EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and
Development
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
EPA-600/7-77-083
August 1977
LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTIVENESS OF CLOSE
DOWN PROCEDURES - EASTERN
UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
Interagency
Energy-Environment
Research and Development
Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-77-083
August 1977
LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS
OF CLOSE DOWN PROCEDURES - EASTERN
UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
by
M. F. Bucek
and
J. L. Emel
HRB-Singer, Inc.
State College, Pennsylvania 16801
Contract No. 68-03-2216
Project Officer
S. Jackson Hubbard
Resource Extraction and Handling Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on
our health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution
control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and improved
methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and economically.
This report describes the long-term effectiveness of deep mine closures
that have been or are planned to be implemented in the eastern United States
coal mining regions. The data provide a basic understanding and a general
assessment of the various sealing techniques and the problems the user may
encounter with each. For further information contact the Resource Extraction
and Handling Division, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati,
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
-------
ABSTRACT
The objective of the research project was to prepare an up-to-date
document on deep mine closures that have been or are planned to be imple-
mented in the eastern coal -mining regions. The project was also to provide
an initial overview of the effectiveness of the closure methods and the
factors to which their effectiveness can be attributed. The effectiveness
was evaluated in terms of a closure effect on mine drainage quality and
quantity.
Sixty five mine sites were selected for the study. They represent a
cross section of geological and mining frameworks, and cover all the known
closure technioues. Available water quality and quantity monitoring
records for pre- and post-closure periods and data on physical and mining
character of the mines were compiled and complemented by determination of
the major chemical pollutants on samples collected at the sites during wet
and dry seasons.
The overall effect of the studied closures on mine water quality was
found to be beneficial in terms of reduced acidity and increased alkalinity
concentrations. The mine effluents from flooded shaft/slope and drift mines
show generally better quality, although not consistently, when compared to
the quality of mine discharges from open, air- or dry-sealed, or partially
flooded updip drift mines. The effectiveness of the mine closures with
respect to the mine effluent quality by comparison with the preliminary mine
effluent guidelines was observed to be usually less than 50 percent effect-
ive.
The trend analyses of the pollutant concentrations and outputs for the
pre- and post-closure periods show that the closures for more than half of
the sites reversed or reduced increasing pollutant trends, augmented the
already decreasing trends, and reduced variability in fluctuations of the
water quality.
.The degree of closure effectiveness with respect to the mine water
quality improvement was found to be predominantly determined by the physical
and mining framework of the sites and less by the closure technology.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2166 by
HRB-Singer, Inc. under sponsorship of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This report covers the period from June 10, 1975 to July 10, 1976,
and the work was completed as of December 31, 1976.
iy
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vii
Tables viii
List of Abbreviations and Conversion Table xi
Acknowledgment xii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations 5
4. Technical Approach 7
Literature review 7
Site selection 7
Data procurement 8
Field survey 9
Laboratory analyses 9
5. Site Location and Characteristics 11
6. General Results of Data Analysis 13
7. Statistical Summary and Evaluation of Water Quality Data
for 85 Selected Mines of the Eastern Coal Mining Regions 18
Data summary 18
Cluster analysis of the water quality data 19
Regression analysis 21
Mine drainage quality : 23
8. Closure Effectiveness as Related to Reduction of
Pollutant Concentrations and Outputs 25
Air seals 26
Double bulkhead seals j 29
Single bulkhead seals 33
Permeable limestone seals 35
9. Effectiveness of Close-Down Procedures by Closure Type and
Mine Case Studies 38
Case studies 38
Air seals 38
Double bulkhead seals 55
Single bulkhead seals 65
Permeable limestone seals 71
Shaft and slope seals 79
Earth seals 83
Clay seals 84
Grout bag seal 85
Underground precipitation sealing 86
Short-wall mining 86
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Stowing 87
Daylighting 87
Bibliography 89
Appendices
A. Field survey procedures *
B. Laboratory analyses ' * '
C. Statistical summary of water quality data for 85 mines
in the eastern coal mining regions 109
D. Summary of water quality and quantity data for pre- and
post-closure periods in air-, single and double bulk-
head-, and permeable (limestone) bulkhead-sealed mines 119
E. Regression coefficients for pollutant concentrations and
outputs 134
YJ.
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 List and location of the mine sites studied in the project 12
2 Example of an air seal constructed by U.S. Bureau of Mines
at Decker No. 3 Mine 39
3 Decker No. 3 Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends 41
4 RT 9-11 Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends 44
5 Big Knob No. 1 Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends 46
6 Big Knob No. 2 Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends 48
7 Savage Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends 50
8 Construction drawing of a grouted double bulkhead deep
mine seal . .. . 56
9 Typical cross section of a permeable aggregate seal 72
10 Stewartstown Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends 74
11 RT 5-2A Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends 77
12 RT 5-2A Mine, pollutant concentrations; post-sealing data are
for water quality from inundated mine 78
13 Mine No. 62008-3, pollutant concentrations and trends 80
VII
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Controls of Selected Physical Parameters on Mine Effluent
Quality 22
2 Distribution of Samples that Exceeded the EPA Preliminary
Effluent Guidelines or Drinking Water Standards 23
3 Percentage Changes of Pollutant Concentrations in Effluent
Discharges from Air-Sealed Mines; Pre- and Post-Closure
Periods 27
4 Percentage Changes of Pollutant Outputs from Air-Sealed Mines;
Pre- and Post-Closure Periods 27
5 Significance of Scores from Test for Difference between Pre-
and Post-Closure Means; Air Seals 28
6 Percentage Changes in Pollutant Concentrations for Pre- and
Post-Closure Periods in Double Bulkhead-Sealed Mines 30
7 Percentage Changes in Pollutant Outputs for Pre- and Post-
Closure Periods in Double Bulkhead-Sealed Mines 31
8 Significance of Scores from Test for Difference between Pre-
and Post-Closure Means; Double Bulkhead Seals ..... 32
9 Percentage Changes in Pollutant Concentrations for Pre- and
Post-Closure Periods in Single Bulkhead-Sealed Mines 34
10 Percentage Changes in Pollutant Concentrations for Pre- and
Post-Closure Periods in Effluent Discharges from Mines Sealed
with Permeable Limestone Seals 35
11 Percentage Changes in Pollutant Outputs from Mines Closed with
Permeable Limestone Seals Comparing Pre- and Post-Sealing
Periods 35
12 Significance of Scores from Test for Difference between Pre-
and Post-Closure Means: Permeable Limestone Seals 37
B-l Information Pertaining to the Site Codes, Sample Codes, and
Mine Location 98
Vlll
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
B-2 Listing of Laboratory Derived Water Quality Data, Analyzed by the
Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources 100
B-3 Laboratory Methods 108
C-l Water Quality Parameters: Phase 1, Dry Sampling Season, Sealed
Mines 109
C-2 Water Quality Parameters: Phase- 1, Dry Sampling Season, Unsealed
Mines and Surface Waters 110
C-3 Water Quality Parameters: Phase 2, Wet Sampling Season, Sealed
Mines Ill
C-4 Water Quality Parameters: Phase 2, Wet Sampling Season, Unsealed
Mines 112
C-5 Summary of Cluster Analysis; Site Samples for Phase 1 113
C-6 Summary of Cluster Analysis; Site Samples for Phase 2 114
C-7 Summary of Cluster Analysis; Site Samples for Phase 1 and 2. ... 115
C-8 Mine Discharges from Closed and Open Abandoned Underground Coal
Mines that Exceeded the EPA Preliminary Mine Water Effluent
Guidelines 116
D-l Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Acidity and Alkalinity Concentra-
tions and Standard Deviations; Air-Sealed Mines 119
D-2 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Sulfate and Total Iron Concentra-
tions and Standard Deviations, Air-Sealed 120
D-3 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Pollutant Outputs and Standard
Deviations; Air-Sealed Mines 121
D-4 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Acidity Concentrations and
Standard Deviations; Double Bulkhead-Sealed Mines 122
D-5 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Alkalinity Concentrations and
Standard Deviations; Double Bulkhead-Sealed Mines 123
D-6 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Sulfate Concentrations and
Standard Deviations; Double Bulkhead-Sealed Mines 124
D-7 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Total Iron Concentrations
and Standard Deviations; Double Bulkhead-Sealed Mines 125
IX
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
D-8 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Pollutant Outputs and Standard
Deviations; Double Bulkhead-Sealed Mines 126
D-9 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Pollutant Outputs and Standard
Deviations; Double Bulkhead-Sealed Mines 127
D-10 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Acidity and Alkalinity Concentra-
tions and Standard Deviations; Single Bulkhead-Sealed Mines . . 128
D-ll Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Sulfate and Total Iron Concentra-
tions and Standard Deviations, Single Bulkhead-Sealed Mines. . . 129
D-12 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Acidity and Alkalinity Outputs
and Standard Deviations; Single Bulkhead-Sealed Mines 130
D-13 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Sulfate and Total Iron Loads and
Standard Deviations; Single Bulkhead-Sealed Mines 131
D-14 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Pollutant Concentrations and
Standard Deviations; Permeable (Limestone) Bulkhead-Sealed
Mines 132
D-15 Pre- and Post-Closure Means of Pollutant Outputs and Standard
Deviations; Permeable (Limestone) Bulkhead-Sealed Mines 133
E-l Regression Coefficients for Acidity Concentration 134
E-2 Regression Coefficients for Acidity Output 135
E-3 Regression Coefficients for Total Iron Concentration 136
E-4 Regression Coefficients for Total Iron Output 137
E-5 Regression Coefficients for Sulfate Concentration 138
E-6 Regression Coefficients for Sulfate Output 139
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
cm
m
km
mg
kg
1
mg/1
mg/1/year
1pm
phos
IDS
COD
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVERSION TABLE
-- centimeter(s)
-- meter(s)
-- kilometer(s)
-- square kilometer(s)
milligram
-- kilogram
-- liter
nulligram(s) per liter
milligram(s) per liter per year
liter(s) per minute
micromhos
total dissolved solids
chemical oxygen demand
CONVERSION TABLE
cm
m
km
km2
km2
kg
1
0.39 inches
3.28 feet
0.62 miles
0.39 square miles
249.60 acres
2.20 pounds
0.26 gallons
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This report was prepared by the Environmental and Social Analysis Group
of HRB-Singer, Inc., State College, Pennsylvania 16801 under the direction
of S. B. Cousin (Contract No. 68-03-2216). The report was submitted to the
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati. The
Project Officers for EPA were S. J. Hubbard and R. B. Scott. The principal
authors were Milena F. Bucek, Jacque L. Emel, supported by Carolyn A. Petrus,
James A. Schad, and Purification D. MacDonald. Ronald W. Stingelin offered
technical guidance on regional coal geology and underground mining techniques.
Program management was controlled by Elmer C. Stamm.
The support of the Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa. 16802 which performed the
physical and chemical analyses on water samples and offered a significant
contribution in statistical analyses is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are
especially given to Dama L. Wirries who contributed significantly to the
section on Statistical Summary and Evaluation of Water Quality Data of this
report. Thanks are also given to Stephen L. Morgan for performance of
computer operations.
Special thanks are given to the owners and operators of the mines
visited, as well as to the owners of adjacent property for granting us access
to the sites and providing us with background information. The authors also
wish to thank the representatives of Federal, State and local agencies, and
industry, for their assistance and cooperation.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Commercial coal mining has been underway in the Eastern United States
for over 200 years. As a result of this activity and its emphasis on profit-
able operations, there are literally thousands of partially mined, abandoned
mines across the Eastern United States. Most of these are termed "family
mines", that is, coal outcroppings on private land that were usually mined
by the family of the landowner. Still others are the result of more advanc-
ed, larger undertakings using slope, drift, or shaft mining techniques that
eventually became marginally profitable.
Many of these mines were responsible for water pollution problems even
before they were abandoned. Such pollution resulted from surface or ground-
water that flowed through the mine and was re-emitted into water supplies.
Such drainage water can contain any combination of chemical elements that
are either naturally occurring or a result of flowing through a mine that
has disturbed the subsurface materials. The largest pollution concern is
acidity caused by mineral sulfides, which inhibits many uses of the water
for down-strear. water users. For recreational or industrial use where high
acidity is deleterious, a water supply affected by the acid mine drainage
must be treated and/or avoided as polluted water.
In the late 1920's and early 1930's, the first research reports on mine
sealing as an acid mine drainage abatement method began to appear, primarily
as a result of the efforts of the Bureau of Mines. Under the auspices of the
Work Projects Administration, the U. S. Public Health Service, and the U. S.
Bureau of Mines, hundreds of mines, principally in Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Kentucky, and West Virginia, were closed in the 1930's and lP40's largely
by the erection of barriers designed to prevent air from entering the mine.
As knowledge of and concern for the environment expanded throughout
the 1960Ts, so did the number of research projects and demonstration
experiments bearing on abatement of acid mine drainage. Among them were many
different closure methods, ranging from the rather simple technology of
constructing walls in the mine openings or closing the entrances by filling
them with spoil materials to the rather involved constructions of grouted
double bulkheads designed to sustain high hydraulic pressures. Other
approaches that are promising, but as yet untested relative to their effect
on water quality are the closure methods related to mining techniques such
as short-and long-wall underground mining, stowing, roof-collapse, or the
very involved method of daylighting, which entails the complete removal of
-------
the mine overburden and the remaining coal with subsequent backfilling,
grading, and revegetation of the area.
The awareness of the environmental need to abate and prevent acid mine
drainage nationwide has led the Environmental Protection Agency to seek mine
closure technology which can be effectively utilized. Since acid mine drain-
age is largely caused by abandoned underground mines, this study concerns it-:
self with the long-term environmental effectiveness of underground mine
closures. Numerous closure techniques have been used in the past, and
engineering reviews of these methods have been documented. However, this
study is an attempt to objectively document closure success on a regional
scale relative to the quality and quantity of the drainage flow from the
mines. Assessment and analyses of data collected during the study provide
an evaluation of existing closure methods and recommendations for the
further development of mine closure techniques.
The two main objectives of the study comprise (1) a preparation of an
up-to-date document on deep-mine closure methods that have been or are
planned to be implemented by private ccal companies and/or are sponsored by
State and Federal agencies, and (2) an initial overview of the effectiveness
(relative to mine drainage quantity and quality) of past and present closure
methods and the factors to which effectiveness or ineffectiveness might be
attributable.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The character of the data available for the analyses limits the con-
clusions to rather general and preliminary status. The major constraints
on the conclusions are in the combination of the extreme variability of the
pollutant concentrations and outputs, the rather short and discontinuous
monitoring records, the use of historical data with inherent inconsistencies
in sampling and laboratory methods, and an overriding influence of the
physical and mining parameters, themselves time- and space-dependent, upon
the mine effluent quality.
The overall evaluation of the water quality characterizing the mine
discharges of the eastern coal mining regions shows large ranges and varia-
bility in the chemical pollutant concentrations. The effluents from flood-
ed shaft, slope and drift mines show generally better quality, although
not consistently, when compared to the quality of mine discharges from
open, air- or dry-sealed, or partially flooded updip drift mines.
Regionally, the most severe acid mine drainage problem is related to the
drift mines located in the Appalachian coal mining regions.
The most often used closure types are double and single bulkheads and
air seals. Most of the sealing efforts that have longer monitoring records
were sponsored by State or Federal agencies. Single bulkhead seals, and to
a lesser degree the air seals, are the most frequently implemented methods
used by private coal companies for the purpose of acid mine drainage abate-
ment.
The overall effect of the studied closures on water quality is benefi-
cial in terms of reduced acidity and increased alkalinity concentrations.
The sulfate concentrations remained unaffected or increased, while total iron
increased in the majority of cases.
Double bulkhead seals were effective in reducing acidity at 80 percent
of the sites. The reductions ranged between 32 and 100 percent. Discharges
through the sealed openings were eliminated in 30 percent of the sites.
Total or partial flooding in double bulkhead sealed mines is a function of the
permeability and soundness characteristics of the surrounding rocks.
The average reduction of acidity by air seals constructed in mines with
shallow overburden is about 50 percent. There are indications that air
-------
sealing could be more effective if implemented in small drift mines with
thicker overburden.
Permeable limestone seals are fully effective in neutralizing the mine
effluent seeping through the seal. However, the water leakage around the
seal periphery or sudden flushes of effluent through the seal results in
considerable variability of the drainage quality. Neither of the observed
seals has been successful in eliminating the flow through the seal, indicat-
ing that the expected "plugging" effect of the precipitate is not being
realized.
The limited effectiveness of the sealing efforts with respect to the
water quality improvements is determined predominantly by the physical and
mining framework and less by the sealing technology.
The overall effectiveness of the mine closures, evaluated with respect
to the mine effluent quality, by comparison with the preliminary mine
effluent guidelines or with the drinking water quality standards, is usually
less than 50 percent.
The trend analyses performed on available sufficiently long pre- and
post-sealing records show that the mine closures for more than half of the
studied sites reversed or reduced increasing pollutant trends, augmented
the already decreasing trends, and also reduced the variability in fluctua-
tions of the water quality.
The air seal seems to be the best sealing technique with respect to
its effectiveness with time. Most of the double bulkhead seals studied on
the project deteriorated with time and required more maintenance because
of the danger of a "blowout".
The degree of mine drainage pollution control by use of mining methods
such as short- or long-wall mining, daylighting, and also stowing or roof
collapse could not be demonstrated on this project for lack of available
water quality data.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the effectiveness of the sealing efforts has been limited,
these closure methods are still viable means of acid mine drainage control
when implemented with full understanding of the physical and mining condi-
tions of the sites in Question. More research is needed to establish the
physical and mining frameworks necessary for successful implementation of
a sealing technique and to establish guidelines usable in this respect by
private coal companies. The basic understanding of the interactions of
water quality and quantity with the mine hydroloeical and geological back-
ground is a prerequisite to any planned sealing effort.
Because the scope of this study allowed only a rather general assessment
of these relationships, further research is needed for better understanding
of more specific sets of circumstances such as the function of overburden
thickness and character for effectiveness of air sealing, the influence of
hydrological character of a mine (including differences between high- and
low-flow mines with respect to applicability of hydraulic seals), permeability
characteristics of the mine floor with respect to success in mine flooding
under different hydrostatic heads, evaluation of the pollution potential of
groundwater aquifers in proximity to a flooded mine, etc.
It is also suggested that selected sealed sites that already have avail-
able water quality and quantity monitoring records, and possibly represent
certain models of physical and mining parameters, be further monitored to allow
more exhaustive evaluation of trends in the pollutant concentrations and out-
puts with time. The question to answer is how long a time period is necessary
for a mine to reach a steady state with most of the residual pollutants
leached out, and to what degree is the downward trend(if existent) influenced
by the mine sealing in combination with the physical and mining framework.
As the updip drift mines in the Appalachian Coal Region generally
contribute more significantly to the acid mine drainage problem than do the
flooded shaft and slope mines, especially those located in the Interior Coal
Region, these sites should have priority in future acid abatement studies.
The overall quality evaluation of the discharges from closed mines with
respect to the mine effluent guidelines indicates that the set limits were
often exceeded not only in cases of the most frequently studied pollutants
such as acidity, sulfate, or total iron, but also in cases of the metallic
elements such as nickel and zinc. Because there is a limited knowledge
with regard to the abundance and distribution of the toxic trace metals in
the mine effluents, and since the understanding of how they are affected
-------
by mine closure is inadequate, research should be initiated.
The discussed limitations of the sealing projects indicate a need for
intensive research and development in the application of alternate closure
techniques such as stowing, roof collapse, daylighting, down-dip, and long-
or short-wall underground mining.
-------
SECTION 4
TECHNICAL APPROACH
A multiple task approach was used on this project to ensure the
satisfaction of the project objectives in an orderly and cost-effective
manner.
Technically the project can be considered in terms of several basic
work phases that are summarized below:
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review was used to provide input to site selection and
to provide project personnel and the contractor with a summary of the research
on and application of closure methods as of the present. The review also
suggested data sources for the data procurement task. The emphasis of the
review was on the effectiveness of different types of seals or closure methods,
the use of these seals, experience with evaluating their success or failure,
and the factors contributing to these results.
SITE SELECTION
The objective of this task was to select approximately 55 to 65 sites
that would represent a cross section of abandoned underground coal mines east
of the Mississippi river in the eastern coal mining regions [including the
Pennsylvania anthracite region}. The selected sites were to include all
types of mining practices (drift, slope, and shaft mines), to be historically
comprehensive from about 1930 onward, and most important, to cover all the
known closure methods that vary from no particular action at all to rather
involved sealing techniques or close-down methods such as stowing, short-
wall mining, and others.
Approximately 200 locations were identified and characterized with
regard to mine history, geologic environment, and closure method before the
final selection.
The preliminary site population was identified through a literature
review and telephone interview. State environmental and mining representa-
tives, Bureau of Mines district manager, coal companies, the U.S. Geological
Survey, state geological surveys, and also universities were contacted for
information on the location of closure efforts.
The most important requirements for the site selection were the
existence and availability of the water quality and quantity data (especially
-------
for the mine discharges before the closure), mine maps, geologic information,
mine production dates, and closure engineering specifications.
The cooperation of a field contact and approval of the mine owner
were also a necessary requirement in the final site selection.
The final decision to select 86 sites was based on maximization of the
variety of parameter relationships and the control of the available resources
for field data collection.
DATA PROCUREMENT
All the available data on the physical and mining backgrounds of the
studied sites, and on the quality and quantity of the mine effluents were
collected and compiled in a data base that is on file with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati. The data were assembled as an input to the site selection and the
data correlation and analysis tasks.
The data base is organized by mine sites, giving information on mine
location by coordinates, nearby town, county, and state. The mining and
physical parameters or constants describe the mine type, type and date of
closure, production dates, total mined area, coal type, seam thickness,
average thickness of the overburden, character and thickness of rocks in the
overburden (shale, sandstone, and other rocks), absence or presence of
calcareous material or of another coal seam in the overburden, strip mining
in the mine proximity, sulfur content of the coal, structural dip of coal
seam, and hydrologic type of mine.
Total overburden, soil, shale, sandstone, and other rock thicknesses
in the overburden were calculated from lithologic logs and U.S. Geological
Survey and State geological survey reports. From mine maps, field contact
information, or engineering judgment, outlines of mined-out areas for each
site were plotted on topographic maps. A grid was superimposed, and
elevations were taken at grid intersections. The elevation of the coal seam
(determined from mine maps or the outcrop) was subtracted from the intersec-
tion elevations and the results averaged to derive the mean overburden
thickness. Quantitative estimates of soil thickness in the overburden
were derived from geologic logs and soil maps. Sulfur content percentages
were obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8655.
The area of water over the mines was calculated from topographic maps
and field investigation.
The water quality and quantity data compiled in the data base are sub-
divided into two groups that describe the pre-closure and post-closure
periods. The data in milligrams per liter are presented as monthly means.
Total means for each of the two groups with standard deviations and number of
U.S. Bureau of Mines, The Reserve Base of Bituminous Coal and Anthracite for
Underground Mining in the Eastern United States," Information Circular
8655 (1974)-
8
-------
observations are calculated for flow (in liters per minute) and pollutant
concentrations. The concentrations are given, when available, for pH,
alkalinity, total acidity, specific conductance, hardness, total dissolved
solids, suspended solids, total iron, ferrous iron, sulfate, aluminum,
magnesium, manganese, zinc, nickel, cadmium, mercury, dissolved oxygen, and
chemical oxygen demand.
Pollutant outputs in kilograms per day and pounds per day for acidity,
alkalinity, total iron, ferrous iron, and sulfates are calculated when
information for both flow -and pollutant concentrations are available. The
total means and standard deviations are calculated for the pre- and post-
sealing periods.
FIELD SURVEY
This task included monitoring the quality and quantity of the mine
effluents and field inspections of the selected sites.
To demonstrate the extremes of water quality relative to flow rate
and volume, two major sampling efforts were conducted. Maximum and minimum
flow periods were determined for the Eastern United States using an average
water year as a model. March was chosen to represent the wet season, and
mid-October, the dry season.
Water samples collected at the selected mine sites were shipped to the
Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, Pennsylvania State
University, for chemical analyses. Methods of sample preservation followed
the EPA guidelines. Chemical parameters subject to change in transport
between field and laboratory were analyzed on site. A more detailed dis-
cussion of sample collection is given in Appendix B.
The field survey provided geologic and mining data not available from
existing sources. Dip, slumping conditions, mine location relative to
drainage, the presence of deep or strip mining in proximity to the site,
and condition of the seal were assessed and measured in the field.
LABORATORY ANALYSES
The Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources at the
Pennsylvania State University performed chemical analyses on water samples
and characterized the quality of mine waters >from a variety of inactive
mines during both the dry and wet seasons of the year. A total of 199.
samples were received from 85 mining sites located in Pennsylvania, Indiana,
Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky.
Chemical analyses performed included pH, alkalinity, acidity, specific
conductance, total dissolved solids, suspended solids, chemical oxygen
demand, sulfates, ferrous iron, total iron, calcium, magnesium, manganese,
a Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, Methods Development
and Quality Assurance Research Laboratory, National Environmental Research
Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Cincinnati, 1974).
-------
aluminum, cadmium, mercury, nickel and zinc, A listing of the results is
given in Appendix B, Tables B-l and 2.
The results of the laboratory analyses were used as a direct input to
the evaluation of the acid mine drainage problem and the effectiveness
of closures on a regional scale, and they are included in the data base.
10
-------
SECTION 5
SITE LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS
The 86 selected sites are located in Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia
(Figure 1). Bituminous drift mines and bituminous and anthracite shaft and
slope mines are included in the study population. Mine size ranges from
only 0.01 to over 8.0 km . Production periods vary from 2 years to over 80
years, and the sample population includes mines active in the latter part of
the 19th century and every decade of the 20th century to 1975.
A wide range of lithologic relationships is exemplified by the sites.
Shale and sandstone ratios vary considerably among the mines, as do those
involving coals and calcareous rocks above the mined seams. The thickness
of the mined coal seam varies from 0.76 to 3.14 meters and sulfur contents
differ from 0.6 to 4.2 percent. Total overburden thicknesses range from
7 to 165m for the drift mines and from 19 to 183m for the slope and shaft
mines. Structural dip ranges from 25 degrees in the anthracite fields of
Pennsylvania to nearly zero degrees in Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa.
The sample population also represents diverse hydrologic settings.
Sites are located above drainage (normally in topographic highs), near
drainage (a topographic low or stream valley), and below drainage. Annual
precipitation ranges from 81 to 126 cm.
Closure methods represented include 12 double bulkhead and 11 single
bulkhead seals, three permeable limestone seals, six earth seals, one clay
seal, one grout retainer seal, and 18 slope-shaft seals. Eleven of the sites
exhibit air seals. Two examples of stowing, one of short-wall mining, and
one of a mine prepared for daylighting are present in the sample. Three
sites display a combination of two or more closure methods, and 16 sites
have not benefited from any type of close-down procedure. The sites rep-
resent closure activities undertaken from 1910 to 1975.
11
-------
1. REPPLIER PA.
2. VEITH.PA.
3. OTTO PRIMROSE, PA.
4. OTTO, PA.
5. ARGENTINE, PA.
6. KEYSTONE NO. 6, PA.
7. KEYSTONE NO. 10, PA.
8. KEYSTONE NO. 19 PA.
9. MILLIARD, PA.
10. LINDEY NO. 1 PA.
11. ISLE NO. 1.PA.
12. SHAW MINES-ELK LICK NO. t, PA.
13. SHAW MINES-SL-118-3 PA
14. SHAW MINE.S-SL-118-5, PA.
15. SALEM NO. 2, PA.
16. DRISCOLLNO.4, PA.
17. RATTLESNAKE CREEK M, PA.
18. BUSKIRK, PA.
19. BRANDY CAMP, PA.
20. NEW WATSON, PA.
21. OLD WATSON, PA.
22. MILLS NO. 4, PA.
23. BULLROCKRUN.PA.
24. MAHONING CREEK, PA.
25. DECKER NO. 3, PA.
26. DECKER NO. 5, PA.
27. WOOLRIDGE NO. 2, PA.
28. UNKNOWN, PA.
?
v WISCONSIN
\.
IOWA
Z
-i
MICHIGAN
/ r^ \
81 -" I 1
1 \ i
82'83 f ILLINOIS 1 INDIANA \
'f i I
1 ^3
30,31
1 »23-26
19-11
15* *29
PENNSYLVANIA
r
r20,21
OHIO
63,64
MISSOURI
ARKANSAS
^69-72
\
ii. .'
79,
80
J- \p#"*S*'
*78/ KENTUCKY
,-xJ 54
^v.W«) VIRGINIA/
61,62y »46,47 )
V . (
51
4-56
64,85
TENNESSEE
-r
r" \
r
.-* MISSISSIPPI
^ ~\ SOI
ALABAMA \ GEORGIA V^
58-60
J
^«,49* -'
52,53 J .
29 DELT&, PA.
30. TAYLOR.WV.
31. STORRIES, WV.
32. 40-016, WV.
33. HELEN, WV.
34. RT5-2, WV.
35. RT5-2A, WV.
36. RT9-11.WV.
37 SAVAGE, WV.
38 BIG KNOB NO. 1, WV.
39 BIG KNOB NO. 2, WV.
40. BIG KNOB NO. 6, WV.
41. 14-042 A, WV.
42. 62 008-3, WV.
43. 62008-4, WV.
44. 62 008-5, WV.
45. STEWARTSTOWN.WV.
46. IMPERIAL COLLIERY NO. 8, WV.
47. IMPERIAL COLLIERY NO. 9, WV.
48. JACK'S CREEK, KY.
49. ARNOLD'S FORK, KY.
50. BUCKINGHAM, KY.
51. PRICE NO. 2, KY.
52. ARJAY NO. 4, KY.
53. BAKER NO. 1.KY.
54. EAST DIAMOND, KY.
55. ATKINSON. KY.
56. PLEASANTVIEW, KY.
57. BUCKINGHAM NO. 5, KY.
58. SAYRETON, AL.
59. LEWISBURG, AL.
60. NEWCASTLE, AL.
61. ELLISONVILLE.OH.
62. KELLY, OH.
63. ESSEX NO. 1.OH.
64. ESSEX NO. 2, OH.
65 PINEY FORK. OH.
66. FLORENCE, OH.
67. McDANIELS,OH.
68. BUCHTEL, OH.
69. MIAMI NO. 5, IN.
70. MIAMI NO. 10, IN.
71. VIKING, IN.
72. BENNETT, IN.
73. BLACK DIAMOND, IN.
74. BATES, IN.
75. BURNINGSTAR NO. t,IL.
76. BUCKHORN, IL.
77. LAKE CITY, IL.
78. ENSMINGER, IL.
79. WATSON, IL.
80. CARBON FUEL, I L.
81. HULL, I A.
82. NEW LANNING, IA.
83. LOST CREEK, I A.
84. ROCK HEAD, TN.
85. PHIFERSNO.I.TN.
86. DEER PARK, MD.
Figure 1. List and location of the mine sites studied on the project.
-------
SECTION 6
GENERAL RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSES
The general conclusions on closure effectiveness and inherent physical
and mining constraints are based on the data correlation and analyses that
were done in three major phases. This threefold approach to the data evalua-
tion was formulated after a preliminary multivariate analysis of all the
data and was designed to optimize, within the scope of the project, the use
of the available data, especially that on water quality and quantity.
The three basic approaches included: (1)statistical evaluation of the
water quality data that characterize mine effluents from 85 mines in the
eastern coal mining regions; (2)determination of closure effectiveness
levels as related to percent reduction of pollutant concentration and outputs;
and (3)evaluation of close-down procedure effectiveness by the closure type
and mine case studies. '
Ideally, the statistical evaluation of the water quality data collected
for the eastern coal mining regions should show significant differences
in the pollutant concentrations when comparing closed vs. open abandoned
mines or water quality of samples from permanently inundated mines vs.
samples from open mines above drainage, provided these factors have an over-
riding and final effect on the water quality.- However, the rates of acid
forming processes and transport of the pollutants are very strongly influenced
by physical and mining parameters that themselves are time- and space-dependent
and are in their combination often unique to each sampled locale,
The sampling design defined and limited within the scope of this project
could not provide a sufficiently large data base to account for the complexity
of the physical framework and the variability of the pollutant concentrations.
Another limiting factor encountered in the study was in the collection
of meaningful data on quality and quantity of mine discharges before and after
a closure. The available records usually consist of grab samples that are
at best, collected weekly, but usually over longer time periods. There are
also inconsistencies (inherent to any historical data) in sampling and
laboratory procedures that introduce an error in the conclusions drawn from
such data.
The results shown in the statistical summary of the pollutant concentra-
tions in the mine effluents from the 85 sampled sites indicate wide ranges
in the values, with some trends discernible in the data.
13
-------
Two groups of sites were separated by cluster analysis performed on
the water quality data. Each identified group of sites (Tables C-5 through 7)
represents a cross section of sites with different closures or no closures
at all. The group with the overall better water quality includes more sites
where samples were taken from waters within inundated shaft/slope or hydrau-
lically sealed mines. However, the observed modification in the mine effluent
quality for both of the groups and for the range of closure types (including
no closure at all) indicates that although the mine closures do modify the
effluent quality to a certain degree, they do not have an overriding effect
in this respect.
A varying degree of significance has been observed in relationships
between the acid mine drainage chemical indicators such as pH, acidity,
sulfate, and total iron and parameters that characterize the physical and
mining background of a studied site. Generally, the multiple regression
analysis of the data supports some of the already suggested relationships.
The presence of calcareous rocks has beneficial influence on the pH and net
acidity values, increases the sulfate and decreases the total iron concen-
trations. Positive trends or increases in acidity, sulfate, and total iron
concentrations are related to the percent of sulfur in the coal. Strip mining
in the site proximity results in lower pH values and increased acidity and
total iron concentrations.
The overall effectiveness of the mine closures evaluated with respect
to the mine effluent quality by comparison with the preliminary mine effluent
guidelines or the drinking water standards is usually less than 50 percent,
meaning that usually more than half of the samples exceeded the defined
water quality guidelines or standards.
Most of the sealing efforts affected the acidity and pH levels in a
beneficial way. The sulfate concentrations do not seem to be affected
significantly. While the behavior of the total iron is rather erratic, its
concentrations generally seem to increase after the mine closure. This can
possibly be attributed to inadequate laboratory methods for determining the
total and ferrous iron concentrations.
Although there is a considerable variability in the water quality of
the mine effluents, there are often quite discernible trends present in
the data that are indicative of long-term increases or decreases in the
pollutant concentrations. The trend analyses performed for all of the
sufficiently long pre- and post-sealing records show that the mine closures
for more than half of the studied cases reversed or reduced increasing
pollutant trends, augmented the already decreasing trends, and reduced the
variability in fluctuations of the water quality. However, no general
conclusions as to the effect of a particular closure on the pollutant
trends can be drawn.
The irregularity in the mine responses to closure (or a closure method)
suggests that the effectiveness is site specific. No single factor, but
rather the interaction of many variables, is responsible for the failure
or success of a closure. The volume of flow through the mine, the entering
water's assimilative capacity, the amount of residual pollutants within the
14
-------
mine, the design and choice of the closure process, the physical character-
istics of the mine-all are important factors that synergistically influence
the effectiveness of the closure effort. The evaluations of closure effect-
iveness as discussed in this report should be always viewed in this per-
spective.
The closure methods that were most frequently implemented and studied
were the sealing efforts, namely the ones concerned with construction of
air, double bulkhead, and permeable limestone seals. As the effectiveness
of these methods was often studied over prolonged periods of time, they have
the best available water quality and quantity monitoring records. Most of
these projects were sponsored by Federal and State agencies.
The first organized and extensive acid mine drainage abatement effort
carried out under the Work Projects Administration (WPA) and Civil Works
Administration Projects was responsible for sealing hundreds of abandoned
coal mines. An overall evaluation of the WPA seals was never made, although
some reports indicate considerable reductions of acid load discharges. An
updating of these suggestions in this study was not possible for lack of
adequate information about these seals.
The elimination of the oxygen access to mine workings through the mine
overburden is the basic and most difficult problem dealt with in the air
sealing efforts. The air access was not even eliminated under extraordinary
measures that were taken during the sealing projects in Pennsylvania (Decker
No. 3 Mine) and West Virginia (RT 9-11, Big Knob, and Savage Mines). All
these mines have rather shallow overburden (22-24 meters) that is rather prone
to subsidence or fracturing as a result of the undermining.
The reduction in acidity levels observed in mines closed with air seals
was about 50 percent. The sulfate concentrations were observed to be mostly
unchanged while the iron concentrations in several cases increased signif-
icantly.
The mines with thicker overburden should be better qualified for effect-
ive air sealing. This suggestion is supported by the case of Imperial
Colliery No. 9 Mine that was air sealed in 1972. The average thickness of
the mine overburden is 144m. Although the pollutant concentrations increased
considerably after the sealing, they have been diminishing at considerable
rates since then. There is a statistically significant relationship between
the pollutant reduction rates and time at this mine.
The double bulkhead sealing resulted in reduction of acidity concen-
trations at 80 percent of the sites. The reductions ranged from 45 to 99
percent. The sulfate concentrations were reduced at 40 percent of the
sites and increased significantly at 18 percent. The total iron concen-
trations behaved rather erratically; they increased substantially at about
50 percent of the sites and decreased by lesser degrees at the rest of the
sites.
15
-------
Double bulkhead seals were successful in total obstruction of the mine
drainage through the sealed openings and in partial or total flooding of the
mine in 30 percent of the cases. As the water levels and hydrostatic pressure
in the mine increased, the mine waters were in almost all of the studied
cases diverted through another mine opening, through weak points in the coal
outcrop, in the surrounding rocks at the nine periphery and/or around
the seal itself. Usually the contact between the seal and the mine floor
was eroded first. The partial flooding of some of the mines can be
attributed not only to the leakage resulting from the above described factors
but also to an increased seepage rate through the mine floor resulting from
an elevated hydrostatic head.
An extreme response to the elevated hydrostatic pressure in a mine is a
sudden drainage or "blowout" of the accumulated mine water through the weak-
est and most strained point in the mine. The sudden release of large
volumes of a mine effluent results in rather drastic changes in the down-
stream surface water quality, and in extreme cases it represents a consider-
able risk to human safety and property value. For these reasons, the
hydraulic sealing should be implemented with extreme caution or not at all in
mines either where expected hydrostatic pressures are not compatible with the
soundness of the rocks or where the mine workings are too close to the
surface.
As the overall influence of the hydraulic double bulkhead seals in
respect to the effluent quality is only slightly more effective than that of
the air seals, the latter type of sealing should be more appropriate for the
mine with the high risk of "blowouts."
The single bulkhead seals are, along with earths seals, the closure
methods most often used by private coal companies. The seals are very
similar to the double bulkhead seals in their effect on the mine drainage
quality and quantity. As they are not usually designed to sustain high
hydraulic pressures, these seals are not effectively applicable to the high
flow mines with potential for a considerable hydrostatic buildup.
The favorable effect of the permeable seals on the water quality is
significant with respect to acidity and alkalinity concentrations and pH
levels. The effluent discharges neutralized by the seal have alkalinity
higher than acidity and pH above 6.0. The sulfate and total iron concen-
trations are generally unaffected. The flow continues through the studied
seals several years after the construction and the "plugging" effect of the
precipitate does not seem to be sufficient to stop the discharge. Most of
the seals also show leakage around the seal and sudden flushes of the
effluent through the seal during high flow periods. The short contact time
of the effluent with the alkaline material results, then, in considerable
deterioration of the effluent quality. For these reasons, permeable seals
do not seem to be very applicable to high flow mines or to mines with sudden
changes in their hydrological regime.
The degree of mine drainage pollution control resulting from closures
related to mining techniques such as short- or long-wall mining, daylighting
16
-------
and also to stowing or roof collapse could not be demonstrated on this project
for lack of available water quality data. Thus far, these techniques are not
used as means of acid drainage control, although they seem to be rather
promising in this respect.
The stowing, short- or long-wall mining, and roof collapse efforts are
expected to result in reduction of void space in a mine, limitation of the
oxygen-sulfide contact, and subsequent reduction or inhibition of the acid
forming processes.
These methods can be used at the mine site where the other closure
methods, namely sealing, are not too effective or are problematic because
of the geological and hydrological conditions of the mine site. The
advantage of the aforementioned methods (as opposed to mine sealing) is that
they do not require any post-implementation maintenance, and some can be
made more economically feasible when used for a dual purpose. Stowing, for
instance, can be used for mine drainage control and subsidence control.
However, the effectiveness and feasibility of these methods is also limited
by the physical and mining conditions and will require further research and
demonstration to assure their optimal implementation.
17
-------
SECTION 7
STATISTICAL SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY DATA FOR
85 SELECTED MINES OF THE EASTERN COAL MINING REGIONS
The study of water quality of closed and open abandoned underground
coal mines was undertaken to permit an overall assessment of the acid mine
drainage problem and effectiveness of closures on a regional scale.
Eighty-five sites were selected to represent a cross section of planned
or implemented closure methods within the physical and mining framework of
the eastern coal mining regions. The sites were visited and sampled during
the dry season (Phase 1) and wet season (Phase 2) in October 1975 and March
1976, respectively.
The chemical parameters determined are acidity, alkalinity, pH, sulfate,
total and ferrous iron, specific conductance, total dissolved solids, suspend-
ed solids, COD, manganese, calcium, magnesium, aluminum, cadmium, mercury,
nickel, and zinc. The results of the chemical analyses for both dry and wet
seasons (Phases 1 and 2) are given in Appendix B, Table B-2. The samples were
analyzed by the Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, The
Pennsylvania State University. The Institute also performed the statistical
evaluation of the water quality data.
Four major data sets that were subdivided by the nature of the collected
samples include (l)drainages from closed drift mines (SE); (2)mine drainages
from abandoned but open drift mines (UN); (3)interior mine waters from shaft
or slope mines or inundated closed drift mines (SO); and (4)surface waters
in proximity of the mine sites (OT).
The statistical evaluation of the data is presented in four steps
that include (l)data summary; (2)cluster analysis; (3)regression analysis;
and (4)an overall evaluation of mine drainage quality.
DATA SUMMARY
For the purpose of the statistical evaluations, the data sets were
tested for normality. For the respective data sets, functions of the moments,
such as indicators of skewness and kurtosis were calculated and the signif-
icance of their departure from the expected values of a normal population
were examined. The bulk of the parameters exhibited a normal distribution
in the logarithmic form, except for the variables pH and alkalinity, which
proved normal in linear form. COD, mercury, and nickel proved to be non-
normal for the transformations tested, partly, because many of the values
18
-------
obtained were less than the detection limit of the analytical procedures
employed.. For the purposes of the statistical analyses, values listed as
less than the detection limit were assigned a value equal to one-half of
that limit.
A computer program "STSUM" was utilized for testing normality in the
series of parameters. The outputs that include values of the mean, variance,
standard deviation and moment ratios for each parameter, given in form of
computer printouts, are on file with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati. The print-
'outs also include plots of frequency distributions of the chemical parameters
for each of the four data sets and each sampling phase.
Statistical summaries of the chemical parameters show a considerable
range in the water quality exhibited for the four major data sets, (Appendix
G, Tables C-l through 4).
The samples taken from inundated shaft/slope mines or closed drift
mines show generally better water quality when compared to samples taken at
the rest of the sites. An improvement of the water quality in a majority
of the samples was observed for the wet sampling season.
CLUSTER ANALYSIS OF THE WATER QUALITY DATA
Cluster analysis was used to examine the nature of the data distribution
and implement a classification if, in fact, two distinct groups were in
evidence. The patterns of variation of sites across their water quality
characteristics were examined and then were grouped by their profile sim-
ilarity. a>b
Classification of samples into groups was accomplished through the
use of the Fortran program CLUS developed by Rubin and Friedman, *c Data
are initially converted into a principal component matrix which insures that
sources of variation are linearly independent. Samples are grouped according
to the differences in the variables, or more exactly, with respect to the
variations in linearly independent components.
The CLUS program includes a number of criteria that may be used to
determine the "best" partition of n sites into j clusters. They all depend
a
R. C. Tyrori and D. E. Bailey, Cluster Analyses, McGraw-Hill (New York, 1972)
G. H. Hall, Data Analysis in the Social Sciences: What About the Details,
Proceedings Fall Joint Computer Conference (Las Vegas, 1965).
C J. Rubin and H. P. Friedman, A Cluster Analysis and Taxonomy System for
Grouping and Classifying Data, New York Scientific Center, I.B.M. Corp,
(New'York, 1967).
19
-------
on the fundamental relationship that the total variation (T) is composed
of the variation between groups (B) plus the variation within groups (W).
The best grouping is the one that maximizes the between-group variations
and minimizes the within-group variations. In the analysis, two criteria
were examined, namely the Wilks-Lambda criterion, which is the logarithm of
the ratio between the determinant of (T) and (W) and the Mahalanobis D^
criterion. With the latter the distance between groups is compared with
distance within groups, again maximizing the variation between groups as
compared with that within groups.
The variables used in the cluster analysis include pH, acidity, specific
conductance, dissolved solids, suspended solids, sulfates, ferrous iron,
total iron, and percent sulfur in the coal seam. The data base incorporated
only those sites which were sampled in both phases, that is in October 1975
and March 1976, and included observations for mine drainages from abandoned
closed mines, abandoned but open mines, and mine waters from inundated mines.
Analyses were made on individual phases as well as on the pooled data
set. In each situation, two distinct groups were identified.
The sites that clustered in Group 2 exhibit better overall water
quality than those in Group 1. They are characterized by higher pH values
and lower concentrations of acidity, sulfate, and ferrous and total iron. The
ranges and averages of the values are given in Appendix C, Tables C-5 through
7.
Some shifting of the sites between the groups was noted from low flow
(Phase 1) to high flow (Phase 2) sampling periods. This can be attributed
to anticipated variations of the pollutant concentrations resulting from
changes in the mine hydrological conditions.
The overall water quality of some of the mine effluents was better
during the dry season (Phase 1) sampling period when compared to the wet
season (Phase 2} period. This was the case of mine sites that include the
air-sealed Big Knob 1, 2, and 6 and Savage mines, two earth-sealed mines
(Buskirk and Mills No. 4), two shaft mines from the anthracite region (Otto
and Otto Primrose), three hydraulically sealed mines (Argentine, Isle No. 1,
and Salem No. 2), and one unsealed mine (Old Watson). The reversed trend
was observed also for two shaft mines (Veith and Burningstar No. 1), and
drift mines closed by single bulkhead seals (Mines 62008-4 and 40016) and
a permeable limestone seal (Mine 62008-3).
The majority of sites that clustered in the Group 2 that is characterized
by better quality are the inundated shaft and slope mines (Miami No. 5, Lost
Creek, Lake City, and Bennett Mines) or drift mines that were closed by
double bulkhead seals (Keystone No. 6, 10, and 19 and Billiard Mines). Two
mines that were earth-sealed also belong to this group.
The better overall water quality of the interior mine waters is in
agreement with the generally accepted theory that a lack of oxygen in a
mine will reduce the rate of pyrite oxidation and production of the mine
water pollutants. However, the observed shifting of the sites between the
20
-------
two water quality groups and presence of limestone in the overburden at
some of the sites makes it difficult to determine to what degree the relative-
ly lower pollutant concentrations can be attributed to the mine inundation or
how much is inherent in the physical framework of the mine, including the
hydrological changes.
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
To gain some insight into the relationship of the physical background
of a mine and the mine effluent quality-concentrations, a multiple regression
analysis was performed on selected data. a,b
The selected independent variables that characterize the mine setting
include the presence of calcareous rocks in the overburden (C), the presence
of another coal seam in the overburden (ACS), the evidence of strip mining in
proximity to the studied site (SM), and the percent sulfur in the coal mined
at the studied site (%S) . The first three variables are qualitative; either
"1" or "0" was assigned to each observation denoting the presence or absence
of a given feature.
The dependent variables pH, acidity, sulfate, and total iron, were
regressed individually on the three qualitative and one quantitative
variables using the Fortran program, "Statistical Analysis of Single Equation
Stochastic Models," developed by M. C. Hallberg.c Results of the analysis
are given in Table. 1.
Examination of the table reveals that although little of the variance
in the dependent variables is explained by the dummy variables, the response
given is consistent with theory. The presence of calcareous rocks is seen
to increase the pH and decrease acidity and total iron. The neutralizing
effects of limestone are understood and it is known that in groundwaters
containing measurable alkalinity, the solubility of siderite commonly limits
ferrous iron concentrations.
Adjacent coal seams appear to enhance water quality, their presence
suggesting higher pH values and lower levels of acidity and iron.
As expected, localized strip mining results in lower pH values
and increased acidity and iron. Positive trends in acidity, sulfate and
total iron are related to the percent sulfur in the coal.
a George W. Snedecor and W. G. Cochran, Statistical Methods, Iowa State
University Press,Ames (Iowa, 1962).
b J. Johnston. Econometric Methods, McGraw-Hill (New York, 1973).
C M. C. Hallberg, Statistical Analysis of Single Equation Stochastic; Models
Using the Digital Computer, Agricultural Experiment Station, The Pennsyl-
vania State University, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology 78
(February, 1969).
21
-------
TABLE .i ^ CONTROLS ^SELECTED PHYSICAL .PARAMETERS:ON MINE AFFLUENT QUALITY
to
ts)
Independent variables
Dependent variables
Phase 1-dry sampling
season (October 1975)
PH
Net Acidity
Sulfate
Total Iron
Phase 2 -wet sampling
season (March 1976) :
pH
Net Acidity
Sulfate
Total Iron
C
: b*
0.23
-5.83
151.5
-43.2
0.11
-137.1
76.3
-28.5
*
% var**
1.0
0.0
3.2
-0.4
0.2
0.9
1.0
-0.6
ACS* SM %S
b
1.18
-350.3
356.9
-13.9
0.36
-60.3
159.5
0.9
% var
11.6
9.6
5.8
0.0
0.8
0.5
1.3
0.0
b
-0.62
243.7
0.05
35.7
-0.55
145.6
85.3
39.1
% var
0.3
3.2
0.0
1.7
2.6
3.9
0.5
3.5
b
0.17
84.6
470.7
52.5
-0.04
134.5
338.9
51.2
% var
1.3
2.5
27.3
9.5
0.1
8.8
14.5
15.1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
R2
14
15
36
10
03
14
17
18
F
Ratio
1.82
1.98
6. 30++
1.31
0.34
1.53
1.93
2.03
* Presence of calcareous rock in the overburden.
+ Presence of another coal seam in the overburden.
t Strip mining in proximity.
§ Percent of sulfur in coal.
# Regression coefficient.
** Percent variance explained by the independent variable.
++ Significant at 1 percent probability level.
-------
Only one equation is seen to be significant at a reasonable probability
level.
Supplementary information provided by the addition of other definitive
variables would enhance the explanation of variance in the quality parameters.
MINE DRAINAGE QUALITY
An ultimate goal of acid mine drainage abatement efforts is to
improve the effluent quality to approach or to -meet the water quality
standards.
To evaluate the sampled mine effluents in this respect, the concen-
trations of several chemical parameters were compared with the preliminary
effluent guidelines for mine waters that were given in the draft copy of a
report prepared by Skelly and Loy for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.3 A list of the sites where the effluent exceeded the guidelines
for pH, total iron, aluminum, manganese, nickel, zinc, and suspended solids,
is given in Appendix C, Table C-8. A distribution of the number of samples
from closed mines that exceeded the guidelines or the drinking water quality
standards is given in Table 2.
TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLES THAT EXCEEDED THE EPA PRELIMINARY
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES OR DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Parameter
pH
Total iron
Net acidity
Suspended solids
Aluminum
Nickel
Zinc
Manganese
Sulfates
Dissolved solids
Cadmium
Mercury
Percent of
samples exceeding
guideline or standard
65
72
66
28
42
55
45
45
55
70
0
0
Limit
6.0*
3.5 mg/1*
0
35.0 mg/1*
2.0 mg/1*
0.20 mg/1*
0.20 mg/1*
2.0 mg/1*
250 mg/l+
500 rag /!+
0.01 mg/l+
0.002 mg/l+
* Mine drainage guideline.
+ Drinking water standard.
a
Skelly and Loy, Inc., Development Document for Effluent Limitations, Guide-
lines, and Standards of Performance for the Coal Mining Point Source
Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (January, 19/5).
23
-------
The drinking water standards were used for concentrations of sulfates,
dissolved solids, cadmium, and mercury. The latter two parameters were
the only ones in which all the analyzed samples met the quality standards.
The dissolved solids and sulfate concentrations exceeded the standards for
55 and 70 percent of the samples. More than half of the samples exceeded
the guidelines set for total iron, net acidity, pH, aluminum, nickel, zinc,
and manganese. Total iron exceeded the set guideline most frequently of all
the parameters (by 72 percent),
The high percentage of samples that exceeded the effluent guidelines
of the drinking water standards indicates that the overall effectiveness of
the mine closures in this respect is limited and usually less than 50 per-
cent successful.
24
-------
SECTION 8
CLOSURE EFFECTIVENESS AS RELATED TO REDUCTION OF POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS AND OUTPUTS
The effectiveness of mine closure methods is evaluated here in terms
of water quality improvement and reduction of pollutant outputs.
Changes in the mine effluent quality and quantity are expressed in
percentages of reduction or an increase of the major pollutant concentrations
or outputs comparing the pre-sealing and post-sealing periods. The chemical
constituents considered in the evaluations are acidity, sulfate, total iron,
and pH. These are the pollutants that are indicative of the acid mine
drainage pollution problem and hence the most often monitored.
The data base that contains all the available water quality and
quantity data for the studied sites is used as a major input to analyses.
The percentages of reductions or increases are calculated for the total
means of pre- and post-sealing periods. The results are compiled by types of
closure and by individual sites in Tables 3 through 12.
The considerable variability of the chemical parameters, the rates
of mine discharges, and the absence of data for some sites or rather short
monitoring records for others have to be taken into consideration in evalu-
ating the changes.
In order to account for some of these concerns, a statistical test of
the reliability of the difference between the means of pre- and post-sealing
parameters was computed for each set of parameter concentration and load
wherever data permitted (at least three observations per parameter per sampling
period). The test entails calculation of the standard error of the difference
between the means by taking the square root of the sum of each mean's squared
standard error. The actual distance between the means was then divided by
this product and the estimated ratio compared with tabular t-values for given
degrees of freedom to test for the significance between the means.
For this test, the level of significance that must be met by the ratio
is generally considered to be at least 0.10; there are only 10 chances in 100
that a difference as large as that being tested could have happened by sampling
of the same population. Similarly, for a ratio significant at 0.01 (or 0.05),
there is only one chance (or five) in 100 that the difference could be due to
samnling of the same population;a
W. J. Dixon and F. J. Massey, Jr., Introduction to Statistical Analysis,
McGraw-Hill Co. (New York, 1969).
/
25
-------
To show patterns in the water quality data that might be undiscernable
because of the variability or fluctuation in the raw data, trend analyses
were performed for acid, total iron, and sulfate concentrations and loads
using the principle of least squares.
A regression formula was used to calculate the intercept, slope, and
standard error of the slope or trend line. The magnitude of the standard error
relative to the coefficient illustrates the reliability of the line as an
estimator, arid, to a great extent, the variability of the constituent
concentrations or loads. In general, the regression coefficient is significant
if its value is larger than the standard error value.
The closure methods that have pre- and post-sealing monitoring records
will be discussed. They include air seals, double and single bulkhead seals,
and permeable limestone seals.
AIR SEALS
Eleven air-sealed sites located in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio
were studied in this project. A list of these and their location are given in
Figure 1. Three of the mine sites (Essex No. 1, Kelly, and Elk Lick No. 1)
were sealed in the 1930's as part of the Work Projects Administration projects,
and one site (Imperial Colliery No. 9) was sealed in 1975 by a private company.
The U.S. Bureau of Mines sponsored a very extensive water quality monitoring
program in conjunction with the air sealing of Decker No. 3 Mine. Mine RT-
9-11 was sealed as part of the Elkins demonstration project sponsored by
several Federal agencies and the State of West Virginia. The latter agency
also sponsored the air sealing of Big Knob and Savage Mines in the Shavers
Fork watershed. The very involved study of acid discharges under controlled
oxygen levels at McDaniels Mine in Ohio was sponsored by the Water Quality
Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Six of the 11 sites have both the pre- and post-sealing data to allow
calculations of pollutant reductions or increases. Five of the sites have
sufficient data for the trend analysis. Tables 3 through 5 and Tables D-l
through 3 summarize the calculations.
Three mines (Decker No. 3, RT 9-11, and Savage) show measurable improve-
ments in acidity concentrations, with reductions by 57, 45, and 50 percent,
respectively. Sulfate concentrations were favorably effected at Decker No. 3
Mine, while the differences in sulfate concentrations at RT 9-11, Imperial
Colliery No. 9, Big Knob No. 1, 2, and Savage Mines are not significant at the
0.10 level and can be considered basically unchanged. Total iron concen-
trations were also reduced at two sites (Decker No. 3 and Big Knob No. 2);
however, significant increases (over 100 percent) were found at Big Knob
No. 7 and Savage Mines.
The pollutant outputs were also impacted differently from site to site.
Acidity outputs decreased significantly at Decker No. 3, Big Knob No. 2, and
Savage Mines by 81, 42 and 41 percent and remained basically unchanged at
RT 9-11 and Big Knob No. 1. Sulfate outputs increased by 71 percent at RT
9-11, and they were reduced significantly at the Decker No. 3 Mine;
26
-------
TABLE 3. PERCENTAGE CHANGES OF POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN EFFLUENT
DISCHARGES FROM AIR-SEALED MINES ; PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE PERIODS
Mine name
Decker No
RT 9-11
Imperial
Big Knob
Big Knob
Big Knob
Savage
Acidity
R* 1+
. 3
57
45
Colliery No. 9
No.
No.
No.
1
2
6
-
-
#
50
_
-
107
1
8
#
-
Alkalinity
R I
#
#
#
#
-
#
-
#
#
.4
#
150
#
16
Sulfate
R I
31
19
21
-
-
#
-
-
-
14
10
#
2
Total
R
71
59
-
57
-
#
-
Iron
I
-
147
-
125
#
109
* Pollutant reduction in percent.
+ Pollutant increase in percent.
# No pre- or post-sealing data available.
TABLE 4. PERCENTAGE CHANGES OF POLLUTANT OUTPUTS FROM AIR-SEALED MINES;
PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE PERIODS
Mine name
Decker No. 3
RT 9-11
Imperial Colliery No. 9
Big Knob No. 1
Big Knob No. 2
Big Knob No. 6
Savage
Acidity
R* 1+
81
#
5
42
#
41
21
#
-
-
#
-
Sulfate
R I
70
-
#
5
30
#
24
_
71
#
-
-
#
-
Total
R
81
-
#
-
76
#
Iron
I
_
62
#
198
-
#
37
* Pollutant output reduction in percent.
+ Pollutant output increase in percent.
# No pre- and post-sealing data available.
27
-------
00
TABLE 5. SIGNIFICANCE OF SCORES FROM TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE
MEANS FOR AIR SEALS
Acidity
Mine name Concentration Output
Decker No. 3
RT 9-11
Imperial Colliery
No. 9
Big Knob No. 1
Big Knob No. 2
Big Knob No. 6
Savage
Essex No. 1
Kelly
McDaniels
Elk Lick No. 1
26.64*
15.14*
IDt
.06
.66
ID
3.70*
ID
ID
2.10+
ID
6.41*
.57
ID
.04
2.74*
ID
2.34+
ID
ID
ID
ID
Total Iron
Concentration Output
19.31*
23.80*
ID
2.39+
.83
ID
2.28+
ID
ID
ID
ID
5.93*
1.60
ID
1.955
1.05
ID
.49
ID
ID
ID
ID
Sulfate
Concentration Output
17.62*
1.02
ID
.64
.50
ID
.47
ID
ID
ID
ID
4.81*
2.06+
ID
.10
1.07
ID
.88
ID
ID
ID
ID
* Significant at 0.01.
+ Significant at 0.05.
t Insufficient data; fewer than two observations.
§ Significant at 0.10.
-------
they remained unchanged at the rest of the sites. The changes in total
iron outputs were very similar to those of sulfate.
The Decker No. 3 is the only mine where concentrations and outputs of
all three pollutants were reduced. The pollutant concentrations decreased
on the average by 50 percent.
The effect of air seals on the water quality is beneficial only in
terms of the reduction of acidity (about 50 percent). The sulfate concen-
trations were observed to be unchanged or increased, and the iron concen-
trations in several cases increased significantly.
The quality of the effluent from the air-sealed mines as compared to
the mine effluent guidelines and/or water standards is rather poor. Three
of the 11 air-sealed sites are producing discharges with alkalinity higher
than acidity, and only two of the sites meet the effluent guideline of pH
6.0. Sulfate concentrations acceptable by the drinking water quality
standards (250 mg/1) are found at eight sites, and total iron concentrations
at or below the mine effluent limit (3.5 mg/1) are present in the discharges
of five of the sites.
DOUBLE BULKHEAD SEALS
Twelve sites closed by the double bulkhead technique were investigated
during the course of this study. They are located in Pennsylvania
(Argentine, Keystone No. 6, 10, and 19, Isle No. 1, Milliard, Lindey No. 1,
Shaw SL-118-5, and Salem No. 2), in West Virginia (RT 5-2 and 62008-5) and
in Tennessee (Phifers No. 1). All were sealed within the last decade. All
the sealing efforts in Pennsylvania were sponsored by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania as part of Operation Scarlift. The West Virginia sites were
closed under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Tennessee site by the University of Tennessee and the Tennessee Valley
Authority. The mine locations are given in Figure 1. Eleven out of 12 sites
have both pre- and post-sealing data to allow calculations of pollutant
reductions. Tables 6 through 8, and Tables D-4 through 9 summarize all the
calculations.
The double bulkhead seals were successful in total obstruction of mine
discharges and subsequent mine flooding in four of the 12 studied sites. The
Lindey No. 1 (sealed in 1970), Phifers No. 1 (sealed in 1975), and Keystone
No. 6 (sealed in 1975) sites exhibited no discharge during either the October.
1975 or the March 1976 site survey. The RT 5-2 mine portal did not leak for
2 years after the seal was installed (1969-71), but is draining now because
a safety valve installed in the seal was opened. The water impounded behind
the seal was draining through the RT 5-2A opening sealed with a permeable
limestone seal.
Flow was reduced significantly at the 62008-5 mine portal to an average
of 0.85 liters per minute (1pm). There was no flow observed at the Shaw
SL-118-5 hydraulically sealed portals in October 1975 but a 3 1pm discharge
was observed in March 1976. No flow during the dry season was observed at
the Salem No. 2 and Keystone No. 10 sites, and discharges in the wet season
were measured at 7 1pm and 1 1pm for the respective sites.
29
-------
TABLE 6. PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR PRE- AND POST-
CLOSURE PERIODS IN DOUBLE BULKHEAD-SEALED MINES
Acidity
Mine name R*
Argentine 50
Argentine OBt 72
Keystone No. 6 §
Keystone No. 6 OB 86
Keystone No. 10 57
Keystone No. 10 OB 84
Keystone No. 19 93
Keystone No. 19 OB 95
Milliard
Milliard OB 61
Lindey No. 1 §
Lindey No. 1 OB 99
Shaw SL-118-5 34
Shaw SL-118-5 CD# 20
Salem No. 2 32
Salem No. 2 OB 97
RT 5-2
RT 5-2 OB
Phifers No. 1 §
Phifers No. 1 OB 100
Isle No. 1 53
Isle No. 1 OB 86
62008-5 52
* Pollutant reduction
+ Pollutant increase
t Samples taken from
1+
.
-
§
-
_
-
_
-
16
-
§
-
_
-
_
-
16
61
§
-
_
-
-
Alkalinity Sulfate
R
-
§
_
-
-
-
_
-
§
§
§
§
_
-
§
§
§
§
_
-
§
I
1454
8736
§
100
3713
2734
100
100
616
9830
.§
§
§
§
0
100
§
§
§
§
405
377
§
R
54
-
§
65
-
-
92
56
§
§
§
§
46
34
48
94
14
§
§
56
§
§
13
I
130
§
-
238
97
-
-
§
§
§
§
_
-
_
-
_
118
§
-
§
§
-
Total Iron
R
31
7
§
-
-
-
5
-
_
-
§
7
40
62
49
70
42
-
§
30
46
-
-
I
fm
-
§
235
539
627
-
1
267
613
§
-
_
-
_
-
_
137
§
-
_
62
19
in percent.
in percent.
observation borings.
No pre- or post- data available.
Combined drainage from several mine openings.
3.0
-------
No apparent overall change in the rate of effluent discharges took
place by sealing the Isle No. 1, Milliard, and Argentine mine openings. The
discharge rate at the Keystone No. 10 opening increased by nearly 600 percent-
as a result of the diversion of mine water from the previously draining
Keystone No. 6 and No. 19 openings through this portal.
The double bulkhead sealing resulted in reductions of acidity concen-
trations at all except two sites. The discharges from Milliard mine show
basically no change, but the acidity concentrations in the flooded mine
behind RT 5-2 seal increased by 61 percent. The reductions observed at
the mine sites range from 32 to 99 percent. The difference between the
concentration means for the Argentine site is not significant at the 0.10
level.
The sulfate concentrations have been reduced at the majority of the
sites with the reduction rates ranging from 14 to 94 percent. At the
Keystone No. 10 site the post-sealing sulfate increased by 238 percent.
The interior mine waters from RT 5-2 and Argentine Mines show a significant
sulfate increase.
TABLE 7. PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN POLLUTANT OUTPUTS FOR PRE- AND POST-
CLOSURE PERIODS IN DOUBLE BULKHEAD-SEALED MINES
MINE NAME
Argentine
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Milliard
Lindey No. 1
Shaw SL-118-5
Shaw SL-118-5 CD §
Salem No. 2
RT 5-2
Isle No. 1
62008-5
Acidity
R* 1+
81
t
-
100
-
t
-t
t
98
76
54
96
-
t
246
-
203
t
t
t
-
-
-
-
Alkalinity
R I
38
t
-
-
-
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
-
t
156
100
500
4.
t
t
t
t
335
t
Sulfate
R I
32
t
-
99
t
t
t
f
98
85
t
93
-
t
2822
-
t
t
t
t
-
-
t
t
Total Iron
R I
82
t
-
90
-
t
t
t
98
87
54
90
-
t
4096
-
1550
t
t
t
-
-
-
-
* Pollutant reduction in percent.
+ Pollutant increase in percent.
t No pre- and post- data available.
§ Combined drainage from several mine openings.
The total iron concentrations behaved rather erratically and increased
at about half of the sites and decreased at the other half. However, the
31
-------
TABLE 8. SIGNIFICANCE OF SCORES FROM TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRE- AND
POST-CLOSURE MEANS: DOUBLE BULKHEAD SEALS
Acidity
Mine name Concentration
Argentine
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Milliard
Lindey No. 1
Shaw SL-118-5
Shaw SL-118-5 CD**
Salem No. 2
RT 5-2
Phifers No. 1
Isle No. 1
62008-5
* Significant at 0.
+ Significant at 0.
t No flow observed
§ Significant at 0.
# Insufficient data
0.97
NFt
2.36*
ID#
0.29
NF
1.52
2.42*
4.09+
0.42
NF
2.23*
ID
Total Iron
Output Concentration
2.25*
NF
0.88
ID
0.58
NF
ID
ID
5.44+
4.27+
NF
1.58
ID
0.79
NF
0.70
ID
0.85
NF
4.52+
10.41+
1.01
1.64§
NF
1.59
ID
Output
4.99+
NF
0.78
ID
0.69
NF
ID
ID
4.59+
4.10+
NF
1.641
ID
Sulfate
Concentration
4.20+
NF
4.08+
ID
ID
NF
1.46
4.93+
3.61+
0.41
NF
ID
- ID
Output
0.34
NF
1.75§
ID
ID
NF
ID
ID
5.76+
5.08+
NF
ID
ID
05.
01.
during post-sealing period.
10.
; fewer than two observations.
** Combined drainage from several mine openings.
-------
rates of reduction range from 5 to 70 percent, and the rates of increases are
often above 100 percent and reach up to 627 percent.
Although the quality of the mine effluent was considerably affected
by the mine closure, especially with respect to the acidity and alkalinity
levels, only four sampled sites show levels of alkalinity higher than those
of acidity while pH values are below 6.0 at 10 of the sites. Most of the
sites exceed the mine effluent guideline for the total iron concentrations.
The sulfate concentrations are higher than 250 mg/1 in five cases.
SINGLE BULKHEAD SEALS
Eleven mines sealed with single bulkhead seals located in West Virginia,
Ohio, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania were studied. Locations of the mines are
shown in Figure 1.
The sealing efforts in the West Virginia mines (Mine No. 40016 and
No. 62008-4) were sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
all the mines in Ohio (Ellisonville, Piney Fork, and Florence) and Kentucky
(Buckingham and Price No. 2) were sealed by private coal companies. Three
Pennsylvania sites (Decker No. 5, Woolridge, and Bullrock Run mines) were
also sealed by private coal companies while the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources sponsored extensive abatement projects in Rattle-
snake Creek watershed as part of the Operation Scarlift, Project SI 132,
2-101-1.
Evaluation of single bulkhead seals is limite'd because of the lack of
pre-sealing quality and quantity data. Only four of the survey sites have
even one observation before closure. The summary of the total means of
pollutant concentrations and Loads and percent of their post-sealing increase
or reduction is given in Table 9, and Tables D-10 through 13.
The most distinctive reduction in flow took place at the Rattlesnake
Creek Mine where the pre-sealing discharge was measured at from 611.5 to
2128.0 1pm and post-sealing flow was nonexistent in October 1975 and minimal
in March 1976. Flow was reduced for at least one year at the Mine 40-016
and 62008-4 sites; however, it is now in excess of the pre-sealing measure-
ments. In the case of the 62008-4 site, the increase was partially due to
obstruction of flow at an interconnected portal (62008-5).
There are no pre-sealing flow measurements for any of the other mines,
but it is assumed the seals reduced flow at the Bullrock, the Decker No. 5,
tnd Ellisonville Mines, where discharges average only 7, 7.5, and 2.0 1pm,
respectively.
Acid and total iron concentrations were significantly decreased by
closure at the 40-016 and 62008-4 sites. Acidity was reduced at the Rattle-
snake Creek Mine and total iron was significantly reduced at the Bullrock
Mine site. Acidity increased at the Bullrock Mine as did sulfates, but the
-------
intensive surface mining of the area may be responsible for the augmented
measures rather than any effect the sealing might have had. Alkalinity
increased at the Bullrock site, as well.
TABLE 9. PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR PRE- AND
POST-CLOSURE PERIODS IN SINGLE BULKHEAD-SEALED MINES
Mine name
62 008-4
Decker No. 5
Woolridge No. 1
Bullrock Run
Buckingham
Price No. 2
Ellisonville
Piney Fork
Florence
Rattlesnake Creek
40-016
Acidity
R* I*
63
+
t
-
t
t
t
t
t
46
51
-
t
t
1329
t
t
t
t
t
-
-
Alkalinity
R I
-
t
t
-
t
t
t
t
t
-
t
100
t
t
38
t
t
t
t
t
3
t
Sulfate
R I
16
t
t
-
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
-
t
t
9
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Total
R
79
t
t
94
t
t
t
t
t
t
38
Iron
I
-
t
t
-
t
f
t
t
t
t
-
* Reduction in concentration in percent.
+ Increase in concentration in percent.
t No pre- and post-data available.
Sulfate concentrations (other than those at Bullrock Mine) show some
small fluctuations between sampling period means; however, none of the
reductions or increases are large enough in view of the standard deviations
to assume that the single bulkhead seals have any impact on them.
Of the nine mines discharging in October 1975 and March 1976, four show
alkalinity in excess of acidity (alkalinity has not been measured for the
Woolridge Mine), seven show sulfate in excess of the drinking water standards,
and seven have total iron discharges in excess of the 3.5 mg/1 mine effluent
limit.
34
-------
PERMEABLE LIMESTONE SEALS
The effectiveness of the permeable limestone seals was studied at three
sites in West Virginia. These are mines 62008-3 near Clarksburg, RT 5-2A
near Coal ton, and the "unknown" mine near Stewartstown. Location of the mines
is shown in Figure 1. Construction and monitoring of mine discharges was
sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The presence of the permeable limestone seals resulted in a significant
decrease in acidity concentrations and loads .at all of the three studied
sites (Tables 10 through 12 and Tables D-14 and 15). However, in the case
of Mine 62008-3, the short monitoring record does not allow for statistical
validation of the result.
TABLE 10. PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR PRE- AND
POST-CLOSURE PERIODS IN EFFLUENT DISCHARGES FROM MINES SEALED
WITH PERMEABLE LIMESTONE SEALS
Mine name
62008-3
Stewartstown
Stewartstown OB§
RT 5-2A
RT 5-2A OB
Acidity Alkalinity
R* 1+ R I
44 -
62 - t
6 f
84 - f
60 t
100
t
t
t
t
Sulfate
R I
10
8
55
35
134
Total Iron
R I
18
64
82
25
127
* Reduction in percent.
+ Increase in percent.
t No pre- and post-data available.
§ Sample from observation boring behind seal.
TABLE 11. PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN POLLUTANT OUTPUTS FROM MINES CLOSED WITH
PERMEABLE LIMESTONE SEALS COMPARING PRE- AND POST-SEALING PERIODS
Acidity
Mine name
62008-3
Stewartstown
RT 5-2A
R*
-
90
99
1+
17
t
t
Alkalinity
R
-
t
t
I
100
t
t
Sulfate
R
-
79
96
I
42
t
t
Total
R
-
90
98
Iron
I
22
-
-
* Reduction in percent.
+ Increase in percent.
t No pre- and post-data available,
35
-------
The concentrations of sulfate remained relatively unaffected at two
sites and were significantly increased at Stewartstown. Total iron concen-
trations were slightly diminished at Mines 62008-3 and RT 5-2A and decreased
by 64 percent at Stewartstown. The variability of the concentrations was
either unaffected or increased. The water quality behind the seals at RT 5-
2A and Stewartstown was deleteriously affected by the closures.
Water quality of the discharges from the three permeable seals depends
on the length of the effluent contact with the seal and its neutralizing
effect. The effluent .that seeps through the seal has higher alkalinity than
acidity concentrations,, and pH levels that meet the mine effluent guidelines
of 6.0. However, as the seal at Stewartstown was recently breached, the
effluent does not meet the guidelines.
The total iron and sulfate concentrations of all the three mine dis-
charges exceed the given mine effluent guidelines and the drinking water
standards.
36
-------
TABLE 12. SIGNIFICANCE OF SCORES FROM TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRE- AND
POST-CLOSURE MEANS: PERMEABLE LIMESTONE SEALS.
Acidity
Mine name
62008-3
Stewarts town
RT 5-2A
Concentration
0.62
3.15+
14.77+
Output
ID*
2.43t
5.67+
Total
Iron
Concentration Output
0.33
3.25+
2. 50t
ID
5.89+
4.78+
Sulfate
Concentration Output
0.29
0.55
3.12+
ID
6.55+
45.41+
* Insufficient data; fewer than two observations.
+ Significance at 0.01.
t Significance at 0.05.
-------
SECTION 9
EFFECTIVENESS OF CLOSE-DOWN PROCEDURES BY CLOSURE
TYPE AND MINE CASE STUDIES
The preceeding chapters dealt with the more generalized view of the
closure effectiveness levels in an attempt to arrive at some common under-
lying relationships among the closure effectiveness and the physical and
mining factors. However, as indicated by the previous analyses, the unique
situation at most of the localities affects the closure effectiveness and
should therefore be addressed.
In this section, the mines are grouped by type of closure and discussed
by case.
AIR SEALS
Air sealing of underground mines involves placing impermeable materials
in all mine openings through which air may enter. One entry, usually the
lowest entry to the mine, is provided with an air trap which allows water to
discharge from the mine, but prevents the entrance of air. In a successfully
air sealed mine the oxidation of sulfide minerals is retarded and formation
of the mine drainage pollutants controlled.3
Decker No. 3 Mine, Kittanning, Pennsylvania
The Decker No. 3 Mine was sealed in May 1966 as part of the U.S. Bureau
of Mines effort to evaluate the effectiveness of air sealing and indicated
the factors that determine the overall character of the acid mine discharges.
The mine effluent flow rate and quality was monitored continuously from
1963 to 1968. The atmosphere in the sealed mine was sampled periodically,
and the differential air pressure across the seal was recorded. An
example of the seal is given in Figure 2.
The water quality of the mine discharge before closure was character-
ized by acidity concentrations averaging 486 mg/1, sulfate concentrations
a
L. R. Scott and R. M. Hays, Inactive and Abandoned Underground Mines,
Water Pollution Prevention and Control, EPA 440 9-75-007, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, 1975).
b N. N. Moebs, Mine Sealing: A Progress Report, Proc. Second Symposium on
Coal Mine Drainage Research (Pittsburgh, 1968).
38
-------
rd
Hitchj5^
1*1 f Wl I X.
* S > jt S f s si s v V s\ y ^./ >
ELEVATION "A"
*t Hitch
Roof Rock
Facts of Soal Coated w/ Urtthane Foam
Asbestos-cement pipe
30.5cm (I2in.) id
Concrete Footer
Figure 2. Example of an air seal constructed by U.S. Bureau of Mines at Decker
No. 3 Mine as shown in R.L. Scott and R.M. Hays, Inactive and
Abandoned Underground Mines, EPA-440/9-75-007.
-------
of 1282 mg/1, and total iron of 142 mg/1. The sealing of the mine resulted
in reduction of all three pollutants. The post-sealing grand means for
acidity, sulfate, and total iron show 57, 31, and 59 percent reductions,
The test for difference in means specified probabilities of less than one
percent of obtaining these reductions (or large differences) simply due to
sampling error. There is also a decrease in the variability of each of the
three parameters following installation of the seal as exemplified by
comparison of the pre- and post-sealing standard deviations of the means in
Tables D-l through 3.
Post-sealing acidity, sulfate, and total iron outputs (loads) show
reductions of 81, 70, and 81 percent, respectively. Again, the difference
in the pre- and post-sealing sampling periods are large enough to be
significant at the 0.01 level (1 percent probability). Comparison of
standard deviations of the load means before and after sealing suggest a
decrease in water quality and quantity fluctuations as well,
The monitoring record of the Decker No. 3 Mine is the most exhaustive
of the mines involved in this study, with 343 observations for pre-sealing
acidity, sulfate, and total iron loads and concentrations, and 173 and 135
observations for post-sealing concentrations and loads, respectively.
Figure 3 (trends of concentrations) illustrates the sudden decrease in
the concentrations of acid, sulfate, and total iron immediately after
sealing. The rate of the sulfate reduction becomes faster with time rising
from 150 mg/1 per year to 176 mg/1 per year. However, the rates of decrease
for acidity and total iron are reduced by completion of the seal.
Load rates for all parameters are shown to be decreasing before
closure. The effect of the seal was to reduce these rates from 277.0 kg/
year to 34.2 kg/year for acidity, from 527.1 kg/year to 79.0 kg/year for
sulfate, and from 88.5 kg/year to 11.7 kg/year for total iron. Each of the
concentrations and load coefficients is significant beyond the 0.01 level.
It is obvious from the graphic portrayal of the monthly means (Figure 3)
as well as from the standard deviations of the means and the standard errors
of the estimate, that the water quality was fluctuating considerably more
preceding the closure. It is also apparent that the concentrations and loads
for all three parameters decreased suddenly following installation of the
seal.
There is a marked reduction in pollutant concentrations and loads
indicated by the chemical analyses of the two samples taken almost seven
years after the monitoring of the site by the U.S. Bureau of Mines ended.
The acidity concentrations dropped to 17.6 and 1.6 mg/1, while pH levels
were above 5.5. The measured alkalinity was found to be 26.2 and 10.9 mg/1.
Concentrations of sulfates and total iron decreased to 210.0 mg/1 and 4.1
mg/1 levels.
The Decker No. 3 is a small drift mine (.18 km2) wfcich produced from
1950 to 1959. It has an average overburden of 22.5m composed mostly of shale.
40
-------
UJ U, >. z
SO -J tj _J
I- U. « *
2.500-. 900 i 5,000-, I .000
2.000.
OFLOI IN LITERS PER MINUTE
(ACIDITY IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
BALKALINITY IN KILL I GRAMS PER LITER
OSULFATES IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
ATOTAL FE IN MILLIGRAMS PER. LITER
- ACIDITY TREND IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
--DSULFATE TREND IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
--ATOTAL FE TREND IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
Figure 3. Decker No. 3 Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends.
-------
Dip of the coal seam is approximately 4.0 degrees. The mined seam is 0.9 m
thick and has a sulfur content of 2.2 percent. There is no mining in
proximity to the site. The mine is located above drainage.
Mine RT 9-11, Pumpkintown, West Virginia
This mine was wet sealed as part of the Elkins Demonstration Project,
a cooperative effort undertaken by several federal agencies and the state of
West Virginia during 1964 in the Roaring Creek and Grassy Run watershed,
Randolph County. Eleven wet seals were also constructed in a large under-
ground mine complex in proximity to the RT 9-11 Mine. An important part of
the objective of the project was to determine the effect of air sealing upon
water quality.a
Considerable effort was expended to seal off all air entrances to the
RT 9-11 Mine. Mine discharge was monitored by EPA on a monthly basis from
February 1964 to May 1971. Two samples were taken in October 1975 and
March 1976 by HRB-Singer.
The low pH levels ranging from 2^6 to 3.1 found before sealing
changed subsequent to closure. Post-sealing levels range between 1.7 and
3.4. The concentration of acidity was reduced 45 percent comparing the
pre-sealing mean of 570 mg/1 to the post-sealing mean value of 315 mg/1.
The iron content was reduced by 25 percent from the pre-sealing mean of
94 mg/1 to the post-sealing average of 70 mg/1. Comparison of the pre- and
post-sealing means for the sulfate concentrations indicates an increase
of 19 percent due to sampling points in June 1968 and April 1969 when the
sulfate concentration levels rose to 4,730 and 2,410 mg/1, respectively.
The test for difference in the means specifies a difference between the
pre- and post-sealing means for acidity and total iron concentrations
significant at or above the 0.01 level. However, the test of the difference
between the means of the sulfate pre- and post-sealing observations indicates
a probability of greater than 10 percent that the difference could have
happened by sampling of the same population; the same is true for the
sulfate concentration. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to conclude
that there has been any sulfate concentration change as a result of the
air-sealing of the mine.
The post-sealing mean pollutant outputs increased as a result of the
augmented flow from the sealed portal. Comparison of pre- and post-sealing
grand output means show an increase of 21 percent acidity, 62 percent total
iron, and 71 percent sulfate. Only the difference between the pre- and post-
sealing means of sulfate outputs is statistically significant at probability
levels above 0.10, however. The differences between the acidity and total
iron means are too small to suggest that they represent different popula-
a Ronald D. Hill, Elkins Mine Drainage Pollution Control Demonstraton
Project, in: Third Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research,Federal Water
Quality Administration, U.S. Dept. of the Interior (Pittsburgh, 1970).
42
-------
tions with regard to levels of acidity or total iron outputs.
Standard deviations of the means for concentrations and loads imply a
decrease in the variability of all three parameter outputs and in acidity
concentrations while the total iron and sulfate concentrations variability
appears to be increased upon sealing.
The installation of the air seal resulted in a marked increase in the
rate of reduction of acidity, sulfate, and total iron concentrations and
loads (see Figure 4). Before the closure, the acidity concentrations were
decreasing at a rate of 17 ing/I/year while the acidity loads were increasing
at a rate of 5.8 kg/year. The post-closure trends show an acidity concen-
tration reduction rate of 24 mg/I/year and a load output reduction rate of
5.2 kg/year.
Sulfate concentrations were rising at a rate of 90 mg/1/year before
sealing and were decreasing at 86 mg/1/year succeeding closure. The load
measures indicate an increase of 8.6 kg/year prior to closure. The regress-
ion coefficient shows the post-closure loads decreasing at 3.2 kg/year.
All coefficients are significant at or above 0.15 with the exception
of the total iron post-sealing concentration coefficient (significant at the
0.20 to the 0.30 level) and the total iron pre-sealing load coefficient
(significant between 0.15 and 0.20).
At present acidity is averaging 136 mg/1 and alkalinity is zero.
Total iron (averaging 18 mg/1) is considerably in excess of the mine effluent
standard of 3.5 mg/1. Based on the October 1975 and March 1976 samplings,
sulfate averages 260 mg/1.
The RT 9-11 is a small drift mine with mined out area of about 0.2
It is located above drainage with overburden thickness approximately
36m. The overburden consists of sandstone and shale present in about the
same proportions.
Out of 12 seals that were installed during the Elkins demonstration
project in the Roaring Creek and Grassy Run Watersheds, the Rt 9-11 mine
sealing effort was the only one that had beneficial impact on the mine water
quality. The effect of 11 seals that were placed in a large underground
mine complex is rather questionable. Not all of the mine openings were
closed and there was no water quality improvement observed after the
completion of the project (R. B. Scott, 1976, personal communication).
Big Knob Mine, Portal Nos. 1,2, and 6, Bowden, West Virginia
The West Virginia Department of Mines air-sealed several abandoned
underground coal mines at the head of Taylor Run, a tributary of Shavers
Fork in Randolph County, West Virginia. This action was taken after a re-
ported fish kill at the Bowden hatchery in 1966 attributed to the acid mine
drainage flushed from the abandoned mines. The mines were sealed by cement
block-type air and dry seals.
43
-------
2,500 -, 500 -, 500 i 1 ,ODO
FLDK IN LITERS PER MINUTE
ALKALINITY IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
SULFATE5 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
ACIDITV TREND IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
SULFATE TREND IN HILLIQRAHS PER LITER
TOTAL FE TREND IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
Figure 4. RT-9-11 Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends.
-------
Six wet seals were installed in the Big Knob mine portals in October
1967. The discharges from the openings were sampled and evaluated by the
Environmental Protection Agency, Mine Drainage Field Laboratory, Norton,
West Virginia, for a period of approximately two years (1966 through 1970)
before the sealing«a
The Big Knob Mine is a relatively small (0.22 km^) drift mine located
above drainage. The mine overburden averages 44m, of which 23m is shale and
20m sandstone. Sulfur content of the coal is 0.6 percent. The mine was
active from 1950-59.
Big Knob No. 1 --
The measured pH levels of the mine effluent at the No. 1 portal are
approximately the same before and after the sealing (3.2 versus 3.3).
Comparison of the mean pollutant concentrations and outputs for the pre- and
post- sealing sampling periods indicate no statistically significant change
in acidity or sulfate levels. Total iron concentrations and outputs in-
creased nearly 125 percent, however, and both differences in means are
significant above the 0.10 level.
If judged in terms of major pollutant means reduction, seal effective-
ness must be considered unsuccessful. Comparison of the pollutant standard
deviations further strengthens this conclusion. Variability of the water
quality is greater following closure, especially with regard to acidity
and sulfate.
The trend analyses (Figure 5) indicate an immediate increase in all
three parameter concentrations upon closure. Prior to sealing, the pollutant
constituents were decreasing at a faster rate then after sealing. Acidity
was decreasing twice as fast; sulfate, 1 1/2 times as fast; and total iron
4.5 times as fast. The loads, increasing slightly prior to closure, began
decreasing at rates of 0.03 to 1.1 kg/year. The pre- and post-sealing
acidity output regression coefficients, though the best measure of the
relationship between the output levels and time, are not significant at or
above .20. The combined fluctuation of acidity concentrations and flow
result in considerable output variability.
Big Knob No. 2
The water quality of mine discharges from this portal has been altered
little by the air seal. Comparison of pre- and post-sealing means indicates
only one statistically significant reduction, that of acidity output. Pre-
ceding closure, acid outputs averaged 2.1 kg/day while post-closure values
averaged 1.2 kg/day.
Robert B. Scott, Evaluation of Shaver's Fork Mine Seals,.Mine Drainage
Pollution Control Activities, Office of Research and Monitorrng, u.b.
Environmental Protection Agency (Norton, 1971).
45-
-------
500
400
O O FLD» IN LITERS PER IIIHUTE
ACIDITY IN HILLI6IIAIIS/LITER
ALKALINITY IN HILLIS«A«S/LITER
D O SOIFATES IN II LLI6RAKSAI TER
a A TOTAL FE IH HIL1.I GRABS/LITER
- .« ACIDITY TREND IN »I LLI SHAHS'LI TEH
O QSIRFATE TREND IN VI LLIBMMS/LI TER
*-^ TOTAL IRON TREND IH «l LLI SRAHS/LI TER
0 J
Figure 5. Big Knob No. 1 Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends.
-------
Overall, the discharge is similar to the effluent from Big Knob No. 1
The pre- and post-sealing means for pH are both 3.3. Total iron is 8 mg/l'
before and 3 mg/l following closure, indicating a reduction of total iron as
opposed to the increase shown for Big Knob No. 1. As stated previously,
however, there is not sufficient difference between the pre- and post-seal-
ing means, with regard to the observations at portal No. 2, to conclude that
the reduction is due to the effect of the seal.
Acidity concentration means are 76 mg/l and 83 mg/l for the two periods;
sulfate concentration means are .120 mg/l and 131 mg/l for the pre- and post-'
sealing periods, respectively. Sulfate and total iron loads vary only
slightly between pre-sealing and post-sealing observations: from 3.1 kg/day
to 2 kg/day for sulfate and from 0.2 kg/day to 0 kg/day for total iron.
The standard deviations (Tables D-l through 3), reflective of vari-
ability, are reduced after sealing only for total iron concentrations and
outputs. Sulfate and acid concentrations and loads increase in irregularity.
Trends for observations of the discharge at Portal No. 2 also resemble
those for the discharge at Portal No. 1. There is a pronounced augmenta-
tion of acidity, total iron, and sulfate concentrations upon closure (Figure
6) and rates of reduction are slower after sealing than before (Appendix E).
All concentration coefficients are significant at the 20 percent level.
Outputs, (which were slightly increasing or decreasing), remain at nearly the
same levels. With the exception of the sulfate pre-sealing regression
coefficient, load regression coefficients are not significant at the 20
percent level.
Big Knob No. 6
No monitoring was undertaken at this portal preceding sealing. Post-
sealing data indicate discharge outputs very similar to those found at the
No. 1 and No. 2 portals. Means for concentrations of total iron, acid, and
sulfate are lower for the observations at this portal (See Tables D-l through
3), however, the pH level is very similar at 3.9.
Chemical analyses of samples collected on this project indicate acidity
concentrations averaging 55 mg/l at Big Knob No. 1, 56 mg/l at Big Knob No. 2,
and 20 mg/l at Big Knob No. 6. Zero alkalinity was measured for all the
samples. Sulfate concentrations average 29 mg/l, 48 mg/l and 34 mg/l at
the three portals and total iron averages 0.4 mg/l, 0.8 mg/l, and 0.1 mg/l,
respectively.
Savage Mine, Bowden, West Virginia
The Savage Mine, located approximately 0.3 km from the Big Knob Mine,
was also sealed by the West Virginia Department of Mines in response to the
4.7
-------
500 50 500 250- -
300.
4s.
Od
FLO« IN LITERS PER UINUTE
ACIDITY IH »aUG««»S PER LITER
ALKALINITY IN MILLIGRAM PER LITE*
SULFK115 IK H!LitS»II*S fit LITER
TOT»L n IN HILLI6RAIIS PER LITE*
tcmni TtENO IN «IUIG««»S Kt
SULFATE TREND IN DILLIDRAIIS FED LITER
WAL FE TKEKD IN *II.LIB»»»S flf LITER
Figure 6. Big Knob No. 2 Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends.
-------
fish kill at the Bowden hatchery in 1966. Two seals, one "wet" and one "dry"
were placed in the mine portals in November 1967.
It is a small drift mine (0.33 km2) that produced in a low sulfur seam
(0.6 percent) from 1950-59. The seam overburden is about 42m,
The mine discharges were monitored regularly from July 1966 to January
1971 by the Water Quality Office, Norton Mine Drainage Field Laboratory,
West Virginia. Two sampling points were obtained as part of this project in
October 1975 and March 1976.a
The major effect of the air seal upon the water quality of the discharge
from this mine was to reduce acid concentrations and outputs. Acidity,
which averages 24 mg/1 for the pre-sealing period, decreased to an average
of 12 mg/1 succeeding the installation of the seal. The variability of the
acidity was markedly reduced after sealing, as well (see the standard
deviations in Tables D-l through 3). Acid loads were reduced from 1.9 kg/day
to 0.8 kg/day as a result of the closure.
Sulfate loads and concentrations were also reduced after sealing,
however the difference in the means are not statistically significant at the
10 percent level. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to attribute this
reduction to the effect of the seal.
Total iron concentrations increase upon sealing, and the test for
difference in the means defines this increase as significant at or above
0.05. The pre-sealing concentration mean is 0.5 mg/1 and is increased to a
mean of 1 mg/1 after sealing. The total iron output mean is also higher for
the post-sealing period; however, the difference between the two (0.1 kg/day
to 0.2 kg/day) is too small to assume any real change.
Although alkalinity concentrations were found to be reduced succeeding
closure, pH levels increased. However, differences are, again, too small
to attribute to the effect of closure.
Trend analyses suggest the effect of the seal is to reduce the rate of
decrease of acidity (in terms of both concentration and output) after an
immediate reduction in concentration (see Figure 7), to change the direction
of the sulfate concentration trend from increasing to decreasing, to lower
the rate of increase of sulfate outputs and total iron concentrations,
and to increase the rate of total iron outputs (see Appendix A). With the
exception of acid and sulfate pre-sealing concentrations, the regression
coefficients explaining these relationships are significant at the 15 percent
level.
The standard deviations of the means of the concentrations and loads
suggest that sulfate and acidity concentration variability is reduced by the
a
Robert B. Scott, Evaluation of Shaver's Fork Seals.
49
-------
W Ik >_]
« _1 ^
S S 1 =3
* *- It. « 4
500 .
400
300
200-
100-
0.
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0.
5DO-
400-
300
200-
100-
0.
1«4-
10-
80-
40-.
20 -
-
-
-
-
O-
a
FLOI IK LITEKS PE* KINUTE
ACIOITV IN IIILICMMS PER LITER
HLMLINITr IN iLLItmiiS PE* LITE*
SULFITES IN HILLISR«IS PER LITE*
TOTtL FE IN >ILLIt**liS PEI LITER
ACIDITY TREN IH IILLIGRMS PER LITER
SULFHE TREND IN NILLIBRJNS PE* LITER
TOTAL IRON TREND IN IILLItRKS PEI LITE*
12 2 4 6 I 10 12 2 4 6 I 10 12 2 4 6
06 67 El
I 10 12 2 4
75 76
Figure 1. Savage Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends.
-------
seal and total iron loads and concentrations remain about the same.
Fluctuations of sulfate and acidity loads increase following sealing.
There is reason to assume that error has been introduced with regard to
flow measurements at this mine because the mine drainage discharge is
located in the path of a small stream. Mine discharge flow had to be
estimated as a portion of the total flow during the sampling of October
1975 and March 1976.
According to analyses of the most recent samples, acidity averages 14
mg/1 in concentration, alkalinity averages 0.3 mg/1, total iron averages
2 mg/1, and sulfate averages 36 mg/1.
Imperial Colliery No. 9, Bumwell, West Virginia
The Imperial Colliery No. 9 Mine was air-sealed in 1972. An evaluation
of the seal effect on water quality is rather difficult in this case because
of limited water quality records available. The pre-sealing mine water
quality is characterized by a pH level of 6.1, acidity concentrations higher
than alkalinity concentrations with values of 68 mg/1 versus 38 mg/1,
sulfate concentrations of 705 mg/1, and total iron levels of 2 mg/1.
Imperial Colliery No. 9 produced from year 1948 to 1972 in a seam with
a sulfur content of 0.9 percent. The area of the mine is 1.11 km^ and over-
burden thickness averages 149 meters. Shale composes 47 percent of the
thickness; and sandstone, 35 percent. Dip is 2.0 degrees. The mine is near
the local drainage base level.
The post-sealing water quality data show no changes in pH levels,
reduction of sulfates by 21 percent, and indicate marked increases in total
iron and acidity concentrations (147 percent and 107 percent respectively^.
The significant increase in acidity and total iron concentrations was
observed about one year after the sealing. The acidity levels reached 290
mg/1, while total iron reached its maximum at 16 mg/1. Since then, there
was a downward trend in their concentration levels. Acidity levels for the
post-sealing data are mostly higher than those of alkalinity. Tests for
difference in the means were not conducted as there is only one pre-closure
observation.
There are no flow data available for the mine except for the two most
recent sampling points. Outputs of acidity, sulfates, and total iron were
calculated to be 1.6 kg/day, 22.5 kg/day, and 0.3 kg/day, respectively.
A regression analysis was performed on the acid, sulfate, and total
iron concentrations following closure. There is a statistically significant
5 percent relationship between the decrease of pollutant concentrations and
time. Acidity concentrations are diminishing at the rate of 80 mg/1/year;
sulfate concentrations at 164 mg/1/year; and total iron concentrations at 2
mg/1/year.
51
-------
The most recent sampling results indicate acid concentrations of 26
mg/1, alkalinity of 73 mg/1, total iron of 4 mg/1, and sulfate of 351 mg/1.
McDaniels Mine, Northeast of Lake Hope, Vinton County, Ohio
The McDaniels Mine was closed in conjunction with the development of a
research facility to study pyrite oxidation and the resulting acid mine
drainage. The work was performed by The Ohio University Research Foundation
and sponsored by the Water Quality Office U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.3
The original air seal, constructed of concrete blocks in 1957 was re-
paired and a new pressure type manhole cover was installed in May 1965.
This cover was open when the site was visited on this project in October 1975,
The water quality of the mine effluent was regularly monitored from
May 1965 to September 1970. The atmosphere within the mine was controlled
at different oxygen levels. The operating conditions in the mine for given
periods were as follows:
Time Period
10-65 to 10-66
10-66 to 8-67
8-67 to 11-67
11-67 to 8-68
8-68 to 10-69
10-69 to 9-70
Operational Mode
Base Conditions
Nitrogen Purge
Oxygen Addition
Air Purge
Air Seal
Nitrogen Purge
Concentrations
21%
1-2%
21 - 35%
21%
21 - 10%
0.25 - 0.5
The changes in the recorded acidity and sulfate concentrations are
shown in Tables D-l and 2.
Between August 1968 and October 1969 the mine was monitored in an un-
controlled mode and closed with a conventional air seal. The gas composit-
ion within the mine reached a steady state value. Seasonal patterns of
acidity concentrations do not appear to change relative to the periods before
and after.
During the period when the mine atmosphere was kept at oxygen levels of
0.25 to 0.5 percent, the acidity and sulfate loads decreased by 60 to 70
percent.
Essex No. 1, Kelly, and Elk Lick No. 1 Mines
An extensive mine sealing program under Work Projects Administration
and the Civil Works Administration was carried out during the periods from
a
The Ohio State University, Research Foundation, Pilot Scale Study of
Acid Mine Drainage, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Series
14010 EXA 03/71 ( 1971).
52
-------
1933 to 1939 and from 1947 to 1949. The program was administered by the U S
Public Health Service in the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia
Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland and Alabama.3 The Kelly
and Essex No. 1 Mines in Ohio and the Elk Lick No. 1 Mine in Pennsylvania
were sampled. There is no exact information regarding seal construction in
these mines. Usually the WPA sealing was done by placing dry seals in all
entries except for one where an air seal was placed to allow water to
discharge.
The Essex No. 1 Mine is located in the Hocking Valley coal field, near
New Straitsville in Ohio. Water quality for this small mine is character-
ized by a pH level of 7.0, alkalinity higher than acidity (comparing average
values of 214 mg/1 to 10 mg/1) ,total iron concentrations averaging 4 mg/1,
and sulfates averaging 35 mg/1. The flow from this mine was measured 6 1pm
during the dry season and 11 1pm during the wet season. There are no water
quality data available for the pre-sealing conditions, thus, the evaluation
of closure effectiveness in terms of water quality improvement is not
possible. Comparison of the water quality here with two unsealed mines
(Essex No. 2 and Buchtel) that occur in the proximity of this mine is not
too helpful in this respect, as the Buchtel Mine water quality data is
fairly comparable with the Essex No. 1 data, while the discharges from the
Essex No. 2 Mine are characterized by very poor water quality with pH levels
below 4.0, acidity concentrations of 177 mg/1, total iron of 35 mg/1, and
sulfates of 500 mg/1.
All of these mines are located in the Middle Kittanriing coal seam that
is overlain in some sections by the Freeport limestone. It is possible
that the high alkalinity and high pH levels of the discharges are more
likely related to the lithology of the overburden than to the effect of the
mine sealing.
The Kelly Mine is located near Ironton, Lawrence County, in Ohio.
The Kelly Mine is a small drift (0.02 km2) with an average overburden thick-
ness of 18 meters. It is located above the local drainage, the overburden
is mostly shale with no calcareous materials present. The sulfur content
of the coal is 2.6 percent. Only one sample was collected and analyzed
for the mine discharge. The water quality is characterized by a low pH
(3.1) and by acidity, total iron, and sulfate concentrations of 585 mg/1,
7 mg/1 and 610 mg/1, respectively.
The Essex No. 1 and Essex No. 2 sites are alike except for the absence
of the seal in the No. 2 and for their location with respect to the water
table. The Essex No. 2 Mine is located near drainage while the Essex No. 1
Mine lies above the local drainage level.
Similar to the Essex sites, the Buchtel is a small drift mine mined in
a W. C. Lorenz, Progress in Controlling Acid Mine Water: A Literature Review,
U.S. Bureau of Mines, Information Circular 8080 (1962).
53
-------
the 1930*s. All three_mines are characterized by predominantly sandstone
overburdens. The Essex mines have both calcareous rock and another coal seam
in the overburden. Sulfur content of the mined seams is 1.70 percent for the
Buchtel and 2.0 percent for the Essex sites.
Elk Lick No. 1 Mine is a part of the extensive Shaw Mine Complex. The
mine started draining after several hydraulic seals were successfully con-
structed in several openings presumably in the same mine complex and the
accumulated waters started to overflow through this then unknown opening.
It is believed that this opening was air sealed in the 30's.
Chemical analyses of the October 1975 and March 1976 samples collected
on this project show zero alkalinity and indicate acid concentrations
averaging 1057 mg/1, total iron concentrations of 323 mg/1, and sulfate
concentrations of 1856 mg/1.
54
-------
DOUBLE BULKHEAD SEALS
The double bulkhead seals are constructed by placing two retaining
bulkheads in the mine entry and then placing an impermeable seal in the
space between the bulkheads. The front and rear bulkheads are placed to
provide a form for the center seal. This seal is formed by injecting
concrete or grout through the front bulkhead, if accessible, or through
vertical pipes from above the mine. Bulkheads have been constructed with
quick setting cement and grouted coarse aggregate. An example of a grouted
double bulkhead seal is given in a construction drawing in Figure 8.
Grouting of the bulkheads and center seal may be required to prevent
leakage along the top, bottom, and sides of the seal. Curtain grouting of
adjacent strata is often performed to increase strength and reduce
permeability.
Argentine, Keystone No. 6, Keystone No. 10, and Keystone No. 19 Mines,
Pennsylvania
The Argentine and Keystone Mines are located in northern Butler County,
Pennsylvania. These relatively large drift mines were producing in the
Clarion seam during the late 1800's and early 1900's. As a result of acid
mine discharges from these mines many miles of streams in the Slippery Rock
Creek watershed became severely polluted.
The survey to recommend and design pollution abatement measures in this
watershed was performed under the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Operation
Scarlift, Project No. SL 110. Hydraulic seals were recommended and designed
for all entries by John Foreman of Gwin, Dobson, and Foreman, Inc., Altoona,
Pennsylvania.
Installation of these double bulkhead seals was accomplished by
injection through boreholes above the entries. After completion of the
bulkheads, grout was injected into the surrounding bedrock to prevent leak-
age around the bulkheads. For sampling purposes, an observation well was
drilled behind the seal.
Monthly data on flow, pH, alkalinity, acidity, total iron and sulfates
were collected and analyzed during 1969 by Gwin, Dobson, and Foreman, Inc.
for the state of Pennsylvania.
Argentine Mine --
This large drift mine (1.21 km2) is located near Argentine, Pennsylvania.
Mean overburden at this site is 45m with 33m of shale, 4m of sandstone, and
8m of calcareous rock and coal. The mined coal seam is about 1m thick with
a sulfur content of 2.7. The dip of the beds in the area is 3.0 degrees.
The main portal is located near drainage; however, most of the mine is below
the water table. Annual precipitation averages 102.26 cm.
5.5
-------
Observation ft/or
Pump Drill Hole
15.2cm (6 in.) dia
Bulkhead Drill Holes 15.2cm(6in.)dia. on
0.9m(3f t.) Centers w/Alignment Across
the Main Entry. Drill Holes to be Extended
Into Coal Ribs as Shown.
Rear
'Bulkhead
Core Drill Holes-
As Directed By
The Engineer
IO
E
ro
PLAN
.Observation
&/or Pump
/ Drill Hole
Location to be
Determined
In Field
Injection Holes For Center Plug Area,l_ocation
and No. of Holes Dependent on Conditions,This
Drawing Shows the Minimum No.of Holes
Additional Holes May Be Required.
Grout Curtain Holes 7.6cm (3 in.)dia. on 3m
(10ft.) Centers on Alignment Parallel to 6
Approx. Half way Between Front & Rear
Bulkhead Drill Holes 15m (50ft.) on Both
Sides of the Mine Entry.
Distance Between Front ft Rear
Bulkhead Alignment 6.1 to 7.6m
(20 to 25 ft.) as Directed by the
Engineer.
Core Drill Hole
and Injection
Hole Alignment
(Course Aggregate;
0.6m(2ft.)J_
Concrete
Cente Plug
l.5m(5ft>
it Bulk
(Course
heooV TO.
reqgterv
Portal
PROFILE
Figure 8. Construction drawing of a grouted double bulkhead deep mine seal
as shown in R. L. Scott and R. M. Hays, Inactive and Abandoned
Underground Mines, EPA-440/9-75-007.
56
-------
Hydraulic seals were placed in four entries during September 1972 by the
Allied Asphalt Company. Comparison of the pre-and post-sealing means for
acidity, sulfate, and total iron concentrations indicate reductions of 50,
54, and 31 percent respectively. Outputs for these three parameters
decreased 81, 32, and 82 percent respectively. According to the test of the
difference between the means, the reductions in acidity outputs, total iron
outputs, and sulfate concentrations are significant at the 1 percent level.
Alkalinity appears to have increased overall, but it is erratic and the
increase of 1454 percent calculated from the means must be considered in
light of the large post-sealing standard deviation. The pH levels have not
been impacted by closure. Before sealing, pH measurements averaged 5.9;
following closure, the mean pH values were indicated to be 5.4.
Regression analysis results show acid concentrations increasing by 28
mg/1/year, total iron decreasing by 0.3 mg/1/year, and sulfates increasing
by 103 mg/1/year before sealing. Post-sealing trends suggest that total
iron decreases at a much higher rate, that is, by 41 mg/1/year, while sulfates
increase at a higher rate (113 mg/1/year) after the initial drop. There are
not enough observations of acid concentrations following closure to estimate
a trend.
Standard deviations and standard error estimates suggest that varia-
bility of the major parameters is increased by the seal.
The dry season sampling done on this project showed acidity concentra-
tions of 59 mg/1 and an alkalinity of 4 mg/1. Wet season sample analyses
show zero alkalinity and 9 mg/1 acidity. Total iron and sulfate
concentrations for the dry season were measured to be 30 mg/1 and 120 mg/1,
and, for the wet season, 3 mg/1 and 148 mg/1.
Keystone No. 6, No. 10, and No. 19 Mines
These mines are located near Boyers in Butler County, Pennsylvania
and are believed to be part of a large mine complex that covers several
square kilometers. From mine maps of the area, it appears that the mines
are interconnected.
Overburden for the Keystone Mines or mine sections varies from 44m at
No. 10 to 29m at No. 19. The preponderance of the overburden is shale.
Sandstone thickness is approximately 3.5m and calcareous rocks and coal
average 9m. The mined coal seam thickness is 1 meter and the sulfur content
averages 2.7 percent. Bed dip is 3.0 degrees.
The Keystone No. 6 and No. 19 Mines are located below drainage. Key-
stone No. 10 is situated near drainage. Average annual precipitation is
102.26 cm over the mine complex. All of the mines or mine sections were
hydraulically sealed during June 1975.
57
-------
Keystone No. 6 -- Based on the HRB-Singer field observations of October
1975 and March 1976, the seal obstructs flow completely. Prior to closure,
flow from the mine averaged 392 1pm; the water quality of the mine discharges
was characterized by the average concentration of acidity, total iron and
sulfate as 104 mg/1, 5 mg/1 and 381 mg/1, respectively.
Keystone No. 10 According to the chemical analysis of the samples
collected by the HRB-Singer field team, acidity concentrations have decreased
from a pre-sealing mean of 16 mg/1 to 6 mg/1. Post-sealing alkalinity has
increased from the pre-sealing mean of 4.3 mg/1 to 166.2 mg/1. Total iron
and sulfate concentrations also increased after sealing.
The test for difference between the means shows the reduction of acidity
concentrations significant at the 5 percent level and the increase in sulfate
concentrations and outputs significant at the 1 and 10 percent levels respec-
tively. Changes in total iron concentrations and outputs, as well as acidity
outputs, are too small to suggest they are from different populations.
Water is flowing over the grout curtain and flow has risen from an
average of 20 1pm pre-sealing to 115 1pm post-sealing. The hydrologic
condition of the mine may be influenced by the stream flowing over the top
of the mine, and by the stripped area and old spoil piles in its proximity.
It is more probable that the flow obstruction at portals No. 6 and No. 19
has resulted in the water backing up and discharging at this opening. The
regression analysis suggests that total iron, acid, and sulfate concentra-
tions were decreasing prior to sealing. There are insufficient data to
define trends following the sealing.
Keystone No. 19 The Mine discharge through this portal has been reduced
from a pre-closure mean of 25 1pm to 1 1pm (no flow was observed in October,
1975). Acidity has been reduced from an average of 102 mg/1 to 7 mg/1 and
alkalinity has risen from zero to 7.1 mg/1. Sulfate concentrations have
diminished by 92 percent from a mean of 364 mg/1 before closure to 30 mg/1
following closure. Comparison of total iron concentrations indicates a
slight decrease. However, in view of the size of the pre-sealing standard
deviation (Table D-7) , it cannot be assumed that there is any real change
in the amount present.
Because of the reductions in flow and concentrations, loads have also
been reduced considerably.
According to the trend analysis, acid concentrations were decreasing
at 10 mg/I/year. Total iron and sulfate concentrations were increasing at
3 and 124 mg/1/year preceding closure.
Isle No. 1. Milliard, and LindeyMines, Moraine State Park. Pennsylvania
The Isle No, 1, Hilliard, and Lindey are small drift mines located in
Moraine State Park, Butler County, Pennsylvania. The mines were sealed by
hydraulic grouted aggregate seals as part of the Pennsylvania Operation
Scarlift, Project SL 105-3. The work, sponsored by the Pennsylvania
5.8
-------
Department of Mines and Mineral Industries, was performed by B. H. Mott and
Sons, Inc.
The major objective of this project was to restore the aesthetic
appearance of the area and ensure good water quality in Lake Arthur.
The double bulkhead seals were constructed by placing coarse, dry
aggregate through vertical drill holes. The bulkheads were grouted to form
solid front and rear seals. Concrete was poured in the void between the
bulkheads to form a center plug. At each mine entry, curtain grouting of
adjacent strata was performed for a minimum of 15 meters on both sides of
the seals-a
The mine discharges were monitored from 1967 (about 2 years before the
sealing project was completed) to 1971.
Isle No. 1 Mine --
The sealing work done at this mine site consisted of installing mine
seals in six mine entries and grouting 1,000 feet of outcrop. The work was
finished in November 1969.
The mine discharges were monitored 2 years before the sealing. The mine
was reported to be flooded after the sealing under high water conditions and
partly flooded under low conditions. No flow from the entries was observed
in 1973. Two of the entries were found to be discharging when the site was
visited in October 1975 and March 1976. The leakage is through the seal
contact with the mine floor. The flow from the western-most opening
(No. 64A) was measured to be 8 1pm in October 1975 and 38 1pm in March 1976.
Comparing the two post-sealing discharges with the pre-sealing average.
flow of 24 1pm, it seems that the pre-sealing rates have been reestablished.
Concentration and output averages for acid and total iron decreased
approximately 50 percent as a result of the closure. Sulfate concentrations
remained essentially unchanged, alkalinity was measured considerably higher
than before clisure, but only the acidity concentration and total iron out-
put reductions are significant according to the test for difference between
the means (see Table 8).
2
The area of the Isle No. 1 Mine is approximately 0.13 km . Overburden
averages 45 meters and consists of about the same proportions of shale and
sandstone. The mined coal seam is 0.7m and is characterized by a sulfur
content of 2.8 percent. The mine is positioned near drainage.
a John W. Foreman and D. C. McLean, Evaluation of Pollution Abatement
Procedures, Moraine State Park, Environmental Protection Technology
Series, EPA R2-73-140 (Washington, 1973).
59
-------
Milliard Mine
The Milliard Mine was closed by placing bulkhead seals in two mine
entries and constructing a 300m grout curtain. The sealing was finished by
June 1970.
Closure resulted in inundation of the mine and changes in the quality
of water inside the mine. The quality of the effluent before the sealing
was characterized by low pH levels ranging between 3.7 and 4.3, average,
acidity concentrations of 70 mg/1, alkalinity of 0.5 mg/1, and total iron
of 4 mg/1. After the sealing, the water inside of the mine became alkaline
with 9830 percent increase in the alkalinity and a 96 percent decrease in
acidity. The total iron concentrations decreased by 613 percent to 34.7
mg/1 (see Table 6 and Tables D-4 through 7).
The mine effluent that is leaking from the mine around the seal does
not exhibit such significant changes in the water quality. Acidity and
alkalinity levels increased 16 and 616 percent respectively, in comparison
to the mine discharge before sealing, while total iron concentrations
increased by 267 percent. None of these increases are statistically
significant, however (see Table 8).
The flow from the mine in October 1975 and March 1976 was measured
at 4 1pm and 47 1pm. Flow averaged 14.5 1pm preceding closure. The average
acidity outputs were increased from 0.9 kg/day to 2.7 kg/day. This
difference is rather small relative to the magnitude of the standard
deviations. It can be assumed there is no difference in the pre- and post-
sealing acidity outputs.
The Milliard Mine is a drift mine that has a mined-out area of about
0.3 km2. The mine was under production from 1905 to 1935. The mine over-
burden is approximately 27m thick. The mine is below drainage for the most
part. The mined coal seam averages 0.9m and has a sulfur content of 2.8
percent.
Lindey Mine --
The deep mine sealing work in the Lindey Mine consisted of placing
double bulkhead seals in five entries and an airshaft, and 300m of grout
curtain. The sealing work was completed in August 1970.
There was no flow observed from the sealed entries. Monitoring of
two observation holes in the Lindey Mine indicate that the mine has been
flooded in high mine water conditions and partly inundated during dry
seasons-a
a Gwin Engineers, Inc., Report of Mine Drainage Project MD-8A, Moraine State
Park Watershed Area, Butler County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1968).
-------
The mine effluent before the closure was characterized by average
acidity levels of 432 mg/1, low pH levels ranging from 3.2 to 6.7 and very
low alkalinity averaging 0.1 mg/1. The water in the inundated mine became
more alkaline after the sealing. The alkalinity concentrations increased
to 24.8 mg/1 (after sealing) while acidity decreased to a mean of 6 mg/1.
There was a 7 percent decrease observed for the total iron concentrations
comparing 20 mg/1 and 19 mg/1 for pre-sealing and post-sealing conditions,
respectively.
The Lindey Mine is a large mine with about 58 km of mined area. The
overburden thickness is 28m that consists of 9m of shale and 17m of sand-
stone. There is also another coal seam (1.4m) in the overburden. The seam
is 1 meter thick, with an average sulfur content of 2.80 percent. Dip is
2.0 degrees. The mine is located above drainage.
Salem No. 2 Mine, Keystone State Park. Pennsylvania
Salem No. 2 is a drift mine that covers an area of 1.2 km2. It is
located in the Middle Kittanning coal seam. The mine overburden is charac-
terized by a predominance of shale over sandstone and an absence of
calcareous material. The mined coal seam is 1.3m in thickness, with a sulfur
content of 1.7 percent. The mine is above drainage.
The sealing project, No. SL 122-3, was jointly sponsored by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. The site was selected for the demonstra-
tion of a gel seal construction by Dravo Corporation. Two non-discharging
mine entries were sealed with double bulkhead aggregate seals with concrete
pressure grouted center plugs. A discharging entry was selected for in-
jection of the gel material. A reinforced concrete bulkhead was placed in
the mine entry where the gel seal was to be constructed. The seal was to
be placed through a vertical borehole from the surface. The laboratory test
indicated that the used chemical grout exhibited a controllable setting time
which should allow a stiff, gel-like plug to be formed in the mine cavity
without the benefit of retaining bulkheads. After placement of the gel seal,
fly ash also was to be pumped into the mine side of the seal in order to
neutralize any leakage that escaped the seal.
The formation of the seal was never completed as the slurry was diluted
by the mine drainage before a gel was formed. Additional curtain grouting
(Project SL-122-3-2) to control the acid mine drainage was performed
approximately 1 year after the main sealing effort.a
The mine discharges were monitored since 1967. The pre-sealing water
quality is characterized by pH levels consistently below 3.0, acidity con-
centrations averaging 494 mg/1, and a relatively high concentration of total
Neville K. Chung, Investigation of Use of Gel Material for Mine Sealing,
EPA R-2-73-135,Office of Research and Monitoring, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (1973).
61
-------
iron ranging between 40 mg/1 and 345 mg/1. The average pre-sealing sulfate
concentrations were calculated at 1176 mg/1. Trend analysis indicates the
latter three parameters were decreasing before closure (Appendix E).
The mine was inundated as a result of the sealing. Chemical analyses
of the samples taken from a mine pool indicate considerable reductions of
all the major pollutants. Acidity concentrations were reduced by 97 percent
sulfate and total iron by 94 percent and 70 percent. Alkalinity increased
from 0 to 57 mg/1.
A french drain that collects seepage from the three sealed entries
discharges into a small creek downstream from the Keystone Lake. Chemical
analyses of the samples taken from the drain discharge also show improved
quality when compared to the pre-sealing quality of the effluent discharging
from the main portal. Acidity, sulfate, and total iron concentrations were
reduced by 32, 48, and 4P percent, respectively.
The hydraulic sealing of the mine entries resulted in considerable de-
crease of flow and consequently in reduced pollutant outputs. Provided that
all the seepage from the mine is collected in the french drain, the acidity
outputs were reduced by 98 percent from 162.3 kg/day to 3.5 kg/day. Sulfate
and total iron outputs were reduced by 98 percent.
Shaw Mines, SL 118-5, Meyersdale^ Pennsylvania
Five hydraulic double bulkhead seals were installed in entries to a
rather complex and extensive abandoned mine, located in the Pittsburgh and
Redstone seams, in November 1972. Sulfur content of the mined seams is 1.7
percent.
Overburden of the mine averages 30 meters and is predominantly composed
of shale. The complex is generally above drainage.
Project SL 118-5 was done as part of the extensive reclamation work
in the Shaw Mine Complex area that was sponsored by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania under the "Operation Scarlift" program. The bulkheads were
constructed of pressure grouted coarse aggregate with the center plug filled
with concrete. A grout curtain was placed across the center plug to further
secure the water-tightness of the seal.
The water quality of mine discharges has been monitored since 1967.
The chemical analyses indicate a very highly acidic pre-sealing mine effluent
with pH levels ranging between 2.1 and 3.4, and average acidity, total iron,
and sulfate concentrations of 1505 mg/1, 459 mg/1, and 2915 mg/1, respective-
ly-
Post-sealing averages show reduction in concentrations of acidity to be
34 percent; of sulfate, 46 percent; and of total iron, 40 percent. Only the
reduction in total iron concentrations is confirmed by the test for differ-
ence in the means. The seepage at the time of the March 1976 sampling was
about 3 1pm. There was no seepage observed when the mine was inspected during
62
-------
the dry season in October 1975. The hydraulic seals seem to be effective
and although there are no observation wells to measure water levels in the
mine, the mine workings are most likely flooded.
Regression analyses of concentration show data reversal of the increas-
ing pre-closure acid and sulfate trends and a diminution in the rate of total
iron decrease (Appendix E).
Mine 62008-5, Clarksburg, West Virginia
A double bulkhead seal was placed in Opening No. 5 of Mine 62008
adjacent to openings No. 4 and No. 3 where single bulkhead and permeable
limestone seals were constructed. The seal was constructed by hydraulically
placing two bulkheads of quick-setting bentonite and sodium silicate slurry.
The core between the bulkheads was filled with an inexpensive injected
cement slurry grout. This seal was completed in June 1969.
The seal was effective in inundating the mine, and seepage through the
seal did not occur until September 1970. The average pre-sealing flow of
9.5 1pm was reduced to an average 0.8 1pm, recorded between November 1970
and June 1971. There was no measurable seepage observed in October 1975
and March 1976.
The water quality of the mine effluent improved after the sealing with
respect to acidity concentrations, which were reduced by 52 percent from an
average of 2260 mg/1 to 1090 mg/1. The average concentrations of sulfates
and total iron did not change significantly. Sulfate concentrations
decreased by 13 percent, and total iron increased by 19 percent.
The reduction of flow also resulted in a decrease in pollutant outputs
of better than 90 percent for all parameters as compared to those values
before sealing.
Mine RT 5-2, Coalton, West Virginia
2
Mine RT 5-2 is a small drift mine (0.14 km ) located in the Kittanning
coal seam, near Coalton, West Virginia.
A double bulkhead seal was constructed in mine entry No. 1. The bulk-
heads were built of quick-setting self-supporting cementitious materials.
The core between the two bulkheads was filled with limestone aggregate that
was made impermeable by grouting with light cement. The double bulkhead
seal was constructed in front of a previously built air seal.a>b
a Robert B. Scott, Evaluation of Shaver's Fork Seals.
b Halliburton Company, New Mine Sealing Techniques for Water Pollution
Abatement, Water Pollution Control Research Series 14010 DM0 03/70,
Federal Water Quality Administration (1970).
63
-------
The construction of the seal was done by the Halliburton Company under
the sponsorship of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The contract
was awarded to study various methods of constructing bulkhead seals.
The mine discharges were regularly monitored from 1964 to 1971 by the
Halliburton Company and later by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Norton Mine Drainage Field Site.
The RT 5-2 Mine is considered to be a high-flow mine with the pre-seal-
ing flow rates ranging between 36 and 2089 1pm.
The hydraulic sealing of the mine was successful and no leakage from the
RT 5-2 opening was apparent when inspected in September 1971. The hydro-
static head behind the seal stabilized above 2m after January 1970 with
only slight variations in the water levels in the mine. The increased water
elevation in the mine resulted in discharges through opening No. 2 that was
subsequently closed by a permeable limestone seal (RT 5-2A).
The quality of the water behind the seal deteriorated considerably after
the sealing and flooding of the mine. Acidity increased from the pre-sealing
average by 61 percent, from 683 mg/1 to 1107 mg/1. Concentrations of sulfate
increased by 118 percent from 660 mg/1 to 1438 mg/1, and that of total iron
by 137 percent from 212 mg/1 to 502 mg/1.
Until the drainage pipes were opened (between 1971 and October 1975)
the water from the inundated mine was discharged through the permeable
limestone seal constructed in opening No. 2. The effect of the seal on the
effluent quality is discussed in the section on permeable seals.
According to samples collected in October 1975 and March 1976, flow
rates (averaging 104 1pm for the two measurements) are within one standard
deviation of the pre-sealing mean of 373 1pm. Pre-sealing acidity and
sulfate concentration averages have been nearly re-established, however
total iron concentrations are significantly lower. All three major parameter
outputs are reduced from pre-sealing averages as well (see Tables 6 through
9 and Tables D-4 through 9).
Phifers_ No. !_ Mine, State Park, Tennessee
The Phifers No. 1 Mine, a small drift mine (0.1 km^) located in the
Richland coal seam, was closed by a double bulkhead seal in November 1975.
The seal was constructed of limestone aggregate bulkheads grouted with a
cement mix.
The sealing of the mine was part of the Piney Creek Project sponsored
by the University of Tennessee and the Fish and Wildlife section of the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
The quality of the mine effluent before the sealing was characterized
by pH levels ranging between 2.9 and 3.0, and average acidity, sulfate, and
64
-------
total iron concentrations of 83 mg/1, 109 mg/1, and 14 mg/1, respectively.
Flow from the mine was measured at 11 1pm.
No seepage from the mine opening was observed after the mine sealing and
the mine workings were inundated. Chemical analysis of a water sample taken
from the inundated mine 5 months after the sealing shows large changes in
the water quality. The post-sealing pH level increased to 7.4, acidity
concentrations decreased by 100 percent while alkalinity, not detected before
the sealing, was measured at 132 mg/1. Sulfate and total iron concentrations
were reduced by 56 percent and 30 percent.
This mine intersects the water table and has a relatively thin shale
overburden. There is no coal or calcareous rock present.
The Richland seam is approximately 1.5 meters thick at the site with a
sulfur content of 2.2 percent.
SINGLE BULKHEAD SEALS
Single bulkhead seals are usually constructed of poured concrete, quick
setting cement material or grouted aggregate. They can be also constructed
of other materials such as masonry blocks, rocks, or bricks.
Some of the single bulkheads are constructed in openings where there
is no or little danger of a buildup of hydrostatic head (dry seals) while
some single bulkhead seals are designed as hydraulic seals capable of
sustaining higher hydrostatic pressures.a
Mine No. 40-016, Lost Creek, West Virginia
Two openings in the small drift mine, No. 40-016, were closed by the
installation of two grouted aggregate bulkheads. The seals were constructed
by placing a graded limestone in the mine that was subsequently grouted to
form a solid plug. The seal construction was performed by the Halliburton
Company.**
After the seals were installed in December 1967, massive leaks were
observed around and through the seals. As a result of remedial grouting
done in 1968, the leakage was reduced but not stopped. Flow rates were
reported to be about 7-11 1pm, but increased considerably about three years
later when the average flow in 1971 was reported at 67 1pm. Leakage was
also reported to be through the coal surrounding the seal. Samples from the
mine discharge were periodically collected and analyzed between September
1968 and June 1971. Only one sampling point for the pre-sealing water
quality is available.
The effect of the seal on the water quality is characterized by 51
a L.R. Scott and R. M. Hays, Inactive and Abandoned Mines.
b Halliburton Company, New Sealing Techniques.
-------
percent reduction in acidity and 38 percent reduction in total iron
concentration. In view of the limited data on water quality from the mine
prior to sealing, reduction values should be considered with some caution.
No pre-sealing data on sulfate concentrations are available.
The trend analysis of the pollutant concentrations shows significant
negative trends for the post-sealing concentrations of all three major
parameters. The acidity concentrations fluctuated considerably for approxi-
mately two years after sealing, with values ranging from 34 mg/1 to 380 mg/1,
but have decreased at an overall rate of 22 mg/1/year. The two sampling
points in October 1975 and March 1976 indicate that these decreasing trends
have continued. For both observations, alkalinity was measured as higher
than acidity.
Acidity and total iron outputs decreased considerably following closure.
As a result of the massive leaks observed in 1971, they increased, but did
not reach pre-sealing values.
The condition of the seal has deteriorated since 1971- and massive leaks
were observed in October 1975. The measured flow from Portal No. 1 was 95
1pm. The portals are slumped and covered with vegetation and it is not
possible to determine the condition of the seal. The immediate area of this
site has been extensively mined and it is likely that the blasting from a
surface mining operation or disturbance of the recharge area has contributed
to the failure of this abatement effort.
Mine 40-016 produced in a high sulfur seam (3.0 percent), 1.8m thick
from 1904 to 1930. The overburden averages 15.24m. The major area of the
mine is positioned above the local drainage base level.
Mine No. 62008-4_, Near Clarksburg, West Virginia
A quick-setting, sodium silicate cement single bulkhead seal was
constructed in the No. 62008 Mine, opening No. 4, adjacent to two other
openings (No. 5 and No. 3), sealed with a double bulkhead and a limestone
plug. The seal was constructed by the Halliburton Company under the auspices
of the Federal Water Quality Administration (presently EPA) in November 1968.
No seepage was observed between the seal and the surrounding rocks until
September 1969. Since then, the leakage rate has increased from one 1pm to
66 1pm, the latter rate measured in October 1975.
The water quality data base is rather limited, especially for the pre-
sealing period. Mine discharge was monitored regularly from September 1969
until June 1971. Two additional samples were obtained in October 1975 and
March 1976.
There is a rather pronounced downward trend in the acidity concentra-
tions for the post-sealing period of observation. The overall reduction of
acidity is 63 percent, comparing the pre-sealing measured value of 1170 mg/1
to 446 mg/1. There is also a downward trend indicating an overall reduction
6,6
-------
in the post-sealing sulfate and total iron concentrations of 16 and 79
percent, respectively.
The considerable increase in the rate of flow from this opening resulted
in overall increases of the pollutant loads. This observed discharge
augmentation is probably due to the diversion of water from Portal No, 5
where the double bulkhead is obstructing its passage, as well as to the
surface mining impacts on the local hydrologic system or the stabilization
of that system over time after its alteration by the surface mining.
Rattlesnake Creek Mine, Brockwgy, Jefferson Co., Pa.
A single bulkhead and a slurry trench were constructed to abate the
acid discharges from a deep mine in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed. The
construction was performed under "Operation Scarlift" Project SL 132-2-101.1
by Trans-Continental Construction Company, Inc.
The deep mine seal was constructed of a brick wall that was plastered
with Lumnite cement mortar and coated with Colma Bonding Compound. The wall
was reinforced by steel bars protected by placement of concrete over 2 feet
thick.
The deep mine closure was effective in hydraulically sealing the mine
opening. There was no flow observed in October 1975 and only a limited
flow in March 1976. The measured flow from the mine before the sealing
ranged from 611 1pm to 2128 1pm.
In terms of the water quality, the mine effluent seeping around the
seal shows 46 percent decrease in acidity concentrations, no change in
measured pH levels, slight decrease in sulfate concentrations (3 percent),
and an increase in total iron concentrations from 7 mg/1 to 8 mg/1 (6 percent).
The outputs of the pollutants from the mine portal are presently negligible
because of the reduced flow.
Subsequent to closure, the mine was partially inundated and leakage
began through the coal seam along the surface mine highwall. To control
this leakage and to secure the planned flooding of the mine, a slurry trench
was constructed along the seam outcrop. The work consisted of about 2,800
m2 of 0.6m thick slurry trench wall. The water in direct contact with the
alkaline material of the trench shows an increase in pH and alkalinity
levels and a decrease in acidity. Observation wells placed within a few
feet above and below the slurry trench, sampled in March 1976, show a change
in the pH levels from 3.2 to 5.3 and a decrease in acidity concentrations
from 101 mg/1 to 13 mg/1.
A french drain that discharges into Rattlesnake Creek was installed to
collect seepage along the slurry trench and the sealed portal. The water
quality of this composite drainage has been monitored since the sealing
project was completed. The acidity concentrations range between 97 and 266
mg/1 with pH levels consistently below 3.5.
67
-------
As the mine effluent was discharged in the Rattlesnake Creek before
and also after the implementation of the abatement project, the creek water
quality can best indicate the overall effectiveness of the project that
includes the deep mine sealing, construction of the slurry trench, and also
some regrading of the spoil materials from strip mining along the coal out-
crop. The stream has been monitored since 1972, with the sampling point
located several feet downstream of the french drain discharge.
The chemical analysis of the water samples indicates no significant
changes in the water quality in respect to acidity, alkalinity, and pH levels.
The acidity concentrations show rather low variability of the constituent
with the pre-closure average of 6.9 mg/1 compared to the post-closure average
of 6.1 mg/1. There was basically no change in average alkalinity concentra-
tions observed at values of 11.8 mg/1 and 11.6 mg/1 for the pre-and post-
closure conditions.
On the other hand, the sulfate concentrations increased by 171 percent
from an average of 62.5 mg/1 to 170.1 mg/1, and the total iron concentrations
increased by 45 percent from 0.7 mg/1 to 1.2 mg/1. No comparison of
pollutant loads could be made as there are very few flow measurements for
the post-closure period.
The deep mine sealing resulted in mine flooding and diversion of flow
away from the mine portal through the spoil materials between the highwall
and the creek. The original flow system, controlled by the strata
inclination to the northeast toward the local discharge area, Rattlesnake
Creek, was actually restored.
The slurry trench acted as an impermeable barrier to further enhance
the mine flooding, but it could control the flow into the spoils only in a
limited way since the water flows over and under the trench as a result of
raised water level and increased hydrostatic heads. The neutralizing
effect of the alkaline material in the trench has had an immediate effect
on the water quality in its proximity but, as the neutralized water seeps
through the spoil materials, the water quality deteriorates rapidly.
Bullrock Run Min^e^.^itta.nning, PennsylvanjLa_
The Bullrock Run portal of the Mahoning Mine No. 1 was sealed with a
reinforced concrete seal that was designed to sustain hydrostatic head
buildup behind the seal up to 150 feet. The seal was constructed by the
Carpenter Coal and Coke. Company in 1975.
Effluent leakage of 6 and 8 1pm from around the seal was observed during
the October 1975 and March 1976 site inspections. Comparison of water
quality before and after the sealing shows no change in pH levels but some
increase in acidity concentrations. The acidity increased from 10 to 27 mg/1.
The measured alkalinity levels were always higher than those of acidity.
The sulfate concentrations increased by 9 percent from 206 to 224 mg/1 and
total iron concentrations decreased by 94 percent from 16 to 1 mg/1. The
68
-------
average post-sealing pollutant outputs or loads of acidity, sulfates, and
total iron were calculated to be 0.3 kg/day, 2.3 kg/day, and o.l kg/day
respectively. No flow measurements are available for the pre-sealing
conditions.
The increase in concentrations of some of the pollutants can possibly
be attributed to extensive strip mining in the close proximity to the mine
and contamination of the mine discharges from all surface mine spoils.
Decker No. 5,^Kittanning, Pennsylvania
Two single bulkhead seals were constructed in the main portals of Decker
No. 5 mine by the Powell Coal Company. The seal was constructed as a 0.4m
thick cement block wall in November 1972. Three sampling points available
for the post-sealing discharges were collected by the Department of
Environmental Resources and by the HRB-Singer field team. No pre-sealing
water quality data are available.
There was no flow around or through the seal reported in 1973, but
leakages of 11 and 4 1pm were measured in October 1975 and March 1976. The
seal itself is presently covered over by spoil material. Water quality of
the effluent is characterized by low pH levels ranging from 1.9 to 3.2 and
acidity, sulfate, and total iron concentrations ranging between 49 and 178
mg/1, 75 and 360 mg/1, and 9 and 40 mg/1, respectively. There is no
significant difference between the chemical quality of the effluent from this
sealed mine and other unsealed deep mines in its close proximity (the Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources, stream and mine drainage analyses, water
quality records in files, Harrisburg, 2/13/73). Thus, the effect of the
mine sealing on the effluent quality seems to be rather small.
Price No. 2 and^ Buckingham Mines, Wheelright,^Kentucky
The Price No. 2 and the Buckingham Mines are parts of a huge mine
complex at the intersection of Knott, Floyd, Pike, and Letcher Counties in
eastern Kentucky. Both of these mines are approximately 1 km2 in size and
both were mined between 1950 and 1970. The overburden of the Price No* 2
mine is predominately shale with another coal seam present. Sandstone is the
predominate rock in the Buckingham overburden. Coal is present in the over-
burden here as well. The sulfur content of the mined coal seam in both
cases is 0.90 percent.
Both mines are located above drainage, and there is no discharge from
either of them. They were closed by the Island Creek Coal Company by the
construction of concrete blocks or rock walls in the mine portals. Accord-
ing to a representative of Island Creek Coal Company, there used to be water
behind the about 1m high concrete block dam at the Price No. 2 portal;
however, there was no evidence of any flow in October 1975 or March 1976.
There was some dampness in front of the Buckingham seal but there was no way
of determining whether or not there was in fact any water behind the con-
crete block wall.
69
-------
Two unsealed mines located in.close proximity to the sealed mines,
also part of the Wheelright complex, were sampled during October 1975 and
March 1976 as well. The water quality of the mine effluent discharged from
Jack's Creek Mine is characterized by pH 7.2 and alkalinity considerably
higher than acidity, comparing average values of 251 mg/1 to 0.10 mg/1.
The sulfate and total iron concentations are 303 mg/1 and 5 mg/1, respective-
ly. Very similar water quality was indicated by chemical analyses of samples
taken from the nearby mine, Buckingham No. 5. This mine is not part of the
Wheelright complex, although it is adjacent to it. The measured pH levels
of the mine effluent were 5.1 and 6.8, the alkalinity levels were five times
higher than those of acidity, and sulfate and total iron were found at rather
low average concentrations of 52 mg/1 and 0.2 mg/1, respectively.
As these unsealed mines are located in the same coal seam and have
similar mining histories, the quality of the mine water which once drained
from the Price No. 2 and the Buckingham Mines should be very similar. It
is believed that the sealing of these portals was not to abate the mine
drainage pollution but rather for security reasons.
Ellisonville, Pingy_FortA and Florence Mines; Lawrence, Jefferson, and
BeImont^ Counties, Ohio
The Ellisonville Mine, located north of Ironton, is a small drift mine
(.10 km^) that produced in a seam with a 2.6 percent sulfur content. The
Florence Mine is also a small drift mine (0.01 km ) which produced in a
seam of 4 percent sulfur. Located near Adena, the Piney Fork is a mine of
S.64 km^, producing in a seam of 2.9 percent sulfur.
The Ellisonville Mine was closed in early 1950. The sealing was done by
constructing a cinder block wall in the mine openings. The quality analysis
of the discharges shows high acidity of 1221 mg/1, zero alkalinity, pH of
3.0, and sulfate and total iron concentrations of 1020 mg/1 and 150 mg/1,
respectively.
The information on the site mining history and the sealing effort are
very limited and do not allow any evaluation of the sealing effectiveness.
However, the poor water quality of the mine effluent suggests a rather
limited effect of the seal.
A partial sealing effort in the Piney Fork Mine by the Consolidation
Coal Company was done to stop drainage from part of the mine into the main
haulageway that has been used for underground transportation of coal from a
surface mining operaton. Several cement block walls were constructed in
the openings. As they were not designed to sustain high hydrostatic
pressures, the water that has ponded behind these seals has to be pumped.
Samples were taken from the unsealed and sealed parts of the mine to
determine possible differences in the water quality. The results of the
chemical analyses show no significant differences between the samples. The
water quality is characterized by high alkalinity concentrations, that is,
343 mg/1 for the sealed part of the mine and 438 mg/1 to 568 mg/1 for the
70
-------
unsealed part. The measured pH levels are always above 7.0. It seems
that the calcareous character of the overburden has an overriding effect on
the quality of the mine water.
Sulfate and total iron concentration values were 370 mg/1 and 2 mg/1
in October 1975.
The overburden characteristics of the Florence Mine, sealed in 1961,
are similar to those of the Ellisonville and Piney Fork Mines, and the mine
drainage is also of somewhat similar quality; Alkalinity in concentration
is very high at 507 mg/1, and acidity is only 1 mg/1. Total iron and
sulfate concentrations are 227 and 3050 mg/1, respectively.
PERMEABLE LIMESTONE SEALS
Sealing of underground mines with permeable seals involves the placement
of permeable alkaline aggregate in mine openings where acid water may pass
through it. As the acid water passes through'the alkaline material
neutralization occurs and precipitates are formed. These precipitates fill
the void space in the aggregate and, in time, the seal actually becomes a
solid single bulkhead seal which induces flooding of the mine.a A typical
cross section of permeable aggregate seal is shown in Figure 9.
Stewartstown Mine, Stewartstown, West Virginia
This mine was closed in August, 1974, by ECI-Doletanche, Inc., under
contract with the Environmental Protection Agency. It is a small (0.1 km2)
drift mine in which production was discontinued in January 1974.
The mine is characterized by a mean overburden thickness of 34m.
Lithology of the overburden is characterized by predominance of shale over
sandstone, no calcareous rocks and presence of another coal seam. The mined
seam is 0.9m thick and averages a sulfur content of 3.1 percent. The sealed
portal sampled in this study is located near drainage.
Four permeable seals and grout curtains were.installed to close the
mine. Each mine seal was constructed by pneumatically injecting limestone
aggregate and additives into the mine entries. The voids between the roof
and seal were grouted with a cement, fly ash, and bentonite grout mixture.
Strata adjacent to the mine seals were pressure grouted for a minimum
distance of 9.1 meters on both sides of the mine entries.a
The mine discharges have been monitored regularly since February 1974
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Norton Field Office. The
lowest seal (relative to elevation), known as No. 2, was the only seal ^
draining at the time of the first sampling by the HRB-Singer field team in
October 1975. At that time, the seal was in good condition with little
seepage around the periphery. There was one meter of water standing behind
the seal.
L. R. Scott and R. M. Hays, Inactive and Abandoned Mines.
71
-------
Ground Surface
Flooded
Under-
ground
Mine ---i Q
Mine Enfry
Aggregate Seal, Variable Width
Figure 9. Typical cross section of a permeable aggregate seal as shown in R.L. Scott
and R.M. Hays, Inactive and Abandoned Underground Mines, EPA-440/9-75-007.
-------
By the second sampling, in March 1976, the seal in the No. 2 portal
was breached and water was flowing over and around it at the rate of 1 44 1pm
It was not possible to determine the water levels in the mine as the
obervation well was inaccessible.
Overall, the water quality shows considerable improvement since install-
ation of the seal. Acidity decreased immediately upon closure (see Figure
10). A comparison of the pre- and post-sealing sampling period concentra-
tion means discloses a reduction of 62 percent (significant at .01) from
595 mg/1 to 224 mg/1. Alkalinity concentrations rose immediately upon
sealing to 205 mg/1. After the seal failures, alkalinity plunged to zero,
pH levels decreased to 3.00, and acidity increased to 406 mg/1.
The water quality data for the post-sealing conditions show considerable
variability of acidity concentrations (see standard deviations in Table D-14)
and pH levels. Values for acidity vary from 3 to 680 mg/1 with pH levels
ranging between 2.7 and 6.8.
The irregularity of the two parameters is a result of an intermittent
contact of the mine effluent with the alkaline material of the seal. Water
contact with the seal can be minimized by leakage around the seal and through
rock units in its proximity or by a brief residence time of water seeping
through the seal during increased flow or heightened hydrostatic pressure,
resulting in insufficient neutralization.
Regardless of the several instances where the mine effluent was flushed
out without being neutralized by contact with the limestone material, the
chemical analyses of the effluent show an overall decrease in acidity during
the post-sealing period. Furthermore, alkalinity almost always exceeds
acidity.
Total iron and sulfate concentrations were reduced after the closure.
Total iron decreased by 64 percent. Sulfate concentrations were reduced
from 1316 mg/1 to 1208 mg/1. In view of this small difference between the
means, it is highly probable that the sulfate concentrations were not, in
fact, altered because of sealing.
As a result of the decrease in flow from the mine, there is a decrease
in the output of all three major pollutants. On the basis of the sampling
period means comparisons, acidity loads are reduced by 90 percent, total
iron by 90 percent, and sulfate by 79 percent. The statistical test for
difference in the means indicates that the magnitudes between the pre- and
post-sealing sampling period means are large enough to assume they are from
two different water quality populations.
The regression analysis suggests the effect of the seal is to either
reverse increasing trends or quicken the rate of a decreasing trend. While
the regression coefficients listed in Appendix E are the best estimators of
the trends, the pre-sealing concentrations and loads fluctuate so greatly
that none of the representative coefficients are significant even at the
20 percent level.
73
-------
2500
2000
1500
1000
500 .
0 J
500
400
300 -
200
100 .
0 J
1 -,
.8 -
.6 -
.4 -
.2 .
0 J
1000-
800.
600.
400-
200.
O FLOW IN LITERS PER MINUTE
ACIDITY IN MILLIGRAMS/LITER
ALKALINITY IN MILLIGRAMS/LITER
O O SULFATES IN MILLIGRAMS/LITER
A A TOTAL FE IN MILLIGRAMS/LITER
- - ACIDITY TREND IN MILLIGRAMS/LITER
O- Q SULFATE TREND IN MILLIGRAMS/LITER
A TOTAL IRON TREND IN MILLIGRAMS/LITER
74
75
76
Figure 10. Stewartstown Mine, pollutant concentrations and trends.
-------
Mine RT 5-2A, Coalton, West Virginia
As described in the section on air seals, this site is a drift mine with
approximately 39 meters of overburden consisting of 23m of shale, 13m of
sandstone, and 0.9m of calcareous rock. The thickness of the mined coal
seam is 2.4m and the sulfur content is 2.0 percent. Dip of the rock beds
is approximately 10.0 degrees. The mine is located near drainage and the
average annual precipitation is 109.8 centimeters.
RT 5 Mine was mined periodically from 1904 to 1950 and closed in
September 1969 by the Halliburton Company under the auspices of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The construction of the permeable bulkhead
seal in the RT 5-2A portal was undertaken after the water impounded behind
the double bulkhead seal in RT 5-2 portal began to discharge through this,
then unknown, opening.
The work was performed by constructing a permeable bulkhead seal of
graded limestone aggregate and agricultural lime in the drift. The void
space between the mine roof and the aggregate was grouted as a precautionary
step in the event water behind the seal would reach the mine roof .a
Mine discharges were monitored from January 1964 until September 1971.
Water from inside the mine was also sampled regularly. Chemical and quantita-
tive measurements of water discharging from RT 5-2 were used for the pre-
sealing and post-sealing comparisons of the discharge from RT 5-2A since it
was not draining until the other portals were closed.
The neutralizing effect of the permeable seal had a significant impact
on the acidity of the mine discharge. Comparison of the pre- and post-
sealing means for acid concentrations indicates an 84 percent decrease. The
statistic for the difference in the means also attests to the acid reduction
(see Tables 10 through 12, and Tables D-14 through 15). As of June 1971,
alkalinity had increased by over 300 percent and was generally higher than
acidity The impact of the seal on sulfate and total iron has been less
pronounced. The total iron concentrations decreased from the pre-sealing
212 me/1 to 160 mg/1. The deviations from the means are rather large, and
indicate considerable fluctuation in the total iron concentrations. This is
also true of pre- and post-sealing sulfate concentrations, that increased
35 percent after sealing.
Comparison of the total averages of the pollutant outputs for the two
sampling periods (pre- and post-sealing) indicates 99 percent reduction in
acidity! 98 percen? reduction in total iron, and 96 percent reduction in
sulfates. The seal has reduced the variability of the parameter outputs, as
well, especially those of acidity and sulfate.
* Robert B. Scott, Evaluation of Bulkhead Seals, Office of Research and
Monitoring, National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1972).
75
-------
The trend analysis of the pollutant concentrations indicate pre-sealing
increase in the sulfate and total iron concentrations. These have been
maintained also after the mine closure (Figure 11).
Since the last recorded sampling of the portal by the Norton Mine
Drainage Field Office in August 1971, the pipes of both the RT 5-2 and RT 5-2A
seals (used for monitoring quality within the mine), have been opened and
allowed to drain freely. This was done to alleviate any danger of the
considerable hydrostatic head behind the seals. As a result of this change
in the hydrologic setting of the mine, the two chemical analyses done for
samples collected in October 1975 and March 1976 were not included in the
calculations of means, standard deviations, or statistical analyses.
The two seals are now functioning as air seals and are both in good
condition. Flow from the RT 5-2A portal has not increased more than 10
percent from the 12.5 1pm mean calculated from the post-sealing sampling
period data in July 1971, Acid and total iron concentrations have risen
to pre-sealing levels again; however, sulfate concentrations are lower than
either the pre- or post-sealing means.
The quality of water that inundated the mine after the sealing was
observed to have deteriorated considerably (Figure 12). Acidity concentra-
tions increased by 60 percent comparing the total means of acidity for the
pre-sealing mine discharges (683 mg/1) with the total means of acidity
indicated for the samples taken from behind the permeable, seal (1093 mg/1).
The sulfate and total iron concentrations increased by 134 percent and 127
percent, respectively. The average pH levels of the post-sealing mine dis-
charges were 5.7 as compared to 2.9 inside of the mine.
Mine.62008, Portal No.5, Clarksburg, West Virginia
Mine 62008 is a small (0.1 km2) drift mine located above drainage.
Dates of mining are unknown. The overburden consists of approximately 23m
of shale, 18m of sandstone, and 0.9m of calcareous rocks or coal. Average
dip is 4.0 degrees. The mined coal seam is 2m thick with a sulfur content
of 3.10 percent. Surface mining was conducted in close proximity to the
mine.
Portal No. 3 of the mine was sealed with a permeable type limestone
aggregate plug, (portals No. 4 and 5 were closed by double and single bulk-
head seals) in June 1969. The aggregate was so graded that acid mine water
flowed through the plug with sufficient retention time to be neutralized.
The finished seal of aggregate filled the 1.3m by 3.6m drift maintaining 7m
of roof contact and 10m of floor contact. Some settling occurred after
several days leaving a gap between the top of the stone and the roof of the
mine.a
The Halliburton Company, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
a Robert B. Scott, Bulkhead Seals,
76
-------
FLO* IN LITERS PER MINUTE
ACIDITY IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
ALKALINITY IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
SULFATES If MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
TOTAL FE IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
»_ * ACIDITY TREND IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
o- a SULFATE TREND IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
-------
2.500 -i
00
1,000-
2.000-
2.500- -
2.000- -
1,500. .
ACIDITY IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
ALKALINITY IN tULLIGRAUS PER LITER
SOLFITES IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
TOTAL FE IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
OBSERVATIONS OF WATER DUALITY IEHIND THE SEAL
12 2 4 6 B 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2
! 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 B B 10 12 2 40 B 10 12 2 4 6 « 10 12
Figure 12. RT5-2A Mine, pollutant concentrations; post-sealing data are
for water quality from inundated mine.
-------
Protection Agency, constructed the seals and monitored the mine discharges
from 1968 to 1969. The post-sealing monitoring was continued by the EPA
Norton Mine Drainage Field Office until 1971.
The lack of pre-sealing monitoring severely limits the reliability of
any evaluation of the effects of the seal, A comparison of the pre- and post-
sealing concentration means suggests a decrease in both acidity and total iron
and an increase in alkalinity, pH, and sulfates. Comparison of the means
relative to the standard deviations indicates that the only probable real
change takes place with regard to pH and alkalinity. Differences in the pre-
and post-sealing means of acidity, total iron, and sulfates are not large
enough to assume they are not from the same population (Figure 13).
The increase in pH from 3.6 to 6.6 and in alkalinity from zero to 207
mg/1 is due to the introduction of carbonate from the seal to the water
exiting from the mine. During the post-sealing sampling period, average
alkalinity concentrations were generally higher than those of acidity.
The mine effluent discharge decreased considerably immediately after
sealing. During 2 years following the closure, flow remained slightly below
the pre-sealing value of 11 1pm. In October 1975, however, flow exceeded
the pre-sealing levels and reached 26 1pm. This rise in flow contributes to
the apparent augmentation of pollutant outputs (see Table D-15) after closure.
Trend analysis performed for the post-sealing data shows acid and
sulfate concentrations and outputs decreasing. On the average, acid
concentrations are decreasing at 4.9 mg/1/year, however, there is considerable
fluctuation in this rate. This variability may be due to the reported water
leakage over the top of the seal, thus occasionally limiting the contact
of the mine water with the alkaline material of the seal. Acid outputs are
decreasing at rates of 0.16 kg/year. Sulfate concentrations are decreasing
at 55.10 mg/1/year, while outputs are decreasing at 0.2 kg/year.
The coefficients for total iron concentrations and outputs suggest
they are increasing, but the amount of deviation is comparatively large, and
the coefficients are not significant statistically.
This seal is still in good condition, and the increased alkalinity and
decreased acidity show that water is continuing to be neutralized by the
seal.
SHAFT AND SLOPE SEALS
Shaft and slope entries are commonly filled with miscellaneous
materials, covered, or fenced off for public safety. Because these entries
also act as conduits for mine water drainage, they are hydraulically sealed.
The placement of a hydraulic seal involves opening the shaft or slope and
recovering all debris. A suitable sealing zone in the strate is then
located. The entry is then backfilled to the sealing zone with miscellaneous
fill, and the impermeable seal is placed. The sealing operation is
79
-------
!S 5 S 22
IS O _J u ^
"> »- u. < ^
2500 100 50 500'
2000
1500
:co
o
1000
500 -
80
60
40
20-
0J
40
30
20-
10-
400
300-
200-
100-
NINE
SEALED
6/13/69
, - , - , - , - , - , - , T - , - r . i i i . i i i r t T 1 I - >
12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 46 B 10 12 2 46 9 10 12 2 4 6 > 10
O O FLO» IN LITERS PER MINUTE
ACIOITV IN MILLIOMIIS/LITER
ALKALINITY IN Ml LLI GRANS Al TER
O O SULFATES IN «ILLI GRANS IITER
A A TOTAL FE IN MILLIGRAMS/LITER
_ - ACIDITY TREND IN MILLIGRAMS/LITER
O QSULFATE TREND IN KILLKRAKS/LfTER
A A TOTAL IRON TREND IN MILLIGRAMS/LITER
*
~ ~ -a
61 69 70 71 72,73,74
Figure 13. Mine No. 62008-3, pollutant concentrations and trends.
246110122468
75 76
-------
completed by backfilling the shaft to ground level3.
Eighteen sealed shaft or slope mines located in Pennsylvania, Kentucky,
Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa were selected as sites to be studied on this
project. Locations of the sites are shown in Figure 1. All the mines are
below drainage and are flooded most of the time.
There are no available historical water quality data for the pre-sealing
periods of these mines. Only two samples collected during this study
characterize the post-closure mine water quality. The assessment of the
influence of these closures on the mine water quality is therefore impossible.
Moreover, the closures at the studied sites were not designed or constructed
to improve the mine effluent quality, but were placed over the openings
mainly for safety purposes.
The available water quality data indicate seven out of 12 sites with
alkalinity exceeding acidity and pH levels equal to or above 6.0. The total
iron concentrations are rather high at three sites in Illinois and two sites
in Iowa. They range between 47 and 292 mg/1. The sulfate concentrations are
also highest at these sites and range from 1700 to 4400 mg/1.
The water quality characteristics are most likely more attributable to
the lithological character of the country rocks and to the fact that most of
these mines are permanently flooded. It is a present consensus that deep
mines of these areas do not significantly affect the surface water quality
as do the surface mining wastes.
Repplier, Veith, Otto, and Otto Primrose Mines
Repplier, Veith, Otto, and Otto Primrose are the sites located in the
anthracite region of eastern Pennsylvania. Shaft entries in this area
were sealed during the Federal Work Projects Administration mine sealing
projects which began in 1933.b The mine shafts were filled with earth, rock,
or a concrete slab was placed over the shaft. The sealing efforts were not
designed to stop the mine water overflow through the shaft or slope entries.
Quality of mine effluent from these mines indicates relatively low
concentrations of sulfates ranging between 55 and 255 mg/1, and of total
iron between 1 and 14 mg/1. Concentrations of alkalinity are invariably
higher than those of acidity, with ranges in concentration between 0.3 and
49 mg/1 for acidity and 0.0 to 916 mg/1 for alkalinity. The pH levels for
these mines are between 4.2 and 7.1 .
a L. R. Scott and P. M. Hays, Inactive and Abandoned Mines.
b P. A. Fellows, Sealed Projects - Sharply Reduce Stream Pollution From
Abandoned Mines, Coal Age 42 (1937): 158-61.
81
-------
East Diamond, Atkinson,,, and Pleasant View Mines
East Diamond, Atkinson, and Pleasant View Mines are located in Western
Kentucky. They are similar in their physical and mining background to
Miami No. 5 and Viking Mines in Indiana, to Burningstar No. 1, Buckhorn, and
Ensminger Mines in Illinois, and to Hull, New Lansing and Lost Creek Mines
in Iowa.
All of these mines are located in the Eastern Region of the Interior
Coal Province. Mean overburden above the coal seam in question is 48m, the
average shale to sandstone thickness ratio is 20:1, with exception of the
Kentucky mines with the shale-sandstone ratio of 2:3. There are calcareous
rocks as well as another coal seam present in the overburden. The strata
are mostly horizontal. The total mined area of these mines ranges from
0.13 to 4.34 km^, the coal seam thickness varies from 1.3 to 1.5m.
There was no drainage from an observation well for sampling waters from
the East Diamond Mine. The water quality data for the other two West
Kentucky mines, the Atkinson and Pleasant View Mines, indicate relatively
high pH levels ranging between 6.2 and 8.4, acidity concentrations ranging
between 1.0 and 3.4 mg/1, sulfate between 151 to 810 mg/1, and total iron
between 4 and 6 mg/1. The mines were closed by placing a concrete slab over
the slope or shaft openings.
The mine discharges from the sites that were studied in Illinois and
Indiana show pH levels mostly above 6.0, with acidity always lower than
alkalinity. Some of the sites, namely the Burningstar No.l and Buckhorn
Mines, are characterized by sulfate concentrations above 3,000 mg/1 and
total dissolved solids ranging between 1,440 mg/land 6,166 mg/1. The mines
were closed by a concrete slab placed over the slope openings or by an
earth seal. ;
Hull, New Lansing, and Lost Creek Mines
The Hull, New Lansing, and Lost Creek Mines in Iowa are shaft and
slope mines that were earth-sealed approximately 70 years ago when the mines
were abandoned. They are supposedly small mines with overburden character-
ized by a predominance of shale and presence of another coal seam and lime-
stone. No mine maps are available for these mines.
The measured pH levels range between 4.4 and 6.2, acidity concentrations
between 121 and 1293 mg/1, sulfates between 91 and 2150 mg/1, and the total
iron between 60 and 1840 mg/1.
Arjay Mine
The Arjay No. 4 is a downdip mine in eastern Kentucky which was sealed
with a concrete slab in 1973. Overburden thickness is 30m thick and is
predominately sandstone. Most of the mine is positioned below the water
table.
82
-------
EARTH SEALS
This type of seal is constructed by bulldozing earth into the mine
portal or by simple caving in the mine opening. Earth seals are generally
intended to close mines to prevent entry rather than to abate pollution.
Four drift mines in Pennsylvania, two in West Virginia, and one in
Eastern Kentucky closed by earth sealing were sampled during this investiga-
tion. Pre-sealing water quality data exist for only one of the sites.
Imperial Colliery No. 8, Burnwell, West Virginia
The Imperial Colliery No. 8 is a drift mine of 3.2 km2 located in the
No. 2 Gas coal seam. The average overburden thickness is 164m, of which
60 percent consists of shale, and 40 percent of sandstone. No calcareous
rock is present.
The mines were closed in 1972 when production ended. Mine discharge
was sampled once before the sealing and twice afterward. Comparison of the
chemical analyses of ,the pre- and post-sealing periods show improvement in
drainage quality. The acidity concentrations were reduced by 83 percent
from 810 mg/1 to 134 mg/1 and pH values increased from 2.6 to 4. Alkalinity
remained at zero. Sulfate concentrations were reduced from 1100 mg/1 to an
average of 494 mg/1.
Helen Mine, Helen, West Virginia
The Helen Mine, sealed in 1967 by the Westmoreland Coal Company, was
discharging at a rate of 3.00 1pm when measured in October 1975 and March
1976. Alkalinity was slightly higher than acidity [9-4 vs. 9.1 mg/1), total
iron and sulfates average 6 mg/1 and 188 mg/1, respectively. No pre-sealing
analyses were performed on the discharge at this site.
The mine produced in the Pocahontas No. 4 seam (sulfur content of 0.8
percent) from 1957 to 1967. The overburden is primarily shale.
Baker No. 1, near Arjay, Kentucky
This small drift mine (0.16 km2) is located above drainage and has a
predominantly sandstone overburden. It produced in the 4A seam (3.1 percent
sulfur) from the 1940's to 1973, when the portals were bulldozed closed.
Neither flow nor quality measurements were made prior to sealing.
Average flow for the sampling in October 1975 and March 1976 was one 1pm.
Alkalinity was greater than acidity (76 mg/1 as opposed to 50 mg/1), total
iron averaged 0.7 mg/1, and the mean of sulfate in concentration was 114
mg/1.
-------
,
The New Watson and Mills No. 4 mines are small drifts located above
drainage in the Clarion seam. The mines were sealed soon after production
ended in the 1950 's. Mine discharges are characterized by pH values of 3.7
and 3.6, and ranges in acidity concentrations of 42 mg/1 and 96 mg/1, total
iron of 2 mg/1 and 10 mg/1, and sulfate concentrations of 72 Eg/1 and 74
mg/1.
The Old Watson mine, located adjacent to the New Watson, is character-
ized by pH levels of 4.1, acidity of 20 mg/1, total iron of 0.2 mg/1, and
sulfate of 5 mg/1. Since this mine is unsealed, it may be assumed that the
water quality of its discharge is comparable to that which would emanate
from the New Watson, were it unsealed. The implication is that the mine
discharge from the New Watson is unaffected or has slightly deteriorated due
to the sealing; however, no evaluation based on these conditions is very
credible.
The Buskirk Mine, a drift of approximately 0.05 km^, is located above
the drainage in the Upper Freeport seam (sulfur content is 1.6 percent).
This mine was abandoned fifty years ago and recently (1974) blew out when
an excessive amount of water pressure developed behind the slumped or caved
portal. It was resealed in December 1974 by placing an earth seal and a
pipe in the portal. The water flows through the pipe at approximately 39
1pm. The water quality is characterized by pH levels of 4.2 and 4.8, an
average alkalinity of 0.45 mg/1, an acidity of 10 mg/1, a total iron level of
0.25 mg/1, and a sulfate level of 31 mg/1.
CLAY SEALS
Shaw Mine, SL 118-3,
Clay seals are constructed of clay material placed in the mine opening
to form a hydraulic seal or to control infiltrating water. The clay is
placed in layers and compacted to cause the clay to flow into cracks and
voids along the walls and roof of the seal area. Under ideal conditions a
clay seal may withstand up to 10 meters of hydrostatic head.a
Construction of clay seals at the Shaw Mine complex was performed as
part of an extensive reclamation work and was sponsored under the "Operation
Scarlift" program, Project SL 118-3.
Clay seals were installed along the high-wall of the box cuts in an
attempt to hydrologically isolate sections of the extensive Shaw Mine
complex. Overburden above the abandoned mine was excavated and the Redstone
and Pittsburgh coal seams removed. The clay barrier seals were constructed
in the cut to flood portions of the underground mine.
a L. R. Scott and P. M. Hays, Inactive and Abandoned Mines.
84
-------
Chemical analyses of the mine discharges from the mine in proximity to
the clay seal show rather poor water quality. The flow rates were measured
up to 95 1pm. There are no water quality and quantity data for the mine dis-
charges before the sealing effort.
GROUT BAG SEAL
Construction of a grout bag seal involves a placement of successive
layers of expendable grout containers in an accessible mine opening. Nylon
or cotton cloth grout retainers are placed on the floor of the mine and in-
flated with cement to conform to the shape of the mine entry. After the
cement sufficiently hardens and is capable of withstanding a load of about
2,109 kg per square meter, a second row of shorter retainers is placed above
it and inflated with cement. This process is repeated until the entire- area
between the floor and roof of the mine entry is filled by the retainers.3
Mine No. 14-042A near Clarksburg, West Virginia
A grout bag seal consisting of four expendable 0.3m long cement grout-
filled nylon retainers was constructed in Mine No. 14-042A by the
Halliburton Company in May 1967. The mine is located in the Pittsburgh
seam and is approximately 0.02 knr.in size. The mine water discharges to
Doll Run, a tributary to West Fork River.
The mine discharge prior to the sealing was reported to be approximately
55 to 60 1pm with a pH level of 2.6, and concentrations of acidity and total
iron of 2,750 mg/1 and 558 mg/1, respectively.
A leakage around the bag seal, observed immediately after the sealing,
was reduced from 5.6 1pm to 1.25 1pm by subsequent remedial work. However,
as the water level ascended behind the seal, the flow increased. The
additional attempt to stop the leakage made by filling the void space behind
the seal with a gel material of bentonite and shredded cane fiber was not
successful. The leakage was reported not only through the seal itself, ^but
mainly through the adjacent rocks. Four years later when the seal was in-
spected, the major leakage was reported to be due to the considerable
deterioration of the coal surrounding the seal, which broke the bond between
the seal and the
The mine discharges were monitored by the EPA Norton Mine Drainage
Field Site from September 1969 to June 1971 in continuation of the project.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of this seal is rather difficult
because only one sample each of the acid, total iron, and sulfate concentra
tions and outputs was available for the pre-sealing period.
a L. R. Scott and P.M. Hays, Inactive and Abandoned Mines,
b Robert B. Scott, Bulkhead Seals.
85
-------
The post-sealing period trends show significant decreases in acid, total
iron, and sulfate concentrations. Outputs appear to be decreasing slightly;
however, the standard errors of the coefficients suggest that the rates are
variable and not significant.
Pollutant concentrations increased immediately after sealing but
reached the pre-sealing levels in nearly a year. Flow, on the other hand,
decreased immediately upon closure and has continued to average from 1 to 6
1pm.
According to chemical analyses of samples taken in October 1975 and
March 1976, flow is averaging 3.5 1pm, and the acidity concentration has
decreased to 1130 mg/1. Total iron and sulfate concentrations average about
half of the pre-sealing sampling period means. Alkalinity remains at zero.
There is considerable subsidence and slumping in the vicinity of the
mine portal and the flow is still seeping through the adjacent rocks with
minimal flow through the seal itself.
UNDERGROUND PRECIPITATION SEALING
Driscoll No. 4, Vintondale^y^Cambria County, Pennsylvania
The Driscol No. 4 Mine was used as a field demonstration site of a
project testing an underground sealing by injection of alkaline water
slurries behind a rubble barrier, allowing precipitate to flow into the
barrier and plug the opening.
The project was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and conducted by the Parson-Jurden
Corporation at the end of 1970.
The effort to seal the mine was not successful. The injection of the
alkaline slurry resulted in immediate increase of pH up to 12.0 level.
However, when the injection stopped, pH levels dropped to less than 4.0.
The Driscoll No. 4 Mine is a high flow mine with two measured discharges
in October 1975 and March 1976, of 1893 1pm and 4781 1pm. The mine is
directly recharged from the Black Lick-North Branch stream. The high flow
in the mine may have contributed to the sealing failure.
SHORT-WALL MINING
Short-wall mining -is a method of removing a mineral seam in an opera-
tion by means of a short-wall or working face. The roof behind the mined
face is allowed to break and cave immediately behind the support line. The
mined-out space is then filled with the roof material. The reduction of the
86
-------
void space should result in a reduced oxygen-sulfide contact and subsequent
control or inhibition of the acid forming processes.
An example of short-wall mining was found at a drift mine (Delta) near
Jennerstown, Pennsylvania. Two samples were obtained from this mine. One
from a section mined by the room and pillar method (Sample 1), and one from a
sectioned mined by the short-wall technique (Sample 2). Water quality of the
sample taken from the latter section shows significantly lower concentrations
of all the pollutants. The acidity and alkalinity concentration for Sample 1
were measured at 119 mg/1 and 0 mg/1, respectively, compared to Sample 2 for
which the concentrations were indicated to be 7 mg/1 and 2 mg/1, respectively.
STOWING
Stowing or underground mine backfilling was done mainly to prevent
surface damage from subsidence or to control mine fires in abandoned
anthracite or bituminous coal mines.
Because the reduction of void space within the mine reduces the oxygen-
sulfide contact, it can be expected that the oxidation of sulfides within
the backfilled mine will be inhibited.
Two sites in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania, Storries and Taylor
Mines backfilled with crushed spoil materials, were surveyed on this project.
Quality of the mine effluent pumped out of the two mines is characterized by
pH levels of 5.4 and 6,2 and acidity concentrations of 130 mg/1 and 99 mg/1.
There are no other water quality data available from the mines besides the
two above samples to allow evaluation of the effect of the backfilling on
the effluent quality.
DAYLIGHTING
Daylighting to abate mine drainage pollution entails removal of the
mine overburden, extraction of the remaining coal and other potential acid-
producing materials, and replacement of the overburden to reclaim the site.
The acid-producing materials are buried in such a way as to minimize the
possibility of future pollutant generation.a
No examples of this procedure as a mine drainage abatement technique
were discovered during site selection, although abandoned deep mines have
been stripped out and reclaimed as part of the surface mining law require-
ments in some states.
L. R. Scott and P. M. Hays, Inactive and Abandoned Mines.
87
-------
There are plans to demonstrate the technique as a closure method in
the Lostland Run watershed of the Upper Potomac River basin near Deer Park,
Garret County, Maryland. A complete description of the proposed project is
given elsewhere and will not be duplicated in this report.a
The Gilman Mine is the principal source (48 percent) of the pollution
discharging into the North Branch of the Potomac River. Monitoring of the
discharge from this mine from October 1972 to February 1976 shows a mean
acid concentration of 799 mg/1 and a mean alkalinity concentration of 0.1
mg/1. Total iron and sulfate concentration means are 59 mg/1 and 1591 mg/1,
respectively. Outputs of acidity, total iron, and sulfate average 327, 37
and 543 kg/day.
Trend analysis done on these data indicates that acid concentrations
and outputs are decreasing at 225 mg/1 and 373 kg/year. Similarly, total
iron concentrations and loads are decreasing at 58 mg/1 and 63 kg/year.
These trends are significant at the 1 percent level. Sulfate concentrations
appear to be decreasing at 32 mg/1/year, however, this rate is variable
according to the magnitude of the standard error of the coefficient and
thus is not significant. The sulfate output rate is significant, though,
and shows outputs decreasing at 430 kg/year.
Q
H. F. Moomau, M. T. Dougherty, and J. R. Matis, Engineering a.nd Adminis-
trative Problems, Deer Park Daylighting Demonstration Project, in Fifth
Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research, National Coal Association/
Bituminous Coal Research (Washington, 1974).
8.8
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackenheil, A. C., and Associates, Inc. Chartiers Creek Mine Drainage
Pollution Abatement Project. Operation Scarlift, Project No. SL102.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, August 1968.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards of 1973, Part 23: Water; Atmospheric Analysis.
American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia. 1973.
Baker, M., Jr., Inc., Acid Mine Drainage Survey, East Branch Clarion River
Watershed. Operation Scarlift, Project No. SL 108. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. 1970.
Barnes, I., and F. E. Clark. Geochemistry of Groundwater in Mine Drainage
Problems. Geological Survey Professional Paper 473-A. U.S. Department
of the Interior, 1964 pp. A-l, A-6.
Berger Associates, Inc. Swatara Creek Mine Drainage Pollution
Abatement Project. Operation Scarlift, Project No. SL 126. Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania, 1972.
Braley, S. A. Special Report on an Evaluation of Mine Sealing. Coal
Industry Advisory Committee to the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission. Research Project No. 370-8, February 1962.
Caruccio, F. T., and J. C. Perm. Paleoenvironment: Predictor of Acid Mine
Drainage Problems. Geological Society of America. Abstracts with
Programs. Vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 683-84. 1974.
Coal Research Bureau, West Virginia University. Underground Coal Mining
Methods to Abate Water Pollution: A State of the Art Literature Review.
Environmental Protection Agency, Project No. 14010 FKK. December 1970.
Collingwood, E. F., and A. J. Lohwater. The Theory of Cluster Sets.
Cambridge: The University Press. 1966.
Corbett, D. M. Acid Mine Drainage Problem of the Patoka River Watershed,
Southwestern Indiana. Water Resource Research Center. Indiana Univer-
sity. Report of Investigation 4. 1969.
89.
-------
C. W. Rice and Co. Engineering Economic Study of Mine Drainage Control
Techniques: Appendix B to Acid Mine Drainage in Appalachia. Report to
Appalachian Regional Commission. 1969.
C. W. Rice and Co. Gas Requirements to Pressurize Abandoned Deep Mines.
Report to Pennsylvania Mines and Mineral Industries. Coal Resources
Board and U.S. Department of the Interior FWQA. 1969.
D'Appolonia, E. D., Consulting Engineers, Inc. Mine Drainage Abatement
Survey of Cucumber Run Watershed. Operation Scarlift, Project No.
SL 138, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1975.
Emrich, G. H., and D. R. Thompson. Some Characteristics of Drainage from
Deep Bituminous Mines in Western Pennsylvania, in Proc. Second
Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage. Mellon Institute. Pittsburgh, May
1968.
Fisher, W., Jr. Detection of Abandoned Underground Coal Mines by Geophysical
Methods. Water Pollution Control Research Series 14010 EHN 04171.
Environmental Protection Agency, April 1971.
Foreman, J. W. A Progress Report: Evaluation of Mine Drainage Abatement
Projects in Western Pennsylvania, in Proc. Fifth Symposium on Coal Mine
Drainage Research. Louisville, October 1974.
Foreman, J. W. Evaluation of Mine Sealing in Butler County, Pennsylvania,
in Proc. Fourth Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research. Mellon
Institute. Pittsburgh, April 1972.
Foreman, J. W. Evaluation of Pollution Abatement Procedures in Moraine
State Park, in Proc. Third Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage. Mellon
Institute. Pittsburgh, May 1970.
Foreman, J. W., and D. C. McLean. Evaluation of Pollution Abatement
Procedures, Moraine State Park, Environmental Pollution Technology
Series, EPA R-2-73-140. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
January 1973.
Foreman, J. W., and E. G. Tarr. Moraine State Park Mine Drainage Project,
in Proc. Second Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research. Mellon
Institute. Pittsburgh, May 1968.
Gannett, Fleming, Corddry, and Carpenter, Inc. Mine Drainage Pollution
Abatement Measures for the Beech Creek Watershed. Operation
Scarlift, Project No. SL 111. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1970.
Garcia, J. A., and S. M. Cassidy. Bulkheads for Coal Mines. AIME Technical
Publication No. 789, February 1973.
90
-------
if Shi S c r' ?arU5Ci°- 1ComParison of the Acid Production Potential
of the Grassy Coal and Overlying Shale from Eastern Kentucky. Geological
Society of America. Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 7, (1975), pp.
J. j UOT"OO *
Gibbs and Hill, Inc. Younghiogheny River Basin Drainage Pollution Abatement
Project. Operation Scarlift, Project No. SL 103, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, 1972.
Green Engineering Company. Mine Drainage Abatement Survey of Yellow Creek
Watershed. Operation Scarlift, Project No. SL 158. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, 1974.
Gwin Engineers, Inc. Slippery Rock Creek Mine Drainage Pollution Abatement
Project. Operation Scarlift, Project No. SL 110. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvaina, 1970.
Hill, R. D. Elkins Mine 'Drainage Pollution Control Demonstration Project.
Robert A. Taft Water Research Center, Federal Water Quality Admin-
istration, U.S. Dept. of Interior. Paper presented before the Third
Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research, Mellon Institute. Pittsburgh,
May 1970.
Hill, R. D. Limestone Mine Seal. Mine Drainage Pollution Control Branch.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, (March 1970).
Hill, R. D. Non-Point Pollution from Mining and Mineral Extraction. United
States Environmental Protection Agency. Presented at Conference on
Non-Point Sources of Water Pollution, Virginia Water Resources Research
Center. Blacksburg, Virginia, May 1975.
Hill, R. D. The Effectiveness of Mine Drainage Pollution Control Measures,
Elkins, West Virginia. U.S. Department of the Interior, FWPCA ACS
Division Fuel Chemical Preprints, 13(2):103-15. 1965.
Hill, R. D., and J. F. Martin. Elkins Mine Drainage Pollution Control
Demonstration Project: An Update, Mine Drainage Pollution Control
Activities, National Environmental Research Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Presented at Fourth Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage
Research. Mellon Institute. Pittsburgh, April 1, 1972.
Hodge, W. W. Effect of Coal Mine Drainage on West Virginia Rivers and Water
Supplies. West Virginia University Research Bulletin, No. 18. 1938.
Kentucky Geological Survey. Coal Mine Map of Eastern Kentucky. Scale
1:253,440. University of Kentucky, Lexington. 1958.
Leitch, R. Sealing of Coal Mines Will Reduce Acidity of Their Effluent
Waters. Coal Age. No. 40, pp. 323-26 1935.
91
-------
Leitch, R., and others. Effect of Sealing on Acidity of Mine Drainage.
Bureau of Mines. Report of Investigation 2994. U.S. Department of
Interior, 1930.
Lovell, H. L. Procedures of Analysis of Coal Mine Drainage. Short Course on
Controlling Acid Mine Drainage, The Pennsylvania State University,
College of Earth and Mineral Sciencesj 1972.
Loy, L. D., Jr. Description of New, Innovative, and Theoretical Mine Drain-
age Abatement Techniques. Proc. Fifth Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage
Research. Louisville, October 1974.
Maize, R. History and Progress Made in Mine Sealing to Reduce the Flow of
Acid Mine Water Into the Streams of This Commonwealth. Department of
Mines, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. December 1952.
Mentz, J. W., and J. B. Warg. Up-Dip Versus Down-Dip Mining: An Evaluation.
Skelly and Loy, Engineers, Consultants. Cincinnati Environmental
Protection Technology Series. EPA 670-2-75-047. National Environmental
Research Center, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. June 1975.
Moebs, N. N., and C. E. Chamberlain. The Effect of Atmospheric Pressure on
the Oxygen Level in a Sealed Mine. Bureau of Mines Report of Inves-
tigation 7606. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1972.
Moebs, N. N., and S. Krickovic. Air Sealing Coal Mines to Reduce Water
Pollution. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 7354. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior. 1970.
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. Survey of Conditions and
Control of Mine Drainage in the Ohio River Valley. Attachment: Agenda
item 6. Engineering Committee Agency. 1975.
Ohio State University Research Foundation. Acid Mine Drainage Formation and
Abatement. Water Pollution Control Research Series, DAST-42 14010 FPR
04/71. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1971.
Parizek, R. R., and E. G. Tarr. Mine Drainage Pollution Prevention and
Abatement Using Hydrogeological and Geochemical Systems, in Proc.
Fourth Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research. Mellon Institute.
Pittsburgh, April 1972.
Patterson, R. M. Stowing in Abandoned Mines for Drainage Control, Proc.
Interstate Mining Compact Commission. Pipestem, West Virginia, May
1974.
Pearson, E. S., and H. 0. Hartley. Biometrika Tables.for Statisticians.
Cambridge: The University Press. 1966.
92
-------
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Water Quality Manage-
ment in the Monongahela River Basin. Bureau of Sanitary Engineering.
Publication No. 29, August 1971.
Penrose, R. G., Jr., and I. Holubec. Laboratory Study of Self Sealing Lime-
stone Plugs for Mine Openings. EPA 670-2-73-081. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, September 1973.
Richardson, A. R. , and M. T. Dougherty. Feasibility Study, Deer Park
Daylighting Project. Ackenheil £ Associates. Cincinnati National
Environmental Research Center, Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1973.
Robins, J. D. , and J. C. Hutchins. Criteria for Developing Pollution
Abatement Programs for Inactive and Abandoned Mine Sites. Skelly §
Loy. Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. EPA 440/9-75-008.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, August 1975.
Robins, J. D., and F. J. Zaval Water Infiltration Control to Achieve Mine
Water Pollution Control. Office of Research and Monitoring. Series
R2-73-142 (14010 HHG). United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 1973.
Rubin, J., and H. P. Friedman. A Cluster Analysis and Taxonomy System for
Grouping and Classifying Data. New York Scientific Center, I.B.M.
Corp., New York, 1967.
Scott, R., and others. Cost of Reclamation and Mine Drainage Abatement
Elkins Demonstration Project. Water Quality Office, Robert A. Taft
Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1970.
Skelly and Loy, Inc. Alder Run Watershed, Acid Mine Drainage Pollution
Abatement Project. Operation Scarlift, Project SL 143. Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, 1970.
Skelly and Loy, Inc. Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control
Pollution from Mining Activities. EPA 430/9-73-011. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, October 1973.
Skelly and Loy, Inc. The Development of Statewide Coal Mining Objectives
to Reduce Pollution from Future Mining Operations. Ohio Department
of Natural Resources, 1974.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th ed.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
and Water Pollution Control Federation. Washington, D. C., 1971.
93
-------
Stoddard, C. K. Abatement of Mine Drainage Pollution by Underground
Precipitation. Office of Research and Development. Environmental
Protection Technology Series, EPA 670/2-73-092. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, October 1973.
Thompson, D. R., and G. H. Emrich. Hydrogeologic Considerations for Sealing
Coal Mines, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering. Publication No. 23.
Pennsylvania Department of Health, August 1969.
Thrush, P. W., and staff, Bureau of Mines. A Dictionary of Mining, Mineral,
and Related Terms. U.S. Department of the Interior., 1968.
Young, R. H. F. Pollution Effects on Surface Waters and Groundwaters.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 47(6): 1600-10.
1975.
Zaval, F. J., and J. D. Robins. Water Infiltration Control to Achieve Mine
Water Pollution Control. Office of Research and Monitoring. Washing-
ton, D. C. Environmental Protection Technology Service. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
94
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. FIELD SURVEY PROCEDURES
The following discussion yields technical information on those facets
of the field survey relative to sampling techniques, analysis, and measure-
ment, and to sample preservation and handling.
A preliminary field trip was conducted in late August 1975 before the
dry season field effort. To familiarize the field crews with the problems
anticipated at the mining sites, to understand the objectives of the study,
and to assure uniformity in sampling techniques and procedures, all field
crew members took part in a training session at actual mine closure sites
at Moraine State Park, Pennsylvania, and the Woolridge Mine, Clearfield,
Pennsylvania. Another aspect of this preliminary field effort was the
collection of water samples, previous water quality data, maps, reports, and
field information. The results of this effort were used as an aid in
discriminating essential from non-essential information necessary for final
site selection.
Water quality tests performed in the field during this trial run in-
cluded temperature, pH, total iron, acidity, and alkalinity, Flow was
also measured. Laboratory analysis included pH, net acidity, specific
conductance, sulfates, COD, suspended solids, total solids, ferrous iron,
Al, Mg, Mn, Cd, Hg, and total iron.
Sample Collection
To increase the mobility of the sampling operation, all water sampling
was conducted manually. In the majority of cases, grab samples were taken
of mine discharges, observation boreholes, receiving streams, seeps, and
adjacent waters representative of the area.
When more feasible, composite samples were collected manually, as in
the case of seep zones and french drains. Bomb samplers were used to
collect water from boreholes and other deep, narrow openings.
To insure an adequate volume of sample to perform the chemical tests
and an allowance for accidents and errors, approximately twice the amount
actually necessary for analysis was collected. Three bottles of sample
were filled at each discharge point.
Every sample bottle was identified by means of a tag or bottle marking
printed legibly with waterproof pen. Information on the sample label
95
-------
included identification of the site, date and time of collection, and pH.
The dry season effort also listed total iron content.
Supplemental information not listed on the label was recorded on the
field sheet for the site. Sample site, date, hour of collection, and name
of mining community representative or local contact were recorded. In
addition, all results of water quality tests and flow measurement done in
the field were logged.
Sample Preservation and Handling
Every effort was made to achieve the shortest possible interval between
sample collection and analysis. However, in anticipation of unavoidable
delays long enough to produce significant changes in the sample, preservation
measures were utilized. Water samples used for identification of chemical
oxygen demand and mercury were treated with hydrochloric acid, and samples
for determination of Fe, Al, Mg, Mn, Ca, Cd, Ni, and Zn, were treated with
nitric acid. Laboratory samples for pH, alkalinity, specific conductance,
sulfate, suspended solids, and total dissolved solids were collected in 1-
liter, unfixed, polyethelene bottles. Since chemical samples often require
icing, all sample bottles were transported in styrofoam mailing containers
packed with dry and/or cube ice. Samples were then shipped to the laboratory
via air freight, bus, or personal delivery.
Flow Measurement
Discharge measurements were calculated through use of Gurley current
meters, V-notch weirs, standard equations, and calibrated buckets. Very
high or low flows and those physically inaccessible were estimated or
determined from previous records.
APPENDIX B. LABORATORY ANALYSES
Laboratory analytical methods utilized during the testing are summar-
ized in Table C-3. Sample acidity was determined according to EPA hot
titration and cooling method which incorporates a back titration with
sulfuric acid to a pH less than 4.0. This technique employed on a
sample with a pH less than or equal to 4.5 results in a total acidity value.
If, however, the sample pH is greater than 4.5, the value obtained is termed
net acidity (or net alkalinity if the value is negative) which implies that
all of the components (except carbon dioxide) which contribute to acidity
and alkalinity are encompassed in the analysis. Samples were subsequently
analyzed for total alkalinity using a cold titration with sulphuric acid to
an endpoint of pH 4.2.
Total metals (unfiltered), excluding ferrous iron and mercury, were
analyzed according to Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption Methodology.
Low concentrations (0.010 to 1.12 mg/1) of ferrous iron were determined
utilizing a Spectronic 70 spectrophotometer according to the procedures
96
-------
listed in the ASTM Standards and Standard Methods. High concentrations
(greater than 1.12 mg/1) were determined by titration with a. standard
dichromate solution to a diphenylamine sulfonate endpoint, purple in color.
Mercury analyses were run on a Perkin Elmer Model 50 Mercury Analyzer
System using EPA defined methodology.
The COD test utilized in this study proved to be inaccurate in the
presence of ferrous iron. We hypothesize that as the procedure involves an
inverse colorimetric test, the color interference resulting from the oxida-
tion of iron from the ferrous to the ferric state limits the accuracy of
this test. At this time, the method seems to be inapplicable to the
determination of COD in ferruginous mine water.
All the methods of sample preservation followed the Environmental
Protection Agency guidelines.
Ideally, complete chemical analysis should be performed on water
samples upon their arrival at the laboratory. Since this was not possible,
the following schedule was arranged. Upon arrival of the samples at the
laboratory, analysis for pH, alkalinity, acidity, and specific conductance
were initiated and completed in one day. Analysis for suspended and total
dissolved solids was completed within one week. The remainder of the one
liter unfixed sample was refrigerated at 4° C. Sulfate analysis was performed
on this remaining sample within one week of sample receipt. Samples for
determination of ferrous iron and COD were stored at 4° C and were analyzed
within one to five days from sample arrival. Mercury samples were stored at
4° C and were run within two weeks from date of collection. Samples for
determination of metal concentrations were stored at 4° C and analyzed at the
completion of each Phase.
97
-------
TABLE B-l.
LOCATIONS
INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE SITE CODES, SAMPLE CODES, AND MINE
Site
code
Sample
code
Mine
name
Mine
location
Darkwater, Pa.
Phoenix Park, Pa.
New Mines, Pa.
Branchdale, Pa.
Argentine, Pa.
Boyers, Pa.
Boyers, Pa.
Ferris, Pa.
Mt. Chestnut, Pa.
Prospect, Pa.
Prospect, Pa.
Meyersdale, Pa.
Meyersdale, Pa.
Meyersdale, Pa.
Keystone State
Park, Pa.
Vintondale, Pa.
Brockway, Pa.
Brockway, Pa.
Brockway, Pa.
Philipsburg, Pa.
Philipsburg, Pa.'
Osceola Mills, Pa.
Kittanning, Pa.
Kittanning, Pa.
Kittanning, Pa.
Kittanning, Pa.
Clearfield, Pa.
Cherry Run
Village, Pa.
Jennerstown, Pa
Taylor, Pa.
Dickson City, Pa.
Lost Creek, W. Va.
Helen, W. Va.
Coalton, W. Va.
Coalton, W. Va.
Elkins, W. Va.
Bowden, W. Va.
Bowden, W. Va.
Bowden, W. Va.
Bowden, W. Va.
Clarksburg, W. Va.
West Milford, W. Va.
West Milford, W. Va.
West Milford, W. Va.
~I49,50,195
2 51,194
3 54,193
4 52,53,191,192
5 6,7,120,121
6 8,9,124
7 10,11,12,122,123
8 13,14,118,119
9 15,16,127,128
10 24,25
11 21,22,23,125,126
12 31,32,142,144
13 28,33,34,103,104,105,141
14 30,143
15 106,107,108,110,111,112
136,137,138,139
16 100,101,102,140
17 42,46,168,169,170,171,172
18 43,45,173
19 44
20 1
21 17,18,174,175
22 3,4,5,176,177
23 61,158,159
24 62,163
25 63,164,165
26 64,166,167
27 19,20
28 113,114,115,116,117
29 134,135
30 188,190
31 85,189
32 65,66,198,199
33 56,58,179
34 87,167
35 84,161
36 81,160
37 89,152
38 79,148,149
39 88,150
40 80,151
41 67,154
42 68,196
43 69,197
44
Repplier
Veith
Otto Primrose
Otto
Argentine
Keystone #6
Keystone #10
Keystone #19
Milliard
Lindey #1
Isle #1
Shaw Elk Lick #1
Shaw SL-118-3
Shaw SL-118-5
Salem #2
Driscoll #4
Rattlesnake Creek Mine
Buskirk
Brandycamp Mine
New Watson
Old Watson
Mills #4
Bullrock Run
Mahoning Creek
Decker #3
Decker #5
Woolridge #1
Unknown
Delta #1
Taylor
Storries
40-016
Helen-Westmoreland
RT5-2
RT5-2A
RT9-11
Savage
Big Knob #1
Big Knob #2
Big Knob #6
14-042A
62008-3
62008-4
62008-5
98
-------
TABLE B-l [continued)
Site
code
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
O«J
04
U"
85
Sample
code
70,71,153
57,178
55,180
36,187
37,182
38,184,185
47
48
35,186
72
77
96,156
97,157
73,74,75
76
98
95,155
40,130
39,129
41
183
90,91,147
89
83,146
9
86,145
82
78
92,131,132
94
93 133
y *j ^ x w* tj
27
26,181
Mine
name
Stewartstown
Imperial Colliery #8
Imperial Colliery #9
Jack's Creek
Arnold's Fork
Buckingham
Price #2
Arjay #4
Baker #1
East Diamond
Atkinson
Pleas an tview
Buckingham #5
Sayreton
Lewisburg
New Castle
Ellisonville
Kelly
Essex #1
Essex #2
Piney Fork
Florence
McDaniels
Buchtel
Miami #5
Miami #10
Viking
Bennett
Black Diamond
Bates
Burnings tar #1
Buckhorn
Lake City
Ensinger
Watson
Carbon Fuel
Hull
New Lanning
Lost Creek
Rockhead
Phifers #1
Mine
location
Stewartstown, W. Va.
Burnwell, W. Va.
Burnwell, W. Va.
Wheelwright, Ky.
Wheelwright, Ky.
Wheelwright, Ky.
Lambert, Ky.
Pineville, Ky.
Arjay, Ky.
Madisonville, Ky.
Madisonville, Ky.
Madisonville, Ky.
Wheelwright, Ky.
Sayreton, Ala.
Fultondale, Ala.
New Castle, Ala.
Ellisonville, Oh.
Ironton, Oh.
New Straitsville,
Oh.
New Straitsville,
Oh.
Adena, Oh.
Florence, Oh.
NE. of Lake Hope,
Oh.
Buchtel, Oh.
Shepardsville, Ind.
Shepardsville, Ind.
Spelterville, Ind.
W. Terre Haute, Ind.
St. Bernice, Ind.
Kite, Ky.
Desoto, 111.
Johnson City, 111.
Crenshaw Crossing,
111.
Crab Orchard, 111.
Herrin, 111.
Herrin, 111.
Oskalloosa, la.
Eddyville, la.
Eddyville, la.
Fall Creek,. Tenn.
Fall Creek, Tenn.
99
-------
TABLE B-2. LISTING OF LABORATORY DERIVED WATER QUALITY DATA, ANALYZED BY THE INSTITUTE
FOR RESEARCH ON LAND AND WATER RESOURCES, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
o
o
Sample
code
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
3*
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Type
SE
OT
SE
OT
SO
SE
OT
so
OT
SO
SE
OT
SO
so
SE
UN
UN
SE
SE
OT
SO
SE
OT
SO
UN
UN
SE
SE
OT
SE
SE
OT
SE
UN
SE
SE
SO
so
so
so
SE
UN
SE
SE
SO
SO
SE
SO
Siu
cod*
20
22
22
22
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
21
21
27
2T
11
11
11
10
10
as
84
13
14
12
12
13
13
50
48
49
53
72
69
73
17
18
19
18
17
55
56
1
1
Slats
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
P»
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
TN
TN
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
KY
KY
KV
KY
IN
IN
IN
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
KY
KY
PA
PA
pH
3.33
6.87
2.83
2.61
6.48
5.01
4.69
5.97
6.82
6.75
6.95
4.54
6. 72
6.47
3.20
4.27
3.60
2.34
2.34
6.37
4.75
5.69
4.70
6.73
3.00
2.88
6. 10
3.36
2.73
2.89
2.34
4.83
5.16
5.64
7.U
6.48
6.86
6.95
5.42
3.46
4.45
4.35
5.17
3.31
8.05
6.22
6.02
Alkalinity
6.30
44.10
4.20
1.05
28.35
31.50
231.00
184.80
0.12
95.55
35.38
18.30
0.12
23.18
0.12
24.89
14.88
1.71
21.47
261.32
388.51
56.48
158.19
272.13
17.12
0.12
0.12
701.49
3.42
24.45
Nut
Acitlily
.naft
41.80
0.55
106.70
282.70
-12.50
55.45
10.15
-11.60
-4.60
-219.40
-179.80
11.13
-90.70
-27.67
89.10
18.46
27.50
305.60
334.40
-1.18
10.76
-3.37
57.21
-18.61
84.70
123.20
764.50
523.60
1102.20
1007.60
5.15
1.53
-144.18
-351.12
9.03
-129.97
-277.63
-7.59
277.20
12.22
264.78
9.66
251.90
-723.77
6.23
12.83
Spreilic
Conductance
fimli
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Sample
code
I
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
2*
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
3*
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Typo
SE
OT
SE
OT
SO
SE
OT
59
TT
SD
SE
OT
SO
SO
se
UN
UN
SE
se
OT
so
SE
OT
SO
UN
UN
SE
SE
CT
SE
SE
OT
SE
UN
SE
SE
SO
so
so
so
SE
UN
SE
SE
SO
so
SE
SO
Siw
coilo
20
22
22
22
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
B
B
9
9
21
21
27
27
11
11
11
10
10
85
84
13
14
12
12
13
13
50
48
49
53
72
69
73
17
18
19
IB
17
55
56
1
I
Sl.no
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
TN
TN
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
KY
KY
KY
KY
IN
IN
IN
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
KY
KY
PA
PA
Fctrout
Iron
mn«
0.065
0.015
0.220
0.430
0.005
29.040
0.061
0.350
0.015
8.940
1.110
0.022
0.005
0.325
4.650
0.165
0.010
0.097
10.050
0.005
4.400
10.050
27.920
0.005
0.265
12.290
60.320
335.100
31.280
367.490
71.490
0.265
0.018
0.025
0.030
0.327
0.700
0.075
26.310
51.380
0.075
132.920
0.045
39.100
0.005
14.520
14.520
Ferric
Iron
m9/V
1.685
0.135
9.780
27.320
40.995
0.960
0.089
19.650
0.135
5.060
0.990
0.128
4.495
30.425
2.550
0.815
0.140
31.903
22.450
1.745
3.400
3.330
18.995
11.135
17.710
44.900
68.T20
66.510
89.510
J.132
0.125
1.170
0.973
7.050
1.825
0.075
0.105
4.395
MarrgnncsR
mg/V
0.72
0.03
0.40
8.55
0.23
0.97
0.09
0.08
0.03
0.78
0.87
0.53
0. 14
0.28
6.28
1.00
1.15
6.97
7.85
0.34
0.65
0.48
2.13
0.22
1.18
1.50
9.40
14.85
19,25
19.58
13.53
6.05
0.03
0.03
0.22
0.38
0.68
0.03
9.38
13.64
0.31
9.95
0.31
14.52
0.20
4.28
6.25
0.61
Cnkiuni
mg/H
26.5
4.7
3.8
23.0
26.5
52.4
6.1
10.1
30.5
168.0
116.0
11.6
49.5
7.4
25.0
12.0
13.4
125.0
123.0
16.5
8.8
18.2
58.4
6.0
7.9
8.1
202.0
202.0
237.0
207.0
122.0
25.0
19.1
42.4
32.3
29.8
142.0
63.0
139.0
168.0
L48.0
129.0
20.1
136.0
45.0
40.6
53.0
9.9
fVlngiieiimn
nm/V
3.85
0.82
2.78
31.50
6.38
14.49
2.65
2.35
5.10
27.93
24.36
8.27
8.96
0.72
16.54
4.99
4.71
45.78
48.72
6.68
5.65
9.57
23.52
0.77
5,37
8.07
53.76
80.65
129.31
131.88
90,93
7.45
8.61
15.12
11.76
11.13
18.48
18.06
60.48
45.78
6.32
46.62
6.45
59.43
39.27
4.50
47.67
3. 10
Aluminum
ma/l!
1.0
0.5
25.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
5.0
1.5
1.5
8.0
8.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
3.0
1.5
0.5
7.5
18.5
22.0
31.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
6.5
0.5
3.5
0.5
8.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Cadmium
mtirt
0.10
0.05
0.20
1.00
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.40
0. 10
0.05
1.50
0.40
0.50
0.70
1.40
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.20
0.05
0.40
1.40
3.90
2.30
6.00
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.40
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.70
2.30
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.60
0.40
0.05
0.30
2.60
Mi-rcriry
mtj«
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
Nickel
m«/«
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.32
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.28
0.28
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.26
0.54
0.73
0.76
0.83
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
o.io
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.81
0.10
0.23
0.10
0.31
0.10
0.10
0.19
0.10
Zrric
'"
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Sample
code
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
7*
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
9*
95
96
97
98
100
Tytw
SO
SO
SE
SO
SE
SE
SE
OT
SE
UN
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SO
SE
SO
UN
UN
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
UN
SE
SE
SO
SE
OT
SE
UN
SE
UN
SE
UN
UN
OT
Site
code
2
4
4
3
47
3J
46
33
24
24
2-5
26
32
32
41
42
43
45
45
61
65
65
65
66
62
80
38
40
36
79
77
35
37
78
34
39
76
75
75
81
83
82
68
63
64
67
36
Stale
PA
PA
PA
PA
WV
HV
HV
WV
PA
PA
PA
PA
WV
HV
WV
WV
HV
WV
HV
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
IL
HV
WV
WV
IL
IL
HV
HV
IL
WV
WV
IL
IL
IL
IA
IA
(A
OH
OH
OH
OH
WV
pll
7.23
4.23
4.88
6.17
6.49
5.79
3.23
4.73
7.50
8.22
5.82
3.20
6.26
6.30
2.91
6.74
6.14
6.70
2.52
2.54
7.08
7.46
7.82
6.76
3.04
5.73
3.19
3.96
3.18
5.54
6.28
2.68
4.44
3.02
2.75
4.05
8.15
6.34
7.30
4.00
6.05
6.91
3.55
3.18
4.20
Alkulinily
916.56
10.51
1.47
14.18
106.60
10.76
0.12
321.60
235.17
26.16
151.39
168.71
313.56
100.73
307.53
438.18
568.83
343.71
507.57
103.42
50.37
261.30
249.24
366.83
426.12
66.56
210.05
Not
Acidity
mj/V
-763.54
-4.40
72.84
-3.55
-62.61
18.09
180i40
58.42
-279.19
-277.62
-8.56
178.20
-53.68
-112.73
1546.60
-260.68
80.88
-286.02
1633.50
1221.00
-394.67
-566.36
-324.27
-238.78
585.20
-59.67
107.80
28.60
171.60
116.34
-0.67
1078.00
20.65
409.20
1194.60
22.98
-279.50
177.89
-432.26
1293.36
-56.46
-206.33
292.60
246.40
52.90
Specific
Conductance
fimhoi/cm
1340.
366.
732.
308.
1170.
704.
1690.
2510.
974.
849.
698.
1130.
1760.
1730.
2770.
2890.
2440.
2290.
3090.
2340.
1240.
1150.
948.
7220.
1480.
1620.
317.
103.
737.
1830.
2940.
1360.-
105.
2000.
1240.
98.
1490.
4990.
4150.
2690.
974.
35000.
1170.
347.
852.
Total
Di»olved
Solids
mnft
905.0
316.0
575.0
204.0
1047.0
621.0
1551.0
2604.0
688.0
617.0
580.0
923.0
1B08.0
1884.0
3715.0
3280.0
2823.0
2692.0
4159.0
2015.0
931.0
846.0
852.0
7439.0
1391.0
1422.0
169.8
61.3
655.6
2505.1
3729.9
1339.6
80.8
2157.4
1134.4
72.0
1477.2
6000.2
5056.6
4144.4
935.3
35599.4
1285.1
228.7
763.9
Suspended
Solid!
mg/l>
32.1
8.5
16.6
10.1
12.7
154.7
8.0
104.4
4.0
5.9
12.4
3.4
45.1
39.1
35.7
52.9
139.9
26.6
18.8
11.9
6.Z
303.7
90.8
315.2
11.7
78.9
0.4
0.4
23.9
50.5
76.3
118.7
21.7
94.5
4.1
2.5
262.5
281.3
42.4
10.9
0.4
83.3
68.6
0.4
16.5
Sullnle
mg/V
22.
20.
200.
54.
460.
240.
730.
1480.
170.
150.
210.
360.
920.
1080.
1625.
1900.
1800.
1560.
2100.
1070.
470.
270.
370.
3500.
610.
820.
73.
37.
250.
1420.
2150.
480.
43.
1240.
460.
37.
840.
3000.
3050.
2150.
540.
39.
310.
83.
480.
COO
rmi/v
10.
4.
1.
5.
3.
1.
1.
1.
4.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
8.
1.
1.
1.
4.
2.
1.
7.
4.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
6.
1.
1.
1.
22.
1.
1.
1.
4.
2.
1.
Tolnl
Iron
rng/V
10.00
1.90
27.50
1.70
4.25
12.75
19.00
11.75
0.15
1.40
6.50
40.00
22.50
35.OO
350.00
30.00
52.00
14. 50
470.00
150.00
0.30
0.30
2.00
227.50
7.75
6.25
0.15
0.15
19.60
52.50
60.00
105.00
4.25
35.00
82.00
0.15
3.75
270.00
1.00
335.00
54.00
150.00
0.15
5.50
42.50
0.90
33.00
Tola!
Acidity
mo/l1
153.02
6.11
74.31
10.63
43.99
28.85
180.40
68.54
42.41
.00
17.60
178.20
97.71
55.98
1546.60
52.88
181.61
21.51
1633.50
1221.00
43.51
2.47
19.44
268.79
585.20
43.75
107.80
28.60
171.60
166.71
260.63
1078.00
20.65
409.20
1194.60
22.98
.00
544.72
.00
1293.36
10.10
3.72
292.60
246.40
52.90
SE Drainages from cloied drift mines.
UN - Drainage) from abandoned but open drift minoi.
SO Interior mine wateri from shaft/slope mines or inundated cloied drift mines.
OT - Surface wateri in proximity of the mine litei.
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
o
Sampfa
coilc
51
52
53
5*
55
56
57
58
61
62
63
6<>
65
(>t>
67
66
69
70
71
72
73
T>
75
76
77
78
79
BO
61
62
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
S4
95
96
97
98
100
Typo
SO
SO
SE
SO
SE
SE
SE
OT
SE
UN
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SO
SE
SO
UN
UN
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
UN
SE
SE
SO
SE
OT
SE
UN
SE
UN
SE
UN
UN
HT
Sim
code
2
4
4
3
47
33"
46
33
24
24
25
26
32
32
41
42
43
45
45
61
65
65
65
66
62
80
38
40
36
79
77
35
37
78
34
39
76
75
75
81
83
82
68
63
64
67
36
Slain
PA
PA
PA
PA
WV
WV
WV
WV
PA
PA
PA
PA
HV
WV
HV
HV
HV
HV
HV
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
a
K'V
HV
WV
IL
IL
WV
HV
IL
wv
WV
IL
IL
IL
IA
'lA
IA
OH
OH
OH
OH
WV
Ferrouj
Iron
mg/V
8.940
0.205
25.690
0.290
3.500
4.000
0.250
2.500
0.025
0.465
7.820
51.380
25.690
25.690
Z15.580
0.290
48.030
0.170
213.350
52.490
0.105
0.260
0.465
174.250
1.250
B.940
0.475
0.040
13.400
56.790
64.790
0.510
0.020
2.000
44.680
0.020
0.040
239.040
0.200
289.300
53.620
140.720
0.015
6.700
42.500
0.025
0.220
Ferric
Iron
mj/t
1.060
1.695
1.810
1.410
0.750
8.750
18.750
9.250
0. U5
0.935
9.310
134.420
29.710
3.970
1«.330
256.650
97.510
0.195
0.040
1.535
53.25O
6.500
0.110
6.200
104.490
4.230
33.000
37.320
0.130
3.710
30.960
0.800
45.700
0.380
9.1280
0.135
0.875
32.780
Mangnncie
mg/V
0.18
1.46
4.55
0.64
0.73
0.39
1.35
9.40
0.65
0.03
0.42
1.90
5.01
2.22
2.73
1.26
1.93
9.90
15.29
7.00
0.03
0.03
0.03
1.00
9.80
0.91
0.33
0.03
8.64
2.95
10.56
1.53
0.34
11.40
2.51
0.03
0.13
3.80
7.63
32.12
3.88
26.95
0.03
0.14
4.90
1.64
0.89
Calcium
mg/S
44.4
33.9
43.9
19.6
46.4
40.4
52.0
112.0
56.1
3.3
72.0
84.0
409.0
258.0
323.0
323.0
317.0
472.0
366.0
121.0
141.0
4Z.1
149.0
316.0
102.0
38.0
1.8
2.6
298.0
306.0
35.4
4.2
227.0
50.9
3.1
9.4
303.0
364.0
452. 0
50.0
242.0
113.0
1026.0
74.0
10.7
110.0
Magnesium
ni|t/V
29.82
25.62
49.77
11.13
20.58
20.16
39.06
154.35
18.27
0.56
26.88
39.48
116.55
75.60
109.83
44.31
65.10
78.96
127.47
46.62
57.75
16.38
53.55
147. Zl
52.08
49.77
4.07
3.42
18.69
52.92
242. 25
16.80
3.67
117.60
21.84
2.53
49. S8
207. T9
252.96
150.36
83.58
39.80
38.00
364.65
62.79
7.62
10.08
Aluminum
mg/V
0.5
0.5
4.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.0
10.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
28.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
27.0
16.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
28. 5
0.5
2.0
0.5
8.6
0.5
0.5
15.5
0.5
18.5
18.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
13.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
11. 0
0.5
4.0
Cmfniiuin
mgrtf
0.05
0.05
1.90
0.20
0.05
1.30
2.00
1.20
0.05
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.50
0.10
3.40
0.30
0.80
0.30
6.40
1.20
0.05
0.20
0.05
3.30
2.20
0.80
0.30
0.10
3.00
0.70
0.60
2.00
0.05
B.40
1.50
0.30
0.40
2.00
1.40
3.80
0.20
0.20
0.05
0.50
0.05
0.30
Mercury Nickel
mg/C rng/f
o.i o.io
o.i o.io
0.1 0.24
0.1 0.10
o.i o.io
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.10
0.10
0.40
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.22
0,10
0.10
0.69
0.10
0.10
0.54
1.37
0.46
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.87
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.1 0.33
0.3 0.10
0.2 0.62
O.Z 0.75
0.1 0.10
0.2 0.10
0. 0.10
0. 0.10
0. 1.03
0. 0.10
0. 0.10
0. 0.10
0. 0.33
0. 0.26
0. 0.10
0.7 0.10
,n,/V
0.015
0.015
0.645
0.015
0.015
1.050
0.400
0.860
0.145
0.015
0.015
0.165
0.015
0.015
1.340
0.015
0.015
0.480
3.650
1.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
1.340
0.015
0.070
0.015
11.400
8.600
O.240
2.250
0. 150
1.100
0.920
2.650
0.150
0.150
0.150
1.800
0.345
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.345
0.080
0.050
SE - Drainages from closed drift mine!.
UN Drainages from abandoned but open drift mines,
SO Interior mine waters from shaft/slope mines or inundated closed drift mines.
OT - Surface waters in proximity of the mine ittei.
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Sample
coils
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
ISO
Type
SE
OT
SO
so
SE
so
SE
SO
so
so
OT
SE
SE
SE
SE
OT
SE
SO
SE
SO
SE
SO
SO
SO
SE
SO
SE
SO
so
SE
OT
UN
SE
UN
SE
SE
SO
SO
SE
SE
SE
SE
OT
UN
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
Sin
16
16
13
13
13
15
15
15
15
15
15
28
28
28
28
28
8
8
5
5
7
6
6
11
11
9
9
72
69
81
81
83.
29
29
15
15
15
15
16
13
12
14
12
78
77
75
38
38
39
Slain
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
IN
IN
IA
IA
IA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
IL
IL
IL
wv
wv
wv
pM
3.56
3.15
4.40
2.47
6.39
6.14
3.09
6.27
8.04
7.83
7.75
2.66
2.96
3.55
2.65
3.47
5.99
6.08
4.41
5.04
6.52
6.46
5.73
5.15
5.22
6.22
5.41
5.63
6.16
4.41
5.03
6.24
5.22
3.08
3.18
3.18
6.15
8.68
3.24
2.60
3.25
2.87
3.01
3.22
6.28
6.32
4.10
3.99
3.27
Alkalinity
110.50
18.98
50.96
300.30
241.02
28.34
7.16
27.75
5.37
147.68
163.79
16.11
2.69
9.85
24.17
7.16
59.07
255.97
2.86
285.51
2.69
17.90
102.03
179.89
249.71
Net
Acidity
999.93
178.53
1037.37
1337.55
-59.52
1.30
315.27
-18.54
-281.10
-111.36
-27.79
676.87
292.67
56.50
827.16
72.32
-0.07
-22.45
9.77
1.72
-138.94
-150.98
-9.26
8.47
0.99
-15.10
66.46
-43.75
-248.66
674.92
6.81
-121.89
4.40
119.26
356.00
296.37
-13.50
-96.73
974.55
936.28
966.54
698.65
554.47
243.86
-90.12
-23.78
18.68
40.94
84.55
Specific
Conductance
2600.
1120.
2370.
2500.
602.
59.
1500.
237.
443.
350.
109.
1980.
1420.
515.
2170.
405.
82.
455.
335.
258.
688.
605.
88.
101.
162.
78.
454.
686.
808.
2880.
621.
2590.
671.
1770.
1530.
1550.
226.
225.
2370.
2700.
2380.
2130.
I960.
2040.
3150.
5270.
77.
100.
390.
Total
Disiolinll
Solids
3495.5
981.7
3029.9
509.9
50.9
1439.4
162.3
336.6
236.6
100.9
1937.2
465.8.
404.1
2221.3
278.5
77.8
460.8
282.0
203.5
645.0
582.1
82.9
93.5
139.6
88.1
574.3
602.4
620.3
3859.8
538.6
2872. 6
617.9
1684.5
1471.3
1457.0
183.0
156.5
2830.6
2856.2
3038.4
2147.8
2041.5
2191.4
3846.5
6166.9
51.7
71.5
169.3
Siisinmlrcl
Solidi
.119/1'
24.2
35.8
227.6
195.6
27.0
24.0
58.6
413.4
151.2
4.0
6.1
15.3
3.3
6.2
5.9
110. 0
406.5
5.0
158.0
52.8
177.0
170.1
532.7
0.4
1444.3
19.8
146.1
88.1
85.9
22.1
38.7
7.3
103.8
8.9
30.2
20.6
11.6
27.3
13.0
15.9
1435.1
34.5
24.0
32.7
131.1
4.9
243.8
3.9
Sullnle
1900.
530.
1750.
1700.
380.
230.
610.
81.
38.
5.
5.
30.
225.
148.
105.
303.
243.
15.
25.
53.
12.
300.
300.
207.
2090.
297.
1840.
315.
850.
700.
740.
95.
47.
1540.
1400.
1450.
1970.
1150.
1330.
2330.
3050.
7.
7.
59.
C(
1
1
1
n
s
i
1!
f
1
11
2
2
>0 Toli.1
1., HI
n mg/V
612.50
62.50
587.50
504.00
9.00
9.00
107.50
75.00
10.90
r. 19.60
r. 0.15
22.00
93.00
0.18
89.00
2.65
2.60
1.00
3.05
7.60
26.00
15.00
18.00
41.50
4.45
46 . 00
28.50
15.00
1 1 . 80
250.00
2.20
91.00
2.30
34.00
80.00
87.00
6.85
7.40
370.00
185.00
354.00
200.00
98.00
45.00
1. 74.00
I. 273.00
t. 0.45
8. 0.75
3. 1.80
Tolnl
Acidity
nig/V
999.93
178.53
1037.37
1337.55
50.98
20.28
315.27
32.42
19.20
129.66
.55
676.87
292.67
56.50
827.16
72.32
7.09
5.30
9.77
7.09
8.74
12.81
6.85
11.16
10.84
9.07
73.62
15.32
7.31
674.92
9.67
163.62
7.09
119.26
356.00
296.37'
4.40
5.30
974.55
936.28
966.54
698.65
554.47
243.86
89.77
225.93
18.68
40.94
84.55
SE Drainages from closed drift mines.
UN - Drainages from abandoned but open drift mines.
SO Interior mine water* from shaft/slope mines or Inundated closed drift mines.
OT - Surface wateri in proximity of the mine sites.
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Sample
code
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
12*
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
13*
135
136
137
138
139
1*0
1*1
1*2
1*3
144
145
146
1*7
1*8
149
150
Tl"10
SE
OT
SO
SO
SE
SO
SE
SO
SO
SO
OT
SE
SE
SE
SE
OT
SE
SO
SE
SO
SE
SO
so
so
SE
SO
SE
SO
so
SE
OT
UN
SE
UN
SE
SE
SO
SO
SE
SE
SE
SE
DT
UN
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
Si in
coilo
16
16
13
13
13
15
15
15
15
15
15
28
28
28
28
28
8
8
5
5
7
6
6
11
11
9
9
72
69
81
81
83.
29
29
15
15
15
15
16
13
12
14
U
78
77
75
38
38
39
Slsito
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
IN
IN
IA
IA
IA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
IL
IL
IL
WV
wv
WV
Fcrroui
Iron
mg/«
5*3.980
36.860
167.550
1.210
0.720
94.9*0
81.540
5.000
0.700
0.050
1.000
75.000
0.190
17.000
0.510
0.150
0.350
5.590
O.A50
4.470
11.170
1.170
4.100
6.700
14.520
33.510
13.400
0.170
272.410
3.350
22.900
0.220
6.700
78.190
75.960
2.230
0.550
406.590
101.650
323.930
156.400
53.620
44.680
73.720
259.140
0.160
0.005
1.780
Ferric
Iron
r.K|«
68.520
25.6*0
587.500
336. *50
7.790
8.280
12.560
5.900
18.900
0.100
21.000
18.000
72.000
2.1*0
2.450
0.650
7.150
21.530
3.830
16.830
37.400
31.480
1.600
11.630
68.100
2.080
27.300
1.810
11.040
4.620
6.850
83.350
30.070
43.600
44.380
0.320
0.280
13.860
0.290
0.745
0.020
6.78
1.59
18.70
7.07
0.53
0.20
6.30
1.5*
0.12
o.oa
0.10
29.00
24.00
5.45
31.00
4.80
0.45
0.03
0.90
0.50
2.10
0.62
0.13
0.3*
0.32
0.90
8.20
0.38
0.15
31.60
2.51
*.50
1.31
5.80
12.00
8.40
1.77
0.03
5.70
22.40
20.40
18.20
18.40
13.40
14.70
4.20
0.22
0.24
0.77
Culciunl
152.0
121.0
205.0
93.0
39.3
4.6
208.0
17.9
4.5
28.5
14.0
114.0
100.0
36.3
152.0
18.1
91.0
8.1
30.5
25.0
155.0
90.0
10.9
7.5
5.5
10.5
88.0
112.0
114.0
505.0
72.0
505.0
90.0
296.0
204.0
236.0
37.0
31.0
120.0
136.0
226.0
218.0
256.0
274.0
465.0
455.0
2.1
3.1
6.1
MatjnGsiiim
mg/V
75.60
11.76
124.95
43.89
25.62
2.97
42.00
5.58
0.75
8.22
3.60
117.00
97.00
37.00
126.00
19.00
18.40
2.40
12.60
8.40
21.80
18.80
2.64
4.60
6.70
2.56
25.60
16.10
42.00
194.00
27.60
113.00
35.80
93.60
48.60
45.40
6.80
6.70
70.00
126. ',0
127.00
91.40
109.40
131.80
270.00
247.50
1.63
2.67
7.10
Aluminum
mg/V
20.0
29.0
35.0
0.5
0.5
3.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
3. I
1.1
1.7
2.6
5.6
0.5
16.0
2.0
2.2
2.0
15.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
3.2
8.3
6.1
0.5
0.5
35.0
77,0
51.0
27.0
35.0
33.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.2
4.6
Cadmium
0.90
0.80
5.60
6.40
2.10
1.00
0.60
I .10
0.20
0.30
0.05
10.00
2.10
2.40
8.30
2.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.30
0.05
0.60
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.40
0.05
0.40
0.05
2.30
0.20
0.05
0.70
2.40
1.20
0.60
0.60
0.05
0.30
3.00
1.60
1.00
2.00
6.00
0.50
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.50
Mercury
nig/V
0.3
0.5
0.7
2.8
0.5
1.2
'0.7
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Nickel
0.63
0.10
2.03
9.70
0.10
0.10
0.36
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
1.60
0.74
0.19
1.80
0.22
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.30
0.15
0.15
0.75
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.65
0.45
0.45
0.15
0.15
0.45
O.95
0.70
0.55
0.50
0.50
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.30
Zinc
0.830
0.165
3.000
1.700
0.610
0.400
0.400
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
3.270
1.200
0.520
3.500
0.100
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.100
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.130
0.160
0.450
0.015
1.390
0.015
0.015
0.180
0.930
0.54O
0.400
0.015
0.015
0.700
1.900
1.100
0.710
0.930
0.870
0.300
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.220
SE Drainages from cloted drift mine*.
UN - Drainages from abandoned but open drill mines.
SO Interior mine waters from shall/slop* mines or inundated closed drift mines.
OT - Surface waters in proximity of the mine sites.
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Sample
code
151
'152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
1TO
171
17Z
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
,197
198
199
Typo
SE
SE
SE
SE
UN
SE
UN
SE
OT
SE
SE
SE
UN
SE
OT
SE
OT
SE
SE
OT
SO
SO
SE
UN
OT
SE
OT
SE
SE
SE
SO
SE
UN
SE
SE
UN
SO
SE
SE
SE
SO
so
so
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
Site
cade
40
37
45
41
68
63
64
24
24
36
35
34
24
25
25
26
26
17
17
17
17
17
18
21
21
22
22
46
33
47
85
49
74
53
57
48
30
31
30
4
4
3
2
1
42
43
32
32
Stale
WV
WV
HV
WV
OH
OH
OH
PA
PA
WV
WV
WV
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
HV
WV
WV
TN
KY
KY
KY
WV
WV
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
WV
WV
WV
WV
nil
4.01
4.90
3.00
2.90
6.50
7.00
3.81
7.40
7.56
3.14
2.69
2.77
7.97
5.58
3.76
3.23
5.28
3.23
3.40
6.92
3.21
5.35
4.83
4.18
4.39
2.98
7.11
3.21
6.05
6.46
7.44
7.91
7.50
7.80
6.86
7.46
6.24
5.44
6.18
4.97
4.55
4.21
7.09
5.91
6.92
5.50
7.59
6.92
Alkalinity
0.45
50,12
218.38
297.14
124.41
214.80
10.74
0.45
7.16
7.16
0.45
4.48
8.06
39.38
132.46
341.89
51.91
95.77
21.48
241.65
111.88
8.95
56.39
2.69
0.45
744.18
28.64
196.90
16.11
110.09
102.93
Net
Acidity
mart
17.80
7.97
406.73
713.78
-44.84
-202.40
177.11
-284.77
-119.11
101.46
536.67
461.02
-216.66
1.68
64.97
48.95
14.21
97.90
64.97
-0.65
101.46
13.27
8.87
20.46
17.78
85.44
-0.06
89.89
-0.07
-30.53
-161.14
-332.18
-43.95
-91.36
-14.40
-241.73
-45.19
121.84
75.28
34.66
41.80
49.83
-746.77
-1.98
-158.76
26.52
-100.36
^50.51
Specific
Conductance
fimhos/cm
121.
81.
1570.
2710.
1030.
38600.
1040.
970.
450.
775.
1430.
1170.
849.
588.
762.
767.
597.
1020.
840.
84.
1010.
980.
159.
653.
773.
431.
50.
1460.
452.
1070.
386.
702.
708.
453.
167.
847.
1330.
710.
1370.
485.
517.
318.
882.
376.
2970.
2690.
1520.
1570.
Total
DistoUcd
Solid!
mn/lf
74.0
55.1
1412.3
3231.9
889.2
35439.2
987.0
722.1
294.5
501.0
872.3
699.7
612.5
476.5
591.6
542.6
497.7
862.4
709.0
40.0
879.0
1089.1
97.4
405.5
477.8
155.1
49.2
1342.3
379.0
992.2
318.1
706.3
964.5
441.2
157.6
737.6
1595.6
814.9
1730.0
507.6
513.4
268.0
905,8
513.2
Suspended
Solids
n,qA
3.1
5. I
6.3
116.3
8.4
178.6
24.1
41.6
23.1
8.7
5.2
17.1
7.3
16.5
42.8
8.0
121.7
7.1
10.8
3.8
17.5
399.2
0.4
6.6
3.4
3.4
2.4
315.1
6.4
8.3
422.5
2.2
14.8
21.3
4.3
0.4
14.2
2.4
7.5
12.0
10.4
8.5
23.3
3.9
Sullalo
im)/V
31.
28.
600.
1520.
530.
31.
500.
278.
108.
270.
318.
326.
288.
285.
307.
307.
305.
311.
243.
5.
252.
258.
5.
5.
5.
64.
5.
258.
167.
243.
48.
119.
245.
142.
5.
207.
255.
288.
350.
255.
248.
90.
5.
226.
COD
nnj/V
1.
1.
1.
1.
5.
.
_
^
f
m
f
f
f
f
.
m
f
a
.
.
3.
4.
7.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
2.
1.
3.
9.
4.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
6.
1.
To-«l
lion
mg/V
0.15
0.35
61.00
204.00
0.15
3.70
35.50
1.80
1.40
16.40
85.00
80.50
0.55
4.10
16.15
8.85
6.80
13.00
8.55
0.30
16,05
30.00
0.15
0.15
0.15
9.80
0.15
9.55
0.15
4.45
10.40
1.00
4.45
0.15
0.15
0.15
27.00
54.00
59.00
15.40
13.00
1.45
7.60
10.20
Tolol
Ac. (lily
mj/V
17.80
8.42
406.73
713.78
5.28
15.98
177.11
12.37
5.30
101.46
536.67
461.02
.00
1.68
64.97
48.95
14.66
97.90
64.97
6.51
101.46
20.43
9.32
20.46
17.78
85.44
4.42
89.89
7.99
8.85
.00
9.71
7.96
4.41
7.08
.00
66.69
130.79
131.67
34.66
41.80
49.83
.00
26.66
38.14
42.63
9.73
52.54
SE - Drainages from cloved drift mines.
UN Drainages from abandoned but open drift mines.
SO Interior mine waters from shaft/slope mines or inundated closed drift mines.
OT - Surface waters in proximity of the mine sites.
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Sample
cwlc
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
160
181
182
1B3
184
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
TYPO
SE
SE
SE
SE
UN
SE
UN
SE
OT
SE
SE
SE
UN
SE
OT
SE
OT
SE
SE
CT
SO
so
SE
UN
OT
SE
OT
SE
SE
SE
SO
SE
UN
SE
SE
UN
SO
SE
SE
SE
SO
SO
SO
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
Site
coito
40
37
45
41
66
63
64
24
24
36
35
34
24
25
25
26
26
17
17
17
17
17
18
21
21
22
22
46
33
47
85
49
74
53
57
48
30
31
30
4
4
3
2
1
42
43
32
32
Slate
WV
WV
WV
HV
OH
OH
OH
PA
PA
WV
KV
WV
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
WV
WV
HV
TN
KY
KY
KV
HV
WV
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
WV
WV
WV
WV
FetTuut
Icon
nW
0.130
0.060
11. '70
109.170
0.020
4.470
14.520
0.830
O.V50
10.050
52.500
35.T40
0.160
4.470
14.520
5.590
6.700
8.940
7.820
0.180
14.520
26.810
0.040
0.105
0.035
0.985
0.050
8.940
0.055
4.470
4.470
0.130
0.750
0.440
0.150
0.020
25.690
58.080
62.550
17.870
12.290
0.165
11.170
12.290
33.510
78.190
0.560
29.040
Ft. lie
Iron
milfl!
0.020
0.290
49.830
94.530
0.130
20.980
0.970
1.250
6.350
32.500
44.760
0.390
1.630
3.260
0.100
4.060
O.T30
0.120
1.530
3.190
0.110
0.045
0.115
8.815
0.100
0.610
0.095
5.930
0.870
3.700
0.130
1.310
0.710
1.285
MaiK|iHte«)
mj/V
0.41
0.03
10.40
2.63
0.06
0.16
4.80
0.82
0.32
11.20
1.56
1.30
0.03
0.43
4.80
1.13
2.69
13.80
1.12
0.27
11.10
10.60
0.26
1.12
1.34
0.46
0.03
1.69
0.03
0.85
0.72
0.11
0.72
0.03
0.03
0.03
19.20
4.60
9.90
3.50
3.80
2.80
0.14
5.30
'Calcium
mg/V
23.0
0.8
164.0
472.6
98.0
1056.0
68.0
60.0
38.0
28.0
40.0
22.0
4.3
58.0
28.0
74.0
76.0
106.0
132.0
8.4
130.0
214.0
17.0
24.0
25.0
3.8
5.1
134.0
48.0
94.0
164.0
41.0
114.0
44.0
33.0
96.0
298.0
108.0
220.0
22.0
26.0
32.0
42.0
32.0
Magnetium
Ing/V
3.70
0.89
62.80
97.60
38.80
370.00
61.40
23.00
10.40
23.60
20.60
16.40
0.49
24.80
24.20
27.20
29.40
47.00
40.00
2.95
41.00
59.80
5.60
5.40
5.10
2.45
0.97
82.40
34.00
56.00
12.20
14.00
55.00
40.20
11.60
29.80
130.00
49.60
149.20
47.80
49.80
21.20
35.20
50.00
Aluminum
m,N
0.5
0.5
13.3
56.0
1.0
0.5
13.7
2.9
1.0
5.7
25.0
13.7
2.5
2.2
5.4
1.3
2.3
7.5
4.2
0.5
6.1
3.5
0.5
2.2
2.6
3.1
0.5
7.7
0.5
0.5
7.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
4.6
4.2
2.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
Cntlmiuin
«1)«
0.20
0.05
1.10
0.05
0.05
2.20
0.30
0.05
0.05
0.60
1.20
1.00
0.05
0.05
0.50
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.05
0.90
0.20
0.05
0.60
0.60
0.20
0.05
0.30
0.05
0.05
0.40
0.05
0.50
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.70
0.20
0.20
0.60
0.90
0.50
0.05
0.20
0.05
0.05
Mctcury
rn,)/V
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Nickel
mg«
0.15
0.15
0.40
1.65
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.30
0.54
0.40
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.35
0.30
0.15
0.65
0.30
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.30
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
mg/V
0.015
0.015
0.750
1.100
0.015
0.015
0.330
0.015
0.015
0.370
0.780
0.620
0.015
0.015
0.150
0.070
0.120
0.350
0.300
0.015
0.430
0.150
0.015
0.100
0.120
0.015
0.015
0.150
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.200
0.130
0.130
0.520
0.530
0.180
0.015
0.280
SE Drainage* from closed drift mines.
UN Drainage! from abandoned but open drift mines.
SO Interior mine water* from shaft/slope mines or inundated closed drift mines.
OT - Surface waters in proximity of the mine litct.
-------
TABLE B-3. LABORATORY METHODS
o
OO
Parameter
PH
Alkalinity
Acidity
Specific Conductance
Total Dissolved Solids
(Nonfilterable)
Suspended Solids
(Nonfilterable)
Sulfate
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Iron
Ferrous Iron
Ferric Iron
Manganese
Calcium
Magnesium
Aluminum
Cadmium
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Hardness
Methodology
Standard Methods (Potentiometric)t
Standard Methods (Potentiometric)t
EPA (Potentiometric)+
EPA (Wheatstone Bridge)*
EPA+
EPA+
Technicon Method 118-71W Modified*
Technicon Method 137-71W*
Perkin ElmerS
Standard Methods (Phenantroline)t
ASTM (D-1068-A)#
Lovell (Titration)**
Calculated
Perkin ElmerS
Perkin ElmerS
Perkin ElmerS
Perkin Elmer§
PerKin Elmer§
EPA+
Perkin ElmerS
Perkin ElmerS
Calculated
Equipment
Orion 801 lonanalyzer Serial #8001
Orion 801 lonanalyzer Serial #8001
Orion 801 lonanalyzer Serial #8001
Barnstead Wheatstone Bridge PM-70CB
Technicon Autoanalyzer II
Technicon Autoanalyzer II
Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption 306,
Bausch 6 Lomb Spectronic 70, Serial
Bausch 5 Lomb Spectronic 70, Serial
Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption 306,
Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption 306,
Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption 306,
Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption 306,
Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption 306
Furnace Model 2000, Serial #54229
Serial #54229
#1488TK
#1488TK
Serial #54229
Serial #54229
Serial #54229
Serial #54229
with Graphite
Perkin Elmer Model 50 Mercury Analyzer System
Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption 306,
Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption 306,
Serial #54229
Serial #54229
Preservation
Refrigerate at 4°C
Refrigerate at 43C
Refrigerate at 4°C
Refrigerate at 4 C
Refrigerate at 4°C
Refrigerate at 4°C
Refrigerate at 4 C
Acidify with H2S04
to pH 2.00; 4°C
Acidify with HNO,
to pH 2.00; 4°C
Acidify with HC1
to pH 1.00; 4°C
Acidify with UNO
to pH 2.00; 4°C
Acidify with UNO,
to pH 2.00; 4°C
Acidify with UNO,
to pH 2.00; 4°C
Acidify with HNO
to pH 2.00; 4°C
Acidify with HNO
to pH 2.00; 4°C
Acidify with H-SO.
to pH 2.00; 4°C
Acidify with HNO
to pH 2.00; 4°C
Acidify with HNO
to pH 2.00; 4°C
Holding
6 hours
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
6 months
7 days
6 months
6 months
6 months
6 months
6 months
13 days
6 months
*
6 months
* Technicon Autoanalyzer II Industrial Methodologies.
t Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th edition, New York, 1971.
< EPA-Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, 1974.
§ Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption Methodologies.
# 1973 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 23.
** Procedures of Analysis of Coal Mine Drainage, H.L. Lovell, The Pennsylvania State University, College of
Earth and Mineral Sciences.
-------
APPENDIX C. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 85 MINES IN THE
EASTERN COAL MINING REGIONS
TABLE C-l. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS:
SEALED MINES
PHASE 1, DRY SAMPLING SEASON,
Parameter
Number of
samples
Hean Range +1 Standard Deviation Ranee (Low-High)
Drainages from
closed drift mines:
pH: -log [H+]* 55
AlUalinity, mg CaCO./l* 26
Net Acidity, mg CaCCL/1 54
Total Acidity, mg CaCO. 54
Specific Conductance, 'Umhos/cm 53
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 54
Suspended Solids, mg/1 55
Sulfate, mg SO^/1 51
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg 0/1 52
Total Iron, mg Fe/1 56
Ferrous Iron, mg Fe/1 56
Manganese, mg Mn/1 56
Calcium, mg Ca/1 55
Magnesium, mg Mg/1 56
Aluminum, mg Al/1 52
Cadmium, ug Cd/1 55
Mercury, pg Hg/1 52
Nickel, mg Ni/1 56
Zinc, mg Zn/1 56
4.59
147.56
159.73
126.97
927.
794.7
15.8
385.
2.
14.11
4.39
2.03
76.4
33.08
1.7
0.5
0.1
0.20
0.186
2.95-6.22
2.78-294.34
-151.76-629.55
273.-3153.
217.7-2901.6
3.5-71.2
104.-1427.
<2.-4.
1.31-152.48
0.197-98.00
0.34-12.19
18.8-309.8
9.94-110.06
<1.0-7.9
0.1-2.5
<0.2-0.2
<0.20-0.48
<0.030-1.443
2.34-7.50
<. 24-507.57
-351.12-1546.60
0.001-1546.60
98.0-7220.0
52.5-7439.0
<0.8-315.2
37.-3500.
<2.-22.
<0.30-612.50
0.018-543.98
<0.05-32.12
1.8-1026.0
2.53-364.65
<1.0-31.0
<0.1-10.0
<0.2-0.7
<0.20-1.80
<0.030-11.400
Interior mine waters from
shaft/slope mines or
inundated closed drift mines:
pH: -log [H J*
Alkalinity, mg CaCO A*
Net Acidity, mg CaCO,/l
Total Acidity, mg CaC03/l
Specific Conductance, pmhos/cm
Total Dissolved Solids, Bg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Sulfate, mg SO^/1
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg 0/1
Total Iron, mg Fe/1
Ferrous Iron, mg Fe/1
Manganese, mg Mn/1
Calcium, mg Ca/1
Magnesium, mg Mg/1
Aluminum, mg Al/1
Cadmium, yg Cd/1
Mercury, yg Hg/1
Nickel, mg Ni/1
Zinc, mg Zn/1
25
22
25
25
24
24
24
25
25
25
24
26
26
26
26
26
25
26
26
6.13
175.08
-236.59
53.70
522.
316.7
101.0
142.
3.
14.34
0.881
0.58
34.5
11.95
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.16
0.059
4.58-7.68
-646.27 to 1592.12
147. -1858.
45.0-2230.5
21.6-472.5
22. -896.
2. -9.
2.34-87.88
0.030-25.94
0.09-3.87
9.37-126.9
2.61-54.76
1.0-3.7
0.1-1.4
0,2-0.5
0.20-0.53
0.030-0.371
2.47-8.15
0.24-916.56
-763.54 to 1633.50
0.001-1633.50
54. -3820.
0.8-4159.0
6.2-4612.1
10. -2350.
2. -21.
0.30-587.50
0.010-213.35
0.05-18.70
4.5-366.0
0.72-127.47
1.0-35.0
0.1-6.4
0.2-2.8
0. '20-9. 70
0.030-3.650
*Values listed are arithmetic means: All other values are geometric means.
109
-------
TABLE 02. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS: PHASE 1, DRY SAMPLING SEASON,
UNSEALED MINES AND SURFACE WATERS
Parameter
Number of
samples
Mean Range +1 Standard Deviation Range (Low-High)
Drainages from abandoned
and unsealed drift mines:
pH: -log [H+]* 12
Alkalinity, mg CaCO /I 5
Set Acidity, mg CaCO /I 12
Total Acidity, mg CaCO /I 13
Specific Conductance, ymhos/cm 12
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 12
Suspended Solids, mg/1 12
Sulfate, mg SO,/I 12
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg 0/1 11
Total Iron mg Fe/1 13
Ferrous Iron, mg Fe/1 13
Manganese, mg Mn/1 13
Calcium, mg Ca/1 13
Magnesium, mg Mg/1 13
Aluminum, mg Al/1 13
Cadmium, pg Cd/1 13
Mercury, yg Hg/1 13
Nickel, mg Ni/1 13
Zinc, mg Zn/1 13
4.90 2.86-6.94
295.12 111.91-478.32
-69.09 -339.75 to 400.37
75.86
826. 488.-1399.
609.1 262.6-1412.9
13.0 1.5-111.3
238. 92.-616.
2. <2.-4.
3.39 0.30-41.93
0.704 0.026-38.10
0.51 0.05-5.93
34.5 9.0-132.3
17.32 3.89-77.17
1.4 <1.0-4.9
0.2 <0.1-0.7
0.1 <0.1-0.2
0.13 <0.20-0.23
0.064 <0.030-0.307
2.88-8.22
66.56-568.83
-566.36 to 409.20
0.001-409.20
347.-2000.
139.9-2157.4
<0.8-303.7
54.-1240.
<2.-8.
<0.30-112.50
0.010-132.92
<0.05-11.40
3.3-227.0
0.56-117.60
<1.0-18.5
<0.1-8.4
<0.2-0.2
<0.20-0.62
<0.030-1.100
Surface waters in
proximity of studied mines;
pH: -log [HT]*
Alkalinity, mg CaCO./l
Net Acidity, mg CaCO /I
Total Acidity, mg CaCO-/!
Specific Conductance, )jmhos/cm
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Sulfate, mg SO, /I
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg 0/1
Total Iron, mg Fe/1
Ferrous Iron, mg Fe/1
Manganese, mg Mn/1
Calcium, mg Ca/1
Magnesium, mg Mg/1
Aluminum, mg Al/1
Cadmium, ug Cd/1
Mercury, ug Hg/1
Nickel, mg Ni/1
Zinc, mg Zn/1
16
10
16
15
16
16
16
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
16
15
16
16
4.94
51.37
25.43
41.69
498.
304.9
8.9
143.
2.
2.07
0.293
1.03
33.2
13.03
1.3
0.3
0.1
0.14
0.071
3.31-6.57
-163.30 to 273.41
.
109. -2271.
68.7-1352.9
2.7-29.1
22. -925.
<2.-6.
<0. 30-25. 23
0.018-4.84
0.13-8.40
9.1-124.6
2.76-61.44
<1. 0-5.0
<0.1-1.4
<0.2-0.26
<0. 20-0. 26
<0. 30-0. 321
2.61-7.75
0.24-426.12
-432.26 to 523.60
0.001-523.60
104. -4150.
35.1-5056.6
2.1-104.4
-10. -3050.
<2.-17.
<0. 30-100. 00
<0. 010-36. 86
<0. 05-19. 25
4.7-364.0
0.82-252.96
<1.0-18.5
<0.1-3.9
<0.2-0.7
<0. 20-0. 73
<0. 030-1. 200
*Values listed are arithmetic means: All other values are geometric means.
110
-------
TABLE C-3. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS:
SEALED MINES
PHASE 2, WET SAMPLING SEASON,
Parameter
Drainages
Number of
samples
Mean Range +1 Standard Deviation Range (Low-High)
trom
closed drift mines.
pH: -log [H ]* 47 4.86
Alkalinity, mg CaCO /I* 25 26.55
Net Acidity, mg CaCO,/l 47 93.80
Total Acidity, mg CaC03/l 47 52.48
'Specific Conductance, ymhos/cm 46 750.
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 46 457.6
Suspended Solids, mg/1 47 13.1
Sulfate, mg S04/l 43 204.
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg 0/1 42 1.3
Total Iron, mg Fe/1 43 9.54
Ferrous Iron, mg Fe/1 47 5.75
Manganese, mg Mn/1 43 1.42
Calcium, mg Ca/1 43 59.2
Magnesium, mg Mg/1 43 29.31
Aluminum, mg Al/1 45 2.3
Cadmium , )jg Cd/1 45 0.2
Mercury, vg Hg/1** 43
Nickel, mg Ni/1 43 0.23
Zinc, mg Zn/1 43 0.093
3.22-6.50
3.81-185.12
-135.87 to 407.38
248.-2264.
102.9-2034.5
1.0-65.5
39.-1074.
<2.0-2.8
0.86-105.53
0.343-96.45
0.20-10.09
12.3-284.6
7.35-116.98
<1.0-11.3
<0.1-0.8
<0.30-0.44
<0.030-0.544
2.60-7.91
<0.90-341.89
-332.18 to 974.53
1.68-974.55
77.-5270.
51.7-6166.9
<0.8-1435.1
<10.-3050.
<2.0-28.0
<0.30-370.00
<0.010-406.59
<0.05-31.60
0.8-1056.0
0.89-370.00
<1.0-77.0
<0.1-3.0
<0.30-1.65
<0.030-1.900
Interior mine waters from
shaft/slope mines or
inundated closed drift mines:
pH: -log [H ]*
Alkalinity, mg CaCO /I
Net Acidity, mg CaCO,/l
Total Acidity, mg CaCO /I
Specific Conductance, ymhos/cm
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Sulfate, mg SO. /I
' ° fi
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg 0/1
Total Iron, mg Fe/1
Ferrous Iron, mg Fe/1
Manganese, mg Mn/1
Calcium, mg Ca/1
Magnesium, mg Mg/1
Aluminum, mg Al/1
Cadmium, yg Cd/1
Mercury, vg Hg/1**
Nickel, mg Ni/1
Zinc, mg Zn/1
17
15
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
5.85
31.13
580.56
4.68
388.
356.4
82.7
85.
1.6
11.19
3.18
0.71
44.6
14.45
2.1
0.2
0.18
0.054
4.58-7.12
4.46-217.24
_
160. -940.
141.7-896.1
15.9-430.5
24. -306.
<2.0-4.4
4.02-31.13
0.534-18.95
0.10-4.93
13.7-144.8
4.30-48.57
<1.0-6.3
<0.1-0.7
<0.30-<0.30
<0. 030-0. 233
3.21-8.68
<0. 90-744. 18
-746.77 to 107.46
0.001-107.46
78. -1330.
82.9-1595.6
8.5-1444.3
<10.-300.
<2.-22.
1.00-46.00
0.165-26.81
<0. 05-19. 20
7.5-298.0
2.40-130.00
<1. 0-16.0
<0.1-0.9
<0. 30-0. 65
<0. 030-0. 530
*Values listed are arithmetic means: All other values are geometric means.
**A11 values were less than the detection limit of the test (0.2ug Hg/1).
Ill
-------
TABLE C-4. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS: PHASE 2, WET SAMPLING SEASON,
UNSEALED MINES
Parameter
Number of
samples
Mean Range +1 Standard Deviation Range (Low-High)
Drainage from
unsealed drift mines:
pH: -log [H+]* 9 5.55
Alkalinity, mg CaCO /I* 5 130.97
Net Acidity, mg CaCO /I 9 -29.44
Total Acidity, mg CaCO /I 9 4.48
Specific Conductance, ymhos/cm 9 1143.
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 9 1056.8
Suspended Solids, mg/1 9 12.1
Sulfate, mg SO,/I 9 325.
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg 0/1 8 1.7
Total Iron, mg Fe/1 9 3.25
Ferrous Iron, mg Fe/1 9 0.926
Manganese, mg Mn/1 9 0.75
Calcium, mg Ca/1 9 87.7
Magnesium, mg Mg/1 9 28.96
Aluminum, mg Al/1 9 2.2
Cadmium, ug Cd/1 9 0.3
Mercury, ug Hg/1** 9
Nickel, mg Ni/1 9 0.20
Zinc, mg Zn/1 9 0.065
3.58-7.52
55.04-311.66
-180.33 to 160.1
669. -1869.
565.0-1976.5
2.6-57.3
57. -1839.
<2.0-3.7
<0. 30-51. 32
0.044-19.42
0.07-8.32
20.6-373.2
4.76-176.09
<1.0-9.7
<0. 30-0. 37
<0. 030-0. 413
3.08-7.97
50.12-285.51
-241.73 to 243.86
0.001-243.86
653.-2590.
405.5-2872.6
<0.8-103.8
<10.-1840.
<2.0-5.0
<0.30-91.00
0.020-44.68
0.05-13.40
4.3-505.0
0.49-131.80
<1.0-33.0
<0.1-6.0
<0.30-0.65
<0.030-0.930
Surface waters in
proximity of studied mines:
pH: -log [H ]*
Alkalinity, mg CaCO./l
Net Acidity, mg CaCO_/l
Total Acidity, mg CaCO.,/1
Specific Conductance, ymhos/cm
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Sulfate, mg SO, /I
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg 0/1
Total Iron, mg Fe/1
Ferrous Iron, mg Fe/1
Manganese, mg Mn/1
Calcium, mg Ca/1
Magnesium, mg Mg/1
Aluminum, mg Al/1
Cadmium, yg Cd/1
Mercury, yg Mg/1**
Nickel, mg Ni/1
Zinc, mg Zn/1
8
5
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
5.38
5.52
50.31
4.68
All.
312.2
15.2
68.
1.3
1.97
0.976
1.10
33.5
11.59
1.9
0.2
0.17
0.056
3.71-7.05
0.72-42.18
-102.45 to 238.31
121. -1397.
83.0-1172.6
3.7-62.4
<10.-638.
<2.0-2.5
<0. 30-20. 31
0.059-16.04
0.15-8.12
9.6-117.3
2.57-52.35
<1.0-8.2
<0.1-0.9
0.12-0.27
0.012-0.267
3.01-7.56
0.90-124.41
-119.01 to 554.47
4.42-554.47
50. -1960.
40.0-2041.5
2.4-121.7
<10.-1150.
<2.-7.
<0. 30-98. 00
0.035-53.62
<0. 05-18. 40
5.1-256.0
0.97-109.40
<1. 0-35.0
<0. 1-2.0
<0. 30-0. 50
<0. 030-0. 930
*Values listed are arithmetic means: All other values are geometric means.
**A11 values were less than the detection limit of the test (0.2Pg Hg/1).
-------
TABLE C-5. SUMMARY OF CLUSTER ANALYSIS; SITE SAMPLES FOR PHASE 1
Sample Code*
Group 1 :
32
51,
63,
70
92,
^
53,
64,
81
93,
36
55,
65,
83
95,
37
56,
66,
84
97,
4?
57,
67,
86,
46, 49,
61, 62,
68, 69,
87. 90.
101, 107
Group 2
4,
15,
38,
79,
6, 7
16,
39,
80,
, 9,
18,
40,
85,
11,
22,
43,
88,
12,
23,
52,
108
14
35,
54,
, 111
Parameter
r
pH: -log [H ]
Acidity mg CaC03/l
Specific Conductance vunhos/cm
Total Dissolved Solids mg/1
- -w f-yt
Suspended Solids mg/1
Sulfate mg SO, /I
Total Iron mg Fe/1
Ferrous mg Fe "/I
% Sulfur
+
pH: -log [IT]
Acidity mg CaC03/l
Specific Conductance pmhos/cm
Total Dissolved Solids mg/1
Suspended Solids mg/1
Sulfate mg SO./l
Total Iron mg+Ee/l
Ferrous mg Fe /I
% Sulfur
Range
2.34-8.22
-764.54-1546.60
466. -4990.
316.2-6025.6
<0. 8-4570. 9
22. -2138.
0.30-616.59
0.020-549.54
0.80-3.1
2.83-7.83
-277.63-106.70
85. -888.
33.1-812.8
<0. 8-416. 9
<10. -398.1
<0. 30-75. 85
0.010-81.28
0.60-4.2
Mean Standard deviation
4
277
-
_
-
588
22
8
1
5
-28
64
-
-
3
0
2
.92
.8
.9
.4
.1
.96
.55
.64
.6
.10
.35
.05
1.
536.
0.
1.
94.
1.
,75
2
83
37
60
-
-
-
-
-
11
*For conversion of sample code to site number, see Appendix B, Table B-2.
-------
TABLE C-6. SUMMARY OF CLUSTER ANALYSIS; SITE SAMPLES FOR PHASE 2
Sample code*
Group
120,
142,
153,
162,
176,
187,
Group
119,
127,
139,
184,
1:
126,
145,
154,
164,
178,
191,
2:
121,
128,
146,
194,
131,
148,
155,
166,
179,
192,
122,
129,
147,
196,
137,
150,
157,
168,
180,
193,
123,
130,
158,
197,
140,
151,
160,
173,
182,
195
124,
133,
163,
198,
141,
152,
161,
174,
186,
125,
138,
172,
199
Parameter
4.
PH: -log [H ]
Acidity mg CaCO~/l
Specific Conductance ymhos/cm
Total Dissolved Solids mg/1
Suspended Solids mg/1
Sulfate mg SO./l
Total Iron mg Fe/1
Ferrous mg Fe /I
% Sulfur
_i_
PH: -log [H ]
Acidity mg CaCO /I
Specific Conductance ymhos/cm
Total Dissolved Solids mg/1
Suspended Solids mg/1
Sulfate mg SO./l
Total Iron mg Fe/1
Ferrous mg Fe /I
% Sulfur
Range
2.60-7.91
-332.18-974.55
77.1-2880.
51.3-3890.5
<0. 8-316. 2
<10.-2089.
<0. 30-371. 54
0.030-407.38
0.60-3.1
5.04-8.68
-746.77-66.64
78.3-5271.
83.2-6166.0
7.2-1445.4
<10.-3020.
<0. 30-275. 42
0.17-257.42
0.75-4.2
Mean
4.
184.
-
179.
12.
3.
1.
6.
-104.
227.
20.
4.
2.
Standard
35
15
-
-
9
94
14
59
14
49
-
-
5
59
78
58
1
325
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
1
163
.
-
-
-
-
-
0
deviation
.46
.72
.79
.41
.51
.86
*For conversion of sample code to site number, see Appendix B, Table B-2.
-------
TABLE C-7. SUMMARY OF CLUSTER ANALYSIS; SITE SAMPLE FOR:PHASE 1 AND 2
Sample code*
Group
032,
049,
061,
067,
084,
095,
131,
148,
155,
166,
179,
192,
1:
033,
051,
062,
068,
086,
097,
137,
150,
157,
168,
180,
193,
036,
053,
063,
069,
087,
101,
140,
151,
160,
173,
182,
195
037,
055,
064,
070,
090,
107,
141,
152,
161,
174,
186,
042,
056,
065,
081,
092,
120,
142,
153,
162,
176,
187,
046,
057,
066,
083,
093,
126,
145,
154,
164,
178,
191,
Parameter
PH: -log [H+]
Acidity mg CaCO_/l
Specific Conductance Vmhos/cm
Total Dissolved Solids mg/1
Suspended Solids mg/1
Sulfate mg SO, /I
Total Iron mg Fe/1
Ferrous mg Fe /I
% Sulfur
Range
2.34-8.22
-763.54-1546.60
77.0-4990.
51.3-6025.6
<0. 8-4570. 9
<10.-3020.
< 0.30-612. 35
0.025-544.02
0.6-3.1
Mean Standard
4
209
-
-
-
323
11
5
1
.68
.0
.5
.7
.1
.76
1
447
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
deviation
.63
.0
.82
Group 2 : ^
004,
014,
035,
054,
111,
125,
138,
172,
199
006,
015,
038,
079,
119,
127,
139,
184,
007,
016,
039,
080,
121,
128,
146 s
194,
009,
018,
040,
085,
122,
129,
147,
196,
Oil,
022,
043,
088,
123,
130,
158,
197,
012,
023,
052,
108,
124,
133,
163,
198,
PH: -log [H ]
Acidity mg CaCO /I
Specific Conductance ymhos/cm
Total Dissolved Solids mg/1
Suspended Solids mg/1
Sulfate mg SO./l
Total Iron mg^Ee/1
Ferrous mg Fe /I
% Sulfur
2.83-8.68
-746.77-107.80
78.3-5271.
33.1-6166.0
<0. 8-1445. 4
<10.-3020.
<0. 30-272. 89
0.015-259.42
0.6-4.2
5
-63
-
112
6
1
2
.49
.70
.2
.5
.32
.3
1
139
1
.30
.4
.02
* For conversion of sample code to site number, see Appendix B, Table B-2.
-------
TABLE C-8. MINE DISCHARGES FROM CLOSED AND OPEN ABANDONED UNDERGROUND COAL
MINES THAT EXCEEDED THE EPA PRELIMINARY MINE WATER EFFLUENT GUIDELINES °°
Mine name
Repplier
Otto
Argentines
Keystone
No. 10
Keystone
No. 19
Billiard
Isle No. 7
Shaw-Elk
Lick No. 1
Shaw-SL-
118-3
Shaw-SL-
118-5
Salem No. 2
Driscoll
No. 4
Rattlesnake
Creek
Buskirk
Brandy Camp
New Watson
Old Watson
Mills No. 4
Bullrock
Run
Mahoning
Creek
Decker
No. 3
Sample
code
49
195
53
191
7
120
12
122
118
16
128
23
126
32
142
28
33
105
141
30
143
107
136
137
101
140
46
163
169
43
45
173
44
1
18
174
4
176
61
158
62
163
63
164
pH
+
A
*
A
*
A
+
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
+
+
+
A
A
Total
iron
mg/1
A
A
A
A
A
+
+
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
+
+
A
+
+
+
A
A
+
+
+
+
A
A
Aluminum
me /I
+
+
A
A
+
+
+
+
+
A
+
+
+
A
A
+
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
+
+
A
+
+
A
A
A
+
A
+
A
+
A
Manganese
mg/1
A
A
A
A
+
+
+
A
+
A
A
f
+
A
A
A
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
+
+
A
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Nickel
mg/1
+
t
A
t
t
+
+
t
t
+
A
+
t
A
A
A
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
+
t
A
+
+
t
+
t
+
t
+
t
+
t
Zinc
mg/1
A
A
A
A
+
+
+
+
+
A
+
+
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
+
+
A
+
+
+
+
+
+
-!-
+
+
+
+
Suspended
solids
mg/1
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
A
A
+
+
A
+
+
+
+
+
A
+
A
A
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
A
+
+
+
+
+
A
+
+
+
+
116
-------
TABLE C-8 (continued)
Sample
Mine name code
Decker
No. 5
Woolridge
Unknown
Delta
Taylor
Storries
40-016
Helen
RT 5-2
RT 5-2A
RT 9-11
Savage
Big Knob 1
Big Knob 2
Big Knob 6
14-042
62-008-3
62-008-4
Stewarts town
Imperial
Colliery
No. 8
Imperial
Colliery
No. 9
Jack's Creek
64
166
19
20
113
114
115
116
134
135
190
189
65
66
198
199
56
179
87
162
84
161
81
160
85
152
79
148
88
150
80
151
67
154
68
196
69
197
70
153
57
178
55
180
36
187
Total
iron Aluminum
pH mg/1 me/1
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
A
+
+
+
+
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
+
+
A
+
A
A
A
+
+
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
§
§
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
A
A
A
§
A
§
A
A
A
A
A
A
4-
+
+
+
A
A
§
§
§
§
+
A
+
+
+
+
§
§
+
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
+
+
+
+
A
+
+
A
A
+
+
+
+
A
A
A
+
+
Manganese
mg/1
+
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
§
§
+
+
A
+
+
+
A
A
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
6
S
4.
^r
s
y
A
A
+
+
+
4.
+
Nickel
mg/1
A
t
A
A
A
A
+
A
t
A
t
t
+
+
§
§
+
t
A
A
A
A
+
A
+
+
4.
T
A
+
+
1
A
A
+
§
+
§
A
A
t
+
t
+
t
Suspended
Zinc solids
mg/1 mg/1
+
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
A
+
+
+
+
§
§
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
+
1
^r
A
A
+
A
A
+
§
+
§
A
A
A
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
A
+
+
A
A
+
A
A
+
+
+
A
+
+
+
+
4.
~
+
-f
+
+
A
A
A
A
A
A
+
+
+
A
+
+
+
+
117
-------
TABLE C-8 (continued)
Mine name
Arnold
Fork
Baker No. 1
Buckingham
No. 5
Ellisonville
Kelly
Essex No. 1
Essex No. 2
Piney Fork
Florence
McDaniels
Buchtel
Bates
Burningstar
No. 7
Lake City
Ensminger
Watson
Carbon Fuel
Hall
New Lanning
Lost Creek
Rock Head
Phifers
No. 1
Sample
code
37
182
38
184
35
186
72
77
96
156
97
157
74
75
76
98
95
155
183
90
147
83
146
86
145
82
78
92
131
94
93
133
27
26
pH
+
+
+
+
*
+
*
*
+
+
*
*
+
+
+
*
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
*
*
ft
*
*
*
§
§
+
*
*
Total
iron
mg/1
+
+
+
+
+
+
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
+
*
+
+
+
*
*
*
ft
ft
*
*
ft
*
*
*
ft
*
*
ft
ft
Aluminum Manganese
me/1 mg/1
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
* *
* *
+ *
+ +
* *
ft ft
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ -f
+ +
+ +
+ *
+ *
+ *
+ *
* *
ft ft
+ *
+ +
ft *
ft ft
+ *
+ *
+ *
+ +
* +
Nickel
me/1
+
t
+
t
+
t
ft
*
+
t
ft
t
+
+
+
+
+
t
t
+
t
+
t
*
ft
+
+
ft
*
+
+
t
+
+
Zinc
me/1
+
+
+
+
+
+
*
ft
ft
+
*
*
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
*
*
*
*
*
+
ft
ft
+
*
+
+
+
Suspended
solids
me/1
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-t-
ft
*
+
*
*
*
+
+
+
+
*
ft
ft
+
ft
+
*
*
+
*
§
§
ft
*
ft
°°The U.S. EPA preliminary effluent guidelines for mine drainages (Skelly and
Loy, 1975), are given as follows:
30- day average Parameter: 30-day average
6-9 Nickel mg Ni/1 0.20 mg Ni/1
3.5 mg Fe/1 Zinc mg Zn/1 0.20 mg Zn/1
2.0 mg Al/1 Total Suspended 35 mg/1
2.0 mg Mn/1 Solids
Parameter:
pH: -log [H ]
Total Iron mg Fe/1
Aluminum mg Al/1
Manganese mg Mn/1
+The chemical parameter that met the effluent guidelines.
*The chemical parameter that exceeded the effluent guidelines.
tDetection limit of test greater than the effluent guidelines.
§Not analyzed.
118
-------
APPENDIX D. SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY DATA FOR PRE- AND POST-
CLOSURE PERIODS IN AIR-,SINGLE AND DOUBLE BULKHEAD-, AND
PERMEABLE (LIMESTONE) BULKHEAD-SEALED MINES
TABLE D-l. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF ACIDITY AND ALKALINITY
CONCENTRATIONS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS; AIR-SEALED MINES
Before
closure
Mine name B
Acidity (mg/1):
Decker No. 3
RT 9-11
Imperial
Colliery No. 9
Big Knob No. 1
Big Knob No. 2
Big Knob No. 6
Savage
Essex No. 1
Kelly
McDaniels
Elk Lick No. 1
Alkalinity (mg/1) :
Decker No. 3
RT 9-11
Imperial
Colliery No. 9
.
Big Knob No. 1
Big Knob No. 2
Big Knob No. 6
Savage
Essex No. 1
Kelly
McDaniels
Elk Lick No. 1
486
570
68
119
76
*
24
*
*
*
*
*
*
38
*
4
*
6
*
*
*
*
After
closure
A
209
315
137
120
83
25
12
10
585
151
1057
18
0
61
5
10
0
5
214
0
*
0
Standard
deviation
B
171
89
*
52
27
*
16
*
*
36
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
5
*
*
Number
observ.
B
343
33
1
31
33
0
29
0
0
15
0
0
0
1
0
V
1
0
11
0
0
0
0
Standard Number
deviation observ.
A A
61
62
121
54
35
21
5
8
*
61
78
10
0
30
7
14
*
6
5
*
*
^ ^
173
110
8
28
29
26
27
2
1
18
3
2
3
7
2
2
1
2
2
1
0
1
. i I, i
* No data available.
119
-------
TABLE D-2. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF SULFATE AND TOTAL IRON
CONCENTRATIONS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS; AIR-SEALED MINES
Before
closure
Mine name B
Sulfate (mg/1) :
Decker No. 3 1282
RT 9-11 666
Imperial
Colliery No. 9 705
Big Knob No. 1 204
Big Knob No. 2 120
Big Knob No. 6 *
Savage 46
Essex No. 1 *
Kelly *
McDaniels *
Elk Lick No. 1 *
Total Iron (mg/1):
Decker No. 3 142
RT 9-11 94
Imperial
Colliery No. 9 2
Big Knob No. 1 4
Big Knob No. 2 8
Savage 0.5
Essex No. 1 *
Kelly *
McDaniels *
Elk Lick No. 1 *
After
closure
A
889
790
S56
234
131
45
43
35
610
221
1856
58
70
5
10
3
1
4
7
0.9
323
Standard
deviation
B
317
605
*
93
46
*
21
*
*
*
*
70
29
*
4
22
0.7
*
*
*
*
Number
observ.
B
331
51
1
14
14
0
15
0
0
0
0
343
32
1
14
14
14
0
0
0
0
Standard
deviation
A
182
916
205
184
93
16
18
5
*
60
110
27
40
4
11
2
0.8
1
*
*
*
Number
observ.
A
173
110
7
25
24
24
23
2
1
12
3
173
110
12
28
29
27
2
1
1
2
* No data available.
120
-------
TABLE D-3. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF POLLUTANT OUTPUTS AND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS; AIR-SEALED MINES
Mine name
Before
closure
B
After
closure
A
Standard
deviation
B
Number
observ.
A
Standard Number
deviation observ.
B B
Acidity (kg/day) :
Decker No. 3
RT 9-11
Imperial
Colliery No
Big Knob No
Big Knob No
Big Knob No
Savage
. 9
. 1
. 2
. 6
264.
28.
*
2.
2.
*
1.
4
7
4
1
9
50.
34.
1.
2.
1.
1.
0.
2
7
6
3
2
9
8
612.
49.
*
1.
1.
*
*
6
6
0
1
343
25
0
23
23
0
0
99
21
*
2
1
1
1
.7
.9
.4
.3
.6
.3
135
79
2
23
22
23
22
Sulfate (kg/day) :
Decker No.
RT 9-11
Imperial
Colliery No
Big Knob No
Big Knob No
Big Knob No
Savage
Total Iron
Decker No.
RT 9-11
Imperial
Colliery No
Big Knob No
Big Knob No
Big Knob No
Savage
3
. 9
. 1
. 2
. 6
(kg/day)
3
. 9
. 1
. 2
. 6
i '
544.
43.
*
4.
3.
*
3.
83.
4.
*
0.
0.
*
0.
^^^^
4
0
6
1
5
3
8
1
2
1
165.
73.
22.
4.
2.
3.
2.
15.
7.
0.
0.
0.
.
0.
^^^MBHI
6
6
5
4
2
9
6
9
8
3
2
1
1
1370.
69.
*
1.
1.
*
1.
203.
8.
rfr
0.
0.
it
0.
^P^H^^"""^
4
1
6
7
8
2
5
1
4
1
^
331
26
0
8
9
0
10
343
25
n
u
9
9
o
9
,
261
48
3
5
2
3
3
34
5
*
0
0
0
0
" '
.3
.1
.7
.2
.6
.3
.2
.2
.9
.3
.1
.3
.2
135
79
2
23
22
23
22
135
79
2
23
22
23
22
* No data available.
121
-------
TABLE D-4. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF ACIDITY CONCENTRATIONS AND
STANDARD DEVIATIONS; DOUBLE BULKHEAD-SEALED MINES
Before
closure
Mine name B
Acidity [mg/1);
Argentine
Argentine OB*
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 6 OB
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 10 OB
Keystone No. 19
Keystone No. 19 OB
Milliard
Milliard OB
Lindey No. 1
Lindey No. 1 OB
Shaw SL-118-5
Shaw SL-118-5 CD#
Salem No. 2
Salem No. 2 OB
RT 5-2
RT 5-2 OB
Phifers No. 1
Phifers No. 1 OB
Isle No. 1
Isle No. 1 OB
62008-5
69
69
104
104
16
16
102
102
70
70
432
432
1505
954
494
494
683
683
83
83
32
32
2260
After
closure
A
34
19
NF+
14
6
2
7t
5
81
2
NF
6
989
763
335
14
794
1107
NF
0
15
4
1090
Standard
deviation
B
10
10
41
41
8
8
19
19
95
95
160
160
523
326
151
151
160
160
18
18
19
19
§
Number
observ.
B
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
8
8
26
26
103
62
35
35
68
68
3
3
22
22
1
Standard
deviation
A
35
17
NF
2
2
2
§
1
10
4
NF
§
212
251
28
15
371
276
NF
§
6
5
§
Number
observ.
A
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
7
1
1
5
15
2
3
3
29
1
1
2
7
1
* Samples taken from observation borings.
+ No flow.
t Observation value for March 1976; no flow observed in October
§ No calculations made.
# Combined drainage from several mine openings.
1975.
122
-------
TABLE D-5. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF ALKALINITY CONCENTRATIONS AND
STANDARD DEVIATIONS; DOUBLE BULKHEAD-SEALED MINES
Before
closure
Mine name B
Alkalinity (mg/1) :
Argentine
Argentine OB*
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 6 OB
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 10 OB
Keystone No. 19
Keystone No. 19 OB
Milliard
Milliard OB
Lindey No. 1
Lindey No. 1 OB
Shaw SL-118-5
Shaw SL-118-5 CD **
Salem No. 2
Salem No. 2 OB
RT 5-2 -
RT 5-2 OB
Phifers No. 1
Phifers No. 1 OB
Isle No. 1
Isle No. 1 OB
fi^nns-?;
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
4.3
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
#
#
0.0
0.0
#
#
#
#
3.2
3.2
#
After Standard
closure deviation
A B
4.3
24.7
NF+
96.0
166.2
123.5
7. It
6.4
3.5
49.6
NF
24.8
0.0
#
0.0
57.0
0.0
0.0
NF
132.4
16.5
15.5
f
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
3.3
3.3
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.4
0.3
0.3
#
#
0.0
0.0
#
#
#
5.1
5.1
#
Number
observ.
B
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
8
8
26
26
0
0
3
3
0
0
22
22
0
Standard
deviation
A
4.4
27.3
NF
95.7
26.2
151.9
§
.4
5.0
35.0
NF
§
§
42.5
0.0
s
3
NF
§
S
9.4
13.0
#
Number
observ.
A
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
7
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
2
7
0
* Samples taken from observation borings.
+ No flow. £1 observed in October 1975.
t Observation value for March iy/°>
§ No calculations made.
# No data available. nnenines.
** Combined drainage from several mine openings.
123
-------
TABLE D-6. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF SULFATE .CONCENTRATIONS AND
STANDARD DEVIATIONS; DOUBLE BULKHEAD-SEALED MINES
Mine name
Sulfate (mg/1) :
Argentine
Argentine OB*
Before
closure
B
248
248
Keystone No. 6 381
Keystone No. 6 OB 381
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Keystone No. 19
Hilliard
Hilliard OB
Lindey No. 1
Lindey No. 1 OB
Shaw SL-118-5
Shaw SL-118^5 CD
Salem No. 2
Salem No. 2 OB
RT 5-2
RT 5-2 OB
Phifers No. 1
80
OB 80
364
OB 364
#
#
#
#
2915
**2492
1176
1176
660
660
109
Phifers No. 1 OB 109
Isle No. 1
Isle No. 1 OB
62008-5
#
#
4160
After
closure
A
114
569
NF
133
271
157
30t
159
238
10
#
9
1580
1657
610
74
568
1438
NF
48
71
40
3610
Standard
deviation
B
60
60
139
139
45
45
66
66
#
#
#
#
1274
1037
533
533
439
439
36
36
#
#
§
Number
observ.
B
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
0
0
0
0
3
72
35
35
92
92
3
3
0
0
1
Standard
deviation
A
36
679
NF
155
44
201
§
93
86
2
#
§
297
434
127
24
311
708
NF
§
25
13
§
Number
observ.
A
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
0
1
5
15
2
3
3
32
1
1
2
3
1
* Samples taken from observation borings.
+ No flow.
t Observation value for March 1976; no flow observed in October 1975.
§ No calculations made.
# No data available.
** Combined drainage from several mine openings.
124
-------
TABLE D-7. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF TOTAL IRON CONCENTRATIONS AND
Before
closure
Mine name B
Total Iron (mg/1):
Argentine
Argentine OB*
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 6 OB
Keystone No. 10
Keystone Nc . 10 OB
Keystone No. 19
Keystone No. 19 OB
Milliard
Milliard OB
Lindey No. 1
Lindey No. 1 OB
Shaw SL-118-5
Shaw SL-118-5 CD#
Salem No. 2
Salem No. 2 OB
RT 5-2
RT 5-2 OB
Phifers No. 1
Phifers No. 1 OB
Isle No. 1
Isle No. 1 OB
62008-5
26
26
5
5
2
2
2
2
4
4
20
20
459
189
94
94
212
212
14
14
12
12
600
After
closure
A
18
24
NF
17
14
16
2t
O
17
34
NF
19
298
72
48
29
124
502
NF
10
6
20
716
Standard Number
deviation observ.
B B
7
7
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
13
13
197
73
69
69
86
86
9
9
7
7
§
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
8
8
26
26
103
72
35
35
67
67
3
3
22
22
1
Standard Number
deviation observ.
A A
13
23
NF
3
16
2
§
2
15
28
NF
§
59
26
44
39
74
200
NF
§
3
20
§
3
2
2
2
O
Z,
2
1
2
2
7
1
1
5
15
2
3
3
29
1
1
2
7
1
* Samples taken from observation borings.
No flow.
t Observation value for March 1976; no flow observed in October 1975.
§ No calculations made.
# Combined drainage from several mine openings.
125
-------
TABLE D-8. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF POLLUTANT OUTPUTS AND
STANDARD DEVIATIONS; DOUBLE BULKHEAD-SEALED MINES
Before
closure
Mine name B
Acidity (kg/day) :
Argentine
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Milliard
Lindey No. 1
Shaw SL-118-5
Shaw SL-118-5 CD
Salem No. 2
RT 5-2
Isle No. 1
62008-5
68.9
46.2
0.3
4.0
.9
11.4
t
t
162.3
365.8
0.9
30.9
After
closure
A
13.3
NF*
1.2
.1
2.7
NF
185.1
856.5
3.5
87.1
.4
1.2
Standard
deviation
B
17.2
30.7
0.3
5.0
1.2
4.4
t
t
136.1
465.7
.7
+
Number
observ.
B
12
12
11
11
8
26
0
0
23
54
22
1
Standard Number
deviation observ.
A A
11.5 2
NF 2
.9 2
+ 1
3.1 2
NF 1
+ 1
+ 1
3.0 2
14.0 3
.3 2
-i- 1
Alkalinity (kg/day) ;
Argentine
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Milliard
Lindey No. 1
Shaw SL-118-5
Shaw SL-118-5 CD
Salem No. 2
RT5-2
Isle No. 1
62008-5
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
t
t
t
t
0.1
t
0.2
NF
26.6
0.1
0.3
NF
0.0
t
0.0
0.0
0.4
t
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
t
t
t
t
0.2
t
12
12
11
11
8
26
0
0
0
0
22
0
0.3 2
NF 2
6.8 2
+ 1
0.3 2
NF 1
+ 1
t 0
+ 1
0.0 2
0.2 2
t 0
* No flow.
+ No calculations made.
t No data available.
§ Combined drainage from several mine openings.
126
-------
TABLE D-9. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF POLLUTANT OUTPUTS AND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS; DOUBLE BULKHEAD-SEALED MINES
Before After Standard
closure closure deviation
Mine name B A B
Sulfate (kg/day) :
Argentine 244.8
Keystone No. 6 171.3
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Hilliard
Lindey No. 1
Shaw SL-118-5
Shaw SL-118-CD§
Salem No. 2
RT 5-2
Isle No. 1
6.2008-5
Total Iron (kg/day)
Argentine
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Hilliard
Lindey No. 1
Shaw SL-118-5
Shaw SL-118-5 CD§
Salem No. 2
RT 5-2
Isle No. 1
62008-5
1.5
12.4
t
t
t
t
401.4
472.1
t
56.9
26.7
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
t
t
33.6
125.8
0.3
8.2
« ^ "
167.7
NF*
46.4
0.0
10.6
NF
277.7
2371.9
6.6
70.4
1.9
4.1
4.7
NF
2.9
0.0
0.9
NF
67.8
163.5
0.6
16.0
0.1
0.8
~
63.9
122.9
1.5
10.9
t
+
t
t
320.0
530.8
t
+
10.9
1.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.7
t
t
33.4
185.3
0.3
+
-
Number
observ.
B
12
12
11
11
0
0
0
0
23
54
0
1
12
12
11
11
26
0
0
23 i
53
22
i
i
__
Standard Number
deviation observ.
A A
222.3 2
NF 2
25.6 2
4 1
13.6 2
NF 1
+ 1
+ 1
6.2 2
43.4 3
1.3 2
4 1
2.9 2
NF 2
_ M *)
3.7 2
i
4 i
13 2
i »*
_ __ T
NF 1
. i
4 J-
i
4 J-
00 7
.8 ^
1 A A "^
10.4 ->
n i 7
0.1 '
4 1
_ '
* No flow.
+ No calculations made.
t No data available.
§ Combined drainage from
several mine openings.
127
-------
TABLE D-10. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF ACIDITY AND ALKALINITY
CONCENTRATIONS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS; SINGLE BULKHEAD -
SEALED MINES
Before
closure
Mine name B
Acidity (mg/1) :
62008-4 1170
Decker No. 5 +
Woolridge No . 1 +
Bullrock Run 10
Buckingham +
Price No. 2 +
Ellisonville +
Piney Fork +
Florence +
Rattlesnake Creek 120
Rattlesnake
Creek CD§ +
Rattlesnake Creek 7
40-016 350
Alkalinity (mg/1) :
62008-4 0
Decker No. 5 +
Woolridge No. 1 +
Bullrock Run 225
Buckingham +
Price No. 2 +
Ellisonville +
Piney Fork +
Florence +
Rattlesnake Creek 0
Rattlesnake
Creek CD§ +
Rattlesnake Creek 11
40-016 *
After
closure
A
446
105
305
27
NF§
NF
1221
2
268
65
211
6
170
58
0
+
309
NF
NF
0
568
507
0
0
11
40
Standard Number
deviation observ.
B B
* 1
+ 0
+ 0
* 1
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
37 6
+ 0
3 8
* 1
* 1
+ 0
+ 0
* 1
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
0 3
-i- 0
6 8
* 0
Standard
deviation
A
421
65
*
*
NF
NF
*
+
*
*
52
5
143
59
0
+
17
NF
NF
+
+
*
*
0
6
39
Number
observ.
A
4
3
1
2
2
2
1
0
1
1
9
9
56
3
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
7
9
56
* No calculations made.
+ No data available.
t No flow.
§ Combined drainage from several mine openings.
128
-------
TABLE D-ll. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF SULFATE AND TOTAL IRON
CONCENTRATIONS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS; SINGLE BULKHEAD -
SEALED MINES
Before
closure
Mine name B
Sulfate (mg/1) :
62008-4 3016
Decker No. 5 +
Woolridge No. 1 +
Bullrock Run 206
Buckingham +
Price No. 2 +
Ellisonville +
Piney Fork +
Florence +
Rattlesnake Creek 252
Rattlesnake
Creek CD§ +
Rattlesnake Creek 62
40-016 +
Total Iron (mg/1) :
62008-4 246
Decker No. 5 +
Woolridge No. 1 +
Bullrock Run 16
Buckingham +
Price No. 2 +
Ellisonville +
Piney Fork +
Florence +
Rattlesnake Creek 7
Rattlesnake
Creek CD +
Rattlesnake Creek 1
40-016 160
After
closure
A
2433
247
540
224
NFt
NF
1020
270
3050
243
677
170
1560
231
19
28
1
NF
NF
150
, 1
227
8
38
1
99
Standard Number
deviation observ.
B B
* 1
+ 0
+ 0
4- 1
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
155 6
+ 0
56 8
* 1
* 1
+ 0
+ 0
* 1
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
1 3
+ 0
1 7
* 1
Standard
deviation
A
571
151
*
76
*
*
*
+
*
*
239
142
213
167
17
*
NF
\TC
NF
*
*
c c
55
42
Number
observ.
A
3
3
1
2
2
2
1
0
1
1
9
9
54
3
3
1
2
1
0
i
i
56
* No calculations made.
+ No data available.
t No flow.
§ Combined drainage from several mine openings.
129
-------
TABLE D-12. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF ACIDITY AND ALKALINITY OUTPUTS
AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS; SINGLE BULKHEAD-SEALED MINES
Before
closure
Mine name B
Acidity (kg/day) :
62008-4 18.5
Decker No. 5 +
Woolridge No. 1 +
Dullrock Run +
Buckingham +
Price No. 2 +
Ellisonville *
Piney Fork +
Forence +
Rattlesnake Creek 289.1
Rattlesnake
Creek CD§ +
40-016 71.0
Alkalinity (kg/day) :
62008-4 0.0
Decker No. 5 +
Woolridge No. 1 +
Bullrock Run +
Buckingham +
Price No. 2 +
Ellisonville +
Piney Fork +
Rattlesnake Creek 0,0
Rattlesnake
Creek CD +
40-016 +
After
closure
A
30.1
1.5
3.5
0.2
NFt
NF
26.3
+
268
+
57.443
2.879
9.7
OvO
+
3.101
NF
NF
+
507.8
+
0.0
0.5
Standard Number
deviation observ,
B B
* 1
+ 0
-i- 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
186.7 6
+ 0
* 1
* 1
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
0 3
+ 0
+ 0
Standard
deviation
A
12.8
1.7
*
0.1
NF
NF
*
+
*
+
22.0
2.6
*
*
+
0.4
NF
+
+
*
+
0.0
0.5
Number
observ.
A
3
2
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
8
54
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
7
52
* No calculations made.
+ No data available.
t No flow.
§ Combined drainage from several mine openings.
130
-------
TABLE D-13. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF SULFATE AND TOTAL IRON LOADS
AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS; SINGLE BULKHEAD-SEALED MINES
Before
closure
Mine name B
Sulfate (kg/day) :
62008-4 47.7
Decker No. 5 +
Woolridge No. 1 +
Bullrock Run +
Buckingham +
Price No. 2 +
Ellisonville +
Piney Fork +
Florence +
Rattlesnake Creek 724.3
Rattlesnake
Creek CD§ +
40-016 +
Total Iron (kg/day) :
62008-4 3.8
Decker No. 5 +
Woolridge No. 1 +
Bullrock Run +
Buckingham +
Price No. 2 +
Ellisonville +
Piney Fork +
Florence +
Rattlesnake Creek 19.4
Rattlesnake
Creek CD +
40-016 32.4
* No calculations made.
+ No data available.
After Standard
closure deviation
A B
150.9 *
3.7 +
6.2 +
2.3 +
NF t +
NF +
22.0 +
+ +
1993.9 +
+ 547.4
194.5 +
26.6 +
13.1 *
0.3 +
0.3 +
0.1 +
NF +
NF +
3.2 +
+ +
148.7 +
+ 12.1
10.8 +
"IT 4t
1.7 *
Number
observ
B
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
V
0
3
0
1
X
t No flow.
§ Combined drainage from
Standard
deviation
A
61.0
2.7
*
1.2
*
*
*
+
*
+
91.8
17.1
11.5
0.4
*
0.1
*
*
*
+
*
+
16.3
1.8
several mine
Number
observ.
A
3
2
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
8
53
3
2
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
7
53
openings .
131
-------
TABLE D-14. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS; PERMEABLE (LIMESTONE) BULKHEAD-
SEALED MINES
Mine name
Acidity (mg/1):
62008-3
Stewartstown
Stewartstown OB
RT 5-2A
RT 5-2A OB*
Alkalinity (mg/1)
62008-3
Stewartstown
Stewartstown OB
RT 5-2A
RT 5-2A OB
Sulfate (mg/1) :
62008-3
Stewartstown
Stewartstown OB
RT 5-2A
RT 5-2A OB
Total Iron (mg/1)
62008-3
Stewartstown
Stewartstown OB
RT 5-2A
RT 5-2A OB
Before
closure
B
200
595
595
683
683
0
+
+
+
+
2220
1316
1316
660
660
:
55
117
117
212
212
After
closure
A
111
224
627
107
1093
234
205
463
15
0
2441
1208
2007
887
1543
45
42
214
160
482
Standard
deviation
B
141
359
359
160
160
0
+
+
+
+
749
494
494
439
439
27
68
68
86
86
Number
observ.
B
2
13
13
68
68
2
0
0
0
0
2
13
13
92
92
2
13
13
67
67
Standard
deviation
A
104
240
640
215
399
48
143
681
34
*
255
590
882
362
701
53
52
186
115
199
Number
observ.
A
17
20
6
42
22
17
10
3
'5
1
16
20
6
42
24
16
20
6
42
22
* Samples taken from observation borings.
+ No data available.
t No calculations made.
132
-------
TABLE D-15. PRE- AND POST-CLOSURE MEANS OF POLLUTANT OUTPUTS AND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS; PERMEABLE (LIMESTONE) BULKHEAD-SEALED MINES
Before
closure
Mine name B
Acidity (kg/day) :
62008-3 1.5
Stewartstown 22.0
RT 5-2A 365.8
Alkalinity (kg/day) :
62008-3 0.0
Stewartstown +
RT 5-2A +
Sulfate (kg/day) :
62008-3 26.7
Stewartstown 51.4
RT 5-2A 472.1
Total Iron (kg/day) :
62008-3 0.5
Stewartstown 4.2
RT 5-2A 125.8
After
closure
A
1.8
2.3
2.9
3.8
2.2
2.1
37.8
10.6
18.0
0.7
0.4
2.8
Standard
deviation
B
*
13.3
465.7
*
+
+
*
15.9
70.4
*
2.2
185.3
Number
observ.
B
1
13
54
1
0
0
1
13
54
1
13
53
Standard
deviation
A
1.5
1.5
8.2
2.2
3.2
4.7
11.6
9.0
15.7
0.7
0.2
1.7
Number
observ.
A
16
6
41
16
2
5
16
6
41
16
6
41
* No calculations made.
+ No data available.
133
-------
APPENDIX E. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND OUTPUTS
TABLE E-l. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR ACIDITY CONCENTRATION
Mine name
Decker No. 3
RT 9-11
Big Knob No. 1
Big Knob No. 2
Savage
Argentine
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Isle No. 1
Lindey No. 1
RT 5-2
Salem No. 2
SL-118-5 Shaw Complex
Stewartstown
62008-3
RT 5-2A
40-016
14-04 2A
Oilman
Imperial Colliery No. 9
Before closure
Regression Standard
coefficient error
-108.2*
-17.96+
-25.53t
-12.77t
-5.38
28 . 10+
101.17*
-8.27t
-10.42
-3.03
-206.32*
.08
-22.99+
126.38*
103.73
§
.08
§
§
-225.41*
§
7.56
12.08
27.17
14.19
8.11
6.53
27.71
8.90
32.86
16.18
117.25
.75
13.81
52.18
586.69
§
10.35
§
§
33.51
§
Degree of
freedom
864
48
31
32
30
9
9
9
8
19
23
87
32
93
12
§
87
§
§
87
§
After closure
Regression Standard
coefficient error
-75.84*
-24.70t
-12.44
-7.77
-1.27t
//
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
-14.66
-179.13+
-4.91
2.77
-21.96*
-443.41*
§
-80.51
1.38
3.83
4.65
3.14
.52
t
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
54.64
137.65
12.53
19.74
11.82
70.62
§
27.88
Degree of
freedom
642
107
26
26
25
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
10
16
15
32
53
49
§
10
* Significant at 0.05.
+ Significant at 0.10.
t Significant at 0.20.
# Essentially constant.
§ Less than three observations.
-------
TABLE E-2. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR ACIDITY OUTPUT
01
tn
Mine name
Decker No. 3
RT 9-11
Big Knob No. 1
Big Knob No. 2
Savage
Argentine
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Isle No. 1
Lindey No. 1
RT 5-2
Salem No. 2
SL-118-5 Shaw Complex
Stewartstown
62008-3
RT 5-2A
40-016
14-042A
Oilman
Imperial Colliery No. 9
Before closure
Regression Standard
coefficient error
-277.08*
5.82
.06
.30
-.85
§
§
§
§
-1.30*
-4 . Olt
44.36+
-7.93
§
12.12
§
44.36*
§
§
-373.90*
§
28.60
5.50
.64
.60
.81
§
§
§
§
.51
3.34
26.64
12.88
§
27.61
§
26.64
§
§
86.93
§
Degree of
freedom
864
48
31
32
30
§
§
§
§
19
23
87
32
§
10
§
87
§
§
87
§
After closure
Regression Standard
coefficient error
-34.29*
-5.28*
-.02
-.02
-.02
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
-.63
-.16t
.05
§
-1.87+
§
§
5.17
1.49
.23
.12
.08
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
.85
.20
.32
§
1.23
§
§
Degree of
freedom
642
107
26
26
25
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
18
15
32
§
49
§
§
* Significant at 0.05.
§ Less than three observations.
t Significant at 0.20.
+ Significant at 0.10.
-------
TABLE E-3. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR TOTAL IRON CONCENTRATION
Mine name
Decker No. 3
RT 9-11
Big Knob No. 1
Big Knob No. 2
Savage
Argentine
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Isle No. 1
Lindey No. 1
RT 5-2
Salem No. 2
SL-118-5 Shaw Complex
Stewartstown
62008-3
RT 5-2A
40-016
14-042A
Oilman
Imperial Colliery No. 9
Before closure
Regression Standard
coefficient error
-29.29*
3.36t
-8.75+
-13.22*
.98
-.32
7.73*
-3.45*
3.63*
3.86
35.97*
8.79+
-5.77t
-32.61+
-26.27
§
8.79*
§
§
-58.04*
§
3.30
1.18
1.43
11.10
.31
7.97
3.66
1.21
1.64
5.93
7.42
5.33
6.52
19.93
115.59
§
5.33
§
§
7.03
§
Degree of
freedom
864
48
31
32
30
9
9
9
8
19
23
87
32
93
12
§
87
§
§
87
§
After closure
Regression Standard
coefficient error
-24.35*
-2.22t
-1.93
-.49*
.21*
-40.89t
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
-22.01
-29.33t
.08
6.64
-5.75*
-82.18*
§
-2.53*
1.13
2.85
1.08
.24
.07
23.52
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
45.75
29.57
2.63
48.00
3.41
20.16
§
1.16
Degree of
freedom
642
107
26
26
25
1
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
10
16
15
32
53
49
§
10
* Significant at 0.05.
t Significant at 0.20.
+ Significant at 0.10.
§ Less than three observations.
-------
TABLE E-4. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR TOTAL IRON OUTPUT
Mine name
Decker No. 3
RT 9-11
Big Knob No. 1
Big Knob No. 2
Savage
Argentine
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Isle No. 1
Lindey No. 1
RT 5-2
Salem No. 2
SL-118-5 Shaw Complex
Stewartstown
62008-3
RT 5-2A
40-016
14-042A
Oilman
Imperial Colliery No. 9
Before closure
Regression Standard
coefficient error
-88.50*
.87+
.02*
-.10
.05+
i
§
§
§
-.19
1.92*
17.71*
-1.98
§
.03
§
17.71*
§
§
-63.54*
§
9.53
.93
.03
.17
.04
§
§
§
§
.26
.40
10.36
3.17
§
.05
§
10.36
§
§
12.90
§
Degree of
freedom
864
48
31
32
30
§
§
§
§
19
23
87
32
§
10
§
87
§
§
87
§
After closure
Regression Standard
coefficient error
-11.70*
-.96*
-.03*
-.003
.07*
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
-.10
.01
.11
§
-.34+
§
§
1.77
.42
.03
.01
.02
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
.16
.05
.70
§
.25
§
§
Degree of
freedom
642
107
26
26
25
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
18
15
32
§
49
§
§
* Significant at 0.05.
+ Significant at 0.10.
§ Less than three observations.
-------
TABLE E-5. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR SULFATE CONCENTRATION
oo
Mine name
Decker No. 3
RT 9-11
Big Knob No. 1
Big Knob No. 2
Savage
Argentine
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Isle No. 1
Lindey No. 1
RT 5-2
Salem No. 2
SL-118-5 Shaw Complex
Stewartstown
62008-3
RT 5-2A
40-016
14-042A
Gilman
Imperial Colliery No. 9
Before closure
Regression Standard
coefficient error
-150.08*
90.65*
-59.58*
-47.42f
6.18
103.66*
320.07*
-11.54
124.10+
#
#
74.81*
-123.40
-289.46*
645.60
§
74.81*
§
§
-32.07
§
14.75
82.90
47.57
22.27
10.95
54.60
107.29
48.38
69.51
#
#
27.12
46.02
127.58
771.27
§
27.12
§
§
63.13
§
Degree of
freedom
864
48
31
32
30
9
9
9
8
§
§
87
22
93
12
§
87
§
§
87
§
After closure
Regression Standard
coefficient error
-176.10*
-86.77f
-42.01
-20.78
-2.68f
113. lit
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
-164.00
-473. 98t
-55.10
13.85
44.91*
-530.56*
§
-164.24*
6.84
65.05
15.63
7.99
1.72
57.47
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
221.19
341.61
28.69
150.95
17.05
86.75
§
35.69
Degree of
freedom
642
107
26
26
25
1
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
10
16
15
32
53
49
§
10
* Significant at 0.05.
t Significant at 0.20.
§ Less than three observations.
f Significant at 0.10.
-------
TABLE E-6. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR SULFATE OUTPUT
(si
<£>
Mine name
Decker No. 3
RT 9-11
Big Knob No. 1
Big Knob No. 2
Savage
Argentine
Keystone No. 6
Keystone No. 10
Keystone No. 19
Isle No. 1
Lindey No. 1
RT 5-2
Salem No. 2
SL-118-5 Shaw Complex
Stewartstown
62008-3
RT 5-2A
40-016
14-042A
Oilman
Imperial Colliery No. 9
Before closure
Regression Standard
coefficient error
-527.10*
8.65
3.95*
2.35*
2.54*
§
§
§
§
#
#
56.28*
-19.59
§
11.53
§
56.28*
§
§
-430.77*
§
64.94
7.86
1.18
.95
1.03
§
§
§
§
#
ff
30.95
30.26
§
33.08
§
30.95
§
§
131.20
§
Degree of
freedom
864
48
31
32
30
§
§
§
§
§
§
87
32
§
10
§
87
§
§
87
§
After closure
Regression Standard
coefficient error
-79.01*
-10.66*
-.lit
.10
.61*
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
-10.73*
-.26+
.08
§
-2.42
§
§
13.64
3.29
.48
.24
.27
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
4.17
.18
2.09
§
1.48
§
§
Degree of
freedom
642
107
26
25
25
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
18
15
32
§
49
§
§
* Significant at 0.05.
t Significant at 0.20.
§ Less than three observations.
# Essentially constant.
+ Significant at 0.10.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-77-083
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
iong-Term Environmental Effectiveness of Close Down
Procedures - Eastern Underground Coal Mines
5. REPORT DATE
August 1977 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
M. F. Bucek and J. L. Emel
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
HRB-Singer, Inc.
P. 0. Box 60
Science Park, State College, PA 16801
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE 623
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2216
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab.
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati. OH 45268
- Gin., OH
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The objective of the research project was to prepare an up-to-date document
on deep mine closures that have been or are planned to be implemented in the eastern
coal mining regions. The project was also to provide an initial overview of the
effectiveness of the closure methods and the factors to which their effectiveness
can be attributed. The effectiveness was evaluated in terms of a closure effect on
mine drainage quality and quantity.
The trend analyses of the pollutant concentrations and outputs for the pre-
and post-closure periods show that the closures for more than half of the sites
reversed or reduced increasing pollutant trends, augmented the already decreasing
trends, and reduced variability in fluctuations of the water quality. The effective-
ness of the mine closures with respect to the mine effluent quality by comparison with
the preliminary mine effluent guidelines was observed to be usually less than 50
percent effective. The degree of closure effectiveness with respect to the mine water
quality improvement was found to be predominantly determined by the physical and mining
framework of the sites and less by the closure technology.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Mines
Drainage
Effluent
Coal Mining
Reclamation
Water Quality
Water Pollution Treatment
Eastern U. S. Coal Mines,
Mine Closures, Mine
Effluent Guidelines
13/B
13/M
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to the public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
21. NO. OF PAGES
152
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
140
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE! 1977- 757-056 /6498
-------
|