EPA-600/2-76-111
June 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
EVALUATION OF
SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION TECHNIQUES
Campbell's Run Watershed, Pennsylvania
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-111
June 1976
EVALUATION OF
SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION TECHNIQUES
Campbell's Run Watershed
Pennsylvania
by
Murray T. Dougherty
and
Hans H. Holzen
A. C. Ackenheil § Associates, Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15216
Grant No. 14010 GCM
Project Officer
Ronald D. Hill
Resource Extraction and Handling Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, and
used, these operations usually pollute our environment. The resultant
air, land, solid waste and other pollutants may adversely impact our
aesthetic and physical well-being. Protection of our environment
requires that we recognize and understand the complex environmental
impacts of these operations and that corrective approaches be applied.
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
assesses the environmental, social and economic impacts of industrial
and energy-related activities and identifies, evaluates, develops and
demonstrates alternatives for the protection of the environment.
This report is a product of the above efforts. It describes a
study performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of surface mine
reclamation upon water quality in streams receiving mine drainage from
abandoned underground mines. The results of the study indicated a
43 percent decrease in acid load in the stream. However, this improve-
ment could not be directly attributed to the surface reclamation projects
because of residential, commercial, and interstate construction in the
study area.
The recommendations have many worthwhile suggestions for those
individuals attempting to monitor the effectiveness of reclamation
projects. In addition, this report should be of value to state and
federal agencies conducting coal mine reclamation projects.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111
-------
ABSTRACT
A study was performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of surface recla-
mation of strip mined land upon water quality in streams receiving mine
drainage pollution from abandoned underground mines. The water quality
was monitored-in three phases, prior to the surface reclamation, during
reclamation, and after reclamation. The results were then evaluated to
determine any improvement in water quality resulting from the construction
of the abatement facilities.
Fifty-two acres (21 hectares) of abandoned strip mined land were regraded
and revegetated to reduce infiltration to the spoil zone and to the deep
mine complex. The reclamation was completed at a cost of $131,650. The
results of the collection and sampling of stream samples over a three year
period indicated that the pH and acidity of Campbell's Run had improved
and that the acid load had decreased 43% at the mouth of Campbell's Run.
However, this improvement could not be directly attributed to the surface
reclamation projects. The improvement was determined to be more directly
related to the construction of residential and commercial establishments,
to the construction of U. S. Interstate 79, and to natural fluctuations
in mine pool levels and runoff rates.
This report was submitted by the Department of Environmental Resources,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in fulfillment of Grant Number 14010 GCM
under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This
report of work, subcontracted to A. C. Ackenheil § Associates, Inc.,
covers the period November 1970 through October 1975, and work was
completed as of October 1975.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
• • •
FOREWORD • X11
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • ix
CHAPTER
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 2
III INTRODUCTION 3
Location 3
Topography and Surface Drainage 3
Geology. 3
Mining History 6
IV PURPOSE AND SCOPE 8
Reclamation Projects 8
Study Methods 14
V DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 18
Presentation of Data I8
Effectiveness of the Project 21
Factors Influencing Water Quality 23
REFERENCES 26
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
PAGE
APPENDIX A 27
Summary of Laboratory Testing Procedures
Appendix B 28
Laboratory Analysis and Material Load Summary
VI
-------
TABLE NO.
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Average Water Quality Characteristics Of
Major Acid Mine Drainage Discharges . .
II Schedule of Total Quantities And Prices 14
For Reclamation Areas
Ill Sampling Schedule • • 15
IV Acid Load Production Rates 22
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. PAGE
1 Location Map 4
2 Generalized Geologic Section 5
3 Deep Mine Map 7
4 Major Acid Mine Drainage Discharges 9
5 Reclamation Areas . 11
6 Relationship of Work Areas to Deep Mines . . 12
7 Stream Monitoring Stations 16
8 Water Quality Data - Station 5 19
9 Summary of Stream Flow, Groundwater and 20
Precipitation
10 Recent Construction, 1970-1975 24
Vlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. John Demchalk, Department of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, served as Project Director during this project.
All technical and administrative assistance received during this project,
especially that of Messers. Ronald D. Hill and Elmore C. Grim of the
Environmental Protection Agency, is gratefully acknowledged.
-------
I. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available data, pH, net acid concentration and net acid load
have improved throughout the Campbell's Run Watershed since the construc-
tion of acid mine drainage abatement facilities designated as Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources (DER)
Project SL 102-3-6.
The net acid load of Campbell's Run at the confluence with Chartiers
Creek has decreased from 13,945 Ibs/day to 8,009 Ibs/day or a 43% improve-
ment from 1971 to 1975.
The Campbell's Run Watershed has undergone extensive urban land develop-
ment from 1970 to the present day. This development, plus the construc-
tion of U. S. Interstate 79 has altered the surface and subsurface drainage
characteristics of the area.
The results of the sampling data indicate that a causal relationship
between the strip mine reclamation areas and the improvement in the
stream water quality of the Campbell's Run Watershed would require
extensive sampling far beyond the original scope of this project.
The specific effect of the strip mine reclamation upon water quality
improvement could not be accurately quantified because of the ratio
between the small drainage areas directly affected by the work areas
to the larger drainage areas contributing runoff to the stream sampling
stations.
No degradation in stream quality as a direct result of the construction
facility was observed.
The reduction in flow at monitoring Station 4 on Campbell's Run is not
totally the results of the construction of acid mine drainage facilities,
but rather related to the result of the collection and diversion of
upstream wastewater to a new treatment facility located downstream of
Station 4.
-------
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
All recommendations apply to projects which are expected to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the construction of abatement facilities upon
receiving stream quality.
Future projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of abatement
facilities upon water quality should not be conducted in an
area expected to undergo urbanization during the project.
duration.
Whenever strip mine reclamation is expected to improve
streams which receive deep mine discharges, the monitoring
project should include sampling at both the deep mine
discharge point to be affected and at the receiving stream.
Stream monitoring stations should be instituted as close as
possible to the abatement facilities and the affected
pollution discharge sources so as to eliminate extraneous
background water which reduces the accuracy of the data.
Sampling frequency should be flexible enough to provide
sufficient data that yields characteristic relationships .
between water quality and controlling factors such as
precipitation, ground water or mine pool level, temperature,
and vegetation. Samples should be collected with sufficient
frequency and of sufficient duration (namely, weekly sampling
with continuous flow measurement for one water year before
and after construction), to insure that their relationships
correlate positively and are statistically significant.
Demonstration watersheds should be as small as possible
to eliminate or keep to a minimum.confusing variables.
-------
III. INTRODUCTION
LOCATION
The Campbell's Run study area is located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
approximately five miles southwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Campbell's
Run is the northernmost major tributary to Chartiers Creek and joins
Chartiers Creek at the town of Carnegie, Pennsylvania. It is composed of
two major tributaries, both of which are severely degraded by acid mine
drainage (AMD). The southernmost fork flows through the heavily
developed area along Campbell's Run Road. The northernmost fork drains
the region in the vicinity of U. S. Route 1-79. This region is, for
the most part, sparsely populated. See Figure 1 for the location map of
the area.
TOPOGRAPHY AND SURFACE DRAINAGE
Campbell's Run is located within the Allegheny Plateaus Physiographic
Province. The valley of the main stream is U-shaped with a narrow flood
plain averaging about 500 feet (152.4 meters) in width. The gradient
of the main stream is approximately 50 feet per mile (9.5 meters per
kilometer). The tributary valleys to Campbell's Run are generally
V-shaped with steep to moderately steep valley walls and rounded hilltops.
The gradient of these streams is between 150 feet and 175 feet per mile
(28.4 meters and 33.1 meters per kilometer). The overall relief of
the watershed is approximately 500 feet (152.4 meters), rising from a
low of 775 feet (236.2 meters) where Campbell's Run enters Chartiers
Creek, to a high of approximately 1275 feet (388.6 meters) on the north
central portion of the watershed. The area has a local relief which
varies from 150 feet to 300 feet (45.7 meters to 91.4 meters).
GEOLOGY
The rocks exposed in the Campbell's Run Watershed area are all of
sedimentary origin and of Pennsylvanian age. The structure is composed
of gentle to moderately dipping strata.
The rock units exposed in the study area are divided into two groups,
the Conemaugh and the Monongahela. Figure 2 is a generalized columnar
section showing the rock units exposed in the watershed.
-------
COLLIER TWP
SOUTH F A Y E
LOCATION MAP SCALE r.».,,..
I CM « 1.23 Kllomttirt
Figure I
-------
PERMIAN
z
<
z
^
J
to
z
z
UJ
a
DUNKAR 0
MONONGAHELA
CONEMAUGH
WAYNESBURG
UNIONTOWN
PITTSBURGH
CASSELMAN
GLEN SHAW
too-
Om
100 -
500-
yy>~>^
.•••::"'~s=SE
;•. •.-.'•'•'.•: '~^.~
:;v:-A^jis=
•.'••• ••'. ^•'-•t
1 'i",T ."^H^
P¥^^
— ~-7-7r';i
". . . ' i * .,""""
rt'-'^-SS
;-V:-'£i--5::-:-sj
iv-T^J^-^a
•.•.•.JH7A^4^^
^tt
Waynesburg Coal
Benwood Limestone
Redstone Coal
Pittsburgh Cool
Morgantown Sandstone
Duquesne Coal
Ames Limestone
Pittsburgh Red Beds
GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC SECTION
Figure 2
REFERENCE (7)
-------
The Conemugh Group, the lowest unit outcropping in the watershed is
exposed only in the valleys of the main stream and its larger tributaries
The Conemaugh Group is composed of an interbedded series of sandstone,
siltstone, shale and limestone. No workable coal seams are found in
this group.
The Monongahela Group, which overlies the Conemaugh Group has been
totally eroded from the stream valleys and is now exposed only on the
hillsides and hilltops The Monongahela Group is composed of interbedded
sandstone, shale, limestone and coal. The Pittsburgh Coal seam, which
has been extensively mined throughout the study area, is located at the
base of the Monongahela Group.
The geologic structure of the Campbell's Run area is influenced by the
Ninevah Syricline whose axis is located immediately south of the water-
shed. The strata in the study area dip southeast toward the synclinal
axis. The angle of dip varies from between 10 feet per mile (1.9 meters/
kilometer) in the northern portion of the area to 90 feet per mile
(17.0 meters/kilometer) in the southern portion.**
MINING HISTORY
The Pittsburgh Coal seam has been extensively mined for years throughout
the watershed area. The seam is now in its final stages of depletion
with the only remaining recoverable reserves being pillars left in-place
from earlier mining. Mining operations in the area were done for the
most part, under shallow cover, causing localized subsidence and the
subsequent disruption of surface and subsurface drainage patterns.
Numerous mine openings were improperly sealed allowing water and air to
enter the mines compounding the effects of acid mine drainage.* The
extent of mined out areas in the Campbell's Run Watershed is shown on
Figure 3. No active strip or deep mining operations are currently in
operation within the watershed boundary, One active strip mine is in
operation immediately adjacent to, and east of, the watershed boundary.
-------
940-
Originol
• Pittsburgh Cool Outcrop
i Structure Contour At Bate
Of Pitttburgh Cool
*••••• > Watershed Boundary
o .*••* ' *"Lt
I KILOMETER
* Minid Out Arta
RCFERCNCE ( Mln.« Out Ar«M ) (t)
-------
RECLAMATION PROJECTS
IV. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Chartiers Creek Mine Drainage Pollution Abatement Project.1 published
& 1970, reported that 4 major and 28 minor AMD pollution sources entered
Campbell's Run. A major AMD source was defined as one which discharged
at least 1000 pounds (553.6 kilograms) per day of net acidity at the time
of its maximum measured discharge. The four major sources all originated
from deep mines and were found to contribute, on the average 14% of the
stream flow and 63% of the acid load of the Campbell's Run Watershed.
The locations of these four major sources are shown on Figure 4 and a
summary of their characteristics as known in 1970 is presented in Table I.
From the information provided in that report, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania planned the construction of abatement projects under Project
Number SL 102-3-4; which were designed to reduce the AMD problems in the
watershed. The original scope of these reclamation projects called for
the restoration of natural drainage through surface reclamation of strip
mined areas and for the sealing of various deep mine openings.
TABLE I.
AVERAGE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS
OF MAJOR ACID MINE DRAINAGE DISCHARGES
Major Sources (1970 Data)
6001 6002 6005 6022
Flow (gpm) 31 45 158 70
PH 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.0
Acidity (mg/1) 776 820 888 600
Iron (mg/1) 46.6 46.5 48.0 16.5
Manganese (mg/1) 3.3 6.4 5.4 2.7
Sulfate (mg/1) 1530 1790 1790 1500
Hardness (mg/1) 912 1010 1218 980
Acid Load (Ibs/day) 313 466 1810 550
Reference: (1)
-------
•z »-i
52 f
»
o
CJ
•-3
n
O
25
o
-------
Scope of Abatement Construction: The basic objectives of the
ZS^^VSSK te
J=
m the•reclamation projects were numerous. Ihey included surface reeradin
SS0115' Jac\filling of subsidence areas, the instaSatioJ of dlvSsto
ditches, earth channels, bituminous flumes and riprap, as weir as soil
'•ESTEr?* f66^ *"• VaTi°US methods> ^ a^lfeS selStJveiy
to the particular problem areas, were intended to help relieve the water
problems arising from deep and strip mining. relieve tne water
Seven work areas were designed and reclaimed in the Campbell's Run-area
and their locations are shown on;Figure 5. Their relationship to the
deep mine complex is shown on Figure 6. A total of 52 acres (21 hectares)
of .strip mined land were reclaimed which restored approximately 230 acres
£«« f f S} 2fd t0 ?°Sitive drainage- A description of the work
areas and the resultant abatement facilities is discussed below for the
seven reclamation areas.
Reclamation areas PGW-12W and PGW-12E were a portion of the
46 acres (19 hectares) of unreclaimed strip mine classified in
the Chartiers Creek Report as PGW-12. The original PGW-12 was
divided into three areas with two areas becoming PGW-12W and
PGW-12E and the remaining 24 acre (10 hectare) section was
reclaimed as a consequence of the construction of U. S. Inter-
state 79. As shown on Figure 6, PGW-12W lies updip of major
AMD discharge 6005, and PGW-12E is updip of major discharge 6002
Both reclamation areas were terraced to provide for positive
drainage. Flumes were installed on both areas to convey runoff
from the undisturbed area above the strip mine to below the
strip mine area. The regrading and flume placement plus a
vegetative cover were designed to reduce infiltration to the
regraded spoil zone and hence to major AMD discharges 6002 and
6005. An added benefit of this project and similar reclamation
projects was the neutralization of acid streams with augmented
alkaline storm runoff.
Reclamation areas PGW-15 and PGW-20 are beyond the Campbell's
Run Watershed boundary yet both strip mined areas were connected
to the underground mine complex responsible for deep mine
discharges 6001, 6002 and 6005, as shown on Figure 6. These two
reclamation areas were regraded and revegetated to reduce infil-
tration to the adjacent underground mine complex.
Work area OAK 42 consisted of regrading spoils, improving the
existing channel and backfilling subsidence areas to reduce
infiltration to the deep mine complex contributing to maior
AMD discharge 6022.
10
-------
Rt c-lomo tion Arto
Major AMD OTschorg*
• I'VJOOO1-
Icm s 36OO m«ter
-------
ts>
940
Originol Pittsburgh
Cool Outcrop
Structure Contour At BOM
Of Pittsburgh Cool
* Mintd Out Arto
I/IMILE
• Mo,or AMD Di»chorg«
• i RILOHITM
O
,*;:•., .......
-------
Work Area OAK 47 lies to the west of the Campbell's Run
Watershed. The area consisted of an unreclaimed strip mine
with ponded water in the depressions. The area lies updip of
the headwaters of Campbell's Run and was believed to be contribu-
ting to the quality of the headwaters via a deep mined area as
shown on Figure 6. The headwaters received several small AMD
seepages from this mine complex. Reclamation of OAK 47 consisted
of dewatering the ponded areas, terrace backfilling and regrading
to promote drainage away from the highwall, revegetating and
constructing an earth channel through the reclaimed area. All
of the foregoing methods were designed to minimize infiltration
to the deep mine complex which was believed to be conveying
subsurface drainage downdip to the Pittsburgh coal outcrop at the
headwaters of Campbell's Run.
Reclamation area PGW-13 lies to the west of major source 6005
and was a portion of a 17 acre (6.9 hectare) unreclaimed strip
mine associated with two minor AMD sources. (Not shown on
Figures). Seven acres (2.8 hectares) were terraced and sevegetated
to promote positive drainage and to limit infiltration to the
adjacent deep mine complex.
Demonstration Project; As an outgrowth of the planned construction of
abatement projects, a program was devised to gauge the effectiveness
of the reclamation projects in improving stream quality. The plan
of this operation was as follows:
Choose stream sampling stations in the study area originally
composed of Miller's Run and Campbell's Run Watersheds.
Obtain periodic stream samples and flow measurements for
three periods or phases; Phase I prior to construction,
Phase II during construction, and Phase III after construction.
Collect the samples and analyze them for pH, acidity, alkalinity,
total iron, manganese, aluminum, and sulfates.
Calculate the pollutant load passing the sample stations.
Evaluate all available data to determine the effect of the
reclamation projects upon stream quality.
Quantities and Costs: The seven areas were reclaimed for a total bid
price o£ $131,650 and the quantities and unit prices for all the work
areas are described in Table II.
13
-------
TABLE II.
SCHEDULE OF TOTAL QUANTITIES AND PRICES FOR RECLAMATION AREAS
Item Description
Clearing and Grubbing
Regrading
Backfill Sinkholes
Flume
Headwall or Endwall
Diversion Ditch
Riprap
Soil Treatment § Seeding
Anti- Pollution Measures
Completed
Quantity
52 Acres
148,000 C.Y;
60 C.Y.
2,160 L.F.
16
3,400 L.F.
70 S.Y.
52 Acres
Job
Unit
Price
$450.00/Ac.
Lump Sum
$ 2.50/C.Y.
$ 7.50/L.F.
$300.00/Ea.
$ .50/L.F.
$ 15.00/S.Y.
$350.00/Ac.
Lump Sum
Total
Amount
$23,400.00
$66,000.00
$ 150.00
$16,200.00
$ 4,800.00
$ 1,700.00
$ 1,050.00
$18,200.00
$ 150.00
Total Amount:
$131,650.00
Metric
Equivalents :
Acre
Cubic Yard
Lineal Foot
Square Yard
= 0.4047 Hectare
0.7646 Cubic Meter
3.048 Decimeter
0.8361 Square Meter
STUDY METHODS
Deletion of Miller's Run Area: In addition to Campbell's Run, the
demonstration project was to encompass Miller's Run, another major
Chartiers Creek tributary. Fifteen stream sampling stations were
selected, of which ten were located in Miller's Run Watershed and
the remaining five in the Campbell's Run Watershed. Samples at the
ten Miller's Run stations were collected for the preconstruction phase
of the project; however, the difficulty in obtaining the property
easements necessary for abatement construction in the Miller's Run
area prompted the postponement of the monitoring program. Finally,
the Miller's Run portion was officially deleted from the demonstration
project in June, 1974.
The reclamation projects for the Campbell's Run area were completed and
for the purposes of this report, the water monitoring program and the
subsequent evaluation of results will be limited to the Campbells Run area.
14
-------
Stations 1 Through 5, Campbell's Run; The Chartiers Creek Report1
indicated four major AMD deep mine discharges in the Campbell's Run
Watershed. The reclamation projects originally planned for Campbell's
Run were predicted to affect, either directly or indirectly, the four
major AMD sources and the resultant water quality of the receiving
streams. To monitor any improvement, five stream sampling stations,
numbered 1 through 5 were selected for Campbell's Run and its major
unnamed tributary. These five stations were sampled periodically
during the first two phases, i.e., preconstruction and during construction.
When the construction was completed in September, 1974, seven additional
stations, labeled A through G were added, resulting in a total of twelve
postconstruction gauging stations. The twelve stations are shown on
Figure 7 together with their relationship to the four major AMD discharges
and the seven reclamation areas.
Sampling Schedule: Phase I samples and discharge measurements were
obtained weekly at stations 1 through 5 for the fifteen month period,
March, 1971 through May, 1972; and once a month until October, 1972.
At this time the entire project was postponed due to delays encountered
in obtaining property easements necessary for the commencement of abate-
ment construction. Consequently, sampling activity ceased for one year and
resumed again in November, 1973 with the beginning of construction,
(Phase II). Samples were collected once per month during construction.
The post-construction monitoring (Phase III), included seven additional
stations, A through G, which were intended to provide more reliable
analysis of stream quality. The complete sampling schedule for the
project is shown in Table III. The water quality data for each of the
stations is included in Appendix B of this report.
TABLE III.
SAMPLING SCHEDULE
Phase I Phase II Phase III
Before During After
Construction Construction Construction
Stations 5/71-10/72 11/75-8/74 9/74-8/75
1-5 Once Per Week Once Per Month Twice Per Month
3/71 - 5/72
Once Per Month
6/72 - 10/72
B D,E Once Per Month
A,C,F,G Once Per Quarter
15
-------
Monitoring Station •
Major AMD Discharge
Reclamation Arto
I". 3000'
-------
Testing Procedures: All samples were analyzed in the laboratory for pH,
acidity, alkalinity, total iron, manganese and aluminum. A summary of
the testing procedures is included in Appendix A of this report. All
test results were multiplied by the corresponding discharge rates and the
resultant mean material loads were compared by months, quarters and
years to measure any changes in water quality.
Analysis of Results: For simplicity, net acid load was used as the
primary variable to determine if any change in water quality
resulted from the reclamation projects. To effectively compare
mean acid loads requires analysis of consistent data. This was
accomplished by narrowing the data to that of two corresponding
water years, September, 1971 through August, 1972, and September,
1974 through August, 1975. The data from the former of these water
years represents the base line data before construction, while the
latter water year data represents the corresponding period for one
year immediately following reclamation.
Moreover, the comparison of preconstruction water quality with
post-construction water quality necessitated isolating the
effect of the reclamation projects from natural occurrences.
This was done because natural occurrences such as precipitation,
groundwater, temperature, and degree of vegetation were much more
capable of changing water quality than were the reclamation projects.
For these reasons, the ratio of monthly mean acid load in pounds
per day to total monthly precipitation was calculated and the
results from Phase I and Phase III compared.
17
-------
V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
PRESENTATION OF DATA
Goals of Analysis: The intent of the abatement work and monitoring
program in the Campbell's Run area was to enable an evaluation of
the effectiveness of surface reclamation methods in reducing acid
mine drainage, through monitoring water quality before, during, and
after reclamation.
Analysis Considerations: Several variables which affected acid
load were" listed and studied for significance. Some of the variables
were natural phenomenon, such as rainfall, snowfall, snow melt, tempera-
ture, vegetation and groundwater levels. The other variables were man
made, such as residential and commercial construction, sanitary sewage
collection and treatment, and mine drainage abatement facilities.
Of all the above variables, stream flow was found to be the most
significant factor affecting the acid load in Campbell's Run, while
the reclamation projects were judged to be the least significant.
The reclamation areas (52 acres or 21 hectares) had only a small
affect upon water quality because:
The amount of restored surface drainage area was small
compared to the total watershed (230 acres vs. 3,600 acres
or 93 hectares vs. 1460 hectares of watershed).
Augmented storm runoff to Campbell's Run was a benefit of
only 4 of the 7 reclamation areas.
The work areas changed a very small amount of subsurface
flow when comparing their area to the area of the deep
mine complex.
Some assumptions have been made as to certain causal relationships
between variables other than the reclamation projects to acid load.
The basis for these assumptions were derived from an evaluation of
the graphs shown on Figures 8 and 9, from water quality data shown
in the Appendix, and from statistical tests of correlation between
variables. These assumptions are provided as follows:
18
-------
L E 6 E N P
PHASE I (SEPT. 1971-AUG.I9721
NET ACID LOAD Ibs/day
Metric Equivalent i
I Pound * 0.454 Kilograms
(SEPT 1974-AUG. 1975]
NET ACID CONCENTRATION mg/l
NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAT JUNE JULY AUG
K>Q
WATER QUALITY DATA STATION 5
Figure 8
19
-------
KJ
o
o
-n
3)
m
o
2)
O
c
o
n
s> 33
5o
PI 3
SI0-
2 T)
2m
* Q
* 2
-------
1. The acid concentration of mine effluents varies directly
with the depth of the mine pool.
2. When the groundwater level is higher than the yearly
average, mine water constitutes a greater proportionate
part of stream flow than during the period when ground-
water is lower than the yearly average.
3. The greatest daily fluctuations in water quality occur
in late fall and early winter when groundwater and mine
discharges are lower than normal and the lack of vegetation
promotes storm runoff.
An example of items 1 and 2 occurred in March, 1975. According to
Figure 9, groundwater was near its peak for the water year cycle and from
Appendix B, the March, 1975 samples correspond to the peak flow or near
peak flow for Stations 1 through 5. Thus, the combination of near-peak
groundwater levels (assuming near-peak mine pool levels and corresponding
higher than average acid concentration) coupled with the maximum measured
flow of March, 1975, yielded the peak monthly acid load for Phase III.
The effect of item 3 can be illustrated by water quality at Station 5 for
December, 1974. In this case groundwater (and the assumed mine pool
level) was closer to the yearly average but the December, 1974 samples
were obtained at Station 5 concurrently with the maximum monthly flow for
Phase III. The assumption is that the moderate acid concentration of the
mine effluent was effectively neutralized by higher than average watershed
runoff. In this case the neutralization capacity of the augmented
runoff was sufficient to render the water net alkaline at Station 5.
Physical changes in the study area that alter water infiltration
rates and drainage patterns, and rob water that would normally influence
acid mine drainage are variables that must be considered. Since the
study program began, several areas have been sewered, extensive
residential and commercial developments have been constructed and a
major four lane highway (1-79) with two major interchanges now
intersects the area.
Ultimately, any specific determination of water quality improvement
must be considered in the light of the highly variable conditions
which influence that quality at the time of each sample collection.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT
For the purpose of this report, conclusions were made regarding changes
and trends in water quality over the duration of the demonstration project.
As shown in Table IV, the tendency is toward the reduction in flow, which
in turn reduces acid load. More significantly, the ratio of acid load
to precipitation is also reduced while acid concentration has decreased
slightly. This estimated reduction shows a general improvement between
Phase I sampling and Phase III sampling.
21
-------
TABLE IV.
ACID LOAD PRODUCTION RATES
Average Average
Mean Net Acid Net Acid
Flow Concentration Load
(gpm) (mg/1) (Ibs/day)
Acid Load2
Production
Rate
Clbs/day/in)
Improve-
ment
STATION 1
Phase I1
Phase III
STATION 2
Phase I
Phase III
STATION 3
Phase I
Phase III
STATION 4
Phase I
Phase III
STATION 5
Phase I
Phase III
1,230
792
1,318
966
1,619
1,070
1,280
648
5,278
3,624
629
457
481
470
664
448
223
145
220
184
9,292
4,347
7,614
5,453
12,911
5,757
3,397
1,128
13,945
8,009
2,244
1,345
2,267
1,809
4,067
1,809
1,085
405
4,655
2,682
401
20%
56%
63%
42%
1Phase I data on this table applies to the months, September, 1971 -
August, 1972 inclusive
Phase III data is from September, 1974 - August, 1975 inclusive
2Acid load production rate was determined by dividing the mean monthly net
acid load by the total monthly precipitation for each month, then deter-
mining the mean for Phases I and III. Precipitation data is from the
National Climatic Center, Pittsburgh International Airport WSO.
Metric Equivalents:
Gallon
Pound
Inch
3.785 Liters
0.454 Kilograms
2.54 Centimeters
22
-------
There is a noticable difference between the concentrations of dissolved
metals from Phase 1 and Phase 3. The Phase 3 results show higher
concentrations than those of Phase 1 because Phase 1 samples were not
ingested with acid to maintain the solubility of the dissolved metals.
Metals in non-acidified samples are subject to alterations in chemical
structure due to organic material and other interfering elements and
compounds, thus yielding lower concentrations of dissolved metals.
Beginning in January, 1974, a separate sample was Collected for metal
tests and acidified in the field. This method would yield a higher
dissolved metal content than if the sample were allowed to sit before
being tested without additional acid. The practice of acidifying a
sample sto preserve the dissolved metal content was not a uniform practice
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) until 1972 in their
Cincinnati Laboratory.
FACTORS INFLUENCING WATER QUALITY
Recent Construction: Since the beginning of the Campbell's Run project,
the area has experienced a rapid growth in population and industry,
coupled with an extensive amount of new construction. In numerous cases,
this construction has come in contact with the deep mines of the area.
This quite often compounds the problem of AMD, since it allows easier
entry and exit for water from the deep mines. In the Campbell's Run
Watershed, as much as three miles of coal outcrop may have been disturbed
by new construction in the past few years. Figure 10 shows the extent
of this recent construction.
Numerous industrial and residential buildings have also been built along
the valleys in close proximity to the coal outcrop. The exact effect
of these structures on the AMD problem of the area is unknown. Any
construction activity, however, which intersects the deep mines can
be expected to change the potential of AMD pollution. The Campbell's
Run area has, in the past few years been the site of a comprehensive
sewer installation project.5 In many instances, these sewer lines
have been laid on the sites of abandoned strip mines and have cut across
lines of coal outcrop. All of the above construction features have
increased the likelihood of disturbing the surface and subsurface
drainage patterns of the area.
The section of U. S. Interstate 79 through the study area was completed
in 1973 during the period in which the demonstration project was dormant.
Interstate 79 was built through the valley of the unnamed tributary to
Campbell's Run on which are located sampling stations 1, 2 and 3 and
which receives major AMD sources 6001, 6002 and 6005. The highway
construction cut and fill limits encroached upon abandoned deep mines,
original and existing Pittsburgh coal outcrops and dissected an
unreclaimed strip mine (formerly PGW-12, See Figure 5).l The ensuing
alterations to subsurface drainage were assumed to significantly affect
the discharge rates and water quality of both the mine effluents and
the receiving tributary. One observed effect of the highway construction
was to consolidate and increase the discharge rates of major AMD sources
23
-------
NJ
— • = Sewer Lines
- Construction Ar«o
. Originol Limits Of
Pittsburgh Cool Outcrop
M - Wotershed Boundary
Scale l"=3000'
lcm= 3600 meter
-------
6002 and 6005. Ihe average discharges were noted to increase from 45 gal-
lons per minute to 91 gallons per minute for source 6002 and from 158 gal-
lons per minute to 193 gallons per minute for source 6005. To sufficiently
assess the causes of water quality changes caused by 1-79 construction
would require detailed analysis of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
design and as-built specifications, and was considered beyond the scope of
this project. Nevertheless, the highway construction project must be
considered a significant factor in evaluating the demonstration project.
25
-------
REFERENCES
1. A. C. Ackenheil § Associates, Inc., Chartiers Creek Mine Drainage
Pollution Abatement Project, SL 102, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Mines and Mineral Industries, 1970
2. Bureau of Land Protection, Division of Mine Subsidence Regula-
tion, Mine Map of Allegheny County prepared by the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, October, 1970
3. Telephone Conversation With Mr. McFarren, Chemist at the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Water Supply,
Cincinnati, Ohio on October 7, 1975.
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Local Climatological
Data/1 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1970-1975, National Weather Service
Office, Greater Pittsburgh International Airport, U. S. Department
of Commerce
5. Newell, James, Robinson Township Official, Interview on July 2, 1975.
6. U. S. Geological Survey, Groundwater Hydrograph Prepared Prom
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Observation Well AG-700
7. U. 'S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Pennsylvania,
Data from Chartiers Creek Streamflow Gauge at Grafton, Pennsylvania,
Water Years 1972-1975, and at Carnegie, Pennsylvania Water Year 1971
8. Wagner, Walter R., and Others, Geology of The Pittsburgh Area,
General Geology Report G-59, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 1970
26
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
1: Determined in the laboratory on a Beckman Chem-Mate Model 72
" meter.
Acidity: Determined in the laboratory according to Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition, 1971,
Sect ion 201, Page 37 0. All samples were titrated hot in order to
enhance oxidation and hydrolysis of acid producing components.
Alkalinity: Determined in the laboratory according to Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition,
1971, Section 102, Page 52.All samples were titrated cold.
gulfates: Determined in the laboratory according to the Hach
Turbidimetric Method in "Hach DR Colorimeter Methods Manual,"
9th Edition, 1973, Page 137. A calibration curve was generated
in order to obtain sample sulfate concentrations.
Total Iron: Determined in the laboratory according to two methods.
Initially, a Hach 1,10-Pehnanthrpline Method in "Hach DR Colorimeter
Methods Manual," 9th Edition, 1973, p. 137 was used. Later, total
iron was determined according to an atomic absorption method in
EPA "Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,"
1974, p. 78.
Manganese: Determined in the laboratory according to two methods.
Initially, a Hach Cold Periodate Oxidation Method in "Hach DR Colorimeter
Methods Manual, 9th Edition, 1973, p. 70 was used. Later, manganese was
determined according to an atomic absorption method in EPA "Manual of
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," 1974, p. 78.
Aluminum: Determined in the laboratory according to two methods.
Initially a Hach Eriochrome Cyanine R Method in "Hach DR Colorimeter
Methods Manual," 9th Edition, 1973, was used. Later, aluminum was
determined according to an atomic absorption method in EPA "Manual of
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," 1974, p. 78.
27
-------
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUWARY
The tables on the following pages summarize the water quality data
for the three phases of the Campbell's Run Demonstration Project:
Phase 1, before construction; Phase 2, during construction; and
Phase 3, after construction.
For those instances where weekly samples were collected, (refer to
Table III), only the monthly means of the weekly samples are presented.
All concentrations except pH are expressed in milligrams per liter
and material loads are expressed in pounds per day (one pound per
day equals .454 kilograms per day). Mean concentrations are arithmetic
averages except for pH which is a logarithmic average. All mean
constituent loads are the product of the mean flow and mean concentration.
28
-------
tv)
APPBvIDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUNMARY
PHASE 1 - BEFORE CONSTRUCTION
STATION NO. 1
Date
9-71
10-71
11-71
12-71
1-72
2-72
3-72
4-72
S-72
6-72
7-72
8-72
pH
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.7
2.1
2.4
Flow
(gpm)
302
109
330
461
436
4804
1919
3582
970
591
874
385
Acidity
Cone.
2307
534
443
374
331
258
434
523
576
492
694
578
Load
8367
699
1756
2071
1773
14885
10002
22499
6710
3492
7285
2673
Alkalinity Aluminum
Cone. Load Cone.
41
31
37
28
9
7
29
32
35
---- -•--- 70
— . 43
24
Load
149
41
147
155
47
404
668
1337
408
256
451
111
Sulfate
Cone.
1020
2360
940
780
700
700
780
910
830
1000
920
1170
Load
3700
3090
3720
4320
3660
40390
17980
39150
9670
7100
9660
5410
Iron
Cone.
9
4
4
18
4
2
24
22
28
10
24
30
Load
33
5
16
100
21
1-15
553
946
326
71
252
139
Manganese
Cone.
4
4 .
2
4
3
2
5
6
5
4
6
4
Load
14
5
8
22
16
115
115
258
58
28
63
19
Mean
2.5 1230
629 9292
32
473 1010 14920
15
222
59
-------
STATION NO. 1
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUWVRY
PHASE 2 - DURING CCNSTRUCTICN
Date
11-73
12-73
1-74
2-74
3-74
4-74
5-74
6-74
7-74
8-74
Mean:
pH
3.1
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.0
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.2
Flow
(gpm)
858
1092
1281
514
1145
828
878
424
424
220
766
Acidity Alkalinity Aluminum
Cone.
166
240
435
365
480
400
460
420
314
440
372
Load Cone.
1710
3148
6692
2253
6601
3978
4850
2139
1603 - —
1162
3422
Load Cone.
62
83
43
--- 36
41
44
31
21
34
.... 24
42
Load
639
1088
662
222
564
438
327
107
174
63
386
Sulfate
Cone.
670
780
1260
1000
1100
1230
1100
1140
1Q60
1060
1040
Load
6900
10230
19380
6170
15130
12230
11600
5800
5410
2800
9570
Iron
Cone.
16
13
28
24
29
25
18
19
8
5
19
Load
165
170
431
148
399
249
190
97
41
13
175.
Manganese
Cone.
4
4
7
4
4
5
6
6
6
8
.5
Load
41
52
108
25
55
50
63
31
31
21
16
-------
STATION NO. 1
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SLW/VRY
PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Date
9-74
10-74
11-74
12-74
1-75
2-75
3-75
4-75
5-75
6-75
7-75
8-75
Mean
pH
3.6
3.2
3.2
4.4
2.9
3,2
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.1
Flow
(gpm)
728
378
343
1524
935
1664
1842
672
642
440
187
156
792
Acidity Alkalinity Aluminum
Cone.
242
392
338
147
276
342
987
680
550
464
556
506
457
Load Cone.
2116
1780
1615
2690 - —
3099
6835
21894
5488
4241 — -
2452 ----
1249
948
4347
Load Cone.
24
30
20
---- 12
39
38
---- 100
49
-— 55
— -- 51
46
42
42
Load
210
136
82
220
438
759
2218
395
424
270
103
79
399
Sulfate
Cone.
820
1000
990
560
1000
950
1820
1510
1200
1110
1260
1300
1020
Load
7170
4540
4080
10250
11230
18980
40370
12190
9250
5860
2830
2440
9740
Iron
Cone.
6
10
8
8
23
23
138
68
44
38
37
18
35
Load
52
45
33
146
258
460
3061
549
339
201
83
34
333
Manganese
Cone.
5
6
6
3
4
2
2
2
5
8
8
7
5
Load
44
27
25
55
45
40
44
16
38
42
18
13
48
-------
ISJ
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUNMARY
PHASE 1 - BEFORE CONSTRUCTION
STATION NO. 2
Date
9-71
10-71^
11-71
12-71
1-72
2-72
3-72
4-72
5-72
6-72
7-72
8-72
pH
2.4
2.4
2;4
2.5
2.6
2;6
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.2
Flow
(gpm)
329
133
443
464
406
5161
2487
3402
998
654
905
439
Acidity Alkalinity Aluminum
Cone.
655
478
390
312
327
292
445
475
575
516
710
592
Load Cone.
2588
764
2075
1739 -—
1594
18099 -—
13291
19407
6892
4053
7717 - —
3121
Load Ccnc.
---^ 46
----- 36
37
24
13
.... 16
24
34
31
— - 40
48
31
Load
182
58
197
134
63
992
717
1389
372
707
522
163
Sulfate
Cone.
1050
2720
890
720
750
770
780
930
850
1000
880
1200
Load
4150
4340
4740
4010
3660
47730
23297
38000
10200
7850
9560
6330
Iron
Cone.
9
6
3
14
4
4
24
27
31
14
24
28
Load
37
10
16
78
20
248
717
1103
372
110
261
148
Manganese
Cone.
4
5
3
5
3
4
7
6
4
4
4
4
Load
16
8
16
28
15
248
.209
245
48
31
44
21
Mean: 2.4
1318
481 7614
36
570 1040 16540
10
253
63
-------
t/4
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUWARY
PHASE 2--DURING CONSTRUCTION
Date
11-73
12-73
l-:74
2-74
•3^74
4-74
5-74
6-74
7-74
8-74
PH
2.9
3.1
3.2
3;3
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.3
Flew
(gP"0
1232
726
1430
744
974
691
771
469
559
359
Aciditv Alkalinity Aluminum
Cone.
201
238
440
330
430
440
430
440
312
310
Load Cone .
2974
2075 ------
7 557 - —
2949 -----
5030
3652
3982 -----
2478
2095
1337
Load Cone.
3
1
..... 46
37
40
46
-•-•-•- 31
.... 34
40
.... 30
Load
4
9
790
331
468
382
287
192
268
129
Sulfate
Cone.
660
780
1270
1040
1130
1230
1100
1190
1060
1010
Load
9760
6800
21800
9290
13220
10200
10180
6700
7120
4350
Iron
Cone.
13
20
28
25
26
23
19
23
7
4
Load
192
174
481
223
304
191
176
130
47
17
Manganese
Cone.
4
4
8
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
Load
59
35
137
36
58
42
56
34
40
J6
Mean
3.2
796
357
3413
30
287 1050
10040
19
182
-------
STATION NO. 2
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Date
9-74
10-74
11-74
12-74
1-75
2-7S
3*75
4.-7S
5-75
6-75
7-75
8-75
pH
3.6
3.2
3.2
4.4
2.8
3.1-
2.9
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
2,8
Flow
(gpm)
831
390
388
1986
ssr
1751
2386
927
828
573
352
324
Acidity Alkalinity
Cone.
243
398
357
128
294
346
974
729
564
510
574
526
Load Cone. Load
2425
1864 ----
1664 — - ----
3053
3005 -•--•-
7276
27910
8116
5608 '
3510 — -
2427 -—
2047
Aluminum
Cone.
22
32
22
10
41
38
90
73
70
42
42
40
Load
220
150
102
238
419
799
2579
813
696
289
178
156
Sulfate
Cone.
780
990
980
530
980
960
1700
1560
1260
1100
1260
1220
Load
7780
4640
4570
12640
10020
20190
48710
17370
12530
7570
5330
4750
Iron
.Cone.
5
11
10
8
22
22
122
80
46
36
46
17
Load
50
52
47
191
225
463
3496
891
457
248
194
66
Manganese
Cone.
5
5
6
2
4
4
3
2
2
8
8
6
Load
50
23
28
48
41
84
86
22
20
55
34
23
Mean
3.1 966
470
5453
57 661
1110 12880
35
406
46
-------
On
STATION NO. 3
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
PHASE 1 - BEFORE CONSTRUCTION
Date
9-71
10-71
11-71
12-71
1-72
2-72
3-72
4-72
5-72
6-72
7-72
8-27
pH
2.3
2.2
2.1
•2!2
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.2
Flow
374
167
496
574
672
5570
2683
4882
1041
1460
1010
499
Acidity Alkalinity Aluminum
Cone.
630
578
684
520
672
414
632
795
1046
.602
718
672
Load Cone .
2830
1159 ----
4074
3585
5423
27694
20364
46612
13077
10556 •:.----
8709 ----
4027
Load Cone.
36
43
58
48
35
---- 27
36
.... 47
46
— - 80
— - 40
---- 35
Load
162
86
346
331
282
1806
1160
2756
575
1403
485
210
Sulfate
Cone.
1110
1040
1000
910
950
670
850
1130
1000
1000
950
1130
Load
4980
2086
5960
6270
7670
44820
27390
66250
12500
17530
11520
6770
Iron
Cone.
11
'5
17
30
;47
24
40
50
55
17
29
30
Load
49
10
101
207
379
1606
1289
2932
688
298
352
180
Manganese
Cone.
5
4
2
2
2
3
6
5
4
3
5
7
Load
22
8
12
14
16
201
193
293
50
53
61
42
Mean: 2.2 1619
664
12911
46
856
980 19060
30
583
78
-------
1/4
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
PHASE 2 - -DURING CONSTRUCTION
STATION NO. 3
Date
11-73
1 0 It
1.6-7 o
1-74
X /*r
2-74
ff /H
3-74
/H
47/1
•/I
57>i
~/4
67/1 "
~/4
7-74
/ /H
874
/*?
pH
2.9
2.9
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.4
Flow
(gpm)
1516
795
1409
808
1085
686
828
564
645
402
Acidity Alkalinity Aluminum
Cone.
214
300
435
365
415
450
430
460
295
338
Load Cone.
3896
2864 ----
7361'
3542
5408
3707
4276
3116
2285
1632
Load Cone.
---- 0.4 v
0.8
---- 42
32
— - 40
50
28
— - 28
40
-.--- 25
Load
7
8
711
310
521
412
278
190
310
121
Sulfate
Cone.
670
660
1290
1040
1130
1230
1020
1000
920
920
Load
12200
6300
21830
10100
14720
10130
10140
6770
7130
4440
Iron
Cone.
13
24
26
24
28
29
19
14
8
7
Load
237
229
440
233
365
239
189
95
62
34
Manganese
Cone.
4
4
8
5
6
5
5
5
5
6
Load
73
38
135
48
78
41
50
34
39
29
Mean
5.2 874
370
3884
29
304
990 10500
19
220
52
-------
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION
STATION'NO. 3
Data
9-74
10-74
11-74
12-74
1-75
2-75
3-75
4-75
5-75
6-75
7-75
8-75
PH
3.4
3.2
3.3
4.4
2.9
3.1
2.9
3.2
3.0
3.1
3.1
2.9
Flow
974
362
440
2140
972
1944
2636
1076
922
636
368
367
Acidity Alkalinity
Cone.
262
409
354
122
282
333
940
694
547
468
501
470
Load Cone. Load
3065
1778 - —
1871
3136
3292
7775
29758
8968
6057
3575 --•-
2214 ----
2072
Aluminum
Cone.
22
27
22
11
39
38
92
72
68
44
32
36
Load
257
117
116
283
455
887
2912
930
753
336
141
159
Sulfate
Cone.
780
940
940
520
980
940
1680
1320
1180
1080
1140
1120
Load
9120
4090
4970
13360
11440
21950
53180
17060
13070
8250
5038
4940
Iron
Cone.
9
42
8
9
22
23
114
66
42
34
32
17
Load
105
183
42
231
257
537
3609
853
465
260
141
75
Manganese
Cone.
5
4
5
2
3
4
2
1
2
6
8
6
Load
58
17
26
51
35
93
63
13
22
46
35
26
Mean
3.1 1070
448 5757
42
540 1050 13490
35
450
51
-------
00
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
STATION NO. 4 PHASE 1 ' BBFDRE CONSTRUCTION
Date
9-71
10-71
11-71
12-71
1-72
2-72
3-72
4-72
5-72
6-72
7-72
8-72
pH
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.2
3.2
2.8
3.4
2.8
2.9
Flow
(gpm)
568
91
284
416
376
5416
2208
2932
1190
775
735
371
Acidity
Cone. Load
196
207
177
145
192
122
264
282
303
148
330
306
1337
226
604
724
867
7936
7001
9930
4330
1378
2913
1363
Alkalinity
Cone. Load
4
12
4
4
4
41
20
260
Aluminum
Crmr" I no/1
i -
, i-< « to co o >o to o> is) o oo ro
| i-l i-l rH rH iH fH rf iH iH
75
7
51
40
45
390
345
669
214
372
159
58
Sulfate
PnnV* T«**tJ
420
1340
450
450
560
450
500
650
530
550
510
600
LjUOU
2860
1460
1540
2250
2530
29270
13260
22890
7580
5120
4500
2670
Iron
(Jonc.
1
1.6
2
9
8
2
6
5
9
4
4
8
Loaa.
6
2
6
45
36
130
159
176
129
37
35
36
Manganese
Cone.
1
3
2
2
1
1
6
3
1
1
2
4
Load
7
3
7
10
4
65
159
106
14
9
* 18
18
Mean 3.2 1280 223 3428 2 31 15 231 580 8920 5 77 2 31
-------
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION
STATION NO.
Date
11-73
12-73
1-74
2-74
3-74
4-74
5-74
6-74
7-74
8-74
Mean
pH
5.0
5.3
4.4
4.1
3.7
4.1
4.5
4.6
4.6
5.2
4.3
Flow
(gpn>)
576
595
3395
720
769
609
444
242
248
223
782
Acidity
Cone.
70
108
150
175
185
170
210
200
162
96
153
Load
484
772
6116
1513
1709
1243
1120
581
482
257
1437
Alkalinity
Cone.
26
10
....
-- - -
... -
4
13
Load
180
71
....
....
. ._ -
11
122
Aluminum
Cone.
1
1
15
20
18
18
15
12
18
9
13
Load
4
6
612
173
166
132
80
35
54
24
122
Sulfate
Cone.
420
520
680
700
700
700
680
650
590
620
630
Load
2900
3720
27720
6050
6460
5120
3626
1890
1760
1660
5920
Iron
Cone.
6
4
4
7
5
4
4
6
3
0.8
4
Load
42
29
163
60
46
29
21
17
9
2
38
Manganese
Cone.
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Load
21
21
163
17
18
15
11
6
6
5
19
-------
STATION NO. 4
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
PHASE 3 --AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Date
9-74
10-74
11-74
12-74
1-75
2-75
3-75
4-75
5-75
6-75
7-75
8-75
Mean
pH
5.1
3.9
4.8
5.9
3.8
3.7
3.1
3.7
3.?
4.5
4.1
4.2
3.8
Flow
(gpm)
558
341
264
1543
710
928
1574
604
583
338
244
92
648
Acidity
Cone.
100
188
128
20
116
176
425
256
164
90
149
119
161
Load
670
770
406
368
989
1962
8034
1857
1148
365
437
132
1253
Alkalinity
Cone.
26
6
32
2
16
Load
174
....
19
590
....
....
_ . — *
8
125
Aluminum
Cone.
6
12
8
6
20
21
50
47
42
12
16
12
21
Load
40
49
25
110
170
234
945
341
294
49
47
13
163
Sulfate
Cone.
520
700
560
340
690
660
1020
790
620
520
610
600
640
Load
3480
2870
1780
6260
5880
7360
19280
5730
4341
2110
1790
660
4Q«n
Iron
Cone.
1
2
2
2
4
5
18
7
5
6
3
2
5
Load
7
8
6
37
34
56
340
51
35
24
9
2
70
Manganese
Cone.
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
Load
13
8
6
18
17
22
38
0
0
8
6
2
'16
-------
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
PHASE 1 - BEFORE CONSTRUCTION
Date
9-71
10-71
11-71
12-71
1-72
2-72
3-72
4-72
5-72
6-72
7-72
8-72
pH
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.1
3.7
3.4
3.2
3.0
3.7
2.7
3.1
Flow
1301
876
1555
2468
3300
19162
10014
13113
3822
1895
4030
1800
Acidity
Cone.
228
141
118
147
108
112
310
279
315
198
396
334
Load
3562
1483
2204
4357
4280
25775
37282
43938
14459
4506
19166
7220
Alkalinity
Cone.
6
15
14
6
4
Load
94
158
261
238
920
Aluminum
Cone.
12
6
6
6
5
5
17
21
15
30
20
14
Load
188
63
112
178
198
1151
2044
3307
688
683
968
303
Sulfate
Cone.
600
540
530
530
540
450
600
700
580
80
640
620
Load
9370
5681
9900
15710
21400
103560
72160
110240
26620
1820
30980
13400
Iron
Cone.
0.5
0.2
0.1
4
2
1
8
10
22
1.5
8
3
Load
8
2
2
118
79
230
962
1575
1010
,34
387
65
Manganese
Cone.
3
3
2
2
4
2
8
9
3
2
2
4
Load
47
32
37
59
158
460
962
'1417
138
46
97
86
Mean
3.3 5278
224 14199
254
13
824
530 33600
317
254
-------
t-0
STATION NO. 5
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION
Date
11-73
12-73
1-74
•2-74
3-74
4-74
5-74
6-74
7-74
8-74
pH
4.8
5.2
4.4
4,2
3.6
4.1
4.5
5.4
4.7
5.1
Flow
(gpm)
4104,
3784
6681
2938
3388
3658
3270
1765
1494
1602
Acidity
Cone.
63
105
175
185
250
1§0
190
180
121
70
Load
3105
4772
14042
6528
10172
8347
7462
3816
2171
1347
Alkalinity
Cone.
30
8
....
....
....
10
1
6
Load
1479
364
._..
----
....
212
18
115
Aluminum
Cone.
i
i
18
22
25
22
15
13
5
7
Load
30
32
1444
776
1017
966
589
276
90
135
Sulfate
Cone.
550
600
710
720
820
840
760
760
640
700
Load
27110
27270
56970
25400
33360
36900
29850
16110
11480
13470
Iron
Cone.
6
5
8
8
10
7
5
7
3
1
Load
296
227
642
282
407
308
196
148
54
19
Manganese
Cone.
4
3
4
2
2
3
3
5
2
2
Load
' 197
136
321
70
81
132
118
106
36
38
Mean 4.3 3268
153 6005
11
432
13
510
710 27870
235
118
-------
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION
STATION NO. 5
Date
9-74
10-74
Ilr74
12-74
1-75
2-75
3-75
4-75
5-75
6-75
7-75
8-75
pH
5.2
4.5
4.5
6.S
4.0
3.7
3.1
3.6
3.6
4.3
3.9
4.2
Flow
(gpm)
2932
1655
1410
8616
3466
6189
7972
3324
3 213
1998
1336
1376
.. Acidity
Cone.
113
182
168
16
120
190
498
356
225
151
190
142
Load
3979
3618
2845
1656
4995
14122
47680
14212
8682
3623
3049
2347
Alkalinity
Cone.
8
2
1
39
....
.
..... . .
Load
282
40
17
4035
....
....
....
....
....
Aluminum
Cone.
10
10
9
6
21
24
57
54
51
16
18
13
Load
352
199
152
621
874
1784
5457
2156
1968
384
289
215
Sulfate
Cone.
610
710
680
350
760
750
1140
900
700
580
750
750
Load
21480
14110
11520
36220
31640
55750
109150
35930
27010
13920
12030
12390
Iron
Cone.
2
2
3
3
8
10
42
20
10
8
6
3
Load
70
40
51
310
333
743
4021
798
386
192
96
50
Manganese
Cone.
4
2
2
1
2
2
2
0
0
4
4
3
Load
141
40
34
104
83
149
192
0
0
96
64
50
Mean
3.8 3624
196 8531
12
522
24
1045
720 31340
10
435
87
-------
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
STATION NO. A - SAMPLED ONCE PERiQUARTER DURING PHASE 3
Date pH
Flow
Acidity ' Alkalinity
Cone.
Load Cone. Load
Aluminum
Cone.
Load
Sulfate
Cone.
Load
Iron
Cone.
Load
Manganese
Cone.
Load
PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION
5-74 4.3
6=-74 4.6
Mean 4.4
208
122
165
200
230
215
500 ----
337
426
21
13
17
52
19
34
1350
925
1140
3370
1355
2260
4
2
3
11
3
6
6
7
6
16
10
12
PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION
9-74 4.6
12-74 6.8
3-75 2.9
6-75 4.2
207
360
608
146
148
51
717
231
368 2 5
220 29 125
5231
405
12
4
77
20
30
17
562
35
700
560
1520
820
1740
2421
11090
1440
4
4
48
9
10
17
350
16
2
3
6
6
5
13
44
'10
Mean
3.5
330
287
1137
32
28
111
900
3570
16
63
16
-------
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
STATION NO. B - SAMPLED ONCE PER MONTH DURING PHASE 3
Acidity
Flew
Date pH (gpm) Cone. Load Cone.
Alkalinity
Aluminum Sulfate Iron Manganese
Load Gone. Load Cone. Load Cone. Load Cone. Load
on
PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION
5-74
6-74
Mean
3.5
3.6
3.5
400
193
296
330
320
PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Mean
3.3
400
1585
742
325 1155
9-74
10-74
11-74
12-74
1-75
2-75
3-75
4-75
5-75
6-75
7-75
8-75
4.2
3.3
3.6
5.0
3.2
3.2
2.9
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.2
3.0
494
218
259
524
419
817
818
357
328
211
169
188
154
375
302
83
235
327
705
602
388
330
364
423
914
982
939
522
1183
3205
6920
2581
1528
836
739
955
25
357 1715
21
16
18
34
101
37
64
168
1100
1100
5284
2550
1100 3910
12
10
11
58
23
39
1070 5116
23
106
8
7
40
17
28
12
26
18
7
31
41
72
68
61
25
26
25
71
68
56
44
156
402
707
292
240
63
53
56
760
1040
960
650
980
1020
1520
1520
1150
980
1200
1080
4510
2720
2990
4090
4930
10000
14920
6520
4530
2480
2440
2440
6
9
5
4
15
30
62
62
26
24
20
8
37
24
16
25
75
244
609
266
102
61
41
19
6
7
6
4
5
3
7
2
5
7
12
7
36
18
19
25
25
29
69
9
20
18
24
16
29
-------
ON
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUWARY
STATION NO. C - (MAJOR POLLUTION SOURCE 6005) SAMPLED ONCE PER QUARTER DURING PHASE 3
Date pH
Flow
Acidity Alkalinity Aluminum
Cone.
Load Cone.
Load Cone.
Load
Sulfate
Cone.
Load
Iron
Cone.
Load
Manganese
Cone.
Load
PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION
5-74 2.9 '
6-74 3.0
Mean 2.9
150
180
115
770
710
740
1387
682 ----
1022 ----
55
51
53
99
49
73
1410
1410
1410
2540
1360
1950
88
74
81
159
71
11.2
5
5
5
9
5
7
PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION
9-74 2.8
12-74 3.1
3-75 2.8
6-75 3.0
145
108
400
120
644
549
2236
1130
1121 ----
712 ----
10733
1628
48
40
191
56
84
39
917
81
1160
1010
3200
1750
2020
1310
15360
2520
50
48
446
180
87
62
2141
259
5
2
5
6
9
3
24
9
Mean
2.9 193
1140
2642
81
209 1780 4130
181
420
-------
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
STATION
NO. D - SAMPLED ONCE PER MONTH
Flow Acidity
Date
PHASE 2
S-74
6-74
pH. (gpm) Cone.
- DURING CONSTRUCTION
3.2 577 430
3.3 289 400
Load
2980
1388
DURING PHASE 3
Alkalinity
Cone. Load
Aluminum
Cone.
32
29
Load
222
101
Sulfate
Cone.
1100
1140
Load
7620
3960
Iron
Cone.
26
19
Manganese
Load
180
66
Cone.
7
7
Load
49
24
Mean
3.2 433
420
2184
30
156
1120
5820
22
114
PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION
9-74
10-74
11-74
12-74
1-75
2-75
3-75
4-75
5-75
6-75
7^75
.8-75
3.7
3.1
3.2
4.7
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.1
3'. 2
3.2
3.0
2.8
699
505
412
932
469
1244
1473
592
605
464
195
179
240
473
394
193
307
352
1173
844
596
535
560
472
2015
2869
1950
2160
1696
5255
20734
6001
4330
2981
1311
1015
11
Mean
3.1
647
512
3978
41
319 1200
9320
43 334
36
21
33
22
9
42
42
109
32
78
29
39
39
176
200
109
101
232
627
1927
227
567
162
91
84
760
1020
1010
620
1100
1020
2100
1800
1280
1080
1400
1250
6380
6190
5000
6940
6080
15230
37120
12800
9300
6020
3280
2690
7
14
7
8
22
30
191
95
55
36
38
18
61
85
35
90
122
448
3376
675
400
201
89
37
5
6
6
3
4
4
3
1
2
6
9
7
42
36
30
34
22
60
53
7
14
33
21
15
39
-------
oo
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUWARY
STATION NO. E - SAMPLED ONCE PER MONTH DURING PHASE 3
Date pH
Flow
(gpm)
Acidity
Cone. Load
Alkalinity
Cone.
Load
Aluminum
Cone.
Load
Sulfate
Cone.
Load
Iron
Cone. Load
PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION
5-74 3.4
6-75 3.4
52
29
560 350
470 164
39
36
24
13
1140
1190
710
410
9 8
12 4
Manganese
Cone. Loa
3
5
H
2
2
Mean 3.4 40 520
PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION
250
38
18
1160
560
11
9-74
10-74
11-74
12-74
1-75
2-75
3-75
4-75
5-75
6-75
7-75
8-75
4.3
3.3
3.1
4.7
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.6"
4.0
37
21
6
34
60
64
108
36
46
22
4
2
370
571
558
224
364
457
645
658
490
434
454
324
164
144
40
91
262
351
836
284
271
115
22
8
26
36
28
10
31
55
68
22
82
33
32
33
12
9
2
4
22
42
88
10
45
9
2
1
1010
1250
1120
750
1190
1180
1400
1400
1150
1050
1250
1150
450
315
80
310
860
910
1810
600
635
280
60
30
2
7
4
3
11
16
26
24
12
4
1.8
1.6
1
2
e
1
8
12
34
10
7
1
0
0
5
7
6
3
5
5
1
1
3
5
8
5
2
2
0
1
4
4
1
0
2
1
0
0
Mean
3.2
37
462
205
38
17
1160
520
-------
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
<£>
Date pH
Flow
feonO
Aciditv Alkalinity Aluminum
Cone.
Load Cone .
Load Cone.
Load
Sulfate
Cone.
Load
Iron
Cone.
Load
Manganese
Cone.
Load
PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION
5-74 2.8
6-74 2.8
Mean 2.8
57
37
47
820
860
840
561
382
474
54
62
58
37
28
33
1290
1490
1390
880
660
780
75
86
78
51
38
44
5
5
5
3
2
3
PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION
9-74 2.9
12-74 3.2
3-75 2.6
6-75 2.8
47
110
158
48
458
319
1551
1367
259
421
2941
793 -----
36
-.--- 21
134
62
20
28
254
36
850
560
2200
1750
480
740
4170
1010
24
26
178
156
14
34
337
90
5
2
2
4
3
3
4
2
Mean
2.8
91
924
1010
63
69
1340 1460
96
105
-------
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL LOAD SUMMARY
en
o
Date _pH
Flow
(gpm)
Acidity Alkalinity
Cone.
Load Cone. Load
Aluminum
Cone.
Load
Sulfate
Cone.
Load
Iron
Cone.
Load
PHASE 2 - DURING CONSTRUCTION
5-74 3.3
6-74 3.5
Mean 3.4
75
95
85
300
170
235
270
194
240
24
12
18
22
14
18
700
360
530
630
410
540
19
6
12
17
6
12
Manganese
Cone.
2
1
2
Load
2
1
2
PHASE 3 - AFTER CONSTRUCTION
9-74 2.8
12-74 5.8
3-75 3.0
6-75 3.8
206
156
200
80
432
46
416
190
1069
86 10 19
998
182
31
7
43
17
77
13
103
16
780
440
850
350
1930
820
2040
340
42
9
31
15
104
17
74
14
2
1
2
1
5
2
5
1
Mean
3.2
160
271
521
24
40
610
1170
24
46
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-111
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
Evaluation of Surface Mine Reclamation Techniques
Campbell's Run Watershed, Pennsylvania
5. REPORT DATE
June 1976 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
'. AUTHOR(S)
Murray T. Dougherty and Hans H. Holzen
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
A.C. Ackenheil & Associates, Inc.
1000 Banksville Road
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15216
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE 623
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Grant 14010 GCM
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final-Nov. 1970 - Oct. 197
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA - ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT ~
A study was performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of surface reclamation
of strip mined land upon water quality in streams receiving mine drainage
pollution from abandoned underground mines. The water quality was monitored in
three phases, prior to the surface reclamation, during reclamation, and after
reclamation. The results were then evaluated to determine any improvement in
water quality resulting from the construction of the abatement facilities.
Fifty-two acres (21 hectares) of abandoned strip mined land were regraded and
revegetated to reduce infiltration to the spoil zone and to the deep mine complex.
The reclamation was completed at a cost of $131,650. The results of the collection
and' sampling of stream samples over a three year period indicated that the pH and
acidity of Campbell's Run had improved and that the acid load had decreased 43% at
the mouth of Campbells Run. However, this improvement could not be directly
attributed to the surface reclamation projects. The improvement was determined
to be more directly related to the construction of residential and commercial
establishments, to the construction of U. S. Interstate 79, and to natural
fluctuations in mine pool levels and runoff rates.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Mining*
Reclamation*
Water Quality
Coal Mining
Underground Mining
Surface Mining
Acid Mine Drainage*
Pennsylvania
Campbell's Run
08H, 08G
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
61
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
51
OUSGPO: 1976 — 657-695/5446 Region 5-
------- |