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
------- |