EPA-600/2-76-183
August 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FLY ASH RECLAMATION OF SURFACE MINES
Hillman State Park
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. 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
4. 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.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-183
August 1976
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FLY ASH RECLAMATION OF SURFACE MINES
Hillman State Park
by
Murray T. Dougherty and Hans H. Holzen
Ackenheil & Associates, Incorporated
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15216
Grant Number S-802526
Project Officer
Elmore C. Grim
Extraction Technology Branch
Resource Extraction and Handling Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory-Cincinnati, 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. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, and
used, these operations usually pollute our environment. The resultant
air, land, solid waste.and other pollutants may adversely impact our
aesthetic and physical well-being. Protection of our environment requires
that we recognize and understand the complex environmental impacts of
these operations and that corrective approaches be applied.
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
assesses the environmental, social and economic impacts of industrial
and energy-related activities and identifies, evaluates, develops and
demonstrates alternatives for the protection of the environment.
This feasibility report documents a method for the productive use
of fly ash as a soil supplement for regraded acidic strip mine spoils on
which re-establishment of a vegetative cover with a high survival rate
is desired. The addition of fly ash to the upper layer of strip mine
spoil should also retard water infiltration into acidic spoils and
provide alkalinity reservoirs for the surface water which would percolate
through the spoils, thereby improving the acid mine drainage pollutants
discharging from within the spoils.
Results of this work will be especially interesting to State and
Federal agencies concerned with reclamation of abandoned mines to produce
useable land and improve water quality.
id G. StepKan, Director
.dustrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111
-------
ABSTRACT
"he study was performed to determine the technical and economic aspects of
urface treatment of regraded acidic strip mine spoils with pulverized fuel
ly ash as a method to produce a soil cover which will sustain grasses and
egumes and also enhance abatement of mine drainage. Data on present
tream water quality of Hillman State Park was obtained to establish a set
f parameters which will be used for comparison with future water quality
nalysis in order to determine effects of construction and the application
f fly ash to the water quality. Other criteria used in this evaluation
nclude: pH of strip mine spoil material and fly ash; moisture retention
haracteristics of spoils and spoils treated with fly ash; and grain size
istribution of spoils and spoils treated with fly ash.
he feasibility study results indicate this demonstration project would be
echnically feasible and the reclamation would be effective to produce
seable land and improve water quality. Alkalinity in the tributaries
ffected by the demonstration project should increase approximately
00 milligrams per liter. The estimated cost of the demonstration construe-
ion project is about $900,000 for restoration of surface drainage to the
40 acre (138 hectare) site. Fly ash will be applied to approximately
80 acres (73 hectares) of the site which are being regraded and revegetated
t an approximate additional cost of $70,000.
his report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Environmental Protection
gency, Project S-802526, by Ackenheil § Associates Geo Systems, Inc.,
nder sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Common-
ealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Tables vii
Figures viii
Acknowledgments ix
Section
I Conclusions 1
Technical Feasibility
Impact on Water Quality
Economic Considerations
II Recommendations 3
Proceed with the Demonstration Project
III Introduction 4
General
Objectives and Scope
Jurisdictional Framework
IV Description of Project Area 10
Location
Site
Topography
Geology
Mining History
-------
CONTENTS CONTINUED
Section Page
^«-^^^^~ ?
V Data Obtained During Phase I . . . .' 18
Water Quality Study
Strip Mine Spoil
Fly Ash
Strip Mine Spoil - Fly Ash Mixtures
VI Fly Ash Application Considerations 46
Neutralization Variables
Economic Variables
Method of Application
VII Proposed Plans for Project Implementation 48
Construction Plans
Sequence of Construction
Fly Ash Application Methods and Rate
Seeding
Sampling and Testing
Continuing Water Quality Monitoring
VIII Cost Estimate 54
Summary of Estimated Costs to Complete
Project
Construction Costs Estimate
Fly Ash Estimate
Construction Design Costs
Engineering Costs for the Demonstration
Portion
IX Appendix 57
Individual Station Water Quality Data
VI
-------
TABLES
No.
1 Water Quality Sampling Stations 20
2 Water Quality Summary 28
3 Spoil pH 30
4 Mechanical Analysis - Soil Classification of Spoils . . 30
5 Spoil Limestone Requirements 31
6 Chemical Analysis of Strip Mine Spoils 32
7 Fly Ash - Spoil Moisture Retention Test Results .... 33
8 Chemical Analysis of Fly Ash Samples 34
9 Fly Ash Neutralization Capacity 37
10 Fly Ash Transportation Cost Estimate 37
11 Estimate of Construction Costs 55
VII
-------
FIGURES
No.
1 Location Map 11
2 Hillman State Park Boundary Map 12
3 Demonstration and Reclamation Project Areas 13
4 Topographic Map (1972) Hillman State Park 14
5 Structural Contour Base of Pittsburgh Coal 16
6 Subwatershed Areas, Principal Streams and Sampling
Stations 19
7 Water Quality Data, Stations 2, 4B and 6 24
8 Water Quality Data, Stations 10, 10A, 12 and 16 ... 25
9 Water Quality Data, Stations 17, 17A and ISA 26
10 Water Quality Data, Stations 32, 35 and 40 27
11 Location of Fly Ash Sources 36
12 pH of Various Spoil - Fly Ash Mixtures . 40
13 pH of Various Spoil - Fly Ash Mixtures 41
14 pH of Various Spoil - Fly Ash Mixtures 42
15 pH of Various Spoil - Fly Ash Mixtures 43
16 pH of Various Spoil - Fly Ash Mixtures 44
17 Fly Ash Application Rate 45
18 Reclamation Design Example 49
Vlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. John Demchalk, Department of Environ-
mental Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania, served as Project Director during
this feasibility study.
Technical assistance on the use of fly ash
as an admixture to spoils was obtained from
Mr. John Capp, U. S. Bureau of Mines,
Morgantown Energy Research Center. Satrapies
of fly ash and information on sources of fly
ash were obtained from Mr. A. W. Babcock,
Ash Consultant of Monongahela Power Company
and Mr. F. R. Sell, Ash Consultant of
Allegheny Power Services Corporation,
Mr. M. Jaworski, Superintendent, Operations
and Maintenance, Duquesne Light Company,
and Mr. E. Paris of Alex E. Paris Contracting
Company, Inc.
Criteria for the continuous monitor were
provided by Messrs. R. B. Scott and R. C.
Wilmoth of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Mine Drainage Control Field Site,
Riversville, West Virginia.
All technical and administrative assistance
received during this project, especially
that of Messrs. R. D. Hill and E. C. Grim
of the Environmental Protection Agency, is
hereby gratefully acknowledged.
IX
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are the opinion of the Consultant. They are
based on the data obtained during Phase I as presented in Section V and
based on the study leading to the project implementation plans presented
in Section VII.
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
Basis: The project is technically feasible on the basis of the following:
The strip mine spoils at the demonstration site contain unoxidized
pyrite material and are therefore capable of producing acid mine
drainage (AMD).
The spoils, because of color, texture and acidity, are detrimental
to the establishment of a cover of grasses and legumes considered
necessary to resist erosion and reduce stream pollution potential.
Fly ash and spoil mixtures are favorable because the acidic materials
in the spoils can be successfully neutralized with a specified fly
ash addition. The moisture retention characteristics of the spoil
will also be improved with the addition of fly ash.
Fly ash is available locally in quantities sufficient to supply the
tonnages needed for the project.
The demonstration project does not require any specialized equipment
for the reclamation work or the placing and mixing of fly ash with
the regraded spoils.
No easement problems are anticipated as the demonstration site is
primarily owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The few adjoin-
ing property owners affected by this project have already signed the
necessary Agreements to perform the work.
The restored land will be used for recreational purposes which is in
agreement with the high priority assigned to the reclamation of
surface-mined land by the Department of the Interior.
The demonstration project will require a large tonnage of fly ash and
thus provides a productive use of this waste by-product of coal-
generated electricity.
-------
IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY
There should be a slight increase of pH that will approximate unpolluted
ground water within the demonstration area as a result of increasing the
pH of the surface spoils by the addition of fly ash. Alkalinity in the
tributaries affected by the demonstration project should increase approxi-
mately to 200 milligrams per liter, sulfates should remain about the same,
and metal ion concentration should decrease somewhat due to their decreased
solubility at the anticipated higher pH levels of the strip mine spoils.
The neutralization of the upper plow depth should result in the establish-
ment of a high survival cover of grasses and legumes which, in turn,
should retard water infiltration into the acidic spoils and reduce
erosion.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Budget for Project Completion: The cost budget ($620,830) in the grant
application is shared between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ($320,830)
and the Environmental Protection Agency ($300,000). The size of the
demonstration area has been expanded to include additional areas for
reclamation and all original costs have increased due to inflation.
However, it is assumed that the Commonwealth can fund the additional
monies required to accomplish this project without increasing the
Environmental Protection Agency's share of the grant application ($300,000).
The estimated cost to accomplish this project is presented in Section VIII
and summarized as follows:
Construction Cost, estimated at: $ 900,000
Engineering Costs, estimated at: $ 66,500
Fly Ash Cost, estimated at: $ 70,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET TO COMPLETE: $1,036,500
Estimated salaries and expenses for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are
not included in the above. The above cost also does not include services
for construction design which is being performed simultaneously with
Phase I of this project under Contract No. SL 130-2-1 with the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania.
Comparable Cost for Limestone: The use of limestone on a comparable basis
of treatment with fly ash would result in an estimated total cost of
$28,480. This is based on a unit cost of $160 per acre ($396 per hectare)
using 5 tons of limestone per acre (11.2 metric tons per hectare) over the
178 acre (72 hectare) site. Although the initial application costs of
limestone may be more economical, the benefits of the limestone on the
acidic spoils may not be as long lasting as the benefits derived from the
use of fly ash. Mixing the large quantities of fly ash with spoil will
increase the pore volume, moisture availability, and the air capacity,
thus improving conditions for root penetration and growth.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the conclusions of the preceding section, the following recom-
mendations are presented to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
PROCEED WITH THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Basis: Proceed with Phase II and Phase III of the demonstration project
on the basis of the following:
The project is technically feasible.
The project can be performed within the estimated cost presented
in Section VIII without requiring the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency to provide additional monies beyond that appropriated in the
original grant application.
The project will improve the water quality draining from the demon-
stration area, produce a more suitable soil cover to encourage grass
and legume vegetation, and utilize an abundant solid waste.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL
Demonstration Project Feasibility Report: This report discusses the
feasibility of performing a "Fly Ash*1 demonstration project in Washington
County, Pennsylvania.
Work on the feasibility portion of the project has been in progress since
April 1, 1974. Initiation of work followed a grant offer from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
on March 15, 1974 and subsequent acceptance of that offer by the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. The grant for the Demonstration Project is
covered under Section 107 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and
is assigned Project No. S-802526.
The total project, scheduled over a three-year period, is broken into
three distinct work phases. Phase I involves a feasibility study, Phase
II includes design and construction operations, and Phase III permits
post-construction evaluation. This report describes results of Phase I
which has been completed.
Acid Mine Drainage Pollution Abatement: Oxidation of the impurities in
the coal and associated coal measure rocks exposed during mining is one
of the major deteriorating effects on the land surface and stream environ-
ment that result from the mining of coal.
Current mining and water quality laws require the states to obtain EPA
discharge permits and submit plans of mining operations directed toward
minimizing the effects of siltation and acid mine drainage pollution
during active mining. Reclamation of strip-mined land can be accomplished
in such a manner that future discharge of acid mine drainage will be
minimal.
Abandoned strip mines are particularly troublesome sources ofe acid mine
drainage (AMD) into streams of coal-producing regions. Determining owner-
ship, fixing responsibility and formulating legislation requiring abate-
ment of abandoned strip mines is difficult or impossible. Usually
pollutants from such sources are truly "orphans."
4
-------
Fly Ash Treatment of Strip Mine Spoils as a Method of Acid Mine Drainage
Pollution Abatement: Various techniques have been developed and demon-
strated for the abatement of acid mine drainage from abandoned strip
mines. Some of the techniques to reduce infiltration of water and air
into the strip mine spoil include: contour and terrace backfilling of
the strip mines; diversion of water on the surface around the strip mine
spoils; and revegetation with various grasses, legumes and trees. How-
ever, the establishment of a vegetative cover on highly acidic strip
mine spoils is difficult and has usually resulted in a low survival rate
for the grasses, legumes, and trees.
The lack of vegetation results in erosion of the spoils; thus, re-exposing
the pyritic material within the strip mine spoils to air and water. The
low survival rate is probably due to the neutralization and leaching of
the alkaline soil additives and re-establishment of the acidic nature of
the spoils. A second major factor contributing to a low survival rate is
the low moisture retention rate for coarse grain strip mine spoils. Treat-
ment of the upper layer (root zone) of the strip mine spoil with pulverized
fuel-fly ash should accomplish the following:
Raise the pH of the spoils to a level which will promote the growth
of plants and legumes.
Add fine grain size material to the coarse grain spoils and thus
increase the moisture retention of the spoils.
Provide alkalinity reservoirs for the surface water percolating
through the spoils. This could result in some additional neutrali-
zation of toxic spoils below the treated depth and also result in
an improvement in the quality of the water discharged from within
the spoils.
Provide a stable vegetative cover that could reduce the movement of
water and oxygen to the pyritic material in the spoils, thus result-
ing in a reduced production of AMD underlying untreated spoil
material.
Provide a productive use for fly ash, which currently has limited
use in comparison with its availability, and creates a disposal
problem.
Requirements for Fly Ash Treatment: The technique of fly ash treatment
of strip mine spoils as a method of acid mine drainage abatement is poten-
tially, applicable to abandoned strip mines in the United States. Regrad-
ing of these abandoned strip mines usually does not involve segregation
of the toxic material from others due to the expense. These regraded
strip mines could contain a surface on which the toxic material is
exposed and the spoil texture is generally coarse grained. Both of
these factors result in low survival rate for grasses and legumes.
Thus, in a short period of time, the bare spoil is subject to erosion
and additional pyritic materials are exposed to air and water resulting
in the production of AMD.
-------
The choice between the use of fly ash and other materials such as slag,
limestone, or fine grained soils to improve the quality of the spoils
should be based on the relative costs and effectiveness of the various
techniques. The feasibility of the use of fly ash as an additive to
the strip mine spoils should depend on transportation costs of the fly
ash to the site and the characteristics of the strip mine spoils. In
addition, the use of fly ash depends upon the "buffer" capacity (lime
equivalent or neutralization potential) of the fly ash and cost to
obtain the fly ash in large quantities. The local producers of fly ash
contacted in the tri-state area (Western Pennsylvania, Northern West
Virginia and Southeastern Ohio) have indicated their willingness to
donate fly ash at the time of this report. However, fly ash could be a
saleable product in a few years.
In addition to the reduction of AMD pollution from strip mines, the use
of fly ash can result in the establishment of a long lasting growth of
grasses or legumes on strip mine spoils and can be considered an aesthetic
benefit. The reduction of siltation is also an added benefit which could
contribute greatly to the re-establishment of the aquatic life in the
streams formerly degraded by AMD and siltation from abandoned strip mines.
The above three requirements are considered applicable to Hillman State
Park.
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
Objectives: The principal objective of this project in the Hillman State
Park area is to demonstrate how fly ash can be used successfully to im-
prove soil conditions, promote long term growth of vegetative cover on
strip-mined reclamation areas, and reduce the production of acid mine
drainage.
The physical, social, and economic problems related to the objective of
the demonstration are itemized as follows:
Most streams in Hillman State Park do not comply with Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania water quality standards.
The park is to serve as a recreation facility for Commonwealth resi-
dents, but the disrupted land area, in addition to the substandard
water quality, makes the region undesirable in many respects from
environmental and aesthetic viewpoints.
The disposal of fly ash, a by-product from coal-fired power plants, is
becoming a serious national disposal problem and uses for large quanti-
ties of this product are actively being sought. At present, better than
30 million tons (27 million metric tons) of fly ash are produced annually,
but only a fraction of this tonnage is utilized effectively. On a broad
scale, the proposed demonstration is directed toward solution of the above
problems. More specifically, the project will consist of selecting a
6
-------
demonstration area, preparing the area to be treated, applying fly ash
to the chosen area, and evaluating results following construction by
comparisons with non-fly ash work areas.
Scope of Work to Date: A pre-feasibility study conducted jointly by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Consultant involved:
Conferring with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Environmental
Protection Agency to discuss the scope of the demonstration and the
selection of the most probable demonstration site.
A review of Hillman State Park Mine Drainage Survey Project SL 130-2,
which was prepared by the Consultant, to determine the suitability of
a portion of the site for the demonstration area.
A review of the literature on the use of fly ash as a soil modifier.
Determining the possible sources of fly ash and the interest of fly
ash producers in such a demonstration project.
Based on the information obtained, an application was submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency for the Demonstration Project Grant by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Following the award to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a grant for a
Demonstration Project, Phase I of the project was undertaken. The purpose
of Phase I was to determine the feasibility of performing the project from
a technical and economical standpoint as indicated in the grant, to obtain
data on which to base detailed construction plans and specifications, and
to establish a program of water quality monitoring. The scope of Phase I
is generalized as follows:
Confer with the U. S. Bureau of Mines, Morgantown, West Virginia to
obtain information and advice on the use of fly ash in reclamation
work.
Obtain samples of the spoil materials in the proposed fly ash treat-
ment areas. Perform chemical analysis tests on spoil, perform labora-
tory tests on combined mixtures of spoil with fly ash to estimate
resultant spoil characteristics and establish tentative fly ash
treatment areas.
Identify possible fly ash sources and obtain samples for chemical
analysis and testing with spoil materials, evaluate the fly ash
transportation costs, and on the basis of cost and laboratory test
results, select a fly ash source for the project.
Recommend a plan for fly ash application and estimation of quantities
and costs for fly ash.
-------
Establish a weekly sampling schedule at the selected water quality
monitoring stations and perform laboratory tests on these samples to
include pH, acidity, alkalinity, total iron, sulfates, aluminum, and
manganese, along with constructing and installing a continuous monitor.
Prepare a report presenting the results of the above investigations
and recommendations on the feasibility of the project.
JURISDICTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Cognizant Authority: This project is being undertaken by the Department
of Environmental Resources of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Legislation: The legislation authorizing the expenditure of funds for
this project is Act 443, the Land and Water Conservation and Reclamation
Act of January 19, 1968, Section 19 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Code.
Contracting Agency: The contracting agency for this project is the
Department of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Administrative Agency: The work under contracts for this project will
be administered by the Department of Environmental Resources of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Water Quality Standards: Water quality standards which regulate discharge
into any of Pennsylvania waters have been established by the Department
of Environmental Resources. Water quality in the streams of Pennsylvania
is regulated under Title 25, Rules and Regulations, Department of
Environmental Resources, as amended, and thus prevents degradation of the
water quality due to future mining or construction operations.
Higher Public Use of Waters: No legislation relative to the higher public
use of water is known to have bearing on the fly ash demonstration project.
Since no dams or impoundments other than the siltation basins are involved,
no permits would be required. No diminishing of the quantity of water
in any project area will occur and thus no riprapian water rights are
involved.
Land Use Standards: No particular land use standards are known to exist
for the general area in which the project site is situated. It is proposed
that the project site is to be returned for use as a public park to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and be under the administration of the Bureau
of State Parks.
*
Site Acquisition: The project site is predominantly owned by the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. Certain portions of the project area, however,
are on private property. The Land Easement Branch of the Department of
Environmental Resources has obtained suitable Agreements of easement to
satisfy the requirements established by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
-------
Funding Authority: The Funding Authority for this project is the Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as
indicated previously in the description of the effecting legislation.
Water and Mineral Rights: No water rights will be affected by the project.
Discharge from the project site enters tributaries which eventually flow
into Raccoon Creek which is located outside of the boundaries of the
Hillman State Park.
Commonwealth Ownership of Land; The ownership or easement of the Project
Land by the Commonwealth o£ Pennsylvania will give control of any future
pollution from the project site to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Existing Mining Laws and Water Quality Standards: The existing mining
laws and water quality standards of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
regulate discharge from future mining activities and these regulations
will effectively control possible future pollution of Hillman State Park
from any new mining operation.
Mining on State Owned Lands: No future mining within the boundaries of
Hillman State Park is anticipated.
-------
SECTION IV
DESCRIPTION OF 1HE PROJECT AREA
LOCATION
Hillman State Park is located in Hanover Township, Washington County,
Pennsylvania. The central portion of the park is situated approximately
20 miles (32 kilometers) west of Pittsburgh and about 8 miles (13 kilo-
meters) east of Weirton, West Virginia (Figure 1).
The park area is located within a region generally bounded by U. S. Route
22, U. S. Route 20 and Pa. Route 18. U. S. Route 22 forms the southern
boundary of the park between the towns of Bavington and Florence. The
total surface area of Hillman State Park is 3,654 acres (1,479 hectares)
or approximately 5.7 square miles (14.8 square kilometers). As indicated
on the Hillman State Park Boundary Map, Figure 2, an approximate 200 acre
(80 hectares) tract of land within the central portion of the park is
privately owned.
SITE
The demonstration project area is in the northwestern section of the park
and encompasses approximately 340 acres (138 hectares) of subwatersheds
which are isolated and not surface drained by the local streams. These
undrained subwatersheds trap surface runoff water which subsequently
filters through the spoils reaching the bottom coal elevation and even-
tually moves along the coal structure discharing as AMD at downdip loca-
tions. Regrading will be required on approximately 180 acres (73 hectares)
in order to provide positive surface drainage of these 340 acres (138
hectares) of undrained land within the demonstration area. The relation-
ship of the demonstration area to other reclamation areas of the park is
shown on Figure 3.
TOPOGRAPHY
Essentially all of the Pittsburgh coal reserve has been removed from the
Hillman State Park area by surface mining methods. No highwalls exist
since most hills were removed or covered in total during the stripping
operations. Although most areas of the park region were reclaimed during
mining, the natural topography of much of the area has been significantly
altered. As a result, large land areas are not adequately drained. The
current landscape appears to have been "area" mined as might normally be
the case in many western regions of the United States. In this respect,
the Hillman area is unique to Western Pennsylvania or the Appalachian
10
-------
10 li W MILES
SCALE
FIGURE I
11
-------
FIGURE 2 HILLMAN STATE PARK BOUNDARY MAP
-------
LEGE NO
FIGURE 3 DEMONSTRATION AND RECLAMATION PROJECT AREAS
MMICT
LIM- fl.l*
MCUUUfTMH MMKCT
i iM-t-i.*'
SL OO-fl.4
FLY ASH OEMONSTHATION SITE
SL 130-2- LIB
-------
I
FIGURE 4 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP(197^ HILLMAN STATEj PARK
-------
Region where contour mining is a usual situation. The existing topography
as of 1972 is shown on Figure 4. The topography outside of the demonstra-
tion area has been altered recently because of abatement project construc-
tion performed under Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Projects SL 130-2-1.1A,
SL 130-2-1.3 and SL 130-2-1.4. Hillman State Park is considered an ideal
demonstration area in that the large majority of the work area is owned
by the Commonwealth and no difficulties in dealing with private owners
are anticipated. Also, the absence of deep mines in the park area pro-
vides an opportunity to evaluate surface reclamation techniques without
the problems of identification and analysis that are often encountered
in combined surface and deep mined areas.
GEOLOGY
Hillman State Park is contained within the geologic province known as the
Appalachian Plateau. This province is characterized by essentially flat-
lying strata whose regularity is broken by low, broad folds. The West
Middletown Syncline is the fold which most predominantly affects the local
geology of the Hillman area. The north trending axis of the syncline
crosses below the eastern edge of the park near Bavington, Pennsylvania.
The closure of the syncline just to the northeast of the park results in
a basin-like structure within the main park area. This condition is evi-
dent by noting the circular pattern formed by the Pittsburgh Coal struc-
tural contours. Figure 5 shows the structure contours on the base of the
Pittsburgh Coal as interpreted from U.S.G.S. Geologic Atlas.
The bedrock strata exposed over various portions of Hillman State Park
are members of the Conemaugh and Monongahela Formations of Pennsylvanian
Age. The total stratigraphic thickness exposed is on the order of 400 feet
(122 meters). All of the strata are sedimentary in origin. The Conemaugh
and Monongahela Formations are comprised principally of shales and sand-
stones, but also contain prominent limestones and coal horizons. The more
important strata are the Pittsburgh Sandstone (actually sequences of shale
and sandstone), the Pittsburgh Coal, the Pittsburgh Limestone (actually
sequences of limestone and shale), the Connellsville Sandstone and the
Morgantown Sandstone. The homogeneous nature of the bedrock overlying the
Pittsburgh Coal has, however, been significantly altered by surface mining
methods and the natural strata sequence above the Pittsburgh Coal now
occurs only in areas where surface mining was not performed.
Strip mine backfill forms the soil cover over most of the higher eleva-
tions of Hillman State Park. This backfill cover consists principally of
shale, claystone and limestone rock fragments and limited amounts of silt
and clay. Residual soils (sands, clays and silts) formed by the weather-
ing of underlying bedrock strata are the predominant soil types found
along most valley slopes below the Pittsburgh Coal elevation. Alluvial,
or stream deposited, clays and silts are the principal soil types present
along the low, broad stream valley of Brush Run.
15
-------
TIIUCTUIK CONTOUR AT 0AM
OP PITTSOUMN COAL MAH.
(DM ffMUM* «MM«lt ANMt
STRUCTURAL CONTOURS
FIGURE 5 STRUCTURAL CONTOUR BASE OF PITTSBURGH COAL
-------
MINING HISTORY
Mining of the Pittsburgh Coal seam on the now Hillman State Park property
was performed over better than a 50 year period.
Strip mining over small areas of the Hillman property was first initiated
in 1914 by John A. Bell. In the early 1920's, J. R. Elec operated a small
country deep mine along the northern edge of U. S. Route 22. This opera-
tion, covering an area of about 17 acres (7 hectares), is the only known
mapped deep mine located inside the park boundaries. The Harmon Creek
Coal Corporation purchased the majority of the Hillman Park property
between the years 1935 and 1940. The Harmon operations began on a large
scale in 1937 with the purchase of a 15 cubic yard (11.5 cubic meter)
shovel.
Strip mining in the area moved at a significant pace during World War II.
To help ease coal shortages during this period, the Harmon Creek Coal
Corporation permitted a number of small coal contractors to strip mine in
the area on a royalty basis. These smaller operators normally stripped
horizontal distances of 25 to 40 feet (7.5 to 12 meters) into the hill-
sides . Harmon subsequently stripped the hilltops beyond these points.
Mining of the Hillman property continued after World War II when properties
within the village of Five Points were purchased and the entire village
area was strip mined. A 12 cubic yard (9.2 cubic meter) dragline, pur-
chased in 1954, facilitated coal removal during these later years. Auger
mining was performed in certain limited areas. Forty-two inch (106.7
centimeter) augers were used and auger holes generally ranged from 20 to
180 feet (6 to 55 meters) in depth. Mining operations were finally com-
pleted in 1966.
It is estimated that approximately 94% of the coal obtained from the
Hillman Park property was removed by the surface stripping method. Auger-
ing and the early deep mining operation accounts for the additional 61 of
coal removed. An estimate of the total amount of coal removed from the
Hillman State Park property would range in the neighborhood of 15 million
tons (13-1/2 million metric tons) or 98% of the estimated coal reserve
initially in place. Coal remains in place in only a few isolated areas
of Hillman State Park. The estimated remaining reserve, contained for
the most part under three unmined hilltops, is 300,000 tons (272,000
metric tons). The amount of vertical overburden above this coal generally
varies from 50 to 130 feet (15 to 40 meters). The total volume of over-
burden covering the 300,000 tons (272,000 metric tons) of coal is esti-
mated to be close to 4 million cubic yards (3 million cubic meters).
17
-------
SECTION V
DATA OBTAINED DURING PHASE I
The following sections present the data obtained during Phase I and
indicate the method of obtaining these data:
WATER QUALITY STUDY
Demonstration Site: The subwatersheds to be included in the demonstration
project were selected from an area scheduled for reclamation and are shown
on Figure 6, which is a map of Hillman State Park showing the principal
undrained subwatersheds and streams of the park area. The new established
flow pattern for surface water from the undrained subwatersheds was plotted
from a review of completed and proposed construction plans. Sample
collection and flow measurements sites were selected. These stations were
selected to reflect changes in water quality in the stream which occur
prior to, during, and after the demonstration project. The locations
of the sample stations are also shown on Figure 6.
Previous Water Quality Data: Water quality data for the Hillman State
Park was obtained from Hillman State Park Mine Drainage Survey SL 130-2,
dated April 14, 1972. This survey identified 24 sources of acid mine
drainage; 8 of which were considered major sources. A major source in the
Hillman State Park Mine Drainage Survey is designated as one which, on the
average, contributes a net load of more than 350 pounds (160 kilograms) of
acid per day to a receiving stream (net acid load equals acid load minus
alkaline load). The locations of the previous sample points are shown on
Figure 6.
Phase I Monitoring: The sampling stations at which routine samples were
obtained are shown on Figure 6. The relationship of these sampling
stations to the previously established sample locations is given in Table 1.
The purpose of each station is also explained in Table 1.
Weirs were constructed at all sampling stations except Station 17A. Com-
pound weirs were installed at all stations except Station 35 where a 6 foot
(1.83 meter) rectangular weir was installed. No difficulty was encountered
with the installation or maintenance of these weirs during the period of
this study.
Samples were collected and flow measurements were taken weekly at each
station commencing in mid-June, 1974. Water samples were collected in poly-
ethylene plastic bottles. One large and one small water sample was obtained.
18
-------
L E E N 0
ID
| nymk OnwwtrMfatSIM
SLISO-2-l.il
FLOW FROM RECLAMED
:''-*?
> OLD SAMFLIIM STATION
40 NEW SAMPLINS STATION (WtIR)
FIGURE 6 SUBWATERSHEO AREAS, PRINCIPAL STREAMS a SAMPLING STATIONS
-------
TABLE 1. PHASE I - WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS
STATION
NUMBER
PURPOSE
PREVIOUS WATER QUALITY
DATA AVAILABLE
tsj
O
2 Evaluate the water quality data in Hogs Run as it
would be affected by the construction project
SL 130-2-1.4
4B Evaluate the dilution effect that the construction
of Projects SL 130-2-1.1A and SL 130-2-1.3 has on
Dilloe Run which is also affected by AMD flows
outside of Hillman State Park
6 Evaluate the water quality resulting from the
construction in Subwatershed 3-12
10 Evaluate the water quality as it would be affected
by the construction in Subwatershed 3-11, Project
SL 130-2-1.3
10A Evaluate the water quality as it would be affected
by the construction in Subwatersheds 1-16, 1-17,
andia portion of 1-18 plus the subwatersheds
monitored by Station 12
12 Evaluate the water quality as it would be affected
by the construction in Project SL 130-2-1.1A
9 monthly readings from November,
1970 to July, 1971
New station. Previous water
quality data from Stations 4 and
4A consists of 3 monthly readings,
January, 1971 to March, 1971
14 monthly readings from July,
1970 to July, 1971
14 monthly readings from July,
1970 to July, 1971
New station
12 monthly readings from October,
1970 to July, 1971
-------
Table 1 - continued
STATION
NUMBER
PURPOSE
PREVIOUS WATER QUALITY
DATA AVAILABLE
16 , Evaluate the changes in the water quality as a
result of the construction in areas northwest of
this station. This station will only monitor a
source of subsurface drainage as reclamation
construction to the northwest will not provide
additional surface flow to this station
17 Evaluate the water quality as it would be affected
by the construction in Subwatersheds 1-12 and 1-15
of the demonstration area
17A Evaluate the water quality data as it would be
affected by the construction in the demonstration
area, including Subwatersheds 1-20, 1-14, 1-18,
and a portion of 1-29 plus the subwatershed
monitored by Stations 17 and ISA
ISA Evaluate water quality as it would be affected by
the construction in Subwatersheds 1-1, 1-16, 1-13
and a portion of Subwatershed 1-29 of the demon-
stration area
32 Evaluate the water quality further downstream from
the demonstration area at the mouth of this sub-
tributary and compare it to the upstream water
quality from Station 17A
14 monthly readings from July,
1970 to July, 1971
14 monthly readings from July,
1970 through July, 1971
10 monthly readings from October,
1970 to July, 1971
New station. Previous data
available from Stations 18, 19
and 19A
9 monthly readings from December,
1970 to July, 1971
-------
Table 1 - continued
STATION
NUMBER
PURPOSE
PREVIOUS WATER QUALITY
DATA AVAILABLE
35 Evaluate the dilution effect that the construction
of Projects SL 130-2-1.1A and SL 130-2-1.3 has on
Dilloe Run which is also affected by AMD flows
outside of Hillman State Park
40 Evaluate the water quality at the mouth of this
tributary. This will determine the effect of
construction in Subwatersheds 1-22, 3-14, 3-16,
3-17 and 3-18
New station. This station is
also now a stream reading for
Raccoon Creek Study, SL 130-7
4 monthly readings from February,
1971 to May, 1971
N>
to
-------
The small water sample was acidified in the field. Analyses performed on
the samples from each station included pH (field and laboratory), acidity,
alkalinity, iron, sulfate, aluminum and manganese.
Results of Phase I Monitoring: The results of the water quality data for
each individual station are presented in the Appendix of this report.
Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10 show graphically the Phase I water quality compared
to the previous data reported in the Hillman State Park Mine Drainage
Survey SL 130-2 dated April 14, 1972. The Consultant's interpretation of
the water quality data is summarized on Table 2. The status of construc-
tion for each pollution abatement project either under construction or
proposed is also shown on Table 2.
Summary of Pollution Load Data; Comparison of the water quality data
graphically shown on Figures 7 through 10 indicates the majority of streams
have increased in pH and decreased in acid load. This is basically thought
to be the result of construction on the various pollution abatement projects,
However, comparison of the data from May, June and July, 1971, to August
and September, 1974 indicates the streams in both years, 1971 and 1974,
showed an increasing trend in pH and a decrease in net acid load during
this period of the year. The converse trend is apparent during the winter
months. Therefore, the sampling during the winter months of 1974-1975 will
be necessary to complete the analysis of the effect of construction of
the abatement project on the water quality of Hillman State Park streams.
STRIP MINE SPOIL
Sample Collection and Laboratory Testing: Sixteen pound bag samples of
the strip mine spoil were collected at various locations in the demon-
stration areas. Each bag sample contained about 15 pounds (6.8 kilograms)
of spoil material obtained from a test pit. The depth of the test pits
varied, but were approximately 2 feet (.6 meters) in depth. These shallow
in depth surface samples were considered to be representative of the non-
homogeneous spoil material which would be exposed on the finished grades
as based on our review of the previous construction projects in Hillman
State Park. In depth subsurface sampling of the spoils was considered
economically non-feasible for this project. The following laboratory
tests were performed on the samples of the strip mine spoils:
Laboratory pH All Samples
Mechanical Analysis Samples 1, 4, 9, 13
Limestone and Fertilizer Requirements Samples 1, 4, 6, 7, 9,
12, 13, 14, 15
Chemical Analysis and Moisture Retention Samples 4 and 7
The results of this testing program are reported in the following sections
of this report.
23
-------
10
t
4
S
t
1
1 I !
S
" ,
V"
\
\
j |
V
\
i
t
f
9
'-
\
\
\
>
;
*'
i
»
/
: s »
r a ;
,
/
/
j£
's
: f
t >
1 t>
.
.*
i
>*
1
«
5 !
»*
=£
*^
>
A f tft^P* A *^l f\ fel ^ fc
;
IIOO J
00 rf
400 g
[ I I 5 i -
ttW 1.0*0 LB/OAY
t«00
k j
>'
<
t i
"*^
) :
?fl|
\
»*
/
* *
".
\
\
i
. J
/
/
/
| *
M
',
, s
\
Jf-i
...'
»L*j
'.
£
»*.-
i i
f
i
.
j
00 .
400 i
X
STATION 6
J
s
f S
i i
Ik"-
>
£ .
' a :
s
f
',
1
1
!
: * 5 £ 5
:««
t
/
*
i
t
\
\
ry
*1
C C
» 1
/
^N
»
<
! < i
t ^ .
^
\
\ 1
s
'
JBk.
It00|
"3
Avo/n 9tcr\ oi9» i»
Mill!
w STATION 4B
HHM LO/O*T » Kt/On t HULTI^IV BY 0.4BM
FIGURE 7 WATER QUALITY DATA, STATIONS 2,4Bond6
24
-------
IO
B
*
4
I
1
w
t
t
a
10
T-
B
4
1
i
i
* a
i-'"1
§ !
£ '
p
f
s = a :
\
i 1
\
\'"\
\
\
\
\
(
i!
s
>
/
: M
.,,
^;
fc.
\
\ ,
\'
t i
i i
\..
\
\
£-
3
y
^...
^M
f#-
STATION
f
i $ i 55
Ift
k.
t
a«*
?^
^,
^ * *
^
10
: !
- '1
STA
a
! 1
> i
"*
i
r,7-
.'"'
rion
i i
K>
i i - i i
) (
i'l;
9TA
-'
'KM
*
to/
1
IOA
t t 2
12
i M .
*^
-.
,*
»
^f
> I
--
'***«
000 3
»J
.»
400
.00 1
00 ^
II
^^w ^
WMtt 7
.J
- 1
ItOO
2
J
:i
4M
.1
L.I
STATION 16
i* OMvtir nwoi i.»/ta» ID /* . MH.TIM.V «r *.4tM
FIGURE 8 WATER QUALITY DATA , STATIONS 10, K>A, 12 ond 16
25
-------
g
4
i
i
:j
.
**
S
' t
> '4
t
\
-V
>
I
y
\
t a
"'X
\
«
f
<
J
/*
H
/*
y
: f
» 5
;.*
: 1
J S
ij
J
^
...
! 2
r J
I
^
cr-
«
»
j
1
,6
',',', ^
|
110 5
l'»
STATION 17
t
4
S
t
1
t
^
1
M
V
>
S
*
S
\
\
\
1 § 1
i
\
\
I i
,tti
, |
r,..*
i
*
^i
i i ! i
k
i \
i
i
i
t
I
I
,x*
~T
1
1
1
1
|
f
1
I/
*
1
i
1
*
1
» 1 !
..«
[ §
***
oo 3
400 *
-i
rJ
MOO
I gSTATJON 17 A
f f.
^
0
0
t
1
Ik Jj 1
«
«. <
: i
i '
; i i
rs
«
SI
a N
; :
M
-"
1
t ;
5S
L«
^ ;
^ra
tl
*
i
p
2a
. 1
^
f 5 5
MM
j
'"I
ri
Mwfi
STATION ISA
Lk/Mf TO /f , IIV1.TM.T » 0,4MB
FIGURE 9 WATER QUALITY DATA , STATIONS !7,l7A,ond ISA
26
-------
i
i
<
V
\
\
»
»
\
\
%
1
5 $
w>»'
» **
i
r
/
*L
i S
«
hi *
i
i
f
i
i i
s
*T-
e-
»
i
s
1 i
\
V
i
**<
( i
y
, !
X
!
Mil
III 1
.1
4M
ml
MM!
.,..&
' STATION 92
i
I <
«-
I
'*
t »
i i i
1
f |
">!
1 1
.-*
, 5
r*r
-..!
1
H9 <
i
,1
-1
Zi
!!Ii
STATION 95
i
a
j ^
MM(
.1
I
STATION 4O
FIGURE 10 WATER QUALITY DATA , STATIONS 32 , 35 and 40
27
-------
TABLE 2. PHASE I - WATER QUALITY SUMMARY: JUNE-SEPTEMBER, 1974
STATION STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION WATER QUALITY SttMARY
NUMBER AFFECTING SAMPLING STATIONS AND COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS DATA
2 Project SL 130-2-1.4 pH now above 7. Stream net alkaline*
Completed
4B Projects SL 130-2-1.1A and pH still below 7. Stream net acid load; however,
SL 130-2-1.3 Completed acid load much less
6 Project SL 130-2-1.3 pH above 7. Stream net alkaline; similar trend
Completed also shown in April-June, 1971, prior to any
construction
10 Demonstration Portion Under Average pH, 1971, about 5. Average pH, 1974, about 7,
Design. Project SL 130-2-1.1A Net acid stream 1971. Lowest acid loads May, July,
Completed. Project SL 130-2-1.3 1971. Lower acid load in 1974*
Under Construction
10A Demonstration Portion Under New Station
Design. Project SL 130-2-1.1A
Completed
12 * Project SL 130-2-1.1A Completed Average pH in 1971 was 4.6. pH now about 7. Stream
acid load much less
16 Demonstration Portion Under pH still below 7; however, slightly higher in 1974.
Design Stream now net alkaline
-------
Table 2 - continued
STATION STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION
NUMBER AFFECTING SAMPLING STATIONS
WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
AND COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS DATA
N)
ID
17
17A
ISA
32
35
40
Demonstration Project
Under Design
Demonstration Project
Under Design
Demonstration Project
Under Design
Demonstration Project
Under Design
Projects SL 130-2-1.1A
and SL 130-2-1.3 Completed
Demonstration Portion Under
Design. Project SL 130-2-1.1A
Completed. Project SL 130-2-1.3
Under Construction
Average pH 1971 was above 5 to less than 7.
Average pH 1974 was 6.8 to 7.3. Stream slightly
acidic August, 1970 through January, 1971. Highly
acidic February, 1971 through June, 1971. Trend
in 1974 seems the .same.
Average pH 1971 was about 6. pH 1974 slightly
above 7.
Average pH 1971 was about 6. pH 1974 slightly
above 7
Average pH 1971 between 6.0 and 7.0. Stream
alkaline in June and July, 1971. Shows same trend
in 1974.*
pH now above 7. Stream net alkaline.
Average pH 1971 about 5. Average pH 1974 about 7.
Net acid stream 1971. Lowest acid loads May, July,
1971. Lower acid in 1974.*
*Based on previous 4 month data; stream was alkaline during this same period of the year, 1971.
However, stream was acid from November, 1970 through June, 1971.
-------
Spoil pH; The strip mine spoil materials exposed at or near the surface
within the demonstration area are variable and range from pH 2.6 to pll
8.2. The results of the laboratory pH tests are shown on Table 3.
TABLE 3 - SPOIL pH
Sample
Number
1
2
3
4
PH
3.9
2.6
8.1
3.0
Sample
Number
5
6
7
8
pH
3.5
7.7
5.4
7.7
Sample
Number
9
10
11
12
pH
4.3
4.2
3.1
7.4
Sample
Number
13
14
15
16
pH
4.4
7.8
3.7
8.0
Mechanical Analysis: Mechanical analyses tests were performed on selected
samples to establish the grain size distribution of the strip mine spoils.
The grain size analysis does not include any boulder size material as
boulders were disgarded during sample collection and those in excess of
1 foot (0.3 meters) will be specified for removal from the upper 1 foot
(0.3 meters) of the finished surface during construction. The soil classi-
fications, based on the test results, are shown on Table 4. Although the
soil texture classification indicates that the materials are loams and
silt loams, the mechanical analysis clearly indicates the presence of 40
to 50 percent gravel size pieces (retained on the No. 10 sieve or greater
than 2 millimeters) of rock, shale or coal in the overall sample.
TABLE 4 - MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SOIL CLASSIFICATION OF SPOILS
Percent Passing U. S.
Sample
Number
1
4
9
13
Unified Soil
Classification
Group Symbolsa
GM - GC
SM - SC
SM - SC
SM - SC
Standard Sieve
USDA Texture
Classification
Loam
Loam
Loam
Silt Loam
#10
(2.0 mm)
59
50
58
59
#40
(0.4 mm)
44
40
42
49
Size
#200
(0.7 urn)
35
31
33
43
Typical Names of group symbols;
GM - Silty Gravels
GC - Clayey Gravels
SM - Silty Sands
SC - Clayey Sands
30
-------
Limestone and Fertilizer Requirements: Limestone and fertilizer require-
ment tests were performed by the Pennsylvania State University, College
of Agriculture. The sample tests and the crop requirements were selected
by the Consultant based on the results of the pH tests and the proposed use
of the demonstration area. The two crop categories selected were crown
vetch and grass hay. The results of the testing indicated that the lime-
stone application rate varied from zero in the higher pH soils to 10,000
pounds per acre (11,200 kilograms/hectare) in the low pH soils. The lime-
stone requirements for a plow depth of 6 inches (15.2 centimeters) are
shown on Table 5.
TABLE 5 - SPOIL LIMESTONE REQUIREMENTS*
Sample
Number
1
4
6
7
9
12
13
pH
Soil
3.9
3.0
7.7
5.4
4.3
7.4
4.4
pH
Buffer
6.0
6.0
7.0
6.4
6.0
7.0
6.0
Crop
Crown Vetch
Grass Hay
Grass Hay
Grass Hay
Grass Hay
Grass Hay
Crown Vetch
Tons of Limestone
per Acreb
5
5
None
3
5
None
5
a For a blow depth of 6 inches (15.2 centimeters).
b To convert from tons per acre to metric tons per hectare, multiply by 2.24,
Chemical Analysis: Chemical analyses were performed on two samples
(Sample Nos. 4 and 7) of the spoil material from the demonstration site.
The results of these tests were compared with the analysis performed on
spoils from the Stewartstown, West Virginia, site where fly ash treatment
was demonstrated on small acre plots by the U. S. Bureau of Mines. The
comparison is shown on Table 6. The chemical analysis data on the spoil
material prior to the fly ash application at the Stewartstown site was
obtained from Mr. John Capp, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Morgantown, West
Virginia. The test results indicated that the strip mine spoils from the
Hillman Park Demonstration site compare favorably to those strip mine
spoils at the Stewartstown, West Virginia, site.
31
-------
TABLE 6 - CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF STRIP MINE SPOILS
Constituent
A1203
Si02
Fe203
P205
Ti02
CaO
MgO
K^
Na^
so3
C02
Percent by Weight
Sample #4
25
60
7
1
1
NRb
NR
NR
3
1
1
Sample #7
23
58
9
1
1
1
2
4
NR
1
1
Stewartstown, W. Va.a
15.8
73.2
6.6
.1
.4
.3
.3
2.9
.3
NR
NR
a Source of Data: L. M. Adams, J. P. Capp and D. VI. Gillmore, Bureau of
Mines Department of Interior, Morgantown Energy Research Center,
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505.
Coal Mine Spoil and Refuse Bank Reclamation with Power Plant Fly Ash,
Third Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, March, 1972.
b NR - Not Reported
Moisture Retention: The percentage of water held by different soils varies
with texture, structural features, organic matter content, and the like.
Four samples of the spoil, together with two fly ash source samples, were
sent to the University of West Virginia for determining the capacity of the
spoil (mixed at various percentages with fly ash) to retain moisture against
given tensions. The results of the moisture retention tests performed on
the various combinations of fly ash^strip mine spoil material passing the
1/4 inch wide sieve (6.35 millimeters) are shown on Table 7. The 1/3 bar
column and 15 bar column indicate the moisture equivalent or water retained
in an air-dried screened sample that is saturated and brought to eqiulibrium
on a porous plate at a suction of 1/3 bar and 15 bar, respectively. (1 bar
equals 14.5 pounds per square inch or .987 atmospheres). The 1/3 bar reten-
tivity was chosen to insure a better correlation with texture and is con-
sidered by some soil scientists as the "field capacity" or percentage of
moisture in the soil after drainage has ceased and after capillary adjust-
ments have taken place. Because the 15 bar retentivity is considered by
some soil scientists as the "wilting point" or the maximum percentage of
moisture possible for plants to withdraw, it was chosen as the other-para-
meter. The column which represents the difference between the 1/3 bar and
the 15 bar is the measure used to illustrate the percentage of water retain-
ed in a soil between the field capacity and the wilting point and is custom-
arily referred to by some soil scientists as the amount of plant available
water or the range of available water.
32
-------
These test results indicate that the moisture retention of three of the
four strip mine spoils at 1/3 bar can be increased with the addition of a
minimum of 20% fly ash. The test results also indicate there is a differ-
ence in the moisture retention characteristics of the fly ash. The
difference is due to the variations in the particle size distribution of
the fly ash.
The results of the moisture retention tests at 15 bars pressure indicate
that less moisture is retained in the strip mine spoils treated with fly
ash as compared to the non-treated strip mine spoil. Therefore, the fly
ash treated strip mine spoil can release more moisture than untreated strip
mine spoil. The moisture content at 15 bars is highly correlated with soil
texture and therefore the addition of fly ash to the strip mine spoils
indicated a resulting textural change from a spoil with a heavy texture
(more clay size particles) to a spoil which has a coarse texture (more silt
and sand size particles).
TABLE 7 - FLY ASH - SPOIL MOISTURE RETENTION TEST RESULTS
Percent Moisture Retention
Strip Mine Percent of Fort Martin Fly Ash Elrama Fly Ash
Spoil No. Fly Ash 1/3 Bar* 15 Bar &b 1/3 Bar 15 Bar
4
4
4
4
7
7
7
7
13
13
13
13
15
15
15
15
Fly Ash
0
20
30
40
0
20
30
40
0
20
30
40
0
20
30
40
100
21.95
20.98
21.61
23.54
15.49
17.74
19.88
19.37
16.91
18.18
19.95
22.53
16.27
19.84
20.68
20.88
36.78
11.61
9.36
8.66
7.81
7.82
6.85
6.20
5.80
9.25
7.
7.
91
24
7.54
6.66
5.97
5.62
10.34
11.35
12.95
15.73
7.67
10.89
13.68
13.57
7.66
10.27
12.71
6.58 15.95
8.73
13.18
14.71
15.26
2.92 33.86
21.95 11.61 10.34
19.92 9.72 10.20
20.65 8.71 11.94
21.10 7.93 13.17
15.49 7.82 7.67
17.92 6.57 11.35
18.91 6.04 12.87
21.31 5.40 15.91
16.91 9.25 7.66
18.85 7.76 11.09
19.35 7.16 12.19
21.11 6.55 14.56
16.27 7.54 8.73
17.79 6.60 11.19
18.17 5.96 12.21
19.80 5.73 14.07
25.44 3.57 21.87
a Bar equals 14.5 pounds per square inch (.987 atmospheres)
b A equals the difference in percent moisture retained between 1/3 and 15 Bar
33
-------
TABLE 8 - CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF FLY ASH SAMPLES
Sample Nos.
Constituents
Sulfur Trioxide (SOs)
Carbon Dioxide (CO?)
Phosphorus Pentoxide (P20s)
Silica (Si02)
Potassium Oxide (K20)
Iron Oxide (Fe^)
Aluminum Oxide (AL20s)
Calcium Oxide (CaO)
Magnesium Oxide (MgO)
Sodium Oxide (Na20)
Ignition Loss @ 90QOC
Loss e 1500C
pH of 50% Slurry
1
0
28
5
0
0
4
0
10
.2
.4
.6
.9
.7
.9
.1%
.2
2
0
0
51
2
11
26
3
1
0
2
0
9
.2
.4
.7
.3
.7
.5
.5
.0
.7
.6
.2%
.7
3
0
0
51
2
13
26
2
0
0
2
0
10
.2
.4
.6
.3
.7
.4
.7
.9
.6
.0
.2%
.2
4
0.1
0.4
51.0
2.5
15.7
26.5
1.4
0.8
0.3
2.7
0.1%
10.5
5
0.8
0.3
51.0
0.3
12.4
31.1
1.9
0.7
0.5
5.0
-
10.7
6
0
0
52
0
12
31
2
0
1
11
10
.8
.3
.6
.3
.0
.4
.0
.5
.1
.0
-
.1
7
1
1
1
51
2
16
26
--
1
--
4
--
""
Sample 1: West Penn Power Company, Mitchell Power Station, No. 33 Boiler
Operation at 296 Megawatts.
Sample 2; Monongahela Power Company, Fort Martin Power Station, No. 1
Output, 515 Megawatts.
Sample 3; Allegheny Power Service Corporation, Hatfield Power Station,
No. 2 Boiler, 485 Megawatts.
Sample 4: Allegheny Power Service Corporation, Albright Power Station,
No. 3 Boiler, 120 Megawatts
Sample 5: Duquesne Light Company, Elrama Station, Composite of Minus 60..
Mesh Samples Over 2 to 4 Week Period (1969) When As Fired Coal
Could Be Well Defined.
Sample 6: Duquesne Light Company, Phillips Station, Composite of Minus
60 Mesh Samples Over a 2 to 4 Week Period (1969) When As Fired
Coal Could Be Well Defined.
Sample 7; Beaver Valley Plant, Arco/Polymers, Inc.
34
-------
ELY ASH
Availability: Seven coal fired electric generation stations are located
within a 75 mile radius of the demonstration site. The locations of these
stations are shown on Figure 11. Representatives of the Monongahela Power
Company, Allegheny Power Service Corporation, and Duquesne Light Company
and Arco-Polymer, Inc. were contacted as to the availability of the pulver-
ized fuel fly ash. It was the general consensus of all representatives
contacted that sufficient fly ash was available for the demonstration
project. Advance shipment notices and tonnage requirement, however, would
have to be projected in order to facilitate delivery.
Stockpiling of fly ash at the demonstration area will probably be required
to provide the quantity of fly ash necessary for complete application with-
in a short period of time. The amount of stockpiling can be minimized if
the contractor treats individual work areas as the grading is completed.
Several areas will be designated as possible fly ash storage areas on the
construction contract drawings. It will be the responsibility of the
Contractor to determine fly ash tonnage delivery rates. The Contractor's
responsibility will also include all liaison with the Power Utility Compan-
ies supplying the fly ash.
Chemical Analysis of Fly Ash: The chemical analyses of fly ash shown on
Table 8 were provided by the local electric utility companies and a private
power generation station. The results of the analyses indicate that the
fly ash from the various sources are similar in composition and pH.
Fly Ash Neutralization Capacity: Fly ash, although it is not extremely
variable in chemical composition, does vary in its capacity to neutralize
acidic strip mine spoils. Therefore, one of the criteria in the economic
selection of a fly ash source will be the capacity of the fly ash to
neutralize the strip mine spoils and the subsequent application rate
amount required. Fly ash from 6 local power generation stations was
tested to determine the neutralization capacity of each of the fly ash
samples. Neutralization capacity, as used in this report is defined as
the ability of fly ash to neutralize acidic strip mine spoils as expressed
in milliequivalents of standardized acid required to lower the pH of 1 gram
of fly ash to pH 7. The neutralization capacity of the fly ash sample was
determined by the procedure of titrating a solution of 2 grams of fly ash
and 50 milliliters of distilled water to a pH of 5.8 with .02 N H2S04 daily
for a total period of seven days. The neutralization capacity was calcula-
ted from the volume of acid consumed by each sample over all seven titra-
tions, and expressed as milliequivalent of H?0+ per 100 grams fly ash.
The results of the tests are shown on Table 9.
Transportation Cost Analysis and Permits: Transportation costs from the
various power stations were developed using data supplied by various
trucking companies and the utility companies. The distance from the
demonstration site to the various utilities is shown on Figure 11. The
estimated transportation costs from the various fly ash sources is shown
on Table 10.
35
-------
POWER STATION
NAME
DISTANCE IN
MILES TO SITE
IN Km.
' (I) Fronk R. Phillips ............. 15 ......... 24.1
(2) Elromo ................ 37 ......... 59.5
\ (S)Mitchtll ................. -35 ........... 56.3
(4) Hotfitld's F«rry ------ ..... 66.- ..... 106.2
(5) Fort Mortin- ...... ........... 77 ..... _. 123.9
(6) Albright NOT CONSIDERED
(?) Arco -Polymer ____________ 30 ------ 48.0
FIGURE II LOCATION OF FLY ASH SOURCES
36
-------
TABLE 9 - FLY ASH NEUTRALIZATION CAPACITY*
Fly Ash
Source
Mitchell
Hatfield Ferry
Fort Martin
Arco- Polymer
Elrama
Phillips
Albright
Initial
PH
10.6
9.1
9.1
9.0
9.7
9.0
7.5
Neutralization
Capacity"
45
21
19
6
4
3
1
Equivalent Tons
Per Acrec
1
2
2
8
11
15
a Symposium of Fly Ash Utilization, 2nd., Pittsburgh, 1970 (U. S. Bureau
of Mines, Information Circular 8488, Page 310)
Expressed as milliquivalents of HsCH- per 100 grams fly ash.
c To convert tons per acre to metric tons per hectare , multiply by 2 . 2416 ,
TABLE 10 - FLY ASH TRANSPORTATION COST ESTIMATE
Power Station
Source
Phillips
Arco- Polymer
Mitchell
Elrama
Hat field- Ferry
Fort Martin
Albright
Approximate Distance
Miles (Kilometers)
15
30
35
37
66
77
Not
of
(24)
(48)
(56)
(60)
(106)
(124)
Considered Because
the Fly Ash
Transportation Total Costb
Costsa Tons Per Ton
$1.48
$2.53
$2.88
$3.02
$5.05
$5.82
of Low Neutralization
$1.73
$2.78
$3.13
$3.27
$5.30
$6.07
Capacity
a Based on $0.50 per ton (.9 metric ton) for the first mile (1.6 kilometers)
and $0.07 for each additional mile (1.6 kilometers)
b Assumes a $0.25 per ton (.9 metric ton) charge which may be requested by
Utility Company
NOTE: To convert cost/ton to cost/metric ton, multiply by 0.9072.
37
-------
The transportation costs were based on:
Dump trucks using tarpaulin for dust prevention.
Hauling rates based on ton/mileage (one-way distance)
Transportation of the fly ash is governed under the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) and Federal Government
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). PUC regulates shipment within the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania whereas the ICC regulates shipment across
state lines. Release of the fly ash of certain utility companies may
require permission from the local governing body of Hanover Township
Commissioners for utilization of fly ash on their lands. The Chairman of
the Township Commissioners expressed his verbal approval at this time and
written approval by the Board of Commissioners is anticipated. Compliance
with all local, state and federal regulations regarding transportation and
utilization of fly ash will be included in the "General Conditions" for
construction.
Additional Sources: One additional source of fly ash from a private power
generation station (Arco-Polymer, Inc. - Kobuta, Pennsylvania) was
investigated for suitability of use in the demonstration area. The
chemical analysis performed on samples from this source indicated that
the chemical composition was within the limits of the standard constitu-
ents; however, this fly ash was not considered for the demonstration
project due to the low neutralization capacity of the fly ash mixture.
STRIP MINE SPOIL - FLY ASH MIXTURES
Purpose; Samples of strip mine spoils and fly ash were mixed in various
percentages in the laboratory to determine the tonnage of fly ash which
will be necessary to raise the pH of the strip mine spoil to about 7.
Several strip mine spoil samples were chosen to reflect the variations
in the pH of the spoils at the site. The spoils were mixed in various
percentages with samples of fly ash from the Fort Martin and Mitchell
Power Stations. The percentages by weight of fly ash were then converted
to tons/acre using the conversion factor of 6 inches (15.2 centimeters) of
soil (plow layer) per acre (0.4 hectare) equals 1000 tons (907 metric tons)
Spoil - Fly Ash Titration Procedure; Spoil samples were prepared for
testing by grinding until 100% of the sample passed through a No. 10
sieve (2 millimeters). Ten grams of spoils were mixed with 10 grains of
distilled water, thoroughly stirred, then allowed to equilibrate overnight.
The resultant pH of the equilibrated spoil-water mixture was then measured.
Equilibration of the sample is achieved when a constant pH is reached
following mixture. Time for equilibration varied, but usually required
24 hours for the spoils-distilled water mixtures, and about 48 hours for
spoil-fly ash distilled water mixtures.
38
-------
The titration procedure consisted of mixing equal weights of fly ash and
distilled water to each equilibrated strip mine spoil-distilled water
mixture to yield 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50% by weight mixtures of fly ash-
strip mine spoil materials. The fly ash-spoil mixtures were then allowed
to equilibrate for 72 hours. pH measurements were taken at 24 hour
intervals to check for equilibration. A graph was then prepared by
plotting pH against percent fly ash by weight. Figures 12 through 14
show the graphs which were obtained. The data shown on the graphs repre-
sent the percent of fly ash by weight needed to raise the spoil-fly ash
mixture to a pH of 7.0.
Samples of the demonstration area spoils and fly ash from the selected
power stations were also sent to the U. S. Bureau of Mines at the
Morgantown Energy Research Center. Four equivalent tests were performed
under the direction of Mr. John P. Capp. Figures 15 through 16 show the
results of these tests. The graphs show the amount of fly ash applied in
tons per acre and in percent by weight.
Discussion of Results: A linear relationship was found between the pH
of the various spoils at the demonstration site and the required fly ash
with a constant neutralization capacity needed to raise the spoil-fly
ash mixture pH to about 7.0. Figure 17 shows the relationship for 5
spoil samples with different pH's using fly ash from the Mitchell Power
Station as its equivalent. Mitchell fly ash was chosen as the baseline
since it has the highest neutralization potential of the available fly
ash indicated on Table 9.
Furthermore, equivalent applications of fly ash with less neutralization
capability than the Mitchell fly ash were found to be the inverse of the
ratio of the neutralization capacity of the other fly ash samples to the
neutralization capacity of the Mitchell fly ash. Thus, fly ash from the
Fort Martin Power Station, which has approximately one-half of the
neutralization capability of the Mitchell fly .ash (21 to 45, see Table 9),
would require about twice the tonnage per acre to achieve the same neutra-
lization as the Mitchell fly ash. For example, reference to Figure 17
shows that 125 tons/acre (280 metric tons/hectare) of Mitchell fly ash
will be required to raise the pH of spoils from pH 4.0 to 7.0. If Fort
Martin fly ash were chosen as a substitute for Mitchell fly ash, the
application rate must be doubled to 250 tons/acre (560 metric tons/hectare)
because the neutralization capacity of Fort Martin fly ash is one-half
that of the Mitchell fly ash. Moreover, eleven times the amount of Elrama
fly ash or 1,375 tons/acre (3,082 metric tons/hectare) would be required
for the same effect.
39
-------
STRIP SPOIL SAMPLE No. 5
Fort Martin
Power Station
Fly Ash Source
100 200
FLY ASH APPLIED
I I
300 400
Tons per Acre
I
I
500
10 20 3O 40
% FLY ASH BY WEIGHT IN SPOIL-FLY ASH MIXTURE
SO
STRIP SPOIl SAMPLE No 7
Fly Ash Source
Fort Martin
Power Station
100 20O
FLY ASH APPLIED
300 400
Tons per Acre
i I
500
10 20 30 40 50
% FLY ASH BY WEIGHT IN SPOIL-FLY ASH MIXTURE
NOTE: TO CONVERT TONSpcr ACRE TO METRIC TONS p*r HECTARE, MULTIPLY BY 2.2416
FIGURE 12 pH OF VARIOUS SPOIL- FLY ASH MIXTURES
40
-------
STRIP SPOIL SAMPLE No. 9
Fly Ash Source £ort Mortin
Power Stotion
10 ZO 30 40
% FLY ASH BY WEIGHT IN SPOIL FLY ASH MIXTURE
STRIP SPOIL SAMPLE No. II
Fort Mortin
Fly Ash Source
Power Stotion
100 200 300 400
FLY ASH APPLIED Tons per Acre
I I I I
500
_J
10 20 30 40 50
% FLY ASH BY WEIGHT IN SPOIL-FLY ASH MIXTURE
NOTE : TO CONVERT TONS ptr ACRE TO METRIC TONS fxr HECTARE , MULTIPLY by 2.2416
FIGURE 13 pH OF VARIOUS SPOIL- FLY ASH MIXTURES
41
-------
9
R
7
6
5
4
<
s
>
/
^
//
X
/
/
r
STRIP SPOIL SAMPLE No I7A
Fly Ash Source £ort M°rtJ.n
* Power Stotion
/ \ 00 200 300 400 50
FLY ASH APPLIED Tons per Acre
1 1 1
IO 20 30 40
ASH BY WEIGHT IN SPOIL- FLY ASH MIXTURE
50
NOTE: TO CONVERT TONS ptr ACRE TO METRIC TONS p«r HECTARE , MULTIPLY by 2.2416
STRIP SPOIL SAMPLE No I7A
Fly Ash Source Mitchell
Power Stotion
100 200
FLY ASH APPLIED
I
300
400
5OO
Tons per Acre
2O 3O 4O 50
% FLY ASH BY WEIGHT IN SPOIL- FLY ASH MIXTURE
FIGURE 14 pH OF VARIOUS SPOIL- FLY ASH MIXTURES
42
-------
in
-------
/*
r
t
i
8
9
s
o
w
S
1
-
3 2
^M
PH r.o
0 2
tf&
Note: To Co
0 4
,«L ^°^.^?'
i**>
-------
X
a
O
a.
17 A
10 20 30 40 50
% FLY ASH BY WEIGHT IN SPOIL-FLY ASH MIXTURE
I I I I I I I I I
100 200 300 t
APPLICATION RATE Tons/Acre
400
500
= Spoil Sample Number
To Convert Tons/Acre To Metric Tons /Hectare
Multiply By 2. 2416
FLY ASH REQUIREMENTS TO RAISE SPOIL pH TO 7 USING FLY ASH
WITH AN EQUIVALENT NEUTRALIZATION CAPACITY (Mitchell Power Station)
FIGURE
17
FLY ASH APPLICATION
RATE
45
-------
SECTION VI
FLY ASH APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS
NEUTRALIZATION VARIABLES
The fly ash application rate determination must consider the variability
of the pH of the strip mine spoils throughout the demonstration area and
the neutralization capacity of the fly ash source while also including
the economic factors that affect each of these considerations.
Spoil pH: Because the acidity of the spoil material that will be exposed
at finished surface cannot be determined until final grades are achieved,
the amount of fly ash required from a particular source must be deter-
mined by one of the following methods:
Variable method - this method involves the establishment of a grid
system of the project area which could separate work areas into acre
plots or other suitable subdivisions. From each subdivision the
average pH of the spoils would be analyzed to determine the amount of
fly ash required from a particular source. This method, however, in-
volves field layout and testing which would increase the cost of these
respective services. An additional increase in the cost could also be
expected because the contractor will not know prior to bidding and
until finished grades are established the exact amount of fly ash
required or work incidental thereto for a particular area. A suitable
method or subdivision which could be effectively controlled in the
demonstration area would be to divide the project into work areas
which could be further separated into major cut and fill areas.
Utilization of a variable method, however, minimizes the over or
under treatment of the finished work areas with fly ash and could
result in a more uniform growth of vegetation.
Uniform application rate - this method of establishing the fly ash
application rate requires a statistical analysis of the soil pH
throughout the project demonstration area and the determination of
an average pH to be utilized for determining the application rate of
fly ash. This method can result in over treatment or under treatment
of certain areas within the entire project, thereby affecting the
growth of vegetation. This method, however, would result in a pre-
determined cost estimate and eliminates additional field work,
sampling and testing, and would demonstrate whether or not a fixed
rate of application would be sufficient to produce the desired vege-
tative cover utilizing fly ash in lieu of lime. Because economics
is always of prime consideration, a fixed cost estimate may be more
desirable.
46
-------
Fly Ash Neutralization Capacity: Because of the variances of the
neutralization power of the fly ash sources, the application rate re-
quired to be applied with the strip mine spoils will vary with the
selected fly ash source. The source with the greatest neutralization
capacity should be considered if the distance of haulage is not economi-
cally excessive and provided that no other source with less neutralization
capacity is more economically available in larger quantities, thereby
enhancing the moisture retention characteristics.
ECONOMIC VARIABLES
The economics of the transportation costs for fly ash are composed of the
distance of the source of the fly ash from the project area and the
neutralization capacity of the fly ash. A source of fly ash close to
a project area may not always be economical if that source of fly ash
has a low neutralization capacity because a higher tonnage of fly ash
would be required to neutralize the strip mine spoils. Transportation
rates are based on ton/miles hauled and the total costs would be reflected
by any increased tonnage required. Additional costs would also be incurred
on a project if the owner of the fly ash established a minimal sale dollar
for the fly ash to recover some of his incurred costs.
METHODS OF APPLICATION
Equipment; The types of equipment utilized will be the choice of the
contractor; but, specifications should require that the fly ash be
uniformly distributed and thoroughly mixed with the upper 6 inches (15
centimeters) of surface spoil, in a suitable manner, whereby the
finished surface will not contain deep furrows.
47
-------
SECTION VII
PROPOSED PLANS FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
CONSTRUCTION PLAN
Construction plans, including working drawings and specifications for
the demonstration area, are being developed under Engineering Contract
SL 130-2-1 with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The construction will
be performed under Contract SL 130-2-1. IB with the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The reclamation is designed to provide drainage from
twelve small subwatersheds (340 acres) or (138 hectares) which comprise
the demonstration area. The two major design criteria used are:
Eliminate the depressions within the subwatersheds and provide
positive runoff and drainage by regrading strip mine spoils.
Balance the cuts and fills to eliminate the need for disposal of
excess material.
The basic design criteria in the demonstration area are the same criteria
used throughout the other Hillman State Park abatement projects. The
general location of the proposed drainage from the subwatershed work
area is shown on Figure 6. An example of the cut and fill application
that will be used in the reclamation work is shown on Figure 18. An
estimated 1,200,000 cubic yards (917,520 cubic meters) of spoil material
will be moved during the regrading operations over an area of approxi-
mately 180 acres (72.8 hectares). Cuts vary from a few feet (or meters)
to an estimated maximum of 55 feet (17 meters), whereas fills up to
35 feet (11 meters) in height occur.
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION
The sequence of work within the demonstration area which will be esta-
blished by the Contractor will include the following items of construction:
Clearing and Grubbing
Earthwork and Drainage Facilities
Erosion and Sedimentation Measures
Fly Ash Application
Soil Treatment and Seeding
48
-------
RECLAIMED
OE SIGN
EXAMPLE
FIGURE 18 RECLAMATION DESIGN EXAMPLE
49
-------
After each separate work area has been brought to a finished grade, a
semi-final inspection should be conducted by the Consultant and the
Department of Environmental Resources for conformity of the finished
grade and proposed items of construction with the design. Finished grade
requirements shall include the removal of rocks greater than 12 inches
(30.5 centimeters) from the top 6 inch (15.2 centimeter) layer of spoils
and the removal of any high concentrations of boney coal. Upon approval
of the finished grades, the placement of fly ash and subsequent soil treat-
ment and seeding can commence.
FLY ASH APPLICATION METHODS AND RATE
Recommended Method - Variable Application Rate: It is the opinion of
the Consultant that in order to demonstrate the capabilities of fly ash
as a soil modifier, a variable rate of application should be utilized to
minimize the over or under treatment of the finished work areas. The
construction plans developed for the demonstration are shown as separate
work areas which are further subdivided into major cut areas, fill areas,
and grading areas beyond major cut and fill areas. These major cut and
fill subdivisions will serve as the limits of the various application
rates. The rate of fly ash application will be determined when final
grade is reached in these areas. The application rate will be based
upon an average pH of the spoils in each area. A minimum application
rate of 50 tons (45 metric tons) of fly ash per acre should be utilized
to increase the moisture retention capabilities of the spoils regardless
of the pH of the untreated finished grades where fly ash application is
specified. Areas where fly ash application will not be used in the
demonstration area are generally within proposed channel sections where
flows are concentrated and in areas of grading beyond the major cut and
fill areas where the existing and proposed grades are relatively steep.
Alternative Method - Uniform Application Rate: A uniform rate of appli-
cation could be established prior to letting of the Construction Con-
tract. The average pH of the strip mine spoils in the demonstration
area is 4.0. This is based on the results of the 16 tests performed on
the spoil materials. Using an average pH of 4.0 for the entire project
a uniform rate of fly ash per acre could be specified. This would
demonstrate whether a pre-determined rate application is an effective
method in neutralizing acidic spoils of varying pH.
Application Rate Determination: The rate of application is a function
of the spoil pH to be treated and the neutralization capacity of the fly
ash to be utilized. The higher the neutralization capacity of the fly
ash, the less amount required to raise the pH of the strip mine spoils.
The neutralization capacity of the various sources and their proximity
to the project site indicates that fly ash from the Mitchell Power
Station will be the most economical source and should be utilized.
Figure 17 indicates that the fly ash application rate to be utilized
on this project will be a maximum of 200 tons per acre (448.3 metric
tons/hectare) if the Mitchell Power Station fly ash is utilized.
50
-------
Fly Ash Substitution; The utilization of a different fly ash source
other than that recommended would require the determination of the
neutralization capacity of this substitute fly ash source and the
establishment of its equivalent conversion factor. The equivalent
conversion factor must then be multiplied times the application rate
determined from Figure 17. The equivalent conversion factors for other
fly ash sources tested are shown on Table 9 and indicate that at least
twice the amount of fly ash will be required if two of the other sources
tested are substituted or used in lieu of the Mitchell Station fly ash
source. Because the application rate of the other sources tested are
higher than the Mitchell Station, any substitution for the additional
tonnage, transportation charges, and incidental work thereto should be
at the expense of the contractor.
Control of Fly Ash:
Quantity - The specified amount of fly ash to be applied will be
controlled by certified weight slips furnished by the Contractor and
the thickness of the fly ash evenly spread over the surface prior to
mixing. Generally 1 inch (2.54 centimeters) of fly ash thickness per
acre (0.405 hectare) represents 136 tons (123.4 metric tons) of fly
ash with a bulk density of 75 pounds (34 kilograms) per cubic foot
(28.4 cubic decimeters). Because the thickness of the layer will
depend upon the bulk density of the fly ash as spread on the site,
density tests must be performed for control.
Quality - The fly ash source to be used by the contractor should be
tested to determine if fly ash neutralization capacity conforms to
the neutralization capacity and subsequent application rate recommended
in this report. It is recommended that a neutralization capacity test
be performed for each 500 tons (450 metric tons) delivery to the site.
Storage - Because the availability of a large quanitity of fly ash
may not be readily available over a short time period and also to
expedite the placement of the fly ash in a continuous process, a
fly ash storage area should be designated on the contract drawings.
Compliance - It shall be the contractor's responsibility to apply
the fly ash at the recommended rates and all loss of materials due
to erosion (air and water) must be satisfactorily replaced by the
contractor at no additional cost.
51
-------
SLEDING
Seeding requirements for the project were developed in cooperation with
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks and the Washington
County Agriculture Agent. The general species of grasses and legumes to
be planted on the fly ash spoil mixture in the demonstration area are:
Tall Fescue
Common Clover
Orchard Grass
Common Rye Grass
Common Timothy
Crown Vetch
Birdsfoot Trefoil
The use of Crown Vetch will be limited to cut slopes whereas Birdsfoot
Trefoil will be primarily specified within channel sections. The grass -
hay varieties will be specified for relatively flat sloping areas.
SAMPLING AND TESTING
Samples from the following areas should be obtained for pH, grain size
and moisture retention determination in order for documentation and
comparison:
Strip mine spoils approved for application of fly ash.
Strip mine spoils after the application of fly ash.
Strip mine spoil-fly ash mixtures, 1 year after the application
of fly ash.
Strip mine spoils from other construction areas of Hillman
State Park outside the Demonstration area.
CONTINUING MTER QUALITY MONITORING
Existing Stations: It is recommended that the present weir sampling
stations located throughout Hillman State Park be maintained,^ This will
provide additional water quality data to interpret the effect the
reclamation construction has had on the park stream. The projected
time for monitoring is 9 months during design and construction in the
demonstration area and 18 months afterwards. This time period should
encompass one or two additional growing seasons on the other areas
of Hillman Park in which reclamation work has been performed.
52
-------
Additional Station: An additional sailing station located at former
sampling station 5 would provide information on the effects of construc-
tion undertaken outside the demonstration project area in Subwatershed
areas 3-8, 3-9 and a portion of 3-10. This data would be useful in
comparison of the water quality from outside the demonstration area to
areas within the demonstration project.
Continuous ?4onitor: The instrumentation as proposed for the continuous
monitor will provide data concerning pH, conductivity and flow of waters
being discharged from the majority of the demonstration area. The water
quality data assembled to date indicates the pH of the water at the pro-
posed location of the continuous monitor is near pH 7. A small variance
in this pH is expected. The conductivity of the water will probably
change due to the exposure of formerly buried spoil material. However,
this exposure would only affect the water for a short period which is
expected to occur between completion of the cut excavation and the appli-
cation of the fly ash. The estimated construction costs for the contin-
uous monitor and associated embankment monitor, housing, instruments,
power source and flow pipes, anticipating both high and low flow para-
meters, is about $39,000. It is the opinion of the Consultant that
instead of installing the instrumentation as proposed for the continuous
monitor, a stilling well be constructed at Station 17A for the purpose of
measuring continuous flow and weekly sampling. In addition to sampling at
Station 17A on a weekly basis, sampling at Station 10 and Station 4B
should also be conducted on a weekly basis for the 30 month construction
and post-construction monitoring period. The weekly samples should be
tested for pH, acidity, alkalinity, iron, sulfate, aluminum, manganese,
calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, and phosphorous. This is because
these constituents are now present in the strip mine spoils and in the
fly ash. It would be noteworthy to determine the percent increase in
these constituents and its effect on the survival of grasses, legumes,
and aquatic life. The weekly samples from Station 17A should also in-
clude testing for turbidity and suspended solids.
53
-------
SECTION VIII
COST ESTIMATE
StMlARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS TO COMPLETE PROJECT
Construction Costs $ 900,000.00
Fly Ash $ 70,000.00
Engineering Phase II $ 17,000.00
Engineering Phase III $ 29,500.00
Carry Over From Phase I
(Additional Sampling and Testing
or Continuous Monitor) $ 20,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $1,036,500.00
The above items do not include any charges for Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania salaries and expenses.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
From Project SL 130-2, Hillman State Park Mine Drainage Pollution Survey,
Appendix C, Table I, the estimated earthmoving quantities in the demon-
stration area represented approximately 61% of an area which had an
estimated construction cost of $772,000 for reclamation. Thus, the
estimated cost of construction for the original Hillman State Park
demonstration area was 61% of $772,000 or $471,000. These figures repre-
sent 1972 prices and do not include reclamation in subwatershed areas 1-1
and 1-29 subsequently added to the demonstration project area. A construc-
tion cost estimate based on the Pre-Final Design Submission (August, 1974)
was $900,000 for the general construction contract designed as Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania Project SL 130-2-1.IB.
This cost estimate does not include the acquisition or transportation of
fly ash. Details of the estimated quantities and approximate unit costs
for the various items necessary for reclamation are shown on Table 11.
The unit costs used are based on bids received in the adjacent reclama-
tion areas within Hillman State Park.
54
-------
TABLE 11 - ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Item Description Quantity Unit Cost Total.
Clearing and Grubbing 178 Acres $ 75.00 $ 13,350
(72 Hectares)
Earthwork 1,210,000 Cubic Yards $ 0.65 $ 786,500
(925,000 Cubic Meters)
Surface Compaction Estimated
Drainage Facilities:
36" 0 RCC Pipe 36 Linear Feet $ 30.00 $ 1,080
(9.14 Decimeter) (11 Meters)
Endwalls 2 Each $500.00 $ 1,000
Jute Matting 4,250 Square Yards $ 1.00 $ 4,250
(3,550 Square Meters)
Dump Rock Cutter 780 Square Yards $ 15.00 $ 11,700
(650 Square Meters)
Riprap 240 Square Yards $ 25.00 $ 6,000
(200 Square Meters)
Fly Ash Placing
and Mixing 178 Acres $60.00 $ 10,680
(72 Hectares)
Soil Treatment,
Fertilizer and
Seeding 178 Acres $290.00 $ 51,620
(72 Hectares)
Erosion and Sedimen-
tation Measures Estimated Lump Sum $ 10,000
FLY ASH ESTIMATE
In order to estimate the tonnage of fly ash needed for the demonstration
site, an average spoil pH of 4.0 was used. It is anticipated that 178
acres will require treatment which results in 22,250 tons (20,185 metric
tons over '72 hectares). With the transportation costs estimated at about
$3.15 per ton ($3.47 per metric ton), the estimated cost of fly ash trans-
portion is $70,000.
55
-------
CONSTRUCTION DESIGN COSTS
The costs for design of the construction contract, including layout of
reference points plus periodic field consultation, is estimated to be
$53,000 and is being performed by the Consultant for the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania under Contract SL 130-2-1, but is not included in the
summary of estimated cost to complete the project because this work is
primarily being performed simultaneously with Phase I of this project.
ENGINEERING COSTS FOR THE DEMONSTRATION PORTION
The following engineering costs have been established for the remaining
phases of the demonstration project:
Phase II $17,128.00
Phase III $29,553.00
The major engineering items of Phase II are obtaining water samples on
a monthly basis, laboratory testing and engineering analysis of this
phase. The major engineering items of Phase III are similar to the above
listed and included in addition to the preparation of a final report which
summarizes the results and findings for the demonstration project.
Phase II and Phase III Commonwealth of Pennsylvania salaries and expenses
are not included in the above total.
There will be a carry-over to Phase II of $20,000 budgeted in Phase I for
the construction of a continuous monitor installation. If the Consult-
ant's recommendations concerning both the construction of a stilling well
for continuous flow measurements and the collection of additional sampling
and testing are accepted in lieu of that previously proposed for the
continuous monitor, the monies previously scheduled will be budgeted for
this purpose. If it is desired to have a continuous monitor installed as
proposed, then an additional sum in the amount of approximately $19,000
must be budgeted for the demonstration project.
56
-------
SECTION IX
APPENDIX
57
-------
S T A T 10 N 2
DATE
SAMPLED
6/17/74
6 / 24/74
7/ 2/ 74
7/ / 74
7/IS/74
7/ 23/ 74
7/29/74
8/6/74
0 8/14/74
8 / 20/74
8/ 30/ 74
9/7/74
9 / IO/ 74
13 WEEK
AVERAGE
« PREVIOUS
WATER QUALITY
FLO W
6PM
366
235
182
138
159
297
108
101
37
402
182
159
197
PH
7.5
7.6
6.7
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.8
7.5
7.8
7.2
7.7
7.6
7.1
7.5
497>
6.4
ACIDITY
CONC
MO/L
20
30
48
45
23
34
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
179
LOAD
LOS/OAT
88
85
105
75
44
121
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
1067
ALKALIN ITY
CONC.
M3/L
60
74
50
60
68
89
86
68
94
85
77
85
76
75
55
LOAD
US/ OAV
264
209
109
99
130
317
88
114
38
372
186
145
177
263
SULFATES
CONC.
MI/L
1350
1650
1550
1750
1560
1340
1650
1750
1620
1820
1320
1450
1580
1570
2270
LOAD
LM/DAV
5900
4660
3390
2900
2980
4780
2270
1970
810
6370
3170
3020
3710
14.500
TOTAL IRON
CONC
MCVL
0.3
0.2
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
LOAD
US/ DAY
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
ALUMINUM
CONC
M«/L
1.2
5
3
0
0.8
2.0
1.9
1.2
0.8
0.7
0
3
4
2
0.8
LOAD
US/DAY
5
8
7
0
2
7
2
1
0
0
7
8
4
5
MANGANESE
CONC.
MO/L
5
6
6
6
4
2
5
4
3
3
2
6
6
4
LOAD
LM/OAV
18
17
13
10
8
7
5
4
1
1
13
11
9
Source - HillmonStOtiPork Mini Droinoga Survty SL 190*2 April 14 , 1972
Q
*Surv«y Sampling - 10 S«pl«w Fro» 7/70 through 7/71
Motet To Convert Los/Day to Kg/Day multiply by 0.4536
-------
S T A T 10 N
4B
DATE
SAMPLED
6 /I// 74
6 / 24/74
7/ 2/ 74
7/ 8/ 74
7/ 15/74
7/ 23/ 74
7/29/74
8/6/ 74
3 8/14/74
8 / 20/74
8/ 30/ 74
9/7/ 74
9 / IO/ 74
13 WEEK
AVERAGE
PREVIOUS
WATER QUALITY
FLOW
6PM
366
265
235
138
159
481
101
93
108
441
159
138
224
284
PH
6.3
4.8
5.1
4.5
5.0
6.7
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.6
7.4
5.1
4.8
5.2
5.2
ACIDITY
CONC
IM/U
86
156
193
333
224
12
344
96
100
58
0
35
30
128
LOAD
LU/OAV
378
496
545
552
428
69
116
112
75
0
67
50
344
383
1306
ALKALINITY
CONC.
M«/L
16
0
2
0
3
41
0
0
0
0
29
5
5
8
31
LOAD
US/ Mr
70
0
6
0
5
237
0
0
0
154
10
8
22
106
SIX-FATES
CONC.
M/L
1350
2000
1750
2200
1850
1550
2300
2800
2450
2500
1280
1900
1980
1990
LOAD
LM/OAV
5930
6370
4940
3650
3530
8950
3400
2740
3240
6780
3630
3280
5350
2690
9180
TOTAL IRON
CONC
IM/L
0.3
8
7
6
1.9
3
8
8
7
3
0.6
6
5
5
1.3
LOAD
UH/MT
1
25
20
10
4
17
10
8
4
3
11
8
13
4
ALUMINUM
CONC
M«/L
4
7
8
11
7
4
17
14
15
15
2
11
11
10
1.9
LOAD
LM/OAY
18
22
23
18
13
23
17
17
19
11
21
18
26
6
MANGANESE
CONC.
kM/L
11
21
12
21
16
9
21
22
24
23
8
21
22
18
LOAD
LM/Mff
48
67
34
35
31
52
27
27
30
42
40
36
48
Source - Hillmon Stole Pork Mint Drainage Survey SL 130*2 April 14 , 1972
*Surv«y Sampling - Station* 4 and 4A combine to run into Station 4B. Stations 4 and 4A - 14 Saaplea f
7/70 through 7/71. For Station 4-11 Sample* from 10/70 through 7/71 .for Station 4A.
Not*: To Convert Lbs/Day to Kg/Day Multiply By 0.4536
-------
S T A T 10 N
DATE
SAMPLED
6/17/74
6 / 24/74
7/ 2/ 74
7/ 8/ 74
7/15/74
7/ 23/ 74
7/29/74
OM 8/6/74
8/ 14/74
8 / 20/74
8/ 30/ 74
9/7/ 74
9/10/74
13 WEEK
AVERAGE
PREVtOU-S
WATER QUALITY
FLO W
G P M
107
79
61
51
61
86
37
29
107
107
69
51
70
10*
PH
7.6
7.6
7.1
7.0
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.8
7.8
7.4
7.2
7.5
6.3
ACIDITY
CONC
HO/L
0
0
16
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
272
LOAD
LU/OAV
0
0
12
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
339
ALKALINITY
CONC.
M«/L
92
78
78
76
76
80
80
75
79
77
86
93
93
82
83
LOAD
LM/owr
118
74
57
47
56
83
33
28
99
111
77
57
69
98
SUL.FATES
CONC.
M«/L
1480
2000
1750
1980
2000
1780
2250
2050
2280
2220
1380
1480
1700
1870
2480
LOAD
LM/OAV
1900
1900
1280
1210
1470
1840
910
790
2850
1770
1230
1040
1570
3080
TOTAL IRON
CONC
IM/L
0.1
0
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0
0.3
0
0.2
0.1
LOAD
UU/MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
ALUMINUM
CONC
Ml/I
0.2
0.2
0.6
0
0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0
0.2
0
0.1
0
LOAD
LM/MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MANGANESE
CONC.
M*/L
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LOAD
LN/MV
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
Sourct- HillmonStoUPork Mint Droinogt Survty SL I30'2 April 14,1972
*Surv«y Sampling - 14 Sample fro* 7/70 through 7/71
Not*: To Convert Los/Day to Kg/Day Multiply By 0.4536
-------
S T A T 10 N
10
DATE
SAMPLED
/IT/ 74
6 / 24/74
7/ 2/ 74
7/ 8/ 74
7/ 15/74
7/ Z3/ 74
7/29/74
Jj 8/6/74
8/ 14/74
8 / 20/74
8/ 30/ 74
9/7/ 74
9 / IO/ 74
13 WEEK
AVERAGE
PREVIOUS
WATER QUALITY
PLOW
e f M
203
117
86
51
101
225
46
37
33
225
93
67
107
156
PH
6.9
7.0
6.6
6.8
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.2
6.9
7.1
4.9
ACIDITY
GONC
M4/L
66
72
225
265
182
32
200
3
4
0
0
0
0
81
LOAD
LU/MV
161
101
232
162
221
86
2
2
0
0
0
0
104
564
1056
ALKALINITY
CONC.
M/L
19
19
33
28
37
30
38
41
43
49
31
56
55
37
16
LOAD
LM/OW
46
27
34
17
45
81
23
19
19
84
63
44
48
29
SUL.FATES
CONC.
N«/L
2250
2350
2380
2580
2200
2050
2580
2700
2550
2750
1580
2200
2380
2350
3510
LOAD
US /DAY
5490
3300
2460
1580
2670
5540
1490
1130
1090
4270
2460
1920
3020
6490
TOTAL IRON
CONC
MO/ 1
1.1
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.4
1.8
1.0
0.2
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.9
0.5
LOAD
LM/MY
3
1
1
0
1
4
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
1.1
ALUMINUM
CONC
M«/L
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
1.2
LOAD
US/DAY
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.6
MANGANESE
CONC.
M8/L
26
38
29
29
28
26
34
35
22
39
20
37
38
31
LOAD
LM/MY
63
53
30
18
34
70
19
10
15
54
41
31
40
Sourct - Hillmon Store Park Mine Drainage Survey SL 130*2 April 14,1972
*Surv«y Sapling - 14 Snplcs from 7/70 through 7/71
Hot*: To Convert Lb«/D«y to Kg/Day Multiply by 0.4536
-------
S T A T 10 N
10 A
DATE
SAM PLED
6/17/74
6 / 24/74
7/ 2/ 74
7/ 8/ 74
7/IS/74
7/ 23/ 74
7/29/74
8/6/74
3 8/14/74
8/20/74
8/ 30/ 74
9/7/ 74
9 / IO/ 74
r 13 WEEK
AVERAGE
PREVIOUS
WATER CUAUITY
FLOW
6PM
124
105
79
73
93
244
46
37
41
167
73
67
96
432
PH
6.4
6.4
7.1
6.6
6.8
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.9
7.4
7.2
6.8
6.5
6.8
4.8
ACIDITY
CCNC
MO/L
182
103
122
308
250
20
140
4
2
0
0
2
0
87
769
LOAD
LBS/DAY
271
130
116
270
279
59
2
1
0
0
2
0
100
3220
ALKALINITY
CONC.
HC/L
14
14
16
33
46
45
48
51
65
63
34
63
67
43
23
LOAD
US/MY
21
18
15
29
51
132
28
29
31
68
//,X55
54
50
54
SUUFATES
CONC.
M»/L
2450
2700
820
2820
2580
2120
2800
2800
2800
3050
1720
2420
2450
2430
4530
LOAD
US /DAY
3650
3400
780
2470
2180
6210
1550
1240
1500
3450
2120
1970
2800
21200
TOTAL IRON
CONC
Mt/L
2.0
1.4
1.6
0.2
0.4
1.8
3
4
4
6
0.2
4
0.6
2
1.3
LOAD
LM/MT
3
2
2
0
0
5
2
2
3
0
4
0
3
7
ALUMINUM
CONC
M«fl.
3
2.0
3
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.3
1.0
2.0
1.1
4
6
2
1.3
LOAD
LM/OAY
4
3
3
1
2
3
1
0
1
2
4
5
3
7
MAN6ANE8E
CONC.
m/L
42
47
32
37
36
29
40
39
40
48
24
47
44
39
LOAD
Lit/ MY
63
59
30
32
40
85
22
18
24
**
41
35
45
Source - H.'ilmonStoUPork Mint Oroinoqi Survty SL 130*2 Aprii 14 , 1972
*Survey Sampling - Station 12A - 15 Samplea from 7/70 through 7/71
Initial Survey Station 12A Upstream of Currant 10A
Not*: To Convert Lba/Day to Kg/Day Multiply By 0.4536
-------
S T A T 10 N
12
DATE
SAMPLED
6/17/74-
6/ 24/74
7/2/74
7/ 8/ 74
7/15/74
7/ 23/ 74
7/29/74
8/6/74
8/14/74
8 / 20/74
8/ 30/ 74
9/7/ 74
9/ 10/74
13 WEEK
AVERAGE
« PREVIOUS
WATER QUALITY
FLO W
6PM
61
67
46
46
29
101
17
10
8
51
37
41
43
91
PH
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
6.8
6.6
6.8
7.3
6.8
7.8
7.3
6.9
6.6
7.0
4.6
ACIDITY
CONC
MO/L
114
66
280
340
284
20
180
2
2
0
0
0
2
99
820
LOAD
LU/OAV
84
53
155.
188
99
24
0
0
0
0
0
1
51
895
ALKALINITY
CONC.
MO/L
32
137
68
53
72
38
66
76
82
86
60
96
94
74
6
LOAD
LM/MV
23
110
38
29
25
46
16
10
8
37
43
46
38
8
SUL.PATES
CONC.
m/L
2350
2800
2700
3100
2980
1920
2680
3300
3120
3200
1820
2450
2620
2700
4000
LOAD
LM/OM
1720
2250
1490
1710
1040
2330
670
370
310
1110
1090
1209
1390
4380
TOTAL IRON
CONC
IM/L
2.0
1.3
1.4
1.6
0.3
5
4
5
6
7
0.3
6
3
3
1.5
LOAD
LM/MT
1
1
1
1
0
6
1
1
1
0
3
1
2
1
ALUMINUM
CONC
MVL
1.0
0.5
0
0.1
0
0.3
0
0.3
0
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.6
LOAD
LM/MT
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
MANOANESC
CONC.
M/L
34
41
32
43
40
4
42
44
44
50
24
43
47
38
LOAD
LM/MV
25
33
18
24
14
5
9
5
5
15
19
23
20
Sourct - HillmonStoUPork Mint Droinoq* Survty SL 130-2 April 14 , l»72
*Surv«y Sapling - 12 SnplM fro* 10/70 through 7/71
Not*: To Convert Lbs/Day to Kg/D«y Multiply By 0.4536
-------
S T A T 10 N
DATE
SAMPLED
6/17/74
« / 24/74
7/ 2/ 74
7/ 8/ 74
7/15/74
7/ 23/74
7/29/74
/6/ 74
* 8/14/74
8 / 20/74
8/ 30/ 74
9/7/ 74
9/10/74
13 WEEK
AVERAGE
PREVIOUS
WATER QUALITY
FLOW
0PM
If
79
73
73
67
73
61
56
56
56
51
51
65
36
PH
6.1
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.6
7.0
6.7
6.7
6.8
7.5
7.1
6.8
6.4
6.8
6.1
ACIDITY
CONC
Mt/L
lit
52
172
329
280
71
92
0
0
12
32
20
28
92
LOAD
LU/OAY
106
49
151
288
225
62
0
0
8
22
12
17
72
364
157
ALKALINITY
CONC.
MO XL
328
329
315
116
320
326
334
328
338
319
317
340
361
329
250
LOAD
LM/OAV
311
312
276
277
257
286
240
227
215
213
208
221
257
110
SUUFATES
CONC.
Mt/L
3500
3700
3500
3500
3700
2980
3550
3700
3500
3380
3380
3300
3300
3460
4250
LOAD
LM/OAV
3320
3510
3070
3070
2980
2610
2710
2350
2270
2270
2020
2020
2700
1840
TOTAL IRON
CONC
Mt/L
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.0
3
3
3
4
0
0.2
0
1
1.1
LOAD
LM/OAY
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
3
0
0
0
1
1
ALUMINUM
CONC
MQ/L
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0
0,1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
LOAD
LM/OAT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MANGANESE
CONC.
Mt/L
9
6
7
6
7
6
9
7
6
7
5
8
8
7
LOAD
LM/OAV
9
6
6
5
6
5
5
4
5
3
5
5
5
Sourct - HillmonStotePcrk Mint Droinoy* Survey SL 130*2 April 14,1972
*Surv«y Sapling - 14 Saaplcs fro» 7/70 through 7/71
Mot«t To Convert Lbs/Day to Kg/Day Multiply By 0.4536
-------
S T A T 10 N
17
DATE
SAMPLED
/IT/ 74
/ 24/74
7/ »/ 74
7/ / 74
7/15/74
7/ »/ 74
7/29/74
/«/ 74
n 8/14/74
fl/ 20/74
»/ SO/ 74
9 / 7 / 74
9 I IO/ 74
13 WEEK
AVERAGE
« PREVIOUS
WATER QUALITY
PLOW
'8PM
130
117
117
117
117
130
101
101
117
145
101
101
116
PH
6.9
7.0
6.8
6.9
6.8
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.2
6.9
7.1
11
5.8
ACIDITY
CONC
M8/L
107
165
200
166
162
47
93
0
0
0
3
8
12
74
LOAD
CM/DAY
167
232
281
233
228
70
0
0
0
5
10
15
103
ALKALINITY
CONC,
U«/L
192
144
160
164
149
125
202
206
229
238
178
233
226
188
432
576
112
LOAD
LM/MV
300
202
225
230
209
its
250
278
334
310
283
274
262
SUL.FATES
CONC.
M»/L
2800
2800
2820
2820
2820
2380
2450
2700
2700
2820
2450
2580
2680
2680
143
4020
LOAD
UM/OAV
4370
3930
3960
3960
3960
3720
3280
3280
3960
4270
3130
3250
3730
5520
TOTAL IRON
CONC
N«/L
3
6
0.2
3
0.2
3
6
6
4
4
0.1
3
0.6
3
LOAD
LH/MV
5
8
0
4
0
5
7
5
6
0
3
1
4
ALUMINUM
CONC
Mfl/L
7
0.5
0.2
0
0.8
9
13
13
8
7
0.1
0.9
0.1
5
2.3
3
0.7
LOAD
US/OAT
11
1
0
0
1
14
16
10
10
0
1
0
6
1
MANGANESE
CONC.
Mfl/L
41
35
22
28
28
15
4
22
19
19
16
22
24
23
LOAD
LBS/MY
64
49
31
39
39
23
27
23
27
28
27
29
32
Sown- HillmonStottPork Mint Droinog* Survey SL 130*2 April 14,1972
*Surv«y Smpllng - 14 SMplu from 7/70 through 7/71
Not*: To Convert Lb«/D«y to Kg/Day Multiply 87 0.4536
-------
S T A T 10 N
DATE
SAMPLED
6/17/74
6 / 24/74
7/ 2/ 74
7/ 8/ 74
7/15/74
7/ 23/74
7/29/74
8/6/74
8/ 14/74
8 / 20/74
8/ 30/ 74
9/7/ 74
9/10/74
13 WEEK
AVERAGE
* PREVIOUS
WATER QUALITY
FLO W
6PM
175
149
510
190
172
239
*r
524
PH
7.4
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.4
6.0
ACIDITY
CONC
M6/L
0
117
141
84
0
74
0
0
0
0
2
0
35
328
LOAD
IIS/DAY
0
0
0
5
0
100
2060
ALKALINITY
CONC.
M/L
148
80
115
99
106
138
136
146
140
97
144
153
125
81
LOAD
LM/OAV
286
251
594
329
316
359
400
SUL.FATES
CONC.
M«/L
2450
2530
2700
2480
2200
2380
2450
2450
2680
2080
2200
2180
2400
3770
LOAD
LM/OAV
5150
4800
12740
5020
4500
6890
24880
TOTAL IRON
CONC
M/L
0.3
0.3
0
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.7
LOAD
LM/OMT
1
0
1
1
0
1
4
ALUMINUM
CONC
M«/L
1.2
1.8
0.3
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.2
LOAD
UM/OAT
1
o N
2
2
2
2
1
MANOANCSC
CONC.
M«/k
8
7
7
6
5
4
4
4
4
1
6
5
LOAD
kM/iftt
8
7
25
2
12
14
Source - HillmanSlotePcrk Mine Drainage Survey SL 130*2 April 14,1972
*Survey Sampling - 10 Sraplcm fro» 10/70 through 7/71
Mote: To Convert Lbi/Day to Kg/Day Multiply By 0.4536
-------
S T A T 10 N
DATE
SAMPLED
6/17/74
6/ 24/74
7/ 2/ 74
7/ 8/ 74
7/ 15/74
7/23/74
7/29/74
8/6/74
o 8/14/74
8/20/74
8/ 30/ 74
9/7/ 74
9 / IO/ 74
13 WEEK
AVERAGE
PREVIOUS
WATER QUALITY
FLOW
6PM
86
67
51
41
51
73
26
19
22
73
33
33
48
PH
7.6
7.6
7.4
8.0
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.5
7.2
7.6
6.1
ACIDITY
CONC
W/L
0
0
0
28
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
186
LOAD
LM/OAV
o
0
0
14
34
102
0
0 '
0
0
0
0
4
ALKALINITY
CONC.
MO/L
72
86
94
60
93
102
116
115
115
116
88
100
111
98
37
LOAD
US/DAY
74
69
58
30
57
89
36
26
31
77
40
44
56
SUL.FATES
CONC.
Mt/L
2120
2350
2450
1520
2280
2120
2450
2450
2550
2500
2120
2020
2200
2240
LOAD
LM/OAV
2190
1890
1500
750
1400
1860
770
580
660
1860
800
870
1290
2950
TOTAL IRON
CONC
Mf/L
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1 u
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.5
LOAD
UVW
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ALUMINUM
CONC
/L
0.1
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
1.9
0.1
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.2
LOAD
LM/MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
MANOANCSC
CONC.
IM/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
. 0
0
0
0
0
LOAD
LM/MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
Source - Hillmon State Pork Mint Droinoge Sumy SL (30*2 April 14 , 1972
*Surv«y Sapling - 5 SaaplM tram 7/70 through 7/71
Hot*: To Convert Lbs/Dcy to Kg/Day Multiply By 0.4536
-------
S T A T 10 N
DATE
SAMPLED
6/17/74
6 / 24/74
7/ 2/74
7/ 8/ 74
7/IS/74
7/ 23/ 74
7/29/74
8/6/74
0 8 / I4/ 74
8/20/74
8/ SO/ 74
9/7/74
9 / IO/ 74
19 WEEK
AVERAGE
PREVIOUS
WATER QUALITY
FLOW
0PM
1124
819
459
366
633
829
259
259
274
1412
449
386
606
1065
pH
7.9
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.8
1.4
ACIDITY
CONC
M6/L
21
0
88
27
35
0
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
14
139
LOAD
LBS/OAV
283
0
485
119
266
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
102
1780
ALKALINITY
CONC.
M6/L
104
110
112
119
96
122
136
112
146
126
95
137
146
122
70
LOAD
US/ MY
1404
1082
617
$23
730
1215
m
454
415
1611
739
677
888
837
SUL.FATES
CONC.
M«/L
1520
1920
2250
2120
2000
2000
2050
3280
2200
2280
1480
1680
1MO
1970
2940
LOAD
US /DAY
20520
18890
12400
9320
15200
19910
6840
6840
7500
25100
9060
8810
14340
26100
TOTAL IRON
CONC
MC/L
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0.3
LOAD
LUX DAY
3
2
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
1
0
1
2
ALUMINUM
CONC
Mt/L
0.1
0.2
0
0
0
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.1
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
LOAD
US/DAY
1
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
MANGANESE
CONC.
MO/L
3
3
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
LOAD
LM/PAV ,
41
30
22
13
23
30
6
6
7
34
16
9
22
Sourc* - Hillmon State Pork Mint Droinogt Survty SL 130*2 April 14,1972
*Surv«y Sampling - 9 Samples from 12/70 through 7/71
Note: To Convert'Lb*/Day to Kg/Day Multiply By 0.4536
-------
S T A T 10 N
35
DATE
SAMPLED
«/IT/74
6 / 24/74
7/ ^/ 74
7/ / 74
7/15/74
7/ »/ 74
7/29/74
/6/ 74
5 / 14/74
/ 20/74
/ SO/ 74
9/7/74
9 1 IO/ 74
13 WEEK
AVERAGE
PREVIOUS
WATER QUALITY
CLOW
0PM
864
516
386
199
269
1047
185
146
185
1279
521
315
493
PH
7.5
7.0
7.4
7.5
7.1
6.1
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.3
1.3
2100
6.3
ACIDITY
CONC
W/L
22
94
65
104
25
179
94
0
2
0
0
0
0
45
232
LOAD
LM/OAY
228
583
301
249
81
2251
0
4
0
0
0
0
266
2350
ALKALINITY
CONC.
MO/L
39
18
50
66
34
6
40
33
20
27
21
65
51
36
28
LOAD
LiS/ DAY
405
112
232
158
110
75
73
35
60
323
407
193
213
280
SULFATES
CONC.
m/t
1000
1350
1140
2280
880
1780
1620
1700
1850
1980
1200
1120
1300
1480
1610
LOAD
US /DAY
10180
8370
5280
5450
2840
22380
3780
3240
4400
18430
7010
4920
8760
40610
TOTAL IRON
CONC
Nfl/L
1.7
2
1.6
0
0.5
3
0.5
1.5
0.3
0.5
0.6
0
0.2
1
1.0
LOAD
LM/OAY
18
12
7
0
2
38
3
1
1
9
0
1
6
25
ALUMINUM
CONC
MO/L
3
4
1.7
0.3
1.7
18
4
4
0.1
0.1
1.2
0
0.4
3
0.6
LOAD
US/DAY
31
25
8
1
5
226
9
0
0
18
0
2
18
15
MANGANESE
CONC.
N3/L
8
10
9
12
7
21
14
15
13
7
6
9
11
11
LOAD
LM/OAY
83
62
42
29
23
264
33
23
16
92
56
42
65
Source- HillmonStottPark Miiw DroinogtSurvty SL 130*2 April 14,1972
*Surv«y Stapling - 3 SaaplM froa 1/71 through 3/71
Not*: To Convert Lb«/D«y to Kg/Day Multiply By 0.4536
-------
40
DATE
SAMPLED
6/17/74
6 / 24/74
7/ 2/ 74
7/ 8/ 74
7/15/74
7/23/74
< 7/29/74
8/6/74
3 8/14/74
8 / 20/74
8/ SO/ 74
9/7/74
9/10/74
IS WEEK
AVERAGE
* PREVIOUS
WATER QUALITY
FLOW
6PM
328
249
145
130
182
587
86
37
73
819
130
107
239
560
pH
7.1
6.8
5.9
4.7
7.0
7.0
6.0
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.0
7.3
7.0
6.8
5.4
ACIDITY
CONC
M4/L
41
142
182
211
181
145
185
1
2
0
0
1
0
84
337
LOAD
LM/OAV
162
425
317
329
396
1022
1
1
0
0
2
0
241
2265
ALKALINITY
CONC.
MO XL
20
11
5
1
20
22
4
26
19
27
29
31
28
19
11
LOAD
tta/Mv
79
33
9
2
44
155
27
8
24
285
48
36
55
75
SUL.FATES
CONC.
/t
1580
2000
1850
1520
1980
2000
2300
2120
2350
2220
1420
1820
1980
1930
2940
LOAD
IM/OAT
6220
5980
3220
2370
4330
14100
i
2190
1040
1950
13970
2840
2544
5540
20200
TOTAL IRON
CONC
m/L
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
5
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.1
1
0.2
LOAD
LM/OAY
2
1
1
1
2
35
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
ALUMINUM
CONC'
MCfl.
1.0
1.8
4
6
3
13
6
5
3
0.3
0.5
1.9
3
4
1.3
LOAD
IM/MV
4
5
7
9
7
92
5
1
0
5
3
4
11
MAN6ANESC
CONC.
IM/L
15
18
15
18
19
19
19
20
18
20
16
20
19
18
9
LOAD
LM/MV
59
54
26
28
42
134
21
18
157
31
24
52
Sourct- HilltnonStottPork Mint Dreineg* Survty SL 150-2 April 14 , 1972
*Surv*y Stapling - 4 SraplM fro* 2/71 through 5/71
Hot*: To Convert Lb«/Day to Kg/Day Multiply By 0.4536
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-183
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION»NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
FEASIBILITY STUDY.
FLY ASH RECLAMATION OF SURFACE MINES
Hillman State Park
5. REPORT DATE
August 1976 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Murray T. Dougherty and Hans H.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Holzen
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Ackenheil & Associated, Incorporated
1000 Banksville Road
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15216
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
IBB 610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
S-802526
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
Feasibility 4/1/74-8/1/74
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The study was performed to determine the technical and economic aspects of surface
treatment of regraded acidic strip mine spoils with pulverized fuel fly ash as a
method to produce a soil cover which will sustain grasses and legumes and also en-
hance abatement of mine drainage. Data on present stream water quality of Hillman
State Park was obtained to establish a set of parameters which will be used for
comparison with future water quality analysis in order to determine effects of
construction and the application of fly ash to the water quality. Other criteria
used in this evaluation include: pH of strip mine spoil material and fly ash;
moisture retention characteristics of spoils and spoils treated with fly ash; and
grain size distribution of spoils treated with fly ash.
The feasibility study results indicate this demonstration project would be technical!;
feasible and the reclamation would be effective to produce useable land and improve
water quality. Alkalinity in the tributaries affected by the demonstration project
should increase approximately 200 milligrams per liter. The estimated cost of the
demonstration construction project is about $900,000 for restoration of surface
drainage to the 340 acre (138 hectare) site. Fly ash will be applied to approximate!;
180 acres (73 hectares) of the site which are being regraded and revegetated at an
approximate additional cost of $70,000.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
*Coal Mines, *Strip Mining,
*0verburden, *Chemical Properties,
*Water Pollution, Reclamation, Cost Analy-:
sis, Acidity, pH Control, Drainage,
Erosion Control, Fly Ash
Contour Mining
Strip Mine Waste
Acid Mine Drainage
Environmental Protection
8 G
8 I
13 B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
81
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
71
OUSGPO: 1976 657-695/5493 Region 5-11
------- |