United States
       Environmental Protection
       Agency
Coal Mining Detailed Study
                                           August 2008
                                      EPA-821-R-08-012

-------
                                     CONTENTS

                                                                                 Page

1.0    INTRODUCTION	1-1
       1.1    Summary of Public Comments	1-1
       1.2    Key Definitions	1-2
       1.3    Applicability of 40 CFR Part 434 Manganese Effluent Limits	1-2
       1.4    Key Findings Concerning Public Comments	1-3
             1.4.1   Bond Forfeitures	1-3
             1.4.2   Potential Environmental  Impacts	1-4
             1.4.3   Surrogate Removal of Metal s through Manganese Treatment	1-4
             1.4.4   Effectiveness of Passive  Treatment Systems	1-4
       1.5    EPA 2008 Decision on Revising Part 434 Effluent Guidelines	1-5
       1.6    Overview of Remainder of Report	1-5
       1.7    Introduction References	1-6

2.0    DATA SOURCES	2-1
       2.1    Energy Information Administration	2-2
             2.1.1   Industry Profile Database Development	2-2
             2.1.2   EIA Financial Information	2-5
       2.2    Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement	2-5
             2.2.1   Acid Mine Drainage Inventory Database	2-6
             2.2.2   Appalachian Regional Acid Mine Drainage Database	2-7
             2.2.3   Applicant Violator System Database	2-9
       2.3    Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection	2-9
             2.3.1   PA DEP Bond Forfeiture Table	2-9
             2.3.2   PA DEP Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation Sampling
                    Database	2-10
             2.3.3   PA DEP Inspection Compliance Tables	2-10
             2.3.4   PA DEP Permits with Active MDI Points Database	2-11
             2.3.5   PA DEP Treatment Facilities Sampling Database	2-11
       2.4    West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection	2-14
             2.4.1   WV DEP Bond Forfeiture Table	2-14
             2.4.2   WV DEP Discharge Monitoring Report Database	2-15
             2.4.3   WV DEP Manganese Permit Limits Database	2-17
             2.4.4   WV DEP Special Reclamation Untreated Sampling Database	2-18
       2.5    Other Stakeholder Data	2-18
       2.6    U.S. Economic Census	2-19
       2.7    EPA Databases	2-19
             2.7.1   Toxic Release Inventory	2-19
             2.7.2   Permit Compliance System	2-20
       2.8    Mine  Safety and Health Administration	2-21
       2.9    Data Sources References	2-21

-------
                               CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                                 Page

3.0    INDUSTRY PROFILE	3-1
       3.1    Coal Mining Processes and Operations	3-1
             3.1.1   Physical Characteristics and Geographic Distribution of Coal	3-1
             3.1.2   Coal Mining Processes	3-3
             3.1.3   Surface Mines	3-6
             3.1.4   Underground Mines	3-8
             3.1.5   Coal Preparation	3-9
             3.1.6   Coal Mining Production Data	3-9
       3.2    Coal Mining Financial Statistics	3-13
             3.2.1   Coal Prices	3-13
             3.2.2   Mine Counts, Mine Sizes, and Technological Changes	3-15
             3.2.3   Major Producers	3-17
             3.2.4   Foreign Ownership	3-19
             3.2.5   Number of Small Entities	3-19
       3.3    Industry Profile References	3-20

4.0    COAL MINING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK	4-1
       4.1    Regulation of Coal Mining Discharges to Surface Water	4-1
             4.1.1   Regulation of Coal Mine Discharges Using ELGs	4-1
             4.1.2   Regulation of Coal Mine Discharges Using State Water Quality-
                    Based Limitations  	4-5
       4.2    SMCRA Requirements	4-6
       4.3    Coal Mining Regulatory Framework References	4-7

5.0    COAL MINE DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS	5-1
       5.1    Wastewater Characteristics	5-1
             5.1.1   Pollutants of Interest	5-2
             5.1.2   Acid Mine Drainage	5-3
       5.2    Comparison of Effluent AMD Concentrations to Part 434 Effluent
             Limitations Guidelines and Standards	5-9
             5.2.1   Manganese Water  Quality-Based Limits	5-9
             5.2.2   pH Variances	5-10
             5.2.3   Comparison with Part 434 Subpart C Limitations	5-11
             5.2.4   Comparison of pH and Manganese in West Virginia and PA
                    Analytical  Data	5-16
             5.2.5   Compliance with Permits and Enforcement Actions	5-17
       5.3    Wastewater Characteristics andNPDES Permitting References	5-19

6.0    ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES	6-1
       6.1    Active Treatment Technologies for AMD	6-1
       6.2    Passive Treatment Technologies for AMD	6-3
             6.2.1   Aerobic Wetlands	6-5
             6.2.2   Anaerobic  Wetlands	6-5
             6.2.3   Anoxic Limestone Drains	6-6
             6.2.4   Diversion Wells	6-6
             6.2.5   Open Limestone Channels	6-7
                                          ii

-------
                              CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                                Page

             6.2.6   Oxic Limestone Drains	6-8
             6.2.7   Pyrolusiteฎ Technology	6-9
             6.2.8   Vertical Flow Wetlands	6-11
       6.3    Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies References	6-11

7.0    CASE STUDIES OF TREATMENT COSTS	7-1
       7.1    Treatment Cost Case Studies	7-1
             7.1.1   RoxCoal, Inc. Mine Outfall 003 Treatment	7-1
             7.1.2   PBS Coals Job #1 Treatment	7-5
             7.1.3   PBS Coals Job #8 Treatment	7-8
       7.2    Model Costs for Passive and Active Treatment Systems	7-10
       7.3    Removal of Non-Regulated Metals Based on Solubility and Literature	7-14
       7.4    Case Studies of Treatment Costs References	7-16

8.0    ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADINGS FOR ACID MINE DRAINAGE	8-1
       8.1    Pollutant Loadings Methodology	8-2
             8.1.1   Outfalls Identified as AMD at Pennsylvania Coal Mines	8-2
             8.1.2   Outfalls Identified as AMD at West Virginia Coal Mines	8-3
             8.1.3   Results of Identifying Outfalls with AMD	8-3
       8.2    Current Effluent Loadings	8-4
             8.2.1   Measurement Value Selection	8-4
             8.2.2   Monthly  Load Calculation	8-5
             8.2.3   Annual Load Calculation	8-6
       8.3    Current Effluent Loadings Results	8-7
       8.4    Estimated Effluent Loadings if All Outfalls Meet 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C
             NSPS Limitations (ELG Scenario Loadings)	8-9
             8.4.1   Measurement Value Selection	8-9
             8.4.2   Monthly  and Annual Load Calculation	8-9
             8.4.3   ELG Scenario Loadings Results	8-10
       8.5    Pollutant Loadings Summary	8-11
       8.6    Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage References	8-12

9.0    POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT s FROM ACID COAL MINE DRAINAGE	9-1
       9.1    AMD Environmental Impacts	9-1
       9.2    Water Quality Criteria	9-2
       9.3    Potential Impacts from Manganese in Coal Mine Drainage	9-3
       9.4    Potential Impacts of Cadmium in Coal Mine Drainage	9-5
       9.5    Potential Impacts of Mercury in Coal Mine Drainage	9-6
       9.6    Potential Impacts from Selenium in Coal Mine Drainage	9-6
       9.7    Potential Impacts from Total Dissolved Solids in Coal Mine Drainage	9-7
       9.8    Potential Environmental Impacts from Acid Coal Mine Drainage References... 9-8

10.0   THE ROLE OF MANGANESE TREATMENT COSTS IN BOND FORFEITURES	10-1
       10.1   Mine Reclamation Bonds and Bond Forfeiture	10-1
             10.1.1  Bond Types	10-2
       10.2   Trends in Bond Forfeitures	10-2
                                         iii

-------
                         CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                  Page

      10.3   Reasons for Forfeitures	10-3
           10.3.1 Pennsylvania	10-3
           10.3.2 West Virginia	10-6
      10.4   Potential for Future Bond Forfeitures	10-6
      10.5   The Role of Manganese Treatment Costs in Bond Forfeitures References	10-6

Appendix A:  ADDITIONAL UNTREATED AND TREATED ACID MINE DRAINAGE
           WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION DATA

Appendix B:  DRAFT ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT COST MODULE:
           CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION USING CAUSTIC SODA

Appendix C:  DRAFT ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT COST MODULE:
           CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION USING CAUSTIC SODA

Appendix D:  DRAFT ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT COST MODULE:
           LIMESTONE BED

Appendix E:  ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT COST MODULE RESULTS

Appendix F:  ANNUAL AVERAGE MEASUREMENT VALUES AND ANNUAL
           AVERAGE FLOW RATES IN WVDMR BY POLLUTANT AND AMD
           OUTFALL

Appendix G:  ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AND ANNUAL
           AVERAGE FLOW RATES IN PADEPINSPECTOR BY POLLUTANT AND
           AMD OUTFALL

Appendix H:  ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS BY POLLUTANT AND AMD
           OUTFALL INCLUDED IN WVDMR

Appendix I:   ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS BY POLLUTANT AND AMD
           OUTFALL INCLUDED IN PADEPINSPECTOR
                                  IV

-------
                                 LIST OF TABLES




                                                                               Page




2-1   Field Descriptions from the CoalPublic Databases	2-3




2-2   Mine Status Descriptions from CoalPublic Databases	2-4




2-3   Summary of Mines and Monitoring Points in the PADEPImpector Database	2-12




2-4   WVMnLimit Database Limit Basis and EPA Determination	2-18




2-5   Counts of Coal Mine Permits Listed in PCS, by Permit Type	2-21




3-1   Types of Coal	3-2




3-2   Geographic Coal Regions and Types of Coal	3-2




3-3   Counts by Type of Facility	3-4




3-4   Counts by Mine Phase for 2005	3-6




3-5   Counts by Type of Surface Mine for 2005	3-7




3-6   Counts of Surface  Mines by Coal Mining Region for 2005	3-7




3-7   Counts of Underground Mines by Coal Mining Region for 2005	3-8




3-8   EIA Records of U.S. Coal Production from 2000 to 2006	3-10




3-9   EIA Records of Coal Reserves by State as of January 1, 2006	3-10




3-10  OSMRE Records of SMCRA Permits and 2006 Production by State	3-12




3-11  Number and Size of U.S. and Appalachian Coal Mines	3-16




3-12  Employee Productivity	3-17




3-13  Major Coal Producers in 2006	3-17




3-14  Percent of U.S. Coal Production by Foreign-Owned Firms	3-19




3-15  Employer Firms, and Employment by Size of Firm, 2005	3-20




4-1   Coal Mining ELGs	4-3




4-2   Effluent Guidelines for Active Mines Part 434, SubpartsC-D	4-3




4-3   Effluent Guidelines for Post-Mining Areas Part 434, SubpartE	4-4




5-1   Number of Acid Mine Drainage Outfalls	5-5

-------
                           LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

                                                                                Page

5-2   Untreated Acid Mine Drainage Characteristics	5-6

5-3   Untreated Acid Mine Drainage Characteristics (Additional Databases)	5-7

5-4   Range of Manganese Concentrations for Untreated Acid Mine Drainage in ARAMD.. ..5-7

5-5   Treated Acid Mine Drainage Characteristics	5-8

5-6   WVDEP Manganese Permit Limits Summary	5-10

5-7   Summary of Effluent Discharges Compared to Part 434 Subpart C NSPS Limitations
      forpH	5-13

5-8   Summary of Effluent Discharges Compared to Part 434 Subpart C NSPS Limitations
      for Total Iron	5-14

5-9   Summary of Effluent Discharges Compared to Part 434 Subpart C NSPS Limitations
      for Total Manganese	5-15

5-10  Summary of Effluent Discharges Compared to Part 434 Subpart C NSPS Limitations
      forTSS	5-16

5-11  Manganese Concentrations Above Part 434 Subpart C NSPS Limitations Compared
      to Effluent pH (West Virginia data from April 2003 through March 2005)	5-18

5-12  Summary of PA DEP Inspections at Coal Mines 2003 -2007	5-19

7-1   NPDES Permit PA0213772 Outfall 003 Characteristics	7-2

7-2   Treatment Performance of Aeration-Only for Outfall 003	7-4

7-3   Annual Operating Costs of Existing Treatment System at Outfall 003	7-4

7-4   PBS Coals Job #1 Discharge Characteristics	7-6

7-5   Treatment Performance of Aeration-Only for Job #1	7-7

7-6   Annual Operating Costs of Existing Treatment System at Job #1	7-8

7-7   PBS Job #8 Drainage Characteristics	7-8

7-8   Annual Operating Costs of Existing Treatment System at Job #8	7-10

7-9   Raw Water Quality Scenarios	7-11

7-10  Untreated Acid Mine Drainage Metal Concentrations from AMD 143	7-14
                                         VI

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

                                                                                 Page

8-1   Number of SMCRA Permits and 2006 Total Production for All Mines And Number
      of Permit IDs and Outfalls with AMD Represented by WVDMR and
      PADEPImpector	8-3

8-2   Effluent Median Monthly Average Concentrations	8-6

8-3   Current Annual Effluent Loadings at Mine Outfalls with AMD Located in West
      Virginia and Pennsylvania	8-8

8-4   Current Average Annual Effluent Loadings Per Outfall with AMD	8-8
8-5   Estimated ELG Scenario Loadings at Mine Outfalls with AMD Located in West
      Virginia and Pennsylvania	8-10

8-6   Estimated ELG Scenario Loadings Average Annual Effluent Loadings Per Outfall
      with AMD	8-11

8-7   Comparison of Current Effluent Loadings and ELG Scenario Loadings at Mine
      Outfalls with AMD	8-12

9-1   Water Quality Criteria for AMD Pollutants of Concern	9-4

9-2   Effluent AMD Concentrations for AMD Pollutants of Concern 	9-4

10-1  Role of Manganese Treatment Costs in Bond Forfeiture by Site - Pennsylvania	10-3
                                         vn

-------
                                 LIST OF FIGURES

                                                                               Page

3-1   Locations of Coal by Type in the United States	3-3

3-2   Unreclaimed Contour Mine in Eastern Tennessee	3-7

3-3   Bureau of Land Management Photograph of a Longwall Miner Shearer Head	3-9

3-4   Constant Coal Prices 1997-2006	3-13

3-5   Spot Coal Prices April 15, 2005 through April 11, 2008	3-14

4-1   SMCRA and Part 434 Regulatory Framework	4-2

5-1   Distribution of Potential Acid Mine Drainage from Surface Mining in the
      Appalachian Region	5-4

6-1   Example AMD Chemical Precipitation Treatment System Using Caustic Soda	6-2

6-2   Example AMD Chemical Precipitation Treatment System Using Hydrated Lime	6-3

6-3   Comparison of Metal Hydroxide Solubilities for Constituents Commonly Found in
      Acidic Mine Drainage	6-4

6-4   Example AMD Limestone Bed Treatment System	6-8

6-5   Plan View of a Pyrolusiteฎ Bed	6-9

6-6   Profile View of a Pyrolusiteฎ Bed	6-10

6-7   Photograph of Pyrolusiteฎ Bed at PBS Job #5	6-10

7-1   Photograph of the Outfall 003 Treatment System Aeration Pond	7-3

7-2   Photograph of the PBS Job #1 Lime House and Aeration Spray	7-5

7-3   Photograph Inside the PBS Job #1 Lime House:  AMD Flow and Lime Addition	7-6

7-4   Photograph of the Chimney Sump and Collection Basin at PBS Coals Job #8	7-9

7-5   Photograph of Sodium Hydroxide Addition  at PBS Job #8	7-9

7-6   Photograph of the Three PBS Job #8  Settling Ponds	7-10

7-7   Annualized Treatment Costs for Chemical Precipitation with Caustic Soda	7-12

7-8   Annualized Treatment Costs for Chemical Precipitation with Hydrated Lime	7-13

7-9   Annualized Treatment Costs for Limestone Bed Using a Clay Liner	7-13
                                        viii

-------
                           LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)




                                                                               Page




7-10  Annualized Treatment Costs for Limestone Bed Using a Synthetic Liner	7-14




7-11  Comparison of Various Metal Hydroxide Solubilities	7-16




9-1   Distribution of Streams Impacted by Acid Mine Drainage in EPA Region 3	9-2




10-1  Number of Permits with Bond Forfeitures: Appalachian States, 1977-2007	10-4




10-2  Number of Companies with Bond Forfeitures: Appalachian States, 1977-2007	10-5
                                         IX

-------
                                                                   Section 1.0 - Introduction
1.0    INTRODUCTION

       The purpose of this report is to summarize the analytical approach, research activities,
and findings of the Coal Mining Detailed Study that EPA conducted to evaluate the comments
received from a public interest group and from states and industry urging revisions to pollutant
limitations in the Coal Mining Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) (40 CFR
Part 434) (see 71 FR 76644-76667, December 21, 2006; 72 FR 61342-61343, October 30, 2007).

       To facilitate this study, EPA identified data sources, developed a methodology for
estimating treatment costs and discharge loads, and initiated data collection activities in
consultation with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, state agencies in West Virginia
and Pennsylvania, and the Office  of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement  within the
U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. EPA, 2007). EPA's analysis focused primarily  on
Pennsylvania and West Virginia because acid mine drainage (AMD) from coal mining,
commonly containing manganese, is most prevalent in these two states.

       EPA also evaluated the technology basis for the existing Coal Mining ELGs rulemakings:
chemical precipitation and settling (U.S. EPA, 1976). EPA evaluated the current application of
this technology, treatment costs, and pollutant discharge loads (see Sections 6.1, 7.0,  and 8.0,
respectively). EPA reviewed scientific literature and participated in discussions with  state
regulatory personnel in order to assess the potential effects of manganese discharges  to surface
water and to determine whether other pollutants in coal mining discharges are of concern (see
Section 9.0). EPA also addressed  the question of whether coal mining companies are forfeiting
bonds because of the cost of manganese treatment by  examining bonding requirements, past
bond forfeiture rates, and future potential bond forfeiture rates (see Section 10.0).

1.1    Summary of Public Comments

       The public interest group,  the Environmental Law and Policy  Center (ELPC), asked EPA
to place more stringent controls on total dissolved solids (TDS) (e.g., sulfates and chlorides),
mercury, cadmium, manganese, and selenium in coal  mining discharges. ELPC referenced a
study by EPA Region 5 on potential adverse impacts of the discharge of sulfates on aquatic life
(EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2614 through 2617).

       The Interstate Mining Compact Commission, which represents mining regulatory
agencies in 28  states, state mine permitting  agencies in Pennsylvania  and Virginia, two
Pennsylvania coal mining companies, and a Pennsylvania coal mining trade association, asked
EPA to remove the current manganese limitations stating:

       1.      Manganese treatment doubles or triples overall treatment costs resulting in the
              forfeiture of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)  bonds;
       2.      Manganese treatment is unnecessary to protect aquatic life and there are no
              widespread toxicity problems from discharges of manganese;
       3.      Manganese treatment sometimes results in environmental harm because mining
              operators must add excessive chemicals to meet the discharge limits;
       4.      EPA should reconsider its rationale for setting manganese limits to ensure
              surrogate removal  of other metals because data show that other metals occur only
              in low concentrations; and

                                           n

-------
                                                                   Section 1.0 - Introduction
       5.     Manganese limits discourage the use of passive treatment technologies which are
             more environmentally beneficial than active treatment because the limits are
             overly stringent.

       Individual state and industry commenters cited the following factors in support of their
comments:

       1.     States enacted more stringent coal mining reclamation bonding requirements after
             the promulgation of SMCRA to control water discharges from mines undergoing
             reclamation;
       2.     Studies support their contention that manganese is not harmful to aquatic life at
             levels above the current effluent limits; and
       3.     Active treatment with chemical additions is perceived to possibly complicate
             permit compliance and cause environmental harm.

1.2    Key Definitions

       Proper understanding of the following terms is essential to understanding EPA's response
to the public commenters. The following terms are from 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart A - General
Provisions:

       •     Acid or ferruginous mine drainage. Mine drainage which, before any treatment,
             either has a pH of less than 6.0 or a total iron concentration equal to or greater
             than 10 mg/L (40 CFR 434.1 l(a)).
       •     Active mining area. The area, on and beneath land, used or disturbed in activity
             related to the extraction, removal, or recovery of coal from its natural deposits.
             This term excludes coal preparation plants, coal preparation plant associated areas
             and post-mining areas (40 CFR 434.1 l(b)).
       •     Alkaline, mine drainage. Mine drainage which, before any treatment, has a pH
             equal to or greater than 6.0 and total iron concentration of less than 10 mg/L (40
             CFR434.11(c)).
       •     Bond release. The time at which the appropriate regulatory authority returns a
             reclamation or performance bond based upon its determination that reclamation
             work (including, in the case  of underground mines, mine sealing and
             abandonment procedures) has been satisfactorily completed (40 CFR 434.1 l(d)).
       •     Post-mining area. (1) A reclamation area or (2) The underground workings of an
             underground coal mine after the extraction, removal, or recovery of coal from its
             natural deposit has ceased and prior to bond release (40 CFR 434.1 l(k)).
       •     Reclamation area. The surface  area of a coal mine which has been returned to
             required contour and on which re-vegetation (specifically, seeding or planting)
             work has commenced (40 CFR 434.11(1)).

1.3    Applicability of 40 CFR Part 434 Manganese Effluent Limits

       It is important to note that EPA has promulgated manganese effluent limits only for the
following subset of coal mining operations  as codified in 40 CFR Part 434:
                                           1-2

-------
                                                                   Section 1.0 - Introduction
       1.     Active surface and underground mining areas with acid or ferruginous mine
             drainage discharges (Subpart C - Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage); and
       2.     Underground post-mining areas with acid or ferruginous mine drainage
             discharges (Subpart E - Post Mining Areas).

There are no national manganese effluent limits for surface post-mining areas with AMD, nor for
any surface or underground alkaline mine drainage discharges. There are no national manganese
effluent limits for AMD that may develop after SMCRA bond release has been granted, nor are
there national manganese effluent limits for AMD from abandoned coal mines.

1.4    Key Findings Concerning Public Comments

       The following is a summary of key findings of the Coal Mining Detailed Study in
response to comments received from stakeholders. The findings are discussed in more detail
throughout the remainder of the study.

1.4.1   Bond Forfeitures

       EPA clarified states' comments regarding the costs of EPA's 40 CFR Part 434
manganese limits. In their initial public comments, state commenters did not distinguish the costs
of manganese removal among the three phases of coal mining: active mining areas, post-mining
areas, and post-bond release areas. This is important because the Part 434 manganese limits only
apply to a subset of coal mining phases. EPA clarified through discussions with state agencies
that states are most concerned about the cost of manganese treatment at post-mining areas where
bonds cannot be released because effluent manganese concentrations in the discharges exceed
the permit limits. States expressed a concern that operators at such mines may default on their
bonds rather than renew their bonds as required every five years. States indicate that reduced
manganese treatment costs at such mines may decrease the number of potential bond forfeitures
(Codding, 2006). EPA, however, is not able to address this issue through revisions to Part 434
because there are no manganese limits for surface post-mining areas. EPA's review of state data
indicates that manganese limits in permits for discharges from surface post-mining areas are
derived by state permit writers from state manganese water quality standards or from site specific
best professional judgment (BPJ) technology-based effluent limits. There are, however,
manganese limits for underground post-mining areas with AMD which are adequate and to
which no changes are warranted at this time. See Section 4.1 for additional information on the
applicability of Part 434 and water quality standards and Section 5.2.1 for additional information
on the manganese water quality-based limits.

       EPA found that manganese removal does double or triple treatment costs, but for active
surface and underground mining areas with AMD  (regulated by Part 434 Subpart C Acid or
Ferruginous Mine Drainage) and post-mining areas of underground mines with AMD (regulated
by Subpart E Post-Mining Areas) manganese treatment technology is available (see Section 6.0),
economically achievable (see 42 FR 23180-21390, April 26, 1977), and compliance rates with
permit limits derived from the Part 434 management limits are high (see Section 5.2).

       Based on information received from Pennsylvania and West Virginia, EPA concluded
that only a small percentage of coal mine bond forfeitures are due to the cost of manganese
treatment. Overall, EPA found that there is little potential for future bond forfeitures on SMCRA

                                          1-3

-------
                                                                  Section 1.0 - Introduction
permits that have been granted during the past five years or will be granted in the future.
Similarly, EPA believes that current trends will continue, making it unlikely that companies will
forfeit bonds on permits that will be issued in the future. EPA's analysis indicates that forfeitures
are largely a legacy of the first decade of SMCRA implementation during the 1980s and early
1990s. In particular, SMCRA requires a Probable Hydrologic Consequence (PHC) analysis prior
to approval of the SMCRA permit in order to identify regional  hydrologic impacts associated
with the coal mining and reclamation operation.  The PHC is a determination of baseline quality
and quantity of ground water and surface water and the impact the proposed mining will have on
these baseline conditions. When potential adverse impacts are identified (e.g., AMD) through use
of the PHC, appropriate protection, mitigation, and rehabilitation plans are developed and
included in mining and reclamation permit requirements.  If the potential adverse impacts cannot
be sufficiently mitigated the SMCRA permit may be denied. The ultimate goal of using the PHC
in the SMCRA permit review is to prevent AMD after land reclamation is complete and the
SMCRA bond is released. PHC analytical techniques have evolved over time due to increasing
knowledge. The current methods for PHC analysis are more advanced and can adequately predict
AMD formation, where as in the past predictions were not as accurate. Based on the
advancements in the PHC analysis, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
anticipates that less than one percent of recently  SMCRA permitted mines will develop AMD
after reclamation and bond release. See Section 10.0 for additional information on the reasons for
bond forfeitures.

1.4.2   Potential Environmental Impacts

       Due to data limitations, EPA was able to conduct only a very limited analysis  of potential
impacts from TDS (e.g., sulfates and chlorides),  mercury, cadmium, manganese, and selenium in
order to respond to comments that more stringent controls on these pollutants may be warranted.
EPA reviewed readily available literature and analyzed mine drainage information provided by
Pennsylvania and West Virginia in order to better understand the potential for human health and
aquatic life effects of these pollutants. EPA found limited information concerning documented
environmental impacts. The discharge data provided by OSMRE and the states was difficult to
use for the purpose of assessing potential impacts because of the small sample sizes for certain
pollutants and inconsistencies across data sets due to different collection purposes. EPA's review
of potential impacts is discussed in Section 9.0 of this report.

1.4.3   Surrogate Removal of Metals through Manganese Treatment

       EPA reviewed the technical development documents and federal register notices
supporting the Coal Mining ELGs and did not identify any discussion regarding promulgating
manganese effluent guidelines to ensure surrogate removal of other metals. EPA's review of
these documents showed that EPA's rationale for requiring manganese control for a subset of
coal mines was to address drinking water organoleptic effects (U.S. EPA, 1976).

1.4.4   Effectiveness of Passive Treatment Systems

       EPA reviewed the cost and performance  of passive treatment systems and concluded that
they are less expensive than active treatment systems, but they  generally do not perform as well
as active treatment systems. See Section 6.2 for more information.
                                          1-4

-------
                                                                   Section 1.0 - Introduction
1.5    EPA 2008 Decision on Revising Part 434 Effluent Guidelines

       Based on its review of the available data and the findings described above, EPA is not
proposing revisions to the pollutant limitations in the coal mining effluent guidelines (40 CFR
Part 434). As with all industrial discharges, EPA will continue to examine discharges from coal
mines in future annual reviews to determine if existing effluent guidelines are appropriate and
sufficient.

1.6    Overview of Remainder of Report

       Section 2.0  summarizes EPA's activities to identify and collect data to address public
comments. Subsequent sections of this report summarize analyses conducted using data from
these sources. In particular:

       •     Section 3.0 characterizes U.S. coal mines by type: type of mine (surface versus
             deep); type of coal (bituminous, lignite, anthracite); geographic location; type of
             treatment system (chemical precipitation with settling, solids  settling only,
             passive treatment and type of passive treatment, etc.); type of discharge;  and mine
             status. It also examines the financial state of the U.S. coal mining industry.
       •     Section 4.0 reviews the complex regulatory framework that governs the coal
             mining industry. It examines the relationship between the Clean Water Act
             (CWA), SMCRA, and state requirements. Most notably, it examines how
             regulatory authorities determine manganese limits and the applicability of these
             limits at different mining stages.
       •     Section 5.0 characterizes coal mine drainage and presents EPA's comparison
             of pollutant concentrations to 40 CFR Part 434. EPA characterized untreated
             and treated AMD. EPA limited its comparison of pollutant concentrations in
             AMD to Part 434 to Pennsylvania and West Virginia, because these two  states are
             most affected by AMD.
       •     Section 6.0 describes treatment technologies most commonly  used to treat
             AMD. Treatments include active treatment in which the facility actively  adds
             chemicals to the discharge to maintain desired effluent characteristics; and passive
             treatment in which the treatment system is engineered to require  little to no
             maintenance once the system is operational.
       •     Section 7.0 reviews costs to treat AMD. EPA examined data provided by
             commenters to determine the cost associated with treating a discharge to meet
             manganese permit limits and if treatment would lead to removal  of metals not
             regulated by 40 CFR Part 434.
       •     Section 8.0 describes EPA's estimate of pollutant loadings from coal  mining
             outfalls that discharge AMD. EPA limited its estimates to AMD in West
             Virginia and Pennsylvania, because these two states are most affected by AMD.
       •     Section 9.0 presents EPA's comparison of concentrations of pollutants in
             AMD to values that have been documented to affect the fresh water
             environment. Since the impacts of acidity and iron from AMD are well
             documented, EPA evaluated the potential for impacts from primarily manganese
             and also mercury, cadmium, selenium,  and IDS in treated AMD.
                                          1-5

-------
                                                                Section 1.0 - Introduction
      •      Section 10.0 examines coal mine bonding. It reviews trends in bond forfeiture
             and considers the role of manganese treatment in forfeitures in Pennsylvania and
             West Virginia.

1.7   Introduction References

1.     Codding, Ellie. 2006. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032. "RE: Draft
      Meeting Minutes for 6/15/06 Conference Call with Office of Surface Mining
      Reclamation and Enforcement." (June 26). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2517.

2.     U.S. EPA. 1976. Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
      Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Coal Mining Point Source
      Category. EPA 440/1-76/057-a. (May). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
      DCN06117.

3.     U.S. EPA. 2007. Detailed Study Plan for the Coal Mining Point Source Category (Part
      434). (September). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0011.
                                         1-6

-------
                                                                   Section 2.0 - Data Sources
2.0    DATA SOURCES

       The purpose of this section is to summarize EPA's activities to identify and collect data
to address public comments. In particular, EPA sought data to assist the Agency in the following
areas:

       •      Understanding mine ownership structure;
       •      Identifying National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and
              Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) permit holders;
       •      Ascertaining compliance rates;
       •      Determining treatment costs;
       •      Characterizing discharge pollutant concentrations;
       •      Estimating discharge loads; and
       •      Assessing potential impacts of discharges on surface water.

       EPA conducted an extensive search of federal and state data, including numerous
disparate data sets from the following sources:

       •      Energy Information Administration databases;
       •      Office of Surface Mining and Regulatory Enforcement databases;
       •      Pennsylvania Department  of Environmental Protection;
       •      West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection;
       •      Other stakeholder data;
       •      U.S. Economic Census;
       •      EPA databases (Toxic Release Inventory and Permit Compliance System); and
       •      Mine Safety and Health Administration.

During this review, EPA found no comprehensive source containing the information needed to
respond to concerns raised by the commenters. While EPA's data collection was not exhaustive,
it does include the major sources of coal mining data at the federal level and for Pennsylvania
and West Virginia, two states with high levels of acid mine drainage (AMD).

       The data sources used for the Coal Mining Detailed Study have the following general
limitations:

       •      The data are not current (most recent is typically 2006);
       •      The number of pollutant concentrations is limited or the pollutant concentrations
              do not include below detection limit indicators;
       •      The treatment system in place and details about the mine are not included;
       •      The pollutant concentrations were collected for selected discharges rather than
              from all discharges within a state or region (e.g., the database could be biased);
       •      The untreated and treated pollutant concentrations are limited for a discharge,
              both in the number data points and pollutants sampled for; and
       •      The pollutant concentrations from mines outside of Pennsylvania and West
              Virginia (these two states provided databases of pollutant concentration data) are
              limited.
                                           2-1

-------
                                                                   Section 2.0 - Data Sources
Additionally, EPA found that it is difficult to compare certain information between Pennsylvania
and West Virginia due to differences in how the states collect and maintain their data.

2.1    Energy Information Administration

       EPA collected information from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a
statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy. EIA compiles information on all energy
sectors to provide policy-independent data, forecasts,  and analyses. All of EIA's analyses are
available for public access on the EIA Web site, www.eia.doe.gov. EIA focuses on the following
industrial sectors:

       •      Petroleum;
       •      Natural gas;
       •      Electricity;
       •      Coal;
       •      Nuclear; and
       •      Renewal and alternative fuels.

       The coal section of the EIA Web site includes information on prices, production,
reserves, distribution, and consumption. All of this information can be found at:
www.eia.doe.gov/fuelcoal.html (EIA, 2007d). The EIA Web site also includes downloadable
databases containing detailed information on coal  mines from 1991 to 2005. This section
describes the EIA databases relevant to this study, the creation of EPA's industry profile
database (CMIndustryPrq/ile), and the utility and limitations of the EIA databases (Section
2.1.1). This section also describes financial information from EIA that EPA used to develop a
financial and economic profile of the coal mining industry (Section 2.1.2).

2.1.1   Industry Profile Database Development

       EIA maintains databases containing annual coal production for mines and preparation
plants for the years 1991 to 2006. The remainder of this section describes, in detail, the
development of the CMIndustryProfile database, which generates counts of mines by type.

       EPA downloaded the following databases for  1998 through 2005 from the EIA Web site:

       •      CoalPublicl998;
       •      CoalPublicl999;
       •      CoalPublicOO;
       •      CoalPublicOl;
       •      CoalPublic02;
       •      CoalPublicOS;
       •      CoalPublic04; and
       •      CoalPublicOS.

       EPA did not download the databases for 1991  through 1997 because the data are stored in
a different format (i.e., multiple records in each year for the same mine). In addition, most of the
data in the 1991 through 1997 databases are in the more current databases. EPA combined the
                                          2-2

-------
                                                                     Section 2.0 - Data Sources
CoalPublic databases for 1998 through 2005 into the CMIndustryProfile database. EPA used the
2005 data to characterize the current coal mining industry (see Section 3.0).

       Each of the CoalPublic databases contains two tables. The table named as the year (e.g.,
in CoalPublicl998 this table is named "1998") includes information on the mine identification,
production, and employee information. The majority of the information on mine production is in
codes that are defined in a table named "Code Definitions." Table 2-1 presents the field in the
"Year" table and the field description from the "Code Definition" table.

               Table 2-1. Field Descriptions from the CoalPublic Databases
Field in "Year" Table
Year
MSHA ID
Operating Company Name
Mine Name
Operating Company Address
City
State
ZIP Code
Contact Name
Phone Number
FIPS State Code
FIPS State Code Modifier
County Code
Mine Status
Operation Type
Mine Type
Union
Labor Hours
Production
Average Employees
Field Definition
Year the data was collected.
Unique identification number given to each mine by Mine Safety and Health
Administration before operation begins.
Company operating the mine.
Name of the mine.
Address for the operating company.
Contact person for the mine.
Phone number of the contact person.
Two-digit number corresponding to a state.
One digit number created by EIA to differentiate between coal regions in the same
state (e.g., the Anthracite and Bituminous regions of Pennsylvania).
Three-digit number corresponding to a county.
Description of work currently being completed at the mine (e.g., Active).
Type of facility (e.g., mine, preparation plant, or combination mine and preparation
plant).
Type of mine (e.g., strip, auger, strip and auger combination, underground, and
refuse recovery).
Union mine workers belong to.
Annual hours of labor.
Annual coal production.
Average number of employees at the mine.
Source: CoalPublic Databases; Coal Database Page (EIA, 2007a).
FIPS - Federal Information Processing Standard Codes for the Identification of States, the District of Columbia and
the Outlying Areas of the United States, and Associated Areas. The FIPS are created by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
MSHA - Mine Safety and Health Administration.

       EPA used the mine status, operation type, and mine type from the CoalPublic databases
to summarize the number of operating coal mines.

       For the purpose of this detailed study, EPA classifies mine status as the following:
                                            2-3

-------
                                                                    Section 2.0 - Data Sources
       •      Active. "Active mining" is preparing for and extracting coal from the coal seams.
       •      Reclaimed. "Reclamation" occurs after the coal deposits have been extracted.
              Reclamation includes backfilling holes and pits, regrading, ditch and pond
              removal, and revegetating in an attempt to return the mine to its previous use.
       •      Remined. "Remining" is the additional mining of a reclaimed or abandoned mine
              site. Remining includes the reprocessing of coal refuse piles. Remining sites are
              hydrologically connected to pre-existing discharges that have pollution problems.
       •      Forfeited. "Forfeited mines" were forfeited after the enactment of the SMCRA
              (August 3, 1977). Forfeited mines are mines whose owner 1) filed for bankruptcy
              and 2) no longer assume control over the mine site and discharges.
       •      Abandoned. Coal extraction from "abandoned mines" was completed before
              SMCRA. Owners of abandoned mines typically left the mine prior to completing
              any reclamation (ERG, 2006).

EPA's mine status classification is important for the Coal Mining Detailed Study because the
study focuses on factors contributing to forfeiture at coal mines.

       The mine status descriptions from the CoalPublic databases and the corresponding EPA
status are presented in Table 2-2. EPA classified any mine that is in the process of preparing for
coal extraction or actively extracting coal as an active mine. This includes the mine descriptions
containing "active" and "new" in the CoalPublic databases.

       The CoalPublic databases do not include information on  abandoned mines because they
pre-date EIA's data collection. Additionally, the EIA  tables do not differentiate between:

       •      Reclaimed;
       •      Remined; or
       •      Active versus currently undergoing remining.

              Table 2-2. Mine Status Descriptions  from CoalPublic Databases
CoalPublic Database
Active
Active, Men Not Working, Not Producing
Active, Men Working, Not Producing
Inactive
Mine Closed by MSHA
New, No Men Working
New, Under Construction
Permanently Abandoned
Temporarily Closed
Unknown
CMIndustry Profile Database
Active
Active a
Active b
Inactive
Active
Active
Active
Reclaimed
Active ฐ
Unknown
Source: CMIndustryProfile; Coal Database Page (EIA, 2007a).
a - Could include reclamation tasks such as backfilling, regrading, and revegetating
b - Could include remined mines that are continuing to treat discharges.
c - Could include remined mines that do not have discharges.
                                           2-4

-------
                                                                  Section 2.0 - Data Sources
       The operation and mine type are also important in the Coal Mining Detailed Study
because the focus of the study is on discharges from coal mines, rather than preparation plants.
The operation type differentiates facilities by mine; preparation plant; and mine and preparation
plant combination.  The mine type differentiates facilities by strip mine; auger mine/highwall
mine; strip and auger combination mine; underground mine; and refuse recovery mine. See
Section 3.0 for additional operation and mine type descriptions.

       The EIA tables combined in the CMIndustryProfile are particularly useful for evaluating
the number of coal  mines and coal preparation plants because:

       1.     The EIA tables are national in scope and include data from all coal-producing
             states;
       2.     The EIA tables differentiate the facilities by mines and preparation plants;
       3.     The EIA tables differentiate the mines by type of mining practice (e.g., strip and
             underground);
       4.     The EIA tables include production and average number employees; and
       5.     The EIA tables include the mine's Mine Safety and Health Administration
             (MSHA) ID.

       For the purposes of the Coal Mining Detailed Study, limitations of the data collected in
the EIA tables include the following:

       1.     The age of the data (1998 through 2006) because it is not current; and
       2.     Lack of information about wastewater discharges (permit identification numbers,
             quantities, concentrations, type of treatment, etc.).

2.1.2   EIA Financial Information

       EPA used EIA annual reports and special studies to develop a financial and economic
profile of the coal mining industry against which to compare the effects of bonding requirements
for the treatment of manganese. For example, EIA's Annual Energy Review contains times series
data for prices (EIA, 2007b). EIA' $ Annual Coal Reports and Coal Industry Annuah provide
yearly "snapshots"  of coal production, productive capacity, recoverable reserves, employment,
productivity, and domestic markets. EPA used these reports to examine how key variables
change over time and provide insight into the changing nature of the industry (EIA, 2007c; EIA,
2005; EIA, 1999; EIA, 1994). EPA used two special reports that examined changes in the
industry structure and characteristics and the underlying factors in these changes:

       •     The  U.S. Coal Industry in the 1990 's: Low Prices and Record Production
             (Bonskowski, 1999); and
       •     The  Changing Structure of the  U.S.  Coal Industry: An Update (EIA,  1993).

2.2    Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement

       The Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement (OSMRE), a division of
the Department of the Interior, is responsible for monitoring and enforcing SMCRA. The
OSMRE web site includes information on:
                                          2-5

-------
                                                                 Section 2.0 - Data Sources
       •      SMCRA requirements (granted permits, implementation, and violations);
       •      How coal is mined;
       •      Coal mine production;
       •      AMD prevention; and
       •      AMD treatment technologies.

       In addition to the information on the OSMRE Web site, in 2006, OSMRE provided EPA
with two databases containing water quality data for coal mines: the Appalachian Regional Acid
Mine Drainage Inventory Database and the Acid Mine Drainage Inventory (Robinson, 2006;
ARAMD, Unknown; AMDI, Unknown). EPA also obtained the Applicant Violator System
Database that tracks SMCRA permit applications, operators, and violations (DeVinney, 2007).
These databases are described below.

2.2.1   Acid Mine Drainage Inventory Database

       EPA used data from the Acid Mine Drainage Inventory database (AMDI) to characterize
untreated mine drainage. OSMRE provided EPA with the AMDI database in July 2006. The data
in AMDI was collected by OSMRE inspectors at discharges from coal mines in Pennsylvania to
validate information in the Appalachian Regional Acid Mine Drainage Inventory database
(ARAMD) (see Section 2.2.2) and to document long-term discharges at Pennsylvania coal mines
that began extracting coal  after SMCRA (1977). AMDI contains discharge characteristics for
more than 500 Pennsylvania coal mines. Some of the discharges in AMDI are also in ARAMD
because AMDI was developed to identify discharges in Pennsylvania that OSMRE should
include in ARAMD.

       The database tracks the following types of information by SMCRA permit number: type
of mine (surface or underground); treatment system in place; and water quality data from
samples taken during inspections (Robinson, 2006). The AMDI database includes the following
information:

       •      Facility information including: company name, location, NPDES ID, mining
             permit ID, coal seem, type of mine, permit acreage, permit issuance date, and
             permit status;
       •      Bond information including: bonded acreage  and bond amount; and
       •      Sampling information including:  discharge description, receiving stream,
             pollutant concentrations for (AMDI, Unknown):
             —     Conductivity;
             —     Dissolved oxygen;
             —     Ferric iron;
             —     Ferrous iron;
             —     Flow;
             -     pH;
             —     Sulfate;
             —     Total alkalinity;
             —     Total aluminum;
             —     Total iron; and
             —     Total manganese.

-------
                                                                  Section 2.0 - Data Sources
       For the purposes of the Coal Mining Detailed Study, limitations of the data contained in
AMDI include the following:

       •     Only mines located in Pennsylvania are included;
       •     Both active and forfeited mines are included but not clearly identified;
       •     Some sampling data overlaps with data in ARAMD;
       •     A limited number of samples were collected at the same discharge point (one grab
             sample rather than repeat measurements);
       •     Samples were not analyzed for the same pollutants at all mines;
       •     Sample results do not include below detection indicators; and
       •     Some records lack a sampling date or have an invalid sampling date (dated in the
             future).

       Although there are limitations to the data contained  in AMDI, EPA used the data to
characterize untreated AMD. The Coal Mining Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
(ELGs) (40 CFR Part 434) define AMD as mine drainage, which before any treatment, has a pH
less than 6 standard units (s.u.) or an iron content greater than or equal to 10 mg/L. While
alkaline mine drainage, which before any treatment, is mine drainage that has a pH greater than
or equal to 6 and an iron content less than 10 mg/L. EPA used the following steps to determine
the wastewater characteristics for untreated discharges  in AMDI, presented in Section 5.1:

       1.     Classified the discharge by type as defined by Part 434;
       2.     Averaged all pollutant concentrations for each unique discharge to take into
             account variability in measured concentrations and multiple sampling dates; and
       3.     Calculated the minimum, average, and maximum of the pollutant concentrations
             from Step 2 for each pollutant and discharge type to characterize pollutants found
             in mine drainage.

2.2.2  Appalachian Regional A cid Mine Drainage Database

       The ARAMD database is similar in structure and content to the AMDI database, and EPA
used it to characterize untreated mine drainage. OSMRE provided EPA with ARAMD in July
2006. ARAMD includes data from more than 700 coal mines located in the Appalachian Region
(Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,  Virginia, and West Virginia) that began
extracting coal after SMCRA (1977). Some of the  discharges in ARAMD are also in AMDI
because AMDI was developed to identify discharges in Pennsylvania that OSMRE should
include in ARAMD.

       The database tracks the following types of information by SMCRA permit identification
number: type of mine, discharge characteristics of untreated mine drainage, treatment system in
place, and treatment system costs  (Robinson, 2006). ARAMD includes the following information:

       •     Facility information including: company name, location, NPDES ID, mining
             permit ID,  coal seem, type of mine, permit acreage, permit issuance date, and
             permit status;
       •     Bond information including: bonded acreage and bond amount; and
                                          2-7

-------
                                                                   Section 2.0 - Data Sources
       •      Sampling information including: discharge ID, treatment type, receiving stream,
              pollutant concentrations for (ARAMD, Unknown):
              —    Dissolved oxygen;
              —    Ferric iron;
              —    Ferrous iron;
              —    Flow;
              -    pH;
              —    Net acidity;
              —    Sulfate;
              —    Total acidity;
              —    Total alkalinity;
              —    Total aluminum;
              —    Total iron; and
              —    Total manganese.

For the purposes of the Coal Mining Detailed Study, limitations of the data contained in ARAMD
include the following:

       •      Only includes some mines from states the Appalachian Region:
              —    Kentucky (37),
              —    Maryland (5),
              —    Ohio (20),
              —    Pennsylvania (250),
              —    Tennessee (15),
              —    Virginia (30), and
              —    West Virginia (482);
       •      Both active and forfeited mines are included but not clearly identified;
       •      A limited number of samples were collected at the same discharge point (one grab
              sample rather than repeat measurements);
       •      Samples were not analyzed for the same pollutants at all mines;
       •      Sample results do not include below detection indicators;
       •      Data are at least five years old (1996 through 2001);
       •      A majority of the reported pollutant concentrations lack a sampling date or have
              an invalid  sampling date (dated in the future); and
       •      Treatment and cost information is missing for some mines.

       EPA used ARAMD for characterizing AMD: determining typical ranges of pollutant
concentrations in AMD. EPA used the following steps to determine the wastewater
characteristics for untreated discharges in ARAMD, presented in Section 5.1:

       1.      Classified  the discharge by type as defined by Part 434 (see Section 1.2);
       2.      Averaged all pollutant concentrations for each unique discharge to take into
              account variability in measured concentrations and multiple sampling dates; and
       3.      Calculated the minimum, average, and maximum of the pollutant concentrations
              from Step  2 for each pollutant and discharge type to characterize pollutants found
              in mine drainage.
                                           2-8

-------
                                                                   Section 2.0 - Data Sources
2.2.3   Applicant Violator System Database

       The Applicant Violator System (AVS) Office is a unit within OSMRE, Appalachian
Regional Coordinating Center. OSMRE's mission is to carry out the requirements of the
SMCRA. Section 510(c) of SMCRA prohibits the issuance of new permits to applicants who
own or control operations with outstanding violations.  The AVS Office maintains the^FS'
database: an automated information system of coal producers that have violated their bonding
requirements. AVS includes the applicant, permittee, operator, violation and related data
maintained by States and OSM (AVS, 2007).

       OSMRE provided EPA with two Excel files containing the following fields from AVS:
state, permit number, application number, entity number, permittee name, issue date, expiration
date, forfeiture date, and mine name. Together the two files contained data on 7,383 bond
forfeitures by 4,897 companies from the inception of the program in 1977 to the present. Thus,
the dataset represents all coal-producing states for a three-decade period (DeVinney, 2007).

       The AVS data set, however, is only as complete as the information the states submit to it.
Some states may be more conscientious in reporting data than other states. Another limitation is
that the reason for the bond forfeiture is not listed. Thus, it is not possible to ascertain the role
played by the costs of post-mining treatment of coal mine  discharges or the role of treating AMD
to meet manganese limits.

2.3    Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

       Through meetings with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA
DEP), EPA collected the following databases on coal mine forfeitures, pollutant concentrations
in untreated and treated mine drainage, and effluent permit limit compliance:

       •       Bond forfeiture table;
       •       Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) sampling database;
       •       Inspection compliance table;
       •       Permits with active monitoring data indicator sampling database; and
       •       Treatment facilities sampling database.

The following sections describe the databases above.

2.3.1   PA DEP Bond Forfeiture Table

       PA DEP sent EPA a data file listing bond forfeiture sites in which forfeiture actions were
initiated after January 1, 1998 (Agnew, 2008). The file contained the following fields:

       •       Coal mine location information, including district name, mailing name, permit
              number, and facility name;
       •       Type of mine, underground or surface;
       •       Description of the site's discharge; and
       •       Forfeiture information, including forfeiture status, reclamation status, case
              number, pre-primacy indicator, and date forfeited.
                                          2-9

-------
                                                                  Section 2.0 - Data Sources
       PA DEP used two criteria to categorize the role of manganese treatment costs: (1) if a
company's overall manganese treatment obligations led to bankruptcy, all sites for that company
were categorized as "major role" even if there was no discharge at a particular site, and (2) if the
failure of a company due to manganese treatment costs caused the failure of a related company,
all sites for both companies were categorized as "major role." These two categorization rules
could lead to attributing a higher proportion of bond forfeitures to manganese treatment costs
than would result of the analysis were done on a mine-specific basis. The categorizations were
indicated by color-coding the mailing name field (Agnew, 2008).

       EPA used these data in the reasons for forfeiture analysis presented in Section 10.3.

2.3.2   PA DEP Bureau of A bandoned Mine Reclamation Sampling Database

       PA DEP BAMR provided EPA with sampling data (BAMR) from  a single abandoned
mine with two discharges (A and B) in May 2007 (PA DEP BAMR, 2007).  BAMR contains
analytical  data characterizing abandoned mine drainage before and after treatment through two
vertical flow ponds. It contains pollutant concentration data from 1998 to 2007, as measured by
PA DEP BAMR. Although the discharges are not subject to Part 434 ELGs  because they result
from abandoned mines, the data are representative of coal mine drainage and vertical flow pond
pollutant removal.

       The BAMR database includes monthly sampling data from July 1998 through May  2006
for influent and effluent from discharges A and B. The sampling data include flow rate and the
following  pollutants: pH, total iron, total manganese, total acidity, total aluminum, total
alkalinity, sulfate, total calcium, hardness, phosphate, total suspended solids (TSS), magnesium,
and specific conductivity. The majority of the sampling events include measurements for all  of
the pollutants.

       EPA determined the discharges in the BAMR database are classified as AMD because the
untreated pH is less than 6.0 and the untreated iron content is greater than 10 mg/L.

       For the purposes of the Coal Mining Detailed Study, the limitation of the BAMR data is
that they represent only one abandoned mine. However, EPA used the data  summarized in
BAMR for characterizing pollutant  concentrations in treated AMD. Discharge data from the
BAMR database are summarized in Section 5.1.

2.3.3   PA DEP Inspection Compliance Tables

       PA DEP provided EPA with the Inspection Compliance tables (CoalMinelnspections) in
December 2007. The tables include the summary counts for the number of inspections performed
and the number of inspections where inspectors noted effluent limit violations. PA DEP mining
inspectors performed the inspections from January 1, 2003 through December 14, 2007. Overall,
92,897 inspections resulted in at least 453 effluent limit violations. The CoalMinelnspections
database includes only inspections  that would review effluent violations (does not include  Mine
Safety Inspections, Explosives Safety Inspections, etc.) (PA DEP, 2007).

       For the purposes of the Coal Mining Detailed Study, limitations of the data contained in
the CoalMinelnspections tables include the following:

-------
                                                                   Section 2.0 - Data Sources
       •      Inspectors identify violations of discharge permit limits, but the database does not
              contain enough information to determine if the permit limits were based on water
              quality standards or technology-based limits (ELGs);
       •      In addition to discharge permit violations, the database may include violations of
              in-stream permit limits; and
       •      The pollutant for which the effluent limit was violated is not identified.

EPA used the CoalMinelnspections tables to review Pennsylvania coal mine compliance status.
The results of this review are presented in Section 5.2.5.

2.3.4  PA DEP Permits with Active MDI Points Database

       PA DEP provided EPA with the Permits with Active Monitoring Data Indicator Points
database (PADEPMDI) in May 2007. PADEPMDI includes data for more than 350 Pennsylvania
coal mines that began extracting coal after SMCRA (1977).

       The database includes the average pollutant concentrations for untreated discharges from
every sampling event prior to May 2007.  For the purposes of the Coal Mining Detailed Study,
limitations of the data contained in PADEPMDI include the following:

       •      Only mines in Pennsylvania are included;
       •      Active, reclaimed, and forfeited mines are included but not differentiated;
       •      Averages all of the sampling results for each pollutant together (eliminates the
              ability to review outliers);
       •      The pollutants measured were not consistent, sample to sample.

       Although there are limitations to the data contained in PADEPMDI, EPA used the
following steps to determine the wastewater characteristics for untreated discharges in
PADEPMDI, presented in Section 5.1:

       1.      Classified the discharge by type as defined by Part 434 (see Section 1.2); and
       2.      Calculated the minimum, average, and maximum of the concentrations for each
              pollutant and discharge type to determine the industry-wide characterization.

2.3.5  PA DEP Treatment Facilities Sampling Database

       PA DEP provided EPA with the Treatment Facility Sampling database
{PADEPInspector) in December 2007. PADEPInspector includes PA DEP mining inspector-
collected pollutant concentration measurements representing effluent discharges from coal
mining treatment plants. Mining inspectors collect more samples from mines with permit
compliance difficulties than mines with consistent compliance (U.S. EPA, 2007).

       PADEPInspector database tables list 4,624 monitoring points and 1,809 primary facility
IDs. However, the samples and results provided in the database do not represent all of the mines
and monitoring points. Table 2-3 summarizes the data included in the PADEPInspector database.
                                          2-11

-------
                                                                   Section 2.0 - Data Sources
   Table 2-3. Summary of Mines and Monitoring Points in the PADEPInspector Database

Total Listed in Database (Primary Facility IDs
and Monitoring Point IDs)
Sampling Data Included
Pollutant Concentrations (Results) Included
Number of Mines
1,809
487 a
294
Number of Monitoring
Points
4,624
715
723
Source: PADEPInspector.
a - Three outfalls did not have a facility ID listed. Therefore, there may be up to three additional mines represented
by the data.

       The database includes five years of data (2003 through 2007) for 715 outfalls (monitoring
points) at 487 mines.1 The database includes the following types of information:

       •      Facility information  including: SMCRA ID, NPDES ID, MSHA ID, location,
              facility status (e.g., active, reclamation complete), and type of mine (surface
              versus underground).
       •      Sampling date and flow rate.
       •      Analytical monitoring results: pollutant concentration (with below detection
              indicators where applicable).

The NPDES ID is not included for all of the outfalls in the database,  and EPA used the Primary
Facility ID to determine the number of mines. Although the database includes SMCRA, NPDES,
and MSHA IDs, EPA did not link data from PADEPInspector to other databases, such as the
CMIndustryProfile database (see Section 2.1.1) orARAMD (see Section 2.2.2).

       For the purposes of the  Coal Mining Detailed Study, limitations of the data contained in
PADEPInspector include the following:

       •      Only mines in Pennsylvania are included:
       •      Both active and  forfeited mines are included but not clearly identified;
       •      More samples may be collected for outfalls that have difficulty meeting the permit
              requirements than for compliant outfalls;
       •      The pollutants measured were not consistent, sample to sample at the same
              sampling point and between different sampling points;
       •      Discharge  type is not included; and
       •      Treatment type is not included.

       Although there are limitations to the data contained in PADEPInspector, EPA used the
database for three analyses:

       1.     Wastewater characterization (see Section 5.1);
       2.     Comparison to 40 CFR Part 434 limitations (see Section 5.2); and
       3.     Estimate of pollutant loadings (see Section 8.0).
1 Three outfalls did not have a facility ID listed. Therefore, there may be up to three additional facilities represented
by the data.	
                                          2-12

-------
                                                                  Section 2.0 - Data Sources
PA DEP estimated that approximately 50 percent of discharges in Pennsylvania include water
quality-based limitations (U.S. EPA and PADEP, 2007).

       The PADEPInspector database includes 29 analytes measured using 58 different test
methods. More than one test method may be used for each pollutant parameter for different
sampling events. For example: for one sampling event, pH is analyzed using Test Methods
00403, while for a different sampling event pH is analyzed using Test Method 00403M. The
PADEPInspector database includes a long and short description of the test methods (e.g., iron,
total by trace elements in waters and wastes by TCP versus iron T, respectively). EPA identified
the test methods used to analyze samples of pH, total aluminum, total iron, total manganese, and
TSS by the short description. EPA then used the concentration values for each pollutant (and all
test methods) to complete the analyses.

       The following sections provide additional discussion of how the PADEPInspector
database was used for each analysis.

       Wastewater Characterization

       EPA used the data from the PADEPInspector database to characterize treated AMD. EPA
used the following steps to determine the wastewater characteristics for untreated discharges in
ARAMD, presented in Section 5.1:

       1.      Classified the outfalls by type;
       2.      Averaged all pollutant concentrations for each unique outfall to take into account
              variability in measured concentrations and multiple sampling dates; and
       3.      Calculated the minimum, average, and maximum of the pollutant concentrations
              from Step 2 for each pollutant and outfall type to characterize pollutants found in
              mine drainage.

       Comparison of Effluent Concentrations to 40 CFR Part 434 Limitations and
       Pollutant Loadings

       EPA used the data from the PADEPInspector database to compare measured effluent
concentrations to 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C NSPS limitations and to estimate pollutant
loadings. The comparison to limitations includes only: iron, manganese, pH, and TSS. Pollutant
loads were calculated for aluminum, iron, manganese, and TSS using concentration and flow
data.

       For comparing measured effluent concentrations to ELGs and for estimating pollutant
loadings, EPA included outfalls that meet the following two criteria:

       1.      Outfall flow rate must be greater than zero (i.e., excludes monitoring points that
              may not represent the outfall discharge from the treatment plant); and
       2.      Outfall represents AMD discharges (i.e., those  outfalls that monitor for
              manganese).

For the first  criterion, the PADEPInspector database includes initial and final flow rates for each
sampling event (i.e., unique sample date for a mine's outfall).  EPA determined that of the 6,376

-------
                                                                 Section 2.0 - Data Sources
total sampling events, 1,674 did not include flow rate data. These sampling events were excluded
from these analyses. EPA also compared the initial and final flow rates. The flow rates are equal
for all but 180 sample dates, and for those dates, the final flow rate is always higher. EPA used
the final flow rate for the pollutant loading estimate.

       EPA compared effluent concentrations to only the 40 CFR Part 434 limitations and
estimated pollutant loadings for AMD outfalls because the focus of the Coal Mining Detailed
Study is on AMD. Once the sampling events without flow rate data were excluded, EPA
identified outfalls for which manganese concentrations were reported as AMD. EPA identified
333 outfalls with flow rates greater than zero as AMD.

       As discussed above, the PADEPInspector database includes several test methods for
individual pollutants. EPA identified the following test methods for the pollutants included in
EPA's analyses:

       •      Total aluminum:  Method 01105 A and 01105Z (over 93  percent of the samples are
             from Method 01105Z).
       •      Total iron: Method 01045 A and 01045Z (over 93 percent of the samples are from
             Method 01045Z).
       •      Total manganese: Method 01055A and 01055Z (over 93 percent of the samples
             are from Method 01055Z).
       •      pH: Method 00403, F00400, and F00406 (over 98 percent of the samples are from
             Method F00406).
       •      TSS: Method 00530 and 00530A (over 93 percent of the samples are from
             Method 00530A).

       EPA did not make any distinction between the samples collected by different test
methods. EPA's comparison of measured effluent concentration to 40 CFR Part 434 ELGs is
presented in Section 5.2, while the pollutant loadings are presented in Section 8.0.

2.4    West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

       Through meetings with West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV
DEP), EPA collected the following databases on coal mine forfeitures,  pollutant concentrations
in untreated and treated mine  drainage, and effluent permit limit compliance:

       •      Bond forfeiture table;
       •      Discharge monitoring report database;
       •      Manganese permit limits database; and
       •      Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation special reclamation sampling database.

The following sections describe the databases above.

2.4.1   WV DEP Bond Forfeiture Table

       WV DEP provided an e-mail and a file containing bond forfeiture data from June 30,
2001 to present (Halstead, 2008). The email contained information on the total number of
forfeitures (127) and the number of forfeitures related to mine drainage treatment costs (23). The

-------
                                                                  Section 2.0 - Data Sources
file contained the following parameters for each of the 23 bond forfeitures potentially related to
mine drainage treatment costs:

       •     Company;
       •     Permit ID;
       •     Water status;
       •     Permit acres;
       •     Disturbed acres;
       •     Estimated total capital dollars for water treatment;
       •     Estimated annual operating dollars for water treatment; and
       •     An opinion on the role played by manganese treatment in mine drainage treatment
             costs (none, minor, or major).

EPA used these data in the analysis presented in Section 10.3.

2.4.2   WV DEP Discharge Monitoring Report Database

       WV DEP provided EPA with the Discharge Monitoring Report database (WVDMR) in
March 2007. NPDES permits require permitted facilities, including coal mines, to collect
samples and analyze them for the permitted pollutants (pollutants with limits and pollutants with
report only requirements). Facilities must submit the analytical results in a discharge monitoring
report (DMR) to the permitting agency so the permitting agency can track permit limit
compliance.  The WVDMR database contains the reported pollutant concentrations or quantities
from the DMRs for coal mines from April 2003 through March 2005 (WVDMR, 2007).

       The WVDMR database includes 8,934 outfalls regulated under 1,289 NPDES permits.
The DMRs require facilities to report one or more of the following for each permitted pollutant:

       •     Maximum concentration (MCMX);
       •     Average concentration (MCAV);
       •     Minimum concentration (MCMN);
       •     Maximum quantity (MQMX);
       •     Average quantity (MQAV); and
       •     Minimum quantity (MQMN).

The WVDMR database includes concentration and/or quantity data for 88 parameters.

       For the purposes of the Coal Mining Detailed Study, limitations of the data contained in
WVDMR include the following:

       •     Only coal mines located in West Virginia are included;
       •     No mine information such as owner and location is included;
       •     No monitoring data are available for untreated water (data are all post-treatment);
       •     No information is provided on the type of treatment system in place at each coal
             mine;
       •     No information is provided on the location of the outfall (could include in-
             stream); and

-------
                                                                  Section 2.0 - Data Sources
       •     No indication of mine status is provided (active, reclaimed, remined, abandoned,
             or forfeited), and forfeited and abandoned mines may not be contained in
             database.

       Although there are limitations to the data contained in WVDMR, EPA used the database
for three analyses:

       1.     Wastewater characterization (see Section 5.1);
       2.     Comparison to 40 CFR Part 434 limitations (see Section 5.2); and
       3.     Estimate of pollutant loadings (see Section 8.0).

       The following sections provide additional discussion of how the WVDMR database was
used for each analysis.

       Wastewater Characterization

       EPA used the data from the WVDMR database to characterize treated AMD. EPA used
the following steps to determine the wastewater characteristics for treated discharges in
WVDMR, presented in Section 5.1:

       1.     Classified the outfalls by type;
       2.     Averaged all pollutant concentrations for each unique outfall to take into account
             variability in reported concentrations and multiple sampling dates; and
       3.     Calculated the minimum, average, and maximum of the pollutant concentrations
             from Step 2 for each pollutant and outfall type to characterize pollutants found in
             mine drainage.

       Comparison of Effluent Concentrations to 40 CFR Part 434 Limitations and
       Pollutant Loadings

       EPA used the data from the PADEPInspector database to compare measured effluent
concentrations to 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C NSPS limitations and to estimate pollutant
loadings. The comparison to limitations includes only: iron, manganese, pH, and TSS. Pollutant
loads were calculated for aluminum, iron, manganese, and TSS using concentration and flow
data.

       For comparing measured effluent concentrations to ELGs and for estimating pollutant
loadings, EPA included outfalls that meet the following two criteria:

       1.     Outfall  is at the treatment plant (i.e., excludes outfalls at the receiving stream);
             and
       2.     Outfall  represents AMD discharges.

       The WVDMR database includes the following flow rate parameters:

       •     00058 - flow rate;
       •     00061 - stream flow, instantaneous; and
       •     50050 - flow, in conduit through treatment plant.

-------
                                                                 Section 2.0 - Data Sources
       For the first criterion, EPA limited its analysis to the 4,224 outfalls (and 1,048 NPDES
IDs) with flow rate data measuring the flow from the treatment plant or through the treatment
plant (00058 and 50050). EPA excluded outfalls measuring the receiving stream flow rate
(00061). Some of the outfalls reported multiple types of flow rate (e.g., 00061 and 50050). EPA
excluded an additional 299 outfalls that reported the stream flow parameter (00061) more than
50 percent of the time.

       EPA compared effluent concentrations to only the 40 CFR Part 434 limitations and
estimated pollutant loadings for AMD outfalls because the focus of the Coal Mining Detailed
Study is on AMD. Once the sampling events without flow rate data were excluded, EPA
identified outfalls for which manganese concentrations were reported as AMD. EPA identified
333 outfalls with flow rates greater than zero as AMD.

       EPA's comparison of measured effluent concentration to 40 CFR Part 434 ELGs is
presented in Section 5.2, while the pollutant loadings are presented in Section 8.0.

2.4.3   WV DEP Manganese Permit Limits Database

       WV DEP provided EPA with the Manganese Permit Limits database (WVMnLimif) in
June 2007. WV DEP tracks permit limits for coal mines over time in a mainframe permit limits
database. WV DEP extracted all of the manganese permit limits from the mainframe to create the
WVMnLimit database. WVMnLimit includes 31,484 outfalls at 2,973 mines (NPDES IDs).

       The WVMnLimit database includes the following types of information:

       •      NPDES ID and  outfall description;
       •      Permit issuance and expiration date;
       •      Permit status (active or inactive);
       •      Limit effective and expiration date;
       •      Concentration and quantity limits (minimum, average, and maximum);
       •      "Report only" requirements (no numeric limit in the permit); and
       •      Limit basis.

       For the purposes of the Coal Mining Detailed Study, limitations of the data contained in
WVMnLimit include the following:

       •      Only coal mines located in West Virginia are included;
       •      No mine information such as owner and  location is included;
       •      No information is provided on the type of treatment system in place at each coal
             mine;
       •      No information is provided on the location of the outfall (could include in-
             stream);
       •      No indication of mine status is provided  (active, reclaimed, remined, abandoned,
             or forfeited), and forfeited and abandoned mines may not be contained in
             database; and
       •      Includes manganese permit limits incorrectly identified as technology-based
             because they are less than the ELGs.

-------
                                                                 Section 2.0 - Data Sources
       EPA used the data summarized in WVMnLimit to evaluate NPDES manganese permit
limits. EPA identified some limit bases that were outside the scope of the Coal Mining Detailed
Study. Table 2-4 presents the limit bases that were included in EPA's analysis. EPA analysis was
also limited to manganese limits from active permits, identified by the permit status. Manganese
permit limits from the WVMnLimit database are summarized in Section 5.2.1.

          Table 2-4. WVMnLimit Database Limit Basis and EPA Determination
Limit Basis
Acid Tech. Based
Post Deep Acid Tech. Based
Post Surface Acid Tech. Based
Water Quality Based
Included in Analysis a
Y
Y
Y
Y
Source: WVMnLimit.
a - Limit bases included in EPA's analysis are limits within the scope of the Coal Mining Detailed Study.

2.4.4   WV DEP Special Reclamation Untreated Sampling Database

       WV DEP's Office of Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation (AMLR) provided EPA
with the Special Reclamation Untreated Sampling database (WVDEPSpecialRec) in July 2007.
WV DEP's AMLR manages the reclamation of lands and waters affected by mining prior to
SMCRA (1977). WV DEP's AMLR constructs treatment systems from abandoned mine
drainage. The WVDEPSpecialRec database includes sampling data that WV DEP's AMLR
collected from the untreated discharge prior to determining which treatment system to install.
The WVDEPSpecialRec database includes sampling data for 47 outfalls at 17 mines. WV DEP's
AMLR also collects samples after installing the treatment system. However, WV DEP's AMLR
did not provide EPA with the sampling data for the treated mine drainage.

       For the purposes of the Coal Mining Detailed Study, limitations of the data contained in
WVDEPSpecialRec include the following:

       •      Only abandoned (pre-SMCRA) coal mines located in West Virginia are included;
       •      No mine information such as location is included;
       •      No information is provided on the location of the discharge (could include in-
             stream);
       •      The pollutants measured were not consistent from mine to mine;
       •      Sample results do not include below detection indicators; and
       •      Discharge type is not included.

EPA used the data summarized in WVDEPSpecialRec for characterizing pollutant concentrations
in treated AMD. Discharge data from the WVDEPSpecialRec database are summarized in
Section 5.1.

2.5    Other Stakeholder Data

       EPA received a sampling database (AMD143) from Dr. Charles Cravotta, United States
Geological Survey (USGS), in May 2007. The AMD 143 database includes sampling data from

-------
                                                                  Section 2.0 - Data Sources
untreated discharges from abandoned deep mines with large flows in Pennsylvania. Dr. Cravotta
collected the sampling data using clean sampling techniques, so trace metals results are included
mAMD143. AMD 143 includes below detection indicators and all pollutants were measured
during every sampling event.

       For the purposes of the Coal Mining Detailed Study, limitations of the data contained in
AMD143 include the following:

       •      Only abandoned (pre-SMCRA) coal mines located in Pennsylvania are included;
       •      Only discharges from deep mines with large flows are included;
       •      No information is provided on the location of the discharge (the database could
              include in-stream monitoring);
       •      Discharge type is not identified; and
       •      A limited number of samples were conducted at the same discharge point (one
              grab sample rather than repeat measurements).

EPA used the data summarized in AMD 143 for characterizing pollutant concentrations in
untreated AMD. Discharge data from theAMD143 database are summarized in Section 5.1.

2.6    U.S. Economic Census

       The U.S. Economic Census, conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce, is the
systematic measurement of almost  all national economic activity in the United States. The census
collects information about the number of manufacturing establishments and the kind, quantity,
and value of goods manufactured. Although the census provides data on the number of
establishments by North American Industry Classification System and U.S. Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes, it does not publish the list of facilities. New facilities  might have
started operation since the census was taken, and facilities that were counted in the census might
have been shut down. Nonproduction facilities such as sales offices, distribution warehouses,
etc., are also counted as establishments in the census. EPA compares the number of mines
identified in other data sources to the number summarized by the U.S. Economic Census in
Section 3.0 (U.S. Census, 2002).

2.7    EPA Databases

       EPA maintains two databases of pollutant measurement data:

       1.      Toxic Release Inventory (TRI); and
       2.      Permit Compliance  System (PCS).

Discharges from coal mines for the majority of coal mines are not included in these databases.
The following sections  describe the databases above.

2.7.1   Toxic Release Inventory

       TRI is the common name for Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act. Each year, facilities that meet certain thresholds must report to EPA their
releases and other waste management activities for listed toxic chemicals. Facilities must report

-------
                                                                  Section 2.0 - Data Sources
the quantities of toxic chemicals recycled, collected and combusted for energy recovery, treated
for destruction, or disposed of. A separate report must be filed for each chemical that exceeds the
reporting threshold. The TRI list of chemicals for reporting years 2002 and 2003 includes more
than 600 chemicals and chemical categories (U.S. EPA, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2006).

       As part of its 304(m) planning process, EPA analyzes TRI data biennially to characterize
industrial wastewater discharges. Section 4.0 of the document entitled, Technical Support
Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan., dated December 2006, describes how
EPA downloaded and processed the TRI data (U.S. EPA, 2006).

       TRI contains data for facilities in certain SIC codes, including those for coal mining
(1221, 1222, and 1231). However, only coal mines with at least  10 full-time employees or their
equivalent, and that manufacture, use, or otherwise process certain chemicals at or above an
activity threshold report to TRI (U.S. EPA, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2006). TRI data are useful because
of their national scope  and large number of chemicals. However, the 2004 database
(TRIReleases2004 _v3) includes only 61 coal mines, and only 21 have pollutant data in the
database. Because they represent a small number of mines, these TRI  data are not representative
of national coal mine discharges.

2.7.2  Permit Compliance System

       PCS is a computerized information management system maintained by EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. It was created to track permit, compliance, and
enforcement status of facilities regulated by the NPDES program under the Clean Water Act.
Among other data, PCS houses discharge data for these facilities. The discharge data are stored
in tables and may include  (U.S. EPA, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2006):

       •      Permit limitations;
       •      Pollutant concentrations and/or load, by month, quarter, or other time period; and
       •      Flow, by month quarter, or other time period.

       As part of its 304(m) planning process, EPA analyzes PCS  data biennially to characterize
industrial wastewater discharges. Section 4.0 of the document, Technical Support Document for
the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan., dated December 2006, describes how EPA
downloaded and processed the PCS data (U.S. EPA, 2006).

       PCS contains extensive data for major dischargers and fewer data for minor and other
dischargers. Permitting authorities classify dischargers as major based on an assessment of six
characteristics (U.S. EPA, 2006):

       •      Toxic pollutant potential;
       •      Discharge flow to stream flow ratio;
       •      Conventional pollutant loading;
       •      Public health impact;
       •      Water quality factors; and
       •      Proximity to coastal waters.
                                         2-20

-------
                                                                  Section 2.0 - Data Sources
       Table 2-5 lists how discharges from coal mines with data in PCS for 2005 are classified.
Most permitting authorities classify coal mine discharges as minor or other. PCS contained only
pollutant load and concentration data for 15 coal mines (those classified as major dischargers).
As a result, PCS does not contain quantified pollutant loads or concentrations for most coal
mines. Because they represent a small number of mines, these PCS data are not representative of
national coal mine discharges or coal mine discharges in the Appalachian Region.

          Table 2-5. Counts of Coal Mine Permits Listed in PCS, by Permit Type
SIC and Description
1221: Bituminous Coal and
Lignite Surface Mining
1222: Bituminous Coal
Underground Mining
1231: Anthracite Mining
1241: Coal Mining Services
Total
Facility Classification
Major
14
1
0
0
15
Minor
901
79
0
64
1,044
Total Major/
Minor
915
80
0
64
1,059
Permit Type
Total General
and Other a
2,245
14
1
27
2,287
Total Permit
Count
4,460
25
1
41
4,527
Source: Memorandum to Tom Born and Carey Johnston, U.S. EPA (Hazelwood, 2006).
a - General permits cover multiple facilities within a specific category under a single permit. General permits can be
based on the federal multi-sector general permit and state general permits. In addition to general permits facilities
can also have stormwater or other permits.

2.8    Mine Safety and Health Administration

       MSHA, a division of the U.S. Department of Labor, enforces compliance with mandatory
safety and health standards based on the provisions of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977. MSHA tracks the number of mines, assigns MSHA IDs, and reports and tracks safety
incidents. MSHA data do not include discharge data; and EPA did not use any data from
MSHA's Web  site for the Coal Mining Detailed Study.

2.9    Data Sources References

1.      Agnew, Robert. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Personal
       communication between Robert Agnew, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
       Protection, and Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (January 4). EPA-HQ-
       OW-2006-0771 DCNs 05668 and 05668Al.

2.      Allen, William. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. E-mail
       transmittal of Excel spreadsheet entitled EPABondOperInfo.xls to Calvin Franz, Eastern
       Research Group, Inc. (February 11). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCNs 05609 and 05610.

3.      AMD143. Unknown. Acid Mine Drainage Database for 143 Deep Mines. EPA-HQ-OW-
       2006-0771-0082.1.

4.      AMD! Unknown. Acid Mine Drainage Inventory Database. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-
       2455.
                                          2-21

-------
                                                                Section 2.0 - Data Sources
5.     ARAMD. Unknown. Appalachian Regional Acid Mine Drainage Inventory Database.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2473.

6.     AVS. Department of the Interior. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
      Enforcement. Application Violator System Office. 2007a. What is AVS? Available
      online at: http://www.avs.osmre.gov/%5Cwhat_is_avs.htm. Date accessed: November 30,
      2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05665.

7.     Bonskowski, Richard. 1999. The U.S. Coal Industry in the 1990's: Low Prices and
      Record Production. (September 1). Available online at:
      http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/features/coalfeat.pdf. Date accessed: April 18, 2008.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05601.

8.     DeVinney, Charles. Department of the Interior. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
      and Enforcement. Applicant Violator System Office. 2007. Personal communication with
      Charles DeVinney, Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
      and Enforcement, Applicant/Violator System Office, and Maureen F. Kaplan, Eastern
      Research Group, Inc. RE: Coal Leases with Bond Forfeiture Extracted from AVS.
      (December 11). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCNs 5666, 5666A1, and 5666A2.

9.     EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2007a. Coal
      Database Page. Washington, DC. (Unknown). Available online at:
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/database.html. Date accessed: November 20,
      2006. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0016.

10.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2007b. Annual
      Energy Review 2006. DOE/EIA-0384(2006). Washington, DC. (June 27). Available
      online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/aer.pdf. Date accessed: April 22, 2008.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05602.

11.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2007c. Annual
      Coal Report 2006. DOE/EIA-0584(2006). Washington, DC. (November). Available
      online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr.pdf. Date accessed: December
      4, 2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05603.

12.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2007d. Coal Data,
      Reports, Analysis, and Surveys. Washington, DC. (Unknown). Available online at:
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelcoal.html. Date accessed: March 5, 2007. EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771-0019.

13.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2005. Annual Coal
      Report 2004. DOE/EIA-0584(2004). Washington, DC. (November). Available online at:
      http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/05842004.pdf. Date accessed: February 21,
      2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05604.
                                        2-22

-------
                                                               Section 2.0 - Data Sources
14.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 1999. Coal
      Industry Annual 1999. DOE/EIA-0584(99). Washington, DC. (Unknown). Available
      online at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/058499.pdf. Date accessed: December
      13, 2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05639.

15.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 1994. Coal
      Industry Annual 1994. DOE/EIA-0584(94). Washington, DC. (November). Available
      online at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/058494.pdf. Date accessed: December
      6, 2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771  DCN 05605.

16.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 1993. The
      Changing Structure of the U.S. Coal Industry: An Update. DOE/EIA-0513(93).
      Washington, DC. (Unknown). Available online at:
      http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/051393.pdf. Date accessed: December 4, 2007.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05606.

17.    ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2006. Site  Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid
      Drainage Treatment Systems. Chantilly, VA. (October). EPA-OW-2004-0032-2311.

18.    Halstead, Lewis. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. E-mail
      Transmittal from Lewis Halstead, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
      to Tom Born, U.S. EPA, and Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (March 3).
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCNs 05667 and 05667A1.

19.    Hazelwood, Brian. Eastern Research Group, Inc.  2006. Memorandum to Tom Borne and
      Carey Johnston, U.S. EPA. "PCS Coal Mining Data Summary." (July). EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771-0053 and 0053.1.

20.    PA DEP BAMR. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of
      Abandoned Mine Reclamation. Harrisburg, PA. 2007. Sampling Data for Cold Stream
      Sites A and B. (May 10). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0508.1 and 0508.2.

21.    PA DEP. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. PA Coal Mine
      Inspections 2003 - 2007 and Total Inspections with Eff'Viols Excel Spreadsheets.
      Harrisburg, PA. (December 20). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05984A1 and 05984A2.

22.    PADEPInspector. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2008.
      Treatment Facility Monitoring Data for Coal Mining Inspectable Units. Harrisburg, PA.
      (January  14). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN05981A1.

23.    PADEPMDI. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Average
      Pollutant Concentrations for Active Monitoring Points Sampling Raw Acid Mine
      Drainage. Harrisburg, PA. (May  10). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0076.2.

24.    Robinson, Mike. U.S. Department of Interior. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
      Enforcement. 2006. Email to Mr. Carey Johnston and Mr. Tom Born, U.S. EPA and Ms.
      Eleanor Codding, ERG. Pittsburgh, PA. (June 29). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2668.

                                        2^23

-------
                                                                Section 2.0 - Data Sources
25.    U.S. Census. U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. U.S. Economic Census. 2002 Economic Census.
      Subject Series. Mining. General Summary: 2002. EC02-21SG-1. (October). Available
      online at: http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0221sgl.pdf. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
      DCN 05982.

26.    U.S. EPA. 2005. 2005 Screening-Level Analysis: Supporting the Annual Review of
      Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Identification of New Point
      Source Categories for Effluent Limitations and Standards. EPA-821-B-05-003.
      Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0901.

27.    U. S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program
      Plan. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782.

28.    U.S. EPA. 2007. Conference Call between Bob Agnew, Keith Brady, and Mike Smith,
      Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Tom Born, U.S. EPA, and Jill
      Lucy and Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (December 11). EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771 DCN 05983.

29.    WVDEPSpecialRec. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Office of
      Special Reclamation. 2007. Pollutant Concentrations for Untreated Coal Mine Drainage
      from Passive and Active Treatment Systems. Charleston, WV. (July 24). EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771-0084.1.

30.    WVDMR. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Discharge
      Monitoring Report Data for Coal Mines in West Virginia. Charleston, WV. (June 14).
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 -0074.

31.    WVMnLimit. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Manganese
      NPDES Permit Limits for Coal Mines in West Virginia.  Charleston, WV. (June 5). EPA-
      HQ-OW-2006-077 1 -0009.1.
                                        2-24

-------
                                                                Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
3.0    INDUSTRY PROFILE

       This section provides a summary of the coal mining industry in the following order:
              Section 3.1 discusses coal mining processes and operations; and
              Section 3.2 discusses the industry's financial statistics.
3.1    Coal Mining Processes and Operations

       This section discusses:

       •     Physical characteristics and geographic distribution of coal (Section 3.1.1);
       •     How coal is mined (Section 3.1.2);
       •     Specific types of surface mining (Section 3.1.3);
       •     Specific types of underground mining (Section 3.1.4);
       •     How coal is processed and prepared for use (Section 3.1.5); and
       •     Production statistics (Section 3.1.6).

3.1.1   Physical Characteristics and Geographic Distribution of Coal

       Coal is created from thick deposits of vegetative material (peat) that are subjected to a
series of geochemical processes (collectively known as coalification) that change the mineralogy
and texture of the original deposits. These geochemical actions are caused by heat  and pressures
from deep burial and continued sediment deposition on top of the peat. The heat and pressure
require a considerable amount of time to create coal.

       The environmental conditions that are present during plant material deposition and coal
formation determine the coal's chemical and physical properties. For example, coals that formed
in areas with marine water influences tend to have higher concentrations of sulfur than coals
formed in areas with predominantly fresh water influences. Inorganic compounds (mineral
matter) in coal commonly compose from two to 20 percent of coal by weight.  Inorganic
components of coal typically include minerals containing the following elements (U.S. EPA,
1981; U.S. EPA, 1982):

       •     Iron;
       •     Phosphorous;
             Sulfur;
       •     Calcium;
       •     Aluminum;
       •     Silica;
       •     Potassium; and
       •     Magnesium.

Other trace inorganic compounds in coal may include the following elements (U.S. EPA, 1981;
U.S. EPA, 1982):
                                          3-1

-------
                                                                   Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
• Arsenic;
• Barium;
• Beryllium;
• Bismuth;
• Boron;
• Cadmium;
• Chromium;
• Cobalt;
• Copper;
• Fluorine;
• Gallium;
• Germanium;
• Lanthanum;
• Lead;
• Lithium;
• Manganese;
• Mercury;
• Nickel;
• Scandium;
• Selenium;
• Strontium;
• Tin;
• Uranium;
• Vanadium;
• Ytterbium;
• Yttrium;
• Zinc; and
• Zirconium.
       The Energy Information Administration (EIA) classifies coal based on the fixed carbon,
volatile matter, heating value, and caking properties. Table 3-1 presents the types of coal and
their uses, ranked by heating value. In the United States 26 states mine coal (EIA, 2004) and coal
types are associated with geographic regions. The EIA classifies three geographic regions, listed
in Table 3-2. Figure 3-1 presents the U.S. coal distribution, by type (EIA, 2003).

                                  Table 3-1. Types of Coal
Coal Type
Anthracite
Bituminous
Subbituminous
Lignite
Rank3
1
2
3
4
Primary Uses
Residential and commercial space heating.
Coking, steel making, and steam-electric power generation.
Steam-electric power generation.
Steam-electric power generation.
Source: Coal Glossary (EIA, 2004); Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Coal Mining Point Source Category (U.S. EPA, 1982).
a - Ranked from highest to lowest heating value, and highest to lowest by cost.

                  Table 3-2. Geographic Coal Regions and Types of Coal
EIA Geographic Region
Appalachian
Interior
States Included
Alabama
Kentucky - Eastern
Maryland
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
Arkansas
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky - Western
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas
Associated Type(s) of Coal
Bituminous
Bituminous
Bituminous
Bituminous
Anthracite and Bituminous
Bituminous
Bituminous
Bituminous
Bituminous
Bituminous
Bituminous
Bituminous
Bituminous
Lignite
Lignite
Bituminous
Bituminous
Bituminous and Lignite
                                            3-2

-------
                                                                 Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
                  Table 3-2. Geographic Coal Regions and Types of Coal
EIA Geographic Region
Western
States Included
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Montana
New Mexico
North Dakota
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Associated Type(s) of Coal
Subbituminous
Bituminous
Bituminous and Subbituminous
Lignite and Subbituminous
Bituminous and Subbituminous
Bituminous and Subbituminous
Bituminous
Subbituminous
Bituminous and Subbituminous
Source: Coal Glossary (EIA, 2004).
                Figure 3-1. Locations of Coal by Type in the United States
                           Source: EIA Coal Reserves Data (EIA, 2003).

3.1.2   Coal Mining Processes

       Coal is mined in one of two ways: surface and deep (underground). The type of mining is
determined by the location of the coal relative to the surface. Surface mining is prevalent today
because large machinery makes large-scale surface mining economical. After the coal is
extracted from the ground, it is processed (cleaned) at a coal preparation plant (U.S. EPA, 1982).
                                           3-3

-------
                                                                  Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
Table 3-3 presents the number of surface and underground mines and preparation plants
identified in the CMIndustryProfile database for 2005 (see Section 2.1.1 for discussion of the
development of this database); Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) permits
for 2004; and the 2002 U.S. Economic Census.

                           Table 3-3. Counts by Type of Facility
Type of Facility
Preparation Plant
Surface Mine
Underground Mine
Total Number of Facilities
Number of Mines in
CMIndustryProfile Database
for 2005 a
362
820
607
1,789
Number of SMCRA
Permits for 2004
NR
2,048
1,105
2,253
2002 U.S. Economic
Census
NA
NA
NA
1,178
Source: CMIndustryProfile; Coal Production Index (EIA, 2006b); U.S. Economic Census (U.S. Census, 2002).
a - In some cases, on mine location may have multiple SMCRA permits. In other cases, one SMCRA permit may
cover multiple mines.
SMCRA - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
NR - Not reported.
NA - Not applicable. The U.S. Economic Census tracks facilities by NAICS and SIC code, not type of facility.

       The U.S. Economic Census tracks facilities by North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, including facilities reporting
under the following (U.S. Census, 2002):

       •       NAICS 212111 (SIC  1221): Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface Mining.
              Establishments primarily engaged in producing bituminous coal or lignite at
              surface mines or in developing bituminous coal or lignite surface mines. This
              industry includes auger/highwall mining, strip mining, culm bank mining, and
              other surface  mining, by owners or lessees or by establishments, which have
              complete responsibility for operating bituminous coal and lignite surface mines
              for others on a contract or fee basis. Bituminous coal and lignite preparation
              plants performing such activities as cleaning, crushing, screening, or sizing are
              included if operated in conjunction with  a mine site, or if operated independently
              of any type of mine.
       •       NAICS 212112 (SIC  1222): Bituminous Coal Underground Mining.
              Establishments primarily engaged in producing bituminous coal in underground
              mines or in developing bituminous coal underground mines. This industry
              includes underground mining by owners or lessees or by establishments, which
              have complete responsibility for operating bituminous coal underground mines
              for others on a contract or fee basis. Bituminous coal preparation plants
              performing such activities as cleaning, crushing, screening, or sizing are included
              if operated in conjunction with a mine. Independent bituminous coal preparation
              plants are classified in SIC code 1221.
       •       NAICS 212113 (SIC  1231): Anthracite Mining. Establishments primarily
              engaged in producing anthracite or in developing anthracite mines. All
              establishments in the  United States that are classified in this industry are located
              in Pennsylvania. This industry includes mining  by owners or lessees or by
                                           3-4

-------
                                                                Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
              establishments, which have complete responsibility for operating anthracite mines
              for others on a contract or fee basis. Also included are anthracite preparation
              plants, whether or not operated in conjunction with a mine.

       Below are descriptions of the categories of coal mines:

       1.      Active. Active mining is the first phase of coal mining in which coal is extracted.
              During active mining, miners pump stormwater and groundwater, treat it when
              necessary, and discharge it under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
              System (NPDES) permit (ERG, 2006).
       2.      Reclaimed. The reclamation phase  of mining occurs after the coal has been
              extracted. During reclamation, the miners backfill holes and pits, regrade, and
              revegetate land in an attempt to return it to its previous use, such as farmland,
              pasture land, and forest (ERG, 2006).
       3.      Remined. Remining is the additional mining of a reclaimed or abandoned mine
              site. Remining includes the reprocessing of coal refuse piles. Remining sites are
              hydrologically connected to pre-existing discharges that have pollution problems
              (U.S. EPA, 2001).
       4.      Abandoned. Abandoned mines are  mines where "mining operations have occurred
              in the past" and "the applicable  reclamation bond or financial assurance has been
              released or forfeited or if no reclamation bond or other financial assurance has
              been posted,  no mining operations have occurred for five years or more" (40 CFR
              ง434.11(r).)
              a.     Forfeited mines.  In this study, forfeited mines include those mines whose
                    bonds were forfeited after the enactment of the SMCRA (August 3, 1977).
                     SMCRA permitting authorities assume control of and liability for the mine
                    and its discharges when  owners forfeit their bond for mines begun after
                     1977  (post-SMCRA) (ERG, 2006).

EPA uses the term "forfeited mine" in this study to distinguish between those mines that are
abandoned and eligible for federal  Abandoned Mine Land reclamation funds versus those whose
liability has been assumed by the SMCRA permitting authority.

       Table 3-4 presents the number of mines by phase from the CMIndustryProfile database
for 2005. Table 3-4 lists the phase as described by EIA, and its corresponding EPA description.
                                           3-5

-------
                                                                 Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
                        Table 3-4. Counts by Mine Phase for 2005
EIA Mining Phase
Active
Mine Closed by MSHA
Temporarily Closed
Permanently Abandoned b
Unknown
EPA Phase
Active a
Reclaimed
Unknown
Total Number of Facilities
Number of Facilities
1,462
171
47
106
3
1,789
Source: CMIndustryProfile.
a - Includes remines.
b - By permanently abandoned, the CMIndustryProfile database means that no more coal will be mined by the
original company, not that the mine pre-dated the 1977 SMCRA. The EIA classification of "permanently
abandoned" may include forfeited mines.

3.1.3   Surface Mines

       Surface mining is typically used when the coal is close enough to the surface to enable
the overburden (the soil and rock above the coal) to be removed economically and later replaced
and regraded. Surface mining is classified into area mining, refuse recovery mining, and  contour
mining (U.S. EPA, 1981; U.S. EPA, 1982).

       Area mining is typically used on flat terrain to remove coal by creating long pits.  The
overburden from the current pit is deposited into the previous pit. The most common types of
area mining are strip mining and mountaintop mining. Strip mining is most common in the
Western and Midwest U.S. where coal seams lie shallow in planes beneath the surface.
Mountaintop mining is common in the Eastern U.S. The mountaintop mining method removes
the entire mountaintop above the coal seam(s), at times creating a "tabletop" landscape when the
mining is completed. Valley fills of the excess spoil are often associated with mountaintop
removal operations (U.S. EPA, 1981; EIA, 2004).

       Refuse recovery mining is considered a type of surface mining. Coal is recovered from
waste piles at previously mined sites and preparation plants (EIA, 2004). The waste material
remaining after coal processing is called "culm" or "slit" from anthracite coal and "gob"  or
"boney" from bituminous coal. The waste coal piles contain coal, shale, and other impurities.
The waste coal recovered by refuse recovery mining typically has lower Btu value and contains
higher concentrations of rock sulfur (ICCI, 1999).

       Contour mining is typically used in the mountainous areas of the Eastern United States,
where coal seams are exposed along outcrops (OSMRE, 2002). The coal seam is exposed by
removing the overburden, creating a bench or shelf on the side of the mountain and a highwall at
roughly 90ฐ to the bench, as presented  in Figure 3-2. After it  is no longer economical to remove
overburden, additional coal can be removed from the highwall using the auger mining or
highwall mining methods. In auger mining, miners bore large-diameter horizontal holes into the
highwall to remove additional coal (EIA, 2004). Auger mining can also be used in locations
where contour mining is not economically feasible, such as in isolated locations (U.S. EPA,
1981). Highwall mining, while similar to auger mining, uses  a continuous miner system to cut
                                           3-6

-------
                                                                Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
rectangular entries into the coal. The highwall mining can remove more coal at greater depths
(approximately 1,000 feet) than auger mining.
               Figure 3-2. Unreclaimed Contour Mine in Eastern Tennessee
         Source: Partnership Success Stories - Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation (U.S. DOI, 2004).

       The CMIndustryProfile divides surface mines into auger mines, refuse recovery mines,
strip mines, and combination auger and strip mines. The number of mines by type and region for
2005 are presented in Tables 3-5 and 3-6.

                   Table 3-5. Counts by Type of Surface Mine for 2005
Type of Surface Mine
Auger Mine
Refuse Recovery Mine
Strip Mine
Strip/ Auger Mine Combination
Total
Number of Mines
88
19
614
99
820
Source: CMIndustryProfile.
           Table 3-6. Counts of Surface Mines by Coal Mining Region for 2005
Coal Region
Number of Mines
Auger Mine
Appalachian
Interior
Western
80
6
2
Refuse Recovery Mines
Appalachian
Interior
Western
16
2
1
                                          3-7

-------
                                                                Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
           Table 3-6. Counts of Surface Mines by Coal Mining Region for 2005
Coal Region
Number of Mines
Strip Mine
Appalachian
Interior
Western
509
67
38
Strip/Auger Mine Combinations
Appalachian
Interior
Western
95
3
1
Source: CMIndustryProfile.

3.1.4   Underground Mines

       Underground mines are used in locations where the coal is too deep to be surface mined
economically (U.S. EPA, 1982). Table 3-7 presents the counts of underground mines by coal
mining region for 2005 from the CMIndustryProfile database. Underground mines are classified
based on the type of opening used to reach the coal seam: drift, slope, and shaft. Drift mines have
a horizontal or nearly horizontal mine entrance. Slope mines have an angled entry into the mine.
Shaft mines reach the coal seam by a vertical entrance (EIA, 2004).

        Table 3-7. Counts of Underground Mines by Coal Mining Region for 2005
Coal Region
Appalachian
Interior
Western
Number of Mines
548
35
24
Source: CMIndustryProfile.

       Once the coal seam is reached, the coal is primarily extracted using the room-and-pillar
method, longwall method, or rarely, the shortwall method. The room-and-pillar method is the
traditional method of mining in which coal is removed in a systematic pattern to create the
rooms. Pillars of coal are left between the rooms to help support the mine roof. Once the mine
has been fully developed, additional coal is mined from the pillars (second mining) increasing
the overall coal  recovery (U.S. EPA, 1981). Once the mine is advanced to its maximum,
additional extraction from the pillars will be conducted as the miners withdraw from the mine.
This is termed "retreat mining." The room-and-pillar method in the U.S. has been primarily
replaced by longwall  mining, with only two room-and-pillar operations remaining in the U.S.
The longwall mining  method extracts large rectangular blocks of coal using a high-powered
cutting machine. The cutting machine passes across the coal face and shears away coal, as shown
in Figure 3-3. Coal is continuously removed using a conveyer system along a pan line. Longwall
mining removes all of the coal within the block using movable roof supports (jacks and shields).
The only coal not removed is located in the pillars in adjacent support areas (head and tail gates
and bleeder and support entries). Longwall mining can remove coal in blocks exceeding 1,000
feet wide and more than 8,000 feet long (EIA, 2004).

-------
                                                                Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
 Figure 3-3. Bureau of Land Management Photograph of a Longwall Miner Shearer Head
           Source: Solid Mineral Programs on the Nation's Federal Land (U.S. BLM, Unknown).

3.1.5   Coal Preparation

       After coal is mined, it is processed at a coal preparation plant to increase the heating
value and improve the quality by removing impurities such as rock, ash, and sulfur. The coal
undergoes the following steps (U.S. EPA, 1981):
       1.
       2.
       3.
Initial coal preparation;
Coal processing; and
Dewatering and drying.
The dried coal is stored in coal silos for transport to the end user, such as steel mills or coal-fired
power-plants.

3.1.6   Coal Mining Production Data

       EPA collected coal production data from the EIA and Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) Web sites to profile trends in coal mine location and
type. This section presents the production data and discusses trends, including differences in EIA
and OSMRE data.

       Table 3-8 presents the EIA data on U.S. quarterly and annual coal production from 2000
to 2006. Table 3-9 presents the EIA data on coal reserves as of January 1, 2006, by state. The
reserves are separated by recoverable reserves and total reserves. Recoverable reserves are the
amount of coal that can be mined from the coal deposits at active producing mines, while total
reserves are the amount of coal that is recoverable. Illinois, Montana, and Wyoming account for
almost 60 percent of total coal reserves as of January  1, 2006. Additionally, the majority of total
coal reserves are from underground mines; however, the majority of recoverable reserves are
from surface mines.
                                          3-9

-------
                                                                   Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
             Table 3-8. EIA Records of U.S. Coal Production from 2000 to 2006
Year
2000 a
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Production (Thousand Short Tons)
January - March
274,339
283,770
282,573
264,202
275,492
285,802
288,870
April - June
261,257
279,394
266,667
268,499
274,335
278,793
292,965
July - September
270,577
279,729
270,898
268,565
281,484
285,293
288,896
October - December
267,439
284,796
274,156
270,487
280,787
281,610
NR
Total
1,073,612
1,127,689
1,094,295
1,071,753
1,112,099
1,131,498
870,732
Source: Table 4 from Quarterly Coal Report - July to September 2006 (EIA, 2006b).
a - Excludes refuse recovery coal mining.
NR - Not Reported. Data for October to December 2006 were not reported at the time of data collection.


          Table 3-9. EIA Records of Coal Reserves by State as of January 1, 2006
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Eastern
Kentucky
Western
Kentucky
Kentucky
Total
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New Mexico
Underground - Minable Coal
Recoverable
Reserves
(Million Short
Tons) a
306
—
—
—
338
—
—
708
249
—
—
603
362
965
—
W
—
—
—
W
W
Total Reserve
(Million Short
Tons) b
1,007
5,423
—
272
11,461
2
160
87,919
8,741
1,732
—
1,178
15,877
17,055
—
578
123
—
1,479
70,958
6,156
Surface - Minable Coal
Recoverable
Reserves
(Million Short
Tons) a
50
W
W
—
44
—
—
40
133
—
W
181
23
204
W
W
—
W
W
W
W
Total Reserve
(Million Short
Tons) b
3,198
687
—
144
4,762
2
—
16,550
742
457
972
9,337
3,628
12,965
422
65
5
—
4,510
48,272
5,975
Total
Recoverable
Reserves
(Million Short
Tons) a
355
W
W
—
382
—
—
747
382
—
W
784
385
1,169
W
35
—
W
W
1,234
526
Total Reserve
(Million Short
Tons) b
4,205
6,110
NA
417
16,223
4
160
104,469
9,483
2,189
972
10,516
19,504
30,020
422
643
128
NA
5,989
119,230
12,131
                                            3-10

-------
                                                                   Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
          Table 3-9. EIA Records of Coal Reserves by State as of January 1, 2006
State
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Anthracite
Region of
Pennsylvania
Bituminous
Region of
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Total
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Northern West
Virginia
Southern West
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Wyoming
U.S. Total
Underground - Minable Coal
Recoverable
Reserves
(Million Short
Tons) a
—
—
205
W
—
2
518
520
—
8
—
281
235
—
290
888
1,179
W
5,502
Total Reserve
(Million Short
Tons) b
11
—
17,546
1,231
15
3,844
19,377
23,221
—
510
—
5,128
1,130
1,332
NA
NA
29,184
42,500
334,876
Surface - Minable Coal
Recoverable
Reserves
(Million Short
Tons) a
—
1,214
166
W
—
18
78
96
—
11
772
—
59
W
35
527
562
W
13,442
Total Reserve
(Million Short
Tons) b
—
9,053
5,754
323
3
3,355
896
4,251
366
264
12,385
268
562
8
NA
NA
3,775
21,319
158,059
Total
Recoverable
Reserves
(Million Short
Tons) a
—
1,214
371
15
—
21
596
616
—
19
772
281
294
W
325
1,416
1,741
7,975
18,944
Total Reserve
(Million Short
Tons) b
11
9,053
23,300
1,554
17
7,198
20,274
27,472
366
774
12,385
5,396
1,693
1,340
NA
NA
32,960
63,819
492,935
Source: Table 15 from Annual Coal Report - 2005 (EIA, 2006a).
a - Amount of coal that can be mined from the coal deposits at active producing mines as of January 1, 2006.
b - Amount of in-place coal.
NA - Not available. The estimated value is not available due to insufficient data or inadequate data/model
performance.
W - Withheld. Data was withheld to  avoid disclosure of individual company data.

       Table 3-10 presents the number of SMCRA permits and production by state and type of
mining method used (surface or underground). Using the 2005 production data from the EIA
(2006 EIA data do not include the last quarter), both the EIA and OSMRE estimate that, most
recently, the U.S. mined approximately 1.13 billion tons of coal annually. Both agencies also
show that most coal is mined in the Western Region, although there are fewer Western mines.
                                            3-11

-------
                                                                Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
      Table 3-10. OSMRE Records of SMCRA Permits and 2006 Production by State
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona - Hopi
Arizona -
Navajo
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Georgia
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Montana Crow
New Mexico
New Mexico
Navajo
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Totals
Surface Mining
Number of
Permits
81
3
1
0
4
0
8
0
0
45
29
3
576
2
41
1
3
9
1
4
2
8
131
17
603
23
20
2
113
2
302
30
2,064
Total
Production
(tons)
8,675,072
1,156,267
10,715,082
0
198,603
0
9,151,397
0
0
6,411,939
22,974,584
267,747
47,905,792
4,094,890
2,515,565
3,507,180
590,818
33,795,927
6,354,994
5,891,421
13,638,218
30,537,062
8,536,488
1,198,562
12,377,391
1,906,636
45,644,393
4,471
10,425,126
3,976,185
63,394,877
417,859,047
773,705,734
Underground Mining
Number of
Permits
11
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
21
14
0
462
0
4
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
11
o
6
134
23
0
16
128
0
324
1
1,163
Total
Production
(tons)
11,140,877
0
0
0
0
0
25,369,271
0
0
24,569,555
10,703,208
0
72,578,081
0
2,755,779
0
0
265,950
0
6,970,895
0
0
14,912,448
484,732
54,417,873
1,233,422
0
24,308,137
15,857,283
0
84,301,035
282,318
350,150,863
All Mining Methods
Number of
Permits
92
o
6
i
0
4
0
16
0
0
66
43
3
1,038
2
45
1
o
6
10
i
6
2
8
142
20
737
46
20
18
241
2
626
31
3,227
Total
Production
(tons)
19,815,949
1,156,267
10,715,082
0
198,603
0
34,520,668
0
0
30,981,494
33,677,792
267,747
120,483,872
4,094,890
5,271,344
3,507,180
590,818
34,061,878
6,354,994
12,862,316
13,638,218
30,537,062
23,448,936
1,683,294
74,654,805
3,140,058
45,644,393
24,855,255
26,282,409
3,976,185
148,017,951
418,141,365
1,132,580,823
Source: Coal Production Index (OSMRE, 2006).
                                          3-12

-------
                                                                 Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
3.2    Coal Mining Financial Statistics

       For the purpose of this study, the analysis of financial and economic data begins with the
passage of the SMCRA in 1977. SMCRA created a permitting process that requires coal
operators to determine the reclamation requirements and bonding of reclamation costs before
coal mining can begin. Additional discussion of SMCRA is presented in Section 4.2. SMCRA
requires the examination of trends in coal prices, mine size, and ownership, which places the
discussion of bond forfeitures and company failures (see Section 10.0) within the larger context
of the economic conditions for the industry.

3.2.1   Coal Prices

       Figure 3-4 presents domestic coal prices from 1976 through 2006 in 2000 dollars (EIA,
2007a). Prices peaked in 1979 at $47.93/short ton (2000 dollars). From 1979 through 2003,
prices show an unbroken decline. By 1993, coal prices were less than half of the 1979 value
($22.46/short ton). The price decline continued and reached its lowest point in 2003 at
$16.78/short ton. Coal prices in 2003, then, were 35 percent of their 1979 values. The long run
decline in real coal prices is primarily associated with interrelated industry trends toward the
following (Bonskowski, 1999; see Section 3.2.2 for more discussion):

       •      Increased production from mines west of the Mississippi;
       •      A shift to production from fewer but larger mines; and
       •      Increased mine productivity.

With price declines as unrelenting as seen in Figure 3-4, and unable to achieve the economies of
scale that would allow them to compete at such low prices, small or marginal firms can reach a
point where they can no longer recover operation costs and thus leave the industry.
Coal Prices 1977-2006
(Constant 2000 Dollars)
$60
o $50 -
H
"C *-. $40
o o
J3 O
53 o $30
"s ฃ!
A ^ $20 -
Q $10 -
$0 -


^




t^
t^
ON

•*•






*






*•





•*.





•*,












•*.



o <-*•)
00 00
ON ON


•*.





•*





•<*.












•*





•*•





•*





*





*•





•+.





-+





•ป•




*





•*•

NO ON (N m 00
00 00 ON ON ON
ON ON ON ON ON
Year
—•—Real Coal Prices ($2000)




*





-*•





-••





•*•





•*•





#


-------
                                                                       Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
       Figure 3-4 shows an increase in constant dollar prices beginning in 2004. EPA also
examined recent price trends in current dollars (i.e., with no adjustment made for inflation) to
characterize whether those price increases could be considered the beginning of a trend.
Figure 3-5 presents spot market prices in current dollars from April 2005 through April 2008 for
five coal-producing regions: Central Appalachia; Northern Appalachia; Illinois Basin; Uinta
Basin in Colorado; and Powder River Basin in Wyoming (EIA, 2008a).2'3 Spot market prices
fluctuate more widely than long-term contract prices because they only apply to that fraction of
production available for immediate purchase; thus, as  demand increases, spot prices increase
more rapidly than, and tend to exceed contract prices.  The prices in Figure 3-4 represent an
annual value for all coal sold in the United States and  is therefore a combination of all regions as
well as coal sold under long-term contract and on the spot market. For these reasons, the prices
shown in Figures 3-4 and Figures 3-5 are not directly comparable.
                Central Appalachia (CAP)
                          Noithein AiHHil.ichM IN API
                                                                                       83  ฃ
          Key to Coal Commodities by Region
          Central Appalachia:   Big SanoyKanawha 12,500 Btu, 1.2 IbSCGfmmBtu
          Northern Appalachia:  Pittsburgh Seam 13.000 Btu. <3.0 IbSOSfmmBtu
Powder Riuer Basin:
Uinta Basin in Colo.:
8,800 Btu, 0.8 Ib SQSImmBtu
11.700 Btu. 0.8 Ib SCGfmmBtu
          Illinois Basin:
                        11.800 Btu. 5.0 Ib SO2lmmBtu
             Figure 3-5. Spot Coal Prices April 15, 2005 through April 11, 2008
                             Source: Coal News and Markets (EIA, 2008a).
 Energy prices in the EIA are indexed using the Gross Domestic Product implicit price deflator. Due to the time
needed to estimate the price deflator, as well as the time to collect and compile data on long-term contract prices in
addition to spot market prices, there is typically at least a one year large in generating constant dollar price
estimates. Thus, at the time this report was written, price deflators were not available to deflate the time series
shown in Figure 3-5 to the same basis as Figure 3-4 (2000 dollars).
3 Spot market price applies to a one-time purchase of coal for immediate delivery at the going market price.	
                                              3-14

-------
                                                                Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
       The regional variation in coal prices is apparent. Coal from the Powder River Basin has
the lowest price even though it is lower in sulfur content, because of the transportation costs
associated with getting the coal to market or export (EIA, 2008b). A slight price rise (about $5
per short ton) is seen from November 2007 through April 2008. In contrast, spot market prices
for Central and Northern Appalachian coal have more than doubled during the same time period
(an increase of about $55 per short ton). Prices for the Illinois and Uinta Basins coal show an
increase but the increase starts about a month later and is not as pronounced as the increase in the
prices for Appalachian coal basins. At this point in time, there is insufficient information to say
whether the price increases seen in Figure 3-5 will be a short-term spike or a long-term change in
the market. At the moment, however, the  increased coal prices will enable marginal producers to
remain in operation (EIA, 2008a).

       Demand is high in the global coal  markets for a number of reasons. Australia, the world's
largest coal exporter, has experienced infrastructure failures  or production problems, resulting in
lower exports. China, reduced its imports of Australian coal  by 34 percent in 2007 (Marsh and
McGregor, 2008). This, coupled with increasing demand for coal for power plants and
manufacturers as well as for coal for steel blast furnaces in China, India, and other parts of Asia
drives up demand for coal from other regions of the globe. China became  a net importer of coal
for the first time in early 2007 due to a mixture of increased  demand and the costs and logistics
of transporting coal from its inland mines to its coastal consumers. Europe imports U.S. coal for
steelmaking, as well. Coal is also a substitute for oil. Therefore, high oil prices relative to coal
can lead to consumers that have switching capability to change from oil to coal  as a fuel. In
addition, the relative weakness of the U.S. dollar makes U.S. coal more attractive  to importing
countries. Historically, Appalachia supplied most of the coal exported from the United  States
(e.g., Appalachian coal accounted for 84 percent of 2006 exports) which is a factor in the price
spike seen for Appalachian coal (EIA, 2008b; Freme, 2008; Kraus, 2008).

3.2.2   Mine  Counts, Mine Sizes, and Technological Changes

       Table 3-11 summarizes the number of mines and mine size in Appalachia  and the United
States. Between 85 percent and 90 percent of U.S. mines are located in Appalachia, although
Western mines produce more tons of coal (see Table 3-10). The number of mines  follows the
decline in prices seen in Figure 3-4, but other factors also play a role (see below).  While the
number of mines has decreased, the size of the remaining mines has increased; implying that the
closures are concentrated in the smaller mines. Like coal prices, the number of mines hit its
lowest value in 2003. The number of mines has increased slightly since then with  a concomitant
decrease in mine size. In Appalachia, the number of mines in 2006 was less than one-third of the
number of mines in 1986.
                                          3-15

-------
                                                                Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
            Table 3-11. Number and Size of U.S. and Appalachian Coal Mines
Year
1976
1986
1991
1994
1997
2003
2006
United States
Number of Mines
6,553
4,424
3,022
2,354
1,828
1,316
1,438
Average Mine Size
(000, short tons)
105
201
330
439
596
814
809
Appalachia
Number of Mines
NA
3,990
2,676
2,068
1,602
1,124
1,254
Average Mine Size
(000, short tons)
NA
107
171
215
292
335
312
Source: The U.S. Coal Industry in the 1990s: Low Prices and Record Production (Bonskowski, 1999); The
Changing Structure of the U.S. Coal Industry: An Update (EIA, 1993); Annual Coal Report 2004 (EIA, 2005);
Annual Coal Report 2006 (EIA, 2007b).

       The EIA noted several factors contributing to the decrease in the number of mines with
the associated increase in mine size. With the oil price spikes of the 1970s, electric utilities
turned toward coal as a less expensive fuel and looked for large coal suppliers that were capable
of meeting long-term demands. Coal production thus shifted toward the thick coal seams in the
West (EIA, 1993). The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 increased the demand for low-sulfur
coal. The two major low-sulfur coal regions are the Powder River Basin (Wyoming) and Central
Appalachia (southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky) (EIA, 1993).

       Bonskowski  (1999) mentions several additional negative factors for small to medium
operations. First, loss or renegotiation of contracts can be devastating. He notes that, in many
cases, the financial problems of marginal mines stemmed from contract disputes and/or
cancellations involving major customers. Second, the decline in the domestic steel industry
meant a reduction in demand for coke plants. The coal used for steelmaking is produced
primarily in Appalachia.  In 1976, steel companies  owned two of the top four coal  producers in
Appalachia. By 1986, steel-industry-affiliated companies had dropped out of the top four
producers. By 1991, USX (formerly U.S. Steel) and Bethlehem Steel  ranked 18th and 19th in
central Appalachian coal production (EIA, 1993). By 1999, USX dropped to 25th place and
Bethlehem Steel does not appear on the list of coal producers (EIA, 1999). These factors led to
weakened financial conditions for small  or marginal coal mines that were the typical coal mine
in the Appalachian region.

       Third, the industry underwent technological changes  during the last two decades. From
1973, the coal mining industry has seen four trends:

       1.     Growth in surface mining accelerating at a greater pace than underground mining.
       2.     Surface mining techniques applied at larger and larger scales in western mines.
       3.     A shift in  underground mining from room and pillar techniques to longwall
             techniques (see Section 3.1.4).
       4.     Continuing improvements in durability and capability  in mining  equipment, such
             as improved roof bolting  systems, a shift to conveyor belt systems to carry coal
             out of underground mines, more powerful drill bits, and larger haul trucks and
             loaders.

-------
                                                                  Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
While these changes might have begun several years ago, the trends they put in motion in the
coal mining industry continue today (EIA, 2006c). One way of measuring the effect of the
technological developments is the change in the number of short tons of coal mined by one
employee per hour. Table 3-12 illustrates both the differences in productivity between surface
and underground mining operations as well as regional differences. The Western region includes
the Unita and Powder River Basins. Although western surface mining operations are five to six
times more productive than Appalachian operations, the average productivity for the Powder
River Basin is higher than that for the Unita Basin. During 2006, the average production per
employee is 37.6 short tons per hour for the Powder River Basin (EIA, 2007b).

                           Table 3-12. Employee Productivity
Year
1986
1991
1994
1997
2003
2006
Short Tons per Employee per Hour
United States
3.01
4.09
4.98
6.04
6.95
6.26
Appalachian
Surface
2.54
3.24
3.72
4.26
3.83
3.45
Underground
1.90
2.54
2.96
3.55
3.64
2.95
Western
Surface
11.49
15.33
17.68
21.78
25.01
25.70
Underground
2.82
4.56
5.98
6.88
8.42
6.77
Source: The U.S. Coal Industry in the 1990's: Low Prices and Record Production (Bonskowski, 1999); The
Changing Structure of the U.S. Coal Industry: An Update (EIA, 1993); Annual Coal Report 2004 (EIA, 2005);
Annual Coal Report 2006 (EIA, 2007b).

3.2.3   Major Producers

       Consistent with the increase in mine size over time, EIA's definition of a major producer
has also changed. In 1994, a major coal producer was one that mined more than 2 million short
tons that year (EIA, 1994). In 2006, a major coal producer mined more than 5 million short tons
(EIA, 2007b). Table 3-13 lists the 27 major producers that accounted for 81 percent of the 2006
production. At least 81 percent of domestic coal production is in private hands.4

                        Table 3-13. Major Coal Producers in 2006
Rank
1
2
3
Company Name
Peabody Coal Co.
Rio Tinto Energy
America, Inc.
Arch Coal, Inc.
Company Name/Parent
Peabody Energy Co.
Rio Tinto
Arch Coal, Inc.
Public
X

X
Private

X

Foreign
(Country)

U.K.,
Australia

% of Total
Production
(2006)
17.9
11.6
11.1
Reference
(Peabody,
2008)
(Rio Tinto,
2008)
(Arch Coal
Inc, 2008)
 EIA (2007b) does not specify the ownership of the remaining 19 percent of production; it is likely that some of it is
mined by private companies.	
                                           3-17

-------
                                         Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
Table 3-13. Major Coal Producers in 2006
Rank
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Company Name
Foundation Coal
Corp.
CONSOL Energy,
Inc.
A.T. Massey Coal
Co., Inc.
North American
Coal Corp.
Westmoreland Coal
Co.
Alliance Coal, LLC
Peter Kiewit Sons,
Inc.
TXU Corp
Robert Murray
International Coal
Group, Inc.
BHP Minerals
Group
Alpha Natural
Resources, LLC
Magnum Coal Co.
James River Coal
Co.
Energy Coal
Resources, Inc.
Pittsburg & Midway
Coal Mining Co.
PacifiCorp
Peter
Kiewit/Kennecott
Alcoa, Inc.
Andalex Resources,
Inc.
Western Fuels
Association, Inc.
Company Name/Parent
/Foundation Coal Holdings,
Inc.
CONSOL Energy, Inc.
Massey Energy Company
/NAACO Industries, Inc.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
Alliance Resource Partners,
L.P.
Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc.
Energy Future Holdings,
Corp.
Murray Energy Corp
International Coal Group,
Inc.
BHP Billiton
Alpha Natural Resources,
Inc.
Magnum Coal Co.
James River Coal Co.
Energy Coal Resources, Inc.
/Chevron
/Mid American Energy
Holdings Co.
/Kennecott Minerals, Rio
Tinto Group
Alcoa, Inc.
Andalex Resources, Inc.
Western Fuels Association,
Inc. (Cooperative)
Public
X
X
X
X
X
X



X
X
X

X


X

X


Private






X
X
X



X

X
X

X

X
X
Foreign
(Country)










Australia






U.S./
Australia

Canada

% of Total
Production
(2006)
6.0
5.4
3.3
2.7
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
Reference
(Foundatio
n Coal,
2008)
(CONSOL,
2008)
(Massey,
2008a)
(NACC,
2008)
(Westmore
land, 2008)
(Alliance,
2008)
(Kiewit,
2008)
(TXU,
2008)
(Murray,
2008)
(ICG,
2008)
(BHP,
2008)
(Alpha,
2008)
(Magnum
Coal,
2008)
(JRCC,
2008)
(Energy
Coal
Resources,
2008)
(Chevron,
2008)
(PacifiCorp
, 2007)
(Kiewit,
2008;
Kennecott,
2008)
(Alcoa,
Inc, 2008)
(Andalex
Resources,
2008)
(Western
Fuels,
2008)
                  3-18

-------
                                                               Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
                       Table 3-13. Major Coal Producers in 2006
Rank
25
26
27
Company Name
TECO Energy, Inc.
Wexford Capital
LLC
Oxbow Carbon &
Minerals, Inc.
Company Name/Parent
TECO Energy, Inc.
Wexford Capital LLC
Oxbow Corporation
Public
X


Private

X
X
Foreign
(Country)



% of Total
Production
(2006)
0.5
0.5
0.4
Reference
(TECO,
2008)
(Wexford,
2008)
(Oxbow,
2008)
Source: Table 10 from Annual Coal Report 2006 (EIA, 2007b).

       Corporate structures in the coal mining industry can be complex and fluid. For example,
in October 2007, Peabody Energy Corporation—the number one coal producer in the United
States in 2006 (see Table 3-13)—spun off its coal mining subsidiaries into Patriot Coal
Corporation. At the end of 2007, Patriot Coal Corporation had 57 subsidiaries (Patriot, 2007). In
April 2008, Patriot Coal Corporation announced it would acquire Magnum Coal (Table 3-13,
company number 16), making its structure even more complicated (Patriot, 2008). At the end of
2007, Massey Energy Company listed 109 subsidiaries in its annual financial report (Form 10-K)
to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (Massey, 2008b).

3.2.4  Foreign Ownership

       Coal production under foreign ownership is shown in Table 3-14. In 1976, less than 2
percent of domestic coal was produced by foreign-owned firms. The percentage slowly  increased
through the 1980s and showed a sharp increase in the mid-1990s. By 2006, the percentage had
dropped to about 14 to 15 percent, with Rio Tinto the major foreign owner (EIA, 1994;  EIA,
2006a).

          Table 3-14. Percent of U.S. Coal Production by Foreign-Owned Firms
Year
1976
1986
1991
1994
2006
Percent of U.S. Coal Production by
Foreign-Owned Firms
1.4
1.6
14.3
20.9
14.4
Source: Figure 2 from Coal Industry Annual 1994 (EIA, 1994); Table 10 from Annual Coal Report 2006 (EIA,
2007b).

3.2.5  Number of Small Entities

      The Small Business Administration (SBA) sets size standards for each NAICS industry in
13 CFR 121.201. For the coal mining NAICS codes, 212111, 212112, and 212113, the size
standard is 500 employees. In Appalachia, the average production per employee is 3.13 short
tons per hour while in the Powder River Basin, the average production per employee is 37.6
short tons per hour (EIA, 2007b, Table 21, 2006 data). Assuming an employee works 2,000
hours per year, a single employee could produce between 6,260 and 75,200 short tons per year.

-------
                                                              Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
Thus, what SBA considers a small firm is still capable of producing a substantial amount of coal.
Two of the major coal producers listed in Table 3-13, Western Fuels Association, Inc. and
Wexford Capital LLC, have fewer than 500 employees and thus qualify to be called a small
business on the basis of SBA size standards. SBA works with the U.S. Census Bureau to provide
the number of firms by employment size by NAICS code. The most recent data available are
2005, presented in Table 3-15. The majority of firms are classified as small businesses by SBA.

          Table 3-15. Employer Firms, and Employment by Size of Firm, 2005
Industry
Coal Mining
Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface Mining
Bituminous Coal Underground Mining
Anthracite Mining
NAICS
2121
212111
212112
212113
Number of
Firms
703
383
296
56
Number of Firms
with <500 Employees
660
349
268
55
Percent
Small
94%
91%
91%
98%
Source: Employer Firms, and Employment Size of Firm by NAICS Codes, 2005 (SBA, 2005).

3.3    Industry Profile References

1.      Alcoa Inc. 2008. Wright Reports: Alcoa Inc. (Unknown). Available online at:
       http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/comsite5.pl?page=report_
       description&report=COMPANY&cusip=013817101. Date accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-
       HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05632.

2.      Alliance. Alliance Resources Partners, L.P. 2008. Wright Reports: Alliance Resources
       Partners, L.P. (Unknown). Available online at:
       http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/comsite5.pl?page=report_
       description&report=COMPANY&cusip=01877R108. Date accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-
       HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05620.

3.      Alpha. Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. 2008. Wright Reports: Alpha Natural Resources,
       Inc. (Unknown). Available online at: http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/
       comsite5.pl?page=report_description&report=COMPANY&cusip=02076X102. Date
       accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05626.

4.      Andalex  Resources. 2008. Mining Life: Andalex Resources. (Unknown). Available
       online at: http://www.mininglife.com/operations/companydetail.asp?Company=
       Andalex+Resources%2C+In. Date accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
       DCN 05633.

5.      Arch Coal, Inc. 2008. Wright Reports: Arch Coal, Inc. (Unknown). Available online at:
       http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/comsite5.pl?page=report_
       description&report=COMPANY&cusip=039380100. Date accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-
       HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05614.
                                        3-20

-------
                                                             Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
6.     BHP. BHP Billiton Limited. 2008. Wright Reports: BHP Billiton Limited. (Unknown)
      Available online at: http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/comsite5.pl?page=
      report_description&report=COMPANY&cusip=088606108. Date accessed: May 1,
      2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05625.

7.     Bonskowski, Richard. 1999. The U.S. Coal Industry in the 1990's: Low Prices and
      Record Production. (September 1). Available online at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/
      FTPROOT/features/coalfeat.pdf. Date accessed: April 18, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
      0771 DCN 05601.

8.     Chevron. Chevron Corporation. 2008. Form 10-K for fiscal year ending December 31,
      2007. Available online at: http://www.sec.gov. Date accessed: May 20, 2008. EPA-HQ-
      OW-2006-0771 DCN 05629.

9.     CONSOL. CONSOL Energy. 2008. Wright Reports: CONSOL Energy. (Unknown).
      Available online at: http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/comsite5.pl?page=
      report_description&report=COMPANY&cusip=20854P109. Date accessed: May 1,
      2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05616.

10.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 1993. The
      Changing Structure of the U.S. Coal Industry: An Update. (July). DOE/EIA-0513(93).
      Available online at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/051393.pdf. Date accessed:
      December 4, 1007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05606.

11.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 1994. Coal
      Industry Annual 1994. DOE/EIA-0584(94). (November). Available online at:
      http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/058494.pdf. Date accessed: December 6, 2008.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05605.

12.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 1999. Coal
      Industry Annual 1999. DOE/EIA-0584(99). (November). Available online at:
      http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/058499.pdf. Date accessed: December 13, 2007.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05639.

13.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2003. EIA Coal
      Reserves Data. Washington, DC. (May 30). Available online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/
      cneaf/coal/reserves/chapterl.html. Date accessed: November 21, 2006. EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771-0026.

14.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2004. Coal
      Glossary. Washington, DC. (October 16). Available online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/
      cneaf/coal/page/gloss.html. Date accessed: November 14, 2006. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
      0771-0028.

15.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2005. Annual Coal
      Report - 2004. DOE/EIA-0584(2004). Washington, DC. (November). Available online
      at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/05842004.pdf. Date accessed: February 21,
      2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05604.

-------
                                                              Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
16.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2006a. Annual
      Coal Report-2005. DOE/EIA-0584 (2005). Washington, DC. (October). Available
      online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr.pdf Date accessed: March 5,
      2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0014.

17.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2006b. Quarterly
      Coal Report - July to September 2006. DOE/EIA-0121 (2006/03Q). Washington, DC.
      (December). Available online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/qcr.pdf
      Date accessed: March 5, 2007. EPA-HW-OW-2006-0771-0020.

18.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2006c. Coal
      Production in the United States. (October). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/
      coal/page/coal_production_review.pdf Date accessed: December 4, 2007. EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771 DCN 05640.

19.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2007a. Annual
      Energy Review 2006. DOE/EIA-0384(2006). (June 27). Available at:
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/aer.pdf Date accessed. April 22, 2008. EPA-HQ-
      OW-2006-0771 DCN 05602.

20.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2007b. Annual
      Coal Report 2006. DOE/EIA-0584(2006). (November). Available online at:
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr.pdf Date accessed: December 4, 2008.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05603.

21.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2008a. Coal News
      and Markets. (May 19). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/
      coalnews/coalmar.html. Date accessed: May 21, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN
      05641.

22.    EIA. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2008b. Quarterly
      Coal Report: October - December 2007. DOE/EIA-0121 (2007/04Q). (March). Available
      at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/qcr.pdf Date accessed: April 17, 2008.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05642.

23.    Energy Coal Resources. 2008.  Business Week Entry for Energy Coal Resources.
      (Unknown). Available online at: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/
      private/snapshot.asp?privcapld=24969379. Date accessed: May 9, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771 DCN 05643.

24.    ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2006. Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid
      Drainage Treatment Systems. Chantilly, VA. (October). EPA-OW-2004-0032-2311.

25.    Foundation Coal. 2008. Wright Reports: Foundation Coal. (Unknown). Available online
      at: http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/comsite5.pl?page=report_
      description&report=COMPANY&cusip=35039W100. Date accessed: May 1, 2008.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05615.
                                        3^22

-------
                                                              Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
26.    Freme, F. 2008. U.S. Coal Supply and Demand: 2007 Review. U.S. Department of
      Energy. Energy Information Agency. (April 16). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/
      cneaf/coal/page/special/feature07.pdf Date accessed: April 16, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771 DCN 05644.

27.    ICCI. Illinois Clean Coal Institute. 1999. Development and Demonstration of Integrated
      Carbon Recovery Systems from Fine Coal Processing Waste. ICCI Project Number: 99-
      48202. (October 1). Available online at: http://www.icci.org/99fmal/honakDOE.htm.
      Date accessed: September 4, 2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-005 5.

28.    ICG. International Coal Group, Inc. 2008. Wright Reports: International Coal Group, Inc.
      (Unknown). Available online at:
      http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/comsite5.pl?page=report_description&repo
      rt=COMPANY&cusip=45928H106. Date accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
      0771 DCN 05624.

29.    JRCC. James River Coal Company. 2008. Wright Reports: James River Coal Company.
      Available online at: http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/comsite5.pl?page=
      report_description&report=COMPANY&cusip=470355207. Date accessed:  May 1,
      2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05628.

30.    Kennecott Minerals Operations. 2006. Kennecott Minerals Operations Summary.
      (February 26). Available online at: http://www.kennecottminerals.com/OPERATIONS
      %20SUMMARY.pdf. Date accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN
      5631.

31.    Kiewit. Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc. 2008. Wright Reports: Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc.
      Company. (Unknown). Available online at: http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/
      bin/comsite5.pl?page=report_description&report=COMPANY&cusip.=493876106. Date
      accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05621.

32.    Krauss, C. 2008. An Export in Solid Supply. The New York Times. Business Section.
      (March 19).  Available online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/business/
      19coal.html?_r=l&scp=2&sq=Export+in+Solid&st=nyt&oref=slogin. Date  accessed:
      May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN  05645.

33.    Magnum Coal. 2008. Arc Light Capital: Magnum Coal. (Unknown). Available online at
      http://www.arclightcapital.com/page.asp?id=13. Date accessed: May  1, 2008. EPA-HQ-
      OW-2006-0771 DCN 05627.

34.    Marsh, V. and R. McGregor. 2008. Australia loses market share in China's coal.
      Financial Times. (January 22).  Available at: http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=
      Australia+loses+market+share+in+China%27s+coal&aje=true&id=080122000613&ct=0.
      Date accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05646.
                                        3-23

-------
                                                            Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
35.    Massey. Massey Energy Company. 2008a. Wright Reports: Massey Energy Company.
      (Unknown). Available online at: http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/
      comsite5.pl?page=report_description&report=COMPANY&cusip=576206106. Date
      accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05617.

36.    Massey. Massey Energy Company. 2008b. Form-lOK for the fiscal year ending
      December 31, 2007. (Unknown). Available at http://www.sec.gov. Date accessed: May 1,
      2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05647.

37.    Murray. Murray Energy Corporation. 2008. Hoovers: Murray Energy Corporation.
      (Unknown). Available online at: http://www.hoovers.com/Murray-Energy-Corporation/--
      HD	rrcxkfhfs,src	dbi~/free-co-dnb_factsheet.xhtml. Date accessed: May 1, 2008.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05623.

38.    NACC. North American Coal Corporation. 2008. Wright Reports: NAACO Industries.
      (Unknown). Available online at: http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/
      comsite5.pl?page=report_description&report=COMPANY&cusip=629579103. Date
      accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05618.

39.    OSMRE. U.S. Department of Interior. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
      Enforcement. 2002. Contour Mining: Before the Surface Mining Law. Washington, DC.
      (January 23). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0038.

40.    OSMRE. U.S. Department of Interior. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
      Enforcement. 2006. Coal Production Index. Washington, DC. (November 4). Available
      online at: http://www.osmre.gov/coalprodindex.htm. Date accessed: March 5, 2007.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 -0044.

41.    Oxbow. Oxbow Corporation. 2008. Oxbow Corporation Philosophy. (Unknown).
      Available online at: http://www.oxbow.com/ContentPage.asp?FN=
      AboutPhilosophy&TS=l&MS=l&oLang=. Date accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771 DCN 05637.

42.    PacifiCorp. 2007. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Form 10-K for year ending
      December 31, 2007. (Unknown). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05630.

43.    Patriot. Patriot Coal Corporation. 2007. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December
      31, 2007. (Unknown). Available online at http://www.sec.gov. Date accessed: April 18,
      2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05648.

44.    Patriot. Patriot Coal Corporation. 2008. Patriot Coal Announces Agreement to Acquire
      Magnum Coal Company. News Release. (April 8). Available at: http://phx.corporate-
      ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=216060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1125029&highlight. Date
      accessed: April 18, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05649.
                                       3-24

-------
                                                             Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
45.    Peabody. Peabody Energy Company. 2008. Job Bank USA: Peabody Energy Company.
      Available online at: http://www.jobbankusa.com/employment_jobs_career/
      peabody_energy.html. Date accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN
      05612.

46.    Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto Energy America. 2008. Wright Reports: Rio Tinto Energy America.
      (Unknown). Available online at: http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/coms2/
      reportdesc_COMPANY_767204100. Date accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
      0771 DCN 05613.

47.    SB A. Small Business Administration. 2005. Employer Firms, and Employment Size of
      Firm by NAICS Codes, 2005. (no date). Available online at: http://www.sba.gov/
      advo/research/us05_n6.pdf. Date accessed: April 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
      DCN 05608.

48.    TECO. TECO Energy, Inc. 2008. Wright Reports:  TECO Energy, Inc. (Unknown).
      Available online at http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/
      comsite5.pl?page=report_description&report=COMPANY&cusip=872375100. Date
      accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05635.

49.    TXU. TXU Corporation. 2008. Wright Reports: TXU Corp. Company. (Unknown).
      Available online at: http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/
      comsite5.pl?page=report_description&report=COMPANY&cusip=873168108. Date
      accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05622.

50.    U.S. BLM. U.S. Bureau of Land Mines. Unknown. Solid Mineral Programs on the
      Nation's Federal Land. Washington, DC. (Unknown). Available online at:
      http://www.blm.gov/nhp/pubs/brochures/minerals/. Date accessed: April 26, 2006. EPA-
      HQ-OW-2004-0032-2623.

51.    U.S. Census. U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. U.S. Economic Census. 2002 Economic Census.
      Subject Series. Mining. General Summary: 2002. EC02-21SG-1. October 2005.
      Available online at: http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0221sgl.pdf. EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771  DCN 05982.

52.    U.S. DOI. U.S. Department of Interior. 2004. Partnership Success Stories - Abandoned
      Mine Lands Reclamation. Washington, DC. (June). Available online at:
      http://www.doi.gov/partnerships/abandoned_mine_lands.html. Date accessed: March 5,
      2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0474.

53.    U. S. EPA.  1981. Proposed Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
      and Standards for the Coal Mining Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-81/057-b.
      Washington, DC. (January).

54.    U. S. EPA.  1982. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
      Standards for the Coal Mining Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-82/057. Washington,
      DC. (October).

                                        3^25

-------
                                                              Section 3.0 - Industry Profile
55.    U.S. EPA. 2001. Coal Remining Statistical Support Document. EPA 821-B-01-011.
      Washington, DC. (December). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
      guide/coal/support/index.html.

56.    Western Fuels. 2008. Western Fuels Association 2006-2007 Annual Report. (Unknown).
      Available online at: http://www.westernfuels.org/about/2006_2007AR.pdf. Date
      accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05634.

57.    Westmoreland. Westmoreland Coal Company. 2008. Company Web site. (Unknown).
      Available online at: http://www.Westmoreland.com/about.asp?id=
      about_westmoreland_overview. Date accessed: May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
      DCN 05619.

58.    Wexford. Wexford Capital LLC. 2008. Wexford Capital LLC, People. (Unknown).
      Available online at: http://www.wexford.com/pages/people/intro.html. Date accessed:
      May 1, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05636.
                                        3-26

-------
                                               Section 4.0 - Coal Mining Regulatory Framework
4.0    COAL MINING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

       Coal mining operations are governed by a complex regulatory nexus between the Clean
Water Act (CWA), the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), and state
requirements. The CWA regulates discharges from coal mines; SMCRA regulates the planning,
active mining, and reclamation of coal mines; and states and tribes, authorized by EPA, oversee
both regulatory programs. States and tribes may add requirements that are more stringent than
federal requirements.

       Compared with other industries permitted under the CWA's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), the coal mining industry is unique. Due to linkages between the
CWA and SMCRA, state mining programs, rather than water quality programs, often issue
NPDES permits for this industry.

4.1    Regulation of Coal Mining Discharges to Surface Water

       States write NPDES permit requirements based on either effluent limitations and
guidelines (ELGs) or water quality criteria—whichever limits are more stringent. Permit limits
from ELGs for coal mining discharges are based on 40 CFR Part 434. Under the water quality
criteria approach, permit writers use the designated goals of a waterbody to establish numeric
pollutant concentrations and narrative requirements. Of particular relevance to this study, EPA
estimates that approximately 50 percent of Pennsylvania's and 20 percent of West Virginia's
coal mining permits with manganese limits are based on more stringent water quality criteria
rather than ELGs (see Section 5.2.1).

4.1.1   Regulation of Coal Mine Discharges Using ELGs

       EPA first promulgated ELGs for the Coal  Mining Category (40 CFR Part 434)  on
October 9, 1985 (50 FR 41305) and revised them on January 23, 2002 (67 FR 3369). Table 4-1
presents the Coal Mining ELGs of primary importance with respect to this study. Figure 4-1
presents a flow chart describing the interaction of SMCRA and Part 434 from the time that a
company develops its initial application for a mining permit, through bonding, active mining,
and post-mining  activity.

       During active mining, discharges from both surface and underground mines are regulated
by Subparts C and D: Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage and Alkaline Mine Drainage,
respectively. Once a permitting authority determines that a mine is in the post-mining stage, coal
mining discharges are regulated by Subpart E - Post-Mining Areas. Subpart F - Miscellaneous
Provisions is applicable to both active mines and post-mining areas. Discharges from abandoned
mines (e.g., pre-SMCRA) are not regulated by 40 CFR Part 434.
                                          4-1

-------
                                                                      Section 4.0 - Coal Mining Regulatory Framework
  Regulated by SMCRA
  Regulated by Part 434
  Manganese Limit set by
  Part 434
Surface Mining
                  Surface
                   Mine
                  Discharge
                    from
                 Surface Mine
                                 Permitting Requirements
Data Collection
for Mine Permit
  Application
                                 Underground Mining
                     Underground
                        Mine
                      Discharge
                        from
                     Underground
                        Mine
          Figure 4-1. SMCRA and Part 434 Regulatory Framework
                                         4-2

-------
                                                    Section 4.0 - Coal Mining Regulatory Framework
                                 Table 4-1. Coal Mining ELGs
Subpart
Subpart C
Subpart D
Subpart E
Subpart F
Mine Status
Active
Active
Post-Mining
Active and
Post-Mining
Subcategory Name
Acid or Ferruginous Mine
Drainage a
Alkaline Mine Drainage b
Post-Mining Areas ฐ
Miscellaneous Provisions
Type of Limitation Guideline
BPT, BAT, NSPS
BPT, BAT, NSPS
BPT, BAT, NSPS
Provisions for alternate effluent limitation for pH
Source: Coal Mining Point Source Category BPT, BAT, BCT Limitations and New Source Performance Standards -
40 CFR Part 434.
a - Acid or ferruginous mine drainage is mine drainage that, before treatment, either has a pH of less than 6.0 or a
total iron concentration equal to or greater than 10 mg/L.
b - Alkaline mine drainage is mine drainage that has a pH equal to or greater than 6.0 and total iron concentration of
less than 10 mg/L.
c - Post-mining areas are defined as reclamation areas, and the underground workings of an underground coal mine
after the extraction, removal, or recovery of coal from its  natural deposit has ceased or prior to bond release.
BPT - Best practicable control technology.
BAT - Best available technology economically achievable.
NSPS - New source performance standards.

        Table 4-2 lists the numeric limitations for active mines (established under Subparts C and
D) and Table 4-3 presents the numeric limitations for post-mining areas (established under
Subpart E). Note that there are no manganese limits for surface post-mining areas.

Note that there are different limits for reclamation (surface) areas and underground post-mining
areas. Subpart E further separates the regulation of drainage from underground post-mining areas
into acid or ferruginous mine drainage and alkaline mine drainage.


          Table  4-2. Effluent Guidelines for Active Mines Part 434, Subparts C - D
Parameter
BPT/BAT
30-day Average
(mg/L)
Daily Maximum
(mg/L)
NSPS
30-day Average
(mg/L)
Daily Maximum
(mg/L)
Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage
Iron, Total
Manganese, Total
pH
TSS
3.5
2.0
within range of 6 to 9
35
7.0
4.0
within range of 6 to 9
70
3.0
2.0
within range of 6 to 9
35
6.0
4.0
within range of 6 to 9
70
Alkaline Mine Drainage
Iron, Total
pH
TSS
3.5
within range of 6 to 9
35
7.0
within range of 6 to 9
70
3.0
within range of 6 to 9
35
6.0
within range of 6 to 9
70
Source: Coal Mining Point Source Category BPT, BAT, BCT Limitations and New Source Performance Standards -
40 CFR Part 434.
BAT - Best available technology economical achievable.
BPT - Best practicable control technology.
NSPS - New source performance standards.
                                               4-3

-------
                                                  Section 4.0 - Coal Mining Regulatory Framework
         Table 4-3. Effluent Guidelines for Post-Mining Areas Part 434, Subpart E
Parameter
BPT/BAT
30-day Average
(mg/L)
Daily Maximum
(mg/L)
NSPS
30-day Average
(mg/L)
Daily Maximum
(mg/L)
Reclamation (Surface) Areas a
PHb
Sellable Solids
within range of 6 to 9
0.5mL/L
within range of 6 to 9
NA
within range of 6 to 9
0.5mL/L
within range of 6 to 9
NA
Underground Mine Drainage c- Acid or Ferruginous
Iron, Total
Manganese, Total
PHb
TSSb
3.5
2.0
within range of 6 to 9
35.0
7.0
4.0
within range of 6 to 9
70.0
3.0
2.0
within range of 6 to 9
35.0
6.0
4.0
within range of 6 to 9
70.0
Underground Mine Drainage c - Alkaline
Iron, Total
PHb
TSSb
3.5
within range of 6 to 9
35.0
7.0
within range of 6 to 9
70.0
3.0
within range of 6 to 9
35.0
6.0
within range of 6 to 9
70.0
Source: Coal Mining Point Source Category BPT, BAT, BCT Limitations and New Source Performance Standards -
40 CFR Part 434.
a - Reclamation area, which is the surface area of a coal mine that has been returned to required contour and on
which revegetation (specifically, seeding or planting) work has commenced (40 CFR 434.11(1)).
b - Not included as BAT.
c - Underground mine drainage, which is the underground workings of an underground coal mine after the
extraction, removal, or recovery of coal from its natural deposit has ceased and prior to bond release (40 CFR
434.11(k)).
BAT - Best available technology economical achievable.
BPT - Best practicable control technology.
NSPS - New source performance standards.

       In addition to the ELGs presented in Tables 4-2 and 4-3, Subpart F - Miscellaneous
Provisions includes a variance for pH:

       Where the application of neutralization and sedimentation treatment technology results
       in inability to comply with the otherwise applicable manganese limitations, the permit
       issuer may allow thepH level in the final effluent to exceed 9.0 to a small extent in order
       that the manganese limitations can be achieved.

       EPA found that both West Virginia and Pennsylvania have issued permit variances for
pH, allowing discharges above 9, to assist mines in meeting manganese limitations. EPA
evaluated the frequency of permitting authorities issuing pH variances, presented in Section
5.2.2.

       Manganese Regulations in Part 434

       As shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 above, Part 434 establishes limitations for manganese
discharges for both active mines (under Subpart C) and underground mines in the post-mining
state (under Subpart E). Note, however, that Subpart E does not set limitations for manganese for
                                            4-4

-------
                                                 Section 4.0 - Coal Mining Regulatory Framework
discharges from surface mines in the post-mining state. Thus, manganese limitations apply to the
following:

       1.      Active surface and underground mining areas with acid or ferruginous mine
              drainage discharges; and
       2.      Underground post-mining areas with acid or ferruginous mine drainage
              discharges.

There are  no national manganese effluent limits for surface post-mining areas with acid mine
drainage (AMD).  There are also no national manganese effluent limits for AMD that may
develop after SMCRA bond release has been granted. Nor are there national manganese effluent
limits for AMD from abandoned coal mines (e.g., pre-SMCRA).

4.1.2  Regulation of Coal Mine Discharges Using State Water Quality-Based Limitations

       Water quality standards are the foundation of the water quality-based control program
mandated by the CWA. Water quality standards define the goals for a waterbody by designating
its uses, setting criteria to protect those uses, and establishing water quality standards to protect
water quality from pollutants. A water quality standard consists of four basic elements:

       1.      Designated use of the water body (e.g., recreation, drinking water supply, aquatic
              life, agriculture);
       2.      Water quality criteria to protect designated use (numeric pollutant concentrations
              and narrative requirements);
       3.      An anti-degradation policy to maintain and protect existing uses and high quality
              waters; and
       4.      General policies addressing implementation issues (e.g., low flows, variances,
              mixing zones).

Both Pennsylvania and West Virginia established manganese water quality criteria at lower
concentrations than the 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C manganese limitations: 1.0 mg/L in both
states, for certain  stream designations.

       Pennsylvania set the water quality criterion for manganese at 1.0 mg/L for most stream
designations to protect their use as potable water sources (i.e., drinking water source) (025 Pa.
code Section 93.7). Pennsylvania may not apply the 1.0 mg/L criterion for certain streams, such
as those designated as acid impaired.

       West Virginia set the water quality criterion for manganese at 1.0 mg/L for all surface
water that is a possible source of drinking water. Prior to 2005, the 1.0 mg/L manganese criterion
was  effective for all outfalls that discharge into surface water. West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WV DEP) incorporated this manganese criterion into all NPDES
permits, including coal mines,  for final effluent outfalls. In 2005, WV DEP changed the
applicability of the manganese criterion so it applies only to outfalls that are five or fewer miles
upstream of a drinking water intake location ("Five-Mile Rule") (WV Title 47 Legislative Rules).

       Following this change, WV DEP modified NPDES manganese permit limits for
discharges, including coal mine discharges that were more than five miles from a drinking water

-------
                                               Section 4.0 - Coal Mining Regulatory Framework
intake to the limitations in the ELGs (2.0 mg/L 30-day average and 4.0 mg/L daily maximum).
The manganese permit limits for discharges, including coal mine discharges, that are five or
fewer miles up-stream of a drinking water intake remained at 1.0 mg/L. WV DEP said that the
majority of coal mines with NPDES permits limits for manganese that were based on the water
quality criterion applied for permit modifications when the applicability was changed (U.S. EPA,
2008). The coal mine NPDES permits issued by WV DEP since 2005 are based on the revised
manganese criterion.

       EPA collected data on how often manganese permit limitations are based  on water
quality criteria instead of Part 434. Section 5.2.1 discusses this analysis in detail.  Overall, the
frequency of manganese water quality-based permit limits ranges from approximately 20 percent
(West Virginia) to 50 percent (Pennsylvania).

4.2    SMCRA Requirements

       SMCRA regulates many aspects of coal mining. Prior to SMCRA there were no federal
requirements for reclamation of mine sites; therefore, reclamation was often not done. Coal
mines were often left unreclaimed, with open pits, portals, and mine shafts. It is estimated  that up
to 90 percent of AMD is from abandoned coal mines without a responsible party treating the
discharge (U.S. EPA, 2001). SMCRA was passed to promote reclamation after coal extraction to
maintain the quality of the environment, prevent damage to the beneficial use of land or water
resources, and avoid endangering the health or safety of the public (U.S. EPA, 2001).

       SMCRA regulates surface mining operations, the surface aspects and effects of
underground mining operations, and facilities associated with  coal mining operations, such as
coal preparation plants and refuse disposal  sites. States may be delegated authority to implement
a regulatory  program under SMCRA. States receive delegated status by demonstrating that state
laws are at least as effective  as SMCRA and by showing that states have resources to enforce the
laws. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) oversees the
delegated state programs. All of the states in the Appalachian Region except for Tennessee have
been delegated authority to implement SMCRA. SMCRA is implemented by OSMRE in
Tennessee (U.S. EPA, 1998).

       SMCRA includes requirements for coal mine operators to conduct pre-mining and  post-
mining activities. SMCRA also authorized taxation of coal production to fund the federal
Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Fund. The AML Fund finances abandoned mine land
reclamation projects initiated by states (ERG, 2006; OSMRE,  2006).

       Under SMCRA, before a permit is issued, mine operators must show how the site will be
reclaimed after mining is complete. This reclamation plan includes reclamation of the mine site,
evaluating the hydrologic impacts of the mining and reclamation, and assessing the impacts of
the mine site on the watershed. The reclamation plan must demonstrate that the original land use
has been restored, the site is  revegetated, and does not have negative impacts on the watershed.
Some examples of reclamation tasks include regrading, sealing shafts and portals, and removing
ponds and other surface water control structures.

       Mine operators must also demonstrate that the reclaimed mine will not degrade surface
waters or impact groundwater hydrology (U.S. EPA,  1998). Mine operators evaluate the

-------
                                               Section 4.0 - Coal Mining Regulatory Framework
hydrologic impacts of mining and reclamation by conducting a "Probable Hydrologic
Consequences" (PHC) evaluation. For the PHC, mine operators generally collect at least six
months of baseline surface and groundwater monitoring data. These data are used to generate
erosion and sedimentation control plans, predict post-mining water quality and quantity, and
minimize environmental impacts.

      The collected monitoring data is also used by the regulating authority to conduct a
Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment (CHIA). The CHIA assesses the impact of the
proposed mine site on the watershed while factoring in  impacts from previous mining areas
(ERG, 2006). If a PHC evaluation indicates the likelihood of AMD, a permit is not issued. The
ability to predict AMD has increased greatly since the passage of SMCRA in 1977.

      SMCRA also requires mine operators to post a bond (monetary guarantees) covering the
costs of reclamation, as determined by the permitting authority, if the company goes out of
business before reclamation is complete. The bond amount is designed to reflect the probable
difficulty of reclamation given geography,  hydrology, climate, and other factors,  and be
sufficient to assure completion of reclamation if the mine operator defaults and regulatory
authorities must complete reclamation. The reclamation bond is not released until the mine has
been reclaimed and the permitting authority has determined the reclamation was successful.

      Throughout the life of the mine, authorities review and renew permits and inspect mine
activities, to ensure the use of proper erosion and sedimentation control, treatment, mitigation,
and rehabilitation (ERG, 2006). The amount of the initial bond is set with the assumption that
discharges (and AMD in particular) will  not occur. If a  discharge occurs after the mine has begun
operation, the state may direct the operator to post additional bonding to treat the discharge
(Pizarchik, 2008).

4.3   Coal Mining Regulatory Framework References

1.     ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2006. Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid
      Drainage Treatment Systems. Chantilly, VA. (October). EPA-OW-2004-0032-2311.

2.     OSMRE. U.S. Department of the Interior.  Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
      Enforcement. 2006. Coal Production Index. Washington, DC. (July 26). Available online
      at: http://www.osmre.gov/coalprodindex.htm. Date accessed: March 5, 2007. EPA-HQ-
      OW-2006-0771-0472.

3.     Pizarchik, Joe. 2008. Telephone conversation with Joe Pizarchik and William Allen,
      Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Tom  Born, James Covington, and
      Jan Goodwin, U.S. EPA, and Calvin Franz, Maureen Kaplan, and Jessica Wolford,
      Eastern Research Group, Inc. (February 14). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05611.

4.     U. S. EPA. 2001. Coal Remining Statistical Support Document. EPA 821 -B-01-011.
      Washington, DC. (December). Available online at:
      http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/coal/support/index.html.
                                          4-7

-------
                                             Section 4.0 - Coal Mining Regulatory Framework
5.     U.S. EPA. 2008. Conference Call between Ken Politan, West Virginia Department of
      Environmental Protection, Tom Born and Carey Johnston, U.S. EPA, and Ellie Codding,
      Jill Lucy, and Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (January 17). EPA-HQ-
      OW-2006-0771 DCN 05536.

6.     U.S. EPA.1998. Report on the NPDES Coal Mining Permitting Programs Implemented
      by Coal Mining States in EPA Region III. Philadelphia, PA. (May). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
      0771 DCN 05535.
                                        4-8

-------
                                                Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
5.0    COAL MINE DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS

       This section presents the untreated and treated wastewater characteristics of Appalachian
acid mine drainage (AMD), including pollutants observed in mine drainage to provide
background information on coal mine drainage. EPA also compared pollutant concentrations in
treated AMD to Part 434 in response to comments received from stakeholders saying mines had
difficulty meeting manganese limits. This study uses data from five databases to update existing
EPA data, including recent data from hundreds of coal mines. As explained in Section 2.0, EPA
did not find a comprehensive source containing information to characterize pollutant
concentrations in coal mine discharge. However, EPA's data collection efforts include the major
sources of coal mining data at the federal level and for Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

       Overall, EPA concluded the following:

       •      AMD has untreated manganese above the Part 434 Subpart C New Source
             Performance Standards (NSPS) limitations. Manganese ranges from 0.02 to 980
             mg/L in untreated AMD from ARAMD (see Sections 5.1.2.3).
       •      Many National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) manganese
             limits for AMD discharges are based on water quality standards,  not Part 434. The
             water quality standards for West Virginia and Pennsylvania are both 1.0 mg/L.
             Approximately 27 percent of current West Virginia NPDES permit manganese
             limits for coal mines are water quality-based; Pennsylvania Department of
             Environmental Protection (PA DEP) estimated that 50 percent of coal mine
             manganese NDPES permit limits are based on water quality standards (see
              Section 5.2.1).
       •      pH permit variances are issued in West Virginia to assist mines in meeting their
             water quality-based manganese limits. West Virginia Department of
             Environmental Protection (WV DEP) granted pH permit variances for 49 mines
             with maximum pH limits up to 10.5.  PA DEP has also issued pH permit
             variances, but does not believe mines discharge above pH 9 even if treating for
             manganese. EPA found that the number  of total manganese concentrations above
             the Subpart C NSPS limits do not increase when the effluent pH is below 9. (i.e.,
             below the optimal pH for manganese removal) (see Section 5.2.2).
       •      EPA's comparison of discharge concentrations of treated wastewater with Part
             434 NSPS limits indicates that compliance rates are high (see Section 5.2.3).

5.1    Wastewater Characteristics

       Water discharges from coal mines result from stormwater and groundwater infiltration.
The resulting runoff or groundwater eventually discharges to surface water, typically in
headwater streams.

       The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and  Enforcement (OSMRE)  database
ARAMD provides data from 1,264 mine outfalls in the Appalachian region. The remainder of this
section examines pollutant characteristics of AMD: the pollutants of interest in mine discharges
(Section 5.1.1), and the formation, location, and characterization of AMD (Section 5.1.2).
                                          5-1

-------
                                                 Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
5.1.1   Pollutants of Interest

       Pollutants found in AMD include acidity, metals, solids, and increased conductivity.
Conductivity is measured as an indicator pollutant of total dissolved solids (TDS) which includes
bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, and sulfate (U.S. EPA, 1982). Regulators typically monitor
AMD for the following parameters: metals (aluminum, iron, and manganese), acidity, alkalinity,
total suspended solids (TSS), and pH (WVDMR; PADEPInspector). NPDES permits for mine
drainage often include other pollutants based on water quality standards or other state
requirements, as discussed in Section 4.1.2.

       Metals (aluminum, iron, and manganese) can be analyzed as total metals, dissolved
metals, or for valence states (e.g., ferrous versus ferric iron). Treated and untreated discharges
are typically analyzed for total metals (WVDMR., ARAMD); Pennsylvania requires analysis for
dissolved metals (PA Code). In addition, some coal mines analyze untreated mine drainage for
certain valence state metals. The valence state of iron, ferrous or ferric, is important for
determining the appropriate iron removal treatment technology, especially passive treatment of
AMD. For example, anoxic limestone drains will not adequately treat AMD with high
concentrations of ferric iron or dissolved oxygen (U.S. EPA, 2001). When reporting metal
concentrations for AMD to permitting authorities, the majority  of preparation plants report
values as total metals.

       Acidity measures the concentration of available hydrogen ions.  It can also be  described as
the ability of a water sample to neutralize a base. In this report,  acidity  is reported as either net
acidity or hot acidity. Hot acidity involves adding hydrogen peroxide and heating the sample,
which degasses carbon dioxide and oxidizes any metal hydroxides, thereby liberating acidity.
After this step, the sample is titrated with a standard solution of sodium hydroxide to a
predetermined pH, usually 8.3. In this study, the term "net acidity" indicates that the method
used to measure acidity was not identified in the data source. Both parameters are expressed in
mg/L of calcium carbonate  equivalent, and both can be reported as negative values. A negative
value indicates that the water has a net alkalinity. Treated and untreated discharges are typically
analyzed for acidity (U.S. EPA, 1982).

       Alkalinity measures the ability to neutralize acid and relates the buffering capacity of the
water, or the  ability of the water to resist changes in pH. In this report,  alkalinity is expressed as
mg/L of calcium carbonate  (CaCOs). A negative value indicates that the water has a net acidity.
Treated and untreated discharges are typically analyzed for alkalinity (U.S. EPA, 1982).

       TSS is the concentration of filterable solids measured in a sample. Suspended solids are
the material remaining after filtration of a sample using a standard glass fiber filter disk. The
filter is weighed before filtration, dried between 103 and 105ฐC, and weighed again. The gain in
weight is the total suspended solids. Both treated and untreated discharges are typically analyzed
for TSS (U.S. EPA, 1982).

       pH measures the activity  of hydrogen ions in a sample. The typical pH range of coal mine
discharges are from two to 12 standard units (s.u.). The pH is determined for both treated and
untreated discharges (U.S. EPA,  1982).
                                           5-2

-------
                                                Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
5.1.2   Acid Mine Drainage

       AMD is characterized by high metals concentrations and an acidic (low) pH, created by
geochemical and microbial reactions of oxygen and water with pyrite (iron disulfide). AMD
contains varying levels of iron, manganese, aluminum, and total dissolved solids (IDS),
depending on the geochemistry of the coal seam and the rock surrounding the coal. Part 434
defines AMD as drainage with a pH less than 6 or an iron concentration of greater than or equal
to lOmg/L.

       AMD chemistry varies by type of mine (surface vs. deep mines). Surface mining breaks
apart rocks above the coal seam (i.e., overburden), greatly increasing the overburden surface area
and exposure to the atmosphere. The overburden frequently contains nodules of siderite (iron
carbonate) as a cementing agent in sandstones. Studies have shown that the siderite contains
small amounts of manganese as replacement for the iron (Larsen, 2005). The siderite breaks
down and releases manganese once exposed to the air and in contact with water infiltrating
through the overburden. The resulting wastewater discharge is AMD. In deep mines, the
remaining coal and the exposed rock usually contain little siderite,  but considerable pyrite
(Larsen, 2005). As a result, AMD from surface mines may have higher concentrations of
manganese, while AMD from deep mines may have higher concentrations of sulfates and iron
(ERG,  2006).

       5.1.2.1    Chemistry of AMD

       Exposure of pyrite to oxygen and the infiltrating stormwater produces sulfuric acid and
iron (dissolved in the water). The following chemical reactions summarize the formation of
AMD from stormwater and oxygen weathering pyrite (Snoeyink, 1980):

                       FeS2 + 7/2 O2 + H2O -> Fe+2 + 2 SO4"2 + 2 H+                   (5-1)

                            Fe+2 + Vi O2 + H+ -> Fe+3 + V2 H2O                         (5-2)

                             Fe+3 + 3 H2O -> Fe(OH)3 + 3 H+                         (5-3)

                    FeS2 + 14 Fe+3 + 8 H2O -> 15 Fe+2 + 2 SO4"2 + 16 H+                (5-4)

       AMD chemistry is unique because oxygen oxidizes pyrite to produce Fe2+ (Equation 5-1),
which is further oxidized to Fe3+ (Equation 5-2). The Fe3+ may oxidize more pyrite to form more
Fe2+ (Equation 5-4), or Fe3+ may precipitate as Fe(OH)3 (Equation  5-3). Additionally,
Thiobacillus thiooxidan, Thiobacillus ferrooxidan, and Ferrobacillus ferrooxidan
microorganisms catalyze the oxidation of ferrous ion, allowing more rapid oxidation to ferric
iron, even at low pH (Snoeyink, 1980).

       5.1.2.2    Locations of AMD

       The formation of AMD is a problem in areas of the United  States where the coal and
overburden contain significant amounts of pyrite and little alkaline material (e.g., calcium
carbonate). Coal mines in the Appalachian region of the United States (Western Pennsylvania,
                                           5-3

-------
                                                 Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
Eastern Ohio, northern West Virginia, Southwestern Virginia, and Maryland) have the highest
tendencies for producing acidic discharges.

       Figure 5-1 presents the potential acid mine drainage locations from surface mining in the
Appalachian Region based on USGS coal drilling data. The black dots on Figure 5-1 represent
the areas where USGS conducted drilling. The green areas have low potential to produce AMD;
the yellow areas have  intermediate potential to produce AMD; and the red areas have high
potential to produce AMD. The remaining Appalachian region, including southern West
Virginia, Virginia, and eastern Kentucky, infrequently produce acidic drainage (Cecil, 2005).
Additional, localized acid mine drainage problems may exist in Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri,
Oklahoma, Kansas,  Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia, depending on the geology of the
overburden and the hydrologic setting (OSMRE, 2002).
   Figure 5-1. Distribution of Potential Acid Mine Drainage from Surface Mining in the
                                  Appalachian Region
                   Source: Coal Extraction - Environmental Prediction (Cecil, 2005).

       5.1.2.3    AMD Characteristics

       AMD may contain manganese, aluminum, and TDS, depending on the geochemistry of
the coal seam and surrounding rock. In water bodies that receive AMD, permitting authorities
usually monitor pH, iron, manganese, TSS, aluminum, sulfates, alkalinity, and acidity.

       Table 5-1 presents the number of outfalls from available data sources that are classified
as AMD. These data sources do not include all outfalls in the Appalachian region, and therefore
the counts represent a sample of outfalls with AMD. Additionally, the data sources may overlap,
and EPA may count outfalls in multiple sources more than once. EPA identified outfalls with
AMD based on pH and iron concentrations.
                                           5-4

-------
                                                 Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
                    Table 5-1. Number of Acid Mine Drainage Outfalls
Database
Number of Permit IDs
Number of Outfalls
Number of Sample Dates
Untreated
AMD143
AMDI
ARAMD
BAMR
PADEPMDI
WVDEPSpecialRec
143
236
580
1
320
16
143
376
971
2
573
42
143
403
974
99
14,124
1,837
Treated
PADEPInspector
WVDMR
234
883
333
3,295
4,305
46,406
Source: AMD 143; AMDI; ARAMD; BAMR; PADEPMDI; PADEPInspector; WVDEPSpecialRec; WVDMR.

       EPA identified the mines and outfalls with AMD and summarized the untreated water
quality data from the following data sources: ARAMD, AMDI, WVDEPSpecialRec, PADEPMDI,
BAMR, and AMDI43. Table 5-2 presents the wastewater characteristics in untreated AMD5 from
the ARAMD, AMDI, WVDEPSpecialRec, and PADEPMDI databases for 17 parameters.
Table 5-3 presents the wastewater characteristics in untreated AMD from the BAMR and
AMD 143 databases for 17 parameters. The BAMR andAMDJ43 databases are presented
separately because BAMR contains sampling data for AMD discharges on abandoned mine land
and AMDI43 contains sampling data for deep/underground mines with large flows that are
uncharacteristic of surface mines. However, data from both databases still provides an overview
of the range of pollutant values.  Appendix A presents additional parameters reported in the
AMDI43 and PADEPMDI databases.
5 If an outfall had an average pH less than 6 s.u. or an average iron concentration greater than or equal to 10 mg/L,
EPA identified the outfall as AMD.	
                                           5-5

-------
                                                                                             Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
                                      Table 5-2. Untreated Acid Mine Drainage Characteristics
Pollutant Parameter
Conductivity (umhos/cm) b
Dissolved Iron (mg/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Ferric Iron (mg/L)
Ferrous Iron (mg/L)
Flow (GPM)
pH(s.u.)d
Sulfates (mg/L)
Total Acidity (mg/L)
Total Alkalinity (mg/L)
Total Aluminum (mg/L)
Total Calcium (mg/L)
Total Hardness (mg/L
CaC03)
Total Iron (mg/L)
Total Magnesium (mg/L)
Total Manganese (mg/L)
Total Suspended Solids
(mg/L)
ARAMD Database a
Min
Value
NR
NR
1.80
0.05
0.01
0.00
2.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
NR
NR
0.01
NR
0.02
NR
Avg
Value
NR
NR
6.42
24.54
19.83
55.40
4.43
1,434
473.91
22.79
30.25
NR
NR
67.70
NR
25.32
NR
Max
Value
NR
NR
12.60
229.00
508.00
4,500
8.60
21,115
21,455
792.00
558.00
NR
NR
2,640
NR
980.00
NR
AMDI Database"
Min
Value
26.70
NR
1.90
0.03
0.01
0.00
2.37
33.30
-894.00
-30.00
0.01
NR
NR
0.00
NR
0.02
NR
Avg
Value
1,839
NR
8.04
15.02
23.05
142.89
4.52
1,253
329.74
37.47
17.52
NR
NR
65.20
NR
22.04
NR
Max
Value
7,600
NR
10.70
115.00
140.50
5,000
8.00
6,377
8,140
906.00
354.25
NR
NR
1,200
NR
165.00
NR
WVDEPSpedalRec Database a
Min
Value
NR
1.40
NR
NR
NR
0.74
2.44
105.00
NR
0.00
5.00
NR
NR
1.00
NR
1.00
NR
Avg
Value
NR
45.11
NR
NR
NR
57.31
3.57
839.84
NR
12.96
51.28
NR
NR
141.40
NR
13.41
NR
Max
Value
NR
239.00
NR
NR
NR
450.84
7.00
3,397
NR
241.00
196.89
NR
NR
709.42
NR
68.60
NR
PADEPMDI Database a
Min
Value
140.00
NR
8.00 c
NR
NR
0.00
2.60
79.92
17.00
0.00
0.38
6.00
121.00
0.17
7.00
0.33
118.00
Avg
Value
2,081
NR
8.00 c
NR
NR
143.03
4.76
1,230
200.50
58.10
19.44
190.78
1,036
43.52
137.69
23.31
2,482
Max
Value
4,089
NR
8.00 c
NR
NR
5,600
7.70
25,989
650
842.33
447.94
520.00
3,214
455.03
500.00
140.46
6,130
Source: ARAMD; AMDI; WVDEPSpedalRec; PADEPMDI.
a - Exclude zeros except for flow (GPD), total acidity (mg/L), and total alkalinity (mg/L). The databases do not include less than signs to represent values below
the detection limit.
b - Conductivity is often measured as an indicator for TDS, which includes bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, and sulfate.
c - Below detection indicators are not reported in the PADEPMDI database. EPA believes these samples are the detection limit due to all of the samples having
the same value.
d - pH values greater than 7 are from discharges with total iron greater than or equal to 10 mg/L.
Min - Minimum.                    Max - Maximum.
Avg - Average.                      NR - Not reported.

-------
                                                   Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
     Table 5-3. Untreated Acid Mine Drainage Characteristics (Additional Databases)
Pollutant Parameter
Conductivity (umhos/cm) b
Dissolved Iron (mg/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Ferrous Iron (mg/L)
Flow (GPM)
pH(s.u.)c
Phosphates (mg/L)
Sulfates (mg/L)
Total Acidity (mg/L)
Total Alkalinity (mg/L)
Total Aluminum (mg/L)
Total Calcium (mg/L)
Total Hardness (mg/L CaCO3)
Total Iron (mg/L)
Total Magnesium (mg/L)
Total Manganese (mg/L)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
BAMR Database a
Min Value
1,299.20
NR
NR
NR
20.83
2.54
282.00
365.54
443.32
0.00
32.71
13.90
119.33
66.09
11.02
1.66
13.36
Avg Value
1,455.65
NR
NR
NR
66.48
2.61
304.00
405.80
474.42
2.66
34.62
15.99
127.62
71.00
15.02
2.30
775.65
Max Value
1,612.10
NR
NR
NR
112.12
2.68
326.00
446.07
505.52
5.32
36.52
18.08
135.92
75.90
19.02
2.93
1,537.93
AMD143 Database a
Min Value
131.00
NR
0.20
0.50
0.00
2.70
0.001
36.00
19.00
0.00
0.01
3.30
NR
0.05
3.60
0.02
NR
Avg Value
1,356.65
NR
2.70
11.79
1,503.44
4.96
0.03
600.43
230.15
58.23
8.18
102.46
NR
48.10
44.78
5.45
NR
Max Value
3,980.00
NR
11.50
214.00
34,961.52
7.30
2.80
2,000.00
2,340.00
510.00
108.00
410.00
NR
512.00
210.00
74.00
NR
Source: BAMR;AMD143.
a - Exclude zeros except for flow (GPD), total acidity (mg/L), and total alkalinity (mg/L). The BAMR database does
not include less than signs to represent values below the detection limit.
b - Conductivity is often measured as an indicator for TDS, which includes bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, and
sulfate.
c - pH values greater than 7 are from discharges with total iron greater than or equal to 10 mg/L.
Min - Minimum.                    Max - Maximum.                  < - Result below the detection limit.
Avg - Average.                     NR - Not reported.

       Table 5-4 presents the manganese concentration ranges in untreated AMD by state, from
ARAMD. There are 751 samples with untreated manganese concentrations more than 4.0 mg/L
(daily maximum discharge limitation), while 847 untreated samples reported manganese above
2.0 mg/L (30-day average discharge limitation). In  all  states, the average untreated AMD
concentrations of manganese are greater than the Part 434  Subpart C monthly average 2.0 mg/L
manganese limit.


   Table 5-4. Range of Manganese Concentrations  for Untreated Acid Mine Drainage in
                                          ARAMD



State
Kentucky
Maryland
Ohio
Pennsylvania


Number of
Samples a
17
4
30
293
Minimum
Manganese
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.60
6.00
1.44
0.02
Average
Manganese
Concentration
(mg/L)
13.14
59.89
69.53
25.86
Median
Manganese
Concentration
(mg/L)
5.34
55.78
50.15
18.00
Maximum
Manganese
Concentration
(mg/L)
62.00
122.00
350.00
150.25
                                             5-7

-------
                                                  Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
   Table 5-4. Range of Manganese Concentrations for Untreated Acid Mine Drainage in
                                         ARAMD
State
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Number of
Samples a
24
16
574
958
Minimum
Manganese
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.52
0.40
0.03
0.02
Average
Manganese
Concentration
(mg/L)
21.47
7.68
23.51
25.32
Median
Manganese
Concentration
(mg/L)
12.18
2.61
10.07
13.00
Maximum
Manganese
Concentration
(mg/L)
70.20
28.46
980.00
980.00
Source: ARAMD.
a - Excludes zeros. The ARAMD database does not include less than signs to represent values below the detection
limit.
       Treated Acid Mine Drainage

       EPA identified the mines and outfalls with AMD and summarized the treated water
quality data from the WVDMR and PADEPImpector databases. Section 6.0 discusses the
treatment technologies available for treating AMD. This section presents the results of samples
only after the treatment system.

       Table 5-5 presents the wastewater characteristics in treated AMD6 from the WVDMR and
PADEPInspector databases for 12 parameters. Appendix A presents additional parameters
reported in the databases.

                  Table 5-5. Treated Acid Mine Drainage Characteristics
Pollutant Parameter
Conductivity
(umhos/cm) b
Dissolved Iron (mg/L)
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)
Ferric Iron (mg/L)
Ferrous Iron (mg/L)
Flow (GPD)
pH (s.u.)
Sulfates (mg/L)
Total Acidity (mg/L)
Total Alkalinity (mg/L)
Total Aluminum (mg/L)
WVDMR Database a
Min Value
83.29
0.90
NR
NR
NR
0.00
1.14
12.95
NR
1.00
0.001
Avg Value
660.34
3.00
NR
NR
NR
1,549,221
7.47
767.78
NR
149.75
0.60
Max Value
3,800.00
5.10
NR
NR
NR
1,268,436,600
12.70
3,085.00
NR
789.31
181.36
PADEPInspector Database a
Min Value
1,145.00
0.61
NR
NR
O.02
0.25
2.42
<20.00
NR
15.00
0.23
Avg Value
3,302.00
0.69
NR
NR
1.42
201.15
6.85
730.23
NR
63.21
4.11
Max Value
9,188.33
0.77
NR
NR
6.05
3,616.13
8.80
8,437.11
NR
103.80
441.00
 In the databases with treated samples, EPA identified the outfall as AMD if the outfalls have manganese samples
because Part 434 includes manganese limits. EPA realizes that this could include alkaline mine drainage that has a
water quality-based manganese limitation.	
                                            5-8

-------
                                                  Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
                  Table 5-5. Treated Acid Mine Drainage Characteristics
Pollutant Parameter
Total Calcium (mg/L)
Total Hardness (mg/L
CaC03)
Total Iron (mg/L)
Total Magnesium (mg/L)
Total Manganese (mg/L)
Total Suspended Solids
(mg/L)
WVDMR Database a
Min Value
14.30
0.02
0.001
NR
0.003
0.91
Avg Value
72.34
355.67
1.10
NR
0.59
10.02
Max Value
203.00
2,290.00
737.63
NR
80.00 c
1,320.67
PADEPInspector Database a
Min Value
0.14
NR
0.18
4.55
0.04
<3.00
Avg Value
0.14
NR
11.19
38.72
4.48 d
37.88
Max Value
0.14
NR
1,836.36
88.50
59.90 d
1,530.00
Source: WVDMR; PADEPInspector.
a - Exclude zeros except for flow (GPD), total acidity (mg/L), and total alkalinity (mg/L).
b - Conductivity is often measured as an indicator for TDS, which includes bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, and
sulfate.
c - Less than 4 percent of outfalls in WVDMR have total manganese concentrations above the Part 434 Subpart C
NSPS monthly average limitation.
d - PA DEP mining inspectors collect more samples from mines with historical compliance issues than from mines
with consistent compliance (U.S. EPA, 2007). Therefore, the PADEPInspector database is skewed towards non-
compliant data.
Min - Minimum.                   Max - Maximum.                  < - Result below the detection limit.
Avg - Average.                    NR - Not reported.

5.2    Comparison of Effluent AMD Concentrations to Part 434 Effluent Limitations
       Guidelines and Standards

       EPA received comments from stakeholders that coal mines have difficulty meeting the
manganese permit limits  (U.S. EPA, 2006), and that pH control is more difficult because of
treating to remove manganese. As a result, EPA evaluated the following issues for coal mines
that discharge AMD to receiving streams (direct discharge):

       •      Frequency of manganese water quality-based permit limits instead of Subpart C
              water quality-based limits;
       •      Trends in  pH permit limit variances granted to enable treatment for manganese
              (i.e., how  often permit  writers provide alternative pH limits to mines, as allowed
              by Part 434  Subpart F);
       •      Effluent concentrations compared to Part 434 Subpart C - Acid or Ferruginous
              Mine Drainage NSPS limitations; and
       •      Compliance with permits and enforcement actions.

Because the majority of AMD coal mines are located in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, as
presented in Section 5.1.2.2, EPA focused its review on permitting and compliance of mines in
these two states.

5.2.1  Manganese Water Quality-Based Limits

       Both West Virginia and Pennsylvania established manganese water quality standards at
lower concentrations than the Part 434 Subpart C manganese limitations to protect the water
                                            5-9

-------
                                                Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
quality of receiving streams (as described in Section 4.1.2). EPA evaluated the frequency of
water quality-based manganese limits in West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

       Using the WVMnLimit database, EPA estimated the number of outfalls with manganese
limits based on water quality standards. EPA limited the evaluation to active permits because
these include the 2005 WV DEP manganese standard modification. Table 5-6 summarizes the
number of outfalls with manganese limits more stringent than the Part 434 Subpart C 30-day
average of 2.0 mg/L for each of the West Virginia permit basis designations.

       In the WVMnLimit database, the WV DEP denotes the permit basis as "Water Quality-
Based Limits" manganese limits at 27 percent of the active permit limits (AMD and non-AMD).
EPA assumed that manganese permit limits more stringent than the Part 434 Subpart C 30-day
average (2.0 mg/L) were water quality-based, even if the permit basis in the database was not
"Water Quality Based Limit Designation." Approximately 16 percent of the active WV DEP
permits (from 2003 to 2007) have limits more stringent than the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards (ELGs), and are likely based on water quality standards.

                Table 5-6. WV DEP Manganese Permit Limits Summary
Permit Basis as Designated in
WVMnLimit
Acid Technology Based, Active
Post Deep Acid Technology Based,
Active
Post Surface Acid Technology Based
Limit Designation, Active
Water Quality -Based Limit Designation,
Active b
Total b
Number of Permit
Limits <2 mg/L
336
11
40
2,295
2,682
Number of Permit
Limits <2 mg/L
10,816
315
724
2,256
14,111
Percent of permit
Limits <2.0 mg/L a
3.01%
3.37%
5.24%
50.43%
15.97%
Source: WVMnLimit.
a - EPA assumes that manganese limits set below 2.0 mg/L are based on water quality standards. The BAT and
NSPS limitations for manganese in Part 434 Subpart C are 4.0 mg/L daily maximum and 2.0 mg/L 30-day average.
b - Includes AMD and non-AMD outfalls.

       PA DEP does not maintain a permitting basis database tracking the number of manganese
water quality-based permit limits. However, based on experience, PA DEP estimated that
approximately 50 percent of the active PA permits include discharge limits for manganese based
on this water quality criterion (U.S. EPA, 2007).

5.2.2  pH Variances

       EPA found that both West Virginia and Pennsylvania have issued permit variances for
pH, allowing discharges above 9, to assist mines in meeting manganese limitations. As discussed
in Section 6.1, mines using active treatment raise the pH of the wastewater during treatment to
between 9 and 10 for optimal manganese removal. Part 434  Subpart F allows for pH variances to
be issued "where the application of neutralization and sedimentation treatment technology results
in inability to comply with the otherwise applicable manganese limitations..."  Section 4.1.1
presents additional discussion of Part 434.
                                          5-10

-------
                                                Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
       In West Virginia, pH variances were primarily granted for mines that needed to meet the
more stringent water quality-based standards for manganese (U.S. EPA, 2008). Prior to 2005,
when water quality guidelines were revised, West Virginia issued pH variances for
approximately 20 percent of the mines. After modification of the water quality guidelines, less
than five percent of the mines received pH variances (U.S. EPA, 2008). From 2004 through
2007, West Virginia granted pH variances for 49 NPDES permits authorizing discharge from
101 outfalls. West Virginia raised the upper pH limitation from 9.0 to between 9.5 and 10.5:

       •      51 percent of the variances raised the pH limitation to 10.5;
       •      45 percent of the variances raised the pH limitation to 10.0;
       •      2 percent raised the pH to between 10 and 10.5; and
       •      2 percent raised the pH to 9.5. (WV DEP, 2008)

       Pennsylvania has also issued pH variances to AMD coal  mines. However, Pennsylvania
mines do not discharge above a pH of 9 very often even if performing treatment to remove
manganese (U.S. EPA, 2007).

5.2.3  Comparison with Part 434 Subpart C Limitations

       For this analysis, EPA compared effluent concentrations  to Part 434 Subpart C NSPS
ELGs.  This comparison was not a compliance analysis comparing effluent concentrations to
permit limits, but rather to ELGs. EPA chose this comparison to determine whether changes to
ELGs are warranted. Specifically, EPA wanted to determine whether mines were having
difficulty meeting the technology-based limitations in  Part 434 Subpart C, as opposed to
difficulty meeting permit limits based on more stringent water quality-based or state-regulated
limits.

       The Subpart C  NSPS limitations include  four pollutant parameters: pH, total iron, total
manganese, and TSS (discussed in Section 4.1.1). EPA evaluated PADEPInspector and WVDMR
to compare effluent pollutant concentrations with Subpart C NSPS limitations. EPA included
outfalls classified as AMD7 that represent final effluent. EPA did not include data for non-AMD
outfalls or for monitoring locations in the receiving stream. See Sections 2.3.3 and 2.4.2 for
further details on the databases used.

       EPA compared effluent concentrations to the Subpart C ELGs and determined the
following, for each parameter:

       •      Number of samples, by date, and  percent of samples greater than the limitation (or
              outside pH range);
       •      Number of AMD outfalls and percent of samples greater than the limitation (or
              outside pH range);  and
       •      Number of NPDES IDs (WVDMR) or mines (PADEPImpector) and percent of
              samples greater than the limitation (or outside pH range).
 EPA assumed that outfalls monitoring for total manganese were AMD.
                                         5-11

-------
                                               Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
       The accuracy of this analysis is limited based on the quality of the data sources: WVDMR
and PADEPImpector. WVDMR includes minimum, average, and maximum concentrations. For
multiple concentrations reported on the same sampling date, EPA calculated the minimum,
average, and maximum concentrations for each date to compare to the limitations.

       PADEPImpector does not distinguish the type of value presented (i.e., minimum,
average or maximum), and in most cases (at least 99 percent of the time for all parameters), only
a single reading was collected. For the analysis, EPA still calculated the minimum, average, and
maximum concentrations for each sample date to compare to the limitations. However, for the
outfalls with single readings, only one numeric value represents the minimum, average, and
maximum. Therefore, the number of concentrations greater than the 30-day average limitations
will always be higher than the number of concentrations greater than the daily maximum
limitations. In addition, inspectors may not collect wastewater samples at outfalls believed to be
in compliance. As a result, this analysis will exaggerate the concentrations greater than the
limitations at Pennsylvania mines.

       WVDMR contains many more data points than the PADEPInspector database (25 times
the number of data points). However, the PADEPInspector database covers a  larger time period
than the WVDMR database (five years compared to two years).

       5.2.3.1    pH—Comparison with Part 434 Subpart C NSPS Limitations

       EPA compared effluent pH levels to the Subpart C NSPS ELGs, which require an
effluent pH between 6 and 9, and found that the vast majority of outfalls had effluent pH levels
within the ELGs (more than 90 percent). For instance, 94 percent of AMD outfalls in the
WVDMR database were in compliance with the maximum pH limit  of 9. Table 5-7 presents the
comparison of AMD effluent pH at West Virginia and Pennsylvania mines with Part 434 Subpart
C NSPS limitations (between 6 and 9). For West Virginia, over 98 percent of the pH levels are
within the Subpart C pH limitations. Only  6 percent of the outfalls and 15 percent of the NPDES
IDs reported pH values greater than 9, which may result from pH variances greater than 9. A
larger percentage of outfalls and mines reported pH values less than 6.

       States may set pH effluent limits above 9 to allow further removal of manganese.
However, the comparison of pH data with  Subpart C limitations shows that a number of samples
also discharge below a pH of 6.  The addition of acid to adjust the pH from around 10 for
manganese treatment to the 6 to 9 ELGs pH range, might explain pH discharges below the pH
limit. However, the majority of treatment plants in West Virginia do not add acid to lower the pH
back to within the pH range of 6 to 9 (U.S. EPA, 2008). Outfalls with pH values below 6 may be
internal monitoring locations at the treatment plant; however, EPA did not have the data
necessary to determine monitoring point locations.

       As with the West Virginia samples, at least 88 percent of Pennsylvania pH samples are
within the Subpart C pH limitations. Twenty-two percent of the outfalls and 25 percent of the
mines reported pH discharges higher than 9. More mines had effluent pH above the maximum
pH compared to those below the minimum pH value. Mines with pH discharges above 9 may be
operating treatment plants at a higher pH to remove manganese from the discharge with pH
variances granted by PA DEP. A majority of the samples, representing multiple years, were in
the 6 to 9 range in the Part 434 Subpart C NSPS limitations.

-------
                                                 Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
    Table 5-7. Summary of Effluent Discharges Compared to Part 434 Subpart C NSPS
                                   Limitations for pH

Dates
Number of
Mines a
Number of AMD
Outfalls b
Number of
Samples
West Virginia: Daily Maximum pH >9
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 ฐ
Percent Above Part 434 c
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
883
135
15%
3,293
191
6%
64,036
977
2%
West Virginia: Daily Minimum pH <6
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 c
Percent Above Part 434 ฐ
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
879
160
18%
3,197
270
8%
62,038
821
1%
Pennsylvania: Daily Maximum pH >9
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 c
Percent Above Part 434 ฐ
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
159
39
25%
229
51
22%
2,467
308
12%
Pennsylvania: Daily Minimum pH <6
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 ฐ
Percent Above Part 434 c
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
159
37
23%
229
52
23%
2,467
140
6%
Source: WVDMR; PADEPInspector.
a - Mines are identified as NPDES IDs in the WV DEP database.
b - Number of outfalls may include non-AMD outfalls that discharge under a permit with water quality-based
manganese limitations.
c - For this analysis, comparisons were made to Part 434 Subpart C - Acid of Ferruginous Mine Drainage NSPS
limitations; however, mines may have alternative limits in their NPDES permits.

       5.2.3.2    Total Iron—Comparison with Part 434 Subpart C NSPS Limitations

       EPA compared effluent iron concentrations to Subpart C NSPS iron ELGs and found that
effluent iron levels were less than the ELGs more than 90 percent of the time. Table 5-8 presents
the comparison of AMD effluent to total iron limitations in Part 434 Subpart C NSPS (3.0 mg/L
30-day average and 6.0 mg/L daily maximum). For West Virginia, 99 percent of the iron
concentrations were less than total iron limitations, and  at least 90 percent of the Pennsylvania
iron concentrations were less than the total iron limitations.

       For West Virginia, 13 percent of the facilities and four percent of the outfalls had at least
one total iron concentration higher than the daily maximum limit. For Pennsylvania mines, 28
percent of the mines and 25 percent of the outfalls had at least one total iron concentration  above
the daily maximum limit. For both states, effluent iron concentrations were  above the 30-day
average limitations more often than daily maximum limitations. The number of total iron
concentrations above the 30-day average concentration at Pennsylvania mines may be
exaggerated, due to a majority of one-time samples.
                                           5-13

-------
                                                 Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
    Table 5-8. Summary of Effluent Discharges Compared to Part 434 Subpart C NSPS
                                Limitations for Total Iron

Dates
Number of
Mines a
Number of AMD
Outfalls b
Number of
Samples
West Virginia: Daily Maximum Total Iron >6.0 mg/L
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 c
Percent Above Part 434 ฐ
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
882
116
13%
3,293
147
4%
63,239
397
<1%
West Virginia: 30-Day Average Total Iron >3.0 mg/L
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 c
Percent Above Part 434 ฐ
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
877
201
23%
3,205
284
9%
61,872
690
1%
Pennsylvania: Daily Maximum Total Iron >6.0 mg/L
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 ฐ
Percent Above Part 434 c
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
234
65
28%
333
84
25%
3,457
235
7%
Pennsylvania: 30-Day Average Total Iron >3.0 mg/L d
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 ฐ
Percent Above Part 434 c
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
234
92
39%
333
116
35%
3,457
354
10%
Source: WVDMR; PADEPInspector.
a - Mines are identified as NPDES IDs in the WV DEP database.
b - Number of outfalls may include non-AMD outfalls that discharge under a permit with water quality-based
manganese limitations.
c - For this analysis, comparisons were made to Part 434 Subpart C - Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage NSPS
limitations; however, mines may have alternative limits in the NPDES permits.
d - Data used for this analysis is inspector-collected data that represents a one-time sampling event. Therefore, the
number and percentage of total iron concentrations above the Subpart C NSPS limitations may be exaggerated.

       5.2.3.3    Total Manganese—Comparison with Part 434 Subpart C NSPS
                 Limitations

       EPA compared effluent manganese concentrations to Subpart C NSPS manganese ELGs
and found that effluent manganese levels were less than the ELGs for 96 percent of samples in
WVDMR and 67 percent of samples in PADEPInspector.  Table 5-9 presents the comparison of
AMD effluent to total manganese limitations in Part 434  Subpart C NSPS limitations (2.0 mg/L
30-day average and 4.0 mg/L  daily maximum). For West Virginia, over 96 percent of the total
manganese concentrations meet both the daily maximum  and 30-day average total manganese
limitations. For Pennsylvania, 76 percent of the total manganese concentrations meet the daily
maximum limitation and 67 percent meet the 30-day average limitation for total manganese. The
total manganese concentrations  above the 30-day average limit at Pennsylvania mines may be
exaggerated, due to a majority of one-time samples.

       EPA found that a majority of the effluent total manganese concentrations were less than
the Subpart C manganese limits. For example, more than  96 percent of samples in the WVDMR
database met the manganese daily maximum and 30-day  average manganese limits. This
demonstrates that ELGs are achievable for a majority of mines and outfalls.	

-------
                                                 Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
    Table 5-9. Summary of Effluent Discharges Compared to Part 434 Subpart C NSPS
                             Limitations for Total Manganese

Dates
Number of
Mines a
Number of AMD
Outfalls b
Number of
Samples
West Virginia: Daily Maximum Total Manganese >4.0 mg/L
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 ฐ
Percent Above Part 434 c
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
882
141
16%
3,292
257
8%
57,699
1,330
2%
West Virginia: 30-Day Average Total Manganese >2.0 mg/L
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 c
Percent Above Part 434 ฐ
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
870
229
26%
3,120
456
15%
56,301
2,461
4%
Pennsylvania: Daily Maximum Total Manganese >4.0 mg/L
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 c
Percent Above Part 434 ฐ
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
234
89
38%
333
134
40%
3,456
822
24%
Pennsylvania: 30-Day Average Total Manganese >2.0 mg/L d
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 ฐ
Percent Above Part 434 c
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
234
121
52%
333
172
52%
3,456
1,125
33%
Source: WVDMR; PADEPInspector.
a - Mines are identified as NPDES IDs in the WV DEP database.
b - Number of outfalls may include non-AMD outfalls that discharge under a permit with water quality-based
manganese limitations.
c - For this analysis, comparisons were made to Part 434 Subpart C - Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage NSPS
limitations; however, mines may have alternative limits in their NPDES permits.
d - Data used for this analysis is inspector-collected data that represents a one-time sampling event. Therefore, the
number and percentage of total manganese concentrations above the Subpart C NSPS limitations may be
exaggerated.

       5.2.3.4    TSS—Comparison with Part 434 Subpart C NSPS Limitations

       EPA compared effluent TSS concentrations to Subpart C TSS ELGs and found that more
than 95 percent of the time, effluent TSS levels were less than the ELGs. Table 5-10 presents the
comparison of AMD effluent to TSS limitations in Part 434 Subpart C NSPS. For West Virginia,
over 98 percent of the TSS concentrations meet the TSS limitations. TSS concentrations above
Subpart C NSPS limitations were more common than iron concentrations above Subpart C NSPS
limitations, but occurred in a similar percent of samples. The number of manganese
concentrations above the ELGs was 2.5 times as many the number of TSS concentrations above
the ELGs.

       Over 90 percent of all TSS concentrations were below the ELGs over the multiple years
represented.
                                           5-15

-------
                                                   Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
   Table 5-10. Summary of Effluent Discharges Compared to Part 434 Subpart C NSPS
                                    Limitations for TSS

Dates
Number of
Mines a
Number of AMD
Outfalls b
Number of
Samples
West Virginia: Daily Maximum TSS >70 mg/L
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 c
Percent Above Part 434 ฐ
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
865
235
27%
3,109
377
12%
42,960
536
1%
West Virginia: 30-Day Average TSS >35 mg/L
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 c
Percent Above Part 434 ฐ
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
Apr 2003— Mar 2005
850
308
36%
2,968
535
18%
41,731
872
2%
Pennsylvania: Daily Maximum TSS >70 mg/L
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 ฐ
Percent Above Part 434 c
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
234
67
29%
333
76
23%
3,455
152
4%
Pennsylvania: 30-Day Average TSS >35 mg/L d
Total Number of Data Sets
Number of Results Above Part 434 ฐ
Percent Above Part 434 c
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
Jan 2003— Dec 2007
234
101
43%
333
124
37%
3,455
342
10%
Source: WVDMR; PADEPInspector.
a - Mines are identified as NPDES IDs in the WV DEP database.
b - Number of outfalls may include non-AMD outfalls that discharge under a permit with water quality-based
manganese limitations.
c - For this analysis, comparisons were made to Part 434 Subpart C - Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage NSPS
limitations; however, mines may have alternative limits in their NPDES permits.
d - Data used for this compliance analysis is inspector-collected data that represents a one-time sampling event.
Therefore, the number and percentage of TSS concentrations above the Subpart C NSPS limitations may be
exaggerated.

5.2.4  Comparison ofpH and Manganese in West Virginia and PA Analytical Data

       EPA analyzed whether facilities with higher effluent pH levels had more consistent
effluent manganese concentrations, to address the comments that to meet manganese limits, mine
discharges had high pH levels. From discussions with state permitting authorities, NPDES
permits may contain pH maximum limitations higher than Subpart C ELGs. States have granted
the pH waivers (raising pH limit to 10 or 10.5) to assist mines in removing additional manganese
and meeting the total manganese limitations (see Section 5.2.2). EPA reviewed discharge
monitoring report (DMR) data from West Virginia to determine whether the number of
manganese concentrations above the Subpart C limitations decreased  at higher pH levels.8
 EPA did not perform this analysis for PADEPInspector because this database is not representative of all mines in
PA. It contains data from inspectors, who collect more data from mines with poor compliance, and PADEPInspector
is skewed towards mines having difficulty meeting NPDES permit limits.	
                                            5-16

-------
                                                Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
       The optimal precipitation of iron occurs at a pH of 8.3. At this pH, the iron is the least
soluble in water and more easily precipitated out of the wastewater. As noted above, mines do
not have difficulty achieving total iron concentrations less than the Subpart C NSPS limitations;
and the optimal pH for iron removal also falls within the pH limitation range of 6 to 9. On the
other hand, the optimal precipitation of manganese occurs at a pH between 9 and 10 (Means,
2004).

       EPA compared the pH values to the manganese concentrations reported on the same
sample date. There was no correlation between higher effluent pH and better manganese
removal. That is, EPA found that the number of manganese concentrations above the  Subpart C
NSPS ELGs do not increase when the effluent pH is below 9 (i.e., below the optimal pH for
manganese removal). Table  5-11 presents the comparison. A higher percentage of samples and
outfalls have total manganese concentrations above the Subpart C NSPS limitations when the pH
is above 9. Therefore, raising the limits set for effluent pH by a permit variance does not appear
to correlate to a higher rate of total manganese concentrations below the Subpart C NSPS
limitations.

5.2.5  Compliance with Permits and Enforcement A ctions

       To further assess the difficulty of mines complying with Part 434, EPA was able to
collect compliance and enforcement data from Pennsylvania.

       From 2003 through 2007, inspectors from Pennsylvania completed over 90,000
inspections at coal mines to  ensure that permit requirements were being met. Table 5-12
summarizes the number of inspections and effluent violations noted. The data in the table are not
limited to AMD outfalls (e.g., violations could be in the stream). Also, the data do not specify
which pollutant was in violation. For non-administrative requirements, the mines were found in
compliance at more than 99  percent of inspections.
                                         5-17

-------
                                                                                            Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
           Table 5-11. Manganese Concentrations Above Part 434 Subpart C NSPS Limitations Compared to Effluent pH (West
                                            Virginia data from April 2003 through March 2005)
Parameter and Condition
NPDES IDs
Total Number
Number with Total
Manganese
Concentrations
Above Subpart C b
Outfalls a
Total Number
Number with Total
Manganese
Concentrations
Above Subpart C b
Samples
Total Number
Number with Total
Manganese
Concentrations
Above Subpart C b
Daily Maximum Manganese Concentration (Limit of 4.0 mg/L)
Total number with paired
effluent pH and manganese
DMRdata
All pH in within Subpart C
range (pH<9)
At least one pH above the
Subpart C range (pH>9)
882
751
131
140 (16%)
123 (16%)
17 (13%)
3,290
3,104
186
251 (8%)
229 (7%)
22 (12%)
57,439
56,452
897
1,290 (2%)
1,235 (2%)
55 (6%)
30-Day Average Manganese Concentration (Limit of 2.0 mg/L)
Total number with paired
effluent pH and manganese
DMRdata
All pH in within Subpart C
range (pH<9)
At least one pH above the
Subpart C range (pH>9)
869
739
130
227 (26%)
202 (27%)
25 (19%)
3,171
2,988
183
450 (14%)
415 (14%)
35 (19%)
56,051
55,169
882
2,411(4%)
2,311(4%)
100(11%)
oo
      Source: WVDMR.
      a - Number of outfalls may include non-AMD outfalls that discharge under a permit with water quality-based manganese limitations.
      b - For this analysis, comparisons were made to Part 434 Subpart C - Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage NSPS limitations; however, mines may have
      alternative limits in their NPDES permits.

-------
                                               Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
          Table 5-12. Summary of PA DEP Inspections at Coal Mines 2003 -2007
Inspection Type
Routine/Partial Inspection
Routine/Complete Inspection
Follow-Up Inspection
Administrative/File Review
Bond Release
Routine Final Inspection
Complaint Inspection
Joint Internal Site Inspection
Total Number of
Inspections
52,599
37,424
1,889
924
45
11
4
1
Number of Effluent
Violations (Percent)
145 (<1%)
3
68 (<1%)
2
58 (3%)
2
157 (17%)
0
0
0
0
Type of Violation
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source: PA Coal Mine Inspections 2003 to 2007 (PA DEP, 2007).
a - Discharging water that does not meet water quality limits.
b - Failure to meet effluent limits or failure to properly design, construct or maintain erosion and sedimentation
controls.
NA - Not applicable. PA DEP did not report effluent violations for these types of inspections.

5.3    Wastewater Characteristics  and NPDES Permitting References

1.      AMD143. Unknown. Sampling Database from 143 Acid Mine Drainage Discharges.
       EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0082.1.

2.      AMD! Unknown.  Acid Mine Drainage Inventory Database. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-
       2455.

3.      ARAMD. Unknown. Appalachian Regional Acid Mine Drainage Inventory Database.
       EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2473.

4.      BAMR. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Abandoned
       Mine Reclamation. Unknown. Sampling Data for Cold Streams Sites A and B. EPA-HQ-
       OW-2006-0771-0508.1.

5.      Cecil, C. Elaine and Susan Tewalt. U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. Coal Extraction -
       Environmental Prediction. Fact Sheet  073-02. Reston, VA. (August 22). Available online
       at:  http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs073-02/fs073-02.html. Date accessed: February 27, 2007'
       EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0120.

6.      ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2006. Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid
       Drainage  Treatment Systems.  Chantilly, VA. (October). EPA-OW-2004-0032-2311.

7.      Larsen, D. and R. Mann. 2005. Origin of high manganese concentrations in coal mine
       drainage,  eastern Tennessee. Journal of Geochemical Exploration. Vol. 86, Issue 3, 143-
       163 p. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0505.
                                         5-19

-------
                                              Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
8.     Means, Brent and Tiff Hilton. 2004. Comparison of Three Methods to Measure Acidity
      of Coal-Mine Drainage. 2004 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and
      Reclamation. Lexington, KY. Unknown. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0142.

9.     OSMRE. U.S. Department of Interior. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
      Enforcement. 2002. A Plan to Clean Up Streams Polluted by Acid Drainage. Washington,
      DC. (January 23). Available online at: http://www.osm.gov/acsiplan.htm'Date accessed:
      February 27, 2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0099.

10.    PA DEP. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. PA Coal Mine
      Inspections from 2003 to 2007 and Inspections with Effluent Violations from 2003 to
      2007 Excel Spreadsheets. Harrisburg, PA. (December 20). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
      DCN 05984A1 and 05984A2.

11.    PADEPInspector. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2008.
      Treatment Facility Monitoring Data for Coal Mining Inspectable Units. (January 14).
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN05981A1.

12.    PADEPMDI. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Sampling
      Database for All Lab Samples Collected at Active Monitoring Points Sampling Raw
      AMD Discharges. (May 10). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0076.2.

13.    Snoeyink, Vernon and David Jenkins. 1980. Water Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
      (Unknown). 382-386 p. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0059.

14.    U.S. EPA. 1982. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
      Standards for the Coal Mining Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-82/057. Washington,
      DC. (October).

15.    U.S. EPA. 2001. Coal Remining - Best Management Practices Guidance Manual. EP A-
      821-B-01-010. Washington, DC. Available online at:
      http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/coal/manual/index.html.

16.    U. S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program
      Plan. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December).  EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782.

17.    U.S. EPA. 2007. Conference Call between Bob Agnew, Keith Brady, and Mike Smith,
      Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Tom Born, U.S. EPA, and  Jill
      Lucy and Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group, Inc.  (December 11). EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771 DCN 05983.

18.    U.S. EPA. 2008. Conference Call between Lewis Halstead and Ken Politan, West
      Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Tom Born and Carey Johnston,  U.S.
      EPA, and Ellie Codding, Jill Lucy, and Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group, Inc.
      (January  10). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05985.
                                        5-20

-------
                                               Section 5.0 - Coal Mine Drainage Characteristics
19.    WV DEP. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. West Virginia
      NPDESpH Variances Spreadsheet. Charleston, WV. (January 25). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
      0771DCN05986A1.

20.    WVDEPSpecialRec. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Office of
      Special Reclamation. 2007. Pollutant Concentrations for Untreated Coal Mine Drainage
      from Passive and Active Treatment Systems. Charleston, WV. (July 24). EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771-0084.1.

21.    WVDMR. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Discharge
      Monitoring Reports for Coal Mines from April 2003 through March 2006. Charleston,
      WV. (Unknown). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0074.

22.    WVMnLimit. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Manganese
      NPDES Permit Limits for Coal Mines in West Virginia Database. Charleston, WV.
      (June 5). EPA-HQ-2006-0771-0009.1.
                                        5-21

-------
                                         Section 6.0 - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies
6.0    Aero MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

       The Coal Mining Detailed Study focuses on discharges from acid mine drainage (AMD)
from coal mines located in the Appalachian Region, based on comments that EPA received. This
section describes treatment technologies most commonly used to treat AMD.

       The goals of treating AMD are to raise pH and lower the concentrations of metals, as
well as to remove solids and other pollutants, so that receiving streams support aquatic life. The
optimal AMD treatment type depends on the discharge flow, iron species and concentration,
acidity, and dissolved oxygen content. In general, treatment can be divided into the following:

       •      Active treatment in which the treatment facility actively adds chemicals to the
             discharge to maintain desired effluent characteristics; and
       •      Passive treatment in which the treatment facilities are engineered to require little
             to no maintenance once the facility is operational.

       Based on theARAMD database (described in Section 2.2.2), mines most often use active
chemical precipitation treatment systems, using lime and/or sodium hydroxide to adjust pH,
aeration to oxidize the dissolved metals, and ponds to precipitate metal hydroxides. However,
passive treatment systems minimize annual operating costs and are often preferred because of
lower long-term treatment  costs. Section 6.1 describes active treatment technologies and Section
6.2 describes passive treatment technologies.

6.1    Active Treatment  Technologies for AMD

       Active treatment technologies require chemical addition to neutralize acidity and
precipitate metals. Active treatment technologies typically have higher annual operating costs
than passive treatment systems but have proven performance and have been used longer.
Chemical precipitation involves removing metallic contaminants from aqueous solutions by
converting soluble heavy metals to insoluble salts. The precipitated solids are then removed from
solution in sedimentation ponds.

       Precipitation of metallic contaminants is caused by the addition of chemical reagents  that
increase the pH of the water to the minimum solubility of the metal. The standard reagents
include the following (U.S. EPA, 2000):

       •      Lime (calcium hydroxide);
       •      Caustic (sodium hydroxide);
       •      Magnesium hydroxide;
       •      Soda ash (sodium carbonate);
       •      Trisodium phosphate;
       •      Sodium sulfide; and
       •      Ferrous sulfide.

       These reagents precipitate metals as hydroxides, carbonates, phosphates, or sulfides. The
precipitated metals form sludge which, over time, must be removed from the treatment system.
The majority of coal mines treating AMD using active treatment technologies use lime or caustic
for precipitation (ARAMD, Unknown).

                                          6-1

-------
                                          Section 6.0 - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies
       Figure 6-1 presents an example of a chemical precipitation treatment system using caustic
soda; Figure 6-2 presents an example of a chemical precipitation treatment system using
hydrated lime. Both figures show the following steps of chemical precipitation:

       •     The AMD is aerated, often by gravity flow and sprays, to increase the dissolved
             oxygen in the discharge. The increased dissolved oxygen allows some metals to
             oxidize and form metal hydroxides, such as ferric hydroxide (Fe(OH)3).
       •     The first settling pond removes the majority of the metal hydroxides that formed
             due to aeration.
       •     A chemical precipitant (caustic soda in Figure 6-1 and hydrated lime in Figure
             6-2) is added in a channel or pond, where the remaining dissolved metals, such as
             manganese and magnesium, are oxidized to an insoluble form. A mixing tank or
             pond is sometimes required if the chemical precipitant is in a solid form,
             providing additional contact time to dissolve the precipitant.
       •     The remaining settling ponds remove the insoluble metal hydroxides, which settle
             to the bottom of the pond as sludge.
       •     Sludge is removed periodically via vacuum trucks or on-site vacuums.  Operators
             may use the sludge as part of backfilling or reclamation material, because of its
             alkaline properties.
                                                                                 To receiving
                                                                                  stream
           Settling Pond 1 for Flow
              Equalization and
                 Aeration
Settling Pond 2
                                            Sludge removed
                                             via vacuum
                                                                    Sludge removed
                                                                      via vacuum
 Figure 6-1. Example AMD Chemical Precipitation Treatment System Using Caustic Soda
                                           6-2

-------
                                          Section 6.0 - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies
                          Lime
                          Silo
Legend
V
4
Water Level
/ .
' • . Aerator
                                                                                  To receiving
                                                                                   stream
          Settling Pond 1 for Flow
             Equalization and
               Aeration
Settling Pond 2
                                                                Settling Pond 3
                                                 Sludge removed
                                                  via vacuum
                                                                       Sludge removed
                                                                        via vacuum
   Figure 6-2. Example AMD Chemical Precipitation Treatment System Using Hydrated
                                          Lime

       Hydroxide precipitation normally involves using lime (Ca(OH)2) or caustic soda (NaOH)
as a precipitant to remove metals as insoluble metal hydroxides. The reaction is illustrated by
Equations 6-1 and 6-2 for precipitation of divalent and trivalent metals using caustic soda, and
Equations 6-3 and 6-4 for precipitation using lime:
                         Metal++ + 2 NaOH -> Metal(OH)2 + 2 Na+

                         Metal+++ + 3 NaOH -> Metal(OH)3 + 3 Na+

                         Metal++ + Ca(OH)2 -> Metal(OH)2 + Ca++

                     2 Metal+++ + 3 Ca(OH)2 -> 2 Metal(OH)3 + 3 Ca4
                                           (6-1)

                                           (6-2)

                                           (6-3)

                                           (6-4)
       The effluent metals concentration attained by hydroxide precipitation depends on the
metals present and reaction conditions. Many scientists have studied metals removal from AMD,
particularly the difficulty of removing manganese. While scientists have found that iron will
quickly precipitate at a pH near 8.3, manganese precipitates quickly only when the pH is raised
to 9 or 10 (Means, 2004). Figure 6-3 illustrates the solubility curves from research performed by
Dr. Chuck Cravotta, USGS, for metals commonly found in AMD, showing solubilities relative to
pH. Section 7.3 discusses the removal of non-regulated metals based on solubilities in AMD.

6.2    Passive Treatment Technologies for AMD

       Passive treatment technologies do not require chemical addition and take advantage of
chemical and biological processes that occur naturally  to treat AMD (Skousen, Unknown).
Passive treatment technologies are preferred over active treatment to reduce operating costs (U.S.
EPA, 2001). Passive treatment technologies include the following:

       •      Aerobic wetlands;
       •      Anaerobic wetlands;
       •      Anoxic limestone drains;
                                           6-3

-------
                                         Section 6.0 - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies
              Diversion wells;
              Open limestone channels;
              Oxic limestone drains;
              Pyrolusiteฎ technology; and
              Vertical flow reactors (successive alkalinity-producing systems).
     10
                                                                         	AI(OH)3
                                                                          —Ca(OH)2
                                                                         	Cd(OH)2
                                                                         	Co(OH)2
                                                                          —Cu(OH)2
                                                                         	Fe(OH)2
                                                                          — Fe(OH)3
                                                                         —Mg(OH)2
                                                                         	Mn(OH)2
                                                                         	Ni(OH)2
Figure 6-3. Comparison of Metal Hydroxide Solubilities for Constituents Commonly Found
                                in Acidic Mine Drainage
       Source: Comparison of Three Methods to Measure Acidity of Coal-Mine Drainage (Means, 2004).

       Effective treatments of AMD typically involves a combination of two or more passive
treatment technologies. An example treatment system could include an anoxic limestone drain to
raise pH and alkalinity, followed by a settling pond to remove high concentrations of oxidized
metals, followed by an aerobic wetland to remove additional metals if needed to meet permit
limits and/or to impart additional alkalinity (U.S. EPA, 2001). EPA collected information about
passive treatment systems as part of its 2002 revision to Part 434. EPA's Coal Remining Best
Management Practices Guidance Manual (BMP Manual),  dated December 2001, describes
passive treatment technologies in detail. The remainder of this section summarizes the
information in the BMP Manual (U.S. EPA, 2001).

       Passive treatment systems require less maintenance than active treatment systems;
however, passive treatment systems are not appropriate for all AMD. The limitations of passive
treatment systems are the following (U.S. EPA, 2001):

       •      Finite life spans that will require rebuilding  or rejuvenation to treat the discharge
              in perpetuity;
       •      Difficult to design for discharges with large flow variations;
       •      Require large land areas to achieve desired treatment level;
                                           6-4

-------
                                         Section 6.0 - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies
       •     May not be feasible if for AMD with high flows; and
       •     Limited use for each system based on raw water quality characterization (e.g.,
             anoxic limestone drains are only appropriate for AMD with low or no dissolved
             oxygen).

6.2.1   Aerobic Wetlands

       An aerobic wetland is a large, shallow pond with horizontal surface flow. The pond may
be planted with typical wetlands plants such as cattails. Aerobic wetlands promote the
precipitation of iron, aluminum, and manganese by oxidizing and hydrolyzing the metals into
low solubility hydroxides. The removal of metals tends to release mineral acidity, which lowers
the pH of the water. The amount of metals oxidization that occurs depends on the dissolved
metal concentrations, dissolved oxygen content, pH and net alkalinity of the water, presence of
microbes, total surface area, and detention time (Skousen, Unknown; PA DEP, Unknown).

       Aerobic wetlands work most efficiently when the pH in untreated AMD is 6.0 or higher
with a net alkalinity. At a pH of 6.0 or higher, the rate of iron and manganese oxidation
increases. Manganese oxidation does not occur in any measurable amount when the pH is less
than 6.0 (standard units). The net alkalinity is required to buffer the release of mineral acidity, to
maintain a higher pH and continue metals oxidation (U.S. EPA, 2001).

       The life of an aerobic wetland can be extended by diverting the AMD into a settling pond
to precipitate some excess iron prior to entering the aerobic wetland. The required size of the
aerobic wetland depends on the maximum flow, influent metals concentrations, and desired
effluent water quality. The detention time is maximized by adding baffles in the wetlands to
maximize the flow path length.  For effective treatment, a low pH discharge requires a larger
wetland than a higher pH discharge with the same metals concentrations. The pH is typically
increased prior to the wetlands using an anoxic limestone drain (U.S. EPA, 2001). For the most
effective treatment, surface loading rates of iron less than 21 g/m2/day and manganese less than 2
g/m2/day are recommended, if the water is net alkaline (Skousen, Unknown; PA DEP,
Unknown).

6.2.2  Anaerobic Wetlands

       Anaerobic wetlands are large, shallow ponds with a layer of organic material, through
which the water is induced to flow down through before discharge. Common organic materials
are usually available locally and include spent mushroom compost, peat moss, wood chips,
sawdust, and hay. Spent mushroom compost is most common because it contains 10 percent
calcium carbonate (CaCOs). Limestone is typically added to the other compost materials to assist
in neutralizing the acidic water. Anaerobic wetlands remove some metals by oxidization and
hydrolysis in the aerobic surface layer in addition to microbial  reduction reactions and limestone
dissolution in the anaerobic layer, generating alkalinity.  The alkalinity generated by the
anaerobic layer raises the pH. Anaerobic wetlands have been successful at treating discharges
with dissolved oxygen, iron in the Fe3+ state, aluminum as A13+, or acidity less than 300 mg/L
(Skousen, Unknown; PA DEP, Unknown).
                                          6-5

-------
                                          Section 6.0 - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies
6.2.3   Anoxic Limestone Drains

       Anoxic limestone drains are sealed and buried trenches of limestone designed to treat
AMD under anoxic conditions. The anoxic condition limits the oxidization of ferrous iron (Fe2+)
to ferric iron (Fe3+). If oxidized, the iron precipitates out of solution as iron hydroxide (yellow
boy), which clogs the drain and/or coat the limestone. Maintaining the anoxic conditions is
important for extending the life and maintaining the efficiency of these systems. Kepler and
McCleary determined that the AMD should contain less than 1 mg/L dissolved oxygen, while
Cravotta recommended that dissolved oxygen content be less than 0.3 mg/L to prevent in-situ
iron oxidation (U.S. EPA, 2001).

       Anoxic limestone drains generate greater concentrations of alkalinity because of
increased CO2 concentrations. As the partial pressure of CO2 increases, the solubility of calcium
carbonate (or alkalinity) increases, and the water can neutralize more acidity. The decreased
acidity and increased alkalinity of the water upon discharge from the anoxic limestone drain
significantly increase the precipitation  rate of iron and other metals. Therefore, anoxic limestone
drains are often installed prior to aerobic wetlands or settling ponds (U.S. EPA, 2001).

       The design and construction of anoxic limestone drains are based on the maximum
anticipated flow rate, projected life of the  system  (commonly 20 to 25 years), limestone purity,
and effluent water quality (related to detention time). An analysis of water quality and flow data
for 21 anoxic limestone drains treating AMD in Appalachia determined a detention time of at
least 15 hours and as high as 23  hours was required to produce maximum alkalinity (U.S. EPA,
2001).

       Anoxic limestone drains do not adequately treat AMD discharges if the dissolved iron
(ferrous iron) has been oxidized prior to entering the anoxic limestone drain. Dissolved iron
oxidizes if the dissolved oxygen concentration in  the AMD is too high. Therefore, it is suggested
that the AMD be transported from the discharge point using a sealed and buried collection and
piping  system. Anoxic limestone drains are not recommended for treating AMD with high
concentrations of dissolved aluminum because aluminum precipitates out in the drain once the
pH is raised, even if the dissolved oxygen concentration is low. Additionally, anoxic limestone
drains are not recommended for treating AMD with sulfate concentrations in excess of 2,000
mg/L because gypsum (CaSC>4 + 2 H2O) may form and precipitate in the drain, clogging it (U.S.
EPA, 2001).

6.2.4   Diversion Wells

       Diversion wells are large cylinders constructed of reinforced concrete or other erosion
resistant material (commonly manhole rings), which are then partially filled with limestone.
AMD is piped down the center for introduction at the bottom of the well. The rapid movement of
water upward through the well causes the  limestone to maintain a fluidized state. The water then
flows over the sides of the well into a settling pond or is channeled back to the stream or the
remainder of the discharge. Unlike limestone in a channel or bed, fluidized limestone does not
become "armored" by iron hydroxides. Dissolved iron above 0.3 mg/L should precipitate after
leaving the well (U.S. EPA, 2001).
                                           6-6

-------
                                         Section 6.0 - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies
       Diversion wells increase the alkalinity when the AMD reacts with the limestone.
Alkalinity is released by both physical and geochemical actions in the wells. The fluidization of
the limestone increases the alkalinity generation by crushing the limestone into finer particles,
increasing the surface area. Alkalinity production is limited by the atmospheric levels of CO2,
because increased CO2 allows for greater concentrations of calcium carbonate, or alkalinity.
Researchers have suggested injecting CO2 into the AMD stream prior to treatment in the
diversion well to increase the alkalinity production up to 1,000 mg/L. However, the injection of
CO2 is not a passive treatment and would increase operating costs and operation complexity
(U.S. EPA, 2001).

       The treatment of AMD using diversion wells requires sufficient head and flow rate, low
to medium acidity concentrations (high acidity concentrations require multiple diversion wells),
and increased maintenance to periodically recharge the limestone. High dissolved metals
concentrations requires a settling pond after the diversion well (U.S. EPA, 2001).

6.2.5  Open Limestone Channels

       Open limestone channels, also called limestone beds, are trenches filled with limestone,
which increases alkalinity and pH, thus precipitating metals. They are not suitable for extremely
high metals concentration; however, because oxidized metals precipitate  on the limestone and
reduce the alkalinity yield. Oxidized metals precipitate and coat the surface of the limestone; this
action is called "armoring." Completely armored limestone will, in theory, continue to yield
some alkalinity or temporarily store some acidity in a mineral  form. The  armored limestone
rapidly reduces acidity  initially, with the acidity reduction rate slowing with time in the form of a
logarithmic decay curve (U.S. EPA, 2001).

       Figure 6-4 shows an example limestone bed treatment  system process. The limestone bed
is designed to 1) increase alkalinity and raise pH to neutral (between 6 and 9), and 2) precipitate
and remove metals from the AMD. As limestone dissolves, it imparts alkalinity according to the
following reactions (Sibrell, 2005):

                              CaCO3 + H+ -> Ca2+ + HCO3"                          (6-5)

                          CaCO3 + H2O + CO2 -> Ca2+ + 2  HCO3'                     (6-6)

                           CaCO3 + H2O -> Ca2+ + HCO3' + OH'                      (6-7)

The available hydroxide ions (OH") then react with metals to form insoluble metal hydroxides,
which form according to the following equations:

                              Metal+2 + 2 OH' -> Metal(OH)2                         (6-8)

                              Metal+3 + 3 OH' -> Metal(OH)3                         (6-9)

The insoluble metal hydroxides will precipitate and be removed from the water; however, over
time the precipitates coat the limestone.  This coating of the limestone is referred to as
"armoring" and decreases the effectiveness of the limestone bed over time. High flow velocities
                                           6-7

-------
                                         Section 6.0 - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies
through the bed can minimize the armoring, and the limestone beds should be made large enough
to account for armoring.

 Seep Flowk
                                                                                 To receivin9
                                                                                   stream
                                                        Settling Pond

                                                                Sludge removed
                                                                 via vacuum

               Figure 6-4. Example AMD Limestone Bed Treatment System

       As the metal cations, such as Fe3+ and Mn2+, consume the hydroxide anions in the above
reactions, the pH of the water decreases. To be effective, limestone beds should be large enough
to buffer the acidity liberated from metals precipitation.

       Limestone channels are sized to neutralize 90 percent of the influent acidity in one hour
of contact time or to neutralize 100 percent of the influent acidity in three hours of contact time.
The design of limestone channels is based on the flow rate, channel slope, and acidity
concentration. The slope and flow rate are important to prevent clogging of the limestone with
the precipitated iron, aluminum, and manganese. Settling ponds are often constructed after the
open limestone channels to allow for the precipitated metals to precipitate (U.S. EPA, 2001). The
metals sludge in these ponds is periodically removed.

       Limitations of open limestone channels effectiveness are mainly the dissolution rate of
armored limestone, atmospheric CC>2 concentrations, and contact time. The contact time to treat
relatively large discharges with considerable acidity may require trenches more than 3,000 feet
(half mile) long, limiting the use of open limestone channels at space-limited mine sites. The
effectiveness of the channel is also based on at least a 10 percent  slope to prevent clogging (U.S.
EPA, 2001).

6.2.6   Oxic Limestone Drains

       Oxic limestone drains are similar to anoxic limestone drains except that they are designed
to treat AMD containing high dissolved oxygen and oxidized iron. Oxic limestone drains are
covered to increase the alkalinity production by increasing the partial pressure of CO2, which
allows for greater concentration of calcium carbonate (alkalinity) in the water. The limestone
dissolves rapidly enough to make the surface unstable for iron armoring. Some iron hydroxide
and aluminum hydroxide precipitates in the oxic limestone drain. However, metal floes can  be
carried through the drain when water velocity is high (greater than 0.33 feet per minute. The oxic
                                           6-8

-------
                                         Section 6.0 - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies
limestone drains can also be designed for periodic flushing to remove the metal hydroxide
buildup (U.S. EPA, 2001).

       A study of an oxic limestone drain treating AMD with moderate acidity (<90 mg/L), a pH
less than 4.0 (standard units), and moderately low dissolved metals (iron, manganese, and
aluminum concentrations 1 to 5 mg/L) found that iron and aluminum concentrations were
reduced by up to 95 percent. The manganese concentrations were unaffected the first six months
the oxic limestone drain was active; however, after the initial six months, the manganese
concentrations were lowered by 50 percent. The increased manganese removal rate is due to the
co-precipitation with iron hydroxide that is facilitated by pH greater than 5.0 (U.S. EPA, 2001).

       Oxic limestone drain design is based on flow and acidity concentration. Oxic limestone
drains are not effective for treating discharges with large flows or with high concentrations of
acidity.

6.2.7  Pyrolusiteฎ Technology

       Allegheny Mineral Abatement, Inc. developed the patented Pyrolusiteฎ9 bed, which is a
type of in-situ bioremediation that primarily  removes manganese and raises the alkalinity. These
systems can remove minor amounts of dissolved iron, but are not recommended to do so because
iron  can armor (coat) the limestone and reduce its efficiency. Users install a bed of crushed
limestone inoculated with cultured microorganisms. In an aerobic environment, the
microorganisms metabolize manganese ions, converting them to relatively insoluble oxides:
manganese dioxide (todorokite (Mn, Ca, Mg) Mn3+4Oy x H^O or Pyrolusiteฎ, MnO2) (Cravotta,
1999). Pyrolusiteฎ beds promote alkalinity because the microorganisms also "etch" or alter the
surface chemistry of the limestone hosting medium, keeping the area of CaCOs reaction sites
open (U.S.  EPA, 2001). The flowing mine water also dissolves the limestone at a rate based on
the partial pressure of CO2, temperature and  other factors. Figures  6-5 and 6-6  show a plan and
profile view, respectively, of how the Pyrolusiteฎ bed works. Figure 6-7 is a photograph of a
Pyrolusiteฎ bed from a PBS Coals, Inc. mine in Pennsylvania.
                                                         Flooded Limestone Bed
                       Figure 6-5. Plan View of a Pyrolusiteฎ Bed
       Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems (ERG, 2006).
' Mention of specific products does not constitute an endorsement by EPA.
                                           6-9

-------
                                           Section 6.0 - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies
       Figure 6-5 shows baffles in the Pyrolusite  bed. Most of these beds are rectangular
without baffles. The dimensions (length, width, and depth) are such that the desired retention
time will be achieved. Usually a manifold or dispersion unit spreads the inflow across the front
width of the bed.
                        Influent
                           •        '•  .  '  .    •        •: .         ...-'..;.•
                        •."-;'•-,-- j ,' '  •                        ,'•-..- f :
            - Hydraulic gradient
            - Ground surface
            - Liner
            - Limestone Rock
                                                                                  Effluent
                       Figure 6-6. Profile View of a Pyrolusiteฎ Bed
       Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems (ERG, 2006).
                 Figure 6-7. Photograph of Pyrolusiteฎ Bed at PBS Job #5
       Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems (ERG, 2006).

       Vail and Riley, Allegheny Mineral Abatement, Inc., recommend a residence time of 2.5
to 3.0 days, based on the projected maximum flow. The bed design should maximize reaction
                                            6-10

-------
                                         Section 6.0 - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies
time and contact with the inoculated limestone. Vail and Riley also recommend a limestone
purity of 87 percent CaCO3 or greater (U.S. EPA, 2001).

       Disadvantages of the Pyrolusiteฎ system include long recommended residence times (2.5
to 3 days), requiring a relatively large treatment area. For example, to treat a flow of 5 gpm with
3 days residence time, the Pyrolusiteฎ bed would cover more than a quarter acre of land
(assuming a depth of 10 feet). Also, the Pyrolusiteฎ system may not be effective for AMD with a
pH less than 4. Some studies show that culturing and inoculation may not be necessary. The
Pyrolusiteฎ system has been most successful for treating AMD with low flow and low
concentrations of iron (U.S. EPA, 2001).

6.2.8  Vertical Flow Wetlands

       Vertical flow wetlands (also known as successive alkalinity-producing systems, or SAPS)
incorporate anaerobic wetland and anoxic limestone drain technology to generate high amounts
of alkalinity. AMD that is unsuitable for treatment by anoxic limestone drains because of oxic
conditions or the presence of ferric iron can be treated through vertical flow wetlands (U.S. EPA,
2001).

       In vertical flow wetlands, water enters the cell at the surface and drains into the
underlying organic layer. In the organic layer, the dissolved oxygen content is greatly decreased
by microbial action (decomposition) of organic matter, creating a nearly anoxic state. In this
layer, anaerobic sulfate-reducing bacteria chemically reduce any previously oxidized metals,
generate bicarbonate alkalinity, and yield hydrogen sulfide  gas and low solubility metal sulfides.
The reduction process increases alkalinity, neutralizing acidity and raising the pH of the water.

       The metal sulfides may precipitate in the organic material. However, some of the metals
remain in the dissolved state and pass through the organic layer. Below the organic layer,
limestone gravel functions as an anoxic limestone drain. In the limestone gravel, the alkalinity
further increases, resulting in effluent with a pH of 6.0 or higher. Aluminum may precipitate in
the limestone region,  which can clog this part of the system but will not greatly impact the
limestone's effectiveness at increasing alkalinity. Where aluminum clogging may be a problem,
underdrain systems are installed in a configuration to allow periodic flushing of the aluminum
from the limestone. Vertical flow wetlands are typically followed by an aerobic wetland or
settling pond to accommodate metals removal by precipitation. Because of the buffering capacity
possessed by the water entering the aerobic wetland or settling pond, the remaining precipitated
metals will be removed without a decreased pH (U.S. EPA, 2001).

       The limitations of treating AMD with vertical flow  wetlands are similar to those for
anaerobic wetlands and anoxic limestone drains. The organic layer must also be kept wet to
maintain the oxygen removal and sulfate reduction (U.S. EPA, 2001).

6.3    Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies References

1.     Agnew, Bob. 2007. Email from Mr. Bob Agnew, Pennsylvania Department of
       Environmental Protection, to Ms. Ellie Codding, Eastern Research Group, Inc. RE: PA
       DEP Manganese Study Database Confirmation. (August 3). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-
       0080.

                                          6-11

-------
                                       Section 6.0 - Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies
2.     ARAMD. Unknown. Appalachian Regional Acid Mine Drainage Inventory Database.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2473.

3.     Cravotta, Charles, PhD. 1999. USGS Personal communication to Jay Hawkins, OSMRE.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0050 and 0050.1.

4.     ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2006. Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid
      Drainage Treatment Systems. Chantilly, VA. (October). EPA-OW-2004-0032-2311.

5.     Means, Brent and Tiff Hilton. 2004. Comparison of Three Methods to Measure Acidity of
      Coal-Mine Drainage. 2004 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and
      Reclamation. Lexington, KY. Unknown. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0142.

6.     Sibrell, P. L., et. al. 2005. "Demonstration of a Pulsed Limestone Bed Process for the
      Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage at the Argo Tunnel Site, Idaho Springs, Colorado.
      Morgantown, West Virginia. (Unknown). Available online at: http://mine-
      drainage.usgs.gov/pubs/ASMR_2005_Sibrell.pdf. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0151.

7.     Skousen, Jeff and Paul Ziemkiewicz. 2005. "Performance of 116 Passive Treatment
      Systems for Acid Mine Drainage." Lexington, KY. (Unknown). Available online at:
      http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/landrec/skousen05asmr.pdf. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-
      0119.

8.     PA DEP. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Abandoned
      Mine Reclamation. Unknown. The Science of Acid Mine Drainage and Passive
      Treatment. Harrisburg, PA. (Unknown). Available online at:
      http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/bamr/amd/science_of_amd.htm. Date
      accessed: February 16, 2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2633.

9.     U. S. EPA. 2001. Coal Remining - Best Management Practices Guidance Manual. EPA-
      821-B-01-010. Washington, D.C. (December). Available online at:
      http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/coal/bmp/.

10.    U.S. EPA. 2000. "Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet: Chemical Precipitation."
      Washington, D.C. EPA 832-F-00-018. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0476.
                                        6-12

-------
                                                  Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
7.0    CASE STUDIES OF TREATMENT COSTS

       EPA reviewed case studies and developed model mines to determine the costs to treat
acid mine drainage (AMD) after receiving comments from stakeholders stating that removing
manganese is expensive and leads to mine forfeitures (EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1049, 1055,
1062, 1091, 1101). In their comments, stakeholders described the expense associated with
treating AMD discharges to achieve manganese limits. Stakeholders estimated that treating
discharges to meet the iron and manganese limits would cost at least twice as much as treating
discharges to meet only the iron limitations.

       EPA also collected data on the difference in pollutant removals: which pollutants are
removed when treating to meet only the Subpart C iron limits versus which are removed when
treating for both the Subpart C iron and manganese limits. EPA obtained solubility data, but not
actual sampling data, to characterize treatment system performance and co-removal of metals
besides iron and manganese.

       Overall, the three case studies show that it is less costly to operate treatment systems to
meet Subpart C iron limits (6.0 daily maximum and 2.0 mg/L monthly average) than treating to
meet both the iron and manganese limitations. Specifically, the three case studies show that
treating to meet both the Subpart  C iron and manganese limitations is approximately two to three
times more expensive. Using the  model costs, the estimated annualized capital and annual costs
are both one to five times higher to treat the discharge to meet both the iron and manganese
limitations in Subpart C compared to meeting only the Subpart C iron limitation. However, the
data also  show that treatment systems remove more pollutant loads when operated to meet
Subpart C limits for both iron and manganese.

7.1    Treatment Cost Case Studies

       PBS Coals, Inc. (PBS Coals) provided EPA with operating and maintenance costs for
their RoxCoal, Inc. (RoxCoal) Outfall 003, PBS Coals Job #1, and PBS Coals Job #8 treatment
systems, both chemical precipitation (ERG, 2006; Tercek, 2007). This section provides
information about the three treatment systems and presents the treatment costs.

7.1.1   RoxCoal, Inc. Mine Outfall 003 Treatment

       RoxCoal mined coal in an underground mine from 1992 until 2002. Stormwater and
groundwater collected in the underground mine pit, and operators dewatered the pit by pumping
mine drainage from the pit. After the mine was reclaimed, the mine drainage was no longer
pumped from the mine pit. In 2002, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA
DEP) identified that AMD from the PBS Coals mine was discharging near an  adjacent historic
landmark. In 2003, PBS Coals resumed pumping between 1,200 to 1,500 gpm from the former
mine pool, to eliminate the discharge at the historic landmark (ERG, 2006). By resuming
pumping, PBS Coals lowered the water table. The AMD no longer discharged near the historic
landmark but rather discharged upgradient. The discharge is currently permitted under National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit PA0213772 for Outfall 003.

       The resulting pumped underground mine drainage is net alkaline, with high iron content
(approximately 70 mg/L) and low manganese (approximately 14  mg/L) (ERG, 2006). Based on

                                          7-1

-------
                                                     Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
the high iron content (greater than 10 mg/L), Part 434 defines the discharge as AMD. Table 7-1
lists the AMD characteristics for the discharge at three stages: prior to treatment (untreated),
after aeration pond, and after treatment (treated).

             Table 7-1. NPDES Permit PA0213772 Outfall 003 Characteristics
Parameter a
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Flow (gpm)
Hot acidity b
Iron
Manganese
pH (standard units)
Sulfate
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Untreated Drainage
Characteristics
82-210
0.1-0.50
Aeration Pond
Discharge
152-210
0.1-0.34
Treated Drainage
Characteristics
26.0 - 222.2
O.5-O.5
1,000 - 1,200
-11.8-11.8
1.8-80
13.7-17.5
6.3-8.6
327.4-2100.6
38-100
Negative
25.3-88
12.5-18.5
6.2-7.3
Unknown
Unknown
-95.8-8.2
O.3 - 1.42
0.05 - 5.002
7.4-9.8
1317.2-2,745.8
<3-40
Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems Appendix B (ERG, 2006);
Personal Correspondence with Mr. Mark Tercek, PBS Coals, Inc., and Ms. Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research
Group, Inc. (Tercek, 2007).
a - Units are mg/L unless otherwise noted. Untreated and treated data are from 1996 - 2005. Aeration pond only
data are from November 26, 2005 to December 12, 2005.
b - Hot acidity measures the ability of water to neutralize a base. Negative values indicate net alkalinity.

       PBS Coals, a sister company to RoxCoal, operates the chemical precipitation treatment
system to meet the NPDES permit limits, which include Pennsylvania water quality-based
limitations for manganese. The pumped AMD discharges into an aeration pond, where metals are
oxidized. The oxidized metals are predominately iron and aluminum. However, some manganese
oxidization can occur. The aeration pond is also designed to allow for the oxidized metals to
precipitate. After the settling ponds, drainage is treated with lime and flows by gravity through a
series of unlined settling ponds connected by channels. The remaining dissolved metals are
oxidized into insoluble forms with the lime addition. The insoluble metals precipitate in the
unlined settling ponds. Manganese, aluminum,  and iron precipitate in the settling ponds, and
sludge is vacuumed from the ponds as needed using vacuum trucks. Figure 7-1 is a photograph
of the treatment system.
                                            7-2

-------
                                                   Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
        Figure 7-1. Photograph of the Outfall 003 Treatment System Aeration Pond
       Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems (ERG, 2006)

       PBS Coals performed an aeration-only test in November 2005 to determine if chemical
treatment was necessary, or if aeration alone was sufficient to remove iron and manganese to
meet permitted limits. Because the pumped AMD at Outfall 003 is net alkaline with high iron,
aerating the AMD is expected to rapidly precipitate iron. Treatment using aeration alone would
reduce costs by reducing labor costs and eliminating chemical treatment costs.

       During the study, pumped AMD was aerated, followed by settling of solids in Ponds 1
and 2. PBS Coals added caustic to the AMD flowing between Ponds 2 and 3, to ensure
compliance with NPDES permit limits prior to discharge from Pond 3. Table 7-2 lists the metals
concentrations measured in Pond 1 (aeration and precipitation), Pond 2 (aeration and further
precipitation), and Pond 3 (aeration and chemical precipitation).

       The data in Table 7-2 demonstrate that, after aeration and settling in Ponds 1 and 2, iron
concentrations range from 2.2 to 15.3 mg/L, compared to up to 80 mg/L in the untreated,
pumped AMD. The data also demonstrate that after aeration and settling in Ponds 1  and 2,
manganese concentrations range from 5.25 - 15.7 mg/L, compared to up to 17.5 mg/L in the
untreated,  pumped AMD. However, additional retention time and/or further aeration would be
required to meet Part 434 Subpart C effluent limitation guidelines and  standards (ELGs) (daily
maximum iron concentration of 6.0 mg/L and monthly manganese concentration of 2.0 mg/L).
PBS Coals has stated that they could increase retention time by routing the treatment system
through other, existing ponds (Tercek, 2007).
                                          7-3

-------
                                                      Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
            Table 7-2. Treatment Performance of Aeration-Only for Outfall 003
Parameter
Measured a
Acidity b
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Flow (gpm)
Iron
Manganese
pH
Sulfates
Pumped
AMD
Negative
82-210
<0.1- 0.50
Not
Measured
1.8-80
13.7-17.5
6.3-8.6
ND
Aeration
Pond
Discharge
Negative
152-210
O.I -0.34
800 - 1,000
25.3-88
12.5-18.5
6.2-7.3
ND
Pondl
Negative
115-140
ND-0.65
75 - 850
1.1-54.0
9.3-16.5
7.0-8.5
ND
Pond 2
(Aeration
Only)
Negative
70 - 132
O.I -0.25
75 - 850
2.2-15.3
5.25-15.7
6.3-7.6
ND
Pond 3
(Outfall
003, After
Caustic)
Negative
72 - 108
O.I -0.20
500
0.5-1.5
1.8-4.5
8.5-9.2
ND-1715
NPDES
Permit
PA0213772
Limit c
Less than
alkalinity
Greater than
acidity
0.5
NA
1.5
1.0
6-9
Monitoring
Only
Part 434
NSPS
Limitations
Guidelines c
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.0
2.0
6-9
NA
Source: Personal Correspondence with Mr. Mark Tercek, PBS Coals, Inc., and Ms. Jessica Wolford, Eastern
Research Group, Inc. (Tercek, 2007). Data collected from November 26, 2005 to December 12, 2005.
a - Units are mg/L unless otherwise noted.
b - Acidity measures the ability of water to neutralize a base. Negative values indicate net alkalinity.
c - Monthly average NSPS requirements.
ND - Not detected.
NA - Not applicable.

       PBS Coals purchases approximately $160,000 of hydrated lime annually to treat the
1,500 gpm flow (Tercek, 2006). Because PBS Coals is operating chemical precipitation, or
active treatment (see Section 6.1), labor costs include daily treatment system inspections by PBS
Coals engineers, resulting in approximately $35,000 of annual labor costs (Tercek, 2007). Other
annual costs include approximately $72,000 for pumping (Tercek, 2006).  Table 7-3 lists itemized
costs based on correspondence with Mr. Mark Tercek, Vice President of Engineering for PBS
Coals. The aeration-only test that PBS Coals conducted could reduce the annual operating costs
by up to $160,000 (the treatment chemicals cost). However, the aeration-only test did not
achieve iron and manganese Subpart C limits.

      Table 7-3. Annual Operating Costs of Existing Treatment System at Outfall 003
Item
Treatment Chemicals
Pumping (including power requirements)
Labor
Land costs (amortization)
Total Annual Costs
Approximately Annual Cost
$160,000
$72,000
$35,000
$30,000
$275,000 - $297,000
Source: Letter from Mr. Mark Tercek, Vice President of Engineering, PBS Coals, Inc. to the Honorable Kathleen
McGinty, PA DEP, dated November 15, 2006 (Tercek, 2006); Personal correspondence with Mr. Mark Tercek and
Ms. Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group, Inc (Tercek, 2007).
                                            7-4

-------
                                                   Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
7.1.2   PBS Coals Job #1 Treatment

       PBS Coals began mining at this location in 1984. The surface mining, covering roughly
1,800 acres, was completed in 1992 and backfilled in 1994. The seep associated with PBS Job #1
began in the 1990s after reclamation. The resulting discharge is net alkaline, but Part 434 defines
it as AMD because the iron content is greater than or equal to 10 mg/L (ERG, 2006).

       Under normal operations, AMD collects in a sump and is pumped up-gradient for
treatment, because of property constraints. Figure 7-2 shows the lime house and aeration spray,
where the aerator  sprays the water to increase oxygen content and assist metals oxidation.
Figure 7-3 shows  the pumped AMD discharging in the lime house, where lime is added. The
lime mixes by gravity, as the drainage flows through a  channel. Next, water passes through a
series of five unlined settling ponds, where metals precipitate, connected by channels. Sodium
hydroxide is dripped, as needed, into the discharge channel between settling ponds 1 and 2 to
ensure manganese levels comply with permit limitations. PBS Coals operators inspect the
treatment system several times each week. Table 7-4 lists the treated and untreated AMD
characteristics for the discharge (ERG, 2006).

       Metals precipitate in the settling ponds, and sludge is vacuumed from the ponds as
needed using vacuum trucks. Vacuumed sludge is pumped into boreholes in the reclaimed mine
area. When treatment first began in approximately 1995, untreated drainage pH ranged from
roughly 5.5 to 5.7. Currently, untreated drainage pH ranges from roughly 6 to 6.2. PBS believes
that the alkalinity  from the sludge precipitates deposited in the reclaimed mine area have helped
neutralize the pH in the mine drainage (ERG, 2006).
        Figure 7-2. Photograph of the PBS Job #1 Lime House and Aeration Spray
       Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems (ERG, 2006)
                                          7-5

-------
                                                   Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
Figure 7-3. Photograph Inside the PBS Job #1 Lime House: AMD Flow and Lime Addition
       Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems (ERG, 2006)

                  Table 7-4. PBS Coals Job #1 Discharge Characteristics
Parameter a
pH (standard units)
Alkalinity
Iron
Manganese
Untreated Drainage
Characteristics
6.1-6.2
75-88
13.5-15.5
6.3-6.65
Treated Drainage Characteristics
7.7-8.9
47 - 100
0.2-5.25
0.6-5.55
Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems PBS Coals, Inc. Treatment
system summary handout for Job #1 (ERG, 2006).
a - Units are mg/L unless otherwise noted.

       In effort to reduce treatment costs, PBS Coals researched an aeration-only alternative.
Because the AMD at Job #1 is net alkaline with iron, aerating the AMD is expected to rapidly
precipitate iron. PBS Coals performed an aeration-only test in March 2006 to determine if
chemical treatment was necessary, or  if aeration alone was sufficient to remove iron and
manganese to meet permitted limits. Treatment using aeration alone would reduce costs by
reducing labor costs and eliminating chemical treatment costs (ERG, 2006).

       During the aeration-only study, PBS Coals shut off the chemical precipitation treatment
system and used only aeration. PBS Coals mixed aerated water from treatment Pond 1 with
untreated mine drainage from the sump. Drainage flowed by gravity through a series of five
ponds to  the outfall to Clear Run. Prior to the fifth pond, PBS Coals added sodium hydroxide to
comply with effluent permit limits prior to discharge into Clear Run (ERG, 2006).
                                           7-6

-------
                                                    Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
       PBS Coals analyzed the Pond 4 outfall for the typical suite of mine pollutants to evaluate
the performance of aeration-only. Table 7-5 lists the metals concentrations measured in the
untreated AMD, Pond 4 (aeration and precipitation),  and Pond 5 (aeration and chemical
precipitation). After 96 hours of testing, the Pond 4 outfall was saturated with oxygen and iron
levels had decreased by 55 to 60 percent. However, manganese levels did not change
significantly using only aeration. PBS Coals added sodium hydroxide to precipitate the
remaining iron and manganese at Pond 4 (ERG, 2006).

       The data in Table 7-5 demonstrate that, after aeration and settling in Ponds 1, 2, 3, and 4,
iron concentrations range from 2.6 to 6.5 mg/L, compared to up to 15.5 mg/L in the untreated
AMD. The data also demonstrate that, after aeration and settling in Ponds 1, 2, 3, and 4,
manganese concentrations range from 2.1 to 6.5 mg/L, compared to up to 6.65 mg/L in the
untreated AMD. However, additional retention time and/or further aeration would be required to
meet the Subpart C ELGs (monthly average iron concentration of 3.0 mg/L and monthly average
manganese concentration of 2.0 mg/L) (ERG, 2006).

             Table 7-5. Treatment Performance of Aeration-Only for Job #1
Parameter
Measured a
Alkalinity
Flow (gpm)
Iron
Manganese
pH
Untreated AMD
75-88
Pond 4 (Aeration
Only)
69-71
750
13.5-15.5
6.3-6.65
6.1-6.2
2.6-6.5
2.1-6.5
7.1-7.5
Pond 5 (After
Sodium Hydroxide)
47 - 100
Part 434 NSPS
Limitations
Guidelines b
NA
NA
0.20-5.25
0.6-5.55
7.2-9.0
3.0
2.0
6-9
Source: Personal Correspondence with Mr. Mark Tercek, PBS Coals, Inc., and Ms. Jessica Wolford, Eastern
Research Group, Inc. (Tercek, 2007). Data collected from November 26, 2005 to December 12, 2005.
a - Units are mg/L unless otherwise noted.
b - Monthly average NSPS requirements.
NA - Not applicable.

       PBS Coals provided EPA with information on the operating and maintenance costs of the
treatment system during normal operation and during the aeration-only study. From February 1,
2005 through January 31, 2006, PBS Coals spent approximately $50,000 to operate the chemical
precipitation treatment system at Job #1, presented in Table 7-6. The aeration-only test that PBS
Coals conducted could reduce the annual operating costs by up to $19,417 (the treatment
chemicals cost). However, the aeration-only test did not achieve iron and manganese levels
below the permit limits.
                                           7-7

-------
                                                    Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
        Table 7-6. Annual Operating Costs of Existing Treatment System at Job #1
Item
Treatment Chemicals
Labor
Electricity
Repairs and Maintenance
Total Annual Costs
Approximately Annual Cost
$19,417
$12,590
$16,017
$446
$48,470
Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems PBS Coals, Inc. Treatment
system summary handout for Job #1 (ERG, 2006).

7.1.3   PBS Coals Job #8 Treatment

       PBS Coals found three seeps at Job #8 in 1996. The mine drainage is acidic, and the flow
ranges from 2 to 400 gpm. Flow fluctuations tend to be gradual and vary with rainfall. Iron is
only present at low concentrations in one of the seeps, but manganese and aluminum are present
in all three seeps and require treatment to achieve permit compliance.

       Under normal operations, AMD from the three seeps is collected in a basin and sump as
shown in Figure 7-4. From the sump the discharge flows by gravity through a pipe where sodium
hydroxide is added. The sodium hydroxide mixes as the drainage flows by gravity through a
channel, and then through a series of five unlined settling ponds (connected by channels), as
shown in Figure 7-5. Aluminum and manganese precipitate in the settling ponds, and sludge is
vacuumed from the ponds as needed using vacuum trucks. Vacuumed sludge is pumped into
boreholds in the old mine field area. Figure 7-6 shows the white color of the aluminum
precipitate on the bottom of the first settling pond and the vacuum truck removing sludge.
Table 7-7 lists the treated and untreated AMD characteristics for the discharge.

                      Table 7-7. PBS Job #8 Drainage Characteristics
Parameter a
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Flow (gpm)
Hot acidity b
Iron
Manganese
pH (standard units)
Sodium
Sulfate
Total suspended
solids (TSS)
Untreated Drainage Characteristics
Seepl
0-10.8
2.64-38.4
Seep 2
0-58
0.5-48.6
Seep 3
6.8-174.0
0.7-39.2
Treated Drainage
Characteristics
30.0-1055.6
0.5-6.18
2-400
48 - 592
ND-19.9
5.05-98.6
3.2-5.0
<10-10.2
350 - 2440
<3-30
0-512
ND-1.04
0.7 - 100
3.8-6.7
<10
27.8-2859.5
<3-18
-40.2-338.0
ND-2.47
1.93-62.8
4.1-7.7
<10
147.2-1880.8
<3-32
-331.4-0
ND-35.3
<0.05-21.2
6.6-11.0
11->300
337.6-2429.4
<3-40
Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems (ERG, 2006).
a - Units are mg/L unless otherwise noted. Data from 1996 - 2005.
b - Hot acidity measures the ability of water to neutralize a base. Negative values indicate net alkalinity.

-------
                                                    Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
Figure 7-4. Photograph of the Chimney Sump and Collection Basin at PBS Coals Job #8
      Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems (ERG, 2006)
                              Sodium Hydroxide Feed Liiie
                                Faucet for Dose Adjustment
         Figure 7-5. Photograph of Sodium Hydroxide Addition at PBS Job #8
      Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems (ERG, 2006)
                                           7-9

-------
                                                   Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
              Figure 7-6. Photograph of the Three PBS Job #8 Settling Ponds
         White precipitate in Pond 1 is aluminum. The vacuum track is removing sludge from Pond 2.
       Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems (ERG, 2006)

       PBS Coals provided EPA with information on the operating and maintenance costs of the
treatment system. From April 1, 2004 through March 31, 2005, PBS Coals spent approximately
$80,000 to operate the chemical precipitation  treatment system at Job #8, presented in Table 7-8.
        Table 7-8. Annual Operating Costs of Existing Treatment System at Job #8
Item
Treatment Chemicals (Caustic)
Miscellaneous
Total Annual Costs
Approximately Annual Cost
$58,129
$21,262
$48,470
Source: Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid Drainage Treatment Systems PBS Coals, Inc. Treatment
system summary handout for Job #8 (ERG, 2006).

7.2    Model Costs for Passive and Active Treatment Systems

       EPA developed cost modules for the following four treatment technologies using
AMDTreatฎ v.4.1, along with input from the PA DEP, Mr. Brent Means of the Office of Surface
Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement (OSMRE), and Dr. Charles Cravotta of the USGS:

       •     Chemical precipitation with caustic soda (caustic cost module);
       •     Chemical precipitation with hydrated lime (lime cost module);
       •     Limestone bed with a clay liner (limestone bed - clay cost module); and
       •     Limestone bed with a synthetic liner (limestone bed - synthetic cost module).
                                          7-10

-------
                                                   Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
The cost modules are presented as Appendix B (caustic cost module), Appendix C (lime cost
module), and Appendix D (limestone bed - clay cost module and limestone bed - synthetic cost
module).

       The cost modules estimate the cost to treat AMD to achieve two effluent treatment
scenarios:

       1.      Effluent Treatment Scenario 1. Treating the discharge to meet all of the NSPS
              limits in 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C (TSS, pH, iron, and manganese).
       2.      Effluent Treatment Scenario 2. Treating the discharge to meet only the TSS, pH,
              and iron NSPS limitations in 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C (the discharge does not
              meet the NSPS manganese limitations).

Each cost module then calculates the difference between the annualized costs to treat the AMD
for the two effluent treatment scenarios. This cost difference (delta) represents the estimated
expense required to  achieve the 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C NSPS  manganese limit.

       EPA used the cost modules to estimate treatment costs for four raw water quality
scenarios over a range of flows. Table 7-9 lists the raw water quality  inputs used. The flow range
varied from  10 gpm to 1,500 gpm.

                        Table 7-9. Raw Water Quality Scenarios
Raw Water Quality
Scenarios
Net Alkaline, Low Metals
Net Alkaline, High Metals
Net Acidic, Low Metals
Net Acidic, High Metals
Alkalinity
(mg/L)
10
10
0
0
pH
6
6
4
4
Manganese
(mg/L)
5
25
5
25
Iron
(mg/L)a
10
50
10
50
Aluminum
(mg/L)
1
10
1
10
Magnesium
(mg/L)
10
150
10
150
a - EPA assumed all of the iron is ferric iron (Fe+3) for simplicity. This assumption may underestimate the amount
of treatment necessary to remove iron from AMD, because of considerations necessary when ferrous iron is present.

The results of the cost modules for each of the raw water quality scenarios and flow ranges are
summarized below:

       •      In terms of annualized costs, chemical precipitation using caustic soda is
              approximately eight times more expensive than chemical precipitation using
              hydrated lime and two times more expensive than using a limestone bed, both for
              clay and synthetic liners.
       •      The metals content drives the treatment expense for all four technologies
              considered, and it is most expensive to treat AMD containing high metals,
              regardless of alkalinity and pH.
       •      For treatment using chemical precipitation, capital costs are not the driving
              expense. Annual costs, especially annual labor costs at low flows and annual
              chemical costs at high flows, dominate the costs to treat AMD using chemical
              precipitation, for both hydrated lime and caustic.
                                          7-11

-------
                                                      Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
       •      For treatment using a limestone bed, both for clay and synthetic liners, the driving
              expense depends on the treatment flow and raw water quality scenario. For low
              flows, annual costs drive the expense; whereas for high flows, capital costs drive
              the expense. The treatment costs for low flows are dominated either by labor or
              limestone bed turning costs.
       •      Generally, the annualized capital costs and annual costs are both one to five times
              higher to achieve Effluent Treatment Scenario 1 versus Effluent Treatment
              Scenario 2, depending on the untreated raw water quality and treatment
              technology in place.

Figures 7-7 through 7-10 present the estimated difference, or net delta, in costs for each
treatment technology to meet Effluent Treatment Scenario 1 versus Effluent Treatment
Scenario 2. The costs plotted represent the cost to achieve the 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C NSPS
manganese limit for four raw water quality scenarios over a range of flows. Note that the range
of costs (on the y-axis) is different for each graph.  Appendix E presents the results of the cost
modules.
                                                                3Delta is the difference between treating to meet ฃ
                                  Delta3 Annualized Treatment COStS    40 CFR Part 434 limitations and treating to only
                               Chemical Precipitation with Caustic Soda meet the TSS pH and iron limits
       6,000,000
       5,000,000 -
     s,
     S.
     ซ 4,000,000 -
     o
-Net Alkaline, Low Metals
•Net Alkaline, High Metals
-Net Acidic, Low Metals
-Net Acidic, High Metals
                      200
                               400
                                        600       800       1,000
                                             Flow Rate (gpm)
                                                                   1,200
                                                                            1,400
                                                                                     1,600
   Figure 7-7. Annualized Treatment Costs for Chemical Precipitation with Caustic Soda
                                             7-12

-------
                                                                Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
                                      Delta3 Annualized Treatment Costs
                                  Chemical Precipitation with Hydrated Lime
                                                             3Delta is the difference between treating to meet all
                                                             40 CFR Part 434 limitations and treating to only
                                                             meet the TSS, pH, and iron limits.
      800,000
      700,000 --
—C^Net Alkaline, Low Metals
-D- Net Alkaline, High Metals
 A  Net Acidic, Low Metals
 •  Net Acidic, High Metals
                      200        400        600         800        1,000
                                                   Flow Rate (gpm)
                                                                             1,200
                                                                                        1,400
                                                                                                   1,600
Figure 7-8. Annualized Treatment Costs for Chemical Precipitation with Hydrated Lime
                                      Delta3 Annualized Treatment Costs
                                      Limestone Bed with Synthetic Liner
                                                              3Delta is the difference between treating to meet
                                                              all 40 CFR Part 434 limitations and treating to
                                                              only meet the TSS, pH, and iron limits.
      3,000,000
      2,500,000
      •Net Acidic, High Metals
      •Net Acidic, Low Metals
      •Net Alkaline, High Metals
      •Net Alkaline, Low Metals
            0 I
                       200        400        600        800        1,000        1,200       1,400       1,600
                                                   Flow Rate (gpm)

      Figure 7-9. Annualized Treatment Costs for Limestone Bed Using a Clay Liner
                                                    7-13

-------
                                                     Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
                                Delta3 Annualized Treatment Costs
                                  Limestone Bed with Clay Liner
                                             3Delta is the difference between treating to meet E
                                             40 CFR Part 434 limitations and treating to only
                                             meet the TSS, pH, and iron limits.
      3,000,000
      2,500,000
•Net Acidic, High Metals
•Net Acidic, Low Metals
•Net Alkaline, High Metals
-Net Alkaline, Low Metals
                                                       1,000      1,200      1,400      1,600
           0 -,
   Figure 7-10. Annualized Treatment Costs for Limestone Bed Using a Synthetic Liner

7.3    Removal of Non-Regulated Metals Based on Solubility and Literature

       As part of assessing the costs and pollutant removals associated with treating AMD to
remove manganese, EPA used theoretical solubility curves to estimate pollutant co-removal.
Metals with theoretical minimum solubilities at higher pH, for example, would be removed when
treating for manganese. Treating AMD solely for iron may not remove these metals.

       To evaluate the metals concentrations in untreated AMD, EPA used the AMD143
database (see Section 2.5 for additional details onAMDJ43). TheAMDJ43 database includes
sampling data from untreated AMD discharges from abandoned deep mines with large flows in
Pennsylvania, for a wide variety of metals concentrations. Although AMD 143 represents deep
mines with large  flows, the database still provides an overview of the range of metals in AMD.
Table 7-10 reviews the concentrations of selected metals observed in AMD prior to treatment.

      Table 7-10. Untreated Acid Mine Drainage Metal Concentrations from AMD143
Pollutant Parameter a
Aluminum (mg/L)
Cadmium (ug/L)
Calcium (mg/L)
Cobalt (jig/L)
AMD143 Database b
Minimum Value
0.01
0.01
3.30
0.27
Average Value
8.18
0.53
102.46
130.63
Maximum Value
108.00
16.00
410.00
3,100.00
                                            7-14

-------
                                                    Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
      Table 7-10. Untreated Acid Mine Drainage Metal Concentrations from AMD143
Pollutant Parameter a
Copper (ug/L)
Ferrous Iron (mg/L)
Iron (mg/L)
Magnesium (mg/L)
Manganese (mg/L)
Nickel (ug/L)
Zinc (ug/L)
AMD143 Database b
Minimum Value
0.40
O.50
0.05
3.60
0.02
2.60
0.60
Average Value
11.07
11.79
48.10
44.78
5.45
158.45
341.55
Maximum Value
190.00
214.00
512.00
210.00
74.00
3,200.00
10,000.00
Source: AMD143.
a - All 143 outfalls were sampled for each pollutant. Therefore, the number of permits for each pollutant is 143.
b - Exclude zeros except for flow (GPD), total acidity (mg/L), and total alkalinity (mg/L).
< - Indicates the sample result was less than the detection limit.

       Part 434 Subpart C regulates two metals: iron (6.0 mg/L daily maximum and 3.0 mg/L
monthly average) and manganese (4.0 mg/L daily maximum and 2.0 mg/L monthly average). To
achieve these limits, operators adjust pH to precipitate the metals. Each metal will reach
minimum solubility (and maximum precipitation) at different pH levels. Scientists have
determined that iron precipitates best at a pH of approximately 8.3 while manganese precipitates
best at a pH around 10.0. To determine which other metals in Table 7-10 are likely removed
when treating for manganese, EPA compared the theoretical  solubilities.

       Figure 7-11 presents the solubilities of selected metal hydroxides at 25ฐF (Means, 2004).
These solubilities consider only pH and formation of the metal hydroxides. The removal of
metals can also result from the formation of other metal precipitates, co-precipitation, and site-
specific water quality characteristics.

       Aluminum hydroxide and mercury hydroxide both have minimum  solubilities below pH
8.3  and therefore would likely be removed in the same pH range as iron. Cobalt hydroxide,
copper hydroxide, nickel hydroxide, lead hydroxide, and zinc hydroxide have minimum
solubilities at a pH less than or approximately 10.0. These metals would likely have some
removal in the same pH range as iron, with increasing removals at higher pH.

       Stakeholders commented that EPA should review discharges of cadmium and selenium
from coal mines. The minimum solubility of cadmium hydroxide occurs at a pH between 10.5
and 12.5. It is likely that cadmium hydroxide would not be removed in the same pH range as
iron, but would require a higher pH for any removal.  Selenium tends to exist in water as selenite
      -2\
                         -2
(Se(V ) and selenate (Se(V ). Selenite will adsorb to iron hydroxides and precipitate, but neither
selenite nor selenate precipitate as hydroxides (EPRI, 2006). As a result, selenium was not
included in the metal hydroxide solubility curve in Figure 7-11.
                                          7-15

-------
                                                 Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
 o>
 E,
 o
 o>
 _0
 ?
 2
 0)
 u
 c
 o
 O
             — AI(OH)3
              - Ca(OH)2
             — Cd(OH)2
             — Co(OH)2
              -Cu(OH)2
             — Fe(OH)2
              - Fe(OH)3
              -Hg(OH)2
             i— Mg(OH)2
             — Mn(OH)2
              -MnOOH
              -MnO2
             — Ni(OH)2
             — Pb(OH)2
             — Zn(OH)2
                                      PH
                                                   10
12
14
            Figure 7-11. Comparison of Various Metal Hydroxide Solubilities
       Source: Comparison of Three Methods to Measure Acidity of Coal-Mine Drainage (Means, 2004)

7.4    Case Studies of Treatment Costs References

1.      AMD143. Unknown. Sampling Database from 143 Acid Mine Drainage Discharges.
       EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0082.1.

2.      EPRI. Electric Power Research Institute. 2006. EPRI Technical Manual: Guidance for
       Assessing Wastewater Impacts ofFGD Scrubbers. Palo Alto, CA. (December). EPA-HQ-
       OW-2006-0771-0081.

3.      ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2006. Site Visit Report Pennsylvania Coal Mine Acid
       Drainage Treatment Systems. Chantilly, VA. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-
       02487.

4.      Means, Brent and Tiff Hilton. 2004. Comparison of Three Methods to Measure Acidity
       of Coal-Mine Drainage. 2004 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and
       Reclamation. Lexington, KY. Unknown. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0142.

5.      Tercek, Mark. PBS Coals, Inc. 2006. Letter from Mr. Mark Tercek, PBS Coals, Inc., to
       the Honorable Kathleen McGinty, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
       Protection. (November 15). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 04271.
                                        7-16

-------
                                                  Section 7.0 - Case Studies of Treatment Costs
6.      Tercek, Mark. PBS Coals, Inc. 2007. Personal correspondence with Mr. Mark Tercek,
       PBS Coals, Inc., and Ms. Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (May 2). EPA-
       HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 04272.
                                         7-17

-------
                                  Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
8.0    ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADINGS FOR Aero MINE DRAINAGE

       As part of the Coal Mining Detailed Study, EPA estimated current pollutant loadings
from coal mining outfalls that discharge acid mine drainage (AMD) to provide background for
the environmental impacts from AMD. EPA limited its estimates to AMD in Pennsylvania and
West Virginia, because these two states are most affected by AMD (see Figure 5-1 in Section
5.1.2).

       EPA estimated pollutant loadings for AMD using two databases: PADEPInspector and
WVDMR. To limit the analysis to AMD, EPA excluded loadings from outfalls discharging
alkaline mine drainage. EPA's estimates for Pennsylvania are likely minimum estimates due to
the data limitations presented below. Therefore, EPA estimates that AMD from coal mines in
Pennsylvania discharge at least 0.45 million pounds per year of manganese into surface water,
based on available data. EPA estimates that AMD from coal mines in West Virginia discharge
2.4 million pounds per year of manganese into surface water.

       PADEPInspector includes Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA
DEP) mining inspector-collected pollutant concentration measurements representing wastewater
discharges from coal mining treatment plants (effluent discharge). PA DEP said that the mining
inspectors collect more samples from mines they suspect are not meeting their permit
requirements rather than they do from other mines (U.S. EPA, 2007). For the purposes of the
estimated pollutant loadings,  limitations of the data contained in PADEPInspector include the
following:

       •     More samples may be collected for outfalls that have difficulty meeting the permit
             requirements than for compliant outfalls;
       •     The pollutants measured were not consistent, sample to sample;
       •     Discharge type is not included—EPA assumed outfalls with manganese analytical
             data were AMD  (see Section 2.3.3); and
       •     Database may not represent all AMD outfalls (e.g., if data for an AMD discharge
             does not include analytical data for manganese, EPA did not include the outfall in
             the pollutant loadings analysis).

       The WVDMR database contains the reported pollutant concentrations or quantities from
the discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) for coal mines located in West Virginia (WVDMR,
2007).  For the purposes of the estimated pollutant loadings, limitations of the data contained in
WVDMR include the following:

       •     Discharge type is not included—EPA assumed outfalls with manganese analytical
             data were AMD  (see Section 2.4.2).

Based on the data limitations, EPA concluded that the total effluent loadings and average
pollutant loadings per outfall for West Virginia presented in this section represent pollutant
loadings for the entire state.
                                           3-1

-------
                                  Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
8.1    Pollutant Loadings Methodology

       EPA obtained detailed data on coal mining discharges for West Virginia and
Pennsylvania. EPA describes the data sources used in detail in Section 2.0 of this study. EPA
used DMR data submitted to West Virginia (WVDMR database) and inspector-collected data
from Pennsylvania (PADEPInspector database) to estimate the mass of pollutants directly
discharged to surface waters. EPA estimated the pollutant loadings for four pollutants that coal
mines routinely monitor at outfalls with AMD:

       •      Total aluminum;
       •      Total iron;
       •      Total manganese; and
       •      Total suspended solids (TSS).

       Coal Mines with AMD are required by 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C to monitor and meet
effluent limitations for total iron, total manganese, and TSS (see Section 4.1.1 for additional
discussion on ELG limitations).  Mines may also have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit limits for aluminum. Mines also must meet pH limitations in their
NPDES permits; however, pollutant loadings cannot be calculated for pH.

       This section describes  how EPA used the DMR and inspector-collected data for AMD
discharges to estimate the mass and toxicity of pollutants discharged for two scenarios:

       •      Current effluent loadings (Section 8.2). The estimated amount of pollutants in
              coal mining wastewater currently discharged to surface waters (baseline).
       •      Estimated loadings if all outfalls  meet 40  CFR Part 434 Subpart C NSPS
              Limitations (ELG Scenario Loadings) (Section 8.4). The estimated amount of
              pollutants in coal mining wastewater discharged to surface waters if 40 CFR Part
              434 limits are being met. In this scenario, any pollutant concentration above the
              40 CFR Part 434  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) limitation is set at
              the limit. For example, if the reported monthly manganese concentration was 3.0
              mg/L, EPA calculated the manganese load using the 30-day average manganese
              limit of 2.0 mg/L.

The two databases used do not differentiate outfalls by alkaline versus acid discharges; therefore,
EPA identified outfalls representative of AMD discharges at treatment plant  effluent in both
databases.

8.1.1   Outfalls Identified as AMD at Pennsylvania Coal Mines

       PADEPInspector includes 1,809 state primary facility IDs (state permit ID) and 4,624
outfalls. EPA identified 333 outfalls (at 234 state IDs) as AMD representing  the treatment plant
effluent (i.e., excluding monitoring locations with no flow rate). The PADEPInspector database
is a compliance database that only includes samples collected by inspectors and may not include
sampling data for all mines and outfalls. In addition, if manganese samples were not collected by
the inspector at an outfall with AMD,  that outfall would  not be included in the pollutant loadings
analysis. EPA does not have the data available to identify the total number of outfalls with AMD
in the state; therefore, EPA's estimated pollutant loadings represent a minimum discharge

                                          8-2

-------
                                   Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
amount. The number of outfalls with AMD in Pennsylvania may be greater than 333; EPA
identified over 3,000 outfalls with AMD at West Virginia mines.

8.1.2  Outfalls Identified as AMD at West Virginia Coal Mines

       WVDMR represents 1,289 NPDES IDs and 8,934 outfalls. EPA identified 3,295 outfalls
(at 883 NPDES IDs) as AMD representing the treatment plant effluent (i.e., excluding surface
water monitoring locations). As described above, the WVDMR database includes 24 months of
data (April 2003 through March 2005) compared to five years of data in PADEPInspector.
However, WVDMR provides more details on discharges (e.g., 30-day average and daily
maximum values, multiple months of data for all outfalls).

8.1.3  Results of Identifying Outfalls with AMD

       Table 8-1 summarizes the number of permit IDs, 2006 production, and number of outfalls
with AMD included in the pollutant loadings analysis. Note that a single Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) permitted mine may operate under more than one state
permitting ID.

   Table 8-1. Number of SMCRA Permits and 2006 Total Production for All Mines And
       Number of Permit IDs and Outfalls with AMD Represented by WVDMR and
                                     PADEPInspector

SMCRA Permits (Surface and
Underground) a
2006 Total Production (tons) a
State Permit IDs Represented by
Database b
Outfalls with AMD and Corresponding
State Permit IDs in the Database
(Included in the Pollutant Loadings
Analysis) b'c
Percent of State Permit IDs Classified as
AMD and Included in Analysis b'ฐ
West Virginia
Number of
Permits
626
148 million
1,289 d
883d
69%
Number of
Outfalls
—
—
8,934
3,295
37%
Pennsylvania
Number of
Permits
737
75 million
1,809 e
234 e
13%
Number of
Outfalls
—
—
4,624
333
7%
Source: Coal Production Index (OSMRE, 2006); WVDMR; PADEPInspector.
a - From the Coal Production Index (OSMRE, 2006).
b - From the WVDMR or PADEPInspector databases.
c - EPA classified an outfall as AMD if the sampling data included manganese. EPA also limited the number of
outfalls in the analysis to those that represent effluent at the treatment plant. EPA identified treatment plant effluent
outfalls by the flow parameter in WVDMR and by inclusion of only outfalls with flow rates (>0) in
PADEPInspector.
d - Number of NPDES IDs in WVDMR. A mine may discharge under more than one NPDES permit.
e - Number of primary facility IDs in PADEPInspector. A mine may operate under more than one state permitting
ID.

       EPA was able to identify 37 percent of the outfalls as AMD in WVDMR and seven
percent of the outfalls as AMD in PADEPInspector.
                                            8-3

-------
                                  Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
8.2    Current Effluent Loadings

       For each set of analytical data, EPA calculated annual pollutant loadings using the
following steps:

       •      Select the measurement value (Section 8.2.1);
       •      Calculate the monthly load (Section 8.2.2); and
       •      Calculate the annual load (Section 8.2.3).

8.2.1   Measurement Value Selection

       WVDMR included multiple measurement value fields for each pollutant representing the
same sampling month. These include: minimum quantity, average quantity, maximum quantity,
minimum concentration, average concentration, and maximum concentration. EPA selected a
measurement value to use for the loadings analysis based on the following sequence, or
hierarchy:

       1.      Average Quantity;
       2.      Maximum Quantity;
       3.      Average Concentration; and
       4.      Maximum Concentration.

       The PADEPImpector database includes inspector-collected samples at one-day sample
events (i.e., not monthly data). Therefore, all the data collected are maximum concentration
values.

       Appendix F provides the annual average measurement values for each pollutant
parameter (total aluminum, total iron, total manganese, and TSS) and annual average effluent
flow rate by outfall with AMD in WVDMR. Appendix G provides the annual average
concentration values for each pollutant parameter and annual average effluent flow rate by
outfall with AMD in PADEPInspector.

       In a few instances, EPA updated flow rate unit of measurements from the WVDMR
database to correspond with the units listed for the same outfall for other reporting months.
However, EPA did not perform any systematic checks of the data for either database.

       Non-Detect Concentration Measurements

       Non-detect samples are monitoring concentrations analyzed to be below the detection
limit. For reporting purposes, a less than sign (<) and the detection limit are included in the
analytical databases.10 For samples below the detection limit (indicated by a less than sign "<"),
EPA assigned one of two values for the concentration:
10 Only two outfalls included a non-detect quantity sample in the WVDMR database. For each outfall, the non-detect
"reading" applied to one month of TSS sampling. Therefore, EPA did not modify quantities reported based on non-
detect samples.	
                                           8-4

-------
                                  Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
       1.      If all samples for the outfall, parameter, and loadings year were below the
              detection limit, EPA set the concentration (and pollutant loading) for non-detect
              months to zero.
       2.      If at least one sample for the outfall, parameter, and loadings year was above the
              detection limit, EPA multiplied all non-detect sample detection limits (i.e.,
              numerical value reported) by l/2.

8.2.2  Monthly Load Calculation

       To calculate the monthly load for each outfall and pollutant parameter, EPA used
Equation 8-1 for quantity load measurements  and Equation 8-2 for concentration measurements.

                  Monthly Load (Ib/mo) = Quantity (Ib/day) x 30 (days/mo)             (8-1)

            Monthly Load (Ib/mo) = Cone (mg/L) x Flow (MOD) x 3.785 (L/gal)
                             x 2.2046 (Ib/kg) x 30 (days/mo)                         (8-2)

       The data for West Virginia mines include monthly DMR data; however, the data for
Pennsylvania mines include only  one-day sample events. EPA used the Pennsylvania one-day
sample event measurements to represent the entire month. Therefore, the monthly loadings from
Pennsylvania outfalls with AMD  may be higher than actual monthly discharges. In addition, PA
DEP said inspectors tended  to collect samples more often at outfalls suspected to be out of
compliance (U.S. EPA, 2007). However, for the total pollutant loadings estimated for AMD
discharges at Pennsylvania coal mines, EPA concluded the calculated loadings are a minimum
value—additional outfalls with AMD may not be included in this analysis.

       Sensitivity Analysis for Pollutant Loading Outliers

       EPA reviewed the concentration and flow rate values for outfalls and months where the
pollutant loading exceeded 10,000 pounds per month. Flow rates for the discharges were higher
than average, but were determined to be reasonable. EPA expects variations in flow rate from
one outfall to another; therefore, the flow rates were used as reported.

       EPA found that a high pollutant loading did not necessarily correlate with a high
pollutant concentration. However, some high  concentrations may be due to incorrect units
measured or reported. For example, concentration values included in the databases may have
been measured as micrograms per liter (ug/L) rather than mg/L. In those cases, the concentration
value included in the database would be 1,000 times higher than expected. Table 8-2 presents the
effluent median concentrations using monthly average data from WVDMR and data from
PADEPInspector.
                                           $-5

-------
                                  Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
              Table 8-2. Effluent Median Monthly Average Concentrations
Pollutant
Total aluminum
Total iron
Total manganese
TSS
Median Concentration (mg/L)
WVDMR
0.21
0.23
0.12
4.75
PADEP Inspector
0.50
0.30
0.71
8.00
Source: WVDMR; PADEP Inspector.

       To adjust for potential concentration units reporting errors, EPA assumed concentrations
in the database exceeding 100 were in units of ug/L rather than mg/L. For WVDMR, 81 of the
monthly concentrations used to estimate pollutant loadings were greater than 100 mg/L.
Appendix F provides the list of outfalls and concentrations in WVDMR where EPA assumed the
concentration units of measurement were ug/L. For PADEPInspector, 37 of the monthly
provides the list of outfalls and concentrations in PADEPImpector where EPA assumed the
concentration units of measurement were ug/L.

       EPA did not perform any additional systematic checks of the concentration data for either
database.
8.2.3   Annual Load Calculation

       To calculate the annual load for each outfall and pollutant parameter, EPA normalized the
monthly loads (or each sample event) to a 12-month year using Equation 8-3.
                  A     IT   An^i  ^     ^ Monthly Load (lb/mo)x 12
                  Annual Load (Ib/yr) = ——	
                                     No. of Months with Sampling Data
(8-3)
For example, if an outfall included only six months of sampling data for manganese, EPA
summed the manganese loads for those six months and assumed the average monthly manganese
load applied to the six months without measurement values.

       EPA also estimated toxic-pound equivalent (TWPE) pollutant loadings. To calculate
TWPE, EPA multiplies the annual load (Ib/yr) by a toxic weighting factor (TWF). EPA has
developed TWFs for more than 1,900 pollutants based on aquatic life and human health toxicity
data, as well as physical/chemical property data. TWFs account for differences in toxicity across
pollutants and provide the means to compare mass loadings of different pollutants on the basis of
their toxic potential. EPA multiplies a mass loading of a pollutant in pounds per year (Ib/yr) by a
pollutant-specific weighting factor to derive a "toxic-equivalent" loading (Ib-equivalent/yr), or
TWPE. EPA calculated the TWPE for total aluminum, total iron, and total manganese using
Equation 8-4. TWPEs do not apply to conventional pollutants or bulk parameters, including TSS.
                      TWPE (Ib-eq-yr) = Annual Load (Ib/yr) x TWF
(8-4)
       For West Virginia outfalls with AMD, EPA calculated pollutant loadings for two
loadings years (April 2003 through March 2004 and April 2004 through March 2005). For

-------
                                  Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
Pennsylvania outfalls with AMD, EPA calculated pollutant loadings for five loadings years
(annually for 2003 through 2007).

       If a mine did not report any pollutant data for an outfall with AMD during a loadings
year, EPA set the annual pollutant loading equal to the average annual pollutant loading from the
other reporting year(s). EPA determined this was appropriate because once AMD occurs at a
location it typically occurs in perpetuity. For example, if an outfall with AMD for Pennsylvania
has TSS sampling data for 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007, but does not have any data for 2004.
EPA would assume the TSS  loadings for 2004 equals the average TSS loadings for 2003, 2005,
2006, and 2007.

       For some West Virginia outfalls, no data were reported for a particular pollutant for all
loadings years. EPA calculated the median annual loadings for each pollutant using the annual
loadings (see Equation 8-3) for the outfalls that reported a particular pollutant. For the mines that
did not report any pollutant data for an outfall with AMD for all loadings years (e.g., no total
aluminum data in WVDMR), EPA used the following median annual loadings:

       •      Total aluminum: 38.24 Ib/yr;
       •      Total iron: 31.18 Ib/yr;
       •      Total manganese: 19.95 Ib/yr; and
              TSS: 789.20 Ib/yr.

For the outfalls with AMD in Pennsylvania, all outfalls had at least one month of monitoring
data for all four pollutants.

       Appendix H presents the annual pollutant loadings for outfalls with AMD included in
WVDMR. Appendix I presents the annual  pollutant loadings for outfalls with AMD in
PADEPInspector.

8.3    Current Effluent Loadings Results

       After calculating the  annual pollutant loadings, EPA determined the average annual
pollutant loadings for each state. Table 8-3 presents the average annual effluent loadings for each
pollutant, along with the TWPE. EPA used the average annual effluent loadings in Table 8-3 to
estimate the average loadings per outfall.  Table 8-4 presents the average annual pollutant
loadings per outfall with AMD.
                                           3-7

-------
                                      Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
    Table 8-3. Current Annual Effluent Loadings at Mine Outfalls with AMD Located in
                                West Virginia and Pennsylvania
Pollutant
Number of State
Permit IDs and
Outfalls
Current Annual
Effluent Loadings a
(lb/yr)
TWF
TWPE (Ib-eq/yr)
Annual Loadings for AMD Outfalls in West Virginia
Aluminum, total
Iron, total
Manganese, total
TSS
WV Total
883 state permit IDs
(3,295 outfalls)
4.80 million
4.59 million
2.36 million
33.0 million
44.8 million
0.0647
0.0056
0.0704
NA

310,210
25,718
166,523
NA
502,451
Annual Loadings for AMD Outfalls in Pennsylvania
Aluminum, total
Iron, total
Manganese, total
TSS
PA Total
234 state permit IDs
(333 outfalls)
0.24 million
0.54 million
0.45 million
3.95 million
5.2 million
0.0647
0.0056
0.0704
NA

15,753
3,035
31,448
NA
50,236
Sources: WVDMR; PADEPInspector.
a - Prior to adjustment for monthly loadings outliers, the total effluent loadings from West Virginia were 5.16
million lb/yr for total aluminum, 9.36 million lb/yr for total iron, 2.36 million lb/yr for total manganese (no change),
and 34.4 million lb/yr for TSS. Prior to adjustment for monthly loading outliers, the total effluent loadings from
Pennsylvania were 0.24 million lb/yr for total aluminum (no change), 0.73 million lb/yr for total iron, 0.45 million
lb/yr for total manganese (no change), and 4.90 million lb/yr for TSS.
TWF - Toxic weighting factor.
TWPE - Toxic-weighted pound equivalent.
TSS - Total suspended solids.
NA - Not applicable. TSS does not have a TWF because it is not considered a toxic pollutant. Therefore, EPA can
not calculate the toxic-weighted pound equivalent of TSS.
        Table 8-4. Current Average Annual Effluent Loadings Per Outfall with AMD
Pollutant
Current Annual Effluent Loadings
(lb/yr)
TWPE (Ib-eq/yr)
Average Annual Loadings Per WV AMD Outfall
Aluminum, total
Iron, total
Manganese, total
TSS
Total
1,455
1,393
718
10,007
13,573
94.1
7.8
50.5
NA
152

-------
                                 Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
       Table 8-4. Current Average Annual Effluent Loadings Per Outfall with AMD
Pollutant
Current Annual Effluent Loadings
(lb/yr)
TWPE (Ib-eq/yr)
Average Annual Loadings Per PA AMD Outfall
Aluminum, total
Iron, total
Manganese, total
TSS
Total
731
1,628
1,341
11,859
15,559
47.3
9.1
94.4
NA
151
Source: WVDMR; and PADEPInspector.
TWPE - Toxic-weighted pound equivalent.
TSS - Total suspended solids.
NA - Not applicable. TSS does not have a TWF because it is not considered a toxic pollutant. Therefore, EPA can
not calculate the TWPE.

8.4    Estimated Effluent Loadings if All Outfalls Meet 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C NSPS
       Limitations (ELG Scenario Loadings)

       EPA's comparison of effluent concentrations and 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C NSPS
limitations (Tables 5-7 through 5-10 in Section 5.2) shows that there are outfalls that discharge
above the ELG limitations. As part of the loadings analysis, EPA estimated the annual pollutant
loadings expected if all outfalls met the NSPS 30-day average limitation for all months during
the year. To estimate the ELG Scenario Loadings,  EPA followed the same steps as described in
Section 8.2.

8.4.1   Measurement Value Selection

       EPA reviewed the measurement values selected as part of the current effluent loadings
analysis. If a quantity load measurement was used, EPA assumed the concentration value met the
NSPS limits at 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C. Less than one percent of the monthly samples were
represented by quantity load measurements. If a concentration measurement was used, EPA
compared the value to the limitation and did one of the following:

       1.     If the concentration was below or equal to the limitation, the measurement value
             was used.
       2.     If the concentration exceeded the limit, EPA set the measurement value for the
             ELG Scenario Loadings analysis equal to the 30-day average limitation: 3.0 mg/L
             for total iron,  2.0 mg/L for total manganese, and 35 mg/L for TSS.

8.4.2   Monthly and Annual Load Calculation

       EPA calculated the monthly and annual pollutant loadings as outlined in Sections 8.2.2
and 8.2.3. A sensitivity analysis did not need to be performed on the ELG Scenario Loadings
monthly load calculations. The concentrations for total iron, total manganese, and  TSS used for
the ELG Scenario Loadings are already adjusted to be no greater than the 40 CFR  Part 434
Subpart C NSPS limitations.
                                         8-9

-------
                                   Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
       As discussed in Section 8.2.3, some West Virginia outfalls did not report data for a
particular pollutant for any month. For those outfalls EPA used the following median annual
loadings for the ELG Scenario Loadings calculation:

       •      Total iron: 30.93 Ib/yr;
       •      Total manganese: 19.71 Ib/yr; and
              TSS: 7571b/yr.

8.4.3  EL G Scenario Loadings Results

       Table 8-5 presents the estimated ELG Scenario Loadings for each pollutant, along with
the TWPE. Table 8-6 presents the average ELG Scenario Loadings per outfall with AMD.

   Table 8-5. Estimated ELG Scenario Loadings at Mine Outfalls with AMD Located in
                              West Virginia and Pennsylvania
Pollutant
Number of State
Permit IDs and
Outfalls
ELG Scenario
Loadings (Ib/yr)
TWF
TWPE (Ib-eq/yr)
Annual Loadings for AMD Outfalls in West Virginia
Aluminum, total
Iron, total
Manganese, total
TSS
WV Total
883 state permit IDs
(3,295 outfalls)
4.80 million
3.84 million
1.81 million
32.05 million
42.5 million
0.0647
0.0056
0.0704
NA

310,210
21,514
127,356
NA
459,080
Annual Loadings for AMD Outfalls in Pennsylvania
Aluminum, total
Iron, total
Manganese, total
TSS
PA Total
234 state permit IDs
(333 outfalls)
0.24 million
0.27 million
0.16 million
3.2 million
3.9 million
0.0647
0.0056
0.0704
NA

15,753
1,500
11,085
NA
28,338
Sources: WVDMR; PADEPInspector.
TWF - Toxic weighting factor.
TWPE - Toxic-weighted pound equivalent.
TSS - Total suspended solids.
NA - Not applicable. TSS does not have a TWF because it is not considered a toxic pollutant. Therefore, EPA can
not calculate the toxic-weighted pound equivalent of TSS.
                                            8-10

-------
                                   Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
   Table 8-6. Estimated ELG Scenario Loadings Average Annual Effluent Loadings Per
                                    Outfall with AMD
Pollutant
ELG Scenario Loadings (Ib/yr)
TWPE (Ib-eq/yr)
Average Annual Loadings Per WV AMD Outfall
Aluminum, total
Iron, total
Manganese, total
TSS
Total
1,455
1,166
549
9,726
12,896
94.1
6.5
38.7
NA
139.3
Average Annual Loadings Per PA AMD Outfall
Aluminum, total
Iron, total
Manganese, total
TSS
Total
731
804
473
9,693
11,701
47.3
4.5
33.3
NA
85.1
Sources: WVDMR; PADEPInspector.
TSS - Total suspended solids.
TWPE - Toxic-weighted pound equivalent.
NA - Not applicable. TSS does not have a TWF because it is not considered a toxic pollutant. Therefore, EPA can
not calculate the TWPE.

8.5    Pollutant Loadings Summary

       EPA does not have the data available to identify the total number of AMD outfalls for
each state, therefore the total state annual loadings presented may not include all AMD
discharges. EPA identified 3,295 AMD outfalls in the West Virginia database (WVDMR) and
333 AMD outfalls in the Pennsylvania database (PADEPInspector).

       EPA found that the average pollutant loading for total aluminum, total iron, total
manganese and TSS at an AMD outfall falls between 13,000 and 16,000 pounds per year (151 to
152 Ib-eq/yr). Discharges from all the AMD outfalls in WVDMR (3,295 outfalls) total 44.8
million Ib/yr (502,451 Ib-eq/yr). The number of AMD outfalls m PADEP Inspector is about one-
tenth of those in WVDMR (333 outfalls). The pollutant loadings from all the AMD outfalls in
PADEPInspector total 5.2 million Ib/yr (50,236 Ib-eq/yr). Most of the pounds discharged are
TSS; however the TWPE discharges (Ib-eq/yr) include only the three metal parameters: total
aluminum, total iron, and total manganese because TSS does not have a TWF.

       Table 8-7 presents the current annual effluent loadings, ELG Scenario Loadings, and the
difference between the two data sets.
                                           8-11

-------
                                  Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
   Table 8-7. Comparison of Current Effluent Loadings and ELG Scenario Loadings at
                                Mine Outfalls with AMD
Pollutant
Current Effluent Loadings
Lbs/Yr
TWPE, Ib-
eq/yr
ELG Scenario Loadings
Lbs/Yr
TWPE, Ib-
eq/yr
Difference in Pollutant
Loadings if All Outfalls Met
40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C
NSPS Limitations
Lbs/Yr
TWPE, Ib-
eq/yr
Average Annual Loadings for AMD Outfalls in West Virginia
Aluminum, total
Iron, total
Manganese,
total
TSS
WV Total
4.80 million
4.59 million
2.36 million
33.0 million
44.8 million
310,210
25,718
166,523
NA
502,451
4.80 million
3.84 million
1.81 million
32.05 million
42.5 million
310,210
21,514
127,356
NA
459,080
0
0.75 million
(16%)
0.55 million
(23%)
0.95 million
(3%)
2.3 million
(5%)
0
4,204
39,167
NA
43,371
(9%)
Average Annual Loadings for AMD Outfalls in Pennsylvania
Aluminum, total
Iron, total
Manganese,
total
TSS
PA Total
0.24 million
0.54 million
0.45 million
3.95 million
5.2 million
15,753
3,035
31,448
NA
50,236
0.24 million
0.27 million
0.16 million
3.2 million
3.9 million
15,753
1,500
11,085
NA
28,338
0
0.27 million
(50%)
0.29 million
(64%)
0.75 million
(19%)
1.3 million
(25%)
0
1,535
20,363
NA
21,898
(44%)
Source: WVDMR; PADEPInspector.
TWPE - Toxic-weighted pound equivalent.
TSS - Total suspended solids.
NA - Not applicable. TSS does not have a TWF because it is not considered a toxic pollutant. Therefore, EPA can
not calculate the TWPE.

       EPA's ELG Scenario Loadings (i.e., discharges assuming all outfalls equal or fall below
40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C NSPS 30-day average limitations) indicates that 2.3 million Ib/yr
from WVDMR outfalls with AMD and 1.3 million Ib/yr from PADEPInspector outfalls with
AMD are a result of discharges with concentrations higher than the ELGs. In terms of TWPE,
the amount of baseline discharges resulting from discharges with concentrations higher than  the
ELGs are 43,371 Ib-eq/yr for WVDMR outfalls with AMD and 21,898 Ib-eq/yr for
PADEPInspector outfalls with AMD.

8.6    Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage References

1.     OSMRE. U.S. Department of Interior. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
       Enforcement. 2006. Coal Production Index.  Washington, DC. (November 4). Available
       online at: http://www.osmre.gov/coalprodindex.htm. Date accessed: March 5, 2007.
       EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 -0044.
                                          8-12

-------
                                Section 8.0 - Estimated Pollutant Loadings for Acid Mine Drainage
2.     PADEPInspector. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2008.
      Treatment Facility Monitoring Data for Coal Mining Inspectable Units. (January 14).
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN05981A1.

3.     U. S. EPA. 2006.  Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program
      Plan. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782.

4.     U.S. EPA. 2007.  Conference Call between Bob Agnew, Keith Brady, and Mike Smith,
      Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Tom Born, U.S. EPA, and Jill
      Lucy and Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (December 11). EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771 DCN 05983.

5.     WVDMR. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. Discharge
      Monitoring Reports for Coal Mines from April 2003 through March 2006. Charleston,
      WV. (Unknown). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0074.
                                        8-13

-------
                                 Section 9.0 - Environmental Impacts from Acid Coal Mine Drainage
9.0    POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM Aero COAL MINE DRAINAGE

       Due to data limitations, EPA was able to conduct only a very limited analysis of potential
impacts from total dissolved solids (TDS) (e.g., sulfates and chlorides), mercury, cadmium,
manganese, and selenium in order to respond to comments that more stringent controls on these
pollutants may be warranted.

       EPA reviewed readily available literature and analyzed coal mine drainage information
provided by Pennsylvania and West Virginia in order to better understand the potential for
human health and aquatic life effects of these pollutants. EPA found limited information
concerning documented environmental impacts. The discharge data provided by the states was
difficult to use for the purpose of assessing potential impacts because of the small sample sizes
for certain pollutants and inconsistencies across the data sets due to different collection purposes.

       Moreover, EPA found no evidence in its literature review or through conversations with
Pennsylvania and West Virginia state agencies to support comments that over-dosages or spills
of treatment chemicals have caused fish kills or other significant stream damage.

9.1    AMD Environmental Impacts

       AMD forms  as stormwater and groundwater flow in mined areas, eventually discharging
to surface water, typically headwater streams (U.S. EPA, 2001). Section 5.1.2 of this study
describes AMD formation and wastewater characteristics in more detail. As a result of AMD,
surface water throughout Appalachia is impaired (U.S. EPA, 2001), and even groundwater is
impaired (McAuley, 2006).

       In stream waters with low pH and elevated11 iron concentrations, streambeds are
typically coated with ferric iron ("yellow boy") and aquatic life is limited or not present (U.S.
EPA, 2001). Scientists have documented the impacts of acidity and iron on surface water
throughout the United States (U.S. EPA, 2006a). Acidity mobilizes metals and causes the most
aquatic toxicity and fish kills in streams impacted by coal mine drainage (U.S. EPA, 2005).

       As discussed in the U.S. EPA 2006 Wadeable Streams Assessment, 2 percent of U.S.
stream length (14,763 miles) is impacted by anthropogenic acidification.  In Appalachia (the
Eastern Highlands region), 3.4 percent (9,396 miles) of stream length is impacted (U.S. EPA,
2006a). Figure 9-1 shows the streams impacted by AMD in EPA Region 3 as of 1995.  The red
lines are streams with no fish, while the blue lines are streams with reduced quantity offish due
to AMD discharges. Additionally, in 1996 the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection identified  17 of 51 priority streams in the state that were impacted by AMD, while
469 non-priority streams were identified as impacted by AMD (Faulkner, 1998).
11 Above the 40 CFR Part 434 NSPS limitations (3.0 mg/L 30-day average and 6.0 mg/L daily maximum).
                                          9-1

-------
                                  Section 9.0 - Environmental Impacts from Acid Coal Mine Drainage
   Figure 9-1. Distribution of Streams Impacted by Acid Mine Drainage in EPA Region 3
                Source: Acid Mine Drainage Inventory in West Virginia (Faulkner, 1998).

9.2    Water Quality Criteria

       In this study, EPA compared concentrations of pollutants in AMD to national and state
water quality criteria. The water quality criteria are used in conjunction with the Coal Mining
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) in Part 434 to determine permit limits for
coal mines, as described in  Section 4.1. EPA establishes National Regional Water Quality
Criteria (NRWQC) as required by Section 304(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
NRWQC are based on data and scientific judgments on pollutant concentrations and
environmental or human health effects. The CWA requires numeric water quality criteria for
priority toxic pollutants and any pollutant that would interfere with or degrade a water body's
use. For each pollutant, EPA recommends criteria for the following (U.S. EPA, 2006b):

       •      Freshwater:  acute and chronic;
       •      Saltwater: acute and chronic; and
       •      Human health for the consumption of:
              —    Water plus organism; and
              —     Organism only.

       States are also required to establish water quality criteria by Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the
CWA for the pollutants that EPA has published criteria. States can establish water quality criteria
by completing the following:
                                           9-2

-------
                                 Section 9.0 - Environmental Impacts from Acid Coal Mine Drainage
       •     Adopting the criteria that EPA publishes under Section 304(a) of the CWA;
       •     Modifying the Section 304(a) criteria to reflect site-specific conditions; or
       •     Adopting criteria based on other scientifically-defensible methods.

       For each pollutant, states can choose to adopt EPA's criteria for one environmental
impact but establish a criterion for the other impacts. For example, a state may adopt EPA's
freshwater criteria for a pollutant but determine a criterion for human health consumption based
on other scientific data. States also have the option of establishing criteria for pollutants that EPA
has not published criteria. Pennsylvania and West Virginia established their own water quality
criteria, some of which are based on the NRWQC.

       As part of this review of AMD environmental impacts, EPA compared the effluent
pollutant concentrations for five pollutants to federal and state water quality criteria for
Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where available. Table 9-1 lists the simplified water quality
criteria while Table 9-2 presents the effluent AMD concentrations for the five pollutants raised in
stakeholder comments. Table 9-1 presents federal and state water quality criteria in a simplified
form: it presents only the lowest criteria for each pollutant to compare them to the concentrations
in the effluent AMD.

9.3    Potential Impacts from Manganese in Coal Mine Drainage

       EPA was able to find only very limited peer-reviewed information on the aquatic toxicity
of manganese. EPA did not identify studies of the long-term effects of manganese concentrations
on the diversity of the aquatic organism population.

       In general, manganese discharges to surface water may have varying effects depending
on the hardness of the receiving water body. The State of Colorado, for example, considers
hardness when determining water-quality based limits for manganese (5 CO State Code ง1002-
31). Aquatic species' manganese uptake has been shown to increase with temperature and
decrease with pH, relating toxicity to pH and temperature (WHO, 2004). These varying water
chemistry factors make it  difficult to draw conclusions about the overall potential for manganese
impacts without considering the chemistry of individual receiving water bodies.

       EPA identified three studies which documented the following human health effects from
manganese:

       •     Time to Re-evaluate the Guideline Value for Manganese in Drinking Water?
             (Ljung and Vahter, 2007): Inhalation and ingestion can have neurological effects.
       •     Effect of Enhanced Manganese Oxidation in the Hyporheic Zone on Basin-Scale
             GeochemicalMass Balance (Hafeman et a/., 2007): In Bangladesh, manganese in
             groundwater possibly increases infant mortality.
                                          9-3

-------
                                                                            Section 9.0 - Environmental Impacts from Acid Coal Mine Drainage
                                 Table 9-1. Water Quality Criteria for AMD Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Cadmium
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Total Sulfates b
Federal
Criteria
0.00025 mg/L
0.05-O.lmg/L
0.00077 mg/L
0.005 mg/L
Basis
Aquatic
PWS (organoleptic
effects)
Aquatic (0.3 mg/kg
human health)
Aquatic (0.17 mg/L
human health)
West Virginia
Criteria
Depends on hardness.
1 mg/L
0.00014-0.00015
mg/L
0.005 mg/L
Basis
Aquatic
Human Health
Human Health
Aquatic
No federal or West Virginia water quality criteria established
Pennsylvania
Criteria
0.0005 mg/L
1 mg/L
0.000005 mg/L
0.0046
250 mg/L
Basis
Aquatic
PWS
Human Health
Aquatic
PWS
Sources: National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (U.S. EPA, 2006b); 25 PA Code ง93.7; 47 WV Code ง2-8.
a - Only the lowest (most stringent) criteria are shown for each pollutant. See 25 PA Code ง93.7 and 47 WV Code ง2-8 for the full list, including the basis and
values for acute, chronic, aquatic, and human health criteria.
b - The total sulfates concentration is an indicator for total dissolved solids.
PWS - Potable water supply.


                             Table 9-2. Effluent AMD Concentrations for AMD Pollutants of Concern a
Pollutant
Cadmium
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Total
Sulfates c
PADEPInspector Database
Total
Number of
Data Points
7
4,317
7
7
4,321
Number of
Data Points
BDL
1
403
7
6
24
Minimum
Result
(mg/L)
0.0064
0.01
NA
0.0013
20.10
Average
Result
(mg/L)
0.0095
4.96
NA
0.0013
889.91
Maximum
Result
(mg/L)
0.013
114.00
NA
0.0013
11,349.20
WVDMR Database
Total
Number of
Data Points
39
41,859
236
1,290
164
Number of
Data Points
BDL
3
4,166
9
166
0
Minimum
Result
(mg/L)
0.000001
0.001
0.0000001
0.0000004
7.72
Average
Result
(mg/L)
0.0013
0.60
0.15
0.59
444.93
Maximum
Result
(mg/L)
0.01
80.50
1.00b
35.37
4,507.00
Sources: PADEPInspector; WVDMR.
a - Concentrations observed in effluent AMD (after treatment, just prior to discharge to streams).
b - This range excludes an outlier of 5 mg/L.
c - The total sulfates concentration is an indicator for total dissolved solids.
BDL - Below detection limit.
NA - Not applicable. All of the results were BDL.

                                                                    9-4

-------
                                  Section 9.0 - Environmental Impacts from Acid Coal Mine Drainage
       •      Toxicological Profile for Manganese (ATSDR, 2000): Manganese in drinking
              water (as low as 0.241 mg/L in drinking water) can have adverse neurological
              effects in children.12

       The NRWQC for total manganese for the consumption of water and organisms is
0.050 mg/L, which is the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation limit.13 This
recommended limit is not based on toxic effects, but rather is intended to minimize objectionable
organoleptic effects (U.S. EPA, 2006b). In addition, the NRWQC also lists a human health limit
of 0.100 mg/L for the consumption of organisms only (see Table 9-1). The NRWQC does not
provide any recommendation for acute or chronic criteria for salt or freshwater (U.S. EPA,
2006b). Pennsylvania and West Virginia have each set their water quality criteria for potable
water supplies at 1 mg/L total recoverable manganese (25  PA Code ง93.7; 47 WV Code ง2-8).
However, both states are flexible in considering the distance from potable water intakes in
determining their permit limitations (see Section 4.1.2).

       The data provided to EPA by Pennsylvania and West Virginia indicate varying
concentrations of manganese in AMD discharges, with manganese concentrations ranging from
below the detection limit to 114 mg/L in treated drainage,  and from below the detection limit to
more than 500 mg/L in untreated drainage (PADEPInspector; WVDMR; ARAMD). In typical
streams without mine drainage influence, the manganese concentration is generally less than
0.2 mg/L (WHO, 2004). Toxic effects have been shown to start occurring around 2 mg/L (WHO,
2004).

9.4    Potential Impacts of Cadmium in Coal Mine Drainage

       EPA found no documentation of impacts from cadmium in Appalachian coal mine
drainage. Concentrations of cadmium that can cause acute toxicity in aquatic organisms range
from 0.001 mg/L to 135 mg/L according to EPA's NRWQC. For freshwater aquatic plants, the
range is from 0.002 to 7.4 mg/L. Chronic cadmium exposure can result in declines in growth and
reproduction or death of aquatic organisms (U.S. EPA, 2006b).

       The cadmium NRWQC are based on the following (U.S. EPA, 2006b):

       •      Human health protection from ingestion of water and contaminated organisms:
              0.01  mg/L.
       •      Four-day average concentration (in mg/L) in freshwater is not to exceed
              (0.0007852 [ln(hardness)]-3.490) more than once every  three years.
       •      One-hour concentration (in ug/L) in freshwater is not to exceed (0.001128
              [ln(hardness)]-3.828) more than once every three years.
12 EPA also reviewed the Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 63: Manganese and Its
Compounds: Environmental Aspects (CICAD 63) by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2004). The CICAD 63
refers readers to the Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 12: Manganese and Its Compounds
(CICAD 12) for information on the human health effects from manganese (WHO, 1999). EPA reviewed the CICAD
12 and determined that the information contained within and references were the same as provided in the
Toxicological Profile for Manganese (ATSDR, 2000).
13 National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations set limits above which cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth
discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) may occur in drinking water. However, secondary
regulations are not enforceable.	
                                           9-5

-------
                                Section 9.0 - Environmental Impacts from Acid Coal Mine Drainage
       •      Four-day average concentration in saltwater is not to exceed 0.0093 mg/L more
             than once every three years.
       •      One-hour concentration in saltwater is not to exceed 0.043 mg/L more than once
             every three years.

       As presented in Table 9-2, the limited data provided to EPA by Pennsylvania and West
Virginia indicate that total cadmium concentrations in treated AMD ranged from below the
detection limit to 0.01 mg/L. Pennsylvania and West Virginia, however, rarely sample for
cadmium in coal mine discharges.

9.5    Potential Impacts of Mercury in Coal Mine Drainage

       EPA found no documentation of impacts from mercury in Appalachian coal mine
drainage. EPA requires mercury concentrations in drinking water to be less than 0.002 mg/L (40
CFR Part 141). Concentrations of mercury that can cause acute toxicity in aquatic organisms
range from 0.0022 mg/L to 2 mg/L according to EPA's NRWQC. The most toxic form of
mercury is methylmercury, which is formed when microorganisms bind non-biologically
available forms of mercury with organic  molecules in the environment to convert it to a
biologically available form. Methylmercury can bioconcentrate, leading to severe chronic human
health and aquatic impacts  (U.S. EPA, 2006b).

       The dissolved mercury NRWQC  are based on the following (U.S. EPA, 2006b):

       •      Human health protection from ingestion of water and contaminated  organisms:
             0.000144 mg/L.
       •      Human health protection from consumption of contaminated aquatic organisms
             alone: 0.000146 mg/L
       •      Four-day average concentration in freshwater is not to exceed 0.000025 mg/L
             more than once every three years.
       •      One-hour concentration in freshwater is not to exceed 0.0024 mg/L  more than
             once every three years.
       •      Four-day average concentration in saltwater is not to exceed 0.000012 mg/L more
             than once every three years.
       •      One-hour concentration in saltwater is not to exceed 0.0021 mg/L more than once
             every three years.

       As presented in Table 9-2, the data provided to EPA by Pennsylvania and West Virginia
indicate that total mercury concentrations in treated AMD range from below the detection limit
to 1 mg/L. Pennsylvania and West Virginia, however, rarely sample for mercury in coal  mine
discharges.

9.6    Potential Impacts from Selenium in Coal Mine Drainage

       Recent United States Geological  Survey studies indicate that selenium in varying
concentrations has the potential to occur  with coal seams throughout the Appalachian region
(USGS, 2005; USGS, 2007). The 2003 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for
mountain top mining and valley fills concluded that there is the potential for selenium from
                                          9-6

-------
                                 Section 9.0 - Environmental Impacts from Acid Coal Mine Drainage
valley fills to impact the aquatic environment and possibly to effect higher organisms that feed
on aquatic organisms (U.S. EPA, 2003).

       Selenium affects both aquatic life and human health. Concentrations above the draft
NRWQC for selenium (0.005 mg/L) for aquatic organisms could impact fish reproduction and
birds that prey on fish. Selenium may not impact macroinvertebrates directly, but will
bioaccumulate in the food chain in both lentic (running water) and lotic (standing water) aquatic
systems (U.S. EPA, 2005). Although essential to mammals in small amounts, it rapidly becomes
toxic (Bryant et al., 2002).

       The draft selenium NRWQC are based on the following (U.S. EPA, 2006b):

       •      0.005 mg/L for chronic aquatic toxicity. This recommended water quality
              criterion for selenium is expressed in terms of total recoverable metal in the water
              column. It is scientifically acceptable to use the conversion factor (0.996- CMC or
              0.922- CCC) that was used in the GLI to convert this to a value that is expressed
              in terms of dissolved metal.
       •      0.17 mg/L for human health for both water and organism consumption.

Pennsylvania established water quality criteria for selenium of 0.00461 mg/L, as well (25 PA
Code ง16.61).

       As presented in Table 9-2, data provided to EPA by Pennsylvania and West Virginia
indicate that total selenium concentrations in treated AMD range from below the detection limit
to 35.37 mg/L, though the Pennsylvania database is very limited.

9.7    Potential Impacts from Total Dissolved Solids in Coal Mine Drainage

       Recent research conducted by EPA Region 3 and EPA's Office of Research and
Development have concluded that surface mining with valley fills has impaired the aquatic life
of numerous streams in the Central Appalachian Mountains due to high levels of common
constituents of TDS such as bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, and sulfate. TDS can disrupt
water balance and ion exchange processes causing stress or death of aquatic organisms.  TDS
concentrations tend to be higher downstream of valley fills in mountaintop mining. More
specifically, the research found that in streams receiving valley fill mine drainage, entire orders
of aquatic organisms, such as mayflies which are common indicator of aquatic health, were
nearly eliminated. Further studies are being  conducted to better understand the geographic
extent, magnitude, and aquatic life impacts of TDS in coal mining  discharges (Pond et al., 2008)

       For the purpose of this study, EPA reviewed information about sulfates because  it is a
potential component of TDS in Appalachian coal mining areas. Ambient fresh water sulfate
concentrations range from 5 to 20 mg/L. Sulfates concentrations in mining areas can range from
50 to thousands of mg/L, depending on oxidation rates, amounts of sulfide materials present in
overburden material, and the extent of mining disturbance (U.S. EPA, 2003). EPA has not
developed NRWQC for sulfates. Pennsylvania, however,  set water quality standards of 250
mg/L, based on impacts to  streams serving as potable water supply (25 PA Code ง93.7). As
presented in Table 9-2, data provided to EPA by Pennsylvania and West Virginia indicate that
total sulfate concentrations in AMD ranged  from below the detection limit to 11,349 mg/L.

                                          9-7

-------
                                Section 9.0 - Environmental Impacts from Acid Coal Mine Drainage
9.8   Potential Environmental Impacts from Acid Coal Mine Drainage References

1.     ATSDR. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological Profile
      for Manganese. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
      Atlanta, GA. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0497.

2.     Bryant, G., S. McPhilliamy and H. Childers. 2002. Final Report: A Survey of the Water
      Quality of Streams in the Primary Region ofMountaintop/Valley Fill Coal Mining
      October 1999 to January 2001. (April 8). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05576.

3.     Faulkner, Ben and Jeff Skousen. Acid Mine Drainage Inventory in West Virginia. Fall
      1998. Available online at http://www.wvu.edu/~Agexten/landrec/acidmine.htm. Date
      accessed: September 20, 2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0537.

4.     Hafeman, D., P.F. Litvak, Z. Cheng, A. van Geen, H. Ahsan. 2007. Association between
      Manganese Exposure through Drinking Water and Infant Mortality in Bangladesh.
      Environmental Health Perspectives. (July 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05586.

5.     Ljung, K. and M. Vahter. 2007. Time to Re-evaluate the Guideline Value for Manganese
      in Drinking Water? Environmental Health Perspectives 115(11) 1533-1538. (July 25).
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05589.

6.     McAuley, S.D. and M.D. Kozar. 2006. USGS Ground-Water Quality in Unmined Areas
      and Near Reclaimed Surface Coal Mines in the Northern and Central Appalachian Coal
      Regions, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. 11 p. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771  DCN 05591.

7.     PADEPInspector. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2008.
      Treatment Facility Monitoring Data for Coal Mining Inspectable Units. Harrisburg,  PA.
      (January 14). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN05981A1.

8.     Pond, Gregory J., et. Al. 2008. "Downstream Effects of Mountaintop Coal  Mining:
      Comparing Biological Conditions Using Family- and Genus-Level Macroinvertebrate
      Bioassessment Tools." Journal of North American Benthological Society. 27(3):717-737.
      (July 8). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 06110.

9.     USGS. 2005. United States Geological Survey. Spatial Trends in Ash Yield, Sulfur,
      Selenium, and Other Selected Trace Element Concentrations in Coal Beds  of the
      Appalachian Plateau Region, U.S.A. Open File Report 2005-1330. Reston, VA.
      Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1330/. EPA-HW-OW-2006-0771 DCN
      06105.

10.   USGS. 2007. United States Geological Survey. Selenium Concentrations in Middle
      Pennsylvanian Coal-Bearing Strata in the Central Appalachian Basin. Open File Report
      2007-1090. Reston, VA. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1090/. EPA-
      HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 06106.
                                         9-8

-------
                               Section 9.0 - Environmental Impacts from Acid Coal Mine Drainage
11.    U. S. EPA. 2001. Coal Remining - Best Management Practices Guidance Manual. EPA-
      821-B-01-010. Washington, D.C. (December). Available online at:
      http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/coal/bmp/.

12.    U. S. EPA. 2003. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Washington
      D.C. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/Region3/mtntop/eis.htm.

13.    U. S. EPA. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic
      Environmental Impact Statement. EPA 9-03-R-05002 EPA Region 3. Philadelphia, PA.
      (October). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/Region3/mtntop/pdf/mtm-
      vf_fpeis_full-document.pdf. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05566.

14.    U.S. EPA. 2006a. Wadeable Streams Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's
      Streams. EPA-841-F-06-001. Office of Water. Washington D.C. (December). Available
      online at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/wsa/factsheet_l0_25_06.pdf. EPA-HQ-
      OW-2006-0771 DCN 05567.

15.    U.S. EPA. 2006b. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Office of Water.
      Washington D.C. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nrwqc-
      2006.pdf. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 04647.

16.    WHO. World Health Organization. 2004. Concise International Chemical Assessment
      Document 63: Manganese and its Compounds: Environmental Aspects. P.D. Howe, H.M.
      Malcolm, and S. Dobson. Geneva, Switzerland. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0172.

17.    WHO. World Health Organization.  1999. Concise International Chemical Assessment
      Document 12: Manganese and its Compounds. M Williams-Johnson. Atlanta, Georgia.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 06131.

18.    WVDMR. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Discharge
      Monitoring Report Data for Coal Mines in West Virginia. Charleston, WV. (June 14).
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 -0074.
                                         9-9

-------
                           Section 10.0 - The Role of Manganese Treatment Costs in Bond Forfeitures
10.0   THE ROLE OF MANGANESE TREATMENT COSTS IN BOND FORFEITURES

       EPA reviewed trends in coal mine bonding to respond to comments that coal mining
operators have forfeited reclamation bonds because of the cost of long-term acid mine drainage
(AMD) treatment to meet manganese permit limits. EPA focused on forfeiture trends in
Pennsylvania and West Virginia because they are the states in which AMD is most prevalent.
EPA reviewed technical literature and asked the mining personnel within Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Management (PA DEP) and West Virginia Department of
Environmental Management (WV DEP) for their best estimates of the extent to which
manganese treatment costs played a role in past bond forfeitures. EPA also discussed the
potential for future bond forfeitures with personnel in PA DEP and WV DEP.

       Based on information received from PA DEP and WV DEP, EPA concluded that only a
small percentage of coal mine bond forfeitures are due to the cost of manganese treatment.
Overall, EPA found forfeitures are largely a legacy of the first decade of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) implementation during the 1980s and early 1990s.
EPA's analysis indicates that there is little potential for future bond forfeitures on SMCRA
permits that have been granted during the past five years. Similarly, EPA believes that current
trends will continue, making it unlikely that companies will forfeit bonds on permits that will be
issued in the future. As described in Section 4.2, SMCRA requires a Probable Hydrologic
Consequence (PHC) analysis prior to approval of the SMCRA permit. The PHC includes a
determination of the impact the proposed mining will have on these baseline conditions of the
site. When potential adverse impacts are identified (e.g., AMD) through use of the PHC,
appropriate protection, mitigation, and rehabilitation plans are developed and included in mining
and reclamation permit requirements. If the potential adverse impacts cannot be sufficiently
mitigated the SMCRA permit may be denied. The ultimate goal of using the PHC in the SMCRA
permit review is to prevent AMD after land reclamation is complete and the SMCRA bond is
released. Neither PA DEP and WV DEP issue SMCRA permits if the PHC identifies AMD as a
potential adverse impact. PHC analytical techniques have evolved over time due to increasing
knowledge. The current methods for PHC analysis are more advanced and can adequately predict
AMD formation, where as in the past predictions were not as accurate. Based on the
advancements in the PHC analysis, PA DEP anticipates that less than one percent of recently
SMCRA permitted mines will develop AMD after reclamation.

10.1   Mine Reclamation Bonds and Bond Forfeiture

       Under the SMCRA of 1977, coal mine operators must apply for a mining permit before
mining activities may start. Although SMCRA sets the minimum requirements for obtaining a
permit, permitting authority is generally delegated to each state if the state regulations are at  least
as stringent as SMCRA (see Section 4.2).

       For permit approval, the operator must show how the mine site will be reclaimed after
mining is complete. Reclamation includes regrading and revegetating the site to a degree
equivalent to its pre-mining use, sealing mine shafts and portals, removing ponds and other
surface water control structures, and other similar activities. In addition to demonstrating how
the site will be reclaimed, the mine operator must post a "performance bond" to cover the
reclamation cost if the operator fails to adequately complete reclamation. The bond, often called
a reclamation bond, is a financial guarantee that the site will be reclaimed.

                                         KM

-------
                            Section 10.0 - The Role of Manganese Treatment Costs in Bond Forfeitures
       The permitting authority determines if the site has been adequately reclaimed. If
reclamation is complete, then the bond is "released," or returned to the operator (or the
operator's guarantor). If the operator fails to complete reclamation, then the bond is forfeited and
the proceeds from the bond are used by the permitting authority to complete site reclamation.

       States stipulate that if AMD occurs bonds cannot be released until treatment is no longer
necessary to comply with permit limits. This has resulted in permits where land reclamation is
complete, but bonds cannot be released because long-term treatment of AMD is required.
Operators must renew their bonds every five years. In the comments that EPA received from
state mining agencies and through discussions, States indicated that they are concerned that at
some point in the future operators may default rather than renew their bonds. States reasoned that
if manganese limits were less stringent, and thus less expensive to meet, then operators would be
less likely to default.

10.1.1  Bond Types

       The size of the reclamation bond is determined by the permitting authorities. Although
the bond amount is based on the reclamation plans and cost estimates  of the permit applicant,
authorities are not limited to those estimates (30 CFR 800.11). The bond amount is designed to
reflect the probable difficulty of reclamation given geography, hydrology, climate,  and other
factors, and must be sufficient to assure completion of reclamation if the operator defaults on the
bond (30 CFR 800.14).

       Regulatory agencies have the authority to adjust required bond amounts periodically to
account for changes in mining operations and the projected cost of future reclamation (30 CFR
ง800.15). Although not required by SMCRA, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSMRE), the SMCRA regulatory authority,  states that mine discharge is one
reason for increasing the bond amount (67 FR 35070, May 17, 2002).  In Pennsylvania and West
Virginia, regulatory authorities will not issue a mining permit if the PHC of mining evaluation
shows that AMD will result. Therefore, in these two states, the initial bond requirement does not
include any costs for treating AMD. Thus, if AMD occurs during mining, the  authorities will
increase the bond amount.

       Performance bonds can take one of three forms (30 CFR 800.12):

       •     Surety bonds;
       •     Collateral bonds; and
       •     Self-bonding.

10.2   Trends in Bond Forfeitures

       EPA obtained data on all coal mining permits  with forfeited bonds from the OSMRE,
Applicant/Violator System Office for 1977 through 2007. The office hosts the
Applicant/Violator System (AVS) to which states report mining violations. Section 501(c) of
SMCRA prohibits the issuance of new permits to applicants who own or control operations with
outstanding violations. A violation includes a forfeited bond on a permit. The database includes
                                          10-2

-------
                            Section 10.0 - The Role of Manganese Treatment Costs in Bond Forfeitures
the date when the bond was forfeited (AVS, 2007a; AVS, 2007b), but does not include the
reason for the forfeiture, the bond amount, or the acreage of the site (DeVinney, 2007).

       Based on the information in the AVS database, the Appalachian region is the area most
affected by bond forfeitures. As shown in Figures 10-1 and 10-2, forfeitures peaked in the mid-
tolate 1980s.14

10.3   Reasons for Forfeitures

       EPA received information from Pennsylvania and West Virginia mining agencies
concerning estimates of the extent to which manganese treatment costs played a role in the
forfeitures during the past five to 10 years.

10.3.1 Pennsylvania

       Table 10-1 summarizes the PA DEP list of 227 mine permits for which bond forfeiture
actions were initiated after January 1, 1998. Overall, the PA DEP list shows that manganese
treatment played a major role in 125 cases (55 percent) of defaults.

       In its review of data associated with these defaults, however, EPA believes that this count
may be overstated. There is no easy and objective way to determine the exact influence of the
cost of manganese treatment. In some cases, companies declared bankruptcy due the cost of
manganese treatment at one site and thus forfeited permits (and, therefore, the associated bonds)
at other sites where treatment was not required. In other cases, the bankruptcy of one company
resulted in the bankruptcy and forfeitures of permits and bonds by its subsidiaries. In such
instances, the state classified all forfeited permits and bonds as due to the cost of manganese
treatment. The information from Pennsylvania presented  in Table 10-1 thus shows a higher
proportion of bond forfeitures due to manganese treatment costs than if an analysis were done on
a permit specific basis. Of the 125 sites where manganese treatment costs were considered to
play a major role in the forfeiture, 42 sites have no discharge (PA DEP, 2008).

 Table 10-1. Role of Manganese Treatment Costs in Bond Forfeiture by Site - Pennsylvania
Role of Manganese Treatment Costs in Bond Forfeiture
Major
Minor
None
Total
Count
125
7
95
227
Percent (%)
55
3
42

14 In 1987, Kentucky changed mining regulations, requiring the closure of all mines smaller than two acres. This
regulatory change likely influenced the high number of bond forfeitures in that state in the late 1980s. As noted
earlier, AMD and manganese treatment are much less likely to occur in Kentucky due to its geography.	
                                          10-3

-------
                                                                           Section 10.0 - The Role of Manganese Treatment Costs in Bond Forfeitures
                     400
                     350 -
                         1977
                                         1982
                                                         1987
                                                                         1992

                                                                        Year
                                                                                         1997
                                                                                                        2002
                                                                                                                        2007
                                                  All Other States
                                                                      •KY
                                                                                  •PA    - - - WV
                         Figure 10-1. Number of Permits with Bond Forfeitures: Appalachian States, 1977-2007
Source: Personal communication with Charles DeVinney, Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Applicant/Violator System
                                     Office, and Maureen F. Kaplan, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (DeVinney, 2007).
                                                                     10-4

-------
                                                                           Section 10.0 - The Role of Manganese Treatment Costs in Bond Forfeitures
                     350
                        1977
                                        1982
                                                        1987
                                                                        1992

                                                                        Year
                                                                                        1997
                                                                                                       2002
                                                                                                                       2007
                                                  All Other States
                                                                      •KY
                                                                                  •PA
                                                                                              WV
                       Figure 10-2. Number of Companies with Bond Forfeitures: Appalachian States, 1977-2007
Source: Personal communication with Charles DeVinney, Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Applicant/Violator System
                                     Office, and Maureen F. Kaplan, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (DeVinney, 2007).
                                                                    10-5

-------
                           Section 10.0 - The Role of Manganese Treatment Costs in Bond Forfeitures


10.3.2  West Virginia

       The WV DEP provided EPA with summary information about forfeitures (Halstead,
2008). West Virginia has more than 1,800 mining permits as of 2008. Since June 30, 2001, there
were 127 forfeitures, 23 of which have discharges that require treatment. WV DEP considered
the cost of manganese treatment to have played a major role in four of those forfeitures (17
percent), while WV DEP considered the cost of manganese treatment to have played a minor role
in eight of the forfeitures (35 percent).

10.4   Potential for Future Bond Forfeitures

       States do not issue permits to mining operations if there is a likelihood of AMD. As a
result of discussions with states and underwriters, EPA examined the predictability and
likelihood of AMD and how they have changed over time.

       The long-term downward trends in the number of forfeitures seen in Figures 10-1 and
10-2 are consistent with an improving ability to predict AMD in the pre-SMCRA permitting
PHC analysis. The influence of improved PHC analysis on bond forfeiture rates will not be seen
until the recently permitted mines complete coal extraction in 20 or more years. In Pennsylvania,
approximately  15 to 20 percent of the permits issued in the early 1980s resulted in post mining
discharges. Due to advances in PHC analysis, Pennsylvania now believes that less than one
percent of the permits issued have the potential for long-term post mining discharges that do not
meet 40 CFR Part 434  (PA DEP, 2000; Pizarchik, 2008).

10.5   The Role of Manganese Treatment Costs in Bond Forfeitures References

1.     CBER.  Center for Business and Economic Research. Marshall University. 2006.
       Assessment of Alternative Funding Mechanisms to Encourage Environmental
       Compliance and to Maintain the Solvency of the Special Reclamation Fund. Prepared for
       West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. (February 13). Available online
       at: http://www.marshall.edu/cber/research/MU%20CBER%20Final%20SRF%20
       Report.pdf EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0521.

2.     DeVinney, Charles. Department of the Interior. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
       and Enforcement. Applicant Violator System Office. 2007. Personal communication with
       Charles DeVinney, Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
       and Enforcement, Applicant/Violator System Office, and Maureen F. Kaplan, Eastern
       Research Group, Inc. RE: Coal Leases with Bond Forfeiture Extracted from AVS.
       (December 11). EP A-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCNs 05666, 05666A1, and 05666A2.

3.     Halstead, Lewis. 2008. E-mail transmittal from Lewis Halstead, West Virginia
       Department of Environmental Protection to Tom Born, EPA, and Jessica Wolford,
       Eastern Research Group, Inc. (March 3). EP A-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCNs 05667 and
       05667A1.
                                         10-6

-------
                           Section 10.0 - The Role of Manganese Treatment Costs in Bond Forfeitures


4.     PA DEP. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mining and
      Reclamation. 2008. Personal communication between Robert Agnew, Pennsylvania
      Department of Environmental Protection, and Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group,
      Inc. (January 4). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771  DCNs 05668 and 05669A1.

5.     PA DEP. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mining and
      Reclamation. 2000. Assessment of Pennsylvania's Bonding Program for Primacy Coal
      Mining Permits. (February). Available online at: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/
      minres/bmr/bonding/bondingrpt021000.htm. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 04725.

6.     Pizarchik, Joe. 2008. Telephone conversation with Joe Pizarchik and William Allen,
      Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and Calvin Franz, Maureen
      Kaplan, and Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Tom Born, James
      Covington, and Jan Goodwin, EPA. (February 14). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN
      05611.
                                         10-7

-------