POLLUTION  CONTROL  COSTS
           IN
     MINE DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR •  FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION





                 DECEMBER 1966

-------
            This  Handbook was prepared  by
                  the  Monongahela  River
             Mine  Drainage Remedial  Project
                    John Hyland, Project Director
                              and
                 the  Advisory  Work Group
           established by the Federal Enforcement Conference
         in the Matter  of Pollution of the Interstate Waters  of
              the Monongahela  River  and its Tributaries
Conferees represent the States of Maryland, West Virginia,  and  Pennsylvania,
the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, and the U. S. Department of
                           the Interior

-------
     Members of Advisory Work Group—field meeting at Elkins, West Virginia, June 1966,
Flow of approximately one  cfs coming through abandoned surface mine from  worked-out
                      underground  mine intercepted  by stripping.

-------
Mine drainage from abandoned underground workings near Harding, West Virginia.

-------
                              PREFACE






     The information presented in this publication answers a need of



the Monongahela River Mine Drainage Remedial Project for preliminary




cost data in determining relative costs of mine drainage abatement.




The high degree of interest and numerous requests for this type of



information by others concerned with problems of mine drainage made




publication of this data necessary for a wider distribution than




originally contemplated.



     The data presented and evaluated resulted in no small part from




the interest, assistance and information provided by the Advisory




Work Group composed of, at the time, Mr. Ralph Forges, Chairman,



Deputy Chief, Technical Advisory and Investigations Section, Federal




Water Pollution Control Administration; Dr. Alvin R. Grove, Associate



Dean for Commonwealth Campuses, The Pennsylvania State University,




University Park,  Pennsylvania; Dr. Edward C. Kinney, U. S. Department



of the Interior,  Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife; Mr. Cecil J.




Urbaniak, President,  District #31, United Mine Workers of America,



Fairmont, West Virginia; Dr. Paul H. Price, State Geologist for West



Virginia, Morgantown, West Virginia; Mr. Ernst P. Hall, Research



Consultant, Consolidation Coal Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;




Dr. D. M. Whitt,  Director, Plant Sciences Division, Soil Conservation




Service; Mr. 0. V. Vande Linde, Jr., Executive Director, West Virginia




Surface Mine Association, Charleston, West Virginia; and Mr. John R.




Hyland, Secretary,  Project Director, Monongahela River Mine Drainage




Remedial  Project.

-------
     Figures 3, U, 8 and 10 illustrating typical remedial




measures were adapted from the "Case Histories in the Control



of Acid Mine-Drainage" of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation



Commission.  Typing of the manuscript was done by Miss Joan




Hile, Project Secretary.

-------
                               Contents
                                                            Page

Preface
Summary                                                        1
Introduction                                                   2
Definitions                                                    5
Objectives                                                     6
Method of data collection and analysis                         6
Typical remedial measures                                      7
    Underground mine seals                                     8
    Surface mine reclamation                                   8
    Refuse and gob disposal                                    9
    Control and treatment                                      9
Presentation and evaluation of costs                          2k
    Underground mine seals                                    25
    Grouting                                                  26
    Surface mine reclamation                                  26
    Planting costs                                            27
    Drainage diversion                                        27
    Impoundments                                              28
    Refuse and gob                                            28
    Control and treatment                                     29
Appendix                                                      30
    Table I - Work outline             ,                      31
    Table II - Costs of remedial measures                     33
    Summary of conference                                     Ul
    Definitions                                               kf
    References                                                51

                               Figures
Figures 1-13 - Typical remedial measures

    Figure 1  - Double wall - clay pack - dry seal            11
    Figure 2  - Wet mine seal                                 12
    Figure 3  - Underground water drainage                    13
    Figure k  - Chemical grouting                             Ik
    Figure 5  - Strip mine rehabilitation - complete          15
    Figure 6  - Strip mine rehabilitation - partial           16
    Figure 7  - Strip mine rehabilitation - covering          17
    Figure 8  - Diversion ditch                               18
    Figure 9  - Strip mine high wall dam                      19
    Figure 10 - Surface drainage control                      20
    Figure 11 - Covering and seeding                          21
    Figure 12 - Disposal of refuse                            22
    Figure 13 - Disposal of refuse with drainage              23
                diversion

-------
                              - 1 -




SUMMABY



     As a result of pollution studies by the Federal Water Pollution



Control Administration, a conference to review pollution problems in the



Monongahela River Basin and determine necessary action to be taken was



called in December 1963 at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  One of the recommen-



dations made was for a Technical Committee to explore means of abating



pollution caused by coal mine drainage and, among other things, develop



a remedial program to include cost estimates.  The Advisory Work Group



established for the Monongahela River Mine Drainage Remedial Project



assisted in collecting and determining useful cost data for application



to the remedial measures developed and recommended.



     Numerous unpublished data were consulted and used as well as



available published literature in the field.  Cost data available were



evaluated beginning with the joint State-Federal mine sealing program



of the thirties.



     Methods examined are grouped into those dealing with underground



mine drainage, surface mine drainage, drainage from refuse and waste



disposal areas, and control and treatment of water in active mining



situations.



     Costs of remedial measures are listed and evaluated on a unit price



basis.  They cover a period of 33 years from 1933 to the present time.



These include unit costs on such items as mine seals or bulkheads; surface



reclamation of strip-mines along with associated planting; reclamation  of



refuse areas; drainage diversion and impoundment; and treatment of mine



drainage.



     Included are the tabulated cost data and references.

-------
                                - 2 -
Introduction



     Acid mine drainage has long been associated with the removal



of coal from the earth, although there was only scant recognition



of the problem.  Eke damages resulting from the acid waters con-



stantly increased until it became virtually a national problem.



    Early remedial measures encompassed neutralization and in a



few instances, reclamation of by-products.  These methods were,



and still are, extremely costly.  In the early 1920's attention



was directed towards sealing abandoned mines, proper mine drainage



management, flow regulation, and even the prohibition of mining




in some areas.



    The first comprehensive approach to acid mine drainage control



was initiated in the 1930's by the Federal and State governments



through relief administrations such as Works Progress Administration,



Federal Emergency Relief Administration, and Civil Works



Administration.  Some  of the mine seals placed during those days



are still effective, although only limited recordings of these



activities remain.  In the succeeding years, the evaluation and



control of acid mine drainage continued.  The Ohio River pollution



study conducted by the Public Health Service evaluated the damages



from this source of pollution.  The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation



Commission has devoted considerable energy to the development of



control practices directed towards acid mine drainage.

-------
                         - 3 -
     In 1962 the Committee on Public Works of the House of

Representatives requested the Secretary of the Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare to submit a report on acid mine

drainage control.  This document, House Committee Print No. 18

of the 82nd Congress, 2nd Session, recognized the large problem

involved and recommended a three-point program involving  (a) mine

sealing, (b) stepped-up research, and (c) flow regulation.  It

recommended that a demonstration project be established to prove

that abatement measures can be effective and that firm cost of

control measures be developed.  Congressional authorization to

carry out this recommendation was given in Public Lav 87-88, 88th

Congress, and the first site for demonstration selected was the

watersheds of Roaring Creek and Grassy Run near  Elkins, West

Virginia.  This project is currently underway, but  several years

will elapse before much useful cost  data will be forthcoming.

     At about this time the Secretary of the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare, pursuant to  his responsibilities  under the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, having reason  to believe that

 inadequately treated wastes including mine drainage originating in

 West Virginia was endangering the health and welfare of persons in

 Pennsylvania,  called an Interstate Water  Pollution  Control Conference

 on the Monongahela River  for December 1963 .-* The conferees of this
 I/ FWPCA, Summary of Conference, Pollution of Interstate Waters
    of the Monongahela River and Its Tributaries, December 17-18,  1963.

-------
                              - U -






meeting unanimously agreed that interstate pollution existed on



the Monongahela River Basin and that one of the principal pollutants



was acid mine drainage.  The conferees established a Technical



Committee, consisting of representatives from the States of West



Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland; The Ohio River Valley Water



Sanitation Commission; and the Federal Government, to explore



means of abating pollution caused by coal mine drainage.  This



Committee was charged with determining the amount of pollution



from such mines and for developing a remedial program including



cost estimates.



     The Committee established a project called the Monongahela



River Mine Drainage Remedial Project and set up headquarters in



Wheeling, West Virginia in 196U.  To assist John R. Hyland, Project



Director, in the fulfillment of his responsibilities, the Technical



Committee, in its third meeting, decided to establish an Advisory



Work Group for the purpose of advising and consulting with the



Project Director on ways and means of remedial measures, on cost



and safety measures, and to facilitate public relations between



the Project and other groups.  The first meeting of the Advisory



Work Group was held October 20, 1965.



     The Project Director of the Monongahela River Mine Drainage



Remedial Project, during this time, recruited and trained field



crews and developed supporting laboratory services, proceeding



rapidly to conduct a survey to ascertain the sources of mine

-------
drainage and remedial measures to correct the acid pollution.



     It was the recommendation of the Advisory Work Group that



the Monongahela River Basin under consideration be handled in a



sub-basin or drainage area concept and that the sub-basin reports



encompassing these areas be complete in themselves.  This would



permit inventory and development of the reports on remedial



measures in discrete units but yet identifiable and related to



the basin hydrology.  These sub-basin areas would contain



identified sources of mine drainage with chemical analyses and



flow data on each source.  Cost data on remedial measures



recommended would be evaluated and applied to these smaller



sub-basin areas, thus reflecting physical and regional differences



and costs involved without necessitating detailed engineering



analyses.



Definitions



     Listed in the appendix are those geological, mining and



economic terms not found in a standard reference dictionary such



as Websters New Collegiate Dictionary or for which the customary



use or connotation varies from that used in this report.  Additional



detailed information on mining, the terms, methods of, and descrip-



tions of equipment used may be found in the August, 1966 issue of



Coal Age as a separate section titled, Coal Age Mining Guidebook.

-------
                         - 6 -
Objectives



     It was recognized early that useful cost data were scarce and



that one of the prime activities of the Advisory Work Group would be



the assembly and evaluation of such information for immediate use by



the Project.  It is the intent of the Advisory Work Group to develop



useful cost data primarily for application to the Monongahela River



Mine Drainage Remedial Project.  These data were to facilitate completion



of the project's reports in its survey encompassing the sources of



pollution, and so that remedial measures and estimated costs thereof



might be recommended.



     It was also recognized however, that these data would have broad



application for other activities concerned with acid mine drainage



control that had an expressed interest in cost data.  While this



compilation of data may have useful application elsewhere, it is



cautioned that these be applied^with knowledge of the local condition



and engineering judgement.



Method of data collection and analysis



     Research of existing material on the subject of pollution from



coal mine sources indicated little published data from which costs



of accomplishing various remedial measures could be determined.  This



was primarily true in the case of underground mines.  State and federal



agencies having responsibility in surface reclamation of coal properties



however, had available documented material on costs.  Some data were



also available from industry and from research and pilot plant studies



of treatment of mine wastes, such as those of the U. S. Bureau of Mines



and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

-------
                           - 7 -
     Beginning with the joint State-Federal mine sealing program

of the thirties, and utilizing as many of these records as could

be located and verified, the project began collecting this cost data

along with information on how the sealing or restoration was

accomplished.  To encompass all resources available,  members of

the Advisory Work Group were asked to provide additional data to

the project from their experience and to refer any other known sources

to the project.  An outline and table of remedial measures and unit

operations considered were submitted to the members.—'  This resulted

in additional data from industry, the states and federal agencies.

The additional data also helped verify that already acquired.

Typical remedial measures

     Remedial measures considered for the abatement or control of

pollution from coal mine drainage include those indicated by the
      of
report-'   of the Coal Industry Advisory Committee of the Ohio River

Valley Water Sanitation Commission relating to its Resolution No. 5-60

adopted January lU, 1960.  Since these are directed to active mining

operations, additional search for useful solutions and practises

employed in the control of mine drainage pollution was made.  These

have included methods tried by both state and federal agencies as

well as those reported by industry.  Additional solutions to these



I/ Appended.  Table I - Work outline

2/ Principles and Guide to Practises in the Control of Acid Mine
   Drainage, compiled by the Coal Industry Advisory Committee, Ohio
   River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, March

-------
                          - 8 -
are being tried in demonstration projects and feasibility studies.
     The methods considered here are those related to the cost data
presented and evaluated.  Typical examples of remedial measures are
shown in Figures 1-13.
     Underground mine seals - Procedure is to close the mine by
constructing bulkheads or seals at all of the exterior openings.  These
are placed, with knowledge of the mine workings,  to produce a water-
tight seal.  These have been built or constructed of stone, masonry,
block, compacted soil and clay.  Design and placement should assure
sufficient strength in the bedrock and the bulkhead to withstand  the
water and ground pressures present.  One or more of these closures may
have incorporated in it restricted outlets with water traps to permit
release of controlled amounts of water.  The traps are constructed so
as to maintain a water seal.  Grouting or rock-bolting of these seals
may be involved to assure stability and to prevent leaking.  Sealing
of mines often involves the identification and location at the surface
of associated subsidence areas.  Vbere these are present, compacted clay
or earth is most often used to prevent additional surface water from
entering the mine.
     Surface mine reclamation - Surface mine restoration and backfilling
involves remedial measures with both significant experience and back-
ground as well as legislative history.  Basically involved are reshaping
of the spoil banks to some conformable topography, burial of toxic and
acid-forming materials, and covering of the portion of the high wall
containing acid-forming materials.  Following this re-establishment of

-------
                             - 9 -





vegetative growth and cover is accomplished.  Dependent on topography




and drainage, lined diversion ditches may need to be installed above



the disturbed area, to keep additional water from the area, or through




the area, to control drainage.  These are particularly useful during




operation of a mine.



     An alternative, for control of pollution from these areas where



topographic and drainage features are suitable, is the construction



of impoundments to inundate acid-forming materials, as well as




provide some degree of control of flow from the area.



     Current surface mining operations are conducted under some



form of license or permit and a bond is generally required to assure




that specified restoration and reclamation practises are carried out.



     Experience of the operations in the West Virginia Surface Mine




Association and of the Soil Conservation Service has shown that



planned reclamation carried out during and immediately following




mining activities is both more effective and less expensive than




at some later date.



     Eefuse and gob disposal  - This highly concentrated waste material




can be handled by placement in a prepared area.  The disposal area can




be prepared by diking off  suitable topographic depressions or low areas



or by utilizing abandoned  strip pits.  Figures 11-13 show typical




situations of this method.



     Control and treatment - Although listed as a remedial measure,



these methods, regulated pumping, neutralization, treatment and



impounding for controlled  release are typical  of preventative measures

-------
                              - 10 -






available vhere pollution is a problem at an active mine.  Regulated



pumping and controlled release from impoundments equalizes the



pollution load on the stream where water quality limits are not



exceeded and prevents "slugging effects".  Some improvement in quality



is usually experienced by impounding and by impounding opportunity for



minor treatment of the water such as pH adjustment and neutralization



is provided.  A number of lime neutralization plants were constructed



since 19^5 in Pennsylvania since their amended Clean Streams Law went



into effect.



     Research development of plant treatment for mine drainage is a



fairly recent development.  Two methods that have shown promise of



successful treatment of mine waters without prohibitive costs are



the neutralization-aeration-flocculation-sedimentation, or more simply



"Operation Yellowboy", of the Pennsylvania Department of Mines and



Mineral Industries and the reverse-osmosis unit of the Office of



Saline Water.  Both of these methods have been tried on a pilot plant



basis using mine water drainage, but cost data as yet is available only



in the "Yellowboy" pilot plant,  The process involved in this treatment



is to bring the mine water into the plant through a flow meter into a



mixer where a regulated amount of hydrated lime is added for neutrali-



zation.  From here it flows into an aerator and then to a thickener



for settling of the mineralized solids.  Flocculating agents may be



added to increase settlement of the suspended solids.  The clarified



effluent is released as treated, leaving a sludge for dewatering and



disposal.

-------
                        - If -
DOUBLE WALL-CLAY PACK-DRY SEAL
   FIG. 1
                                   .A ftfVfft
                                ftCMCDUL MIOJCCT
                          TYPICAL REMEDIAL MEASURES
                                   OTMEAIVW c

-------
 Outcrop
                                         an* »ii«
                              -section
    WET  MINE SEAL
WITH CONTHOLLEO F
    no. 2
MONQNOAMCIA
        MCMCOtAL
                          TYPICAL ft£M€D4At

-------
a" SUCTION  LIME
CONNECTED TO ISO H. P, POMP
                     EMERGENCY  6" PIPE - CAPPED
                              OAK Z' THICK
                                           8" THICK FiCTE* DAMS
                                          •OILT TO HOOr - CONCRETE
                                                 •LOCK
                                           8" riLTCM DAM »' MIOH
                                              CONCMCTC SLOCK
                                     THICK CONCNCTE BLOCK
                                      COM. NCIONT
                          6" OISCHAHOE INTO SUM*
                           FHOM NORTHWEST MAINS
            UNDERGROUND  WATER  DRAINAGE
  PIG.3
                              MONONGAHCLA  RIVER  MINE ORAINAOC
                                        REMEDIAL PROJECT
                                TYPICAL  REMEDIAL  MEASURES
                              US. •CPMITMCMT Of MCAtTM, CMJCMWN *
                                       PVW.IC MCM.TM SOMMCC

-------
                        - 14 -
                 SIDE VIEW - ENTRY SLOPE
               I	!	1	'   '   '   '   I  !.._*'
         FRONT VCW, SECTION A*', 150 FEET DOWN
                    ENTRY SLOPE
         CHEMICAL  GROUTING TO  PREVENT
                 INFLOW OF WATER
PIG. 4
                        MONONGAHELA RIVCT MINE  DRAINAGE
                                 REMEDIAL PROJECT
                         TYPICAL REMEDIAL MEASURES
U.S.OCMMTMCMT«r MttLTH. fWCAfMH ».
        PUflUC
 *t»4«* ill

-------
                       Original and  Restored
                            Surface
                                         -- = SHALES-- -~
      STRIP  MINE  REHABILITATION -
                         COMPLETE  RESTORATION
      Plan  A
MO. 5
                          MONONGAHEIA RIVEfl MINC DRAINAGE
                                   REMEDIAL  PROJECT
                           TYPICAL REMEDIAL  MEASURES
                         u.s.
                          ftCGKW "I
Of MCA4.TM. EDUCATION A
    HEALTH SCRVtCC
          CM4HLOTTCSVIH.C, V*

-------
                                   Original Surface

                          Cut blasttd or doted into prt-

                           R«»*or«d Surface
                                             Ill LIMESTONE
Cut. «<«»d info pi*
         STRIP  MINE  REHABILITATION-

                              PARTIAL RESTORATION
 no.
                            MONONGANCJ-A  RIVER MINE DRAINAGE
                                     REMEDIAL PROJECT
                              TYPICAL REMEDIAL  MEASURES
U.S. DCPAATMCNT Of HEALTH, IOUCATKW& MLNMi
         K»tt.lC MCAL1M KMVKC
 MOIOM HI               cw*imrravn.LC, v<

-------
                         - 17 -
                       Original Surface

                        Restored Surface
        STRIP MINE  REHABILITATION —
                          COVERING  Of COAL KD
MO. 7
                         MOMOMOANCLA *tVC«
                                 ACMC04A4. PttOKCT
                          TYWCAL RCMCOIAL

-------
UNDISTURBED AREA
              4' peep x 12 wtoe
             DIVERSION
               DITCH
    DIVERSION  DITCH -  SURFACE  MINING
 no. •

-------
             CMOSS SCCTION
  STRIP
HIGH WALL CMM
wvcn
                    TYPICAL HCMCDIAL MCAtUMCS

-------
                        — SURFACE: DRAINAGE

ACID DRAINAGE FROM
ABANDONED UNDER-
GROUND MINE
                                      ALKALINE DRAINAGE
                                      FROM ACTIVE
                                      UNDERGROUND MINE
                                   ALTERNATE LOCATION
                                   OF IMPOUNDMENT
                                  WATER SUPPLY  LAKE
                                      PUMP  HOUSE
                                            WATER TO
                                        CLEANING PLANT
                       CAATHCN  DAM
             OVERFU3W
PREVENTION OF WATER  POLLUTION BY SURFACE
           DRAINAGE CONTROL  AND  IMPOUNDMENT
no. it
                         MOMOMOAMCLA fttVCA MINE  DRAINAGE
                                HCMCDIAL PROJECT
                           TYPICAL REMEDIAL  MEASURES
                                  I? Of NUUN, EDUCATION A
                                 PUftUC MCA4.TH KNVICC

-------
                          - 11 -
          3 ft cover from toil &
                       spoil ;-
                                ^a^ot^'
                                lTv"'^/-%7';/iT x X /7
                                  ML'VWxV "//
              Refuse graded and covered with three ftet
              of overburden and native  »andsfone >poil.
              limed, fertilized  and drill-seeded with rye,
              Kentucky red fescue. Korean lespedeza,
              crown vetch or Reed canary grass.
            COVERING  & SEEDING  COAL  REFUSE
F IO.11
                           MOffOMOAMCLA  RIVCft MINE  OKAINA6C
                                   RCMCDIAL MOJECT

                             TYPICAL  REMEDIAL MEASURES
                           U S. OCMMtTMCHT Of NCALTM, COUCATMH *
                                     H9UC NCALTM  SCUVVCC

-------
           Lagoon
                         O
              j
  PREPARATION
      1
CLEANING PLANT
  R*futt
                                            COAL MINC
      DISPOSAL OT COAL PREPARATION PLANT

           RCFUSC  IN SUAfftCC MINING
no. 11
                        MOKONG^CLA RIVCH  MIMC
                               HCMCOUL
                         TYPICAL
MEASURES

-------
                                     Compacted Cloy
                                      Embankment
                         feiV.T-;-
                 5CCTIOH
COMPACTION  & DISPOSAL OF COAL  REFUSE
        WITH DIVISION Of ORMNAOe

-------
                              - 2k -






Presentation and evaluation of costs



     These methods were grouped first according to general physical




conditions common to sources within the subdivision such as under-



ground, surface, waste disposal and treatment.  These were further



sub-divided according to the particular technique or remedial measure




that predominated.  Although further examination would reveal other



factors that might affect costs, it seemed that this particular one



permitted a reasonable grouping of the basic factors to any one




cost determination.  Variations still existed, however these were



due to the wide variety of physical conditions possible.  As for



example the differences in type and condition of rock layers from



one mine to another.  Interpretation should take into account that



while data may be useful for estimating costs and determining cost




ranges, individual exceptions may vary widely.



     It was found further that some adjustment also was necessary



from the viewpoint of economic conditions and price changes during




the years involved.  In order to maintain some basis for comparison



both the Engineering News-Record (BNR) Construction Cost Index,



reflecting labor and materials cost variations of actual construction




contracts in twenty cities across the U. S., and the U. S. Department



of Commerce Index of composite prices reflecting the changing economic




conditions, were used to a current cost basis.  The MR index was




originally based on an average in 1913 of 100.  The index of the U. S.



Department of Commerce was originally on the base year of 1915» but




is currently based on the period 1957-59 equals 100.  The median

-------
                            - 25 -
index of the 1964-65 period was used in each case in adjusting

costs and these indexes respectively were 948 and 113.

     Following is an example of cost adjustments made:

ENR Construction Cost Adjusted to 1964-65 (Cost Index,  U.S. Average - 948)

      Cost       Year        Index      Current Cost

     $1874     1933-39        196         $7496

       158     1935-39        216           692

      1171     1947-49        450          2342

       373     1956-58        725           485

                                   Avg.   $2753

     U. S. Department of Conmerce, composite adjusted to 1964-65

               (Cost index 1915 = 100, adjusted
               to 1957-59 * 100; 1964-65 index
               = 113 (1957-59 base index)

                                       Adjusted to       Adjusted to
Cost
$1874
158
1171
373
Year
1933-39
1935-39
1947.49
1956-58
Index
160
170
352
477
Avg.
1957 = («
$5640
447
1593
373
$2013
32) Current
$6373
505
1800
421
Adj.
Avg. $2274
     Underground mine seals - It was found that while the cost of mine

seals ranged from $158 reported under the WEA. program in West

Virginia to $2640 under a program in Pennsylvania during the

period of 1947-49, the average cost, adjusted to current prices

and weighted by a factor of use and experience, amounted to $1070

-------
                       - 26 -





using the ENR construction cost index and $1006 by the U. S.



Department of Commerce index.  These compare favorably with the



few current costs quoted, one, by the West Virginia Department



of Mines of $1650, and another from a mine in western Pennsylvania



involving a bulkhead costing $1100.  Prior estimates ranged



around $1000 for a constructed closing of an opening.  Recommended



range for current use in estimating is from $1000 to $2000 per



opening depending on degree of difficulty.



     Grouting - Grouting of subsidence areas to prevent surface



vater from entering is a method for which little information is



available in connection with mine sealing.  In order to establish



useful techniques and associated costs, the Demonstration Projects



will be involved in trials using this method for controlling mine



vater.  Until this data is available, estimated costs based on



normal construction use and practise are shown.



     Surface mine reclamation - Reasonable agreement was found in



costs concerning surface reclamation.  There was additionally a



far wider source of data and experience available here.  Costs are



given by cubic yard of material moved, acreage of reclaimed land,



or lineal foot of high wall.  Since costs related to lineal feet



of high wall can vary because of terrane and does not represent



the same amount of unit effort, these were listed for information



value only and comparisons made on units of acres and cubic yards.



     Current costs of earth-moving in surface reclamation varied



from $.0^ to $.20 per cubic yard, with the more extensive operations

-------
                           - 27 -






being in the range of $.05 to $.10.  These costs are somewhat dependent



on availability of equipment and tend to be lower where equipment is



available and not being utilized on production work full-time.  Costs



for restoration of surface or grading ranged from $71 to $350 per



acre depending on size and location of the project.



     Planting costs - Planting costs were in good agreement on an



average cost of $35/acre for trees.  A combination of trees, ground



cover and fertilizing would cost as high as $125/acre.




     Costs of complete reclamation then, including grading and



planting, would range from $106 to $l±75/acre and the two figures



cited from Kentucky and Pennsylvania of $^39 and $4-86 per acre



respectively reflect the higher end of the range.  Costs can be




lower where work can be more mechanized and where terrane and



project size permit savings.  Recent experience of operators



shows that reclamation completed soon after mining also lowers




costs.  Data from the West Virginia Surface Mine Association on




over 5000 acres of current reclamation work there show an average




cost of $119/acre.



     Drainage diversion - Little actual experience complete with



cost data was found in drainage diversion practises associated with



coal mining, possibly because so much of it is practised in surface



mining where it becomes a minor matter in relation to the complete



operation.  Estimated cost per lineal foot of diversion is as much

-------
                                  - 28 -






as $6.00 per foot.  Drainage diversion of mine water can be a



significant factor in relation to an underground situation.  In at



least one instance water pumped from a mine has been diverted into



another drainage area and there are cases in which mined-out workings




are used for this diversion.  Costs quoted however are for the usual



surface type of diversion around or through a surface mine or refuse



disposal area.



     Impoundments - Impoundment of water either where it collects in




a surface mine or for purposes of quality and flow regulation is another



practise sometimes followed in an effort at abatement.  Costs on a unit



basis such as acre-feet can vary over wide ranges because of size and



natural physical features.  Estimated costs given of up to $1000 per



acre-foot reflect the smaller size and special conditions that might



be expected in connection with coal mining.  That of $500 per acre-foot



represents an average cost that might be used for estimating other than




for unusual conditions.



     Refuse and gob - Estimates for handling and reclamation of refuse



and gob material (highly concentrated sources of pollution) were made



by the Soil Conservation Service and the West Virginia Department of



Mines.  One actual case experience in Kentucky cited by the Ohio River




Valley Water Sanitation Commission was included since location generally



would not change representative cost data on this particular method.



Figures cited showed a cost of $.10 per ton-mile for hauling the



material to the disposal location and up to $600 per acre for reclama-



tion practises at the site.  Information on underground disposal was

-------
                           - 29 -






not available, but a reasonable assumption would be that, where




useful, disposal underground would not exceed costs of surface




disposal.




     Control and treatment - Pumping costs vary directly according




to equipment and conditions and can be computed directly.  A cost




of $.08 - .09 per million gallons per foot of pumping is shown as




typical for pumping from a deep mine sump.  These are listed to




show some of the ranges that may be encountered as an item in either




re-regulation of flow or disposal to an injection well.




     Treatment costs are related to type of treatment and quality




of water.  The range listed is from $.03 to $1.29 per thousand




gallons.  Those listed show both experience in a pilot plant operation




and relative costs of standard chemical additives for neutralization.




Other methods are available, but most work in mine water treatment




has been aimed at neutralization, although additional removal of




iron and other metals resulted in the "Operation Yellowboy" plant.

-------
             - 30 -
           APPENDIX
Table I - Work outline submitted to




the Advisory Work Group for information




Table II - Costs of remedial measures




Statement of conference summary




Definitions




References

-------
                             -  31 -
Table I - Work outline submitted to the Advisory Work  Group for information.




     Costs and Remedial Measures in Mine  Drainage Abatement or Control






     A.  Underground




         1.  mine seal ("dry" and above ground water table)




                  constructed (materials  as masonry, concrete)




                  placed (compacted earth,  clay, sand)




         2.  mine seal ("dry" and below ground water table)




         3.  mine seal ("wet" and below water table)




                  constructed (as above)  with controlled flow




         k.  surface sealing of mine openings




                  air shafts, constructed openings




                  closure




         5.  sealing of subsidence and surface cracks  or voids




                  grouting materials




                  compacted clay, earth cover




     B.  Surface mines




         1.  complete restoration of contours




                  by regrading spoil




                  by borrow from high wall




                  by combination




         2.  partial restoration (covering coal and acid producing




             materials only)




                  by regrading




                  by borrow




                  combination

-------
                      - 32 -








B.  Surface mines  (cont'd)



    3.  planting



             reforestation




             ground cover



             combination




             fertilizing and/or liming



    k.  diversion of drainage from area




             ditching above area



             streams through area



    5.  submersion of material by earthen dams



C.  Refuse and gob piles




    1.  preparation of disposal areas



    2.  sealing by edge and surface compaction



    3.  haulage of material




             to available prepared area



    k.  haulage and covering



D.  Control and treatment



    1.  regulated pumping




    2.  chemical neutralization



    3.  treatment for removal




    U.  impounding with controlled or semi-controlled release

-------
                             - 33 -





Table II - Cost of remedial measures






     Listed are methods for which cost data in some form were



available.  These are listed separately for each source or estimate




and grouped according to the general method involved.  Summaries of



underground mine seals and surface reclamation costs are provided at




the end of each of these groups.

-------
Method
Unit
Cost
Year
Wet and dry mine
seals (109)
Wet and dry (19)
mines
(718) mine units
Mine seals (5)
Mine seals (7260)
Mine sealing
Wet and dry mine
seal
Wet seal
Mine bulkhead
Average of above -
8092 seals
current cost
of mine seal

per
opening
109
openings
mine
mine
opening
mine
opening
mine
per
seal
per
seal
per
opening
per
opening

$1171
average
Range
161-26UO
187^
373
158
9^2
1650
8k6
1100
$1070
$1006
I$kj-k9
19^7.49
1933-39
1956-58
1935-39
to 11/36
1965-66
1965-66
1966
weighted
average
current
prices
weighted
average
current
prices
State of Pennsylvania program
State of Pennsylvania program
(Bureau of Mines)
WPA
State of Pennsylvania
from report WPA in West Virginia
West Virginia - Tisdale and Chapman
report
Department of Mines, West Virginia
Project estimate
Active mine - Pennsylvania
Using MR construction cost index
Using U. S. Department of
Commerce Index
                                                                                                         U)

-------
Method
Subsidence - grouting
Subsidence - grouting
Surface reclamation
Fill material
Surface backfilling
by grading

Surface backfilling
by grading
Surface backfilling
by grading
Surface backfilling
using explosives
Surface backfilling
using explosives
56 sites reclamation
k sites reclamation
Unit
cubic feet
(in place)
acre
cubic yard
cubic yard
lin. ft. of
high wall

lin. ft. of
high wall
lin. ft. of
high wall
lin. ft. of
high wall
lin. ft. of
high wall
cubic yard
acre
acre
Unit Cost
$1* - $8
U-6000
$ .10
.038
5.18

15.73
11.70
14.08
8.8U
.048
605
159
Year
1965
1965-66
1965-66
1965-66
1965

1965
1965
1965
1965
1958
1955
Location and Remarks
Monongahela quotation
Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture -
SCS - Pennsylvania and West
Virginia
Pennsylvania
U. S. Bureau of Mines - Report
#6772 - Demonstration and
evaluation of five methods of bi
secondary backfilling - Method A i
U. S. Bureau of Mines - Method B
U. S. Bureau of Mines - Method C
U. S. Bureau of Mines - Method D
U. S. Bureau of Mines - Method E
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania

-------
     Method
                              Unit
                  Unit Co0t
              Year
               Location and Remarks
Surface reclamation
Regrading,
              projects
Regrading, 269 acres
Surface restoration,
area to original contour

Surface restoration,
contour mining, moderate
slope, to original
contour

Surface restoration,
contour mining, steep
slope, minimum grading

Surface restoration
contour mining, moderate
slope, minimum grading

Surface restoration,
area terracing

Surface restoration,
contour mining, moderate
slope, terracing

Regrading, 3,736 acres
cubic yard
acre

acre
                             acre
                             acre
                             acre
                             acre
                             acre
                             acre
                             acre
                             acre
$.20
150-350

  130
                     71
                    37^
                    631
                     79



                     75



                    257


                    270
                                                            1965-66     West Virginia
  1964      Ohio - average per acre
            cost during the year

1965-66     West Virginia - including
            planting costs

1965-66     Pennsylvania - bituminous
            areas

1965-66     Pennsylvania - bituminous
            areas
             1965-66     Pennsylvania - bituminous
                         areas
             1965-66     Pennsylvania - bituminous
                         areas
             1965-66     Pennsylvania - bituminous
                         areas

             1965-66     Pennsylvania - bituminous
                         areas
                               1965-66     Pennsylvania,  including
                                           planting
                                                                                                          ON

                                                                                                          I

-------
   Method
  Unit
Unit Cost
  Year
Location and Remarks
Summary
cubic yard
                             acre
                             acre
$.OU-.20
                $^53
                $71-350
Current      depending on terrain and
             location

Current      weighted average - current
             projects - Pennsylvania
             (excluding partial
             reclamation)

Current      West Virginia - range of
             costs
                                                                                                             (JO
                                                                                                             -o

-------
Method
Unit
Unit Cost
                                                             Year
Planting
reforestation
reforestation
trees
trees
ground cover
grass, 3*1 acres
grass, 1,785 acres
grass, 84 acres
combination
fertilizer
and/or lime
Drainage diversion
Drainage diversion
(6" coated pipe)
Drainage diversion
Stream diversion
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
square yard
X section
lin. feet
lin. feet
lin. feet
$ 75
35-to
35
25-^5
50
2k
30
68
125
100
.20
6
.oU
1.51
1965-66
1965-66
196^
1965-66
1965-66
19^8-66
1965-66
1965-66
1965-66
1965-66
1965-66
1965
1965-66
1965-66
scs
Pennsylvania
of Forestry-
Ohio

- Department

Most areas - Appalachia
SCS
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
SCS
SCS
West Virginia
of Mines
Project
SCS
SCS






Department



                                                                                                        OJ
                                                                                                        CO

-------
Method
Unit
Unit Cost
Year
Location and Remarks
Impoundments
Impoundments
(5-30 acres)
Impoundments
Surface reclamation - refuse
Refuse and gob reclamation
Refuse and gob reclamation
Hauling refuse and gob
Hauling refuse and gob
Pumping
Pumping
Pumping to injection well
acre
feet
surface
acre
acre
feet
acre
acre
acre
ton-mile
ton -mile
m.g./ft. -
lin. feet
1000 g.
1000 g.
$ 125
$1000
500
$ ^39
600
600
.10
.09-. 10
$.084.09
1.29
$.20-75
1965-66
1965-66
1965-66
19&
1965-66
1965-66
1965-66
1965-66
1966
1965-66
1965
Department of Mines -
West Virginia
Pennsylvania and West
Virginia
SCS
ORSANCO practices -
Kentucky
West Virginia Department
of Mines
SCS '
U)
West Virginia - Department i
of Mines
SCS
Bureau of Mines
West Virginia Bureau of
Mines
Pennsylvania

-------
Method
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
(Yellowboy) *
(Yellowboy)
- Hydrated Lime
• Limestone
- Soda Ash
- Caustic Soda
- Ammonia
Unit
1000 g.
1000 g.
1000 g.
1000 g.
1000 g.
1000 g.
1000 g.
Unit Cost
$1.09
1.29
,030
.066
.155
.163
.500
Year
1965
1965
1964
1964
1964
1964
1964
Location and Remarks

Marianne report - Pilot plant
Pennsylvania research project
Bethlehem's estimate
U. S. Bureau of Mines
chemical cost only
U. S. Bureau of Mines
chemical cost only
U. S. Bureau of Mines
chemical cost only
U. S. Bureau of Mines
chemical cost only
U. S. Bureau of Mines
chemical cost only






Remarks:  WEft - Mine sealing program of 1933-39
          ENR - Engineering News Record

          Units:

              lin. ft. - lineal feet
              m. g. - million gallons
              g. - gallons
   Most recent results experienced during operation of the pilot plant during the summer of 1966
   gave costs of $.72/1000 gallons.

-------
                              - ia -







                          SUMMARY  OF CONFERENCE



                     POLLUTION OF  INTERSTATE WATERS



                                OF THE



                 MONONGAHEIA RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES



                  (MARYIAND-PENNSYLVANIA-WEST  VIRGINIA)



                          December 17-18,  1963
     The Monongahela River is formed by the confluence of the  West



Fork and Tygart Rivers at Fairmont,  West Virginia.   The drainage basin




includes the southwest corner of Pennsylvania,  the  northeast portion of



West Virginia and a small section of western Maryland.  The basin



drains an area of 7,380 square miles.  The river flows in a northerly



direction and joins the Allegheny at Pittsburgh to  form the Ohio River.



The main stem of the Monongahela River flows through the Appalachian




Plateau region and is characterized by rugged topography, with narrow



stream valleys several hundred feet below the level of the uplands.



     Major tributaries of the Monongahela are the Youghiogheny, Cheat,




West Fork and Tygart Rivers.



     The section of the Monongahela River of concern in this conference



extends downstream to Charleroi, Pennsylvania.   The section of the



Youghiogheny involved extends down to Sutersville,  Pennsylvania.




     On the basis of reports, surveys, or studies the Secretary of



Health, Education, and Welfare having reason to believe that pollution




of the Monongahela River and its tributaries caused by discharges of



untreated and inadequately treated sewage and industrial waste and

-------
mine drainages from active and inactive mines originating in West

Virginia is endangering the health and welfare of persons in

Pennsylvania, a State other than that in which the discharges

originate, called a conference in the matter of pollution of inter-

state waters of the Monongahela River and its tributaries.  The

conference was held December 17-18, 1963? Ballroom 3, of the Pittsburgh

Hilton Hotel, Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

     The following conferees representing the State water pollution

control agencies of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia, the

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, and the Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare attended the conference:

     Charles L. Wilbar, Jr., M.D.       Chairman, Sanitary Water
                                        Board, Pennsylvania
                                        Department of Health
                                        Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

     Paul W. McKee                      Director, Maryland State
                                        Water Pollution Control
                                        Commission
                                        Annapolis, Maryland

     Robert M.  Brown                    Chief, Bureau of Environmental
                                        Hygiene, State Department of
                                        Health, Baltimore, Maryland

     Bern Wright                        Chief, Division of Water
                                        Resources, Department of
                                        Natural Resources
                                        Charleston, West Virginia

     Thomas Yost                        Assistant Attorney General
                                        State of West Virginia

-------
     Joseph R.  Shaw
     Earl J.  Anderson
     Murray Stein, Chairman
Chairman, Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission
Cincinnati, Ohio

U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
New York, New York

U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
Washington, D. C.
Senator Jennings Randolph presented a statement supporting the

conference.   The following also participated in the conference:
     R.  J.  Boes
     John E.  Costello, Esq.
     Ernst P.  Hall



     William D. Henning, Esq.


     Granville A.  Howell
     G.  W.  Josephson


     Honorable John Laudadio
     Francis X. McCulloch, Esq.
Sanitary Engineer
Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission
Cincinnati, Ohio

Chairman, Resolutions
Committee, Pennsylvania
Municipal Authorities
Association

Research Consultant,
Consolidation Coal Company
Representing Mining Industry

Allegheny County
Sportsmen's League

Assistant to Vice President
United States Steel Corporation
Representing Pennsylvania
State Chamber of Commerce

Bureau of Mines
Department of the Interior

Member, House of Representatives
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Representing Pennsylvania
Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs

Allegheny County Boroughs
Association

-------
     Fred C.  Perkins
     F. R.  Perrin
     A. D. Sidio
     Gerald G. Taylor
     Everett Thayer

     Meredith Thompson, Ph.D.
     George W. Whetstone
President,  Pennsylvania Division
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.
Uniontown,  Pennsylvania

Chief Chemist, South Pittsburgh
Water Company
Representing Pennsylvania Section
of the American Water Works
Association

Public Health Engineer
U. S. Department of Health,
Education,  and Welfare
Cincinnati, Ohio

Fishery Biologist
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife
Department  of the Interior
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Assistant Commissioner for
Environmental Services
New York State Department
of Health

District Chemist
U. S. Geological Survey
Department of the Interior
The Chairman of the conference pointed out that:

     1.  Under the Federal Wiater Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. U66

         et seq.) pollution of interstate vaters which endangers the

         health or welfare of persons in a State other than the one in

         which the discharges originate is subject to abatement under

         procedures described in section 8 of the Federal Act.

     2.  The first step of this procedure is the calling of a

         conference.

-------
     3.  The purpose of the conference is to bring the States,  the



         interstate agency, and the Department of Health,  Education,




         and Welfare together to review the existing situation  and



         progress made, to lay a basis for future action by all




         parties concerned, and to give the States and localities



         an opportunity to take any remedial action which  may be




         indicated under State and local law.




     Mr. A, D. Sidio of the Department of Health, Education, and



Welfare presented a report on the Monongahela River and its tributaries




which specifically covered some of the sources of pollution, the type



of wastes discharged, and the interferences with water uses.



     Representatives of the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board,  the



West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, the Maryland State



Department of Health, and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation



Commission presented reports concerning pollution of the Monongahela




River and its tributaries,



     The conferees unanimously agreed on the following conclusions




and recommendations:



     1.  Pollution of an interstate nature exists in the Monongahela



         River Basin which adversely affects municipal and industrial




         water supplies, fish and wildlife, and recreation, such as




         fishing, boating, swimming, and navigation.



     2.  The States of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland and the



         Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission have made

-------
    appreciable progress in water pollution abatement  and have



    presented acceptable programs for the control of industrial




    and municipal wastes.



3.  Cognizance is taken of Pennsylvania's program to abate pollution



    from such sources by the end of 1966.  Commensurate programs




    have been developed by West Virginia and Maryland.  It is




    recognized that court action may necessarily modify this



    program and that economically depressed communities in the



    Basin may have to depend on outside financial assistance.




k.  The establishment of a technical committee consisting of



    representatives of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, the




    Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission and the Federal



    Government to explore the means of abating pollution caused by




    coal mine drainage is recommended.  This committee will be



    charged with determining the amount of pollution from such



    mines.  The committee also will be charged with developing a




    remedial program, including a cost estimate.

-------
                        Definitions






Auger? augering - method of drilling a hole, usually with a shaped,




hardened-steel bit, into rock and/or earth; in coal mining, a



method of horizontal drilling into a seam to recover the coal.



Bedded deposit - an ore deposit of tabular form that lies



horizontally or only slightly inclined to the horizontal, and



is commonly parallel to the stratification of the enclosing rocks.



Bench - natural terrace marking the outcrop of any stratum; a



stratum of coal forming a portion of the coal seam, generally



separated by partings.




Bone - slaty coal or carbonaceous shale found in coal seams.



Core - cylindrical-shaped samples of rock produced by core-drills,



usually with hollow diamond bits.




Development - the work of driving openings to and in a proved ore



body to prepare it for mining and transporting the ore.



Dip - the angle at which a bed, stratum or vein is inclined from




the horizontal.



Drift - a horizontal opening in or near an ore body and parallel




to the course of the vein or coal seam.



Floor - the wall or rock underlying a coal bed or vein.



Fold - a pronounced bend in stratified rocks, such that results



in a reversal of the direction of dip.

-------
                        - U8 -
Gob - that part of the mined material, either coal or other



minerals that is not marketable and is therefore wasted.



Hignwall - the vertical working face of a strip or surface mine.



Mining - process of obtaining useful minerals from the earth's



crust and includes both underground excavations and surface



workings.



Outcrop - that part of a stratum which appears at the surface



of the ground.



Overburden - consolidated and unconsolidated material that



overlies a coal bed or other mineral deposit especially in surface



mining operations.



Parting - any thin interstratified bed of earthy material.



Roof - the wall or rock on the upper side of mine opening.



Room and pillar - a system of working coal by which solid blocks



of coal are left on either side of the rooms or entries to support



the roof until the rooms are completely mined, after which the



pillars are usually partially or completely removed.



Seam - synonymous with bed, vein, etc.



Shaft - a vertical or inclined excavation in a mine extending



downward from the surface or from some interior point as a



principal opening through which the mine is exploited.  A shaft



is provided with a hoisting engine at the top for handling men,



rock and supplies, or it may be used in connection with pumping



or ventilating operations.

-------
Spoil - see Waste




Strike - the horizontal course or bearing of an inclined bed,




stratum or vein; the direction of a horizontal line in the




plane of an inclined bed, stratum or vein.



Subsidence - a downward movement of natural ground surface  not




induced by external loads.



Sump - an excavation made underground to collect water, from




which water is pumped to the surface or to another sump nearer




the surface.  Sumps are placed at the bottom of a shaft,  near



the shaft on a level or at some interior point.



Trough - a trough of sedimentation or a syncline; sometimes




used for the line along the bottom of a syncline.



Tunnel - a horizontal or nearly horizontal underground passage




that is open to the atmosphere at both ends.



Waste - the barren rock in a mine.  It is also applied to the




part of the ore deposit that is too low in grade to be of




economic value at the time, but this material may be stored




separately in the hope that it can be profitably treated later.



For surface mines this is more often termed  'spoil' and refers




to wasted rock removed above the coal.

-------
                      - 50 -
More complete glossaries of related terms may be found in the




following references:




Elements of Mining, Lewis, R. M., John W. Ley and Sons, Inc., 19*4-8.



Glossary of the Mining and Mineral Industry, Foy, A. H., U. S.




Bureau of Mines.




Glossary of Geology and Related Sciences, American Geological




Institute, Washington, D. C., 1957.



Mining Engineers' Handbook, Peele, John W. Ley and Sons, Inc.




Dictionary of Geology, Challinor, J., 235 PP.» New York, 1962.

-------
                              - 51  -
                            References
Anon, Chemical Engineering News,  "Mine-Acid  Stream Pollution Can be
Controlled", 30, 3006  (1952).

Braley, S. A., "Acid Mine Drainage.  I.  The Problem", Mechanization,
18  (1), 87-9 (195*0.

Braley, S. A., "Acid Mine Drainage.  II.   Sources", Mechanization, 18
(2), 113-5  (195*0-

Braley, S. A., "Acid Mine Drainage.  III.  Sampling and Analysis",
Mechanization, 18  (3), 96-8  (195*0.

Braley, S. A., "Acid Mine Drainage.  IV.   Composition and Flow",
Mechanization, 18  (*0, 137-8  (195*0-

Braley, S. A., "Acid Mine Drainage.  V.  Control of Mine Acid",
Mechanization, 18  (5), 97-8  (195*1-).

Braley, S. A., "Acid Mine Drainage.  VI.   Control  of Oxidation",
Mechanization, 18  (6), 105-7  (195*0.

Braley, S. A., "Acid Mine Drainage.  VII.  Strip Mining", Mechanization,
18  (8), 101-3 (195*0.

Braley, S. A., "An Evaluation of Mine Sealing", Mellon Institute,
Special Report on the Coal Industry Advisory Committee to ORSANCO
Research Project, No. 370-8.

Braley, S. A., "Experimental Strip Mines Show No Stream Pollution",
Mining Congress Journal, 50,  (1952).

Brant, R. A., and Moulton, E. Q., "Acid Mine Drainage Manual", Engineering
Experiment Station, Ohio State University  Bulletin 179, (i960).

Bureau of Reclamation, "Design of Small Dams", First Edition, I960, pp. 6ll.

Carpenter, L. V. and Davidson, A. H., "Developments in the Treatment of
Acid Mine Drainage", A. H., Proc. West Virginia Academy of Science, *£
93-9 (1930).

Carpenter, L. V. and Herndon, L. K., "Acid Mine Drainage From Bituminous
Coal Mines", West Virginia University Engineering  Experiment Station
Research Bulletin 10 (1933).

-------
                                -  52 -
Chapman, C. S., and Black, W. H. , unpublished report on sealing abandoned
coal mines project for West Virginia, December 15, 1933 to June 30, 1939,
for Federal Security Agency, 88 pp., January 31,
Coal Industry Advisory Committee,  "Principles and Guide to Practices in
the Control of Acid Mine -Drainage", Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission, 30 pp. with case histories supplement,
Collier, Charles R. , et al. ,  "Influences of Strip Mining on the Hydrologic
Environment of Parts of Beaver Creek Basin, Kentucky", U.S.G.S. Prof.
Paper ^27-B, 85 pp., 1964.

Dorr-Oliver, Inc.,  "Operation Yellowboy", report to the Pennsylvania Coal
Research Board, kQ  pp. , January 1966.

Grove, Alvin R., letter of April 19* 1966 on unit costs of underground
and surface remedial measures.

Griffith, I. C., Magnuson, M. 0., and Kimball, R. L. , "Demonstration and
Evaluation of Five  Methods  of Secondary Backfilling of Strip-Mine Areas",
U. S. Bureau of Mines, R. I.  6772, 17 pp., 1966.

Hall, Ernst P. , letter of March 10, 1966 with tabulation of bid prices of
Pennsylvania Department of Mines reclamation activities between 1955 and
1958.

Hall, Ernst P., letter of April 21, 1966 with data on bulkhead - Republic
Steel Corporation.

Hall, Ernst P., and Rozance,  J. L. , "Hutchinson Mine - A Problem in Coal
Mine-Drainage", Society of Mining Engineers of AIME Preprint No. 59F309,
(1959).

Herndon, L. K. , and Hodge, W. W. , "West Virginia Coal Seams and Their
Drainage", West Virginia University Engineering Experiment Station
Research Bulletin No. 14, (1936).

Hodge, W. W. , "Effect of Coal Mine Drainage on West Virginia Rivers and
Water Supplies", West Virginia University Experiment Station Technical
Bulletin No. 9, 32-58 (1937).

Jones, W. G. , "Progress Report of the Reclamation and Reforestation of
Strip Mined Areas in Central  Pennsylvania", Central Pennsylvania Open
Pit Mining Association Conservation Division, Philipsburg, (1959).

Kinney, Edward C.,  letter of April 12, 1966, data on strip mine
reclamation.

-------
                          - 53 -
Latham, R., "Machine Neutralized Mine Acid", Pittsburgh Press, U9,  (3/28/62).

Leitch, R. D., and Yant, W. P., Coal Age, 35_, 78-80, (1930), "Sealing Old
Workings Prevents Acid Formation and Saves Pipes and Streams".

Leitch, R. D., and Yant, W. P., "A Comparison of the Acidity of Waters
from Some Active and Abandoned Mines", U. S. Bureau of Mines Report
Investigations 2895.

Lorenz, W. C., "Progress in Controlling Acid Mine Water:  A Literature
Review", U. S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8080, 1962.

Nagy, John, Mitchell, D. V., Murphy, E. M., "Sealing a Coal-Mine Passageway
Through a Bore Hole", a progress report, U. S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, 1964, pp. 13.

Ohio Division of Forestry and Reclamation, tabulation of reclamation
projects to January 1, 1966.

Porges, R., letter of June 17, 1966 with draft of introduction.

Proceedings of the National Symposium on the Control of Coal Mine Drainage,
Division of Sanitary Engineering, Department of Health, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, June 1962.

Riley, C. V., Kent State University, Ohio,  1962, "Water Management in
Coal Strip Land Reclamation".

Stefanko, R., Vonder Linden, K., Tilton, J. G.,  "Subsurface Disposal of
Acid Mine Water by Injection Wells,"  Pennsylvania State University,
Special Research Report No. SR-52, 35 ref., 70 pp.,  1965.

Struthers, P. H.,  "Chemical Weathering  of  Strip-Mine Seals".   The Ohio
Journal of Science &4  (2):  125, March  196U, pp. 125-131.

Struthers, P. H., Vimmerstedt,  "Advances in Strip-Mine Reclamation,"
Ohio Report on Research and Development, Ohio  Agricultural  Experiment
Station,  January  - February 1965, PP-  8-9.

Tisdale,  E. S.,  "Acid  Drainage From Abandoned  Coal  Mines",  Trans. World,
Power  Conference,  3rd  Conference 3. 335-6 (1938).

Tisdale,  E. S.,  "Sealing Abandoned Coal Mines  in West  Virginia", 2k  pp.,
1936.

Tracy,  L.  D., Trans. AIME, "Mine-Water Neutralizing Plant at  Calumet
MLne",  66, 609-23,  (1921).

-------
Unpublished report submitted to Consolidation  Coal  Company,  "A  Biological
Survey of Little Sewickley Creek",  (1959).

Urbaniak, C. J., letter of March 25,  1966 with cost estimates of remedial
measures from West Virginia Department  of Mines.

U. S. Bureau of Mines, tabulation and summary  of  mine  sealing data,
Pennsylvania, 19^7-^9.

U. S. Department of the Interior, "Saline Water Conversion Report for
196V', 279 PP., 1965.

Vande Linde, Jr., 0. V., letter of  November 16, 1966 with summary of
reclamation costs, West Virginia Surface Mine  Association,

Whitt, D, M., letter of March  17, 1966  with tabulation of average unit
costs of S.C.S. for surface remedial  measures.

Wilbar, C. L., "Water Pollution Control in  the Monongahela River Basin",
Pennsylvania Department of Health,  Division of Sanitary Engineering,
Publication No. 6, 1963.
                                              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1967 O - 264-448

-------