Background The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) bonding program identifies the occurrence of forfeited permanent program (primacy) permits with pollutional discharges. Although several databases exist containing various information on these forfeited permits, the current number, severity and status of pollutional discharges associated with forfeited primacy permits has not been readily available.

Study Scope The Harrisburg Field Office’s (HAFO) 1999 Workplan initially contained a study that included a field review of a sample of forfeited primacy (BF) permits with known pollutional discharges. However, as a result of the Notice of Intent filed by Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture), et. al., OSM, in coordination with PADEP, expanded the study to include all post-primacy bond forfeitures with AMD discharges. The new study allows the extent of forfeited primacy permits with pollutional discharges to be characterized and trends noted. The data also will be used to estimate costs to treat the discharges.

A September 8, 1999 report generated from PADEP’s Land Use Management Information System (LUMIS), identified a total of 397 permanent program permits that have been forfeited since approval of Pennsylvania’s primacy program (July 31, 1982). Discussions with PADEP and an analysis of several available PADEP permit databases indicated that 136 of the 397 forfeited primacy permits should be evaluated for possible post mining AMD problems. Appendix A is a summary of the 136 primacy bond forfeiture permits evaluated in this study. Of the 136 BF permits reviewed, 52 permits were found to have a total of 80 continuing AMD discharges. Appendix B is a summary of the 52 permits. Additionally, 18 permits exhibited evidence of recent AMD discharge conditions although there was no flow at the time of the inspection. Appendix C is a list of the 18 permits. Follow up field investigations will be scheduled for these permits when surface and ground water systems return to more normal levels from the drought conditions in Pennsylvania during the field inspection phase of this study.

One forfeited underground permit, Mon Valley Steel Co. (permit number 63891301), has an estimated 2,000 gpm flow that is pumped to a mine pool which is the responsibility of LTV Steel Company, permit number 63971701. This mine pool water is pumped and treated at a facility operated by LTV in accordance with PADEP permit requirements. Therefore, for purposes of this report, the Mon Valley Steel Co. permit is addressed separately.

This study identifies a trend, consistent with the results of other recent studies, indicating a significant decrease in the instances of primacy permits resulting in pollutional discharges. Only 13 of the forfeited permits with discharges were issued after 1985, only one was issued after the date of OSM’s formal notice to PADEP on the inadequacy of the bonding system, and none were issued after 1992. Many of these discharges appear to fall within the range of parameters where passive treatment may be viable means address the pollution.

Identification of forfeited permits with pollutional discharges

The Field Office worked with PADEP to identify existing databases with information on forfeited permits. Several PADEP databases contain forfeiture information, but there is not one source that provides information on the current number, severity and status of pollutional discharges associated with forfeited primacy permits. Because information on discharges was not available in one database, it was necessary to screen the several databases to identify and compile data on forfeited permits with pollutional discharges. Databases containing transferred BF permits and BF permits addressed under Consent Orders and Agreements (CO&A’s) were also screened since, historically, permits in these categories have included some AMD problems.

Permit Databases Last year, the Field Office’s 1999 oversight workplan included a study to conduct a field review on a sample of 10 of the 35 forfeited permits with known post mining discharges or AMD problems. The 35 forfeitures were identified from a compilation of several PADEP data bases, primarily from LUMIS. The original objective of the Field office study was to update current conditions of the discharges and to create a data base containing water quality and flow information. In Response to the Notice on Intent (NOI) filed by Citizen’s for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture), et. al., OSM and PADEP expanded the study, which was already under way, to include all primacy forfeitures with AMD.

The expanded scope of the study necessitated a more comprehensive review and update to identify all post primacy (July 31, 1982) BF permits with pollutional discharges. LUMIS (as of September 8, 1999) identified a total of 397 permits forfeited since the primacy program was approved. This list served as the basis to begin screening the BF population to identify those with possible AMD problems. As noted above, 35 BF permits with AMD problems were initially identified from LUMIS. Discussions with PADEP’s Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) identified that forfeiture reclamation projects were another group of BF permits with potential AMD problems. Review of the BAMR forfeiture reclamation project database identified 60 BF projects as having the potential for continuing AMD discharge problems. Finally, the Field Office identified transferred forfeitures and forfeited permits addressed through Consent Orders and Agreements (CO&A’s) as other primacy BF permits that may include continuing AMD problems. PADEP databases on transfers and CO&A’s were screened to identify BF permits with potential AMD problems.

Ultimately, the analysis of these several databases identified a total of 136 forfeited permits for follow-up review to determine whether pollutional discharges existed and, if so, to collect information on the current status of the discharges. See Appendix A. Field reviews, in most cases, were conducted with PADEP staff, and data was collected on an AMD inventory discharge form where AMD discharges were found. For some permits, file reviews and personal knowledge were sufficient to determine that a permit did not have a post mining pollutional discharge.

PADEP BF Reclamation Projects The BAMR provided a list of 60 BF reclamation projects completed through state contracts, that had AMD problems indicated at the time of forfeiture. Thirteen of the 60 permits were on the list of 35 permits initially identified by the Field Office, and two were removed because of data base corrections. Therefore, 45 new permits were added to the BF AMD list for inspection. BAMR inspected 25 of these reclamation project sites, and the remaining 20 sites were added to the Field Office inspection list. The inspections found that 15 of the 45 sites had current discharges and four with evidence of continuing AMD problems.

Transferred Permits LUMIS records identified 47 forfeited permits that were transferred to other operators, but did not include information regarding the status of any AMD problems. These permits were added to the list for file review and evaluation. Based on the file review, a determination was made of whether there were continuing AMD discharge problems that needed a field review. Of the 47 BF transfers, file and follow-up field review found 8 permits with existing discharges and four with evidence of continuing AMD problems.

Bond Forfeiture permits addressed under Consent Orders and Agreements (CO&A’s) Five CO&A permits were identified with potential water problems. These permits were reclaimed through third party, or surety or through other means, however, there was no data on whether the AMD problem was resolved. Inspections found that 1 of the CO&A permits had an existing discharge and two others had evidence of continuing AMD problems. The CO&A updating effort will be continued in the next oversight workplan and inspections will be done on BF permits covered in a CO&A where possible continuing pollutional discharges are indicated. The inspections will determine current status and, where AMD problems exist, water quality and quantity information for any pollutional discharges will be collected.

Documentation AMD inventory forms were developed to gather specific information for each permit and discharge. The form was used by OSM and BAMR These forms are also being used in all the Field Office oversight studies to collect and document information on permits with AMD problems. A detailed data base is being maintained for all sites identified for evaluation, so there is documentation of the final disposition of any permit initially identified as potentially having an AMD problem. The data base also contains all information collected about the permit and the individual discharges.

Coordination with PADEP

Discussions with BAMR indicated that the Bureau also was conducting a field update of Primacy Bond Forfeiture Reclamation projects on which AMD had been noted as a problem at the time of bond forfeiture. The BAMR inspections were designed to determine if any of the reclaimed sites still had AMD problems and where this was the case, to update water quality and flow information and make a judgement whether the use of passive systems was an option for treatment of the discharge. Because the OSM and BAMR objectives were virtually identical, OSM and BAMR decided to divide up the list and collect information on the discharges using the HAFO data collection reports. BAMR’s list of 60 sites was divided with the Field Office. The Field Office already had identified 13 of the BAMR projects, and agreed to inspect another 20 of the remaining permits. BAMR inspected 25 of the permits and 2 were removed because of data base corrections.

PADEP field staff in the District Mining Offices, and the District AML Offices assisted the Field Office in this review by providing personal information regarding the permits, and helping OSM inspectors review permit files, locate permit sites and sources of AMD.

Primacy Bond Forfeiture Permit Populations.

The findings presented below are based on a review of water quality and quantity data on the 52 permits with known discharges. The summaries provide general characterizations of the scope of the AMD problem on forfeited primacy permits. Data on the individual discharges, particularly where limited to a single sample, may not be representative, and certainly do not reflect seasonal variation in the discharges. The data base is set up to respond to queries regarding any of the collected data and specific permit and discharge information is available in the BF data base. For the assessment of impacts, the following terms were used:

Quality of the Receiving Stream - A statement of the degree of AMD impact on the receiving stream immediately above the discharge. Options: High Quality - No Impact, Normal Quality - No Impact, Minor to Moderately Impacted, or Highly Impacted. [A "High Quality" stream supports a diverse population of aquatic life and use is intense or is a tributary to a intense use stream. A "Highly Impacted" stream is heavily damaged from past Industrial practices and does not support a diverse population of aquatic life.]

Impact on the Receiving Stream - A statement of the potential impact on the receiving stream should the discharge go untreated, or real impact if the discharge is currently untreated. Options: None - no impact; Minor - barely detectable chemical change in the receiving stream water quality, but no impact on the biology of the stream; Moderate - detectable chemical change in the receiving stream water quality and some impact to stream biology; Significant - significant change in receiving stream water quality and obvious impact to the stream biology, possibly dead.

As previously noted, 136 of 397 forfeited primacy permits were identified for review in this AMD study. Of the 136 permits, 52 were found to have continuing AMD problems, containing a total of 80 discharges. There were 18 permits that did not have discharges flowing at the time of inspection, but where field review indicated recent AMD flow conditions existed. Seventeen of these permits were in addition to the 52 permits already identified, one permit was already included in the 52 because it contained both an existing discharge as well as a discharge area that was currently not flowing. These potential discharges will be re-visited when surface and ground water systems are at more normal levels to determine whether AMD problems recur.

Of the 80 individual discharges identified with flow at the time of inspection, 19 are receiving some type of treatment. All these discharges are being directed through a variety of passive treatment systems including wetlands, Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems (SAPS), and Anoxic Limestone Drains (ALD) Although they are being treated, three of the treated discharges were identified as having a moderate adverse impact on the receiving stream, and 2 as having a significant adverse impact at the time of the inspection. Sixty-one of the discharges are not receiving treatment. Fifteen of the untreated discharges were having a moderate impact on a receiving stream, and 14 were identified as having a significant impact at the time of the inspection.

Flow data compiled from the 80 discharges totals 1237 gallons per minute. Water quality data compiled from the 80 discharges estimates total acidity at 5700 pounds per day. If this cumulative flow were a single discharge requiring treatment, the cost of chemicals alone to remove acidity, would range from a high of $652,746 per year for Caustic Soda, to a low of $61,927 per year for Hydrated Lime ( using Acid Mine Drainage Control and Treatment - Second Edition, Chapter 23, Compiled by Jeffrey G. Skousen and Paul F. Ziemkiewicz,).

LUMIS information indicates AMD forfeitures occurred between 1986 and 1999. (There were no permits forfeited in Pennsylvania from primacy through 1985).

An analysis of the date of issuance of the 52 permits provides an indication of the progress in PADEP’s coal regulatory program in preventing post mining pollutional discharges. The data indicate a total of 1237 gallons per minute (gpm) of AMD discharging from the 52 forfeitures. Permit data indicates that 39 of the forfeited permits were issued from 1982 (date of primacy) to 1985. When combined with flow data, the total volume of the AMD discharges being generated by this group of pre-1985 permits is 977 gpm, or nearly 80 % of the flow. In contrast, only 13 of the 52 forfeited permits with AMD were issued after 1985, and none were issued after 1992. The total volume of the AMD discharges for this group (permits issued post-1985 ) is 260 gpm, or only 20% of the flow. Of these 13 permits, 4 were identified as having significant impacts on the receiving streams, with discharge volumes totaling 204 gpm. One additional permit in this group was identified as having a moderate impact on the receiving stream, with a discharge of 5 gpm.

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of the 19 discharges that are receiving treatment. The treatment on three discharges was preventing adverse impacts to receiving streams, while 11 discharges were identified as having a minor adverse impact and 5 treated discharges were still having a moderate or significant adverse impact on the receiving stream. Treatment facilities in many cases had been put in by the permittee in an effort prevent or forestall forfeiture and were not adequately constructed to treat effectively.

Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of the number of untreated discharges. Sixty-one discharges were flowing at time of inspection which were not receiving treatment. Of these, 11 were having no impact on a receiving stream, 21 had minor impact, 15 had moderate impact and 14 had significant impact.

Total stream loading of AMD sites, expressed in pounds per day of acidity and metals, is often used as an indication of the severity of the discharge. The total load for all 80 flowing discharges are summarized in figure 3. Iron is the largest loading metal. However, due to the toxicity of Aluminum to aquatic life, the relatively low amount of stream loading may also have significant impacts on specific streams.

Figure 4 reflects the options and costs associated to treat the AMD for all of the identified discharges throughout the counties.

A cost for chemical treatment was estimated using a calculation formula and four selected chemicals from the report Acid Mine Drainage Control and Treatment - Second Edition, Chapter 23, Compiled by Jeffrey G. Skousen and Paul F. Ziemkiewicz. The flow and acidity numbers of all 80 discharges were totaled in making this estimate, thus the estimate treats the water as a single discharge. This estimating technique further assumes that removal of the acidity will raise the pH enough to precipitate the iron and aluminum. No factor was included for Manganese since a very high pH (above 9) is needed to precipitate this metal to reach effluent standards. Further, this resulting pH exceeds the effluent standard. Therefore, this estimate provides a very generalized look at ranges in treatment cost without considering the very relevant factors of the individual discharges, the need for site equipment, cost of constructing treatment and settlement ponds, maintenance, and personnel costs among others.

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of flows by gallons per minute. The data show that only five (6 %) of the discharges have flows of 50 gpm or greater while 41 (51%) of the discharges are 5 gpm or less and that 73 of the discharges (79%) are 10 gpm or less. There is one flow over 300gpm. Smaller flows are more suitable to passive treatment, requiring less land area for treatment and a lower cost to construct and maintain the facility. Some net acidic flows in the 200+ gpm are now receiving treatment through vertical flow alkalinity producing wetlands. Thus, most of these discharges could be amenable passive treatment, although the long term effectiveness of high flow treatment systems is still being evaluated.

The Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation provided the Field Office a data base of all collected primacy forfeitures, including forfeiture and collection dates, amount of bond collected, the status of reclamation, and cost expended on reclamation.

By cross referencing the Field Office list of 52 AMD permits with the BAMR list of collected forfeitures, the Field Office identified that bond moneys are available on 16 of the permits. Either the permit has not yet been reclaimed, or land reclamation costs left a surplus of bond for that permit. The amount of bond available on those AMD permits is $1,095,872. BAMR advised that they do not release excess bond to the bond pool after reclamation if there is a continuing AMD problem on the permit. A random check of Field Office bond forfeited AMD permits against the BAMR bond forfeiture collected data base confirms that policy.

Of the 16 AMD forfeited permits with bond funds available, 12 were reclaimed by PADEP and have $770,527 in bonds available. The remaining 4 permits are under investigation and design and have $325,345 in bonds available.

Analysis of the information collected in this study identifies a trend, consistent with the results of other recent studies, indicating a significant decrease in the instances of primacy permits resulting in pollutional discharges. Thirty-nine (75%) of the 52 forfeited permits with AMD were issued from 1982 (date of primacy) to 1985; only 13 were issued after 1985. The 39 forfeited permits issued before 1985 account for 80% of the cumulative flow.

In October 1991, OSM issued a formal notice to Pennsylvania, under 30 CFR Part 732, that the alternative bonding system was not capable of supporting land reclamation and providing water treatment on forfeited primacy permits. There has been only one primacy permit issued after the date of that notification and subsequently forfeited, that had a pollutional discharge. The results indicate the level of PADEP’s AMD prediction capability and that PADEP has effectively applied that capability and technology in making permit decisions.

Since more 75 percent of the discharges have flows less than 10 gpm, many appear to fall within the range of parameters where passive treatment may be viable means address the pollution.