Mine Water and the Environment

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 200–216

Abandoned Mine Drainage in the Swatara Creek Basin, Southern Anthracite Coalfield, Pennsylvania, USA: 2. Performance of Treatment Systems

Technical Article

Abstract

A variety of passive and semi-passive treatment systems were constructed by state and local agencies to neutralize acidic mine drainage (AMD) and reduce the transport of dissolved metals in the upper Swatara Creek Basin in the Southern Anthracite Coalfield in eastern Pennsylvania. To evaluate the effectiveness of selected treatment systems installed during 1995–2001, the US Geological Survey collected water-quality data at upstream and downstream locations relative to each system eight or more times annually for a minimum of 3 years at each site during 1996–2007. Performance was normalized among treatment types by dividing the acid load removed by the size of the treatment system. For the limestone sand, open limestone channel, oxic limestone drain, anoxic limestone drain (ALD), and limestone diversion well treatment systems, the size was indicated by the total mass of limestone; for the aerobic wetland systems, the size was indicated by the total surface area of ponds and wetlands. Additionally, the approximate cost per tonne of acid treated over an assumed service life of 20 years was computed. On the basis of these performance metrics, the limestone sand, ALD, oxic limestone drain, and limestone diversion wells had similar ranges of acid-removal efficiency and cost efficiency. However, the open limestone channel had lower removal efficiency and higher cost per ton of acid treated. The wetlands effectively attenuated metals transport but were relatively expensive considering metrics that evaluated acid removal and cost efficiency. Although the water-quality data indicated that all treatments reduced the acidity load from AMD, the ALD was most effective at producing near-neutral pH and attenuating acidity and dissolved metals. The diversion wells were effective at removing acidity and increasing pH of downstream water and exhibited unique potential to treat moderate to high flows associated with storm flow conditions.

Keywords

Coal mines Diversion well Limestone sand Limestone channel Limestone drain Wetland 

Supplementary material

10230_2010_113_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (67 kb)
Figure A1Water-quality data upstream (C4) and downstream (C6) of treatment with limestone sand in Coal Run (LSC). Vertical dashed line indicates implementation date of treatment. Access road was restricted from December 1997 to March 1999; upstream data were not collected after September 2000 (PDF 67 kb)
10230_2010_113_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (83 kb)
Figure A2Water-quality data upstream (B1) and downstream (B3) of treatment with open limestone channel on Swatara Creek (OLC). Vertical dashed line indicates implementation date of treatment. Upstream data were not collected after September 2000 (PDF 82 kb)
10230_2010_113_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (84 kb)
Figure A3Water-quality data upstream (H0) and downstream (H1) of treatment with oxic limestone drain (OLD) at Hegins discharge (ODH). Vertical dashed line indicates implementation date of treatment. After initial implementation, limestone was added in September 2005 (dash-dot line) (PDF 84 kb)
10230_2010_113_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (115 kb)
Figure A4Water-quality data upstream (A1) and downstream (A2, A3) of treatment with anoxic limestone drain (ALD) at Buck Mountain discharge (ADB). Vertical dashed line indicates implementation date of treatment. After initial implementation, limestone was added in January 2001 and September 2005 (dash-dot line) (PDF 115 kb)
10230_2010_113_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (96 kb)
Figure A5Water-quality data upstream (C1) and downstream (C3) of treatment with limestone diversion wells on Swatara Creek (DWS) near Newtown. Vertical dashed line indicates implementation date of treatment (PDF 96 kb)
10230_2010_113_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (88 kb)
Figure A6Water-quality data upstream (E2-0) and downstream (E2-1) of treatment with limestone diversion wells on Lorberry Creek (WLL) below the Rowe Tunnel discharge. Vertical dashed line indicates implementation date of treatment (PDF 88 kb)
10230_2010_113_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (75 kb)
Figure A7Water-quality data upstream (E2-1A) and downstream (E2-2) of treatment with aerobic wetlands on Lorberry Creek (WLL) below the diversion wells. Vertical dashed line indicates implementation date of treatment (PDF 75 kb)
10230_2010_113_MOESM8_ESM.pdf (88 kb)
Figure A8Water-quality data upstream (E3-1) and downstream (E3-2) of treatment with limestone- compost wetlands on Lower Rausch Creek (WLR). Vertical dashed line indicates implementation date of treatment (PDF 87 kb)

References

  1. American Public Health Association (1998a) Alkalinity (2320)/Titration method. In: Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE, Eaton AD (eds) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, pp 2.26–2.30Google Scholar
  2. American Public Health Association (1998b) Acidity (2310)/Titration method. In: Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE, Eaton AD (eds) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, pp 2.24–2.26Google Scholar
  3. Arnold DE (1991) Diversion wells—a low-cost approach to treatment of acid mine drainage. Proceedings of 12th Annual West Virginia surface mine drainage task force symposium, WV Mining and Reclamation Association, Charleston, WV, USA, pp 39–50Google Scholar
  4. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2002) Water quality standards. Ch 93. PA Code, Title 25. Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, pp 93.1–93.226Google Scholar
  5. Cravotta CA III (2003) Size and performance of anoxic limestone drains to neutralize acidic mine drainage. J Environ Qual 32:1277–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cravotta CA III (2007) Passive aerobic treatment of net-alkaline, iron-laden drainage from a flooded underground anthracite mine, Pennsylvania, USA. Mine Water Environ 26:128–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cravotta CA III (2008a) Dissolved metals and associated constituents in abandoned coal-mine discharges, Pennsylvania, USA: 2. Geochemical controls on constituent concentrations. Appl Geochem 23:203–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cravotta CA III (2008b) Laboratory and field evaluation of a flushable oxic limestone drain for treatment of net-acidic, metal-laden drainage from a flooded anthracite mine, Pennsylvania, USA. Appl Geochem 23:3404–3422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cravotta CA III, Bilger MD (2001) Water-quality trends for a stream draining the Southern Anthracite Field, Pennsylvania. Geochem Explor Environ Anal 1:33–50Google Scholar
  10. Cravotta CA III, Trahan MK (1999) Limestone drains to increase pH and remove dissolved metals from acidic mine drainage. Appl Geochem 14:581–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cravotta CA III, Weitzel JB (2001) Detecting change in water quality from implementation of limestone treatment systems in a coal-mined watershed, Pennsylvania. Proceedings of 8th national nonpoint source monitoring program workshop. USEPA Seminar Series EPA/905-R-01-008Google Scholar
  12. Cravotta CA III, Ward SJ, Koury DJ, Koch RD (2004) Optimization of limestone drains for long-term treatment of acidic mine drainage, Swatara Creek Basin, Schuylkill County, PA. Proceedings of 2004 national meeting of the American society of mining and reclamation and 25th WV Surface Mine Drainage Task Force, pp 366–411Google Scholar
  13. Cravotta CA III, Brightbill RA, Langland MJ (2010) Abandoned mine drainage in the Swatara Creek Basin, Southern Anthracite Coalfield, Pennsylvania, USA: 1. Stream water quality trends coinciding with the return of fish. Mine Water Environ. doi:10.1007/s10230-010-0112-6 Google Scholar
  14. Growitz DJ, Reed LA, Beard MM (1985) Reconnaissance of mine drainage in the coal fields of eastern Pennsylvanian. US Geol Surv WRI 83-4274, 54 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Hedin RS, Nairn RW, Kleinmann RLP (1994a) Passive treatment of coal mine drainage. USBM IC 9389, US Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, p 35Google Scholar
  16. Hedin RS, Watzlaf GR, Nairn RW (1994b) Passive treatment of acid mine drainage with limestone. J Environ Qual 23:1338–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helsel DR, Hirsch RM (2002) Statistical methods in water resources. US Geol Surv Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations 04-A3, 523 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirby CS, Cravotta CA III (2005) Net alkalinity and net acidity 2: practical considerations. Appl Geochem 20:1941–1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koury DJ, Hellier WW (1999) Constructed wetland for mine drainage treatment Lorberry Junction wetland project. National Association Abandoned Mine Lands Programs Conf Pennsylvania, 9 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Raymond PA, Oh N-H (2009) Long-term changes of chemical weathering in rivers heavily impacted from acid mine drainage: insights on the impact of coal mining on regional and global carbon and sulfur budgets. Earth Planet Sci Let 284:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Skousen JG, Rose AW, Geidel G, Foreman J, Evans R, Hellier W (1998) Handbook of technologies for avoidance and remediation of acid mine drainage. National Mine Land Reclamation Center, Morgantown, p 131Google Scholar
  22. Watzlaf GR, Schroeder KT, Kleinmann RLP, Kairies CL, Nairn RW (2004) The passive treatment of coal mine drainage. US DOE/NETL-2004/1202, 72 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Wood CR (1996) Water quality of large discharges from mines in the anthracite region of eastern Pennsylvania. US Geol Surv Water-Resour Inv Rep 95-4243, 69 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Ziemkiewicz PF, Skousen JG, Brant DL, Sterner PL, Lovett RJ (1997) Acid mine drainage treatment with armored limestone in open limestone channels. J Environ Qual 26:1017–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ziemkiewicz PF, Skousen JG, Simmons J (2003) Long-term performance of passive acid mine drainage treatment systems. Mine Water Environ 22:118–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USGS Pennsylvania Water Science CenterNew CumberlandUSA

Personalised recommendations