Exhibit I

:

Biological Stream Ratings of Significance

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Cook Co.

Pike Co.

Lee Co.

Will Co.

McLean Co.

LaSalle Co.

Iroquois Co.

Ogle Co.

Fulton Co.

Henry Co.

Bureau Co.

Adams Co.

Knox Co.

Shelby Co.

Livingston Co.

Vermilion Co.

Fayette Co.

Hancock Co.

Champaign Co.

Peoria Co.

Wayne Co.

Macoupin Co.

Edgar Co.

Logan Co.

Madison Co.

Ford Co.

DeKalb Co.

Sangamon Co.

Kane Co.

Coles Co.

St Clair Co.

Macon Co.

Mercer Co.

Christian Co.

Clay Co.

Mason Co.

Lake Co.

Tazewell Co.

Clark Co.

Jackson Co.

Jasper Co.

Greene Co.

Marion Co.

White Co.

Whiteside Co.

Piatt Co.

Kankakee Co.

Morgan Co.

JoDaviess Co.

Perry Co.

Warren Co.

Jefferson Co.

Pope Co.

McHenry Co.

Cass Co.

Randolph Co.

Clinton Co.

Carroll Co.

Montgomery Co.

Bond Co.

Union Co.

Woodford Co.

Jersey Co.

McDonough Co.

DeWitt Co.

Stephenson Co.

Saline Co.

Monroe Co.

Grundy Co.

Douglas Co.

Washington Co.

Crawford Co.

Winnebago Co.

Schuyler Co.

Franklin Co.

Hamilton Co.

Effingham Co.

Marshall Co.

Johnson Co.

Brown Co.

DuPage Co.

Stark Co.

Boone Co.

Lawrence Co.

Rock Island Co.

Williamson Co.

Moultrie Co.

Richland Co.

Scott Co.

Menard Co.

Kendall Co.

Gallatin Co.

Cumberland Co.

Massac Co.

Wabash Co.

Pulaski Co.

Hardin Co.

Putnam Co.

Henderson Co.

Calhoun Co.

Alexander Co.

Edwards Co.

Biologically Significant Stream

Major River

Third Order or Larger Stream

R

o

c

k

R

i

v

e

r

M

i

s

s

i

s

s

i

p

p

i

R

i

v

e

r

K

a

s

k

a

s

k

i

a

R

i

v

e

r

K

a

s

k

a

s

k

i

a

R

i

v

er

O

h

i

o

R

iv

e

r

C

a

c

h

e

R

i

v

e

r

L

a

M

o

i

n

e

R

i

v

e

r

M

a

c

o

u

p

i

n

C

r

e

e

k

B

e

a

u

c

o

u

p

C

r

e

e

k

B

i

g

M

u

d

d

y

R

i

v

e

r

S

a

l

i

n

e

R

i

ve

r

S

k

i

l

l

e

t

F

o

r

k

L

i

t

t

l

e

W

a

b

a

s

h

R

i

v

e

r

E

m

b

a

r

r

a

s

R

i

v

e

r

W

a

b

a

s

h

R

i

v

e

r

W

a

b

a

s

h

R

i

v

e

r

O

h

i

o

R

i

v

e

r

M

i

s

s

i

s

s

i

p

p

i

R

i

v

e

r

I

l

l

i

n

o

i

s

R

i

v

e

r

S

a

n

g

a

m

o

n

R

i

v

er

S

p

o

o

n

R

i

v

e

r

M

a

c

k

i

n

a

w

Ri

v

e

r

G

r

e

e

n

Rive

r

I

l

l

i

n

o

i

s

R

i

v

e

r

V

e

r

m

i

l

l

i

o

n

R

i

v

e

r

M

i

s

s

i

s

s

i

p

p

i

R

i

v

e

r

P

e

c

a

t

o

n

i

c

a

R

i

v

e

r

F

o

x

R

i

v

e

r

I

l

l

i

n

o

i

s

R

i

v

e

r

D

e

s

P

l

a

i

n

e

s

R

i

v

e

r

V

e

r

m

i

l

i

o

n

R

i

v

e

r

K

a

n

k

a

k

e

e

R

i

v

e

r

Biological Stream Ratings

for Significance

September, 2008

Office of

Resource Conservation

Biologically

Significant Streams

(BSS): streams that

have a high rating or

score based on data

from at least two

taxonomic groups. This

can

be

achieved

by

obtaining an "A" rating either

for diversity or for integrity

that is based on data from two or

more taxonomic groups. A second way

to achieve this status is for a stream

segment to have class scores in the highest

class for at least two different taxonomic

groups when considering the combined data

from the diversity and integrity ratings.

Stream segments identified as biologically significant

are unique resources in the state and the biological

communities present must be protected at the stream

reach, as well as upstream of the reach. Therefore

BSS reaches were extrapolated from site-specific

information to upstream stream segments to arrive

at the segments identified as biologically

significant.

Biologically

Significant

Streams

(BSS)

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Exhibit J

:

Hunt Letter, August 2

nd

, 2007

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Exhibit K

:

Memorandum re: Viable Technologies for Treating Coal Mine

Stormwater Runoff

---

CARPENTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC.

307 Museum Village Road

P.O.Box 656

Monroe, New York 10950

Phone: 845-781-4844

Fax: 845-782-5591

Senders E-mail: r.pape@cea-enviro.com

MEMORANDUM

Date:

October 15, 2008

To:

Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter

From:

Robert J. Pape, P.E.

Re:

Viable Technologies for Treating Coal Mine Stormwater Runoff

CEA No. 08047

Carpenter Environmental Associates has been retained by Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter, to research viable

technologies for treating stormwater runoff from coal mines. Mine stormwater runoff can contain a

variety of metals as well as sulfate, chlorides, and total suspended solids (TSS). The following paper

identifies technologies that have shown to be effective in removing these pollutants.

1) Bioremediation

Constructed wetlands and bioreactors are two types of bioremediation processes that are

employed to treat mine runoff containing metals and sulfate.

1

In general, constructed wetlands (CW) can be single or multi-basins designed to cultivate

biology in an environment void of oxygen (anaerobic), or cultivate biology in an oxygen rich

environment (aerobic). A multi-basin system can consist of both aerobic and anaerobic basins.

Aerobic ponds and wetlands are effective for removing iron from net-alkaline mine water.

2

Anaerobic CWs commonly aim to establish a sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB) population.

Production of SRB results in the precipitation of dissolved metals, including those found in

mine run-off, as metal-sulfide complexes as well as reducing sulfate and increasing pH.

3

Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems (SAPS) is a specific type of CW that consists of an

organic mulch layer, limestone layer and a drainage system that has flushing capabilities to

insure that iron and aluminum precipitates, which may be

contained in the mine runoff,

will

not clog the cell.

4

SAPS can remove iron, aluminum, manganese, and sulfate as well as trace

metals including barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc and lead

as can be found

in mine runoff

.

5

Runoff from a former coal mining operation in Gowen, Oklahoma, was

treated using SAPS. Although actual data was not obtainable for the Gowen SAPS, the report

regarding the Gowen SAPS found on the USEPA’s website indicated that “concentrations of

iron, aluminum, and manganese have decreased significantly” and the trace metals were

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

reduced to near or below detection levels.

6,7

The success of this project spurred Oklahoma to

use the Gowen SAPS design in at the Tar Creek superfund site in Ottawa, Oklahoma, and is

being investigated for use in several watersheds nationwide and should be evaluated for coal

mines in Illinois.

8

A multi-basin wetland system was used in Albright, West Virginia, and in Springdale, West

Virginia. These wetlands consisted of limestone rock drains and manganese-oxidizing bacteria

to treat metal-contaminated leachate from a closed coal combustion byproduct landfill. The

leachate entering these systems contain pollutants

similar to mine runoff

, specifically, iron,

manganese and total suspended solids (TSS). The Albright CW treatment system reduced an

influent stream containing: 2.5 mg/L total iron, 8.5 mg/L manganese, and 8 mg/L TSS to 0.3

mg/L, 1.1 mg/L, and 1 mg/L, respectively.

9

For comparison to the situation in Illinois,

Albright’s effluent are at or below the Deer Run Mine Draft NPDES Permit (Permit) levels for

iron, manganese, and TSS. The Springdale CW treatment system reduced an influent stream

containing: 12.5 mg/L total iron, 6.1 mg/L dissolved iron, 2.7 mg/L manganese, and 25 mg/L

TSS to 0.3 mg/L, 0.1 mg/L, 0.2 mg/L, and 8mg/L, respectively.

10

Springdale’s effluent

concentrations are below the Permit levels for iron, manganese, and TSS.

Bioreactors are lined trenches, pits, or aboveground tanks that can contain a variety of

materials as packing or have no packing and are entirely suspended growth reactors.

11

Bioreactors are either anaerobic or aerobic and can be a standard technology or proprietary

technology. Like CWs, aerobic bioreactors can remove iron and aluminum.

12

Bioreactors that

cultivate SRB biology can be used to eliminate metals commonly found in mine runoff,

including iron and manganese, as seen with the SRB bioreactor system in Champagne Creek,

Idaho which removed up to 91% of the iron in the influent waste stream.

13,14

A pilot study on a standard technology type bioreactor investigated the effects of an aerated

dolomite packed bed bioreactor and an aerated quartzite packed bed bioreactor on the

reduction of manganese in mine water that is net-alkaline.

15

Each reactor was fed net-alkaline

mine water containing 15 – 30 mg/L manganese.

16

The study concluded that these bioreactors

reduced the manganese by 90 – 97%.

17

One proprietary bioreactor system is ABMet®. ABMet® systems are configured for site

specific waste streams and have been successfully used to treat mining water.

18,19

ABMet®

has shown to remove selenium, arsenic, mercury, chromium, cadmium, copper, zinc, cobalt,

nickel, antimony and nitrate.

20,21

Depending upon the ABMet configuration, these metals can

be reduced 99+% and some metals can be reduced to 10 part per billion (ppb) or less.

22, 23

Bioremediation has also been extensively used in the neutralization of acidic water (pH

control), nutrient reduction and cyanide reduction.

2)

Reverse Osmosis

Vibratory Shear Enhanced Process (VSEP) is a proprietary RO type process.

24

In addition to

employing the technology of the pressure gradient across a membrane, VSEP adds

“…torsional vibration of the membrane surface, which creates high shear energy at the surface

of the membrane. The result is that colloidal fouling and polarization of the membrane due to

concentration of rejected materials are greatly reduced.”

25

A case study of VSEP treating acid

mine water showed VSEP reduced the following constituents: total dissolved solids, calcium,

---

magnesium, sodium, iron, manganese, copper, zinc and sulfates. Specifically, a mine water

stream containing iron at 1,100 mg/L and sulfate at 8,000 mg/L were reduced to <0.1 mg/L,

and 100 mg/L, respectively by VSEP.

26

A case study to treat an RO reject stream (the RO unit

treated brackish well water) used VSEP as stage one of a two stage process and used a

conventional spiral RO system as stage two. The RO reject stream contained similar

pollutants such as chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids

as does mine water runoff.

The

study showed that VSEP reduced chloride, sulfate, nitrate, total dissolved solids, boron, and

sodium. Specifically, an influent waste stream containing chloride at 3,285 mg/L, sulfate at

304 mg/L, and total dissolved solids at 7,314 mg/L were reduced to 628 mg/L, 25 mg/L, and

1,617 mg/L, respectively by VSEP.

27

The study also showed that the conventional spiral RO

system produced a final treated water stream containing chloride at 11 mg/L, sulfate at 0 mg/L,

and total dissolved solids at 51 mg/L. Both stages produce an effluent significantly below the

Permit levels for sulfate and the two stage process reduces chlorides significantly below

Permit levels.

3) Chemical treatment includes the addition of hydroxide or lime to the waste stream prior to the

streams entry to a settling tank. Hydroxide and lime treatment removes metals using pH.

Hydroxide and lime are added to a waste stream to achieve pHs that specifically correspond to

the minimum solubilities of the metals being removed. Since different metals have their own

minimum solubility at different pHs, several treatment stages may be necessary if multiple

metals are to be removed from the waste stream.

Chemical treatment also includes the addition of proprietary chemicals to reduce heavy metals

or other constituents. Organosulfide TMT 15™ is a priority treatment chemical that can be

added to the waste steam prior to a settling tank.

28

Organosulfide TMT 15™ promotes

precipitation of cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and silver from wastewater streams.

29

Organosulfide TMT 15™ is typically used as a second step reagent after the bulk of the metals

are removed with hydroxide precipitation because Organosulfide TMT 15™ dosage is a

function of stoichiometry. In an application in the coal burning Pleasant Prairie Power Plant,

Organosulfide TMT 15™ is anticipated to reduce mercury in a flue gas desulfurization

wastewater stream from <2,000 ug/L to 0.5 ug/L.

30

4) Ion exchange removes unwanted ions from water by transferring them to a solid material

(resins), in an ion exchanger, which accepts them while giving back an equivalent number of

desirable ions contained in the ion exchanger. In the simplest terms, water softening is a form

of ion exchange in which sodium, from salt, is exchanged with the calcium responsible for

water "hardness." Selective Metal Ion Exchange has resins that have been tailored to removal

of heavy metals including: copper, uranium, vanadium, mercury, lead, nickel, zinc, cobalt and

cadmium.

31

Ion exchange has been used to treat mine wastewater for metals and nitrate

removal. An example of this method being utilized for sulfate removal is at the Sierrita copper

mine in Arizona.

32

Attachments

1

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies, Christine Costello, October 2003.

2

The Passive Treatment of Coal Mine Drainage, U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory,

Watzlaf, et. al., 2004

---

3

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies, Christine Costello, October 2003.

4

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies, Christine Costello, October 2003.

5

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies, Christine Costello, October 2003.

6

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies, Christine Costello, October 2003.

7

EPA Website Detailing Gowen, OK Alkalinity-Producing System Results, August 5, 2004.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/OK.htm.

8

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies, Christine Costello, October 2003.

9

Applications of Passive Treatment to Trace Metals Recovery, Hoover, et.al.,

10

Applications of Passive Treatment to Trace Metals Recovery, Hoover, et.al.,

11

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies, Christine Costello, October 2003.

12

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies, Christine Costello, October 2003

13

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies, Christine Costello, October 2003

14

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies, Christine Costello, October 2003.

15

Rapid Manganese Removal from Mine Waters Using an Aerated Packed-Bed Bioreactor, Johnson K. L., Younger, P.

L., May 11, 2005

16

Rapid Manganese Removal from Mine Waters Using an Aerated Packed-Bed Bioreactor, Johnson K. L., Younger, P.

L., May 11, 2005

17

Rapid Manganese Removal from Mine Waters Using an Aerated Packed-Bed Bioreactor, Johnson K. L., Younger, P.

L., May 11, 2005

18

Treatment Technology Summary for Critical Pollutants of Concern in Power Plant Wastewaters, Chu, P., January

2007.

19

Water Online.com description of the Zenon ABMet process at http://www.gewater.com/products/equipment/

other_equipment/ABMet.jsp

20

Treatment Technology Summary for Critical Pollutants of Concern in Power Plant Wastewaters, Chu, P., January

2007.

21

Water Online.com description of the Zenon ABMet process at http://www.gewater.com/products/equipment/

other_equipment/ABMet.jsp

22

Treatment Technology Summary for Critical Pollutants of Concern in Power Plant Wastewaters, Chu, P., January

2007.

23

Water Online.com description of the Zenon ABMet process at http://www.gewater.com/products/equipment/

other_equipment/ABMet.jsp

24

2006 El Paso Desalination Conference, El Paso, Texas. A Comparison of Conventional Treatment Methods and

VSEP, a Vibrating Membrane Filtration System, Johnson, Greg, Larry Stowell, and Michele Monroe, March 2006.

25

2006 El Paso Desalination Conference, El Paso, Texas. A Comparison of Conventional Treatment Methods and

VSEP, a Vibrating Membrane Filtration System, Johnson, Greg, Larry Stowell, and Michele Monroe, March 2006.

26

VSEP Filtration of Acid Mine Drainage: A cost-effective and efficient processing solution, Case Study, New Logic

Research.

27

2006 El Paso Desalination Conference, El Paso, Texas. A Comparison of Conventional Treatment Methods and

VSEP, a Vibrating Membrane Filtration System, Johnson, Greg, Larry Stowell, and Michele Monroe, March 2006.

28

Treatment Technology Summary for Critical Pollutants of Concern in Power Plant Wastewaters, Chu, P., January

2007.

29

Treatment Technology Summary for Critical Pollutants of Concern in Power Plant Wastewaters, Chu, P., January

2007.

30

Treatment Technology Summary for Critical Pollutants of Concern in Power Plant Wastewaters, Chu, P., January

2007.

31

Treatment Technology Summary for Critical Pollutants of Concern in Power Plant Wastewaters, Chu, P., January

2007.

32

Sulphate removal demonstration plant using BioteQ's proprietary Sulf-IX ion-exchange technology (www.bioteq.ca)

---

Exhibit L

:

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies,

October 2003

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage:

Innovative Treatment Technologies

October 2003

Prepared by

Christine Costello

National Network of Environmental Management Studies Fellow

for

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Technology Innovation Office

Washington, DC

www.clu-in.org

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

NOTICE

This document was prepared by a National Network of Environmental Management Studies

grantee under a fellowship from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report was not

subject to EPA peer review or technical review. EPA makes no warranties, expressed or implied,

including without limitation, warranties for completeness, accuracy, usefulness of the information,

merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose. Moreover, the listing of any technology,

corporation, company, person, or facility in this report does not constitute endorsement, approval,

or recommendation by EPA.

i

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

FOREWORD

About the National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) Program

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the NNEMS program in 1986 to

foster

a growing interest among higher education students in environmental careers. The

NNEMS program is a comprehensive fellowship program that provides undergraduate and

graduate students an opportunity to participate in a fellowship project that is directly related to

their field of study. The NNEMS program is sponsored by EPA’s Office of Environmental

Education.

Students who are awarded NNEMS fellowships are offered a unique opportunity to gain research

and

training experience directly linked to their undergraduate or graduate studies. NNEMS

fellows conduct research projects to augment their academic studies, which EPA supports with

financial assistance.

Each year, the NNEMS program offers approximately 50 to 60 research projects, developed and

sponsored

by EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and EPA’s ten regional offices throughout

the U.S. The projects allow students to conduct research while working full-time at EPA during

the summer or part-time during the school year.

ii

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

CONTENTS

Page

Purpose ................................................................... 1

1.0

Introduction .......................................................... 1

1.1 Background ....................................................... 2

1.2 Chemistry ......................................................... 3

1.2.1 Acid Generation and Metal Leaching ............................. 3

1.2.2 Neutralization and Metals Removal .............................. 5

1.3 Environmental Concerns ............................................. 6

2.0

Treatment ........................................................... 8

2.1 Traditional ........................................................ 8

Case Study: California Gulch, Leadville, CO ............................ 9

2.2 Innovative ....................................................... 11

2.2.1 Limestone Drains ........................................... 12

Case Study: North Pennine, Orefield, UK ....................... 13

2.2.2 Constructed Wetlands ....................................... 13

Case Study: Burleigh Tunnel, CO

.......................... 14

2.2.3 Bioreactors ............................................... 15

A. Case Study: Silver Bow County, MT ........................ 16

B. Case Study: Champagne Creek, Butte, ID .................... 17

2.2.4 Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems ......................... 19

A. Case Study: Oven Run, PA ................................ 20

B. Case Study: #40 Gowen, Gaines Watershed,OK ................ 20

2.2.5 Permeable Reactive Barriers .................................. 21

2.2.6 Biosolids ................................................. 23

A. Case Study: Frostburg, MD ............................... 24

B. Case Study: Leadville, CO ................................ 26

2.2.7 Phytoremediation ........................................... 27

3.0

Conclusion .......................................................... 29

4.0

References .......................................................... 29

Appendix A - Description of AML Programs in Selected Western States ................. 37

Appendix B - Brief Case Description of Case Studies Found In This Report .............. 47

FIGURES

Figure 1. Air Compressor at an abandoned mine site in Leadville, CO .................... 7

Figure 2. Capped waste pile in Leadville, CO ..................................... 10

iii

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Figure 3. Burleigh Tunnel, 7/2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 4. Schematic of Champagne Creek Bioreactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 5. General Schematic of a SAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 6. Oven Run, SAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 7. SAPS cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 8. Schematic of Non-pumping well PRB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 9. Plant biomass yields two years after biosolids application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 10. Relationship between total plant metals and rates of application

of biosolids and other amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 11. Metal salt accumulation on soils in Leadville, CO on the banks of the

Arkansas River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

iv

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Purpose

Currently there is no comprehensive survey about the types of remediation technologies being

used to treat abandoned mines. The purpose of this paper is to provide information about this

topic with a particular focus on hard rock mining sites. Hard rock mines can be loosely defined as

non-coal, metal mines, in the United States these mines are located in the Mid-West and Western

states. This paper provides an overview of treatment technologies being used to remedy

environmental problems at abandoned mine sites, with a focus on innovative treatment techniques.

1.0 Introduction

This report aims to identify abandoned mine sites that utilize innovative technologies to treat mine

drainage or contaminated soils and to put that information into a database. Therefore, this paper

is not a highly detailed description of a single technology, but rather an introduction to a variety

of technologies currently used to treat mine sites in the country. A database was created to

compliment this paper. It contains all of the case studies highlighted in this paper and quite a few

other. It is available through the Technology Innovation Program website www.cluin.org. The

goal of this database is to allow parties interested in implementing innovative treatments at AMD

sites to learn from past successes and failures to advance these technologies.

A variety of sources were consulted to identify sites. Government agencies were the main targets

as they

are the most likely group to be addressing abandoned mines that presumably do not have a

linked responsible party. Also, unlike consulting firms and private industry, i.e. the companies

themselves, the government will generally disclose most technical information. The internet was

used to look up information about the following agencies:

!

Environmental Protection Agency - specifically the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, a.k.a. Superfund) and the

Clean Water Act (CWA) programs;

!

Department of the Interior - specifically the Office of Surface Mining, Bureau of

Land Management (BLM), and United States Geological Survey (USGS);

!

State environmental departments;

!

Local environmental committees and community groups.

Another research avenue was grant distributions from CWA programs to local organizations. For

example,

Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener grant program funds many Abandoned Mine Land

(AML) reclamation efforts in the name of improving local watersheds. This did not prove

beneficial for every state. Where possible individuals were contacted through email and telephone

for more specific information about programs and sites. As with any project an extensive

literature review was done. Science Direct was searched, the Library of Congress catalog and

on-line databases were also utilized and numerous conference proceedings were perused.

Due to the universe of abandoned mines, constantly evolving programs and projects this report

does

not imply a complete picture of all projects and programs in the nation. The report is,

however, a start toward understanding what technologies are being used and some of the barriers

1

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

to remediation, especially for non-traditional treatments. Appendix A includes brief summaries on

the efforts being taken at the state level to address AML sites for selected states.

1.1 Background

Mining practices, present and past, cause environmental problems that can damage ecosystems

and

human health. Mining disturbs geologic formations that took millions of years to form;

likewise, related natural systems and processes are disturbed, e.g. hydrology. Once disruption

has taken place a variety of problems may arise, from physical hazards to pollution of water and

soil. The most severe and widespread environmental problems almost always have to do with

water, indeed all of the treatment technologies that will be discussed in this paper are designed for

water or the prevention of water contact with solids.

There has been a lot of effort to quantify the universe of abandoned mines, the results vary. Some

of

the problem lies in definition. While some agencies define a site as a particular opening; others

define a site as all of the openings at a particular location as one mine site. The Bureau of Land

Management claims that estimates from Federal land management agencies, state and privately

owned lands have ranged from about 80,000 to hundreds of thousands of small to medium-sized

sites (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 2003b). The Office of Surface Mining describes the problem in

terms of money, “of the $8.2 billion of high priority [physical hazards] coal related AML problems

in the AML inventory, $6.6 billion, 80%, have yet to be reclaimed; furthermore, “almost ninety

percent of the $2.0 billion of coal related environmental problems in the AML inventory are not

reclaimed. And this represents only a small part of the total problem as no systematic effort has

been made to inventory these problems” (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 2002a). To give one last

perspective, the Mineral Policy Center, a non-profit organization, claims that there are 557,000

abandoned mines - mostly in the western United States (2003). Although it is difficult to say

exactly how many sites exist, the number of abandoned mine sites in the US is enormous.

For roughly 25 years there have been efforts to address the dangers created by the past 250 - 300

years

of large-scale mining in this country. The Surface Mining Coal and Reclamation Act

(SMCRA), passed in 1977, requires a tax on coal production to be set aside in a fund for

remediation efforts at abandoned coal mines. However, many abandoned mines are hard rock

mines and are typically not eligible for SMCRA funding, though there are some exceptions. Other

sources of funding may come from CWA grants, CERCLA grants or State funding. While there

has been significant progress, there are still many sites without adequate funding. For example,

California has no abandoned coal mines, therefore ineligible for SMCRA funding. A multi-

stakeholder task force in California identified lack of funding as a key impediment to cleanup of

abandoned mines in the state (see Appendix A). Some states have started to lobby for funding,

for example, Colorado House Representative Mark Udall is seeking legislation that would create

a fund for hard rock sites similar to that created by SMCRA.

Many states and agencies have only recently finished inventorying the number of sites and begun

to

evaluate sites to determine priorities for cleanup. States and other agencies that are doing

remediation under SMCRA must address Priority 1 & 2 problems - those dealing with physical

dangers - before they are able to use funding to address Priority 3 problems - environmental

2

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

problems and/or high priority non-coal sites. The priority number system was defined by the U.S.

Department of the Interior.

Due to limited resources, especially in the case of hard rock mines, innovative technologies can

offer a plausible solution to the environmental threats created by abandoned mines. Traditional

water treatments are modeled after wastewater treatment plants, which are machine intensive,

chemical dependant, and require continuous operations and maintenance (O & M) staff.

Traditional solid mine waste remediation tactics involve covering of piles and water diversion

tactics which do not treat wastes but rather mitigate their impacts. The innovative technologies

that will be discussed in this paper are largely passive treatment systems. Passive treatment

systems are described as having little O & M costs, require little chemical application, and few if

any mechanical devices (Hedin et al., 1994). Passive treatment systems can be a good solution for

small drainage sites that might otherwise have few treatment options.

1.2 Chemistry

1.2.1 Acid Generation and Metals Leaching

Acid generation and metals dissolution are the primary problems associated with pollution

from

mining activities. The chemistry of these processes appears fairly straightforward, but becomes

complicated quickly as geochemistry and physical characteristics can vary greatly from site to site.

This paper will not describe these variables and their affects on chemistry, it will give an overview

of the most common scenario found at coal and hard-rock sites with environmental concerns.

Pyrite (FeS

2

) is responsible for starting acid generation and metals dissolution in coal and hard

rock sites alike. When pyrite is exposed to oxygen and water it will be oxidized, resulting in

hydrogen ion release - acidity, sulfate ions, and soluble metal cations, equation 1. This oxidation

process occurs in undisturbed rock but at a slow rate and the water is able to buffer the acid

generated. Mining increases the exposed surface area of these sulfur-bearing rocks allowing for

excess acid generation beyond the water’s natural buffering capabilities.

2FeS

2

(s) + 7O

2

(aq) + 2H

2

O –> 2Fe

+2

+ 4SO

4

-2

+ 4H

+

(1)

Further oxidation of Fe

+2

(ferrous iron) to Fe

+3

(ferric iron) occurs when sufficient oxygen is

dissolved in the water or when the water is exposed to sufficient atmospheric oxygen.

2Fe

+2

+ ½ O

2

+ 2H

+

–> 2Fe

+3

+ H

2

O

(2)

Some acidity is consumed in this process, however, the stage is set for further hydrogen ion

release

that will surpass these benefits. Ferric iron can either precipitate as ochre (Fe(OH)

3

the

red-orange precipitate seen in waters affected by acid mine drainage) or it can react directly with

pyrite to produce more ferrous iron and acidity.

2Fe

+3

+ 6H

2

O <–> 2Fe(OH)

3

(s) + 6H

+

(3)

3

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

14Fe

+3

+ FeS

2

(s) + 8H

2

O –> 2SO

4

-2

+ 15Fe

+2

+ 16H

+

(4)

When ferrous iron is produced as a result of equation 4 and sufficient dissolved oxygen is present

the

cycle of equations 2 & 3 is perpetuated (Younger, et al, 2002). Without dissolved oxygen

equation 4 will continue to completion and water will show elevated levels of ferrous iron

(Younger, et al, 2002).

Once the waters are sufficiently acidic, acidophilic bacteria - bacteria that thrive in low pH - are

able

to establish themselves. Microorganisms can play a significant role in accelerating the

chemical reactions taking place in mine drainage situations.

Thiobacillus Ferroxidans

, a bacteria,

is commonly referenced in this case. These bacteria catalyze the oxidation of ferrous iron, further

perpetuating equations 2 through 4. Another microbe belonging to the Archaea kingdom, named

Ferroplasma Acidarmanus

, has recently been discovered to also play a significant role in the

production of acidity in mine waters (Lauzon, 2000).

Though not a major source of acidity, the generation of hydrogen ions when certain metals form

precipitates

, must be taken into account when considering treatment options.

Al

+3

+ 3H

2

O <–> Al(OH)

3

+ 3H

+

(5)

Fe

+3

+ 3H

2

O <–> Fe(OH)

3

+ 3H

+

(see equation 3)

(6)

Fe

+2

+ 0.25 O

2

(aq) + 2.5 H

2

O <–> Fe(OH)

3

+ 2H

+

(7)

Mn

+2

+ 0.25 O

2

(aq) + 2.5 H

2

O <–> Mn(OH)

3

+ 2H

+

(8)

Other metals commonly found in mine drainage waters exist because they are present in the rocks,

similar

to pyrite. For example, there are a variety of other metal sulfides that may release metal

ions into solution, but may not generate acidity (Younger et al., 2002) the reasons for this are not

clear. Including:

Sphalerite

ZnS(s) + 2O

2

(aq) –> Zn

+2

+ SO

4

-2

(9)

Galena

PbS(s) + 2O

2

(aq) –> Pb

+2

+ SO

4

-2

(10)

Millerite

NiS(s) + 2O

2

(aq) –> Ni

+2

+ SO

4

-2

(11)

Greenockite CdS(s) + 2O

2

(aq) –> Cd

+2

+ SO

4

-2

(12)

Covellite

CuS(s) + 2O

2

(aq) –> Cu

+2

+ SO

4

-2

(13)

Chalcopyrite CuFeS

2

(s) + 4O

2

(aq) –> Cu

+2

+ Fe

+2

+ SO

4

-2

(14)

Metals are naturally dissolved from weathering slowly over time. The dissolution process is sped

up when

the pH of the water strays from near-neutral, that is at either high or low pH - in the case

of mine drainage low pH is the more plausible scenario (Younger et al., 2002; Blowes et al.,

2000). For more information see Chapter 2 of Mine Water: Hydrology, Pollution, Remediation

by Younger et al., 2002.

4

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

1.2.2 Neutralization and Metals Removal

The ways by which metals precipitate have seemingly endless possibilities and are not always well

understood. By far the most common application for reducing acidity and adding alkalinity is

lime. There are many ways to treat mine drainage through enhanced natural processes which

form the basis for passive treatments. There are many aerobic and anaerobic process that lead to

metals precipitation that are commonly practiced. Though not complete the following

information should provide some insight about the technologies that will be discussed shortly.

It is very important to gain control of the pH of the drainage because pH effects many things

including

the solubility of metals and the kinetics of the oxidation and hydrolysis processes (EPA,

Vol.4). In addition, the relationship between pH and metal removal processes varies among

metals and also between biotic and abiotic processes (EPA, Vol. 4)

Limestone (calcium carbonate), rich in calcite, increases the pH of water by consuming hydrogen

ions

and adding alkalinity through bicarbonate ions (Younger et al., 2002).

CaCO

3

+ 2H

+

= Ca

+2

+ H

2

O + CO

2

(15)

CaCO

3

+ H

2

CO

3

= Ca

+2

+ 2HCO

3

-

(16)

Once the pH of the acidic water has been raised metals can precipitate more easily to form

hydroxides

and oxyhydroxides, in some cases the pH alone will change the metal ion to an

insoluble form, this is true in the case of aluminum.

Other commonly used alkaline agents are hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide), soda

ash (sodium

carbonate), caustic soda (sodium hydroxide), and in some cases ammonia (U.S. Dept. of the

Interior, 2002b).

The processes involving metals more common to coal mining regions (iron, aluminum, and

manganese)

are fairly well understood. The removal of iron is better understood than other

metals common to drainage sites, which may be one of the reasons why passive treatments are

more common in the East. Iron can form oxyhyroxides (FeOOH) or hydroxides (Fe(OH)

3

) under

aerobic conditions or a sulfide solid under anaerobic conditions. Iron and manganese (Mn)

precipitation processes are related in that the precipitations are sequential in aerobic conditions

(EPA, Vol. 4). Iron oxidizes and precipitates more quickly than Mn because oxidized Mn solids

are unstable in the presence of Fe

+2

therefore the levels must be reduced significantly before Mn

can be converted to stable solid precipitates (EPA, Vol. 4). Manganese under aerobic conditions

can form an oxyhydroxide (MnOOH) and oxides (Mn

3

O

4

and MnO

2

) and in alkaline environments

a carbonate (MnCO

3

) (EPA, Vol. 4). Manganese sulfide is highly soluble and therefore highly

unlikely to remain precipitated if it should form under anaerobic conditions (EPA, Vol. 4).

Aluminum is removed from waters by maintaining the pH between 5 and 8, where Al(OH)

3

is

highly insoluble; the passage of mine water through highly oxidized or reduced environments has

no effect on Al concentrations (EPA, Vol. 4).

5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Technologies designed to remove metals common to hard rock mining almost always involve the

establishment of sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB), which can be difficult in cold climates. Sulfate

reducing bacteria remove metals from solution as precipitates as a result of their survival (Zaluski

et al., 2000). SRB reduce sulfate to soluble sulfide when provided with an organic carbon source,

i.e. compost; as a result of this process acetate and bicarbonate ion are also produced. The

soluble

sulfide reacts with the dissolved metals to form insoluble metal sulfides, equation 18; the

bicarbonate ions increase the pH and alkalinity of the water, equation 17 (Zaluski et al., 2000).

Bicarbonate also allows for the possible production of Zn, Cu, or Mn carbonates (Macalady,

1998). Metals likely to form insoluble sulfide precipitates include: Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb, Ag, and Fe(II)

(Macalady, 1998). These processes are summarized by the following reactions:

SO

4

-

2-

+ 2CH

2

O —> H

2

S + 2HCO

3

(17)

H

2

S + M

+2

—> MS + 2H

+

(18)

In addition to precipitation processes, metals can be removed from water through a variety of

methods

common to wetlands, and seen in technologies utilizing organic matter and/or vegetation:

!

filtering suspended and colloidal material from the water

!

uptake of contaminants into the roots and leaves of live plants

!

adsorption or exchange of contaminants onto inorganic soil constituents, organic solids,

dead plant material or algal material

!

neutralization and precipitation of contaminants through the generation of HCO

3

-

and NH

3

by bacterial decay of organic matter.

!

destruction or precipitation of chemicals in the anaerobic zone catalyzed by the activity of

bacteria

!

destruction or precipitation of contaminants in the aerobic zone catalyzed by the activity

of bacteria (EPA, 1993b).

It is not in the scope of this paper to describe all of the potential considerations related to each

metal

of concern; a few examples have been mentioned to illustrate the necessity of carefully

analyzing all of the metal contaminants and the surrounding hydrologic, geologic, chemical, and

biologic situation in order to properly design for removal.

1.3 Environmental Concerns

Environmental damage or pollution associated with mines nearly always has to do with a decrease

in

pH and/or elevated concentrations of heavy metals in nearby waters and soils. There are

instances were one problem occurs without the other, for example circum-neutral pH and elevated

metals concentrations or vice versa. Debris from waste piles may be blown and contaminate

surrounding areas with metals. Silt and sediments may run-off into nearby streams and obstruct

water flow. Other sources of pollution that may not initially come to mind are abandoned

buildings and industrial equipment that contribute to pollution, including waste drums, heavy

equipment, batteries, etcetera.

6

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

While all of these problems are serious, the main focus will be on polluted water resulting from

mine drainage. Indeed, with the exception of a few new means of revegetation, most of the

innovative technologies in the literature address water

treatment.

Younger et al., provide information about the impacts that

mining

has on the water environment, they have defined six

distinct impacts (2002). Not all of these impacts deal with

pollution, but it is useful to consider all of the potential

problems for a holistic view useful for designing an

effective remediation plan.

Figure 1. Air compressor at an

1)

“The mining process itself

”(pp. 55) Which is

abandoned mine site in Leadville, CO

.

associated with the disruption of groundwater hydrology.

It has been pointed out that, “the miner and the water

resource manager share a common interest in avoiding

the ingress of fresh water into a mine void; the water manager’s loss of resource is the miner’s

increase in nuisance” (pp. 57).

2)

“Mineral processing operations

” (pp.

57). For example, cyanide leaching operations, gold-

mercury amalgamation. Contaminated abandoned leach pads can contribute to polluted runoff

from the mine site. Active mines today, at least in the U.S., have regulatory obligations to

prevent this type of contamination.

3)

The dewatering which is undertaken to make mining possible

.

Some of the problems that can

arise from pumping water out of mining shafts include: water table depression resulting in

reduction in water availability for residents and the surrounding hyrdologic system, i.e. wetlands,

streams, lakes; land subsidence or collapse; and, surface or groundwater pollution if mine water is

of poor quality and runs to nearby waterways. However, mining industry today takes some

measures to reduce these impacts through: compensation flows, in which water is added to

sensitive surface waters, and may even be treated and pumped to specific locations; local re­

injection of groundwater; alternate water supplies might be provided for affected residents; and/or

waters that are unaffected by the mining operation itself, but are not of good quality might be

treated before discharge.

4)

Seepage of contaminated leachate from

waste rock piles and tailings dams

. For example,

waste rock piles may not have had enough metal present to be economical to recover; however,

the rock material might have sufficient pyrite present to generate acidity and mobilize metals.

5)

“The flooding of abandoned mine workings after

mining has ended” or, “water table

rebound”

(pp.59). While the water table is recessed and pyrite is able to oxidize causing a build­

up of “acid-generating salts,” when the water table rises these salts are dissolved causing an

increase in pH and dissolved metals (pp. 60). There are other possible hazards like erosion of

support columns in the mine tunnels leading to subsidence and also, the converse rising ground

levels due to rehydration of soils, especially clays.

7

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

6)

Discharge of untreated mine water after flooding of workings

can lead to: surface water

pollution, pollution of overlying aquifers, localized flooding and overloading and clogging of

sewers.

For more information about environmental concerns associated with abandoned mines see EPA,

2001, chapters

2 & 3 and Younger et al., 2002.

2.0 Treatment

Treatment of mine sites generally requires pH adjustment, oxidizing or reducing (redox)

conditions, and/or stabilization of wastes. Treatment technologies will be broken up into this

categories: traditional and innovative. It is difficult to assign absolute definitions, the following

distinctions will help to clarify the meanings.

2.1 Traditional

Traditional treatments rely on conventional, well-recognized technology to raise pH or create

redox

conditions. The types of technologies considered traditional in this paper include: water

treatment plants, relocation of wastes, covering of waste piles, water diversion tactics, and in

some cases revegetation.

Traditional or conventional treatments for mine waters are those that follow the pattern of an

ordinary

wastewater treatment plant often referred to as active treatment. Younger et al. define

“active” treatment as “...the improvement of water quality by methods which require ongoing

inputs of artificial energy and/or (bio)chemical reagents” (2002, pp. 271). There are a variety of

methods that are considered “active,” the most predominate one is “ODAS” - oxidation, dosing

with alkali, and sedimentation (Younger, et al., 2002). The process is similar to that of traditional

wastewater treatment plants. Others traditional or “active” treatments common to wastewater

treatment plants include: sulfidization, biosedimentation, sorption and ion exchange, and

membrane processes like filtration and reverse osmosis (Younger, et al, 2002). The waters are

removed from their course, treated and then discharged.

Depending on the situation it may be advantageous to install a traditional water treatment system

as described

above, in some cases it might even be the only option. One of the advantages is

precision. For the most part an engineered system can be altered to obtain desired discharge

regardless of the changes in the incoming water characteristics. This can be useful for active

mining sites with frequently changing water characteristics (Younger, et al., 2002). For instance,

Russ Forba who works on the Berkeley Pit Superfund site in Montana, stated that after evaluation

of the options they did not feel comfortable with the reliability and contaminant removal

efficiencies associated with innovative treatments due to the seven million gallon-per-day flow and

complex characteristics of the wastewater (R. Forba, personal communication, 6/20/2003).

Another benefit is that the land required to establish a plant for large flows is much smaller than

the space required for comparable passive treatment systems (Younger et al., 2002). Finally,

traditional wastewater treatment plants are accompanied by a large body of experience and

information, making the expertise easier to find and with a higher confidence level in performance.

8

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Traditional treatment approaches to handling solid mine wastes include a variety of excavation,

landscape adjustment, and stabilization techniques. Again, in most cases the main concern is to

avoid water infiltration of the solid wastes. Solid wastes can be contained on-site in a variety of

ways: lined pits, un-lined pits, clay or plastic caps, etc. Similarly, wastes can be shipped off-site to

landfills, treatment plants, or recovery operations; however, this option may be costly as prices are

by the ton. Covering or “capping” wastes is a fairly common choice, the cover can be multiple

layers of plastic, cement, soil, compost, rock, vegetation, etc. The idea behind these methods is

that the solid materials high in metals and/or acid-producing materials will not be exposed to the

elements and will not cause typical problems associated with mine wastes. While these solutions

may be a reasonable option for reducing potential harm to humans and the environments they

generally do not reduce the toxicity or volume of the metals present in the soils (Pioneer

Technical Services, 2002).

Re-grading is a common term used in describing remediation efforts. Re-grading is simply

reducing

the slope of a waste rock or tailings pile to prevent erosion by reducing water runoff and

to provide a more stable surface to enhance revegetation efforts. Another tactic to control water

flow near a waste pile is to attempt to divert water from the pile by installing trenches and

culverts.

Whether revegetation is traditional or innovative is somewhat obscure. It is not a new idea and

has

been done for many years. However, some new methods have made it possible to revegetate

areas that were previously thought to be a lost cause. For example, biosolids and lime

applications have been proven to be a viable method for establishing self-sufficient vegetative

cover. The distinction between innovative and traditional lies between the goal and outcomes of

establishing vegetation. If the goal or outcome is to reduce toxicity or to recover metals then it

would probably be considered an innovative treatment; if the goal is to prevent metals

contaminated soils from being blown into nearby yards, but the metals are still present in the same

quantities it would probably be considered traditional.

For more information about available treatment technologies please see: EPA’s Abandoned Mine

Site

Characterization and Cleanup Handbook, Chapter 10.

Case Study: California Gulch, Leadville, Colorado

The California Gulch Superfund site located in Leadville, Colorado utilizes nearly every

traditional

treatment option described above and even some innovative applications. Some of the

treatments include: two water treatment plants, consolidation and stabilization of piles, water

diversion, capping, revegetation, and biosolids application. Mining for gold, silver, copper, zinc,

manganese, and lead began in 1859. The site is approximately 16.5 square miles, divided into

twelve Operable Units (OUs) (EPA, 2003). Each OUs is managed by a different party including

EPA, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the State of Colorado, and ASARCO, the Resurrection

Mining Company, a subsidiary of Newmont Gold Company, and the ASARCO-Resurrection joint

venture (EPA, 2003).

9

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

The two water treatment plants are located at the outfall of

abandoned mine tunnels: the Yak Tunnel and the Leadville

Mine Drainage Tunnel. Tunnels were built to transport

ores out of mines and sometimes drain groundwater to

allow access to the underground. Rock in these tunnels is

highly disturbed and exposed to water and oxygen

therefore, pyrite oxidation and metals leaching is likely and

effluent from the tunnels is highly problematic. The

treatment plant at Yak Tunnel is managed by the

ASARCO-Resurrection joint venture. The flow to the

plant is highly dependent on season, during summer months

there can be little more than a trickle of water but in the

spring during snowmelt the flow increases dramatically.

Before the plant was in operation nearly 210 tons of metals

entered the Arkansas River annually (EPA, 2003). The

second treatment plant is at the end of the ten mile long

Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. This plant is managed by

the Bureau of Reclamation. In addition to treating water

that has made its way into the tunnel, it receives runoff

Figure 2. Capped waste pile in

from tailings piles located near the origin of the tunnel

Leadville, CO. Photo taken by author.

from tailings & waste rock piles. Furthermore, it is

believed that nearly two-thirds of the water reaching the

tunnel is runoff and groundwater that is uncontaminated

before

entering the tunnel (M. Holmes, personal communication, 7/22/2003). If this groundwater

could be diverted from the tunnel the treatment plant would be more efficient in treating the

drainage. However, this is easier said than done given the depth of the tunnel and the complexity

of the hydrology at the site. The current thought is to install a plug to block flow of clean water

into the tunnel; but, in order to do this a shaft would have to intersect the tunnel at a depth of 500

feet below ground level (M. Holmes, personal communication, 7/22/2003). Aside from being

expensive it is difficult to drill accurately enough to intersect the tunnel at an appropriate location

(M. Holmes, personal communication, 7/22/2003). Further complications would arise with the

construction

and performance of the plug.

Given the highly variable flow patterns and difficult climate at the elevation of 10,162 feet

water

treatment plants are a good option for treatment at the California Gulch site. In addition, when

passive treatment was considered using wetlands it was determined that the space needed for

construction would consume the entire town of Leadville (M. Holmes, personal communication,

7/22/2003).

Consolidation of waste piles is another large effort taken at the site to reduce water quality

impacts

. More than 350,000 yards of contaminated soils, sediments, and mine processing wastes

have been consolidated on site (EPA, 2003). Once consolidated, a variety of measures have been

taken including diversion trenches and culverts, evaporation ponds, and capping to minimize

contaminated runoff leaving the site. Diversion trenches attempt to catch runoff before it comes

into contact with the waste pile thereby avoiding contamination of the water so that it might reach

the river or other water body in a “clean” state. Evaporation ponds collect runoff from piles and

10

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

allow water to evaporate leaving metal precipitates, mostly iron, to stay in the pond. A couple of

piles have been capped to prevent water infiltration and runoff. Revegetation efforts are also

underway at many locations on the site, some of the locations have used the application of

biosolids which will be describe in the Innovative Technologies section of this paper. All of these

efforts have helped to reduce water quality issues in the Arkansas River.

2.2 Innovative

What is considered innovative? The Encarta English Word Dictionary provides some insight, the

technology

should be attempting to change the properties or form of a chemical, here the

hydrogen ion and metal ions, in a way that has not been attempted in recent years:

innovative

is defined as: “new and original: new and original or taking a new

and

original approach”

treatment

is defined as: “technology: treating something with agent: an act of subjecting

something

to a physical, chemical or biological process or agent” (2003).

Though “innovative treatment” could surely describe a wide range of technologies, for example

chemical

encapsulation of wastes, the discussion here is limited to full-scale implementation of

new technologies that have been installed at multiple abandoned mine sites. A variety of “passive

treatments” have become the most predominate innovative treatments applied aside from

traditional choices. Passive treatments are considered to be those that treat waters or solids using

enhanced natural processes, in-situ and require minimal upkeep (Hedin et al., 1994; Younger et

al., 2002). Research into these techniques began as early as thirty years ago and has been

growing ever since.

The beginning of this movement developed out of the observation that wetlands naturally remove

metals

from contaminated water (Gusek, 1998). Through trial and error it was discovered that in

many instances plants were not necessary to treat the waters, rather other biochemical and

geochemical reactions were responsible for water quality improvements (Gusek, 1998). For

metals common to hard rock mining (Zn, Pb, Cd, As, Mo, Au, Ag, to name a few) sulfate

reduction by bacteria is usually the premise behind the design of passive treatment with the goal of

inducing metal precipitation as sulfides. For metals common to coal mining (Fe, Al, and Mn)

aerobic processes, with or without an alkaline agent are the most commonly applied applications.

Another major player in passive treatment are alkaline agents, most commonly lime, although the

application of lime to reduce acidity it not particularly innovative, some of the ways to expose the

acidic waters to the alkaline agent are innovative.

Many of the innovative technologies in operation are based on the same principles. Permeable

Reactive

Barriers (PRBs), bio-reactors, and constructed wetland technologies can all utilize

alkaline agents and sulfate reducing bacteria to treat mine drainage. The majority are in-situ

applications that manipulate natural processes to treat acidic and/or metals contaminated water,

the exception is the use of iron in PRBs to treat uranium, see pages 25-26. Their differences lie in

construction and water source. PRBs have a subsurface reactive section that groundwater flows

through following its natural course to be treated, in some cases there are impermeable walls to

direct the flow of the water to the reactive section. The reactive media is usually compost

11

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

material that hosts sulfate reducing bacteria, though there are a few others. Bioreactors are

somewhere between a PRB and a wetland, water - ground or surface - flows through and natural

reactions work to remove metals. Whether subsurface or exposed to the atmosphere, bioreactors

are generally lined, filled with composted materials and/or alkaline agents, and in some cases

include vegetation. Constructed wetlands are very similar to both PRBs and bioreactors, they are

often lined ponds filled with organic matter and/or alkaline agents and sometimes vegetation.

Organic matter and vegetation allow an opportunity for metals to absorb and/or adsorb to organic

surfaces, this is true for bioreactors and PRBs as well. Anaerobic wetlands aim to promote the

growth of sulfate-reducing bacteria and raise pH. Aerobic wetlands are most often used for net

alkaline waters, oxygen infiltration is encouraged and metals precipitate as oxyhydroxides,

hydroxides, and carbonates. Both bioreactors and wetlands almost always include collection and

piping systems, while PRBs are simply placed in the flow path.

Lime-based applications considered innovative in this paper, are anoxic limestone drains and

Successive

Alkalinity Producing Systems (SAPS). The latter is very similar in construction and

theory to wetlands/bioreactors and is also an improvement to the anoxic limestone drain

technology.

2.2.1 Limestone Drains

Anoxic Limestone Drains (ALDs) treat acidic and potentially metals-laden waters by sending

them

through an underground pathway that is packed with crushed limestone. ALDs typically

outlet into a settling pond or wetland to allow metals an opportunity to precipitate and settle

(Cravotta, 2002).

The problem with ALDs is that they often experience armoring - described as strong adhesion and

complete pacification by encrustation - causing the limestone to become inactivated and

potentially cause clogging of the drain (Cravotta, 2002; Sasowsky, 2000). To effectively install

an ALD many suggest that dissolved oxygen, Fe

+3

, and Al

+3

concentrations be less than 1 mg/L;

some authors have suggested that Fe

+3

and Al

+3

concentrations can be higher, between 1 and 5

mg/L (Cravotta, 2002). In either case this is a very low threshold when dealing with mine

drainage.

A study by Sasowsky et al., suggests that the armoring of limestone

can be substantially offset by

incorporating sandstone into the drain (2000). Sasowsky et al., observed that when acidic and

metals contaminated drainage at Big Laurel Creek at the East Fork Obey River in Tennessee

discharged onto both exposed limestone and sandstone the majority of metallic oxides precipitated

onto sandstone rocks (2000). This suggested a preferred precipitation media. In order to validate

that the observed precipitation was not merely coincidence or mechanical, laboratory and field test

at another mine drainage location in Silver Creek, Ohio were conducted. Similar results were

recorded, and sandstone had an order of magnitude higher iron precipitation than limestone

(Sasowsky et al., 2000). If this preference is fairly consistent, the addition of crushed sandstone

to limestone drains could reduce armoring of limestone. It might also be noted that these studies

were not conducted at oxygen deficit locations, and so behavior in anoxic conditions should be

investigated.

12

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Case Study: North Pennine Orefield, UK

An emerging potential use for ALDs is for zinc removal.

Nuttall & Younger (2000) conducted a field-scale test to

use an ALD to remove zinc from net alkaline waters. The

pilot scale ALD was place in the Nent Valley within the

North Pennine Orefield, United Kingdom, the area had been

mined for over two centuries for lead and zinc (Nuttall &

Younger, 2000).

Metals leach from spoil heaps and tailing

dams;

contaminated land drainage and five abandoned mine adits

also discharge metals into the River Nent. The waters have

high hardness values, high alkalinity, and pH in the range of

7.4 to 8.0. The dissolution of sphalerite, ZnS (see equation

5),

results in zinc concentrations in the range of 3 to 8

mg/L; there are also concentrations of lead, cadmium (both

well below 1 mg/L), and arsenic (Nuttall & Younger,

2000). Geochemical modeling and laboratory tests revealed

photFiguro

e

ta3. keBn

urby

leigh

the

Tunneauthor l, 7/2003,

that raising the pH from approximately 7.5 to 8.2 would

result in the optimal reduction of zinc in solution (Nuttall &

Younger, 2000).

Aerobic processes that aim to result in hydroxide or sulfite solids have not been successful in this

case because in hard, net-alkaline waters zinc is predominantly present as carbonate complex

(ZnCO

3

0

) and will not readily form non-carbonate solids (Nuttall & Younger, 2000). Therefore,

an anoxic limestone drain was chosen as a possible way to raise the pH to roughly 8.2 for optimal

removal (Nuttal & Younger, 2000). The results of the pilot test show 22-percent reduction in

zinc concentrations after passing through the anoxic limestone conditions, with a retention time of

14 hours (Nuttall & Younger, 2000).

This is not the typical example, most ALD installations have been at coal drainage sites. It is

particularly

interesting because it does not rely on microorganisms which tend to be more

temperature dependent, so the application might be possible at colder temperature sites.

2.2.2 Constructed Wetlands

There are two types of wetlands used to treat mine drainage, aerobic and anaerobic/compost. As

mentioned

previously, observations by ecologists that wetlands are capable of treating water

and/or retaining toxics forms the basis of most passive treatment technologies.

It is possible for mine drainage to be net alkaline. If the metal of concern is iron an aerobic

wetland

is the best treatment option; aerobic treatment alone is rarely successful with other types

of metals. Net alkaline waters are able to buffer the additional hydrogen ions released during

metal hydrolysis reactions, for example: Fe

+3

+2H

2

O --> FeOOH + 3H

+

(EPA, Vol. 4). The

13

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

precipitation of metals is a purely chemical reaction and is not as temperature dependent as sulfate

precipitation common to anaerobic wetlands (EPA, Vol. 4). The main limiting factor for these

systems is metal precipitate build-up, these deposits may need to be removed to allow for

continued wetland operation. Robert Hedin has started a company that dredges this build-up and

sells it for use as pigment in dyes and paints.

When waters are net acidic, the pH must be raised and ideally the waters will be bought to net

alkaline

conditions. When iron and aluminum are the main contaminants then alkaline addition

followed by an aerobic settling pond is often used to precipitate metals and raise pH. The most

common wetland application for hard rock mines aims to establish sulfate-reducing bacteria under

anaerobic conditions and, as a result of the bacteria’s metabolic needs, metals are precipitated as

sulfides, see equations 17 &18. Anaerobic wetlands generally consist of organic substrate, often

compost, and can be mixed with lime to increase alkalinity (EPA, Vol. 4).

There are a variety of considerations when designing a constructed wetland, more information can

be

obtained in EPA's Volume 4: Coal Mine Drainage; Younger et al., 2002; and, Macalady, 1998.

Case Study: Burleigh Tunnel, part of the Clear Creek/Central City Superfund Site,

Colorado

This site is located in Idaho Springs, Colorado in a narrow valley with very harsh cold winters and

limited

sunlight year-round. This project was in operation for about 3 years before treatment

failed for a variety of reasons and was decommissioned.

The water exiting the Tunnel is roughly neutral with a pH of 6.5, with discharge averaging 60

gallons

per minute, elevated concentrations of bicarbonate buffer the mine water, and zinc is the

metal of most concern (J. Lewis, personal communication, 7/7/2003). The pilot system installed

is described as two “anaerobic compost wetlands in both upflow and downflow configurations,”

they were not designed to treat the entire flow, but only one-fourth, or 15 gpm - approximately

7.5 gpm in each cell (EPA, 2002b).

Each wetland was a 0.05-acre (2178 ft

2

) cell (a.k.a. “pit”) filled four feet deep with a mixture of

an organic-rich compost (96 percent) and alfalfa hay (4 percent). The cells were installed below

grade to reduce freezing and the earthen side walls were bermed.

The base of each cell was made up of a gravel subgrade, a 16 ounce geofabric, a sand layer, a clay

liner

, and a high-density polyethylene liner (EPA, 2002b). Geonets and geofabrics were applied in

order to: separate influent and effluent piping; hold compost in place in the upflow cell; separate

perforated PVC piping from the compost (EPA, 2002b). The geonet and perforated piping

ensured even distribution of the influent water into treatment cells and prevented short-circuiting

of water through the cells. For more details consult the EPA “SITE Technology” publication

listed in the bibliography as EPA 2002b.

The hydraulic system for the cell involved concrete v-notch weirs, one for influent and effluent for

each

cell. At some point the valves in the downflow cell became locked-up and could no longer

14

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

be operated; the time and reason are unknown (J. Lewis, personal communication, 7/16/2003).

Water entered the upflow cell under pressure at the bottom of the compost and exited from the

top; water entered the downflow cell at the top and flowed down by gravity, exiting at the bottom

(EPA, 2002b). A drainage collection structure was built within the Tunnel to build sufficient

hydraulic head to drive flow through the two cells (EPA, 2002b). A bypass system was also

constructed, though was not always effective (J. Lewis, personal communication, 7/16/2003).

During its three years in operation the upflow wetland removed an average of 93 percent of zinc

the

first year and 49 and 43 percent during the second and third years (EPA, 2002b). The

downflow wetland removed a mean of 77 percent of the zinc during the first year and 70 percent

the second year; flow was discontinued in the third year (EPA, 2002b). Based on aqueous

geochemical modeling, observations of cell compost, results of the sulfate-reducing bacteria

count, and acid volatile sulfide data, biological sulfate reduction was not the main removal

mechanism. Primary removal is thought to have occurred due to precipitation of zinc oxides,

hydroxides, and carbonates in aerobic portions of the cell. The upflow cell during the first six

months of operation had effluent levels of less than 1mg/L; concentrations began to increase near

the end of 1994 into 1995, by May 1997 concentrations had reached 60.1 mg/L (EPA, 2002b).

The cell suffered a significant blow in the spring of 1995. Heavy runoff increased the flow

through the cell to 20 gpm of aerobic water, and the increased flow also apparently mobilized

more zinc and substantially increased the zinc concentrations. After the increased flow, removal

efficiencies were around 43 to 49 percent, whereas before removal efficiency were more than 90

percent. In 1997 a visibly obvious preferential flow path developed and was eliminated. The

upflow cell was decommissioned in June of 1999. It is believed that the initial high removal rates

in the upflow cell are the result of adsorption and absorption along with biological sulfate

reduction; decline in removal rates is speculated be related to the decline in SRBs.

Currently there is no treatment being done at the Tunnel. The water seems to be entering the

subsurface,

it is unclear whether it is building up on the site, draining from the site, or traveling as

groundwater; however, sampling of water is indicating that zinc concentrations are within

regulatory standards of less than 200 micrograms/liter, the reason is undefined (J. Lewis, personal

communication, 7/16/2003).

This example is interesting because the design was to precipitate metal sulfides under anaerobic

conditions

, yet the predominate form of precipitate was that common to aerobic conditions. It

would be useful to gather information on the potential precipitates under aerobic conditions,

especially abiotic reactions.

2.2.3 Bioreactors

Passive bioreactors are lined trenches or pits that can contain a variety of materials, most

commonly

a mixture of cobbles, compost, other organic matter, and/or an alkaline agent.

Sometimes above ground tanks containing any variety of materials including those described

above and other trickling filter types of materials - common in bio-treatment of municipal waste­

15

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

water treatment used to establish appropriate microorganisms to precipitate metals and adjust pH

- are referred to as “bioreactors.” The tank type of bioreactor will not

be discussed in this paper,

though they are used to treat acid mine drainage. They are both legitimate in using the term,

“bioreactor” as they are using biological reactions to treat the waters. Arguably, the term

"bioreactor" would in fact include PRBs, SAPS, and wetlands. The distinction between them has

been made because the literature does so.

A. Case Study: Silver Bow County, Montana

Sulfate Reducing Bacteria (SRB) are the key to these bioreactors installed at the Calliope

abandoned mine site in Silver Bow County, Montana in the Fall of 1998 (Zaluski et al., 2000).

This project was funded by the EPA and jointly administered by the EPA and the Department of

Energy; the project was implemented by MSE Technology Applications in Butte, MT. Water that

flows through a collapsed adit discharges onto a large waste rock pile, upon exiting the pile the

water has an average pH of 2.6 and elevated metals concentrations; this water then flows into a

pond resulting in a pH of 3 to 5.5 depending on mixing ratios largely determined by the season.

In order to treat the mine drainage and conduct research to obtain knowledge about optimal

design characteristics three SRB reactors (II, III, and IV) with different attributes were designed.

Two of the three reactors were placed below grade (ground) to minimize temperature changes

and one above to study the effects of freezing. The reactors were filled with a combination of

organic carbon, cobbles, and/or crushed limestone . Each reactor had a fifty foot section of

cobble preceded by organic matter and/or limestone. Two of the three reactors had

“pretreatment” sections, which consisted of an additional five foot section of organic carbon and a

five foot section of crushed limestone; while the third one had only a five foot section of organic

matter.

The most notable obstacle to the success was when the flow through reactor II ceased due to

biofouling

and consequent plugging. The problem was quickly addressed within a month.

The reactors were monitored monthly for sulfate, alkalinity, SRB count, heterotrophic bacteria

count

, dissolved oxygen, Eh (a measure of redox potential), and metals including: aluminum, zinc,

cadmium, copper, iron, and manganese.

Overall, the results were positive, pH was increased and metals concentrations were reduced.

Comparison

of reactors shows that “initial increase of pH can largely be attributed to alkalinity

present within the organic substrate rather than to limestone” (Zalusk, et al., 2000). Once SRB

were established their metabolic reactions also contributed to pH increase.

Some of the more interesting findings when comparing the bioreactors included (Zalusk, et al.,

2000):

!

More organic matter leads to more organic matter fermentation reactions resulting

in an increase in temperature; this could be critical in cold climates.

16

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

!

Increased temperature leads to greater microbial activity.

!

Prior to SRB activity, adsorption of metals to organic substrate seems to be the

cause of concentration reductions.

B. Case Study: Champagne Creek - Butte, Idaho

The mine drainage from Moran Tunnel contributes low pH, metals-laden water discharging to

Champagne Creek. The project is being handled through the Bureau of Land Management’s

Abandoned Mine Lands Program in the State of Idaho. The watershed is 9.2 square miles,

moderately steep, at an elevation of 6060 feet, mostly covered by semi-arid rangeland. The

stream itself is only 4.5 miles long, it is consumed by alfalfa hay irrigation and does not reach a

receiving stream. The annual average precipitation is about 16 inches, the majority of runoff is

due to snowmelt; in times of extreme drought the stream will run dry (Moore & Kotansky, 2002).

Figure 4. Schematic of Champagne Creek Bioreactor (Moore & Kotansky, 2002)

Mining around Champagne Creek began around 1883 with the discovery of silver ores, this first

mine operation ended around 1887. In the late 1920s deeper base-metal sulfide ores were mined

for lead and zinc. Around this same time the Moran Tunnel was constructed with the hope of

intersecting the Last Chance vein at around 450 feet below the surface; the vein was never found.

The area was last mined in 1946.

The site underwent a Preliminary Assessment in 1985 and

a Site Investigation in 1988. The

Bureau of Land Management completed its own study in 1989. It was this report that required

17

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

additional water quality monitoring and a review of which passive treatment wetland system might

be able to be used (Moore & Kotansky, 2002).

In 1999 cleanup at the Moran Tunnel began. The first actions were removal of waste rock piles, a

17,500 cubic yard pile was placed in a repository above the flood plain; additional waste rock

totaling 2700 cubic yards from surrounding areas was also placed in this repository (Moore &

Kotansky, 2002). A four-cell passive bioreactor system was constructed based on SRB and lime

treatment. The cells consisted of organic material (manure and hay) to encourage SRB

establishment and limestone to neutralized acidic discharges (Moore & Kotansky, 2002). Berms

were also put into

place leading to the passive system; they were made up of lime and materials to encourage SRB

growth.

The system was effective in improving water quality for the first few months of operation (S.

Moore,

personal communication, 7/30/2003). The pH from pond 1 to pond 2 increased from 3.3

to 6.4. The first winter (1999-2000) after installation revealed lower metal discharges and a

decrease in SRB activity common during cold weather (Moore & Kotansky, 2002). The first

berm, made of “limestone and SRBs,” initially led to a decrease in aluminum and copper of nearly

100-percent, 92-percent of cadmium, 77-percent of zinc, and 65-percent of iron (Moore &

Kotansky, 2002). By May 0f 2000 the removal rates were nearly 100-percent aluminum and

copper, 91-percent iron, and 56-percent zinc (Moore & Kotansky, 2002).

In 2001 the passive treatment system was enhanced with the addition of an anaerobic treatment

tank

. It was added between the discharge from the Moran Tunnel and the first treatment pond.

The tank was put into place because water quality data indicated that the high concentration of

iron on the first pond was interfering with the effectiveness of the bioreactor berms in removing

zinc, copper, and buffering pH (Moore & Kotansky, 2002). Eventually, the tank also clogged and

performance of the system declined (S. Moore, personal communication, 7/30/2003).

The system has required recharge of the berms with “SRBs and limestone” and the addition of the

anaerobic

tank (Moore & Kotansky, 2002). This system has not yet proved to be a walk-away

solution, but BLM-Idaho are working on improving the system and carefully documenting efforts

so that lessons may be learned for future projects (S. Moore, personal communication,

7/30/2003).

18

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

2.2.4 Successive Alkalinity

Producing Systems

Successive Alkalinity Producing

Systems have the following basic

elements: organic mulch layer,

limestone layer, and a drainage

system - most include a flushing

system as well. This technology

was created in the early 1990's by

Kepler and McCleary (Younger et

al., 2002). The idea is that mine

Figure 5. General Schematic of a SAPS Available at:

drainage flows into the tops of the

http://sudan.cses.vt.edu/prp/Research_Results/SAPS.html

cell creating a top layer of water

which prevents the infiltration of

oxygen into the bottom layers

(water is also used in this way in tailings holding dams). The organic layer serves to remove

dissolved oxygen from the water, farther down anaerobic conditions support the establishment of

sulfate-reducing bacteria. The anaerobic environment is a reducing environment that changes

Fe

+3

to Fe,

+2

thereby reducing the likelihood of iron hydroxide precipitation, see equation 3. Since

these units encourage reducing conditions and establishment of SRB, a major contribution to the

treatment of the water, these units are sometimes referred to as RAPS - Reducing and Alkalinity

Producing Systems (Younger et al, 2002). Finally, the water enters the limestone region,

essentially devoid of oxygen preventing the armoring of limestone. Upon leaving the SAPS the

water is usually directed to an aerobic settling pond or wetland to allow metals to form

precipitates and further water polishing (Kepler & McCleary, 2003).

Many SAPS include flushing systems because as one would imagine oxidation and reduction of

Fe and Al leads to precipitates that can clog the cell (Rees et al., 2001). The flushing systems

generally operate by generating head differences that move water rapidly through the system

(Kepler & McCleary, 2003).

SAPS tend to be more efficient than anaerobic wetlands and require less space to provide the

same

level of treatment (Younger et al., 2002). SAPS require some maintenance, not only for

periodic flushing, but also to prevent or correct the development of preferential flow paths,

possible in any of these passive systems (Kepler & McCleary, 2003; Rees et al., 2001). If

preferential flow paths develop the water short circuits the system. They also require driving head

and freeboard resulting in topographic relief requirements of greater than five meters (Younger et

al., 2002).

19

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

A. Case Study: Oven Run, Pennsylvania

The watershed protection group Stoneycreek - Conemaugh River Improvement Project (SCRIP)

located

in western Pennsylvania, has initiated and completed multiple projects to improve their

watershed. During a phone conversation with Dave , who is directly involved in this project, it

was revealed that many of their remediation projects utilize SAPS (personal communication,

6/18/2003). Oven Run is one of the larger sites handled by SCRIP, it has six sources of highly

acidic, metals-laden drainage totaling

720,000 gallons a day (Oven Run). Projected costs were

$5 million, actual costs were $4.1 million (D. Steel, personal communication, 6/18/2003). Five of

the six sources are treated using SAPS, the sixth has been backfilled. The first SAPS was

installed in 1995, the last in 2003.

So far treatment has been successful in

removing metals and acidity, while

generating alkalinity. Not including the

most recently installed SAPS, pH at

downstream monitoring points have

increased from the 3 to 4 range to the 5 to

6 range and 200 tons of iron and 200 tons

of aluminum are removed each year. In

addition, the samples showed some

alkalinity, which is particularly impressive

because other acidic waters drain into the

creek after Oven Run, so the treated

waters are able to buffer some of the

additional pollution.

Figure 6. Oven Run, SAPS, Available at:

http://www.ctcnet.net/scrip/stoven.htm

B. Case Study: #40 Gowen, Gaines

Watershed. Oklahoma

This is a former coal mining site experiencing

the

typical aliments, acidity and elevated metals

concentrations, mostly iron. This project was

commissioned in 1998 with the help of an EPA

Region 8 Section 319 grant and the Oklahoma

Conservation Commission, by the University

of Oklahoma (EPA, 2002c). This site,

amongst other AMD sites, was designated as

having the greatest impact on Pitt Creek, a

Figure 7. SAPS cell (“Section 319 Success Stories”

Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/OK

.htm

20

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

tributary to Gaines Creek which drains into Lake Eufaula (EPA

2002c). The Gaines Creek Watershed is located in Pittsburg

and Latimer counties. The treatment design is a four-cell

system with alternating vertical flow wetland (though figure

shows little more than ornamental plant-life) and surface flow

aerobic ponds. The project budget was $125,000 and was

installed in 1998. To avoid confusion, the vertical flow cell is

what would typically be defined as a SAPS though some define

the entire alternating system as a SAPS as well. The vertical

flow cell consists of a layer of water on top, followed by 1

meter of compost mixed with limestone and flyash and a

cobble-fill pipe drainage system (EPA, 2002c).

There was not enough space at this site to construct a system

that

would be able to treat the entire flow; the system treats

approximately 7600 gallons per day (EPA, 2002c). The

desand ign

7,000

was

grbamases

d

per

on “day

conotaf maciindianty t lanoadid

inrogs n”

of

(EabPAou,

t

2002c)18,000 .

pumFigurpie ng

8.

wSecll

hePmRBat

.

ic of Non-

Removal rates for acidity are estimated to be 30 - 40

gram/meter

2

- day; the total surface area is approximately

750 meter

2

.

The system has been in operation for two years and monitored every two weeks. Though actual

data

could not be obtained, the report about the project on EPA’s website indicates that

“concentrations of iron, aluminum, and manganese have decreased significantly,” pH of the final

effluent is at 6 and alkalinity is above 150 milligram/liter (EPA, 2002c). Trace metals - barium,

cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, and lead - were reduced to near or below detection

levels. A recent biological survey counted 2000 healthy populations of fish and

macroinvertebrates in three of four cells.

This project is of particular interest because it is the first successful passive treatment AMD

treatment

project carried out in Oklahoma (EPA, 2002c). The success of this project has spurred

the state to use this wetland design at the Tar Creek Superfund site in Ottawa county, Oklahoma,

and is being investigated for application in several watershed nationwide (EPA, 2002c).

2.2.5 Permeable Reactive Barriers

Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRBs) are exactly what they sound like: barriers that react with

specific

chemicals of concern that are placed in the path of groundwater flow allowing the water

to flow through easily (Blowes et. al, 2000). In PRBs designed to treat acid mine drainage

(AMD) with metals contamination the barrier is generally composed of solid organic matter, like

municipal compost, leaf compost, and wood chips/sawdust (Blowes, et. al., 2000). Organic

matter encourages the proliferation of sulfate-reducing bacteria that will reduce sulfate to sulfide

21

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

and will result in the subsequent formation of insoluble metal sulfides which has been described

with regards to bioreactors, please see equations 17 & 18. Research has been done to evaluate

the efficiency of using PRBs to remove uranium contamination at abandoned mine sites; possible

reactive materials are zero-valent iron, bone char phosphate, and amorphous ferric oxyhyroxide

(Naftz, et al., 1999).

One important consideration in the design of a PRB to treat AMD is the stability of the metal

sulfides

(Blowes, et. al., 2000). Sulfides have low solubility in anaerobic conditions, if oxidation

were to occur, metals could be released from their metal sulfide form into the environment

(Blowes, et. al., 2000). An example of designing to prevent oxidation is illustrated by a project at

Nickel Rim Mine, Sudbury, Ontario. The designers considered the implications of an oxidizing

agent in the flow of groundwater and the PRB was covered by a 20cm saturated clay cap to

prevent oxygen infiltration (Blowes, et. al., 2000).

Although not discussed much in this paper, former uranium mines are also a serious concern

Naftz

et al. conducted a field demonstration using six different PRBs to study the removal

efficiencies of uranium at a site in southeastern Utah (1999). There were four different reactive

media and two design types. Three of the PRBs were “funnel and gate” types, the gate is where

the reactive media is located and the funnel is two impermeable walls directing groundwater to the

gate. Each gate was consisted of a different material: (1) bone char phosphate (PO

4

) pellets, the

phosphate source facilitates the formation of insoluble uranyl phosphate compounds; (2) zero

valent iron (ZVI) pellets which induce the reduction of uranium (VI) to the less soluble uranium

(IV); and (3) pelletized amorphous ferric oxyhydroxides (AFO) which remove uranium by

adsorption to the ferric oxide surface (Naftz et al., 1999). The other three PRBs were six-inch

diameter non-pumping wells consisting of different proportions of bone char phosphate and

foamed iron oxide pellets; the phosphate will adsorb to the iron pellets to allow access for

formation of uranyl phosphate compounds (Naftz, et al., 1999). The hypothesis is that wells will

allow for contact with deeper plumes and will be more suitable for remote locations (Naftz et al.,

1999).

Results of the field demonstration were positive. After one year of operation and seven sampling

events

the funnel the ZVI barrier removed >99.9 percent consistently, the PO

4

barrier removed

>90 percent on all but two of the seven sampling events, and the AFO barrier varied the most but

still removed an average of 88.1 percent (Naftz, et al., 1999, Table 1). Data from the wells spans

only three months and the results are not quite as impressive, but still reasonable; the average of

removal rates overall was 67 percent (Naftz et al., 1999)

PRBs are a relatively new technology and work is continually being done to optimize installations.

As

it is often helpful to learn from past error a brief discussion of common problems of PRB

performance is presented (Blowes, et. al., 2000).

22

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

1) Although barriers often have very long theoretical treatment lifetimes when only the material

and the contaminants of concern are considered, actual lifetimes are considerably shorter due to

the presence of other reactive substances in the environment;

2) Chemical reactions can be slowed due to depletion of reactive component of the barrier;

3) Precipitation of a secondary reactive precipitate can reduce the reactive surface area;

4) Physical clogging or preferential path flow.

2.2.6 Biosolids

Biosolids are treated municipal sewage sludge; the EPA defines biosolids as follows:

“...the nutrient-rich organic materials resulting

from the treatment of sewage sludge (the

name for the solid, semisolid or liquid untreated residue generated during the treatment of

domestic sewage in a treatment facility). When treated and processed, sewage sludge

becomes biosolids which can be safely recycled and applied as fertilizer to sustainably

improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth.”

Biosolids have a growing number of useful applications and the search for more continues as

population

and hence sludge production increases. Biosolids are being used to reclaim mine lands

(Murray et al., 1981; Sopper, 1993; Toffey, 2003) and have also been used for agricultural

purposes. There are federal standards, namely Section 103C of the Clean Water Act and state

standards that have to be met in order to apply biosolids to land. Over a twenty-five year period,

the field experience with biosolids continues to demonstrate clear environmental benefits and

negligible adverse effects (Sopper, 1993; EPA; Toffey, 2003).

When reclaiming mine sites biosolids are almost always applied with lime, either pre-mixed or in

stages

(R. Bastian, personal communication, 6/2/2003). Lime serves to increase the pH of the soil

rapidly. Lime application alone may not be sufficient for long term improvement in the soil

characteristics because the pH will eventually decline as sulfur-bearing minerals are oxidized

(Sopper, 1993). However, biosolids application without lime has in some cases raised the soil pH

and decreased availability of metals (Sopper, 1993).

Biosolids also show advantages over chemical fertilizers (Sopper, 1993) because they provide a

source

of carbon and capacity for moisture retention which are conducive to microbial and plant

growth. This is important for the establishment of a long-term self-sustaining system. Sopper

summarizes that biosolids application re-establishes a functioning microbial population comparable

to undisturbed levels within two or three years of application, much more quickly than with

traditional chemical treatment (1993).

23

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

The application of biosolids does not necessarily reduce the amount of metals present in the soil.

In a draft report for the EPA, Maxemchuk explains that tailings sites treated with biosolids do not

experience a reduction in total metals, rather metals availability is reduced (2001). Metals are

immobilized through precipitation as carbonates, phosphates, sulfides, silicates and sorption by

organic matter, and hydroxides (Sopper, 1993). In some cases vegetation may be responsible for

immobilizing the metals, or might even remove the metals from the soil, also known as phyto­

extraction.

There is ample evidence to support the use of biosolids in reclaiming

mine lands. It is a cost-

efficient method for reducing potential harm to the environment and its occupants. It is

particularly attractive when the other options are removal and/or capping. Removal is generally

expensive, especially when sites are very large and this approach just relocates the waste material,

posing a potential problem at a new location. Capping alone can prevent further exacerbation of

the problem, but will not help to re-establish a functioning ecosystem at the site unless natural soils

are used. The use of natural soils as caps on large area sites is impractical, expensive and leaves

“borrowed” areas highly disturbed and subject to intense erosion. Biosolids provide an apparently

indefinite solution to contaminated sites because metals of concern are complexed, reducing their

bioavailability, and the health of the A-horizon in the soil profile is improved. This allows

vegetation to replenish itself - stabilizing and improving the health of the ecosystem in the area.

A. Case Study: Frostburg, Maryland

This project is a testament to the longevity of the use of biosolids in the reclamation of mine lands.

The

field plot experiments were installed in 1974 on a former strip mine. The site had been

completely devoid of vegetation for four years (Griebel et al., 1979). The overburden and rock

wastes resulted in a dark-colored, acidic - pH of 2.9, spoil material (Griebel et al., 1979).

A total of nine test plots 3.6m x 4.5m were installed. There were three basic applications tested:

biosolid

compost alone, biosolid compost with rock phosphate, and biosolid compost with

dolomitic limestone (Griebel et al., 1979). For each of these three scenarios biosolids were applied

in three different amounts: 56 metric tons per hectare (mt/ha), 112 mt/ha, and 224 mt/ha (Griebel

et al., 1979). The biosolids were supplied by the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant in

Washington, DC. They were then composted at ARS-MES Composting Facility in Beltsville,

Maryland. When sewage sludge is composted the material becomes more humus-like and excess

heat and water are driven off and decreases in the availability of certain metals results (Griebel et

al., 1979). Both rock phosphate and dolomitic limestone were applied at the rate of 11 mt/ha. In

addition, each plot received 110 kg/ha of nitrogen in the form of NH

4

NO

3

. A grass legume seed

mixture was applied at 40 kg/ha and Empire birdsfoot trefoil,

Lotus Coniculatus L.

, was applied at

10 kg/ha (Griebel et al., 1979)

24

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

After two years the vegetation was harvested and analyzed for yield and metals uptake into the

plants. Soil conditions were also analyzed.

After two years the control plot had a pH of 3.1, the test plots had pH’s as seen in the table below.

The plots with the maximum biosolid application had the most improved pH; interestingly the

difference between compost alone and compost with alkaline amendments did not differ

significantly.

pH of the Soil Two Years After Biosolids Application

56 mt/ha of biosolid

112 mt/ha of biosolid

224 mt/ha of biosolid

compost alone

4.2

3.9

5.0

compost & rock

phosphate

4.5

4.8

5.1

compost & dolomitic

limestone

4.6

4.8

5.1

Adapted from Griebel et al., 1979

Plant yields, shown in figure 9, below are from a single harvest taken during the second growth

season (Griebel et al., 1979). Overall the results are positive, and certainly better than the control

plot with no amendments.

Figure 9. Plant biomass yields two years after

biosolids application (Griebel et al., 1979, figure

25-1)

25

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Figure 10. Relationship between total plant metals and rates of application of

biosolids and other amendments (Griebel et al., 1979, figure 25.8)

One of the more interesting things to note is that the “lowest compost treatment (56 mt/ha), used

in combination with either rock phosphate or dolomite, provides yields equal to those obtained

with 112 mt/ha compost alone” (Griebel et al., 1979. p. 296). Furthermore, the highest rate of

compost alone (224 mt/ha) was exceeded only when the same amount was applied with dolomitic

limestone (Griebel et al., 1979).

A common concern when applying biosolids at metals contaminated sites with the intention of

establishing

vegetation is that the vegetation will accumulate high levels of metals that could

potentially be a hazard to wildlife. In this study the observed metal concentrations of Cu, Zn, Ni,

and Cd in vegetation were well within the range of concentrations found in vegetation produced on

regular agricultural soils (Griebel et al., 1979). Figure x shows the concentrations of the metals

with respect to each amendment combination. It is obvious from studying the graphs that the

addition of limestone or phosphate rock reduces the amount of metals taken up by the plants,

generally to around the levels found in the control plot’s vegetation.

B. Case Study: Leadville, Colorado

Biosolids were applied at the Leadville site to revegetate the alluvial tailings deposits that were

washed

in and around the Arkansas River. The tailings have been deposited at various locations

26

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

along an 11-mile stretch of the river. This has created a

variety of environmental problems including acidic soils in

the range of pH 1.5-4.5, Zn and Pb salt formation on the

soil surface, sedimentation in the river of up to two feet in

some spots, and death of vegetation leading to erosion of

river banks (“Upper Arkansas,

”

2000).

Biosolids provided by Denver Metro were applied to

portions

of the site at a rate of 100 dry tons/acre in August

of 1998 (“Upper Arkansas,” 2000). Approximately 100

tons/ac of lime were also applied; both were tilled into the

soil at a depth of twelve inches (“Upper Arkansas,” 2000).

A variety of soil amendment combinations were also

bapiopsloield ids

to

anted

st

alpkallots

ine

at

agenthe

st iwote,

ulto d

dpreteormmoitne e

twhe

himch

osmt

ix of

Fisogurils e

in

11.

LeaMdveilletal ,

salCO

t accumon

the

ulbanks

ation onof

the

vegetation. During a visit to the site in July of 2003 it

Arkansas River, (Upper Arkansas, 2000).

appeared that the applications were working quite well.

2.2.7 Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation suggests the use of plants to treat or remove contamination. Wong defines the

term

as, “the use of green plants and their associated microbiota, soil amendments, and agronomic

techniques to remove, contain, or render harmless environmental contaminants (2003). Though

there are a wide variety of subcategories in the field of phytoremediation only four will be

discussed in this paper, phytoextraction/phtyomining, phytostabilization, rhizofiltration, and

phytovolatilization. For more information about other technologies, consult US EPA’s

Introduction to Phytoremediation.

Phytoextraction, or phytomining if metals can be recovered, is defined as:

“the uptake of contaminants by plant roots and translocation within the plants. This

concentration technology leaves a much smaller mass to be disposed of than does

excavation of the soil or other media” (EPA, 2000, p. 143).

There are a limited number of plants known to be capable of this and climate determines what

species

can be used. Phyto-mining requires that the plants be “hyperaccumulators,” i.e., they will

uptake more than the average concentration of metals. According to Brooks et al., there are about

300 species that hyperaccumulate nickel, 26 cobalt, 24 copper, 19 selenium, 16 zinc, 11

manganese, one thallium and one cadmium (1998). Although these numbers are encouraging there

are few field applications. An important consideration in applying phytoextraction, especially with

the use of hyperaccumulators, is whether the resulting vegetation will be hazardous to local

animals; this possibility varies from site to site (Wong, 2003).

27

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Phytostabilization is fairly common with regards to mining sites, it is a common practice to

revegetate spoiled mine lands to prevent soil erosion and deposition of contaminated soils in

streams and nearby lands. The EPA defines it as:

“(1) immobilization of a contaminant in soil through adsorption and accumulation

by roots,

adsorption onto roots, or precipitation within the root zone of plants, and (2) the use of

plants and plant roots to prevent contaminant migration via wind and water erosion,

leaching, and soil dispersion” (EPA, 2000, p. 21).

Ideal plants for this technique use metal-tolerant, drought-resistant, fast growing crops that can

also

grow in nutrient deficient soils (Wong, 2003). The advantages are that it is a relatively

inexpensive technique, soils do not need to be removed, ecosystem restoration is enhanced, and

disposal of hazardous materials or biomass is not required (EPA, 2000). Disadvantages are that

the contaminants remain in place - care must be taken to ensure that the vegetation continues to

stabilize the metals; extensive fertilization or soil modification may be necessary; plant uptake and

translocation of metals must be prevented; root zones, root exudates, contaminants, and soil

amendments must be monitored to prevent an increase in metal solubility and leaching; it may only

be considered a temporary measure; stabilization might be due primarily to the effects of soil

amendments, with plants only contributing to stabilization by decreasing the amount of water

moving through the soil and by physically stabilizing the soil against erosion (EPA, 2000). The

application of biosolids fits well with this phytoremediation technique as it provides necessary

fertilizing agents and aids in microorganism establishment.

Rhyzofiltration involves the removal of contaminants in solution through adsorption or

precipitation

onto plant roots or absorption into the roots, this can also be achieved by the

microorganisms associated with the rhizosphere (EPA, 2000; Wong, 2003). This technology is

applied in water, that is the plants are either aquatic plants or terrestrial plants on a floating

platform (EPA, 2000). Contaminants can be physically removed by removing the plants

themselves. Some of the disadvantages to this technology include a need for good control over

pH, and a clear understanding of the chemical speciation and interaction of all species in the

influent (EPA, 2000). In addition to this, control over influent concentration and flow rate may be

necessary, plants may need to be grown and then translocated to the site (especially terrestrial

plants), periodic harvesting and disposal are required, and laboratory results might not be

achievable in the field (EPA, 2000). Phytovolatilization has been identified as a potential

treatment for mercury and selenium contaminated soils (Chaney, et al., 1997; EPA, 2000).

Phytovolatilization is defined by the EPA as,

“...uptake and transpiration of a contaminant by plant, with release of the contaminant or a

modified form of the contaminant to the atmosphere from the plant through contaminant

uptake, plant metabolism, and plant transportation” (EPA, 2000).

This process is beneficial if the contaminants of concern will be transformed to less-toxic forms, for

example

elemental mercury and dimethyl selenite gas. The disadvantages are uncertainty about

28

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

metabolites, unhealthy plant accumulation, and uncertainty about other constituents at the site, i.e.,

where there is one form of contamination there could be many more and one must understand how

they will react with the plants as well. For more information including references and plant species

appropriate for the different technologies discussed here please see the following reference:

Introduction to Phytoremediation, 2000; Wong, 2003; Brooks et al., 1998; Brooks, 1998; and,

Madejon et al., 2003.

3.0 Conclusion

Given the seriousness and scale of mine drainage it is important to continue to work towards

affordable and effective treatment options. The passive treatments discussed in this paper are

exhibiting mixed success, results are encouraging but not the “walk-away,” cheap solution that

they are sometimes described to be. Still the innovative treatments discussed here are showing

progress and with further research and performance analysis these technologies may become more

widely used in the future. While there are drawbacks to traditional treatments, there are some

benefits that make them widespread and in some cases the preferred alternative.

As with almost any topic, there is need for more work, some of the more pressing areas include

communication

, funding, and research about fundamental processes that cause precipitation of

metals. Many of the people contacted for this report expressed their desire for a better line of

communication and access to information about similar projects. The database created in

conjunction with this report began to create a place to access project information, though it is not a

complete picture of the efforts being done. Regional communication between parties working with

similar geology and climate would probably be the most useful effort as the performance of passive

treatments seems to be greatly affected by these factors. Funding, or lack thereof, is a serious

issue especially for hard rock sites. As previously mentioned, non-coal states are not eligible for

SMCRA funds and states that are eligible must address coal-related issues before hard rock.

Considering the number of hard rock sites it does not seem reasonable to rely on existing federal

and state environmental funds, for example CERCLA and CWA, to sponsor remediation efforts.

As mentioned earlier in this paper, some states are making efforts to identify and remedy this

funding problem. Research about the precipitation of metals has been done, however, the

differences from site to site in geology, hydrology, climate, and chemistry make general application

of this information quite difficult. Each site must be addressed separately to account for the

variations that occur in nature. As experience builds and information is shared the application of

passive technologies will improve.

4.0 References

Bastian, Robert (EPA-Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response). Personal communication.

2 June 2003.

29

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Blowes, David W., Ptacek, Carol J, Benner, Shawn G., McRae, Che, Bennett, Timothy A., & Puls,

Robert W. (2000) Treatment of inorganic contaminants using permeable reactive barriers.

Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 45 (1-2), 123-137.

Brooks, R. R. (ed.) (1998). Plants that hyperaccumulate metals their role in phytoremediation,

microbiology

, archaeology, mineral exploration, and phytominig. CAB International: 1998.

Brooks, Robert R. Chambers, Michael F., Nicks, Larry J., and Robinson, Brett H. (1998)

Phytomining

. Trends in Plant Science, 3 (9), 359-362.

Chaney, Rufus L., Malik, Minnie, Li, Yin M., Brown, Salley, Brewer, Eric P., Angle, J. Scott, and

Baker

, Alan JM. (1997). Phytoremediation of soil metals. Current Opinion in

Biotechnolgoy, 8 (3), 279-284.

Cravotta, Charles A. & Watzlat, George R. (2002) “Design and Performance of Limestone Drains

to

Increase pH and Remove Metals From Acid Mine Drainage.” In: Handbook of

Groundwater Remediation Using Permeable Reactive Barriers: applications to

radionuclides, trace metals, and nutrients. (See Naftz, et. al. 2002 below).

Dempsey, Brian A. & Jeon, Byong-Hun. (2001) Characteristics of sludge produced from passive

treatment

of mine drainage. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis, 1, 89-94.

Encarta®® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] ©© & (P)2003 Microsoft

Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

www.encarta.msn.com

Forba, Russ (EPA-Region 8). Personal communication. 20 June, 2003.

Griebel, George, E., Arminger, Walter H., Parr, James, E., Steck, D.W., and Adam, J.A.. (1979).

“Use

of Composted Sewage Sludge in Revegetation of Surface-Mined Areas.” Utilization

of Municipal Sewage Sludge Effluent and Sludge on Forest and Disturbed Land. Sopper,

William E. and Kerr, Sonja, N. (eds.) Pennsylvania: The Penn State University Press.

Gusek, James, J. and Wildeman, Dr. Thomas R (1995). New Developments in Passive Treatment

of Acid Rock Drainage. This article is from the South African Mining Delegation Seminar.

Denver, CO, USA. Aug. 24 - Sept. 4, 1998. (First presentated at: Engineering Foundation

Conference on Technical Solutions For Pollution Prevention in the Mining & Mineral

Processing Industries, Palm

Coast, Florida. Jan 22-27 1995.)

30

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Gusek, James J. (1996). Passive Treatment of Acid Rock Drainage: What is the Potential Bottom

Line? International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics

Abstracts, 33, (2) 95A.

Gusek, James J. (1998). (Knight Piesold, LLC; 1050 Seventeenth St., Suite 500; Denver, CO

80265-0500)

. Three Case Histories of Passive Treatment of Metal Mine Drainage. This

article is from the South African Mining Delegation Seminar. Denver, CO, USA. Aug. 24 ­

Sept. 4, 1998.

Hedin, Robert S., Narin, Robert W., Kleinmann, Robert L. P. (1994). Passive Treatment of Coal

Mine Drainage. Bureau of Land Mines Information Circular 9389.

Holmes, Michael. (EPA-Region 8). Personal communication. 22 July, 2003.

Hopey, Don. (2001, August 10). Seeing Red and Profit from Mine Iron Oxide Touted for Paint,

Hair

Dye. Pittsburgh Post – Gazette. pp. B-4.

Kepler, D. & McCleary, E. (Damariscotta). (2003). Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems ­

for

the 2003 West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force Symposium. Available at:

http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/landrec/2003TFS/Kepler03.pdf.

Lauzon, Shelly (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution). (2002, March). New Iron Eating

Microbe

Major Component of Mining Pollution and Iron and Sulfur Cycling.

Available at: http://www.whoi.edu/media/IronEatingMicrobe.html

Lewis, Jim (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment). Personal communication.

16 July, 2003.

Macalady, Donald L. (Ed.). (1998) Passive Bioremediation of Metals and Inorganic

Contaminants. Perspectives in Environmental Chemistry. New York: Oxford University

Press. p 473-495.

Madejon, P., Murillo, J. M., Maranon, T, Cabrera, F, and Soriano, M.A. (2003,

May) Trace

elements and nutrient accumulation in sunflower plants two years after the Aznalcollar

mine spill. The Science of the Total Environment, 307. (1-3) pp. 239-257.

Welch, E. B. (1980). Ecological Effects of Waste Water.

New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

31

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Matlock, Matthew M., Howerton, Brock S., & Atwood, David A. (2002). Chemical Precipitation

of heavy metals from acid mine drainage. Water Research 36, 4757-4764.

Matlock, Matthew M., Howerton, Brock S., & Atwood, David A. (2003). Irreversible binding of

mercury

from contaminated soil. Advances in Environmental Research 7, 347-352.

Matlock, Matthew M., Howerton, Brock, S., Aelstyn, Michael Van, Henke, Kevin, R, and

Atwood

, David A. (2003). Soft metal preferences of 1,3-benzenediamidoethanethiol.

Water Research, 37, 579-584.

Maxemchuk, Amanda. (2002). DRAFT of Final Report: Assessment of Ecological Risk From

Untreated

Mine Tailings and the California Gulch Superfund Site in Leadville, Colorado,

Phase IV: August 2001 Sampling Event. [Prepared for Harry Compton & Mark Sprenger

of EPA].

Mineral Policy Center. (2003). Cleaning Up Abandoned Hardrock Mines.

Available

at: http://www.mineralpolicy.org/us/abandoned.php

Moore, Steve. (Bureau of Land Management). Personal communication. 30 July, 2003.

Moore, Steve and Kotansky, Dan (US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Managment,

Abandoned

Mine Lands, Idaho) (Feb. 2002). AML Project Notebook: Project Name:

Champagne Creek Restoration. Available at:

http://www.id.blm.gov/aml/projects/champagne/index.htm

Murry, Douglas T., Townsend, Steven A., and Sopper, William E. (1981)

Using Sludge to

Reclaim Mineland. BioCycle, 22 (3), 48-55.

Naftz, David L., Morrison. Stan J., Davis, James A., & Fulter, Christopher (Eds.). (2002).

Handbook of Groundwater Remediation Using Permeable Reactive Barriers: applications

to radionuclides, trace metals, and nutrients. San Diego, California: Academic Press.

[ISBN: 0-12-513563-7]

Naftz, David L., Davis, J.A., Fuller, C.C., Morrison, S.J., Freethey, G.W., Feltcom, R.G.,

Wilhelm

, M.J., Piana, J. Joye, and Rowland, R.C. (1999).

Field Demonstration of

Permeable Reactive Barriers to Control Radionuclide and Trace-Element Contamination

in Ground Water from Abandoned Mine Lands

. U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances

Hydrology Program - Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Charleston, South Caroline,

March 8 -12. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4018A, Volume 1,

Contamination from Hard-Rock Mining. Available at: http://toxics.usgs.gov/pubs/wri99-

4018/

32

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Nash, J. Thomas (2002). Hydrogeochemical Investigations of Historic Mining Districts, Central

Western Slope of Colorado, Including Influence on Surface-Water Quality. U.S. Dept. of

the Interior: U.S. Geological Survey. USGS Digital Data Series DDS-73 Version 1.0.

Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/2002/dds-073/dds-073.pdf

Nuttall, Charlotte A., Younger, Paul L. Zinc removal from hard, circum-neutral mine waters using

a novel closed-bed limestone reactor. Water Research, 34 1262-1268.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Governor Frank Keating’s Tar Creek Superfund

Task

Force, Water Quality Subcommittee Task 2 Report, Water Quality Improvement

Alternatives. (2000, Sept. 7). Available at:

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/LPDnew/Tarcreek/WQTask2FinalReport.PDF

Oven Run Project: Project Key to Making Stonycreek a Net Alkaline System.

Available

at: http://www.ctcnet.net/scrip/stoven.htm

Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. (2002). Draft Final Expanded Engineering Evaluation/Cost

Analysis(EEE/CA)

For the McLaren Tailings Site; Cooke City, Montana. Prepared for:

Mr. John Koerth, Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality - Mine Waste Cleanup Bureau.

http://www.deq.state.mt.us/Rem/mwc/download.asp

Rees, Ben., Bowell, Rob, Dey, Matt, & Williams, Keith. (2001). Performance of a Successive

Alkalinity Producing System (SAPS). Available at:

http://www.srk.co.uk/news/SAPS_Manuscript.pdf

Sasowsky, Ira D., Foos, Annabelle, & Miller, Christopher M. (2000).

Lithic controls on the

removal of iron and remediation of acidic mine drainage. Water Research, 34. (10) pp.

2742-2746.

Sopper, William E. (1993). Municipal Sludge Use in Land Reclamation. Lewis Publishers: Boca

Raton.

Steele, Dave (District Manager of Somerset County Conservation District). Personal

communication

. 18 June. 2003.

Stephens, James F., Rogers, Robert S., Fields, Phillip K. (2001, March)

Conservation Practices

for the Reclamation of Surface Mines in Arkansas. Arkansas Department of Environmental

Quality, Surface Mining and Reclamation Division. Available at:

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/mining/pdfs/handbook.pdf

33

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems for Renovation of Acid Mine Drainage. [associated with

Virginia Tech, Powell River Project]. Available at:

http://sudan.cses.vt.edu/prp/Research_Results/SAPS.html

Toffey, William. (2003) Twenty-five Year of Mine Reclamation with Biosolids in Pennsylvania.

From Conference Proceedings : RevTech: Cleaning Up Contaminated Properties for Reuse

and Revitalization: Effective Technical Approaches and Tools, USEPA Technology

Innovation Office. July 22-24, 2003. Marriott City Center, Pittsburgh, PA.

Upper Arkansas River Alluvium Remediation: Biosolids Demonstration, Leadville, CO (2000)

.

Available at : http://faculty.washington.edu/clh/leadville.html

U.S. Department of the Interior (2002a) : Office of Surface Mining. Abandoned Mine Land

Program.

Unreclaimed Problems: Public Health & Safety Coal Related High Priority

Problems (Priority 1 & 2). Available at: http://www.osmre.gov/aml/remain/zintroun.htm.

U.S. Department of the Interior (2002b) : Office of Surface Mining. Acid Mine Drainage

Treatment Techniques and Costs. Available at : http://www.osmre.gov/amdtcst.htm

U.S. Department of the Interior (2003a) : Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.

White paper on: “People Potentially at Risk From Priority 1 & 2 AML Hazards”

Available: http://www.osmre.gov/pdf/wp041703.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior (2003b) : Bureau of Land Management: Abandoned Mine Lands

Cleanup Program. Frequently Asked Questions. Available at:

http://www.blm.gov/aml/faqs.htm

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1996). Federal Land Management: Information on Efforts to

Inventory Abandoned Hard Rock Mines. Washington, DC. Available at:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=rc

96030.pdf&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993a). [Wildeman, Thomas, Dietz, John, Gusek, James,

Morea,

Susan.] Colorado School of Mines - Constructed Wetland-Based Treatment.

EPA/540/R-93/523. Full Report available at:

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/reports.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993b). Emerging Technology Summary: Handbook for

Constructed

Wetlands Receiving Acid Mine Drainage. EPA/540/SR-93/523.

34

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1999). Review of Passive Systems for Treatment of Acid

Mine Drainage: MEND (Mine Environment Neutral Drainage Program) Report 3.14.1.

May 1996: revised 1999. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/NE/superfund/sites/elizmine/43547mend.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000), National Risk Management Research Laboratory,

Office of Research and Development. Introduction to Phytoremediation. EPA/600/R-

99/107.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (2001)

.

Abandoned Mine Site Characterization and Cleanup Handbook. EPA530-R-01-002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002a). Biosolids.

Available

at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biosolids/index.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002b). SITE Technology Capsule: Anaerobic Compost

Constructed

Wetlands Technology. EPA/540/R-02/506a.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002c). Section 319 Success Stories, Vol. III: Acid

Mine

Drainage Treatment Wetlands: A Sustainable Solution for Abandoned Mine Problems.

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/OK.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003). Active NPL Sites: California Gulch. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/sites/co/calgulch.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Handbook of Constructed Wetlands: Volume 4 Coal

Mine

Drainage. 843F00003. [Search for document title or number at

http://www.epa.gov/clariton/clhtml/pubtitleOW.html]

Wong, M.H. (2003) Ecological Restoration of Mine Dredged Soils, With Emphasis On Metal

Contaminated

Soils. Chemosphere Issue 6, 775-780.

Younger, Paul, Banwart, Steven A, Hedin, Robert, S. (2002) Mine Water: Hydrology,

Pollution, Remediation. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Zaluski, Marek, Trudnowski, John, Canty, Marietta, Baker, Mary Ann Harrington (MSE

Technology

Applications, Inc. Butte, Montana). Performance of Field-Bioreactors with

Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria to Control Acid Mine Drainage

.

Fifth International Conference

35

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

on Acid Rock Drainage, 20-26 May, 2000, Denver, CO Society for Mining, Metallurgy,

and Exploration, Inc. (SME), Littleton, CO. ISBN: 0-87335-182-7. Vol 2, p 1169-1175.

36

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Appendix A: State Mine Reclamation/Remediation Status

This section presents state programs and activities that address abandoned mines. The focus was

limited to Western states dealing with hard rock mines. Note that this list is not comprehensive of

all of the programs and activities occurring in each state.

Alaska

Department of Natural Resources

Division of Mining, Land & Water

http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/mining/aml.htm

Funding for this program comes from SMCRA funds. The state is only able to generate $200,000,

but

has $2 million in reclamation needs; therefore, the state qualifies for Minimum Program Status

from the SMCRA fund, entitling them to $1.5 million plus emergency funds annually until the

work remaining on the inventory drops below $2 million.

Coal and non-coal mining abandoned mines were inventoried. The coal inventory is complete, and

340 sites

were identified. The non-coal inventory is incomplete with a count of 432. Each site

was evaluated to determine funding eligibility. Priority 1 and 2 coal projects must be completed

first, so only priority non-coal projects can be reclaimed. Priority 3 projects can be worked on in

conjunction with Priority 1 and 2 projects or after all Priority 1 and 2 projects have been

completed.

The state developed a variety of priorities to select sites for remediation; they came up with 224

coal

projects and 32 - 123 non-coal projects. Initial inventories estimated costs at $52 million and

non-coal costs at $2.7 million. To date, 36 AML projects have been completed at a cost of

$8,880,980. Most of the projects involved preventing physical hazards.

U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management - Alaska

http://www.ak.blm.gov

http://www.ak.blm.gov/amines/amlindex

.html

About 15 to 20 projects are either active or have been completed. Projects are selected using

water

shed approach (i.e., projects that will have the greatest impact on water quality in the

watershed are chosen first). As with many of the programs, funding is an issue. The Web page

states, “Because there is never enough money, the BLM must first consider watersheds damaged

by

abandoned mines.”

37

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Arizona

Arizona State Mine Inspector

http://www.asmi.state.az.us

http://www.asmi.state.az.us/abandoned.html

Part of this state office’s mission is to review and monitor all mine reclamation activities. This

office established the Abandoned and Inactive Mine (AIM) Survey to inventory abandoned and

inactive mines throughout Arizona. The majority of the funding for this program comes from the

Bureau of Land Management. The program began inventorying sites in 1992 and estimates that

there are at least 125,000 abandoned or inactive openings in the State of Arizona.

As of January 1999, 7,844 mines have been surveyed, with 288 mines with some type of

Environmental Hazards and 1149 mines with Significant Public Hazards.

U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management - Arizona

http://www.az.blm.gov/

California

U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management - California

http://www.ca.blm.gov

http://www.ca.blm.gov/pa/aml/ - for specific AML activity

The California BLM manages 15 Resource Areas (RA’s, Field Offices) comprising over 16 million

acres

in California and Northwest Nevada. Over 12,000 mine properties in California and

Northwest Nevada are listed in the Bureau of Land Mines Mineral Industries Location System

(MILS) database as on BLM land. An estimated additional 5000 sites likely to be on BLM land

are not recorded in this database are. Of these 17,000 sites, an estimated 3000 significant

properties contain hazardous substances or physical features and/or have environmental problems.

No comprehensive AML inventory has been conducted on any RA in the state and six RA’s have

no recorded inventory of mine sites.

“The California State Office, (with limited staff) from mid-2000, has been conducting watershed-

based projects that have and will continue to identify mine sites with environmental and/or safety

issues” (http://www.ca.blm.gov/pa/aml/). To date about 40 sites have been identified as “high

priority,” more than 170 sites have been added to the Abandoned Mine Land Identification System

- a database of AMLs on BLM lands. According to the website 7 projects have been completed as

of

April 21, 2003.

California Environmental Protection Agency

38

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

State Water Resources Control Board

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/

One of the things found via this website was a document entitled, “The Abandoned Mine Technical

Advisory Committee’s Report on Abandoned Mines.”

[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/docs/tac_abandmin.doc] The document was created by the

Abandoned Mines Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). TAC spent six months discussing the

issues surrounding abandoned mines, past cleanup efforts, and desired future courses of action.

They prioritized courses of action and identified barriers to progress. TAC identified lack of

funding as a key impediment to cleanup of abandoned mines.

California is not a coal-mining state and therefore is ineligible to receive SMCRA funds.

Colorado

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Hazardous Materials and Waste Division

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/hmhom.asp

This division regulates solid waste management, treatment, disposal facilities, and hazardous

waste

generation, storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal. The division also ensures compliance

with state hazardous waste regulations and permits and oversees remediation of contamination at

Federal Facilities located in the state. The division assists in the cleanup of hazardous waste sites

under the Superfund Program, and encourages brownfields redevelopment through implementation

of the Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Act.

This state agency has dealt with the remediation of a few mine sites including Bonanza, Clear

Creek, Eagle, Idarado, Leadville (California Gulch), and Summitville Mine.

U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management

Colorado Abandoned Mine Land Program

http://www.co.blm.gov/mines/mine.htm

There are about 2,600 abandoned mines on Colorado’s public lands. The projects during 2002 are

listed

below. The projects are being addressed with a watershed approach.

Arkansas Watershed:

LakeFork Project - includes Nelson and Dinero Tunnel Projects

Mill Sap Gulch Project

Mount Robinson Project/Historic Rosita Mining District

Upper Animas Watershed

39

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Elk Tunnel

Forest Queen

Joe and John

Lackawanna and Lark

Upper Gunnison Watershed

Palmetto Mine Remediation

Roy Pray #1 Remediation

Ute Ulay Mine/Mill Remediation and Mine Waste Repository

Wyoming Mine Remediation

Many of the project involve water diversion, materials removal, and revegetation.

United States Geologic Survey (USGS)

Toxic Substances Hydrology Program

http://toxics.usgs.gov/sites/upper_ark_page.html

The USGS has a few projects in Colorado and elsewhere that attempt to characterize metal

transport

in streams affected by mining. Work in the Upper Arkansas Toxic-Substance Hydrology

Project began in 1986. The approach is to study chemical processes within a hydrologic context,

using a two-step approach. First, we have employed in-stream experimentation to provide data

about the processes affecting metals. Second, they have used the resulting data sets to develop

and apply solute transport models that help quantify rates and processes. See the Web page for

more information about this and other projects.

Idaho

U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management

Idaho Abandoned

Mine Lands

http://www.id.blm.gov/aml/index.htm

The program stems from a 1982 report that four dozen livestock had been poisoned by ingestion

of lead tailings.

Significant effort has been put into Pine Creek, a tributary of the Coeur d’Alene River, in the Silver

Belt region of northern Idaho. Between 1996 and 1998 more than 30,000 cubic yards of tailings

were removed from the flood plain to prevent the deposition of the material in the river. Much of

the cleanup effort was accomplished through funding by the hazardous materials program, Central

Haz Mat Fund, and emergency flood funding.

40

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Systematic AML site inventories began in mid-1990s.

Starting in the fiscal year 1999, Clean Water Action Plan funding enabled a more uniform national

effort to move from inventory to cleanup of AML sites. Project summaries of completed or active

projects can be found in the AML Project Notebook link at

http://www.id.blm.gov/aml/notebood.htm

In FY 2002, 2 projects using passive treatment were installed: Champagne Creek and Bridge

Creek.

At the beginning of fiscal year 2002, the focus was to better integrate AML with other statewide

Idaho priorities. “Lack of a national source of funding dedicated to addressing physical hazards

continues to be an issue. This year we are seeking a reallocation of some of Idaho’s BLM

program funding to better address priority sites, particularly in the proximity of recreation sites and

other public lands heavily visited by the public” (http://www.id.blm.gov/aml/program.htm

).

Basin Environmental Improvement Project Commission

http://www.basincommission

.com/

This organization was created by the Idaho legislature under the Basin Environmental

Improvement Act of 2001; the group became operation in March of 2002. It consists of

representatives of the state of Idaho, the three Idaho counties in the Basin, the Coeur d’Alene

Tribe, the state of Washington, and the United States of America (represented by the U.S. EPA).

It is the policy of the state to provide a system for environmental remediation, natural resource

restoration and related measures to address heavy metal contamination in the Coeur d’Alene Basin.

Montana / Dakotas

Department of Environmental Quality

Mine Waste Cleanup Bureau

http://www.deq.state.mt.us/rem/mwc/index.asp

The Mine Waste Cleanup Bureau (MWCB) focuses on two primary site types:

1) inactive mine sites addressed under the Surface Mining Coal and Reclamation Act

(SMCRA

1977).

2) mining related sites addressed under the Federal Comprehensive Environmental

Response and Liability Act (CERCLA) .

The MWCB divided its site-reclamation duties in this way because of distinctions between

applicable environmental laws and associated funding mechanisms.

41

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

The DEQ-MWCB must give priority to abandoned coal mines, and Montana has completed

reclamation of its abandoned coal mines and has now moved on to non-coal sites. The non-coal

sites are ranked in priority order based on a scoring system developed by the state. To date,

Montana’s abandoned mine reclamation program has overseen the completion of more than 283

projects totaling nearly 1174 acres.

U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management

Montana/Dakotas Abandoned Mine Land Program

http://www.mt.blm.gov/aml/index.html

Montana BLM has been working to clean up abandoned mines located on public lands utilizing a

watershed approach since 1995. An inventory of 1078 abandoned mines located on public lands

resulted in 65 sites that needed further investigation and potentially reclamation.

At least 15 projects are underway or completed. More information can be obtained from the Web

page cited above.

Navajo Nation

Division of Natural Resources

Navajo AML Reclamation/UMTRA [Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act] Department

http://www.navajoaml.osmre.gov

This program was certified to have reclaimed all Priority 1 and 2 abandoned coal mines by the

Secretary

of Interior as of May 4, 1994 . The program is now permitted to focus attention on non-

coal mines. The Navajo AML Program anticipates having all known and eligible abandoned mines

reclaimed by the end of 2004.

In 2000, the Navajo AML Program amended its AML Plan to incorporate the provisions of

SMCRA, Sections 411(e) and (f), which provide the authority for using AML funds to construct

public facilities as a means of mitigating current and past mining-related impacts to such

communities. Thus, the Navajo AML Program can now also use its AML funds for the

construction of Public Facility Projects (PFP’s). Navajo AML funded its first PFP in EY-2002.

In 2002, four reclamation projects were completed, all of the work done “minimized the need for

maintenance, promotes landscape stability, enhances re-establishment of natural vegetation,

enhances wildlife, and most importantly, adequately safeguards the physical and radioactive

hazards.”

- Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement : Annual Evaluation Report ­

Evaluation Year 2002 (Oct. 1, 2001 through Sept. 30, 2002) - on the Navajo Abandoned

Mine Lands Reclamation Program.

http://www.navajoaml.osmre.gov/News_Rprts/AML/OSM_AER_Nav2002.pdf

42

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Nevada

State of Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources

Division of Minerals

400 W. King Street, Suite 106

Carson City, Nevada 89703

(775) 684-7040

fax: (775) 684- 7052

http://minerals.state.nv.us/

The state’s first priority is to reduce hazards such as high walls, embankments, etcetera. It is

estimated that the state has 200,000 abandoned mine features. Approximately 50,000 present

physical safety hazards, including 9,244 hazardous mine openings throughout the state. Seven

thousand have been secured.

As for environmental problems, the State of Nevada has an Interagency Abandoned Mine Land

Environmental Task Force. In their Sept. 1999 report, an estimated 1 to 3 percent of 200,000 to

500,000 abandoned mine land features have the potential to impact ground or surface waters.

Even at 1 percent the numbers are very high--20,000 to 60,000 potential pollution sources. As of

1999 there were 33 sites identified for clean-up; 6 of these sites were considered high priority and

site characterization had begun. The report can be reviewed at:

http://minerals.state.nv.us/forms/aml/nvamlreport.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management

Nevada

http://www.nv.blm.gov/AML/

In March of 1999, the Bureau of Land Management-Nevada State Office (BLM) initiated the

formation of an Interagency Abandoned Mine Land Environmental Task Force (IAMLET) to

begin remediation of abandoned mine land (AML) environmental problems associated with

watersheds in Nevada. The task force is comprised of federal and state agencies with a role in

abandoned mine lands in the state. Initial funding for the program is from the BLM through the

Soil, Water, and Air Management Budget, in accordance with the Clean Water Action Plan.

- From the report, 1999 Interagency Mined Land Environmental Task Force Report, found

on the webpage above.

Their accomplishments as of March 1999 included:

- Initiation of cleanup of two AML sites (Steward and Atronics millsites) in priority watershed;

- Establishment of site selection criteria for potential AML reclamation projects;

43

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

- Compilation of an initial list of 33 AML sites based on proximity and potential impacts to

watersheds and assignment of a priority rank to each site;

- Initiation of data compilation, including location and land status maps, existing site

characterizations

, and photographs for the 33 sites.

The groups involved with this Interagency are:

Bureau

of Land Management, BLM

United States Forest Service, USFS

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS

United States Geological Survey, USGS

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA

Nevada Division of Minerals, NDOM

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, NDEP

Nevada Division of Wildlife, NDOW

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, NBMG

Desert Research Institute, DRI

New Mexico

New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department

Mining and Minerals Division

Abandoned Mine Land Program

http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/Mining/aml/default.htm

The program was formed when SMCRA was passed in 1977. The description of this program

states

: “the fund is used to reclaim coal mines abandoned prior to the enactment of SMCRA.

Under certain conditions, abandoned noncoal mines may also be reclaimed.” The most common

mine hazards in NM are open adits and shafts. There are other concerns, including burning gob

piles and acid mine drainage.

New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department

Mining and Minerals Division

Mining Act Reclamation Program

44

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/Mining/marp/default.htm

This program was created under the New Mexico Mining Act of 1993 to regulate hard rock

mining reclamation activities for all minerals except potash, sand, gravel, quarry rock used as

aggregate in construction, flagstone, calcite, clay, adobe, borrow dirt, activities regulated by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and waste regulated under Subtitle C of the Federal Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act.

New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department

Ground Water Quality Bureau

Mining Environmental Compliance Section

Active mines are handled through this office when water quality is an issue. Upon speaking with

Mark Phillip of this office, it became clear that most of their work involves water diversion and

water treatment plants.

Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

Abandoned Mine Land

http://deq.state.wy.us/aml

AML’s mission is to eliminate safety hazards and repair environmental damage from past mining

activities and to assist communities impacted by mining. AML pursues this mission in two ways:

1. The Traditional Reclamation Program which has reclaimed thousands of acres of

abandoned

coal, bentonite, and uranium open pit mines, and new projects are initiated each

year. AML has also closed several hundred hazardous gold and copper mine openings, and

has an ongoing program to mitigate subsidence risks. AML also makes subsidence

insurance available to property owners in affected communities.

2. The Public Facility Program, operating in conjunction with the State Loan and

Investment

Board, provides financial assistance for projects in communities with current or

past impact from mining. Applicants must first establish eligibility, then projects are ranked

and funded based on human health and safety issues.

U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management

45

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation

http://www.wy.blm.gov/whatwedo/aml/aml_home.html

Wyoming BLM works closely with DEQ to share resources and pool funding. The projects listed

on the Web page did not use any innovative treatments.

Inventory of the sites and the work needed at each was expected to be done by the end of 2001.

46

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Acid Mine Drainage: Innovative Treatment Technologies

Appendix B: Brief Case Description of Case Studies Found in This Report

Site

Location

Mine Information

Pollution (media)

Treatment

Page

North Pennine Orefield

Nent Valley, UK

Metal/Hardrock

Zn (water)

Anoxic Limestone Drain

12

Burleigh Tunnel

Silver Plume, CO

Metal/Hardrock

Zn (water)

Constructed Wetland

14

Calliope Mine

Silver Bow, MT

Metal/Hardrock

Al, As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn, low pH

(

water)

Bioreactor

15

Champagne Creek

Butte, ID

Metal/Hardrock

Al, Cd, Cu, Fe, Zn, low pH (water)

Bioreactor

16

Oven Run

Pennsylvania

Coal

Fe, Al, low pH (water)

Successive Alkalinity

P

roducing System

18

Gowen Run

Gowen, OK

Coal

Fe, other metals, low pH (water)

Successive Alkalinity

P

roducing System

18

Frostburg, MD

Coal - strip mine

metals, low pH (soil)

Biosolids

21

Leadville, CO

Meta

l/

Hardrock

Zn, Pb, low

pH (

soil)

Biosolids

23

47

---

Exhibit M:

The Passive Treatment of Coal Mine Drainage

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---