&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/7-80-055
March 1980
Research and Development
Revegetation
Augmentation of
Surface Mines With
Treated Acid Mine
Drainage
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program, These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-80-055
March 1980
REVEGETATION AUGMENTATION OF SURFACE MINES WITH
TREATED ACID MINE DRAINAGE
by
Wayne A. Rosso
S.M.R. Engineering and Environmental Services
Central City, Kentucky 42330
Grant No. 14010 HNS
Project Officer
Ronald D. Hill
Resource Extraction and Handling Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
This study was conducted in
Cooperation with the
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection
and the Peabody Coal Company
Central City, Kentucky 42330
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.G. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory-Cincinnati/ U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed,
converted, and used, the pollutional impact on our environment
and even on our health often requires that new and increasingly
more efficient pollution control methods be used. The Indus-
trial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati (lERL-Ci)
assists in developing and demonstrating new and improved
methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and
economically.
A common problem of treatment of acid mine drainage is the
disposal of sludges produced by chemical treatment of the water.
This study was conducted to evaluate and test a system utilizing
treated acid mine drainage as irrigation water. This system
would have the advantage of disposal of sludge as well as
providing often needed irrigation water. The report should
be of interest to state, federal or private companies involved
with the treatment of acid mine drainage and disposal of
by-product sludges. For further information contact the Resource
Extraction and Handling Division of lERL-Ci.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This study provided a field demonstration of an earlier feasibil-
ity study. Treated acid mine drainage was utilized to augment
revegetation on graded spoil areas. Acid mine drainage was
treated utilizing limestone (rock dust) and the resultant water
was spray irrigated under high pressure onto the plots. Three
treatment and a control were used to evaluate the effects of the
irrigation on the vegetation and resulting surface runoff. The
three treatments applied via irrigation were raw acidic water,
treated water with sludge and treated water without sludge.
All three treatments enhanced vegetation response in varying de-
grees when compared to the control plot. Irrigation of treated
water with sludge deposited some of the sludge (treatment by-
products, unreacted limestone and ferric hydroxide) onto the
plots. When irrigation was applied at a rate of 2.5 cm/4 hours,
approximately 30 percent of the water was recovered as surface
runoff.
No detrimental water quality impact was noted by the deposition
of treatment sludge onto the plots. Runoff from natural precip-
itation events produced runoff water of similar quality to con-
trol areas.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project 14010 HNS by
the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Work was completed as of December 1979.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables ix
Acknowledgments xi
1. Introduction. . 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations 4
4. Procedures 5
Neutralization 5
Water source 5
Liming system 6
Irrigation equipment 6
Operator procedure 6
Field plots 8
Soil amendments 8
Vegetation 8
Soil sampling and analysis 8
Water sampling and analysis 9
5. Results 10
Spoil chemical data 10
Pretreatment spoil chemistry 10
Post amendments 10
Spoil profile 10
Water quality data 25
pH 25
Acidity 29
Alkalinity 30
Iron 43
Manganese 44
Suspended solids 45
Dissolved solids 45
Aluminum 56
Zinc and nickel 72
Vegetation 72
Plot 1 72
Plot 2 74
Plot 3 74
Plot 4 74
Runoff 77
Rainfall runoff 77
References 81
Appendix 82
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 On-site configuration of irrigation scheme for the
the Vogue-EPA Project, Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. 1
2 Analysis of discharge water (pH) from Plot 1,
treated water with sludge, 1976-1977 31
3 Analysis of discharge water (pH) from Plot 2,
treated water without sludge, 1976-1977 32
4 Analysis of discharge water (pH) from Plot 4,
raw water, 1976-1977 33
5 Analysis of discharge water (acidity) from Plot 1,
treated water with sludge, 1976-1977 34
6 Analysis of discharge water (acidity) from Plot 2,
treated water without sludge, 1976-1977 35
7 Analysis of discharge water (acidity) from Plot 4,
raw water, 1976-1977 36
8 Analysis of discharge water (alkalinity) from Plot
1, treated water with sludge, 1976-1977 37
9 Analysis of discharge water (alkalinity) from Plot
2, treated water without sludge, 1976-1977 38
10 Analysis of discharge water (alkalinity) from Plot
4, raw water, 1976-1977 39
11 Analysis of runoff water (alkalinity & pH) from
Plot 1, treated water with sludge, 6 October 1978.. 40
12 Analysis of runoff water (acidity, alkalinity & pH)
from Plot 1, treated water with sludge, 17 October
1978 41
13 Analysis of runoff water (acidity, alkalinity & pH)
from Plot 1, treated water with sludge, 25 October
1978 42
VI
-------
FIGURES
(Continued)
Number Page
14 Analysis of discharge water (iron) from Plot 1,
treated water with sludge, May-October 1977 46
15 Analysis of discharge water (iron) from Plot 2,
treated water without sludge, May-October 1977 47
16 Analysis of discharge water (iron) from Plot 4,
raw water, May-October 1977 48
17 Analysis of discharge water (manganese) from Plot
1, treated water with sludge, May-October 1977 49
18 Analysis of discharge water (manganese) from Plot
2, treated water without sludge, May-October 1977.. 50
19 Analysis of discharge water (manganese) from Plot
4, raw water, May-October 1977 51
20 Analysis of runoff water (iron & manganese) from
Plot 1, treated water with sludge, 5 October 1978.. 52
21 Analysis of runoff water (iron & manganese) from
Plot 1, treated water with sludge, 6 October 1978.. 53
22 Analysis of runoff water (iron & manganese) from
Plot 1, treated water with sludge, 17 October 1978. 54
23 Analysis of runoff water (iron, manganese and
aluminum) from Plot 1, treated water with sludge,
25 October 1978 55
24 Analysis of discharge water (suspended solids) from
Plot 1, treated water with sludge, May-October 1977 57
25 Analysis of discharge water (suspended solids) from
Plot 2, treated water without sludge, May-October
1977 58
26 Analysis of discharge water (suspended solids) from
Plot 4, raw water, May-October 1977 59
27 Analysis of discharge water (dissolved solids) from
Plot 1, treated water with sludge, May-October 1977 60
28 Analysis of discharge water (dissolved solids) from
Plot 2, treated water without sludge, May-October
1977 61
vii
-------
FIGURES
(Continued)
Number Page
29 Analysis of discharge water (dissolved solids) from
Plot 4, raw water, May-October 1977 62
30 Analysis of discharge water (aluminum) from Plot 1,
treated water with sludge, May-October 1977 63
31 Analysis of discharge water (aluminum) from Plot 2,
treated water without sludge, May-October 1977 64
32 Analysis of discharge water (aluminum) from Plot 4,
raw water, May-October 1977 65
33 Analysis of discharge water (zinc) from Plot 1,
treated water with sludge, May-October 1977 66
34 Analysis of discharge water (zinc) from Plot 2,
treated water without sludge, May-October 1977 67
35 Analysis of discharge water (zinc) from Plot 4,
raw water, May-October 1977 68
36 Analysis of discharge water (nickel) from Plot 1,
treated water with sludge, May-October 1977 69
37 Analysis of discharge water (nickel) from Plot 2,
treated water without sludge, May-October 1977 70
38 Analysis of discharge water (nickel) from Plot 4,
raw water, May-October 1977 71
39 Photographs showing the vegetation response to the
different treatments, 1977 75
40 Hydrograph showing runoff volumes during irrigation
of Plot 1, 1978 78
41 Precipitation patterns at Vogue-EPA irrigation site,
Muhlenberg County, 1977-1978 79
42 Photographs showing raw water lagoon and limer used
in project 84
43 Photographs showing monitoring station and
irrigation 85
viii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Chemical Analysis of Spoil Samples, Plot 1, June-
October 1976 11
2 Chemical Analysis of Spoil Samples, Plot 2, June-
October 1976 12
3 Chemical Analysis of Spoil Samples, Plot 3, June-
October 1976 13
4 Chemical Analysis of Spoil Samples, Plot 4, June-
October 1976 14
5 Chemical Analysis of Spoil Profile Samples, Plot
1, June-July 1976 15
6 Chemical Analysis of Spoil Profile Samples, Plot
2, June-July 1976 17
7 Chemical Analysis of Spoil Profile Samples, Plot
3, June-July 1976 19
8 Chemical Analysis of Spoil Profile Samples, Plot
4, June-July 1976 21
9 Chemical Analysis of Spoil Profile Samples, Plots
1-4, October 1978 23
10 Results* of Particle Size Analysis of Composite
Spoil Samples (2.5-15 cm in Depth) From the Vogue-
EPA Project: Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, 1976.... 24
11 Chemical Analysis of Raw Water Source Used For
Irrigation, 1974-1978 26
12 Irrigation Schedule and Volumes of Water Applied
to Each Plot, 1976-1978 27
13 Chemical Analysis of Water Applied to Plots, 1976-
1978 28
IX
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Number
14 Effect of Irrigation Treatment on Oven-Dried
Harvest Yields ................................... 7 3
15 Percent Cover of Plots ........................... 73
16 Analyses of Storm Runoff ......................... 80
17 Sieve Analysis of Rock Dust, Fredonia Quarries... 83
18 Manufacturer's Chemical Analysis of Rock Dust
(Limestone) ...................................... **3
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank Birney Fish, project coordinator for
the Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection during the initial stages of the, project, and James
R. Villines and Richard A. Rohlf, who were especially helpful
during later stages of the project. The aid and consultation of
Ronald D. Hill, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency project
officer, were also appreciated.
Thanks are also due to the following personnel of the Peabody
Coal Company: Eugene V7. Pearson, Alten F. Grandt, Tom Higgins,
and Mancil Robinson.
S.A. Serey of S.M.R. Engineering and Environmental Services
provided invaluable assistance in data analysis and editing.
XI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Where acid mine drainage (AMD) is encountered during the surface
mining of coal, the water must be treated to meet specific
discharge limits for pH, iron, manganese, and suspended solids.
The acid water is usually neutralized with lime, limestone,
sodium hydroxide, or another alkaline material. This process is
followed by the removal of the iron hydroxide, calcium sulfate,
etc. by settling and the discharge of the treated water to a
receiving stream. The sludge produced by the treatment process
is difficult to separate from the water and presents disposal
problems. In addition, the surface mining process is a dynamic
one, with extraction, grading, and reclamation occurring over a
short period of time. Thus, the treatment system must be moved
frequently.
Following the extraction of coal and grading of the overburden,
the mined area is usually seeded with grasses, legumes, and
sometimes trees. One cause of vegetation failure is the lack
of moisture during the dry summer months. Irrigation during
these critical times would greatly assist the establishment of
a vegetative cover. One solution to this problem would be the
use of treated acid mine drainage as irrigation water. This H_0
is near the areas being reclaimed, and pumping and piping costs
could be minimized. In addition, the treated water could be
placed to a beneficial use, and in some cases, the discharge to
a stream could be eliminated. The sludge removal, handling, and
disposal problem could also be eliminated if the sludge were not
separated from the treated water, but sprayed along with it.
The excess alkalinity in the sludge and water might also be
beneficial to the soil.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a joint
program with the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection, contracted for a study to determine
the feasibility of this concept. The findings of this study
were published in 1972 in the report Revegetation Augmentation
by Reuse of Treated Active Surface Mine Drainage,(Zaval, 1972),
which concluded that the concept was feasible. The Commonwealth
of Kentucky then contracted with the Peabody Coal Company to
carry out a demonstration. The test program was carried out in
four phases:
1. Preplanning, site preparation, and equipment procurement
-------
(1976).
2. Irrigation studies under four different treatments
(1977):
A. Irrigation with treated AMD containing sludge.
B. Irrigation with treated AMD with sludge removed.
C. Irrigation with untreated (raw) AMD.
D. No irrigation.
3. Testing of irrigation with treated AMD containing sludge
at different irrigation rates (1978).
4. Data analysis and report preparation (1979).
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
1. This study showed that it is feasible to use neutralized AMD
for irrigation of vegetation on reclaimed spoils.
2. Application of limestone-neutralized AMD water onto experi-
mental plots enhances ground cover and harvest weight over
control areas.
3. No significant difference was noted between treated water
with sludge and treated water without sludge with respect
to ground cover and harvest yields.
4. The mobile, once through limestone system used produced
sufficient neutralization to meet effluent limits.
5. Runoff from irrigation at the application rates used will
not meet EPA effluent criteria for iron, manganese, or
suspended solids.
6. When raw water contains small amounts of acidity, it may
be possible to produce neutralized water by irrigation of
spoil containing large amounts of limestone.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Irrigation of mine spoil with limestone-treated water should
be viewed as a viable option, especially in areas already
needing water treatment. The irrigation can:
A. Expand planting season.
B. Permit easy application of nutrients via the irrigation
system.
2. The feasibility of irrigating raw acidic water onto heavily
limed and vegetated spoil should be fully explored. The
following questions must be answered:
A. At what application rates and drying periods will neu-
tralization be effective?
B. Will neutralization be effective at only moderate
(100-400 mg/1) acidity values?
C. If limestone beds have to be periodically relimed, what
rate and frequency should be used?
3. The irrigation system should be designed to minimize runoff.
4. Silt basins or other facilities for removal of suspended
solids and precipitated metals should be located below any
large irrigation project.
5. Raw water pumps should be made of stainless steel or other
acid-resistant materials.
-------
SECTION 4
PROCEDURES
The project extended from earth moving in April 1976 until final
field work was completed in the fall 1978. The ground work was
finished in July 1976. During 1976, the experimental plots
were established, the treatment system was installed, and the
monitoring systems tested. The plots were seeded, fertilized,
and limed as soon as final grading of the spoil was completed.
All seeded species germinated, however optimum germination and
survival did not occur, as seeding was completed a month after
the recommended period. Research completed in 1977 was
primarily devoted to field testing and data gathering on the
three separate treatments. At the completion of the 1977 field
work, it was decided the only practical method for a mining
operation would be the irrigation of the treated water with its
sludge. In addition, it was believed that information was
needed to define:
1. Runoff variation resulting from differences in
irrigation intensity.
2. The effects of continued, heavy saturation irrigation
on suspended solids and metals.
3. The fate of irrigation water (evaporation, runoff, and
infiltration) at different application rates.
NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEM
Water Source
The source of water for the experimental project was a 400-m
(1500-ft) long surface mine pit. This pit was narrow and
contained approximately 19 million liters (5 million gal) of
acid water. It provided a sufficient water source for irri-
gation. Since the lake was lower in elevation than the plots to
be irrigated, a storage lagoon was designed near the plots to
provide a constant supply of water during irrigation. A raw
water pump was installed adjacent to the water pit. This 10-cm
(4 in.) centrifugal pump supplied water to a 30-m by 20-m and
3-m deep raw water lagoon. The lagoon was designed to hold
1,325,000 liters (350,000 gal) and served as a holding basin for
the water supply. Because of the porosity of the spoil, the
-------
lagoon was lined with bentonite.
Liming System
The neutralization system used in this project was a specially
designed electric mixmeter built by Heyl-Patterson. This
machine was designed to batch mix 1150 liters of limestone
slurry and meter the material to a 10-cm (4-in.) electric pump.
This treated water would then either go to a settling lagoon for
clarifying or directly to the irrigation pump (Figure 1). This
lagoon also required lining with bentonite to minimize leakage.
Irrigation Equipment
The irrigation system chosen for this project was a high pres-
sure nozzle system recommended in an earlier study (Zaval, 1972).
The system consisted of a solid set arrangement with Rain Bird
104C full circle rain guns. Ten-cm (4-in.) aluminum quick
connect pipe was used to supply irrgation water to the center
of the plots. The rate of application of irrigation water could
be varied from 360 to 567 liters/minute (95 to 150 gallons per
minute (GPM). One irrigation gun per plot was used and mounted
on a 1*4 m riser located in the center of the plots (Figure 1) .
Operator Procedure
All labor requirements were performed by local members of United
Mine Workers of America. Generally two laborers were needed for
every irrigation run. Supervision was provided by project staff.
When an irrigation run was scheduled the raw water pump was
started the previous afternoon. This would insure a full raw
water lagoon for the next day's irrigation activities.
Irrigation - Raw Water
When the irrigation schedule called for irrigating the raw water
plot, water was obtained from the raw water lagoon. Raw water
was provided to the irrigation pump via a gravity flow pipe and
valve (Figure 1).
Irrigation - Treated Water With Sludge
The limer was charged with 455 kilograms (kg, 1000 Ib) of rock
dust and 1150 liters of water. This mixture was allowed to
agitate for 15 minutes or until a uniform consistency was
achieved. The slurry was then metered to the suction intake of
a 10-cm electric centrifugal pump. Limestone slurry was fed at
a rate to achieve a pH of 6.0-6.2 of irrigation water. Raw
water was withdrawn from the lagoon by the suction line of the
10-cm pump. This water plus the accompanying slurry was pumped
to the irrigation pump and then distributed to Plot 1 (Figure
1).
Irrigation - Treated Water Without Sludge
-------
Figure 1. On-site configuration of irrigation scheme for the Vogue-
EPA Project, Muhlenberg County, Kentucky.
-------
This system operated the same as treated water plus sludge with
the exception of treated water and its by-products went into a
treated water lagoon. Sufficient treated water plus its by-
products were discharged into the lagoon the day previous to
irrigation of treated clear effluent in order to provide a full
run of treated clear water. This allowed for a 16 - 24 hour
settling interval. After settling, the clear treated water was
supplied to the irrigation pump via pipe and valve system.
FIELD PLOTS
The plots were circular in shape to accommodate the Rain Bird
full circle rain guns. Plots were 49.2 m in diameter and cont-
ained .7 hectares (ha) per plot. All plots had a 1-m high berm
that insured collection of all runoff from the plots. Plots
were graded with motor scrapers and track dozers. Spoil material
was graded in such a manner as to achieve a 1 to 2 percent slope.
Soil Amendments
After ground preparation was completed, all plots were limed,
fertilized, and seeded during July 1976. All plots received the
same rate of limestone (78 metric tons/ha), fertilizer (93 kg
nitrogen/ha; 227 kg P-O^/ha; and 135 kg K2O/ha) and seed (split
plots; 1, Kentucky 31 fescue 34 kg/ha; buffalo alfalfa 17 kg/ha;
2, bermuda grass 22 kg/ha and yellow blossum sweet clover 17
kg/ha). In the spring of 1977 and 1978 all plots were
topdressed with 34 kg/ha (30 Ib/ac) of nitrogen as ammonium
nitrate. This has been Peabody Coal Company's standard
reclamation practice with this type of spoil. No additional
seeding other than the initial planting was provided.
Vegetation
Randomly chosen transects of 30.47 m (100 ft) were established
in each plot. Percent cover was then determined by observation
of plant cover at each .3 m (1 ft) interval. One hundred
points were tallied per transect and percent cover was then
tallied. Percent cover was also determined by use of 2.5 en =
30.5 m (1" -100') color aerial photographs. These photos
were obtained on two separate dates and percent observable
cover tallied. Harvest yields were obtained from six randomly
chosen one-half m areas in each plot. The vegetation was
harvested by clipping. Fresh plant weights were determined and
subsamples taken to obtain moisture values. Moisture lost
was determined after drying samples at 70* C. Yields were then
calculated for the plots and subplots.
SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Spoil samples were collected in several series in order to docu-
ment any major changes due to irrigation. Initially, the plots
8
-------
were sectioned into eight quadrants. This was to determine if
significant differences existed within and between plots. After
spoil amendments the plots were again sampled using two composite
samples. In addition to the above surface samples, 10 cm , pits
were dug to obtain samples at depths of 0-2.5 cm, 20.3 cm, 45.7
cm, and 91.4 cm. Two sets of samples were obtained; one before
any spoil amendments or irrigation and the other after irrigation
in 1976 and 1978.
Soil samples were air dried and ground to pass through a 2-mm
screen. Samples pH's were determined electrometrically using
a water suspension with a ratio of 1:1. Test for available
phosphorus was an adaptation of a Bray-1 method (Bray and Kurtz,
1945). Potassium, calcium and magnesium values were determined
by analyzing leachate obtained using IN neutral NH.OAc. Total
potential acidities were performed by University of Kentucky
Extension Service using a hydrogen peroxide oxidation method.
All procedures were used and approved by University of Kentucky
Division of Regulatory Services.
WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
In June 1976 monitoring and treatment equipment were field
tested and readied for operation. Irrigation and testing
continued into the fall season until freezing started. Water
quality was monitored using Stevens Model 61R flowmeters and
ISCO Model 1680 sequential water samplers. Water samples from
the mixmeter discharge were composited over the day's run. Run-
off from plots was monitored by sequential grab samples.
Routine water analysis completed on runoff water included pH,
acidity, and alkalinity. Values for pH's were determined using
a combination glass electrode method. Acidity was determined
as recommended for mine wastes as according to the 13 th
Edition of Standard Methods to an end point of pH 8.3.
Determination of metal values such as total iron, manganese,
aluminum, nickel, zinc and other metals was determined on
acidified samples after soft digestion. The sample values were
then determined using a double beam atomic absorption unit.
Total suspended solids (TSS) values were obtained by filtering
a 50 or 100 milliter (ml) sample through glass fiber filters
(Gelman Type A-E). The filters were dried and weighed to the
nearest 0.01 milligram (mg). Total dissolved solids (TDS) were
determined using the filtrate from TSS and evaporating this in
a pre-weighed porcelain dish.
The amount of water irrigated onto the plots was determined by a
10 cm Rockwell Turbine in line water meter. Runoff from plots
was measured by Stevens Model 61R stage recorder with a 60* steel
weir. Small flows were determined by bucket and stop watch method.
9
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS
SPOIL CHEMICAL DATA
Pretreatment Spoil Chemistry
The experimental area, before spoil amendments, reflected a
harsh environment for plant growth. Spoil chemical data in-
dicated the spoils were extremely acidic (pH 2.7 - 4.9) and
low in phosphorus and potassium levels (Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4).
The type of spoil chemical conditions present were not unusual
for the type of overburden encountered and the stripping
methods employed.
Post Amendments
Agricultural limestone was applied at a rate of 78 metric
tons/ha (35 tons/ac). This one application was sufficient to
raise the spoil pH to a range of 6.65 - 7.35 (Tables 1, 2, 3
and 4). Data in these tables indicate that sufficient limestone,
phosphorus (202 Ib P-O^/ac) and potassium (120 Ib K20/ac) were
added to make the site acceptable to plant growth. The effects
of the 1976 application was still present in the fall of
1978. There had been no appreciable lowering of pH's with time
and/or irrigation (Tables 1 - 9). Fertilizer additions tempo-
rarily doubled the phosphorus level. Potassium levels were
also increased to an acceptable level. Plant available phor-
phorus levels as anticipated declined with time. Potassium
levels showed a small decrease.
Spoil Profile
Spoil samples were taken at 0-2.5 cm, 20.3 cm, 46 cm and
91 cm depths in all plots. These profile samples were taken
in an effort to document weathering and/or leaching effects due
to irrigation. Data contained in Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 document
the spoil conditions at the onset of the experimental project.
These data show all layers tested exhibited low pH, low to
moderate potassium levels, low phosphorus, and high calcium and
magnesium levels. There was no noticeable change in pH, P, K,
Ca or Mg with depth. After liming and fertilization there was
a distinct change in the top layer (0 - 2.5 cm) from the
deeper layers (Table 9). The top spoil layer increased to near
10
-------
TABLE i. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPOIL SAMPLES, PLOT i, JUNE-
OCTOBER 1976
Item
pH P
K Ca
kg/ha
Mg P. A.**
Metric
ton/ha
Before addition of spoil amendments
Mean
Range
Standard
Deviation
n*
3.2 8.4
3.0- 3.4-30
4.2
9
8 8
27 2248
9-85 1760-
3374
26 495
8 8
1328 15.4
944- .9-20.4
1687
222 6.4
8 8
After addition of spoil amendments
Mean
Range
Standard
Deviation
n*
7.1 69
7.05- 22-
7.35 197
86
4 4
111 9224
93- 8609-
133 9584
19 443
4 4
1188 0
942- 0
1549
271
4 4
* Number of samples used to obtain the results.
** Potential acidity as the amount of agricultural limestone
needed to neutralize the potential H (l*s times the rate
for pure CaCO-).
11
-------
TABLE 2. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPOIL SAMPLES, PLOT 2, JUNE-
OCTOBER 1976
PH
Item
Mean 3 . 3
Range 3.2-
3.9
Standard
Deviation
n* 8
Mean 7 . 3
Range 0
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
P
Before
15
K
addition
.9 58
Ca
kg/ha
Mg
P. A.**
Metric
ton/ha
of spoil amendments
1908
10-25 12-174 1658-
2229
4.
8
After
25
15
35
8.
4
6 52
8
addition
106
.7- 97-
122
0 11
4
239
8
1322
949-
1725
269
8
13.9
3.4-
22.3
5.7
8
of spoil amendments
7752
1188-
10480
4393
4
1055
1011-
1149
65
4
0
0
4
* Number of samples used to obtain the results.
** Potential acidity as the amount of agricultural limestone
needed to neutralize the potential H+ (1*2 times the rate
for pure CaCO-J .
12
-------
TABLE 3. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPOIL SAMPLES, PLOT 3, JUNE -
OCTOBER 1976
Item
pH P
K
Ca
Mg
kg/ha
Before addition of
Mean
Range
Standard
Deviation
n*
3.7 11.8
3.2- 9-19
4.9
3.4
8 8
82
18-
122
38
8
After addition of
Mean
Range
Standard
Deviation
n*
6.8 58
6.65- 18-
7.2 139
56.5
4 4
151
123-
184
30.57
4
P. A.**
Metric
ton/ha
spoil amendments
3816
2378-
5437
906
8
1705
1112-
2007
319
8
22.2
12.8-
32.3
5.4
8
spoil amendments
7447
1132-
9921
4218
4
2011
1717-
2513
352
4
0
0
4
* Number of samples used to obtain the results.
**Potential acidity as the amount of agricultural limestone
needed to neutralize the potential H+ (11$ times the rate
for pure CaCO_).
13
-------
TABLE 4. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPOIL SAMPLES, PLOT 4, JUNE-
OCTOBER 1976
PH
Item
Mean 2 . 8
Range 2.7-
3.0
Standard
Deviation
n* 8
Mean 7 . 1
Range 7.0-
7.25
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
P
Before
19
K
addition
7
12-36 6-9
8.2
8
After
41
1.3
8
addition
87
Ca
kg/ha
of spoil
2612
1502-
3385
601
8
of spoil
10705
22-65 80-98 9528-
11210
19
4
7.6
4
794
4
Mg
amendments
1343
708-
1597
338
8
amendments
1827
1603-
2233
290
4
P. A.**
Metric
ton/ha
24
15.3-
43.4
8.4
8
0
0
4
* Number of samples used to obtain the results.
** Potential acidity as the amount of agricultural limestone
needed to neutralize the potential H+ (l*j times the rate
for pure CaCO3).
14
-------
TABLE 5. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPOIL PROFILE SAMPLES, PLOT 1,
JUNE-JULY, 1976
PH
Item
Mean 3 . 3
Range 3.1-
4.7
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
Mean 3 . 1
Range 3.0-
3.25
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
P
0-2.5
Before
4.8
2.2-
7.8
2.9
4
20
Before
5.9
K
kg/ha
cm Depth
addition of
31
17-69
26
4
cm Depth
addition of
22
10-39 13-39
4.6
4
13
4
Ca
spoil
2993
1928-
5549
1710
4
spoil
2163
1917-
2758
400
4
Mg
amendments
1244
781-
1569
366
4
*
P. A.**
Metric
ton/ha
11
0--17.5
7.8
4
amendments
1336
955-
1743
429
4
15
10.4-
19.3
"
4.1
4
(continued)
* Number of samples used to obtain the results.
** Potential acidity as the amount of agricultural limestone
needed to neutralize the potential H+ (l*s times the rate
for pure CaCO-).
15
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
PH
Item
Mean 3 . 2
Range 3.0-
3.4
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
Mean 3 . 3
Range 3.2-
3.4
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
P
K
Ca
Mg
kg/ha
Before
3
1-
1.
4
Before
7.
46 cm Depth
addition of
36
6 21-57
9 17
4
91 cm Depth
addition of
3 52
1-13 43-58
6.
4
5 6.8
4
spoil
1829
1077-
3486
1109
4
spoil
1657
1457-
1838
157.6
4
amendments
710
282-
1227
391
4
amendments
380
355-
415
25
4
P. A.**
Metric
ton/ha
11
4.4-
14.4
4.5
4
5.8
3.2-
11
3.5
4
* Number of samples used to obtain the results.
** Potential acidity as the amount of agricultural limestone
needed to neutralize the potential H^ (1% tines the rate
for pure CaC03).
16
-------
TABLE 6. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPOIL PROFILE SAMPLES, PLOT 2,
JUNE-JULY 1976
pH
Item
Mean 3.1
Range 3.0-
3.3
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
Mean 3 . 6
Range 3.2-
4.4
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
P
K
Ca
Mg
kg/ha
0-2.5
Before
21
11-28
7.0
4
20
Before
12
9-15
2.7
4
cm Depth
addition
16
6-40
17
4
cm Depth
addition
57
43-86
20.1
4
of spoil
1564
1278-
1906
259
4
of spoil
1300
392-
2466
101
4
P. A.
**
Metric
ton/ha
amendments
1501
549-
2048
667
4
13.3
8.7-
19.7
4.6
4
amendments
627
258-
1575
633
4
8.7
0-18.
9.4
4
4
(continued)
* Number of samples used to obtain the results.
** Potential acidity as the amount of agricultural limestone
needed to neutralize the potential H* (lh times the rate
for pure CaC03).
17
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
PH
Item
Mean 4 . 1
Range 3.9-
4.7
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
Mean 4 . 1
Range 3.8-
4.7
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
P
46
Before
16
12-19
2.9
4
91
Before
10
8-12
2.0
4
K Ca
kg/ha
cm Depth
addition of spoil
106 1048
63- 583-
149 1502
35 512
4 4
cm Depth
addition of spoil
94 970
85- 437-
101 1525
7 545
4 4
Mg P. A.**
Metric
ton/ha
amendments
912 7.6
458- 0-
1373 18.6
407 9.1
4 4
amendments
1073 9.6
949- .2-
1233 184
144 9.6
4 4
*Number of samples used to obtain the results.
** Potential acidity as the amount of agricultural limestone
needed to neutralize the potential H* (1*5 times the rate
for pure CaCO.J .
18
-------
TABLE 7. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPOIL PROFILE SAMPLES, PLOT 3,
JUNE-JULY 1976
PH
Item
Mean 4 . 0
Range 3.7-
4.6
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
P
K
Ca
Mg
kg/ha
0-2.5
Before
8
4-12
4
4
cm Depth
addition
75
38-
117
40
4
20 cm Depth
Before addition
Mean 3 . 1
Range 2.8-
4.9
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
7.5
3-12
4.9
4
60
4-
117
64
4
of spoil
4088
3767-
4428
295
4
of spoil
4680
4462-
4820
154
4
P. A.**
Metric
ton/ha
amendments
3176
1827-
4848
1306
4
28.7
25.2-
37.5
5.9
4
amendments
1355
1216-
1435
96
4
27.6
20.4-
38.4
7.9
4
(continued)
* Number of samples used to obtain the results.
** Potential acidity as the amount of agricultural limestone
needed to neutralize the potential H* (1% times the rate
for pure CaCO_).
19
-------
TABLE 7 (Continued)
PH
P
K
Ca
Mg
kg/ha
Item
Mean 3 . 1
Range 2.9-
3.9
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
Mean 3 . 3
Range 2.9-
4.3
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
46
Before
13.7
4-22
10
4
91
Before
6
1-9
3.6
4
cm Depth
addition
59
9-
118
56
4
cm Depth
addition
36
7-129
42
4
of spoil
4344
3980-
4899
411
4
of spoil
3001
2298-
3834
764
4
P. A.**
Metric
ton/ha
amendments
1777
1620-
1928
156
4
33.4
20.4-
48.5
14.4
4
amendments
1328
577-
1984
701
4
29.2
21.1-
39.3
9.3
4
* Number of samples used to obtain the results.
** Potential acidity as the amount of agricultutal limestone
needed to neutralize the potential H+ (l*s times the rate
for pure CaC03).
20
-------
TABLE 8. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPOIL PROFILE SAMPLES, PLOT 4,
JUNE-JULY 1976
PH
Item
Mean 2 . 7
Range 2.65-
2.9
Standard
Deviation
P
0-2.
Before
41
32-48
6.5
K
kg/ha
5 cm Depth
addition
6
4-8
1.7
Ca
of spoil
1805
1065-
2937
833
Mg
P. A.**
Metric
ton/ha
amendments
2813
645-
3957
1533
40.2
24.7-
55
13.4
20 cm Depth
Before addition of spoil amendments
Mean 2 . 9
Range 2.7-
3.3
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
16 10
9-30 7-13
11 3
4 4
(continued)
3320
2163-
4596
1115
4
1312
397-
2264
947
4
34
30
40
4.
4
.4
.1-
.2
3
* Number of samples used to obtain the results.
** Potential acidity as the amount of agricultural limestone
needed to neutralize the potential H* (l*s times the rate
for pure CaCO.,) .
21
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
PH
P
K
Ca
Mg
kg/ha
Item
Mean 2 . 9
Range 2.6-
3.9
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
Mean 2 . 9
Range 2.6-
3.8
Standard
Deviation
n* 4
46
Before
37
3-84
40
4
91
Before
53
2-
105
58
4
cm Depth
addition
59
6-
118
62
4
cm Depth
addition
54
4-
104
57
4
of spoil
3755
1300-
7242
2919
4
of spoil
3150
1424-
5762
2098
4
P. A.**
Metric
ton/ha
amendments
836
356-
1093
337
4
38
27.4-
47.2
10.4
4
amendments
1077
652-
1605
395
4
42.2
25.6-
68.1
19.8
4
*Number of samples used to obtain the results.
** Potential acidity as the amount of agricultural limestone
needed to neutralize the potential H+ (1*5 times the rate
for pure CaCOj).
22
-------
TABLE 9. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPOIL PROFILE SAMPLES: PLOTS
1-4, OCTOBER 1978
Profile depth
Plot no.
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
pH
P*
K*
Ca*
Mg*
n**
PH
P
K
Ca
Mg
n
PH
P
K
Ca
Mg
n
PH
P
K
Ca
Mg
n
0-2.5 cm
6.5
6.9
78
2003
280
2
6.8
58
100
2008
336
2
7.5
58
87
2023
1541
2
6.5
25
71
2027
869
2
20.3 cm
3.2
.4
63
1617
757
2
3.2
4.8
45
1891
448
2
3.3
5.3
25
1977
1457
2
3.1
4.8
11
1992
700
2
46 cm
3.2
4.6
58
1698
645
2
3.2
2.2
54
1690
700
2
3.5
7.8
41
1954
1460
2
3.1
7.0
13
1970
785
2
9.1 .cm
3.2
3.5
65
1696
841
2
3.4
.3
56
1632
729
2
3.6
6.7
103
1896
1373
2
3.8
.6
83
1846
925
2
* Values are expressed in kg/ha.
** Number of samples used to obtain the results.
23
-------
TABLE 10. RESULTS* OF PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE
SPOIL SAMPLES (2.5-15 cm IN DEPTH) FROM THE VOGUE-
EPA PROJECT: MUHLENBERG COUNTY, KENTUCKY, 1976.
Percent distribution of particle sizes
Sample Sand (>50xm) Silt (50-2^/m) Clay «2/m)
Plot 1 54.5 29.6
Plot 2 51.4 32.7
Plot 3 46.2 35.8
Plot 4 48.3 35.1
Mean 50.1 33.3
16.0
15.9
18.0
16.6
16.6
*Analysis made by Dr. R.I. Barnhisel, University of Kentucky,
24
-------
neutral pH's (6.5 - 7.5); phosphorus and potassium increased to
significantly higher levels. Calcium levels appeared to be
higher in the surface layers than the deeper layers (Table 9) .
No other appreciable differences were noticed in the plots with
depth (Table 10) .
WATER QUALITY DATA
During 1976, initial attention was devoted to performance of
the water monitoring and functioning of the irrigation system.
Baseline data were collected on the raw water, treated water,
and runoff water from the plots (Table 11 and Figures 2-10) .
The surface mine pit used for a raw water source tended to
increase in acidity between December 1974 and October 1978
(Table 11) . The changes in water quality of the pit did not
influence the type of treatment employed (limestone) . It was
possible to produce acceptable water, pH 6, even at the higher
acidity values with limestone treatment.
Table 12 shows the amount of water treated for irrigation of
the plots. The individual irrigation periods were equal to
approximately a 2.5 cm (one in.) precipitation event. Irri-
gation intensity was varied in 1978 from 1.7 cm to 3.0 cm
(.66 in. to 1.20 in.) of treated water/ac.
Data in Table 13 are chemical analyses of applied water. It can
be noted that applied water's acidity of plots 1 and 4 has
tended to increase with time. In addition, applied water has
increased in iron and manganese on all plots.
Plot 1 - Treated Water With Sludge
This treatment consistently produced water which was well above
a pH of 6.0 (Figure 2). Applied water ranged from 6.5 to
7.7; while runoff water varied from 6.2 to 7.3. The runoff
water closely matched the applied water pH (Figure 2) . The
application of irrigation water to this plot did not tend to
increase or decrease the pH of irrigation runoff water. Plot
1's runoff water was significantly higher in pH than the raw
water plot (Plot 4) .
Plot 2 - Treated Water Without Sludge
As with plot 1, this treatment always produced water with pH's
in excess of 6.0. Applied water pH was slightly lower than
that for plot 1. Unlike plot 1, however, in practically every
case the irrigation runoff water had increased in pH upon
leaving the plot. The increase was normally only .2 to .4 of
a pH unit. Since the water was clarified, no rock dust was
suspended in the irrigation water. These increased runoff
values of pH were due to irrigation on plot 2. The increase in
pH was probably a reflection of two factors. Carbon dioxide
25
-------
TABLE 11. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF RAW WATER SOURCE USED FOR
IRRIGATION, 1974-1978
mg/1
Date
Dec.
Dec.
April
Oct.
Oct.
NOV.
Nov.
of
11,
20,
15
11,
15,
2,
4,
May 24,
July
July
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Oct.
8,
27,
10,
23,
15
16,
25,
sample
74
74
, 75
76
76
76
76
77
77
77
77
77
, 77
78
78
PH
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.8
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.1
2.7
2.9
2.9
3.0
Acidity
116
98
148
108
108
160
168
196
376
446
450
506
522
844
844
Alkalinity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
-------
TABLE 12. IRRIGATION SCHEDULE AND VOLUMES OF WATER APPLIED TO
EACH PLOT, 1976-1978
Date
10/11/76
10/15/76
10/21/76
11/2/76
11/4/76
6/1/77
6/8/77
7/28/77
8/25/77
9/1/77
6/21/77
10/10/77
6/3/77
8/9/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
9/2/77
9/23/77
5/24/77
6/7/77
7/27/77
8/10/77
8/23/77
9/13/77
10/6/77
10/5/78
10/6/78
10/17/78
10/25/78
11/8/78
Plot
4
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Irrigatio
time*
4
5^5
2*5
4%
4^5
4
4%
4
4
4
4
4
2
3*5
4
4
4
4
4
4*5
4
4
4
4
4%
4
4£
4?
5V
5
n Volume of water
m /d**
164.3
174.5
107.5
171.5
189.3
163.5
170.7
157.5
153.7
154.1
158.6
146.5
115.8
152.2
155.9
151.4
152.9
164.3
151.4
171.5
132.9
138.2
153.3
151.8
180.9
142.3
127.6
115.8
209.7
180.5
cm
2.3
2.5
1.5
2.5
2.8
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.1
1.7
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.5
1.9
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.0
1.8
1.7
3.0
2.6
***
Application Type
cm/hr
.58
.46
.61
.58
.61
.61
.58
.58
.56
.56
.58
.53
.84
.63
.58
.56
.56
.61
.56
.56
.48
.51
.56
.56
.56
.51
.41
.41
.56
.51
water
raw
tr+slu
tr+slu
raw
tr+slu
tr+slu
tr+slu
tr+slu
tr+slu
tr+slu
tr+slu
tr+slu
tr-slu
tr-slu
tr-slu
tr-slu
tr-slu
tr-slu
raw
raw
raw
raw
raw
raw
raw
tr+slu
tr+slu
tr+slu
tr+slu
tr+slu
*Tiroe in hours.
**Total m3/d (cubic meters) = 4660.1 (1,231,200 gal).
***tr+slu + treated water with sludge and tr-slu = treated
water withou sludge.
27
-------
TABLE 13. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER APPLIED TO PLOTS,
1976-1978
mg/1
Date Plot* pH
10/11/76 4
10/15/76 1
10/21/76 2
11/2/76 4
11/4/76 1
5/24/77 4
6/1/77 1
6/3/77 2
7/27/77 4
7/28/77 1
8/9/77 2
8/10/77 4
8/23/77 4
8/24/77 2
8/25/77 1
8/26/77 2
9/1/77 1
5/2/77 2
9/13/77 4
9/21/77 1
9/23/77 2
10/10/77 1
10/6/78 1
10/17/78 1
10/25/78 1
3.
6.
6.
3.
6.
3.
7.
5.
3.
6.
6.
3.
2.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7.
2.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7
8
6
6
7
4
1
8
2
8
2
1
7
2
7
2
7
5
9
5
5
8
9
8
5
Acidity Alkalinity Iron
108
18
10
160
15
196
58
104
446
36
40
450
506
14
0
34
0
8
522
0
18
0
256
20
0
56
50
0
56
0
38
8
0
84
56
0
0
48
128
58
82
60
0
100
86
138
170
172
172
4
5
22
36
40
3
38
53
2
58
1
55
4
51
57
1
-
44
149
156
.6
.6
.5
.0
.2
.9
.6
.2
.3
.0
.8
.2
.3
.5
.4
.8
-
.5
.6
.7
Mn
45.
47.
47.
49.
51.
52.
44.
40.
28.
47.
29.
43.
38.
46.
43.
42.
72.
66.
80.
2
3
3
1
3
1
6
0
4
1
3
7
9
9
9
5
7
9
6
TSS
--
--
40
1272
12
30
17
764
11
712
22
13
849
11
460
.8
.2
.5
.7
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
TDS
4285
4281
4507
4511
3754
3807
3874
3854
3971
3929
4364
4338
4364
4276
--
* 1 - Treated
2 - Treated
3 - Control
water
water
with sludge
without sludge
4 - Raw water
28
-------
is a by-product of limestone reaction with acid water, (Wilmoth,
et al, 1972). This carbon dioxide will suppress the water pH
until it is released. Irrigation of the water probably released
the excessive amount of carbon dioxide. The other probable
reason for pH increase could be the contact of the irrigation
water with agricultural limestone present on the plot. The
noted increase was probably due to a combination of these two
factors.
Plot 4 - Raw Water
Water applied to this plot received no treatment. Applied water
pH's ranged from 3.75 - 2.7. Irrigation runoff water values
from this plot consistently increased over the applied water
values.
Runoff water values increased in pH as a result of being irrig-
ated onto this plot. Water pH's were increased to above 6.0
until July 1977 (Figure 4). After July 1977 the acidity of the
raw water had apparently increased to a point that exceeded the
capacity of the residual agricultural limestone to raise the
runoff water to a pH of 6.0 (Tables 11 and 13). Even though a
pH of 6.0 was not achieved there was still a significant in-
crease (1 to 2 pH units) in pH of applied water after July 1977
(Figure 4). Evidently the residual limestone of plot 4 was still
in a reactive state, however the plot could not produce pH
6.0 water at the high acidity concentrations.
Acidity
Irrigation runoff water from the plots showed changes in acidity
values with respect to the year irrigation took place. The
sciall amount of irrigation that took place in 1976 showed zero
acidity for runoff of plots 1 and 2 (treated water) and small
to zero amounts for untreated water (plot 4). However, in
1977 acidity values were present in runoff of plots 1 and 2
as well as plot 4.
Plot 1 - Treated Water With Sludge
As previously indicated, this plot as well as plot 2 produced
water with little or no acidity during 1976 (Figure 5). During
1977, as the acidity of the raw water increased, the acidity
of the irrigation runoff water increased (Table 11). Even with
the increase in acidity, alkalinity always exceeded acidity.
Therefore no net acidity was -present.
The increase of irrigation runoff acidity was due to the in-
ability of a once through limestone treatment:
1. to react rapidly and
2. increase pH sufficiently high to cause rapid oxidation
of major dissolved metals (iron and manganese).
29
-------
It is notable that despite the increases in acidity from
approximately 100 mg/1 to 844 mg/1, the applied water to plot 1
was maintained at pH of 6.0 or greater. However, in order
to maintain a pH of 6.0 or greater, large increases in limestone
rates were necessary. This was consistent with published data
(Wilmoth, 1974) showing that as the desired pH effluent increased
the amount of limestone (rock dust) increased at a more rapid
rate.
Plot 2 - Treated Water Without Sludge
Plot 2 produced water with no acidity during 1976 but acidity
was present from runoff during 1977. The apparent reasons for
the increases were the same as for plot 1 (increases in raw water
acidity). However the irrigation runoff water was notably
lower in acidity than the treatment of treated water with sludge
(Figure 6). This difference was believed due to the long
detention and hence reaction time (16 - 24 hours storage in
clear water lagoon) of irrigation water for plot 2. This
allowed a major portion of the total iron concentration to be
removed from the irrigation water and hence its contribution
to total acidity was diminished (Table 13). Runoff water (plot
2) due to irrigation had significantly lower acidity values
than the raw water plot (Plot 4; Figure 6 and 7).
Plot 4 - Raw Water
Irrigation runoff water from this plot increased in acidity with
time (Figure 7). Increases in applied water acidities caused
increases in runoff acidities. During a day's irrigation run,
initial runoffs from the raw water plot were usually lowest in
acidity. This was not generally true for plots 1 or 2. Irri-
gation of raw water to plot 4 caused reduction to applied water
acidities from 65 (1977 data) to 100 percent (1976 irrigation).
Undoubtedly this change in acidity was due to the reaction of
acidic water with residual agricultural limestone present.
Alkalinity
All plots produced irrigation runoff water with alkalinity
(Figures 8, 9 and 10). There was a general diminishing of
alkalinity with time from start of irrigation runoff until shut-
down of each run. This established a trend that was also
discernible monthly.
Plot 1 - Treated Water With Sludge
The alkalinity of the irrigation runoff from this plot always
exceeded its acidity (Figures 5 and 8). Alkalinity tended to be
highest with first irrigation runoff. Alkalinity of runoff
tended to be less than the applied alkalinity. Evidently there
was some deposition of alkalinity (rock dust) onto the plot.
Irrigation runoff values were significantly higher than plot 4
(raw water) but no significant difference was noted between
plots 1 and 2.
30
-------
u>
8.0,-
7.0 -
6.0 -
5.0 _
4.0
30
Applied Water ; pH
10/15/76
11/4/76
6/1/77
7/28/77
8/25/77
9/21/77
6.8
6.7
7.1
6.8
6.7
6.5
I
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 2. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 1, treated water with
sludge, 1976-1977.
-------
8.0,-
U)
NJ
0
30
60
8/24/77 t
Applied Water ; pH
10/21/76
6/3/77
8/9/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
9/23/77
6.6
5.8
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.5
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 3. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 2, treated water with-
out sludge, 1976-1977.
-------
ac
a,
Cx)
U»
'Applied Water : pH
10/11/76
11/2/76
5/24/77
7/27/77
8/10/77
8/23/77
9/13/77
3.7
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.1
2.7
2.9
I
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
TIME IN MINUTES
Figure 4. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 4, raw water, 1976-
1977.
-------
200
150
H ^«v f.
Ct tn 100
H g
Applied We
10/15/76
11/4/76
6/1/77
7/28/77
8/25/77
9/21/77
10/10/77
iter : Acidity
18 (mg/1)
15
58
36
0
0
0 (Composi
runoff sample=
12 mg/1)
8/25/77
J -
-I-
10/15/76
11/4/76
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 5. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 1, treated water with
sludge, 1976-1977.
-------
200
150
M g
100
OJ
ui
50
Applied Water : ^Acidity
(mg/1)
10/21/76
6/3/77
8/9/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
9/2/77
9/23/77
10
104
40
14
34
8
18
30
60
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
"2*40
Figure 6. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 2, treated water with-
out sludge, 1976-1977.
-------
200r
9/13/77
OJ
10/11/76
11/12/76
5/24/77
7/27/77
8/10/77
8/23/77
9/13/77
150
180
210
240
TIME IN MINUTES
Figure 7. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 4, raw water, 1976-
1977.
-------
160 r
Applied Water
120 -
10/15/76
11/4/76
6/1/77
7/28/77
8/25/77
9/1/77
9/21/77
6/8/77
10/10/77
56
56
38
84
128
82
100
40
138
Alkalinity
(mg/1)
tn
S
(Composite
runoff sample^
68mg/l)
0
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 8. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 1, treated water with
sludge, 1976-1977.
-------
160r-
U)
00
Applied Water : Alkalinity
(mg/1)
120-
10/21/76
6/3/77
8/9/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
9/2/77
9/23/77
50
8
56
48
58
60
86
(
30
60
. 90 120 150
TIMES IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 9. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 2, treated water with-
out sludge, 1976-1977.
-------
160
120
80
40'r
Applied Water .- Alkalinity
10/11/76
11/2/76
5/24/77
7/27/77
8/10/77
8/23/77
9/13/77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10/11/76
(mg/1)
10/77^.9/13/79
60 90 12U
150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
7/27/77
240
Figure 10. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 4, raw water 1976-
1977.
-------
1000
800
600
H tn
A £
400
Applied Water
pH o :6.9
Alkalinity o .-170
High alkalinity values
ere due to rock dust
pended during titration)
200 .
8.5
3.0
7.5
ffi
7.0
6.5
123456
TIME IN HOURS
Figure 11. Analysis of runoff water from Plot 1, treated water
with sludge, 6 October 1978.
-------
250
200
H
S
M
150
H
Q
100
Applied Water
pH o : 6.8
Alkalinity a : 172
Acidity a : 256
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
123456
TIME IN HOURS
Figure 12. Analysis of runoff water from Plot 1, treated water
with sludge, 17 October 1978.
-------
E-i
H
Q
H
a
200
160
120
80
40
Applied Water
pH o i 7 . 5
Alkalinity a: 172
Acidity A : 20
8.5
8.0
7.5
K
7.0
6.5
6.0
123456
TIME IN HOURS
Figure 13. Analysis of runoff water from Plot 1, treated water
with sludge, 25 October 1978.
-------
Plot 2 - Treated Water Without Sludge
Irrigation runoff from this plot did not exhibit the amplitude
of values for a single irrigation run as plot 1 exhibited
(Figures 8 and 9). Unlike plots 1 and 4, this plot tended to
produce as high, or higher, alkalinity runoff at the end of the
irrigation cycle as recorded at the first runoff. Alkalinity
values were significantly higher than the raw water plot.
Plot 4 - Raw Water
This plot produced water with alkalinity (except 13 September
1977) even though the applied water contained no alkalinity
(Figure 10). Alkalinity of irrigation runoff tended to be
greatest at initial runoff and diminish with time (Figure 10).
Runoff alkalinity varied inversely with acidity of applied
water (Table 13 and Figure 10).
Iron
Plot 1 - Treated Water With Sludge
Discharge water from his plot was always high in iron (Figures
14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22 and 23). However, lowest values of iron
were achieved from first runoff after irrigation started. Run-
off from this plot would not meet EPA discharge limits of 3.5 -
7 mg/1. There appeared to be an initial lag in increase of
iron concentration with regards to an increase in flow (Figures
20, 21, 22 and 23). The high initial iron concentration of
discharge water in 1977 was apparently linked with suspended
solids and rigorous digestion procedure followed for total metal
determination. In late 1977 EPA Region IV approved a "soft"
digestion procedure which called for a shorter digestion time
in hot HNO.,-HCL (EPA, 1974). This newer procedure was used
at Peabody Coal Company's Kentucky Regional Laboratory which
completed these analyses. The later analyses probably gave
a more accurate picture of the amount of iron in the water
either as precipitated iron (Fe(OH2), dissolved iron or loosely
held iron on soil particles. However, the more rigorous
digestion actually determines the amount of iron in the water
and sediment. By comparing Figures 14 and 24 a high degree
of correlation between suspended solids and iron can be noted.
For purposes of interpretation of iron in discharge water, the
author believes 1978 data gives a clearer picture of "free iron"
contributed from mining activities rater than the more rigorous
digestion procedures. After an initial lag (approximately 30
minutes to 1% hours depending on irrigation rate) time of lower
iron concentrations, iron values would rise to higher levels
and be maintained. At the discontinuance of irrigation, the
reduced runoff volumes did not indicate a marked downward dip
in iron concentrations. This correlates with suspended solids
loads which remained at a relatively high level at the end of
irrigation (Figure 24).
43
-------
Plot 2 - Treated Water Without Sludge
This plot (clear water effluent) produced runoff water with
initially high iron readings. The initial high iron values
were thought to be correlated with suspended solids which were
also highest initially (Figures 15 and 25). Since these tests
were in 1977, all water samples from this plot were pretreated
with a rigorous acid digestion. In most instances the lowest
iron values were obtained from the later runoffs (lower
suspended solids). The runoff from this plot was significantly
lower than iron concentrations of plot 1. The difference be-
tween plots 1 and 2 could be attributed to the lower concen-
tration of iron in the applied water of plot 2 (Figure 15). No
significant difference was apparent between plots 2 and 4 (raw
water). This plot did produce water below 7 mg/1 of iron on
several occasions.
Plot 4 - Raw Water
As in plots 1 and 2 the largest iron values were recorded at
initial runoff. These high initial concentrations were
correlated with high suspended solids at first flows (Figures 16
and 26). Lowest concentrations were noted toward the end of the
irrigation period. This plot did produce water below the
maximum effluent limit of 7.0 mg/1 of iron on one occasion.
Manganese
None of the plots produced runoff water from irrigation that
would meet current discharge limits for manganese. All values
were much higher than the allowable limit of a maximum of 4.0
mg/1. Manganese did not exhibit the large amplitude in values
that iron exhibited. The lag phase was not pronounced.
Plot 1 - Treated Water With Sludge
Initial runoff was always lower in concentration than later
discharge. The lag time in manganese was not very pronounced.
In addition, manganese values did not have a great amplitude
(Figure 17). Values obtained in 1977 showed little change in
manganese concentration from initial flows to latter discharges.
A typical range of manganese in an irrigation run would start
at 45 mg/1 and peak at 65 mg/1 (Figures 20-23). The runoff
values did not vary greatly from the manganese concentrations
of the applied water. Once the short lag phase was over,
manganese concentration did -not greatly fluctuate.
Plot 2 - Treated Water Without Sludge
Manganese values were comparable to levels obtained in plot 1
(Figures 17 and 18). The difference between manganese levels
of plots 1 and 2 was not significant. However plot 1 data were
significantly lower in manganese than plot 4.'s runoff (raw
water plot). Manganese has a slow oxidation rate at moderate
pH levels of 6.0 -7.0. The pH's achieved during neutralization
44
-------
using rock dust would seldom exceed a pH of 6.0 - 6.3. Even with
settling the treated water 16-24 hours, the manganese values did
not appreciably lower. This phenomenon was not unexpected as
numerous researchers (Strumm and Morgan, 1970) have reported
little success of rapid oxidation of this metal unless at pH
values of 8.5 - 10.0. Manganese levels did not appreciably
differ from applied manganese values (Figure 18). Plot 2
irrigation runoff was significantly lower than plot 4 with
regards to manganese levels.
Plot 4 - Raw Water
This plot consistenly produced water with high manganese levels.
Manganese levels were significantly higher than irrigation runoff
of plots 1 or 2. Runoff values of manganese were not appreciably
higher than applied manganese levels.
Suspended Solids
All plots showed initial suspended solids (TSS) peaks with first
flows. This trend appeared to be consistent with all three
plots (Figures 24, 25, and 26).
Plot 1 - Treated Water With Sludge
This plot produced higher suspended solids loads than either
plots 2 or 4. Suspended solids loads were never close to EPA's
effluent standards of 35-70 mg/1. The high values were undoubt-
edly due to suspended matter in the irrigation water as well as
suspended spoil material washed from the soil surface (Figure
31).
Plot 2 - Treated Water Without Sludge
Runoff from this plot produced water with approximately one-
half the suspended solids load of plot 1 (Figures 24 and 25).
However this plot did not produce water of significantly lower
TSS content than plot 4. Runoff of this plot would not meet
EPA's effluent standards for TSS. Runoff values of TSS were
significantly higher than applied levels (Figure 25).
Plot 4 - Raw Water
This plot produced the characteristic initial high peak loads
of suspended solids. This peak was followed by lower values
(Figure 26). Runoff from this plot was slightly lower in
suspended solids than plot 2, but the difference was not
significant. Runoff from this plot would not meet effluent
limits for TSS. As with plots 1 and 2, irrigation runoff values
of TSS were significantly higher than applied TSS levels.
Dissolved Solids
Dissolved solids values showed no discernible trend as to peak
or low values during a irrigation cycle. However, all plots
produced irrigation runoff water which was higher than the TDS
45
-------
160 _
cn
120 -
0)
o
Applied Water : Fe
6/1/77 : 5.6
7/28/77 : 40.2
8/25/77 .- 58.0
9/1/77 : 55.2
9/21/77 : 57.4
,9/21/77
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 14
Analysis of discharge water from Plot I/ treated water with
sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
160r
Q)
120
80"
4C '
8/24/77
Applied Water : Fe
6/3/77
8/9/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
9/2/77
9/23/77
22.5
3.9
2.3
1.8
4.3
1.8
TIME IN MINUTES
Figure 15. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 2, treated water with-
out sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
*>.
00
160 r
120
0)
o
80
40
Applied Water : Fe
5/24/77 : 4.6
7/27/77 : 36.0
8/10/77 : 38.6
8/23/77 : 53.2
9/13/77 : 46.9
7/27/77
30
60
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 16. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 4, raw water, May-
October 1977.
-------
*».
VD
80 r-
20
6/1/77
6/1/77
7/28/77
8/25/77
9/1/77
9/21/77
43.3
51.3
47.1
43.7
43.9
I
30
60
TO 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 17. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 1, treated water with
sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
tn
80 r
20 -
/24/77
Applied Water : MN
6/3/77
8/9/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
9/2/77
9/23/77
120
150
180
210
240
TIME IN MINUTES
Figure 18.
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 2, treated water with-
out sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
8CU
60 =
7/27/77
Applied Water ; Mn
5/24/77
7/27/77
8/10/77
8/23/77
9/13/77
45.2
49.1
44.6
40.0
46.9
I
60
90
120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 19. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 4, raw water, May-
October 1977.
-------
100^
in
w
ry
tn
to
60
Applied Water
40
H
20
Mn
Fe
a
73.7
150.7
123456
TIME IN HOURS
Figure 20. Analysis of runoff water from Plot 1, treated water
with sludge, 5 October 1978.
-------
100_
co
W
O
en
u»
i-l
f?
O
EH
Applied Water
Fe & : 144.5
Mn a : 72.7
123456
TIME IN HOURS
Figure 21. Analysis of runoff water from Plot 1, treated water
with sludge, 6 October 1978.
-------
100
Ul
w
w
o
Is
g
EH
Applied Water
Fe
Mn
149.6
66.9
12345
TIME IN HOURS
Figure 22. Analysis of runoff water from Plot 1, treated water
with sludge, 17 October 1978.
-------
160 r
140
W
w
w
120
en
tn
I
H
100
3 4
TIME IN HOURS
Figure 23. Analysis of runoff water from Plot 1, treated water
with sludge, 25 October 1978.
-------
of applied water (Figures 27, 28 and 29). TDS runoff values
ranged from 4100 to 5300 mg/1; whereas, applied TDS values
values ranged from 3750 to 4500 mg/1 (Figures 27, 28 and 29).
Plot 1 - Treated Water With Sludge
Plot 1 produced irrigation runoff water that ranged between
4200-4800 mg/1 of TDS. This runoff was significantly larger
than applied TDS values of 3874-4338 mg/1 (Figure 27). No
appreciable difference existed between this plot and the other
two treatments.
Plot 2 - Treated Water Without Sludge
Irrigation runoff from this plot ranged from 4100-5100 mg/1 of
TDS. The TDS of applied water varied from 3854 to 4507 mg/1.
The treated water was approximately 400-500 mg/1 higher in TDS
after passing through the plot. There are two possible
explanations:
1. Additional dissolved salts were picked up from the plot.
2. Evaporation of some of the irrigation water caused an
increase in TDS concentration.
Plot 4 - Raw Water
This plot produced irrigation runoff water from 4300 to 5250
mg/1 of TDS. The applied TDS loads ranged from 3754 to 4511
mg/1 (Figure 29). As in plot 1 and 2 the TDS of the runoff was
approximately 500 mg/1 higher.
Aluminum
Aluminum was monitored periodically in order to determine the
fate of this metal through the treatment and irrigation cycles.
This metal proved to be a major metal component of the raw and
runoff water. Aluminum values ranged from 2 to 120 mg/1 in
runoff irrigation water.
Plot 1 - Treated Water With Sludge
This plot produced the highest values for aluminum in irrigation
runoff water (Figure 30). The aluminum values of runoff
obtained for this plot were not appreciably higher than applied
rates. The pH of the treated water was sufficiently high
(above 6.0) to cause precipitation of this metal (Strumm and
Morgan, 1970). However since no retention time was provided
little removal of this parameter was noted.
Plot 2 - Treated Water Without Sludge
Irrigation runoff from this plot contained the lowest aluminum
levels for all three plots. Applied water aluminum values
were low (ranged 3.4 - 0.5 mg/1) as compared to a range of
10 -30 mg/1 applied to plots 1 and 4. The once through treat-
ment by limestone and retention of 16 - 24 hours was usually
56
-------
3000r
7/28/77
2250 -
co
Q
M
ui
CO
Q
W tn
Q £
w
ft
CO
D
CO
r< 1500 -
Applied Water
TSS
7/28/77
8/25/77
9/1/77
9/21/77
10/10/77
1272.2
764.0
712.0
849.0
460.0 (Composite
runoff sample
= 627 mg/1)
750'r
30
60
90
120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 24,
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 1, treated water with
sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
1000
Wl
oo
w
Q
M
J
O
cn
Q ~
W tH
Q \
JS tn
W g
PM
CO
Applied Water
TSS
750
8/9/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
9/2/77
9/23/77
500 .
250 r
12.5
17.0
11.0
22.0
11.0
180
210
240
Figure 25.
TIME IN MINUTES
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 2, treated water with-
out sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
2000 r
tn
0
M
J
o
W
S
2
W
P<
en
1500
1000 -
500 -
Applied Water ; TSS
7/27/77
8/10/77
8/23/77
9/13/77
40.8
.7
30.1
13.0
30
60
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
Figure 26.
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 4, raw water, May-
October 1977.
-------
5500r-
en
o
w
Q
M
J
O
cn
D IH
£^
g£
w
w
H
Q
Applied Water ; TDS
cn
0
o
O
7/28/77
8/25/77
9/1/77
9/21/77
10/10/77
4281
3874
3971
4338
4276 (Composite
runoff sample
_4392 mg/i)
*>.
Ul
o
O
4000 -
3500
90
120
150
180
210
240
Figure 27
TIME IN MINUTES
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 1, treated water
with sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
5500 r-
5000
CO
Q
H
O
CO .
rH
OX. 4SOQ
W tn ^DUU
03
CO
4000
3500
9/2/77
0
30
Applied Water : TDS
8/9/77 : 4507
8/24/77 : 3807
8/26/77 : 3854
9/2/77 : 3929
,7 : 4364
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
Figure 28.
TIME IN MINUTES
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 2, treated water
without sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
5500r-
cn
to
CO
Q
H
to
w
o
CO
H
Q
5000 -
H 4500 -
4000 -
3500
Applied Water : TDS
7/27/77 : 4285
8/10/77 : 4511
8/23/77 : 3754
9/13/77 : 4364
30
Figure 29,
60
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 4, raw water, May-
October 1977.
-------
Applied Water ; Al
6/1/77
7/28/77
8/25/77
9/1/77
9/21/77
8.3
23.8
28.6
26.0
23.7
a\
60
90
120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 30.
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 1, treated water
with sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
60
a\
45
30
6/3/77
Applied Water : Al
6/3/77
8/9/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
9/2/77
9/23/77
2.7
3.4
1.0
1.0
1.8
0.5
120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 31,
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 2, treated water
without sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
en
ui
II
E-i
60
45
30
15 ,
30
Applied Water : Al
5/24/77
7/27/77
8/10/77
8/23/77
9/13/77
10/6/77
8.3
24.0
22.9
31.2
14.3
15. 7 (Composite runoff
sample =9.80 mg/1)
60
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 32. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 4, raw water, May-
October 1977.
-------
0\
Applied Water ; Zn
6/1/77
7/28/77
8/25/77
9/1/77
9/21/77
2.16
2.75
12
36
3,
3,
3.06
30
Figure 33,
60
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 1, treated water
with sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
ON
Applied Water ; Zn
6/3/77
8/9/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
9/2/77
9/23/77
1,
3,
1,
2,
1,
89
00
36
04
84
2.22
0
30
60
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 34,
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 2, treated water
without sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
o\
CO
Applied Water : Zn
5/24/77
7/27/77
8/10/77
8/23/77
9/13/77
10/6/77
1.68
8.00
4.00
5.90
3.28
4.28 (Composite runoff
sample =4.30 mg/1)
30
60
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
"2TO"
Figure 35. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 4, raw water, May-
October 1977.
-------
er»
rH
\
CT>
30
0
30
Figure 36.
6/1/77
7/28/77
8/25/77
9/1/77
9/21/77
.95
.90
.81
2.00
1.00
60
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 1, treated water
with sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
1.20r
H
a1
60
5/3/77
8/9/77
Applied Water ; Ni
6/3/77
8/9/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
9/2/77
9/23/77
.76
.96
.64
1.02
1.02
.96
8/24/77
.30
0
30
Figure 37.
60
90
120
150
180
TIME IN MINUTES
210
240
Analysis of discharge water from Plot 2, treated water
without sludge, May-October 1977.
-------
1.20 r-
.90
H
.30
0
30
60
V77
8/10/77
7/27/77
24/77
Applied Water ; Ni
_L
5/24/77
7/27/77
8/10/77
8/23/77
9/13/77
10/6/77
_L
.92
.90
2.00
.88
1.11
2.86(Composite runoff
sample =2.0 mg/1)
_L
JL
-L
90 120 150
TIME IN MINUTES
180
210
240
Figure 38. Analysis of discharge water from Plot 4, raw water, May-
October 1977.
-------
adequate to reduce aluminum to values of less than 2.5 mg/1.
Aluminum will readily oxidize and precipitate out of solution at
pH's of 5.2 or greater. The pH limit was always exceeded by the
neutralization method employed.
Plot 4 - Raw Water
This plot produced irrigation runoff water which was lower in
total aluminum than applied levels. This apparent retention of
aluminum on the plot was perhaps associated with a coating
of aluminum hydroxide on limestone surfaces or a possible
chelate of aluminum with various organic compounds.
Zinc and Nickel
Zinc levels ranged from 1 to 9 mg/1 in runoff irrigation water
(Figures 33, 34, and 35). Zinc values appeared to be lowest in
plot 2 runoff; hence there was significant removal of zinc by
treatment with rock dust and 18-24 hour retention time.
Nickel data indicated that plot 2 produced irrigation runoff
water of slightly lower nickel concentration than plots 1 or
4. Plot 4 produced the highest nickel values of 1.10 mg/1
(Figures 36, 27 and 38). There was no apparent nickel trend to
fluctuate in a specific manner with time from the start of
irrigation.
VEGETATION
One objective of the project was to measure the effects of the
various types of treatments (raw water, treated water with
sludge and treated water without sludge) on the vegetation.
Evaluation of vegetation response was in terms of harvest yields
(Table 14) and percent cover (Table 15).
In addition to harvest yields, percent ground cover was used
to compare vegetation among plots (Table 15). Percent ground
cover (presence or absence of vegetation at designated inter-
vals along a line transect) was also used as a criteria for
evaluating vegetation response to various water treatments
associated with irrigation. Table 15 indicates the percent
ground cover values obtained for each plot (Figure 39).
Plot 1 - Treated Water With Sludge
This plot exhibited high harvest yields (3193 ka/ha) and 70 per-
cent ground cover. This plot produced significantly greater
harvest yields and percent ground cover than either the control
or raw water treatment. However plot 1 produced slightly lower
harvest yield and ground cover than treated water without sludge
(Plot 2). Yet these differences between plots 1 and 2 were not
significant.
72
-------
TABLE 14. EFFECT OF IRRIGATION TREATMENT ON OVEN-DRIED HARVEST
YIELDS
kg/ha
Plot
Treatment
FA*
SCBG**
Average
1 Treated water with sludge 2764 3623*** 3193
2 Treated water without sludge 3736 2765 3250
3 Control 475 1030 752
4 Raw water 3069 1841 2455
* FA = fescue/alfalfa.
** SCBG = sweet clover/bermuda grass.
*** Major invasion of fescue into sweet clover/bermuda grass
portion of plot 1.
TABLE 15. PERCENT COVER OF PLOTS
percent cover
Date
6/1979
6/1979
6/1979
6/1979
7/1978
7/1978
7/1978
7/1978
8/1978
8/1978
8/1978
8/1978
Method
Line transect
Line transect
Line transect
Line transect
Aerial photo
Aerial photo
Aerial photo
Aerial photo
Aerial photo
Aerial photo
Aerial photo
Aerial photo
Plot
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
FA*
68
79
64
55
65
75
45
50
65
70
35
65
SCBG**
82
86
59
72
75
75
40
50
75
70
35
50
Average
75.2
82.7
61.7
63.5
70.0
75.0
42.5
50.0
70.0
70.0
35.0
57.0
* FA = Kentucky-31 tall fescue and buffalo alfalfa.
** SCBG = Yellow blossum sweet clover and bermuda grass.
73
-------
The sweet clover/bermuda grass (SCBG) side of the plot produced
greater amounts of dry matter and ground cover than the fescue/
alfalfa (FA) plot side. Although in all other plots, except
the control, the fescue/alfalfa half out performed the sweet
clover/bermuda grass combination. Part of the explanation could
be with the large invasion of fescue into the SCBG side of this
plot. The SCBG plot side was on the downslope of this plot.
In addition, the SCBG side of all plots had considerable
invasion of volunteer plant species. Most noticeable was
Goldenrod (Solidago sp.). It was found very prevalent on the
SCBG plot side and appeared scarce on the FA plot side.
Bermuda grass populations diminished following the first growing
season. It is not known whether the severe winters of 1977 and
1978 were solely responsible for its reduction or instead it
experienced a gradual loss of stand vigor. This researcher
noted that the bermuda grass stands were similarly affected in
the surrounding areas in both spoil and non-spoil areas.
Plot 2 - Treated Water Without Sludge
This plot produced the highest harvest yields and percent cover
of all plots. Even though these values were greater than those
obtained for treated water with sludge, the difference was not
significant. On the other hand, the harvest yield of plot 2
(3250 kg/ha) and the ground cover of 82 to 75 percent were
significantly higher than the raw water treatment or the control
plot. Goldenrod was extensively prevelant in the SCBG side of
the plot.
Plot 3 - Control
This plot received normal reclamation practices of liming,
disking, fertilizing and seeding as did all plots. The harvest
yields of this plot were meager (752 kg/ha) and the ground cover
was substandard as only 35-60 percent ground cover was achieved.
(Tables 14 and 15, respectively). The yield of dried plant
matter was approximately 25 percent of the plots irrigated with
treated water and 31 percent of the yield obtained from the raw
water plot.
Plot 4 - Raw Water
The raw water treatment produced significantly less harvest
yield and ground cover than either plots 1 or 2. However the
raw water plot did significantly out perform the control plot
with respect to harvest yields and ground cover (Tables 14 and
15). The harvest yield of 2455 kg/ha is similar to yield data
reported by Barnhisel et al, 1975 for phosphorus and tillage
experiments in western Kentucky. This suggests there is an
apparent benefit from irrigation of water on acid spoils even
when the applied water is of low pH and high acidity (Table 13).
There are several other possible explanations. Of which,
accelerated leaching is plausible. Increased leaching has been
74
-------
Plot 1 - Treated Water Plus Sludge
Plot 2 Treated Water Without Sludge
Figure 39. Photographs showing the vegetation response
to the different treatments, 1977.
75
-------
Plot 3 - No Irrigation
BPi
Plot 4 - Raw Water Irrigation
Figure 39. (Continued).
76
-------
established to improve vegetation response on poor spoil sites
(Riley, 1973). Another logical possibility is that excess
limestone in the spoil served to neutralize the water to a
sufficient extent in order to be beneficial to the plant
community. The limestone existed from the initial liming
operation. This latter explanation is reinforced by water
quality data which indicates a substantial improvement in pH and
acidity from the applied water (Table 13; Figures 4 and 7). In
many instances the water was applied at a pH of 3.6 and the
resulting runoff water (a portion of which was available to the
plants for growth) was above a pH of 6.0. It is unknown which
one, or if a possible combination of explanations could be
responsible for the observed results.
RUNOFF
Discharges from the irrigation plot varied with the intensity
of irrigation. Peak runoff appeared to be from 230 to 285
liter/minute (60 to 75 GPM) depending upon application rate
(455-625 liters/minute). Initial runoff commenced at from 40
to 70 minutes after the start of the irrigation cycle. The
lower intensity irrigation rates produced longer lag phases
between irrigation and runoff (Figure 40). The' amount of
surface runoff produced from the plot ranged from 26 to 33
percent of the total water volume applied. The amount of
surface runoff was related to both intensity and duration of
irrigation. At the cessation of irrigation, surface runoff
diminished 50 to 60 percent of comparable time immediately
before the shut down of the irrigation pump. The shape of the
curve and time required to attain peak flows were found related
to irrigation intensity. The peak runoff values were approx-
imately 50 percent of the applied rate. The irrigation rates
were not varied under sufficient seasonal differences and
soil moistures to give a prediction; but it is known that those
variables will effect the amount and duration of runoff (Linsley/
1975).
RAINFALL RUNOFF
Water samples representing surface runoff from each plot were
collected during normal precipitation events. The runoff from
all four plots were similar in most water quality parameters.
Analyses of samples taken 20 January and 28 July 1979 are
shown in Table 16.
Natural precipitation from all plots met mine drainage effluent
limits established by the U.S. EPA and the Office of Surface
Mining. Alkaline pH readings were obtained from all plots.
Acidity values were zero on all samples. Alkalinity values
ranged from 28 to 80 mg/1. The highest alkalinity was recorded
from plot 1 (treated water plus sludge), which received by-
products of water treatment. This higher alkalinity value is
77
-------
00
0)
-P
&H W
O M
2
-------
3.8 r-
2.5
1.0
1.3
.5
e
o
Z
O
H
H
H
CM
H
O
CM
May
2.5
1.3
ill
-U-id_ib
June
jtUj
July
1977
(4.1 cm)
" '
LL
August September
(4.3 cm)
III
1-5
EH
H
H
L)
&
1.0
.5
August September October November December
1978
Figure 41. Precipitation patterns at Vogue-EPA
irrigation site, Muhlenberg County,
1977-1978.
79
-------
possibly a response from the addition of fine mesh rock dust
(limestone) via irrigation (Table 16).
Iron and manganese concentrations were considerably below the
average limit established for discharge of mine waters. Plot
1 produced the lowest concentrations of both components (0.8 -
1.05 mg/1; iron and .06 - .15 mg/1; manganese). High suspended
solids appeared to be linked to higher iron and manganese values
(Table 16). Plots 1 and 2 (with the exception of 28 July on
plot 2) produced water with lower iron and manganese than 3 and
4. These lower values could be a reflection of the irrigation
of treated water on these plots. The irrigation of treated
water produced greater densities of ground cover and plant
matter (Tables 14 and 15). This vegetation protected the ground
surface and reduced the amount of suspended solids.
All plots produced water with low suspended solids (10.0 -
46 mg/1). No discernible difference was apparent between
irrigated and control plots with regards to suspended solid
loads. However, upon visual inspection of suspended solids
trapped on the glass fiber filters, it appeared that organic
matter made up a greater portion of TSS from plots 1 and 2 than
either plot 3 or 4. This could explain why smaller TSS loads
produced relatively higher metal values from plots 3 and 4.
Total dissolved solids (TDS) ranged from 450 to 1210 mg/1.
Significantly lower values were present in samples obtained
from plots 1 and 2 that received treated water as opposed to the
raw water or control plot (Table 16). Perhaps the irrigation
with treated water did enhance the leaching of total dissolved
solids.
TABLE 16. ANALYSES OF STORM RUNOFF
Plot*
mg/1
Date pH Acidity Alkalinity Iron
Mn
TSS
* 1 - treated water plus sludge, 2 - treated water
without sludge, 3 - no irrigation, 4 - raw water.
TDS
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1/20
7/28
1/20
7/28
1/20
7/28
1/20
7/28
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
40
72
33
58
28
64
28
0.80
1.05
1.46
2.69
1.82
1.49
1.75
3.47
.06
.15
.25
.24
.60
.48
.74
.90
10
15
46
43
26
12
18
59
580
450
758
591
1090
700
1210
1155
80
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Assoc-
iation and Water Pollution Control Federation. 1975.
Standard methods for the Examination of water and waste-
water. 14th ed., 1193 pp.
Barnhisel, R.I., J.L. Powell and G.W. Akin. 1975. Keys to
successful reclamation in western Kentucky. Third symp.
on surface mining and reclamation. Nat'l Coal Assoc.,
Washington, D.C., 140-151.
Bray, R.H. and L.T. Kurtz. 1945. Determination of total,
organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil
Sci. 59:39-45.
Linsley, R.K. Jr., M.A. Kohler and J.L. Paulhus. 1975.
Hydrology for engineers. Me Graw-Hill, New York. 482 pp.
Riley, C.V. 1973. Furrow grading - key to successful reclam-
ation. Research and applied tech. symp. on mined-land
reclamation. Nat'l Coal Assoc., Washington, D.C., 159-177.
Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan. 1970. Aquatic chemistry. Wiley
Interscience, New York, N.Y. 583 pp.
<
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Methods for
chemical analysis of water and wastes. National Envir.
Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. 460 pp.
Wilmoth, R.C. 1974. Limestone and limestone-lime neutralization
of acid mine drainage. EPA - 670/2-74-051, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 92 pp.
Zaval, F.J. and J.D. Robins. 1972. Revegetation augmentation
by reuse of treated active surface mine drainage. EPA -
R2-72-119, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
D.C. 147 pp.
81
-------
APPENDIX
TABLE 17. SEIVE ANALYSIS OF ROCK DUST, FREDONIA QUARRIES
Rock dust (limestone),
Screen size percent passing
70 98
100 95
200 75
325 65
TABLE 18. MANUFACTURER'S CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF ROGK DUST
(LIMESTONE)
Parameter As percent of rock dust
CaC03
MgCO-
Si02
Aluminum and iron oxides
97.6
1.5
0.7
0.2
82
-------
Raw Water Lagoon and Steel Water Line Feeding
Irrigation Pump
Electric Limer Utilized in Project
Figure 42. Photographs showing raw lagoon and
limer used in project.
83
-------
I
High Pressure Irrigation System Under Operation
Monitoring Station for Recording and Sampling Runoff
Figure 43. Photograph showing monitoring station and
irrigation.
84
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/7-80-055
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
Revegetation Augmentation of Surface Mines with
Treated Acid Mine Drainage
7. AUTHOR(S)
Wayne A. Rosso
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
S.M.R. Engineering and Environmental Services
Central City, Kentucky 42330
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
March 1980 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1NE623
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
14010HNS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 12/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This study was conducted as a grant with Kentucky Department for Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection and in cooperation with Peabody Coal Company
16. ABSTRACT
This study provided a field demonstration of an earlier feasibility study. Treated
acid mine drainage was utilized to augment revegetation on graded spoil areas. Acid
mine drainage was treated utilizing limestone (rock dust) and the resulatant water was
spray irrigated under high pressure onto the plots. Three treatment and a control
were used to evaluate the effects of the irrigation on the vegetation and resulting
surface runoff. The three treatments applied via irrigation were raw acidic water,
treated water with sludge and treated water without sludge. All three treatments
enhanced vegetation response in varying degrees when compared to the control plot.
Irrigation of treated water with sludge deposited some of the sludge (treatment by-
products, unreacted limestone and ferric hydroxide) onto the plots. When irrigation
was applied at a rate of 2.5 cm/4 hours, approximately 30 percent of the water was
recovered as surface runoff. No detrimental water quality impact was noted by the
deposition of treatment sludge onto the plots. Runoff from natural precipitation
events produced runoff water of similar quality to control areas. This report was
submitted in fulfillment of Project 14010 HNS by the Kentucky Department for Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Work was completed as of December 1979.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Coal Hydrology
Surface Mining
Acid Mine Drainage
Reclamation
Sludge
Neutralization
Reclamation
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Kentucky
Irrigation
Vegetation
Runoff
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
2A, 2D, 6M
8H, 8M
21. NO. OF PAGES
97
22/PRICE
gpA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
85
» U.S. GOVERNMENT PfflNTINO OFFICE: I960-657-146/5636
------- |