Sewickley Creek Watershed

Hydrologic Unit PlanQualifications to meet DEP Acid Mine

Drainage Set Aside Program Guidelines

BAMR Set-Aside Guidelines• Details requirements for acquiring funding

from the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) for AMD treatment.

• Federal funding comes from a fee collected on every ton of coal mined in the US and is earmarked for abandoned mine reclamation – ALL abandoned mine problems.

• PA receives approximately 40 to 50 million each year from SMCRA (recent reductions).

• SMCRA reauthorized in 2006• PA held 10 public town hall meetings

throughout PA mining regions• Public comments clear on two points: 30% of

the funds should go to AMD remediation and funding should support local watershed efforts

• Initial guidelines developed in 2008 by DEP and the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) with a first draft published in 2009

BAMR Set-Aside Guidelines

• Guidelines based on language in SMCRA and an agency assessment of passive treatment systems

• Attempts to provide a means to determine where funding will be most effectively spent primarily on treatment types.

• Requires watershed restoration plans to meet specific requirements and be “qualified” by BAMR as meeting those requirements.

BAMR Set-Aside Guidelines

• “restoration of land and water resources and the environment” within a “qualified hydrologic unit” is a key element.

• Must restore water quality and biologic resources

• Uses a two-tier approach- Tier 1(high level) removes stream from degraded list Tier 2 (lower level) restores stream to a fishery and meets water quality requirements

• Must have a positive cost/benefit ratio

BAMR Set-Aside Guidelines

HUP plan identifies restoration of Sewickley Creek Main Stem and all major tributaries impaired by AMD to the Tier 2 goal of re-establishing the steams as a fishery

HUP plan identified 11 major sources to be treated (not considering work presently taking place at Brinkerton)

Biologic monitoring indicates all affected stream segments are impaired

BAMR Guidelines Applied to Sewickley Creek

Monitoring• All major discharges were monitored for

chemistry and flow for a period of one year to identify the pollution load from each discharge and to develop treatment options and cost analysis for treating each discharge.

• Biologic monitoring was performed on affected stream segments below major discharges to determine if the streams were biologically impaired.

Flow (average and 75th percentile) and average chemistry results for Sewickley Creek HUP investigation (2012-2013). Collected by WPC ID Flow ave Flow 75th pH Alk Acid Fe Mn Al SO4 acid ppd Fe ppd Mn ppd DMP-WR1 1,071 1,459 6.9 180 (167) 6.6 0.5 0.0 370 (2,051) 97 10 DMP-WR2 1,126 1,760 6.3 138 (97) 21.7 0.5 0.2 386 (1,239) 254 8 DMP-SOB1 17 20 3.0 0 74 22.8 5.6 1.0 542 12 4 1 DMP-SOB2 238 350 3.8 0 193 85.1 8.6 2.4 934 519 227 23 DMP-SOB3 198 271 6.6 163 (132) 8.3 1.0 0.1 279 (338) 21 2 DMP-BUF1 545 548 6.4 43 97 71.6 3.8 0.9 644 695 470 24 DMP-JR1 1,225 1,550 5.9 40 16 28.7 1.3 0.3 473 253 431 18 DMP-BR1 1,500 1,870 6.2 98 (36) 31.9 1.4 0.5 398 (640) 558 24 BR1 Overflow 1,063 1,896 6.2 104 (48) 28.6 1.5 0.3 378 (627) 586 33 DMP-BR1A 1,690 2,075 7.0 82 (50) 15.6 0.9 0.3 421 (745) 446 14 DMP-BR2 1,158 1,258 6.6 217 (182) 17.3 1.1 0.3 376 (2,516) 241 15 DMP-BR3 187 405 4.2 1 66 29.0 2.7 0.5 724 105 57 7 SMP-SC1 87,814 106,171 8.1 123 (121) 0.9 0.0 0.0 194 (121,884) 992 38 SMP-SC3 57,063 59,649 7.7 103 (99) 1.9 0.1 0.0 182 (62,461) 2,182 128 SMP-SC4 17,954 25,121 7.4 126 (120) 3.0 0.2 0.0 186 (25,139) 645 61 SMP-SC5 15,424 22,316 7.1 124 (114) 5.0 0.4 0.0 229 (17,553) 1,107 60 SMP-SC6 9,663 12,072 8.7 127 (126) 0.3 0.0 0.0 59 (13,729) 29 1 SMP-BOYR1 2,276 3,126 7.3 191 (186) 2.7 0.1 0.0 214 (5,067) 65 3 SMP-WR1 4,058 4,678 8.0 144 (140) 1.7 0.2 0.1 267 (6,618) 89 18 SMP-BUF1 3,374 4,702 7.2 45 (19) 12.0 1.2 0.5 265 (919) 371 46 SMP-LS1 15,524 15,332 8.1 165 (162) 1.2 0.1 0.0 186 (26,858) 253 28 SMP-JR1 5,848 7,191 7.1 107 (85) 11.4 0.8 0.1 257 (6,415) 655 56 Lowber in 1,850 1,993 6.3 333 (184) 71.7 1.2 0.2 1,143 (4,136) 1,521 27 Lowber out na na 7.8 216 (189) 1.1 0.5 0.2 1,163 (4,261) 25 12

Role of Costs in HUP Development

1. Compare treatment choices 2. Calculate benefit:cost ratio for proposed

projects within the hydrologic unit

• Cost analysis performed on each major discharge to determine the most cost effective treatment type.

• Costs includes operation and maintenance over a 20 year period

• Benefits based on Fish and Boat Commission value for lost fishing trips per mile of stream (from BAMR Restoration Guidelines)

Cost/Benefits Analysis

Trout Unlimited Technical Assistance provided to Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

AMD Treatment Cost Estimation for Potential Set Aside Projects 

Reason for Developing Cost Estimator

Conduct Benefit-Cost Analysis prescribed in Set-Aside Guidance

Useful for long-term O&M calculations Compare alternative technologies Make available to PA watershed groups

developing HUP plans for Title IV funding

Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH)

Pebble Lime (CaO)

Lime Slurry (Ca(OH)2)

Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2)

Chemical Treatment

Chemical Treatment Options NaOH

◦ minimal set-up costs◦ High reagent cost

Lime Slurry◦ Moderate set-up costs◦ Very low operator responsibility◦ moderate reagent cost

Pebble Lime◦ Highest set-up costs◦ Operator experience important◦ Lowest reagent cost

Hydrogen Peroxide◦ Moderate Set up costs◦ High operator responsibility

Aerobic Treatment

Anoxic Limestone Drain

Vertical Flow Pond

Oxic Limestone Bed

Passive Treatment

Passive Technology Costs Construction: based on realized costs for

fully functional passive systems O&M: based on realized costs

◦ Aerobic Systems: Fe sludge management◦ ALD Systems: Limestone rehabilitation and Fe

sludge management◦ Oxic Limestone Bed Systems: Limestone

rehabilitation and sludge management◦ Vertical Flow Pond Systems: organic substrate

rehabilitation

Costs Capital (construction)

◦ Project cost schedules◦ Vendor quotes◦ AMD Treat◦ Routine spreadsheet methodologies

Annual O&M◦ Documented costs at existing treatment systems

Total Cost◦ Capital + Present Value of future O&M

Chemical Construction Chemical addition unit Settling pond sized for 48 hr retention of

high flow rate Sludge pond sized for 20 years of solids

storage

Chemical O&M calcs using AMDTreat

Chemical O&M Documented costs from systems managed

by DMOs

◦ NaOH: Morris system (Cambria DMO)

◦ Pebble lime: Manor system (Moshannon DMO)

◦ Lime slurry: Woodcock system (Cambria DMO)

◦ H2O2: Mathies system (New Stanton DMO)

Hydrogen PeroxideDate Electricity Labor Equipment Maintenance Insurance sludge

removalcost gallons $/gal

2/28/15 $ 2,500

3/15/15 $ 2,172 $ 2,500 $ 5,805 1,995 $ 2.91

3/31/15 $ 2,500 $ 602

4/15/15 $ 1,647 $ 2,500

4/30/15 $ 2,500 $ 158 $ 5,500 1,890 $ 2.91

4/15/15 $ 5,143

5/4/15 $ 1,470

5/15/15 $ 2,500

5/31/15 $ 2,500 $ 1,271

6/15/15 $ 909 $ 2,500

6/30/15 $ 2,500 $ 5,198 1,786 $ 2.91

7/15/15 $ 2,461 $ 2,500

7/31/15 $ 2,500

8/15/15 $ 287 $ 57,938

8/31/15 $ 2,500 $ 5,161 2,085 $ 2.48

O&M Unit Costs $/ppd contaminant?

◦ Uncertainty about loading Incomplete flow rate information Mixture of multiple mine and non-mine water sources

$/unit of reagent added◦ Certainty about quantity of reagent used◦ Certainty about costs◦ Unit cost = (total treatment costs) / (quantity of

reagent)

O&M Unit Costs Alkaline reagents: $/ton-CaCO3

◦ NaOH: $1,056/ton-CaCO3

◦ Pebble lime: $329/ton-CaCO3

◦ Lime slurry: $627/ ton-CaCO3

Hydrogen peroxide: $/gal 50% H2O2◦ H2O2 (50%): $14.93/gal

Alkaline Reagent Cost Breakdown

Cost Category Pebble Lime

Lime Slurry

Caustic

$/ton CaCO3

$/ton CaCO3

$/ton CaCO3

Reagent $93 $270 $553Labor 71 65 232Equipment/Misc 141 94 45Maintenance 24 162 183Utilities 36 63Total $329 $627 $1,076

Hydrogen Peroxide Cost Breakdown

Category $/galH2O2 $2.84Labor $5.60Equipment $1.71Maintenance $1.15Utilities $1.11Insurance $0.08Sludge management

$2.43

Total $14.93

Calculation of Chemical O&M Costs

Annual contaminant loading / Efficiency = units/yr

units/yr X $/unit = $/year

Efficiency Unit costNaOH 85% $1,056 /CaCO3

Pebble Lime

60% $329 /CaCO3

Lime Slurry 70% $627/CaCO3

H2O2 100% $14.94/gal H2O2-50%

Passive Treatment Cost Estimates

Construction Annual O&MAerobic System Size based on Fe

loading and $2/ft2 (full system) + sludge basin

$1,500/yr + $25/ton FeOOH sludge management

Anoxic Limestone Drain

Size based on 10 hr retention, 20 years, $40/ton LS installed

$1,500/yr + 50% of LS every 10 years at $50/ton

Oxic Limestone Bed Size based on acidity loading and $90/ton LS (full system) + sludge basin

$1,500/yr + $5/ton LS cleaning every 4 years + 3%/yr LS replacement at $25/ton

Vertical Flow Pond Size based on acid loading and $10/ft2 (full system)

$1,500/yr + rehab organic substrate every 10 years at 15% of construction cost

Present Value Calculations Construction + PV(annual O&M) PV

◦ 20 years◦ 5% net discount rate

Example: alkaline Fe discharge – Brinkerton 2

Example: Alkaline Fe discharge: SC BR2

Flow: avg. 1,158 gpm; 75th 1,258 gpm pH 6.6; -182 mg/L acid, 17 mg/L Fe, 1 mg/ Mn,

<1 mg/L AlPassive Construction 6.3 acre pond/wetland + 0.3 acre sludge pond $548,000 + $24,000 Passive O&MInspections + Fe sludge management $1500 + $2,194 Totals: construction: $572,000; O&M $3,694/yr

SC BR2

  NaOHPebble

LimeLime

SlurryH2O2 Passive

Aerobic

Construction $269,218 $469,218 $359,218 $188,915 $572,114

Annual $102,821 $45,382 $74,132 $79,620 $3,694

PV Annual $1,281,375 $565,557 $923,849 $992,242 $46,031

Total Cost $1,550,594 $1,034,775 $1,283,067 $1,181,157 $618,145

Example: Acid Fe discharge (ALD): SC BUF1

Flow: avg 545 gpm; 75th 548 gpmpH 6.4; 97 mg/L acid, 72 mg/L Fe, 4 mg/ Mn, <1 mg/L Al

Passive Construction10,800 ton ALD + 3.7 acre pond/wetland + sludge pond $431,000 + $320,000 + $46,000

Passive O&MInspections + Fe sludge management + LS rehab $1500 + $4,273 + $13,481Totals: construction: $797,000; O&M $19,254/yr

SC BUF1

  NaOHPebble

LimeLime

Slurry Passive

ALD & Aer Construction $226,050 $426,050 $316,050 $796,867

Annual $197,463 $87,154 $142,367 $19,254

PV Annual $2,460,824 $1,086,126 $1,774,210 $239,944

Total Cost $2,686,874 $1,512,176 $2,090,260 $1,036,812

Example: Acid Fe & Al discharge: Korb 4

Flow: avg 79 gpm; 75th 131 gpm pH 2.7; 382 mg/L acid, 44 mg/L Fe, 30 mg/L Al

Passive Construction 44,000 ft2 vertical flow pond $442,000 Passive O&MInspections + organic substrate management $1,500 + $6,632

Totals: construction: $442,000; O&M $8,132/yr

Korb 4

  NaOHPebble

LimeLime

SlurryPassive

DLBPassive

VFPConstruction $49,529 $249,529$139,529 $385,185 $442,124Annual $82,163 $36,264 $59,238 $11,659 $8,132PV Annual $1,023,934 $451,931$738,238 $145,291 $101,341Total Cost $1,073,463 $701,460$877,767 $530,476 $543,465

Cost Evaluation Construction costs Operation and Maintenance costs

◦ 20 years of analysis◦ Calculate Present Value assuming 5% discount

rate Total Cost = Construction + PV(O&M)

Sewickley Creek AMD Majority of discharges are alkaline with Fe

◦ Aerobic pond/wetlands Acid discharges are low Al

◦ Anoxic Limestone Drain ◦ Aerobic pond/wetlands

PFBC Value Lost for Sewickley Creek TSF = 1100 Trips per year x $78.02 per trip

Stream milesValue Lost Per year 20 year value

Sewickley Creek Mainstem 17.3 $1,484,721 $18,502,885Buffalo Run 1.8 $154,480 $1,925,156Jacks Run 5 $429,110 $5,347,655Wilson Run 4.8 $411,946 $5,133,748Boyer Run 0 $0 $0

Total 28.9 $2,480,256 $30,909,444

Estimated Cost of Restoration

StreamSystem Type

System Cost

Costs over 20 years

Sewickley Creek Main StemBrinkerton 1A Passive $778,594 $833,264Brinkerton Overflow Passive $718,262 $790,267Brinkerton 2 Passive $548,172 $594,203Brinkerton 3 Passive $177,220 $231,425Soberdash 1 Passive $23,892 $47,250Soberdash 2 Passive $398,147 $625,696Soberdash 3 Passive $73,589 $94,525

Buffalo Run 1 Passive $398,147 $625,696Jacks Run 1 Passive $929,469 $1,109,558

Wilson Run 1 Passive $359,773 $388,112Wilson Run 2 Passive $590,742 $642,779Boyer Run

Totals $4,996,007 $5,982,775

Cost/Benefit Ratio Total Benefit Value/Total Cost Value 5.17

Cost/Benefits Analysis