Abandoned Mine Posts

By Bruce Golden, Regional Coordinator

While the reauthorized federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) has been law for more than 2 years, so far we’ve not seen a significant increase in the rate of new on-the-ground reclamation projects. That’s mainly because of a five year ramp-up period to full funding that’s built into the legislation. (Current funding levels are only slightly higher than they were prior to the reauthorization.) DEP’s Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) is comprehensively overhauling its Abandoned Mine Reclamation (AMR) program during the ramp-up period, especially as concerns the acid mine drainage (AMD) Set-Aside Program.

By law, most of the SMCRA AMR expenditures are for Priority 1 & 2 health and safety problems, almost all of which are land based issues, and generally don’t include acid mine drainage (AMD).The component of SMCRA most responsible for AMD work is the AMD Set-Aside which allows BAMR to use up to 30% of its annual grant for AMD abatement and remediation projects. (The limit prior to reauthorization was 10%)

BAMR’s current AMD project work focuses almost exclusively on projects they have already made a commitment to. That’s expected to continue for the next couple of years.
BAMR’s stated position is to use as much of the allowed 30% as is practical, while providing a balance with dealing with the traditional Priority 1 & 2 health and safety problems. By inference, we can generally expect BAMR to use something close to the full 30%, but we also expect there will be exceptions. Click here to view PA DEP’s Draft Position paper on the AMD Set-aside Program.

A new SMCRA requirement for AMD work is to “comprehensively restore” the waters in qualified “hydrologic units”. [Both quoted terms are left to BAMR to define.] This implies a statewide shotgun approach to treating AMD discharges is not acceptable. BAMR instead will concentrate on comprehensively cleaning up the hydrologic units in which they choose to work. This further implies only a select number of hydrologic units will be targeted because of funding limitations.

BAMR also intends to use the AMD Set-Aside to fund Operation & Maintenance (O&M) activities for AMD treatment systems. The extent of how much of the Set-Aside will be used for this purpose is still unknown. A tradeoff situation exists between funding O&M and building and operating new AMD treatment facilities.

In choosing a treatment technology for a given discharge, the ability of the treatment system to reliably treat a discharge over the long term has a much higher weight. This implies that passive treatment will continue to be used in situations where it has historically been successful, but de-emphasized otherwise. This suggests a greater reliance on active treatment methodologies in coming years. We may see a greater reliance on in-stream alkaline dosing.

BAMR apparently is interested in engaging local watershed groups and conservation districts in the areas they choose to work. How much depends on the extent which is both practical and allowable. General funding support for these kinds of organizations is a disallowed use of Set-Aside funds.

Actual SMCRA funding for future years is only speculative and based largely on national and state coal production levels. Estimates ramp annual funding from current levels of close $30 million to around $80 million in 2012, at which point the estimate fluctuates around an average in the mid $80 million range. Reiterating, up to 30% of those annual grants may be designated for use in AMD Set-Aside program.

WPCAMR has actively been involved with the activities leading up to reauthorization of SMCRA in late 2006 as well as being involved with shaping the Commonwealth’s revamped AMR program.

By Andy McAllister, Watershed Coordinator

More than half of the electricity produced in the United States currently comes from coal. With the demand for electricity expected to double by 2050, environmental concerns growing ever stronger, and renewable resources still years away from offsetting the increased energy demand, industry and government have been looking for ways to keep up with our energy demands while utilizing currently available energy sources and technologies. One fairly recent technological innovation getting more press lately is the process of coal gasification.

The gasification process was originally developed in the 1800s to produce gas for lighting and cooking. Electricity and natural gas later replaced town gas for these applications, but the gasification process has been used for the production of synthetic chemicals and fuels since the 1920s.

Just What is Coal Gasification?

Simply put, gasification itself is a process that converts carbonaceous materials, such as coal, petroleum, or even wood, into carbon monoxide and hydrogen by reacting the raw material at high temperatures with a controlled amount of oxygen and/or steam. The resulting gas mixture is called synthesis gas or “syngas” (containing mostly Hydrogen with some Carbon monoxide and small amounts of other constituents) and is itself a fuel. This syngas is potentially more efficient than direct combustion of the original fuel because it can be combusted at higher temperatures or even in fuel cells. The hydrogen obtained from gasification can be used for various purposes such as powering a hydrogen economy, making ammonia, or upgrading fossil fuels. Additionally, liquid fuels such as a low sulfur diesel fuel, can be created from the products of gasification.

Gasification can also be used with materials that are not seen as traditionally useful fuels, such as plastic or organic waste. Practically any type of organic material can be used as the raw material for the gasification process. In a traditional coal combustion plant, heat from burning coal is used to boil water to make steam that drives a steam turbine-generator. According to reports, only a third of the energy value of coal is actually converted into electricity by most old-fashioned combustion plants, the rest is lost as waste heat.

In a coal gasification power plant, everything revolves around the “gasifier.” This is basically a big compartment where feedstock (coal, in this case) is fed in and is then converted into syngas by applying heat and steam in a high pressure environment. The amount of oxygen allowed into the gasifier is very carefully controlled so that only a small amount of the feedstock burns completely. This partial oxidation process provides the heat necessary to break the feedstock down chemically into syngas (source: U.S. Dept. of Energy).

Co-Generation, More Bang For The Buck

The gasification plant typically gets double duty from the gases it produces. First, the coal gases, cleaned of their impurities, are fired in a gas turbine much like natural gas, to generate one source of electricity. The hot exhaust of the gas turbine is then used to generate steam for a more conventional steam turbine-generator. This dual source of electric power, called a “Combined cycle” or “Co-generation” (Co-gen for short) converts much more of coal’s inherent energy value into useable electricity.

While Coal Gasification plants are “Co-gen” plants, not all “Co-gen” plants are Coal Gasification plants. For example, non-traditional power plants using a different process called “Circulating Fluidized Bed” technology, known as CFB plants, may also be Co-generation plants. For more information on CFB plants, click here to view WPCAMR’s CFB educational brochure.

Waste coal piles, a bane of life in the coal regions, can be used to fuel Coal Gasification plants just as they can fuel CFB plants. This use for waste piles helps remove an eyesore and pollution source while at the same time making use of a resource long considered unprofitable for more conventional uses.

Greenhouse gas production is still an issue with coal gasification as it is with traditional coal combustion. However, some contend that the gasification process lends itself better to carbon sequestration but we’re not aware of any practical application of that at this point.

The US. Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy says there are currently two commercial gasification plants currently operating in the U.S., one in Florida and one in the State of Indiana. A $400 million coal gasification plant is currently proposed for the Good Spring area of Schuylkill County, PA where, once permits are secured, construction is slated to begin in 2010.

Click here to read an additional article about the future of coal gasification plants.