencies.

Based  upon  an  exhaustive  data  review,  the  preliminary
industry categorization was substantially altered.

The  data  review  revealed there are generally two distinct
classes of raw mine  drainage  -  Acid  or  Ferruginous  and
Alkaline   -  determined  by  regional  and  local  geologic
conditions.   Raw  mine  drainage  is  defined  as  acid  or
ferruginous raw mine drainage if the untreated mine drainage
has  either a pH of less than 6 or a total iron of more than
10 mg/liter.  Raw mine drainage is defined as  alkaline  raw
mine drainage if the untreated raw mine drainage has a pH of
more than 6 and with a total iron of less than 10 mg/liter.

It      was     determined     that     rank     of     coal
(anthracite/bituminous/lignite),      type      of      mine
(surface/underground),  and  mine size did not significantly
affect the categorization of mines by  these  two  raw  mine
drainage classes.

Categorization by rank of coal has been maintained, since it
is  defined  by  the  SIC  classes  that  apply  to the coal
industry.  However, mine size and  type  were  dropped  from
consideration,  and  a  revised  industry categorization was
developed.

This revised industry categorization consisted  of  the  Sic
classes   and   two   large   regions,   determined  by  the
predominance of  Acid  or  Ferruginous  raw  mine  drainage.
Region   I,   states  or  areas  characterized  by  Acid  or
Ferruginous raw mine  drainage  is  comprised  of  Maryland,
Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  northern West Virginia.  Isolated
mines or areas in Western Kentucky and along  the  Illinois-
                              49

-------
Indiana  border  also  exhibit  acid or ferruginous raw mine
drainage.   Region  II  includes  all  the  remaining   coal
producing  areas  which  exhibit  predominantly Alkaline raw
mine drainage.

Statistical analysis  of  all  raw  mine  drainage  obtained
during   the   field   program   substantiated  the  revised
categorization based on the chemical characteristics of  the
raw  mine  drainage.   Based  on  this  information,  it was
determined  there  was  no   need   for   further   industry
categorization  of  the  coal mining segment of the industry
other than by raw mine drainage characteristics.

Mining services were evaluated as to the process waste water
from the coal cleaning process itself-coal preparation plant
waste water.  Drainage, or waste water, from  a  preparation
plant's yards, coal storage areas, and refuse disposal areas
was   evaluated   separately   as,  coal  preparation  plant
ancillary area waste water.

              REVISED INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION

I   Anthracite Mining, Bituminous Coal and
    Lignite Mining
         A.  Acid or Ferruginous Raw Mine Drainage
         B.  Alkaline Raw Mine Drainage

II  Anthracite Mining Services, Bituminous and
    Lignite Mining Services
         A.  Coal Preparation Plant Waste Water
         B.  Coal Preparation Plant Ancillary Area waste Water
                              50

-------
                         SECTION V

                   WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
The  nature  and quantity of pollutants   discharged  in  waste
water   from  surface  and underground coal mining operations
,and  coal   preparation   facilities   varies    significantly
throughout  the  United  States.   The  waste water situation
evident in  the mining segment of the coal industry is unlike
that encountered in most other  industries.   Usually,  most
industries  utilize  water   in  the  specific processes they
employ.  This water frequently  becomes  contaminated  during
the  process  and  must  be  treated prior to discharge.   In
contrast, water is not utilized in the  actual mining of coal
in the  U.S. at the present time except  for dust allaying and
fire protection.  Waste water   handling and  management   is
required in  most  coal mining methods or systems to insure
the  continuance of the mining operation and to   improve  the
efficiency  of the mining operation.  Water enters mines via
precipitation, groundwater infiltration, and surface  runoff
where   it   can  become polluted by contact with materials  in
the  coal, overburden material and  mine  bottom.   This  waste
water is discharged from the mine  as mine drainage which may
require treatment before it can enter  into navigable water.
The  waste water from coal mining operations is  unrelated,  or
only   indirectly   related,   to   production   quantities.
Therefore,  raw  waste  loadings   are   expressed in terms  of
concentration rather than units of production.

In addition to handling and  treating  mine  drainage  during
actual   coal  loading or coal production, coal mine operators
are  faced with the same burden  during idle  periods.   Waste
water   handling  problems are generally insignificant during
initial start-up of  a  new  underground  mining operation.
However, these  problems  continue  to grow as the mine  is
expanded and  developed and,  unless  control  technology   is
employed may continue  indefinitely   as a pollution source
after coal  production has  ceased.  Surface  mines  can   be
somewhat more predictable in their production of waste water
pollutants.   Waste water handling within a surface mine can
be fairly uniform throughout the life of the  mine.   It   is
highly   dependent  upon  precipitation  patterns and control
technology  employed, i.e.:   use of diversion ditches, burial
of toxic materials, and concurrent reclamation. Without the
use  of  control measures at surface mines  the   problems   of
waste    water  pollution    would  also grow   and  continue
indefinitely  after coal production has  ceased.
                              51

-------
In light, of the fact that waste  water  pollution  does  not
necessarily  stop with mine closure, a decision must be made
as to the point at which a mine operator has  fulfilled  his
obligations and responsibilities for waste water control and
treatment  at  a  particular mine site.   This point will be
discussed in detail in Section VII - Control  and  Treatment
Technology.

The   chemical  characteristics  of  raw  mine  drainage  is
determined by local and regional geology  of  the  coal  and
associated   overburden.   Raw  mine  drainage  ranges  from
grossly polluted to drinking water  quality.   Depending  on
hydrologic  conditions, water handling volumes at a mine can
vary from zero to millions of cubic meters per day within  a
geographic area, coal field or even from adjacent mines.

Due  to these widely varying waste water characteristics, it
was necessary to accumulate data over* the broadest  possible
base.   Effluent  quality  data  presented for each industry
category  includes  minimum,  maximum  and  average  values.
These were derived from historical effluent data supplied by
the  coal  industry, various regulatory and research bodies,
and from effluent samples collected and analyzed during this
study.

There has  been  an  extensive  amount  of  historical  data
generated  in  the past 15 years on waste water quality from
surface and underground  coal  mines  and  coal  preparation
plants.   The  principal  pollutants  that characterize mine
drainage have, as a  result,  been  known  for  many  years.
Consequently,  most  water  quality studies have limited the
spectrum of their investigations and analyses to  those  few
key parameters.

The waste water sampling program conducted during this study
had two primary purposes.  First the program was designed to
compensate  for  the  wide diversity of geologic, hydrologic
and mining conditions in the major producing coal fields  by
obtaining  representative  waste  water data for every coal-
producing state.  Second,  the  scope  of  the  waste  water
analyses  was  expanded  to  include not only the previously
established group of important paramenters, but all elements
which could be present in mine drainage.  The resultant list
of potential mine drainage  pollutants  for  which  analyses
were performed is included in Table 6, Section VI.

Waste  water analysis data obtained during the study as well
as the historical data, indicated the following constituents
commonly increased in concentrations over  background  water
quality   levels:   acidity,  total  iron,  dissolved  iron.
                              52

-------
manganese, aluminum, nickel, zinc, total  suspended  solids,
total  dissolved  solids,  sulfates,  ammonia,  fluoride and
strontium,

Data evaluation also revealed that  there \were  only  minor
differences  in  the  chemical  characteristics  of raw mine
drainage from  surface  and  underground  mines  in  similar
geologic settings.

Major  differences  were observed between the two classes of
raw mine drainage  which  are  generally  representative  of
geographic  areas.   These differences reflect the nature of
the coal and overburden material and are unrelated  to  mine
type or size.  To illustrate these differences, the raw mine
drainage   data   utilized   in   this   study   for   waste
characterization is presented in Tables 1, 2, 3 and ft.  This
data  represents  all  untreated   mine   drainage   samples
collected and analyzed during the initial study conducted in
the summer and fall of 1971.

Evaluation  of  all  waste  water  sample  data  from  mines
revealed that there were four basic types of effluent  based
on  water  analysis:  1J acid mine drainage - untreated mine
drainage   characterized   as   acid    with    high    iron
concentrations,   definitely  requiring  neutralization  and
sedimentation treatment; 2) discharge effluent  -  untreated
mine  drainage  of  generally  acceptable quality, i.e., not
requiring  neutralization  or  sedimentation;  3)  sediment-
bearing  effluent  -mine  drainage  which has passed through
settling ponds or basins without a neutralization treatment;
a*»3 *) treated mine drainage - mine drainage which has  been
neutralized and passed through a sedimentation process.

Means and standard deviations were computed and assessed for
treated,  discharge, and sediment-bearing samples,  in order
to evaluate the need for  regional  variations  in  effluent
limitations, additional statistical analyses were performed.

The  analysis data for treated mine drainage indicated that,
for  the  most  part,  waste  water   treatment   techniques
currently  employed  by the coal mining industry are capable
of reducing the concentrations of constituents of  raw  mine
drainage  which  are considered harmful to aquatic organisms
or  are  objectionable  as  to  taste,  odor,  or  color  to
acceptable levels.

The   data   also  indicated  that  discharge  effluent  and
sediment-bearing effluent quality was commonly  superior  to
the quality of treated .mine drainage from the most efficient
treatment  plants,  regardless  of  region.   Based  on this
                              53

-------
information, it. was determined that there was  no  need  for
further  waste  categorization  of  the  coal mining segment
other than by raw mine drainage characteristics,  which  are
in turn related to the type of treatment that is required.

The  raw  waste  characteristics  of  coal preparation plant
process water  are  highly  dependent  upon  the  particular
process  or  recovery  technique  utilized in the operation.
Since process techniques generally require an alkaline media
for efficient and economic operation, process water does not
dissolve significant quantities of the constituents  present
in  raw  coal.   The  principal  pollutant  present  in coal
preparation plant process water  is  suspended  solids.   In
plants   utilizing  froth  flotation  (Stage  3  Preparation
Plants) for recovery of coal fines (-28 mesh) , process water
typically contains less total suspended solids  than  plants
which  do  not  recover  coal  fines.  Analyses of raw water
slurry (untreated process water from  the  wet  cleaning  of
coal)  from  several  typical preparation facilities that do
not employ froth flotation are summarized in Table 5.

It is important to note that  of  the  more  than  180  coal
preparation  facilities  utilizing  wet  cleaning  processes
investigated during this study (either through  site  visits
or  industry supplied data) , over 60% in varying terrain and
geographic locations had or reported closed water  circuits.
Of  the  plants  visited  which  did  not  use  closed water
circuits virtually all employed some form of  treatment  for
solids removal prior to discharge.

The  waste characteristics of waste water from coal storage,
refuse storage and coal preparation plant ancillary areas is
characterized as being generally similar  to  the  raw  mine
drainage  at  the  mine  served  by  the  preparation plant.
Geologic and geographic setting of the mine and  the  nature
of  the coal mined affect the characteristics of these waste
waters.

For the most part  water  usage  and  discharges  from  coal
preparation  facilities  are  similar  to  other  industrial
processes, i.e., water is used  in  the  process,  and  upon
plant  shut-down  water  usage  (and resultant discharge)  is
eliminated.

Drainage from a preparation plant's refuse disposal area  is
similar  to  a  surface mine in that this waste water from a
refuse disposal area  can  continue  to  pollute  after  the
preparation  plant  is  shut down or closed.  Like a surface
mine, waste water handling volumes for a preparation plant1s
refuse disposal area is highly  dependent  on  precipitation
                              54

-------
 patterns.    Control  technology employed to  control  pollution
 after  shut down are  similar to those  employed at  a  surface
 mine to  control pollution  after the mine  is closed.

 Based    on    these   considerations  and  the   industry
 categorization  the   following waste characterization  was
 established;

 Waste  Characterization
a                                           •
 I  Anthracite Mining, Bituminous Coal and
    Lignite Mining
         A. Acid or  Ferruginous Raw Mine  Drainage
             1,  Treated Mine Drainage
         B. Alkaline Raw Mine Drainage
             1.  Discharge  Effluent
             2.  sediment-bearing  Effluent

 II Anthracite Mining services. Bituminous  Coal
    and  Lignite Mining services
         A.  Coal Preparation Plant Waste Water
         B.  Coal Storage, Refuse storage,  and  Coal
              Preparation Plant Ancillary  Waste  Water
                              55

-------
                          TABLE 1

   RAW MINE DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS
                          ALKALINE
- UNDERGROUND MINES
Parameters
pH
Alkalinity
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
Manganese
Aluminum
Sine
Nickel
TDS
TSS
Hardness
Sulfate
Ammonia
Minimum
(mg/1)
6.6
22
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
418
1
52
10
0.02
Maximum
(mg/1)
8.5
1,8*0
9.10
0.95
0.41
0.60
0.30
0.02
22,658
76
1,520
1,370
4.00
Mean
(mg/1)
7.9
469
1.54
0.25
0.08
0.13
0.06
0.01
2,702
26
455
495
0.94
Std. Dev.

_
451
2.52
0.33
o.ii
0.12
0.07
0.002
5,034
23
445
426
1.17
                              56

-------
                        TABLE 2

RAW MINE DRAINAGE  CHARACTERISTICS - UNDERGROUND MINES
                 ACID OR FERRUGINOUS
Parameters

pH
Alkalinity
Total iron
Dissolved Iron
Manganese
Aluminum
Zinc
Nickel
TDS
TSS
Hardness
Sulfate
Ammonia
Minimum

2.1
0
0.24
0.05
0.04
0.10
0.02
0.01
12
1
142
300
00
Maximum
(mg/1)
8.2
720
9,300
5,000
92
533
12.7
5.59
15,572
1,740
5,000
9,711
57
Mean

-------
                          TABLE 3
     RAW MINE DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS
                          ALKALINE
         - SURFACE MINES
Parameter
Minimum
(mg/1)
Maximum
(mg/1)
Mean
Std. Dev.

pH                6.2
Alkalinity        30
Total Iron        0.02
Dissolved Iron    0,01
Manganese         0.01
Aluminum          0.10
Zinc              0 -. 01
Nicfcel            0.01
TDS               152
TSS                1
Hardness          76
Sulfate           42
Ammonia           0.04
 8.2
 860
 6.70
 2.7
 6.8
 0.85
 0.59
 0.18
8,358
 684
2,900
3,700
  36
 7.7
 313
 0.78
 0.15
 0.61
 0.20
 0.14
 0.02
2,867
  96
1,290
1,297
 4.19
  183
 1.87
 0.52
 1.40
 0.22
 0.16
. 0.04
2,057
  215
  857
1,136
 6.88
                              58

-------
                     TABLE 4

RAW MINE DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS -  SURFACE MINES
               ACID OR FERRUGINOUS
Parameter

pH
Alkalinity
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
Manganese
Aluminum
Zinc
Nickel
TDS
TSS
Hardness
Sulfate
Ammonia
Minimum
(mg/1)
2.6
0
0.08
0.01
0.29
0.10
0.06
0.01
120
4
24
22
0.53
Maximum
(mg/1)
7.7
184
440
440
127
271
7.7
5
8f870
15,878
5,400
3,860
22
Mean
(mg/1)
3.6
5
52.01
50.1
45.11
71.2
1.71
0.71
4,060
549
1,944
1,842
6.48
Std. Dev.


32
101
102.4
42.28
79.34
1.71
1.05
3,060
2,713
1,380
1,290
4.70
                         59

-------
                          TABLE 5
        RAW WASTE CHARACTERISTICS - COM. PREPARATION
                    PLANT PROCESS WATER
parameters
Minimum
(mg/1)
Maximum
(mg/1)
Mean
Std. Dev,

ph
Alkalinity
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
Manganese  •
Aluminum
Zinc
Nickel
TDS
TSS
Hardness
Sulfat.es
Ammonia
   7.3
   62
   0,03
    0
   0.3
   0.1
  0.01
  0,01
  636
2,698
1,280
  979
   0
    8.1
    402
    187
    6.4
   t.21
    29
    2.6
   0.5i»
  2,240
156,(VOO
  1,800
  1,029
    U
   7.7
   160
  «»7.8
  0.92
  1.67
 10,62
  0.56
  0.15
 1,433
62,448
 1,540
 1,004
  2.01
96.07
59.39
 2.09
 1.14
11.17
 0.89
 0.19
543.9
8,372
 260
  25
 1.53
                              60

-------
                         SECTION VI

             SELECTIPN OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
CONSTITUENTS EVALUATED

As  previously  mentioned  in  Section  V, the water quality
investigation preceding development  of  effluent  guideline
recommendations   covered   a   wide   range   of  potential
pollutants.  The study was initiated with a  compilation  of
chemical  constituents  which  could be found in coal or its
overburden material.  A complete list of analyses  performed
on each water sample collected is presented in Table 6.  The
analytical  procedures  used  are  in  accordance  with  the
procedures published  in  the  Federal  Register,  Vol.  38,
number 199, October 16, 1973.

GUIDELINE PARAMETER SELECTION CRITERIA

Selection  of  parameters  for  the  purpose  of  developing
effluent limitation guidelines was based  primarily  on  the
following criteria:

    a.   Constituents which are frequently present  in  mine
         drainage  in  concentrations deleterious to aquatic
         organisms.

    b.   Technology exists for the reduction or  removal  of
         the pollutants in question.

    c.   Research data  indicating  that  excessive  concen-
         trations  of  specific  constituents are capable of
         disrupting an aquatic ecosystem.
MAJOR PARAMETERS - RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OR REJECTION

Evaluation of all available effluent analysis data indicated
that   the   concentrations   of   certain   mine   drainage
constituents    were    consistently    greater   than   the
concentrations considered deleterious to  aquatic  organisms
or  the  concentration  capable  of  disrupting  an  aquatic
ecosystem.

The  following  were  identified  as  the  major   pollutant
constituents in coal mine drainage.

    Acidity                  Aluminum
    Total Iron               Nickel
                              61

-------

-------
                          TABLE 6

    POTMTIAL J:QHSTITOTENTS OF COAL
Majo r Cons 1 1 ruent s - To tal        Minor Copstituenta -Total

Acidity                           Arsenic
Alkalinity                        Barium
Aluminum                          Cadmium
Boron                             Chromium
Calcium                           Copper
Chlorides                         Cyanide
Dissolved Solids                  Lead
Fluorides                         Mercury
Hardness                          Molybedenum
Iron                              Selenium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel.          .                                 .
Potassium
Silicon
Sbdiun
Strontium
Sulfatjes
Suspended Solids
Zinc

Ma4.or  ConatituentB - Dissolved    Minor Constituents - Pi a solved

Aluminum                          Arsenic
Boron                             Barium
Calcium                          Cadmium
Iron                              Chromium
Magnesium                         Copper
Manganese                         Lead
Hickel                           Mercury
Silicon                          Molybdenum
Strontium                         Selenium
Zinc
 Additional Analyses

 Acidity,  net
 Acidity,  pH&
 Ammonia
 Color
 Ferrous Iron
 Oils*
 P«
 Specific Conductance
 Turbidity

 * Preparation Plants Only

-------
    Dissolved Iron           Zinc
    Manganese                Total Suspended Solids
    sulfates                 Total Dissolved solids
    Ammonia                  Fluorides
    strontium

The  major  pollutant  constituents  identified  in effluent
drainage from coal preparation plants are:

    Acidity                  Total Suspended Solids
    Total Iron               Total Dissolved solids
    Dissolved Iron           Fluorides
    Ammonia                  Sulfates

The parameters selected for establishing effluent limitation
guidelines  and  standards  of  performance  for  the   coal
industry   are  presented,  with  the  rationale  for  their
selection, in the following discussion.

PH, Acidity and Alkalinity

Acidity and alkalinity are  reciprocal  terms.   Acidity  is
produced   by  substances  that  yield  hydrogen  ions  upon
hydrolysis and alkalinity is  produced  by  substances  that
yield  hydroxyl  ions.  The terms "total acidity" and "total
alkalinity" are often used to express the buffering capacity
of a solution.  Acidity  in  natural  waters  is  caused  by
carbon dioxide, mineral acids, weakly dissociated acids, and
the  salts  of  strong  acids and weak bases.  Alkalinity is
caused by strong bases and the salts of strong alkalies  and
weak acids.

The term pH is a logarithinic expression of the concentration
of  hydrogen  ions.  At a pH of 7, the hydrogen and hydroxyl
ion concentrations are essentially equal and  the  water  is
neutral.   Lower  pH  values  indicate  acidity while higher
values indicate alkalinity.  The relationship between pH and
acidity or alkalinity is not necessarily linear or direct.

Waters with a pH below 6.0  are  corrosive  to  water  works
structures,   distribution  lines,  and  household  plumbing
fixtures and can thus  add  such  constituents  to  drinking
water as iron, copper, zinc, cadmium and lead.  The hydrogen
ion concentration can affect the "taste" of the water.  At a
low  pH  water  tastes  "sour".   The bactericidal effect of
chlorine  is  weakened  as  the  pH  increases,  and  i£  is
advantageous  to  keep  the  pH  close  to  7.  This is very
significant for providing safe drinking water.
                             62

-------
Extremes  of  pH  or  rapid  pH  changes  can  exert  stress
conditions  or  kill  aquatic  life!  outright.   Dead  fish,
associated algal blooms, and  foul  stenches  are  aesthetic
liabilities  of  any  waterway.   Even moderate changes from
"acceptable" criteria limits of pH are deleterious  to  some
species.   The  relative  toxicity  to  aquatic life of many
materials  is  increased  by  changes  in  the   water   pH.
Metalocyanide  complexes  can  increase  a  thousand-fold in
toxicity with a drop of 1.5 pH units.  The  availability  of
many  nutrient  substances  varies  with  the alkalinity and
acidity.  Ammonia is more lethal with a higher pfl.

The  lacrimal  fluid  6f  the  human  eye  has   a   pH   of
approximately  7.0  and  a deviation of 0.1 pH unit from the
norm  may  result  in  eye  irritation  for   the   swimmer,
Appreciable irritation will cause severe pain.

Due to the significant impact of low pH's and high acidities
on  receiving streams and the fact that these parameters can
be  easily  controlled,  effluent  limitations   have   been
proposed for fchis parameter.

Total and Dissolved iron

Iron  is  one of the major pollutants of coal mine drainage,
and is frequently found in coal preparation  plant  drainage
in  objectionable concentrations.  Precipitated iron, in the
form of ferric hydroxide or ferric sulfate, blankets  stream
bottoms, destroying aquatic life and aesthetically degrading
those  streams.   Both dissolved and suspended iron can pre-
cipitate on the gills of fish and can eventually  accumulate
to  lethal  concentrations.   Industrial and municipal water
supplies are affected by objectionable taste, staining,  and
encrustation resulting from iron deposition.

Natural  waters  may  be polluted by iron-bearing industrial
wastes such as those from pickling  operations  and  by  the
leaching  of  soluble  iron  salts from soil and rocks, e.g.
acid-mine drainage and iron-bearing ground water.

Although many of the ferric and ferrous salts  such  as  the
chlorides  are highly soluble in water, the ferrous ions are
readily oxidized in natural surface  waters  to  the  ferric
condition an<3 form insoluble hydroxides.  These precipitates
tend  to  agglomerate, flocculate, and settle or be absorbed
on surfacesj  hence,  the  concentration  of  iron  in  well
aerated  waters is seldom high.  In ground water, the pH may
be such that high concentrations of iron remain in solution.
                              63

-------
Iron la trace amounts is essential for  nutrition.   Indeed,
larger   quantities   of  iron  are  taken  for  therapeutic
purposes.  The daily nutritional requirement is 1 to  2  mg,
and  most  diets contain 7 to 35 mg per day, with an average
of 16.

Instead of physiological reasons, therefore,  the  limit  is
based  on  esthetic  and  taste  considerations,   Iron  and
manganese tend to pecipitate as hydroxides and stain laundry
and porcelain fixtures.  It  has  also  been  reported  that
ferric  iron  combines  with  the tannin in tea to produce a
dark violet color.

The taste threshold of iron in water has been given  as  0.1
and  0.2  mg/1  of  iron  from  ferrous  sulfate and ferrous
chloride respectively.   It  has  also  been  reported  that
ferrous  iron imparts a taste at 0.1 mg/1 and ferric iron at
0.2 mg/1.

Iron is  an  essential  constituent  of  animal  diets,  but
animals are sensitive to changes in iron conentration.  Cows
will  not  drink  enough  water  if  it is high in iron* and
consequently, milk production is affected.

Most of the references dealing with this beneficial use  are
expressed  in  terms  of  specific iron salts.  When iron is
added to water  in  the  form  of  chlorides,  sulfates,  or
nitrates,  the salt dissociates but the resulting ferrous or
ferric ions combine with hydroxyl ions to form precipitates.
Hence, very little of the iron remains in solution;  but  if
the  dosage  is  sufficient  and  the  water is not strongly
buffered, the addition of a soluble iron salt may lower  the
pH  of  the  water  to  a  toxic  level.   Furthermore,  the
deposition of iron hydroxides on the gills of fish may cause
an irritation and  blocking  of  the  respiratory  channels.
Finally,  heavy precipitates of ferric hydroxide may smother
fish eggs.  When testing the effects of  wastes  from  nail-
making  plants  on trout, stickleback, and perch with wastes
containing concentrations of chloride, hydrogen, ferric  and
ferrous  ions,  concentrations  of  1000 mg/1 of these mixed
salts killed most fish within a few hours, hardy stickleback
were not killed until five  hours  exposure  to  2500  mg/1.
Much  of  the  killing  action was attributed to coatings of
iron oxide or hydroxide  precipitates  on  the  gills.   The
toxicity  of rion and iron salts depends on whether the iron
is present in the ferrous or ferric state and whether it  is
in solution or suspension.

Crenothrix,  Gallionella,  and  other  iron bacteria utilize
iron as a source of energy and store it in  their  microbial

-------
protoplasm.  They may accumulate in wells, treatment plants,
pipelines,  anil  othet  water  works structures; or they may
pass  into  the  distribution  system  and  cause   customer
complaints.   Trouble  with  this  organism  is  experienced
frequently when the iron exceeds 0.2 mg/1.

Total and dissolved iron parameters can be relatively easily
controlled, since the  same  neutralization  processes  that
control  acidity  and  pH  cause  iron  to  precipitate from
solution.  As a result of these several factors,  guidelines
have   been  developed  for  the  limitation  of  total  and
dissolved iron concentrations.

Total Suspended Solids

Suspended  solids  include  both   organic   and   inorganic
materials.  The inorganic components include sand, 'Silt, and
clay.   The  organic  fraction  includes  such  materials as
grease, oil, tar, animal and vegetable fats, various fibers,
sawdust, hair, and various  materials  from  sewers.   These
solids  may settle out rapidly and bottom deposits are often
a mixture  of  both  organic  and  inorganic  solids.   They
adversely  affect  fisheries  by  covering the bottom of the
stream or lake with a blanket of material that destroys  the
fish-food  bottom  fauna  or  the  spawning  ground of fish.
Deposits containing organic  materials  may  deplete  bottom
oxygen   supplies   and  produce  hydrogen  sulfide,  carbon
dioxide, methane, and other noxious gases.

In raw water sources for domestic use,  state  and  regional
agencies  generally specify that suspended solids in streams
shall not be  present  in  sufficient  concentration  to  be
objectionable   or   to   interfere  with  normal  treatment
processes.  Suspended solids in  water  may  interfere  with
many  industrial processes, and cause foaming in boilers, or
encrustations on equipment exposed to water,  especially  as
the  temperature rises.  Suspended solids are undesirable in
water for textile industries;  paper  and  pulp;  beverages;
dairy  products;  laundries;  dyeing;  photography;  cooling
systems, and power plants.  Suspended particles  also  serve
as a transport mechanism for pesticides and other substances
which are readily sorbed into or onto clay particles.

Solids may be suspended in water for a time, and then settle
to  the  bed of the stream or lake*  These settleable solids
discharged  with  man's  wastes   may   be   inert,   slowly
biodegradable materials, or rapidly decomposable substances.
While  in  suspension,  they  increase  the turbidity of the
water,   reduce   light   penetration   and    impair    the
photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants.
                              65

-------
Solids  in  suspension  are aesthetically displeasing.  When
they settle to form deposits on the stream or lake bed, they
are often much more damaging to the life in water, and  they
retain  the  capacity to displease the senses.  Solids, when
transformed to sludge deposits, may do a variety of damaging
things, including blanketing the  stream  or  lake  bed  and
thereby  destroying  the  living  spaces  for  those benthic
organisms that would otherwise occupy the habitat.  When  an
organic  and  therefore  decomposable  nature,  solids use a
portion or all of the  dissolved  oxygen  available  in  the
area.    Organic   materials   also  serve  as  a  seemingly
inexhaustible food source  for  sludgeworms  and  associated
organisms.

Turbidity  is  principally  a measure of the light absorbing
properties of suspended solids.  It is frequently used as  a
substitute  method of quickly estimating the total suspended
solids when the concentration is relatively low.

As a result of these serious effects on  receiving  streams,
effluent  limitations have been proposed for total suspended
solids in this report.

Manganese

The presence of manganese may interfere  with  water  usage,
since  manganese stains materials, especially when the pH is
raised  as  in  laundering,  scouring,  or   other   washing
operations.   These  stains,  if  not masked by iron, may be
dirty brown, gray or black in color  and  usually  occur  in
spots  and streaks.  Waters containing manganous bicarbonate
cannot  be  used  in  the  textile  industries,  in  dyeing,
tanning,  laundering,  or in hosts of other industrial uses.
In the pulp and paper industry, waters containing above 0.05
mg/1 manganese cannot  be  tolerated  except  for  low-grade
products.   Very small amounts of manganese—0.2 to 0.3 mg/1
may form heavy encrustations in piping, while  even  smaller
amounts may form noticeable black deposits.

Nickel

Elemental   nickel  seldom  occurs  in  nature,  but  nickel
compounds are found in many ores and minerals.   As  a  pure
metal  it  is not a problem in water pollution because it is
not affected by, or soluble in, water.  Many  nickel  salts,
however, are highly soluble in water.

Nickel  is extremely toxic to citrus plants.  It is found in
many soils in California, generally in insoluble  form,  but
excessive  acidification of such soil may render.it soluble.
                             66

-------
causing severe injury to  or  the  death  of  plants.   Many
experiments with plants in solution cultures have shown that
nickel at 0.5 to 1.0 mg/1 Is inhibitory to growth.

Nickel salts can kill fish at very low concentrations.  Data
for  the fathead minnow show death occurring in the range of
5-H3 mg/1, depending on the alkalinity of the water.

Nickel is present in coastal and open  ocean  concentrations
in  the  range  of  0,1 - 6.0 ug/1, although the most common
values are 2-3 ug/1.  Marine animals  contain  up  to  400
ug/1,  and  marine  plants  contain  up  to 3,000 ug/1.  The
lethal limit of nickel to some marine fish has been reported
as low as 0.8 ppm.  Concentrations of 13.1  mg/1  have  been
reported   to   cause   a   50   percent  reduction  of  the
photosynthetic  activity  in  the  giant  kelp   {Macrocyjstia
•pyrifera)  in 96 hours, and a low concentration was found to
kill oyster eggs.

Zinc

Occurring abundantly in rocks  and  ores,  zinc  is  readily
refined into a stable pure metal and is used ejetensively for
galvanizing, in alloys, for electrical purposes, in printing
plates,  for  dye-manufacture  and for dyeing processes, and
for many other industrial purposes.  Zinc salts are used  in
paint    pigments,    cosmetics,    pharmaceuticalsr   dyes,
insecticides,  and  other  products  too  numerous  to  list
herein.   Many  of these salts  {e.g., zinc chloride and zinc
sulfate) are highly soluble in water;  hence  it  is  to  be
expected  that  zinc  might occur in many industrial wastes.
On the other hand, some tine  salts  (zinc  carbonate,  zinc
oxide, zinc sulfide) are insoluble in water and consequently
it  is to be expected that some zinc will precipitate and be
removed readily in most natural waters.
                                        i
In zinc-mining areas, zinc  has  been  found  in  waters  in
concentrations  as  high  as  50  mg/1 and in effluents from
metal-plating works and small-arms ammunition plants it  may
occur  in  significant  concentrations.  In most surface and
ground waters, it is present only in trace  amounts.   There
is  some  evidence  that zinc ions are adsorbed strongly and
permanently on silt, resulting in inactivation of the zinc.

Concentrations of zinc in excess of 5 mg/1 in raw water used
for drinking water supplies cause an undesirable taste which
persists through conventional treatment.  Zinc'can  have  an
adverse effect on man and animals at high concentrations.
                              67

-------
In  soft  water,  concentrations of zinc ranging from 0.1 to
1.0 mg/1 have been reported to be lethal to fish.   Zinc  is
thought  to  exert  its  toxic  action  by forming insoluble
compounds with the mucous that covers the gills,  by  damage
to the gill epithelium, or possibly by acting as an internal
poison.   The  sensitivity  of  fish  to  zinc  varies  with
species, age and condition, as well as with the physical and
chemical characteristics of the water.  Some acclimatization
to the presence of zinc  is  possible.   It  has  also  been
observed  that  the effects of ziric poisoning may not become
apparent  immediately,  so  that  fish  removed  from  zinc-
contaminated to zinc-free water (after 4-6 hours of exposure
to  zinc) may die 48 hours later.   The presence of copper in
water  may  increase  the  toxicity  of  zinc   to   aquatic
organisms,  but  the  presence  of  calcium,  or hardness may
decrease the relative toxicity.

Observed values for the distribution of zinc in ocean waters
vary widely.  The  major  concern  with  zinc  compounds  in
marine  waters  is  not one of acute toxicity, but rather of
the long-term sub-lethal effects of the  metallic  compounds
and  complexes.   From  an  acute  toxicity  point  of view,
invertebrate marine animals seem to be  the  most  sensitive
organisms  tested.   The  growth  of  the  sea  urchin,  for
example, has been retarded by as little as 30 ug/1 of zinc.

Zinc sulfate has also  been  found  to  be  lethal  to  many
plants, and it could impair agricultural uses.

Effluent   limitations  have  been  proposed  for  aluminum,
manganese, nickel and zine because of their presence in  raw
mine drainage in quantitites sufficient to seriously degrade
receiving   waters.    Significant   reductions   of   these
constituents have been demonstrated in exemplary  coal  mine
drainage  treatment  plants,  where  they  are  achieved  in
conjunction with simple acid neutralization.
Several additional parameters were identified in  acid  mine
drainage   and   coal  preparation  plant  waste  waters  in
concentrations  in  excess   of   existing   water   quality
standards,  but were not recommended for effluent limitation
guidelines.  These parameters and the  rationale  for  their
rejection in guideline establishment, are discussed below:

Total Dissolved solids

In  natural  waters  the  dissolved solids consist mainly of
carbonates, chlorides, sulfates,  phosphates,  and  possibly
                              68

-------
nitrates  of calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium, with
traces of iron, manganese and other substances.

Many communities in the United States and in other countries
use water supplies containing 2000 to 4000 mg/1 of dissolved
salts, when no better water is available,  such  waters  are
not:  palatable,  may  not  quench  thirst,  and  may  have a
laxative action on new users.  Waters containing  more  than
4000  mg/1 of total salts are generally considered unfit for
human  use,  although,  in  hot  climates  such  higher  salt
concentrations can be tolerated whereas they could not be in
temperate climates.  Waters containing 5000 mg/1 or more are
reported  to  be  bitter  and  act as bladder and intestinal
irritants.   It  is   generally   agreed   that   the   salt
concentration of good, palatable water should not exceed 500
mg/1.

Limiting  concentrations of dissolved solids for fresh-water
fish may range from  5,000  to  10,000  mg/1,  according  to
species and prior acclimatization.  Some fish are adapted to
living  in  more  saline waters, and a few species of fresh-
water forms have been found in natural waters  with  a  salt
concentration  of  15,000  to  20,000 mg/1.  Fish can slowly
become acclimatized to higher salinities, but fish in waters
of low salinity  cannot  survive  sudden  exposure  to  high
salinities,  such as those resulting from discharges of oil-
well brines.  Dissolved solids may influence the toxicity of
heavy metals and organic compounds to fish and other aquatic
life,  primarily  because  of  the  antagonistic  effect  of
hardness on metals.

Waters  with  total  dissolved  solids  over  500  mg/1 have
decreasing utility as irrigation water.  At 5,000 mg/1 water
has little or no value for irrigation.

Dissolved solids in industrial waters can cause  foaming  in
boilers  and  cause  interference  with  cleaness, color, or
taste of many finished products.  High contents of dissolved
solids also tend to accelerate corrosion.

Specific conductance is a measure of the capacity  of  water
to  convey an electric current.  This property is related to
the total concentration pf ionized substances in  water  and
water  temperature.   This  property is frequently used as a
substitute method of quickly estimating the dissolved solids
concentration.

Although the level of total dissolved solids attributable to
the coal mining industry S9metimes exceeds accepted drinking
water standards, it generally does not approach levels toxic
                              69

-------
to plants or animals.  In view of this, and  the  fact  that
technology  for economic dissolved solids reduction does not
exist, effluent limitations have not been proposed for  this
parameter.

Sulfates

Due to overburden characteristics, drainages associated with
coal-producing  and  coal-processing  facilities  frequently
contain significant amounts of sulfates.  While  excessively
high  concentrations of sulfates can affect the palatability
of drinking water, the  effects  on  aquatic  organisms  are
minimal.   Sulfates generally undergo little or no reduction
in normal neutralization  facilities.   For  these  reasons,
effluent   limitations  have  not  been  proposed  for  this
parameter.

Fluorides

As the most reactive non-metal, fluorine is never found free
in nature but as a constituent,  of  fluorite  or  fluorspar,
calcium fluoride, in sedimentary rocks and also of cryolite,
sodium  aluminum fluoride, in igneous rocks. -Owing to their
origin only in certain types of rocks  and  only  in  a  few
regions,  fluorides  in high concentrations are not a common
constituent of natural surface waters, but they may occur in
detrimental concentrations in ground waters.

Fluorides are used as insecticides, for disinfecting brewery
apparatus, as a  flux  in  the  manufacture  of  steel,  for
preserving  wood and mucilages, for the manufacture of glass
and enamels, in chemical industries,  for  water  treatment,
and for other uses.

Fluorides  in  sufficient quantity are toxic to humans, with
doses of 250 to t50 mg giving  severe  symptoms  or  causing
death.

There  are  numerous  articles  describing  the  effects  of
fluoride-bearing waters on dental enamel of children;  these
studies  lead  to  the  generalization that water containing
less than 0.9 to 1.0 mg/1  of  fluoride  will  seldom  cause
mottled  enamel  in children, and for adults, concentrations
less than 3 or 4  mg/1  are  not  likely  to  cause  endemic
cumulative   fluorosis   and   skeletal  effects.   Abundant
literature is also available describing  the  advantages  of
maintaining  0.8  to  1.5  mg/1  of fluoride ion in drinking
water to aid in the reduction of  dental  decay,  especially
among children.
                              70

-------
Chronic fluoride poisoning of livestock has been observed in
areas   where  water  contained  10  to  15  mg/1  fluoride.
Concentrations of 30 - 50 mg/1  of  fluoride  in  the  total
ration  of  dairy  cows  is considered the upper safe limit.
Fluoride from waters apparently does not accumulate in  soft
tissue  to  a  significant degree and it is transferred to a
very small extent into the milk and to  a  somewhat  greater
degree  into  eggs.   Data  for  fresh  water  indicate that
fluorides are toxic to fish at  concentrations  higher  than
1.5 mg/1.

Samples collected during this study indicate treatment plant
effluents routinely contain concentrations of 1 to 2 mg/1 of
fluorides.   Since  economic  technology  does not exist for
further removal at these  relatively  low  levels,  effluent
limitations have not been proposed for flourides.

strontium

Strontium  is  commonly  found  in drainage from coal mining
operations   in   concentrations   slightly   above    those
recommended  by  existing  water  quality standards.  Little
published data is available on toxic  effects  of  strontium
and   it  is  not  known  to  interfere  with  municipal  or
industrial  water   treatment   processes.    In   addition,
technology  has  not  been developed for economic removal of
strontium at relatively low concentrations.  In light of its
apparently minimal impact on receiving  stream  quality  and
the  fact  that  it  cannot  be  removed economically at low
concentrations, effluent limitations have not been  proposed
for this constituent.

Ammonia

Ammonia  is a common product of the decomposition of organic
matter.  Dead and decaying animals  and  plants  along  with
human and animal body wastes account for much of the ammonia
entering  the  aquatic ecosystem.  Ammonia exists in its un-
ionized form only at higher pH levels and is the most  toxic
in  this  state.  The lower the pH, the more ionized ammonia
is formed and  its  toxicity  decreases.   Ammonia,  in  the
presence  of dissolved oxygen, is converted to nitrate (NO3)
by  nitrifying  bacteria.   Nitrite   (NO2) ,  which   is   an
intermediate  product between ammonia and nitrate, sometimes
occurs in quantity when depressed oxygen conditions  permit.
Ammonia  can  exist  in  several other chemical combinations
including ammonium chloride and other salts.

Nitrates  are  considered  to   be   among   the   poisonous
ingredients  of  mineralized  waters, with potassium nitrate
                              71

-------
being more poisonous than sodium nitrate.   Excess  nitrates
cause    irritation   of   the   mucous   linings   of   the
gastrointestinal tract and the  bladder;  the  symptoms  are
diarrhea  and  diuresis,  and  drinking  one  liter of water
containing 500 mg/1 of nitrate can cause such symptoms.

Infant methemoglobinemia, a disease characterized by certain
specific blood changes and cyanosis, may be caused  by  high
nitrate  concentrations  in  the  water  used  for preparing
feeding formulae,  while it is  still  impossible  to  state
precise concentration limits, it has been widely recommended
that  water containing more than 10 mg/1 of nitrate nitrogen
(NO3-N) should not be used for infants.  Nitrates  are  also
harmful in fermentation processes and can cause disagreeable
tastes  in beer.  In most natural water the pH range is such
that ammonium ions- (NHJH-J predominate.  In alkaline  waters,
however,   high  concentrations  of  un-ionized  ammonia  in
undissociated ammonium hydroxide increase  the  toxicity  of
ammonia  solutions.   In streams polluted with sewage, up to
one half of the nitrogen in the sewage may be in the form of
free ammonia, and sewage may carry up to 35  mg/1  of  total
nitrogen.  It has been shown that at a level of 1.0 mg/1 un-
ionized  ammonia,  the ability of hemoglobin to combine with
oxygen  is  impaired  and  fish  may  suffocate.    Evidence
indicates that ammonia exerts a considerable toxic effect on
all  aquatic life within a range of less than 1.0 mg/1 to 25
mg/1,  depending  on  the  pH  and  dissolved  oxygen  level
present.                                   j

Ammonia   can  add  to  the  problem  of  eutrophication  by
supplying nitrogen through  its  breakdown  products.   Some
lakes  in warmer climates, and others that are aging quickly
are  sometimes  limited  by  the  nitrogen  available.   Any
increase will speed up the plant growth and decay process.

Effluent  limitations  have  not  been  proposed for ammonia
since the levels observed in coal mine drainage generally do
not warrant further concern.  However, this parameter should
be considered as  a  routine  analysis  in  future  sampling
programs  because of its sporadic presence in mine drainage.
If  high  concentrations   of   ammonia   are   consistently
identified in future sampling programs its impact on receiv-
ing waters may have to be re-evaluated.
                              72

-------
spoil  off  the  bench onto downslope areas.  This downslope
spoil material can slump or rapidly erode, and must be moved
upslope to the mine site if contour regrading  is  required.
The   land   area  affected  by  contour  strip  mining  is,
therefore, substantially larger than  the  area  from  which
coal  is  actually  extracted.   In  block  cut  mining only
material from the first cut is  deposited  in  adjacent  low
areas.   Remaining spoil is then placed in mined portions of
the bench.  As a result, spoil handling is restricted to the
actual pit area in all  but  the  first  cut,  significantly
reducing the area disturbed.

An initial cut is made from a crop line into the hillside to
the  maximum  highwall depth desired, and spoil is cast in a
suitable low area (see Figure 12).   After  removal  of  the
coal,  spoil  material from the succeeding cut is backfilled
into the previous cut, proceeding in one or both  directions
from  the initial cut.  This simultaneously exposes the coal
for  recovery  and  provides  the   first   step   in   mine
reclamation.  Provision can be made in this mining technique
for  burial  of  toxic  materials.   On  completion  of coal
loading, most spoil material has already  been  replaced  in
the  pit,  and  the entire mine can be regraded with minimal
earth handling.
Reqrading.  Surface mining usually requires removal of large
amounts of overburden to expose  coal.   Regrading  involves
mass  movement  of  material  following  coal  extraction to
achieve a more desirable land  configuration.   Reasons  for
regrading strip mined land are:

    1)   control water pollution
    2)   return usefulness to land
    3)   provide a suitable base for revegetation
    4)   bury pollution-forming materials
    5)   reduce erosion and subsequent sedimentation
    6)   eliminate landsliding
    7)   encourage natural drainage
    8)   eliminate ponding
    9)   eliminate hazards such as high cliffs and deep
         pits
   10)   aesthetic improvement of land surface

Contour  regrading  is the current reclamation technique for
many of the Nation's active contour and area surface  mines.
This  technique  involves  regrading  a  mine to approximate
original land contour.  It is  generally  one  of  the  most
favored  and  aesthetically  pleasing  regrading  techniques
because the land is returned to approximately its pre-mining
                              75

-------
                                  -LEGEND.-
                    E53 Spoil  Bank    ••
                          Spoil  Backfill
                   Outcrop Barrier
                   (As Required)
          Cut I
      Highwol!


       Hilt
Diagram   A
Valley
            Cut 2

             Cut I
        Highwol!


            Hill
              Diagram  8
Valley
         Cut  3
       Hill

Diagram	C
  Valley
      Hill
Diagram  P
                          Cut 3
Volley
                            Valley
                 Hill
                                        Diogrom  F
                                                   Cut 5
                             Valley
                               BLOCK   CUT
                                   Figure  12
                              Adapted from drawing in
                              "A New Method of Surface  „
                              Coal Mining in Steep Terrain
                                   76

-------
                        SECTION VII

              CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

Control  technology,  as  discussed in this report, includes
techniques employed before, during and after the actual coal
mining, or coal loading, operation to  reduce  or  eliminate
adverse  environmental  effects resulting from the discharge
of  mine   waste   water.    Effective   pollution   control
preplanning  can  reduce  pollution formation at active mine
sites and minimize post-mining pollution potential.

Control technology, as discussed in this  report,  has  been
categorized  as  to control technology as related to surface
mining, underground mining, and coal preparation.

Surface Mining

Surface mine pollution control technology  is  divided  into
two  major  categories  - mining technology  (specific mining
techniques) and at-source reclamation  technology.   Surface
mining  techniques  can effectively reduce amounts of pollu-
tants exiting a mine either by containing  them  within  the
mine  or  by reducing their formation.  These techniques can
be combined with careful  reclamation  planning  and  imple-
mentation to provide maximum at-source pollution control.

Mining Techniques.  Several techniques have been implemented
by  industry  to  reduce  environmental  degradation  during
actual stripping operations.   Utilization  of  the  box-cut
technique  in  moderate and shallow slope contour mining has
increased in recent years.

A box-cut is simply a contour strip mine in which a low wall
barrier  is  maintained   (see  Figure  11).    This   mining
technique  significantly  reduces  the amount of waste water
discharged from a pit area, since that waste  water  can  no
longer  seep  from the pit through spoil banks.  However, as
in  any  downslope  disposal  technique,  the   problem   of
preventing  slide  conditions,  spoil erosion, and resultant
stream sedimentation is still present.

Block cut mining was developed to keep spoil  materials  off
the down slope and to facilitate contour regrading, minimize
overburden  handling,  and contain spoil within mined areas.
Contour stripping  is  typically  accomplished  by  throwing
                              73

-------
   •Original  Ground  Surface

           Highwall
Stockpiled
Spoil  Material
                        Temporary Megetatton
                           Low  Wall
                           Barrie  v

                                     /**
•Coal  Seam
                   Pit  FIoo
            CROSS SECTION OF BOX CUT

                        Figure  II

-------
state.  TMs technique is also favored  because  nearly  all
spoil is placed back in the pit, eliminating steep davnslope
spoil  banks  and  reducing  the  size of erodable reclaimed
area.   Contour  regrading  facilitates   deep   burial   of
pollution-forming   materials  and  minimzes  contact  time
between regraded spoil and surface runoff, thereby  reducing
pollution  formation.  Erosion potential, on the other hand,
can be increased by this regrading technique if  precautions
are not implemented to avoid long, unbroken sLqpes.

In  area  and  contour stripping there may be other forms of
reclamation that  provide  land  configurations  and  slopes
better suited to the intended uses of the land.  This can be
particularly  true  with  steep-slope  contour strips, where
large  highwalls  and  steep  final   spoil   slopes   limit
application  of  contour  regrading.   Surface mining can be
prohibited in such areas due to difficult reclamation  using
contour   regrading,   although   there   may  be  regrading
techniques that could be effectively utilized.  In addition,
where extremely thick coal seams are mined  beneath  shallow
overburden,  there  may  not  be  sufficient  spoil material
remaining to return the land to original contour.
      are several other reclamation  techniques  of  varying
effectiveness  which  have  been utilized in both active and
abandoned mines.  These techniques include  terrace,  swale,
swallow-tail,  and  Georgia  V-ditch,  several  of which are
quite similar in nature.  In employing these techniques, the
upper  hlghwall  portion  is  frequently  left  exposed   or
backfilled  at  a  steep  angle,  with  the  spoil  outslope
z?emaining somewhat steeper than original contour (see Figure
13) .  In all cases, a terrace of some form remains where the
originally bench was located, and there are  provisions  for
rapidly   channeling  runoff  from  the  spoil  area.   Such
terraces may permit more effective  utilization  of  surface
mined land in many cases.

Disposal  of  excess  spoil material is frequently a problem
where contour backfilling is not  practiced.   However,  the
same  problem  can also occur, although less ccmmonly, where
contour regrading is in use.  Some types of overburden rock,
particularly tightly packed sandstones, substantially expand
in  volume when they are blasted and  moved.   As  a  result,
there may be a large volume of spoil material that cannot be
returned  to  the pit area, even when contour backfilling is
employed.  To solve this problem,  head-of -hollow  fill  has
been  used  for overburden storage.  OSaa extra overburden is
placed in narrow, steep-sided hollows  in  compacted  layers
].2 to  2.4  rosters   (4 to 8 ft) thick and graded to enable
surface drainage  (see Figures 14 and 15) .
                           77

-------
                                     •Original Ground Surface


                                       'Diversion Difch


                                               •Highwoll
00
                  Adopted from drawing In
                  SURFACE MINING METH-
                  ODS AND TECHNJQUES
                  (1972)
Backfilled Ground
Surface
                                                                               Lowwall
                                                                               Barrier
                                                •Pit Floor         Coal Seam"

                          CROSS   SECTION   OF   NON-CONTOUR  REGRADING

                                                   Figure  13

-------
    Highwall-'
           Strip  Mine Bench
   Fill  Area
      Crowned
      Terraces
                           PLAN
Crowned
terrace
                             Original Ground Surface
                                           High wall
                                           Fill
                                   Lateral  Drain
                             Rock  Filled
                             Natural Drain way
                     CROSS  SECTION
           TYPICAL  HEAD-OF-HOLLOW  FILL
                           Figure  14
Adapted from drawing in
SURFACE MINING METH-
ODS AND TECHNIQUES
(1972)
                          79

-------
•'L	1
      Coal
-Original Ground Surface

    Spoil Storage
    i
   \
                   \
                    X      S
           SPOIL STORAGE DURING MINING
              Backfilled Ground Surf ace
           REGRADED AREA AFTER MINING
                 CROSS SECTION
      TYPICAL  HEAD-OF-HOLLOW   FILL
                      Figure 15

-------
In  this  regrading  and  spoil  storage  technique, natural
ground is cleared of woody vegetation and  rock  drains  are
constructed  where  natural  drains  exist,  except in areas
where inundation has occurred.  This  permits  ground  water
and   natural   percolation   to  exit  fill  areas  without
saturating the fill, thereby  reducing  potential  landslide
and  erosion  problems.   Normally  the  face of the fill is
terrace graded to minimize erosion  of  the  steep  outslope
area.

This  technique  of  fill  or spoil material deposition, has
been limited to relatively narrow, steep-sided ravines  that
can  be adequately filled and graded.  Design considerations
include the total number of acres in the watershed  above  a
proposed head-of-hollow fill, as well as the drainage, slope
stability,  and  prospective land use.  Revegetation usually
proceeds as soon as erosion  and  siltation  protection  has
been  completed.   This  technique is avoided in areas where
under-drainage  materials  contain  high  concentrations  of
pollutants, since resultant drainage would require treatment
to meet pollution control requirements.
Erosion Control.  Although regrading is an essential part of
surface  mine  reclamation,  it cannot be considered a total
reclamation technique.   There  are  many  other  facets  of
surface  mine  reclamation  that  are  equally  important in
achieving  successful  reclamation.   The  effectiveness  of
regrading  and  other control techniques are interdependent;
Failure of any phase could severely reduce the effectiveness
of an entire reclamation project.

The most important auxiliary reclamation procedures employed
at  regraded  surface  mines  or  refuse  areas  are   water
diversion  and  erosion and runoff control.  Water diversion
involves collection of water before it enters  a  mine  area
and  conveyance  of  that water around the mine site.  Water
diversion is usually  included  in  the  mining  method,  or
system,  to  protect the mine and increase the efficiency of
mining.  This procedure also decreases erosion and pollution
formation.  Ditches, flumes, pipes, trench drains and  dikes
are  all  commonly  used  for  water diversion.  Ditches are
usually excavated upslope from a mine site  to  collect  and
convey water.  Flumes and pipes are used to carry water down
steep  slopes  or  across regraded areas.  Riprap and dumped
rock are sometimes used to  reduce  water  velocity  in  the
conveyance system.

Diversion  and conveyance systems are designed to accomodate
predicted water volumes and velocities.  If  capacity  of  a
                             81

-------
ditch  is  exceeded,  water erodes the sides and renders the
ditch ineffective.

Drainways at the bases of  highwalls  intercept  and  divert
discharging  ground  water.  In some instances, ground water
above the mine site is pumped out before it enters the  mine
area.   Soil  erosion  is  significantly reduced on regraded
areas by controlling the course  of  surface  water  runoff,
using  interception  channels  constructed  on  the regraded
surface {see Figure 16) .

Water that reaches a mine site can  cause  serious  erosion,
sedimentation   and   pollution  problems;**,,  Runoff  control
techniques are  available  to  effectively  deal  with  this
water,  but  some  of  these  techniques  may  conflict with
pollution control measures.  Control of  pollutants  forming
at   a   mine   frequently   involves   reduction  of  water
infiltration, while runoff controls to prevent  erosion  can
produce   increased  infiltration,  which  can  subsequently
increase pollutant formation.

There  are  a  large  number  of  techniques  in   use   for
controlling  runoff,  with highly variable costs and degrees
of effectiveness.  Mulching is sometimes used as a temporary
runoff and erosion control measure, since  it  protects  the
land  surface from raindrop impacts and reduces the velocity
of surface runoff.

Velocity reduction is a critical facet  of  runoff  control.
This  is  accomplished  through  slope  reduction  by either
terracing  or  grading,  revegetation   or   use   of   flow
impediments  such  as  scarification, dikes, contour plowing
and dumped rock.  Surface stabilizers have been utilized  on
the   surface  to  temporarily  reduce  erodability  of  the
material itself, but expense  has  restricted  use  of  such
materials.
Reveqetation.   Establishment  of good vegetative cover on a
mine area is probably the  most  effective  method  of  con-
trolling  waste  water  pollution  and  erosion.  A critical
factor in mine revegetation is the quality of  the  soil  or
spoil material on the surface of a regraded mine.  There are
several  methods  by  which  the nature of this material has
been controlled.  Topsoil segregation  during  stripping  is
mandatory  in  many  States.   This  permits  topsoil  to be
replaced  on  a  regraded  surface  prior  to  revegetation.
However,  in  many  forested,  steep-sloped  areas  there is
little or no topsoil on the undisturbed  land  surface.   In
such  areas,  overburden  material is segregated in a manner
                              82

-------
CO
co
                                                                V**?*****
Regraded Spoilt
                                  ,	 _ _, 	^
                       0rigina!  Ground " Surface
                               WATER  DIVERSION S EROSION CONTROL
                                       (CONTOUR REGRAD1NG)
                                              Figure  16
                                           Adapted from drawing in
                                           STUDY OF STRIP AND
                                           SURFACE MINING IN
                                           APPALACHIA (1966)

-------
that, will allow the most toxic materials to be placed at. the
base of the regraded mine, and the best  spoil  material  is
placed on the regraded mine surface.

Vegetative cover provides effective erosion control, contri-
butes  significantly  to chemical pollution control, results
in aesthetic improvement, and can return  land  to  agricul-
tural,  recreational,  or silvicultural usefulness.  A dense
ground cover stabilizes the surface with  its  root  system,
reduces velocity of surface runoff, helps build humus on the
surface and can virtually eliminate erosion.  A soil profile
begins to form, followed by a complete soil ecosystem.  This
soil  profile acts as an oxygen barrier, reducing the amount
of oxygen reaching underlying pollution  forming  materials.
This  in  turn  reduces  oxidation, which is responsible for
most pollution formation.

The soil profile also tends to act as a sponge that  retains
water  near  the  surface,  as opposed to the original loose
spoil  which  allowed  rapid   infiltration.    This   water
evaporates  from  the mine surface, cooling it and enhancing
vegetative growth.  Evaporated  water  also  bypasses  toxic
materials   underlying   the   soil,   decreasing  pollution
production.   The  vegetation  itself  also  utilizes  large
quantities of water in its life processes, and transpires it
back  to  the atmosphere, again reducing the amount of water
reaching underlying materials.

Establishment of an adequate vegetative cover at a mine site
is dependent on a number of related factors.   The  regraded
surface  of  many  spoils  cannot  support a good vegetative
cover without supplemental treatment.  The  surface  texture
is  often too irregular, and may require raking to remove as
much rock as possible, and to decrease the average  size  of
the  remaining  material.  Materials toxic to plant life are
usually buried during regrading, and generally do not appear
on or near the final  graded  surface.   Dark-colored  shaly
materials  which  cause  extremely high surface temperatures
when left exposed, are often mixed with light  materials  to
enhance  vegetative  growth.  In addition, if the surface is
compacted, it is usually scarified by  discing,  plowing  or
roto-tilling  prior  to  seeding  in order to permit maximum
plant growth.

Soil supplements are often  required  to  establish  a  good
vegetative  cover  on  surface-mined lands and refuse piles,
which are generally deficient in nutrients.  Mine spoils are
often acidic, and lime must be added to  adjust  pH  to  the
tolerance  range  of  species  to  be  planted.   it  may be
necessary to apply additional  neutralizers  to  revegetated
                             84

-------
minimize erosion and sedimentation.  A diverse and permanent
vegetative cover must be established and plant succession at
least  equal in extent of cover to the natural vegetation of
the area.  To assure compliance with these requirements  and
permanence  of vegetative cover, the operator should be held
responsible for  successful  revegetation  and  waste  water
quality  for  a  period of five years after the last year of
augmented seeding, fertilization, irrigation. Or waste water
treatment.  In areas of the country where the annual average
precipitation is twenty-six inches or less,  the  operator's
assumption of responsibility and liability should extend for
a  period  of  ten  years  after  the last year of augmented
seeding, fertilization, irrigation or waste water treatment.

Underground Mining

Pollution  control  technology  in  underground  mining   is
largely  restricted  to  at-source methods of reducing water
influx  into  mine  workings.   Infiltration   from   strata
surrounding  the  workings  is  the primary source of water.
This water can react with air and pyrite within the mines to
form acid mine  drainage,  or  the  water  may  only  become
polluted  with  suspended  solids.   Underground  mines are,
therefore, faced with problems of waste water handling,  and
mine drainage treatment.

Infiltration  generally  results from rainfall recharge of a
ground water reservoir.  ROck fracture zones and faults have
a strong influence on ground water flow patterns, since they
can collect and convey large volumes of water.  These  zones
and  faults can intersect any portion of an underground mine
and permit easy access of ground water.   Infiltration  also
results  from  seepage from adjacent mines in the same seam.
The adjacent mine can be deep or surface and  be  active  or
abandoned.   This  seepage  is  through barrier pillars left
between a flooded mine or flooded portion of a mine and  the
active deep mine.

In  some  mines,  infiltration can result in huge volumes of
waste water that must  be  handled,  and  possibly  treated,
every  day.   Pumping  can  be  a  major  part of the mining
operation in terms of equipment and expense, particularly in
mines which do not discharge by gravity.

Water infiltration control techniques,  designed  to  reduce
the  amount  of  water  entering the workings, are extremely
important in underground mines located  in  or  adjacent  to
water-bearing  strata.   These techniques are often employed
in  such  mines  to  decrease  the  volume  of  waste  water
requiring handling and treatment.

-------
Revegetation  of  arid  and semi-arid areas involves special
consideration because of the extreme difficulty to establish
vegetation.  Lack of rainfall and effects of surface distur-
bance create hostile growth conditions.  Because  mining  in
arid  regions  has  only  recently been initiated on a large
scale,  there  is  no  standard   revegetation   technology.
Experimentation  and  demonstration  projects  exploring two
general revegetation techniques  -  moisture  retention  and
irrigation,  are  currently  being conducted to develop this
technology.

Moisture retention utilizes  entrapment,  concentration  and
preservation  of  water  within  a soil structure to support
vegetation.  This may be  obtained  utilizing  snow  fences,
mulches, pits, slot chiseling, gouging, offset listering.

Irrigation  can  be  achieved  by  pumping  or  gravity feed
through either pipes or  ditches.   This  technique  can  be
extremely  expensive,  and  acquisition  of water rights may
present  a  major  problem.   Use  of  these  arid   climate
revegetation   techniques   in   conjunction   with  careful
overburden segregation and regrading should permit return of
arid mined areas to their natural state.

Mine Closure and Operators Responsibility

Reclamation  is  recognized  as  a  control  technology  for
surface  mining.   A surface mine operator can terminate his
responsibility for mine waste water  by  employing  complete
reclamation.

The  desired  reclamation  goals  of regulatory agencies are
usually universal:  the restoration of affected lands  to  a
condition  at  least  fully  capable  of supporting the uses
which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining,  and
achievement of a stability which does not pose any threat of
water  diminution  or  pollution.   The  point at which this
metamorphosis takes place between unreclaimed and  reclaimed
surface  mined  land  is difficult to determine, but must be
considered in establishing a surface mine operator1s term of
responsibility for the  quality  of  waste  water  from  the
mined area.

In  order  to  accomplish  the  objectives  of  the  desired
reclamation goals, it is mandatory  that  the  surface  mine
operator  regrade  and  re vegetate  the  disturbed area upon
completion  of   mining.    The   final   regraded   surface
configuration is dependent upon the ultimate land use of the
specific  site,  and  control  practices  described  in this
report can  be  incorporated  into  the  regrading  plan  to
                              87

-------
areas   for   some   time   to  offset  continued  pollutant
generation.

Several potentially effective soil supplements are currently
undergoing research and experimentation.  Fly ash is a waste
product of coal-fired boilers and resembles soil in  certain
physical  and  chemical  properties.   Fly  ash disposal has
always been a problem,  and  use  of  fly  ash  on  regraded
surfaces  is  promising because most fly ash is generated in
or near the coal fields.  It  is  often  alkaline,  contains
some  plant  nutrients, and possesses moisture~retaining and
soilconditioning capabilities.  Its main function is that of
an alkalinity source and a  soil  conditioner,  although  it
must   usually  be  augmented  with  lime  and  fertilizers.
However,  fly  ash  can   vary   drastically   in   quality,
particularly  with  respect to pH, and may contain leachable
materials capable  of  producing  water  pollution.   Future
research,   demonstration   and   monitoring   of   fly  ash
supplements will probably develop its potential use.

Limestone screenings are also an effective long term neutra-
lizing  agent  on  acidic  spoils.   Such  spoils  generally
continue  to produce acidity as oxidation continues.  Use of
lime for direct planting upon these surfaces  is  effective,
but  provides  only  short  term  alkalinity.   The  lime is
usually consumed after several  years,  and  the  spoil  may
return  to  its acidic conditions.  Limestone screenings are
of larger particle  size  and  should  continue  to  produce
alkalinity on a decreasing scale for many years, after which
a vegetative cover should be well established.  Use of large
quantities  of  limestone  should  also  add  alkalinity  to
receiving streams.  These screenings are often cheaper  than
lime, providing larger quantities of alkalinity for the same
cost.   Such  applications  of limestone are currently being
demonstrated in several areas.

Ose of digested sewage sludge as a soil supplement also  has
good  possiblities  to replace fertilizer and simultaneously
alleviate the problem of sludge disposal.  Besides supplying
various nutrients,  sewage  sludge  can  reduce  acidity  or
alkalinity,  and  effectively  increase  soil absorption and
moisture retention capabilities.  Digested sewage sludge can
be applied in liquid or dry form, and must  be  incorporated
into  the spoil surface.  Liquid sludge applications require
large holding ponds or tank  trucks  from  which  sludge  is
pumped  and  sprayed  over  the  ground, allowed to dry, and
disced into the underlying material.  Dry sludge application
requires dryspreading machinery, and  must  be  followed  by
discing.
                             85

-------
Limestone,  digested  sewage  sludge,  and  fly  ash are all
limited by  their  availability  and  chemical  composition.
Unlifce  commerical  fertilizers, the chemical composition of
these materials may vary greatly, depending on how and where
they are produced.  Therefore,  a  nearby  supply  of .these
supplements  may  be useless if it does not contain the nut-
rients or pH adjusters that are deficient  in  the  area  of
intended  application.  Fly ash, digested sewage sludge, and
limestone  screenings  are  all  waste  products  of   other
processes, and are therefore usually inexpensive.  The major
expense related to utilization of any of these wastes is the
cost  of  transporting and applying the material to the mine
area.  Application may be quite costly, and must be  uniform
to affect complete and even revegetation.

When  such  large  amounts of certain chemical nutrients are
utilized it may also be necessary to institute  controls  to
prevent  chemical  pollution of adjacent waterways. Nutrient
controls may  consist  of  pre-selection  of  vegetation  to
absorb  certain  chemicals,  or  construction  of  berms and
retention basins where runoff can be collected and  sampled,
after  which  it  can  be  discharged  or pumped back to the
spoil.  The specific soil supplements and application  rates
currently employed are selected to provide the best possible
conditions  for  the  vegetative  species  that  are  to  be
planted.

Careful consideration  is  given  to  species  selection  in
surface mine reclamation.  Species are selected according to
some  land  use  plan,  based  upon  the degree of pollution
control to be achieved and the site  environment,   A  dense.
ground cover of grasses and legumes is generally planted, in
addition  to  tree  seedlings,  to rapidly check erosion and
siltation.  Trees are frequently planted in  areas  of  poor
slope  stability  to  help  control  landsliding.   Intended
future use of the land is an  important  consideration  with
respect to species selection.  Reclaimed surface-mined lands
are  occasionally  returned  to  high use categories such as
agriculture, if the land has potential  for  growing  crops.
However,  when  toxic  spoils  are encountered, agricultural
potential is greatly reduced and only  a  few  species  will
grow.

Environmental    conditions,   particularly   climate,   are
important  in  species  selection.   Usually,  species   are
planted that are native to an area, and particularly species
that have been successfully established on nearby mines with
similar climate and spoil conditions.
                             86

-------
Decreased  waste  water  volumes, however do not necessarily
mean  that  pollution  loads   will   also   decrease.    In
underground coal mines producing acid mine drainage, oxygen,
rather than volume of water flowing through the workings, is
the  principal  controlling  factor  in pollutant formation.
High  humidity  in  a  mine  atmosphere   usually   contains
sufficient  moisture  to  permit  pollutant formation, while
water flowing through the mine merely transports  pollutants
from  their formation sites on the mine walls and floor.  If
the volume of this transporting medium decreases  while  the
volume   of  pollutants  remains  unchanged,  the  resultant
smaller   discharge   will    have    increased    pollutant
concentrations  and  approximately  the same pollution load.
Formation of pollutants  can  be  significantly  reduced  in
intercepted  water,  however,  by  reducing the contact time
within the mine.

Reduction in discharge volume can significantly reduce waste
water handling costs.  Costs for waste water treatment  will
decline  even  though concentrations may increase.  The same
amounts of neutralizing agents will be  required  since  the
pollution  loads  are  basically  unchanged.   However,  the
volume of waste water to be treated will be reduced signifi-
cantly, along with the size of  the  required  treatment  or
settling  facilities.   This cost reduction, along with cost
savings attributable to decreased pumping volumes, makes use
of water infiltration control techniques highly desirable.

Most water  entering  underground  mines  passes  vertically
through  the  mine  roof  from overlying strata.  Horizontal
permeability  is  characteristically   much   greater   than
vertical  permeability  in  rock units overlying coal mines.
These  rock  units  generally  have  well  developed   joint
systems,  which  tend to cause vertical flow.  Roof collapse
can also cause widespread fracturing in strata  adjacent  to
the  roof,  and  subsequent  joint  separation far above the
roof.   These  opened  joints  can  tap  overlying   perched
aquifers,  or  occasionally  a flooded mine above the active
mine.  Roof collapse  in  shallow  mines  will  often  cause
surface  subsidence,  which  collects  and  funnels  surface
runoff directly to the mine.

Such fracturing of overlying strata is commonly  reduced  by
employing any or all of the following:

    1)   increasing pillar size
    2)   support of the roof immediate to the coal
    3)   limiting mine entry widths, or number of entries
    H)   backfilling of mine voids
                             89

-------
These  practices, when utilized to their fullest capability,
can assist in controlling mine roof collapse and  subsequent
fracturing  of  overlying  strata in deep mines with shallow
cover.

Boreholes and fracture zones, which act as water conduits to
underground mines are also sealed to  prevent  infiltration.
Boreholes  remaining from earlier exploration efforts can be
present at underground mines.   These  boreholes ^are  often
located   from  the  mine  and  plugged  hydraulically  with
concrete to prevent  passage  of  water.   Difficulties  are
encountered when sealing must be performed from the surface,
since  abandoned  holes are often difficult to locate on the
surface and may be blocked by debris.

Fracture  zones,  which  are  usually  vertically  oriented,
planar  type  features,  are  often major conduits of water.
Their locations can  be  plotted  by  experienced  personnel
using  aerial  photography.   Permeability of these zones is
reduced by drilling and grouting.  Figure 17 illustrates the
sealing of boreholes and fracture zones.

Surface  mines  can  be  responsible  for   collecting   and
conveying  large  quantities of surface water to adjacent or
underlying underground mines.  Ungraded surface mines  often
collect  water  in  open pits where no surface exit point is
available.  That water subsequently enters the ground  water
system,  from  which  it  percolates  into  underground mine
workings  (see Figure 18).  A surface mine does not  have  to
intercept  underground  mine  workings  in order to increase
infiltration.  Surface mines updip  from  underground  mines
collect  water  and  allow it to enter permeable coal seams.
This water then flows through or near the coal seam into the
mine workings.  The influx of  water  to  underground  mines
from  either  active  or  abandoned  surface  mines  can  be
significantly reduced  through  implementation  of  a  well-
designed reclamation plan.

The  only  actual  underground  mining  technique  developed
specifically for pollution control is  preplanned  flooding.
The  technique  is  primarily one of mine design, in which a
mine  is  planned  from  its  inception  for  post-operation
flooding  or  zero  discharge.   In  drift mines and shallow
slope or shaft mines this is generally achieved  by  driving
the  mine  exclusively  to the dip and pumping out all water
that collects in the workings.  Upon  completion  of  mining
activities,  the  workings  are  allowed to flood naturally,
eliminating the acid-producing  pyrite-oxygen  contact   (see
Figure  19) .   This technique should also include the design
of the mine's support and barrier pillars.   Discharges,  if
                             90

-------
                    1
    •*.«,M5fS'f'4-£.*w3-M      *'•»««.
    £^mW:%f*      &%

      •V.'H^S'fiC.jkf?*      Ct« &"<*•<&
      ^-v**      4*»A
        Grout Holes



       4~~£ Borehole
     Confining  Bed
                        <-t-.v-<,,1.
   rsdS$fe»-s>
  liiil^

 .MA
^  *&&$%&
                              ^C^rrConcrete H ||
            Drill

            Casing
                             XI.\\N\\\\\XNN.\XSV\X\\V%
                             \»^.\^^.\^
                             ,\x\\
                                T Pressure
vvvv^vxvv^vCv* ^^^1^ » i ^» •  ^»-»-*-*-*-m-*-«-»»i-.-»-%-»-» ' ^vBfts C" A** ffi ' £  •—-




NxixNX^^^VX^XN^XVVXNXX^X^^^^^^^I^O^SE   GtOUf —\ $


m^u>\i-^ui»l>1\^\VN^>^V>%X\^\\V^           ?^|'I *^^>>V!S^^^y>^>^^VH^.>
      Confining  Bed ^


Mine
                                Void
       BOREHOLE   AND  FRACTURE  SEALING

                          Figure  17
          fc. ,-  I 1 ICOftL SEAMtlBHiHI

          ' ^~s."^-C'KT "V k" OvV^ ^'-s'^ ^X ^ ^"^ 7 •v^* r -^.^ " -s^\ 
-------
Pumping Required
During Mining
Coal Barrier
  Underground Mine
      /—Ground Water Level
      /  (During Mining)
  ~ '~^'*^****>»x^  JT~~ Ground
  #~Mr«M»..4_2w*   Surface
Final Ground Water Level
Coal Barrier
Inundated Underground  Mine
                                                     Ground Surface
                      PREPLANNED FLOODING

                               Figure  l9            Adapted from drawing In
                                                   MINE DRAINAGE POLLUT-
                                                   ION PREVENTION AND
                                                   ABATEMENT USING HY-
                                                   OROGEOLOGICAL AND
                                                   GEOCHEMICAL SYSTEMS

-------
any,  from  a  flooded  mine  should  contain  a  much lower
pollutant concentration.

MINE CLOSURE AND OPERATORS RESPONSIBILITY

Unless control and treatment technology is  implemented,  an
underground   mine  can  be  a  permanent  source  of  water
pollution after mine closure.

Responsibility   for   the   prevention   of   any   adverse
environmental   impacts  from  the  temporary  or  permanent
closure of a deep mine should rest  solely  and  permanently
with  the  mine  operator.   This  constitutes a substantial
burden, and it therefore behooves the operator to  make  use
of  the best technology available for dealing with pollution
problems associated with mine closure.  The  two  techniques
most  frequently  utilized  in  deep  mine  water  pollution
abatement are continuing  waste  water  treatment  and  mine
sealing.   Waste  water treatment technology is well defined
and is generally capable of  producing  acceptable  effluent
quality.   If  the  mine operator chooses this course, he is
faced with the prospect of  costly  permanent  treatment  of
each mine discharge.

Mine  sealing  is an attractive alternative to the prospects
of perpetual treatment.   Mine  sealing  requires  the  mine
operator  to  consider  barrier  and  pillar design from the
perspective  of  strength,  mine  safety,  the  ability   to
withstand  high water pressure, and in the role of retarding
ground water seepage.   In  the  case  of  new  mines  these
considerations  should  be  included  in  the mine design to
cover the eventual mine closure.  In the  case  of  existing
mines  these considerations should be evaluated for existing
mine barriers and pillars, and the future mine plan adjusted
to include these considerations if mine  sealing  is  to  be
employed at mine closure.

Sealing  eliminates  the  mine  waste  water  discharge  and
inundates the mine workings, thereby reducing or terminating
the production of pollutants.  However, the  possibility  of
the failure of mine seals or outcrop barriers increases with
time  as  sealed mine workings gradually become inundated by
groundwater and the  hydraulic  head  increases.   Depending
upon  the  rate  of groundwater influx and size of the mined
area, complete inundation  of  a  sealed  mine  may  require
several  decades.   consequently,  the  maximum  anticipated
hydraulic head on the mine seals may  not  be  realized  for
that  length  of  time.   In  addition,  seepage through, or
failure of, the coal outcrop  barrier  or  mine  seal  could
occur  at  any  time.   Therefore,  it  seems  reasonable to
                              93

-------
require the mine operator to permanently maintain the  seals
or  provide treatment in the event of significant seepage or
failure of the seals or barriers.

Coal Preparation

Water  pollution  problems  associated  with  coal  cleaning
processes  are  of  two general types: (1)  process generated
waste waters and (2) waste water in the  vicinity  of  plant
facilities,  coal  storage areas, and refuse disposal areas.
Coal preparation pollution technology is  therefore  divided
into  two  major  categories - process generated waste water
control and treatment and preparation plant  ancillary  area
waste  water  control and treatment techniques.  With proper
management and planning, water pollution resulting from  the
preparation  of  coal  can  be minimized.  Process generated
waste water treatment and control technologies are dependent
on the coal preparation process employed.

Prgqejss Waste Water Control and Treatment

Fine coal and  mineral  particles,  such  as  clays,  remain
suspended  in  plant waters resulting in potentially serious
pollution from some coal cleaning facilities,  clarification
techniques available for removal of these  suspended  solids
include    thickeners,    flocculation,   settling,   vacuum
filtration  and  pressure  filtration,   A  typical   closed
circuit  washery  could  incorporate  thickeners or settling
ponds with the. addition of flocculation reagents to  enhance
settling  of  particulate matter.  Coal fines separated from
plant waters can  either  be  blended  with  clean  coal  or
transported to a refuse disposal site.

Froth  flotation  is  a unit operation in coal cleaning that
provides separation of fine coal from refuse and fine  clay.
Past  industry  practices  limited  froth  flotation  use to
metallurgical   grade   coals   because    the    additional
preparation  costs  could  not  Jbe  justified  with  the low
selling prices of utility coal.  Present  market  conditions
may stimulate more operators to employ froth flotation cells
for  recovery  of  a  salable product from coal slimes.  The
refuse and fine  clays  segregated  by  flotation  are  then
removed  from plant waters via thickeners and filters.  This
provides   an   economic   method   for   effecting    water
clarification.

In  addition  to removal of suspended solids, washery waters
may also require treatment to control  chemical  parameters.
Such  as  pH,  iron,  sulfates,  etc.   Such  treatment when
required,  is  relatively  simple,  and  is  tied   to   the
                              94

-------
maintenance of efficient plant operation, acceptable product
quality,   and   minimal   pollution  -  related  stress  on
equipment.  Where chemical treatment is required,  the  most
common  practice  is addition of lime to make-up waters, but
treatment can also be performed prior to recycle  of  waters
from  settling ponds.  As a final resort, process waters may
require circulation  through  neutralization  and  treatment
facilities.   This  particular water control practice is not
common among existing preparation plants, and should only be
considered for extremely poor quality process waters.

Ancillary Rrea Waste Water Control

Pollution control technology related  to  preparation  plant
ancillary   areas   is  generally  aimed  at  prevention  of
contamination of surface waters (streams,  impoundments  and
surface  runoff).  Solicitous planning of refuse disposal is
a prime control method.  Disposal sites  are  isolated  from
surface   flows   and  impoundments  to  minimize  pollution
potential.   In  addition  the  following   techniques   are
practiced to prevent water pollution:

    1)   Construction of a clay liner  beneath  the  planned
         refuse  disposal  area  to  prevent infiltration of
         surface waters  (precipitation) into the groundwater
         system,

    2)   Compaction of refuse  to  reduce  infiltration  and
         help prevent spontaneous combustion.

    3)   Maintenance of a uniformly sized refuse  to  insure
         good compaction  (may require additional crushing).

    ft)   Following achievement of the desired refuse  depth,
         construction  of  a clay liner over the material to
         minimize infiltration.  This is  usually  succeeded
         by  placement of topsoil and seeding to establish a
         vegetative cover for erosion protection.

    5J   Excavation of  diversion  ditches  surrounding  the
         refuse disposal site to exclude surface runoff from
         the  area.   Ditches  can  also  be used to collect
         runoff  and  seepage   from   refuse   piles   with
         subsequent treatment if necessary.

    6)   Ponds or ditches to  protect  against  overflow  in
         slurry   refuse   dams.    Slurry  refuse  disposal
         requires  safety  considerations  in  addition   to
         environmental.
                             95

-------
As  previously  indicated,  the  immediate  area surrounding
preparation plant facilities presents  another  waste  water
pollution  problem  requiring careful planning.  Haul roads,
refuse disposal  piles,  and  outside  raw  and  clean  coal
storage  areas  are  sources  of  contamination  to  near-by
surface waters.  The elimination of this  contamination  and
the     maintenance    of    environmental    quality    are
responsibilities which must be borne by the coal preparation
plant  operator.   Several  current  industry  practices  to
control this pollution are:

    1)   Construction  of  ditches  surrounding  preparation
         facilities  to  divert  surface  runoff and collect
         seepage that does occur.

    2)   Installation of a hard surface over the entire area
         with proper slopes to direct drainage  to  a  sump.
         As is the case in the previous technique, collected
         waters  are  pumped  into the preparation plant for
         processing.

    3)   Storage of coal in  bins,  silos  or  hoppers  with
         pavement  of haul roads and loading points.  Runoff
         is collected in trenches.

    4)   Establishment of a good vegetative cover of grasses
         on the surface surrounding  preparation  facilities
         to control erosion and sedimentation and to improve
         aesthetics.

Plant Closure and Operators Responsibility

As  with  coal  mines,  the  waste  water  pollution  from a
preparation plant's refuse storage area does not  stop  upon
shutdown  of  the  preparation  plant.   In that reclamation
goals and methods are similar  to  those  for  surface  coal
mines,   the   operator   should  be  held  responsible  for
successful revegetation and waste water quality for a period
of five years after the  last  year  of  augmented  seeding,
fertilization,  irrigation,  or  waste  water treatment.  In
areas of the country where the annual average  precipitation
is  twenty-six  inches or less, the operators responsibility
and liability should extend for a period of ten years  after
the   last   year   of   augmented  seeding,  fertilization,
irrigation, or waste water treatment.

-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

As discussed in Section IV,  Industry  categorization,  coal
mines  have been grouped into two separate raw mine drainage
categories.  The pollutants encountered in these  categories
were  discussed  in Waste Characterization - Section V.   The
current treatment technology and industry practice for  acid
or ferruginous and alkaline categories is described herein.

Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage

Acid   or  ferruginous  mine  drainage  is  most  frequently
encountered  in  the  northern   Appalachian   states.    In
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland,"-and northern West Virginia the
raw  mine  drainage  usually  contains  varying  degrees  of
mineral acidity with  significant  concentrations  of  iron,
aluminum,  calcium,  manganese,  and  sulfates,  and  lesser
amounts of magnesium, nickel, zinc, ammonia,  fluorides  and
chlorides.   Such  drainages  may  also  be  found  in other
localized areas.

Where acid or ferruginous mine drainage is a common problem,
there are generally existing state laws requiring  that  the
drainage  be  treated  to remove those pollutants considered
harmful to receiving streams.  Acid mine drainage  treatment
facilities  were in operation at 62 of the mining operations
visited and samples were collected of both the  influent  to
the  treatment  facility and the effluent from, the treatment
facility.  This includes a sampling program at six  selected
AMD treatment facilities where influent and effluent samples
were collected for 90 days consecutively.

Treated  mine  drainage  has  been established as a separate
class of coal mine effluent  for  purposes  of  establishing
limitation guidelines for acid or ferruginous mine drainage.

Treated Mine Drainage

Treatment  facilities  are  now in operation at an estimated
250 mines that have an acid mine drainage.   Most  of  these
are  located  in  the  northern Appalachian states.  By far,
lime is the predominant alkali used  by  the  industry.   In
addition  to  the  common  industry  practice  of  using the
conventional lime system, there are several processes in the
pilot or demonstration phase for treating acid mine drainage
that include: limestone-lime treatment, reverse osmosis  and
neutrolosis, ion exchange methods, and chemical softening.

Conventional Neutralization

-------
Acid or ferruginous mine drainage is most often treated by a
method   that   can   be   called   the  "conventional  lime
neutralization system," utilizing  hydrated  lime  or  quick
lime.   Other  alkalis  available  and   used at some plants
include limestone, soda ash  and  caustic  soda.   Treatment
plants  usually have facilities for 1) flow equalization, 2)
acidity neutralization, 3)  ferrous iron  oxidation,,  and  1)
solids removal.  From plant to plant there can be variations
to  this  basic system which may exclude the equalization or
oxidation  steps,  or  include  methods  to  enhance  solids
removal  and  minimize  sludge  volume.   In addition, where
neutralization is not required, excessive concentrations  of
iron  and  suspended  solids  can be reduced by aeration and
sedimentation.  A description of the facilities employed  in
the conventional lime neutralization process follows.

    I •   FjLoy  Sgual jzation .   Surface  holding  ponds   or
    underground  sumps  are  frequently employed to equalize
    the flow and quality of the acid  mine  drainage  before
    treatment.   These  facilities usually have the capacity
    to provide for one or more  day's  storage  in  case  of
    treatment plant shut down.  Surface ponds also provide a
    constant  head  for  gravity  flow through the treatment
    plant.

    2*   Acidity Neutralization.   Mineral  acidity  in  raw
    mine  drainage  is  neutralized  with  one  of the above
    mentioned alkalis.  In addition to neutralizing acidity,
    these  alkalis  also  enhance  the  removal   of   iron,
    manganese,   and   other   soluble  metals  through  the
    formation of their insoluble hydroxides,
                                    i
    3-   Iron Oxidation.  When iron is present in  raw  mine
    drainage  in  the  ferrous  form,  usual  practice is to
    provide aeration facilities for oxidation to the  ferric
    state.   Ferric  iron is more insoluble than the ferrous
    form at   lower  pH's,  thus  the  reasoning   for   the
    oxidation  step.  Some companies however, remove iron as
    ferrous hydroxide as the resulting sludge is more dense,
    producing less volume for disposal.

    *•   Solids Removal .   As  a  result  of  the  chemical
    treatment  process,  suspended  solids are formed.  Both
    earthen settling basins and  mechanical  clarifiers  are
    used  for  removal  of  these suspended solids.  Earthen
    impoundments with detentions of from one day to as  much
    as  several  months are most often used.  The detentions
    provided  usually  are  more  dependent  on  the  sludge
    storage  capacity  desired  than  for  suspended  solids
    removal.

-------
The manner by  which  coal  operators  have  approached  the
design   and  construction  of  conventional  neutralization
treatment  facilities  varies  from  somewhat  sophisticated
plants to simple or rather crude installations.  Performance
of  many  of these facilities varied significantly, but this
was due to operational problems rather than waste  treatment
difficulties.   Descriptions  of  several of these treatment
plant installations are included  here  to  provide  a  more
complete  explanation  of  the  conventional  neutralization
treatment technology currently in use.

The following mines using conventional  naturalization  were
visited.

-------
Mine code A-l

Mine  Al is a deep mine located in southwestern Pennsylvania
and operating in  the  Pittsburgh   (bituminous)  coal  seam.
coal  is  mined  at  the  rate of 2,963 KKG  (3,267 tons)  per
shift.  Based  on  the  1973  production  of  1,846,652  KKG
(2,036,000 tons), the estimated life of the present reserves
is 42 years.

Treatment   is  provided  for  discharge  point  Al-1  by  a
conventional lime neutralization plant that was  constructed
in  1968.  Raw water is pumped on demand by a 75.7 liter per
second  (1,200 gallon per minute)  pump  to  an  11,355  cubic
meter   (3  million  gallon)  holding pond.  The water is then
neutralized at the average rate of 1,586  cubic  meters  per
day   (.419 million gallons per day)  by mixing with 0.608 KKG
per day  (0.67 tons per day)  of a hydrated lime slurry.   The
lime  neutralization  process  operates  one hour on and one
hour off throughout the day.  The chemically  treated  water
flows   to  a  253,595  liter  (67,000  gallons)   mechanical
aeration tank, then  to  an  18.9  meter  (62  ft)   diameter
thickener before discharging to the adjacent surface stream.
The  thickener  provides  a  detention  of  16  hours at the
average flow rate.  The sludge resulting from  the  chemical
treatment  is  removed from the thickener and is pumped to a
30,280 cubic meter  (8 million gallon) sludge holding basin.

A schematic diagram  of  this  treatment  plant  appears  in
Figure  20.   Average  raw  and effluent analyses of samples
collected at this treatment plant are presented in Table 7.
                             100

-------
                                  FIGUKE 20
           SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE A-l


       22.71 liters per second
 RAW HATER
HOLDING POND
 FLASH MIX
   TAHK
  AERATION
    TANK
1
                            LIME
                           SLURRY
                    CLARIFIER
                                  EFFLUENT TO CREEK
                                                               17.98 liters
                                                               per second
                                                      T
                                                      I 4.73 liters per second
                       SLUDGE
                        POND

-------
                          TABLE 7

              Analytical Data - Mine Code A-l
Constituent
                      Raw Mine Drainage
                         Point Al-1
                       Average Quality*
pH                          2.9
Alkalinity                   0
Specific Conductance       5152
Solids, total dissolved    4662
Solids, suspended           133
Hardness                   1093
Iron, total                 212
Iron, dissolved             185
Manganese, total           9.17
Aluminum, total             69.3
Zinc, total                0.93
Nickel, total              0.66
Strontium, total           9.10
Sul fates                   3043
Chloride                   73.7
Fluoride                   2,20
Ammonia                     9.3
Chromium, total             0.03
Copper, total               0,18
Treated Mine Drainage
   Point Al-2
 AverageQuality**

      7.2
       31
     5993
     4946
       94
     1710
     1.44
     0.28
     1.09
      1.09
     0.05
     0.01
     9.40
     2926
      124
     2.45
     2.54
      0.02
      0.01
*Based on three consecutive 24 hour composite samples.

**Based on two consecutive 24 hour composite samples.
All results expressed in mg/1 except  for  pH
conductance.
                                               and  specific
The  reported  cations  listed  above were analyzed for both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The raw and treated mine drainage samples were analyzed  for
arsenic,  barium,  boron, cadmium, mercury, molybdenum, lead
and selenium, but these were  not  detected  in  significant
concentrations .
                             102

-------
Mine Code A-2

Mine  A2 is a deep mine located in southwestern Pennsylvania
operating in the Pittsburgh  (bituminous)  coal seam.  Coal is
mined at the rate of  2,872  KKG  (3,167  tons)   per  shift.
Based  on  the  1973  production of 1,567,300 KKG  (1,729,000
tons), the estimated life of the present reserves  is  eight
years.    The   mine   presently  has  four   (4)  points  of
dewatering,  all  of  which  are  pumped.   Two   of   these
discharges  require  treatment.   The  analytical quality of
treated discharge A-2 is shown in Table 9.

Treatment  is  provided  for  discharge  point  A2-1  by   a
conventional  lime neutralization plant that was constructed
in 1968,  Raw drainage is pumped through a bore  hole  by  a
78.88  liter  per  second   (1,250  gallon  per  minute) pump
directly to the flash mix tank where it  is  neutralized  by
mixing  with  6.35  KKG per day  (7 tons per day) of hydrated
lime as a slurry.  The chemically treated water flows  to  a
pre-settling  tank  and  then  to  a  246,000  liter  (65,000
gallon) mechanical aeration tank.  The  sludge  pre-settling
tank requires cleaning every 6 months.  The aerated water is
discharged  to  a  3,030,000  liter  (800,000 gallon) primary
settling pond which contains  a  continuous  sludge  removal
system.   The  overflow  from this pond enters a 4,542 cubic
meter  (1.2 million gallon) secondary  settling  pond  before
discharging to the stream.                   ^

The  sludge  resulting  from this treatment system is pumped
from the primary settling pond to a 1,022,000 liter  (270,000
gallon) holding  pond,  then  pumped  directly  to  a  large
dewatering  basin  encompassing  approximately 4.05 hectares
 (10 acres).  The overflow from this basin is  also discharged
to the stream.

A diagram of the treatment  sequence is shown  in  Figure  21.
The  analytical  data for the treatment facility is shown in
Table 8.
                             103

-------
                                    FIGURE 21
             SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MIME-A-2
                                               »
      79.85 liters per second
                    LIME
                   SLURRY
PLASH MIX
  TANK
AERATION
TANK

*i

. PRIMARY
SETTLING
POND
1


SECONDARY
SETTLING
POND

EFFLUENT TO
CRSElK *
60.56 liters
per second
                               t	
  OVERFLOW
  TO CREEK
SLUDGE
 POND
~ 18.29 liters
*"per second
SLUDGE
 TANK

-------
                         Table 8

                Analytical Data - Mine Code A-2
Constituent
Raw Mine Drainage
     Point A2-1
  Average Quality*..
pH                          3.1
Alkalinity                    0
Specific Conductance       7103
Solids, total dissolved .   6814
Solids, suspended            59
Hardness                   1627
Iron, total                 276
Iron, dissolved             276
Manganese, total           11.5
Aluminum, total              58
Zinc, total                1.31
Nickel, total              1.29
Strontium, total           3.47
Sulfates                   4031
Chloride                    168
Fluoride                   1.19
Ammonia                    41,7
Copper, total              0.12
Treated Mine Drainage
      Point A2-2
   Average Quality*

        8.4
          52
       6007
       6053
        115
       2113
       1.68
       0.04
       0.78
       0.10
       0.02
       0.01
       5.54
       3262
        298
       1.62
       4.05
       0.01
*Based on three consecutive 24 hour composite samples.

All results, expressed in mg/1 except  for  pH  and  specific
conductance.

The  reported  cations  listed  above were analyzed for both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The raw and treated mine drainage samples were analyzed  for
arsenic,   barium,   boron,   cadmium,   chromium,  mercury,
molybdenum, lead and selenium, but these were  not  detected
in significant concentrations.
                             105

-------
Ming Code A-3

Mine  A-3  is  the  same  mine referred to in Mine Code A-2.
Discharge A-3 is the second treated discharge from the mine.
The analytical data for this treatment  plant  is  shown  in
Table 9,

The  treatment  facility  for  discharge point A3-1 includes
lime neutralization followed by a baffled 7,9i»9 cubic  meter
(2.1  million gallon)  settling pond.  This plant experienced
better settling of the ferrous sludge than the ferric;  thus
aeration  was  eliminated.  This plant, constructed in 1969,
treats 102.5 liters per second (1,625 gallons per minute)  of
raw water using 5.1 KKG (6 tons)  of hydrated lime each day.

Sludge removed daily from the settling pond is pumped to one
of two 7,9^9 cubic meter  (2.1 million  gallon)  ponds.   The
settled  sludge is concentrated with any overflow discharged
to the stream.  Final disposal of the concentrated sludge is
through a bore hole to an abandoned portion of the mine.   A
diagram of the treatment sequence is shown in Figure 22,
                              106

-------
                                   FIGURE22
            SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR  TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE A-3
      102.51 liters per second
                             LIME
                            SLURRY
FLASH MIX
  TANK
SETTLING
  POND
EFFLUENT TO CREEK
                                                                   6 0.8-1
                                                                   per second
                           SLUDGE TO UNDERGROUND

                         26.88 liters per  second
  SLUDGE
   POND
             OVERFLOW TO CREEK
             14.82 liters
             per second

-------
                         Table 9

                analytical Data - Mine Cod© A-3


                      JRaw Mine Drainage    Treated Mine Drainage
                         Point A3-1           Point A3-2
  Constituent         Average Quality*     '• Average jMality**

pH                          3.0                   8.9
Alkalinity                   0                     16
Specific Conductance       3080                  2910
Solids, total dissolved    2650                  2538
Solids, suspended            73                    26
Hardness                    880                  1120
Iron, total                 164                  0.35
Iron, dissolved             139                  0.01
Manganese, total           3.83                  0,07
Aluminum, total             7.9                  0.10
2inct total                0.33                  0.02
Hickel, total              0,34                  0.01
Strontium, total            2.9                   2.8
Sulfates                   1323                  1H32
Chloride                     52                    99
Fluoride                   0.87                  0.76
Ammonia                     5.8

*Based on three consecutive 23 hour composite samples,

**Based on one 21* hour composite sample.

All  results  expressed  in  mg/1 except for pH and specific
conductance,

The reported cations listed above  were  analyzed  for  both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The  raw and treated mine drainage samples were analyzed for
arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper,  mercury,
molybdenum,  lead, and selenium, but these were not detected
in significant concentrations.
                              108

-------
Mine Code A-3

Mine A4 is a deep mine located in southwestern  Pennsylvania
operating  in  the  Pittsburgh  (bituminous)  coal seam.  The
mine encompasses 6885  hectares  (17,000  acres),  of  which
6,075  hectares  (15,000 acres) remain.  Coal is mined at the
rate of 887 KKG  (978 tons)  per  shift  with  a  recovery  of
about  70  percent.  Based on the 1973 production of 638,528
KKG  (704,000  tons),  the  estimated  life  of  the  present
reserves is 67 years.

The mine presently has four  (H) points of dewatering, two of
which are pumped to the surface and treated,  the analytical
quality  of  the  raw  and treated discharge of one of these
points is shown  in  Table  10.   Treatment  consists  of  a
conventional  lime neutralization plant that was constructed
in 1973.  Raw water is pumped out of the mine at a  rate  of
105.13  liters  per second (1,666 gallons per minute) for 15
hours per day.  This drainage is neutralized at  an  average
rate  of  5,451 cubic meters per day  (1.44 mgd) by mixing it
with .907 KKG per day  (1.0 ton per day) of dry hydrated lime
in the flash mix tank.  Ferrous iron is oxidized by  natural
aeration  in  a long trough as the drainage flows to a large
settling basin that has a capacity of 113,550  cubic  meters
(30  million  gallons).   It  is  expected that the settling
basin has a sludge capacity for four more years before  some
other means of disposal will become necessary.

A diagram Of the treatment sequence appears in Figure 23.
                              109

-------
                                 FIGURE 23
          SCHEMATIC  DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE A-4
       39.43 liters per second
                        DRY
                        LIME
FLASH MIX
  TANK
SETTLING
  POND
                                                         EFFLUENT TO CREEK
                                                       39.43 liters per second

-------
                         Table 10

                Analytical Data - Mine Code A-4
  Constituent
Raw Mine Drainage    Treated Mine Drainage
    Point A4-1             Point A4-2
     Average Quality*       Average Quality**
pH                            5.8
Alkalinity                     81
Specific Conductance        10,268
Solids, total dissolved     8,774
Solids, suspended             397
Hardness                    1,487
Iron, total                   187
Iron, dissolved              63.7
Manganese, total    ,         8.13
Aluminum, total              36.4
Zinc, total                  0.62
Nickel, total                0.36
Strontium, total             3.35
Sulfates                    4,418
Chloride                    1,940
Fluoride                     0.86
Ammonia                      3.19
Boron, total                  0.30
Copper, total                 0.06
                                   8.0
                                   291
                                   8098
                                  8368
                                    19
                                  1800
                                  0.48
                                  0.01
                                  2.46
                                  0.10
                                  0.03
                                  0.08
                                  4.24
                                  4001
                                  1737
                                  1.28
                                  1.86
                                   0.30
                                   0.01
*Based  on  one  grab  sample  and  two  consecutive 24 hour
composite samples.

**Based on three consecutive 24 hour composite samples.

All results expressed in mg/1 except  for  pH  and  specific
conductance.

The  reported  cations  listed  above were analyzed for both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The raw and treated mine drainage samples were analyzed  for
arsenic,  barium,  cadmium,  chromium,  mercury, molybdenum,
lead  and  selenium,  but  these  were   not   detected   in
significant concentrations.
                              Ill

-------
Mine Code B-2

Mine  B2  is  a  large,  deep  mine  located in southwestern
Pennsylvania operating in the  Pittsburgh  coal  seam.   The
mine  encompasses an area of 2,633 hectares  (6,500 acres) of
which 162 hectares  (400 acres) remain.  The  (estimated  life
is  about  ten years.  Coal output is 635 KKG (700 tons) per
shift with a recovery of 70 percent.   The  production  rate
for 1973 was 498,850 KKG (550,000 tons).

Raw   mine  drainage  is  collected  at  one  central  point
underground and is pumped to the surface at a rate of  176.7
liters   per   second   (2,800  gallons  per  minute) .   The
analytical quality of the raw and treated mine  drainage  is
shown  in  Table  11.   The treatment provided for discharge
point  B2-1  includes  equalization,  lime   neutralization,
mechanical   aeration,  primary  settling  by  a  mechanical
clarifier and effluent polishing  in  a  large  8,176  cabic
meters   (2.2  million  gallon)  settling  pond.   Haw  mine
drainage is pumped to the equalization  pond  at  15,261  cu
m/day  and  is  neutralized with 19 KKG (21 tons)  per day of
slaked lime slurry.

A diagram of this treatment sequence appears in  Figure  24,
and shows capabilities of sludge recirculation;  however, the
plant* s  normal operation excludes this as sludge thickening
by recirculation was unsuccessful.
                              112

-------
                                 FIGURE 24
          SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE B-2
                 176.63 liters per second
           RAW WATER
          HOLDING POND
 LIME
SLURRY
             AERATION
               TANK
           POLYMER
            FEED
CLARIFIER
POLISHING
  POND
                                     I
                                     I
                                     |	SLUDGE JTO	;
                                       ABANDONED MINE
                                  EFFLUENT  TO
                                     CREEK
                                  151.4  liters
                                  per second

-------
                         Table 11

                Analytical Data - Mine Code B-2
Constituent
Raw Mine Drainage
   Point B2-1
 Average Quality*
pH                          2.7
Alkalinity                   0
Specific Conductance       51U5
Solids, total dissolved    6397
Solids, suspended           183
Hardness                   1167
Iron, total                 112
Iron, dissolved              95
Manganese, total            8.8
Aluminum, total              60
Zinc, total                 1.8
Nickel, total              0.79
Strontium, total            1.5
Sulfates                   1153
Chloride                    9.2
Fluoride                   1.05
Ammonia                      35
Chromium, total            0.09
Copper, total               0.18
Treated Mine Drainage
   Point B2-2
  Average Quality* •

       6.9
        17
      4080
                             21
                           1920
                           0.15
                           0.06
                           0.17
                            0.1
                           0.01
                           0.01
                            3.9
                           1882
                             17
                           1.11
                            2.9
                           0.01
                            0.01
*Based on three consecutive 21 hour composite samples.

All results expressed in mg/1 except  for  pH  and  specific
conductance.

The  reported  cations  listed  above were analyzed for both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The raw and treated mine drainage samples were analyzed  for
arsenic,  barium,  boron, cadmium, mercury, molybdenum, lead
and selenium, but these were  not  detected  in  significant
concentrations.
                              114

-------
Mine Code D-3

Mine  D3  is  a  deep mine located in northern West Virginia
operating in the Pittsburgh   (bituminous)  coal  seam.   The
mine  encompasses 2,680 hectares  (6,618 acres), of which 405
hectares  (1,000 acres) remain.  Coal is mined at the rate of
907 KKG (1,000 tons) per shift with a recovery of  about  55
percent.   Based  on  the  1973  production  of  671,963 KKG
(740,863 tons), the estimated life of the  present  reserves
is 10 years.

The  analytical quality of the raw and treated mine drainage
is shown in Table 12.  Treatment is provided  for  discharge
point  D3-1 by a conventional lime neutralization plant that
was constructed in 1969.  Raw mine drainage is pumped to  an
1,893,000  liter  (500,000 gallon) holding pond at a rate of
16.U liters per second  (260 gallons per minute), and is then
neutralized by mixing with 2.59 KKG per day  (2.86  tons  per
day)  of  a  hydrated  lime  slurry.  The chemically treated
water is discharged to a  3,603,320  liter   (95,200  gallon)
mechanical  aeration  tank before flowing to two 5,678 cubic
meter   (1.5  million  gallon)  settling  ponds  operated  in
series.

About  once  every  three  months, sludge is pumped from the
primary settling  basin  to  the  preparation  plant  refuse
impoundment.  A diagram of the treatment sequence appears in
Figure 25.
                              115

-------
                                     FIGURE 25
              SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMFOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE D-3

       18.93 liters per second
 RAW WATER
HOLDING POND
 FLASH MIX
   TANK
                           LIME
                          SLURRY
                                                SLUDGE TO
                                               REFUSE PILE
T
AERATION
TANK


PRIMARY
SETTLING BASIN


SECONDARY
SETTLING BASIN
EFFLUENT TO
CREEK
»
16.40 liters
per second

-------
                         Table 12

                Analytical Data - Mine Code p-3
Constituent
Raw Mine Drainage
  Point D3-1
 Average Quality*
pH                         5.9
Alkalinity                  22
Specific Conductance      2678
Solids, total dissolved   2319
Solids, suspended          287
Hardness                   890
Iron, total                123
Iron, dissolved             55
Manganese, total           3.2
Aluminum, total           15.5
Zinc, total               0.44
Nickel, total             0.39
Strontium, total           2.3
Sulfates                  1394
Chloride                    28
Fluoride                  0.54
Ammonia                    3.2
Treated Mine Drainage
  Point D3-2
  Aver a
-------
Mine code P-H

Mine Dtt is a deep mine located  in  northern  west  Virginia
operating  in  the  Pittsburgh   (bituminous) coal seam.  The
mine encompasses 7081 hectares  (17,485 acres) of which 
-------
                                  FIGURE 26
           SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES  AT  MINE D-4
         4 liters per second
                   LIME
                  SLURRY
FLASH MIX
  TANK
 AERATION
   TANK
SETTLING
  POND
                                         EFFLUENT TO CREEK
                                       16.4 liters per second

-------
                         Table 13

                Analytical Data - Mine p-4
              Acid and Treated Mine Drainage
Constituent
Acid Mine Drainage
   Point Dit-1
 Average Quality*
pH                          2.6
Alkalinity                   0
Specific Conductance      11,780
Solids, total dissolved  15,359
Solids, suspended           621
Hardness                  1,960
Iron, total                 980
Iron, dissolved             970
Manganese, total             21
Aluminum, total            17.4
Zinc, total                 7.2
Nickel, total               2.6
Strontium, total            2.6
Sulfates                  7,508
Chloride                    115
Fluoride                   0.22
Ammonia
Treated Mine Drainage
  Point OH-2
 Average Quality*

      6.8
       18
      6935
     6850
      192
     1580
      1.6
     0.08
      0.9
      1.1
     0.06
     0.01
      1.9
     3009

     1.82
      1,2
*Based on three consecutive 24 hour composite samples.

All results expressed in mg/1 except  for  pH  and  specific
conductance.

The  reported  cations  listed  above were analyzed for both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The raw and treated mine drainage samples were analyzed  for
arsenic,  barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury,
molybdenum, lead and selenium, but these were  not  detected
in significant concentrations.
                             120

-------
Mine Code E-6

Mine  E6  is  a  deep  mine  located in central Pennsylvania
operating in the Miller "B" or Lower Kittanning (bituminous)
coal seam.   The  mine  encompasses  2,273  hectares  (5,612
acres),  of  which 358 hectares  (884 acres) remain.  Coal is
mined at the rate of 735 KKG (810 tons)  per  shift  with  a
recovery  of about 70 percent.  Based on the 1973 production
of 496,143 KKG  (517,045 tons), the  estimated  life  of  the
present reserve is eight years.

The  analytical  quality  of  the two combined and equalized
mine discharge points is shown in Table  14.   Treatment  is
provided  for  these  combined  discharges by a conventional
lime neutralization plant  that  was  constructed  in  1969.
Acid mine water is pumped on demand from two sections of the
mine at a rate of 113.6 liters per second  (1,800 gallons per
minute)  to an 11,355 cubic meter  (3 million gallon) holding
pond.  The drainage is then neutralized at the average  rate
of 4040 cubic meters per day (1.067 million gallons per day)
by  mixing  with  5.44  KKG  per day (6.0 tons per day)  of a
hydrated lime slurry.  The chemically treated mine  drainage
flow  to  a 94,625 liter (25,000 gallon) mechanical aeration
tank.  From here it then splits into two streams; one  flows
to a 24.4 meter  (80 fee diameter clarifier, and the other to
a  3786  cubic meter  (1 million gallon) pond for settling of
the solids.   The  clarified  drainage  from  both  settling
facilities is then discharged directly to the nearby surface
stream.   Sludge  removed  from the clarifier is pumped into
old mine workings through a bore hole.  It should  be  noted
that  the  settling  pond effluent quality was below average
due to short circuiting caused by sludge accumulation.

A diagram of the treatment sequence appears  in  Figure  27,
while  analytical  data  for  this  facility is presented in
Table 1U.
                              121

-------
                                     FIGURE 27
              SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT  MINE  E-6

       52.57 liters per second
 RAW WATER
HOLDING POND
 FLASH MIX
   TANK
  AERATION
    TANK
                               LIME
                              SLURRY
                                           SETTLING
                                             POND
         EFFLUENT TO CREEK
      17.41 liters per second
                                              x   5.8

                                              t   ~
  SLUDGE TO BOREHOLE
5.83 liters per second
                                          CLARIFIER
          EFFLUENT TO CREEK
       29.33 liters per second

-------
                         Table 14

                Analytical Data - Mine Code E-6
Constituent
Raw Mine Drainage
    Point E6-1
 Average Quality*
Treated Mine Drainage
Points E6-2, E6-3
Average Quality**
pH                          2.7
Alkalinity                   0
Specific Conductance       5105
Solids, total dissolved    6337
Solids, suspended           357
Hardness                   1740
Iron, total                 760a
Iron, dissolved             760
Manganese, total            7.0a
Aluminum, total            66.0a
Zinc, total                 2.3a
Nickel, total              0.66a
Strontium, total           0.59a
Sulfates                   3478
Chloride                     15
Fluoride                   1.67
Ammonia                     7.Oa
Chromium, total             0.05a
                     Thickener

                        8.2
                         29
                       3625
                       4240
                         11
                       2590
                       1.34
                       0.26
                       0.55
                       0.75
                       0.02
                       0.05
                       1.60
                       2141
                         13
                       0.94
                        5.6
                        0.07
             Pond

             4.0
               5
            3688
            4395
             258
            2520
            18.4
            12.9
             1.7
            0.59
            0.10
            0.14
            1.75
            2168
            11.5
            0.64
             4.2b
             0.01
*Based on two consecutive daily grab samples.

**Based on two consecutive 24-hour composite samples.

a.  Based on one grab sample.

b.  Based on one  24-hour  composite  sample.   All  results
expressed in mg/1 except for pH and specific conductance.

The  reported  cations  listed  above were analyzed for both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The raw and treated mine drainage samples were analyzed  for
arsenic,    barium,   boron,   cadmium,   copper,   mercury,
molybdenum, lead and selenium, but these were  not  detected
in significant concentrations.
                             123

-------
Ming code F^2

Mine  P2  is  a  deep  mine  located in central Pennsylvania
operating in the Lower Kittanning  (bituminous)  coal  seam.
The  mine encompasses 2,289 hectares (5,655 acres), and coal
is mined at the rate of 1,133 KKG  (1,21*9  tons)  per  shift
with  a  recovery  of  about  70 percent.  Based on the 1973
production of 779,280 KKG  (859,184 tons), the estimated life
of the present reserves is 33 years.

Treatment  is  provided  for  this  discharge  point  by   a
conventional  lime neutralization plant that was constructed
in 1967.  Raw water is pumped on demand to a 2,120,000 liter
(560,000 gallon)  holding pond.  Drainage is then neutralized
at the average rate of 3,119  cubic  meters  per  day  (.82*
million  gallons  per  day)  by mixing with 4.44 KKG per day
(4.9  tons  per  day)  of  a  hydrated  lime  slurry.    The
chemically  treated  water  is  naturally aerated in a short
baffled trough then discharged into one  of  three  settling
basins,  each  having  capacities of 7,192 cubic meters (1.9
million gallons),  Each basin is used  until  a  substantial
amount  of  sludge accumulates, then the flow is directed to
one of the others while the sludge is pumped to one of three
1,115 square meter (12,000 square fee sludge  drying  ponds.
Additional  sludge  ponds  are  to be constructed as needed.
Any overflow from these flows directly to the stream.

A diagram of the treatment sequence appears  in  Figure   28,
and analytical data is presented in Table  15.
                              124

-------
                                     FIGURED28^
             SCHEMATIC  DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT  FACILITIES AT MINE F-2
       3_6.._0_8_ liters  per second
 RAW WATER
HOLDING POND
 FLASH MIX
   TANK
                       LIME
                      SLURRY
                                                SETTLING
                                                   POND
                                                SETTLING
                                                  POND
                                                SETTLING
                                                  POND
                EFFLUENT TO CREEK^
               ,08  liters per second
                                  SLUDGE
                                   POND
SLUDGE
 POND

SLUDGE
 POND
                                                            EFFLUENT  TO CREEK

-------
                         Table 15

                Analytical Data - Mine Code F-2


                       Raw Mine Drainage    Treated Mine Drainage
                           Point F2-l,3             Point F2-H
     Constituent        Average Quality*    Average Quality**

pH                            2.5                 7.9
Alkalinity                     0                   30
Specific Conductance         4465                3400
Solids, total dissolved      5433                3636
Solids, suspended              45                   8
Hardness                     1320                2640
Iron, total                   380                 1.0
Iron, dissolved               370                0.02
Manganese, total              4.3                0.12
Aluminum, total                54                 1.8
Zinc, total                   5.4                0.08
Nickel, total                 2.0                0.08
Strontium, total             0.76                 2.4
Sulfates                     2942                2324
Chloride                       17                  28
Fluoride                     0.54                0.58
Ammonia                      14.9                 6,9
Chromium, total               0.05                0.03
copper, total                 0.67                0.01


*Based on two consecutive 24 hour composite samples.

**Based on one 24 hour composite sample.

All  results  expressed  in  mg/1 except for pH and specific
conductance.

The reported cations listed above  were  analyzed  for  both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The  raw and treated mine drainage samples were analyzed for
arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, mercury, molybdenum,  lead,
and  selenium,  but  these  were not detected in significant
concentrations.
                              126

-------
Mine Code K-6

Mine  K6  represents  a  deep  mine   located   in   central
Pennsylvania  operating in the Lower Kittanning (bituminous)
coal seam.  The mine  encompasses  24,098  hectares  (59,500
acres), of which 9,477 hectares  (23,400 acres) remain.  Coal
is  mined  at  the rate of 1,938 kkg (2,137 tons)  per shift,
with a recovery of about 63  percent.   Based  on  the  1973
production  of 1,371,967 kkg  (1,512,643 tons), the estimated
life of the present reserves is 60 years.

Treatment is provided for the raw mine drainage  by  a  lime
neutralization  plant  that was constructed in 1971.  Sludge
recycle is  employed  to  reduce  the  final  sludge  volume
requiring disposal.

Raw mine drainage is pumped continuously from an underground
sump  directly into a carbon dioxide sparging tank at a rate
of 233.5 liters per second  (3,700 gallons per minute) during
the weekdays.  Over the weekend the flow rate  is  increased
to  466.9 liters per second  (7,400 gallons per minute).  The
overflow from the sparging tank enters to a 1,021,950  liter
(27,000 gallon) aeration tank where it is neutralized with a
lime   slurry   conditioned   with   recycled  sludge.   The
chemically treated water then  overflows  to  a  54.9  meter
(180  fee  diameter clarifier.  Sludge from the clarifier is
recycled back to the lime slurry mix tank at a rate of 31.55
liters per second  (500 gallons per minute)  while any  excess
is pumped to an abandoned section of a deep mine.

A  diagram  of  the treatment sequence appears in Figure 29,
and analytical data is presented in Table 16.
                              127

-------
                                          FIGURE 29

                   SCHEMATIC  DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE K-6
                  298.4 liters per  second
ro
CD
CARBON DIOXIDE
SPARGING TANK
1
•• ,,„„

r
REACTION
TANK

LIME
SLURRY


SLUDGE RECYCLE
31.54 liters per second
*" 1
1
1
.. t

CLARIFIER
EFFLUENT TO CREEK
247.68 liters per second
                                                         I
                                                         ;	SLUDGE TO BOREHOLE	
                                                           19.18  liters per second

-------
                         Table 16

                Analytical Data - Mine Code K-6
  Constituent
Raw Mine Drainage
    Point K6-1
 Average Quality*
pH                          2.9
Alkalinity                    0
Specific Conductance       2361
Solids, total dissolved    2367
Solids, suspended           136
Hardness                    560
Iron, total                87.8
Iron, dissolved            82.8
Manganese, total           3.15
Aluminum, total            15.3
Sine, total                0.62
Nickel, total              0.46
Strontium, total           0.26
Sulfates                   1150
Chloride                   12.8
Fluoride                   0.44
Ammonia                    11.6
Selenium, total             0.04
Treated Mine Drainage
   Point K6-2
Average Quality**
                       7.9
                        51
                      2193
                      2292
                         5
                       910
                       1.7
                      0,05
                      0.25
                      0.70
                      0.02
                      0.02
                      0.67
                       985
                      18.5
                      0.53
                      2.15
                       0.08
              WkEnd

              7.5
               96
             2258
             2222
               17
              970
              7.1*
             0.17
             3.05
              1.0
             0.55
             0.15
             0.70
             1100
             16.5
             0.36
              3.0
              0.06
*Based on four consecutive 21 hour .composite samples.

**Based on two consecutive 2U hour composite samples.

All results expressed in mg/1 except  for  pH  and  specific
conductance.

The  reported  cations  listed  above were analyzed for both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The raw and treated mine drainage samples were analyzed  for
arsenic,  barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury,
molybdenum,  and  lead,  but  these  were  not  detected  in
significant concentrations.
                              129

-------
Mine Code K-7

Mine  K7  is  a  deep  mine  located in central Pennsylvania
operating in the  Lower  Kittanning  coal  seam.   The  mine
totals  5,073  hectares  (12,527 acres) of which 790 hectares
(1,950 acres) remain.   Based  on  the  1973  production  of
3*12,896   kkg  (378,000  tons),  the  mines  estimated  life
expectancy is 32 years.

Raw mine drainage collected underground is pumped through  a
bore  hole to a 3,785 cubic meter  (1 million gallon) holding
pond.  The drainage is treated by lime neutralization at  an
average  flew  of 332, >» liters per second  (5,268 gallons per
minute).  sludge recycle is employed  to  reduce  the  final
sludge volume requiring disposal.  The holding pond overflow
proceeds  to  a  151,flOO liter (40,000 gallon)  reaction tank
where it is neutralized with lime  slurry  conditioned  with
recycled  sludge.   The lime usage is 13.6 kkg  (15 tons) per
day.  The neutralized drainage flows into a 57.9 meter  (190
ft)  diameter  clarifier.   Sludge  from  the  clarifier  is
recycled back to the lime slurry mix tank at a rate of 31.55
liters per second (500 gallons per minute) while any  excess
is pumped to an abandoned section of deep mine.

A  diagram  of  the treatment facility appears in Figure 30,
and analytical data appears in Table 17.
                              130

-------
                                   FIGURE 30
            SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE K-7
       328.6 liters persecond
 RAW WATER
HOLDING POND
  REACTION
    TANK
                       LIME
                      SLURRY
                                        SLUDGE RECYCLE
                                    31.54 liters per second
CLARIFIER
                                                           EFFLUENT TO CREEK
                                                        =275 liters per second
                                               I    SLUDGE TO BOREHOLE

-------
                         Table 17

                Analytical Data - Mine Code K-7
  Constituent
Raw Mine Drainage
    Point K7-1
Average Quality*
pH                          2.5
Alkalinity                    0
Specific Conductance       2338
Solids, total dissolved    4115
Solids, suspended            69
Hardness                    815
Iron, total                 802
Iron, dissolved              32
Manganese, total           U.25
Aluminum, total              42
Zinc, total                 2.0
Nickel, total               1.0
Strontium, total            O.ft
Sulfates                   1550
Chloride                      5
Fluoride                   0.38
Ammonia                      15
copper, total                0.2
Treated Mine Drainage
   Point K7-2
Average Quality*

      8.8
       35
     2103
     2837
       10
     1600
      1.8
     0.03
     0.03
      1.0
     0,02
     0.01
     1.95
     IftSO
       10
     0.61
      a.3
      0.01
*Based on two consecutive 24 hour composite samples.

All results expressed in mg/1 except  for  pH  and  specific
conductance.

The  reported  cations  listed  above were analyzed for both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The raw and treated mine drainage samples were analyzed  for
arsenic,   barium,   boron,   cadmium,   chromium,  mercury,
molybdenum, lead and selenium, but these were  not  detected
in significant concentrations.
                            132

-------
Mine Code D-l

Mine  Dl is a deep mine located in southwestern Pennsylvania
operating in the Pittsburgh  (bituminous)   coal  seam.   The
mine  encompasses  4050 hectares (10,000 acres)  of which 648
hectares (1,600 acres)  remain.  Coal is mined at the rate of
907 KKG (1,000 tons)  per shift, with a recovery of about  78
percent.   Based  on  the  1973  production  of  604,733 KKG
(777,7110 tons), the estimated life of the  present  reserves
is 15 years.

The  drainage  from Mine Dl does not require neutralization.
Treatment is provided by an  aeration/sedimentation  process
that  was constructed in 1968.  The average flow of drainage
passing through the treatment system is 24,603 cubic  meters
per  day  (6,5 million gallons per day).  The mine discharge
water is pumped  directly  to  a  2,668,000  liter  (705,000
gallon)   mechanical  aeration  tank.   Following aeration, a
coagulant aid is added to promote  settling.   The  overflow
from  the  aeration  tank  then  flows into two 13,250 cubic
meter (3.5 million  gallon)  settling  basins  operating  in
parallel,  before  being  discharged.  Each basin provides a
detention of eight hours at the average flow.   Periodically
one  of  the  two  settling basins is taken out of operation
while the sludge is pumped to a  nearby  tailings  pond  for
final disposal.                           ;

A schematic diagram of the treatment plant appears in Figure
31.   Average raw and effluent analyses of samples collected
at this treatment plant are presented in Table 18.
                              133

-------
                                   FIGURE 31
            SCHEMATIC  DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE D-l
     233.9 liters per second
AERATION
  TANK,
                                          SETTLING
                                            POND
^   SLUDGE•   ^
,             1
                                          SETTLING
                                            POND
EFFLUENT TO CREE
               —»
                                                                     TAILINGS
                                                                       POND

-------
                         Table 18

                Analytical Data - Mine Code D-l


                     Raw Mine Drainage      Treated Mine Drainage
                      Point Dl-1               Point D1-U
Constituent          Average Quality*       Average .Quality**.

pH                         7.7                    8.0
Alkalinity                 243                    607
Specific Conductance      4210                   4168
Solids, total dissolved   3744                   3134
Solids, suspended          668                    164
Hardness                  1133                    500
Iron, total               69.3                   4.37
Iron, dissolved           67.6                   0.02
Manganese, total          4.19                   1.93
Aluminum, total           0.10                   0.10
Zinc, total               0.04                   0.04
Nickel, total             0.01                   0.01
Strontium, total          3.07                   2.36
Sulfates                  1726                   1322
Chloride                   258                    340
Fluoride                  0.68                   0.80
Ammonia                    6.0                   1.76
*Based on three consecutive daily grab samples.

**Based on three consecutive 24-hour composite samples.

All results expressed in nvg/1 except  for  pH  and  specific
conductance,

The  reported  cations  listed  above were analyzed for both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.
                              135

-------
Mine code p-5

Mine D5 is a deep mine located  in  northern  West  Virginia
that  operates  in  the  Pittsburgh coal seam which is 3.465
meters (88 inches) thick.  The exact size  of  the  mine  is
unknown  but  it»s  estimated  that  the  mineable coal will
remain for another 20 years1 life.  The 1973 coal production
was 641,342 KKG (707,323 tons)  but  the  mine  was  severely
damaged  by  a  fire  in  January, 1974 and no coal has been
mined since this date.  Projected  estimated  re-opening  of
the mine is sometime in the first quarter of 1975.

The  mine has one major point of dewatering pumped at a rate
of 22 liters per  second  (350  gallons  per  minute).   The
analytical  quality of the raw and treated mine drainage are
presented in Table 19.  Treatment of the raw  mine  drainage
consists  of  sodium  hydroxide  neutralization,  mechanical
aeration, and  primary  and  secondary  settling.   The  two
settling ponds operating in series have capacities of 15,140
cubic meters (4 million gallons) and 5,677 cubic meters (1.5
million  gallons)   respectively,  which provides for a total
theoretical detention of eleven days.

Sludge handling involves cleaning of  the  primary  settling
pond   approximately  once  every  three  years  with  final
disposal atop a refuse  pile.   The  treatment  facility  is
expected  to  last  for  the life of the mine.  A diagram of
this treatment sequence is shown in Figure 32,
                              136

-------
                        FIGURE 32
 SCHEMATIC  DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE D-5
          22.08 liters per second
        1
                        CAUSTIC
                         FEED
AERATION-SETTLING
       POND
POLISHING
  POND
               EFFLUENT TO CREEK
           22.08 liters per second
          SLUDGE TO REFUSE PILE

-------
                          Table 19

                 Analytical  Data -  Mine  Code  D~5
                Raw and  Treated Mine  Drainage
 Constituent
Raw Mine Drainage
  Point D5-1
 Average Quality*
 pH                         6.35
 Alkalinity                  104
 Specific conductance        6018
 Solids,  total  dissolved     6348
 Solids,  suspended           345
 Hardness                   1420
 Iron,  total                  140
 Iron,  dissolved             140
 Manganese, total              16
 Aluminum,  total             5.5
 Zinc,  total                 0,24
 Nickel,  total               0.01
 Strontium, total             3.7
 Sulfates                   3217
 Chloride                    650
 Fluoride                    1.2
.Ammonia                      7.6
Treated Mine Drainage
  Point D5-2
AverageQuality*

     7.7
     162
    6528
    6314
      24
    1390
     2.5
    0.02
     2.8
     0.1
    0.05
    0.01
    3.95
    3414
     625
    1.49
     3.3
 *Based on three consecutive  24  hour  composite  samples.

 All results  expressed in  mg/1 except  for  pH  and   specific
 conductance.

 The  reported  cations listed   above  were analyzed  for both
 total and dissolved  concentrations.  Significant  differences
 were not measured except  where  otherwise reported.

 The raw and  treated  mine  drainage samples were analyzed   for
 arsenic,  barium, boron,  cadmium,  chromium,  copper,  mercury,
 molybdenum,  lead and selenium,  but these were  not   detected
 in significant concentrations.
                              138

-------
Other  treatment  processes.evaluated for possible inclusion
in BPT, BAT, NSPS for acid or ferruginous mine drainage are:

Limestone-Lime Heutralization

Limestone treatment is claimed to  have  several  advantages
over  the  use of lime; (ly it gives a higher density, lower
volume sludge, (2) it is more economical,  (3)  it  is  less
toxic and therefore easier to handle, and, (H) it eliminates
potential  pollution by accidental overtreatment.  Limestone
however, is rarely used because of two  main  disadvantages;
first,  itfs relatively inefficient rate of reaction results
in lime  being  more  economical  and  reliable.   Secondly,
limestone  is usually unable to produce pH's higher than 7.0
which are necessary for rapid  ferrous  iron  oxidation  and
precipitation  of  heavy metals such as aluminum, manganese,
zinc, and nickel.

In an effort to combine the advantages of both limestone and
lime,  a  combination  neutralization   process   has   been
developed  to  attain  a more economical method of acid mine
drainage  treatment.   This  process  uses  the  same   unit
operations  as  the conventional neutralization process with
the exception that the addition of neutralization  chemicals
occurs in two stages.  Since limestone is highly reactive at
low  pH'sr it is added first to the acid mine drainage until
a pH of 5.0 to  5.5  is  reached.   Lime  is  then  used  to
increase the pH to the level desired.  In this process, both
limestone  and  lime are used in their most efficient ranges
of  reactivity.   Utilization  of  limestone's  lower   cost
results  in  an overall cost reduction of the combination as
compared to either reagent alone.  An improvement in  sludge
characteristics  has  also  been  evidenced in this process.
The resultant sludge contains  6  to  8  percent  solids  as
compared  to  1  to  2 percent solids in lime neutralization
sludge.   Treated  water  quality  by  both  the  lime   and
limestone-lime processes is comparable.

It  is  important  to note that the combination treatment is
not economically advantageous on all mine waters.  A lime to
limestone cost ratio of 1.8/1.0 is the break-even point  for
treating  acid  mine  drainage  where  an economic advantage
would not be achieved by using  limestone-lime  rather  than
with  lime alone.  As this ratio increases, so does the cost
advantage of the combination limestone-lime treatment.

Reverse Osmosis and Neutrolosis Systems

The use of the reverse osmosis systems for the treatment  of
acid   mine   drainage  has  been  investigated  in  studies
                             139

-------
sponsored   by   the   Environmental   Protection    Agency.
Recoveries  of  50  percent  to 75 percent of the feed water
rate have been obtained with  most  mine  drainages  tested.
Problems  have  resulted  from  membrane module fouling from
suspended matter in the feed water, and chemically from  the
formation  of calcium sulfate and iron compounds.  Suspended
solids can be  adequately  removed  by  20  micron  filters;
however, chemical fouling problems usually necessitate lower
recovery rates with blending of the product and feed waters.

Reverse  osmosis is not selective to the removal of specific
chemical compounds.   The  product  water  will  be  of  low
dissolved  solids,  usually  less than 100 mg/1, but it will
also have a low pH and  may  contain  iron,  manganese,  and
other  parameters  in  excess of allowable discharge levels.
This may necessitate additional product water treatment.

It is also important to consider the means for  disposal  of
the  brine  from a reverse osmosis system.  While the volume
may be small, the brine will contain all of the constituents
rejected by the  membranes  at  many  times  their  original
concentrations   in   the  feed  water.   The  Environmental
Protection  Agency   developed   the   unique   "Neutrolosis
Treatment   Process"  which  incorporates  a  total  package
concept for using reverse osmosis with  proper  disposal  of
the brine and other waste products.

The  Neutrolosis  Process  consists  of  the  basic  reverse
osmosis  system  and  lime  neutralization  facilities   for
chemical  treatment  of  the  brine.   In  this manner, many
constitutents such as; iron, manganese, aluminum, and  other
metals   will   be   almost   totally  removed  by  chemical
precipitation.  Other parameters such as calcium, magnesium,
and sulfate will be reduced.  The  treated  water  from  the
neutralization  stage  of the system is then recycled to the
R-O feed water stream.  Thus, the total system produces only
good quality product water and a sludge.

Costs for treating acid mine drainage by reverse osmosis  or
neutrolosis  are  not  readily  available.   Estimated costs
therefore have been developed based on  the  application  of
reverse  osmosis in other fields.  Published operating costs
of $0.079 to $0.106 per cubic  meter   ($0.30  to  $0.40  per
thousand gallons) are common for treating brackish waters at
feed  recoveries  of about 90 percent.  These costs are all-
inclusive for manpower, chemicals, power, depreciation, etc.
Since feed recoveries of 90 percent cannot be expected  when
treating acid mine drainage additional R-O equipment will be
needed   to  produce  the  same  volume  of  product  water.
                             140

-------
Therefore,  operating  costs  have  been  increased  by  100
percent for estimating purposes.

In  addition  to  the cost of operation of a reverse osmosis
system is the cost for the neutralization facilities for the
brine stream.  Operating costs of from $.027  to  $.106  per
cubic  meter  ($0.11  to  $0.40  per  thousand gallons) were
obtained for the  plants  discussed  in  Section  VIII.   An
operating  cost of $.079 per cubic meter  ($0.30 per thousand
gallons) will be used here for  a  low  volume-high  acidity
drainage.   Based  on these estimates, total operating costs
of approximately $.27 per cubic meter   ($1.10  per  thousand
gallons) should be considered.

Lime-Soda Softening

The precipitation method for softening water takes advantage
of  the  low solubilities of calcium and magnesium compounds
to remove these  hardness  causing  cations  from  solution.
Calcium  is  precipitated as calcium carbonate by increasing
the  carbonate  concentration  in   a   water.    Similarly,
magnesium   is  precipitated  by  increasing  the  hydroxide
concentration.  While many chemicals can be used to  produce
the  excess  carbonate  or  hydroxide  ion concentrations to
bring about these  precipitations,  economics  has  dictated
that the best materials are lime and soda ash.

For  applying  this  treatment  to  mine  drainage or waters
affected by mine drainage, the first four unit processes are
the same as for conventional lime neutralization; that is  ,
raw  drainage equalization, acidity neutralization with lime
(to pH 10.8),  iron  oxidation,  and  solids  removal.   The
additional unit processes required to complete lime-soda ash
softening  are  described  herein.  It is important to point
out that this treatment process does not greatly change  the
total  dissolved  solids  of the water; it only replaces the
calcium ion with sodium.  Other compounds  such  as  sulfate
are also unaffected.

Softening.   Primary  effluent water at pH 10.8 will contain
the  original  non-carbonate  calcium  hardness,  the   non-
carbonate calcium hardness formed during lime treatment, the
calcium  hardness  due  to  excess  lime  addition, and some
residual magnesium hardness.  Soda  ash  is  then  added  to
remove  nearly  all of the calcium hardness by precipitation
as the insoluble carbonate.

Solids Removal.  Following soda ash addition,  sedimentation
is  required  to  remove  the suspended matter formed, which
consists mostly of calcium carbonate.
                             141

-------
Recarbonation.    The   softened   effluent    is    usually
supersaturated  with calcium carbonate and carbon dioxide is
added to convert some of the carbonate to bicarbonate.  This
lowers the carbonate concentration and  pH  to  a  level  at
which  no  further  precipitation  of calcium carbonate will
occur once the water leaves the plant.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental  Resources  has
constructed a water treatment plant near the city of Altoona
that  employs  the  lime-Soda Process to chemically soften a
water supply affected by acid mine drainage.  The plant only
recently was placed in operation  and  as  yet  the  treated
water is not being discharged into the city's water supply.

Ion Exchange Process

Ion exchange in water treatment is defined as the reversible
interchange  of  ions between a solid medium and the aqueous
solution.  To be effective, the solid  ion  exchange  medium
must  contain  ions  of  its own, be insoluble in water, and
have a porous  structure  for  the  free  passage  of  water
molecules.  Within the solution and the ion exchange medium,
a  charge  balance  or electroneutrality must be maintained;
i.e., the number of charges, not the number  of  ions,  must
stay  constant.   Ion  exchange  materials  usually  have  a
preference for multivalent ions;  therefore,  they  tend  to
exchange  their  monovalent  ions.   This  reaction  can  be
reversed by increasing the concentration of monovalent ions.
Thus, a means exists to regenerate the ion exchange material
once its capacity to exchange ions has been depleted.

In the present day technology of ion  exchange,  the  resins
available can be classified as strong-acid cation, weak-acid
cation,   strong-base  anion,  and  weak-base  anion  types.
Combinations of the  available  resins  have  been  used  in
systems  for  treatment  of  different  waters  for specific
purposes.   The  applications  of  these  systems   to   the
treatment  of  mine  drainage  has  been  studied  mainly to
produce  potable  water  where  a  reduction  in  the  total
dissolved  solids  is required.  Processes developed include
the Sul-bisul Process and the Modified Desal Process.

Sul-biSul process-  This process employs a two or three  bed
system.   Cations  are removed by a strong acid resin in the
hydrogen form, or by a combination of weak acid  and  strong
acid   resins.    Following  this,  the  effluent  water  is
decarbonated to remove carbon dioxide formed in the process.
Then a strong-base anion resin operates in  the  sulfate  to
bisulfate  cycle  and removes both sulfate and hydrogen ions
during the exchange  reaction.   The  effluent  is  filtered
                            142

-------
according  to  Public  Health  Regulations  before  use as a
potable water.

Regeneration of the cation exchange bed is accomplished with
either hydrochloric or sulfuric acid.  In  the  regeneration
of  the  anion bedr bisulfate ions are converted back to the
sulfate form by the feed water.  The addition of lime slurry
to the regenerant will speed this part of the process.

The Sul-biSul Process can be used to  demineralize  brackish
water  containing  predominantly  sulfate anions,   It can be
applied to waters with a dissolved solids content of  up  to
3,000 mg/1.  The raw water should have an alkalinity content
of  about  10  percent  of  the  total  anion content with a
sulfate to chloride anion ratio of  at  least  ten  to  one.
This  water  must  be  sufficiently alkaline and abundant so
that it may be used as a regenerant and then  discharged  to
the  stream.   If  the raw water cannot be used as the anion
bed regenerant, other alkalis must be employed.   When  this
is  necessary,  all  tests  have  indicated  that there is a
negative net production of water.

A  water  treatment  plant  using  this  process  has   been
constructed   at   Smith  Township,  Pennsylvania;  however,
operational  problems  with  the  continuous  ion   exchange
regeneration equipment have prevented its use.

Modified Desal Process.  This process uses a weak base anion
resin  in  the  bicarbonate form to replace sulfate or other
anions, as *well as free mineral acidity.   The  solution  of
metal bicarJoonates is aerated to oxidize ferrous iron to the
ferric  form  and  to  purge  the  carbon  dioxide gas.  The
effluent is then treated  with  lime  to  precipitate  metal
hydroxides,   settled   to  remove  suspended  solids,  then
filtered if to be used as a potable supply.

Ammonia is used  as  the  alkaline  regenerant  to  displace
sulfate   from   the  exhausted  resin.   Lime  is  used  to
precipitate calcium sulfate from the regeneration wastes and
to release the ammonia regenerant for reuse.  In  this  way,
ammonia  is  recycled  in  the  process.   It is possible to
recover the carbon dioxide and lime used in this process  by
roasting  lime sludge wastes in a kiln.  In this manner, the
principal chemicals used in the process can be recovered  to
some extent, with only potable water, and an iron hydroxide,
calcium sulfate sludge being the resultant products.

The Modified Desal Process is not limited by total dissolved
solids  or  pH  levels;  however, large quantities of carbon
dioxide are required to achieve good resin  utilization  for
                              143

-------
high  total  dissolved  solids or alkaline feed waters.  The
process is limited in application to waters containing  less
than 2,200 parts per million of sulfate.  Another limitation
is  that  mine waters containing iron in the ferric form may
cause fouling of the anion bed because of  precipitation  of
ferric hydroxide.

A demonstration plant for treatment of acid mine drainage by
the  Modified  Desal  process  has  been  constructed by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources  at  Hawk
Run  near  Philipsburg,  Pennsylvania.   The purpose of this
plant is to provide a drinking water supply.  Operating data
for this plant is not available.

Alakline Mine Drainage

Alkaline mine drainage can be encountered in any  coal  mine
region,   but   is   found   infrequently  in  the  northern
Appalachian states as discussed in "Acid or Ferruginous Mine
Drainage.11

Treatment of alkaline mine drainage results in  one  or  two
classes  of effluent: discharge effluent or sediment-bearing
effluent.

Discharge Effluent

Mine drainage falling into this classification  is  alkaline
mine  drainage  containing low concentrations of metals such
as iron, manganese, or aluminum.  In  most  instances,  this
type  of  effluent  meets  the  local state requirements, for
direct discharge without further treatment.

Some states  require  that  discharges  in  this  type  flow
through  a  settling basin which is to serve for the removal
of any suspended solids and to equalize the flow and quality
of the drainage before discharge into the receiving  stream.
There  are  no  apparent  benefits  for such settling basins
other than to  provide  for  the  equalization  of  effluent
quality  if  such  a variation does occur.  One disadvantage
was noted at Mines J2  and  J3  where  several  basins  were
observed  to  have  a  profound  algae  growth in the summer
months.  This apparently contributed to a  higher  suspended
solids1  concentration  in  Mine  J-2's  effluent  than  was
present in the raw mine drainage.

Although these settling basins did not effect a  removal  of
suspended   solids,  they  did  provide  sufficient  natural
aeration to reduce the  dissolved  iron  concentrations,  as
                              144

-------
noted  at  Mine  F8«   Case  histories  for  the  mine codes
referenced in this section follow.
                              145

-------
Mine Code J-2

Mine J2 is  a  surface  mine  located  in  eastern  Kentucky
operating  in  the  Hance   (bituminous) coal seam.  The mine
encompasses  approximately  364.5  hectares   (900   acres).
Production for 1973 was 1,507,936 KKG  (1,662,553 tons).

The  analytical  quality  of  the waste water resulting from
stripping operations is shown in Table  20.   This  drainage
flows  directly  to  a 26,500 cubic meter  (7 million gallon)
pond, constructed in 1970, for  treatment  by  sedimentation
only.   The  effluent from this basin then discharges to the
nearby surface stream.  Every nine months the settling basin
is cleaned by dredging the  sludge  and  trucking  it  to  a
nearby landfill.

During  the  sampling  period  significant  algae growth was
observed in the pond, probably causing the suspended  solids
increase evidenced in Table 20.  A diagram of  the treatment
sequence appears in Figure 33.
                              146

-------
                                          FIGURE  33
                   SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE J-2
*-
•vl
COLLECTION PIT
SURFACE RUNOFF
SETTLING
  POND
                                                                 EFFLUENT TO CREEK
                                                       SLUDGE  TO  LANDFIL
                                                        >FILL

-------
                         Table 20

                Analytical Data - Mine Code J-2
  Constituent

pH
Alkalinity
Specific Conductance
Solids,, total dissolved
Solids, suspended
Hardness
Iron, total
Iron, dissolved
Manganese, total
Aluminum, total
Zinc, total
Nickel, total
Strontium, total
Sulfates
Chloride
Fluoride
Ammonia
Raw Mine Drainage
      Point J2-1
    Average Quality

          8.2
           136
         1600
         1558
           12
          820
         0.18
         0.18
         0.19
         0.10
         0.03
         0.07
         0.15
          664
          3.7
         0.24
          0.3
Discharge Effluent
    Point J2-2
   Averacre Quality

       8.2
        138
      1630
      1610
        26
       800
      0.11
      0.01
      0.19
      0.10
      0.01
      0.06
      0.15
       722
       3.6
      0.24
       0.2
All average qualities based on one grab sample.

All  results  expressed  in  mg/1 except for pH and specific
conductance.

The reported cations listed above  were jinalyzed  for  both
total and dissolved concentrations. 'Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The  raw  and  discharge  effluent samples were analyzed for
arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper,  mercury,
molybdenum,  lead  and selenium, but these were not detected
in significant concentrations.
                             148

-------
Mine Code J-3

Mine J3 is  a ' surface  mine  located  in  eastern  Kentucky
operating  in  the  Red Springs  (bituminous)  coal seam.  The
mine encompasses approximately  24.3  hectares   (60  acres)»
Production for 1973 was 111,251 KKS (155,734 tons).

The  analytical  quality  of  the waste water resulting front
stripping operations is shown in Table 21.  The majority  of
this  drainage accumulates in an open pit, before flowing to
three settling basins operated in series.  These basins were
constructed in April,  1974  and  each  has  a  capacity  of
757,000  liters  (200,000  gallons).'   The effluent from the
final  settling  basin  discharges  to  the  nearby  surface
stream.   Sludge  build-up in these ponds has not yet been a
problem.

Significant algae growth in the pond apparently retarded any
possible suspended solids reduction as  evidenced  in  Table
21.   A schematic diagram of the treatment plant is shown in
Figure 31.
                              149

-------
                                           FIGURE 34
                    SCHEMATIC  DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE J-3
H
Ul
Q
        SURFACE
        RUNOFF
SETTLING
  POND
SETTLING
  POND
SETTLING
  POND
                                                                                EFFLUENT TO
                                                                                   CREEK

-------
                         Table 21

                Analytical Data - Mine J-3


                        Raw Mine Drainage   Discharge Effluent
                           Point J3-1          Point J3-2
Constituent              Average Quality     Average Quality

pH                            8.1                  7.8
Alkalinity                     66                   64
Specific Conductance          360                  360
Solids, total dissolved       300                  298
Solids, suspended              16                   16
Hardness                      19U                  186
Iron, total                  0.14                 0.12
Iron, dissolved              0.09                 0.01
Manganese, total             0.10                 0.13
Aluminum, total              0.10                 0.10
Zinc, total                  0.01                 0.01
Nickel, total                0.01                 0.01
Strontium, total             0.03                 0.03
Sulfates                       99                   93
Chloride                      2.3                  3.1
Fluoride                     0.26                 0.15
Ammonia                      0.42                 O.U7


All average qualities based on one grab sample.

All results expressed in rog/1 except  for  pH  and  specific
conductance.

The  reported  cations  listed  above were analyzed for both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The raw and discharge effluent  samples  were  analyzed  for
arsenic,  barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury,
molybdenum, lead and selenium, but these were  not  detected
in significant concentrations.
                             151

-------
Mine Code F-8

Mine  F8  is  a  deep  mine  located in central Pennsylvania
operating in both the Lower Freeport  and  Lower  Kittanning
coal  seams.   Coal  production  for  1973 was 1,011,293 KKG
(1,114,987 tons}.

Treatment is provided for the mine  water  by  sedimentation
through  the  use  of two settling basins operated in series
that were constructed in 1970.  Each basin has a capacity of
42,t\68 cubic meters  (1.12  million  gallons).   The  average
flow  through the system is 6,170 cubic meters per day (1.63
million gallons per day) resulting in a total  detention  of
1.37  days.   To  date,  it has not been necessary to remove
sludge from the settling ponds.

It  is  important  to  note  that  although  no  significant
suspended  solids  reduction  occurred,  most of the soluble
ferrous iron in the water was oxidized and  settled  as  the
insoluble  ferric  form  through  natural  aeration  in  the
settling  ponds.   This  resulted  in  meeting  the  State's
discharge  requirements  for  dissolved  iron (0.5 rog/1)  and
also lowering  the  total  iron  content  of  the  water  by
precipitation  as  ferric  hydroxide.   Analytical  data for
these settling ponds is  presented  in  Table  22,  while  a
diagram of the treatment sequence is presented in Figure 35.
                             152

-------
                                            FIGURE 35

                     SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES  AT MINE F-8
H
<-n
U>
71.28 liters
per second ^

SETTLING
POND
.. k^

SETTLING
POND
EFFLUENT TO CREEK
71.28 liters per secon^


-------
                         Table 22

                Analytical Data - Mine F-8


                        Raw Mine Drainage    Treated Mine Drainage
                           Point F8-1          Point F8-3
Constituent              Average Qua.li.-ty     Average Quality

pH                            8.1                  8.2
Alkalinity                    28ft                  27ft
Specific Conductance         1215                 1195
Solids, total dissolved       872                  858
Solids, suspended              18                   14
Hardness                      112                  116
Iron, total                   5.0                  2.6
Iron, dissolved               1.5                 0.0ft
Manganese, total             0.16                 0.12
Aluminum, total              0.11                 0.10
Zinc, total                  0.01                0,006
Nickel, total                0,01                 0.01
Strontium, total             0,50                 0*57
Sulfates                      364                  298
chloride                      8.4                  7.4
Fluoride                     0.50                 0.18
Ammonia                       1.7                  2.0
Ferrous Iron                   1.9                 0-37
All average qualities based on one grab sample.
All  results  expressed  in  mg/1 except for pH and specific
conductance.

The reported cations listed above  were  analyzed  for  both
total and dissolved concentrations,  significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The  raw  and  treated  drainage  samples  were analyzed for
arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper,  mercury,
molybdenum,  lead  and selenium, but these were not detected
in significant concentrations.
                              154

-------
Se_diment-Bearin
-------
Mine Code p-ja

Mine D6 is a deep mine located in southwestern  Pennsylvania
operating  in  the  Pittsburgh (bituminous) coal seam,  coal
production for 1973 was 1,896,015 KKQ  (2,090,425 tons).

Mine water is pumped to the surface at an  average  rate  of
4,920.5  cubic  meters per day (1.3 million gallons per day)
and discharged into two settling basins operating in series.
The first basin has a capacity of  11,357  cubic  meters   (3
million  gallons)  and the second basin 946,425 cubic meters
(250 million gallons).  The  total  detention  for  the  two
basins  is  195  days.   The  overflow from the larger basin
discharges to the nearby surface stream.

The settling basins appear to provide very good removals  of
suspended   solids.    Analytical  data  for  the  treatment
facility is presented in Table 23,  and  a  diagram  of  the
treatment sequence is shown in Figure 36.
                              156

-------
                                            FIGURE 36
                    SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MIKE D-6
LSI
56.69 liters
per second ^

SETTLING
POND
K.

SETTLING
POND
EFFLUENT TO CREEK
56.59 liters per second


-------
                         Table 23

                Analytical Data - Mine Code D-6
                      Raw Mine Drainage
                        Point D6-1
pH                         8.2
Alkalinity                 705
Specific Conductance      3300
Solids, total dissolved   2191
Solids, suspended          244
Hardness                   146
Iron, total               0.28
Iron, dissolved           0.10
Manqanesa, total          0.04
Aluminum, total           0.10
Zinc, total               0.03
Nickel, total             0.01
Strontium, total          1.35
Sulfates                   635
Chloride                   480
Fluoride                  1.54
Ammonia                   0.28
Sediment-Bearing Effluent
  Point D6-3

     8.6
     645
    3160
    2128
      22
      85
    0.16
    0.01
    0.04
    0.10
    0.03
    0.01
    0.87
     506
     520
    1.41
    0.59
*Based on two consecutive daily grab samples.

**Based on two consecutive 24-hour composite samples.


All  results  expressed  in  mg/1 except for pH and specific
conductance.

The reported cations listed above  were  analyzed  for  both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The  raw  and  sediment-bearing  samples  were  analyzed for
arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper,  mercury,
molybdenum,  lead  and selenium, but these were not detected
in significant concentrations.
                              158

-------
Mine Code N-6

Mine  N6  is  a  surface  mine   located   in   southwestern
Pennsylvania  operating  in  the Lower Ereeport (bituminous)
coal seam.  The mine encompasses approximately 20.2 hectares
(55 acres) with practically all of the area  remaining.   No
coal was mined in 1973.

The  analytical quality of the waste water is shown in Table
2ft.  This water flows into a collection  sump  and  is  then
pumped  into  an  852,000  liter  (225,000  gallon) settling
basin.  The overflow from this first pond flows to a  second
850  cubic meter pond, then discharges to the nearby surface
stream,  h schematic diagram of this treatment plant appears
in Figure 37.
                              159

-------
                       FIGURE 37
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE N-6
SURFACE
RUNOFF ^
	 — 	 P
COLLECTION
PIT
i
W'

SETTLING
PIT


SETTLING
PIT
EFFLUENT TO CREEK
— ... .. .. .p.

-------
                          Table 24

                 Analytical Data -  Mine  N-6


                         Raw Mine Drainage    Sediment-Bearing Effluent
                          Point N6-1           Point N6-2
 Constituent            Average Quality      Average Quality

 pH                          7.7                  7.8
 Alkalinity                   66                   78
 Specific  Conductance        355                  725
 Solids, total  dissolved     260                  682
 Solids, suspended            78                   12
 Hardness                     300                  600
 Iron,  total        '  -  ,     0.01                 0.01
 Iron,  dissolved            0.01                 0.01
 Manganese, total           0.91                 0.11
 Aluminum, total            0.10                 0.10
 Zinc,  total                 0.06                 0.33
.Nickel, total               0.01                 0.01
 Strontium, total           0.30                 0.40
 Sulfates                      68                  325
 Chloride                     6.0                  8.7
 Fluoride                    0.25                 0.25
 Ammonia                     0.75                 0.30
 All average qualities based on one grab sample.

 All results expressed in mg/1 except  for,  pH and  specific
 conductance.

 The  reported  cations  listed  above were  analyzed for  both
 total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant  differences
 were not measured except where otherwise reported.

 The raw  and  sediment-bearing  samples  were analyzed   for
 arsenic,  barium, boron, cadmium,  chromium, copper, mercury,
 molybdenum, lead and selenium, but these were not  detected
 in significant concentrations.
                               161

-------
Mine Code a-5

Mine  O5  is  a surface mine located in northeastern Wyoming
operating in the Wyodak  (sub-bituminous)   coal  seam.   The
total  mine  encompasses  approximately  729 hectares (1,800
acres).  Coal is mined at the rate of 2,449 KKG (2,700 tons)
per shift.  Based on the  1973  production  of  658,482  KKG
(726,000  tons),  the estimated life of the present reserves
is 50 years.

The analytical quality of the waste water is shown in  Table
25.   This  water  is  channeled and pumped where necessary,
into a large collection basin where the suspended solids are
settled before the mine water is discharged.  A  diagram  of
the treatment sequence is shown in Figure 38.
                              162

-------
                               FIGURE  38
        SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT  FACILITIES AT MINE U-5
MINE SEEPAGE
SETTLING
  POND
                                       EFFLUENT  TO  CREEK

-------
                         Table 25

                Analytical Data - Mine u-5
Constituent
  Raw Mine Drainage  Sediment-Bearing Effluent
   Point 05-1         Point 05-2
Average Quality*    Average Quality*
pH                           8.0
Alkalinity                   440
Specific Conductance        2470
Solids, total dissolved     2238
Solids, suspended            104
Hardness                    1140
iron, total                 0.47
Iron, dissolved             0.03
Manganese, total            0.10
Aluminum, total             0.50
Zinc, total                 0.25
Nickel, total               0.01
Strontium, total             2.2
Sulfates                    1087
Chloride                      58
Fluoride                    0.56
Ammonia                      3.2
                           7.6
                           414
                          2970
                          2742
                            18
                          1280
                          0.20
                          0.01
                          0.15
                          0.20
                          0.20
                          0.06
                           2.6
                           992
                           138
                          0.48
                           7.2
*Based on one grab sample.

All  results  expressed  in  mg/1 except for pH and specific
conductance.

The reported cations listed above  were  analyzed  for  both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The  raw  and  sediment  bearing  samples  were analyzed for
arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper,  mercury,
molybdenum,  lead  and selenium, but these were not detected
in significant concentrations.
                              164

-------
Mine Code W-2                         •  .

Mine W-2 is located in southern West Virginia, and has  both
surface   and   deep  mining  operations  in  the  Powellton
(bituminous) coal seam.  Both mines together encompass about
3,443 hectares  (8,500 acres),  Based on the 1973  production
of  151,200  KKG  (166,700  tons)  the estimated life of the
present reserves is greater than 300 years.

Mine discharges are pumped into a large  5,980  cubic  meter
(1.58 million gallon) settling pond for removal of suspended.
solids before being discharged to the nearby stream.  Sludge
removal  from  this  basin  is accomplished with a drag line
with  burial  of  the. sediment  in  a  nearby  strip   pit.
Suspended  solids  are effectively removed from the drainage
by this sedimentation pond.  Analytical data is presented in
Table 26.  A diagram of the treatment sequence is  shown  in
Figure 39.
                             165

-------
                                           FIGURE 39
                    SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES AT MINE W-2
a*
a*
            45.29 liters per second
SETTLING
  POND
   EFFLUENT TO CREEK
45.29 liters per second
                                               |  SLUDGE TO  STRIP  PIT
                                                   ^""^^™ —^"^^ -MMMMM^W •MMMMM»

-------
                         Table 26

                Analytical Data - Mine Code W-2
Constituent
  Raw Mine Drainage
   Point W2-1
Average Quality*
PH
Alkalinity
Specific Conductance
Solids, total dissolved
Solids, suspended
Hardness
Iron, total
Iron, dissolved
Manganese, total
Aluminum, total
Zinc, total
Nickel, total
Strontium, total
Sulfates
chloride
Fluoride
Ammonia
7,7
58
570
566
60
289
0.24
0.24
0.13
0.10
0.13
0.01
1.04
223
3.3
0.18
0.09
Sediment-Bearing Effluent
   Point W2-2
 Average Quality*

      7.7
       44
      530
      510
       11
      246
     0.06
     0.06
     0.12
     0.10
     0.16
     0.01
     0.93
      193
      3.3
     0.15
     0.06
*Based on one grab sample.

All  results  expressed  in  mg/1 except for pH and specific
conductance.

The reported cations listed above  were  analyzed  for  both
total and dissolved concentrations.  Significant differences
were not measured except where otherwise reported.

The  raw  and  sediment  bearing  samples  were analyzed for
arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper,  mercury,
molybdenum,  lead  and selenium, but these were not detected
in significant concentrations.
                             167

-------
Mine Code W-9

Mine W9 represents a surface mine  located  in  southwestern
Washington  operating  in  the  Smith  and  Big  Dirty (sub-
bituminous)  coal  seams.   The   total   mine   encompasses
approximately  4,253  hectares  (10,500 acres).  Based on the
1973 production  of  2,928.700  kkg   (3,229,000  tons),  the
estimated life of the present reserves is 35 years.

Waste  water from mining operations contains 10,000 - 15,000
mg/1 of suspended solids.   This  water  is  directed  to  a
primary  settling  basin where the majority of the suspended
matter is removed.  The effluent from  this  basin  contains
120  -  130  mg/1  suspended solids in the form of colloidal
clays which tend  to  naturally  remain  in  suspension  for
periods  often  exceeding  one  week.  This water is treated
with   a   high    molecular    weight    organic    anionic
polyelectxolyte,  used  as a primary coagulant, then allowed
to settle in a secondary basin.  As documented in an article
of Mining Congress Journal entitled "Surface Mine  Siltation
Control,"  the  suspended solids can be reduced to less than
25 mg/1 (H - 15  Jackson  Turbidity  Units)   in  this  final
effluent; however, to achieve this quality of water a rather
high dosage (10 mg/1) of polyelectrolyte is required.

Depending upon quantity of rainfall, the two settling basins
provide  a detention of 8 to 23 hours for flows averaging up
to 632 liters per second (10,000 gallons per minute).
                             168

-------
Pollutant   Reductions   Achieved   by   Present   Treatment
Technology

Pollutant  removals for each of the classes of mine drainage
have been determined by  this  study.   In  some  instances,
known  waste  treatment technology from other industries has
been translated for treatment *of certain parameters in  mine
drainage.   A discussion of the removal efficiencies for the
various treatment methods follows.

pH, Acidityf and Alkalinity.  Acid  mine  drainage  contains
mineral acidity in the form of sulfuric acid which occurs by
the  oxidation of pyritic iron compounds associated with the
coal seams.  This acidity can be totally neutralized by  the
addition of an alkali, namely lime, limestone, caustic soda,
soda  ash,  or anhydrous ammonia.  In almost all cases, lime
in either the hydrated, by-product, or quick lime  forms  is
used  by  the  coal  industry  for  neutralization  purposes
because  of  its  availability,  ease   of   handling,   and
reliability  of  results.  For those drainages where acidity
is either the main pollutant encountered,  or  the  flow  is
relatively  small,  soda ash and caustic soda have both been
successfully used, as they are simple  to  apply  and  react
quickly.   Care  must be taken not to overfeed these alkalis
to the degree that caustic conditions  are  created  in  the
treated effluent.

A  pH determination is a control indicator of the efficiency
of the removal of total acidity in acid mine  drainage.   To
be  an  effective  indicator  of  the  total  acidity  of  a
discharge effluent from a treatment facility there  must  be
sufficient  time  allowed  for the reaction between the acid
mine drainage and the alkali to go to completion and the  pH
to   stabilize.    This   is   particularly   true  when  pH
determination is used as an effluent limitation.

Iron.  Iron in both the ferrous and ferric forms  occurs  in
acid or ferruginous mine drainage at significant levels.  It
has  been  demonstrated  that  iron  can  be  removed as the
insoluble hydroxide by lime neutralization to levels of less
than 2.0 mg/1.  It was  observed  that  these  removals  are
dependent  upon  an  adequate pH level and require effective
sedimentation units.  Lime effects better iron removals than
the  other  alkalis  and  lower  iron  concentrations   were
apparent as the pH was increased above 7.0.  Temperature may
have  an  effect  upon the removal of iron and other metals.
Detention periods in settling basins or thickners  were  not
observed  to  be  important as long as the minimum detention
was provided.  This varies from plant to plant, but at least
two hours detention is necessary.
                             169

-------
In most plants, ferrous iron is oxidized  by  aeration  once
the alkali has been added to raise the pH of the drainage to
an alkaline condition.  This then changes all of the iron to
the  ferric  form,  which  can be removed at lower pH»s than
ferrous  iron.   Mine  A3,  however,  has  found   it   more
advantageous  to  remove  iron  as ferrous hydroxide since a
more  dense  sludge  is  obtained.   This  usually  requires
somewhat  higher pH in the range of 8.5 to 9.5.  Mine AU has
demonstrated that iron oxidation is easy to  accomplish  and
the    use  of a long, open trough between the lime mix tank
and  the  settling  basin  has  eliminated  the   need   for
mechanical aeration equipment.

In  a  few instances, such as Mine Dl, it was found that the
mine  drainage  was   alkaline   but   contained   iron   at
unacceptable levels.  It was demonstrated here that aeration
and  sedimentation  with  the aid of a coagulant will remove
the iron to an acceptable discharge level.

Manganese.  Manganese occurs in  most  acid  or  ferruginous
mine drainages from coal mining operations.  This cation can
also   be  removed  in  the  neutralization  process  as  an
insoluble  hydroxide.   The  pH  required  for  removal   of
manganese  is somewhat higher than that for ferric iron.  It
was demonstrated by Mines A2, B2, D3, DU,  E6,  F2,  and  K7
that  substantial  reductions  to  about  1.0  mg/1  can  be
achieved  when  the  pH  is  raised  to   7.5   or   higher.
Essentially  complete  removal cannot be achieved unless the
pH is raised to above 9.0 and closer to a  pH  of  10.0,  as
shown  by Mines A3 and K7.  It was also demonstrated by Mine
D5 that sodium alkalis do not remove manganese  as  well  as
lime.

Aluminum.  The occurrence of aluminum in acid or ferruginous
mine drainage is more varying than either iron or manganese.
In some mines, aluminum concentrations are very high, and in
others  it  is not present at all.  Aluminum was shown to be
very easy to remove as the  insoluble  hydroxide.   Complete
removals  were demonstrated at Mines A2, A3, B2, D3, and D5,
where the pH in the neutralization process was controlled at
levels higher than  7.5.   It  is  important  to  note  that
aluminum  is  an  amphoteric   metal, which means that it is
soluble in both acid and alkaline forms.   Theory  indicates
that  aluminum should redissolve if the pH is not controlled
to within a  close  range;  however,  this  effect  was  not
observed in the plants studied.

Sulfates.   sulfates  are  the basic anion contained in mine
drainage.   Sulfate  concentrations  increased   in   direct
proportion  to  the  amount of acidity and iron contained in
                              170

-------
acid or ferruginous mine drainage.  Sulfates are not removed
in the neutralization process unless  the  concentration  is
greater  than  the  solubility  product  for gypsum (calcium
sulfate)   formation.   This  usually   occurs   at   sulfate
concentrations  greater  than 2,500 mg/1.  When sulfates are
in excess of this,  then  removals  can  be  expected.   The
extent  of  this  will depend upon the amount of calcium ion
available for gypsum formation.  Since treatment plants  are
operated  for  pH  control,  there  is  often  an inadequate
availability of calcium ion from the  lime  being  used  for
neutralization to achieve maximum sulfate removals.

Gypsum  presents problems in the operation of many treatment
plants.  Gypsum forms a very hard  crystalline  scale  which
increases  in  thickness  on  anything  it  contacts.  Quite
often, tanks, pipes, and mixing equipment  can  be  rendered
totally useless because of gypsum formation.  In addition, a
delayed  formation of gypsum crystals in the effluent of the
treatment plant can  significantly  increase  the  suspended
solids  analysis  for  that  discharge.   This  was  a noted
problem in  some  samples  collected  during  this  project.
Where  gypsum  precipitation  is  a  problem,  water samples
should be analyzed within one hour to  accurately  determine
suspended solids concentrations.

Suspended  Solids.  The presence of suspended matter in acid
or ferruginous mine drainage is not significantly  important
since  the  commonly applied neutralization process involves
chemical  reactions  in  which  insoluble  precipitates  are
formed.   Following  this,  sedimentation  in either earthen
basins, large  impoundments,  or  mechanical  clarifiers  is
employed  to  effect  very  good  removals of high suspended
solids as demonstrated by Mines A3, A4, B2, D5, 16, F2,  K6,
and K7.  Suspended solids removals to less than 30 mg/1 have
been  demonstrated.   The  affect  of  gypsum  formation  as'
disucssed  under sulfates was noticed at Mines Al,  A2,  and
Suspended  solids  removals  were  also observed in settling
ponds for alkaline mine drainage such as at  Mines  D6,  N6,
and U5.

Pressure  or  gravity  filtration  can  also be used for the
removal of suspended solids.   While  these  units  are  not
being  used  by  the coal industry, the application has been
demonstrated  elsewhere;  namely,  iron  and  steel,   metal
finishing, and for effluent polishing of biological systems.
Considering  the volumes encountered, high-rate, mixed-media
pressure filters seem most applicable for removing suspended
matter from  either the  effluent  of  a  conventional  lime
                              171

-------
neutralization system after gravity settling, or a sediment-
bearing  discharge.   Removals  of  25  to  200  mg/1 may be
necessary in flows ranging from 15.78 liters per second (250
gallons per minute) to more  than  63.1  liters  per  second
(1,000 gallons per minute).

Considering the effluent quality required, and the flows and
loadings to be encountered, high rate, mixed-media^ pressure
filters   are  the  most  applicable  to  this  waste  water
treatment problem.  Commonly known as deep bed  or  in-depth
filtration,  the  process  differs from the usual filtration
techniques in that solids  are  removed  within  the  filter
media  and  not on its surface.  Higher filtration rates are
desirable since the particles are to be forced into the bed.
The effluent suspended solids concentration  from  deep  bed
filters will be on the order of 10 to 20 mg/1 depending upon
the  filter  media  size  and  particle  diameter  of solids
encountered.

Other  Parameters.   Mine  drainage  was  also  observed  to
contain  other  parameters in varying concentrations such as
zinc, nickel, fluoride,  calcium,  magnesium,  and  ammonia.
Calcium  and  magnesium  are  the metals normally associated
with hardness in water and are not presently  considered  to
be  pollutants.   Zinc  and nickel were found to occur up to
one  or  two  milligrams  per  liter.   These  metals   were
essentially completely removed in the neutralization process
as insoluble hydroxides with proper pH control.

Fluoride  was  found  to  be  present  in mine drainage as a
direct affect of coal mining.  The  concentrations  observed
were  usually  slightly  in excess of the recommended limits
for public drinking water supplies.  While fluorides can  be
removed  as  insoluble  calcium fluoride in a neutralization
process, their level of occurrence  was  usually  below  the
solubility   for   this  compound,  and  removals  were  not
observed.

Ammonia was also found to be present in acid mine  drainage.
This  compound  was  usually  reduced several milligrams per
liter by the neutralization process.
                             172

-------
                        SECTION VIII

        COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS



MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT


Costs

Construction costs for plants treating  mine  drainage  were
obtained  from many of the coal companies interviewed during
this  study.   Most  of  these  treatment  facilities   were
constructed  during  the  last  six years.  The construction
costs obtained are generally low when compared to the  costs
for  similar waste treatment facilities in other industries.
These low costs may be reflected in the use of small,  rural
contracting  firms  for  excavation  and construction of the
facilities and in the fact that much of the  work  may  have
been  performed  by  the  coal  companies themselves.  These
costs were difficult to obtain for the  most  part  as  they
were  not  maintained  as a separate cost account by most of
the firms.

Plants for treating acid mine drainage must all provide  the
same  essential  equipment  including lime storage, feeders,
mixers, control facilities, and housing, independent of  the
flow  encountered.   The  associated  facilities such as raw
water pumps, holding ponds, aerators,  aeration  basins  and
settling  ponds or clarifiers may have a cost that varies in
proportion to the plant's design flow.  For  settling  ponds
treating  alkaline mine drainage this is not always true, as
the detention provided for sedimentation will vary depending
upon the sludge  storage  capacity  provided.   Some  plants
provide  settling ponds with detentions of from one to three
days while others use large impoundments that provide sludge
storage for several years.

Basis Of Cost Estimates

The more reliable construction costs obtained were  adjusted
to  September,  1974 costs using the Engineering News Record
 (ENR) Construction Cost Index.  For determination of  annual
capital  costs,  a  straight-line  depreciation over fifteen
years was used with an 8 percent annual interest rate.

A complete cost breakdown for several AMD  plants  including
adjusted   (197t)  initial  investment, capital depreciation,
operating and maintenance, and energy, power  and  chemicals
                             173

-------
costs  are  presented  as  Water  Effluent  Treatment Costs,
Tables 27, 28 and 29.

Where initial construction costs for  plants  treating  acid
mine drainage were incomplete, estimates were used for:

    1,   Land at $2,469 per hectare  ($1,000 per acre).

    2.   Excavation and pond construction at $0.31 per cubic
         meter ($1.00 per cubic yard) of total volume.

    3.   Fencing at  $16,«0  per  lineal  meter   ($5.00  per
         lineal foot) .

    «.   Sludge volume at ten percent of plant flow and  two
         percent solids by weight.

         Disposal  at  $0.026 per thousand liters ($0.10 per
         thousand gallons), or $4.25 per cubic meter   ($3,25
         per  cubic  yard)  of sludge dried to sixty percent
         solids.

    5.   Power usage at $0.025 per kilowatt hour.

    6.   Operating manpower at $9.00 per hour which includes
         overhead and fringes.

The adjusted investment costs were also used  in  developing
Figure  UO  where  construction  cost  per  unit capacity is
plotted against the design capacity.  A breakdown of typical
construction costs for three AMD plants, two of  which  were
not included in the survey, is presented in Table 30.

Operating  costs  were  also  obtained  from many of the AMD
plants visited.  When available, the cost were obtained  for
chemical  usage,  electricity, sludge disposal and manpower.
These are also presented in Tables 27, 28 and 29.

Alkaline mine drainage frequently use  settling  basins  for
suspended   solids   removal.   A  review  of  those  basins
constructed indicates that there is no  correlation  between
basin  capacity  and  the discharge flow rate; i.e., while a
minimum detention is necessary, the actual size of  existing
basins  depends  more on the physical characteristics of the
area used and the needed volume for sludge  storage.   As  a
minimum,  at  least  one day's detention should be provided.
Based on this, earthen pond construction can be estimated at
$1,05 per  cubic  meter  of  capacity   ($5.00  per  thousand
gallons).
                              174

-------
The  design  of  a  filtration  system  for either acid mine
drainage or alkaline mine drainage will vary depending  upon
the  conditions  encountered.  A simple system would consist
of two settling basins in series preceding the filters.  The
secondary pond would serve as the  source  for  both  filter
feed  (raw  water)  and  backwash  water.   Following filter
cleaning, the backwash water would be  discharged  into  the
primary  settling  pond.   In  such a system, the filtration
system would consist of feed pumps, filters, backwash pumps,
control building and associated piping.

While high-rate filters are very reliable, a minimum of  two
units must be provided.  Some manufacturers claim filtration
rates  up  to  13.58  liters per second per square meter (20
gallons per minute per square foot, the commonly used design
rate is 6.79 liters per second per square meter  (10  gallons
per  minute per square foot) and is used here for estimating
purposes.  As an example, a mine drainage of 63.1 liters per
second  (1,000 gallons per minute) would  require  two,  2,11
meter   (eight  ft)  diameter filters.  The cost for deep bed
filtration systems in these low design flow  ranges  can  be
estimated  at  $6.31  to $7.89 per liter per second  ($100 to
$125 per gallon per minute)  of design  capacity.   Operating
costs for such systems are low and are estimated to be $5.30
per  million  liters   ($20.00 per million gallons) filtered,
which includes the cost for power.  Labor  requirements  are
minimal  with  only  daily  checks  of  the  control  system
required.

Energy Requirements                   .   •

As shown on Tables 27, 28 and 29,  energy  requirements  for
the operation of mine drainage treatment facilities can be a
siginificant  part  of  the overall operating cost.  This is
attributed mainly to the cost of operating  mine  dewatering
pumps,  which  possibly  should  be  considered  as a direct
mining cost and not as a mine drainage treatment cost.   For
the  most part, these costs constitute more than half of the
power demand.  Therefore, for future treatment plants to  be
constructed as a result of this effluent guidelines program,
the  additional  power  demand  at  each mine will be small.
Mine dewatering pumps are in operation and additional  power
requirements  will  be  for  several motors in the treatment
system.
                              175

-------
                         Table  27

              WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
                   COAL MINING INDUSTRY
            ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Treatment Technology For
Levels I, II, and III as
Exhibited by Plants Identified    Treatment Plants for Mines

                                  D4         E6       F2
Investment (Adjusted For
   1974 Dollars)             $172,OQfi	_$453,100  $340,100

Annual Costs:

    Capital Costs            8,627       22,729    17,060
    Depreciation            11,467       30,206    22,673
    Operating & Maintenance  6,570       26,280     9,360
    Chemicals               18,000       65,700    62,415
    Energy and Power        15,030       12,024    25,716

         Total Annual Cost $59,694     $156,939  $137,226
Effluent Quality:

    Effluent Constituents
    Parameters (Units)*       Resulting Effluent Levels

    Design flow, cu m/day     5450       4543       3271
    Iron, total, mg/1         -2.0       -1.5       -1.0
    pH (all 6-9)                6.8        8.2        8.9
    Manganese, mg/1           -1.0       -1.0       -0.5
    Suspended Solids, mg/1    -200       - 25       - 25
*For raw waste loads, refer to case histories in Section VII.
- Less than
                              176

-------
                        TABLE 28
              WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
                   COAL MINING INDUSTRY
            ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Treatment Technology For
Levels I, II, and III as
Exhibited by Plants Identified
Investment (Adjusted For
  1974 Dollars)

Annual Costs:

    Capital Costs
    Depr eci at ion
    Operating S Maintenance
    Chemicals
    Energy and Power
      Treatment Plants for Mines
       K6

  $477,200
  23,937
  31,813
  14,600
 180,200
   9,352
     K7

 $540,400
 27,107
 36,027
  8,672
164,250
  9,1«3
    Total Annual Cost
$259,902    $245,199
Effluent Quality:

    Effluent Constituents
    Parameters  (Units)*

    Flow, cubic meters/day
    pH (All 6-9)
    Iron, total, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Suspended Solids, mg/1
   Resulting Effluent Levels
25,936
8.0
-2.0
-0.5
- 25
28,719
8.8
-2.0
-0.5
- 25
* For raw waste loads, refer to case histories in Section VII,
- Less than
                              177

-------
                          Table  29

                TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
            ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
FLOW (Cubic Meters Per Day)'    5,450
COSTS
    Land
    Holding Basin
    Control Building
    Lime Storage
    Lime Feed and Mixer
    Aeration Facilities
    Settling Basins
    Fencing and Roads
    Sludge Disposal Equipment
    Instruments and
      Electrical
    Pumps
    Other

Total Construction Cost
           (1974)
                                            Plant

                                            X     Y
           5,450
6,540
10,000
—
25,000
17,500
5,000
—
85,000
6,500
— —
12,000
35,000
7.500
10,000
. —
25,000
22,000
16,000
20,000
55,000
8,000
48,000
18,000
35,000
16,000
50,000
12,500
37,000
18,000
6,sao
23,500V
26,500
10,000
68,000*
42,000
33,500
20,000
$203,500  $273,000  $348,000
*Includes $40,000 for a sludge disposal basin with a twenty
 year life.
                             178

-------
Land Requirements

Since many treatment plants employ earthen  settling  basins
for  the  treatment  of mine drainage, land requirements can
become very significant.  At some plants, such as Mines  A2,
A4r  D4,  and  D3,  very  large  settling  basins and sludge
storage areas were formed by  damming  entire  valleys.   In
most cases, however, treatment plant facilities are confined
to land requirements of less than 10 acres.

Most  mine  drainage treatment facilities are constructed in
rural areas.  The cost of land for these  facilities  should
not  be a significant aspect of the total cost of the plant.
However, several companies reported  that  they  were  faced
with  paying  extremely  high  costs for rural land when the
local owners learned of the coal companies needs.  This  can
always be expected in the case of supply and demand.
                              179

-------
u
H
§
u
                  CONSTRUCTION COST VS. CAPACITY
                ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
                      (Costs in 1974 Dollars)
    10
    10"
    103
    10:
        $10
              $100

      COST/UNIT CAPACITY
DOLLARS PER CUBIC METERS A DAY

         Figure 40
$1,000
                              180

-------
                         Table 30

              WATEE EFFLUENT THEATMENT COSTS
                   COAL MINING INDUSTRY
            ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Treatment Technology For
Levels Ig II, and III as
Exhibited by Plants Identified
                                  Treatment Plants for Mines

                                 Al        A4        D3
                             $340,800  $193,500  $276,000
Investment (Adjusted For
  1971 Dollars)

Annual Costs:

    Capital Costs
    Depreciation
    Operating & Maintenance
    Chemicals
    Energy and Power

         Total Annual Cost   $ 81,558  $ 61,376  $ 91,510
17,095
22,720
9,855
7,200
24,688
9,706
12,900
19,710
10,950
8,110
13,844
18,400
9,855
31,200
18,241
Effluent Quality;

    Effluent Constituents
    Parameters  (Units)*

    Design flow, cu m/day
    pH  (All 6-9)
    Iron, total, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Suspended Solids, mg/1
                             Resulting Effluent Levels
3816
7,2
-2.0
1.1
-100
5420
8.0
-1.0
-2.5
- 25
2726
7.8
-2.0
-1.0
- 75
* For raw waste loads, refer to case histories in Section VII,
- Less than
                              181

-------
Sludge Disposal

For  those  waste  materials  considered to be non-hazardous
where land disposal is the choice  for  disposal,  practices
similar  to  proper  sanitary  landfill  technology  may  be
followed.  The  principles  set  forth  in  the  EPA's  Land
Disposal  of  Solid Wastes Guidelines  (CFR Title 1Q, Chapter
1; Part 241) may be used as  guidance  for  acceptable  land
disposal techniques.

For  those  waste  materials  considered  to  be  hazardous,
disposal will require  special  precautions.   In  order  to
ensure   long-term  protection  of  public  health  and  the
environment, special preparation  and  pretreatment  may  be
required  prior  to  disposal.   If  land  disposal is to be
practiced, these sites must not allow movement of pollutants
such as fluoride and radium-226 to either ground or  surface
water.   Sites should be selected that have natural soil and
geological conditions to prevent such contamination  or,  if
such  conditions  do  not  exist,  artificial  means  (e.g.,
liners)  must be provided to ensure long-term  protection  of
the    environment    from   hazardous   materials.    Where
appropriate,  the  location  of  solid  hazardous  materials
disposal   sites  should  be  permanently  recorded  in  the
appropriate office of the legal jurisdiction  in  which  the
site is located.

The  disposal  of  the  sludges produced in the treatment of
acid mine drainage is an increasing  problem.   The  earlier
constructed  plants,  those from 1967 through 1970, normally
provided facilities which consisted of settling ponds having
the capacity for one or two months storage of  sludge.   The
procedure,  then, was to take the facility out of operation,
and then remove the sludge with front-end loaders.   It  was
found  that  this  was a very messy and difficult operation.
The more recently constructed plants  now  provide  settling
basins which have capacities of many millions of gallons and
can  provide  for  sludge  storage  for several years.  This
appears to  be  a  good  solution  to  the  sludge  disposal
problem,  providing  that suitable land is available for the
construction of these large impoundments.

Another method employed for the disposal of sludge  produced
from  treating  AMD  is  to  provide  for  the continuous or
intermittent removal from the settling facility for disposal
into portions of active mines.  This  arrangement  has  also
been   acceptable   when  abandoned  mines  are  accessible.
Chemically,  this  should  not  create  a  water   pollution
problem,  even if the sludge contacts acid mine drainage, as
long as the iron is in the ferric form.
                              182

-------
Availability of Chemicals

As was discussed,  neutralization  chemicals  include  lime,
limestone,  soda ash, and caustic soda.  By far, lime is the
most commonly used neutralizing agent.  Limestone,  the  raw
material  is  readily  available  for  production  of  lime;
however,  there  is  presently  a  tight  market   for   the
availability  of  lime  due to the closing of several plants
for air pollution problems.  Soda ash briquettes  have  also
been  commonly used by many mines to neutralize intermittent
acidic discharges,  it has been reported  that  there  is  a
scarcity  of  soda ash in this form.  If so these mines will
have to resort to  other  alkalis  for  treatment.   On  the
whole,  it  does not appear that the availability of alkalis
will affect the  treatment  of  mine  drainage  from  active
mines.

PREPARATION PLANT WATER RECIRCUIATION

A  majority  of  the  coal  preparation  plants  visited  in
conjunction with development of this  document  have  closed
Water circuits.  These facilities employ thickeners, filters
or  settling  ponds  to  effect  most of tLhe necessary water
clarification prior to recirculation.   For  those  existing
plants  that  do  not presently have a closed water circuit,
recycling water from settling basins in many cases  will  be
the  most  practical and economic method for conversion to a
closed circuit.  Exceptions  to  this  assumption  would  be
those  plants  using  thickeners with an open water circuit.
These washeries can be converted by adding  filters  to  the
system.

The  cost  of  converting  to  a recycle system is primarily
dependent on the purchase and installation cost of the water
handling equipment necessary to meet the plants  consumption
demands.   This  may  vary  considerably  from  one plant to
another,  depending  on  the  type  and  size  of  equipment
utilized  to  process  the  coal.   It  would  be  extremely
difficult and inaccurate to project the cost of implementing
a  recycle  system   considerate   of   every   contingency.
Therefore,  Table  31  has  been  prepared to illustrate the
major expenditures required to deliver a  variety  of  flows
under  different  hydraulic  head conditions.  It is assumed
that at least one pond is presently being used in  any  open
circuit system for clarification prior to discharge and that
this  pond will be utilized as a holding basin for a recycle
system*  An additional holding  pond  may  be  necessary  to
allow  emergency  dewatering of the total plant system.  The
particular capacity required for holding basins is dependent
on the total volume of water used by the plant during normal
                              183

-------
                                                                       TABLE 31
                                           COAL. PREPARATION PLANT WATER CIRCUIT CLOSURE COSTS
00
Fluid
Delivery
Requirements
63
Uter/ae
1OOO
GPM
198
liter/sec
2500
3PM
316
liter/see
5,000
GPM
631
10,000
GPM
947
liter/sec
15,000
GPM
Head condZ
meters &feet
16m
60«
pom
too*
76m
250'
16TT
50'
QOm
100'
76m
260'
15m
BO'
3Om
100'
76m
250'
15m
50'
30m
too1
78m
aso1
15m
50'
aom
too1
78m
250'
VALVE & PUMP REQUIREMENTS
PUMPS
H.P,
25
4O
100-

50
100
250
100
200
450
150
350
800
250
600
125C

Mo.
Req
1
£
1
g
1
2
1
%
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
g
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Unit
Cost
$ 4,300^

4J9QO

7,525

10,000

11.700

20,509

12.500

23,000

30,000

19,000

34.000

57,5OO

28.600

64,800

73^,000

Total
Coat
$ 4.300
8.600
4,600
QfSOO
7t828
1B,O50
10,OOO
2O.OOO
11 ,700
23,400
2O.50O
41 ,OOO
12.500
25^000
23,000
46,000
30,000
60,000
19,000
38.000
34.000
68,000
57,500
116.000
28,600
B7.2OO
64.500
129.OOO
73,000
146.000
VALVES
TVPe
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
• B
A
B
No.
Req






if
i
X^
• '












Unit
Qoat


Gates =
$480
Checks**
$500
Gates B
$900
Checks=
$1000

$2300
Checks=
$2400
Gates =
$38OO
$4OOO


Gates =
$6725
Checks^
$7OOO
Total
Cost
$ 1,400
3,250
1,400
3,250
1,400
3,250
2. BOO
3. 500
8,800
6,300
2,800
6,500
7.OOO
J6.30JL.
7,000
ie,3oo
^7,000
16,300
11,600
27,OOO
11,600
27,000
11 r800
J7.0QQ_
20.450
47.625
20,450
47.625
9O,4BO
47 „ 625
valve %
pump
Install
P3OO
31 .OOO
63,300
38,000
77,300
32,600
67,000
47,6OO
97,000
71,100
144,000
51 ,080
106FS25
86,980
178,685
95,480
195,625
PIPING REQUIREMENTS
(Based on Average Run of
305 msters or 1000'}
Type
J
£
I

Size
20cm
8"
30 cm
12"
46 cm
18"
61 cm
24"
76 cm
30"
Installation
permeter,ft,
$28.25 per
meter
$3.61 per
foot
$42.40 per
meter
$12.83 par
foot
$88.56 per
meter
$27.09 per
foot
$121.62 per
$37.05 per
foot

$154.16 per
meter
$47 per
foot
a*
f j
$U60
3.00
7.0O
3. SO
7.00
18.00
7.00
14.00
35.00
14.00
28 .00
71.00
21.00
42 .00
106.0
jse'
fiw
•0°°
CLL
m
f*\
|
l
8
5
/•^
•E
5,
i
8
»
                                                               •A - 2 Gate Valves & 1 Check Valve
                                                               * B - 5 Gate Valves & 2 Check Valves

-------
operation and the precipitation pattern for the geographical
area.

To illustrate the costs presented in Table 31 as they  apply
to  a  given  situation,  the  following  example  has  been
developed.

                          EXAMPLE
This example is based on a simple Baum Jig cleaning  system,
operating  three  8  hour  shifts  each  days, 5 day a week.
Plant facilities are located 305 meters (1000 ft) away  from
and  31 meters  (100 ft) above a settling pond presently used
to retain and treat plant water until it can be  discharged.
It  is  anticipated  that  this pond alone will sufficiently
serve a recycle circuit.

A sump already in the plant precludes the  necessity  of  an
emergency  holding  pond  system.   Presently,  the plant is
producing 566 kkg  (625 tons) of clean  coal  each  hour  and
utilizing process water at the rate of 158 I/sec (2500 gpm).
Assuming  the present discharge will be converted to recycle
using a back-up pump in addition to the  primary  pumpr  the
following  installation and operating costs can be extracted
from Table 31.

                        INSTALLATION

    Two 100 hp. Pumps 9 $11,700 each             = $ 23,400
    Five Gate Valves 3 $900 each                 =    a,500
    Two Check Valves a $1000 each                =    2,000
    Build Platform 6 Mount Pumps
      B Valves in existing Pond                  =    1,000
    Install 305 meters of 30 cm pipe
     at $U2.UO per meter  (1000* of 12"
     steel pipe
      » $12.93 per foot)                          129,300

                           Total Installation    - $160,200

                         OPERATION
    1 pump cont. operation for
      3-8 hr. shifts - 5 days a week
      3 $7.00 per shift                       = $105,00 Mo.
                              185

-------

-------
                         SECTION IX

  BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
                 GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS
INTRODUCTION

The effluent limitations which must be achieved by  July  1,
1977  are  to  specify  the  degree  of  effluent  reduction
attainable through the application of the  Best  Practicable
Control  Technology  Currently Available.  This is generally
based upon the  average  of  the  best  existing  plants  of
various   sizes,   ages,   and  unit  processes  within  the
industrial category and/or sub-category.  Consideration must
also be given to:

    a.   the total cost  of  application  of  technology  in
         relation  to  the effluent reduction benefits to be
         achieved from such application;

    b.   the  size  and  age  of  equipment  and  facilities
         involved;

    c.   the processes employed;

    d.   the  engineering  aspects  of  the  application  of
         various types of control techniques;

    e.   process changes;

    f.   non-water quality environmental  impact  (including
         energy requirements)

Also,   Best   Practicable   control   Technology  Currently
Available emphasizes treatment facilities at the  end  of  a
manufacturing process, but includes the control technologies
within the process itself, when the latter are considered to
be normal practice within an industry.

A  further  consideration  is  the  degree  of  economic and
engineering reliability which must be  established  for  the
technology  to  be  "currently  available."   As a result of
demonstration projects, pilot plants, and general use, there
must exist a high degree of confidence  in  the  engineering
and economic practicability of the technology at the time of
commencement  of construction or installation of the control
facilities.
                             187

-------
Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage.

The effluent limitations suggested in the draft report  were
derived  after careful analysis and review of effluent water
quality data collected from exemplary plants.  This data was
substantiated by  historical  effluent  quality  information
supplied  by  the  coal  industry  and  regulatory agencies.
Despite a broad data base in terms of number  of  facilities
visited,  major  problems  were  encountered in establishing
guidelines based only on the initial samples collected.  Due
to time  restrictions,  the  initial  sampling  program  was
conducted  during the summer months.  During this period pit
pumpage and  runoff  from  surface  mines  is  minimal,  and
samples  of  these  types  of  drainage  could not always be
obtained.  In addition, the operation of acid mine  drainage
treatment  facilities  was  alleged  to  be much better than
during winter and spring.  Effluent limitations based solely
upon the data obtained during the summer months  would  have
been extremely low and possibly could not be achieved by the
exemplary  facilities  during the winter and spring seasons.
To compensate for this shortcoming, the  initial  analytical
data   and   available  historical  analyses  were  compared
statistically to develop the suggested effluent limitations.

Historical effluent sample analyses representative of either
daily samples or weekly  averages  of  daily  samples,  were
available  for  12  of the exemplary treatment plants.  This
historical  data  substantiated  the  information   obtained
during  the initial sampling program, and indicated that the
concentrations of pollutants in treated mine drainage varies
and  was  possibly  affected  by  weather  conditions.   The
initial  sample  data  and  the  historical information also
indicated that iron removal was improved by adjusting the pH
upward  from  six.   Variations  in  pH   and   total   iron
concentrations  are  graphically  illustrated  for  three of
those facilities in Figures 41 through i»9.  Total  iron  was
selected  for  several  reasons:  1) iron is one of the most
commonly analyzed constitutents of mine drainage, thus  data
is much more complete for this parameter;  2) iron reduction
is  generally representative of the overall effectiveness of
the neutralization process.

These plots show, as did the initial sampling program,  that
there  are  only  minimal  fluctuations  in effluent quality
during the summer months.  However, daily  fluctuations  are
more  sporadic  and  mean  concentrations are greater during
fall, winter, and spring months.  It should  be  noted  that
these  fluctuations  of  pollutant concentrations may not be
indicative of effectiveness of the  treatment  process,  but
could  be  reflecting  inefficiencies  in  the  operation of
                              188

-------
00
AO
                JAN.   FEB.   MAR.    APR.    MAY    JUNE   JULY   AUGl   SEPT.   OCT.   NOV.

                    HISTORICAL  DATA MONTHLY TOTAL IRON - TREATMENT PLANT A-l
                                              Figure 41
DEC.

-------
vQ
O
9-

i
                JAN.    FEB.    MAR.   APR.   MAY   JUNE    JULY   AUG.   SEPT.    OCT.    NOV.

                       HISTORICAL  DATA-MONTHLY  pH-TREATMENT  PLANT  A-l  .
                                               Figure 42
                                                                             DEC.

-------
      vo
            SJ -
                      JAN.   FEB.   MAR.   APR.   MAY    JUNE   JULY    AUG.   SEPT.   OCT.   NOV.    DEC.

                           HISTORICAL  DATA MONTHLY TOTAL  IRON-TREATMENT  PLANT A-1
                                                     Figure 43
f
              t
            ft or

-------
vo
K)
      i f
      ij:

      3 c
      n
       5'


       1=
                JAN.
FEB.   MAR.   APR,   MAY   JUNE    JULV   AUG.   SEPI   OCI    NOV.


 HISTORICAL  DATA-MONTHLY  pH-TREATMENT  PLANT  A-|

                        Figure 44
DEC.

-------
VD

U)
    33
    srs.
1
p
     !
     i
       S
       S'
       I
a

i

I
i
a*.

S-
JAN,   FEB.   MAR.    APR.   MAY   JUNE   JULY   AUG.   SEPT.   OCT.    NOV.   DEC,

    HISTORICAL  DATA  MONTHLY  TOTAL  IRON - TREATMENT PLANT A-3

                              Figure  45

-------
£   ~3 3 =
VO   f i o
*•   I ' 1
 ,   ^ g  E,
     s <£

     o -f
     •a in




    If








    ^J




    f f
    n

   I
3-
«*

*r
                JAN.
                  FEB.
MAR.
APR.   MAY   JUNE
JULY
AUG.   SEPT.   OCT.    NOV.   DEC,
                        HISTORICAL DATA-MONTHLY  pH TREATMENT PLANT  A-3

                                                Figure 46

-------
VO
        £

        I
JAN.   FEB.   MAR.   APR.   MAY   JUNE    JULY   AUG.   SEPT.   OCT   NOV.    DEC.
    HISTORICAL DATA MONTHLY TOTAL IRON-TREATMENT PLANT A-3
                              Figure 47

-------
er>
       §
       o
       1-
i. a
     I
       y

       i
                JAN.
FEB.   MAR.   APR.   MAY   JUNE    JULY   AUG.   SEPT.   OCT.   NOV.


 HISTORICAL  DATA-MONTHLY pH-TREATMENT  PLANT A-3

                        Figure 48
DEC.

-------
JAN.   FEB.    MAR,   APR,   MAY    JUNE   JULY    AUG.   SEPT,    OCT   NOV.
     HISTORICAL DATA  DAILY TOTAL  IRON - TREATMENT  PLANT  K-7
                               Figure 49
                                                                                  DEC.
II'
* ar

-------
individual plants, or  maintenance  problems  at  individual
plants.   Treatment plants in the same proximity do not show
significant fluctuations during the same time periods.

It was found that  mean  iron  concentrations  during  these
periods  of fluctuations at individual treatment plants were
slightly less than  3.5  mg/1  with  maximum  concentrations
approaching   9.0  mg/1.   Statistical  evaluation  of  this
historical data and  comparison  with  imitial  sample  data
revealed  that  the  reduction  of  pollutants  during fall,
winter and spring was approximately 1.29 standard deviations
above that attainable during the summer.  On this basis, the
suggested 30 day average effluent limitations were  computed
for   each   critical  parameter  by  adding  1.29  standard
deviations to the  mean  value  computed  from  the  initial
sample   data.   This  indicated  that  80  percent  of  the
exemplary treatment plants evaluated in  the  initial  study
should be able to meet the limitations at all times.

This  rationale  was not, however, utilized to establish the
30 day  average  limitation  proposed  for  total  suspended
solids,  because there is a technology available which, when
applied in conjunction with normal settling, can achieve the
suggested suspended solids concentrations,  coagulants  have
been  successfully  and economically utilized to remove fine
sediment from  mine  waste  water  to  consistently  achieve
suspended  solids concentrations observed during the initial
sampling.

Examination of historical data also  revealed  that  maximum
iron  values  centered  around  7 mg/lf or twice the monthly
average value.  To maintain uniformity in the  establishment
of  daily  maximums, the maximum daily guideline limitations
were consistently suggested at twice the thirty-day  average
values.

To  validate  and  confirm  the  conclusions  and  suggested
effluent limitations established  in  part  from  historical
data,  a  further  sampling program was conducted during the
winter and spring of 1975.

The suggested guidelines were  initially  based  on  careful
analysis and review of effluent water quality data collected
from  exemplary  plants.   The  data  was  substantiated  by
historical effluent quality information supplied by the coal
industry and regulatory agencies.   Selection  of  minesites
for  the  winter  and  spring  sampling  program  was  made,
whereever  possible,  from  those  identified  as  exemplary
treatment   facilities  during  the  initial  study  period.
Plants were considered on the basis of:
                             198

-------
    1)    Plant design;
    2)    mode of operation, i.e.,  manual/automatic,   safety
         features and alarm systems, housekeeping, etc.;
    3)    stability of plant operation (operational problems)
    U)    range of operating parameters (pH range, flow rate,
         settling time) ;
    5)    historical data indicating  potential  problems  in
         meeting the recommended effluent limits.

Based  on  this  analysis,  seven  plants  were selected for
further evaluation.  These plants adequately  represent  the
complete   range   of  operating  parameters  and  are  well
designed,  maintained,  and  operated  acid  mine   drainage
treatment plants.  Of the seven acid mine drainage treatment
plants  selected  for this phase of study, six were included
in the orginal list of "best plants;"  the  remaining  plant
was  included  because modifications and design improvements
completed after the initial  sampling  program  resulted  in
improved  performance  consistent with that of the exemplary
plants*  All seven plants are  located  within  southwestern
Pennsylvania  and  treat  drainage  from  large  underground
mines.  While this may appear biased  toward  this  specific
locale,  it  must  be pointed out that Pennsylvania has long
been the leader in acid mine drainage  treatment  technology
and  all  are in such proximity as to be jointly affected by
weather  conditions.   In  addition,  the  larger  mines  of
southwestern  Pennsylvania  employ  the  most  sophisticated
technology in practice today and are most  conscientious  in
their maintenance and operational programs.

The  sampling  technique  utilized at the acid mine drainage
neutralization   plants   winter-spring   sampling   program
employed  automatic  samplers  to collect composite samples.
The composite  samplers  collected  aliquots  at  15  minute
intervals  of  the  influent and effluent for each treatment
plant evaluated during this supplementary study.  Once  each
day composited samples were manually collected, prepared for
laboratory  analysis  (by  adding the proper preservatives),
and returned to  the  laboratory.   Duplicate  samples  were
collected  at  each  site  and  submitted to Bituminous Coal
Research in Monroeville,  Pennsylvania  for  evaluation  and
verification  of  analyses by the National Coal Association.
All samples were analyzed for  those  parameters  that  were
most  prevalent in the original study.  These parameters are
as follows:

    PH
    Alkalinity
    Total Suspended Solids
    Iron, Total
                              199

-------
    Iron, Dissolved
    Manganese, Total
    Aluminum, Total
    Nickel, .Total
    Zinc, Total
    Sulfate, Total

In order to fully assess the  treatment  plants  ability  to
comply with the effluent limitations for 30 day averages, as
well  as  one  day  maximums, sampling was conducted at each
site for 90 consecutive days.  This relatively long duration
of sampling enabled  an  assessment  of  the  influences  of
temperature  and precipitation on treatment plant efficiency
during  the  winter  and  spring  seasons.    Sampling   was
initiated  at  the seven mine drainage neutralization plants
on February 4, 1975 and completed May 5, 1975, a  period  of
91 days.

All  data  was  correlated to daily U.S. Weather Bureau data
and  thoroughly  reviewed  to  determine  the  influence  of
weather   conditions  on  the  operation  of  the  treatment
facilities.  Unusual variations in effluent quality was also
compared to the survey crews' field reports  in  order  that
some  account  could  be  made  for these occurrences due to
either maintenance or operational problems.  In general,  it
was  not  observed that climatological conditions influenced
the  treatment  of  acid  mine  drainage.    Most   effluent
variations  observed  were directly traced to maintenance or
operational problems.

At one plant, however, which utilized a vary large  settling
basin,  definite effluent variations were observed that were
influenced  by   weather   and   other   physical   factors.
Specifically,   suspended   solids   concentrations  in  the
effluent from  this  facility  varied  significantly  during
periods  of  ice  formation  or wind conditions.  It is felt
that better effluent quality with regard to suspended solids
could be obtained by more proper selection of the  point  of
discharge  from  this  settling  basin.   Variations  in the
suspended solids concentrations in the discharge  from  this
large  basin  were  also influenced by a naturally occurring
phenomenon, in which the pond "turned  over"  at  about  the
57th  day  of  sampling.   This resulted in a definite color
change in the  pond  as  well  as  a  decrease  in  effluent
quality.

Several  days  after  periods of heavy precipitation, it was
observed that the  volume  of  drainage  treated  by  plants
increased  significantly.   This  also  had  some  affect on
deterioration of effluent quality at those facilities  which
                              200

-------
employed
periods.
clarifiers or settling basins with short detention
In almost all other instances where a  significant  increase
in  concentration  of a chemical parameter was measured, the
cause  could  be  accounted  for  by   some   operation   or
maintenance  problem.   This  included  malfunctioning of pH
measuring  equipment  which  subsequently  influenced   lime
feeding  units,  build-up of sludge in the settling basin to
the point that there was a  carryover  in  the  effluent  or
malfunction of some other related plant equipment.

All  analytical  data  on  effluent  quality  was  evaluated
statistically  for  the  seven  plants  studied  during  the
winter-spring  sampling  period  and  the  mean and standard
deviation values were calculated.  This  data  is  presented
below,  with  the  values  initially  obtained  on  effluent
quality during evaluation of  the  22  exemplary  acid  mine
drainage treatment plants examined during development of the
draft document.

                          Table 32
            Winter-spring  (1975) Analytical Data
                   Sanvgle
Parameter           Count

Total Iron          567
Dissolved Iron      517
Manganese           517
Aluminum            517
Zinc                517
Nickel              515
Total Suspended
 Solids             555
                    mg/1

                    0.03
                    0.01
                    0.03
                    0.01
                    0
                    0.01
                                       Maximum
                                         mq/1

                                        31.0
                                         2.1
                                         6.0
                                         1.40
                                         0.18
                                         0.29

                                       973
Standard
Deviation
1.51
0.08
0.90
O.ftl
0.02
0.05
1.81
0.18
1.14
0.51
0.02
0.05
                                       3 a
70.27
                              201

-------
                          Table 33
           22 Best Plants (1974) Analytical Data
                   Mine      Minimum   Maximum
Parameter          Count       mcr/1     mq/1

Total Iron           22       0.15       7.40
Dissolved Iron       22       0.01       0.49
Manganese            22       0.01       3,05
Aluminum             22       0.01       3.83
Zinc                 22       0.01       0.59
Nickel               22       0.01       0.57
Total Suspended
 Solids              22       1        192
       Standard
       Deviation
1.9
0.11
0.91
0.74
0.09
0.06
1.48
0.13
0.85
0,85
0.16
0.12
34
44.92
Based  upon  the  close  comparison of the mean and standard
deviations values for each of  the  parameters  between  the
twenty^two  exemplary  plants obtained during the summer and
the supplemental sampling survey, the  30  day  average  and
single   day   maximum  values  are  proposed  as  initially
suggested in the draft development document.   Further,  the
minimum  and  maximum  values  for  pH  are also proposed as
previously suggested.

It does appear  that  any  claim  that  the  these  effluent
limitations cannot be achieved through the winter and spring
is not warrented.

In  reviewing  the  data  obtained  during this supplemental
sampling project, further observations were made toward  the
treatment  technology  in  practice  and  its  efficiency in
removing certain pollutants.  Specific comments follow:

Acidity, pH   -    The control of pH in the treatment  plant
is  most  important  and should be monitored on a continuous
basis.  It was  observed  that  those  plants  operating  to
produce  a discharge effluent near the lower pH limit of 6.0
produced effluents of  a  poorer  quality  than  those  that
operated  at 7.0 and above.  A pB determination is a control
indicator of the efficiency of the removal of total acidity.
To be an effective indicator  of  the  total  acidity  of  a
discharge  effluent  from  an  acid  mine drainage treatment
facility time must be allowed for the reaction  between  the
acid  mine  drainage  and  the alkali used in treatment, and
this reaction must be allowed to go to completion and the pH
to  stabilize.   This   is   particularly   true   when   pH
determination is used as an effluent limitation.
                              202

-------
gotal Iron    -    It. was demonstrated that total  iron  can
be  effectively removed by the treatment technology employed
to within the effluent limitations proposed.   For  the  six
plants  where  complete data is available, violations of the
recommended daily maximum did not cause the 30  day  average
values   to  exceed  the  proposed  limit.   "Operational  or
maintenance problems were usually the reason for  any  total
iron  values  which  were  in violation of the daily maximum
value,

pissglyeJL Iron     -    it ' was  observed  that  there   was
little problem with these plants in removing dissolved iron.
All  plants  achieved  effluent  concentrations of dissolved
iron consistently within the 30 day average value  proposed,
although  there were some values which exceeded the proposed
daily maximum concentration.  After careful analysis of  the
data,   it   was  concluded  that  any  facility  exhibiting
satisfactory removal of total  iron  could  likewise  effect
satisfactory removal of dissolved iron.

Manganese     -    It was generally observed  that  removals
of  manganese  are  affected  by  the  operating  pH  of the
treatment  plant.   Only  one  of   the   plants   exhibited
difficulty  in  removing  manganese  to  a  level within the
recommended 30 day average value.  It is theorized that this
occurred because the particular  plant  adds  a  very  small
amount  of alkali  (and alkalinity} to the raw mine drainage,
thereby not affecting the manganese at all, or else the long
detention   period   (50   days}   permits   hydrolysis   of
precipitated  manganese  hydroxide.  In any event, manganese
removals to the proposed levels can be achieved  through  pH
control.

aiundnumJL_Mic_kel and Zinc    -    Effective   removals    of
these  metals  were  observed  at all plants.  There were no
observed values which exceeded the  proposed  daily  maximum
concentrations for nickel and zinc at any of the plants, and
at  only  one  plant  did  aluminum  values exceed the daily
maximum limit.  Consequently,  it  is  concluded  that  well
operated  treatment  plants  have  very  little  problem  in
removal of these parameters.

Suspended Solids   -    The removal of suspended  solids  by
different   methods   of   gravity  sedimentation  in  these
treatment plants produced widely  varying  results.   First,
only  one  plant  had  suspended solids concentrations which
exceeded the  recommended  daily  maximum.   This  could  be
attributed to either an insufficient detention period in,the
settling  basin,  or  to  gypsum  solids being formed in the
sample.  In addition, this same plant  (A-2}  together  with
                              203

-------
plant   A-1  exhibited  difficulty  in  complying  with  the
recommended 30  day  average  concentrations.   Problems  in
plant  A-4 can be traced to an observed condition where this
very  large  impoundment  "turned  over"  due   to   thermal
stratification.   This  caused  previously settled solids to
raise to the surface and carry-over in the discharge.

Alkaline Mine Drainage

As stated in Waste Characterization  (Section  V)   discharge
effluent  and  sediment-bearing  effluent from alkaline mine
drainage is commonly superior to the quality of treated mine
drainage from the most effluent treatment plants.    Alkaline
mine drainage is characterized as not requiring treatment or
only requiring treatment for suspended solids removal.

While  conventional neutralization sucessfully controls most
pollutant parameters associated  with  acid  or  ferruginous
mine  drainage,  treated  mine  drainage freqeuntly contains
suspended  solids  in  excess  of   the   suspended   solids
concentration  in  sediment-bearing  effluent  from settling
facilities used for alkaline  mine  drainage.   Conventional
neutralization  generally requires the addition of solids as
a neutralizing agent which cause an increase in  pH  of  the
mine   drainage   initiating   precipitation  of  previously
dissolved constituents.  This creates additional  solids  to
be settle out of the waste water.

The  primary pollutant in alkaline mine drainage is susended
solids.  As established in this section, acid or ferruginous
mine drainage treatment technology is available which,  when
applied in conjunction with normal settling, can achieve the
suspended  solids  concentrations  suggested  in  the  draft
document.

As part of the winter-spring sampling program eight  surface
mines   in   selected   locations  were  sampled  to  verify
fluctuations  in  effluent  quality  due  to   winter-spring
weather variations.

The  rationale  for  selection  of settling basins (alkaline
mine drainage) for evaluation differed from  that  used  for
selection of acid mine drainage treatment plants for several
reasons:

1.  Alkaline mine drainage is encountered over an  extremely
broad  geographical  area with widely divergent physical and
climatological conditions (unlike  the  relatively  isolated
acid mine drainage of Northern Appalachia).
                              204

-------
2.  With  the  exception  of  total  suspended  solids,   all
parameters  are  generally  within  acceptable limits of the
proposed guidelines.

Because the areal extent of alkaline  mine  drainage  is  so
wide,  sites were selected in locations which, cumulatively,
were considered to be representative of the many  variations
found  throughout the United States.  Based on this criteria
minesites were selected as follows:

    2 Surface Mines in Western Kentucky
    2 Surface Mines in Wyoming
    2 Surface Mines in West Virginia
    2 Surface Mines in Eastern Kentucky

The  sampling  technique  used  at  the  surface   minesites
employed  the use of grab samples.  This was necessitated by
the unavilability of power sources at the  remote  locations
of  the  sediment  basins  serving these minesites.  Another
factor considered in the decision to utilize  grab  sampling
was  the  fact  that,  aside  from the influences of storms,
alkaline  drainage  from  surface  minesites   is   not   as
susceptible  to  plant  malfunctions  as  are neutralization
facilities.  Based on this decision, samples were  collected
manually  at  the  discharge  from  each  of  the minesites'
settling  basins.   Wherever  possible,  samples  were  also
collected  of the influent to the sediment ponds; in several
cases this was not possible  because  drainage  entered  the
pond  from  many individual points and a single sample would
not accurately represent the overall quality of the raw mine
drainage.

In addition to the daily grab samples collected at  each  of
the  surface  mine  sites,  weekly  composite  samples  were
collected  at  each  sample   location.    This   too,   was
accomplished manually by taking aliquots at each site over a
seven day peribd throughout the study.

Daily  grab samples were analyzed for pH and total suspended
solids, while weekly composite samples were analyzed for all
parameters defined above in the discussion of neutralization
plants included in the winter-spring sampling  program.   As
with  the  acid mine drainage treatment plants, the duration
of sampling was 90 consecutive days.   However,  due  to  he
divergent  locations of the minesites involved, considerable
time  was  required  to  implement  the  Sampling   program;
consequently,  sampling  (was  not  initiated  at  all  sites
simultaneously.          ;
                             205

-------
Computerization   of   the   supplementary   samples    from
sedimentation ponds where daily samples consisted of only pH
and  total  suspended solids were analyzed using a soft-ware
program, whereby the sample statistics were obtained without
extensive mine coding.

Sample statistics  on  these  total  suspended  solids  data
included:

    1.   Individual mine
    2.   Mine type (surface and underground)  for
         alkaline mine drainage
    3.   All sediment bearing effluent
    Q.   All treated mine drainage

Each  analysis  included  the  maximum,  minimum,  mean  and
standard deviation for these total suspended solids data.

Based upon the initial  sampling  program  and  the  winter-
spring  sampling  program  the 30 day average and single day
maximum values  are  proposed  as  suggested  in  the  draft
document.

Coal Preparation Plants and coal Preparation Plant ancillary
Area

For  coal  preparation plants, it was demonstrated toy a wide
segment of the industry that total reuse of process water is
feasible.  Therefore closed systems,  or  "zero  discharge,"
has  been  proposed  for  BPT.   Drainage from a preparation
plant's immediate  yards,  coal  storage  areas,  or  refuse
disposal  areas  must  comply  with the effluent limitations
recommended for Bituminous, Lignite, and Anthracite Mining.

The effluent limitation guidelines and standards  for  "Best
Practicable  Control  Technology  Currently  Available"  are
presented in Table 34.

Waste treatment technology for the coal mining industry does
not require highly sophisticated methods.  Effective removal
of  pollutants  contained  in  mine  waste  water  has  been
demonstrated  by the industry.  For acid or ferruginous mine
drainage   lime   neutralization   has    been    adequately
demonstrated  as  being  capable  of  meeting  the  effluent
limitations  requirements  for  BPT  as  listed.   Effective
removal of iron, manganese, aluminum, zinc and nickel can be
achieved  by  maintaining  proper  pH control.  For alkaline
mine  drainage,   sedimentation,   or   sedimentation   with
coagulation,  vill meet the limits recommended.  In some few
instances it may be desirable to utilize filtration  methods
                              206

-------
Parameter
                                           TABLE  34

                      EFFLUENT LEVELS ACHIEVABLE THROUGH.APPLICATION OF THE
                     BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY  AVAILABLE
                 Bituminous, Lignite-, and Anthracite
                           Mining Services
                          Bituminous, Lignite* and
                             Anthracite Mining
                Coal Preparation
                     Plant
Coal Storage,
 Refuse Storage
 and Coal Prep-
 aration Plant
 Ancillary Area
 Acid or Ferrugi-
nous Mine Drainage
                                                                                                    Alkaline Mine
                                                                                                       Drainage
                30 Day     Daily    30 Day *   Daily *  30 Day *   Daily *  30 Day *   Daily *
               Average    Maximum   Average   Maximum   Average   Maximum   Average   Maximum
fo
O
                 IRON, TOTAL


                 DISSOLVED IRON


                 ALUMINUM..TOTAL


                 MANGANESE, TOTAL


                 NICKEL, TOTAL


                 ZINC, TOTAL

                 TOTAL SUSPENDED
                 SOLIDS

s-
-w
It)
S
O
0.
V-
o
OJ
gl
ra
"o
vt
S
0



s-
w
-t->
5
ffl
01
o
d.
«t-
o
O)
5
1
_g


6-9
3.5
0.30
2.0
2.0
0.20
£1.20
35
§-9
7.0
0.60
4;0
4.0-
0.40
0.40
70
6-9
3.5
0.30
2.0
2.0
0.20
0.20
35
                                                                    6-9
                                                                    7.0
                                        6-9
                                        3.5
                                                                    0.60     0.30
                                                                    4.0      2.0
                                                                    4.0      2.0
                                                                    0.40     0.20
                                6-9
                                7.0
                                                   0.50
                                                   4.0
                                                   4.0
                                                   0.40
                                                                    0.40     0,20       0.40

                                                                      70       25         "50

                                                                     *A11 values except pH tn mg/1,

-------
for  effective  suspended solids removal from mine drainage.
It was also demonstrated that those alkaline mine  drainages
containing  dissolved  iron  can  meet recommended limits by
natural aeration in holding ponds.

These guidelines do not appear  to  present  any  particular
problems   in   implementation.    The  treatment  processes
involved  are  in  use  by  the   industry   and   difficult
engineering  problems  are not usually involved in design or
construction.  The costs estimated in Section VIII are based
primarily on actual plant data, and  generally  reflect  the
entire  range  of  flows encountered, as presented in Figure
40.  The costs given represent the average situation.
                             208

-------
                         SECTION X

     BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE,
                 GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS
INTRODUCTION

The effluent limitations which must be achieved by  July  1,
1983  are  to  specify  the  degree  of  effluent  reduction
attainable through the application  of  the  Best  Available
Technology    Economically   Achievable,    Best   Available
Technology Economically Achievable is determined by the very
best control and treatment technology employed by a specific
point source within the industry category or  by  technology
which   is  readily  transferable  from  another  industrial
process.

Consideration must also be given to:

    a.   the age of the equipment and facilities involved;

    b.   the process employed;

    c.   the  engineering  aspects  of  the  application  of
         various types of control techniques;

    d.   process changes;

    e.   cost of achieving the effluent reduction  resulting
         from the application of this level of technology;

    f.   non-water quality environmental  impact   {including
         energy requirements).

Also,  Best  Available  Technology  Economically  Achievable
assesses the availability of in-process controls as well  as
additional  treatment  at  the  end of a production process.
In-process control options include water re-use, alternative
water uses, water conservation,  by-product  recovery,  good
housekeeping, and monitor and alarm systems.

A   further  consideration  is  the  availability  of  plant
processes and control techniques up  to  arid  including  "no
discharge"  of  pollutants.  Costs for this level of control
are to be the top-of-the-line of current technology  subject
to engineering and economic feasibility.  The Best Available
Technology  Economically  Achievable may be characterized by
some technical risk with respect  to  performance  and  with
                             209

-------
respect   to   certainty   of  costs.   The  Best  Available
Technology  Economically  Achievable  may  necessitate  some
industrially   sponsored   development  work  prior  to  its
application.

Best Available Technology  Economically  Achievable  is  not
based  upon  an  average  of  the best performance within an
industrial category, but is to be determined by  identifying
the very best control and treatment technology employed by a
specific point source within the industrial category or sub-
category,  or  where  it  is  readily  transferable from one
industry  process  to  another,  such  technology   may   be
identified   as   Best   Available  Technology  Economically
Achievable.

Mine Code  K-7  was  identified  in  the  draft  development
document  as  the  facility exhibiting the very best overall
control and treatment technology  for  acid  or  ferruginous
mine drainage.  After additional analysis, it was determined
that other mines (namely. Mine Codes A-l, A-ft, and B-2) were-
comparable  to  mine  K-7  in  both  sophistication  of  AMD
treatment  plant  design   and   efficiency   of   pollutant
reduction.

As  has  been  mentioned in Section IX, the initial sampling
program conducted  during  this  study  did  not  accurately
represent  any  possible  effects  of seasonal variations on
mine  drainage  treatment  facilities.   The  AMD  treatment
facilities  included in the winter and spring sampling study
are in the same proximity so as to be  equally  affected  by
weather conditions, and include mine code A-l, A-ft, and B-2.
Mine  Code K-7 is not considered to be in the same proximity
as the  other  mines  included  in  the  study.   For  these
reasons, mine Code K-7 was not included in the winter-spring
sampling   program.   Mine  Codes  A-l,  A-ft,  and  B-2  are
recognized as mines exhibiting the very best overall control
and treatment technology.

These mines represent  mine  drainage  treatment  facilities
using  conventional  lime  neutralization systems.  Settling
basin, mechanical clarifier, or  combination  of  mechanical
clarifier  and  settling basin are used for suspended solids
removal.  All three mines are operated primarily to meet the
effluent requirements of the State of Pennsylvania.

Statistical evaluations of the data generated at these three
mines during the winter and  spring  sampling  program  were
performed.   This  included  an  evaluation to determine the
maximum .daily concentration of each parameter  for  each  of
the  three mines; an evaluation to determine the maximum 30-

-------
day average concentration of each parameter for each of  the
three  mines;  an  evaluation to determine the daily maximum
concentration of each parameter at the three mines;  and  an
evaluation   to   determine   the   maximum  30-day  average
concentration of each parameter at the three mines.

Best Available Technology  Ecnomically  Achievable  reflects
improved  performance  at  these  three  mines.  The winter-
spring sampling program verified that weather conditions  do
not  significantly influence the treatment of mine drainage.
Variations in effluent quality were directly attributable to
pH control or maintenance problems which are  considered  to
be   correctable   through   improved   performance  at  the
individual mine.  Those analysis for the  days  where  there
were  observed  correctable  operational  problems  were not
included in the statistical evaluations.

The effluent  limitation  guidelines  representing  BAT  for
maximum    daily   concentrations   and   30   day   average
concentrations  of  total  iron,   dissolved   iron,   total
aluminum,  total manganese, total nickel, and total zinc are
obtainable at any of these three mines 99% of the time  with
improved  performance  related  to  pH  control and improved
maintenance of the mine drainage treatment plant.

Advanced technology for suspended solids reduction has  been
demonstrated  in  the coal industry with flocculant aids and
in other industries such as steel and paper using  polishing
filters.   Deep  bed  or  in-depth  filtration is capable of
achieving effluent suspended solids  concentrations  on  the
order  of  10  to  20  mg/1, depending upon the filter media
size, and  particle  diameter  of  the  solids  encountered.
Since this filtration technique has not been demonstrated in
coal  industry  applications,  some  leeway  is  allowed  in
establishing BAT suspended solids effluent limitations.  BAT
effluent limitation guidelines for suspended solids  in  the
mining  segment  of  the  coal industry is established at 20
mg/1 as a 30-day average  value  and  10  mg/1  as  a  daily
maximum value.

The  limitation  guidelines  for  "Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable" are presented in Table 35.

It  had  been  considered  that  Best  Available  Technology
Economically  Achievable  could  possibly  provide for total
dissolved  solids  control.   A  study  of   the   available
processes   indicates  that  Reverse  Osmosis  is  the  most
applicable.  Operating costs for R-o and in  particular  the
"Neutrolosis Process" were discussed in Section VII and were
estimated  at   $0.27  per  cubic  meter   ($1.10 per thousand
                              211

-------
    Parameter
                                            TABLE 35


                         EFFLUENT LEVELS ATTAINABLE THROUGH APPLICATION OF THE
                           BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE :
                     Bituminous, Lignite,  and Anthracite
                                    g Services
                                         Coal  Storage,
                                          Refuse  Storage
                                        •  and  Coal-Prep-
                                          aration Plant
                                          Ancillary Area
                                               Bituminous, Lignite, and
                                                  Anthracite Mfnfng
Coal Preparation
     Plant
 Acid or Ferrugi-
nous Mine Drainage
Alkaline Mine
   Drainage
                    30 Day     Daily    30 Day  *   Daily *   30 Qiy *   Dally *  30 Day *   Daily *
                   Average    Maximum   Average   Maximum   Average   Maximum   Average   Maximum
pH
1ROII, TOTAL


DISSOLVED IRON



ALUM MUM,, TOTAL



MANGANESE, TOTAL

NICKEL, TOTAL

ZINC, TOTAL
TOTAL SUSPENDED

«
5«

0
u
£
Q-
<*-
O

-------
gallons) of acid mine drainage  treated.   For  those,  mines
that  treat  acid  or  ferruginous  mine  drainage  and were
presented as case histories in Section  VII,  the  estimated
operating cost for a Neutrolis system would range from $0,22
to  $9.68  per  KKG  ($0.20 to $8.78 per ton)  of coal mined.
The range reflects the age, size and hydrology of the mines.
For mines where drainage volumes  are  small  the  operating
cost  of a Neutrolosis Process would be low when compared to
the tonnage of coal mined.  For those older mines  that  are
affected  by  large areas, the volume of mine drainage to be
treated are significantly greater.

The use of reverse osomsis in the treatment of mine drainage
is still in the research stage.   while  the  process  shows
some  promise,  its  application  has  not been successfully
demonstrated at  this  time.   For  both  technological  and
economic  reasons,  reverse osmosis cannot be recommended as
BAT for the removal of dissolved solids.

Significant recycle or zero discharge  is  not  possible  to
obtain for coal mine drainage.
                             213

-------

-------
                         SECTION XI

              NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
                 AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION

The  effluent  limitations  which  must  be  achieved by new
sources, i.e.,  a  sourcer  the  construction  of  which  is
started  after proposal of New Source Performance Standards,
are to reflect the degree of  treatment  achievable  through
application  of  the  best  available  demonstrated  control
technology,   processes,   operating   methods,   or   other
alternatives.   The  end  result  is  to  identify  effluent
standards achievable through the use of improved  production
processes   (as  well  as  control  technology) .   A  further
determination which must be made for New Source  Performance
Standards  is  whether a standard permitting no discharge of
pollutants is practicable.

Consideration must also be given to:

    a.   the type of process employed and process changes;

    b.   operating methods;

    c.   batch as opposed to continuous operation;

    d.   use of alternative raw materials and mixes  of  raw
         materials;

    e.   use of dry rather than wet processes;

    f.   recovery of pollutants as by-products.

In addition to recommending New Source Performance Standards
and effluent limitations covering discharges into waterways,
constituents of the effluent discharge  must  be  identified
which  would  interfere  with,  pass through or otherwise be
incompatible with a  well  designed  and  operated  publicly
owned  treatment  plant.  A determination must be made as to
whether  the  introduction  of  such  pollutants  into   the
treatment plant should be completely prohibited.

It  has  been  determined  that  technology  does  exist for
effluent  limitations  guidelines  as  proposed   for   BAT.
However,  as previously mentioned, the filtration technology
upon which  a portion of BAT suspended solids limitations are
based has not been applied in the coal  industry,  thus  its
                             215

-------
adaptability,  suitability,  and economics have not yet been
fully determined.  In addition, the  degree  of  reliability
has not been sufficiently demonstrated to merit inclusion in
the consideration of new source performance standards.

The   limitation  guidelines  for  "New  Source  Performance
Standards" are presented in Table 36.

Pretreatment Standards

Wastewaters from the mining industry are not  characteristic
of   those   wastes  amenable  to  treatment  by  biological
processes.  In addition,  these  wastes  are  generally  not
compatible  with  sanitary sewage because of their potential
acidic nature, metals content, and large volumes.   However,
there  are  some  metalic salts such as aluminum sulfate and
certain ferrous salts which are beneficial to and  are  used
in   waste  water  treatment  at  publicly  owned  treatment
facilities.   These  metalic  salts  are  commonly  used  as
coagulants.    It  has  been  shown  that  under  controlled
conditions municipal waste water  and  AMD  can  be  treated
together  in "combined treatment."  In certain cases AMD may
be an economical source of chemical coagulant, and  division
of  AMD to "combined treatment" would contribute towards the
abatement of pollution due to AMD.

It is recognized that  portions  of  the  Anthracite  mining
industry in Pennsylvania have a unique situation in that the
State  of Pennsylvania has established ten water sheds which
are  affected  by  mine  drainage,  and  has  established  a
Pollution  Abatement  Escrow Fund to build and maintain mine
drainage treatment facilities to treat  mine  drainage  from
active  and  abandoned  mines.   Anthracite mining companies
located in these ten water  sheds  may  discharge  raw  mine
drainage  and  pay  the State of Pennsylvania a fee based on
the tonnage mined.  This  fee  is  intended  to  offset  the
operating  and  maintainence  costs  of  the  mine  drainage
treatment facilities owned by the State.  These state  owned
mine   drainage   treatment* facilities  may  be  considered
publicly owned treatment plants.
                              216

-------
                                                TABLE  36
    Parameter
                     Bituminous, Lignite, and Anthracite
                               Mining Services
Bituminous, Lignite, and
   Anthracite Mining
pH


IRON, TOTAL


DISSOLVED IRON


ALUMINUM, TOTAL


MANGANESE, TOTAL


NICKEL, TOTAL


ZINC, TOTAL ,

TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
jal Preparation
Plant
3 Day
srage

to
•1-1
rel
Process
M-
o
a
a
u
tn
5


Daily
Maximum

01
•M
ID
5:
in
v>
at
u
o
0
OJ
nj
o
*f—
O
a


Coal Storage,
Refuse Storage
and Coal Prep-
aration Plant
Ancillary Area
30 Day *
Average
6-
3.0
0.30
2.0

2.0
0.20
0.20
35
Daily *
Maximum
6-9
3.5
0.60
4.0

4.0
0.40
0.40
70
Acid or
nous Mine
30 Day *
Average
6-9
3.0
0.30
2.0

2.0
0.20
0.20
35
Ferrugl -
Drainage
Daily *
Maximum'
6-9
3.5
0.60
4.0

4.0
0.40
0.40
70
Alkaline Mine
Drainage
30 Day *
Average
6-9
3.0
,0.30
2.0

2.0
,0.20
0.20
25
Daily
Maximun
6-9
3.5
0.60
4.0

4.0
0.40
0.40
50
                                                                        *A11 values except pH in rag/1,

-------

-------
                        SECTION XII

                      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document  was  developed  primarily  from  contractor's
draft  reports  prepared  by  Skelly  and  Loy Engineers and
Consultants.  The staff at  Skelly  and  Loy,  and  at  Penn
Environmental  Consultants  are  gratefully acknowledged for
their invaluable assistance in  field  investigation,  water
sample  analysis,  and the preparation of the draft reports.
Mr. LeRoy D. Loy, Jr. was project manager at Skelly and Loy,
and Mr. Dennis Escher, of  Penn  Environmental  Consultants,
was assistant project manager.

The development of the document and the study supporting the
document  was  under  the  supervision  and  guidance of Mr.
Baldwin M. Jarrett,  Project  Officer,  Effluent  Guidelines
Division.

Mr. Allen Cywin, Director, Effluent Guidelines Division, Mr.
Ernst   Hall,   Assistant   Director,   Effluent  Guidelines
Division,  and  Mr.  Harold  Coughlin,   Chief,   Guidelines
Implementation  Branch  made invaluable contributions during
the preparation of the document.

Acknowledgement  and  appreciation  is  also  given  to  the
editorial  assistants, Ms. Darlene Miller and Ms. Linda Rose
for their  effort  in  the  preparation  of  this  document.
Appreciation  is  also  given  to  the  secretary, Ms. Laura
Canunarota.
Acknowledgement  and  appreication  is  also  given  to
following organizations, institutions and individuals:

                    Mining Companies
                       the
Affinity Mining Company

Altmire Brothers Coal Company

Amax Coal Company
Mr. John Mitchell

Mr. Harold Altmire

Mr. George Hargreaves
Mr. Robert James
Mr. Glenn Kaffenberger
Mr. Jerry Kempf
Mr. Peter Larson
Mr. Alfred M. Lawson
Mr. R. B. Lee
                              219

-------
Anaconda Copper

Appolo Fuels Incorporated

Badger Coal Company




Badgett Coal Company


Barbour Coal Company

Barnes & Tucker Company
Bessemer Iron & Coal Company

Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Big Ben Coal Company

Bradford Coal Company

Bridgeview Coal Company

Buffalo Coal Company


C. A. Fisher Coal Company


Carbon Fuel Company

Cedar Coal Company

C. F. & I. Steel Corporation
Mr. John C. Spindler

Mr. T. J. Asher

Mr. Donald Gorman
Mr. junior NewIan
Mr. William Post
Mr. Blane Yeager

Mr. Russell Badgett, Jr.
Mr. Wilson

Mr. Roger Spencer

Mr. Karl Dillon
Mr. M. W. Kearney
Mr. James Smith
Mr. Allen A. Wenturine

Mr. Leroy Carr

Mr. Stephen Alexander
Mr. John P. Billiter
Mr. Thomas P. Conlon
Mr. G. D. Damron
Mr. Bruce E. Duke
Mr. J. L. Gindlesperger
Mr. G. Greer
Mr. David J. Myers
Mr. Garrett Saunders
Mr. A. T. Sosseng
Mr. Richard Stickler

Mr. Lee .Rowland

Mr. Clayton Peters

Mr. Harry Whyel

Mr. Melvin Judy
Mr. Curt Schaffer

Mr. Clarence A. Fisher
Mr. Robert Weaver

Mr. Samuel Quigley

Mr. David Tuckwiller

Mr. A. Pagnotta
                            220

-------
                                  Mr. Ed Pearson
Chestnut Ridge Mining Company

Consolidation Coal Company
D 6 L coal Company

Drummond Coal Company



Duguesne Light company
Eagle Coal 8 Dock Company
Ellis Creek Coal 5 Dock Company

Eastern Associated Coal Corp.
 Elemar  Coal  Company

 Energy  Fuels Corporation

 Falcon  Coal  company

 F & D Coal Company, Incorporated

 Florence Mining company



 Garland Coal & Mining Company

 Grays Knob Coal company
Mr. John Peles

Dr. Gm L, Barthauer
Mr. William Bland
Mr, Donald Born
Mr. L. J. Dernoshek
Mr. Steven Halahurich
Mr. Richard A. Htaschka
Mr. James Kantzes
Mr. Jerry Lombardo
Mr. John T. McClure
Mr. Edward Moore
Mr, Bradley Smith

Mr. Richard Schwinabart

Mr. Jack Blankenship
Mr. Jerry Byars
Mr. Bud Long

Mr. John C. Draper
Mr. Roger McHugh
Mr, Thomas pennington

Mr. Reginald Bush
Mr. Marvin Graham
Mr. Stanley Harper
Mr. John T. Higgins
Mr. Kedric Long
Mr. George Mishra

Mr, Reece Slemar

Mr. Robert Adams

Mr. Hillis Everidge

Mr. freeman Saylor

Mr. Robert B.  Browning
Mr. Paul Flynn
Mr, Howard Rutherford

Mr. 1«  S. Stephens

Mr. Clyde Bennet
                               221

-------
Greenwich Collieries



Greenwood Mining Company

Greenwood Stripping Corporation


Grundy Mining company

Gunn-Quealy Coal Company

BarIan Fuel Company

Begins Mining Company

I. C. O.

Indian creek Coal Company

Island Creek Coal company




Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.


Jude Coal Company

Kaskan Coal Company

Kaiser steel Corporation


Kemmerer Coal company


Kemo Mining Company

Kerry Hears Coal Company

Knife River Coal Mining Company
Mr. John G. Emerich
Mr. James P. Marino
Mr. Bill Valentine

Mr. Frank Voyack

Mr. Andrew Chmel
Mr. Joseph J. Fauzio

Mr. William B. Allison

Mr. James Diamenti

Mr. Herschel Bargo

Mr. Earl Kieffer

Mr. Bro Gordon

Mr. J. B. Parker

Mr. Bliss BlanTcenship
Mr. Rex Blankenship
Mr. Thomas Synder
Mr. Larry Wynn

Mr. H. E, Steinman
Mr. James S. Wasil

Mr. Walter Fall

Mr. George Kaskan

Mr. Lynn Huntsman
Mr. Edward D. Moore

Mr. Louis Engstrom
Mr. Michael zakontnick. Jr.

Mr. Walter Hawkins

Mr. Charles Hears

Mr. Dean Dishon
Mr. Frank Eide
Mr. Thomas A. Gwynn
Mr- A. S. Kane
Mr. H. H. Scherbenski
                             222

-------
Xoclier coal company
Lady Jane Collieries Incorporated

LaBosa Fuel company
Lehigh Valley Anthracite

Lone Star Steel

Lovilia Coal Company
Mastellar Coal Company
Mary Ruth Corporation
Mid-continent Coal S Coke Company

Miller-McKnight coal Company
Moran coal company
Mountain Drive Coal Company
M & R Coal company
National Steel Corporation

North American Coal Corporation
Mr. Leon Richter
Mr. Paul D. Hineman
Mr. Charles Merritt
Mr. James LaRosa
Old Ben Coal Company
 p. B. s. Coals, Incorporated
Mr. Joseph Pagnotti
Mr. Robert Shober
Mr. James Tedesco
Mr. J. E. Burse
Mr. J. Paul Savage
Mr, Thomas Wignall
Mr. James Watson
Mr. Milford Jenkins
Mr. J. L. Reeves
Mr. J. H. Turner
Mr. Gary McKnighfe
Mr. Donald E. Moran
Mr. James Gibbs
Mr. Lawrence Scott
Mr. William Gadd
Mr. Fred Thicker
Mr. Donald Wills
Mr, Carl Bishop
Mr. c. H. Daub
Mr. Terry Dudley
Mr» Michael Gregory
Mr. Franklin Scott
Mr. Harold Washburn
Mr. C. E, Bailie
Mr. R. E. Flatt
Mr, Lanny Richter
Mr. Walter Von Demfange
Mr. Albright
Mr. Roger Kalaha
Mr. Shirbine
                              223

-------
Peabody Coal Company
Peabody Coal Company
Mr. Joseph Whitaker
Mr. Robert Will
Mr. Ziegler

Mr. Ronald Cross
Mr. William Davis
Mr. John Gingrich
Mr. Gene Hendrichs
Mr. Tracy Hendrichs
Mr. James R. Jones
Mr. Thomas Linn
Mr. David G. McDonald
Mr. M. A. McKee
Mr. Ronald Pruett
Mr. Freman Quails
Mr. Wayne Rosso
Mr. Leonard Sautelle
Mr. Harry Yocum
Peter Keiwit Sons1 Mining -Company Mr. Frank Kinney
                                  Mr. J. F. Ratchye
Pittsburgh £ Midway Coal
  Mining Company
The Pittston Company
Mr. Charles Atkinson
Mr. J. A. Borders
Mr. Fritz Gottron
Mr. George Hayes
Mr. John C. Willson

Mr. C. R. Montgomery
Premium Coal Company
Queen Anne Coal Company
Rock Creek Mining Company

Pyro Coal Company

Queen Brothers Coal Company

Richland Coal Company

Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co.
Rockville Mining Company

Russel Shafer Coal Company
Mr. Robert Swisher



Mr. George Martin

Mr. Robert Queen

Mr. Douglas Blair

Mr. Geroge Kennedy
Mr. J. J. Schaeffer
Mr. Edward Sokal
Mr. Eric Wilson

Mr. Joseph Elliot

Mr. Russel Shafer
                              224

-------
Shamrock Coal Company


South-East coal Company

Southern Utah Fuel Company

Surgener's Coal Sales, Incorp.

T. C. H. Coal Company

U. S. Pipe 6 Foundry company



U. S. Steel Corporation
Utah International, Incorporated
Washington irrigation and
  Development Company

Western Energy Company
western Hickory Coal Company

West Freedom Mining Corporation
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Arlo Brown
Orville smith
Jack Jenkins
Martinson
Noah Surgener
George E. Neal
Lecil colburn
C. J. Hager
Harold Stacey
John C. Anderson
John W. Boyle
John E. Caffrey
Donald K. Cooper
Herbert Dunsmore
Gregory Ferderber
Robert R. Godard
R. F.: Goudge
Hersch Hayden
M. A.i Holtz
J. A. Kennison
H. E. Kerley
H. E. Ketter
Earl W. Mallick
A. E. Moran
Paul Parfitt
Glen Sides
E. L. Thomas
Paul E. Watson
John E. Young
Leo Hendery
Wayne Sonard
Mr. Richard McCarthy
Mr. Michael Grindy
Mr. W. P. Schmechel
Mr. Martin A. White

Mr. Harold List

Mr. Russell Haller
Mr. John Smith
                              225

-------
Westmoreland Coal Company         Mr. John Gembach
                                  Mr. Anthony Nevis

Westmoreland Resources Corp.      Mr. Ralph E. Moore
                                  Mr. Mathew S. Tudor

White Rock Mining Company         Mr. Olaf Shafer

Wyodak Resources Development      Mr. Wilford J. Westre
  Corporation

Zeigler Coal Company              Mr. Coy L. South
                    Trade organ!zationg

American Mining Congress          Mr. Richard C, Beerbower
                                  Mr, Brice O'Brien
                                  Mr. Donald Simpson

Bituminous Coal Research          Mr. James F. Boyer, Jr.
                                  Mr. Charles T. Ford

Independent Miners and            Mr. Clyde Machemar
  Associates

National Coal Association         Mr. Joseph W. Mullan
                                  Mr. Robert F. Stauffer

National Independent Coal Assoc.  Mr. Louis Hunter

Ohio Mining and Reclamation Assoc.Mr. Neal s. Tostenson

Pennsylvania Coal Mining Assoc.   Mr. Franklin H. Mohney

Virginia coal Association         Mr. W. Luke Witt

West Virginia Surface Mining and  Mr. Daniel Gerkin
  Reclamation Association         Mr. Ben Lusk
                    Regulatory Agencies

Atomic Energy commission          Dr. Robert L. Spore

Illinois - State of Illinois,     Mr. Don Handy
  Energy Office, Assistant
                              226

-------
  Energy Coordinator
Indiana - State of Indiana,
  Director, Water Pollution
  Control

Kentucky - Dept. of Natural
  Resources and Environmental
  Protection
MESA  (District 7)
Montana - Department of State
  Lands, Reclamation Division

North Dakota - North Dakota Dept,
  of Health  (Director of Water
  Supply)

Oklahoma -• Oklahoma Water
  Pollution Control

Pennsylvania - Department of
  Environmental Resources
  Altonna Water Department

Tennessee - Division of Surface
  Mining

Tennessee Division of Water
  Quality

United States Environmental
Mr. Sam Moore
Mr. Clyde Baldwin
Mr. Kenneth Cobb
Mr. Thomas O. Harris
Mr. William Harris
Mr. William S. Kelly
Mr. Robert Nickel
Mr. Ernest Prewitt
Mr. Kenneth D. Ratliff
Mr. Wensell Sheperd
Mr. Harold Snodgrass
Mr. Robert warrix
Mr. Nevard Wells

Mr. Donald Rheinhardt
Mr. Jerry Spicer

Mr. C. C. McCall
Mr. Roy Koch

Mr. Norman Peterson
Mr. Terry Thurman
Dr. John J. Demchalk
Mr. A. E. Friedrich
Mr. Ernest Giovannitti
Mr. Walter Heine
Mr. Howard A. Luley
Mr. A. E. Molinski
Mr. Mark Roller
Mr. Richard Thompson

Mr* Dave Barr

Mr. Arthur Hope
Mr. Collian Goodlet
Mr. Richard Andrews
                             227

-------
  Protection Agency
Virginia - Virginia Department
  of Reclamation

Virginia Water Control Board
Washington - U. S. Bureau of
  Mines (Spokane Mining Research
  Center)
                 Mr. Arthur Chafet
                 Mr. Elmore Grim
                 Mr. Gene Harris
                 Mr. Ronald Hill
                 Ms. Judith A. Nelson
                 Mr. John Sceva
                 Mr. Robert C. Scott
                 Mr. Robert Scott
                 Mr. Glen wood D. Sites
                 Ms. Nancy Speck
                 Mr. Roger Wilmoth

                 Mr. William Roller
                 Mr. Lawrence Owens
                 Mr. Dallas Sizemore

                 Mr. Thomas Martin
West Virginia - West Virginia     Mr
  Department of Natural Resources Mr
                                  Mr.
                                  Mr.
                                  Mr.
                                  Mr.
                                  Mr.
                                  Mr.
                                  Mr.
                                  Mr.
                                  Mr.
                     John Ailes
                     Donald Bailey
                     Joseph Beymer
                     Don E. Caldwell
                     Owen L. Carney
                     James Gillespie
                     Benjamin Greene
                     Robert McCoy
                     Thomas Methaney
                     William Raney
                     Jerry Starcher
                     Basil Sweeney
Educational Institutions
Colorado State University

Montana state University

Pennsylvania State University

University of Tennessee


West Virginia University
                 Dr. David McWhortor

                 Dr. Richard Hodder

                 Dr. Harold Lovell

                 Dr. Roger A. Minear
                 Dr. John R. Moore

                 Dr. G. Lansing Blackshaw
            228

-------
                        SECTION XIII

                        BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albrecht,  K.,  "Practical  Experience  with  Filtration  of
    Rolling Mill Waste," Wasserwirtsch-Wassertech  (Germany),
    16, 12, 416 (1966); Chem. Abs. 66, 79406  (1967).

Andrews,  Richard.   Proposed  Effluent  criteria  f^or  Mine
    Wastewater.    Denver,   Colorado:   U.S.  Environmental
    Protection Agency, Region VIII.

Applied science Laboratories,  Inc.   Purification  of  Mine
    water  by  Freezing.   Program  Number  Grant 14010 DRZ.
    Department of Mines and Mineral Industries, Commonwealth
    of Pennsylvania: Environmental Protection  Agency  Water
    Quality Office, February, 1971.

Atwood,  Genevieve.  "The Technical and Economic Feasibility
    of Underground Disposal  Systems,"  First  Symposium  on
    Mine and Preparation Plant Refuse Disposal,  Washington:
    National Coal Association/ 1974.

Bituminous   Coal   Research   Inc.   Studies  of  Limestone
    Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage.  Research Series  14101
    EIZ.  Washington;  Federal Water Quality Administration,
    1970,

Bituminous   Coal   Research   Inc.   Studies  of  Lj.mestQne
    Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage, Part II.  Series  14101
    FOA.  Washington:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    1971.    Blackshaw, Dr. G. Lansing, and others.  "Pilot
    Plant  Treatment  of  AMD  by  Reverse   Osmosis   Based
    Techniques,"  Fifth  Symposium  on  coal  Mine  Drainage
    Re search.  Washington: National Coal Association, 1974.

Blatchley, P. G., "Steel Plant Descales' Wastewater,"  Water
    and Waste Engineering, 9, 11, F-14, 1972.

Brant, R. A., and E. Q. Moulton.  Acid Mine Drainage Manual.
    Bulletin   179,   Ohio  State  University:   Engineering
    Experiment Station.

Broman, C.,  "The Operation of Pressure Type Sand Filters for
    Hot Mill Waste Waters," Blast Furnace and  Steel  Plant,
    1, 19,  (1971).
                              229

-------
Brookhaven  National  Laboratory.   Treatment  of  Acid Mine
    Drainage by Ozone Oxidation.  Research Series 14 010 FMH.
    Washington:  Environmental Protection Agency,  December,
    1970.

Brundage, Scott R.  "Depth of Soil Covering Refuse (Gob)  vs.
    Quality  of  Vegetation,"  First  Symposium  on Mine and
    Preparation Plant Refuse Disposal.  Washington: National
    Coal Association, 1974.

Burd, R. S.   A  Study  of  Sludge  Handling  and  Disposal.
    Federal    Water    Pollution   Control   Administration
    Publication WP-20-4.  Washington:   U.S.  Department  of
    the Interior, 1968.

Burns   and   Roe,   Inc.    Preliminary   Design   Prg^ect,
    Philipsburg, Pennsylvania.  Report to  the  Pennsylvania
    Department of Mines and Mineral Industries, 1969.

Burns  and  Roe,  Inc., Process Design Manual for "Suspended
    Solids Removal," No. 14-12-930.

Butler, Phillip E.  "Utilization of Coal Mine Refuse in  the
    Construction of Highway Embankments," First Symposium on
    Mine  Drainage  and  Preparation  Plant Refuse Disposal.
    Washington:  National Coal Association, 197*.

Calhoun, F. P.  "Treatment of Mine Drainage with Limestone,"
    Second  Symposium  on  Coal  Mine   Drainage   Research.
    Pittsburgh,   Pennsylvania:    Coal   Industry  Advisory
    Committee to ORSANCO, April 1970.

Capp, John P., and Donald W. Gillmore.  "Fly Ash  from  Coal
    Refuse  and  Spoil  Banks,"  First Symposium on Mine and
    Preparation Plant Refuse Disposal.  Washington: National
    Coal Association.

Charmbury, H. B., Maneval, D. R., and Girard, C.   Operation
    Yellowboy   -   Design   and   Economics   of   a   Lime
    Neutr alization Mine Drainage Treatment  Plant.   Society
    of Mining Engineers, AIME, Preprint No. 67F35, 1967.

Committee  on  Interior  and  Insular Affairs, U. S. Senate.
    Coal Surface  Mining  and  Reclamation  —  An  Economic
    Assessment    of    Alternatives.    Washington:    U.S.
    Government Printing Office, 1973.

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of  Natural  Resources,
    Division  of Reclamation. Demonstration of Debris Basins
    for Control of Surface Mine Sedimentation in Steep Slope
                            230

-------
    Terrain.  Pollution Control  Analysis  Section,  Project
    No. 801276.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Curtis,   Willie   R.    "Sediment  Yield  from  Strip-mined
    Watersheds in Eastern  Kentucky,"  Second  Research  and
    Applied  Technology Symposium on Mined-Land Reclamation.
    Washington:  National Coal Association, 1974.

Cyrus  W.  Rice  and  Company,   "Acid  Mine   Drainage   in
    Appalachia," Engineering Economic study of Mine Drainage
    Control  Techniques.  contract No, 69-12,  Report to the
    Appalachian Regional Commission, 1969.

Davidson,  Walter   H.    "Reclaimed   Refuse   Banks   from
    Underground  Bituminous  Mines  in  Pennsylvania," First
    Symposium on Mine and Preparation Plant Refuse Disposal.
    Washington: National  Coal  Association,  1974.   Davis,
    Joseph  R. and Beecher, J. Hines.  Debris Basin Capacity
    Needs Based  on  Measured  Sediment  Accumulation   from
    Strip-Mined  Areas  in  Eastern  Kentucky.  Research and
    Applied Technology Symposium on Mined Land  Reclamation,
    1973.

Davy  Powergas  Inc.   "Development  Document  for  Proposed
    Effluent   Limitations   Guidelines   and   New   Source
    Performance standards for the Basic Fertilizer Chemicals
    Segment  of  the  Fertilizer  Manufacturing Point Source
    Category.    EPA   440/1-73/011,    Washington:     U.S.
    Government Printing Office, 1973.

Dorr  Olive  Inc.   Operati°ft  Yellowboy  —  Mine  Drainage
    Treatment Plant and  Cost  Evaluation.   Report  to  the
    Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries,
    Coal Research Board, 1966.

Draper, J. C.  "Mine Drainage Treatment Experience,"  Fourth
    Symposium  on Coal Mining Df ainage Research.  Pittsburgh
    Pennsylvania:   Coal  Industry  Advisory  Committee   to
    ORSANCO, 1972.

Dravo,   Technical   Bulletin;  Water  and  Waste  Treatment
    Department,  "Critique  on  Filter  Media  for  Deep-Bed
    Filters."

Dutcher,  Russell  R.,  and  others.  Mine  Drainage Part li
    Abatement Disposal Treatment.  Mineral Industries Volume
    36, No. 3.  University Park, Pennsylvania:  Pennsylvania
    State University, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences,
    1966.
                             231

-------
EPA, Wastewater Filtration, Design Consideration, Technology
    Transfer Seminar publication, July, 1974.

Engineering - Science Inc.  Comparative Costs of/ Erosion and
    Sediment   Control.    Contract   No.  68-01-0755,  U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (unpublished) 1973.

Evers, R. H., "Tool Up With Mixed-Media Filters," Water  and
    Waste Engineering, May, 1971, PC-14-C-16.

Falkie,  Dr.  Thomas  V.   "Overview  of  Underground Refuse
    Disposal," First Symposium on Mine and Pr eparation Plant
    Refuse    Disposal.     Washington:     National    Coal
    Association, 1974.

Ford, Charles T.  "Use of Limestone in AMD Treatment," Fifth
    Symposium  on  Coal Mine Drainage Research.  Washington:
    National Coal Association, 1974.

Ford, C. T., and Boyer, J. F.   Treatment  of  Ferrous  Acid
    Mine  Drainage with Activated Carbon.  Technology Series
    EPA-R2-73-150.  Office of Research and Monitoring,  U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.

Frank, V. F. and Gravenstreter, J. P., "Operating Experience
    with  High-Rate  Filters,"  WPCF  Journal,  41,  2, 292,
    February, 1969.

Gaines, Lewis, and others.   "Electrochemical  Oxidation  of
    Acid   Mine  Waters,"  Fourth  Symposium  on  coal  Mine
    Drainage Research.  Coal Industry Advisory committee  to
    ORSANCO, April, 1970.

Gang,  Michael W., and Langmuir, Donald.  "Controls on Heavy
    Metals in Surface and Ground  Waters  Affected  by  Coal
    Mine  Drainage; Clarion River - Redbank Creek Watershed,
    Pennsylvania," Fifth Symposium  on  Coal  Mine  Drainage
    Research.  Washington:  National Coal Association, 1974.

Goddard,  R.  R.   "Mine Water Treatment -- Frick District,"
    Mining Congress Journal Vol. 56, No. 3.

Gulf  Environmental  Systems  Company.   Acid   Mine   Waste
    Treatment Using Reverse Osmosis.  Epa Program No.  14010
    DYG.   Washington:   U,S.  Government  Printing  Office,
    1971.

Haines, G. F. and Kostenbader, P. D.  "High  Density  Sludge
    Process  for Treating Acid Mine Drainage," 3rd Symposium
    on   Coal   Mine   Drainage    Research.     Pittsburgh,
                              232

-------
    Pennsylvania:    coal  Industry  Advisory  Committee  to
    ORSANCO, May. 1970.

Hall,  Ernst  P.   "Effluent   Limitation   Guidelines   and
    Standards,"   Fifth  Symposium  on  Coal  Mine  Drainage
    Research.  Washington:  National Coal Association, 197U.

Hanser, Julia Butler.  "Providing a Solution,"  3rd  Mineral
    Waste Utilization Symposium.  1972.

Heine,  W.  H.,  and  Giovanitti,  E.  P.  Treatment of Mine
    Drainage by Industry in Pennsylvania.  2nd  Mid-Atlantic
    Industrial Waste Conference.  Philadelphia, Pa., 1968.

Heine,  W.  N.,  and  Gukert, W. E., A New Method of Surface
    Coal Mining in Steep Terrain (1972).  Paper presented to
    Research and Applied Technology Symposium on Mined  Land
    Reclamation.

Hill,  Ronald  D.   Control and Prevention of Mine Drainage.
    Battelle Conference, 1972.

Hill, Ronald D.  Mine Drainage Treatment, State of  the  Art
    and  Research  Needs.   U.S. Department of the Interior,
    Federal   Water   Pollution   Control    Administration,
    December, 1968.

Hill,  Ronald D., and Martin, John F.  "Elkins Mine Drainage
    Pollution Control Demonstration Project —  An  Update,"
    nth   Symposium   on   Coal   Mine   Drainage  Research.
    Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania:    Coal   Industry   Advisory
    Committee to ORSANCO, 1972.

Hill, Ronald D., and wilmoth, Roger,  Limestone Treatment of
    Acid   Mine  Drainage.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Publication 14010, 1970.

Hill, Ronald D., and Wilmoth,Roger.  Neutralization of  High
    Ferric  iron  Agid  Mine Drainage. Federal Water Quality
    Administration Research Series 14010 ETV, 1970.

Hill,  Ronald  D.,  Wilmoth,  Roger,  and   Scott,   R.   B.
    Neutrolosis  Treatment  of  Acid  Mine  Drainage.  Paper
    presented  at  26th  Annual  Purdue   Industrial   Waste
    Conference, Lafayette, Indiana, May 1971.

Hoak,  R.  D., Lewis, 0. J., and Hodge, W. W.  "Treatment of
    Spent  Pickle  Liquots   with   Limestone   and   Lime,"
    Industrial  Engineering  and Chemistry.  Vol. 37, No. 6,
    19H5.
                             233

-------
Holland, C. T., Berkshire, R. C., and  Golden,  D.  F.   "An
    Experimental Investigation of the Treatment of Acid Mine
    Water  Containing  High  Concentrations  of Ferrous Iron
    with Limestone,"  3rd Symposium on Coal  Mine   Drainage
    Research.    Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania:   Coal  Industry
    Advisory Committee to ORSANCO, 1970-

Holland, C. T., Corsaro, J. L., and Ladish, D. J.,  "Factors
    in the Design of an Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Plant,"
    jnd   Symposium   on   Coal   Mine   Drainage  Research.
    Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania:    Coal   Industry   Advisory
    Committee to ORSANCO, 1968.

Holmes, J. and Kreusch, E. -,  Acid Mine Drainage Treatment by
    IQn    Exchange.    Technology   Series   EPA-R2-72-056.
    Washington:   U.S.  Environmental   Protection   Agency,
    November, 1972.

Buck,  P. M., and others.  "Effluent Polishing in Base Metal
    Mine Drainage Treatment," Fifth symposium on  Coal  Mine
    Drainage    Research.     Washington:    National   Coal
    Association, October, 1974.

International Minerals and Chemical Corp., Skokie  Illinois.
    Utilization  of  Phosphate Slime.  Research Series 14050
    EPU.   Office  of  Research  and   Monitoring,   TJ.   S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.

Jacobs,  H.  L.   "Acid  Neutralization,"  Chemical Process.
    Vol. 43, No. 5, 1947,

John-Manville   Products   Corporation.    Rotary   Pre-Coat
    Filtration   of   Sludge   from   Acid   Mine   Drainage
    Neutralization.   Water  Pollution   Control   Research
    series   14010  Oil.   u.  S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency, 1971.

Jones,  Donald  C.   "Getting  the   Facts   at   Hollywood,
    Pennsylvania," Coal Mining and Processing.  Vol 7, No. 8
     (1970) , pp. 18-33.

Jones,  James  R.,  and Beckner, Jack L.  "Federal and State
    permitting Requirements," Fifth Symposium on  Coal  Mine
    Drainage    Research.     Washington:    National   Coal
    Association, 1974.

Jukkola, W. H., Steinman, H. E., and  Young,  E.  F.   "Coal
    Mine  Drainage  Treatment,"  2nd  Symposium on Coal Mine
    Drainage  Research.   Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania:    Coal
    Industry Advisory committee to ORSANCO, 1968.
                             234

-------
Kennedy,  James  L.  Sodium Hydroxide Treatment: of Acid Mine
    Drainage.   U.  S.  Environmental   Protection   Agency,
    National Research Center,

Kennedy,   James  L.,  and  others.  "Observations  on  Ion-
    Oxidation Rates in  Acid  Mine  Drainage  Neutralization
    Plants," Fifth Symposium on Coaj. Mine Drainage Research.
    Washington:  National Coal Association, 1974.

Kosowski,  Z.  V.,  and  Henderson,  R.  M.  "Design of Mine
    Drainage Treatment Plant at Mountaineer  Coal  Company,"
    2nd   Symposium   on   Coal   Mine   Drainage  Research.
    Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania:    Coal   Industry   Advisory
    Committee to ORSANCO, 1968.

Kreman, S. S., and others.  Reverse Osmosis Field Testing on
    Acid  Mine  Waters  at Morton, West Virginia.  Office of
    Saline Water Report GA-9921, Gulf General Atomic,  Inc.,
    1970.

Kunin,  Dr.  Robert,  and others.  "The use of Amberlite Ion
    Exchange  Resins  in  Treating  Acid  Mine   Waters   at
    Philipsburg,  Pennsylvania,"   Fifth  symposium  on Cgal
    Mine  Drainage  Research.   Washington:   National  Coal
    Association, 1974.

Lester,  Dale  W.,  "They  Plan  for  the Future," Water and
    Wastes Engineering, October, 1972, p. 28-30.

Lisanti,  A,  F«,  Zabben,  Walter,  and  Maneval,   D.   R.
    "Technical  and  Economic Experience in the Operation of
    the Slippery Rock Creek  Mine  water  \Treatment  Plant,"
    Fourth   Symposium   on  Coal  Mine  Drainage  Research.
    Pittsburgh,   Pennsylvania:   Coal   Industry   Advisory
    Committee to ORSANCO, 1972.

Lovell,  Harold  L.   "The  Control and Properties of Sludge
    Produced from the Treatment of Coal Mine Drainage  Water
    by  Neutralization ^fTcocesseetn  Third Symposium on goal
    Mine Drainage Research.  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:  Coal
    Industry Advisory Committee to ORSANCO, 1970.

Loy,  LeRoy  D.  Jr., Gunnett, John W., Robins, John D., and
    Warg, Jamison B.  "Description of  New,  Innovative  and
    Theoritical  Mine  Drainage Abatement Techniques," Fifth
    Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage  Research.   Washington:
    National Coal Association, 1974.

Lynch,  Maurice A« Jr., and Mintz, Milton S.r  "Membrane and
    Ion-Exchange Processes — A  Review,"  Journal  American
                              235

-------
    Viater  Works  Association.  Vol. 6U, No, 11,  (1972) , pp.
    711-19.

Maneval, David R.  "The Little Scrubgrass Creek AMD  Plant,"
    Coal  Mining and Processing.  Vol. 5, No. 9f  (1968), pp.
    28-32.

Maneval, David R.  "Recent Foreign and  Domestic  Experience
    in  Coal  Refuse  Utilization,"  First Symposium on Mine
    Drainage  and   Preparation   Plant i  Refuse   Disposal.
    Washington:  National Coal Association, 197ft.
                                         " *•• S,
Maneval,  D.  R. , and Lemezis, Sylvester.  Multi-Stage Flash
    Evaporation System for the  Purification  of  Acid  Mine
    Drainage.     Society   of   Mining   Engineers,   AIME,
    Transactions 252, (March 1972), pp. H2-ft5.

Martin, John F.  "Quality  of  Effluents  from  Coal  Refuse
    Piles,"  First  Symposium  on Mine and Preparation Plant
    Refuse    Disposal.     Washington:     National    Coal
    Association, 1974.

McCarthy,  Richard  E.   "Preventing  the  Sedimentation  of
    Streams in  a  Pacific  Northwest  Coal  Surface  Mine,"
    Research  and Applied Technology Symposium on Mined Land
    Rec lamatiion.  Washington:   National  Coal  Association,
    1973.

McDonald,  David G., and others.  "Studies of Lime-Limestone
    Treatment of Acid Mine  Drainage,"  Fifth  Symposium  on
    coal Mine Drainage Research.  Washington:  National Coal
    Association, 197tt.

McWhorter,  Dr,  David  B. ,  and  others.  "Water  Pollution
    Potential of Mine Spoils in the Rocky Mountain  Region,"
    Fifth   Symposium   on   Coal  Mine  Drainage  Research.
    Washington:  National Coal Association, 1974.

Michael Baker  Jr.,  Inc.   Analysis  of  Pollution  Control
    Costs.  Washington:  Appalachian Regional Commission.

Mlhok,  E.  A.,  and  others.   Mine  Water  Research — The
    Limestone Neutralization Process.   U.S.  Department  of
    Interior,  Bureau  of Mines Information Circular, Report
    of Investigation 7191, 1968.

Miller, John T,, and Thompson,  D.  Richard.   "Seepage  and
    Mine  Barrier  Width,"  Fifth  Symposium  on  Coal  Mine
    Drainage   Research.    Washington:     National    Coal
    Association, 197ft.
                            236

-------
Mills,  Thomas  C,,  and others,  guidelines for Erosion and
    Sediment Control Planning and Implementation.  Office of
    Research and Monitoring, U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency Research Series R2-72-015, 1972.

Monogahela  River  Mine  Drainage  Remedial  Project and the
    Advisory Work  Group.   Handbook  of  Pollution  Control
    Costs  in  Mlfte Drainage Management.  U.S. Department of
    Interior,    Federal     Water     Pollution     Control
    Administration, 1966,

National Association of Counties Research Foundation.  Urban
    Soil  Erosion  and  Sediment.  Control.   Research Series
    15030 DTL.  Washington:  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency, 1970.

1973  Keystone  Coal  Manual.   New  York, New York:  Mining
    Information Services, McGraw-Hill, 1973.

1974 Keystone Coal Manual.   New  York,  New  York:   Mining
    Information Services, McGraw-Hill, 1974.

O'Brien,   Dr.  William  S.  and  others.   "Chemical  Ionic
    Equilibrium  Relationships  Involved  in  Mine  Drainage
    Neutralization  and  Treatment," Fifth Symposium on Coal
    Mine  Drainage  Research.   Washington:   National  Coal
    Association, 1971.

The  Ohio  State  University Research Foundation.  Acid Mine
    Drainage Formation, and  Abatement.   U.S.  Environmental
    Protection Agency Research Series 14010 FPR, 1971.

Parizek,  R.  R.,  and  others.  Wastewater  Renovation  and
    Conseryation.  Pennsylvania State University  Study  No.
    23.  Administrative Committee on Research.

Patterson,  Richard M.  "Closed System Hydraulic Backfilling
    of Underground  Voids,"  First  symposium  on  Mine  and
    Preparation Plant Refuse Pi.gggsal..  Washington: National
    coal Association, 1974.

Patton,  R.  S.,  and  Wachowiak,  R. J., "Deep Bed Pressure
    Filtration of Hot strip Mill Effluents," Iron and  Steel
    Engineer, March, 1971.

Pearson,  Dr.  Frank H., and Nesbit, Dr. John B.  "Acid Mine
    Drainage  as  a  Chemical  Coagulant  for  Treatment  of
    Municipal  Wastewater,11  Fifth  Symposium  on  Coal Mine
    Drainage   Research.    Washington:     National    Coal
    Association, 1974.
                             237

-------
Pennsylvania Department of  Environmental  Resources.   Soil
    Erosion and Sedimentation Control Manual , ]973.

Pietz, R. I. , and others.  "Ground Water Quality at a Strip-
    Mine  Beclarnation Area in West Central Illinois," Second
    Research and Applied Technology Symposium on Mined  Land
    :R3Clamation.   Washington:   National1  SaTAiioc"iation>
    1974.

Pollio, Frank and Kunin, Robert.   "Idn^IS&iiange  Processes
    for  the  Reclanation  of  Acid  Mine4  Drainage Waiters,"
    Environmental Science and Itechnology .  Vol.  1,  No.  3,
    March 1967.

Poundstone,  William.   "Problems in Underground Disposal in
    Active Mines," First Syggosium on Mine  and  Preparation
    Plant   Refuse 'Disposal.   Washington:   National  Coal
                 1974V

Powell, J. H., and Vickland, H. I.   greliidnary  Evaluation
    Mine  Drainage  Waters.   Final  Report teTtte Of £ioe of
    Saline Water,  Contract  14-01-0001-1187.  (unpublished)
    1963,
Rex Cbainbelt Inc.  Reverse Osmosis Deinirgrai i zation of Acid
    Mine  Drainage.  EPA Program No. 14010 FQR.  Washington:
    U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

Bex Chainbelt Inc.   Treatment  of  Acid  Mine  Drainage  bv_
    Reverse  Osmosis T   EPA  Program  No.  FWPCA,  Grant No.
    14010  DYK.   Washington:   U.S.   Government   Printing
    Office, 1970.

Robins,  John  D. ,  and  Zaval, Frank J.  Water Infiltration
    Control to Achieve Mine Water Pollution Control.  Office
    oT Besearch anfl  Manitoring  Eesearch  Series  R2-7 3-142
    (14010 HHG), U.S. Environtnental Protection Agency, 1973.

lose,  John  L.  "Treatment of Acid Drainage by Ion Exchange
    Process'"  ^hlrd  Synppsiun   on  Opal   Mine   Drainage
    Research.    Pittsburgh^  temiylvania:   Coal  Industry
    Advisory Conmittee to QBSSNOO, May 1970.

Schroeder, W. C., and others.  Stgjdj  and  Analysis  of_  the
    ftpplicatkan of Saline Water Conversion Processes to Acid
    Mine Maters.  Office of Saline Water Progress Report No.
    199, 1966.

Scott,  Robert,  and  others.  Cost,  of Reclamation and Mine
    Drainage  Abatement  — . Elkins  Demonstration  Project.
    Cincinnati,    Ohio:     Water   Quality   Office   U.   S.
                           238

-------
    Environmental Protection Agency, Robert A. Taft Research
    Center, 1970.

Scott, Robert B., and Wilmoth, Roger C.  "Use of  Coal  Mine
    Refuse  and  Fly  Ash  as  a  Road Base Material," First
    Symposium on Mine Drainage and Preparation Plant  Refuse
    Disposal.  Washington:  National Coal Association, 1974.

Selmeczi,  Joseph  G.  "Design of oxidation Systems for Mine
    Water  Discharges,"  Fourth  SympoSijjm  on   Coal   Mine
    Drainage   Research.    Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania:   Coal
    Industry Advisory Committee to ORSANCO, April 1972.

Selmeczi, Joseph G*,  and  Miller,  Fr.  James  P.   "Gypsum
    Scaling  in  AMD  Plants  - An Absolute Index of Scaling
    Potential,"  Fifth  Symposium  on  Coal  Mine   .Drainage
    Research.  Washington:  National Coal Association, 1974.

Shields,  Dr.  Donald  Hugh.    "Innovations   in   Tailings
    Disposal," First Symposium on Mine and preparatign Plant
    Disposal.  Washington:  National Coal Association, 1974.

Singer*  P.  C.  and Stumm, W.  oxygenatjon of Ferrous Iron.
    Federal water Pollution Control Administration  Research
    Series 14010, 1969.

Skelly  and  Loy.   Processes,  Procedures,  and  Methods to
    Control Pollution from Mining Activities.  EPA 430/9-73-
    011.  Washington:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    1973.

Skelly and Loy.  Proleet to Develop  Statewide  Coal  Mining
    Objectives  to  Reduce  Pollution.   Ohio  Department of
    Natural Resources, 1974.

Smith, Dr,  Richard  Meriwether,  and  others.   "Overburden
    Properties  and  Young  Soils  in  Mined  Lands," Second
    Research and Applied Technology Symposium on Mined  Land
    Reclamation.   Washington:   National  Coal Association,
    1974,

Sorrell, Shawn T.  "Establishing Vegetation on  Acidic  Coal
    Refuse  Materials  Without  Use of Topsoil Cover," First
    Symposium on Mine Drainage and Preparation Plant  Refuse
    Disposal.  Washington:  National coal Association, 1974.

Swain,  Dr.  Howard  A.  Jr.,  and  Rozelle,  Dr.  Ralph  B.
    "Removal  of  Manganese  from   Mine   Waters,"    Fifth
    Symposium  on  Coal Mine Drainage Research.  Washington:
    National Coal Association, 1974.
                               239

-------
Symons, C. R., "Treatment of Cold-Mill Wastewater by  Ultra-
    HighRate  Filtration,"  Steel Waste, Vol. 43, No. 11, p.
    2280-2286.

Thames, J. L., and others.  "Hydrologic Study of a Reclaimed
    Mined Area on  the  Black  Mesa,"  Second  Research  and
    Applied  Technology Symposium on Mined Land Reclamation.
    Washington:  National Coal Association, 1974.

Truax-Traer Coal Company.  Control of_ Mine Drainage for Coal
    Mine  Mineral  Wastes.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency Research Series 14010 DDH, 1971,

Tyco  Laboratories,  Inc.  Electrochemical Treatment of Acid
    Mine Waters.   Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Water
    Pollution Control Research Series 14010 FNQ, 02/72.

Underwater Storage, Inc. and Silver Swartz, Ltd,  Control of
    Pollution  by Underwater storage.  Research Series 11020
    DWF.  Washington:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    1969.

U. S. Department  of  the  Interior.   Study  of_  Strip  and
    Surface  Mining  in  Appalachia.   Interim Report to the
    Appalachian Regional Commission, 1966.

U. S. Department of the Interior.  Sul-biSul Ion Exchange of
    Saline Water, Progress Report No. 446, May 1969.

U- S. Department of the Interior.  Surface  Mining  and  Our
    Environment.    Washington:   U.S.  Government  Printing
    Office, 1967.

VTN  Environmental  Sciences.   Environmental  Analysis  for
    Decker  Coal  Company,  Mine  Decker,  Montana.  Irvine,
    California:  VTN Environmental Sciences, 1973.

Van Voast, Wayne A.  Hydrologic Effects of S_trjp coal Mining
    in Southeastern Montana - Emphasis;  One Year of  Mining
    Near   Decker.   Butte,  Montana:   Montana  College  of
    Mineral Science and Technology, 1974.

Wahler, William A.   "Coal  Refuse  Regulations,  Standards,
    Criteria,  and  Guidelines," First Symposium on Mine and
    Preparation Plant Refuse Disposal.  Washington: National
    Coal Association, 1974.

Wallace,  J.  T.,  "Progress  Report  on   Ultra-High   Rate
    Filtration,"  International  Water  Conference Engineers
    Society of Western Pennsylvania, November, 1968.
                             240

-------
Westinghouse   Electric    Corporation,    Water    Province
    'Department.    Summary   Report   of   Phase  I   of   the
                Study of Application of  Flash  pisti lla tj on
    |gocess  for  Treatment  of  Acid  Mine  Drainage wate_r> "
    Report to Pennsylvania Department of Mines  and  Mineral
    Industries, 1965.

Westinghouse  Electric Corporation.  Wi 1 ke s - Bar re Deminer^l-
             giant -ii- • Cgst  of  Water  Report ,   Report   to
    Pennsylvania  "Department  of  Environmental  Resources,
    1971.

West  Virginia  University,   Morgan-town,   West   Virginia.
                  Coal   lining   Methods   to  abate  Water
    Pollution.    U.S.   Environmental   Protection   Agency
    Research Series 1^010 FKK, 1970.

wilmoth  Roger  c.   Ajoglication  of Reverse  osmosis to  Acid
    Mine Drai nacre Treatment.  EPA 670/2-73/100.   Washington:
    U.S. Government Printing  Office, 1973.

Wilmoth,   Roger   C.     jLiniestone    and    Limestone- Lime-
   • NetftralAza t 1 on of Acid Mine Drainage.   EPA  670/2-7^/051.
    Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,  197 H.

Wilmoth,  Roger  C.,  and  Hill,  Donald  D.    Mine Drainage
    Pollution • Control   by.   Reverse   Osmosis.    American
    Institute   of   Mining,   Metallurgical  and Petroleum
    Engineers, 1972.

wilmoth, Roger c. and others.  "Treatment   of  Ferrous   Iron
    Acid Mine Drainage by Reverse Osmosis," Fourth Symgosium
    on    Coal    Mine   Prainage   Ses:eafgh.    Pittsburgh,
    Pennsylvania:   Coal  Industry  Advisory  Committee    to
    QRSANCQ, 1972.

Wilmoth,  Roger C. , and others,  "Combination Limestone-Lime
    Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage,"  Fourth  symposium  on
    Coal  Mj.ne Drainage Research .  Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania;'
    Coal Industry Advisory Committee to ORSANCO,  1972.

Wykoff, R. 8., "Major Filtration Development  at  New  Steel
    Mill,1* Industrial Waste,  August, 1970,  p, 8-10.

Yeh,  S.,  and Jenkins, C. R.  "Disposal of Sludge from  Acid
    Mine  Water  neutralization,"  Journal  Water Pol lu t ion
    control  Federation.   Vol.  53, No. fl, (1971), pp.  679-
    688.
                             241

-------
Zabban, W., and others.  "'Conversion of  coal-Mine   Drainage
    to  Potable  Water by Ion Exchange,11 Journal  AWWA.   Vol.
    64, No. 11, November 1972.

Zaval, F. J., and Robins, J. D.   Rev-egetation Augmentation
    by  Reuse  of  Treated  Active Surface  Mine Dra.inaqre - A
    Feasibility sttady*  D.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
    Research Series 14010 HNS, 1972.
                             242

-------
                        SECTION XIV

                          GLOSSARY
AMD - Acid Mine Drainage

Aeration - The act of exposing to the action  of  air,  such
as, to mix or charge with air.

Anion  -  An  ion  that moves, or that would move, toward an
anode.  Negative ion.

Anticline - A fold  that  is  convex  upward.   The  younger
strata are closest to the axial plane of the fold.

Aquifer  -  Stratum  or  zone below the surface of the earth
capable of producing water as from a well.

Auger - Any drilling device in which the cuttings are  mech-
anically  and continuously removed from the borehole without
the use of fluids.

Backfilling - The transfer of previously moved material back
into an excavation such as a mine or  ditch,  or  against  a
constructed object.

Bench  -  The  surface  of  an  excavated area at some point
between the material being mined and the original surface of
the ground on which equipment can set, move or  operate.   A
working  road  or  base  below  a  highwall  as  in  contour
stripping for coal.

Cation - An ion that moves, or that  would  move,  toward  a
cathode.  Positive ion.

Clarifier - A device for removing suspended solids.

Coal  Preparation  Plant - A facility where coal is crushed,
screened, sized, cleaned, dried, or  otherwise  prepared  or
loaded  prior  to the final handling or sizing in transit to
or at a consuming facility.

Deep Mine - An underground mine.

Dissolved Solids - The  difference  between  the  total  and
suspended solids in water.
                             243

-------
Drift.  - A deep mine entry driven directly into a horizontal
or near horizontal mineral seam or vein when it outcrops  or
is exposed at the ground surface.

Ecosystem  -  A total organic community in a defined area or
time frame.
Erosion - Processes whereby solids are  removed  from  their
original  location  on the land surface by hydraulic or wind
action•

Flume - An open channel or conduit on a prepared grade.

Ground Water Table  (or Level)  - Upper surface of the  under-
ground zone of saturation.

Grout - A fluid mixture of cement, sand (or other additives)
and water that can be poured or pumped easily.

Grout Curtain - Subsurface zone of greatly decreased permea-
bility created by pressurized insertion through boreholes of
cement or other material into the rock strata.

Highwall  -  The  unexcavated face of exposed overburden and
coal in a surface mine or the face or  bank  on  the  uphill
side of a contour strip mine excavation.

Hydrology - The science that relates to the water systems of
the earth.

mq/1  -  Abbreviation  for  milligrams  per liter which is a
weight to volume  ration  commonly  used  in  water  quality
analysis.   It  expresses  the  weight  in  milligrams  of a
substance occurring in one liter of liquid.

Mulching - The addition of materials  (usually  organic)   to
the land surface to curtail erosion or retain soil moisture.

Neutralization  -  The process of adding on acid or alkaline
material to waste water  to  adjust  its  pH  to  a  neutral
position.

Osmosis  -  The passage of solvent through a membrane from a
dilute solution into a more concentrated one,  the  membrane
being permeable to molecules of solvent but not to molecules
of solute.

Outcrop - The surface exposure of a rock of mineral unit.
                             244

-------
Overburden  -  Nonsalable  material -that overlies a mineable
mineral.

Oxidation - The removal of electrons from an ion or atom.

PermeabjJ.ity - The measure of the capacity for  transmitting
a fluid through a substance.

pH  - The negative logarithm to the base ten of the hydrogen
ion concentration.  pH 7 is considered neutral.  Above 7  is
basic - below 7 is acidic.

Point  source  -  'Shy  discernible,  confined  and  discrete
conveyance, including but not limited to  any  pipe,  ditch,
channel,    tunnel,   conduit,   well,   discrete   fissure,
container,  rolling  stock,  concentrated   animal   feeding
operation,  or  vessel  or other floating craft, from  which
pollutants are or may be discharged.

Raw Mine Drainage - Untreated or unprocessed water  drained,
pumped or syphoned from a mine.

Reclamation  -  The procedures toy which a disturbed area can
be reworked to make it productive, useful, or  aesthetically
pleasing.

Re_gr§ding  - The movement of earth over a surface or depres-
sion to change the shape of the land surface.

Riprap - Rough stone of various sizes  placed  compactly  or
irregularly to prevent erosion.

Runoff - That part of precipitation that flows over the land
surface from the area upon which it falls.

scarification  -  Decreasing  the  smoothness  of  the  land
surface.

Sediment - Solid  material  settled  from  suspension  in  a
liguTd "medium.  '                                           . -

Sludge  -  The precipitant or settled material from a waste-
water,

Sludge Density - A measure of solids contained in the sludge
in relation to total weight.

Scdubilijby  Product  -  The  equilibrium  constant  for  the
process  of solution of a substance  (usually in water).  The
higher the value, the more soluble the substance.
                              245

-------
Spoil Material - The waste  material  removed  from  a  mine
facility that is not considered useful product.

Stratigraphy   -  The  science  of  formation,  composition,
sequence and correlation of stratified rocks.

Subsidence - The surface depression created by caving of the
roof material in an underground mine.

Suspended Solids - Sediment which is in suspension in  water
but  which will physically settle out under quiescent condi-
tions (as differentiated from dissolved material) .

Syncline - A fold  that  is  concave  upward.   The  younger
strata are closest to the axial plane of the fold.

Tectonic   Activity  -  Deformation  of  the  earth's  crust
resulting from vertical and horizontal movement.
     \
Terracing  -  The  act  of  creating  horizontal   or   near
horizontal benches.

Turbidity  -  Is  a  measure  of the amount of light passing
through a volume of water, which is directly related to  the
suspended solids content.
                            246

-------
                                           Table 37
                                     CONVERSION TABLE

MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)                 by                      TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)

 ENGLISH UNIT     ABBREVIATION  CONVERSION  ABBREVIATION   METRIC UNIT
acres                    ac
acre-feet                acft  -l
British Thermal
   Units                 BTU
British Thermal
   Units/pound           BTU/lb
cubic feet                cuft
cubic feet                cu fl
cubic feet/minute         cfm
cubic feet/second         cfs
cubic inches             cu in.
cubic yards              cu y
degrees Fahrenheit        °F
feet                     ft
flask of mercury          (76.5 Ib)
gallons                  gal
gallons                  gal
gallons/day              gpd
gallons/minute           gprn
horsepower              hp
inches                   in.
inches of mercury         in. Hg
mfles (statute)           mi
million gallons/day        mgd
ounces (troy)            troy oz
pounds                  Ib
pounds/square
   inch (gauge)           psig
pounds/square
   inch (gauge)           psig
square feet              sq ft
square inches            sq in.
tons (short)              t
tons (long)              long t
yards                   y

1 Actual conversion, not a multiplier
0.405
1 ,233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
2832
'0.028
1.7
16.39
0.76456
0.555 (OF-32)1
0.3048
34.73 l
0.003785
3.785
0.003785
0.0631
.0.7457
2.54
0.03342
1.609
3,785 !
31.10348
0.454
(0.06805 psig -H)1
5.1715
0.0929
6.452
0.907
1.016
0.9144
ha
cum
kgcal
kg cal/kg
cu m
1
cu m/min
cum/min
cu cm (or cc)
cu m
°C
m
kgHg
cu m
1
cu m/day
I/sec
kW
cm
atm
km
cum/day
g
kg
atm
cmHg
sqm
sqcm
fckg
kkg
m
                                                                        hectares
                                                                        cubic meters

                                                                        kilogram - calories

                                                                        kilogram calories/kilogram
                                                                        cubic meters
                                                                       .liters
                                                                        cubic meters/minute
                                                                        cubic meters/minute
                                                                        cubic centimeters
                                                                        cubic meters
                                                                        degrees Celsius
                                                                        meters
                                                                        kilograms of mercury
                                                                        cubic meters
                                                                        liters
                                                                        cubic meters/day
                                                                        liters/second
                                                                        kilowatts
                                                                        centimeters
                                                                        atmospheres
                                                                        kilometers
                                                                        cubic meters/day
                                                                        grams
                                                                        kilograms

                                                                        atmospheres (absolute)

                                                                        centimeters of mercury
                                                                        square meters
                                                                        square centimeters
                                                                        metric tons (1000 kilograms)
                                                                        metric tons (1000 kilograms)
                                                                        meters
                                              247

-------