&EPA
unitea states
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600 7-80-120
June 1980
Research and Development
Effects of
Underground Coal
Mining on Ground
Water in the Eastern
United States
nteragency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-80-120
June 1980
EFFECTS OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINING ON GROUND WATER
IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
by
Jeffrey P. Sgambat
Elaine A. LaBella
Sheila Roebuck
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Contract No. 68-03-2467
Project Officer
Edward R. Bates
Energy Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
i!
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on our
health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution control
methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
(lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and improved method-
ologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and economically.
This report summarizes documented effects of underground coal mining on
ground water in the eastern United States and evaluates these effects on a
regional basis. The findings provide a basic assessment of the mechanisms by
which mining activities affect ground water and the extent of such changes. An
understanding of these mechanisms can help to lead to changes in mining
techniques or mine planning that will help to minimize adverse effects on ground
water. For further information, contact the Energy Pollution Control Division,
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This report addresses the past effects and the possible future
effects of underground coal mining activities on ground-water resources
in the region east of the 100th meridian. Such effects are highly de-
pendent on the location of the mine with respect to natural flow systems.
Freely draining up-dip drift mines, as well as actively pumped slope,
shaft, and down-dip drift mines, act as sinks that reduce ground-water
storage. This is especially true where mine roofs cave in and subse-
quent subsidence occurs over shallow mines. In these cases, secondary
fractures extend up through overlying strata and may increase rock per-
meabilities by several orders of magnitude. Lowered ground-water levels
around active mines commonly do not recover to pre-mining conditions
after closure.
Studies indicate that contamination of ground water exists in many
places in the immediate vicinity of coal mines. The nature and extent
of the contamination is governed by the geochemistry of the individual
seam being mined, the nature of flow around the mines, the presence or
absence of calcareous material in associated strata, and the time of
contact with various minerals.
Most refuse piles and impoundments in the Appalachian States are
located near surface waters, which increases the opportunity for refuse
leachate to enter streams by means of surface seeps or seepage into
shallow ground-water systems. No underground mines and few refuse areas
were found to have monitoring wells at locations and depths where water-
quality problems or water-level changes might reasonably be expected.
On a regional basis, there is little evidence from the scanty data avail-
able of gross ground-water contamination in heavily mined areas.
From the viewpoint of the value of ground-water resources, it is
most likely that future underground mining in the Eastern Interior Basin
and the southern Appalachians will result in adverse ground-water effects
in only very limited areas. The central Appalachians, and in particular
parts of western Pennsylvania and southern West Virginia, have a greater
potential for such impacts. Pre-mine planning based on knowledge of
local hydrogeology and geochemistry can lead to changes in mining tech-
niques or mine planning that will help to minimize adverse effects on
ground water.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract 68-03-246? by
Geraghty 6 Miller, Inc., under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The report covers the period from September 27,
1976, to September 31, 1979, and work was completed as of September 31,
1979.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword i i i
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables xi
Abbreviations xi ii
Conversions xiv
Acknowl edgments xv
1. Introduction 1
2. Findings 4
3. Underground Coal Mining in the Eastern United States 7
4. Ground-Water Avai labi 1 ity 35
General Concepts 35
Local Hydrogeologic Controls 36
Availability in Selected States 37
5. Water Use 50
Sources and Significance of the Data 50
6. Natural Ground-Water Flow Patterns 64
General Characteristics and Controls 64
Types of Flow Systems 68
Role of Permeabil ity 70
7. Hydrologic Effects of Mining 72
Alteration of Ground-Water Flow Pattern 72
Subsidence 80
Mine-Water Discharge 83
Water Levels, Well Yields, and Streamflow 88
8. Effects of Underground Mining on Ground-Water Quality 94
General Geochemical Relationships 94
Effects of Mining Operations 100
9. Effects of Surface Disposal of Mining Wastes on Ground-Water
Qua 1 i ty Ill
Disposal Practices Ill
Relationship of Coal Wastes to Ground-Water Quality 112
10. Ground-Water Problems from Future Mining 140
11. Methods for Mitigation Hydrologic and Water-Quality Effects 148
Pre-Mining Planning and Mining Techniques 148
Engineering and Hydrologic Controls 150
References 154
Appendix A 166
Append i x B 173
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Coal-bearing states included in this investigation 2
2 Production of coal from underground mines in the central
Appalachians 8
3 Coal reserves for underground mining in the central
Appa 1 ach i ans. 9
4 Production of coal from underground mines in the southern
Appalachians in 1975 10
5 Coal reserves for underground mines in the southern
Appa 1 ach i ans 11
6 Production of coal from underground mines in the Eastern
Interior Basin in 1975 12
7 Coal reserves for underground mining in the Eastern Interior
Bas in..' 13
8 Coal resources and large active underground mines in Alabama.... 15
9 Coal reserves, large active underground mines, and mined-out
areas in Illinois 16
10 Coal resources, large active underground mines, and mined-out
areas i n Kentucky 17
11 Coal resources in Maryland 18
12 Coal resources, large active underground mines, and mined-out
areas in Ohio 19
13 Bituminous coal resources and large active underground mines
in western Pennsylvania 20
1^ Anthracite coal resources in eastern Pennsylvania 21
15 Coal resources and large active underground mines in Tennessee.. 22
VI
-------
Number
16 Coal resources and large active underground mines in Virginia... 23
17 Coal resources and large active underground mines in West
Virginia 24
18 Density of abandoned underground coal mines in western
Pennsylvania 27
19 Coal reserves and mined-out areas in western Pennsylvania 28
20 Number of underground coal mines as a percentage of total
mines in western Pennsylvania 29
21 Percent of land surface underlain by mined-out seams in
V i rg i n i a 30
22 Density of abandoned underground coal mines in West Virginia.... 31
23 Density of abandoned underground coal mines in Maryland 32
2k Density of underground mines in Tennessee 33
25 Potential ground-water availability in the coal-bearing region
of Alabama 38
26 Potential ground-water availability in the coal-bearing region
of Illinois 39
27 Potential ground-water availability in the coal-bearing region
of Indiana 40
28 Potential ground-water availability in the coal-bearing region
of Kentucky 42
29 Potential ground-water availability in the coal-bearing region
of Oh i o 44
30 Potential ground-water availability from near-surface deposits
i n wes te rn Pennsy 1 van i a 45
31 Potential ground-water availability in the anthracite fields
of eastern Pennsylvania 46
32 Potential ground-water availability in the coal-bearing region
of Tennessee 47
vi i
-------
Number Page
33 Potential ground-water availability in the coal-bearing region 49
of Wes t V i rg i n i a
34 Ground-water use in^coal counties in Alabama, 1970 53
35 Ground-water use in coal counties, in Illinois, 1970 54
36 Ground-water use in coal counties of Kentucky, 1970 55
37 Ground-water use in coal counties of Maryland, 1978 57
38 Ground-water use in coal counties of Ohio, 1975 58
39 Ground-water use in coal subbasins of western Pennsylvania, 1970 59
40 Ground-water use in coal counties of Tennessee, 196** 60
41 Ground-water use in coal counties of Virginia, 1975 62
42 Ground-water use in coal counties of West Virginia, 1966-1970... 63
43 Section showing ground-water flow pattern in a homogeneous,
isotropic aquifer with moderate relief 66
44 Idealized ground-water flow patterns under semi-perched and
perched water-table conditions in stratified rocks of
contrast i ng permeab i 1 i ty 67
45 Section showing generalized ground-water flow system in un-
confined and confined aquifers in west-central Pennsylvania.. 69
46 Types of underground mine entryways and their effects on
ground-water levels 73
47 Idealized section of ground-water flow pattern into a mine in
Clearfield County, Pennsylvania 75
48 Generalized corss section of a mine near Kylertown, Pennsylvania 76
49 Idealized ground-water flow pattern showing effects of under-
ground mining in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 78
50 Relative locations of ground-water divides in inclined strata
under mining and non-mining conditions 79
51 Schematic cross section showing the hydrologic cycle and flow
patterns in an idealized anthracite coal basin..., 81
-------
Number Page
52 Idealized section showing increased infiltration of water and
changes in ground-water flow directions in subsided area ..... 8^
53 Relation of measured discharge of mines to area of mine work-
ings in 18 underground mines in Maryland ..................... 85
Sk Water-level fluctuations in an observation well near mining
operations in Preston County, West Virginia .................. 90
55 Poor quality shallow ground water in southern Illinois .......... 98
56 Schematic cross section showing water-quality differences near
mine workings in western Maryland ............................ 105
57 Influence of mines and abandoned wells on ground-water flow
patterns in Clarion County, Pennsylvania ..................... 107
58 Coal-waste disposal sites inspected as part of this study in
central Appal ach ians ......................................... 120
59 Coal-waste disposal sites inspected as part of this study in
the Eastern Interior Basin ................................... 121
60 Schematic diagram of flow from a coal-waste heap in flat terrain 125
*
61 Plumes of contaminated ground-water resulting from coal refuse
piles near s t reams ........................................... 127
62 Coal-waste heaps and diked slurry ponds in southern Illinois.... 128
63 Side-hill and ridge refuse dumps in West Virginia and
Pennsy 1 van i a ................................................. 1 30
6k Schematic diagram of flow from a side-hill refuse disposal area. 131
65 Cross-valley dumps and impoundments in moderately rugged
terrain [[[ 132
66 Effect of cross-valley refuse disposal on ground-water flow
patterns [[[ 13*»
67 Areas in Alabama with potential for significant ground-water
effects from future underground mining .......................
-------
Number
69 Areas In Kentucky with potential for significant ground-water
effects from future underground mining
70 Areas in Ohio with potential for significant ground-water
effects from future underground mining
71 Areas in western Pennsylvania with potential for significant
ground-water effects from future underground mining
72 Areas in West Virginia with potential for significant ground-
water effects from future underground mining
B-1 Ground-water quality in Alabama ................................. 173
B-2 Ground-water quality in Illinois ................................ 17^
B-3 Ground-water qual ity in Indiana ................................. 175
B-4 Ground-water quality in Kentucky ................................ 176
B-5 Ground-water quality in Maryland ................................ 177
B-6 Ground-water quality in Ohio .................................... 178
B-7 Ground-water quality in Pennsylvania ............................ 179
B-8 Ground-water qual ity in Tennessee ............................... 180
B~9 Ground-water quality in Virginia ................................ 181
B-10 Ground-water quality in West Virginia ........................... 182
-------
TABLES
Number
1 State Production of Coal Mined by Underground Methods in 1975... I2*
2 Types of Mine Entryways Used in Large Underground Coal Mines,
1975 26
3 Water Use in Coal-Bearing Counties of the Eastern States 51
k Selected Discharges From Active Underground Coal Mines in
Western Pennsylvania 86
5 Classification of Legal Cases Involving Coal Mining and
Related Water Problems 92
6 Mean Concentrations of Key Constituents in the Ground Water
of Coal Bearing Counties of Selected States 96
7 Statistical Summary of Concentrations of Selected Chemical
Constituents in Ground Water From Four Heavily Underground
Mined Counties in Pennsylvania 102
8 Areas of Suspected Ground-Water Degradation Due to Coal
Mining in Southwestern Pennsylvania 103
9 Results of Chemical Analyses of Mine Water Influent and
Effluent in Alabama 108
10 Chemical Characteristics of Samples of Underground Mine Refuse
in Pennsylvania 118
11 Chemical Analyses of West Virginia Refuse 119
12 General Location and Type of Coal Waste Sites Visited
During This Study 122
13 Trace Inorganic Elements in Coal 135
1*t Organic Effluent Concentrations 137
15 Chemical-0.ua! ity of an Alkaline Seep From a Coal Refuse Site 139
XI
-------
Number (i Page
A-1 Quadrangles in Pennsylvania 166
A-2 Quadrangles in Virginia 169
A-3 Quadrangles in West Virginia 170
XII
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
bgd
cm
cm/s
ft
gpd/acre
gpd/ft2
gpd/mi 2
gpm
g/m3
ha
in
kg/ha/d
km
Ib
Ib/acre/d
1 i ter/min
1/s (L/S)
m
m3
mVd
mVd/ha
m3/d/km2
meq/gm
mg/1
mgd
mi
mm
Vimhos
ymhos/cm
tons/yr
yd3
billion gallons per day
centimeter
centimeter per second
foot
gal Ions per day
gallons per day per acre
gallons per day per square foot
gallons per day per square mile
gallons per minute
gram
grams per cubic meter
hectare
inch
kilograms per hectare per day
kilometer
pound
pounds per acre per day
15 ter per mi nute
1i ter per second
meter
cubic meter
cubic meters per day
cubic meters per day per hectare
cubic meters per day per square kilometer
mi 11iequivalents per gram
mi 11igrams per 1iter
million gallons per day
mi le
mi 11imeter
parts per bi11 ion
micrograms per liter
micromhos
micromhos per centimeter
tons per year
cubic yard
XI I I
-------
LIST OF CONVERSIONS
To Convert
centimeters
centimeters
centimeters per
second
second
centimeters per
cubic meters
meters
meters
meters per
meters per
hectare
meters per
square kilometer
meters per day
square kilometer
day
day
day
cubic
cubic
cubic
cubic
per
cubic
per
cubic
per
grams
hectare
kilograms
kilograms per hectare
per day
kilometers
1iters
1i ters per minute
1iters per second
1i ters per second
mi 11imeters
meters
metric tons per year
thousand cubic meters
per day
Into
i nches
feet
gal Ions per day per
square foot
feet per day
gal Ions
cubic feet
cubic yards
gal Ions per day
gal Ions per day
per acre
gal Ions per day
per acre
gal Ions per day
per square mile
pounds
acre
pounds
pounds per acre
per day
mi les
gal Ions
gal Ions per minute
gallons per minute
gal Ions per day
inches
feet
short tons per year
mi 11 ion gal Ions per
day
Multiply By
0.39
0.033
21204
2835
263.
18
10.76
1.30
264.2
106.91
1.07
688.13
0.002
2.47
2.2
0.89
0.62
0.26
0.26
15.85
22824
0.039
3.
1.
,28
10
0.264
XIV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Annapolis,
Maryland, under Contract No. 68-03-2^6?. The principal authors are
Jeffrey P. Sgambat, Elaine A. LaBella, and Sheila Roebuck; Bruce Yare,
Michael Warfel, and William H. Walker made contributions to the initial
portion of the study. The document was reviewed by Dr. Richard R.
Parizek, Pennsylvania State University, and by Nathaniel M. Perlmutter
and James J. Geraghty of Geraghty & Miller, Inc. William Cicio and
Geoffrey Schaffner drafted the numerous figures. The Project Officer
for EPA was Edward R. Bates.
The authors wish to thank the numerous representatives of Federal,
State, and local agencies for their assistance and cooperation. Parti-
cular thanks go to personnel of State agencies who helped arrange access
to and served as field guides at coal refuse sites.
xv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Coal mined by underground methods has been a major source of energy
in the United States for over two hundred years. Historically, most
coal production has come from underground mines east of the Mississippi
River, and it is likely that much of the future mining of coal reserves
in this region will also be(by underground techniques.
In recent years, concern has arisen over the adverse effects of
this mining on the environment, with most of the concern being centered
around degradation of surface waters by coal mine drainage. Little
study has been made of effects on underground water resources. The
objective of the present investigation is to attempt to fill this void
by summarizing documented effects on ground water of past underground
mining and by assessing the potential for such effects from future
mining. The study region comprises Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia (Figure 1).
Owing to the broad scope of the subject and the small amount of
relevant ground-water data available in useful form, the investigation
relied heavily on personal communications with state, federal, and
university personnel, and on information contained in published and
unpublished reports that was primarily of a site-specific nature. Some
additional information was obtained through visits to coal waste-disposal
sites and from examination of ground-water data compiled on a regional
and county basis. In addition, a review was made of legal case histories
involving coal and water problems in all of the states except Indiana.
Alternatives for minimizing or controlling ground-water quality or
quantity problems related to subsurface mining activities are evaluated
for their effectiveness.
Because most work in this subject area has been done on only a
limited site-specific basis, the first task was to assess the relative
magnitude of effects from different mining activities on a regional
basis. In addition, an attempt has been made to describe the extent and
distribution of such effects as far as is possible using existing data.
The condition of ground water near mining activities is assessed by
consideration of well water quality and levels, baseflow, springs, and
other unspecified discharges where these data were available in useable
form. Point-source discharges to streams from mines or from coal-waste
pile seeps are addressed only insofar as they are related to, or are an
indication of, changes in subsurface conditions. Several regulatory
-------
500 KM
Figure 1. Coal-bearing states included in this investigation,
-------
controls already exist for these point sources, including issuance of
discharge permits under EPA's National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System. Numerous river basin studies have been made to investigate and
abate these kinds of discharges.
Background information presented in this report includes maps of
the location and distribution of underground coal mines and reserves in
the eastern United States, the availability of ground water on a state-
wide basis, and ground-water use on a county basis. For purposes of
this report, the value of the ground-water resource is determined from a
combination of use and availability. Use is taken to be a measure of
the present worth of the ground water, and availability is an indication
of its future worth. Using this value system, a series of maps have
been generated which indicate areas with potential for significant
ground-water problems from future underground mining.
Complex patterns of ground-water occurrence and flow are analyzed
by use of conceptual models and review of case histories. Impacts of
mining on subsurface flow systems can cause changes in water levels,
ground-water storage, and streamflow. Changes in ground-water quality
as a result of mining are assessed largely on the basis of results of
previous studies and case histories. A review of basic data on ground-
water quality was performed in a region in Pennsylvania that has been
heavily mined by underground methods for many years.
In addition to the effects of the actual underground mining opera-
tions, coal wastes from the underground mines that are placed on the
land surface also have a potential for causing degradation of the quality
of shallow ground-water resources and streams. In order to help assess
the potential for ground-water contamination from coal waste disposal,
23 sites were inspected in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia,
Refuse piles and slurry impoundments at these sites were inspected for
physical characteristics, geologic and geographic setting, recharge/
discharge relationships, and water-quality conditions.
-------
SECTION 2
FINDINGS
1. The effects of underground mining activities on ground-water
flow and/or ground-water quality are highly dependent on the location of
the mine with respect to natural flow systems. For example, mining or
placement of coal wastes in a local ground-water recharge area is likely
to affect shallow ground water and baseflow to small streams. Similar
activities in a.regional recharge area on a broad upland may affect
deeper aquifers over long periods of time. In contrast, mining opera-
tions in ground-water discharge areas may have only a small effect on
shallow ground water but a significant impact on nearby surface-water
bodies.
2. It is estimated that millions of cubic meters of ground water
are diverted from natural flow systems every day via drainage from .
abandoned mines and pumpage from active mines. Declines of ground-water
levels resulting from the diversion can result in the drying up of
shallow wells. When mines are sealed or are naturally filled up after
active mining, water levels may recover, but, because of the fracturing
of overlying rocks, usually not to original levels.
3. Removal of water from mines typically reduces the rate of
recharge to underlying aquifers and may cause a shift in the position of
ground-water divides as a result of changes in recharge/discharge
relationships. In addition, baseflow to nearby streams may be signifi-
cantly changed as a result of diversions of ground water into or around
mines in heavily mined watersheds. Losses and gains in streamflow have
been observed for various watersheds within a given mining district.
k. Freely draining up-dip drift mines, as well as actively pumped
slope, shaft, and down-dip drift mines, act as sinks that lower ground-
water levels and reduce the amount of ground water in storage above the
mine. This is especially true where mine roofs cave in and subsequent
subsidence occurs over shallow mines. Where roof fractures reach the
land surface and subsidence occurs, there is an increase in recharge to
the subsurface and a decrease in overland runoff. In such areas, the
rate of travel of ground water from the surface to points of discharge
is typically greatly increased.
5. Interconnection between underground mines and surface mines, as
well as interaquifer flow via abandoned oil and gas wells, can result in
the alteration of directions and rates of natural subsurface flow.
-------
6. Underclays directly below coal seams retard vertical leakage of
poor quality water to underlying aquifers. Underclays in the Appalachian
Basin tend to be more brittle than those in the Midwest and, therefore,
are probably less effective in retarding downward seepage of contam-
inants. It is uncertain whether this seepage could lead eventually to
large-scale degradation of deeper aquifers.
7. Ground water contaminated by underground mining activities and
refuse disposal may ultimately enter nearby streams in the form of
baseflow seepage, discharge from springs, and in some places, discharge
from flowing oil and gas wells. Such discharges undoubtedly contribute
to the existing poor quality of some streams in mining areas. Degraded
ground water from single refuse piles will typically move in discrete
and defineable plumes toward nearby points of discharge. Significant
quantities of dissolved solids will continue to be generated from refuse
piles for many years after initial disposal.
8. The chemical quality of ground water around mines is governed,
in part, by the geochemistry of the individual seam being mined. Where
calcareous sediments are associated with the coal, the acidity in ground
water near mines is generally low. In places, the reactivity of pyrite
associated with the coal may be related to the type of paleoenvironment
under which the coal was deposited.
c
9. Naturally mineralized shallow ground water occurs in parts of
every state studied at depths of less than 91 m (300 ft), especially in
Illinois and western Kentucky. Further contamination of this poor
quality ground water by mining activities may not be of serious concern.
10. There is some evidence that inundation of shaft, slope, and
down-dip mines following periods of active mining will result in reduced
levels of contamination. It is likely that ground-water quality above
and around abandoned underground mines will be least affected where
exposure of coal to air is eliminated and where ground-water flow condi-
tions are most like pre-mining conditions. However, where the rate and
volume of ground-water circulation from the land surface have been
significantly increased as a result of fracturing, exposed pyrite will
be subject to increased oxidation, which in turn could lead to contam-
ination. This situation is most likely above relatively shallow under-
ground mines in areas of moderate or rugged relief.
11. Almost all refuse piles and impoundments in the Appalachian
states are close to surface-water drainage features, posing threats pri-
marily to streams and very shallow ground waters. Coal refuse piles in
the midwestern states are not necessarily associated with drainage
courses but may be located on deposits of glacial till where leachate
may slowly infiltrate into underlying sediments. In general, coal
refuse on till deposits represents a threat mainly to the quality of
ground water in the immediate vicinity of the waste.
-------
12. Coarse refuse generally absorbs precipitation at higher rates
than either the bedrock or till deposits in coal regions. Assuming a
recharge rate of 38 cm (15 in) per year, a typical 40-ha (100-acre) pile
would absorb approximately 379 mVd (100,000 gpd). Depending on the
hydrogeologic setting, part of this degraded water will enter the shallow
ground-water system.
13- On both county-wide and regional bases, there is little evi-
dence of widespread ground-water contamination in heavily mined areas.
However, the data base is inadequate, and where detailed studies of
ground-water quality have been conducted, the findings almost always
indicate that contamination is present in the immediate vicinity of the
mi nes.
14. Existing ground-water quality monitoring systems are inade-
quate to assess the extent of ground-water contamination in the coal
regions of the study area. In most states, the monitoring systems make
use of water-supply wells that are remote from sources of contamination
and, therefore, are of little value in detecting contamination. No
underground mines and few refuse disposal areas were found to have
special monitoring wells placed at locations and depths where water-
quality problems might reasonably be expected to occur.
15. From the viewpoint of the value of ground-water resources, it
is most likely that future underground mining in the Eastern Interior
Basin and the southern Appalachians will result in adverse ground-water
effects in only very limited areas. The central Appalachians, and in
particular parts of western Pennsylvania and southern West Virginia,
have a greater potential for such impacts.
16. Engineering and hydrologic controls, such as mine sealing
implemented during and after the mining process, are seldom fully effec-
tive in controlling adverse effects on ground water. From a ground-
water quality viewpoint, mine seals probably have little benefit except
in cases where post-mining flow patterns are restored to pre-mining
conditions. Such restoration is most likely to occur only in deep mines
with shaft or slope openings, or at drift mines with sufficient pillars
to support roof rocks indefinitely. Ground-water diversion around mines
by means of dewatering or connector wells holds promise for minimizing
ground-water impacts in some hydrogeologic settings.
17- Studies of the hydrogeology and ground-water geochemistry dur-
ing the pre-mining site-selection process can provide information that
will alert mining companies and environmental regulatory agencies to
potential ground-water problems. Consideration of this potential may
indicate that a particular site is environmentally or economically
unsuitable for mining or disposal, or that special mining techniques and
disposal procedures will be needed.
6
-------
SECTION 3
UNDERGROUND COAL MINING IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
The type of mine openings, depth of mining, and intensity of under-
ground mining operations influence mine drainage and the hydrology at
and near underground coal mines. Entryways to mines are of three general
types: drift, slope, and shaft. In drift mining the coal is first
removed from a hillside outcrop and the coal is removed progressively
along the seam into the hill. Slope mining is used where the coal is
too deep to remove economically by strip mining. In this technique, a
sloped tunnel extends from the surface to the coal seam. Shaft mining
is generally used to reach coal at still greater depths below the land
surface. Vertical shafts are sunk and mining takes place in a horizontal
direction from the shafts. Portals can serve as points of ground-water
discharge or recharge both during mining and after abandonment of the
mine. Mining may result in fracturing of overlying strata and eventually
land subsidence from mine roof collapse. Disturbance of the stratifi-
cation and permeability of these rocks can result in changes in recharge/
discharge relationships, water levels, and ground-water flow patterns.
The intensity of underground coal mining in the states east of the
100th meridian is indicated by Figures 2 through 7, which show under-
ground production and reserves by county. The relative order of produc-
tion by states in 1975 (from highest to lowest) is as follows: Kentucky,
West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Virginia, Ohio, Alabama, Tennessee,
Indiana, and Maryland (Table 1). Comparison between production and
reserves in individual states gives an indication of the potential
problem areas associated with future underground mining. The production
in most of the states coincides with the areas of greatest reserves.
However, in parts of Illinois, Indiana, and northern West Virginia,
production at present is low, in spite of the availability of signifi-
cant underground reserves. For purposes of this report, reserves are
defined as coal seams .71 m (meters) (28 in.) or more thick that occur
at depths to 305 m (1,000 ft.). Resources include any coal units which
have been mapped, indicated, or inferred at depths to 915 m (3,000 ft.).
Figures 8 through 17 show the coal resources or reserves in eight
states and the number and distribution of active underground mines pro-
ducing more than 180,000 metric tons/yr (200,000 tons/yr). The number
of these active mines as of 1975 ranges from 0 in Indiana (not shown) to
126 in West Virginia. These numbers include mines not reporting produc-
tion but that are in the >180,000 metric ton class. They may, therefore,
differ somewhat from the U. S. Bureau of Mines (1975) estimates. In some
states, maps were available showing mined-out seams. This term does not
-------
oo
WEST VIRGINIA
PENNSYLVANIA-^
N
L
MARYLAND
200 KM
EXPLANATION
UNDERGROUND PRODUCTION (METRIC TONS)
BY COUNTY
45-455 THOUSAND TONS
455-3630 THOUSAND TONS
>3630 THOUSAND TONS
DATA FROM MCGRAW-HILL MINING
INFORMATIONAL SERVICES, 1977
Figure 2, Production of coal from underground mines in the central Appalachians in 1975-
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
V-D
N
WEST VIRGINIA
2OO KM
I
MARYLAND
EXPLANATION
UNDERGROUND RESERVES (METRIC TONS)
BY COUNTY
1-90 MILLION TONS
90-455 MILLION TONS
>455 MILLION TONS
COAL SEAMS Sfi£A T£R THAN 0.71 U THICK
AND L£SS THAN 3OS M D££P
DATA FROM U.S. BUREAU OF MINES, /9f4
Figure 3. Coal reserves for underground mining in the central Appalachians.
-------
KENTUCKY
VIRGINIA
EXPLANATION
UNDERGROUND PRODUCTION (METRIC TONS)
BY COUNTY
45-455 THOUSAND TONS
455-3630 THOUSAND TONS
>3630 THOUSAND TONS
DOES NOT SHOW WESTERN KENTUCKY
PRODUCTION
DATA FROM MCGRAW-HILL. MINING
INFORMATIONAL SERVICES, 1977
ZOO KM
I
'Figure k. Production of coal from underground mines in the southern Appalachians in 1975.
-------
KENTUCKY^
^-VIRGINIA
EXPLANATION
UNDERGROUND RESERVES (METRIC TONS)
BY COUNTY
1-90 MILLION TONS
90-455 MILLION TONS
> 455 MILLION TONS
COAL SEAMS GREATER THAN .71 M THICK
AND LESS THAN 3OS At DEEP
OATA FROM U.S. BUREAU OF MINES, 1974
DOES NOT SHOW WESTERN KENTUCKY
RESERVES
200 KM
Figure 5. Coal reserves for underground mining in the southern Appalachians.
-------
ILLINOIS
200 KM
—I
EXPLANATION
UNDERGROUND PRODUCTION (METRIC TONS)
BY COUNTY
45-455 THOUSAND TONS
455-3630 THOUSAND TONS
> 3630 THOUSAND TONS
DOES NOT SHOW EASTERN KENTUCKY
PRODUCTION
DATA FROM MCGRAW-HILL MINING
INFORMATIONAL SERVICES, 1977
KENTUCKY
Figure 6. Production of coal from underground mines in the Eastern Interior Basin in 1975.
-------
ILLINOIS
EXPLANATION
UNDERGROUND RESERVES (METRIC TONS)
BY COUNTY
1-90 MILLION TONS
90-455 MILLION TONS
>455 MILLION TONS
COAL SEAMS GREATER THAN .71
AND LESS THAN SOS M DEEP
DATA FROM U.S. BUREAU OF
MINES, 1974
DOES NOT SHOW EASTERN
KENTUCKY RESERVES
200 KM
KENTUCKY
Figure 7. Coal reserves for underground mining in the Eastern Interior Basin.
-------
TABLE 1. STATE PRODUCTION OF COAL MINED
BY UNDERGROUND METHODS IN 1975
(Source: U. S. Bureau of Mines, 1976)
State
West Virginia
Kentucky
Pennsylvania
1 1 1 inoi s
Vi rginia
Ohio
Alabama
Tennessee
Indiana
Maryland
Production
(thousand metric tons)
80,210
59,581
40,516
28,936
21 ,043
14,030
6,912
3,455
171
94
-------
40 KM
EXPLANATION
STUDY AREA
BIBB
^ • ACTIVE UNDERGROUND MINES
J // MINES WITH OVER 180,000 METRIC
C TONS PRODUCTION IN 197$
HI
• COAL RESOURCES
DATA FROM MCGRAW-HILL MINING
INFORMATIONAL SERVICES
Figure 8. Coal resources and large active underground mines in Alabama.
15
-------
60 KM
J ,
(HANCOCK MCOONOU6H1
EXPLANATION
ACTIVE UNDERGROUND
MINES' • x-
gO MINES WITH OVER IBO,OOO \ \
METRIC TONS PRODUCTION IN I97S l
COAL RESERVES2
{ NO. S OR 6 SEAM GREATER THAN I.I M
THICK)
AT LEAST ONE MINED-OUT SEAM2 /\
I) DATA FROM MCGRAW-HILL MINING (MONROE
INFORMATIONAL SERVICES, 1977;
ZMLLINOtS DEPT. OF MINES AND -.
XTRANDOLP
M/NEffALS, 1979 vl
STUDY AREA
X
V WILLIAMSC
f' UNION JOHNSON POPE , HARDIN^
Figure 9- Coal reserves, large active underground mines, and mined-out
areas in 111inois.
16
-------
EXPLANATION
ACTIVE UNDERGROUND MINES ,
87 MINES WITH OVER IBO.OOO METRIC TONS PRODUCTION IN 1975
2)
AT LEAST ONE MINED-OUT SEAM
WESTERN KENTUCKY
DATA IN EAST KENTUCKY ARE INSUFFICIENT TO
PLOT MINED-OUT AREAS AT THIS SCALE.
I) DATA FROM McGRAW-HILL MINING INFORMATIONAL
SERVICES, 1977.
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND
MINERALS, 1978.
Figure 10. Coal resources, large active underground mines, and mined-out areas in Kentucky.
-------
oo
L L E G A N Y
IN
i
COAL RESOURCES
AFTER MCSRAW-HILL MIMING INFOKMATIOHAL SERVICES, 1977
20 KM
Figure 11. Coal resources in Maryland.
-------
("MEDINA SUMMIT ;
ACTIVE UNDERGROUND MINES
(19 MINtS WITH OVER IBO,OOO METRIC TONS
PRODUCTION IN 1975 >
COAL RESOURCES
AT LEAST ONE MINED-OUT SEAM
I) DATA fROM MCGRAW-HILL MINING
INFORMATIONAL SERVICES, 1977
2) BRANT AND DE LONG, I960
STUDY AREA
i-igure 12. Coal resources, large active underground mines, and mined-out
areas in Ohio.
19
-------
EXPLANATION
ACTIVE UNDERGROUND MINES
66 MINES WITH OVER 180,000 METRIC TONS PRODUCTION
IN 1975
BITUMINOUS COAL
DATA FROM MCGRAW-HILL MINING INFORMATIONAL
SERVICES, 1977
I
40 KM
Figure 13. Bituminous coal resources and large active underground mines
in western Pennsylvania.
20
-------
NO. ANTHRACITE
FIELD
EASTERN MIDDLE
\ ANTHRACITE FIELD
SO ANTHRACITE FIELD
WESTERN MIDDLE
\ DAUPHIN
,»
£_, >^ \ '\ ANTHRACITE FIELD
/ \ LEBANON V
EXPLANATION
0
I
40 KM
COAL RESOURCES
Figure 14. Anthracite coal resources in eastern Pennsylvania.
21
-------
ro
10
\
EXPLANATION
ACTIVE UNDERGROUND MINES
4 MINES WITH OVER ISO.OOO TONS
PRODUCTION IN 1975
COAL RESOURCES
DATA FROM MCGRAW-HILL MINING
INFORMATIONAL SERVICES, 1977
20 KM
Figure 15. Coal resources and large active underground mines in Tennessee.
-------
N>
EXPLANATION
ACTIVE UNDERGROUND MINES
40 MINES WITH OVER IBO,OOO METRIC TONS
PRODUCTION IN 1975
COAL RESOURCES
DATA FROM MCGRAW-HILL MINING
INFORMATIONAL SERVICES, 1977
0
I
20 KM
i
Figure 16. Coal resources and large active underground mines in Virginia.
-------
EXPLANATION
ACTIVE UNDERGROUND
MINES
126 MINES WITH OVER I8O,OOO
METRIC TONS PRODUCTION
IN 19 75
COAL RESOURCES
DATA FROM MCGRAW-HILL
MINING INFORMATIONAL
SERVICES, 1977
Figure 17. Coal resources and large active underground mines in
West Virginia.
24
-------
apply extraction of all available coal from a seam or particular area;
only that some mining has occurred.
Reserves available by underground mining are much greater than
reserves available for surface mining in most eastern states. Because
of the high costs of mining and compliance with safety and environmental
regulations, the number of active small underground mines has decreased
in recent years. During the last 30 years, surface coal-mining production
has increased relative to underground coal mining in many areas because
of the introduction of new high-capacity mining equipment. Surface
coal-mining production exceeded underground-mining production in 1975 in
Indiana, Ohio, Alabama, Tennessee, and Maryland.
The type of mine entryway employed is largely dependent on the
topography of the area and the depth of the coal seam being mined. This
can be inferred from the data in Table 2. For example, in states and
areas with rugged topography, such as eastern Kentucky, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, and Virginia, drift mines are most abundant. In states
and areas with relatively low relief, such as western Kentucky, Alabama,
and Illinois, large drift mines (production greater than 180,000 metric
tons/yr or 200,000 tons/yr) are not found.
Coal mine depths differ according to the local topography and the
structure of the coal seam. Because of these differences, individual
mine depths may range from relatively shallow depths below valleys to
many hundreds of feet below uplands. The depths of active coal mines in
the study area have a wide range. In Illinois, for example, typical
depths of active mines are as much as 60 m (196 ft) in St. Clair County,
180 m (590 ft) in southern Illinois, and 300 m (98** ft) in Christian
County. In general, active mines are being extended to greater depths
because most of the easily reached shallow coal deposits have been
extracted. Depths of 200 to 250 m (656 to 820 ft) are common in active
mines with slope or shaft entryways. Typical maximum depths of under-
ground coal mines are: 600 m (1,968 ft) in Alabama, 400 m (1,312 ft) in
Virginia and eastern Kentucky, and 120 m (39** ft) in Ohio.
The relative density of mining in states where data were available
is shown in Figures 8 through 2k. Greater densities suggest places
where ground-water effects associated with past mining are most likely
to occur. Maps showing areas underlain by mined-out seams were used
where available. However, this type of data was usually not available
on a regional basis. Consequently, figures showing the number of aban-
doned underground mines in each 7-5-minute U. S. Geological Survey
topographic quadrangle have been used. These numbers have not been
weighted according to the size of the mine or the mined-out acreage
since data of this sort are generally not available on a regional or
area-wide basis.
In order to determine whether the number of abandoned mines per
quadrangle is a reasonably good indicator of the actual extent of the
mined-out areas, two methods of estimating the extent of mined-out areas
were applied to data for Pennsylvania's bituminous region. Figure 18
25
-------
TABLE 2. TYPES OF MINE ENTRYWAYS USED IN
LARGE UNDERGROUND COAL MINES, 1975*
(Source: Data from McGraw-Hill Mining Informational Services, 1977)
Type of mine entryway
State
Alabama
1 1 1 i no i s
Kentucky
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
V i rg i n i a
West Virginia
Shaft
1
7
2
1
V
12
1
5
16
Slope
6
8
5
10
13
0
2
29
Shaft
and
slopet
2
3
0
2
7
0
0
5
Drift
0
0
57
2
28
2
33
111
TOTAL:
Number
of
mines
9
18
6k
15
60
3
kQ
161
370
* Mines producing more than 180,000 metric tons/yr
(200,000 tons/yr).
t Both shaft and slope entryways used in a single mine.
26
-------
0 20 KM
1 I
N5
STUDY AREA
EXPLANATION
NUMBER OF ABANDONED UNDERGROUND
MINES
NO ABANDONED MINES
REPORTED
I- 10
11-27
>27
Sf£ NAMES OF NUMBERED
QUADRANGL ES IN APPENDIX ( TABLE A-l J
DATA FROM U.S. BUREAU OF MINES,
I97B
Figure 18. Density of abandoned underground coal mines in western Pennsylvania.
-------
EXPLANATION
COAL RESERVES
(AT LEAST ONE SEAM OVER O. 71 U THICK )
AT LEAST ONE MINED-OUT SEAM
ADAPTED FROM KOHL AND BKIGGS, 1976; AND SHOLES AND SKEIUA, 1974
Figure 19. Coal reserves and mined-out areas in western Pennsylvania.
28
-------
ro
86 ' 87 88 89 i 9O 91 92
IO6 107 108 109 i 110 i ill i 112
EXPLANATION
i PERCENT OF UNDERGROUND
MINES
0-25
25 - 50 ,
50 - 75
75 - 100
NAMES OF NUMBERED
OUADRAMGL CS IN APPENDIX
(TABLE A-1)
DATA FROM U.S. BUREAU OF
MINES, 1978
STUDY AREA
Figure 20. Number of underground coal mines as a percentage of total mines
in western Pennsylvania.
-------
EXPLANATION
PERCENT OF QUADRANGLE MINED OUT
AT LEAST ONE SEAM MINED OUT
U)
o
SEE NAMES OF NUMBERED QUADRANGLES
IN APPENDIX (TABLE A-Z)
DATA FROM SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA
2O8 PLANNING AGENCY
Figure 21. Percent of land surface underlain by mined-out seams in Virginia.
-------
EXPLANATION
NUMBER OF ABANDONED UNDERGROUND MINES IN QUADRANGLE
NO ABANDONED MINES
REPORTED
1-10
11-27
>27
Sff NAMES OF NUMBERED QUADRANGLES
tN APPENDIX (TABLE A-3)
DATA FROM U.S. BUREAU OF MINES, 1970
Figure 22. Density of abandoned underground coal mines in West Virginia,
31
-------
U)
NJ
NUMBER OF ABANDONED MINES IN QUADRANGLE
NO ABANDONED MINES REPORTED
6-40 MINES
>40 MINES
STUDY AREA
MARYLAND
DATA FROM U.S. BUREAU OF MINES, 1978
Figure 23. Density of abandoned underground coal mines in Maryland.
-------
to
LO
EXPLANATION
NUMBER OF UNDERGROUND MINES IN COUNTY
NO UNDERGROUND
MINES REPORTED
1-6
iW H I T E ^
/
7-20
DATA FROM DIVISION OF GEOLOGY,
STATE OF TENNESSEE, 1974
2O KM
Figure 2k. Density of underground mines in Tennessee.
-------
shows the rather wide distribution of areas with large numbers of aban-
doned underground mines, whereas Figure 19 shows a somewhat more re-
stricted distribution of mined-out areas (primarily of the Pittsburgh
Coal) in Allegheny, Westmoreland, Fayette, and eastern Washington Coun-
ties. Approximately 30 to 35 percent of the land area underlain by coal
reserves in western Pennsylvania has at least one mined-out seam. The
percentage of underground coal mines to the total number of coal mines
in Pennsylvania is shown by patterns in Figure 20. Counties with quad-
rangles where underground mines represent over 75 percent of the total
number of reported mines include Washington, Westmoreland, Fayette,
Beaver, Allegheny, Somerset, and Cambria.
The amount of data differs from state to state. The most complete
data on abandoned mines or mined-out areas were obtained for Ohio,
Illinois, Virginia, and Pennsylvania's bituminous coal region. The in-
formation for eastern Kentucky, Alabama, and Pennsylvania's anthracite
region was most incomplete. Pennsylvania's anthracite region was heavily
mined by underground methods in the past, but underground mining is now
much less intensive, and production is predominantly from surface mines
or from refuse bank recovery. For this area, the data were on too small
a scale to compile regional maps of the mined-out areas.
Figure 21 is a map of Virginia showing the percent of surface area
that is underlain by at least one mined-out coal seam. The number of
underground mines in two quadrangles in Buchanan County represents over
75 percent of the total number of reported mines. Mapping of mined-out
areas in West Virginia is currently in progress. However, the data were
not considered to be sufficiently tabulated for use in this report.
Therefore, estimates of the number of abandoned mines by quadrangle were
used for the West Virginia assessment (Figure 22),
Underground coal mining is of small extent in Maryland and Tennessee.
The number and distribution of abandoned underground mines, by county
and/or quadrangle, were obtained from state publications and from lists
of abandoned mines maintained by the U. S. Bureau of Mines (Figures 23
and 24). Underground mining in Indiana is of small extent and is not
included as a map in this section.
-------
SECTION 4
GROUND-WATER AVAILABILITY
GENERAL CONCEPTS
The ultimate value of a ground-water resource Is a combination of
both its availability and the need for the water. Mining and associated
waste production in areas where aquifers are productive and well yields
are high are likely to affect a greater quantity of useable ground water
than in an area with low ground-water availability. Physical factors,
such as aquifer permeability and thickness, presence of joints and frac-
tures, and topography affect ground-water availability as well as the
movement of contaminants in the system.
For purposes of this report, generalized ground-water availability
maps have been prepared for those portions of each state where rocks of
Pennsylvanian age are at the land surface. In addition, a very brief
description of background information for each state is included. The
maps characterize availability of ground water at or near the surface.
Any inferences regarding effects on ground water from mining relate
primarily to shallow underground mining or to coal wastes placed on the
land surface. Effects on ground water from deeper mining must be treated
on a smaller scale and in three dimensions, as described in the section
entitled Hydrologic Effects of Mining. The maps and well-yield figures
in this section are highly generalized and should be used only to evalu-
ate the general potential for contamination of the aquifers in coal-
bearing areas and not as a guide for ground-water development or site
evaluation.
In many areas, unconsolidated aquifers are more important than bed-
rock aquifers as sources of ground water. This results from the fact
that where unconsolidated aquifers are sand and gravel they have much
higher storage capacities and permeabilities than bedrock aquifers.
Such deposits are typical of thick, well sorted alluvial sediments, and
glacial outwash. Where unconsolidated deposits have poor water-bearing
characteristics because they are thin or have low permeability, bedrock
aquifers are the principal sources of ground water.
Reported well yields from bedrock aquifers of the Pennsylvanian
period are generally low to moderate. Yields are usually adequate for
domestic purposes and, in some cases, for small public and industrial
supplies. Ground-water availability from these rocks is particularly
poor in Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and much of Ohio, Virginia, and
35
-------
Alabama. Bedrock which will potentially yield moderate amounts of water
(>1.6 1/s or 25 gpm) underlies a large portion of Pennsylvania and West
Virginia. Moderate to high yields are found in certain alluvial deposits
in Illinois, western Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia. Yields are also
high in outwash deposits of northwestern Pennsylvania.
LOCAL HYDROGEOLOGIC CONTROLS
The maps in this section show potential regional ground-water
availability differentiated mainly on the basis of rock type. Although
this is an important factor, several others are also important on a
local basis. These include topographic position, fracture patterns,
structure, and the effects of glaciation. Well yields in the same
aquifer can differ widely according to topographic position. Studies
have shown that aquifers beneath valleys commonly yield much more water
than those beneath uplands. Among the reasons for this difference is
the fact that rocks below and adjacent to valleys commonly have a greater
number of joints and fractures than elsewhere. Moreover, the depth to
the water table beneath valleys is generally much less than that beneath
uplands.
The thickness and porosity of an aquifer determine its storage
capacity. Thick, coarse-grained alluvial deposits, such as those along
the Ohio River, generally have large storage capacities and can supply
large amounts of water to wells. In contrast, thin or fine-grained
alluvial deposits, such as those along most small to moderate size
streams in the Appalachian Plateau, have relatively low water-yielding
capacities. For instance, in Harrison County, West Virginia, alluvial
deposits are minor sources of ground water owing to their thinness, and
yields of only 0.13 to 0.19 1/s (2 to 3 gpm) can be obtained (Nace and
Bieber, 1958). In contrast, yields of up to 50 1/s (800 gpm) are
obtained from wells tapping thick alluvial deposits in Ohio County, West
Virginia (Robison, 1964).
Local concentrations of fractures in a bedrock aquifer greatly in-
crease its permeability and, therefore, the potential yields of wells.
These fracture zones also facilitate vertical leakage and probably are
the primary paths for movement of contaminated water to underlying
aquifers (Parizek, 1978).
The effects of glaciation on ground-water availability are most
evident in the northern part of the Appalachian Basin. In parts of
Illinois and northern Pennsylvania, wells in permeable glacial outwash
deposits have high yields. Over most of southern Illinois, however, the
land surface is covered by low-permeability glacial till, and the under-
lying bedrock is commonly a relatively poor producer of water.
36
-------
AVAILABILITY IN SELECTED STATES
AJ abama
Ground-water data for the coal-mining area in Alabama were obtained
from river-basin reports, county reports, and one Alabama Geological
Survey report. Average yields of aquifers were used in the preparation
of Figure 25. In the northern part of the state, where the bituminous
reserves are located, ground-water availability is generally rather low
compared to that in other states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
For convenience in showing the relative yields of the aquifers in the
coal area, the yield categories in Figure 25 were set at intervals of
less than 2 1/s, 2 to k.k 1/s, and more than k.k 1/s (less than 30, 30
to 70, and more than 70 gpm).
111inois
Figure 26 is based on data obtained from state water-resources
reports. Ground-water availability in Illinois is closely related to
the nature of glacial or alluvial deposits in a given area. The highest
yields are from wells tapping sand and gravel deposits and the lowest
yields are from bedrock aquifers that are overlain by low permeability
till deposits.
According to Smith and Stall (1975), ground-water availability is
highest in the sand and gravel deposits of the Ohio, Wabash, Mississippi,
Illinois, and buried Mahomet River valleys. Potential yields of wells
tapping these deposits are as much as 31 1/s (500 gpm). Sand and gravel
deposits in the Embarras and Kaskaskia River valleys have moderate
ground-water availability; potential well yields range from 6.3 to 31
1/s (100 to 500 gpm).
The remainder of the coal region is underlain by bedrock aquifers,
where yields of wells are generally less than 1.6 1/s (25 gpm), but
occasionally may be as much as 6.3 1/s (100 gpm) (Illinois State Water
Survey Division, 1967).
Indiana
Ground water is available from both consolidated rocks and uncon-
solidated deposits in Indiana (Figure 27). The unconsolidated sands and
gravels, present as both Recent alluvium and Pleistocene glacial out-
wash, are far more productive than the consolidated Mississippian and
Pennsylvanian rocks. Typical yields of sand and gravel deposits in the
northern coal counties range from 0.06 to 76 1/s (1 to 1,200 gpm) and
average about 22 1/s (350 gpm). Well depths range from 4.6 to 70 m (15
to 230 ft) below land surface and are commonly 20 to 27 m (65 to 90
ft). Yields up to 170 1/s (2,700 gpm) are obtainable from sand and
gravel along the Wabash River, yields of 6.3 1/s (100 gpm) to over 31.5
1/s (500 gpm) are possible along the White River, and in the south,
deposits along the Ohio River yield from 3.2 1/s (50 gpm) to over 63 1/s
37
-------
40 KM
EXPLANATION
RANGE IN REPORTED WELL YIELDS
>4.4 L/S
2-4.4 L/S
<2 L/S
ADAPTED FROM- SETTLEMEYER,
IN PRESS
Figure 25. Potential ground-water availability in the coal-bearing
region of Alabama.
38
-------
STUDY AREA
40 KM
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
DEPOSITS
EXPLANATION
RANGE IN REPORTED WELL YIELDS
> 32 L/S
6.3-32 L/S
1,3-6.3 L/S
-------
y r 1
r VANDER-I
I BURGH I
I
EXPLANATION
RANGE IN REPORTED WELL YIELDS
>3I.5 L/S
6.3-31.5 L/S
-------
(1,000 gpm). Generally, small industrial and municipal supplies are
possible from these deposits while large supplies are available in
Sullivan and Greene Counties.
Pennsylvanian rocks are the second major source of ground water in
Indiana coal counties, but yields are suitable only for domestic and
small industrial or municipal supplies. These rocks are composed of
sandstone and shale with minor beds of coal, limestone, and fire clay
occurring in cycles as cyclothems. The basal sandstone in each cyclo-
them is the principal water bearer. Mississipian rocks are shallow
enough to be tapped for water only in the northern coal counties. They
are composed of sandstone, shale, siltstone, and limestone. All the
rock types are water-bearing to some degree, but thick-bedded limestone
and sandstone are the main sources for domestic and stock supplies.
Kentucky
Information on ground water was available for both the eastern and
western coal fields, mainly from county reports. Figure 28 was prepared
using average anticipated well yields. Ground-water availability differed
significantly from east to west; consequently, the two coal regions are
described separately.
Ground-water availability in the eastern coal field region is low
to moderate. Yields of wells in bedrock aquifers are generally less
than 0.31 1/s (5 gpm) and are barely suitable for domestic use. The
greatest potential well yields, greater than 1.6 1/s (25 gpm), occur in
alluvial aquifers, particularly along the Big Sandy River and Levisa
Fork.
Ground-water availability in the western coal field region is
generally higher than that in the eastern region. Yields of wells in
the alluvial aquifers in the Ohio River valley are usually greater than
6.3 1/s (100 gpm) and, in some places, may be as high as 63 1/s (1,000
gpm). Yields of wells in alluvial aquifers in other river valleys such
as the Green and Tradewater may be as much as 6.3 1/s (100 gpm). In
contrast, maximum potential yields of wells in bedrock aquifers are
generally less than 0.31 1/s (5 gpm) and, therefore, these aquifers are
unsuitable for most supply purposes.
Maryland
Well yields in the coal counties of northwestern Maryland vary to a
certain degree among the different coal fields. In general, the Potts-
ville Formation is a fairly good aquifer; yields of wells range from
about 1.3 1/s (20 gpm) to 12.6 1/s (200 gpm). Wells tapping the Allegheny
and Conemaugh Formation usually yield less than 1.3 1/s (20 gpm), and
are adequate mainly for domestic use. Since the Allegheny and Pottsville
Formations are not distinguished in geologic maps of this region, no
figure of ground-.water availability is included for Maryland.
-------
NS
EXPLANATION
RANGE IN REPORTED WELL YIELDS
.6-6.3 L/S
ADAPTED FROM: MAXWELL AND DEVAUL, 1962;
PRICE, MULL AND KIL8RUN, 1962
A-^ S
WESTERN KENTUCKY
EASTERN KENTUCKY
Figure 28. Potential ground-water availability in the coal-bearing region
of Kentucky.
-------
Ohio
The Pennsylvanian age rocks of Ohio generally yield only small
amounts of ground water to wells (Figure 29). These yields are, in some
cases, barely suitable for domestic supplies (less than 0.31 1/s).
Slightly higher average yields are obtained from older rocks to the
northwest. Moderate to large yields suitable for public supplies are
obtainable from certain alluvial deposits, especially those of the Ohio
and Muskingum Rivers.
Pennsylvania - Bituminous Region
v
Ground-water data on the bituminous coal region of Pennsylvania are
abundant. The types of data available range from county studies to
studies of multi-county regions. The yields used to define the cate-
gories of ground-water availability shown in Figure 30 are based on
reported average yields given in published reports. The areas of highest
yield shown on Figure 30 represent areas underlain by permeable outwash
in the northwest and alluvial deposits elsewhere. The boundary between
low and moderate yields of these aquifers is 1.6 1/s (25 gpm). Yields
above this level are suitable for development of small industrial or
municipal supply wells. The poorest yields from bedrock and alluvial
deposits are associated with rocks of the Monongahela, Washington, and
Greene Formations in the southwest corner of the state.
Pennsy 1 vania - Anth/ac? te Region
Reported well yields from rocks in and around the four anthracite
fields were evaluated in preparing Figure 31- The complex structure of
the rocks affects the yields of wells tapping different aquifers in the
northern and southern anthracite fields. Yields are highest in glacial
outwash deposits. In defining yield categories, the average yields are
divided into intervals of less than 3.2, 3.2 to 16, and more than 16 1/s
(less than 50, 50 to 250, and more than 250 gpm, respectively).
Tennessee
The availability of ground water in the coal-bearing region of
central Tennessee is generally very low (Figure 32). The yields of most
of the wells and springs are suitable only for domestic supplies. A few
wells with somewhat higher yields most likely tap fracture zones in
topographically low areas.
Vi rginia
Ground-water data on the coal-bearing region of southwestern Virginia
are sparse. Consequently, it was not feasible to construct a map show-
ing the distribution of potential ground-water availability. Potential
well yields in Virginia's coal area range from low to moderate (0.3 to
3.1 1/s, or 5 to 50 gpm) (Denning, 1977). These yields are generally
suitable for domestic or small public-supply or industrial use. Most
public water systems in the area use surface-water sources.
-------
EXPLANATION
RANGE IN REPORTED WELL YIELDS
>6.3 L/S
0.31-6.3 L/S
<0.3I L/S
ADAPTED FROM: OHIO DIVISION
OF WATER, UNDATED
40 KM
MUSKINGHAM RIVER
DEPOSITS
OHIO RIVER
DEPOSITS
Figure 29. Potential ground-water availability in the coal-bearing
region of Ohio".
44
-------
RANGE IN REPORTED
WELL YIELDS
ADAPTED FROM: GALLAHER, 1973; GANNET FLEMING CORDDRY AND
CARPENTER, 1975; GREEN INTERNATIONAL, 1976; NEWPORT, 1973;
POTH, 1973 ",» and c ; SUBITZKY, 1976; BLOYO, 1974
Figure 30. Potential ground-water availability from near-surface
deposits in western Pennsylvania.
45
-------
EXPLANATION
RANGE IN REPORTED WELL YIELDS
3.2- 16 L/S
<3.2 L/S
ADAPTED FROM: LOHMAN, I9S7
BIESECKER, LESCINSKY AND WOOD, I960;
BUCHART - HORN, 1975
Figure 31- Potential ground-water availability in the anthracite
fields of eastern Pennsylvania.
46
-------
EXPLANATION
RANGE IN REPORTED WELL YIELDS
/ BLEDSOE ^ RHEA
)
ADAPTED FROM= DIVISION OF GEOLOGY, 1961
40 KM
Figure 32. Potential ground-water availability in the coal-bearing region of Tennessee,
-------
West Vi rginia
Figure 33 shows the distribution and location of the various poten-
tial well yields in the state. Poor water-producing sediments are
associated with rocks of the Conemaugh, Monongahela, and Dunkard Groups.
Fine-grained alluvial deposits are common in West Virginia and do not
yield large amounts of water. Wells along the Ohio River, however, are
very productive and may yield as much as 63 1/s (1,000 gpm). The lowest
yield category is adequate mainly for domestic supplies only.
-------
EXPLANATION
RANGE IN REPORTED WELL YIELDS
>I4.2 L/S
6.3-14.2 L/S
-------
SECTION 5
WATER USE
SOURCES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DATA
Water-use data for the coal-bearing counties in the states investi-
gated range from fair to good but are generally incomplete owing mainly
to a lack of uniformity in the collection and tabulation of the data
among the states. Public supply and industrial use estimates are gener-
ally available from the U. S. Geological Survey and state agencies;
however, domestic use is estimated from 1970 housing census data or from
state tabulations. Domestic supplies are considered to be entirely from
ground-water sources by some agencies because surface-water use is in-
significant in rural areas of these states. Irrigation and stock-
watering use are not included in the overall estimate because of the
scantiness of such information. Also, withdrawals for hydroelectric
power generation is not included because the water is generally not used
consumptively.
The total water-use figures referred to in this section are for
coal-bearing counties only and are not for the states as a whole (Figures
34 through 42). Coal counties are defined as those counties having coal
reserves for underground mining of more than 0.9 million metric tons
(one million U. S. short tons) as determined from U. S. Bureau of Mines
statistics (197*0- The states in which the coal-bearing counties had
the largest ground-water withdrawals in the early 1970's were Ohio and
Illinois (Table 3)-
In the coal-bearing counties of most states, ground-wafer withdrawals
were generally much less than 380 x 103 mVd (100 mgd), but 5 to 68
percent of all water used in these counties came from ground-water
sources. Ground-water withdrawals in the coal-bearing counties of all
eastern states, except Indiana, in the early 1970's were more than 3-4
million mVd (0.9 bgd), or 7 percent of the total wat£r withdrawals
(Table 3). Ground water generally is a more important source of supply
for the dispersed population in rural counties than in the more urbanized
counties.
SUMMARY OF USE BY STATES
Alabama
Ground-water withdrawals in coal-bearing counties in Alabama were
163 x 103 m3/d (43 mgd) in 1970, which represented 13 percent of tfie
50
-------
TABLE 3. WATER USE IN COAL-BEARING COUNTIES
OF THE EASTERN STATES
State
Alabama
M 1 I no i s
Kentucky
Maryland
Ohio
Pennsylvania*
Tennessee
Vi rginia
West Virginia
Total
Total Water
Used
(103m3/d)
1,238
18,433
861
340
13,074
13,330
1,623
126
682
49,707
Ground Water
Used
(lOV/d)
163
886
254
23
997
814
83
87
155
3,462
Percent of Total
Water Use Met
By Ground Water
13
5
29
7
8
6
5
68
23
7
* Data for Indiana and Pennsylvania were available by river
basin rather than by county. Much of the area in Indiana
included for water-use tabulations was not actually in
the study area and therefore is not included in this tabu-
lation.
51
-------
total water use in coal-bearing counties (Figure 3*0- The largest use
categories were rural-domestic, 72 x 103 m3/d (19 mgd); public supply,
49 x 103 m3/d (13 mgd); and industrial, 42 x 103 m3/d (11 mgd). The
largest amount of ground water, 53 x 103 m3/d (14 mgd), was pumped in
Jefferson County. Ground-water use in individual coal-bearing counties
ranged from 6 percent to 100 percent.
111i noi s
Ground-water withdrawals in coal-bearing counties in Illinois were
886 x 103 m3/d (234 mgd) in 1970, which represented 5 percent of the
total water use in coal counties (Figure 35). The largest use cate-
gories were industrial, 431 x 103 m3/d (114 mgd); public supply, 322 x 103
m3/d (85 mgd); and rural-domestic, 132 x 103 m3/d (35 mgd). With the
exception of St. Claire County, all counties south of Marion generally
use less than 3-8 x 103 m3/d (l mgd) of ground water. Counties north of
Marion pumped from 2.7 to 155 x 103 m3/d (0.69 to 40.91 mgd). In heavily
mined Christian, Franklin, and Jefferson Counties, ground-water withdrawals
were 14.8, 2, and 2.8 x 103 m3/d (3.91, 0.53, and 0.71 mgd), respectively.
Ground-water use in individual coal counties ranged from less than 1
percent to 100 percent.
Indiana
Ground-water withdrawals for public supply and industrial use could
not be computed by county for Indiana because the U. S. Geological
Survey compiled existing data by river basin and no state agency collects
similar data. It therefore does not give an accurate impression of
water use in the coal counties because so many counties outside the
study area are included. Rural-domestic use was tabulated by county
from housing census information (Bureau of Census, 1972) to help deter-
mine which coal-bearing counties are most dependent on ground water as a
water supply. Only the counties of Vigo and Vanderbrugh use more than
4.0 x 103 m /d (1.1 mgd). The rural-domestic water use figures show
that the rural population in all the counties is heavily dependent on
ground water, deriving 67 to 98 percent of its supply from this source.
Ground-water withdrawals for this use in coal-bearing counties in Indiana
were 41 x 103 m3/d (11 mgd) in 1971* which represented about 89 percent
of the total rural-domestic withdrawals.
Kentucky
Ground-water withdrawals in coal-bearing counties in Kentucky were
about 254 x 103 m3/d (67 mgd) in 1968, which represented about 29 percent
of the total withdrawals (Figure 36). The largest ground-water use
categories were rural-domestic, 110 x 103 m3/d (29 mgd); industrial,
98 x 103 m3/d (26 mgd); and public supply, 45 x 103 m3/d (12 mgd). In
western Kentucky, the ground-water withdrawals in the heavily mined
counties of Hopkin, Muhlenberg, and Union were less than 3.8 x 103 m3/d
(1 mgd). In eastern Kentucky, withdrawals in Pike, Harlan, Letcher, and
Knott Counties were 2.9 to 12.8 x 103 m3/d (0.77 to 3.4 mgd). Ground-
52
-------
EXPLANATION
13 %- GROUND-WATER USAGE AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL WATER USAGE
3.4 - AMOUNT OF GROUND WATER USAGE (THOUSAND M3/D) IN 197
COUNTIES WITH UNDERGROUND COAL RESERVES OF
O.9 MILLION METRIC TONS OR GREATER
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1978; MURRAY AND
REEVES, 1377; PEIRCE, 1972; U.S. BUREAU
OF MINES, 1974
NON-COAL PRODUCING COUNTY
| 13% I
/ FRANKLIN j
I jX'68%\
41% / \ /-*1 1 CHEROKEE \
CULL*AN X \/' "\ 2-4
10 / 93 % (
j' I L 0 U T
*r ,2
Figure 34. Ground-water use in coal counties in Alabama, 1970.
53
-------
N
/
STUDY AREA
r---L 1
-* LASAL
-
12% j"UMDY
I 1%
Js™l~~i '
LIVINGSTON
49%
10
/WOODFORD"
3% / 80%
1 1 J FULTON
MCLEAN
35%
f \ 7 O ,' \ 121 i
L | L / ILO«ANL-T-
I i '. /~\ ..x-4 MEN&To I !
\ \ vycA8sl%iloo%!3-4 h
I ! / " ° jf^-r-w-^
X f -J MORGAN j SANSAMON I
\ ' ("\4%1vl% /"'^..^
\( 8REENE JMACOUPIN r \ ' OO O/\
—' 79%! ! /5 i °"
\ I J.P J 25% MONWMETfY-|-J ^^
I....
IHOULTRIE
EXPLANATION
"~l"
JVERMILION
11%
f38%
8% ! _ .
2.3 , CLARlT "*
5 %- GROUND-WATER USAGE AS A
PERCENT OF TOTAL WATER USAGE
5.9 -GROUND WATER PUMPED
(THOUSAND M3/D) IN 1970
COUNTIES WITH UNDERGROUND
RESERVES OF O.9 MILLION METRIC
TONS OR GREATER
— —f f %• ^ik I I * ** I I ^l-M^f* -
i * & /O i • [ I j t/\s\t*f I
k \39 25% MonWc-MBfY-i—' ^.^ i '00%J
I teSsT ' 3'5 ' % ^i-ETT-E-T—-1 1 ^^ J
(\J(94%! 3-8 {45%! ] [2%\
\ V «^iriSH/
t \ JT i ———' ^~ H OO /o i^o/ \9°/€^
I \— T *838% I6%! ^-^ !*.*V-V
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1972 AND 1978;
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, 1973; ILLINOIS STATE WATER
SURVEY, 1978; MURRAY AND REEVES, 1977;
U.S. BUREAU OF MINES, 1974
60 KM
( \_., [ 38% 16%[ 2.4 **.*'**?
V ,—.'_>] '•* \ 2 7 ^ -r—i—f"
V /RANDOLPH'TPE^Y—i IHAM.LTON, WHITE ^
XT
-------
EXPLANATION
Ul
Ui
29% - GROUND-WATER USAGE AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL WATER USAGE
z.4 - GROUND WATER USAGE (THOUSAND M/'D) IN 1970
COUNTIES WITH UNDERGROUND RESERVES OF O.9 MILLION METRIC
TONS OR GREATER
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1972 AND 1978; MULL, CUSHMAN
AND LAMBERT, 1971; MURRAY AND REEVES, 1977;
U.S. BUREAU OF MINES, /374
N
A...
C- ' ^ *•' ^'' '« 13 (
58 % x v V"H
X 16% / i
3/ S 10%^T^% V94%\
^ ^_j \ 1.9 r-.A 7.3 \
3.6 ? °" fO I
« S 1.7 J-
>/- ->4 -^:1-
WESTERN
KENTUCKY
EASTERN
KENTUCKY
40 KM
Figure 36. Ground-water use in coal counties of Kentucky, 1970.
-------
water use in individual coal-bearing counties ranged from 1 percent to
100 percent.
Maryland
Maryland has only two counties, Allegany and Garrett, that have
significant coal reserves (Figure 37). The Maryland Water Resources
Administration (1978) reports that nearly all of Allegany's water sup-
plies are from surface-water sources, and only 2 percent is from ground
water. In contrast, Garrett County's water supplies are mostly from
ground-water sources, and about 17 percent is from surface water. In
1978, an estimated 23 x 103 mVd (6 mgd) was pumped from ground-water
sources, which represented 7 percent of the total water used in the two
coal-bearing counties. Ground-water use in individual counties was 2
percent (Allegany) and 83 percent (Garrett) of the total water use.
Ohio
Ground-water withdrawals in coal-bearing counties in Ohio were
997 x 103 m3/d (263 mgd) in 1975, which represented 8 percent of the
total water withdrawals (Figure 38). Incomplete pumpage figures show
that industry used 488 x 10 m3/d (129 mgd) of ground water; public
supply used 348 x 103 m3/d (92 mgd); and rural-domestic users withdrew
163 x 103 m3/d (43 mgd). Heavily mined Belmont County pumped 4l x 103
m3/d (11 mgd) of ground water. Ground-water use in individual counties
ranged from less than one percent to 100 percent of the total water use.
Pennsylvania
Water use in western Pennsylvania had to be compiled by drainage
subbasin because the data were available in that format. Only subbasins
with significant underground coal reserves are shown in Figure 39.
Ground-water withdrawals in subbasins containing coal-bearing
counties were 814 x 103 m3/d (215 mgd) in 1970, which represented 6
percent of the area's total water withdrawals. Ground-water use was
390 x 103 m3/d (103 mgd) for industry; 242 x 103 m3/d (64 mgd) for
public supply; and 170 x 103 m3/d (45 mgd) for rural-domestic use.
Ground-water use in individual subbasins ranged from 1 percent to 65
percent of the total water use.
Tennessee
Water-use estimates for 1975 were still in preparation by the
Tennessee Department of Conservation at the time of preparation of this
report. Therefore, data from an earlier tabulation were used as an
approximation (Wilson and Johnson, 1970). Ground-water withdrawals in
coal-bearing counties were 83 x 103 m3/d (22 mgd) in 1964 (Figure 40),
which represented 5 percent of the total withdrawal. Ground-water use
was divided as follows: rural-domestic, 61 x 103 m3/d (16 mgd); public
supply, 10 x 103 m3/d (2.7 mgd); and industrial, 9.5 x 103 mVd (2.5
56
-------
OJ
G A R R E T T
83% /
18
J,
/
JJ
s
/
_f
r
A LLEGANY
2%
5.0
\
r
f
/X
>
/-•
20 KM
EXPLANATION
STUDY AREA
MARYLAND
83% - GROUND-WATER USAGE AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL
WATER USAGE
18 - GROUND WATER USAGE (THOUSAND M3/D )
IN 1978
COUNTIES WITH UNDERGROUND COAL RESERVES OF
O.9 MILLION METRIC TONS OR GREATER
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1972 AND 1970;
MARYLAND WATER RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, 1978;
MURRAY AND REEVES, 1977; U.S. BUREAU OF MINES, 1974
Figure 37. Ground-water use in coal counties of Maryland, 1978.
-------
EXPLANATION
8% - GROUND-WATER USAGE ASA PERCENT
OF TOTAL WATER USAGE
25 - GROUND WATER PUMPED
(THOUSAND M3/D ) IN 1975
COUNTIES WITH UNDERGROUND COAL
RESERVES OF 0.9 MILLION METRIC TONS
OR GREATER
RUDNICK, 1977; U.S. BUREAU
OF MINES, 1974; WATER
RESOURCES DIVISION, 1978
{"WAYNE ~~~1 ,'
1 98% ' J
1
47
STUDY AREA
h
88%
3%
fi
("u
1
j fcARRoi.in
' "aa^tT /—' r-J 95«>/0 LT_
HOLMES
1T
I 100%
°°AV--fJ
TUSCARAWAS I
r____ _ __„*._. t. g
ifn v
i 78% \l \
j *9 H 3.9 3 J
COSHOCTON rl J HA(""SON
79
usnuciun <-
JOUERNSEYI-
USKINOOM I 36%
51% i
29
HARRISON jz /
T"—L-1
! 83% f
i r-! 4> i
L| _f-^ I BELMONT rJ
—{r«%i 97% 7
i n /./ s so >
i a,
2% 1
13 SCIOTO '
-r—JMOROAN ( WASHINGTON
.j L_.^rJ2%
88% I " ^^V-"7
ATHENS
40 KM
Figure 38,. Ground-water use in coal counties of Ohio, 1975
58
-------
SO KM
EXPLANATION
65% ~ GROUND-WATER USAGE AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL
WATER USAGE
204 - GROUND WATER PUMPED (THOUSAND M3/D) IN 1970
BUREAU OF RESOURCES PROGRAMMING, COMMONWEALTH OF PA., 1376
U.S. BUREAU OF MINES, 1974
Figure 33. Ground-water use in coal subbasins of western Pennsylvania, 1970.
59
-------
0»Yo \
ilBORNE \
5.0 )
f^
85%- GROUND-WATER USAGE AS A PERCENT
OF TOTAL WATER USAGE
4.5 - GROUND WATER PUMPED
(THOUSAND M3/D ) IN 1964
COUNTIES WITH UNDERGROUND COAL
RESERVES OF 0.9 MILLION METRIC TONS
Off GREATER
U.S. BUREAU OF MINES, 1974.
WILSON AND JOHNSON, I97O.
Figure 40. Ground-water use in coal counties of Tennessee, 1964.
-------
mgd). Ground-water use in individual counties ranged from zero percent
to 100 percent of the total water use.
V? rginia
Ground-water withdrawals in coal-bearing counties were 87 x 103 m3/d
(23 mgd) in 1975, which represented 68 percent of the total withdrawals
(Figure 4l). Ground-water use was divided as follows: rural-domestic,
60 x 103 m3/d (16 mgd); public supply, 22.7 x 103 m3/d (6 mgd); and
industrial, 0.95 x 103 m3/d (0.25 mgd). In heavily mined Buchanan,
Dickenson, and Wise Counties, ground-water withdrawals were 26, 8.3, and
11 x 103 m3/d (6.8, 2.2, and 2.9 mgd). Ground-water use in individual
counties ranged from 48 percent to 98 percent.
West Vi rginia
No industrial water-use data were available for this state. Known
ground-water withdrawals in the coal-bearing counties were 155 x 103 m3/d
(41 mgd) in 1966, which represented 23 percent of the total withdrawals
(Figure 42). Ground-water use was divided as follows: rural-domestic,
91 x 103 m3/d (24 mgd), and public supply, 64 x 103 m3/d (17 mgd).
McDowell, Monongalia, Wyoming, Boone, and Logan Counties, which are
heavily mined, used from 2.9 to 15 x 103 m3/d (0.77 and 3.96 mgd).
Ground-water use in individual counties ranged from 12 percent to 98
percent of the total water use.
61
-------
EXPLANATION
67% ~ GROUND-WATER USAGE AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL
WATER USAGE
94
'A
STUDY AREA
8.4- GROUND WATER PUMPED
(THOUSAND M3/D) IN 1975
COUNTIES WITH UNDERGROUND COAL
RESERVES OF 0.9 MILLION METRIC TONS
OR GREATER
\
f
(
/•
S^ \~
1 1 X^ X
/ ^
^J 48% /
^^-^ 5.3 ,'
- LEE /
/
/
^ 49% ^^
WISE
II
/
61%
SCOTT
7 2
^^C
\
f- ^*~~
\
\
\
Y
\
_\
\ 26
97% \ ^ T A Z E W E L L
V jx \
\D V / \
1 8.3 ^-' N
2O
^67%
RUSSELL
8.4 ^
\
L
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1972 AND 1978.
HOPKINS, 1975.
MURRAY AND REEVES, 1977.
U.S. BUREAU OF MINES, 1974.
Figure 41. Ground-water use in coal counties of Virginia, 1975.
-------
EXPLANATION
8 %-GROUND-WATER USAGE AS A
PERCENT OF TOTAL WATER USAG
9.e -GROUND WATER PUMPED
(THOUSAND M3/D) IN 1970
COUNTIES WITH UNDERGROUND COAL J~
RESERVES OF O.9 MILLION METRIC '
TONNES OR GREATER
c'4-,91%
yig/*./
Oil
)>94°/o
J^IS^.J
r Is
'- •
/3%10
fcf!I
0 31
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1972
AND 1978; MURRAY AND
REEVES,1977; WATER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 1967
/84%f
I '•* .V
ri**^-—,712
//
i
*-* / 57% I
MAR.ON X /PRESTON
-^ 3.7 \4
X 80
(OOODRII
f.s
A
49%
LEWIS
/59% ^ l5%^--;59% /
,'BARBOUH v TUCKER / •*»/«/
"S *.0 A, 0.4 (GRANT/
BKO/V I ** I i yf ' ""v / 'nil
95 %\ , 47o/t > >4'.Q/ \{s.3 )
MASON Ns ' ^' /0S \ ," 65% Si / ^.J
£„ J^ / ROANE / y BHAXTON A^^ /
• -- ^> i ,.* yN 2.2 / -\
v v-—^75%v^r 60% i '
-^ •
\/
PUTNAtl X
«.* 'J
8% \
WEBSTER /_
r\f
^'CABELL '
) '*>. _ ^-'l , KANAWAH > x'~ 53% X ,' -"• /O
V > / I /^x V ^ ' \ '
J I / -^ ) 5.5 ^\ NICHOLAS ^ I POCAHONTAS
^89%? L9J%V/?rV'U / ~N'"'\ 3-° / ^i '-^ /
x w AY N E s r* ->• / _. , x (^ j
\ 4.7 ^-" 1 76% <, ; 4/0\N— =Bo/x-^'-V
S , ^^^-"> BOONE > I FAYETTE ^ O" /O /
/ ^ ^ >"{ __ X^-^vU. <~ GREENBRIER X
X44°/^ L08*"^^V 32~%?7-^"\ 5'5 /
\MINGO ^ A* f— "' \ RALEIGH f, ^, /
\ V--^-'> 73% \ 5.5 ^-^55%/>^-^xv.;
^X - - j WYOMING \ ^SUMMERS /
X ' ' 4 8 \ X"\ g
*»-^ _^ ^ / \
/ >-v
/ s
V:
/5./ .A,,
X/
STUDY AREA
WEST
VIRGINIA
Figure 42. Ground-water use in coal counties of West Virginia,
1966-1970.
63
-------
SECTION 6
NATURAL GROUND-WATER FLOW PATTERNS
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CONTROLS
An understanding of the rate, direction, and overall pattern of
ground-water movement in the several types of aquifer systems in the
coal regions is essential in developing plans for predicting, prevent-
ing, and coping with -ground-water quality and quantity problems associ-
ated with underground mining. Among the key hydrogeologic controls on
ground-water movement are aquifer lithology, structure, permeability,
water levels, topographic setting, and pumping patterns.
The nature of ground-water flow in the Appalachian Plateau differs
considerably from that in the flat lying Eastern Interior Basin. Pre-
vious studies of ground-water flow in the midwestern states have con-
centrated primarily on alluvial and glacial outwash aquifers. These
aquifers, which tend to reflect recharge and discharge impacts rela-
tively quickly, are generally shallow and narrow, and occur mainly in
present-day or buried bedrock valleys that are filled with sand and
gravel. In contrast, most of southern and central Illinois is covered
with deposits of low permeability till. These deposits retard the
infiltration of precipitation to the underlying bedrock aquifers, and
thereby prevent dilution and flushing of natural brines in the bedrock.
Trend analysis of the water chemistry of aquifers at depths of less than
76 m (250 ft) in Illinois shows no evidence of dilution and flushing
beneath river valleys (Davis, 1973)- Apparently topography plays a
relatively minor role in the ground-water flow systems of this part of
111inois.
Graf et al (1966) and Bredehoeft et al (1963) suggest that the
major circulation pattern in the Illinois Basin is from basin margins,
down-dip toward basin center, and then upward across shale units toward
the surface at basin center. Cartwright (1970) investigated the loca-
tion and amount of ground-water discharge in the Illinois Basin by
analysis of temperature anomalies. Warmer temperatures near the center
of the Basin indicate this is a general discharge area. However, several
structural features such as the Wabash Valley Fault Zone and the Du
Quoin-Louden anticlinal belt also seem to serve as principal discharge
features. Shallow brackish water is known to coincide with the main
structural features of the basin. Estimates of the volume of discharge
from the deep flow system range from about 136 x 103 m3/d (36 mgd) to
approximately 20k x 103 m3/d (54 mgd) (Cartwright, 1970). Possibly as
much as 95 percent of this discharge may be moving upward through verti-
-------
cal fractures, assuming shales in the Basin have a permeability of about
0.0000000046 cm/s (0.000013 feet per day).
Considerable study has been made of flow systems in the Appalachian
Basin, especially in Pennsylvania, and to some extent in West Virginia
and Maryland. Studies in these states have provided a fairly detailed
understanding of the hydrologic framework of basins and subbasins. Many
of the findings of these investigations apply to conditions elsewhere in
the Appalachians also.
An example of a simplistic model of theoretical flow patterns in
the Appalachian Plateau is illustrated in Figure ^3. In this model,
only topographic factors have been taken into account; the aquifer is
assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic. The diagram shows that there
are sets of flow lines in flow systems at progressively greater depths,
which control the points of entrance (recharge) and departure (discharge)
of ground water. For general discussion, these flow systems may be
designated as shallow, intermediate, and deep subsystems. In general,
the flow is from areas of high head to areas of lower head with scat-
tered minor flow systems superimposed on the regional pattern.
Regional recharge occurs on upland areas where the flow has a down-
ward component, as indicated by water levels in wells in the uplands.
The water levels or heads in wells penetrating successively deeper
aquifers are lower in elevation than in shallow wells. The reverse is
true in discharge areas, such as stream valleys, where the flow is
upward and water-level elevations increase with increasing well depth.
Additional evidence of these water-level relationships is given by the
common occurrence of flowing artesian wells in many stream valleys and
only rare occurrence of such wells in the uplands. Because of the
nature of the flow patterns described above, underground mining activi-
ties at or near the land surface in recharge zones are likely to affect
both shallow and deep ground water, whereas mining activities at or near
the land surface in discharge areas are likely to have little effect on
deep ground water but could impact nearby surface water.
Figure kk shows an idealized flow pattern in a series of inter-
bedded permeable aquifers (mostly sandstone) and confining units (mostly
shale). Contrasts in the permeability of successive strata can result
in marked deflection of flow lines and in greater horizontal flow com-
ponents than in homogeneous aquifers. High contrasts in permeability
result in the development of perched and semi-perched water tables
beneath the uplands. In these cases, horizontal flow in highly perme-
able sandstones may be sufficiently rapid to allow the water table to
drop below overlying low permeability shales. This condition can vary
seasonally, so that saturated artesian conditions occur when recharge
rates are high and perched conditions when recharge rates are low.
Under both perched and semi-perched conditions, ground water can
discharge as springs in the valley walls and floors. Springs typically
occur at the contact zone where a poorly permeable unit is below a
highly permeable zone of fractured rocks. Spring activity is also
65
-------
REGIONAL RECHARGE
AREA
LOCAL
RECHARGE
AREA
LOCAL
DISCHARGE
AREA
REGIONAL DISCHARGE
AREA
AFTER BORN, SMITH, 3 STEPHENSON, 1974
Figure ^3. Section showing ground-water flow pattern in a homogeneous,
isotropic aquifer with moderate relief.
66
-------
.LAND SURFACE
SPRING
SEMI-PERCHED
SPRING
SPRING
EXPLANATION
SHALE AND OTHER
CONFINING UNITS
WATER TABLE
FLOW LINE
SANDSTONE AND OTHER
PERMEABLE ROCKS
AFTER a OBIS ON, 1964
•_-l_m'^"^m'^"^™_J i __' ij '_' ^___.__^___JV
PERCHED
Figure 44. Idealized ground-water flow patterns under semi-perched and
perched water-table conditions in stratified rocks of con-
trasting permeability.
67
-------
pronounced where deposits of poorly permeable fragipans, colluvium,
alluvium, or glacial drift cover the bottom and lower slopes of a valley
(Parizek, 1978).
TYPES OF FLOW SYSTEMS
Shallow flow systems typically exist near the land surface and in
the vicinity of surface-drainage features. The depth of shallow ground-
water circulation below the land surface is typically a few to several
tens of meters (Parizek, 1978). The time of travel in shallow flow
systems is variable, but in general, water in such systems probably dis-
charges a few weeks to a few years after entry. The ground-water drain-
age divides of shallow flow systems usually coincide with surface-water
divides, and can be approximated from topographic maps.
Intermediate flow systems originate below minor uplands and are
generally some distance away from surface-drainage features. Ground-
water movement from points of recharge to points of discharge may range
from several tens to hundreds of meters (Parizek, 1978). Travel times
may be measured in terms of months to tens of years, and variations in
flow quantity and quality are less dependent on daily and seasonal
climatological fluctuations than in shallow systems.
Deep flow systems originate as precipitation infiltrating over
broad recharge areas on major uplands and terminate as discharge to
major stream systems. Ground water in these systems may move hundreds
of meters to kilometers from points of recharge to points of discharge,
and transfer between surface basins is the rule rather than the excep-
tion (Parizek, 1978). Typical residence times of ground water in the
aquifers are tens to hundreds of years. Water quality and flow volume
are not significantly affected by daily or seasonal variations in re-
charge and discharge.
The depth of deep ground-water circulation may extend many hundreds
of meters below the land surface. In some places, this circulation
pattern will result in mixing of fresh water with highly mineralized
ground water or natural brines. In these cases, discharge from the deep
flow system serves as a source of recharge of natural poor quality water
to major streams.
•i
As an example, the Burgoon Member is a sandstone of the Pocono For-
mation (Mississippian age). It is a deep fresh-water aquifer known as
the Elliot Park-Burgoon Aquifer, and underlies extensive areas subject
to strip and underground coal mining in west-central Pennsylvania. The
aquifer is 30 to 183 m (100 to 600 ft) thick, and outcrops in the valleys
of some of the major stream systems, including the Clarion, Susquehanna,
and Allegheny Rivers. Figure 45 shows a schematic flow system for the
Elliot Park-Burgoon and adjacent aquifers. The system consists of a
series of minor aquifers and confining beds composed of shale, coal, and
clay that overlie the principal aquifer. A part of the water in the
minor aquifers eventually recharges the Elliot Park-Burgoon Aquifer by
68
-------
EXPLANATION
CONFINING BED
ELLIOT PARK-BURGOON AQUIFER
SANDSTONE, SILTSTONE, SHALE
GENERAL DIRECTION
OF GROUND-WATER FLOW
AFTER 1ERHART, 1977
Figure **5. Section showing generalized ground-water flow system in un-
confined and confined aquifers in west-central Pennsylvania.
69
-------
slow leakage through the confining beds. Based on estimated aquifer
characteristics and using computer simulations of pump.ing patterns, the
yield of the Elliot Park-Burgoon Aquifer has been estimated to be as
much as 150 to 190 x 103 m3/d (kO to 50 mgd) in west-central Pennsyl-
vania (Gerhart, 1977).
ROLE OF PERMEABILITY
The permeability of rocks is a measure of their ability to transmit
water. Permeability may be classified as primary or secondary. Primary
permeability depends on the size and shape of inter-granular openings or
pore spaces and their interconnection. Secondary permeability results
from interconnection of openings along joints, fractures, bedding planes,
solution channels, and faults. In the coal regions, primary permea-
bility of rocks such as shale, siltstone, limestone, clay, coal, and
some some sandstones is very low. Studies of well yields in relation to
topographic position throughout the Allegheny Plateau indicate that in
many places secondary permeability of rocks is relatively high in valley
floors and walls. There is no evidence that topography plays a major
role in controlling secondary permeability of the rocks in the Eastern
Interior Basin. Increased secondary permeability in this region is more
related to structural features, such as faults and ancient anticlines
and synclines.
Substitution of permeability, porosity, and hydraulic gradient
values in Darcy's Law can provide a rough calculation of ground-water
velocity through a given cross sectional area of an aquifer. Only a
limited number of permeability values for coal-associated rocks are
found in the literature. Brown and Parizek (1971) conducted laboratory
tests on oriented cores using an air-type permeameter to determine
vertical and horizontal primary permeability of various rocks associated
with coal deposits in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. Average perme-
ability coefficients reported in this study were very low. The reported
horizontal and vertical permeabilities of shales, claystones, and silt-
stones were 0.00000002 cm/s (0.0004 gpd/ft2) and 0.000000005 cm/s (0.0001
gpd/ft2), respectively. Cores of rocks near Elkins in northern West
Virginia had somewhat higher permeability coefficients, ranging from
0.00000002 cm/s to 0.0000^7 cm/s (0.0004 to 1.0 gpd/ft2), as reported by
the Resource Extraction and Handling Division of the U. S. EPA (1977).
The most effective method of determining permeability is by means
of controlled pumping tests. The results of only a few such tests are
documented for the coal regions. Most tests were run in boreholes open
to several rock types; therefore, the results represented an average
permeability of all the rocks penetrated. Pumping tests conducted by
Brown and Parizek (1970 in two areas near Kylertown, Pennsylvania,
yielded coefficients of permeability ranging from 0.000057 cm/s to 0.03
cm/s (0.12 gpd/ft2 to 680 gpd/ft2) and averaging about 0.0029 cm/s (61
gpd/ft2). Coefficients determined by Schubert (1978) in Pennsylvania
were lower and ranged from 0.0000011 cm/s to 0.0001 cm/s (0.023 to 2.20
gpd/ft2).
70
-------
Underclays are typically thought of as impermeable units that pre-
vent mine water from seeping to lower strata. Parizek (1978) reports,
however, that underclays commonly contain hairline joints and fractures,
and highly polished slickenside joint surfaces, and are usually thin.
Consequently, although local leakage on a unit basis through these clays
is small, the clays may extend over large areas and regional leakage
could be large.
The magnitude of ground-water recharge in an area is an indicator
of the relative permeability of surficial rocks and unconsolidated sedi-
ments. Estimates of recharge in subbasins of the Eastern Interior vary
from 3 to 11 percent of the total precipitation. This estimate is based
on 60-percent streamflow duration data (Bloyd, 1975). Assuming an
average annual rainfall of about 103 cm (40 in), recharge ranges from
3 cm (1.2 in) to 11 cm (A.^t in). Recharge estimates in subbasins of the
central Appalachian Basin range from 3 to 18 percent of the total pre-
cipitation (Bloyd, 197*0 • The greatest recharge (10 to 18 percent) is
found in the Allegheny, Monongahela, Upper Ohio River, and Kanawha
River Valleys. Assuming an average annual rainfall of about 115 cm
in), recharge ranges from 3 cm (1.2 in) to 21 cm (8.3 in).
The importance of permeability in the form of fracture traces and
lineaments in determining the occurrence of ground water was mentioned
in the section entitled Ground-Water Availability. The presence of
these features can be responsible for a 10- to 100-fold increase in
permeability of various sedimentary rocks (Parizek, 1976). Mundi (197^0
reported significantly higher yields from wells penetrating fracture
traces in shale, sandstone, and limestone in central Pennsylvania.
These fractures undoubtedly provide a mechanism for vertical flow through
rocks of otherwise very low permeability. Parizek (1978) reports that
more than 50 percent of springs that issue from bedrock in Pennsylvania,
Maryland, West Virginia, and similar mining regions are probably con-
trolled by zones of fracture concentration which intersect valley walls
and are only partly covered by deposits of low permeability. It is also
likely that fracture traces and lineaments in underground mines are
responsible for increased amounts of water encountered during active
mining. A study of this relationship is in progress by Roebuck (1978).
Regional maps of linear structural features are not common for coal-
mining regions. One such map has been prepared for Pennsylvania by
Kowalik and Gold (1975).
71
-------
SECTION 7
HYDROLOGIC EFFECTS OF MINING
ALTERATION OF GROUND-WATER FLOW PATTERNS
Effects of underground coal mines on natural ground-water flow
systems occur during both active mining and after abandonment. Active
mining creates the most immediate and most noticeable changes in water
levels and ground-water flow as a result of removal of water from the
mine. This removal occurs by gravity drainage in the case of up-dip
drift mining or by pumping in down-dip drift, slope, or shaft mining
(Figure A6). Freely draining abandoned mines continue to discharge by
gravity after mining ceases. In other situations, abandoned mines
become flooded and water levels in the mine and vicinity recover to a
new equilibrium position. Water discharged from a mine is a measure of
the ground water lost from storage. Direct flow of mine drainage from
active mines to streams is fairly well documented as a result of state
and EPA coal-mining effluent guidelines and standards.
Active mines throughout the study area have a wide range in dis-
charge. In the past, attention has been focused only on visible drain-
age and its effect on surface-water quality. In this section, emphasis
will be given to changes in ground-water flow and availability, and to
the hydrologic impacts of such changes.
In drift entry coal mines, the main and lateral headings act as
line sinks which intercept water that normally would flow above or
through the coal seam. As headings are advanced, the coal is removed
from floors and panels over a very large area. The mine then acts as a
broad sink or underdrain, which receives ground water that percolates
downward from overlying strata. This water is derived from storage
until a new equilibrium between inflow and outflow is established.
Reduction in storage is indicated by declining water levels and reduc-
tions in flow at discharge points. During active mining, recharge to
the deep part of ground-water flow systems virtually ceases in the
vicinity of the mine (Hollyday and McKenzie, 1973).
Shaft and slope entry mining create a similar situation although
the dewatering configuration may be considerably different. During
active mining, the area influenced by drainage into the mine extends
beyond the limits of the mine. In all types of underground mining it
may take years before new equilibrium conditions are reached and, in
many places, the mine may be abandoned before this occurs.
72
-------
EXPLANATION
'/A MINED OUT AREA
MINE PORTAL
PRE-MINE WATER TABLE
WATER TABLE DURING MINING
SANDSTONE
SHALE
—^J SILTSTONE
LIMESTONE
COAL
TREAM
UP-DIP
ENTRY
MINING
ACTIVE
OR
ABANDONED
DOWN-DIP
ENTRY
MINING
ACTIVE
Figure 46. Types of underground mine entryways and their effects
on ground-water levels.
73
-------
Water can enter a deep mine by means of seepage from overlying
strata, through faults and fractures in coal seams and adjacent strata,
and by entering abandoned sections of surface or underground mine work-
ings. A study by Lovel1 and Gunnett (197*0 found a strong correlation
between fracture traces visible at the land surface, joint density, and
roof seepage in an underground mine in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania
(Figure J»7) • In the uncaved portion of the B Seam mine, all of the
fracture traces coincided with seepage or increased joint density in the
shale roof rock. The other portion of the B Seam mine is an older
section where the overlying strata have largely caved in. This area
produces most of the water pumped from the mine as a result of increased
vertical leakage. Pumpage from the mine in June 1972 was 1.5 x 103 m3/d
(400,000 gpd).
The authors found that, in the altered flow system, the water level
drops below the E Seam in dry periods and rises to the mine workings in
times of heavy rainfall. Calculations based on existing data indicate
that the average vertical permeability of the strata between the B Seam
and the E Seam is approximately 0.0000024 cm/s (0.05 gpd/ft2). This
value is more than 400 times the number estimated by Brown and Parizek
(1971) for similar undisturbed beds of shale, claystone, and siltstone
near Kylertown, Pennsylvania. The higher value probably reflects the
increased permeability in the caved area (Lovel 1 and Gunnett, 1974).
Documented hydrogeologic studies around mines in the Eastern In-
terior Basin are scarce. Cartwright and Hunt (1978) reported preliminary
results of two studies in Illinois. Core holes and piezometers were
drilled and constructed around an abandoned shallow underground mine in
western Illinois. Initial data suggests the shallow ground-water flow
system is unaffected by the mine 20 m (66 ft) below the water table,
despite the mine collapse which has occurred. Another investigation,
this time at an active mine, was initiated to study water-related prob-
lems in the mine. Although the mine is relatively dry (less than 50
cm/d) infiltration, local structural features were found to control the
limited infiltration of water into the workings. Structural features
mapped include joints, faults, clay dikes, and related features.
Another detailed hydrogeologic investigation was conducted at a
site with both deep underground and strip mines near Kylertown in Clear-
field County, Pennsylvania, by Brown and Parizek (1971) (Figure 48).
The Clarion Coal Seam, or "A" Coal, is generally 0.6 to 1.2 m (2 to 4
ft) thick and has been mined primarily by stripping along the outcrop.
The Lower Kittanning, or "B" Coal Seam, is 1.2 to 2.1 m (4 to 7 ft)
thick and was extensively mined by underground methods in the 1950"s.
Since that time much of the Lower Kittanning Coal outcrop has been
stripped. Three vertically separated flow systems were recognized at
the site (Brown and Parizek, 1971). The upper flow system extends
downward from the water table beneath the- topographic highs to the roof
of the deep mines in the Lower Kittanning "B" Coal Seam. The mine roofs
are broken and fractured. Much of the water from this flow system
discha'rges directly to the land surface as springs along the lower
slopes of hillsides and in valley bottoms.
74
-------
E - SEAM DEEP MINE WORKINGS
CAVED ZONE
UNCAVED B-SEAM WORKINGS
EXPLANATION
] SANDSTONE
SHALE AND SANDSTONE
COAL
GROUND-WATER FLOW
ADAPTED FROM LOVELL AND GUNNETT,
1974.
Figure kj. Idealized section of ground-water flow pattern into a mine in
Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.
75
-------
SOUTH
X
NORTH
X1
ELEVATION IN
METERS ABOVE
SEA LEVEL
UPPER
FLOW
SYSTEM
MIDDLE
FLOW
SYSTEM
LOWER
FLOW
SYSTEM
WEST BRANCH
SUSOUEHANNA
RIVER
LOCATION OF
SITE STUDIED
•;iXvVy/:v'''''V»:i*.*"wV:Y'':''
-------
The middle flow system identified by Brown and Parizek (1971) is
bounded at the top by the B Coal Seam and at the bottom by the top of
the Connoquenessing Sandstone which is below the A Coal Seam. Ground-
water recharge occurs primarily from the floor of the B Seam deep mines
and from B Seam strip mines. Discharge from the middle system occurs in
the minor valley bottoms and lower walls as springs, swamps, seepage
areas, and streamflow. Part of the discharge also takes place as re-
charge to the Connoquenessing Formation by slow vertical filtration
through overlying shale and claystone down to the water table in the
sandstone. Water from this lower regional flow system moves into dis-
charge zones along incised streams such as the West Branch of the
Susquehanna River.
A flow system which has been affected by underground mining in
Painters Run and Mclaughlin Run basins, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
is shown on Figure kS (Subitzky, 1976). The author reports that inter-
connected joints and mine subsidence fissures exert strong control on
ground-water circulation. The flow lines in this system generally
follow partly angular paths. Some flow lines reflect ground-water
movement directly to the underlying mined-out part of the Pittsburgh
coal seam, and others follow shorter paths to the streams.
Controlled pumping tests conducted above an underground mine near
Carroll town, Pennsylvania, underscored the importance of fracture sys-
tems in controlling flow patterns. The drawdown pattern measured in
observation wells near a well being pumped at 1.9 1/s (30 gpm) was
assymetrical and indicated preferred paths of subsurface flow (W. A.
Wahler and Assoc., 1978). In addition, despite the depth of the mine
(160 m or 525 ft), there was a rapid response to heavy rainfall both as
a rise in water levels in wells and as increased inflows to the mine,
indicating good hydraulic connection of fracture zones with the land
surface.
Local or subregional structural features, such as broad anticlines
and synclines, provide exceptions to typical flow systems found in
horizontal rocks. The effect of the dip of the rocks on the flow pat-
terns is accentuated during mining. Figure 50 illustrates how a flow
system may function where coal beds are inclined. In this situation,
the location of the ground-water divide does not correspond exactly to
that of the surface-water divide. Mining up dip in this case can result
in a large shift in the ground-water divide in an up-dip direction.
Mining down dip will cause some shifting of the ground-water divide in
the down-dip direction. Spring flow and ground-water underflow that
previously discharged to streams on either'side of the upland will be
reduced correspondingly.
The effect of underground mining on the flow system below the
mining zone is largely dependent on the nature and continuity of strata
below a coal seam. Specifically, the confining nature of the underclay
plays an important role in retarding downward flow of mine water. As
previously discussed, the primary permeability of most underclays is
very low, although the clay may have small secondary fissures. In
77
-------
MCLAUGHLIN RUN
BASIN
PAINTERS RUN
BASIN
1100-
1050-
1000-
950-
900-
850-
f
\
\
\
\
/
\
\
\
1
\
/ ,
1 .
i X
1 r
1 1
I 1
' 1 «
! I
i \
PITTSBURGH COAL BED
HORIZONTAL SCALE
h 3ZO
- 300
- 280
- 260
l~ 240
10 MILE - I-S KILOMETERS
MILES
1 KILOMETERS
ADAPTED FROM SUBITZKY,
1976.
Figure ^9. Idealized ground-water flow pattern showing effects of
underground mining in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
78
-------
NATURAL CONDITIONS
SURFACE-WATER DIVIDE GROUND-WATER DIVIDE
UP-DIP MINING (ACTIVE OR ABANDONED)
SURFACE-WATER DIVIDE
GROUND-< WATER DIVIDE
MINE
DISCHARGE
SPK/NG
(REDUCED FLOW)
DOWN-DIP MINING (ABANDONED)
GROUND-WATER DIVIDE I I SURFACE - WATER DIVIDE
JJ
NO
SPRING
SPUING
(REDUCED FLOW)
MINE DISCHARGE
EXPLANATION
COAL
SHALE
SILTSTONE
SANDSTONE
LIMESTONE
FLOW
LINE
WATER TABLE
Figure 50. Relative locations of ground-water divides in inclined strata
under mining and non-mining conditions.
79
-------
addition, such deposits are very extensive. In most places, the under—
clay is as extensive as the coal itself, although channel sandstone
deposits may intersect both coal and underclay in many seams. In the
Upper Freeport and Pittsburgh seams in southwestern Pennsylvania, for
instance, the coal is sometimes replaced by sandstone or shale deposited
as channel filling material. Large washouts such as these are generally
avoided during mining (Bushnell, 1975). The vertical leakage rates
through plastic underclays of the Illinois Basin may be less than those
through the brittle and jointed underclays of the Appalachian Basin
(Parizek, 1978). However, no data were available to document the range
of leakage rates.
Ground-water flow in Pennsylvania's anthracite region is compli-
cated by the complex folding and faulting as well as by the intricate
network of mined-out coal seams, boreholes, and subsidence features.
Figure 51 is a schematic cross section showing the ground-water flow
pattern in an idealized synclinal anthracite coal basin. Recharge is
increased in areas of man-made openings such as surface depressions,
subsidence areas, and strip-mine pits that are connected directly to the
underground mine workings. In addition, surface water can enter the
underground mine workings from streams that traverse broken and stripped
ground (Growitz, 1978). Discharge is also increased by mechanisms
similar to those found in the bituminous region except that intermine
connections are probably more extensive.
SUBSIDENCE
As a result of pillar failure years after abandonment or inten-
tional removal of pillars during mine retreat, the roofs of many under-
ground mines eventually collapse. Secondaryfaults and fractures of
mine roof failure extend up through the overlying strata and, depending
on the depth of the mine and competence of the overburden rock, subsi-
dence features may appear at the land surface. Besides the hazardous
effects of depressions at the surface, subsidence can alter the hydro-
logic system in the following ways: (l) increased secondary permeability
at the surface will result in increased infiltration of precipitation
and decreased overland runoff; (2) travel time of ground-water flow from
the surface to points of discharge will be greatly decreased; (3) water
levels will fluctuate over a larger range, and average levels typically
will be lower than under pre-mining conditions; (4) ground-water base
flow to nearby streams may be increased as a result of the relatively
free subsurface circulation created by fractures over mined-out seams;
and (5) surface-water flow may be decreased where fracturing extends
under a stream bed.
In room and pillar mining, it is generally not possible to predict
the development of subsidence over abandoned mines without knowledge of
the mine dimensions and size and height of pillars. Pillars may fail
after years have elapsed and the amount of movement will depend on the
room space available into which they can collapse. In some cases,
pillars are forced into a soft floor, such as underclay. Longwall
mining results in the greatest vertical displacement of overlying rcfcks
80
-------
DRAINAGE BASIN OF COAL FIELD
COAL FIELD
"PRECIPITATION"
-N
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
EVAPOTRANSPI RATION
MINE-WATER RESERVOIR
EXPLANATION
i^Z MINED-OUT COAL BED
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
-« DIRECTION OF WATER MOVEMENT
BARRIER PILLARS; BREACHED
ADAPTED FROM GROWITZ, 1978.
H SUBSIDENCE
SHALE, SANDSTONE, LIMESTONE
Figure 51. Schematic cross section showing the hydrologic cycle and
flow patterns in an idealized anthracite coal basin.
81
-------
since this method a 1 lows for controlled roof collapse during mining.
Davies (1968) reports that the amount of surface subsidence in the
Appalachian Basin is approximately 50 percent of the thickness of
material removed from the mine when roof failure occurs at depths of
46 m (150 ft) or less. Surface subsidence is 25 to 30 percent of the
thickness when roof failure is at depths of about 91 m (300 ft).
Any assessment of the extent of subsidence in the eastern coal
fields is dependent on the reliability of reported data, which varies
widely among the states. Generally, problems in the more populated
urbanized portions of the study region are recognized to a much greater
degree than in rural areas. The U. S. Bureau of Mines (1969) has esti-
mated that, of the 8 million acres of land underlain by mines in the
United States, more than 2 million acres have subsided. Some 1.9 million
acres of land is over bituminous mines and most of this is in the study
area. Anthracite mines alone have caused subsidence in an area of about
90,000 acres. Widespread subsidence has occurred in Pennsylvania and
Illinois, relatively serious subsidence in localized areas of West
Virginia, and isolated incidents are reported in Maryland (Singer,
1977).
One of the regions most impacted by subsidence is the Scranton/
Wilkes-Barre area in the northern part of the Pennsylvania anthracite
fields. A survey of subsidence in this area identified 726 incidents
from 1947 to 1973 (Martin, 1974). Subsidence has also occurred over a
wide area in the bituminous coal regions of Pennsylvania. Studies in
Washington, Allegheny, and Westmoreland Counties (Bushnell, 1975) have
shown that subsidence correlates with extensive mining of the Pittsburgh
and Upper Freeport Coals. Subsidence began occurring locally more than
30 years after mine abandonment in these counties. Apparently 46 to
6l m (150 to 200 ft) of overburden is a critical depth in these counties,
because very few cases of subsidence damage have been reported in areas
with more than 61 m (200 ft) of overburden (Bushnell, 1975). In deeper
mines, fracturing of strata overlying mined-out areas may affect ground-
water flow, but may not be indicated by subsidence of the land surface.
In Illinois, mine subsidence was not considered a serious problem
until recently, but the deterioration of mine supports and the spread of
urbanization into areas underlain by mines is currently causing serious
subsidence problems (Singer, 1977). Problems have arisen in St. Clair
and Madison Counties, which contain the eastern suburbs of St. Louis.
Although mining terminated there in 1970, coal had been mined by the
room and pillar method for more than 100 years. As deterioration of
mine supports continues, problems are also likely to develop in agri-
cultural areas throughout central Illinois (Glover, 1977).
Mine subsidence damage in West Virginia has been limited largely to
the northern part of the state. Reported subsidence incidents exist
primarily in Harrison and Madison Counties (Wilson, 1976, and Gil ley,
1977).
82
-------
Major subsidence problems in Alabama are found in karst limestone
areas rather than in coal regions. Several minor subsidence incidents
have been reported in Jefferson County (Zabro, 1978). Reported cases of
subsidence in Ohio have also been relatively minor, although some prob-
lems have occurred in the Canton-East Liverpool area (Delong, 1978).
Subsidence in Virginia is reportedly a minor problem (Linkous, 1978).
Subsidence-related mechanisms can significantly alter the ground-
water flow in the vicinity of underground mines. For example, subsi-
dence and/or mine roof collapse (Figure 52) can convert formerly imperme-
able overlying strata into permeable zones that permit entry of water
into mines. As discussed in the following sub-section entitled Mine-
Water Discharge, another common mechanism by which water may enter mines
is by interconnection with other underground mines or surface mines.
MINE-WATER DISCHARGE
A brief review of discharges from active and abandoned mines leads
to two general conclusions: (l) flows from different mines in the same
region can display a wide range in rates from virtually zero to hundreds
of thousands of cubic meters per day, and (2) in many places large
volumes of ground water are being diverted from natural flow systems
above and adjacent to mines. Some of the important variables control-
ling water in mines are geologic structure, including fracture and joint
concentration; mine roof rock type; type of openings; dip of coal seam;
proximity to other mines; and type of mining. An examination of more
than 250 eastern coal mines (Crichton, 1928) showed that the average
rate of infiltration for all mines was approximately 10 m3/d/ha
(1,100 gpd/acre). Parizek (1970) estimated the quantity of water leak-
ing from the roofs of underground mines to be 6.3 m3/d/ha (670 gpd/acre).
Flow from 18 abandoned underground mines in Maryland has been re-
lated to the area of mine workings (Hollyday and McKenzie, 1973).
Figure 53 indicates that in this region there may be a linear relation-
ship between area of mine opening and mine discharge. The average
infiltration rate for these mines is approximately 215 m3/d/km2 (148,000
gpd/mi2) or 2.2 m3/d/ha (231 gpd/acre).
A survey of 59 active underground mines in the Monongahela River
Basin in West Virginia showed that 48 had mine discharges (U. S. EPA,
1973)- The total flow to'surface-water bodies within the basin was
about 329 x 103 mVd (87 mgd) from the mines studied, exclusive of
refuse pile drainage. Drainage from mines in the Pottsville and Alle-
gheny Groups, the principal coal-bearing rocks in the southern part of
West Virginia, averaged about 19 m3/d/ha (2,000 gpd/acre) of coal mined
in 1953 (Doll and others, 1963)- Gravity drainage from .several thousand
abandoned mine openings in West Virginia in the late 1930's was esti-
mated to be 2,119 x 103 m3/d (560 mgd). It is likely that drainage has
increased since this estimate was made because additional large areas
have been mined, and only limited sealing has been accomplished. Some
of the higher flow rates from active bituminous mines in Pennsylvania
have been summarized in Table k. Somerset, Cambria, Washington, and
83
-------
AREA OF INCREASED RECHARGE AND
DECREASED OVERLAND FLOW
EXPLANATION
SANDSTONE
LIMESTONE
SHALE 8 SILTSTONE
COAL
CAVED ROCK
PRESENT DIRECTION
OF FLOW
FORMER DIRECTION
OF FLOW
ADAPTED FROM OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 1975.
Figure 52. Idealized section showing increased infiltration of water
and changes in ground-water flow directions in subsided
area.
84
-------
100 CT
10
O
O
UJ
CO
1.0
UJ
0.
UJ
UJ
U_
O O.I
CD
O
UJ
CO
OC
I
O
CO
o
.01
.001
//=
/ /
/
•/ /
/ / 7
2831.22
283.12
28.31
Q
2
O
CO
UJ
a.
co
a:
2.83
co
0.28
O
co
.01
(0.0259)
0.1
(0.259)
1.0
(2.59)
10
(25.90)
0.028
AREA OF DRAINING MINE, IN SQUARE MILES
(SQUARE KILOMETERS)
EXPLANATION
ORIGINAL REFERENCE IN ENGLISH UNITS
AFTER HOLLYDAY AND MCKENZIE, 1973
Figure 53- Relation of measured discharge of mines to area of mine
workings in 18 underground mines in Maryland.
85
-------
TABLE 4. SELECTED DISCHARGES FROM ACTIVE UNDERGROUND
COAL MINES IN WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA*
(Source: Data from files of Pennsylvania Dept.
of Environmental Resources.)
County
Somerset
Cambria
Centre
Al legheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Washington
Westmoreland
Clearfield
Range of
(
38 -
( 10,000 -
53 -
( 14,000 -
1
(4,000
38 -
( 10,000 -
190 -
( 50,000 -
(800
11 -
( 3,000 -
5.3 -
( 1,400 -
23 -
( 6,000 -
110 -
( 29,000 -
1,630 -
(430,000 -
16 -
( 4,300 -
discharge flow Number of discharges
mVd) (>38m3/d)
26,495
7,000,000 gpd)
24,600
6,500,000 gpd)
5,140
,000 gpd)
1,515
400,000 gpd)
6,435
1,700,000 gpd)
3,030
,000 gpd)
680
180,000 gpd)
3,405
900,000 gpd)
4,540
1 ,200,000 gpd)
2,840
750,000 gpd)
22,710
6,000,000 gpd)
530
140,000 gpd)
9
7
1
7
5
1
1
13
13
14
3
5
- Discharges are recent instantaneous readings, not average values.
86
-------
Westmoreland Counties each have several mine discharges exceeding
3.8 x 103 mVd (1 mgd).
Coal mines in Illinois and Kentucky tend to have relatively low
inflows of ground water. Many of these mines are characterized by soft
shale roof rocks rather than sandstone. The majority of mines in
Illinois report pumpages of less than 100 mVd (26,400 gpd) (Cartwright
and Hunt, 1978). Where water does enter mines, the mines are generally
either quite shallow or are near buried channel deposits consisting of
sandstone or unconsolidated deposits (Cartwright, 1977). Water entering
deep mines at depths greater than 2kk m (800 ft) is frequently brackish
or salty (Gluskoter, 1977).
Ground water can be diverted from underground coal mines by a
number of mechanisms which involve interaction with other underground
mines or surface mines. A problem with surface mining up dip from a
coal outcrop in the vicinity of underground mines is the possibility of
leakage from the underground mine around or through coal barriers.
Leakage of this type may result in the release of large quantities of
poor quality, mine-pool water to other mines or to the land surface.
Such a situation occurred near Russelton, Pennsylvania, where mine-pool
water having a high iron content seeped through coal barriers from
abandoned mines into the active Harmer Coal Mine. The operators of the
active mine were required to treat the poor quality ground water that
was released from storage (Thompson, 1977).
Surface mining progressing down dip from a coal outcrop can cause
water to flow into an underground mine that is lower than the surface
mine elevation. Under recharge conditions, water accumulating in strip
pits or through surface mine refuse can enter deep mine workings. In
some places, surface mine floors have been blasted in order to facili-
tate drainage, or have been perforated by open drill holes that later
unintentionally serve as recharge wells. In other cases, the underclay
has been stripped during the mining operation and more permeable strata
are exposed (Parizek, 1978). Conditions in the Big Laurel Run Mine in
Maryland provide an example of an underground mine that is receiving
drainage from a large strip mine. As a result, drainage from this mine
is several orders of magnitude greater than the average discharge of
other mines in the vicinity having the same drainage area (Hollyday and
McKenzie, 1973).
Interconnections between underground mines are responsible for
numerous instances of mine water transfer from abandoned mine workings
to active mines. Such cases result in temporary or permanent loss of
mine-pool and ground-water storage. For example, the Banning No. k Mine
in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, is located in the lower part of
the Irwin Syncline and receives mine water from surrounding abandoned
underground mines. The mine, which is in the Pittsburgh Coal, is the
last active one in an area that has been mined since the mid-eighteen
hundreds. Prior to abandonment of the adjoining Hutchinson Mine, the
volume of the mine" pool was estimated to be 1.3 x 107 m3 (350 billion
gallons). Pumpage from the Hutchinson Mine was more than 11,000 m3/d
87
-------
(3 mgd) in 1969. About 6,^00 m3/d (1.7 mgd) of this flow was estimated
to be from abandoned mine workings to the north (Thompson and Emrich,
1969). Detailed studies indicate that many underground mine barriers
have been breached and flow will increase in the future.
Abandoned mines in the Pittsburgh and Sewickley coals between
Frostburg and Midland, Maryland, are drained by an underground tunnel-
ling system. A 3,2^5~meter (10,646-foot) tunnel (Hoffman Drainage
Tunnel) was drilled from a tributary of Wills Creek to the lowest work-
ings of the Pittsburgh Coal. Mine workings were then connected to the
tunnel. Where the tunnel is overlain by Georges Creek, seepage from
this creek may constitute a significant part of the flow of the Hoffman
Drainage Tunnel (Hollyday and McKenzie, 1973). Effects on ground-water
levels have not been specifically studied but probably are significant.
Another factor involved in mine-water problems is the type of
underground mining used. Entrance of water into mines is increased when
the roof rock is dropped in longwall and retreat mining, and subsequent
fracturing develops (Edmunds, 1977). Although most of the water enter-
ing underground mines enters through roof rocks, water can flow upward
through the underclay floor in some mines, especially deep ones. If
sufficiently high hydraulic heads are developed after abandonment and
the mine is flooded, water will flow downward through the underclay.
Conventional mining does not normally disturb the underclay; in some low
seams, however, the underclay or portions of the roof rock may be re-
moved in order to provide more working space (Boyer, 1976). In addition,
in some places, hydrostatic and rock pressure in deep mines may cause
the floor to buckle and heave up to the roof. This has occurred in the
Pittsburgh seam in southwest Pennsylvania (Kebblish, 1977).
WATER LEVELS, WELL YIELDS, AND STREAMFLOW
Alteration of natural ground-water patterns by underground mining
is commonly indicated indirectly by changes in water levels in aquifers,
by the amount of ground-water seepage to streams, and by ground-water
quality. The scanty existing information shows that, in many places,
water levels in supply wells have been affected by mining, but the
problem is not universal. The lack of documentation on these types of
impact is most likely due to the low population density, the small
number of wells in rural areas, and the slow rate of change in water
levels. In addition, small gradual declines in water levels in domestic
or public supply wells are rarely noticed until yields markedly decrease.
The majority of such problems have been reported in states in the nor-
thern part of the Appalachian Basin.
Active mines as well as abandoned mines with natural drainage serve
as hydraulic sinks or discharge zones that function like large hori-
zontal pumping wells. Consequently, water levels in aquifers above and
adjacent to the mines decline in response to the loss of water- The
potentiometric levels below the mines also will decline, but to a lesser
degree, in response to reduced natural recharge or to upward leakage
into the mine. Where mines are sealed or become filled naturally after
-------
abandonment, water levels tend to recover substantially but not neces-
sarily to original levels. Piper (1933) reported that the Pittsburgh
Sandstone and its equivalents have been essentially dewatered wherever
the underlying Pittsburgh coal has been mined and mine roofs have col-
lapsed. Similar dewatering occurs above the Upper Freeport coal.
In West Deep Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, drying up of
wells was reported as early as 1933 in the vicinity of Russelton and
again in 1970-71, when static water levels in approximately 20 wells in
the northwestern part of the township dropped below the bottom of the
wells (Subitzky, 1976).
At Flemington and Fairview in Marion County, West Virginia, partial
dewatering of aquifers by mining activities has reportedly caused some
wells to go dry (Ward and Wilmoth, 1968). Some well owners reported
that the water levels in their wells recovered to the approximate pre-
mining levels about 12 to 15 years after mine pumping stopped. Water-
level fluctuations due to mining near Masontown in Preston County, West
Virginia, are indicated by the hydrograph in Figure 54. The sharp
decline'of water levels in 1958 is attributed to mining. Mining activity
decreased shortly thereafter and, from 1961 to 1964, the water levels
show a slight recovery.
An inventory of water levels in domestic wells in Marion County,
West Virginia, showed that variations in long-term dewatering are re-
lated to mine depth (Rauch, 1978). The results are summarized as follows
Effect on wells completed
Mine depth above mining zone
(m) (ft)
<6l <200 All wells permanently dewatered
61-76 200-250 Most wells permanetly dewatered
76-91 250-300 Some wells occasionally dewatered
>91 >300 No wells dewatered
Rauch (1978) also cites several other mechanisms by which water levels
may decline locally as an indirect result of underground mining. For
example, blasting in a strip mine in Marion County apparently caused
subsurface fracturing and subsequent dewatering of wells that tapped
aquifers above an existing deep mine. Also, vertical air shafts sunk
for underground mines may receive as much as 19 to 25 1/s (300 to 400
gpm) of ground water which is commonly diverted to streams. Water rings
(used in the construction of air shafts) which are not grouted result in
the greatest water-level effects, with some declines being noted in
wells as much as 1.61 km (1 mi) away.
89
-------
VO
o
bl
U
2
Ul
bl
[JEPTHS239M, WATER-BEARING FORMATION' POTTSVILLE
WATER-LEVEL HYDR06RAPH 1951 TO 1964
I9SI I 1992 I 1983 I 1984 I 1996 I 1986 I 1997 I 1958 I 1989 I I960 I 1961 I 1962 I 1963 I 1964
AFTER WARD AND WILMOTH, 1968
Figure 5^. Water-level fluctuations, in an observation well near mining
operations in Preston County, West Virginia.
-------
A review of legal cases in eight states indicates that the effects
of declining water levels in wells and reduced spring flow attributable
to underground mining lead to occasional problems (Table 5). The
majority of cases involve very abrupt and obvious declines. Doubtless
there are other cases where gradual declines occur, but in these cases,
it is difficult to correlate mining activities wrth the water-level
declines.
Changes in ground-water flow can also have an impact on streamflow
rates. Assessing changes in stream hydrology as a result of mining is
complicated by the presence of surface mined areas, active and abandoned
underground mine discharges, seepage from refuse piles and surface
impoundments, as well as ground-water seepage to streams. Although a
number of river-basin studies have addressed some of these variables,
few published reports have dealt with changes in the baseflow of streams
as a result of underground mining. In addition to impacts on flow
rates, changes in ground-water flow can also affect stream quality as
discussed in a later section of this report.
The U. S. Geological Survey in .West Virginia is presently investi-
gating the effects of deep mining and mine collapse on hydrology. Pre-
liminary results of a detailed study of the hydrology of the Buffalo
Creek and Indian Creek subbasins in northern West Virginia indicate that
baseflow from mined-out areas is greater than that from unmined areas
(Hobba, 1978). Typical yields from rocks in undisturbed basins were
about 233 m3/d/km2 (160,000 gpd/mi2) and yields from mined basins were
about 509 mVd/km2 (350,000 gpd/rni2). The areas investigated also had
land-subsidence features and, in one case, water levels in one well
apparently had fallen as much as 15 m (50 ft) below pre-mining levels.
In addition, the water levels fluctuate substantially in response to
storm events, indicating rapid infiltration and discharge.
Parizek (1979) reports that in western Pennsylvania cases of both
reduced baseflow and major gains of ground-water inflow are known. In
Clinton County, in Kettle Creek, Crawley Run, and Cooks Run watersheds,
small tributary streams that existed prior to deep mining have become
intermi ttent.
The findings of those studies showing increased in baseflow are
different from those which might be expected if one were to assume a
simple hydrologic system consisting of recharge from the surface, rela-
tively rapid percolation to the mine, and direct discharge of mine
drainage to a stream. Such a system would presumably reduce recharge to
underlying strata and, thereby, result in reduced baseflow in the stream.
Possible explanations for an increase rather than a decrease in baseflow
are: (1) more rapid movement of mine waters through and around mines,
as well as above mines, as a result of fracturing of surrounding rocks,
(2) shifts in ground-water divides caused by disturbance of strata
resulting in increased capture of precipitation, and (3) reduction of
evapotranspiration-because of a decline of the water table.
91
-------
TABLE 5. CLASSIFICATION OF LEGAL CASES INVOLVING
COAL MINING AND RELATED WATER PROBLEMS*
State
Alabama
1 1 1 inois
Kentucky
Maryland
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Vi rginia
West Virginia
Spri ng or wel 1-
water qual ity
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
Type of j>roblem
Spring flow or water
levels in wel Is
5
0
k
0
0
7
5
0
Surface
water
8
4
3
0
3
4
3
3
Cases reviewed are those from courts rendering written opinions and in
general only include State Supreme Courts, District Appellate Courts,
and Federal Circuit Courts.
92
-------
Growitz (1978) found that streamflow is significantly affected by
underground mines in the eastern middle and western middle anthracite
fields of Pennsylvania. He noted that streams typically lose water in
their headwater reaches in the coal fields and gain water along their
lower reaches where most of the mine water is discharged. Overall,
streamflow per unit area of drainage basin downstream from some anthra-
cite fields is significantly higher than unit streamflow from adjacent
unmined areas. This may be attributed to a reduction in evapotranspira-
tion and, consequently, an increase in infiltration of precipitation in
the mined area (Growitz, 1978).
93
-------
SECTION 8
EFFECTS OF UNDERGROUND MINING ON GROUND-WATER QUALITY
GENERAL GEOCHEMICAL RELATIONSHIPS
The geochemical reactions which occur in the formation of coal mine
drainage have been studied extensively. The commonly postulated equa-
tion for the oxidation of pyrite in the presence of atmospheric or
dissolved oxygen in-water is:
2 FeS2 + 7 02 + 2 H20 = 2 FeSO^ + 2 h^SO^
Despite the body of knowledge that exists on the subject, there are
still some uncertainties over the exact mechanisms which cause or accel-
erate this reaction. Factors such as iron- or sulfide-reducing bacteria,
available alkalinity, presence of water, oxygen partial pressure and the
nature of pyrite have been cited as factors Influencing the formation of
mine waters.
Sulfide minerals oxidized according to the above reaction will pro-
duce acid and will result in high concentrations of sulfate and ferrous
iron. Such acid waters moving in natural environments will accelerate
the breakdown of clay, other silicate minerals, and carbonate minerals.
This increases concentrations of silica, aluminum, calcium, magnesium,
and manganese. Levels of iron, aluminum, and manganese are affected by
the pH of the solution. In addition, trace elements such as zinc,
copper, nickel, cobalt, and chromium can be far above normal background
concentrations in acid waters.
As the time and distances over which water travels in the subsur-
face become longer, mineral-water relationships become increasingly
important. For instance, acid ground waters passing through sediments
containing calcareous materials become increasingly hard and may even-
tually become a near neutral calcium sulfate solution.
Studies in the Clarion River/Redbank Creek Watershed of north-
western Pennsylvania indicate the significance of geochemical controls
in the occurrence of major and minor chemical constituents in ground
water (Gang and Langmuir, 197*0- The solubility of iron was determined
to be largely controlled by precipitation of oxyhydroxides. In those
ground waters that contain measurable alkalinity, the solubility of
94
-------
siderite (iron carbonate) commonly limits ferrous iron concentrations.
Alkalinity, in turn, is controlled in part by the presence of calcareous
sediments. Consequently, in areas where limestone is relatively abun-
dant, ferrous iron concentrations are much lower in the ground water
than in areas where limestone is scarce or absent.
Both silica and aluminum in ground water associated with mining are
derived from the leaching of clay by acid mine water. Gang and Langmuir
(197*0 point out the importance of limestone in controlling aluminum
concentrations. They observed that in subbasins with abundant limestone,
very low aluminum concentrations and relatively high pH were found both
in the ground water and streams. Zinc, nickel, copper, and cadmium,
which are normally the most abundant trace elements in acid mine drain-
age, were also low (Gang and Langmuir, 197*0 •
Na t u ra 1 Wa t e r Qua 1 i ty
An important consideration in assessing the potential impact of
mining on ground-water quality is the natural background quality prior
to mining. An important consideration in assessing the potential impact
of mining on ground-water quality is the natural background quality prior
to mining. A detailed discussion of natural ground-water quality and
variability is beyond the scope of this report. However, a study of
the nation's ground-water quality recently completed by Pettyjohn, et
al (1979) provides state-wide summaries of key constituents in ground
water. Selected maps from this study are given in Appendix B of this
report. These maps are necessarily very generalized and also tend to
present the most favorable picture of water quality, since the samples
collected were taken primarily from water-supply type wells. Table 6
gives mean concentrations of key constituents in coal counties of states
where information was available.
A review of maps presented in Appendix B indicates that on the scale
of these maps and for the constituents analyzed that the percentage of
ground water presently being sampled in the coal regions of the eastern
United States that meets EPA Interim Secondary Drinking Water Standards
is variable from state to state. The standards for the constituents
analyzed are chloride, 250 mg/1; sulfate, 250 mg/1; and total dissolved
solids, 500 mg/1. Most states have at least one area within their
respective coal regions that yields poor quality ground water. These
areas include most of southern Illinois, much of southwestern Indiana,
much of western Kentucky and a small part of eastern Kentucky, most of
southeastern Ohio, a small section of southwestern Pennsylvania, a por-
tion of central Tennessee, and parts of northern West Virginia.
Highly mineralized shallow ground water occurs naturally at depths
of less than 91 m (300 ft) in parts of every state studied, especially
in Illinois and western Kentucky. As noted in a previous section, brine
or salt water is pumped from many mines in Illinois during active min-
ing. In western West Virginia, mineralized ground water (chloride
content greater than 250 mg/1) is commonly found at depths of less than
91 m (300 ft) beneath the Ohio, Kanawha, Big Sandy, Coal, and Little
95
-------
TABLE 6. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF KEY CONSTITUENTS IN THE
GROUND WATER OF COAL BEARING COUNTIES OF SELECTED STATES*
(Source: Pettyjohn, et al., 1979)
County
ALABAMA
Fayette
Jefferson
KENTUCKY
Bell
OHIO
Jefferson
PENNSYLVANIA
Al legheny
WEST VIRGINIA
Boone
Logan
Marion
Ca & Mg
28
42
34
89
61
47
17
83
Na & K
44
4
35
32
48
79
82
6
Cl
41
4
11
18
23
32
17
11
SO.,
5
9
23
92
97
40
45
19
Dissolved
Sol ids
86
130
196
N/A
414
147
253
245
Hardness
16
108
94
254
180
99
73
216
* Concentrations in milligrams per liter
96
-------
Kanawha Rivers (Wilmoth, 1975). Generally where major streams serve as
natural discharge zones for deep ground water, the depth to the fresh-
water/salt-water contact is less beneath these streams than elsewhere in
the region.
Davis (1973) found that water from shallow bedrock aquifers in
southern Illinois is poorest in an area between the southeastern edge of
the Sa1 em-Wood 1 awn fault block and the Wabash Valley Fault Zone (Figure
55). This large area of poor quality water is probably being contamin-
ated by upswelling brines. Ring averages of total dissolved solids
range from 500 to 2,500 mg/1. Sulfate averages range as high as 1,400
mg/1. Ring averaging is a method of computing running averages for the
three-dimensional case.
Upward migration of naturally salty ground water can also result
from man's activities. During petroleum exploration, deep mineralized
ground water may move up locally into shallower aquifers through un-
plugged oil and gas wells. Large withdrawals of shallow fresh ground
water can also induce upconing of salty water. In the Charleston area
of Kanawha County, West Virginia, mineralized ground water has moved
upward as much as 23 to 30 m (75 to 100 ft) below major pumping centers.
The chloride content of water in the principal sandstone aquifer at
Charleston has increased from less than 100 mg/1 to more than 300 mg/1
in several well fields, and to more than 1,000 mg/1 in water from in-
dividual wells (Wilmoth, 1975). Similar case histories have been
reported in almost every state in the study area. Although the effect
of mine pumping or drainage on the movement of the fresh-water/salt-
water interface has not been specifically investigated, it is conceiv-
able that prolonged discharge of large amounts of water from mines could
cause upward movement of salty ground water.
Influence of Paleoenyjro n me n t s on Water Quality
Recent studies indicate that the depositional environment of coal
and the amount of calcareous material in strata associated with coal are
major factors in determining the quality of drainage from coal mines
(Williams and Keith, 1963; Caruccio, 1968, 1970; Ferm and Caruccio,
1974; and Caruccio and others, 1977).
Regional sedimentation during the middle to upper Pennsylvanian
Period in the central Appalachians has been characterized as being con-
trolled largely by transgressing and regressing deltaic systems. Marine
limestones represent offshore carbonate tidal islands and barriers, and
the associated red and green shales were derived from oxidized clay
deposited on the floor of lagoons. Sandstone and orthoquartzite were
apparently derived from bay barrier deposits; these rocks commonly grade
into dark gray shales or back barrier sediments. Coal-bearing strata,
dark shales, and graywacke sandstone represent fluviodeltaic deposi-
tional environments (Perm, 1974).
97
-------
STUDY AREA
60 KM
EXPLANATION
STRUCTURAL CENTER OF
ILLINOIS BASIN
FAULT
RING AVERAGE OF TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS GREATER THAN
1500 MG/L
SALEM-WOODWARD STRUCTURAL BLOCK
WABASH VALLEY FAULT ZONE
AFTER DAVIES, 1973
Figure 55- Poor quality shallow ground water in
southern 111inois.
98
-------
Detailed studies by Williams (i960) in western Pennsylvania provide
an illustration of a transgressive paleoenvironment in the Allegheny
Group of Pennsylvanian age. In that geologic unit, the rocks grade
upward from marine to continental in origin. In addition, Perm and
Williams (I960) showed that this transgression is expressed as litho-
logic facies changes that grade from marine deposits in western Penn-
sylvania to brackish water deposits farther east.
Studies by Caruccio (1968 and 1970) show that the mode of occur-
rence of pyrite within coal strata is of greater importance than the
total sulfur content in determining the production of acid by leaching.
Framboidal pyrite, attributable to primary deposition, was found to
result in much higher acid production than secondary pyrite. It is
believed that coals associated with lower deltaic or marine environments
contain pyrite of a more reactive nature than that in coals deposited in
a f1uviodeltaic or more continental environment.
These observations on acid mine drainage production are supported
by the results of laboratory leaching and field studies in eastern
Kentucky (Caruccio and others, 1977). The following is a summary of the
key findings of those studies:
(l) Reactive pyrite (framboidal pyrite) is associated with back
barrier/lower delta plain coals. Lower amounts of pyrite are present in
seams within strata of upper delta plain origin.
(2) Where water in sediments deposited in an upper delta plain
paleoenvironment is in contact with calcareous material, the sediments
generate sufficient alkalinity to effectively neutralize the acidity
produced. Therefore, mine drainage from these deposits is typically
nearly neutral (about pH 7.0) and has a high specific conductance and
sulfate content.
(3) The quality of mine drainage is related to the geochemistry of
the natural water and to the occurrence of framboidal pyrite. Both may
vary in relation to the occurrence of coals and strata in different
environments.
A comprehensive regional water-quality study by Hornberger (in
progress, 1978) deals with similar geochemical concepts in southwestern
Pennsylvania. The study was based on chemical analyses of water leached
through coals and on the quality of surface and ground water in the
vicinity of coal mines. In addition, water-quality data from the out-
crop area of the Pottsville and Allegheny Groups were evaluated with
respect to the type of environment under which the coal was deposited,
and to the presence or absence of carbonate strata. Preliminary find-
ings of Hornberger's study indicate that:
(1) Although the total sulfur content of the Lower Kittanning coal
from various mines tends to vary with the type of paleoenvironment (more
in marine coals and less in fresh-water coals), there is little or no
relationship between the degree of acidity in mine-water discharges and
99
-------
the paleoenvironment. A number of discharges from mines in fresh-water
coals were acidic in character. The rocks associated with the Lower
Kittanning coal generally have a low calcareous content. Leaching
studies indicate that there are wide ranges in the acidity of mine water
from individual mines. This makes it difficult to make valid compari-
sons between mine types without a large number of samples.
(2) In general, there is good correlation between mines with little
or no acid mine discharge and the presence of calcareous sediments in
the overburden.
(3) Where mining operations are sparse, surface- and ground-water
quality are better than in heavily mined areas.
Although the studies by Caruccio and others (1977) and by Horn-
berger (1978) agree on several important points, the latter study con-
cluded that the paleoenvironment, in itself, is not a prime factor in
controlling the severity of acid mine drainage. Both studies concur
that where strata containing significant amounts of calcareous material
are associated with coal, acid drainage is usually not produced.
EFFECTS OF MINING OPERATIONS
Regional studies dealing with water quality in mined areas are
concerned largely with effects on stream quality and not with ground-
water quality. This is primarily because the effects of acid mine
drainage on stream quality and biota are obvious, and because of the use
of streams for public supply and industrial purposes. Changes in ground-
water quality are usually reflected in changed stream quality especially
during low-flow period. During this time, surface runoff is minimal,
and the percentage contribution of ground water is highest. However,
stream quality during low-flow periods is also affected by mine dis-
charges. On a regional basis, it is difficult to separate out how much
of the quality changes in streams are due to the inflow of naturally
mineralized ground water, how much is due to inflow of ground water that
is chemically altered by mining, and how much is due to mine discharges.
Detailed watershed studies are necessary to separate out the importance
of each of these components. In most parts of the study area, including
mined and unmined areas, the dissolved solids in streams generally
increase as the baseflow increases. Examples of these conditions are
found in the Guyandotte River in southern West Virginia (mostly under-
ground mines), Tobey Creek in northwestern Pennsylvania (mostly surface
mines), and in the Big Muddy River in southwestern Illinois (surface and
underground mines).
The transport of dissolved constituents in ground water is con-
siderably more complex than their transport in drainage from mine portals,
As previously discussed, the potential for ground-water flow in and
around mines depends on local geologic characteristics, the physical
setting of the mine, and the method of mining. Ground-water quality
further depends not only on geologic and hydrologic controls but also on
various geochemical factors. -
100
-------
In a study of ground water in the Monongahela River basin, Ward and
Wilmoth (1968) report that acid sulfate water from underground mines
adds chemical contaminants to some aquifers. However, such contamina-
tion apparently is not widespread at present according to the results of
analyses from the small number of existing wells.
Carlston (1958) found a wide range in concentrations of dissolved
solids in ground water in Monongalia County, West Virginia, a heavily
mined area. The concentrations ranged from k2 to 2,530 mg/1 and pH
values were near neutral in most samples. The highly mineralized ground
water was attributed in part to widespread contamination by salt water
from oil wells as well as to mining. A more recent study in this same
county by Hilgar and Rauch (1979) concluded that wells and springs
located within about 200 ft of a polluted stream or within about 800 ft
of a mine are commonly contaminated with mine drainage, whereas more
distant water supplies are of good quality (with less than 100 mg/1
sulfate).
Gang and Langmuir (197*0 also found that one of the major sources
of contamination in two subbasins of the Clarion River/Redbank Creek
drainage basin in Pennsylvania was contaminated water from flowing
abandoned oil and gas wells. In this case, however, the source of poor
quality water was not deep brines, but shallow ground water whose quality
had been altered by mining and transported upward through uncased wells.
As part of the present investigation, the ground water in Allegheny,
Greene, Indiana, and Washington Counties in southwestern Pennsylvania
was evaluated regionally for chemical-quality characteristics. This
region was chosen because the area has been mined predominantly by
underground methods for years, and Pennsylvania has the best ground-
water quality records of any state in the Appalachian Basin. Analyses
of water obtained from the Federal STORET system for more than 50 wells
and springs in this part of Pennsylvania were evaluated to ascertain
whether the mean, range, and variability of concentrations of selected
chemical constituents might indicate effects of mining (Table 7). Most
of the results are within the range of natural ground-water quality; but
the maximum concentrations of constituents in several samples from
Allegheny and Indiana Counties strongly suggest contamination. Specific
site investigations would be needed to identify the causes of the con-
tamination.
The majority of the ground-water analyses in the STORET system are
from public water-supply wells which are generally in areas of high
quality water. It is not likely, therefore, that a monitoring network
based on data in the STORET system could readily detect ground-water
contamination unless it were widespread.
An assessment of ground-water quality on a more detailed basis
indicated quality degradation in a number of scattered locations in a
nine-county area of southwestern Pennsylvania (Table 8 - Green Inter-
national, Inc., 1976). Historically, most of the coal production in
these counties has been by underground methods. Average concentrations
101
-------
TABLE 7. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF CONCENTRATIONS OF
SELECTED CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN GROUND WATER FROM FOUR
HEAVILY UNDERGROUND MINED COUNTIES IN PENNSYLVANIA*
(All dissolved constituents in milligrams per liter)
Parameter
Conductivity
(ymhos)
pH
Total Hardness
(as CaCo3)
Calcium (Ca)
Magnesium (Mg)
Sulfate (SoO
Iron (Fe)
Aluminum (Al)
Minimum
1*1
5.0 -
10
0.8
0.3
4.0
0.01
0.05
Maximum
2,800
8.4
660
282
370
1,2*0
9.1
1.2
Mean
627
7.3
200
63
19
135
2.0
0.38
Standard
deviation
372
0.56
151
50
50
168
2.2
0.*2
* Data from STORET computer printout provided by Pennsylvania
Bureau of Water Quality Management.
102
-------
TABLE 8. AREAS OF SUSPECTED GROUND-WATER DEGRADATION
DUE TO COAL MINING IN SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
(Source: Green International, Inc., 1976)
Average concentra-
t ions
(mg/1; ph in units)
County and Township
Watershed
Fe
SO.,
pH
ALLEGHENY COUNTY
West Deer Township
Fawn Township
Frazer, Harmar and
Springdale Townships
Find ley Township
Penn, Patton, North
Versailles, Mifflin &
Pittsburgh Townships
W. Branch Deer Creek
Bull Creek
Little Deer Creek
Potato Garden Run
Turtle Creek
6
50
22
69
21
922 3.83
1,307 6.71
793 -
433
ARMSTRONG COUNTY
Madison and Washington
Townships
Rayburn and East
Franklin Townships
North and South Buffalo
Townships
Mahoning Creek and
Al legheny River
Cowanshannock Creek and
Allegheny River
Allegheny River
34 665 3.05
21 2,380 2.98
82 2,631 3.45
BUTLER COUNTY
Allegheny Township
Connoquenessing Township
Jackson Township
Bear Creek
Little Connoquenessing
Creek
Connoquenessing Creek
20
INDIANA COUNTY
Banks Township
Cherryhill Township
Brush Valley Township
and Center Township
South Brady Run
Two Lick Creek
Little Yellow Creek
Brush Creek
Black Lick Creek
Two Lick Creek
560 2.40
14 475 3-60
7 560 -
FAYETTE COUNTY
Springfield & Stewart Twps. Trib. Youghiogheny River
25 3,312 4.07
37 829 4.48
34 955 4.26
1,714 3.86
WESTMORELAND COUNTY
Sewickley, Rostraver, South
Huntingdon Townships
South Huntingdon Township
Sewickley Creek
Sewickley Creek
23 1,076 5.05
3,075 4.02
103
-------
of selected mining-related parameters indicate that the ground water in
a number of townships is unmistakably contaminated. The data suggest
that the more detailed a ground-water monitoring network becomes, the
greater are the number of incidents of contamination that are identified.
Instances of contaminated ground water in aquifers below underground
mines are not well documented. However, where mines are located in up-
land topographic settings and the coal crop is exposed along valley
walls, acid discharges have been observed below the mines. These dis-
charges can be 50 to 300 ft or lower in elevation when compared with the
mine floor. Specific examples in Pennsylvania include mines in Kettle
Creek and Cooks Run in Clinton County; mines near Philipsburg, Centre
County; mines near Mederia and Pennfield, Clearfield County (Parizek,
1979).
Vertical hydraulic interconnection between aquifers and between
mines and aquifers may be greatly increased where oil and gas wells have
been drilled in the vicinity of underground mines. Such conditions are
widespread in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In Butler County, Penn-
sylvania, a combination of oil and gas wells, deep coal mines and strip
mines provide a mechanism for upward movement of contaminated mine water
(Thompson, 1972). Coal-waste wash water from strip mining and surface
runoff enter deep mine pools through near-surface openings. The water
moves through fractured rock into the lower parts of the mine where the
head is sufficient to cause the ground water to rise to the surface
through abandoned oil and gas wells and ultimately discharge to Slippery
Rock Creek (Thompson, 1972).
In some cases, poor quality mine water may be induced into pumping
cones of depression for wells completed above abandoned deep mines. Not
uncommonly, good quality water may be pumped for a few hours to a month
or more before mine water migrates toward the pumping center. This has
been observed at the village of 6-mile Run and in Blue Spruce Park near
Indiana, Pennsylvania (Parizek, 1979).
Hollyday and McKenzie (1973) have developed a hydrogeochemical
model to explain the chemistry of ground water and mine drainage in the
vicinity of abandoned underground mines in western Maryland. Geochemical
diagrams in Figure 56 represent the variation in concentration of selected
water-quality parameters in water sampled at various points within the
flow system. Wells A and B yield water which is very low in dissolved
solids. Water discharging at Site 1 is fresh ground water of a calcium
bicarbonate type that has flowed through two unmined coal seams and is
relatively unaltered. In the mine, the fresh ground water dissolves the
iron and acid sulfates resulting from pyrite oxidation, loses its small
bicarbonate alkalinity in neutralizing some of the acid, and becomes
strongly acidic and enriched in iron sulfate. The acid in this mine
water attacks minerals in the fallen roof rock and in the heaved under-
clay of the mine floor. Aluminum and silica are released from the clay,
and calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate are released from the carbonate
rocks, along with significant concentrations of minor elements. Subse-
quent increases in pH are caused by loss of carbon dioxide to the
-------
WELL A
WELL B
Ca+Mfl|-
No4-K
Ft-l-Mn
H+AI \
30 20 10 0 10 20
CATIONS ANIONS
MILLIEQUIVALENTS PER LITER
30
40
EXPLANATION
— COAL SEAM
— •—• MINE WORKINGS
—^. DIRECTION OF
WATER FLOW
ADAPTED FKOM HOLLYOAY AND MCKENZIE, 1973
Figure 56. Schematic cross section showing water-quality differences
near mine workings in western Maryland.
105
-------
atmosphere, and by removal of ferric iron, aluminum, and minor metal
ions by precipitation, and replacement by hydrogen ions (note diagrams
at Sites 2 and k).
Mine drainage at Site 3 is chemically similar to discharge water at
Sites 2 and k except that the water is considerably more neutralized.
In this model the ground water above the lowest seam is significantly
altered chemically only where it is in contact with a mined-out seam.
The model also indicates that passage of water through rock layers
between mined-out seams helps neutralize poor quality water.
In studies of the anthracite fields of Pennsylvania, Growitz (1978)
found that the dissolved solids in ground-water discharge (mostly mine
drainage) is relatively low in regional upland areas and high in lowland
areas. This situation is apparently related to the length of time the
water has been in contact with the rocks. In contrast, the pH is lowest
in recharge areas and highest in discharge areas. Growitz (1978) attri-
butes this to the oxidizing conditions and reducing conditions in the
respective hydrogeologic settings.
Ground-water quality in the Tom's Run drainage basin of Clarion
County, Pennsylvania, has been degraded by mining activities (Emrich and
Merritt, 1969). Although the mining is primarily by surface methods,
the flow, geochemical mechanisms, and effects on water quality are
similar to those produced by drift mines in the same setting. As seen
in Figure 57, seepage through the mine floor travels to deeper aquifers
along joints, fractures, and especially old abandoned gas and oil wells.
The water then discharges at the land surface through springs and flow-
ing abandoned wells formerly used for oil and gas exploration or production.
Similar results were obtained near Kylertown in Clearfield County,
Pennsylvania (Brown and Parizek, 1971), where samples of ground water
between the Lower Kittanning "B" Coal Seam and the top of the Conno-
quenessing Sandstone ranged in pH from k to 6 (Figure 57)- Mine water
and nearby stream water had a pH of 3. Because the strata in the study
area contain little or no carbonate, either sufficient dilution is
occurring to raise the pH or the deeper flow system is partly isolated.
A study of an active deep mine (152 m or 500 ft) in Alabama included
sampling of ground-water inflow and outflow from the mine. Table 9
gives the mean values of the chemical and physical parameters of six
samples of influent ground water, as well as the mean values for three
samples of the effluent. Changes in concentrations of dissolved consti-
tuents between the influent and effluent are not significant. Other
data from the same mine suggest that the bulk of the aluminum, iron,
manganese, potassium, and much of the sodium in the effluent is in the
suspended solids (clay, etc.) and is not in the form of dissolved ions
in the water (Shotts and others, 1978). In addition, all the chromium,
copper, lead, and nickel are in the suspended solids. The fact that
neither the mine influent nor the effluent is acidic is probably the
main reason for the low concentrations of trace elements in solution.
106
-------
.COAL MINES
ICLARION
FLOWING
ABANDONED WELL
S-3.HOMEWOOD FORMATION r5
MERCER FORMAT!ON ~—
AFTER EHRICH AND MERRITT, 1969
EXPLANATION
COAL
SANDSTONE
SHALE
SANDSTONE AND SHALE
DIRECTION OF WATER MOVEMENT
Figure 57. Influence of mines and abandoned wells on ground-water
flow patterns in Clarion County, Pennsylvania.
107
-------
TABLE 9. RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF MINE WATER
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT IN ALABAMA*
(Source: Shotts and others, 1978)
Parameter
Mean value
from Influent
t
Mean value .
from effluentT
Acidity (as CaC03)
Alkal inity (as CaC03)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride (Cl)
Hardness (as CaCo3)
pH
Suspended Sol ids
Specific Conductance (ymhos/cm)
Temperature (°C)
Sulfate (S0i»)
Turbidity (JTU)
__
531
0.^7
127
7
8.96
507
1,208
22.5
--
15
0
559
0.62
336
67
8.62
3,713
1 ,923
23
l*f
7,688
* Dissolved constituents in milligrams per liter; other constituents as
shown.
f Based on six samples.
i Based on three samples.
108
-------
In regions with naturally poor quality ground water, it may be
difficult to assess the degree of water-quality alteration that results
from mining. For example, in a study of the Tradewater River basin in
western Kentucky, Grubb and Ryder (1972) hypothesized movement of minera
ized water from surface and underground mines to fresh-water aquifers.
However, no firm evidence was obtained to document the theoretical flow,
owing to a lack of wells and the presence of high background concentra-
tions of sulfate and dissolved solids, even in unmined areas, that
prevented any reliable determination of the degree of contamination.
A review of legal cases in eight states suggests that the effect of
underground mining on water well or spring quality is generally not the
cause of lawsuits (see Table 5). The cases documented primarily dealt
with domestic ground-water supplies whose quality was rather abruptly
degraded by mining practices. Instances of gradual degradation, which
are much more difficult to prove, are not evident from the data in legal
case histories.
Significant changes in hydrologic conditions can occur in the
vicinity of mines following their abandonment. These changes are re-
lated to the geologic conditions, types of openings, and methods of
mining. They generally involve water-level elevations, mine drainage,
and water-quality characteristics. Inundation of shaft, slope, and
down-dip mines following abandonment should result in reduction of
contamination according to commonly accepted geochemical models. This
takes place mainly because pyritic oxidation is greatly reduced where
direct contact with atmospheric oxygen is eliminated. Only a few such
cases, however, have been quantitatively documented.
An investigation of mine drainage quality at two abandoned mines in
Clearfield County (Mentz and Warg, 1975) lends support to the rela-
tionship described above. Other than a difference in orientation of the
openings, the two mines had similar mining histories and geologic condi-
tions. The acidity of the discharge from the freely draining up-dip
mine was consistently higher than 2,200 mg/1, in contrast to the acidity
of the discharge from the flooded down-dip mine, which was generally
less than 100 mg/1. Concentrations of total iron ranged from 600
to 800 mg/1 and sulfate averaged 2,000 mg/1 in water from the up-dip
mine, whereas concentrations of iron and sulfate were 55 mg/1 and 600
mg/1, respectively, in water from the down-dip mine. Manganese and
aluminum concentrations were also substantially higher in the up-dip
mine.
A regional assessment of the relationship between mine-discharge
quality and mine-sealing techniques provides some evidence of improve-
ment in water quality as a result of the use of the most common sealing
techniques (Bucek and Emel, 1977). Examination of data from 86 flooded
abandoned mines in 11 states led to the following findings that are
applicable to this study:
109
-------
(1) Effluents from flooded shaft, slope, and drift mines generally
have better quality than discharges from open-air, dry-sealed, or partly
flooded up-dip drift mines.
(2) The group of mines with better overall water quality includes
more sites where samples were taken from inundated shaft/slope or
hydraul ical ly sealed mines. However, the observed modification in the
mine effluent quality of flooded and non-flooded mines, and for the
range of closure types (including no closure at all), indicates that
although mine closures affect the quality of the effluent to some extent,
they are not the sole factor.
(3) The overall effect of the closures on water quality was bene-
ficial in terms of reduced acidity and increased alkalinity.
The sulfate concentration remained unaffected or increased, and
total iron concentration increased in the majority of cases.
(5) Trend analyses of records before and after sealing show that
the mine closures for more than half of the sites caused a reversal or
reduction in contamination trends, and also a reduction in the varia-
bility of the. water quality.
Improvement in mine drainage and ground-water quality in the anthra
cite fields of Pennsylvania may be related to the flooding of most mines
since the 19^0's. In 19^1 coal production was still relatively high and
many mines were kept dewatered by pumping. Growitz (1978) notes water-
quality improvements over the last few decades. Between 19^1 and 1975
the average pH of discharges from all anthracite fields increased from
3.0 to 4.0. In 1975> sulfate and acidity in discharges were reduced to
a little more than half of the 19&5 concentrations in the southern
anthracite field. A decreasing supply of soluble minerals and a decrea-
sing rate of mineral solution may be the principal factors controlling
the improvement in water quality.
It is likely that the quality of ground water above and around
abandoned underground mines will be least affected where exposure of
coal to air is eliminated and where ground-water flow conditions are
most similar to pre-mining conditions. This is most likely to occur
where mines are deep, overlying rocks have very low permeability, roof
fracturing is minimal, and mines are flooded. However, where ground-
water circulation from the land surface has significantly increased over
pre-mining conditions, exposed pyrite will be in contact with increased
amounts of oxygen and water, and therefore will be susceptible to
leaching. These conditions are most likely to occur above relatively
shallow underground mines in areas of moderate to rugged topography.
110
-------
SECTION 9
EFFECTS OF SURFACE DISPOSAL OF UNDERGROUND
MINING WASTES ON GROUND-WATER QUALITY
DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Refuse Pi les
Most of the. approximately 72,000 abandoned and active underground
coal mines in the United States have had refuse associated with the
sites at some time during their history. The total number of sizeable
active or abandoned refuse piles and surface impoundments in eastern
coal fields is between 3,000 and 5,000, and these contain more than
2.7 billion metric tons (3 billion tons) of refuse (National Science
Foundation, 1975). A reported 538 million metric tons (592 million
tons) of bituminous coal were produced in 1973, 18 percent (97 million
metric tons) of which was rejected as waste (National Science Founda-
tion, 1975). With the production of an estimated 1.0 billion metric
tons (1.1 billion tons) of coal by 1985, there will be at least 181
million metric tons (200 million tons) of waste produced annually. This
will be in addition to the 2.7 billion metric tons (3 billion tons) of
waste already accumulated, more than a third of which is in 863 anthra-
cite processing waste banks (Falkie and others, 197*0- The amount of
refuse generated has increased over the years, primarily because of
changes in mining methods, more efficient coal cleaning processes, and
the demand for cleaner coals.
For the purpose of this report, refuse from coal preparation plants
includes coarse material (gob) and fine sediment (slurry). A refuse
pile is a permanent or long-term accumulation of mine, or cleaning plant
refuse materials. Almost all the coal wastes from eastern underground
mines are disposed of on the land surface. Disposal in worked-out
underground mines is more costly than surface disposal and is not a
common practice. Underground disposal is used primarily to control
subsidence in abandoned mine workings under residential and commercial
areas. Before 1920, coal was typically separated from refuse under-
ground by hand, and the refuse was left in worked-out areas of the mine.
With the advent of mechanization and full-seam mining, more of the
refuse was brought to the surface, and economics dictated that it be
disposed'of there. More than half of the active piles in Pennsylvania
are located within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of stream banks. The percentage of
abandoned piles th4s close to waterways is probably higher (Wewerka and
others, 1976).
111
-------
Refuse dumps vary considerably in size, ranging from less than a
hectare to hundreds of hectares in area and from several meters to more
than 100 m in height. Most piles are small, less than ^02,308 m3
(523,000 yd3). However, the bulk of coal refuse is in very large piles,
those containing over 1.2 million m3 (1.5 million yd3).
A comprehensive statewide survey of refuse from underground mines
in Illinois identified approximately 2,02*f ha (hectares) or 5,000 acres
as problem areas (Nawrot, 1978). These areas met one or more of the
following conditions: (l) exposed refuse materials (1,138 ha of gob and
270 ha of slurry), (2) abandoned tipple areas (160 ha), (3) contaminated
water impoundments (95 ha), (4) adjacent affected terrestrial areas, (5)
mine drainage to adjacent ditches, streams, and/or rivers (276 mine
sites), and (6) potentially hazardous mine openings including openings
with mine drainage. Documentation of this type was not available for
other states, but it is likely that even greater volumes of refuse from
underground mines exist in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky.
In Illinois, refuse-oriented problem areas range in size from 0.05 to 83
ha (0.1 to 206 acres), and 43 percent of the areas are less than 0.8 ha
(2 acres).
Waste Impoundments
The two types of underground coal mining wastes that are usually
disposed of in impoundments are: sludge from the neutralization of acid
mine drainage, and fine coal refuse (in slurry form) from the cleaning
process. This report is concerned only with the slurry disposal prac-
tice. An impoundment is a permanent or long-term storage facility on
the surface that is used for containment of mine water or cleaning-plant
slurry. Most are used for the disposal or treatment (settling of
fines) of waste, but some are used to store plant-processing water.
Some impoundments are used for both purposes simultaneously. The quan-
tities of effluent stored in impoundments at eastern United States coal-
preparation plants are unknown and are typically not measured.
Slurry pipeline disposal of fine refuse causes a significant degree
of differential settling to develop in the pond because the coarser
fraction settles out close to the pipe opening into the pond and the
finest fraction is deposited farthest away. Stratification also occurs
in the fine refuse deposits, with beds ranging from a fraction of an
inch to several inches in thickness.
RELATIONSHIP OF COAL WASTES TO GROUND-WATER QUALITY
Physical Characteristics of Coal Refuse
-x,-
Coal refuse is mostly coal, slate, carbonaceous and pyritic shale,
and clay that are associated with the coal seam. Most coal refuse is a
soft clayey shale; the flat plate-like fragments of slate and shale
degrade to clay upon exposure to weathering or mechanical handling and
compaction. Both burned and unburned coal refuse tend to weather faster
than most other alluvial or residual soils. Grain sizes range frqjm
112
-------
colloidal to more than 31 cm (12 in). Coarse and fine wastes are usually
disposed of separately, although in some places they are combined to
form embankments for impounding slurry.
Moulton and others (1971*) studied the suitability of coal refuse as
an engineering material. Samples of representative refuse were selected
from north-central and northwestern West Virginia. The samples con-
sisted of both fresh refuse directly from the preparation plant hopper
and aged refuse that had been exposed to the atmosphere from 18 months
to 30 years. Weathering causes a decrease in the percentage of the
coarsest fraction (gravel) and an increase in the finer fractions,
especially in the silt and clay sizes, giving more surface area for air
and water contact. The coarse fraction is more affected by weathering
than the fine fraction. Using a common soil classification, some refuse
samples classify as sand, but most are sandy or si1ty gravel. The
materials look and behave very much like typical residual soils, similar
to soils from the weathered zone immediately above rock. The specific
gravity of the refuse is relatively low compared to typical West Virginia
soils. Dry density tests show maximum and minimum void ratios to be
higher than would normally be expected for natural alluvial materials
with similar grain size characteristics. Standard Procter compaction
tests indicate that the old refuse has a substantially higher optimum
water content than fresh refuse.
The properties of refuse are influenced by procedures used in the
preparation plant. Grain size is especially affected, which in turn
dramatically influences refuse permeability. The permeability of coarse
refuse commonly ranges from 0.01 to 0.000001 cm/s (210 to 0.021 gpd/ft2),
and is typically 0.0001 cm/s (2.1 gpd/ft2) (W. A. Wahler and Assoc.,
1978). Moulton and others (197*0 found the permeability of representa-
tive coarse West Virginia refuse to range from 0.00001 cm/s to less than
0.0000001 cm/s (0.21 to less than 0.0021 gpd/ft2). with older more
densely compacted refuse having the lower values. The wide range is due
mainly to differences in the age of the pile and/or the degree of com-
paction. Greater compaction results in smaller continuous voids and
thereby reduces permeability. Poorly sorted refuse with a large percen-
tage of fines has a very low permeability, while coarse refuse with
little or no fines has a high permeability. The ratio of horizontal to
vertical permeability of coarse refuse from ten West Virginia sites was
less than 10:1 on the average, with many samples less than .2:1. The
permeability of fine refuse ranges from 0.0003 to 0.000001 cm/s (6.4 to
0.0021 gpd/ft2); the horizontal to vertical permeability ranges from
15:1 to 100:1, and averages 25:1 (W. A. Wahler and Assoc., 1978). The
lower permeability of fine refuse retards the infiltration of precipi-
tation where the refuse is not saturated. In cases where infiltration
into a pile is low, surface runoff may be much more harmful to the
environment than seepage is to ground water.
The common range for natural moisture content (ratio of the weight
of the water to the weight of dry solids) in coarse West Virginia refuse
is k to 16 percent, and averages 10 percent. The natural moisture con-
tent of 87 fine refuse samples ranged from 8 to 56 percent, and averaged
113
-------
21 percent (Monlton and others, 1974). The bulk of both the coarse and
fine refuse in this study was nonplastic. This means it did not contain
a significant percentage of clay, which retains moisture but does not
yield water readily.
Chemical Characteristics of Coal Wastes
Upon exposure to air, changes occur in both the mineral impurities
associated with coal and the coal itself. Fresh coal reacts with oxygen
to form peroxide groups on the surface of the pile. With time, more
stable oxidation compounds and oxides of carbon form. Alternating sun
and rain cause fresh surfaces to open up in the coal as a result of
rapid changes in moisture content, which accelerates oxidation. Oxida-
tion also speeds up with increasing temperature. The initial oxidation
of coal is rapid, but this rate may drop to one-tenth the initial value
after 30 hours (Wachter and Blackwood, 1978). Oxidation decreases the
volatile matter and carbon content of coal.
Metal sulfides in refuse piles are also oxidized upon exposure,
forming sulfuric acid and precipitating ferric compounds and sometimes
eventually forming simple aromatic acids and oxalic acid. The surface
of the refuse may become highly acidic (pH less than 3). The rate of
pyrite oxidation is affected by oxygen concentration, particle size,
temperature, moisture content, pH, redox potential of the reaction, and
crystal size and form of pyrite (Wachter and Blackwood, 1978). It is
less dependent on the amount of water present. Oxidation is essentially
continuous, while precipitation (and hence drainage) is intermittent.
Low winter temperatures reduce the oxidation rate, and below-
freezing temperatures preclude infiltration or runoff. Upon melting,
the initial meltwaters from snow and ice leach the oxidation products
and produce a large volume of moderately polluted water- In the summer,
chemical reactions on waste piles are accelerated, and precipitation
often occurs as high intensity storms. The reduced overall flow in
summer and autumn produces a smaller volume of much more concentrated
drainage. Thus, although the total amount of dissolved constituents
produced is larger in winter and spring, water quality is generally less
affected because of the lower oxidation rate. The worst quality drain-
age is produced in the first flush after a dry period when pollutants
are released in slugs, e.g., during a summer thunderstorm.
The products of oxidized pyrite are washed away by subsequent pre-
cipitation, and new pyrite surfaces are exposed for oxidation. Drainage
percolates through the pile and into the ground, or runs off the pile
into trenches, pits, or streams. Trapped pools frequently contain high
concentrations of pollutants. When storms occur, these pollutants are
washed out as slugs.
The quantity of infiltration depends heavily on the amount of
precipitation, the shape of the refuse pile, volume of refuse contained,
degree of compaction, existence of soil and vegetative cover, degree of
water control, and the terrain near the pile. The quality of drainage
-------
in turn depends on the composition of the coal refuse, the composition
of the wash water (e.g., highly mineralized mine drainage), type of
cleaning process used, the rate and degree of chemical weathering, the
permeability of the pile materials, rate of water movement through the
pile, and length of time water is in contact with soluble materials. In
addition, different ions vary in their susceptibility to leaching, in
their velocity within the aquifer, and in their different trends of
dispersal migration. Libicki (1977) found that aluminum, chromium, and
iron were present as contaminants in laboratory leachate of gob samples,
but molybdenum, strontium, and cyanide were not. With only a 2-percent
weight difference between volumes of leachate and uncontaminated ground
water, gravitational mixing did not cause extensive vertical migration
of contaminants. Contaminants exhibited a tendency to migrate near the
surface of the water table, especially where the gob was saturated.
The loading of pollutants from fine refuse is generally greater
because of the larger surface area available for contact with percolat-
ing water. The lower permeability of fine refuse reduces the velocity
of percolating water and provides longer contact time. Fines generally
have low pH and high calcium ion-exchange capacity (W. A. Wahler and
Assoc., 1978). The main pollution concern with slurry ponds is the con-
tribution of suspended solids to surface waters and not chemical degra-
dation of ground waters. Libicki (1977) ranked the relative threat to
ground-water quality of different preparation plant process wastes (from
greatest to least):
Pile Unsaturated and SubJect to Pi1e Saturated and Subject to
Leaching by Percolating Water Leaching by Ground Water
1. Wastes from water washer 1. Wastes from water washer
2. Wastes from heavy washer 2. Flotation wastes
3. Wastes from dry separation 3. Wastes from heavy washer
4. Flotation wastes k. Wastes from dry separation
This ranking is based on relative grain size. For an unsaturated
site that is subject to leaching by percolating water, wastes from the
water washer contain grain sizes from very fine to medium coarse (silty
to 80 mm), making for a fairly permeable waste with sufficient fines
(increased surface area) to release significant contamination; wastes
from the heavy washer are medium to coarse (20 to 250 mm), meaning
higher permeability so a larger volume of water moves through them
faster, and less fines giving a smaller total surface area that releases
fewer contaminants; wastes from dry separation are coarse, giving high
permeability and a large volume of leachate, but small surface area
releasing a small amount of contaminants. Flotation wastes are very
fine (silty to 2 mm), so that even though there is a very large surface
area for release of contaminants, the permeability is greatly reduced
over the other wastes and much less leachate percolates to the ground
water.
The relative" threat to ground-water quality is changed where the
disposal site is below the water table, because the waste is always
115
-------
saturated. Wastes from the water washer are still the most serious
because the wide gradation in particle size makes for high permeability
and large surface area; very fine wastes from flotation processes pro-
vide even more surface area, but the overall permeability is greatly
reduced, medium to coarse waste from the heavy washer has a higher
permeability, but less surface area over which contaminants are released.
Coarse waste from the dry separation process has the least surface area
for contact with dissolving fluids.
The quantity of natural bases (alkali and alkaline-earth cations,
commonly present as carbonates or as exchangeable cations on clays) in a
refuse may be enough to neutralize the acid produced at a rate equal to
or exceeding the rate of acid production. On the average, sedimentary
rocks contain higher neutralizing potentials than the maximum acid -
potentials from pyritic sulfur (Smith and others, 197*0. Smith and
others (197*0 found that, where sulfur is present only as pyrite, the
total sulfur content accurately quantifies the acid-producing potential
of the material. For a refuse containing 0.1-percent sulfur, all as
pyrite, the complete oxidation of 907 metric tons (1,000 tons) of refuse
would require 2,840 kg (6,250 Ib) of calcium carbonate to neutralize the
sulfuric acid produced. In parts of southern Illinois, there are enough
alkaline salts in the refuse from some mines to neutralize acid produc-
tion. However, chloride and total dissolved solids are still a problem
(W. A. Wahler and Assoc., 1978; Gluskoter, 1965).
In a study of shallow ground-water quality below a refuse pile in
Macoupin County, Illinois, Schubert and others (1978) found the con-
centrations of several metals to be very high less than 122 m (400 ft)
from the gob pile. Concentrations of several metals from these wells
exceeded recommended drinking-water limits by orders of magnitude.
Beyond 122 m (400 ft), the levels of dissolved metals decreased signifi-
cantly. Mechanisms of attenuation were not investigated but are probably
attributable to hydraulic dispersion, dilution, adsorption, and cation-
exchange reactions with the glacial till underlying the site. In addi-
tion, precipitation of metals may have occurred as a result of increased
pH.
Wewerka and others (1975) estimated that an average of 1.7 to 2.2
kg/ha/d (1.5 to 2.0 lb/acre/d) of sulfuric acid and 0.56 to 0.79 kg/ha/d
(0.5 to 0.7 lb/acre/d) of soluble iron are produced from refuse in
eastern coals. However, in some highly mineralized areas, acid has
formed at a rate exceeding 337 kg/ha/d (300 lb/acre/d). According to
these figures, a single large pile has far more potential for acid and
contaminant production than does an abandoned mine (Wewerka and others,
1976). This is primarily due to the fact that the refuse is finely
divided and well exposed, making weathering and leaching processes more
effective.
Recent studies indicate that most acid production occurs in the
outer layer of waste (Martin, 197**). After the acid is produced, it can
infiltrate the refuse pile, be stored temporarily while dissolving
metals from the refuse, and reappear later in dry weather as an acid
116
-------
spring or seep. Peterson (1975) reports that comparisons of recently
established refuse piles with those over 100 years old show that, in
compaction, degradation of refuse takes place very slowly below depths
of three feet. However, where new material is continually exposed to
the atmosphere by erosion, oxidation will continue almost indefinitely.
Uncompacted refuse generally produces a larger quantity of much
poorer quality drainage than compacted refuse. At one site studied by
Wahler and Associates (1978), drainage from a refuse pile into a slurry
pond typically did not seriously affect pond water quality. The refuse
was usually compacted periodically. However, one winter several loose
piles were dumped from trucks and not compacted. A heavy snowfall
occurred and the meltwater percolated slowly through this part of the
refuse. The resulting seepage carried such high contaminant loads that
the entire pond required lime treatment to meet EPA point-source dis-
charge regulations before the excess water could be discharged to a
stream as usual.
Davidson (197^) studied the composition of wastes from underground
bituminous coal mines in Pennsylvania. Over 300 samples were taken out
of the major seams mined in distinct geographic areas of the state, and
included both fresh and weathered refuse (from the same seams when
possible). Analyses of the samples showed such wide divergence in
physical and chemical characteristics that no trends or generalizations
could be made for specific geographic area, coal seam, or even the depth
from which the samples were collected (Table 10).
Chemical analyses were conducted on West Virginia refuse by the
U. S. Bureau of Mines (Table 11). These analyses included a complete
list of trace elements.
Hydrogeologic Settings of Disposal Sites
As in the case of underground mines, the hydrogeologic setting of a
disposal site plays an important role in determining rates and direction
of ground-water flow. The nature of flow, in turn, influences the
extent and magnitude of water-quality changes. In an attempt to charac-
terize the different types of coal-waste sites in the study area and
describe their hydrogeologic setting, 23 active and abandoned piles were
inspected in five states as part of this study. These locations are
given in Figures 58 and 59. Table 12 lists the sites by type and indi-
cates their general locations. The sites visited represent a good cross
section of refuse types with regard to topography, geology, coal seam
mined, size, age, relation to surface drainage, and water quality. The
findings arrived at in this section are based primarily on observations
made during these inspections.
On the average, coarse refuse allows the infiltration of precipi-
tation at higher rates than do either bedrock or till in coal regions.
Few estimates of rates of recharge on refuse could be found in the
literature. A study at the New Kathleen refuse area in Illinois (Bart-
hauer and others, 1971) found 20 to 50 percent of rainfall infiltrated
117
-------
00
TABLE 10. CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLES OF
UNDERGROUND MINE REFUSE IN PENNSYLVANIA*
(Source: Davidson, 1974)
Seam
Parameter
pH
Acidity
(meq H /1 00 gm)
Conductance
(ymhos/cm)
Sulfate (SOif)
Phosphorus (P)
No. of samples
average
range
average
range
average
range
average
range
average
range
A
3
1
8
19
0
2
1,209
2,992
0
1
10
.1
.5
.5
.9
.87
.01
.2
.0
B
3.4
4.6
9.8
112.4
1.88
20.08
3,395
26,513
1.3
15-5
88
C
3
1
6
12
1
12,097
50,076
0
0
8
.0
.0
.4
.2
.51
.79
.6
.8
C1
3.5
1.8
5.1
8.1
0.32
1.20
873
1,765
1.0
1.9
16
D
3
3
6
12
0
1
739
3,000
1
16
26
.8
.1
.4
.1
.31
.63
.8
.5
E
3.8
7.0
8.0
38.6
1.61
8.45
30*088
3.1
16.5
50
Pittsburgh
3.6
5.3
8.8
33.1
2.30
6.63
10,953
29,880
6.7
20.3
70
Dissolved constituents in milligrams per liter; other constituents as shown.
-------
TABLE 11. CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF WEST VIRGINIA REFUSE*
(Source: Wewerka and others, 1975)
Parameter
Beryllium (Be)
Sodium (Na)
Magnesium (Mg)
Aluminum (Al) (%)
Silica (Si) (%}
Potassium (K)
Calcium (Ca)
Scandium (Sc)
Titanium (Ti)
Vanadium (V)
Chromium (Cr)
Manganese (Mn)
Iron (Fe) (%)
Cobalt (Co)
Nickel (Ni)
Copper (Cu)
Zinc (Zn)
Gal 1 ium (Ga)
Yttrium (Y)
Zirconium (Zr)
Silver (Ag)
Cadmium (Cd)
Lead (Pb)
Minimum
0.2
150
500
> 2.5
> 2.5
500
50
3
300
25
3
65
0.75
3
25
12
30
3
3
3
0.3
0.25
20
Maximum
3
375
8,000
--
—
1 ,200
2,000
25
3,000
250
25
1,300
4.1
25
250
50
85
25
25
25
2.5
1.0
150
* Concentrations in milligrams per liter except
where shown as percent.
119
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
OHIO
MARYLAND
Figure 58
disposa, sites inspected as part of th,, study
in central Appalachians.
-------
ZOO KM
Figure 59. Coal-waste,disposal sites inspected as part of this study in
the Eastern Interior Basin.
-------
TABLE 12. GENERAL LOCATION AND TYPE OF COAL-
WASTE SITES VISITED DURING THIS STUDY
State and
County
Nearest
Town
Type of
Refuse Pile
ILLINOIS
Macoupin County
SalIne County
Franklin County
Franklin County
Carlinvi1le
Harco
Valier
West Frankfort
Waste heap
(flat terrain)
Waste heap
Waste heap
Waste heap
KENTUCKY
Ohio County
Union County
Ohio County
Union County
Beaver Dam
Morganfield
Centertown
Morganfield
Highwall lake
backfill
Waste heap
Side hill and
ridge
Waste heap
OHIO
Athens County
Athens County
Jackson County
Kimberly
Chauncey
Roads
Complex
Cross valley
and valley
fill
Complex
(hi 1Itop and
cross val_1ey)_
PENNSYLVANIA
Greene County
Fayette County
Greene County
Washington County
Greene County
Washington County
Fayette County
Washington County
Cambria County
Somerset County
Alicia
Isabel la
Nemacolin
Courtney
Alicia
Vancevi1le
Fredericktown
Ginger Hill
Colver
Hooversvi1le
Complex
Cross valley
and valley fill
Complex
Cross Valley
and valley fill
Side hill and
ridge
Complex
Cross valley and
valley fill
Cross valley and
va11ey fill
Side hill
Side hill
(continued)
122
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
State and Nearest Type of
County Town Refuse Pile
WEST VIRGINIA
Boone County Keith Cross valley and
va11ey fill
Logan County Peach Creek Cross valley and
valley fill
Logan County Upper Whitman Cross valley and
valley fill
123
-------
the pile. The permeability range of 0.000001 to 0.01 cm/s (0.02 to 212
gpd/ft2) for coarse refuse corresponds to values representative of sandy
silt or sandy clay to reasonably clean, medium to coarse sand. Typical
recharge rates in such deposits for precipitation conditions typical of
the Appalachian states range from 26 to 6k cm (10 to 25 in) per year.
This range is probably twice that found in glacial till or in Penn-
sylvanian sedimentary rocks.
Perched water conditions can be expected to occur in a refuse pile
if the pile is situated on sediments of lower permeability (Figure 60).
A temporary recharge mound will slowly dissipate via seeps along the
perimeter of the pile and by vertical leakage to the water table. The
leakage to the natural sediments below the pile will be higher than
normal infiltration rates to these sediments. Evapotranspiration will
be virtually zero once water enters the refuse because vegetative cover
will be insignificant on unreclaimed piles and because the perched water
table will typically be deep within the pile. Assuming an average
recharge rate of 38 cm (15 in) per year, a typical 40-ha (100-acre) pile
would absorb approximately 377 mVd (0.10 mgd). Part of this degraded
water will percolate to the shallow ground-water system. The actual
amount reaching the ground-water system depends on the underlying sedi-
ments and the hydrogeologic setting. The total number of hectares of
coal refuse in the study region and the leachate generated from such
refuse is unknown. However, in Illinois approximately 1,620 ha (4,000
acres) of exposed refuse from underground mining has been surveyed
(Nawrot, 1978). If 25 percent of the water entering this refuse eventu-
ally reaches ground water, the volume of refuse leachate would be about
3,785 mVd (1 .0 mgd).
The close proximity of most refuse piles to stream courses results
in the discharge of most contaminated ground water to nearby surface
waters. Streams serve as ground-water discharge areas and thus help
prevent or retard deep infiltration of contaminants. In addition, the
travel distances are relatively short (tens to hundreds of meters) and
the residence times may be only weeks to several years. Over these
short distances, leachate from a given refuse area behaves as a rather
distinct slug or plume flowing toward the nearest point of discharge.
Thus, degradation within the subsurface occurs in a relatively well
defined pathway which is limited in extent.
The size and shape of contaminated plumes in ground water are
largely controlled by variations in porosity and hydraulic conductivity
of the earth materials, fluid density, the attenuation capacity of the
soil, direction of ground-water flow, the volume of leachate, and the
time since start of infiltration. Physical processes that control the
flux of solute Into and out of the volume of contamination as it moves
through the system are advection and dispersion. Advection is the com-
ponent of solute movement attributed to transport by flowing ground
water. This process is profoundly affected by geologic heterogeneities
along the path of flow. Dispersion occurs as a result of mixing and
molecular diffusion. Dispersion results in a spread of the plume both
longitudinally and laterally as the body proceeds down-gradient.
-------
ELEVATION
IN
METERS
40—
30—
20 —
10 —
LAND
j SURFACE
PERCOLATING
WATER
NEW WATER TABLE
ORIGINAL WATER TABLE
EXPLANATION
DIRECTION OF FLOW
Figure 60. Schematic diagram of flow from a coal-waste heap in flat
terra in.
125
-------
Depending on grain size, grain-size distribution, and velocity of flow,
dispersion can' cause a significant lateral spread of contaminants in
some cases. Figure 61 shows two situations where transverse dispersity
is low in one case and high in the other.
The nature of ground-water flow leads to the conclusion that ground-
water contamination from refuse is somewhat localized, except where
bodies of coal are so numerous that contaminants enter over a very large
area. There is no direct evidence that gross contamination is occur-
ring, although it is to be expected in regions of extensive coal-waste
disposal.
Piles and impoundments are located on a variety of landforms and
assume various shapes depending on the original topography, the type of
material disposed of, and the equipment used for disposal. Almost all
fall into a general classification consisting of just a few categories.
The major types of refuse piles and waste-water impoundments found in
the eastern United States coal fields are as follows (W. A. Wahler and
Assoc., 1978):
Refuse P i 1 es I mppundmenjts
1. Waste heap 1. Diked pond and incised pond
2. Side-hill and ridge 2. Side-hill impoundment
dumps 3. Cross-valley impoundment
3. Cross-valley and
Valley-fill dumps
b. Complex dump
Certain types of impoundments are usually associated with specific
types of refuse piles, as shown in the above list. A brief description
of the hydrogeologic setting of the various types of piles and impound-
ments is given in the following pages.
Waste Heap
This type of refuse pile is usually found in relatively flat ter-
rain and is the typical setting for coal waste in Illinois and parts of
western Kentucky. In this region, disposal piles usually are situated
on ground moraine deposits (till). Figure 62 shows refuse piles of this
type in southern Illinois. Because the location of this type of pile is
not dependent on a natural hollow or valley, disposal sites are not
necessarily near surface drainage features. The permeability of the
till is very low, typically 0.00001 cm/s (0.21 gpd/ft2). Much of the
water percolating into the refuse piles in this setting is deflected in
a horizontal direction upon contact with the ground surface. That is,
the great majority of discharge off or through the pile is expressed as
surface runoff or seeps around the perimeter. Some vertical infil-
tration to shallow ground-water systems can occur and may affect the
quality of the water in the immediate vicinity of the pile (Figure 60).
126
-------
COAL REFUSE
DIRECTION OF
GROUND-WATER FLOW
CONTAMINATION PLUME WITH RELATIVELY LARGE TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY
COAL REFUSE
DIRECTION OF
GROUND-WATER FLOW I',,
STRE
AM
CONTAMINATION PLUME WITH RELATIVELY SMALL TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY
EXPLANATION
CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER
Figure 6) . Plumes of Contaminated Ground Water Resulting From
Coal Refuse Piles Near Streams.
127
-------
Old Ben Coal Co. refuse area near Valier in Franklin
County, I 11i noi s.
Peabody Coal Co. refuse area near Harco in Saline County,
I 11i noi s.
Figure 62 - Coal-waste heaps and diked slurry ponds in southern
I 11inoi s .
128
-------
Since typical waste heaps lack the capability to contain liquids,
impoundments are usually constructed of earth or fine-grained refuse.
Slurry water is contained in either diked ponds (above ground) or in
incised ponds (below land surface). Where leakage under the dikes or
through the pond floor occurs, it affects ground-water quality in a
manner similar to infiltration through the pile. Slurry water ponds in
flat terrain are shown in Figure 62.
Side-Hill and Ridge Dumps
In some cases, coal-refuse materials are dumped along ridge crests
or on the side of a small hill. Large piles may become unstable and
slide across a drainage course becoming a valley-type refuse dump, as
discussed in the next section. Side-hill and ridge dumps are more
prevalent in the Appalachian Basin and in parts of western Kentucky than
in Illinois. Figure 63 shows side-hill dumps in Pennsylvania and West
Vi rginia.
Since the refuse typically reaches its angle of repose when dumped,
surface runoff is high. Side-hill impoundments usually develop on top
of older sections of side-hill dumps that have reached the crest of the
ridge or hill. Therefore, any leakage through the bottom of the pond
will percolate through the underlying coarse refuse. Where the slope of
the hill is moderate or steep and the underlying material is low-permeability
bedrock, most of the water will discharge as springs along the toe of
the dump. If the hill is covered by a mantle of colluvium or weathered
bedrock, seepage into this material will occur, with subsequent movement
into valley-floor alluvial deposits (Figure 6k).
Cross-Valley and Valley-Fill Dumps
Cross-valley and valley-fill dumps are varieties of a disposal
procedure that involves dumping directly in a stream valley. This is
the most common form of disposal of large amounts of refuse in the
moderate to rugged topography of the Appalachian states. Cross-valley
refuse is built across a valley or stream course and may allow the
stream to continue flowing through it without blockage. Where the
refuse acts as a dam and slurry is piped behind it, cross-valley impound-
ments are created. Figure 65 illustrates two examples of such sites.
If the size of a cross-valley dump increases and completely fills a
valley, it is called a valley-fill dump.
In the dissected Appalachian Plateau, the floors and walls of
valleys are composed of bedrock of low to moderate permeability. As
detailed in a previous section, average permeabilities of such rocks
range from 0.000001 to 0.0001 cm/s (0.021 to 2.1 gpd/ft2). Because
streams serve as points of ground-water discharge, disposal within
valleys probably results in little or no ground-water quality problems
since leakage into underlying rocks is negligible. This type of dis-
posal tends to have its maximum effect on surface waters.
129
-------
V,,
Duquesne Light Co. Warwick #2 refuse pile along the
Monongahela River near Alicia in Greene County, Pennsylvania,
Island Creek Coal Co. '20 refuse pile near Upper Whitman in
Logan County, West Virginia.
Figure 63 - Side-hill and ridge refuse dumps in West Virginia and
Pennsy1 van i a.
130
-------
SIDE-HILL REFUSE
EXPLANATION
ALLUVIUM
COLLUVIUM
GROUND WATER CONTAMINATED
BY LECHATE FROM REFUSE
I VERTICAL JOINTING NEAR VALLEY
1 WALLS AND IN VALLEY FLOOR
SANDSTONE
_-:_-i_-_ SHALE
LIMESTONE
SHOWS DIRECTION AND RELATIVE
MAGNITUDE OF GROUND-WATER
FLOW
Figure 64 Schematic diagram of flow from a side-hill refuse
disposal area.
131
-------
National Mines Corp. Isabella refuse area near Isabella
in Fayette County, Pennsylvania.
Duquesne Light Co. Warwick #2 refuse area near Alicia in
Greene Co., Pennsylvania.
Figure 65 - Cross-valley dumps and impoundments in moderately
rugged terrain.
132
-------
When a cross-valley pile becomes large and blocks natural drainage
or is used to impound slurry, water levels in the valley can reach a
height sufficient to reverse the natural direction of ground-water flow
(Figure 66). In time, a portion of the valley may become a recharge
area for flow to adjacent valleys. Suggestions of this type of develop-
ment were found at several of the sites investigated. In these cases,
previously non-existent springs developed in walls of valleys adjacent
to valleys filled with coal waste after the latter were dammed. The
quality of the spring waters is poor and reflects the influence of water
passing through coal refuse.
Complex Dumps
This category of dump is used for a deposit that consists of more
than one of the basic types of dump and has an irregular shape. Complex
dumps develop where the mode of operation has changed and disposal tech-
niques are modified as the dump is enlarged or where a very large amount
of material must be spread over an irregular landscape (W. A. Wahler and
Assoc., 1977). These piles may be developed wherever refuse covers a
large area, but are most common in regions of moderate relief such as
Ohio, western Kentucky, and Alabama. In these areas, a single pile may
cover hilltops, ridges, and valleys. The effects of complex dumps on
ground water is a combination of the effects of the more limited type of
piles. This composite effect is obviously more difficult to predict and
can involve degradation of shallow or deep ground waters.
Nature of Pol 1utants and Ground-Water Contamination
Contaminants from coal refuse can be organic or inorganic. The
inorganic fraction is always present and can be inherent (confined
within the coal structure), or extraneous (foreign to the plant material
that formed the coal). The inherent elements are primarily iron, phos-
phorus, sulfur, calcium, potassium, and magnesium, and typically com-
prise two percent or less by weight of the coal. Extraneous minerals
are deposited contemporaneously with the peat or later through cracks in
the solidified peat; these minerals form the ash. Ash content depends
on the quality of the coal and the degree of cleaning; it ranges from 3
to 20 percent by weight, and averages 10 percent. Table 13 is a list of
trace inorganic elements in coal. Heavier metallic elements, such as
arsenic, zinc, and lead, are typically in inorganic combination with
coal and hence more susceptible to leaching. Lighter elements, such as
beryllium, germanium, and boron, tend to be in organic combination
(Grube and others, undated).
Low levels of organic contaminants in water from coal waste or
stockpiles are likely since coal is primarily organic. The constituents
determined in most studies are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
sulfur, ash, and volatiles. In a nationwide study of runoff and drain-
age from coal stockpiles stored outdoors, Wachter and Blackwood (1978)
analyzed for six organic compounds. Although these results are not
directly applicable to coal waste, strong similarities would be expected
between waters passing through coal and refuse mined from the same seam.
133
-------
NATURAL FLOW PATTERN
COAL REFUSE WHICH DOES NOT BLOCK
NATURAL DRAINAGE OR SERVE AS A
SLURRY DAM
REVERSED FLOW PATTERN
COAL REFUSE BLOCKING NATURAL DRAINAGE
OR SERVING AS A SLURRY DAM
SOME LEAKAGE OCCURS
THROUGH REFUSE
EXPLANATION
SHALE, SANDSTONE, LIMESTONE
COAL REFUSE
COAL REFUSE LEACHATE
DIRECTION OF WATER MOVEMENT
Figure 66 Effect of cross-valley refuse disposal on ground-water
flow patterns.
13**
-------
TABLE 13. TRACE INORGANIC ELEMENTS IN COAL
(Source: Wachter and Blackwood, 1978)
Trace inorganic elements
(about 0.1% or less, on ash)
Beryl 1 ium
Fl uorine
Arsenic
Selenium
Cadmium
Mercury
Lead
Boron
Vanadium
Bismuth
Chromi urn
Cobalt
Nickel
Copper
Zinc
Gal 1 ium
German ium
Tin
Yttrium
Lanthanum
Uranium
Li thium
Scandi urn
Manganese
Strontium
Zirconium
Barium
Ytterbium
135
-------
The organics were found in the leachate in tens of parts per billion,
which was 3 to 8 times higher than background concentrations (Table 1*0.
The leachate sample was obtained by subjecting coal stockpile materials
to "rainfall" from an artificial simulator. The background sample was
the same water as that used for the "rain," and the source level in
Table \k is the calculated concentration expected in actual stockpile
drai nage.
Ground-water quality data from the vicinity of refuse piles and
impoundments are very sparse. Ground-water monitoring of disposal sites
is virtually non-existent in the states studied. For instance, in
southwestern Pennsylvania where underground mining is prevalent and the
concern for ground water is relatively high, only two of sixty active
refuse sites have any monitoring (Higbee, 1978). In the course of this
study, only one coal-waste disposal area was found with a comprehensive
ground-water monitoring system.,; This site is presently under study by
Argonne National Laboratory near Staunton in southern Illinois.
Schubert and others (1978) reported ground-water quality findings
from the Illinois site mentioned above. This area contains an unre-
claimed refuse pile which has been abandoned for 53 years. Twenty-two
shallow monitoring wells were installed in the glacial till surrounding
the refuse pile and the slurry area. The pH of the ground water was low
(2 to 4), and concentrations of acidity, sulfate, and several metals
were extremely high in the immediate vicinity (less than 122 m or 400
ft) of the gob pile. Acidity was 8,370 mg/1 and sulfate was 5,739 mg/1
in one well. Concentrations of several metals from these wells exceeded
recommended drinking-water limits by orders of magnitude. At distances
greater than 122 m (kQQ ft), acidity and dissolved metals decreased
greatly. Specific conductance and concentrations of manganese were
relatively high in a few wells 183 m (600 ft) from the pile. ' -
In 1973, a joint project between POLTEGOR (Central Research &
Design Institute for Opencast Mining, Wroclaw, Poland) and the U. S. EPA
was undertaken to study the influence of gob disposal on ground-water
quality. A test disposal site was constructed, consisting of 14 mpni^
toring wells around a pit filled with 500,000 m3 of gob from underground
coal mines. Analyses were performed on uncontaminated ground water,
contaminated ground water, and leachate derived in laboratory leaching
tests. Libicki (1977) reports that the results show the "unquestionably
deteriorating influence of gob storage on ground-water quality." A 20-m
(66-ft) thick gob deposit produced "measurable" pollution 60 m (196 ft)
away after approximately 15 months. The main body of the contaminants
was transported at about the velocity of ground-water flow.
W. A. Wahler and Associates (1978) studied refuse piles and slurry
ponds at five sites in the eastern United States, analyzing inlet and
outlet waters for comparison. They found that wherever oxidation of
pyrite had occurred or was occurring, there generally were increases in
contaminant concentrations in discharge waters. If acidic water was in
contact with the refuse, there were increased concentrations of sulfate
-------
TABLE 14. ORGANIC EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
(Source: Wachter and Blackwood, 1978)
Compound
2-Ch 1 oronaphtha 1 ene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzidine
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Coal
leachate
16
22
21
24
18
52
Concentration, 10~3 g/m3*
Background
2
7
7
8
4
8
Source
level
14
15
14
16
14
44
* 10~3 g/m3 = ug/1 = ppb.
137
-------
and heavy metals (iron, copper, manganese, nickel, and zinc), and depend-
ing on the mineral content of the refuse, increased chloride and lighter
metals, too (aluminum and magnesium). Table 15 shows an analysis of
seepage water from an impoundment containing low sulfur metallurgical
coal refuse. The embankment is constructed of coarse refuse.
Martin (1971*) described the results of an EPA study of effluents
from refuse piles in Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia
to determine the pollutants to be expected. Samples included seeps and
direct runoff from piles, ponds in and around piles, and receiving
streams both above and below the waste disposal sites. Generally, the
metal and sulfate concentrations varied directly with acidity, but there
was no overall correlation between ion concentration and acidity.
Acidity values ranged from alkaline to 7,020 mg/1, and values as high as
3^,300 mg/1 are reported in the literature.
138
-------
TABLE 15. CHEMICAL QUALITY OF AN ALKALINE SEEP
FROM A COAL REFUSE SITE*
(Source: W. A. Wahler & Associates, 1978)
Parameter Concentration
Flow (liter/min) 20
pH 7.30
Dissolved Oxygen (Oa)
Acidity (as CaCo3)
Alkalinity (as CaC03) 202
Conductivity (ymhos/cm) 2,920
Aluminum (Al) 1.7
Cadmium (Cd) 0.001
Chloride (Cl)
Copper (Cu) 0.001
Ferrous iron (Fe) 0.1
Total iron (Fe) 4.9
Lead (Pb) 0.014
Magnesium (Mg) 118
Manganese (Mn) 4.8
Mercury (Hg) 0.0002
Nickel (Ni) 0.037
Sulfate (SOiJ 2,600
Zinc (Zn) 0.04
* Concentrations in milligrams per liter unless indi-
cated otherwise.
139
-------
SECTION 10
GROUND-WATER PROBLEMS FROM FUTURE MINING
The previous sections of this report have set a background for
determining, on a regional basis, where underground mining may have the
greatest effects on ground-water resources. As mentioned in the Intro-
duction, the relative value of a ground-water resource is taken to be a
combination of use and availability. The purpose of this section is to
identify, in general, where future underground mining will likely impact
ground water. This is done by a series of maps, Figures 67 through 72,
which show areas estimated to have the most significant ground-water
effects from future underground mines, based on the following criteria:
(1) counties with coal reserves for underground mining of greater
than 455 million metric tons (501 million short tons);
(2) counties with over 4 x 103 mVd (1.06 mgd) ground-water pumpage;
(3) areas within these counties which have sufficient ground water
for small industrial and public supplies (reported well yields generally
over 1.6 1/s, or 25 gpm, unless otherwise stated).
In addition, Figures 67 through 72 show the location of underground coal
mines that are planned for the next few years in the counties with large
coal reserves. As expected, there is good correlation between planned
new underground mines and counties with greatest coal reserves. Tennessee
was not included because it contained no areas that satisfied the coal
reserve and ground-water availability criteria used. Virginia and
Maryland did not have sufficient data on ground-water availability.
Indiana and eastern Pennsylvania did not have adequate data on ground-
water use.
The results of this analysis show that there are very limited areas
in the Eastern Interior Basin and in the southern Appalachians that have
the potential for significant ground-water problems from future underground
mining. In fact, in these two regions, only nine counties met the cri-
teria of large reserves and significant ground-water usage. The central
Appalachians, and in particular parts of western Pennsylvania and southern
West Virginia, are indicated as having a greater potential for signifi-
cant impacts. In this region, 31 counties have been identified as
satisfying the first two criteria.
The type and degree of problems from state to state and even from
area to area are not the same. This analysis does not take into account
140
-------
0
I
40 KM
P
i—
FRANKLIN
'
MARION
I FAYETTE
LLAMA* I 'r1
* *—""^••••••••f mi *M«J
I «
TUSCAL00SA
~T
BIBB
EXPLANATION
EFFECTS LIKELY TO
BE SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS UNLIKELY
TO BE SIGNIFICANT
UNDERGROUND COAL
MINE PLANNED
BENSON AND DOYLE, 1978
Figure 6?. Areas In Alabama with potential for significant ground-water effects
from future underground mining.
141
-------
ORUNDY
LIVINQSTON
____! MARSHALL
PEORIA 2- — J
I 1 PIATT
!• UA^nw I
J- •*-—1 '
/-OREEHE r-ACOUP,,,
EFFECTS LIKELY TO
BE SIGNIFICANT
(HIGHLAND
~ ~~- -
EFFECTS UNLIKELY
TO BE SIGNIFICANT
HAMILTONJ~ WHITE
1_
RANDOLPH I PERRY
i, "RAN KLIN
1
JACKSON
SALINE "'oALLATI
UNDERGROUND COAL
MINE PLANNED
BENSON AND DOYLE, 1978
0
I
40 KM
^_v< r
^.- /•PULAtKJLJMASSACi X. \
Figure 68 Areas in Illinois with potential for significant ground-w^ter effects
from future underground mining.
-------
EXPLANATIpN
U>
EFFECTS LIKELY TO
BE SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS UNLIKELY
TO BE SIGNIFICANT
UNDERGROUND COAL
MINE PLANNED
BENSON, AND DOYLE, 1978
MCLEAN*? •
/ OHIO
40 KM
WESTERN
KENTUCKY
EASTERN KENTUCKY
Figure 69- Areas in Kentucky with potential for significant ground-water effects
from future underground mining.
-------
N
STUDY AREA
EXPLANATION
EFFECTS LIKELY TO
BE SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS UNLIKELY
TO BE SIGNIFICANT
UNDERGROUND COAL
MINE PLANNED
BENSON AND DOYLE, 1978
_^jPORTAOE [
j MEDINA j SUMMIT J
_TJ I I
r
WAYNE
_L J J
\ I STARK I
I—' r-
| TBUMBULLI
h=
I MAHONINO
i
Figure 70. Areas in Ohio with potential for significant ground-water effects
from future underground mining.
144
-------
l
I «L«MOH J^-^
IWOtAMA i
1 * * •
/ &-,
* - y _ a.'-lS *
EXPLANATION
EFFECTS LIKELY TO
BE SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS UNLIKELY
TO BE SIGNIFICANT
UNDERGROUND COAL
MINE PLANNED
Figure 71. Areas in western Pennsylvania with potential for significant ground-
water" effects from future underground mining.
145
-------
N
EXPLANATION
EFFECTS LIKELY TO
BE SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS UNLIKELY
TO BE SIGNIFICANT
UNDERGROUND COAL
MINE PLANNED
BENSON AND DOYLE, 1978
0
I
30 KM
I
i
r:
MONON4ALIA
MARION
|
|
} \ I *> ! fs"~ v^ / ' RANDOLPH f" \/
/ MASON \ I v s ''' \\ j * 1
] £ I RO*NE { >X BRAXTON ^^ ^ A v' '
^""" ^N \ X \ / *~\ ' ) PENOLETOM /^
r r\ /
^J Vl ^ .' CLAY <, ^ WEBSTER ^ / ' \^ /
/<~<^~CABELL ' .,•' ^ e^^ S \ *.LS I "
i sv --'"1 i K^W^SK^ s ^ */ //
I N-j / i. /K _pj-****^ x^« x / r
r 'w' !£«: "~K^ NICHOLAS % , POCAHONTAS J
L.«. TUNCOLN -/^^> x'N X
STUDY AREA
^^^^VwesT
^••^ VIRGINIA
Figure 72 Areas in West Virginia with potential for significant ground-water
effects from future underground mining.
146
-------
differences in water quality as related to type of seam mined or the
nature of the adjacent strata. For instance, ground-water quality
effects even in the identified areas of the southern Appalachian Basin
may be restricted to only minor increases in dissolved solids with no
increase in acidity or reduction of pH. However, changes in water
levels and ground-water flow may still occur. Ground-water quality
effects in parts of the northern Appalachians and the Eastern Interior
Basin may, on the other hand, be more significant in terms of dissolved
solids, acidity, and pH. The figures do not assess potential problems
in the vertical dimension. For instance, although refuse disposal on
top of thin surficial sand deposits in Illinois may cause water-quality
degradation of shallow ground waters, deep mining in the same area may
cause little or no hydrologic problems. In addition, there may be areas
not designated on the figures where ground water may be affected signifi-
cantly by mining. This is true because, locally, domestic supplies may
be severely impacted even in areas with poor aquifers and limited min-
ing. In general, the maps presented in this section are meant to serve
as a guide to areawide problems and are not meant to be utilized for
detailed planning or evaluation of individual mines.
-------
SECTION 11
METHODS FOR MITIGATING HYDROLOGIC AND WATER-QUALITY EFFECTS
PRE-MINING PLANNING AND MINING TECHNIQUES
Site Investigations
In the pre-mining stage, an assessment of the hydrogeology and
ground-water geochemistry of a proposed site can help operators plan the
mining activities so as to minimize adverse effects on ground-water
resources. One purpose of such an assessment is to alert the mining
company and the environmental regulatory agencies of possible water
problems. This could help in the development of a more cost-effective
program of water handling and treatment and provide the best data base
for long-term water-level and water-quality monitoring. A comprehensive
assessment might include evaluation of the following factors:
° Presence of calcareous sediments near a coal seam to be mined.
In many areas, major carbonate units have been identified and
mapped. Such strata help minimize water-quality degradation by
buffering or neutralizing ground waters.
0 Definition of pre-mining ground-water quality above and below a
proposed mine. Knowledge of natural quality provides a baseline
for detection of later changes. For example, the buffering
capacity of the ground water provides a guide for predicting
possible production of acid ground waters.
0 Definition of pre-mining ground-water flow systems. Water-level
and permeability data can be used to determine direction and
rates of natural flow, as well as the potential for changes in
water inflow and outflow from the mine.
o
Relation of mine site to fracture systems. Investigations
using aerial photography, remote sensing, and, in some cases,
geophysical methods have been shown to be effective in locat-
ing permeable zones in bedrock aquifers.
Presence of nearby water-supply wells, springs, and aquifers.
Field surveys and review of existing reports provide informa-
tion on the present and future importance of ground water in
an area. Such data constitute a basis for evaluating .potential
impacts on present or future neighbors.
11*8
-------
0 Potential for mine roof instability, subsidence, and induced
fracturing of overlying rocks. The depth and type of mining
contemplated and the nature of the roof rocks can be used
to assess the potential for rock failure. Such failures can
greatly alter flow patterns in and around a mine. This should
be especially evaluated with regard to overlying surface-water
bodies and nearby aquifers.
0 Mineralogy of overlying rocks and reactive nature of pyrite.
Studies in West Virginia and elsewhere have shown it is possible
to assess the relative acid leaching potential of coals by
laboratory tests. In addition, a knowledge of the paleoenviron-
ment of coal deposition may be indicative of the reactive
nature of pyrite in certain circumstances.
0 Suitability of preparation plant sites and coal-waste disposal
sites. Where these facilities are placed on very low permea-
bility surficial deposits and/or in ground-water discharge
areas, there is very little potential for ground-water contam-
ination. In other hydrogeologic environments, it may be more
difficult to assess the potential for contamination, so that a
field study may be required. Such a study would involve the
installation of borings to determine the potential for leakage
from coal waste to the ground-water system and subsequent move
ment of contaminants toward nearby streams, wells, and springs.
Upon consideration of these factors, it may become apparent that a
particular site is environmentally or economically not suitable for
mining or disposal, or that certain mining techniques or engineering
controls will be necessary. The basic technology needed to make hydro-
geologic assessments of mine-site suitability exists, although, existing
information is usually inadequate to address all the factors listed
above. In most cases, site-specific studies would be required to make
the pre-mining assessment.
Regulations authorized under the Surface Mining Control and Recla-
mation Act (PL 95-87) require collection of ground-water data necessary
to evaluate the hydrogeologic systems around new and existing underground
mining operations. These regulations require the collection of back-
ground data on ground-water quality and flow, the installation of
monitor wells, and an assessment of how hydrogeologic conditions will
change as a result of mining activities.
Site-specific studies generally require drilling of test wells in
the vicinity of the mine. In many instances, it may be possible to
increase the utility of exploratory boreholes by using them for hydro-
logic testing and monitoring. This could greatly minimize the total
costs of the hydrogeologic assessment. This combining of functions,
however, would require detailed planning and designing prior to any
drilling. Boreholes not designed for monitoring or hydrologic testing
are typically not suitable for such purposes.
-------
Mining Techniques
The orientation of a mine, method of mining, and location of por-
tals all can cause changes in ground-water and surface-water quality.
As previously discussed, up-dip drift mines generally have the greatest
discharges. In addition, available data suggest that the quality of
drainage from up-dip mines is poorer than from other methods of mining.
Down-dip mining eventually results in the inundation of more areas
within the mine, which may result in a better quality of the discharged
water. After the abandoned down-dip mine is flooded, a new ground-water
flow system is established, and water will begin flowing around, through,
and below the abandoned seam.
High-extraction techniques which result in roof caving and, in some
cases, subsidence, tend to increase alterations in flow, especially
where mining is extensive. Low-extraction techniques in which substan-
tial support pillars are left in place minimize changes in flow. However,
such techniques require that 30 to 60 percent of the coal be left in
place. The tradeoffs involved in selecting the most cost-effective and
environmentally sound methods have not been rigorously analyzed in the
past. It may be that low-extraction techniques may only be justified
where alternative mining methods are likely,to disturb surface drainage
or where water levels in an 'important aquifer will be lowered.
ENGINEERING AND HYDROLOGIC CONTROLS
Most of the engineering and hydrologic controls currently in use to
minimize effects on ground water generally fall into the class of cure
rather than prevention and are seldom fully effective. For example, the
majority of existing controls are aimed at mitigating adverse effects on
surface-water quality or flow. Most of these address ground water only
as an incidental item.
M i ne Sea 1i ng
Mine seals fall into three general categories: hydraulic (dry),
water, and air seals. Hydraulic (dry) seals are designed to prevent
precipitation of surface runoff from entering deep mine workings, but are
not designed to withstand hydraulic heads. Water seals are constructed
to retain water behind them and withstand head pressure. Air seals, of
course, are meant to prevent the flow of air into the mine via old
entryways or ventilation shafts. Seals are typically constructed of
clay, earth, concrete, limestone, and/or various precipitates. Con-
structing effective, long-last ing seals poses numerous engineering
problems. Wherever joints or fractures extend from the mine to the
surface, seepage can occur in^the form of springs or seeps. Such situa-
tions are most likely where there is extensive underground mining above
or near local surface drainage. Problems can be especially serious in
drift mines, where large hydraulic heads build up behind water seals.
150
-------
The objective of water seals is to stop mine drainage from portals
and to flood most of the mined-out area. From a ground-water standpoint,
there is probably little advantage in using water seals except where the
surrounding rocks have been virtually undisturbed by mining activities.
Under such conditions, natural water levels will be re-established and
ground-water quality may improve after mine abandonment. Under other
conditions, the effectiveness of water seals as a method of improving
ground-water quality varies according to the technique used and to the
geology around the site where it is employed. This is borne out by the
conclusions of a study of mine-effluent quality from a large number of
recently abandoned mines using several different closure techniques
(Bucek and Emel, 1977). In that study, double bulkhead seals were
effective in reducing acidity of mine discharges at 80 percent of the
sites. However, the reductions ranged from 32 to 100 percent, and
changes in sulfate and iron concentrations were erratic.
Air seals are another common mine-drainage control technique which
may indirectly affect ground-water quality near underground mines. Dur-
ing the 1930's, the Federal Work Projects Administration closed thousands
of mines (mostly with air seals) throughout the eastern United States to
abate acid-mine drainage (Thompson and Emrich, 1969). Less extensive
programs have continued to the present time. In this method, air-tight
seals are constructed at all portals and ventilation shafts in an attempt
to reduce oxygen and the resulting production of sulfuric acid in the
mine. Results of a demonstration project near Elkins, West Virginia,
indicate that air sealing at a small underground mine did reduce acidity,
iron, and sulfate concentrations (industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, 1977). However, at a large underground mine nearby, air
seals were found to be impractical because of the many adits, shafts,
and rock fractures that introduced air into the mine. Available data
from this and other studies suggest that air seals will have a bene-
ficial effect on ground-water and surface-water quality only if mines
are deep and subsidence and fracturing are minimal.
Surface-Water Diversion
As noted in a previous section, loss of surface water to underground
mines or to rocks affected by mining will tend to increase the deteriora-
tion of ground-water and mine-drainage quality. A variety of techniques
exist for preventing or reducing the amount of surface water that enters
a mine. These include canals, gravity drains, interceptor trenches, and
stream-channel liners. Unfortunately, many of these can deteriorate
after relatively short periods of use. In addition, most techniques are
suitable only for intermittent or small drainageways. By far, the most
effective technique for preventing surface-water seepage to underground
mines is to take precautions prior to and during mining. In most cases,
this involves leaving sufficient rock supports below water courses,
especially where subsidence is likely or where rock fractures may reach
the surface.
151
-------
Ground-Water Diversion
A hydrologic control which deals more specifically with ground
water involves diversion of ground water in the vicinity;of a mine by
means of pumping wells. Variations of this technique have been des-
cribed by several investigators (Parizek and.Tarr, 1972; Schubert,
1978). The basic concept involves interception of ground water which
would normally enter a mine and become contaminated by solution of
exposed sulfide minerals. The pumped water is disposed of either by
direct discharge to a stream or by gravity drainage through connector
wells to deeper aquifers. Computer simulation of a connector well
scheme in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, showed that negligible reduc-
tion in leakage into the study mine would occur where the permeability
of the overlying sandstone was less than 0.00035 cm/s (7.4 gpd/ft2)
(Schubert, 1978). Higher sandstone permeabilities, more than 0.0035
cm/s (7^.2 gpd/ft2), are more conducive to dewatering. According to the
model, 25 connector wells would potentially decrease vertical leakage in
the mine investigated by only 2.4 percent, assuming a sandstone perme-
ability of 0.0035 cm/s (7*1.2 gpd/ft2).
i
A recent pilot study near CarrolItown, Pennsylvania, investigated
the feasibility of dewatering at a specific site (W. A. Wahler 6 Assoc.,
1978). Wells placed on a line near the working face of the mine pumped
about 5 1/s (80 gpm) and caused an average reduction of 34 percent in
inflow to the mine. Data indicate that about 45 percent of the water
pumped from the wells would otherwise haye(. entered the mine. Projection
of data from a pumping test of several weeks duration indicated that
after 120 days of pumping, up to 80 perpept of the water pumped would
have been diverted from mine flows. Discharge water from the pumped
wells was of good quality and was diverted to a.nearby stream without
treatment.
The concept of ground-water diversion around underground mines by
pumping wells is technically sound under certain circumstances. The
efficient application of this method requires a good understanding of
the ground-water system around the mine. Conditions most favorable for
diversion seem to be at wet mines wher.e the mine discharge quality is
acidic and the surrounding groundrwater quality is good. Under these
conditions, because lime treatment would be expensive, the costs of
pumping water may be justified. , f
Underdrains or Liners
A method commonly used fq/ controlling leachate from sol id-waste
sites is the construction of gnderdrains or liner systems which collect
the waste fluids and allow treatment at a central location prior to
discharge. This method, however, is only suitable,.for new sites or
expanding sites where the system can be jnstalled prior to waste dis-
posal. Liners and/or underdrains have been suggested for use at coal
refuse piles, although no sites with operating systems were encountered
in the course of this study.
152
-------
Assuming that an underdrain or liner would function as designed,
this method would virtually eliminate the potential for ground-water
contamination. However, engineering difficulties have been encountered
in installations at solid-waste facilities. In addition, the overall
cost-effectiveness of such techniques for coal refuse has not been
evaluated. It is difficult to envision such methods being employed
universally. However, in areas where ground water is an important
resource and may be threatened by proposed refuse disposal, liners or
underdrains may be practical.
Reclamation
The most common form of refuse reclamation, where it is practiced,
is the revegetation of the pile surface. This commonly involves the
placement of some form of topsoil, which is typically seeded with selected
legumes and hardy species of grasses including fescue, rye, reed canary,
and barley. The purpose of such reclamation is partly to improve aes-
thetics and partly to reduce sediment loading to nearby surface waters.
Probably the only beneficial effect on ground water that might be expected
as a result of standard reclamation techniques is a reduction in infil-
tration because of increased evapotranspiration. Reduced infiltration
would, presumably, result in some reduction in leachate production and
subsequent reduction in contamination of nearby ground waters and
surface waters.
Several demonstration reclamation projects relating to the disposal
of highly acidic refuse have involved the addition of lime to the pile
surface in an effort to buffer infiltrating waters. A study by Waddell
(1978) evaluated the effect of coal waste flue dust and limestone frag-
ments placed on the surface of acidic highway embankments in Centre
County, Pennsylvania, on ground- and surface-water quality. These
embankments are similar to coal refuse piles in that exposed rock is
heavily laden with iron sulfide minerals. Detailed monitoring of the
water quality of seeps downgradient from the embankment spoil indicate
that some improvement in water quality did occur, apparently as a result
of treatment. pH levels increased from about 4 to approximately 5.5 at
one sampling point. At the same site, sulfate and acidity concentrations
also decreased. The treatment was not effective in reducing the acid
load of nearby surface waters because the volume of pyrite-bearing rock
in the treated area was small compared to that in the highway embankment
and spoi1 piles.
Work at the New Kathleen Mine in Illinois included test plots
covered with soil and treated with agricultural limestone. A vegetative
cover was established and surface-runoff quality was monitored for one
year. The average rate of acid formation for runoff from the entire re-
stored refuse pile was estimated at 2.9 kg (6.5 lb.) acid as CaCOa/ha/d,
representing a reduction of over 91 percent as compared with the original
unrestored pile. No ground-water samples were taken to see if ground-
water quality-also showed improvement.
153
-------
REFERENCES
Bain, G. L., and E. A. Friel. 1972. Water Resources of the Little
Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia. River Basin Bulletin No. 2.
West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV. 122 p.
Barthauer, G. L., Z. V. Kosowski, and J. P. Ramsey. 1971. Control
of Mine Drainage From Coal Mine Mineral Wastes, Phase I—Hydrology
and Related Experiments. Water Pollution Control Research Series,
Report 14010, DDH 08/71. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
148 p.
Barnes, I., W. T. Stuart, and D. W. Fisher. 1964. Field Investigation
of Mine Waters in the Northern Anthracite Field, Pennsylvania.
Professional Paper 473-B. U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.
8 p.
Benson, D. C., and F. J. Doyle. 1978. Projects to Expand Fuel Sources
in Eastern States - An Update of Information Circular 8725. Infor-
mation Circular 8765. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines, Washington, D. C. 141 p.
Biesecker, J. E., J. B. Lescinsky, and C. R. Wood. 1968. Water
Resources of the Schuylkill River Basin. Water Resources Bulletin
No. 3- Pennsylvania Dept. of Fores'ts and Waters, Harrisburg, PA.
185 p.
Bloyd, R. M. 1974. Summary Appraisals of the Nation's Ground-Water
Resources-Ohio Region. Professional Paper 813-A. U. S. Geological
Survey, Washington, D. C. 4l p.
Bloyd, R. M. 1975. Summary Appraisals of the Nation's Ground-Water
Resources-Upper Mississippi Region. Professional Paper 813-B. U. S.
Geological Survey, Washington, D. C. 22 p.
Born, S. M., S. A. Smith, and D. A. Stephenson. 1974. Hydrogeologic
Regime of Glacial-Terrain Lakes, with Management Planning Impli-
cations. Inland Lake Renewal and Demonstration Project Report,
Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission.
Boyer, J. 1976. Personal Communication. Bituminous Coal Research,
Inc., Monroeville, PA.
154
-------
Brant, R. A., and R. M. DeLong. I960. Coal in Ohio. Bulletin 58.
Ohio Geological Survey, Columbus, OH.
Bredehoeft, J. D., C. R. Blyth, W. A. White, and G. B. Maxey. 1963.
Possible Mechanism for Concentration of Brines in Subsurface Forma-
tions. Bull. Amer. Assn. Petrol. Geol., ^7(2): pp. 257-289.
Brown, R. L., and R. R. Parizek. 1971. Shallow Ground Water Flow
Systems Beneath Strip and Deep Coal Mines at Two Sites, Clearfield
County, Pennsylvania. CR-66. Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA.
\
Bucek, M. F., and J. L. Emel. 1977. Long-Term Environmental Effec-
tiveness of Close Down Procedures, Eastern Underground Coal Mines.
Report EPA-600/7-77-083. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. 140 p.
Buchart-Horn, Inc. 1975. COWAMP 4-Upper Susquehanna River Basin.
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA.
Bureau of the Census. 1972. 1970 Census of Housing-Detailed Housing
Characteristics. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
Bureau of the Census. 1978. Households and Families by Type: March
1978 (Advance Report). U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
Bureau of Resources Programming. 1976. Pennsylvania Consolidated
Water Use Report. Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources,
Harrisburg, PA.
Bushnell, K. 0. 1975. Map Showing Area that Correlate with Subsidence
Events Due to Underground Mining of the Pittsburgh and Upper Free-
port Coal Beds, Allegheny, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties,
Pa. Map MF-693C. U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.
Carlston, C. W. 1958. Ground-Water Resources of Monongalia County,
West Virginia. Bulletin 15- West Virginia Geological and Economic
Survey, Morgantown, WV.
Cartwright,, K. 1970. Ground Water Discharge in Illinois Basin as
Suggested by Temperature Anomalies. Water Resources Research,
Vol. 6, No. 3- PP. 912-918.
>
Cartwright, K. 1977- Personal Communication. Illinois Geological
Survey, Urbana, 111.
Cartwright, K., and C. S. Hunt. 1978. Hydrogeology of Underground
Mines in Illinois. Symposium on Water in Mining and Underground
Works, Asociacion Nacional de Ingenieros de Minas, Granada, Spain.
155
-------
Caruccio, F. T. 1968. An Evaluation of Factors Affecting Acid Mine
Drainage Production and the Ground Water Interactions in Selected
Areas of Western Pennsylvania j_n_ Second Symposium on Coal Mine
Drainage Research. National Coal Association, Washington, D. C.
pp. 107-152.
Caruccio, F. T. 1970. Quantification of Reactive Pyrite by Grain Size
Distribution _m_Third Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research.
National Coal Association, Washington, D. C. pp. 123-132.
Caruccio, F. T., and others. 1977- Paleoenvironment of Coal and Its
Relation to Drainage Quality. Research Reporting Series 600/7-77-
067. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 108 p.
Chisolm, J. 1978. Personal Communication. U. S. Geological Survey,
Charleston, WV.
Crichton, Andrew B. 1928. Disposal of Drainage from Coal Mines.
Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
Vol. 92, pp. 1332-1337.
Davidson, W. H. 197^- Reclaiming Refuse Banks from Underground
Bituminous Mines in Pennsylvania in First Symposium on Mine and
Preparation Plant Refuse Disposal. National Coal Association,
Washington, D. C. pp. 186-199.
Davies, W. E. 1968. Engineering Geology in Mineral Resources of the
Appalachian Region. Professional Paper 580. U. S. Geological
Survey, Washington, D. C. pp. 91-93.
Davis, R. W. 1973. Quality of Near-S,urface Waters in Southern Illi-
nois. Ground Water, Vol. 11, No. 1.
DeLong, R. M. 1978. Personal Communication. Ohio Geological Survey,
Columbus, OH.
Denning, G. W. 1977. Economics of Groundwater in Virginia. Planning
Bulletin 308. Virginia State Water Control Board, Richmond, VA.
57 p.
Division of Geology. 1961. Tennessee's Water Resources. Water Re-
sources Series-2. Tennessee Dept. of Conservation, Nashville, TN.
128 p.
Division of Geology. 197**. Coal Mining in Tennessee, as of November
197^. Information Circular 17. Tennessee Dept. of Conservation,
Nashville, TN.
156
-------
Doll, W. L., G. Meyer, and R. J. Archer. 1963. Water Resources of
West Virginia. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey,
Morgantown, WV. 134 p.
Doll, W. L., B. M. Wilmoth, and G. W. Whetstone. I960. Water Resources
of Kanawha County, West Virginia. Bulletin No. 20. West Virginia
Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV. 134 P-
Edmunds, W. E. 1977- Personal Communication. Pennsylvania Geological
Survey, Harrisburg, PA.
Emrich, G. H., and G. L. Merritt. 1969- Effects of Mine Drainage on
Ground Water J_n_ Second Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research.
National Coal Association, Washington, D. C. pp. 190-223.
Epps, S. R. 1979- Buchanan County Groundwater: Present Conditions
and Prospects (in press). Planning Bulletin 307- Virginia State
Water Control Board, Richmond, VA.
Falkie, T. V., J. E. Gil ley, and A. S. Allen. 1974. Overview of Under-
ground Refuse Disposal _i_n_ First Symposium on Mine and Preparation
Plant Refuse Disposal. National Coal Association, Washington, D. C.
pp. 128-144.
Perm, J. C., and E. G. Williams. I960. Stratigraphic Variation in
Some Allegheny Rocks of Western Pennsylvania. Bulletin American
Assn. of Petrol. Geol., Vol. 44, No. 4. pp. 495-497-
Perm, J. C. 1974. Carboniferous Environmental Models in Eastern United
States and Their Significance in Carboniferous of the Southeastern
United States. Special Paper 148. Geological Society of America,
Boulder, CO. pp. 79~97.
Perm, J. C., and F. T. Caruccio. 1974. Paleoenvironment Prediction of
Acid Mine Drainage Problems _MT_ Fifth Symposium on Coal Mine Drain-
age Research. National Coal Association, Washington, D. C. pp. 5-
11.
Gallaher, J. T. 1973- Summary of Ground Water Resources, Allegheny
County. Water Resources Report 35- Pennsylvania Topographic and
Geologic Survey, Harrisburg, PA.^ 71 p.
Gang, M. W., and D. Langmuir. 1974. Controls on Heavy Metals in
Surface and Ground Waters Affected by Coal Mine Drainage: Clarion
River-Redbank Creek Watershed J_n_ Fifth Symposium on Coal Mine
Drainage Research. National Coal Association, Washington, D. C.
pp. 39-69.
Gannet Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1976. COWAMP 3-Central
Susquehanna River Basin. Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Resources, Harrisburg, PA.
157
-------
Gerhart, J. M. 1977. Digital Simulation of Yield Potential of the
Elliot Park-Burgoon Aquifer in Eastern Clearfield and Western
Centre Counties, Pennsylvania. MS paper, Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity, University Park, PA. 140 p.
Gil ley, J. 1977- Personal Communication with H. R. B. Singer, U. S.
Bureau of Mines Liaison Officer. West Virginia.
Glover, T. 1977. Personal Communication with H. R. B. Singer, U. S.
Bureau of Mines Liaison Officer. Springfield, IL.
Gluskoter, H. J. 1965. Composition of Ground Water Associated with
Coal in Illinois and Indiana. Economic Geology, Vol. 60. pp.
614-620.
Gluskoter, H. 1977. Personal Communication. Illinois Geological
Survey, Urban, IL.
Graf, D. L., W. F. Meents, I. Friedman, and N. F. Shrimp. 1966. The
Origin of Saline Formation Waters: 3. Calcium Chloride Waters.
Circular 397- Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, IL. 60 p.
Green International, Inc. 1976. COWAMP 8-Upper Allegheny River Basin.
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA.
Growitz, D. J. 1978. Hydrogeologic Factors That'May Affect Mine
Drainage in the Anthracite Region of Pennsylvania, Eastern United
States. Symposium on Water in Mining and Underground Works,
Asociacion Nacional de Ingenieros de Minas, Granada, Spain, pp.
153-172.
Grubb, H. F., and P. D. Ryder. 1972. Effects of Coal Mining on the
Water Resources of the Tradewater River Basin, Kentucky. Water-
Supply Paper 19^0. U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C. 83 p.
Higbee, R. 1978. Personal Communication. Ground-Water Quality
Branch, Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg,
PA.
Hilgar, G. M., and H. W. Rauch. 1979. Ground-Water Contamination by
Coal Mining in Monongalia County, West Virginia. Abstract of Paper
Presented at the 1979 National Water Well Exposition, Ground Water,
Vol. 17, No. 5. p. 492.
Hobba, W. 1978. Personal Communication. U. S. Geological Survey,
Morgantown, WV.
Hpllyday, E. F., and S. W. McKenzie. 1973. Hydrogeology of the Forma-
tion and Neutralization of Acid Waters Draining from Underground
Coal Mines of Western Maryland. Report of Investigations No. 20.
Maryland Geological Survey, Annapolis, MD.
158
-------
Hopkins, H. T. 1975. Written Communications. U. S. Geological
Survey, Richmond, VA.
Hornberger, R. 1978. Personal Communication. Dept. of Geological
Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals. 1978. Unpublished maps.
Springfield, IL.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Public Water Supplies
Data Book. Urbana, IL.
Illinois State Water Survey Division. 1967- Water Resources in Water
for Illinois: A Plan for Action. Illinois Technical Advisory
Committee on Water Resources, Urbana, IL. pp. 31~90.
i
Illinois State Water Survey. 1978. Computer Printout of Illinois
Industrial Water Pumpage for 1970. Urbana, IL.
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory. 1977- Elkins Mine
Drainage Pollution Control Demonstration Project. Report EPA-600/
7-77-090. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
154 p.
Jake, T. 1978. Personal Communication. West Virginia Geologic and
Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV.
Kebblish, W. 1977- Personal Communication. Pennsylvania Geological
Survey, Harrisburg, PA.
Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals. 1978. Unpublished maps.
Lexington, KN.
Kohl, W. R., and R. P. Briggs. 1976. Summary Map of Mined Areas and
Areas of Potential Coal Mining, Southwest Pennsylvania. Misc.
Field Studies Map MF-729. U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C,
Kosowski, Z. V. 1973. Control of Mine Drainage from Coal Mine Mineral
Wastes. Report EOA-R2-73-230. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C. 1*»9 p.
Kowalik, W. S., and D. P. Gold. 1975. Lineament Map of Pennsylvania.
ORSER-SSEL Technical Report 5~75. Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA.
Libicki, Jacek. 1977- Impact of Gob and Power-Plant Ash Disposal on
Ground-Water Quality and Its Control J_n_ Seventh Symposium on Coal
Mine Drainage Research. National Coal Association, Washington, D. C,
pp. 165-184.
Linkous, F. 1978. Personal Communication. Virginia Division of Mines
and Quarries.
159
-------
Lohman, S. W. 195.7- Ground Water in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Water
Resources Report 4. Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey,
Harrisburg, PA. 300 p.
Lovell, H. L., and J. W. Gunnett. 1974. Hydrogeological Influences in
Preventive Control of Mine Drainage from Deep Coal Mining. Special
Report SR-100. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
89 P.
Martin, A. W. 1974. Relationship Between Underground Mine Water Pools
and Subsidence in the Northeastern Pennsylvania Anthracite Fields.
King of Prussia, PA.
Martin, J. F. 1974. Quality of Effluents from Coal Refuse Piles _i_n_
First Symposium on Mine and Preparation Plant Refuse Disposal.
National Coal Association, Washington, D. C. pp. 1-25.
Maryland Water Resources Administration. 1978. Computer Master List
of Groundwater Appropriations. Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources,
Annapolis, MD.
Maxwell, B. W., and R. W. Devaul. 1962. Reconnaissance of Ground-
Water Resources in the Western Coal Field Region, Kentucky. Water-
Supply Paper 1599. U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C. 34 p,
McGraw-Hill Mining Informational Services. 1977- Keystone Coal
Industry Manual. McGraw-Hill Mining Publications, New York, NY.
1,184 p.
Mentz, J. W., and J. B. Warg. 1975. Up-Dip Versus Down-Dip Mining—
An Evaluation. Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA-
670/2-75-047. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH. 74 P.
Moulton, L. K., and others. 1974. Coal Mine Refuse: An Engineering
Material in First Symposium on Mine and Preparation Plant Refuse
Disposal. National Coal Association, Washington, D. C. pp. 1-25.
Mull, D. S., R. V. Cushman, and T. W. Lambert. 1971. Public and
Industrial Water Supplies of Kentucky, 1968-69- Information Cir-
cular 20. Kentucky Geological Survey.
Mundi, E. K. 1974. Physical Characteristics of Some Fractured Aquifers
in Central Pennsylvania and a Digital Simulation of Their Sustained
Yield. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, Univer-
sity Park, PA. 178 p.
Murray, C. R., and E. B. Reeves. 1977. Estimated Use of Water in the
United States in 1975- Circular 765. U. S. Geological Survey,
Alexandria, VA. 4 p.
160
-------
Nace, R. L., and P. P. Bfeber. 1958. Ground-Water Resources of Harri-
son County, West Virginia. Bulletin No. 14. West Virginia Geo-
logical and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV. 55 p.
National Science Foundation. 1975. Underground Disposal of Coal Mine
Wastes. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C.
Nawrot, J. R. 1978. Problem Sites: Lands Affected by Underground
Mining for Coal in Illinois. Document No. 77/38. Illinois Insti-
tute for Environmental Quality. 562 p.
Newport, T. G. 1973. Summary of Ground-Water Resources of Westmore-
land County. Water Resources Report 37. Pennsylvania Topographic
and Geologic Survey, Harrisburg, PA. 49 p.
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. 1975. Inactive and Abandoned
Underground Mines. Report EPA-440/9-75-007. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Ohio Division of Water. Undated. Map of Ground-Water Resources in
Ohio. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Columbus, OH.
Parizek, R. R. 1970. Prevention of Coal Mine Drainage Problems by
Well Dewatering. Paper presented at 1970 Society of Mining En-
gineers Meeting. St. Louis, MO.
Parizek, R. R., and E. G. Tarr. 1972. Mine Drainage Prevention and
Abatement Using Hydrogeological and Geochemical Systems in Pro-
ceedings Fourth Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research. Mellon
Institute, Pittsburgh, PA. pp. 56-82.
Parizek, R. R. 1976. On the Nature and Significance of Fracture Traces
and Lineaments in Carbonate and Other Terraines in Karst Hydrology
and Water Resources. Proceedings of the U.S.-Yugoslavian Sym-
posium, June 2-7, 1975. Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia. 62 p.
Parizek, R. R. 1978. Background Report for Preliminary Planning,
Eastern Surface Coal Mining—Hydrology Volume (in press). U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 192 p.
Parizek, R. R. 1979. Personal Communication. Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity, University Park, PA.
Peirce, L. B. 1972. Use of Water in Alabama, 1970. Information
Series 42. Alabama Geological Survey, University, AL.
Peterson, R. 1975- Engineering Properties of Coal Waste Embankment
Material \r± First Symposium on Underground Mining. National Coal
Association, Washington, D. C.
161
-------
Piper, A. M. 1933. Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania. 4th
Ser- Bulletin W-l. Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Harrisburg, PA.
406 p.
Poth, C. W. 1973a. Summary of Ground-Water Resources of Armstrong
County. Resources Report 34. Pennsylvania Topographic and Geo-
logic Survey, Harrisburg, PA. 38 p.
Poth, C. W. 1973b. Summary of Ground-Water Resources in Beaver
County. Water Resources Report 36. Pennsylvania Topographic and
Geologic Survey, Harrisburg, PA. 49 p.
Price, W. E., D. S. Mull, and C. Kilbrun. 1962. Reconnaissance of
Ground-Water Resources in the Eastern Coal Field Region, Kentucky.
Water-Supply Paper 160?. U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.
55 p.
Rauch, H. 1978. Effect of Underground Coal Mining on Water Wells in
Monongalia County, West Virginia. Presented at National Water Well
Exposition, September 20, 1978. National Water Well Association,
Worthington, OH.
Resource Extraction and Handling Division. 1977. Elkins Mine Drainage
Pollution Control Demonstration Project. Report EPA-600/7-77-090.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Robison, T. 1964. Occurrence and Availability of Ground Water in Ohio
County, West Virginia. Bulletin 27. West Virginia Geological and
Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV. 57 p.
Roebuck, Sheila. 1978. Personal Communication. Dept. of Geosciences,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Rudnick, T. R. 1977. Inventory of Municipal Water-Supply Systems by
County. Water Inventory Report 24. Ohio Dept. of Natural Re-
sources, Division of Water, Columbus, OH.
Schubert, J. 1978. Hydrogeologic and Numerical Simulation Feasibility
Study of Connector Well Dewatering of Underground Coal Mines,
Madera, Pennsylvania. MS paper, Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA.
Schubert, J. P. 1978. Reducing Water Leakage into Underground Coal
Mines by Aquifer Dewatering \n_ Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Water in Mining and Underground Works. Asociacion
Nacional de Ingenieros de Minas, Granada, Spain.
Schubert, J. P., R. D. Olsen, and S. D. Zellmer. 1978. Monitoring
the Effects of Coal Refuse Disposal and Reclamation on Water Quality
in Southwestern Illinois _i_n_ Proceedings Fourth Joint Conference on
Sensing of Environmental Pollutants. American Chemical Society.
pp. 724-731.
162
-------
Settlemyer, L. (in press) Ground-Water Evaluation of Black Warrior
River Basin in Alabama. Open-file Report. U. S. Soil Conservation
Service.
Sholes, M. A., and V. W. Skema. 197*». Bituminous Coal Resources in
Southwestern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic
Survey, Harrisburg, PA.
Shotts, R. Q.., E. Sterett, and T. A. Simpson. 1978. Site Selection
and Design for Minimizing Pollution from Underground Coal Mining
Operations. Report EPA-600/7-78-006. U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 98 p.
Singer, H. R. B. 1977. The Nature and Distribution of Subsidence
Problems Affecting HUD and Urban Areas. Prepared for the Office of
Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, State Col lege, PA. *»5 p.
Smith, R. M., and others. 197^. Mine Spoil Potentials for Soil and
Water Quality. Report EPA-670/2-7^-070. U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
Smith, W. H., and J. B. Stall. 1975. Coal and Water Resources for
Coal Conversion in Illinois. Cooperative Resources Report k.
Illinois State Water Survey and Illinois State Geological Survey,
Urbana, IL. 79 p.
Southwest Virginia 208 Planning Agency. December 1977. Southwest
Virginia 208 Plan Map Volume. Duffield, VA. 59 p.
Subitzky, S. 1976. Greater Pittsburgh Region, Land and Water Studies
for Environmental Analysis, Hydrogeologic Studies, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. Misc. Field Studies Maps MF-641A through 641E. U. S.
Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.
Thompson, D. R., and G. H. Emrich. 19&9- Hydrogeologic Considerations
for Sealing Coal Mines. Publication 23. Pennsylvania Department
of Health, Harrisburg, PA. 21 p.
Thompson, D. R. 1972. Complex Ground-Water and Mine Drainage Problems
from a Bituminous Coal Mine in Western Pennsylvania. Bulletin of
Engineering Geologists. New York, NY. Vol. 9, No. k.
Thompson, D. R. 1977. Personal Communication. Department of Environ-
mental Resources, Bureau of Surface Mine Reclamation, Harrisburg,
PA.
U. S. Bureau of Mines. 1969- Environmental Effects of Underground
Mining and of Mineral Processing. Open-file Report.
163
-------
U. S. Bureau of Mines. 1974. Reserve Base of Bituminous Coal and
Anthracite for Underground Mining in the Eastern United States.
Information Circular 8655. Washington, D. C. 428 p.
U. S. Bureau of Mines. 1978. Unpublished files of the Mine Map Reposi-
tory. Pittsburgh, PA.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973- Status of Active Deep
Mines in the Monongahela River Basin. Special Report. Wheeling
Field Office, Wheeling, WV.
U. S. Dept. of the Interior. 1977. 1975 Minerals Yearbook-Volume 1.
U. S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D. C. pp. 387-455.
W. A. Wahler and Associates. 1978. Dewatering Active Underground
Coal Mines: Technical Aspects and Cost Effectiveness. EPA
Report 600/7-79-124. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH.
W. A. Wahler and Associates. 1978. Pollution Control Guidelines for
Coal Refuse Piles and Slurry Ponds. Mining Pollution Control
Report 600/2-78-222. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cin-
cinnati , OH. 213 p.
Wachter, R. A., and T. R. Blackwood. 1978. Source Assessment: Water
Pollutants from Coal Storage Areas. Report EPA-600/2-78-004m.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Waddel1, R. K., Jr. 1978. Evaluation of a Surficial Application of
Limestone and Flue Dust in the Abatement of Acidic Drainage:
Jonathan Run Drainage Basin at Interstate 80, Centre County, Penn-
sylvania. Doctoral thesis, Pennsylvania State University, State
College, PA. 301 p.
Ward, P. E., and B. M. Wilmoth. 1968. Ground-Water Hydrology of the
Monongahela River Basin in West Virginia. River Basin Bulletin 1.
West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV.
54 p.
Water Research Institute. 1967. Evaluation of Water Supply Facilities
in West Virginia. Basic Information Series, Report 7- West Virginia
State Development Plan, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
89 p.
Water Resources Division. 1978. Written Communication. U. S. Geo-
logical Survey, Columbus, OH.
Wewerka, E. M., and others. 1975- Environmental Contamination from
Trace Elements in Coal Preparation Wastes—A Literature Review and
Assessment. Report EPA-600/7-76-007. U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 61 p.
164
-------
Williams, E. G., and M. L. Keith. 1963- Relationship Between Sulfur
in Coals and the Occurrence of Marine Roof Beds. Economic Geology,
Vol. 58, pp. 720-729.
Williams, E. G. I960. Marine and Fresh Water Fossi1iferous Beds in
the PottsvMle and Allegheny Groups of Western Pennsylvania.
Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 3k, pp. 908-922.
Wilmoth, B. W. 1975- Development of Fresh Ground Water Near Salt Water
in West Virginia. Ground Water, Vol. 13, No. 1.
Wilson, M. 1976. Personal Communication with H. R. B. Singer. West
Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV.
Wilson, J. M., and A. M. Johnson. 1970. Water Use in Tennessee: Part
D-Summary. Tennessee Dept. of Conservation, Division of Water
Resources, Nashville, TN. 49 p.
Zabro, Frank. 1978. Personal Communication. Geological Survey of
Alabama.
165
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE A-l.
(cited
QUADRANGLES IN PENNSYLVANIA
in Figures 18 and 20)
1. Sugar Lake
2. Dempseytown
3. Titusville - South
4. Pleasantville
5. West Hickory
6. Kellettville
7. Mayburg
8. Lynch
9. Russell City
10. James City
11. Wilcox
12. Glen Hazel
13. Wildwood Fire Tower
14. Kinsman
15. Greenvi1le West
16. Greenvi1le East
17. Hadley
18. New Lebanon
19. Utica
20. Franklin
21. Oil City
22. President
23. Tionesta
2k. Tylersburg
25. Marienville - West
26. Marienville - East
27- Hall ton
28. Portland Mills
29. Ridgway
30. St. Marys
31. Rathbun
32. Orangeville
33- Sharpsville
34. Fredonia
35. Jackson Center
36. Sandy Lake
37. Polk
38. Kennerdell
39- Cranberry
40. Kossuth
41. Fryburg
42. Lucinda
43. Cooksburg
44. Sigel
45. Munderf
46. Gorman
47. Brandy Court
48. Kersey
49. Weedville
50. Dents Run
51. Sharon West
52. Sharon East
53. Greenfield
54. Mercer
55. Grove City
56. Barkeyville
57. Eau Clai re
58. Emunton
59. Knox
60. Clarion
61. Strattonvi1le
62. Corsica
63. Brookvi1le
64. Hazen
65- Falls Creek
66. Sabula
67. Penfield
68. Huntley
69. The Knobs
70. Devi1s El bow
71. Pottersdale
72. Campbell
73. Edinburg
74. New Castle - North
75- Harlansburg
76. SIippery Rock
(continued)
166
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
8k.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100,
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
in.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
West Sunbury
Milliards
Parker
Rimbersburg
SI igo
New Bethlehem
Summery i 1 1e
Coolspring
Reynoldsvil le
Du Bo is
Luthersburg
Elliott Park
Clearfield
Lecontes Mills
Frenchvi 1 le
Karthaus
New Middletown
Bessemer
New Castle - South
Portersvi 1 le
Prospect
Mt. Chestnut
East Butler
Chicora
East Brady
Templeton
Distant
Dayton
Val ier
Punxsutawney
McGees Mills
Mahaffey
Curwensvi 1 le
Glen Richey
Wai laceton
Phi 1 ipsburg
Black Moshannon
East Palestine
New Ga 1 i 1 ee
Beaver Falls
Zel ienople
Evans City
Butler
Saxonburg
Worth ington
Kittanning
Mosgrove
Rural Valley
P 1 umv i 1 l.e
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
Marion Center
Rochester Mills
Burns ide
Westover
1 rvona
Ramey
Houtzdale
Sandy Ridge
East Liverpool -
Midland
Beaver
Baden
Mars
Valencia
Curtisvi 1 le
Freeport
Leechburg
Whitesburg
Elderton
Ernest
Clymer
Commodore
Barnes bo ro
Hastings
Coal port
Blandburg
East Liverpool -
Hooks town
A1 iqui ppa
Amb ridge
Emsworth
Glenshaw
New Kensington -
New Kensington -
Vandergrift
Avonmore
Mclntyre
Indiana
Brush Val ley
Strongstown
Col ver
Carrol 1 town
Ashville
Al toona
Wei rton
Burgettstown
Cl in ton
Oakdale
Pittsburgh - West
North
South
West
East
(conti nued)
167
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
175. Pittsburgh - East
176. Braddock
177- Murrysville
178. Slickville
179. Saltsburg
180. Blairsville
181. Bolivar
183. New Florence
183. Vintondale
184. Nanty Glo
185. Ebensburg
186. Cresson
187. Steubenville East
188. Avella
189. Midway
190. Canonsburg
191. Bridgeville
192. Glassport
193- McKeesport
194. Irwin
195- Greensburg
196. Latrobe
197- Derry
198. Wilpen
199- Rachelwood
200. Johnstown
201. Geistown
202. Beaverdale
203. Blue Knob
204. Kethany
205. West Middletown
206. Washington West
207. Washington East
208. Hackett
209. Monongahela
210. Donora
211. Smithton
212. Mt. Pleasant
213. Mammoth
214. Stahlstown
215. Ligonier
216. Boswell
217. Hooversville
218. Windber
219. Ogletown
220. Valley Grove
221. Claysville
222. Prosperity
223. Amity
224. Ellsworth
225. California
226. Fayette City
227. Dawson
228. Connellsville
229. Donegal
230. Seven Springs
231. Bakersville
232. Somerset
233. Stoystown
234. Central City
235. Schellsburg
236. Majorsville
237. Wind Ridge
238. Rogersville
239. Waynesburg
240. Mather
241. Carmichaels
242. New Salem
243. Uniontown
244. South Connellsville
245. Mill Run
246. Ki ngwood
247. Rockwood
248. Murdock
249. Berlin
250. New Baltimore
251. Cameron (W. Va.)
252. New Freeport
253. Hal brook
254. Oak Forest
255. Garards Fort
256. Masontown
257- Smithfield
258. Brownfield
259. Ft. Necessity
260. Ohiopyle
261. Confluence
262. Markleton
263. Meyersdale
264. Wittenberg
265. Fairhope
168
-------
TABLE A-2. QUADRANGLES IN VIRGINIA
(cited in Figure 21)
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.
43.
Majestic
Wham Cl iffe
Jamboree
Hurley
Panther
Hellier
Elkhorn
Harman
Grundy
Patterson
Bradshaw
War
Gary
Anawal t
Bramwel 1
Jenkins West
Jenkins East
Cl intwood
Haysi
Prater
Vansant
Keen Mtn.
Jewell Ridge
Amonate
Tazewel 1 North
Tiptop
Cove Creek
Whi tesburg
Flat Gap
Pound
Caney Ridge
Nora
Duty
Big A Mtn.
Honaker
Richlands
Pounding Mill
Tazewel 1 South
Hutch inson Rock
Garden Mtn.
Benham
Appalachia
Norton
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57-
58.
59-
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67-
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77-
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
Wise
Toms Creek
St. Paul
Carbo
Lebanon
Elk Garden
Saltville
Broadford
Chatham
Nebo
Evarts
Pennington Gap
Keokee
Big Stone Gap
East Stone Gap
Fort Blackmore
Dungannon
Moll Creek
Hansonvi 1 le
B rum ley
Hayters Gap
Varilla
Ewing
Rose Hill
Hubbard Springs
Ben Hur
Stickleyvi 1 le
Duffield
Cl inchport
Gate City
Hilton
Mendota
Wheeler
Coleman Gap
Back Valley
Sneedvi 1 le
Kyles Ford
Looneys Gap
Plum Grove
Church Hill
Kingsport
Indian Springs
Blountvi 1 le
169
-------
TABLE A-3. QUADRANGLES IN WEST VIRGINIA
(cited in Figure 22)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17-
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
2k.
25-
26.
27-
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34-
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
4o.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
Weir ton
Steubenvi 1 le
Ti 1 tonsvi 1 le
Bethany
Wheel ing
Val ley Grove
Bus! nessburg
Moundsvi 1 le
Majorsvi 1 le
Powhatan Point
Glen Easton
Littleton
Wades town
Blacksvi 1 le
Osage
Morgantown North
Lake Lynn
Bruceton Mills
Brandonvi 1 le
Glover Gap
Mannington
Grant Town
Rivesvi 1 le
Morgantown South
Masontown
Val ley point
Cuzzart
Wai lace
Shinnston
Fai rmont West
Fairmont East
Gladesvi 1 le
Newburg
Kingwood
Terra Al ta
Oakland
Ki tzmi 1 ler
Westernport
Keyser
Salem
Wolf Summit
Clarksburg
Rosemont
Graf ton
Thornton
Pel lowsvi 1 le
Row les burg
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57-
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
, 90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
Aurora
Table Rock
Gorman
Mount Storm
West Mil ford
Mount Clare
Brown ton
Phi 1 i ppi
Nestorvi 1 le
Colebank
Lead Mine
Davis
Mt. Storm Lake
Greenland
Pomeroy
Vadis
Camden
Weston
Berlin
Century
Audra
Bel ington
Mozark Mtn.
Add i son
Cheshire
Glenvi 1 le
G i 1 me r
Roanoke
Adrian
Junior
Elkins
Bowden
Cedarvf 1 le
Burnsvi 1 1 e
Walkersville
Rock Cove
Sago
Beverly West
Beverly East
E 1 mwood
Sutton
Hacker Val ley
Goshen
Bancroft
Sissonvi 1 le
Ivydale
Little Birch
(continued)
170
-------
TABLE A-3 (continued)
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107-
108.
109.
110.
112.
113-
114.
115.
116.
117-
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137-
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
Diana
Skelt
Pickens
Durbin
Saint Albans
Pocatal ico
Big Chimney
Blue Creek
Clendenin
Elkhurst
Clay
Swandale
Widen
Tioga
Cowen
Webster Springs
Bergoo
Lavalette
Wins low
Charleston West
Charleston East
Quick
Mammoth
Ben tree
Lockwood
G i 1 boa
Summersvi 1 le
Carigsvi 1 le
Camden on Gauley
Webster Springs - SW
Webster Springs - SE
Mingo
Pri chard
Wayne
Nes 1 1 ow
Branchland
Hager
Griffithsville
Jul ian
Racine
Belle
Cedar Grove
Montgomery
Gauley Bridge
Ansted
Summersvi 1 le Dam
Mt. Nebo
Nettie
Richwood
Louisa
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187-
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
Radnor
Kiahsv? 1 le
Big Creek
Mud
Madison
Williams Mtn.
Sylvester
Eskdale
Powel 1 ton
Beckwith
Fayettevi 1 le
Winona
Corl iss
0_u i nwood
Duo
Lobel ia
Webb
Trace
Chapmanvi 1 le
Henlawson
Clothier
Wharton
Whitesvi 1 le
Dorothy
Pax
Oak Hill
Thurmond
Danese
Rainel le
Rupert
Kermi t
Naugatuck
Myrtle
Hoi den
Logan
Amherstdale
Lorado
Pilot Knot
Arnett
Eccles
Beckley
Prince
Meadow Creek
Meadow Bridge
As bury
Wi 1 1 iamson
Del barton
Barnabus
Man
Mai lory
/ _ . *
(continued)
171
-------
TABLE A-3 (continued)
196. Oceana
197- Matheny
198. McGraws
199. Lester
200. Crab Orchard
201. Shady Spring
202. Hinton
203. Fort Spring
204. Matewan
205. Majestic
206. Wharncliffe
207. Gilbert
208. Baileysville
209. Pineville
210. Mullens
211. Rhodell
212. Odd
213. Flat top
214. Panther
215. laeger
216. Davy
217- Welch
218. Keystone
219- Grumpier
220. Matoaka
221. Patterson
222. Bradshaw
223. War
224. Gary
225. Anawalt
226. Bramwell
227. Bluefield
228. Amonate
229. Tazewell - North
172
-------
ALABAMA
HARDNESS (mg/l)
-------
EXPLANATION
Cl (mg/l)
0-25
25-50
50-250
S04 CONTOURED (mg/l)
ILLINOIS
MILES
EXPLANATION
HARDNESS (mg/l)
<200
200-400
>400
DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONTOURED (mg/l)
AF^TER PETTYJOHN, ET AL., 1979
Figure B-2. Ground-water quality in Illinois.
-------
INDIANA
EXPLANATION
HARDNESS (mg/l)
<240
240-350
350-500
>500
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
CONTOURED (mg/l)
AFTER PETTYJOHN, ET AL., 1979
Figure B-3- Ground-water quality in Indiana,
-------
EXPLANATION
Cl (mg/l)
0-25
KENTUCKY
25-50
50-250
S04 CONTOURED (mg/l)
0 40
i i
MILES
HARDNESS (mg/l)
500
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
CONTOURED
Figure B-*». Ground-water quality in Kentucky.
176
-------
EXPLANATION
Cl (mg/l)
0-10
10-50
S04 CONTOURED (mg/l)
MARYLAND
20
HARDNESS (mg/l)
0-60
MILES
60-120
120-180
180-240
DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONTOURED (mg/l)
AFTER PETTYJOHN, ET AL., 1979
Figure B-5. Ground-water quality in Maryland.
177
-------
OHIO
EXPLANATION
HARDNESS (mg/l)
IOOO
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
CONTOURED (mg/l)
Figure B-6. Ground-water quality in Ohio.
-------
40
PENNSYLVANIA
MILES
EXPLANATION
Cl (mg/l)
0-10
10-25
25-50
50-75
S04 CONTOURED (mg/l)
EXPLANATION
HARDNESS (mQ/l)
AFTER PZTTYMHN, ET AL., 1379
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
CONTOURED (mg/l)
0-60
60-120
120-240
240-500
Figure 8-7. Ground-water quality in Pennsyl
179 X
vania.
-------
TENNESSEE
EXPLANATION
Cl (mg/l)
0-25
25-50
50-100
S04 CONTOURED (mg/l)
so
MILES
EXPLANATION
HARDNESS (mg/l)
-------
EXPLANATION
Cl (mg/l)
0-25
25-250
250-500
S04 CONTOURED (mg/l)
0
MILES
VIRGINIA
EXPLANATION
HARDNESS (mg/l)
0-120
120-240
240-500
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
CONTOURED
(mg/l)
AFTER PETTYJOHN, ET AL., 1979
Figure B-9- Ground-water quality In:Virginia.
181
-------
CD
ro
WEST VIRGINIA
HARDNESS (mg/l)
<120
S04 CONTOURED (mg/l)
120-240
240-500
DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONTOURED (mg/l)
AFTER PETTYJOHN, ET AL., I9T9
Figure B-10. Ground-water quality in West Virginia.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-8Q-12Q
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
2.
EFFECTS OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINING ON GROUND WATER
IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIONING.
5. REPORT DATE
JUNE 1980 ISSUING DATE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Jeffrey P. Sgambat
Elaine A. LaBella and
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
Sheila Roebuck
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
8^ West Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21^01
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
INE 826
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2467
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 9/76 - 9/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This report addresses the past effects and the possible future effects of
underground coal mining activities on ground-water resources in the region east of
the 100th meridian. Such effects are highly dependent on the location of the mine
with respect to natural flow system. Recharge-discharge relationships in the
vicinity of active mines may be altered, and lowered ground-water levels may not
recover to pre-mining conditions after closure.
Studies indicate that contamination of ground water exists in many places in
the immediate vicinity of coal mines. Many refuse piles and impoundments likely
affect stream and shallow ground-water quality. However, on a regional basis, there
is little evidence from the scanty data on hand of gross ground-water contamination
in heavily mined areas.
From the viewpoint of the value of ground-water resources, it is most likely
that future underground mining in the Eastern Interior Basin and the southern Ap-
palachians will result in adverse ground-water effects in only very limited areas.
The central Appalachians, and in particular parts of western Pennsylvania and south-
ern West Virginia, have a greater potential for such impacts. Pre-mining planning
based on knowledge of local hydrogeology and geochemistry can lead to changes in min-
ing techniques or planning that will help to minimize adverse effects on ground water.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
coal mines
waste disposal
ground water
mine wastes
aquifers
leaching
pollution control
acid mine drainage
Eastern United States
refuse piles
ground-water movement
water pollution control
13B
8H
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
nnr1a«;<; I f i
21. NO. OF PAGES
199
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage}
unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
183
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980--657-165/0017
------- |