Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Technical Article
  • Published:
Mine Water and the Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 2.26–2.30

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 2.24–2.26

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 39–50

  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2002) Water quality standards. Ch 93. PA Code, Title 25. Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, pp 93.1–93.226

    Google Scholar 

  • Cravotta CA III (2003) Size and performance of anoxic limestone drains to neutralize acidic mine drainage. J Environ Qual 32:1277–1289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cravotta CA III (2007) Passive aerobic treatment of net-alkaline, iron-laden drainage from a flooded underground anthracite mine, Pennsylvania, USA. Mine Water Environ 26:128–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cravotta CA III (2008a) Dissolved metals and associated constituents in abandoned coal-mine discharges, Pennsylvania, USA: 2. Geochemical controls on constituent concentrations. Appl Geochem 23:203–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:3404–3422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cravotta CA III, Bilger MD (2001) Water-quality trends for a stream draining the Southern Anthracite Field, Pennsylvania. Geochem Explor Environ Anal 1:33–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Cravotta CA III, Trahan MK (1999) Limestone drains to increase pH and remove dissolved metals from acidic mine drainage. Appl Geochem 14:581–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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-01-008

  • 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 366–411

  • 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 

  • 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 pp

  • Hedin RS, Nairn RW, Kleinmann RLP (1994a) Passive treatment of coal mine drainage. USBM IC 9389, US Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, p 35

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedin RS, Watzlaf GR, Nairn RW (1994b) Passive treatment of acid mine drainage with limestone. J Environ Qual 23:1338–1345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helsel DR, Hirsch RM (2002) Statistical methods in water resources. US Geol Surv Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations 04-A3, 523 pp

  • Kirby CS, Cravotta CA III (2005) Net alkalinity and net acidity 2: practical considerations. Appl Geochem 20:1941–1964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koury DJ, Hellier WW (1999) Constructed wetland for mine drainage treatment Lorberry Junction wetland project. National Association Abandoned Mine Lands Programs Conf Pennsylvania, 9 pp

  • 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 284:50–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 131

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzlaf GR, Schroeder KT, Kleinmann RLP, Kairies CL, Nairn RW (2004) The passive treatment of coal mine drainage. US DOE/NETL-2004/1202, 72 pp

  • 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 pp

  • 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 26:1017–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziemkiewicz PF, Skousen JG, Simmons J (2003) Long-term performance of passive acid mine drainage treatment systems. Mine Water Environ 22:118–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the PaDEP and the Schuylkill Conservation District with funding from the USEPA Nonpoint Point Source National Monitoring Program, the USDOE, and the USGS Cooperative Water-Resources Program. The author is grateful to Roger J. Hornberger and Daniel J. Koury of PaDEP for their sustained support. Jeffrey J. Chaplin, Emily Eggler, Katherine Tuers Brayton, Suzanne J. Ward, Jeffrey B. Weitzel, and Kovaldas “KB” Balciauskas presently or formerly at USGS, are acknowledged for critical assistance with field work and data processing. Helpful reviews of early drafts of the manuscript were provided by Michael J. Langland, Ralph J. Haefner, J. Kent Crawford, and Kevin J. Breen of USGS, and Christopher H. Gammons of Montana Tech, and an anonymous reviewer. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USGS Pennsylvania Water Science Center, New Cumberland, PA, 17070, USA

    Charles A. Cravotta III

Authors
  1. Charles A. Cravotta III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles A. Cravotta III.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Figure A1

Water-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)

Figure A2

Water-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)

Figure A3

Water-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)

Figure A4

Water-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)

Figure A5

Water-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)

Figure A6

Water-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)

Figure A7

Water-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)

Figure A8

Water-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)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cravotta, C.A. Abandoned Mine Drainage in the Swatara Creek Basin, Southern Anthracite Coalfield, Pennsylvania, USA: 2. Performance of Treatment Systems. Mine Water Environ 29, 200–216 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10230-010-0113-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10230-010-0113-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation