Archive for the ‘Water Monitoring’ Category

Water Quality Snapshot of Passive Treatment Systems

Monday, July 27th, 2009

By Cliff Denholm, Stream Restoration, Inc.

(Editor’s Note:  Stream Restoration Inc. (SRI) is a non-profit organization whose mission focuses on the restoration of streams impacted by abandoned coal mine drainage.  SRI is located in Mars, PA.)

As many of you may already be aware, a partnership effort has been organized to conduct two water quality snapshots of all the publicly-funded passive treatment systems located within Pennsylvania.  This snapshot will consist of collecting water samples for laboratory analysis as well as measuring selected field parameters.  The samples will be collected for the raw untreated AMD, the final effluent of the passive system, and the influent and effluent of every alkalinity-generating component such as ALDs, VFPs, SAPS, etc., as feasible.

The first snapshot is planned to take place over the next couple of months (August and September 2009).  The second snapshot is planned to take place in late winter/early spring (March, April, May 2010).  The monitoring will be conducted by a team consisting of individuals from PA DEP’s Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR), Stream Team, PA Senior Environmental Corps, Mill Creek Coalition, Babb Creek Watershed Association, Broadtop Township, and Stream Restoration Incorporated.  Funding for the snapshot is through a PA DEP Growing Greener Grant obtained by the Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (WPCAMR).

Data from the snapshot will be made publicly available via Datashed http://www.datashed.org/ which is a free, web-based database designed to assist in the management of data related to passive treatment systems and stream monitoring for watershed groups, nonprofits, academia, government agencies and anyone else interested in passive treatment.  In addition to the water monitoring data from this snapshot event, information regarding these passive systems, which has been collected by PA DEP BAMR over the last year including existing water quality data, site schematics, as-builts, information forms, etc. will be uploaded to Datashed.  An account is not necessary to view any of this data; however, if you would like to be able to upload your own data, documents, and information you can get an account very easily by contacting Cliff Denholm or Shaun Busler at Stream Restoration Inc. 724-776-0161.
We have tried to include as many email addresses of watershed organizations as we could however there were many that we could not find.  So please feel free to forward this announcement to watershed groups that you know.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this sampling event please contact Cliff Denholm at Stream Restoration Incorporated. Telephone: 724-776-0161, Email:
sri@streamrestorationinc.org

Watershed Cooperative Agreement Update

By Andy McAllister, Watershed Coordinator

There are very hopeful signs coming out of Washington, D.C.  The reinsertion of language into the Federal Appropriations Bill allowing the Watershed Cooperative Agreement Program (WCAP) funding to be used as match for other federal grants has been made in both the House of Representatives and Senate versions.  This is very positive news.  As you’ll recall, WCAP is a grant program administered by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) providing secondary funding to AMD treatment system projects.  The bill is now in conference which means that the House and Senate are hammering out the final details.  We don’t anticpate any further modifications, but as Yogi Berra has said, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”  WPCAMR will continue to monitor this process and we’ll keep you informed of developments as we learn of them. WPCAMR is proud to be among several groups that advocated for this action to be taken.

Stream Improvement Information Sought

Friday, April 11th, 2008

by Andy McAllister, Watershed Coordinator

Do you have a stream that you think has improved due to a pollution abatement project? If you do, we need your help. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Non-point Source Program has enlisted the aid of WPCAMR to help them find those improved streams.

The information you provide will assist PA DEP biologists in their efforts to target specific streams for a biological reassessment. If the stream or a segment of the stream has indeed improved, PA DEP could consider it for removal from the list of impaired waterways in the Commonwealth.

The list of impaired waters (formerly known as the 303(d) list) is now part of what is called the “Integrated List”. Impaired waters are those waterways that are not meeting their “designated use”, in other words, the biological community in those streams is adversely affected by AMD, sediment, or any number of other pollutants.

Designated uses are those uses specified in the state’s water quality standards for each water body or segment whether or not they are being attained. An example of a designated use in Pennsylvania is “CWF”, meaning a Cold Water Fishery, capable of sustaining a healthy cold water biological community (eg. a stream where trout can live and reproduce).

Removal of a stream or stream segment from the impaired waters list is a concrete way of showing that pollution reduction projects are having a positive impact on our streams.

If you think you have a stream or a segment of a stream that was impaired and is now not, we invite you to share what you know by filing out the information form at the WPCAMR “Improved PA Streams” page. By sharing your information, you can help direct state efforts to locate recovered streams.

AMD And Mining Environments: Part 5

Wednesday, November 14th, 2007

by Bruce Golden, Regional Coordinator

Did you ever wonder why there’s such a wide range in the chemical make-up of coal mine drainage discharges? It’s because
there’s a great diversity in the mining environments in which mine drainage is formed. This multipart series of AMP will
explore, on an introductory level, the connection of mine drainage characteristics with the mining environments that created
it. It’s not meant to be rigorous, but to mainly get you thinking about the kinds of things that can happen underground that
are influential in the making of polluted water.

Part 5. Waste Coal Piles… Efficient AMD Factories

In the last three installments, I showed how the mineral pyrite is chemically reactive in the wet oxidizing environment we live in and depend on. Pyrite, as you’ll recall, is typically present in small percentages in coal and surrounding geologic strata. In its natural state, there is little opportunity for water and air to get to the pyrite, thus it’s protected from chemical reactions. Mining changes that big time.

Since the Abandoned Mine Drainage problems we currently deal with were created a long while ago, some dating back to the mid 1800s, it’s instructive to visit some of the mining processes of yesteryear to see if we can figure out how those processes have led to present day problems.

The first mining environment we’ll examine is waste coal piles. These man-made small black mountains go by a slew of colloquial names including gob piles, boney piles, slate dumps, slag heaps, and (as our friends in eastern PA’s anthracite region like to call them) culm banks. I once met a woman who called the pile close to her home Dmitri. I didn’t ask. Whatever we call them, they’re made up of the unwanted stuff discarded following the coal extraction process which most likely came from underground deep mines.

Thousands of waste piles accumulated over the course of mining in Pennsylvania. They are usually located in the vicinity of the old mine portals, as this was the most convenient and economical way of disposal. The piles are generally made up of a good bit of coal and a bunch of stuff that isn’t, including rocks called shale that are very commonly found adjacent to coal seams. (Note to my local newspaper: there’s no slate in waste coal. Please stop calling the piles slate dumps and the stuff in them slate. And while we’re at it, the orange stuff polluting streams isn’t sulfur. ) Why was so much coal discarded back in the old days? First, the separation techniques weren’t that great, and second, smaller pieces of coal had little economic value because the furnaces that burned coal required bigger chunks.

Anyway, throughout coal county it’s still fairly common to see these big, ugly, gray-black, steep-sided, highly eroded, loose-material, get-you-real-dirty, hard-to-walk-on piles with very little vegetation just sitting there as they have for decades. Their size varies greatly from one defunct mining operation to the next. Those associated with larger coal operations are really big and are measured in millions of tons. Sometimes, you’ll see pinkish-orangish streaks and patches in the piles. That’s the residue (sometimes called red dog) from the coal in the pile catching fire, sometimes spontaneously (that pesky oxidizing environment at work again) with a long slow burn that may have taken years to complete.

Because a waste coal pile’s origin is an accumulation of loose, relatively small material, it’s prone to shifts in the material. Think of mini landslides and being loose underfoot. Furthermore, because vegetation has trouble establishing and sustaining itself in this rather inhospitable growth medium, the piles are commonly devoid of most plant life. Without a good root system to stabilize the material, the material remains unstable over time. This is a perfect recipe for erosion. In fact, deep erosion gullies are a prominent feature of waste piles. This can result in siltation problems for adjacent streams. Those streams can also take on a decidedly orange color which, of course, is a very good indicator of AMD. Let’s see how that happens.

We’ll change gears and zero in on a small chunk of coal that might be found in a waste pile. For illustration’s sake, let’s assume it’s a perfect cube, say one inch on a side. That means that each face of our coal cube has an area of one square inch. Since cubes have 6 faces, our cube of coal has a surface area of 6 square inches. Now, the only pyrite contained in our coal cube having any opportunity to undergo that pyrite oxidation reaction we talked about several installments earlier is the pyrite located at the cube’s surface, on those 6 square inches. Water and oxygen can’t get to the pyrite located in the cube’s interior. The places on the cube’s surface where pyrite is exposed are the only places where oxygen, water, and pyrite can all team up and thus the only place that pyrite oxidation reaction can occur. Those 6 square inches of surface area on our cube puts an upper limit on the amount of pyrite that can oxidize on that piece of coal.

Okay, now let’s say we take our cube and carefully split it in two, making the split parallel to a cube face. We wind up with two rectangular solid chunks of coal. I think we can all agree that the original 6 square inches of surface area of the combined two pieces are still intact. In addition we have two new faces resulting from the split, each one having one square inch of surface area. So the two chunks of our carefully constructed mind experiment now have a combined surface area of 8 square inches. If we do a little ciphering, that comes out to a 1/3 increase in surface area with the opportunity of having exposed pyrite that can react. More exposed pyrite raises the limit of the amount of pollution that can be formed. Note: In the real world, we don’t see perfect cubes and often cracks, fissures, or fractures allow water to penetrate the interior regions of solid coal.

To generalize, when a solid is fractured or broken up into smaller pieces, the resulting surface area will increase. We’ve also seen that the pyrite reaction is dependent on having the pyrite exposed on a surface. Putting these facts together, it becomes clear that a waste coal pile, made up of lots and lots of relatively small broken-up chunks, is going to have an enormous amount of surface area with exposed pyrite which can be available to react when united with water and oxygen.

A waste coal pile is usually quite porous to water infiltration. This is particularly ominous when it comes to AMD formation. When it rains, water can easily find its way to a tremendous amount of exposed pyrite. On the pile’s outermost surface, the supply of atmospheric oxygen will be substantial. As water infiltrates into the pile’s interior regions atmospheric oxygen will become more scarce, yet water itself can transport oxygen in the form of dissolved oxygen. Even with available oxygen being the limiting factor, the initiating and most important reaction of AMD formation, the oxidation of pyrite, has tremendous opportunity to occur. Furthermore, pyrite not reacting during one rain will have the opportunity during the next, or the next, or the next after that. For piles that can interact with ground water, the situation is even worse: an almost continual source of water available as a reactant in pyrite oxidation (limited only by available oxygen).

The pyrite oxidation reaction occurs in copious amounts when it rains. The other AMD reactions described in previous installments, i.e. the ferrous to ferric oxidation and the hydrolysis of ferric ions, may also occur in or on the pile. The extent to which they occur will depend on the amount of available oxygen, the pH, and the presence of certain bacteria in the water. In addition, some complex chemical reactions (which are beyond the scope of this article) may result in the formation of highly reactive sulfate salts, easily visible as a light greenish-yellow solid. In essence, these solids are concentrated instant AMD, ready to dissolve during the next rain. No matter what, once the initiating pyrite oxidation reaction has occurred, the AMD express has left the station.

To sum things up, waste coal piles can be very prolific producers of AMD because of the tremendous amounts of exposed pyrite. Just add wind and rain with a dab of chemistry and you’ve got a pollution factory.

AMD and Mining Environments: Part 3

Friday, October 19th, 2007

By: Bruce Golden, Regional Coordinator

Did you ever wonder why there’s such a wide range in the chemical make-up of coal mine drainage discharges? It’s because there’s a great diversity in the mining environments in which mine drainage is formed. This multipart series of AMP will explore, on an introductory level, the connection of mine drainage characteristics with the mining environments that created it. It’s not meant to rigorous, but to mainly get you thinking about the kinds of things that happen can underground that are influential in the making of polluted water.

Part 3.  The Chemical Action Continues.

In the last installment of AMD and Mining Environments, I talked in some detail about the first act of several in the formation of AMD.  To review, the chemical reaction that starts the whole AMD pollution ball rolling is the oxidation of pyrite in the presence of oxygen and water

  4FeS2(s) + 14O2(g) + 4H2O(l)  →  4Fe2+(aq) + 8SO42-(aq) + 8H+(aq)

which results in a complete chemical makeover with the chemical species of ferrous ions, sulfate ions, and hydrogen ions being dissolved in water.  This installment picks up from there.

I’d like to zero in on one detail of this reaction.  Notice that for every 4 molecules of pyrite consumed, there are 8 hydrogen ions produced.

   4FeS2(s) + 14O2(g) + 4H2O(l)  →  4Fe2+(aq) + 8SO42-(aq) + 8H+(aq)

In other words, 2 hydrogen ions are produced for every pyrite molecule that reacts.  This can result in high concentrations of dissolved hydrogen ions.  When a group of these hooligans of the chemical world get together, expect trouble.  They’re perfectly happy going around electron-less, flaunting their positive charges.  It’s what gets them in trouble.  You may have heard about them already.   They call themselves “Acidz”.  The more they crowd together, the nastier they get.  (For more detail on this subject, seehttp://amrclearinghouse.org/Sub/AMDbasics/Acids-Bases-ph.htm .)   Bottom line, the pyrite oxidation reaction can be a prolific acid producer.

Hydrogen ions are so prominent in aqueous chemistry that a special way of indicating their concentration is commonly used: the pH scale.  You were probably taught something like the following in high school science class.

  • pH is a number from 0 to 14 indicating how acidic or basic water is.  A pH lower than 7 is acidic, above 7 is basic, and exactly 7 is neutral.  A unit change in pH represents a 10 fold change in concentration.  Lower numbers represent a higher concentration of hydrogen ions.  Examples: pH=5 is 10 times more concentrated in hydrogen ions than pH=6.  pH=5 has 1/100th  the concentration of hydrogen ions at pH=3.

I’m not much of a fan of this description. (This explanation coupled with the contrived invention of pH is actually number 7 on “Bruce’s All-Time Pet Peeve Countdown.”)   Yet since it’s so commonly taught this way, I’ll reluctantly perpetuate it… because it’s short.  My description would go on and on and on.  If you’re so inclined, check out http://amrclearinghouse.org/Sub/AMDbasics/Acids-Bases-ph.htm for my rambling explanation. The pH scale is to hydrogen ion concentration as the Richter scale is to the power of an earthquake… almost.  A decreasing pH implies increasing hydrogen ion concentration.  Mathematically speaking, both are logarithmic functions.

One of the most common classes of AMD has a pH in the vicinity of  3, which makes hydrogen ions in the neighborhood of 1,000 times more concentrated than pure water.  That’s moderately acidic which can really put the hurts to the critters living in streams.  It’s common to see streams impacted with this sort of water to be crystal clear, as well as clear of practically all life.

Well, let’s draw the curtain of the first and very crucial act of AMD formation, the oxidation of pyrite.

Act 2:   Next Stop…  Ferric Iron City

A product of the pyrite oxidation reaction is ferrous ions (Fe2+), a charged form of the element iron.  These ferrous ions are able to react with hydrogen ions (also produced by the pyrite oxidation reaction) and oxygen for the next important reaction on the road to AMD formation

4FeS2(s) + 14O2(g) + 4H2O(l)  →  4Fe2+(aq) + 8SO42-(aq) + 8H+(aq) 

One reaction product is water.  No big deal there since this reaction occurs in water.  The other reaction product is ferric ion (Fe3+), also a charged form of the element iron, having lost a (negative) electron in its transformation from the ferrous form.   There are several notable points of this reaction:

  • This reaction requires oxygen (O2).  If oxygen is in short supply, as is a very common occurrence in some mining environments, it will limit the amount of ferrous ions that react, and thus the amount of ferric ion that is formed.  To put it another way, if the lack of oxygen limits this reaction in one place, a change of conditions where oxygen is more readily available will allow it to continue elsewhere.  Many mine discharges are like this.  This reaction has stalled until the mine water breaks out into the open where more oxygen is available.
  • This, too, is an oxidation reaction.  Ferrous iron is oxidized to ferric iron.  In fact, let’s just call this the ferrous to ferric oxidation reaction.
  • Optional stuff: The element iron has three preferred (nay, allowed) oxidation states: 0 (elemental), +2 (ferrous) and +3 (ferric).  An iron oxidation reaction results in an increase of its oxidation state, i.e. from 0 to 2, or from 2 to 3 as is the case here.  The terms ferrous and ferric apply only to iron. Each element has its own rules about what oxidation states are allowed.  Example: aluminum only has 0 and +3 oxidation states and doesn’t have a similar reaction to the ferrous to ferric oxidation reaction.  That has some significance later on. 
  • This reaction consumes hydrogen ions on a one to one basis with the ferrous ions that react.  Look at the equation and see if you can figure out that one to one thing.  Because hydrogen ions are consumed, this tends to lower H+ concentration, with a corresponding increase in the pH.   We really aren’t that fond of the Acidz’ actions and anything that diminishes their numbers is something I’d call a good thing.

To sum up the ferrous to ferric oxidation reaction, ferrous ions are converted to ferric ions with a reduction in the numbers of hydrogen ions. That’s it.  I suppose I could have just said that in the beginning, but then we wouldn’t have been able to spend all this time together, would we?

You may have noticed I haven’t editorialized about ferric ion’s character.  That’s because ferric ions aren’t really into the wild ionic life of some other ions.  They’re more interested in getting into a permanent relationship and settling down, as we’ll see in the next installment of AMD and Mining Environments.