EPA-R2-73-230
MAY 1973 Environmental Protection Technology Series
Control of Mine Drainage from
Coal Mine Mineral Wastes
Office of Research and Monitoring
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
<*. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY series. This series
describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental
degradation from point and non-point sources of
pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality
standards.
-------
I
IP
EPA-R2 -73-230
May 1973
Z30
CONTROL OF MINE DRAINAGE
FROM COAL MINE MINERAL WASTES
PHASE II
POLLUTION ABATEMENT AND MONITORING
Z. V. Kosowski
Project No. 14010 DDK
Project Officer
Eugene Chaudoir
Region V
Environmental Protection Agency
Evansville, Indiana 47711
US EPA
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
EPA West Bldg Room 3340
Mailcode 3404T
1301 Constitution-AveNW
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Price $1.26 domestic postpaid or $1 QPO Bookstore
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does the mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Acid runoff from refuse piles can be controlled by covering
the mineral wastes with soil, establishing a vegetative
cover, and providing adequate drainage to minimize erosion.
The average acid formation rate for the entire restored
refuse pile was estimated at 16 Ib acid as CaC03/acre/day,
or a reduction of 91+% when compared to the original unre-
stored pile. No significant differences were observed in
acid formation rates from the three individual test plots
covered with a nominal 1 foot, 2 feet, or 3 feet of soil.
However, it was more difficult to uniformly place 1 foot
of soil on the steeper slopes.
Slurry lagoons containing the fine coal rejects can be sta-
bilized and the air pollution problem controlled by either
a vegetative cover established directly on the mineral
wastes without soil or by the application of a chemical
stabilizer. Chemical stabilization is only a temporary
measure, and vegetative covers should be the permanent solu-
tion to slurry lagoons.
Cost data from this project indicate that it would cost a
Federal Agency approximately $6,100, $8,000, and $9,800 per
acre to establish a grass cover on an abandoned refuse pile
using one, two, and three feet of soil respectively. The
magnitude of these costs can be attributed to the bidding
procedures used in contracting the work, as required by
Federal law.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project 14010
DDK, under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, and Midwestern
Division, Consolidation Coal Company, Pinckneyville,
Illinois.
Key words: Mine drainage, refuse piles, slurry lagoons,
New Kathleen Mine, vegetative covers, mineral
wastes, acid formation rate, Illinois, grasses,
reclamation.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I. Conclusions « ....... 1
II. Recommendations « = • »• 3
III. Introduction .. 5
IV. Summary of Phase I 9
V. Restoration of Project Site 11
Engineering & Construction 11
Cost Data . • 17
VI. Observations 21
VII. Monitoring Program 25
VIII. Epilogue 37
IX. Acknowledgment 43
X. References « 45
XI. Publications 47
XII. Appendices « 49
v
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
^^•^•_ •HMH^B&MBI
1 Location of New Kathleen Mine Site 10
2 Monitoring Station at Flow Point 1 12
3 Contour Map of Restored Refuse Pile 14
4 Treating Slurry Lagoons with "Coherex" 15
5 Contour Map of Restored Slurry Lagoons 16
6 Grass Cover on Slurry Lagoons - New
Kathleen Mine 23
7 New Kathleen Refuse Pile - Before Restoration,
May 1969 24
8 New Kathleen Refuse Pile - After Restoration,
May 1972 24
9 Acidity vs. Flow Chart 27
10 Hydrographs, March 1-2, 1972, Flow Point 4 36
VI
-------
TABLES
NO.
I Cost Data 18
II Estimated Cost of Reclaiming a Refuse Pile
Without Research Aspects 19
III Acid Formation Rates from Flow Point 4 29
IV Acid Formation Rates from Flow Point 1 30
V Acid Formation Rates from Flow Point 2 31
VI Acid Formation Rates from Flow Point 3 32
VII' Tabulated Data - Flow Point 4 34
vn
-------
I. CONCLUSIONS
1. Acid runoff from refuse piles can be controlled by
covering the mineral wastes with soil, establishing a
vegetative cover, and providing adequate drainage to
minimize erosion.
2. The average acid formation rate for the entire restored
refuse pile was estimated at 16 Ib acid as CaC03/acre/day,
or a reduction of 91+% when compared to the original un-
restored pile.
3. No significant differences were observed in acid forma-
tion rates from the three individual test plots covered
with a nominal 1 foot, 2 feet, or 3 feet of soil. How-
ever, it was more difficult to uniformly place 1 foot
of soil on the steeper slopes.
4. Slurry lagoons containing the fine coal rejects can be
stabilized and the air pollution problem controlled by
either a vegetative cover established directly on the
mineral wastes without soil or by the application of a
chemical stabilizer. Chemical stabilization is only a
temporary measure, and vegetative covers should be the
permanent solution to slurry lagoons.
5. Cost data from this project indicate that it would cost
a Federal Agency approximately $6,100, $8,000 and $9,800
per acre to establish a grass cover on an abandoned
refuse pile using one, two, and three feet of soil
respectively. The magnitude of these costs can be attri-
buted to the bidding procedures used in contracting the
work, as required by Federal law.
-------
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
One technique that was developed during Phase I appears to
have merit and should be further explored and tested on a
large scale. Several small test plots of grass were estab-
lished directly on the coarse refuse without the use of a
soil cover. This was accomplished by first treating the
surface of the test plot to a depth of 8 inches with 40 T/A
of agricultural limestone, followed by normal applications
of fertilizer, grass seed, and straw mulch. An excellent
stand of grass was established that lasted for over one year
until the test plots were destroyed during the Phase II
restoration activities. Whether a single application of
limestone was sufficient or whether the treatment would have
to be repeated at some frequency was never determined. The
economic incentive appears to be substantial even at these
large rates of limestone when compared to one foot of soil
cover.
-------
III. INTRODUCTION
A substantial amount of coal mined in this country undergoes
a beneficiation or a cleaning operation„ This is done to
remove some of the dirt and impurities present in the coal.
These impurities form the rejects or unmarketable portion of
the coal mining operations and are usually referred to as
"refuse" or "gob".
Disposal of the refuse varies with the type of mining opera-
tions conducted, i.e., surface or underground. When coal
from a surface mine is cleaned, modern practice frequently
consists of trucking the refuse back to the strip pits to
be buried in the spoil bank under an adequate thickness of
overburden material. The land is then graded and planted
with a suitable cover of grass, shrubs, or trees.
When a coal cleaning operation is practiced in conjunction
with an underground mine, the disposal of refuse becomes a
more complex problem. Since strip pits are not normally
available to an underground mine, disposal of the larger
pieces of refuse, up to 8 inches in diameter, is to the
nearest open field or valley. Fine reject material, usually
20 mesh and smaller, is transported in slurry form, by pipe-
line, to diked enclosures, slurry lagoons, or surface
impoundments„
The coarse refuse portion of a coal cleaning operation con-
sists largely of coal intermixed with pyrites, sandstone,
clays, and shales of a carbonaceous character. When stored
outdoors in piles or heaps and exposed to the elements,
chemical reactions take place on the surface of the refuse
pile. Rainfall, oxygen in the air, and the pyrite in the
refuse provide an ideal environment for the formation of an
acidic drainage containing dissolved iron and other compounds
which enters the streams and rivers from runoff and seepage
through the pile. Additional problems follow in that the
clays, shales, and sandstones are continuously decomposed
and erosion constantly washes away the silt, exposing new
material for oxidation and acid formation. Acid drainage
and siltation occur during mining operations, and can con-
tinue for decades after operations cease.
Slurry lagoons associated with coal mining operations present
a different type of environmental problem. The lagoons
contain the fine reject material from a cleaning plant and
can analyze as much as 50% coal with the balance ash and some
-------
pyrite. Rainfall on these lagoons percolates into the beds,
seeps through the dikes, or is returned to the atmosphere
via evaporation, wi-th little surface runoff. The dikes are
usually well built and compacted from clean earth, but
occasionally are built from refuse and covered with a layer
of earth. In many instances, a grass cover or trees are
planted on the slopes to prevent erosion, or vegetation can
develop from volunteer growth. During active operations, a
pool of water exists on the surface and only minor problems
are experienced involving repairs to a leaking dike. When
mining operations cease, maintenance often ceases and the
dikes can wash out during heavy rainstorms. In addition,
during extended periods of dry weather, blowing winds
entrain the surface material and create a dust problem in
the vicinity of the site.
Scores of these types of refuse piles and slurry lagoons,
from underground and surface mining operations, exist in
both the Appalachian and Midwestern coal fields. To date,
only a limited number of options are available to effectively
handle this problem. Topography tends to make each situation
unique. In a large number of instances, the refuse piles
have been abandoned.
In some instances, covering the pile with a thick layer of
clean earth and planting a vegetative cover has been effec-
tive but very expensive. As an example, current regulations
in Illinois-^- require a four-foot thickness of clean earth to
be applied to a new refuse pile, followed by a vegetative
cover to prevent erosion and exposure of the refuse pile to
the elements. In certain cases such as in the Appalachian
areas earth cover may not be available or it may be so
expensive as to make the covering operation very costly.
Chemical treatment of the runoff and seepage, using hydrated
lime or limestone, may be an interim measure during active
operations but is obviously not the long-term solution since
the formation of acid can continue for decades.
In the latter part of 1968, Truax-Traer Coal Company (now
the Midwestern Division), a Division of Consolidation Coal
Company, entered into a cooperative grant with the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration (now Environmental
Protection Agency) to demonstrate effective and practical
means of abating air and water pollution from coal mining
refuse piles and slurry lagoons. The intention of this demon-
stration project was to provide engineering data and design
parameters that could be applied to minimize or prevent this
type of environmental problem. The project would thus allow
the knowledge on this subject to be advanced a stage further
by providing design data and field experience for which there
was and is an industrywide need.
-------
This report is the second and final report of two phases,
and describes the implementation of specific pollution
abatement measures for the entire demonstration site. In
addition, details of the monitoring program designed to
evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial measures chosen
are included.
-------
IV. SUMMARY OF PHASE I
The New Kathleen Mine site is located approximately five
miles southwest of DuQuoin, Illinois, on typical midwestern
flatlands, surrounded by agricultural operations. Surface
mining activities, both active and abandoned, are in close
proximity (Figure 1).
The site formed a part of an abandoned coal mining operation,
active from 1943-1955, that included a coal cleaning plant
operated by Union Collieries Company in conjunction with
the New Kathleen Mine. This was a slope mine in the Herrin
(No. 6) Seam at a depth of approximately 110 feet.
The site contained an irregularly shaped refuse pile approx-
imately 40 acres in area, standing 65 feet at its highest
point, and containing about 2,000,000 cubic yards of coarse
refuse. In addition to the refuse pile, the site contained
a complex of six slurry lagoons, standing approximately 15
feet high, essentially flat, and occupying some 50 acres in
area. The lagoons were completely enclosed by earthen dikes
and contained the fine coal rejects transported thereto by
hydraulic means. At the west end of the slurry lagoons, six
small lakes remained from the abandoned mining operations
that were used to collect the runoff from the slurry lagoons,
and so arranged as to eventually overflow into the nearest
stream, Walker Creek.
Phase I described the characteristics, hydrology, and acid
formation rate of the refuse pile. The average rate of
acid formation for this refuse pile was 198 pounds of acidity,
as CaCC-3 per acre per day. Acid contribution from the slurry
lagoons was not determined but appeared to be negligible.
The methodology developed and used for estimating acid for-
mation rates was described in detail.
As potential abatement measures, a number of experimental
vegetative covers were tested. Grass was successfully estab-
lished with and without the use of topsoil, using conventional
agricultural equipment and techniques.
The final report covering Phase I was issued by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency under Water Pollution Control
Research Series, 14010 DDK 08/71, "Control of Mine Drainage
from Coal Mine Mineral Wastes - Phase I, Hydrology and
Related Experiments."
-------
DUQUOIN
n
o
o
o
ex
County rood
NEW
.KATHLEEN MINE
PROJECT SITE
PERRY
CO.
DUQUOIN
TWP.
JACKSON CO.
1/2
2MM
Scale l"=IMil«
O
I
0
J>
r
m
CHICA80
ST. LOUIS
PROJEC
SITE
LOCATION MAP
FIG. I NEW KATHLEEN MINE DUQUOIN, ILLINOIS
10
-------
V. RESTORATION OF PROJECT SITE
Engineering and Construction
With the completion of Phase I in the spring of 1970, engi-
neering plans and specifications were prepared for a
pollution abatement program to restore the New Kathleen Mine
site. The basic plan consisted of grading and covering the
refuse pile with clean earth and establishing a permanent
vegetative cover of grass. The slurry lagoon complex was
stabilized by establishing a grass cover on approximately one-
half of the area and treating the other half with a chemical
stabilizer. In addition, the impounded water remaining in
four lagoons was neutralized and drained into Walker Creek
by opening the dikes. The inside areas of the drained lagoons
were stabilized and the dikes left open to permit any future
surface water to drain rather than be impounded „ Monitoring
stations were strategically located around the site to
determine the effectiveness of the abatement measures .
Restoration of the Refuse Pile
The plans consisted of grading and shaping the refuse pile
into three major subareas or bowls, thus creating three
giant-size test plots varying in size from 3 to 6 acres each,
During the grading operation, approximately 134,000 yd^ of
refuse material was moved to shape the pile into the surround-
ing landscape with slopes not exceeding Is3. The very steep
sloped area at the western end of the pile required the
moving of approximately 38,000 yd^ of refuse to a relatively
flat, low spot at the northwestern end of the site and away
from the refuse pile proper. This material covered approxi-
mately 6 acres to a depth of 4 feet. The entire pile,
including the aforementioned 6 acres , was then covered with
a barrier of agricultural limestone applied to the surface
at 15 T/acre, The bowls or test plots were then covered
with clean earth, with thicknesses of 1 foot, 2 feet, and
3 feet, respectively. All sloped areas and the 6-acre flat
area were covered with a 1-foot thickness of clean earth,
Total earth cover amounted to approximately 94,000
The earth cover was then analyzed for nutrient requirements ,
using conventional soil testing techniques. Based on these
tests, agricultural limestone was disked into the soil at a
rate of 6 T/acre, This was followed by spreading and disking
lightly a 11-17-23 fertilizer applied at 800 Ib/acre, A
grass seed mixture consisting of 37% perennial rye and 63%
Kentucky fescue was applied at 80 Ib/acre, The area was
11
-------
planted in the fall of 1970. The entire area was then
covered with a straw mulch, applied pneumatically at 2%
T/acre on the sloped sides and 1*5 T/acre on the "test"
plots.
Clean earth used to cover the refuse pile was taken from a
6-acre plot of undisturbed land located at the southeast
corner of the site. The area was drilled prior to selection
as a borrow pit to determine the suitability of the soil for
use as the earth cover. This area was eventually converted
to a fresh water lake approximately 12 feet deep. The maxi-
mum haul distance was approximately 3,500 feet.
During the grading and covering of the refuse pile, a water
quality monitoring system was included in the restoration
program. A graded earthen peripheral ditch was constructed
around the entire refuse pile to collect all the runoff and
direct it to a single monitoring station at a point near
Walker Creek. Monitoring systems were also constructed
near each bowl or test plot to collect and direct the run-
off from the test plot into the monitoring station. Each
system included a concrete-paved ditch leading from the
test plot and sloping downward into the monitoring station.
Each monitoring station consisted of a concrete collection
box, a stainless steel flume, stage recorder, and a record-
ing conductivity meter (Figure 2). The objective was to
provide an automated system for collecting runoff data to
be used in evaluating the effectiveness of the abatement
measures.
FIG. 2, MONITORING STATION AT FLOW POINT I
12
-------
In addition to the surface drainage monitoring facilities,
subsurface drainage pipes were installed in seven locations
around the refuse pile to monitor underground flow. These
consisted of 8"D perforated plastic pipe placed on a"bed and
covered with washed and graded silica gravel. These pipes
discharged into the graded peripheral ditch. Monitoring was
conducted by measuring the flow at the individual pipes with
bucket-stopwatch and obtaining periodic grab samples for
water quality.
Figure 3 is a contour map of the restored refuse pile at the
completion of the project including acreage of specific areas
Stabilization of Slurry Lagoons
The slurry lagoons were treated somewhat differently. Soil
testing of the slurry lagoon material and Test Plot 16,
established during Phase I, indicated the possibility of
establishing a grass cover directly on the slurry lagoons
without the addition of any earth cover. Accordingly, approx-
imately 19 acres were treated with agricultural limestone
applied at a rate of 15 T/acre and disked in to a depth of 6
inches. This was followed by the application of 11-17-23
fertilizer at 800 Ib/acre and lightly disked into the surface
material. A grass mixture consisting of 15% perennial rye,
30% Kentucky fescue, 15% Reed canary grass, 5% Ladino clover,
and 35% Balboa rye was sowed over the area at 130 Ib/acre.
Straw mulch applied at 1% T/acre completed this operation.
The remainder of the slurry lagoons, occupying approximately
13 acres, was treated with a commercially available chemical
stabilizer, "Coherex".* Test Plot 17, established during
Phase I, provided encouraging data to justify a trial on a
much larger scale. This material, a petroleum-based, non-
toxic, emulsion-type liquid, was delivered to a siding near
the project site in a railroad tank car. It was then trans-
ferred into small tank trucks and hauled to the site. Next,
it was diluted by mixing with water, 1 part Coherex and 6
parts water, transferred into a smaller tank truck equipped
with spray bars and applied to the surface at a rate of
approximately 5,000 gallons of mixture per acre. The tank
truck was equipped with oversized tires in order to traverse
the slurry lagoon area. Its normal function was to apply
liquid fertilizer on low, swampy farmlands (Figure 4).
Two additional nonautomated monitoring points were installed
on the slurry lagoon complex. The dikes separating the
*Golden Bear Oil Company, Bakersfield, California
13
-------
FIGURE 3 CONTOUR MAP OF RESTORED REFUSE PILE
14
-------
FIG. 4 TREATING SLURRY LAGOONS WITH COHEREX
individual slurry lagoons were opened at selected points to
allow all the runoff from the grassed area to exit at the
monitoring point and all the runoff from the chemically
stabilized (Coherex) areas to exit at another point.
Before completing the restoration, the impounded water in
three of the slurry lagoons located at the western side of
the site was neutralized with hydrated lime. The treated
water was then drained into Walker Creek by opening the dikes
The inside areas of the drained lagoons were stabilized with
the Coherex mixture and the dikes left open to allow any
future surface runoff to drain rather than be impounded.
The entire operation was conducted with conventional earth-
moving equipment and standard farm machinery with a minimum
of innovation or adaptation. Figure 5 shows a contour map
of the restored slurry lagoons including acreage for the
individual slurry lagoons and drainage paths for the two
test areas.
The restoration of the New Kathleen Mine site was not com-
pleted without a number of problems. Periods of wet weather
caused heavy earth-moving machinery to bog down in the soft
refuse. The dry slurry lagoons can be very deceiving to the
inexperienced, especially near pools of water. Large diam-
eter rubber tires on the spray-equipped tank truck used for
15
-------
FIGURE 5 CONTOUR MAP OF RESTORED SLURRY LAGOONS
16
-------
treating the slurry lagoons measured 64 inches diameter and
42 inches wide. This vehicle had no difficulty traversing
the slurry lagoons with its contents. Vehicles with smaller
tires didn't make it.
The schedule for reviewing plans, advertising for bids, award-
ing the contract, commencement and payment for work, and
completion were all in accordance with guidelines established
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Cost Data
The costs of restoring the New Kathleen Mine site were $381,023.
These costs are summarized in Table I. The cost data presented
here represent only the direct costs in restoring the refuse
pile and slurry lagoons. It does not include the research
activities conducted at the site prior to the restoration, and
it does not include the costs of the monitoring program con-
ducted at the site after the restoration. Further, many people
provided input to the project in the form of ideas, thoughts,
suggestions, expertise, and indirect supervision which are not
reflected in these costs.
To arrive at a unit cost estimate in terms of $/acre for restor-
ing the refuse pile and slurry lagoons, the "Services" were
arbitrarily prorated at 75:25 for the refuse pile and slurry
lagoons respectively. This procedure resulted in total costs
of $347,510 for restoring 40 acres of refuse pile or ^$8700/acre.
Similarly, prorating the slurry lagoon portion of "Services"
50:50, the total cost of seeding 20.5 acres of slurry lagoons
was $16,023 or $782/acre. The total costs of stabilizing 14.5
acres of slurry lagoons with "Coherex" was $17,389 or $1199/acre.
Union labor was used in the entire restoration program.
Table II shows the estimated cost of reclaiming and vegetating
a hypothetical abandoned refuse pile at various thicknesses of
earth cover without the research aspects, using selective unit
costs. Cost data from this project indicate that it would cost
a Federal Agency approximately $6,100, $8,000, and $9,800 per
acre to establish a vegetative cover on an abandoned refuse
pile using nominal thicknesses of one, two, and three feet of
soil, respectively. The magnitude of these costs can be attrib-
uted to the bidding procedures used in contracting the work, as
required by Federal law. Care should be exercised in extrapo-
lating these data, with the most sensitive parameter being the
grading costs.
17
-------
TABLE I
COST DATA
Refuse Pile - 40 Acres
1. Grading and Shaping Refuse Pile
2. Earth Cover
3. Peripheral Channel Around Pile
4. Concrete Paved Ditches
5. Flow Monitoring Stations
6. Perforated Pipe Seepage Drains
7. Seeding and Fertilizer
8. Agricultural Limestone
Quantity
133,900 yd3
94,140 yd3
7,000 yd3
660 ft
3
1
3,610 ft
40 Acres
685 Tons
Unit Cost
Lump Sum
$1.05/yd3
Lump Sum
$ 12/ft
$3,500/ea
$6,500/ea
$ 9/ft
$ 650/A
$ 12/T
Total Refuse Pile
Total $
$120,510
98,847
12,250
7,920
10,500
6,500
32,490
26,000
8,220
$323,237
Slurry Lagoon Areas - 35 Acres
9. Neutralize and Drain #4 Pond
10. Seed and Fertilize 20.5 Acres
11. Apply "Coherex" on 14.5 Acres
Lump Sum $ 1,080
Lump Sum 11,538
Lump Sum 12,804
Total Slurry Lagoons $ 25,422
Services
12.
13.
R. A. Nack & Associates
A & H Corporation
Total Services
$ 30,837
1,527
$ 32,364
Total New Kathleen Site $381,023
18
-------
TABLE II
ESTIMATED COST OF RECLAIMING A REFUSE PILE
WITHOUT RESEARCH ASPECTS
$/ACRE
Depth of Cover
1 ft 2 ft 3 ft
Grading & Shaping* $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
Limestone Barrier
15 T/A @ $12/T 180 180 180
Earth Cover** 1,700 3,400 5,100
Lime, Seed & Fertilizer
@ $650/A 650 650 650
$5,530 $7,230 $8,930
Adm. Engineering, etc.
@ 10% 553 723 893
$6,083 $7,953 $9,823
Say $6,100 $8,000 $9,800
*$120,510 * 40A = $3,013/A, say $3,000/A
**1610 yd3/A-ft x $1.05/yd3 = $l,690/A-ft, say $l,700/A-ft
19
-------
VIo OBSERVATIONS OF ABATEMENT MEASURES
The restoration of the New Kathleen Mine site commenced in
July, 1970 and was essentially complete in December, 1970=
A small area at the western end of the refuse pile was not
completed due to inclement weather toward the end of the
year,, This work was postponed until spring, 1971 when it
was completedo
In the spring of 1971, the road between the refuse pile and
the slurry lagoons was scraped and covered with a 6-inch
layer of 2" x 1" crushed limestone rock to provide ready
access to the monitoring stations and the slurry lagoon
complexo
In March, 1971, the three test bowls or plots on the refuse
pile were seeded by hand with an equal mixture of hulled
sweet clover, Cody alfalfa, and Korean lespedeza at the rate
of 12 Ib/acre since no legumes were included in the original
mixture applied in the fall of 1970=
During the spring and summer of 1971, some twenty bare spots
totaling approximately 2 acres were repaired by either adding
more soil and/or reseeding. Many of these areas were on the
steeper western and southern side of the refuse pile and
although it was more difficult to apply the required soil
thickness on the steeper slopes, the problems were not insur-
mountable o Eroded areas were filled with clean earth, re-
seeded, and mulched.
In July, 1971, nitrogen fertilizer, 46-0-0 at 300 Ib/acre,
was applied to the entire refuse pile. During this time, the
grass cover was mowed to 6 inches to provide additional mulch
and to allow the grass cover to reseed itself„ At the end of
the summer, an excellent stand of grass had been established
on the refuse pile.
In September, 1971, two test plots were seeded to crownvetch,
one on the south side of the No, 3 test plot and one on the
south end of the No. 3 slurry lagoon. Both areas were treated
with 500 Ib limestone, 50 Ib superphosphate, 50 Ib potash,
and 20 Ib ammonium nitrate. This was rototilled into the soil
or slurry material to a depth of 6 inches. Both areas were
seeded with inoculated crownvetch seed, by hand, applied at
10 Ib/acre, and covered with straw mulch. One year later,
there was no visible evidence that the crownvetch germinated.
The slurry lagoons presented only one problem. Approximately
one-half acre of the No, 8 slurry lagoon adjacent to Flow
Point 6 slipped and was washed out into Walker Creek. The
21
-------
cause of this failure can be attributed to inadequate drain-
age on that part of the slurry lagoon complex. This lagoon
was the last in the series of four lagoons seeded, to grasses.
The drainage pattern for this area consisted of collecting
all the surface runoff from No. 1 and No. 2 lagoons, direct-
ing the flow across No. 7 and No. 8, finally exiting at Flow
Point 6. An erosion ditch, 6 feet wide and 24 inches deep,
eventually developed at the outlet of the No. 8 slurry
lagoon. Six wooden ditch checks, each backed with 12 bales
of straw, were installed on No. 8 slurry lagoon in August,
1971. The area adjacent to the flume was then reseeded and
mulched. No further problems were experienced, and one year
later, June, 1972, that portion of the slurry lagoon complex
seeded to grass appeared to be well stabilized with a grass
cover. Figure 6 illustrates the dense stand of grass estab-
lished on the slurry lagoons without the use of any topsoil
approximately nine months after seeding.
No problems were experienced on the slurry lagoons treated
with the chemical stabilizer "Coherex." Visual examination
of the surface during the summer of 1971 indicated only a
slight deterioration, with flaking of the crust taking place
at the surface. Blowing dust during periods of high winds
had been significantly reduced. The stabilization of this
portion of the slurry lagoons appeared satisfactory after
the first year. However, chemical stabilization does not
appear to be a permanent solution and vegetative covers
should be the ultimate treatment.
The restoration of this site was approved by the EPA, with
final acceptance taking place in October, 1971. At approxi-
mately the same time, the restored site was sold with rights
of access and sampling privilege for EPA extending to June,
1976.
Figure 7 and Figure 8 are aerial photographs of the New
Kathleen Mine site showing the refuse pile before and after
restoration.
22
-------
FIG. 6 GRASS COVER ON SLURRY LAGOONS
NEW KATHLEEN MINE
23
-------
FIG. 7 REFUSE PILE - BEFORE RESTORATION
NEW KATHLEEN MINE - MAY, 1969
FIG. 8 REFUSE PILE - AFTER RESTORATION
NEW KATHLEEN MINE - MAY, 1972
24
-------
VII. MONITORING PROGRAM
The monitoring program conducted at the restored site was
essentially the same as that used in determining the acid
formation rates at the beginning of the program and pre-
viously reported. A comparison of "before" and "after"
values thus provided information on the effectiveness of
the abatement measures incorporated onto the refuse pile.
In addition, acid formation rates were determined for the
three test plots to determine any significant differences
in the effectiveness of the 1-foot, 2-foot, and 3-foot soil
covers.
Since a "before" estimate of acid formation rates on the
slurry lagoons was never determined, an "after" estimate
would only be of academic interest. Hpwever, a single storm
was monitored on the chemically stabilized slurry lagoons
and this result is included in this report.
During the first year after restoration, i.e., 1971, a
number of problems were experienced with the automated mon-
itoring stations. The western end of the pile was completed
and additional repair work was done on a number of bare
spots that developed during the winter and spring season.
The runoff during this period contained large amounts of
sediment carried from the test plots and refuse pile where
the grass cover had not been fully established. This sedi-
ment filled the concrete flumes with mud which had to be
shoveled out by hand after every major storm. At the same
time, the°flow recorders and conductivity meters failed to
function when the critical components of the instruments were
packed solidly with mud. As the grass covers became more
firmly and uniformly established, the sedimentation problem
decreased substantially, especially at the monitoring sta-
tions associated with the test plots, and reliable flow data
were obtained from the flow recorders.
The conductivity meters never reached predictable or reliable
performance because of the intermittent nature of the runoff
and the basic design of the conductivity meter probe. In
spite of numerous configurations, solids always entered the
probe cell, resulting in erroneous readings or no readings
at all. Eventually, grab samples were taken of the runoff
at all monitoring stations. These were analyzed for acidity,
to be ultimately used in estimating the acid formation rates.
Because of the difficulties encountered in attempting to cor-
relate conductivity with acidity, a new technique was developed
25
-------
in order to estimate acidity values over the wide range of
flow rates. It was observed that a relationship appeared
to exist between the instantaneous flow rates measured by
the recording flow meter and corresponding acidity values
obtained from the grab samples. When these matched param-
eters were plotted on log-log paper, a straight line could
be drawn between the points.
Although the slope remained essentially constant from storm
to storm for all monitoring stations, the line shifted from
side to side. Thus, all flow rates were correlated with
acidity by a series of parallel lines of relatively constant
slopes (Figure 9). These data were then used in constructing
the acid load hydrographs from which the acid formation rates
were estimated.
The following fundamental hypothesis developed during Phase I2
was used to calculate the average acid formation rate for the
restored refuse pile:
1. The oxidation of pyrite is primarily confined to a rela-
tively narrow zone at or near the surface of the pile
with the products of the reaction accumulating in this
zone and flushed out during periods of precipitation
and appearing in the runoff, and
2. The acid load from the refuse pile is directly propor-
tional to the acid load from the runoff and inversely
proportional to the ratio of total storm runoff to the
total rainfall.
This hypothesis can then be expressed mathematically using
the following relationship:
p = ZR
A x Zt x f
where
P = Average acid formation rate, Ib/acre/day.
ZR = Total weight of acidity from all monitored
storms in a given drainage area, in Ib
acidity as CaC03.
A = Surface drainage area in acres.
Zt = Total period of acid formation corresponding
to the time between storms, in days.
f = Ratio of total storm runoff volume to total
rainfall volume for storms of record.
The average acid formation rate from the restored refuse pile,
as measured at Flow Point 4, was estimated at 16 Ib acid as
26
-------
O
0.01
100 234 567891000 2 3 456789
ACIDITY, mg/l
FIG. 9 ACIDITY VS. FLOW CHART
27
-------
CaC03 equivalent/acre/day. This can be compared to 198
Ib/acre/day reported for the pile in the "before" condition.
This corresponds to a 91+% reduction in the acid formation
rate. A total of eight separate storms were monitored to
obtain the above estimate. Total measured rainfall per storm
varied from a low of 0.08 inches to a high of 2.35 inches.
The summary of acid formation rates measured at Flow Point 4
is shown in Table III.
Acid formation rates were also determined for the individual
test plots on the refuse pile to determine if any significant
differences existed between the 1-foot, 2-foot, and 3-foot
soil covers. The average acid formation rates at Flow Points
1, 2, and 3 were 0.9, 2.0, and 0.9 Ib acid/acre/day, respec-
tively, or a weighted average, by number of storms, of 1,3
Ib/acre/day. Thus, no significant differences were observed
in acid formation rates from the individual test plots on
the refuse pile. Contrary to many unsupported statements
that more soil is better, the monitoring program at this site
did not confirm that surface runoff was better from the
deeper soil covers. For all practical purposes, one foot of
soil, properly graded arid well vegetated, produces essentially
identical results as three feet of soil. It should be noted
that the runoff flowing through the monitoring stations at
Flow Points 1, 2, and 3 came only from the bowl-shaped test
plots and excluded all the runoff from the sloped sections
of the pile and any seepage through the pile. Five storms
were monitored at Flow Point 1, six storms at Flow Point 2,
and eight storms at Flow Point 3. A summary of acid formation
rates measured at Flow Points 1, 2, and 3 after restoration
is shown in Tables IV, V, and VI.
The difference between the 16 Ib acid/acre/day obtained from
the entire refuse pile and the 1.3 Ib acid/acre/day weighted
average from the individual test plots can be attributed to
exposed refuse remaining in or adjacent to the peripheral
ditch around the pile and to seepage through the pile.
Although concerted efforts were repeatedly made during and
after the restoration phase to bury and/or cover all exposed
refuse, approximately 2000 ft of the peripheral ditch and
the areas immediately adjacent to the ditch on the south and
southwest side of the pile remained either uncovered or
covered only with a thin layer of soil. Inevitably, rainfall
washed away this thin mantle of soil almost as fast as it
was applied, reexposing the refuse to the elements. Topog-
raphy and site boundaries on this end of the refuse pile
made earth-moving conditions extremely difficult.
28
-------
TABLE III
ACID FORMATION RATES FROM FLOW POINT 4*
Date
2/23/72
3/1/72
3/15/72
3/21/72
3/27/72
4/7/72
4/14/72
4/20/72
Z8
Rainfall
in.
1.10
0.30
0.80
0.15
0.35
0.08
2.35
2.05
Applied
Water
ft3
139,135
37,977
101,271
18,988
44,306
10,127
297,432
259,456
Measured
Runoff
ft3
120,288
21,637
31,342
67
2,755
1,218
161,584
169,711
Time Since Acid
Last Storm Load
days Ib
9
5
13
5
6
4
7
5
4,500
965
936
5
108
180
4,451
5,192
1908,692 Z508,602
Z54
E16,337
Area of Refuse Pile =34.1 Acres
f = 508,602 T 908,692 = 0.55
Acid Formation Rate =
16,337
34.1 Acres x 54 x 0.55
= 16 Ib acid as CaC03/acre/day
*Entire refuse pile, including peripheral channel
29
-------
TABLE IV
ACID FORMATION,RATES FROM FLOW POINT 1*
Date
3/21/72
4/14/72
4/20/72
5/1/72
5/29/72
Rainfall
in.
0.15
2.35
2.05
0.50
1.00
Applied
Water
ft3
1,732
27,120
23,657
5,771
11,543
Measured
Runoff
ft3
7
19,629
15,895
38
61
Time Since
Last Storm
days
5
7
5
10
7
Acid
Load
Ib
<1
28
20
<1
<1
169,823 135,630
134
Z49
Area of test plot =3.18 acres
f = 36,630 T 69,823 = 0.51
Acid Formation Rate =
49
3.18 Acres x 34 x 0.51
= 0.9 Ib acid as CaCOs/acre/day
*Test plot covered with 3 ft soil and planted to grasses
30
-------
TABLE V
ACID FORMATION RATES FROM FLOW POINT 2*
Date
3/23/72
3/15/72
3/21/72
4/7/72
4/14/72
4/20/72
Rainfall
in.
1.10
0.80
0.15
0.08
2.35
2.05
Applied
Water
ft3
23,637
12,200
2,287
1,220
35,828
31,254
Measured
Runoff
ft3
17,338
6,273
56
63
25,701
29,417
Time Since
Last Storm
days
9
13
5
4
7
5
Acid
Load
Ib
76
36
1
1
78
81
Z6
£106,426 £78,848
Z43
Z273
Area of test plot = 4.20 acres
f = 78,848 T 106,426 = 0.74
Acid Formation Rate =
273
4.20 Acres x 43 x 0.74^
= 2.0 Ib acid as CaC03/acre/day
*Test plot covered with 2 ft soil and planted to grasses.
31
-------
TABLE VI
ACID FORMATION RATES FROM FLOW POINT 3*
Date
2/23/72
3/1/72
3/15/72
3/21/72
3/27/72
4/7/72
4/14/72
4/20/72
Rainfall
in.
1.10
0.30
0.80
0.15
0.35
0.08
2.35
2.05
Applied
Water
ft3
31,182
6,035
16,094
3,018
7,041
1,609
47,267
41,230
Measured
Runoff
ft3
27,364
4,746
6,956
54
218
92
23,841
34,710
Time Since
Last Storm
days
9
5
13
5
6
4
7
5
Acid
Load
Ib
48
16
17
<1
1
<1
48
39
£8
£153,476 £97,981
£54
£170
Area of test plot = 5.54 acres
f = 97,981 T 153,476 = 0.64
Acid Formation Rate =
170
5.54 Acres x 54x 0.64
= 0.9 Ib acid as caC03/acre/day
*Test plot covered with 1 ft soil and planted to grasses,
32
-------
Seepage did not appear to be a major contributor. Although
seven perforated pipelines were carefully installed and
covered with silica gravel well below the earth cover, seep-
age flows were observed at only two pipes and this only for
a short period of time before the vegetative cover was
establishedo During the latter part of 1971 and well into
1972, no flows were observed at any of the seepage points,
The single determination of acid formation rate on the
chemically stabilized slurry lagoon produced a value of 17
Ib acid/acre/dayo No storms were monitored at the grassed
portion of the slurry lagoon complex. A detailed example
of the methodology used in developing the storm data from
which acid formation rates were subsequently estimated
follows., The storm of March 1-2, 1972, monitored at Flow
Point 4, was selected for this example.
At the first sign of the storm, personnel with sample bottles
was deployed to Flow Point 4 monitoring station. When the
rain began to fall, samples of the runoff were taken at the
discharge of the flume at periodic intervals. At the com-
pletion of the storm, samples were returned to the laboratory
and analyzed for total acidity. The following day, charts
were removed from the rain gage and the stage recorder,
necessary notations completed, and these, together with the
acidity data obtained from the grab samples taken during
the storm, were tabulated, correlated, and an acid load
calculated, A tabulation of data for the storm of March 1,
".972 at the Flow Point 4 is presented in Table VII,
Rainfall for this storm was estimated from the rain gage
chart to be 0,30 inch. The area occupied by the refuse pile
and associated with the Flow Point 4 monitoring station was
surveyed at the completion of restoration and measured 34,87
acres. The total "Applied Water" to the restored refuse pile
during the storm period wass
0,30 inch x 1 ft x 34.87 acres x 43,560 ft3
12 inches acre
= 37,977 ft3
The flow in cfs (Column II), as recorded by the stage recorder,
was then plotted against time of day (Column I), and the
points connected with a smooth curve to produce Figure 10A,
Runoff Volume Hydrograph, The area under the curve was plani-
metered to obtain the total runoff, 21,637 ft3, measured at
the flume during the storm period.
33
-------
TABLE VII
TABULATED DATA - PLOW POINT 4
Date
3/1/72
3/2/72
Time of
Day
hrs
0620
0640
0652
0700
0720
0745
0755
0805
0825
0845
0855
0905
0925
0945
1005
1025
1045
1105
1115
1120
1125
1200
1300
1400
1640
2240
2300
2320
2400
0020
0032
0040
0100
0104
0108
0120
0140
0200
0240
0300
0340
0400
0500
0600
0700
1100
II
Flow
cfs
0.0
0.039
0.075
0.062
0.119
497
780
22
64
42
32
12
0.820
0.705
0.565
0.497
0.255
0.170
135
135
119
089
050
020
0.0
0.0
0.029
0.029
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.012
0,
0,
1.
1.
0.062
0.119
0.119
0.232
0.900
.635
.860
.42
.17
0.635
0.497
0.211
0.152
0.062
0.029
0.005
0.0
III
Acidity
rog/1
(1600)
(1250)
(1250)
(1000)
( 550)
( 650)
( 550)
( 450)
( 500)
( 650)
( 750)
(1000)
(1200)
(1650)
(2350)
IV
Acid
Rate
Ib/day
(2000)*
(1500)
(1700)
(1300)
1450
1200
1100
550
400
500
400
550
500
700
700
800
1000
950
900
1050
(1400)
(1850)
(2500)
-
_
(2150)
(2150)
421
608
569
835
3892
5054
7247
4871
3067
3564
2419
2435
1903
2136
1879
1102
918
693
656
675
673
500
270
0
0
337
337
536
803
803
1253
2673
2229
2554
3451
3159
2229
2013
1139
985
552
368
*Data reported in parentheses are estimates taken from Fig. 9
Acidity vs. Flow Chart.
34
-------
As mentioned earlier, a new technique was developed to cor-
relate acidity values obtained from the grab samples with
recorded flow rates. Matched pairs of acidity values and
flow rates were plotted on log-log paper and a straight line
drawn through the points. Acidity values were thus estimated
over the full range of recorded flows to be used in con-
structing the acid load hydrograph. However, actual acidity
values were used whenever available in computing the instan-
taneous mass flows of acid in Ib acid/day. Estimated values
from the acidity flow chart were used only to complete the
hydrographs. Figure 9, Acidity vs. Flow Chart represents
the correlation used for the storm of March 1, 1972. A
separate correlation was used for each storm.
Using the flow data and acidity values, instantaneous mass
flows of acid were then calculated. As an example, at 0825
hours, the flow at the flume was determined from the stage
recorder to be 1.64 cfs. The acidity of the sample taken at
the corresponding time was 550 mg/1 acidity. The instan-
taneous mass flow of acid was calculated as:
1.64 ft3 60 sec 1440 min 62.4 Ib .000550
sec x min x day x ft3x
= 4871 Ib/day acid
Next, the instantaneous mass flow of acid, in Ib/day (Column
IV), was plotted against time of day (Column I) and the
points connected with a smooth curve to form Figure 10B,
Acid Load Hydrograph. The area under the curve was then
planimetered to obtain 965 Ib acid, the total acid load
measured at the flume during the storm period.
The elapsed time from the previous storm was determined to be
five days, from the daily rainfall records.
A total of eight storms were monitored at Flow Point 4 and
the data condensed and compiled in a similar manner. A sum-
mation technique was then used in estimating an average acid
formation rate for the entire refuse pile. Table III, Acid
Formation Rates from Flow Point 4, presents data for the
individual storms together with the final calculation used
in making the estimate
Data from the three test plots monitored at Flow Points 1,
2, and 3, and from the single storm monitored at the chemi-
cally treated slurry lagoons, were treated in an identical
manner.
35
-------
o
I
O
TJ
I
o
o
9
<
Area Under Curve
21,637 Ft.3 Runoff
0600 1200 1800 2400 0600
TIME - HOURS
FIG. IOA RUNOFF VOLUME
Area Under Curve
965 Ibs. Acid
0600 1200 1800 2400
TIME - HOURS
FIG. IOB ACID LOAD
0600
FIG. 10 HYDROGRAPHS, MAR. 1-2, 1972, FLOW POINT 4
36
-------
VIII. EPILOGUE
It would seem appropriate at this point to reflect on the
experience gained in the course of this project and to offer
for consideration some very broad guidelines that may be
useful in future projects of this kind. This report
described what was done at one site, in one location, under
a given set of conditions, and should not be construed as
applicable to every single situation. However, with proper
planning and diligent attention to details, relatively basic
and simple technology can be applied to the stabilization of
most coal mine mineral wastes and the subsequent control of
pollution with a minimum impact on the environment.
The primary objective of this project was to demonstrate
water and air pollution abatement techniques that would be
essentially permanent, require a minimum of maintenance, and
present a pleasing appearance. The basic principle adopted
consisted of sealing the mineral wastes with a suitable cover
to minimize the movement of water and/or air into the pyrite-
containing refuse, thus reducing or eliminating the subsequent
formation of acid, siltation, erosion, and dust entrainment.
Attention was directed largely toward vegetative covers that
could be established and maintained with conventional agri-
culture techniques and machinery. Since the surface of the
refuse pile was highly acidic (pH <3), it could not by itself
support a vegetative cover. Therefore, a suitable thickness
of clean earth was first placed on the graded refuse pile
and a vegetative cover established thereon.
The mechanism of control postulated at the time the cover
technique was selected was as follows:
1. The cover should be sufficiently impermeable to decrease
or stop water movement into the pile. When this occurs,
the products of oxidized pyrite will not be washed away
during periods of rainfall, and fresh pyrite surfaces
will not be exposed. Further, a vegetative cover can
function as a water-consuming layer through the principles
of evapotranspiration, thus further reducing the quantity
of water entering the interior of the pile.
2. The cover should be sufficiently impermeable to oxygen
to act as an efficient diffusion barrier. Since oxygen
(and water) must be continuously present to support the
pyrite oxidation reaction, any material effectively
separating the pyrite from the atmosphere will cause the
37
-------
oxidation reaction to either slow down or cease completely.
The characteristics of the cover then control the oxidation
reaction. In addition, the cover can function as an
oxygen-consuming layer. A vegetative cover such as grass
may build up enough organic matter in the soil to support
high rates of aerobic bacterial activity. Such a layer
can be effective in removing oxygen from the soil atmo-
sphere before it reaches the zone of pyrite oxidation.
The above phenomena, either singly or in combination, should
reduce the acid formation over a period of time to negligible
quantities.
Since the refuse pile continues to generate acid, several
years may be required until acid formation ceases completely.
To accomplish this, it may be necessary to assist nature to
do its job by adopting a routine maintenance, inspection, and
monitoring program and follow the progress of this reduction.
As the site has now been transferred into private ownership,
this may provide some economic problems for the new owner.
Financial subsidies or services through federal and/or state
agencies may be all that is required to provide the necessary
incentives. Part of the sales agreement does provide the
Federal EPA rights of access, egress, and sampling privileges
until June 30, 1976.
From the standpoint of any future activities involving refuse
piles, perhaps the most important parameter that should be
given the highest priority and attention is erosion and
drainage control. Everything else is secondary. Uncontrolled
runoff damages everything. Reducing the velocity and con-
trolling the flow of runoff can make the greatest single
contribution in ultimately abating pollution from refuse
piles. A variety of measures are available to control run-
off. These include proper grading, subsurface drains,
diversion ditches, terraces, and vegetative covers.
It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules as to
a specific slope for the grading operations. Every situation
is different. Slopes greater than.1:2 are more difficult
but not impossible to construct and maintain with conven-
tional earth-moving equipment. Techniques developed in the
interstate highway program and in major construction projects
can be directly applicable to refuse pile grading. Equipment
such as graders, tractors, bulldozers, and earth-carrying
vehicles is readily available, and improvements in capacity,
reliability, and efficiency are continuously being made by
the manufacturers. When the slopes exceed the capability of
conventional earth-moving equipment, a variety of other
38
-------
equipment is available such as draglines and shovels, and
under extreme conditions, manual labor. Bench, terracing
is another practical alternative that can be adopted for ex-
tremely steep and/or long slopes.
The top of the pile should be formed into a dished plateau or
bowl. All peaks and ridges should be graded toward the low
point in the bowl since this helps to reduce the amount of
runoff and surface water draining along the sides of the pile
with a corresponding reduction of erosion and gullying.
Adequate drainage from the bottom of the dished area is a
must and can best be accomplished by open ditches made and
maintained out of a variety of inexpensive materials—wood
troughs, concrete-lined channels, or large-diameter metal or
plastic pipe cut lengthwise and firmly anchored into the
ground. Grass sod should not be overlooked as an effective
alternative. The total cost of grass sod may not be as high
as other alternatives.
The benefits of surface treatment with an alkali such as
limestone, lime, fly ash, or waste alkaline products (prior
to covering with earth) have not been adequately demonstrated
in this project. Although 15 T/acre of agricultural lime-
stone was spread on the graded refuse pile before covering
with earth, the cost benefit of this treatment has not been
determined. Suffice to say, it did not appear to be detri-
mental in the restoration of this refuse pile.
The question of soil thickness in covering refuse piles
appears to be a controversial one. From a technical stand-
point, it is difficult to justify topsoil cover greater than
1 foot thickness on a properly graded refuse pile with
adequate drainage control. Anything greater than 1 foot can
be regarded as safety factor to camouflage improper grading
and inadequate drainage. Of course, as the graded slope
increases beyond the aforementioned, the difficulty of apply-
ing a nominal 1 foot of soil cover increases correspondingly.
Thicknesses less than 1 foot have been explored on the test
plots reported in Phase I, but difficulties were experienced
in trying to place a 4-inch thickness of soil with even the
smallest machinery without exposing the refuse.
When clean earth is to be used to cover a refuse pile as a
prelude to establishing a permanent vegetative cover, a suf-
ficient number of soil samples should be taken from the borrow
area and analyzed for soil nutrients. If a substantial depth
of soil is to be moved from the borrow area, core samples to
the ultimate depth of the borrow area should be taken and
analyzed. Submitting samples from surface scrapings can lead
39
-------
to erroneous results since rarely will the soil from the
surface of a borrow area find its way on the surface of the
covered refuse pile. Arrangements should also be made to
have available at the site, and protected from the elements,
the required supplies of limestone, fertilizer, grass seed,
and mulch before the earth-covering operations commence.
The areas to be seeded should be divided into smaller seg-
ments that can be limed, fertilized, seeded, and mulched
promptly (e.g., within 1-2 days) after the earth cover has
been applied. Otherwise heavy rains inevitably occur that
lead to erosion and gulleys and the necessity of redoing
what has already been done.
Regarding specifics of fertilizers, lime requirements, and
seed mixtures for grass covers, it is almost impossible to
recommend any specifics because soils, climatology, and
ultimate land use will vary so widely. Drainage and pH
control of the soil are basic to the establishment of most
vegetative covers. Native grasses with a good past perfor-
mance record should be favored. Fertilizer application
should be made on the basis of the grass seed selected. It
is good practice to include in the grass seed mixture at
least one species of native legumes. A complete and compre-
hensive listing of grass seed mixtures with recommended
fertilizer requirements and other valuable information is
available in the Department of Agriculture "Grass, The Year-
book of Agriculture, 1948,"3 available from the Superintendent
of Documents. We would not hesitate to double or even triple
the quantities of grass seed suggested in the above publica-
tion when seeding soil that has never been seeded before.
In establishing a permanent vegetative cover on a refuse pile,
the optimum time for planting in most areas of the East and
Midwest appears to be early fall. Thus, the earth covering,
drainage control, and grading should be started in late spring
or summer. This should be followed by a thorough inspection
of the newly seeded area the following spring with reseeding
and/or repairing, as necessary, of any bare spots.
A newly covered and seeded refuse pile is a sensitive entity
and should be given "tender loving care" at least for the
first year or two. Unless this is done, the land can deteri-
orate into its original condition. Bare spots should be
covered, seeded, and mulched as soon as they are observed or
no later than the following planting season. Regular soil
testing and application of lime and fertilizer is recommended
to maintain the grass cover. Gulleys and rills should be
promptly filled with clean earth, seeded, and mulched.
40
-------
Livestock should not be pastured on the covered refuse pile
because they tend to form paths that are subject to erosion
and acid-producing material will be exposed.
In certain instances, it may be desirable to dispose of the
land to someone who can develop the necessary incentives to
put it back into productive use such as land developers or
farmers. In other instances, land can be donated or sold
for a nominal amount to a community or municipality to be
used as a recreational area, wildlife resort, or park.
Borrow areas can be conveniently converted into fresh water
lakes and eventually stocked with fish. The lakes can be
filled with either groundwater or the runoff from the covered
refuse pile, collected and diverted into the lake.
Slurry lagoons, because of their unique physical and chemical
characteristics, were treated differently. Grading was
neither required nor desired. However, drainage control is
important because of the unstable nature of the slurry
material. Adequate drainage facilities and erosion control
should be provided to reduce the velocity and control the
flow of runoff. Where gulleys already exist, these can be
filled with bales of straw, slurry, clean earth, or other
inert fill. When a permanent vegetative cover is planned,
careful attention to opening the dikes at strategic points
must be provided since most slurry lagoons are completely
enclosed during active operations. This will require the
construction and maintenance of permanent, stable structures
at the outlet of the lagoons to control the runoff and direct
it into the nearest stream. Otherwise, channeling and gully-
ing will take place and slurry will be deposited in the
nearest stream.
The establishment of a permanent grass cover directly on the
slurry lagoons, without the use of topsoil, was a relatively
simple procedure once a. vehicle was obtained that could
traverse the lagoons with a load. The procedure consisted
of soil testing, limestone application, fertilizer addition,
grass seed sowing, and mulching with straw. For purposes of
establishing grass covers, slurry lagoons can be classified
as free-draining, very poor-grade soils. Drought-resistant
species and legumes native to the area should be considered
for use in any grass seed mixture for slurry lagoons. Straw
was the preferred mulch for both the refuse pile and the
slurry lagoons since the soils were essentially barren of
any humus.
Chemical stabilization of slurry lagoons is only a temporary
measure because of solubility, abradability, and nonrenewable
nature of the chemical agent. But because it does provide
41
-------
almost instantaneous stabilization and dust suppression, it
does present an attractive temporary option. Permanent vege-
tative covers should be the ultimate solution for slurry
lagoons.
Finally, there continues to be an interest in recovering any
potentially valuable and/or useful materials from abandoned
refuse piles and slurry lagoons. Extensive studies promoting
the uses of refuse material from coal mining operations have
been underway in Great Britain for years, and for lesser
periods in this country. Some of these studies have resulted
in the use of refuse material in the construction of highways,
dams, dikes, industrial sites, and recreational areas. The
recovery of the coal present in the slurry lagoons and its
subsequent use as fuel in power plant boilers has not received
the attention it deserves.
42
-------
IX. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The following have made significant contributions in the
preparation of this report and their assistance is grate-
fully acknowledged.
G. L. Barthauer, Consolidation Coal Company
P. G. Durham, Consolidation Coal Company
R. H. Fraley, Consolidation Coal Company
J. L. Lombardo, Consolidation Coal Company
J. P. Ramsey, Consolidation Coal Company
V. T. Ricca, The Ohio State University
K. S. Shumate, Consultant
E. D. Smith, Midwestern Division Consolidation
Coal Company
S. T. Sorrell, Consolidation Coal Company
D. Oilman, Midwestern Division, Consolidation
Coal Company
Mrs. J. Knoll, Consolidation Coal Company
Mrs. M. Vogel, Consolidation Coal Company
and
many, many other people who provided input to the project in
the form of ideas, thoughts, suggestions, and expertise.
The engineering plans and specifications for the restoration
of the New Kathleen Mine site were prepared by R. A. Nack &
Associates, Inc., Carbondale, Illinois. The General Con-
tractor was R. E. Van Cloostere, Inc., Murphysboro, Illinois.
Subsurface exploration and soils investigation were conducted
by A & H Corporation, Consulting Engineers, with offices in
Carbondale, Illinois. Soil testing was done by Continental
Oil Company, Agrico Chemical Division, Washington Court House,
Ohio.
The primary objective of this large-scale project was to demon-
strate practical methods of abating pollution from coal mine
refuse piles. The demonstration of at-source control methods
such as this is an important element of the total Environmental
Protection Agency Mine Drainage Pollution Control Program.
This project was conducted under the direction of the Pollution
Control Analysis Section, Ernst P. Hall, Chief, and Donald J.
0'Bryan, Project Manager, with Eugene E. Chaudoir of the EPA
Indiana District Office serving as Project Officer. Technical
assistance was provided by Ronald D. Hill, Chief, Mine Drainage
Pollution Control Activities, EPA, National Environmental
Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
43
-------
X. REFERENCES
1. Surface Mined Land Reclamation Act, State of Illinois,
Rule 9, p. 9, (July 1, 1968).
2, Barthauer, G. L., Kosowski, Z. V., Ramsey, J. P.,
"Control of Mine Drainage from Coal Mine Mineral Wastes,
Phase I, Hydrology and Related Experiments," Project
No. 14010 DDK, August 1971. Superintendent of Documents,
Washington, D.C.
3. "Grass, The Yearbook of Agriculture 1948," the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington (1948). Superintendent of Documents,
Washington, D.C.
45
-------
XI. PUBLICATIONS
Barthauer, G. L., "Pollution Control of Preparation Plant
Wastes - A Research and Demonstration Project," AIME
Environmental Quality Conference, Washington, D.C.
(June 1971).
Barthauer, G. L., Kosowski, Z. V., Ramsey, J. P., "Control
of Mine Drainage from Coal Mine Mineral Wastes, Phase
I, Hydrology and Related Experiments," Project No.
14010 DDK, August 1971. Superintendent of Documents,
Washington, D.C.
Brown, W. E., "The Control of Acid Mine Drainage Using an
Oxygen Diffusion Barrier," a Thesis Presented in
Partial Fulfillment for the Degree Master of Science,
the Ohio State University (1970) .
Good, D. M., Ricca, V. T., Shumate, K. S., "The Relation
of Refuse Pile Hydrology to Acid Production," Second
Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research, Mellon
Institute, Pittsburgh, Pa. (May 1968).
Kosowski, Z. V., "Control of Mine Drainage from Coal Mine
Mineral Wastes," Fourth Symposium on Coal Mine
Drainage Research, Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh, Pa.
(April 1972) .
Lau, C. M., Shumate, K. S., Smith, E. E., "The Role of
Bacteria in the Pyrite Oxidation Kinetics," Second
Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research, Mellon
Institute, Pittsburgh, Pa. (May 1968).
Ramsey, J. P., "Control of Acid Drainage from Refuse Piles
and Slurry Lagoons," Second Symposium on Coal Mine
Drainage Research, Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh, Pa.
(May 1968) .
Ramsey, J. P., "Demonstration of Control of Acid Mine
Drainage from Coal Refuse Piles," AIME Meeting, Salt
Lake City, Utah (September 1969).
47
-------
XII. APPENDICES
49
-------
STORM DATA - 2/23/72 - FLOW POINT 2
Date
2/23/72
2/24/72
Time of Day
hrs
0800
0850
0905
0925
0945
1000
1100
1135
1200
1300
1400
1500
1545
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2330
2400
0030
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0815
0835
0855
0910
0940
1000
1020
1040
1100
1200
1300
1400
1420
1440
1500
1600
1640
1650
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
Acidity
0
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.012
0.009
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.025
0.099
0.328
0.904
1.19
0.904
0.564
0.236
0.099
0.060
0.041
0.030
0.030
0.025
0.041
0.128
0.236
0.328
0.437
0.345
0.296
0.250
0.222
0.209
0.250
0.280
0.171
0.138
0.108
0.099
0.060
0.047
0.047
0.041
0.025
0.016
0.008
0
80
100
90
190
70
80
90
150
90
70
50
50
80
70
70
90
90
90
100
130
150
150
50
-------
STORM DATA - 2/23/72 - FLOW POINT 3
Date
2/23/72
2/24/72
Time of Day
hrs
0720
0740
0800
0900
0920
0940
1035
1105
1130
1200
1300
1400
1500
1550
1700
1800
1900
1940
2000
2020
2040
2100
2120
2140
2200
2220
2240
2300
2320
2330
2340
2400
0020
0040
0100
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0825
0845
0905
0945
1005
1025
1105
1200
1240
1300
1340
1405
1425
1445
1505
1643
0
0.004
0.009
0.009
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.016
0.025
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.016
0.016
0.020
0.020
0.041
0.060
0.082
0.128
0.236
0.328
0.328
0.564
34
49
30
92
06
61
0.818
0.437
0.265
0.196
0.149
0.108
0.060
0.047
0.041
0.035
0.035
0.611
0.763
0.763
0.399
0.312
0.328
0.312
0.399
0.520
0.399
0.236
0.183
0.138
0.128
0.118
0.053
Acidity
mg/1
150
110
120
140
110
130
140
40
40
20
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
40
51
-------
STORM DATA - 2/23/72 - FLOW POINT 3 (cont'd)
Date
2/24/72
(cont'd)
Time of Day
hrs
1705
1805
1905
2005
2105
2200
0.047
0.030
0.020
0.009
0.004
0
Acidity
mg/1
50
52
-------
STORM DATA - 2/23/72 - FLOW .POINT 4
2/24/72
Time of Day
hrs
0700
0900
0920
0940
1035
1105
1130
1550
2000
2100
2200
2220
2240
2300
2320
2330
2340
2400
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0820
0840
0900
0945
1000
1005
1020
1040
1045
1100
1105
1200
1300
1400
1405
1425
1445
1500
1505
1600
1700
1703
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2400
Flow
cfs
0
0.020
0.037
0.039
0.043
0.039
0.089
0.039
0.152
0.705
2.01
4.90
7.67
6.28
8.65
10.2
8.95
4.08
0.860
0.497
0.405
0.352
0.278
0.232
0.190
0.278
.88
.36
.36
.82
.37
.22
.17
.27
.27
.27
.27
.70
.88
0.74
0.705
0.565
0.405
0.352
0.327
0.190
0.152
0.152
0.013
0.075
0.050
0.029
0.012
0
1,
3,
3,
1.
1.
1,
1.
1,
1,
1.
1.
1,
1,
Acidity
mg/1
1500
1350
1150
1000
950
1100
1450
850
600
550
600
800
800
1050
1100
1200
1250
1850
53
-------
STORM DATA - 3/1/72 - FLOW POINT 3
3/2/72
Time of Day
hrs
0600
0604
0608
0612
0700
0745
0755
0805
0815
0825
0835
0845
0905
0925
0945
1005
1025
1045
1105
1115
1120
1125
1140
1200
1300
1400
1500
2220
2236
2340
2400
0020
0040
0100
0120
0140
0200
0240
0340
0440
0540
0640
0740
0840
0940
1040
1140
Flow
cfs
0
0.012
0.002
0.016
0.002
0.053
0.090
0.138
0.183
0.265
0.296
0.250
0.222
0.183
0.149
0.118
0.090
0.067
0.053
0.047
0.047
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.012
0.002
0
0
0.006
0.004
0.006
0.030
0.053
0.138
0.265
0.280
0.236
0.149
0.082
0.041
0.025
0.020
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0
Acidity
mg/1
50
50
50
50
40
40
50
50
45
45
60
60
70
60
60
60
60
54
-------
STORM DATA - 3/1/72 - FLOW POINT 4
Date
3/1/72
3/2/72
Time of Day
hrs
0620
0640
0652
0700
0720
0745
0755
0805
0825
0845
0855
0905
0925
0945
1005
1025
1045
1105
1115
1120
1125
1200
1300
1400
1500
1640
2240
2300
2320
2400
0020
0032
0040
0100
0104
0108
0120
0140
0200
0240
0300
0340
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
Acidity
mg/1
.32
0.062
0.119
0.119
0.232
0.900
0.635
0.860
1.42
1.17
0.635
0.497
,211
,152
0.062
0.029
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.003
0
0.
0.
1450
1200
1100
550
400
500
400
550
500
700
700
800
1000
950
900
1050
55
-------
STORM DATA - 3/15/72 - FLOW POINT 2
3/16/72
Time of Day
hrs
0500
0515
0600
0700
0745
0830
0955
1015
1035
1050
1115
1135
1155
1215
1235
1325
1355
1440
1635
1700
1745
1800
1900
1930
2000
2030
2100
2130
2230
2330
0030
0130
0230
0330
0430
0530
0630
0730
0815
0930
1030
1100
1500
1515
1520
1530
1550
1610
1630
1650
1700
1740
1750
1800
1810
1910
2010
2110
2200
Acidity
mg/1
0
0.009
0.002
0.002
0.006
0.067
0.478
0.381
0.312
0.250
0.183
0.138
0.108
0.082
0.066
0.047
0.035
0.020
0.009
0
0
0.004
0.020
0.047
0.067
0.067
0.067
0.060
0.041
0.030
0.025
0.016
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.004
0.004
0.002
0
0
0.074
0.060
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.053
0.053
0.047
0.047
0.041
0.041
0.030
0.025
0.020
0
50
50
50
50
70
70
70
110
120
130
160
200
280
250
260
250
330
250
180
110
100
100
70
100
60
70
90
56
-------
STORM DATA - 3/15/72 - FLOW POINT 3
Date
3/15/72
3/16/72
Time of Day
hrs
0720
0740
0800
0820
0828
0840
0856
0900
0920
0930
0950
1010
1030
1050
1110
1130
1150
1210
1230
1330
1435
1500
1600
1620
1640
1740
1840
1900
1920
1940
2000
2020
2040
2100
2200
2300
2400
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0830
0935
1000
1100
1200
1300
1440
1510
1515
1520
1530
1550
1610
Acidity
mg/1
0
0.009
0.035
0.099
0.209
0.280
0.363
0.457
0.418
0.457
0.587
0.457
0.328
0.183
0.138
0.099
0.074
0.060
0.470
0.025
0.006
0.002
0
0
0.006
0.006
0.004
0.016
0.035
0.067
0.108
0.118
0.108
0.082
0.047
0.030
0.020
0.016
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.009
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.004
0.004
0.002
0.002
0
0
0.067
0.118
0.108
0.118
0.183
0.138
30
40
40
40
40
30
40
50
50
50
50
70
50
70
40
50
30
50
40
30
30
30
57
-------
STORM DATA - 3/15/72 - FLOW POINT 3 (cont'd)
Time of Day Flow Acidity
Date hrs cfs mg/1
3/16/72 1630 0.099 40
(cont'd) 1650 0.0741 30
1700 0.067 20
1740 0.041 30
1750 0.035 30
1800 0.030 40
1810 0.025 40
1900 0.016
2200 0.006
58
-------
STORM DATA - 3/15/72 - FLOW POINT 4
Date
3/15/72
3/16/72
Time of Day
hrs
0740
0812
0820
0836
0844
0900
0930
0950
1010
1030
1050
1110
1130
1150
1210
1230
1330
1430
1500
1640
1900
1910
1920
1940
2000
2020
2040
2120
2220
2240
2320
2400
0020
0100
0140
0240
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
1500
1512
1517
1522
1532
1552
1612
1632
1652
1702
1742
1752
1802
1812
1840
1940
2020
Flow
cfs
0
0.740
0.635
2.71
2.56
.87
.07
.56
Acidity
mg/1
2.
2.
2.
2.35
1.48
0.705
0.434
0.302
0.208
0.152
0.119
0.044
0.008
0.005
0
0
0.005
0.089
0.232
0.434
0.510
0.434
0.232
0.119
0.089
0.062
0.043
0.039
0.024
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0
0
0.497
0.860
0.880
0.725
0.680
0.434
0.208
0.127
0.119
0.089
0.068
0.066
0.062
0.026
0.020
0.005
300
350
450
350
375
450
550
650
700
900
1300
1500
1550
1150
800
1050
950
900
700
600
650
750
950
1050
1100
1200
59
-------
STORM DATA - 3/15/72 - FLOW POINT 4 (cont'd)
Time of Day Flow Acidity
Date hrs cfs mg/1
3/16/72 2040 0.004
(cont'd) 2100 0.001
2140 0.001
2200 0
60
-------
STORM DATA - 3/21/72 - FLOW POINT 1
Time of Day Flow Acidity
hrs cfs mg/1
1520 0
1525 0.009 15
1535 0.004 20
1545 0.002 20
1600 0
61
-------
STORM DATA - 3/21/72 - FLOW POINT 2
Time of Day Flow Acidity
Date hrs cf s mg/1
3/21/72 1510 0
1530 0.074 140
1540 0.006 510
1550 0.004 380
1600 0
62
-------
STORM DATA - 3/21/72 - FLOW POINT 3
Time of Day Flow Acidity
Date hrs cfs mg/1
3/21/72 1500 0
1530 0.041 50
1540 0.009 50
1550 0.009 65
1600 0
63
-------
STORM DATA - 3/21/72 - FLOW POINT 4
Time of Day
hrs
1505
1532
1542
1552
1602
1610
0
0.012
0.050
0.039
0.002
0
Acidity
mg/1
550
1150
1400
2600
64
-------
STORM DATA - 3/27/72 - FLOW POINT 3
Time of Day Flow Acidity
hrs cfs mg/1
0200 0
0215 0.030 (55)*
0220 0.047 (48)
0232 0.012 (75)
0240 0.009 (75)
0300 0.041 (50)
0304 0.171 (35)
0312 0.030 (55)
0320 0.016 (70)
0324 0.020 (60)
0400 0.009 (75)
0500 0.006
0600 0
* Analytical data shown in parentheses estimated from previous
correlations at this monitoring station.
65
-------
STORM DATA - 3/27/72 - FLOW POINT 4
Time of Day
hrs
0300
0304
0312
0316
0320
0324
0332
0340
0352
0400
0420
0440
0540
0640
0740
0
0.119
0.900
0.740
0.940
0.565
0.327
0.940
0.565
0.378
0.119
0.050
0.039
0.029
0
Acidity
mg/1
( 950)*
( 425)
( 450)
( 425)
( 500)
( 610)
( 425)
( 500)
( 600)
( 950)
(1250)
(1350)
(1500)
* Analytical data shown in parentheses estimated from previous
correlations at this monitoring station.
66
-------
STORM DATA - 4/7/72 - FLOW POINT 2
Time of Day Flow Acidity
hrs cfs mg/1
1300 0
1310 0.041 110
1320 0.030 280
1330 0.009 230
1340 0.004 230
1400 0.002 190
1440 0.002 170
1500 Trace
1600 Trace
1700 Trace
1800 0
67
-------
STORM DATA - 4/7/72 - FLOW POINT 3
Time of Day Flow Acidity
Date hrs cfs mg/1
4/7/72 1300 0
1310 0.020 30
1320 0.047 40
1330 0.025 40
1340 0.009 30
1400 0.004 30
1440 0.002 30
1500 Trace
1600 Trace
1700 Trace
1800 Trace
1900 Trace
2000 Trace
2100 Trace
68
-------
STORM DATA - 4/7/72 - FLOW POINT 4
Time of Day
hrs
1300
1315
1325
1335
1345
1405
1425
1445
1505
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
0
0.062
0.211
0.211
0.135
0.062
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.029
0.029
0.029
0
Acidity
mg/1
600
1450
1300
2250
2200
3150
3300
3300
69
-------
STORM DATA - 4/14/72 - FLOW POINT 1
4/15/72
Time of Day
hrs
0200
0250
0255
0300
0310
0330
0400
0500
0600
0700
0730
0750
0800
0810
0825
0845
0925
1005
1045
1145
1245
1300
1400
0100
0135
0140
0200
0220
0240
0300
0320
0340
0400
0500
0600
0700
0720
0815
0910
1000
1100
1130
1140
1150
1200
1225
1305
1345
1430
1500
1600
1720
1900
2000
2100
2200
2230
Flow
cfs
0
0.060
0.209
0.149
0.520
0.209
0.030
0.009
0.002
0
0
0.099
0.564
1.70
0.818
0.363
0.280
0.099
0.041
0.016
0.006
0.002
0
0
0.020
0.328
1.47
0.564
0.209
0.149
0.457
0.363
0.183
0.099
0.074
0.041
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.030
0.060
0.564
1.57
1.13
0.564
0.520
0.250
0.099
0.053
0.030
0.020
0.012
0.030
0.047
0.060
0.149
0.381
Acidity
mg/1
40
30
20
40
40
50
40
50
55
20
10
20
20
30
70
-------
STORM DATA - 4/14/72 - FLOW POINT 1 (cont'd)
Date
4/15/72
(cont'd)
4/16/72
Time of Day
hrs
2250
2300
2400
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
Acidity
mg/1
0.564
0.457
0.099
0.041
0.025
0.020
0.012
0.009
0.004
0
71
-------
STORM DATA - 4/14/72 - FLOW POINT 2
4/15/72
4/16/72
Hime of Day
hrs
0200
0230
0330
0345
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0815
0835
0855
0935
1015
1055
1135
1235
1300
1400
1500
0100
0130
0200
0230
0300
0330
0400
0500
0600
0700
0720
0800
0910
1000
1100
1130
1200
1225
1305
1345
1430
1530
1630
1720
1900
2000
2100
2200
2230
2330
2400
0030
0100
0200
0300
Acidity
0.
0.
0.
1.
0
0.012
0.171
0.020
0.053
0.025
.006
,006
.209
.06
1.34
0.846
0.478
0.250
0.118
0.067
0.035
0.025
0.012
0
0
0.060
0.659
0.846
0.328
0.478
0.328
0.138
0.082
0.053
0.041
0.035
0.020
0.025
0.053
0.564
0.934
0.846
0.542
0.265
0.090
0.035
0.012
0.012
0.025
0.030
0.041
0.138
0.381
0.280
0.171
0.099
0.067
0.041
0.025
30
30
40
55
60
80
150
100
120
40
30
50
55
140
72
-------
STORM DATA - 4/14/72 - FLOW POINT 2 (cont'd)
Date
4/16/72
(cont'd)
Time of Day
hrs
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
Acidity
mg/1
0.020
0.016
0.012
0.009
0.006
0
73
-------
STORM DATA - 4/14/72 - FLOW POINT 3
4/15/72
Time of Day
hrs
0020
0140
0220
0300
0308
0320
0340
0400
0440
0500
0600
0700
0800
0840
0920
1000
1040
1140
1240
1340
1440
1540
1600
1620
0120
0140
0200
0216
0220
0230
.0240
0300
0320
0340
0400
0420
0440
0500
0600
0700
0730
0810
0905
1005
1100
1120
1140
1200
1220
1250
1330
1400
1430
1530
1630
1700
Acidity
mg/1
0
0.002
0.012
0.020
0.265
0.183
0.035
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.004
0.004
0.236
1.49
0.875
0.478
0.183
0.074
0.035
0.020
0.012
0.009
0.006
0
1,
2,
1,
1,
0
0.041
.06
.01
.92
.41
0.875
0.437
0.763
0.904
0.542
0.312
0.222
0.171
0.149
0.082
0.060
0.053
0.041
0.053
0.060
.128
.06
.01
.09
.06
0.457
0.209
0.128
0.060
0.035
0.030
0,
1,
2
1,
1,
20
20
25
40
50
50
70
35
30
30
10
20
25
74
-------
STORM DATA - 4/14/72 - FLOW POINT 3 (cont'd)
Date
4/15/72
(cont'd)
4/16/72
Time of Day
hrs
1725
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
1000
1100
0.025
0.020
0.041
0.060
0.060
0.196
0.763
0.209
0.082
0.053
0.035
0.025
0.020
0.016
0.009
0.006
0.004
0
Acidity
mg/1
25
75
-------
STORM DATA - 4/14/72 - FLOW POINT 4
4/15/72
Time of Day
hrs
0240
0300
0312
0320
0340
0400
0420
0500
0600
0700
0800
0808
0820
0840
0900
0940
1000
1040
1140
1240
1340
1440
1540
1600
0120
0140
0152
0200
0220
0240
0300
0320
0340
0400
0500
0600
0700
0745
0800
0900
1000
1100
1120
1140
1200
1220
1230
1250
1300
1330
1400
1420
1500
1600
1700
1800
2400
2.
5.
4,
2.
1.
Flow
cfs
0
0.232
2.28
2.42
1.88
0.497
0.170
0.039
0.029
0.020
,28
,56
10.50
8.06
,18
.87
.59
0.565
0.190
0.062
0.050
0.050
0.050
0
0.565
5.45
10.8
5.56
2.42
.82
.53
.03
1.32
0.327
0.119
0.020
0
0
0.020
0.075
0.075
0.378
5.56
10.20
Acidity
mg/1
1,
3,
3,
7
7
4
3
1.
.02
.02
.48
.53
.42
0.565
0.278
0.152
0.050
0.020
0.005
0
250
275
450
450
700
900
1300
1900
325
350
575
950
76
-------
STORM DATA - 4/20/72 - FLOW POINT 1
4/21/72
4/22/72
Time of Day
hrs
0000
0100
0130
0145
0200
0230
0300
0400
0500
0600
0100
0200
0230
0300
0330
0350
0355
0400
0430
0500
0530
0600
0700
0800
0900
0950
1000
1040
1100
1130
1155
1212
1230
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
0400
Acidity
0
0.002
0.149
0.790
0.363
0.099
0.041
0.009
0.002
0
0
0.002
0.030
0.099
0.280
0.875
0.934
0.875
0.790
0.763
0.611
0.328
0.183
0.090
0.030
0.016
0.030
0.457
0.363
0.209
0.710
0.457
0.965
0.222
0.047
0.020
0.006
0.002
0
30
40
77
-------
STORM DATA - 4/20/72 - FLOW POINT 2
Date
4/20/72
4/21/72
4/22/72
Time of Day
hrs
0000
0100
0200
0230
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0830
0900
1100
1300
1400
0200
0300
0400
0430
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
0945
1000
1100
1200
1230
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
0400
Acidity
mg/1
0
0.002
0.250
0.345
0.250
0.099
0.047
0.035
0.025
0.020
0.017
0.016
0.012
0.009
0
1,
1,
1,
0
0.099
.03
.38
.23
0.763
0.499
0.280
0.128
0.082
0.108
0.478
0.710
1.16
0.818
0.250
0.108
0.060
0.047
80
50
70
110
78
-------
STQRM DATA - 4/20/72 - FLOW POINT 3
4/21/72
5/22/72
Time of Day
hrs
0000
0100
0200
0228
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0835
0900
1000
1400
0008
0016
0044
0100
0200
0300
0400
0416
0444
0456
0516
0520
0600
0620
0700
0805
0905
0956
1030
1100
1130
1212
1220
1240
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
2000
2400
0100
0300
Acidity
rcg/1
0.012
0.047
0.196
0.296
0.209
0.082
0.053
0.030
0.020
0.002
0.006
0.004
0
0
0.009
Trace
0.006
0.006
0.149
1.70
1.92
1.65
1.74
1.34
1.49
0.790
0.846
0.542
0.236
0.099
0.060
0.363
0.818
0.542
1.13
.06
.83
0.996
0.196
0.090
0.035
0.030
0.020
0.006
0.002
0
1
1,
30
20
35
35
79
-------
STORM DATA - 4/20/72 - PLOW POINT 4
Date
4/20/72
4/21/72
4/22/72
Time of Day
hrs
0100
0124
0152
0230
0300
0400
0500
0600
0900
0124
0200
0300
0400
0412
0440
0448
0512
0516
0540
0546
0620
0700
0800
0810
0900
0910
0952
1000
1048
1124
1200
1230
1300
1400
1500
1600
1615
1700
1720
1732
1744
1800
1900
2200
0200
Acidity
mg/1
7
5,
0
0.005
0.740
8.80
9.55
8.35
8.80
6.64
.54
.56
3.53
4.38
2.21
0.780
0.635
0.302
0.278
0.119
0.211
4.28
2.28
5.80
9.25
3.44
0.635
0.232
0.119
0.103
0.075
0.062
0.075
0.135
0.119
0.062
0.005
700
1000
1650
80
-------
STORM DATA - 5/1/72 - FLOW POINT 1
Time of Day Flow Acidity
hrs cf s mg/1
0650 0
0655 0.004 50
0700 0.030
0705 0.025
0710 0.012
0715 0.004
0720 0.002 50
0730 0
0800 0
0810 0.006
0815 0.009 40
0835 0.002 30
0900 0.002 30
1000 0
81
-------
STORM DATA - 5/1/72 - FLOW POINT 5*
Time of Day Flow Acidity
Date hrs cfs mg/1
5/1/72 0700 0
0710 4.90
0720 3.78
0730 1.03
0735 0.668 260
0740 0.248
0750 0.070
0800 0.025
0810 0.110 350
0830 0.745 290
0840 0.234
0850 0.120 290
0940 0.010
0950 0.010 310
1000 0.010
1050 0
* Data for slurry lagoons treated with "Coherex".
82
-------
STORM DATA - 5/29/72 - FLOW POINT 1
Time of Day Flow Acidity
Date hrs cfs mg/1
5/29/72 1420 0
1425 0.004 40
1428 0.090
1430 0.047
1435 0.009
1440 0.030
1445 0.035 40
1450 0.030
1455 0.016
1500 0.004
1505 Trace 45
1510 0
ft U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1 973 — 511!-! 56/330
83
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
1. Report No.
2.
4. Title control of Mine Drainage from Coal Mine
Mineral Wastes - Phase II - Pollution
Abatement and Monitoring
7. Author(s)
Z. V. Kosowski
9. Organization
Midwestern Division of Consolidation Coal Co.
3. Accession No.
w
5. Report Date
6.
8. Performing Organization
Report Ho.
10. Project No.
14010 DDK
11. Contract/ Grant No.
13. Type of Report and
Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Organization
15. Supplementary Notes
Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA-R2-73-230, May 1973
16. Abstract
Acid runoff from refuse piles can be controlled by covering the
mineral wastes with soil, establishing a vegetative cover, and providing
adequate drainage to minimize erosion. The average acid formation rate
for the entire restored refuse pile was estimated at 16 Ib acid as CaC03/
acre/day, or a reduction of 91+% when compared to the original unrestored
pile. No significant differences were observed in acid formation rates
from the 3 individual test plots covered with a nominal 1 foot, 2 feet, 01
3 feet of soil. However, it was more difficult to physically place 1 foolj
of soil, especially on the steeper slopes.
Slurry lagoons containing the fine coal rejects can be stabilized am
the air pollution problem controlled by either a vegetative cover estab-
lished directly on the mineral wastes without soil or by the application
of a chemical stabilizer. Chemical stabilization is only a temporary
measure, and vegetative covers should be the permanent solution to slurry
lagoons.
Cost data from this project indicate that it would cost approximately
$6,100, $8,000, and $9,800 per acre to cover with grass a refuse pile
with one, two, and. three feet of soil respectively.
17a. Descriptors
Acid Mine Drainage*, Refuse Piles*, Slurry Ponds*, Reclamation,
Coal Mine
17b. Identifiers
Illinois*, New Kathleen Mine*, Mineral Wastes*, Acid Formation Rate
17c. COWRR Field & Group
18. Availability
19. Security Class.
(Report)
20. Security Class.
(Page)
Abstractor Z. V. KOSOWSki
21. No. of
Pages
Send To:
22. Price
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240
Consolidation Coal Company
WRSIC 102 (REV. JUNE 1971)
GPO 9l3.2«t
------- |