-------
                                 Table IV-9
             Coal  Production by Region and  Type  of  Mine,  1971-81
                            (Thousand Short Tons)

Year
1971*
1972
1973
1974*
1975
1976
1977
1978*
1979
1980
1981*p
Total
Production
552,192
595,386
591,738
603,406
648,438
678,685
691,344
665,127
776,299
823,644
814,716

East
483,880
515,496
515,303
511,501
537,503
542,604
527,406
482,141
550,552
572,632
546,569

West
50,980
64,338
76,435
91,906
110,934
136,081
163,938
182,986
222,941
251,012
268,147
Under-
Ground
275,887
304,102
299,353
277,309
292,826
294,880
265,950
242,117
320,321
336,925
320,211

Surface
258,973
275,732
292,385
326,097
355,612
383,805
425,394
422,950
455,978
486,719
494,505
*Coal strike years
p = preliminary
Source:  Ref. (13).

-------
Sequential Listing Indicates:

    Total Number of Mines
    Total Number of Underground Mines
    Total Number of Surface Mines (Includes Strip, Auger and Strip - Auger Mines)
                              Figure  IV-13

               GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF  COAL MINES
 Source:   (19)
                                      59

-------
                                                      IIIHI| MID-WEST
                                                           APPAiACHIA
                                     Figure IV-14
   MAJOR BITUMINOUS. SUBBITUMINOUS AND LIGNITE COAL DEPOSITS IN THE UNITED STATES
Source:

-------
                                       New York
                                      Ptnntylvonio
                                              Miltt
                                          0  4  S  12
                             Figure IV-15

     LOCATION OF THE MAJOR ANTHRACITE  COAL FIELDS  IN THE U.S
                      NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
Source:   (11)
                                   61

-------
same mines added 62.16 million more tons during 1980.  In addition, 39
mines  that opened in 1980 have a combined output of 14.15 million tpy
at this stage of their development.

Again,  the  majority  of  new  mines  reported  will  be  underground
operations,  but as before, surface mining will account for the larger
share  of  production.   Of  the  324  mines,  148  will  be   surface
operations.
anticipated
underground
million tpy
underground
  They  will  produce  607.10 million tpy, or 74% of total
 production  capacity  of  these  mines.   The  other  176
 mines  will  have  a  combined  output capacity of 212.63
  Seven of the operations will produce by both surface and
methods, and will produce 11.5 million tpy.
Most of  the  new  capacity  will  be  from  operations  west  of  the
Mississippi  River where 156 mines will produce 616.03 million tpy, or
about 75% of the total.  Wyoming developments lead the field  with  35
mines  showing  a  projected  total  capacity of 269.85 million tpy in
1989.  Montana also projects a sizable increase of 76.60 million  tons
to  be  produced  from  11   mines.  Texas, North Dakota and New Mexico
follow with projected output of 66.55, 48.50 and  47.00  million  tpy,
respectively.

The  primary  use  for the output of these new mines is for steam coal
purposes, with 92% devoted to that goal.  Metallurgical grade coal  is
expected  to  comprise only about 8% of the total.  The surveyed mines
have the capacity to produce 750.25 million tpy of steam coal in  all.
Of that amount 163.41 million tons of capacity were already on line by
1980.   An  additional  64.14 million tons of capacity were added last
year, indicating steam capacity to be added by 1989 or later  will  be
about 522.7 milliom tpy.
Metallurgical
69.48 million
new capacity.
had  reached
12.16 million
   grade  coal  mines  should have the capacity to produce
  tpy by 1989 or later, of which 32.49 million tpy will be
   The developing mines already in production before  1980
  24.83  million  tpy  of production capacity, and another
  tpy were added last year.
The companies involved with the expansion program were  the  producers
of about 66% of total U.S. output of 776 million tons in 1979.
MINING METHODS
Surface Mining

Surface  mining  is  employed  where  the  coal is close enough to the
surface to enable the overburden  (the soil and rock above the coal) to
be removed economically and later  replaced  or  regraded.   Types  of
                                   62

-------
equipment  used  to  remove  overburden  at mines in the United States
include draglines, bucket wheel excavators, old  generation  stripping
shovels,   cable  shovels  and  trucks,  hydraulic  shovels and trucks,
front-end  loaders  and  trucks,   scraper-dozer  units,   and   dozers
assisting  either  front-end  loaders,  hydraulic  shovels,  or  cable
shovels.   There are two general types of surface mines—contour  mines
and area mines.

Contour Mining

Contour  mining  prevails  in  mountainous  and  hilly terrain such as
Appalachia.  For instance, if a coal seam is visualized as lying level
at an elevation of 1,000 feet above sea level, and  the  land  surface
elevation  varies  from  600  to 1,400 feet above sea level, a contour
stripping situation exists.   Mining  commences  where  the  coal  and
surface  elevations  are  the  same, commonly called the cropline, and
proceeds around the side of the hill on the cropline  elevation.   The
earth  overlying  the  coal  (overburden)  may  be  removed by shovel,
dragline, scraper, or bulldozer,  depending on the depth  and  type  of
Overburden  encountered.   The  overburden  is removed and the coal is
loaded into trucks and removed from the pit.  A second cut or pit  can
then  be  excavated  by  placing  the overburden from it back into the
first cut or pit.  Succeeding cuts, if any, would follow in  the  same
sequence,  with the amount of overburden increasing on each succeeding
cut until the economic limit of the operation, or  the  maximum  depth
limit  of the overburden machine (i.e., dragline or stripping shovel),
is reached.

In the preceding description, only a single-level seam  operation  has
been  considered.   There are many situations where several   seams of
coal may  exist  and  they  may  pitch  at  various  angles  from  the
horizontal,  as  is  fairly  common in West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Although the mining of multiple or pitching seams is more complicated,
the principle of contour stripping remains the same—finding where the
surface and coal elevations are the same and  following  this  contour
until  the economic limit is reached.  Several types of contour mining
practices exist.  The primary distinction in most of these  procedures
is the method of spoil disposal.

Spoil  Deposited  Over Side of Hill.  This practice has been virtually
eliminated by the Federal Surface Mining Control and  Reclamation  Act
Of  1977   (SMCRA),  which  prohibits  the  placing of materials on the
^ownslope  in steep  mining  situations  (i.e.,  Appalachian  area,  on
slopes  20  degrees   or  greater).   In  past practices, this was the
easiest way to get rid of overburden from the first cut in a hillside,
by casting it over the side onto the downslope.  Overburden  from  the
second  cut  was  then  placed  into the mined-out first cut and so on
until the economic limit of the operation was reached.   The  highwall
left  at  the  end  of  mining often remained essentially unreclaimed,
except the cdal seam  was  generally  covered  up;  methods  sometimes
varied  according  to  state  law.   SMCRA  requires that highwalls be
reclaimed, thereby eliminating this practice.  Also, the  practice  of
spoiling  on  the  downslope  has  been replaced by techniques whereby
                                   63

-------
/spoil from the first cut or pit(.s) is placed in hollow  fills,  or  is
 stockpiled,  hauled,  conveyed, or pushed into a mined-out pit  (or any
 combination of these techniques).  •

 Because of the significantly increased  costs  of  producing  coal  by
 contour   mining    (partially  'as  a  result  of  eliminating   certain
 practices), many such operations have been eliminated' or  replaced  by
 mountain-top   or   finger-ridge   mining  techniques.   Figure  IV-16
 illustrates the contour mining method when spoil is deposited over the
 side of the hill.

 Spoil Deposited in Hollow Fills.  This  method  employs  placement  of
 spoil  from  initial"  cuts  into  approved  -hollow fills.  Hollow fill
 design criteria varies from state to state.  Figure IV-17  portrays  a
 West Virginia hojlbw fill,
                '••?'''..       •• •     • ' i ; • •  ' . ' •
 Haulback Mining.  Truck haulback has become a successful technique for
 surface  mining  coal throughout the.Appalachian regions. The haulback
 method, as the name implies, involves haulage'of spoil laterally  back
 along  the bench,  where it is placed on/the pit floor.  However, spoil
 from initial pits is either stockpiled  or  placed  in  hollow  fills.
 This  method  offers  many  advantages  environmentally and helps coal
 operators to comply with two significant provisions of SMCRA:   (1) the
 requirement that surface-mined land be  returned  to  the  approximate
 original contour,  and (2) the requirement that no spoil be pushed over
 the  mining  bench  onto the slopes below.  There are some reclamation
 advantages as well.   Haulback permits the  surface-mined  area  to  be
 back-filled  and  seeded  on  a  continuous  cycle,  sharing  the same
 production schedule as the coal or stripping functions.  This  permits
 revegetating  the slopes while the soil ,is still pliable and auxiliary
 equipment is still  around.  Furthermore,  the  haulback  method  also
 cuts down by approximately two-thirds the amount of disturbed lands at
 any  given  time.    However,  the  logistics  of  timing the blasting,
 stripping, mining, and hauling sequences in the truck haulback  method
 can  become  complicated.  This mining technique is now widely  used in
 eastern Kentucky,  southern  West  Virginia,  and  northern  Tennessee.
 Figure IV-18 illustrates the haulback raining technique.

 Auger  Mining.   When  the economic limit is reached in normal  surface
 mining operations, the coal seam remains exposed at the bottom  of  the
 final  highwall.  This coal can be partially recovered by one of three
 methods:  conventional underground mining, punch mining (a  series  of
 entries .into  a  seam by a continuous miner), or auger mining  (spiral
 boring for additional recovery of a coal seam exposed in a  highwall).
 Auger  mining is usually applied to contour operations but can  also be
 utilized in area type mining.   Some mines, especially in Kentucky, use
 the auger method only.;  The coal  seams  are  augered  from  specially
 prepared  narrow benches, some only abou.t 20 feet wide, and from a low
 highwall that is scarcely more than the thickness of  the  coal  seam.
 Records show that coal recovery by augering is quite low, usually less
 than  35  percent,  and  penetration generally is only about 150 feet.
 Unless properly planned, such mining can  shut  off  large  blocks  of
 future  deep  coal  by making the reserve very expensive to reach.  As

-------
w   co po
O   O (D
o
     0.3
     rt rt

       a

     rt"
     O £
    'O ?•
ff
(D
s
o
H)
  CO

  CO
ffff
(U O

7
W :
    O
       O
       H-
       r>
       tr
       (u

       CL
MO
   o
055
fl> H
'O O
O C2
CO po
P*

£ 5
o* si


?i
(D

   W
cnH

O.M
(0 H)

o H
   2
   O

H-
                    00
                     n>



                                                                     nmtft if •nno

-------
                                                    -^                 x
                                                    "^       i ,NTWF*CS ivrwfiN nu.
                                                      /. *—-  AND UHOUTUMCD OAOUNO
                      ntLSJWACt
                      ^
                                         H«AO OF HOLLOW
                                 MCT1CNA-*'
                                      «NCH

                                       ftaCXCCRfOftAW
                                          HHCH
                      mUTHNCH
                                      ,-AOOt
                                          COMOMIN
West Virginia present he*d-of-
hollow criteria (far left) re-
quires that all water enter a
surge pond and rock core to drain
down through center of fill
(left). Example of this type
of construction is the fill
(above) built at Buffalo Mining
Co.'s Gopher nine.
                                   Figure  IV- 17

                          WEST VIRGINIA  HOLLOW  FILL
Reprinted,  with  permission,  from  "Coal Age Operating Handbook  of
Coal  Surface  Mining  and  Reclamation,"  Volume  2.   Copyright  1978,
McGraw-Hill,  Inc.
                                          66

-------
DOZER PUSHING
DOWN TO LOADER
AND TRUCKS
           DOZER PERFORMING
           FINAL GRADING
                                                              \
                                                                \
(Single-seam haulback operation in  Appalachia involves  three
 integrated phases  of overburden removal, coal loading, and
 reclamation.)
                            Figure IV-18

                          HAULBACK MINING
 Reprinted,  with permission, from "Coal Age Operating Handbook of
 Coal  Surface Mining and Reclamation," Volume  2.   Copyright 1978,
 McGraw-Hill,  Inc.
                                 67

-------
low as the coal recovery is from auger mining,  there  are  conditions
where  it  is  warranted  as  it is low-cost production and frequently
makes it  possible  to  mine  coal  reserves  that  are  thin,  dirty,
isolated,  and not economically recoverable by any other means.  Auger
mining accounts for about 2.5 percent of total U.S.  coal production.

Area Mining

Strip Mining.  In some regions of the United States, especially in the
West and Midwest, many of the economically significant coal seams  lie
in  a  relatively level plane beneath a flat to gently rolling surface
terrain.  Consequently, the depth of the coal below the  surface  will
remain  fairly  constant  over extensive areas.   This type of deposit
can ordinarily be developed by conventional dragline or shovel methods
using "area type" surface mining; that is, excavation of a sequence of
parallel pits which  may  extend  several  thousand  feet  in  length.
Mining  by  the  conventional  "area"  method  normally  begins at the
cropline where the overburden is shallow.  Spoil from the initial  cut
('box  cut)  is  placed  on  virgin  ground.   The overburden from each
succeeding pit is then spoiled into the previous pit  where  the  coal
has  been  removed.   Reclamation operations follow closely behind the
Advancing mining front.  The final highwall and entire  mine  area  is
reclaimed  back  to  approximate  original  contour.   In  addition to
draglines or conventional shovels, stripping can also be performed  by
bucket-wheel excavators, shovels and trucks, endloaders and trucks, or
scrapers.   The  trucks and scrapers haul overburden around the end of
the pit, depositing it in the mined- out  strip-cuts  or  other  spoil
storage  sites.   Figure IV-19 illustrates area mining with draglines.
Figure IV-20 illustrates area mining with a stripping shovel.

Open-Pit Mining.  Some western area type mines utilizing  shovels  and
trucks,  endloaders  and  trucks,  or  scrapers  develop open-pit mine
configurations whereby overburden  and  coal  are  removed  in  blocks
rather  than  strip-cuts.   Overburden  from  initial pits is normally
placed off the area to be mined, often in depression areas,  sometimes
on  previously  mined  areas,  then overburden from succeeding pits is
placed back into pits where the coal has been removed.   Figure  IV-21
portrays open-pit mining of a thick seam.

Other New Surface Mining Methods

Mountaintop  Mining.   In recent years, several mining techniques have
been developed which minimize the adverse effects of mining  on  steep
slopes.   Because of new strip mine laws and reclamation requirements,
these techniques have often replaced or  eliminated  the  practice  of
contour  mining.   The  new  methods  include mountaintop (or hilltop)
mining and finger-ridge mining.  Figure IV-22 depicts the  cross-ridge
concept of mountaintop mining.  The mountaintop mining method involves
removal  of  the  entire  hilltop  or mountaintop above a coal seam or
multiple coal seams.  Most of the  overburden  is  usually  placed  in
hollow  fills, while some overburden is retained for final reclamation
of the "tabletop" landscape left upon termination of  mining.   A  new
mountaintop  technique,  called  cross-ridge  mining, mines across the
                                   68

-------
                                 LJFE OF MINE HAUL ROAD
                            Figure IV-19

                    AREA MINING WITH DRAGLINES
Reprinted, with permission,  from "Coal Age Operating Handbook of
Coal Surface Mining  and  Reclamation," Volume 2.  Copyright 1978,
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
                                 69

-------
                    Area-mining method with stripping shovel
 ..,     .
"-L -ii i -;^ ^'*H._LJ • I*j*_ "''•  n'' '" _?^  - ^i!*j — '-fT.1* ^"7?*^r~—•^•^•^ __ -~j^T "• '^Y^a3"'?' -*
                                Figure IV-20

                    AREA MINING WITH STRIPPING SHOVEL
   Reprinted, with permission,  from "Coal Age Operating Handbook of
   Coal Surface  Mining and  Reclamation,"  Volume 2.   Copyright  1978,
   McGraw-Hill,  Inc.
                                     70

-------
                       Thick-seam open-pit mining
                                              ^^S^i'\ -.1  .'-i .'^T||t • .VM
                            Figure IV- 21

          AREA MINING (OPEN-PIT MINING) OF A THICK SEAM


Reprinted, with permission, from "Coal  Age Magazine," February,
1980, Volume  85 - Number 2.  McGraw-Hill,  Inc.
                                 71

-------
                       A cross-ridge concept
                          n^-- -  ' —^^—-^ -   "^*i -i—^^*" — -p*•*-, - ^»- ,
                            Figure IV- 22

                            AREA MINING
                  (CROSS-RIDGE MOUNTAINTOP METHOD)
Reprinted, with  permission, from "Coal Age  Operating Handbook of
Coal Surface Mining  and Reclamation," Volume  2.   Copyright 1978,
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
                                 72

-------
ridges between the coal outcrops and places more spoil on top  of  the
mined  out area.  This technique reduces the required volume of hollow
fill areas.

Finger-Ridge Mining.  Finger-ridge removal methods  can  also  utilize
cross-ridge  mining  techniques.   Finger-ridge  mining  is similar to
mountaintop mining; however, instead of removing the  entire  mountain
or  hill  above the coal seam(s), only the ridges or incremental parts
of the mountain above the  coal  seam(s)  are  removed.   This  allows
operators  to take advantage of lower stripping ratios in ridge areas.
The final highwall, which often  represents  economic  cutoff,  occurs
where  the  strip ratio becomes too high as mining progresses into the
mountain.  The block of coal that remains  could  be  mined  later  if
economic conditions become favorable or new techniques are developed.

Underground Mining

Underground  methods  are  employed  where  the coal is coo deep to be
surface mined  economically  or  environmental  restrictions  preclude
surface mining.  Basically, there are three types of underground mines
according  to  the manner in which the opening from the surface to the
coal seam is made.  These include drift mines, slope mines, and  shaft
mines  (see Figure IV-23).  In a drift mine, the opening into the coal
is horizontal or made directly into the     seam at a point  where  it
outcrops  on  the  surface.   A slope mine uses an inclined opening to
reach the coal.  A slope entry is usually employed where the coal seam
is at an intermediate depth (there is no visible  outcrop),  or  where
the  coal  outcrop  condition  is  unsatisfactory  or unsafe for drift
entry.  Shaft mines are usually developed when the coal seam lies deep
underground.

Conventional

This method extracts the  coal  in  a  sequence  of  operations,  with
•special  equipment  to execute each step.  First, the coal is cut by a
cutting machine and then drilled, loaded with explosives, and blasted.
The broken coal is gathered by a loading machine  and transported to a
shuttle car  (or  in  some  cases,  the  coal  is  both  gathered  and
transported  by  specially  designed  equipment), which dumps the coal
onto a conveyor belt or a mine car loadout station.  A machine follows
closely behind the operating face inc^alling roof bolts, or other roof
support items such as timbers or stcc^. crossbars.  This type of mining
system is gradually being phased out in the United States and is beinu
replaced by continuous mining machines.  Figure IV-24 illustrates room
and pillar mining by conventional methods.

Continuous

This method utilizes a single  machine  called  a  "continuous  miner"
which  breaks the coal mechanically, then loads and transports it to a
shuttle car.  The shuttle car transports the coal to a  conveyor  belt
for  passage  out  of  the  mine.   A  roof bolting machine is usually
scheduled to follow  closely  behind  the  operating  face.  Recently,
                                   73

-------
                            DRIFT MINE
                 •SURFACE
                                            PREPARATION
                                               PLANT
         •MAIN CONVEYOR  BELT
                           SLOPE MINE
                                           PREPARATION
                                              PLANT
                          Figure IV- 23

                   UNDERGROUND MINING PRACTICES
Reprinted from  "Elements or Practical Coal Mining/1  by Samuel M,
Cassidy, editor,  1973,  by permission of the Society  of Mining
Engineers of AIME.

-------
                             SHAFT MINE
PREPARATION
   PLANT
                         HEAD FRAME
                       SKIP—*
                COAL SEAM-? .	
                                   DUMP
                                 STORAGE  BIN
                    Figure  IV-23  (Continued)

                  UNDERGROUND MINING PRACTICES

Reprinted from "Elements  of Practical Coal Mining," by Samuel M,
Cassidy, editor,  1973, by permission of the Society of Mining
Engineers of AIME.
                                 75

-------
                           Figure IV-.24

         UNDERGROUND COAL MINING - ROOM-AND-PILLAR SYSTEM
                      (Conventional Method)


Reprinted, with permission, from "Coal in America," by Richard A.
Schmidt.  Copyright 1979, McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Source:  U.S. Bureau of Mines
                                76

-------
development towards continuous haulage has been emphasized whereby the
conveyor  belt system connects directly to the continuous miner; also,
mounting  roof  bolting  equipment  on  continuous  miners  has   been
explored.    These   developments   are   likely  to  further  improve
productivity and safety.  Both the conventional and continuous  mining
methods  use  the room and pillar technique to extract the coal.  Main
tunnels, or headings, are first driven from the point  of  entry  into
the  coal  seam.   From  these  main  headings, secondary headings are
driven perpendicularly.  Blocks  of  coal  are  then  extracted  in  a
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.  Once a given
area or entire mine property has been  developed,  retreat  mining  is
often  practiced  in  which additional coal is mined from the pillars,
thereby increasing overal1 coal  recovery.   Room  and  pi 1lar  mining
normally achieves extraction of 40 to 60 percent of the coal seam.

Longwall

Longwall mining is relatively new to the mining industry.  This system
mines  large  blocks  of  coal,  outlined  during the mine development
phase,  which  are  completely  extracted  in  a  single,   continuous
operation.   Longwall  mining  machines utilize coal cutters that move
across  a  section  of  the  face  and  the  cut  coal  falls  onto  a
continuously  moving  face  conveyor.   Hydraulic  roof  supports  are
advanced with each pass of  the  cutter,  permitting  controlled  roof
collapse   as  mining  progresses.   Longwall  mining,  once  properly
implemented,  is  usually  highly  productive  and  allows   increased
recovery  of the coal since it is unnecessary to leave pillars of coal
for roof support as in other mining methods.  One quarter  of  western
deep  mines  currently  use longwalls.  Longwall mining techniques are
illustrated in Figure IV-25.

Shortwall

This new mining method, introduced from Australian mines, represents a
combination of the continuous mining  and  longwall  systems.   Either
continuous  mining  equipment  or  conventional  equipment  is used to
develop the field.   A  continuous  miner,  in  conjunction  with  the
longwall-type  roof  supports,  is  then used to extract the remaining
coal pillars.  The individual pillars or blocks-of coal  are  somewhat
smaller than those in longwall operations.  Transportation of the coal
may  be  by shuttle cars or by newly developed portable, flexible belt
conveyors  that  follow  the  continuous  miner  in  and  out   (i.e.,
continuous  haulage).   As  in  longwall mining, shortwall mining also
offers  improved  coal  recovery.   Shortwall  mining  techniques  are
illustrated in Figure IV-26.
PREPARATION PLANTS AND ASSOCIATED AREAS
                                   77

-------
  UNDERGROUND MINING PLAN FOR LONGWALL DEVELOPMENT MIMERS
                     -LEGENO-
                 I  MASONRY STOPPING
                 - CANVAS STOPPING
                 ««• RCTJRN REGULATOR
                 *» INTAKE RSGUUATOR
                 x OVERCAST
                 « UNOESCAST
                 • SUPPU POINT
                 » BELT TRANSFW POINT
                — DIRECTION Of AIR
     PLAN OF THE LONGWALL  FACE THAT IS  SHOWN  ABOVE
                                 G08
  /YlELDlNG-i
  JACKS
	     ^»^^ 4
                       SSL/- ADVANCING
                       POWESEO *OOF
                       SUPPORTS
                       It*
                           FACE     ^-SHEARING
                           CONVEYOR    MACHINE
                            DIRECTION OP MINING
                       •MELT
                         ENTRY
                            Figure IV- 25

                      LONGWALL  MINING METHOD

Reprinted from "Elements of Practical Coal Mining,"  by Samuel M,
Cassidy, editor, 1973,, by permission  of the  Society  of Mining
Engineers of  AIME.
                                   78

-------
AIM

rxa




_ 	

CNVCYCflg






\

*N

•

J






f *

-------
Introduction

Coal  preparation  is  the  process  of upgrading raw coal by physical
means.  In general, preparation techniques improve the  heating  value
and  physical  characteristics of the coal by removing  impurities such
as pyrite and ash material (e.g., shales, clays, shaley coals,  etc.).
By removing potential pollutants such as sulfur-bearing minerals prior
to combustions, coal cleaning can be an important control strategy for
complying  with  air  quality  standards.   The  physical upgrading of
metallurgical coal  has  long  been  a  necessity  because  the  steel
'industry  has had the toughest quality requirements of all major coal-
consuming industries.  On the other hand,  utility  (steam)  coal  has
been  subjected  to less extensive preparation.  Although utility coal
is required to be relatively uniform in size,  the  economic  benefits
accrued  from  deep  cleaning  in  the past has not been sufficient to
.justify  the  additional  preparation  costs.    However,   with   the
'establishment  of  new  sulfur  dioxide  emission  standards for power
generating plants,  there  is  a  growing  demand  for  more  complete
cleaning  of  utility coal.  Electric utility companies can meet these
^standards by installing scrubbers or other  technologies  that  reduce
the sulfur content of stack gases, or by burning cleaner, lower sulfur
;coal .

Coal Preparation Processes

The  physical  coal  cleaning processes used today are oriented toward
product  standardization  and  reduction  of  ash,   with   increasing
attention being placed on sulfur reduction.  In a modern coal-cleaning
plant,   the  coal  is  typically  subjected  to  size  reduction  and
screening,  gravity  separation  of  coal  from  its  impurities,  and
dewatering  and  drying.   The commercial practice of coal cleaning is
primarily based on separation of the impurities due to differences  in
the  specific  gravity  of coal constituents (i.e., gravity separation
processes), and on the differences in surface properties of  the  coal
and its mineral matter (i.e., froth flotation).

Although  it  is not possible to describe a universal coal preparation
process,  certain  processing  methods  common  to  most   preparation
operations  can  be  identified.   Figure  IV-27  illustrates  a coal-
cleaning facility that uses common process methods, without  detailing
specific unit operations.

Initial Coal Preparation

Prior  to  the  actual cleaning process, run-of-mine coal must undergo
initial preparation.  This involves preliminary crushing of  the  coal
to  remove  large  rock fractions and to liberate entrained impurities
such as clay, rock, and other inorganic materials,  including  pyrite.
The  first  crushing  step  is  followed  by a screening operation and
                     A second  screening  step  produces  two  product
                     process  area:   one  containing   a fine fraction
secondary crushing.
streams  from  this
(usually less than 6.5 mm) and the other containing  coarse  particles
(normally  76.0  x 6.5 mm).  These two coal streams are then routed to
                                   80
-------
             I
R-O-M  Coal   |
               STORAGE
               1/2 HOUR
                  OF
                RATED
                PLANT
              CAPACITY
                                                                                                            Recirculating Plant Water
CO
                                                                                                       COARSE COAL
                                                                                                         CLEANING
          Initial Coal Preparation

          Fine Coal Processing

          Coarse Coal Processing

          Water Management and
           Final Coal Preparation
           PROCESS AREAS
                                                                                                                                         Clean Products
                Reject Streams

                Coal Slurry

                Water Flows

                Coal Flows
                                                          Recycle
                                                          and /or  .
                                                         Discharge
1
Refuse i
1
1
WATER
TREATMENT
AND
RECOVERY
1
i
1
                                              Source:  "The Energy Requirements for Control SO. Emissions from Coal Fired Steam/
                                                      Electric Generators," Radian Corporation, TJCN-77-200-T87-08-06, EPA Contract
                                                      No. 68-02-2608, U.S. EPA-IERL, 1977.
                                       Figure 1V-27.  Simplified  Flow  Scheme—Physical Coal Cleaning Process
-------
their respective process
takes place (7).
                         areas where  the  actual  cleaning  operation
Fine Coal Processing

Fine  coal  processing can involve either wet or dry cleaning methods.
In plants utilizing a dry coal cleaning process, fine  coal  from   the
initial  preparation  step  flows  to a feed hopper and then to an  air
cleaning operation.  This cleaning operation can employ one of several
devices which rely on an upward current of  air  traveling  through  a
fluidized  bed  of  crushed  coal.  Separation  is effected by particle
size and density.  Product streams from a  dry  cleaning  process   are
sent directly to the final coal preparation step, while reject streams
are usually processed further in wet cleaning operations  (19).

    operations utilizing wet methods to effect  fine coal  cleaning,  the
              'ream containing less than 6.5 mm coal is slurried
In  operations utilizing wet methods to effect fine coal cleaning,
process feed stream containing less than 6.5 mm coal is slurried  w
water  as  it enters the fine coal processing area of the plant.  T
slurry is then subjected to a  desliming  operation  which  removes
o.ior^nci^r,  containing  approximately  50  percent  of  minus  200 m
                                                  usually in the range
hJJJ.LJl-1-Y .*- U ^ 1 J \^ 1 1 •hJt*li»'J^'\«'b.*wt*i W V-* M  U^-l*J^XJIl^ai^  V £S\^ ^ U Ip* ^ IX A I  TTltXV'il  LW1IIWV
suspension  containing  approximately  50  percent  of  minus  200
material.  The cutoff size for this separation is usually  in the
of 28 to 48 mesh.  This desliming operation is necessary   because
presence  of  slimes  adversely affects the capacity and efficien
     with
     This
        a
 200 mesh
of 28 to 48 mesh
presence  of  slimes
fine cleaning units
      the
ciency of
Subsequent to desliming, the oversize coal fraction  (greater   than   28
mesh)  is  pumped  to the fine coal cleaning process.  Here,  fine coal
particles undergo gravity separation in one of  several  wet   cleaning
devices.    This  removes  a  percentage  of  ash and pyritic  sulfur  to
produce a clean coal product.  The product stream from this   operation
is  fed  to  the  drying area of the plant; refuse material is further
processed in the water treatment section.

The slimes removed from the fine  coal  stream  are  fed  to   a froth
flotation  process.   Other material, such as reject from dry cleaning
operations, may also  be  treated  in  the  flotation  process.   This
process  consists  of  "rougher"  and  "cleaner"  sections  which  are
comprised of cells of flotation machines.  Upon entering the  flotation
process area, the slime suspension is treated with a  frothing agent.
This agent selectively floats coal particles in the  flotation machines
while  allowing pyrite and ash impurities to settle.  Processing slime
in the "rougher" cells  produces  a  reject  stream  and  a   low-grade
product.    The low-grade product is further processed in the  "cleaner"
cells to produce a clean coal product.  This final   float  product   is
then  sent  to  the dewatering area for further handling, while reject
material from both rougher and cleaner sections is   processed  in  the
water treatment and recovery area.

Coarse Coal Processing

Feed  to  the  coarse  coal  processing  area of the plant consists  of
oversize material {76 x 6.5 mm particles) from the initial preparation
area.  This feed stream is slurried  with  water  prior  to   cleaning,
                                   82
-------
since  coarse coal cleaning operations employ wet processing equipment
to remove impurities from the coal.  The coarse coal slurry is fed  to
one  of  the  many  types  of  process equipment currently employed in
coarse coal cleaning.  Here, impurities are separated  from  the  coal
due  to  differences  in  product  and  reject  density.  It is common
practice to remove a middling fraction from the  separation  operation
and  process  it  further  by  means  of recycle or by feed to another
cleaning process.  These cleaning operations result in removal of  two
streams  from the coarse coal processing area:  a product and a reject
stream.  Subsequent to the  coarse  cleaning  operation,  the  product
stream is pumped to the dewatering and drying area of the plant, while
the reject stream is processed in the water treatment recovery area.

Water Management/Refuse Disposal

Dewatering and drying equipment handle the product flows from both the
fine  and  coarse  coal preparation areas.  Typically, cleaning plants
employ mechanical dewatering operations to separate coal slurries into
a low-moisture solid and clarified supernatant.  The solid coal sludge
produced in the dewatering step can be mechanically or thermally dried
to further reduce the moisture.  The supernatant from  the  dewatering
process is returned to the plant water circulation system.

The water treatment and recovery section of a cleaning plant processes
refuse  slurries  containing  both  coarse material and reject slimes.
Here, the refuse slurry is  dewatered,  typically  in  thickeners  and
settling  ponds.   The  supernatant  from this operation is most often
returned for reuse in the plant, while the refuse can  be  buried  and
revegetated  to  prevent  burning, or piled prior to reclamation.  The
coal product from the dewatering and drying area of  the  plant  often
undergoes  additional  processing.   This  may  involve  crushing  and
screening operations to separate  the  product  into  various  product
sizes.   The  cleaned  and  sized  product is then conveyed to storage
silos or bins prior to shipping.

Plant Statistics

There was a total of 458  preparation  plants  processing  anthracite,
bituminous,  and  lignite  coal  in  the  United  States in 1975 (18).
(Current estimates (1979) indicate there  are  now  approximately  670
preparation  plants.)   Based  on  1976 data, 95 percent of the plants
employed wet processing methods (see Figure  IV-28).  Only  21  plants
used  dry  methods.   Two-thirds of the wet processing plants utilized
heavy media separation, froth flotation, or both.  Table  IV- 10  shows
bituminous  and  lignite tonnage processed in 1975 by type of cleaning
method.  Two hundred and forty-two million metric  tons  (267  million
short  tons)  (41  percent)  of  1 975  production  received mechanical
cleaning using wet processing methods, whereas 288 million metric tons
                   tons)  (49  percent)  were  subjected  to  crushing
                   only  and  58 million metric tons  (64 million short
                   received no processing prior to consumption.  Table
                  mechanical cleaning of bituminous and  lignite  coal
(317 million short
and/or  screening
tons) (10 percent)
IV-11 breaks down
by type of equipment.
                                   83
-------
-------
                           Table IV-11



        MECHANICAL CLEANING OF BITUMINOUS AND LIGNITE COAL



                  IN 1975,  BY TYPE OF EQUIPMENT
Type of
Equipment
Washing Only Processes
Jigs
Concentrating Tables
Classifiers
Launder ers
Subtotal
Dense Media
Processes
Magnetite
Sand
Calcium Chloride
Subtotal
Flotation
Total Wet Methods
Pneumatic Methods
kkg * 1.06
113.0
26.0
5.6
2.4
147.0

65.7
12.2
0.9
78.8
10.4
236.2
6.1
Short Tons * 106
124.3
28.7
6.2
2.7
161 .9

72.4
13.5
1 .0
86.9
11 .5
260.3
6.7
Percent
46.6
10.7
2.3
1 .0
60.6

27.1
5.1
0.4
32.6
4.3
36.9
2.5
     Grand Total
242.3
267.0
100.0
Source
-------
              PREPARATION PLANTS IN U,S
              458
       WET PROCESS
           437
                   I
              DRY PROCESS
                  21
  FROTH FLOTATION AND
 DENSE MEDIA SEPARATION
           292
WASHING
 ONLY
  145
                        Figure IV-28

           TYPES OF COAL PREPARATION PLANTS IN THE
                        UNITED STATES
Source:  (20)
                              86
-------
Associated Areas

Associated  areas include refuse piles, raw and clean coal stockpiles,
applicable  haulroads  or  access  roads,  and  disturbed  areas  from
preparation  plant  facilities;  that  is,  areas  associated with the
preparation of and waste generated by a refined coal product.   Refuse
piles  and  coal stockpiles, plus other associated areas, can be prone
to generation of acid waters, especially if  high  pyritic  coals  are
involved.   Proper management and treatment techniques are required to
be used to minimize water pollution from these areas.
-------
-------
                               SECTION  V
      WASTEWATER  CHARACTERIZATION  AND  INDUSTRY  SUBCATEGORIZATION
 INTRODUCTION
 The development  of  effluent  limitations  guidelines  is  based   upon   the
 determination  of   the   effluent   characteristics   of   the   industrial
 category  and the identification of  suitable  treatment  technologies  for
 reduction of  pollutants  within   the    category.     All    industrial
 categories have  inherent processing,  site, or  raw material differences
 which    influence    their  effluent  characteristics   and  methods   of
 wastewater treatment.   The purpose  of this section  is  to recognize  any
 of these  major inherent differences that exist  within the   category,
 and  more importantly,  to  determine their  impact  on  treatability  and
 effluent  characteristics.  The subcategorization scheme developed from
 this evaluation  provides the basis   for   the  selection of   treatment
 technologies and the determination  of effluent standards.
SUBCATEGORIZATION
The  development  of   the  BAT   subcategorization  scheme   includes  an
examination of many factors which might  affect   effluent   quality  and
treatability.   The   factors  examined   include  mine  type (surface  or
underground),  coal   type   (anthracite,   bituminous,   lignite),  size,
location,  and  effluent   source  (preparation   plant,  active  mine,  or
reclamation area).  These  factors were previously examined during  the
.development  of  BPT  effluent limitations,  and a BPT subcategorization
scheme was established.  That subcategorization  has been reexamined  in
light  of  additional  data  collected    during   the   BAT   program.
Statistical  and  engineering   analyses   of  these  data indicate  that
several modifications  are  appropriate.

Revised BPT, BAT and  NSPS  Subcateqorization Scheme

The following categorization provides the basis  for the remainder   of
this study:
-------
     1,   Preparation Plants and Associated Areas (for NSPS, different
standards apply to preparation plants and associated areas).
     2.   Acid Mine Drainage
          Alkaline Mine Drainage
          Post Mining Discharges
          a.   Reclamation areas and
          b.   Underground mine discharges
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
To develop the regulations, data characterizing wastewaters  generated
during  the  extraction  and  preparation  of  coal  were obtained and
evaluated.  The initial data collection effort was  instituted  during
1974  and 1975 for the development of BPT effluent limitations.  These
data included  results  from  a  sampling  and  analysis  program  and
assimilation  of  a  large  amount  of historical data supplied by the
industry,  the  U.S.  Bureau  of  Mines  and  other   sources.    This
information  characterized  wastewaters  from  coal  mining operations
according to a number of key control parameters—acidity,  alkalinity,
total  suspended  solids,  pH,  iron,  and  others.   However,  little
information on other pollutants such as toxic metals and organics were
available from industry  or  government  sources.   To  establish  the
levels of these pollutants, a second sampling and analysis program was
instituted  to  specifically  address these toxic compounds, including
the 65 pollutants and  pollutant  classes  for  which  regulation  was
mandated  by the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977.  These pollutants
are listed on Table VI-1.  This sampling effort also served to  extend
the  coal  wastewater  data  base  of conventional and nonconventional
pollutants.

Data Base Developed During This Rulemaking

The Agency instituted a screening sampling program and a  verification
sampling program directed primarily at determining levels of the toxic
pollutants  in  raw  and  BPT-treated  effluents  in  the  coal mining
industry.  Additional analytical data were obtained during engineering
site visits  to  seventeen  mine  sites.   Two  EPA  regional  offices
supplied  supporting  data  from  facilities within their geographical
areas.  Data generated from a self-monitoring program for areas during
precipitation events and areas under reclamation are also part of  the
data  base,   A  precision  and  accuracy  study  of settleable solids
                                    90
-------
                                        Table V-l

                      DATA SOURCES DEVELOPED DURING BAT REVIEW FOR
                               WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
                      Number of Facilities by Proposed Subcategory
                                        Preparation   Preparation Plant   Reclamation
Data Source
Screening
Verification
Engineering Site
Visits
EPA Regional Studies
Self -Monitoring
Survey
Prep. Plant
Questionnaire
Prep. Plant Sampling
NPDES DMR
Site Specific Areas
Under Reclamation
Acid
9
7
3
0
0
0
0
56
0
Alkaline
14
5
11
3
0
0
0
32
0
Plants
15
5
5
1
0
152
3
12
0
Associated Areas
6
2
4
0
0
152
3
1
0
Areas
0
0
1
0
24
0
0
0
8
TOTALS
75
65
193
168
33
-------
                       studies  are
                       studies  are
                       and  Control
                      sedimentation
concentrations less than 1.0 ml/1 was also performed.   Finally,  data
from  a  preparation  plant industry questionnaire and NPDES Discharge
Monitoring Reports from  four  EPA  regions  have  been  compiled  for
addition  to  the active data base.  These data sources are presented,
by proposed subcategory, in Table V-l and  discussed  in  more  detail
below.   Table  V-2 summarizes statistics for the data base upon which
coal industry wastewaters are characterized.  A number of treatability
studies were also conducted to  evaluate  the  capacity  of  candidate
technologies   to   treat  coal  mine  drainage.   These
summarized in Table V-3.  Results from the  treatability
discussed   in   detail   in   Section   VII,  Treatment
Technologies.  Special reports for  anthracite  mining,
pond  sludge  samples  and coal preparation plants were also prepared.
(See Ref 21.22, and 23 respectively).

Data Sources

Screening and Verification Sampling

The  screening  and  verification  sampling  program  began  in  1977.
Several  criteria  were considered in the selection of sampling sites.
It was determined  that  facilities  to  be  sampled  should:   1.   Be
representative of the industry to account for all major factors (i.e.,
location,   topography,   seam  characteristics,  etc.)   which  could
influence effluent quality and treatability; and 2.  Include treatment
processes considered exemplary within  the  industry  to  establish  a
baseline  for best available technologies.  Applying these criteria, a
candidate list of sites  was  prepared  and  submitted  to  the  Water
Quality  Committee  of  the  National Coal Association for comment.  A
final list of sites to be visited for the  screening  phase  was  then
compiled.  The mine companies were contacted and sampling arrangements
made.   Screening  sampling visits were conducted during 1977 to sites
within the various subcategories as listed in Table V-l.  All sampling
and analysis  during this phase were done according  to  EPA  sampling
protocols. (8).   After  review of screen sampling analytical results,
several additional sites  were  selected  for  verification  sampling.
Three  coal mines and preparation plants were revisited to verify data
collected during screening.  Three additional bituminous  and   lignite
mines,  as  well  as  four anthracite facilities, were also sampled to
enhance  the  representativeness  of  the  data  base.   Sampling  and
analytical  protocols  for  this phase were all in accordance with EPA
procedures (8).  More detail  on  these  protocols  can  be  found  in
Appendix  C,  of  the Proposed Coal Mining Development Document.  (EPA
440/1-81/057/b).

Engineering Site Visits

The engineering site visits were carried out primarily to collect cost
data for verifying and supplementing costs  previously  developed  for
the  coal  mining  industry.   Fourteen  separate  mines, some with an
associated preparation plant, were contacted and visited in  the  fall
of  1979.   A sample data checklist used on the visits may be found in
Appendix D of the Proposed Coal Mining Development Document.   Samples
92
-------
                            Table V-2

                        DATA BASE SOURCES
BPT Study

BCRI Surveys

*BAT Screening
and Veriftcatton

*Self-Monitoring
Survey

*EPA Region IV, VIII

*Engineering Site
Visits

*Preparation Plant
Site Visits

*Preparation Plant
Industry Survey
Total No. in Data Base
Total No. of Independent
Facilities in Computerized
Data Base

Percent of 1978 Total
Production Represented
tn Total Data Base
Type of
Facility
Anthracite,
Bituminous Coal
and Lignite Mines
89
162
29
17
3
14
0
0
314
Preparation Plants
and Associated
Areas
34
118
19
0
1
8
3
152
335
58
39
167
 43
*Data from this source has been computerized.
                                  93
-------
                                             Table V-3

                        TREATABILITY STUDIES CONDUCTED ON COAL MINE DRAINAGE
VD
4="
       Technology
        Examined
                     Site(s) of
                  Study or Mine(s)
       Lime/Limestone    Crown, WV
       Lime/Limestone    Norton, WV
       Reverse Osmosis
Flocculant
Addition
       Granular Media
       Filtration

       Neutralization
       Aeration
       Ozonation
       Sand Filtration
       Carbon Adsorption
       Reverse Osmosis   Crown, WV
       Ion Exchange
       Lime Neutralization
Norton, WV
Morgantown, WV
Ebensburg, PA
Mocanaqua, PA

Norton, WV
Hollywood, PA
Crown, WV
Stonefort, IL

Ebensburg, PA
Greensboro, PA

Crown, WV
     Type of
Drainage Treated

Acid Mine Drainage
(Ferrous Iron)

Acid Mine Drainage
(Ferric Iron)

Acid Mine Drainage
Acid Mine Drainage
                                       Acid Mine Drainage
                                       Acid Mine Drainage
  Dates
of Effort

1974-1976


   1974


   1972
                                                                      1979
                        1980
                                       Acid, Alkaline Mine  1978-1979
                                       Drainage for Organ-
                                       ics and Toxic
                                       Metals
                                       Acid Mine Drainage
                                             1978
                                                        Reference
(2)


(3)




(4)




(5)


(6)
                                      (7)
-------
of  raw  and treated effluents were collected and shipped for analysis
of   "classical"   parameters   (TSS,   Fe,   Mn,    pH,    turbidity,
alkalinity/acidity, settleable solids, and total dissolved solids) and
the   thirteen   toxic  metals.   The  analytical  protocol  used  was
established by EPA.  The metals were analyzed  by  inductively-coupled
argon- plasma emission spectrometry and atomic adsorption (9).

EPA Regional Support Studies

EPA Region 8 (Denver,  Colorado) instituted a sampling effort to assess
the    water   treatment   configurations   and   effluent   qualities
characteristic of the western coal producing  region.   Several  mines
were  visited  during the spring of 1979; however, due to an unusually
mild winter and an abnormally dry spring, only two of those  contacted
were  found  to  have a discharge that could be sampled.  Grab samples
were collected and analyzed for the  currently  regulated  parameters,
priority  metals,  and  a  number  of nonconventional pollutants.  EPA
Region 4 (Atlanta, Georgia) conducted a similar effort at one mine  in
its  region.   These  data  were  forwarded to the Effluent Guidelines
Division and incorporated into the data  base.  This  information  was
incorporated  into  a  report  comparing  effluents  from  eastern and
western mines.(10) The data was also used to further characterize mine
drainage and wastewater treatability, particularly for priority metals
removal.

Preparation Plant Industry Survey

This study was conducted with the cooperation  of  the  National  Coal
Association  (NCA)  to  assess  water  usage  and  treatment  in  coal
preparation  plants.    NCA   producer   companies   were   mailed   a
questionnaire requesting the following information:  facility profile,
water  balance  around the preparation facility, makeup water sources,
discharge points and quantities,  water treatment  practices  employed,
water   management   procedures   and  acreage  of  preparation  plant
associated areas, and effluent quality data.   A  sample  questionnaire
is in Appendix D of the Proposed Coal Mining Development Document (EPA
440/1-8/057-b)  for the proposed rulemaking.  One hundred and fifty-two
plants   (approximately   50  percent  of  the  NCA  producer  company
preparation plants) responded to the survey,  representing  roughly  30
percent  of  all  the  plants  in  the industry.  This information was
incorporated into the computer data base developed in support  of  the
overall  program,  and may be found in Appendix E of the Proposed Coal
Mining Development Document (EPA 440/1-81/057-b).   The  uses  of  the
industry responses include the following:
     1.    Determination of the number
recycle system;
of  plants  operating  a  total
     2.    Determination  of   requirements   for   modifying
treatment configurations to a total recycle system; and
                        current
     3.   Determination of the runoff
ancillary to the preparation plant.
treatment  strategy  for  areas
                                   95
-------
Questionnaire  results  are  discussed  in  Section VII, Treatment and
Control Technology.

Self-Monitoring Survey

A one year survey conducted under authority  of  Section  308
Clean  Water  Act  was  performed  in  order  to  characterize
discharges from sedimentation pond effluents during and  after
and  also  for  reclamation areas.  (See Appendix A of this document).
Seventeen  mining  facilities  involving  24  ponds   reported   data.
Sampling  of  one  pond  ended  shortly  after  the  study because the
facility discontinued discharging into it.  Four other ponds  did  not
report  a  discharge  during the study.  Therefore,
from a total of 19 ponds.
           of  the
           surface
            storms
data was collected
Samples were taken of the influent to and  effluent  from  the  ponds.
One  sample  per week was collected to establish base flow conditions,
with additional samples taken during any  significant  rainfall  event
and  the  day  after  the rainfall event.  The results of these sample
analyses,  coupled  with  design  specifications  submitted   by   the
participating companies for each pond, permitted identification of the
treatment  effectiveness  of  the  ponds  during dry weather and storm
conditions, as well as concentrations of pollutants which characterize
runoff from mining  areas.   The  parameters  analyzed   include  total
suspended  solids,  settleable solids, total  iron, dissolved iron, and
pH,  Certain samples were  also  analyzed  for  the  priority  metals.
(After  the  first  six  months' of the toxic metals analyses, results
were so low that sampling for these parameters was discontinued).

Settleable Solids Precision and Accuracy Study

A second major sampling and analysis effort was performed to develop  a
precision and accuracy determination for measurement below 1.0 ml/1 of
settleable solids for active mining and  reclamation  area  discharges
from  eastern  and  western  coal  mines.    (See  Appendix  B  of this
document).  Under this program, eight treatment ponds were sampled and
analyzed for settleable solids using  the  Standard  Methods  protocol
(14th  Ed.,  American and Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.,
1975).  Based on the results of this study, EPA has concluded that  it
is  possible  to  measure settleable solids below 1.0 ml/1 and that an
effluent limitation below 1.0 ml/1 is indeed  reasonable.  In fact, EPA
concluded that the  maximum  method  detection  limit  for  settleable
solids in the coal mining industry is 0.4 ml/1.

Preparation Plant Sampling Program

This  sampling  and  analysis  effort  was   instituted to characterize
preparation plant effluents and to compare wastewater generated within
total recycle systems with wastewater discharged from partial  recycle
and  once-through  systems.   Grab  samples   were  collected  at three
preparation plants and associated  areas  and analyzed  according  to
Agency  protocol   (8).   Cost  and  wastewater  engineering  data were
collected simultaneously to augment existing  data  and   to  permit  an
                                    96
-------
evaluation  of  the  feasibility  of
preparation plant water circuits.

Regional Discharge Monitoring Reports
Program
no  discharge of pollutants from
 (DMR)  Filed  Under  the  NPDES
A  program  was  conducted  to  collect DMRs from EPA regional  offices
located in the major coal producing areas  in the United States.  These
data  identify  the  levels  of  variation  in  flow   and   pollutant
characteristics associated with mine drainage.  Of particular  interest
is  the  daily maximum value of each regulated pollutant  (TSS,  Fe, Mn,
and pH) during the 30-day monitoring  period.   Eighty-eight   sets  of
data were obtained from EPA Regions 3, 4,  5, and 8.
WASTEWATER SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS
Water  enters  surface  or  deep  mines  by  groundwater infiltration,
precipitation,  and  surface  runoff.   Surface  runoff   can   become
contaminated with suspended solids from sediment.  If pyritic material
is exposed on the mine bottom, highwall, or spoil piles, oxidation and
acid formation can occur and leach toxic metals.  Groundwater entering
a surface or deep mine is also subject to acid formation.

The  wastewater situation at coal mines is notably different from that
found in most other industries.   No process  water  is  used  in  coal
extraction,  except  for  minor  use  in  dust  suppression, equipment
cooling, and firefighting needs.  Water is an operational hindrance to
a coal  mine,  and  requires  careful  management  to  minimize  water
entering  the active mining area.  Water can cause occupational health
hazards, such as spoil bank or highwall instability or  an  electrical
short  circuit in the case of operations using electric trunk lines to
power mining equipment.  As indicated in the industry profile section,
the quantities of water generated at a mine site do not correlate with
the  coal  production  rate.   This  again  differs  from  most  other
industries,  where  flow,  and  thus pollutant loadings, can be linked
with the rate of production.


A final major difference with water management in the coal industry is
the possibility of continuing discharges of polluted wastewater  after
the  facility  has  ceased  production,   especially  from  underground
operations.  Control practices,  which are discussed  in  Section  VII,
can  be  implemented  to minimizei or treat these discharges during and
after the active mining phase.
                                   97
-------
This subsection will summarize  raw  wastewater  data  first  for  all
subcategories  and  then for each individual proposed subcategory. The
data sources in the summary tables include the following:

1.   Screening sampling data,
2.   Verification sampling data,
3.   Self-monitoring survey data,
4.   EPA regional data,
5.   Engineering site visits,
6.   Preparation plant site visits.

A number of explanatory points should be made to  correctly  interpret
the tables presented in this section and the next section.  First, all
concentrations  are  presented in micrograms per liter, listed as UG/L
on the tables.

Second, the tables represent an effort to illustrate the quantity  and
•distribution  of the data.  Thus, the total number of samples analyzed
for each pollutant parameter is listed in the first numerical_  column.
The second column presents the total number of times the pollutant was
detected  during  analysis.  Because the Agency considers 10 ug/1 as a
realistic lower limit for detection of organic compounds  (5  ug/1  for
pesticides),  the  third  column  depicts  the total number of samples
where a detected value of greater than 10 ug/1 was found.   These  are
termed "quantifiable levels."  The final six columns are an attempt to
illustrate  the  data  distribution  of only the detected values.  The
statistics listed include the minimum, the 10 percent value (i.e.,  90
percent  of  the  detected  values  are above this concentration), the
median of detected values, the mean of detected values, the 90 percent
value  (90 percent of the detected values are below  this  value),  and
the  maximum  reported concentration.  Nearly all the organic priority
pollutants and a  number  of  the  toxic  metal  pollutants  are  most
frequently  found  as "not detected," i.e., below the detection limit.
To record these values on the final five columns  would  render  these
columns  essentially   meaningless. For instance, cyanide was detected
in onl.y three samples out of 50 for raw wastewater  (see  Table  V-4).
If  the  not  detected values were recorded in the final five columns,
the minimum, the 10 percent value, the  median,  and  the  90  percent
value  would  all  be listed as not detected.  This may be appropriate
for some types of evaluation,  but,  for  the  purpose  of  developing
treatment  technologies  and  supporting  a  subcategorization scheme,
illustrating  the  data  distribution  for  detected  values  is  more
informative.

Third,  in  situations  where  fewer than 10 detected values occur, no
meaningful number could be selected to represent the 10 percent and 90
percent values.  This is denoted by an asterisk.  Dots in the minimum,
mean, median, and maximum columns  indicate no values were detected for
that parameter.

Fourth, concentrations  were  sometimes  reported  by  the  analytical
laboratory  as  "detected  less  than X" where X equals some detection
limit.  This apparently contradictory information can be explained  by
                                   98
-------
             Table V-4

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
           RAW WASTEWATER
         ALL SUBCATEGORIES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
ACENAPHTHENE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BENZIDENE
CARBON TETRACHLORXDE
CHLOROBENZENE
1.2. 3 -TR I CHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
, 1 , 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
, 1-DICHLOROETHANE
. 1 . 2-TRICHLOROETHANE
.1.2. 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BXS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHi.OROETHYL VINYL ETHER (MIXED)
2 -CHLQRONAPHTHALENE
2 . 4 . 6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
CHLOROFORM
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 . 2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 . 3-DICHLOR08ENZENE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
3,3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
49
47
47
47
48
47
48
49
49
47
47
49
47
47
47
47
47
49
47
49
46
46
47
46
49
49
49
48
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
3
0
O
13
0
0
1
0
0
O
4
O
0
0
O
O
0
O
0
«
0
O
25
1
2
0
1
O
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
O
0
O
8
O
0
1
0
0
O
1
0
0
O
O
0
0
O
O
0
0
O
22
1
1
0
O
O
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
IN UG/L
MZN 10X MEDIAN MEAN 90% MAX
3 3

.
2
.-
.
12
t
t
,
3
.
.
.
.
.
p
.
.
3
.
.
3
86
3
.
3
.
.
m
16
f
t
12
f
+
m
3
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
,
3
.
.
32
86
3
.
3
.
3 3
,
ft
24 4
p
,
12
f
m
m
8
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
3
.'
,
93 3Of
86
11
.
3
.
.
,
73
,
.
12

.
.
23
.
.
t
.
f
.
.
g
3
,
f
476
86
18
9
3
.
-------
                                         Table V-4  (Continued)

                                  WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                             RAW WASTEWATER
                                           ALL SUBCATEGORIES
                                            TOXIC POLLUTANTS
o
o
COMPOUND
1. 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1 , 2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 , 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2 , 4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2 . 4-DXNITROTOLUENE
2 . 6-DINITROTOLUENE
1 , 2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORANTHENE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-BROMDPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLQROETHOXY) METHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (DICHLOROMETHANE)
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROMOFORM
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROFLUDRONETHANE
OICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIEME
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENT ADI ENE
ISOPHDRONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
47
47
46
47
47
46
49
49
49
48
49
49
49
49
49
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
49
49
49
49
49
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
3
1
O
O
0
3
1
t
1
4
5
1
O
0
O
43
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
1
1O
1
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
O
O
O
o
o
3
1
1
O
1
2
O
O
O
o
34
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
1
6
1
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN
3
1O
.
,
.
18
18
3O
3
2
3
3
,
.
.
V
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
307
3
10
.
,
.
20
18
30
3
3
3
3
,
.
.
501





.



307
2 2 1O
21 * 21
MEAN 90% MAX
3 3
10
.
.
.
21
18
30
3
s
B)
3
.
.
.
1188 22O
.
.
.
*
.
.
,
.
.
307
10
,
9
9
24
18
SO
3
11
11
3
,
.
.
11190
,
.

,

.



307
75 22O 4 1O
21 * 21
-------
       Table V-4 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
           RAW VASTEVATER
         ALL SUBCATEGORIES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS

COMPOUND
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NXTROPHENOL
2.4-DINXTROPHENOL
4,6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOOI -N-PROPYLAMXNE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
OJ-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
OIETHYt PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
BENZQf A)ANTHRACEKE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO ( B ) FLUORANTHENE
BENZO( K ) FLUORANTHENE
CHRYSENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO (G,H. I )PERYLENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
DIBENZO( A , H ) ANTHRACENE
INDENOC 1,2. 3-C . 0)PYRENE
PYRENE
TOTAL
UIUDCD
MM0EN
SAMPLES
46
46
48
46
49
49
48
46
46
49
49
49
49
40
49
46
49
49
49
46
49
46
49
49
46
49
49
49
TOTAL
M IMP CD
NLM0CK
DETECT
1
O
0
1
O
1
O
O
6
21
4
19
1
11
1
0
7
O
3
0
1
0
7
5
1
5
4
6
NUMBER
CAUBI EC
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
1
0
O
1
0
1
O
O
1
12
O
3
O
1
O
O
2
0
2
O
1
O
1
2
1
O
O
2
DETECT
MXN
17
,
.
194
.
45
1 .
.
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
.
1
.
1
.
9
.
1
1
12
3
3
1
ED CONC
10%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3
*
3
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
;ENTRATIO
MEDIAN
17
,
.
194
.
48
,
,
3
9
3
3
3
3
3
t
3
,
4
,
9
,
3
3
12
3
3
3
MS IN t
MEAN
17
a
m
194
f
45
,
.
5
16
3
4
3
B
3
.
24
t
B
.
9
.
5
14
12
5
6
9
KJ/L
90%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
44
*
8
*
3
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

MAX
17
.
.
194
.
45
f
t
16
62
3
11
3
23
3
,
141
.
11
m
9
B
10
44
12
10
1O
25
-------
                                          Table V-4 (Continued)


                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY

                                              RAW WASTEWATER
                                            ALL SUBCATEGORIES

                                             TOXIC POLLUTANTS
o
ro
COMPOUND
TETRACHLOROETHYLEME
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
CHLOROANE
4.4-DDT
4, 4 -DDE
4. 4 -ODD
ENDOSULF AN- ALPHA
ENDOSULFAN-BETA
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
BHC-ALPHA
BHC-BETA
BHC (LINDANE) -GAMMA
BHC-OELTA
PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)
PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)
PCS -1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)
PCB-124B (AROCHLOR 124ft)
PCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260)
PCB-1O16 (AROCHLOR 1O1B)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
47
47
47
47
45
45
46
45
45
45
45
45
46
48
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
16
1
O
1
3
0
O
1
1
3
2
0
O
2
2
3
5
6
5
5
0
0
O
0
o
o
0
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
O
10
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L
MIN 10X MEDIAN
*
2211
3 * 3
*
6.40
2.24
,
,
2.24
2,24
0.10
2.24
»
,
2.24
2.24
0.2O
1.10
O.33
O.43
O.1O
.
.
.
.

.
.
6.40
2.24
.
.
2.24
2.24
1.17
2.24
.
.
2.24
2.24
1.22
2.24
1.40
2.24
1.23


.

.


MEAN 90% MAX
*
IB 4O 45
3
.
8.4O
2.26
,
.
2.24
2.24
1.52
2.24
.
,
2.24
2.24
1.S6
2.O8
1.47
1.87
t.41
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
3
.
6.40
2.3O
.
.
2.24
2.24
2.24
2.24

.
2-24
2.24
2.24
2. BO
2.24
2.24
2.24
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
-------
                                          Table V-4 (Continued)

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                              RAW WASTEWATER
                                            ALL SUBCATEGORIES
                                             TOXIC POLLUTANTS
o
U)
COMPOUND
TOXAPHENE
2,3.7 . 8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
ANTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE
BENZOI A ) ANTHR ACENE/CHRYSENE
BENZO( 3 , 4/K )FLUORANTHEN£
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER (TOTAL)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL)
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
46
49
45
19
16
1O3
104
1O4
1O4
104
104
57
104
104
1O4
1O4
1O4
1O4
1O4
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
O
10
6
a
45
49
32
24
64
75
3
41
44
51
39
32
27
91
NUMBER
SAMPLES
MOUG/L
0
0
5
2
1
22
28
17
22
58
58
0
32
6
51
23
20
12
88
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN
MIN

.
2
1
3
1
2
0
6
6
4
2
2
0.20
23
1
4
$
7
10%
*
*
2
*
*
2
2
1
10
10
a
*
3
O.33
40
3
5
1
IS
MEDIAN

.
3
3
3
7
38
10
17
50
20
4
67
1.10
153
22
13
9
99
MEAN

.
24
IS
4
40
345
39
42
288
429
B
491
4.99
729
66
18
26
1408
UG/L
90%
*
*
48
*
*
117
863
92
92
508
1145
*
1000
14.20
12 1O
213
31
66
2897
MAX

,
1O4
49
7
235
650O
450
290
7500
6500
8
BSOO
43.00
1OOOO
450
64
184
3OOOO
-------
           Table V-4  (Continued)

    WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                RAW WASTEWATER
             ALL SUBCATEGORIES
CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PH (UNITS)
IRON (TOTAL)
MANGANESE (TOTAL)
ASBESTOS* TOTAL-FIBERS/LITER)
COO
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
FREE ACIDITY (CACO3)
HO ALKALINITY (CACO3)
PHENOLICS(4AAP)
SULFATE
TOTAL ACIDITY (CAC03)
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
98
100
1O5
103
1O
57
38
42
28
65
B6
6
33
58
8
1
35
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECTS
97
100
1O4
94
9
52
38
41
22
S3
49
' B
33
11
a
i
35
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
NIN
SCO
2.4
11
3
3500E3
4O
71000
10000
10OO
o.o
280
19OOO
1O
2
13OOOO
10500
18000O
10%
1S7O
3.6
2O9
25
*
818O
145000
43400
1080
O.O
1258
*
7967
2
*
*
31485O
MEDIAN
57BOO
7.5
2230
1075
1090E6
34000
73OOOO
222167
4800
0.7
14150
41000
190000
20
503333
10500
1326E3
MEAN
1016E4
6.9
257578
5190
9372E6
1009E4
1130E3
6968E3
1418E3
126. B
1322E3
181500
392425
33
659583
10500
9B89E3
90%
146OE4
8.2
687997
12600
*
3O94E4
2S80E3
2494E4
751992
378.7
3O22E3
*
587000
SO
*
*
1180E4
MAX
2400EB
9.4
9OOOE3
8OOOO
4100E7
222OE5
32OOE3
8O51E4
28OOE4
18OO.O
2847E4
740OOO
B400E3
155
1530E3
1050O
19OOE5
-------
evaluating common laboratory procedures.  The analytical machines used
for  these  samples frequently have a significant degree of background
noise,  often  due  to  60  Hz  electrical  frequencies  and  internal
electrical  phenomena  which  on  the readout can partially or totally
mask the signature of a compound.  This level of noise is  one  factor
which  is  accounted  for in the determination of the detection limit.
In most laboratory.analyses, the signatures of the  desired  compounds
that  are  partially  masked  can  be  identified  by  a  skilled  lab
technician.  The concentration is thus reported as being detected, but
at less than the  detection  limit.   For  computational  purposes,  a
method  for quantifying these detected values is needed.  Thus, in the
accompanying tables, for values reported as "detected  less  than  X,"
where  X  equals  some  detection  limit, the value was calculated and
recorded on the table as 1/2 of X when X was less than 4 ug/1  and  as
the square root of X when X was greater than 4 ug/1.

Fifth,  some  values  were  too  large  to  put in a column in decimal
notation; these are recorded in exponential notation with an "E" prior
to an integer number of zeros.  For example,  on  the  sixth  page  of
Table V-4 for the total suspended solids mean value, a level of 1016E4
is recorded.  This should be interpreted as 10,160,000 ug/1.

Sixth,  to  accurately  analyze the data, factors which could bias the
data should be minimized  or  eliminated.   Two  particular  instances
should  be  noted.   First, each piece of data is coded according to a
number of identifying parameters, one of  which  is  its  sample  type
(e.g.,  raw wasteload,  partially treated stream, final discharge).  To
include multiple analyses of the same raw  effluent  source  would  be
redundant  and  introduce  bias.     Thus,  for four facilities (00013,
00014, 00009, 00010), multiple raw effluent points were  averaged  for
each  facility  to  yield one raw effluent data point per facility.  A
second similar situation occurred when multiple samples were taken  of
the same sample point over a period of days.  For instance, three days
of  verification sampling of the same point were averaged to yield one
distinct data point before statistical  calculations  were  performed.
This also avoids unnecessary bias.

Finally,   three   pairs  of  priority  organic  compounds  cannot  be
distinguished   using   GC/MS   equipment.    They   are   anthracene/
phenanthrene,      benzo(a)anthracene/chrysene,      and     benzo(3,4)
fluoranthene/benzo(k)fluoranthene  (abbreviated  on   the   table   as
benzo(3,4/k)fluoranthene).    The  dual compounds are reported prior to
the priority metals data as one concentration  value  for  each  pair.
The  data  for  raw  wastewater  from  coal  mines  for  all  proposed
subcategories are summarized in Table  V-4.   This  table  permits  an
overview  of  the  characterization  of  mine drainage.  The following
subsections present sources and data on raw effluent for each proposed
subcategory.

Acid Mine Drainage

Formation of Acid Mine Drainage
                                   105
-------
Iron sulfide, or pyrite, is a common  substance  formed  from  mineral
sulfur.   It is this sulfur-containing compound that is a precursor to
acid mine drainage.  As water  drains  across  or  percolates  through
pyritic  material,  in  the  presence of oxygen, the formation of acid
drainage occurs in two steps (13, 12).  The products of the first step
are ferrous iron and sulfuric acid as shown in equation 1.
2FeS
70
                           2FeS04 + 2H2S04
1)
The ferrous iron (Fe+2) then undergoes oxidation to the  ferric  state
(Fe+3) as shown in equation 2.
     4FeS04 + 2H2S04
                 2Fez(S04)3 + 2H20
The  reaction  may  proceed  to  form ferric hydroxide or basic ferric
sulfate as shown in equations 3 and 4 respectively.
     Fez(S04)3 +

     Fe2(S04)3 + 2H20
             2Fe(OH)3 + 3H3=2S04

             2Fe(OH(S04))  + H2S0
The ferric iron can also  directly  oxidize  pyrite  to  produce  more
ferrous iron and sulfuric acid as shown in equation 5.
     FeS, + 14 Fe+3 + 8H,0
                          15 Fe+2 + 2S04-z
                                     16H+
Thus,  the  oxidation  of  one mole of iron pyrite yields two moles of
sulfuric acid.  As the pH of the pyritic systems decreases below five,
certain acidophilic, chemoautotrophic bacteria become  active.   These
bacteria,   Thiobacillus   ferroxidans,   Ferrobacillus   ferroxidans,
Metalloqenium, and species are active at pH 2.0 to 4.5 and use COZ  as
their  source  (20).  These bacteria are responsible for the oxidation
of ferrous iron to the ferric state, the rate  limiting  step  in  the
oxidation  of  pyrite.   Their  presence is generally an indication of
rapid pyrite oxidation and is accompanied by waters low in pH and high
in iron, manganese, and total dissolved solids.  The acid formed  from
these  reactions  is  an  effective  extraction  agent,  causing trace
elements to be leached and dissolved into solution.  The  solubilities
of  these  substances,  mostly  heavy  metals,  are  very sensitive to
changes in pH.  This is illustrated in Figure V-l.   The data  on  this
figure  are  derived  from an experimental study of acid .mine drainage
(7),   Acid drainage can be readily formed by rainfall  upon  either  a
coal   storage  or  a  refuse  pile.   These wastewaters can be high in
certain metals concentration, especially after a substantial  rainfall
event  (12).  Also, acid waters can be formed in underground mines and
aquifers if sufficient air is present to permit oxidation  of  pyritic
materials  in  either  the coal seam or adjacent strata.  The leaching
process is promoted by a long contact time for water and  the  sulfur-
containing material.

Characteristics of Acid Mine Drainage
                                  106
-------
                                                             0.01
                                                        12
                          Figure V-l
    CONCENTRATIONS OF CERTAIN ELEMENTS AS A FUNCTION OF pH

Source:  (?)
                                 107
-------
The  principal  pollutants in surface water from mines exhibiting acid
mine drainage include suspended and dissolved solids, pH, and  certain
metal  species.    Causes  for  the formation of low pH and high metals
concentrations have just been discussed.  In general, the  problem  of
acid  mine  drainage  is  confined  to western Maryland, northern West
Virginia, Pennsylvania,  Ohio, western Kentucky, and along the Illinois
- Indiana border.  Acid drainage is not serious in  the  West  because
the  coals and overburden contain little pyrite and because the amount
of infiltration into spoils is low  due  to  low  rainfall  (16,  15).
Suspended  solids  result  from  erosion  of  scarified  areas,  where
vegetation has been removed.  The level of sediment  concentration  in
runoff is a function of the following:

1.   Slope of the area
2.   Residual vegetation
3.   Soil type
4.   Surface texture
5.   Drainage area
6.   Precipitation intensity and duration
7.   Existing soil moisture
8.   Particle or aggregate size.

The number and interaction of these variables render  wide  variations
in  raw  wastewater  from day to day in any one mine, and from mine to
mine in a given region.

Dissolved solids can result from infiltration  of  precipitation  that
leaches through spoil and coal piles.  Acid leaching of soil and coal,
and ion exchange reactions of runoff and soil also cause the formation
of  this  pollutant.  Calcium, magnesium, and sodium are the principal
dissolved materials in surface  runoff.   The  factors  affecting  the
quantity of wastewater generated by a surface mine include:

1.   Frequency,  intensity, and duration of precipitation and  snowmelt
     events
2.   The number, porosity and water content of any aquifers  above  or
     including the coal seam that are mined through or breached
3.   Drainage area
4.   Soil porosity
5.   Pump capacity and rate
6.   Evaporation rate
7.   Watershed slope and flow length.

Groundwater is the primary source of drainage from underground  mining
sites.    Underground  operations  in  or  below  aquifers  can  cause
localized decline of the water table, changes in  flow  direction  and
possible  changes  in  flow  rate  (16).  Lowering of water levels may
cause wells or springs in the vicinity to dry  up.   Fracturing  as   a
result  of  subsidence  may  similarly  alter  groundwater  flow.   In
addition, the presence of subsidence fractures and depressions at  the
surface  may increase groundwater recharge in the vicinity of the mine
 (17).  Underground mining may also cause  degradation  of  groundwater
quality.   Flow  of  groundwater  through  a  mine  with  acid forming
                                   108
-------
potential may result in leaching of soluble materials including  trace
metals  and other ions that will cause an increase in dissolved solids
content and may contaminate groundwater supplies.

During the screening phase, facilities 00005, 00012, 00017, 00018, and
00021 through 00024 were sampled.  For facility 00012,  drainage  from
inactive  mine  areas  was  the source of acid drainage.  Verification
sampling was conducted at mines 00198,  00021,  00023,  00188  through
00190,  and 00197.  Descriptions of the above facilities and treatment
process  schematics,  including  sampling  points,  can  be  found  in
Appendix  F  of  the  Proposed  Coal  Mining Development Document (EPA
440/1-81/057-b).   Engineering site  visits  were  conducted  at  mines
00035,  00038, and 00195.  Data for toxic pollutants, and conventional
and nonconventional pollutants in untreated acid mine drainage  appear
in  Table V-5.  As can be seen from the table, organics concentrations
are very low from these mining operations.  In contrast,  conventional
and  toxic metals concentrations are often quite substantial.  All raw
data  are  contained  in  Appendix  B  of  the  Proposed  Coal  Mining
Development Document (EPA 440/1-81/057-b).

Alkaline Mine Drainage

The  discussion  on sediment concentrations and wastewater quantity in
the acid mine drainage subsection is also applicable to alkaline  mine
drainage  and  will  not  be  repeated here.  Facilities 00001, 00002,
00003, 00004, 00006, 00007, 00011, 00013, 00014, 00015, 00016,  00019,
00020,  and  00025  were  sampled  during the screening phase.  During
verification sampling,  mines 00011, 00018, and  00025  were  revisited
and mines 00009 and 00010 were sampled for the first time.  Mine 00018
is  also listed under acid mines during the screening phase because it
possesses both acid raw effluents and alkaline raw  effluents.   These
samples  were  appropriately divided and recorded on the proper table.
Descr ipt ions  of   the  above  fac i1i t i es  and  treatment   schemat i cs,
including  sampling points, can be found in Appendix F of the Proposed
Coal Mining Development Document (EPA 440/1-81/057-b).   Mines  00009,
00032,  00033,  00034,   00036,  00037, 00103, 00107, 00193, 00194, and
00196 were sampled during the engineering site visits.  EPA  Region  8
sampled  mines  00029 and 00030.  EPA Region 4 sampled facility 00031.
Data  for  toxic   pollutants  and  conventional  and   nonconventional
pollutants  from   all  these  sources are summarized in Table V-6.  As
shown on the table, organics concentrations and metals  concentrations
are   both  very   low.    Further,  conventional  pollutants  with  the
exception of TSS  are very low.  The raw data are contained in Appendix
B of the Proposed Coal  Mining Development Document.

Preparation Plants

Wastewater is generated in a coal  preparation  plant  from  the  coal
cleaning  process.   Flow  rates  vary  widely  depending upon certain
factors such as the degree of cleaning,  the  equipment  or  processes
used,  and the characteristics of the run-of-mine coal.  Each of these
factors was discussed in detail in Section IV.  Physical coal cleaning
removes impurities from coal via a mechanical separation process.   In
                                  109
-------
             Table V-5

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
           RAW WASTEWATER
  SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
ACENAPHTHENE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BENZIDENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
1.2. 3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
. 2-DICHLOROETHANE
. 1 , 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
. 1-DICHLOROETHANE
, 1 . 2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1,2 . 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BIS (CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BIS< 2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER (MIXED)
2 -CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2,4, 6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
CHLOROFORM
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 , 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 , 4-DICHLOROBENZENE
3 . 3-DICHLOROBENZIOINE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
17
16
16
16
17
16
16
17
17
16
16
17
IB
16
16
16
16
17
16
17
14
14
16
14
17
17
17
16
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
0
O
6
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
O
O
9
0
0
0
O
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
MOUG/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN 9O% MAX
o
O
o .
4 2
0
O
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
9 16
0
0
o
o
o



16 20
m B
. .
. u
, .
, .
. ,
. .
. .
. .



, .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
34 1O1
. .
.
.



,
.
40
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.






.
442
.
.
.


-------
       Table V-5 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
           RAW WASTEWATER
  SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
1. 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENC
2 , 4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1 , 2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 , 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2 . 4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2, 4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,8-DINITROTOLUENE
1 , 2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORANTHENE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE ( DICHLOROMETHANE )
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROMOFORM
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROFLUQROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
CHLORODI BROMOMETHANE
HE XACHLOROBUTAO I ENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOIENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
18
16
14
18
18
14
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
16
16
18
16
16
16
18
17
17
17
17
17
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
1
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
O
O
O
16
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
0
0
3
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L
SAMPLES
MOUG/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN 90% MAX
0
0 1O
0
0
o
O
0
o
0
0 2
0
0
0
o
o
15 7 1
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
o
0
o
1 2
0

10 10






. .
2 3





487 1B98 380<





. .

. .

. .
4 8
. .

10
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
. 4
.
.
.
.
,
11190
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
1O
.
-------
       Table V-5 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
           RAW WASTEWATER
  SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOt
4.B-DINITRO-0-CRESOL
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMXNE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOOI -N-PROPYLAMINE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL> PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DXETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
BENZO( A) ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHEN£
CHRYSENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO(G.H. I >PERYLEN£
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
DIBENZO(A.H)ANTHRACEHE
INDENO(1.2,3-C.D)PYRENE
PYRENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
14
14
14
14
17
17
17
14
14
17
17
17
17
17
17
14
17
17
17
14
17
14
17
17
14
17
17
17
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
10
0
a
0
5
O
O
3
0
3
O
O
O
3
1
1
2
2
1
NUMBER
SAMPLES
MOUG/L
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
8
O
3
0
1
0
O
O
0
2
O
O
O
O
O
1
O
O
0
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
M1N 10% MEDIAN

.
*
.
,
,
.
.
B
3
,
2
.
1
p
f
1
,
1
,
,
.
1
1
12
6
7
1
.
.






10
.
3
m
2
.
m
1
.
4
.


4
1
12
8
7
1
MEAN 90% MAX

^
.
,
,
^
m
,
.
21 4
,
B
f
B
,
m
1
.
B
,
.
9
6
1
12
8
8
1
^
,
m
.
.
f
t

62
f
11
B
23
,
.
2
.
11
,
.
,
10
1
12
10
10
1
-------
                                          Table V-5  (Continued)

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                              RAW WASTEWATER
                                     SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
                                             TOXIC POLLUTANTS
oo
COMPOUND
TETRACHtOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
CHLORDANE
4,4-DDT
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDD
ENDOSULFAN-ALPHA
ENDOSULFAN-BETA
ENOOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR E POX IDE
BHC- ALPHA
BHC- BETA
BHC (LINDANE) -GAMMA
BHC-DELTA
PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)
PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)
PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)
PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)
PCB-126O (AROCHLOR 1260)
PCB-1O16 (AROCHLOR 1016)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
16
IS
16
16
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
7
0
0
O
0
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
o
o
1
o
1
1
o
1
0
o
0
0
o
0
0
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L
SAMPLES
>10UG/L MIN 10X MEDIAN MEAN 90X MAX
0
4 2
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
O
0
o
0
0
0 2.24
0
0 2.24
0 2.24
0
O 2.24
0
O
O
0
0
0
0

1O 15
9 9
.
t t
. ,
„ ,
f m
t m
. .
4 .
t 9
t
.
m 9
2.24 2.24
f m
2.24 2.24
2.24 2.24
, .
2.24 2.24
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
, .
.
45
w
,
f
,
,
,
m
,
.
.
.
,
.
2.24
.
2.24
2.24
.
2.24
.
.
.
,

.

-------
       Table V-5 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
           RAW WASTEWATER
  SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS

COMPOUND
TOXAPHENE
2.3,7,8 -TETRACHLOROOI BENZO-P-DIOXIN
ANTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE
BENZO( A ) ANTHRACENE/CHRYSENE
BENZOC 3 . 4/K ) FLUORANTHENE
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL.)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER. (TOTAL)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL)
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
14
17
14
5
2
22
23
23
23
23
23
18
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
O
3
1
0
9
13
7
3
11
17
O
6
12
13
12
10
7
21
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
0
O
2
O
O
1
8
4
2
11
IS
O
5
O
13
7
7
2
21
DET
MIN

.
2
1
.
1
2
7
10
14
5
.
8
O.4O
23
2
4
1
11
ECTED C
10%
*
*
*
*
*
*
2
*
*
14
7
*
*
O.46
28
2
4
*
29
ONCENTW
MEDIAN

,
8
1
,
2
23
12
11
47
29
,
27
1.30
125
17
11
1
420
kTIONS
MEAN

,
15
1
,
5
89
18
40
128
133
^
147
1.73
489
25
14
4
932
IN UQ/L
90X
*
*
*
*
*
*
189
*
*
177
174
*
*
3.14
1000
55
29
*
2209

MAX

.
28
1
,
26
51O
34
98
780
1290
4
405
4.10
2O20
59
31
14
662O
-------
                                   Table V-5  (Continued)

                          WASTEWATER  CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                        RAW WASTEWATER
                             SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
                       CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL  POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
NUMBER
TOTAL
DETECTS
MIN
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L

 10X   MEDIAN     MEAN   90%   MAX
 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
 PH (UNITS)
 IRON (TOTAL)
 MANGANESE (TOTAL)
 ASBESTOS(TOTAL-FIBERS/LITER)
 COD
 DISSOLVED SOLIDS
 TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
 VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
 SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
 FREE ACIDITY (CAC03)
 MO ALKALINITY (CACO3)
 PHENOLICSMAAP)
 SULFATE
 TOTAL SOLIDS
    23
    25
    23
    23
     2
    18
    14
    11
     7
    13
    18
     B
     9
    18
     7
    11
  22
  2B
  23
  22
   1
  IB
  14
  11
   8
   9
  17
   5
   B
   1
   7
  11
98OO
2.S
77
22
3SOOE3
5100
71OOO
30OOO
1400
O.O
26O
19OOO
10
8
130OOO
37OOOO
11040
3.2
588
283
*
9050
71800
312OO


3O




378000
65OOO
S.9
12387
4300
35OOE3
43150
450000
320250
4000
1.O
9150
345OO
39OOO
8
678333
3600E3
1O33E4 2964E3 218OES
5.8 7.9 8.8
198222 217500 2790E3
8323 124OO 63OOO
3500E3 * 3SOOE3
8O27E3 919999 88OOE4
85S762 1537E3 2130E3
812818 12S2E3 14OOE3
153100
7O.8
289821 189
69800
54890
8
709524
890000
600.0
00 441OE3
180000
120000
a
1B30E3
3739E3 874OE3 82OOE3
-------
             Table V-6

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
           RAW WASTEWATER
SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
ACENAPHTHENE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BENZIDENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
1.2. 3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
, 2-DICHLOROETHANE
. 1 . 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
, 1 -DICHLOROETHANE
. 1 . 2-TRICHLOROETHANE
.1,2. 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL> ETHER
2-CHLOROETHVL VINYL ETHER (MIXED)
2 -CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2.4, 6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
CHLOROFORM
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 ,2-DICHLORQBENZENE
1 . 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 . 4-DICHLOROBENZENE
3 , 3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
21
2O
20
20
21
20
19
21
21
2O
2O
21
20
20
20
2O
20
21
20
21
21
21
2O
21
21
21
21
21
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
0
O
3
O
O
O
O
O
O
2
O
O
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
o
12
O
2
O
1
o
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
>10UG/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN 00X MAX
O .
o
O
1 3
O
0
0
o
o
o
O 3
0
0
o
o
o
a
o
0
o
o
o
10 3
o
1 3
o
0 3
0


3 2fl


. ,



3 3











32 78 12
. .
3 11
. .
3 3
. .

.
73
.
.
.
.
9

3
f
f
.
^
f
m
,
m
,
,
,
488
.
18
.
3
.
-------
       Table V-6 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
           RAW WASTEWATER
SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 ,2-TRANS-DZCHLOROETHYLENE
2 , 4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1 , 2-DXCHLOROPROPANE
1 , 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2 . 4-DXMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
2.B-DXNITROTOLUENE
1 . 2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORANTHENE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE (DXCHLOROMETHANE)
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROMOFORM
DXCHLOROBROMOMETHANE
TRXCHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
DXCHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
CHCORODI BROMOMETHANE
HEXACHLOROBUTAOIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
20
20
21
20
20
21
21
21
21
20
21
21
21
21
21
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
3
0
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
1
0
O
0
0
O
19
O
O
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
1
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UO/L
SAMPLES
>100Q/L MIN 1OX MEDIAN MEAN 90% MAX
0 3
o
O
o
0
o
0
o
o .
t 11
0
o
0
0
o
13 3
O
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
1 11
o
33 3
, .
. .
. ,
. ,
. .
. .
B u
f t
11 11
m i
.
^ B
. ,
. ,
533 1 1S2 245
. ,
a 9
m m
m u
, .
, .
t .
m m
t f
, .
11 11
. .
,
,
.
.
.
.
m
.
11
B
.
,
u
.
89B4

.
,
^
.





11
.
-------
                                          Table V-6  (Continued)

                                   VASTEUATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                              RAW WASTEWATER
                                   SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
                                             TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CO
COMPOUND
TETRACHLOROETHVLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
CHLORDANE
4.4-DDT
4.4-DDE
4,4-ODO
ENDOSULFAN- ALPHA
ENDOSULFAN-BETA
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
BHC-ALPHA
BHC-BETA
BHC (LINDANE) -GAMMA
BHC-DELTA
PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)
PCB-12S4 (AROCHLOR 12S4)
PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)
PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)
PCS- 1260 (AROCHLOR 12BO)
PCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1O16)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
2O
20
20
2O
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
3
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
1
1
2
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
>100Q/t MIN 1O% MEDIAN MEAN »OX MAX
O .
3 11
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
O 1.1O
O O.40
O 2.24
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
26 3O



t
t
t
m
9
m
t
.
,
,
t
9
1.10 1
O.40 O
2.24 2













10
40
24








40
m
,
.
m
f
m
t
,
.
m
,
t
m
f
,
1.10
0.4O
2.24
,
m
,
.
.
.
.
.
-------
       Table V-6 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
           RAW WASTEWATER
SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NXTROPHENQL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
4 . 6-DIN1TRO-0-CRESQL
N-NITROSOOIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI -N-PROPYLAMINE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
BXS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
D I ETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
BENZOt A) ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZOt B) FLUOR ANTHENE
BENZO( K ) FLUORANTHENE
CHRYSENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZOt G,H, I )PERYLENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE*
OIBENZO(A.H)ANTHRACENE
JNOENO(1,2,3-C.D)PYRENE
PYRENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
2
4
1
6
0
2
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
1
O
0
1
1
O
NUMBER
SAMPLES
MOUG/L
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
0
0
O
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UO/L
MIN 1OX MEDIAN

.
.
.
,
.
.
,
3
3
3
3
»
3
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
3
.
.
3
3
.
B



t
.
.
3
3
3
3
.
3
.

.
.
.
.
.

3
.
.
3
3
.
MEAN 90% MAX

t
m
.
,
f
m
f
3
e
3
3
m
3
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
3
.
m
3
3
.
.
.
r
9
9
m
f
3
14
3
3
,
3
f
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
3
.
.
3
3
.
-------
                                         Table V-6 (Continued)

                                  WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                             RAW WASTEWATER
                                  SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
                                            TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ro
o
COMPOUND
TOXAPHENE
2.3.7. 8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIM
ANTHRACENE/PHEMANTHRENE
BENZO( A ) ANTHRACENE/CHRYSENE
DENZO ( 3 , 4/K ) FUJORANTHENE
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER (TOTAL)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL)
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
21
21
20
7
7
44
44
44
44
44
44
28
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
O
1
0
O
14
10
4
0
23
24
3
15
20
13
11
8
7
39
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
O
0
o
0
o
4
2
0
5
21
12
O
a
i
13
2
S
2
32
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
MIN

,
3
.
.
1
2
O
8
a
4
2
2
0.27
30
2
10
1
7
10%
*
*
*
*
*
1
2
*
*
8
S
*
2
O.30
3O
2
*
*
11
MEDIAN

.
3
.
.
3
4
1
15
39
1O
4.
15
O.S5
02
3
13
2
50
MEAN

,
3
.
.
7
11
1
14
43
13
0
33
1.47
88
2O
14
8
81
IN UQ/L
80%
*
*
*
*
*
IB
21
*
*
85
28
*
80
1.87
17O
23
*
*
133
MAX

.
3
.
.
27
72
2
21
109
42
8
94
13.00
305
10O
22
23
1100
-------
                                      Table V-6 (Continued)

                             WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                           RAW WASTEWATER
                             SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE  MINES
                         CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
NUMBER
TOTAL
DETECTS   MIN
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L

 10%   MEDIAN     MEAN   90%   MAX
 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
 PH (UNITS)
 IRON (TOTAL)
 MANGANESE (TOTAL)
 ASBESTOS(TOTAL-FIBERS/LITER)
 COD
 DISSOLVED SOLIDS
 TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
 VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
 SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
 MO ALKALINITY (CACO3)
 PHENOLICS(4AAP)
 TOTAL ACIDITY (CACO3)
 TOTAL SOLIDS
    4O
    4O
    44
    43
     7
    28
    10
    20
    IS
    24
    27
    17
    27
     1
    18
  40
  4O
  43
  35
   7
  26
  16
  19
  10
  2O
  22
  17
   6
   1
  18
BOO 16OO
6.3 7.O
11 113
3 8
33OOE4 *
40 7000
8SOOO 203200
10000 51700
1OOO 1000
O.O 0.0
5533 6800
4OOOO 820OO
2 *
10500 *
260000 288000
16400
7.8
384
142
109OE6
17200
880OOO
136500
2800
0.1
1OB33
295OOO
16
10500
920000
80078 2O9999 8710OO
7,8 8.3 9.4
1842 27 1O 3904O
520 923 7000
1132E7 * 41OOE7
15662O 898B7 3260E3
1315E3 294OE3 3200E3
3785E3 681586 6700E4
24280 12000 2OOOOO
99. 0 1O. O 1800.0
32770 S7407 1330OO
331353 S83OOO 6OOOOO
18 * 40
105OO * 10500
1188E4 3292E3 19OOE5
-------
most  cleaning operations, this separation of impurities is based on a
specific gravity  difference  between  less  dense  coal  and  heavier
contaminants  such  as sulfur, ash, and rock.  Sulfur occurs in a coal
seam in three  forms:   as  pyrites,  in  organic  compounds,  and  as
sulfate.   In  coal,  the  sulfur  contribution from sulfate is almost
always negligible.  The total sulfur content may vary from  less  than
one  percent  to  over eight percent; most bituminous coals are in the
two to five percent range.

The total sulfur content distribution between the organic and  pyritic
forms  ranges from 5 to 60 percent and 40 to 95 percent, respectively.
Organic sulfur in coal is chemically bound  and  requires  a  chemical
extraction  process  for removal; physical coal cleaning is restricted
to removal of ash, refuse, and the pyritic sulfur  (FeS2)  from  coal.
In the physical cleaning processes, water is most often used to assist
in  the  removal  of  unwanted  components.  The water consumption and
usage in a preparation plant was discussed in  the  previous  section.
Effluents  are  most often laden with suspended coal and refuse fines.
This slurry is generally dewatered by  mechanical  or  thermal  drying
equipment  internal  to the preparation plant, with the water recycled
and the partially  dewatered,  solids-laden  slurry  discharged  to  a
dewatering  and  slurry  treatment  system.  Clarified water from this
section can often be recycled  to  the  preparation  plant  to  reduce
makeup  water  needs as well as lessen the quantity of final discharge
to a receiving stream.

Facilities 00003 through 00005, 00007,  00008,  00011  through  00014,
00017,  00019  through 00022, 00024, and 00025 were sampled during the
screening phase of sampling.  During verification, preparation  plants
00011, 00021 and 00025 were revisited and sampled and facilities 00018
and  00023  were  sampled for the first time.  Engineering site visits
were conducted at preparation plants 00032 through 00035.   Analytical
results  of  the untreated wastewater for each of these facilities are
summarized on Table V-7, with the  raw  data  in  Appendix  B  of  the
Proposed  Co"al  Mining Development Document  (EPA 440/1-81/057-b).  The
flow charts and a description  for  each  facility  may  be  found  in
Appendix  F  in the Proposed Coal Mining Development.  The high metals
concentrations are the result of coal and  refuse  fines  found  in  a
preparation  process  slurry effluent.  The suspended solids levels in
some of these slurries can be quite  high  if  no  fines  recovery  or
removal is practiced.

Preparation Plant Associated Areas

The principal source of drainage in preparation plant associated areas
is  precipitation-induced runoff.  Three areas generating drainage can
be delineated as follows: 1.  Coal storage piles 2.  Refuse  piles  3.
Other disturbed areas.

Coal Storage Piles

The quantity and quality of wastewater generated by drainage through a
coal  storage  pile  are  highly  variable,  depending  upon  rainfall
                                   122
-------
                                                Table V-7

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                              RAW WASTEWATER
                                         SUBCATEGORY PREP PLANTS
                                             TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ru
U)
COMPOUND
ACENAPHTHENE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BENZIDENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
1 . 2 . 3-TRICHLOROBENZENC
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
1 . 2-DICHLOROETHANE
t , 1 , 1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 . 1 , 2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1.1.2.2 -TETR ACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROETHVL VINYL ETHER (MIXED)
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2 . 4 , 6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
CHLOROFORM
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 . 2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 . 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 . 4-DICHLOROBENZENE
3 . 3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
-7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
3
O
O
2
O
0
o
0
o
o
2
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
1
o
o
2
1
0
o
o
0
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
>10UG/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN 80% MAX
03 33 3
0
0 .
1 3
0 t
o
o .
0 f
o
o
1 3
0
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
0 3
O
0
1 S
1 86
0
0
O
O


3 8
, B
^ t




3 13
9 ,
a 9
. ,
, .
, .
, B
. .
. .
3 3
. .
. .
S 17
88 88
. ,
. ,
, ,
.
.
^
IS
^
,
f
t
f
m
23
m
m
.
.
,
u
.
.
3


29
88


*
.
-------
                                          Table V-7  (Continued)

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                              RAW WASTEWATER
                                         SUBCATEGORY PREP PLANTS
                                             TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ro
COMPOUND
1 . 1-DtCHLOROETHYLENE
1 . 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
2.4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1 .2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 . 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2 . 4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2 . 4-OINITROTOUIENE
2.6-DINITROTOLUENE
1 , 2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORANTHENE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
BIS<2-CHLOROISOPRQPYL) ETHER
BISC2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (DICHLOROMETHANE)
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROMOFORM
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHAME
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
CHLOROOIBROMOMETHANE
HEXACHLOROBUTADI ENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
0
0
0
O
3
1
1
1
1
5
1
O
O
O
4
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
1
6
1
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>100Q/L
O
O
O
O
O
3
1
1
O
O
2
O
O
O
O
2
O
0
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
1
4
1
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN

,
.
,
,
IS
18
30
3
3
3
3
.
.
.
3
.
,
,
.
m
m
fc
.
,
3O7
3
21
.
.
.
^
2O
IB
30
3
3
3
3
f
,
.
7
,
,
m


9



307
43
21
MEAN 9O% MAX
*
*
.
.
m
21
18
30
3
3
6
3
,
,
,
125
m
m
r

f
f
,
.
,
307
121
21
,
,
.
24
18
3O
3
3
11
3
f
t
f
292
.
.
.

.
.
a
.
.
307
410
21
-------
                                          Table V-7 (Continued)

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                              RAW WASTEWATER
                                         SUBCATEGORY PREP PLANTS
                                             TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ro
ui
COMPOUND
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOt
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
4 , 6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI -N-PROPYLAMINE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
BIS<2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
OI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
PI ETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO { B )FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
CHftYSENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO ( G , H , 1 )PERYLENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
DI BENZO ( A, H) ANTHRACENE
INDENO( 1.2,3-C,D)PYRENE
PYRENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
1
0
O
1
O
1
0
0
4
5
3
5
1
4
1
O
4
0
O
0
1
0
3
4
0
2
1
B
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
1
0
O
1
O
1
0
0
i
3
O
0
O
O
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
t
2
O
0
0
2
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN
17 17
f
.
194
t
45
.
.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.
3
f
t
.
9
^
3
3
f
3
3
3
.

194
.
45


3
6
3
a
3
3
3
t
3
.
.
.
9
.
3
3
.
3
3
3
MEAN 90X MAX
17 17


194
f
45


B
19
3
3
3
3
3
.
40
.
.

9
.
4
17
f
3
3
1O
.

194
.
45


18
48
3
3
3
3
3
.
141
.
.

9
.
7
44
m
3
3
25
-------
                                          Table V-7 (Continued)

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                              RAW WASTEWATER
                                         SUBCATEGORY PREP PLANTS
                                             TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ru
COMPOUND
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ALDRIN
DIELORIN
CHLOROANE
4.4-ODT
4.4-DDE
4.4-DDD
ENDOSULFAN-ALPHA
ENDOSULFAN-BETA
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
BHC-ALPHA
BHC-BETA
BHC (LINDANE) -GAMMA
BHC-DELTA
PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)
PC8-12S4 (AROCHLOR 12S4)
PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)
PCS- 1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)
PCB-12BO (AROCHLOR 1260)
PCS -10 16 (AROCHLOR 1016)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
7
7
7
7
6
6
7
6
6
8
6
6
7
7
a
6
8
8
6
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
3
1
O
1
3
O
O
1
1
3
2
O
O
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
O
1
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
O
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN

3
3
.
6.4O
2.24
.
,
2.24
2.24
O.1O
2.24
.
B
2.24
2.24
O.2O
2.24
1.40
0.43
O.23
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3
.
6.40
2.24
f
9
2.24
2.24
1.17
2.24

f
2.24
2.24
1.22
2.24
1.82
1.33
1.23







MEAN 80% MAX
* *
S
3
T
6.40
2.26
.
»
2.24
2.24
1.52
2.24
.
^
2.24
2.24
1.S6
2.36
1.86
1.63
1.S7
,
,
.
.
B
.
.
9
3
.
6.40
2.30
.
.
2.24
2.24
2.24
2.24
.
m
2.24
2.24
2.24
2.80
2.24
2.24
2.24
a
.
,
.
,
.
,
-------
       Table V-7 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
           RAW WASTEWATER
      SUBCATEGORY PREP PLANTS
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
TOXAPHENE
2.3,7.8 -TETRACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
AKTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE
BENZOC A ) ANTHRACENE/CHRYSENE
BENZOC 3 , 4/K )FLUORANTHENE
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER (TOTAL)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL)
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
•SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
7
•7
7
6
- 8
13
13
13
13
13
13
7
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
O
6
5
3
6
12
a
e
11
13
0
12
7
10
10
8
9
12
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
O
O
3
-2
1
3
12
8
•6
11
13
O
12
4
10
9
6
4
12
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
MIN

.
3
3
3
2
37
3
13
29
100
.
24
1.00
300
3
6
7
480
10%
*
*
*
*
*
*
40
*
*
36
138
*
33
*
300
3
*
*
846
MEDIAN

.
3
4
3
2
240
36
34
418
1180
.
76O
11.25
933
40
22
9
2867
MEAN

.
32
18
4
18
1072
93
102
126O
2106
.
1453
17.85
1537
137
29
18
4464
IN UQ/L
90%
*
*
*
*
*
*
2408
*
*
2582
6280
*
4287
*
2800
350
*
*
9860
MAX

.
104
49
7
50
6500
450
290
750O
65OO
.
5500
43.00
5500
410
84
31
13500
-------
                                          Table V-7 (Continued)

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                              RAW WASTEWATER
                                         SUBCATEGORY PREP PLANTS
                               CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
ro
oo
COMPOUND
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PH (UNITS)
IRON (TOTAL)
MANGANESE (TOTAL)
ASBESTOS ( TOTAL-FIBERS/LITER )
COD
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
MO ALKALINITY (CAC03)
PHENOLICSMAAP)
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOTAL .
NUMBER
SAMPLES
12
12
13
13
1
7
5
7
2
11
7
S
7
2
NUMBER
TOTAL
DETECTS
12
12
13
13
1
7
B
7
2
11
7
5
4
2
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
MIN
9131E3
4.2
7000O
1O75
B1OOE6
1470E4
8SOOOO
7S67E3
20OOE3
56.3
11OOE3
160000
20
9BOOE3
10%
9776E3
4.7
77200
1262





B









.7




MEDIAN
3440E4
7.3
676250
6067
S100E6
3430E4
1O55E3
2191E4
2OOOE3
224.3
4137E3
26OOOO
2B
9600E3
MEAN
6244E4
7.2
825372
8337
B1OOE8
6123E4
1372E3
2893C4
15OOE4
367.4
S446E3
1356E3
63
2380E4
IN UQ/L
90%
187SEB
8.0
18SOE3
17900





83









.0




MAX
2400ES
8.1
23OOE3
250OO
51OOE6
2220ES
25OOE3
8O91E4
28OOE4
880.0
2847E4
S400E3
IBS
3800E4
-------
conditions, pile  configuration,  and  coal  quality  and  size.   The
phenomena  responsible  for the formation of acid mine drainage in the
active mining area can also operate within the coal storage pile.  The
outer layer of a coal pile (to a depth of approximately one  foot)  is
subject  to  slacking.   Slacking  refers to rapid changes in moisture
content brought about by alternating sun and rain.  This  often  opens
up   fresh  surfaces  and  accelerates  oxidation.   Although  organic
leaching rates are very low,  specific inorganic coal components,  such
as  calcium,  magnesium,  and  toxic  metals  may  be contained in the
wastewater.  Erosion of  waste  coal  fragments  can  result  in  high
suspended  solids  levels  (19).   Pollutants  can be leached into any
water contacting the coal  storage  pile.   The  composition  of  pile
drainage- is  influenced by the residence time of the water within the
pile.  Precipitation will wash this leachate from the  pile,  so  that
contaminant  concentrations  will  decrease with increasing water flow
rate, until the time that this flushing is complete.

Refuse Piles

Mining,  crushing,  and  washing  processes   concentrate   the   coal
impurities  in  the  refuse.   Extraneous metals and other minerals are
separated from the coal and may appear in refuse pile runoff.  As most
coal-cleaning methods employ gravity separation, dense materials  such
as  clays,  shales,  and pyrite will be removed as refuse (13).  These
will contribute to suspended solids levels in  the  wastewater,  while
oxidation  of  the  pyrite will produce acid drainage.  Organic sulfur
and fine pyrite cannot easily be extracted from  coal  (12),  so  that
these  forms  do not contribute as significantly to sulfate formation.
The relative acidity and pollutant levels of refuse pile drainage  are
dependent upon the following:

1.   Mineral characteristics of the coal and surrounding strata
2.   Extent of refuse compaction
3.   Configuration of the refuse pile
4.   Type of soil cover
5.   Climatology
6.   Surface water control practices

Other Disturbed Areas

Other disturbed areas ancillary to the preparation plant are analogous
to those associated with mines, e.g., adjacent haul roads.  As is  the
case  for  mines, suspended solids is the primary pollutant of concern
in runoff.  Screening samples were collected from associated areas  at
facilities  00016,  00017,  00018,  and  00024.   Facility  00018  was
resampled during the verification phase.  Preparation plant associated
areas at facilities 00034, 00038, and 00036 were  sampled  during  the
engineering   site   visits.    Descriptions  of  treatment  processes,
including sampling points, can be found in Appendix F of the  Proposed
Coal  Mining  Development Document (EPA 440/1-81/057-b).  A summary of
the organic, metal and classical pollutants found during the screening
and verification sampling programs appears in Table V-8.
                                   129
-------
                                                 Table V-8

                                    WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                               RAW WASTEWATER
                                        SUBCATEGORY ASSOCIATED AREAS
                                              TOXIC POLLUTANTS
u>
o
TOTAL TOTAL
NUMBER NUMBER
COMPOUND SAMPLES DETECT
ACENAPHTHENE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BENZIDENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2. 3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
KEXACHLOROBENZENE
. 2-DICHLOROETHANE
, 1 . 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
. 1 -DICHLOROETHANE
. 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
.1.2.2 -TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER (MIXED)
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2,4. 6-TRICKLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
CHLOROFORM
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 . 2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 . 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 . 4-DICHLOROBENZEME
3 . 3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
O
O
O
2
O
O
1
0
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
2
0
0
o
0
0
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
>10UG/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN BOX MAX
O .
O
O
2 44
O
O
1 12
0
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
2 45
O
O
O
o
o
a 9
* a
44 46


12 12















45 261





.
.
48
.

12
,
t
,
m
t
t
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
m
f
476
^
.
.
.
.
-------
                                          Table V-8 (Continued)

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                              RAW WASTEWATER
                                       SUBCATEGORY ASSOCIATED AREAS
                                             TOXIC POLLUTANTS
U)
COMPOUND
1, 1-DICHLOROETHYLENC
1 ; 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
2 . 4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2 . 4-DIMETHYLPHENQL
2,4-DIHITROTOLUENE
2.Q-DINITROTOLUENE
1 , 2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORANTHENE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
BIS12-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
biS<2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE ( DICHLOROMETHANE )
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROHOFORM
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
HEXACHLOROBUT ADI ENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
O
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
4
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
MOUG/L MIN tOX MEDIAN MEAN 9OX MAX
0 .*..*.
O .*..*.
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
4 1B2
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
0













34B 783

. .
. .
. .
. .
,
, .





.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,


.
144O
.


» .
.
.

.

,


-------
                                           Table V-8 (Continued)

                                    WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                               RAW WASTEWATER
                                        SUBCATEGORV ASSOCIATED AREAS
                                              TOXIC POLLUTANTS
UJ
f\>
TOTAL TOTAL
NUMBER NUMBER
COMPOUND SAMPLES DETECT
2-NITROPHENOL
4-N1TROPHENOL
2 , 4-DINITROPHENOL
4.B-DINITRO-O-CRCSOL
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI -N-PROPYLAMINE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DXETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
BENZO( A) ANTHRACENE
B£NZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO( B >FLUORANTHENE
BENZO ( K ) FLUORANTHENE
CHRYSENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO(G.H. I )PERYLENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
DIBENZO( A . H ) ANTHRACENE
INDENOC 1.2. 3-C. D)PYRENE
PYRENE
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
2
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
>10UG/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN SOX MAX
0 .
O
0 m
o
0
o .
o .
0
o .
O 3
O
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
o








3 7
,

.



.

't [



.
.





.
.
.




10















.
.
.
-------
                                          Table V-8 (Continued)

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                              RAW WASTEWATER
                                       SUBCATEGORY ASSOCIATED AREAS
                                             TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CO
U)
TOTAL TOTAL
NUMBER NUMBER
COMPOUND SAMPLES DETECT
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE O
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
CHLORDANE
4,4-OOT
4.4-DOE
4.4-DOD
ENDOSULFAN-ALPHA
ENDOSULFAN-BETA
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRXN
ENORIN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR E POX IDE
BHC-ALPHA
8HC-BETA
BHC (LINDANE) -GAMMA
BHC-DELTA
PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)
PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)
PCS- 1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)
PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)
3
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
1
O
1
0
0
0
O
0
PCB-1280 (AROCHLOR 12BO) 4 0
PCB-IOta (AROCHLOR 1018) 4 O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES

>10UQ/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN ftOX MAX
O .
2 1O
O
O
0
o
O
o
o
0
o
o
0
o
0
0
0
o
O O.33
0
O O.1O
0
o
0
0
o .
0
o
12 17
. .
• •
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
O.33 0
.
O.1O O













33

10
.

, .
. .

.

27
^
.














o

O













33

10
»
.
•
.
.
.
.
-------
       Table V-8 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
           RAW WASTEWATER
    SUBCATEGORY ASSOCIATED AREAS
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
TOXAPHENE
2.3.7. 8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIQXIN
ANTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE
BENZO ( A ) ANTHRACENE/CHRYSENE
BENZO(3.4/K)FLUORANTHENE
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER (TOTAL)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL)
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
4
4
4
1
1
B
B
B
B
B
B
4
B
8
B
8
8
B
8
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
0
O
0
O
3
4
4
3
7
7
O
4
4
7
4
2
1
8
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
O
O
O
0
O
1
2
2
3
6
S
O
3
O
7
3
2
1
a
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UO/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN

.
.
.
.
2
2
2
13
1O
6
,
3
0.20
38
1
27
14
18




S
3
4
18
61
44
.
30
0.70
232
21
27
14
24O
MEAN BO% MAX





13
350
60
23
235
232
.
271
1.10
1771
137
31
14
4287




28
1340
220
38
B8O
1OOO
.
1OOO
2.40
1OOOO
450
36
14
3OOOO
-------
                                            Table V-8 (Continued)

                                     WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                                RAW WASTEWATER
                                         SUBCATEGORY ASSOCIATED AREAS
                                 CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
oo
Ul
COMPOUND
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PH (UNITS)
IRON (TOTAL)
MANGANESE (TOTAL)
COD
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
FREE ACIDITY (CAC03)
MO ALKALINITY (CAC03)
PHENOLICS(4AAP)
SULFATE
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
7
7
9
9
4
3
4
4
3
4
1
2
4
1
4
NUMBER
TOTAL
DETECTS
7
7
9
9
4
3
4
4
2
3
1
2
O
1
4
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
	 	 ._.._ 	 __., 	 --*
MIN 10% MEDIAN
3300 2O200
2.4
27S
27
12675
580000
260OO
220O
O.O
4125
740000
1000
.
310000
180000
5.8
3700
2237
15500
1390E3
84250
4800
0.0
7612
7400OO
1000
,
310000
410000
MEAN BOX MAX
67084 240000
5.4
1246E3
17436
362O44
1960E3
1398E3
1O250
0.0
11508
740OOO
21500
.
310000
9147E3
7.2
9OOOE3
80OOO
1160E3
3100E3
2900E3
280OO
0.0
19300
740000
42000
.
310000
2200E4 .
-------
from  this
substantial
established.
Agency  are
Post, Mining Discharges

Reclamation Areas

Reclamation areas are  tracts  of  surface  acreage  which  have  been
recontoured  and  seeded  to  establish  ground cover after mining has
ceased.  Regrading has already been completed by removal of the  spoil
peaks  and  reestablishment  of  natural  drainageways.  Replanting of
indigenous grasses,  legumes,  and  other  annual  or  perrenial  flora
occurs  as  soon  as  possible to stabilize the regraded area.  Runoff
            area  directly  following  active   mining   can   exhibit
              suspended  solids  loadings  until  vegetation  is  well
              Data from a  self-monitoring  survey  initiated  by  the
             presented  in  Table V-9.  These data are from facilities
00015, 00033, 00037, 00085, 00101,  and  00181  through  00187.   Also
included  in Table V-9 are data from facility 00033 sampled during the
engineering site visits.  As shown  on  the  table,  suspended  solids
loadings  are  substantial.   This  is  particularly true for rainfall
conditions.

Underground Mines

Discharges from underground mines will continue after the temporary or
permanent  cessation  of  mining  until   appropriate   mine   closure
procedures  are  implemented.  This is because the principal source of
water is from aquifers that were intercepted during mine  development.
These  waste-bearing strata will continue to drain water into the mine
during and after the production of coal.  A  study  was  conducted  to
characterize  these  discharges  from  active and abandoned anthracite
underground mines (21).  The results of the study indicate that  these
discharges  will  be  similar  to  the  wastewaters encountered during
active mining.  For instance, an  active  discharge  and  an  adjacent
abandoned  discharge  from  one  mining  operation  exhibited  similar
characteristics.  The reader is referenced to the active mine drainage
tables (Tables V-5 and V-6) for more detailed characterization of post
mining discharges from underground mines.
SUPPORT FOR THE SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME
In light of the data characterizing raw  wastewater,  this  subsection
will   discuss   the  evolution  of  the  final  BPT,  BAT,  and  NSPS
subcategorization schemes already presented at the beginning  of  this
section.  Preliminary analysis of the results of the BAT screening and
verification  program (conducted from 1977 to 1979) suggested a number
of changes to the BPT categorization.   Some  of  these  changes  were
retained, while others were eliminated based on additional data.
                                   136
-------
             Table V-9

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
           RAW WASTEWATER
SUBCATEGORY AREAS UNDER RECLAMATION
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
'ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL)
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
13
4
8
6
12
14
4
1
&
2
4
3
15
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UQ/L
13
4
3
8
9
13
4
1
8
2
O
3
15
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
MIN
66
66
1
11
8
6
30
40,00
45
70
5
147
7
10%
68
*
*
*
6
8
*
*
*
*
*
*
10
MEDIAN MEAN
101
79
4
16
17
19
37
4O.OO
85
7O
5
149
71
117
328
6
19
37
44
59
40. OO
258
74
5
161
1160
IN UG/L
90%
186
*
*
*
101
114
*
*
*
*
*
*
1828
MAX
235
890
12
40
116
131
103
4O.OO
996
77
6
184
12644
-------
                                                   Table V-9  (Continued)

                                          WASTEWATER  CHARACTERIZATION  SUMMARY
                                                        RAW WASTEWATER
                                          SUBCATEGORY AREAS UNDER RECLAMATION
                                      CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
             COMPOUND
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
NUMBER
TOTAL
DETECTS
MIN
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L

 10%    MEDIAN    MEAN  BOX   MAX
              TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
              PH (UNITS)
              IRON (TOTAL)
              MANGANESE (TOTAL)
              SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
    IB
    18
    16
    IS
    14
  16     12733  128S9    72139   3381O1 9B74BO 194SE3
  IB       5.1    5.9     7.S     7.3   7.9   8.O
  16       241    SOS     2365    12655 35S5O 65683
  15       94     94     390    14O7  177O 11BOS
  11       O.O    O.O     O.3     4.8   6.0  39.0
U)
CO
-------
First,  surface  and underground mines were categorized separately for
both acid and alkaline mines.   In  addition  to  differences  in  raw
wastewater  characteristics, this separation resulted from differences
in the type of treatment technology that would be applied  at  surface
and  deep  mines.   For  instance,  mobile  or  skid mounted treatment
processes might often be  required  at  surface  mines  where  current
treatment   facilities   (i.e.,   sedimentation   ponds  and  possibly
neutralization   equipment)   frequently   require   relocation.    At
underground  facilities, permanent treatment facilities can usually be
installed for the life of the mine.

Second, although separate subcategories  for  preparation  plants  and
preparation  plant  associated  areas  were  not established, separate
subsets of this category were formed only  for  NSPS  because  of  the
different types of wastewater handling techniques available to the two
areas.

Third,  post  mining  discharges  were established as a subcategory to
provide regulatory coverage  for  two  subsets  of  this  subcategory:
surface reclamation areas and underground mine discharges.

Fourth,  Pennsylvania  anthracite mines were identified as a candidate
subcategory  based  on  potential  differences  in   toxic   pollutant
discharges by different ranks of coal.

Fifth,  western  mines  were  separately  categorized  because  of the
potential effects of different climatology  and  coal  seams  on  mine
discharges.  These modifications resulted in the following preliminary
subcategorization scheme:

   1 .   Acid drainage surface mines
   2.   Acid drainage underground mines
   3.   Alkaline drainage surface mines
   4.   Alkaline drainage underground mines
   5.   Preparation plants and associated areas
       a. Preparation Plants
       b. Preparation associated areas
   6.   Post mining discharges
       a. Surface reclamation areas
       b. Underground mines
   7.   Pennsylvania anthracite
   8.   Western mines

These  subcategories  were  then  reviewed by consideration of (1) the
engineering principles involved, and (2) the data collected  from  BAT
sampling  programs  conducted  after  the  screening  and verification
effort.  The following discussion presents the results of this  review
for each subcategory.

Surface and Underground Mines

Two   factors  were  utilized  to  establish  the  surface/underground
distinction:  (1) differences in raw  wastewater  characteristics  and
                                   139
-------
(2) differences in the mobility of applicable treatment options.  Both
of  these  are  rendered  academic,  however, because of the reduction
achieved by  application  of  existing  (BPT)  technology.   When  the
untreated  discharges  from  deep  and  surface  are  subjected to BPT
treatment, the resulting effluent  are  very  similar  in  "classical"
pollutants  (TSS,  iron,  manganese).  Tables V-10 and V-ll illustrate
these  data  for  alkaline  and  acid  mines.   Although   there   are
substantial  differences in the acid and alkaline raw wastewaters from
deep and surface mines, these tables indicate the similarity  of  BPT-
treated  discharges  with  respect to these three key pollutants.  The
similarity of treated effluent also extends to the  toxic  metals,  as
can  be  seen  in  Table  V-12.   Because  of  these factors, separate
subcategories for surface and underground mines were not established.

Preparation Plants and Preparation Plant Associated Areas

These  two  segments  of  the  coal  mining  category  are  classified
differently  for  new  sources  than  for  existing  sources.  For new
sources, preparation  plants  and  associated  areas  are  subject  to
different standards based upon differences in the following:


   1.  TSS and metals concentrations
   2.  Treatment strategies
   3.  Water usage requirements
   4.  Regulatory strategies

A  comparison of raw wastewater metals and TSS concentrations in these
two subcategories is presented in Table V-13.  The  preparation  plant
raw  wastewater is much higher in suspended solids, while toxic metals
occur  more  consistently  and  in  higher  concentrations   than   in
associated  areas  runoff.   It is not merely the differences in water
quality as apparent from the data, but the  differences   in  treatment
strategy  implied by these data, that support this division.  The major
contributor  to  total  metals  in  the  preparation  plant  slurry is
suspended metals, due to the nature of the cleaning process.  This  is
evidenced  by the data in Table V-14.  This indicates that settling of
preparation plant slurry will provide  substantial  removal  of  toxic
metals.   Conversely,  metals  from associated areas are mostly due to
the low pH, and thus a different treatment strategy would be selected,
i.e., pH  adjustment via neutralization.  Figure V-2 shows two  typical
preparation  plant  water  circuits.   Although  many  factors suggest
different treatment systems  for  preparation  plants  and  associated
•areas,    most  facilities  currently  commingle  these  drainages,  as
illustrated in the top configuration of Figure V-2.

For new sources, segregated treatment can be designed into the overall
wastewater  system.   The  incentives  for  separate   treatment   are
discussed  below.   Water management considerations and economics will
most o,ften  dictate  maximizing  water  recycle.   Preparation  plants
utilize   water  to  assist in cleaning the coal, and thus the water is
process water subject to one class of treatment options.  Runoff  from
associated  areas  is  usually  not  used  in coal cleaning, and hence
                                   140
-------
                           Table V-10

               COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL POLLUTANTS IN
               ALKALINE SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND MINES

                       Mean Values (mg/1)

                                  Raw
Treated
Pollutant

TSS

Iron

Manganese
Surface
141
1.52
0.82
Deep
40
0.41
0.076
Surface
36
1.26
0.39
Deep
39
0.68
0.29
                                    141
-------
                              Table V-ll
                 COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL POLLUTANTS IN
                  ACID SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND MINES
                          Mean Values (mg/1)
                                Raw
Pollutant
TSS
Iron
Manganese
Surface
 732
45-7
17.7
Dee]
158
135
4.9
    Treated
Surface   Deep
   32     21.1
 1.21     1.72
 2.45     1-27
                                    142
-------
                                                Table V-12

                        COMPARISON OF MEDIAN TOXIC METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN ACID AND
                                  ALKALINE SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND MINES
                                                 (in ug/1)
                                        Raw
Treated
-Cr
UO
Acid
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Surface
—
210
23
98
187
150
323
1.3
2020
17
ND
ND
6620
Deep
2.5
23
12
6
30
82
51
0.9
400
34
5
1
510
Alkaline
Surface
6
3
2
ND
32
10
23
0.4
30
3.5
10
2
80
Deep
2
5
ND
ND
49
6
72
0.6
57
3
ND
2
56
Acid
Surface
8
11
ND
ND
126
14
ND
0.3
95
13
ND
2
29
Deep
2.5
18
ND
ND
24
13
102
1.0
5
14
5
1
49
Alkaline
Surface
6
4
2
ND
33
10
23
0.5
30
3
10
1.5
70
peep
2
4.4
ND
ND
49
6
72
0.6
57
3
ND
1.7
56
         Source:   Screening and Verification Data
-------
                                           Table V-13

                        PREPARATION PLANTS VERSUS  ASSOCIATED AREAS
                                        UNTREATED WATER
                        Preparation Plants
Associated Areas
Parameter
Anti»ony
Arsenic
Berylliu*
Cadniu*
ChronLun
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selcniun
Silver
Tha 1 1 iun
Zinc
tron
Manganese
TSS
pll (units)
Total
Samples
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
U
11
10
10
Total
Detects
6
10
7
4
9
11
10
6
8
8
6
7
10
11
11
10
10
Detects
>10 ppb
3
10
7
4
9
11
10
4
8
7
4
4
10
11
11


Median*
(•B/i)
.002
.200
.036
.034
.502
.860
.760
.015
.933
.050
.019
.010
2.9
841**
8.5**
69.330**
7.1
Tot at
Samples
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
6
Total
Detects
3
4
4
3
7
7
4
4
6
4
2
1
7
8
8
6
6
Deflects
>10 ppb
1
2
2
3
6
5
3
0
6
3
2
1
7
8
8


Median*
(«B/D
.005
.003
.004
.018
.061
.044
.030

.330
.021
.027
.014
.266
1402**
19**
77**
5.1
 * This Is the Median of all values >10 ppb.

** Mean

Sources:  Screening and Verification Da"ta;
         Engineering Site Visit Data
-------
                                           Table V-14

                          PREPARATION  PLANT  PROCESS  EFFLUENT TOTAL
                                    VERSUS DISSOLVED  METALS
                 Preparation Plant A
Prepa ra t too ._Pl_ant__B_
Preparation Plant_C_
Total Dissolved
Ketals (ng/1) Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryl Hum
Ca datum .
Chromium
Copper
• *
5 iron
Lead
Mercury
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
<0.005
0.037
0.016
0.034
0.098
0.33
94
0.071
<0.001
1.7
0.33
<0-005
0.019
<0.002
0-98
<0,005
<0.002
<0.001
<0,005
0.009
0.006
0.097
0.003
<0.001
0.047
0.026
<0.005
0.009
<0-002
<0.002
Total Dissolved
Metals (MR/ I) Metals
<0.005
2.7
0.012
0.29
0.92
6.4
2,300
1.0
<0-001
13
2.8
0.21
0.064
0.026
8.3
<0.005
<0.002
<0.001
0.016
0-032
0.037
2.4
<0-002
<0.001
0.71
<0.020
<0.005
0.026
<0.002
0.015
Total Dissolved
Metals (me/1) Metals
<0.005
6.5
0.016
0.17
0.47
6.0
1,000
0.024
<0-001
12
2.1
0.35
0.057
0.008
6.0
<0.005
<0.002
<0.001
<0.005
0.013
0.020
1.0
<0.002
<0.001
0.12
<0.020
<0-005
0.019
<0.002
0.007
Source:  Engineering Site Visit Data
-------
                          Recycle
PREPARATION
   PLANT
                                                                                  Makeup
                                                                                  As Required
Slurry
                          Recycle
                              ADDITIONAL
                              DEWATERING
                              (OPTIONAL)
                                                                               ^

                                                                             (TREATMENT    \
                                                                            (IF REQUIRED)    )
                                     Dewatered Sludge
                                     to Kefuse Pile
                      Recycle
t
PREPARATION
PLANT



Slurry ^ f SLUR
                                                                              Precipitation
                                                       Emergency
                                                       Discharge
                                                                          Sludge
                                                                       Periodic Dredging
                                                                       May Be Required
                                                                       To Refuse Pile
                                                      	Precipitation
                                                                   (In some cases,
                                                                   can be diverted)
                                         Makeup
                                         As Required
                 Figure V-2.  Typical  Preparation Plant Water Circuits
-------
different  wastewater  treatment  strategies   are   suggested.    For
instance,  the  intermittent  runoff  generated in associated areas is
suited to a sedimentation pond  system  with  possible  neutralization
required  if  this runoff is acidic.  On the other hand, a preparation
plant continually discharges process wastewater from the coal cleaning
equipment while the plant is operating.  This continuous  effluent  is
usually  alkaline  and  solids laden and is thus suited for a settling
and decant recycle system.  Slurry impoundments could  also  be  used;
the  flow to these would not increase during a rainfall unless surface
runoff is also received.  This is not the case  for  associated  areas
which most often only discharge significant quantities during rainfall
events.

Increased  regulatory  flexibility  is  provided  by  separating these
segments.  This is particularly in reference to the  potential  for  a
"zero  discharge"  or  total  recycle regulation for preparation plant
slurry waters.  If the associated area runoff can be  segregated  from
slurry  effluent,  the water balance can be achieved through diversion
ditching and otjier  techniques,  thus  allowing  total  water  recycle
systems for preparation plants.  This is more extensively discussed in
Sections VII and VIII.

For  existing  sources,  however,  these  reasons  are  overridden  by
consideration of engineering and cost factors.   Current  practice  in
the  industry  is  commonly  to  commingle  wastewater from refuse and
storage  piles  (associated  areas)  with  preparation  plant  process
wastewater  for  treatment.    To set differing limitations for the two
segments would cause most operators to  segregate  the  two  types  of
drainage,   which   would   require  massive  expenditures  and  gross
inefficiency for  a  facility.    Installation  of  extensive  retrofit
equipment  and  construction  of  new  ponds would severely impact the
capital and human resources of many coal  mining  operations,  without
significantly  reducing  the discharge of toxic pollutants.  A further
discussion of these factors is presented in Section VII.

Pennsylvania Anthracite Mines

The Agency examined anthracite mining and preparation  to  assess  any
statistical or technical differences in wastewater from bituminous and
lignite  operations.   Results  shown  in  Table V-15 indicate that no
significant differences exist;   thus  anthracite  facilities  will  be
categorized identically with bituminous and lignite operations.

Post Mining Discharges

Surface  and  underground  mines  can  continue  to discharge polluted
wastewater after production from the mine  has  ceased.   For  surface
mines,   this discharge consists of runoff from a previously mined area
that has been backfilled, regraded, and  revegetated.   This  process,
called reclamation, is an ongoing operation at one area of a mine that
occurs  simultaneously  with  active  mining  of  another  area.   For
underground mines, the post-mining discharge results from  groundwater
                                   147
-------
                            Table V-15



         COMPARISON OF ANTHRACITE AND ACID RAW WASTEWATER
                  Anthracite Mines
Acid Mines
Pollutant
TSS
Iron
Manganese
pH (units)

Sb
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Se
Ag
Tl
Zn
Total
Number
Samples
5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Total
Detects
5
5
5
5

0
1
3
0
4
5
3
0
5
0
2
0
5
Median
Value
(mg/1)
56*
34*
6.7*
4.3
(ug/1)
.-
26
7
—
40
20
9
—
50
—
11
—
520
Total
Number
Samples
22
22
22
24

21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Total
Detects
21
22
^
24

8
14
7
3
11
16
6
11
11
11
7
5
20
Median
Value
(mg/1)
440*
88*
8.2*
5.3
(ug/1)
2
31
10
11
41
48
18
1.1
140
28
13
1
460
*Mean value
                               148
-------
infiltration into the mined out areas.  This groi ndwater can originate
from breached aquifers or from adjacent abandoned mines.

During  active  mining,  water  is  usually  pumped to the surface for
treatment and discharge.  After mine closure, this water will continue
to drain into the mine workings.   Over  a  period  of  time,  several
outcomes are possible.  First, a state of equilibrium could occur when
the  gravity  head  of  the  water balances the infiltration pressure.
Second, the water could erode and break through mine seals to adjacent
active or abandoned mine tunnels.   Third, the mine pool could continue
to rise until the level reaches ground level, and, should no mine seal
be in place, a surface discharge  occurs.   Fourth,  if  the  mine  is
sealed,  the  water  can  erode  and  break  through  the  seal, again
resulting in a surface discharge.

The post-mining discharges from either a reclamation area at a surface
mine or from an abandoned underground  mine  can  contain  significant
amounts  of  pollutants.   These problems are addressed by SMCRA.  The
performance based required by SMCRA is not to be  released  until  the
SMCRA  regulatory  authority  determines  that  post-mining  pollution
problems are abated and can  be  reasonably  expected  not  to  occur.
Sufficient  data  does  not  exist  to  support  the  promulgation  of
regulations for discharges after release of the SMCRA bond.

Post-mining discharges were not previously regulated by  EPA,  and  so
were  postulated  as a candidate subcategory for BAT and NSPS effluent
limitations.  To verify this for  the  final  subcategorization,  data
were  gathered  from  four  independent  studies.    A  self monitoring
industry survey was initiated at 24 surface mine sites to characterize
raw and treated streams from both active mining and reclamation areas.
These data are presented in Table V-9.  A second study  was  conducted
at eight surface mine sites which classified pond effluents as well as
determined  the  precision and accuracy of measuring settleable solids
below 1.0 ml/1.   A  third  study  sampled  four  anthracite  mines  to
collect  data on postmining discharges from underground mines.  (Among
the wastewaters samples, were discharges  from  underground  abandoned
mines).   The  data  are contained in a supplement to this report (21)
and are also presented in Table V-15.

EPA determined that settleable solids and pH should be  regulated  for
surface  mines  in  the  reclamation phase and for active mines during
precipitation events.  On the other hand, post-mining discharges  from
underground  mines  are  very  similar  to wastewater generated during
active  mining.    This  is  because  the  mechanism   for   wastewater
generation is identical.

Western Mines

An  evaluation of the nature of discharges from western mines has been
performed   to   determine   the   appropriateness    of    separately
subcategorizing  mines  in  this  region (10).  Coal mines west of the
100th meridian in the United States were designated as  western  mines
(42  FR  46937,  19 September 1977).  Mines in Colorado, Montana, North
                                   149
-------
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming (42 FR 21380, 26  April  1977}
are  included  in  the  western  subcategory.   These coal regions are
depicted in Figure V-3.  This subcategory was established  because  of
potential  differences  in achievable effluent quality between eastern
and western mines for a number of reasons.

The West receives substantially less rainfall than the eastern region.
Further, evaporation rates are higher primarily because of  the  lower
humidity in the West^  These two conditions result in a smaller amount
of  runoff  and  high  evaporation  from  settling  ponds.  Figure V-4
illustrates the location of these areas.  Additionally,  site-specific
conditions   such   as   topography  and  hydrogeology  are  potential
incentives for separate regulations.

Tables V-16 through V-19 present data from the  BAT  sampling  program
for  eastern  and western raw wastewaters (10).  Treated effluent data
for the two regions appear in Tables V-20  through  V-23.   Additional
data  from discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) are summarized in Table
V-24. Information collected from the DMRs indicates that western mines
(16 facilities were included) exhibit no discharge 41 percent  of  the
time samples were taken, compared to 19 percent from eastern mines (56
facilities  were  included).   However,  as  Tables  V-20 through V-23
indicate, the  final  discharge  compositions  are  very  similar  for
eastern and western mines when a discharge did occur.

This  similarity  in  discharges was further verified by a statistical
analysis.  The purpose of this analysis was to determine, with respect
to TSS, whether effluent discharges at  Western  alkaline  mines  were
statistically  different  from effluent discharges at Eastern alkaline
mines.  The data available for the analysis consisted  of  68  samples
from  Eastern  mines (22 influent and 46 effluent) and 26 samples from
Western mines (11 influent and 15 effluent).  The statistical approach
used was a "goodness of fit" test,  adopted  because  of  the  limited
number  of samples available from Western mines.  Under this approach,
the more plentiful Eastern mine  data  is  used  to  define  a  sample
distribution  for  TSS.   A  statistical  test  is  then  performed to
determine how well the Western mine data "fit" into the  Eastern  mine
distribution.   The  test results show that the distribution of TSS at
Western mines is statistically  similar  to  that  at  Eastern  mines.
Figure V-5 provides observed and expected frequencies for influent and
effluent samples at Western mines.

The  expected  frequencies  are those which one would expect to see if
the Western mine data followed the same distribution  as  the  Eastern
mine  data.   The  observed  frequencies are those which were actually
found in the data.  These frequencies were calculated by  classifiying
each  value  of  TSS  observed  at a Western mine into one of the four
quadrants of the TSS distribution established for Eastern mines.   The
quadrants of a distribution are those areas which divide the data into
four equally dense portions.  That is, the first quadrant will contain
25 percent of the data, the second quadrant will contain 25 percent of
the  data  and  so  on.   It  should  be  noted  that  quadrants  were
established independently for  influent  and  effluent  samples.   The
                                   150
-------
            Table V-17

           EASTERN MINES
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
          RAW WASTEWATER
SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
         TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
*-> COPPER (TOTAL)
w LEAD (TOTAL 1
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTALI
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
3
4
2
3
10
4
8
7
7
H
6
1
13
NUMBER
SAMPLES
MOUG/L
0
1
0
2
9
3
4
0
7
0
3
0
10
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
MIN IPX
2 *
2 *
2 *
6 *
o a
10
2
0,30
30
4
10 *
2 *
7 7
IN UG/L
MEDIAN MEAN 90ft
2
2
2
10
33
13
a
0,44
67
6
10
2
31
3
12
2
14
42
20
29
1.06
115
6
13
2
52
^
*
*
*
65
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
13fl
MAX
6
40
2
21
109
H2
9<*
2,20
365
7
22
2
156
-------
                                            Table V-16

                                           EASTERN MINES
                                WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION  SUMMARY
                                          RAW WASTEWATER
                                SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
                            CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
NUMBER
TOTAL
DETECTS
      DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L

M1N    10*    MEDIAN     MEAN   9QX    MAX
 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
 PH (UNITSJ
 TOTAL IRON
 MANGANESE (TOTAL)
    1**
    17
    17
  14      2600   3160    17000    67364 1702HO 330000
  14       6.6    6.8      7.6      7.6    6.1    6.7
  17        11     96      537     1094   2590   3500
  17         3     25      475      935   1430   7000
-------
            Table V-19

           WESTERN MINES
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
          RAW WASTEWATER
SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
         TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL)
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBtR
SAMPLES
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
3
3
2
2
5
11
1
3
1
3
0
0
10
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
2
0
0
2
4
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
HIN
6
4
0
11
a
4
4
0.27
174
2
•
.
13
10X
*
*
*
*
*
4
*





13
MEDIAN
a
4
0
11
44
10
4
0.35
174
2
.
*
BO
MEAN
14
6
1
14
42
14
4
0.70
174
3
«
.
184
IN U6/L
90S





2





*
166
MAX
27
a
i
17
57
36
4
1.40
174
3
.
•
1100
-------
Ul
LO
                                               Table V-18

                                              WESTERN MINES
                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                             RAW WASTEWATER
                                   SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
                               CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
    COMPOUND
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
NUMBER
TOTAL
DETECTS
      DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN U&/L

MIN    10K    MEDIAN     MEAN   90*    MAX
     TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
     PH  (UNITS)
     TOTAL IKON
     MANGANESE (TOTAL)
    11
    11
    11
    11
  11
  11
  11
  11
500
6.9
6*4
H
510
7.0
66
H
65250
7.7
1317
90
                       153361 292000 871000
                          7.7    8,1    a.2
                         4996   5250  39040
                          172    222    9H7
-------
                                               Table V-20

                                              EASTERN MINES
                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                             FINAL EFFLUENT
                                   SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
                               CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS

COMPOUND
TOTAL NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN U&/L
SAMPLES DETECTS HIM 10X MEDIAN MEAN 90ft MAX
     TOTAL  SUSPENDED  SOLIDS
     PH CUNITSJ
     TOTAL  IKON
     MANGANESE  
-------
                                                Table V-21

                                              EASTERN  MINES
                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION  SUMMARY
                                             FINAL  EFFLUENT
                                   SUBCATEGORY  ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
                                            TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ui
COMPOUND
ANT I MONT (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL)
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
7
13
0
5
20
6
5
13
4
7
7
2
19
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10U6/L
1
3
0
4
17
4
3
0
3
1
7
0
15
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
MIN
1
2
.
5
9
6
5
0.10
10
1
14
1
7
10%
*
2
*
*
10
*
*
0.16
*
*
*
*
9
MEDIAN
2
5
.
14
33
10
12
0.50
52
2
20
1
19
MEAN
5
6
.
14
77
19
24
1.34
66
5
20
1
47
IN U6/L
90X
*
13
*
*
63
*
*
1.67
*
*
*
*
103
MAX
15
22
.
23
660
40
66
7.90
146
20
25
2
166
-------
                                              Table V-22

                                             WESTERN MINES
                                  WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                            FINAL EFFLUENT
                                  SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
                              CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS

COMPOUND
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PH (UNITS)
TOTAL IKON
MANGANESE (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMbt-K
SAMPLES
11
11
11
11
NUMBCK
TUTAL
OETECTS
11
11
10
11
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
MIN
2400
7.5
mo
17
10*
2720
7.5
mo
18
MEDIAN
9650
7.9
3H9
<***
MEAN
2172H
8.0
<»7«t
103
IN UG/L
90X
26893
8.H
1030
2H2

MAX
97000
8.5
1200
285.
Ul
-------
                                               Table V-23

                                              WESTERN MINES
                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                             FINAL EFFLUENT
                                   SUBCATEGORY ALKALINE DRAINAGE MINES
                                            TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ui
Co
COMPOUND
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL)
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
3
3
1
1
H
7
3
2
0
1
0
1
6
NUMBER
SAMPLE!
>10U6/l
2
0
0
0
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L
! __-—_«____ _„_ ——.,,. „-- .—«.— 	
MIN 10X MEDIAN MEAN
3 * 7
3 * i*
0
9
6
3
2
0.63
•
0
9
11
9
5
0*83
•
2 * 2
• *
1 * 1
IH * H5
10
5
0
9
30
9
40
1.72
•
2
•
1
63
90X
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MAX
15
6
0
9
SO
IS
109
2.60
•
2
•
1
127
-------
                                  .,       Table V-24        ^

                                      COAL MINE DMR DATA
                               1979 AVERAGE  TSS & Fe VALUES*:
                     ALKALINE EASTERN VS. ALKALINE  WESTERN  FACILITIES




Jan
Feb
Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Overall Ave.
Values 1979
WESTERN **
TSS
Ave
Ave
Ave
Fe
Ave
Ave
Ave
(nig/1 )
. Maximum
. Minimum
. Average
(no/1)
. Maximum
. Minimum
. Average

Value
Value
Value

Value
Value
Value

23.9
4.2
16.3

1.02
0.36
0.69

24
4
15

1
0
0

.2
.5
.3

.03
.36
.67

37.2 34.9 27.1 19.1 26.3 21.4 23.0
7.3 7.3 5.2 7.2 6.4 5.2 4.6
19.8 18.3 14.3 13.4 14.4 11.4 12.2

1.00 0.88 0.86 0.54 0.75 1.08 0.81
0.25 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.28 0.28 0.31
1.27 0.40 0.45 0.34 0.47 0.60 0.45

9.8
3.3
6.5

0.58
0.19
0.50

13.3
5.4
8.6

0.84
0.18
0.65

15.8
6.6
10.7

0.35
0.13
0.24

23.
5.
13.

0.
0.
0.

0
6
4

81
23
56
EASTERN**
TSS
Ave
Ave
Ave
Fe
Ave
Ave
Ave
(nfl/1)
. Maximum
. Minimum
. Average
(mg/1)
. Maximum
. Minimum
. Average

Value
Value
Value

Value
Value
Value

27.3
5.5
16.3

1.09
0.44
0.65

4
3
12

1
0
0

.4
.8
.4':

.0
.22
.41

19.9 20.4 92.5 9.4 18.0 31.1 25.6
9.2 22.2 63.2 5.9 17.0 9.2 6.7
11.3 16.0 48.9 11.6 13.5 17.2 11.2

0.82 0.45 1.79 0.52 1.16 0.80 0.78
0.39.0.35 1.5 0.48 1.03 0.56 0.70
0.42 0.35 1.3 0.39 1.0 0.49 0.5

81.0
3.0
21.8

0.45
0.02
0.73

17.9
4.1
7.8

1.00
0.30
0.44

46.0
36.3
27.8

1.0]
0.53
0.93

32.
15.
18.

0.
0.
0.

8
5
0

91
54
63
**
Values do not Include Instances of "No Discharge/ "No Reported Values," or violations  due to
precipitation events.
Includes data from 10 Western facilities and 10 Eastern facilities.
-------
                                       to
                                       §
                                       H
                                   «?
                                    a>  25
                                    1-.  M
                                    EL K
                                    So H
                                       *
                                             0)
                                             u
                                             i
160
-------

        «fc 1   F^ . k • .^ . _fcT ^^  » - + * 'f W —   jT*^ "» ^ •
         100th
        Meridian
                   Figure V-4

RELATION OF AREAS OF POSITIVE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
             TO THE 100th MERIDIAN
                       161
-------
                              Figure  V-5

                   OBSERVED AND EXPECTED FREQUENCIES
                       OF TSS CONCENTRATIONS
                      AT WESTERN ALKALINE MINES
                              QUADRANTS
Influent
Effluent
3
(3)
4
(4)
0
(2)
5
(4)
3
(3)
3
(4)
5
(3)
3
(3)
11



15

26
     Expected frequencies are given in parentheses.
                                    162
-------
expected  frequencies  are found by taking 25 percent of the available
samples.  Since there were  11   influent  samples,  one  would  expect
approximately  three to fall into each quadrant if the distribution of
TSS at Western mines was similar to that at Eastern mines.   Figure V-5
shows that in most cases the observed frequencies are similar  to  the
expected frequencies.  The largest differences are found in the second
and  fourth  quadrants of the influent distribution.   Calculation of a
chi  square  statistic  indicates  that  these  differences  are   not
statistically   significant.    Based   on  these  facts,  a  separate
subcategory for western mines is not warranted.
                                  163
-------
-------
                              SECTION VI
                  SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
INTRODUCTION
The Agency has  studied  coal  mining  wastewaters  to  determine  the
presence  or  absence  of  toxic,  conventional,  and non-conventional
pollutants.  This section will  address  the  selection  of  pollutant
parameters   for  post  mining  discharges  and  effluents  that  have
undergone  BPT  treatment.   The  quantities   and   treatability   of
pollutants  in  these  treated  wastewaters  will  form  the basis for
selection of pollutant parameters for regulation.   The  CWA  requires
that effluent limitations be established for toxic pollutants referred
to  in  Section 307(a)(l).  These pollutants, and the conventional and
selected nonconventional pollutants are summarized in Table VI-l.   The
Settlement   Agreement   in   Natural   Resources   Defense   Council,
Incorporated  vs.  Train,  8  ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified, 12 ERC
1833  (D.D.C.  1979),  provides  for  the  exclusion   of   particular
pollutants,  categories  and subcategories (Paragraph 8), according to
the  criteria summarized below:
1.   Equal or more stringent protection is already
guidelines and standards under the Act.
      provided  by  EPA's
2.   The  pollutant  is  present in the effluent discharge solely as a
result of its presence in the intake water taken from the same body of
water into which it is discharged.

3.  The pollutant  is  not  detectable  in  the  effluent  within  the
category  by  approved  analytical methods or methods representing the
state-of-the-art capabilities.  (Note:  this includes cases  in  which
the  pollutant  is  present solely as a result of contamination during
sampling and analysis by sources other than the wastewater.)

4.  The pollutant is detected in only a small number of sources within
the category and is uniquely related to only those sources.
5.  The pollutant is present only in  trace
causing nor likely to cause toxic effects.
amounts  and  is  neither
6.   The  pollutant  is present in amounts too small to be effectively
reduced by known technologies.
                                   165
-------
                            Table VT-1

         LIST  OF 129  PRIORITY POLLUTANTS, CONVSNTIONALS

                   AND NON-CONVENTIONALS (1)
Priority Pollutants
  1.
  2.
  3.
  4.
  5.
  6.
  7.
  8.
  9.
 10.
 11.
 12.
 13.
 14.
 15.
 16.
 17.
 18.
 19.
 20.
 21.
 22.
 23.
 24.
 25.
 26.
 27,
 28.
 29.
 30.
 31.
 32.
 33.
 34.
 35.
 36.
 37.
 38.
 39.
 40.
 41.
 42.
*acenaphthene
*acroletn
*acrylonitrile
*benzene
*benzidene
                (B)
                (V)***
                (V)
                (V)
                (B)
*carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)    (V)
chlorobenzene   (V)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene    (B)
hexachlorobenzene   (B)
1,2-dichloroethane   (V)
1,1,1-trichlorethane    (V)
hexachlorethane    (B)
1,1-dichloroethane  (V)
1,1,2-trichloroechane    (V)
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane    (v)
chloroethane   (V)
bis (chloromethyl)  ether    (V)
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether    (B)
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether  (mixed)    (V)
2-chloronaphthalene   (B)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol    (A)***
parachlorometa cresol    (A)
*chlorofora (trichloromethane)    (V)
*2-chlorophenol    (A)
1,2-dichlorobenzene   (B)
1,3-dichlorobenzene   (B)
1,4-dichlorobenzene   (B)
3,3!-dichlorobenzidine    (B)
1,1-dichloroechylene    (V)
1,2-trans-dischloroethylene    (V)
*2,4-dichlorophenol   (A)
1,2-dichloropropane   (V)
1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)    (V)
*2,4-dimenthylphenol    (A)
2,4-dinitrotoluene   (B)
2,6,-dinitrotoluene   (B)
*l,2-diphenylhydrazine    (B)
*ethylbenzene   (V)
*fluoranthen*   (B)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether    (B)
4-broaophnyl phenyl ether    (B)
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)  ether   (B)
                                 166
-------
                     Table VI-1  (Continued)

         LIST OF 129 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS,  CONVENTIONALS

                   AND NON-CONV1OTIONALS  (1)
43.  bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane    (B)
44.  methylene chloride  (dichloromethane)    (V)
45.  methyl chloride (chloromethane)    (V)
46.  methyl bromide (bromontethane)    (V)
47.  bromoform (tribrononethane)    (V)
48.  dichlorobromomethan*    (V)
49.  trichlorofluoromethane    (V)
50.  dichlorodifluoromethane    (V)
51.  chlorodibromomethane    (V)
52.  *hexachlorobutadiene    (B)
53-  *hexachlorocyclopentadiene    (B)
54.  *isophorone    (B;
55.  *naphthalene   (B)
56.  *nitrobenzene   (B)
57.  2-nitrophenol   (A)
58.  4-nitrophenol   (A)
59.  *2,4-dinitrophenol   (A)
60.  4,6-dinitro-o-cresol    (A)
61.  N-nitrosodimethylamine    (B)
62.  N-nitrosodiphenylamine    (B)
63-  N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine    (B)
64.  *pentachloroohenol   (A)
65.  *phenol   (A)
66.  bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate    (B)
67.  butyl benzyl phthalate    (B)                 \
68.  di-n-butyl.. phthalate    (B)
69.  di-n-octyl phthalate    (B)
70.  diethyl phthalate   (B)
71.  diaethyl phthalate   (B)
72.  benzo (a)anthracene (1,2-benzanthracene)    (B)
73.  benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)    (B)
74,  3,4-benzofluoranthene    (B)
75.  benzo(k)fluoranthane (11,12-benzofluoranthene)    (B)
76.  chrysene  (B)
77.  acenaphthylene   (B)
78.  anthracene   (B)
79.  benzo(ghi)perylene  (1,12-benzoperylene)    (B)
80.  fluorene   (B)
81.  phenathrene    (B)
82.  dibenzo (a,h)anthracene  (1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene)
83.  indeno (1»2,3-cd)(2,3,-o-phenylenepyrene)    (B)
84.  pyrene   (B)
85.  *tetrachloroethylene   (V)
86.  *toluene   (V)
(B)
                                 167
-------
                      Table VI-1 (Continued)

          LIST OF 129 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS, CONVENTIONALS

                    AND NON-CONVENTIONALS (1)
 87.   *trichloroethyl«ne   (V)
 88.   *vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)   (V)
 89.   *aldrin   (P)
 90.   *dieldrin   (P)
 91.   *chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)   (P)
 92.   4,4'-DDT   (P)
 93.   4,4'-DDE(p,p'DDX)   (P)
 94.   4,4'-DDD(plp'TDE)   (P)
 95.   a-endosulfan-Alpha   (P)
 96.   b-end03ulfan-Beta    (P)
 97.   endosulfan sulfate   (P)
 98.   endrin   (P)
 99.   endrtn aldehyde     (P)
100.   heptachlor    (P)
101.   heptachlor epoxide   (P)
102.   a-AHOalpha    (P) (B)
103.   b-BHC-beta    (P) (V)
104.   r-BHC (lindane)-gamma   (P)
105.   g-BHC-delta    (P)
106.   PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)   (P)
107.   PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)   (P)
108.   PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)   (P)
109.   PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)   (P)
110.   PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)   (P)
111.   PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)   (P)
112.   PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)   (P)
113.   *Toxaphene    (P)
114'.   **2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin  (TCDD)    (P)
115.   *Antimony (Total)
116.   *Arsenic (Total)
117.   *Asbestos (Fibrous)
118.   *Beryllium (Total)
119.   *Cadmium (Total)
120,   *Chromium (Total)
121.   *Copper (Total)
122.   *Cyanide (Total)
123.   *Lead (Total)
124.   *Mercury (ToCal)
125,   *Nickel (Total)
126.   *Seienium (Total)
127.   *Silver (Total)
128.   *Thalltum (Total)
129.   *Zinc (Total)
                                 168
-------
                      Table VI-1 (Continued)

          LIST OF 129 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS, CQNVENTIONALS

                    AND NON-CONVENTIONALS (1)


    Conventionals

    PH
    Total Suspended Solids
   Non-Conventionals

   Iron
   Manganese
   Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
   Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
   Settleable Solids (SS)
  *Specific compounds and chemical classes as listed in the
   consent degree.
 **This compound was specifically listed in the consent degree.
***3 * analyzed in the base-neutral extraction fraction
   V * analyzed in the volatile organic fraction
   A » analyzed in the acid extraction fraction
   P * pesticide/polychlorinated diphenyl
                                169
-------
7.  The pollutant is effectively controlled by the  technologies  upon
which  other  effluent  limitations  and  guidelines  are  based.  All
pollutants detected in treated effluents of the coal  mining  industry
are  summarized  in  Table VI-2.  These results are also summarized by
subcategory in Tables VI-3 through VI-7.
POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION IN THE  COAL  MINING  POINT  SOURCE
CATEGORY
Specific   effluent   limitations  are  being  established  for  total
suspended solids, pH, iron and manganese for each  subcategory  except
post  mining  discharges from reclamation areas.  (See the Coal Mining
Development Document for the BPT Regulations, for  an  explanation  of
the   selection   of   these   pollutants  and  development  of  their
limitations.)  Settleable solids and pH have been selected to  control
effluents from reclamation areas and discharges from all subcategories
during rainfall events.
PRIORITY ORGANICS EXCLUDED FROM REGULATION
All  of  the priority organic pollutants are excluded from regulation.
The reasons for their exclusion are presented in Table  VI-8  and  are
discussed below.

Priority Orpanics Not Detected un Treated Effluents

The Settlement Agreement provides for the exclusion from regulation of
toxic  pollutants  not  detectable  by  approved  methods  or  methods
representing state-of-the-art capabilities.  The  sixty-seven  organic
priority  pollutants  not  detected  during sampling and thus excluded
from regulation are listed in Table VI-9.

Priority OrganIcs  Detected  Due  to  Laboratory  Analysis  and  Field
Sampling Contamination

Ten  of  the  priority  organics  were  detected in one or more of the
treated effluent samples; however, their presence is  believed  to  be
the sole result of contamination by sources in the field or laboratory
independent  of the composition of the actual wastewater.  Table VI-10
tabulates the pollutants in this category.  Field controls and  blanks
were  used  during  each  phase  of  the  sampling program (Screening,
                                   170
-------
             Table VI-2A

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
          FINAL EFFLUENT
         ALL SUBCATEGORIES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
ACENAPHTHENE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BENZIOENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
1.2, 3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
. 1 . 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
, 1-DICHLOROETHANE
, 1 , 2-TRXCHLOROETHANE
,1.2 , 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER (MIXED)
2 -CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2 . 4 . 6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
CHLOROFORM
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 , 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 , 4-DICHLOROBENZENE
3, 3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
53
51
51
51
53
51
50
53
53
51
51
53
51
51
51
51
51
53
51
53
51
51
51
51
S3
S3
S3
52
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
O
O
21
O
O
O
0
0
2
11
1
O
O
1
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
40
O
2
O
1
1
NUMBER
SAMPLES
MOUG/L
O
0
O
2
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
22
0
1
0
0
O
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN
*
*
*
O O 2
*
.
,
.
f
1
1
3
,
,
3
t

,
.
B
.
.
|
f
3
,

.
.
.
1
2
3
.
m
3
.

.
ft
m
.
,
13
.
3

3 * 3
3 * 3
MEAN 90X MAX



*
.


,
.
1
2
3
.
^
3
.

.
.
t


60 12
.
11
9
3
3


16
.




i
3
3


3



.
.
t

476
m
18

3
3
-------
       Table VI-2A (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
          FINAL EFFLUENT
         ALL SUBCATEGORIES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
1 . 1 -DICHLOROETHYLENE
9 , 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
2 ; 4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1 , 2-DXCHLOROPROPANE
1 . 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2 . 4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2 , 4-DINITROTOLUENE
2.6-DINITROTOLUENE
1 , 2-OIPHENYLHVORAZINE
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUOR ANTHENE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENTL ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BXS(2-CHLOROETHQXY) METHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (DtCHLOROMETHANE)
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROMOFORM
DICHLOROBROMONETHANE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORODXFLUOROMETHANE
CHLORO01BROMOHE THANE
HEXACHLOROBUTADXENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
51
51
51
51
51
51
53
52
53
52
S3
53
53
S3
53
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
S3
S3
S3
53
S3
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
3
11
0
O
O
O
O
0
0
8
1
O
O
O
1
47
O
O
0
O
7
0
O
0
O
0
4
O
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
1
0
O
0
O
0
41
O
O
O
0
7
0
O
0
O
O
3
O
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN
3 * 3
00 2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
3
.
.
.
3
3
.
M
,
,
14
.
.
,
.
.
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3
m
.
,
3
895
,

.

17
,




If
.
MEAN 90X MAX
3 * 3
2 3 10
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
3
3
,
,
^
3
5743 969
* .
f
f
t
21
,
w
,
.
,
10
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
11
3
.
.
m
3
71000
.
9
,
t
37
r
p



14
.
-------
                                       Table VI-2A(Continued)

                                WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                           FINAL EFFLUENT
                                          AIX SUBCATEGORIES
                                           TOXIC POLLUTANTS
—3
U)
COMPOUND
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENQL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
4,B-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODZPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSODX -N-PROPYLAMINE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
BIS<2-ETHYUIEXYL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
DI-H-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTVL PHTHACATE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
BENZO ( A ) ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO ( B ) FLUORANTHENE
BENZO ( K ) FLUORANTHENE
CHRYSENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO(G,H,X)PERYLENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
DIBENZ0(A.H)ANTHRACENE
XNDENO(1.2.3-C.D)PYRENe
PYRENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
SI
51
51
51
S3
S3
S3
61
51
52
S3
51
53
62
S3
51
53
53
53
51
53
31
53
53
51
S3
53
S3
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
O
1
1
0
0
0
1
B
38
8
25
1
12
O
O
2
O
2
O
O
O
4
1
1
3
3
1
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>1OUG/L
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
27
O
15
0
3
0
O
O
O
2
O
O
O
2
O
O
2
3
O
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN

.
3
3
.
.
t
3
3
4%
3
4*
3
4
,
,
3
,
13
.
.
f
3
1
3
1O
1O
2
B
3
3
.
m
t
3
3
170
3
63
3
3
.
t
3
m
13
f
t
,
3
1
3
11
10
2
MEAN

f
3
3
.
t
t
3
3
935
3
244
3
101
t
,
5
,
13
(
f
f
8
1
3
11
11
2
90%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1848
*
6O5
*
315
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MAX

,
3
3
.
t
9
3
3
11000
3
98O
3
780
a
t
8
,
13
,
.
.
13
1
3
12
11
2
-------
       Table VI-2A(Contintaed)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
          FINAL EFFLUENT
         ALL SUBCATEGORIES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ALDRIN
DIELORIN
CHLORDANE
4.4-ODT
4, 4 -DOE
4.4-DOD
ENDOSULFAN-ALPHA
ENDOSULFAN-BETA
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR E POX IDE
BHC-ALPHA
BHC-BETA
BHC ( LINO ANE) -GAMMA
BHC-OELTA
PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)
PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)
PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)
PCS -1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)
PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)
PCB-12BO (AROCHLOR 12BO)
PCB-1O18 (AROCHLOR 1O16)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
SI
51
51
51
47
47
49
47
47
47
47
47
49
49
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
17
22
3
0
2
O
O
1
O
1
0
O
O
O
O
2
1
3
3
2
a
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
6
5
O
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
o
o
o
o
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN
1 1 4
0 O 2
1 * 2
.
2.24
.
f
2.24
.
2.24
.
.
.
.
.
2.24
2.24
O.10
0.28
2.24
O.10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
2.24
.
.
2.24
.
2.24
,
.
.
.
.
2.24
2.24
1.17
1.25
2.24
1.17
.
.
.
.



MEAN 90% MAX
12 23 81
7 20 40
2 * 3
.
2.24
t
t
2.24
,
2.24
.
.
.
.
.
2.24
2.24
1.52
1.58
2.24
1.52
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.24
.
.
2.24
.
2.24
.
.
.
.
.
2.24
2.24
2.24
2.24
2.24
2.24
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-------
                                 Table VI-2A (Continued)

                          WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                       FINAL EFFLUENT
                                     ALL  SUBCATEGORIES
                                       TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
                                            TOTAL
                                            NUMBER
                                            DETECT
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10U6/L
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L

 MIN   10%   MEDIAN  MEAN   9O%
MAX
TOXAPHENE                             49       O      O
2.3.7.8-TETRACHLQRODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN    53       0      .O
ANTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE                46       6      2         3
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE/CHRYSENE            14       1      0         3
BENZO(3,4/K)FLUORANTHENE               12       O      O
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)                     114       44      17        1
ARSENIC (TOTAL)                      114       44      14        2
BERYLLIUM  (TOTAL)*                    114       70         O
CADMIUM (TOTAL)                      114       16      9         3
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)                     114       63      55        6
COPPER (TOTAL)                       114       61      33        3
CYANIDE (TOTAL)                       62       5      O         3
LEAD (TOTAL)                         114       22      13        2
MERCURY (TOTAL)                      114       39      1      0.10
NICKEL (TOTAL)                       112       25      23        5
SELENIUM (TOTAL)                     114       32      15        1
SILVER (TOTAL)                       114       29      21        2
THALLIUM (TOTAL)                     113       19      5         1
ZINC (TOTAL)                         113       85      79        6
*
*
*
*
*
1
2
*
4
9
6
*
3
0.30
IS
1
5
1
10
.
.
3
3
f
4
e
i
12
3O
11
4
21
0.70
60
6
15
2
4O
.
.
13
3
f
29
12
2
12
46
15
5
66
1.47
75
22
IB
13
59





92
29
*
17
63
27
*
1O4
2.51
138
64
26
24
131
f
.
35
3
,
255
72
3
23
880
46
7
B2O
13.00
182
160
31
137
382
-------
               Table VI-2B

    WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
              FINAL EFFLUENT
             ALL SUBCATEGORIES
CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PH (UNITS)
IRON (TOTAL)
MANGANESE (TOTAL)
ASBESTQS(TOTAL-FIBERS/LITER)
COD
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
FREE ACIDITY (CACO3)
MO ALKALINITY (CAC03)
PHENOLICS(4AAP)
SULFATE
TOTAL ACIDITY (CACQ3)
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
110
113
115
110
24
62
45
46
35
66
56
2
47
61
6
4
43
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECTS
1O9
113
111
98
24
55
45
46
27
47
51
2
47
1O
6
4
43
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
MIN
32
3.2
21
11
5BOOOO
4O
3SOOO
260OO
1000
O.O
26O
50
1OO
2
13OOOO
3OOO
70OO
10%
25OO
6.8
128
25
1379E4
116OO
11SOOO
S12OO
1000
0.0
1051
*
164OO
2
*
*
263OOO
MEDIAN
15925
7.8
528
3O3
8800E5
2435O
8050OO
135OOO
47OO
0.0
9000
50
13OOOO
13
246667
40OO
B35OOO
MEAN
28507
7.8
1239
922
6766E6
89569
1232E3
1689E3
13304
4.9
15366
14025
17O428
15
S52778
55OO
5895E3
90X
622OO
8.4
312O
2020
1800E7
48000
285OE3
467599
151 2O
0.2
3B940
*
383OOO
2O
*
*
4O43E3
MAX
45OOOO
10.8
11205
7167
5200E7
326OE3
6600E3
67OOE4
2OOOOO
2OO.O
6500O
280OO
62OOOO
40
1373E3
1O500
1900E5
-------
             Table VI-3
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
          FINAL EFFLUENT
  SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
         TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
ACEHAPHTHENE
ACROLETN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BENZIDENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
1 , 2 , 3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1.1 -TRXCHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
1 , 1-OICHLOROETHANE
1,1, 2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2 . 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BIS( 2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER (MIXED)
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2,4. 6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
CHLOROFORM
2-CHLQROPHENOL
1 , 2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 . 4-DICHLOROBENZENE
3,3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
11
13
11
13
13
13
12
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
O
O
9
0
0
O
O
0
O
3
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
10
0
0
O
0
0
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
>10UG/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN 9O% MAX
0 .
0
O
0 1
O
0
O
O
O
O
0 1
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
O


2 3
.


, .
( .

1 2



f m


t t


t m
m t
8 1 1 14 72 17
0 *
0 *
0 *
0 *
O *


7



f
f

2
.

f
,
.
.
.
.
B
.
.
442
.
9
t


-------
      Table VI-3 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
          FINAL EFFLUENT
  SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
         TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
1 . 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 . 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
2.4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1 .2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 . 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2 . 4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2 , 4-DINITROTOLUENE
2 , 6-D1NITROTOU1ENE
1 ,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
ETHYLBENZENE
FUUORAMTHENE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROtSOPRQPYU) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (DICHLORONETHANE)
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROMQFORM
DICHLOROBROMDMETHANE
TRiCHLOftOFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLOROOI FLUOROMETHANE
CHLORODIBRONOMETHANE
KEXACHLOROBUTADI ENE
HEXACHLOROCrCLOPENTAOlENE
ISOPHORQNE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
13
13
11
13
13
11
13
13
13
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
4
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
3
O
O
O
O
O
13
O
0
O
O
2
O
O
O
0
O
2
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
>100Q/L MIN 10X MEDIAN MEAN SOX MAX
0 .
0 1
O
0
O
0
0
O
O .
0 1
O
O
O
O
O
12 7
0
0
O
O
2 14
O
0
O
O
O
2 12
O
1 2







1 2




• *
2250 3968 SB4



. .
14 26



. .
. .
12 13
.
2
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
3
.
.
.
.
.
13OOO


.
.
37


.

.
14
.
-------
      Table VI-3 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
          FINAL EFFLUENT
  SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
         TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
4 , B-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMZNE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMIME
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLANINE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHTLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
DX-N-BUTYL PHTHALAft
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DI ETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
BENZO< A) ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO( B ) FLUORANTHENE
BENZO
-------
                                        -Table VI-3 (Continued)

                                  WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                            FINAL EFFLUENT
                                    SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
                                           TOXICE POLLUTANTS
CO
o
COMPOUND
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
CHLORDANE
4.4-DDT
4.4-DDE
4.4-DDD
ENOOSULFAN-ALPHA
ENOOSULFAN-BETA
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRXN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR E POX IDE
BHC-ALPHA
BHC-BETA
BHC (LINDANE) -GAMMA
BHC-DELTA
PCS- 1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)
PCB-12S4 (AROCHLOR 1254)
PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)
PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)
PCB-12BO (AROCHLOR 1260)
PCB-1018 (AROCHLOR 1O18)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
13
13
13
13
9
9
9
9
9
9.
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
B
7
0
O
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
1
1
1
0
0
o
0
o
o
o
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L
SAMPLES
>10UG/L MIN 10X MEDIAN MEAN 90% MAX
32 0 13 31
O 0
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
0 2.24
0 2.24
O 2.24
O 2.24
O
O
o
o
0
0
0
2 3





a ,
. .



. .




2.24 2.24
2.24 2.24
2.24 2.24
2.24 2.24







S
m
f
9
m
f
f
+
f
m
t
,
w
+
i
,
2.24
2.24
2.24
2.24
.
,
,




-------
                                         Table VI-3 (Continued)

                                  WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                            FINAL EFFLUENT
                                    SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
                                           TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CO
COMPOUND
TOXAPHENE
2.3,7. 8-TETRACHLORGDIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
ANTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE/CHRYSENE
BENZO(3,4/K)FLUORANTHENE
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER (TOTAL)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL)
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
9
13
11
4
2
23
23
23
23
23
23
15
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
0
2
O
O
10
10
1
2
13
15
1
8
10
8
11
11
3
19
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UQ/L
O
0
2
0
0
1
7
O
2
12
9
O
3
0
7
7
9
O
18
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
MIN

,
28
.
.
2
2
3
12
9
a
e
3
0.30
S
1
2
2
a
10%
*
*
*
*
*
2
2
*
*
10
8'
*
*
0.30
*
1
2
*
18
MEDIAN

m
28
,
.
3
13
3
12
27
12
0
40
0.90
69
12
11
2
38
MEAN

.
32
.
.
S
16
3
IB
39
14
6
167
1.09
82
25
16
2
63
IN UQ/L
90%
*
*
*
*
*
9
28
*
*
67
21
*
*
1.60
*
65
26
*
142
MAX

9
35
.
.
13
37
3
18
126
27
6
620
2.50
180
77
3O
3
1B7
-------
                                         Table VI-3 (Continued)

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                             FINAL EFFLUENT
                                     SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
                               CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
oo
ro
COMPOUND
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PH (UNITS)
IRON (TOTAL)
MANGANESE (TOTAL)
ASBESTOSCTOTAL-FIBERS/LITER)
COD
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
FREE ACIDITY (CAC03)
MO ALKALINITY (CACO3)
PHENOLICS(4AAP)
SULFATE
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
22
24
23
23
a
15
14
10
6
14
15
1
13
15
S
10
NUMBER
TOTAL
DETECTS
21
24
22
22
8
1O
14
10
4
9
14
1
13
2
S
10
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
MIN
2700
3.5
63
22
B60000
1O2OO
35OOO
3OOOO
14OO
O.O
260
280OO
100
14
13OOOO
43OOOO
10%
3865
6.1
71
82
*
1O200
41400
30OOO
*
*
365
*
3670
*
*
430000
MEDIAN
14OOO
7.3
859
1300
130OE5
23667
330OOO
1350OO
1400
O.O
69OO
28OOO
29OOO
14
441667
29OOE3
MEAN
34184
7.5
1575
2O86
B456E5
43637
1223E3
21B625
35OO
0.1
7457
28000
47238
17
629333
3O9OE3
IN UQ/L
90X
6230O
8.6
4400
5672
*
49400
262OE3
43OOOO
*
*
15640
*
1134OO
*
*
BOOOE3
MAX
19785O
10.8
65OO
7167
21OOE8
19OOOO
66OOE3
53OOOO
6600
0.1
17200
28OOO
13OOOO
2O
1373E3
81OOE3
-------
                                               Table VI-4

                                   WASTHMATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                             FINAL EFFLUENT
                                     SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
                                            TOXIC POLLUTANTS
00
U)
COMPOUND
ACENAPHTHENE
ACROLEXN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BENZIDENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2, 3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1. 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1, 2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2 , 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BtS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER (MIXED)
2 -CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2,4, B-TRICHLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
CHLOROFORM
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 , 2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 , 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 . 4-DICHLOROBENZENE
3 , 3-DICHtOROBENZIDINE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
3O
28
28
28
30
28
27
30
30
28
28
30
28
28
28
28
28
30
28
30
3O
3O
28
3O
30
30
30
3O
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
O
O
9
O
0
O
0
O
2
4
1
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
0
0
21
O
2
O
1
1
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UQ/L
O
0
O
1
0
O
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
11
O
1
O
0
0
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN

,
.
0
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
3
. .
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
M
.
3
.
3


1
m
.



1
1
3



•






11
t
3
.
3
3 * 3
MEAN 90X MAX

.
.
3
f
.
t
u
,
1
2
3
,
,
.
m
t
f
.
.
,
.
50 12
,
11
9
3
3


IB
.




i
3
3


.
.
.
.
t


m
488
.
18

3
3
-------
                                         Table VI-4 (Continued)

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                             FINAL EFFLUENT
                                     SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
                                            TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CO
J=-
COMPOUND
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
2 , 4-DICHLOROPHENQL
1 . 2 -DICHLOROPROPANE
1 , 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2.4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2.4-DINITROTOLUENE
2.6-DINITROTOLUENE
1 ,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORANTHENE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (DICHLOROMETHANE)
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROMOFORN
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUORQMETHANE
CHLORODXBRONOMETHANE
HEXACHLOROBUTAOIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
28
28
3O
28
28
30
30
3O
30
28
3O
30
3O
30
3O
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
SO
30
SO
30
30
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
2
3
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
4
1
O
0
O
0
25
O
O
O
O
4
O
O
O
O
O
1
0
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
>10UQ/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN 0O% MAX
0 3
O 0
o
o ,
o
o .
o
o
o
1 1
O 3
o .
o
o
0
22 3
o
O
o
0
4 18
O
o
0
o
0
3 3
1 1

. ,

» ,
m t
t m

3 5
3 3
. ,
. ,


792 S090 848
. .
. .
, .
".
17 19
. ,
. .
. .
. .
. .
1 11 * 11 11
o *
3
2







11
3
,
,
,
,
71000
.
,
,
,
28
,
.
.


11
.
-------
                                        Table VI-4 (Continued)

                                  WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                            FINAL EFFLUENT
                                    SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
                                           TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CO
COMPOUND
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2.4-DINITROPHENOL
4 . B-DINITRO-0-CRESOL
N-NtTROSOOZNETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSODX-N-PROPYLAMINE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
OI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE^
Dl-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DI ETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO10UQ/L
O
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
12
0
8
O
1
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
O
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UO/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN

.
3
3
a
f
.
3
3
«
3
M
3
3
,
^
t
t
m
m
. •
#
3
1
t
12
10
2
.
3
3
.
,

3
3
170
3
3
3
3
.
t
f
.
a
^
.
.
3
1
t
12
10
2
MEAN 00% MAX


3
3



3
3
B72 77
3
28O 67
3
81
t
f
.
,

.
.
.
3
1
.
12
1O
2

3
3



3
3
4400
3
96O
3
39O








3
1

12
1O
2
-------
                                         Table VI-4 (Continued)

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                             FINAL EFFLUENT
                                     SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
                                            TOXIC POLLUTANTS
oo
COMPOUND
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
CHLORDANE
4 . 4-DDT
4.4-DDE
4.4-DDO
ENDOSULFAN- ALPHA
ENDOSULFAN-BETA
ENOOSULFAN SULFATE
EHDRIM
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACKLOR E POX IDE
BHC-ALPHA
BHC-BETA
BUG (LINDANE)-QAMMA
BHC-DELTA
PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242}
PC8-12S4 (AROCHLOR 1254)
PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)
PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)
PCB-1280 (AROCHLOR 12 BO)
PCB-1O16 (AROCHLOR 1O16)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
28
28
28
28
28
28
30
28
28
28
28
28
30
30
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
8
10
2
0
1
0
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
o
o
0
0
o
0
o
NUMBER
SAMPLES
MOUQ/L
2
4
0
O
O
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
MIN 10X MEDIAN
1 » 4
0 O 2
1 V 1
,
2.24
,
,
,
,
B
.
.
.
,
t
2.24
2.24
0.10
0.2B
2.24
O.1O
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
^
2.24
.
,
9
,
,
,
.
.
.
t
2.24
2.24
O.10
O.2B
2.24
O.1O
a

,
B



MEAN 90% MAX
14 * 81
12 40 40
2
4
2.24
.
.
.
.
.
.
„
.
.
w
2.24
2.24
0.10
0.2B
2.24
O.10
u
9
.
,
.
.
.
3

2.24
.
,
,
.
m
,
.
,
,
t
2.24
2.24
0. 1O
O.28
2.24
0.1O


.
.

*
.
-------
                                         Table VI-4 (Continued)

                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                             FINAL EFFLUENT
                                     SUBCATEGORY ACID DRAINAGE MINES
                                            TOXIC POLLUTANTS
oo
—3
COMPOUND
TOXAPHENE
2.3,7,8 -TETRACHLORODIBEN20-P-DIOXIN
ANTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE/CHRYSENE
BENZOO . 4/K ) FLUORANTHENE
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER (TOTAL)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL)
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
30
30
29
8
8
57
57
57
57
57
67
37
57
57
57
57
57
66
56
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
0
3
1
0
18
25
1
7
32
24
4
14
25
9
12
9
9
37
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UQ/L
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
0
5
28
9
0
8
1
8
3
9
2
33
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
MIN

,
3
3
.
1
2
0
5
8
3
3
2
O.1O
10
1
13
1
7
10X
*
*
*
*
*
1
2
*
*
10
5
*
2
O.3O
*
1
*
*
10
MEDIAN

.
3
3
.
3
6
0
14
34
9
3
20
O.65
55
3
17
2
43
MEAN

.
3
3
.
6
9
0
14
63
13
4
36
1.63
62
19
19
6
52
IN UG/L
BOX
*
*
*
*
*
IB
12
*
*
64
27
*
81
2. 2O
*
24
*
*
101
MAX
•
,
3
3
,
IB
72
0
23
eeo
4O
7
109
13.00
146
160
25
23
188
-------
                                                 Table VI-4 (Continued)

                                         WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION  SUMMARY
                                                      FINAL EFFLUENT
                                            SUBCATEGORY ACID  DRAINAGE  MINES
                                    CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL  POLLUTANTS
                 COMPOUND
                                TOTAL
                                NUMBER
                                SAMPLES
      NUMBER
      TOTAL
      DETECTS
       MIN
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L

 10X   MEDIAN     MEAN   BOX   MAX
oo
CO
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PH (UNITS)
IRON (TOTAL)
MANGANESE (TOTAL)
ASBESTOS*TOTAL-FIBERS/LITER)
COD
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
FREE ACIDITY (CAC03)
MO ALKALINITY (CAC03)
PHENOLICS(4AAP)
TOTAL ACIDITY (CAC03)
TOTAL SOLIDS
SB
sa
57
56
1S
37
23
29
24
32
34
 1
23
30
 1
27
B6
56
B4
47
15
35
23
29
IS
26
31
 1
23
 5
 1
27
32 2OOO
3.2 7.1
21 132
11 18
33OOE4 33OOE4
4O 9700
86000 205000
440OO 6S2OO
1OOO 1OOO
O.O 0.0
100O 3O87
50 *
23000 84900
2 *
105OO *
148OOO 312OOO
125OO
7.8
39O
170
2050E8
22413
86OOOO
135OOO
4000
0.0
9383
50
245OOO
9
10500
82000O
29542 7OB27 45OOOO
7.7 8.4 9.4
892 2589 51OO
381 110O 28OO
1053E7 2B5OE7 5200E7
117475 45SOO 326OE3
1198E3 278OE3 36OOE3
2571E3 608426 67OOE4
16133 1288O 2OOOOO
8.2 O.4 2OO.O
19595 4762O 65OOO
SO * 50
28O783 494000 620OOO
16 * 40
10500 * 10500
8O31E3 248OE3 19OOE5
-------
                                              Table VI-5

                                  WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                            FINAL EFFLUENT
                                        SUBCATEGORY PREP PLANTS
                                           TOXIC POLLUTANTS
oo
COMPOUND
ACENAPHTHENE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BENZIDENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2, 3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
1 . 2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1.1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1, 2 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2. 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER (MIXED)
2 -CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2 , 4 ,8-TRlCHLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
CHLOROFORM
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 , 2-DI CHLOROBENZENE
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 , 4-OICHLOROBENZENE
3,3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
O
O
2
O
O
0
0
0
0
3
O
0
O
1
O
O
0
0
O
0
O
a
O
0
O
0
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
>10UQ/L MZN 10X MEDIAN MEAN 9OX MAX
0 . . .
o
O
1 1
o
O
O •
0
0 .
o
0 2
O
0 .
o
O 3
O
0 •
0
0
0
0
o
3 3
O
o
0
o
0
f

i 7
.

.
,
,

2 2
.
.
.
3 3
.



,
.
.
3 21
, t
t
.
.


12






3



3







78




*
-------
      Table VI-5 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
          FINAL EFFLUENT
      SUBCATEGORY PREP PLANTS
         TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
1 , I-OICHLOROETHYLENE
1 . 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENC
2 . 4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 . 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2 . 4-DXMETHYLPHENOL
2 . 4-DINITROTOLUENE
2.B-DINITROTOLUENE
1 . 2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORANTHENE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL> ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE (DICHLOROMETHANE)
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROMOFORM
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
OICHLORQOIFLUOROMETHANE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
1
3
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
1
B
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
1
o
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UGYL
SAMPLES
> 10UQ/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN 9O% MAX
O 3 33 3
0 1
O
O
0
o
O •
0
o
0 3
O
o
o
o
0 3
4 3
O
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0 3
O
2 B


. .




3 3

t f

, 9
3 3
4B3 3998
. .
, m
•
m ft
. .
, ,

. .

, .
3 3
. .
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
,
.
.
»
3
20000










3
.
-------
                                     Table VI-5  (Continued)

                            WASTEWATER  CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                         FINAL EFFLUENT
                                    SUBCATEGORY  PREP  PLANTS
                                        TOXIC  POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
TOTAL  NUMBER
NUMBER SAMPLES
DETECT >100Q/L
                                                                DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
NIN
10%  MEDIAN  MEAN   BOX
MAX
 2-NITROPHENOL
 4-NITROPHENOL
 2,4-DINITROPHEMOt
 4,6-DXNITRO-O-CRESOL
 N-NITRpSODIMETHYLAMINE
 N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
 N-NITROSODI -N-PROPYLAMINE
 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
 PHENOL
 BISU-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
 DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
 01ETHYL PHTHALATE
 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
 BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
 BENZO(A)PYRENE
 BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
 8ENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
 CHRYSENE
 ACENAPHTHYLENE
 ANTHRACENE
 BENZO(Q,H,I)PERYLENE
 FLUORENE
 PHENANTHRENE
 DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
 INDENO(1,2,3-C.D)PYRENE
 PYRENE
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
3
8
O
3
0
3
0
O
O
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
0
0
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
3
o
1
0
1
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
0
o
0
                                                 3
                                               180

                                                •2

                                               285
                                                    3
                                                  BIO

                                                  27O

                                                  79O
-------
                                         Table VI-5 (Continued)

                                  WASTEWAfER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                            FINAL EFFLUENT
                                        SUBCATEGORY PREP PLANTS
                                           TOXIC POLLUTANTS
vo
COMPOUND
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
CHLORDANE
4. 4 -DDT
4, 4 -DDE
4.4-DDD
ENDOSULFAN- ALPHA
ENDOSULFAN-BETA
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENORXN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR E POX IDE
BHC-ALPHA
BHC-BETA
BHC (LINOANE) -GAMMA
BHC-DELTA
PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)
PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)
PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)
PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)
PCB-126O (AROCHLOR 128O)
PCB-1O16 (AROCHLOR 1O16)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
a
3
1
0
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
o
0
o
o
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
>1OUQ/L MIN 1OX MEDIAN MEAN 8O% MAX
13 4 * 20
1 0
O 3
O
O
O
0
o
o
0
o
o
0 •
o .
.0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
3 4
3 3
. .
, ,
. .
. t
, ,
, ,
, ,
. ,
, ,
. ,
. ,
. .
. ,
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
.
. .
. .
.
.
7
3
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
*
*
-------
                                        Table VI-5 (Continued)

                                  WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                            FINAL EFFLUENT
                                        SUBCATEGORY PREP PLANTS
                                           TOXIC POLLUTANTS
vo
UJ
COMPOUND
TOXAPHENE
2,3,7. 8-TETRACHLORODIBEHZO-P-DIOXIN
ANTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE
BENZO ( A ) ANTHRACENE/CHRYSENE
BENZO ( 3 , 4/K ) FLUORANTHENE
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER (TOTAL)
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL)
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
7
7
3
1
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
9
9





TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
0
1
O
0
3
4
0
1
4
6
O
2
1
2
4
2
4
8
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10U6/L
0
O
O
O
0
0
1
0
O
4
4
0
2
O
2
3
1
O
.8
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN
* •
.
3
.
.
1
2
.
3
24
B
.
87
O.30
20
B
8
1
39
,
3
.
.
1
3
.
3
24
13
.
87
0.30
20
7
8
2
40
MEAN 80% MAX

.
3
.
*
2
1O
*
3
31
2O
.
82
O.30
35
20
1b
3
70
.
3
*
„
3
30
,
3
41
48
,
87
O.3O
BO
BO
24
7
2OO
-------
                                        Table VI-5  (Continued)

                                 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                            FINAL EFFLUENT
                                        SUBCATEGORY PREP PLANTS
                              CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
\o
Jr
COMPOUND
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PH (UNITS)
IRON (TOTAL)
MANGANESE (TOTAL)
ASBESTOS< TOTAL-FIBERS/LITER )
COO
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
MO ALKALINITY (CACO3)
PHENOLICS(4AAP)
TOTAL ACIDITY (CAC03)
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
8
9
9
8
1
7
2
4
3
2
4
B
7
3
4
NUMBER
TOTAL
DETECTS
B
9
9
S
1
7
2
4
3
2
4
5
3
3
4
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UO/L
MIN 1OX MEDIAN
2500
6.2
98
25
1400E5
2035O
58OOOO
94000
3BOO
O.O
B87S
19000
10
3000
7OOO
118OO
7.1
388
86
1400E5
35200
56OOOO
140OOO
4200
0.0
11600
4O750
1O
35OO
53OOOO
MEAN 90X MAX
14O44 28500
7.4
868
247
1400ES
44984
1O20E3
210438
10133
0.1
14669
61900
12
3833
1334E3
9.1
4400
700
MOOES
113000
1480E3
42OOOO
22OOO
0.1
25000
1185OO
IS
4500
37OOE3
-------
            Table VI-6

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
          FINAL EFFLUENT
    SUBCATEGORY ASSOCIATED AREAS
         TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
ACENAPHTHENE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BENZIDENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2, 3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
,2-OICHLOROETHANE
. 1 , 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
, 1-DICHLOROETHANE
. 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
,1,2,2 -TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER (MIXED)
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2 , 4 , 6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
CHLOROFORM
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 . 2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 . 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 , 4-DICHLOROBENZENE
3 , 3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
O
O
1
O
0
O
0
O
O
1
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
3
0
0
O
0
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN Ufl/L
SAMPLES
MOUQ/L MIN 10X MEDIAN MEAN 9OX MAX
0 .
O
0
0 6
O
O
0
0
O
O
0 2
O
0
O
O
o
o
0 .
0
0
o
o
2 3
O
o
0
0
o


6 6
f *
.




2 2











11 166

. ,
. .
. m

.
,
6
,
.
.
.
f
t
2
.
,
.
,
t
t
m
t
€
,
,
476
#
t
t
,
.
-------
         Table  VI-6 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION  SUMMARY
             FINAL EFFLUENT
     SUBCATEGORY ASSOCIATED AREAS
            TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
                TOTAL
                NUMBER
                DETECT
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UQ/L
          DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L

         MXN10%   MEDIAN  MEAN   555    MAX
 1.1 -DICHLOROETHYLENE                    3
 1.2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE               3
 2.4-DICHLOROPHENOL                      3
 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE                     3
 1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE                     3
 2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL                      3
 2,4-OINITROTOLUENE                      3
 2.6-DINITROTOLUENE                      3
 1.2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE                   3
 ETHYLBEKZENE                            3
 FLUORANTHENE                            3
 4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENVL ETHER              3
 4-BROMOPHENYL PHENVL ETHER               3
 BISiX-CHLORQISOPROPYL) ETHER             3
 BISC2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE              3
 METHYLENE CHLORIDE (DICHLOROMETHANE)     3
 METHYL CHLORIDE                         3
 METHYL BROMIDE                          3
 BRONDFORM                               3
 DXCHLOROBROMONETHANC                    3
 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE                  3
 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE                 3
 CHLOROOIBRONOMETHANE                    3
 HEXACHLOROBUTADXENE                     3
 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE                3
 XSOPHORONE                              3
 NAPHTHALENE                             3
 NITROBENZENE                            3
             O
             1
             O
             O
             O
             O
             O
             O
             O
             O
             O
             O
             O
             O
             0
             3
             0
             O
             O
             O
             1
             O
             O
             0
             0
             0
             O
             O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
3
O
O
O
O
1
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
                                   22
                                               SB3  22369
22    22
                                         B6000
                                            22
-------
       Table VI-6 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
          FINAL EFFLUENT
    SUBCATEGORY ASSOCIATED AREAS
         TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
2-NXTROPHENOL
4-NITRQPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
4 . 6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
N-NXTROSOPIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSOOIPKENYLAMJNE
N-NITROSODI -N-PROPYLAMINC
PENTACHLOROPHENDL
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DI ETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE-
BENZO < A ) ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO ( B ) F LUORANTHENE
BENZCK K ) FLUORANTHENE
CHRYSENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO(G,H,I.)PCRYLENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
DXBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
XNDENO(1.2,3-C.D)PYRENE
PYRENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
3
0
2
O
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
SAMPLES
>10OQ/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN tO% MAX
O .
O
O
o
o
0
o .
0
0
1 3
o .
1 3
o
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
0
0
o
0
o





, ^


7 2038
, .
3 107
. f



9 9
9 t


* •


. .
. p

. .
. .
,
^
*
s
,
%
*
%
6100
.
210
B
,
,
.
t
.
.
B
.

.
f
t


m
-------
                                        Table VI-6  (Continued)

                                 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                           FINAL EFFLUENT
                                     SUBCATEGORY ASSOCIATED AREAS
                                          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
.£>
OO
COMPOUND
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
CHLORDANE
4,4-DDT
4.4-DDE
4,4-DDD
ENDOSULFAN- ALPHA
ENDOSULFAN-BETA
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR E POX IDE .
BHC-ALPHA
BHC-BETA
BHC (LINDANE) -GAMMA
BHC-DELTA
PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)
PCB-12S4 (AROCHLOR 1254)
PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)
PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)
PCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 12BO)
PCB-1O18 (AROCHLOR 1O16)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
1
2
0
0
1
0
o
1
o
I
o
o
o
0
o
1
o
1
1
o
1
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
NUMBER
SAMPLES
MOUG/L
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
o
0
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
o
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UO/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN
1 1
2
.
^
2.24
.
,
2.24
f
2.24
f
^
m
f
.
2.24
,
2.24
2.24
,
2.24
^
,
,
.
,
.
.
2

.
2.24
.
^
2.24
.
2.24
.
.
.
.

2^24
f
2.24
2.24
B
2.24
.
t





MEAN 00% MAX
1 t
3
.
ft
2.24
.
.
2.24
. •
2.24
.
.

.

2^24
.
2.24
2.24
fc
2.24
,
,
B
m
t
.
»
3

,
2.24
.
.
2.24
.
2.24
.
.

.

2^24
t
2.24
2.24
t
2.24
,
r
t
f
.


-------
                                 Table VI-6  (Continued)

                         WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                      FINAL EFFLUENT
                              SUBCATEGORY ASSOCIATED AREAS
                                     TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
                                 TOTAL
                                 NUMBER
                                 SAMPLES
TOTAL  NUMBER
NUMBER SAMPLES
DETECT >10UG/L
          DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
        MIN
10X  MEDIAN MEAN   90%
                                 MAX
TOXAPHENE                              3
2.3,7,8-TETRACHtORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN      3
ANTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE                 3
BENZOCA)ANTHRACENE/CHRYSENE             1
BENZO(3.4/K)FLUORANTHENE                1
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)                       8
ARSENIC (TOTAL)                        8
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)                      a
CADMIUM (TOTAL)                        8
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)                       8
COPPER  (TOTAL)                         8
CYANIDE (TOTAL)                        3
LEAD (TOTAL)                           8
MERCURY (TOTAL)                        8
NICKEL  (TOTAL)                         8
SELENIUM (TOTAL)                       8
SILVER  (TOTAL)                         8
THALLIUM (TOTAL)                       8
ZINC (TOTAL)                           8
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
2
5
3
0
O
O
3
O
2
O
B
   2
   2

  IB
  14
   B

   3
0.40
  50
   1
   8

  19
                                                                            2
                                                                            3

                                                                           IS
                                                                           27
                                                                           11

                                                                            3
                                                                         0.55
                                                                           59
                                                                            2
                                                                           17

                                                                           38
                                      3
                                      3

                                     18
                                     30
                                     18

                                      3
                                    1.80
                                     83
                                      B
                                     22

                                     Be
                           4
                           4

                          17
                          48
                          32

                           3
                        4.3O
                         130
                           9
                          31

                         ISO
-------
                                                  Table VI-6  (Continued)

                                           WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                                       FINAL EFFLUENT
                                                SUBCATEGORY ASSOCIATED AREAS
                                      CONVENTIONAL  AND  NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
                 COMPOUND
                                 TOTAL
                                 NUMBER
                                 SAMPLES
NUMBER
TOTAL
DETECTS
MIN
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L

 1OX   MEDIAN     MEAN   90X   MAX
ro
o
o
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PH (UNITS)
IRON (TOTAL)
MANGANESE (TOTAL)
COD
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE.SOLIDS
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
NO ALKALINITY (CACO3)
PHENOLICS(4AAP)
SULFATE
TOTAL SOLIDS
         6000
          7.2
          2O5
           27
        15SOO
       1550E3
        2GOOO
         48OO
          o.o
         ssoo
        250OO

       170OOO
       180000
18400
7.6
62O
348
17217
162SE3
3100O
480O
0.0
5500
34500
24897
a.o
1760
1775
21178
1717E3
40111
122OO
0.1
6567
64167
                                                                                  170000
                                                                                  180OOO
                     170000
                     220000
                            62000
                              9.7
                             9500
                             63OO
                            291OO
                            19OOE3
                            58333
                            1960O
                              0.1
                             7633
                            123500

                            170000
                            2OOOOO
-------
           Table VI-7

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMAP.Y
          FINAL EFFLUENT
SUBCATEGORY AREAS UNDER RECLAMATION
         TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)
ARSENIC (TOTAL)
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)
CADMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
COPPER (TOTAL)
LEAD (TOTAL) •
MERCURY (TOTAL)
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SELENIUM (TOTAL)
SILVER (TOTAL)
THALLIUM (TOTAL)
ZINC (TOTAL)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
TOTAL
NUMBER.
DETECT
11
2
5
3
8
11
0
O
3
2
4
3
14
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>1OUG/L
11
2
0
O
5
8
O
O
3
2
O
3
14
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
MIN
52
42
1
6
6
5
.

71
42
B
12
8
10%
53
*
*
*
*
5
*
*
*
*
*
*
9
MEDIAN
78
42
1
7
9
15
.
.
82
42
B
23
C2
MEAN
100
49
2
7
12
17
.
'.
115
80
6
81
71
IN UQ/L
90%
116
*
*
*
*
26
*
*
*
«
*
*
187
MAX
255
55
3
8
24
41
.
.
182
77
7
137
382
-------
                                               Table VI-7  (Continued)

                                      WASTEWATER  CHARACTERIZATION  SUMMARY
                                                  FINAL EFFLUENT
                                      SUBCATEGORY AREAS  UNDER RECLAMATION
                                  CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
               COMPOUND
                               TOTAL
                               NUMBER
                               SAMPLES
      NUMBER
      TOTAL
      DETECTS
       MIN
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L

 10%    MEDIAN    MEAN  90%   MAX
ro
o
ro
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PH (UNITS)
IRON (TOTAL)
MANGANESE (TOTAL)
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
15
15
15
14
12
15    1O400  11OO4    21675   2984S 46125 81969
15      5.5    6.0     7.5     7.4   7.9   B.O
15      302    315     B14    21O1  6457 112OS
14      77     84     235     828   911  B94O
 5      O.O    *      O.1     3.1   *    14.8
-------
                                                Table VI-8
                       COAL MINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                         DETERMINED TO BE EXCLUDED
o
LO
Pollutant
acenaphthene
aerolein
acrylonitrlle
benzene
benzldine
carbon tetrachloride
  (tetrachloromethane)
chlorobenzene
1,2,4-trtchlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trtchloroethane
hexachloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1,2-trlchloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-
  ethane
chloroethane
bis(chloromethyl)ether
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
                                     Not
                                   Detected

                                      x
                                      x
                                      X
        Believed to be    Detected
            from         But Always
        Contamination   Below 10 ug/1
Detected in Amounts
  too Small to Be
Effectively Reduced
x
X
X
X
                                      X

                                      X
                                      X

                                      X

                                      X
-------
                                          Table VI-8  (Continued)
                      COAL MINING  POINT  SOURCE CATEGORY ORGANIC  PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                         DETERMINED TO  BE EXCLUDED
tu
o
-Cr
Pollutant
2-chloroethyl vinyl
  ether (mixed)
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
parachlorometa cresol
chloroform (trichloro-
  methane)
2-chlorophenol
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-dichloro-
  ethylene
2,4-dichlorophenol
1,2-dichloropropatie
1,2-dichloropropylene
  (1,3-dichloropropene)
2,4-dimethylphenol
                                    Not
                                   Detected
                                     x
                                     x
                                     X
                                     X
X
                                        Detected  in Amounts
                                          too Small to Be
                                        Effectively Reduced
                                                                   x
                                                                   x
                                     X
                                     X

                                     X
                                     X
-------
                                        Table VI-8  (Continued)
                     COAL MINING  POINT  SOURCE CATEGORY ORGANIC  PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                        DETERMINED TO  BE EXCLUDED
ro
o
Pollutant
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl
  ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl
  ether
bts(2-chloroisopropyl)
  ether
bis(2-chloroethoxy)
  methane
methylene chloride
  (dichloromethane)
methyl chloride
  (chloromethane)
methyl bromide
  (bromoraethane)
bromoform
                                    Not
                                  Detected
                                     x
                                     x
                                     X
Believed to be    Detected
    from         But Always
ContaminatJon   Below 10 ug/1
Detected in Amounts
  too Small to Be
Effectively Reduced
                                     x
                                     x
-------
                                          Table VI-8 (Continued)
                       COAL MINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                         DETERMINED TO BE EXCLUDED
ru
o
Pollutant
d ichlorobromomethane
trichlorofluoromethane
d ichlorod i fluoromethane
chlorod ibromome thane
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopen-
  tadiene
isophorone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nttrosodlphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-
  propylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol
                                     Not
                                   Detected
        Believed to be
            from
        Contamination
  Detected
 But Always
Below 10 ug/1
Detected in Amounts
  too Small to Be
Effectively Reduced
x
x
X

X
X


X
X
X
                                      X
                                      X
                                                                    X
                                                                    X
-------
                                 Table VI-8  (Continued)
              COAL MINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY ORGANIC PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS
                                DETERMINED TO BE EXCLUDED
Pollutant
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
  phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo(a)anthracene
  (1,2-benzanthracene)
benzo(a)pyrene(3,4-
  benzopyrene)
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
  (11,12-benzofluoran-
   thene)
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzo(g,h,i)perylene
  (1,12-benzoperylene)
  Not
Detected
Believed to be    Detected
    from         But Always
Contaminat ion   Below 10 ug/1
Detected in Amounts
  too Small to Be
Effectively Reduced
                 x
                 X
                 X
   X

   X
                                 X
-------
                                         Table VI-8  (Continued)
                      COAL MINING POINT  SOURCE CATEGORY ORGANIC  PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                         DETERMINED TO  BE EXCLUDED
o
CO
Pollutant
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
  (1,2,5,6-dibenzan-
   thracene)
indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
  (phenylenepyrene)
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
vinyl chloride
  (chloroethylene)
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane (technical
  (mixture and* metabo-
   lites)
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDX)
4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
 -endosulfan-Alpha
                                    Not
                                  Detected
Believed to be
    from
Contamination
  Detected
 But Always
Below 10 ug/1
Detected in Amounts
  too Small to Be
Effectively Reduced
                                                                    x
                                                                    x
                                                     X
                                                     X
-------
                                          Table VI-8 (Continued)
                       COAL MINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                         DETERMINED TO BE EXCLUDED
TO
O
Pollutant
 -endosulfan-Beta
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxtde
 -BHC-Alpha
 -BHC-Beta
 -BHC-(lindane)-Gamma
 -BHC-Delta
PCB 1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
toxaphene
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodi-
  benzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
                                     Not
                                   Detected

                                      x
                                      x
                                      X
                                      X
Believed to be
    from
Contamination
  Detected      Detected in Amounts
 But Always       too Small to Be
Below 10 ug/1   Effectively Reduced
                                                                   x
                                                                   x
                                        X

                                        X

                                        X

                                        X
                                      X

                                      X

                                      X

                                      X

                                      X

                                      X

                                      X

                                      X
-------
                            Table VI-9
       PRIORITY ORGANICS NOT DETECTED IN TREATED EFFLUENTS
              OF SCREENING AND VERIFICATION SAMPLES
 1 .  acenaphthene
 2.  acroletn
 3.  acrylonitrtle
 4.  benzidine
 5.  carbon tetrachloride (cetrachloromethane)
 6.  chlorobenzene
 7.  1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
 8.  hexachlorobenzene
 9.  1,1-dichloroethane
10.  1,1,2-trichloroethane
11.  chloroethane
12.  bis(chloromethyl) ether
13.  bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
14.  2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
15.  2-chloronaphthalene
16.  2,4,6-trichlorophenol
17.  parachlorometa cresol
18.  2-chlorophenol
19.  1,3-dichlorobenzene
20.  2,4-dichlorophenol
21.  1,2-dichloropropane
22*  1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)
23.  2,4-dimethylphenol
24.  2,4-dtni trotoluene
25.  2,6-dinitrotoluene
26.  1,2-diphenylhydrazine
27.  bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
28.  4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
                                  210
-------
                     Table VI-9 (Continued)
      PRIORITY ORGANICS NOT DETECTED IN TREATED EFFLUENTS
             OF SCREENING AND VERIFICATION SAMPLES
29.  4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
30.  methyl chloride (chloromethane)
31.  methyl bromide (bromomethane)
32.  bromoform (tribromomethane)
33.  dichlorobromomethane
34.  dichlorodifluoromethane
35.  chlorodibromomethane
36.  h exachlorobutadi ene
37.  hexachlorocyclopentadiene
38.  isophorone
39.  nitrobenzene
40.  2-nitrophenol
41.  4-nitrophenol
42.  N-nitrosodimethylamine
43*  N-nitrosodiphenylamine
44.  N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
45.  dimethyl phthalate
46.  benzo(a)pyrene
47.  3,4-benzofluoranthene
48.  benzo(k)fluoranthane(l1,12-benzofluoranthene)
49.  acenaphthylene
50.  vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
51.  dieldrin
                                211
-------
                    Table VI-9 (Continued)
     PRIORITY ORGANICS NOT DETECTED IN TREATED EFFLUENTS
            OF SCREENING AND VERIFICATION SAMPLES
52.  chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
53.  4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDX)
54.  a-endosulfan-Alpha
55.  B-endosulfan-Beta
56.  endosulfan sulfate
57.  endrin
58.  endrin aldehyde
59.  PCB 1242 (Arochlor 1242)
60.  PCB 1254 (Arochlor 1254)
61.  PCB 1221 (Arochlor 1221)
62.  PCB 1232 (Arochlor 1232)
63.  PCB 1248 (Arochlor 1248)
64.  PCB 1260 (Arochlor 1260)
65.  PCB 1016 (Arochlor 1016)
66.  toxaphene
67.  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
                              212
-------
                           Table VI-10
          PRIORITY ORGANICS DETECTED BUT PRESENT DUE TO
        CONTAMINATION OF SOURCES OTHER THAN THOSE SAMPLES
                SCREENING AND VERIFICATION SAMPLES
 1.  benzene
 2.  chloroform
 3.  methylene chloride
 4.  phenol
 5.  bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 6.  butyl benzyl phthalate
 7.  di-n-butyl phthalate
 8.  diethyl phthalate
 9.  tetrachloroethylene
10.  toluene
                                 213
-------
Verification, and EPA Regional  Sampling  and  Analysis).   The  field
controls consisted of water that was run through the automatic sampler
for  each  composite  sample  site  prior to the actual sampling.  The
water  used  as  control  water  was  deionized  and  as   such,   any
contaminants  appearing  in  the  collected  control  water  could  be
attributed to the sampling apparatus or to  the  laboratory  analysis.
The  results for field control samples are found for all subcategories
in  Table  VI-11.    Field  blanks  were  also  collected   to   assess
contamination  in  transport  and  in  laboratory  analysis.   For the
volatile organics, deionized water was periodically placed in 45 ml to
125 ml vials and shipped to the  laboratory  for  analysis.   For  the
remainder  of  the  priority pollutants, a facility blank, prepared in
the laboratory, was hand-carried by sampling  personnel  during  field
sampling.   Table  VI-12  summarizes  the blanks for the screening and
verification sampling and analysis program.  Table VI-2 indicates that
members of the phthalate class were observed in many  of  the  samples
representing treated wastewater.

Only  two  of  the phthalates (bis-phthalate and di-n-butyl phthalate)
were detected in the raw water (refer to Table V-4); however, five  of
the  phthalates   (bis-phthalate,  di-n-butyl  phthalate,  butyl benzyl
phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate, and diethyl phthalate) were  detected
in  treated  water. This suggests that these compounds were introduced
into the water during sample collection or analysis.  It is known that
during sample collection, automatic composite samplers  were  equipped
with  polyvinyl  chloride  (Tygon)  tubing  or  manufacturer  supplied
tubing.  Phthalates are  widely used as plasticizers  to  ensure  that
tubing  remains  soft and flexible (2).  These compounds, added during
manufacturing, have a tendency to migrate to the surface of tubing and
leach out into water passing through the sample tubing.  In  addition,
laboratory  experiments  were performed to determine if phthalates and
other priority  pollutants  could  be  leached  from  tubing  used  on
automatic samplers (3).  The types of tubing used in these experiments
were:  (1)   Clear tubing originally supplied with the sampler at time
of purchase; and  (2)  Tygon S-50-HL, Class VI.  Results of analysis of
the extracts representing the original and replacement  Tygon  tubings
are  summarized   in  Table  VI-13.   The data indicate that both types
contain bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and  the  original  tubing  leaches
high  concentrations  of  phenol.  Although bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
was the only phthalate detected in the tubing in these experiments,   a
similar  experiment  conducted  as  part  of  a  study pursuant  to the
development of BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines  for  the  Textiles
Point Source Category found dimethyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, di-
n-butyl   phthalate,   and   bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,    in    tubing
"controls"    (4).    Thus,   four    of    the    phthalates     bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate,  butylbenzyl  phthalate,  di-n-butyl  phthalate,
diethyl phthalate and phenol can be attributed to contamination  during
sample collection and  cannot  be  conclusively  identified  with  the
wastewater.

A  number  of  the volatile organic compounds were detected during the
sampling   program   (benzene,   chloroform,    methylene    chloride,
tetrachloroethylene, toluene).  The volatile nature of these compounds
-------
                                               Table VI-11

                                  WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                               CONTROLS
                                          ALL SUBCATEGORIES
                                           TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ui
COMPOUND
ACENAPHTHENE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BENZIDENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
1 , 2, 3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
, 1 , 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
,1-DXCHLOROETHANE
. 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
, 1,2, 2 -TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BIS( 2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER {MIXED)
2 -CHLORON APHTHALENE
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
CHLOROFORM
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 , 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 . 4-DICHLOROBENZENE
3,3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
44
1O
10
1O
44
1O
1O
44
44
10
1O
44
1O
1O
10
1O
28
44
1O
44
44
44
10
44
44
43
43
44
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
0
O
B
0
0
O
O
0
O
1
O
O
0
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
2
O
2
0
3
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
MOUG/L MIN 10X MEDIAN MEAN §0% MAX
O .
O
O
5 21
o
O
o
o
o
0
0 3
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
1 3
O
0 3
O
O 1
O
9
• . *
27 52
9 m

.


.
3 3
.
f
.
. p

^
B
.

9
,
3 2S
.
3 3
.
2 2
.


IBS
,





3


.
^
,





.
47

3
.
3
.
-------
                                       Table  VI-11 (Continued)

                                WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                              CONTROLS
                                          ALL SUBCATEGORIES
                                           TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ro
COMPOUND
1 . 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
2 . 4-DICHLOHOPHENOL
1 . 2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 . 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
2 , 4-DIMETKYLPHENOL
2 . 4-DINITROTOLUENE
2 . 6-DINITROTOLUENE
1 . 2-QIPHENVUHYORAZINE
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORANTHENE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (DICHLOROMETHANE)
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROMOFORM
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORODX FLUOROMETHANE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
HEXACHLOROBUTAOI ENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
10
1O
44
1O
1O
44
44
44
44
1O
44
44
44
44
44
1O
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
44
44
44
44
44
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
1
O
O
O
O
9
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
1
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UO/L
>10U8/L MIN 1OX MEDIAN MEAN 9O% MAX
D .
0
O
0
O
O
O
o
o
o
0 3
0
o
o
0
7 3
O
O
O
0
0
O
o
o
o
o
O 3
O




. .


» .

3 3

9
m .

282 3R9
. .
, .
. .
. .
. ,
, .


. .

3 3
.
9
,
,
^
.
.
.
,
.
3
m
m
m
»
88O
.
.
.
m

.


.

3
.
-------
      Table VI-11 (Continued)

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
             CONTROLS
         ALL SUBCATEGORIES
          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
2-NXTROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2.4-OINITROPHENOL
4 . 6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMXNE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI -N-PROPYLAMINE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-8UTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
BENZO ( A ) ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO( B )FLUORANTHEN£
BENZO( K ) FLUORANTHENE
CHRYSENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO (Q.H, I )PERYLENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
DXBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
INDENO(1,2.3-C,D)PYRENE
PYRENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
28
44
44
29
44
44
44
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
O
1
1
0
O
O
O
2
19
2
13
O
5
O
O
O
0
0
0
O







NUMBER
SAMPLES
MOUG/L
0
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
14
O
7
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L
MIN 10% MEDIAN

,
4
6
*
.
,
,
3
3
3
1
p
1
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3
.
3
3
3
3

9
4
6
,
.
.
,
3
215
3
9
.
2
B
»
.
.
.


3
3
.
3
3
3
3
MEAN 90% MAX

9
4
a
,
t
4
.
3
453 121
3
275 88
.
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3
.
3
3
3
3

9
4
0
9
,
9
f
3
1600
3
1100
9
. 3
,
t
,
,
.
„
.
3
3
.
3
3
3
3
-------
                                        Table VI-11 (Continued)

                                  WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                               CONTROLS
                                           ALL SUBCATEGORIES
                                            TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ro
t-1
oo
COMPOUND
TETRACHLOROETHVLENE
TOLUENE
TRZCHLOROETHVLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ALDRIN
OIELDRIN
CHLORDANE
4.4-DDT
4.4-DDE
4.4-DDD
ENDOSULFAN-ALPHA
ENDOSULFAN-BETA
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
BHC-ALPHA
BHC-BETA
BHC (LINDANE) -GAMMA
BHC-DELTA
PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)
PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)
PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)
PCB-124B (AROCHLOR 1248)
PCB-126O (AROCHLOR 126O)
PCB-1O1B (AROCHLOR 1016)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
1O
1O
10
1O
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
6
1
O
2
1
O
O
1
1
O
O
O
1
O
1
2
2
O
1
2
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
NUMBER
SAMPLES
>10UG/L
O
s
0
O
O
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L
MIN 10X MEDIAN

3
3
.
3.16
3.18
.
9
3.16
3.16
.
.
.
3.16
.
3.18
3.18
3.16
„
3.16
3.16
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

23
3
t
3.16
3.16


3.16
3.16
m
,
*.
3.16
f
3.16
3.16
3.16
.
3.18
3.16
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MEAN 80% MAX

41
3
,
3.16
3.16
9
m
3.16
3.16
,
9
,
3.16
.
3.16
3.16
3. .16
,
3.16
3.16
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
146
3
.
3.16
3.16
m
m
3.16
3.16
,
.
.
3.16
,
3.16
3.16
3.16
.
3.18
3.16
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-------
                                   Table  VI-11 (Continued)

                            WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION  SUMMARY
                                            CONTROLS
                                       ALL SUBCATEGORIES
                                        TOXIC  POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
                                 TOTAL
                                 NUMBER
                                 SAMPLES
TOTAL  NUMBER
NUMBER  SAMPLES
DETECT  >10UQ/L
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L

 MIN   10%   MEDIAN  MEAN  9OX
                                                                                             MAX
TOXAPHENE                             37       O     O
2.3.7.8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN     27       0     O
ANTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE                2O       O     O
ANTIMONY (TOTAL)                      19       2     O          1
ARSENIC (TOTAL)                       19      1O     0          1
BERYLLIUM (TOTAL)                     20       0     O
CADMIUM (TOTAL)                       20       1     1         20
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)                      2O       1     1         3O
COPPER (TOTAL)                        2O       9     4          5
LEAD (TOTAL)                          2O       S     5         86
MERCURY (TOTAL)                       2O      17     O       0.1O
NICKEL (TOTAL)                        2O       2     2         SO
SELENIUM (TOTAL)                      2O       6     O          O
SILVER (TOTAL)                        20       0     O
THALLIUM (TOTAL)                      20       3     0          1
ZINC (TOTAL)                          20      1O     10        27
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
O.1O
*
*
*
*
.
.
a
1
2
t
20
30
8
100
0.35
SO
2
.
1
.
,
.
1
2
.
20
30
17
102
0.99
SO
2
,
1
                                                                                         18
                                                                    27
                               38
                           *
                           *
                    1O8   30O
                                                   1
                                                   5

                                                  20
                                                  3O
                                                  58
                                                  115
                                                3.9O
                                                  50
                                                   2
38O
-------
                                            Table VI-11 (Continued)

                                      WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                                      CONTROLS
                                                 ALL  SUBCATEGORIES
                                  CONVENTIONAL AND  NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
          COMPOUND
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECTS
 DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L

MIN   10%    MEDIAN    MEAN   BOX
      MAX
TO
ro
o
           IRON (TOTAL)
           MANGANESE (TOTAL)
           PHENOLICS(4AAP)
   2O
   20
    1
  18
  6
  O
43    I
10   *
     *
              116
               15
4O36
  46
4422
50000
  19O
-------
                                             Table VI-12

                                 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                            PLANT BLANKS
                                          ALL SUBCATEGORIES
                                          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FO
to
COMPOUND
ACENAPHTHENE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BENZIDENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2. 3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
1 . 2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
HEXACHtOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 , 2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1.2 .2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BXS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER
BISU-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER (MIXED)
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2 , 4 . 8-TRICHLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
CHLOROFORM
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 , 2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 . 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 . 4-DICHtOROBENZENE
3, 3-DICHLOROBENZIOINE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
21
If
11
11
2f
11
11
21
21
11
11
21
11
11
11
11
10
21
11
21
21
21
11
21
21
21
21
21
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
O
O
O
9
O
O
2
O
0
2
2
O
O
f
1
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
ff
O
O
0
O
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
IN UQ/L
>10UQ/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN 90% MAX
O
O
O
3 1
O
O
O 3
O
O
0 1
0 1
O
O
O 3
0 3
O
O
o
o
0
o
o
6 3
0
O
o .
o
0
¥
9
3
B
m
3
,
.
1
f
9
,
3
3
9
,
*
.
.
.
.
ff
.
9
,
,
.

f
t
18
.
m
3
.
,
2
1
,
f
3
3
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
25 5
,
,
.
.
.


110
.
.
3
f
,
3
2

.
3
3
t
.
.
m
f
.
.
13O
,
m
9
,
,
-------
                                        Table VI-12  (Continued)


                                     WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                                PLANT BLANKS
                                              ALL SUBCATEGORIES
                                              TOXIC POLLUTANTS
rvj
rv>
ro
COMPOUND
1 . 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
2 , 4-DICHLOROPHENpL
1 , 2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,3-OICHLOROPROPENE
2 . 4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2 , 4-OINITROTOLUENE
2 ,6-DINITROTOLUENE
1 , 2 -DI PHENYLHYDRAZINE
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORAHTHENE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPRQPYL) ETHER
BXS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (DICHLOROMETHANE)
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROMOFORM
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
OICHLORODIFLUOROMETHAKE
CHLOROOIBROMQMETHANE
HEXACHLOROBUTADI ENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADXENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
11
11
21
11
11
21
21
21
21
11
21
21
21
21
21
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
21
21
21
21
21
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
2
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
4
O
0
O
O
O
10
O
O
1
0
6
0
O
0
0
O
O
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
a AMPLE 9 — — — «._——— — ».- — _—...-_ _—»_•________
>10UG/L MXN 10X MEDIAN MEAN 90X MAX
O .
0 1
O
O
o
O
o
o
o
1 1
o
0
o
1 2
.
.
.

. .

.
2 6
. .


o *
o *
9 33 2BOO 5321 11OOC
O *
O *
O 3*33
O .
6 13 25 29
O .
O .
0 .
0 .
O -
O .
O .

2
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
2O
.
.
.
,
.
23000
_ .
.
3

SO
.
.
.
.

.
.
-------
                                        Table  VI-12  (Continued)

                                 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                            PLANT BLANKS
                                           ALL SUBCATEGORIES
                                           TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ro
U)
COMPOUND
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2 . 4-DINITROPHENOL
4 . 6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMZNE
N-NITROSODI -N-PROPYLAMINE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
D I ETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
BENZO ( A ) ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO (K ) FLUORANTHENE
CHRYSENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO (G.H, I )PERYLENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
01 BENZO ( A. H) ANTHRACENE
INDENO( 1 , 2 ,3-C. DIPYRENE
PYRENE
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
0
O
O
O
0
0
O
0
0
4
O
1
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
>10UG/L MIN 10% MEDIAN MEAN 9OX MAX
O .
O
O
0
0
O
0
O
O
4 16
0
1 22O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
. .





. .

840 989
. .
220 22O






. .

. ,

.
.
.



,
m
t
,
,
,
,
9
16OO
,
22O
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
-------
                                       Table VI-12 (Continued)

                                 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                            PLANT BLANKS
                                          ALL SUBCATEGORIES
                                          TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ro
ro
COMPOUND
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ALDRIN
DZELDRIN
CHLOROANE
4,4-DDT
4,4-DDE
4.4-DOD
ENDOSULFAN- ALPHA
ENDOSULFAN-BETA
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIH ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXXDE
BHC-ALPHA
BHC-BETA
BHC (LINDANE) -GAMMA
BHC-DELTA
PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)
PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)
PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)
PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)
PCB-126O (AROCHLOR 12BO)
PCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1018)
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
11
11
11
11
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
2(
21
21
21
TOTAL
NUMBER
DETECT
8
1O
1
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
NUMBER DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UQ/L
>10UQ/L MIN 1O% MEDIAN MEAN *O% MAX
3 1 * 8 IB * 4O
2 33 5 20 7O 92
0 3
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
3 3














, .










3
.
^
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-------
                                               Table VI-12 (Continued)

                                        WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
                                                     PLANT BLANKS
                                                  ALL SUBCATEGORIES
                                                  TOXIC  POLLUTANTS
            COMPOUND
TOTAL
NUMBER
SAMPLES
TOTAL   NUMBER
NUMBER  SAMPLES
DETECT  >10UG/L
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN UO/L

 MIN    10%  MEDIAN  MEAN   SOX
                                                                                                     MAX
             TOXAPHENE                           21
             2.3,7.8-TETRACHLORODXBENZO-P-DIOXIN    21
             ANTHRACENE/PHENANTHRENE               21
po
to
Ul
-------
                         Table VI-13 (3)
                 TUBING LEACHING ANALYSIS RESULTS
                                         Mlcrograms/Liter
Component
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
    Acid Extract
    Base-Neutral Extract
Phenol
    Acid Extract
    Base-Neutral Extract
Original ISCO
     915
   2,070
  19,650
    N.D.
Tygon
 N.D.
 885
 N.D.
 N.D.
N.D. - Not Detected
                                 226
-------
suggests  contamination  as  a possible source, especially considering
the relatively low  concentrations  detected  in  the  samples.   More
importantly,  all of these compounds may be found in the laboratory as
solvents,  extraction  agents  or  aerosol  propellants.   Thus,   the
presence  and/or  use  of  the  compounds  in  the  laboratory  may be
responsible for sample contamination.  This type of contamination  has
been  previously addressed in another study (5).  In a review of a set
of volatile organic blank analytical data from this study, inadvertent
contamination was shown  to  have  occurred  for  each  of  the  above
compounds (see Table VI-12).

Another contaminant is methylene chloride.  This compound is separated
and quantified with other volatile compounds.   The organics analytical
procedure  involves  the  use  of methylene chloride as a solvent (1),
(5).  Thus,  the relatively high concentrations and  the  detection  of
this  compound  in  47 of .51 of the treated water samples (Table VI-2)
may be explained by its use in analytical procedures.
Priority Orqanics Detected in Treated Effluents at One
and Uniquely Related to Those Sources
                     or  Two  Mines
The  23  pollutants  in  Table  VI-14  were  detected  at two or fewer
facilities and always at concentrations below 10 ug/1.   One  of  these
compounds  is  a  member  of  the  phthalate  family, two are volatile
organics, three are acid-extractable, twelve  are  base  neutrals  and
five  are  pesticides.   These  organics  are excluded from regulation
since they are present at less than the nominal  detection  limit  (10
ug/1)  in  two or less facilities within the category.   This level was
established by the Agency to indicate where background signals in  the
machines  used  for  analysis  begin  to mask actual detection signals
(i.e.,  the  signal  to  noise  ratio  reaches   approximately   2:1).
Examination of Tables VI-11  and VI-12 shows that 14 of these compounds
were also detected in at least one field blank or control sample.
Priority  Orqanics  Detected  but
Effectively Reduced
Present  in Amounts too Small to be
The 14 compounds in Table VI-15 were detected in treated effluents  in
this  industry.   The  concentrations of these pollutants are so small
that they cannot be substantially reduced.   In  some  cases  this  is
because  no technologies are known to further reduce them beyond those
of BPT; in other cases, the pollutant reduction cannot  be  accurately
quantified  because  the  analytical  error at these low levels can be
larger than the value itself.  These 14 p9llutants are  thus  excluded
from  regulation.  Therefore, all pollutants listed in Table VI-8 were
determined to be excluded from regulation at this time.
                                   227
-------
                           Table VI-14
               COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN TREATED WATER
                       AT ONE OR TWO MINES
                     BUT ALWAYS BELOW 10 ug/1
 1.  *1,2-dtchloroethane
 2.   hexachloroethane
 3.  *1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
 4.  *1,4-dichlorobenzene
 5.   3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
 6.  *fluoranthene
 7.   bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
 8.  *2,4-dinitrophenol
 9.  *4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
10.   pentachlorophenol
11.   di-n-octyl phthalate
12.   benzo(a)anthracene
13.   chrysene
14.  ^anthracene
15.   fluorene
                                I
16.  *phenanthrene
17.  *pyrene
18.  *benzo(g,h,i)perylene
19.  *aldrtn
20.   4,4!-DDT
21.  *4,4f-DDD
22.  *heptachlor
23.  *heptachlor epoxlde
*This compound was detected in one or more field blanks and/or
 controls.
                                228
-------
                           Table VI-15
            PRIORITY ORGANICS DETECTED BUT PRESENT IN ^
           AMOUNTS TOO SMALL TO BE EFFECTIVELY REDUCED
 1.  1,1,1,-trtchloroethane
 2.  1,1-dtchloroethylene
 3.  1,2-trans-dtchloroethylene
 4.  ethyIbenzene
 5.  trtchlorofluoromethane
 6.  trichloroethylene
 7.  1,2-d ichlorobenzene
 8.  naphthalene
 9.  dtbenzo (a,h) anthracene
10.  tndeno (l,2,3-c,d) pyrene
11.  BHC-Alpha
12.  BHC-Beta
13.  BHC-Gamma
14.  BHC-Delta
                                229
-------
PRIORITY METALS EXCLUDED FROM REGULATION
All of  the  priority  metals  have  been  excluded   from   regulation.
Examination  of  Table VI-2 shows that five priority  metals (antimony,
beryllium, cadmium, silver and thallium) and cyanide  were detected   in
effluents  at  more  than  two  facilities.  However,  in all cases  the
detected  concentrations  were  at  levels  only  slightly   above   the
detection  limit  for  each  respective  species.   This precludes  any
meaningful determination of the effectiveness of treatment  beyond   BPT
technologies .  Thus, antimony, beryl 1 ium, cadmium, cyanide,  si Iver  and
thallium  can  be  excluded  from  BAT regulation since they cannot be
effectively reduced by known technologies.

The remaining eight (arsenic, chromium, copper, lead,  mercury, nickel,
selenium, and zinc) were sometimes found at concentrations   above   the
detection limit in BPT-treated discharges as also shown in  Table VI-2.
Paragraph  8 (a) ( iii )  provides  for •  exclusion  of pollutants  if these
pollutants are already effectively  controlled  by  technologies  upon
which  other effluent limitations and guidelines are  based.  It is  the
Agency's opinion that these eight metals are in generally   low  enough
•concentrations  such  that  they  are  effectively  controlled  by  BPT
technology and thus were not selected for  national   regulation  under
BAT  or  NSPS.   However,  some  of these metals appear in  significant
amounts for  individual mines.  This results from a number of   factors,
including:  (1)
plant life that
geologies   of
variations.  In
imposition  of
in question.
                 Differing trace element compositions  in  the precursor
                 was  later  transformed   into  coal,   (2)   Differing
                strata  surrounding  the   coal ,  and   ( 3 )   Geographic
                these cases, the permit authority should  consider  the
                a limitation for the pollutant of concern for the mine
                                   230
-------
                             SECTION VII
                   TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION

Previous sections  have  presented  the  characteristics  of  raw  and
treated effluents in the coal mining industry, including the priority,
conventional,   and   nonconventional   pollutants  present  in  these
wastewaters.  This section presents the existing  treatment  practices
of  the  coal mining industry (which should reflect, at a minimum, BPT
or equivalent technology), the candidate  BAT  treatment  and  control
technologies,  and  the  associated  levels  of  conventional, noncon-
ventional and toxic pollutant reduction.  These control practices will
be evaluated only from a  technical  standpoint;  cost  considerations
will be presented in Section VIII.
APPROACH
A  summary  of  in-use treatment technology (BPT or its equivalent) is
presented in this section for each subcategory.  Next,  the  candidate
treatment  technologies  applicable  to  BPT-treated effluents in each
subcategory are reviewed.  To determine the best available technology,
all potentially available treatment techniques were assessed according
to a number of initial criteria.   These  initial  screening  criteria
are:

     1.    The candidate technology  must  produce  or  be  capable  of
producing .an  effluent of better quality than that required under BPT
guidelines.


     2.    The candidate technology must be in use or available to  the
coal   mining  industry  or  transferable  from  other  industrial  or
municipal wastewater treatment applications.


     3.    Preliminary cost studies or cost  data  must  be  available;
this  information  should  indicate  baseline  cost feasibility of the
candidate technology.
                                   231
-------
Applying these initial criteria, the following candidate
were selected:

1 .    Flocculant Addition,
2.    Granular Media Filtration,
3.    Carbon Adsorption,
4.    Ion Exchange,
5.    Reverse Osmosis,
6.    Electrodialysis,
7.    Ozonation, and
8.    Sulfide Precipitation.
                      technologies
Next, the technical feasibility of
based on the following criteria:
these  technologies  was  assessed
1.    Process fundamentals,
2.    Control effectiveness,
3.    Non-water quality impacts,
4.    Reliability,
5.    Secondary waste streams, and
6.    Preliminary cost/economic considerations.

The process fundamentals description is a short  summary  highlighting
the  major operating parameters, equipment required, and the mechanism
for pollutant reduction or removal.  The degree of this  reduction  is
presented as the control effectiveness for each technology, in tabular
form where sufficient data exist.

The  non-water  quality  impacts  resulting  from  applications  of  a
treatment  technique  are  also  discussed.   These   include   sludge
generation, air pollution, and energy requirements.

Another  factor  considered—reliability—is principally a function of
the maturity of the technology; i.e., the degree to which the  process
has been commercialized and initial problems resolved.  The generation
of  secondary  waste  streams,  such  as  brines,  are  also important
parameters in determining the  merit  of  each  technology.   Finally,
preliminary   cost   estimates  were  prepared  to  analyze  the  cost
effectiveness of each candidate technology.

After  reviewing  the  above  aspects  of  each  technology  and,   in
particular,   the   preliminary   cost   and   control  effectiveness,
appropriate candidate treatment technologies in each subcategory  were
selected.

The final screening step for the BATEA determination is application of
cost  and  economic  criteria.   Cost estimates are first prepared for
each technology not  previously  eliminated  (these  cost  curves  and
supporting  material  are presented in Section VIII).  The cost curves
for each treatment system  are  then  used  as  input  to  a  computer
economic  model.   This  computer  model  will  predict the nationwide
economic impact by geographic  region  including  total  cost  to  the
industry;  changes  in  selling  price of the commodity, productivity,
                                   232
-------
employment, and number of operating  facilities;  and  import/  export
fluctuations.   The  results of this economic assessment are contained
in a separate document entitled, "Economic Impact Analysis  for  Final
Effluent Limitations and Standards for the Coal Mining Industries."
ACID MINE DRAINAGE
Current Treatment Technology

Raw  wastewaters from mines exhibiting acid drainage are characterized
by low pH and high levels of dissolved iron  and  other  metals.   Raw
wastewaters  from  surface  operations  may carry substantial sediment
loads.  The effluent limitations currently in force can be achieved by
application of the best practicable technology to  these  wastewaters.
For  this  subcategory,  this  level  of  technology includes chemical
precipitation/pH adjustment, aeration, and settling.  A flow chart for
a typical BPT treatment system is illustrated in Figure  Vll-l.    Each
of  the  principal  process  units  is discussed below.  The raw water
holding pond, although not  always  installed,  is  employed  by  many
facilities   as   an   equalization  basin.   Variation  in  flow  and
pollutants, particularly pH, can be minimized by this pond.   Overflow
from  this  facility is then commonly routed to a mixing tank where pH
adjustment is initiated.

pH Adjustment/Chemical Precipitation

This technology consists of the addition of  an  alkaline  reagent  to
acid  mine  drainage.to raise the pH to between six and nine.  This pH
change also causes the solubilities of positively charged  metal  ions
to decrease and thus precipitate (settle as an insoluble compound) out
of  solution.   These  metal  ions  are  replaced  in solution by more
acceptable calcium,  magnesium and  sodium  ions.    In  general,   three
types of reactions occur as a result of pH adjustment:

     1.   Neutralization, an ion exchange reaction that, in  the  case
of  acid  mine  drainage,  combines  basic  hydroxyl  ions with acidic
hydronium ions;


     2.   Oxidation,  which converts  ferrous  iron  (iron  in  the  +2
valence state) to ferric iron (iron in the +3 valence state); and
     3.    Precipitation,  which results from
toxic and other metal ions.
solubility  decreases  of
                                   233
-------
               Raw
               Waatewater
  RAW Water
Holding Pond
                                                     Neutralization
                                                       Chemical
                                                         Feed
Mixer or
Aeration
 Tank
Settling
Facility
treated
                                                                                           Discharge
LO
                                                   Figure VII-1

                        TYPICAL  BPT TREATMENT CONFIGURATION FOR ACID MINE DRAINAGE
-------
The  precipitates  are, in most cases, metal hydroxides such as ferric
hydroxide (Fe(OH)3)  which  can  be  removed  to  a  great  extent  by
settling.   One of four reagents are commonly used to effect the above
reactions: hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2),  calcined  or  quick  lime  (CaO),
caustic  soda (NaOH), or soda ash  (NazC03).  Selection of one of these
alkaline compounds depends upon the acidity  and  ferrous/ferric  iron
ratio  of  the  raw  mine  water, and the availability and cost of the
reagents.

Hydrated Lime is the most commonly used reagent for pH adjustment.  It
can be introduced as an aqueous slurry or as a dry powder.  The slurry
can be prepared using the acid drainage, good quality water or treated
effluent.  Dry lime or lime slurry is then, in most  cases,  added  to
the  acid mine drainage (AMD) in a mixing tank.  Addition rates can be
controlled automatically or manually.

Calcined Lime (also termed "unslaked" or "quicklime") can also be used
as a reagent.  A potential problem with the  use  of  either  calcined
lime  or  hydrated lime is the formation of gypsum (CaS04 2H20).   This
compound forms when calcium ions from the lime  reagent  combine  with
the  typically  high  concentrations  of  sulfate ions present in AMD.
Gypsum will deposit on tanks,  impellers,  piping,  control  equipment
including  pH probes, and other surfaces that contact the treated AMD.
High concentrations of gypsum, if allowed to accumulate, may result in
plugged lines and damaged equipment.  This  problem  can  be  lessened
with  proper  chemical  dosages,  and correctly sized pipes and tanks.
The selection of the type of lime used is a matter of economics  which
usually  favor hydrated lime except in very large installations,  where
use of unslaked lime becomes advantageous.

Caustic Soda or Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) is used as the  neutralization
reagent  in  a  number of acid mines; most of these have drainage with
lesser acidity and iron concentrations, or low flows.  Caustic soda is
a strong base, but it is also the most expensive per unit of  alkaline
equivalence.   As  an aqueous solution, it mixes readily with AMD, and
reacts rapidly.

The use of an aqueous solution of caustic soda may eliminate the  need
for expensive dispensing and mixing equipment.  Savings in capital and
operating  costs  of such a system may more than offset the additional
expense of the reagent when only small amounts of alkali  are  needed.
Where  calcium  is  the  limiting  reactant,  caustic  soda  does  not
precipitate calcium  sulfate.   This  substantially  decreases  gypsum
deposits.

Caustic  soda  use  also  has  several  disadvantages.  The reagent is
dangerous  to  handle,  requiring  the  use  of  protective  clothing.
Although it is available in 50 percent solution, this solution freezes
at  54°  F  and  thus  often  requires  heating  to remove it from the
transport containers.  Thus, a 20 percent solution  is  favored  where
winter  temperatures  are  below  freezing.  Nevertheless, even the 20
percent solution can continue  to  be  difficult  to  pump  at  winter
temperatures.   Also,  because sodium hydroxide is such a strong base,
                                235
-------
closer flow-proportioned control is required to prevent  overtreatment
(1).

Soda  Ash  or Sodium Carbonate (Na^CO,)  is used as an alkaline reagent
by a small perdentage of mining operations.  Although some  degree  of
caution  must  be  exercised  in  the  use  of  soda  ash, the hazards
associated with its handling are less than with caustic soda.  Similar
to lime, soda ash can be added dry (ground or in briquettes), or as  a
slurry.   The sludge formed with soda ash settles to greater densities
than sludge resulting from lime addition or caustic soda, but  reagent
consumption is also relatively high.

Limestone has the lowest cost of any of the neutralizing reagents.  It
is  used  minimally,  however,  because  of several      factors.  Two
predominant disadvantages are that limestone has very  low  reactivity
at  high  pH  and  its  use  results in the formation of gypsum.  This
substance coats  the  unreacted  limestone  and  further  reduces  its
reactivity.   The  achievable  pH  ceiling  for limestone treatment is
approximately 7.5, which is insufficient to  precipitate  many  metals
(particularly manganese) (1).

The  control effectiveness of neutralization and settling on metals is
dependent  upon  the  reagent  used,    influent   and   effluent   pH,
temperature,  flow,  and  the presence of any side reactions including
metal chelation and mixed-metal hydroxide complexing.  Complete mixing
of the alkaline agent and AMD is also important to control effluent pH
and metals removal.  Table VII-1 presents metals removal data for lime
neutralization generated in a pilot plant  treatment  study  at  EPA's
Crown  Field  site (2).  Referring again to Figure VII-1, oxidation of
iron from its ferrous to ferric state can be achieved using aeration.

Aeration

Often, aeration is accomplished by allowing the water to  simply  flow
or  cascade  down  a  staircaselike  trough or sluiceway.  This causes
turbulence that increases the oxygen transfer rate and  therefore  the
oxidation  reaction  rate.   In  other cases, the air or oxygen may be
supplied by one or more of the following types of aerators:

1.    Diffused air systems,
2.    Submerged turbine aerators
3.    Surface aerators.

The oxidation system consists of a tank or pond fitted with one of the
above aeration systems.  The presence of dissolved oxygen supplied  by
the  aerating  technique oxidizes ferrous ions enhancing the formation
of essentially insoluble ferric hydroxide.  The  resulting  sludge  is
more easily settled.  Temperature, pH, flow, dissolved oxygen content,
and initial concentration are all important design parameters (3).

The  control  performance  of  aeration  will  cause a nearly complete
conversion of influent ferrous ion to the oxidized  or  ferric  state.
Further, many volatile organics present are often stripped or oxidized
                                  236
-------
                           Table VII-1

           TRACE ELEMENT REMOVAL BY LIME NEUTRALIZATION
                 - CROWN MINE PILOT PLANT STUDY -
Parameters
Ar s enic
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorous
Selenium
Zinc
Spiked
Influent
1 .90 mg/1
2.36
-90
.54
5.30
.50
.66
9.83
.94
5.65
pH-7
mg/1
.10
2.25
.18
.04
.30
.02
.34
3.81
.05
1 .01
pH-9
mg/1
.04
-
.08
.07
.11
.01
.08
2.30
.16
.11
pH-11
mg/1
.03
1 .90
.01
.05
.06.
.02
.06
3.56
.39
.11
Source:  (2)
                            237
-------
by  this  process  to  nondetectable  levels  (4).  Referring again to
Figure  VI I-1,   the  neutralized  wastewater,  laden  with   insoluble
precipitates,   is  routed  to  a  settling  facility  prior  to  final
discharge.

Settling

The process of  sedimentation  removes  the  suspended  solids,  which
includes   the   insoluble   precipitates.    Sedimentation   can   be
accomplished in a settling pond or clarifier (a settling  tank).   The
extent  of  solids  removal depends upon surface area, retention time,
flow patterns,  settling characteristics of influent suspended  solids,
and   other   operating   parameters  of  a  particular  installation.
Clarifiers are mechanical settling devices which  can  be  used  where
insufficient  land  exists  for  construction  of  a pond.  Clarifiers
operate on essentially the same principles as  a  sedimentation  pond.
The  most  significant advantage of a clarifier is that closer control
of operating parameters such as retention time and sludge removal  can
be  maintained,  while  problems such as runoff from precipitation and
short-circuiting can be avoided.

Center feed (the most common), rectangular, and peripheral feed basins
are a few of the several clarifier designs.   Center  feed  Clarifiers
have  four  distinct sections:  the inlet zone, the quiescent settling
zone, the outlet zone, and the sludge zone.  The inlet zone  allows  a
smooth  transition  from  the high velocities of the inlet pipe to the
low uniform velocity needed in the settling zone.  Careful control  of
the   velocity   change  is  necessary  to  avoid  turbulence,  short-
circuiting, and carryover.  The quiescent settling zone must be  large
enough  to  reduce the net upward water velocity to below the settling
rate of the solids.  The outlet zone provides a  transition  from  the
low-velocity settling zone to the relatively high overflow velocities.
The  sludge  zone  must  effectively  settle, compact, and collect the
solids and remove this sludge without  disturbing  the  settling  zone
above.  The bottom of the circular clarifier is usually sloped five to
eight degrees to the center of the unit where sludge is collected in a
hopper   for   removal.    Mechanically  driven  sludge  rakes  rotate
continuously and scrape the sludge  down  the  sloped  bottom  to  the
sludge hopper (see Figure VII-2).

The rectangular basin or clarifier is similar to a section of a center
feed  clarifier with the inlet at one end and the outlet at the other.
Usually a flight system removes sludge in the rectangular basin.   The
flights  travel  along  the  basin  bottom  to  convey the sludge to a
discharge hopper.  To avoid turbulence, which would  hinder  settling,
the  flight  system  moves  slowly.   This  type  of clarifier has the
advantage that common walls can be  used  between  multiple  units  to
reduce construction costs (see Figure VII-3).

The  peripheral feed or rim feed Clarifiers shown in Figure VII-4, are
designed to utilize the entire volume of the circular clarifier  basin
for  sedimentation.   In  both  types  of Clarifiers, water enters the
lower section at the periphery  at  very  low  velocities  to  provide
                                 238
-------
*^
>)
TV
' \ ^
10
^
'T
/
c^l^NJxJ'^J-^

                                                  EFFLUENT
Source:  (5)
                          Figure
               CIRCULAR CENTER FEED CLARIFIER WITH
                 A SCRAPER SLUDGE REMOVAL SYSTEM
                          239
-------
                   DRIVE SPROCKET
                                                             ADJUSTABLE WEIRS
INFLUENT
                                                            FLIGHT-
                  SLUDGE HOPPER
Source:   (5)
                             Figure VII-3

                 RECTANGU7-AR SEDIMENTATION  CLARIFIER
                   WITH CHAIN AND FLIGHT COLLECTOR
                                  210
-------
        INFLUENT
                                                      EFFLUENT
                                                   SLUDGE
     (a)  CIRCULAR  RIM-FEED,  CENTER. TAKE-OFF CLARIFIER WITH A
             HYDRAULIC SUCTION SLUDGE REMOVAL SYSTEM
                                                      INFLUENT


                                                i	»   EFFLUENT
                                            SLUDGE
           (b)  CIRCULAR RIM-FEED, RIM TAKE-OFF  CLARIFIER




                            Figure VII-4

                    PERIPHERAL FEED CLARIFIERS
Source:   (5)
                                  241
-------
immediate  settling  of  large  particles.   In  a peripheral take-off
configuration,  the  flow  then  accelerates  toward  the  center  and
subsequently  drops as the flow reverses and redirects to a peripheral
overflow weir.  In the center take-off system,  effluent is  discharged
through  weirs  located  centrally.   Peripheral  feed  clarifiers are
sensitive  to  temperature  changes  and  load  fluctuations.   Sludge
recirculation is difficult with these types of clarifiers.

Clarification  of  acid  mine drainage produces two secondary streams:
the clear overflow or decant and the sludge underflow.   The  overflow
is  often  discharged in current treatment systems.  The dilute solids
underflow stream, usually of only 5 to 10 percent  solids  content  is
often   dewatered   further   before   final  disposal.    Evaporation,
centrifugation,  and vacuum filtration are several techniques that  may
be  used  to further dewater sludges from clarifiers prior to ultimate
disposal.

Installation of  clarifiers to provide sedimentation is principally  in
hilly  or  mountainous  areas  where suitable land for a sedimentation
pond is difficult to obtain.  Ponds can also be installed  to  provide
sedimentation  capability.   The  settling  pond  can  be  created  by
excavating a depression or damming a natural runoff water course.  For
example, an abandoned strip mine pit  at  surface  facilities  may  be
used.

The  purpose of  a sediment basin is to remove sediment from runoff and
thus protect drainageways, properties,  and  rights-of-way  below  the
sediment  basin   from sedimentation (6).   Construction of these basins
is regulated primarily by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM) in the Department  of  Interior.   A  settling  pond
operates  on  the  principle  that  as the sediment laden water passes
through the pond, the particles will  settle  to  the  bottom  and  be
trapped.  Some  of  the  factors  affecting the settling velocity of a
particle include water viscosity (which is  a  sensitive  function  of
temperature),  and  the density, size, and shape of the particle.  For
instance,  as the temperature increases, the water viscosity decreases,
and thus a particle will have a  greater  settling  velocity  in  warm
water (7,  8, 9,  10, 11, 12).

The  use  of  sedimentation  facilities  has  been  commonplace in the
industry for some  time.   Some  mines,  particularly  in  mountainous
areas,  may  opt  for  several  small  ponds.  These ponds are usually
constructed in series, with the decant of one  flowing  into  another.
Other  acid mine drainage treatment plants use two ponds in a parallel
configuration.  When the  sludge  content  in  one  pond  has  reached
capacity,   flow  is  diverted to the second pond and the sludge in the
first is either  removed by dredging or allowed to undergo  drying  and
compaction  which  greatly reduces the sludge volume.  When the second
pond is full of  sludge, flow is returned to the first and the cycle is
repeated.   Application of the above  treatment  technologies  to  acid
mine  drainage  will result in achievement of the BPT limitations dis-
cussed in Reference 13.
                                 242
-------
Candidate Treatment Technologies

Source  control  options  are  discussed  under  the  best  management
practices   subsection   (Section   X).    The  candidate  end-of-pipe
technologies  examined  for  treatment  of  acid  mine  drainage  were
previously listed and include:

   1.   Flocculant Addition,
   2.   Granular Media Filtration,
   3.   Activated Carbon,
   4.   Ion Exchange,
   5.   Reverse Osmosis,
   6.   Electrodialysis,
   7.   Ozonation, and
   8.   Sulfide Precipitation.

The  first  two  technologies  were  selected  for further study.  The
remaining  technologies  and  the  reasons  for  their  rejection  are
discussed below.

Activated Carbon

Activated  carbon  technology  is  predicated  upon  the  considerable
sorptive properties of granular or  powdered  carbon.   The  activated
carbon  process  is  often  associated with organics removal, although
some reduction of heavy metals can also be accomplished (14, 15).

A typical system is depicted in Figure VI1-5.  Contaminated  water  is
introduced  across  a  fixed  or  moving  bed  of granular or powdered
activated carbon.  Residence time in the  bed  is  the  major  control
parameter  for  pollutant removal.  When a bed becomes fully loaded or
exhausted,  the  adsorbent  must  be  regenerated  or   disposed   of.
Regeneration  (for  granulated  carbon  only)  is  usually effected by
heating  to  volatilize  any  organics  and/or  heavy   metals.    The
adsorptive  capacity  of carbon depends on the pore size, typical size
of the sorbed molecules, pH of  the  solution,  temperature,  and  the
initial   pollutant   concentration.   Adsorption  capacity  generally
increases  as  pH  decreases  and,  normally,  adsorption   efficiency
increases  as the concentration increases (14).

A  large  amount  of data is available on organic pollutant removal by
this technology, whereas less data exist in the literature for  metals
removal.    For  cases  where  metals  are  present  in  the  untreated
wastewater at the parts per million level, significant  reductions  of
Sb,  As,   hexavalent  Cr, Sn, Ag, Hg,  Pb, and Ni are documented in the
literature  (16).   Cu,   Cd,  and  Zn  removals  vary  widely,   while
concentrations of Ba, Se, Mo, Mn, and W are not significantly reduced.
BPT-treated effluents in the coal mining industry contain toxic metals
at the parts per billion level, and data quantifying reductions beyond
these levels are not available.

Table  VII-2  presents  an  estimate of general effluent water quality
parameters.   Suspended solids will quickly foul  an  activated  carbon
-------
                           Table VII-2
     ESTIMATED EFFLUENT CONTAMINANT LEVELS - ACTIVATED CARBON
pH
Tocal iron
Dissolved iron
Manganses,  total
Total suspended
   solids
                       Acid Mines
                        Alkaline Mines
30-Day
Average*
6-9.00
2.00
0.30
2.00
Daily
Maximum*
6-9.00
3.00
0.60
4.00
30- Day
Average*
6-9.00
2.00
—
__
Daily
Maximum*
6-9.00
3.00
—
_..
15.00
30.00
15.00
30.00
*All values in mg/1 except pH,
Source:  (15)
                                 244
-------
       MonnntTQ +
       UMOGtMINQ
uruxn
went
CA«SOH

 KD
                    K7*
CAMON
 uo
OkMOM

 ICO
               mMm
                            nwoucr
                            UATtt
             me.
                          win
          Figure VII-5

       ACTIVATED CARBON SYSTEM
              245
-------
column,   hence,   filtration,   which   will   itself  reduce  metals
concentrations, is a required pretreatment step in an activated carbon
system.  Activated carbon columns would be very difficult  to  operate
at remote sites.  Some provision for regeneration (typically including
multiple  hearth , furnaces)  is  required  to  make such a system cost
effective.  Beyond this, the substantial capital  cost  for  equipment
and  the  high  operating  costs  for carbon purchase and regeneration
cannot be justified for any potential additional reductions of  metals
beyond  BPT.  Based on these factors, activated carbon is not selected
as a BAT option for further analysis.

Ion Exchange.  The property of reversible interchange of ions  between
solids and liquids is the fundamental principle of ion exchange.  Ion-
rich  water is introduced into an exchanger or column in which a solid
resin  bed  resides.   This   resin,   most   commonly   a   type   of
styrenedivinylbenzene copolymer, has the ability to sorb (capture) and
contain  ions  before  release  during  regeneration.  Of the many ion
exchange configurations available, a  typical  arrangement/  shown  in
Figure  VII-6,  is  a  cation  column  using  an  acidic  solution for
regeneration,  followed  by  an  anion  column   using   an   alkaline
regeneration  solution  to  elute  (de-absorb  with  a solvent) sorbed
anions.

Individual  ion  exchange  systems  do  not  generally  exhibit  equal
affinity  or  capacity  for  each  ionic species, and hence may not be
suited for broad-spectrum removal  schemes  in  wastewater  treatment.
Their   behavior  and  performance  are  usually  dependent  upon  pH,
temperature, exchange resins, and concentration.  The highest  removal
efficiencies  are  generally  observed for polyvalent ions.  In waste-
water treatment, some pretreatment or  preconditioning  of  wastes  to
adjust  suspended  solid concentrations and other parameters is likely
to be necessary.

High concentrations of ions other  than  those  to  be  recovered  may
interfere  with  practical  removal.   Calcium  ions, for example, are
generally* collected along with the divalent  heavy  metal  cations  of
copper,  zinc, lead, etc.  High calcium ion concentrations, therefore,
may make ion exchange removal of divalent heavy metal ions impractical
by causing rapid loading of resins.

Ion exchange can effectively produce low levels of  metals.   However,
although  ion  exchange  is  a  commercially  available technology, it
becomes uneconomical on streams high in dissolved solids due to  resin
replacement  costs.   Even  at less than 500 ppm dissolved solids, ion
exchange is expensive and requires relatively sophisticated  equipment
and  control   (2,  3, 17).  Table VII-3 presents data from an EPA mine
drainage study snowing metals removal (2).

A  number  of  operational  disadvantages  are  associated  with  this
technology.  For instance, secondary pollution stream is generated and
must  be  treated.   Iron  fouling  is  a common problem in the cation
sorption column, necessitating an  acidification  step  prior  to  the
first  resin  bed.   Also,  'a  final  effluent  neutralization step is
                                  246
-------
                           Table VII-3

          ION EXCHANGE EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY (in mg/1)
Faramecer
Spiked Feed
  (mean)
Cation Effluent
    (mean)
Anion Effluenc
    (mean)
pH
Ars enic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron, cotal
M angaries e
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
4.8
2.47
0.95
0.63
7.27
160
3.9
0.72
0.86
1.34
7.44
1.9
1.68
0.04
0.05
0.11
2.1
0.09
0.07
0.02
T.19
0.14
9.9
0.52
0.001
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.001
0.02
0.09
0.03
Source:  Adapted from (2)
                                 247
-------
Sulfuric acid
Trace element injection i
y Acid mine drainage f





fU
oo
1 *

To Waste
[Backwash]



,
Backwash
1 -1



CATION
EXCHANGER

•— — * — •
^rn
11 	







Sodium
hydroxide
	 T






o,..






^i^ivi
r



ANION
EXCHANGE!


-Ml

1
To waste
(Backwash)

:

	 h~
                              To waste
                      (Regeneration and rinses)
                                                                                Product
      To  waste
(Regeneration and rinses)
'To
 filiation, and
 chlorination)
Source:   (2)
                                      Figure VII-6
                    CONCEPUTAL DESIGN OF AN ION EXCHANGE SYSTEM
-------
required if the pH remains too high downstream of the anion exchanger.
Acidic and basic regenerant solutions are required.  Operation of this
relatively sophisticated system at remote  sites,  especially  in  the
mountainous terrain of Appalachia, would be very difficult.  For these
reasons,  this technology was not selected as a BAT option for further
analysis.

Reverse Osmosis

Reverse osmosis is the process of concentrating ions on one side of  a
semipermeable  membrane by the application of external pressure.  This
pressure must be sufficient to overcome  the  osmotic  gradient  which
acts in the opposite direction—hence, the name reverse osmosis.  This
is schematically illustrated in Figure VII-7.  Water is separated from
the  ions  by forcing it across a membrane, which is impervious to ion
transfer.  Treated water is then decanted and  discharged,  while  the
brine requires further treatment prior to disposal.

Since  1966,  the  EPA  has been sponsoring and conducting research to
determine the potential of using reverse osmosis to  treat  acid  mine
drainage.   This  EPA work includes pilot plant studies that have been
undertaken at the Crown Mine Drainage Control Field Site  (2).  Results
from these and other research efforts (19) have shown that in treating
mine drainage, reverse osmosis can remove nearly all dissolved  solids
and  up  to  95  percent  of  the  aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium,
manganese,  sodium, and sulfate ions.

The basic reverse osmosis system consists of  a  number   of  potential
pretreatment  steps (e.g./ filtration, pH adjustment); a  high pressure
pump (400 to 800 psig); a reverse osmosis membrane package; and  post-
treatment,    if   necessary  (Figure  VII-8).   One  of   the  problems
encountered  in  applying  reverse  osmosis  to  acid  mine   drainage
treatment  is  fouling  of  the membranes.  Fouling of a  semipermeable
membrane is defined as any reduction in permeability or efficiency due
to blinding of the membrane by suspended solids, age of the  membrane,
or  deterioration  of  the  membrane.   Membrane fouling  progressively
lowers water recovery (until recovery rates are no longer practical).

The two major causes of fouling in the treatment of acid  mine drainage
are chemical and bacterial.  Two solutions for the  bacterial  fouling
are  to  disinfect the water before it enters the reverse osmosis unit
or to adjust the mine water to below  pH  2.5  which  greatly  retards
bacterial  growth.  The two chief chemical compounds that can foul the
membrane  are  the  sulfates  of  iron  and  calcium.   Under   normal
conditions  ferric  iron  fouling  can  be  controlled  either  by the
addition of an acid to maintain a pH below 3.0 or by the  addition  of
reducing  chemicals  such  as sodium sulfite, to reduce ferric iron to
ferrous.  The stream can also be filtered  prior  to  polishing  in  a
reverse  osmosis  unit  to remove suspended material such as ferric or
calcium sulfate.

Table VII-4  presents  effluent  pollutant  reductions  of  acid  mine
drainage  achievable  by reverse osmosis.  Although reverse osmosis is
                                  249
-------
                           Table VII-4
        EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY ACHIEVED BY REVERSE OSMOSIS
                            (in mg/1)
Parameter
pH
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron, cotal
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Spiked Feed
(mean)
2.2
2-29
0.83
0.54
6.18
170
110
0.23
0.74
1.17
6,25
Produce
(mean)
2.0
0.01
0.006
0.01
0.01
0.30
0.20
0.06
0.01
0.11
0.06
Brine
(mean)
3.6
3.58
1.22
0.82
9.12
270
130
0.17
1.10
1.83
9.63
Source:  Adapted from  (2)
                               250
-------
              Pressure
                            S emipermeab 1 e
                               membrane
              Concentrated

              Solution
Dilute

Solution
                           Figure VII-7

              TRANSFER AGAINST OSMOTIC GRADIENT IN
                     REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM
Source:  Adapted from  (18)
                               251
-------
         Influent
                                                                     Monitor
ro
m
ro
Ft




pH
Pump
Iter (400-800 psi)
/ c
t Vlx
PresHtirp Vessel
^^^^temb ran e
I
I

1 .
	 1 	 *.

i »
1 Concentrated
Adjustment Brine
                                                                                Treated
                                              Figure VII-8


                                  SCHEMATIC OF REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM


          Source:   Adapted from (18)
-------
slightly more effective than  lime  neutralization  and  settling  for
metals  removals,  this  technology  is very expensive and appropriate
only for low volume, high dissolved  solids  feed  streams.   Further,
concentrated  brine  requiring further treatment is generated from the
separation chambers.

Based on the above considerations, reverse osmosis was not selected as
a BAT option for further analysis.

Electrodialysis

Electrodialysis can be used for the control of dissolved inorganics in
coal mine wastewaters.  The technology is  based  upon  differentially
permeable  membranes  operating  in  an  electric field.  Contaminated
water is introduced into a cell or "stack" of alternating  anion-  and
cation-permeable membranes.  With an electric field applied across the
stack  providing  the  driving force,  ions are forced into alternating
cells,  while deionized water is withdrawn  from  the  remaining  cells
(Figure  VII-9).   A small bench-scale electrodialysis unit was tested
by the Federal Water Pollution  Control  Administration  at  its  Mine
Drainage  Treatment  Laboratory,  Norton,  West Virginia, in cooperation
with the Office of Saline Water (17).   When used on  drainage  without
pretreatment,  the  cathode  cell quickly became fouled with iron.  In
those  cases  where  the  mine  drainage  was   pretreated   by   lime
neutralization  for  iron  removal,  the unit operated satisfactorily.
Electrodialysis is a costly technology suitable chiefly for low  flow,
high dissolved solids streams, with pretreatment frequently necessary.
Energy requirements to maintain the electrical field add significantly
to  the operating costs.  The process also produces a secondary stream
of concentrated brine that requires further treatment.  Based  on  the
above considerations, electrodialysis was not selected as a BAT option
for further analysis.

Ozonation

Ozone,   03,  is  an unstable molecule that is a powerful oxidant.  Its
primary application to the coal mining industry is oxidation  of metal
compounds that  render  them  less  soluble  and  thus  increases  the
settling  rates.   It  has  also  been  shown  to  be effective in the
oxidation of soluble manganese to an  insoluble  state  which  can  be
removed  prior  to discharge into streams.  Because of the instability
of ozone, facilities for on-site generation are required.   The gas  is
generated  by  passing  air  across  a  high  voltage  field  (5 to 30
kilovolts).  The gas is then injected into a  stream  where  oxidation
occurs  (3).   Preliminary  cost  estimates  show  ozonation  to  be a
relatively costly technology.   Further,   no  data  are  available  to
quantify  toxic  metals  removal  by  ozonation  systems  on coal mine
drainage.

Finally,  suspended  solids  in  substantial   concentrations   impede
ozonation  performance  (16).  Because of these factors, ozonation was
not selected as a BAT option.
                                   253
-------
                  ^ ,.  FEED TO   SAUNE FEED
                 CONCENTRATES CELLS  WATER
^G*5
^


{'CATHODE
>—




8
s

1

<


-D
^ft-





1
CATH
] c

'
Sk
Jf*




1
1
A ! C

»
Sk

2
e»






ODE
WASTED

s^ J
A
ce ~
i
8

*


\
h
«
*•
a
1
1
1
1
1 	 	





i

t
A ! C


Ek

[
1
i


v. >
1*
% 5 **
ut
u
CLpOR


i
i
A ! C

-®
6k

i
3
o
1
1
1
|

- T~ 	 	
1
t
TJ
I
X *
**
^ a^'
£
UJ
I
I

A F fDi
A :

&
^

i
\
1
1
t
1
	 1





^^
a
K

&






ANODE
WASTE
                                                          r
                     CONCENTRATE  PRODUCT


                   ELECTRODIALYSIS STACK
                         Figure VII-9

            CONFIGURATION OF ELECTRODIALYSIS CELLS
Source:   (17)
-------
Sulfide Precipitation

Sulfide precipitation  is  analogous  to   lime  precipitation   in   that
heavy  metal  cations   (positively  charged)  are combined with anions
(negatively charged) to form an  insoluble compound that settles out of
solution.  In this  process,  sulfide  is   the  anion  used.   Sulfide
precipitates  vary  in  solubility  which   will  determine the removal
efficiency.  Heavy metal sulfides are  in  general  very  insoluble  and
have excellent settling properties.  Table  VII-5 gives the theoretical
solubilities  of  hydroxides  and  sulfides of various metals in  pure
water.  In addition to having lower solubilities  than  hydroxides in
the alkaline pH ranges, sulfides also  tend  to have low solubilities in
the pH 7 range or below (14).  Several steps enter into the process of
sulfide   precipitation  (16):   1.   Preparation  of  sodium  sulfide.
Although this product  is often in oversupply from  byproduct  sources,
it  can  also  be  made  by  reduction of sodium sulfate.  The process
involves an energy loss in the partial oxidation of  carbon   (such as
that contained in coal) as follows:
Na2S04
         4C  —
Na2S + 4CO (gas)
2.  Precipitation of the pollutant metal (M) in the waste stream by an
excess of sodium sulfide:

Na2S + MS04 	->  MS (precipitate) + Na2S04

3.   Physical  separation  of  the  metal  sulfide  in  thickeners  or
clarifiers, with reducing conditions maintained by excess sulfide ion.

4.  Oxidation of excess sulfide by aeration:

Na2S + 202  	>  Na2S04

In practice, sulfide precipitation can be best applied when the pH  is
sufficiently  high  (greater  than  eight)  to  assure  generation  of
sulfide, rather than bisulfide ion or hydrogen sulfide gas.  A process
utilizing ferrous sulfide as the principal source of sulfide  ion  has
been  developed  and appears to overcome the problem from the FeS only
when other heavy metals with lower  equilibrium  constants  for  their
sulfide  form are present in solution.  If the pH can be maintained at
8.5 to 9, the liberated iron will form a hydroxide and precipitate out
as well.

Although very effective in pollutant  removal,   sludge  produced  from
sulfide  precipitation  is  easily degraded to soluble salts that will
leach toxic materials.   Sludge produced from  lime  addition  is  much
more stable (15).   The most probable application of sulfide technology
is  as  a  polishing  unit  downstream  of  a lime precipitation unit.
However, to be implemented  in  the  coal  industry,  the  problem  of
potential  leaching of soluble salts from sulfide precipitation sludge
must be mitigated or circumvented.  Also, the cost of  operation  with
sulfides  is  much  higher  than lime neutralization, with only slight
improvement in  effluent  quality.   These  factors  preclude  sulfide
                                   255
-------
                              Table VII-5
               THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF HYDROXIDES  AND
                 SULPIDES OF HEAVY METALS IN PURE WATER
Metal
Cadmium (Cd++)
Chromium (Cr+++)
Cobalt (Co++)
Copper (Cu++)
Iron (Fe++)
Lead (Pb++)
Manganese (Mn++)
Mercury (Hg++)
Nickel (N1++)
Silver (Ag+)
Tin (Sn++)
Zinc (Zn++)
 Solubility of Metal Ion (mg/1)
 As Hydroxide        As Sulflde
 2.3 x 10-5
 8.4 x 10-4
 2,2 x 10-1
 2.2 x lO-2
 8.9 x 10-1
 2.1
 1.2
 3.9 x 10-4
 6.9 x 10-3
13-3
 1.1 x 10-4
 1.1
6.7 x 10-10
No precipitate
1.0 x 10-8
5.8 x 10-18
3.4 x 10-5
3.8 x 10-9
2.1 x 10-3
9.0 x 10-20
6.9 x 10-8
7.4 x 10-12
3.8 x 10-8
2.3 x 10-7
Sources:  (20, 21, 22)
                                  256
-------
precipitation  from  being  considered  as  a candidate best available
technology.

The two technologies recommended for further evaluation  and  economic
impact   assessments   are  flocculant  addition  and  granular  media
filtration.  These are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Flocculant Addition

Flocculant addition is a term often used interchangeably with chemical
coagulation.  The process involves the  aggregation  and  settling  of
suspended  particles by the addition of a coagulant aid.  Technically,
coagulation involves the reduction of  electrostatic  surface  charges
and  the  initial  formation  of  aggregated material.  Coagulation is
essentially instantaneous in that the only time required is that  time
necessary  for  dispersing the chemicals in solution.  Flocculation is
the time dependent physical process of the aggregation  of  wastewater
solids  into  particles large enough to be separated by sedimentation,
flotation, or filtration.

For particles in the colloidal and  fine  supracolloidal  size  ranges
(less  than  one  to  two  micrometers),  natural  stabilizing  forces
(electrostatic repulsion, physical repulsion by absorbed surface water
layers) predominate over  the  natural  aggregating  forces  (van  der
Waals) and the natural mechanism which tends to cause particle contact
(Brownian motion).  The function of chemical coagulation of wastewater
may  be the removal of suspended solids by destabilization of colloids
to increase settling velocity, or the removal  of  soluble  metals  by
chemical precipitation or adsorption on a chemical floe (16).

There   are   three   different   types   of  flocculants:   inorganic
electrolytes,  natural  organic   polymers   and   synthetic   organic
Polyelectrolytes.   Inorganic  electrolytes  are  salts or multivalent
ions such as alum (aluminum sulfate)  that  act  by  neutralizing  the
charged double layer of colloidal particles.  Natural organic polymers
are  derived  from  starch, vegetable materials, or monogalactose, and
act to agglomerate colloidal particles through  hydrogen  bonding  and
electrostatic  forces.   Synthetic  polyelectrolytes are polymers that
incorporate ionic or other functional groups along the carbon chain in
the molecule.  The functional groups can be  either  anionic  (attract
positively  charged  species), neutral or cationic (attract negatively
charged species).  Polyelectrolytes function by electrostatic  bonding
and  the  formation  of  physical  bridges  between particles,  thereby
causing them to agglomerate.

The colloidal particles in AMD sludge usually carry a negative charge.
Consequently  a  cationic  flocculant   must   be   used.     Synthetic
polyelectrolytes are most frequently employed since they function best
in the high ionic strength solutions encountered in AMD.

Chemical  coagulants are most commonly added upstream of sedimentation
ponds, clarifiers,. or filter  units  to  increase  the  efficiency  of
solids   separation.   The  settling  solids  are  more  effective  in
                                  257
-------
/  adsorbing fine metal hydroxide precipitates.   As these fine
  are  agglomerated  and  settled,   equilibrium relationships
 particles
will cause
 insoluble
of certain
 of  large
  additional dissolved metals to react  and  form  additional
  precipitates.    The  major  disadvantage  of  the  addition
  coagulants to a raw wastewater  stream  is  the  production
  quantities   of  sludge,   which  must  subsequantly  be  disposed  of.
  Therefore, raw wastewaters may be treated by removal of easily settled
  particles in a primary sedimentation pond.   Coagulants are then  added
  to  this  effluent prior  to secondary settling or filtration.   In most
  cases,  chemical coagulation can be used with minor  modifications  and
  additions to existing treatment systems.  In mines with acid drainage,
  this   would   be  accomplished  by  polymer  addition  downstream  of
  neutralization and primary settling facilities.

  To assist in determination  of  performance  characteristics  of  this
  technology  at acid mines, a treatability study (23),  was performed at
  four coal mine sites exhibiting acid mine  drainage.   Raw  acid  mine
  drainage  samples (from the Crown, Norton,  Hollywood,  and Will Scarlet
  sites)   were  treated  via  lime  neutralization  and   precipitation,
  f locculation,  aeration and settling.

  Chemical  dosage  rates  and  polymer selection were determined by jar
  tests.   Settling tests were then  conducted  in  an  eight-inch  inner
  diameter  by  eight  foot  high settling tube to establish performance
  data.   Spiking solutions  containing priority metals were added to  the
  acid   mine  drainage  to  raise  influent  concentrations  to  levels
  significant for measurement of test parameters.  The  chief  objective
  of  the  study  was  to establish priority metals and suspended solids
  concentrations  achievable  by   application   of   chemically   aided
  precipitation.

  Settling  tests performed with dosages of each chemical are summarized
  in Table VII-6.  Influent suspended solids concentrations are recorded
  after addition of lime.  As can be seen from Table  VII-6,  flocculant
  addition  consistently reduces effluent suspended solids to 20 mg/1 or
  less.   In fact, reductions below 10 mg/1 are frequent.  Also,  in other
  industries, such as ore mining, reductions via flocculant addition  of
  total suspended solids to 15 mg/1 and less are typical.

  The  removal  of priority metals was also evaluated for each of the 28
  settling tests.  Because  spiking solutions were not readily obtainable
  and background levels were less than the  detection  limits,  no  data
  could  be  recorded  for   removals of arsenic, antimony, selenium, and
  thallium.  Referring to Table VII-7, consistently high  removals  were
  achieved  for  beryllium,  cadmium,  chromium,  copper, iron,  mercury,
  nickel, lead,  and zinc.  Less consistent  reduction  is  achieved  for
  silver  and  manganese.  These effluent levels are summarized in Table
  VII-7.

  A number of points concerning this table should be made.   First,  raw
  mine  drainage  from  these  facilities  does not exhibit high   (>1.0
  mg/1) concentrations of priority metals.  Copper, lead, zinc,  chromium
  (hexavalent ) ,  mercury, nickel, cadmium, and manganese were thus  added
                                    258
-------
                                                              Table VII-6

                                             SUMMARY OF SETTLING TESTS  PERFORMED

                                                         WITH FLOCCULANT  ADDITION
                    HIM
                     Crown
                     Morton*1
                    Hollywood*
PO
Ul
                    Hill Scarlet4

Test Ho.
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
H-l
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
N-6
H-l
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
H-8
H-9
H-10
S-I
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6

Splksd

X

X

X


X


X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

LlM <•*/!>
0
0
350
350
420
425
0
300
290
275
270
300
250
265
225
250
260
34O
275
360
300
445
10.400
17,325
7.660
20,000
15.220
11,870
Chestlcsls Added Initial Ptnal
Sodlua Suit Ida 
-------
                                                  Table  VII-7

                            SUMMARY  OF TEST  RESULTS FOR METALS REMOVAL (me/1)
                                       BY BPT  AND FLOCCULANT ADDITION
TO
CT\
O
Effluent
Nine Teat No.
Crown C-l (Raw)
Influent
Effluent
C-2 (spiked)
Influent
Effluent
C-3
Influent
Effluent
C-4 (spiked)
Influent
Effluent
C-5
Influent
Effluent
C-6 (spiked)
Influent
Effluent
Pll

4.9
5.0

4.9
4.7

7.0
7.2

7.0
7.0

7.7
7.7

7.8
7.8
TOS

3140
3360

3510
3440

3520
3490

3500
3370

3460
3410

3610
3400
Afi

DL
PL

.on
.007

DL
.019

.006
.016

.015
.015

.012
.008
As

DL
Dl,

PL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL
Be

.008
.007

.007
.007

.008
DL

.007
DL

.007
DL

.006
DL
Cd

.038
.033

.150
.141

.040
.021

.130
.060

.038
.020

.142
.024
Cr

.047
.042

.086
-085

.038
.041

.OB9
-047

.058
.047

.090
.046
Cu

.019
.019

.111
.105

.006
.008

.088
.009

.016
DL

.094
.010
Fe

155
161

155
142

154
13

122
23

138
1.5

138
.82
"&

DL
DL

.80
.126

DL
DL

.003
.032

DL
DL

.170
.024
Mn

4.6
4.7

4.7
4.3

4.5
2.9

3,9
3.4

4.2
1-9

4.2
1.9
Ni

.26
.25

.31
.29

.30
.12

.31
.18

.28
-13

.32
.11
Pb

.002
.008

.280
.294

DL
DL

.340
DL

.002
DL

.200
DL
Sb

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL
Se

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL
Tl

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL -

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL
Zn

.400
.400

.470
.430

.390
.008

.390
.031

.378
.442

.410
DL
         Detection Limits
.005  .005  .001  .001  -002
.005
.005  -001  .005 .005 -001  .005 .010 -002 .002
-------
                                      Table  VII-7  (Continued)

                      SUMMARY OF  TEST RESULTS FOR METALS  REMOVAL  (mg/1)
                                 BY BFT AND FLOCCULANT  ADDITION
ON
Effluent
Mine Test Mo. pH
Norton N-l (Raw)
Influent
Effluent
N-2
Influent
Effluent
N-3 (spiked)
Influent
Effluent
N-4 (spiked)
Influent
Effluent
N-5
Influent
Effluent
N-6 (spiked)
Influent
Effluent
2.8
2,8
9.4
9.4
6.3
6.3
8.3
8.1
8.2
8.0
8.1
8.0
TDS
997
951
979
993
1100
1100
983
1000
1020
989
1140
1090
.013
DL
.005
DL
.023
DL
.013
DL
.009
.006
.015
.010
As
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
                                         Be
                                                        Cd
Cr
Cu    Fe    Hg
                                         .007  .237   -227  .411
                                         .007  .006   .017  .876
                                         .008  .007  .020  .142
                                         DL   .056  -062  .066
                                         .009  2.50  2.54  3.20
                                         DL   .686  .077  .084
                                         .009  .015  .023  .146
                                          DL    DL   .008   DL
                                         .011  .009  .023  .242
                                         DL   .020  .013  .005
                                         .009  2.93  2-99  3.74
                                         DL   .210  .091  .093
Mn
Nl   Pb   Sb   Se
Tl
Zn
                                                                         40.3   .072  2.43 4.86  .004 DL  DL   DL  .888
                                                                         41.8   .080  2.19 .275   DL  DL   DL   DL  .610
37.8
.756
40.4
1.03
36.4
1.38
54.4
1 .94
37.4
.821
DL
DL
.790
.410
.655
DL
.615
.110
.750
.625
2.31
.006
4.73
3.47
2.33
.500
2.82
.439
5.23
2.12
.294
.058
2.78
.960
.317
.066
.358
.080
3.18
.312
DL
DL
7.0
.029
.002
DL
DL
DL
8.5
.037
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
SL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
PL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
.617
.065
3.43
.167
.641
.012
.780
.025
3.99
.095
Detection Limits
                                       .005   .005  -001   .005  -005   .005   .005   .001  .005 .005  .001 .005  .010 .002  .002
-------
                                            Table VII-7  (Continued)

                              SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS FOR METALS  REMOVAL (me/1)
                                        BY BPT AND FLOCCULANT ADDITION
ro
Effluent
Mine
Holly-
wood






























Test No.
Raw

H-l
Influent
Effluent
H-2 (aplked)
Influent
Effluent
11-3
Influent
Effluent
11-4 (spiked)
Influent
Effluent
H-5
Influent
Effluent
11-6 (aplked)
Influent
Effluent
H-7
Influent
Effluent
II-B (spiked)
Influent
Effluent
11-9
Influent
Effluent
11-10 (spiked)
Influent
Effluent
PH
3.5


7.0
7.4

8.7
8.8

A. 4
8.5

7.5
7.6

9.5
9.5

9.6
9.6

9.2
9.2

9.6
9.7

9.7
9.4

10.2
10.0
TDS
775


861
839

719
733

637
636

829
891

799
822

1060
1000

A46
864

980
1000

879
831

1090
103O
Afi
.022


-009
.008

.011
.020

.008
DL

.010
.013

.Oil
.014

.024
DL

DL
DL

.006
DL

.017
.013

.022
.014
As
PL


DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
PL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL
De
.006


.008
DL

.006
DL

.004
DL

.008
DL

.008
DL

.009
DL

.009
DL

.009
UL

.004
DL

.005
DL
Cd
.020


.022
.006

3.01
.084

.014
DL

3.16
.220

.018
DL

3.15
.029

.019
DL

3.11
.024

.015
DL

2.93
.024
Cr
.040


.057
.017

2.66
.089

.033
.019

2.82
.118

.039
.021

2.81
.048

.043
.017

2.83
.047

.042
.019

2.72
.043
Cu
.019


.033
.017

2.79
.082

.023
DL

2.93
.105

.016
.006

2.90
.023

.015
DL

2.90
.022

.015
DL

2.79
.026
Fe
46.9


58. Q
1.13

33.3
-803

38.2
1.29

39.4
1.29

57.2
.785

47-0
.351

50.1
.534

51.1
.395

48-9
.477

45-5
.306
«fi
DL


DL
DL

1.20
.234

DL
DL

DL
.005

DL
DL

1.07
.151

DL
OL

.715
DL

DL
DL

2.82
.819
Hn
1.33


1.60
.161

34
.179

1.15
.120

3.59
1.35

1.59
.040

3.84
.060

1.42
.026

3.95
.041

1.40
.027

3-74
.032
Nl
.376


.481
.072

3.38
.14

.305
.074

3.60
.414

.437
.079

3.65
.118

.409
.075

3.67
.109

.401
.085

3-56
.104
Pb Sb
.010 DL


DL DL
DL DL

4.8 DL
.040 DL

DL DL
DL DL

4.70 DL
.046 DL

DL DL
DL PL

4.2 PL
.015 DL

DL PL
DL PL

4.50 DL
.011 DL

DL DL
DL DL

5-5 DL
.008 DL
Se
DL


DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

PL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

PL
DL
Tl
DL


DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

PL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL

DL
DL
Zn
.521


.668
.027

2.78
.076

.430
.018

2.99
.106

.625
.020

3.04
.017

.565
.017

3.07
.023

.558
.008

2.92
.017
          Detection Limits
.005  -001   .001   .002  .005  -001   .005  .005  .005 .005  .001  .005 .010 .002 .002
-------
                                      Table VII-7 (Continued)

                         SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FOR METALS REMOVAL (mg/1)
                                  BY BPT AND FLOGCULANT ADDITION
Effluent
Mine
Will
Test No.
Raw
PH
2.03
TDS
19100
A£
.241
As
PL
§£
.175
Cd
.603
Cr
.461
Cu
.246
Fe
10.50
Hfi
.628
M"
183
Nl
7.27
Pb
.012
Sb
DL
Se
DL
Tl
DL
Zn
31.6
Scarlet







S-l
Influent
Effluent
S-2 (spiked)
Influent
Effluent
Detection Limits

9.6
9.75

10.5
9.8
...

2650
2920

3250
2610
	

.168
.085

.258
.158
.005

DL
DL

.017
m.
.005

.137
.045

.272
DL
.001

.523
.196

4.31
.051
.001

.431
.178

3.73
.097
.002

.208
.081

3.49
.082
.005

1220
311

1980
.809
.005

DL
DL

.121
.013
.001

221
61.8

U.9
,283
.005

6.08
2.36

4.15
DL
.005

DL
DL

DL
DL
.001

DL
DL

DL
DL
.005

Dt.
DL

DL
DL
.010

DL
DL

DL
DL
.002

22.6
8.66

39.3
.059
.002
U)
-------
to   the  raw  drainage  in  about  half  of  the  tests  to  yield  a
concentration of 3 mg/1 for each of the metals prior to neutralization
and flocculant addition.  Due to  an  inadvertent  error,  the  spiked
solutions  used at the Crown site produced an initial concentration of
only 0.3 mg/1 for  each  spiked  priority  metal.   At  Norton,  these
compounds  were  added  as  nitrates  and at Hollywood, chloride metal
salts were utilized.

Second, the quantity of lime required to neutralize the acidity in the
drainage from Will Scarlet was so voluminous for tests S-3 through S-6
that the settled sludge kept  the  lower  sampling  tap  (where  metal
samples  were obtained) covered throughout the test.  Thus, analytical
results are available on the metals contained in AMD sludge,  but  are
of no value and, as such, are not included on Table VII-7.

Thirdly,  raw  water characteristics from the Crown site are presented
as settling tests C-l and C-2.  This is also true of the  Norton  site
where  test  N-l  summarizes  raw mine water settling characteristics.
These tests were run without chemical addition to  establish  baseline
performance  data.   Tests on raw water at Hollywood and Will Scarlett
would be redundant and hence were not conducted.

Excluding the datd from tests S-3 through S-6, means are presented  in
Table  VII-8  for  each  of  the  final effluent metals concentrations
(quantifying non-detected values as 1/2 the detection  limit).   These
values   represent  achievable  effluent  limitations  for  acid  mine
drainage from deep and surface facilities through the  application  of
BPT and flocculant addition technology.

Additional  treatability analyses have been conducted by the Agency at
the Crown, West Virginia site for polymer addition;  results  indicate
that  certain  priority  metals  (Ni,  Cu, Cr, and Se) are effectively
reduced (2).  Other studies have also confirmed the  suspended  solids
and metals reductions documented above (16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28).

In cases where settling ponds are at remote locations, construction of
access roads and power lines will be necessary to install and maintain
polymer   feed  equipment.   The  installation  of  chemical  handling
equipment, tanks, access roads, land, and power lines  in remote  areas
could  exacerbate  coal  mining  production problems, particularly for
small mines.  Costs for those items are presented in the next  section
of  this report.  In some cases where ponds are difficult to access or
lack electricity, gravity feed systems (used in one Western coal  mine
visited) or diesel generators can be employed.

Filtration

Filtration   is   used  as  a  suspended  solids  and  metals  removal
technology.  Filter systems are usually located downstream of  primary
gravity  settlers,  lime  precipitation  units,  or  polymer  addition
equipment.  Filtration  is accomplished by the passage of water through
a physically restrictive medium with resulting entrapment of suspended
                                  264
-------
                 Table VII-8
MEAN FINAL EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS  (mg/1) FOR
         UNSPIKED AND SPIKED SAMPLES
           Unspiked
Metal
Ag
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
Tl
Zn
Mean
.009
.0025
.0005
.0252
.0581
.0114
2.28
0.0114
.612
.084
.0005
.0025
.005
.001
.0642
Standard
Deviation
.006
0
0
.060
.0622
.0197
3.79
0.0327
.986
.023
0
0
0
0
.134
Spiked
                                  Mean
                                   .023
                                   .0025
                                   .001
                                   .150
                                   .072
                                   .0636
                                  2.96
                                   .183
                                  1.55
                                   .273
                                   .019
                                   .0025
                                   .001
                                   .001
                                   .059
      Standard
      Deviation
        .045
          0
        .002
        .203
        .0263
        .043
       7.04
        .280
       1.60
        ,263
        .018
          0
          0
          0
        .0521
                      265
-------
particulate matter.  Filtration is a versatile method in that
be used to remove a wide range of suspended particle sizes.
it  can
Filtration  processes  can  be  placed  in two general categories: (1)
surface filtration devices, including microscreens  and  diatomaceous-
earth  filters;  and (2) granular-media filtration, such as rapid sand
filters, slow sand filters, and multimedia filters.   For  application
to  coal  mine wastewaters, granular media filtration systems are most
suitable.

Granular media filtration utilizes a variety of  mechanisms  including
straining,  interception,  impact ion,  and  adsorption  for  suspended
solids removal.  Filters are most often classified by  flow  direction
and  type  of filter bed.  Downflow, multimedia filters would probably
find the widest application  to  both  acid  and  alkaline  coal  mine
wastewaters.   In  such  a system, influent is piped to the top of the
filter and by gravity or external pressure percolates through the  bed
before discharge or further treatment.

Maximum  loading  of  the  filter is determined either by a prescribed
permissible head loss (the pressure  drop  across  the  filter)  or  a
ceiling  level  of  suspended  solids  in the filtered effluent.  When
these conditions occur, the filter is backwashed and  air-scrubbed  to
clean the bed, and the wash water disposed of in an acceptable manner,
usually by settling and return to the head of the treatment plant.

Various   combinations  of  media,  including  sand,  gravel,  garnet,
activated carbon, anthracite coal, and ilmenite,  can  be  used  in  a
filtration  system.   These materials represent a wide distribution of
specific gravities and grain  sizes.   Total  media  depths  typically
range  from  50  cm  to  250  cm, with feedwater flux rates of 2 to 30
gallons per minute per square foot of cross-sectional  area,  with  10
gpm per square foot typical,

Whenever possible, designs should be based on pilot filtration studies
of  the  actual  wastewater.  Such studies are the best way to assure:
(1) representative cost comparisons between different  filter  designs
capable   of  equivalent  performance  {i.e.,  quantity  filtered  and
filtrate quality); (2) selection of optimal operating parameters, such
as filter rate, terminal head loss, and run length for a given  medium
application;   (3)  definite  effluent  quality performance for a given
medium  application;  and  (4)  determination  of   the   effects   of
pretreatment  variations.   Ultimate  clarification  of filtered water
will  be  a  function  of  particle  size,  filter  medium   porosity,
filtration rate, and other variables.

The technology is proven in both industrial and municipal applications
and  is  less  expensive than other technologies when reductions to 10
mg/1 TSS and less and very low levels of suspended metals  are  to  be
achieved.   A major question in application to coal mine wastewater is
the  potential  for  gypsum  fouling/blinding  if  lime  is  used  for
neutralization  when calcium ions liberated by the dissolution of lime
(CaO) combine at alkaline pH with sulfate ions.  This  substance  will
                                 266
-------
deposit  on  surfaces  throughout  the  treatment  system.   When this
material deposits on the granular media pores, water is   impeded  from
passing across or through the filtration apparatus.  This phenomena is
called  fouling  or  blinding.   The  problem  can be abated by proper
dosage of lime, recycle of sludge or use of a  different  neutralizing
chemical.  To examine the levels of suspended solids and  toxic removal
potential  achieved by filtration technology, a treatability study was
instituted by the Agency at two mines, both exhibiting  normally  acid
mine drainage (24, 25).

The first testing program, conducted on BPT-treated acid  mine drainage
from  a deep mine in Pennsylvania, consisted of bench scale jar tests,
dual media filtration tests and backwash settling tests   at  the  coal
mine  site.   In  addition  to  determination of achievable removal of
suspended matter, an evaluation of possible effects of fouling  caused
by  gypsum  or  excess  lime  was  carried  out.  Further, a number of
filtration tests were run with addition of different  polyelectrolytes
to  ascertain  their effect on filter performance.  Composite samplers
were used to track filter progress.

Initial flux rates for each test were established at 20 gpm per square
foot of filter area.  The influent to  the  test  unit  was  clarifier
effluent  from  the  acid  mine  drainage  treatment plant.  The final
effluent  from  a  final  settling  pond  was  not  used  because  the
concentrations  of  TSS  and iron were too low to provide large enough
pollutant  loadings  to  satisfactorily  evaluate  pollutant   removal
capability.  Test parameters for each test run are summarized in Table
VII-9.  No  filter  test  runs exhibited a significant flow reduction,
including a  test  of  43  hours  duration  {test  no.   9).   Effluent
suspended  solids  averages  were  always  below  15 mg/1 and, in many
cases, less than 10 mg/1.  This level was independent of  the  duration
of  the  test  run.   At the end of each filter test run,   the filter
media were cleaned by a combination of  air  and  water   backwash.   A
backwash  period of 10 minutes was found to be sufficient in each case
to regenerate the filter.

Analytical data for the priority metals are summarized in  Table  VII-
10.  Priority metals in the clarifier effluent used as influent to the
filtration  apparatus  were  very  low.   In  addition,   no spiking of
effluent for treatment  was  conducted.   As  a  result,  quantitative
prediction  of  priority metals, removal is not possible.  Metal levels
in many influents were not detectable and in no case  did  a  priority
metal  have a filter effluent concentration of greater than .012 mg/1.
Reductions of iron to  .75 mg/1 average effluent concentration from 2.8
mg/1 average influent, and reduction of manganese to  .063  mg/1  from
.17 mg/1 average were achieved.
ALKALINE MINE DRAINAGE
                                 267
-------
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ro 11
oo 12
13
14
15
16
17
Polymer Added
(none)
-
-
-
-
-
la
1*
-
1 b
1 o
-
-
lc
lc
-

                                     Table VII-9

                        SUMMARY OF FILTRATION TESTS  PERFORMED


                                  Suspended  Solids  (mg/1)

Min.
10.2
--
9.9
--
16.2
16.4
14.4
--
--
13.6
19.0
17.6
--
17.8
—
16.2
--
Influent
Max.
27.4
--
17.8
--
38.8
40.6
34.8
--
--
29.4
48.2
39.2
--
43.0
--
99.4
--

Ave.
12.8
13.6
13.3
17.4
27.8
28.6
23.6
21.2
20.2
22.2
33.6
24.9
20.0
27.8
11.4
24.0
15.4

Min.
1.2
--
1.6
--
2.8
6.1
1.0
_-
--
<1.0
9.9
3.4
--
<1.0
--
7.0
.-
Effluent
Max.
9.2
--
7,0
--
11.4
16.1
8.6
--
..
13.6
17.3
10.2
..
10.6
--
16.4
--

Ave.
2.6
1.4
3.0
3.8
7.8
11.0
5.5
5.2
7.0
7.3
14.1
6.6
10.4
6.5
10.2
9.8
2.8
Initial
PH
9.2
9.4
9.4
9.5
9.3
9.2
9.5
9.4
9.0
9.4
9.2
9.5
9.7
9.4
9.2
9.8
9.9
Final
PH
9.2
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.2
9.2
9.1
8.8
9.1
9.2
9.3
8.7
9.3
9.0
9.5
9.7
Notes: aDowell 144
       "^agnifloc 1820A
       cCalgon L670E
-------
                                    Table  VII-10

              ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM FILTRATION TREATABILITY STUDY
                               (in ug/1 unless noted)

Test Ho.   pH (units)  TPS («g/l>   *&**leCdCtCu?b¥e   Kg   tfa   Hi   Sb   Se   Tl   Zn
1
Influent
Effluent
2
Influent
Effluent
3
Influent
Effluent
4
Influent
Effluent
5
Influent
Effluent
6
Influent
Effluent
7
Influent
Effluent
Influent
effluent
9
Influent
Effluent
10
Influent
Effluent

9.*3

9.4
9.4

9.2
8.5

9.5
9.4

9.3
9.1

9.5
9.4
9.7
9.4
9.6
9.7

8.9
8.9

9.3
8.8

1400
1400

1400
1400

1350
1400

1400
1400

1400
1400

1400
1400
1400
1360
1400
1400

1420
1430

1440
1430

10
3

8
7

14
15

11
11

16
16

23
21
28
36
34
33

4
<2

<2
<2

<3
<3

<3
<3

<3
<3

<3
<3

<3
<3

<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3

<3
<3

<3

<1 <8
<1 
-------
                                  Table VII-10  (Continued)

                ANALYTICAL  RESULTS  FROM FILTRATION  TREATABILITY  STUDY
                                    (in  ug/1 unless  noted)
Teat Ho.   pH (unlta)    TDS (•g/1)
                                                 Hn
                                                      Hi
                                                                                    Sb
                                                                Se
                                                                     Tl
Zn
  11

Influent
Effluent

  12

Influent
Effluent

  13

Influent
Effluent

  14

Influent
Effluent

  15

Influent
Effluent

  16

Influent
Effluent

  17
Influent
Effluent

  Average

Influent
Effluent
             9.3
             9.2
             9.5
             9.4
             9.7
             8.6
             9.7
             9.5
             9.8
             9.6
             9.7
             9.4
             9.6
             9.6
1440
U4D
1350
1340
1360
1360
1410
1390
1400
1400
1380
1370
1390
1380
                        1400
                        1400
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
7
8
9
5
10
i.5
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
1.5
1.5
8
7
8
7
8
7
8
7
8
7
8
7
8
7
4.8
4.7
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
4.3
4.4
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
4
2
2
1
9
9
10
7
10.9
9.8
<1 <2
<1 <2
<1 <2
<1 <2
<1 <2
-------
Current Treatment Technology

Mines  exhibiting  alkaline  drainage  supply a majority of U.S.  coal
production.   Raw  wastewaters  from   these   mines   are   generally
characterized by very low metals levels and are pH neutral or slightly
alkaline.   Alkaline  surface  mines can contain high sediment loading
caused by precipitation and runoff, whereas alkaline underground mines
are most often low in suspended  solids.   Many  mines  with  alkaline
drainage  can discharge the raw water without any treatment.  However,
most mines will have a pond or pond system  installed  to  contain  or
treat  runoff  resulting  from rainfall.  Aside from precipitation and
the ensuing sediment laden runoff, the major exception to  mines  that
can normally discharge without treatment is for those mines located in
geological  strata  containing  fine clays.  These colloidal clays are
difficult to  settle  without  coagulant  aids.   If  fine  clays  are
prevalent, chemical flocculant addition may be required to comply with
BPT  limitations.   This,  however,  is an infrequent situation in the
industry.  Figure VII-10 depicts a typical BPT  treatment  system  for
alkaline drainage.  The settling facility is identical to the sediment
pond  or  mechanical  clarifier discussed under the previous acid mine
drainage  subsection.   Ponds  installed  to  comply   with   rainfall
provisions are discussed later in this section.

Candidate Treatment Technologies

Technologies  applicable  to  alkaline  mines are similar to treatment
options  discussed  under  acid  mine   drainage   for   BPT   treated
wastewaters.   The  reader  is  directed  to  the  Acid  Mine Drainage
Candidate Treatment Technology subsection for a detailed discussion of
the technologies.
PREPARATION PLANTS
Current Treatment Technologies

Wastewater from coal preparation plants, as discussed  in  Section  V,
originates   from  preparation  plant  coal  separation  and  cleaning
equipment, such as jigs,  washers,  froth  flotation  units,  and  wet
cyclones.    The water is high in coal fines which are removed prior to
discharge or  reuse.   Economic  and  environmental  incentives  often
dictate that some portion of this effluent water be recycled for plant
use.   Some  plants  operate  under total recycle while others recycle
only a fraction or none at all.  The  remainder  is  discharged  after
appropriate   treatment,   usually   consisting   of   some   type  of
sedimentation technology.  This will remove the coal fines  which  are
present  as  suspended  solids.   Figure  VII-11 illustrates a typical
treatment scenario for preparation plant wastewaters.
                                  271
-------
                    Raw
                    Wastewater
Settling
Facility
Discharge
ro
—j
ro
                                       Figure VII-10

              TYPICAL BPT TREATMENT CONFIGURATION FOR ALKALINE MINE DRAINAGE
-------
U)
                   Preparation
                      Plant
               Raw
               Slurry
     A

      . Optional
      ' Recycle
              r
     Recycle
Settling
Facility
                     Underflow
                    Dewatering
                         Optional Make-Up and Recycle
                                        Overflow
Fresh Water
   Lake
                    To Disposal
                                          Figure V1I-11

              TYPICAL BPT TREATMENT CONFIGURATION FOR PREPARATION PLANT WASTEWATER
-------
The slurry stream generated by the preparation plant usually  contains
fine  coal  refuse  as a waste product from the coal cleaning process.
The refuse contained in the slurry is usually 0.10  in  (approximately
2.50  mm)  and  finer  in  size  and  frequently contains less than 10
percent by weight solids.  In many cases, fine coal,  clay  and  other
mineral  particles with size below 0.004 in (0.10 mm) are present.  In
some cases, very fine  colloidal-sized  material  is  present.   These
solids are removed to allow reuse or discharge of the clarified water.
The  settling  facilities  most often used are sedimentation or slurry
ponds, or, where adequate land is not available, clarifiers/thickeners
are  frequently  employed.   Where  the  latter  option  is  selected,
dewatering   by   vacuum   or   pressure  filtration  is  occasionally
implemented within the industry to recover additional water and permit
easier handling of the dewatered refuse.  The water from this  process
is  recycled  to  the clarifier influent and the refuse is hauled to a
disposal site, a borehole, or an abandoned or active pit.

In Appalachian facilities, dewatering of the  thickener  underflow  is
commonly  accomplished  in  a  sedimentation  pond for settling of the
solids and recycle or discharge of the basin  decant.   Overflow  from
the clarifier/thickener is either directly recycled to the preparation
plant  or  routed  to  a  pond  system  (termed a "fresh water lake" in
Figure VII-11) for eventual recycle or discharge.   In  many  existing
facilities,  this  latter  alternative  of drawing makeup from a fresh
water basin is often preferred to provide a dependable water source of
consistent quality for preparation plant use.

Many midwestern and western facilities employ sedimentation basins  in
lieu  of  clarifiers  to provide solids removal for the refuse slurry.
Basins are sometimes designed for the life of the  preparation  plant,
but more frequently, a number of ponds are required over the operating
life  of  the  cleaning  facility.   As one slurry pond is silted out,
slurry is diverted to a new basin.  The old pond can be dredged and/or
reclaimed.  These sedimentation basins  will  often  receive  drainage
from  areas  associated  with the preparation plant, such as disturbed
areas ancillary to the site, coal storage  piles,  and  refuse  piles.
The  characteristics  and  treatment  of  effluents  from  these three
sources are discussed in the next subsection.  The  pond  system  will
also  frequently receive storm runoff drainage from undisturbed areas,
which, in some cases, can consist of vast tracts of land.

This storm runoff is also analyzed  later  in  this  section.   Decant
routed  from  the  primary slurry settling pond is commonly commingled
with this undisturbed area drainage and raw or treated effluents  from
the  associated  areas in a fresh water lake.  Lakes provide secondary
settling prior to recycle of water required by the preparation  plant.
The  suspended solids removal technology selected by mine operators is
very dependent on the  region  in  which  the  mine  is  located.   In
Appalachia  and  other  regions  where  steep  terrain  is  prevalent,
thickeners and clarifiers are usually installed rather  than  settling
basins to handle preparation plant slurries.
                                  274
-------
Those  plants using a clarifier often use a coagulant aid to assist in
agglomerating fine solids, resulting  in  greater  settling  rates  of
solids.   Preparation  plants that employ settling ponds for suspended
solids removal do not usually inject chemical aids but instead rely on
the longer retention times available to provide sufficent settling.

Candidate Treatment and Control Technologies - Existing Sources

Control technologies are particularly applicable to preparation  plant
wastewaters  in  the  abatement of pollution from these sources.  This
includes consideration of a no  discharge  of  pollutants  requirement
that  would  require recirculation of all water from a system treating
wastewater from a preparation plant water circuit.

Total Recycle Option

To properly evaluate this option for existing sources, an  examination
of  the  definition of preparation plant wastewater is essential.  For
the remainder  of  this  report,  "preparation  plant  wastewater"  is
defined  as  any  wastewater which results from processing a stream of
coal to remove ash forming constituents.  This wastewater consists  of
the following:
     1.    Water purposely brought into contact with
to clean the coal,
   run-of-mine  coal
     2.   Water collected in the waste sump resulting from
cleanup within the preparation plant boundaries, and
          spills  or
     3.   Runoff  resulting  from  precipitation
preparation plant wastewater treatment system.
which   enters
the
Thus,  the  zero  discharge requirement would effectively disallow the
discharge of any pollutant-bearing water that stems from  or  contacts
process water from the preparation plant.

To  assist  in  the  analysis of this issue, Figure VII-12 depicts the
various flows into and out of the preparation  plant.    The  types  of
flow  streams entering the water circuit are shown on the left side of
the block diagram and flows exiting the system are shown on the  right
side.   The  various sources and losses of water in the system will be
discussed  below  in  an  effort  to  evaluate  the  requirements  for
attainment of total recycle for the preparation plant water circuit.

Water sources include:

1.    Makeup  Water.   Water  from  sources external to the preparation
plant and slurry water systems are almost always needed  to  meet  the
feed  water  requirements  of the plant after using the water recycled
from  slurry  treatment.    Typical   sources   might   be     surface
impoundments,  mine drainage, well water, or drainage from preparation
                                 275
-------
          Make-Up Water
     Water on Feed Coal
 Ox
                                           Preparation
                                              Plant
                                                                       Water on Coarse Refuse
                             Water on Coal Product
                                                                       Miscellaneous Water Losses
                                                   iA
                                             	
            Recycle
Precipitation and Runoff 	
Slurry Water
  Treatment
                                                                       Evaporation and Seepage
                                                                       Water on Fine Refuse
                                          Figure  V1I-12

                  WATER SOURCES AND LOSSES IN A PREPARATION PLANT WATER CIRCUIT
-------
plant associated areas.  This water should  be  neutral  or  basic  to
minimize  corrosion problems and be relatively low in suspended solids
content to avoid nozzle fouling in the plant.  The  volume  of  makeup
water from sources external to the preparation plant water circuit may
be  zero  if  the  slurry  treatment system has sufficient capacity to
store large volumes of water.  In general, however, implementation  of
a  zero  discharge requirement would necessitate a makeup water source
that can be throttled to balance the system.

2.  Water on  the  Surface  of  Feed  Coal.   The  coal  entering  the
preparation  plant  usually has some water on the surface of the coal.
This water results from dust suppression sprays in  underground  mined
coal  or  from  ground water in wet surface or underground mines.  The
raw coal also receives water as a result of precipitation  falling  on
storage piles or on the coal as it is transported to the plant.

3.   Precipitation  and  Runoff.    The  quantity of water entering the
system from  precipitation  and  runoff  is  governed  by  design  and
climatological  factors  which  are  both  site  specific.   A  slurry
treatment system consisting of  a  thickener  and  filtration  of  the
underflow receives precipitation only on the surface of the thickener.
The amount of precipitation entering a pond system is related directly
to  the  drainage  area  of  the  pond or ponds.  The amount of runoff
entering from areas adjacent to the pond system can be  controlled  at
the  design  phase  or  as  a  retrofit  procedure  by using diversion
ditching and diking as required to control inflow.

Water losses include:

1  *  Moisture on the coal product.   This moisture leaves a  preparation
plant as residual water after having undergone some form of mechanical
and/or  thermal coal drying.  The degree to which the coal material is
dried is usually determined by what is necessary to achieve  purchaser
specifications and/or the avoidance of excessive transportation costs.
The  amount  of water leaving with the coal will most often be greater
than that entering with it since the cleaning process involves a  size
reduction  with the attendant increase in surface area.  This increase
in porosity due to smaller grain sizes enhances water retention.
2.  Water on Coarse Refuse.
remove
                              The  cleaning  process  is  designed  to
        material that either does not contribute to the end use of the
coal or has some deleterious effect on the use  of  the  coal.   These
materials are removed as refuse by processes in the preparation plant.
The  bulk of this refuse leaves the plant as a surface-saturated solid
after mechanical dewatering.  It is dry enough to  allow  handling  by
truck  or  conveyor  to a disposal site. The large size of this refuse
makes use of wet disposal impractical.   The  volume  of  this  coarse
refuse  will be a function of the amount of non-coal components in the
plant feed and the efficiency of the separation.  The total amount  of
water leaving the system by this route will be dependent on the amount
of refuse as well as the relative size of the refuse.
                                277
-------
3.  Miscellaneous Water Lost (Drying and Evaporation).   In some cases,
thermal drying of the coal is required to meet product specifications.
Usually,  thermal drying is primarily used for the fine coal fraction.
In this process, the surface  moisture  in  the  coal  is  reduced  by
evaporative  losses.   Water is also lost by evaporation in the plant,
particularly at locations where water sprays are used  in  processing.
Usually  the  water  removed from the system as a result of drying and
evaporation  is  not  large  compared  to  the   total   plant   water
requirement.

4.   Evaporation  and Seepage from Slurry Water Treatment.  The volume
and importance of these losses from the system will be a  function  of
the  design  of  the  system  as  well  as  site  specific  hydrologic
conditions.  For example, if the slurry  water treatment consists of a
thickener and  underflow  dewatering,  then  seepage  is  nonexistent.
Evaporation,  although  still  dependent on local climatic factors, is
limited to the surface area of the  thickener.   On  the  other  hand,
slurry water treatment by sedimentation in a pond system can result in
major  losses  by  evaporation  and  seepage depending upon design and
maintenance of the system (e.g., surface area, lining,  etc.).
5.   Fine
designed  to
           Refuse  Moisture.   Generally,  a  preparation  process  is
              minimize  the  production of fines while achieving   the
•desired coal quality improvement.  Therefore, the  fine  solids  which
can  be  removed  from the slurry by some combination of sedimentation
(usually  in  mechanical  thickeners  or  settling  impoundments)  and
filtration usually represent a relatively small proportion of the feed
material.   After  the  fine  solids have been removed in the settling
facility from the bulk slurry, they will  retain  considerable  water.
Fine soli'ds can be dewatered by filtration of the thickener underflow,
and  will  often  contain  about 25 percent water by weight.  The fine
solids removed by sedimentation  in  ponds  will,  of  course,  retain
greater amounts of water.

As  indicated  above, losses from water on the coal product and coarse
refuse, as well as internal evaporative losses  are  insignificant  in
comparison  to  the  total water flow in the plant.  Closing the water
circuit  will  primarily  involve  recycling  of   preparation   plant
effluents  as makeup to the facility.  However, the wastewater leaving
the preparation plant as slurry is not suited for direct reuse in  the
preparation plant because of its fine solids content.

The  slurry  treatment  process must prepare water for recycle that is
relatively free of  suspended  solids  so  that  its  solids  carrying
capacity   is   restored  for  removal  of  similar  material  in  the
preparation plant.  Solids even in fine sizes and low  concentrations,
can cause long term maintenance problems as a result of excessive pump
and piping wear.  Nozzle plugging is an additional maintenance problem
for  washing  operations within the plant.  The reuse for screen spray
and wash water of thickener overflow with suspended solids  less  than
100 ppm has been reported.  Slurry treatment must also provide recycle
water  which  is  neutral  or  alkaline  to  minimize corrosion of the
process equipment.
                                  278
-------
Two  primary  issues  can  be  delineated  regarding  a  no  discharge
requirement.   First,  a  total recycle system must provide sufficient
water to meet process requirements while taking into account the water
losses previously discussed.  Second, the feasibility  of  segregating
preparation  plant  wastewater from other wastewater must be assessed.
Both of these factors are primarily design considerations.

A  survey  was  conducted  in  cooperation  with  the  National   Coal
Association  in  1980  of  its  member  companies  to collect data and
information specifying the design of their  preparation  plant  slurry
treatment  systems.  Eighty-eight member producer companies of the NCA
were canvassed for profile  information  and  water  management  data.
These  companies  operate  approximately  292 preparation plants.  One
hundred and fifty-two of these (52  percent),  representing  about  24
                  entire  preparation plant industry, responded to the
                   from  the  responding  facilities   indicate   that
                   percent  are  currently achieving zero discharge of
                  wastewater.  This suggests that  certain  facilities
                  addressed  the  two  issues  outlined  above.  Other
                  system design that provides for a sufficiently large
                 continually supply  preparation  plant  makeup  water
percent  of  the
survey.   Results
approximately  34
preparation plant
have  adequately
facilities have a
drainage area to
needs.   Such  systems  resolve the first issue but are susceptible to
voluminous amounts of discharge during rainfall.  Plants  that  obtain
water  from  this  type  of  system  would  have  to  provide adequate
freeboard in their slurry basins to accomodate  the  storm  flows.   A
second  way  to  comply would be to install a clarifier/thickener with
underflow dewatering, thus obviating the need for the pond system.   A
third  alternative  is to install diking and diversion ditching around
the pond system and drawing makeup water  from  a  new  source.   This
third  alternative  may also require installation of new facilities to
treat the diverted runoff, particularly if acidic refuse and coal pile
drainage is involved.

These alternatives are shown  schematically  in  Figures  VIII-18  and
VIII-19  in  Section  VIII.   If  a  facility  already has a clarifier
installed, changes would be confined to recycling all  decant  to  the
preparation plant and dewatering the underflow solids.  This option is
depicted schematically in Figure VIII-20 of Section VIII.  Redesign of
the  clarifier  or  additon  of  equipment for chemically aided solids
settling may be required to  provide  water  of  suitable  quality  as
makeup  water.   Many facilities already have this flocculant addition
equipment in place with their clarifiers.
However,  there  are  certain  interferences   involved   with    coal
preparation  processes  that  may occur as a result of a total recycle
system that could make an occasional  discharge  or  purge  necessary.
Such interferences are:
     1.    Build-up of froth flotation chemical reagents, used
froth flotation process, making the process less effective,
                                                               in  the
                                  279
-------
     2.    Build-up of gypsum used in pretreating  the  recycled  water
for  pH  adjustment  interfering  with  both  the  froth flotation and
gravity separation processes,
     3.   Build-up of slimes that interfere  with  gravity
processes particularly when using heavy media vessels,
separation
     4.   Build-up of  TSS  and  tds  causing  scaling  of  pipes
plugging of nozzles,
       and
     5.   Build-up of TSS and TDS that impair the use of filters  used
to  dewater  sludge  from the water recycle treatment system causing a
higher filter cake moisture content.

This leads to problems in refuse disposal.

Thus while total recycle with no discharge is a technically achievable
control technology for some facilities, certain processes may  require
occasional  purges  from  the water recycle circuit.  This occassional
purge allowance has been incorporated into the zero discharge  option.
Facilities  using  this  purge  allowance will be subject to alternate
limitations (equal to BPT) while purging.  The costs  associated  with
the  implementation of this alternative are presented and discussed in
Section VIII.

Flocculant Addition

Flocculant addition is also a candidate  BAT  option  for  preparation
plant  wastewaters.   Important factors characterizing this technology
were previously discussed for mine drainage and will not  be  repeated
here.

Filtration

Preparation  plant  wastewaters  are  readily amenable to this type of
treatment.   Gypsum  is  rarely  evident  in  the  normally   alkaline
effluents.   Further,  metals,  if present, are in the suspended state
and are thus removed by filtration.  Application of this technology is
feasible for both clarifier and sediment basin effluents.   Achievable
levels are documented in the mine drainage section.

Other Technologies

Reverse   osmosis,   ion   exchange,   electrodialysis,   and  sulfide
precipitation  are  technologies  applicable  for   dissolved   solids
removals.   Alkaline  effluents  are  characteristically  low in unde-
sirable and toxic dissolved metals, and thus  these  technologies  are
not  considered  for  preparation plant wastewaters.  Activated carbon
and ozonation are fouled by  high  suspended  solids,  rendering  them
ineffective  for  these types of effluents.  Moreover, their principal
                               280
-------
application is for a dissolved compound at a low  pH
which are expected in preparation plant discharges.

Candidate Treatment Technologies - New Sources-
value,  none  of
Two  major  options  are  considered  for new source preparation plant
discharges—a  no  discharge  of  pollutants  requirement   (with   an
occasional  purge  allowance)  and a discharge with effluent standards
achievable through application  of  the  best  available  demonstrated
treatment   technology.    These  approaches  are  identical  to  that
discussed for existing sources however, additional considerations  are
relevant  for  the  no  discharge  requirement.   Total  recycle, even
without a purge, for new sources is more easily  achievable  than  for
existing  sources  because  water  handling strategies to achieve zero
discharge can be incorporated into the initial design phases such that
occasional purges, if necessary, are kept to a minimum.   For  example
segregation  of  other  drainage from the preparation plant wastewater
can be a design parameter of the system.    Ponds  can  be  located  in
topographical  areas  that  do  not  receive  large amounts of natural
drainage.  This will lessen  the  volume  of  storm  runoff  requiring
diversion    around   the   slurry   treatment   system.    Also,   if
clarifier/thickeners are selected for settling, small emergency  ponds
can  be  provided to contain temporary imbalances in the water circuit
arising from operational problems or exceedingly  heavy  precipitation
on  the clarifier surface.  Certain flocculants to remove slime can be
added, use of other pH adjustment metal remover chemicals besides lime
can be used and improved sludge handling techniques can  be  employed.
Costs  for  implementation  of this option and of discharges employing
filtration technology to polish the final effluent  are  presented  in
the next section.
PREPARATION PLANT ASSOCIATED AREAS
Current Treatment Technology

Drainage  from these areas is a result of runoff from coal storage and
refuse piles and other  disturbed  areas.   This  runoff  has  similar
characteristics  to  untreated  drainage  from  adjacent  mines.   The
rulemaking published on  26  April  1977  (42  FR  21380)  established
limitations similar to those for active mine drainage; i.e., standards
for  pH,  TSS,  and  iron (and manganese for drainage that is normally
acidic prior to treatment).  As a result, current treatment technology
for this subcategory typically includes neutralization, aeration,  and
settling for acidic runoff and settling for alkaline runoff.  In cases
where  site  logistics  permit,  runoff  is often commingled with mine
drainage due to the cost advantages in joint treatment.  Each  of  the
                                 281
-------
technologies  was  discussed in detail in the mine drainage subsection
and is not reiterated here.

Candidate Treatment Technologies

Drainage from preparation plant associated areas is  often  commingled
for  treatment  with the preparation plant wastewaters.  Establishment
of a no discharge regulation for associated area runoff is  infeasible
due  to  the  extremely  wide  variations  in storm runoff.  If such a
requirement is proposed for preparation plant wastewaters  in  existing
sources,  associated  area  drainage  would  in  most cases have to be
segregated and treated separately.  Because this wastewater is similar
to mine drainage, the reader is referred to the  discussion  found  in
the Candidate Treatment Technologies portion of that subsection.
POST MINING DISCHARGES
Reclamation Areas

Current Treatment Technology

Areas  under  reclamation  are defined as areas of land resulting from
the surface mining of coal which has been returned  to  final  contour
and  revegetation  begun.   Drainage  from land that has been regraded
after active mining is not currently subject to EPA regulations unless
commingled with wastewater from the active mining  area,   OSM,  under
authority  of SMCRA, has required that drainage from reclamation areas
must be routed  through  a  sedimentation  pond.   OSM  has,  however,
proposed  to  delete  this  requirement.   46 FR 34784  (July 2, 1981).
Operators have installed sedimentation ponds to  treat  this  drainage
until   revegetation  requirements  are  met  and  untreated  drainage
{influent to the ponds) meets the applicable state and  federal  water
quality standards for the receiving stream (see 44 FR,  3 March 1979).

Candidate Treatment Technology

The  Agency  has  conducted  a  sampling  and  analysis  program under
authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act to have  12  companies
monitor  influents  and  effluents  at  24  ponds  for  one year.  (See
Appendix A).  This study is summarized  in more detail in the following
section under "Precipitation Events." These  ponds  primarily  receive
drainage   resulting   from   precipitation   from   areas  undergoing
revegetation, although some ponds also receive active   mine  drainage.
Data  from  the  program are presented  in Appendix A.   Total suspended
solids were found at widely varying levels, due partly  to  differences
in   particle  size  distribution  delivered  to  the   pond  from  the
reclamation area.  These  differences  were  large  enough  such  that
                                   282
-------
nationally   applicable   TSS  regulations  could  not  be  developed.
Settleable solids (i.e., suspended particles that will  settle  within
one  hour)  and  pH,  however,  are  effectively  controlled  by these
sediment ponds.  The data also demonstrate that concentrations of  the
toxic  metals  and iron and manganese in drainage from these areas are
at or very near limits of analytical detection.

The Office of Surface Mining initiated a regulatory program under  the
Surface  Mining  Control  and  Reclamation Act (SMRCA) to control both
surface coal mining and the surface effects of underground coal mining
(30 CFR Parts 700 et seq.),  Section 509 of SMCRA requires coal  mines
to  post  bond securing their performance with the requirements of the
Act.   Liability under the bond remains for at least five  years  after
the  last year of augmented seeding, fertilizing, irrigation and other
reclamation work (for at least 10  years  after  that  time  in  those
regions  of  the  country where the average annual precipitation is 26
inches or less)

Liability under performance can continue for as long as  necessary  to
achieve  compliance  with  all requirements of SMCRA.  Runoff from the
disturbed  areas  of  a  surface  mine  must  be  passed   through   a
sedimentation  pond or treatment facility until the disturbed area has
been restored,  revegetation  requirements  have  been  met,  and  the
quality  of the drainage without treatment "meets the applicable State
and Federal water quality  standard  requirements  for  the  receiving
stream."

EPA's  regulations  for post-mining discharges are consistent with the
requirements of SMCRA in that effluent  limitations  guidelines  apply
only until full release of  the SMCRA performance bond.  The release of
the  bond  by  the  appropriate  SMCRA  authority  signifies the OSM's
determination  that  the  coal  mine  operator  has  carried  out  his
responsibilities  under SMCRA, and that post-mining pollution problems
are accounted for and can be reasonably expected not to occur.

However, EPA investigated the potential need for effluent  limitations
guidelines  after  the  SMCRA  bond  release  (see  Appendix C).   This
investigation, completed in August  1982,  consisted  of  a  telephone
survey,  and  a  literature  search  of information regarding effluent
discharges at "post-bond" release mines.  Federal, State,  and  public
information sources were examined.  As a result of this investigation,
the  Agency  was  able  to   develop estimates of the number of active,
closed, and abandoned coal  mines, but was not able  to  determine  the
number  of  coal  mines sealed or reclaimed under SMRCA.  Based on the
results of this data collection effort,  there  is  insufficient  data
available  to  support  the  development  of regulations for post-bond
release reclamation areas.

Underground Mine Discharges

Current Treatment Technology
                                283
-------
Underground mines will often continue to discharge after cessation  of
coal  removal  from the mine.  This drainage is similar in composition
to the drainage that occurred during the  active  life  of  the  mine,
since  the  mechanism  for  generation is identical (see "Inventory of
Anthracite Coal Mining Operations, Wastewater Treatment and  Discharge
Practices,"  by  Frontier  Technical  Associates,  Buffalo, N.Y., June
1980).    No  EPA  limitations  are  currently  established  for  these
discharges.   However,  OSM  standards  require  that this drainage be
treated until either the discharge continuously meets  the  applicable
Federal  and  State  requirements  or  the  discharge  has permanently
ceased.

Technology  to  control  these  discharges  is   identical   to   that
implemented  for  active  mine  drainage.   For  acid discharges, this
includes neutralization, aeration, and settling.  Alkaline  discharges
require  only  settling.  Each of these has been extensively discussed
and will not be repeated here.
Candidate Treatment Technology

Each treatment  technology  presented  in  the  active
sections is also considered for this subcategory.
                                                        mine  drainage
ALTERNATE LIMITATIONS DURING PRECIPITATION EVENTS
Precipitation   events   can  make  it
limitations on TSS, iron and manganese
Capability of  Surface  Mine  Sediment
Engineers-Consultants,    Harrisburg,
                                        infeasible  to  meet  effluent
                                       (see "Evaluation of Performance
                                        Basins"  by  Skelly  and  Loy,
                                         Pennsylvania,   July   1 979) .
Precipitation events are beyond the  control  of  the  coal  operator;
thus,  some  mechanism should exist to temporarily exempt the facility
from compliance during wet  weather  conditions  until  "dry  weather"
conditions return.  For the coal mining industry, precipitation is the
prime   cause   of   an   excursion  beyond  the  effluent  standards,
particularly for total suspended solids.  This  is  because  the  vast
tracts of land occupied by many surface coal mines receive substantial
rainfall, particularly in the Appalachian coal region.

The  original  exemption  for storm (or snowmelt) was published in the
BPT regulatory promulgation of 26  April  1977  (42  FR  21380).   The
exemption  was  provided  for  overflows from sedimentation ponds that
were "designed, constructed, and maintained to contain  or  treat  the
discharges   .  .   .  which  would  result  from  a  10-year,  24-hour
precipitation event  .  .   . . "   Thus,  the  exemption  was  available
regardless of the size of the hydrologic event.
                                 284
-------
On  12  January  1979,  the  Agency promulgated new source performance
standards for the coal mining category that contained a modified storm
exemption.  The modification included that:  (1) the burden  of  proof
was  placed  on  the  operator  to  demonstrate  that  the appropriate
prerequisites to obtaining the exemption had  been  met,  and   (2)  an
exemption  could only be granted if a 10-year, 24-hour or larger event
(or snowmelt of equivalent volume) had actually occurred.  On 2  April
1979,  the  exemption  provided for existing sources was amended to be
identical to the NSPS exemption.

These actions met with substantial criticism and legal  opposition  by
various  industry  trade  groups,  such that EPA withdrew its modified
exemption provision and instituted the  Skelly  and  Loy  Study  cited
above   to   more   clearly  define  sedimentation  pond  performance,
particularly for those storms less than the  10-year,  24-hour  event.
This study concluded that sediment-pond efficiency during storm events
is,  to a large extent, dependent on site-specific factors. The inflow
hydrograph (i.e., the volume of water delivered to a pond at any given
moment during or immediately after a storm) of a  given  storm  event,
and the volume and concentration of sediment delivered, will depend in
each  case  on,  among  other things, the soil erodibility, length and
steepness of the terrain, and cover and management practices  employed
at  a  given watershed.  Moreover, the specific total suspended solids
concentration in the effluent of a given sediment pond will depend  on
the particle size distribution of the solids delivered to the pond.

As  the Skelly and Loy study demonstrates, theoretical detention times
on the order of 24 hours may not be sufficient to permit  settling  of
fine,  colloidal  solids.   Thus,  even  if  all  of the larger solids
settle, TSS effluent concentrations can vary widely depending upon the
amounts of fine material present in the influent.  The  particle  size
distribution  of the sediment delivered at a particular site is thus a
critical factor affecting effluent quality, and is largely beyond  the
control  of  the  operator.  This distribution will vary not only from
site to site for a given storm event, but at the same site during  the
course of the storm (7).

These   conclusions  were  verified  by  other  available  literature,
including an  EPA  study  entitled,  "Effectiveness  of  Surface  Mine
Sedimentation   Ponds"   published  in  1976.    This  study's  central
conclusion was that the sediment ponds which  were  properly  designed
and  maintained  were measured to have high efficiencies of removal of
suspended solids during the baseline sampling  period.   However,   the
efficiency  of  removal  of  suspended  solids was measured to be much
lower during the storm event (12).

As a result of these  investigations,  on  28  December  1979   (44  FR
76788),  the  Agency  rescinded  its BPT and NSPS storm exemptions and
promulgated what was .essentially the original BPT exemption, with  the
burden  of  proof  placed  upon an operator and a requirement that the
overflow had been caused by an actual hydrological event.
                                     285
-------
During the course  of  this  rulemaking,  the  Agency  instituted  two
studies  to  investigate  the appropriateness of alternate limitations
during the storm exemption period.  One  study  established  the  data
base  supporting  the pH and settleable solids limitations, of 6-9 and
0.5 ml/1 respectively, for reclamation areas and active  mining  areas
during  precipitation  events  (see Appendix A of this document).  The
other study determined that settleable solids can  be  measured  below
1,0 ml/1 with a reasonable degree of precision and accuracy, and that,
for  the  coal mining industry, 0.4 ml/1 is the method detection limit
for this parameter (see Appendix B of this document).  (This study was
performed because, since proposal  of  this  regulation,  considerable
public  comment  was  submitted to EPA stating the discrepancy between
the proposed 0.5 ml/1 standard and the Standard Methods statement that
"the practical lower limit is about 1 ml/l/hr.)  These two studies are
briefly discussed below in order to present the rationale  behind  the
selection of settleable solids for regulation.

Settleable Solids

The  308 self-monitoring survey, as discussed in Appendix A, requested
industry submit weekly data on their  sedimentation  pond  performance
for  a  one year period.  Data was submitted on TSS, suspended solids,
total and dissolved iron, and pH by EPA approved  analytical  methods.
These  data, with pertinent rainfall information, were to be submitted
to EPA on a monthly basis.

Twenty-four ponds submitted data.  Seventeen of the 24  ponds  satisfy
the  necessary  design  criteria  as  specified  in  the  May 26, 1982
proposal to the coal mining regulations.  This specification  required
that  in  order  for  a  facility  to  become  eligible  for  a  "storm
exemption" the treatment facility must be able to contain  the   runoff
resulting  from a 10-year, 24-hour storm.  The volume of runoff  had to
include the drainage from inactive (reclaimed) areas  in  addition  to
the  active  mining  areas (undisturbed, or virgin areas were excluded
from consideration).  Four of the 17  ponds  had  no  discharge.   Two
additional  ponds  were  excluded  from analysis because of design and
operational defects.2 Thus a total of 11 of the 10-year, 24-hour ponds
submitted discharge data and satisfied the design criteria.

The facilities submitted data during  both  wet  and  dry  conditions.
However,  analysis were only performed on the wet weather data because
1) the settleable solids limitation for active mines will  only  apply
during  precipitation  events,  and  2) although the settleable  solids
limitation will apply during all weather  conditions  for  reclamation
2The two ponds excluded  from  analysis  either  had  effluent  points
located  very  near  the  influent  point,  resulting in poor settling
performance  or  had  drainage  from  surrounding   spoil   areas   at
unspecified  influent  points  to the pond.  This was not the case for
the other ponds.
                                    286
-------
areas,  effluent  discharges  at these areas are primarily a result of
runoff during precipitation.

These eleven ponds submitted a total of 262 measurements taken  during
wet  weather conditions of which 4 exceeded settleable solids value of
0.5 ml/1.  Thus, 98.47% of the measurements were less than or equal to
this value.

A stastical analyses was performed on these results and  is  presented
in  Appendix  A.   On the basis of this analysis, the Agency concluded
that the  0.5  ml/1  value  is  consistent  with  the  99%  compliance
criterion used for establishing effluent limitations.

Furthermore,  similar  analyses  were  performed on data from 18 ponds
regardless of size, (excluding from  the  original  24,  the  4  ponds
without  discharge, and the two that were improperly designed).  There
were a total of 414 observations from these ponds of which 7  exceeded
the effluent limit of 0.5 ml/1 for settleable solids.  Thus, 98.31% of
the  measurements  were  less  than  or  equal  to this value.  Again,
analyses   of  these  data  showed  the  0.5  ml/1  limitation  to  be
consistent with the 99% compliance criterion.

Thus,  analysis  of  the  available  settleable  solids data from coal
mining sedimentation ponds demonstrates that the proposed limit of 0.5
ml/1 is consistent with Agency policy for effluent guidelines  of  99%
compliance.   Statistical  analysis shows that the observed exceedance
rate is not significantly different from 1%.   This  conslusion  holds
regardless of whether or not the size criterion for ponds specified in
the proposed regulation is considered.

Even  though  the technology basis behind the 0.5 ml/1 limitation is a
10-year, 24-hour pond, the analysis shows that even smaller ponds  can
achieve  this  limitation.   Therefore, any type of treatment facility
such as smaller ponds, diversion ditching, or diking can  qualify  for
alternate  limitations  during  precipitation  events  as  long as the
limitations are met.

The deletion of the pond design criteria is also consistent  with  the
OSM proposed regulations which have deleted this requirement as well.

Comments  were  submitted  regarding  their  concern  over  a 0.5 ml/1
settleable solids limitation because Standard Methods suggest that the
"practical lower limit is about 1.0 ml/1." Therefore, EPA conducted  a
study  to determine the precision and accuracy of measuring settleable
solids below 1.0 ml/1 (see Appendix B).  This study concluded that not
only can settleable solids be measured below 1.0  ml/1  but  that  the
maximum  method  detection  limit for this parameter is 0,4 ml/1.  The
method detection limit is defined as the minimum  concentration  of  a
substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence
that  the  analyte  concentration  is greater than zero and determined
from analyses of a sample in a  given  matrix  containing  sample.   A
description  of  the procedure to calculate the method detection limit
is presented in Appendix B or can be found  in  Environmental  Science
                                  287
-------
and  Technology,  "Trace  Analyses  for Wastewaters," Vol. 15, No. 12,
December 1981, Page 1426.

This study involved field and laboratory determinations of the  method
detection  limit  using samples collected at 8 different sedimentation
ponds.   Samples  were  analyzed  using  the  Imhoff  cone  method  as
specified  in  Standard  Methods  for  the  Examination  o|_  Water and
Wastewater and 304(h) of the "EPA's methods for Analysis of Water  and
Wastewater".

Settleable  solids  analyses were first conducted in the field.  Seven
aliquots were prepared for each sample and  placed  in  Imhoff  cones.
Each  aliquot  was  read  by  three  independent observers.  The seven
aliquots were then recombined into one sample  and  shipped  to  EPA's
laboratories  whereby  the same procedure was repeated only under more
controlled conditions.  A method detection limit was  then  determined
from the results of these samples.

There  were  a total of eight samples  (one from each pond) measured on
site.  The method  detection  limits  determined  from  these  samples
ranged  from 0.04 ml/1 to 0.40 ml/1 with an arithmetic average of 0.22
ml/1.  Out of the 10 samples sent to and measured in the laboratory (2
were duplicates), the method detection limit ranged from 0.05 ml/1  to
0.20 ml/1 with an arthmetic average of 0.12 ml/1.   {Laboratory results
are  typically  lower  because of the more controlled conditions under
which samples are analyzed).  In  an  effort  to  derive  a  practical
method  detection  limit  representative  of  industrial conditions, a
method detection limit based on the  field  determinations  is  deemed
most  appropriate.   In  addition,  rather  than  establish the method
detection limit  based  on  the  average  value  a  more  conservative
approach is to base the method detection limit on the maximum value.

Thus, this study concluded that 1) settleable solids can be read below
1.0  ml/1  and  2)  a  method  detection  limit  of 0.4 ml/1 should be
established for the coal mining industry.

The results from both studies concluded that the 0.5  ml/1  settleable
solids  limitation  is  achievable  and measurable and therefore is an
appropriate and effective means of sediment control  both  for  active
mines during precipitation events and for reclamation areas.
                                 288
-------
                             SECTION VIII
              COST, ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ISSUES
INTRODUCTION
The  principal purpose of this chapter is to present results of a cost
analysis for treatment technologies within  each  subcategory.  Energy
requirements   and  nonwater  quality • impacts  such  as  solid  waste
generation and air pollution are also  discussed  for  each  treatment
system.   To  conduct  this  analysis,  a  model  plant  approach  was
utilized.  The first step in this procedure is to estimate average and
maximum  flow  volumes  and  other  design   parameters.    This   was
accomplished  by  review  of  pertinent  literature and site visits to
operating coal mines.  From this information,   capital  and  operating
cost  curves  are  prepared to reflect each component of the treatment
system.  These component costs are then assembled into  overall  costs
for  an  entire  treatment  system  or  level.   Energy usage for each
technology is also computed.

A detailed breakdown of this section's summarized costs  is  presented
in  a  cost  manual  developed as a part of this project (1),' which is
included as a supplement to this document.   Additional assumptions and
backup cost data are found in Appendix A of the Proposed  Coal  Mining
Development Document (EPA 440/1-81/057-b),  and in reference (2).

The  final  step  in  the  cost analysis was to verify the accuracy of
model plant costs with actual costs at an active coal mine.  This  was
achieved  by  first  visiting  various mines and collecting design and
cost information and then computing system costs for that  mine.   The
results, which are presented in Appendix A in the Proposed Coal Mining
Development  Document,   were then compared with the model plant costs,
using the actual flow at that mine.  Treatment methods such as reverse
osmosis, electrodialysis, carbon  adsorption,   ion  exchange,   sulfide
precipitation,  and  ozonation  were  initially considered as possible
treatment processes for  attaining  BAT  or  NSPS  compliance.   These
treatment  systems  are  not  included  in  this section because these
systems are not  feasible for  reasons  previously  discussed.   Table
VIII-1   summarizes capital c.nd operating costs for these systems based
on a flow of 1.0 mgd.

Note:     Costs presented are based on estimates prepared in 1978  and
1979.   These  costs  can be converted to 1982 dollars (or appropriate
year) by using the Engineering News  Record  (ENR)  Construction  Cost
                                 289
-------
                                            Table VIII-1

                              CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS OF ALTERNATE
                                       TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
                                       NOT RECOMMENDED FOR BAT
ro
vo
o
     Carbon
       Adsorption

     Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis


Electrodialysls


Ozonation

Sulfide Precipi-
  tation
Pollutants Treated

Organics and heavy
metals

Dissolved solids
and heavy metals

Dissolved solids
and heavy metals

Dissolved solids
and heavy metals

Cyanide Reduction

Heavy metals
Capital Cost
 ($1.OOP's)

       2,000
500 to 1,000
                                                 500 to 1,000
                                                          500
                                                          240

                                                  No applicable
                                                  data available
                                                            Operating Cost
                                                            (1/1.000  gal)

                                                              1.37  - 1.64
                                                              1.00  -  1.90
                  0.95 - 1.90
                  0.80 - 1.00
                  0.20 - 0,25

                  No applicable
                  data available
                                                                                     Source
  (6)


  (6)


  (6)


(1),  (7)
     Basis:   1.0 mgd  facility;  1979  dollars.
-------
Index.   For  example  the  index for 1978  is 2,776 and  1982  is  3,730.
{See  "Engineering News Report," March 18, 1982, for   index  listings).
Dividing  the  1982  index  by the  1978  index yields  a factor of  1.34.
Compliance costs in 1978 dollars can be  multiplied by this  factor  to
derive costs in 1982 dollars.
MINE DRAINAGE
Existing Sources

Treatment Levels

Four  treatment  systems  (designated  levels  1,  2,  3,  and
identified  as  the  basis  for  the  cost  analysis.   These
incorporate the technically feasible technologies discussed in
VII, as outlined below,
                                                               4) were
                                                               systems
                                                               Section
Level  One.   This system is typical of a BPT treatment configuration.
As shown schematically in  Figure  VIII-1,  this  scheme  consists  of
optional   raw  water  holding  for  equalization,  neutralization  if
required for acid drainage,  optional aeration, settling, and  optional
sludge  dewatering.
required.
                      Some  type  of  pH  monitoring  and  control  is
Level Two.  This level consists of installing  "add-on"  equipment  to
the present BPT facilities to permit the addition of a flocculant aid.
The  flocculant  aid  is  normally an organic polyelectrolyte added to
promote agglomeration  and  subsequent  settling  of  finer  suspended
solids.  This level is depicted schematically in Figure VIII-2.

Level  Three.   This  level,  shown  schematically  in  Figure VI11-3,
consists of mixers and flocculator-clarifiers in lieu of sedimentation
basins,  and  also  additional  chemical  feed,   mixing  and  aeration
facilities.  More sophisticated chemical and pH monitoring and control
facilities  are  also  included.   This  level  of  treatment would be
applicable to a major upgrade of existing BPT facilities  or  where  a
mine  was  meeting  BPT  requirements without treatment facilities and
would chose this treatment system to comply with BAT limitations.
Level Four
filtration
This technology
             This level consists of the  addition  of  granular  media
            to  one  or  more  of the first three levels of treatment.
                is depicted in Figure VIII-4.
Capital Costs

Capital cost estimates were prepared for each level of  treatment,  in
most  cases  for  ranges  between  0.02  and 9 million gallons per day
                                  291
-------
         (IF INSTALLED)
 RAW
WATER
RAW WATER!
 HOLDING
  POND
                            LIME
                            FEED
                          (IF REQUIRED)
MIXER 8k/OR
 AERATION
  TANK
SETTLING
FACILITY
>EFFLUENT
                                   SLUDGE
                                 DEWATERING
                                  OPTIONAL
                                                             SLUDGE/SEDIMENT
                                                             TO DISPOSAL
     NOTE:

     AERATION STEP  NOT USED FOR WATERS
     CONTAINING NON-FERROUS  IRON.
                                Figure VIII-1

                       SCHEMATIC OF LEVEL 1 (BPT) FACILITIES
-------
                                                    NEW
                                                  POLY FEED
                                                  FACILITIES
       RAW
     WATER
ro
^D
UO
                  EXISTING
                    LIME
                    FEED
                                (IF REQUIRED)
              (IF INSTALLED)
RAW WATER
 HOLDING
  POND
MIXER a/OR
 AERATION
  TANK
SETTLING
 FACILITY
                                                    SLUDGE
                                                  DEWATERING
                                                   OPTIONAL
EFFLUENT
                                                   SLUDGE SEDIMENT
                                                   TO DISPOSAL
           NOTE;

           AERATION STEP NOT NORMALLY USED
           FOR WASTE WATERS CONTAINING NON
           FERROUS  IRON.
                                       Figure VIII-2

                     SCHEMATIC OF LEVEL 2 SYSTEM TO TREAT ACID DRAINAGE
-------
                                  COAGULANT
                 EXISTING
                CHEMICAL
                  FEED
                FACILITIES
                RAW WATER
                          POLY
                                                               FLOCCULATOR
                                                                CLARIFIER
PO
                 _^ILTRATE_
                 ~TO LEVEL I
                 EQUALIZATION
                           (OPTIONAL)
                                                                          DISCHARGE
  SLUDGE
DEWATERING
 OPTIONAL
Y
                                    i
                                 SLUDGE
                               TO DISPOSAL
      I
      I


      I




     i
   SLUDGE
TO DISPOSAL
                                    Figure VIII - 3

                        SCHEMATIC OF LEVEL 3 MINE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
-------
VJ)
RAW ^
WATE
R

E:
L
TRI
VMB
:
^
KISTIfy
EVEL
EATME
mmmm
4
i
r
SLUDG
DEWATER
OPTION

IG 1
piiLJ PUMPS
^-FILTRATE

Nu |^
AL 1
FILTER
1
t
r
** •
^ i

< 0 B;
' Q s
SMB
EFFLUENT

^CKWASH I
TORAGE 1
mmaBamfumm
BACKWASH 1
TREATMENT 1
1
1
_kj


                         i
                      SLUDGE
                    TO DISPOSAL
                                             Figure VIII-4

                   SCHEMATIC OF LEVEL 4 - FILTRATION OF LEVEL 1 EFFLUENT ACID MINE WATER
-------
(mgd).   These flows cover the range of more than 99 percent of  active
discharging  mines.   The  capital  costs  for each level of treatment
include the purchase and installation of all necessary equipment  but,
in  most  cases,  do  not  include  land, power lines, access roads or
sludge disposal costs. These costs are presented separately.  Level   1
has  not  been  costed since it is assumed to be installed to meet the
BPT requirements.  A 25 percent factor is included in the capital cost
curves to account for engineering, administration, and contingencies.
System Capital Cost for Level ^  Treatment
system  provides  for  polymer  addition
suspended solids in mine drainage (acid or
the mixing, storage and feeding of polymer
range  of flow rates.  Only two different
to cover the entire flow range of 0.02 to
capital  costs  for the treatment level 2
rates up to 0.75 mgd and $40,000 for flow
including an enclosure.
    The  level  2  treatment
as  an aid in the removal of
 alkaline).   Equipment  for
 can be operated over a wide
polymer systems are required
 4.5  mgd  level  (1).    The
systems are $30,000 for flow
rates greater than 0.75  mgd
System Capital Costs for Level 3. Treatment.  Figure VIII-3 presented a
schematic  of  the equipment included in the level 3 treatment system.
This system includes a pump station, mixing tanks, clarifiers,  and  a
control  building.   The  capital costs are presented as a function of
flow rate in Figure VIII-5.

System Capital  Costs  for  Level  4.  Treatment.   The  equipment  and
facilities  comprising this treatment system are pump station, gravity
filters,  backwash  water  storage  tank,  and  control  building.   A
schematic  diagram of this system was presented in Figure VIII-4.  The
capital cost curve is shown in Figure VIII-6.

Land Requirements

The land requirements computed  for  treatment  levels  3  and  4  are
presented  in  Figure VIII-7,  The land required for level 2 should be
minimal and is included with the capital cost.   Once  the  land  area
that  is  needed from a particular treatment level is known, then this
value can be multiplied by the cost per acre at the site in  question.
For  the  purposes  of  this report the cost per acre is assumed to be
$4,000.

Annual Costs

Level 2_.  Table VIII-2 provides a breakdown of annual costs associated
with level 2  treatment  system.   By  incorporating  the  appropriate
amortized capital cost and polymer cost, Figure VIII-8 was generated.

Level  3_.   The  annualized  costs and energy requirements for level 3
treatment are computed in the  same  manner  as  those  for  level  2.
Polymer  addition  is  also  included  in  this treatment level and the
annualized cost and energy curves are presented in Figure VII1-9  with
a  two  mg/1  polymer dosage.  In this treatment system, two operators
                                  296
-------
                           Table VIII-2

    BREAKDOWN OF ANNUALIZED COST FOR LEVEL 2 TREATMENT SYSTEM
1.   Capital Recovery
     Construction:
       0.10608 x Cc

     Mechanical:
       0.16725 x Cc

               TOTAL
2.   Operating Personnel
3.   Maintenance

     (Materials & Supplies)
     (S 3% of Capital Cost)
4.   Chemicals

     (€ $2/lb & 365 days/year)
     (function of flow rate
      and dosage)
5.   Energy

     (€ $0.03/kW-hr, 24 hr/d,
      365 d/yr)
0.015-1.0 mgd


   $  500


    3,200
   $3,700
                                      $9,000
   $  900
$91-46,000
   $  400
  1.0-4.5 mgd


    $  900


     5.100

    $6,000




    $9,000
    $1,200
$6,000-274,000
    $  700
                               297
-------
                                        Coat  in Mllliona of Dollars
ro
VD
CO
      n
      o
      en
      H
        o
        *i
        rt
      r1
      oo
      MO
        M
ID
I
cn
          O
          A O
          to •
         •9
                    5*
                    p

                    a
                                        Ml
                                      i   i  i 11 MM
1   l~l I 1111
                      I I I Milt     I   I  i  I • • ili
                                                                     t  I  t I i l-ri
-------
                                               Cost in Millions of Dollars


                                                                         .
\D
             r*
           **J M

           r M
           H t-*
           o
           z
i_j y  H*

HH-9
           8
  >  M
WO  £
»"~i r^  t	1
  E™1  H


ZZJ •_.  O^

i»3
en Z

CM
w
           M
             CO

             r<
                        tr
                        A
                        CO
                        31
                        •

                        O


                        O
                          I    I  I I I I ll| .     I    I  I I I I III
                                                                               r   i  rniir
                                           i  i inii
                                               i    i  i  i  11 in
I    I  I I M I i
-------
UJ
o:
o
   0.01
                       DESIGN  FLOW IN M.G.D.
                        Figure VIII-7
                  MINE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
                 DESIGN  FLOW VERSUS LAND AREA
                        REQUIREMENTS
                           300
-------
                                  COST IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
U)
o










3
3)
-n
5
^

V/A
3
P
o
ft
1
01
1
-------
    10
            I   I  II 111 (I      I   I  I  1  I 11 II      I   I  I  I I I I
                                                                   100
Cfl
i^

S
1

3
£
X
W
H
   i.o
   o.i
                                                                    10
                                                                      z
                                                                      o
                                                                       -J
                                                                       M

                                                                       £
                                                                       5
                                                                       K
                                                                       z
                                                                       u
                                                                    1.0
                                                    Energy
   .01
     .01
            I_  I  111 t I II     l'   I  I I  I M II	!   I  1 I I! I L  0.1
                          0.1                  1.0

                           DESIGN FLOW IK H.G.D.
10
                             Figure VII1-9


            TREATMENT  LEVEL 3 ANNUALIZED  COSTS AND ENERGY

             REQUIREMENTS VERSUS MINE  DRAINAGE FLOWRATES
                                  302
-------
per shift are assumed for flow rates up to 0.75 mgd; above
three shift operators are required.
0.75  mgd,
Level  £.   Annualized  costs  and  energy  requirements  for   level  4
treatment were estimated by the same process used for level 2 and  are
presented  in Figure VIII-10.  Only one operator per shift is required
for this system.

New Sources

Four treatment levels were also established for  new  sources   in  the
mine  drainage  subcategory.   These  levels correspond closely to the
treatment levels under existing sources, with only minor modifications
in levels 3 and 4.  As shown  in  Figure  VIII-ll,  level  3  for  new
sources  would  include  recycle  of  filtrate  from sludge dewatering
equipment to the head of the treatment plant.  Level 4 for new sources
is modified to include levels 1, 2, or 3, as shown in Figure VIII-12.

Capital Costs

The capital cost assumptions for new sources are  identical  to  those
made  for  existing sources, with one major exception.  New sources by
definition  do  not  have  any  existing  treatment  installed,  while
existing  sources  were  assumed  to  have BPT or equivalent in place.
Therefore, new source capital (and annual) cost estimates must  include
the cost of BPT facilities as well.

System Capital Costs for Level ±_ Treatment.   The  level  1  treatment
system  provides  for  the  construction  of  a sedimentation basin or
clarifier to remove suspended matter  from  mine  drainage  (acid  and
alkaline).  The capital costs for sedimentation ponds are presented in
Figure  VIII-13,   If  lime  feed equipment is required and the dosage
known, Figure VIII~14 can be used to determine the cost  of  installed
equipment.

System  Capital  Costs  for  Level 2_ Treatment.  The level 2 treatment
system provides for the construction  of  a  sedimentation  basin  for
polymer  addition as an aid in the removal of suspended matter in mine
drainage (acid or alkaline).   The  capital  costs  for  sedimentation
ponds  are  presented in Figure VII1-13.  Since the sedimentation pond
sizing is based on the area storm runoff while  the  polymer  addition
equipment  is  based  on  the  dry  weather  flow, it is infeasible to
prepare cost curves  of  combined  sedimentation  basins  and  polymer
addition  equipment  costs.   Therefore separate curves are presented.
The capital costs for the polymer addition  systems  are  $30,000  for
flow rates up to 0.75 mgd and $40,000 for flow rates greater than 0.75
mgd including an enclosure.

System  Capital  Costs  for Level 3_ Treatment.  This system includes  a
pump station, mixing tanks, clarifiers,  and a  control  building.  The
capital  costs  were  presented  as  a function of flow rate in Figure
VIII-5.
                                303
-------
      COST  IN  THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
o

I
H
m
2
£
f 52
* ?
5 "
w >
M £
« £
s 5
H w
P3 O)
pa *fl
H* Z
H OQ O
gj C -t
> re z
•^ o
z < r-
m fc-4 C
z "-1 2
H M g
j> "-*
Z 0 M
£ 1-
^ §
^ 0
n ^
w <=>
fi H
c m
S "
w o
o
^)
£
***
tl
H
A






o
z 2
o
H
m
en







O
1
en
m
s
m
7
"n
5
$

—
2 °
O

»





s






I
\
I
\
^



























I
\
\
\




























v
\
\




























^
\
v



























\



























s




























s



























v




























\



























V
\
\
\
\
\
\
































































































































































































































-------
                                COAGULANT
UJ
O
Ul
               CHEMICAL
                 FEED
               FACILITIES
                          POLY
                                                            FLOCCULATOR-
                                                              CLARIFIER
               RAW WATER
             L«	rlLI_nA.'.t.	
  SLUDGE
DEWATERING
 OPTIONAL
                               SLUDGE
                            TO DISPOSAL
                                           SLUDGE
                                         TO DISPOSAL
                                                                       DISCHARGE
                                       Figure VIII-11

                             SCHEMATIC OF LEVEL 3 NSPS FACILITIES
-------
 RAW
WATER
SEDIMENTATION
 BASIN OR LEVEL
2 OR 3 TREATMENT
                         EFFLUENT
                SLUDGE
              TO DISPOSAL
F LTERS
                                                             BACKWASH
                                                              WATER
                                                             STORAGE
            •^FILTRATE
       SLUDGE
     DEWATERING
      OPTIONAL
                                         BACKWASH
                                         TREATMENT
                                  Figure VIII-12

                        SCHEMATIC OF LEVEL 4 NSPS FACILITIES
-------
               THOUSAND OF DOLLARS
             o
             o
                      ro
           O
           o
I

"n
m
m
H

O
-n
fc.	

\
O
O
m
                                        \
   ro
   ro
   ro
-------
                           COST  IN THOUSAND  OF DOLLARS
  R
  <
  PJ
  Z
  PI
H W
t-3C

r H
  PI
cs ?o
o
WH


n§
CH
5C 2k

PI Z
WH
  2
  c
03
c

n>
 i

 H*
 *^
-------
System Capital  Costs  for  Level  4  Treatment.   The  equipment   and
facilities  comprising this treatment system are pump station,  gravity
filters,  backwash  water  storage  tank,  and  control  building.   A
schematic  diagram of this system was presented in Figure VII1-4.   The
capital cost  curve  was  shown  in  Figure  VII1-6.   This   level  of
treatment must be applied after either a sedimentation basin  alone, or
after  level  3  treatment.   If  the  total  cost  for this  system is
required the costs from Figure VIII-6 should be  combined  with  costs
for the appropriate sedimentation basin or the level 3 costs.

Land Requirements

The  land  requirements  for  levels  3 and 4 were presented  in Figure
VIII-7.  An insignificant amount of land is required for level  2.

Annual Costs

Level 1_.  The annual costs for level 1 are composed  of  sedimentation
basin annual costs from Figure VIII-15, lime feeding for pH adjustment
from  Figure  VIII-16  if  required  and sludge dewatering from Figure
VIII-17 if this is installed.
Level 2_.  The  annual  costs
presented in Figure VIII-8.
for  level  2,  polymer  addition,  were
Level  ,3.  The annual costs for level 3 were presented in Figure VIII-
9.

Level £.  The annual costs for level 4 were presented in Figure  VIII-
10.
PREPARATION PLANTS AND ASSOCIATED AREAS
Existing Sources

Water  discharged  from  coal  preparation  plants and their  immediate
areas originates from two  sources:   (1)  preparation  plant  process
wastewater  (PP)  and  (2) wastewater generated in the vicinity of the
plant facilities, from coal storage areas, and  from  refuse  disposal
areas (Associated Area Runoff (AA)).

These  discharges  are disposed of in various methods depending on the
specific site under consideration.  For instance, the flows   could  be
segregated  or  commingled.  The preparation plant water circuit could
be  once-through  or  with  partial  or  total  recycle   of   process
wastewaters.   Various systems have been costed in an attempt to cover
                                   309
-------
                                     THOUSAND OF DOLLARS
U)

M

O
                                             ro
                                             O
                       O
                       30
                       m
                         <0
3*
m
H

O _
                       > OD


                       m



                         10
                         ro
                                  Ni
-------
             10000
LO
             a:
             giooo
a
z
<
to
D
o

H

2 100
             10
             O
             O
               10
                OOI
                                  I              10


                                WASTEWATER FLOW-MOD
IOO
IOOO
                                            Figure VIII-16


                           LEVEL  1 MINE WASTEWATER TREATMENT pH ADJUSTMENT

                                          ANNUAL COST CURVES
-------
LO
            CO
            CC
            •*


            o
            o
            u.
            o
            en
            a
O)

O

t-

z
            CO
            O
            o
    1.000
     100
                                                   IO.O
                                                                        100
                                   SOLIDS (DRV) IN 1.000  POUNDS/HR
                                          Figure VIII-17
                              WASTEWATER TREATMENT VACUUM FILTRATION

                          SLUDGE DEWATERING FACILITIES CAPITAL COST CURVET
-------
each of the water handling options (3).
discussed below.
These options and systems ;are
Zero Discharge of Preparation Plant Water Circuit

Three systems were identified for existing sources  to  achieve  total
recycle  of  preparation  plant  process wastewater (also termed "zero
discharge").

System ]_.  This system, shown in Figure VIII-18, assumes that  a  pond
system is installed,  the preparation plant presently has from 0 to  TOO
percent  recycle,  and  the  associated  area  storm runoff enters  the
preparation  plant  water  circuit.   In  this  case,    the   existing
sedimentation  basin would require dikes to divert the associated area
runoff to a new sedimentation pond designed to contain the  volume  of
runoff  from  a  10-year,  24-hour  storm  and  also  diversion of  the
undisturbed area runoff around the associated area.

System 2_.  This system assumes that preparation plant  wastewater   and
associated  area  runoff are segregated for treatment.  A clarifier is
installed to treat the preparation plant wastewater. Recycle from   the
clarifier  overflow  to  the  preparation plant can vary from 0 to  100
percent.   A sedimentation  pond  is  assumed  to  be  in  place  which
receives  only  associated  area  runoff and possibly some undisturbed
area runoff.   Figure VIII-19 is a schematic of this system.

System 3_.  This system, shown in Figure VIII-20, assumes  a  clarifier
is  installed  to  treat  preparation plant wastewater.  The clarifier
discharge and associated area runoff presently are combined and routed
to an existing pond for treatment.  Recycle from  the  pond  can  vary
from 0 to 100 percent.  Modifications would include the elimination of
the  pond from the preparation plant water circuit by installing a  new
pump station to route 100 percent of the  clarifier  overflow  to   the
preparation  plant.    The  pond  would,   however,  continue to provide
treatment for the associated area runoff.
Allowable Discharge from the Preparation Plant Water Circuit

Since this configuration is currently  the  option  selected  by
plants, only one system was identified for costing purposes.
                         most
System  4_.   This  scenario  assumes  an  allowable discharge from the
preparation plant water circuit.  Preparation plant waters may or  may
not be recycled.  Figure VIII-21 is a schematic of this system showing
the   preparation   plant   discharge   treated   first  in  either  a
sedimentation basin or a clarifier and then by filtration.  Associated
area runoff is shown as being treated separately, however, it  may  be
commingled.

Capital Costs

Cost  estimates  were  prepared  for  the  components  for each of the
preparation plant flow configurations.  These costs were then  plotted
                                   313
-------
U)
t->
4=-
NEW DIKES TO DIVERT
ASSOCIATED AREA
RUNOFF TO NEW
SEDIMENTATION
POND	

EXISTING
ASSOCIATED
AREA
RUNOFF

EXISTING
 PREP
 PLANT
                                                             NEW
                                                         SEDIMENTATION
                                                             POND
                                                                          T0
                            EXISTING StJURRY
                                POND®
                                                                      DISCHARG
                                                         DIVERSION DITCHES TO SEGREGATE
                                                         UNDISTURBED AREA RUNOFF
                                                                "0" DISCHARGE
                                 NEW OR
                                EXPANDED
                                  PUMP
                                 STATION
                                                               MAKEUP
                                                                 LEGEND
                                                                        EXISTING FACILITIES
                                                                        PROPOSED
                                                                          II
                                                                  +++++ ABANDONED »
                                       Figure VIII-1&

                    EXISTING PREPARATION PLANT - SYSTEM 1 WATER CIRCUITS  - ZERO DISCHARGE
-------
U)
H1
U1
           EXISTING
            PREP.
           PLANT
                             EXISTING
                             CLARIFIER
                                               SLUDGE CAKE
                                               TO LAND FILL
      r
                                                      MAKEUP
 NEW OR
EXPANDED
  PUMP
 STATION
                                                    O" fclSCHARGE
      ASSOCIATED
        AREA —
       RUNOFF
SEDIMENTATION  /
   BASIN
                                                                    LEGEND
                                                            TO
                                                         DISCHARGE
                                EXISTING FACILITIES
                                PROPOSED  »
                                ABANDONED «
                                         Figure VIII-19

                             SYSTEM 2 - EXISTING PREPARATION fLANT WATER CIRCUITS
-------
LO
EXISTING
 PREP
PLANT
         WATER SOURCE
                                           SLUDGE CAKE
                                           TO LAND FILL
                                               NEW
                                              PUMP
                                             STATION
                                                               * f A
                                                     ASSOCIATED
                                                       AREA
                                                                              TO
                                                                           DISCHARGE
                                               EXISTING  \
                                            SEDIMENTATION \
                                                POND  	>
                                                                    LEGEND
                                                                EXISTING FACILITIES
                                                                PROPOSED  »
                                                          w,w ABANDONED *
                                                                    r+*
                                         Figure VIII-20

                              SYSTEM 3 - EXISTING PREPARATION PLANT WATER CIRCUITS
-------
uo
t-1
-a
             POLYMER
               FEED
             POLYMER
               FEED
1
     ASSOCIATED
        AREA  ~
       RUNOFF
     UNDISTURBED _
        AREA
                                           SLUDGE CAKE
                                           TO LAND FILL
      EXISTING
       PREP.
      PLANT
                EXISTING
                SLURRY
                 POND
                                    PROPOSED DIKE
                          | FILTRATION}	> TO.DISCHARGE
                                                   | FILTRATION]	> TO DISCHARGE
                                       EXISTING CLARIFIER
                                                                   LEGEND
                                                          EXISTING FACILITIES
                                                          PROPOSED  »
                                                    w* ABANDONED «
                                       i> TO DISCHARGE
  EXISTING
SEDIMENTATION  >
    POND    /
                                        Figure VIII-21

                   SYSTEM 4 - EXISTING PREPARATION PLANT - ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE
-------
with  flow  rate  or, in the case of storm runoff, with runoff volume.
The expected  cost  for  each  component  includes  the  purchase  and
installation   of   all  necessary  equipment  but  does  not  include
installation of power lines or access roads assumed to be in place  at
existing  preparation  plants,  but needed for new sources.  Since the
total capital cost is very  site-specific,  the  component  costs  are
presented  so  that if the parameters of a specific site are known the
total system can be costed using the appropriate component costs.

System K  The  items  that  may  require  costing  for  this  system,
depending on the particular site in question, include:

     Sedimentation basin-diking,
     Associated area drainage ditch construction,
     Recycle pump station,
     Polymer feed system,
     Sedimentation basins.

Knowing  the  size  and  configuration of the sedimentation basin will
allow the determination of the length of diking required.   With  this
known,  Figure  VHI-22  can  be  used  to  determine  the  cost.  The
associated area dimensions would then be used to determine the  length
of  drainage ditches required to segregate the undisturbed area runoff
from the associated area.  Figure VIII-23 is  used  to  determine  the
cost of the ditches required.  Figure VIII-13 is used to determine the
cost  of the sedimentation basin required to serve the associated area
and Figure VIII-24 is used to determine the cost of a new recycle pump
station.  If there is a flow  from  the  associated  area  during  dry
weather,  a  polymer  addition  system  may  be  required  so that the
effluent will meet guidelines.  A cost of  $30,000  is  estimated  for
flows  less  than  750,000 gpd and $40,000 for flow rates greater than
750,000 gpd, including an enclosure.

System 2..  The  items  that  may  require  costing  for  this  system,
depending on the particular site in question, include:

     Clarifier underflow dewatering
     Recycle pump station

It  is  assumed  that the existing associated area sedimentation basin
will not require  augmentation.   Figure  VIII-24  is  again  used  to
determine  the  cost  of  pumping  facilities.   The sludge dewatering
capital cost can be determined from Figure V1II-17.  The vacuum filter
loading rate (based on vendor design criteria)  is  50  pounds/hr/ft2.
Assuming  the  flow  rate  and  slurry  concentration  at a particular
preparation plant is  known,  the  proper  size  filter  can  then  be
determined.   As  an  example,  for a vacuum filter influent suspended
solids concentration of 100,000 mg/1 (10 percent), and a flow  of  250
gpm, the solids level in pounds per hour would be calculated using the
following formula:

                 S <= C x F X D X T
                        10*
                                  318
-------
or
o
o
ti.
o
CO
o
(O

O
X.
I-
co
o
o
I/W
\\J\J
W.
1.
r
0.1-
ii
NOT




























!'


/
/
f





























f
s
f






























V
/
































/


































x


































'

































(
^

































/































t
/
/
/













































4
•X
-^
— V
S
/












































/


































/





































































^

































/































J
y^
y
Jr





























y
/
/^






























y
jr
































/
















/
















/











|


i .
;













































/


































^










i


















DO 1,000 IQPOO 100,000
LINEAR FEET
E:
    CAN BE USED TO SEGREGATE UNDISTURBED
    AREA FROM ASSOCIATED AREA OR ASSOCIA-
    TED AREA FROM PREPARATION PLANT FLOW.
                              Figure VIII-22
             COAL MINE PREPARATION PLANT  WASTEWATER TREATMENT
             EARTH DIKE FOR RUNOFF CONTROL CAPITAL COST CURVE
                                   319
-------
ru
o
     a>
            H
CAN BE USED TO SEGREGATE UNDISTURBED
AREA FROM ASSOCIATED AREA OR ASSOCIATED
AREA FROM PREPARATION PLANT FLOW.
z UUDI IN IHUUSMNUS UF UUUUAKO
0 _ ?
m _8 - 5 8 S
•• 8
r
"Z.
m
m
o
"n
o
H
og
o
Q


























\




















































\

























k
\

























\


























x


























s_
x
X
x
x




















































V
~










































































































^


























S_
x
x
x
>


























\

























SK
^



















































^
^

























s


























s
*


























s
^
x
x
, .. X




























































































































































-------
CO
cr
o
o

u.
o

CO

o
n
-J
i
o
       0.01
     0.1                 1.0


WASTEWATER  FLOW - M G
10.0
                        Figure VIII-24


          COAL MINE PREPARATION PLANT WASTEWATER TREATMENT

    RECYCLE/MAKE-UP WATER PUMPING FACILITY CAPITAL  COST CURVE
                              321
-------
where C * concentration of suspended solids in mg/1

      F = flow in gpm

      D = 8.34 Ibs/gallon

      T - time * 60 minutes.

For the example stated:


          S - 12,510 Ibs per hour.

Using Figure VIII-17, the cost would be approximately $250,000.

System  3_,   The items that may be required for this system, depending
on the particular site in question, include:

     Sludge dewatering
     Recycle pump station

It is assumed that the associated area sedimentation basin design will
not require augmentation.  Figure VII1-17 can be used to determine the
cost of dewatering clarifier sludge.  Figure VIII-24 can  be  used  to
determine the cost of a recycle pump station.

System 4.  The items that may be required for the system, depending on
the particular site in question, include:

     Sedimentation basin-diking
     Sludge dewatering
     Polymer feed and granular media filtration.

This  system assumes an allowable discharge from the preparation plant
without  recycle  using  either  existing  sedimentation   basins   or
clarifiers.   The sludge dewatering cost, if required, can be obtained
from Figure VIII-17.  In order to meet effluent limitations, a polymer
feed may be required before the preparation plant slurry pond  or  the
clarifier.  The capital cost for polymer feed equipment  is $30,000 for
flows  up  to  750,000 gpd and $40,000 for flows over 750,000 gpd.  If
filtration is required to meet effluent limitations its  cost  can  be
found in Figure VIII-6.

Annual Costs

Since  the  components for the various systems described above and the
annual costs to operate and amortize these components  are  the  same,
the  annual  costs  are  presented  only  once.   Once   the need for a
component in a particular system is determined,  the  annual  cost  is
derived from the following Figures: VIII-25; Annual Costs of Dikes and
Ditches, VIII-26; Annual Costs of Recycle Pump Station,  VIII-27 Annual
Costs  of  Sludge  Dewatering  Facilities,  VI11-15;  Annual  Costs of
Sedimentation Ponds, VIII-28;  Annual  Costs  of  Clarifier  and  Pump
                                   322
-------
                                    COST IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
ua
ro
uo
         ft
         t-3
         M
         m
OR  H-

2 2 OQ
       OPl fl»
CjO I


hP K
 w


00



 M
025






 O
 M
 H
 O
 w-
              r

              2
              m
                     •n
                     m
                     m
                     H
                          o
                          o
                          o
                          o
                          o
                          o
                          "o
                          o
                          p
                          b
                          o
                          o
                                            O
                                                     O

                                                     b
8
-------
            1.0
UJ
to
-t=-
         CO
         or
         _
         o
         o

         u_
         o
5
         (O
         O
         o
            O.I
           o.ot
              O.OI
                              O.I                       1.0


                            WASTEWATER FLOW -MOD
IO.O
                                        Figure VIII-26


                          WASTEWATER TREATMENT RECYCLE/MAKE-UP WATER

                             PUMPING FACILITIES ANNUAL COST CURVE
-------
uo
to
          (n
          0:
          _
          o
          o

          U-
          O
          o
          CA
          ^
          O
          X
          cn
          o
          o
100
                                                 ANNUAL COST—v
                                                                              100
                             SOLIDS (DRY) IN 1,000 POUNDS/HOUR
                                       Figure VIII-27

                       WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE DEWATERING FACILITIES

                                      ANNUAL COST CURVE
-------
          ANNUAL COST IN  THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
 W
8
OH
cm
 D

 *0
       I
       M
       m

       i
       m
       o

        I
       G>

       O
                   ANNUAL ENERGY COST IN

                     THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
-------
Station.   All  the  component  annual  costs are additive for a given
system.

New Sources

Zero Discharge from Preparation Plant Water Circuit

System ]_.  This system assumes a new source using a pond to treat  the
preparation  plant discharge prior to 100 percent recycle.  A separate
pond designed to contain the runoff  from  a  10-year,  24-hour  storm
would  be  used  for  associated area runoff.  The associated area and
pond would be ditched  to  divert  an  undisturbed  area  runoff  from
associated area runoff.  Figure VIII-29 is a schematic of this system.
System £.  This system assumes a new source using a clarifier to treat
the  preparation  plant  discharge  prior  to  100 percent recycle.  A
separate pond designed to contain the runoff from a  10-year,  24-hour
storm  would  be used for associated area runoff.  The associated area
and pond would be ditched  to  divert  undisturbed  area  runoff  from
associated area runoff.  Figure VIII-30 is a schematic of this system.

Capital Costs

System  1_.  This system,  as shown in Figure VIII-29, is applied to new
sites  where  all  treatment  facilities  are  constructed  when   the
preparation  plant  is constructed.   A slurry pond for the preparation
plant wastewater would be installed and a pump station for TOO percent
recycle of the treated water required.  Associated area  runoff  would
be  segregated from the undisturbed area.  The items required for this
system include Figures: VII1-13 & VII1-22;  Preparation  Plant  Slurry
Pond  with  Dikes,  VIII-24; Recycle pump Station, VIII-23; Associated
Area Segregation by  Ditch  and  VIII-13;  Pond  for  Associated  Area
Runoff.  The figure numbers next to the items can be used to determine
the capital costs.

System  2_.  This system,  as shown in Figure VIII-30, is applied to new
sites when  a  clarifier  is  used  to  treat  the  preparation  plant
discharge.   The  items  required  for  this  system  include Figures:
VIII-31;  Clarifier,  VIII-17; Sludge Dewatering, VIII-24; Recycle  Pump
Station,  VIII-23; Associated Area Segregation from Undisturbed Area by
Ditch,  and  VIII-13  and  VIII-22;   Pond Associated Area Runoff.  The
figure numbers next to the items can be used to determine the  capital
costs.

Annual Costs

For  both new source systems, the annual costs can be derived from the
same annual cost curves presented for existing sources.
                                    327
-------
 NEW
 PREP.
PLANT
               POLYMER
                    IF
ro
CD
                                 SLUDGE DISPOSAL

                                   SLURRY
                                    POND
                                                                     WATER  SOURCE
                                               MAKEUP WATER
REQUI


ASSOCIATED
AREA
RUNOFF

i

RED SLUI
DISPC
A
* ^.
DGE
)SAL
k
/


PUMP STA
*
                                                                         TO
                                                                      DISCHARGE
   DITCHES TO DIVERT
   UNDISTURBED AREA
        RUNOFF
                                    Figure VIII-29

                          SYSTEM I - NEW SOURCE WATER CIRCUITS
-------
u>
ro
    — DIVERSION DITCHES
        TO SEGREGATE
   UNDISTURBED AREA  RUNOFF
                   POLYMER
                      IF
                  REQUIRED
       ASSOCIATED
          AREA
         RUNOFF

NEW
PREP.
PLANT



,,1
UJ
5
OH
5
u.
                                                      SLUDGE CAKE
                                                      TO LAND FILL
                                                                       NEW PUMP
                                                                        STATION
                                                   NEW CLARIFIER
            SLUDGE TO
            DISPOSAL
     POND
                  s
                                        WATER SOURCE
MAKEUP WATER
PUMP STATION
    TO DISCHARGE
                                     Figure VIII - 30

                             SYSTEM 2 - NEW SOURCE WATER CIRCUITS
-------
     0££
COST IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
>
2
O
c*
S>
*S3
Si
«5
3>S
£*
11
TO 3
W A
$3
S"
^?c
?s
" M
Q2
SS
o
c
73
<
P5






»«1
H.
00
C
*
ft
<
M
M
tH
to
h^







-------
 POST MtHIRfi DISCHARGES
 Operation  and   maintenance   costs   to   treat   post   mining   discharges
 through   bond   release   are   presented   in  this  section.   (Note:   this
 treatment  is  already  required by  OSM. )

                 on-s' Use'd
 In  determining  the  treatment  costs,  five  assumptions  were  made:

      1.    No  capital  charges  are  included.   It  is   assumed  facilities
 are  fully  depreciated by  the  time  of  mine  closure.

      2.    No  "typical"  pond  size  could  be  assumed.  Ponds   range   from
 "no  pond"  to  21  acre-feet  in  storage.

      3.    A  "typical" lime dosage  is  300  mg/1.

      4.    Operation and maintenance and energy  costs  for lime   feeding
•are  not  sensitive to  lime  dosage  rates  are  assumed  constant.

      5,    Sludge pumping  energy costs are  less  than   five   percent   of
 the  total  operation and maintenance costs.

 Therefore,  energy  costs  for  varying sludge  rates  are masked by  the
 total operation  and maintenance costs.

 Re'cTaniati'o'rt Areas'

 These  costs  apply   only  to  surface  mines.   The   costs    include
 sedimentation  structures  for  treating   the   runoff from areas  under
 reclamation through release from the  applicable  reclamation  bond.   For
 this  subcategory, treatment is for the  control   of  settleable  solids
 and  pH.

 Assumpti ons

 In determining the treatment costs, two assumptions were necessary:

      1..    Since  limitations for active mining are based  on  treatment
 pond  technology  and facilities can leave the pond in-place,  no  capital
 costs result from these requirements.

      2.    Lime for pH control should  not be  required  for   discharge
 systems  covered  in  the  reel am at ion  phase si nee no acid  wastewater
 should be  formed at these facilities.

 Again, this has  been  verified by an Agency  study of reclamation areas.

 Operation and Maintenance Costs
                                       331
-------
The costs associated with areas under  reclamation  include  operation
and  maintenance  costs  for sedimentation ponds and maintenance costs
for runoff control with earth dikes or  drainage  ditches.   The  cost
curves  for these areas are identical to figures previously presented,
but are  repeated  here  for  convenience.   Figure  VI11-32  presents
operation  and maintenance costs for sedimentation ponds.  The capital
cost of the pond was found in Figure VIII-13.  The  maintenance  costs
for  runoff  control with earth dikes or drainage ditches are given in
Figure VI11-33.  Supporting information and assumptions for developing
these figures may be obtained in  Appendix  A  to  the  Proposed  Coal
Mining Development Document (EPA 440/1-81/057-b).

Alkaline Underground Mines

Only  settling  ponds  are considered for costing.  No clarifiers have
been included because few alkaline deep mines  employ  clarifiers  for
wastewater treatment.  The annual operation and maintenance cost curve
for  wastewater  treatment with settling ponds was presented in Figure
VIII-32.  The annual maintenance cost curve for earth dike or drainage
ditch runoff control was illustrated in  Figure  VIII-33.   Supporting
information  and assumptions for developing these figures may be found
in Appendix A to the Proposed Coal Mining Development Document.

Acid Underground Mines

Two treatment systems are considered for costing.   The  first  system
includes   settling  ponds,  lime  addition  equipment,  and  aeration
equipment.  The  second  system  includes  clarifiers,  lime  addition
equipment, and aeration equipment.

Costs Associated with Both Settling Pond and Clarifier.

The  annual  costs  associated  with both systems may be obtained from
Figures VIII-34, VIII-35, and VIII-36.  Included in the cost curves of
Figure  VIII-36  is  the  cost  of  hydrated  lime  at  $65  per  ton.
Supporting  information  and  assumptions for developing these figures
may be found in Appendix A.

Costs Associated Only with the Settling Pond System.

Operation and maintenance costs were illustrated  in  Figures  VIII-32
and  VIII-33.   The  total  operation  and  maintenance  costs for the
sedimentation  pond  system  (including  sedimentation   ponds,   1ime
addition and aeration) are determined by adding the costs from Figures
VIII-32  and VIII-33 to the costs obtained from Figures VIII-34, VIII-
35, and VIII-36.

Cost Associated Only with the Clarifier System.

The clarifier and sludge pumping operation and maintenance  costs  are
presented  in  Figure  VII1-37.   To  obtain  the  total operation and
maintenance costs for the clarifier system (including clarifiers, lime
                                   332
-------
                                                                 COST  IN  DOLLARS
U)

U)

U)
                  OH

                  0>
                    3  *,

                  rt 55  H-

                    O  00


                  OP
                  cn

                  H
                        10
                    O  *

                    Z  OJ

                        10
                  M

                  CO

                  O
                                      (A
3)

g
m
                                         "
o  u>




m
                                      o
                                      31
                                      m
                                      m
                                         N
                                                     8
                                                     o
                           8
Ol

8
o
fit

8
o
-------
               COST  IN THOUSANDS  OF DOLLARS
 z
 z
SO *"•
ez
o w




O W










o





at —
M W




0 =





nw
era
c

(0
-------
                                       COST IN THOUSAND DOLLARS/YEAR
to
LO
Ul
       oo
       TO GO
       o
       cz a
       33: "— «
     en O oo
-a •SL •—•
o m 3
=2:  m
O 30
oo o >
  •— • o
o o o
     o > — <
     f— Co o
     m m cz

     oo  i—
      -H

      m o

      —i —i

      rn r>
      z cz


      s: rn
      •—• oo
            a>
            oo
             o
             m
o
             P
             b
-------
en 10,000
cc
<
_i
o
a
z
u>
O
o 1000
tnn






















_^
-X"^
























X
^
























.^

























^
































08tM












it



















/




















/




















i*




















«














COST-










_rf
X1














"\
\









X
\_
















s







X]

EN
























/

EF























X


(G






















/


Y






















j

























/




C




















•*




;c

















y
I?
s
s





)ST














/





















jA
/






















/























l^






















x
F






















k*






















./






















     O.I
I.O                IO.O

  DESIGN  FLOW  IN  M.G.D.
100.0
                      Figure VIII-35

POST MINING DISCHARGE LIME FEED FACILITIES OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE ANNUAL COST CURVES FOR UNDERGROUND COAL MINE
             ACID WASTEWATER TREATMENT WITH
           SEDIMENTATION PONDS OR CLARIFIERS
                             336
-------
100,0
DOLLARS

P
o
THOUSANDS
COST
r-
o
    0.1
                   X   /
             M/A
         ?
IXT. I i
      1.0               10.0

     DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
too.o
                    Figure VIII-36

         POST MINING DISCHARGE AERATION OPERATION
    AND MAINTENANCE ANNUAL COST CURVE FOR UNDERGROUND COAL
   MINE ACID WASTEWATER TREATMENT WITH SEDIMENTATION PONDS
                     OR CLARIFIERS
                         337
-------
     100,000
CO
or
o
D
en
O
o
z
Z
     10,000
       1,000
           O.I
1.0
10.0
100.0
                             DESIGN  FLOW IN  MOD
                             Figure  VIII-37


               AFTER MINE  CLOSURE  CLARIFIER  MECHANISM AND

                SLUDGE  PUMPING  OPERATION  AND MAINTENANCE

              ANNUAL COST  CURVE FOR  UNDERGROUND .COAL MINE

               ACID  WASTEWATER  TREATMENT  WITH CLARIFIERS
                                    338
-------
                                   COST IN THOUSANDS DOLLARS
U)
       B
       O
       MM»TJ
       0=50
        M055
        iws
      ^
  n OQ
o jad  (ft
wo
      HJHO>
      i-i  eH
      WC?ci?0
      WH<>
      WHMH
        PC  H
         rqO
        W O2J
        W?«
        o  o
        MC; »tj
        g2m
        Ho j*j
        M0!2
        o S

         a
        »d
        oo
        ap
                       O
                       rn
                       -n
              2
              o
              o
-------
     100,000
o
o
tn
O
u
D
Z
Z
<
     10,000
       1,000
           0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
                             DESIGN  FLOW  IN  MGO
                             Figure VIII-37

              AFTER MINE CLOSURE CLARIFIER MECHANISM AND
                SLUDGE  PUMPING  OPERATION  AND MAINTENANCE
              ANNUAL COST CURVE FOR UNDERGROUND .COAL MINE
              ACID  WASTEWATER  TREATMENT  WITH CLARIFIERS
                                    338
-------
addition, and aeration), add the costs  from  Figure  VIII-37
costs obtained from Figures VIII-34, VIII-35, and VIII-36.
     to  the
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING CAPITAL COSTS FOR ALL SUBCATEGORIES
Building Costs

Buildings  will  be  required  to  house  chemical  and  polymer  feed
equipment, as well as the controls for  the  treatment  systems.   The
cost estimates were prepared by including various subcategories, i.e.,
costs   for   concrete,   superstructure,  plumbing,  sanitation,  and
lighting.   The  electrical  and  control  panel  costs  as  well   as
laboratory  facilities  and  office  equipment  are  included  in  the
building costs.  These costs are included in the capital
for each of the treatment levels.

Piping
cost  curves
The  type  of piping costed for each treatment system is carbon steel.
Pipe diameters were sized based on six to seven feet per  second  flow
velocity.   The  costs  for  piping were based on up-to-date pipe cost
quotations and a factor of 100 percent  was  added  to  this  cost  to
account for fittings, flanges, hangers, excavation, and backfilling as
required.

Electrical and Instrumentation

The electrical and instrumentation costs for the treatment levels were
estimated at 30 percent of the cost of the applicable equipment.

Power Supply for Mine Water Treatment

Operation  of the equipment associated with the three candidate levels
of BAT treatment may require additional electric power  at  the  site.
This  power  can  be  supplied  by either running a power line from an
accessible trunk line or power source,  or  by  using  diesel  powered
generator  units.   tThe  worst  case  would  probably be to run a high
voltage trunk line from a generating facility long  distances  to  the
wastewater  treatment  facility.    In addition to the capital cost for
power line construction, associated costs for  metering,  transformers
and secondary lines would be required.

In  order to provide information on the costs for running power lines,
two supply voltage levels were assumed:  480 volts and 4.16 kilovolts.
It was then assumed that  the  practical  breakpoint  on  transmission
distance  would be between 500 to 1,000 feet for 480 volts.  Distances
approaching 1,000 feet and longer would require a feeder of  4.16  kV.
                                      339
-------
Table  VII1-3  has been prepared to present approximate cost for power
lines.  If the distance from the source  and  user  and  the  load  in
kilowatts  (kW)  is  known,  the table can be used to obtain the power
line  costs.   These  prices  include   installation,   poles,   wire,
insulators  and  crossarms  for  480  volts  and also includes a power
center at the user containing a high  voltage  incoming  section  with
necessary protection disconnecting devices, transformer (4.16 KV/480V)
and secondary side circuit breaker.

In  cases where trunk or secondary lines are not readily available, it
may be advantageous to operate diesel  engine  generator  units.   The
range of approximate power requirements for the three candidate levels
of  BAT  is  from 5 kw at the lowest flow rate, level 2, to 150 kw for
the highest flow rate, level 4.  An economic tradeoff  exists  between
the  relatively  low capital cost for a diesel unit and the relatively
low maintenance and operating costs of  a  long  distance  trunk  line
system.   Table  VIII-4  provides  cost estimates for diesel generator
units for a range of power requirements.  The costs presented in Table
VIII-4 include an ICC approved weather-housed trailer  with  controls,
cables,  battery  muffler system, alternator, control panel, silencer,
diesel engine, and generator.  Capital costs for electric power supply
do not include land requirements and are not included in  the  capital
cost  curves  presented  for  the various treatment levels, due to the
highly site-specific  nature  of  these  costs,   No  extensive  power
requirements  are  necessary  at the preparation plants since power is
already available for production equipment.

Land

Additional land may have to be  purchased  in  order  to  comply  with
BAT/NSPS.  This cost is difficult to estimate on a general basis since
the  information  received  during  the mine visits indicated that the
cost can vary from a few hundred dollars  to  $40,000  per  acre.   If
additional  land  is required, land costs must be added to the capital
cost obtained from the treatment level system curves.  The  amount  of
land   needed  for  proposed  BAT  alternatives  is  presented  on  an
individual equipment basis for each level of treatment suggested  (1).
A  value of $4,000 per acre is assumed to be a reasonable cost because
it is a representative cost  of  land  in  a  rural  location  in  the
midwest.

Equipment

The  equipment  costs  included  in  this  subsection  are for polymer
addition equipment, pump stations, mixing tanks, clarifiers,   gravity
filters, and water storage tanks.  This encompasses equipment required
for  all  three  treatment  levels.   Cost estimates for installation,
engineering, administration, and contingencies are also included.

Polymer  Addition  Equipment.   Capital  costs  of  polymer   addition
equipment  are  relatively  insensitive  to  mine  drainage flow rates
according to vendor price quotations.  Below 750,000 gpd the installed
capital cost was estimated at $30,000 and above 750,000 gpd  the  cost
                                    340
-------
                               Table VIII-3



             COST OF OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS





                               480V System
Distance
ft
250
500

Distance
ft
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000

100
$1500
$3200


100
$19,000
$20,400
$22,000
$23,500
$25,000
$26,600
$28,000
$29,800
$31,300
L 0
200
$1900
$4900

L
200
$19,000
$20,400
$22,000
$23,500
$25,000
$27,700
$29,400
$31,200
$32,900
A D - K
300
$2100
$5500
4.16 KV

0 A D -
300
$20,000
$21,400
$23,000
$25,300
$26,000
$28,700
$32,400
$34,400
$36,400
w
400
$2500
$6700
System

K W
400
$23,000
$25,000
$26,600
$29,600
$31,500
$36,300
$38,600
$41,000
$49,700

500
$3100
*


500
$23,000
$25,000
$25,600
$29,600
$31,500
$36,300
$38,600
$41,000
$49,700
Notes


*Voltage drop
excessive

Notes

Power center
costs included
it 11
it n


it n
n it
ii ii

M u
ti u
n n
Reference (2)
-------
                           Table VIII-4
             CAPITAL COSTS FOR DIESEL GENERATOR  SETS
Generator Type
Air-Cooled
Air-Cooled
Power Requirement (Kw)
         10
         30
Cost (1000$)
      11
      16
Radiator-Cooled
Radiator-Cooled
Radiator-Cooled
         55
        100
        150
      20
      24
      30
Reference (4)
                                   342
-------
estimate  was  $40,000.  These costs include a mixing tank, feed pump,
transfer pump, storage tank, an enclosure,  and  an  electric  heater.
Costs  for  the enclosure and heater were additional to those given by
the vendors of the polymer equipment.  The costs for these  two  items
were estimated at $10,000 for the enclosure and $6,000 for the heater.

Pump  Stations.   Installed  capital costs for pump stations include a
3/8 inch steel structure, pumps and motors, piping, valves,  fittings,
structural   steel   (stairwells,   ladders,   ancillary   equipment),
electrical equipment and instrumentation.  Two pumps were assumed  for
all  flow  rates  up to 3,0 mgd; above this flow rate three pumps were
used.

Mixing Tanks.  The cost for the mixing tanks used in level 3  includes
three   steel  tanks  and  skids,  three  mixers,  nine  slide  gates,
structural steel, aeration systems (blowers  and  piping),  electrical
equipment, and instrumentation.

Flocculator-Clarifiers.   A  flocculator-clarifier composed of a steel
tank (1/4 inch thick) in concrete base, the internal flocculation  and
sludge  scraping  mechanisms,  structural  steel,  slide gates, sludge
pumps and motors, electrical equipment and instrumentation.

Gravity Granular Media Filters.  The equipment included  with  gravity
filters  is composed of a concrete pad, a backwash water storage tank,
piping connections,  filter cells, media, underdrain system, electrical
equipment and instrumentation.  The filters were sized based on a flux
rate of 10 gpm/ft*.

Installation.  Installation is defined here to include  all  services,
activities,   and   materials  required  to  implement  the  described
wastewater treatment systems.  Many factors affect  the  magnitude  of
this  cost  including  wage rates, in-house or contracted construction
work and  site  dependent  conditions.   The  installation  costs  are
included in capital  cost estimates presented in this section.

Engineering,  Administration  and Contingencies.  The costs associated
with taxes, insurance, engineering, administration, and  contingencies
are  computed  as  25  percent of the installed cost of facilities and
equipment.
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING ANNUAL COSTS FOR ALL SUBCATEGORIES
The annual costs computed for each of the treatment systems
for BAT are categorized as follows:

   Amortization
suggested
                                     343
-------
   Operation and Maintenance
        Labor
        Materials and Supplies
        Chemical s
   Energy
The annual depreciation and capital  costs  are  computed based on  using
the capital recovery factor:

     AC =  (II){CRF)

     where

     AC =  annual cost

     II -  initial investment

     CRF = capital recovery factor  =  (r) "{ 1 +r)/( (1 +r)n -1)

     r = annual  interest rate

     n s useful  life in years.

An  interest  rate  of 10 percent was  used  in  all  cases.   The expected
life differs for civil construction  work and mechanical  and electrical
equipment  items  and their installation,  i.e.,  the   expected  life  for
civil   construction  work  is  30   years   and   10   years  for installed
mechanical and electrical equipment.   No residual  or  salvage value  is
assumed.   Based on these assumptions,  the  general  multipliers (AC/II)
compute as f ol lows :

     CRF (civil)3fj * 0.10608
         *     * 1^ v

     CRF (mech.  & elec.JlO = 0-16275

Qpiertftfdri  a'rftf Ma'i'nte'riaric^
 =?h'e'r'a'T.  Operating time of the  systems  costed  is  assumed to be for 24
hours per day, 365 days per year.

OpeYtfti n^ a'h'd Ma'f nt'enah'ce1 Pers'o'nne'T.   Personnel  costs  are based on  an
a n n u a~l F?te of $28,000.

Mai'rite'nan'c'e*  flat'e'ri tfl'S.  The materials necessary for  performing yearly
maintenance acti vltles are estimated at  three percent  of   the  capital
cost of the facilities including the contingency item.

Cftgfrtfc'a'Ts.   The  chemicals  costed  for   use   in  any  of  the levels of
treatment are polymer and lime.  The   polymer   cost   is   estimated  at
$2.00  per  pound,  lime estimated at  $65/ton.   Yearly  costs will  vary
according to the dosage level used in  the  treatment  system.   A polymer
-------
dosage  rate  of  two  mg/1  was selected for computing annual polymer
costs in each applicable system.

Power  Costs.   Electricity  costs  are  based  on   auxiliary   power
requirements  in  terms  of  kilowatts  and  8,760  hours  per year of
operation.  The cost per kilowatt hour is estimated at $0.03 (2).
SLUDGE HANDLING AND ASSOCIATED COSTS
The sludge produced in the treatment  of  mine  drainage,  preparation
plant  effluent  and  pond  sedimentation  can  be  handled by various
methods.  Three methods which may be used and are considered  in  this
report  are:  sludge lagoons, trucking of dewatered sludge to disposal
site and trucking of undewatered sludge to disposal site.

Sludge Lagoons

The sludge lagoon would require construction of a lagoon  and  pumping
the  sludge from the treatment facility to the lagoon.  Available data
for lime neutralization indicates that sludge production is  about  10
percent  by  volume  of the incoming flow (solids concentration of two
percent) (1).   This sludge would compact in a  lagoon  to  10  percent
solids  which  equates to three percent by volume of the incoming flow
treated.  To arrive at a cost it is assumed that  the  sludge  storage
requirements  would be for an estimated 10 year life of the mine.  The
cost curves for capital and  yearly  cost  for  the  sludge  lagooning
approach are shown in Figure VIII-38.

Haulage of. Dewatered Sludge

The  method  of  dewatering sludge considered here consists of pumping
the sludge to a thickener.  The thickened sludge is then dewatered  by
vacuum  filters  before  hauling to disposal.  It is assumed that this
system will increase the solids loading in  the  sludge  to  about  25
percent.   The  cost  curves  for capital and yearly costs, as well as
energy requirements for this dewatering, are shown in Figure  VIII-39.
The.  estimated  cost  for  hauling dewatered sludge to disposal sites,
based on a one round trip mile, is presented in  Figure  VIII-40.   To
maintain  a uniform cost basis, this curve is a plot of design flow in
mgd versus cost in thousands of dollars.

Haulage of. Undewatered Sludge

The final sludge handling approach is to haul the sludge  to  disposal
sites  without  dewatering.  This involved pumping the sludge at about
two percent solids to a tank truck and then hauling to a disposal site
where it is lagooned or pumped into a bore hole.   The  trucking  cost
-------
                                               COST IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
Ui
-fc-
O\
         (A
         rr
             8»»J
           a **•
         §32?
tt
             U>
             Co
         O
         §
                                           I » HIM   I  I I  * Mill   I  I I * »lll|   *  I I I Illl
                                                                              ^ I  l I I I 1+
-------
                                           COST IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
LO
               in

               a
               a
               o
               w
              otn
              w si
                   00
mo s n>
2  >


O jxJ  M
•-< t/1 H M
 G M i
o cn w v>
C3  3> vO
 C/lM

 o9
                          O
                          P
                          b
                                             ENERGY IN MILLION Kw-hr./yr
-------
                                    COST IN THOUSAND  DOLLARS/YEAR
uo
-Cr
Co
              HIM n
              53  O
                 CO
                   H-
                 O OQ
              MES
   O fl>

   W <
                   H
                   1
HCO O


>  O O
HO


S3 Hi Hi
HgnJ
               OM
               s;
-------
for hauling this sludge, based on a round trip mile, is also presented
in  Figure VIII-40.   Assumptions and cost criteria for sludge handling
are based on information provided in reference (2).  To calculate  the
cost  of land,  Figure VIII-41 presents the sludge lagoon area required
versus mine drainage flow rates.
REGIONAL SPECIFICITY FOR COSTS
Variations in capital and annualized costs are dependent on the region
in which the treatment facility is located.  These differences are due
to  such  factors  as  soil  type,  precipitation,   topography,   and
vegetation.  Cost multipliers have been prepared to reflect these cost
differences  and  are presented in Table VIII-5 in the column entitled
"Basic Capital Cost Multiplier." The development of these  multipliers
is presented in reference (5).

Before  using these multipliers for a particular region, the extent to
which certain costs have already been  absorbed  in  establishing  BPT
facilities  should be determined;  this may require a certain degree of
downward multiplier adjustment in the cost.  Items  which  affect  the
accuracy  of  these  basic  multipliers are previously built-in access
roads, clearing and grubbing, etc.

The development of the Capital  Cost Multiplier Adjusted to Civil Works
was based on the premise that the multiplier  is  only  applicable  to
that  portion of the capital cost which is associated with excavation,
backfilling, and concrete placement.  The assumed  contribution  which
these  items  provided  in  the  overall construction investment is 40
percent.  Thus, the basic multipliers are adjusted to  40  percent  of
their  original  value  (5).   Table  VIII-5 also presents the formula
which demonstrates  the  application  of  the  adjusted  capital  cost
multiplier to yearly costs.  Regional cost multipliers for yearly cost
would  apply  only  to that portion of the yearly cost associated with
the civil works part of  the  facilities,  such  as  the  civil  works
portion of the amortization and associated charges.
Examples  of  regionally  specific
provided in the cost manual (1).
cost  determination procedures are
NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
                                      349
-------
                           Table VIII-5

  COST MULTIPLIERS FOR COAL MINING REGIONS  IN  THE  UNITED STATES
Region

Northern Appalachia

Central Appalachia

South Appalachia

Midwest

Central W*st

Gulf

Northern Great Plains

Rockies

Southwest
              Basic Capital
              Cost Multiplier
                    Capital Cost Multi-
                    plier Adjusted to
                      Civil Works
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.9
1.65
1.32
1.32
1.28
1.12
1.08
1.0
1.0
1.36
1.26
NOTES:

To obtain the adjusted yearly cost  for a region where  the  capital

cost multiplier is greater than one use the  following  formula:
Adjusted
Yearly
Cost
Yearly
Cost from -
Curve
Capital
Recovery
Factor
Reference (5)
   Yearly
x  Cost from
   Curve
      Capital
x 1 - Cost
      Multiplier
                                   350
-------
           DESIGN  FLOW IN M.G.D.
                 Figure VIII-41

SLUDGE LAGOON -  AREA REQUIRED VERSUS DESIGN FLOW
             MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT
                      351
-------
The effects of the candidate  technologies  on  air  pollution,  solid
waste  generation,  and energy requirements have been considered.  The
latter aspect has been addressed in earlier subsections, and will  not
be repeated.

Air Pollution

Imposition  of  regulations based on any of the candidate technologies
in any subcategory will not create any additional air pollution.

Solid Waste Generation

The neutralization and aeration of acid mine  drainage  results  in  .a
suspension  of ferric hydroxide, other metal hydroxides, and unreacted
reagents (lime) in an aqueous solution of salts  composed  largely  of
sulfates.   This  suspended matter must be removed before the water is
discharged.  Also, alkaline drainage contains sediment which  requires
removal.   Many  preparation  plants in the United States use water to
assist in the sizing, separation, and cleaning  of  run-of-mine  coal.
The  waste slurry discharged from the plant is often high in suspended
coal fines that require reduction  or  removal  prior  to  recycle  or
discharge.   Also,  coal  preparation  facilities  generate a solid or
semisolid refuse of material rejected from  the  cleaned  coal.   Ash,
clays, and other materials make up this refuse, which is conveyed as a
slurry  to  a  refuse  pile, or disposed of in some other manner.  The
creation  of  these  sludges  result  from  application  of  the   BPT
requirement.    Additional   sludge   generation  resulting  from  the
candidate technologies are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Flocculant Addition and Granular Media Filtration

For mine drainage or preparation plant wastewaters, the application of
these technologies would result in additional sludge production  of  a
composition similar to sludge generated by BPT requirements.  However,
the  amount  of  this extra solid waste would be minimal in comparison
with quantities produced by compliance with BPT.  For instance,  in the
acid drainage subcategory, the average TSS removal (which makes  up  a
substantial  portion  of  the  solid  waste)  at  a  typical  mine  by
application  of  BPT  is  1,310  pounds  per  day.   Installation   of
flocculant  addition equipment would result in an additional estimated
removal of 40 pounds per day, or a little over three  percent  of  the
BPT  sludge  production.  For  application  of  filtration technology,
additional sludge production would be approximately 80 pounds per day,
or less than  6.5  percent  of  the  sludge  produced  under  the  BPT
requirement.

Total Recycle Option-Preparation Plants

The  total  recycle  option  was considered only for preparation plant
wastewaters   {distinct  from   preparation   plant   associated   area
wastewater).  As  in the previous case, the additional sludge resulting
from  selection of the zero discharge option would be minimal.  Again,
using a typical facility, 370,000 pounds per day are removed from  the
                                  352
-------
wastewater  by  application  of settling (BPT) technology (this figure
does not include the small amounts of any gypsum or other  "spectator"
solids  that  might  settle).   Installation  of facilities to achieve
total recycle would remove an  additional  140  pounds  per  day  from
waters discharged to the environment.

Settling - Reclamation Areas

The  Agency  is  promulgating  effluent  limitations  for  areas under
reclamation and for sites where  mining  has  ceased.   Because  these
limitations  are  based  on  a technology (a sedimentation pond) whose
installation is already required by active  mining  regulations  there
will  be  no  incremental non-water quality impacts resulting from the
EPA rule for post-mining regulations.  Because the composition of  the
settled  material  does  not  include  toxic metals, the environmental
impacts of solid waste disposal in this subcategory are  projected  to
be minimal.
                                   353
-------
-------
                              SECTION IX
                          AMENDMENTS TO BPT
The  following  are  amendments  to  the  previously  promulgated  BPT
regulations (42 FR 21380 (April 26, 1977)).  These changes also  apply
to BAT and NSPS presented in the following sections.
WESTERN MINES
As  discussed in Section V, western mines will no longer be a separate
subcategory.
POST MINING DISCHARGES
This subcategory was established (as "areas under reclamation") during
the NSPS rulemaking, but  the  Agency  deferred  promulgation  of  any
limitations  until  further  data  could be gathered and analyzed.  As
discussed in Sections V and VII, additional data have  been  collected
that  support  the  establishment  of  effluent  limitations  for this
subcategory.

Reclamation Areas

Pollutants to be regulated for reclamation  areas  include  settleable
solids  and  pH.   The technology basis on which these limitations are
based is a sedimentation pond capable of containing  the  runoff  from
the  reclaimed  area  resulting  from  a  10-year,  24-hour storm.  The
Agency has concluded that the following limitations shall apply to the
reclamation areas for mining of coal of all ranks including,  but  not
limited to,  lignite, bituminous, and anthracite:
                                     355
-------
                                   Effluent Limitations
Effluent Characteristic

Settleable Solids

pH
  Maximum for
  Any One Day

   0.5 ml/1

within the range
   6.0 to 9.0
  at all times
30 Day
Average
These  regulations  shall  apply  until  full  release  of  the
performance bond.

Underground Mine Discharges
                                  SMCRA
Effluent limitations for underground mines shall be the same as  those
for  active  mines  because  the  wastewater  characteristics  are not
significantly different as discussed in Sections V and VII.
ALTERNATE LIMITATIONS DURING PRECIPITATION EVENTS
EPA is amending the  exemption  available  for  discharges  caused  by
precipitation  events.   EPA's  studies  have shown that well-operated
treatment facilities can achieve settleable solids and pH  limitations
during  rainfall events of varying intensity as discussed in Section V
and VIII.  The "storm exemption" published on December 28, 1979 (44 FR
76788) is being modified as follows:

      (1)  Settleable  solids  and  pH  limitations   will   apply   to
          discharges,  overflows, or increases in discharges caused by
          precipitation events  less  than  or  equal  to  a  10-year,
          24-hour storm event.

      (2)  Only pH limitations will apply to discharges, overflows,  or
          increases  in  discharges  caused  by  precipitation  events
          greater than a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.

      (3)  The alternate limitations apply to  coal  mining  operations
          regardless   of   the   treatment  installed;  there  is  no
          requirement to install a "10-year, 24-hour pond", or  indeed
          any  pond  at  all.   This  requirement  has been deleted in
          conformity with the July 2, 1981 proposal by OSM,  to  allow
          mining  operations  flexibility in designing their treatment
          systems.  The limitations on settleable solids of  0.5  ml/1
          and  pH (range of 6-9) are based on the treatment capability
                                      356
-------
          of a pond designed, constructed and  maintained  to  contain
          the  volume  of  water  which would drain into the pond from
          active mining areas and reclaimed areas during the  10-year,
          24-hour precipitation event.  (See Section VII).

     (4)  Discharges from underground mines are not eligible  for  the
          alternate   limitations  unless  they  are  commingled  with
          surface discharges.  Precipitation  does  not  significantly
          affect  the  mechanism of underground mining discharges, and
          thus relief from  effluent  limitations  is  not  necessary.
          Techniques  for  preventing  or  minimizing  infiltration in
          underground mines is presented later in this section.

          Costs to comply with the storm exemption are less than those
          originally  required  in  the  BPT  regulations  because   a
          10-year,  24-hour  pond  is  not required.  Smaller ponds or
          other treatment options may be used  and  the  facility  may
          still qualify for the alternate limitations.

Any  overflow,  increase  in volume of a discharge or discharge from a
bypass system caused by precipitation within any 24-hour  period  less
than or equal to the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event (or snowmelt
resulting  in  equivalent  volume)  shall  be subject to the following
alternate limitations:
                                   Effluent Limitations
Effluent characteristic

Settleable Solids

PH
  Maximum for
  Any One Day

   0.5 ml/1

within the range
   6.0 to 9.0
  at all times
30 Day
Average
 Any overflow, increase in volume of a discharge or discharge  from  a
by-pass  system  caused  by  precipitation  within  any 24-hour period
greater than the 10-year,  24-hour  precipitation  event  (or  snowmelt
resulting  in  equivalent  volume)  shall  be subject to the following
alternate limitations:

                                   Effluent Limitations
Effluent Characteristic

PH
  Maximum for
  Any One Day

within the range
   6.0 to 9.0
  at all times
30 Day
Average
                                      357
-------
The Agency  has  decided  to  delete  the  design
flexibility  in  treatment  systems,  consistent
regulations.
 criteria  to  allow
with  OSM's proposed
                                     358
-------
                              SECTION X
       BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE (BAT
The  factors  considered  in  assessing  best   available   technology
economically  achievable  (BAT)  include  the  age  of  equipment  and
facilities involved, the process employed, process  changes,  nonwater
quality  environmental impacts (including energy requirements) and the
costs of application of such technology  (Section  304(b)(2)(B)).    In
general,  the  BAT technology level represents, at a minimum, the best
economically achievable performance of plants of various ages,  sizes,
processes,   or   other   shared   characteristics.    Where  existing
performance is uniformly inadequate BAT  may  be  transferred  from  a
different subcategory or category.  BAT may include process changes or
internal controls, even when not common industry practice.

Under  the Clean Water Act amendments of 1977, the primary emphasis of
BAT is the control of toxic pollutants.  Tie statutory  assessment  of
BAT  "considers"  costs,  but  does  not  require a balancing of costs
against effluent reduction benefits.  In  developing  the  final  BAT,
however,  EPA  has  given  substantial weight to the reasonableness of
costs.   The Agency has considered the volume and nature of discharges,
the volume and nature of discharges expected after application of BAT,
the general environmental effects of the pollutants, and the costs and
economic impacts of the required pollution  control  levels.   Despite
this  expanded  consideration of costs, the primary determinant of BAT
remains effluent reduction capability.

Effluent limitations in this industry are expressed as  concentrations
(i.e.,   mass per unit volume, most often milligrams per liter— mg/1).
Mass limitations cannot be written because wastewater flow  cannot  be
correlated  with  coal  production.   This  stems  from the fact that,
although little process water is employed in  coal  extraction,  large
volumes  of water still require treatment because of infiltration from
precipitation and runoff through the active mining  area  as  well  as
groundwater  seepage  from  breached aquifers.  Thus a particular mine
may have  large  volumes  of  water  to  treat  that  are  essentially
independent  of  the  coal  production  capacity  of  the  mine.  This
situation is also found in the  coal  preparation  segment.   Although
process   water   used  for  coal  cleaning  can  be  correlated  with
production, wastewater flows are impossible to predict due to  varying
amounts of surface runoff from preparation plant associated areas such
as coal stockpiles.

The  Agency  considered a number of options for regulation of existing
sources subject to the BAT requirement a^nd new sources subject to  the
                                    359
-------
NSPS  requirement.
New source options
                     The  BAT  limitations options
                   are discussed in Section XII.
are detailed below
BAT OPTIONS CONSIDERED
General Applicability

Under  all  options  considered
discharge  for coal preparation
allowed for  discharges  caused
regulations   apply   to   all
regulations and alternate storm
                                 and  described  below  (except   zero
                                plants) alternate limitations would be
                                 by  precipitation.   The  post-mining
                                options  also  (both  the  post-mining
                                limitations  are  the  same  as  those
presented in Section IX "Amendment to BPT" ) .

Option One - BAT ^ BPT

For  acid  drainage  mines  and coal preparation plants and associated
areas the limitations are based on the application of  neutralization,
aeration,  and settling technology. For alkaline mines limitations are
based on application of settling technology.

Option Two - BAT 2. BPT +_ Flocculant Addition Technology

A treatability study commissioned by the Agency has  shown  that  when
toxic  metals  were  spiked into the untreated wastewater, substantial
reduction of these pollutants was also achieved along  with  suspended
solids.  Additional toxic metal removals for BPT-treated water without
spiking  were  highly variable due to the low influent levels of these
metals.  Costs for installation and operation of this technology would
range from $30,000 to $40,000 per outfall for capital costs  and  from
$.042/1,000  gallons  treated to $.41/1,000 gallons treated for annual
costs.*  The cost of implementating this option at preparation  plants
and  associated  areas  for  the  entire  U.S. is 50.0 million dollars
(capital) and 25.1 million dollars (annual) for this subcategory.

*Note:  The lower cost was calculated assuming a two mg/1 dosage  rate
and  a 4,5 mgd facility; the higher cost was calculated assuming a two
mg/1 dosage rate and a 0.1 mgd facility.

Option Three - BAT = BPT + Granular Media Filtration Technology

Two acid drainage treatment plants were studied for evaluation of this
technology.   They  consisted  of   BPT   treatment   (neutralization,
aeration, and settling) of acid mine drainage followed by a dual-media
filter.   Toxic  metal  reductions are not quantified because influent
concentrations of toxic metals to the filter were very low, i.e.,  the
neutralization and settling processes effectively removed the priority
                                     360
-------
metals  contained  in  the  raw  wastewater.    Capital  costs for this
technology range from $150,000 for a design flow  of  100,000  gpd  to
$900,000  for  a  design  flow  of  8,000,000  gpd.   Annual costs for
filtration range from $.51/1,000 gallons treated for the  100,000  gpd
facility  to  $.055/1,000  gallons treated for the 8 mgd facility.  No
capital and annual costs were estimated  for  implementation  of  this
option specifically for preparation plants and associated areas.

Option Four - BAT f. %ero Discharge for Coal Preparation Plants

Associated  area  drainage  would be segregated from preparation plant
wastewaters for  separate treatment.   Total   recycle  of  preparation
plant  water  would  be  necessary,  with ditching or diking installed
around the slurry pond to  divert  storm  and  other  surface  runoff.
Makeup  water  would  be  provided  from  an  independent  source.  An
occasional purge, subject to BPT, would be allowed when  necessary  to
reduce  the  concentration of solids or process chemicals in the water
circuit to a level which  will  not  .interfere  with  the  preparation
process  or  process  equipment.   Associated  area drainage would, if
required, be neutralized  and  settled  in  a  separately  constructed
facility.   Option  1 thru 3 would be considered for the mine drainage
subcategories.   The alternate  limitations  for  precipitation  events
will  not  apply  to  new  source  preparation plants.  Total industry
capital costs for implementation of this option are estimated to total
291.2 million dollars.  Annual costs are  estimated  at  52.6  million
dollars.
BAT SELECTION AND DECISION CRITERIA
EPA  has  selected  Option  One (BAT = BPT) as the basis for final BAT
effluent  limitations.   Additional  removal  of  toxic  compounds  by
Options  Two  and  Three  is insignificant.  There was some additional
removal of iron and  manganese,  however  the  costs  associated  with
installation  and  operation  of  these  technologies  are too high to
warrant such removal.  These options provided only  small  incremental
toxic  metal  removals  and  in  some  cases  exhibited  virtually  no
additional removal at all.  Thus,  lower BAT limitations based on these
technologies could not be justified.  Suspended solids  removals  were
quantifiable;  however,  TSS  is  subject to BCT, not BAT limitations.
These technologies will be subject to the  BCT  "cost  reasonableness"
test  when it is promulgated; until then, BCT limitations are reserved
for the coal mining industry.  Option four  for  existing  preparation
plants was not selected based upon the high retrofit expenditures.  In
the  Agency's  judgment,  the costs of retrofitting for zero discharge
are not justified by the effluent reductions that  would  result  from
that  option.   As  noted  in  Section  XII,  "New  Source Performance
Standards (NSPS)," the zero discharge  option  was  selected  for  new
                                     36l
-------
source  preparation  plants  because  no retrofit costs were involved.
The BAT effluent limitations guidelines for the coal  mining  category
are summarized in Table X-l.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (WATER MANAGEMENT
Section  304(e) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251) authorizes the
Administrator of EPA to promulgate Best  Management  Practices  (BMPs)
for  each  class  or subcategory of both point and nonpoint sources of
pollution.   Under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation  Act  of
1977  (SMCRA)  (Public Law 95-87), OSM was assigned responsibility for
the development of a comprehensive  program  to  ensure  environmental
protection  and  land  reclamation  of surface coal mining operations.
Water handling  practices  can  include  the  application  of  various
mining,  aquifer and erosion control techniques to prevent or minimize
adverse environmental effects.  The purpose of these techniques is  to
effect  a reduction in effluent water volumes and/or an improvement in
effluent  quality,  thereby  reducing  wastewater  treatment  and  its
associated  costs.   The following paragraphs discuss water management
practices available to operators  and  permit  authorities  to  reduce
wastewater  quantity.  For both surface mining and the surface effects
of  underground  mining,  OSM  has  promulgated  specific  regulations
governing  water  management  associated  with  mining and reclamation
operations (44 FR 15143-15178).  A number of these standards have been
remanded as a result of litigation;  therefore,  OSM  is  now  in  the
process of a new rulemaking.

Underground Mines

Surface  or groundwater may enter underground mines from above, below,
or laterally through adjacent rock strata.  Faults, joints,  and  roof
fractures   are   common   sites  of  water  entrance  into  abandoned
underground mines.  Water may also  enter  mines  through  exploration
drill  holes  or  through  boreholes  that  supply  power  and  air to
underground equipment.  Surface water can drain  into underground mines
from surface mines or as  a  result  of  inadequate  stream  diversion
practices.   Flooding  or  seepage from adjacent abandoned or inactive
underground mines is often a significant source of water infiltration.
Factors that can affect the quantity of water  entering  a  deep  mine
are:   the depth of the mine, the source of the drainage, the location
of   water   bearing   strata,   and   groundwater   flow    patterns.
Investigations  of  the  quantity  of  water entering underground coal
mines have found the average rate  of  infiltration  to  vary  between
6,260   and    10,280   liters  per  hectare  per  day  {670  to  1,100
gal/acre/day).  These rates may be exceeded if   catastrophic  flooding
of  a  mine  occurs  from  adjacent or overlying abandoned drifts (1),
Various infiltration control practices are required in order to comply
                                  362
-------
                             Table X-l

            EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE
              TECHNOLOOY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE (BAT)
                                   Effluent Limitations (mg/1)
Subcategory and
  Effluent
Characteristics

Acid Mine Drainage:

      Fe (total)
      Mn (total)
Maximum for
any one day
    7.0
    4.0
Average of daily
 values for 30
consecutive days
shall not exceed
       3.5
       2.0
Alkaline Mine Drainage:

      Fe (total)
    7.0
       3.5
Preparation Plants and
Associated Areas:

      Fe (total)
      Mn (total)

Post Mining Discharges:

Areas Under Reclamation

      Settleable Solids
      PH
Underground Mine
Discharges
    7.0
    4.0
       3.5
       2.0
   0.5 ml/1
within the range          	
  6.0 to 9-0
 at all times

Effluent limitations that apply
from appropriate active mine
drainage subcategory
                                       363
-------
with  OSM  regulations  restricting  the  discharge  of
underground  mines  (44  FR  15269  sec.  817.55).   OSM
endorsed by EPA include:

   1.  Borehole sealing and casing
   2.  Mine sealing
   3.  Regrading and revegetation of surface facilities,
   4.  Surface water diversion
 water   into
 requirements
and
Borehole Sealing

Underground mines are commonly intercepted by boreholes extending from
the ground surface.  These holes are sometimes drilled during  mineral
exploration,  but  may  also be utilized for supplying power or air to
underground equipment  or  for  discharge  water  pumped  from  active
sections.   Upon  abandonment  of an underground mine, these boreholes
may collect and transport  surface  and  groundwater  into  the  mine.
These  vertical,  or  nearly  vertical,  boreholes can be successfully
sealed from below in an active underground mine.  The sealing can also
be achieved by placing packers and injecting  a  cement  grout.  Often
abandoned  holes will be blocked with debris and will require cleaning
prior to  sealing.   The  packers  should  be  placed  below  aquifers
overlying  the mine to prevent entry of sub-surface waters, but should
be well above the roof  to  prevent  damage  to  the  seal  from  roof
collapse.  A borehole may also be sealed by filling the hole with rock
until  the  mine  void  directly below the hole is filled to the roof.
Successive layers of increasingly smaller stone should be placed above
the rock,  A clay and/or concrete plug Is then placed in the borehole.
The remainder of the borehole may be filled with rock or capped.

Mine Sealing

Several techniques contained in the  OSM  program  prevent  postmining
formation  of  acid  mine  drainage.   One of these techniques is mine
sealing. ' Mine sealing is defined as  the  closure  of  mine  entries,
drifts,   slopes,  shafts,  subsidence  holes,  fractures,  and  other
openings  in  underground  mines  with  clay,  earth,  rock,   timber,
concrete,  fly  ash,  grout, and other materials.  The purpose of mine
sealing is to control or abate the discharge  of  mine  drainage  from
active  and  abandoned  mines.   Mine  seals have been classified into
three types based on method of construction and function.   The  three
seal types are:

1.  Dry Seal—The dry seal is constructed by placing suitable material
in  mine  openings  to  prevent the entrance of air and water into the
mine.  This seal can be applied to openings where there is  little  or
no  water flow from within the mine and little danger of a hydrostatic
head developing.

2.  Air Seal—An air seal prevents the entrance of  air  into  a  mine
while  allowing  the  normal  mine discharge to flow through the seal.
This seal is constructed with a water trap similar  to  the  traps  in
sinks and drains.
                                  364
-------
3.   Hydraulic Seal—Construction of a hydraulic seal involves placing
a plug in a mine opening that is discharging water.  The plug prevents
discharge after the mine is flooded.  Flooding excludes air  from  the
mine  and  retards  the  oxidation  of sulfide minerals.  However, the
possibility of the failure of mine seals or outcrop barriers increases
with time as the sealed mine workings gradually  become  inundated  by
groundwater and the hydraulic head increases.  Depending upon the rate
of  groundwater  influx and size of the mine area, complete inundation
of a sealed mine may take several decades.  Consequently, the  maximum
anticipated  hydraulic head on the mine seals may not occur for a long
time.  In addition, seepage through, or failure of, the  coal  outcrop
barrier or mine seal could occur at any time.

Surface Area Regrading

Water  discharging  from underground mines often originates as surface
water from ungraded, unvegetated strip  mine  spoils.   This  commonly
occurs  in  the  eastern  United  States where coal outcrops are often
mined  by  contour  stripping  techniques.   These  strip  mines   can
intercept  underground  workings  or have underground mine entries and
auger holes located along the highwall.  When these openings occur  on
the  updip side of an underground mine, large volumes of surface water
may be conveyed to underground workings.  Surface  mines  may  collect
water  and  allow  it  to enter a permeable coal seam.  This water can
flow along the seam to adjacent underground mines.

The purpose of regrading is to return the disturbed area back  to  its
approximate   original   contour,   with   natural   drainageways  and
watersheds.  Various methods of surface regrading have been  practiced
in  the eastern coal fields.  The selection of a regrading method will
depend  upon  such  factors  as:   the  amount  of  backfill  material
available,  the  degree of pollution control desired, future land use,
funds available and topography of the  area.   Prior  to  backfilling,
impervious  materials  may  be compacted against the highwall and coal
seam, to prevent the flow  of  water  to  adjacent  underground  mines.
Where contour terrace regrading methods are applied, surface runoff is
diverted away from the highwall.

Surface Water Diversion

Surface  cracks,  subsidence areas, ungraded surface mines, and shaft,
drift and slope  openings  often  are  the  source  of  surface  water
infiltration,  into  underground  mines.   Water  diversion entails the
interception and conveyance of water  around  these  underground  mine
openings.   This  procedure  controls water infiltration and decreases
the volume of mine water discharge.

Ditches,  trench drains, flumes, pipes, and dikes are commonly used for
surface water diversion.  Ditches  are  often  used  to  divert  water
around  surface  mines.   Flumes  and pipes can be used to carry water
across surface cracks  and  subsidence  areas.   To  ensure  effective
diversion,  the  conveyance system must be capable of handling maximum
                                     365
-------
expected flows.   Riprap may be required to reduce water velocities
ditch type conveyance systems.
in
In addition to the above practices required by OSM, permit writers may
make  use  of  the  following water management practices to assure the
control of 'infiltration into underground mines:

   1.  Surface or subsurface sealing
   2.  Channel reconstruction
   3.  Aquifer interception
   4.  Subsidence sealing and grading

Surface Sealing

Surface mines that overlie deep mines can collect water in a  pit  and
this  water could percolate into the underground facility.  To control
this, the  surface  permeability  should  be  reduced.   That  can  be
accomplished  by  placement of impervious materials, such as concrete,
asphalt, rubber, plastic,  latex,  or  clay  on  the  ground  surface.
Surface permeability may also be decreased by compaction; however, the
degree  of success will depend upon soil properties and the compaction
equipment utilized.

A seal below the surface would have several  advantages  over  surface
seals:   it would be less affected by mechanical and chemical actions;
land use would not be restricted; and the seal would  most  likely  be
located  in  an  area of lower natural permeability. The seal would be
formed by  injecting  an  impermeable  material  into  the  substrata.
Asphalt,  cement  and  gel  materials  have been used to control water
movement below the surface.  The  effectiveness  of  various  latexes,
water  soluble  polymers,  and water soluble inorganics, which hydrate
with existing ground materials to form  cement  like  substances,  has
been demonstrated in laboratory and field tests.  However, large scale
applications of subsurface sealants to control acid mine drainage have
not been demonstrated.

Channel Reconstruction

Vertical  fracturing  and  subsidence  of strata overlying underground
mines often create openings on the ground  surface.   Streams  flowing
across  these  openings may have a complete or partial loss of flow to
the underground workings.  During active operations, pumping  of  this
infiltrating   water  is  required.   In  both  active  and  abandoned
underground mines the problem  of  infiltrating  stream  flow  can  be
effectively  controlled  by  reconstructing  and/or  lining the stream
channel.  The reconstructed  channel  bottom  may  be  lined  with  an
impervious  material  to  prevent  seepage  or flow to the underground
mine.  To ensure complete and effective diversion,  the  reconstructed
channel  must  be capable of handling peak stream flows.  In instances
when stream flow cannot be  diverted  to  a  new  channel,  flow  into
underground mines can be controlled by plugging the mine openings with
clay or other impervious material.
                                    366
-------
Aquifer Interception

This  mine water handling technique utilizes hydrogeologic features of
an  underground  mine  in  order  to  help  prevent  the  inflow   and
contamination of groundwater.  Wells are drilled from the land surface
through the aquifer to the underground mine.  The groundwater may then
be  drained  through  the  mine  zone  for  discharge  into underlying
aquifers, or conveyed from the mine through a pipe system.

Subsidence Sealing and Grading

Before or  after  abandonment  of  underground  mines,  fracturing  or
general  subsidence  of  overlying  strata can occur.  This fracturing
increases the permeability of the strata, and can result in  the  flow
of  large volumes of water into a mine.  The volume of   water that is
diverted into an underground mine via fracturing or subsidence depends
upon the structure of the overlying rock, and the  surface  topography
and  hydrology of the area.  Vertical permeability may be decreased by
placing  impermeable  materials  around  the  subsided  area.    These
materials  may  be compacted on the surface and graded, or placed in a
suitable sealing strata below ground level.  Materials which have been
successfully  utilized  for  subsidence  sealing  are  rubber,   clay,
concrete, and cement.

Prevention of Acid Formation

Because  sufficient  water  is  almost always present in deep mines to
allow acid formation, methods for  reducing  oxygen  availability  and
contact  time are important in preventing this reaction.  Reduction of
contact time can be accomplished during active operations  by  pumping
water  from  the  mine and maintaining the mine pool at a sufficiently
low level.  Pumping costs can be quite high, particularly if the water
sources are diffuse; therefore, it is also good practice  to  try  and
reduce  the  amount  of  water flowing into the mine.  For inactive or
abandoned mines, mine sealing is a viable  alternative.   This  method
can eliminate oxygen from entering an underground mine.

Surface Mining

Water   handling   techniques  for  surface  mines  include  practices
associated with  two  categories:   (1)  mining  technology,  and  (2)
reclamation   technology.    Pre-mine   planning  to  institute  these
practices is very important,  as is borne out by the permit  procedures
required  by  OSM.  The mining and reclamation techniques discussed in
this subsection represent source control methods that can  contain  or
prevent pollution formation during active mining.

Mining Methods

Certain mining techniques can help reduce the environmental impacts of
coal  strip mining.   One such technique currently employed by industry
and favored by OSM is termed "Modified Block Cut" mining.   This method
is basically  applicable  to  moderate  slopes  (20%   or  less),  low
                                     367
-------
highwalls  (60  feet  average) and thin seams.  It has been applied to
mines located in the east.  This technique is expected to be  feasible
in even steeper terrain.  The modified block cut method is a variation
of conventional contour strip mining (2).  Material from the first cut
is  often stored in a valley or head of hollow fill.  This initial cut
is usually three times wider than each  succeeding  cut  in  order  to
accommodate  excess  spoil  as  the  mining  plan  progresses.   After
completion of each cut, a void is created near the highwall  to  store
pollutant-forming  materials  encountered  during  mining.  Overburden
from the next cut is backfilled into the previous  cut  simultaneously
exposing  coal and initiating reclamation.  This method offers several
advantages:
                                                            eliminated
     1.   Overburden is handled only once.
     2.   Most of the spoil is confined to a mined area,
     3.   Spoil on  the  downslope  is  almost  completely
          thereby reducing the amount of disturbed area,
     4.   Reclamation is concurrent, and
     5.   Grading and revegetation areas are reduced.

Figure X-l illustrates the "Modified Block Cut" method.

Excess Spoil Disposal

According to OSM regulations, spoil not used in returning the land  to
approximate original contour must be hauled and placed  in a designated
disposal  area.   The  operator  must ensure that leachate and surface
runoff from the fill will not harm the surface waters   or  groundwater
and  the  fill area must be suitable for reclamation.   The regulations
allow three types of fill design: valley, head-of-hollow, and  durable
rock.

A  valley  fill can be described as follows:  a structure located in a
hollow where the fill material has  been  hauled  and   compacted  into
place  with  diversion  of  upstream  drainage  around  the  fill.   In
addition, according to OSM regulations, valley fills must  meet  rules
for subdrainage and filter systems.

Head-of-hollow  fills  are  constructed  in a manner similar to valley
fills.  However, instead of diverting  upstream  drainage  around  the
fill, a rock-core chimney, constructed from the toe to  the head of the
fill,  passes  drainage  through  a  fill core.  In addition, head-of-
hollow fills must completely fill the disposal site to  the approximate
elevations of the ridge line (3).  Figure X-2 illustrates  a  head-of-
hollow fill.

Durable  rock  fills  represent a third type of valley  fill but can be
utilized only if the amount of durable rock (i.e., rocks which do  not
slake  in  water)  is  80  percent  of  the  total fill volume.  Spoil
material is dumped over a berm located at the head of the  fill.   The
rock  material  forms  a natural blanket drainway across the bottom of
the fill.  A drainage system is required  but  the  regulations  leave
design open to the operator  (3).
                                     368
-------
         Cut
     Highwall--


       Hill
Diagram   A
Valley
                                           Spoil  Bank
                                           Spoil  Backfill
                                           Outcrop Sorrier
                        Cut

                          Cut I
                     Highwall—*
Hill
             Diagram  8
                                                                 Valley
         Cut

      Hill
Diagram  C
        Highwall—
                           Valley
                   Hil
             Diagram  D
                 Valley
                                             Cut
                           Valley
                Hill
                                      Diagram
                Valley
                               Figure  X-1

                          MODIFIED BLOCK  CUT
 Source:   (1)
                                    369
-------
             Strip  Mine  Bench
       Crowned
       Terraces
                             PLAN
                                              Original
                                           Ground  Surface
                                              Highwal!

                                              Fill

                                     Lateral Drain
  Crowned.
  Terraces
                                Rock Filled
                                Natural Drainway
                             Figure X-2

           CROSS SECTION OF  TYPICAL HEAD-OF-HOLLOW  FILL
Source:   (1)
                                 370
-------
Reclamation

Proper   reclamation   techniques   play   a  vital  role  in  overall
environmental quality control for any mining  operation.   Reclamation
is  considered an integral part of the overall mining plan.  According
to SMCRA, as contemporaneously as  practicable  with  operations,  all
disturbed land shall be reclaimed to a condition equal to or exceeding
any   previous  use  which  such  lands  were  capable  of  supporting
immediately prior to any exploration or mining function.   Reclamation
techniques center basically on regrading and revegetation.

Regrading

The purposes of regrading include the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)

( j }
          Aesthetic improvement of the land surface
          Returning the land to usefulness
          Providing a suitable base for revegetation
          Burial of pollution-forming materials
          Reducing erosion
          Eliminating landsliding
                      natural drainage
                      ponding
                      hazards, such as high cliffs, deep pits and deep
Encouraging
Eliminating
Eliminating
ponds
Controlling
                      water pollution.
Regrading, as applied to surface mining, is currently defined as  that
of  reconstructing  the  approximate  original  contour.  Regrading is
often more difficult in older surface mines where mining was conducted
with less regard to environmental concern.   For  example,  spoil  was
often  placed  without consideration of future regrading requirements.
Contour strip mines in steep terrain create special problems where the
spoil was deposited over the outslope.  The terrain becomes  difficult
to  cover  with  topsoil  prior  to  regrading.   Achieving a suitable
surface  for  revegetation  on  abandoned  mines  becomes  complicated
because  spoil  segregation was rarely practiced.  Topsoil usually was
not segregated or stockpiled  and  pollution-producing  materials  are
often well mixed throughout the spoil.  This emphasizes the importance
of  regrading methods such as soil spreading and burying of pollution-
forming   materials.    Revegetation   techniques   such    as    soil
supplementation  and  spoil segregation are also important.  Practices
such as water diversion and sealing both underground mine openings and
auger holes in highwalls can eliminate many erosional and/or pollution
problems otherwise encountered during regrading and revegetation.

A major characteristic of most open pit mines or quarries is the large
area required  for  disposal  of  overburden  and  processing  wastes.
Usually  the  required  disposal  acreage exceeds the actual pit area,
Careful management of topsoil and overburden must  be  maintained  for
later  use  in  land  reclamation.   Proper  disposal of wastes avoids
leaching of  toxic  materials  from  waste  sites.    Revegetation  and
regrading  techniques help avoid water infiltration and severe erosion
                                     371
-------
losses  which  could  eventually  result  in  landslides  and   severe
pollutant  loadings  in  nearby  waters.   Each  of these practices is
specified under OSM regulations.

Revegetation

Proper revegetation  is  one  of  the  most  effective  pollution  and
erosional  control  methods  for  surface  mined  lands.  Revegetation
results in aesthetic improvement, and returns  land  to  agricultural,
recreational, or silvicultural usefulness.

A  dense  ground  cover  stabilizes  the surface with its root system,
reduces velocity of surface runoff,  and  functions  as  a  filter  to
remove  sediment  from  water  flowing  over  and  through  it.   This
vegetative cover  will  annually  contribute  organic  matter  to  the
surface  and  can greatly reduce erosion.  Eventually the soil profile
develops into a complete soil ecosystem.  The soil bacteria act as  an
oxygen  barrier  by  consuming  oxygen  as it enters the soil from the
atmosphere.  The amount  of  pollution  formed  due  to  oxidation .of
materials lying below the soil horizon is thus greatly reduced.

A  soil  profile also tends to act as a sponge by retaining water near
the surface.  The retained water acts  as  a  surface  coolant  as  it
evaporates  from  the  surface.   The  resulting  decrease  in surface
temperature enhances vegetative growth.  Additionally, water  retained
at  the  surface  or evaporated from the surface does not pass through
underlying  spoil  material,  thereby  averting  potential   pollution
problems.

Loss  of  the  topsoil  is  a  major  hindrance  to  revegetation and,
therefore, topsoil stockpiling is required by  OSM.   To  protect  the
stockpile  from  erosion,  OSM  regulations  require that quickgrowing
annual and perennial plants be seeded on the pile.

Revegetation  can  be  an  entire  pollution  control  plan  in   some
instances,  but  generally  it  must  be an integral part of more com-
prehensive  plans  that  incorporate   water   diversion,   overburden
segregation, and regrading.

Past  revegetation  efforts  were  primarily  concerned  with planting
trees.   However,  to  establish  vegetative  cover  adequately,  tree
planting  must  be accompanied by establishment of dense ground covers
of grasses and legumes that are compatible with the local  plants  and
local  environment.   Again,  OSM  regulations  specify many facets of
revegetation and reclamation.

Erosion and Sediment Control

The most widely practiced method of erosion control  is  diversion  of
water.   Diverting  streams  and surface runoff to avoid contamination
from mined or disturbed areas is required by OSM.  Diversion  involves
collection  of  water  before  it enters a mine area and conveyance of
that water around or through the mine  site  to  a  suitable  disposal
                                    372
-------
area.   Structures  used  for  these purposes include diversion dikes,
diversion ditches or swales,  diversion  pipes,  and  flumes  (4,  5).
Flumes and pipes are used mainly in areas of steep terrain or to carry
water  across  regraded  areas.  A dike, a ridge of compacted soil, is
used to simply divert the flow of water, whereas a ditch or  diversion
system  collects  the  water  and  transfers it to a suitable disposal
area.  Erosion can also be controlled by reducing the velocity of  the
water.   This can be done by spreading rip rap over the area, by using
check dams, or by using sandbag or straw bale barriers (see Figure  X-
3). The establishment of vegetation will also decrease erosion damage.

Diversion   techniques  are  directed  toward  preventing  water  from
entering a mined area.  Runoff  control  employs  various  methods  to
handle water after it has reached the mine site.  Erosional damage due
to  runoff  can  be  effectively  and  inexpensively controlled by the
establishment of vegetation.  In  areas  where  vegetation  cannot  be
established,  rip  rap can be used to reduce erosion.  Slope reduction
and terracing of embankments are also effective  in  achieving  runoff
control.

In   general,   diversion   and   runoff  control  methods  alone  are
insufficient to prevent erosion and therefore sedimentation.   Methods
of  sediment  control  during  active  mining  are  needed  to  remove
sediments from the runoff before it is discharged.

The most common method of sediment control is the use of sedimentation
ponds.  In some cases, certain techniques may be employed  to  enhance
sedimentation  pond  performance.  One such method is the use of straw
bale  dikes  (see  Figure  X-3).   This  is  a   replaceable   barrier
constructed  out  of  straw  bales.   The  dike intercepts the runoff,
reduces the water's velocity, and detains small  amounts  of  sediment
(4).   Another technique is the use of in-pond baffles to reduce short
circuiting and thereby increase retention time.

Water Infiltration Control

Control  of  surface  infiltration  involves  either  isolating  waste
material from the water supply or decreasing the surface permeability.
Generally,  it  is  not feasible to isolate the large amounts of waste
material generated by mining operations.  Also, the waste material may
be needed  as  backfill  during  regrading  operations.    Under  these
conditions,  if infiltrating water is causing formation of pollutants,
abatement  will  require  on-site  control  of  infiltration  such . as
contained   disposal   of  toxic  wastes  or  decreasing  the  surface
permeability.

Controlling water infiltration from rainfall  and  subsurface  sources
can  be  accomplished  by placing impervious barriers on or around the
waste material,  establishing  a  vegetative  cover,  or  constructing
underdrains.   Impervious  barriers,  constructed  of  clay, concrete,
asphalt,  latex, plastic,  or  formed  by  special  processes  such  as
carbonate bonding, can prevent water from reaching the waste material.
                                     373
-------
                A.   SANDBAG BARRIERS
                B.  LOG CHECK DAM


Source:  USEPA, Erosion and Sediment Control-Surface Mining
         in the Eastern U.S., 1976.
                           Figure X-3

                         SEDIMENT TRAPS
                              374
-------
  FLOW
                                               10.2 cm
                                           <4") VERTICAL FACE
                    EMBEDDING DETAIL
ANGLE FIRST STAKE
TOWARD PREVIOUSLY
  LAID BAIL
FLOW
                                            WIRE OR NYLON BOUND
                                            BALES PLACE ON THE
                                                 CONTOUR
                               2 RE-BARS, STEEL PICKETS, OR
                               5.1 cm x 5.1 cm (2" x 2") STAKES
                               0.46 m to 0.61 m (!%' to 2') IN GROUND
                        ANCHORING DETAIL

                       C. STRAW BALE BARRIER

                    Figure  X-3  (Continued)

                        SEDIMENT  TRAPS
                                375
-------
A  dense  vegetative  cover  has varying effects on infiltration.  For
instance, vegetation tends to reduce the velocity  of  water,  thereby
inducing infiltration.  Conversely, a vegetative cover will build up a
soil  profile, which tends to increase the surface retention of water.
This water is available for  evaporation  and  can  result  in  a  net
decrease  in  the  amount  of  water  entering  underlying  materials.
Vegetation also  utilizes  large  quantities  of  water  in  its  life
processes  (again  decreasing  the amount of water that will reach the
underlying material).  When infiltration is caused by interception  of
surface  flow,  it  is  usually beneficial to divert the flow.  One or
more of the techniques illustrated in the erosion and sediment control
subsection may be employed for this purpose.

Underdrains are often used to control water infiltration after it  has
entered the waste material.  By offering a quick escape route, contact
time between water and any pollutant-forming
waste  is  reduced.   Also, water flow paths
materials are shortened.  The possibility of
is eliminated.  Underdrain discharges should
the nature of pollutants contained therein.
material contained in the
through pollution-forming
a fluctuating water table
be monitored to determine
Underdrains also serve as
                   making
collection points to concentrate diffuse groundwater  drainage
any required treatment of this wastewater more manageable.

Infiltration  can  also  occur via exploration drillholes or via other
holes  drilled  during  mining  operations  although   as   previously
mentioned,  OSM  regulations  require  that these drillholes be cased,
sealed or otherwise managed in a  manner  that  avoids  drainage  into
groundwater.
                                   376
-------
                              SECTION XI
        AMENDMENTS TO NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS  (NSPS
New  source  performance standards (NSPS) under Section 306 of the Act
are based on the best available demonstrated technology.   New  mining
facilities  have  the  opportunity  to  implement  the  best  and most
efficient  coal  mining   processes   and   wastewater   technologies.
Congress,  therefore,  directed  EPA to consider the best demonstrated
process changes and  end-of-pipe  treatment  technologies  capable  of
reducing  pollution  to  the  maximum  extent  feasible.   New  source
performance standards were proposed on 13 May 1976 (41 FR  19841)  and
19 September 1977 (42 FR 46932) and promulgated on 12 January 1979 (44
FR  2586).   The Agency has reviewed these standards and established a
number of new options.
NSPS OPTIONS CONSIDERED
General Applicability

The alternate limitations during precipitation events and  post-mining
discharge  limitations  apply  to  all  options  considered below (the
alternate limitations, though do  not  apply  to  the  zero  discharge
option for coal preparation plants).

Option One

Require achievement of performance standards in each subcategory based
on  the same technology proposed for BAT, including neutralization and
settling  for  acidic  wastewaters.   This  option  is  predicated  on
application  of  the  same  technology  proposed  for BPT for the acid
drainage and preparation plant  and  associated  areas  subcategories.
The  alkaline drainage and areas under reclamation subcategories would
be  required  to  meet  performance  standards   based   on   settling
technology.    No  additional  expenditures  would  be  required  from
selection of this option.

Option Two

Require achievement  of  performance  standards  based  on  flocculant
addition.   As  discussed  in Section X, this technology would provide
                                    377
-------
some additional reduction of total suspended  solids,  but  would  not
provide  a  cost-effective  decrease  in toxic pollutant levels, which
were found to be extremely low.

Option Three

Require achievement of performance standards based on  granular  media
filtration.   As  in the case of Option Two, granular media filtration
would provide some additional  reduction  of  solids,  but  would  not
provide a cost-effective decrease in toxic pollutant levels.

Option Four

Require  achievement  of no discharge of process wastewater pollutants
in the coal preparation  plant  subcategory  with  one  of  the  other
options  selected  for the mine drainage subcategories.  An occasional
purge, subject to BPT limitations, would be allowed when necessary  to
reduce  the  concentration of solids or process chemicals in the water
circuit to a level which  will  not
process    or   process   equipment.
considerations have already provided
in existing preparation plants which
process  water.   The  zero  discharge  requirement
discharge of any pollution-bearing streams from the
water  circuit,  including  the  treatment system.
would be available.
interfere  with  the  preparation
   Economic   and   environmental
the incentive to design processes
 partially  or
 completely  reuse
would prohibit the
preparation  plant
No storm exemption
NSPS SELECTION AND DECISION CRITERIA
EPA has selected Options One and Four  as  the  basis  for  final  new
source  performance standards.  The rationale for selecting Option One
was discussed in Section X.  In Option  Four,  the  preparation  plant
subcategory is separated from the associated areas subcategory for new
sources.   Many  existing  facilities  are practicing total recycle of
preparation plant wastewaters, thus zero discharge is  a  demonstrated
technology  for these facilities. Further, this option is feasible for
new sources because treatment system and water management planning can
be implemented from the design phase,  eliminating  the  economic  and
technical  inefficiency  associated  with retrofitting.  Finally, zero
discharge removes an average of 35 mg/1 (monthly average)  of  TSS,  a
parameter  regulated  under  NSPS  but not under BAT.  Option One will
apply to coal mines and coal preparation plant associated areas.
                                    378
-------
                             SECTION XII
                        PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Section 307(b) of the Act  requires  EPA  to  promulgate  pretreatment
standards  for  both existing sources (PSES) and new sources (PSNS) of
pollution which discharge their wastes into publicly  owned  treatment
works  (POTWs).   These pretreatment standards are designed to prevent
the discharge of pollutants which pass through, interfere with, or are
otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs.  In addition,  the
Clean  Water  Act  of  1977 adds a new dimension to these standards by
requiring pretreatment of pollutants, such as heavy metals, that limit
POTW sludge management alternatives.  The legislative history  of  the
Act  indicates  that pretreatment standards are to be technology based
and, with respect to toxic pollutants, analogous to BAT.   The  Agency
has  promulgated  general  pretreatment  regulations which establish a
framework for the implementation of these statutory requirements  (see
43  FR  27736,  16  June  1978).  EPA is not establishing pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES) in the coal mining point  source
category  at this time nor does it intend to promulgate such standards
in  the  future  (PSNS)  since  there  are  no  known  or  anticipated
dischargers to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).   Coal mines are
located in rural areas, often far from population centers and publicly
owned  treatment  plants.   No  rational mine operator would choose to
route the high volume mine discharge to a POTW for treatment.  This is
true for existing sources  and  will  continue  to  be  true  for  new
sources,   and  thus  pretreatment  standards  would  be irrelevant and
unnecessary.
                                   379
-------
-------
                             SECTION XIII
                           ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared by  Radian  Corporation,  McLean,  Virginia
with  direction  from  Mr. Dennis Ruddy and Ms. Allison M. Phillips of
the Energy and Mining Branch of the Effluent  Guidelines  Division  of
EPA.   Direction  and  assistance were also provided by Mr. William A.
Telliard, Chief of the Energy and Mining Branch and Technical  Project
Officer  for  this  study, and Mr. Matthew Jarrett and Mr.  Ron Kirby,
Effluent Guidelines Technical Project Monitors.  Much of the input for
this  document  was  provided  by  Radian's  subcontractors   Frontier
Technical  Associates, Buffalo, New York and Hydrotechnic Corporation,
New York, New York.  An earlier version of this document was developed
and written by Versar Incorporated, Springfield,  Virginia.   Much  of
the  information  developed  by Versar was incorporated in this draft.
The following agencies and divisions of agencies  contributed  to  the
development of this document:

Environmental Protection Agency

     1.  ,A11 regional offices
     2.   Industrial Environmental  Research  Laboratory,  Cincinnati,
          Ohio
     3.   Office of Research and Development
     4.   Office of General Counsel
     5.   Office of Analysis and Evaluation
     6.   Monitoring and Data Support
     7.   Criteria and Standards division

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources

Bituminous Coal Research

National Coal Association

Many coal companies were very cooperative in providing access to  coal
mines and coal preparation plants for various sampling and engineering
studies.  Of particular assistance were:

     AMAX Coal Company
     Beltrami Enterprises, Incorporated
     Beth-Elkhorn Corporation
     Bethlehem Mines Corporation
     Bill's Coal Company
     Buffalo Mining Company
                                    381
-------
Central Ohio coal Company
Clemens Coal Company
Consolidation Coal Company
Drummond Coal Company
Duquesne Light Company
Eastern Associated Coal Company
Falcon Coal Company
Harmar Coal Company
Industrial Generating company
Inland Steel Coal Company
Island Creek Coal Company
Jewell Ridge Coal Company
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
Kaiser Steel
Kentland Coal Corporation
King Knob coal Company
Knife River Coal Company
Monterey Coal Company
National Mines Corporation
North American Coal Company
Old Ben coal Company
Peabody Coal Company
Peter Kiewit & Sons, Incorporated
Pittston Coal Company
Southwestern Illinois Coal Company
U.S. Steel
V. & J, Carlson
Washington Irrigation & Development Company
Western Energy Company
                              382
-------
                             SECTION XIV
                              REFERENCES
Section III

1.    Nielsen,  George  F,,   ed.,  1981 Keystone Coal Industry Manualf
McGraw Hill, New York, New York, 1981.
2.    The  President's  Commission  on  Coal,  Coal  Data  Book,  U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., February 1980.

3.    "U.S.  Coal  Unlikely to Meet Carter's Production Goal," Oil and
Gas Journal, Volume 77, No. 46, pages 205-210, November 12, 1979.

4.   "Facts About Coal," National Coal Association, Washington,  D.C.,
1982.

5.   Wilmoth, R. C., et al., "Removal of Trace Elements from Acid Mine
Drainage,"   EPA-Industrial   Environmental  Research  Laboratory  and
Hydroscience, Inc., for U.S. EPA, Contract No. 68-03-2568, EPA  600/7-
79-101,  April 1979.
Section IV

1.   Cassidy,  Samuel  M.,  ed.,  Elements  of.  Practical Coal Mining,
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum  Engineers,
Inc., New York, New York, 1973.

2.  Berkowitz, N., An Introduction to Coal Technology, Academic Press,
New York, 1979.

3.   Wachter,  R.  A. . and  T. R. Blackwood, "Source Assessment: Water
Pollutants from Coal Storage Areas," IERL, EPA, Cincinnati, May 1978.

4.  Jackson, Dan, "Western Coal is the Big  Challenge  to  Reclamation
Experts Today," Coal Age, Volume 82, No. 7, pages 90-108, July 1977.

5.   "Technical  Assistance in the Implementation of the BAT Review of
the Coal Mining Industry Point Source  Category,"  U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, prepared by Versar, Inc., Contract Nos. 68-01-3273,
4762, 5149, and 68-02-2618, Draft, July 1979.
                                    383
-------
6.   Leonard,  J.  W.  and  D. P. Mitchell, editors. Coal Preparation,
Seeley  W.  Mudd   Series,   The   American   Institute   of   Mining,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., New York, 1968.

7.   Argonne  National Laboratory, "Environmental Control Implications
of Generating Electric Power from  Coal,"  Technology  Status  Report,
Appendix  A,  Part  1,  "Preparation  and  Cleaning Assessment Study,"
Argonne, Illinois, 1977.
8.  Energy Information Administration:
Vols. II & III, 1977.
          Annual  Report  to  Congress,
9,   U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Bureau  of  Mines, Minerals
Yearbook.  Volume  I:   Metals,  Minerals  and  Fuels,  1976  edition,
Washington, D.C.

10.   Pennsylvania  Department  of  Environmental  Resources,  "Annual
Report on Mining, Oil and Gas, and Land Reclamation  and  Conservation
Activities," Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1977 and 1978 Reports.

11.    Terlecky,  P.  Michael,  and  David  M.  Harty,  "Inventory  of
Anthracite Coal Mining Operations, Wastewater Treatment and  Discharge
Practices,"   by   Frontier   Technical  Associates,  Inc.,  for  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,  Contract  No.   68-01-5163,  October
1979.

12.   Jackson,  Dan, "Outlook Shines for Coal Slurry Lines," Coal Age,
Volume 83, No. 6, pages 88-93, June 1978.

13.  "Facts About Coal," National Coal Association, Washington,  D.C.,
19.82.


14.   Bureau  of Mines:  Minerals Yearbooks,  1968-1976,  Congressional
Research Service:  National Energy Transportation,  Volume   Ill-Issues
and Problems, March 1978.
15.  Nielson, George F., ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1981.
1981   Keystone  Coal  Industry  Manual,
16.  Department of the Interior:  Energy Perspectives 2, June 1976.

17.   U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Bureau  of  Mines,  "Coal -
Bituminous and Lignite in 1975," Washington, D.C., 1976.

18.  Nielson, George F., ed.,  1976  Keystone  Coal  Industry   Manual,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1976.

19.   "Water  Pollution Impact of Controlling Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
from Coal-Fired Steam Electric Generators,"  Radian  Corporation,  EPA
Contract  No. 68-02-2608, U.S. EPA-IERL, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 1977.
                                    384
-------
Section V

1.  Wilmoth, R. C., "Limestone and Lime Neutralization  of  Acid  Mine
Drainage,"  U.S.  EPA,  IERL,  Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-600/2-77-101, May
1977.

2.  Wilmoth, R. C., "Limestone and  Limestone-Lime  Neutralization  of
Acid  Mine  Drainage,"  U.S.  EPA, Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-670/2-74-051,  June 1974.

3.  Wilmoth, R. C., "Application  of  Reverse  Osmosis  to  Acid  Mine
Drainage  Treatment,"  U.S.   EPA,  Office  of Research and Development
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-670/2-73-100,  December 1973.

4.  "Testing of Neutralization and Precipitation  of  Coal  Mine  Acid
Mine Drainage," Hydrotechnic Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-01-5163,
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.,  September 1979, draft report.

5.   "Testing  of  Dual Granular Media Filtration of Treated Acid Mine
Drainage," Hydrotechnic Corporation,  EPA  Contract  No.   68-01-5163,
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.,  March 1980,  preliminary draft.

6.   "Treatability  of  Coal  Mine  Drainage  for  Removal of Priority
Pollutants," Radian Corporation, McLean, Virginia,  EPA  Contract  No.
68-01-5163,  U.S.  EPA,  Washington,  D.C.,  January 1980, preliminary
draft.

7.  Wilmoth,  R.  C.,  "Removal  of   Trace  Elements  from  Acid  Mine
Drainage,11  U.S.  EPA,  lERL-Cincinnati   and  Hydroscience,  Inc., EPA
Contract No. 68-03-2568,  EPA 600/7-79-101, April 1979.

8.  U.S. EPA, "Sampling  and  Analysis  Procedures  for  Screening  of
Industrial   Effluents   for   Priority   Pollutants,"   Environmental
Monitoring and  Support  Laboratory,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  March  1977,
revised April 1977.

9.   "Inductively-Coupled  Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometric Method
for Trace Element Analysis  of  Water  and  Wastes,"  U.S.   EPA-EMSL,
Cincinnati, Ohio, June 1979.

10.  "Comparison of Coal  Mine Wastewaters 'from  Eastern  and  Western
Regions,"   Environmental   Protection   Agency,  Effluent  Guidelines
Division, Washington, D.C.,  Jan. 1981.

11.   "Mine  Drainage  Treatment  and  Costing  Study:   Coal   Mining
Industry,"   U.S.   Environmental   Protection   Agency,  prepared  by
Hydrotechnic Corporation, Contract  Nos.  68-02-2608  and  68-01-5163,
December 1979.

12.  Martin, J. F., "Quality of Effluent from Coal Refuse Piles," U.S.
EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1974.
                                  385
-------
13.   Yancey,  H.  F.,   M.  R.  Greer, et al,, "Properties of Coal and
Impurities in Relation to Preparation," pages 1.3 to 1.53  in  Leonard
and  Mitchell,  eds.,  Coal Preparation, American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., New York, 1968.

14.  "Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Steam Electric  Power  Generating
Point Source Category," U.S. EPA 4401/1-74-029-a, October 1974.

15.   U.S.  Bureau  of Land Management, Northwest Colorado Coal, final
environmental statement, 4 Volumes, undated.

16.  U.S. Geological Survey, Development of Coal Resources in  Central
Utah, draft environmental statement, Part 1-Regional analysis; Part 2-
Site specific analysis, 1978.

17.   U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Office  of  Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Permanent Regulatory Program Implementing
Section 501(b) of the Surface Mining Control and  Reclamation  Act  of_
1977, draft environmental statement, September 1978.

18.   U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Northwest Colorado Coal Regional
Environmental Statement, supplemental report, undated.

19.  Wachter, R. A. and T. R.  Blackwood,  "Source  Assessment:  Water
Pollutants  from Coal Storage Areas," IERL, EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, May
1978.

20.  Anderson, W. C. and M. C. Youngstrom, "Coal Pile Leachate Quality
and quantity Characteristics,"  ASCE,  Journal  of  the  Environmental
Engineering Division, Volume 102, No.  EE6, pages 1239 to 1253, 1976.

21.   Terlecky,  P.  Michael and D. M. Harty, "Inventory of Anthracite
Coal Mining Operations, Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Practices,"
by  Frontier  Technical  Associates,  Inc.  for   U.S.   Environmental
Protection  Agency,  Contract  No.  68-01-5163, Final Report, June 10,
1980.
22.  "Sludge Sampling Report," Radian Corporation,
1981 .
McLean,  VA,  Jan.
23.  "Coal Preparation Plant Study  in  Support  of  Proposed  Effluent
Limitations  Guidelines  for  the   Coal Mining Point Source Category,"
L.C. Ehrenreich, Jan. 1981.

Section VI_

1.  "Sampling and Analysis  Procedures  for  Screening  of  Industrial
Effluents  for  Priority  Pollutants,"  U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support  Laboratory,  Cincinnati,
Ohio, March  1977, Revised April  1977.
                                   386
-------
2.    "Condensed  Chemical  Dictionary,"  P.  Hawley,  Van  Norstrand,
Reinhold, New York, New York, 1971.

3.  "Development Document for BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines  and
New  Source  Performance  Standards  for  the  Ore Mining and Dressing
Industry," Calspan Report No. 6332-M-l, September 5, 1979.

4.   Rawlings,  G.  D.,  and  M.  Samfield,  Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 13, No. 2, February 1974.

5.   "Seminar  for  Analytical  Methods for Priority Pollutants," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water  Programs,  Savannah,
Georgia, May 23-24, 1978.

Section VII

1.   Lovell,  Harold  L., "An Appraisal of Neutralization Processes to
Treat Coal Mine Drainage," Pennsylvania State  University,  University
Park, Pennsylvania, November 1973.

2.   Wilmoth,  Roger  C., et al., "Removal of Trace Elements from Acid
Mine Drainage," EPA Industrial Environmental Research  Laboratory  and
Hydroscience,  Inc., for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract
No. 68-03-2568, EPA 660/7-79-101, April 1979.

3.  "Environmental Control Selection Methodology for a Coal Conversion
Demonstration Facility," U.S. Department of Energy, prepared by Radian
Corporation, Contract No.  EX-760-C-01-2314, October 1978.

4.  "Treatability of  Coal  Mine  Drainage  for  Removal  of  Priority
Pollutants:  Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Coal Mining Point
Source  Category,"  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, prepared by
Versar,  Inc., Contract No. 68-01-4762,  Draft, September 1979.

5.   "Process  Design  Manual  for  Suspended  Solids  Removal,"  U.S.
Environmental  Protection  Agency  Technology  Transfer, EPA 625/1-75-
0039, January 1975.

6.  "Erosion and Sediment Control:   Surface  Mining  in  the  Eastern
U.S.," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 625/3-76-006, October
1976.

7.   Ettinger,  Charles E. and J. E. Lichty, Evaluation of Performance
Capability of. Surface Mine Sediment Basins, Harrisburg,  Pennsylvania,
Skelly and Loy, August 1979.

8.   Environmental  Protection  Agency, Resource Extraction & Handling
Division, Sedimentation Ponds - A Critical Review, report, Cincinnati,
Ohio, undated.

9.  Hill, Ronald D., Water Pollution  from  Coal  Mines/  EPA,  August
1973.
                                  387
-------
10.  Hill, Ronald D.,  "Sediment Control and Surface Mining," Presented
at  the Polish-U,S. Symposium Environmental Protection in Openpit Coal
Mining/ Denver, Colorado, May 1975.

11.  Grim, Elmore C. and Ronald D. Hill, Environmental  Protection  in
Surface  Mining  of  Coal,  final  report, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. EPA,
National  Environmental  Research  Center,  Office  of  Research   and
Development, October 1974.

12.   Kathuria, D. Vir, M. A. Nawrocki and B. C. Becker, Effectiveness
°I Surface  Mine  Sedimentation  Ponds,  Columbia,  Maryland,  Hittman
Associates, Inc., August 1976.

13.  Environmental Protection Agency, Development Document for Interim
Final  Effluent  Limitations  Guidelines  and  New  Source Performance
Standards for the Coal Mining Point Source Category, Washington, D.C.,
May 1976.
14.   Lanouette,  Kenneth  H.,  "Heavy   Metals   Removal,"
Engineering, Vol. 84, No. 22, pp.  73-80, October 1977.
Chemical
15.    "Mine  Drainage  Treatment  and  Costing  Study:   Coal  Mining
Industry,"  U.S.  Environmental   Protection   Agency,   prepared   by
Hydrotechnic  Corporation,  Contract  Nos.  68-02-2608 and 68-01-5163,
November 1979.

16.  "Development Document for BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards  for  the  Ore  Mining  and  Dressing
Industry,"  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, prepared by Calspan
Corporation, Contract No.   68-01-4845, Draft, September 1979.

17.  "Processes, Procedures, and Methods  to  Control  Pollution  from
Mining  Activities," U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, prepared by
Skelly and Loy and Penn Environmental Consultants, Inc., Contract  No.
68-01-1830, EPA 430/9-73-011, October 1973.

18.   "Technical Assistance in the Implementation of the BAT Review of
the Coal Mining Industry Point Source  Category,"  U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, prepared by Versar, Inc., Contract Nos. 68-01-3273,
4762, 5149, 68-02-2618, Draft, July 1979.

19.   Wilmoth,  Roger C.,  Applications of_ Reverse Osmosis to Acid Mine
Drainage Treatment, 2 copies, EPA, Crown Mine Drainage  Control  Field
Site, December  1973.

20.  "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics," 50th edition, Weast, R.  C,,
editor, Chemical Rubber Company, Cleveland, Ohio, p.  B252.

21.   "Handbook  of Analytical Chemistry," Meites, L., editor, McGraw-
Hill, New York, pp. 1-15 to 1-19, 1963.
                                   388
-------
22.  "Ionic Equilibrium as Applied to Qualitative  Analyses,"  Hogness
and  Johnson,  Holt Rinehart & Winston Company, New York, pp. 360-362,
1954.

23.  "Testing of the Neutralization and  Precipitation  of  Coal  Mine
Acid Mine Drainage," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared by
Hydrotechnic  Corporation,  Contract  No.   68-01-5163,  final report,
November 1979.

24.  "Testing of Dual Granular Media Filtration of Treated  Acid  Coal
Mine  Drainage,"  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency, prepared by
Hydrotechnic Corporation,  Contract  No.   68-01-5163,  final  report,
August 1980.

25.   "Testing  of Dual Granular Media Filtration of Treated Acid Coal
Mine Drainage at a Second Site,11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
prepared by Hydrotechnic Corporation, Contract No.  68-01-5163,  final
report,  December 1980.

26.   Janiak,  Henryk,  "Purification of Waters Discharged from Polish
Lignite Mines," Central Research and  Design  Institute  for  Open-pit
Mining,  Wroclaw, Poland, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
600/7-79-099, April 1979.

27.   Mann,  Charles  E.,  "Optimizing  Sediment  Control Systems," in
Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Symposium:  Coal Conference & Expo
V, October 23-25, Louisville, Kentucky, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,  New  York,
1979.

28.   Huck,  P.  M., K. L. Murphy, C. Reed, (McMaster Univ.  Hamilton,
Ontario, Canada) and B. P. LeClair,  (Environmental Protection Service,
Ottawa,  Ontario, Canada)  "Optimization  of  Polymer  Flocculation  of
Heavy Metal Hydroxides," Journal WPCF, pp. 2411-2418, December 1977.

29,   Reese,  R.  D.  and  R.  E.  Neff,   (American  Cyanimid Company)
"Flocculation-Filtration Studies on Acid  Coal  Mine  Drainage,"  BCR-
MD70-86, June 15-19, 1970.

30.   Brodeur, T. and D. A. Bauer, "Picking the Best Coagulant for the
Job," Water and Wastes Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 5, p. 52-57, 1974.

Section VIII

1,   "Mine  Drainage  Treatment  and  Costing  Study:    Coal   Mining
Industry,"   U.S.   Environmental   Protection   Agency,  prepared  by
Hydrotechnic Corporation, Contract  Nos.  68-02-2608  and  68-01-5613,
December 1979.

2.   "Coal  Mine  Industry  Mine Drainage Treatment and Costing Study:
Backup  Data,"  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  prepared  by
Hydrotechnic Corporation, March 20,  1980.
                                    389
-------
3.  Ruddy, Dennis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, communication
to  Leo  Ehrenreich  and Harold Kohlmann, outline of preparation plant
scenarios, March  18, 1980.

4.  Curtis, Robert, "Mine Drainage Treatment Costing File:  A  Set  of
Notes  and  Phone  Call  Memos on the Cost of Treating Mine Drainage,"
Radian Corporation, McLean, Virginia, January 1980.

5.  Randolph, K. B., Versar, Inc., memorandum to  Dennis  Ruddy,  U.S.
Environmental  Protection  Agency, regarding cost multipliers for coal
mining regions of the United States, January 25, 1979.

6.  "Environmental Control Selection Methodology for a Coal Conversion
Demonstration Facility," U.S. Department of Energy, prepared by Radian
Corporation, October 1978.

7.  Gumerman, R. C., et al., "Estimating Water Treatment Costs: Volume
2.  Cost Curves Applicable to 1 to 200  MGD  Treatment  Plants,"  U.S.
Environmental   Protection   Agency,   prepared   by  Culp/Wesner/Culp
Consulting Engineers,  Contract  No.   68-03-2516,  EPA-600/2-79-162b,
August 1979.


Section X

1.    "Processes,  Procedures,  and  Methods to Control Pollution from
Mining Activities," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared  by
Skelly  and Loy and Penn Environmental Consultants, Inc., Contract No.
68-01-1830, EPA 430/9-73-011, October 1973.

2.   Grim, Elmore C. and R. D. Hill, Environmental Protection  iji  the
Surface  Mining  of  Coal,  Final  Report,  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  USEPA,
National  Environmental  Research  Center,  Office  of  Research   and
Development, October 1974.

3.    Joyce, Christopher R., Final Federal Surface Mining Regulations,
Washington, D.C., McGraw-Hill, 1980.

4.   "Erosion and Sediment Control:  Surface  Mining  in  the  Eastern
U.S.," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 625/3-76-006, October
1976.

5.  .  "Technical Assistance in the Implementation of the BAT Review of
the Coal Mining Industry Point Source  Category,"  U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, prepared by Versar, Inc., Contract Nos. 68-01-3273,
4762, 5149, 68-02-2618, Draft, July  1979.
                                    390
-------
                             SECTION XVI
                               GLOSSARY
absorption:   The process by which a liquid is drawn into and tends to
fill permeable pores in a porous solid  body;  also  the  increase  in
weight of a porous solid body resulting from the penetration of liquid
into its permeable pores.

acid:   A  substance  which  dissolves  in water with the formation of
hydronium ion.  A substance containing hydrogen which may be displaced
by metals to form salts.

acid  mine  drainage  (AMD):   Synonomous   with   "ferruginous   mine
drainage."   That drainage which before any treatment has a pH of less
than 6.0 or a total iron concentration of more than 10.0 mg/1.

acidity:  The quantitative capacity of aqueous solutions to react with
hydroxyl ions (OH~).  The condition of a water solution having a pH of
less than 7.

acre-foot:  A term used in measuring the volume of water that is equal
to the quantity of water required to cover 1  acre,  1   foot  deep,  or
43560 ft3.

Act:   The  Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
1251, 1311 and 1314(b)  and (c),  P.L. 92-500).  Also called  the  Clean
Water Act and amendments through 1977.

activated carbon:  Carbon which is treated by high-temperature heating
with  steam  or  carbon  dioxide producing an internal porous particle
structure.   Activated  carbon  is  often  used  to   adsorb   organic
pollutants and/or remove metal ions.

active  mining area:  An area where work or other activity relating to
the extraction,  removal or recovery of any coal  is  being  conducted.
This  includes  areas  where  secondary  recovery  of  coal  is  being
conducted, but specifically does not include  for  surface  mines  any
area  of land on or in which grading to return the land to the desired
contour has been completed and reclamation work has begun.

Administrator:  Administrator of  the  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
Agency, whose duties are to administer the Act.

adsorption:   The adhesion of an extremely thin layer of molecules (of
gas, liquid)  to the surfaces of solids (granular activated carbons for
instance) or liquids with which they are in contact.
                                     391
-------
alkaline mine drainage:  That mine drainage which before any treatment
has a pH of more than 6.0 and a total iron concentration of less  than
10.0 mg/1.

advanced  waste  treatment:   Any treatment method or process employed
following  biological  treatment  (1)  to  increase  the  removal   of
pollution  load,  (2) to remove substances which may be deleterious to
receiving waters or the environment, (3)  to  produce  a  high-quality
effluent  suitable  for  reuse in any specific manner or for discharge
under critical conditions.  The term tertiary  treatment  is  commonly
used to denote advanced waste treatment methods.

aerated  pond:   A  natural or artificial wastewater treatment pond in
which mechanical or diffused air aeration is used  to  supplement  the
oxygen supply.

aeration:   The  bringing  about  of  intimate contact between air and
liquid by one of the following methods:  spraying the  liquid  in  the
air, bubbling air through the liquid (diffused aeration), agitation of
the liquid to promote surface absorption of air (mechanical aeration),

agglomeration:   The  coalesence  of  dispersed  suspended matter into
larger floes or particles which settle more rapidly.

alkalinity:  The capacity of water to  neutralize  acids,  a  property
imparted   by   the   water's  content  of  carbonates,  bicarbonates,
hydroxides, and occasionally borates, silicates, and  phosphates.   It
is expressed in milligrams per liter of equivalent calcium carbonate.

anion:   The  charged  particle  in a solution of an electrolyte which
carries a negative charge.

anion exchange process:  The  reversible  exchange  of  negative  ions
between  functional groups of the ion exchange medium and the solution
in which the solid  is  immersed.   Used  as  a  wastewater  treatment
process for removal of anions, e.g., carbonate.

anthracite:   A hard natural coal of high luster which contains little
volatile matter, and greater than 92% fixed carbon.

anticline:  A fold that is  convex  upward.   The  oldest  strata  are
closest to the axial plane of the fold.

aquifer:   A  subsurface  rock  formation that  is capable of producing
water.

areas under  reclamation:   A  previously  surface  mined  area  where
regrading has been completed and revegetation has commenced.

asbestos  minerals:   Certain minerals which have a fibrous structure,
are heat resistant, chemically inert and  possessing  high  electrical
insulating   qualities.   The  two  main  groups  are  serpentine  and
amphiboles.    Chrysotile   principal   commercial   variety.    Other
                                    392
-------
commercial    varieties   are   armosite,
anthophyllite, and tremolite.
crocidolite,   actinolite,
auger:  Any drilling device in which the cuttings are mechanically and
continuously removed from the borehole  without  the  use  of  fluids;
usually used for shallow drilling or sampling.

auger  mining:   Spiral  boring for additional recovery of a coal seam
exposed in a highwall.

backfilling:  The transfer of previously moved material back  into  an
excavation such as a mine or ditch, or against a constructed object.

backwashing:   The  process  of  cleaning  a  rapid sand or mechanical
filter by reversing the flow of water.

base:  A compound which dissolves in water to yield hydroxyl ions

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 be set, move or operate.  A working road or base below a
highwall as in contour stripping for coal.

best available technology economically achievable (BATEA or BAT):  The
level  of technology applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved
by July 1, 1984,  for  industrial  discharges  to  surface  waters  as
defined by Section 301(b) (2)  (A) of the Act.

best  practicable  control  technology  currently available (BPCTCA or
BPT):  Treatment required by July 1, 1977 for industrial discharge  to
surface waters as defined by Section 301 (b) (1) (A)  of the Act.

best  available demonstrated technology (BADT):  Treatment rquired for
new sources as defined by Section 306 of the Act.

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD):  A  measure  of  water  contamination
expressed  as  the  amount  of  dissolved  .oxygen  (mg/1)  required by
microorganisms, during stabilization  of  organic  matter  by  aerobic
chemical action.

bituminous:  A coal of intermediate hardness containing between 50 and
92 percent fixed carbon.

blowdown:    A  portion of water in a closed system which is removed or
discharged in order to prevent a buildup of dissolved solids.

carbon absorption:    A  process  utilizing  the  efficient  absorption
characteristics  of  activated  carbon  to  remove  both dissolved and
suspended substances.
cation:   The  positively  charged  particles  in   solution
electrolyte.
                   of
an
                                  393
-------
cationic flocculant:  In flocculation, surface active substances which
have  the  active constituent in the positive ion.  Used to flocculate
and neutralize the negative charge residing on colloidal particles.

chemical  analysis:   The  use  of  a  standard  chemical   analytical
procedure  to determine the concentration of a specific pollutant in a
wastewater sample.

chemical coagulation:  The destabilization and initial aggregation  of
colloidal  and  finely  divided  suspended matter by the addition of a
floe-forming chemical.

chemical oxygen demand (COD):  A specific test to measure  the  amount
of  oxygen  required  for  the  complete  oxidation of all organic and
inorganic matter in a water sample which is susceptible  to  oxidation
by a strong chemical oxidant.

chemical  precipitation:    (1)   Precipitation  induced by addition of
chemicals.  This includes the reaction of  dissolved  substances  such
that  they  pass  out  of  solution  into  the solids phase.  (2)  The
process of softening water by the addition of lime and soda ash as the
precipitants.
clarification:   A  physical-chemical  wastewater  treatment   process
involving the various steps necessary to form a stable, rapid settling
floe  and  to separate it by sedimentation.  Clarification may involve
pH   adjustment,   precipitation,   coagulation,   flocculation,    and
sedimentation.
clarifier:
low velocity
A  basin  usually made of steel in which water flows at
   allow settling of suspended matter.
to
coagulation:  The treatment process  by  which  a  chemical  added  to
wastewater  acts  to  neutralize  the repulsive forces that hold waste
particles in suspension.

coagulants:   Materials  that  induce  coagulation  and  are  used  to
precipitate  solids  or semi-solids.  They are usually compounds which
dissociate into strongly charged ions.

coal mine:  An area of land with 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 mining, cleaning, or preparation of coal.
coal mine drainage:
mine.
        Any water drained, pumped or siphoned from a coal
coal pile drainage:   Drainage  from
percolation or runoff from rainfall.
                            coal  pile  as  a  result  of
                                    394
-------
colloids:  Suspensions of particles, usually between a nanometer and a
micrometer in diameter, in any physical state.  In this size range the
surface  area  is  so  great  compared  to  the  volume  that  unusual
phenomenon occur, i.e., particles do not settle out by gravity and are
small enough to  pass  through  normal  filter  membranes   (i.e.,  not
ultrafilters).

composite  wastewater  sample:  A combination of individual samples of
water or wastewater taken at selected intervals, generally  hourly  for
some  specified  period,  to minimize the effect of the variability of
the individual  sample.  Individual samples may have  equal  volume  or
may be roughly proportioned to the flow at time of sampling.

concentration,  hydrogen ion:  The weight of hydrogen ions in grams per
liter of solution.  Commonly expressed as the pH value that represents
the logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration.
conventional pollutants:
TSS.
pH, BOD, fecal coliform, oil and grease, and
crusher,  jaw:   A  primary  crusher  designed  to  reduce the size of
materials  by  impact  or  crushing  between  a  fixed  plate  and  an
oscillating plate or between two oscillating plates, forming a tapered
jaw.

crusher,  roll:   A  reduction  crusher consisting of a heavy frame on
which two rolls are mounted; the rolls are driven so that they  rotate
toward  one another.  Coal is fed in from above and nipped between the
moving rolls, crushed, and discharged below.

cyclone:  (a)  The conical-shaped apparatus used  in  dust  collecting
operations  and  fine  grinding  applications;  (b)  A classifying (or
concentrating) separator into which pulp is  fed,  so  as  to  take  a
circular  path.  Coarser and heavier fractions of solids report as the
apex of long cone while finer particles overflow from central vortex.

data correlation:  The process of the conversion of reduced data  into
a  functional  relationship and the development of the significance of
both the  data  and  the  relationship  for  the  purpose  of  process
evaluation.

dect.nt  structure:   Apparatus  for  removing clarified water from the
surface layers of tailings or settling ponds.

deep mine:  An underground mine.

dense-media separation:  (a)  Heavy media separation, or  sink  float.
Separation of heavy sinking from light floating mineral particles in a
fluid  of  intermediate  density;  (b)  Separation of relatively light
(floats) and heavy particles  (sinks),  by  immersion  in  a  bath  of
intermediate density.
                                   395
-------
denver  cell:   A flotation cell of the subaeration type, in wide use.
Design  modifications  include   receded   disk,   conical-disk,   and
multibladed impellers, low-pressure air attachments, and special froth
withdrawal arrangements.

denver jig:  Pulsion-suction diaphragm jig for fine material, in which
makeup (hydraulic) water is admitted through a rotary valve adjustable
as to portion of jigging cycle over which controlled addition is made.

dependent  variable:   A  variable whose value is a function of one or
more independent variables.

deposit:   Mineral, coal or ore deposit is used to designate a  natural
occurrence  of a useful mineral, coal, or an ore, in sufficient extent
and degree of concentration to permit exploitation,


depressing agent;  depressor;  depressant:   In  the  froth  flotation
process,   a substance which reacts with the particle surface to render
it less prone to stay in the froth, thus causing it to wet down  as  a
tailing product  (contrary to activator).

detention  time:  The time allowed for solids to collect in a settling
tank.  Theoretically , detention time is equal to the  volume  of  the
tank  divided  by  the  flow  rate.   The  actual  detention  time  is
determined by operating parameters of the tank.

dewater:   To remove a portion of the water from a sludge or a slurry.

differential flotation:  Separating a raw coal into two or more  coals
and  pyrites by flotation; also called selective flotation.  This type
of flotation is made possible by the use of  suitable  depressors  and
activators.

discharge:   Outflow  from a pump, drill hole, piping system, channel,
weir or other discernible, confined or discrete conveyance   (see  also
point source).

discharge  pipe:   A  section  of  pipe  or conduit from the condenser
discharge to the point of discharge into receiving waters  or  cooling
device.

dispersing  agent:   Reagent  added  to  flotation circuits to prevent
flocculation, especially of objectionable  colloidal  slimes.   Sodium
silicate is frequently added for this purpose.

dissolved  solids:   Theoretically,  the  anhydrous  residues  of  the
dissolved constituents in water.  Actually, the term is defined by the
method used in determination.  In water and wastewater treatment,  the
Standard Methods tests are used.

disturbed  area:   An area which has had its natural condition altered
in the process of mining coal, preparing coal, or other  mine  related
                                 396
-------
activities.  This includes but is not limited to all areas affected by
grubbing  and topsoil removal; road construction; construction of mine
facilities;  coal  mining,  reclamation  and  preparation  activities;
deposition  of  topsoil,  overburden,  coal  or  waste materials, etc.
These areas are classified as "disturbed" until said areas  have  been
returned to approximate original contour (or post-mining land use) and
topsoil (where appropriate) has been replaced.

dragline:    A piece of excavating equipment which employs a cable-hung
bucket to remove overburden.

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.

effluent:   Liquid, such as  wastewater,  treated  or  untreated  which
flows  out  of  a  unit  operation, reservoir or treatment plant.  The
influent is the incoming stream.
eluate:    Solutions  resulting  from  regeneration  (elution)
exchange resins.
                                                               of  ion
eluent:   A  solution  used  to  extract  collected  ions  from an ion
exchange resin or solvent and return the resin to its active state.

embankment (or impoundment):  Storage basin  made  to  contain  wastes
from mines or preparation plants.

erosion:   Processes  whereby  solids  are removed from their original
location on the land surface by hydraulic or wind action.

filter, granular:  A device for removing suspended solids from  water,
consisting  of  granular  material placed in a layer(s) and capable of
being cleaned by reversing the direction of the flow.

filter, (rapid sand:  A filter for the purification of water which  has
been  previously  treated,  usually  by coagulation and sedimentation.
The water passes downward through a filtering medium consisting  of  a
layer  of  sand,  prepared anthracite coal or other suitable material,
usually from 24 to 30 inches thick and resting on a supporting bed  of
gravel  or  other  porous  medium.   The  filtrate  is  removed  by an
underdrain system.  The filter is cleaned  periodically  by  reversing
the  flow  of the water upward through the filtering medium; sometimes
supplemented by mechanical or  air  agitation  during  backwashing  to
remove mud and other impurities that are lodged in the sand.

filter,  vacuum:  A filter consisting of a cylindrical drum mounted on
a horizontal axis, covered  with  a  filter  cloth  revolving  with  a
partial submergence in liquid.  A vacuum is maintained under the cloth
for  the  larger part of a revolution to extract moisture and the cake
is scraped off continuously.
                                     397
-------
filtration:  The process of  passing  a  liquid  through  a  filtering
medium for the removal of suspended or colloidal matter.

final  contour:   The  surface  shape or contour of a surface mine (or
section  thereof)  after  all  mining  and  earth  moving  (regrading)
operations have been completed.

fine:   Fines  is  a term that refers to the size of a particle.  They
are approximately between -100 and -200 mesh.
floe:  A very fine, fluffy mass formed
suspended particles.
by  the  aggregation  of  fine
flocculants:   Any  substance which will cause flocculation.  They are
specifically useful in wastewater treatment.  Lime, alum,  and  ferric
chloride  are  examples  of inorganic flocculants and polyelectrolytes
are organic flocculants.
flocculate:  To cause to aggregate or to coalesce into small lumps
loose clusters, e.g., the calcium ion tends to flocculate clays.
                            or
flocculation:  In water and wastewater treatment, the agglomeration of
colloidal  and  finely  divided  suspended matter after coagulation by
gently stirring by either mechanical or hydraulic means.

flotation:  The method of coal or mineral separation in which a  froth
created  in  water by a variety of reagents floats some finely crushed
coal or minerals, whereas pyrites and other minerals sink.

flotation agent:  A substance or chemical  which  alters  the  surface
tension of water or which makes it froth easily.  The reagents used in
the  flotation  process  include  pH  regulators,  slime  dispersants,
resurfacing agents, wetting agents, conditioning  agents,  collectors,
and frothers.

flume:  An open channel or conduit on a prepared grade.

froth,  foam:   In  the  flotation  process,  a  collection of bubbles
resulting from agitation, the bubbles being  the  agenct  for  raising
(floating) the particles of coal or ore to the surface of the cell.

frother(s):   Substances  used  in  flotation  processes  to  make air
bubbles  sufficiently  permanent  principally  by   reducing   surface
tension.   Common  frothers  are  pine  oil,  creyslic  acid, and amyl
alcohol.

flow model:  A mathematical model of  the  effluent  wastewater  flow,
developed through the use of multiple linear regression techniques.

flow  rate:   Usually  expressed  as liters/minute  (gallons/minute) or
liters/day (million gallons/day).  Design flow rate is  that  used  to
size  the  wastewater treatment process.  Peak flow rate  is 1.5 to 2.5
times design and relates to the hydraulic flow limit and  is  specified
                                  398
-------
for each plant.  Flow rates can be mixed as batch and continuous where
these two treatment modes are used in the same plant.

frequency  distribution:  An arrangement or distribution of quantities
pertaining to a single element in order of their magnitude.
grab sample:  A single sample of wastewater taken  at  neither
time nor flow.
                                                      set
gravity  separation:   Treatment  of  coal  or mineral particles which
exploits differences between their specific  gravities.   Their  sizes
and  shapes  also play a minor part in separation.  Performed by means
of jigs, classifiers,  hydrocyclones,  dense  media,  shaking  tables,
Humphreys spirals, sluices, vanners and briddles.

grinding:   (a)   Size  reduction into relatively fine particles.   (b)
Arbitrarily divided into dry grinding performed  on  coal  or  mineral
containing  only  moisture as mined, and wet grinding, usually done in
rod, ball or pebble mills with added water.
groundwater table (or level
of saturation.
                  Upper surface of the  underground  zone
grout:  A fluid mixture of cement, sand (or other additives) and water
that can be poured or pumped easily.

hardness:   A  characteristic  of water, imparted by salts of calcium,
magnesium, and  iron,  such  as  bicarbonates,  carbonates,  sulfates,
chlorides,  and  nitrates, that causes curdling of soap, deposition of
scale in boilers,  damage in some  industrial  process,  and  sometimes
objectionable  taste.   It  may be determined by a standard laboratory
procedure or computed from the amounts of  calcium  and  magnesium  as
well as iron, aluminum, manganese, barium, strontium, and zinc, and is
expressed as equivalent calcium carbonate.

heavy-media separation:  See dense-media separation.

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,

hydrocyclone:  A cyclone separator in which a spray of water is used.

hydroclassifier:   A machine which uses an upward current of  water  to
remove fine particles from coarser material.
hydrology:
earth.
The  science  that  relates  to  the water systems of the
independent variable:  A variable whose value is not dependent on  the
value of any other variable.
                                  399
-------
influent:
wastewater,
plant.   The
 The  liquid,  such  as  untreated  or  partially  treated
which flows into a reservoir, process unit,  or  treatment
effluent is the outgoing stream.
in-plant control:  Those treatment techniques that are used to reduce,
reuse, recycle, or treat wastewater prior to end-of pipe treatment.

ion:   A  charged  atom,  molecule  or radical, the migration of which
affects the transport of electricity through an electrolyte.

ion exchange:  A chemical process involving reversible interchange  of
ions between a liquid and solid but no radical change in the structure
of the solid.

jig:  A machine in which the feed is stratified in water by means of a
pulsating motion and from which the stratified products are separately
removed,  the  pulsating  motion  being  usually obtained by alternate
upward and downward currents of the water.   jigging:  A process  used
to  separate  coarse  materials  in  the  coal  or  ore  by  means  of
differences in specific gravity in a water medium.

lagoon:  Man-made ponds or lakes usually 4 feet deep (or up to 18 feet
if aerated) which are used for  storage,  treatment,  or  disposal  of
wastes.   They can be used to hold wastewater for removal of suspended
solids, to store sludge, cool water, or for stabilization  of  organic
matter  by  biological oxidation.  Lagoons can also be used as holding
ponds, after chemical clarification and to polish the effluent.

lignite:  A carbonaceous fuel ranked between peat and bituminous coal.

lime:  Any of a family of chemicals consisting essentially of  calcium
hydroxide  made  from  limestone  (calcite)  which  is composed almost
wholly of calcium carbonate or a  mixture  of  calcium  and  magnesium
carbonates.

lime  slurry:   A form of calcium hydroxide in aqueous suspension that
contains free water.

linear regression:  A method to fit a line through  a  set  of  points
such  that  the sum of squared vertical deviations of the point values
from the fitted line is a minimum, i.e., no other line, no matter  hpw
it  is  computed, will have a smaller sum of squared distances between
the actual and predicted values of the dependent variable.
magnetic separator:  A device used
magnetic or nonmagnetic materials.
                        to  separate  magnetic  from  less
mathematical  model:   A  quantitative equation or system of equations
formulated in such a way as to reasonably depict the  structure  of  a
situation and the relationships among the relevant variables.

mean value:  The statistical expected or average figure.
                                 400
-------
median  value:
the midrange.
A  data observation located at the 50th percentile or
mesh size (activated carbon):  The particle size of granular activated
carbon  as  determined  by  the  U.S.  Sieve  series.   Particle  size
distribution within a mesh series is given in the specification of the
particular carbon.

milligrams  per  liter  (mg/1):  This is a mass per volume designation
used in water and wastewater analysis.

minable: (a)  Capable of being mined.  (b)  Material that can be mined
under present day mining technology and economics.

mine;  (a)  An opening or excavation in the earth for the  purpose  of
excavating minerals, coals, metal ores or other substances by digging.
(b)   A  word for the excavation of minerals by means of pits, shafts,
levels, tunnels, etc.,  as  opposed  to  a  quarry,  where  the  whole
excavation  is open.  In general the existence of a mine is determined
by the mode in which the mineral is obtained, and not by its  chemical
or  geologic character.   (c)  An excavation beneath the surface of the
ground from which mineral matter of value is extracted.

mine  drainage:   Mine  drainage  usually  implies  gravity  flow   of
wastewater from coal mining to a point away from the mining operation.
However,  this  term  encompasses any wastewater emanating from a coal
mining or preparation operation.

mixed-media filtration:   A  filter  which  uses  two  or  more  filter
materials  of differing specific gravities selected so as to produce a
filter uniformly graded coarse to fine.
mulching:  The addition of materials (usually  organic
surface to curtail erosion or retain soil moisture.
                                        to  the  land
multiple  linear regression:  A method to fit a plane through a set of
points such that the sum of squared distances between  the  individual
observations  and  the estimated plane is a minimum.  This statistical
technique is an extension of linear regression in that more  than  one
independent variable is used in the least squares equation.

neutralization:   Adjustment  of  pH by the addition of acid or alkali
until a pH of about 7.0 is achieved.  See pH adjustment.

new source:  Any point source, the  construction  of  which  is  begun
after the publication of proposed Section 306 regulations.

new source performance standard (NSPS):  Performance standards for the
industry  and  applicable new sources as defined by Section 306 of the
Act.
                                 401
-------
NPDES  permits:   National  Pollutant  Discharge  Elimination   System
Permits are issued by the EPA or an approved state program in order to
regulate point-source discharge to public waters.

nonconventional   pollutants:    Chemical   or   thermal   pollutants,
principally defined by not being a conventional or toxic pollutant.

normalized coefficients:  Regression constants  whose  magnitudes  are
referenced to some value.

open-pit  mining,  open  cut  mining:  A form of operation designed to
extract coal or  minerals  that  lie  near  the  surface.   Waste,  or
overburden,  is  first  removed, and the coal or mineral is broken and
loaded.

osmosis:   The  process  of  diffusion  of   a   solvent   through   a
semipermeable  membrane  from  a  solution  of  lower to one of higher
solute concentration.

osmotic pressure:  The  equilibrium  pressure  differential  across  a
semipermeable membrane which separates a solution of lower from one of
higher concentration.

outcrop:   The  exposing  of  bedrock or strata projecting through the
overlying cover of detritus and soil.

outfall:  The point or location where sewage  or  drainage  discharges
from a sewer,  drain or conduit.

overburden:   Material  of any nature, consolidated or unconsolidated,
that overlies a deposit of useful materials (i.e., coal, ores, etc.).

overflow:  Excess water discharged from the treatment system.

oxidation:  The addition of oxygen to  a  chemical  compound,  or  any
reaction which involves the loss of electrons from an atom.

oxidized zone:  In coal mining, that portion of a refuse pile near the
surface,  which has been leached by percolating water carrying oxygen,
carbon dioxide or other gases.

permeability:   Capacity for transmitting a fluid.

pH:  A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of  an  aqueous  solution,
generally  expressed in terms of the hydrogen ion considered an acidic
solution; and above 7 it is considered an alkaline solution.

pH adjustment:  Treatment of wastewater by the addition of an acid  or
alkali  to  effect  a  change in the pH or hydrogen ion concentration.
Alkalis such as lime (CaO), limestone (CaC03), caustic soda  (NaOH), or
soda ash (Na2C03), which supply  hydroxyl  ions  are  used  to  adjust
acidic streams while an acid, usually sulfuric (H2S04) or hydrochloric
(HC1) reacts with alkaline streams by supplying hydrogen ions.  The pH
                                402
-------
of  an  effluent
for discharge.
 is adjusted to a range of 6 to 9 to make it suitable
pH modifiers:  Proper functioning of a cationic or  anionic  flotation
reagent  is  dependent  on  the close control of pH.  Modifying agents
used  are  soda  ash,  sodium  hydroxide,  sodium   silicate,   sodium
phosphates, lime, sulfuric acid, and hydrofluoric acid.

pH  value:   A  scale  for  expressing  the acidity or alkalinity of a
solution.  Mathematically, it is the logarithm of  the  reciprocal  of
the gram ionic hydrogen equivalents per liter.  Neutral water has a pH
of 7.0 and hydrogen ion concentration of 10~7 moles per liter.

physical-chemical  treatment:   In  this  study, it is taken to mean a
method  of  treating  wastewater  by  the  addition  of  chemicals  to
physically   separate   the   pollutant  from  a  stream,  usually  by
precipitation, followed by settling or flotation of  the
accomplish  this,  several  processes  may  be  utilized
adjustment,   reduction   of    hexavalent    chromium,
precipitation,
settling.
                                         wastes.   To
                                         such  as  pH
                                          heavy-metal
coagulation,    flocculation,   and  clarificaiton  by
point source:  Any  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.

preparation plant:  A facility that cleans, sizes and upgrades run-of-
mine coal thereby creating a final coal product prior to  shipping  or
consumption,  and  facilities  (i.e.,  slurry  pond, fresh water pond,
conveyances) directly associated with the recycling  or  discharge  of
waters used during the "preparation" of coal.

preparation  plant  ancillary  or  associated  areas:   Areas that are
interrelated with coal preparation or coal load out activities but  do
not  include  the preparation plant building and the preparation plant
water recycle/discharge  system.   Said  areas  include  but  are  not
limited  to  ancillary  buildings  associated  with  coal preparation;
disturbed areas in proximity  to  the  preparation  plant  or  related
preparation  activities;  coal  stockpiles; coal refuse storage areas/
coal haulroads and refuse haulroads in proximity  to  the  preparation
plant  or  coal  refuse  storage  site;  treatment systems designed to
handle runoff or seepage from preparation plant "disturbed" areas,  or
coal refuse piles etc.

priority   pollutants:   Those  pollutants  included  in  Table  1  of
Committee Print Numbered 95-30 of the "Committee on Public  Works  and
Transportation  of the House of Representatives," subject to the Clean
Water Act of 1977, and included in Table VI-l of this document.

pyrites:  Mineral group composed of iron and sulfur found in coal
                                  403
-------
rank of coal:  A classification of coal based upon the fixed carbon on
a dry weight basis and the heat value.

raw mine drainage:  Untreated or unprocessed water drained, pumped  or
siphoned from a mine.

reagent:   A  chemical  or solution used to produce a desired chemical
reaction; a substance used in flotation.

reclamation:  The procedures by which a disturbed area can be reworked
to make it productive, useful, or aesthetically  pleasing,  consisting
primarily of regrading and revegetation.
reduction:   A  chemical
electrons to a species.
reaction  which  involves  the  addition  of
refuse pile:  Waste material from a preparation plant.   The  material
includes  pyrites,  ash,  and  water or chemicals used in cleaning the
coal.

regression model:  A mathematical model, usually  a  single  equation,
developed  through  the  use'  of  a  least  squares  linear regression
analysis.

reserve:  That part of an identified  resource  from  which  a  usable
mineral and energy commodity can be economically and legally extracted
at the time of determination.

residuals:   The differences between the expected and actual values in
a regression analysis.

reverse osmosis:  The process of diffusion  of  a  solvent  through  a
semipermeable  membrane  from  a  solution  of  higher to one of lower
solute concentration, effected by raising the  pressure  of  the  more
concentrated solution to above the osmotic pressure.

riprap:   Rough stone of various sizes placed compactly or irregularly
to prevent erosion.

room  and  pillar  mining:   A  system  of   mining   in   which   the
distinguishing feature  is the mining of 50 percent or more of the coal
in  the first working.  The coal is mined in rooms separated by narrow
ribs (pillars); the coal in the pillars can be extracted by subsequent
working in which the roof is caved in successive blocks.
runoff:  That part of precipitation that flows over the
from the area upon which it falls.
                               land  surface
sampler:  A device used with or without flow measurement to obtain any
adequate  portion  of  water or waste for analytical purposes.  May be
designed  for  taking  a  single   sample   (grab),composite   sample,
continuous sample, or periodic sample.
                                 404
-------
sampling  stations:   Locations  where several flow samples are tapped
for analysis.

scarification:  The process  of  breaking  up  the  topsoil  prior  to
mining.

sediment:  Solid material settled from suspension in a  liquid medium.

sedimentation:  The gravity separation of settleable, suspended solids
in a settling basin or lagoon.

settleable solids:  (1)  That matter in wastewater which will not stay
in suspension during a preselected settling period, such as 1 hour but
either settles to the bottom or floats to the top.  (2)  In the Imhoff
cone  test,  the  volume  of matter that settles to the bottom of a i-
liter cone in 1 hour.

Settlement Agreement of June 1,  1976:   Agreement  between  the  U.S.
Environmental   Protection  Agency  (EPA)  and  various  environmental
groups, as instituted by the United  States  District  Court  for  the
District  of  Columbia,  directing  the  EPA  to  study and promulgate
regulations for a list of chemical substances, referred to as Appendix
A Pollutants.

settling pond:  A pond, natural or artificial, for  recovering  solids
from an effluent.

significance:   A statistical measure of the validity, confidence, and
reliability of a figure.

sludge:  Accumulated solids separated from a liquid during processing.

sluice;  To cause water to flow at high velocities  for  wastage,  for
purposes of excavation, ejecting debris, etc.

slurry:  Solid material conveyed in a liquid medium.

spoil  material:  Overburden that is removed from above the coal seam;
usually deposited in previously mined areas.

statistical variance:  The sum of the  squared  deviations  about  the
mean  value  in proportion to the likelihood of occurrence.  A measure
used to identify the dispersion of a set of data.

subsidence:  Surface depression created by caving of the roof material
in an underground mine-

sump:  Any excavation in a  mine  for  the  collection  of  water  for
pumping.

suspended solids:  (1)  Solids which either float on the surface of or
are  in  suspension  in water, wastewater, or other liquids, and which
are removable by a .45 micron filter.   (2) The  quantity  of  material
                                 405
-------
removed  from  wastewater  in  a  laboratory  test,  as  prescribed in
"Standard Methods for the Examination of  Water  and  Wastewater"  and
referred to as nonfilterable residue, measured in mass per unit volume
(e.g.,  mg/1),

surface  active  agent:   One  which modified physical, electrical, or
chemical characteristics of the surface of  solids  and  also  surface
tensions  of   solids  or  liquid.   Used  in froth flotation (see also
depressing agent, flotation agent).

syncline:  A fold that is concave  upward.   The  younger  strata  are
closest to the axial plane of the fold.

table,   air:    a  vibrating, porous table using air currents to effect
gravity concentration of sands or other waste material from coal.

terracing:  The act of creating horizontal or near horizontal benches.

thickener:  A vessel or apparatus for .reducing the amount of water (or
conversely, increasing the  concentration  of  settled  material)in  a
wastewater stream.

tolerance  limits:    Numerical values identifying the acceptable range
of some variable.

turbidity:  Is a measure of the amount  of  light  passing  through  a
volume  of  water,   which  is directly related to the suspended solids
content.

weir:   An obstruction placed  across  a  stream  for  the  purpose  of
diverting  the  water so as to make it flow through a desired channel,
which  may be an opening or notch in the weir itself.

yellowboy:  Salt of iron and sulfate  formed  by  treating  acid  mine
drainage (AMD) with lime; FeS04.
                                  406
-------
                     ABBREVIATIONS
Ag
Al
As
BADT

BATEA (BAT)

BCPCT (BCT)
                                             Demonstrated
Be
BMP
BOD
BPCTCA

Ca
Cd
CN
COD
Cr
Cu
CWA
DM
EPA

Fe
FWPCA

Hg
Mg
Mn
Na
Ni
NPDES

NSPS

OSM

Pb
POTW
PSES

PSNS

RCRA

Sb
Se
SMCRA
       (BPT)
Silver
Aluminum
Arsenic
Best Available
Technology
Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable
Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology
Beryllium
Best Management Practices
Biochemical Oxidation Demand
Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available
Calcium
Cadmium
Cyanide
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chromium
Copper
Clean Water Act of 1977
Dissolved Metals
Environmental Protection
Agency
Iron
Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972
Mercury
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Nickel
National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System
New Source Performance
Standards
Office of Surface Mining
(Reclamation and Enforcement)
Lead
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of  1976
Antimony
Selenium
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977
                           407
-------
 ss
 TDS
 Tl
 TM
 TS
 TSS
 Zn

Units

 FTU
 JTU
 kkg
 mgd
 mg/1
 ml/1
 ug/1
 mty
 ppb
 ppm
 t
 NTU
Settleable Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Thallium
Total Metals
Total Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Zinc
Franklin Turbidity Unit
Jackson Turbidity Unit
thousand kilograms
million gallons per day
milligram(s) per liter
mililiter(s)/liter
microgram(s)/liter
million tons per year
part(s) per billion
part(s) per million
ton
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
                               408
-------
                  APPENDIX A
COAL MINING INDUSTRY SELF MONITORING  PROGRAM
                     A-i
-------
-------
 INTRODUCTION

     This appendix consists of the following three reports all concerning
 the results of the 308 industry self-monitoring survey:

     1)   "Coal Mining Industry Self-Monitoring Program" by Radian Corporation,
          1981.

     2)   "Reassessment of the Self-Monitoring Data Base According to
          the Amended 10-Year, 24-Hour Pond Design Volume for Coal Mines",
          by EPA, 1982.

     3)   "Statistical Support for the Proposed Effluent Limitation of
          0.5 ml/1 for Settleable Solids in the Coal Mining Industrial
          Category", by EPA, 1982.

     The first report summarizes and evaluates the data obtained from an
 industry self-monitoring survey.  This evaluation determined that 0.5
ml/1 settleable solids was an appropriate effluent limitation for reclamation
 areas and for active mines during storms equal to or less than the 10-
year, 24-hour precipitation event.  The technology on which this effluent
 limitation was based was a 10-year, 24-hour pond as defined in the January
13, 1981 proposal to the coal mining industry.  The language in this
proposal required that the treatment facility's design, construction,
operation, and maintenance be based upon water draining into it, including
waters from the undisturbed (virgin) area and inactive (reclaimed) area,
 in addition to the active mining area.  Twenty-four ponds submitted data
 in this survey, 7 of which were determined to be 10-year, 24-hour ponds.
The analysis upon which the 0.5 ml/1 limitation was established was
based, though, on 6 of these 7 ponds because one was considered to be
 improperly operated and designed.

     The January 13, 1981 proposal was amended on May 26, 1981.  This
amendment modified the design volume of a pond by excluding from consideration
waters from undisturbed areas which drain into the treatment facility.
The data base submitted by the 24 ponds was therefore reevaluated and it
was determined that eleven father than six ponds were 10-year, 24-hour
ponds according to the new definition. The second report presents the
calculations and results of this revaluation.

     The third report presents the statistical evaluation performed on
the data submitted by these eleven 10-year, 24-hour ponds which determined
that 0.5 ml/1 is within EPA's 99th percentile criterion for establishing
effluent limitations.
                                   A-l
-------
-------
             REPORT  1
      COAL  MINING  INDUSTRY
    SELF-MONITORING PROGRAM
             May 1981
         Prepared by:

      Radian Corporation
 Suite 600, Lancaster Building
     7927 Jones Branch Drive
     Mclean, Virginia  22102
         Prepared fpr:

  Effluent Guidelines Division
Environmental Protection Agency
      401 M  Street, S.W.
    Washington,  D.C.   20460
             A-3
-------
-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section

  1.0

  2.0

  3.0
  4.0
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM,
           3.1  Self-Monitoring Study
           3.2  Facilities Samples  .
           3-3  Analysis Program.  .  »
           3.4  Pond Design Data.  .  .
RESULTS
           4.1  Pond Design Data	
           4.2  Wastewater Characterization .  .
                4.2.1  Toxic and Nonconventional
                4.2.2  Settleable Solids.  , .  .
                4.2.3  Total Suspended Solids  .
A-ll

A-13

A-19

A-19
A-21
A-21
A-23

A-27

A-27
A-35
A-35
A-45
A-56
           APPENDICES
                                A-5
-------
-------
                          LIST OF TABLES
Table
2-1

3-1
4-1

4-2

4-3
4-4

4-5

4-6

4-7

4-8

4-9

4-10

4-11

4-12

4-13

4-14

SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY RESPONSES AND DATA
SUBMITTALS 	
FACILITIES SAMPLED 	
SEDIMENTATION POND DESIGN CRITERIA SUPPLIED BY
FACILITIES 	
SUMMARY OF INPUTS REQUIRED TO CALCULATE OSM
POND VOLUME 	
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS 	 	 .
RUNOFF DEPTH IN INCHES FOR SELECTED CURVE
NUMBERS AND RAINFALL AMOUNTS 	
COMPARISON OF OSM "REQUIRED" VOLUMES AND ACTUAL
POND VOLUMES 	
METALS RESULTS FOR RAW WASTEWATER DURING DRY
CONDITIONS 	 	
METALS RESULTS FOR POND EFFLUENT DURING DRY
CONDITIONS 	
METALS RESULTS FOR RAW WASTEWATER DURING WET
CONDITIONS 	 	
METALS RESULTS FOR POND EFFLUENT DURING WET
CONDITIONS 	
METALS RESULTS FOR RAW WASTEWATER WITH RAINFALL
CONDITION UNIDENTIFIED 	
METALS RESULTS FOR POND EFfLUENT WITH RAINFALL
CONDITION UNIDENTIFIED ... 	
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
RAW WASTEWATER DRY CONDITIONS 	
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
EFFLUENT DRY CONDITIONS 	
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
RAW WASTEWATER WET CONDITIONS 	
a -
A-14
A-22

A-28

-jQ
A-33

A-34

A-36

A-38

A-39

A-40

A-41

A-42

A-43

A-46

A-47

A-it8
                           A-7
-------
                          LIST OF TABLES
Table

 4-15


 4-16


 4-17


 4-18


 4-19


 4-20


 4-21

 4-22
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
EFFLUENT WET CONDITIONS	
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
RAW WASTEWATER DRY CONDITIONS	

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
EFFLUENT DRY CONDITIONS	

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
RAW WASTEWATER WET CONDITIONS	

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
EFFLUENT WET CONDITIONS	
Page

 A-49


 A-57
                                                   A-59
                                                   A-60
PERCENT REDUCTION OF SEDIMENTATION PONDS DURING
WET AND DRY CONDITIONS .............  A-62
RANKED EFFLUENT TSS MEANS FOR DRY CONDITIONS

RANKED EFFLUENT TSS MEANS FOR WET CONDITIONS
                                                  A-64

                                                  A-65
                           A-8
-------
               LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

 4-1


 4-2


 4-3


 4-4
                                                  Page
HISTOGRAM OF "NOT-DETECTED" EFFLUENT SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS VALUES DURING DRY CONDITIONS
HISTOGRAM OF "NOT-DETECTED" EFFLUENT SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS VALUES DURING WET CONDITIONS .......  A-52

HISTOGRAM OF DETECTED EFFLUENT SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
VALUES FOR DRY CONDITIONS ............  A-53

HISTOGRAM OF DETECTED EFFLUENT SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
VALUES DURING WET CONDITIONS. . .........  A-54
                   A-9
-------
-------
1.0
INTRODUCTION
          On 12 January 1979, EPA (the Agency) proposed areas
under reclamation as a separate subcategory for establishment of
effluent limitations.  Also, the Agency published, during the
spring and summer of 1979, a number of notices in the Federal
Register regarding a storm relief provision for sedimentation
ponds at coal mines.  Both areas were reserved pending further
data base development.  To augment the data bases for these two
areas, the Agency instituted two studies.

          The first is a currently ongoing study jointly spon-
sored with the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforce-
ment (OSM).  Approximately 39 mine sites have been identified for
a survey of reclamation and sediment control techniques, includ-
ing sediment pond performance.  Eight sites have been designated
for more intensive study and sample collection.  As data from
this study become available, the results will be evaluated.

          The second study is the subject of this report.  EPA is
granted authority under Section 308 of the Clean Vater Act Amend-
ments of 1977 to "require the owner or operator of any point
source to ... install, use, and maintain monitoring equipment
or methods . . . and sample effluents (in accordance with such
methods, at such locations, at such intervals, and in such manner
as the Administrator shall prescribe)" for the purpose of devel-
oping effluent limitations under the Act.  The Agency utilized
this authority in establishing an industry self-monitoring survey
at 23 mine reclamation ponds around the country.

          The results of both these studies will be used to
establish actual pond performance data and, ultimately, to form
part of the basis for development of effluent limitations for
areas under reclamation and for storm events.  A summary and the
                             A-ll
-------
conclusions art presented in Section 2*0.  Background information
for the study is presented in Section 3.0, and the analytical
data and a discussion of the results are presented in Section
4.0.
                          A-12
-------
2*0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
          The data collection portion of this study commenced in
September 1979 and concluded in September of 1980.  The set of
instructions for each industry participant appears in Appendix A.
Industry participants were requested to submit design criteria, a
topographic map, and a photograph or slide for each pond.  In
addition, samples collected during each month were to be analyzed
by the participants for total suspended solids, settleable
solids, total and dissolved iron, and pH by EPA-approved analyti-
cal methods.  These data with pertinent rainfall information were
to be submitted to EPA on a monthly basis.  Also, certain samples
were to be split and one of the splits transported to EPA analyt-
ical laboratories in Denver, Colorado.  In Denver, the samples
were analyzed for iron, manganese,- and the 13 toxic metals.
After the first six months' results from these split samples were
received, continuation of this part of the program was deemed
unnecessary and was terminated in April 1980.

          As shown in Table 2-1, industry compliance was scat-
tered, with some facilities providing all requested information
and others providing little.  The gaps in the data rendered con-
sistent analyses more difficult.  Moreover, data submitted on
monthly reporting sheets by certain facilities were sometimes
incomplete or incorrectly reported.  Certain facilities (182 and
192) could not provide samples because no discharge occurred.
These facilities are located in the Vest where more arid con-
ditions prevail or where extended periods of freezing tem-
peratures are common.

          Nineteen ponds provided data for analysis of toxic
metals and settleable and suspended solids.  Reviewing the design
information, seven of these 19 were adequately sized to handle
the runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm.  Subsequent analysis
                            A-13
-------
                        TABLE 2-1




SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY RESPONSES AND DATA SUBMITTALS




                                 Monthly Data Submittals


Design

Information
Facility
15

15

25

25

25
33

35

37

38

85

101

123

181

182
182
Pond
1

2

3*

4

7
1

2

6

19

1

2

3

99

1
2
Submitted?
Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Discharged?
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No
No

1979
OCT NOV
X X
0 0
X X
0 0









X
0


X X
0
X X
0


X
0




DEC
X
0
X
0





X
0
X
0
X
0


X
0
X
0


X
0




JAN
X

X
0
X
0


X
X
0
X
0
X
o


X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0




FEE

0


X
0


X
X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0




MAR

0

0
X
0
X

X
X
0
X
0
X
o
X

X
0
X
0
X
0
X





APR
X

X



X
0
X
X
0
X

X

X

X
0
X
0
X
0






MAY
X

X



X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X







JUN
X

X



X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X







JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
XXX

XXX



XXX

XXX
XXX

XXX

XXX

X

X

X
•*
X

X XX



-------
                                       TABLE 2-1 - Continued

                        SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY RESPONSES AND DATA SUBMITTALS

                                                              Monthly Data Submittals
Facility
183

184

185

> 186
l
S 187
191

191

192
192
Pond
1

7

4

2

1
55

18

4
6
Design
Information
Submitted? Discharged?
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

No
No
1979
OCT NOV
X X
0
X X
0
X X
0
X X
0
X X
0







DEC
X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0
X
O
X
0
X
0



JAN
X
0
X
0


X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0



FEB
X
0
X
0


X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0



MAR
X
0
X
0


X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0



APR MAY
X X
0
X

X X

X

X
X X

X X




JUN
X

X

X

X

X
X

X




JUL
X

X

X

X

X
X

X




AUG SEP OCT NOV
X X

X X

X

X X

X X
X

X



X - Data supplied by industry.
0 - Data supplied by EPA laboratories.
* - Pond 3 was replaced by pond 4 at facility 25 in March 1980,
-------
shoved one of these, pond 1 at facility 101, to be poorly
designed In other aspect*.  These screening procedures thus
yielded six ponds that were properly designed to contain the
10-year, 24-hour event, and 13 that were not*
sions:
          Results from the study support the following conclu-
             Toxlc metals were not found in concentrations In
             pond effluents significantly above their limit of
             detection;

             Variations in total suspended solids in influent
             streams appear to depend on differences in weather
             conditions* drainage area size, soil type, ground
             cover, degree of reseeding, and other site-specific
             factors;

             Pond performance is closely linked with design
             and operation;

             The data indicated that, on a dally basis, total
             suspended solids of 70 mg/1 in reclamation area
             discharges cannot be consistently achieved, espe-
             cially during rainfall events;

             Settleable solids effluent values were reported at
             zero or not detectable levels in 92 percent and 81
             percent of the reported cases for dry and wet condi-
             tions, respectively;

             Settleable solids detection limit was reported as
             0.1 ml/1 in over 93 percent of the cases where
             a "not detected11 value was recorded, i.e., <0.1
             ml/1;

             A daily maximum limitation of 0.5 ml/1 represents
             an achievable settleable solids limitation; pond
             volume was found to be a relevant factor in achiev-
             ing this limitation.  All ponds in this study with
             proper design and volume large enough to contain
             the 10-year, 24-hour storm always achieved the
             0.5.ml/1 settleable solids limitation regardless
             of any other factors, including weather; and
                            A-16
-------
Although only four to six of the facilities treated
active area drainage (e.g., pit pximpage) in the
ponds, in every case during rainfall these ponds
achieved the 0.5 ml/1 settieable solids limitation.
Based on the data received to date, active area
sedimentation facilities could also consistently
achieve the 0.5 ml/1 settleable solids limitation
during periods of rainfall less than the 10-year,
24-hour storm.
               A-17
-------
-------
3.0
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
3.1
Self-Monitoring Study
          The purposes of this study include:
          (1)  Establish data for regulation development within
               the reclamation subcategory
          (2)  Augment current data on sedimentation pond
               performance
          (3)  Link pond performance to pond design
          (4)  Establish data on pond performance during and
               immediately after precipitation events.

          To assemble a representative data base, the coal mining
industry was reviewed for the number of facilities where reclama-
tion is occurring*  There are some 2,600 surface mines currently
in operation, so this represents the target population.  Most of
these mines are very small, with no full time environmental or
water management staff.  It Is doubtful that sufficient personnel
and laboratory resources would be available at these small mines
for participation in this program.  Therefore, the focus of the
study was on surface mines operated by large, well established
mining companies.

          To select the facilities, the mines were screened
according to the following criteria:
          •  Location
          •  Topography
          •  Existence of ponds serving reclamation
             areas
          •  Sufficient resources to conduct program
          •  Cost to industry participant!
          •  Participation and cooperation of facility and/or
             mining company in previous EPA studies.
                             A-19
-------
These criteria were applied in conjunction vith EPA and its con-
tractor's knowledge of the candidate facilities, and In consulta-
tion with the industry trade association, the National Coal
Association*  One additional constraint was the available time
for collection, analysis, and reporting of the data, since the
Agency is subject to schedules for regulatory proposals estab-
lished by the Clean Water Act and the 1976 Consent Decree.

          This process resulted in the selection of 23 ponds at
17 separate facilities.  Although this is a small percentage of
the total population, the results and conclusions can be reliably
applied to the other mining facilities.  This is because the
variation of sediment load to any one pond over the period of a
year is much greater than the variation from pond to pond.  Thus
the large majority of potential conditions that could be expected
at a surface mine will have been encountered during the course of
this study.

          Twelve coal mining companies owning the 17 facilities
were contacted in September 1979.  Two of the facilities were
reported to have little or no discharge during the study, and
thus were excluded frpm further participation.  Facility person-
nel sampled on a weekly basis the Influent and effluent to each
pond.  Additional samples were collected the day of a rainfall
event and the day after the event.  Flow rate of the discharge
was measured or estimated at the time of sampling.  To correlate
the data with the pond design, the Agency also requested that
each company submit design data for each pond being monitored.
An example of the data request form sent to each company may be
found in Appendix A.
                             A-20
-------
3.2
Facilities Sampled
          A total of 19 ponds were sampled at 15 facilities.
These ponds primarily receive runoff from virgin areas (acreage
where no disturbance by the mining company has occurred) and
areas under reclamation (areas that have been regraded and
revegetated).  The mine locations, number of ponds sampled, and
facility codes are listed in Table 3-1.
3.3
Analysis Program
          The samples collected by each participant were analyzed
by the participant for the following parameters:
          •  Total suspended solids
          •  Settleable solids
          •  pH
          •  Total iron
          *  Dissolved iron.

Some samples were split, with one of the splits sent to EPA
Denver laboratories.  These split samples were given a code
number by the company to permit matching of the samples after
analyses were completed.

          The EPA laboratory analyzed each sample for the follow-
ing parameters:
          •  Total suspended solids
          •  Total iron
          •  Total manganese
          •  Dissolved iron
                               A-21
-------
  Location
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Vest Virginia
Vest Virginia
Vest Virginia
Vest Virginia
Kentucky
Kentucky
Ohio
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Alabama
Montana^
Vyoming2
    Table 3-1
FACILITIES SAMPLED

    Number of
      Ponds
        1
        1
        2
        1
        1
        1
        1
        1
       2-3l
        1
        2
        1
        1
        1
        2
        2
        2
       23
   Mine
Code Number
    186
    187
     15
    183
    184
    185
     38
    181
     25
    101
     33
     37
     85
    123
    191
    182
    192
1 Facility 25 substituted one of the ponds sampled midway
 through the study*
       facilities apparently had little or no discharge of
 water during the study.
                             A-22
-------
          •  Dissolved manganese

          •  Total and dissolved toxic metals, including

             *-antimony
             •-arsenic
             --beryllium
             --cadmium
             --chromium
             —copper
             --lead
             --mercury
             --nickel
             --selenium
             --silver
             —thallium
             --zinc.


The metals were analyzed by inductively-coupled argon plasma
spectroscopy (ICAP).


          Monthly reports were submitted to the Effluent Guide-
lines Division on forms provided by the Agency*  An example of
this form is provided in Appendix A.
3.4
Pond Design Data
          The Agency requested the companies to provide design

data, a topographic map, and photographs for each pond included

as a part of this study.  These design parameters can be linked
to performance of the pond, both in the long-term and for shock
loads resulting from, for example, storm runoff.  The form used

to request this information may also be found in Appendix A.

Major design parameters requested include:

          •  Drainage area acreage
             --virgin
             •-disturbed

          •  Average slope of drainage area

          •  Type of soil and cover
                             A-23
-------
          •  Surface area, average depth, and volume of sedimen-
             tation pond*
          •  Design and occupied sediment storage volume
          •  Design detention time
          •  Devatering device
          •  Embankment height and width.

          The last five of these design factors had corresponding
criteria promulgated on 13 March 1979 by the Department of the
Interior's Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement
(OSM) tinder authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act of 1977 (SMCRA).   On 31 December 1979, OSM suspended
certain of these design criteria pending further study.  In part,
these were the specific standards for minimum sediment .storage
volume and minimum hydraulic detention time.  However, the basic
requirement that the pond be adequately sized to hold the undi-
verted water resulting from a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation
event remained intact.  For the purposes of this study, the
suspended OSM criteria were examined to allow a first assessment
of pond design.  The consistent use of this uniform set of
criteria for all ponds also permitted comparisons between ponds
in terms of achievable effluent quality.  The OSM criteria and
requirements are discussed below.

          Surface Area, Average Depth, and Volume of the Pond

          Only the volume of the pond is regulated.  It must be
sized to hold the runoff resulting from a 10-year, 24-hour pre-
cipitation event*
-------
          Sediment Storage

          Minimum sediment storage allowable in a pond is either
three years of sediment computed by using accepted methods, or
0.1 acre-feet of sediment per acre of disturbed land.  If on-site
control methods such as check dams and grass filters can be shown
to limit sediment delivery from the disturbed land, sediment
storage as low as 0.035 acre-feet of sediment per acre of dis-
turbed land can be used if approved by the regulatory authority.
Further, sediment must be removed from the pond when 60 percent
of the design storage volume has been occupied.

          Design Detention Time

          Minimum theoretical detention time to be provided by
sedimentation ponds is 24 hours for a 10-year, 24-hour event.  A
detention time as low as 10 hours may be approved if any or all
of the following techniques or conditions are used and are shown
not to reduce pond efficiency:
          (a)  Improved pond design
          (b)  Special sediment characteristics occur
          (c)  Chemical treatment is used.

          Dewatering Device

          A dewatering device must be used to remove the detained
water in the designed time period and must always remain above
the sediment storage level.

          Embankment Height and Width

          The embankment top must be at least 1..0 foot above the
maximum water level during a 25-year, 24-hour precipitation
                            A-25
-------
event.  The top width of the embankment must be at least (H +
35)/5i where H Is the height In feet from the upstream toe to the
top.

          The design data submitted by the companies are pre-
sented in detail in the next section.
                             A-26
-------
4.0
RESULTS
          In this section the pond design data submitted by each
company are presented and discussed.  The analytical results from
the industry sampling program are also tabulated and linked to
pond design.
4.1
Fond Design Data
          Incomplete information was often submitted by the
industry participants regarding pond design factors.  The avail-
able data are summarized in Table 4-1.  In general, the results
show that the ponds are in compliance with most of the OSM stan-
dards.  Fourteen ponds, however, did not provide the OSM design
storage volume for the runoff area, while an additional three
were between the lower and upper bounds for adequate storage
volume.  Thus, only six ponds were designed properly.

          The most significant pond design variable is the deten-
tion time, which is, among other factors, a function of the pond
volume.  In cognizance of this, both OSM and EPA have linked the
storm exemption provisions to design, construction, and mainte-
nance of ponds of a certain volume.  As indicated above, this
volume had been specified as that required to contain all the
runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm that drains into the pond.
Because of its relative importance in treatment efficiency, the
pond volume was explored more thoroughly in this study.

          To determine whether or not each pond was sized to the
OSM criterion, the data provided by the companies were used in
conjunction with precipitation data from the literature to calcu-
late the "OSM pond volume."  This value could be compared with
the actual pond volume provided by the facility.  Table 4-2
summarizes the inputs required to calculate the pond volume.
                               A-27
-------
                                                Table 4-1

                       SEDIMENTATION POND DESIGN CRITERIA SUPPLIED BY FACILITIES
ro
CD
    Facility ID   State   Pond
Design Sediment Storage
(acre-ft/acre disturbed)
Occupied
Sediment
Storage (%}
Design Theoretical Detention
         Time Hours
OSM Criterion
15
15
25
25
33
33
37
38
85
101
123
181
182
182
183
184
185
186
187
191
191
192
192
WV
WV
OH
OH
IN
IN
IL
KY
IL
OH
IL
KY
MT
MT
VA
WV
WV
PA
PA
AL
AL
WY
WY
1
2
4
7
1
2
6
19
1
2
3
99
1
2
1
7
4
2
1
18
55
4
6
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.100*
.125
.125
-0561
.136
**
.100
.069
.179
.020
-125
.100
.100
.113
.113
xx
.076
.073
.200
.114
.075
.352
.200
.375
60
31.3
27.8
xx
*x
8.76
<0.10
Negligible
*£
XX
None
XX
20
Negligible
Negligible
XX
3.82
5
XX
XX
10
5
XX
XX
24
1
0
XX
XX
46
64
12
173
10
24
173
10
24
24
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
2
2
24
24
.13
.90



.7

(base flow)


(base flow)








.15
.74


       *Sediment storage volume may be exempted down to 0.035 acre-feet disturbed.
      **No information available.
       IA large pond (#3) is located directly below pond 4.
-------
                                            Table 4-1 (Continued)



                   SEDIMENTATION POND DESIGN CRITERIA SUPPLIED BY  FACILITIES
                                  Embankment
Width of Top of
Facility ID
OSM Criterion

15
15
25
25
33
33
37
38
85
101
123
181
182
182
183
184
185
186
187
191
191
192
192
State
„

WV
WV
OH
OH
IN
IN
IL
KY
IL
OH
IL
KY
MT
MT
VA
WV
WV
PA
PA
AL
AL
WY
WY
Pond
.

1
2
4
7
1
2
6
19
1
2
3
99
1
2
1
7
4
2
1
18
55
4
6
Height (feet)
H

9.2
10
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
10
8 1/2
16
XX
XX
10
14
>19
XX
XX
XX
XX
Embankment
(H + 35
OSM
Required
9
9
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
9
8.65
10.2
XX
XX
9
9.8
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
(feet)
)/5
Actual
14
14
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
15
15
15
XX
XX
14
10
20
XX
XX
XX
XX
Dewatering Device
Any Device
Type of Devices
Spillway
Spillway
36" perforated stand pipe
24" perforated stand pipe
Open channel*
Open channel*
Open channel*
Earth cut channel*
60" corrugated pipe
Horizontal 18" pipe
XX
Combination Riser*
Decant spillway*
Decant spillway*
Riser pipe**
Channel
Spillway
Perforated riser only
Riser with syphon only
18" pipe
5 ft. pipe
Earthen spillway*
Earthen spillway*
**No information available
-------
>
                                                           Table 4-2

                                   SIMMARY OF INPUTS REQUIRED TO CALCULATE OSM FOND VOLUME
                           10-Year,  24-Hour
Drainage Area (Acres)
Facility
Code State
15
15
25
25

25

33
33
37
38
85
101
123
181
182
182
WV
WV
OH
OH

OH

IN
IN
IL
KY
IL
OH
IL
KY
MT
MT
Precipitation
Pond Event Boil Actively
Number (Total Inches)* 'type** Mined
1
2
3
4

7

1
2
6
19
1
2
3
99
1
1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5

3.5

4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
4.0
4.0
2.5
2.5
- 4.0
- 4.0
- 4.0
- 4.0

- 4.0

- 5-0
- 5.0
- 5.0
- 5.0
- 5.0
- 4.0
- 5.0
- 5.0
- 3.0
- 3.0
B-C
B-C
NSt
NS
Disturbed Virgin
Area Area
18.5
10.0
488.0
195-8
Slope Composite Pond
of Runoff Curve Area
Area Numbers (Acres)
47
57
No additional
B-Cit
Dt*
B-Ctt
Dt*
C
C
C
B
B-C
A-B
C
C
B
B
NS

27-5

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
36

27.5

90.7
27.1
280.0
67
110
190
820.4
38.9
70.5
46.2
99-5

33.8

43.5
18.8
1120.0
223.2
0
115
3737.6
0
0
0
28

28

3
4
3
2
15
7
0.
84
25
5
65.9
67.0
0.44
0.43
Calculated Pond
to Meet "OSM" D
(Acre-Feet)
35-6 -
15.0 -
48.3
19.7
data submitted
80.6

85.4

88.0
81.0
81.1
63.2
76.7
67.4
7 77-7
80.5
73.3
63.3
0.33

0.25

2.17
3.22
2.79
1.91
1.80
5.03
33
2.00
1.80
1.34
19.1 -

10.6 -

30.6 -
8.1 -
248.8 -
22.6 -
16.5 -
22.7 -
710.2 -
6.8 -
3.4-
2.2 -
23.7

12.8

41.1
11.4
349.5
36.9
23-8
28.6
1020.8
9-5
5.2
3.4
     *Data from "A Compliance Manual—Methods for Meeting OSM Requirements," Skelly and Loy Engineers, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
      New York, New York,  1979,  p.  6-34.
    **See text for explanation of soil  types.
     1NS - Not supplied by the facility.
    ttDisturbed.
    t*Vlrgin.
-------
Ve would appreciate. If you hive not already done  so, the  submt£tal of
transparencies (slides) of your ponds used In this program.  Tl8s 1s
directed to those several participants who submitted prints wltn the first
subnlttal of pond data.

50 sample labels and 50 mailing labels are enclosed for shipment of
samples to EPA's Denver laboratory for the period  covered  by this extension
                                    A-75
-------
STATEMENT CONCERNING CONFIDENTIALITY AND ERA'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY

This request for information is made under authority provided by Section
308 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §1318.  Section
308 provides that:  "Whenever required to carry out the objective of this
Act, including but not limited to ... developing or assisting in the
development of any effluent limitation ... pretreatment standard, or
standard of performance under.this Act"  the Administrator may require
the owner or operator of any point source to establish and maintain records,
make reports, install, use and maintain monitoring equipment, sample
effluents and provide "such other information as he may reasonably require."
In addition, the Administrator or his authorized representative, upon
presentation of credentials, has right of entry to any premises where an
efffluent source is located or where records which  must be maintained
are located and may at reasonable times have access to and copy such
records, inspect monitoring equipment, and sample effluents.

Information may not be withheld from the Administrator or his authorized
representative because it is confidential.  However, when requested to do
so, the Administrator is required to consider information to be confidential
and to treat it accordingly if disclosure would divulge methods or processes
entitled to protection as trade secrets.  EPA regulations concerning
confidentiality of business information are contained in 40 CFR Part 2,
Subpart B, 41 Federal Register 36902-36924 (September 1, 1976).  These
regulations provide that a business may, if it desires, assert a business
confidentiality claim covering part or all of the information furnished
to EPA.  The manner of asserting such claims is specified in 40 CFR §2.203(b).
Information covered by such a claim will be treated fay the Agency in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Subpart B regulations.
In the event that a request is made for release of information covered by a
claim of confidentiality or the Agency otherwise decides to make a determination
whether or not such information is entitled to confidential treatment,
notice will be provided to the business which  furnished the information.
No information will be disclosed by EPA as to when a claim of confidentiality
has been made except to the extent and in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2,
Subpart B.  However, if no claim of confidentiality is made when information
is furnished to EPA, the information may be made available to the public
without notice  to the business.

Lffluent data (as defined in 40 CFR §2.302(a)(2)) may not be considered
by EPA as confidential.  In addition, any information may be disclosed to
other officers, employees or authorized representatives of the United
States concerned with carrying out the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act or when relevant in any proceeding under this Act.
                                    A-76
-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        WASHINGTON. D.C  20460
   AUG 1980
TO PARTICIPANTS IN THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY MONITORING  PROGRAM
To fully evaluate the performance of each of  the  sedimentation
ponds being sampled in this program, the origin of wastewater to
be treated by the pond is an important  factor.  Accordingly, we
are requesting that each participant provide  the  following  infor-
mation for each sedimentation pond'sampled:

          •  Area draining to the pond  from reclaimed  areas,
             acres;

          •  Area draining to the pond  from virgin areas,
             acres;

          •  Area draining to the pond  from actively mined
             areas, acres; and

          •  Estimate of the percentage of the total wastewater
             volume from each of the above three  areas.

Also, please ensure that all requested  data items on the monthly
submittal forms are completed, e.g., rainfall data is  often
missing on the submitted forms*

Thank you for your continued cooperation with this program.
Please call me if you have any questions concerning this request
or on the program in general.
William A. Telliard, Chief
Energy and Mining Branch
Effluent Guidelines Division  (WH-552)
(202) 426-4617
                                 A-77
-------
-------
       APPENDIX B
      OF REPORT 1
POND VOLUME CALCULATIONS
            A-79
-------
-------
       CHANGES IN ORIGINAL SELF-SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
t  This extension applies to the same ponds  for w&ich data 1s  currently
   6*1 ng submitted.

•' pils extension expires September 30, 1980.

•  Please submit, by Hay 1, 1980, an update  of the pond design parameters
   Indicated 1n the Initial request (Included  in attached Tab  2).   Please
   also submit the following statistic for each pond:

   The volume attributable to runoff from a  10 year/24 hour storm  event  for
   the pond being used 1n this program.  Please show your calculations 1n
   the submlttal.  For purposes of this calculation, a model such  as  the
   Water Shed Storm Hydrograph, Penn State Urban Run-Off Model, or similar
   model may be used.  Alternatively, the following may be used:
 P
TT  x
                                    , )
           where
                  § C
V 1s volume 1n cubic feet
P 1s the 10 year/24 hour precipitation event, 1n Inches
A|  Is the area of the active area drained to the pond,
      1n acres
    1s the run-off coefficient for the active area drained
      to the pond
    1s the area of the drainage area which coming!es with
      drainage from the active'area, 1n acres.  This
      Includes runoff from virgin areas and areas under
      reclamation which drain to the pond.
    1s the runoff coefficient for areas corresponding to
   The following may be used to determine   Cj  and  Cj
Active Mining Area

Virgin land and land
  under reclamation
                                          Sandy
                                          Loam

                                           0.3
                                           0.1
                                 Clay &
                                 Loam

                                  0.5
                                  0.3
Clay

 0.6


 0.4
      The above values are Increased by 0.1 for slopes ranging from 5S to 105,
      and Increased by 0.2 for slopes ranging from 10* to 30*.

   For each sample taken during a rainfall event, Indicate when sampling  was
   performed.  Example; 1 hr. & 15 m1n.  after start of 20-hour rainfall which
   totalled 2.1 Inches.
-------
                            -2-
   o    Age of pond
*  o    Volume of sediment 1n pond during sampling
*  o    Last time pond was cleaned
   o    General condition of pond and other Information,  e.g..  Inlet
        baffle, trees 1n pond, check dam,  etc.
   o    Topographical map of mine area and drainage area (attach)
   o    35 mm slide or glossy photo of each pond (attach).
   Note: Submit pond design criteria with the first month's data subir.lsslor
         Submit asterisked Items each month If they change appreciably*

         You may respond directly on this form.
                           A-73
-------
                                                  Form Approved
                                                  O.M.B. No. 153-R01SO
                                                     Date
                   Company
                  Mine Name
                  Pond Name
Pond Design Criteria: For each pond sampled  during  this  program, provide;
     Pond name or other Identification.
o    Drainage area • acres
o    Drainage area which is disturbed - as  acres  or % of  drainage area
o    Average slope of the drainage area
o    Cover type on undisturbed portion of the drainage  area
o    Type of soil/spoil on drainage area, e.g.,  sandy,  silt,  loam
o    Size of pond • surface area
o    Size of pond • volume
o    Sketch of pond showing:  Inflow points, effluent points,  shape (attach)
o    Depth of pond * average and maximum design
o    Type of discharge device
o    Design Sediment Storage Volume
o    Design detention time
                            A-72
-------
Sample Shipment to EPA for Analysis
In addition to the previously Identified parameters  to be anajyzed for
by each recipient of this package, a split of the following  t£pes of
samples will be labeled* packaged and shipped t^  EPA's Denver  Surveillance
and Analysis laboratory for analysis by EPA:

o  One sample each of Influent and effluent for each pond every 30 days which
   was taken during "base flow" conditions (no rainfall).

o  One sample each of Influent and effluent for each pond every 30 days which
   was taken during a rainfall event.  If, for a  given 30 day  period, no
   rainfall occurs by the time the last "base flow**  samples  are scheduled to
   be taken, then submit a second set of "base flow" samples.
o  Container Type:

o  Container Size:

o  Sample Preservation:

o  Frequency of Shipment:

o  Method of Sample Shipment:


o  Sample Label Information:
0  EPA Laboratory Address
Poly/Plastic

500 ml. minimum

None.

Within 46 hours of sample collection.

United  Parcel Service or equivalent,
prepaid.

Preprinted sample labels will soon be
sent directly to you.  Should you begin
sampling for this program prior to
receipt of the preprinted labels, please
provide your own labels with the
following Information on them:

o  Company Name
o  Mine Name
o  Pond Identification
o  I • Influent sample; E • effluent
   sample
o  Oate Sample Taken
o  R « during rainfall; A • day after
   rainfall; 0 « no rainfall

U.S. EPA
Region 8 Laboratory
Building 53  Entrance W-1 Upstairs
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado  60225
                                    A-71
-------
Data Submission;  Submit analytical  results  on  a monthly basjs  (each 30
days) for the duration of the sampling  program  to:

                       W.A. TelUard (UH-552)
                       U.S. EPA
                       401  M Street. S.U.
                       Washington, O.C.  20460

Unless you are using these analytical results to also comply with minimum
NPDES permit monitoring requirements, you  need  forward them only to the
above Individual.

The attached table Is to be used to  report data.  Please be sure to
reproduce enough copies of the blank table for  use  throughout the sampling
program.
                                A-70
-------
                     ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS

               COAL MINING INDUSTRY MONITORING PROGRAM
Purpose;  To supplement the data base upon which effluent standards
wf11 be based for sedimentation structures (I.e., ponds)  which  handle
surface runoff from mining areas and those areas under regradlng and
revegetatlon*

Sampling Locations and Pond Selection;  Sampling locations will be the
influent and effluent of two ponds at surface coal  mines  owned  by your
company.  The two ponds may be either at the same facility or at different
facilities.  The ponds selected should be those which handle mostly runoff
waters from areas under regradlng and revegetatlon.  Each pond  selected
should not be one that Is fed by another pond.  Additionally, the ponds
should 'Ee~those that discharge nost frequently, even during dry w6ather
conditions,

Duration of Sampling:  Sampling Is to begin within 30 calendar  days from
receipt of this package and last through March 31, 1980.

Sampling Frequency:  A minimum of one sample per week of  both Influent
and effluent of each pond representing "base flow" conditions,  I.e.,  no
rainfall, but while the pond Is discharging; PLUS, for each rainfall
event during the sampling program, two samples each of Influent and
effluent on the first day of rainfall and two samples each of Influent
and effluent on the day after the rainfall event ends.

Sample Type;  All samples taken for this program will be  grab samples.

Parameters for Analysis;  All samples taken for this program will be
analyzed for the following parameters:  Total Suspended Solids, Settleable
Solids* Total Iron, Dissolved Iron, and pH.  These analyses are to  be
performed by or arranged (e.g., contracted) for your company. EPA-approved
methods are to be used for all analyses.  The approved methods  are  sped fie
In 40 CFR 136, which are the same methods presently In use by Industry  for
NPDES monitoring.

Flow:  Record flow (as gpm) when each sample Is taken. Bse weir,  etc.
measurements If Installed and Indicate what type of measurement device
1s Installed.  If flow Is estimated, Include a description of the*flow
estimation technique.

Rainfall Events:  Provide the duration (hours) and quantity (Inches)  of
each rainfall event which occurs during the sampling program.  Indicate
the method used to determine the quantity of rainfall.
                           A-69
-------
-------
             APPENDIX A
            OF REPORT 1

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  COAL  MINING INDUSTRY
        MONITORING  PROGRAM AND
          DATA REQUEST FORMS
                  A-67
-------
          The results of this study support conclusions of previ-
ous studies:  first, performance of a pond is closely tied to its
design and operation; second, total suspended solids of 70 mg/1
cannot be consistently achieved during rainfall events; third,
TSS variation is quite substantial in treated effluents from
areas under reclamation, and cannot-be effectively or uniformly
regulated in treated runoff from these areas.
                           A-66
-------
                  Table 4-22
 RANKED EFFLUENT TSS MEANS FOR WET CONDITIONS
Facility     Pond     Effluent Mean     "OSM"?
33
33
123
184
38
181
187
191
185
37
15
25
85
191
183
25
101
186
1
2
3
7
19
99
1
55
4
6
1
7
1
18
1
4
2
2
12
18
24
24
25
28
29
34
58
59
63
74
77
85
103
123
162
202
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
                       A-65
-------
                  Table 4-21
 RANKED EFFLUENT TSS MEANS FOR DRY CONDITIONS
Facility     Pond     Effluent Mean     "OSM"?
184
38
181
191
33
33
187
25
123
101
85
37
7
19
99
18
1
2
1
7
3
2
1
6
7
9
10
11
11
14
20
20
23
29
34
41
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
                     A-64
-------
Che discrete effluent stream.  A final mechanism that has been
previously alluded to Is also possible.  Each pond has a theoret-
ical and an actual retention time associated with it, ranging
from a few hours to many days.  The theoretical retention time is
calculated by knowing the pond volume and the average volume of
flow Into the. pond.  This theoretical detention often bears
little relation to the actual detention time.  The actual
detention time is defined as the average length of time that a
discrete volume (say, one liter) of water enters the pond until
that same volume of water exits the pond.  It is a complex func-
tion of the pond geometry, water temperature, fluid mechanics,and
other factors.  It will also vary with the volume of inflow to
the pond.  Obviously, a sampler who collects an effluent aliquot
is not accounting for retention time in the pond, which ranged in
this study from a few hours to many days.  This problem, which is
inherent in this type of sampling program, is especially acute
during periods of low flow and low TSS concentrations because so
little TSS enters the pond.  Only small amounts of natural
scouring caused by wind and wave action on the surface need to
occur to cause the effluent TSS value to be above the influent
value.

          In recognition of these factors, the ponds exhibiting
negative efficiencies were disregarded in further analyses.  The
remaining ponds were ranked according to effluent mean to assess
the Importance of the 10-year, 24-hour storm design criterion.
Those appear in Table 4-21 and 4-22.  For dry conditions, five of
the seven best performing ponds were sized to OSM criteria.  For
wet conditions, four of the seven best performing ponds were "OSM
ponds.11  However, as shown In Table 4-22, certain ponds sized to
OSM criteria had very high effluent means, suggesting that.varia-
bles other than size are also extremely important on pond perfor-
mance.  Therefore, it cannot be concluded that "OSM ponds"
consistently 'deliver superior performance*
                                A-63
-------
                            Table 4*20
         PERCENT REDUCTION OF SEDIMENTATION PONDS DURING
                      WET AND DRY CONDITIONS
                                           Percent Reduction
                        Sized to
Facility     Pond     OSM- Criterion

   15          1           No
   15          2           No
   25          4           No
   25          7           No
   33          1           Yes
   33          2           Yes
   37          6           No
   38         19         Yes/No
   85          1           No
  101          2         Yes/No
  123          3           No
  181         99           No
  183          1           No
  184          7           No
  185          4           No
  186          2           Yes
  187          1           Yes
  191         18         Yes/No
  191         55           No
Average for "OSM" Ponds
Average for "Non-OSM" Ponds

   negative values indicates that the effluent was higher than
 the influent.
SIX1
0
•233
- 16
78
11.5
30
32
92
56
88
89
95
- 67
12
-179
•180
27
38
- 1
11.4
- 11.6
Wet1
27
-147
68
90
68
38
91
92
69
92
99
88
10
33
74
34
99.6
76
77
71
45.6
                            A-62
-------
the revegetation process (five to ten years), and the significant
erosion rates associated with the Initial stages of the reclama-
tion process.  Each of these parameters not only causes reclama-
tion wastewaters to be different from active area drainage, but
also leads to wide variation from mine to mine within reclamation
areas.  Tables 4-16 and 4-18 clearly demonstrate this variation.

          Results reported by some of the facilities were
surprising.  Table 4-20 illustrates this by presenting the
efficiencies or percent reductions for each pond for wet and dry
conditions.  These reductions were calculated based on the log-
normal mean influent and effluent values.*  Negative reductions
indicate that the effluent mean is higher than the influent mean.
While this type of variation is possible on specific sample sets
(due to retention time of the pond), this behavior in the aggre-
gated data from each facility is subject to question.  In some
cases, this anomaly can most likely be attributed to errors in
the data reporting procedure.  In other cases, the problem is
probably attributable to sampling procedures.  For instance, some
ponds possess multiple inflow points*  In many instances, only
one influent was sampled.  However, these multiple influents will
contain varying concentrations of TSS.  It is easy to envision
how an apparent negative efficiency can result.  Another mecha-
nism that could cause this is the selection of the sampling
location within the influent or effluent stream.  The influent
stream is more frequently diffuse and shallow.  Thus it is more
difficult to select a representative location to sample than in
*"Lognormal" indicates that the data were  distributed  approxi-
 mately lognormally, i.e., a near normal distribution  occurred
 when the logarithm of each point was calculated and plotted.
 The lognormal mean is calculated from a lognormal  model  of  the
 data rather than the actual data, because this procedure is not
 as sensitive to extreme values.
                                A-6l
-------
                       Table 4-19

   TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
                        EFFLUENT
                     WET CONDITIONS
Facility
15
15
25
25
33
33
37
38
85
101
123
181
183
184
185
186
187
191
191
Overall
Pood
*w«^^»
1
2
4
7
1
2
6
19
1
2
3
99
1
7
4
2
1
18
55

Hunter of
Sample*
13
12
12
15
65
64
17
5
30
41
6
32
17
30
21
12
12
16
16
404
Concentrations
Hlnifflun
1
4
16
17
1
1
16
14
1
4
15
4
2
2
10
45
13
2
_1
1
M«ao
63
42
123
74
12
18
59
25
77
162
24
28
103
24
58
202
29
85
34
52
Median
16
29
104
40
10
13
42
23
35
54
23
18
41
14
43
104
30
14
8
NC
(«8/D
put
424
126
236
193
23
34
178
40
134
350
38
63
281
64
147
486
51
887
341
NC

haxlaun
504
150
288
214
53
55
294
40
654
966
38
402
321
77
182
504
55
2,628
712
966
NC - Not calculated.
                           A-60
-------
                      Table  4-18

   TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS  DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
                    RAW WASTEWATER
                    WET CONDITIONS
Facility
15
15
25
25
33
33
37
38
85
101
123
181
183
184
185
186
187
191
191
Overell
Pond
^V^^MV
1
2
4
7
1
2
6
19
1
2
3
99
1
7
4
2
1
18
55

Muaber of
Sample*
13
13
12
16
66
64
17
5
30
42
6
34
25
30
21
12
12
17
17
452
Concentrations (u/l)
Minimum
2
3
10
X2
2
2
14
3
17
5
33
4
2
2
3
3
13
11
_4
2
Mean
86
17
379
771
34
29
636
315
247
1,949
3,736
233
114
36
227
306
7,473
1,075
882
276
Median
^^•^•^••••A
11
5
100
74
16
16
131
71
71
325
528
67
16
8
21
55
103
82
38
HC
£01
907
100
1,648
2,889
95
59
2,050
504
794
4,578
5,978
448
768
160
779
1,413
22,875
6,447
6.609
NC
Maxima
1,305
101
1,880
3,097
342
229
3,504
504
9,148
23.260
5,978
10,507
2,110
453
5.460
1,725
30,090
9,998
7.053
30.090
NC - Not calculated.
                           A-59
-------
                       Table 4-17

   TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY  AND POND
                        EFFLUENT
                     DRY CONDITIONS
Facility
15
15
25
25
33
33
37
38
85
ioi
123
181
183
184
185
186
187
191
191
Overall
Pond
1
2
4
7
1
2
6
19
1
2
3
99
1
7
4
2
1
18
55

Number of
Saaplea
30
23
19
22
26
26
28
10
20
28
9
18
29
25
17
33
33
7
5
408

Minimua
2
0.5
5
2
1
1
7
3
4
1
5
1
1
3
3
9
8
4
2
0.5
Concentrations
Mean
11
20
22
20
11
14
41
9
34
29
23
10
10
7
39
94
20
11
_5
25
Median
9
15
16
14
8
11
36
10
22
14
15
6
5
6
29
60
17
11
-i
NC
(»B/1)
9U1
20
36
39
44
22
27
70
16
50
66
68
28
25
15
81
243
32
18
7
NC

Maxima
30
73
91
109
27
27
90
17
318
128
69
69
93
23
105
464
35
18
7
464
NC • Not calculated.
                        A-58
-------
                       Table 4-16

   TOTAL SUSPENDED  SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
                    RAW WASTEWATER
                    DRY CONDITIONS
Facility
15
15
25
25
33
33
37
38
85
101
123
181
183
184
IMS
186
187
191
191
Overall
fond
1
2
4
7
1
2
6
19
1
2
3
99
1
7
4
2
1
IS
55

ttuober of
Sanple*
24
18
19
22
25
26
27
10
20
27
9
8
29
24
17
31
33
4
3
369
Concentration* (mg/1)
HiniBum
0.5
0.5
6
2
1
2
50
2
4
15
23
1
1
1
1
I
3
37
U
0.5
Mean
11
6
19
90
13
20
60
102
77
235
213
200
6
8
14
33
25
a42
188
48
Median
6
4
15
17
9
14
36
96
40
69
47
111
6
4
7
6
19
189
107
HC
901
22
16
36
290
31
45
188
231
199
818
3,060
738
11
22
35
132
59
341
191
NC
Maximum
23
30
52
4.260
64
75
490
243
414
870
3,060
738
13
79
46
282
121
341
191
4,260
HC • Not calculated.
                           A-57
-------
          The remaining settleable solids values above 0.5 ml/1
vere reported by facilities 15, 183, and 185.  A review of the
pond designs at these facilities revealed no particular anomalies
except that each was severely undersized with respect to the OSM
volume criterion.  Of those ponds that vere sized to the 10-year,
24-hour criterion and also vere properly operated, none vere
found to discharge settleable solids greater than 0*5 ml/1.

          Based on these considerations, 0.5 ml/1 represents an
achievable daily maximum limitation for areas under reclamation
and for ponds subject to the storm events that occurred during
the course of this study.
4.2.3
Total Suspended Solids
          The capabilities of sedimentation ponds to remove total
suspended solids (TSS) have been extensively investigated by
several researchers.  Fev have had access to the amount of data
collected during this study; moreover, none have had adequate
field data to drav conclusions on sedimentation pond performance
during and immediately after rainfall events*  This subsection
vill present and discuss the TSS data reported by the participat-
ing facilities.

          Tables 4-16 through 4-19 contain summary statistics for
each facility and pond.  As can be seen, TSS variation is much
more substantial than that shown by the settleable solids data.
Additionally, great variation in effluent TSS is found from pond
to pond, indicating the importance of the type and ground cover
of areas draining into the pond, as veil as the soil type and
terrain.  These differences are much greater than those observed
for pit pumpage or active area drainage.  This is an expected
result, given the vast amounts of acreage often associated vith
the reclamation process and treatment facilities, the length of
                             A-56
-------
reclaimed areas, this sedimentation pond serves 190 acres of
disturbed area.  From poncf design data and a topographic map
submitted by the company, these 190 acres appear to be largely
unreclaimed spoil areas.  This differs markedly from other ponds
In the study.  Runoff from the spoil areas will be heavily loaded
with sediment and evidently enters the pond at diffuse locations
as veil as the specified inflow point.  This situation causes
only a small portion of the pond to be used and thus may result
In a substantial reduction in sediment removal efficiency, espe-
cially during intense rainfall events.  If this spoil area was
properly reclaimed, erosion would be substantially reduced and
the achievable effluent quality would Improve.  Also at this
facility, a second inflow point located less than 200 feet from
the outflow further exacerbates the problem.  This situation
exists even though the pond has a surface area of over five acres
and measures almost 1,000 feet in available length.  Having an
inflow point so close to the outflow fails to utilize the full
sediment removal capacity of the pond, which again has a delete-
rious effect on effluent quality.  Therefore, though this pond is
adequately sized according to storm exemption criteria, it does
not represent an adequate or exemplary design.  This discounts
the validity of the effluent data from this facility.

          A similar situation exists for pond 55 at facility 191.
Although not sized according to storm exemption criteria, it also
has similar features to pond 2 at facility 101 with respect to
multiple points adjacent to a spoil area.  Thus, data from this
facility is also of doubtful validity.

          Two values of 0.6 ml/1 were reported during wet condi-
tions from a sedimentation pond in Alabama.  The pond Is sized
between the upper and lower ranges of ''the OSM design storage vol-
ume criterion.  Because the pond is not clearly within the "OSM
pond" category, these data are not considered to be from an
exemplary facility.
                               A-55
-------
>
I
HIUPOINI
VALUE


0.0
0.1

0.2
0,4

0,6

0,6
1.0
2,0

3.0

4.0
9,0
6,0
r


*
***********************************
********
*
*****
**
*
***
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*



FREQ


172
34

22
7

9

1
5
0

1

0
0
1

cun.
FREW

172
206

226
235

244

245
250
250

251

251
251
252

PERCENT


66,29
13,49

6,73
2,76

3,57

0,40
1,98
0,00

0,40

0,00
0,00
0.40

CUN.
PERCENT

66.25
61,79

90,46
93,29

96.63

97.22
99.21
99.21

99.60

99.60
99,60
100.00
                             20  40  60  60  100 120 140 160



                                       FREQUENCY
                                               Figure A-4



                            HISTOGRAM OF DETECTED EFFLUENT SETTLEABLE SOLIDS

                                      VALUES DURING WET CONDITIONS
-------
HIDPOINT
VALUE
0.0
0,1
0,2
0,4
0,6
0.8
1,0
2.0
3.0
4,0
5.0
6.0

**********************************************************
*
£*********
t
********
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
FREQ
113
17
13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cun*
FREQ
113
130
143
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
PERCENT
78.47
11.81
9.03
0.69
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
CUM.
PERCENT
78.47
90.28
99*31
100.00
100.00
100.00
100,00
100,00
100,00
100.00
100,00
100,00
10   2o   30   40   SO   60   70   80   90    100   HO

                     FREQUENCY


                               Figure 4-3

            HISTOGRAM OF DETECTED EFFLUENT SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
                        VALUES FOR DRY CONDITIONS
-------
nxoPoiNi
VALUE

0.01
0,10

0*20
0.30

0.40

O.SO
0.60
0.70

0.60
0.90

1.00
*
f

*
^
f
*****************************************************************
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
^
*
*
*
*
*
±
T-
*
*
*****
*
— »+—»-*—-»*«._-4— —+—*—+— * — + --»*—*-*-*—*-*— + — **- — *
:REQ

1
159

1
0

0

0
0
0

0
0

9
CUM.
FREQ
1
160

161
161

161

161
161
161

161
161

170
PERCENT

0.59
93.53

0.59
0,00

o.oo

0.00
o.oo
0.00

o.oo
0.00

5.29
CUM.
pERCEN
0.5
94.1

94,7
94.7

94.7

94.7
94,7:
94.7:

94.7
94.7:

100.01
10  2«  30  40  50  60  70  BO  90  100 110 120  130  140  ISO  160
                         FREQUENCY

                                 Figure 4-2
           HISTOGRAM OF "NOT-DETECTED" EFFLUENT SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
                        VALUES DURING WET CONDITIONS
-------
hlOPOiNI
VALUt

0,01

0,10

0,20
0,30
0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0.60

0.90
1.00
r
i
^
#
*
*
******************************************
*
*
^A
#
*
^&
iF
#
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
****
*
_.„_ + „_- + — + — + — - + — + --- + — - + —- + —- + -
-REO

1

207

0
0
1

0

0

0

0

0
1*
cun.
FREQ
1

208

206
206
209

209

209

209

209

209
223
PERCENT

0.45

92.63

0.00
0,00
0,45

0,00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0,00
6.26
cun.
PERCENT
0.45

93.27

93,27
93.27
93.72

93.72

93.72

93,72

93,72

93.72
100.00
20  40  60  60  100 120 140 160 160 200

              FREQUENCY



                       Figure  4-1

 HISTOGRAM OF "NOT-DETECTED" EFFLUENT  SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
              VALUES DURING DRY CONDITIONS
-------
in all cases, regardless of the rainfall condition, were less
than 0.5 ml/1.  Moreover, the overall effluent mean for all ponds
in both cases was equal to or less than 0.1 ml/1.

          Histograms (frequency distributions) were prepared to
illustrate the distribution of the data.  Figure 4-1 presents a
histogram for "not detected11 values for effluents during dry con-
ditions.  These "not detected" values actually represent the dif-
fering detection limits reported by each company.  The vertical
axis represents the midpoint value of the range examined for the
frequency calculation.  For instance, on Figure 4-1, the hori-
zontal row of asterisks at 0.1 ml/1 indicate that a certain num-
ber of values (in this case, 207) were found in the data base at
a range of concentrations between 0.05 ml/1 and 0.15 ml/1.  A
similar plot for "not detected" values during wet conditions
appears in Figure 4-2*  No apparent difference was found between
wet and dry conditions.  These plots clearly demonstrate that the
detection limit recorded by most companies is 0.1 ml/1; however,
this number did fluctuate in a small number of cases.  The signi-
ficant number of values at 1.0 ml/1 were recorded by a facility
that also recorded a detection limit of 0.1 ml/1 for a substan-
tial number of samples.  To summarize, the detection limit was
recorded as 6.1 ml/1 or less, approximately 94 percent of the
time "not detected", values were reported for effluent samples.

          Histograms for detected values in pond effluents are
depicted in Figures 4-3 (dry) and 4-4 (wet).  Over 71 percent of
the values were reported as 0.0 ml/1.  For dry conditions, 100
percent of the values were less than or equal to 0.4 ml/1.  Dur-
ing wet conditions, 95 percent were less than or equal to 0.5
ml/1.  Thirteen values above 0.5 ml/1 were recorded by six of the
22 sites (13 samples in a total of 789 effluent samples).  In
fact, four of the 13 highest values were reported by facility 101
in eastern Ohio.  In addition to 115 acres of virgin and
                              A-50
-------
                           Table 4-15

         SETTLEABLE SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
                            EFFLUENT
                         VET CONDITIONS
Facility
13
15
25
25
25
33
33
37
38
85
101
123
181
183
184
185
186
187
191
191
Ova rail
Pond
1
2
3
4
7
1
2
6
19
1
2
3
99
1
7
4
2
1
18
55

Numbar of
13
12
3
12
14
64
61
17
3
30
26
6
32
16
39
24
12
12
11
11
413
Nuobar of
Da tact a
3
6
1
3
5
64
61
4
0
22
26
0
2
2
4
2
8
10
11
-II
245
Concancraciona (•!/!)
Hiniatun
<0.1
<0, \
0.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
0.0
<0.1
--_
0.0
0.0
..
<0»l
40*1
-------
                           Table 4-14

         SETTLEABLE SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
                         RAW WASTEWATER
                         WET CONDITIONS
Facility
15
IS
25
25
25
33
33
37
38
85
101
123
181
163
184
185
186
187
191
191
Overall
Food
1
2
3
4
7
1
2
6
19
1
2
3
99
1
7
4
2
1
18
55

Nu»b«r of
S*apl«*
13
13
2
12
15
62
61
17
5
30
39
6
34
24
30
24
12
12
11
12
436
Nunbor of
D*e*cti
2
1
1
11
10
62
61
9
4
27
39
4
14
4
9
8
6
10
11
12
307
Conccnera clone (•!/!)
Minima
<0.1
<0»1
<0. \
6.15
0.0
0.0
0.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
0.02
<0.1
<0*1
<0.l
-------
                           Table 4-13

         SETTLEABLE SOLIDS DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
                            EFFLUENT
                         DRY CONDITIONS
raclllty
15
15
25
25
25
33
33
37
38
85
.101
123
181
183
184
185
186
187
191
191
Overall
Pood
1
2
3
4
7
1
2
6
19
1
2
3
99
1
7
4
2
I
18
55

Nuubar of
Saupla*
25
18
3
18
22
26
22
28
10
20
7
9
18
26
25
20
33
33
3
1
367
Nuabar of
Datacti
2
4
0
6
3
26
22
8
0
15
7
0
0
0
1
1
20
25
3
1
144
ConcanCraCiona (•!/!)
Hiniaua
< .1
< .1
«
< .02
< a
0.00
0.00
< .1
•»•
0.00
0.00
• •
—
--
< .1
< .1
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
b.o
Ma an
^•M^MriH
0.06
0.09
••
0.08
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.31
«
0.02
0.08
••
«
••
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.0
0.0
0.06
Madlan
^^•P^^A^PW
< .1
< .1
• •>
< .1
< .1
0.00
0.00
0.40
..
0.00
0.05
«
«
••
< .1
< .1
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
HC
901
0.07
0.22
...
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
<1.0
—
0.05
0.30
«
«
«
< .1
< .1
< .1
< .1
0.0
0.0
MC
Maxima
0.20
0.40
< .1
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00
<1.0
< .1
0.20
0.30
< .1
< .1
< .1
0.20
0.10
< .1
< .1
0.0
0.0
0.4
NC - Hoc calculated.
                                A-47
-------
                           Table 4-12

          SETTLEABLE SOLIDS  DATA BY FACILITY AND POND
                         RAW WASTEWATER
                         DRY CONDITIONS
Facility
15
15
25
25
25
33
33
37
38
85
101
123
161
183
184
185
186
187
191
191
192
192
Overall
Pond
1
2
3
4
7
1
2
6
19
1
2
3
99
1
7
4
2
1
18
55
4
6

Number of Number of
Saaple* Detects
24
16
3
19
21
25
20
28
10
20
20
9
8
27
24
20
32
33
2
2
4
3
372
3
3
2
2
7
25
20
7
8
16
20
1
5
0
1
0
20
25
2
2
3
3
175
Concent rat iona _£•!/!)
Mtninua
«0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0»1
<0.1
0.00
0.00
-------
not recorded (Table 4-10) show elevated levels, which corresponds
to the increased flow of sediment to the pond.  The effluent
values (Tables 4*9 and 4-11), however, are quite similar to the
effluent values for dry conditions, with one exception,  Nickel
appears in a large number of effluent samples in Table 4-11.  The
vast majority of the detected values for nickel, however,
occurred at one facility.  Again, this is not unusual given the
specific soil characteristics at that facility and other factors
unique to each site.

          As a result of the infrequent occurrence of the toxic
metals and the low concentrations encountered when detections did
occur, sampling and analysis for the toxic metals and manganese
beyond the first six months of the program were deemed unneces-
sary and thus terminated.
4.2.2
Settleable Solids
          Data summaries for settleable solids are found by
facility and pond in Tables 4-12 through 4-15.  These data are
presented by facility and pond to illustrate variation in influ-
ent characteristics and to examine any variation in performance
from pond to pond.  Settleable solids were detected in 47 per-
cent of influent samples during dry conditions and in approxi-
mately 70 percent of the influent samples during wet conditions.
Detected values occurred in 39 percent and 59 percent of the
effluent samples for dry and wet conditions, respectively.

          Examining the mean values for influent waters during
dry conditions, it can be seen that only five of the 22 ponds had
concentrations of settleable solids above 1.0 ml/1.  For wet con-
ditions, eleven of the 20 ponds have mean influent values above
1.0 ml/1.  This indicates that, for the remaining facilities,
reductions were difficult to quantify.  The mean effluent values
                                A-45
-------
condition was not recorded or specified for roughly one third of
the analytical results*  This stemmed primarily from incomplete
documentation of samples by industry personnel*

          Examining the mean values for untreated wastewater
listed on Table 4-6, it can be readily seen that the toxic metals
all averaged well below 0*1 mg/1.  In fact, the 90th percentile
was, in each case, less than or equal to 0*1 mg/1.  As expected,
iron and manganese are somewhat higher, but still substantially
lower than the BPT limitations.  The maximum values for all the
metals indicate some variation from site to site.

          The sedimentation ponds provide reduction of the
metallic species, as shown on Table 4-7.  Four of the toxic
metals were never detected, and an additional five appeared in
less than 10 percent of the samples taken, and then at very low
values.  Copper and chromium were detected in a significant
number of samples, but always below 0.05 mg/1.  Antimony was
detected in 17 of 79 samples taken (22 percent), and at values
higher than would be expected from the type of areas being
investigated.  To determine if this unexpected result stemmed
from the analytical procedure, the concentrates were reanalyzed
by a different protocol. Results Indicate that when atomic
absorption was used in place of inductively coupled argon plasma
emission spectroscopy, antimony was not detected above 0.1 mg/1.
Zinc appears frequently in effluent samples from the majority of
facilities, however, the median concentration is very low at .013
mg/1, indicating that the high values occurred infrequently.
Indeed, further research showed that zinc occurred above 0.1 mg/1
only in a few isolated cases.   This is to be expected given the
natural variation and common occurrence of zinc compounds In all
soils.

          The results for the untreated wastewater during wet or
storm conditions (Table 4*8) and where the rainfall status was
-------
                                                Table 4-11



                 METALS  RESULTS FOR FOND EFFLUENT WITH RAINFALL CONDITION UNIDENTIFIED
>



U)
COMPOUND
ANTINONV ITOTALI
ARSENIC ITOTALI
BERYLLIUM iToTALl
CADMIUM ITOTALI
CHROMIUM 
-------
                                               Table 4-10


                 METALS RESULTS FOR RAW WASTEWATER WITH RAINFALL CONDITION UNIDENTIFIED
i
4=-
ro
COMPOUND
ANTinOKV < TOTAL*
AII5LN1C (TOTAL!
BERTLLIU* (TOTAL!
CA(u«iun ITOT*LI
CHRoniutf {Tor AH
COI'PEH UulAL*
LEAO (TUlAL)
ntncuitY ITOMU
NICKEL «Tl»TAl 1
scLCNiun HOTALI
S1LVCR IfOlALl
IIULtlUn |1(I1AU
^INC IIOI*L|
MftHGAHtSl UllMD
nton doun
TOTAL
Ntimitn
SAran.cs
65
63
ts
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
69
63
63
wunecft
TOTAL
OCTECTS
21
21
25
23
1*
2b
0
0
SH
0
0
9
5«
63
63
CONCCH1KAHONS 1M U6/L
tlCAN
84
61
3.2
10. a
19
*\
•>
»
591
-
•
6%. 3
793
7526
32067
hCUIAN
SO
20
0.5
2.5
5
3
•
-
51
-
-
bO.O
aa
1660
1*00
vos
211
1*6
».»
ZZ.fc
10
120
-
-
1*1«
-
*
127.2
2«nit
26900
9l9i|0
MAX
&69
%9|
15.0
02*0
173
233
< 30. t
< 40*0
1660
< 50. fl
< 5-0
199.0
Stftt
3^230
27aooo
-------
                       Table 4-9



METALS RESULTS FOR POND EFFLUENT DURING WET CONDITIONS
conpotiNO
AMTIffONV I'OTALI
AHStNtC (TOTAL!
OCHUt-JWl 1 TOTAL'
CAoftTun ITOTALI
CHRoniun norM.1
COPTER i TOTAL*
LlAD f TOTAL I
ntllCUflf (TOTAL!
NICKEL (TOTAL I
SttfWIU* ITOMLI
StLVCH IIOTALl
TMALLlUn (TQIALI
/INC (TOTAL*
nANCAMtSe (TQTALt
I«OH ITOIALI
TOTAL
MUHBLK
SAflTLtS
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
Mtinacft
IOIAL
UCTCClE
13
0
4
1
11
19
0
0
0
1
5
•
«*
TO
71
CONCCMTNATfONS IM U6/L
• fCAN
56
-
• *5
2.*
5
7
-
-
-
25
2.7
-
*3
442
17«
KUIAN
bt
-
• .5
2.9
3
3
-
-
-
25
2.5
-
1*
265
!•••
9tX
97
•
• .9
2.5
17
25
«.
•
-
25
2.5
-
54
984
*972
MAX
27«
< ••••
1*4
7.*
27
«4
< 3t-0
< 40. •
< 9»-«
42
7.2
-------
                                                Table 4-8


                         METALS RESULTS FOR RAW WASTEWATER DURING WET CONDITIOHS
i
-t-
o

conrotttio
ANTinoMY I TOTAL!
AN SI NIC MOTALI
UCNVLLIWI < TO TALI
CAMUIJ* (10T*LI
CMRortiun HOTALI
COPI'CH (TOTAL)
LEAD I1OTALI
fltRcunv noTAti
NICKEL HOIAI I
SCLCNIim HOTALI
SILVCN 1 TOTAL 1
THALLIUM (TOTAL!
ZINC |fOt All
RAMGAMLSL IffllALl
IftON ItOlALl
TOTAL
MllMItt •
nUHIKR
SAHPLCS
73
73
T3
75
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
NifnOCN
vn**t
IWiflt
OLTCCT8
21
»
16
19
36
36
3
•
1*
3
4
•
t7
73
72
1
HtAN
66
50
1.7
6.a
29
34
17
•
62
26
2.7
-
937
l«7*
27894
:OMCtMTHATIO
HCDIAN
SO
20
• •9
2.9
3
3
19
-
29
29
2.9
-
39
662
3210
US IN UC/l
98*
153
82
3«7
1^.6
70
107
19
•
140
29
2.8
-
991
2792
89828

NAK
239
890
28*0
106.0
92*
791
92
< 40*8
H»»
70
6*9
-------
                              Table 4-7

METALS RESULTS FOR  POND EFFLUENT  DURING  DRY  CONDITIONS
COMPOUND
                       IOTAL
                       MunotN
                       SAMPLES
                                             NurtHtn
                                             TOTAL
                                             UtTCClS
      CONCENTRATIONS  IN Ut/L
» ••*••••**•»"• V»** W W«^V *»«*•«•

ftCAN     HEDIAN      9»«
V V • » • •* W ^» • * * • » ^^ * * V«* • ^ • V « •* » •

  61        S«        112
ANfinoNT (TOTAL!
ARSENIC (TOTALI
OEftVLLiun (TOTAL)
CAOfltUft (TOTAL!
ciMtoniun iTOTAL!
COPtEfl ITOTAf I
LCAO ITOTALI
HERCUHY CTOTAL!
NICKCL IT01ALI
SELLNIUH IIOTAL!
SILVER IIOlALl
THALLIUR |TulAL!
2 INC |T01*L|
HAHCANCSL
IRON ITOlALI
                                     79

                                     79
                                     79
                                     79
                                     79
                                     79
                                     79
                                     79
                                     79
                                     79
                                     79
                                     79
                                     79
                                     79
17
 D
 5
 3

19
 0
 0
 3
 2
 3

61
79
77
                                               • •6
                                               2.7
                                                 S
                                                 &
  32
  25
 2.6

  29
 396
 A54
           • •9
           2*5
             3
             3
 29
 25
2.5

 13
232
           • *5
           2,5
            11
            13
  25
 2.5

  7ft
 98«
22«t
 3.2

  37
  9i
»•*•

  97
  87
 7.1
                                                                              113
-------
                                               Table 4-6


                        METALS RESULTS FOR RAW WASTEWATER DURING DRY CONDITIONS
i
CO
GO
COMPOUND
ANTINOMY (10TALI
ANSCNIC IT01ALI
UCRVLLlUfl HOT AM
CAonum ITOTALI
CHiiomun doiALi
COPPCN (101 At I
LT.AO 1 TOTAL)
flLRCUNV ITOTALI
NICKEL (TOTAL)
SCLf-NlUn | TOTAL)
SILVCK (TOTAL*
THALLIUM IIOIAL)
2 IMC | TOTAL }
flANCAMCSL UOTALI
IHOW (TOTAL)
TOTAL
Human
SAKPLCS
as
fti
•3
Bi
Aif
as
A3
A3
A3
A3
A3
A3
A]
A3
A3
NunucH
TOTAL
UtTCCfS
17
3
fc
3
11
20
4
1
b
3
3
0
69
A2
AO
CONCENTRATIONS IN UWL
HCAN
67
26
0.6
2.7
6
5
17
20.2
31
26
2.6
-
63
43A
!Ab7
MEDIAN
50
20
«.s
2.6
3
3
IS
20.0
25
25
2.5
-
16
20*
310
90S
too
*>0
0,6
2.5
7
1*
16
20.0
«&
25
2.5
-
«5
1036
4A10
flAX
250
15
5.3
16.0
111*
2A
103
40.0
110
96
6*2
<100*0
10&0
9690
^73»«
-------
                                           Table 4-5 (Continued)
           Facility
                        COMPARISON OF OSM "REQUIRED" VOLUMES AND ACTUAL FOND VOLUMES
State
Pond
       OSM
"Required11 Volume
    Acre-Feet
Actual Pond
  Volume
 Acre-Feet
191
191
192
192
AL
AL
WY
WY
18
55
4
6
18.4 -
127.4 -
6.1 -
4.8 -
23.1
161.8
8.5
6.3
20
125
13.6
16.8
Does the Pond
 Comply With
OSM Criterion?


     Yes/No

      No
      Yes

      Yes
I
L*J
-------
                                               Table  4-5
                      COMPARISON OF OSM "REQUIRED" VOLUMES  AND ACTUAL FOND VOLUMES
>
         Facility
State
Pond
       OSM
"Required" Volume
    Acre-Feet
Actual Pond
  Volume
 Acre-Feet
Does the Pond
 Comply With
OSM Criterion?
15
15
25
25
33
33
37
38
85
101
123
181
182
182
183
184
185
186
187
WV
WV
OH
OH
IN
IN
IL
KY
IL
OH
IL
KY
MT
MT
WV
WV
WV
PA
PA
1
2
4
7
1
2
6
19
1
2
3
99
1
2
1
7
4
2
1
35.6 -
15.0 -
19.1 -
10.6 -
30.6 -
8.1 -
248.8 -
22.6 -
16.5 -
22.7 -
710.2 -
6.7 -
3.4 -
2.2 -
11.8 -
4.6 -
20.8 -
1.3 -
12.0 -
48.3
19.7
23.7
12.8
41.1
11.4
349.5
36.9
23.8
28.6
1020.8
9.5
5,2
3.4
15.0
6.1
26.4
1.7
15.1
2.6
1*6
1.3
1.5
48.5
19.4
32.2
28.6
16.2
28.2
215
3.9
13.5
10.0
3.1
1.9
6.6
3.3
20
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes/No
No
Yes/No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yea
Yea
-------
where:    •  V is volume, in acre-feet.
          •  A is the total area drained to the pond, in acres.
          •  R is the runoff depth, in inches of water.

          A sample calculation of this method is found in
Appendix B.

          Table 4-5 presents the results for all ponds and indi-
cates which facilities meet the OSM pond volume criterion and
which do not*  Those marked "Yes/No" fall between the upper and
lower boundaries of the necessary volume, indicating that the
pond may or may not be adequately sized according to the OSM
standard.
4.2
Vastewater Characterization
          During the course of this program, two basic periods
were characterized:  (1) base flow or "dry11 conditions (no rain),
and (2) rainfall or "wet11 conditions (day of rainfall or day
after rainfall).  The wastewater characteristics from the dry
period represent the data base for reclamation areas, while the
results from samples taken during wet conditions were used to
augment available data on effluent qualities during various storm
events.
4.2.1
Toxic and Nonconventional Metals
          Summaries of toxic and nonconventional metals analyzed
for during the program are presented in Tables 4-6 through 4-11.
These tables present, data for influent and effluent during wet or
rain conditions and during dry or baseflow conditions.  It should
be noted, as shown on Tables 4-10 and 4-11, that the rainfall
                                A-35
-------
                                                 Table 4-4

                                    RUNOFF DEPTH IN INCHES FOR SELECTED
                                     CURVE NUMBERS AND RAINFALL AMOUNTS
i
OJ
-fcr
Rainfall
(Inchea)

  1.0
  1.2
  1.4
  1.6
  1.8

  2.0
  2.5
  3.0
  4.0
  5.0

  6.0
  7.0
  8.0
  9.0
 10.0

 11.0
 12.0
                                                Runoff Curve Number
60
0
0
0
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.17
0.33
0.76
1.30
1.92
2.60
3.33
4.10
4.90
5.72
6.56
65
0
0
0.02
0.05
0.09
0.14
0.30
0.51
1.03
1.65
2.35
3.10
3.90
4.72
5.57
6.44
7.32
70
0
0.03
0.06
0.11
0.17
0.24
0.46
0.72
1.33
2.04
2.80
3.62
4.47
5.34
6.23
7.13
8.05
75
0.03
0.07
0.13
0.20
0.29
0.38
0.65
0.96
1.67
2.45
3.28
4.15
5.04
5.95
6.88
7.82
8.76
80
0.08
0.15
0.24
0.34
0.44
0.56
0.89
1.25
2.04
2.89
3.78
4.69
5.62
6.57
7.52
8.48
9.45
85
0.17
0.28
0.39
0.52
0.65
0.80
1.18
1.59
2.46
3.37
4.31
5.26
6.22
7.19
8.16
9.14
10.12
90
0.32
0.46
0.61
0.76
0.93
1.09
1.53
1.98
2.92
3.88
4.85
5.82
6.81
7.79
8.78
9.77
10.76
95
0.56
0.74
0.92
1.11
1.29
1.48
1.96
2.45
3.43
4.42
5.41
6.41
7.40
8.40
9.40
10.39
11.39
98
0.79
0.99
1.18
1.38
1.58
1.77
2.27
2.78
3.77
4.76
5.76
6.76
7.76
8.76
9.76
10.76
11.76
           NOTE:  To obtain runoff depths for other curve numbers and rainfall amounts not
                  shown in this table, use an arithmetic interpolation.
           Source:  Skelly and Loy Engineers, A Compliance Manual—Methods for Meeting OSM
                    Requirements» McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, New York, 1979, p. 6-f
-------
Land Cover
        Table 4*3

SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS



      Condition       A
Soil Group
 B     C
Virgin Lands
Forests
Farmsteads
Meadow
Pasture/Range
Regraded - Revegetated
Close Seeded Legumes
(Contoured & Terraced)
Small Grains
(Contoured & Terraced)
Row Crops
(Contoured & Terraced)
Fallow
Cleared Unvegetated
Dirt Roads
Hard Surface Roads (or
Paved Surfaces
Source: Skelly and Loy E
for Meeting OSM
Poor
Fair
Good
—
Good
Fair
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
•*•
— —
Pit) —
--
Ingineers , A
Requirements
45
36
25
59
30
49
63
51
61
59
66
62
77
72
74
98
Compliance
66
60
55
74
58
69
73
67
72
70
74
71
86
82
84
98
77
73
70
82
71
79
80
76
79
78
80
78
91
87
90
98
83
79
77
86
78
84
83
80
82
81
82
81
94
89
92
98
Manual- -Methods
( McGraw-Hill,
Inc.,
New
  York, New York, 1979, p. 6-32.
                          A-33
-------
          Many methods are available to arrive at the  "necessary"
pond volume, but only the method used is detailed below.  An
alternate method is presented in Appendix B.

          The selected method uses a Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) runoff curve number.  The runoff curve number is based on
establishing a relationship between rainfall and runoff volumes.
This depends upon the soil and land cover types.

          Four hydrologic soil groups are identified which define
the potential infiltration and water transmission rates:
          A    (Low Runoff Potential).  High infiltration rate
               and water transmission rate.   Example:  sands,
               gravel.
          B    Moderate infiltration rate and water transmission
               rate.  Example:  sandy loam.
          C    Slow infiltration rate and water transmission
               rate.  Example:  clay and silty loam.
          D    (High Runoff Potential).  Very slow infiltration
               rate and water transmission rate.  Example:  tight
               clay or clay pan (soil with permanent high water
               table).

          Using the land cover type supplied by industry and soil
type, Table 4-3 can be used to determine the runoff curve number
for each type of drainage area.   A composite runoff curve number
for an entire drainage area can be determined by calculating a
weighted average of the runoff curve numbers from the individual
drainage areas.  Using this composite curve number and the amount
of rainfall associated with a given storm event, runoff depth for
the drainage area is obtained (in inches of water) as shown on
Table 4-4.  The runoff volume is then calculated as follows:
          V - A x R/12
                                  A-32
-------
 I
U)
                                                     Table  4-2 - Continued
                                   SIMMAKY OF INPUTS REQUIRED TO CALCULATE QSM PCM) VOLUME
                            10-Year,  24-4Iour
                            Precipitation
                                Event       Boil
                                                 Drainage Area (Acres)
Facility       Pond
  Code   State Number  (Total Inches)* Type**  Mined
 183
 184

 185
 186
 187
 191
 191
 192
 192
wv
wv

w
PA
PA
AL
AL
WY
WY
 1
 7

 4
 2
 1
55
18
 4
 6
3-5 - 4.0
3.5 - 4.0

3-5 - 4.0
3.5 - 4.0
3.5 - 4.0
6.0 - 7.0
6.0 - 7-0
2.5 - 3-0
2.5 - 3.0
C
Ctt
Bt*
C
C-D
C
B-C
B-C
C
D
Actively
Mined
0
0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Disturbed
Area
31
15
53.8
12
70
350
61.5
41
12
Virgin
Area
76
60
50
0
26
130
3.5
41
33
Slope
of
Area
39
50
50
150
14
14
4
3
2
Composite Pond
Runoff Curve Area
Numbers (Acres)
75.1
64.0
75.0
75.2
77.9
74.0
76.1
80.0
86.3
0.74
. 0.15
0.84
0.50
3.10
8.30
0.94
2.22
6.86
Calculated Pond
to Meet "OSM" D
(Acre-Feet)
11.8
4.6
20.8
1-3
12.1
127.4
18.4
6.1
4.8
- 15.0
- 6.1
- 26.4
- 1.7
- 15-1
- 161.8
- 23.1
- 8.5
- 6.3
      •Data from "A Compliance Manual—Methods for Meeting OSM Requirements," Skelly and Loy Engineers, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
       New York, New York,  1979,  p.  6-34.
     **See text for explanation of soil  types.
     TtDIsturbed.
     t*Virgin.
-------
          Sample Calculation - Method 1
          Facility 192
          Campbell County, 'Wyoming
          Sedimentation Trap #4 (Soil Type estimated as C)

          Using curve numbers from Table 4-3, the composite curve
number is obtained as follows:
  Type of
 Land Cover
Pond
Range
Revegetated -
 Seeded
  Total
 Area
(Acres)
   2.22
  41

  38.78
  82.00
Individual
    CN
   100
    79
    80
Fractional
Area
0.027
0.500
0.473
1.000
Composite
CN
2.7
39.5
37.8
80.00
          Thus, the composite curve number is 80.0 for this
drainage area.  A 10-year, 24-hour storm for facility 192 is 2.5
to 3.0 inches of precipitation.  For 2.5 inches, Table 4.4 shows
that 0.89 inches of runoff reach the sedimentation basin.
          The runoff volume is then calculated as follows:
          V - A x R/12
            • (82 acres) x (0.89 in./12 inches/ft.)
            - 6.08 acre-feet
          The above runoff volume corresponds to the pond volume
required to contain a 2.5 inch precipitation event at facility
192.  Therefore, the required pond volume for a 10-year, 24-hour
storm event (i.e., 2.5 to 3.0 inches) -for pond 4 at facility 192
is 6.08 to 8.54 acre-feet.
                           A-81
-------
          Runoff volume may also be determined using the follow-
ing equation:
          V - P/12 x [(AI x GI) +  the runoff coefficient for the active area.
          o  A2 is the drainage area which commingles with
             drainage from the active area, in acres.  This
             includes runoff from virgin areas and areas under
             reclamation which drain to the pond.
          o  C2 is the runoff coefficient for areas which
             commingle drainage from the active area.
The following may be used to determine GI and C2:
                               Sandy Loam   Clay and Loam
          Active Mining Area       0.3           0.5
          Virgin Land and Land     0.1
            Under Reclamation
                                       0.3
0.6
0.4
          The above values are increased by 0.1 for slopes rang-
ing from 5 to 10 percent, and increased 0.2 for slopes ranging
from 10 to 30 percent.

          Since seven of the ponds involved have drainage areas
with slopes much steeper than 30 percent, the first method is
applied in order to keep the calculations on a uniform basis.
                               A-82
-------
                                REPORT  2
REASSESSMENT OF THE SELF-MONITORING DATA BASE  ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED
          10-YEAR,  24-HOUR POND  DESIGN  VOLUME  FOR  COAL MINES
                            September  1982
                             Prepared by:

                           Allison Phillips
                     Effluent Guidelines Division
               Office of Water Regulations & Standards
                              U.S. EPA
                       Washington, D.C.   20460
                                   A-83
-------
-------
PURPOSE

     The treatment facility design volume necessary to qualify for alternate
effluent limitations during precipitation events was amended on May 29,
1981 to that proposed on January 13, 1981 for the coal mining regulations.
This amendment modified the design volume of a pond by excluding from
consideration waters from undisturbed areas which drain into the treatment
facility.

     The self-monitoring survey established the data base in support of
the 0.5 ml/1 settleable solids effluent limitation for coal mines during
precipitation events and for reclamation areas.  Analyses of the results
of this survey were completed before the amended definition for a pond
size was proposed.  Thus, the technology basis in support of the 0.5
ml/1 limitation was a 10-year, 24-hour porid according to the January 13,
1981 proposal.  Therefore, the data had to be reevaluated after the
amendment to reflect the new pond size definition.  The analysis to
assess the number of 10-year, 24-hour ponds (according to the new definition)
is presented below:

ANALYSIS:

Pond design data and factors used to determine the required pond size are
taken from Report 1 of this Appendix.

     Assumptions -  1} The curve (CN)* numbers are averaged for each type of
                    land cover according to soil group (See Table 1).

                    2) All "disturbed areas" are equal to "regraded or
                    revegetated" land as presented in the CN land cover
                    groups.

                    3) All "actively mined areas" are equal to "cleared
                    unvegetated" land as presented in the CN land cover
                    groups.

Data from Table 4-2 in Report 1 was used to calculate the "new" 10-year,
24-hour ponds.  The calculations were performed according to the example
in Appendix B of Report 1 except that the virgin land areas were deleted from
consideration.
*Upper or lower limits were calculated wherever it was unnecessary according
to comparison with the actual volume.  (For example, for pond 25-7 where
the actual volume is 1.5 and the lower limit for the required volume is
10.13, the upper limit does not have to be calculated in order to determine
whether or not the pond is a 10-year, 24-hour pond .)
                                     A-85
-------
An example calculation is given below:

     Facility 15-1
     Soil type estimated as B-C.

     Using averaged curve numbers from Table 1, the composite curve
number is obtained as follows:
Type of Land
    Cover
   Area
 (Acres)
Individual
    CN
Fractional
  Area
Composite
  CN
Pond
Disturbed
  .44
18.06
    100
     77
                   2.4
                  75.2
Thus, the composite curve number is 77.6 or 78 for this drainage area.  A
10-year, 24-hour storm for facility 15-1 is 3.5-4 inches of precipitation
as shown in Table 4-2 of Report 1.  For 3.5 inches,  Table 4-4 of Report 1
shows that 1.52 inches of runoff reach the sedimentation basin.

The runoff volume is then calculated as follows:

          V = A x R/12
            = (18.5 acres) x (1.52 in/12in/ft)
            =2.34 acre feet

     The above runoff volume corresponds to the pond volume required to
contain a 3.5 inch precipitation event at facility 15-1.  Therefore, the
required pond volume for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event (i.e., 3.5-4.0
inches) for this pond is 2.34 to 2.91 acre feet.

     Table 4-5 of Report 1 shows that the actual pond volume for facility
15-1 is 2.5 acre feet.  This is within the required  pond volume of 2.34
to 2.91 acre-feet and thus, this pond is considered  to be a 10-year, 24-
hour pond.

RESULTS:

     All the ponds were evaluated according to the above calculations which
resulted in the 11 ponds determined to be 10-year, 24-hour ponds as shown
in Table 2.
                                  A-86
-------
Land Cover

Regraded - Revegetated

Close Seeded Legumes
{Contoured & Terraced)

Small Grains
(Contoured & Terraced)

Row Crops
(Contoured & Terraced)

Fallow
      TABLE  1

RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS

  Condition
  Poor
  Good

  Poor
  Good

  Poor
  Good
      Soil Group
A  A-B*  B  B-C  C  C-D  D
                                   Ave.**
63
51
61
59
66
62
77
63
72
74
98
68
55
67
65
" 70
66
80
6/



73
67
72
70
74
71
86
/3
82
84
98
78
72
76
74
77
75
90
//

87

80
76
79
78
80
78
91
80
87
90
98
82
79
81
80
81
80
93
82



83
80
82
81
82
81
94
83
89
92
98
Cleared Unvegetated

Dirt Roads
Hard Surface Roads (or Pit)
Paved Surfaces

*Where "A-B" soil  type was submitted, the median curve number between soil
types was calculated and used in the averaging.

**These average curve numbers were used in the calculations.

Source:   Skelly and Loy Engineers, A Compliance Manual—Methods for Meeting
          OSM Requirements, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York,  New York,  1979, p.  6-
          "ST.
                                     A-87
-------
                                 TABLE 2

                          10-Year,  24-Hour Ponds
 Pond

 15-1
 15-2
 25-3
 25-4
 25-7
 33-1
 33-2
 37
 38
 85
101
123
181
182-1
182-2
183
184
185
186
187
191-55
191-18
192-4
192-6
Actual Volume    Required Volume    10-Year, 24-Hour Pond?
   2.6
   1.6
   No data
   1.3
     5
                  2.34 - 2.91
                  1.26 - 1.58
          submitted on design
  1.
 48,
 19,
 32,
 28,
 16,
 28,
215
  3.9
 33.5
 10.0
  3.1
  1.9
  6.6
  3.3
 20
125
 20
 13.6
 16.8
 4.74
10.13
                   47.6 -

                  17.34 -
                   6.89 -
                     ,14
                     ,05
                     ,40
                 104.46
                  15.83
                   4.51
                   1.79
5.91
*
3.08
7.18
67,4
13.18
24.02
19.16
197.58
8.27
          35
          50
          48
          55
      - 9.15
                        - 2
          29
        12.37
        129.5
        20.19
      - 2.26
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes**
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes**
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
*Upper or lower limits were calculated wherever it was unnecessary according
to comparison with the actual volume.  (For example, for pond 25-7 where
the actual volume is 1.5 and the lower limit for the required volume is
10.13, the upper limit does not have to be calculated in order to determine
whether or not the pond is a 10-year, 24-hour pond.)

**An error of at least 10% is assumed in these calculations because of
the 1} vast amount of land involved, 2) difficulty in determining pond
depth and therefore pond volume, 3) difficulty in determining precise
amount of runoff, 4} error in precipitation estimates for 10-year, 24-
hour storms.
                                     A-88
-------
             REPORT  3
   STATISTICAL  SUPPORT  FOR THE PROPOSED
     EFFLUENT LIMITATION OF  0.5 ml/1
       FOR  SETTLEABLE SOLIDS  IN THE
            COAL MINING INDUSTRY
              September  1982
              Prepared by:

   Office of Analysis and Evaluation
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
               U.S.  EPA
        Washington, D.C.   20460
                  A-89
-------
-------
   DATE:
     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

2 8  1982
SUBJECT:  Statistical Support for the Proposed Effluent Limitation of
         0.5 ml/1  for Settleable Solids in the Coal Mining Industry

   FROM:  RB Clifton Bailey, Statistician
         Program Integration and Evaluation Staff"fVfl-586)

     T0:  Allison Phillips, Project Officer
         Energy and Minerals Branch (WH-552)
             Analysis of the data for settleable solids from the coal  mining industry
        confirms the proposed limitation of 0.5 ml/1 is consistent with Agency  policy
        for effluent guidelines.  The limitation is supported by data from sedimentation
        ponds which serve active mine areas and/or reclamation areas and met the size
        criterion as specified in the May 26, 1981 amendment to the coal mining effluent
        guidelines regulations proposed on Oaunary 13, 1981.  The settleable solids
        limitation applies at active mine sites to effluent affected by precipitation
        events and at reclamation sites to effluent regardless of weather conditions.
        Reclamation area discharges are minimal during dry weather conditions so that
        effluent discharge occurs almost exclusively as the result of run off from
        precipiation.  The data and analysis that support the limitations are
        described in this memorandum.

        Data

             The data used here were obtained in a one year self monitoring study of the
        coal mining industry.  The study was conducted to obtain data that would support
        an evaluation of the effluent limitation proposed for settleable solids.  A
        total of 24 sedimentation ponds were included in the self monitoring study.  These
        ponds were selected to span the range of geographical and operational conditions
        in the indsutry.  A comprehensive summary of the design and operation of the 24
        ponds is contained in Coal Mining Industry Self-Monitoring Program, Radian
        Corporation, May, 1981.  Data were collected at these ponds from September,  1979
        to September, 1980 and classified as either "wet conditions" or "dry conditions."
        "Wet conditions" refers to data collected on the day of and day immediately
        following a precipitation event while "dry" refers to data collected at other
        times.  The evaluation of the proposed limitation of 0.5 ml/1  for settleable
        solids is based on the observations taken only during wet conditions because
        the limitation applies at active mine effluents affected by precipitation
        events and, although reclamation areas are subject to the limitation under all
        weather conditions, only during wet conditions are they likely to have  an
        effluent discharge.

             The Imhoff cone method was used to measure settleable solids in the self-
        monitoring study.  The method is described in Standard Methods for the  Examina-
        tion of Water and Wastewater and 304(h) of the EPA's "Methods  for Analysis of
        Water and Wastewater" as having a "practicable lower limit of measurement" of
        "about 1 ml/1."  The proposed limitation of 0.5 ml/1 is below this value.  In
        fact, all facilities with effluent discharge in the self monitoring study
        reported values well below 1.0 ml/1.  Consequently, a study was conducted  to
        examine the detection limit for settleable solids using the Imhoff cone method
EPA Form 1320-6 (R«v. 3-76)
                           A-91
-------
                                      -2-

on coal mining effluent.   The study is described in Coal  Mine -  Drainage
Precision and Accuracy Determination for Settleable Solids  at Less  Than 1.0
                                                    the method  of detection
                                                    an arithmetic average of
                                                    were made  (at least  one
                                                    ml/1  with  an arithmetic
      prepared for EPA by Hydrotechnic Corporation,  August,  1982.   The study
involved field and laboratory determinations of the  method detection limit
using samples collected at 8 different sedimentation ponds.   The study followed
the procedure described in "Definition and Procedure for the Determination  of
the Method Detection Limit" [1/21/81  Revision 1.11,  by EMSL-CI,  EPA].   There
were 8 field determinations (one from each pond)  of
limit which ranged from 0.04 ml/1  to  0.40 ml/1  with
0.22 ml/1.  A total of 10 laboratory  determinations
from each pond) which ranged from 0.05 ml/1  to 0.20
average of 0.12 ml/1.  The results of this study  support the conclusion that
it is possible to measure settleable  solids  values below 1.0 ml/1.   As a result
of this study the method detection limit for settleable solids  in  coal mining
was set conservatively to be 0.4 ml/1, the maximum of the field  determinations.

     The self-monitoring data are summarized by pond in Table 1.   The ponds
 are identified by a facility number  F and a pond number P as P.P.   Thus, for
example, pond 2 at facility 15 is designated by 15.2.  These data  were evaluated
and several adjustments were made for the purpose of analyzing  the proposed
limit.  Ponds 101.2 and 191.55 were excluded from the evaluation of the limita-
tion because of design and operational defects as described  in  the Radian
Report and further documented in the  Record (Memo to the Effluent  Guidelines
Division from Radian:  Marc Papai to  Allison Wledeinan, September 21, 1982).
Four ponds that were included in the  study,  182.1, 182.2, 192.4  and 192.6 had
no discharge and thus yielded no effluent data.  One of the  twenty-three ponds
originally selected for study, pond 25.3 was taken out of operation in March
1980 and replaced by pond 25.4.   In some cases, duplicate observations on the
same day were reported at ponds  25.3, 25.4,  25.7, 37.6, 184.7 and  185.4.
These values were below the proposed  limitation of 0.5 ml/1  or reported as
nondetect (ND) or trace (TR).  In Table 1 these duplicates have  been counted
as a single determination for that day.  This approach is conservative and
consistent with the study protocol.  Counting the duplicates as  separate obser-
vations would give the misleading appearance of higher rates of  compliance
since these values were below the proposed limit.  Values reported as trace
(TR) were not counted as exceeding the limit.  For pond 37.6, several  measurements
of "ND 1" were reported during wet conditions.   This is a convention for
identifying measurements below 1 ml/1.  No additional values were  reported  in
this manner after June 12, 1980.  Values of ND 0.1,  0.15, and 0.3  ml/1 were
also reported for this pond.  The observations reported as ND 1  have been
counted as not exceeding the proposed limitations of 0.5 ml/1.

Analysis

     The objective of this analysis is to establish  whether the proposed limitation
is consistent with the usual Agency policy of 99% compliance for effluent  limita-
tions guidelines.  That is, if the data demonstrate  that 0.5 ml/1  is met roughly
99% of the time by sedimentation ponds that satisfy  design criteria, then the
proposed limit is a reasonable regulatory value.
                                    A-92
-------
                                      -3-

                                    TABLE 1

       FREQUENCY OF EFFLUENT SETTEABLE SOLIDS VALUES (ml/1) EXCEEDING THE
                       0.5 ml/1 LIMITATION AS REPORTED BY
                  COAL MINING FACILITIES DURING WET CONDITIONS
            Pond
           *15.1
           *15.2
            25.3
            25.4
            25.7
           *33.1
           *33.2
            37.6
           *38.19
           *85.1
         °*101.2
          *123.3
           181.99
         t*182.1
         t*182.2
           183.1
          *184.7
           185.4
          *186.2
          *187.1
          *191.18
         °*191.55
         t*192.4
         t*192.6
         TOTAL
# of Observations
    > 0.5	

      2
      0
      0
      0
      0
      0
      0
      0
      0
      0
      5
      0
      0
      0
      0
      1
      0
      2
      0
      0
      2
      1
      0
      0
     13 (7)  ((4))
    Total
of Observations

     13
     12
      3
     13
     16
     66
     65
     17
      5
     30
     42
      6
     63
      0
      0
     16
     30
     24
     12
     12
     11
     11
      0
      0
    467 (414)  ((262))
*    Satisfies size criterion.

t    No discharge.

0    Deleted from analysis (see text).

()   Values in parentheses are  totals with ponds  101.2 and 191.55  deleted.

(()) Values in double parentheses are totals  for ponds which exceed size
     criterion with ponds 101.2 and 191.55 deleted.
                                     A-93
-------
                                      -4-

     The data shown in Table 1 provide the basis for the analysis  of  the  proposed
limitation.  The number of measurements from each pond is variable because  the
precipitation events for each pond vary.  Data such as this are referred  to as
clustered, i.e., the sampling days are clustered by pond.  If  the  proportion  of
sampling days with values exceeding 0.5 ml/1 is roughly 1% or  less, then  the
proposed limit would be consistent with the 99% compliance criterion.   The
estimation of proportions for clusters is discussed in Cochran,  W.G.,  Sampling
Techniques, 2nd Edition, Wiley and Sons, 1963,  pp.  64-70,  The analysis employed
here follows Cochran's recommendations.

     The overall proportion, p,  exceeding the limit is estimated by

                                    P « X/N,

where X is the total number of observations exceeding the limit  and N  is  the
total number of observations over all ponds.  The variance of  p is approximated
by
                                               
-------
                                      -5-

proportion p exceeding 0.5 ml/1  and the standard error of p.   The  estimates
are
                               p = 4/262 =  0.0153
and
                             S.E.  (0.0153)  =  0.0121.

The value of the test statistic is

                       Z0 = (0.0153 - 001)70.0121  = 0.44.

The probability of exceeding this  value for Z0 is  approximated  by

                           Probability {  Z  >  0.44  } =  0.330

where Z is a standardized normal  variate (Tabled values  for  standardized  normal
variates are given in most statistics texts.  See,  for  example,  Walpole, R.E.
and R.H. Myers, Probability and Statistics  for Engineers,  2nd Edition,
MacMillian, 1978, Table IV, p. 513).Since the probability  associated with the
observed value of Z0 for the ponds meeting  the size criterion is not  small, the
data do not demonstrate an exceedance rate  for the proposed  limit  that is  signi-
ficantly different from 0.01.  Therefore, the data support the  conclusion  that
the 0.5 ml/1 value is consistent with the 99% compliance criterion.

Analysis of Ponds Without Regard to Size Criterion

     When pond size is disregarded, the data still show  a  high  rate  of compliance
with the proposed limit of 0.5 ml/1.   This  result  is based on the  analysis of
the data for a total  of seventeen  ponds,  without regard  to size, (see Table 1;
NB, data for 25.3 and 25.4 were combined because one was a replacement for the
other).  From the 17 ponds there are a total  of 414 observations of  which  7
exceeded the limit.  That is, 98.31% of the observations satisfy the proposed
limitations.  Now the estimate of  the exceedance rate  fl  is
with
Thus,
and
                               p * 7/414 =  0.0169
                            S.E.  (0.0169)  *  0.00939,
                      Z0 = (0.0169 - 0.01J/0.00939  * 0.73
                          Probability {  Z >  0.73  }  *  0.233.
     Therefore, when data from all  ponds without  regard  to size  are  considered,
the observed exceedance rate is not significantly different from 0.01  and the
proposed limit is judged to be consistent with the 99% compliance criterion.
                                    A-95
-------
                                      -6-
Conclusions
     Analysis of the available settleable solids data from coal  mining
sedimentation ponds demonstrates that the proposed limit of 0.5  ml/1  is  cons-
istent with Agency policy for effluent guidelines of 99% compliance.  Statistical
analysis shows that the observed exceedance rate is not significantly different
from 1%.  This conclusion holds regardless of whether or not the size criterion
for ponds specified in the proposed regulation is considered.  Therefore,  the
0.5 ml/1 settleable solids value is a reasonable and practicable limitation.
                                     A-96
-------
               APPENDIX B
           COAL MINE DRAINAGE -
  PRECISION AND ACCURACY DETERMINATION
                  FOR
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS AT LESS THAN 1.0 ml/1
                 B-i
-------
-------
          COAL MINE - DRAINAGE
  PRECISION AND ACCURACY DETERMINATION
                  FOR
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS AT LESS THAN 1.0 ML/L
             Prepared for:
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Effluent Guidelines' Division
        Energy and Mining Branch
          M Street, S.W.   (WH-552)
        Washington, D.C.   20460
             August 1982
              Prepared by:
        Hydrotechnic Corporation
             1250 Broadway
           New York, New York
                B-iii
-------
-------
                             Contents

                                                                  Page

  I.   Background	     B-l

 II.   Purpose	     B-l

III.   Procedure	     B-2

 IV.   Mine Ponds	     B-3

  V.   Results	     B-4

 VI.   Conclusions	     B-5

       Reference 1 - Settleable Matter Procedure 	     B-9

       Reference 2 - Picture of an Imhoff Cone	  .     B-13

       Reference 3 - Method Detection Limits SP-SP
                     Reference Articles	     B-17

       Reference 4 - Field Results - Data Sheets	     B-39

       Reference 5 - Laboratory Results .....  	  .  .    B-51
                                 B-v
-------
-------
I.   Background

     In the  proposed  Coal  Mining Point  Source Category  Effluent
Limitations Guidelines  (40  CPR Part  434,  May 29,  1981),  Sections
434, 52, 53, 55 and 63, prepared by the U.S.  Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, a  limit  of 0.5 ml/1 for  settleable  solids  was speci-
fied for discharges from  reclamation areas for BPT,  BAT,  NSPS and
during precipitation  events  for  active  area  surface  drainage.
This limit  of  0.5 ml/1 was  established  based on  the  results  of
self-monitoring programs  in which  various, mines   sent  settleable
solids effluent data  to the U.S.  EPA.  Settleable  solids  readings
ranged from "0" to 1.0 ml/1.

     The method  employed  to  measure  settleable  solids  is  the
volumetric method outlined  in  Standard Methods and 304  (h)  of the
Agency's "Methods for Analysis  of  Water and Wastewater."  However,
the method for  settleable matter  determination,  specified in these
publications, states that "the practical lower limit of measurement
is about 1 ml/1."

     The purpose  of   this   study  was  to  further   investigate  the
precision and  accuracy  of  measuring  settleable  solids below  1.0
ml/1.  The  results  determined  the  method  detection  limit  for
settleable solids to be 0.4 ml/1.

Purpose

     In order  to  determine  the variability  and  repeatability  of
settleable solids measurements  around  0.5  ml/1,  a  test program was
planned to develop a  precision and accuracy  determination  for the
measurement of  less than  1  ml/1  of  settleable  solids  for active
area and reclamation area discharges from coal mines.

     Eight pond influents and effluents were sampled and settleable
solids tests were  run  for each pond.  Since overflows during rainfall
                                B-l
-------
periods could not be practically obtained, pond influents were used
to spike pond  effluents in  order to  obtain  settleable solids  of
less than one ml/1 for the purpose of  this  determination.  Concurrent
measurements and statistical analyses were  also  conducted  on the
samples by the Agency's  Environmental Monitoring and Support Labora-
tory in Cincinnati, Ohio.

III. Procedures

     To determine the variability at levels around 0.5 ml/1 settle-
able solids, a  certain  analytical and statistical methodology was
employed.  This program  involved  taking eight  samples  from various
mine drainage and  mining activities (varying  in geographical and
soil characteristics, etc.)  which   were  collected   for  study  and
measurement.  Seven replicates  of  each  sample were measured simulta-
neously in the field.   The  samples  were  also  measured for pH.  In
cases where the effluent levels from either  settling ponds or mine
drainage treatment  facilities  were  significantly   less  tha  0.5
ml/1, the  Influent  was   used to  spike the effluent  to provide  a
level of effluent within the desired range for  determining variabil-
ity, precision,  and accuracy.  The replicates of each sample were
then recombined into one container and shipped  to the Cincinnati
Laboratory in 7 to 8 liter volumes.   The laboratory  then also ran
seven replicates on each sample by the volumetric method.

     The Industry was contacted prior to this study  and,  in most
cases, made concurrent measurements  in the field.  This provided
three independent measurements, in the field,  for most samples.

     The analytical method was as specified in  the EPA adopted
Standards Methods procedure for settleable matter (See Reference 1).
This method employs an Imhoff cone (illustrated in Reference 2)
for analysis.  All the field data was forwarded to the Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory in Cincinnati (EMSL) where standard
                                 B-2
-------
calculations were performed to determine the lower levels of detec-
tion and variability.  The  same  statistics  were performed  on  the
laboratory results.  The  calculation procedures  are described  in
Reference 3.

IV.  Mine Ponds

     Three mine ponds in  the East and five in the West were tested.
     Mine Pond No. 1 - The pond is  a  preparation  plant  slurry  pond
                       associated  with a  surface mine and is located
                       in Central  West Virginia.

     Mine Pond No. 2 - The pond is a silt control structure downstream
                       of a slurry dam located at a deep mine  site
                       in West-Central Ohio.

     Mine Pond No. 3 - The pond  is used to settle treated  AMD and
                       is located  in West-Central  Pennsylvania.

     Western Miners

     All ponds  tested  were  located   in  North  Western Colorado.
Mine Pond  No.
                       - The  pond  collects  water mainly  from  a
                       reclamation area.    Some  water  also  enters
                       from a  disturbed area,
     Mine Pond No.  5  - This  pond  collects  runoff  from an  active
                       mining area  and  from surrounding  disturbed
                       areas.
     Mine Pond No. 6 -  Two  ponds receive water discharging  from  a
                       coal  crusher building and the area around the
                       building.
                                    B-3
-------
     Mine Pond No.  7  - This pond receives  runoff  from  a partially
                       revegetated reclamation area.  The  flow en-
                       ters the pond from various drainage ditches.
     Mine Pond No. 8
Water  from an active area is pumped to this
pond and  runoff  from  a  reclaimed  area  is
also collected in the pond.   The  water from
this pond  discharges to  a  secondary  pond
before final discharge to the  receiving  wa-
ters.
V.   Results

     A summary  of  the  results  obtained  in  the field  and  in  the
laboratory are presented in Table I.  The complete data is presented
in References 4 and 5»  It can be  seen that  the values  obtained in
the field were  higher than the laboratory  results  in all  but  one
case.  This difference, in the case of the higher field  values,  was
probably due to  the  physical set-up  for  obtaining the  results  in
the field.  The field  set-up was rather  crude  and  the  Imhoff cone
holder may not have been  perfectly level  when  the  tests  were run.

     In addition, a magnetic  stirrer  was  not available  for mixing
the sample and, in accordance with Standard Methods, the cones were
only stirred once after forty-five minutes to  loosen solids which
had deposited  on the  sides of the cone.  No  attempt  at "leveling"
wes made in the field.  The leveling procedure, described in Appendix
B, could  have  had  the  effect  of  reducing the  effects  of hindered
settling, thus  reducing the apparent  amount  of settleable solids
present.
     For Mine  Pond No.  3,  the  field  measurements of  settleable
solids were significantly lower than the laboratory readings.  This
pond was used  to  settle  neutralized  acid mine drainage in contrast
to the other ponds which removed solids carried by storm runoff arid
dry weather drainage.  The  neutralized AMD  effluent  contains iron
-------
hydroxides which,  under  certain  conditions,  form  a  voluminous
floe.  During the field tests only a  "pin-point"  floe  was  observed
in the Imhoff  cones  for Mine Pond No.  3 in  contrast  to  the heavy
floe reported  for  the laboratory  results.   The heavy  floe  formed
in the laboratory could have been caused by the use of the magnetic
stirrers which may  have produced  a  flocculating  action.    In  the
field the  2.5  gallon  containers  were  vigorously  shaken  which
probably broke up the floe into pin-point "size".

     The "large" floe particles  could  have  caused  the  hindered
settling because of  entralnment  of water due  to  the  clustering of
the large floe particles.   In contrast,  the pin-point  floe may have
allowed the  water  to separate  from the  settleable  solids  thus
resulting in lower  field values.

     The difference  between  the readings  of  the  seven cones  for
each Mine Pond are  apparently greater in the field data then in the
laboratory.  This is  probably due to two reasons, namely; the method
of mixing and decanting of  the  samples  to the seven cones  was  not
as precise in the field and  the  readings taken in  the  field were,
in most cases, to  only one  significant figure.   This  "problem" in
the field  readings  is probably  more representative  of what  will
happen when actual  field samples are  taken and measured.

     Therefore, we  have opted to use  only the field results to base
our conclusions on.   As  noted in Table  No.  1, the maximum  method
detection level is  0.40 ml/l/hr.  The mean of the standard  deviation
values is  0.08 ml/l/hr.   To obtain a 99% confidence level for both
the MDL and  the  standard deviation,  the standard  deviation would
have to be multiplied  by three  to  obtain a value  of  0.24  ml/l/hr.
This then  affirms   a  method  detection  limit  of  0.40   ml/l/hr.

Conclusions
     Based on field samples and analysis of  settleable  solids  both
in the field and in the laboratory, it was determined that values of

                               B-5
-------
settleable solids can be  read  with  a reasonable degree of accuracy
below 1.0 ml/l/hr using the volumetric  method  outlined in Standard
Methods and 304(h)  of the Agency's "Methods for Analysis  of Water
and Wastewater".  This method has been  used  for years to determine
the amount of  settleable  solids in  wastewater.  The  method states
that "the practical  lower limit of  measurement is  about  a  ml/1"
(increments between 0 and 1,0 ml/1) and upon observing the cones it
is obvious that  readings  can  be made below the  level  of 1.0 ml/1.
In fact, the method detection limit  for settleable  solids measure-
ments has been statistically determined  by this  study to  be  0.4
ml/1 for the coal mining industry.
                                B-6
-------
                                               TABLE NO. I
                                         SUMMARY OF COAL MINE POND
                                         SETTLEABLE SOLIDS TESTING
                                              IMHOFF CONE NO.
Mine
Pond
 No.   Obser,
        E
        C
        M
        L*
1
0.7
0.65
0.8
0.40/
0.50
0.30
0.40
0.45
0.38
0.1
0.1
0.13
0.50
0.6
0.5
'0.5
0.58
0.7
0.7
0.50/
0.45
0.7
0.7
0.50
0.2
0.3
0.15
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.12

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2-
.8
.85
.7
.40/
.55
.30
.40
.40
.35
.09
.09
.11
.55
.4
.4
.4
.60
.7
.7
,507
.40
.0
.0
.45
.3
.3
.12
.4
.4
.3
.15
3
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.40/
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.40
0.35
0.09
0.09
0.1
0.60
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.55
0.7
0.7
0.457
0.40.
0'. 9
0.9
0.48
0.4
0.4
0.10
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.15
4
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.38/
0.50
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.09
0.09
0.1
0.60
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.65
0.6
0.5
0.45/
0.40.
0.9
0.9
0.40
0.2
0.3
0.10
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.15

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
.7
.9
.9
.307
.40
.35
.30
.40
.30
.08
.09
.13
.50
.6
.6
.6
.60
.5
.5
.407
.42 '
.8
.7
.40
.2
.2
.12
.3
.3
.3
.12

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
.7
.75
.8
.35/
.50
.30
.35
.35
.25
.08
.09
.1
.55
.7
.7
.7
.50
.7
.8
.457
.42
,7
.7
.40
.3
.4
.12
.3
.3
.3
.15

0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
• 7 1
•7 !>
.6 J
.138/
.40
.30 ~'
.35 >
.4 _J
.28
.07 "I
.07 >
.09 J
.55
.9 "~j
.8 >
.9 _j
.55
-7 ~i
.7 >
.407
.40
.8 -1
•8 J
.40
.2 ~|
.2 f>
.10
-5 1
.5 >
.5 J
.12
Mean.

0.

0.
0.

0.

0.

0.
0.

0.

0.

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.

0.

0.

76

37/
46

36

32

094
55

56

58

65
45/
42
82
43

28
12

36

14
Std.
Dev.

0

0
0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0

0

. 09

.038/
.063

.043

.046

.015
. 041

.16

.048

.09
.041/
.092
.11
.043

.08
.018

.081

.016
MD

0

0
0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0

0


.23

+•*•/,
.20

.11

.14

.04
.13

.40

.15

.25
.137
.070
.30
.14

.21
.057

.20

.050
                                    DUPLICATE TESTS RUN IN LABORATORY

                                    E  -    EPA,   EGD  REPRESENTATIVE
                                    C  -    EPA CONTRACTOR
                                    M  -    MINE REPRESENTATIVE
                                    L  -    EPA LABORATORY
                                                       B-7
-------
-------
        REFERENCE 1



SETTLEABLE MATTER PROCEDURE
             B-9
-------
-------
Prom:   "Standard Methods  for  the Examination  of  Water  and Wastewater",
          Ulth edition,  1976,  APHA-AWWA-WPLF
                                 208 F.
               1. General Discussion
Settleabie Matter
      2. Apparatus
                 Settleabie matter in surface and saline
               waters as well as domestic and industrial
               wastes may be determined and reported
               on either a volume (milliliters per liter)
               or a weight (milligrams per liter) basis.
        The apparatus listed under Sections
      208 A.2  and 208 B.2, and an Imhoff
      cone, are required for a gravimetric test.
      The  volumetric test requires only an
      Imhoffeone.
               3. Procedure,
                 a.  By volume: Fill an Imhoff cone to
               the liter mark with a thoroughly mixed
               sample. Settle for 45 min, gently stir the
               sides  of the cone with a rod or by spin-
               ning, settle 15  min longer, and record
               the volume of settleable matter in the
               cone as milliliters per liter. The practical
               lower limits is about I ml/I/hr. Where
               a separation-of settleable and floating
               materials  occurs, do not  estimate the
               floating material. •
                 b.  By weight:
                 I) Determine the suspended matter
               (in milligrams per liter) in fhe sample as
               in Method D, preceding.
                 2)  Pour a  well-mixed sample into a
               glass  vessel not less than 9 cm in diame-
               ter. Use a sample of not less than I I and
      sufficient to give a depth of 20 cm. A
      glass vessel of greater diameter  and a
      larger volume of sample also may be
      used. Let stand quiescent for 1 hr and,
      without disturbing the settled or floating
      material that which may be floating,
      siphon  250 ml from the center of the
      container at  a point halfway between
      the surface of the settled sludge and the
      liquid surface. Determine the suspended
      matter (in milligrams per liter) in all or
      in a portion of this supernatant liquor as
      directed under Method  D. This is the
      n on sen ling matter.


      4. Calculation
           mg/l settleable matter
             -mg/1 suspended matter
               -mg/1 nonscntcable matter
                                                 B-ll
-------
-------
       REFERENCE 2
PICTURE OF AN IMHOFP CONE
          B-13
-------
-------
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION

    NCW VOW. N. Y.
                      1000
                     ACRYLONtTRJUE.
                          CONE
                    250
                    POLVETHYLeSJE
       ELEVATION
                 "
           « I")
                                                .5
                             CONE
USEIT?  IN COAL
                                       (FULU  SCALE.)
                                       L-tN
-------
-------
       REFERENCE 3



     METHOD DETECTION




LIMIT - REFERENCE ARTICLES
           B-17
-------
-------
                                Trace  analyses

                               for wastewaters
                 Method detection limit, a new performance criterion for
                 chemical analysis, is defined as that concentration of the
                analyte that can be detected at a specific confidence level.
                  Both theory and applications are discussed for reliable
                          wastewater analyses of priority pollutants
          John A. Glaser
          Denis L. Foerst
         Gerald D. McKee
         Stephan A. Quave
         William L. Budde
   U.S. Environmental Protection
             Agency
   Environmental Monitoring and
       Support Laboratory
       Cincinnati, Ohio 45268


   The development of trace analysis
 methodology brought with it a series of
 questions about method performance
 at low concentration  levels of analyte
 (t. 2,3). Under Section 304(h) of the
 Clean Water Act, as amended in 1977,
 (4) the Environmental Monitoring and
 Support Laboratory (EM&L) in Cin-
 cinnati is responsible for providing test
 procedures for the measurement of
 specified pollutants at  trace concen-
 trations in municipal and industrial
 wastewaters.
   A series of procedures was pub-
 lished in the Federal  Register for the
 analysis of the 129 priority pollutants
 (5). These procedures are designed to
 monitor direct discharges  from in-
 dustrial and publicly owned treatment
 works (POTW), sources under  the
 National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
 nation System (NPDES),  and dis-
 charges into a POTW  system under
 pretreatment regulations. The 304(h)
 monitoring methods for organic anal-
 yses are of two types:
   •  12 methods  designed  around
 gas-liquid and high performance liq-
 uid chromatography with  standard
 detectors and modest operational skill
 requirements for the permit holder
   • three methods that employ a mass
 spectrometer as a detector for multiple
 measurements with minimal interfer-
 ence.
   To  meet the needs associated with
 these methods for analysis of the pri-
ority pollutants, it was incumbent on
EMSL  to  develop  method perfor-
mance characteristics for these meth-
ods. As advocated  by  Wilson  (6),
method performance characteristics
are specified criteria that detail the
ability of a method to analyze for an-
alyte.
  Clearly, analyte detection is a fun-
damental criterion of performance for
an analytical system. Any analytical
system is constrained by an inability to
discern the signal due to noise from the
signal due to the presence of analyte at
low concentrations. The limit of de-
tection for a given analyte can be de-
fined as that concentration of the an-
alyte which can be detected at a spe-
cific confidence level.
  The concept of detection limit has
been the focus of debate  (7).  The
controversy generally centers on defi-
nitions that vary with the analyst (8).
Confusion  arises when instrumental
and method detection limits are com-
pared and sometimes  used inter-
changeably (9). Moreover, detection
and determination have also been
conceptually intertwined by some in-
vestigators (10). Although definitions
of the detection limit for  a given ana-
lyte vary, investigators concur that the
detection limit should be related to the
standard deviation of the measured
values at or near zero concentration of
the analyte (;/).
  There is no doubt that the detection
limit is one  of the most important
performance characteristics of an an-
alytical procedure. In most cases, a
detection limit must be viewed as a
temporary limit to current method-
ology.

Complete analytical system
  Ostensibly, analysts do not directly
observe concentrations of analyte. The
measurements of the transducer signal,
which are related to the analyte con-
centration, are actually observed. In
any analytical system, information
concerning the identity and quantity of
an analyte is contained in the analyti-
cal signal, which depends on a large
number of  experimental  variables.
Since these variables contain a random
component, the analytical signal will
also have a random component char-
acterized by a probable uncertainty.
Some part of an averaged signal must
be a function of the true analytc con-
centration. Analysis of the signal pre-
cludes  the ability of the analyst to
discern the fluctuations of the back-
ground from the average value of the
analytical signal for a given concen-
tration of analyte.
  The  relationship  between  back-
ground noise and analytical signal has
been studied by many authors; their
work has helped to develop the defini-
tion and evaluation of the detection
limit. A point of reference is necessary
to specify the sources of background
noise contributing to the overall ana-
lytical signal. Kaiser (12) has been a
major "figure in this development. He
has centered his thoughts on the de-
tection  limit of a "complete analytical
procedure."  Such a  procedure  or
method is specified in every detail by
1426  Environmental Science & Technology
     This article not subiect to U.S. Copyright. Published 1961 American Chemical Society
          B-19
-------
fixtJ working directions (order of
analysis) and is directed for use it a
particular analytical task. The specif-
ics of •  "complete analytical proce-
dure" include a predetermination of
everything associated with the ana-
lytical task: the apparatus, the external
conditions,  the  experimental proce-
dure, the evaluation of results, and
calibration of the analytical system.
Thompson and  Howarth (13)  have
expanded this concept to develop an
analytical system that comprises:
   • a set of samples of the analyte in
a specific matrix
   • an  exactly defined analytical
procedure
  •  the particular  instrumentation
used.
  The purpose for developing a pro-
cedure to evaluate detection limits was
lo design a methodology not limited by
instrumentation or analytical meth-
odology. For pragmatic reasons, we
focused on an operational definition of
detection limit. The analytical meth-
odology for priority pollutants served
as a basis for the concepts concerning
the method detection limit  (MDL).
Each of the methods comprising this
methodology is designed to constitute
a "complete analytical procedure" or
"complete analytical system." Integral
to these concerns was an  attempt to
       specify a parameter for performance
       measurement of each method of anal-
       ysis.
          The method detection limit refers to
       samples processed through all the steps
       comprising an  established analytical
       procedure.  The  fundamental differ-
       ence between our approach to detec-
       tion limit  and former efforts is the
       emphasis on 4he operational charac-
       teristics  of the  definition. MDL  is
       considered  operationally meaningful
       only when the  method is truly in the
       detection mode,  i.e., analyte must be
       present. The method detection limit is
       defined as the minimum concentration
defi
of a
       o a substance that can be identified,
       The MDL can be presented M an
    «ror distribution. The definition of MDU
    Implies that, on an average. 89% of
    the trials measuring the analyte con-
    e*ntration at the MDL must be signifi-
    cantly different from zero anal/la
    concentration.  A one-sided test  to
    performed to  evaluate this hypoth-
    esis.
       This graphical description of MDL to
    based on the assumptions that the
    «MTor distribution associated with th*
    analytical measurement. In •  suffi-
    ciently large neighborhood proximal*
    to the MDL. has a relatively homoge-
    neous variance and Is normally dis-
    tributed.  A sufficiently large neigh-
    borhood Is specified to accommodate
    our  recommendations (or the  Initial
    estimate of the MDU
       Basic to these concepts ft the as-
    sumption that the variability of an an-
    alytical measurement, as measured by
    the standard deviation  an error distribution
              Theory
 can be approximated by a polynomial
 of degree M
 ffc " *o **• fciC
                                (1)
    Since economic  considerations
 demand that the MDL be determined
 with a limited number of analyses, the
 standard deviation Sc  employed In
 these calculations Is an estimate of the
 population standard deviation a* V the
 mass of the standard addition (spike)
 to measured accurately, the coeffi-
 cients and Intercept for the polynomial
 model may be estimated by linear re-
 gression. This model can be truncated
 to a first order equation:
           S. -
(2)
    The form of the error distribution
 associated with these considerations
 Is Irrelevant, but we assumed that the)
 number of Independent error compo-
 nents, associated with most analytical
 systems, will be large enough to In-
 voke the central   limit  theorem.
 Therefore, the normal distribution will
 be a good approximation of the error
 distribution associated with any ana-
 lytical determination (16. 17}.
    To help avoid a negative estimate of
 Jfe, the regression equation can be
 transformed by dividing through by
 C.
                                                       £+*<
                                0)
          Measure? analyta concentration
  A regression on S«/C vs. 1/C will yield
  the estimated slope fco and the Inter-
  cept *|. The estimate of the'slope
  should be less sensitive to nonrandom
  errors than the Intercept estimate.
  Hence. • negative estimate of ft* often
  may be avoided.
    Since a limited number of samples
  wttl be taken at each concentration.
  ttte error distribution of this sampling
      to expected to be approximated by a
      student's t distribution. By defining ^
                                                    V(N)
                                                          1/1
      then
                   «,    c          <«>
      and the  regression  equation  be-
      comes:
               IMWi   *.
                                     (6)

      The regression equation Is now In a
      form compatible to find MDL, such
      that
                                                       df, 1-tt-
      or

      MDL
                   rf. l-o-.M) ftp
                                     (7)
         H must be emphasized that *« Is
      conceptually no longer the  sample
      standard deviation at zero concentra-
      tion, a concept which necessitates the
      possibility of negative analytical re-
      sponses at zero concentration of ana-
      lyte. Now kg Is the linear trend In the
      regression of (N)1"/fc vs. 1/C. which
      In practical terms means that analyti-
      cal responses at zero concentration
      a/a not necessary or Implied In the
      determination 01 MDL For obvious
      economic reasons, the equation tor
      MDL can be reduced to:

           MX - f<*-i«.1-,-jijS.   (8)

      by setting the Intercept ft, to be equal
      to zero and setting V(M1/7 equal to
      Se, where Sc refers to the standard
      deviation of replicate determination*
      at a fUed concentration.
                                                      B-20
                                                                           yok*na 15. NunberlJ. December 19(1  WIT
-------
 measured,  and reported  with
 confidence  that the analyte concen-
 tration is greater than zero and is de-
 termined from replicate analyses of a
 sample of a given matrix  containing
 anaiyte (14).

 Single step procedure
   The  procedure  for determining
 MDL is based on the analysis of seven
 samples of the matrix containing an-
 alyte. If the MDL is to be determined
.in reagent (blank) water, a laboratory
 standard  of the analyte in reagent
 water is prepared at a concentration at
 least equal to or in the same concen-
 tration range as the estimated  MDL.
 We recommend that the analyte be
 added to the water to give a final con-
 centration between one and five times
 the estimated MDL. When the MDL
 is to be determined in a sample matrix
 other than reagent water, analysis of
 the sample background ii reqnired..
   If the measured  level of analyte is
 less than the estimated MDL, the an-
 alyte is spiked into the matrix to bring
 the level of analyte to a concentration
 between one and five times the esti-
 mated MDL. Should the .measured
 level of analyte be greater than five
 times the estimated MDL, two options
 exist:
   • the analyst is required to  obtain
another sample of the same  matrix
with a lower level of analyte present
  •  the sample may be used as is for
the MDL determination if the analyte
level  does  not exceed  10 times the
MDL of  the analyte in reagent
water.
  The error variance of the analytical
method changes as the analyte con-
centration   increases  above  MDL.
Hence, MDL values determined in a
matrix containing a high analyte con-
centration  may not  truly  reflect
method error variance at lower analyte
concentrations.
  A  minimum of seven  aliquots of
matrix are processed thro.ugh  the en-
tire analytical method and  the MDL is
calculated.  All concentration calcu-
lations are made according to the de-
fined method, with  final results ex-
pressed in the method reporting units.
If a blank measurement is required to
calculate the measured level of ana-
lyte, the analyst must obtain a separate
blank measurement for each  sample
aliquot analyzed. The average blank
measurement is subtracted from the
respective sample measurements.
  It may be economically and techni-
cally desirable to evaluate the esti-
mated MDL before proceeding with
the analysis of the seven atiquots. This
will prevent repeating the entire pro-
 cedure and ensure that the MDL de-
 termination is being conducted at the
 correct concentration. It is quite pos-
 sible that an incorrect MDL could be
 calculated from data obtained at many
 times the actual MDL even though the
 level of analyte would be less than five
 times the calculated method detection
 limit.
   To ensure that the estimate of the
 method detection limit is a good esti-
 mate, the analyst must determine that
 a lower concentration of analyte will
 not result in a significantly lower cal-
 culated MDL. We recommend initial
 analysis of two aliquots of the sample
 for this purpose. Should  these mea-
 surements indicate that the sample is
 in the desirable range for the MDL
 determination, five additional aliquots
 are processed  through the MDL pro-
 cedure. If the sample is not in the cor-
 rect range,  the MDL must be reesti-
 mated and seven new aliquots of the
 sample  matrix  processed   as  de-
 scribed.
   The standard deviation  of the seven
 replicate measurements is calculated
 and the MDL is commuted as
    MDL «

where:
                               c  (9)
             t(N-\,l-a~.99)
       This theory Is tested by collecting
     data from a limited number of samples
     at a single  concentration estimated to
     be In a sufficiently large neighborhood
     proximate  to the MDL. The directions
     given to guide the analyst In estimating
     the MDL are the following:
       • the  concentration value  that
     corresponds to an Instrument signal/
     noise In the range of 2.5-5. If the cri-
     teria for qualitative Identification of the
     analyte is based upon pattern recoft-
     nltlon techniques, the least abundant
     signal necessary to achieve identifi-
     cation must be considered
       * the  concentration value  that
     corresponds to three times the stan-
     dard deviation of replicate Instrumental
     measurements for the anatyte In-re-
     agent water
       * the  concentration value  that
     corresponds to the region of the stan-
     dard curve where there Is a significant
     change In sensitivity at low analyte
     concentrations. I.e.. a break In the
     slope of the standard curve
       • the  concentration value  that
     corresponds to  known  Instrumental
     limitations.
        Testing the theory

    The analyst's experience Is not In-
  tended to supersede any of the other
  considerations, but tt does provide for
  crucial input of any relevant back-
  ground with which a decision can be
  reached If the other directions for es-
  timation are either Inoperative or do
  not give a clear choice for estimating
  the MDL.
    Invoking these criteria for estimation
  of the MDL Involves a risk such that If
  the initial estimates of the MDL are not
  proximate to the (true) MDL, the cal-
  culated MDL will be much In error. The
  assumptions involved in the estimation
  of the MDL can be tested In one of two
  ways:
    1.  The estimated MDL Is aqua! to
  the calculated MDL. If the 95% confi-
  dence Interval of the calculated MDL
  contains the estimated MDL value.
    2.  If the condition set forth In Item
  1 Is  not  satisfied, then an Iterative
  procedure,  where the most recent
  calculated MDL value Is used as the
  next estimated MDL, must be used until
  the variances of successive Iterations
  do not differ using the F test.
    Clearly, the MDL Is prescribed by
any attending Instrumental detection
limits. The procedure to determine the
MDL was designed to apply to a wide
variety of sample matrices ranging
from reagent (blank) water containing
analyte to wastewater containing an-
alyte. Thus, the MDL for an analytical
procedure may vary as a function of
the sample type (matrix). The devel-
oped procedure requires a complete,
specific, and well-defined analytical
method. All sample processing steps
of the analytical method must be In-
cluded In the determination of the
method detection limit.
   A crucial point Is that the MDL for a
given analyte In a given matrix does
not preclude  quar.tttatlon below the
MDL. However,  when  quantltatlon
below MDL ts pursued, the confidence
interval estimate of an analyte con-
centration below MDL will be greater
than at MDL for a given confidence
level and a given analytical effort. In
other words, It would require a greater
number of samples to analyze for an
analyte concentration below MDL to
achieve the same confidence limits
attached to the MDL,
1428  Environmental Selene* & Technology
-------
is the student's / value for u one-tailed
test at the 99% confidence level with
yV —  1 degrees of freedom. Sc is the
standard deviation of the seven repli-
cate  analyses. Confidence-interval
estimates for the MDL are computed
using pcrcentiles of the chi square over
degrees  of  freedom   distribution
(X /#)• The 95% confidence limits for
the MDL are computed  in Equations
lOand II:
UCLwDL
         > MDL
   '.025
                   LCL
                        MDL
                     P.97S
                              (10)
where the perccniilc values  are ob-
tained from the xV^/distribution for
the associated  degrees  of freedom
LCLMDL = 0.64 MDL
         = 2.20 MDL
                              l   }
  The confidence limit expressions
reduce to Equation 1 1 where LCLMot
and UCLwoL are the lower and upper
95% confidence limits of  the  MDL
based upon the analysis of seven ali-
quots.

Iterative procedure
  An additional procedure is pre-
sented to test the reasonableness of the
MDL estimate and subsequent MDL
determinations  on the same matrix.
The initial calculated MDL is tested
by spiking the matrix at the calculated
MDL and processing the seven sam-
ples through the entire MDL proce-
dure.  At each iteration of the  MDL
calculation,  the variance  from  the
current  MDL  calculation and  the
variance of the proceeding  MDL cal-
culation are compared by computing
the F-ratio, which is compared with
the tabulated F-ratio, F0.9S(6,6> ~ 3.05.
If the computed F-ratio is less than
3.05, then the pooled standard devia-
tion is calculated using the standard
deviation of the current MDL deter-
mination and the proceeding iteration.
The MDL is then calculated in Equa-
tion 12:

      MDL « 2.68 1  XSpoo,ed   (12)

where:

2.681 is equal tot(i2. i-a-.99)
    and
The confidence levels for the M DL of
the iterative procedure are computed
from the percent iles of the chi squared
over degrees of freedom distribution
with degrees of freedom (N « 12)
based on 14 aliquots. Two degrees of
freedom are lost in the calculating of
the averages of the two ^eta. of seven
                              aliquots.
                                 The confidence limit expression for
                              the MDL based on the iterative pro-
                              cedure reduces to
                                    LCLMDL = 0.72 MDL
                                    UCLMDL«  1.65 MDL
                              (13)
where LCLMDL and UCLMDL (13)
are the lower and upper 95% confi-
dence limits of the MDL based on the
analysis of 14 aliquots.
   When'the analyte is present in the
matrix at a relatively "high" concen-
tration, measurement of the MDL is
not meaningful. If the analyte is found
at a relatively "low" level in the sample
matrix, the sample at that analyte
concentration may be used as* the inn
tial estimate of the MDL, and the
sample aliquots processed through the
MDL procedure. However, if the cal-
culated MDL is lower than the back-
ground level of analyle present in that
matrix, the iterative procedure cannot
be used. Convergence of the iterative
procedure will depend on the closeness
of the estimated MDL, or  the back-
ground level of analyte  present in the
matrix, to the calculated MDL.

Reporting information
   The analytical method used must be
specifically identified by number or
title and the MDL for each analyte
expressed in the appropriate method
reporting  units. If the  analytical
method permits options affecting the
method detection limit, such options
must be specified with the MDL value.
The analyst must also report the mean
analyte level and specify the matrix
used with the MDL. If a laboratory
standard or a sample that contained a
known amount of analyte was used for
this determination, the mean recovery
must also be reported.  If the level of
analyte in the sample is below the de-
termined MDL or does not exceed 10
times the MDL of the  analyte in  re-
agent water,  no MDL value is  re-
ported.

Applications
   Method detection data  were col-
lected for the organic priority pollutant
methods and are displayed in Tables
 1-5.  Data for Method 603-acrolcin
and aery Itm it rife are currently un-
available. The earlier estimates of de-
lection limits cited in Reference 5 were
based solely  on signal-to-noise cri-
teria.
   Some of the reported MDL values
in the  tables are at concentrations
higher than had been anticipated. Low
values for MDL are closely tied to the
learning curve of each method. Expe-
.rience has demonstrated that the an*
 alyst who has  extensive  experience
with a,given method is more likely i,
generate lower MDL values than an
analyst with only cursory experience
with the method.
  The optional iterative scheme was
developed as a response to high MDL
values in  these tables. These larger
values are attributed  to a  mistaken
estimate of the MDL. The closeness of
the initial estimate to the final calcu-
lated MDL is a critical concern  in
using this procedure. The tables are
organized according to each method
and its  particular set of  analytes.
Background, spike level, percent re-
covery, and matrix types are included
as specified in the  reporting require-
ments for the MDL.
  Some analytes in Tables 2 and 3
gave  wastewater background levels
that range from 18 to 90000 times
larger than  the Tespective reagent
water MDL value;  therefore, no
wastewater MDL value should be re-
ported.  However, the  wastewater
MDL values are included to illustrate
that the MDL  procedure  can  give
meaningless values when the analyte
or analyte plus interference is present
at levels much larger than 10 times the
MDL value in reagent water.
  For these analytes,  the calculated
wastewater MDL values averaged 240
times larger (range 6 to 1150) than the
respective reagent water MDL value.
There are analytes in Table  2  that
exhibited  wastewater background
levels that range from 0.8 to 8 times
the respective MDL value in reagent
water. The  MDL procedure  gave
meaningful values  for these analytes
since the wastewater  MDL  values
avenged 2 lime<> larger (range 0.4 to
9) than  the respective reagent water
MDL values.

Method 602—purgeablc aromatics
  This is not a purge-and-trap method
using packed column gas chromatog-
raphy and a photoionization detector.
The M DL values listed in 1 able 1 for
the purgcable  aromatics  are quite
reasonable for reagent water although,
except for toluene, the recoveries are
consistently  over  100%. The MDL
values calculated for the two waste-
waters are derived from background
analyte levels when the analyte was
present in the wastewater  and  from
spike levels when absent. Recoveries
and MDL values for analytes spiked
into wastewater  No. 1 are reasonable
but the MDL  value based  on the
background  concentration  of 1,2-di-
chlorobcnzene is not. the MDL value
for 1,2-dichlorobcnzene reflects a large
variation in  the analyte background
level. However, 'he MDL vali,^ loses
i'    -     r"nce ihe analyte is present
                                                B-22
                                                                 Volume 15, Number 12. December 1981  1429
-------
     TABU 1
     Method detection limit for purgeable aromattcs as analyzed by Method 602 (S2)
Naagont valar
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
CMorobenzerw
1,2-OJchtorobenzene
l.&CHchtorobenzene
1.4-Oichlorobenzene
•pit*
0.5
0.6
6.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Avorag*
131
•0
120
120
120
.120
140
HDL
(W/U
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
.Background
-. 0.4
s.e«
0.0
0.0
34"
0.0
0-0
Waatowalar No. 1 • Wortoi
hwal
0.0
0.0
O.fi
0.5
0.0
•0.6
0.5
Aworaga
• •_•
-.__
100
60
• —
80
;*°
MOL
(WA)
1.74
1.55
0.2
0.2
20°
0.3
0.4
Background
41.
938
TO
'09
1.8
i.e
7
•pMa
lavol
(MflA)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MtarKo. I*
taoovory- (paA)
— 30.0«
— 230"'
— 34«
— 197°
— 0.4*
— 1.0
— 1.7*
     • Effluent Irwn chamlcal Mtmedato manufacturer.
     * Effluent from rubber, plutlclzers and specialty chemicals manufacturing faculty
     •Background greetar than 10 times calculated MX In reagent water.
in determinable quantities. The M Di-
va lues in wastewater No. 2 are simi-
larly inflated.

Method 605—benzidines
  This is a  HPLC method using re-
verse-phase  chromatography and an
electrochemical detector. The MDL
value for benzidine in reagent water
was determined  using an  electro-
chemical detector pole.jtial of +0.8 V
vs. S.C.E., while in the two wastewa-
ters, the MDL was determined using
a potential of 0.6 V due to the presence
of interfering peaks at 0.8 V. Reducing
the potential gives more specificity for
benzidine but also lowers the instru-
mental sensitivity. Dichlorobenzidine
was determined at +0.8 V in all ma-
trices. The estimated MDLs published
with the earlier version of this method
(5) have nearly been achieved. In the
reagent water and wastewater No. 1,
the MDLs are within a factor  of two of
those originally estimated, while for
wastewater  No. 2 they are  approxi-
mately a factor of 4 higher  for ben-
zidine and  a factor of 2 higher for
dichlorobcnzidinc.   Recoveries  of
60-70% for benzidine and 50-70% for
dichlorobenzidine  were  achieved,
similar to those obtained in the original
method development. To achieve these
MDLs, it was important to eliminate
all oxidizing agents from the sample
matrix. Residual  chlorine, which is
recognized as a notorious oxidant, was
decomposed by adding 35 mg/L so-
dium thiosulfate to each wastewater
and reagent  water. The reagent water
was adjusted to a neutral pH prior to
spiking the sample matrix with ana-
lyte.
  The low recoveries at low spiking
levels are probably due to oxidation
during sample processing. Since such
oxidation reactions are overall second
order processes (first order  in  both
oxidant and amine), low recovery of
the amine can occur at low concen-
trations of analyte and relatively large
concentration of oxidants.

Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs
  Method 608 is a GC method using
packed  column chromatography and
an electron capture detector (ECD).
The MDL valued of the pesticide and
PCB analytes in reagent water listed
are generally equal to or lower than
those reported as estimates with the
earlier  version  of this  method  (5).
Heptachlor cpoxide analysis exhibited
anomalous behavior in reagent water.
This resulted from the presence of an
interfering chromatographic peak that
clearly coeluted with the compound,
thus requiring blank measurements. In
many instances, the level of this in-
terference did not remain constant but
was variable for the aliquots of a given
matrix.  In this case, the blank did not
necessarily represent the background
concentration of the interfering species
in the sample. By averaging the back-
ground, we assume that a more reliable
measure of the background  is ob-
tained.
  The basic approach to determining
MDLs in wastewater was the same as
for  reagent water. However,  in the
       presence of coeluting or interfering
       substances, the analyst chose to modify
       the  MDL procedure. In s.ome cases,
       when the water contained pesticide or
       PCB analytes, direct calculation of the
       standard deviation was prevented by
       coeluting, interfering materials. Large
       fluctuations in the background were
       observed, which attenuated the utility
       of the blank measurements.
         Since the response of an interfering
       species and anaiyte was being  mea-
       sured, the variability of the response
       represented the total variability due to
       both compounds. In this case the cor-
       rected variance of the sample, calcu-
       lated by subtracting the variance of the
       background from the variance due to
       the  analyte  plus  background  was
       used to calculate the MDL. Two ana-
       lytes in wastewater No. 1, endosulfan
       sulfate  and -y-BHC, required  this
       treatment.  In wastewater No. 2, this
       alternate scheme of variance calcula-
       tion was used for 0-BHC, 5-BHC,
       •y-BHC, endosulfan sulfate,  aidrin,
       and endosulfan  II.  The MDLs in
       wastewater No. 1 are fairly consistent
       but  considerably higher  than the re-
       agent  water MDL values. The MDL
       values for wastewater No. 2 compare
       more favorably to the reagent water
       than do those from wastewater No. 1,
    TABl£ 2
    Method detection limit for benzidines as analyzed by
    Method 605 (24)
  Compound

Beruldlne
Dichtorobenzkflne
                                             W0.1*
                                     MOi.  r*oo**ry   MDL  i*cov*qr
                     0.60
                     0.60
62
60
0.08
0.13
74
72
0.06 •
0.09
74
69
0.19
0.22
    * Pigment manufacturing waauwatar.
    * Aniline manufacturing wattowwtw.
    * Background we* 0.06 jig/L,
1430  Environmental Science & Technology
            B-23
-------
    TABLE !»
    Method detection limits for pesticides and polychlorlnated blphenyls as analyzed by method
    f r0
                     %#• level Amr*0»
  MDL   •Mkflreund
•pike level  Average %
  
Average %  MDL
    « Effluent from a pesticide manufacturing plant.
    * Effluent from an organic* and pla*tlcs manufacturing plant
    •Background greater than 10 times MDL In reagent water.
ff-BHC
0-8HC
J-BHC
7-BHC
DOD
ODE
DDT
Endosutfanl
EndosutfanH
Endoeulfan sulfate
HeptteNor
Heptaehlor epoxkto
AJdrln
DWdrin
Endrin
Chtordana
Toxaphene
PC81242
9.6
24.0
19.6
17.2
62.0
24.0
70.0
25.2
48.0
272.0
11.6
18.4
14.4
30.4
43.2
162.0
166.0
188.0
99
97
91
103
100
96
99
72
97
81
91.
153
84
100
101
99
99
90
.003 260"
.006 —
.009 —
.004 —
.011 —
.004. —
.012 —
.014 —
.004 —
.066 —
JOGS —
.083 —
.004 —
.002 —
.006 31C
.014
.235
.065
0.0
30.0
43.0
20,0
62.0
20.0
60.0
46,0
12.0
160,0
6,0
A5.0
20,0
6,0
0,0



164
84
320
77
129
76
76
37
105
715
155
140
276
—



0.184«
0.059
0.062
0.283
0.031
0.038
0.049
0.061
0.009
0.30
0.055
0.148
0.055
0.017
0.079°



14.0
30.0-
43.0
20.0
62.0
20.0
69.0
73.0
21.0
329.0
18.0
65.0
20.0
13.0
32.0



72
94
94
101
79
71
71
99
60
94
89
80
'80
107
70



0.013
0.011
0.023
0.007
0.029
0.008
0.030
0.056
0.013
0.262
0.009
0.021
0.0054
0.010
0.031



and reflect the tower background of
electron  capture-sensitive materials
present in wastewater No. 2.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
  Method  610 is  a   reverse-phase
HPLC method using UV and fluores-
cence detectors. From the  data in
Table 4, it is obvious that both recovery
and precision  for most of the PAHs
were good, generally ±10% precision
and 90-100% recovery, in all matrices.
Fluoranthene was the only analyte that
was significantly different. In one ali-
quot of reagent water, the result for
fluoranthene  was  nearly twice the
spike level. There is a possibility that
this aliquot was doubly  spiked; this
would explain the unexpected accre-
tion of analyte. Hence, the MDL for
fluoranthene  in reagent  water  is
skewed toward a higher concentration
because  of the higher value of the
standard deviation.  Precision and re-
covery data for fluoranthene in the two
waslewaters, one of which had  a de--
tectable background level of fluoran-
thene, were considerably better than in
reagent water.
   The fluoranthene MDL data for the
wastewaters is probably a better indi-
cation of the precision of the method,
providing that blank contamination is
not  a  problem. The  single reagent
water aliquot  giving a high result for
fluoranthene was probably contami-
nated  in  some  way. On  occasion,
fluoranthene has been observed at low
concentration levels in reagent water;
this points to fluoranthene as being the
PAH analyte most likely to  present
contamination problems. This obser-
vation is more credible since fluoran-
thene is a highly fluorescent compound
under Method 610 assay conditions,
and is one of the most commonly found
PAHs in environmental samples.
   The MDL values obtained for the
PAH analytes  in  these three water
matrices are all equal to or lower than
those estimated  in the earlier version
of the method (except for fluoranthene
in reagent water).

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodihenzo-p-
dioxin30
   Method 613 is a gas chromatogra-
phy/mass  spectrometry  (GC/MS)
method that requires use of a capillary
column,  which  uniquely  separates
2,3,7,8-TCDD   from the  other  21
TCDD isomers and specifies operating
the MS detector in the selected ion
monitoring  mode  (SIM) of  data
acquisition.   The   MDL   value
for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-di-
oxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) in reagent water
is 0.002 Mg/L and  is slightly lower
than  the detection limit  given in the
earlier version of this method (5). The
                   spiking level in reagent water was 5.0
                   ng/L, which gave an average recovery
                   of 95%.
                     This method has  extremely high
                   selectivity and sensitivity for 2,3,7,8-
                   TCDD.  Qualitative identification is
                   based on pattern recognition using the
                   ratio of the response for the ions at m/z
                   320,322, and 257. The seven aliquots
                   of reagent water  at 5 ng/L gave an
                   average ratio of 0.79 ± 0.04 for the
                   ions at m/z 320 and 322.
                     The response for the ion at m/z 257
                   is approximately 30% of the response
                   for the ion at m/z 322. Refinement of
                   the MDL value through reiteration of
                   the MDL procedure using a spiking
                   level of 2 ng/L will demonstrate that
                   the MDL  is not  significantly lower
                   than 2 ng/L and will also demonstrate
                   that qualitative identifications can be
                   made if the 2,3,7,8-TCDD concen-
                   tration is 2 ng/L.

                   Base/neutrals, acids & pesticides
                      This  GC/MS method employs
                   packed columns and requires operating
                   the MS detector  in a repetitive scan
                   mode for data acquisition. The reagent
                   water MDL values for 62 of the 72
                   analytes in Method 625  are given in
                   Table 5. All MDL values are lower
                   than the detection limits specified in
                   the earlier version of this method (5).
                   The table includes values for PCB-
                                                 B-24
                                                                        Volume 15. Number 12, December 1961   1431
-------
     TABLE 4
     Method detection limit for polycycllc
      aromatic hydrocarbons as analyzed by Method 610 (27)

                                  •tttMo.1*       WMUw.tw Mo.2*
»«-.
Napthalene
Aoenaphthytene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenarrthrene
Anthracene
Fkioranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)-anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(6)-fluorarrthene
Ben2o(fc}-fluoranthene
&enzo(A>pyrene
Dibenzo(a,n}-anthracene
Benzotff, h, 0-perylene
lndeno{ 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
• Refinery effluent.
* Coke oven «tt kient.
"SUr
4.1
8.0
4.9
0.80
2.0
2.4
0.084
0.86
0.061
0.81
0.84
0.084
0.81
0.098
0.40
0.15


*=tr
104
05
100
85
95
96
130
98
93
95
97
95
81
88
83
93


MM.
Own.)
1.8
2.3
1.8
0.21
0.64
0.66
0.21
0.27
0.01
0.15
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.04


*3ty
83
90
08
93
95
96
107
103
93
95
98
93
96
102
98
93


MDL
O«/l>
1.2
2.4
1.5
0.22
0.61
0.52
0.02
0.13
0.01
0..10
6.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.08
0.03


Avwap* %
80
86
90
95
90
92
114
98
94
96
98
95
95
$12
98
93


MDL
OWL)
2.9
4.0
1.4
0.25
0.79
0.99
0.08
0.26
0.02
0.18
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.13
0.04


1221  and PCB-1254  that were  not
specified before.
   During the MDL study for Method
625, concentration was done using the
optional nitrogen blow-down instead
of the second micro Kuderna-Danish
concentration. Recoveries ranged from
28-94% for the 62 analytes studied;
however, only eight analytes gave an
average recovery larger than the re-
covery for thai analyte in Methods 604
through 612. There were two instances
where the calculated MDL was larger
than the spike level. Nineteen values
are based on the analysis of eight or 10
aliquots.
  Overall, it is best to view the MDL
values  in Table 5 as  initial  values
subject to refinement through iteration
of the MDL procedure. Since  the
qualitative  identification scheme  for
this mass spectrometer method relies
on lower abundance ions with variance
not reflected in the calculation of the
MDL value, it is possible that quali-
tative verification might not be made
when the analyle is present at a con-
centration  in the  neighborhood of
MDL. This  is another reason to pursue
an iteration of the MDL procedure for
Method 625.
  Comparing the reagent water MDL
values for the phenolic analytes com-
mon to both Methods 604 and 625
shows  that  only 4-nilrophcnol  and
pentachlorophenol  gave lower MDL
values in Method 625.
  4-Nitrophenol was  spiked  at  10
      in the MDL  study for Method
625 and at 15.4 jig/L for the Method
604 study. The corresponding spike
levels for pentachlorophenol were 10
Mg/L and 21 ng/L. Thus, the inter-
action between instrumental sensitivity
and spiking level can be seen to have an
effect on the calculated MDL. The
remaining  phenolic  analytes gave
MDL values for Method 625 that were
between 1.5  and 11 times larger than
the corresponding values in Method
604.
  The reagent water MDL value for
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine in Method 625
is 250 times  larger than that value in
Method 605. Since the average re-
coveries for this analyte are approxi-
mately equal in  both methods, this
large difference reflects instrumental
differences  in both  sensitivity and
chromatography.  As a rule, amines
chromatograph much  better under
reverse-phase HPLC conditions than
gas chromatography conditions. No
MDL value  for benzidine is reported
with Method 625 because of losses
experienced  in the drying and con-
centration steps.
  In those cases in which the phlha-
lates were spiked at  higher concen-
trations in the Method  625  MDL
study compared to the Method 606
study, the MDL values were approxi-
mately four to seven times higher than
the Method  606 MDL values. Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate  was  spiked at
nearly identical concentrations in both
MDL studies and gave nearly identical
MDL values. Di-n-octy! phthalate was
spiked at a lower concentration in the
Method 625 MDL study and gave a
slightly lower MDL value compared to
Method 606.
  Method 625 and Method 606 show
opposite trends in the average recovery
of the phthalates. In Method 625 re-
covery increases with increasing re-
tention time, but decreases with in-
creasing retention time in Method 606.
All Method 625 M DL values are close
to the spiking values; therefore, itera-
tion of the MDL procedure for the
phthalates may not  result in much
different MDL values.
  The nilroso analyte in the Method
625  MDL study exhibits an MDL
value consistent with the differences in
instrumental   sensitivity between
Method  625 and Method  607.  In
Method 625, the spiking level was 12
times higher than in Method 607 and
the calculated  MDL value  was  17
limes higher.
  The pesticide analytes that survive
the basic extraction step of Method
625 show MDL values between 27 and
1400 times higher than  the corre-
sponding values in Method 608. Hep-
tachlor  epoxide displayed the least
difference and 4,4'-DDE displayed the
greatest difference. The average re-
covery in the Method 625 MDL study
is generally lower than that in Method
608; however, no recovery was greater
than 100%, as was the case in Method
608. The pesticides a-BHC, -y-BHC,
endosulfan 1, endosulfan II, and cndrin
were lost durinp. the basic extnclion
1432  Environmental Science & Technology
                                              B-25
-------
step.  Large differences in  deleclor
sensitivity are responsible for the large
differences in MDL between Method
625 and 608.
  The MDL values for nitrobenzene
and isophorone again show the inter-
play between  the original estimate of
MDL and the subsequent value of the
calculated MDL. In Method 625, both
analytes  were spiked  into reagent
water at concentrations lower than
that used in Method 609 and each gave
a lower MDL value. Since there is not
a great deal of difference between in-
strumental-sensitivity in this case, it is
not surprising that the lower estimate
for MDL resulted in a lower calculated
MDL. In contrast, the dinitrotoluene
analytes gave MDL values that were
220 and 320 times larger in Method
625 compared to Method 609. This
difference is attributed to the large
differences  between   instrumental
sensitivity in these two methods.
  Method 625  MDL values for the
first three  eluting  PAH  analytes
(naphthalene,  acenaphthalenc,  and
acenaphthylenc) are very similar to the
values obtained for Method 6 i 0. These
three analylcs are detected with a UV
detector similar in instrumental sen-
sitivity to the mass spectrometer used
in Method 625. Naphthalene was the
only PAH analyte that gave a lower
MDL value in Method 625, but it was
also the only analyte spiked at a lower
concentration in  Method 625 com-
pared to 610. The 13 remaining PAH
analytes gave MDL values in Method
625 that were between 3 and 780 times
higher than the corresponding values
in Method 610. This reflects the dif-
ferences between the fluorometer and
mass spectrometer in detector sensi-
tivity. Benzo(g, h, Operylene gave an
MDL larger than the spike level in the
Method 625 study and it was the only
PAH in Method 625 that  gave an av-
erage recovery higher than the corre-
sponding recovery in Method 610.
  The haloether analyles in Method
625 gave MDL values consistent with
detector sensitivity and spiking, level.
The  calculated MDL  for 4-bromo-
phenyl phenyl ether was lower than the
value in Method 611, but it was also
spiked at a lower level. The remaining
haloether analytes gave MDL values
ranging from  1.1 to 19 times larger
than  the corresponding  values  in
Method 611. Clearly, there is no great
difference in MDL results between
these two methods. The Method 625
haloether recoveries were about half
those reported in Method 611.
  1,3-Dichlorobenzene  gave   an
anomalous  MDL value when  com-
pared to the other analytes in Method
625.  Highly variable losses were at-
tributed to the volatility of the analyte.
The spike level was lower than thai in
Method 612, but in Method 625 the
     TABLE 5
     Method detection limits for compounds as analyzed by Method 625 In reagent water (31)
                              Bpft* tevol Av«r*o« %  MOL                            Bpft* tovof Avcrae* %  HDL
          Compound
                       Compound
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
AWrln
Benzo{A)anthraoene
Beruo(*)fluoranthene
8en20(a)pyrene
Benzoff ,/». Operylana
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Bls(2-chloroethyl) ether
BIM2-chhxoethoxy) methane
8l»(2-ethylnexyl) phthalate
Bl*(2-chlorolsopropyt) ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
2-Chloronaphthatene
Ctvysene
4-4'-OOO
4.4'-DOT
D)benzoU.r>)anthraoene
(N-fttutyl phthalate
1,3-Dlchlc/obenzane
1t4-Dlchloroben2ene
DfeUrln
Dfethylphthalate
Dimethyl pnthalate
2,*OWtroto)uer>e
DJ-rwctyf phtnalate
Ruoranthene
Ffcjorene
Heptachlor
3.6
3.8
3.8
10
25
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.8
13.3
13.3
3.6
25
3.8
9.8
3.8
10
10
3.8
3.8
3.6
13.3
10
3.6
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
10
63
47
70
72
68
80
73
02
74
43
45
04
61
68
66
66
60
63
. 82
05
60
40
63
64
48
64
64
80
64
69
1.9
3.5
1.9
1.9
7.6
2.6
2.5
4.1
2.5
6.7
6.3
2.5
6.3
1.9
1.9
2,5
2.6
4.7
2.5
2.5
4.4
6.0
2.6
1.9
1.6
1.9
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.9
Heptachtor epoxtte
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadlene
Hexachloroethane.
todeno< 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Itophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
WJItroso-dl-/>-propylamIne
Pyrene
1.2,4-Trlchlorobenzene
Benxo(b)fluoranthene*
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether"
3,3'-Dic*ilorotxHizktone*
2,4,-Dlnltrotoluene'
PC8 1221*
PCS 1254*
Phenanthrene*
4^hloro-3-methylphenol*
2.4-Dlchlorophenof*
2.44>imethylphenol*
2,44>lnltropnenol'
2-MethyW,6-dlnltrophenol"
4-NHrophenol"
Pentachlorophenol* .
Phenol'
2.4.6-Trlchlorophenol*
0BHC*
«BHC*
4,4'.ooe»
EndoMJtfan eulfata*
10
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
25
3.6
3.6
13.3
13.3
33
13.3
91
61
13.3
1°
10
10
40
40
10
10
10
10
6
6
10
7
62
67
66
.60
65
69
70
66
86
79
66
45
45
62
44
77
80
6i :
71
60
67
94
77
62
67
26
•64
69
M
69
79
2.2
1.9
0.9
1.6
3.7
2.2
1.6
1.9
6
1.9
1.9
4.6
43
16.6
6.7
30
36
6.4
3.0
2,7
2.7
42
24
2.4
3.6
1.6
2.7
4.2
3.1
5.6
6.6
     " MX faetetf on 8 aliquot* of rugent water.
     • MDL based onlO •tiquett of re»0wi water.
                                               B-26
                                                                      Volume 15, Number 12, December 1981   1433
-------
                                                                         calculated MDL value was larger than
                                                                         the spike level. Hence the results for
                                                                         this chlorinated hydrocarbon analyte
                                                                         should be regarded with caution.
                                                                         Conclusions

                                                                           The purpose of this procedure is to
                                                                         provide a "MDL that is used to judge
                                                                         the significance of a single measure-
                                                                         ment of a future sample. The MDL
                                                                         procedure was formulated to accom-
                                                                         modate application to a broad variety
                                                                         of physical and chemical methods. It
                                                                         was necessary to make the procedure
                                                                         device—or instrument—independent
                                                                         to accomplish the  wide application
                                                                         desi/ed.
                                                                           The  measurement of the  MDL
                                                                         value, in a given matrix, is meaningless
                                                                         if it can be shown by analyte-specific
                                                                         methods that a high background is due
                                                                         to interference rather than the analyte
                                                                         in question. Standard additions in a
                                                                         large neighborhood proximate to  the
                                                                         MDL on an interfering background for
                                                                         the purpose of determining the MDL
                                                                         can have value in providing an accu-
                                                                         racy and precision statement for  the
                                                                         analytical  method  at analyte levels
                                                                         comparable to the  interference con-
                                                                         centration in that specific matrix.
                                                                           The iterative procedure is presented
                                                                         only as a means to overcome mistaken
                                                                         estimates for the MDL. When  the
                                                                         analyte is present in  the matrix due
                                                                         solely to standard additions and  the
                                                                         estimated MDL was found to be out-
                                                                         side the 95% confidence interval of the
                                                                         calculated  MDL, only one or two it-
                                                                         erations should be necessary to identify
                                                                         the MDL  with sufficient  accuracy.
                                                                         However, only a full regression treat-
                                                                         ment would provide a more complete
                                                                         description. When economically fea-
                                                                         sible, the  full regression  treatment
                                                                         should be used.
                                                                            If the relative standard deviation of
                                                                         the seven replicates is in the range of
                                                                         20.5-70.1%, then the estimated MDL
                                                                         will be within the 95% confidence in-
                                                                         terval of the calculated MDL, This is
                                                                         sufficient statistical evidence to stop
                                                                         the iterative MDL procedure. Should
                                                                         the relative standard deviation  fall
                                                                         outside this range, the results are sus-
                                                                         pect. Experience has shown that when
                                                                         the relative standard deviation is at or
                                                                         near 10%, the calculated MDL values
                                                                         can be below instrumental  detection
                                                                         limits.
                                                                            We can look forward to continued
                                                                         lowering of such performance char-
                                                                         acteristics as established  analytical
                                                                         procedures are adjusted to accommo-
                                                                         date future advances  in  analytical
                                                                         technology. This will serve to push the
                                                                         MDL to lower values than those pre-
                                                                         viously assigned.
I4M  Environmental Science A Technology
                                               B-27
-------
Acknowledgments

We wish to recognize the analysts of Bat-
tellc Columbus Laboratories, IT Enviros-
cience, Monsanto Research Corporation-
Dayton Laboratory, and Southwest Re-
search Institute, who generated the MDL
data Tor Methods 601 through 613.  An
EMSL team of analysts are recognized as
the source of (he MDL data for Methods
524 and 625. A number of our EMSL co-
workers have personally contributed to the
roncept of MDL in this regard. We wish to
ick now ledge the constructive  input  of
 Thomas Bellar,  Paul  Brilton, Seymour
 Told,  James Lichtenberg,  and  James
 .ong bottom.
 iefore publication this article was com-
  ,ented on for technical accuracy by  Dr.
  eorge W. Barton, Jr., Lawrence Liver-
  lore Laboratory, University of California,
  .O. Box  808, Livermore, Calif. 94550,
 nd  Dr. Ervin J. Fenyvcs, the University of
 'exas at Dallas, P.O. Box 688, Richardson,
  ex. 75080
 teferences

 1) Liteanu, C.; Rica, 1. "Standard Theory and
   Methodology of Trace Analysis"; John Wiley
   & Sons: New York, 1980; Chapter 7, pp.
   255-125.
 .2) Massart, D. L.; Dijkstra, A.; Kaufman, L.
   "Evaluation and Optimization of Laboratory
   Methods and Analytical Procedures"; Else-
   vier:  Amsterdam,  1978; Chapter  6,  pp.
   143-156.
 (3) "Guidelines Tor Data Acquisition and Data
   Quality   Evaluation  in  Environmental
   Chemistry", Anal. Chem.  1980, 52, 2249.
 (4) "The Clean Water Act Showing Changes
   Made by the 1977 Amendments", CFR 95-
   12, Dec. 1977.
 (5) "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures
   for the Analysis of Pollutants", 44 FR 69464,
   Dec. 3, 1979.
 (6) Wilson, A. L. Talanta 1970, /7(2I), 31;
   1973,20,725; 1974,21,1109; "The Chemical
   Analysis of Water"; Society for Analytical
   Chemistry: London, 1975.
 (7) Wilson, A. L, Analyst 1961,50,72; Roos,
   J. B. Analyst  1962, 87. 883; DeGaleu, L.
   Spectrosc. Left. 1970, 3, 123; Altshuler. B.;
   Pasternack, B. Health Phys.  1963, 9, 293;
   Skogcrboe, R. K.; Grant, C.  L. Sptcirosc.
   Lett. 1970, .J. 215; Liteanu, C.; Rica, 1. Pure
   Appl. Chem. 1975,44, 535; Habaux, A.; Vos.
   G. Anal. Chem. 1970,42,849; Currie, L. A.
   Anal. Chem. 1968, 40, 586.
 (8) Ingle,J.D.,Jr.J.Chem.Ed.  1974.5/.100;
   Boumans, P. W. J. M. Sptctrochim. Acia
   1978, 33B, 625.
 (9) Ramirez-Munoz.  J. Talanta  1966,  13,
   87.
 (10) Sutherland, C.L. Residue Reo. IMS, 10,
   85.
 (II) Parsons, M. L. J. Chem. Ed.  1969, 46,
   290.
 (12) Kaiser, H. Anal. Chem.  1970,42(2), 24 A;
   42(4), 26 A; Kaiser, H.; Menzies. A. C. "The
   Limit of Detection of a Complete Analytical
   Procedure"; Adam  Hilger: London, 1968;
   Kaiser, H.  In "Methodicum Chimicum";
   Korte, F.. Ed.; Academic: New York, 1974;
   Vol. 1, "Analytical Methods"; Part A; Kiiser,
   H. Spectrochim. Acta 1978,33B, 551.
 (13) Thompson, M.; Howarth,  R. J. Analyst
   1976.101,690.
 (14) "Definition and Procedure for the Deter-
   mination of the Method Detection Limit
   Revision 1.12"; U.S. Environmental Protec-
   tion Agency, Environmental Monitoring and
   Support Laboratory: Cincinnati. January

 (IS) Gabrieli, R.  Anal Chem.  1970,  42,
   1439.
 (16) EckJChliger. K. "Errors Measurement ind
  Results in Chemical Analysis"; Chalmers, R.
  A., Transl,, Van Nosirand Rcinhold; London,
  1969; p. 103.
(17) Thompson, M.; Howarth, R. J. Analyst
  1980,105, 1188.
(18) Winefordner, J. D.; Ward, J. L. Anal. Leil.
  1980. I3(A14). 1293.
(19)  Dison, W. J.; Masscy, F. J., Jr. "Intro-
  duction to  Statistical  Analysts",  3rd  ed.;
  McGraw-Hill: New York, 1969; Chapter 7,
  pp.  101-105.
(20)  "The Analysis of Aromatic Chemical In-
  dicators of  Industrial Contamination in
  Water by the Purge and Trap Methods"; U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency, Environ-
  mental Monitoring and Support Laboratory:
  Cincinnati, May 1980.
(21)  McMillin, C. R.; Warner, B. J.; Mitrosky,
  S.  "EPA  Method  Validation  Study 23,
  Method 601 (Purgeable  Halocarbons)",
  Report for  EPA Comract 687-03-2856, in
  preparation.
(22) McMilUn, C. R.;  Warner, B. J.; Strobel,
  J.   "EPA  Method  Validation  Study 24,
  Method 602 (Purgeable Aromatics)", Report
  for  EPA Contract 68-03-2856, in prepara-
  tion.
(23)  Hall, J. R.; Florence, J. R.; Strother, D. L;
  Maggio. S. M. "Development of Detection
  Limits, EPA Method 604, Phenols", Special
  letter report for EPA Contract 68-03-2625,
  Environmental  Monitoring and  Support
  Laboratory: Cincinnati.
(24) Riggin, R. M.; Bins, M. A. "Determina-
  tion of Method Detection Limit and Analyt-
  ical Curve and EPA Method 60S—Benzid-
  ines". Special letter report for EPA Contract
  68-03-2624, Environmental Monitoring and
  Support Laboratory: Cincinnati.
(25) Thomas. R. £.; Millar, J. D.; Harding, H.
  J.;Schattenberg, H.  J. III. "Method Detec-
  tion Limit  and Analytical Curve Studies.
  EPA Methods 606, 607, and 608". Special
  letter report for EPA Contract 68-03-2606,
  Environmental  Monitoring and  Support
  Laboratory: Cincinnati.
(26) Riggin, R. M.; Cole, T. F. "Determination
  of Method  Detection Limit and Analytical
  Curve for EPA Method 609, Nitroaromalics
  and Isophorone",  Special  letter report for
  EPA Contract 68-03-2624, Environmental
  Monitoring and Support Laboratory: Cin-
  cinnati.
(27) Cole, T.; Riggin, R.; G laser, J. "Evaluation
  of Method Detection Limits and Ana,ytLai
  Curve for EPA Method 610, PNAs", Proc.
  $th Int. Symp. Polynuclear Aromatic Hy-
  drocarbons (Battelle Columbus Laboratory.
  Columbus, Ohio, 1980).
(28) McMillin. C. R.; Gable, R. C; Kyne, J.
  M.;Quill, R. P.;Thomas, J.S. "Development
  of Detection Limits, EPA  Method  61U
  Haloethers", Special letter report for  EPA
  Contract 68-03-2625, Environmental Moni-
  toring and Support Laboratory: Cincinnati.
(29) Hall. J. R.; Florence, J. R.; Strother, D. L.;
  Maggio, S. M. "Development of Detection
  Limits, EPA Method 612, Chlorinated Hy-
  drocarbons", Special letter report for EPA
  Contract 68-03-2625, Environmental Moni-
  toring and Support Laboratory: Cincinnati.
(30) McMillin, C. R.; Hileman. F. D. "Deter-
  mination of Method Detection Limits for
  EPA Method 613", Special letter report for
  EPA Contract 68-03-2863, Environmental
  Monitoring and Support Laboratory: Cin-
  cinnati.
(31) Olynyk, P.; Budde, W. L.; Eichelberger,
  J. W. "Method Detection Limits of Method
  624 and 625 Analytes",  unpublished EPA
  report. May 1980.

Supplementary Material Available Tables 6~I4
  contain additional Method Detection Limits
  (MDLs)for the analyses of trace organics in
  wastewater. Table 6—volatile compounds by
  Method 601. Table 7—phenols by Method
  604 using flame ioniiation detection.  Table
  &—ptniafluorobenzyl derivatives of phenols
  by Method 604 using electron capture de-
  tection. Table 9—phtnalates by Method 606.
  Table  10—niirosamines by  Method 607.
  Table U—nitroarometics and isophorone by
  Method 609.  Table  12—halotthers  by
  Method6ll. Table 13—chlorinated hydro-
  carbons by Met hod 612. Table 14—volatile
  compounds by Method 624 using GCfMS.
  photocopies of the supplementary material
  from this paper or Microfiche (105 X 148
  mm, 24 X reduction, negatives) may be ob-
  tained front Business Operations, Books and
  Journals Division, American Chemical So-
  ciety, 1155 16thS{.,N.W., Washington,D.C.
  20036. Full bibliographic citation (journal,
  title of article, author)  and prepayment,
  check or money order for S13 for photocopy
  ($14.50 foreign) or $4 for microfiche (}5
  foreign), are required.
 *USOPOt 1982- 550-092/3394
                     B-28
                                                                                     Volume 15. Number 12, December 1981   1435
-------
                                        1/21/81
 Definition and Procedure for the Determination
         of the Method Detection Limit
                 Revision 1.11
                   EMSL - CI
        Environmental Protection Agency
       Office of Research and Development
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
            Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
                       B-29
-------
Definition
The method  detection  limit  (MDL)  is defined  as  the minimum  con-
centration of a  substance  that can  be  measured and  reported  with
99& confidence that the analyte concentration  is  greater than zero
and determined from analysis  of a sample  in a given matrix containing
analyte.
Scope and Application

This procedure is designed  for applicability to a  wide  variety of
sample types ranging from  reagent  (blank)  water containing analyte
to wastewater  containing  analyte.   The  MDL  for  an  analytical
procedure may  vary  as  a  function  of  sample type.   The procedure
requires a  complete,  specific and  well .defined analytical method.
It is essential that all  sample  processing steps  of the analytical
method be Included in the determination of the method detection limit.

The MDL obtained by  this procedure  Is used  to Judge  the significance
of a single measurement of a future sample.

The MDL procedure was designed for applicability to a broad variety
of physical and chemical methods.   To accomplish this, the procedure
was made devise- or instrument-independent.

Procedure

     1 .  Make  an  estimate  of the detection limit  using  one of the
         following:

         (a)  The concentration  value that  corresponds to  an in-
               strument  signal/noise  In  the  range  of   2.5  to  5v

         (b)   Three  times  the  standard  deviation  of  replicate
               Instrumental measurements of the  reagent water.
                                  B-30
-------
    (c)  The  area  of  the  standard  curve  where  there  is  a
         significant  change in  sensitivity,  i.e.,  a break  in
         the slope of the standard curve.

    (d)  Instrumental limitations.

    It is  recognized  that  the  experience of  the  analyst  is
    important to  this  process.   However,  the  analyst  must
    include the above  considerations in  the  estimate of  the
    detection limit.

2.  Prepare reagent  (blank) water that  is as free of  analyte
    as possible.  Reagent or Interference free water is  defined
    as a water  sample  in  which analyte and interferent  con-
    centrations are  not   detected  at   the method  detection
    limit of  each analyte of  interest.    Interferences  are
    defined as  systematic  errors  in the  measured analytical
    signal of an established procedure  caused by the presence
    of interfering  species  (interferent).   The  interferent
    concentration is  presupposed to be normally  distributed  in
    representative samples of  a given matrix.

3.  (a)  If  the MDL is  to be  determined in reagent  (blank)
         water,  prepare  a  laboratory   standard  (analyte  in
         reagent water) as  a  concentration which  is at  least
         equal to or in  the same  concentration range as  the
         estimated method detection limit.  (Recommend  between
         1 and 5 times the  estimated method detection  limit.)
         Proceed to Step  4.

    (b)  If the  MDL is  to be determined  in  another  sample
         matrix, analyze  the sample.  If the measured level  of
         the analyte  is  in the  recommended range of  one  to
         five times the estimated detection limit, proceed  to
         Step 4.
                             B-31
-------
     If  the  measured  level  of  analyte  is  less  than  the
     estimated  detection  limit,  add  a  known  amount   of
     analyte  to bring  the level  of  analyte  between  one  and
     five  times the  estimated  detection  limit.

     If  the measured level of  analyte  is  greater  than five
     times the  estimated detection limit, there are  two  op-
     tions.

     (1)   Obtain another  sample of lower level of  analyte
          in  same matrix if  possible.

     (2)   The sample may be  used as is for  determining  the
          method detection limit if the  analyte  level does
          not exceed 10 times  the MDL  of  the analyte  in
          reagent water.   The variance  of  the  analytical
          method changes  as  the analyte  concentration  in-
          creases from the  MDL,  hence the  MDL  determined
          under these  circumstances may not truly  reflect
          method variance at lower  analyte  concentrations.

(a)   Take  a  minimum of seven aliquots of the  sample to  be
     used  to   calculate  the  method  detection  limit   and
     process  each through the  entire  analytical  method.
     Make  all computations according to  the defined method
     with  final results in the method reporting units.   If
     a blank  measurement  is  required  to  calculate   the
     measured level  of analyte, obtain  a   separate blank
     measurement for  each  sample  aliquot   analyzed.    The
     average  blank  measurement   is  subtracted  from   the
     respective sample measurements.

(b)   It may  be economically and technically  desirable  to
     evaluate the estimated  method detection  limit before
     proceeding with 4a.  This will:   (1) prevent repeating
                         B-32
-------
   this entire procedure when the  costs  of analyses are
   high and  (2)   insure  that  the  procedure  is  being
   conducted at the correct concentration.   It is quite
   possible that  an  incorrect MDL  could  be  calculated
   from data obtained at many times the real MDL and the
   level of analyte  would  be less  than  five  times the
   calculated method  detection  limit.   To insure  that
   the estimate of the method detection  limit  is  a good
   estimate, it is necessary to determine  that  a lower
   concentration of analyte  will  not  result  in  a  sig-
   nificantly lower method  detection  limit.   Take two
   aliquots of the  sample  to be  used  to  calculate the
   method detection limit  and  process  each through the
   entire method,   including  blank  measurements  as de-
   scribed above in 4a.   Evaluate these data:

   (1)  If these measurements indicate the  sample is in
        desirable range  for  determination  of the  MDL,
        take five additional aliquots  and proceed.   Use
        all seven measurements for calculation of the MDL.
   (2)  If these measurements indicate the sample is not
        in correct range, reestimate the MDL, obtain new
        sample as  in  3  and  repeat  either 4a  or  4b.

Calculate the  variance (S2) and  standard deviation (S)
of the replicate measurements,  as follows:
                       Xi
S =
     n - 1

    ($2)1/2
where the Xj_, i=l to n are the analytical results in the
                        B-33
-------
    final method reporting units obtained from the  n sample
    allquots and            refers  to the sum of  the X
    values from 1=1 to n.

6.   a.)  Compute the MDL as follows:

            MDL - t(n_1).99)   (S)

    where:
         MDL
= the method detection limit
    t(n-l,.99)
= the  students'  t  value  appropriate  for  a
  99% confidence level  and  a standard  de-
  viation estimate with n-1 degrees of free-
  dom.   See Table.
           S
= Standard deviation of the replicate analyses
    b.)  The 95%  confidence  interval estimates for  the  MDL
    derived in 6a  are computed  according to the  following
    equations derived  from  per cent lies  of  the  chl  square
    over degrees  of freedom distribution (X2/df),

       LCL =0.69 MDL
       UCL =1.92 MDL

    where LCL and UCL are the lower and upper 95%  confidence
    limits respectively based on seven aliquots.

7.  Optional iterative procedure  to verify the reasonableness
    of the estimate of the MDL and subsequent MDL  determina-
    tions.
    a, )  If this Is the initial attempt to compute MDL based
    on the estimate of MDL formulated in Step 1,  take the MDL
-------
as calculated  in  Step  6,  spike  in the  matrix at  the
calculated MDL and proceed through the procedure starting
with Step M.

b,)  If this is the  second or later iteration of the MDL
calculation, use S2  from the  current MDL calculation and
S2 from the previous  MDL  calculation to  compute the  P-
ration.  The  P-ratio  is  formed  by  substituting  the
largest S2of the two  into the numerator  S and the  other
into the denominator  S.   The computed  P-ratio  is  then
compared with  the P-ratio found in the table  which  is
3.05 as follows:
     if
S2
 A
S2
 B
< 3.05,
then compute the  pooled  standard deviaiton by the  fol
lowing equation:
                           1/2
     Spooled
     6S2 + 6S2
                 A
             B
                   12
     if
     > 3-05,
           B
respike at  the  last   calculated  MDL  and  process  the
samples through  the  procedure  starting  with  Step  M,
                   B-35
-------
        c.)   Use the SpOOxed as calculated in  7b  to  compute  the
        final MDL according to the following  equation:
        MDL - 2.681 (Spooled)
where 2.681 is equal to
                                      = .99)*
        d.)  The 95% confidence limits for MDL derived in ?c are
        computed according  to  the  following  equations  derived
        from per cent lies  of the  chi  squared over  degrees  of
        freedom distribution.

            LCL =0.72 MDL
            OCL =1.65 MDL

        where LCL and UCL are the lower and upper 95% confidence
        limits respectively based on 14 allquots.

Table of Students '  t  Values at the 99 Percent Confidence Level
Number of
             Degrees of Freedom
fc(n-l,.99)
7
8
9
10
11
16
21
26
31
61
00
6
7
. 8
9
10
15
20
25
30
60
00
3.143
2.998
2.896
2.821
2.764
2.602
2.528
2.485
2.457
2.390
2,326
                            B-36
-------
Reporting

The analytical method used must be specifically identified by number
of title and the MDL  for each analyte  expressed in the appropriate
method reporting units.  If  the  analytical method  permits  options
which affect the method detection  limit,  these conditions  must  be
specified with the MDL value*  The  sample  matrix  used to determine
the MDL must also be  identified with the MDL value.  Report the mean
analyte level with the MDL.   If  a laboratory  standard  or a sample
that contained a known amount  analyte was used for this determination,
also report the mean recovery.

If the level of analyte in the sample  was  below the determined MDL
or does not exceed 10  times the MDL of the analyte in reagent water,
do not report a value for  the MDL.
                               B-37
-------
-------
        REFERENCE 4



FIELD RESULTS - DATA SHEETS
            B-39
-------
-------
           UNITED STATES  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                    OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

              ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
                              CINCINNATI, OHIO  45268
DATE:      July 21,  1982

SUBJECT:   Settleable  Solids
FROM:     Gerald D. McKee, Chief ,1Ly
          Inorganic Analyses Secpon
          Physical and Chemical Methods  Branch

TO:       William Telliard, Chief
          Energy and Mining Branch
          Effluent Guidelines Division
          U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency  (WH-552)
          Washington, D.C. 20460
Enclosed are the Method Detection Limits  (MDL) calculated  from  the
settleable solids field data.

All of the observers' data were included  in the calculations for  each  sample
because there was only one aliquoting into each Imhoff cone.  The calculated
data are in Table 1.

Two general observations were made in regard to differences between the
field data and the laboratory data:

1)  Higher data values were obtained in the field than in  the laboratory
    with exception of one sample (108).

2)  The MDLs are higher for the field data, probably due to two reasons, the
    mean values are higher and the field  data were reported to  only one
    significant figure (one exception).

Enclosure (1):
As stated
                                     B-41
-------
                              TABLE 1
                             FIELD DATA
Sample No.
82-101
82-102
82-103
82-104
82-105
82-106
82-107
82-108
Source
Mine Pond No. 4
Mine Pond No. 8
Mine Pond No. 7
Mine Pond No. 6
Mine Pond No. 5
Mine Pond No. 2
Mine Pond No. 1
Mine Pond No. 3
ml/l/hr
Mean
0.58
0.36
0.28
0.82
0.65
0.36
0.76
0.094
Standard
Deviation
0.15
0.081
0.08
0.11
0.09
0.043
0.09
0.015
MDL
0.40
0.20
0.21
0.30
0.25
0.11
0.23
0.04
                                B-42
-------
                                                                              Date:   5-18-82
                                            SETTLEABLE  SOLIDS TESTING
                                                   DATA  SHEET
          82-107



          Mine Pond No. 1
                                              Sampling Crew:  W. Telliard - EPA-EGD
                                                              H. Kohlmann - Hydrotechnic
da
i
-Cr
UJ
          Pond Influent - Settleable  Solids  (ml/1)    15.0



          Pond Effluent - Settleable  Solids  (ml/1)     0.0
                                                   PH



                                                   PH
                                                         8.2
                                                         8.0
          Determination of Dilution,  if required.



          Based on 8-liter batch, and 0,5 ml/1  range  required,
x = vol. of infl. req'd;

y = vol. of effl. req'd;
                              GI = ml/1 settleable solids in influent

                              C2 = ml/1 settleable solids in effluent


C,x + C9y = 4,000ml  x + y =  8,000 ml
 J-     b

                           x =    1,068 ml    y =    6,932 ml
          Settleable Solids Test Results  (ml/1)  - pH   8.0
" • — Imjioff Cone #
Observer" • — ^_
Mine Rep.
EPA Rep.
EPA Contractor
1
0.8
0.7
0.65
2
0.7
0.8
0.85
3
0.9
0.8
0.80
4
0.7
0.7
0.90
5
0.9
0.7
0.90
6
0.8
0.7
0.75
7
0.6
0.7
0.7
-------
                                                                             Date:
                                                                    5-19-82
tu
                                           SETTLEABLE SOLIDS TESTING
                                                   DATA SHEET
          82-106

          Mine Pond No.  2




          Pond Influent  -  Settleable Solids (ml/1)

          Pond Effluent  -  Settleable Solids (ml/1)
                                          Sampling Crew:  W. Telliard - EPA-EGD

                                                          H. Kohlmann - Hvdrotechnic
                                   24
                                    0
PH

PH
          Determination of Dilution,  if required

          Based on 8-liter batch,  and 0,5  ml/1 range required,
               x =  vol.  of  infl.  req'd;
               y =  vol.  of  effl.  req'd;
                          GI = ml/1 settleable solids in influent
                          C2 = ml/1 settleable solids in effluent
+ C2y = 4,000ml  x + y = 8,000 ml

                       x =     667 ml     y =   7333 ml
          Settleable  Solids  Test  Results  (ml/1)  -  pH
"" --imhpff Cone #
Observer"""-— -^_
Mine Rep.
EPA Rep.
EPA Contractor
1
0.45
0.30
0.40
2
0.40
0B30
0.40
3
0.40
0.35
0.35
4
0.35
0.35
0.35
5
0.40
0.35
Q.30
6
0.35
0.30
0.35
7
0.4
0.30
0.35
-------
                                                                             Date:
                                                                            5-20-82
                                          SETTLEABLE  SOLIDS TESTING
                                                  DATA SHEET
         82-108


         Mine Pond No. 3
                                                    Sampling  Crew:  W. Telliard - EPA-EGD
                                                                   H. Kohlmann - Hydrotechnic
td
i
-tr
U1
         Pond Influent - Settleable Solids  (ml/1)


         Pond Effluent - Settleable Solids  (ml/1)
                                                        pH  8
                                            0
PH  7
Determination of Dilution, if required


Based on 8-liter batch, and 0,5 ml/1  range required,


     x = vol. of infl. reg'd;      C;L = ml/1 Settleable solids in  influent
     y = vol. of effl. req'd;      €2 = ml/1 Settleable solids in  effluent

     C^x + C2y = 4,000ml   x + y =  8,QQO ml

                                x =   3,200 ml     y =  4,800 ml



Settleable Solids Test Results (ml/1) - pH     7	
" - — Imhoff Cone #
Observer • — ^_
Mine Rep.
EPA Rep.
EPA Contractor
1
0.13
Q.I
0.1
2
0.11
0,09
0.09
3
0.1
0.09.
0.09
4
0.1
0.09.
0.09
5
0.13
0,08
0.09
6
0,1
0,08
0.09
7
0.09
O.Q7
0.07
-------
                                                                             Date
                                                                                      5-11-82
                                          SETTLEABLE SOLIDS TESTING
                                                  DATA SHEET
         82-101


         Mine Pond No.  4
                                                    Sampling Crew: D. Ruddy - EPA-EGD	


                                                                   D. Ruggiero - Hydrotechnic
to
i
-tr
O\
         Pond Influent - Settleable Solids  (ml/1)   Non-Det.
Pond Effluent  -  Settleable  Solids (ml/1)   Non-Pet.

Upper Wadge Pond - Influent SS (ml/1)      1.2 ml/1

Determination  of Dilution,  if  required


Based on  8-liter batch,  and 0,5  ml/1 range required.
PH


PH
                                                               7.0
                                                                        7.0
                                                                        7.0
              x - vol. of infl. req'd;
              y = . vol. of effl. req'd;
                                    C]_ -  ml/1  settleable solids in influent
                                    C2 =  ml/1  settleable solids in effluent

     Clx  "*" C2y  =  4,000ml  x + y - 8,OQO  ml

                                 x =   4,6.66 ml      y =  3,334 ml
         Settleable Solids Test Results  (ml/1) - pH   7.7
•"— -^JCighpf £ Cone #
Observer "~--— __^
Mine Repfc
EPA Rep.
EPA Contractor
1
0.5
0.6
0.5
2
0,4
0.4
0.4
3
0.5
0.6
0,5
4
0.4
0.5
0.4
5
0.6
0.6
0.6
6
0.7
0.7
0.7
7
0.9
0.9
0.8
-------
                                                                            Date:
                                                                   5-18*82
                                          SETTLEABLE  SOLIDS  TESTING
                                                  DATA  SHEET
        82-106

        Mine Pond No. 5
                                          Sampling Crew:  D. Ruddy - EPA'-EGD	

                                                          D. Ruggiero - Hydrotechnic
        Pond Influent - Settleable Solids  (ml/1)   2'°
        Pond Effluent - Settleable Solids  (ml/1)   Non-Det,
                                               pH

                                               PH
                                                     6.4
6.4
do
l
        Determination of Dilution, if required

        Based on 8-liter batch, and 0,5 ml/1  range  required,
             x = vol. of infl. req'd;
             y = vol. of effl. req'd;
                          C^ = ml/1 Settleable solids in influent
                          C-2 = ml/1 settleable solids in effluent
+ C2y = 4,000ml  x t y ~ 8,000 ml

                       x =   2,gOO ml      y =  6,000  ml
        Settleable Solids Test Results  (ml/1)  - pH     6.4
^~" — -Jjnhoff Cone #
Observer "^^— ^_
Mine Rep .
EPA Rep.
EPA Contractor
1
-
0.7
0.7
2
-
0.7
Oe7
3
-
0.7
0.7
4
-
o.e:
0.5
5
-
0,5
0.5
6
-
0,7
0,8
7
-
0,7
0,7
-------
                                                                            Date:   5-18-82
                                          SETTLEABLE SOLIDS TESTING
                                                  DATA SHEET
        82-104

        Mine Pond No. .6
                                               Sampling Crew:  D. Ruddy EPA-EGD	

                                                              D. Ruggiero - Hydrotechnic
i
-Cr
CO
        Pond  Influent - Settleable Solids (ml/1)    2.0
Pond Effluent - Settleable Solids  (ml/1)   Non-Pet.


Determination of Dilution, if required

Based on 8-liter batch, and 0,5 ml/1 range required.
                                                   PH

                                                   PH
                                                         7.0
                                                                       7.0
x - vol. of infl. req'd;
y = vol. of effl. req'd;
                                   GI = ml/1 settleable solids in influent
                                   C2 = ml/1 settleable solids in effluent
         + C2y = 4,000ml  x + y =  8,000 ml
                                x =    2,000 ml    y =   6,000 ml
        Settleable  Solids Test Results  (ml/1)  -  pH
                                           7.0
"— — Imhpff Cone #
Observer"""" -— ^_
Mine Rep.
EPA Rep.
EPA Contractor
1
-
0.7
0.7
2
-
1.0
1.0
3
-
0.9
0.9
4
-
0.9.
0.9
5
-
0.8
0.7
6
-
0.7
Q.,7
7
-
0.8
0,8
-------
                                                                            Date:   5-18-82
to
i
J=r
                                          SETTLEABLE SOLIDS TESTING
                                                  DATA SHEET
         82-103

         Mine  Pond  No.  7




         Pond Influent - Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Sampling Crew:  D.  Ruddy  - EPA-EGD	

                P.  Ruggiero  - Hydrotechnic
     pH   6.6
         Pond Effluent - Settleable Solids (ml/1)   Non-Pet.


         Determination of Dilution, if required

         Based on 8-liter batch, and 0,5 ml/1 range required.
     pH   6.6
x = vol. of infl. reqfd;      C
y = vol. of effl. req'd;      (_
Cxx + C2y = 4,000ml  x + y =  8,OQO ml

                           x =  1,000 ml
                                               = ml/1 settleable solids in influent
                                               = ml/1 settleable solids in effluent
                                                            Y =
      7,000 ml
         Settleable Solids Test Results (ml/1) - pH   6.6
~--— Imjioff Cone #
Ob s e r ver^~"^-^^^
Mine Rep .
EPA Rep.
EPA Contractor
1
-
0.2
0.3
2
-
0.3
0,3
3
-
0.4
0.4
4
-
0.2
Q.3
5
-
0.2
Q.2
6
-
Q.3
0.4
7
-
0.2
0.2
-------
                                                                            Date:
                                                                            5-20-82
                                          SETTLEABLE  SOLIDS  TESTING
                                                  DATA  SHEET
         82-102



         Mine Pond No.  8
                                                   Sampling Crew:  D. Ruddy - EPA-EGD	


                                                                   D. Ruggiero - Hydrotechnic
tc

ui
o
Pond Influent - Settleable Solids  (ml/1)
                                                     0.3
Pond Effluent - Settleable Solids  (ml/1)  Non-Pet .




Determination of Dilution, if required


Based on 8-liter batch, and 0,5 ml/1 range required,
pH  8.1-8.2



pH  7.6-7.7
     x = vol. of infl. req'd;

     y = vol. of effl. req'd;


     Clx + C2y = 4'000ml  x
                                           C^ = ml/1 Settleable solids  in  influent

                                           C2 = ml/1 Settleable solids  in  effluent


                                         =  8,QQO ml


                                         x =   7,000 ml      y =  1,000 ml
        Settleable Solids Test Results  (ml/1) - pH    8.1-8.2
~~-- Jjnhpff Cone #
Observer ^_
Mine Rep.
EPA Rep.
EPA Contractor
1
0.3
0.3
0.3
2
0.3
0.4
0.4
3
0.3
0.3
0.3
4
0.4
0.4
0.5
5
0.3
0.3
0.3
6
0.3
0.3
0.3
7
0.5
0.5
0.5
-------
   REFERENCE 5



LABORATORY RESULTS
     B-51
-------
-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                    OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
              ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
                              CINCINNATI, OHIO 45266
DATE:      June  15,  1982

SUBJECT:   Settleable  Solids

FROM:      Gerald  D. McKee, Chief
           Inorganic Analyses Sec1
           Physical  and Chemical Methods  Branch

TO:        William Telliard, Chief
           Energy  and  Mining Branch
           Effluent Guidelines  Division
           U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency  (WH  552)
           Washington, DC  20460
Enclosed are the Settleable Solids data for  the eight  samples  we  received
from various mining operations.  As decided  in our  discussion  of  April  22,
1982, we determined the Method Detection Limit (MDL) on  each of the  samples
and the variability (standard deviation) of  data  on samples with  a concen-
tration of about 0.5 ml/l/hr Settleable Solids.

The "Method Detection Limit" is defined as the minimum concentration  of a
substance that can be measured and reported  with  99% confidence that  the
analyte concentration is greater than zero and determined  from analysis of  a
sample in a given matrix containing analyte.  Two papers describing  this
method are attached.  The variability of each sample is  reported  as  the
standard deviation of seven replicate measurements.

A total of 8 samples were received for analysis,  5  on  5/21/82  and 3  on
5/24/82.  Samples were approximately 8 liters in  volume  and were  contained
in 2.5 gallon cubitainers.  Cubitainers were placed on a large (2 ft.
square) magnetic stirrer and mixed at high speed  using a 4 inch Teflon
coated stirbar for at least 10 minutes before aliquoting.  Seven  aliquots
were obtained using a glass delivery tube (inserted about  mid  level  into the
sample) and compressed air to transfer the 1 liter  sample  directly into the
plastic Imhoff cones.

The procedure used for this analysis (EPA Method  160.5)  is found  in
"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and  Wastewater," 14th
Edition, Page 95, Method 208F, Procedure 3A  (1975).

To level the settled material as much as possible,  the individual Imhoff
cones were tapped with a wooden rod and/or the liquid  was  gently  swirled
with a glass stirring rod before reading.  This leveling seemed to have no
adverse effect on the solids reading.
                                    B-53
-------
                                     - 2 -
Data from one sample (82-104) were discarded because they were obviously not
random.  The first aliquot taken was the highest in concentration and each
subsequent sample was lower with a range of 0.80 ml/l/hr (first) to 0.40
ml/l/hr (last).  Analysis of this sample was repeated and these data are
Included.

The calculated data are In Table 1.  Our conclusions are:

    1)   The calculated MDL for Settleable Solids of sample's used for this
         investigation was 0.12 ml/l/hr.  Since-the Imhoff cone has
         divisions of only 0.1 ml, practically this MDL is O.H ml/l/nr.

    2)   The standard deviation of the six samples near 0.5 ml/l/hr (x •
         0.45 ml/l/hr), excluding samples 82-102 and 82-103, is 0.043
         ml/l/hr.
Enclosures:
As stated
                                    B-54
-------
 Table 1
                       ml/l/hr
Sample No.
82-101
82-102
82-103
82-104
82-105
82-106
82-107
82-108
Source
Mine
Mine
Mine
Mine
Mine
Mine
Mine
Mine
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
NO.
No.
4
8
7
6
5
2
1
3
Mean
0.58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.14
.12
.43
.45
.32
.37
.55
Standard
Deviation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.048
.016
.018
.043
.041
.046
.038
.041
MDL
0.15
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
050
057
14
13
14
12
13
B-55
-------
82-101 Mind Pond No. 4
Date 5-17-82, Received 5-21-982, Analyzed 5-26-82
Lt. Brown Color, Some Silt and Sticks, pH 8.3
           Aliquot

              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7

           Mean

           Std. Dev.

           MDL
ml/l/hr

  0.58
  0.60
  0.55
  0.65
  0.60
  0.50
  0.55

  0.58

  0.048

  0.15
(0.45  in 820  ml)
82-102 Mine Pond No. 8
Date 5-20-82. Received 5-21-82, Analyzed 5-26-82
Light Brown Color, Some Pines, pH 7.9
           Aliquot

               1
               2
               3
               4
               5
               6
               7

           Mean

           Std.  Dev.

           MDL
ml/l/hr

  0.12
  0.15
  0.15
  0.15
  0.12
  0.15
  0.12

  0.14

  0.016

  0.050
                      B-56
-------
82-103 Mine Pond No. 7
Date 5-18-82, Received 5-12-83, Analyzed 5-27-82
Light Brown Color, Pew Pines, pH 7-9
           Aliquot

              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7

           Mean

           Std. Dev.

           MDL
ml/l/hr

  0.15
  0,12
  0.10
  0.10
  0.12
  0,12
  0.10

  0.12

  0.018

  0.057
82-104 Mine Pond No. 6
Date 5-18-82, Received 5-21-82, Analyzed 6-4-82
Light Brown Color, Some Pines, pH 8.2
           Aliquot

              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7

           Mean

           Std. Dev.

           MDL
ml/l/hr

  0.50
  0.45
  0.48
  0.40
  0.40
  0.40
  0.40

  0.43

  0.043

  0.14
                      B-57
-------
82-105 Mine Pond No. 5
Date 5-18-82, Received 5-21-82, Analyzed 5-27-82
Light Brown Color, Some Fines, pH 8.0
           Aliquot

              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7

           Mean

           Std. Dev,

           MDL
ml/l/hr

  0.50
  0.50
  0.45
  0.45
  0.40
  0.45
  0.40

  0.45

  0.041

  0.13
82-105 Mine Pond No. 5 Duplicate
Analyzed 6-4-82
           Aliquot

              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7

           Mean

           Std. Dev.

           MDL
ml/l/hr

  0.45
  0.40
  0.40
  0.40
  0.42
  0.42
  0.45

  0.42

  0.022

  0.070
                        B-58
-------
82-106 Mind Pond No. 2
Date 5-19-82, Received 5-24-82, Analyzed 5-28-82
Light Brown Color, Some Fines, pH 7.9
           Aliquot

              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7

           Mean

           Std. Dev.

           MDL
ml/l/hr

  0.38
  0.35
  0.35
  0.30
  0.30
  0.25
  0.28

  0.32

  0.046

  0.14
82-107 Mine Pond No. 1
Date 5-18-82, Received 5-24-82, Analyzed 5-28-82
Light Brown Color, Some Pines, pH 8.2
           Aliquot

              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7

           Mean

           Std. Dev,

           MDL
ml/l/hr

  0.40
  0.40
  0.40
  0.38
  0.30
  0.35
  0.38

  0.37

  0.038

  0.12
                      B-59
-------
82-107D Mind Pond No, 1
Duplicate, Analyzed 6-4-82

           Aliquot

              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7

           Mean

           Std. Dev.

           MDL
ml/l/hr

  0.50
  0.55
  0.40
  0.50
  0.40
  0.50
  0.40

  0.46

  0.063

  0.20
82-108 Mine Pond No. 3
Date 5-20-82, Received 5-24-82, Analyzed 6-2-82
Yellow Color, Heavy Flock, pH 7.9
            Aliquot

               1
               2
               3
               4
               5
               6
               7

             Mean

             Std. Dev.

             MDL
ml/l/hr

  0.50
  0.55
  0.60
  0.60
  0.50
  0.55
  0.55

  0.55

  0.041

  0.13
                       B-60
-------
       APPENDIX C
INVESTIGATION OP POST-MINING
     DISCHARGES AFTER
    SMCRA BOND -RELEASE
               C-i
-------
-------
        INVESTIGATION OF POST-MINING
             DISCHARGES AFTER
            SMCRA BOND RELEASE
             SEPTEMBER 1982
              Prepared by:
    OFFICE OF ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                      C-iii
-------
-------
     As stated  in the Preamble of the proposed  Coal Mining Point  Source
Regulations (46 FR 3146 January 13, 1981),  a  data collection effort was
initiated  to  provide the  Agency  with  a basis  for  assessing  the
appropriateness and feasiblity of establishing national regulations
applicable after SMCPA Bond Release.  The objective of this effort  was to
assess the possibility and severity  of pollution  discharges at coal mines
after SMCRA Bond Release, and to address the cost-effectiveness and economic
impacts of setting effluent limitations after release of  bond.

     The Agency recognized that the  minimum liability period  for reclamation
at underground  mines that closed under OSM Regulations ( 44 FR 15336 March
13, 1979) had not expired and at most was only  three years old.  However,
the Agency hoped that the information collected in the survey, combined with
records and documents submitted by interested parties during the  public
comment  period, would provide a suitable  data base  to project  the
possibility and extent  of post-bond  release  pollution and  the
cost-effectiveness of extending the  period of liability0 after a reclamation
bond was released by OSM.

  .  A preliminary  telephone survey was  conducted during October  and
November 1980  to establish  the best sources of  data  in the regulatory
community.  The responses yielded very limited information  from eight states
(Table 1) and little encouragement of data being available in the next few
years.  A literature search was also conducted at that time, which produced
six reports relevant to the survey.  Only one of the six reports proved to
be of direct interest.  The report is a study of the long-term environmental
effectiveness of close down procedures at eastern underground coal mines and
was prepared in August 1977 for EPA's IERL, Cincinnati.  The study found
that from the 200 locations identified as closed  or abandoned coal  mines,
only 86 provided sufficient data for inclusion  in the study.  The study1 s
conclusions are specified as being general and of  a preliminary nature due
to the extreme variability  of  the available data,  both historical  and
analytical.  The two conclusions of interest are:   1) that the sealing
efforts  with longer monitoring records covering both the pre and  post
closure periods were sponsored by State or Federal agencies; and 2)  that
based on these  records the overall effect of the studied  closures on water
quality  is beneficial.   However,  the  effectiveness is determined
predominately by the physical characteristics of the landscape and the  type
of mining operation instead of the sealing technology.

     The questionaire portion of the survey was deferred  until a sufficient
number of coal  mines could be identified as being  relevant to the survey.
Although both  pro and con comments  were received on  post-bond release
regulations during the proposed regulation's comment period,  no records or
documents were  submitted to substantiate either position  and  no mines  were
identified for  additional evaluation.  Therefore,  a final survey review was
initiated to examine all the previous data collected and  attempt to augment
                                    C-l
-------
it with any information currently available from Federal, States,  and public
sources. Discussions with OSM have revealed that  the Abandoned Mine  Lands
Program had completed one  underground mine  reclamation project to  date,
while  the  Federal Reclamation Program has  about 200 underground  mine
projects (number of mines unknown) completed or under contract since  FY79.
Although none of these mines are known to have developed a failure ( i.e., a
new discharge point or an unacceptable discharge  quality), none  have been
closed longer than the normal bonding period  o£ five years (10 years west
of the 100th meridan).  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources attempted to compile a similar list of closed mines from permits
issued between 1965 and 1975 to estimate the number of closed  and  abandoned-
mine inspections needed.  An estimate of 1,000 closed mines was made with no
estimate available on the number closed under SMCRA or state reclamation
regulations, or the number causing  water quality problems.  The use of
comprehensive field inspection to  determine  the  status  of  closed or
abandoned mines has not been attempted cy any  state or federal agencies due
to the high cost, lack of  trained personnel,  and the uncertainty of the
results.  The failure of a mine seal could produce new discharge  points at
rock fractures, mine vents, air ducts/ or even ground seeps anywhere in the
vicinity of the mine site.  Adverse changes in water quality could occur in
normal runoff waters, new discharge points,  or underground  streams.  The
ability of a field inspection to determine the occurrence, cause,  and  source
of  any  of the above events  is  directly related  to the  physical
characteristics of the mine and its location.  The State of Pennsylvania has
required that a water-tight seal be  used when closing a  coal mine  since
1965.  In the period from 1975 to 1980, 30 small coal mines were  closed by
the State (20 of these are included in the report discussed previously) and
15 were closed  by the  mine  operators.   The available background,
correspondence, and water  quality data on six Pennsylvania closed mines
currently causing water  quality problems  were reviewed  for  use  as a
representative sampling.   This approach was  rejected due to  the  large
variability in both the  mine and sealing, technology parameters  (when
sufficient data was available to make such determinations).

     Finally, another literature search was conducted in July 1982 for case
studies or technology demonstrations of closed mines.  Oily three  additional
references were found potentially useful from the 397 references  reviewed.
The first reference is a case study on sealing an underground deep mine in
Pennsylvania in compliance with the states sealing regulations.  The second
reference is a case study on methods used  to seal a closed mine with a
continuous discharge in Japan.  The  final reference  is  an  evaluation of
water  pollution prevention and control from inactive and  abandoned
underground mines.  It surveys mining, sealing, and treatment methods
developed largely  in eastern U.S. coal fields.  Although usefulr these  three
reports did not contribute significant r*ew data.

     In summary, tne Agency has been able  to  develop estimates of  the  number
of  active, closed, and abandoned coal mines but has not  been  able to
determine the number of closed coal mines  sealed or reclaimed under SMCRA.
                                     C-2
-------
Also, the Agency  has not been able to determine the number  of closed coal
mines that are the  source of water quality problems after being sealed or
reclaimed in compliance with SMCRA or equivalent state  regulations.  Based
on the results of this data collection  effort,  it is  felt that there is
insufficient data available  to support  the development of national
regulations on post-bond release.  Therefore, the basis  for a nationally
applicable regulation for discharges after bond release  does not currently
exist, and any point source discharge after bond release  that might occur
can be addressed  through the NPDES permit system.

References

(1)  Telephone Survey Report
(2)  Hydrotechnic Trip Report
(3)  Results of 1980 Literature Search
(4)  Final Survey Review Telephone Memos
(5)  File Histories of six closed PA coal mines
(6)  1982 Literature Search Report
                                      C-3
-------
                                  Table 1

                 Identification of Data From State Agencies


Pennsylvania - Limited data on 45 mines most of which is already summarized
in EPA Report "Long-Term Environmental Effectiveness of Close Down
Procedures - Eastern  Underground Coal Mines."

Tennessee - Limited data on a few mines sealed with impervious clay or
backfilled spoils.

Illinois - Data on only a few mines.

Maryland - Water Quality data on streams, not on specific mines.

Virginia - No data available.

Alabama - Three mines backfilled with spoil material.

Kentucky - Little useful data on sealing effectiveness.

West Virginia - Some data available from a demonstration project.
-------
      REFERENCE 1
TELEPHONE'SURVEY REPORT
             C-5
-------
-------
Verssir
             inc.
                              MEMORANDUM
TO:

FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Bill Kaschak
/, /
Greg Schweer j$/Qr
October 24, 1980
Type and Availability of Data
Effectiveness of Underground
cc: B. Maestri
P. Abell


Concerning the Long-Term
Coal Mine Sealing Procedures 569TM-60
        A telephone survey was  conducted  on October  21, 22, and 23, 1980, by
   Versar personnel to determine the  type and  availability of monitoring data and
   any other relevant data that will  enable MDSD  to  assess the long-term effective-
   ness of underground coal mine sealing  procedures.  The scope of this survey
   was limited due to OMB restraints  on the number of non-federal contacts
   allowed for survey purposes.  State mining  and/or environmental officials
   in five coal producing states (Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Maryland, Alabama,
   and Virginia) as well as EPA personnel in three regions (3,4, and 5) and one
   consulting firm (Hydrotechnics Corp) were contacted during the course of this
   survey.  The results of the  limited number  of  interviews conducted indicate
   that, with the exception of  the State  of Pennsylvania and the data gathered for
   the HRB-Singer Study, little pertinent data are available.  The available
   data are summarized below.

        •  Pennsylvania - Limited seal effectiveness data available on approximately
           thirty abandoned mines sealed  by the state and approximately fifteen
           mines sealed by coal companies in the  past fifteen years.  Water quality
           data available for some mines  particularly in Maraine State Park.

        *  Tennessee - Limited  seal effectiveness data available on several mines
           sealed with impervious clay or backfilled spoils.

        »  Illinois - Some mines have been reported  to have been sealed but
           more in depth contacts are required.

        •  Maryland - Good water quality  data  available on a recently sealed
           mine.  Locations of  some old sealed mines can also be identified.

        *  Alabama - Limited data available on three mines backfilled with spoil
           material.

        •  Virginia - No data available.
                                           C-7
-------
Vcrsar,
    October 24,  1980
    Memorandum 569TM-60
    Page 2
         •  West  Virginia  -  Information available on abandoned mines sealed
            in the Roaring Creek - Grassy Run watersheds as part of the Federal-
            State Elkins Mine  Drainage Pollution Control Demonstration Project.
            No useful  contacts were established in this state.

         •  Kentucky - Little  useful data on sealing effectiveness seem to be
            available.

         Attached to this  memorandum are photocopies of the file memos for each
    telephone interview conducted.  Also attached are file memos from another
    Versar project concerning  State regulations pertatrving to coal mining.  The
    latter set of memos present some general information on the extent: of under-
    ground coal mining and pertinent regulations for individual states.

         It is recommended that a more intensive telephone survey be conducted to
    further determine  the  type and availability of pertinent data.  All the coal
    producing states in the  Eastern United States (i.e., Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
    Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio,  Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia)
    should be investigated.  At a minimum, the following officials/groups should
    be contacted.
            State environmental officials
            State mining  officials
            State geological  surveys
            U.S.  Geological Survey Districts
            U.S.  Bureau of Mines Districts
            University Officials
            Coal  companies
            Coal  industry trade associations  (e.g., National Coal Association
            and Bituminous Coal Research)
                                           C-8
-------
                                                               Pennsylvania
                                  FILE  MEMO
Name

Time
        Gre
-------
                                                              Pennsylvania
                                 FILE  MEMO
Name

Time
      Greg Schweer
   Date    10/23/80
         11:10 a.m.
   File No.
569.1.1
Subject
            Coal Mines - Post Mine Drainage Control
                         - in State of Pennsylvania
Persons Contacted:
Name
              Schuster
Name
  Company   Bureau of Water Quality Mgmt.Company

  Phone   Non-Point Industrial Sources B]phone
          Dept. of Environmental Resources
Comments:
        This branch is the permit issuing section including permits for
     mines.  "Water-tight" coal mine seals have been required since
     1965 by the State of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Schuster is not certain
     how many mines have been sealed since 1965 but a review of the
     files would reveal this info  (15 mines have been sealed since
     1976).  Also, the files may contain some water quality monitoring
     data and any inspection reports on mine seal conditions.  Due to
     lack of manpower and funds, the state has done little monitoring
     and inspection of sealed mines.  Mr. Schuster was receptive to the
     idea of EPA extracting data from his files and for conducting a
                survey of ^e sealed mines.  Mr. Schuster will assist
                    in any way possible.
                                         C-10
-------
                                                              Pennsylvania
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
Greg Schweer
Date  10/23/80
1:30
File No.   569.1.1
Subject
     Coal Mines - Post Mine Drainage Control
                        - in State of Pennsylvania
Persons Contacted:
Name Bud Frederick
Company Abandoned Mine Area Resto-
Name Dave Hbgeman
Company same
ration Division/ Dept. Environmental Resources
Phone 717-787-7668 . Phone
Comments:

           Mr. Frederick was in a day-long meeting so I spoke with his
    assistant, Dave Hbgemaru  This division is concerned with abandoned
    mine reclamation.  Approximately 30 mines have been sealed by the
    state in the past 15 years. Twenty of these mines are small mines
    located in Moraine State Park for which there is water quality data
    and relatively routine inspection by the state ^personnel  and U.S.
    Bureau of Mines personnel.  Most of these mines were covered in the
    HRB-Singer study according to Ifogeman.   Any data in the state files
    can be made available to the EPA but it may require some "digging."
    Any request for data should be made to Bud Frederick.  Hogeman's
A tion R a ired     suggested that Max MacsiirDvic, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
        "	     Pittsburgh, PA   (412-675-6549) be contacted for
                    additional information.
                                       C-ll
-------
                                                                   Tennessee
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
         Greg Schweer
Date   10/23/80
          3:30
File No.
569.1.1
Subject   Coal Mines - Post Mine Drainage Control
                     - in State of Tennessee
Persons Contacted;

  Name     Bob McKay, Permit Office

  Company   Tenn. State Water Quality
         •'   uontroi Hcancn
  Phone	 615-741-2275
                                        Name ___

                                        Company

                                        Phone
Comments:
              Bob McKay referred me to Gary Mabry, WQCB, Surface
              Mining Office,  615-741-7883
              and to Billy Tucker,  Tennessee  Dept. of Conservation
                     Surfaces Mining Office
                     615-741-1046
Action Required
                                        C-12
-------
                                                                   Tennessee
                                  FILE  MEMO
Name

Time
Grecr Schweer
Date
10/22/80
3:40
File No.
   569.1.1
Subject   Coal Mines - Post Mine Drainage Control
                     - in State of Tennessee
Persons Contacted:
  Name   Gary Mabry, Surface Mining Off. Name
  Company   Tenn. State Water Quality
             Control Board
  Phone     615-741-7883	L
                                Company

                                Phone
Comments:  - not in office (3:40 pm 10/22)
           - will call again on 10/23
           - not in office (9:30 10/23)
           - called at 10:30 10/23.   Mabry referred me to his assistant,
             Cliff Bole (geologist).   Mr.  Bole was very helpful and
             interested in the survey.  He said that Tennessee has  liioited
             data on the effectiveness of  mine seals.  In recent years,
             several mines have been sealed with impervious  clay material
             or bulldozed spoils. A more  elaborate seal is  being required
             on an abandoned mine in a surface mine tract being operated
             by Calcan Mining Co. Mines were not required to be sealed
             until recently.
Action Required         He informed me of  a case study of a  mine near
                   his birthplace in Western Pennsylvania.   Near the  town
                   of Kettaning in Armstrong County,  a mine  seal broke in
                   the summer of 1980 that had been successful for  13 years.
                   A three-foot high  flood of water gushed out of the
                   mine and caused quite extensive damage to a trailer park
                   downstream.   He strongly recommends that  I contact D.  R.
                   Thompson,  Chief
                   Mine Drainage Control &  Reclamation Division (Dept. of Env. Resource*
                   P.  0.  Box 2063
                   Fulton Bldg.,  7th  Floor       717-783-8845
                   Harrisburq,  PA 171.00
                                       C-13
-------
                                                                   Illinois
                                 FILE MEMO
Name   Gre9 Schweer


Time
                                           Date    10/22/80
        3:20
                                            File  No.
                                                       569.1.1
Subject    Coal Mines - Post Mine Drainage Control
                      - in State of Illinois
Persons Contacted:
Kame
            Grosbold, Director
                                        Name
Company  Mining Land Reclamation

Phone     217-782-0588
                                        Phone
Comments:
           Called 10/22 and spoke to Mr. Grosbold's assistant and
       explained the nature of our request.  Mr. Grosbold will return
       the call on 10/22 or 10/23.
Action Required
-------
                                                                    Maryland
                                 FILE MEMO
Name
      Phil
   Date   W2V80
Time  3:00
   File No.   569.1.1
Subject    Data on mine sealing in Stafrfl gf Maryland
Persons Contacted:



  Name    Pat Gallagher
  Company   EM - Maryland




  Phone     301-689-4136
Name ___




Company




Phone
Comments:
      See attached sheet.
Action Required
                                       C-15
-------
Name:  Pat Gallagher

State:  Maryland  (301)689-4136
1.  Mine sealing techniques used - yes.  1 known case.
                 Double - blkhead (gravel) with center concrete plug.

2.  Success in preventing post-mine drainage.  This seal was
             finished in March 80.

3.  Maintenance required -  No - none anticipated.  Obs. well is
           in place to allow monitoring.

4.  Failures - W.Q. data available for:

                    a) post-failure            Being closely monitored.
                    b) pre-sealing - yes and flow

5.  Failures - has re-sealing or treatment been feasible?  Treatment
              would be feasible.  Could be pumped out if needed since
              it is a relatively small mine.

6.  Failures - any environmental damage reported?   N/A

7.  Is list available of all mines sealed within the past five years?
     This is the only recent one.  Some very old WPA seals.
                                                       N/A
     This is a
10-acre mine.
                                 C-16
-------
                                                                     Kentucky
                                 FILE MEMO
Name   Phil flbell

Time   3:20
                                            Date
              10-22-80
                                            File No.
               569.1.1
Subject    Mine sealing techniques and effectiveness
Persons Contacted:
  Name
Name
  Company     Kentucky Geological Survey Company
  Phone
             (606)  258-5863
Phone
Comments:
       Had no information.   Referred me  to:

              Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals
                  (606)  254-0367
Action Required
                                        C-17
-------
                                                                   Alabama
                                 FILE MEMO
Name
Time
Phil Abell
   Date   10-22-80
  2:20
   File No.
569.1.1
Subject   Mine sealing techniques and effectiveness
Persons Contacted:
  Name
    Joe Meyers
  Company   Alabama  ?
  Phone
     (205) 277-3630
Name
Company
Phone
Comments:
            Had no information.
            Referred me to Bob teller in charge of lands reclamation
                (205) 832-6753
Action Required
                                        C-18
-------
                                                                   Alabama
                                 FILE MEMO
Name
Time
       Phil Abell
   Date
             10-22-80
        2:35
   File No.
569.1.1
Subject   Mine sealing techniques and effectiveness.
Persons Contacted:

  Name Bob Vfeller
  Company   Alabama Land Reclamation

  Phone  (205) 832-6753
Name __

Company

Phone
Comments:
       Have only "sealed" 3 mines.   These were not really seals.
       Simply filled the mines with spoil material. No plug or cap,
Action Required
                                        C-19
-------
                                                                Virginia
                                 FILE MEMO
Name   Phil Abell
   Date
22 October
Time   10:3°
   File No.
      569.1.1
Subject   Mine sealing techniques and effectiveness
Persons Contacted:
           Bob Dott (reached)
  Name     Fred Kaurich  (out sick)

  Company  Va. Mater Control Bd.

  Phone    (703) 628-5183
Name ___

Company

Phone
Comments:

          Va. W2B does not ironitor mines specifically.  May have w.q,
       stations near mine, but that is incidental.  Suggested I call:

                           Dept. of Labor and Industry
                           Division of Mines and Quarries
                           Big Stone Gap, Va.
                             (703) 523-0335

       Mr. Wheatley will call 10-23-80.

Action Required
                                       C-20
-------
                                                                       Virgnia
                                 FILE  MEMO
Name   Phil Abell
                               Date
             10-22-80
Time   2:00
                               File  No.
                569.1.1
Subject     Mine sealing techniques, and effectiveness.
Persons Contacted:

  Name     Mr.  Wheatley
                           Name
           Va.  Dept.  of Labor &  Industry
  Company  Division oZ Mines & Quarries   Company
  Phone
(703)  523 0335
Phone
Comments:

            Mr.  Wheatley was  not in his office.  Will return the call
               tomorrow (10-23-80).

            1:10 p.m.  10-23-80

                 Mr. Wheatley called me back.  He is not aware of any
            .program in the state of Virginia.  Mines must be closed to
            prevent entry  of  people.  No record is kept of closures or
            water quality.  At  least not during the past 7 years since
            Wheatley has been with  the office.                   - •
Action Required
                                       C-21
-------
                                                                 Hydrotechnics
                                  FILE  MEMO
Name

Time
                                          Date    10-22-80
3:00
                                          File No.    569.1.1
Subject    Mine sealing techniques and effectiveness
Persons Contacted:
Name
  Company

  Phone
              ,Dansberger
                              Name
            Hydro-technics  Corp.

           212-695-6800
                              Company

                              Phone
Comments:
            Discussed the report prepared by Victoria Lickers.  Alex said
       they really have very little information (as  far  as he knows) on  the
       engineering aspects (type of seal, etc.).  They're mainly  concerned
       with water quality.   He is  going to  try  and come  up with some good
       contacts  in Perm,  and will  call  me back.

       10-23-80   Returned call.  Recommended Giovannitti.
Action Required
                                        C-22
-------
                                                                    EPA - Atlanta
                                 FILE MEMO
Name   Phil Abell
                               Date   10-22-80
Time
       2:00
                               File No.
569.1.1
Subject
Mine sealing techniques and effectiveness
Persons Contacted:
  Name
          Mike Taimi
  Company   EPA - Atlanta



  Phone   404-881-4727
                            Name
                            Company



                            Phone
Comments:
          Mr. Taimi will return the call later today,
Action Required
                                       C-23
-------
                                                                 Wfest Virginia
                                 FILE MEMO
Name  PhilAbell




Time     1:45
   Date   10-22-80
   File No.   569.1.1
Subject   Mine sealing and effectiveness,
Persons Contacted:
  Name   Bob Scott
  Company
            W. Va. DNR
  Phone    O04) 636-1767
Name
Company



Phone
Comments:
      Bob Scott was out, but is expected to return on Thursday 10-23-80.



      Called again 10-23-80.  Still not in.  Secretary expects him in tomorrow,
Action Required
                                       C-24
-------
                                                                   EPA - Atlanta
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
       phil
                                    Date    10-23-80
3:15
                                    File No.
               569.1.1
Subject   Mine sealing techniques and effectiveness.
Persons Contacted;
  Name
    Mike Taimi
Name
             EPA- Atlanta
  Company	

  Phone     <404> 881-4727
                                 Company

                                 Phone
Comments:
            In charge of NPDES permitting for mine.
            Mike said most of the sealed mines he knows of also
       have large disturbed areas and spoil piles*  The runoff
       from these is collected and discharged together with the drainage
       from the mine itself. This obviously biases the data and would
       mask the effectiveness of the sealing technique.  He is not
       really aware of any data base on this subject for the Kentucky
       Region (his area).
Action Required
                                        C-25
-------
                                                                    Illinois
                                 FILE MEMO
Name  Gre9 Schweer
                                         Date
            10/22/80
Time   3:15
                                         File Ho.    569.1.1
Subject    Coal Mines - Post Mine Drainage Control
                      - in State of Illinois
Persons Contacted:
  Name
       _Bob
             EPA, Field Inspector
Company	

Phone    618-997-4371
Name ___

Company

Phone
Comments:
           Does not have any pertinent data but can identify mines
      that have been sealed in recent years.

           -• Suggested that Al Grosbold, Director
                            Mining Land Reclamation Council
                            618-782-0588

                             be contacted.
Action Reguired
                                       C-26
-------
Name

Time
Greg Schweer
  3:45
                                                                   EPA - Region III
                                 FILE MEMO
Date
10/23
File No.   569.1.1
Subject
   Coal Mines - Post Mine Drainage Control
                       - in EPA Region III
Persons Contacted!

  Name    Kathy Ifodgekiss
  Company  EPA Region 3 - Enforcement

  Phone    215-597-2945
                               Name _____

                               Company

                               Phone
Comments:
         Hodgekiss knew of no available data hut would check around and
  call B. Kaschak if any relevant data are found.
Action Required
                                       C-27
-------
               IOC
                           MEMORANDUM



TO:    Fiie                                    Date:  August 16, 1977
                                                      475.15-106
FRCM:  Linda Kay

SUBJECT:  State Regulations Pertaining to Coal Mining - TTTTMTITS
 ILLINOIS
 Division of Water Pollution Control, Permit Section
 217-782-0610
 Mark Bryant

     Illinois has established its own regulations for the mining of coal in
 this state.  Permits must be obtained from both the Division of Water
 Pollution Control and the Department of Mines and Minerals in order to mine.
 The state has established its own effluent standards which, for some parameters,
 are more stringent than EPA's BP T standards.  Only BPT standards are enforced
 at present.  Mark Bryant is sending Versar a copy of the state's permit conditions,

     Sludge disposal does not appear to be much of a problem for Illinois.
A sludge build-up has not yet occurred in most treatment facilities.  In
 those cases where a build-up has occurred, mine sediments and sludge are
 lagooned and evaporated.  In sane instances, the dried solids are buried.
No regulations specifically address sludge disposal, however, state officials
consider it a solid mine waste and regulate its disposal under Chapter 4
of the Pollution Control Board Regulations for Mine Related Pollution.

Department of Mines & Minerals
Ernest Ashby  217-782-4970
Bob Robson    217-782-6792

     Illinois regulates strip mining and strip mine reclamation.   Ernest
Ashby is sending Versar a copy of these regulations.

     According to both Ernest Ashby and Bob Robson, Illinois has no problem
with acid producing coal mines.   Apparently all surface mines are required
to be designed so as to prevent water from comirig in contact with the coal
seam.  Also, reclamation techniques prevent any problems with run-off.

     Bob Robson insisted that deep mines have no drainage problems.  Ke cited
two reasons: 1)  diminished precipitation ill the mid-west as ccr^ared to the
east and 2)  the structure of deep mines in Illinois.   Deep coal mines in
this state are shaft mines runnincr straight down for 250'  to 1000'.
                                      C-28
-------
MEMO

August 16, 1977
475.15-106
     This information contradicts Versar's observations of mining in this
state.  The Will Scarlet Mine (Peabody Coal)  had sore of the most acid
discharges encountered in the BAT Coal screening sampling.

Environmental Protection Agency
Bob Gates, Field Inspector
618-997-4371

     Bob Gates was sorrewhat more realistic about mine drainage problems
in Illinois.  He did provide a "partial" list of counties where a potential
for acid drainage exists.  They include:  St.  Clair,  Monroe, Randolph,
Jackson, Johnson, Williamson, Christian, Vermillion,  Jfessac, Pope, Hardin,
Saline, Gallatin, Franklin, Madison,  Douglas,  Bond, Jefferson, Knox,  Peoria,
Fulton, and Macoupin.
                                       C-29
-------
                          MEMORANDUM

 August 9,  1977
 TO:        475.15 File
 FKM:      Lirda Kay
 SUBJECT:   State Regulations  Pertaining to Goal Mining
 ICWA
 Soil Conservation Department
 Division of Mines and Minerals
 515-281-5851
 Marvin Ross
     Iowa dees very little to regulate coal mining principally because this
 industry is so small in this state.  Presently there are only 2 underground
 mines and 7 surface mines in operation.  Large deposits of coal, however,
 underlie this area and officials expect the industry to increase in size in
 the  future with the current  ernphasis on coal as an energy source*
     Iowa does have a surface mine reclamation act that went into effect
 February 1, 1977.  Versar will receive a copy of the act and the accompanying
 regulations.
     Acid mine drainage is not much of a problem in Iowa.  Only a couple of
mines have acid discharges and, due to relatively lew precipitation rates in
 this area of the country, their discharge volume is minimal.   Abandoned
 strip pits are the largest concern in this respect.  During particularly
heavy storms, the pits sometimes overflew and discharge acid water into local
drainage systens.
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of. Water Quality
Joe Cber
515-265-8134
     The Division of Water Quality dees not make any attempt to monitor
drainage frcrn coal mine operations.  It dees not administer a permit program
and it has not established any effluent standards.
     All regulation of the coal industry has been delegated to the federal
ccvenrrsnt.  The U.S. EFA (P^gicn V)  administers the NFDES permit program ar^f
enforces EFT effluent standards in this stats.
                                     C-30
-------
 Vcrsai
inc.
                           MEMORANDUM
TO:
       475.15 File
                                Data:  August 30, 1977
                                      475.15-114
FFCM:  Linda Kay

SUBJECT:   INDIANA - State Regulations Pertaining to Coal Mining




 INDIANA

 Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board
 Water Pollution Control Division
 317-633-0751
 Jim Ray

     Indiana has been approved by EPA to administer the federal NPDES permit
 program.  Ihe state is therefore enforcing BPT effluent standards  for the
 coal mining industry.
     According to state water pollution authorities, acid mine  drainage is
 not much of a problem in Indiana,  A few abandoned mines are  sources of acid
 water and there are some potentially acid areas along Indiana's southwest
 border in Vigo, Sullivan, Knox, Gibson, and Posey counties.   However, the
 employment of new mining methods required by the surface mine reclamation
 act prevents the formation of acid drainage.

     The Water Pollution Control Division is not aware of any problems in
 the industry with sludge disposal and it has not developed regulations which
 address the topic.

 Department of Natural Resources
 Division of Reclamation
 317-633-6217
 Richard McNabb

     Indiana has a surface mine reclarration act in effect.  Richard McNabb
 is  sending Versar a copy of the act and accompanying regulations.
     Surface ironing comprises the bulk of the mining industry in this state.
 There are presently only two active deep mines.
                                  C-31
-------
               •
               inc.
                           MEMORANDUM
TO;   475.15  File    j

        Linda Kay "3-
Data:  August 8, 1977
       475.15-99
SUBJECT:   Ohio - Survey of Coal Mining States Regarding State Regulations
                  Pertaining to Coal Mining.
 Chio
        Department of Natural  Resources
        Division of  Reclamation
        614-466-4850
        Barbara  Merrill

           Ohio  regulates strip mining and  strip mining reclamation.  Division
           of Reclamation will send Versar  a copy of state regulations,

        Division of  Mines  (Ohio)
        614-466-4240

           This  division regulates mine safety only.

        Office of Wastewater Pollution Control
        614-466-2390
        Dave Danford

           Ohio  administers EPA's NPDES program and currently has approved
           677 permits.  Ohio  is just beginning to actively monitor mining
           activities and is currently  enforcing BPT standards as they
           appeared  in the Federal Register.  In the past, coal mining has
           been  a low priority industry in Ohio.  State resources were
           allocated primarily to the regulation of larger, more dominant
           industries such as  steel and the utilities.

           There appears to be little or no state regulation of the disposal
           of sludge from treatment facilities.  Ohio's permit system
           requires  the optimum operation of treatment facilities, and this
           requirement permits state officials to demand sludge removal if
           the sludge build-up becomes a problem in the operation of these
           plants.  Basically, the state's regulation of sludge is handled
           on a  case by case basis.  Ohio does have solid waste regulations
           in force;  however they do not address the disposal of sludge from
           coal  operations in particular.  Revisions of these regulations
           to include acid mine drainage sludge are expected in the future.
           Ohio has  an appeal  system that permits the establishment of more
           stringent effluent  standards for certain pristine waters.  Kov^ver,
           action to establish new standards can only be instigated by citizen

                                    G-32
-------
TO:



FRCM:

SUBJECT:
Division  of  Water Resources
1200 Greenbrier  Street
Charleston,  WV   25311
K. Randolph
            August 6, 1977
            475.15-96
State Regulations on Coal Mining: West Virginia
 Talked with:
       Mr. Paul Ware
       Water Resources
       (304) 348-3614
Date Called: August 4, 1977
             10:10 a.m.
      West Virginia has a state permit system for regulating coal mine drainage.
 By and large, this boils down to EPA BPT guidelines.  Each permit is handled
 individually as far as effluent limitations are concerned, but in the majority
 of cases, the limitations are HPT.  There are some exceptions in what were
 referred to as "sensitive waters".  In those cases, the receiving water quality
 controls the limitations imposed by West Virginia and these are always more
 stringent than BPT.

      West Virginia formulated some "new" water quality standards three years
 ago, and these are being published this week.  Mr. Ware will send us a
 copy as soon as they are available.

      Strip mines are regulated by the Reclamation Division under the Strip
 Mine Reclamation Act.  This act provides seme water quality standards that
 are less stringent than BPT, CpH > 5.5, Fe - 10 ppm).  However, Water
 Resources Division passes on all NPDES permits and they must rule on
 water quality from strip mines before the mine can get a mining permit.
 Water Resources, once again, generally imposes BPT standards.  Mr. Ware
 will send us a copy of the Act when he sends the water quality standards.

      As for regulation of sludge disposal, this corres under the mining
 permit, and it is handled on a case by case basis.  The mining conpany must
 show in their application for a mining permit how any sludge will be disposed
 of and the Reclarrati.cn Act has something to say on this too.  West Virginia
 does not have any formal regulation for sludge disposal.  Lagocning, returning
 to mine, drying and filling may all be acceptable depending on conditions.

      I asked if their data on flew and quality of water from coal mines was
 on a ccrrputer or was in a form where the amount of acid drainage in West
 Virginia could be determined readily.   The response was that their manage-
 irent didn't seem to know that computers had been invented.  One clerk
 handles the data and she is two years behind.  However, Mr. Ware cemented
 that the AMD prcblen wz-s s-'^rlous only in the? Monor.gahela River valley

                                   C-33
-------
                                  - 2 -
Memo to 475.15 File
August 5, 1977
475.15-96
and drainage area.  But he had no idea how much water was being treated

     Mr. V&re was very cordial and quite helpful.  He said that we were
welcome to call anytime.
-------
  Versat
•
inc.
                          MEMORANDUM
 August 3,  1977
 10:        475.15 File   j
 FRCM:      Linda Kay i$
 SUBJECT:   State Regulations Pertaining to Coal Mining
 MARYIAND
 larry Ramsey
 Industrial and Hazardous Wastes, Water Resources ^ministration
 Maryland Department of Natural Resources
      The State of Maryland regulates drainage fron coal mines.   In fact,  the
 Department of Natural Resources maintains a very active program.   They have
 established effluent guidelines, based on in-house studies of the state's
 particular mining conditions, which are actually more stringent than EPA!s
 BPT guidelines,  ^feryland monitors turbidity (and therefore 1SS),  iron, and
 alkalinity.  According to Larry Ramsey, Maryland mines have no  problems
 achieving these standards.  Versar will be sent a copy of  Maryland's permit
 conditions.
     Maryland has a very effective, centralized enforcement program.  While
 the Bureau of Mines approves mining permits for both  deep  and surface mines,
 routine inspection is carried out by the Vfeter Resources Mministration.
 This division is also responsible for the enforcement of the  conditions
 required by other permits necessary for coal mining (Soil Conservation Service
permits and water discharge permits).   Violations of  the conditions of one
permit result in the revocation of all permits  required for mining.  Tnis
 centralized system is unique among the coal mining  states and it appears, .to
encourage a fair and comprehensive regulation of the  industry in this state.
     Maryland,  like other states,  dees not specifically regulate the handling
of acid mine drainage sludge.   Solid waste regulations are in effect,  however,
and disposal of sludge from coal raining - should it occur - must concur with
these regulations.
                                   C-35
-------
  Versm
              irxx
 MARYLAND, Con't.

 Tony Abar
 Bureau of Mines
 301-269-3382
Robert Creter
Water Resources Admin.,  Cumberland Office
301-777-2134
      Maryland has a strip-mining reclamation act, in effect since  July  1,
 1976.  Accompanying regulations have been established  and  are  in  the process
 of revision.  Tony Abar is sending Versar a copy of the act and current regu-
 lations.  Versar will also receive similar regulations pertaining to deep
 mines.
      Sludge disposal does not appear to be a problem in Maryland.  The new
 strip mine reclamation regulations provide for the  burial  of sludge in strip
 pits.  In most cases/  sludge is allowed to remain in the sedimentation ponds
 and, after the mining operations cease,  the liquid  portion eventually
 evaporates.   This is especially the case in surface mining operations where
 sludge build-up is rarely a problem since ns* ponds are continually being
 constructed as mining proceeds.   Officials expect difficulties with sludge
 disposal to increase with the opening of more large deep mines within the
 state.
      According to Robert Creter-of the Water  Resources Administration all
 coal seams in Maryland are acid  producing.

 Maryland Effluent Standards for  Coal Mines
 pH  6.0 - 9.0
 Alkalinity must exceed acidity
 *Turbidity>  100 Jackson Campbell units
 TSS  35 mg/1 (average)    45 mg/1 (maximum)
 Total iron  4.0 mg/1 (maximum)
*Turbidity has been correlated with total  suspended solids for  ease of measure-
 ment in the  field.
                                     C-36
-------
                                                                 Kentucky
                                 FILE MEMO
Name   Gre9 Schweer
                                           Date   Nov.  12,  1980
Time   2:15 p.m.
                                           File No.    569.1.1
Sub j ect
                  - Post Mine Drainage Control
                  - State of Kentucky
Persons Contacted:
  Name    Joey Roberts
                                        Name
          Kentucky Dept. of Natural Resources
  Company & EnvironmentalJ&gptection    Company
          Div. of Standards and Specifications
  Phone   502-564-2377              .    Phoue
Comments:
            Since 1978, water quality monitoring of discharge from active
       mines has been required under the NPDES program.  However,  compliance
       in reporting has not been good and data has  not been compiled into
       any readily accessible form.

            The State of Kentucky has discouraged the  practice of
       underground mine sealing based on expected failure of  seals.
Action Required
                                        C-37
-------
                                                                   Kentucky
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
Greg Schweer
Date  11/13/80
  2:00 p.m.
File No.
569.1.1
Subject
    Coal Mines - Post Mine Drainage Control
                        - State of Kentucky
Persons Contacted:
  Name   David Rosenbaum
                               Name
         Kentucky Dept. of Natural Resources
  Company and Environmental Protection   Company
          Division of Abandoned Lands
  Phone 	502-564-2141	        .     Phone
Comments:

           Mr. Rosenbaum heads this newly formed Division of Abandoned
      Lands.  TMs division will be addressing acid mine drainage problems
      and developing abatement plans.  lb his knowledge, there has been
      very little sealing of abandoned mines in Kentucky in toe past and
      there is little if any monitoring data on mine drainage.   His division
      will be undertaking an inventory of abandoned mines in the state within
      three weeks.

           At present, 034 is constructing an emergency seal on a mine
      in Knott county.  The state is designing cover seals for three
Action Required    mines in western Kentucky.
                                       C-38
-------
                                                                    Maryland
                                  FILE  MEMO
Name 	

Time   2:15
Greg Schweer
   Date    11/13/80
                                   File No.
                  569.1.1
Subject
                  Mines - Post : .Mints
                                                         "*
                                - State of Maryland
Persons Contacted:
  Name   Anthony Abar
                                Name
           Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
  Company  Rnwaan ^f M-ir^g	    Company
  Phone
   301-689-4136
Phone
Comments:
            The only potentially relevant data Maryland has is:

       1.  Preliminary monitoring data for the Lost land Run daylighting project.
             - data will be presented in a draft report soon by
                         Ackenaeil and Associates
                         Pittsburgh, PA
                        (Peter Campion 412-531-2470)
             - pre-, during, and post-data are available.   Post  data,  at
               present, is being collected.   Three months  worth  of data are
               available and data will be collected for another  9 months.
Action Required
                  2.  Maryland conducted a one-year monitoring study of acid
           mine drainage in the early 1970s.   Data was collected in the Castleman,
           Cherry Creek, and Georges Creek watersheds.  The data is quite  extensive
           and identifies individual mines and associated  water  quality.  Some
           of the identified mines had been sealed in the  past.

            The State of Maryland has not conducted any mine sealing programs;
            considers treatment of AMD to be more feasible and reliable.
                                       C-39
-------
                                                                  Vfest Virginia
                                 FIIZ MEMO
Name

Time
Greg Schweer
   Date
11/12/80
Subject
  3:15
                                 File No.
                569.1.1
  Coal Mines - Post Mine Drainage Control
                       - State of Vfest Virginia
Persons Contacted:
  Name
Paul Ware
Name
          W.Va. Dept. of Natural Resources
  Company  Division of Vfeter Jtesouraes  Company
  Phone
            304-348-3614
                              Phone
Comments:
           No program is underway in W.  Va.  to seal abandoned mines.
      ffowever, Mr. Ware stated that he is aware of several dozen mines
      which have been sealed and for which pre-sealing water quality
      data probably could be compiled and made accessible to EPA.  Little
      if any post-sealing water quality data is expected to be available.
Action Required
                                      C-40
-------
                                                                   Vfest Virginia
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
Greg Schweer
Date
11/12/80
3:30
                                  File No.
                569.1.1
Subject   Coal Mines - Post Mine Drainage Control
               State of Sfest Virginia
Persons Contacted:
  Name   Dave Kessler
                               Name
  Company   W.Va. Dept. of Mines
              Uioqtrs.j
  Phone      304-348-2061
                               Company

                               Phone
Comments;

        Mr. Kessler can provide a computerized list of abandoned mines
   for which mine maps are available.   In regards to sealed mines  and
   sealing techniques, he suggested that the five regional divisions be
   contacted:
               Northern Division
               Oak Hill Division
               Vivian Division
               Logan Division
               Kanawha Division
Action Required
                           Grant King  -  292-5642
                           Frank Legg  -  469-2222
                           Ed Jarvis - 585-7013
                           Mr. Cook -  239-2326
                           Jim Gillespie - 442-2823
-------
-------
       REFERENCE 2
HYDROTECHNIC TRIP REPORT
               C-43
-------
-------
                  Trip Report - Pennsylvania Department of
                                Environmental Resources
Pennsylvania D. E. R.
Fulton Building
3rd and Locust Street
Harrisburg, PA

Prepared by:  Victoria Lickers - Hydrotechnic Corp.

Date of Trip:  October 9, 1980

Purpose of Trip:  Obtain data on inactive coal mines and
                  post-mining discharges

Contacts:  Kathy Seiber  (717) 787-9646
           Dix Hoffman        (717) 787-8184
           Ernest Giovannitti

Results:

         Seven facilities, representing cases of successfully sealed
mines with no discharge problems, and sealed mines where post-mining
discharges have occurred, were selected for review by DER.  These files
had been pulled:

         1.  Barnes & Tucker Co.
             567M035 and 567M028 (same mine - two permits)

         2.  Margaret #7 Mine
             366M006

         3.  Wildwood Mine
             466M011

         4.  OVN Mine
             367M034

         5.  Carrolltown No.  2 Mine
             566M006

         6.  North Camp No.  1 Mine
             266M032
                                     C-45
-------
         Barnes & Tucker, Margaret #7 Mine/ and Wildwood Mine have




all had problems with post-mining discharges.   The remaining three




facilities fall into the "sealed, no discharge" category.




         Data was Xeroxed and is now on file in Hydrotechnic' s office



for all facilities except the JVM Mine and the Barnes & Tucker facility.




The remaining data is to be copied by DER personnel and forwarded to



Hydrotechnic.



         It was learned  (from D. Hoffman) that the number of inactive




mines in Pennsylvania, for which the operators are responsible, probably




falls within the range of 300-500.  Those facilities in the "sealed,




no discharge" category are inspected about tari.ce a year  (after the first




5-year period) by DER personnel.  Due to limited manpower, only the
portals are checked for discharge.  There is no groundwater monitoring



or engineering analysis performed.



         Mines with discharge problems would be monitoring more



closely, depending upon the circumstances.



         Based upon his understanding of the information that EPA was



after, Hoffman did not seem to think that obtaining data for more than



the selected 7 facilities was necessary.  He also stated that for



someone to piece together the background of a particular facility



from the files could be difficult and time-consuming.
                                      C-46
-------
         Since there was a great deal of data (much of it legal



correspondence) concerning the Barnes & Tucker facility, the need



to Xerox and/or use all of it was questioned.  E.  Giovannitti was



consulted as to the possibility of someone familiar with the



case preparing a short "history" of the problem,  actions taken,



etc.  He responded that it would be difficult, and that he didn't



know who would be qualified to do it.  He suggested that if EPA



were to get in touch with him regarding a specific aspect of the



problem, he may be able to help.



         Giovannitti also noted that he thought the EPA was



stressing the wrong aspect of the post-mining discharge problem.



He felt that more attention should be paid to those mines which



have been successfully sealed and to the sealing techniques employed,



rather than to treating the post-mining discharges that occur at



some of the inactive mines.  As he pointed out,  treating the discharge



from an active or an inactive mine is essentially the same.
                                     C-47
-------
-------
           REFERENCE 3
RESULTS OF 1980 LITERATURE SEARCH
                  C-49
-------
-------
US.
                                                    XOM«aCE
                                    Ibtioesl Tccfeoetil hftatttiw Sento



                                    PK272.373
 LONG-TERM EWIPDNMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS




        OF CTOSE DCfWN PROCEDURES




    EASTERN UNDERGROUND COAL MINES










HRB-Singer, Inc., State College, Pa.
Prepared for




INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LAB - CINCINNA.TI, OHIO






Aug 77
                       C-51
-------
Report No.:  EPA-600/7-77-083

Title and Subtitle:  long-Term Environmental Effectiveness of
                     Close Down Procedures -  Eastern Underground Coal Mines

Authors:  M. F. Bucek and J. L.  Emal

Performing Organization Name and Address:

      HRB-Singer, Inc.
      P. 0. Box 60
      Science Park, State College, PA  16801

Sponsoring Agency Name and Address:

      Industrial Environmental Research Lab. - Cin., OH
      Office of Research and Development
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Cincinnati, Ohio  45268

Abstact:

  The objective of the research project was to prepare an up-to-date
document on deep mine closures that have been or are planned to be
implemented in the eastern coal mining regions.  The project was also
to provide an initial overview of the effectiveness of the closure
methods and the factors to which their effectiveness can be attributed.
The effectiveness was evaluated in terms of a closure effect on
mine drainage quality and quantity.

  The trend analyses of the pollutant concentrations and outputs for
the pre- and post-closure periods show that the closures for more than
half of the sites reversed or reduced increasing pollutant trends, augmented
the already decreasing trends, and reduced variability in fluctuations of
the water quality.  The effectiveness of the mine closures with respect
to the mine effluent quality by comparison with the preliminary mine
effluent guidelines was observed to be usually less than 50 percent
effective.  The degree of closure effectiveness with respect to the
mine water quality improvement was found to be predominantly determined
by the physical and mining framework to the sites and less by the closure
technology.
                                 C-52
-------
                                      EPA-600/7-77-090
                                      August 1977
            ELKINS MINE DRAINAGE

              POLLUTION CONTROL

            DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
                     by

  Resource Extraction and Handling Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
           Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
                  Edited by

          PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
           Cincinnati, Ohio  45246
           Contract No. 68-02-1321
               Project Officer

               Ronald D, Hill
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
     OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           CINCINNATI, OHIO  45268
                      C-53
-------
                           ABSTRACT
     Underground and surface coal mining operations have re-
sulted in degradation of the environment.  Past mining opera-
tion* continue to pollute streams with acid, aedintent, and heavy
metal laden waters.  Land disturbed during mining lies deluged,
and useless.  In 1964 several Federal agencies in cooperation
with the State of West Virginia initiated a project to demon-
strate methods to control the pollution from abandoned under-
ground and surface mines in the Roaring Creek-Grassy Run water-
sheds near Elkins, West Virginia.

     The Roaring Creek-Grassy Run watersheds contained 400
hectares of disturbed land, 1200 hectares of underground mine
workings and discharged over 11 metric tons per day of acidity
to the Tygart Valley River.  The reclamation project was to
demonstrate the effectiveness of mine seals, water diversion
from underground workings, burial of acid-producing spoils and
refuse, surface mine reclamation, and surface mine revegetation.
Following a termination order in 1967, major efforts were
directed away from the completion of the mine sealings and
toward surface mining reclamation and revegetation.  In July
1968 the reclamation work was completed with the reclamation and
revegetation of 284 hectares of disturbed land and the construc-
tion of 101 mine seals.

     Results of an extensive monitoring program revealed that
some reduction in acidity load  (as high as 20 percent during
1968 and 1969), and little if any in iron and sulfate loads and
flow have occurred in Grassy Run.  Roaring Creek had an insig-
nificant change in flow as a result of water diversion, and a
decrease of 5 to 16 percent in acidity and sulfate load.  Bio-
logical recovery in both streams has been nonexistent except in
some smaller subwatersheds.  Good vegetative cover has been
established on almost all of the disturbed areas.  Legumes
dominate in most areas after eight years.  Tree survival and
growth has been good.

     Average reclamation costs  (at 1967 prices) were as follows:
surface mine reclamation - $4,ISO/hectare, seal construction -
$4,140/seal, and revegetation - $620/hectare.
-------
                                                       EPA-600/3-80-070
                                                       July 1980
      ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF WESTERN COAL SURFACE MINING
PART VIII - FISH DISTRIBUTION IN TROUT CREEK,  COLORADO,  1975-1976
                               by
              John P. Goettl,  Jr.  and Jerry W.  Edde

                  Colorado Division of Wildlife
                    Fisheries  Research Center
                  Fort Collins,  Colorado 80522
                        Grant No.  R803950
                         Project  Officer

                         Donald  I.  Mount
            Environmental  Research  Laboratory-Duluth
                     Duluth,  Minnesota  55804
               ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
              OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
             U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55804
                               C-55
-------
                                  ABSTRACT

     A study was conducted on Trout Creek 1n northwestern Colorado during
1975-1976 to assess the effects of drainage from an adjacent surface coal
mine on the distribution of f1ah« In the cr*«k, and to r«1dtft th«1r dis-
tribution to physical and chemical variables.  A second objective was to
determine the possible toxlclty of surface coal mine drainage water on fish
stocked In ponds receiving surface and groundwater run-off from the mine.

     Results did not Indicate any direct effects of mine drainage water on
the distribution of fishes 1n Trout Creek, although possible effects may
have been masked by elevation, stream flow, streambed alterations, and agri-
cultural Irrigation return flows.  Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalie) was
the dominant salmonld species in the upper reaches of the creek; rainbow
trout (Salmo gaivdnevi) and brown trout (S. -toutta) were found only 1n the
region of the mine.  Mottled sculpln (Cottue bairdi) and speckled dace
(Rhiniohthya oaoulua) were the most common fishes found throughout and at
all but the uppermost reaches, respectively.

     Rainbow trout stocked 1n mine seepage water ponds for a year evi-
denced high survival rates over an eight-month period during the winter,
but fared poorly during the ensuing summer months, this latter most pro*
bably because of extremely high water temperatures.  There was no apparent
evidence of toxlcity to the fish from contaminants 1n the mine pond water.
                                     C-56
-------
                                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                  National Technical Information Service
                                  PB-264 936
Water  Pollution  Caused by  Inactive
Ore  and  Mineral Mines -  A National
Assessment

Toups Corp, Santa Ana, Calif
Prepared for
Industrial Environmental Research Lab -Cincinnati, Ohio Resource Extraction
and Handling Div
Dec 76
                             C-57
-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Ptem md Imuructtom on tht ttvtnt btfon compttttng)
1. REPORT NO.
  EPA-600/2-76-298
       2.
                                                           a. RlCIPlENrs ACCEUION NO.
4, TITLS AND SUaTITUI
    HATER POLLUTION CAUSED BY  INACTIVE ORE
    AND MINERAL MINES - A National Assessment
                                     s, REPORT
                                      D« ci«b«r
_I976  iasuincrdat*-
                                     *. PfRPORMINQ ORGANIZATION COOt
 '. AUTHORIS)
    Harry H.  Martin
    William R. Mills,
                                                           I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
Jr.
i. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM* AND AODREM
   Toups Corporation
   1010 N.  Main Street
   Santa Ana, CA  92711
                                     10. PROORAM ILIMlNTNO.

                                       1BB040
                                     nTCONTHACT/OKAN TWO.
                                           68-03-2212
13. SPONSORING AGENCY NAMf AND AOO«i»
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - C1n., OH
Office  of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
Cincinnati,  Ohio  45268
                                     13. TVPI OP MFOflT AND PIMIOD COVtNIO

                                           Final      _^   ___  	
                                     14. SPONSOHINO AOINCY CODI

                                          EPA/600/12
19. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
   ttie  report Identifies the scope  and  magnitude of water pollution  from Inactive
   ore  and mineral mines.  Data collected from Federal, State, and local agencies
   Indicates water pollution from adds,  heavy metals, and sedimentation occurs at
   over 100 locations and affects over  1200 kilometres of streams and  rivers.   The
   metal  mining Industry was shown  to be  the principal source of this  pollution.

   Descriptions of the mineral Industry are presented. Including a summary of economic
   geology, production methods, and historic mineral production methods, and historic
   mineral  production.  The mechanisms  of formation,- transporation,  and removals of
   pollutants are detailed.

   Annual  pollutant loading rates for acid and metals from Inactive  mines are  given anc
   a method provided to determine the extent of mine-related sedimentation 1n  Western
   watersheds.   State-by-state summaries  of mine related pollution are presented.
   An assessment of current water pollution abatement procedures used  for Inactive
   mines  1s given and research and  development programs for necessary  Improve-
   ments  are recommended.
 7.
                               KEY WOftOE AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                       tUOENTIPICRE/OPEN ENDED TERMS
   c,  COSATI Field/Croup
   Water  Quality
   Water  Pollution
   Metalliferous Minerals
   Metalliferous Mineral Deposits
   Mining Waste Disposal
   Mine Surveys
   Assessments
                         Ore and Klneral Mines
                         Metal  Mining
                         Acid Mine Drainage
                         Heavy Metals
                         Pollution Control Tech.
                         R and 0 Programs
      13/B
      08/1
 9, OlSTWieUTlON STATEMENT

   RELEASE TO  PUBLIC
                        19. SECURITY CLASS

                                 UNCLASSIFIED
    21. NO. Q.P PAGES
                                             2O. SECURITY CLASS (TM3poge>
                                                       UNCLASSIFIED
                                                  32. PRICE
IPA form aalo-t (*•?])
                                             C-58
                                                               fUSGPOi 197? — 717-0*6/9491 R^lon 5-11
-------
EPA-430/9-73-011

October 1973
           PROCESSES,  PROCEDURES, AND METHODS TO
                     CONTROL POLLUTION FROM
                           MINING ACTIVITIES
                 U. S* Environmental Protection Agency
                       Washington,  D. C.   2O460
               For Hi* by the Superintendent o( Document!, U.a. Qownunent Printing Office
                           WMbingtoD, D.C, 30402 - Price ».«
                                    C-59
-------
-------
EPA-440/9-75-007
        INACTIVE & ABANDONED
         UNDERGROUND  MINES
         W*t*r Pollution Prevent/on & Control
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Washington, D.C. 20460
                       C-61
-------
                                 ABSTRACT
     Underground mining operations across the United States produce a number of
environmental problems. The foremost of these environmental concerns  is acid
discharges from inactive and abandoned underground mines that deteriorate streams,
lakes and  impoundments. Waters  affected by mine drainage  an  altered  both
chemically and physically.

     This  report discusses in Part I the chemistry  and geographic extent of mine
drainage pollution in  the United States from inactive and abandoned underground
mines; underground mining methods; and the classification of mine drainage control
techniques. Control technology was developed  mainly in the coal  fields  of the
Eastern United  States and may not  be always applicable to other regions and other
mineral mining.

     Available at-source mine drainage pollution  prevention and control techniques
are described and evaluated in Part II of the  report and consist  of five major
categories; (1) Water Infiltration Control; (2) Mine Sealing; (3) Mining Techniques;
(4) Water  Handling; and  (S) Discharge Quality Control. This existing technology is
related to appropriate cost data and practical implementation by means of examples.

     A summary of the mineral commodities  mined in the United  States follows
Part!! and relates to type, locale and environmental effects.

     A list of minerals, mineral formulas, glossary and extensive bibliography are
included to add to the usefulness of this report.
                                       C-62
-------
             REFERENCE 4
FINAL SURVEY REVIEW TELEPHONE  MEMO'S
                 C-63
-------
-------
                           RECORD OF CONVERSATION
                                                         7/7/82  3:30PM




                                                         TELGON MEMO
Contacted:
Ted Ifft at 343-7887
Organization:  Federal Reclamation Program, O3M
Caller:
James S^atarella, EPA (WH-553)
Subject:
Coal Mining Reclamation
Discussion:    TJie program actually started sealing and reclamation projects



               in 5Y78.  That year the projects were only to prevent



               endangering lives at abandoned mines.  The majority of our



               projects started in BY80 and FY81  (Note - There have been up



               to 10 projects at cne mine) with 131 shaft projects and 199



               other projects cotpleted or under contract.  There have been



               no known failures at mines with conpleted sealing projects.
                                      C-65
-------
                           RECORD OF CONVERSATION
                                                         7/7/82  3PM




                                                         TEUXJN MEMO








Contacted:     Charles Crawford at 343-7921








Organization:  Abandoned Mine Lands Program, CSM








Subject:       Coal Mining Reclamation








Caller:        James Spatarella, EPA (WH-553)








Discussion:    The program is just moving into full swing with many states




               waiting for our funding.  One project in W. VA has been




               recently completed (Feb. 82) with 1,100 projects anticipated



               likely.








               Another source of information might be the Federal




               Reclamation Program, OSM.
                                  C-66
-------
                           RECORD OF OONVERSKTIQN
                                                         7/16/82 2:30PM




                                                         TELOOW MEMO
Contacted:
Dix Hoffinan at (717) 787-8183
Organizations  Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Caller:
James Spatarella, EPA (WH-553)
Subjects
Coal Mining Reclamation
Discussion:    Tliis call was identified as a follow-up to the Hydrotechnic




               trip of October 1980 which he remembered.  He explained that




               little new progress has been made in quantifing the extent of




               the problem.  Ihe data given to Hydrotechnic was the results




               of the last attempt on defining the problem and was based on



               permits from 1965-1975 that were found to be inactive in




               1980.  This method estimated z& 1,000 closed mines in the




               state but no data on the number of closed mines causing water




               quality problems.
                                       C-67
-------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                          AUG25  1982
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Investigation of Post-Mining Discharges  After  SMCRA Bond Release
                                                                     45.
FROM:
TO:
THRU:
James J.-Spatarella, Environmental Engineer
Monitoring and Data Support Division (WH-553)

Bill Telliard, Chief
Energy and Mining Branch
Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552)

Alec.McBrider Chief
Water Quality Branch
Monitoring and Data Support Division
     The attached meno is forwarded for inclusion in reference  (4) of  the

subject issue paper.  The memo documents our last attenpt  to update the 1980

telephone survey, and again shows the lack of available  data from state

agencies.  The results of this survey are consistent with  the issue paper.
cc:  Rod Frederick    (WH-553)
     Allison Phillips (WH-552)
     Joe Freedman     (A-131)
     Chip Lester      (WH-586)
                                     C-68
-------
Versar.
                           R A
                                                     M
       TO:

       FROM:

       DATE:

       SUBJECT:
Jim Spa tar el la

Justine Alchowiak^-

August 25, 1982

Type and Availability of Data Concerning the
Long-Term Effectiveness of Underground Coal Mine
Sealing Procedures
cc:
B. Maestri
M. Neely
                                                                      569TM-232
               A  telephone survey was conducted between August 19 and 23, 1982 by
       Versar  personnel to determine the type and availability of monitoring data
       and  other relevant data that will enable MDSD to assess the long-term
       effectiveness of underground coal mine sealing procedures.  The scope of
       this survey was limited to obtaining information from the state mining
       and/or  environmental officials in eight coal producing states
       (Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Maryland, Alabama, Illinois, West Virginia,
       Kentucky and Virginia).  A similar survey was conducted by Versar in
       October 1980.  The results of the limited number of interviews conducted
       indicate that since 1980 little additional data pertinent to this survey
       are  available.  The available data are summarized below.

       Pennsylvania - Approximately 40 to 50 mines have been sealed.  These data
       were previously available to EPA.  Any available monitoring data are
       available In the HRB-Singer Study (also mentioned in the October 1980
       survey) and in the files maintained by the state's Dept. of Environmental
       Resources,  Abandoned Mine Area Restoration Division.

       Maryland -  One mine sealed recently (March 1980).  Water quality monitoring
       has  been done in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Mines.

       Alabama - Three mines have been sealed, however, they have not been sealed
       In accordance with SMCRA regulations.  Water quality monitoring data are
       available for two mines which discharge into the Main Creek Watershed.
       Fish kills  have occurred in the area.  There Is a court suit pending
       against the mine owners.

       Tennessee - No new data available.

       Illinois -  Approximately 40 to 50 mines have been sealed since 1977.  These
       mines have  not been sealed in accordance with SMCRA regulation.  No water
       quality data available at this time.  A water quality program Is expected
       to start In 1983.
                                           C-69
-------
Memo to Jim Spatarella
August 25, 1982
Page Two
West Virginia - Limited water quality data may be available.

Kentucky  - Limited water quality data may be available.

Virginia - Limited water quality data may be available.
     Attached to this memorandum are copies of the file memos for each telephone
interview conducted*  Please contact me if you have any questions.

IUS 5183

                                        C-70
-------
                                                             Pennsylvania
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
          Pat Wood
                              Date   8/19/82
                              File No.
                                          569.1.1
Subject
Coal Mines - Confirmation of 1980 info for Post Mine

     Drainage Control - State of PA
Persons Contacted:
  Name    Dave Jfogeman
                           Name
  Company     Abandoned Mine Area         Company 	
           Restoration Div., Dept. of Environ. Res.
  Phone     717-787-7668	_^     Phone 	
Comments:
   8/19  will  return call.
   8/20/82   Preconstruction H20 quality data
            Post construction monitoring data for seals and H~0 drainage
            Approx.  40-50 mines have been sealed.  HRB *- Singer
            study  covers mine techniques used.  Any obtainable data
            plus HRB Singer study are contained in the Star files and
            should be requested through Bud Fredrick.
Action Required                        Abandoned Mine Area Restoration Div,
                                       Dept. of Environmental Resources
                                     C-71
-------
                                                                 Pennsylvania
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
        Pat Hood
   Date   8/19/82
   File No.   569.1.1
Subject   Confirmation of 1980 info concerning Post Mine Drainage control

        in Pennsylvania	
Persons Contacted:
  Name    Evan Schuster
Name
  Company     Bureau of Water Quality M9m£ompany

  Phone     717-787-8184            .    Phone
Comments:


        Mr.  Schuster win be in- the office on Monday and will return call.

        Mr.  Schuster says situation in Pa. is the sane,  ffowever, approx. 30
   mines are sealed now since 1976.  All H-O monitoring data and inspection
   reports are  in the  files. The Bureau is now  (very recent) working with 024
   and frequent monitoring is expected to /follow in the next year.  Is not
   aware of  any sealing, environmental or H^ quality problems.  Due to lack
   of funds,  the  Bureau has not kept a very good tracking record.


Action Required
                                     C-72
-------
                                                                Maryland.
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
        Pat Vtood
   Date   8/19/82
                                           File No.   569.1.1
Subject
              sealing and Drainage Control.  New info  and confirmation
        of 1980 info.
        State of Maryland
Persons Contacted:
  Name
           Jeff McCombs
Name
  Company    Bureau of Mines in Maryland company

  Phone    301-689-4136                  Phone
Comments:
        8/20/82  Mr.  McConibs is. in the field.
                 Will return call later.

        8/20/82  Bear Creek mine is the only recent mine sealed.  Completed
                 March 1980.  Monitoring  has been done in cooperation with
                 the U.S.  Bureau of Mines.   All data has been handled by
                 (see below).
Action Required
                 U.S.  Bureau of Mines
                 Lester Adams @ 412-675-4331
                                    C-73
-------
                                                                 Alabama
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
         Pat Wx>d
                                 Date   8/20/82
                                 File No.   569.1.1
Subject 	Mine sealing techniques  and its effectiveness? confirmation
             of 1980 info.
             State of Alabama
Persons Contacted;
  Name
Bob Waller
Name
  Company     Alabama Land Reclamations   company

  Phone   205-832-6753              _     phone
Comments:
   8/20/82  Will return call.

   8/20/82  Filling with spoils/clay/dirt/ and sealed with concrete cap.
   for safety due to  growth of housing population in the immediate area.
                                                               Sealed
Action Required
-------
                                                                      Region IV
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
  Pat Wood
   Date   8/20/82
                                File No.   569.1.1
Subject
Post Mine Drainage Control in EPA Region IV
Persons Contacted:
  Name   Mr.  Bill Taylor
                             Name
          Ken McDowell
  Company

  Phone
              EPA - Atlanta
   404-881-4727
Company Alabama H20 Improvement Commission

Phone     205-277-3630
Comments;


   8/23  Referred to Ken McDowell
          205-277-3630   Alabama

   8/23  Underground - not known.  Referred me to Alabama Underground Mine
         Authority - 205-221-4130.

       Mr. McDowell is  currently involved in project concerning discharge
        from  two abandoned mines.  One mine has low Ph and other high Ph
        and contain aluminum.   Interaction has caused an Al precipitation
Action Required
         believed to be A10H, causing flocculation in the  creek bed.
         This,  in turn, is causing fish kill.   The mines claim the
         same watershed.  One empties directly into the main creek
         and the other into a tributary of the main creek.   Data has
         been gathered for 1 1/2 years and is  available to EPA.  There
         is to be a court suit against the mine owners Aug/Sept.
                                       C-75
-------
                                                                 Tennessee
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
         Pat Wood
   Date  8/19/82
   File No.
569.1.1
Subject     Mine Sealing - New info since 10/80  and confirming old info.
            State of Tennessee
Persons Contacted:
  Name   Cliff Bole
Name
  Company    Tenn. State Vfater Quality   Company
                 Control Board
  Phone     615-741-6636            .     Phone
Comments:
       No new changes that he is aware of but referred me to:

           1.  615-546-4783
               Director - Arthur Ffape
               Div. of Surface & Mines
               Dept. of Conservation

           2.  MESA  (Mining Enforcement Safety Assoc.}
               Max Condra  (615) 942-3389
Action ReguiredFrank Wbin <615> 424-9439

            8/23  Frank Durbin - No longer with MESA
                  Max Condra will return call on Thursday 8/26/82,
                                     C-76
-------
                                                                   Illinois
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
         Pat Wood
                                  Date
             8/19/82
                                  Pile No.
                569.1.1
Subject     Post Mine Drainage Control - Confirmation of Oct.  1980  info,
           State of Illinois
Persons Contacted:
  Name
Sue JMagfiH ft.'
  Company   Mining Land Reclamation
             Council
  Phone      217-782-0588
Name ___

Company

Phone
Steve Jenkusky for Sue Massie
Comments:
   8/19  Will return call.

   8/23  Will return call.

   8/23   Mr.  Jenkusky informed me that the state of  Illinois has sealed 40-50
          mine openings since 1977 Act.   The goal was to protect humans rather
          than other reasons for  sealing.   Sealing  techniques used are capping
          and filling for shaft mines.   However,  capping has been found to be
          ineffective someaAiat due to settling 0f the concrete which causes cracks
Action Required     and holes.  If surface  area is  on a drift, the opening is
                    filled  and then covered with  a  concrete cap.  For sloped
                    surfaces,  filling has been found  to be effective.  To date,
                    there is one  drift opening with drainage.  Consequently,
                    a drain pipe  was installed because drainage was not acidic.
                    Monitoring has not been done  but  will start next year.  For
                    technical info,  call Mr. Jenkusky.  He is also interested in
                    any documents available in our  files.
                                       C-77
-------
Name

Time
Subject
                                                                  West Virginia
                                 FILE MEMO
         Pat Wood
   Date
8/20/82
                                           File No.   569.1.1
            Mine  sealing and drainage control
             State of West Virginia
Persons Contacted:
  Name
          Jessie Crater
Name
                                        Phone
  Company   W.Va. Dept. Natural

  Phone    304-636-1767	




Comments:
  Dry seal - plug up to maintain H-0

  Wet seal - pipe to outside to drain H20
  Regulated only in last two years.

  Abandoned mines are monitored oocassionally by Abandoned Mine Division.
  Drain to high quality stream is the only time monitoring is done by DNR,
Action Required
                       Dept. of Mines in Charleston, W.Va, may have more
                    info.  348-2051.
                                       C-78
-------
                                                                 Wast Virginia
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
Pat Wood
Date    8/20/82
                                  File No.
                                               569.1.1
Subject  Mine Sealing & Drainage Control
           State of W. Va.
Persons Contacted;

  Name   Mr. Jordan, Dept. of Mines

  Company   Charleston, W.Va.	

  Phone    304-348-2051
                               Name ___

                               Company

                               Phone
Comments :
   Controls Sealing of Mines

     Sealing Types:

        1.  Cinderblodc with pipe
        2.  Back seal - 20 ft. long pipe (backfilled) 15 ft.

     Shaft  mines = cap off or fill completely with dirt or spoil.

     No failures to his knowledge.
Action Reuired
                           . more than 1000 openings sealed
                      (not mines) may be 12-15 openings/mine.
                     Reclamation Bond - reclamation on outside.

                     1.  Tear down unused surface structure.
                     2.  Seal mine openings.
        All monitoring of ELO quality is done by DNR.  Request data availability
          from DNR.
                                      C-79
-------
Name
Time
Subject
                                                                 Kentucky
                                 FILE MEMO
         Pat Vtood
                               Date
   8/20/82
                               File No.
       569.1.1
Mine sealina techniaues
                      of 1980 info.
            State of Kentucky
Persona Contacted;

  Name     Nancy Toombs
  Company  Kentucky, pept.  of Mines
           and Minerals
  Phone      606-254-0367
                            Name
Mr. Turner
                            Company

                            Phone
      437-9616
Comments•


  8/20/82  Will return call

  8/20/82  MSHA

  Suggested I call  local MSHA (233-2677 -   437-9616)

  8/23  Mr. Clyde Turner

           Use tvro  techniques:
               1.  fill openings with seal  (earth)
Action Required2'  ooncrete stopper at the entrance
                    For shaft mines, soil  filling techniques is normally used.
                    Slope - soil filling and the concrete slab for applying.
       Kentucky is divided into  three mining districts for MSHA work.  Therefore,
  Mr.  Turner is not aware of # of mines sealed.  Office of Surface Mines do H00
  quality data and State H20 Control Board dses QC work.                     2
                                     C-80
-------
                                                                   Virginia
                                 FILE MEMO
Name

Time
Pat Wood
   Date    8/20/82
                                  File No.
                   569.1.1
Subject
   Coal Mines - Post Drainage Control
                State of Virginia
Persons Contacted:
  Name   Mr. Louis Wheatley
                               Name
           Va. Dept. of Labor & Industry
  Company  Division of Mines & Quarries Company
  Phone
  703 - 523-0335
Phone
Comments:
        Mr. Wheatley is not aware of any new changes in the state program.
   He thinks that the Division of Mine, Land, Reclamation section monitors
   ILC) from mine drainage.  Controls mines with area greater than 2 acres.


   Refer to 703-523-2925, Div, of Mine, Land, Reclamation.
Action Required
                                       C-81
-------
                                                               EPA Region III
                                 FILE MEMO
Name
Time
         Pat Wood
   Date   8/20/82
   File No.   569.1.1
Subject     Post Mine Drainage Control in EPA Region III
Persons Contacted:
  Name   Kathy HDdgekiss
Name
  Company  EPA Region III - Enforcement Company
  Phone   215-597-9023                  Phone
Comments;

   8/20  -  no answer
   8/23  -  no answer
   8/23  -  Kathy will return call.  Will be on Travel thru Tuesday 8/24/82,
Action Required
                                      C-82
-------
                 REFERENCE 5
FILE HISTORIES OF SIX CLOSED PENN.  COAL MINES
                       C-83
-------
-------
Detailed files of the following mines are contained in the rulemaking record
for this regulation:

1.  Barnes & Tucker Co..
    567M035 and 567M028 (same mine - two permits)

2.  Margaret 17 Mine
    366M006

3.  Wildwood Mine
    466M011

4.  JVN Mine
    367M034

5.  Carrolltown No.  2 Mine
    566M006

6.  North Camp No. 1 Mine
    266M032

The record is available in EPA's Public Information Reference Unit, Room
2004, 401 M Street,  S.W.,  Washington, D.C.   20460.
                                      C-85
-------
-------
         REFERENCE 6







1982 LITERATURE SEARCH  REPORT



         (PRINTOUT)
              C-87
-------
-------
           18/5/2

            1257440   ID NO.  E18205037440

             SEALING AN UNDERGROUND DEEP MINE IN PENNSYLVANIA.
             Beck, Laurance A.
             Pa Mines Corp., Ebensburg,  Pa.                           f
             Segg Pgp - AM Min Congr Coal Conv,  St. Louis, Mo, Mag 10-13 1981 Publ bg
           Am Min Congr, Washington, DC, USA,  1981 17 p
             This paper describes  the methods used at the Oneida Mine by Pennsylvania
           Mines Corporation to meet sealing regulations in Pennsylvania.   7 refs.
             DESCRIPTORS:   (*CQAL  MINES AND  MINING, *Pennsylvania),
             CARD ALERT: 503
o
\
CD
           18/5/55
             827159
            ID NO. - E1780427159
  PREDICTION OF THE DRAINAGE CONTROL BY MINE SEALING $EM DASH$  2.   STUDIES
ON THE TECHNIQUE TO PREVENT THE MINING POLLUTION AT A CLOSED MINE.
  Oks, Yukitoshi;  Terada, Makoto;  Kuroda, Kazuo;  KomukaeitDri, Kazuo;
Nakano, Koji;  Katasiri, Makio;  Hakari, Nobuo
  J Min Metall Inst Jpn   v 93 n 1075 Sep 1977  p 603-608  CODEN:  NIKKA9
  AT the Horobetsu Sulphur Mine, a closed mine in Hokkaido, Japan,  strongly
acid mine water continues to flow out from the underground at the rate of
4-7 cu m/min.  The treatment of acid mine water has been carried out by the
lijne-neutralization method since the closing of the mine.  Recently,
however, the lack of room for dumping the sludge produced in waste water
treatment has become an urgent problem.  Therefore, the authors have
considered the sealing of the mine to reduce drainage.  This article
describes the hydrological curves conducted for this purpose, and the
prediction of the effect of sealing on mine drainage.  4 refs.  In Japanese
 with English abstract.
   DESCRIPTORS:   (*MINES AND MINING, *Drainage),  (SULFUR DEPOSITS,  Japan),
    (WATER TREATMENT, INDUSTRIAL, Japan),
    IDENTIFIERS:  SULFUR MINES AND MINING
    CARD ALERT:  502, 505, 452, 445
-------
         18/5/15
o
i
^o
o
133354    W79-03247
Inactive and Abandoned Underground Mines.  Water Pollution Prevention and Control.
Scott, R. L.; Hays, R. M.
Baker  (Michael), Jr., Inc., Beaver, PA.
Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
as PB-258 263, Price Codes:  A14 in paper copy, A01 in microfiche. Report No. EPA-440/9-75-007,
June 1975.  293 p, 54 fig, 14 tab, 132 ref. 68-01-2907.
Journal Announcement:  SWRA1207
The chemistry and geographic extent of mine drainage pollution in the U.S. from inactive
and abandoned underground mines is discussed; underground mining methods are surveyed.  Mine
drainage control technology, largely developed in eastern U.S. coal fields and not always
applicable to other regions and other mineral mining, are classified into two main categories:
(!) at-source and  (2) treatment. At-source mine drainage pollution prevention and control
techniques are evaluated and described according to the following classifications:  water
infiltration control; mine sealing; mining techniques; water handling; and discharge quality
control.  Appropriate cost data is related, examples technique implementation are given.  A
summary of the mineral cormodities mined in the U.S. includes location and the environmental
effects associated with mining them.  An extensive bibliography is provided.  (Davison-IPA).
  Descriptors:  *Water pollution control; *Mine drainage; Underground structures; *Acid
mine water; water quality control; Pollution abatement; Water pollution sources; Costs; Mineral
industry; Mine wastes; Mine water; Metals; Nonmetals; Coal; Thorium; Uranium.
  Section Heading Codes:  50 (Water Quality Management and Protection - Water Quality Control);
50  (Water Quality Management and Protection - Waste Treatment Processes).
-------
-------
-------