EVALUATION OF THE BROKEN ARO
FLUE-GAS DESULFURIZATION SLUDGE
MINE SEAL PROJECT
TO ABATE ACID MINE DRAINAGE
LOCATED IN COSHOCTOW COUNTY, OHIO
A Thesis Presented to
The Faculty of the
Fritz J. Dolores H. Russ College of Engineering and Technology
Ohio University
In Partial Fullfillment
of the Requirement for the Degree
Master of Science
by
Michael T. Rudisell
August, 1999 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank Dr. Ben Stuart for guiding me through these last two years. Ben has been an exceptional advisor as well as a good friend to me as he has led me down this path I chose. He has spent much time with me in the field and classroom teaching me hands-on experience as well as the theory behind it. Also, a number of hours in his office were spent working on projects, assignments, and even just philosophizing about life's problems.
A special thanks goes to Dr. Kenneth Edwards for his contributions to the project and for serving on my graduate committee. I would also like to thank Dr. James Lein for being on my graduate committee and the Geography Department for allowing us to use their digitizing equipment in developing our GIs.
I would also like to thank graduate student, Branko Olujic, for his many hours spent in the field at Broken Aro taking water samples and measuring flowrates. Next, I would like to thank graduate student, Rajesh Ramachandran, for all his fieldwork assistance and for helping and guiding me through the GIs software used in the Broken
Aro project.
Thanks also to all the engineering undergraduates at Ohio University that volunteered to help collecting water samples and measuring flowrates in the field. Also, this project would not have been possible without the funding and assistance from the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources and American Electric Power who provided the
FGD material. Lastly, thanks to the Department of Civil Engineering at Ohio University who gave me the opportunity to work on this research project. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. BACKGROUND OF COAL MINING AND ITS PROCESSES 4 What is Coal? 4 History of Coal in Ohio 5 History of Legislation Associated with Coal Mining 7 Problem Types Associated with Coal Mining 10 Sources of Acid Mine Drainage 12 AMD Chemistry 12 Specific Conductivity of AMD 15 Reduction/Oxidation Potential of AMD 17 How AMD Is Alleviated Under SMCRA 18 NPDES Limitations for AMD 22 Duties of the Department of Mines and Reclamation 2 3 DMR's Abandoned Mine Land Programs 26 Process of Generating Electricity at Conesville Power Plant 2 7 Flue-Gas Desulfurization Sludge Production 29 FGD Chemical Composition and Material Properties 30 3. LITERATURE REVIEW 34 Introduction of FGD Applications 34 Waste Lagoon Liner 36 Use of FGD in Highway Repairs 37 FGD Livestock Pads 40 Roberts-Dawson Mine Injection Project 4 1 Hydraulic Mine Seal: An 18-year Post Audit 44 Rehoboth Reclamation Project 47 Hydraulic Mine Seals 50 Omega Mine Grout Project 53 Injection Technique for Abandoned Deep Mines 55 Chapter Page 3. GIs Utilized for Watershed Analysis 59 Passive Treatment Systems 59 4. METHODOLOGIES 66 Introduction to Sampling Procedures 66 Sampling At Stream Locations 6 7 Flowrate Measurements At Stream Locations 6 8 Notched Weirs 6 8 Cut-Throat Flume 69 Culverts 7 1 Current Meter 7 1 Water Level and Well Depth Measurements 72 Sampling At Well Locations Water Quality Field Tests Water Quality Laboratory Tests Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes Metal Concentration Determination Direct Aspiration Technique Graphite Furnace Technique Cold-Vapor Technique Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater Surveying Methods 5. BACKGROUND OF THE BROKEN ARO PROJECT Site Location and Description Remining at Broken Aro FGD Mine Seal Placement The Goal of the FGD Seal Water Monitoring Program Chapter 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Results Monitoring Wells Boundary of Mining Area New Pond Used as an Indicator Discussions Collection of Infiltration Above the FGD Seal Effect of the Oxic Limestone Drain Sedimentation Pond Headwaters of Simmons Run AMD Source Outside the Study Area Deep Mine Discharges Downstream Water Quality "Roof Effect" of Mine Inundation in Streams and Wells Off-site Characterization CONLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Recommendations Non-Native Ion Tracers Continued Monitoring New Monitoring Wells Trace Metals Analysis Oxic Limestone Channel (OLC) Design REFERENCES Chapter Page APPENDICES 155 A. Geographic Information System 155 Background of GIs 155 Broken Aro GIs Features 156 B. Groundwater Monitoring Well Water Quality Data 166 April 1997 through November 1998 C. Surface Water Location Water Quality Data April 1997 through November 1998 D. Chemical Mass Loadings For Stream Locations April 1997 through November 1998 List of Tables
Table
I . BPT Effluent Limitations ...... 23
2 . FGD Chemical Constituents ...... 31
3 . FGD Leachate Characteristics...... 33
4 . Groundwater Monitoring Well Water Quality Data ...... 166 April 1997 through November 1998 5 . Surface Water Location Water Quality Data ...... 203 April 1997 through November 1998 6 . Chemical Mass Loadings For Stream Locations ...... 272 April 1997 through November 1998 List of Figures
Figure Page
1. AutoCAD Drawing of Broken Aro Reclamation site ...... 2
2 . Stability Relations of Pyrite in Water ...... 17
3 . Location Map of Broken Aro site ...... 96
4 . Dump truck unloading FGD ...... 100
5 . Backhoe compacting FGD into a mine opening ...... 101
6 . FGD Mine Seal Plan ...... 102
7. FGD seal in its final configuration ...... 103
8 . Water Levels in Wells vs . Time ...... 108
9 . Acidity vs . Time in Wells (MW3, MW6) ...... 110
10. Sulfate Concentration vs . Time (MW3, MW6) ...... 110
1 1 . Total Iron Concentration vs . Time (MW3, MW6) ...... 111
12 . Acidity vs . Time (MW7, MW8) ...... 112
13. Total Iron Concentration vs . Time (MW7, MW8) ...... 113
14. Sulfate Load vs . Time (D 1A) ...... 115
15.IronLoadvs.Time(DlA) ...... 115
16.Acidityvs. Time(NP1)...... 117
17. Total Iron Concentration vs . Time (NP 1)...... 117
18 . Sulfate Load vs . Time (DM2Z) ...... 119
1 9 . Iron Load vs . Time (DM2Z) ...... 119
20 . Iron Load vs . Time (DM2, DM2Z) ...... 123 Figure Page
2 1 . Field pH vs . Time (DM2. DM2Z) ...... 123
22 . Acidity vs . Time (U6) ...... 126
23 . Field pH vs . Time (U6) ...... 126
24. Acid Load vs . Time (UI, U5, S4) ...... 127
25 . Sulfate Load vs . Time (U 1, U5. S4) ...... 128
26 . Iron Load vs . Time (U 1, U5. S4) ...... 128
27 . Acid Load vs . Time (S5) ...... 130
28 . Iron Load vs . Time (S5) ...... 130
29 . Flowrate vs . Time (DM4A, DM4B) ...... 132
30. Acid Load vs . Time (DM4A. DM4Bj ...... 132
3 1. Acid Load vs . Time (D4, U7. U9) ...... 134
32 . Sulfate Load vs . Time (D4. U7. U9) ...... 135
33. Acidity vs . Time (MW3) ...... 137
34 . Total Iron Concentration vs . Time (MW3) ...... 137
35.FieldpHvs.Time(DI)...... 139
36 . Acid Load vs . Time (D 1)...... 139
37 . Sulfate Load vs . Time (Dl. Dl A) ...... 140
38 . Broken Aro GIs Map ...... 162
39 Broken Aro GIS Elevation Model ...... 163
40 . Broken Aro GIs 3-D Scene #1 ...... 164
41 . Broken Aro GIs 3-D Scene #2 ...... 165 CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The Broken Aro reclamation site is located at the Woodbury Wildlife Reserve within Jackson Township in Coshocton County, Ohio. This abandoned mine site forms the headwaters of the Simmons Run Watershed and is contaminated by acid mine drainage (AMD) from previous underground and surface mining operations. See
Figure 1 on the following page for a map of the site. In 1997, a mine seal made from a
coal combustion byproduct (CCB) was designed to prevent the formation of AMD and, in turn, improve water quality in Simmons Run. This paper discusses the results and effects of the mine sealing project before and after its construction.
The paper briefly discusses coal mining in Ohio and emphasizes why coal is such a vital resource to this part of the country. It describes the major problems that are associated with coal mining, focusing on the background and chemistry of AMD. This document then summarizes the major legislation that is related to the regulation of the coal mining operations. Chapter 2 ends with the description of the processes involved in the production of electricity in coal-driven power plants and the by-products that are generated.
Chapter 3 is a literature review of published articles that relate to the project at
Broken Aro. It discusses previous and ongoing projects in which ideas and
rr~ethodologieswere also used in the Broken Aro project. Chapter 4 explains all RECLAIMED STRIP
RECLAIMED STRIP MINE
--- -
Figure I. AutoCAD Drawing of the Broken Aro Reclamation Site 3 methodologies implemented at the Broken Aro project including laboratory procedures, field sampling and testing, and surveying techniques.
The background and description of the Broken Aro project is discussed in Chapter
5. The details of mine seal construction and the water monitoring program are described.
It includes maps, drawings, and photographs of the site before, during, and after seal construction. Chapter 6 describes the ultimate goal of the mine seal and examines the effects of the seal by presenting water quality data of Simmons Run. A discussion is included explaining the influence of AMD sources and their locations. Chemical plots are displayed in order to prove the effectiveness of the mine seal.
The final chapter consists of conclusions that can be drawn about the effects of the remininglmine seal project. In addition, recommendations are made to improve the quality to the Simmons Run Watershed in the future. An open channel design with limestone rock is presented that will improve water quality from a source emanating from outside the study area. Also, improvements in the monitoring program are discussed so that additional AMD sources, as well as enhancement of water quality, can be detected.
Appendix A describes the background and the goal of the Geographic Information
System (GIs) that was created to illustrate the physical and chemical characteristics of the Broken Aro site. Methods for creating the GIs using ArcView software are explained. Also, a description of how to perform searches and queries to describe the water quality at certain locations is described. Appendix A includes maps of the site with the mining areas highlighted, and three-dimensional views are presented to depict the flow of surface waters. The water quality data is presented in Appendices B, C, and D. Chapter 2
Background of Coal Mining and Its Processes
Chapter 2 gives a brief background of coal and coal mining operations and how they are important to this region of the country. It discusses the types of coal mining and the ways that mining operations impact people and the environment. This chapter also concentrates on the history, legislation, and chemistry of AMD. Finally, it discusses the processes that produce electricity from a coal-driven power plant and the by-products generated.
What is Coal?
Coal is a sedimentary rock formed by the accumulation, alteration, and compaction of plant and animal remains in a reducing environment. The organic matter in swamps and bogs tend to deplete waters of oxygen and reduce heavy metals in an anaerobic environment. The thick sequence of coal-bearing rocks in the Appalachian bituminous coal basin represents a slow accumulation of clay, silt, sand, and plant material throughout most of the Pennsylvanian geologic time period (Crowell, 1995).
Sulfur in coal can occur in three different types: organic sulfur, sulfate sulfur, and pyrite sulfur. Organic sulfur is believed to be organically bound within the coal.
Generally, the organic sulfur component is not chemically reactive and has little to no effect on acid-producing potential. Sulfate sulfur is usually only found in minor quantities in fresh coal and associated rocks, and is commonly the result of weathering and recent oxidation of sulfide sulfur. Sulfate is a reaction product of pyrite oxidation and therefore is not an acid producer.
The pyritic form of sulfide sulfur is the predominant species found in the majority of coal and is the sulfur form of greatest concern. Much of the pyrite sulfur present in coal-bearing rocks and overburdens occurs as very small crystalline grains mixed with the organic constituents of the coal. The equations for pyrite oxidation show that a material containing one-percent sulfur, all as pyrite, would yield upon complete reaction an amount of sulfuric acid that would require 3 1.25 tons of CaC03 to neutralize 1000 tons of the material (Skousen and Ziemkiewicz, 1995).
History of Coal in Ohio
Coal mining has been very important to the culture of Ohio since the 1800's.
Today, coal is the primary fuel used to generate electricity and produce steel in Ohio.
During the industry's first 150 years, there was no regulation of coal mining operations.
Before World War I, coal mining in Ohio was exclusively underground and performed with manual labor. Underground mining operations gained access to the coal seams by vertical mine shafts up to 200 feet deep, by horizontal mine entries cut into hillsides at coal seam elevations, or by sloping tunnels angling downward from the ground surface.
These underground mines were very poorly mapped, and roof support was usually minimal (Crowell, 1995).
During the time of World War 11, large, efficient excavating equipment, new drilling techniques, and newly developed explosives in the mining industry made 6
significant earthrnoving operations possible. Therefore, surface mining of coal became
an economic alternative to underground mining. In surface mining, all the rock and soil
material above the desired coal seam is excavated, exposing the coal seam at the surface.
The excavated rock and soil, known as mine spoil, is placed in piles away from the exposed coal seam.
In the last decade, a very efficient recovery system of underground mining was introduced in Ohio. It is known as longwall mining, and it is possible due to the development of automated mining equipment. The technique involves the total removal of large blocks of coal and allows the overlying rock and soil to subside in a controlled and predictable manner. This technique has increased productivity and reduced costs so that underground mining can remain competitive to surface mining. Longwall mining has the added benefit of mitigating subsidence impacts while the mining company is still operating in the vicinity, rather than years after the mining is complete (ODNR, 1995).
The United States contains the largest recoverable coal reserves of any single country. It has been estimated that the U.S. coal reserves will last over 500 years at current rates of consumption. Ohio is located in the northern portion of the Appalachian
Coal Basin, which is one of the largest coal reserves in the country, and it is estimated
that Ohio has 11.8 billion tons of economically recoverable coal reserves. In the
Appalachian coal region, the coal is generally very high in sulfur content, often making it
a threat to the environment (Crowell, 1995).
Ohio ranked eleventh nationally in the production of coal in 1995. The State
produced 24.1 million tons of coal, with about 52 percent recovered through surface mining. The remaining 48 percent is produced from underground mining, and of that, over 70 percent by the longwall method. Belmont County is the all-time coal production leader in Ohio. Since 1816, over 760 million tons of coal has been excavated from this county. Ohio ranks third nationally in the consumption of coal, following Texas and
Indiana. Over 55 percent of the electricity generated in Ohio is coal-derived. Ohio uses about 58 million tons of coal annually, most of which is used to generate electricity, while some is used for making steel (ODNR? 1995).
History of Legislation Associated with Coal Mining
The laws surrounding coal mining have frequently created an uproar between the industry and the people trying to protect the environment. Coal is an essential natural resource, but it can also be a detriment to the surroundings. The coal industry feels like they are unfairly treated since no other legislation targets a specific industry. The Clean
Vi'ater Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for example, are not aimed at a specific industry, but they apply to everyone.
Ohio's first state law that governed coal mining was the Strip Coal Mining Act of
1947. This law required Ohio mine operators to have a state-issued license, to pay a bond of $100 for each acre of land mined, and to ensure reclamation would be performed. A more stringent, revised law of the Strip Coal Mining Act was passed in 1972. This law
required regrading the mine spoil to the approximate pre-mining contour of the land,
replacement of the disturbed topsoil, and the establishment of a successful vegetation cover by the mine operator prior to the State's release of the reclamation bond. This law was the most comprehensive strip mine law in the nation (ODNR, 1995).
It was not until 1949 when the first underground coal mining law in Ohio went into effect. It required mine operators to close or fence all surface openings to underground mines abandoned after 1941, but it did not mention any kind of reclamation efforts.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) was passed on
August 3, 1977 by the United States Congress. This Act established stringent national standards for coal mining and reclamation. SMCRA created the federal Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) to enforce the Act. The purposes of SMCRA are as follows:
Establish a nationwide program that protects society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining. Assure that the rights of landowners are fully protected from such operations. Assure that such operations are not conducted where reclamation is not feasible. Assure that adequate procedures are taken to reclaim surface areas affected by mining operations. Provide a balance between protection of the environment and agricultural productivity and the nation's need for coal as a source of energy. Assist the States in developing and implementing a program to achieve the purposes of the Act. Promote the reclamation of abandoned areas that continue to degrade the quality of the environment prior to the enactment of SMCRA. Provide programs for research and training in the areas of mining, mineral resources, and new technologies.
The Act provides that surface land affected by coal mining should be restored to a
state which is equivalent to the conditions prior to any mining operation. In order to assure the complete restoration of a site, reclamation performance bonds are required under Section 509 of SMCRA. For example, in Ohio, bond requirements have increased to $2500 for each acre of land affected by mining.
In the mid 1970's, surface mining replaced underground mining as the predominant method for obtaining coal. By 1977, surface mining operations disrupted about one thousand acres of land each week. Congress had the task of striking a balance between the nation's energy requirements and the many problems that mining caused concerning the public, their property, and the environment.
Since the United States has very diverse mining conditions, Congress intended that the states become the primary regulator, once that Individual State's proposed law was approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior approved a
State's law if it was at least as effective as the federal standards, ensuring that citizens would be protected to the same degree, as they would be under federal law. This procedure allowed individual states to gain primacy control over the regulation of coal mining. The Secretary of the Interior approved Ohio's regulatory and Abandoned Mine
Lands (AML) Program in 1982.
In addition to mining and reclamation laws, mine operators must comply with other local, state, and federal laws and programs to maintain the permit to mine coal in
Ohio. Some federal laws include the CAA, CWA, ESA, Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, Federal Coal Mine Safety and Health Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act. Problem Types Associated with Coal Mining
There are many problem types that are associated with mining of coal. These problems have been identified, and efficient operating practices and reclamation efforts are utilized to remediate them. The problems caused by surface and/or underground coal mining are mine openings, landslides, erosion, highwalls, subsidence, underground fires, and acid mine drainage (AMD). SMCRA was aimed to deal with these problems both during and after the mining took place.
Mine openings and tunnels are often encountered at abandoned mines. When older underground mines were deserted, the entries were not adequately sealed. Unstable or open portals and shafts that lead to the ground surface can be very hazardous. Dangers within these openings include toxic and/or explosive gases, oxygen deficiencies. flooded mine shafts, unstable roofs, absolute darkness, poisonous snakes and insects, and disorienting mazes of tunnels. Each year, a number of people are killed or injured in abandoned mines.
Mine spoil banks from surface mining operations and natural slopes at underground mines can become unstable. Erosion and landslides are caused by steep slopes, saturation of slopes from underground mines, surface mine pits, and other disturbed material caused by mining operations. Landslides can damage roads and structures and block the path of streams causing upstream flooding. Over time, erosion and sedimentation also cause flooding problems by clogging stream channels and culverts. Highwallls are created during surface mining operations when sides of hills are removed to expose underlying coal seams. Rock faces resembling cliffs remain after the mining excavation was performed. Before SMCRA was passed, mine operators were not required to backfill mine spoil to the previous elevation against these highwalls. In Ohio, many miles of highwalls still remain ranging from 20 to 100 feet. These highwalls can be unstable making it dangerous for nearby structures and human activities.
Mine subsidence is a very common problem associated with underground coal mining. More than two billion tons of coal have been excavated from underground mines in Ohio since the 1800's. In the early days, mines were not surveyed, so no maps exist for these abandoned mines. Geologists estimate that 600,000 acres of land are underlain by 4,600 abandoned underground mines, which are spread over the 30 coal-producing counties in Ohio (Crowell, 1995). When buildings are constructed above underground mines, major structural damage is caused to walls and foundations when subsidence occurs. Many lawsuits and legal battles have occurred between the industry and the public over this problem. Liability becomes a difficult matter to determine because the mine company has often disappeared when the effects of subsidence are noticed.
Acid mine drainage (AMD) is the major environmental problem associated with all types of coal mining. This pollution causes detrimental effects to water quality, which can eliminate aquatic and plant life in receiving streams. AMD is a significant environmental problem associated with abandoned mine lands and is very difficult to control. Over 1300 miles of streams in Ohio are impacted by AMD (Crowell, 1995). Sources of Acid Mine Drainage
Acid mine drainage can result from both surface and underground mining operations. During surface mining, overburden or mine spoil is removed, broken into small fragments, and then placed back into the coal pit after coal removal. This process exposes acid-forming minerals to water and air, a combination that results in AMD.
Similarly, during underground mining, the overburden between the surface and the coal seam is disturbed. During this disturbance, vertical fissures and cracks appear, often extending to underground aquifers. When groundwater comes in contact with these acid- forming minerals, the water develops the potential for AMD pollution. If this groundwater seeps out of the ground to the surface, AMD is produced due to the oxidation reaction.
AMD Chemistry
Acid mine drainage impacts streams, rivers, lakes, and groundwater in several ways and needs to be treated before entering into receiving waters. Acidity, ferric ion
(~e~')precipitation, oxygen depletion, and the release of heavy metals, such as aluminum
(~l)'),zinc (zn2'), and manganese (~n~')are the pollutants associated with coal mining.
Acid mine pollution is caused by the physical and chemical weathering of iron pyrite
(FeSl), also known as "fool's gold." The level of acidity and the concentration of the
heavy metals is a function of the amount of pyrite in the area around the mine.
Physical weathering is essential to reduce the grain size of the pyrite. The early
miners inadvertently accelerated this process by grinding up the ore and dumping the overburden in mine tailings. The next step in this geochemical process is the chemical oxidation of the pyrite shown below:
2 FeS2(s)+ 7 02(g) + 2 H20B)+ 2 + 4 s02(aq,+ 4 H+(aq) (1)
When the pyrite is exposed to oxygen and water, it reacts to form sulhric acid (H2SO4), which is the combination of the hydrogen ions and the sulfate ions. This causes a decrease in pH (acidic). For every mole of pyrite oxidized, two moles of H' are produced by the oxidation to sulfate. The Fe" ions (ferrous) are released into the runoff waters from drainage tunnels or tailings piles. Next, the Fe2+ions (ferrous) are oxidized to Fe3+ ions (ferric) as shown in the following reaction.
4 Fe2'(,) + 02(g)+ 4 H+(aq)+ 4 ~e~+(~~)+ 2 H20(,) (2) The Fe3' ions now hydrolyze in water to form iron (111) hydroxide [Fe(OH),]. This process releases more hydrogen ions into the environment that continues to reduce the pH. The iron (111) hydroxide formed in this reaction is referred to as "yellow boy."
"Yellow boy" is a yellowish-orange precipitate that turns the acidic runoff in the streams to an orange-red color and covers the stream bed with a slimy coating. The iron (111) hydroxide precipitate kills plants and fish by reducing the amount of light for photosynthesis and smothering aquatic life and their food resources on the stream bottom.
Also, the low pH of the water makes it difficult for aquatic life to survive. The following equation describes this reaction.
4 Fe3'(,, + 12 H20(,)+ 4 Fe(OH)3 (s) + 12 H;aq) (3)
It is apparent from Equations 2 and 3, two moles of H' are produced upon the precipitation of ferric hydroxide. Pyritic mine tailings leach AMD originating in a large part to the metabolic activity of Thiobacillusferrooxidans. These bacteria are responsible for the pollution of streams emanating from active and abandoned mining operations. i? ferrooxidans catalyzes the oxidation of the pyrite in Equation 1,2, and 3 above.
Complex systems in nature such as mine tailings and mine drainage tunnels cannot be described by just a few equations. Other chemical reactions are taking place as shown in Equation 4.
FeS2(,,) + 14 ~e*+(,)+ 8 HzO(l)3 15 ~e'+(,,)+ 2 SO^-(,^) + 16 H*(,,, (4)
In addition, sulfides of copper, zinc, cadmium, lead, and arsenic will undergo similar chemical reactions resulting in the contribution of toxic metal ions in polluted mine streams (Sobek et al., 1978). The rate of pyrite oxidation depends on numerous variables such as the reactive surface area of the pyrite, the specific type of pyritic sulfur, oxygen concentrations, the pH of the solution, catalytic agents, flushing frequencies, and the presence of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans bacteria. The possibility of identifying and quantifying the effects of these factors with all the various rock types is very unlikely.
Notice that if the iron pyrite is never oxidized or exposed to the atmosphere, the pollution caused by AMD could be stopped. Therefore, if the waters in an underground mine could be trapped inside, this oxidation reaction could be minimized. The FGD seal at Broken Aro was designed with the assumption that it could hold back the pressure of water developing inside the mine. Specific Conductivity of AMD
The specific conductivity of a solution is a measure of its ability to carry electrical
current. A solution's specific conductivity varies both with number and type of ions the
solution contains. It is measured in a conductivity cell connected to a Wheatstone bridge
circuit in units of pS per centimeter.
The flow of current through a wire is based on the property that resistance is
proportional to the length divided by the cross-sectional area of the conductor. A
constant will convert this proportionality into Equation 5,
R = r (1 /A) (5)
where R is the resistance, r is the specific resistance, 1 is the length of the conductor, and
A is the cross-sectional area of the conductor (McIme, 1939). For example, if the
conductor is one centimeter long and one cm2 in area, the specific resistance is the resistance of a 1 -cm cube of the substance. The units of r must then be ohm-cm.
Conductance is by definition the reciprocal of the specific resistance, so r will equal
l/L,,, where L,, is the specific conductance. Substituting this equality into the above
equation and solving for Lsp. it is apparent that:
L,, = 1/R (1 /A) (6)
Since L,, = llr, the units of specific conductance will be those of the reciprocal of the
specific resistance, ohms-'cm-'. An ohm-' is often expressed as a Siemen (S) since it is
used so often. Therefore, the units of the specific conductivity are in units of Siemens per
centimeter (Slcm). Specific conductivity can be utilized to determine the total dissolved solids of a solution. The dissolved solids content can be approximated by multiplying the conductivity in pS per centimeter (pS/cm) by an empirical factor varying from 0.55 to
0.9. The proper factor to use depends on the ionic components in the solution, as indicated by the equivalent conductance, A, in Equation 7. It is defined as follows:
A = 1000 L,, 1 N (7) where N is the normality of the solution. For an ideal ionic solution, L,, should vary directly with N, and thus A should remain constant with varying solution normality.
However, because of deviation from ideal behavior, A decreases somewhat as the salt concentration increases (Rieger, 1987).
Current is carried by both anions and cations of a salt, but to a different degree.
Thus, the equivalent conductance of a salt solution is the sum of the equivalent conductances of the cations, hof, and the anions, Lo-:
A. = ho' + hi (8)
The zero subscripts in Equation 8 are used to indicate equivalent conductance at infinite dilution, where the deviation from ideal behavior is at a minimum (Sawyer et al., 1994).
Several values for equivalent ionic conductance are listed in electrochemistry literature.
However, the equivalent conductances for ferrous and ferric forms of iron have not been developed. Once these values have been documented, the conversion from specific conductivity to total dissolved solids or ions in solutions can be determined for an iron hydroxide solution, which is characteristic of AMD. Reduction/Oxidation Potential of AMD
The reductiodoxidation potential (redox) is measured in the field with a platinum electrode and a calomel electrode connected to a volt meter. The redox potential is designated by Eh. This parameter is measured in units of millivolts (mV). Redox processes are quantified through the use of stability diagrams which are bounded by the upper and lower stability of water. Stability relations of pyrite and iron hydroxide in water at 25OC at one atmosphere total pressure are depicted in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2. Stability Relations of Pyrite in Water. (Brown, 1985) 18
The above graph was plotted on the assumption that the activity of sulfate (SO?-) is equal to 1 ~10'~Molar solution, and the activity of ferrous iron (~e") is equal to 1
~10~Molar solution (Evangelou, 1995). This chemical species graph of pyrite oxidation shows the applicability of measuring redox potential in the field. Knowing the pH and
Eh of a section of stream, one can predict the degree of oxidation that has taken place and the chemical species of the iron.
For example, if the pH is measured at 5.1, and the Eh is determined to be 600 mV, then it is apparent from Figure # that the pyrite has been precipitated as iron hydroxide
[Fe(OH)3]. In this hypothetical section of stream influenced by AMD, there would be significant orange coating on the stream bottom and sides. The orange coating serves as a physical indicator.
How AMD Is Alleviated Under SMCRA
Because AMD is such a serious problem, it receives a great deal of attention under SMCRA, the primary federal statute designed for the regulation of the environmental effects of coal mining. AMD is regulated through a series of permitting requirements, performance standards, bonding requirements, reclamation requirements, and ownership and control rules, which are designed to address AMD problems before, during, and after mining.
Initially, AMD is combated in the permitting process. Section 5 10(b) of SMCRA fixbids the issuance of a permit until there is demonstration that: 1) reclamation of the proposed operation can be accomplished as required by SMCRA and the State or Federal program implementing it; 2) the proposed operation is designed to prevent "material damage" to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area (McLusky and Harvey, 1992).
The prevention of material damage is described in section 5 10(b) of SMCRA.
While "material damage" is not explicitly defined under SMCRA, it includes at least those effects which would cause a violation of effluent limitations and water quality standards. An operation will not be permitted unless water quality indicates that acidity, metal concentrations, and suspended solids meet effluent limitations. This determination is made by the regulatory authority, either the State or Federal program, which performs a
Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment (CHIA) on the area that will be affected by the proposed mining operation. The permit will be denied if the CHIA reveals that
"material damage" will occur to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. For instance, the regulatory authority may refuse mining permits where there is a potential for
AMD that may require extensive long-term water treatment.
The reclamation plan requirements under section 5 10(b)(2) of SMCRA ensures that a permit application cannot be approved unless the applicant demonstrates that reclamation can be accomplished under the proposed operation's reclamation plan. The necessary elements of an acceptable reclamation plan requires "a detailed description of the measures to be taken during mining and the reclamation process to assure the protection of the quality of surface and underground water systems, both on- and off-site, from adverse effects of the mining and reclamation process." These provisions are the basis for a comprehensive set of regulations dealing specifically with AMD, including environmental protection standards under SMCRA, the handling of acid-forming minerals consistent with SMCRA, compliance with the Clean Water Act, and the development of a "hydrologic reclamation plan" to avoid and treat AMD (McLusky and
Once a mining operation is permitted, it must operate pursuant to certain performance standards established under SMCRA and the regulations implementing it. If the mine operator fails to do so, helshe may subject to enforcement by the regulatory authority in the form of monetary penalties or even cessation of operations. Further, section 520 of SMCRA provides private citizens with the right to sue to compel compliance with environmental protection standards.
Many of the environmental protection standards with which the operator must comply relate to the control and treatment of AMD. Sections 5 15 and 5 16 of SMCRA set out performance standards for surface mining and underground mining, respectively.
General performance standards shall be applicable to all surface coal mining and reclamation operations and shall require the operation as a minimum to.. . minimize the disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance at the mine site and in associated off-site areas and to the quality and quantity of water in surface and groundwater systems both during and after surface coal mining operations and reclamation by.. . avoiding acid or other toxic mine drainage by such measures as, but not limited to.. . preventing or removing water from contact with toxic producing deposits; treating drainage to reduce toxic content which adversely affects downstream water upon being released to water courses; casing, sealing, or otherwise managing boreholes, shafts, and wells to keep acid or other toxic drainage from entering ground and surface waters.
These performance standards are implemented by a wide array of AMD-related regulations for surface and underground operations. These regulations cover such issues as general requirements for protecting surface and groundwater resources, compliance with water quality standards and effluent limitations, disposal of coal mine waste, and general requirements for backfilling and regrading.
Section 5 15(b)(14) of SMCRA contains a special provision relating to surface mines which is designed to ensure that acid-producing overburden does not lead to the formation of AMD. The provision ensures that minespoil is "treated or buried and compacted or otherwise disposed in a manner" that prevents the contamination of ground and surface waters. Section 5 16(b)(12) of SMCRA requires mine operators to locate openings in underground mines that lie in acid and/or iron producing seams "to prevent the gravity discharge from the mine." The idea behind this provision was to prevent the formation of AMD by requiring mine planning that will result in the "creation of barriers to air and water flow through the mine."
In addition to protecting the environment through permitting and performance standards, section 509 of SMCRA also requires that mining operations post a bond that is adequate to cover the costs of reclamation efforts. Regulations issued under section 509 include such topics as the requirement to file a bond, the period of liability for the bond, the determination of the dollar amount of the bond, and the adjustment of bond amounts.
The final tool available under SMCRA to control AMD is found in the OSM's ownership and control rules. Under section 5 10 of SMCRA, a permit cannot be issued to an applicant who "owns or controls" a surface coal mining operation that is currently in violation of SMCRA. This permit-blocking procedure provides an effective tool in the remediation of sites affected by AMD and other environmental impacts. It forces those operators who are permit-blocked to either reclaim the mine site in violation or simply go out of business for lack of permit.
NPDES Limitations for AMD
Surface water discharges and non-point source runoff from municipalities and industries, including mining operations, are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) under the Clean Water Act. The CWA uses three methods for establishing discharge limitations. These include: technology-based effluent limitations, which establish the baseline for treatment requirement; water quality-based effluent limitations, which are more stringent requirements imposed to achieve water quality standards; and limits on toxic discharges when necessary to protect human health.
Each industry is evaluated individually, and the effected receiving streams have different water quality standards (USEPA, 1993).
Industrial facilities that discharge pollutants must first meet the technology-based categorical standards of the 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 405 to 40 CFR 47 1.
Then, each discharge must be further examined separately to determine discharge limits to meet the in-stream water quality standards of the receiving waters. Water quality standards are adopted by the States and approved by the EPA, and their goal is to strive for "fishable/swimmable waters." If more stringent toxic limits or additional limits exist in order to meet in-stream water quality standards, they must meet those. Each pollutant discharge and its regulating limitations would be site and State specific. While water quality standards may be similar or the same for two different streams, discharge limits for facilities discharging into two different streams could vary depending on the discharge volume, stream flow, and the number of discharges to each stream. Each of the above parameters could change the concentration of a particular pollutant in the receiving stream. Therefore, determining maximum loadings are more complicated than simply looking up regulations; each individual discharge must undergo a thorough and lengthy investigation followed by peer and oversite review. These standards can be set by the NPDES authority, which is usually a State, maybe a tribe, or the EPA itself. However, many states, as well as the EPA, have avoided many problems in setting water quality performance standards by relying on the technology-based standards. The technology-based standards are a lot easier to implement.
In 40 CFR 434, effluent limitation guidelines are presented for acid or
"fermginous" mine drainage from active mining areas and post mining areas impacted by coal mining activities. The BPT effluent limitations are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1. BPT Effluent Limitations
Averaqe of dailv Maximum for values for 30 Pollutant or pollutant property any 1 day consecutive days
Iron, 7.0 mgll 3.5 mgll total Manganese, total 4.0 mgll 2.0 mgll TSS 70.0 mg/l 35.0 mgll PH 6 to 9 6 to 9 These guidelines are based upon two different types control technologies which define effluent limitations: the best practicable control technology (BPT) and the best available technology economically achievable (BAT). Technology standards were supposed to be phased in so that by July 1, 1977, effluent standards would be governed by BPT standards and by 1983, effluent standards would be governed by BAT standards.
Generally, BPT limitations represented the "average of the best" treatment technology in an industrial category. In setting BPT standards, the EPA considered the total cost of the technology in relation to effluent benefits, engineering aspects, nonwater quality impacts, and other factors.
BAT standards are defined by the EPA as the "very best control and treatment measures that have been or are capable of being achieved." BAT was based on the single best performer within an industry, rather than an average of the best plants. Cost was a less important factor in setting BAT standards. Therefore, the BAT standards were a lot more stringent than the BPT standards. By changing to the stricter BAT standards in
1983, many plants were forced to go out of business because they just could not afford the technology needed to achieve the stricter BAT standards. Today the BAT standards are identical to the BPT standards. But during that time, it was an effective way to force industries to comply with highest standards that were possible. Duties of the Department of Mines and Reclamation
The Department of Mines and Reclamation (DMR) of the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources (ODNR) oversees active mining operations and the reclamation of the land by the mining company after the extraction of coal or other minerals. DMR must regulate the mining industry by striking a balance between protecting human health and the environment from impacts of mining operations, while providing for the country's needs for coal as an essential source of energy.
The regulatory program of DMR involved three primary areas: permitting, inspectiordenforcement. and technical review. The permitting sector reviews permit applications, amendments, revisions, and land use changes. The permitting staff works closely with the other two areas to ensure permits contain the proper safeguards so that mine operators are able to comply with all regulations.
The inspection and enforcement sector is comprised of several reclamation inspectors who are highly-trained professionals that are responsible for ensuring compliance with all mining rules at a mine site. Reclamation inspectors monitor mining activities from the time the permit is issued until the last acre is reclaimed and the bond is released. Inspectors of active mines ensure compliance with regulations designed to protect human health and the environment from potential impacts of mining operations.
Emphasis is placed upon proper operation and control of impacts on topsoil handling, surface and subsurface protection of water systems, regrading and revegetation, blasting, sr,ructural damage caused by mine subsidence, and the handling of toxic materials. 26
The technical staff is comprised of hydrologists, engineers, an archeologist, a soil scientist, and a blasting expert who all provide assistance to the other DMR sectors.
Their main responsibility is reviewing the technical aspects of permit applications of the mine site in question and examining technical matters during mining and reclamation.
The technical staff analyzes the following areas: geology, hydrological impacts, mine drainage control, soil conditions, land capability, wildlife habitat, mine subsidence control, revegetation, farmland restoration, and cultural and historic resources.
DMR 's Abandoned Mine Land Programs
The DMR adopted a state abandoned mine lands (AML) program and a federal
AML program to reclaim those areas disturbed by coal mining operations where there is no continuing reclamation responsibility by a mine operator. Both AML programs are funded by severance taxes that are placed on the mining of coal.
The state AML program is funded by a share of the seven cents per ton of the state coal severance tax. The state program focuses on the reclamation of lands that cause pollution to waters of the state and lands that cause damage to adjacent property.
Also, the state program concentrates on lands, when reclaimed, which can be used by the public for soil, water, forests, wildlife conservation, recreational resources, or commercial and industrial facilities. The state AML program reclaims lands affected prior to 1972, and these projects are designed and inspected by the DMR staff (ODNR,
1995). The federal AML program includes an emergency and a non-emergency program.
A federal fee levied on mined coal funds both programs. The fee for surface mined coal is thirty-five cents per ton, and for underground mined coal, it is fifteen cents per ton.
The fees are paid to the OSM and are used to reclaim lands that were affected by coal mining operations prior to 1977. The emergency program focuses on problems that require immediate action such as a structure that has collapsed due to underground mine subsidence. The non-emergency program focuses on projects to protect and/or restore the environment from effects of coal mining. Depending on the complexity and urgency of'the project, the federal AML projects may be designated by the DMR staff or an outside consultant.
Process of Generating Electricity at Conesville Power Plant
American Electric Power's Conesville Power plant, located in Coshocton County,
Ohio, uses bituminous coal to produce electricity. The Conesville Power Plant has a net generating capacity of 1,995 megawatts and uses 3.72 million tons of coal every year
(Limes, 1999).
Electricity is generated through a complicated process at the Conesville Plant.
First, bituminous-type coal is delivered from Ohio mines and placed in storage in the coal yard. The plant has a coal reserve of 500,000 tons in which half of the coal is washed and the other half is unwashed. As electricity is demanded, coal is moved from the yard by conveyors to storage silos for each of six individual processing units. Coal is then moved from the silos on small conveyors (called feeders) to the pulverizers, which grind the coal into a fine powder. Next, the coal is moved by air to the steam generator or
boiler where it bums at high temperatures to convert circulating water to steam. The
steam is routed into the turbine where it turns the blades in a circular motion. The
spinning turbine drives a generator that produces electricity (AEP, 1997).
The exhaust steam from the turbine is condensed in the condenser and returned to the steam generator to start the process again. Large quantities of circulating water are supplied to the condenser from the Muskingum River. The circulating water itself is then cooled in a cooling tower to protect the river from abnormal heating. Because electricity cannot be stored, it is generated the instant an AEP customer needs it. The generators produce electricity at 15,000 to 24,000 volts. Transformers outside the plant increase the voltage to 138,000 and 345,000 volts so it can be transmitted efficiently to wherever it is needed (AEP, 1997).
In the boiler, the heavy ash particles fall to the bottom where they sluiced out and transferred to a 27-acre fly ashibottom ash pond located on-site. The lighter ash particles and gases from the boiler are transported to an electrostatic precipitator where 99.5 percent of the fly ash is removed. The fly ash collects on electrically charged plates in the precipitator and is later mixed with the scrubber by-product (or FGD). This fly ash is classified as "Class C" due to the type of coal from which it is derived, bituminous. Flue-Gus Desulfurization Sludge Production
Flue Gas Desulfurization sludge (FGD) is a by-product from the process of generating electric power. The material is usually landfilled, but recently, the by-product has been used in engineering applications, such as the mine sealing material used at the
Broken Aro site. Depending on the type of power plant, the by-products may vary due to different processes and systems installed to treat contaminants-
After the fly ash particles have been removed in the process described above, the sulfur dioxide gas (SO2) must be treated before it is emitted into the atmosphere. This is the fbnction of the scrubber. Inside the scrubber, a lime-water solution is sprayed to cleanse the SO2 gas. The amount of lime used in the scrubber annually is 67,000 tons.
This chemical reaction produces calcium sulfur compounds and forms a sluny that falls to the bottom of the scrubber unit. The slurry is the origin of the FGD. This process removes about 97 percent of the SOz emissions before they reach the atmosphere through the stack. The scrubber units cost $65 million each, and about $14 million per year to operate. Over 600,000 tons of scrubber by-product or FGD are produced annually (AEP,
1997).
The next step in the process is taking the FGD sluny and preparing it for the landfill or some engineering application. From the scrubber, the slurry is transported to a
FGD thickener which reduces the material's water contenr to 34 percent dry solids. Then the FGD waste is put into a vacuum filter increasing the dry solids content to 41 percent.
The FGD filter cakes are then mixed with fly ash from the electrostatic precipitator and three to five percent lime in a mixer where the dry solids are increased again to 55 3 0 percent. The now-treated FGD waste is put into a curing pile and then transported to the landfill. The scrubber landfill is 50 acres in area and 1000 feet deep when full. Recently, this FGD product is being utilized in engineering applications for its alkaline nature and cementitious characteristics in order to preserve land and space (AEP, 1997).
FGD Chemical Composition and Material Properties
Flue Gas Desulfurization sludge is a by-product from the flue gas scrubbers at
AEP's coal-burning power plant in Conesville, Ohio. The final FGD material used in mine seal construction contains 0.8 to 1.2 parts dry "Class C" fly ash from electrostatic precipitators mixed with one part filter cake from the scrubbers. The filter cakes consist of calcium sulhte (CaS04) and calcium sulfite (CaS03). Lime is added at three to five percent by dry weight to the mixture as stated above. Its major constituent analysis is depicted in Table 2. Calcium and sulfur make up more than half of the FGD material with 34.9 and 20.9 percent by weight, respectively. Table 2. FGD Chemical Constituents
Constituent Percent by Weight
Calcium oxide Sulfur dioxide Silica Sulfur trioxide Iron oxide Aluminum oxide Magnesium oxide Potassium oxide Titanium oxide Sodium oxide Ignition loss
?'he physical composition of the FGD is comprised of silt-sized particles with a
\.et-y high water content. When left undisturbed, interparticle cementitious reactions bind thy material together forming a low-strength, monolithic material. Undisturbed. compacted laboratory cylinders typically achieve an unconfined compressive strength of
60 to 100 psi after 30 days. The more the ~naterialis handled prior to being left undisturbed. the lower the ultimate unconfined compressive strength will be.
Except under wet conditions. FGD appears to be a dry powdery material or as rounded clods of gray-white claj.. When the material is handled and worked. the surface dryness and compressive and shear strengths disappear, and the resulting material
behaves more like a sludge than a solid. When the FGD is wet, the material becomes
very slippery. especially when spreading it in a ~vorkingsurface. Compacted surfaces
become very slippery during wet conditions. 'Therefore, during the construction of the nine seal, the FGD material had a moisture content less than 75 percent, and it was placed fresh, within ten days of its production or within seven days of its delivery to the site (Faulconer et al., 1997).
The FGD material before constnlction was cake-like in appearance and off-white in color with a dry solids content of approximately 52 percent and a compacted wet density of approximately 95 pounds per cubic foot. The material has a specific gravity in the range of two to three, and it yields a pH in the range of 10 to 12 in a one-percent slurry. Laboratory tests showed that the permeability of the FGD material ranged from
2.5 X 10-"0 4.5 X lo-' cmisec, depending on the ratio of fly ash to filter cake, the percentage of quick lime, and the allowed curing time (Faulconer et al., 1997).
The FGD material was also analyzed for its leachate characteristics and its permeability before attempting to use it as an effective mine sealant. The leachate had an alkalinity of 471 mg/L as CaC03, a pH of 1 1.35, and a specific conductivity of 2333
~Slcrn.The other leachate characteristics can be found in Table 3. It can be seen that the water leaching through the FGD material is highly alkaline in nature. Also, in the consolidation permeability test, it was found that the coefficient of permeability was, on average, 6.7 X cdsec with an optimum moisture content of 45.7 percent (AEP.
1997). Table 3. FGD Leachate Characteristics
Constituent Concentration (rn~/L)
Acidity < 1 Alkalinity 47 1 Aluminum 0.87 Arsenic 0.0 16 Barium 0.27 1 Cadmium <0.0005 Chloride 59 Chromium 0.004 Conductivity 2333 Copper 0.00 1 Fluoride 0.6 Iron 0.02 Lead 0.001 Manganese The properties discussed above make the FGD material a good candidate for mine sealing project. FGD is a cementitious material with a rather low permeability which is advantageous for holding back water that develops a substantial head pressure in an underground mine. Also, it is an alkaline material which has the opportunity to neutralize acidic waters produced from AMD in abandoned coal mines. Chapter 3 Literature Review This chapter gives a background on some of the research projects that have been done on the topic of AMD abatement, specifically relating to the Broken Aro Mine Seal Project. Chapter 3 concentrates on the utilization of FGD by-products in engineering applications. Also, it reviews some research performed on passive treatment systems, a GIs-based non-point source project, and other mine sealinglgrouting projects. This chapter is dedicated to the people who have done research that have contributed in some way to the thinking and ideas used in the Broken Aro Project. Introdiiction of FGD Applications More than half of the electricity produced in the United States is derived from coal-fired power plants. The CAA Amendments of 1990 required many power plants, which burn high sulfur bituminous coal, to reduce sulfur dioxide (SOz) emissions. This new legislation has resulted in the generation of large amounts of coal combustion by- products (CCB's) which could be beneficially utilized. In 1996, about 800 million metric tons of coal was burned in the United States to produce electricity, which led to over 90 million tons of CCB's including fly ash, boiler slag, bottom ash, and FGD material. Only one-fourth of the CCB's was utilized while the rest were landfilled. Only seven percent of the FGD generated in 1996 was utilized and that largely to the wallboard industry. Since Phase 2 of the CAA Amendments of 1990 is going into effect in 2000, the amount of FGD material will increase to about 200 million tons (Butalia and Wolfe., 1998). In Ohio, nearly 90 percent of the electricity produced is generated by burning coal, and the State generates about 13 percent of all CCB's produced in this country. Landfilling these materials can be avoided by utilizing these CCB's as a raw material in engineering applications that are environmentally safe, technically sound, and commercially competitive. The utilization of these by-products can lead to a decrease in landfill space, conservation of natural resources, reduced cost of generating electricity, and lower electricity cost for consumers. As the production of coal combustion by-products increase and the costs of landfilling rise, coal-fired power utilities have attempted to find re-uses for such products. At Broken Aro, FGD was used as a mine sealing material. This was the first research project that involved this type of engineering application for the coal combustion by- product. However, this material has been utilized in many different ways to prevent it from being landfilled and taking up precious land space. A list of potential uses was presented by Dick et al. (1997). Liner at solid waste disposal sites Soil blends Gypsum amendment for improving properties of compacted soils Sulfur and trace element fertilizer Temporary cover for landfills Impermeable barrier construction Temporary stabilization of hazardous spills Lime substitute Road Construction Repair Soil Stabilizer Inhibition of AMD Reclamation of toxic coal spoil 3 6 Many of these uses for the FGD material were carried out in research projects in this part of the country due to the fact that coal mining is one of the leading industries. Waste Lagoon Liner The first project to be discussed is Wolfe and Butalia's (1998) "Use of FGD as an Impervious Liner." A full-scale lagoon was constructed using compacted FGD as a liner. The lagoon was designed for a capacity of 150,000 ft3 which was approximately six months storage for all liquid wastes from swines at the on-site farm. The lagoon will store water for the first year and then replaced with swine waste generated at the farm. The dimensions of the lagoon are 144' x 250', and the depth is nine feet with an additional two feet of freeboard. The side slopes were 3H: 117 on three of the sides, and 7H: 1V on the fourth side which allowed easy access for trucks to the lagoon during construction. The on-site clay was re-compacted to form an impervious secondary outer liner, and the leachate collection system was placed six to eight inches within this clay liner. Washed river gravel was placed over the pipes to protect them from crushing during the compaction of the FGD. To promote drainage, a 9-inch sand layer was placed on top of the clay with a geofabric on top of the sand to provide a smooth surface for the FGD material. The lagoon was now prepared for the delivery of FGD from the Conesville AEP plant. Stabilized FGD material was transported to the site by trucks at a rate of about 600 tons per day. Approximately 2700 tons of FGD material were used to construct the 18-inch thick FGD primary liner. The FGD material had a fly ash to filter cake ratio of 1.25: 1 and a lime content of 8 percent on a dry weight basis. The moisture content of the FGD for liner construction ranged from 50 to 70 percent, but maximum compacted dry density was achieved for a moisture content of 60 percent. Some difficulty was encountered in compacting wetter FGD on the 3H: 1V side slopes. Therefore, it is recommended that the FGD material be used on side slopes of 4H: 1V or flatter for easier compaction. Test pads with similar characteristics were installed adjacent to the lagoon to conduct field permeability tests as well as core out samples for laboratory permeability tests. This project was to determine the water quality and quantity of water permeating through the FGD liner. Water samples are collected from the lagoon, the sump in the leachate system, and a monitoring well about 1000 feet from the site. Preliminary results indicate that the permeability of the field compacted FGD liner is reducing with time and is approaching the EPA recommended value of 1x1 o-~cmisec for waste containment facilities. Permeability tests conducted on the lagoon one month after filling with water have yielded an effective permeability value of 9.1 x10-' cdsec. After five months of curing time, the permeability reduced to 4.1 x10-~cmisec, and it is expected that this value will continue to decrease. Use of FGD in High way Repairs The goal of this project was to utilize FGD to reconstruct the failed portion of a highway embankment. Payette et al. (1 997) attempted to prove that the strength 3 8 properties and workability of FGD by-products are deserving enough to provide slope stabilty on roadway embankments. The embankment of concern is located on State Route 83 which runs north to south for nearly the entire length of Ohio. The portion that failed is an embankment about 15 meters high and 1000 meters long located just south of Cumberland, Ohio. In 1993, a site inspection identified a five-centimeter vertical offset along the centerline of the road, and the slope just beyond the right-of-way revealed the 'wavy' terrain typical of multiple rotational landslides. For the past five years, road crews have patched this section of roadway two to three times a year. Soil investigations have revealed that a clay layer 3 to 6 meters thick overlays clay-shale material. The clay increased in thickness across the roadway, indicating a dip in the rock layer of about 14" away from the hillside. The repair of the embankment took place in three construction phases. The first stage consisted of the excavation of the slip and roadway and the removal of failed material. Approximately 1 1,000 cubic meters of embankment soil was excavated leaving the surface elevation 2 to 3 meters lower than its previous elevation. Because the failure plane was not intercepted during the excavation, additional material was removed from the up-slope side of the roadway, forming a trench about 2.5 m wide and 2 m deep. Then, fabric drain boards were installed against the hillside to intercept any groundwater before it could reach the embankment. Drain pipes were installed in the trench to convey the intercepted water off the hillside. The trench was then backfilled with compacted FGD ash to form a key. The FGD key was constructed as a result of a slope stability analysis which indicated that such a structure would provide the finished slope with an adequate factor of safety against hrther slippage. The second phase of the project consisted of constructing the remainder of the embankment and raising up the roadway to its original grade. It involved dividing the rest of the embankment into four separate test sections. At both the north and south ends of the repair, control sections were constructed by drying, replacing, and recompacting the soil that had been originally taken from the failed embankment. Between these sections, a third test section was constructed which consisted of a mix of FGD and soil. This section was constructed to determine whether or not the FGD by-product could be used effectively as a treatment to improve the mechanical properties of in situ soils. The design of the FGD-soil mix was 50 percent soil and 50 percent FGD as field mixing conditions would allow. The final section consisted of only FGD by-product. The compacted water contents of the soil, FGD-soil mix, and FGD only were 19, 15, and 18 percent by weight, respectively. The final construction phase consisted of constructing a wearing course over top the four test sections. Since the embankment was completed after the last date that asphalt was available, a temporary wearing surface was constructed by placing a 0.5 m layer of compacted FGD over half of the site. The other half of the roadway was treated using a macadam surface which is typically specified by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) for temporary repairs. A stability analysis was performed on each of the three configurations using the slope stability program called PCSTABL and soil borings. The slip surface and the 40 factor of safety were computed for typical cross-sections of the three configurations. The soil-only section of the reconstructed embankment had a safety factor of only 1 .O, but the presence of the FGD key forced the shallower failure surface away from the hillside. The slope stability analysis performed on the FGD-soil mixture yielded a safety factor of 15. The calculated failure surface would pass through the FGD-soil mix, but the high strength of the mixture indicates a low probability of failure. Finally, the FGD only section yielded a safety factor of 27. Again, the failure surface passes through the FGD material, but the likelihood of slippage is very small. It is clear that the use of FGD-strengthened soil can improve the stability of embankment construction. Further, its excellent strength properties and workability are well suited for field modifications. FGD Livestock Pads In the summer of 1997, over 150 animal feedlot and hay storage pads were constructed in Ohio by Ohio State University (1997) using a byproduct fiom coal-burning power plants. The pads were built with lime enriched FGD in the place of more expensive conventional construction materials such as stone aggregate and concrete. More than 45,000 tons of FGD material were utilized in the construction of the pads, which would have otherwise been landfilled. The pads ranged in size from 350 to 40,000 square feet and were built in Belmont, Coshocton, Fairfield, Franklin, Gallia, Guernsey, Jackson, Licking, Meigs, Muskingum, Noble, and Tuscarawas counties in Ohio. One of the pads was built for a rhinoceros at the Wilds, a wildlife safari park near Cambridge. By developing ways to recycle this FGD byproduct, the environment, the utilities who use coal, and consumers like farmers will benefit from such applications. Livestock farmers build hard, impermeable feeding pads to avoid muddy conditions. Animals use more energy moving around in the mud, resulting in higher feed costs and reduced weight gain. Hay storage pads are built to keep hay bales off wet ground that can cause early deterioration and as much as 50 percent hay spoilage. Coal utility companies can give this material away, free of charge, to conserve space in their overloaded landfills. Thus, the environment is spared the disposal of another waste form. The materials used in the construction of the pads were fly ash, lime, and filter cakes generated as by-products in coal-driven power plants. The fly ash to filter cake ratio ranges from 1 :1 to 1.25: 1 depending on the plant's control parameters. Lime is also added to the mixture from four to six percent. The livestock pads are cured for at least 60 days before being exposed to freezehhaw effects, and the strength obtained is between 350-550 psi. The construction period ends August 30 so that freezelthaw effects will not be encountered during curing. FGD material from AEP's Conesville and Gavin power plants is being used for the construction of the livestock pads. Roberts-Dawson Mine Injection Project The objective of this project has been to investigate whether coal combustion by- products could be utilized to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts caused by coal mining operations. Mafi et al. (1997) attempted to demonstrate the technical feasibility of injecting cementitous alkaline materials to alleviate problems associated with AMD. Experiments were carried out to determine whether fly ash and FGD, when combined with lime, could produce an environmentally safe, engineered grout material suitable for sealing old mine entries and coating the floor and walls of abandoned mine chambers. 'The Roberts-Dawson Mine Complex is a small abandoned deep mine in Coshocton County, Ohio that is approximately 14.6 acres in area. The mine operated in the 1950's when about two million cubic feet of coal was removed. Prior to grout injection, the abandoned mine discharged effluent fiom mine entrances with a pH in the range of 2.8 to 3.0 that drains directly into Wills Creek Lake. The FGD material was provided by AEP's Conesville Plant and was injected as a grout mix that will use Fixated FGD material and water. The plant will produce 1.25: 1 and 1: 1 fly ash to filter cake ratios with the addition of 5 percent quicklime. The material must be utilized within a few hours of its production. The purpose of the FGD grout mix is to seal off seepage from old mine workings and neutralize acid mine waters. The project will attempt to seal and fill primarily the lower, down-dip areas of the mine, not the entire underground mine. Therefore, a practical procedure can be established and economically applied to larger mines where full-scale grout-filling would be cost prohibitive. Other studies are being conducted on the area include: impacts of FGD on the ground and surface water ability of the FGD grout to seal the mine and reduce AMD effects of AMD chemistry on the acid neutralizing capacity of FGD the effects on physical properties of FGD caused by AMD weathering The construction of the project was as follows. The down-dip area of the mine was sealed with a hydraulic seal consisting of a viscous mixture of FGD material and water that had a 4 to 6-inch slump test result. The purpose of this seal is to increase the water level inside the mine and eventually flood the mine workings. This inundation will eliminate the oxygen ceasing AMD production. However, water may begin to seep out through new outcrops in the up-dip area of the mine due to the increasing head pressure within the mine complex. Therefore, a more fluid grout mix with a slump of 8 to 10 inches was injected in the up-dip area of the mine to neutralize the acidic water and coat the pyritic material. Mine water will now have limited contact with pyritic minerals, and water quality will improve. The mine voids will be accessed by drilling about 300 vertical grout injection holes from the ground surface down to the specific mine elevation. The grout was pumped into the holes through injection pipes and will be seal-grouted to the top of the ground when completed. Frequent testing of the grout mixtures is conducted during each shift to test laboratory strength parameters. The site's geologic setting and groundwater levels were characterized by drilling five to ten exploratory borings. Also, 23 monitoring wells have been installed across the site to observe the water quality in two sandstone aquifers and the #6 coal seam that lies in the middle. A site-specific numerical computer flow model is being developed and will be utilized to analyze the aquifer system. The numeric flow model will be capable of simulating three-dimensional "particle tracks" which represent the movement of solutes through the FGD material and the aquifer. The buffering capacity of the treated mine water will be computed from the results of the model and the corresponding chemical loading rates. The surface water is monitored at 12 locations that include seeps from the mine complex, a small receiving stream, a mine spoil drainage area, and the outlet to Wills Creek Lake. Samples will be taken both prior to and after the injection of the FGD grout so that baseline water quality can be established. Analysis was performed by obtaining core samples from the FGD grout. After about nine months, the core samples indicated that the grout is highly impermeable, has weathered very little, and demonstrates an unconfined compressive strength above the design value. Chemical analysis of the grout mix indicated that the bulk material meets USEPA regulations established for land application of sewage sludge. About nine months after the grouting operation, no dramatic changes in water quality at the site have been observed. Intensive monitoring of surface water and groundwater quality at the site will continue for three more years to determine the adverse or beneficial effects the grouting operation may have as the grout weathers over time. Laboratory strength and chemical tests on in-situ weathered grout will also continue (Whitlatch et al., 1999) Hydraulic Mine Seal: An 18-year Post Audit A study was done by Stoetz et al. (1 999) to determine the effectiveness of a mine seal after it has been in place for 18 years. An abandoned underground coal mine in Vinton County, Ohio was sealed in 1980 by a 1000-ft subsurface clay dike and 35 mine entry hydraulic seals located near the down-dip outcrop of the coal. The purpose of the project was to flood the underground mine in order to limit pyritelwater surface contact and suppress the oxidation of the pyritic materials, which will limit the generation of AMD. The AMD contamination destroyed the wildlife habitat in Lake Hope that collects the drainage from the mining area in Sandy Run. The 120-acre Lake Hope was fonned by damming Sandy Run in 1939. ODNR and OEPA completed the construction of the mine seal using a design from Gwin, Dobson, and Foreman (Foreman et al., 1979). The design included a clay dike to counter possible seepage through the coal outcrop where workings extended into shallow cover. A 1000-ft trench was excavated and blasted parallel to the coal outcrop, exposed mine tunnels were filled with expansive cement, and then the trench was filled with clay and a support backfill. In addition to the clay dike, 35 mine entries were hydraulically sealed with clay and supported by concrete walls. Studies, conducted for three years after sealing, showed continued acid seepage driven by a high hydraulic head in the mine complex. However, since the hydrologic system had not stabilized, an assessment of the mine seal could not be made. Mine water data collected 0,4, 7. and 18 years after sealing showed a pH increase from 2.3 to 5.3 and a decrease in specific conductivity from 2700 to 600 pS/cm. This study tested the hypothesis that acid loads from the sealed mine became more uniform due to storage and slow release, eliminating "slugs" of acidic loads. However, hydraulic head within the sealed mine varies seasonally with recharge. Concentrations of pollutants are highest at low flow conditions during summer months. Average acid loads have decreased 75% since 1979. Iron, manganese, and aluminum loads have decreased 90%, 6696, and 85%, respectively, in discharges emanating from the sealed mine complex. Some water quality improvements may be attributed to natural attenuation and the exhaustion of pyritic exposed surfaces. An adjacent abandoned unsealed mine also shows substantial improvement. Mean concentrations of total acidity, iron, manganese, and aluminum have decreased 49%, 85%, 19%, and 69%, respectively, in the mine complex adjacent to the sealed mine. Improvements in the unsealed mine have been attributed to either natural attenuation or to a possible hydraulic connection between the two mines. The head in the sealed mine seems to be driving the flow that discharges through the unsealed mine, but this has not been proven. Some degree of natural attenuation is expected in both mines due to the geologic materials supporting the mine complexes. Strong and extensive sandstone roofs absent of shale prevents collapse and subsidence, which limits fresh surfaces exposed for further AMD generation. The sealed mine fell short of its expectations since the mine is only inundated for a short time each year. The water level is often high during recharge periods, but during summer months, the water level in the sealed mine declines due to seepage through geologic materials and the seal itself. This research was important by demonstrating the significance of an extensive monitoring schedule. A design for the abatement of AMD must be monitored for many years after construction in order to see long term effects. The hydrologic system takes an extensive amount of time to reach a state of equilibrium. and until this is achieved, results may be misleading. Improvements in the water quality may take a long time to develop, and a timely monitoring plan will help govern and/or develop the design of a future mine sealing technique. Reho both Reclamation Project The Rehoboth Phase I site is located in Perry- County, Ohio, just outside New Lexington. The project was designed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to abate the formation of AMD (Tinnel, 1999). The site consists of a large mine spoil pile which is about 43 acres in area. During the reclamation of the mine spoil area at Rehoboth, FGD was used for three different purposes: resoil material, cap material, and a pond liner. The project utilized over 250,000 tons of FGD material. The FGD material used in the reclamation construction of the pond liner and the coal refuse cap had the following properties: 0.8 to 1.2 dry "Class C" fly ash 1.0 part FGD filter cake 3 to 5% lime addition by weight The FGD material is comprised of silt-sized particles with a very high water content. Interparticle reactions bind the FGD sludge together to form a low strength, cementitious material. In the construction of the pond liner, the FGD was placed in two lifts of 12 inches, equaling a total thickness of two feet. Each lift of the pond liner was compacted with a towed, smooth drum, vibratory roller. The roller had a static weight of 22,000 pounds. A minimum of four passes was made over each lift with an overlap of 25 percent for each pass. This pond provides the opportunity for sedimentation of heavy metals such as iron, manganese, and aluminum. It is part of the treatment system for the AMD discharge from the underground mine. The compaction of the FGD material significantly reduced the permeability of the pond liner, ensuring that water contaminated with AMD would not percolate into the groundwater. Further, the FGD material provides acid-neutralizing capability which will add alkalinity to the AMD contaminated mine water. After the coal refuse pile was regraded to a slope of approximately 10: 1 (horizontal to vertical), the FGD material was placed on top. FGD was placed on the finished slopes of the coal refuse pile within ten days from its time of production at the AEP Conesville power plant. The FGD cap was placed in a single lift of a two feet thick layer. The cap layer was compacted to eliminate all voids and cracks encountered during installation. FGD clumps exceeding thee inches in diameter were removed or broken down prior to the final compaction'pass. This ensured a fairly homogeneous seal over the coal refuse pile. The purpose of the FGD cap was to eliminate the surface contact of pyrite and runoff/infiltration waters and prevent the formation of AMD. Water that is able to percolate through the FGD cap will be highly alkaline before entering into the refuse pile. This will produce a "reverse" neutralizing reaction going from a basic to an acid medium. On top of the FGD cap, a resoiling mixture of 50 percent aged FGD sludge and 50 percent on-site mine spoil material was arranged. The length of time since the aged FGD material was produced at the AEP Conesville power plant may range from 7 to 365 days. The aged FGD material used in resoiling was different than that of the FGD used for the pond liner and the coal rehse cap. The resoil materials were uniformly mixed on-site, 49 and particle sizes greater than one inch in any dimension were removed or broken down. The resoil layer had a minimum thickness of eight inches after it was spread over the F'GD cap and was not compacted. This layer provides a rooting zone for the plants that would be introduced in the revegetation process. The purpose of the layer was to introduce alkalinity with the aged FGD material and reduce infiltration waters through plant uptake in the roots. An alternate organic resoil layer was placed on top of the resoiling mixture. This layer consists of cured yard waste compost that had a Total Organic Carbon content greater than 15 percent and Total Nitrogen content greater than one percent. The uncompacted, organic soil layer was applied at a rate of 33 dry tons per acre and spread onto the resoil mixture to a depth of two inches with a manure/box-type spreader vehicle. The purpose of this layer was to provide nutrients for the plants that were initiated in standard revegetation. Laboratory results of these FGD applications have shown significant improvements in water quality. The sedimentation pond that was lined with FGD collects run-off and infiltration waters from the coal refuse area. The pH of the pond has increased from 2.73 to 6.38 in one year. The acidity has decreased from 4,250 mg/L to only 40 mg/L in less than a year, which is a 99.1 percent reduction. Further, the total iron concentration decreased from 1,2 10 mg/L to 0.52 mg/L in one year, which is a 99.96 percent reduction. It is apparent from these results that the design at the Rehoboth site has been a complete success. Hydraulic Mine Seals Throughout the Appalachian coal fields, underground mines are considered to be the principal source of AMD. Hydraulic mine seals have often been proposed to abate AMD that is generated inside deep mine compiexes. They are installed in mine entries (drifts, slopes, shafts, and adjacent strata) where significant hydrostatic pressure will be exerted on the seal. John Foreman from the U.S. Environmental Research Service published "Engineered Structures for Sealing Underground Mines" in 1998. This article reviews types of hydraulic mine seals used in different configurations and their effectiveness in preventing AMD. The primary function of hydraulic mine seals are: eliminate potential access to the abandoned mine works following closure. minimize AMD production by limiting infiltration of air and water into the deep mine. minimize AMD production by limiting exfiltration of water and maximize inundation. minimize AMD exfiltration through coal barrier pillars to adjacent flow systems. develop staged internal mine pools to regulate maximum hydraulic head pressure. The primary goal of mine seal is to serve as a structural bulkhead and act as a water tight dam. The seal must be capable of withstanding the maximum hydrostatic pressure that will develop as a result of the flooding of the mine complex. The structural design is governed by a minimum required thicknesss, but the potential for water to migrate around the seal through adjacent strata must also be compensated for in the design. There are three common approaches used to minimize the potential migration of impounded water around the mine seal area. First, pressure 5 1 grouting of the adjacent strata will reduce the amount of water that is able to flow around the mine seal. This process injects grout into the natural and mining-related cracks in the material around the seal created an additional barrier. Second, the mine seal thickness can be increased. This increases the path of flow that migrating water must travel to bypass the seal, and it increases the safety factor for the structural design. Third, the installation of secondary mine seals provides extra barriers to limit potential migration around mine seals. This approach is used where inundation creates an extremely high hydraulic head pressure. Foreman, Bullers, and Hong (1969) constructed 69 remotely placed deep mine seals at Moraine State Park in Butler County, Pennsylvania. These seals were constructed to abate AMD discharges emanating from 22 abandoned mine complexes which drained to Lake Arthur. Maksimovic, et al. (1 982) performed a follow-up hydrogeologic and geochemical assessment of the mine seals for the U.S. Bureau of Mines. They concluded that the total mean discharge, alkalinity, and iron increased while the total mean acid loads were decreased. Overall, the mine seals improved the water quality of Lake Arthur substantially. Foreman and Hong (1979) designed and constructed a clay dike and 35 hydraulic mine seals at Lake Hope State Park in Zeleski National Forest in Vinton County, Ohio. The seals were constructed to abate severe AMD that flowed from six abandoned deep mines which drained into Lake Hope. Nichols et al. (1 983) carried out a monitoring plan to determine the effect of the mine sealing design for USGS, OEPA, and ODNR. After only six months following the construction, they reported an increase in pH of nearly two 5 2 units and corresponding decreases in specific conductivity (25%). sulfates (40%), and total iron (84%). Lake Hope has improved to the point where a viable bass fishery has been reestablished. Foreman and Beck (1 984) constructed 35 concrete drift seals installed at the PA Mine Corporation's Lady Jane Collieries deep mine in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. '4 mine drift is a horizontal entry allowing access to the deep mine from the ground surface. The mine seals were constructed to prevent post-mining AMD discharges after closure and inundation. This mine sealing operation consisted of several internal mine seals whose function was to develop staged internal mine pools to regulate maximum hydraulic head and pressure. The development of several. small mine pools limited the high hydrostatic pressure on the coal barriers along the periphery of the mined area. Coal barriers are created during mining operations to provide structural stability to the mine complex and provide barriers for water management. The assessment of the mine seals concluded that they proved to be effective with no surface discharge found and no impacts to underlying groundwater systems. Foreman and Moore (1 982) designed and constructed a remotely placed deep mine seal in an entry where hydrostatic pressure ruptured the coal barrier of the Guarnieri underground mine complex in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. Adjacent to this deep mine, the Adobe Coal Mining Company was performing surface mining operations. The purpose of the mine seal was to restore the function of the coal barrier and eliminate drainage of the deep mine reservoir into the active surface mine pit. Following construction of the mine seal, the drainage was abated and Adobe was able to surface mine without further inflows from the underground mine complex. Foreman (1985) constructed a concrete rnine seal in the breached barrier of the active Providence #1 deep mine in Webster County, Kentucky. The purpose of the seal was to reestablish the functional aspect of the barrier and return the mine to active production. The miners at the Providence #1 deep mine had accidentally mined through the barrier into the adjacent, abandoned Hall-Luton #9 deep mine which was fully flooded at the time. The resultant inflow flooded 60% of the Providence #1 mine complex causing full evacuation of the workforce and complete destruction of the ventilation system within the mine. Since the Providence # 1 mine was situated underneath a fully inundated mine complex, the cost of placing remote mine seals was deemed excessive. Thus, it was decided to renovate the immediate section where the rupture occurred and construct the mine seal at the face. The design was successful and allowed the mine to be reopened and return to full productivity. It is apparent that hydraulic mine seals can serve different purposes. These seals can prevent AMD, close off dangerous mine openings, and repair ruptures so that coal production can continue. However, the design of the mine seals can vary by the type of material utilized and the configuration selected. Omega Mine Grout Project The Omega Mine Complex is located six miles outside of Morgantown, West Virginia. The underground mine lies in the Upper Freeport Coal, an acid-producing coal seam. AMD was noted to be discharging from the Omega Mine and impacting the Owl Creek and Cobun Creek watersheds during and after mining operations. In 1995, the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) took over treating the AMD from the site with a central treatment facility which costs approximately $300,000 per year in operation and materials. In this project, an innovative procedure of injecting grout into the mine workings to reduce AMD was proposed by Gray, Moran, Broschart, and Smith (1998). The procedure involves injecting grout mixes comprised primarily of coal combustion by- products and water, with a small amount of cement. The grout mix design consists of an approximate 1 : 1 ratio of fly ash to by-products from fluidized bed combustion (FBC). Approximately 100 gallons of water per cubic yard of grout is used to help achieve flowability. Further, the FBC material has the potential to provide strength to the grout while the coal combustion ash enhances the fluidity of the grout. The addition of two- percent cement provides dimensional stability to the hardened grout product. The following properties were demonstrated in the grout mix design in the laboratory: flow without separating into solid and liquid portions, set time of two days so that it will remain in place following injection, dimensional stability throughout the test period, * low permeability, little potential to leach metals into the groundwater relatively insensitive to variations in mix components. These characteristics of the grout mix make it suitable for the objectives for which the project is expected to achieve. The intention of the injection program is to fill the mine 5 5 voids in the north lobe of the Omega Mine which is the area where most of the AMD is believed to be generated. The grout will reduce the contact of air and water with potentially acidic materials. Also, the grout mix should have sufficient strength to prevent mine subsidence that could be detrimental to the roads and residences located above the mine complex. In addition, the grout will have some alkaline leaching potential to neutralize acidic drainage. Further, the grout will be easy to mix in the field with typical construction equipment and be easy to monitor by the supervising engineer. A video camera was lowered into boreholes to investigate the conditions of the underground mine workings. Results showed that 40 percent of the mine complex appeared open and stable, and 60 percent of the deep mine appeared partially collapsed. Therefore, injection holes would have to be placed closer together in the collapsed portion to ensure the grout mix reaches the surfaces of the entire mine complex. It is estimated that 200 injection holes will be drilled for the grout project, which equates to approximately 26,000 lineal feet of drilling. Also, 1 18,500 cubic yards of material are expected to be injected based on the coal extraction records. The project is expected to cost $2,500,000 which includes materials, labor, and equipment. Injection Technique for Abandoned Deep Mines In 1997 an acid mine abatement project, involving an in-situ chemical treatment method, was conducted by the University of Oklahoma in conjunction with the Oklahoma Conservation Commission. Canty and Everett (1 997) investigated the feasibility of treating an abandoned underground coal mine by chemically altering the characteristics of the mine water. The treatment method involved the injection of an alkaline coal combustion product into a flooded mine void to create a buffered zone. The remediation effort utilized fluidized-bed ash (FBA) in the form of a slurry with the intent of mixing with the mine water to neutralize acidity, precipitate metals, and introduce alkalinity to the mine drainage. This was not a grout mix that decreased the surface area of pyritic material. The project site is located in southeast Oklahoma. 160 miles southeast of Oklahoma City. The entire mine volume is approximately 8.1 X 1o6 cubic feet of which 5.7 X lo6 cubic feet are mine voids. It was estimated that 3.9 X lo6 cubic feet of the void space are flooded with mine waters. There is one major seep that discharges mine water that is severely impacted by AMD. Theoretically, if a buffered zone can be created around the seep, then the water discharging from the mine complex will be of higher quality. Six injection wells were drilled in the area of the seep in different tiers of the mine complex creating a buffering zone of roughly 250 feet by 1000 feet (5.7 acres). I-Iowever, the treatment area is difficult to determine given the nature of the mine environment. An injection delivery technique was selected that could introduce the alkaline slurry into the mine void under significant pressure and at a high rate. This enabled a large quantity of FBA slurry to be injected into the mine in a short period of time. Also, the high pressure and rate would improve dispersal of sluny within the mine void. Instead of allowing gravity to be the driving force, a pressure gradient is developed which should result in greater mixing and movement within the mine. Further, the high pressure would be advantageous in fracturing obstacles to injection, such as coal barriers and pillars. The high pressure could potentially clear the obstacle and open a pathway. After the slurry was introduced into the mine, 420 gallons of seep water were used to flush the FBA material out from around the injection point and promote dispersion. During the injection process, a total of 4 18 tons of FBA slurry was introduced into the deep mine within 15 hours. The average rate of injection was roughly 110 yd3hr,but a maximum rate of 375 yd3/hr was achieved. Pressure at the pump truck was maintained between 250 and 300 psi. The mine did not refuse any of the material, and it is likely that a much larger amount could have been added. One injection well was drilled into a coal pillar, but the high pressure easily fractured the pillar. This normally causes the sluny to overflow out of the injection well, but instead the pressure gradient created a new path for flow. During the 15 hours of injection, the pH of seep discharge increased from 4.3 to 12.2. Alkalinity also increased from 0 to 950 mg/L as CaC03. After this sharp increase, the pH and alkalinity began to decrease within hours after the injection. After 153 days, the magnitude of pH drop and the alkalinity concentration appeared to have stabilized. Currently, the pH of the mine discharge is above 6.5 and the alkalinity is approximately 100 mg/L as CaC03. Presumably, the treated water is reaching equilibrium with carbon dioxide collecting in the mine head-space from the acid neutralization reactions. However, a firm conclusion was not drawn due to the lack of data and reduced seasonal flow. Geographic Information System (GZS) Utilizedfor Watershed Analysis 'The California Coastal Commission (1 997) developed the Watershed Analysis Tool for Environmental Review (WATER) which is an internet-accessible analytical tool for managing polluted runoff across political boundaries. The objective of the pro-ject is to develop a tool for planners and analysts at the Coastal Commission and its federal, state, and local partners that can be utilized to advance their efforts to reduce polluted runoff to coastal waters. The WATER will consist of a GIs that contains water quality data sets, satellite images, aerial photographs, and database information from various sources all relevant to the Monterey Bay region. A major stumbling block to managing polluted runoff under the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) is the inability of agencies to access, exchange, and geographically rectify electronic data between their various computer systems. The problem pertains to the assessment of cumulative impacts and other issues that cross political boundaries. Another problem is the technological barrier which inhibits the evolution of watershed- and ecosystem-based approaches to environmental assessment and management. In the Monterey Bay area, a good deal of information has been collected by various agencies, which is needed to improve the management of polluted runoff. This data includes land use, water quality, biological integrity, stream flows, building permits, aerial photography, etc. However, the data from different agencies are often incompatible because of differences in hardware. software, map scales, coordinate systems, and databases used in gathering and storing such information. This makes it 5 9 extremely difficult to coordinate non-point source pollution across political boundaries and develop a complete watershed improvement program. This project will attempt to overcome some of the data access problems by testing the application of information sharing techniques and making the data available in a GIs to federal, state, and local agencies. It can be viewed via the Internet, therefore the GLS can be updated as new information and data is gathered. By combining the information resources of several agencies in the region into a single, geographically rectified source, this project will greatly enhance the ability for the region to develop coordinated, multi- disciplinary, watershed-based management solutions to non-point source pollution. The project allows the user to click on a certain river reach, for example, and access the water quality, biological assessments, aerial photographs, number sampling events performed, surrounding land uses, and both non-point and point sources that impact the river. This data gives a good starting point for assessment and possible design implementation. This is proof that a GIs can be an invaluable tool for organizing and applying data for many types of projects. Passive Treatment Systems There are many types of passive techniques that attempt to treat AMD. In 1995, Skousen et al. developed an overview of passive treatment systems that improve water quality in AMD polluted streams. Active treatment is very effective, but it is very expensive when the cost of chemical, maintenance, and equipment are considered. Passive systems provide a cost efficient means of improving the water quality since they do not require the continual additions of chemicals. There were seven different passive treatment systems discussed in the research paper that have proved effective. First, backfilling and revegetation combined has been a method that has reduced acid loads from current mining operations and abandoned mine sites. Surface mines can be reclaimed by covering acidic refuse or mine spoil with favorable soil materials and establishing a vegetative cover. This has a major impact on reducing acid concentrations in water and often decreasing the flow of water from mine areas by encouraging infiltration into the soil and evapotranspiration by plants. Second, constructed wetlands are also a desirable alternative for treating AMD. Wetlands are a diverse ecosystem that provides a habitat for many plant and animal species. Wetlands also present an aesthetic appeal to the landscape and improve water quality to its effluent. There are four dominant processes that occur in the wetland environment and have the ability to remove metals. First, metals can be removed by plant uptake. Sphagnum and Tjpha (cattails) have the ability to accumulate amounts of iron in an inundated environment. Second, metal removal can take place as a result of adsorption to organic substrates. The organic substrate (peat or compost) can remove metals by adsorption or cation exchange processes. Third, metals can be removed by oxidation and hydrolysis reactions. Ferric iron (~e~'jprecipitates as water reaches pH 3.5 or above. provided there is a concentration of dissolved oxygen of at least 1 mg/L. Once in the ferric state, iron will hydrolyze and precipitate in the form of iron hydroxide [F'e(OH)3]. Bacteria called Thiobacillus ferrooxidans can be introduced as an inoculate to catalyze the oxidation and precipitation reactions. Fourth, metals can also be removed by microbial reduction processes through the metabolism of anaerobic bacteria. In an oxygen deficient environment, bacteria, such as Desulfovibrio, utilize the organic matter and the sulfate as an energy source and electron acceptor, respectively. This reduces the sulfate to sulfide which can then combine with hydrogen and iron ions. The reaction results in an increase in pH and alkalinity, and a subsequent decrease in metals and acidity. Aerobic wetlands are generally used to collect water and provide the necessary residence time for proper metal precipitation. The water directed to them is generally alkaline, and metals precipitate through oxidation and hydrolysis reactions. Anaerobic wetlands contain a layer of limestone that is overlain with organic compost. Within the organic substrate, the proper wetland plant species are established. The influent always has a net acidity, so alkalinity must be introduced in order for the metals to precipitate. Bacteria that utilize the organic substrate as a carbon source (CH20) and sulfate used as an electron acceptor for growth can generate alkalinity. Bicarbonate alkalinity is generated in this reaction below. SO^^-+ 2 CH20 + H2S + 2 HC03- Alkalinity can also be generated by the dissolution of the limestone by the acidic water in the bottom of the wetland in the following reaction. CaC03 + H' 3 ca2' t- HC03- The limestone will continue to dissolve when kept in an aerobic environment because only the oxidized ferric iron will be able to precipitate. Thus, the limestone will not become armored or coated, and its contact area will remain free. The third type of passive system was the anoxic limestone drain (ALD). The ALD is a buried trench filled with limestone into which acidic water is diverted. Limestone dissolution generates an increase in alkalinity as stated above. To prevent the limestone from armoring, only acidic waters with low dissolved oxygen concentrations (< 1mg/L), low aluminum concentrations (< 15 mg/L), and no ferric iron content may be introduced into the ALD (Hedin and Nairn, 1992). Conditions must be optimum in order for the ALD to operate effectively over a long period of time. Once the effluent exits the ALD, it often is diverted into an aerobic pond or wetland for metal removal. Successive Alkalinity-Producing Systems (SAPS) is the fourth type of passive treatment. Often ALD's cannot be used if the mine water has high oxygen andlor high aluminum concentrations. This design limitation can be overcome with the construction of a SAPS. The SAPS is a pond with drainage system constructed in the bottom, overlain with 12 to 24 inches of limestone which is then overlain with 12 to 18 inches of organic matter. There is four to eight feet of water that remains ponded overtop the organic layer to ensure an anaerobic environment. The principle is to introduce aerated, acidic water into the SAPS and cause the water to vertically move downward through the organic matter filtering it out by adsorption or transforming the ferric iron to ferrous iron by microbial reduction. The substrate produces alkalinity and removes oxygen. Now that the water is oxygen deficient, the limestone will dissolve in the acidic water and generate additional alkalinity. The water is then transported out of the SAPS through the drainage system and can be diverted to a sedimentation pond or wetland for metal removal. The fifth type of passive technique is the limestone pond (LSP). A LSP is constructed overtop a mine seep or an underground water discharge point. The pond is lined with limestone so that he water flows upward through and contacts the limestone, which adds alkalinity. The pond can be built to hold water several feet deep with one to three feet of limestone laid on the bottom. The LSP should have a retention time of one to two days for proper limestone contact and to keep the seep and limestone under water. Limestone should be dredged periodically to keep from armoring of iron and aluminum hydroxides. The Reverse Alkalinity-Producing System (RAPS) is the sixth type of passive treatment discussed by Skousen et al., 1995. The RAPS can be constructed at similar locations as the LSP, such as seeps and upward discharging points. If the water emanating from the ground is not anoxic, the pond can be constructed like the SAPS except with organic compost layered on the bottom of the pond, overlain by limestone. In this configuration, metals in the water can be adsorbed or filtered in the organic matter, microbial iron and sulfate reduction will occur, and oxygen will be depleted by microbial decomposition of the organic matter. Again additional alkalinity is generated as the water passes through the limestone layer. Three to six feet of water can be ponded to ensure an anaerobic environment. The water exits through a spillway or a weir with reduced acidity or net alkalinity. Aeration techniques can then be initiated for the removal of metals. Recharging the RAPS with limestone and organic matter may be necessary to continual acid neutralization. The final type of passive system is the open limestone channel (OLC). The assumption in the past has been that armored limestone (coated with aluminum and iron hydroxides) ceases to dissolve. However, it was found by Penn State researchers that armored limestone is one-fifth as effective as non-armored limestone, but the limestone does not stop dissolving. Therefore, long channels of limestone can be effective in generating alkalinity into AMD discharges. More limestone is needed than with ALD's because the limestone is expected to armor and lose its effectiveness over time. The design of the OLC has to take into account the contact time and the velocity of the water and the slope of the channel. The contact time has to be long enough to introduce alkalinity, but not too long so that sediments can be transported out of the channel to prevent clogging and burial of the limestone. The velocity of the water should not be less than 0.02 ft/sec. and the contact time should be between one and three hours (Ziemkiewicz et al., 1995). The effect of backfilling and revegetation surface mines was investigated by evaluating data collected by Bond Forfeiture Program of the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). Backfilling and revegetation alone was adequate to reduce acid loads substantially or improved the water quality to the point of meeting effluent standards. Out of 16 sites analyzed, water flow was reduced on 12 of them. On those sites where flok1.7 was not reduced, water quality changed from acid to alkaline. In only two cases, the acidity increased in the water, but the flow and the acid loadings were reduced significantly. The results demonstrate that backfilling and revegetation reduced the total acid load, either by reducing the flow or the acidity concentration, or both. The installation of ALD7sand wetlands have had a dramatic effect on water quality improvements of AMD. Both the ALD's and wetlands reduced acid concentrations in the 11 sites where they were installed. All sites, except for two, reduced acid loads substantially. Of those two, both sites had reduced acidity concentrations but an increase in flowrate. Wetlands appeared to be more effective removing metals and decreasing acidity if the influent was first introduced into a ALD. Also, wetlands consistently reduced iron concentrations, however seasonal variations in removal rates were common. Manganese, sulfate, and aluminum were reduced less dramatically and not as consistently. Wetlands or systems that contained limestone as a component performed better than those without the limestone strata. CHAPTER 4 Methodologies The methodologies used to complete the monitoring and characterization of the Broken Aro site are described within this chapter. The field sampling techniques, flowrate measurements, laboratory procedures, and surveying methods are discussed as they were utilized by the people in cooperation with the Broken Aro Reclamation project. The following approaches were used to determine and measure the effectiveness of the remining effort and the mine seal construction to prevent the development of AMD. Irltroduction to Sampling Procedures At the stream locations, there are three tasks that must be performed in the field. First, the samples must be carefully obtained. Then, the field tests for water quality assessment must be performed on the sample. Finally, the flowrate must be measured for each stream location. At the well locations, there are also three tasks that must be carried out in the field. First, the depth of the water level and the depth of the well itself must be measured. Then, the groundwater sample must be obtained. Finally, the field tests for the water quality assessment must be performed on each sample. The water quality field tests and their procedures are the same for the stream locations and the well locations. Once the water has been collected from each location, the samples are transported to Coshocton Environmental Testing (CET) for laboratory tests. This is done at the end of the day of the sampling event. The same set of analysis is run on each group of samples for the location in question. Sampling At Stream Locations Sampling waters in the stream is done with caution so that the sample is not contaminated yielding inaccurate results. First, a location within the streambed must be chosen from which to obtain a sample. A "spot" that has substantial flow and low solids or silt buildup is most suitable if possible. This will ensure that a sample will be taken that will adequately depict the water quality of that particular stream location. Stagnant pools and silty waters near the banks are bad sampling "spots." The water upstream from the chosen sampling location should riot be disturbed, also to prevent contamination from silt and sand. Now, the sample is taken. A plastic cup is used to pour the water into the sample bottles which are provided by the laboratory. However, the cup should be rinsed three to four times with the sample water in the stream before the sample is poured with the plastic cup. Three separate sample bottles must be filled for each location. The Coshocton Environmental Testing (CET) laboratory prepares these sample bottles for each sampling event. One sample bottle is prepared with a small amount of nitric acid (HN03). One sample bottle is prepared with a small amount of sulfuric acid (H2S04). The acids added to these bottles will preserve the sample so that accurate results can be obtained in the laboratory. The final sample bottle is empty, and this must be rinsed three to four times with the sample in the streambed before it is filled. Flowrate Measurements At Stream Locations Along the stream, the flowrate must be measured at each sampling location. This is important to calculate mass loading rates and find the major sources of AMD. The flowrate is measured using four different devices: the weir, the flume, the culvert, and the current meter. Some flowrates were estimated or calculated in the first couple sampling events due to the lack of experience and severe storm events. Notched Weirs Aluminum and wood weirs were constructed and transported to the Broken Aro site. A weir is a thin rectangular board with a rectangular cut which holds a metal tray to convey the water. There are eight weirs constructed with different dimensions so that they can be used in different-sized channels. In the field, the weir is pounded into the channel and then dirt is compacted around the sides of the weir. This ensures that all the water will come through the tray of the weir and not leak around the sides. Once the weir is in place and there is no seepage, the crew must wait until the water backs up behind the weir and starts to flow over it. Then, additional time must be allotted so that the flow can reach "steady-state" conditions. At this time, one person holds a plastic bucket with "liter" markings on it, and another person times how long the bucket takes to fill with a stopwatch. Dividing the liters filled by the number of seconds recorded yields a flowrate in liters per second (Lls). This timing procedure is repeated 5-7 times at each stream location or until steady, accurate readings are achieved. The weir method is based on the following hydraulic equation. Flowrate = Volume / Time in which the volume of water divided by the time it takes for that volume to fill is the flowrate of that particular stream location. Cut-Throat Flume A collapsible cutthroat flume can also be used in stream channels to measure the flowrate. The flume is based on the principle that critical flow is a function of the water depth. Therefore, critical flow must be obtained within the throat of the flume in order to obtain an accurate flowrate. The geometry of the flume ensures that critical flow conditions will be met. The flume is a steel box with adjustable sides that look like wings. The flume is set in the middle of the streambed, and the adjustable sides are situated so that all the flow is directed inside the box. Dirt or clay must be compacted around the sides so that there is no seepage. Then, the flume must be leveled in two directions using the movable hand level attached to the top of the box. It helps to level out the streambed itself by moving gravel around before placing the flume into it. It is also a good idea to pack dirt under the lip of the flume so that water does not leak underneath the device. When all the flow is going through the flume box and it is level, then a reading can be taken. On the inside of the flume box, there is a scale with units of feet, and the reading is taken where the water level passes through this scale. This reading is the critical depth of the flow of the water. There is a conversion table that correlates to a flowrate in cubic feet per second (cfs) from the reading that is in terms of feet. The flume is made by Baski Incorporated fiom Denver, Colorado. 70 The flume is based on the hydraulic principle that critical flow is achieved through the throat of the flume. The critical state of flow is achieved when the specific energy is a minimum for the given discharge. The specific energy in an open channel is the sum of the velocity head and the piezometric head. The mean velocity is used at the section to calculate the velocity head, and it is assumed that the piezometric head is constant if the pressure distribution is hydrostatic. Critical flow can be further defined and accomplished when the Froude Number is equal to one. The Froude Number is defined as follows: Fr = V I (gy)"2 where V is the mean velocity through a section, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and y is the water depth at that section. If the Froude Number is greater than one, the flow is supercritical, and if the Froude Number is less than one, it is subcritical (Chaudry, 1993). Critical flow has a corresponding critical depth related with it, and that is the basis for the operation of the flume. The critical state of flow is produced by constricting the width in the throat of the flume, followed by supercritical flow as the width increases. A hydraulic jump is created just downstream of the supercritical section of the flow. For the 8-inch flume used at the Broken Aro site, the relationship to calculate flow is: Q be, = 4-22 y2 where Q is the flowrate in cubic feet per second, and y is the water depth in feet which is read from the scale located at the base of the throat of the flume (Baski Inc., 1995). 7 1 Culverts The culvert is the simplest form of flowrate measurement. The device is always in place and requires no manual labor. At certain stream locations on the site, there are different-sized culvert pipes with water flowing from them. Similar to the weir method, one person holds a "liter" marked bucket, and another person times how long it takes the bucket to fill up with a stopwatch. This process is repeated 5-7 times or until steady readings are obtained. The flowrate is obtained in liters per second. It is based upon the same principle as stated above in the weir method. Current Meter Finally, the current meter can be used to measure flowrates at certain stream locations. A current meter consists of a frictionless wheel attached to a steel rod and a digital box that counts the number of revolutions that the flow causes in a certain time. Counting the number of revolutions in a certain time interval will yield a velocity. The current meter also has a scale on the rod to measure the depth of the flow at increments across the stream. The velocity and depth are measured across a stream location so that a cross-sectional area can be computed. Also, the adjustable rod measures the velocity at 60 percent of its depth where, theoretically, is the point of average velocity in the cross section. Thus, a flowrate can be found using the relationship of Q =VA where V is average velocity, A is the cross-sectional area of the stream, and Q is the volumetric flowrate. The flow can only be measured properly if the depth in the stream is sufficient enough to surround or encompass the entire wheel. Therefore, the current meter is often used at higher flowrate locations. A Fortran computer program was developed by Ohio University Civil Engineering graduate student, Branko Olujic, to sum up the flowrate in each section of the stream. The program output a total flowrate for the cross section of a particular stream location after the water depths and velocity measurements were input. Water Level and Well Depth Measurements The first task that must be performed at a monitoring well location is the measurement of the water level and the well depth. This signifies how the water level has raised or dropped within the mine complex since the last sampling event. The depths are measured using a water level indicator. This electronic apparatus consists of a wound reel with a 200 foot measuring tape that has a heavy metal tip at the end. The measuring tape is lowered into the well, and when the metal tip reaches the water level the apparatus "beeps." Then, the measuring tape can be read at the top of the well casing, and the water level is recorded. Next, the depth of the well must be measured. The reel of the water level indicator is merely let out until it rests on the bottom the well. Then, the depth of the well is recorded using the measuring tape as before. When these two numbers are subtracted from each other, the height of the water in the well can be obtained. Therefore, the crew will know about how much water is inside the well before taking the sample. In the survey performed, the elevations were determined for the top of the casings for each well. Therefore, subtracting the depth of the water in the well from the elevation of the well casing yields the actual elevation of the water level in the well. Sampling At Well Locations At the well locations, there are two methods used in taking samples. Either a submersible pump or a plastic cylindrical bailer was used in the sampling process. The submersible pump is powered by a gas generator. The pump hose is lowered into the well, and 30-50 liters of water are pumped out before a sample is obtained. This ensures that the sample will be pure and representative of the conditions inside the mine. However, if the well has only a small volume of water inside, then the crew must take what the well will give ensuring that a sample is obtained. The submersible pump can only be used when the weather and road conditions permitted the crew to drive up next to the well locations. This is due to the excessive weight of the pump and the generator. The other method is using clear plastic bailers and manually removing the water from the well. The bailers are three feet long and have a volume of one liter. The bailer is attached to a rope reel with at least 150 feet of rope to ensure the bailer can reach the water in deeper wells. The bailer is dropped into the well, filled, and carefully pulled up. Then the pH, specific conductivity, and temperature are measured for the water in the bailer. The process is repeated until the characteristics of the water tested above do not change. Usually, five bailers (5 liters) are sufficient to obtain an accurate sample. This method is used when the crew must walk from well to well since the bailing equipment is rather light to carry. Once an accurate sample is coming from the well using either method described above, then the three sample bottles must be filled. Two of the sample bottles have been prepared with acid and one is empty. This procedure is described above in the Sampling At Stream Locations section. Also as mentioned above, a plastic cup is used that has been rinsed with the groundwater sample to transfer water into sample containers. Water Quality Field Tests The field tests must be conducted and recorded for each stream and/or well location. The pH, temperature, specific conductivity, and the reduction/oxidation potential (OW) are measured directly in the field using the specific probes. The same plastic cup used in the sampling procedure is filled about halfway with the sample. The probes are then set in the cup for a few minutes so that they can come to equilibrium. Then the readings are taken. Temperature probe is often taken directly from the streambed so that it does not change during the equilibrium time. Temperature is recorded in degrees Celsius ("C); specific conductivity is measured in micro-Siemens per centimeter (pS/cm); and the OW is measured in millivolts (mV). Then, a few drops of 3% peroxide (H202)are added to the sample in the same cup. The peroxide causes the sample to fully oxidize if it has not done so already. Next, the pH and ORP are tested for the oxidized sample to see if it has changed. Often in AMD, the pH goes down showing the release of hydrogen ions (p)in the pyrite oxidation process. The OWusually goes up to about 450 mV showing the precipitation of metals. Water Quality Laboratory Tests As stated earlier, after the day of sampling, the sample bottles are taken to Coshocton Environmental Testing (CET) in Ohio for laboratory tests. The samples are 75 kept in coolers while in the field to preserve their characteristics. The coolers should keep the samples at about 20°C. Each location is tested in the laboratory for the following constituents: pH, total acidity, total alkalinity, bicarbonate alkalinity, carbonate alkalinity, specific conductance at 25OC, total non-filterable residue, total dissolved solids, sulfate, chloride, total calcium, total magnesium, total sodium, total potassium, total iron, total manganese, total aluminum, hardness. The trace metals tested are: total zinc, phosphate, copper, chromium, arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, cobalt, boron, total nickel, bromide, and total molybdenum. All constituents were tested for the first five sampling events. However, the trace metals are only tested once every three sampling events or once every three months. The testing procedures that are used are described below. Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (1983) and Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (1992) were the literature used for the testing the chemical constituents. Following the method used to test a specific constituent, the number of the method appears in parentheses. Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes The pH of a sample was determined by the Electrometric pH test (1 50.1). The pH of a sample is determined electrometrically using either a glass electrode in combination with a reference potential or a combination electrode. The pH meter and the electrode system must be calibrated, and a thermometer is used for to compensate for temperature variances in pH. Forty-four analysts in twenty laboratories analyzed six synthetic water samples and had a standard deviation of 0.14 pH units and an accuracy reported as 0.27 percent bias. The acidity concentration of a sample was determined by the Titrimetric Acidity test (305.1). First, the pH of a sample is determined, and a measured amount of sulfuric acid is added, as needed, to lower the pH to 4 or less. Hydrogen peroxide is added, the solution is boiled for several minutes, cooled, and titrated electrometrically with standard alkali (sodium hydroxide) to a pH of 8.2. This method measures the mineral acidity of the sample plus the acidity resulting from the oxidation and pyrolosis of polyvalent cations, including salts of iron and aluminum. On a round robin conducted by ASTM on 4 acid mine waters, including concentrations up to 2000 mg/L as CaC03, the precision was found to be +I- 10 mg/L. The alkalinity concentration of a sample was determined by the Titrimetric (pH=4.5) Alkalinity test (3 10.1). An unaltered sample is titrated to an electrometrically determined endpoint of a pH of 4.5 using sodium carbonate and sulfuric acid as titrants. The sample must not be filtered, diluted, concentrated, or altered in any way. Forty analysts in seventeen laboratories analyzed synthetic water samples containing increments of bicarbonate with a precision as standard deviation of 3.26 mgL as CaC03. The specific conductivity of a sample was determined by the Specific Conductance (pS at 25°C) test (120.1). The specific conductance is measured by a self-contained conductivity meter, Wheatstone bridge-type, or equivalent. It is measured at 25OC, otherwise temperature corrections are made. A solution of potassium chloride is used to calibrate the conductivity cell. Forty-one analysts in 17 laboratories analyzed six synthetic water samples containing increments of organic salts. At low conductivities, the precision as standard deviation was 7.8 pS, but at high conductivities, the standard deviation was about 112 pS. The total suspended solids of a sample was determined by the Non-Filterable Residue, Graviinetric test (1 60.2). A well-mixed sample is filtered through a glass fiber filter, and the residue that is retained on the filter is dried to a constant weight at 103- 105°C. The practical range of determination of TSS by this method is 4 mg/L to 20,000 mg/L. Accuracy and precision tests for this method are not available. The total hardness of a sample was determined by the Titrimetric, EDTA test (1 30.2). Calcium and magnesium ions in the sample are sequestered upon the addition of disodium ethylenediamine (Na2EDTA). The endpoint of the reactiodtitration is detected by means of the Eriochrome Black T indicator which has a red color in the presence of calcium and magnesium and a blue color when the cations are sequestered. Excessive amounts of heavy metals can interfere with this test. Therefore, a sodium cyanide solution was added to prevent potential metallic interference. This test is suitable for all concentration ranges of hardness and results are reported as mg/L as CaC03. The total dissolved solids of a sample was determined by the Total Residue, Gravimetric test (160.3). A well-mixed sample is filtered through a glass fiber filter, and the now-filtered water of the sample is quantitatively transferred to a pre-weighed ekaporating dish and dried at 103-105°C until no moisture remains. The residue is then weighed and recorded as mg /L. The practical range of determination of TDS by this 7 8 method is 4 mg/L to 20,000 mg/L. Accuracy and precision tests for this method are not available. The chloride concentration of a sample was determined by the Titrimetric, Mercuric Nitrate test (325.3). An acidified sample is titrated with mercuric nitrate in the presence of mixed diphenylcarbazone-bromophenolblue indicator. The endpoint of the titration is the formation of the blue-violet mercury diphenylcarbazone complex. This method is suitable for all concentrations of chloride content. The total phosphorous concentration of a sample was determined by the Colorimetric, Ascorbic Acid, Two Reagent test (365.3). Ammonium molybdate and antimony potassium tartrate react in an acid medium with dilute forms of phosphorous to form an antimony-phospho-molybdate complex. This complex is reduced to an intensely blue-colored complex by ascorbic acid. The blue color is proportional to the phosphorous concentration in the sample. Only orthophosphate forms the blue color in the test, but all forms of phosphorous (organic and polyphosphates) are converted to orthophosphate by sulfuric acid hydrolysis. Thus, the total phosphorous concentration is measured. A spectrophotometer that was set to the characteristic wavelength of 650 nrn is used to determine phosphorous concentrations. This method is suitable for determining the range of 0.01-1.2 mg P / liter. The dissolved silica concentration of a sample was determined by the Colorimetric test (370.1). A well-mixed sample was filtered through a 0.45-micron membrane filter. Molybdate ion in an acidic solution is added to the filtered sample. This solution forms a greenish-yellow color complex that is proportional to the amount of 79 dissolved silica in the sample. A spectrophotometer set to the characteristic wavelength of 41 0 nrn is used to determine the concentration of dissolved silica. This test is suitable to determine concentrations in the range of 2-25 mg silica / liter. The nitrite concentration of a sample was determined by the Spectrophotometric test (354.1). The compound formed by the diazotation of sulfanilamide by nitrite in water under acidic conditions is coupled with N-(1 -naphthyl) ethylenediamine dihydrochloride to produce a reddish-purple color. The concentration of nitrite (NO2-N) in the sample correlates to the absorbance output from a spectrophotometer at characteristic wavelength of 540 nrn. This method is suitable for determining the range of 0.01-1.0 mg NO2-N 1 liter. The fluoride concentration of a sample was determined by the Potentiometric, Ion Selective Electrode test (340.2). The fluoride concentration is determined potentiometrically by using a fluoride electrode in conjunction with a standard single junction sleeve-type reference electrode. A pH meter having an expanded millivolts scale or a selective ion meter having a direct concentration scale for fluoride is also used with the apparatus above. The fluoride electrode consists of a lanthanum fluoride crystal in which a potential is developed by fluoride ions. The test determines fluoride concentrations in the range fiom 0.1-1 000 mgL. Metal Concentration Determination Atomic absorption spectrometry is used to determine the content of metals in water without much knowledge of concentrations prior to testing. Further, it does not require extensive sample pretreatment. The use of organic solvents combined with an oxyacetylene or nitrous oxide-acetylene flame or graphite furnace enables the determination of metals that form refractory oxides. The atomic absorption spectrometer (A.4) is a device that consists of a light source that emits the specific line spectrum of an element. The AA vaporizes the sample in order to isolate the absorption line on a monochrometer, and a photoelectric detector correlates the wavelength of a specific metal and its concentration in the sample. Most AA's digitally output the concentration of the sample, but some AA's output in units of absorbance from which points must be plotted to identi@ the actual concentration of the metal. All the metal concentrations were determined using the atomic absorption spectrometer using three different techniques. The direct aspiration or the direct air- acetylene flame method was used to determine total metal concentrations of iron, manganese, aluminum, sodium, potassium, magnesium, copper, zinc, chromium, barium, and nickel. The furnace technique or the electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometric method was used to determine total metal concentrations of cobalt, cadmium, lead, arsenic, selenium, silver, and molybdenum. The cold-vapor atomic absorption spectrometric method was used to determine total mercury concentrations. All the metals were determined using the Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (1 983). 8 1 Direct Aspiration Technique In direct aspiration or flame photometry, the sample is aspirated into a flame and atomized. The amount of light that is emitted when the sample is atomized is measured to determine the concentration of the metal. Each metal or element has its own characteristic absorption wavelength associated with it. The amount of energy at this wavelength absorbed in the flame is proportional to the concentration of the metal in the sample over a limited concentration range. The AA measures characteristic atomic line spectra for each metal. A hollow, metal specific, cathode lamp was used, and the type of fuel used for the burner was acetylene. The flarne-type in the burner can be characterized as either an oxidizer or fuel-rich, and either air or nitrous oxide was used as the oxidant. The standard metal solutions must be prepared in order to calibrate the AA for each metal tested. The standards for each metal were prepared as follows and its characteristic wavelength is given. The total iron concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Direct Aspiration test (236.1). A 1.000 g of pure iron wire was weighed carefully and dissolved into 5mL redistilled HN03. When the solution was completely dissolved, one liter of the standard was made by diluting with deionized distilled water. This creates a 1000 mg Fe / liter standard solution. The wavelength used for iron should be set to 248.3 nrn on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 0.3-5.0 mg/L, but the detection limit is 0.03 mgL. The total manganese concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Direct Aspiration test (243.1). A 1.000 g of manganese metal was weighed carefully and 82 dissolved into 1OmL redistilled FINO3. When the solution was completely dissolved, one liter of the standard was made by diluting with 1% (VN) HCl. This creates a 1000 mg Mn 1 liter standard solution. The wavelength used for manganese should be set to 279.5 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 0.1-3.0 mgL, but the detection limit is 0.01 mgk. The total aluminum concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Direct Aspiration test (202.1). A 1.000 g of aluminum metal was weighed carehlly and dissolved into 5mL conc. HN03 and 15mL conc. HC1. When the solution was completely dissolved, one liter of the standard was made by diluting with deionized distilled water. This creates a 1000 mg A1 / liter standard solution. Also, 2.0 ml potassium chloride solution was added to each 100 ml of standard and sample alike before placing into the AA. The wavelength used for aluminum should be set to 309.3 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 5.0-50.0 mg/L, but the detection limit is 0.1 mgk. The total sodium concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Direct Aspiration test (273.1). A 2.542 g of NaCl was weighed carefully and dried at 140°C. The dry sodium chloride was then dissolved into deionized distilled water making one liter of the standard solution. This creates a 1000 mg Na / liter standard solution. The wavelength used for sodium should be set to 589.6 nrn on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 0.03-1.0 mg5, but the detection limit is 0.002 mg/L. 8 3 The total potassium concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Direct Aspiration test (258.1). An amount of 0.1907 g of KC1 was weighed carefully and dried at 110°C. The dry sodium chloride was then dissolved into deionized distilled water making one liter of the standard solution. This creates a 100 mg K / liter standard solution. The wavelength used for potassium should be set to 766.5 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 0.1-2.0 mgL, but the detection limit is 0.01 mgL. The total magnesium concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Direct Aspiration test (242.1). An amount 0.829 g of magnesium oxide was weighed carefully and dissolved into 10mL redistilled HN03. When the solution was completely dissolved, one liter of the standard was made by diluting with deionized distilled water. This creates a 500 mg Mg / liter standard solution. Also, 1.0 ml lanthanum chloride solution was added to each 10 ml of standard and sample alike before placing into the AA. The wavelength used for magnesium should be set to 285.2 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 0.02-0.5 mg5, but the detection limit is 0.001 mg/L. The total copper concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Direct Aspiration test (220.1). A 1.OO g of electrolyte copper wire was weighed carefully and dissolved into 5mL redistilled HN03. When the solution was completely dissolved, one liter of the standard was made by diluting with deionized distilled water. This creates a 1000 mg Cu / liter standard solution. The wavelength used for copper should be set to 84 324.7 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 0.2-5.0 mg/L, but the detection limit is 0.02 mg/L. The total zinc concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Direct Aspiration test (289.1). A 1.OO g of zinc metal was weighed carefully and dissolved into 10mL redistilled FINO3. When the solution was completely dissolved, one liter of the standard was made by diluting with deionized distilled water. This creates a 1000 mg Zn 1 liter standard solution. The wavelength used for zinc should be set to 2 13.9 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 0.05-1.0 mg/L, but the detection limit is 0.005 mg5. The total chromium concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Direct Aspiration test (2 18.1). An amount of 1.923 g of chromium trioxide was weighed carefully and dissolved into deionized distilled water. When the solution was completely dissolved, the solution was acidified with redistilled HN03, and one liter of the standard was made by diluting the remainder with deionized distilled water. This creates a 1000 mg Cr / liter standard solution. The wavelength used for chromium should be set to 357.9 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 0.5-1 0.0 mg5, but the detection limit is 0.05 mg5. The total barium concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Direct Aspiration test (208.1). An amount of 1.7787 g of barium chloride was weighed carefully and dissolved into deionized distilled water. When the solution was completely dissolved, one liter of the standard was made by diluting the remainder with deionized distilled water. This creates a 1000 mg Ba 1 liter standard solution. Also, 2.0 ml potassium chloride solution was added to each 100 ml of standard and sample alike before placing into the AA. The wavelength used for barium should be set to 553.6 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 1.O-20.0 mg/L, but the detection limit is 0.1 mgk. The total nickel concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Direct Aspiration test (249.1). An amount of 4.953 g of nickel nitrate was weighed carefully and dissolved into deionized distilled water. When the solution was completely dissolved, 10 mL of conc. nitric acid was added to the solution, and one liter of the standard was made by diluting the remainder with deionized distilled water. This creates a 1000 mg Ni / liter standard solution. The wavelength used for nickel should be set to 232.0 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 0.3-5.0 mg/L, but the detection limit is 0.04 mgk. Graphite Furnace Technique The electrothermal or furnace technique atomic absorption method is suitable for the determination of micro-quantities of metals with sensitivities and detection limits 20 to 1000 times better than conventional flame techniques. Many elements can be determined at concentrations as low as 1.0 pg/L, and only a very small volume of sample is needed. However, due to an increase in sensitivity, there is also an increase in analysis time and a higher risk of possible contamination errors. This furnace technique is based upon the same principle as the flame technique, but an electrically heated atomizer or graphite furnace replaces the standard burner head. A discrete volume of sample is placed into the graphite sample cup, and it is heated in three stages. First, the graphite tube is heated with a low current to dry the sample. Then, a charring stage destroys organic matter and volatizes other compounds at an intermediate temperature to minimize interference effects. Thirdly, a high current heats the tube to incandescence and atomizes the metal being determined. The resultant atomic vapor absorbs radiation .from the source. A photoelectric detector measures the intensity of the transmitted radiation, which is proportional to the quantity of atoms in the optical path over a limited concentration range. The heating stages and the purge gas used for the furnace technique are listed below. Some of the temperatures in the stages may vary slightly from metal to metal. Drying Time and Temp: 30 sec 1 125°C Ashing Time and Temp: 30 sec 1 900°C Drying Time and Temp: 10 sec 12700°C Purge Gas Atmosphere: Argon The standard metal solutions must be prepared in order to calibrate the AA for each elemental metal tested. The standards for each metal were prepared as follows and its characteristic wavelength is given. The total cobalt concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Furnace Technique test (219.2). An amount of 4.307 g of cobaltous chloride (CoC12- H20) was weighed carefully and dissolved in deionized distilled water. Then, 10 mL of conc. nitric acid was added to the cobaltous chloride and 1 liter of standard solution was prepared using deionized distilled water. This creates a 1000 mg Co 1liter standard solution. The wavelength used for cobalt should be set to 240.7 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 5-100 pg5, but the detection limit is 1.0 pg/L. The total cadmium concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Furnace Technique test (213.2). An amount of 2.282 g of cadmium sulfate (3CdS04- 8H20)was weighed carefully and dissolved in deionized distilled water. Then, 1 liter of standard solution was prepared using deionized distilled water. This creates a 1000 mg Cd 1 liter standard solution. Also, 2.0 ml ammonium phosphate solution was added to each 100 ml of standard and sample alike before placing into the AA. The wavelength used for cadmium should be set to 228.8 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 0.5-1 0.0 pgL, but the detection limit is 0.1 vgk. The total lead concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Furnace Technique test (239.2). An amount of 1.599 g of lead nitrate (Pb(N03)2) was weighed carefully and dissolved in deionized distilled water. Then, 10 ml of redistilled HNO3 was added to the dissolved metal, and one liter of standard solution was prepared using deionized distilled water. This creates a 1000 mg Pb / liter standard solution. Also, 10 ml lanthanum nitrate solution was added to each 100 ml of standard and sample alike before placing into the AA. The wavelength used for lead should be set to 283.3 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 5- 100 pgL, but the detection limit is 1.0 pgL. The total arsenic concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Furnace Technique test (206.2). An amount of 1.320 g of arsenic trioxide (As203) was 88 weighed carefully and dissolved in 100 ml deionized distilled water with the addition of 4 g of NaOH. The solution was acidified with 20 ml conc. FINO3, and one liter of standard solution was prepared using deionized distilled water. This creates a 1000 mg As / liter standard solution. Next, 2 ml nickel nitrate solution, 1 ml of conc. HN03, and 2 ml30% peroxide solution were added to each 100 ml of standard and sample alike before placing into the AA. The wavelength used for arsenic should be set to 193.7 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 5-100 pgL, but the detection limit is 1.0 pg/L. The total selenium concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Furnace Technique test (270.2). An amount of 0.3453 g of selenous acid (94.6% H2Se03)was weighed carefully and dissolved in deionized distilled water to make up to 200 ml of standard solution. This creates a 1000 mg Se / liter standard solution. Next, 2 mi nickel nitrate solution, 1 ml of conc. FINO3, and 2 ml 30% peroxide solution were added to each 100 ml of standard and sample alike before placing into the AA. The wavelength used for selenium should be set to 196.0 nm on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 5-100 pgL, but the detection limit is 2.0 pgL. The total silver concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Furnace Technique test (272.2). An amount of 1.575 g of silver nitrate (AgN03) was weighed carefully and dissolved in deionized distilled water. Then, the solution was acidified with 10 ml of conc. FINO3 and diluted with deionized distilled water to produce one liter standard solution. This creates a 1000 mg Ag / liter standard solution. The wavelength used for silver should be set to 328.1 nrn on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 1-25 pg/L, but the detection limit is 0.2 pg5. The total molybdenum concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Furnace Technique test (246.2). An amount of 1.840 g of ammonium molybdate ((NH4)6M07024-4H20)was weighed carefully and dissolved in deionized distilled water. Then, the solution was diluted with deionized distilled water to produce one liter standard solution. This creates a 1000 mg Mo / liter standard solution. Then, 2 ml of ammonium nitrate solution was added to the standard and sample alike before placing into the AA. The wavelength used for molybdenum should be set to 3 13.3 nrn on the atomic absorption spectrometer. The optimum concentration range of this test is 3-60 pg5, but the detection limit is 1.0 pg/L. Cold-Vapor Technique The cold-vapor technique is applicable to the determination of mercury. Because mercury is in the liquid state at room temperature, it volatizes easily at relatively low temperatures. Therefore, no outside heat source is necessary to vaporize the mercury, such as a flame or furnace. A chemical reaction utilizing specific reagents volatizes the mercury before it enters into the AA for determination. Then the mercuric vapor is atomized to its elemental state by an energy source inside the AA, and the concentration is determined similar to the other spectra techniques discussed above. A special 90 detachable apparatus is used in conjunction with the AA for the determination of mercury content in a sample. The mercury concentration was determined using the Atomic Absorbtion, Cold- Vapor test (245.2). A known portion of sample is digested in diluted potassium permanganganate and potassium persulfate solutions and oxidized for two hours at 95OC. This procedure transforms all organic mercurials, which will not respond to flameless atomic absorption, to inorganic forms of mercury. Thus, the total mercury in the sample may be determined. Then, the digested mercury is reduced with stannous chloride to elemental mercury and measured with AA. The flameless AA technique is based on the absorption of radiation at 253.7 nm by mercury vapor. After the sample volatizes, the mercury vapor passes through a cell positioned in the light path in the AA, and the absorbance is measured as a function of mercury concentration. The working range of this test is 0.2 to 20.0 pg5. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater Sulfate, boron, and bromide were tested using the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (1992). The sulfate concentration of a sample was determined using the Gravimetric Method with Ignition of Residue test (4500-SO:' C). The sulfate in the sample is precipitated in a hydrochloric acid (HC1) solution as barium sulfate (BaS04) by the addition of barium chloride (BaC12). The precipitation reaction is carried out near the boiling temperature, and after a period of digestion the precipitate is filtered, washed with water until free of C1-, ignited and dried, and weighed as BaS04. Samples were analyzed in 32 laboratories by the gravimetric method with a relative standard deviation of 4.7 percent and a relative error of 1.9 percent. The sulfate concentration of a sample was also determined using the Turbidimetric method (4500-SO?' E). The sulfate ion (SO?-) is precipitated in an acetic acid medium with barium chloride (BaC12) so as not to form barium sulfate (BaS04) crystals of uniform size. Light absorbance of the BaS04suspension is measured by a photometer and the ~0~~-concentration is determined by a comparison of the reading with a standard curve. With a turbidimeter, in a single laboratory a sample with an average of 7.45 mg SO?-/L, a standard deviation of 0.13 mg/L and a coefficient of variance of 1.7 percent were obtained. The boron concentration of a sample was determined using the Carmine method (4500-B C). In the presence of boron, a solution of carmine or carminic acid in concentrated sulfuric acid changes from a bright red to a bluish red or blue color, depending on the concentration of boron present. A spectrophotometer is used to predict boron concentrations. A sample was measured in nine different laboratories by the carmine method with a relative standard deviation of 35.5 percent and a relative error of 0.6 percent. The bromide concentration of a sample was determined using the Phenol Red Colorimetric method (4500-Br B). When a sample containing bromide (Br-) ions is treated with a dilute solution of chloramine-T in the presence of phenol red, the oxidation of bromide and subsequent bromination of the phenol red occur readily. If the reaction is buffered to pH 4.5 to 4.7, the color of the brominated compound will range from reddish to violet, depending on the bromide concentration. Thus, a sharp differentiation can be made among various concentrations of bromide. The concentration of the chloramine-T and the timing of the reaction before the dechlorination are critical. A spectrophotometer is used to predict bromide concentrations. Surveying Methods In order to obtain elevations and locations of monitoring wells and surface water locations at the Broken Aro site, a property survey was conducted on August 18, 1998. First, a benchmark was obtained fiom R&F Coal Company, who had conducted surveys during their re-mining activities. The benchmark, an iron nail, was located at the intersection of State Route 541 and Country Road 17, which was on the boundary of the Broken Aro site. The benchmark had an elevation of 1094.26 feet above sea level. A traverse was then laid out by hammering wood stakes with metal tacks into the ground for each point on the closed traverse. The points, also called stations, were placed so that all of the wells and stream locations could be seen from the traverse points. A traverse is a series of consecutive lines whose lengths and directions have been determined from field measurements (Wolf and Brinker, 1994). The traverse consisted of eight traverse stations, labeled TS-1 through TS-8. From these control points, the instrument will be able to obtain all measurements of all of the locations. A total station will be used to conduct the property survey of the Broken Aro site. The total station is an electronic measuring device; a Pentax PCS-1 s was used for the survey. In digital format, the instrument outputs the distance to a point and an angle between the backsight and another point in relation to the occupied point. The total station works in cooperation with a prism that is atop a leveling rod. A laser is shot from the total station to the prism, when sighted on, and the laser is reflected back to the instrument which outputs the horizontal distance, the slope distance, and the change in elevation in units of decimal feet between the two points. The total station works together with a data collector also; a Hewlett Packard 48GX was used in this survey. The data collector records all the information that the instrument outputs. Before the survey begins, a rough sketch of the survey area is drawn in a fieldbook to eliminate possible discrepancies encountered later. To begin the traverse, the instrument is set up directly over the metal tack in the wood stake and leveled at TS- 1. Then an arbitrary backsight is selected and sighted on in the northern direction, and the instrument's horizontal direction is set to zero degrees or due north. The arbitrary backsight is usually a rigid object that will not move; for example, the comer of a concrete step connected to the foundation of a building is a good backsight. Next, the benchmark with known elevation is "shot" to incorporate vertical control of the site. Since the benchmark has a known elevation, the data collector computes the elevation of TS- 1, the set-up point, by using the change in elevation relative to TS- 1. Next, the instrument can be sighted on features such as ponds, stream locations, monitoring wells, and limestone channels, and their respective distances, horizontal angles, and elevations are recorded in the data collector. Finally, the instrument is 94 sighted on the next traverse station, TS-2, and recorded. TS-2 is called the foresight in this case. The process continues in similar fashion. The instrument is now set up at TS-2, and TS-1 is used as the backsight. Then, the surface features that can be seen from TS-2 are "shot" and recorded. Next, TS-3 is foresighted and recorded. This procedure is continued until TS-1 becomes the foresight when the instrument is set up at TS-8, the last traverse station. Since the survey started at TS-1, TS-1 must be foresighted in order to close the traverse. Closing the traverse allows the surveyor to check hidher precision of the survey. The precision for the survey at Broken Aro was 1 in 9000, which means for every 9000 feet the traverse lines distanced the closed polygon misclosed 1 foot. Required relative precisions for property surveys are set by state law and by cities and counties. In Ohio, a minimum relative precision of 1 in 6000 is required; otherwise the survey must be conducted again. After the field survey was complete, the data had to be downloaded to a computer into an AutoCAD file. The raw data was downloaded using Eaglepoint Civil Software, and the points were displayed in an AutoCAD drawing. Next, a map was drawn using the points that were "shot" in the field survey. This map of the Broken Aro site with the specific locations can be found in Figure 1. This map was then used in the development of the ArcView GIs. Chapter 5 Background and Description of the Broken Aro Project This chapter discusses the background of the Broken Aro Reclamation project. It begins with describing the site's location by specifying features of the area, such as streams, roads, and mine complexes. Next, the chapter discusses the remining operations and why they are feasible. Also, the FGD seal implementation is described in detail, and the construction phases are identified. Further, the goal of the FGD mine seal is characterized. Finally, the site's water monitoring program is explained with relation to determining the effectiveness of the mine seal. Site Location and Description The Broken Aro Mine site is located about seven miles west of Coshocton, Ohio on State Route 541 in Jackson Township within Coshocton County. See Figure 3 for an approximate location (DeLorme Co., 1996). The area is located in the Kanawha section of the Allegheny Plateaus province of the Appalachian Highland physiographic division. In the area of concern, there lies the Middle Kittanning No. 6 and the Lower Kittanning No. 5 coal seams that have been mined since 19 10. During the 191 O's, 34 acres of the area was used for underground mining of bituminous coal in Davis Mine Complexes # 1 and #2. Surface mining operations were conducted on the western and northern perimeter of the underground mine during the past six years. Presently, this area is owned by the State of Ohio and is part of the Woodbury Wildlife Reserve. Figure 3. Location Map of the Broken Aro site The effect of the mining operations is acid mine drainage (AMD) which pollutes the receiving stream of Simmons Run with acidity and heavy metals and kills aquatic and plant life. Surface waters, infiltration, runoff and groundwater discharges from the mine area form the headwaters of Simmons Run. This tributary enters into the Walhonding River five miles downstream from the project boundary. To prevent this pollution from continuing, a design for keeping the water inside the mine was developed with the cooperation of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), R&F Coal Company, American Electric Power (AEP), and Ohio University. The groundwater was sealed inside the mine to keep it from oxidizing and causing stream pollution. The seal is made from a chemical by-product produced from coal-fired power plants called flue gas desulfurization (FGD) sludge. The FGD seal has a low hydraulic conductivity which can keep water fiom seeping out of the underground mine. It also has high alkalinity which can neutralize the acidic waters of AMD if water does escape fiom the mine. Remining at Broken Aro Remining was the strategy used at Broken Aro to benefit the environment, industry, and the public. Remining operations ultimately accomplished three goals. First, it recovered remaining coal reserves left from previous mining operations and allowed for the retrieval of a valuable natural resource. Second, remining allowed for the reclamation of the Broken Aro site and the placement of the FGD seal in order to achieve current environmental standards. Sites that are remined and reclaimed reduce environmental pollution, remove health and safety hazards, and considerably improve aesthetic properties (Skousen, 1996). Third, the State of Ohio, AEP, and R&F Coal Company were able to share financial and regulatory burdens so that the remining operation was possible. The normal barriers of an insufficient coal reserve, liabilities due to poor, preexisting water quality, and seal material experimentation can be overcome with this kind of cooperative partnership. The Broken Aro remine mining area is located within the mining permit in section 16 of Jackson Township in Coshocton County, Ohio. The area consists of 15 acres of mostly undeveloped land. The reserve is located 17 miles fiom AEP's Conesville power plant. The mining area includes the No. 6 coal seam, which has the following properties: - Average thickness: 35 inches Strip coal reserves (estimated): 18,900 tons Actual coal reserves: 18,655 tons Total burden: 255,150 bank cu. yd Strip ratio: 13.5 : 1 The average quality of the coal from the mining area was based on drilling information and geologic model interpolation. The coal had 9.87 percent ash and 3.64 percent sulfur, and it had the energy potential of 11,3 16 Btullb. The quality may be affected by the extensive underground mining previously extracted from the mine area during the 1910's (Mafi et al. 1998). The mine averaged 4000 spot tons per month of coal production with corresponding overburden removal of 62,000 cu. yd per month. This mine would normally be uneconomical except for the additional funding and partnership between R&F Coal Company and the Ohio Division of Wildlife. The life of the reserve lasted only four months based on coal production (Mafi et al., 1996). During remining operations, some chemical treatment was used since water was freely flowing from the mine complex into the surface waters. Mine water flowed from an exposed mine opening in the vicinity of location DM2Z. A barrel with grated openings at the bottom was filled with soda ash briquettes and directly placed in the stream that was flowing from the mine opening. The contact the AMD had with the soda ash produced a bluish-green color to the water due to the sudden introduction of an alkaline compound. Sulfate, calcium, and sodium ions remaining from acid neutralization reactions cause this color change (Colorado School of Mines, 1996). Also, soda ash briquettes were dumped into the sedimentation pond, U6, during remining to further treat acidic waters downstream. During remining, there were three seeps located near the headwaters of Simmons Run emanating from the southem-most mine opening. See Figure 1. They were identified as S 1, S2, and S3 during reconnaissance of the site before construction activities began. The remining operations disturbed the area around the seeps, and after the FGD mine seal was in place, the seeps stopped discharging water. Therefore, Ohio University never sampled these mine discharges. This represented that the mine water would now be stored inside the mine complex and not allowed to flow into Simmons Run. The remining activities made it fairly easy for the placement of the FGD mine seal. By remining the eastern perimeter of the underground mine, most of the geologic materials were removed from the area leaving a relatively flat surface for a continuous mine seal. Also, the mine openings were fully exposed allowing FGD material to be pushed far back into the mine which will help sustain the head pressure. Further, by exposing the mine openings, it allowed for the underground mine to dewater. This would allow the FGD material proper time to cure before being exposed to mine water. FGD Mine Seal PIacement Installation of the FGD seal began concurrent with the continued remining effort in June 1997. The final FGD material used in mine seal construction contains 0.8 to 1.2 parts dry "Class C" fly ash mixed with one part filter cake from the scrubber units at the power plant. Lime is then added at three to five percent by dry weight to the mixture. When left undisturbed, interparticle cementitious reactions bind the material together forming a low-strength, monolithic material. The FGD material was delivered fresh to the site, within ten days from the time of its production. First, a series of open pits were excavated to recover remaining coal in the remining operation, and this made it possible for the construction of a continuous seal. The construction of the seal started adjacent to the exposed highwall and covers approximately 3700 feet of highwall length. Initially, a keyway trench was excavated in the pit floor which was five feet wide and one foot deep. The keyway trench was created to enhance structural stability of the seal by restricting horizontal movement, since there would be an increasing head pressure. Figure 4 presents a photograph of a dumptruck placing FGD material into the keyway trench. The FGD material was delivered to the site as needed with a moisture content of about 75%. It was placed and compacted within ten days of production to achieve optimum performance. The FGD seal itself was constructed in two four-foot lifts at least 10 feet wide (Mafi et. al., 1998). The first lift of the seal was constructed by placing the FGD material into the open pit and the keyway trench. The FGD material was forced into mine openings and compacted using a dozer. See Figure 5 which depicts a backhoe forcing FGD material into a mine opening. Figure 5. Backhoe compacting FGD into a mine opening The compacted first lift was sufficient to cover the face of the exposed coal seam. After the first lift was installed, mine spoil from the adjacent pit was pushed into the current pit floor and used in the leveling of the first lift. This allowed trucks to transport the second lift of FGD without damaging the first. The second lift was placed on top of the first lift, and the FGD material was pushed into the highwall with a dozer to fill and compact the lift. The now, compacted FGD seal was a minimum of eight feet above the pit floor. The top surface of the second lift was sloped gradually away from the highwall. This was to ensure that infiltration waters would be diverted away from the highwall and off the seal. All deep mine openings that were encountered during seal placement were handled accordingly. All mine openings were sealed from floor to roof by pushing FGD material as far back into the entrance as possible. Also, care was taken to ensure that there were no gaps between mining pits. This guaranteed that the mine seal was constructed continuously along the length of the highwall. Additional compaction was '1 ---. Exfstlng Grw -s- -4-. l.., I I \ i \, I ! I I i Spcll Yaterfol f I I /* I / . .' ** I r /' I ,// // C /-- 0 I' ------c---,-,------=,-fld5 ------c4-Sporl Uatrlol ------+-- - .. -- - FGD DEEP MINE SEAL PLAN I Figure 6. FGD Mine Seal Plan produced from the placement of overburden above the mine seal from the next pit. Over 22,000 tons of FGD material were used in the mine seal construction. Figure 6 located on the previous page shows the detail drawing of the design and dimensions of the FGD seal. The only detail that was modified during construction was the second lift of the FGD seal was sloped away from the highwall. This ensured that water would not pond on top of the mine seal, but instead promote the flow of infiltration away from the FGD seal. Ponding water would create an additional hydrostatic pressure on the seal which would encourage failure. The FGD seal is shown in Figure 7 in its final configuration before fill materials were placed overtop the mine seal. Fill material was utilized to level the ground surface with the highwall elevation. Mine spoil and overburden soils were used as fill in the regrading process. Filling with mine spoil is an often-practiced reclamation technique to prevent AMD. After compaction of the fill materials, grass was planted on the entire surface to prevent erosion and promote wildlife. Figure 7. FGD seal in its final configuration 104 The Goal ofthe FGD Seal The ultimate goal of the seal was to fully flood Davis Mine Complex #1, forcing all of the air out of mine complex and preventing the formation of AMD. It will be impossible to seal all the water in the mine especially with the increasing head pressure due to the rising water level, but it expected that the deep mine will become inundated to a certain degree. Inside the mine, there is an infinite amount of pyrite but a small amount of oxygen, comparatively. Outside the mine, the amount of these two constituents is opposite. Any pyrite dissolved in water that escapes is oxidized immediately, but the FGD seal limits the amount of dissolved pyrite that can escape. The hope is that the amount of AMD that is produced can safely be treated by means of natural attenuation, and therefore it will not be a threat to water quality further downstream. Also, the FGD seal limits the amount of oxygen that can infiltrate into the mine. The oxidation reaction is the source of the pollution. If the seal can limit the occurrence of this reaction, then a large amount of the AMD pollution has been prevented. The water quality inside the mine will not improve until all the void space is filled with water so that remaining oxygen is forced out and pollution-causing reaction can be eliminated. The main goal is to reduce the mass loadings of the pollutants to the watershed, and that can be accomplished one of two ways. Either the flowrate can be decreased, or the concentrations of the pollutants can be reduced. The FGD seal obviously reduces the flowrates of water to the receiving streams, but the construction of limestone channels and sedimentatiordsettling ponds can help passively decrease the concentrations of pollutants such as iron, sulfate, and acidity. Mass loadings of stream locations are a combination of concentrations and flowrates. Loadings to the watershed will be the main part of the discussion in the thesis. Mass loadings were calculated using the following equation: [Loadings (kg/day)] = [Concentrations (mg/L)] X [Flowrate (L/sec)] X [l kgll X 106mg]X [3600 secll hr] X [24 hr/ 1 day]. For example, surface water location D 1A had a flowrate of 9.83 L/sec and a total iron concentration of 6.4 mg/L in March 1998. Therefore, the mass loading calculation would be: [Loadings (kglday)] = [6.4 mg/L] X [9.83 Llsec] X [l kg/l X 10'mg] X [3600 secll hr] X [24 hr/ 1 day] Total Iron Loading = 5.4 kddav. Water Monitoring Program The water monitoring program proposed at the Broken Aro site began with field reconnaissance by Ohio University and ODNR. During this excursion, locations were chosen for sampling and testing to determine sources of AMD. Positions for the monitoring wells and surface water locations were established. The length of Simmons Run was walked to determine points where water entered into the main stream. These points were either deep mine seeps or surface drainage flows that contributed to the water quality in Simmons Run. Each well or surface water location was marked with a wooden stake labeled with its number and origin of flow. Then, the monitoring wells were drilled, and certain construction activities were performed to allow easier flowrate measurement of stream locations. On the Broken Aro site, there are 15 surface water locations that are sampled and tested. The surface water locations are D 1, Dl A, D4, DM2, DM2Z, DM4A, DM4B, NPl, S4, S5, U1, U4, U5, U6, U7, and U9; where D = downstream, DM = deep mine, S = seep, and U = upstream. The locations are made up of underground seeps, ponds, streams, and stormwater runoff from the mine. Also, there are 8 underground wells situated in four pairs that were drilled deep into the mine. The wells are MWl, MW2, MW3, MW6, MW7, MW8, MW11, MW12; where MW = monitoring well. The groundwater within these wells are sampled and tested also. See Figure 1 for a map depicting the locations of the features listed above. A survey was conducted to obtain coordinates, including elevations, on all surface water locations and monitoring wells. Six more monitoring wells were drilled in August 1998 but have only been sampled twice. They are MW4, MW5, MW9, MWlO, MW14, and MW15 and are also shown in the drawing. The samples at all the locations are tested in the field and the laboratory for specific constituents as described in Chapter 4. The first five sampling events were performed in two-week intervals. Currently, sampling events occur once every month. The monitoring program allows for a complete evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the remining effort and the FGD mine seal placement. CHAPTER 6 Results and Discussions In this chapter, the results of the remining effort and the FGD seal design will be discussed to determine their overall effectiveness to abate acid mine drainage. The characteristics of the surface water locations and monitoring wells will be utilized to depict the main sources that relate to the contamination of Simmons Run. AMD contamination will be illustrated by plots that consist of pH, acidity, iron, sulfate, and some other chemical constituents that are representative of AMD. Also, this chapter contains discussions about each surface water location and the impact they have on the water quality of Simmons Run. Results The effectiveness of the seal to date can be seen via examination of the data collected as a function of time. Sampling events began on a regular basis two months prior to the start of the installation of the FGD seal. Therefore, one can see the effects of remining and dewatering activities and any immediate effect the FGD seal had on the AMD pollution. The FGD seal has been in place for about 17 months, and the last sampling event occurred on November 24, 1998. The water level elevations in the monitoring wells will be used to demonstrate how the FGD seal developed and maintained flooding of the underground mine. Also, chemical concentration profiles of the monitoring wells will be utilized to demonstrate water quality improvements inside the mine. The contaminant loadings of surface water location D1A is used as an indicator of effectiveness due to its critical location at the boundary of the mining areas. Monitoring Wells The monitoring wells are the primary indicator to determine the effectiveness of the FGD seal. Figure 8 presents the water levels in the eight original monitoring wells as a function of time. It is apparent that the water levels inside the underground mine have risen to an elevation of approximately 1035 feet above sea level and decreased slowly to 1032 feet where they are starting to plateau. It is assumed that the mine complex has been fblly inundated at this time. Time (Date) Figure 8. Water Level in Wells vs. Time The water inside the mine (in between the coal voids) is monitored by wells MW3, MW7, and MW 1 1. Monitoring wells MW6, MW8, and MW 12 are situated under or outside the deep mine, and they describe the water levels and water quality in that area. Monitoring well MW2 was inadvertently drilled into a perched aquifer, and the water level is much higher than in the other wells. MW2 seems to have no conductivity with the deep mine, either in water level or water quality. The water quality in MW2 is typical of groundwater characteristics and has not been impacted by AMD. However, it should be noted that some vertical connectivity exist between the mine and MW8 as seen by the water elevation in that well. Also, MW1 has remained dry since the start of the project due to an error in the drilling and is therefore not presented. The strongest indicator of an effective mine seal is that the water levels in the wells increased at a rate of approximately 1.0 to 1.5 feet per month ever since the completion of the FGD seal in August 1997. The negative slopes in the early dates in this study represent a decrease in the water level in the wells. This is due to the fact that the remining activity and the FGD seal construction during the spring/sumrner of 1997 disturbed some of the mine openings and allowed for dewatering of the underground mine complex. In general, the wells screened within the mine consistently show water levels have risen 8- 10 feet above pre-mining levels and approximately 15 feet above the ' dewatered mine levels. The hope is that water quality within the mine will improve with time since oxygen has been driven out of the mine complex. The water levels and quality of MW3 and MW6 will be used as typical of groundwater conditions since MW6 is located under the mine and MW3 is located within the underground mine complex. As can be seen in Figures 9, 10, and 11, the water quality of MW6 has remained relatively unchanged throughout the testing period with respect to acidity, sulfate, and total iron concentrations. This is a good indicator that the AMD has remained inside the mine and has not descended into a lower geologic formation. To this point, the FGD seal is sustaining the hydrostatic pressure created by inundation. Time (Date) Figure 9. Acidity vs. Time in Wells (MW3, MW6) 2500 2000 h -2 1500 Y uQ, lc" 1000 J (I) 500 0 411 197 10/18/97 5/6/98 11/22/98 Time (Date) Figure 10. Sulfate Concentration vs. Time (MW3, MW6) Time (Date) Figure 1 1. Total Iron Concentration vs. Time (MW3, MW6) Further, water quality within the mine complex has begun to show signs of improvement. It is believed that the mine has become hlly inundated and most air was forced out so that the oxidation reaction that causes AMD was virtually eliminated. In MW3, the sulfate, iron, and acidity concentrations have slowly decreased since remining and dewatering activities. This is apparent in Figures 9, 10, and 11 of water quality in MW3. The iron concentration has decreased from 307 mg/L to 6.2 mg/L which is a 98 percent reduction. Also, the sulfate concentration has been reduced from 2 193 mg/L to 1200 mg/L since construction; this is a 45 percent reduction. In Figure 9, there is a net alkalinity in MW3 before construction activities began on the underground mine complex. It is evident from the plot that these alkaline conditions have been achieved again in the last two sampling events due to the influence of the FGD mine seal. Monitoring wells MW7 and MW8 depict similar results. MW7 is drilled inside the mine complex, and MW8 is drilled outside the underground mine area. However, the water levels in both wells have changed identically over time. See Figure 8 above for the water levels in the monitoring wells. This shows that there is some conductivity between the two areas. But the water quality is not the same in the two wells. Fortunately, the groundwater outside the mine complex has not been negatively impacted by AMD anytime during the testing period. Figures 12 and 13 show concentration plots for acidity and iron for wells MW7 and MW8. 12/23/97 4/23/98 Time (Date) Figure 12. Acidity vs. Time (MW7, MW8) 4/1/97 1011 8197 5/6/98 1I122198 Time (Date) Figure 13. Total Iron Concentration vs. Time (MW7, MW8) It is apparent from the contaminant concentrations that the water in the mine complex has improved significantly since the inundation of the mine complex. Further, acidity and total iron concentrations in MW7 have decreased to the same level as the water quality outside the deep mine depicted by last two sampling events. If the FGD seal remains structurally sound, this trend is expected to continue. The water depth and concentration plots of the other monitoring wells can be found in Appendix B. These plots are similar to the characteristics found in MW3, MW6, MW7, and MW8. Boundary of Mining Area Surface water location D 1A is located at the boundary of the mining areas. D 1A represents the load of contaminants that are discharged into the Simmons Run Watershed, and it allows for the measurement of these contaminants being emitted off-site into the surrounding environment. Dl A is sampled at the end of a 36-inch diameter culvert that runs under a gravel road used by trucks for mining and reclamation activities. Figures 14 and 15 present sulfate and total iron loadings at location D 1A. These figures are located on the following page. Sulfate loadings were over 1100 kglday during the remining in May of 1997, decreasing to 480 kglday at the end of 1998. This constitutes a reduction in sulfate load to the watershed of 56% due to the influence of the FGD seal. The iron loadings have decreased in even a more dramatic fashion, from 43 kglday during remining operations to about 1.5 kglday at the end of November of 1998. This is equal to a 96% reduction in total iron load off-site. There is a similarity between the sulfate and iron concentration reductions inside the mine complex, apparent from the results from MW3, and the sulfate and iron mass loading reductions at Dl A, the boundary of the mining area. The percentages of reductions are almost identical, showing the FGD seal has the same influence on the deep mine and the receiving stream. Time (Date) 1 Figure 14. Sulfate Load vs. Time (D 1A) Time (Date) I Figure 15. Iron Load vs. Time (Dl A) Without the influence of storm events, the flowrate at D1A has decreased by about one-half after the FGD seal was completed. It is important to make this observation using baseline conditions without the influence of dilution generated during severe storm events. Also, mine inundation will either lower the concentration of the contaminants, decrease flowrates, or both, so that ultimately the loadings decrease. In this case, the concentrations and the flowrate have consistently decreased, which is optimal for reduction of contaminant loads to the watershed. New Pond Used as an Indicator The pond (NP1) on the south side of the site was constructed in January 1998 after the FGD seal was in place. This pond was proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to increase aesthetics, recreation, and wildlife habitat to the Woodbury Wildlife Preserve. It has an approximate surface area of 54,188 ft2 (1.24 acres). The pond lies between the two walls of the FGD seal (see Figure I), and location NP1 is a decisive indicator of the effectiveness of the FGD mine seal. Therefore by testing its water quality, it can be determined whether the FGD seal is retaining the water inside the deep mine properly. Thus far, it is not apparent that water from inside the mine complex has entered into this water body. If water were seeping from behind the FGD seal due to the increasing head pressure, water would drain into this pond due to its low elevation. Further, NPl does not share water quality characteristics with the surrounding wells confirming the hypothesis that the mine seal is not leaking. This pond was filled using a combination of groundwaterlmine water and surface run-off. Thus, the pond's water quality began as acidic due to the addition of mine water. Presently, the pond has had a net alkalinity and a relatively low metal concentration neglecting its first sampling event. The iron and acidity concentrations have decreases since the pond was constructed showing improvements in water quality. Figures 16 and 17 represent acidity and total iron concentrations in the pond for the two-year study. 3 60 % 40 0 rnfn 20 4 0 -1 --P -20 * I 5 -40 0 4 -60 2/1/98 4/1/98 6/1/98 8/1/98 1011198 Time (Date) Figure 16. Acidity vs. Time (NP 1) 9 8 7 +-I P V c 5 pGGil - 4 0 3 2 1 0 211 198 511 2/98 8120198 11/28/98 Time (Date) Figure 17. Total Iron Concentration vs. Time (NP1) Discussions Collection of Infiltration Above the FGD Seal After the FGD seal was constructed, three perforated pipes were installed to drain infiltration that entered into the fill material above the mine seal. The purpose of this controlled drainage was to direct water away from the FGD seal, so that no additional head pressure would develop. This is the same area where a large mine opening existed before it was sealed with FGD material. Therefore, there is some speculation that some of the mine water may be exfiltrating out of the mine seal area. Surface water location DM2Z consists of the three perforated pipes. It is believed that these outlet pipes discharge the infiltration waters that have entered into the mine spoil/soil layer that was placed atop the FGD seal. However, it is possible that some of this water emanates from the underground mine due to the adverse water quality indicators. Figures 18 and 19 depict adverse water quality at DM2Z in total iron and sulfate loadings. Even though these loadings are high, there is a decreasing trend that shows improvements in water quality. Time (Date) Figure 18. Sulfate Load vs. Time (DM2Z) I Time (Date) I 1 Figure 19. Iron Load vs. Time (DM2Z) Since a significant amount of mine spoil was used in the fill material, the coal rehse could be the culprit of the AMD coming from these pipes. Also, the water level in the underground mine has not decreased which is another promising factor that this water does not emanate from the mine complex. It is possible that the head pressure within the mine has produced a seep in the FGD seal or forced some of the groundwater out from underneath the mine complex. Further investigations of this site will evaluate this issue. Six new monitoring wells were installed in September 1998 in the area outside the mine complex to determine the origin of the waters flowing from DM2Z. If the water in these new wells shares the same water quality characteristics as the water from DM2Z, then it can be concluded that the water is not coming from the mine complex. The water would be either groundwater or infiltration. However, the water within these wells has only been sampled twice, so sufficient data has not been collected to form a conclusion. From the data collected thus far, the hypothesis is that the water from DM2Z is a large amount of infiltration and possibly a small amount of escaping mine water. Effect of the Oxic Limestone Drain An OLC is a passive treatment strategy that is a low cost, low maintenance method for treating AMD. The OLC is an open, free flowing channel lined with coarse limestone greater than four inches in diameter. An OLC can be effective by: 1) increasing alkalinity by the dissolution of the calcium carbonate (CaC03) in the limestone and 2) encouraging the precipitation of metals such as ferric iron, aluminum, and manganese into metal hydroxides. The pH is buffered by mostly bicarbonate and some carbonic acid in the limestone. Alkalinity must be added to the water to convert the dissolved metal ions such as ~d'.~e)', ~l'+, and ~n'-tometal hydroxides like Al(OH)3. A settling pond can be installed to accept the discharge from the limestone channel for further removal of metals and clarifying if sufficient alkalinity has been added and proper oxidation has taken place. The increase in alkalinity in the presence of oxygen forces the ferrous (2+) iron to be reduced to ferric (3+) form and it is precipitated. During this oxidation process, additional acidity is created, forcing the pH to decrease further. Therefore, it is difficult for a limestone channel to add sufficient alkaline treatment for a highly concentrated AMD. Also, manganese and aluminum are precipitated with addition of alkalinity, but are not dependent on the amount of oxygen that is introduced. Metal hydroxide formation and retention during neutralization occurs at a pH of 3.0 to 4.0 for ferric iron and 4.0 to 5.0 for ~l''(Hedin and Watzlaf 1994). Sulfate in high concentrations (above 2000 mg/L) can precipitate as gypsum, also contributing to the accumulation of solids collecting on the limestone. An important design concern is to achieve a velocity sufficient to cany solids out of the channel, but also providing enough residence time to keep the overall size and cost of the drain reasonable. The idea behind the OLC lies in the proposition that even armored limestone will continue to dissolve in acidic water at some rate. Armoring occurs over time, when the limestone becomes coated with precipitated metals and allows less surface area for reaction. The key question is how effective will the OLC perform after the limestone becomes armored. Pearson and McDonnell(1974) concluded that fully armored limestone is one fifth as soluble as unarmored limestone in their research of crushed limestone as a passive treatment. Surface water location DM2Z was added to the list of surface water locations in May 1998 to investigate the effect of the OLC on the waters flowing from two perforated pipes. However, the limestone channel was constructed in December 1997. The original purpose of this limestone channel was to prevent erosion, not a treatment technique. The OLC conveys the flow from the outlet of the perforated pipes (DM2Z) into the sedimentation pond (U6) through location DM2. The flowrate is measured only at location DM2 since the OLC is just 170 feet in length. The flowrate will not be greatly affected by this length except during a severe storm event. The OLC's purpose is to collect infiltration and runoff waters in the area above the FGD seal so a failure will not occur. The average flowrate from the limestone channel is approximately 1.2 liters per second. It is apparent from data analysis that the OLC has been fairly effective. The OLC has reduced iron loadings to the settling pond and slightly increased pH values over its length. Subsequently, the specific conductivity was reduced due to the fact that iron concentrations were reduced. Iron loadings were reduced by an average of 75 percent over the five months tested in the 170 feet of channel length. See the Figures 20 and 2 1 on the following page for a comparison of iron loadings and pH for locations DM2Z and DM2. Sulfate loadings were not reduced since their concentrations remained under 2000 mg/L; therefore gypsum was not formed (Skousen and Ziemkiewicz, 1995). Other metals, such as manganese and aluminum, have remained relatively unchanged due to the fact that very little alkalinity was introduced into the water flowing through the channel. Time (Date) Figure 20. Iron Load vs. Time (DM2, DM2Z) 4/23/98 611 2/98 811 198 9120198 11/9/98 Time (Date) FIGURE 2 1. Field pH vs. Time (DM2, DM2Z) The OLC was not as effective as it could have been due to the following reasons. The OLC was constructed in an area near the base of the FGD seal (see Figure 1). The material consists of mine spoil and soil that was used in the regrading process after the FGD seal was constructed. After this material became saturated from infiltration, mine waters, and/or runoff waters, the ground became very unstable. The soft, unstable ground caused the limestone to sink into the soil minimizing the surface area for contact. Also, the size of the limestone used in the channel was too large. The diameter of the limestone used in this OLC was greater than 12 inches; this also reduced the amount of surface area for the water to contact. It was suggested from Skousen and Ziernkiewicz (1 995) that limestone should be four inches in diameter. This OLC channel provided little alkalinity addition, but a suitable place for oxidation and the precipitation of ferric iron. Sedimentation Pond At surface water location U6, samples are collected at the north side of the pond. This side of the pond is the outlet before the water enters into a rock-lined spillway and travels downstream. Therefore by obtaining the sample from this location, the effects of the pond can be analyzed by the data obtained. The sedimentation pond has a surface area of approximately 62,200 ft2 (1.43 acres). Sedimentation ponds are designed by using the flowrate entering the pond and the desired detention time of the water in the pond. Thereby, the volume of the pond can be estimated using the following expression: V=Qt where 'V' is the volume of the pond, 'Q' is the flowrate entering the pond, and 't' is the detention time. The purpose of this constructed pond is to provide oxidation to promote the precipitation of metal oxides such as Fe(OH)3 and Al(OH)3, and also provide a place for the metals and other suspended solids to settle out. After years of activity, the pond may have to be dredged to remove the solids that have accumulated so that the pond can continue to be effective. The pH of this pond ranges from 3.0 to 4.0 due to the added acidity from the oxidation reaction in the AMD generation process. Metal, sulfate, and acidity concentrations have been increasing over time. During remining and FGD seal construction, ODNR was adding bags of soda ash briquettes to the pond to increase alkalinity and resist increased loads to Simmons Run downstream. Sodium carbonate (Na2C03)is the neutralizing compound in soda ash. This chemical is generally used in small flow cases (<50 gpm) with low amounts of acidity and metals. Selection of soda ash for treating AMD is based on convenience rather than cost effectiveness. The high cost of soda ash along with the relatively low solubility in AMD makes this reagent an unpopular choice. Chemical addition is an expensive form of treatment, and soda ash can cost up to $180 per ton (Skousen and Ziernkiewicz, 1995). Some options that may prove more effective for acid neutralization and metal precipitation are ammonia, caustic soda, and hydrated lime. With the addition of soda ash in August 1997, the acidity decreased to -1 20 mg/L and the pH increased to 5.9 during the monthly sampling event. The pH and acidity concentrations are depicted in the following plots, Figures 22 and 23. Metal concentrations did not show a significant reduction during this chemical treatment, however the metals did increase after chemical addition was ceased. Time (Date) I 1I Figure 22. Acidity vs. Time (U6) 10118/97 5/6/98 Time (Date) Figure 23. Field pH vs. Time (U6) Heudwuters of Simmons Run Surface water locations Ul, U5, and S4 form the headwaters of Simmons Run. These waters consist of groundwater seeps, run-off, and mine spoil infiltration and have the characteristics of AMD. They have been discharging water before and after the FGD seal was in place. However, during remining operations the flowrates and chemical concentrations were substantially higher producing an increased load to the environment. After the FGD seal was completed, the flowrates decreased and contaminant loadings were at a minimum. Figures 24,25, and 26 show acid, sulfate and iron loadings over time. Time (Date) I I Figure 24. Acid Load vs. Time (Ul, U5, S4) I Time (Date) Figure 25. Iron Load vs. Time (U 1, U5, S4) Time (Date) Figure 26. Sulfate Load vs. Time (Ul, U5, S4) It is apparent from these plots that the peaks occur during remining activities or when the mine complex was being dewatered. After construction activities ceased, the mass loadings of the contaminants were virtually negligible. These locations have extremely low flowrates which account for the low loadings. The average flowrates for locations U1 and S4 after construction are 0.19 and 0.36 Llsec, respectively. Other contaminant plots, such as aluminum and manganese, share the same trends and can be found in Appendix B. U5 is formed by the confluence of Ul and S4. Therefore, location U5 shares the water quality of both upstream locations U1 and S4. On certain sampling events, the flowrate of U5 was calculated instead of measured using the following equation: On most occassions, the flowrate for U5 was measured in order to check the flowrates of the corresponding upstream locations. AMD Source Outside the Study Area A mine seep, S5, located near the headwaters of Simmons Run discharges water from Davis Mine Complex #2 which is located across County Road 17. See Figure 1 for its location. The seep's flowrate has increased by a factor of 6.5 ever since construction was performed near its location in December 1997. Construction was performed to expose the seep in order to prevent a "blowout" in an unpredictable area and contain the flow before it caused damage. This construction activity increased both flowrate and contaminant concentrations. The seep, before exposure, had an average flowrate of about 0.10 Llsec, and it has increased to about 0.75 Llsec. The FGD mine seal has no effect on this drainage since it emanates from outside the mine seal boundary. Figures 27 and 28 present the increase of acidity and total iron loadings. hh v([I \m Y Y 2 0 4 9 3 Time (Date) Figure 27. Acid Load vs. Time (S5) h 6 - h m([I - 5 - W Y Y 4 - Time (Date) Figure 28. Iron Load vs. Time (S5) The iron, acidity, and sulfate loadings have increased substantially due to the higher flowrates which were caused by the exposure of the seep. For example, the acid load has increased from a net zero acidity to an average of 14 kg/day after exposure. This seep has become a problem area, and an oxic limestone channel to treat the water is proposed in the Recommendations section of this document. This type of passive treatment will be effective in improving the water quality downstream. Location S5 is proof that some environmental load to Simmons Run does originate from outside the study area where the FGD seal was not constructed. In order to limit contamination from outside the study area, some additional treatment technique must be initiated. Deep Mine Discharges Surface water locations DM4A and DM4B are deep mine seeps that have been discharging a very small amount of water before, during, and after the FGD mine seal was in place. They emanate from the northern-most mine opening in Davis Mine Complex #1 and are located on the northwest side of the sedimentation pond designated as U6. Since the remining operation and FGD seal placement did not expose the northern-most mine opening, it is believed that this water may still be seeping from the deep mine. The flowrate at DM4B has decreased ever since the FGD mine seal was complete, but the flowrate at DM4A has increased slightly, compensating for this reduction. The concentrations of the contaminants are rather high, such as iron, sulfate, and acidity. However, the flowrates are very low, less than 0.1 L/s, so even though concentrations are high, the loadings to the sedimentation pond are very low. Figures 29 and 30 represent the flowrates and acid loads that these locations discharge. Time (Date) Figure 29. Flowrate vs. Time (DM4A, DM4B) Time (Date) Figure 30. Acid Load vs. Time (DM4A, DM4B) It is apparent from the y-axis in the plots above that these locations are not a major source of AMD. However, these mine seeps still contribute to the adverse water quality in Simmons Run. The peak that is depicted in the plots from DM4A was caused by sampling during a severe storm event and is not representative of baseline conditions. A larger flowrate will always cause an increase in mass loadings. Since there is such a small amount of water discharged by these mine seeps, construction of treatment systems to abate this AMD would be impractible. As long as there are no dramatic increases in the flowrates, natural attenuation and the sedimentation pond should be sufficient to remove and/or dilute this contamination. Downstream Water Quality Surface water locations, D4, U7, and U9 are situated on the northern end of the study area or downstream on Simmons Run. There are no other additional AMD sources contributing to the stream in this area, and U9 actually serves as dilution flow because of its good water quality. U7 is located before U9 enters into Simmons Run, and D4 is sampled to determine the effects of U9 on the stream. Stream location D4 is formed by the confluence of locations U7 and U9. The runoff from the southern side of Davis Mine Complex #1 and the reclaimed surface mining areas located outside the study area is collected in three ponds. This water is eventually discharged through the limestone channel which flows into Simmons Run. The limestone channel is labeled as surface water location U9-NEW in Figure 1. In April 1998, location U9 was moved from one area to another. During a severe storm event in February 1998, the pond that discharges into Simmons Run flooded, and the culvert pipe that drains the pond could not handle all of the water. The water forced a failure to occur at the slope or berm of the pond and created its own channel into Simmons Run. This catastrophe required the reconfiguration of this location. To prevent flooding and sedimentation, the limestone channel was constructed as an overflow mechanism. Also, a siphon pipe was installed to discharge the water from the pond into the limestone channel during baseline flow conditions. The old culvert pipe was torn out, and the existing channel was filled. The culvert pipe was sampled until April 1998 as U9-OLD in Figure 1. The water from U9 has never been contaminated with AMD before or after reconfiguration. The water quality has always had a net alkalinity and the metal loadings have been relatively low. See acidity and sulfate loading plots in Figures 3 1 and 32 for representative water quality in the downstream of Simmons Run. Time (Date) Figure 3 1. Acid Load vs. Time (D4, U7, U9) Time (Date) Figure 32. Sulfate Load vs. Time (D4, U7, U9) A comparison of locations U7 and D4 can be performed to evaluate how the water quality is changing in the downstream area. Figure 3 1 shows how the acidity at D4 has been reduced to net alkaline conditions, except during dewatering operations. However, the low point depicted in the acidity plot (Figure 3 1) is representative of the soda ash addition to the sedimentation pond in August 1997. This active treatment technique dramatically decreased the acidity in the downstream area, since no other AMD contributors exist after that point. The sulfate loadings remain rather high in the downstream, but a decreasing trend is beginning to develop which is apparent in the last two sampling events. Since the water has left the sedimentation pond at U6, which is about 1100 feet upstream with no treatment in between, the water quality has improved significantly. Natural attenuation and run-off waters play an important role in improving the quality in the downstream area. The dilution from U9 reduces concentrations of contaminants, not mass loadings. Sulfate is a conservative tracer and is non-reactive. Thus, sulfate loads are not reduced when a low sulfate load (U9) flows into a higher sulfate load. The relationship is merely cumrnulative, and this is evident in Figure 32. However, acidity is a non-conservative tracer and an exception; it is reactive in solution. Therefore, acid loads are reduced when an alkaline flow (U9) is introduced into an acidic flow (D4). This is apparent in Figure 30. Dilution plays a different role depending on the chemical constiuent. "Roof Effect" of Mine Inundation in Streams and Wells The FGD seal forces the water inside the mine to rise until the mine complex is fully inundated. As the water rises, the surface area of waterlpyrite contact is limited only to the sides of the underground mine. Therefore, a limited amount of AMD is produced. But when the mine just becomes fully inundated, the surface area of waterlpyrite increases significantly due to the mine complex roof. This additional contact causes a subsequent increase in AMD production. This phenomenon is apparent from Figures 33 and 34 which show increases in acidity and iron concentrations in well MW3 during times of inundation. Inundation is apparent from the water level profiles in Figure 8 at the beginning of this chapter. The roof effect is very distinct and should be expected in post-mining seal projects where the slope of the coal seam is minimal (1-3%). Time (Date) Figure 33.Acidity vs. Time (MW3) 411 197 10118/97 5/6/98 11/22/98 Time (Date) Figure 34. Total Iron Concentration vs. Time (MW3) Notice the "humps" in the plots at times of inundation. This shows the additional contaminants produced due to the increased waterlpyrite contact with the mine roof. ARer the noted increases, the trend changes back to decreasing since all of the oxygen has been forced out by mine water, and AMD production has nearly ceased. Underground mines are not constructed exclusively horizontal, so the increase in contamination due to the "roof effect" is not always apparent. But in the case of Broken Aro, the roof of the mine complex and the coal seam run almost horizontal so this increase in AMD can be observed in monthly sampling events. The pseudo-horizontal coal seam is pictured in a photograph in Figure 5 in Chapter 5. This "roof effect" should not be detected in the surface water locations unless some the mine water is seeping from the mine complex. There is some evidence of the "roof effect" apparent in the loadings at DM2Z where a deep mine opening was located. But the trend is not substantial enough to draw any conclusions. Off-site Characterization Stream location Dl is situated approximately 1.1 miles downstream from the project boundary. This location is important in ensuring that the chemical characteristics are not detrimental to the environment this far from the mining area. There is a substantial amount of dilution since this length of stream drains the run-off from many acres aside from the mining area. Therefore, the flowrates are much higher than the ones at the project boundary, and contaminant concentrations are much lower. On average, the flowrate at this location is six times greater than the flowrate at the DlA. Figures 35 and 36 depict pH and acid loadings over the two-year study. Notice the pH never goes below 6.0, and the acid loadings never exceed -1 50 mg/L as CaC03. This discharge continuously has a net alkalinity. Time (Date) Figure 35. Field pH vs. Time (D 1) Time (Date) Figure 36. Acid Load vs. Time (Dl) Sulfate loadings are higher at Dl than at Dl A. This can contributed to an external non-point source between the project boundary and this sampling location. This sulfate source can be attributed to the many acres that are used for agricultural purposes. There is often a high concentration of sulfates in the run-off from farmlands due to herbicides, pesticides, and livestock wastes. The run-off from these properties drains into Simmons Run and creates a higher sulfate load to the environment. However, due to the chemical species of the sulfate, it does not transform into sulfuric acid, and additional acidity is not introduced into the watershed. I Time (Date) I Figure 37. Sulfate Load vs. Time (Dl, Dl A) Figure 37 listed above shows a comparison of the sulfate loadings for the project boundary and location D 1. It is evident from Figure 37 that, on average, only 27 percent of the sulfate load at Dl is emanating from the mining areas, with a range of 12 to 47 percent over the two-year sampling period. This leaves an average of 73 percent of the sulfate produced is originating from agricultural sources. Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions The Broken Aro reclamation project, located in Coshocton County, consisted of remining activities and a FGD underground mine seal for the abatement of acid mine drainage. The remining activities enabled fairly easy placement of the mine seal due to the removal of geologic material, the exposure of mine openings, and dewatering of the mine complex. The FGD mine seal has retained water within underground mine to the point of inundation. Water quality inside the mine complex is much better and is still improving over time. Improving water quality is the result of oxygen being forced out of the underground mine and preventing the formation of AMD. The appearance of new seeps is expected due to the increased head pressure exerted on the mine seal and natural materials. These new seeps, if encountered, will be monitored and controlled. The quantity of water in the original seeps has decreased, and in some cases, disappeared during remining and mine seal construction activities. Further, the water quality of these seeps still discharging water has improved due to decreases in concentrations and flowrates. Overall, the acid, sulh, and iron loads released into the Simmon's Run watershed continues to decrease. Thus far, the mine seal project has been successful. The Broken Aro Project will continue to be monitored in years to come to determine the level of success of the FGD mine seal. The site still needs to reach its 142 hydrogeologic equilibrium to completely determine its effectiveness. Acid mine drainage pollution needs to be addressed in order to preserve our fish and wildlife, and the utilization of new materials such as FGD might prove to serve as a 'rising' technology. Recommendations Non-Native Ion Tracers Further studies, including non-native ion tracers, should be employed using the newly installed monitoring wells to determine the origin of the seeps outside of the FGD seal. This implementation can determine the origin of the waters from DM2Z, DM4A, and DM4B since there is some uncertainty of the source of their discharges. A trace element is introduced into large quantities into the monitoring wells, and samples are taken from the surface water locations to conclude whether water is escaping from the deep mine complex. This method can determine which locations (wells and streams) share the same water quality characteristics and thus where the seeps are discharging through or around the FGD seal. Continued Monitoring The impact of the additional hydrostatic head, which is a result of mine inundation, will continue to be monitored. The study conducted in this paper is only a preliminary one due to the uncertainty of the FGD material utilized for the mine sealant. New seeps appearing outside of the FGD seal will be added to the monthly sampling schedule and carefully observed. It may be a number of years until a hydrogeologic steady state is established. Until equilibrium is reached, the overall effectiveness of the FGD seal cannot be determined. This site should be monitored on a regular sampling basis at least for the next six years to determine the longevity of the design. Only then will the utilization of the FGD by-product for mine sealing prove effective. New Monitoring Wells Further, new monitoring wells should be drilled and analyzed in the western part (backside) of the mine complex in the area of MW1 and MW2. MW2 was inadvertently drilled into a perched aquifer which is apparent from the water levels. Also, it is believed that MW1 was drilled into a dry rock formation, not a mine void, and has been dry since sampling began. Therefore, there is no information about the water quality in this section of the underground mine. Analysis of this section of the deep mine is critical in determining the efficiency of the FGD seal. Trace Metals Analysis In the next couple of years, it is important that the concentrations of the trace metals are watched very closely. If the FGD seal begins to deteriorate, the trace metal concentrations will begin to increase in the wells and the streams. Metals such as arsenic, lead, cobalt, silver, chromium, cadmium, and mercury are present in the FGD material in small amounts and can be detrimental to the environment. Since there was over 22,000 tons of FGD used, the break down of the mine seal could cause the concentrations of these metals to increase substantially. During this study, the concentrations of the trace metals in the wells and the streams were almost non-detectable in the laboratory results. However, if water levels in the monitoring wells begin to decrease significantly, then it may be a good indicator that the mine seal is breaking down, and the trace metals may pose an adverse environmental impact. Oxic Limestone Channel (OLC) Design This section will discuss the design parameters and considerations of configuring an OLC for mine seep S5. As discussed in the Chapter 6, the discharge from S5 emanates from Davis Mine Complex #2 which is located outside the study area. This deep mine complex is situated across County Road 17 (see Figure 1). In order to prove the effectiveness of the FGD seal and reduce loads to the environment, an additional design must be implemented. An OLC design was chosen because of its simplicity and cost effectiveness. Also, no other passive treatment option seemed to be viable in the area around S5. Further, some of the chemical characteristics of the water quality controlled the design. A discussion of passive treatment options is located in Chapter 3 of this document. It was initially thought that an anoxic limestone drain (ALD) would be the best option for the design due to the anaerobic conditions of the deep mine water. However, aluminum concentrations averaged over 26 mg/L, and this exceeded the maximum concentration of 25 mg/L recommended by Skousen and Ziernkiewicz (1995). Aluminum is easily precipitated as aluminum hydroxide flocs and is not dependent on dissolved oxygen concentration. Therefore, the ALD would clog after a short time and lose its effectiveness. Also, this mine water flows directly into a stable channel already, so construction would be minimal. Further, there is not a large amount of room for another pond which is used in SAPS or RAPS designs, since the sedimentation pond is located just downstream. The OLC will be effective in adding alkalinity and allowing metals to precipitate out of solution. The limestone surface will become coated with precipitates, but the limestone rock does not lose all of its effectiveness due to this armoring. The flow will discharge into the sedimentation pond downstream for further treatment. A rectangular channel will be designed for the average flowrate. Flood events or maximum flows will serve the purpose of flushing the channel of built-up sediments. Also, a geofabric will be used to line the channel, so that the limestone will not be buried into the base of the channel. The design parameters are as follows: Average Flowrate = 0.756 Llsec = 12 gpm = 0.0267 cfs Average Acidity = 349.3 mgL as CaC03 Design Life = 10 years Limestone Properties: #3 or #4 Limestone 90% CaC03content, Specific Weight = 180 lblft-', Porosity = 50%. It is assumed that the acidity will be reduced by 30 percent by flowing through the length of the limestone channel, and 70 percent of the limestone will be dissolved during the ten-year design life. The design is based on the amount of limestone needed to line the channel, not the actual volume of the rectangular channel, due to the large volume of limestone needed. The calculations are listed below (Skousen and Ziernkiewicz, 1995). 12 gpm x 349.3 mg/L acidity x 0.70 x 0.0022 = 6.46 tons acid per year 6.46 tons acidlyr x 10 years = 64.6 tons of CaC03 content 64.6 tons LS / 0.90 CaC03 content = 71.7 tons of limestone 71.7 tons LS / 0.70 LS dissolution = 102.46 total tons limestone Limestone = 102.46 tons = 204,923 lb Volume of Limestone = 204,923 lb 1 180 lb/ft3 = 1138.5 ft3 Volume of channel = 1138.5 ft3/ 0.50 porosity = 2276.9 ft3 Length of channel = 150 ft Depth of Channel = 2 ft Width of Channel = 2276.9 fi3/ (2 ft x 150 ft) z 7.5 ft The rectangular oxic limestone channel will be 7.5 feet wide, 2.0 feet deep, and 150 feet long with approximately 102.5 tons of #3 or #4 limestone of 90 percent CaC03 content. The OLC should decrease the contaminant loadings to the sedimentation pond, and the impact from outside the study area will be reduced. References 1. American Electric Power. 1997. Conesville Plant. Public pamphlet #5M1197. Conesville. OH. 2. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation. 1992. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 1gth edition. American Public Health Association, Washington D.C. 3. Baski, Inc. 1995. Cutthroat flume description and information. Denver, CO. 4. Beaton, Morris. 1999. Municipal Technical Assistance, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Water Division. E-mail interview concerning NPDES limitations on coal mining operations. February 15. 5. Bituminous Coal Reseach Center. 1970. Studies on limestone treatment of acid mine drainage. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series 14010 EIZ. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington D.C. 6. Brown, A. D. 1985. Chemical weathering of pyrite in soils, Ph.D. thesis. Utah State University, Logan, UT. 7. Butalia, Tarunjit and William Wolfe. 1998. Utilization of coal combustion products in Ohio. Twenty-third International Technical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems, Clearwater, Florida. 8. California Coastal Commission. 1997. Watershed analysis tool for environmental review: An internet-accessible analytical tool for managing polluted runoff across political boundaries. Internet Website. http://www.ceres.ca.~ov/coastalcomm/h2o/cscwkpln.htm.San Francisco, CA. 9. Canty, Geoffrey and J.W. Everett. 1998. An injection technique for in-situ remediation of abandoned underground coal mines. In Proceedings: 25thAnniversary and 15th ~nnual National Meeting, American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, St. Louis, Missouri. 10. Chaudhry, M. 1993. Open-channel flow. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 11. Colorado School of Mines. 1996. AMD chemistry: Environmental chemistry in Colorado toxic mine drainage chemistry and treatment. Internet Website, (htt~://www.mines.edu/fshome4 horan/chl26/amd.htm). 12. Colorado School of Mines. 1996. Microbial influences: Acid mine drainage. Internet Website, (htt~://www.mines.edu/fshome/i horadch 126lmicrobia.htm). 13. Crowell, Douglas C. 1995. History of the coal-mining industry in Ohio, Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 72, Columbus, OH. pp 1-38. 14. Ctcnet, Inc. 1998. Internet Website, (http://www.ctcnet.net/scrip/proiects.htm). 15. DeLorme Company. 1996. Street Atlas USA, version 4.0 for Windows, CD Rom. Freeport Maine. 16. Dick, W.A., R.C. Stehouwer, J.M. Bingham, W.E. Wolfe, D.C. Adriano, J. Beeghly and I. Murarka. 1997. Land application uses of coal combustion by-products, examples and case studies. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 17. Eberhart, Ryan. 1998. Characterization of a highly acidic watershed located mainly in Perry County, Ohio: M.S. Thesis, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio. 18. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 1996. ArcView GIs: The geographic information system for everyone, version 3.1. Redlands, CA. 19. Evangelou, V.P. 1995. Pyrite oxidation and its control. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 20. Faulconer, John, Shan Mafi and Gary Novak. 1997. Broken Aro AML project: Category 4 beneficial use request. R&F Coal Company, Cadiz, Ohio. 21. Faulkner, B.B. and J.G. Skousen. 1994. Treatment of acid mine drainage by passive treatment systems. p. 250-257. InProceedings: International Land Reclamation and Mine Drainage Conference, U.S. Bureau of Mines SP 06A-94, Pittsburgh, PA. 22. Foreman, John, I. Hong and J. Foreman. 1979. Lake Hope State Park: Mine drainage abatement demonstration project. Ohio DNR. Gwin, Dobson, Foreman, Inc., Altoona PA. 23. Foreman, John. 1998. Engineered structures for sealing underground mines. In Proceedings: 19th Annual West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force Symposium. Morgantown, WV. 24. Foreman, John. I. Bullers and I. Hong. 1969. Moraine State Park: Deep mine sealing engineering study. PA DER, Operation Scarlift - SL 105. Gwin Engineers, Altoona, PA. 25. Gray, Thomas, T.C. Moran, David Broschart, Gregory Smith and GAI Consultants. 1998. Injection of coal combustion by-products into the Omega Mine for the reduction of acid mine drainage. Proceedings: 25thAnniversary and 15th Annual National Meeting, American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation. St. Louis, Missouri. 26. Hedin, Robert, Robert Narin and Robert Kleinrnann. 1994. Passive treatment of coal mine drainage. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9389. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 27. Huxhold, William, Patrick Tierney, David Turnpaugh, Bryan Maves and Kevin Cassidy. 1997. GIs County User Guide: Laboratory exercises in urban geographic information systems. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 28. Keller, Robert J. 1984. Cut-throat flume characteristics. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol 110, No. 9, September, pp. 1248-1263. 29. Limes, Dana. 1999. Senior Environmental Specialist, American Electric Power. Telephone interview concerning production of electricity at the Conesville power plant. February 20. 30. Limes, Dana. 1999. Senior Environmental Specialist, American Electric Power. Telephone interview concerning FGD production and applications. March 1 1. 3 1. MacInnes. Duncan A. 1939. The principles of electrochemistry. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, NY. 32. Mafi, Shan, Gary Novak and John Faulconer. 1998. Broken Aro coal remininglreclamation project. Mining Engineering. Vol. 50, NO. 4, pp 44-47. 33. Mafi, Shan, Michel Damian, S. Bair and Y.C. Chin. 1997. Injection of FGD grout to abate acid mine drainage in underground coal mines. American Electric Power and Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 34. McLusky, Robert G. and fvi. Shane Harvey. 1992. Recent permitting and enforcement measures to combat acid mine drainage: Are they in contravention of SMCRA? Charleston, WV. 3 5. Moshiri, Gerald A. 1993. Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement. Lewis Publishers. Ann Arbor, MI. 36. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1995. Division of Mines and Reclamation: Facts, history and regulations. lnternet Website. http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/reclamation. 37. Ohio State University. 1996. CCPOhio Pilot Extension Program. Internet Website. http://ccpohio.eng.ohio-state.edu/ccpohio.Columbus, OH. 38. Payette, Renee, William Wolfe and Joel Beeghly. 1997. Use of clean coal combustion by-products in highway repairs. Fuel, Vol. 76, NO. 8, pp 749-753. 39. Pearson, F.H. and A.J. McDonnell. 1974. Chemical kinetics of neutralization of acidic water by crushed limestone. Proc. No. 18. Water resources problems related to mining. American Water Resources Association. p. 85-98. 40. Powell, Frona. 1998. Law and the environment. West Educational Publishing Company, Cincinnati, OH. 4 1. Rieger, Philip H. 1987. Electrochemistrv. Prentice-Hall Publishing, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 42. Sawyer, Clair, Perry McCarty and Gene Parkin. 1994. Chemistry for environmental engineering, 4thedition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY. 43. Skousen J.G. 1996. Remining to reducelprevent acid mine drainage. National Research Center for Coal and Energy. Internet website. (http:llwww.nrcce.u?ru.ed~~programslnmlrcabs.html). , 44. Skousen, Jeffrey and Paul Ziemkiewicz. 1995. Acid mine drainage control and treatment. West Virginia University and the National Mine Land Reclamation Center. Morgantown, WV. 45. Skovran, George, U.S.D.A Natural Resources Conservation Service and C.R. Clouser. 1998. Design considerations and construction techniques for successive alkalinity producing systems. In Proceedings: 2~'~Anniversary and 15th Annual National Meeting, American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, St. Louis, Missouri. 46. Sobek Andrew A., Schuller W.A., Freeman J.R., and Smith R.M. 1978. Field and laboratory methods applicable to overburdens and minesoils. EPA 600/2-78-054, PB- 280495. Office of Water, Washington D.C. 47. Stehouwer, Richard and Paul Sutton. 1992. Treatment of acid mine spoil with dry FGD by-products: Leachate quality and plant growth. Department of Agronomy, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 48. Sterner, Patrick, J. Skousen and J. Donovan. 1998. Geochemistry of laboratory anoxic limestone drains. Proceedings: 25" Anniversary and 15th Annual National Meeting, American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, St. Louis, Missouri. 49. Stoertz, Mary. Michael Hughes, Nathaniel Wanner and Mitchell Farley. 1999. Hydraulic sealing of an abandoned up-dip drift mine for AMD treatment: An 18-year post-audit. In Proceedings: 2othAnnual West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force Symposium. Morgantown, WV. 50. Stumm, W. and JJ. Morgan. 1996. Aquatic chemistry: Chemical equilibria and rates in natural waters, jrdEdition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 5 1. Tinnel, Michelle. 1999. Environmental Engineer, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Telephone interview concerning Rehoboth Reclamation Project, May 14. 52. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Training manual for NPDES permit writers. EPA 833-B-93-003. Office of Water (EN-336), Washington D.C. 53. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Categorical Standards - Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations. Effluent guidelines and standards, part 434: Coal mining point source category BPT, BAT, and BCT limitations and new source performance standards. Office of Water, Washington D.C. 54. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. EPA methods and guidance for analysis of water and wastes, version 1. EPA 82 1-C-97-00 1. Office of Water. Washington D.C. 5 5. Wheeling Jesuit University and NASA. 1997. Water Quality: Acid mine drainage chemistry. Internet Website, (http://cotf.edu/ETE/scen/waterq/chemmine.html). 56. Whitlatch, Earl, E. Scott Bair, Yu-Ping Chin, Samuel J. Traina, Harold W. Walker and William E. Wolfe. 1999. Injection of FGD grout to mitigate acid mine drainage at the Roberts-Dawson underground coal mine, Volume 1: Public abstract and executive summary. Ohio Coal Development Office, Columbus, OH. 57. Wildeman T., Dietz J., Gusek J., Morea S., and Bates E. September 1993. Handbook for constructed wetlands receiving acid mine drainage. EPAI540lR-931523. Office of Water, Washington D.C. 58. Wolf, Paul and Russell Brinker. 1994. Elementary surveying, 9thedition. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York, NY. 59. Wolfe, William, Tarunjit Butalia. 1998. Use of FGD as an impervious liner. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Appendix A Geographic Information System Background of GIs Since the beginning of the environmental movement in the 1970's, people have struggled with the complexity of environmental problems. Initially, scientists integrated diverse environmental information through manual overlays and found this to be fairly successful. Traditionally, overlays were transparent sheets marked with pertinent data that could be utilized as a reference to geographically analyze complex information. However, with the emergence of powerful computer systems, researchers are able to model these complex interactions through geographic information systems (GIs). A GIs is less about using complex software than it is to learn to think spatially. The most important feature of the system is the analyst's ability to recognize and understand spatial patterns. For example, a GIs can govern how geography affects the spread of disease, environmental influences on pollution, changes in geologic material and soil types, and even military troop movements. The options are limitless. GIs offers much more in the way of functionality than that of simple digital cartography. GIs provides four distinct functions. The GIs: manipulates and models data, identifies emergent patterns in geographically referenced data, provides a dynamic perspective of relevant factors that can be visualized and assessed in their effects on the model, stores 'location' information in computer files or a database. Addresses, parcel codes, district boundaries, watersheds, and the spatial distributions of features such as health statistics, roads, rivers, buildings, and utility locations are examples of geographic information. These features can be mapped to real-world business or ecological situations to provide a detailed analysis and unique visualization not achievable by other means (Huxhold et al., 1997). The definition of GIs varies depending on the specific applications. It is generally described as a computer-based system with the ability to store, retrieve, modify, analyze and represent geographic data as useful information. A GIs can be utilized for relating mapped features and their attributes in two ways. First, the actual feature from a map can be selected on the computer screen to access and display all of the attributes contained in the database. For example, a steel beam in a structure can be selected to display the year it was installed, its material, its connections, and its loading capacity. Second, the database can be queried to display only those features selected in a way in which they are unique. For example, a GIs database can be queried to display all parcels of land selling between eighty to ninety thousand dollars in the last year. These features or parcels will be highlighted to depict this price range. Many agencies and companies are utilizing GIs because it offers an efficient way to deal with complex spatial problems by organizing data, viewing their spatial associations, performing multiple analysis, and synthesizing results into maps and reports. Broken Aro GIS Features A GIs was developed for the Broken Aro site primarily as a tool for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to utilize for data examination. This section will discuss how the GIs is accessed by the user and describe the features of the GIs. Also, this section will instruct the user how to operate the GIs for viewing chemical data, plots of chemical constituents over time, photographs of the site, and a three-dimensional rendered-model. Also, there are some figures included to depict the application of the Broken Aro GIs. The GIs was created using ArcView GIs software program, version 3.1. In order to operate this GIs, the user must have the appropriate software. The Broken Aro GIs will be supplied on a CD-ROM for utilization. The features of the Broken Aro GIs include: 17 sets of field and laboratory data from April 1997 through November 1998 which can be queried, a map of the site including streams, roads, contours, ponds, underground mines, surface mines, culverts, and limestone channels, a three-dimensional elevation model of the surface of the site and the underground mines which can be observed from any angle, links to photographs of the site, links to pH, iron, sulfate, and acidity concentration plots of monitoring wells links to pH, iron, sulfate, and acidity mass loading plots of stream locations and mine seeps, links to water level profiles of monitoring wells, links to flowrate graphs plotted over time for stream locations and mine seeps. In order to load the project, click on the appropriate disk drive that harbors the zip drive on the computer, and choose "Brokenarogis.apr" as the file name. Now that the project is loaded, the visual image of the site map should appear. The first feature of this GIs is the access of the chemical data and the ability to query the data sets. First, go ahead and check each box of the themes in the left-hand menu bar which begins with "Photographs" by clicking inside the boxes. This turns on all of the themes in the drawing. However, do not check the bottom theme labeled "Elevations," this theme will be demonstrated later. The features now displayed on the screen make up the GIs map similar to the AutoCAD drawing in Figure 1. The GIs map of the Broken Aro site is found in Figure 38 which is located near the end of Appendix A on page 162. Now, the chemical data can be easily accessed and examined. Go to the top menu bar and click on the ":"which stands for "Identify." Next, click on the theme of either "Well Data" or "Stream Data" in the left-hand menu bar. This will box-in the chosen theme. Then go to the drawing and click on either a monitoring well, designated with a target icon, or a surface water location, designated with a star icon. A window will appear and list all of the data for that particular location. The window can then be maximized for easier viewing. There should be 17 sampling events for each location, but since some locations were "dry" on certain days, there may be less. Data can also be queried in order to highlight locations with specific characteristics. This can be performed by clicking on "Well Data" or "Stream Data" in the left-hand menu bar which boxes in the theme. Then go to the top menu bar and click on the hammer icon which is the query builder. The window that appears is fairly self- explanatory. In the left-hand column of the query window, double-click the on the chemical constituent and use the commallds in the middle, such as the less than, greater than, and equal to, for the appropriate query. Next, either type in a numerical value in quotation marks or choose a value from the right-hand column by double-clicking on it. Then, click on the "Add To Set" button, and the locations that fit the query will be 159 highlighted on the drawing. The program will look through all of the sampling events for data that would fit that query. The next feature of this GIs is viewing data in graphical form by utilizing the Hot-Link command. In the left-hand menu bar, there is a list of chemical themes such as pH. iron, acid. and sulfate for both streams and wells. Also, there are themes of water levels for the wells and flowrates for the streams. If the user clicks on a specific theme, "Sulfate/streams" for example, this theme will be boxed-in. Then, go to the menu bar at the top of the screen, and click on the lightning bolt which is the Hot-Link command. Next, in the drawing, click on a stream or well location, and a plot will appear in a window showing the changes in the chemical constituent over the time it was sampled. This can be performed for all of the chemical constituents, the water levels, and the flowrates listed in the left-hand menu bar. These images depict a more applicable form of the data compared to the tabular form. Also, in order to zoom into the drawing for a clearer image, click on the (+) magnifying lense command on the top menu bar before selecting the Hot-Link command. Then, click on the area of the drawing that is desired to observe in more detail. The photographs of the site are the next features of the GIs. "Photographs" are the first theme listed in the left-hand menu bar. Click on the area around this theme to box it in. Then look in the drawing for the black, circular icons which depict photograph locations. Go to the top menu bar and click on the Hot-Link command as explained above. Then click on the black circles in the drawing, and a photograph of the FGD seal construction will appear in its own window. There are four photographs that can be viewed of the site in this GIS so far. As this project continues, additional data will be entered into the database, and graphical plots will be updated to show developing trends. Also, more phtographs of the site will be linked to the GIS so that the user can preview characteristics of the project location without ever visiting. The last feature of the GIS is the surface model of the site's elevations. To use this feature, turn off all of the themes by clicking on the checked boxes. Then turn on the bottom theme labeled "Elevations" by checking the appropriate box. A model will appear showing different elevation ranges by specific colors listed in the legend. This view depicts the changing contour of the land surface and is somewhat three- dimensional. See Figure 39 on page 163 for this surface model. This surface model can also be viewed from different angles, which shows a three-dimensional scene. Go to the top menu bar and click on "Window" and click "brokenarogis.apr" from the fall-down window. A new window will appear. Scroll down to the bottom of this window and click on "3D Scene." Then click on "3D Scenel" to highlight it and click on the "Open" box. A three-dimensional scene of the project will appear in a new window showing the surface of the site and the underground mines. By .clicking on the Navigate command (sailboat icon) in this new window and dragging it around in the three-dimensional drawing, new perspectives at different angles of the site will be displayed. These different views are useful to show the flows of surface waters and their relationship to the underground mine complexes. See Figures 40 and 41 located on pages 164 and 165, respectively, to observe two different views of the three-dimensional surface of the project site. Different views can be saved and printed out. Also, from the top menu bar, click on "3D Scene" and then "Properties" from the fall-down menu. In this new window that appears, there are many options for viewing the three-dimensional ' . images. The user can select from the vertical exaggeration factor, the sun's altitude and azimuth, and the background color. These options can improve visually the three- dimensional views the user selects. Figure 38. Broken Aro GIs Map Dl Reclamation Project Coshocton Count ip SulfateAwells =sutfate/streams 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet Streams Ponds ,A/ Culuert Pipes NBorder ,ALi* Limestone Channel N E leuations E leuation Range 01123.333 - 1160 m1096.667 - 1123.333 1070 - 1096.667 1043.333 - 1070 m1016.667 - 1043.333 990 - 1016.667 963.333 - 990 W+E -936.667 - 963.333 s 91 0 - 936.667 Figure 39. Broken Aro GIs Elevation Model Figure 4 1. Broken Aro GIs 3D Scene #2 (Elevation Model) Appendix B Groundwater Monitoring Well Water Quality Data April 1997 through November 1998 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 4/23/97 Field Data Groundwater Wells De~thto water mm Flevation ~f Peroxide from top of casing bottom of well Y&ec m Water Conductivity Peroxide ORP Letl m & [Celsius) Color hw!x!l Ekl ImV) MW1 X X X X X X MW2 X X X X X X MW3 1026.44 5.8 13.1 Slightly Gray X X MW6 X X X X X X MW7 1026.22 6.3 13.6 Slightly Gray 4.6 X MW8 1025.82 7.0 13.4 Cloudy, Gray, Milky 7.2 X MWl 1 1026.12 3.5 1.3 Slightly Gray 3.5 X MW12 X X X X X X 5/14\97 Field Data Groundwater Wells De~thto water LkeEdMQ Elevation of Peroxide from to^ of casing bottom of well Y&ec m Water W peroxide ORP m a m etiICelsus) Color m eti w MWl X X X MW2 X X X MW3 5.8 13.0 orange, cloudy, grey MW 6.9 16.0 very cloudy, grey MW7 6.6 12.0 fairly clear, grey MW8 7.6 13.0 orange, cloudy, grey MW11 3.7 12.5 slightly cloudy, grey MW12 7.3 12.5 very silty, very brown BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 4123197 Lab Data Groundwater Wells MWl MWZ MW3 MW6 MW7 MW8 MW11 MW12 5114197 Lab Data Groundwater Wells BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 5/23/97 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Tot. Alkalinity Alk. Spec. Cond. Residue Tot. Nonfilt. eti lrnalLcac03 malL CaCO-J blxaQmd fQlalLCaC03 malL at 25C. m MWI MW2 MW3 MVK MW7 MW8 MW11 MW12 6110197 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinily S~ec.Cond. Residue Tot. Nonfik halL CaC03 halLCaC03 mall at 75CJ Imgll) BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 5/23/97 Lab Data Groundwater Wells MW1 Mw2 MW3 MW6 MW7 MW8 MWl 1 MW12 6/10/97 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Hardness @alL CaC03 .e) VVVVVV VVVVVV 5 t) vvvvvv L. --v.-.-T- uP) xx999999000000 - - u; 91 oooooo VVVVVV c vvvvvv Y vvvvvv s$g$$s ---000-i5- xXg7googv v xxgggggg vvv v .---..--.- XX000000 voOvv 2 VVVVVV (V~~~N~ xx888ggg000000 VVVVVV t) vvvvvv ----.- xxooooog9 9 9 9 9" 3 vvvvv -(V hz 3 E~~PZ~EEI 3z BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6/19/97 Field Data Groundwater Wells Depth to water Depth to Flevation of Peroxide from top of casing bottom of well !Ma& m Water Conductivitv W Peroxide QBP rn m LQ pJj [Celsius) !2Qk!I lDw!ml @!dl kkl @!dl X Clear Cloudy, Orange Very Cloudy Cloudy Clear Cloudy Clear 7/22/97 Field Data Groundwater Wells De~thto watec Depth to Elevation of Peroxide from top of casinq bottom of well kY.3.w Conductivity ORP Peroxide rn 03 m rn - OTM P!It rn MWI X MW Clear MW3 Cloudy, Orange MW6 Cloudy, Gray MW7 Cloudy, Gray-Brown MW8 Slightly Cloudy MW11 Very Cloudy, Gray MW12 Very Cloudy, Gray BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6/19/97 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinity Alk. Alk. CO3 Soec. Cond. Residue Tot. Nonfilt ~J-J balLCaCO.3 ma/L CaCOd malL CaCO.3 @alL CaC0.3 (rnal~at 25~) w ww MW1 X X MW2 0 363 MW3 0 2280 MW6 0 1048 MW 0 1523 MW8 0 1567 MWl I 0 555 MW12 0 1108 Water Quality Data 7/22/97 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Acidity Jot. Alkalinity Alk. AAlk.3 Soec. Cond, Residue Tot. Now ~~3 [ma/L CaCO.3 [malL CaCO.3 halL CaCOd @a/L at 25C) w MW1 Mw2 MW3 MW6 MW MW8 MWI 1 MW12 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6/19/97 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Ca Tot. M_a Tot, Na Tot, K Tot. Fe Tot. Mn Tot.Al Hardness Id231 PO," Gu &Qg/jJ fJng&) fJng&) w rma/U rn w (malL1 imo'LCaC03 w ww X X X 1.43 0.13 0.56 3.7 47 15.1 5.3 1.24 0.94 4 115 1.91 5.6 2.6 0.27 0.97 17.5 1.35 5.2 4.7 1.34 Water Quality Data 7/22/97 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Ca Tot. Mq Jot. Na Tot. K JWe Tot. Mn Tot.Al Hardness Tot.Zn & !A w w w w (mal~) ImalLCaCOS w ww BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6/19/97 Lab Data Groundwater Wells X X X ~0.002 <0.001 0.003 0.017 <0.001 q0.002 0.002 <0.001 <0.002 ~0.002<0.001 0.004 0.018 <0.001 <0.002 <0.002 <0.001 0.008 0.004 <0.001 0.002 Water Quality Data 7/22/97 Lab Data Groundwater Wells BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 8/26/97 Field Data Groundwater Wells De~thto water Pe~thto Elevation of peroxide from to^ of casing bottom of well water lkm.IL Water Conductivity Peroxide a%!? m m ItU m pti [Celsius) Color &IS/cr@ w rn X X X X X X 1045.88 7.1 14.3 Cloudy, Gray 7.0 268 1019.64 4.6 17.8 Very Orange 3.1 530 1009.00 6.8 14.4 Very Cloudy, Gray 6.8 289 1019.42 5.3 15.7 Veny Silty, Brown 3.2 522 1020.00 6.9 13.6 Slightly Gray 7.1 265 1022.24 3.9 16.0 Very Cloudy, Gray 3.5 283 1006.56 7.1 14.9 Cloudy, Gray-Brown 6.9 284 12/4/97 Field Data Groundwater Wells De~thto water !2~%m.b Elevation of Peroxide from bottom of well water Conductivity QRP Peroxide a%!? rn m m bIls!m rn pti m MWl X MW2 X MW3 Cloudy MW Cloudy MW7 Dark Brown-Gray MW8 Cloudy MW11 Cloudy MW12 Cloudy BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 8/26/97 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Ca Tot. A1 Hardness Tot. & w w fmalLCaC03 w ImalL) X 71 339 79 172 52 60 156 12/4/97 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Ca Jot. Al Hardness w &@IJ fmalLCaC03 X X 470 104 550 47 117 21 0 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 8/26/37 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Bromide w MW1 MW2 MW3 M'M MW7 MW8 MWl I MWI 2 12/4/97 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Bromide Tot. Mo fmmw MW1 MW2 MW3 MW MW7 MW8 MWl I MW12 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 1/6/98 Field Data Groundwater Wells Depth to water De~thto Elevation of Peroxide from too of casinq bottom of well water J3m.P- Water Conductivity QJp Peroxide ORP w m m m [Celsius) GQkT 0 m Ptl m MW1 X X X X X MW2 X X X X X MW3 1024.92 12.1 Cloudy-Orange 2880 580 MW 1010.74 11.7 Cloudy-Gray 1040 280 MW7 1024.65 11.9 Cloudy-Gray 3620 535 MW8 1025.22 11.8 Cloudy, Brown-Gray 1610 260 MWl I 1023.89 11.9 Cloudy-Gray 1800 499 MW12 1007.35 12.1 Silty, Gray 1250 280 2/18/98 Field Data Groundwater Wells Depth to water IkEmC! Elevation of Peroxide from to^ of casing bottom of well water m Conductivity ORP Peroxide ORP w m m m {Celsius) [rnSlcm) m eH rn MW1 X X X X X MW2 1048.07 9.8 X 505 X MW3 1027.32 9.6 X >2000 X MW 1012.26 9.5 X 566 X MW7 1027.08 9.0 X 1350 X MW8 1027.64 9.2 Very Silty, Brown 1250 X MW11 1022.98 9.5 X 71 5 X MW12 1001.34 9.8 X 1066 X BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 1/6/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Hardness halL CaCO.3 MW1 MW2 MW3 m MW7 MW8 MWI I MW12 2/18/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Hardness mall CaCO BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 1\6/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells eg B Tot.Ni Bromide Tot. Mo wwwmlnsluw MW1 MW2 Mw3 MW6 MW7 MW8 MWl 1 MW12 2118198 Lab Data Groundwater Wells I1 Tot. Nj Bromide Tot. Mo wlmglU(malU(malU BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 3\3/98 Field Data Groundwater Wells De~thto water Depth to Elevation of Peroxide from top of casing bottom of well y&& mlfL YW3 Conductivity QJ3p peroxide ORP m m m eLiP&!sw Color 0 m pti m X Silty, Brown Silty, Brown Silty, Brown Silty, Brown Silty, Brown Silty, Brown Silty, Brown 4/17/98 Field Data Groundwater Wells Deoth to water l2wm.Q Flevation of Peroxide from too of casing bottom of well !4Ya& TemD. YWeJ Conductivity Peroxide ORP m m m gtl [Celsius) a!.h OIsLm pti m X X X Grayish Brown 6.33 34 Brownish Orange 3.60 171 Light Brown 7.23 -20 Brown 3.59 184 Light Gray 7.01 -5 Light Brown X 33 Light Brown X 31 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 3/3/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Acidity Jot. Alkali* Alk. A!!L!3& S~ec.Cond, Residue Tot. Nonfilt IDS ell# py (mall CaC03 NalL CaC03 malL CaCO3 MaIL CaC04 @alL at 25C) ht!!J f!I!!m~ MW1 MWZ MW3 MW6 MW7 MW8 MW11 MW12 4/17/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells . . Tot. Acldlty Jot. Alkalinity Alk. PAlk.3 S~ec.Con& Residue Tot. Nonfilt. Xb? malL CaC03 malL CaC03 MaIL CaC03 balL CaC03 @alL at 25C) fJu!!J wImsl];l BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 3/3/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Ca Tot. Ma Tot. Na Tot.K Tot. Fe Tot. Mn IMA Hardness Tot.Zn & G.U lzng~~~msl~) w lzng~~(mal~ ~msl~)lmslll ~mpl~halLCaC03 ImalU ImalU ImslL) 4/17/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Ca Tot, Mg Jot. Na Tot. Fe Tot. Mn BLA Hardness PO.5 lmglU~lmglU~~~lzngLU(malU~d(ma/UlrnglUw MW1 MW MW3 MW6 MW7 MW8 MWI 1 MW12 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 3/3/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Bromide ltllslU MW1 MWZ MW3 Mwfi MW7 MW8 MW11 MW12 4/17/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Q B Tot. Ni Bromide Tot. MQ w0wwf.lm!u MW1 MWZ MW3 Mwfi MW MW8 MW1 I MW12 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 5/1/98 Field Data Groundwater Wells De~thto wata Depth to Flevation of Peroxide from to^ of casing bottom of weU water TemP. !A!aM Conductivity QlV Peroxide QW m m flu (Celsius) Color ImSlcm) m E!H m MWI X MWZ Brownish Yellow MW3 Brownish Orange MW6 Clear MW7 Brownish Orange MW8 Light Gray MWl 1 Brownish Gray MW12 Dark Brown 6/19/98 Field Data Groundwater Wells Depth to watec lkl2m.h Dvation of Peroxide from top of casing bottom of wel! warn BcLuL m Conductivity QRP Peroxide QRE! LtU m 03 PHICelsius) Color orG5l.m m ett m MWl X Mw2 Clear MW3 Brownish Orange MVVG Clear MW7 Yellowish Brown MW8 Very Silty MW11 Very Silty MW12 Clear BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 511198 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinity Alk Spec. Cond. Residue Tot. Nonfilt, malL CaC03 (malL CaC03 (malb CaC03 malL CaCOd mall at 25C) w 6/19/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinity A!!LaL Residue Tot. Nonfik mall CaCQ1) (malL CaCOd [malL CaCOd mall CaCOd lmslLl BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 5/7/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells @g Q B Tot.Ni Bromide Tot. Mo WWlmslblWWImqlU 6/19/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Bromide Tot. Mo w Ww MWl MWZ MW3 MW6 MW7 MW8 MWl1 MW12 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 7/31/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinity Alk. !d!L!& Spec. Con4 Residue Tot. Nonfilt so,': &I (mall CaC03 (mall CaC03 MalL CaC03 [malL CaC03 mallat 25C) w w MW1 MW MW3 Mm MW7 MW8 MW11 MW12 9/24/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinitv Alk.3 Alk. Spec. Cond, Residue Tot. Nonfilt. WalL CaC03 [mall CaC03 (malLCaCO3 Imall CaC03 malL at 25CJ w MWl MW MW3 MW4 Mm MW6 MW7 MW8 MW MW10 MW11 MW12 MW14 MW15 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 7/31/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Ca Tot. MCJ Tot. Na IQ.U Tot. Fe Tot. Mn Tot.Al Hardness Tot. Zn f!& m (ma/~1 k119i~ m (ma/~1 (UZJ~J (ma/L) (mal~) IrnalLCaC03 @g!!J &t@~ ImqlL) MW1 MW MW3 MW6 Mw7 MW8 MWll MW12 9/24/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Tot. Ca Tot. Mg Tot. Na W Tot. Fe Tot. Mn Tot. Al Hardness Tot. 7r1 @ Gu (ms/L) lmslU ImalL) 0 W W Ima/L) (malLCaCO.3 0 bg!Q ImolL) MWl MW MW3 MW4 MM MW6 Mw7 MW8 MW9 MWl 0 MWll MW12 MW14 MW15 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 7/31/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Q B Tot. Ni Bromide Tot. Mo (ma/Uwwmwcma/U MW1 MW2 MW3 Mw6 MW7 Mw8 MWl 1 MW12 9/24/98 Lab Data Groundwater Wells Bromide Tot. Mo m w BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 41/24/98 Field Data Groundwater Wells De~thto wate[ Depth to Flevation of Peroxide from top of casing bottom of well water Lellle !&kc Conductivity W Peroxide m ItU UD ItU {Celsius) Color ms/cw m &I m X X Muddy Clear Very Muddy Muddy Muddy Muddy Muddy Clear Slightly Cloudy Clear Very Muddy Very Muddy XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 18 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 18 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Appendix C Surface Water Location Water Quality Data April 1997 through November 1998 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 4/23/97 Field Data Surface Water Locations l%ft.Qf Peroxide Averaae Flowrate Flowrate TemD. Conductivity Peroxide ORP Location # (I iterslsea Determination ptl (Celsius) hllskml Ek! lmYl D 1 Current Meter Clear DIA Culvert Clear D4 approx. 9.97 Calculated Clear DM2 approx. 1.58 Estimated Clear DM4A approx. 0.06 Estimated Clear DM4B approx. 0.06 Estimated Clear S4 Weir Clear S5 Weir Clear Ul Weir Clear U4 X X U5 Calculated Clear U6 No Flow - Lake X Clear U7 Weir Clear U9 Culvert Clear BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 5/14/97 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinity Alk. HCO, Am Spec. Cond. Residue Tot. Nonfilt, I ocatlon # pti (malL CaCOd [malL CaC03 (ma/L CaC03 (maIL CaC04 (malL at 25C) w rnJ BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 5/14/97 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Ca Tot. Mq Tot. Na LK Idle l3LMn B!!A Hardness Tot. 7n !?& l ocationg (mcr/L) ImslL) @gAJ W W W W f!lU!u (mall CaCOd rmalL) @g&) D 1 DlA D4 DM2 DM4A DM4B S4 S5 U 1 U4 U5 U6 U7 U9 oogqqqqqq66 666666 669s cV) dddooaooox88dci vvvvvvvvv vvvv s0 m 8 4 NNNNNNNNN NNN L 0000 al CI g8goqqqggxggg! 000000000 OOOv 2 vvvvvvvvv vvv vvvvvvvvv v v v v NNNNN NNN NNWN 00000-000o~ooo~oooxoooo 0000 ooooooooo oooo a$J vvvvv vvv vvvv =+ vvvvvvUvv vvvv --.-y .----.-----ooooooooo~odoo vvvvvvvvv v v v v " vvvvvvvvv vvvv BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 5/23/97 Field Data Surface Water Locations m Peroxide Averaae Flowrate Flowrate l33uL Conductivity Peroxide ORP Location # &iterslsec) Determination ptl [Celsius) [mSlcrn) eti m 73.28 Current Meter Clear 11.88 Culvert Muddy 10.40 Weir Clear 1.77 Weir Clear approx. 0.01 Estimated Clear 0.03 Weir Clear 5.05 Weir Clear 0.06 Weir Clear 0.73 Weir Clear X X X 4.28 Weir Clear No Flow - Lake X Clear 9.03 Weir Clear 0.86 Culvert Clear BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6/23/97 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Acid@ Jot. Alkalinity LaLH!Xh t!mJxh Spec. Cond. Residue Tot. Nonfilt, TDS SO." I ocation # (malL CaCO3 Ma/L CaCOd MalL CaCOd (malL CaC03 (mall at 25C) m ImalU LmU Dl DlA D4 DM2 DM4A DM4B S4 S5 U 1 U4 U5 U6 U7 U9 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 5/23/97 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Q As a ecz kh 3!2 es GQ B Tot. Ni Bromide Tot. Mo Location # m @gL!.J @lgdJ (mgL) lmglU bXl!U i!.mu ~~~ W Lm9Lu W Dl DlA D4 DM2 DM4A DM49 S4 S5 U1 U4 U5 U6 U7 U9 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6110197 Field Data Surface Water Locations m Peroxide Average Flowrate Flowrate mm Water Conductivity Peroxide ORP location $ {Literslsec) Determination pl-J [Celsius) Color (mS1cm) pl-J Lm! 44.35 Current Meter Clear 13.95 Culvert Clear 9.36 Flume Clear 1.47 Weir Clear 0.003 Weir Clear 0.03 Weir Clear 6.31 Flume Muddy 0.07 Weir Clear 0.72 Weir Muddy X X X 8.06 Flume Muddy No Flow - Lake X Clear 9.36 Flume Clear X X Clear BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6110197 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinitv lYk-Ka3 Alk. C03 mc. Cond. Residue Tot. Nonfilt. SOdZ' I ocation # efii (rna/L CaC04 (rna/L CaCO.3 (rnalL CaC03 (.mall CaC03 [ma/L at 25C) fElLl!u b!J!u b%!!J BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6110197 Lab Data Surface Water Locations B Bromide Jot. Mo Location # l.mgAJ w 0 0.4 0.01 2 0.01 2 0.01 2 0.01 2 0.01 4 0.01 10 0.01 0.4 0.01 2 0.01 X X 6 0.01 2 0.01 2 0.01 0.2 0.01 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6/19/97 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinity Alk. HCO, S~ec.Cond, Residue Tot. Nonfilt location d pJj frnaIL CaCOd [maIL CaCOd [malL CaCOd malL at 25C) w h!N!!u D1 DIA D4 DM2 DM4A DM4B S4 S5 U1 U4 US U6 U7 U9 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6/19/97 Lab Data Surface Water Locations -Cr Tot. Ca Tot. Mq Tot. Na IcLK To. F Tot. Mn I!La Hardness Tot, location # @.g&)ImalL) QrgAJ @@.) rn @@.) mIA4 ImalL CaCOd BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6/19/97 Lab Data Surface Water Locations AS & a E?b !&I 222 & 322 B Tot. Ni Dornide Tot. Mo location # &ng!!J 0 &ngQ (mdL) lmslu 0 W(ma/L10 0 bu!!J BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 7122197 Field Data Surface Water Locations lj!ESf Peroxide Averaae Flowrate Flowrate Conductivity Peroxide w Location # [Literslsec) Determination ~Slc~pH m.9 23.69 Current Meter Clear 7.86 Culvert Clear 6.88 Flume Clear 1.77 Weir Clear-Orangish ~0.02 Estimated Clear-Orangish 0.04 Weir Very Orange 2.69 Flume Slightly Brown X X X 0.1 8 Weir Clear X X X 3.05 Flume Slightly Brown No Flow - Lake X Clear 6.88 Flume Clear 0.01 Culvert Clear BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 7/22\97 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Acidity Tot, Alkalinib Alk. HCOz Alk. CO, Soec. Cond, Residue Tot. Nonfilt. TDS SOd" Location # IrnalL CaCOd IrnalL CaCOd (rnalL CaC03 MalL CaCO,.) IrnaIL at 25C) fJ.Xu OJYU rma/U BROKENAROPROJECT Water Quality Data 8/26/97 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinity Alk. HCO, @lUiQ3 S~ec.Cond, Residue Tot. Nonfilt TDS bcation # &j @all CaC03 ImalL CaCOd halL CaC03 (malL CaC0,) @qlL at 25C) b!J!!J LrrLLla ImalL) BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 8/26/97 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot C Tot. Mq Tot. Na W Tot. Fe Tot. Mn R!LA! Hardness Tot. Zn -Cu Cocation# @@I=) @@I=) lolglLl (m91U bw!u bDaJ MalL CaCO3 (malL) ImalL) 11 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 3 i XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX a3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4l XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX GI XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4 1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 31 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 8 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX a# XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4 $j XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 1214197 Field Data Surface Water Locations llP.uf Peroxide Averaae Flowrate Flowrate Tema. Water Conductivity Peroxide W I ocation # &iterslsec) Determination [Celsius) Color (mS/cN eti 0 D1 64.48 Flume Clear 1025 DlA 15.62 Culvert Slightly Cloudy-Gray 795 D4 10.05 Flume Slightly Brown, Silty 76 1 DM2 0.49 Weir Clear 2920 DM4A 0.02 Estimated Very Cloudy, Orange 1410 DM48 0.02 Weir Clear 1623 S4 0.29 Weir Slightly Gray 589 S5 0.08 Weir Slightly Gray 525 U1 0.07 Weir Clear 579 U4 0.08 Weir Slightly Brown, Silty 592 US 0.42 Weir Slightly Gray 565 U6 No Flow - Lake X Clear 1067 U7 3.88 Flume Clear 1042 U9 6.00 Culvert Slightly Gray 613 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 12/4/97 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinib Alk. HCO? A!Ua Soec. Cond Residue Tot. Nonfilt. W j ocation # WalL CaC03 @n3(rnalL CaC03 malL CaC03 [mg/L at 25C) m buu BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 1214197 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Jot. a Jot. Mg Tot. Na Tot. K Jot. Fe I&J!& w Hardness Tot I ocationC lmglll &g!!J @gAJ W fD!J!u bC!!!J ba/L CaCOd lmglll Inslh) BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 12/4/97 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Bromide Tot. Mo Ims113 Ims113 -Z C Z .- U3 9s eg$& C E% ,n,,LLzuLm~~Lommmm EZS Q)22sB;S=O;2. ozoGoo Eoza*oE E 0) .-cn 2 .P $Ep* z -.- > LI) gm a, Y m -1 9qbq6obqobq3oqNbNb N0f.r-ON 'CON ~~~00000000omtG 0 Z BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 1/6/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Ca Tot. Mq Jot, Na Tot. K Tot. Fe Tot. Mn ZdA! Hardness Jot. 7n POd" Q4 Location # &ngQ @gQ (msr/L) @g&) w bKl!U lmslu lmalLCaC03 0 @I!&) D 1 DIA 04 DM2 DM4A DM4B S4 S5 Ul U4 u5 U6 U7 U9 3 1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX d$ XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4l XXXXXXXXXXXXXX I8 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Z w 2 Q :: 3 U (I: 5 m V) 18 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX a 8 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 41 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 41 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX GI 8 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 2/18/98 Field Data Surface Water Locations lhE-Qf Peroxide Averaae Flowrate Flowrate Conductivity Peroxide QET I ocation # [Literslsec) Determination (mSlcr@ €?H w D 1 X X Very Silty, Brown D1A X X Very Orange, Silty D4 X X Very Orange, Silty DM2 3.25 Weir Orange, Silty DM4A 1.82 Weir Very Orange, Silty DM46 0.09 Weir Clear NPl No Flow - Lake X X S4 12.23 Flume Very Orange, Silty S5 2.51 Weir Very Orange, Silty U1 0.24 Weir Clear U4 X X Very Silty U5 13.82 Flume Very Orange, Silty U6 No Flow - Lake X Orange, Silty U7 X X Very Orange, Silty U9 X X Slightly Cloudy BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 2/18/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Tot. Alkalinity Alk. HC03 Lll!L!a S~ec.Cond, Residue Tot. Nonfilt Location @ [mall CaCO,) ma/L CaCO.3 @alL CaC04 malL CaC04 @a/L at 7%) w m!!J 18 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 3 8 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX a 3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 34 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX $1 I XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 34 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 3 i XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4 1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX $8 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 48 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 3/3/98 Field Data Surface Water Locations Tv~eof Peroxide Averaae Flowrate Flowrate m Water Conductivity Peroxide ORP I ocation It &iterslsecl Determination pH [Celsius) G!&c @~Slcm) ad LrnU D 1 43.05 Flume Clear 1143 6.89 10 DlA 9.83 Culvert Very Silty, Brown 1029 6.23 44 04 8.07 Flume Very Silty, Brown 1010 5.99 51 DM2 0.81 Weir Clear 2840 4.43 138 DM4A 0.05 Weir Clear 1677 3.20 197 DM4B 0.03 Weir Very Orange 2040 3.26 197 NP1 No Flow - Lake X Silty, Brown 185.6 7.15 -7 S4 0.15 Weir Clear 710 5.90 56 S5 0.66 Weir Clear 1473 3.17 205 U1 0.17 Weir Clear 61 3 4.31 144 U4 ~0.02 Estimated Clear 1246 6.30 36 U5 0.42 Weir Slightly Silty 632 5.60 72 U6 No Flow - Lake X Clear 1516 3.33 193 U7 3.06 Flume Clear 1412 3.98 162 U9 5.20 Culvert Silty, Gray 665 6.18 42 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 3/3/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinitv NLHG!& Ai!CAxh Spec. Cond, Residue Tot. Nonfilt Location # WalL CaC03 IrnalL CaC03 malL CaCOA @Q/L CaC03 MalL at 25C) bx!!u hl!!J @U!!J BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 3/3/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations -Cf Tot. Ca Tot. Mg Hardness Tot. Zn Location # W W (ma/O (rnalL CaCOd @g'Q ------.r------vvvv- vvvvvvvvvv 66ZZ66ZZ66ZZ6-6 9999999999999O90000000000000g~ vvvvvvvvvvvvv NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 000000000000000 700000000000000999999999999999 vvvvvvvvvvvvvv Z66Z66666666666 000000000000000 000000000000000 vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv a3 vvvvvvvvv v v vv v BROKENAROPROJECT Water Quality Data 4/17/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Tot. Alkalinity Alk. HCO? Alk. CO, SDec. Con& Residue Tot. NonfiR. -JjXS ~J-J manCaCOd @a/L CaCOS mall CaCOd (malL CaC03 MalL at 75C) w w BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 4/17/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Ca Hardness location # w (rnalL CaC03 D1 70 136 DlA 95 372 D4 90 343 DM2 500 166 DM4A 223 81 3 DM40 225 970 NPl 9.1 51 S4 51 93 S5 76 333 U1 37 147 U4 95 41 1 U5 43 21 6 U6 82 323 U7 117 382 U9 70 123 11 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4l XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX di XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 31 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 33 XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX 31 XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 5/7/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Ca Jot Mq Tot. Na Tot. Fe Jot. Mn W Hardness Location # rn W !,mg!!J W Qng!lJ f,!Dd!J fDU!u malL CaC03 Dl DlA D4 DM2 DM2Z DM4A DM4B NPl S4 S5 U1 U4 U5 U6 U7 U9 fs XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1 i XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 3 g XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ~1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX el g XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 3 1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I-1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 31 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX El XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4 3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 41 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX a# XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6119198 Field Data Surface Water Locations DEz=f Peroxide Everaae Flowrate Flowrate BJaL Peroxide m? Location # [Literslsec) Determination (Celsius) pLi rn 58.02 Flume Clear 10.27 Culvert Clear 8.72 Flume Slightly Orange 1.15 Weir Clear X X Slightly Gray 0.22 Weir Clear 0.05 Weir Clear No Flow - Lake X Very Silty 0.32 Weir Clear 0.45 Weir Clear 0.27 Weir Clear X X X 0.66 Weir Clear No Flow - Lake X Clear 4.79 Flume Slightly Orange 2.63 Culvert Slightly Orange BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6/19/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Tot. Alkalinity Alk. HCO? A!kLcXh Spec. Cond, Residue Tot. Nonfilt ITS SOd" location # pt! malL CaC03 (malL CaC03 (malL CaC03 (malL CaC03 [mglL at 25C) mL!J bU4J flD!J!u BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 6/19/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Ca Jot. Mg Tot. Na Tot. K Tot. Fe Tot. Mn Tot. Al Hardness Tot. Zn Location # (malU 0 ImalL) ImalL) W @¶!lXlImalL) lmalL CaC03 @@J Z66666666-o- ZZZZ a SSSSSSSSSO~X~~~~ooooooooo~v s vvvvvvvvv VVVV .-0 4 -m U 0 J Lal C1 2 vv VVVVVV - cmU f - UJ 666666666-0 6666 000000000gsssssssssOgxgggg 38 vvvvvvvvv vvvv NNNNCONh(CUN WNNN 0000 oooo-Jg 0000 ssssOoosogzxgg;;OOOOgOOOOO vvvv vvvv vv BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 7/31/98 Field Data Surface Water Locations m!=f Peroxide Averaae Flowrate Flowrate Conductivitv Peroxide ORP Location # [Literslsec) Petermination (mS1cm) rn 0 D 1 45.61 Flume Clear 1896 DlA 10.45 Culvert Clear 1583 D4 9.31 Flume Brownish Orange 1599 DM2 1.22 Weir Clear 2560 DM2Z X X Clear 2700 DM4A 0.21 Weir Clear 2110 DM4B 0.04 Weir Clear 2290 NPl No Flow - Lake X Clear 128.4 S4 0.26 Weir Clear 1315 S5 0.74 Weir Clear 1628 U 1 0.21 Weir Clear 1414 U4 X X X X U5 0.48 Weir Clear 1218 U6 No Flow - Lake X Clear 1845 U7 9.06 Flume Clear 1666 U9 0.25 Calculated Silty, Brown, Gray 1348 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 7/31/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Jot. Tot. Alkalinity Alk. HCO? Spec. Cond. Residue Tot. Nonfilt TDS !&cation # pJJ fmalL CaC03 ha/L CaCO1) mall. CaC04 halL at 25C) w m D 1 DlA D4 DM2 DM2Z DM4A DM4B NP1 S4 S5 U1 U4 U5 U6 U7 U9 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 7/31/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Jot. a Tot. Mg Hardness l ocation # (malU lmglU &g!JJ balL CaC03 Dl DIA D4 DM2 DM22 DM4A DM4B NPl S4 S5 U1 U4 U5 U6 U7 U9 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 7131198 Lab Data Surface Water Locations -Cr EKi Ek2 cd & -Se & GQ B Tot. Nj Bromide Tot. Mo Location # @g&)w on!Zu fmd!-J fmd!-Jwfmd!-J fmd!-J fmd!-J Imq/L) BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 9/24/98 Field Data Surface Water Locations l3EW2.f Peroxide Avera~eFlowrate Flowrate lkE!L Conductivitv Peroxide ORP Location # fiiterslsec) Determination [Celsius) ol.lsm !Ad m D 1 21.45 Flume Clear DlA 5.43 Culvert Clear D4 4.30 Flume Clear DM2 0.93 Weir Clear DM22 X X Clear DM4A 0.17 Weir Clear DM4B 0.06 Weir Clear NPl No Flow - Lake X Clear S4 0.22 Calculated Clear S5 0.69 Weir Clear S7 <0.01 Culvert Clear U1 0.10 Weir Clear U5 0.32 Weir Clear U6 No Flow - Lake X Clear U7 3.45 Flume Clear U9 0.85 Calculated Clear BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 9/24/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations Tot. Acidity Tot. Alkalinity Alk. HCO, Alk. C03 Spec. Cond. Residue Tot. Nontilt TDS I ocation # ImalL CaCO,) [malL CaC04 malL CaC03 @alL CaC03 @alL at 25C) w lrnslU BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 9/24/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations M Tot. ca Tot. Mq Hardness I&& Location lC (malL) 0 @!glL) lpalLCaC03 IrndL1 D1 20 321 DlA 27 297 D4 29 316 DM2 69 492 DM22 37 510 DM4A 30 305 DM4B 10 330 NPI 7 11.4 S4 75 174 S5 60 163 S7 10 255 U1 82 163 U5 75 157 U6 46 318 U7 35 301 U9 12 308 BROKEN ARO PROJECT Water Quality Data 9/24/98 Lab Data Surface Water Locations B eS BE! !a! Elb &l a2 & GQ B Tot. Nj Bromide Tot. Mo Location# l,u@Q rn @g/~) lmslU lrnslll WWIo91hl W W w D1 DIA D4 DM2 DM2Z DM4A DM4B NPI S4 S5 S7 U1 U5 U6 U7 U9 3 $j XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX m 3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 814 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 43 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 38 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 21 3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Appendix D Chemical Mass Loadings For Stream Locations April 1997 through November 1998 Chemical Mass Loadings for Stream Locations Sulfate Sulfate ma4 LlsQlaQ Sulfate Sulfate m uQkb9 Chemical Mass Loadings for Stream Locations Flowrate Acldltv Acldltv Sulfate Sulfate rslsec) @glL CaCO3) 0 0 llackd Acldltv Sulfate Sulfate Location # &aw 0 0 Chemical Mass Loadings for Stream Locations Acldltv Acldltv Sulfate Sulfate I ocation # 0 ma4 0 D 1 --53 -240.6 381 1729.9 DIA 1 0.9 441 392.5 D4 -7 -3.8 389 212.4 DM2 57 6.7 1593 187.2 DM2Z 76 8.9 1615 189.8 DM4A 161 3.2 1019 20.2 DM4B 227 1.o 1157 5.0 S4 -1 1 -0.5 266 11.7 S5 165 16.5 454 45.5 U 1 28 1.o 160 5.8 U5 6 1 5.4 171 15.2 U7 12 6.0 433 216.2 U9 -6 1 -2.8 110 5.1 611 9198 Acldltv Sulfate Sulfate Manaanese Manaanese 0 &ua4 0 -566.5 797 3995.3 0.36 -1.8 87.0 684 606.9 4.16 3.7 0.8 759 571.8 4.41 3.3 3.8 1508 149.8 7.7 0.8 1.1 1549 153.9 7.4 0.7 3.6 1083 20.6 15.4 0.3 1.1 1261 5.4 8.1 0.0 0.8 380 10.5 5.6 0.2 8.4 695 27.0 2.81 0.1 1.1 340 7.9 3.45 0.1 1.o 3 84 21.9 4.8 0.3 13.2 775 320.7 5 2.1 -1 7.7 572 130.0 4.1 0.9 N 4 \O