FF

COAL PILE
DRAINAGE MODEL:
Calibliation and Verification
Prepared by:
TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
East Hartford, Connecticut

RESEARCH
REPORT
EP
81-15
Final Report
March 1983
EMPIRE STATE ELECTRIC ENERGY RESEARCH CORPORATION
EMPIRE STATE ELECTRIC ENERGY RESEARCH CORPORATION
A.COAL PILE DRAINAGE MODEL:
CALIBRAJ"ION AND VERIFICATION
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO)
and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Neither ESEERCO, members of ESEERCO,
NYSERDA, nor any person acting on behalf of either:
a. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the
information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report
may not infringe privately owned rights; or .
b. Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method
or process disclosed in this report.
TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
East Hartford, Connecticut
MARCH 1983
SECTION
LO
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2 .. 1
2.2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.5
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.5.5
3.0
3.1
3.1.1
3.1. 2
3.1.3
3.2
3.3
3.3.1
3.3 . 2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Aclmowledgment
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
COAL PILE DRAINAGE MODEL
Model Development
Model Description
Hydraulic Model
Development of Qualitative Model
Model Calibration
Calibration of Hydraulic Model
Calibration of the Qualitative Model
Model Verification
Verification of Hydraulic Model
Verification of Qualitative Model
Summary of Modeling Results
Success of Calibration and Verification
Limitations of Model
Pa.rameters Significant in the Calibration and
Verification
of the Model
Areas for Further Study
FIELD PROGRAM
Site Selection
Selection Criteria
Ranking of Utility Sites
'rest Site Descriptions
Sampling Methodology, Analytical Methodology and
Data Reduction " .
Greenidge Results
Site Meteorology Summary
Coal Pile Drainage Summary
Coal Pile Hydrology
Chemical Characteristics of Coal Pile
Drainage
Coal Characteristics
Pile water Content
Russell Results
Site Meteorology Summary
Coal Pile Drainage Summary
Coal Pile Hydrology
Chemical Characteristics of Coal Pile Drainage
Coal Characteristics
Groundwater
Comparison of Results
Dra.inage
Hydrology ..
Chemical Characteristics of the Drainage
-iii-
PAGE
xiii
xv
1
5
5
8
8
13
16
16
25
32
32
34
43
43
44
46
47
47
49
49
49
51
54
58
59
59
60
72
93
101
106
108
108
109
116
133
138
142
161
,161
163
165
SECTION
3.6
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
FIGURE
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5a
2-5b
2-6
2-7
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.5.4 Coal Characteristics
Field Program Recommendations
LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION METHOD DEVELOPMENT
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1. 3
Method Development and Procedures
Serial Batch Extraction Method Development
Extraction Duration .
Serial Batch Extraction procedure
4.2.1
presentation of Data and Discussion of Results
presentation of Test Data
4.2.2 Results and Discussion
Applicability to Model
Conclusions and Recommendations
LIST OF FIGURES
Example HyetographjHydrograph from Plotter
Example Plot from Qualitative Model
Schematic of Hydrologic Cycle Coal Storage Pile . . . .
Simulated vs. Measured HydrographjHyetograph - Storm 3
Greenidge . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . .
Simulated vs. Measured HydrographjHyetograph - Storm 4,
1st Phase - Greenidge . .. . . .. . . . . . .
Simulated vs. Measured HydrographjHyetograph - Storm 4,
2nd Phase - Greenidge
Steps in Calibrating Qualitative Model
Simulated vs. Measured HydrographjHyetograph - Storm 3 -
Russell ........ .. .. . ..
Coal pile Layout and Site Setup - Greenidge
Coal Pile Layout and Site Setup - Russell .
HyetographjHydrograph - Storm 1 - Greenidge . . . . .
HyetographjHydrograph - Storm 2 - Greenidge
HyetographjHydrograph - Storm 3 - Greenidge
-iv-
PAGE
167
170
173
174
175
179
181
183
183
187
201
202
PAGE
7
9
10
22
23
24
29
37
56
57
65
66
67
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
FIGURE PAGE
3-6 Hyetograph/Hydrograph - Storm 4, 1st Phase - Greenidge 68
3-7 Hyetograph/Hydrograph - Storm 4, 2nd Phase - Greenidge 69
3-8 Analysis of Drainage Components - Storm 4, 1st Phase -
Greenidge 71
3-9 Simplified Hydrological Block Diagram - Greenidge 75
3-10 Temporal Coal Pile Moisture Plot/Hyetograph - Greenidge,
M-l . . . . . . . 77
3-11 Temporal Coal Pile Moisture plot/Hyetograph - Greenidge,
M-2 . 78
M-3 79
M-4 80
M-5 . . . . . . . . .
81
3-15 Greenidge Coal Pile Moisture Profiles 82
3-16 Comparison of Pan and Pile Evaporimeters - Greenidge 91
3-J.7 Conductivity/Dissolved Solids Correlation - Storm 3 -
Greenidge . 96
3-18 Cu, Se and As Response to Storm 4 - Greenidge 102
3-19 Al, Mn and Fe Response to Storm 4 - Greenidge 103
3-20 Russell Hyetograph/Hydrograph - Storm 1 113
3-21 Russell Hyetograph/Hydrograph - Storm 2 114
3-22 Russell' Hyetograph/Hydrograph - Storm 3 115
3-23 Simplified Hydrological Block Diagram - Russell 118
3-24 Temporal Coal Pile Moisture Plot/Hyetograph
-
Russell,
M-9 . . . .

.

120
3-25 Temporal Coal Pile M.oisture plot/Hyetograph
-
Russell,
M-10

.

121
3-26 Temporal Coal Pile Moisture plot/Hyetograph
-
Russell,
M":'ll

122
-v-
FIGURE
3-27
3-28
3-29
3-30
3-31
3-32
3-33
3-34
3-35
3-36
3-37
3-38
3-39
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Temporal Coal Pile Moisture Plot/Hyetograph - Russell,
M--12
Temporal Coal Pile Moisture Plot/Hyetograph - Russell,
M-13 ... .. ..
Russell Coal Pile Moisture Profiles
Comparison of Pan and Pile Evaporimeters - Russell
Conductivity/Dissolved Solids Correlation - Storm 1 -
Russell .. .. . . .
AI, Mn and Fe Concentration Response to Storm 2 - Russell
Se, Cu and As Concentration Response to Storm 2 - Russell
Stream Conductivity Sample Locations at Russell
Section A-A' Looking East
Section B-B' Looking Northwest
Section C-C' Looking Southwest
Ground Water Quality Sample Locations and Estimated Area
of Leachate Flow
Data Plot of Terrain Conductivity Survey at Russell
Flow Chart for 4 x 4 Serial Batch Extraction Matrix
Extraction Number 1 for Sets I and 2,
va. Each Coal Batch A,B,C,D Using a
Coal Mass Ratio
Iron Concentrations
2:1 Liquid Volume to
Concentration of Sulfates vs. the Cumulative Volume of
Water as it Leaches Coal Sample D in Set 1
Comparison of Coal pile Leachate Metals Concentration to
Mean Extraction Metals Concentration
Comparison of Coal Pile Storm Runoff Metals Concentration
to Mean Extraction Metals Concentration
4-6 Comparison of Coal Pile Leachate Metals Concentration to
Mean Serial Batch Extraction Leachate Concentration-
Sieved Coal . .. 0 Q
-vi-
123
124
125
131
135
139
140
145
148
149
150
153
160
182
188
189
191
195
196
TABLE
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-S
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
LIST OF TABLES
Values of Input Parameters for Hydraulic Model
Calibration Greenidge Site
Results of Model Calibration Hydraulic Model
Greenidge Site
Components of Simulated Storms For Greenidge Coal Pile
Values of Input Parameters for Qualitative Model
Calibration Greenidge Site
Results of Calibration of Qualitative Model
Values of Input Parameters for Hydraulic Model Verification
Russell Site . .
Results of Hydraulic Model Verification, Russell Site
Components of Simulated Storms For Russell Coal Pile
Values of Input Parameters for Qualitative Model
Verification, Russell Site
Results of Verification of Qualitative Model
Utility Sites Visited in Site Selection Process
Comparison of Utility Coal Pile Study Sites
Comparison of Normal Temperature and precipitation Data
With Field Data at the Greenidge Station .
Comparison of Statistical Storm Data with Field at
Greenidge Station
Greenidge Coal Pile Storm-Runoff summary
Comparison of Train Pile and Truck Pile at Greenidge
Greenidge Coal pile Density Results
Greenidge :[nfiltration Rates
Results of Greenidge Resistivity Survey
Summary of Total Solids Loading Greenidge Storms
-vii-
PAGE
19
21
21
26
31
35
36
36
39
41
52
53
60
61
63
73
85
88
92
97
TABLE
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-21
3-22
3-23
3-24
3-25
3-26
3-27
3-28
3-29
3-30
3-31
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Range of Observed Values for Total and Dissolved Metals.
Greenidge Station
Coal Sources Used at Greenidge
Comparison of Truck and Train Coal at Greenidge
Greenidge Coal Samples - Metal Concentrations
Comparison of Normal Temperature and Precipitation Data
With Field Data at Russell Station
Comparison of Statistical Storm Data With Field Data at
Russell Station
Russell Coal Pile Storm-Runoff Summary
Russell Coal Pile Density and Porosity Results
Russell Infiltration Results
Russell Results of Permeability Measurements . .
Results of Russell Resistivity Survey
Total Solids Loadings for Russell Storms
Range of Observed Values for Total and Dissolved Metals,
Russell Station
Russell Coal Sources
Russell Coal Samples - Metal Concentrations
Slater Creek Conductivity Surveys
Russell Groundwater Level Elevations
Russell Piezometer pH and Conductivity Results
Russell Groundwater Quality Results
Summary Comparison of Dry Day and Storm Runoff
Concentration, Greenidge Vs. Russell
Comparison of Greenidge and Russell Coal
-vi ii-
PAGE
100
104
104
105
109
110
111
127
128
129
132
136
137
141
143
146
151
154
156
166
168
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE
4-1 Results from Preliminary Testing of Three Extraction
Techniques
4-2 Equilibration Test Conditions
4-3 Equilibration Test-Russell Coal Samples
4-4 Extraction Test Conditions
4-5 Serial Bat.ch Extractions on Russell Coal Samples
4-6 Serial Batch Extract.ions on Pre-Sieved Russell Coal Samples
'1-7 Compari,son of Replicate Sets From Tests 1 and 2, Coal D,
4-8
Extraction 1
Coal Sieve Analysis Results from the Russell Field Program
and Laboratory Batch Extraction Tests
-ix-
PAGE
178
179
180
183
184
186
193
198
A
B
C
A.l
A.2
B.l
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.S
B.6
B.7
B.a
B.9
B.lO
C.l
C.2
A.l.l
A.l.2
A.1.3
A.l.4
A.l.S
A.2.l
A.2.2
B.l.l
B.l.2
B.1.3
B.4.l
B.4.2
B.4.3
B.4.4
B.4.S
B.6.1
B.6.2
B.6.3
B.9.l
B.9.2
B.IO.l
B.IO.2
C.l.l
C.1.2
C.l.3
C.1.4
C.l.S
C.1.6
C.2.l
C.2.2
C.2.3
C.2.4
C.2.S
APPENDICES
MODEL DESCRIPTION
Hydraulic Model
Drainage Flow
Interior of the Coal pile
Snowfall and Snowmelt
Erosion of Coal Solids
Evaporation
Development of Qualitative Model
Pyrite Oxidation
Movement of Materials Through Pile
SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
COntinuous On-Site Measurements
Drainage Flow
pH, Conductivity and Temperature
Meteorology
Stormwater and Dry Weather Drainage Sampling
Field Preparation of Drainage Samples
Coal Pile Hydrologic Measurements
Coal Moisture
Density
Infiltration
Permeability
Resistivity
Coal Sampling Procedures
Ground water Monitoring
Installation of Wells
Level Measurements
Sampling and Analysis
Time-of-Travel
Supplementary Data
Greenidge Site Procedures
Drainage'Flow
Ground.Water
Russell Site Procedures
Drainage Flow
Ground Water
ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
Nonmetallic Analysis of Runoff Samples
Acidity
Filterable and Nonfilterable Residue
Total Organic Carbon
Sulfate
Hardness
Fluoride
Metal Analyses of Runoff Samples
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
-x-
D
E
C.3
C.4
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
C.2.6
C.2.7
C.2.8
C.2.9
C.2.10
C.2.11
C.2.12
C.2.13
C.2.14
C.2.15
C.2.16
C.2.17
C.2.18
C.2.19
C.3.1
C.3.2
C. 3. 3
C.3.4
C.4.1
C.4.2
C.4.3
C.'1.4
C.4.5
C.4.6
C.4.7
C.4.8
C.4.9
C.4.10
C.4.11
C.4.12
C.4.13
C.4.14
C.4 . 15
C.4.16
C.4.17
C.4.l8
C.4.19
APPENDICES (continued)
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Physical and Nonmetallic Analysis of Coal Samples
Moisture
Ash
Particle Size
Fluoride
MEttal Analysis of Coal Samples
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
l ~ e r c u r y
Molybdenum
Nickel
,selenium
vanadium
Zinc
DATA REDUCTION
Correction of Flow, pH and Conductivity Data
Procedure for Determining Drainage Coefficients
Selected Correlation Analyses
Cor.rection of MoistUre Cell Data
Evaporation Data Reduction
SAMPI.E DATA SHEETS, LOGS AND CALIBRATION CURVES
-xi-
FIGURE
B-1
B-2
B-3
D-l
TABLE
B-1
B-2
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
c-s
C-6
C-7
APPENDICES (continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
Probe Bucket for pH, Temperature and Conductivity
Sensors
Coal Pile Evaporation Gauge
Sample Preservation Schedule
Example Moisture Cell Calibration Curve
LIST OF TABLES
Pollutant Parameters to be Analyzed During Field
Program and Minimum Volume Required
Supplemental Data
Analytical Procedures for Nonmetallic parameters
Analytical Procedures for Metals
Analytical Quality Assurance Data for Greenidge
Analytical Quality Assurance Data for Russell
Sieve Sizes Used for Coal Particle Size Analysis
Analytical Procedures for Metals in Coal
Results of Coal Standard Analyses
-xii-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this report, Gordon Brookman, John Ripp, Pamela Katz and
Margaret Flanagan would like to acknowledge the help and assistance of John G.
Holsapple of the New York Power pool, Carol Hornibrook of the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority, the corporate environmental staff
of New York State Gas and Electric and Rochester Gas and Electric and the
plant personnel at NYSEG's Greenidge plant and RG&E's Russell plant.
Acknowledgement is also given to other TRC staff members who contributed
significantly to this project including Marcel Albert, Deborah Alexson, Dudley
Alleman, Diane Belangrer, Dan Bonitata, Elden Brown, Sam Cha, Carl Bkroth,
Deborah Fecso, Fred .Johnson, Jayne Kebe, Barbara Kohlun, Anne Levine, John
Murray, Dave Ringquist, Jeanne Swayner, Dennis Unites, and Jean Waleszczy,k.
-xiii-
-xiv-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a research project sponsored by the
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO). The project was
in.itiated in May, ne:l and was partially funded by the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority. The project had two main objectives; 1)
to perform a field program to gather information to establish a data base on
coal pile runoff in New York State and; 2) with this data, calibrate and ver-
ify a coal. pile model developed by TRC in previous work sponsored by
the EPA and the Edison Electric Institute (EEl). The primary use of the model
will be to assist engineers in sizing collection basins and designing
treatment systems for coal pile runoff.
A number of secondary objectives inherent to the collection of field data
on coal pile runoff were sought and these included:
1. 1:0 define the "first flush" effect whereby pollutant loadings are
greater at the beginning of a runoff event and become more
diluted with increased flow
2. to substantiate the range of runoff coefficients which indicate
the amount of precipitation which results in direct runoff
3. to identify and quantify the other various hydrological
components of large coal storage piles. These include
evaporation, infiltration, moisture storage capacity and under
pile drainage.
This report is only one of several deliverables from this project. Sep-
atate deliverables include: a data bank for each of the two test sites, a
magnetic tape of the coal pile drainage model, and a user's manual for the
model.
-xv-
Site Selection
The first task in the project involved the selection of two New York State
utility stations to be used as test sites to collect a sufficient amount of
data on runoff and leachate for calibration and verification of the model. A
subjective ranking system was developed uSing various physical and chemical
characteristics of coal piles such as pile size, sulfur content, surface run-
off containment, and ability to perform sampling within the coal pile.
Nine utility sites were visited and evaluated according to the ranking
system. The two highest ranked plants, the Russell Station of Rochester Gas
and Electric (RG&E) in Rochester and the Greenidge Station of New York State
Electric and Gas (NYSEG) in Dresden were selected as test sites.
After permission was obtained from the utilities, the program proceeded to
the actual field testing. The field program included sampling and analysis of
the coal and the moisture within the piles; sampling and analysis of the
ground water at one pile: performing ten weeks of monitoring of coal pile
runoff and meteorology at each site; and all the laboratory analyses and data
interpretation necessary for model input and model simulation. After sampling
the first site, some additional in-pile monitoring supplemented the program,
adding an additional six week test period to the second site and a second trip
of four weeks duration to the first site.
Site No. 1 - Field Program
The first site sampled was the Greenidge Station of NYSEG which has a
power generation capacity of 204 megawatts. The plant has approximately 5.26
acres of coal storage with coal supplied from western and central pennsylvania
sources. All leachate and runoff from the coal storage area is contained and
directed into a separate treatment facility. The coal storage area is
-xvi-
completely lined. The sampling program at Greenidge was performed from
September 6, 1981 to October 30, 1981. Additional sampling was performed from
July 19, 1982 to August 26, 1982. All sampling was performed upstream of the
coal. pile dra,inage treatment system.
The 1981 sampling period at Greenidge had higher than normal precipitation
levels with a total of 6.5 inches of rain. The 1982 sampling period at
Greenidge had lower than normal precipitation levels with only 1. 58 inches of
rain. Seven storm events in the fall of 1981 and two in the summer of 1982
were monitored at Greenidge. Four of the fall storms were sampled for chemi-
cal characteri.zation and analyzed for hydrological purposes. Table 1 provides
a summary of the storms sampled at Greenidge. Historically runoff collection
basins have been designed from drainage coefficients of 0.7 and greater. The
data in Table 1 shows that the Greenidge storms sampled had drainage coeffi-
cienl:s much less than 0.7. If these lower drainage coefficients can be fur-
ther SUbstantiated at Greenidge and other sites, it may allow for the design
of Smaller drainage collection systems.
'l:he drainage flow at Greenidge ,reacted quite rapidly to precipitation.
Fo'r most storms the flow increased within 30 minutes. Hydrographs developed
for t ~ a c h storm provide evidence of the various flow stream components which
make.,.'up the composite hydrograph. At the start of a storm the less impervious
areas around the perimeter of the coal pile drain rapidly, and represent the
initial water flowing off the pile. As the storm progresses and the surface
depression storage lim,it is reached, direct runoff from the pile surface oc-
curs resulting in a rapid increase in the flow. The direct runoff has a dilu-
ting effect on the highly concentrated base flow, therefore conductivities and
-xvii-
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF STORM DATA COLLECTED AT THE GREENIDGE COAL PILE
Start preciEitation Runoff
Time Total Maximum Maximum
24 hr. Duration Amount Intensity Duration Rate Drainage
Date Clock hr. min. in. in./hr. hr. gpm Coefficient
9-8-81 1125 3 - 45 0.19 .12 12 7.8 .06
9-14-81 0300
2 - 45 0.51 .80 18 44 .06
9-21-81 1500 17 - 0 0.98 .36 16 70 .12
9-23-81 1300 5 - 45 0.14 .12 12 15 .09
9-27-81 1500 1 - 0 0.16 .40 5 25 .09
10-1-81 0615 8 - 15 0.50 .36 15 25 .04
1O-27-81am 0015 7 - 45 1.60 .76 10 320 .24
10-27-81pm 2000 8 - 30 1.88 1.00 > 12 595 .39
7-28-82 0600
4 - 30 0.53 .36 8 34 .06
8-23-82 0500 1 - 45 0.41 .68 4.5 36 .05
-xviii-
dissolved metals concentrations reach their lowest values around the peak of
the hydrograph. As the rate of precipitation decreases and the hydrograph
starts to recede, int:erflow becomes a dominant part of the discharge stream.
Interflow is that water which has flowed into the pile through infiltration
zones, and then percolates through the pile and eventually flows out near the
pile base.
In-pile moisture data collected at Greenidge showed that the surface of
the coal pile (i.e., the top few inches) were near saturation usually 10 to 12
percent moisture. This is the area of the pile known as surface depression
storage. The percentage of moisture generally dropped off rapidly after the
top few inches, reaching a level of 5 to 6 percent moisture at a 5 to 10 foot
depth. This reflects the approximate moisture content of coal delivered to
the pile. This moisture continues down through the pile until an elevation
approximately 10 feet above the base of the pile. In the bottom 10 feet of
the pile the moisture content increases again to saturation levels. In some
locat.ions, the bottom of the pile is supersaturated and water fill.s the void
space. These data confirm the assumptions originally used in the mathematical
mod,el development.
Density and infiltration measurements made on the Greenidge pile show the
relationship between these two parameters. The Greenidge pile had two dis-
tinctly different secti()ns. One section was delivered by truck, spread by
bulldozer and compacted by bulldozer and truck tires. The other section was
delivered by train and spread and compacted by bulldozer.. The surface density
of the truck coal was approximately 75 Ibs/ft
3
compared to 47 IbS/ft
3
for
the train coal. The infiltration rate of the graded truck coal was 4.85 in/hr
compared to 9.31 in/hr for the graded train coal. Compacted truck coai had
infiltration rates less than .7 in/hr. Therefore the more dense truck pile
-xix-
had a much lower infiltration rate. Precipitation tended to pond on the top
of the pile and then run off the sides. The train pile with its lower density
and higher infiltration rate absorbed more of the precipitation.
In the first sampling period at Greenidge the evaporation was measured
using a pan evaporimeter. It was determined that while the data from the pan
evaporimeter provided estimates of relative evaporation rates, the data were
not indicative of actual rates off the coal pile for several reasons. First,
the pile cannot act as an infinite water source, as does the pan evapori-
meter. Secondly, a resistance to evaporation usually exists between coal sur-
faces and water due to an attraction between the two materials. Lastly, the
physical conditions on the piles are different from those to which the evapor-
ation pans are exposed, such as the black color of the coal and the roughness
of the coal fragments. These conditions likely influence the evaporation
rate. Therefore I during the summer 1982 program at Greenidge evaporation
rates were measured using an in-pile evaporimeter. The data collected from
the in-pile evaporimeter showed overall evaporation losses of moisture much
lower than the pan evaporimeter. It is believed that the in-pile evaporimeter
produced data more indicative of the actual amount of evaporation taking place
from the coal pile. The data also indicates that evaporation is significant
to the coal pile water balance during high evaporation/low rainfall periods,
i.e., summer months.
Four storms at Greenidge were measured for chemical characteristics.
These data showed that the runoff was highly acidic. The pH measured in both
base f low and storm water samples was usually in the range of 2.1 to 2.4.
There was no "first flush" or dilution effect with pH. Concentrations of
mineral and total acidity were quite large. The average mineral acidity for
dry day base flow at Greenidge was approximately 5470 mg/l as C a C O ~ with the
~
-xx-
average total acidity being 9360 mg/l. The average mineral and total acidity
for storms were lower than base flow showing a direct dilution effect with
storm size, i.e., the larger the storm the lower the acidity concentration.
The measured conductivity and total dissolved solids at Greenidge were
both very high. The dissolved solids are high due to the many dissolved
metals leached from the coal, as well as other inorganics such as magnesium
and sulfate ions. The dissolved solids data ranged from a minimum concentra-
tion of 2600 mg/l to a maximum concentration of 28,800 mg/l. Plots of the
storm data at Greenidge show that dissolved solids do not follow the peak
flows during the storms, rather concentrations are lower during maximum flows,
and the dissolved solids concentration increases as the flow decreases towards
base flow. Thus, the direct runoff has a diluting effect on dissolved :solids
concentration which is higher in both the base flow and interflow from the
pile. Conductivity followed a similar pattern at Greenidge.
Total suspended solids concentration was directly related to flow. During
storms, the total 'suspended solids concentration increased as runoff volume
increased since the majority of the solids were very fine coal particles.
Durin.g dry day bas'e flow periods, the total suspended solids concentrations
were very low.
Sulfate, hardness, and fluoride were three additional non metallic para-
meter s measured in the Greenidge runoff. Large quantities of sulfate were
present in both the d r ~ r day base flow and in the storm water runoff, generally
above the New York. Department of Environmental Conservations' (NYSDEC) Effl-
uen-t Limi.tations for Class GSA Water. Hardness, similarly, was found to be
present in relative,ly high concentrations; calcium, magnesium, and most not-
ably, iron and hydrogen ions, contribute to the quantity of hardness measured
in It-he samples. While fluoride was found in the samples, runoff samples all
-xxi-
showed flouride concentrations well within the NYSDEC limitation of 3.0 mg/l.
Only 5 percent of the dry day base flow samples exceeded this level.
Much of the chemical analysis of runoff in this program involved the
analysis of 19 inorganics. At Greenidge these inorganics were analyzed in
both total and dissolved forms, however, it was found that because of the high
acidic nature of both the runoff and the base flow, for the most part all
trace metals were essentially in a dissolved form. Table 2 presents the range
of values for the nineteen inorganics analyzed on the Greenidge samples for
both the total and dissolved forms. Maximum concentrations of most of the
metals did not occur until after the peak flow in storms were measured. These
peak concentrations are due to a combination of interflow and flow from the
base of the pile.
Site No. 2 - Field program
The second site sampled was the Russell Station of RG&E which has a power
generation capacity of 252.6 megawatts. The plant has approximately 5.3 acres
of coal storage with coal supplied from sources in western Pennsylvania and
West Virginia. Surface runoff is collected by a coal pile perimeter drainage
channel. The pile is not lined, therefore, leachate migrates into the pile
foundation. The sampling program at Russell was performed from March 14, 1982
to May 25, 1982. Additional sampling was performed from June 14, 1982 to July
19, 1982. All sampling was performed upstream of the plant wastewater treat-
ment system.
The sampling period at Russell had less precipitation than normal. Only 6
measurable storms occurred during the 16 weeks that sampling waS performed.
-xxii-
Paralneter
A1um:inum
Ant.imony
Ar.senic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mag11esium
Manganese
Mercury (li9/1)
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
TABLE 2
RANGE OF OBSERVED VALUES FOR TOTAL
AND DISSOLVED METALS, GREENIDGE STATION
Range
Dissolved
(mg/1)
42 - 404
< .001-
.071 - 3.06
.017 - .095
.003 - .049
148 - 688
.02 - .27
.45 - 3.14
.73 - 5.12
317 - 5150
< .020 - .505
59 - 795
5.6 - 30.8
< .20 - 13.1
< .011 - .034
1.00 - 7.01
.0024 - .092
.019 - .193
1.92 - 13.52
-xxiii-
Total
(mg/1)
86 - 417
< .001 - .015
.417 - 3.98
.018 - .141
.007 - .064
148 - 688
.06 - .29
.45 - 3.82
.78 - 5.65
879 - 6160
< .020 - .78
59 - 847
5.6 - 32.6
< .20 - 23.4
< .011 - .169
1.01 - 9.98
.0039 - .0924
.030 - .305
1.92 - 18.72
Only 3 of the six storms were sampled and analyzed for chemical characteriza-
tion. Tabl.e 3 provides a summary of these storms. As with Greenidge, the
Russell drainage coefficients were well below the typical design criteria of
0.7. The hydrographs for the Russell storms were similar to Greenidge with
flow increasing within 60 minutes of the start of rain. The major difference
in flow was that since the Russell pile was not lined, there was no dry day
base flow becauSe of percolation into the soil beneath the coal pile. The
overall flow pattern through the Russell pile was substantially different from
the Greenidge pile. The Russell pile was being depleted during the study per-
iod and gradually took on the shape of a bowl. Direct runoff came from the
outside edges of the pile. Rain falling on the top of the pile, ponded inside
the bowl and then infiltrated the pile. Therefore, much of the precipitation
went into immediate storage within the pile, which eventually either evapora-
ted, became interflow, or leached into the soil at the base of the pile.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF STORM DATA COLLECTED AT THE RUSSELL COAL PILE
Start Preci2itation Runoff Drainage
Time Total Maximum Maximum Coefficient
24 hr. Duration Amount Intensity Duration Rate Entire Peri-
Date Clock hr. min. inCl in./hr. hr. gpm Pile Meter
3-25,26/82 1815 9 30 0.61 0.20 23 45.5 .12 .36
4-3/82 0700 10 15 0.58 0.77 9 45 .04 .12
5-8/82 0200 18 30 0.82 0.40 22 11 .05 .14
In-pile moisture data collected at Russell showed a similar pattern as
found at Greenidge with the center of the pile being much drier than the sur-
face and base of the pile. The data indicates more movement of moisture
through the pile due mainly to the shape of the pile and the density of the
-xxiv-
surface coal. Densities at Russell were generally lower than the Greenidge
pile,
3
ranging from 44.9 to 68.6 lbs/ft The infiltration rates generally
were in the same range as those measured at the Greenidge pile l:anging from
approximately .88 in/hr. to 5.0 in/hr.
The evaporation dalta collected at Russell sUbstantiates the GreenidgE! con-
elusions, that the in-pile evaporimeter more closely simulated evaporation off
the coal than the pan 'gauge.
The runoff from the three storms sampled at Russell were analyzed for the
same parameters as analyzed at Greenidge. The pH of the coal pile drainage
was generally near 2.4 units, with the highest value being 3.2 units. The
average minera.l acidity in the leachate was 9700 mg/l as caco
3
which was
substantially higher than the Greenidge base flow acidity. The storm data
howev'er had similar concentrations. Generally the conductivity, dissolved
solids and total solids concentrations were very high and showed similar storm
patterns to the Greenidge data. Also sulfate and hardness at Russell showed
similar concentrations and trends with the Greenidge data.
Nineteen inorganics were also measured in the Russell coal pile runoff.
Table 4 shows the range of values for total and dissolved metals analyzed in
the Russell pile runOff. The plots of metals concentrations over the various
storm events showed maximum concentrations near the end of the storms when
flow was mostly leachate and interflow.
Because the Russell pile was unlined, substantial ground water measure-
ment.s were performed. A leachate plume was delineated moving from the coal
pile to the nor.theast toward a creek. A maximum leachate flow of 26,000 gpd
was determined.
-xxv-
Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (l! g/l)
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
TABLE 4
AND DISSOLVED METALS, RUSSELL STATION
Dissolved
(mg/l)
57 - 1016
<.02
.099 - 8.050
< .019 - 0.104
< .02 - .047
105.0 - 518.0
0.06 - .52
0.29 - 3.40
0.23 - 4.51
430 - 7160
<.01 - < .02
126 - 1212
3.3 - 38.3
< .20 - 1.47
< .012 - .014
0.52 - 7.10
< .001 - 0.02
< .029 - .284
.125 - 15.52
-xxvi-
Range
Total
(mg/l)
65 - 1024.0
<.02
0.320 - 8.740
.019 - 0.111
< .02 - .049
108.0 - 527
< .07 - 0.66
0.30 - 3.45
0.27 - 4.57
440 - 7680
.005 - .405
126 - 1236
3.3 - 39.8
<.20-18.70
< .012 - .045
0.90 - 7.14
< .001 - .032
< .029 - 0.512
.125 - 15.52
Coal pile Drainage Model
The prime objective of the field programs at Greenidge and RusSell,.was to
collect enough field data to calibrate and verify a coal pile drainage model.
The model in reality is two models - a hydraulic model and a qualitative
model. The hydraulic model uses precipitation data to create a water balance
with water stored in the pile as well as runoff from the surface and drainage
from the base of the pile. The qualitative model, used the flow distribution
crE'oated by the hydraulic model along with the reactions of pyrite oxidation
and acid prodUction tel produce, store, and remove acidity, sulfates and. trace
metals from the pile. The model also considers erosion of coal particles off
the pile. The basic hydraulic outputs include a table of synthesized average
daily runoff with;
1) summation of daily average flow rates with monthly totals;
2) interflow and t ~ s e flow volumes;
3) recorded rainfall and snowfall;
4) storage of water at surface, in-pile interior and in saturated
lens of pile;
5) currenl: snolilipac k;
6) annual moisture, balance, not accounted for.
There are also 13 optional outputs.
The basic output of the qualitative model includes:
1) a calender of w,et and dry days i
2) daily direct runoff, base flow, and total flow volume;
3) daily acid loadings in direct runoff, base flow, interflow and
ground water st,:>rage;
-xxvi i-
4) daily rainfall;
5) loadings in runoff for sulfate, iron, and trace elements.
There are also three optional series of plots.
The model calibration process involved assigning values to estimated para-
meters to best match the simulated conditions to actual conditions measured at
the Greenidge site. The model calibration was very successful for the two
largest storms of .98 inches and 3.5 inches.
Table 5.
These results are shown in
In the verification process, the same assigned values determined in the
calibration process with Greenidge data were used with the Russell data. If
these values were not appropriate for Russell, a new value which was appro-
priate for both sites was found or a physical explanation given for a dif-
ferent value. The model verification again showed that the model was better
on large storms. Sample results are shown in Table 6.
The model thus is calibrated and verified and has its best performance for
storms greater than .80 inches of rainfall. The model views the surface of
the pile as a shallow depression which must be saturated before runoff be-
gins. In a slow, low volume storm the infiltration rate to the interior of
the pile from the surface is near equal to the rate of precipitation. There-
fore, the model simulates nearly all the moisture input as infiltration with
little runoff. In reality, there are impervious sections of the coal pile,
such as the truck pile at Greenidge. Short cloud bursts are also difficult to
simulate with the model. This is because the model reads in precipitation
data on an hourly basis. Therefore, a 15 minute cloud burst with one inch of
rain is viewed by the model with a 15 minute computing interval to be a one-
hour storm with four intervals each of 0.25 inches of rain.
-xxvi ii-
I
~
1-'-
X,
I
RESULTS OF MODEL CALIBRATION USING GREENIDGE DATA
Hldraulic Model
precipi tation Measured Simulated
Storm Date Volume Runoff Volume Runoff Volume Difference
September 21, 22, 1981 0.98 inches 20,000 gallons 18,000 gallons -10%
October 27, 28, 1981 3.5 inches 163,000+ gal1ons* 162,000 gallons <-1%
* Flume clogged with coal slurry near end of storm.
Storm Date
September 21, 22, 1981
October 27, 28, 1981
Precipitation
Volume
0.98 inches
3.5 inches
Qllalitative Model
Success of Hydraulic
Simulation
-10%
<-1% for 10/27-10/28
+10% for 10/27
Measured Runoff Simulated Runoff
Loadings (lbs) Loadings
T. acidity - 979
Fe - 330
S04 - 1519
Selected trace elements
AS - 0.23
Al - 28
Mn - 2
CU - 0.40
For 10/27 only
T. acidity - 4409
Fe - 1432
S04 - 5710
AS - 1
Al - 119
Mn - 10
CU - 2
936
345
1421
0.74
37
2
1
For 10/27 only
4795
1127
5335
2
120
6
5
I
a
I
Storm Date
Day of May 8, 1982
TABLE 6
RESULTS OF MODEL VERIFICATION USING RUSSELL DATA
Precipitation
Volume
0.82 inches
Hydraulic Model
Simulated Runoff Measured Runoff
Flow Volume Flow Volume
3400 gallons 3700 gallons
Difference
<-1%
. __ __ Model
Precipitation Success of Hydraulic Measured Runoff Simulated Runoff
Storm Date Vplume Simulation Loiidings (.lbs)
May 8, 1982 0.82 inches <-1% T. acidity - 115
Iron - 38
Sulfate - 177
Trace elements
Al - 6
As - .03
Mn - 0.35
cu - 1.13
116
94
211
52
5
5
5
The primary use of the model will be to size collection basins for coal
pile runoff and design treatment systems for coal pile acidity, sulfateis, and
trace metals. The advantage of the model is that it can be used to simulate a
variety of meteorological conditions and coal pile conditions.
meteorological conditions which can be used are:
l} design storms, such as the 10 year-24 hour storm;
2} historical storms of significance, and;
3) "average" conditions over a year or several years.
Coal pile conditions which can be simulated include:
Examples of
l} the impact of high sulfur versus lower sulfur coal on runoff
quality;
2} the impact of compaction on runoff quantity and reactive depth,
a n d ~
3) the impacts of pyrite content on trace metals in the runoff.
Leachate Method Development
As an additional research program, an evaluation was made of the
applicability of the serial batch extraction procedure as a laboratory
pro<:edure for providing representative coal pile leachate characterization
datal. The evaluation involved testing Russell coal with the extraction
procedure and comparing it to the leachate data collected in the field.
The results of the study show that the serial batch extraction procedure
may be useful in predicting coal pile leachate characteristics. It was found
that coal particle size uniformity was critical to reproducibility of results,
therefore pre-sieving replicate samples is important.
End over end rotation of a sealed container was found to be the most
consistent means of agi:tation while one extraction of 4 to 6 coal batches was
-xxx i-
found to be adequate in generating a representative leachate.
tests do tend to overpredict concentrations.
Finally the
With further testing the laboratory extraction procedure should be refined
to provide good approximations of acid and trace metal concentrations. These
concentrations can then be inputed to the coal pile drainage model which will
simulate a total loading transfer of acid and trace metals to ground water
storage.
-xxx ii-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In 1980 the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) published a document entitled "Coal Pile Guidance for SPDES" which
lists a number ofcequirements for new and existing coal piles. These
requirements emphasize the monitoring of possible toxic pollutants emitted
from coal piles and the treatment facilities required to prevent contamination
of ground water by leachate and surface waters by cunoff. Specifically, the
New York State regulations require natural and/or manmade liners under new and
some existing coal piles, ground water monitoring systems, storm collection
ponds to contain runoff from the ten-year, 24-hour storm, and treatment
faCilities for pH neutralization and the removal of most heavy metals. The
SPDES permit application also requires sufficient field data to show all
pollutants which are discharged from a plant's coal piles.
New York State Electric & Gas, Rochester Gas & Electric and Niagara Mohawk
presently burn coal at nine utility plants in the state. Each of these plants
either has been or will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the coal
pile guidelines for SPDES permits. Utilities will be required to submit a
proposed plan of study to the NYSDEC designed to assess the co.al pile
operations at each facility. Once approved by the NYSDEC, the utility will
have to implement the program. Each study will include stormwater runoff and
ground water monitoring components. Depending on the outcome of these
studies" each facility may be required to prepare an engineering report and
final plans for construction of facilities designed to control runoff and
leach,ate. In addition to the nine existing coal burning plants there are
presently Seven coal conversions being considered and two new coal burning
plants either under construction or being planned in New York. These
-1-
facilities involve all members of the Empire State Electric Energy Research
Corporation (ESEERCO) who are Central Hudson, Consolidated Edison, Long Island
Lighting Company, New York State Electric & Gas, Niagara Mohawk, Orange &
Rockland, and Rochester Gas & Electric as well as the Power Authority of the
State Of New York which is not a member of ESEERCO. These utilities will have
to comply with the coal pile requirements of the NYSDEC. Each new coa 1
burning facility will be required to collect and treat the runoff from the
ten-year, 24-hour storm, place the piles on an impervious surface, and
potentially, install a ground water monitoring network.
Because of these requirements, members of ESEERCO must plan for efficient
coal pile drainage treatment and avoid the expense of constructing runoff
storage capacity for drainage that does not require treatment. It is also in
the interest of the member utilities to assemble a data bank on coal pile
drainage characteristics.
In addition to New York State concerns, the increased use of coal for
power generation has affected national interest regarding the environmental
impacts of coal storage. In response to the growing regulatory concern on the
subject of coal pile drainage, TRC initiated a program in 1979 under contract
to the Edison Electric Institute (EEl) and EPA to develop a quantitative and
qualitative coal pile drainage model and to design a field program to
calibrate and verify the model. The EEl/EPA program was completed in 1980 and
the final report entitled "Planning Study to Model and Monitor Coal pile
Runoff" (EPA 600/7-81-016) was issued. The report summarizes the development
of a coal pile drainage model, really a co-model; H20TRC, the quantitative
model, and TRCCOAL, the qualitative model.
-2-
In May, 1981 ESEERCO wishing to apply the new model to New York state
utilities, awarded TRC a research program to field test and verify the model.
Also as part of this l:esearch program, TRC would initiate the development of a
large data base on coal pi Ie runoff and leachate. partia 1 funding of the
ESEERCO program was mclde by the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority (NYSERDA).
This report presents the methodology used and the results obtained in the
research program. The model was calibrated and verified using data gathered
at t l ~ O different coal fired power plants. One plant was sampled in the late
summer/early fall of 1981 and the other plant was sampled in the spring of
1982. Supplemental sampling was performed at both sites during the summer of
1982. A combined total of 30 weeks of data were collected from the two sites.
The report is divided into three main technical sections. Section 2
provides a description of the model, the calibration and verification process,
a summary of modeling results, and a discussion of the applications and
(
limitations of the model. The field program design is described in Section 3
along with a summary presentation of data collected at each site and a
discussion of the field results. Section 4 includes a discussion on the
development of a laboratory leachate characterization method and its
applicability to the model. A detailed description of the model and
disc:uSsion of the methodologies used in the field program sampling and
analysis can be found in the Appendix to the report.
This report is one of several outputs of the research program. Additional
outputs include: a magnetic tape of the coal pile drainage model, a data bank
for each of the two test sites, and a user's manual for the model.
-3-
-4-
2.0 COAL PILE DRAINAGE MODEL
The primary objective of the ESEERCO/NYSERDA research program is to
produce a calibrated and verified coal pile drainage model. The model
development, description, calibration, verification, uses, and limitations are
discussed bel()w.
2.1 Model Development
TRC's coal pile drainage model is based upon the Ohio State University
version of the Stanford Watershed Model and the Ohio State University Coal
Refuse Pile Model. However, extensive changes were made to streamline the
model and modify it to reflect coal pile conditions.
The model is in reality two models - a hydraulic model and a q.ualitative
modiel. The hydraulic or quantitative model is termed H20TRC. It uses
precipitation data to create a water balance with moisture stored in the pile,
run()ff from the surface, and drainage from the base of the pile. The
qualitative model, called TRCCOAL. uses the flow distribution created by
H20TRC along with the reactions of pyrite oxidation and acid production to
produce, store, and remove acidity, sulfates and trace metals from the pile.
The model also considers erosion of coal particles off the pile.
The model (or co-models) use an input of meteorological data, specifically
precipitation and air temperature, for the simulation period desired. The
mete,orological data may be in the form of cards or a National Climatic Center
(NCe) magnetic tape of hourly surface observations for primary weather
stations. The model can read a tape in the NCC's CD 144 format. Other basic
inputs inclUde a small card deck describing the coal storage pile site, coal
characteristics, as well as on plotter output instructions. Optional inputs
include dai ly pan evaporation data, erosion parameter data I daily recorded
runoff flow rate data f<lr comparison purposes, and snowmelt data.
-5-
Basic hydraulic outputs include a table of synthesized average daily
runoff, with:
1) Summation of daily average flow rates with monthly totals.
2) Interflow and seepage (or base flow) volumes.
3) Recorded rainfall and snowfall.
4) Storage of water at surface, in-pile interior and in the
saturated lens of the pile.
5) Current snowpack.
6) Annual moisture balance, not accounted for in runoff, and in-pile
moisture.
Optional hydraulic outputs include:
1) Details of selected storms with precipitation deposition,
moisture storage, runoff flow origin and runoff outflow.
2) Echo of meteorological input
3) printing of 20 top hourly rainfall and runoff events.
4) Printing of daily pile moisture storage values.
5) Snowfall and snowmelt.
6) Average daily temperature.
7) Comparison plot of recorded and simulated runoff flows.
8) Echo of input data.
9) Arithmetic hydrograph plot of daily runoff flows.
10) Details of internal program function values.
11) Hydrograph-hyetograph plots for selected storms.
12) Output file for TRCCOAL.
13) Daily eroded solids loadings.
Figure 2-1 shows an example hydrograph-hyetograph plot.
-6-
z
o 0.0
-
I-
0(-
..... z
_:;. 0.25
n.
-
o
W
0:
0.
U)
>-(J)
<! ~ O
CO) .32
0:'
Ot-
LLa;
U)U) 0.24
u..",
01/)
Z,,!0.16
..... ,..
;till
0'"
...J 0.08
u ..
0.0 I '&: ._- I , a d_L M
o 2 4 6 8 10 MID- 2
NITE
HOURS
4 6 8
Figure 2-1. Example hyetograph/hydrograph from plotter.
10 12 2
The basic output of the qualitative model, TRCCOAL includes:
1) A calendar of wet and dry days.
2) Daily direct runoff, seepage, and total flow volume.
3) Daily acid loadings in direct runoff, seepage, interflow, and
deep storage.
4) Daily rainfall.
5) Loadings in runoff for sulfate, iron, and trace elements.
Optional qualitative model outputs are:
1) Plots of acid, iron, sulfate, and trace element loadings.
2) Plots of trace element, sulfate, and iron loadings with runoff
flows.
3) Plot of acid in direct runoff, interflow, and seepage flow
components.
Figure 2-2 shows an example plot of acid loading.
2.2 Model Description
2.2.1 Hydraulic Model
The coal pile drainage model regards the pile as a small unvegetated
watershed with one main slope and one flow discharge point. The pile is
divided into three zones: the surface, the lower zone (interior of the pile),
and the lens of water at the base of the pile. The zones of the pile are
shown in Figure 2-3.
The model simulates precipitation and a water balance of moisture into the
pile zones and out by the runoff stream. If the pile contains more than one
drainage stream, fractional portions of the coal pile tributary to each
drainage stream are simulated.
-8-
0.64 l-
0.56
'"
0.48 !-
0.32 I-
0.24 '" ,
0.16 '"
I
0.08 '"
.
tJ
I.
170
MARCH

n
\
180
,
,
.,
I
.
Q
190 200
APRIL
LEGEND
T

32
SASEFLOW (efs)
ACID LOADING IN
BASEFLOW
(LBSxl0-
1
)

28
1
\
24
20
16 (JJ
.A
210
12
I
8
4
220
MAY
u,.
(,)
Figure 2-2. Example p10t from qua1itative model.
I
.......
a
I
t t
PRECIPIT AnON
t
DEPRESSION
STORAGE
UPPER ZONE STORAGE -
DEPRESSION STORAGE
EVAPORATION -- - ,
INfil TRATIONlOWER ZONE
t
STORAGE
RUNOFF
PilE
MOISTURE
BASE
STREAM
RUNOff 0---__ WATER TABlE _
STREAM __ g
------
-----
GROUND
-----
TO DEEP STORAGE
Figure 2-3. Schematic of hydrologic cycle of a coal storage pile.
Below is a discussion of the key relationships used in the model. A
detailed description of the equations for each relationship can be found in
Appendix A.
2.2.1.1 Surface of Pile
The surface of th,e pile is the thin layer of compacted coal which is in
contact with the atmosphere. The surface contains small voids and depressions
which must be filled with water before surface runoff begins.
When liquid precipitation (including snowmelt) impacts the surface of the
pile, some of the precipitation infiltrates the pile and some runs off. The
cap,acity of the pile surface to hold water is related to the compaction of
coal and the voids between coal particles. This capacity fills during
precipitation. The amount of moisture at the surface during a time interval
equals the prior moisture volume plus current rainfall. The residual rainfall
froM the last time interval which has infiltrated into the pile is subtracted
from the surfaCe moisture.
2.2.1.2 Interior of the Coal Pile
The moisture which percolates to the pile interior is a function of the
storage capacity of the surface and the current surface moisture. The greater
the depression storage of the surface, the less moisture percolates
immediately to the interior.
Surface runoff is al function of both the supply of excess moisture above
the depression storage and the time for this moisture to travel to the
discharge pOint. The surface flow equations are based on turbulent range
hydraulics, including the Chezy-Manning equation. The fraction of the runoff
reaching the discharge point in each time interval is related to pile slope,
the Manning roughness coefficient, and the flow path length.
-11-
The total infiltrated moisture to the pile includes the delayed
infiltration of runoff which did not flow away from the origin during the last
time interval plus current infiltration. The user inputs an infiltration
index which reflects compaction and porosity.
The current surface runoff is inversely proportional to the moisture which
infiltrates the surface times an average infiltration rate. If incoming
moisture is greater than the infiltration rate, the surface runoff is this
moisture minus the average infiltration rate.
The moisture entering the interior of the pile percolates to a lens at the
base of the pile, exits from the side of the pile, or is retained as pile
moisture. Interflow which seeps from the side of the pile recedes at the end
of the storm in an exponential manner. It is equal to the reservoir of pile
moisture times an exponential constant, an input datum. The amount of
lIIoisture which seeps to the lens is controlled by the average infiltration
rate. Some of the moisture in the lens seeps out at the pile base. This is
also controlled by an exponential coefficient. Some is lost to ground water
storage out of the pile system.
During non-rainfall periods when the pile is unsaturated, the moisture is
assumed to move through the pile at a peak infiltration rate.
2.2.1.3 Snowfall and Snowmelt
Snow and sleet are accumulated on the pile in a snowpack. The snowpack is
assumed to melt at a certain rate each hour the air temperature is above
freezing. The melting constant is an input value.
-12-
2.2.1.4 Erosion of Coal Solids
The model uses the Foster-Meyer equation to simulate the gully erosion of
coal solids. Erosion is sensitive to rainfall intensity, depth of flow, pile
slope, and several erosion coefficients.
2.2.1.5 Evaporation
During the supplelllental program, TRC used pan evaporation measurements and
in-pile evaporation measurements to determine a relationship between these two
parameters at the Green.idge and Russell sites (see Appendix B). From this
work TRC developed a Linear equation relating pan and pile evaporation.
An option to consider the impact of pile evaporation on pile moisture was
added to the model. The mOdel reads a data input of daily pan evaporation for
each day of the selected simulation periOd, and pile evaporation is
calculated. This evaporation is subtracted from surface moisture and interior
moisture.
2.2.2 Development of Qualitative MOdel
The qualitative co-mOdel for coal pile drainage simulates pyrite oxidation
at the surface of the coal pile and the movement of the products of oxidation
through the pile during wet weather. The qualitative co-mOdel uses the water
balance simulated by the hydraulic mOdel. The qualitative co-mOdel simulates
a mass balance that creates acid and dissolved materials, moves it into zones
of the pile, and then to the pile drainage stream. Below is a discussion of
the key relationships used in the model. Appendix A should be referred to for
a detailed description of the equations for each relationship.
-l3-
2.2.2.1 Pyrite Oxidation
Pyrite oxidation is the reaction of pyrite, especially framboidal pyrite
in the coal, with atmospheric oxygen and water to produce acidity. Pyrite
oxidation occurs during non-storm periods. In the model, the coal pyrite
content is multiplied by a pyrite oxidation rate factor to calculate the acid
produced each dry day in the surface layer.
The acidity produced by pyrite oxidation dissolves trace elements, such as
metals, in the coal to be washed away during precipitation. The amount of
dissolved trace element is calculated from the acid production and a trace
element dissolving factor. The amount of dissolved trace element must always
be less than the element content.
In the case of iron and sulfur, the primary components of pyrite, the
amounts of dissolved iron and sulfates produced by pyrite oxidation is
determined by the chemical reaction:
+3
2 Fe6
2
+ 3.75 02 + 14 Fe
-2 +
+ 4 604 + 20H
Using this equation, a relationship was written to describe the loading of
dissolved sulfates and iron produced for each loading of acid produced. These
loadings were totaled for subsequent dry days. A dry day is defined as a day
having less than the arbitrary limit of 0.1 inches of precipitation.
2.2.2.2 Movement of Materials Through Pile
As precipitation impacts the coal pile, it moves the acid and dissolved
materials from the surface to various zones of the pile: the direct runoff
zone, the surface zone, and the interior zone. Initially, the acid that is
produced by pyrite oxidation is added to the acidity of precipitation.
-14-
From the zones, the materials are moved out of the pile into the drainage
stream. The acid, iron, sulfate, and trace element loading to each zone is
calculated from the dissolved supply of the material, the fraction 6f the
total flow to that zone, and a zone specific coefficient. Furthermore, iron,
sulfates, and trace materials also have a solubility factor to regulate the
amount of dissolved materials moved through the pile. Acid is assumed, to be
completely soluble in ,"ater.
There are two options in the model for washing acid and other materials
out of the pile. The washout can be described exponentially, with more
materials washed out with the initial precipitation, regardless of flow. This
is a "first fllJsh" effect. The washout of the pile can also be described in a
linear manner, fluctuating only with runoff flow. In both cases, the material
washed out of each zc.ne in each time interval is equal to the amount of
material stored in the zone times a coefficient, either exponential or linear.
In addition to the runoff stream, materials are drained away from unlined
piles to ground water storage. The amount of materials, such as acid, ,going
to t.his storage is proportional to the volume of water draining from the, pile
to ground water stor',age. This parameter is from the hydraulic model.
The model also' has the option to simulate the impact of alternating
freezing-thawing of the coal pile on increased surface area of coal and
subsequent inc:cease in the pyrite oxidation rate. The model compares the
average daily temperature on subsequent days and counts the numbe'r of
alternate freeze-thaw days. The freeze-thaw count, adjusted by a coefficient,
is used to accelerate the rate of acid production and production of dissolved
metals, iron, and suifate.
-15-
2.3 Model Calibration
The calibration process involved assigning values to estimated parameters
to best match the simulated conditions to actual conditions at Greenidge, the
first site monitored.
2.3.1 Calibration of Hydraulic Model
The calibration of the hydraulic model focuses on- duplicating the storm
runoff measured at the Greenidge site by the simulation modeL The storms
used in the calibration were September S, September 14, September 21 and 22,
and October 27 and 28, 1981.*
Measured input parameters for the Greenidge site were:
1) Area of coal pile liner draining to discharge point.
2) Time of travel from furthest point on coal pile to discharge
point.
3) Average slope of coal pile surface.
4) Average overland flow path length on coal pile.
5) Total width of gullies on coal pile.
6) Initial height of saturated lens at base of pile.
7) Initial volume of free-draining water in the interior of the pile.
8) Amount of runoff flow to ground water storage.
* The model simulates a water year from October 1 to September 30. A
simulation run requires approximately one week for the model to "settle
down" or stabilize. The storm at Greenidge on October 1 occurred during
this unstable period and could not be utilized.
-16-
The estimated parameters were:
1) Infiltration index for pile.
2) Roughness coefficient of surface of pile.
3) Recession cons;tant for seepage or base flow stream.
4) Recession constant for inter flow stream.
S) Coefficients describing gully erosion.
6) Moisture stora.ge at surface of pile.
7) Snowmelt coefficient.
2.3.1.1 ~ e t h o d of Assigning Parameter Values
A site map of the coal pile was used to determine the area of the coal
pile, its slope and mean flow path length. At the Greenidge site the model
treated the pile as one main slope feeding the discharge point. In reality,
the pile is a larg.e train slope adjacent to a flatter truck unloading slope.
piezometers installed in the pile measured the height of the base moisture
lens above the liner. Porosity measurements in the pile showed 1 to 2 percent
of the volume of the pile to be free draining water. These measurements,
translated to inches of water ,were used as the initial volume of water in the
interior of the pile.
There was no time of travel information available for the initial
calibration of the model for the Greenidge site. Storm
hydrographs-hyetographs were used to estimate the average lag time between the
rainfa,ll peak and the flow peak at the discharge point. This was only an
approximation since the lag time contains both the time to saturate the
surface and the time for the excess storage volume to flow to the discharge.
Time of travel in the simulation model describes only the latter. During the
supplemental program, more detailed time of travel data was gathered at the
Greenidge site and the model was calibrated using this information.
-17-
The total width of the gullies eroded were estimated by a site inspection
after a major storm. '1'he volume of eroded material carried to the discharge
area was also estimated by site inspection.
The actual calibration of the hydraulic model involved shaping the
hydrograph of simulated runoff flow to that of the measured hydrographs of the
storms monitored. None of the estimated parameters contol runoff flow volume
independently. Instead the rate of infiltration, the speed of overland runoff
flow, the recession of interflow, and the other parameters work in conjunction
to simulate the runoff hydrograph. These parameters are adjusted to be
applicable to all measured storms at the calibration site, Greenidge. Hourly
precipitation and air temperature measured at the site was used as input.
Table 2-1 shows the values of input parameters found to best describe the
runoff hydrographs for the measured storms at Greenidge. A range of values is
presented for the surface storage capacity, UZSN. The coal pile underwent a
rapid increase in volume during the simUlation period. The surface storage
capacity for the latter stage of the simulation period with more new less
compacted coal added to the pile is slightly higher.
2.3.1.2 Impact of pile Evaporation Simulation on Pile Moisture
As a case study, TEe simulated the moisture balance at the Greenidge site
considering pile evaporation. Using dai ly pan evaporation values for
September, 1981, pile evaporation and its impact on pile moisture was
calculated according to Equation A-30.
Cumulative pan evaporation for September was measured to be 1. 5 inches,
with cumulative pile evaporation calculated to be 0.6 inches.
-18-
TABLE 2-1
VALUES OF INPUT PARAMETERS FOR HYDRAULIC MODEL CALIBRATION
GREENIDGE SITE
Parameter Defini tion Units
'leONe Time of travel from furthest point in pile
to discharge
minutes
TINC Sel.ected hydraulic routing time interval minutes
z
C
AREAP
K24.L
CB
SS
L
NN
KI<24
IRe
TRANSK
DETACH
SOIL:K
GULLY
SGW
UZS
LZS
UZSN
RMELT
Number of routing time intervals in 'leONC
% of pile area reflected by each routing
interval
Area of coal pile
Fraction of moisture lost from pile to
ground water storage
Index for infi ltr ation in pile
Average slope of pile or of main slope
Mean overland flow path length
Manning coefficient for coal surface flow
Constant describing recession curve of
seepage stream
interflow
Tran.sport capacity coefficient for
sediment erosion
Detachment coefficient for sediment erosion
Coal surface constant for sediment erosion
%/100
acres
feet
Total width of active gullies feet
Height of moisture lens at base of pile inches
Surface moistur.e at beginning of simulation inches
Initial free-draining water in interior inches
of pile
Surface moisture storage capacity inches
Snowmelt factor
-19-
Value
30.
15.
2
0.5
5.3
o.
0.17
0.2
250.
0.99994
0.6
999,999,999.
0.000001
3000.
50.
81.
o.
2.
0.14-0.27
not uti lized
The long-term impact of evaporation on moisture within the pile was
minimal for September 1981. The model simulates the pile's free-draining
moisture approaching zero or the pile "drying out" during long periods between
storms. Considering pile evaporation, this "drying out" occurs at a slightly
faster rate. At the end of the September simulation period the moisture lens
at the base of the pile was approximately 0.6 inches lower than in the cases
when pile evaporation was not considered. For periods of low humidity and
high temperature, pile evaporation could have a much larger impact on pile
moisture.
2.3.1.3 Results of Hydraulic Calibration
The success of the hydraulic calibration is shown in Table 2-2. The
simulated runoff volume varied from less than 1 percent of the measured volume
for the major storm of October 27 and 28, 1981 to +40 percent for a short
intense storm of 0.51" of September 14, 1981. Table 2-3 shows the components
of the simulated stormwater flows. The model predi.cts that 3 percent to 34
percent of the precipitation will emerge as stormwater drainage. The model
also simulates a dry weather flow of 0.5 gpm.
Figures 2-4 and 2-5 show simulated verses actual rainfall and runoff flow
for the September 21, 22, 1981, and October 27, 28, 1981 storms. The
calibration was based upon the runoff volume for the entire storm day(s). It
should be noted that in all cases the simulated runoff peak is "spiked" very
high. A larger value for UZSN,surface storage capacity, would dampen this
peak. However, such a value would make the model more insensitive to storms
with low rainfall.
-20-
TABLE 2-2
RESULTS OF MODEL CALIBRATION HYDRAULIC MODEL
GREENIDGE SITE
Storm Date
September 8, 1981
September 14, 1981
September 21 and
22, 1981
October 27 and
28, 1981
Precipitation
Volume
0.19
n
0.51"
0.98"
3.5"
Measured
Runoff Volume
1,800 gallons
5,000 gallons
20,000 gallons
163,000+ gallons*
Simulated
Runoff Volume Difference
1,200 gallons -33%
7,000 gallons +40%
18,000 gallons ~ 1 0 %
162,000 gallons < '-1%
* Flume clogged with coal slurry near end of storm.
TABLE 2-3
COMPONENTS OF SIMULATED STORMS FOR GREENIDGE COAL PILE
Runoff Volume
Precieltation Direct Storm Baseflow as Moisture
Storm Date Inches Gallons Runoff Interflow Seepage Stdrage
Sept.ember 8, 1981 0.19 27,300 <1% 2% 3% 95%
Sept.ember 14, 1981 0.52 74,800 4% 4% 1% n%
September 21,
22, 1981 0.97 139,600 5% 7% <1%
8,7%
Octobe.r 27,
28, 1981 3.4 489,400 27% 6% <1% 66%
-21-
-
-
0.: .05
-
U
w.075
a::
c.
-
-
.1
150
140
130
110
90
80
3:
o
~ 70
u..
60
30
10
2
SIMULATED VS. MEASURED
HYDROGRAPH-HYETOGRAPH
DATE: 9/21-22J81
SITE: GREENIDGE STATION
4
LEGEND
~ " " " " " " ~ ~ SIMULATED RAINFALL
""",-_....,1 MEASURED RAINFALL
--- SIMULATED FLOW
6
MEASURED FLOW
8 10 MID- 2
NITE
4 6
.... -....
-
\
-
]
I
~
-----. ......... . . . . : : . . : - - : ~ :
--
8 10 12 2 4
Figure 2-4. Simu1ated vs. measured hydrograph/hyetograph - storm 3 - Greenidge.
-22-
-
I.i
Z
-
-
.
c.
-
U
.2
w
a:
Q..
SIMULATED VS. MEASURED
HYDROGRAPH- HYETOGRAPH
aoo
DATE: 10/27/81
SITE: GREENIDGE STATION

1ST PHASE
700
LEGEND
II
SIMULATED RAINFALL
II
c:::J MEASURED RAINFALL
"
I
-- SIMULATED FLOW
600
"
- MEASURED FLOW
I I
I I
I I
-
500
I I
:t
0.
I I
0
I I
-

I I
0
400
I I
.J
I I
u..
I I
I
I
,
I
I
200 I
I
I
I
100
o 891011 1234567
NOON .
:jgure 2-5a. Simulated vs. measured hydrograoh/hyetograph - storm 4, 1st phase
.
Q.
02'
w_.1
rc-
a. .2
900
800
700
600
500
-

Q.
e
-
3: 400
o
..J
U.
300
200
100
SIMULATED 'IS. MEASURED
HYDROGRAPH - HYETOGRAPH
DATE: 10/27-28/82
SITE: 5T ATION
2ND PHASE
LEGEND
I SIMULATED RAINFALL
"'''''''''''' MEASURED RAINFALL
--- SIMULATED FLOW
MEASURED FLOW
a
I I
: I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"
,
,
\
\
\
\
\
\

MID- 2
NITE
4
--
6
Figure 2-50. Simulated VS. measured hydrograph/hyetograoh - storm d, 2nd phase - Greenidge
-24-
2.3.2 Calibration of the Qualitative Model
The qualitative model was calibrated by matching the calculated ac,id and
material loadings in the Greenidge runoff with the simulated loadings. There
are both measured and estimated input parameters used in the calibration.
2.3.2.1 M.easured Input Parameters
The following were the measured input parameters:
1. Area of coal pile liner (same as used in quantitative model)
2. Mean height of coal pile.
3. computing time interval (same as used in quantitative model).
4. Average percent of framboidal pyrite in coal.
5. Density of coal at surface.
6. Average percent of iron, sulfur, and trace elements in coal.
7. Acidity concentration in rainfall.
2.3.2.2 Estimated Input Parameters
The following input parameters were estimated:
1. Rate of pyrite oxidation.
2. Solubility fac1:olC for iron, sulfates, and trace elements.
3. Factors for directing materials to direct runoff zone, surface
zone, and lower zone.
4. Factors for removing materials by direct runoff, interflow, and
seepage or base flow streams.
5. Factor for moving materials to ground water storage.
6. Factor for impact of freeze-thaw on dissolved materials
production.
7. Factor for the production of dissolved trace elements by the
acid reaction.
8. Depth of reactive surface.
9. Coefficient for exponential washoff factors.
10. Factor for fraction of moisture lost to deep storage.
Table 2-4 lists the values for all input parameters at the Greenidge site.
-25-
Parameter
Name
Depth
Area
H
FACDEP
FACDIR
FACLZ
FACUZ
FACRED
FACREB
FACRDS
FACINT
TIME2
PERPY
DENCOL
TABLE 2-4
VALUES OF INPUT PARAMETERS FOR QUALITATIVE MODEL CALIBRATION
GREENIDGE SITE
Definition units Value
Depth of reactive surface feet 0.1 - 0.5
Area of coal pile
Mean height of coal pile
Surface depth factor
Factor for directing materials to direct
runoff zone
Factor for directing materials to lower zone
Factor for directing materials to upper zone
Factor for removing materials by direct
runoff
Factor for removing materials by seepage
or baseflow
Factor for removing materials to ground
water storage
Factor for removing materials in interflow
Computing time interval
Average percent framboidal pyrite
Density of surface coal
-26-
acres 5.3
feet 28.
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.0035
0.001
1.
0.006
hour 0.25
% 10.
lb/ft
3
82.
Parameter
Name
RATEPY
FACTM(K)
PERSUL
PERTFE
FT
RAINCO
S O L ~ F E
SOLSUL
SOLTM(K)
EXPO
AK
FK
SK
TM(K}
RK24L
TABLE 2-4 (continued)
VALUES OF INPUT PARAMETERS FOR QUALITATIVE MODEL CALIBRATION
GREENIDGE SITE
Definition
Rate of pyrite oxidation
Trace element dissolving factorllb acid
for trace element(K)
Average percent sulfur
Average percent iron
Freeze-thaw factor
T . acidity concentration of rainfall
Solubility factor for iron
Solubility factor for sulfates
Solubility factor for trace element (K)
Option indicator for exponentially
decreasing washoff
Exponential coefficient for acid
Exponential coefficient for iron
Exponential coefficient for sulfate
Exponential coefficient for trace element(K)
Fraction of moisture lens lost to ground
water storage
-27-
Units
Ilb acid
%
%
mg/l
Value
0.002
0.1 .... 4.8
1.9
1.2
0.03
o.
0.05
0.25
0.001 - 0.08
o
not utilized
not utiiized
not utilized
not utilized
o.
2.3.2.3 Method of Assigning Parameter Values
Analysis of coal samples at the Greenidge site provided the measured
parameter input data for calibrating TRCCOAL. This included the percent of
framboidal pyrite, sulfur, iron, and eight selected trace elements: including
arsenic, selenium, nickel, manganese, cadmium, aluminum and copper. The
density of coal on the surface of the pile was measured in the field.
precipitation samples taken during the storm events were analyzed for the
acidity of rainfall.
Estimated parameters were adjusted in the calibration to provide a balance
between production and movement of acid and dissolved materials and the
removal of these materials by rainfall. For example, the solubility factors
and movement factors are involved in producing accessible dissolved materials,
and the removal factors are for washing these materials out of the pile at a
rate to match the measured pollutant loadings. The greater the production
during each dry day, the greater the reservoir from which the runoff stream
draws. To calibrate this phenomena, there must be sufficient production to
provide enough dissolved materials to wash out. However, if production is too
great, there will be no impact of a significant storm to draw down the
reservoir of materials. The acid production is then calibrated to dissolve
these materials. Figure 2-6 describes this process of "back-calibrating" from
measured acid and materials loadings to pyrite oxidation.
To estimate the relative tendency of the various selected trace elements
to be dissolved by pile acid, TRC used the acid-trace element correlation
coefficient from samples taken during the Greenidge field monitoring program
as the dissolved trace element production factor. These factors were each
multiplied by 10 to place them in the proper range for the reaction algorithm.
-28-
,
J
)
MONIJORED
RUNOFF
QUALITY
MEASURED
ACID
AND
MATERIALS
LOADING
.
CALIBRATE
REMOVAL
FACTORS
TO
PRODUCE
THESE
RUNOFF
LOADINGS
SIMULATION OF RUNOF'F QUALITV'
., .-.-
.
CALIBRATE
CALIBRATE
CALIBRATE
MATERIALS
ACID
INPUT RATE
PRODUCTION
MOVEMENT
FACTORS
TO
PRODUCTION
()F PVRITE
TO DISSOLVE TO
OXIDATION
.... ...
...... ...
..
PRODUCE
r'
THESE
.. DISSOLVE
..
THE
TO
NECESSAR'f
MATERIALS TRACE
PRODUCE
RESERVOIR
FOR
MATERIALS
ACID
OF
MOVEMENT
MATERIALS
"
~ - ' "
Figure 2-6. Steps in calibrating qualitative model.
, I
A minor factor which was considered in the calibration was the freeze-thaw
parameter. The occurrence of alternating freezing and thawing days was used
to accelerate the production of acid and dissolved materials. An initial
value of the freeze-thaw was chosen to accelerate production by 3 percent for
each occurrence. However, there were not enough freeze-thaw intervals during
the field effort to calibrate this parameter.
In addition, the exponential washoff option was not utilized in the
calibration effort. The runoff loadings were proportional to flow rate only
and were not observed during the monitoring program to be exponentially
decreasing over the duration of the storm.
2.3.2.4 Results of Calibration at Greenidge Site
Table 2-5 shows the results of the qualitative calibration for the
Greenidge site. The best simulation was achieved for the large storm of
October 27, 28, 1981. TRC was able to simulate the acid loading for October
27 within 9 percent. Iron loadings were within 21 percent and sulfate
loadings within 7 percent for the October storm. The model simUlates
dissolved ferrous iron loading and assumes most of the ferric iron is removed
as a precipitate (see the pyrite oxidation reaction in Section A.2). However,
in reality, dissolved iron levels as measured during the monitoring program
contain some ferric ions as well as ferrous ions. Therefore the simulated
iron loading should be lower than the measured loading.
In general, there is more difficulty in simulating iron and sulfate runoff
loadings. Apparently the chemistry involved in iron and sulfate production is
more complex than the pyrite oxidation reaction used in the model.
The simulated trace element loadings were all within a reasonable range,
often within one pound of the actual loading.
-30-
I
"
...
, ,
RESULTS OF CALIBRATION OF ,QUALITATIVE MODEL
Precipitation Success of Hydraulic Actual tUlnoff Simulated Runoff
Storm Date Volume Simulation Loadings
September S, 1981
September 14, 1981
September 21, 22, 1981
October 27, 28, 1981
0.19 inches
0.51 inches
0.98 inches
3.5 inches
-33%
+40%
-10%
< -U for 10/27-10/28
+lOi for 10/27
T. acidity - 242
Fe - 45
S04 - 185
AS - 0.02
Al - 4
Mn - 0.3
CU 0.06
T. acidity - 161
Fe - 57
S04 - 232
As - 0.03
Al - 6
Mn - 0.5
CU - 0.09
T. acidity - 979
Fe - 330
S04 - 1519
AS - 0.23
Al - 28
Mn - 2
CU - 0.40
For 10/27 only
T. acidity - 4409
Fe - 1432
S04 - 5710
AS - 1
Al - 119
Mn - 10
cu - 2
8
4
28
0.01
0.40
0.02
0.01
279
45
386
0.08
5
0.22
0.16
936
345
1421
0.14
37
2
1
For 10/27 only
4795
1127
5335
2
120
6
5
---- ---
'--'
2.4 Model Verification
In the calibration effort, values were assigned to estimated parameters to
best . match simulated and measured conditions at Greenidge. In the
verification process, these assigned values were used at Russell. If these
values were not appropriate for Russell, a value which was appropriate for
both sites was found or a physical explanation was given for the different
value.
2.4.1 verification of Hydraulic Model
Three storms measured at the RG&E Russell site were used to verify the
calibrated model. The storms are described below:
March 25, 26, 1982 - 0.61 inches (rain and snow)
April 3, 1982 - 0.58 inches (rain)
May 8, 1982 - 0.82 inches (rain)
2.4.1.1 Measured Input Parameters for Russell Site
The Russell site differed from the Greenidge site in several key areas
which are reflected in the measured input parameters.
The coal pile at Russell was unlined with four drainage discharge points -
two main drainage areas and two small ones. The center of the pile had a
bowl-shape configuration where all surface runoff was directed into the pile.
Of the 5.3 acres of coal pile, only the outside perimeter of 1.74 acres
actually fed the four runoff streams, for the storms encountered.
TRC originally superimposed the four runoff hydrographs into one
hydrograph and attempted to simulate runoff from the entire outside drainage
basin of 1.74 acres. However, the two small drainage areas had significantly
smaller flow path lengths from the two large drainage areas. This caused
difficulties in simulating the runoff time-of-travel. Therefore, only the two
-32-
main drainage basins of approximately equal size (O.76 acres each) were used
in the simulation.
Time-of-travel for the model was estimated from field measurements taken
during the supplemental program. The slope of the pile used in the model is a
combination of the slope of the runoff channel on the outside of the pile and
the slope of the steep outside face of the pile.
Piezometer P-ll (see Section 3.2.4) was used to estimate the height of
water at the base of the pile. This lens of water lost volume over the Course
of the field program from March to May 1982. This water loss was used to
estimate parameter, K24L, the fraction of moisture storage loss to ground
water storage. The initial volume of free-draining moisture in the interior
of the pile was estimated to be 6 percent, higher than found at the Greenidge
site.
There was no measureable volume of eroded solids at the four discharge
points. Instead the runoff channels became choked with coal solids during
intense rainstorms. These "dams" of coal produced uneven runoff flow and
spikes in the runoff hydrographs when the coal was cleared away. The spikes
in the runoff hydrograph caused difficulties in matching a simulated flow
hydrograph with a monitored flow hydrograph.
2.4.1.2 Estimated Parameters
~ ' h e estimated parameters which were found successful in simulating
hydraulic flow at Greenidge were used in the Russell model verification with
the following exception:
Moisture Storage at Surface of Pile, UZSN. The drainage area for the
coal pile simulation at Russell included the steep sides of the pile
and the impervious runoff channel. Neither the loose coal on the
pile sides, nor the runoff channel have significant surface moisture
storage capacity. Therefore, a lower value of UZSN was appropriate.
-33-
Table 2-6 shows values of input parameters for the hydraulic model
calibration at the Russell site.
2.4.1.3 Results of Verification of Hydraulic Model
Table 2-7 describes the success of the hydraulic model verification.
There were no significant storms at the Russell site. The largest storm,
May 8, 19132, was 0'.82 inches and its simulated flow was within 1 percent of
the actual volume. The intense storm of April 3, 1982 could not be accurately
verified. The combination rain storm-snow storm of March 25, 26, 1982 was
within 57 percent of the actual runoff volume. This storm showed the
compleKities of the snowmelt phenomena in timing the runoff. Figure 2-7 shows
the hydrograph-hyetograph of simulated versus measured flow for the May 8,
19132 storm.
The total volume of runoff simulated from March 18, 1982 to May 25, 1982
was 10 percent less than the volume of runoff measured at the site. Table 2-8
shows the components of simulated runoff for the Russell site. For the longer
storms of March and May, 12 percent of the precipitation in the runoff area
ran off the coal pile. With the more intense short storm of April 3, 24
percent of the runoff ran off the pile in the simulation.
2.4.2 Verification of Qualitative Model
The qualitative model was run for the Russell site to simulate the three
storms of March 25, 26; April 3; a.nd May 8, 1982.
The verification process consisted of using parameter values found
appropriate in the calibration except where definite physical differences
between coal piles eKisted.
-34-
Parameter
Name
TCONC
TINC
Z
C
AREAP
K24L
CB
SS
L
NN
KK24
IRe
TRANSK
DETACH
so ILl{
GULLY
SGW
UZS
LZS
UZSN
RMELT
TABLE 2-6
VALUES OF INPUT PARAMETERS FOR HYDRAULIC MODEL VERIFICATION
RUSSELL SITE
Definition
Time-of-travel from furthest point in pile
to discharge
Selected hydraulic routing time interval
Number of routing time intervals in TCONC
Percentage of pile area reflected by each
routing interval
Area of cOcll pile
Fraction of moisture lost from pile to
deep ground water
Index for infiltration in pile
Average slope of pile or of main slope
Mea.n overland flow path length
Manning coefficient for coal surface flow
seepage stream
interflow
Units
minute
minute
%/100
acres
feet
Value
30
15
2
0.5
1.52
0.001
0.17
0.01
360.
0.3
0.99994
0.6
Transport capacity coefficient for
sediment erosion
not uti lized
Detachment coefficient for sediment erosion not utilized
Coal surface constant for sediment erosion not utilized
Width of active gullies feet not utilized
Height of moisture lens at base of pile inches 38.
Surface moisture at beginning of simulation inches o.
Free-draining water in interior of pile inches 6.
Surf,ace moisture storage capacity inches 0.04
Snowmelt factor 0.03
-35-
TABLE 2-7
RESULTS OF HYDRAULIC MODEL VERIFICATION
RUSSELL SITE
Simulated Measured
Precipitation Runoff Runoff
Storm Date Volume Flow Volume Flow Volume Difference
Days of
March 25, 0.51 inches 3200 gallons 1400 gallons -57%
26, 1982 (rain and snow)
Day of
April 3, 1982 0.58 inches 5800 gallons 2600 gallons +123%
(rain)
Day of
May 8, 1982 0.82 inches 3700 gallons* 3700 gallons <-1%
(rain)
* The stormwater runoff from the May 8 storm tailed off into the initial two
hours of May 9.
TABLE 2-8
COMPONENTS OF SIMULATED STORMS FOR RUSSELL COAL PILE
Runoff Volume pile Moisture Storage
preciEitation Direct Storm and Addition to Ground
Storm Date Inches Ga 110ns Runoff Interflow Water Storage
March 25, 26, 1982 0.61 25,200 2% 10% 88%
April 3, 1982 0.58 23,900 16% 8% 76%
May 8, 1982 0.82 33,900 <1% 11% 88%
-36-
I
w
-.-J
I
Z'
o
-
....

1--
_z
0.=
-
o
W
0:
0.
-
:i
Q.
"
......
?:
o
-I
U.
15
10
5
o
SIMULAfED VS. MEASURED
HYDROGRAPH - HVETOGRAPH
DATE: 5/8/82
SITE: RUSSELL
LEGEND
~ " " ~ SIMULATED RAINFALL
,-----,' MEASURED RAINFALL
--- SIMULATED FLOW
__ I MEASURED FLOW
8 9 1011 I 1 2
NOON
.!"Ooo _______ _
......... _.
Figure 2-7. Simulated VS. measured hydrograph/hyetograph - storm 3 - Russell.
3
2.4.2.1 Measured Input Parameters for Russell Site
Certain physical parameters of the Russell coal pile differed from those
at the Greenidge pile. The runoff area, height of the pile, and coal density
were less at Russell. In addition, the Russell coal contained on the average
1.9 percent less framboidal pyrite but the measured sulfur and iron content of
the coal was higher. The values of input parameters for the Russell
verification are shown in Table 2-9.
2.4.2.2 Estimated Input Parameters for Russell Site
The estimated input parameters described in Section 2.3.2 regulate the
rate at which materials such as aci.d and metals are moved through the pile and
out of the pile through the runoff stream. The primary input parameter which
required modification for the Russell site was DEPTH, the depth of the
reactive surface. Because of the combination of loose coal on the sides of
the pile and the concrete runoff channel, the reactive depth and surface area
of the coal was smaller and the resulting pyrite oxidation and acid production
were much lower.
The correlation coefficient between acid production and dissolved trace
metal production was much higher at the Russell site, 0.82-0.98. These
correlation coefficients were used as input factors for parameter, FACTM(K),
the trace metal production factors. Selenium could not be simulated at the
Russell site because there was no correlation between acidity and selenium
levels.
2.4.2.3 Results of Verification at Russell Site
Table 2-10 shows the success of the verification at the Russell site. The
Russell site was more difficult to match simulated versus measured loadings.
For the March 25, 26, 1982 storm, the simulated runoff volume was 57 percent
-38-
TABLE 2-9
VALUES OF INPUT PARAMETERS FOR QUALITATIVE MODEL VERIFICATION
RUSSELL SITE
Parameter
Name
Depth
H
FACDEl?
FACDIR
FACLZ
FACUZ
FACRED
FACREB
FACRDS
FACINT
TIME2
PERPY
DENCOL
RATEPY
FACTM(K)
PERSUL
PERTFE
Definition
Depth of reactive surface
Area of coal pile
Mean height of coal pile
Surface depth factor
runoff zone
lower zone
Factor for directing materials to diirect
upper zOne
Factor for removing materials by direct
runoff
Factor to r ~ ~ o v i n g materials by seepage
or base flow
Factor for directing materials to ground
water storage
Factor for removing materials by inter flow
Computing tilne interva 1
Average percent framboidal pyrite
Density of surface coal
Rate of pyrite oxidation
Trace element dissolvil1g factorllb acid
for trace element(K)
Average percent sulfur
Average percent iron
-39-
units
feet
acres
feet
hour
%
lb/ft
3
Ilb acid
%
%
value
0.035
1.52
13 .
L.
0.01
0.1
0.01.
0.0035
0.001
1000.
0.006
0.25
8.9
56
0.002
8.2 - 9.8
2.7
1.7
VALUES OF INPUT PARAMETERS FOR QUALITATIVE MODEL VERIFICATION
RUSSELL SITE
Parameter
Name
FT
RAINCO
SOLTFE
SOLSUL
SOLTM(K)
EXPO
AK
FK
SK
TM(K)
RK24L
Definition
Freeze-thaw factor
T. acidity concentration of rainfall
Solubility factor for iron
Solubility factor for sulfates
Solubility factor for trace element (K)
Option indicator for exponentially
decreasing washoff
Exponential coefficient for acid
Exponential coefficient for iron
Exponential coefficient for sulfate
Exponential coefficient for trace element(K)
Fraction of moisture lens lost to deep
storage
-40-
units Value
0.03
mg/l o.
0.05
0.25
0.002 - 0.1
o
not utilized
not uti lized
not utilized
not utilized
0.001
RESULTS OF VERIFICATION OF QUALI'l'ATIVE MODEL
Precipitation Success of Hydraulic Measured Runoff Simulated Runoff
torm Date Volume Simulation Loadings (lbs) Loadingl3
March 25, 26, 1982 0.51 inches -57%
April 3, 1982 0.58 inches +123%
May 8, 1982 0.82 inches <1%
T. acidity - 410
Iron - 154
Sulfate - 519
Trace elements
Al - 16
As - 0.09
Mn - 1
cu - 0.08
T. acidity - 119
Iron - 55
Sulfate - 154
Trace elements
Al - 5
As - 0.03
Mn - 0.30
cu - 0.02
T. acidity - 115
Iron - 38
Sulfate - 177
Trace elements
Al - 6
AS - .03
Mn - 0.35
CU - 1.13
4
8
38
6
0.4
0.4
0.4
20
6
23
4
0.3
0.3
0.3
116
94
211
52
5
5
5
less than measured runoff volume. The simulated acid, iron and sulfate
loadings were also low. If meteorological data was available for the
preceding month for Russell, instead of just the preceding two weeks, then the
model could better simulate the accumulation of dissolved materials in the
pile and their washout during the storm. The model also predicted low acid,
iron, and sulfate values for the small April storm.
The May 8, 1982 storm was the largest sampled with 0.82 inches and had the
best hydraulic and qualitative simulation. Acid and sulfate loadings were
within 20 percent of measured values. The measured loadings for the April 3
and May 8 storm were surprisingly similar although their supply of dissolved
materials from preceding dry days should have been very different. The May
storm occurred after a long dry period and larger loadings were expected in
the runoff stream.
The total measured acid loading in the runoff was 1220 pounds for the
monitoring period. The simulated acid loading was 348 pounds. Most of the
shortfall occurred for the March and April storms, since there was little or
no flow on non-storm days.
Simulated trace metal loadings for all storms were within five pounds of
measured values, with the exception of aluminum. FOr the May 8 storm, the
model overpredicted the metals generally by better than a factor of 10.
It can be surmised that acid production is more complex than the pyrite
oxidation reaction and accumulation over dry days.
discussed further in Section 2.5.
These limitations are
The Russell site with an unlined coal pile offered an opportunity to
simulate the loss of acid to ground water storage beneath the pile. In-pile
piezometer measurements showed the concentration of the acid at the base of
the pile to average approximately 3000 mg/l. However, there was no reliable
method to determine the volume of water lost to deep storage. The ground
-42-
water wells surrounding the pile showed little variation in water elevation
changes. Several of the pile piezometers were dry. Piezometer P-ll on the
pile did show that the moisture lens at the base of the pile lost
approximately one inch in elevation over the duration of the March through May
monitoring period. Assuming one inch of water volume to ground water storage
froID a drainage area of 1.5 acres (the runoff simulation area) and an acid
concentration of 3000 mg/l, the total acid loading to ground water storage is
1000 pounds. However over the simulation period the model only conveyed 350
pounds of acid to ground water storage. Attempts to increase this value
robbed acid from the base flow and runoff streams. One area of further study
should be to obtain more field measurements to develop a more accurate
coefficient for total flow contribution to deep storage.
2.5 ~ u m m a r y of Modeling Results
2.5.1 Success of Calibration and verification
The success of calibrating and verifying the coal pile drainage model
depended greatly upon the type of precipitation event that was simulated. For
storms with precipitation over 0.8 inches the hydraulic model simulated the
runoff volume within 14 percent.
For similar storms I:>ver 0.8 inches, the qualitative model simulated the
runoff acidity with varyi.ng degrees of accuracy. For example:
Storm of September 21, 22 - Greenidge
Hydraulic simulation within 10 percent
Total acidity loading within 4 percent
Storm of October 27, 28 - Greenidge
HYdraulic simulation within 1 percent (10 percent for 10/27 only)
Total acidity loading within 9 percent for October 27
Storm of May 8 - Russell
Hydraulic simulation within 1 percent
Total acidity lo,ading within 1 percent
-43-
Iron loadings ranged from -44 percent to +27 percent for the Greenidge
site and were 147 percent of the measured loading during the May 8 storm at
the Russell site. Sulfate loadings were -27 percent to +20 percent for major
storms.
The model best simulates these large storms. It is these types of storms
which will be of interest in sizing runoff collection basins and treatment
system. Below is discussion of some of the limitations of the model in regard
to smaller rainfall events.
2.5.2 Limitations of Model
The hydraulic model best simulates longer storms and large storms with
over 0.8 inches of rainfall. The model views the surface of the pile as a
shallow depression which must be saturated before runoff begins. In a slow,
low volume storm the infiltration rate to the interior of pile from the
surface is near equal to the rate of precipitation. Therefore the model
simulates nearly all the moisture input as infiltration with little runoff.
In reality there are scattered impervious sections of the coal pile (such as a
runoff collection channel or portions of the truck pile at Greenidge) which
generate immediate runoff. The storm at the Greenidge site on September 8,
1981, with 0.19 inches of precipitation over 4 hours is an example of a slow,
low volume storm. The model cannot simulate the runoff peak of 8 gpm which
was measured.
Short cloudbursts are also difficult to simulate. This is because the
model reads in precipitation data on an hourly basis. The total hourly
precipi tation volume is divided into equal portions for each computing time
interval. Therefore a 15 minute cloudburst with one inch of rain is viewed by
-44-
the model with a 15 minute computing interval to be a one hour storm with four
intervals each of 0.25 inches of rain. The storm at Greenidge on September
14, 1981, had two short cloudbursts: one of 75 minutes with 0.31 inches of
rainfall and one of 90 minutes with 0.20 inches of rainfalL The model viewed
the storm as a rainfall of even amounts in the hour in which it occurred. In
the case of the September 14, 1981 storm, the model over simulated the volume
of l:unoff from these cloudburst by 40 percent.
The model can be run to be sensitive to low volume and brief storms by
setting the surface depression storage approaching zero. However, the mode 1
will then be less accurate for larger storms.
The qualitative "model calculates pollutant loadings. These loadings are
dependent on flow volume and the success of the hydraulic simulation is
reflected in these ';results. In general, if the hydraulic simulation falls
short or exceeds th'e measured runoff volume, the simulated runoff loadings
will follow the same '!pattern.
Th,epattern of tbtal acidity loadings for storms at Russell reflects the
potential difficulty i,of simulating pyrite oxidation and acid production. The
April 3 storm f,:)Uowed 1:wo dry days for acid production. The measured runoff
,
volUme for Channel 1 and 4 for the day was 2600 gallons and the April 3 runoff
acid loading was 119 pounds. However, the May 8 storm was larger, 3700
gallons of runoff fotlowing 17 dry days and the acid loading was 115 pounds.
This is an indication that there are complexities in the chemical reactions in
the coal pile that are not easily simulated.
-45-
2.5.3 Parameters Significant in the Calibration and Verification
During the calibration and verifications efforts certain parameters were
found to be especially signific.ant. They were:
for the hydraulic model - UZSN (surface depression storage) and;
for the qualitative model - RATEPY (rate of pyrite oxidation)
- DEPTH (depth of reactive surface layer)
The parameter UZSN is a reflection of the degree of compaction of the coal
pile and is sensitive to simulating the ratio of runoff volume/infiltrated
moisture for each storm event. It was found that newly stored, freshly worked
surface coal had a higher degree of surface storage. On the other hand,
runoff channels generated high volumes of runoff. To use the hydraulic model
to size collection basins for new coal piles, the user should run the model
with a range of values for UZSN. A low value for UZSN will simulate a
condition of highly compacted coal. A high value of UZSN will simulate mOre
loosely stored coal. The actual runoff volume at anyone time generated by
the coal pile will be in this range. The User's Manual discusses the use of
this parameter in more detail.
The parameter RATEPY is indicative of the rate of pyrite oxidation and
acid production. If RATEPY is too low, the acid suPply in the pile will run
out before the end of a storm. If RATEPY is too large, then a possible
decrease in the acid loading at the end of a large storm will not be simulated.
The parameter DEPTH is an indicator of the reactive surface of the coal
available to produce acid in the pyrite oxidation reaction. Runoff channels
and highly compacted coal would have lower values of DEPTH. Very loosely
packed coal would also have a lower value of DEPTH than moderately sorted
coal. The parameter DEPTH is reflective of the differences in coal piles
between Greenidge and Russell. Both sites generated a ratio of 0.03-0.05 Ibs
-46-
acid/gallon Qf runoff. At Greenidge this acid loading was simulated with
DEPTH equaling 0.1-.5 feet of coal and 10 percent framboidal pyrite content.
At Russell, the same ratio was simulated with DEPTH equaling 0.035 feet and
8.9 percent framboidal pyrite content.
2.5.4 Applications of the Model
The primary use of the model will be to size collection basins for coal
pile runoff and design treatment systems for coal pile acidity, sulfates, and
trac:e metals. The advantage of the model is that it can be used to simulate a
vari.ety of meteorological conditions and coal pile conditions. Examples of
meteorological conditions to be used are: 1) design storms such as the 10
year - 24 hour storm, 2) historical storms of significance, and 3) "average"
conditions over a year or several years. Coal pile conditions to be simulated
include: 1') the impact of high sulfur versus low sulfur coal on runoff
quality; 2} the impact of compaction on runoff quantity and reactive depth,
and 3) the impacts of pyrite content on trace metals in the runOff.
2.5.5 Areas for FUrther Study
Several areas which require further field data were also identified during
the calibration and verification. For example, only one snowfall and
resulting snowmelt occurred during the monitoring period. More data during
winter months is needed to properly calibrate the snowmelt algorithm. In
addition, there was little opportunity to see the effects of alternative
freezing ahd thawing on the pile reaction rates. Also, gully erosion of coal
solids was difficult to measure in the field and more data is needed in this
area.
-47-
In the qualitative model, more research is needed on the pyrite oxidation
reaction which produces the acidity, iron and sulfate in the runoff. Finally,
as mentioned previously, more field data should be obtained to develop a more
accurate coefficient for total flow contribution to deep storage. Wok in this
area combined with further work on the pyrite oxidation reaction should result
in more accurate acidity, iron and sulfate loading predictions.
-48-
3.0 FIELD PROGRAM
The objective of the field program was to collect a sufficient amount of
data on runoff and leachate at two New York State coal piles to calibrate and
vel:ify the model. The field program included sampling and analysis of the
coal and the moisture within the piles; sampling and analysis of the ground
water at one pile, performing ten weeks of monitoring of coal pile runoff and
meteorology at each site; and all the laboratory analyses and data
intet'pretation necessary for model input and simulations. In addition to data
summaries provided in this section, a compendium of all information collected
at each site has been included in data banks separate from this report.
In the sections that follow, descriptions of each task within the field
program are outlined starting with site selection and concluding wit.h a
discussion of the results.
3.1 Site Selection
The objective of this task was to select two New York State coal burning
steam electric plants for test sites in the calibration and verification of
the -coal pile model. To satisfy the objectives of the overall study, the two
test sites were to be representative of a variety of conditions. TRC
therefore developed a selection criteria by which a number of coal piles were
ranked.. The coal piles were visited, with data collected on the physical and
chemi.cal charac'teristics of each pile. Photographs of the piles, historical
runoff data, and site plans of each coal pile were gathered. Sites were then
ranked according to the selection criteria.
3.1.1 Selection Criteria
The following is a listing of the selection criteria used to determine the
two ultility coal pile sites best suited for this program. The utility sit.es
-49-
were assessed independently using a numerical ranking scale with lower values
assigned to desirable characteristics. The rankings were subjective in
nature, based on TRC's experience with coal piles.
Macroparameters - Those having the greatest impact.
Coal pile Size - The optimum coal pile size by rank was that
nearest the mean of the coal piles visited as part of this
program.
Average Sulfur Content of Stored Coal - In the test program,
the ideal situation would be to sample a low and a high sulfur
coal for the range normally found in New York State.
Therefore, the mean sulfur content of coal piles visited was
assigned a higher value.
Containment of the Surface Runoff from the pile - A lower
numerical value was given to those coal piles which are or
easily can be modified through the use of dikes or ditches to
contain runoff and/or the piles are lined so that the entire
runoff flow can be monitored.
Ability to Perform Sampling and Moisture Measurements on Pile -
Preferential rankings were assigned to coal piles where the
level of activity on the pile would allow for the installation
of piezometers* and the taking of core samples.
Variability of Physical and Chemical Characteristics - Coal
piles where the physical and chemical characteristics of the
coal are not constantly changing were given better (lower)
ranking.
Microparameters - Those having secondary impact.
Climatic Variability The ideal situation would be to
monitor/model sites representing a variety of meteorological
conditions. Therefore, extremes in snowfall were given
numerical preference. There is little variation in rainfall
amounts.
Availability of Existing Site Characteristic Data - Data on
site geology, hydrogeology, coal quality, plot plans,
historical runoff monito.ring data and other useful data is
necessary to fully document site characteristics, therefore
sites were ranked by availability of such data.
* A piezometer is a small diameter monitoring well used to measure changes in
ground water elevation and to collect ground water samples.
-50-
Variability of Acid Rain Conditions - TRC had planned to use
the relative degree of acid rain conditions as a factor in the
runoff program. However, insufficient historical data was
available from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on acid rain
to confirm variations in acid rain within New York State.
During each field survey TEe attempted to gather the acidity of
rainwater for use in the model.
Existence of In-Place Monitors - Piles having in-place ground
water monitoring wells, runoff monitoring stations, and on-site
meteorological stations influence the costs of performing the
long-term monitoring and therefore received preference in
ranking.
The plants which are the most desirable for test sites will
have the lowest numerical total score using this ranking system.
3.1.2 Ranking of utility Sites
Nine utility sites listed in Table 3-1 were evaluated according to the
selection criteria. The results are presented in Table 3-2. Individual
r ankings are p laced in the upper right-hand corner of each category. These
sites represent all the major utilities presently burning coal.
The best ranked site was plant i9 - Russell Station of Rochester Gas &
Electric with the overall characteristics:
'. !t has an average size of 96,QOO tons which is near the average
size of the utility coal piles evaluated.
,. The coal burned has an average sulfur content of 2.4 percent and
is one of the higher sulfur coals used at New York State utilities.
... A concrete-lined gutter will collect approximately 90 percent of
the direct runoff. Leachate through the pile will go directly
into the ground
, Of the pile, approximately 25 percent is reserve and could be used
to place piezometers.
The size of the pile remains relatively constant throughout the
year.
There is a significant volume of existing data describing the pile
including runoff and precipitation.
-51-
TABLE 3-1
UTILITY SITES VISITED IN SITE SELECTION PROCESS
Plant No. Station Name Utility Location
1 Dunkirk Niagara Mohawk Dunkirk
2 Huntley Niagara Mohawk Buffalo
3 Greenidge New york State Electric & Gas Dresden
4 Milliken New York State Electric & Gas Ludlowville
5 Jennison New York State Electric & Gas Bainbridge
6 Hickling New York State Electric & Gas East Corning
7 Goudey New York State Electric & Gas Johnson City
8 Beebe Rochester Gas & Electric Rochester
9 Russell Rochester Gas & Electric Rochester
-52-
I
U1
w
I
Coal pUe
no. and slZe
Percen t sultu.r;
1n coal
Coal pile
contaInment
Ea.se of salllplinq
on pUe
Vaciability
ot pile
Climate
Snow -
Italo -
AvailabUity
ot data
Presence ot
in-place monitors
qtQundwater -
[unoft -
raIn -

Overall
1 pile
a
200,' 000 tons
6 acres
2.0
5
Eacthen 4
di tch' aroUnd
pile, I out-
fall collects
90i- of runoff
Limited 5
access to
sample on
pile, 10,
available for
lysimeters
2
Coal from
vacious
sources 1n PA.
Shape and
size dO not
vat}' drasti-
cally
60"
36.0-
Good
cunott data
available.
ye.
no
no
33
'5
5
1
,'ABLE 3-2
CoMpARisON OF- UTILITV" PILE STUDY SI'res
2 plaut 3 Plant 6 Plant 7
2
2 pUes
125,000 tons
each pile-
4.5-acres
1.15

Runoff col-
l.ects in
puddle
2
8
New system 3
of wells
being placed
in pile at
ptesent
2
Coal fcom
various
sources in PA.
Shape- and
size do riot
vary over: 10
week period
70
35.7"
Good 2
data avail-
able except
on runoff
Y
no
no
26
IJ
1
1 pile
110,00.0 tons
6 acres
1.85
8
1
Total,
Runoff col-
lected and
and directed
to tceatment
50\ of the 2
pile cOuld be
used for MOo-

coal from 1
PA two primary
sources .. Size
and shape do
not vary
55"
31.0
Not much 1
flow
other data
gOOd. pH
in [unott is
monitored
some
some
no
19
J2
9
1 pile
220,000 tons
5 acres
1.8
Groundwater!)
diversion
wall. Beem
around pile
'100\ col-
lected
30\ of 2
pile is te-
served and
could be used
for monitor-
ing
Coal tcom
FA-variable
Boucces. Size
varies +20i,
Shape
55"
31.0"
Good data
1
available in-
cluding run-
off data
some
yes
no
13
16
1 pile
55-,000 tons
2 acres
6
2.00
4
9
None,
Groundwater
suspected- of
flowing theu

NO reseeve 6
area, no pos-
sibl!lity of
placinq lysi-
meters
Coal from
2
PA vaJ:iable
sources .. Size
and shape do
not vary over
10 weeks
60
40.7"
Good
data except
on tunoff
ye.
no
no
37
,9
5
2
1 pile
70,000 tons
2 acres
5
1.05
1
None.
6
Runoff flows
off the pile
to 4 to 5 pts.
No reserve 1
Acea, no pos-
sibility of
placing lysi-
meters
Coal Com
2
PA variable
sources o Size
and shape
won't vary
45"
34.211
GoOd
data except
On cunott
some
no
no
27
14
!
2
1
1 pUe
tons
2-1/2 aores
1.75
None,
Runoff col-
lects in
ponds
6
1
20\ of 4
pile is ce-
serve but
shape does
change
Coal hOIA
5
PA variable
sources. Size
and shape
will vary
aD
l6.2
111
GoOd
data except
on .runoff
some
no
no
J3
t7
2
2
3
Plant 8
1 pile
40,000 tons
1.5 acres
2.4
1
3
Plant 9
J. vile
96,000 tons
6 aores
2.4
1
Concrete J Concrete 2
gutter, approx.gutter around
OS, ot runoft 90\ ot pile
collected
No reserve 6
area, no pos-
Sibility ot
Placing lysi-
meters
Coal trom 6
PA 10 WV va,-
25' ot
pile 1s avail-
able tor lysi-
meters
Coal from
pA , wV.
3
Size
iable sources. is constant
Radical
changes in
size and shape
and heiqht
70
.31.5"
GOOd data. 1
Little data
on rUnoft 0
Some flow data
no
no
no
36
,8
4
10
31.5"
GoOd
some
yes
yes
10
Ii
1
1
The significant average annual snow accumulation at Russell made it
suitable as a monitoring site during the spring sampling period.
The second highest ranked site was plant 13 - Greenidge Station of New
York State Electric & Gas with the following overall characteristics:
It has an average size of 110,000 tons which approximates the
statewide average of 112,000 tons for utility stations.
The runoff and leachate are completely contained by an impervious
plastic liner under the pile. All the runoff and leachate are
directed to a single discharge point.
About 50 percent of the pile is reserve and would be suitable for
placing in pile monitoring equipment.
The size and shape of the pile does not vary significantly over
the year.
A large quantity of data does exist for this pile including some
runoff pH and ground water data.
The only draw back with the Greenidge site is the coal sulfur content of
1.85 percent which is near the average for the utilities studied. In this
program, low sulfur and high sulfur coals were preferable for simulation
purposes. In the TRC study for the EPA and Edison Electric Institute, a
polling of nationwide electric utilities found the range of coal sulfur
content from 0.45% to greater than 3%. High sulfur coal, for the purposes of
this study is greater than 2%; low sulfur coal is less than 1.0%. However the
sulfur content range at the sites in New York was only l.OS to 2.4 percent.
with this narrow range, a wide variation in runoff water quality due to
variations in sulfur content is not expected and sulfur content is less
critical. Therefore, the overall favorable characteristics made Greenidge a
desirable site.
3.1.3 Test Site Descriptions
This section provides a brief description of each test site.
-54-
3.1.3.1 Site.l -Greenidge
Site 1 was the Greenidge Station of New York State Electric & Gas. The
plant is located in Dresden, New York (latitude 42
0
37' 30", longitude 76
0
52' 30") on the west shore of Seneca Lake with a capacity of 204 megawatts.
The plant has approximately 5.26 acres of coal storage with coal supplied from
sources in central and western Pennsylvania. The average annual precipitation
is 32 inches and the average annual snowfall is 60 inches. All leachate and
runoff from the coal storage area is contained and directed into a separate
treatment facility. 'I'he coal storage area is completely lined. The sampling
program at Greenidge was performed from September 6, 1981 to October 30,
1981. Additional sampling was performed from July 19, 1982 to Augus,t 26,
1982. Figure 3-1 shows the layout of the Greenidge pile and drainage system.
3.1.3.2 Site 2 - Russell
Site 2 was the Russell Station of Rochester Gas & Electric. The plant is
located on Lake Ontario in the City of Rochester, New York (latitude 43
0
I 0
13, 76 30') with a capacity of 252.6 megawatts. The plant has
approximately 5.3 acres of coal storage with coal supplied from sources in
western pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. The average abnual
precipitation is 35 inches and the average annual snowfall is 60 inches.
Surface runoff is collected bya coal pile perimeter drainage channel. The
pile is not lined, therefore all leachate eventually migrates through the pile
into the pile foundation. Surface runoff is collected and treated for solids
removal. 'and neutralization. The sampling program at Russell was
from March 14, 1982 to May 25, 1982. Additional sampling was performed from
June 14, 1982 to July 19, 1982. Figure 3-2 shows the layout of the RusSell
pile.
-55-
K!V
&:;) 1I1F
t;. PI EZOIIETER
o PILE EVAPORIIIETER
o ttOISIURE CELL ARRAY
OENS I n TESTS
I SCO FLOWItElER
o IlAIN GAUGE
PAN EVAPORATION GAUGE
OBSERVATION BORINGS
lID BERM
a" 15"
68
1-1-4

1'-6
TRAIN COAL

1'-5
-5'----------. 011-5

B-5

s-J (!)

y 5,0 1fO !FEET,
HOPPER
HOUSE
IlYGROTIiERMOGRAPiI
TOTAL STORAGE - 5.26 ACRES

8-3
1'-4
5-6

M2
....
<-I
TRUCK
RAMP
"-
<-I
IA.IS

S
HI
-8
t;.
P-l
15"
0
1'1-1
J
-+--f-
C>.
CP-l
CRUSHER
HOUSE
TOTAL STORAGE -5.3 ACRES
RESERVE PilE
ACTIVE PilE
9 9
o 50 9 100 F
l I l' I A , .. I
Figure 3-2. Coal pile layout and site setup _ Russell.
j
INmU/ fREATNENT I I
MENT PLANT
slim
me

H4 L.....J TRAIl.ER
o
__ 3' WIDE CONCRETE
COllECTION CHAI/NEI.
.lll
I/lf lI. TUOMETER
c>. PIUOI1rER
o PILE EVAPORIHfTER
a HOISTUHE CEll ARRAV
IKI DEl fOR] flOli11ETER
X I sen flOIJMETER
I':> RA I/j GAUGE
.. PAltfVAPOnATlOlt GAUGE
il- IIIGII POIIiT
B[RM
9 PERMEAOIlITYlESTS
DENSITY TESTs
---. RESISTlVITV JESTS
3.2 Samplina Methodology, Analytical Methodology and Data Reduction
Twenty-five separate field procedures and thirty analytical procedures for
drainage and coal analysis were incorporated into this program. Due to the
length of the narrative explaining each procedure, they are found in the
Appendix to this report.
Appendix B describes the field procedures which include the following:
1. The continuous
conductivity,
evaporation, and
on-site measurement
temperature, air
precipitation.
of drainage
temperature,
flow, pH,
humidity,
2. The collection and preparation of stormwater and dry day base
flow samples.
3. The measurement of coal moisture, and densities, along with the
rates of infiltration and water permeability.
4. Surface resistivity of the pile.
5. The installation of monitoring wells and the methods to measure
water level fluctuations and collect ground water samples.
6. Time-of-travel for slugs of drainage moving off the pile.
7. A description of the differences in drainage flow and ground
water measurements between Greenidge and Russell.
Appendix C describes the analytical procedures used by the TRC laboratory
for the analysis of the drainage samples and in the characterization of the
coal stored at each site. Water analysis was performed for:
Acidity
Filterable and non-filterable residue
Total organic carbon
Sulfate
Hardness
Fluoride
and Metals: aluminum,
calcium,
antimony,
chromium,
manganese, mercury,
vanadium and zinc
arsenic, beryllium,
cobalt, iron, lead,
molybdenum, nickel,
-58-
cadmium,
magnesium,
selenium,
Random samples of coal from .:!ach pile were analyzed for mo.isture and ash
content, particle size, fluoride and metals. The metals were the same list as
analyzed in the water samples.
Appendix D describes the steps necessary to reduce the raw field data into
a format suitable for incorporation into the data bank and the results section
of this report. Briefly they include:
1. Correction of flow, pH and conductivity records.
2. Procedure for determining the drainage coefficients.
3. Select correlation analysis.
4. Correction of JlIIoisture cell data.
5. Evaporation data reduction for both the pile and pan instruments.
All prbcedures which are detai led in the Appendices are presented so that
future work iln similar measurement and analytical programs can provide
comparable results.
3.3 Greenidge Results
This section provides a summary of results obtained from the field program
at Site NO.1, the Greenidge Station of New York State Electric and Gas. More
detailed tables of data includin9 raw data can be found in the Greenidge Data
Bank which is a separate deliverable under this program.
3.3.1 Site Meteorology Summary
The Greenidge Station is located in the Central Lakes region of New York
State, where two air masses influence the climate. From the northern interior
of the continent, cold, dry air dominates, while prevailing winds from the
south and southwest bring warm and humid weather occassionally during the
summel, months. The Finger Lakes give a notable effect on the adjacent land
masses by warming slowly in spring and cooling slowly in the fall and by
providing a'moi'sture source. Cloudy conditions prevail in the winter months,
-59-
with 60 to 70 percent of the possible sunshine received between June and
September.
The results from Greenidge show a slightly lower temperature from the
norm, with higher precipitation levels during the fall of 1981.
These
averages are compared in Table 3-3. The summer of 1982 was much dryer than
normal.
TABLE 3-3
COMPARISON OF NORMAL TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA*
WITH FIELD DATA AT THE GREENIDGE STATION
Average Temperature (oF) Average precipitation (in. )
1981 1982 1981 1982
Sept. Oct. July to August Sept. OCt. July to August
Normal 63 52 72 2.31 2.79 3.28
Field 60 49 69 3.02 3.48 1.58
*From Climates of the States Volume 2, James A. Ruffner.
The seasonal probability of intense rainfall for 12 and 24 hour durations
is presented in Table 3-4. This is a statistical approach to the amount of
rainfall that will fall over a certain time interval with recurring intervals
ranging from 1 to 10 years. Storm data for the monitoring period is included
in Table 3-4 for comparison. The storm event of October 27 was the only
rainfall with significant comparable results.
3.3.2 Coal Pile Drainage Summary
Seven storm events in the fall of 1981 and two in the summer of 1982 were
monitored at the Greenidge site. Of the seven fall storms, four were sampled
for chemical characterization and were analyzed for hydrological purposes. A
summary of all the Greenidge storms listing the precipitation and runoff
-60-
12 Hour Storm
TABLE 3-4
COMPARISON OF STATISTICAL STORM DATA(l)
WITH FIELD DATA AT GREENIDGE STATION
Statistical Data Field Data (2)
Rainfall (in. ) Years Storm Date Rainfall (in. )
1.6 1 9/8 .19
2.3 2 9/14 .31 (Phase 1)'
2.8 5 9/21-9/22 .84
3.3 10 10/27-10/28 1.58 (Phase 1)
3.7 25 10/27-10/28 1.60 (Phase 2)
4.0 50 7/28 .53
4.5 100 8/23 .41
Years
<1
<1
<1
1
1
<1
<'1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 Hour Storm
Statistical Data
R.:Hnfall (in .) Years
2.4 1
2.5 2
3.2 5
3.8 10
4.5 25
4.8 50
5.0 100
storm Date
9/21-9/22
10/27-10/28
Field Data (3)
Rainfall (in.)
.96
2.56
Y e ~ r s
<1
2
(1) 'rechnical No. 40 Rainfall Frequency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
(2) Represents maximum precipitation measured for a 12-hour period during
each storm event.
(3) Represents maximum precipitation measured for a 24-hour period during
each storm event.
-61-
characteristics is provided in Table 3-5. The two summer storms were
monitored for flow only.
Referring to Table 3-5, the last column lists the drainage coefficients
determined from the analysis of precipitation and total volume of runoff. For
most of the storms encountered the drainage coefficients were less than 0.1.
The October 27, 1981 storm, a two phase event, was the largest rainfall
measured during the entire program. During this particular storm the
percentages of precipitation which appeared as storm drainage increased to
0.24 and 0.39 for each phase respectively. A drainage coefficient of 1.00
would indicate all the rain impacting the coal pile drained off before the
flow returned to a base flow level. Historically runoff collection basins
were designed from drainage coefficients of 0.7 and greater. The data from
the Greenidge storms indicates that a 0.7 drainage coefficient may be too
conservative a number.
As discussed in greater detail in the hydrological analysis, the drainage
coefficient will be different from storm to storm and is a function of:
1. coal surface moisture saturation conditions prior to the storml
2. the amount of r a i n f a l l ~
3. the intensity of rainfall over a period of time.
The second phase of the October 27 storm had a higher drainage coefficien t
mainly due to the saturated surface conditions of the pile resulting from the
1.6 inches of rain that fell earlier that same day. This data confirms the
assumption made by the model that runoff will not begin until the depression
storage (saturation capacity) of the pile surface reaches its limit. After
this limit is reached and with continued precipitation three transport
mechanisms begin to take place. First, runoff from the pile surface occurs
where excess water moves down gradient and either flows across saturated
surface coal or moves into infiltration zones. Second, a wetting front slowly
-62-
TABLE 3-5
GREENIDGE COAL PILE STORM-RUNOFF SUMMARY
start preci]2i tation Runoff
Time Total Maximum Maximum
24 hr. Duration Amount Intensity Duration Rate Drainage
Date Clock hr. min. in. in./hr. hr. gpm Coefficient
9-8-81 1125 3 - 45
0.19 .12 12 7.8 .06
9-14-81 0300 2 - 45 0.51 .80 18 44 .06
9-21-81 1500 17 - 0 0.98 .36 16 70 .12
9-23-81 1300 5 - 45 0.14 .12 12 15 .09
9-27-81 1500 1 - 0 0.16 .40 5 25 .09
10--1-81 0615 8 - 15 0.50 .36 15 25 .04
10-27-81am 0015 7 - 45 1.60 .76 10 320 .24
10-27-81pm 2000 8 - 30 1.68 1.00 > 12 595 .3,9
7-28-82 0600 4 - 30 0.53 .36 8 34 .06
8-23-82 0500 1 - 45 0.41 .68 4.5 36 .05
-63-
migrates vertically into sUbsurface coal and thirdly, especially if the amount
of precipitation increases, noticeable erosion and slumping occur.
Slumping of coal closely resembles the phenomena of liquefaction. Excess
moisture caused by intense rainfall will fill the void space between coal
particles and eventually will overcome the internal frictional forces between
the edges and points of coal particles. Once the water pressure is greater
than the frictional pressure, the coal will actually start to "float" and
where there is a slope, move downhill. In compacted areas of the Greenidge
coa 1 pile (truck side) slumping was not as pronounced during large storms.
This slumping effect was most obvious during high intensity thunderstorms not
monitored but observed during initial site setup at Greenidge and during those
storm events with greater than one inch of precipitation.
Historically slumping has been a major operation and maintenance problem
at the Greenidge Station. Coal pile operators can attest that before the new
bermed site was constructed that during heavy rains the pile surface did
indeed become highly saturated and slumped into the coal shaker building down
slope from the pile. The deposition of coal was so great at times that the
basement and 4 feet of the train unloading room were filled with coal. Of
course the Greenidge pile being built on a slope adds to the slumping
problem. Because of the slope, freshly slumping coal will expose new surface
areas that will then become oversaturated and in turn add to the total erosion.
The drainage hydrographs with their corresponding hyetographs measured at
the Greenidge coal pile are illustrated in Figures 3-3 through 3-7. These
hyetograph/hydrographs represent the precipitation and flow data for each
storm event. It is apparent from these curves that drainage flow reacts quite
suddenly to precipitation. For most storms the flow increases within 30
minutes of the start of rain. Base flow, the uninterrupted continuous
drainage of water from the pile, increases to a higher rate after the storm
-64-
I
'"
lJ1
I
z
o
-
I-
4(
1--
a: z O ' 2 ~ TOTAL PRECIP: 0.19 IN.
~ . : : : : : . 0.3 DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT: 0.06
Q. DATE: SEPT. 8, 1981
:=-
O ~
.... C)
lL_
Figure 3-3. flyetograph/hydrograph - storm 1 - Greenidge.
I
0'1
0'1
I
z
o
-
l-
e(
1--
- .
0. Z 0.2
- -
O-
W
0:
t1.
::-
0:::&
.... t1.
u . ~
TOTAL PRECIP: 0.51 IN.
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT: 0.06
DATE: SEPT. 1481981
Fi gure 3-4. Hyetograph/hydorgraph - storm 2 - Green; dge.
I
<tI
.....
I
z
o
- ...
iii'( -. 0.1
!:!
9: - o.
o
w
a:
ft.
!I:-
0:&
.JA-
iLS!
TOTAL PRECJP: 0.98 IN.
DflAINAQE . COEFFICIENT: 0.12
DATE: SEPT. 21, 1981
Figure 3-5. Hyetograph/hydrograph - s.torm 3 - Greenidge.
I
(j\
00
I
Z
o
-
I-
<C
1--
- .
o.Z
--
O-
w
a:
D.
;:-
o ~
...ICJ
LL._
TOTAL PRECIP: 186 IN.
DATE: OCT. 27,1981
NOON
Figure 3-6. Hyetograph/hydrograph - storm 4. 1st phase - Greenidge.
I
01
<0
I
z
o
;: 0.1
c_
.....
-z 2
A.e o.
-
o
au
ft: o.
A.
60
== i 400
00.
..Je)
II. - 300
12
DATE: OCT. 27, 1981
2 4 6 8 10 MID- 2
NITE
4 6 6
F1 gure 3-7. Hyetograph/hydrograph - storm 4. 2nd phase - Greeni dge.
10
drainage ceases. The base flow at Greenidge is a combination of underpile
drainage and residual inter flow from the storm through the side slopes of the
pile. Typical base flow rates for the 5.26 acre Greenidge pile were 0.25 to
0.50 gallons per minute and immediately following a storm event increased to
between 1 and 5 gallons per minute depending on the magnitude of the storm
event.
Each hydrograph represents the total flow off the coal pile. From field
observations and analysis of the chemical characteristics of the drainage over
time, it is apparent that each hydrograph is comprised of a number of flow
components. For illustrative purposes the hydrograph from the first phase of
storm four is presented, see Figure 3-8. At the start of a storm the less
impervious areas around the perimeter of the coal pile drain immediately and
represent the initial water flowing off the pile. As the storm progresses and
the depression storage limit is reached, direct runoff from the pile surface
occurs resulting in a rapid increase in the flow. Because the direct runoff
has a diluting effect on the highly concentrated base flow (see the discussion
in Section 3.3.4), conductivities and concentrations of dissolved metals
become lowered. The lowest concentration of conductivity and dissolved metals
for most large storms appears to occur around the peak of the hydrograph. As
the rate of precipitation decreases and the hydrograph starts to recede, a
third flow component enters the discharge at this time and is referred to as
interflow. Interflow is that water which flows into the pile through areas of
loosely compacted coal and exits near the pile base. For Greenidge these
include areas within the surface of the train pile, the perimeter slopes and
the side slopes of the truck pile. There is usually a time lag when interflow
begins because' of the circuitous route the interflow drainage takes.
Interflow can be most readily detected in the drainage stream by analyzing
-70-
I

.....
I
z
o
- l-
e:(
t--
-.
&L Z o.
--
O-
w

&L
=-i 200
04,
..J(!J
u.. _'
27,1981
x-
lI
-X-
X
-IMPERVIOUS FLOW
0_0 - DIRECT RUNOFF
.-_INTER-FLOW
---TOTAL FLOW
Figure 3-8. Analysis of drainage components .. storm 4. 1st phase - Greenidge.
dissolved solids and metal concentrations over the course of a single storm
event.
Time-of-travel measurements performed on the Greenidge pile using a
simulated rain, primarily were used to supply a time base for the runoff
model. During the measurement of time-of-travel noteworthy field observations
on the travel path of different runoff streams were recorded. The most
significant of these occurred while measurements were taken on the south slope
of the Greenidge pile between the toe near the berm and the top of the train
pile. Water impacting this area infiltrated this pile directly. After 3
hours of constant sprinkling, and an equivalent of 4 inches of rain, no runoff
stream was noticeable. It can be concluded that precipitation impacting the
Greenidge pile on the southern perimeter, between the top of the train pile
and the berm, (see Figure 3-1), directly infiltrates the coal and most likely
becomes the source for underpile drainage. Since the foundation of the coal
pile slopes into the pile in this region, water off the berm and through the
loosely compacted side slopes follows a path that directs the water into the
pile and not away from it. For this reason it is not an inter flow zone but an
important infiltration zone directing water into the underpile drainage system.
3.3.3 Coal Pile Hydrology
To understand the hydrologic nature of the Greenidge pile, one must take
into account not only the precipitation and discharge character istics of the
area but also the physical size, the shape, compactness and the moisture
retention characteristics of the pile. This 5.26 acre pile for the period of
study must be recognized as two distinct piles each having different
-72-
features. Table 3-6 presents these major differences. The single most
critical difference affecting the drainage from the pile is in coal
compaction. The train pile is stacked and reclaimed by a bulldozer with
standard steel tracks spreading coal in 6 inch to 2 foot lifts. During a
building period coal is spread across the major slope and gradually the pile
increases its slope. The southern and western areas of the train pile become
steeper as more coal is stacked. The truck pile, on the other hand, includes
a ramp over the berm on which 20 wheel coal trucks gain access to the site.
As a truck enters the pile it drives over a flattened area, turns around,
backs up as far as possible, and dumps its payload. It then drives directly
out the ramp. Once 50 percent or so of the truck pile is covered with newly
delivered coal" a bulldozer will evenly spread this coal over the entire area,
normally in a 6 inch to 1 foot layer. As additional trucks enter the site the
newly spread coa 1 is compacted by the tires of the coal trucks. Therefore,
the difference in compaction is due to the method of delivery and stacking.
Thepreserice of truck tires on the pile compacts the coal to such a degree
that the infiltratic)n rates are substantially lower than that on the train
pile (see Section 3.3.3.2).
TABLE 3-6
COMPARISON OF TRAIN PILE AND TRUCK PILE AT GREENIDGE
Nomina 1 Acreage
Compaction Method
Density (dry)
Surface Slope
Infiltration Rate
Train
3.6
Bulldozer
- 47 pcf.
Flat
8.2 - 12.0 in./hr.
-73-
Truck
1.6
Bulldozer/Truck
76 pcf.
5 - 40 percent
.12 - .15 in./hr.
From the results of the drainage analysis it has been determined that for
the nine storms monitored only 4 to 39 percent of the rain hitting the
Greenidge pile results in storm drainage. To understand why only this small
percentage of water results in direct drainage, one must look at the entire
hydrologic balance. Figure 3-9 depicts a simplified block diagram showing the
paths which precipitation follows after hitting the pile. A percentage value
or range is assigned to each component so an understanding of the distribution
of the water originating as precipitation can be made.
From measurements made on nine storm events it is known that 4 to 39
percent of the precipitation results in direct runoff and interflow. The
majority of these storms had drainage coefficients less than 10 percent. Base
flows were measured on the runoff channel continuously both during the fall of
1981 and for five weeks in the summer of 1982. Using an average annual
precipitation of 31.82 inches which is typical of the Dresden, New York area
and an average base flow from the Greenidge pile of 0.6 gallons per minute
over the entire year, the percentage of precipitation resulting in only base
flow is 7 percent. Subtracting the base flow percentage and the direct
runoffjinterflow percentage from 100 percent, the resultant 54 to 89 percent
goes into immediate storage in the coal pile.
This immediate storage represents water that is absorbed by the coal which
in turn is either lost to evaporation or goes into long-term storage. The
results of the in-pile evaporation measurement task performed over 28 days in
the summer of 1982 can provide a better understanding of how evaporation
affects the quantity of water stored in the pile surface. Refer to section
3.3.3.3 for discussion of these results. It does appear, however, that for
-74-
I
--J
U1
I
PRECIPITATION
I
100%
-
\
~
DIRECT RUNOFF
ANDINTERFLOW
4-39%
IMMEDIATE
STORAGE IN PILE
54-89%
RESIDUAL INTER FLOW
AND BASE FLOW
II
EVAPORATION
V ARIES SEASONAlL V
MA V REPRESENT
100% OF RAIN FROM
WEAK STORMS IN
WARM SEASON
\
t
I
LONG TERM STORAGE
BALANCE OF WHAT'
DOES NOT EVAPOR-
ATE
Figure 3-9. Simplified hydrological block diagram - Greenidge.
7%
all the storms measured during this 28 day period, evaporation can account for
the loss of all the immediate storage of water in the pile. Except for the
last of two days of monitoring, the pile evaporimeter shows little cumulative
change in water. Of course it is recognized that this was determined during
the hot summer months when evaporation was at a maximum. Field observations
have confirmed that, in weak storm events with less than a half inch of rain,
water absorbed on the pile surface quickly evaporates. Visual observations
indicate' that only the top 3 inches of the coal pile are subject to
evaporation effects. The pile evaporimeters confirm that evaporation affects
the coal surface to a depth less than 8 inches.
For storms with greater than a half inch of rain, water will infiltrate
the pile below the effective zone of evaporation. This water, depending on
the quantity which in turn depends on the magnitude of the storm event, will
remain in the pile as long-term storage.
To understand the mechanisms of storage in the Greenidge pile
the pile moisture measurement task utilizing in-situ moisture cells was
performed. These measurements unfortunately were only taken for a short
period of time during the summer of 1982, but the results do provide some
insight to the ability of the coal to retain moisture.
The results of this task are illustrated in Figures 3-10 to 3-15. Figures
3-10 through 3-14 present the temporal changes in moistures at certain depths
for each array. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the location of each array. Also on
these same figures the daily amounts of precipitation are given to show how
newly added water might affect the pile. Figure 3-15 is a composite moisture
profile for each array. Consider it a snapshot of the pile moistures for the
months of July and August 1982.
-76-
I
--J
--J
I
-

z
-
-

0
w
a::
Q.
w
a::
:l
I-
(fJ
-
o

I-
Z
W
o
0::
W
Q.
0._0
0.6
1.0
12
10
8
i
6
4
BORE HOLE SAMPLES
5-7' 20-22'
23'. 10-12' 027-29
1
. L, .. I . 15-17' 029-31'
""... ..,. .
,-"' ...... --.:
30
1
\.
NOTE: ProbJs set at 6,10,& 16 It
but were damaged after
installation
r
0' \r. ..
., I /",.--
V .. -
.............. 201
7/24 8/1 819
DATE
SITE: GREENIDGE
LOCATION: M-1
8/17 8/26
Figure 3-10. Temporal coal pile moisture plot/hyetograph - Greenidge. M-l.
I
-..l
00
I
-

z
-
-
0
w
0:
Q..
W
0:
:l
f0-
CI)
-
o
:&
I-
Z
W
o
a:
UJ
Q.
0.0
0.5
1.0
12
10
8
6
4
v SITE: GREENIDGE'
a LOCATION: M-2
5'
i ,/-, "
...", Jl-"
,.."..1- .
f /0 p. _ -. - ..,0' ..
./ 0' - - . 6 .... _ ....
.--'.,...... . .--....
............ .""...."""" ........ ..,.. e'-;=,:.::; __ =.:_:..:e:.;;;"" _____ ..,...--,
IBORe HOLE SAMPLES I
5-7' 0 25-27
1
10-12' [J 29-31'
15-17' A 31-33
1
'" 20-22' V 33-35'

.. -.... "'\
_ .. _-.-... . , ...... ----.....
'" ".. .. '"",-
20' '--", '
7/24 8/1 8/9 8/17
nATE:'
8/25

-

z 0.0
-
-

0
w
a::
0.
W
I a::
.....
. ~ I
\D
:J
I
f-
C/)
-
0
::i
I-
Z
OJ
0
ex:
w
0..
4

/.5
1
BORE HOLE SAMPLES
.5-7'
811-13'
i
_-. : 8
\-O-J- ~ 1 3 1
i ,.. MY'" ..
1l_ ..........
II
...".,.""- .............. Jt-",,---............... --rt-If-It'-
~ .. _-
51
7/24 8/1 8/9
DATE
SITE: GREENIDGE'
LOCATION: M-3
8/17 8/25
Figure 3-12. Temporal coal pile moisture plot/hyetograph - Greenidge, M ~ 3 .
I
00
o
!
-

z
-
-

0
W
a:
Do
w
a:
:>
I-
00
-
o
:E
I-
:z
UJ
o
a:
w
Do
0.0
0.5
1.0'
12
10
8
6
..

A
4 1-.
.5'
BORE HOLE SAMPLES
5-7' .A 15-17
1
.10-12' .. 17-19'
- -
" . r
o
, j.'
" , _
. .- "' .
--..... .. ..,;' .... ' .. ..".tJIII'
. 0 __
..... 13.5" 0.... _/
"" .I
o 0 ,-___ /-1.) +\
.. ,",0 1: J. '1-/.,;-
-11.--"-_1(_ .1(_"-"_, .,..,.. v-.II.......... '-x-"'"
........... 5' '-oN.,..,.."'"
'e f\ /\._. ..' .'
'.J ...... -- ""-._ ........... ".... '-"""' . ....., '-."""", __ .--'"
7/24 8/1
""10'
8/9
nAT!:'
SITE: GREENIDGE'
LOCATION: M-4
8/11 0/25
,
00
i-'
,
-

z
-
-

0
UJ
tt:
Q.
w
a:
:'.)
I-
CI)
-
o
::E
I-
Z
UJ
o
a:
UJ
Q.
0.0
10
8
6
4
BORE HOLE SAMPLES
5-7'
.. 10-12'
'" 12-13'
o
,.0 "0
0 -0-----0
1S1
i

;.?" I' '4.:--"-/
-,.-.11-..-, "' ... "",--",,-
... -. -- '-Jr--"
7/24 8/1
SY
8/9
DATE
SITE: GREENIDGE
LOCATION: M-5
8/17
Figure 3-14. Temporal coal pile moisture plot/hyetograph - Greenidge. M-5.
8/25
I
00
r-l
I
-....
l1..
-
:c
....
A.
W
Q
% MOISTURE
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
01
i i i
,
i I
i= 10
lI.
-
X
....
Q.
W
Q
20
30' ,., ;,
4
o
10
M-2
% MOISTURE
6 8 10 12 14
I I
-l-
ll.
-
4
0"-
:I: 10
l-
e.
w
Q
% MOISTURE
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0, I I I
,,'
","

/',/
I
,
\
Q.
W
Q
20
30'
14
M;"1
% MOISTURE
4 6 8 10 12
o i K i
-l-
ll.
-
:1:10
l-
e.
w
Q

20'

M-3 M-4 M-5
Figure 3-15. Greenidge coal pile moisture profiles.
Slight variations in recorded moistures on the order of +1 percent are
most likely due to instrument fluctuation or misinterpretations by the site
technician. The moisture cells themselves respond to moisture changes
logarithmically. Therefore, a reading error at the 1 to 1.5 kilo-ohm range
can result in a moisture error easily on the order of +1 percent. The
significance of moisture cell data is in long-term trends in the pile
moistures.
On the left side of each plot a group of symbols are presented .which
indicate the moisture content of split spoon samples taken in the bore hole
prior to placing the moisture cells. For most cases the split spoon sample
moistUires are different than the moisture cell data at the start of the
monitoring. This shift in moistures may be the result of one of the following:
1. Drilling and hammering spoons into the coal may drive off
moisture through heat diffusion.
2 The coal placed back into the pile is not the same coal retrieved
from each hole and it may have a different affinity to moisture.
3. Saturation of a compacted coal will be much less than a loose
coal. The moisture cells record only resistance and they may be
more indicative of saturation percentages rather than absolute
moistures.
However, the long-term temporal moisture data is felt to be a good measure
of trends in the moisture content within the pile. For all the arrays the
long-term trends show very stable moisture conditions at all depths. Only the
Surface cells at M-4 and M-5 showed any response to rain. What these data
indicate is that. for weak storms separated by good drying conditions I moisture
conditions within the pile do not readily change.
-83-
Figure 3-15 best presents a composite view of the in-pile moisture for
Greenidge for July and August, 1982. In all arrays the trend is that the
surface of the pile is more moist than the core of the pile. A 4 to 10
percent difference is seen between the surface moisture and the mid-depth coal
moistures. Discussions with the Greenidge coal handlers indicated that the
truck pile (see the M-2 profile in Figure 3-15), was built up during the
winter of 1981 with very dry coal. The moisture cells at the 20 foot depth
show this dry coal being less than 2 percent moisture. The bottom of the pile
indicates a wetter zone. This is the area adjacent to the underpile drain.
Surface moistures are also wetter than the inner core. Except for array M-5,
the wet surface coal is a result of moisture from the heavy June rains being
stored in the top layer of coal below the zone of evaporation.
The results of the moisture cell measurement task at Greenidge lead to the
conclusion that for weak precipitation events (nominally less than 0.5 inches
of rain) with substantial drying conditions between storms, moisture
conditions will not readily fluctuate within a coal pile except in interflow
areas.
3.3.3.1 Density
At Greenidge, density determinations were made on surface coal in areas
that were typical of surface conditions. The Greenidge site is divided into
two general density zones, that of coal highly compacted by truck tires in the
truck pile, and that of relatively loose compacted coal on the train pile.
The results of the Greenidge density determinations are shown in Table 3-7.
-84-
Sample No.
Dl
DlA
D2
- TABLE 3-7
GREENIDGE COAL PILE DENSITY nESULTS
Location
Compacted Truck Coal
Compacted Truck Coal
Loose Train Coal
Dry Bulk Density
74.3 lbs/ft
3
76.5 Ibs/ft
3
47 Ibs/ft
3
Note: The specific gravity of coal based upon the mean of 5 laboratory
determinations is 82 Ibs/ft
3

Field density is a measure of the specific weight of the dry coal
particles (solids) of a total in place volume of coal. Density determinations
were conducted on the coal pile surface to determine porosity of the coal and
the relationship between density and infiltration rates on the pile.
Porosity is related to density in the following relationship: (1)
Po,osity' 100(5; a)
(Eq. 3-1)
where:
S = The specific gravity of a coal particle (The value. 82
loS/ft
3
specific gravity was based upon actual
laboratory determinations on Greenidge coal).
a = Dry bulk density.
At the Greenidge site it was assumed that the density determinations
conducted on th.e compacted truck pile were representative of the maximum
densii:y of the coal. Ba,sed upon this assumption the calculation of porosity
of compacted coal in the pile was 8.5 percent. This porosity value is a
measure of the percent by volume of void spaces in coal. In a sample of coal
(ll Meiner, O.E., 1965 "The Occurrence of Ground Water in the United
States" United States Geological Survey Paper No. 489.
-85-
at maximum compaction the theoretically maximum moisture content possible
would be 8.5 percent assuming all pore spaces are filled with water. Also not
all of the void space in surface coal will be interconnected, therefore, water
tied up in the pore spaces is prevented from draining freely. The specific
yield of coal is the measure of the amount of the pore space that will freely
drain, conversely the specific retention is the amount of pore space that is
not available to drain freely. Both of these factors are dependent upon the
degree of sorting of the coal particles. Poorly sorted coal with a greater
amount of fines will tend to retain more water whereas a well sorted coal with
lesser fines will yield more water. Sieve analysis conducted on Greenidge
coal indicate a very poorly sorted coal with a uniformity coefficient of 15.
A high uniformity coefficient such as this corresponds to book values of
specific retention of 9 to 11 percent. (l) With total porosity values of 8.5
percent and specific retention at or near this porosity value, it appears as
if little or no free-draining porosity is available in highly compacted coal
such as is found on the truck pile.
At minimum density Greenidge coal was calculated to have a density of only
47 lbS/ft
3
and a corresponding porosity of 43 percent. Coal at minimum
density is evident in areas of the pile where coal has recently been dumped,
and in the freshly graded train coal. Based upon a specific retention of 11
percent it can be seen that approximately 32 percent of the porosity of coal
at minimum density will be free-draining.
The density determinations were conducted next to infiltration tests to
determine the effect of coal density on surface infiltration rates. As
expected it was found that infiltration rates were significantly slower in
(1) Hazen, A. "Exper iments Upon the Pur ification of sewage and Water at
the Lawrence Experiment Station." Massachusetts State Board of Health 23
Annual Report for 1891, pp. 428-34.
-86-
more compact coals. Infiltration is partially a function of the non-capillary
porosity of the coal. Compaction resulting in increased density will reduce
oIl . bId f 01 to (1)
ary su sequent y re tra
3.3.3.2 Infiltration
Surface infiltration testing was conducted on the Greenidge truck pile and
train pile.
Infiltration rate as defined in ASTM Standard Procedure D 3385-75 is the
characteristic determining the maximum rate at which water can enter the soil
under specified conditions, including the presence of an excess of water.
This test is designed to measure the vertical flow of water through the
surface soils and subsoils where divergent flow is prevented by the outer
water barrier. In the case of layered soils the infiltration rate is
controlled by the least permeable zone in the subsurface soils. In the case
of coal, a "layered soil" condition could be duplicated by a differential
compaction with depth such as a loose layer of coal overlying a compacted
layer of coal.
The three primary factors that control surface infiltration rates in a
typical soil structure are:
1. the presence of organic matter in the surface or subsoil;
2. the clay content of the soil,
3. the non-capillary porosity of the soil.
Coal however is not similar to a typical soil structure in that the coal
has not gone through the same morphogenesis of a typical soil. During soil
morphogenesis organic matter is incorporated into the soil structure and
(1) Chow, V.T. "Handbook of Applied Hydrology." McGraw - Hill, New York,
NY. i:13 (1964).
-87-
weathering produces clays. Due to the lack of these two physical parameters
it is assumed that the non-capillary porosity of the coal is the only physical
characteristic controlling infiltration rates.
Non-capillary porosity is that amount of pore space that drains freely and
does not retain water by capillary forces. Compaction will significantly
reduce non-capillary porosity which will subsequently reduce infiltration
rates.
Infiltrameter test results for Greenidge (Table 3-8) show that a
significant difference exists between the train and truck coal areas. The
train coal area infiltration rates are of a magnitude of 15 to 70 times faster
than infiltration rates recorded on the compacted truck coal. Infiltration
tests on the train coal pile were conducted on loosely compacted coal freshly
spread by a bulldozer which is typical of the majority of the train coal
pile. From the density data reported in Section 3.3.3.1, it can be concluded
that the surface density of the coal is a primary factor in controlling
infiltration rates.
No.
No.
No.
No.
TABLE 3-8
GREENIDGE INFILTRATION RATES
Infiltrameter Test Number Avera2e
2 Compacted Truck Coal
5 Freshly Graded Train Coal
4 Freshly Graded Truck Coal
1 Compacted Truck Coal Area
-88-
Infiltration Rate in/hr.
.127
9.31
4.85
.602
Infi Itration testing was also conducted on an area of the truck coal pile
where freshly dumped coal had just been spread out into a 12" lift. This
infiltration rate of 4.85 in/hr. is significantly greater than the
infi Itration rates recorded in the. other parts of the truck pile, but less
than the infiltration rate of similarly graded coal on the train coal pile.
This difference can be explained by the confining layer of compact coal
existing 12" below the freshly spread truck coal. This compact layer was not
shallow enough to totally control infiltration rates, but was enough to
constrict the downward flow of water subsequently reducing infiltration.
3.3.3.3 Evaporation
Evaporation rates are a function of several factors, including
temperature, wind velocity, atmospheric pressure, and the shape of the water
(1)
surface. In attempts to measure evaporation from the Greenidge coal
pile, both pan and pile evaporimeters were used. It was determined that while
the data from the pan evaporation gauge provided estimates of relative
evaporation rates, the data was not indicative of water losses on the coal
pile for several reasons. First, the pile cannot act as an infinite water
source, as does the pan evaporation gauge. During dry periods, the moisture
content of the coal will decrease to the point where evaporation is severely
limited. Conversely, the pan evaporimeter will continue at a high rate of
evaporation. Secondly, a resistance to evaporation usually exists, between
soil (coal) surfaces and water due to an attraction between the two
NY, 1964.
-89-
materials. (l)
This resistance, consequently, affects the evaporation from
the piles. Lastly, the physical conditions on the piles are different from
those to which the evaporation pans are exposed. For example, the compaction
of the surface coal, the capillary action of the coal and the available
moisture in the coal most likely influence evaporation rates.
The results from the evaporation studies at Greenidge are shown in
Figure 3-16. As expected, differences do exist between the pan and pile
evaporation rates. It is apparent that evaporation from the pile, as shown by
the pile evaporimeter data, virtually ceases during dry periods (i.e.
mid-August). During this dry period, however, the pan evaporimeter data
suggest significant amounts of evaporation. These discrepancies are due
simply to the design of the evaporation pan method. The pile evaporimeter
data also indicate a decrease in total water loss following rainfall periods
(July 28, August 8, etc.). The precipitation was subtracted from the pan
data, resulting in similar decreases in total gain/loss. At the Greenidge
pile, a loss of 112 millimeters was registered from the evaporation pan data,
while a gain of water due to precipitation, was calculated from the pile
evaporimeter measurements. It is believed that the results from the pile
evaporation method are more indicative of the actual amount of evaporation
taking place off the coal pile surface.
3.3.3.4 Resistivity
An electrical earth resistivity survey (EERS) was performed on the
Greenidge pile by a geophysical contractor on September 3, 1981. Data from
borehole drilling, underpile drainage conductivity and storm runoff
NY, 1964.
-90-
-
tz
0.
0
0- _0.2
WI- Z
a: <t -=0 4
0. I- .
-
I
I
PILE GAGE: 15 INCHES
-
E
z z
E
0
.......
-
0
I-
-
l-
0
CC
C'I
t:r:
l-
X
0 -
80
Q.
Q.
-
en

0
(J)
>
W
I 0
W
t:r:
Q.
lD
I-'
..J
I
"'-
Z
-
<t
(!)
..J
<t
t-
O
t-
Figure 3-16. COlnparison of pan and pile evaporimeters - Greenidge.
conductivity were used in calibrating the resistivity data. The purpose of
the resistivity survey was to attempt to define areas of moisture changes and
saturation levels within the pile.
The results of the resistivity work at Greenidge indicate that at best
only a qualitative interpretation of the moisture levels within the pile can
be made. Four of five soundings made on the pile showed a four layer model.
The resistivity ratios and thickness ratios were as shown in Table 3-9.'
TABLE 3-9
RESULTS OF GREENIDGE RESISTIVITY SURVEY
Layer
1
2
3
4
Resistivity Ratio
1
10
1/10
co
Thickness Ratio
1
10
1
Layer 1 appears as a wet coal on the surface of both the train pile and
truck pile. Layer 2 appears as the dry inner core of the pile. Layer 3
appears as a low resistivity zone that could be interpreted as a zone
saturated with high conductivity water. This layer was more pronounced under
the train pile than the truck pile. The fourth layer appears as the natural
subsurface material on which the liner is built. These results showed
consistency with the moisture cell data collected 10 months after the
resistivity work (i.e., a dry inner core of the pile with the surface and
bottom of the pile being more moist). The resistivity survey was not able to
quantify moisture changes but only show relative differences.
-92-
3.3.4 Chemical Characteristics ofCbal Pile Drainage
Numerous parameters were measured on dry day base flow and stormwater
drainage, including: pH, acidity, temperature, conductivity, dissolved
solids, hardness, organic carbon, and trace metals. Generally, the runoff
from the Greenidge pile was highly acidic. Due to the leaching actions, large
amounts of iron and sulfate were present in the runoff.
The pH was measured in both base flow and stormwater generally ranging
from about 2.1 to 2.4. The concentration of hydrogen ions was not found to
vary significantly on dry days; and, similarly, there was little variability
between the storm and dry weather data. During the planning phase of this
program, it had been hypothesized that the "first flush" effect would be noted
in the pH during the early period of the storm, followed by a dilution in
hydrogen ion concentration during the maximum runoff period. However, this
was not the case. The pH of the storm drainage at Greenidge remained
rela'tively steady, increasing at most, by several tenths of a pH unit.
Because the pH did not change with increasing flow (and subsequent dilution),
it appears that some form of buffering action may be taking place. The
carbonate system is not an effective buffer at the low pH values associated
coal pile drainage. However, ferric iron, with a pK
a
of 2.1. may contribute
to tbe buffering, as shown by the following reactions:
Fe (H.o) OH +2
2 5
+ Fe (H 0) OH+
2
2 5
+
H
2
0 Fe (H 0) +3
2 6
+
+
OH
Iron is present in large concentrations, and in a low pH range, this buffering
actioll1 may be substantial.
-93-
Data collected on mineral and total acidity, as a general indicator of
corrosivity, show high values for both parameters. Coal pile drainage has the
capaci ty to release large amounts of hydrogen ions. The average mineral
acidity for dry day samples at Greenidge was found to be approximately 5470
mg/l as caCo
3
, and the corresponding average total acidity was 9360 mg/l. A
high correlation was determined between mineral and total acidity
concentrations for all samples, with total acidity approximately equal to 1.7
times the mineral acidity. However, the acidities measured in stormwater
runoff were substantially lower than those in dry day base flow. For example,
the average of the measured mineral acidities in Greenidge storm number one
was calculated at 4640 mg/l, 830 mg/l lower than the dry day average. The
average acidity for larger storms was even lower. Dilution appears to affect
acidity in the storm runoff.
Temperature of the runoff was measured daily at the Greenidge site, and a
comparison was made between these values and the corresponding ambient air
temperature. In September, the geometric means for runoff and air
temperatures were 62
0
F and 59
0
F respectively. In October, the average
runoff temperature (52
o
F) was also three degrees higher than the average air
temperature for the month (49
0
F). Because it was not obvious if areal
difference existed between these sets of data, statistical analyses were
performed on the numbers to test the hypothesis that the difference was
valid. Through the "t" test and confidence interval procedure, it was
determined that a difference did not exist in either month's data. Based on
the hydrology of the pile, these results are somewhat predictable. It has
been estimated that very little of the drainage is leachate from the core of
the pile; rather, most of the flow comes from interflows and direct runoff.
-94-
One would expect the temperature of the runoff, then, to be similar to that of
the ambient surroundings. Futhermore, it was impossible to sample any water
for instantaneous temperature measurements as it immediately seeped from the
pile. A certain amount of equilibration with the air in the drainage channels
and collection basin occurs before passing the temperature probe. Because
these results were consistent in their implications, runoff temperature data
collection was not extended to the Russell site.
Measured conductivity and total dissolved solids were both high. The
dissolved solids are naturally high, due to the many dissolved metals leached
from the coal, as well as the magnesium, and sulfate ions. The metals
substantially (:ontribute to the conductivity. Over the period of the study,
the concentration of dissolved solids ranged from a minimum of 2600 mg/l to a
maximum of approximately 28,800 mg/l. As an example, Figure 3-17 shows the
dissl::llved solids plotted as a function of time for storm three at Greenidge.
The data bank contains similar plots for all storms at Greenidge. The trends
in solids do not follow the peak flows during the storms, rather,
concentrations are lower during maximum flows, and dissolved solids increase
as the flow decreases towards base flow. This can be explained by the general
hydrology in the pile. During the peak flow periods, most of the drainage is
from direct runoff and not from interflow. After a period of time,
precipitation which has been absorbed into the pile through infiltration
displaces the concentrated leachate in the depths of the pile, resulting in an
obsenTed increase of dissolved solids concentration in the lower volume
runoff. This similar trend is found in the conductivity data obtained during
the Greenidge storms, although conductivity concentrations are much lower than
dissolved solids. The sarne explanation, as predicted by the hydraulics of the
pile, can be applied to the conductivity data. Similar trends in rises and
-95-
i
\0
0-
!
>-
!:e
>0
i='
0
jJ:
oS
z=\
o
8 k ~ ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
o \... .--. I DATE: SEPT. 22, 1981
o
o
--I
o
C/)
0'
IIJ
>E
-I
o
t/)
C/)
-
o
4 8 MID-
NITE
4 NOON 4 8 12
Figure 3-17. Conductivity/dissolved solids correlation - storm 3 - Greenidge.
falls are seen in both sets of data at Greenidge, and statistical analyses
performed on the data indicate linear correlations between dissolved solids
and conductivity (see Figure 3-17).
Total suspended solids is a measure of the undissolved solids present in a
solution. Most of the solids were very fine coal particles which were caught
in the flow and remained suspended in the runoff. Perr ic iron hydroxide,
which is responsible for the orange/yellow color character isUc of coal pile
drainage, may also contr ibute to the total amount of suspended solids. As
expected, the dry day suspended solids data indicate much lower concentrations
than t.hose calcula ted dur ing storm per iods When the flow is very low and
lamillar (dry day base flow), fewer coal particles are disturbed in the
Channels and slopes of the pile and are not carried by the drainage. Large
quantities of coal are lost from the piles dur ing the greater flows associated
with heavy precipitation. The total SOlids' loading during a storm is related
to the amount and intensity of precipitation and flow. The total quantity of
solids in the runoff can be calculated by integrating the solids loading over
time Table 3-10 includes the mass of solids, in pounds, in the drainage from
the four Greenidge storms, with corresponding flow intensity data.
Presumably, the majority of the solids mass consists of fine coal particles.
TABLE 3-10
SUMMARY OF TOTAL SOLIDS LOADING GREENIDGE STORMS
Precipitation
Storm (inches) Intensity of Flow (gpm) Total Solids (lbs)
1 0.19 7.8 2.1
2 0.51 41 26
3 0.98 70 104
4 (1st phase) 1.6 320 5660
-97-
In addition to the fine coal particles in suspension in the storm
drainage, large amounts of coal in the bedload were washed down from the pile,
which are not accounted for in the measurements of suspended solids. For
example, bedload volumes estimated by the contractor removing deposited coal
from the runoff collection system after the October 27 storm were 120 cubic
yards or approximately 100 tons of water saturated coal.
An estimate of the quantity of organic material in the drainage stream was
obtained through the measurement of TOC, or total organic carbon. For the
majority of the dry day data, the amount of organic carbon was low and would
not exert a substantial chemical oxygen demand on. any receiving water. The
total organic carbon concentrations in the storm samples are significantly
higher than the amounts in the dry day base flow. Apparently, the
precipitation acts to flush out the organic carbon on the surface and slopes
of the pile. Later, the interflow adding to the runoff near the end of the
storm period also contributes to the higher amounts of organic carbon.
Sulfate, hardness, and fluoride are three additional parameters which were
measured in the Greenidge drainage. As anticipated, large quantities of
sulfate were present in both the dry day base flow and in the stormwater
drainage. Large amounts of sulfur are present in the coal, and this sulfur is
liberated in the form of sulfate after oxidation and leaching occurs. While
similar amounts of sulfate were found in dry and wet day drainage, it appears
that dilution may slightly affect concentrations near the end of storm
periods. Hardness, similarly, was found to be present in relatively high
concentrations. Calcium, magnesium, aluminum, zinc, and most notably, iron
and hydrogen ions, contr ibu te to the quantity of har dness measur ed in a
sample. Because large amounts of these latter two ions naturally occur in the
pile due to the leachate mechanism, the results of the hardness measurements
are predictable. Futhermore, concentrations of aluminum and magnesium were
-98-
high in both base flow and storm samples. The element, fluoride, was also
present in the coal pile runoff.
the results of the trace metal analyses must be considered.
Because various metallic cations are commonly associated with coal and the
ions in the coal formation areas, the presence of several of these cations in
the runoff is expected. Table 3-11 presents the data on trace metals
monitored in the runoff and base flow. Aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
calc::ium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
molybdenum, nickel, selenium, vanadium, zinc and mercury were all detected, at
one time or another, in the various samples collected at Greenidge from
September to October 1981. Antimony was detected on few occasions but for the
most part it was nondetectable. Iron and aluminum were found repeatedly in
high concentrations. Both total and dissolved concentrations of all of the
metals were measured in the laboratory. Originally, both were measured
because it was believed that some speciation might take place with increasing
pH during storms. However, it was determined that the pH was constant
throughout the study period, including wet weather. FUrthermore, most of the
inorganics were found to be present, almost entirely, in the soluble form.
Determination of the elements indicated that the dissolved concentrations and
total concentrations were very similar, and high correlations were found to
exist between the two parameters.
elements were not conducted.
Determinations of the speciation of the
-99-
Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (j.lg/l)
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
TABLE 3-11
AND DISSOLVED METALS, GREENIDGE STATION
Dissolved
(mg/l)
42 - 404
<.001
.071 - 3.06
.017 - .095
.003 - .049
148 - 688
.02 - .27
.45 - 3.14
.73 - 5.12
317 - 5150
< .020 - .505
59 - 795
5.6 - 30.8
< .20 - 13.1
<.011-.034
1.00 - 7.01
.0024 - .092
.019 - .193
1.92 - 13.52
-100-
Range
Total
(mg/l)
86 - 417
<.001 - .015
.417- 3.98
.018 - .141
.007 - .064
148 - 688
.06 - .29
.45 - 3.82
.78 - 5.65
879 - 6160
<.020 - .78
59 - 847
5.6 - 32.6
< .20 - 23.4
< .011 - .169
1.01 - 9.98
.0039 - .0924
.030 - .305
1.92 - 18.72
To better understand the metal concentrations as they are related to storm
hydrology, concentrations of several metals were plotted with time fo.r the
storms. Examples of these plots are shown in Figures 3-18 and 3-19. By
referr ing to the shaded hydrographs at the bottom of the figures, it is
apparent that maximum concentrations of most of the metals do not occur until
afte:r the peak flow in the storms. In terms of pile hydrology, direct runoff
appears to dilute the concentrations of metals in the base flow. As the storm
progresses, inter flow increases and carries with it a greater amount of the
dissolved metals. After the storm drainage has ceased, an elevated base flow,
which includes residual inter flow, carries elevated concentrations of
dissolved metals from the interior of the pile.
The coal burned at Greenidge is mined from Western Central, Northern
Central, and Central Pennsylvania (Table 3-12) and is delivered by truck and
train. ExamJ;lles .0 differences in percent moisture and percent ash between
the delivery sources are shown in Table 3-13 Field pile moisture data also
shows differences in the two sources and is listed in the data bank. Average
moisture of pre-field coal is approximately 10 percent higher than delivered
coal, indicating a water uptake during storage.
Random samples from the pile were analyzed for ash content with results
showing a minimum of 11.12 percent, maximum of 22.23 percent and mean of 16.60
percent. The ash content of the delivered coal is similar. Metal
concentrations in the coal are summarized in Table 3-14.
Size analysis was determined using methods described in Appendix B.
Random sampling showed sizes ranging from .001 inch to greater than 1 inch.
The mean grain size results give a minimum of .048 inches, a maximum of .260
inches and a mean of .112 inches. The standard deviation was .056.
-101-
I
f-'
0
IV
I
CIC
&LI
A.
A.
0-
0'0.
..a
e
<C
...
o
t-
0
-
Z
&LI
(I)
cc-
< C ~
..as
<C
I-
0
I-
2 .
1.
PRESTORM
AVO. CONC.
DATE: OCT. 27, 1981
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - , - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1.09
PRESTORM
AVO. CONCa
PRESTORM
AVO. CONCa
4 8 MID-
tUTE
4 8 NOON 4 8 MID-
NITE
.03
Fi gure 3-18. Cu, Se and As response to storm 4 - Green; dge.
:E
:::)
-
Z
W_
...I,
wo)
(l)E
..J
<
t-
O
I-
I
I-'
o
w
I
::i
:t
Z
-
:E
:t_
.,J,
<to)
..JE
<t
I-
o
I-
z
o
0:_
-,
..JO)
<te
I-
o
I-
PRE STORM
AVG. CONCa
DATE: OCT. 27, 1981
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PRESTORM --" -1
20
,0
AVG.CONC.
--------------------------
PRESTORM
AVG.CONC.
1 ODOr .. T . _ ~ " . " " .. '''' .. ' ..... ' .... '",.Wi
4 8 MID- 4 8 NOON 4 8
NIGHT
figure 3-19. Al, Mn and Fe response to storm 4 - Greenidge.
0.0
w
(J)
W
Z
<t
C)
Z_
<1:'
:Em
..Je
<I:
I-
o
I-
Mine
Moshannan
Power
Sky Haven
Mears
TABLE 3-12
COAL SOURCES USED AT GREENIDGE
Antrim Moshannan Mining Co.
Benjamin Coal Nace Utility
Foreston Coal Power Inc.
HN Hartwell Summers Fuel
Mears Coal Co. WH Stephens
TABLE 3-13
COMPARISON OF TRUCK AND TRAIN COAL AT GREENIDGE
Delivery Total
Truck
Truck
Train
Train
Moisture
5.32
6.81
9.00
9.26
-104-
% Ash %
21.68
21.27
14.22
11.53
Sulfur %
2.52
2.18
2.11
2.24
TABLE 3-14
GREENIDGE COAL SAMPLES - METAL CONCENTRATIONS WG/G)
Metal Minimum Maximum Mean
Aluminum 12662. 32243. 23250.4
Antimony < 3.20 < 3.48 < 3.32
Arsenic 7.00 19.1 17.49
Beryllium 1.07 2.69 1.84
Cadmium < 0.058 0.57 0.1782
Calcium 210.4 4988. 1235.75
Chromium 22.4 44.87 32.58
Cobalt < 8.9 < 10.2 < 9.5
Copper 20.83 209.7 52.31
Iron 9053. 14771. 12020.4
Lead 5.65 77.93 24.24
Magnesium 3.04 817. 213.35
Manganese 8.19 69.59 23.61
Mercury 0.199 0.383 0.284
Molybdenum 0.328 4.047 1.592
Nickel 14.76 40.8 25.07
Selenium 0.914 4.38 2.34
Vanadium 23.1 68.0 41.63
Zinc 5.16 228.8 54.07
-105-
3.3.6 Pile Water Content
During the final days of monitoring at the Greenidge site an experiment
was performed to observe what conditions occur in a coal pile after a heavy
rain. The experiment used a sprinkler which could saturate an area
approximately 30 feet by 30 feet. A section of the train pile was selected
because the train pile had similar compaction characteristics with the Russell
pile. Fortunately the bulldozer had excavated a wide path on the train pile
near the truck pile so a 6 to 8 foot vertical embankment was exposed on the
train pile.
The test conditions were the following:
1. The sprinkler was placed so the simulated rain saturated the pile
surface just to the edge of the embankment.
2. A plastic sheet was placed over the embankment so water would not
run down the embankment, but only wet the surface.
3. The water pump delivering water was throttled so a precipitation
rate (as measured on a rain gage) was approximately 1 inch per
hour.
4. The spr inkier was left on for three hours simulating a 3 inch
rain.
The following observations were made at the end of the test after removing
the plastic sheet.
1. The 30 x 30 foot area of the coal surface was completely
saturated.
2. The saturated coal extended to exactly ~ 3 inches into the pile.
3. No runoff was observed outside the immediate area.
4. The coal just beneath the 13 inch depth was at pre-rain moisture
levels.
5. There was a distinct boundary between the saturated coal and the
dry subsurface coal.
6. After a 24-hour per iod th is dis tinct boundary still exis ted with
no obvious migration downward.
-106-
From the observations made dur ing this test and the data gained from the
moisture cells, evaporation gauges and high intensity storm conditions, it is
concluded that slightly compacted to moderately compacted coal has a great
affinity toward moisture retention. After a heavy rain, water soaks into the
coal pile and remains locked in a distinct layer. Water does not quickly
.drain through the interior of the pile except in certain locations referred to
as interflow and infil'tration zones. This distinct layer of wetted coal will
remain in that condition and slowly over a long period of time may decrease in
moisture as water is spread into surrounding layers of coal. For the coal
enco,untered at Greenidge and Russell, saturation usually is on the order of 12
to 14 percent moisture. Most delivered coal has a background moisture of 6 to
8 percent. For highly compacted areas of coal, (i.e., the truck pile),
infiltration rates are so low that even after a heavy rain little moisture
gets into the subsurface because most of the rain runs off.
A layer of Satura,ted surface coal, referring back to the slumping
phenomena, has the characteristics of freshly mixed concrete and gravel. This
'liet concrete model was most readily observed dur ing the final saturation
test. Immediately after the test was completed and again on the following
day I the embankment was cut back to expose this saturated layer and determine
whether or not it had migrated down. The saturated coal basically had no
strucit:.ural holding capacity and quickly slumped. As with fresh concrete, the
saturated coal did not readily mix with the drier coal beneath it. It is
believed that only through agitation or the pressure of new coal being placed
over the saturated coal will the moisture slowly creep into surrounding
layers. This "fresh concrete" model is considered the best analogy to explain
why the coal slumps during heavy rains and also why it retains its moisture
levels, while rem,aining on the pile surface after a heavy rain.
-107-
3.4 Russell Results
This section provides a summary of results obtained from the field program
at Site No.2, the Russell Station of Rochester Gas and Electric. More
detailed tables of data including raw data can be found in the Russell Data
Bank which is a separate deliverable under this program.
3.4.1 Site Meteorology Summary
The Russell Station is located in the Great Lakes region of New York. The
weather patterns are similar to the Greenidge site, but field observations and
historical data show significant differences between shoreline and inland
weather conditions. The Russell Station is situat.ed less than 1000 yards from
the shoreline of Lake Ontario. The coal pile area may receive a large amount
of precipitation, while simultaneously inland a few miles, little or no
precipi tation may occur. Conversely, the shore may receive little, while
inland the rainfall may be significant. The snowstorms of March and April
were an example of this diversity: inland stations reported several inches of
snow while the coal pile received 1 inch or less. A major factor was the
strong wind blowing south from the lake. In other storms, the lake provides a
significant moisture source to the shoreline.
The temperature results from Russell for the spring and summer were close
to the average as shown in Table 3-15. The summer had an average rainfall,
but the spring period had lower amounts than normal. This is also indicated
in the statistical storm data comparison in Table 3-16. None of the storms
approached a one year value for l2-hour and 24-hour storms.
-108-
Normal
Field
TABLE 3-15
COMPARISON OF NORMAL TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA*
WITH FIELD DATA AT RUSSELL STATION
Average Temperature (OF) Average Precipitation(in.)
1981 1982 1981
March April May June & July March April May
32 45 57 69 3.01 2.67 2.77
34 42 57 66 1.73 1.57 .85
*From Climates of the States Volume 2, James A. Ruffner.
3.4.2 Coal Pile Drainage Summary
1982
June & July
3.28
3.03
Three storm events were monitored at the Russell site during the spring of
1982. Even though the site was instrumented for sixteen weeks only these
three storms representing the larger storms of the season were sampled. A few
minor storms with less than 1/4 inch of rain did occur, but analytically they
were not important to either the model or in characterizing the pile
hydrology. A significant storm event did occur on the weekend of June 5,
1,981, but, the site was not manned at that time. The initial 10 week
monit<oring was completed on May 26 and the additional pile moisture study had
not started. Close to 1.12 inches of rain fell between June 5 and 6 according
to the National Weather Service in Rochester. This rain did have an affect on
the pile moisture probes as discussed in later sections.
-109-
TABLE 3-16
COMPARISON OF STATISTICAL STORM DATA*
WITH FIELD DATA AT RUSSELL STATION
12 Hour Storm
Statistical Data
Rainfall (in. ) Years
1.5 1
2.2 2
2.6 5
3.1 10
3.5 25
3.7 50
4.1 100
24 Hour Storm.
Statistical Data
Rainfall (in.) Years
2.1 1
2.3 2
3.0 5
3.5 10
4.0 25
4.5 50
4.7 100
Storm Date
3/25-3/26
4/3
5/8
6/13
6/62
Storm Date
5/8/82
Field Data
Rainfall (in. )
.60
.58
.45
.56
.50
Field Data
Rainfall ( in.)
.82
*Technical No. 40 Rainfall Frequency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
-110-
Years
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Years
<1
A summary of the three Russell storms listing the precipitation and runoff
features is provided in Table 3-17. In Table 3-17 the storm drainage
coefficients are supplied for two areas: the entire coal pile area contained
within the drainage channel, and the area between the outer rim of the pile
and the drainage channel. The reason for two sets of coefficients is that it
was observed during storm events that the Russell pile had little or no runoff
from the top of the pile. The reason for this is that during the period of
study the Russell pile was slowly being depleted. As more coal was removed
the interior of the pile gradually took on the shape of a bowl. It was then
decided to present two runoff coefficients. One assuming the entire pile
contributed to the drainage and the other, being more realistic, showing only
the perimeter areas contributing to the direct runoff.
TABLE 3-17
RUSSELL COAL PILE STORM-RUNOFF SUMMARY
Start preciEitation Runoff Drainage
Time Total Maximum Maximum Coefficient
24 hr. DUration Amount Intensity Duration Rate Entire Peri-
Date Clock hr. min. in. in./hr. hr. gEm Pile meter
3-25,26/82 1815 9 30 0.61 0.20 23 45.5 .08 .25
4-3/82 0700 10 15 0.58 0.77 9 45 .04 .12
5-8/82 0200 18 30 0.82 0.40 22 11 .05 .14
The measurement of drainage from the Russell pile was more complex than at
Greertidge. Four drainage points, designated channels 1 to 4 were instrumented.
A,s discussed in the Greenidge drainage summary, the drainage coefficients
are a function of pre-storm moisture conditions of the pile, the amount of
rainfall and the intensity of rainfall over time. From the results of the
work performed at Russell, two additional site features are considered to
-111-
affect the drainage they are the shape of the pile and the
compaction of the coal.
The drainage coefficients at Russell are similar to those measured at
Greenidge for small storms. A large storm with greater than an inch of rain
was not encountered at Russell. The slumping phenomena also was not observed
during the monitoring period, but operators at the Russell plant have related
that slumping occurs at least once a year during heavy rains.
The drainage hydrographs with their corresponding hyetographs measured at
"
Russell are illustrated in Figures 3-20, 3-21 and 3-22. These hydr09raphs
represent the summation of four individual flow curves measured at the four
discharge pOints. As at Greenidge there was an immediate drainage reaction to
precipitation. Flow normally increased within 60 minutes of the start of
rain. The hydrographs from the March 25 and April 3 storms have sharp flow
peaks superimposed on them. These peaks represent water that was trapped
behind debris which was caught in channel one. A stainless steel grate is
built into all the drainage channels to block heavy debris from entering the
lift stations. During these storms the debris was removed and trapped water
in the channels was released, thus causing the sharp flow peaks.
The Russell pile had no measureable base flow. Runoff usually ceases
within 12 hours after the rain. During the last two weeks of March and the
first two weeks of April, coal pile leachate did enter channels one and four.
This leachate was not surface flow but a subsurface flow which entered the
channels at open seams in the concrete. When the air temperatures dropped
below freezing between April 3 and April 7, this leachate seepage ceased.
Periodically, when air temperatures were above freezing, up to April 22 this
seepage would continue. After April 22 there was no leachate entering the
-112-
I
f-'
f-'
w
I
J.z
.... 0
o ... ~
wt-Z
&: ~ ::::. 0.1
-
.......
:e
Cl.
C)
-
3:
o
..J
u..
2 4 6 8
DEBRIS
RELEASED
"
"
TOTAL PRECIPITATION: 0.61 IN.
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENTS:
ENTIRE PILE 0.084
PERIMETER 0.25
DATE: MARCH 25, 1982
, ...... _---------
MID-
NIGHT
Fi gure 3-20, Russe 11 hyetograph/hydrograph - storm I,
1%
0..
-0_
o-z
wl--
0:<-
c,. ....
-
DEBRJS---
RELEASED
ENT1RE PILE 0.04
PERIMETER 0.12
DATE: APRIL 3, 1981
91011 1 2345
NOON
Figure 3-21. Russell hyetograph/hydrograph - storm 2.
-114-
z
o
l-
e:(-
t-z
--
0.-
-
(.)
W
0::
Q;,
0.1
0.2
".-..... 15
:i
Q.
~
== 10
o
..J
I.L
3
9 10 11 I 1
NOON
TOTAL PRECIP: .82IN.
ENTIRE PILE 0.05
PERIMETER 0.14
DATE: MAY 8, 1982
Fi gure 3-22. Russe n hyetograph/hydrograph - 5 torm 3.
channel. The reason for this seepage was the apparent thawing condition of
the ground water surrounding the coal pile. During the installation of the
stilling wells in early March, the water table within the coal storage area
was observed to be less than 1 foot below the surface. As the ground warmed
in the latter part of April, the water table dropped to a point lower than the
V channels and thereby, the leachate seep terminated.
As with the Greenidge pile a number of flow streams contribute to each
hydrograph. Since there was no base flow, only direct runoff and storm
interflow made up each hydrograph. For most storms at Russell, the initial
flows usually come from precipitation hitting the V channel and the periphery
of the pile. As the precipitation increases the hydrographs sharply
increase. This flow is comprised mainly of direct runoff off the sides of the
coal pile. As the storm progresses and precipitation rate diminishes, the
interflow begins to contribute to the drainage. Dissolved solids,
conductivity and metal concentrations all begin to increase as this interflow
increases. By the time the precipitation has ceased, concentrations of these
three groups of parameters have risen to a level indicative of a base flow.
Eventually within 12 hours after the precipitation stopped the runoff flow
ceases.
3.4.3 Coal Pile HydrologY
Some reasons for the selection of the Russell coal pile as a site for
monitoring coal pile runoff were the fact that this pile is not lined, it is
built on flat terrain and its shape is markedly different from the Greenidge
pile. It is felt that the Russell pile is more representative of most utility
coal storage areas in its general configuration. As with Greenidge, the
Russell pile hydrology is not only a function of amount of precipitation and
-116-
discharge characteristics, but also dependent on size, shape, compaction, and
moisture retention characteristics.
This 5.3 acre coal pile is stacked by bulldozer with standard steel tracks
spreading coal in I to 3 foot lifts across the top of the pile as it is
dellvered through a conveyor system. Reclaiming the coal is also done by
bulldozer, pushing coal into a hopper grate located adjacent to the pile on
the north side. The northeast. section of the pile is the most active area
where most of the stacking and reclaiming is done. The southeastern end of
the pi.le is used mainly for reserve storage. Because the reserve portion of
the pile is normally left undisturbed throughout most of the year, the
northeastern section of the pile experiences the greater variation in pile
height. For the period of the monitoring study, the Russell pile slowly
decreased in size with the active area of the pile slowly taking on the shape
of a bowl. Apparently the coal forming the rim of the pile is left untouched
during reclaiming so the bulldozer operators have a reference for the edge of
the pile.
1'he hydrology of the Russell pile is better understood by reviewing the
hydrologic components measured at Greenidge. Since a significant sized
precipitation event did not occur at Rossell, it is difficult to quantify the
range of drainage coefficients. Also, since base flow does not occur at the
Russell pile it must be assumed that precipitation not re.sulting in direct
runoff and interflow goes into immediate storage on the pile surface.
Therefore, a simplified hydrological block diagram would be depicted as shown
in Figure 3-23.
-117-
i
I-'
I-'
00
I
PRECIPITATION 100%
I w ~
~
-
DIRECT RUNOFF
AND INTERFLOW
4 to>12%
IMMEDIATE STORAGE
<88% to 96%
I
L
EV APORA TaON
May account for 100%
of immediate storage
from weak storms in the
warm seasons
~
LONG TERM
STORAGE
\II
LEACHATE TO
GROUNDW A TER
" . - ( . . ~ . - ...
Fi gure 3- 23. Simplified hydrological block diagram - Russell.
The immediate storage of precipitation in the Russell pile is considered
significantly different than that at Greenidge. The shape of the surface of
the Russell pile results in most of the precipitation being absorbed directly
into the interior of the pile. For weak storms with significant drying days
separating the storms, evaporation may account for the loss of nearly 100
percent of all the water held in immediate storage. If a series of weak storm
events occur within a few days of one another as experienced in late June, the
evaporation losses from the pile surface would not be of such a rate as to
account for all the immediate storage and therefore, some of this water would
go into long-term storage. Again, the evaporation data must be reviewed
knowing that only a short late spring early summer time frame was
moni leored Pile evaporation rat.es during the winter season or during high
humidity episodes may be significantly less.
The long-term storage of moisture within the Russell coal pile was
monitored for nine weeks by the moisture cell array spread over five bore
holes; on the pile. The data from this monitoring task is presented in two
formats. Temporal coal pile moisture plots, Figures 3-24 through 3-28,
present the moisture changes over time for each moisture array. Initial split
spoon bore hole samples of coal were taken for moisture analysis and these
results are indicated by symbols at the beginning of each plot. The daily
hyetograph for the period of monitoring is shown on the top of each plot. The
initL:1l precipitation event on June 5 and 6 is from data taken at Rochester
Airport. An end-of-period coal pile moisture profile for each moisture array
is presented in Figure 3-29. These profiles represent an instantaneous
indication of the moisture levels from the surface of the pile to the pile
base toward the end of the monitoring period when most moisture levels
stabilized.
-119-
!
I-'
N
o
I
-
z
-
-
0
w
0:
00
W
0:
:l
1-
(J)
-
o
:i
I-
:z
W
U
tt:
W
0.
0.0
0.5
1.0 a-
I
12
J..
10

81-
o
6
4
j BORE HOLE. SAMPLES
o l'
5-1'
.10-12'
J..15-17'
- ~ . - - - - - , . - . - -
:--... ... ""... It""" ""-...... .,..- ., .-." - .. ~ ->1-
:II ....... ". ",._"...,. .. -.. ~
6/8 16 24 7/2 10
SITE: RUSSELL
LOCATION: M-9
18 26
5'
8/3 11
I
i-'
I\.l
i-'
I
-
Z 0.0 I 1_
- ......
o
w
cc
0...
w
cc
::l
t-
(J)
-
o
~
t-
Z
OJ
o
a:
OJ
0...
0.5
1.0
12
10
8
6
4
...
T>
BORe HOLE SAMPLES
10-12' o l'
_5-7' A 15-17'
.. 20-22'
o .0 /15-7'
('-'-' ~ ' - --,"-',;:':-
-I " .- '.
o
0
' ,_ J 5-7'
/
!II o
f
o '" ~
I
' ".l \ ,,/'
1 -
,..,..... r_l
o ' .... ,./J
I
I
....
It
I J
/. 81"" '- .".,..... ..,J-. .".. ..J-- - 0,-. _.-. ~ . -. ._.
. ",. l' ~
I ~ I 10-12'
I ~
SITE: RUSSEll
/,r-JC-.X..-.K........ "..,.1
..1.+ .r,
J
LOCATION: M-10
6/8 16 24 7/2 10
DATE
18 26 8/3
Figure 3-25. Temporal coal pile moisture plot/hyetograph - Russell. M-lO.
11
I
I-'
N
N
I
-.

z
- ......

0
w
0::
0.
OJ
0::
::>
I-
U)
-
o
:i
I-
Z
w
o
IX:
W
0..
0.0
0.5
1.0
14
14.8 '
o 0 0 0 0 0 : 0 0 _0_
\.1\./'1
1
__ Jlf_x:_Jl_.x-Jt_)(_)( ____ ........ )(
121- '51
o
10

8
6
._0_8_.
BORE HOLE SAMPLES
6/8
o 11
.5-7'
a10-12
1
16 24 7/2 10
SITE: RUSSELL
LOCATION: M-11
18 26 8/3 11
I
I-'
N
LV
I

z
-
-
o
w
ex:
a.
10
a:
::l
l-
II)
-
0

f-
Z
10
0
a:
10
a.
0.5
1.0
ur

l'
,...,1.-1&
1
_----
"" . .."",.-- .
10' '-'- ...... -.-
<. ...... +J'-.- __ ._,;r.::: '-.
+'\,i'
... J
t'-'/.J
I ..... .,.
5'
.__..
roJ 12.6'
0 r.:1 a:-:O-=-R-EH-O-LE-S A
/
0 01"
_5 ... 7' .15-17'
10-12!
{ "-----
SITE: RUSSEll
LOCATION: M-1 2
7/2 10
DATE
Figure 3-27.
Temporal coal pile moisture plotihyetograph - Russell, 14-12.
11
-

z 0.0
-
.
0 0.5
w
ex:
4l. 1.0

...
5'
/
__ ____ )l.........,)t ........... ,, ..
o 0 . 0,0 . .0.:; ; I:sl=.\ "0-
12 I-
.,
I 10'
,-& - \.
a
W
10
All
r'
I
a:

..
I-' ::>
IV
l-
*' I
(J)
-
0
:E
8
l-
I
./ AJ$ -
IBORE HOLE SAMPLESI
Z
UJ
0
6l

if
o l' 1110-12'
a:
UJ .5-7' .6.15-17'
tl.
I
0 SITE: RUSSELL
LOCATION: M- 13
4
6/8 16 24 7/2 10 18 26 8/3 11
% MOISTURE % MOISTURE
0
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
I
d"-.:
.....
-
l-
I-
lL.
u..
-
-
~ 10 i= 101- I
0.
0.
W
ILl
0
Q
20'
I ..e:::: I
201
M-10 M-13
% MOISTURE % MOISTURE % MOISTURE
4 6 8 10 12 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
8 9 10 11 12 13
0 0 0
-
-
- l-
I-
l-
lL. lL. lL.
......
-
-
J: ::r: :c
l- I- I-
0. 10 0. 10 0.10
w ILl ILl
0 Q Q
M-9
M-11 M-12
Figure 3-29. Russell coal pile moisture profiles.
A number of significant observations can be made from the results of the
Russell pile moisture study. For arrays M-9, 10, 12 and 13 a trend toward
saturation is recorded for each cell during the first three weeks of the
monitoring. A rapid response of the shallowest cells to precipitation is
noted for each of these four arrays. It appears that moisture is entering the
pile and affecting the moisture concentrations for all levels within the
pile. It should be noted that during the three months prior to this study,
weather conditions were drier than normal and coal stored within the core of
the pile was dry. Arrays M-9, 10, and 11 indicate that this core of the pile
is drier than both the surface and the base. Array M-12 does indicate the
core drier than the surface but, conversely, the base is even drier than the
core. Array M-13 shows a wet base but, the core and surface coal show
opposite conditions from the other four arrays. This may be a result of
either an anomaly in the coal stored at this location or faulty probe
responses.
The data from array M-ll is worthy of special attention. As observed in
the temporal moisture plot for this probe, the moisture conditions remain
steady for the two months of monitoring. This array was placed adjacent to
P-ll, the only piezometer showing water within the base of the pile. When the
bore hole for the moisture array was first drilled on June 9, water at the
base of the pile was encountered. As each cell was placed with coal
backfilled and compacted, the water through capillarity at the pile base
quickly rose within the hole and saturated the coal in the backfill. Only the
top of the bore hole was filled with coal that did not saturate immediately
after compaction. What the moisture cell data indicates is that the coal in
M-ll remained in a wet state for the period of the study. This coal did not
dry out over time. Section 3.3.6 describes how a saturated layer of coal is
-126-
slow to lose its water content and the data from M-ll at Russell appears to
confirm this observation.
The overall results of the coal pile moisture data and supplemental
density and infiltration data at Russell, indicate that precipitation is
entering the coal pile below the zone of evaporation. This rate of
infiltration is dependent on location in the pile. Old coal, stored on the
southwestern portion of the pile, has a greater density than new coal stacked
and reclaimed near M-ll. Since only one piezometer showed water at the pile
base, P-ll, P-IO had per iOOic observations of water, and the other three
piezometers wer.e dry, it is considered that the moisture levels within the
Russell pile are not uniform. Because no single area at Russell is compacted
to a density close to the Greenidge truck pile, it can be surmised that
precipitation will infiltrate the entire Russell pile.
3.4.3.1 Pile Density
'I'hree field density determinations were made on the surface coals at
Russell. The results of these tests and the respective calculated porosities
are 'reported in Table 3-18. Density tests P-ll and p-IIA were both conducted
TABLE 3-18
RUSSELL COAL PILE DENSITY AND POROSITY RESULTS
Sample No. Dry Bulk Density Ibs/ft
3
Calculated Porosity
P-H 68.6 16%
(Graded coal after", 4 mos.)
P-llA 44.9 45%
(Freshly graded coal)
p-12
61.3 25%
(Graded coal after ",4 mos.)
-127-
in conjunction with surface infiltrameter testing. Test P-llA was conducted
in a relatively freshly graded area of coal and test P-ll was conducted in a
coal that had been graded approximately four months previous and allowed to
naturally compact. It can be seen from the density results that the graded
coal, allowed to weather longer had a significantly greater density than the
freshly graded coal. Assuming that the naturally compacted coal was at or
near maximum compaction, it can be conceived that this coal would have a
porosity of approximately 16 percent. Using a highly conservative value of 10
percent specific retention for the Russell coal, it can be calculated that
approximately 6 percent of the pore space of this coal would be free-
draining. The Russell coal therefore, has a higher drainable porosity at
maximum compaction than the Greenidge coal. The reason for this difference is
apparently due to the fact that the Russell coal had a significantly larger
me.an grain size and was better sorted than the Greenidge coal.
3.4.3.2 Russell Infiltration
Three double ring infiltrameter tests were conducted at the Russell coal
pile (see Table 3-19). Two were conducted on the pile in coal of varying
degrees of compaction and one conducted adjacent to the V channel, see
Figure 3-2.
TABLE 3-19
RUSSELL INFILTRATION RESULTS
Test Location
No. end of pile between pile
and runoff channel
Top of pile near P-ll
on freshly graded coal
Top of pile near P-ll
on compacted coal
Average Infiltration Rate in/hr.
0.01045
5.038
.881
-128-
The results show that the infiltration rate just outside of the pile is
extremely low and therefore all the water that hits this area will immediately
run off.
On top of the coal pile a distinct difference can be observed between the
infiltration rates between the freshly graded coal and graded coal that has
weat.hered. As with the Greenidge pile, the rate of infiltration is dependent
upon the degree of compaction and density of the coal surface.
3.4.3.3
!Down hole and open pit bailing permeability testing was conducted in and
around the Russell coal pile storage area. Permeability testing determines
the water transmitting capacity of the various earth materials around the
site.. Table 3-20 shows the results of the various permeability tests.
TABLE 3-20
RUSSELL RESULTS OF PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENTS
Material
Coal pile at bottom
Coal pile IS' deep
Interface of coal pile and
underlying material
Observed Permeability (em/sec)
8.13 x 10-
5
4.37 x 10-
5
5.27 x 10-
5
Material beneath coal pile (silty clay and peat) 2.7 x 10-
5
Bottom ash (test pits, 3 determinations) 8 to 9 x 10-
3
Dense till
-129-
In reviewing the permeability results, it can be seen that the silty clay
and peat just below the coal pile and the compacted coal in the pile have
permeability values within the same order of magnitude (3 to 8 x 10-
5
em/sec) These figures correlate to the permeability expected in a typical
silt or lacustrine soil deposit.
The dense till reported in the permeability results is typical of the soil
structure encountered below the peat and lacustrine silt deposits. It can be
seen that in this strata, permeability is of a magnitude of 10 times less than
that of soils and coal above it. Although the textural characteristics of
this till is primarily silt, the permeability has been reduced due to
relatively poor sorting of the soil particles, and increased compaction due to
the mode of deposition. It is believed that this till layer acts to impede
the downward vertical flow of ground water.
The most pervious material encounted at the Russell site was in the area
of buried bottom ash between the coal pile and Slater Creek. Three pit
bailing determinations for permeability of this material indicated values of B
-3
to 9 x 10 em/sec. This figure corresponds to a permeability value typical
of a fine to medium sand. The textural characteristics of the bottom ash are
also similar to a well sorted fine to medium sand. Due to the significant
increase in permeability of this material as compared to the other site
materials, it can be conceived how this bottom ash could act as a conduit for
the flow of leachate.
3.4.3.4 Evaporation
The data collected from the Russell evaporation measurement task are
illustrated in Figure 3-30. As with the Greenidge results, periods of low
precipitation correspond with low evaporation rates off the pile. For
example, in early July the data from the pan gauge indicates high amounts of
-130-
O.U

.....
0: - 0.2
... 2
hl= 0.4
a:
a..
0.6.
2
PILE GAGE: 15 INCHES .2
0
0
1201- -
- l-
I-
cC
cC
a:
I-
-
1 0 0 ~
0 0..
- 0.. -
e 0
E
oCt
w
>
a:
'-
w
0..
0
N
J:
60
I
(/J ~
;J
(I)
~
I
0
...J
"- 60
Z
-
0;'(
CJ
...J
40
oct
.....
0
t-
20
DATE
Figure 3-30. Comparison of pan and pile evaporimeters - Russell
evaporation while the pile gauge shows little to no evaporation. Here again,
it is surmised that the available moisture in immediate storage evaporated
early during this period. Finally, the total loss of water from the pan gauge
at Russell was calculated to be 123 millimeters from the period of June 7 to
July 15. During this same period, the pile evaporimeters recorded a total
water loss of approximately three millimeters. The pile evaporimeters are
believed to more closely simulate the actual rate of evaporation from the coal
piles.
3.4.3.5 Resistivity
An electrical earth resistivity survey (EERS) was performed on the Russell
pile by a geophysical contractor on March 12, 1982. Data from borehole
samples, well locations and moisture analyses were used to complete the
interpretation of the resistivity data. As with Greenidge, the resistivity
survey was conducted to define areas of moisture changes and saturation levels
within the pile.
The results of the resistivity survey do not show minor variations in
moisture content within the pile. The geoelectric profiles indicate a basic
two-layer structure with some evidence of a high resistivity surface layer
(low moisture) at some locations. Better resolution of moisture with depth
was achieved than at Greenidge but again the resistivity results can not be
used to quantify moisture conditions within the pile.
The two-layer model has the features as shown in Table 3-21.
Layer
1
2
3
TABLE 3-21
RESULTS OF RUSSELL RESISTIVITY SURVEY
Thickness
1-5 feet
15-20 feet
pile foundation
-132-
Resistivity
1
1/6
1/10
All soundings have indicated a saturated zone about 30 feet below the
surface. The break between the bottom of the coal pile and the underlying
material is not well indicated in the sounding data. This may be the result
of the pile being built on bottom ash and fly ash with a saturated lens of
leachate passing through the interface. The sounding data taken near P-ll
(the only piezometer showing water within the pile) indicated that there is a
saturation zone below 15 to 20 feet. This agrees with both the piezometer
readings and the moisture cell data.
3.4.4 Chemical Characteristics of Coal Pile Drainage
The same chemical parameters which were measured at Greenidge, with the
exception of runoff temperature, were also measured at Russell. Analysis of
the 'data indicated similar trends in the chemical characteristics of the
pile: low pH, high amounts of acidity, sulfate, iron, and inorganics. These
results are pre,sentedbelow, with frequent references to Section 3.3.4.
~ ~ h e pH values recorded at Russell were typically in the range associated
with acidic coal drainage. The lowest pH was measured at 2.4, and never rose
above 3.2. It fluctuated slightly during the early storm periods, but these
changes were very small. The ferric iron buffering system may be responsible
for minimizing the changes in pH. It is believed that the slight fluctuations
would not affect the solubility and equilibrium reactions of the various ions
in the pile's runoff. The runoff was also found to possess appreciable
amounts of both total and mineral acidity. In both leachate seepage and in
stormwater runoff I the total acidity was consistently equivalent to
approximately 1.6 times the mineral acidity, and a high linear correlation was
found to exist between the two sets of data. Also, the concentrations of both
mineral and total acidities were, on the average, lower in the stormwater
runoff than in the leachate. For example, the average mineral acidity in the
-133-
leachate seeps from the pile was 9700 mg/l as Cac0
3
, and the average mineral
acidity in the first storm was measured at 3400 mg/l as cac0
3
The leachate
acidity is substantially higher due to the fact that this water has been in
contact with the coal for a longer period of time than the direct runoff.
The total quantity of ions in solution is estimated by the total dissolved
solids. For all the samples collected the TDS concentrations were very high,
ranging from 3,630 to 39,810 mg/l. Conductivity measurements also indicated
large amounts of dissolved solids, and particularly, dissolved metals, which
exhibit high conductance. Correlations were made between these two parameters
for the three storms at Russell. An example of these correlations is shown in
Figure 3-31. As the figure shows, increases and decreases in dissolved solids
correspond with similar changes in conductivity; and high correlations were
obtained when least squares linear regressions were performed on the data. In
addition, dissolved solids and conductivity levels were lower during the
initial to high flow period of a runoff event. These parameters increased
only after the flow started to recede. Similarly with Greenidge, the initial
flow is most likely precipitation and direct pile runoff containing low
concentrations of ions. However, during the latter periods of the storms, the
interflow component of the runoff increases thus carrying high concentrations
of dissolved metals and other solids.
The total suspended solids data at Russell indicated large amounts of
suspended material in the runoff. The total pounds of suspended solids
contained in the runoff during the storms, as calculated by integrating the
solids loading over time, are shown in Table 3-22. Because high runoff
velocities were not achieved in these storms, the total mass of solids lost
from the pile was not as high as those at Greenidge. In addition to the fine
particles held in suspension and removed in the runoff, larger fragments were
usually carried in the runoff bedload.
-134-
I
f-'
W
U1
I
>-
....
-
~ E
.... 0
0""""
::>0
0.1:.
zE
0=\
o
(/)
o
...J
o
Ul
-
20K
0""""
UJm
> e 10K
-
o
DATE: MARCH 25-26,.1982
0---------------1
8 9 I 1
10 11 MID-
NITE
2
3 4 5 6
Fiyure 3-31. Conductivity/dissolved solids correlation - storm 1 - Russell
Russell Storm
1
2
3
TABLE 3-22
TOTAL SOLIDS LOADINGS FOR RUSSELL STORMS
Prec. (in. ) Highest Interflow (gpm)
0.61 30.8
0.51 20.0
0.82 11.0
Total Solids (lbs)
17
18
7
Total organic carbon (TOC) content was analyzed on the leachate seepage
and the storm runoff. The average TOe concentration, for dry day leachate was
approximately 63 mg/l. The geometric mean for the Russell TOe storm data was
44 mg/l. The trends in the data indicate initial dilution of leachate by the
rainfall, followed by increases in Toe toward the end of the storm. The
general hydrology of the pile can once again be applied to explain these
fluctuations in concentration.
As was observed in the Greenidge data, sulfate and hardness concentrations
were both quite high throughout the period of study. Because the leaching
process releases so many ions, and particularly sulfur from pyrite, these
large concentrations would be expected. The sulfate concentrations averaged
17,100 mg/l and 6,400 mg/l in the leachate and stormwater runoffs
respectively. The various metals in the pile (Fe, Al), the inorganic cations
(Mg, Cal and hydrogen ions are most likely responsible for the high values for
hardness. Fluoride was detected in all of the samples collected at Russell.
The trace metals which were analyzed for Greenidge were similarly measured
at Russell. The ranges of the total and dissolved metals seen in the Russell
pile runoff are presented in Table 3-23. The following metals were found to
be present in at least one sample during the study period: aluminum, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium,
manganese, molybdenum, niCkel, selenium, vanadium, zinc and mercury. It was
-136-
Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (11 g/l)
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
vanadiLum
Zinc
TABLE 3-23
AND DISSOLVED METALS, RUSSELL STATION
Dissolved
(mg/1)
57 - 1016
<.02
.099 - 8.050
<.019 - 0.104
< .02 - .047
105.0 - 518.0
0.06 - .52
0.29 - 3.40
0.23 - 4.51
430 - 7160
< .01 - < .02
126 - 1212
3.3 - 38.3
< .20 - 1.47
< .012 - .014
0.52 - 7.10
< .001 - 0.02
<.029 - .284
.125 - 15.52
-137-
Range
Total
(mg/1)
65 - 1024.0
<.02
0.320 - 8.740
.019 - 0.111
<.02-.049
108.0 - 527
<.07-0.66
0.30 - 3.45
0.27 - 4.57
440 - 7680
.005 - .405
126 - 1236
3.3 - 39.8
<.20-18.70
< .012 - .045
0.90 - 7.14
< .001 - .032
< .029 - 0.512
.125 - 15.52
determined that all metals were mostly in the soluble form, and extremely high
correlations were calculated between total and dissolved states. Because the
pH was relatively stable regardless of precipitation and/or flow rates,
substantial changes in speciation did not occur. Therefore, attempts to
identify the various chemical species were not performed.
In attempts to better understand the variations in metal concentrations in
response to precipitation and increasing runoff flow, the concentrations of
six different metals (Al, Mn, Fe, Se, Cu, As) were plotted as a function of
time for three storms. Samples of these plots are shown in Figures 3-32 and
3-33. As was noted in the Greenidge data, the lower values for the metals
correspond with the peak flow periods during storms. As the flows returned to
base, the metal concentrations, without exception, increased. During heavy
precipitation and high flows, most of the runoff is comprised of rain water
and water flowing directly off of the side slopes of the pile; and therefore,
the resulting runoff contains lower amounts of ions. However, when the
interflow increases more dissolved metals are carried off the pile. This
interflow continues draining into the collection channels for only a short
period of time before it moves directly into the ground water under the pile.
The coal burned at Russell is mined from West Central and Western
Pennsylvania and Northern West Virginia (Table 3-24) and is delivered by train
only.
Total moisture of delivered coal ranged between 2.9 percent and 7.1
percent during the five month study.
-138-
I
I-'
w
lD
I
:s
::l
Z
-

::1"
-'m
<t E
..J
<l
f-
o
..-
z
o
a;
- -
"-
-1m
<t E
...
o
..-
DATE: APRil 3, 1982

PRESTORM .
AVO. CONe.
Figure 3-32. Al. Mn and Fe concentration response to storm 2 - Russell
III
(/)
W
Z
<.(
"
z,
CD
:E E
..J

f-
o
f-
::Ed
a::
OQ
1-(,)
0,
W<!I
a:: >
Q,<
ID
o
.
....
o
.
0J/8W 0
WnlN313S .LO.L
116w
1 "1.LO.!.
0
0 ,
.
C'a
-
Nl
;1
<til
gl

J
J.
J
L
J
J
J
.
::i(.)
J
a:z
00
1-(.)
.J
0.
W<!I
11:>
a.<
-140-
J
J
J
J
1
J

J

t-

:ed
a:z
00
1-(,)
(I),
W<!I
a:>
a.<
1/6w
1'1.LO.!..
Source
Albertin
Blacksville
Clarksburg
Federal
H&G(Reddco)
Harmon
Kirk
Loveridge
Mears
Medix Run
Northbrook
Owens
TABLE 3-24
RUSSELL COAL SOURCES
-141-
State
PA
PA
PA
WV
PA
PA
PA
WV
PA
PA
PA
PA
Random samples from the pile were analyzed for ash content with results
showing a minimum of 8.93 percent and a maximum of 14.28 percent with a mean
of 11.63 percent. The ash content of the delivered coal is similar. Metal
concentrations in the coal are sununarized on Table 3-25. Random sampling
showed coal grain size to ranging from .001 inch to greater than 1 inch. The
mean grain size results give a minimum of .075 inches, a maximum of .435
inches and a mean of .189 inches. The standard deviation is .124.
3.4.6 Groundwater
TRC conducted a field investigation to better define the location and
extent of leachate contamination and its avenues of flow from the Russell
site. Visual observations showed that leachate was flowing into Slater Creek
to the east of the pile. Based upon three initial observations, a field
investigation program was designed to provide the geohydrologic and water
quality data necessary to answer key questions regarding this leachate flow.
Subsequent field investigations included measurements of conductivity and
flow in Slater Creek, ground water quality monitoring and a geophysical survey
to delineate the exact extent of the leachate plume.
3.4.6.1 Plume Development and Flow Characteristics of Slater Creek
Coal pile leachate is seeping into Slater Creek in quantities sufficient
to cause a distinct orange color in the creek waters. On April 19, Slater
Creek was calm with little wave activity, and there had been no significant
rainfall during the prior two weeks. The creek had a distinct orange color
along a section extending from the mid-point of the coal pile to the most
downstream surface boom where the creek widens. During a moderate rainstorm
the following day, the orange plume was absent. Within 24 hours after the
-142-
TABLE 3-25
RUSSELL COAL SAMPLES - METAL CONCENTRATIONS
Metal Minimum ().1 g/g) Maximum ().1 gig) Mean ().1 g/g)
Aluminum 8990. 17500. 13031.
Antimony <1.61 <1.61 <1.61
Arsenic 14.3 59.9 29.3
Beryllium 0.68 1.64 1.021
Cadmium <0.082 0.262 0.131
Calcium 1540. 9100. 5986.
Chromium 14.0 50.3 22.83
Cobalt < 0.82 3.47 1.843
Copper 31.6 81.9 48.86
Iron 13000. 21200. 16640.
Lead 14.1 74.5 31.51
Magnesium 539. 1110. 873.9
Manganese 22.7 54.6 33.91
Mercury 0.205 0.658 0.420
Molybdenum 1.94 12.10 5.40
Nickel 9.2 56.8 26.02
Selenium 2.6 5.7 3.63
Vanadium 20.4 29.5 24.8
Zinc 14.9 66.7 31.16
-143-
rainstorm, the orange plume was reestablished. The plume became progressively
wider in a downstream direction. This phenomena has been observed after rain
on other occasions.
In addition to the plume, a 4-inch diameter PVC pipe was noted to have a
slight discharge of iron-stained water. The coarse-grained fill around the
pipe was also noted to be heavily iron-stained. Because this pipe is located
upstream of the main plume, it is probably of minor sign1 icance to the
overall discharge of leachate to Slater CreeK.
Visual observations of the plume were confirmed by three series of stream
conductivity measurements conducted during dry weather (see Figure 3-34).
Stream water conductivity was found to be high in the plume area relative to
upstream readings (Table 3-26).
In order to determine the mixing effects of flow in the creek, an
abbreviated discharge measurement survey was also conducted on May 21, 1982
using a Gurley current meter. Even though rain had occurred within 24 hours,
flow in the stream was noted to be extremely slow to slack (0.1 fpm to 0.0
fpm) This low flow can be attributed to a baCKwater effect caused by the
cooling water discharge. located approximately 600 feet downstream from the
coal pile. The low flow and subsequent stagnation of the stream allows for a
highly visible leachate effect, the orange staining, to be produced by a
relatively low leachate discharge.
3.4.6.2 Site GeohydrologY
The geologic and geohydrologic nature of the site was determined by a
number of test pits and borings. Water table gradients and water quality
information were determined from monitoring wells installed in and around the
coal pile. Permeabilities were determined from constant head tests in
-144-
I
....
""
1TI
I
N
t
"e"'
"e'lla {\"
a\'\\'\
ve\l\a{\
o
Pump ..
. '{'\,-
(\
c,\a. I
O. 12' Sto,,"
P-8 Drain
P-7
0'"
","'-
0' . '"
o ()"

('-1 / Q I
r
8
,:7 7 /
"'() "'-
()
:>c.., l<..'0-
(? -1
'<,j c..,
Coal
Pile
-- P-2.
(
o
CP-2
4' P.V.C.
pipe

<Q Random samples
recorded upstream
Sample
/ locations
.V' #1,2,3

LEGEND
Permanent ground water
mon itori ng we 11
o Coal pile boring
x Conductivity sample locations
Fjgure 3-34. Stream conductivity sample locations at Russell
TABLE 3-26
SLATER CREEK CONDUCTIVITY SURVEYS
Water Distance Conductivit:i (Jl mhos)
Depth From Shore* 0.5 ft from bottom 1 in. below surface
Location (ft) (ft) 4(26 5(03 5(26 4/26 5(03 5(26
1 2.5 9 990 1050 1150 990 1090 1150
2 3.0 10 1300 1000 1150 l300 1080 1150
3 2.8 10 1050 1000 1150 1050 1080 1150
4 2.9 10 1050 1000 1100 1050 1080 1150
5 3.0 9 1050 1050 1100 1050 1090 1150
6 3.1 8 1000 1000 1150 1050 1100 1150
7 2.9 8 1050 980 1100 1050 1080 1150
8 2.7 7.5 1050 1000 1150 1050 1090 1150
9 2.5 8 1250 1420 1150 1100 1100 1300
10 1.6 8 1250 1120 2800 1200 1100 1350
11 1.4 6 1200 1250 3500 1200 1100 1300
12 1.3 7.5 1150 1100 2700 1150 1050 1350
13 2.2 7 1200 1050 3000 1150 1020 1200
14 1.8 7 1150 1100 2800 1150 1020 1200
15 1.8 6 1150 1300 2500 1150 1000 1200
16 1.9 6 1150 1100 1800 1150 1020 1150
17 2.0 6 1100 1150 1700 1100 1030 1150
18 2.5 3 1000 990 1500 1100 910 1150
19 3.1 4 1100 1100 1150 1100 900 1150
20 2.0 5 750 510 1000 700 500 950
21 2.1 6 650 580 850 600 520 850
22 2.2 8 600 600 750 550 520 800
23 2.2 6 550 500 700 700 450 750
24 2.3 6 500 600 550 500 425 600
25 2.3 6 300 400 500 300 350
*Measured from northern stream bank
-146-
selected borings and pit bailing tests in several test pits. Both the
geologic and water quality data were augmented by a geophysical survey of the
site.
The coal pile at Russell Station and the area between the pile and Slater
Cre,ek are underlain by a variety of fine to coarse grain sedimentarY deposits,
peat. and organic material, and fill consisting primarily of fly ash and bottom
ash (Figures 3-35 through 3-37). Groundwater flow appears to occur through
the clean sands and gravels in t.he area up-gradient of the pile (boring P-l)
as by artesian conditions encountered during boring. Between the
coal pile and Slater Creek, flow appears to occur in three distinct materials
-- fly ash fill, bottom .ash fill, and the peat-organic layer. Based on
measured permeabilities (Table 3-20), the bottom ash material appears to be
the most pervious and acts as a leachate conduit. Downward flow of the
leachate through this section is impeded by a low permeability silt, clay silt
layer at a depth of approximately 20 feet.
regional groundwater flow in the area would be expected to be to the
east-southeast, away from the plant toward Slater Creek. A review of
groundwater elevations collected during March - May 1982 (Table 3-27) indicate
that the regional flow may be slightly disrupted by a ground water mound
formed under the coal pile. From the water quality data (collected at the
site), it is apparent that this has not affected the regional flow. That is,
flow is toward Slater Creek and not toward the plant in the areas
investigated. This may be explained either by the fact that the coal pile
water levels reflect a "perched" condition over a relatively impervious
underlying material, or by the fact that the fill along Slater Creek is mOre
pervious than the natural inplace material.
-147-
I
I-'
"'-
00
I
o
M
d
o
N
rl
o
.--!
r'
G
o
.--!
o
m
o
<Xl
c)
r--.
A
Head of
<t drainage
swale
Coal
Pile
Silt t .... Coal pHe runoff channel
Clay
5' l ~ d j i '
.. <t.
Area of possible
dredging disposal
SCALE: Vertical 1"=10'
Horizontal 1"=60'
figure 3-35. Section A-A' looking east
1\'
~
-'"
.(11
(II
~
L.l
~
(II
...,
ot:I
I
....
0!>-
lD
I
M
.-l
o
h
o
I
e Area of old dredge
99.95 top of disposal pHe
casing
p-2 -
< ,
"J '" ,
r 1
:::;Saturated
:.\': Flyash
, .
.....L Coarse
Grained
Bottom
Ash
98.73 top of
casing
0'
7 P-3 IE Dredging disposal area .. 96.1l5
Fill
Coarse
Grained
Bottom
9 P-4
/'
Ash A
We 11 FJ- 11 FJ-B bottom
. .....m We
'---. - - of ". _
- Bottom of - S,o'
Bottom Ash GradHlg
boring FJ-C Silt
SCALE: Vertical }"=10'
Horizontal 1"=60'
Figure 3-36. Section B-B' looking northwest
I
g .-C
rl
a
N
rl
a
d
r-l
I-'
1110
00
Irl
o
0\
c:c>
co
o
r--
9 ILl 8
Clay SUt
Sandy lenses
"
CI'-2
saturated lens
...... --
Coal
Coal
Pile
CP-3
-----
Tan Silty -----_
Clay Saturated
Mottled
SCALE: Vertical 1-10'
Ilod zonta 1 1
10
"60'
figure 3- 31. Sectioll C-C 100ld og southwest
c
TABLE 3-27
RUSSELL GROUND WATER LEVEL ELEVATIONS* (1982)
Boring Collar Water Levels
Number Elevation 3/18 4/21 5/7 5/1.9
1 255.2 250.17 249.27 248.82 248.85
2 256.3 253.12 252.44 250.48 250.21
:3 255.1 252.08 251.32 250.29 250.08
4 253.2 250.52 249.02 248.35 248.63
7 253.0 252.42 251.4 250.28 251.06
9< 277.9 < 251. 78 < 251. 78 < 251. 78
(Dry) (Dry) (Dry) Dry
10 280.9 252.72 252.03 251.71
11 269.9 253.73 253.01 252.47 252.30
12 275.0 <252.67 <252.67 <252.67
13 277.9 < 253.5 <253.5 < 253.5
*Plant floor datum
-151-
Assuming that the latter is true and that leachate flow is primarily
through the more pervious bottom ash, the total underpile flow is computed to
be 65 gallons per day per lineal foot or approximately 39,000 gallons per day
(gpd) for a 600 foot coal pile. Leachate flow through the approximately 400
feet wide section (Figure 3-38) is estimated to be 26,000 gpd.
These computations are conservative in that they assume a full saturated
thickness of the bottom ash material and a fully connected saturated interface
between the coal pile and the underlying material. Total estimated discharge
of coal pile drainage to ground water is approximately 65 percent of total
precipitation or an average 8,900 gpd. It should be noted that the 26,000 gpd
figure includes both leachate drainage and natural "under flow of ground
water from outside of the pile area.
3.4.6.3 Coal Pile Leachate and Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality and coal pile leachate quality data were obtained
from a number of sources. Samples were obtained from several observation
wells in and around the coal pile. As part of a separate program for RG&E,
ground water samples were obtained from test pitsl the pH and conductivity of
these samples were measured in the field and a composite was analyzed in the
TRC Laboratory. As a final check on plume extent, a surface conductivity
survey was carried out. Sample locations are presented on Figure 3-2. Field
pH and conductivity measurements are given on Table 3-28.
A review of this data indicates a discernable plume exists on the eastern
part of the coal pile. Included in this plume are wells P-3, P-4, P-7, P-ll,
FJA, FJB and the series of test pits with the designation JH-4 through JH-lO.
In this plume, pH is acidic and conductivity is elevated. Table 3-28 shows
average pH and conductivity values for well water samples COllected during the
months of June and July. It can be seen that pH and conductivity values
-152-

A

OA

OAP-12
QAP-IO
o

k'

A
"'-..0 [X retH or
...,. I (1\(1IAn 1'I.I1/1E
6""1-
------ .

r

J!U
@ Wf II IUOHU til
A 1'lUtlliflUt
o f:VIII'OUIHfUU
o U'I IlIUi!\i'
III U1U OUI f tOUI1I It'l
X tSW'lOUtlllltl
<:> W t;Alll.il
.4 "At' I"VAf'UIMIIilN 100UIit
IIhill "Ollff
AI"" IifUH
Figure 3-38. Grollnd water quality locations and estimated area of leachate flow.
TABLE 3-28
RUSSELL PIEZOMETER pH AND CONDUCTIVITY RESULTS
Mean Value High Value Low Value Standard Deviation Number of Values
Well Number pH Conductivity pH Conductivity pH Conductivity pH Conductivity pH Conductiv ity
1 6.40 1270 6.75 1550 6.0 600 .19 239 21 21
2 8.04 1019 8.7 2675 6.7 790 .42 4017 20 21
3 7.1 4689 8.25 4050 6.4 150 .47 8132 21 21
4 3.9 16023 4.1 22250 3.5 10800 .13 4184 21 21
7 4.5 10933 5.6 16250 2.9 1790 .55 3593 21 21
11 2.2 18279 2.4 26250 2.2 8100 .08 5491 21 19
FJ-A 4.2 13393 5.0 18500 3.85 6000 .23 3881 21 21
.
n
,.
FJ-B 4.4 10720 5.6 18000 3.85 5750 .49 3998 21 20 I
decrease and increase respectively as one moves from well P-I to well P-4.
The pH values in wells 2 and 3 are slightly alkaline due to the presence of
buried calcic flyash in the locations where these wells were installed. Based
upon these pH and conductivity values, it would appear as if the leachate
plume is centered in the vicinity of well P-4. Metals analysis conducted on
P-l through P-4, P-7, P-IO, and P-ll (see Table 3-29) indicate increased
concentrations of aluminum, iron, arsenic, zinc, nickel, and other trace
metals. There is a general trend of increasing concentrations of metals
towards well P-4, again indicating that the leachate plume is centered in the
vicinity of well P-4. As would be expected, most of the concentrations in the
groundwater are lower than those encountered in the coal pile itself (well
p-IO and P-ll). This indicates that some attenuation and/or dilution of
metals is taking place. It should be noted that wells p-IO and p-Il were the
only two coal pile wells that yielded significant groundwater.
3.4.6.4 Terrain Conductivity Geophysical Survey
On August 31, 1982 a TRC geologist conducted a terrain conductivity survey
of the area surrounding the Russell Station coal pile to better define the
extent of the coal pile leachate plume. This survey was conducted using a
Geonics EM31 terrain conductivity meter. This instrument measures cumulative
terrain conductivity of a semi-sphere of earth materials with a 20-foot
radius. Conductivity is read in millimhos/meter. Conductivity surveys of
this nature are well adapted to the measurement of relative changes in terrain
conductivity due to a plume of highly conductive leachate.
Four. conductivity survey lines were traversed at the Russell coal pile.
Conductivity determinations were made every 25 feet along these lines, or
whenever a condllctivity contrast was observed. Every 100 feet along the
-155-
TABLE 3-29
RUSSELL GROUND WATER QUALITY RESULTS
(m9/1 unless otherwise noted)
4/20
Date (l982b
...!L!L JilL '.0
0 50
10 Test Pit
Sample LOcation P-lt p-u P-10 P-11 p-l P-2 ~ - 3 P-4 p-7 P-1 P-2 p - ~ P-4 P-1 l'-ll P-l0 Corne:osite
COal pile ICb or
Groundwater (M) C C C C ~ W II
"
.. II
" "
.. II C C
"
Pal:ameterr
pH 3.1 2 . ~ 2.] 2.1 6.40 1.] 5.0 3.2 2.6 1.0 8.4 7.3 4.0 4.3 1.3 4.12
Conduotivity 19000 16400 22000 UBOO 1380 991 3320 18500 13800 9000
(umhos)
Acidity (M) 1593 2002 110 ND ND 945 758 ND No NO 1461 881 )008
(as CaCO))
Acidity (T) HOe 2764 ND NO No 3453 B29 ND NO NO 35\2 1347 4330 9094
,as CaC03)
TSS 88nZ 9293 240
TOS 4\048 55712 1266 21465
~
n
TOe 27 24 711
~
I
S04 23500 25500 32000 eU.5 969 lUO 8350 250 350 2460 46000 24000 33000 2260
T. lIardnes9 3989 3915 2210 80] 596 6532 1800 8350 4840
tas CaCOl)
Fl- 3.36 2.10 4.20 .20 .16 .14 4.75 3.05 4.30
T. ,,1 680 640 1684.4 858.4 NI> 22.0 50.0 1286.0 488.0 NO 7.5 ND UB4.4 111.1 Bll.l un.o
<5.01 5.0) 1"5.0)
D. Ai 614 632 863.6 NO NO NO 1416.0 148.0 791.6 \38
I" 5.0) \< 5.0) I" 5.01
T. Sb liD NP lID ND
.02) \< .02) 1< .016) (< .016)
D. Sb ND ND ND
.02) .02) I" .016'
T. As 6.560 8.790 8.840 .026 .49\ .562 2.695 .805 .014 .506 .]84 2.892 .455 1.nO
D. As 5.710 4.040 3.75 1.290 .016 .391 .280 2.832 .318 6.660 3.20 0.018
T. Be .138 .141 .159 No .le9 .080 ND .202 .020 .U6
I" .019) !' .191
T ~ 'rota 1
D - Dissolved
RUSSELL GROUND HATSR QUALITY RESULTS
unless otherwise noted)
4/20
Dat. (1982) _!L!L ...!Lll..
(nO 50 10 Test Pi t
Samele,Location ,-11 p-ll P-I0 P-11 P-l P-2 P-3 P-4 P-1 P-l P-2 P-3 P-4 P-7 P-11 0-10 Composite
De" .127 .120 .J09 .156 ND .201 .026 .U9 .32
i< .019)
T. Cd .059 .064 .067 ND .040 ND .068
.0211 c< .021)
Cd .067 .066 .182 .071 NO .064 .119
.021)
T. Cll 525 610 545 269 J6l 67) 522 53J 249 245 6i5 496 517 491
D. ca" 530 523 555 525 259 245 676 494 473 499 517
T. Cr .35 .53 .20 ND .53 NO .18
c< .01) c< .07)
o. Cr .37 .36 .34 .19 NO .44 NO .16 .71
c< .07) c< .07)
J1 T. Co 4.33 4.55 3.69 NO NO .26 7.51 3.95 NO 7.96 3.14 4.02
....
.12) 1< .121 .12)
I
D. Co. 4.40 4.90 1l.50 3.57 NO 8.00 2.91 3.79 12.05
c< 12,
1'. Cu .42 2.45 1.U No .n 1.30 NO .10 .13 1.00
c< .08) .08)
D. Cu .36 1.23 2.41 .92 NO .21 .22 .93 3.60 NO
c< .08, 0.072)
T. Fe 10200 11320 14550 NO 29 470 16700 9650 NO 19 35 16600 9500 13100
(<18) (<18)
D. Fe 11440 1880 15050 IlD NO 31 16850 7600 14300 20000 4500
18) t8
T. Pb .015 .0410 .070 NO .021 NO NO .006 NO .015 .Oll .016
.020) .020) .0041 .004)
D. pb NO ND NO 0.073
.020) .00l) .0201
T. 119 693 697 798 87 84 288 1708 1644 64 ND 223 1584 U32 719
19)
"----
T ,.. Tota 1
D ". Dissolved
TABLE 3-29 tcontinued)
RUSSELL GROUND MATER QUALI'tY RESUUl'S
(mg/l un1asa otherwise noted)
4/20
Oat. (1962)
-YlL ...!ilL
4L30 St.1 10 Test Pi t
Location P-ll P-H P-1O p-u P-l P-2 P-l P-4 P-7 P-I. P-2 p-] P-4 P-l p-u P-10 COA'le9;site
O. Mg> 106 155 1005 908 94 Ill> 238 1524 1624 160 930
t< 19)
Mn 46.2 50.8 .1 .0 .8 4.0 50.0 U.& 3.0 .7 2.1 60.8 3).8 .9
0 .. Mtb'" 47.0 5B.8 86.7 .8 3.0 110 2.1 58.) 35.8 .9 .9
.61
Mo 110 .041 .012 liD .in .468 .027 III) NO .080 .349 .058 NO
0.012) .CUI 1< .OUI .018) .0lBI
D. Mo* NO 110 110 NO .036 .526 110 .051
0.012) .018) .0lB) .018) .018)
T. III 9.08 10.22 n.ll .H NO .54 H.65 10.16 110 1.6.]1 1.28 n.22
.alB) .018)
o. Ni 10.18 n.Di 21.2 1l..U 110 16.00 1.19 11.36 19.75 4.86
.018)
n
T. Se .001 .205 .032 110 .002 liD 110 110 NO 110
0
.0011 .0011 .0011 .002) t< .002) .001)
I
o. Se NO liD 110
.0011 .001) 0.0006)
T. V .916 .944 1.00$ .ou .127 .068 l.OlU .OM .037 1111 1.438 .016 .990
i< .0261
D. V .480 .592 2.100 .895 NO 1.260 .032 .910 3.B40
.026)
'1'. Zn 21.85 23.95 27.00 110 .205 .97 ]6.53 lB.28 NO 39.28 H.B4 24.36
t' .017) !<oOUl
D. Zn" 22.55 26.70 51.20 27.40 NO H.84 12.16 25.40 1l..52
1< .0111
T. IIg (ppb) 1.10 21.0 2.03 LH NO NO .n .20 NO .66 NO .33
.20) .20) .20) .20)
O. IIg (ppbl 0.61 0.38 0.63 0.26 ND .61 .22 .38
.20)
T :: Total
D .. Dissolved
survey lines, a depth sounding was conducted to determine if conductivity was
increasing or decreasing with depth.
In examining the plot of terrain conductivity data (Figure 3-39) the coal
pile leachate plume can be delineated along a section of line 'B ' and ' D'
approximately 500' feet long. Along this section, terrain conductivity values
are elevated (300-500 millimhos/meter) in relation to conducti vi ty values at
other locations around the site. Another high conductivity area was observed
along traverse line 'A' west of the coal pile. This high conductivity anomaly
is attributed to the buried fly ash in this area and the surface stockpiling
of fly ash that was in progress at the time of the survey. Fly ash acts as a
good dielectric conductor due to its fine grain texture and relatively high
met.als content. One other ..small increase in conductivity was observed along
traverse line 'B' just west of well P3 and the storm drain manhole. This
minor high conductivity anomaly corresponds to the inferred location of a 4"
PVC pipe whose outlet is visible along the bank of Slater Creek. An orange
colored leachate, characteristic of coal pile leachate, was observed seeping
from the gravel around this pipe.
T'he conductivity traverse of line 'C' shows that conductivity values drop
off quickly toward the north. This would indicate that the lateral spread of
the coal pile leachate plume is not very well pronounced to the north of the
coal pile. The conductivity increase/decrease soundings indicate a general
trend for conductivity to increase with depth in the shadow of the leachate
plume.. This increase with depth is due to an unsaturated zone (approximately
3 fe,at thick) of lower conductivity earth materials overlying highly
conducti ve leachate-saturated bottom ash. The one reading contrary to the
conductivity increase with depth over the 4-inch PVC pipe is most likely
attributed to the existence of conductive leachate concentrated around this
pipe, which is only 5-10 feet deep, therefore causing a decrease in
-159-
I
I
i-'
0"1
o
!
65
]5
325
320
290
190
215
(.!ian 75
\\.G1\)
U5
Uo
210
tiS
t--+----f--
65 (.1
69
1-----'
A
"
-
a

------ --
Conductivity values
rlAt- n
r
'',
0
on top of pi Je jl1 ,,'_'
range of 35-50
to-!,
"
!l Q,"-'/)
0

r-:> 0' 0' U'
uJ>l1'::'> r:
o ,.-'
-::::
'0
,.-'
l:[f.

'.0
t1'

04'-&Q
!l
/
{'nt ... ., 'L 1Q
0"1'", "h.fI- "I'
t'G.Il"'r,t\I;:<'i.an
.... .",t ft.

l.'
P-u
A
490 '" Conductivity
j n mil HlIlhos
(1.135) ratio
Oa'
"..4<1, ..... ,..." ..",}.
lfl ..., ... -"" 1 1
Vill'Jes
r-
.--

-P
_/
conductivity with depth. Along traverse line 'A', the conductivity decrease
can be attributed to the highly conductive fly ash fill overlying natural
ground with little or no influence from coal pile leachate. The area to the
north of tra.verse line 'A' and around well #1 that shows conductivity
decreasing significantly with depth corresponds to a coarse, water-bearing
sand and gravel layer found at approximately 10-15 feet below grade during the
drilling of well #1. The groundwater from well #1 was found to be unaffected
from coal pile leachate. The sands and gravels in this area are overlain by
finer silts and clays that exhibit higher conductivities.
In conclusion, it can be seen that the data obtained from the terrain
conductivity survey is substantiated by the good correlation the dat.a has with
other ground water quality and geologic data collected around the Russell coal
pile. The conductivity survey data served as an effective tool in providing
greater resolution between existing data points. This greater resolution has
subsequently provided a more accurate delineation of the Russell coal pile
leachate plume.
3.5 COmparison of Results
This section provides a comparison of field data results gathered at
Greenidge and Russell.
3.5.1 Drainage
Stormwater drainage at the two coal storage sites was measured in four
forms: direct runoff, interflow, residual interflow and base flow. For the
Greenidge pile all four streams were observed due mainly to the presence of an
impermeable liner which intercepts the migration of leachate and directs it
toward the runoff collection system. For Russell direct runoff and interflow
were observed. Leachate at Russell was recorded seeping into the drainage
-161-
collection channel only during spring thawing conditions. Once the ground had
warmed leachate moved directly into the ground water system flowing beneath
the pile. No base flow or residual interflow was observed at Russell,
The determination of drainage coefficients for a particular coal pile is
important to the sizing of runoff collection systems, The magnitude of
drainage coefficients is greatly dependent upon:
1. the size and intensity of the storms anticipated;
2. the compaction of the coal on the surface of the pile;
3. the overall shape and slope of the coal pile.
Factors which influence the size of the drainage coefficients to a lesser
degree include:
1. the moisture saturation levels of the surface coal prior to
precipitation;
2. the presence of an impermeable liner and berm;
3. the particle size distribution of the surface coal;
The Greenidge pile experienced a greater range of storms, up to 3.66 inches
during the program and thereby had a greater range in drainage coefficients
.04 to .39. The Russell pile only experienced events less than .82 inches of
rain and thus, significantly less drainage coefficients were measured. The
shape of the Russell pile inhibited the flow of direct runoff because of the
flatness and eventually the concave shape of the pile surface, Direct runoff
at Russell was observed to emanate mainly from the side slopes of the pile.
Drainage coefficients are presented for both the entire pile and side slope
areas. The compaction of the truck. pile at Greenidge was greater than all
other areas of both the Greenidge and Russell piles. Because of this
compaction, surface densities were increased and infiltration rates of
precipitation were reduced. Little, if any, precipitation entered the core of
-162-
the truck pile. The slope of the Greenidge pile, mainly a result of the pile
being built on a hillside, contributed to the collection of more direct runoff.
The saturation level of loosely compacted coal is approximately 12 to 14
percent. During the course of a storm event once the surface of a coal pile
reaches saturation and the precipitation rate becomes greater than surface
infiltration rate, direct runoff will increase. Therefore, the sooner the
saturation level is reached, which depends on pre-storm moisture conditions,
the sooner more direct runoff will occur. The presence of an impermeable
linE!r and berm, as was the condition at Greenidge, allows for more leachate
and interflow to contribute to the storm hydrograph, whereas at Russell, with
no liner, leachate and interflow were not prevented from entering the ground.
Particle size distribution will influence the ability of a coal mass to retain
moisture. The smaller the mean grain size of coal particles, the greater the
absorption capacity. A larger percentage of coarse grain will allow for
gre'at:er porosity and hence a greater infiltration rate. As infiltration rates
are lowered, the amount of direct runoff is increased, thereby increasing the
drainage coefficients.
3.5.2 Hydrology
The drainage of water from a coal storage pile, being important to the
design of runoff collection systems, is only one component of the hydrological
cycle of the pile. Figures 3-9 and 3-23 present the other components as
Observed for a lined coal pile (Greenidge) and an unlined pile (Russell)
depicting the source of water and the various pathways which precipitation
will follow. Obviously, the largest difference between the two piles is that
the presence of a pile liner intercepts the interflow and directs it into the
base flow from the pile. Without a liner, depending on the foundation
materials, interflow will mix with leachate and flow directly into the
-163-
ground. Base flow at Greenidge for the period of study overaged 0.6 gpm,
whereas Russell had no base flow.
Similarities exist between the piles with respect to the storage of water
within the pile and the evaporation rates of water off the piles. It has been
determined for both piles that the majority of precipitation hitting the pile
goes into immediate storage in the coaL Depending on the amount of water
impacting the pile surface during a storm event, a portion will evaporate and
the balance goes into long-term or deep storage. The train coal at Greenidge
was similar to the Russell pile in that, the infiltration rates and surface
densities were within the same order of magnitude. Due to these similarities
water will move into deep storage in both piles under similar climatic
conditions. The in-pile moisture cells at Russell did indicate a gradual
trend toward saturation over a period of weeks. Since the Greenidge pile
moistures were only monitored over a short dry period no wetting trend was
observed. The in-pile moisture cells, in conjunction with pile evaporimeter
data at Greenidge, did show that evaporation will account for a significant
loss of water absorbed from weak storms, those with less than a half inch of
rain if there is substantial drying between storms.
Pan evaporation rates were compared to evaporation rates off the surface
of the coal pile. There were significant differences between the two with the
pile showing much smaller rates. The results of the pile evaporation
measurement task indicate that the surface of the coal pile retains a limited
amount of water available for evaporation and once this supply has been
depleted the rate goes to zero. The effective zone of evaporation, (I.e., the
surface layer from which water is lost to the atmosphere), has been observed
to be the top 2 to 3 inches of coal. Beneath this depth, water will either be
retained by the coal or migrate deeper into the pile. If the available supply
of water in the effective evaporation zone is not depleted before the next
-164-
storm, complete evaporation of the previous weak storm will not occur. This
was observed at Russell from June 15 to June 27, where a series of short,
weak, back to back storms occurred and the resultant evaporation loss from
immladiate storage were less than 100 percent.
To summarize, during seasons where evaporation rates are the highest,
evaporation losses from the surface of a coal pile can be significant for weak
storms with less than a half inch of rain. For storms with greater than a
half inch of rain, a greater percentage of water will migrate into deep
storage within the pile. Pan evaporation has been determined to be
unrepresentative of the evaporation losses from the surface of coal piles.
3.5.3 Chemical Characteristics of the Drainage
J?or both the Greenidge and Russell sites, average values for various
parameters were calculated for base flow/leachate and stormwater runoff
samples as shown in Table 3'"'30. General comparisons can be made between the
two sites. The acidity, sulfate, dissolved solids and a number of the metals
data show that the storm runoff mean values for both sites are similar.
However, the dry day base flow mean values for these parameters are
significantly different with the Russell concentrations being much higher.
One explanation for this difference may be the fact that Russell base flows
are actually late winter leachate seeps in the V channels surrounding the base
of the pile and this leachate has had a longer contact time with coal near the
pile base. The Greenidge base flows represent underpile drainage and residual
inter flow that continuously flowed from the pile. Therefore since the Russell
leachate was water near the pile base whose flow was retarded by frozen ground
and only released with the spring thaw, the extended residence time of the
leachate could account for the elevated levels in acidi ty, sulfate, dissolved
solids and metals.
-165-
Site
TABLE 3-30
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF DRY DAY AND STORM RUNOFF CONCENTRATION
GREENIDGE VS. RUSSELL
Greenidge Russell
Dry Day Leachate Storm Runoff
_____ l1ean _____ _____ ___________ _ R<inge
pH 2.3 2.3 2.1 - 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.4 - 3.2
Total Acidity 9401 5890 1994 - 13,910 15,930 5,210 970 - 24,420
(mg/l)
Conductivity 8130 4855 3300 - 9446 8,030 4710 2150 - 13,000
(].I mho)
TOC (mg/l) 16 2421 1.5 - 10500 62 44 5 - 260
S04 (mg/l) 12100 8490 2400 - 19200 17,100 6420 1500 - 27,000
TDS (mg/l) 21080 12480 2788 - 28,960 37,840 11,200 3530 - 47,840
F- (mg/l) 1.41 0.86 0.007 - 3.85 2.65 1.39 0.55 - 3.52
T. Fe (mg/l) 3116 2200 879 - 6160 5,410 1720 440 - 7680
T. As (mg/l) l.50 1.68 0.417 - 3.98 4.82 1.32 0.320 - 8.74
T. Al (mg/l) 209 182 86 - 417 590 255 65 - 1024
T. Se (mg/l) 0.011 0.0345 0.0039 - 0.0924 0.014 0.006 0.001 - 0.032
T. Cd (mg/l) 0.026 0.022 0.001 - 0.064 0.033 0.013 0.01 - 0.049
T. - Total
A closer examination of the table shows that conductivity levels were
similar in the runoff from the two sites, but that other parameters were
sHghtly different. The storm runoff means for the chemical characteristics
are often affected by intensity and dUration of rainfall and cannot be
directly compared. By comparing the ranges of the various parameters,
however, it appears that the quality of runoff is similar from both piles.
The runoff f.rom both piles contains large amounts of dissolved solids,
sulfate, iron, aluminum, and other inorganics. In general, the concentrations
in the stormwater runoff are somewhat lower than those in the dry day base
f l o ~ r or leachate water, due mainly to dilution by the rainfall.
During the initial site selection process, the percent sulfur of coal
burned at the various steam electric plants was one of the more important
criteria used to select the candidate monitOring sites. In the spr ing of
1981, it was reported that Greenidge burned coal averaging 1.85 percent
sulfur, and that Russell burned coal averaging 2.4 percent sulfur. Table 3-31
presents the difference in average sulfur contents based on both the TRC
samples collected and the proximate analysis reported in the certificate of
analysis for each plant. These results indicate that, Russell does burn a
higher percent sulfur coal than Greenidge, but that during the TRC monitoring
program both plants burned coal with slightly higher sulfur content than
originally reported in early 1981.
The importance of knowing and comparing the general coal characteristics
of these two steam electric plants is to:
1. be able to frame the results of the runoff water quality with the
type of coal being stored at each plant;
-167-
TABLE 3-31
COMPARISON OF GREENIDGE AND RUSSELL COAL
Greenidge Russell
Mean grain size
l
112 in. .189 in
Minimum grain size 048 in. .075 in
Maximum grain size .260 in. .435 in.
Average total moisture content
l
8.4% 14.4%
Average sulfur content
l
1.98% 2.70%
Average sulfur content
2
2.26% 2.61%
Mean ash content 16.60% 11.63%
Minimum ash content 11.12% 8.93%
Maximum ash content 22.23% 14.28%
1
Based on 10 random samples collected at Greenidge during August 1981 and
10 random samples collected at Russell during November 1981.
2
Based on 20 samples over a 5 month period reported by Russell coal
proximate analysis and 20 samples over a 3 month period reported by the
Greenidge coal proximate analysis.
-168-
2. have a reference to coal type when comparing runoff quality of
these two Nell York State coal storage areas to runoff quality
from other storage areas across the country.
Both the Greenidge and Russell Stations burn coal from the Appalachian
coa.l districts. The Greenidge coal sources originated in west central, north
central and central Pennsylvania, while the Russell coal originated in west
central and western pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. From the sulfur
content of the coal burned at each utility, the Greenidge coal was more
representative of Appalachian coal which has a mean sulfur content of 1.83
percent, and Russell being more representative of interior eastern coal with a
mean sulfur content of 2.86 percent.
The total moisture content of delivered coal is another parameter worth
noti.ng. This parameter, however, is felt to be more of an indication of water
absorbed by the coal while in transit to the power plants. Interstitial
moistures would be a better method of comparing coal moistures instead of
total moistures. The Greenidge Station performs moisture analyses on both
delivered coal and coal as it is conveyed into the hoppers. A quick
comparison was performed on these two moistures and the pre-fired coal had a
greater mean moisture content. 'rhis indicates that coal will absorb moisture
not only while in transit but also while in storage.
~ ~ h e last parameter of importance when comparing coals burned at each site
is the mean grain size. The Greenidge coal had a smaller mean grain size than
the Russell coal. This fact most likely accounts for the higher suspended
solids and bedload in the runoff from the Greenidge pile than from the Russell
pile.
-169-
3.6 Field program Recommendations
The field monitoring program at Greenidge and Russell Stations provided
the authors of this report, two examples of coal storage and handling
facilities which had to deal with the collection and treatment of coal pile
drainage. The data collected on these piles can eventually be useful to the
design of new coal storage areas through the use of the field verified runoff
simulation model and the data bank.
Knowing the hydrology of coal storage areas can lead to better pile
management practices. To assist both the coal storage area designers,
treatment system designers and coal pile managers, a number of recommendations
based on the findings of the field program are presented. They are as follows:
L New piles should be designed to allow for maximum runoff and
minimum infiltration of precipitation. Direct runoff has lower
acidities and dissolved metals than leachate. Also by
preventing infiltration, the moisture content of stored coal
will remain depressed, thereby preventing the loss of BTU value
when the coal is reclaimed for burning.
2. To maX1m1ze the runoff, pile compaction
optimized. Densities of coal greater than
foot can be easily accomplished by the
vehicles used in stacking and reclaiming.
methods
70 pounds
use of
should be
per cubic
rubber-tire
3. Keeping the pile slightly sloped, avoiding the formation of
depreSSions and pockets on the surface of the coal will allow
for more direct drainage.
4. Compacting by roller or some equivalent technique of the side
slopes will cut down on the number of infiltration and interflow
zones.
5. Piles should be designed so that the side slopes will not slump
during high intensity storms.
6. For piles with small mean grain sizes of the coal, high erosion
during intense storms along with the slumping of the pile slopes
can lead to significant bedload in the runoff stream.
7. Runoff containment systems should be designed to allow for
reducing the velocity of the runoff streams before water is
routed through conduits and other appurtenances. For Greenidge,
the removal of coal sediment from the collection system is a
normal O&M chore.
-170-
8. To aid in both the compaction of the coal and the reduction of
infiltration .zones, coal upon delivery should be well mixed (by
particle size).
9. Keeping an entire coal storage area slightly sloped will result
in only one drainage collection point instead of multiple
discharge points.
10. When rain water starts to infiltrate the surface of a coal pile
it does require a number of hours or days before the moisture
becomes evenly spread over a substantial layer of coal.
Therefore, if this wetted layer can be scrapped off the pile
immediately following a storm, the drier subsurface coal can be
exposed and reclaimed instead of the wetter, lower BTU surface
coal.
11. Coal that 1s well mixed with a large grain size distribution has
a great affinity to retain moisture. Therefore, wet coal that
is stored and buried ill a pile will tend to hold this moisture
until it is allowed to dry out on the surface or is burned.
Two particular research areas should be explored to expand the data banks
deT.reloped in this program. These involve more information on the drainage
coefficients and the seasonal pile evaporation rates. It appears, that the
larger the storm, the greater the drainage coefficient. Future large storms
with greater than one inch of rain in 24 hours should be monitored to expand
on the drainage coefficient data base. Also, it has been observed that in the
warm seasons when pan evaporation rates are high, pile evaporation can account
for a significant loss of water held in the piles from weak storms. Data on
pile evaporation rates for the fall, winter and early spring are needed to
complete the pile evaporation analysis.
New storage piles should be designed with either a piezometer, or one
moisture array permanently installed. Data from these instruments can help
collect long-term data on other piles to compare against the moisture changes
observed at Greenidge and Russell.
-171-
-172-
4.0 LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION METHOD DEVELOPMENT
A major question arising during the design of a coal pile drainage
treatment system is predicting the quality of the drainage? The strength of
the drainage, i.e., the acidity" sulfates and dissolved metals concentrations,
may vary with changes in coal source and type. The coal pile runoff modeling
and monitoring program discussed in previous sections has shown that coal pile
drainage water quality can be predicted with a certain amount of site specific
and coal specific information. A more direct technique to establish the
quality of the drainage by using a laboratory leachate generation technique
would be desirable. Standard leaching techniques fall into two categories:
batch procedures such as the EPA I s toxicity extraction procedure, and column
procedures. Batch extractions suffer from a number of drawbacks related
pr imarily to first-ion effects and solution equilibrium. Column tests, while
not having these problems, have limitations related to duration of testing and
the volume of the sample generated.
One testing approach which circumvents several of these draw backs is a
serial batch extraction test. (1) In this method controlled multiple
extractions are used to simulate leachate quality. TRC has used this
procedure in the past to simUlate fly ash leachate. (2) In this program the
objective was to evaluate the use of the serial batch test for simulation of
coal pile leachate. Specific goals were to identify those factors which
(1)
Houle, M.J., and D.E. Long. "Interpreting Results From
Extraction Tests of wastes and Soils." Proceedings.
Hazardous Waste Sixth Annual Research Symposium, u.s.
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1980.
Serial Batch
Disposal of
Environmental
(2) Villaume, J .F., B.C. Middlesworth, and D.F. unites. "Use of Batchwise
Extraction Procedure for Coal Ash Disposal Evaluation." ASTM SpeCial
Technical publication 760., 1982.
-173-
affected the reproducability of the procedure results and to determine how
accurately the procedure characterized actual field conditions.
For the tests a randomly collected composite sample of coal taken from the
surface of the Russell pile was used. Critical parameters for analysis were
various metals, pH, conductivity, total acidity, and total dissolved solids.
Results of the testing were compared to leachate concentrations as measured
during the field program.
4.1 Method Development and Procedures
The general extraction procedure selected for investigation was that
d esc r ibed by Houle and Long. (
l
) The procedure calls for the development of
a testing matrix where a volume of solid sample is extracted with a volume of
liquid. The solid is then extracted by a fresh volume of liquid and the
liquid is used to extract a fresh volume of solid. Houle and Long found the
method to be useful to predict the quality of leachate from solid waste. By
using the sampling matrix technique it was felt that a representative
"snapshot" of varying conditions in the coal pile could be obtained. As a
minimum it was felt that the sequence of repeated extractions of fresh coal
with the leachate would give a good estimate of "worst-case" leachate quality.
In the extraction procedure a number of variables must be controlled to
assure reproducability. Other parameters may be varied to affect the
representative nature of the simulation. These variables relate either to the
actual technique of the extraction procedure, the nature of the solid, or the
(1)
Houle, M.J., and D.E. Long. "Interpreting Results From
Extraction Tests of wastes and Soils. n Proceedings.
Hazardous waste Sixth Annual Research Symposium, U.S.
protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1980.
-174-
Serial Batch
Disposal of
Environmental
liquid being used to extract the solid.
Since there is no information
published regarding the use of batch wise extractions for coal, the testing
program had to consider each variable accordingly.
Several technique related factors were considered in the program. These
included:
Method of agitation
Solid: liquid ratios
Duration of extraction
Number of extractions
All of these factors were felt to primarily effect the representative nature
of the procedure and not the reproducibility. The solid:liquid ratio was not
varied in this program.
'rheonly significant variable with regard to the solid phase is the
particle size of the extracted sample. The wide range in particle size of
material on a cOcil pile can cause significant reproducibility difficulties
when the sample is split to the volume used for the testing.
Deionized water was used as the extractant throughout the program. It was
felt that prior pH adjustment as in the RCRA-EP procedure would not be
repre,sentative of field conditions.
4.1.1 Serial Batch Extraction Method Development
S,erial batch extractions have been used for a variety of wastes to
generate and characterize the leachate. In general, batch extractions involve
agitating a waste material mixed with water over a period of time sufficient
to .allow the waste constituents to reach an equilibrium concentration in the
water. Previous methods of agitation have varied from occasional manual
shaking to continuous mechanical stirring or shaking. Variation in ionic
concentrations from different extraction procedures are the result of
-175-
localized equilibrium conditions and particle abrasion. For relatively
friable coal the latter is probably of greater importance. The procedures
tested were:
1) Manual intermittent stirring
2) Mechanical continuous paddle stirring
3) Continuous end over end rotation in sealed containers
Manual intermittent stirring or shaking was used by Houle and Long (1) in
a study which evaluated serial batch extraction tests and their relationships
to the more traditional leached column tests. This study mentions the
tendency for abrasion of the waste if continuous mechanical stirring or
shaking is employed. The manual stirring method was investigated in this
program by placing three replicate water/coal samples (2:l milliliter to gram
ratiO) into an open beaker which was stirred for 5 minutes every two hours for
24 hours. Measurements of pH and conductivity were made at 2 and 18 hours
from the start of the test. At the conclusion of the extraction {24 hours}
the samples were filtered and analyzed for copper, manganese, cobalt, zinc and
cadmium. Results are presented in Table 4-1. This method produced the lowest
leachate concentration of the three agitation techniques tested probably due
to reduced mixing and abrasion during extraction.
'11 (2) .
V1 aume et al conducted a study to character1ze leachate generated
from fly ash uSing continuous paddle stirring to agitate the water/ash
sample. This method was tested on the Russell coal by measuring pH and
(l) Houle, M.J., and D.E. Long. "Interpreting Results From Serial Batch
Extraction Tests of Wastes and Soils." Proceedings. Disposal of
Hazardous Waste Sixth Annual Research Symposium, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1980.
(2) Villaume, J .F., B.C. Middlesworth, and D.F. Unites. "Use of Batchwise
Extraction Procedure for Coal Ash Disposal Evaluation. ft ASTM Special
Technical Publication 760, 1982.
-176-
TABLE 4-1
RESULTS FROM PRELIMINARY TESTING OF THREE EXTRACTION TECHNIQUES
Duration of Analysis of Leachate Generated
Extraction
pH conductivity Ni(l) Cull)
Extraction Technique hr. II mho II glm llglm
Manual Stir,
NM (2)
Intermittent 2 2.70 1333 NM
(Average of 3 replicates) 18 2.62 1623 NM NM
24 NM NM 0.58
Mechanical. Paddle Stir, 2 2.68 1600 NM NM
Continuous 18 2.64 1800 NM NM
(Average of 2 replicates) 24 NM NM 17.0 7.96
Rotating Enclosed(3)
2.75 2.29 3700 1.0 6.4
Co>ntinuous 21 2.07 4300 1.1 6.5
{Average of 2 replicates) 24 1.90 4150 1.1 6.6
(1) Only two metals are shown because all metals followed the same trend,
other metals and compounds analyzed: Fe, Co, Mn, AI, As, S042,.
(2) NM = Not measured.
(3) Sununarized from Table 4-3 Equilibrium Test Results.
-177-
conductivity after 2 and 18 hours of agitation. In addition, the filtrate was
analyzed for copper, manganese, cobalt, zinc and cadmium after 24 hours of
agitation. Two replicate extractions were performed and the averaged results
are presented in Table 4-1. Metal concentrations are 30 times greater using
the paddle stirrers compared with manual agitation most probably due to the
increased abrasion by direct contact of the rotatinq paddle with the coal
sample.
The third extraction technique chosen for preliminary testing was
developed by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and is described in an
article by the NBS (1) as a method which produces "minimum abrasion and
reproducible results". The procedure essentially rotates sealed jar s
(containing the water and waste) end over end at the rate of 29 revolutions
per minute. The leachate concentrations generated by the rotating box
technique are also presented in Table 4-1, and are comparable to the paddle
stirrer for pH and copper, but are less in nickel by a factor of six and
greater in conductivity by a factor of 2.
There is significant variability between each procedure. Manual stirring
was not used in subsequent tests because of the tendency for this method to
under estimate metals concentrations by a factor of 30 compared with both
mechanical continuous extraction techniques. Continuous paddle stirring was
not used due to its unreliable operation when left unattended for long
periods. In one case a paddle became disengaged from the drive mechanism
during an extraction which made the length of extraction time unknown. The
rotating enclosed container method became the accepted technique for this
study because of its reliability and acceptance by the NBS.
(1) Diamondstone, B.I., R.W. Burke, and E.L. Garner. National Bureau of
Standards. "Improved Leachate Measurements on Solid Wastes."
Standardization News. pp. 28-33, 1982.
-178-
4.1.2 Extraction Duration
Serial batch extraction tests vary in length of extraction time required
depending on the material being studied. The time required to reach
equilibrium, or the point at which no significant increase in metals,
conductivity or acidity occurs in the filtrate during extraction, is a
function of the pH, ionic strength, temperature, coal particle size, and
degree of agitation. To avoid unnecessary extraction time, equilibrium tests
were performed prior to the actual serial batch extraction series. TWo
equilibrium tests were performed and are described in Table 4-2.
TABLE 4-2
EQUILIBRIUM TEST CONDITIONS
Test Condition Test 1 Test 2
Number of replicate sets 2 (sets 1 and 2) 2 (sets 3 and 4)
Coal mass (gm) 300 600
Water volume (ml) 600 1200
Total extraction time (hr) 24 2
Number of samples(l)
5 4
Coal sample particle size As found in
pile (2)
~ . 0 8 inches
(1) Number of Samples taken at various times during the extraction period.
(2) See Table 4-7.
Test 1 was performed initially and the data in Table 4-3 show equilibrium
occurred for all parameters measured before the first sample was taken at 2
hours, 45 minutes. Test 2 was therefore performed to determine the exact time
of equilibration. Test 2 used coal which was sieved (or sorted) prior to
extra.ction to inVestigate what affect a more uniform coal sample would have on
method precision. Test 2 data show equilibrium took place during the first
half hour of extraction for all parameters measured. As a result of these
tests, two hours was considered a conservative extraction period and was
there:Eore used in all subsequent testing.
-179-
TABLE 4-3
EQUILIBRATION TEST-RUSSELL COAL SAMPLES
Elapsed Time Trace Cbemical Constituents
Since Ext.ract.ion Sample Conductivity Total
Began - Hours NumbelC pH Tfe Co Ni Mn Cu Al As S042 Acidity
TEST 1 - SET l!ll
0 1-1 2.52 IIMI21 iIM NM NM NIl 11M 11M NM NM NM
2.15 1-2 2.30 3500 780 0.5 1.1 11M 7.4 NM 11M 11M NM
4.75 1-] 2.11! 3900 780 11.5 1.1 11M 7.4 NM NM NM NM
21.0 1-4 2.08 4100 600 0.6 1.2 NM 7.6 NM NM tiM 11M
24.0 1-5 1.91 4000 780 0.6 1.2 11M 7.8 liM 11M 11M 11M
TEST 1 - SET 2
11
)
0 2-1 2.63 11M 11M 11M 11M 11M liM 11M NM 11M 11M
2.15 2-2 2.27 3800 800 11.4 0.9 11M 5.4 IlM IlM IlM 11M
4.75 2-3 2.16 4000 820 0.4 0.9 liM 5.6 11M NM 11M 11M
21.0 2-4 2.05 4500 900 0.4 1.0 11M 5.4 NM NM NM 'NM
8
24.0 2-5 1.8] 4300 900 0.5 100 11M 5.4 NIl NM NM 11M

0
TEST 2 - Set 3
(3
)
I
0.5 3-1 2.37 5000 18JO 1.11. 2.22 6.7 12.0 101 2.94 6280 5265
1.0 3-2 1.98 5200 1780 1.22 2.18 6.8 12.2 102 2.78 6700 5466
1.5 ]-]
1.96 5000 1775 JI. 24 2.25 6.6 12.1 101 2.51 6400 5521
2.0 ]-4 1.76 5400 1850 1.11 2.11 6.7 12.3 98 2.60 6340 5403
TEST 2 - Set
0.5 4-1 2.15 7800 1970 1.18 2.27 6.8 3.1 107 3.08 5680 5973
1.0 4-2 l.90 1500 1912 1.19 2.25 6.9 3.2 106 2.71 5920 6335
1.5 4-3 1.60 1600 1930 1.22 2.21 6.6 3.3 108 2.55 6040 6335
2.0 4-4 1.54 7600 1950 1.22 2.30 6.0 3.4 101 2.42 6160 6154
(1)
Sets 1 aod 2 used unaltered coal
(2)
NM - Not measured
(3)
Sets 3 and 4 used manually sieved coal with particle sizes incheso
4.1.3 Serial Batch Extraction Procedure
Serial batch extractions, as described by the previously mentioned study
by Houle and Long, are accelerated tests for the measurement of leachability
from wastes. They are an acceptable substitute for the more traditional and
time consuming continuously leached column method. In this procedure a two
dimensional batch extraction series generates leachate from:
1. Several volumes of fresh water leaching through one given sample
of coal, and
2. The same volume of fresh water leaching through a series of fresh
coal samples.
These tests produce leachates similar to that which could result from:
1. Several rain storms penetrating a top layer of coal on a coal
storage pile, and;
2. One rain storm penetrating several layers of coal in the pile.
'rhe procedure followed in this program is best described by Figure 4-1.
The vertical axis of the matrix represents four volumes of water through one
sample of coal and the horizontal axis represents one volume of water
penet:rating four segments (layers) of coal. The most concentrated leachate
will always occur along the horizontal axis where a single volume of water
passe,s through successi'.re batches of fresh coal. Since the concentration of
dissolved compounds in the leachate decreases as a function of the number of
extractions performed, the water/coal ratio along the verticle axis was
incre,ased with each successive extraction to accelerate the entire test. The
water/coal ratio was to be increased from 2 milliliters per gram (600 ml/300
gm) to 12 ml/gm (3600 ml/300 gm), however, the large water volumes would have
-181-
I
....
:0
" I
200 m'!
DEIONIZED
III KA II:. ...
HEW COAL A
FILTRATE -
600 ml 300 gm
I"
Al
300 ml
DE IONIZED
FILTRATE ...
\>I,l\TER FILTER
450 1111
CAKE
FILTRATE.
150 gm
J
A2
300 ml
DEIONIZED
FILTRATE ...
WATER
fILTER
FILTRATE
450 m(
CAKE
75 gill
II
A3
"
300 ml
DEIONIZED
FILTRATE.,.
WATER,
FILTER
CAKE
fILTRATE
450 IIIf
37.5 gm
A4
NOTf: Each box indicates a 2-hour
cual/water mixing period
followed by vacuum filtration.
NEW COAL B
100 gm

FILTER
CAKE
100 gm
Fll TER
CAKE
50 gm
FILTER
CAKE
25 gill
!-
50 ml
ILTRAT t
FILTRATE

B1
150 ml
FILTRATE
FILTRATE ....
82
. 150 ml
FILTRATE ...
FlL TRATE""
83
150 ml
FILTRATE ...
FILTRATE
I
B4
NEW COAL C
50 gill
J
FILTER
CAKE
50 gill
'J
fILTER
CAKE
25 gill
fILTER
CAKE
12.5 gill
50 1111
F
FILTRATE
,
C1
75 1111
FILTRATE
FILTRATE

C2
75 ml
FILTRATE_
FILTRATl
I
C3
75 ml
FILTRAT(,.
FILTRflTt:

(4
NEW COAL [) FILTRATE
259m -1
D]

FILTE.R fILTRATE
CAKE
25 gill
Dl
\
fILTER
FILTRATE
CAKE
12.5 grn
\
D 3
FILTER
fILTRATE
CAKE
6.25 gill
\,
[)4
figure 4-1. Flow chart for 4x4 serial batch extraction matrix,
exceeded the capacity of the extraction apparatus, so the filter cake was
halved after each extraction thereby reducing the required water volume by
half while ma.intaining the desired water to coal ratios. The filtrate from
each extraction was analyzed for iron, cobalt, nickel, manganese, copper,
aluminum, arsenic sulfates, total dissolved solids and total acidity.
4.2 Presentation of Data and Discussion of Results
Two extraction tests were performed and the testing conditions of each are
swrunarized in Table 4-4.
TABLE 4-4
EXTRACTION TEST CONDITIONS
Test Condition
Number of replicate series
performed
Number of coal batches
Number of extractions per batch
Matrix size
Liquid to coal ratio used
Coal used
Extraction time (hr)
Test 1
2 (sets 1 and 2)
4
4
4 x 4
2:1, 3:1, 6:1, 12:1
Unsieved
2
4.2.1 Presentation of Test Data
Test 2
2 (sets 3 and 4)
6
1
1 x 6
2:1 only
Sieved < .08 inches
2
Data from Tests 1 and 2 are presented in Tables 4-5 and 4-6 respectively.
Each sample has a three digit designation which describes the r.eplicate set
number I coal batch letter, and extraction number (the first extraction of
replicate Set 1 in Test 1, coal batch A, is numbered I-AI). Figure 4-1
. depicts the location of each sample in the 4 x 4 matrix of Test 11 Test 2
follows the same sequence.
-183-
TABLB 4-5
SERIAL BATCH ON RUSSBLL COAL SAMPLBS
Species Concent<ations in P9/g(1) and mg/1
121
Sample Dilution!) Fe Co Ni Mn Cu A1 As
number Liquid, SaUd (1) (2) !l) (2) III 121 (1) 121 III (2) III 121 III 121
!ill!..l.'
New Coal A
1-Al 2,1 250 125 0.50 D.25 0.42 3.6 1.8 0.50 0.25 35.2 17.6 .02 .01
1-A2 3.1 32.4 10.8 0.33 D.H 3.6 1.2
1-A3 6.1 7.8 1.3
I-M 12:1 0.1
New Coal B
1-81 2:1 414 237 0.86 11.4] 1.611 0.84 7.12 3.6 0.92 0.46 66.0 33.0 .06 .03
1-82 3,1 72 24 0.84 0.28 5.1 1.9
1-B3 6,1 31.2 5.2 0.36 0.06 5.4 0.9
I-B4 12,1 18 1.5
New Coal C
l-Cl 2,1 G80 340 2.28 1.14 3.34 1.67 11.2 5.6 1.32 0.66 93.8 46.9 .14 .01
l-C2 ).1 130 43.4 0.51 0.17 0.12 0.24 1.86 0.62 15.0 5.0
i-C) 6,1 64 10.6 0.66 0.11
l-C4 12,1 52 4.3
New Coal D
1-0! 2:1 936 469 2.38 1.19 3.62 1.81 12.6 6.3 1.54 0.17 115.2 51.6 0.3 .15
1-02 ),1 222 74 0.48 0.16 0.96 0.32 2.9 0.97
1-03 6,1 119 19.8 1.5 0.25
1-04 12,1 53 4.4 0.12 0.06
(1) trace metal concentrations were calculated as followss
volume of filtrate Iml!
metal concentration
weight of coal
0.45 0.15 21.6
5.4
1-19 t.race metal
gm of coal
(2) concentration of generated leachate U:t.lt.a:-ate) at specified dilution",
(3) Dilution ratio lIlicmitoi uo'lIl.uru,:o, 'mill1ilit-.o. ... ............. .... """" .. q", .. ,\
7.2
0.9
S042 TUS Acidity
(11 i2) III (2) (1) (2)
2180 1090 3354 1677 983 492
276 92 180 60 240 80
66 11.1 Not Measured (41 346 58
76.8 6.4 218 23
4066 2033 6272 3136 1824 912
420 140 873 291 322.5 108
222 31 324 54 217 46
120 10 278 23
5866 2433 9436 4718 Not Measured (4)
1590 530 2802 934 778 259
486 81 690 U5 750 125
384 32 996 83 1625 135
5932 2967 9908 Not Measured (4,
2970 990 4455 1485 1008 336
1020 170 1692 282 982 164
570 41.5 660 55 1625 .1.35
(continued) I
8ERIALBATCH EKTaACTIONS ON RUSSELL COAL SAMPLES
Species Concentrations 1n and mg/l(2)
Sample Oiluttcn(l) Fe Co Ijt Mn Co Al As
80
4
2
TOS
Solid III (2/ (1) (2! (11 (2) (1) (2) III (21 (I! (2! (II (2) (1) (2) III
..IlL

New Coal A
2-Al 2:.1 226 1103 0.52 0.26 O.Q8 0.44 3.54 1.77 0.94 0.47 29.8 14.9 .03 0.015 1660 830
2-A2 3:1 21.6 7.2 0.33 0.11 198 66
2-A3 6.1 15.0 2.5 132 22
2-M 12:1 6.0 0.5
New Coal B
2-81 2:1 594 297 1.12 0.56 1.98 0.99 8.48 4.24 1.4 0.70 65.4 32.7 0.14 0.07 Not Measured (4)
3:1 182 60.5 1.4 0.48 0.3 0.10 7.8 2.6 510 170
2-83 6,1 58.2 9.8 0.48 0.08 228 38
2-84 12:1 40.8 115 9.6
New Coal C
2-Cl 2,1 998 499 1.76 0.88 3.2 1.59 14.2 1.1 2.1 1.03 126 62.8 0.32 0.16 Not Measured (4)
2-C2 3.1 213 91 0.78 0.26 3.3 1.10 0.45 0.15 21 7.0 1920 640
2-C3 6,1 142 23.6 1.3 0.22 552 92
2-C4 12,1 96 8.0
New Coal D
2-1)1 2:1 1200 640 2.16 1.08 3.66 1.83 16.7 8.34 2.32 1.16 152 76 0.48 0.24 Not Measured(4)
2-02 3d 492 164 0.63 0.21 1.0 0.34 5.0 1.66 0.75 0.25 38.7 12.9
2-03
2-04
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
NOTE:
6:1 218 36 1.86 0.31 7.2
12:1 200 17 1.32 0.11
Normalized trace metal concentrations wece calculated as
{Trace metal concentration (1-1 g/ml)
volume of filtra'te \lnll
weight of coal
us t.race metal
gm of coal
Concentcation of generated leachate (filtrate) at specified dilution ..
Dilution ratio expressed as liquid 1I01ume (milliliters) to coal mass. /9m).
Not measured due to analysis problemso
Missing data due to non-detectable concentrations.
1.2 Not Measured(4,
Not Measured (4)
Not Measured (4)
Not Measured (4)
Not Measured (41
Not /oIeasuud (41
Not Measured (4)
Not Measured (4)
Not Measured (4)
Not Measured (4)
Not Measured(4)
Not Measured (4)
Not Measured(4)
Not Measured (4)
Not Measured (41
Not Measured(4,
Not Measured (41
Acidtty
(I! (2)
898 449
20U %
461 77
967 81
2465 1233
680 227
875 146
1520 127
3994 1997
1200 400
1544 257
3686 307
5202 2602
2212 737
2926 40U
11136 928
TABLE 4-6
SERIAL BATCH EXTRACTIONS ON SIEVED!l)
RUSSELL COAL SAMPLES
of Each ChemiOal Constituent !mgL11 (2)
Sample Dilution III
Number Liquid. SoUd Fe Co N1 loin Cu Ai As SO"4
2
Acidity

3M 2.1 iSS!) 1,17 2,ll 6,1 12,30 97,5 2,600 6340 5403
3D! 2.1 3665 2,25 3,95 12,9 B.l2 190.8 5.650 12650 11765
3CI 2,1 4060 2.49 4.35 14.4 14.65 215.5 4.940 11750 12218
3D1 2.1 4480 2,78 4.81 16,4 16.60 248,0 8.140 13475 12610
3E1 2.1 S020 3,17 5.M 18.9 18.90 282,0 6.890 15000 13847
3Ft 2.1 5090 3.23 5.61 19,8 19.10 286.0 9.720 14100 14028
.!IT....!.
4Al 2,1 1950 1,22 2.30 6.8 3.35 106.5 2,420 6160 6154
8 4B1 2.1 4090 2.36 4,36 13.5 4.95 204,0 6,010 11950 11946
I-'
4Cl 2.1 4510 2,68 4,96 15,3 7,50 226,5 1.050 12800
00
'"
401 2,1 4980 3,02 5.72 18,4 10,10 274.0 1.880 13925 14118
! 4El 2,1 5600 3,45 6,33 20,7 12.70 304.0 9,120 14775 15023
4Ft 2.1 5900 3.78 6.92 23,1 14,00 332,5 8,375 170:;0 16019
(1)
Coal particle size inches,
(2'
TO determine the normalized concentration in P9 trace metal per 9m coal, multiply by 2, the dilution ratio.
(3'
Ollution ratio expressed as liquid volUme (milliliters) to coal mass 19m),
All measured parameters in Table 4-5, Test 1, are presented both as the
mass (micrograms) of each chemical constituent extracted per gram of coal, and
as the mass (milligrams) extracted per volume (liters) of water. For example,
sample l-Al yielded 250 I1g iron per gm coal, or 125 mg iron per liter
water. Test 2 data is presented only as mg!l since the water:coal ratio for
all extractions was constant.
4.2.2 Results and Discussion
The data from each test was analyzed for the following:
1. Trace chemical leachate generation.
2. Method precision, i.e., reproducibility of each replicate set.
3. Method accuracy, i.e., the agreement of laboratory generated
leachate with actual field measured coal pile leachate.
The presence of iron oxidizing bacteria and its effect on
leachate generation.
4.2.2.1 Trace chemical Leachate Generation
J .. eachate generation can be observed by:
The increase in filtrate concentration with each successive coal
batch, a :measure of the leaching capacity of the water, and;
2:. The decrease in filtrate concentration with each successive
volume of' water, a measure of the leaching capacity of the coal.
i:T,estsl and 2 produced an increase in leachate concentration with each new
. coaJ:'batch and, no attenuation occurred with each batch. Figures
4-2 :: (Test 1), and 4-3 (Test 2) show the rate of increase of iron in the
fil'ttate with each successive coal .batch. Test 2 attempted to saturate the
-187-
-
"'-
en
E
Z
o
-
t-
<
a:
t-
Z
W
()
Z
o
(.)
z
o
a:
-
7 00
6 00
5 00
4 00
00
2 00
1 00
.,
,
I-

..
C'II
o

I-
Wu>
tI)
C'IIe

1-(1)
"""e

I-u>
en
W"t
tI)

""" 0

('II

... "'"
We.")
'I""
weJ)
en
........ (l)C'II
W
M
]1;
(l)C'II
-
"""
C'II
1-1.0
...
wC'II
tI)""
w .....

U)
C AL A COAL COAL C COAL o 0
Figure 4-2. A plot of iron concentration measured in the filtrate after one
extraction of four coal batches (coal A,B,C,D) using a 2:1 liquid
to coal ratio. Two test replicates and their mean value are
plotted.
10
10
Figure 4-3. A plot Of iron concentration measured in the filtrate after 1
extraction of six cealbatches (coal A,B,C,D,E,F} using a 2:1
liquid to coal ratio. Two test replicates and their mean
value are plotted. Sieved Russell coal was used.
filtrate by exposing it to two additional fresh coal batches. While a
leveling trend can be seen in Test 2, saturation was approximated but not
achieved. Additional coal samples were not run because the water volumes
needed to generate the additional leachate could not be handled by the
laboratory apparatus.
The leaching capacity of the coal was reached in Test 1 and is illustrated
by Figure 4-4. Four individual and progressively larger volumes of water
which were previously extracted with Coal A, B, and C (upper layers) were
extracted with Coal D. During the first extraction, Coal D produced its
highest quantity (148 mg) of sulfates (sulfate is used as an example) as
indicated by the area of the first extraction rectangle. Each successive
extraction shows the coal producing less leachate. Finally, extraction 4
produces the least amount of sulfates (27 mg). This analysis shows that four
extractions were adequate to produce maximum leaching of Russell coal.
4.2.2.2 precision of the Batch Extraction Tests
Test variables considered to be most influential in determining method
precision are:
1. Variation in coal particle size for unsieved samples.
2. Variation in the abrasion which occurs as a result of initial
coal particle size differences.
3. Coal weighing and filter cake halving technique (Test 1 only)
While a careful splitting procedure was used to obtain several homogeneous
coal samples from one large 25 pound field sample, variability in coal
particle size from sample to sample, as shown in Section 4.2.4, occurred.
-190-
d,
E
z
0
-
t-

a:
I-
z
W
I 0
Z
f-'
0
to
f-'
I
0
N
'v
0
U)
I I EXTRACTiON 1
2000
1500
1000
I I
,

EXTRACTION 2
500
EXTRACTION 3
EXTRACTION 4
100 200 300 400 500 600
CUMULATIVE WATER VOLUME, ml
Figure 4-4. Concentration of suHates versus the cumuiative volume of water as it
leaches coal sample D in set 1.
Test 1 used coal as it was sampled from the field while Test 2 was an attempt
to eliminate this variation by sieving the coal prior to extraction.
Method precision was determined by first comparing the replicate sets of
each test with one another. Test 1 was then compared to Test 2 to illustrate
which procedure (sieved or unsieved coal) produced the most comparable
replicates. Table 4-7 summarizes the analysis with the coefficient of
variation value used as a normalized standard deviation, allowing a comparison
of the two dissimilar sets of data. Of the seven parameters for which a
coefficient of variation was calculated, five were lower for Test 2 which
indicates the increased precision for Test 2, achieved by a more uniform coal
sample.
For Test 1 only, an additional variable affecting precision for
extractions 2 through 4 was the method for halving the filter cake prior to
each extraction (to avoid uSing large water quantities). The procedure
involved splitting the coal by sight and assuming the weight to be equally
halved for purposes of calculating liquid:solid ratios. While this procedure
was not used in the first extraction which provided the basis for comparision
to the field data and Test 2 results, subsequent extractions (2, 3 and 4) were
performed in this way. Inaccuracies in the actual filter cake weight will
tend to cause poor precision between these extractions.
4.2.2.3 Accuracy of the Batch Extraction Tests
A measure of the accuracy of the laboratory - generated results was made
by comparing them with the measured coal pile leachate concentrations at
Russell Station. Because the range of data was so wide for both the
laboratory and field measurements, a graphical comparision was judged most
-192-
TABLE 4-7
COMPARISON OF REPLICATE SETS
FROM TESTS 1 AND 2, COAL D, EXTRACTION 1
RE!Elicates Test 1 - Unsieved Coal
Standard Coefficient
Metal Set 1 Set 2 Mean Deviation of Variation(l) Set 3 Set 4 Mean Deviation
Fe 469 640 555 121 22 4480 4980 4730 354 8
Co 1.19 1.08 1.14 .08 7 2.78 3.02 2.90 0.17 6
Ni 1.81 1.83 1.82 .01 0.5 4.81 5.72 5.27 0.64 12
Mn 6.3 8.34 7.3 1.4 19 16.4 18.4 17.4 1.41 8
Cu 0.77 1.16 0.97 .28 29 16.6 10.1 13.4 4.6 34
I
I-'
Al 57.6 76 66.8 13.0 20 248 274 261 18.4 7 IJ)
w
I
As 0.15 0.24 0.20 .06 30 8.14 7.88 8.01 0.18 2
SO-2
4
2967 NM 13475 13925 13700 318 2
Total Acidity NM NM 12670 14118 13390 1024 8
(1)
standard deviation
Coefficient of Variation =
mean
x 100
useful in illustrating the differences. Figures 4-5 (Test 1) and 4-6 (Test 2)
illustrate the relationship between the two data sets. Each vertical line
represents the range and mean concentration measured in the field, relative to
the laboratory generated data which is represented by the single horizontal
line. The data points are actually the 109
10
of the ratios of each
concentration:
(
MaXimum, Minimum, or Mean Field Measured concentration) 10910
Mean Laboratory Concentration
The "mean laboratory concentration" is from the first extraction of coal batch
D (Test 1) and coal batch F (Te.st 2).
The illustration allows a comparision by showing how many times greater or
less than each field measured value is compared to each laboratory generated
value of the same chemical. For example, the mean nickel concentration of the
field measured leachate was approximately 1.3 times less than the mean nickel
concentration generated by serial batch extraction. The minimum field
measured concentration for nickel was 7 times less than the mean batch value.
Comparing Test 1 with Test 2 shows that one test under-predicts the
oxidized pyrite while the other test over-predicts.
Test differences which could have caused this discrepancy are:
1. Sieved versus unsieved coal samples in Test 2 versus Test 1.
Smaller coal particles provide a greater surface area of coal to
come in contact with the water, thus causing Test 2 to produce
more leachate than Test 1 during the same time period.
2. Iron oxidizing bacteria could enhance the leachability of coaL
The coal samples used for Tests 1 and 2 were collected at the
same time as part of the same composite sample, however, a period
of approximately 2 months elapsed between Test 1 and Test 2,
possibly allowing the iron oxidizing bacteria to produce more
oxidized pyrite in the Test 2 coal while in storage. Section
4.2.2.5 gives further discussion on tests conducted to
investigate the presence or absence of these bacteria in the coal
samples test.ed.
-194-
W
..J

o
en
o
,...
CJ
o
..J
IT

T t

t

11
41-
1.61-

-.-
..J
-11.2
-11.0
.... 8'
.... 6
-1.4
.... 2
UJ
..J
1
1.61-

o
en
, I/"I I I I 1
a;
-1-.2
41-
101-
'MEAN EXTRACTION
EACH VALUE CALCULATED AS fOLLOWS:
MAX. OR MIN. DRY DAY CONC.)
"MEAN EXTRACTION CONCENTRATION
LOG 10
MEAN -f 1 RANGE
UJ
-1-.4 Z
-
..J
-1-.6
"'-.8
-1-1.0
I j-12
25'1 I I I I I I I _-1:4
I 84-
2
As AI . Mn Ni Co Fe
TDS TOTAL
ACIDITY
FigurA L1_1';
.... T "-'.
TRACE METALS
Comparison of coal pile leachate metals concentration to mean serial
batch extraction metals leachate concentration - unsieved coal.
I
,...
lO
Cl'I
I
25 I i 1.4
W
..J
101-
4 ...

o
(/) 1.6'"
MEAN
EXTRACTION
'iii
EACH VALUE CALCULATED AS fOLLOWS:
[MEAN. MAX. OR MIN. LEACHATE C O N C ~
~ MEAN EXTRACTION CONCENTRATION ~
MEAN-t 1 RANGE
,..
o
11 9 Y A
(!)
o
..J
1.6 I-
41-
101-
25 a-
J. .-1. .1.
I 80-
2
TOTAL 4
As.
ACIDITY
. Q.
\
_1 8 .1 i
AL ell Mn Ni Co Fe
TRACE MET A l S ~
-11.2
lOGlO -f 1.0
-1.8
-1.6
-
-I .2
-I -.2
-i -.4
-f -.6
... -.8
-I -1.0
-f -1.2
... -1.4
4.2.2.4 Coal particle Size
Both the precision and accuracy of the batch extraction technique is
affected by the coal particle size. Sieve analyses were conducted on ten
samples of coal during the Russell field measurement program in order to
determine actual variability of particle size in the pile. The mean particle
size (050) and the uniformity coefficient (C
u
) are presented in Table
4-8. Sieve analyses were performed on the batch extraction coal samples both
before and after extraction took place and are also presented as 050 and
C in Table 4-8.
u
The large range of 050 values from .075 to .460 inches, and the extreme
high values of C (5.2 to 53) indicated a wide range of particle sizes.
u
This variability hampers method precision and requires a larger number of
extraction tests to obtain statistically representative and reproducible
data. The coefficient of uniformity is a measure of the particle size range;
a large value indicates high particle size variation. The most uniform coal
measurements were obtained from. the post-extraction samples, (C = 5.2 to
u
16.8) giving evidence of abrasion which may.be occurring as a result of the
extraction agitation.
'rest 2, as explained in Section 4.2.2.3, attempts to eliminate the coal
affects of coal particle size Ilariability by pre-sieving the coal to < .08
inches in diameter.
4.2.2.5 Bacterial Mediation In Leachate Formation
'I'hiobacillus ferrooxidans is an acidophilic chemoautotrophic bacterium
commonly isolated from coal pile and coal mine drainages. These bacteria have
the ability to oxidize ferrous to ferric iron, and consequently, they often
act as catalysts in the leachate formation steps. The following equations
-197-
TABLE 4-8
COAL SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM THE RUSSELL FIELD PROGRAM AND
LABORATORY BATCH EXTRACTION TESTS
Coal Sample Description
D50
Coal A Set 1 Filter cake from extraction "Set 1", FM .245
Coal A Set 2 Filter cake from extraction "Set 2", FM .460
Coal A Set 3 Filter cake from extraction "Set 3", FAl .210
Coal B Set 1 Filter cake from extraction "Set 1", FB4 .220
Coal B Set 2 Filter cake from extraction "Set 2", FB4 .195
Mean of 5 Samples .270
Standard Deviation .110
Coal C Set 1 Unextracted coal, Set A .190
Coal C Set 2 Unextracted coal, Set B .260
Mean of 2 Samples .230
01 Samples taken during Russell 0195
Field Program
02 Samples taken during Russell .125
Field Program
Field Program
Field Program
,05 Samples taken during Russell .075
Field Program
Field Program
Field Program
Field Program
09 Samples taken dur ing Russell .190
Field Program
10 Samples taken dur ing Russell .086
Field Program
Mean of 10 Samples
.190
Standard Deviation
.120
-198-
8.79
10.4
16 . 8
5.2
10.2
20.4
21.8
34
27
18
25
28
38
53
48
13
28
depict the formation cycle, which is initiated by the oxidation of the iron
ore pyrite, upon exposure to the atmosphere and mOisture; (1)
7
FeS + - 0 + H
2
0
2 2 2
pyrite
+2 1 +
Fe + 4" O
2
+- H
ferrous
pyrite ferric
ferrous
15 Fe+
2
+ SO -2 + 16 H+
4
ferrous
It has been postulated that these bacteria directly oxidize the pyrite
(Step 1) and also propagate the cycle by oxidizing ferrous iron (Step 2). The
pH of the leachate from a coal storage site is characteristically very low,
due to the large quantities of hydrogen ions generated in the above cycle.
Because these bacteria are acid-tolerant, they can survive at these low PH's
associated with the leachate.
The oxidation of pyrite and particularly ferrous iron takes place at a
fairly fast reaction rate at neutral pHS. However, at low pH values, or those
similar to coal leachates, the oxidation rates are very low and can be
considered insignificant. When the bacteria are present in the acidic
leachate, the ;'xidation rates are greatly increased. Therefore, the presence
of the bacteria in a pile or leachate can lead to substantial increases in
ferrous iron, ferric iron, and sulfate.
Iriattempts to determine if Thiobacillus ferrooxidans were present in the
Russell coal or leachate used for the extraction tests, an experiment was
(1) Singer, P .G., and W. Stumm, 1970, n Acidic Mine Drainage: The Rate
Determining Step." Science. 167:1121-23.
-199-
designed to isolate the bacteria. Tuovinen and Kelly(l) suggest an aqueous
ferrous sulfate media for the culturing of these bacteria. Therefore, in the
TRC laboratory two liters of this media were prepared, which consisted of
potassium phosphate, magnesium sulfate, ammonium sulfate, and ferrous
sulfate. The solution was acidified with sulfuric acid to achieve an initial
pH of approximately 1.3, and the media's color was greenish blue, due to the
high ferrous sulfate concentration. The sterile solution was divided between
several Erlenmeyer flasks, two of which were innoculated with 10 milliliters
of coal pile leachate. (This leachate had been generated by extracting coal
with deionized water, in a 2 volume of water to 1 weight of coal ratio, for
two hours in a shaker apparatus). The innoculated flasks were then placed on
a shaker table and allowed to incubate for a period of several weeks.
After approximately one week, a faint yellow color was apparent in the
flask with 1 gram of coal; and a darker yellow color was observed in the 5
gram coal flask. This yellow color is indicative of the presence of ferric
iron, the oxidized state of ferrous. Solubility of the ferric iron was
exceeded after about 2 weeks, when precipitation of ferric hydroxides began to
occur. The media innoculated with the leachate also turned to yellow.
Because chemical oxidation of ferrous iron is insignificant in the acidic pH
range it was inferred that bacteria were present and responsible for the
ferrous iron oxidation.
Finally, new sterile media was made up and innoculated with 10 and 25 ml
of the spent media. After two days, it was apparent that significant
oxidation of the ferrous iron was taking place, due to color changes.
(1) Tuovinen, O.H., and D.P. Kelly, 1973. "Studies on the Growth of
Thiobacillus ferrooxidans I. Use of Membrane Filters to Determine Viable
Numbers and Comparison with C ~ Fixation and Iron Oxidations as
Measures of Growth." Archives of Microbiology. 88:285-98.
-200-
It can be inferred from these simple experiments that bacteria are present
in the moist coal fragments and in the leachate generated in the lab. The
first group of cultures required several weeks for significant oxidation, most
likely due to the small numbers of bacteria and to the traditional lag time in
the bacterial growth cycle. However, in the second group of experiments in
which innoculation was done with a concentrated culture, bacterial growth, and
subsequent oxidation, was much more rapid. The results of these experiments
suggest the presence of bacteria in the Russell pile. If this is the case,
the bacteria are most likely responsible for increasing the leaching rates of
the coal, resulting in higher sulfate and iron concentrations.
4.3 Applicability to Model
Laboratory characterization of leachate can be used to verify model
simulation of leachate loadings when adequate flow data exists.
The model simulates a total loading transfer of acid and trace metals to
ground water storage. The laboratory extraction procedure produces a leachate
concentration for these parameters. By determining the amount of mOisture
actually lost to ground water storage, laboratory concentration data can be
converted to loadings for comparison purposes.
There was one limitation at the Russell site preventing a direct
compar ison of loadings in this study. There were no consistent trends in
ground water well levels to accurately portray flow rates to ground water
storage .from the pile.
Currently, the model only prints acid loading transfers to ground water in
order to maintain a brief output. However, the model is structured so that
additional language can be added to printout the ground water loadings of all
eight trace metals simulated.
-201-
4.4 COnclusions and Recommendations
The serial batch extraction procedure may be useful in predicting coal
pile leachate characteristics. Based on this laboratory method development,
the following conclusions can be made:
1. Coal particle size uniformity is preportional to method
and presieving replicate samples is important to achieve
reproducible results.
2. Mean coal particle size is proportional to the total leachate
generated due to increased coal surface area exposure to the
extraction liquid with a smaller mean particle size sample.
3. An equilibration time of two hours is adequate for sieved or
unsieved coal samples.
4. End over end rotation of a sealed container is the most reliable
and consistent means of liquid/coal agitation of the three
methods tested.
5. One extraction of 4 to 6 coal batches is adequate in generating a
representative leachate.
6. The accuracy of laboratory generated leachate is affected by the
age of the coal sample due to biological activity in the coal.
Based on these conclusions, the following recommendations are made:
1. Use the horizontal axis of the batch extraction to predict coal
pile leachate. At least 6 extractions should be used.
2. Coal should be screened to uniform size before performing batch
extractions.
3. Biological growth must be controlled perhaps by innoculation or
sterilization.
4. Continue efforts to compare laboratory leachate to field leachate
and adapt the coal pile drainage model to accept laboratory data.
-202-
APPENDIX A
MODEL DESCRIPTION
A.I Hydraulic Model
The coal pile drainage model regards the pile as a small unvegetated
watershed with one main slope and one discharge point. The pile is divided
into various zones - the surface, the lower zone or interior of pile, and a
saturated lens at the base of the pile.
The model simulates precipitation and the water balance between these
zones and the runoff stream. If the pile contains more than one discharge
point, fractional portions of the coal pile or runoff basins are simulated.
Below are described the key equations which simulate the hydraulic balance.
These equations are in a Fortran programming format and are not strict
mathematical relationships. Figure 2-3 in Section 2.2 shows the nature of
this hydraulic balance.
A.I.I Surface of pile
The surface of the pile is the thin layer of compacted coal which is in
contact with the atmosphere. The surface.contains small voids and depressions
which must be filled with water before surface runoff begins.
Liquid preCipitation (or snowmelt) impacts the surface of the pile during
each stated time interval. Some of the precipitation infiltrates the pile and
some runs off.
The capacity at the pile surface to hold water is related to the
compaction of coal and the void space, between the coal particles. This
capacity fills during precipitation. Below is shown how the current surface
moisture is calculated.
UZS
'"
uzs + PR - P4 Eq. A-I
uzs
'"
current depression storage (in)
PR
'"
current rainfall (in)
P4
=
residual rainfall not retained at pile surface (in)
A - I
where:
P4 = PR * PRE
PRE = fraction of incoming moisture not retained
at surface
Eq. A-2
Parameter PRE, the moisture which percolates to the pile interior, is
related to the ratio of surface storage, UZS, and surface storage capacity,
UZSN, as calculated below:
PRE = (1.0/(1. +
UZIUZI Eq. A-3
where:
2. * r U ~ : : -ll +l
UZI =
UZI = surface depression storage capacity (in)
Eq. A-4
If the surface storage of moisture, UZS, is greater than the storage
capacity, UZSN, then PRE = I-PRE or inversely more moisture will infiltrate
through the surface.
Surface runoff is a function of both the supply of excess moisture above
the depression storage and the time for this moisture to travel to the
discharge point. The surface flow equations are based on turbulent range
hydraulics, including the Chezy-Manning Equation. Surface flow is calculated
using Equation A-5.
ROS = FRAC * SRC * (RES + RX) * 0.5)1.67) Eq. A-5
where:
ROS =
FRAC s
SRC =
RES =
RX =
DE =
* 1.0 + 0.6 * RES + RX)/(2.0 * DE3)1.67)
current overland flow reaching discharge point (in)
time interval of model (hr)
fraction of surface runoff reaching discharge point
carryover pile surface flow storage (in)
current direct runof.f (in)
(See equation A-7)
A - 2
SRC, the fraction of the r.unoff reaching the discharge pOint each time
interval is related to pile slope, the Manning roughness coefficient, and flow
path length as follows:
SRC
1020.
*'VsS
= Eq. A-6
NN
* L
where:
SS = pile slope (as decimal)
NN
=
Manning coefficient
L
=
mean flow path length (ft)
The depth of surface detention in the runoff flow is also related to
slope, path length, and surface roughness and is calculated using either
Equation A ~ 7 or A-S.
DE
=
DEC *
(RX - RES)0.6 Eq. A-7
where:
DEC = surface flow time index for RX - RES >

or
RES + RX
DE = for ax - RES <

2
Eq. A-S
where:
DEC
=
0.009S2
*
(NN * L/ffs> 0.6 Eq. A-9
Both RX (current runoff) and RES (carryover runoff) at the origin are
calculated from moisture which does not infiltrate the pile, as described
A.l.2 Interior of the Coal Pile
As noted in Equation A-2, P4 is the incoming moisture not retained in the
surface storage. The total infiltrated moisture includes the delayed
A - 3
infiltration of runoff, RES, which didn't flow away from the origin during the
last time interval, as shown in Equation A-lO.
P4 = P4 + RES
The infiltration rate is calculated as follows:
where:
D4F = FRAC * CB
D4F = peak infiltration per time interval (in)
CB = peak infiltration index (in)
Eq. A-IO
Eq. A-ll
Current surface runoff, RX, is inversely proportional to the moisture
which infiltrates the surface and is calculated using Equation A-l2.
where:
1
-- *
2
RX ".
D4F
P4 * ~ *-L
D4F 2
average infiltration rate
Eq. A-12
However, if the incoming moisture is greater than the infiltration rate,
then Equation A-l3 is used.
RX =
1
P4 - -2- D4F Eg. A-l3
The amount of water entering the interior of the pile equals F3, the
incoming moisture minus surface runoff as calculated below:
F3 = P4 - RX Eq. A-14
The value F3 is added to moisture previously in the interior of the pile.
Some of this moisture exits the pile before it percolates to the base. This
is called interflow. Tnterflow, as well as surface runoff and seepage from
the base of pile, make up the total runoff volume.
A - 4
Interflow recedes at the end of the storm in an exponential manner as
described by Equations A-IS, A-16 and A-17.
LZS
=
LZS + F3
Eq. A-IS
INTF
=
LIRC4 * LZS Eq. A-16
where.:
INTF
::
current interflow (in)
LIRC4
=
exponential inter flow recession constant
LZS
::
current interior moisture (in)
LZS
::
LZS - INTF Eq. A-17
Some of the interior moisture percolates to a saturated lens, SGW, at the
base of the pile. This lens feeds a seepage stream. GWF, which occurs in both
dry and wet weather as described in the following series of equations.
Fl *
D4F
::
LZS
2
Eq. A-IS
where:
FI increment to saturated lens (in)
::
SGW
::
S G ~ T + FI Eq. A-19
SGW :: SGW * (1-K24L) Eq. A-20
where:
SGW :: mOisture storage in lens (in)
K24L :: fraction of moisture lost to deep storage
The seepage stream, GWF, also recedes in an exponential manner.
GWF = sew * LKK4 Eq. A-2l
where:
GWF = seepage flow (in)
LKK4 = seepage exponential recession constant
SGW :: SGW - GWF Eg. A-22
A - S
During non-rainfall periods, the surface of the coal pile is also
draining. However, it is assumed that it drains at its peak infiltration
index and is proportional to the amount of depression storage as shown in the
following equation:
RECE = CB * UZS Eq. A-23
where:
RECE = infiltration rate (in/hr)
The interior of the pile drains to the saturated lens at the peak rate,
D4F, which is used to calculate Fl as follows:
Fl = LZS * D4F Eq. A-24
A.l.3 Snowfall and Snowmelt
Snow and sleet on the coal pile is measured by its water equivalent depth
and is accumulated in a snowpack. For each hour when snow is being simulated,
the model uses the given hourly air temperature and a melt factor to estimate
the amount of snowmelt. This snowmelt is subtracted from the snowpack and is
treated as incoming precipitation using the following equation:
SMELT
= RMELT *
(TEMPH (I,.1) - 32.) Eq. A-25
where:
SMELT
=
snowmelt (in)
TEMPH = air temperature ( ~ )
RMELT = melting constant
A.l.4 Erosion of Coal Solids
The model uses the Foster-Meyer Equation to simulate the gully erosion of
coal solids. Erosion is sensitive to rainfall intensity, depth of flow, pile
slope, and several erosion coefficients as shown in the following series of
equations.
A - 6
GFXW = TRANSK * Cl * (1.-( (1.-L * (SOILK/TRANSK * Eq. A-26
( (PR/12.) ** 2.0)/Cl/L * DETACH/TRANSK) *
EXDEC)
where:
GFXW = lbs of eroded coal solids per foot width of gully
TRANSK = transport capacity coefficient
50ILK = coal surface constant
DETACH = detachment coefficient
EXDEC = l.-EXP (-L * DETACH/TRANSK)
Eq. A-27
Cl = (YDEPTH * 5S) ** 1.5 Eq. A-28
EXDEC and Cl are only intermediate variables with no physical meaning.
The average depth of flow on the pile surface, YDEPTH, is calculated as
follows:
YDEPTH
= RES + RX)/(24. * L * (1. + 0.6 * Eq. A-29
RES + RX)/(24. * DE ** 3.0)
where:
PR = rainfall intensity(in/time interval)
L
=
slope length (feet)
5S
=
pile slope
A.l.S Evaporation
During the supplemental program, TRC used both pan evaporation
measurements and in-pile evaporation measurements to determine a relationship
between these two parameters at the Greenidge and Russell sites (see
Appendix Bl. From this work, TRC developed the following linear algorithm:
Cumulative Pile
Evaporation (in)
=
0.293 * Cumulative Pan
Evaporation (in) + 0.177
Eq. A-30
An option to .consider the impact of pile evaporation on pile moisture was
added to the mOdel. The model reads a data input of daily pan evaporation for
each day of the selected simulation period. The pan evaporation is
A - 7
accumulated and the cumulative pile evaporation is calculated from Equation
A-30. The daily pile evaporation is subtracted from the surface moisture. If
pile evaporation exceeds surface moisture, the remainder is subtracted from
the interior of the pile.
A.2 Development of Qualitative Model
The qualitative co-model for coal pile drainage simulates pyrite oxidation
at the surface of the coal pile and the movements of the products of oxidation
through the pile during wet weather. The qualitative model uses the water
balance simulated by the hydraulic model. It is a mass balance that creates
acid and dissolved materials, moves it into zones of the pile, and then to the
pile drainage stream.
A.2.l Pyrite Oxidation
pyrite oxidation is the reaction of pyrite, especially framboidal pyrite
in the coal with atmospheric oxygen and water to produce acidity. It occurs
during non-storm periods and is described in the model by the following
equations:
where:
AMTPY = PERPY * DENCOL * DEPTH * AREA * 43560
AMTPY
PERPY
DENCOL
AREA
DEPTH
= framboidal pyrite in coal (lbs)
= percentage framboidal pyrite in coal
= density of coal in surface of pile (lbs/ft
3
)
= area of pile (acres)
= depth of reactive surface (feet)
Eq. A-31
The amount of framboidal pyrite is used to calculate AMTACI, the acidity
produced per dry day.
where:
AMTACI = . ~ P Y * RATEPY * TIMEl/24 Eq. A-32
= rate of pyrite oxidation per day ( /day) RATEPY
TIMEl = dry day computational time interval (hrs/time interval)
A - 8
The acidity produced by pyrite oxidation dissolves trace elements in the coal
and puts them in a mobile state, TMDIS(K}, to be washed away during
precipitation, as shown below. Initially, the amount of trace element in the
pile is calculated as follows:
AM.TTM (K) = PERTM (K) * DENCOL * AREA * 43560 * H Eq. A-33
where:
AMTTM(K}
,.
amount of trace element (K) in pile, lbs
PERTM(K)
-
% of trace element (K) in coal
H
=
average height of pile, ft
TMDIS(K}
::
AMTACD * FACTM(K) Eq. A-34
whe.re:
TMDIS (K)
=
amount of trace element (K) dissolved per dry
day interval (lbs/interval)
AMTACD = AMTACI corrected to ambient temperature
FACTM(K) = trace element dissolving factor/lbs acid
TMDIS(K) must be less than the supply, AMTTM(K).
In the case of iron and suI-fur, the primary components of pyrite, the
amOunts of dissolved iron and sulfates produced by pyrite oxidation is
detel:mined by the chemical reaction:
+3 +2
2 FeS
2
+ 3.75 02 + 14 F'e + 11.5 H
2
0-IS Fe + Fe (OH) 3
-2 +
+ 4 S04 + 20H
Using the ratios of the mass of sulfates and iron produced to the mass of
+
acidity (H), the values of FACTM are assigned for these two parameters
using the following equations:
SULDIS = 19.2 * AMTACD Eq. A-35
TFEDIS
=
42 * AMTACD Eq. A-36
where:
SULDIS = amount of dissolved sulfates (lbs) produced per 10
acid
TFEDIS = amount of dissolved iron (lbs) produced per Ib acid
A - 9
The total amount of acid and dissolved materials produced is totaled for
sequential dry days. A dry day is defined as a day having less than the
arbitrary limit of 0.1 inches of precipitation.
A.2.2 Movement of Materials Through pile
AS precipitation impacts the coal pile, it moves the acid and dissolved
materials from the surface to various zones of the p i l e ~ the direct runoff
zone, the surface zone, and the interior zone. Initially, the acid that is
produced by pyrite oxidation is added to the acidity of the precipitation.
ACRAIN = RAINCO * PR * AREA * 0.226 Eq. A-37
where:
ACRAIN
'"
acidity in rainfall (lbs/time interval)
RAINCQ
::
acidity in rainfall (mg/l)
PR
::
current rainfall (in/time interval)
From the zones, the materials are moved out of the pile into the drainage
stream. Below is the equation for the movement of acidity to the direct
runoff zone.
ACDDIR
::
FACDIR ..,
(OVFLST/FLW) .., TAMTAC
Eq. A-38
where:
ACDDIR
'"
amount of acid directed to direct runoff zone (lbs)
FACDIR = zone movement coefficient for direct runoff
OVFLST = flow to direct runoff zone (in)
FLW
'"'
total flow to zones (in)
TAMTAC
'"
amount of acid produced (lbs)
The parameter OVFLST is an output from the hydraulic model.
Other zones, such as the pile interior and other materials are described
in similar equations. Sulfates, iron, and trace metals also have a solubility
factor to regulate the amount of dissolved materials moved through the pile.
There are two options in the model for washing acid and other materials
out of the pile zones into the runoff stream, depending on what has been
A - 10
observed. The washout can be exponential with more materials washed out with
the initial precipitation, regardless of flow.
This is a "first flush"
effect. The washouts of the pile can also be described in a linear manner,
fluctuating only with runoff flow. Option 1 is shown in Equation A-39, while
Option 2 is shown in Equation A-40.
where:
where:
AREDIR = (EXADIR + EXAUZ) * WASHA
AREDIR
=
acid in direct runoff (lbs)
EXADIR
=
total acid, ACDDIR, stored in direct
EXAUZ = total acid, ACDUZ, stored in surface
WASHA
=
exponential washoff factor for acid,
AREDIR
=
(DIRRNF/TOTFLW)
* EXADIR * FACRED
AREDIR = acid in direct runoff stream (lbs)
DIRRNF = direct runoff stream (in)
TOTFLW = total runoff stream (in)
FACRED = direct runoff coefficient
Eg. A-39
runoff zone
storage
e-
Kt
Eg. A-40
Sulfates, iron, and other materials enter direct runoff and the inter flow
and lleepage streams in a similar manner.
The model output prints the total acid, iron, -sulfate, and other materials
loadi.ngs in the runoff stream for each day.
In addition to the runoff stream, materials are drained away from unlined
piles to ground water storage. The amount of materials, such as acid, going
to this storage is proportional to the volume of water draining from the pile
to ground water stor.age. This parameter is from the hydraulic model and is
described by Equation A-41:
AREDSR
=
EXALZ * RK24L * FACRDS Eg. A-41
where:
AREDSR
=
acid directed to deep storage (lbs)
EXALZ = acid stored in interior of pile (lbs)
RK24L
=
fraction of mOisture in saturated lens
going to deep storage
FACRDS
=
deep storage coefficient
A - 11
The model also has the option to simulate the impact of alternating
freezing-thawing of the coal pile on increased surface area of coal and
subsequent increase in the pyrite oxidation rate. The model compares the
average daily temperature on subsequent days and counts the number of
alternate freeze-thaw days. The freeze-thaw count, adjusted by a coefficient
is used to accelerate the rate of acid production and production of dissolved
metals, iron, and sulfates.
A - 12
APPENDIX B
SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
This section provides a detailed description of the field sampling program.
B.l Continuous On-Site Measurements
Much of the data generated during this study was collected Ilsing
continuous analog strip chart, drum and paper tape recorders. The parameters
monitored in this manner included:
l} Drainage flow
2) Drainage pH
3) Drainage conductivity
4) Drainage temperature (at Greenidge only)
5) Air temperature
6) Relative humidity
7) Precipitation
8) Pan evaporation
Each recorder was checked on a daily basis by the on-site technician and a
performance check was recorded on a data sheet entitled "Daily Equipment
Status Check List." A copy of this check list is found in Appendix E and it
includes checks on battery condition, chart paper, timing, ink supply,
damage/repair and overall performance. Calibrations were perform.ed in the
fieldon all these instruments and system adjustments were made directly on
the recorder charts.
A.ll the original data records for this project are filed according to site
and parameter. The specific technique for measuring each parameter at the two
sites is detailed below.
B.l.l Drainage Flow
There are considera.ble differences in the coal pile drainage system
between the Greenidge and Russell coal piles, therefore the method of
measuring drainage flows was considerably different.
B - 1
At Greenidge, all of the coal pile drainage, discharges through a screened
gate into a catch basin and then through underground piping to the treatment
plant. Refer to Figure 3-1 for a layout of the Greenidge pile and drainage
system. To measure drainage flow a fiberglass 'H' flume with wing walls was
installed in the fixture which held the screened gate. Flows through the 'H'
flume were measured by head height changes observed on a stilling well
attached to the flume. An ISCO bubbler type flow meter was used to sense and
record flow. Details on the 'H' flume and associated instrumentation are
found in Section B.9.1.
At Russell, the drainage system is comprised of a concrete 'V' channel
which surrounds approximately 80 percent of the coal pile. Refer to Figure
3-2. Surface runoff enters this 'V' channel and discharges into one of two
pump lift stations and then through underground piping to the treatment
plant. The Russell coal pile is not lined, therefore only a percentage of the
drainage from the pile enters the collection channels.
During March, preliminary to the field monitoring, Rochester Gas &
Electric constructed a compact ash/gravel/concrete berm around the 20 percent
of the pile which was not served by the 'V' channel. The purpose of this berm
was to hold and direct drainage not previously contained from the coal pile
into one of the two pump lift stations.
Since each pump lift station was served by two drainage channels, total
flow from the Russell pile could only be measured by summing flows at 4
points. The drainage channels were designated 1 through 4. Referring to
Figure 3-2, channels 1 and 4 were actually the same channel but a high point
near the southern end of the pile allowed the flow to move in opposite
directions to separate lift stations. The technique used to measure flow was
B-2
the placement of 4 PVC stilling wells on each 'V' channel emptying into the
lift stations. Each stilling well was instrumented with its own flow meter as
detailed in Section B.lO.l.
B.l.2 pH, Conductivity and Temperature
Besides drainage flow, continuous monitoring of pH, conductivity and
temperature was performed. Temperature was initially selected as a runoff
parameter to determine if coal pile seepage from the interior of the pile may
haVE! elevated the drainage water temperature due to the exothermic reactions
of pyrite oxidation. It was quickly determined that coal pile drainage
temperatures were essentially the same as atmospheric temperatures and no
heated water was observed. Therefore, drainage temperature data was only
collected at Greenidge in the fall of 1981 and omitted from the monitoring at
Russell.
At Greenidge, the pH was monitored using a Great Lakes Instrument Model 77
portable pH recorder with a Model 60 differential electrode probe. The probe
was ill\lllersed in a probe bucket (see Figure B-1) that was designed to have a
continuous flow from the flume discharge. The 2" x 6" funnel board was not
fixed in place but was movable by positioning and clamping it to side rails
bolted to the edge of the c'oncrete catch basin. This allowed a flexibility in
catching different flows from the 'H' flume.
Conductivities were monitored using a Great Lakes Instrument Model A-72
conductivity analyzer with a Number 31213 submersion probe. The cell was
in the probe bucket. The output from the conductivity analyzer was
recorded on an Esterline Angus 3-channel Miniservo Recorder Model MS413.
Temperature data was collected from a YSI Model 43TD Telethermometer which
was also outputted to the 3-channel recorder. All recorders were housed in a
B-3
H FLUME
T
1 FOOT
1
,..,. __ . PLASTIC
OU. FUNNEL
2"'x6'"
FUNNEL
SUPPORT
BOARD
1"" POLYETHYLENE
TUBING
f
:2 FEET
1
....... --1 GALL 0 N PV CPA
ELBOW (PVC)
CATCH BASIN FLOOR
Figure B-1. Probe bucket for pH, temperature and conductivity
sensors..
B - 4
10' X 6' aluminum instrument shelter loCated adjacent to the discharge basin.
At Russell the instrument shelter was located adjacent to Channel 4.
Weekly calibrations during dry weather periods and post-storm calibrations
were performed on these three monitoring systems. A record of these
calibrations was maintained in the "Daily Equipment Status Check List" and the
site log. For the pH system, the probe was first rinsed in distilled water
and placed in 7.0 pH buffer, rinsed and placed in a 4.0 pH buffer, then rinsed
and placed in a 2.0 pH buffer. The strip chart was then marked at each of
the:se buffer points to indicate any shift in calibration since the previous
calibration. This represented an "end of period" calibration point. If a
shift was noted then the pH meter was adjusted and a "beginning of period"
calibration was performed using the three buffers. For coal pile drainage any
probe immersed in the low pH water for any length of time will undergo a
steady buildUp of iron oxide. Frequent cleaning of the pH probe by either
ultrasonic cleaning or the recommended manufacturers procedure insured a pH
reco;rding system that had little drift.
'rhe conductivit.y recording system underwent a similar maintenance
procedure. The probe was an electrodeless cell which also required frequent
cleaning and weekly calibration. Three standard solutions were made up by the
chemical laboratory for calibrating the conductivity system. These solutions
represented the range of conductivities measured in the field. Conductivity
standards usea at Greenidge were:
1320 )J mhos
8000 )J mhos
11200 J.Imhos
and those used at Russell were:
~ ' i r s t Set
4470 )Jmhos
8100 J.I mhos
9800 J.Imhos
Second Set
3850 J.I mhos
10500 J.Imhos
18000 J.Imhos
B - 5
The YSI thermistor used to sense temperatures had to remain partially
immersed in the probe bucket since the acidic drainage water would attack the
coupling between the cable and the thermistor.
B.l.3 Meteorology
Four meteorological parameters were monitored continuously at Greenidge
and Russell. They were:
precipitation
air temperature
relative humidity
pan evaporation
Instruments used to monitor these parameters were all built to National
Weather Service specifications by Belfort Instrument Company.
Precipitation was monitored using a Belfort Model 595-2 Heated Tipping
Bucket Precipitation Gauge hard wired to a Rustrak event recorder. The gauge
was anchored to a concrete pad at both sites away from buildings and
structures that may have influenced the amount of rainfall measured. In both
cases the gauge was located on the outside edge of the coal storage site,
refer to Figures 3-1 and 3-2 for the locations. The precipitation gauge would
trip a mercury switch for every .01 inches of rain. The event recorder was
located in the instrument shelter and wired parallel to it was a digital
totalizer, that indicated total rainfall. The totalizer was a necessary
device in that for high intensity storms which tended to clutter the event
recorder strip chart, a total amount of rainfall was easily observed. The
tipping bucket was calibrated volumetrically. During the monitoring, daily
maintenance of this gauge usually required cleaning coal dust from the upper
funnel and tipping mechanism.
B - 6
Air temperature and relative humidity were both recorded on a dual record
hygrothermograph, Belfort Model 255. The temperature sensitive element is a
highly polished chrome plated bourdon tube while the humidity element consists
of mUltiple strands of specially treated human hair. Calibration of this
instrument was performed both before and after each field monitoring using a
National Bureau of Standards (NBS) traceable thermometer and an aspirated
psychrometer. The hygrothermograph was housed in a louver sided instrument
shelter anchored to a concrete pad. The louvered shelter had a locking door
which was necessary to prevent damage or loss of data in high winds.
Evaporation was measured by two different techniques during the course of
the program. Initially at Greenidge in September 1981, a standard recording
pan evaporation gauge, Belfort Model 248 (1) with 250 square centimeters of
surface area was used for evaporation measurements. A system of mechanical
link.ages connected the pan to a recorder built within the meter. As water
evaporated from the pan the pen would rise on the chart paper. Through field
observations, it was noted that evaporation off the coal pile may be
significantly different than from a pan of water, due to the irregular shape
of the coal surface, the black color, and the exothermic r'eactions wi thin the
pile. The pan evaporation gauge was kept as part of the data collection
effort to be used asa reference for pile evaporation data but during June of
1982 at Russell an in-pile evaporation gauge, labelled "evaporimeter", was
built and included in the program.
Figure B-2 depicts the construction of this evapor imeter. Three
prototypes were fabricated, two with a height of 15 inches to be used for
duplicate data collection and one with a height of 8 inches to be used to
indicate the effective zone of evaporation. Each evaporimeter was placed in a
B - 7
1 #I
FIBREGLASS
SCREEN
L.IFTING
HANDLES
'1iiiif- PVC SlEE1
. ~ ~ + - I + : - - _ PV C C Y LI N
FILLED WITH
STRENGTH
MEMBERS
Figure B-2. Coal pile evaporation gauge.
B - 8
relatively undisturbed area of both the Russell and Greenidge piles. The
sleeve acted as a receptacle to prevent outside coal from caving into the
pocket. On a daily basis each evapor imeter was removed, a cover was placed
over each sleeve to prevent extraneous coal from entering the pocket; and the
evaporimeters were weighed on a postal scale for an indication of gain or loss
of water content. The evaporimeters were used in conjunction with the pan
evaporation gauge during the following time period:
At Russell
At Greenidge
May - July, 1982
July - August, 1982
Due to the relative closeness of local weather stations, data at both
Greenidge and Russell were supplemented by long-term recording weather
information. The Greenidge data were compared with the New York State
Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, New York operated by Cornell
The Russell data were compared to the National Weather Service
records from Rochester Airport.
B.2 stormwater and Dry Weather Drainage Sampling
Stormwater drainage from both sites was sampled automatically using an
ISCO Model 1680 wastewater sampler. The sampler was kept in the instrument
shelter and was programmed to collect samples according to the following
schedule:
o to 2 hours of runoff
2 to 12 hours of runoff
greater than 12 hours
every 30 minutes
every 60 minutes
every 120 minutes
The sampler is a device which will collect samples according to a preselected
time interval and fill 4-500 milliliter polyethylene containers held in the
base of the sampler. Up to 28 bottles are filled before being replaced. The
B - 9
drainage sample was collected through a 1/4-inch Tygon tube running from the
probe bucket to a peristaltic pump on the sampler. A sample actuator switch
was used to trigger the sampler once an increase in drainage flow was sensed.
This actuator is basically a conductance probe mounted to the side wall of the
stilling well. As the water level rose in the stilling well the probe would
short and start the collection of samples. This feature of the monitoring
program allowed first flush sample to be collected without a technician
necessarily being on-site. Once the site technician arrived at the instrument
shelter he would record the number of bottles filled and note the time left on
the 30-minute clock. Using the recording rain gauge he could accurately
determine the start of rain and the time of the first set of samples. After
two hours of sample collection he would then reset the sampler to collect on a
60-minute interval.
This procedure was followed at both sites but at Russell there were
occas ional problems. Since the sampler was situated next to a pump lift
station on Channel 4 any increase in water level within the lift station over
the bottom of the v channel would automatically start the ISCO samples. The
site technician was made aware of this situation at both pump lift stations
and the samples and flow data were voided during these instances.
During dry weather, samples were taken by hand. All sample times whether
during dry weather or during storm events were recorded in the site log book.
B.3 Field Preparation of Drainage Samples
All coal pile drainage samples, ground water monitoring samples and
precipitation samples were prepared for analyses in the on-site laboratory
trailer. Table B-1 presents the analyses performed on the samples.
Figure B-3 illustrates the compositing and aliquot separation for the
preservation of samples.
B - 10
TABLE B-1
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS TO BE ANALYZED DURING
FIELD PROGRAM AND MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIRED
rametE!r
erature
lctivity
l ty/Alkalini ty
L Suspended Solids (TSS)
L Dissl)lved Solids (TDS)
Organic Carbon (TOC)
Ite (S04)
, Hardness
,s (Total and Dissolved Forms):
~ l u m i n u m (Al)
mtimony (Sb)
lrsenic (As)
leryllium (Be)
:admiun (Cd)
:alciulIIl (Cal
:hromium, Total (CrT)
:obalt (Co)
:opper(Cu)
:ron (Fe)
.ead (Pb)
lagnesium (Mg)
langanese (Mn)
lolybdenum (Mo)
liekel (Ni)
;elenium (Sel
ranadium (V)
anc (Zu)
'ide (F)
Iry (Hg)
volume(l)
100 ml
100 ml
100 ml
25 ml
50 ml
100 ml
300 ml (2)
300 ml
200 ml(3)
Preservative
Determine on-site
Determine on-site
Determine on..,.site
cool 4
0
C
Cool 4
0
C
Cool 4C
Cool 4C,
H2S04 to pH < 4
cool 4
0
C
Cool 4C
Total - HM03 to pH < 2
Dissolved - Filter with
Cool 4C
0.45 II millipore,
HNOJ to pH < 2
Same as metals
Holding
Tillie
24 hr.
7 days
7 days
24 hr..
7 days
7 days
6 mo.
6 mo.
7 days
13 days
Minimum volumes obtained from Methods for Chemical Analysis of water and, Wastes,
EPA-600/4-79-020.
100 ml for total'fotm; 200 ml for dissolved form.
100 ml for total form; 100 ml for dissolved form.
B - 11
- COLLECTION: 4 ISCO BOTTL.ES/SAMPLE = 1840 mi.
PRESERVE:
ANALYZE:
o DOD
COMPOSITE
ACIDITY TSS TOC D. METAL T. METAL
rDS
SULFATE
FLUORIDE
COOL H
2
S04 TO O.45j.1
pH <:: 2 COOL VACUUM
Fll TER
AND HN0
3
TO pH < 2
MINERAL ACIDITY - See Attached Procedu.re
TOTAL ACIDITY - See Attached Procedure
Figure 8-3. Sample preservation schedule.
" - ,?
HN03 TO
pH<2
Samples that were filtered through the .45 micron vacuum filter required
several filters for a 500 ml samples. Well water taken from the in-pile wells
required at least a half-dozen filters to get a 500 ml sample. If the sample
had a high amount of solids, e.<;J., during a storm, increments of 100 mls were
poured into the filtration unit to avoid clogging.
Since the runoff was very acidic, less than 1 ml of acid from a graduated
pip.ette lowered the pH to less than 2 for those parameters preserved by
acic1if ication.
Glassware preparation was performed in the field laboratory. After a tap
water rinse, a solution of 1: 1 Baker Instra-analyzed nitric acid was used to
clean any glassware in contact with metal samples. This included the sample
collection bottles and filtering apparatus. Other glassware and bottleS were
washed with 1:1 hydrochloric acid. After theSe washings, three rinses with
distilled water completed the procedure.
B.4 Coal Pile Hydrologic Measurements
Cine of the most critical aspects of monitoring coal pile drainage and
developing a predictive quantitative model is the understanding of the
hydrology of the particular coal pile sampled. Prior to this study little
information was available on the water balance of coal storage piles.
Therefore a number of techniques were built into this program to qUantify pile
moisture conditi9ns, coal density, infiltration of water into the pile,
permeclbility of the coal, resistivity and pile evaporation. The technique of
pile 'i!vaporation is discussed in Section B.1.3 and therefore will not be
repeated in this section. All of these factors have an effect on the water
balance in the coal pile and each technique is described separately.
B - 13
B.4.1 Coal Moisture
Coal moisture data was collected from three different sources. The power
plants themselves analyze each shipment of coal for moisture content as part
of their standard proximate analysis of incoming coal. The Greenidg.e plant
analyzed not only the delivered coal for moisture but also the coal as it was
conveyed into the hoppers prior to combustion. As part of the site setup a
drilling program was conducted on the coal piles to collect coal samples and
place in-pile piezometers. During the final month of monitoring at Russell
and Greenidge (spring-summer 1982) a series of moisture probes were placed
into each pile for the purpose of continuously monitoring pile moisture
content.
The procedure utilized by the power plants and the drillers to analyze for
moisture content of the coal was ASTM 03173-73. Procedure ASTM 02216-71 was
also used during the calibration of the soil moisture probes prior to
installation.
In pile moisture cells were installed at both sites in five vertical
arrays. Refer to Figures 3-1 and 3-2 for the location of these arrays. prior
to setting the probes a number of preliminary steps had to be completed.
Since the cells are measuring moisture as a function of resistivity individual
electrical leads had to be placed on each cell corresponding to the final
depths of each cell. In this way the entire electrical circuit is calibrated
for resistance and thereby nullifies lead length resistance affects. All
electrical connections were soldered and water-proofed with Scotchcoat. After
placing a designation code on each cell, they were calibrated with coal from
each site. The calibration of the moisture cells followed the following
procedure:
1) All cells were placed in a 10 gallon container of oven dried coal
which was uniformly mixed with larger coal pieces removed.
B - 14
2) The cells were placed about 2 inches into this dried coal and
individually packed so good adhesion was made between the cells
and the dried coal.
3) The cells
monitoring
this time.
were allowed to stabilize over a 2-hour period by
the resistance changes of two or three cells during
In oven dried coal resistances of 1500 kilhoms to
co were normal.
4) A coal sample representative of the dried coal was analyzed for
moisture according to ASTM 02216-71. When the moisture was
determined this was recorded as the moisture of the first
calibration point. Resistances of each probe were then recorded.
5) Knowing the approximate weight of the dried coal a second
calibration was performed by mixing an amount of water necessary
to raise the moisture by 4 to 5 percent by weight.
6) The probes were inserted as before into this newly wetted coal
and allowed to stabilize by monitoring the resistance changes of
2 or 3 probes.
7) A sample of this second coal was then analyzed for moisture
content.
8) Once stabilized a resistance was read from each probe.
9) This procedure was carried on until four moisture calibration
pOints were determined.
10) Data from the calibration of moisture cells was recorded on
semi-log paper.
One problem encountered was that the moisture cell response to wet coal was
quicker than their response to dry coal. Therefore just before placing the
probes in the pile, all cells were allowed to dry until an a> reading was
taken on the moisture meter.
Following calihr.ations a procedure had to be devised for placing the
moisture cells into the pile which would allow exact positioning of the cells
without damaging the electrical leads. A drilling company was contracted to
provide bore holes in which to place these cells on each pile. An all terrain
vehicle mounted drilling rig was used to hollow stem auger the coal pile.
S p l i ~ spoon sampling of the coal pile at 5-foot intervals was performed during
B - 15
augering. For both the Russell and Greenidge piles a land surveyor provided
locations and depth to the bottom of the coal pile so the drillers would know
when to stop drilling. Once the bore hole was at depth, the auger was rotated
at a high speed to clean out the bore hole. For the unlined Russell pile each
bore hole was over drilled to about 5 feet so that cave-in would not disturb
the placement of the moisture cells. To place the cells, the bore hole had to
remain open after the augeer flytes were removed. Each moisture cell was then
strung through a 3/4-inch rigid plastic pipe comprised of la-foot increments
that were taped together. The cell was then carefully lowered into the bore
hole. Coal was then placed on the cell and compacted with a 5-pound steel
packer held by a rope. The rigid plastic pipe was then removed in sections so
the electrical lead was always accessible. Once the plastic pipe was removed
the loose end of the electrical lead was tied to a stake on the surface of the
coal. Backfilling the bore hole with continuous compaction of the coal was
next performed until a depth corresponding to the next cell position was
reached. The procedure of positioning the cell, backfilling and compaction
was followed until five arrays were completed. A 2-inch black steel pipe 7
feet in length was then placed over the moisture array with all the leads
running through it. The final step in instrumenting the moisture array
involved tying all the cells to one mUltiple pole rotary switch that was
housed in a water-proof conduit box mounted to the top of the black steel
pipe. Each box was painted to allow the bulldozer operators to easily see and
avoid disturbing that area.
Moistures were read from each array by connecting the two output leads
from the rotary switch into a Soiltest Soil Moisture Meter Model MC-305B.
Resistances were taken on each cell by turning the rotary switch. The cells
B - 16
used for both the Russell and Greenidge piles were Soil test Corrosion
Resistant Moisture Cells No. MC-314. Each cell was read and recorded on a
daily basis. Six continuous weeks of cell readings were taken at Russell
between June 14 and July 19, 1982 and then weekly readings were taken from
July 19 to August 18, 1982. Five weeks of moisture cell readings were taken
at Greenidge between July 22 and August 26, 1982.
B.4.2 Density
The density of the coal at both sites was determined using the ASTM
proc:edure 0-2167-66, "Density of Soil in Place by the Rubber-Balloon Method. n
The Volumeasure CN-980, manufactured by SOiltest, Inc., was used as the
rubber-balloon apparatus.
The tests were conducted in compacted coal, since the balloon will deform
looslely-packed coal. Four random samples were performed on the Russell pile
in undisturbed locations. At the Greenidge site .2 tests were performed on the
truck pile, and one on the train pile.
B.4.3 Infiltration
The surface infiltration rate of the coal piles was determined USing ASTM
procedure D-3385-75 II Infiltration Rate of Soils in Field Using Double-Ring
Infiltrameter. " The rates were reported in inches per hour, using known
v o l u m l ~ s of water during a specified test time. The purpose of this test was
to determine surface permeabilities of areas of the two coal piles.
At Greenidge, three tests were run on the truck coal, while one was
performed on a slope of the train coal (significantly less compact.coal). The
Russell site locations included two tests on hard packed undisturbed coal and
one test on the runoff area near the drainage channel. Refer to Figures 3-1
and 3-2 for locations.
B - 17
B.4.4 permeability
On-site permeability determinations of various earth materials in and
around the Russell coal pile were conducted using a method described in
designation E-18 of the U.S. Department of the Interiors "Earth Manual" for
constant head permeability testing in an open bottomed bore hole. The bore
hole was made using a drill rig to drive cast iron casing. The casing was
cleaned by drilling through the casing with a roller bit and washing out the
cuttings with water.
During the actual testing water was metered into the hole using a 1000 ml
graduated cylinder and recording water added against time. Permeability tests
using this method were conducted in the coal pile, the earth materials below
the coal pile, the bottom interface of the coal pile, and in a dense till
material typically found beneath the peat and lacustrine deposits.
Permeability determinations of an area of buried bottom ash found to the
south of the coal pile were made by measuring recharge of ground water into a
freshly dug back: hoe test pit. This data was applied to a pit bailing test
for permeability which us.ed a theory of radial flow to a well. The test pit
was treated as a large diameter well.
B.4.S Resistivity
The electrical earth resistivity survey was conducted by a subcontractor
at both sites. The equipment used was a Bison 2350A resistivity meter with
electrodes and cable reels. Sounding data demonstrated different layers of
resistivity to determine the moisture saturated zones of the pile.
Seven soundings were conducted on the Greenidge pile, and five soundings
were conducted on the Russell pile.
locations.
Refer to Figures 3-1 and 3-2 for
B - 18
B.S Coal Sampling Procedures
Samples of coal were obtained from the pile surface using a stratified
random sampling technique. At both sites two traverse lines were established
to completely cross the pile. Random numbers were then used to select
specific sampling points in one-hundred foot intervals along each traverse.
At each sampling point a stainless steel scoop was used to collect the
coal sample. One scoop, approximately one-inch deep, was collected, bagged,
and labelled. Locations were noted at the time of collection.
B.6 Ground water Monitoring
B.6.1 Installation of Wells
A number of observation wells and monitoring wells were placed on the
Greenidge coal pile and on and around the Russell pile. Drilling for both
sites was conducted by the same drilling contractor using a C.M.E. B-55
truck-mounted drilling rig and a C.M.E. B-550 all-terrain vehicle drilling
rig. All bore holes were drilled using a 3-3/4 inch hollow stem auger casing
and a 2-inch extra heavy duty split spoon sampler. Standard penetration
sampling was made using a 140 pound hammer dropping 30 inches each blow. No
water was induced into the bore holes for drilling purposes.
Split spoon sampling of the coal was performed every five feet from the
surface of the pile with continuous sampling performed starting at five feet
above the pile base. Samples were collected in double layered lockable bags
and identified by bore hole and depth.
Piezometers I"ere installed at a number of locations, see Figures 3-1 and
3-2. These welJ.s were installed using 2-inch loD. PVC schedule 40 flush
coupled well screen and blank riser pipe. Screened sections are 5 foot long
in each well, .030 inch slotted. The piezometers were placed with only coa.l
B - 19
as a backfill material around the screened section. Due to the dryness of
most bore holes the wells were left to equilibrate with the moisture at the
pile base without developing. The blank sections were coupled to 2-inch blacK
steel pipe through the surface of the pile and capped with a 4 foot stick up
above the pile. The steel pipe was necessary to prevent easy damage by heavy
equipment.
B.6.2 Level Measurements
The two piezometers at Greenidge and the eleven piezometers at Russell
were measured on a daily basis for water level. Elevation data for the top of
each well casing was supplied by a local surveyor once the wells were in
place. The procedure for taking water level readings was as follows:
1) Before taking the first reading each well had its designation
number painted on the pipe. Also an etched mark or V-groove was
made on the top of the well casing to be used as the point of
measurement.
2) water levels were measured with a fiberglass tape which had an
inverted pipe, and cap attached to it. After the tape was
lowered to the bottom of the well, an audible sound indicated the
end cap was touching the air-water interface.
3) Once the level of water had been reached measurements were taken
from the etch mark at the top of the well casing and recorded to
the nearest 0.005 of a foot.
4) The tape was then raised a few feet and the level read twice
again for a total of three readings. The data for the daily
reading was entered on the "Weekly Piezometer Data Log." (See
Appendix E for a sample form.) Final water level was recorded as
an average of the three readings.
During the fall of 1981 at Greenidge, water levels were read with a Johnson
Watermarker, a battery operated level measurement meter. There were inherent
problems with this device that affected the accuracy and repeatability of the
B - 20
level readings. The highly conductive water at the pile base coated the
electrical sensors so that an exact reading of the air/water interface was
difficult to achieve. Therefore the method of level measurements changed to
inverted cup, or what is commonly referred to as a "plopper". The method
greatly increased the accuracy and repeatability of the level measurements.
B.6.3 Sampling and Analysis
Those piezometers having water in them were periodically sampled at both
sites for pH, conductivity and acidity analysis. At least once during the 10
week.s at each site, a sample was collected for the entire list of runoff
parameters (see Appendix C).
Samples were collected using a plastic and occasionally a stainless steel
bailer. At least two well volumes of water were removed with the bailer prior
to collecting a sample. The samples taken from piezometers located on the
coal pile were usually heavy with suspended coal. The P-IO well at Russell
provided samples that fluctuated between a slurry, a dark leachate and no
samples on certain occasions.
A.nalysis of these samples was performed immediately in the site
labOratory. The pH, conductivity and acidity were analyzed on-site while the
remaining.parameterswere preserved and shipped to the analytical labOratory.
B.7 Time-of-Travel
Time-of-travel measurements were performed at both sites to supply input
data to the model for establishing the time base of the runoff. Initially in
the fall of 1981 at Greenidge, an attempt was made to use dye tracers as a
measure of the speed at which the runoff streams moved around the pile.
Because the black color of the direct runoff masked the dye, it was determined
B - 21
that color tracers would be ineffective. Therefore a new technique was
devised.
During the spring monitoring at Russell most storms were of a short
duration or of a weak intensity that direct measurements of time--of-travel by
direct observation was not accomplished. It was decided during the final
month at Russell and Greenidge to simulate a storm on the pile by using a
sprinkler system.
For Russell a number of measurements were made at the following locations:
Channel 4
Flat ground between the V-channel and the toe of the pile
Side slopes of the coal pile on the northeast corner
Channell
The procedure was to set a stationary sprinkler over the area to be wetted. A
rain wedge was placed adjacent to the sprinkler. The sprinkler was then
turned on and the start time recorded. A measurement of the area wetted was
then taken. The time from the start of rain to total ground saturation was
then recorded. Once a flow over the wetted area started, finely ground
styrofoam chips were placed on the up-gradient slope of the wet area.
Time-of-travel and distance of travel from one end of this area to the
furthest downslope point was then observed and recorded. After the
measurement was completed a record of amount of rain, time-of-travel and
wetted surface area was taken. A vector showing travel path and time was then
indicated on a site map. Normally it took about 2 to 3 hours to complete one
measurement.
For Greenidge the same procedure was followed except that instead of using
a garden hose from the treatment plant for water supply (Russell) a tank truck
B - 22
with 1000 gallon capacity and water pump were used as the water supply. At
Greenidge time-of-travel was measured at:
Top of the truck stacked pile
Slope of the train stacked pile
South slope of the coal pile next to the berm
western edge of the coal pile near the toe of the pile
Subsurface pipe on the northwest corner of the pile
18" transit pipe running under the pipe to the collection sump
Data from both sites were directly inputted to the model.
B.8 SUpplementary Data
As mentioned previously the data collected at Greenidge and Russell were
supplemented by local weather recording stations and data collected on the
coal source, character istics and pile storage volume dur ing the per iod of
monitor ing. Table B-2 is a list of the actual supplementary records collected
and how the data was used from each.
B.9 greenidge Site Procedures
B.9.1 Drainage Flow
As mentioned previously, flows at Greenidge were monitored by an ISCO flow
meter attached to an 'H' flume. This 'H' flume was selected because if allows
flows to be measured over a very large range using only 1 foot of head. The
flow r.ange for the flume was between 1 and 898 gpm. Attached to the side of
the 'H' flume was a I-foot stilling well which was tied to the flume throat by
a I-inch PVC pipe. By knowing the flume equation, flow can be accurately
determined by measuring head height in the stilling well. 'R' flumes are a
collllllOnly used primary flow device used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
in irrigation studies and they are described in U.S.D.A. Agricultural Handbook
No. 224.
B - 23
Document Title
1. Local Climatological Data
Monthly Summary
Rochester, N.Y.
2. Monthly Summary
of Weather Observations
3. Daily Coal Inventory
4. Summary of Daily Fuel
Analysis for Monthly OD-SO
5. Monthly Stockpile Flow
6. Bunker Coal Composite
Analysis
TABLE B-2
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
Source
NOAA Environmental Data
and Information Service
National Climatic Center
Asheville, N.C.
Vegetable Research Farm,
New York State
Agricultural Experiment
Station, Geneva, N.Y.
Greenidge Plant
Greenidge Plant
Russell Plant
Russell Plant
B - 24
Information
Extracted
snowfall,
precipitation,
skycover
snowfall,
precipitation,
pan evaporation,
solar radiation
balance of coal
in storage
coal moisture and
proximate analysis
balance of coal in
storage
coal moisture and
proximate analysis
Using the stilling well as the primary sensing chamber, a bubbler type
flow meter was used to measure drainage flows. An ISCO Model 1700 Flow Meter
which uses a continuous air bubbling tube mounted just below the zero level of
the stilling well, to sense changes in head height, automatically converts
head to flow by the use of an optical computer. A primary function device
card was purchased for the 'H' flume, which enabled the flow meter to make the
conversions. Flow data is pr inted every 10 minutes on a paper tape recorder.
The format of the data provides 10 minute updates of date, time, total gallons
discharged since time zero and total gallons discharged since the last reading.
Calibration of this meter was performed at Greenidge by discharging afire
hose through the 'H' flume. Flows up to 90 gpm were simulated this way. At
least three times the ISCO Flow Meter was calibrated in this manner.
Verification of flows was performed using bucket and stopwatch readings at the
discharge. The flow meter was then adjusted to the actual flow by
varying the bubble rate and the optical card position.
the field program at Greenidge and Russell, drainage flows were
frequently verified by bucket and stopwatch.
verifications averaged at least one per hour.
During storm events these
Due to the potential and common occurrence of coal pile erosion during
storm events, the 'H' flume had to be protected from innundation by coal
slurry. A temporary fence approximately 4 feet high and 6 feet wide was built
upstream of the flume. This fence held a considerable amount of coal away
from the flume but did allow the finer coal particles to pass. Only during
one storm did the fence fail, the October 27, 1981 storm event.
B - 25
B.9.2 Ground Water
A number of observation wells and monitoring wells were placed on the
Greenidge coal pile during the fall of 1981. The purpose of these wells was
to sample coal within the pile, observe areas of saturation in the pile and
provide two locations to be used to monitor the water quality and water level
fluctuations at the pile base. On September 3, 1981, 2 piezometers and 6
observation wells were drilled on the Greenidge pile. See Figure 3-1 for the
locations of these wells. A local surveyor was contracted to provide
elevation control. This was necessary since the Greenidge pile has an
impermeable plastic liner and all bore holes were to be completed at either
the top of the underpile drain (gravel layer over the liner) or at the depth
which the surveyor indicated as the top of the gravel, whichever was
encountered first.
During the last week of September 1981 well P-2 was hit by a coal truck
and had to be redrilled. . On October 5 a new well was drilled and the P-2
piezometer was replaced. Also at that time three other bore hole.s were
drilled on other parts of the Greenidge pile for observation purposes only
(see Figure 3-1). All observation wells were backfilled with coal after all
coal samples were logged and the presence or absence of a saturated zone was
observed. Due to the loss of P-2, approximately 10 days of water level
measurements were lost before a second well was installed.
B.IO Russell Site Procedures
B.IO.l Drainage Flow
As mentioned previously, flow monitoring at Russell was performed using
PVC stilling wells mounted on each 'V' channel. Jack hammers were used to cut
into the 'V' channels so a horizontal l-inch PVC pipe could connect the water
B - 26
flowing in the channel to a large stilling well mounted to the side of the
channel. Grout was used to smooth off the cut after the stilling wells were
placed. A trash pump was used to provide a water source to develop a flow
rating curve for each channel. Water was pumped out of the pump lift stations
and allowed to flow through the channel. By using a gate valve on the pump
dis(:harge, various flows were simulated. By measuring the head inside each
stilling well a head versus fl.ow curve was determined.
curves are found in Appendix E.
These flow rating
For Channels 1 and 2 the stilling wells were instrumented with spring
driven liquid level recorders. Two Belfort Model S-FW-I Liquid Level
Recorders equipped for a 30-hour record were mounted in a water-proof box over
each well. For Channels 3 and 4 two ISCO Model 1700 Flow Meters were used.
ISCO flow meters were used at Channels 3 and 4 due mainly to the proximity of
_power and the instrument shelter which held the other recorders. Verification
of calibration, dry weather seepage and stormwater flows were always performed
by bucket and stopwatch. Periodic maintenance of the 'V' channel, -the
horizontal PVC pipe and the stilling wells involved cleaning coal deposits by
shovel or flushing by garden hose.
B.IO.2 Ground Water
Both the in-pile ground water and surrounding area ground water were
monitored at the Russell site. Since the Russell pile was not lined, coal
pile leachate was monitored through the installation of 6 wells around the
perimeter of the pile.
Installation of the five wells drilled on the Russell coal pile fOllowed
the same procedure detailed in Section B.6.1. For the six wells placed around
B - 27-
the outside of the coal storage area, the 2-inch PVC screened sections of 5
foot length were backfilled with a sand pack. A bentonite seal was placed
above the sand to prevent surface water from infiltrating.
illustrates the location of the wells.
B - 28
Figure 3-2
APPENDIX C
ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
Stormwater runoff and dry day base flows were analyzed for nineteen metals
in their total and dissolved forms and for seven nonmetallic parameters. Coal
samples from each plant were analyzed for the nineteen metals, fluoride, mois-
ture, ash and particle size.
The following sections will discuss details of the analytical procedures
used for each parameter.
Most procedures used in this study are listed in Standard Methods for the
Examination of water and Wastewater, 15th Edition, 1980. The EPA procedures
in the discussion are listed in "Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Waste", EPA 600/4-79-020.
C.l Analysis of Runoff Samples
j\ description of the procedures used for the analysis of the nonmetallic
paranleters follows. Table C-l contains a list of the reference methods.
C. 1. 1 Acidi ty
Samples were analyzed for acidity both on-site and at TRe's laboratory in
East Hartford, Connecticut depending on the timing of the storm, using Proce-
dure 402 (Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 15th
Editi<m). Samples were titrated potentiometrically to pH 3.7 (mineral acid-
ity) ,and pH 8.3 (total acidity) using a 0.2 normal sodium hydroxide standard
solution. A 25 11111 aliquot was used for the runoff samples and a 10 ml aliquot
for dry day base flow samples. All samples were pretreated with hot peroxide
in order to eliminate drifting endpoints due to oxidizable or hydrolyzable
ions such as ferrous or ferric iron, aluminum and manganese. This procedure
is similar to EPA Procedure 305.1 except that it includes the intermediate
titration to pH 3.7 for mineral acidity. The relative average deviation from
the mean for duplicate and triplicate samples was LOO percent 1: 0.77.
C - 1
TABLE C-l
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR NONMETALLIC PARAMETERS
Procedure
Acidity
Residue - Filterable (TDS)
Residue - Nonfilterable (TDS)
Total Organic Carbon
Sulfate
Hardness
Fluoride
EPA
Method
Number (l)
305.1
160.2
415.1
375.2
130.1
340.1
340.2
Standard
Method
Number(2}
402
209C
209D
505
426D
413A
413B
(1) "EPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Waste," EPA-600/4-79-020,
March 1979.
(2) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 15th
edition, 1980 APWA-AWWA-WPCF.
C - 2
C.l.2 Filterable and Nonfilterable Residue
Nonfilterable residue, also referred to as total suspended solids (TSS),
was analyzed in duplicate using a 100 ml aliquot. The samples were dried to a
o
constant weight at 103 to 105 C and the average value reported.
A 10 ml aliquot of the filtrate from the TSS procedures was used for the
filterable residue analysis, also referred to as total dissolved solids
{TDS) ._ These samples were dried at 103 to 10SoC and the average value of
duplicate analysis reported.
C.l.3 Total Organic Carbon
Total organic carbon analysis was performed using an Ionics Model 445 TOC
analyzer. Total carbon (Tel was first analyzed by high temperature oxidation
in the presence of a palladium catalyst and measurement of CO
2
by a nondis-
pers:lve infrared analyzer. Inorganic carbon (IC) was measured by injecting
the sample into the inorganic reaction chamber which contained sodium tetra-
phosphate at ISOoC with subsequent measurement by the infrared analyzer.
TOe was calculated as the difference of TC and IC.
The was calibrated using TC standards of potassium biphthalate
and IC standards of sodium carbonate. The standards gave sharp, single peaks
which were recorded on a strip chart. The samples, however, gave inconsistant
and multiple peaks for the TC analysis. A peak would appear similar to the
standards, but after that a broad peak or shoulder peak would be recorded.
The injection of multiple water blanks after a sample would cause "memory"
peaks to appear which gradually decreased in size to a normal blank response.
iThe followin9steps were taken to eliminate the problems which were causing
the slow and incomplete oxidation of the samples.
1) The palladium catalyst was cleaned frequently and eventually re-
placed. After injecting 2 or .3 samples, memory peaks would
appear again.
C - 3
2) The carrier gas was changed from nitrogen to air in order to pro-
vide more oxygen in the reaction chamber. It was thought that
the sulfur compounds present in high concentration in the samples
were competing for oxygen with the carbon compounds. using air
would provide excess oxygen so that the oxidation of carbon would
be complete. However, the problem still persisted.
3) Coal particles were present in some of the runoff samples. It
was thought that the particles could be causing the oxidation
problem. The TOC samples from Russell were filtered through 0.45
micron filters, but the multiple peaks still appeared.
4} The TC furnace temperature was increased from 9500C to 10000C
to improve combustion.
The sample TOC concentrations were based on the average value of duplicate
injections of the sample using the first peak which corresponded to the stan-
dard peaks. These results should be viewed as a relative indication of the
TOC concentration, not as absolute values. These values are most likely lower
than the true values due to the slow oxidation of the carbon compounds in the
runoff.
The source of the problem with the TOC analysis of the coal pile runoff
samples was. not determined. Although steps were taken to optimize the instru-
ment another instrumental problem may have been overlooked. The sample matrix,
may have been the source of the problem. Future TOC work with this type of
sample should begin with finding the best type of instrumentation for obtain-
ing accurate and precise analytical results.
C. 1.4 Sulfate
The automated methyl thymol blue colorimetric method was performed for sul-
fate analysis using a Technicon'" Autoanalyzer" II continuous flow analy-
tical instrument. The sulfate analytical cartridge is equipped with an ior:
exchange column to eliminate interferences from multivalent cations such as
iron, calcium and magnesium. The first few storm samples from Greenidge were
diluted one-hundred fold and analyzed. The high iron in the diluted SamplE
c - 4
overloaded the ion exchange column which turried completely orange. The analy-
sis was stopped and the column repacked and the following steps taken. The
runoff samples were diluted one-thousand fold and the dry day samples five-
thousand fold. The diluted samples were placed in test tubes containing ion
exchange resin and mixed in order to remove the majority of interferring ca-
tions before running the samples through the cartridge. The preliminary pre-
mi:dng with catalyst was' eliminated for Russell samples since the high dilu-
tion reduced the overloading of the catalyst in the cartridge. The catalyst
was changed when iron buildup began to appear at the beginning of the column.
The relative average deviation from the mean for the Greenidge samples was
2.64 percent . 3.32 and 4.87 percent . 5.06 for the RUssell samples. The
s p i k l ~ recovery was 97 percent .:!: 13.2 for the Greenidge samples. The one
RUSSElll sample that was spiked had a recovery of 80 percent. Two EPA sulfate
audit: samples were analyzed with the Russell samples. The relative errors for
these samples were -3.6 percent and -7.9 percent.
C. 1. 5 Hardness
The automated EDTA colorimetric procedure for hardness was performed using
the 'rechnicon'" Autoanalyzer'" II System. The cartridge was modified to
cover the range from 0 to 250 )J glml Caco
3
and the samples were diluted to
this range. The total metal samples which were digested with nitric acid ac-
cording to the EPA Metals procedure 4.1.3 were used for the analysis. Hard-
ness may be calculated based on the concentration of calcium and magnesium in
the sample. These values were calculated for some samples and the results
were similar to the EDTA procedure indicating that there were no significant
interf'erence as stated in the procedure. The relative average deviation from
the mean for Greenidge samples was 2.98 percent . 2.38 and for Russell samples
was 1.39 percent + 1.81.
C - 5
C.1.6 Fluoride
Fluoride was measured by an Orion Specific Ion Electrode Model 94-09 using
an Orion Ionalyzer Meter Model 407A. In order to measure total fluoride and
eliminate interferences due to the polyvalent cations of
+4
Si f
+3
Fe and
+3
Al the samples underwent the Bellack Distillation. In this procedure, the
fluoride is distilled as fluos.i licic acid from a sulfuric acid solution using
a relatively large volume of sample (250 ml). Quantitative fluoride recovery
is related to the volume of sample distilled. The average spike recovery was
80.4 percent 9.0. This recovery is an indication of the efficiency of the
distillation. The use of a larger aliquot may have improved recovery. The
relative average deviation from the mean for the combined data from both sites
was 4.46 percent 3.67.
C.2 Metal Analyses of Runoff Samples
Samples were preserved in the field to a pH of less than 2 with "Baker
Instra-Analyzed .... Nitric Acid for trace metal analysis. The dissolved metal
samples were vacuum filtered through a 0.45 micron filter before the acid was
added. All glassware used in the preparation and analysis of metals was
washed prior to use with 1;1 nitric acid. Each sample was prepared for atomic
absorption analysis (AA) by digesting a 100 ml aliquot with 3 ml of concentra-
ted nitric acid to near dryness without After the sample was cooled,
another 3 ml portion of nitric acid was added, the beaker was covered with a
watch glass and placed on a hot plate at a higher temperature soc that a gentle
reflux action occurred. The sample was cooled, filtered through a glass fiber
filter to remove if necessary, then quantitatively transferred to
a 100 ml volumetric flask. Ten percent of the samples were prepared in dupli-
cate and 10 percent were spiked with the 19 metals of interest. Deionized,
distilled water blanks were digested along with each set of storm samples.
C - 6
A Perkin Elmer Model 560 atomic absorption spectrophotometer was used for
all. metal analyses. The instrument was equipped with a Model PRS-I0 Printer-
Sequencer for recording data. A Flame Autosampler AS-50 and a Furnace Auto-
sampler AS'-l were used for rapid and precise introduction of the sample into
the instrument. An Electrodeless Discharge Lamp Power Supply and background
correction were also available on the instrument. An HGA-2200 Heated Graphite
Furnace was us.ad for analysis of antimony, arsenic, lead, molybdenum and vana-
dium. An MaS-lO MercurY/HYdride System was used in conjunction with the atom-
ic elbsorption unit for mercury, selenium and antimony analysis. The remaining
twelve metals were analyzed by flame methods.
Atomic absorption analysis of trace metals is subject to various interfer-
ences. Because of the complex nature of coal pile runoff, the samples were
initially tested for the presence of interferences and procedures were devel-
oped or modified to reduce or eliminate these problems. Chemical interference
is c.!usedby the lack of absorption of atoms bound in mOlecular combination.
This interference can be overcome by using a higher temperature flame or the
addition of a releasing agent such as lanthanum for the analysis of calcium
and magnesium. Ionization interferences occur when the flame temperature is
sufficiently high to generate the removal of an electron from a neutral atom,
giving a positive charged ion. This can usually be controlled by the addition
of a large excess of an easily ionized element.
In furrtace atomization techniques the sample matrix may play a significant
role in the ability to selectively measure specific elements. This matrix
effect can be reduced by adding certain matrix modifiers to the samples.
These modifiers are designed to accomplish one of two things. First they may
be ua,edtb produce more stable molecular species which will be atomized at
higher temperatures thereby allowing the use of a temperature ramp accessory
to volatilize the interferring matrix prior to the atomization of the element
C - 7
of interest. Nickel nitrate has been used in this respect in the analysis or
arsenic. Alternatively the modifier can be used to produce a more volatile
matrix which will volatilize at a temperature lower than the atomization tem-
perature of the element of interest. For example, ammonium nitrate solution
has been used for reducing interferences by forming volatile ammonium chloride
during the analysis of molybdenum and antimony.
The EPA procedures and Perkin Elmer methods were generally followed for
each metal. Due to the high concentration of some metals, less sensitive an-
alytical wavelengths were used. In some instances changes were made in the
amount of reagents added for eliminating interferences. The detailed proce-
dure for each metal is presented in the following sections and summarized in
Table C-2.
The quality control results for each site are contained in Tables C-3 and
C-4. Ten percent of the samples (15 Greenidge samples and 11 Russell samples)
were digested in duplicate for metals analysis. The relative deviation from
the mean was calculated for each pair of results for each metal. It was cal-
culated as follows:
mean - lower sample value
mean
x 100
For each metal, the mean and standard deviation of all the relative deviations
from the mean were calculated for each site. Good precision is indicated by a
low mean value and standard deviation.
Twenty-one Greenidge samples and 12 Russell samples were spiked with the
19 metals at concentrations similar to the levels present in the samples. The
percent recovery for each spiked sample for each metal was calculated as fol-
lows:
spiked value - unspiked value
amount spiked
C - 8
X 100
n
<!l

Metal MethOd(l) and Procedure
Aluminum 202.1 Flame-N
2
o/acet.
AntilDony 204.2 Furnace
Arsenic 206.2 Furnace
Beryllium 210.1 E"lame-N
2
O/acet
CadMium 2ll.1 Flame
Calcium 215.1 Flame
ChromiulIII 218.1 Flame
cobalt 219.1 Flame
Copper 220.1 Flame
Iron 236.1 Flame
Lead 239.2 Furnace
Magnesium 242.1 Flame
Manganese 243.1 Flame
Mercury 245.1 Cold vapor
Molybdenum 246.2 Furnace
Nickel 249.1 Flame
selenium 210.3 lIydrld.
Vanadium 286.2 Furnace
Zinc 289.1 Flame
Reagents Comments
..----------
RCI
Nil 4"0]
IIi (NO)' 2
8-hydroxyquinoline
tact]
NH4HF 2 .. H&2S04
l.a (N0
3
')
LaCl)
NH
4
NO]
257.1 nm (8.1 times less sensitive)
angle burner
346.6 (110 times less sensitive)
202.6 om 124 times leas sensitive)
403.1 (9.5 times le88 sensitive'
Perkin Elmer Procedul'e EN-l
2]l.1 nm (1.5 times less sensitive)
angle bucner
(I) EPA Methods foe Chemical Analysis of Hater and EPA-600/4-79-020, March 1979.
TABLE C-l
ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA FOR GREENiDGE
Dev.
S.I>. Mean Spike Level. Det.ection S!,ike
Metal Ul
i'l
09/",1 09/ .. 1 Level Factor
tl
)
Alum.inum 2.04 1.61 H.t 7.8 200 4.9 41
Antimony
0(2)
0 24.0 22.3 0.020 0.001 20
A[sen!c ).21 1.56 129.5 1.000 0.005 200
Be[yllium 2.33 2.04 68.1 0.080 D.On 4.2
Cadmium 6.44 2.54 86.2 18.9 0.040 O.OlD 2.2
Calcium 4.04 5.97 202 U8 100 5.5 t8
Chromium 4.90 S.H 62.2 0.80 0.05 16
Cobalt 1.20 0.92 U9.6 U.3 2.00 0.16 12
Copper o.n 0.44 109.] ].59 4.00 0.63 6.1
1['01\ 1.88 1.51 too low 91.3
Lead 23.02 20.]5 55.6 U.l 0.040 0.020 2
Magnesitm 0.94 0.69 U6 n.] 100 IS 6.1
() Man9anese 0.75 0.62 109.9 5.91 16.0 0.49 J3
Mercury 9.05 It.U U6.2 13.2 O.OOl 0.0002 5
f-'
Molybdenum 4.87 10.57 106.1 48.8 . 0.080 O.Oll 1.3
0
Nickel 0.93 0.70 108.1 1.6 4.00 0.18 22
Selenium H.n 10.16 19. i 17.8 0.020 0.001 20
Vanadium l5.13 14.18 62.5 U.2 0.100 0.018 2.6
Zinc 0.81 0.85 ].6 8.00 D.n 41
01 Spike level t limit of
I2l
All values
Dey. I.imit of
Mean S .1>. Spike Level Detection Spike
Metal (%, (II ~ 9 / m l "9/ml
Level Factor ill
-'---
Aluminum 1.25 1.13 89.8 22.75 200 5.0 40
Antimony olz)
a UO.l 1l.3S 0,050 0.020 2.5
Arsenic 2.46 l.89 92.54 29.06 t.ooo 0.006 161
Beryllium 2.06 2.U 104.6 10.89 0.080 0.020
Cadmium 1.79 3.62 108.6 8.05 0.080 0.021 3.0
Calcium O.9H 0.974 L01.2 o.lt 400 0.19 2100
Chromium L18 2.75 78.7 16.1 0.80 0.07 It.4
Cobalt t.le 1.15 93.1 12.29 2.00 0.13 15.4
coppe[" 1.t2 1.61 98.6 7.23 4.00 0.08 50
Iron 5.01 7.04 100.2 19.6 2000 20.3 98
Lead
0(21
a 75.] 20.72 0.000 0.020 4
Magnesium 2.15 2.27 nO.4 U.1B 400 0.19 2100
n
Manganese 1.36 l.86 97.0 13.2 16.00 0.60 27
Mercury 8.77 9.71 96.8 15,24 0.001 0.0002 5
f-'
Molybdenum 1.35 2.ft 130.8 23.7 0.080 0.018 4.4
f-'
Nickel 0.896 1.150 102.0 6.47 4.00 0.18 22
Selenium 7.46 7;76 38.3 21.55 0.040 0.001 40
VanadiullI 2.98 3.24 97.1 19.86 0.20 0.031 6.5
Zinc 3.85 6.17 104.0 12.8 8.00 0.17 47
III
Spike level f limit of detectiol1.
(21
All values nondel:ected8
For each metal the mean and standard deviation of all the percent spik.e re-
coveries were calculated for each site. A blank. deionized, distilled water
sample was also spik.ed and analyzed along with each site's samples. Ideally,
the recovery for the spiked blank would be 100 percent. For some metals the
blank percent recovery was greater than 100 percent, indicating that an error
may have occurred during the preparation of the spik.ed solutions. One pos-
sible source of this err?r may have been the 1000 ~ g / m l metal standards used
to prepare the combined spike working solution. These standards are guaran-
teed to contain 1000 ~ g / m l :t 10 ~ g/ml of the specified metal, however
trace contaminations of other metals may be present. These trace contaminants
may have unknowingly increased the amount of that metal in the spiked solution.
The limit of detection for each metal was obtained as follows. The limit
of detection for metals analyzed by direct aspiration into the flame was that
concentration which gave .005 absorbance units. For furnace atomization, it
was that concentration which gave .020 absorbance units. For hydride and mer-
cury cold vapor, the limit of detection was the value of the lowest standard
analyzed which was detectable above the baseline noise.
A comparison of the limit of detection and the spike level can be helpful
in interpreting the precision and spike recovery data. The spike level repre-
sents the average value of the metal present in the samples. If this value is
in the range of the limit of detection, then acceptable precision values would
be higher than for an analysis where the concentration were well above the
limit of detection, in the optimum measurement range. The spike recoveries
may also cover a wider range when measurements were made in the range of the
limit of detection. As an example, in Table C-3, the cadmium spike level was
0 . 040 ~ g / m l and the limit of detection was .018. The spik.e level was only
2.2 times greater than the limit of detection. The relative average deviation
c - 12
from the mean is 6.44 percent 2.54 and the spike recovery was 86.2 percent
18.9. On the other hand, the limit of detection for zinc was 0.17 ]Jg/ml and
the spike value was 8.00 II g/ml, or 47 times greater. Therefore, the quality
control values were much better; the relative average deviation from the mean
was 0.81 percent 0.85 and the spike recovery was 96.4 percent 3.6.
C.2.1 Aluminum
The standard conditions for aluminum provide a linear working range to 50
II g/ml. This range was extended to 400 jJ g/ml by using the 257.5 nm analy-
tical line which was 8.1 times less sensitive than the primary wavelength. A
1:50 ratio of 95 ]Jg/ml potassium chloride solution to sample or standard was
prepared to control the ionization of aluminum. The precision for this proce-
dure was good. The average spike recovery for Greenidge was 74.4 percent
7.8 Elnd for Russell was 89.8 percent 22.8. Iron and HCl at concentrations
greater than 0.2 percent decrease the aluminum absorption. Sulfuric acid also
causes this problem. The blank spike recovery was 94 percent indicating that
the spike preprat'ion was correct and that the low recoveries were due to the
very high concenttations of iron and sulfate in the samples.
C. 2.2 Antimony
The Greenidge samples were analyzed by hydride generation as opposed "1:0
furnace atomization since chloride is a problem in the furnace and hydride
methodS tend to be free from interferences. The samples were mostly nondetec-
ted, less than .001 llg/ml. However, the spike recovery was very poor I 24
percent 22.3. The fUrnace procedure was used for the Russell samples with
better success, however, the limit of detection was much higher, 0.020
jJg/ml. A. ratio of 1:5 50 percent ammonium nitrate to sample or standard was
prepare',d in order. to eliminate volatilization of antimony chloride before
C- 13
atomization. All the results were nondetected and the spike recovery was
110.3 percent + 11.35.
C.2.3 Arsenic
Arsenic was analyzed according to the EPA furnace procedure. A solution
of 1 percent nickel nitrate was added to the sample in a ratio of 1:10 which
allowed the samples to be charred at a higher temperature for better matrix
removal. This method was linear to 0.100 )l g/ml so the samples were gener-
ally diluted by a factor of ten so that the arsenic concentration would be
within that range. The sample preparation recommended by the EPA procedure
for arsenic uses hydrogen peroxide and nitric acid for digestion. The general
EPA preparation for these samples uses only nitric acid. A few samples from
Greenidge were digested both ways and analyzed. The results agreed within 5
percent so a separate digestion using hydrogen peroxide was not necessary for
all the samples. The precision for this fUrnace method was good, 2.46 percent
and 3.21 percent were the relative average deviations from the mean for both
sites. The average percent spike recovery was 129.5 percent .:!: 39.7 for
Greenidge and 92.5 percent:!:. 29.1 for Russell.
C.2.4 Beryllium
Beryllium was analyzed using a nitrous oxide/acetylene flame. Aluminum,
magnesium and silicon, all present at high concentrations in coal pile runoff,
decrease the sensitivity of beryllium. A solution of 10 grams of 8-hydroxy-
quinoline in 100 ml of 20 percent acetic acid was prepared and added to the
samples and standards in a ratio of 1:50 to control the signal depression.
The precision for this method was very good considering that the sample con-
centrations were in the range of the detection limit. The average spike
recovery for the Greenidge samples was 68.3 percent:!:. 14.4 compared to the
C - 14
...
blank spike which had 100 percent .recovery indicating suppression caused by
the sample matrix. The recovery improved for the Russell samples to 104.6
percent ~ 10.89 although analytical procedures remained unchanged.
C.2.S cadmium
An air/Acetylene flame was used for the analysis of cadmium. The samples
were! aspirated directly without the addition of any reagents. The concentra-
tion of the samples were generally close to or below the limit of detection of
0.02 llg/ml for this procedure. The precision was acceptable in light of the
concentrations. The spike recovery was 86.2 percent ~ 18.9 for Greenidge and
108.6 percent + 8.0 for Russell.
<:.2.6 Calcium
Calcium was analyzed using an- air/acetylene flame. The samples were dilu-
ted one-hundred fold and lanthanum chloride solution was added at a ratio of
1:9. This solution was prepared by slowly dissolving 29 grams of La
2
0
3
in
250 ml of concentrated hydrochloric acid, then diluting to SOD ml with deion-
ized distilled water. This reagent was added to eliminate the decreased sen-
sitivity caused by silicon, aluminum, phosphate and sulfate and to control a
slight: ionization interference in the flame. The primary wavelength which
gives a working range up to 5 11 g/ml was used. Concentrations of many sam-
ples ranged from 500 to 1000 11 g/ml. The analysis of these samples was re-
peated using a greater dilution. In order to avoid this repetition on the
Russell samples, the burner angle was adjusted slightly to extend the linear
workin.3' range to 10 11 gjml, or 1000 lJ g/ml for the 100 fold diluted sample .
The pr'e!cision for this method was good. The Greenidge samples were not spiked
sufficiently high to give reliable results. The. average spike recovery for
the RuSsell samples was 101.2 percent + 8.11.
C - 15
C.2.7 Chromium
This analysis was performed in a fuel rich air/acetylene flame and was
subject to chemical and matrix interferences from iron, nickel and other
metals because of the flame temperature. The hotter nitrous oxide/acetylene
flame was tried as an alternative. This procedure reduced or eliminated these
interferences, however, sensitivity decreased and many concentrations were
then nondetectable. In order to determine the proper reagent additions to
control interferenes, some samples were spiked with various amounts of dif-
ferent reagents, analyzed and percent recovery calculated. Ammonium chloride
was added at 2, 5 and 10 percent (Iil/V) without significant improvement to the
recoveries. A solution of 20 grams ammonium bifluoride. 4 grams sodium sul-
fate, and 100 ml deionized water was prepared and added to the samples at a
ratio of 1:20. The average spike recoveries were 62.2 percent ~ 27.9 and 78.7
percent j: 16.1. The broad range indicates that the suppression was related t(
the concentration of the interferring ions. The sample with the lowest spikE
recovery had the highest iron concentration. Samples with less than 200(
>lg/ml iron had spike recoveries greater than 75 percent. The blank spikE
recover ies were 97.5 and 101. 2 percent. The precision for this method was
good considering the concentrations were in the range of the limit of detec-
tion.
C.2.S cobalt
This element was determined using an air/acetylene flame and the primarj
analytical wavelength. Since there were no known interferences, the samples
were analyzed directly and the results gave good precision. The spike re-
covery for the Greenidge samples was 119.6 percent.:!:. 14.3. The blank recover:\:
was 120 percent indicating a possible error in the preparation of the spikE
solution or in the calibration of the instrument. For the Russell sample, thE
C - 16
recovery was 93.1 percent!:. 12.29. The lowest recoveries were found in the
samples which had the highest combined pollutant concentrations, i.e., the dry
day samples and ground water samples.
C.2.9 Copper
Samples were analyzed directly for copper using the primary analytical
wavelength and an air/acetylene flame. Most samples were within the linear
working range of 5 J.I g/ml. The precision for this method was good. The
spike recovery for Greenidge was 109.3 percent + 3.59. The blank recovery was
111 percent indicating the spike preparation was possibly in error or that
instrument calibration was off by approximately 11 percent. The recovery for
RUSS1!1l was 98.6 percent 7.23 with a blank recovery of 102 percent. The
lowe.stspike recoveries were 84 percent for two ground water samples which had
the highest pollutant concentrations.
C.2.10 Iron
Overall, the highest metal concentration in the samples collected was
iron. The Greenidge samples were diluted 1000 fold and analyzed using an air/
acetylene flame and the primary wavelength. The Russell samples were diluted
ten f.:>ld and analyzed at wavelength 346.6 om which was 110 times less sensi-
tive than the primary wavelength. The precision was better for the first
method, l.88 percent!:. 1.51 compared to 5.01 percent + 7.04. The Greenidge
samples were spiked too low for an accurate measure of iron recovery. The
spike recovery for RUssell was 100.2 percent + 19.6.
C - 17
C.2.11 ~
Lead was analyzed using the furnace procedure. A lanthanum nitrate solu-
tion was prepared by dissolving 58.64 grams of La
2
0
3
in 100 ml concen-
trated HN0
3
and diluting to 1000 ml with deionized, distilled water. The
procedure recommended adding this solution to the samples at a ratio of 1:10
in order to suppress sulfate interference at concentration up to 1500 ppm
S04' The very lowest sample sulfate concentrations were at this level, but
ranged up to 25 times higher. Adding lanthanum at 10 times the recommended
value gave negative responses. The samples were prepared for analysis by
adding the lanthanum solution at a ratio of 1:5. For the Greenidge samples it
was necessry to change the graphite tube after forty atomizations. The maxi-
mum standard used in this procedure was 0.100 j.! g/ml. Sometimes during the
life of the graphite tube, the blank. reading would change from .000 to .020
j.!g/ml. Because of this drifting the limit of detection was set at .020
].I g/ml which was 4 times greater than the calculated limit of detection. The
relative average deviation from the mean for the Greenidge samples was 23.02
percent ~ 20.35 and the spike recovery was 55.6 percent + 42.1.
When the Russell samples were analyzed for dissolved lead, the problem of
negative response occurred although analytical condition had not changed be-
tween sites. Standards were prepared in a ferrous sulfate matrix in an at-
tempt to match the suppression occurring in the samples. The blank gave a
high positive response which may have been due to trace contamination of lead
in the ferrous sulfate salt. The wide range of sulfate concentrations in the
samples also made it impossible to prepare one representative set of stan-
dards. In general, the more sulfate present in the sample, the more negative
the response. Samples with the lowest sulfate values (less than 4000 j.!g/ml)
usually gave positive responses. The spike recoveries were calculated using
the negative response in the equation. The average recovery was 75.3 percent
C - 18
:t. 2.0.72. This would indicate the degree of suppression of the lead response.
The limit of detection for Russell dissolved lead samples was set at .020
~ g / m l and all values were reported this way.
When the Russell total lead samples were analyzed another attempt was made
to improve this procedure. The L'vov platform is a relatively new development
in furnace atomization techniques. The 'atom and molecules are released from
the .platform into a tube atmosphere which has already reached a much higher
temperature and is closer to or has reached constant temperature conditions.
At these higher vapor temperatures, molecular dissociation into atoms is more
complete, and chemical interferences which result from the formation of mole-
cule:; are significantly reduced.
NH
4
H
2
P0
4
as a matrix modifier. (1)
The L'vov procedure for lead uses
The use of a 10 percent solution of
this at a ratio of 1: 10 in the sample and standards gave negative responses
for the samples. When the samples were analyzed without the addition of rea-
gents, all responses were positive. The mean spike recovery for this proce-
dure was 69.53 percent + 26.80.
Of the 54 Russell samples which were analyzed for dissolved lead and re-
ported as nondetected, < .020 )Jg/ml, only' 14 total lead values analyzed
using the L'vov platform gave results> .020. This would indicate that at
least 75 percent of the dissolved lead values were correctly reported as non-
detected.
Future efforts to improve the analysis of lead in coal pile runoff samples
should focus on the use of the L'vov platform in conjunction with matrix modi-
fiers.
(1) E.J Hinderberger, M. L. Kaiser and S. R. Koirtyvhann, Atomic Spectro-
scopy, ~ : 1 (1981).
c - 19
C.2.12 Magnesium
The concentration range of magnesium using the air/acetylene flame at the
primary wavelength is linear to 0.50 ].lg/ml. An alternate analytical line
suggested by the instrument manual is at -"202.6 run which is 24 times less sen-
sitive than the primary wavelength. This wavelength was used with standards
ranging up to 10.0 ].lg/ml. The same sample preparation that was used for
calcium was needed for magnesium. The samples were diluted one-hundred fold
and lanthanum chloride was added at a ratio of 1: 9 to eliminate interferences
from silicon and aluminum. The precision for this method was good. The aver-
age spike recoveries were 116 percent + 11.3 and 110.4 percent.:!: 12.18, re-
spectively for Greenidge and Russell.
C.2.13 Manganese
Manganese was analyzed in an air/acetylene flame at 403.1 nm which was 9.5
times less sensitive than the primary analytical line. The highest standard
was 25 jJ g/ml under these conditions so few samples had to be diluted. The
precision for both sites .was good, 0.75 .:!: 0.62 for Greenidge and 1.36 pecent :1
l.86 for Russell. The spike recoveries were 109.9 percent.:!: 5.91 and 97.0
percent .:!: 13.2
C.2.14 Mercury
The MRS-IO Mercury/Hydride System in conjunction with the atomic absorp-
tion unit was used for the analysis of this element. Analytical conditions
recommended in this system's manual were followed. The most sensitive condi-
tions were used in order to detect concentrations as low as .0002 jJg/ml. An
aliquot of the preserved, undigested sample adjusted with water to a volume of
25 ml was mixed with 2.5 ml of a 1:1 mixture of 30 percent HN0
3
and 30 per-
cent H
2
S0
4
, A 5 percent KMn04 solution was added dropwise until pink
C - 20
color persisted. The sample was attached to the MHS-IO System, sodium boro-
hydride was added generating the mercury vapor which was then carried into the
quartz cell for measurement. The absorbance peaks were recorded on a strip
chart recorder. Standards were analyzed and a calibration curve was construc-
ted. The linear regression equation was calculated from this data and sample
concentrations were obtained using this equation. The relative average devia-
tion from th mean for Greenidg samples was 9.05 percent 1: 11.14 and fOr
RUssell samples was 8.77 percent :t 9.71. The spike level was .001 llg/ml and
the recoveries were 116.2 prcent + 13.2 and 96.8 percent + 15.24, respec-
tivelyfor Greenidge and RUssell. These values were considered acceptable
s i n c t ~ the majority of results were less than .001 llg/ml which was in the
range of the limit of detection.
C.2.15 Molybdenum
This element was analyzed by the EPA furnace method adding 50 percent
ammonium nitrate to th samples and standards at a ratio of 1: 10. This was
done to remove chloride which interferes by forming volatile MOC1
5
The
precision for the Greenidge samples was 4.87 percent 1: 10.57 which improved to
1.35 percent 1: 2.44 for the Russell samples. The average spike recovery for
the Greenidge samples was 106.1 percent 1: 48.8 and 130.8 percent . .. 23.7 for
the Russell samples. The wide range of these recoveries indicates additional
interferences which were not compensated for by the addition of ammonium ni-
trate. However, the majority of sample results were close to or below the
limi t ()f detection.
c - 21
C.2.16 Nickel
Nickel was analyzed using an air/acetylene flame and the analytical line
at 231.1 nm which was 1.5 times less sensitive than the primary wavelength.
This extended the analytical range to 7.0 1l g/ml which reduced the number of
samples which had to be diluted. No reagents had to be added to the samples.
The relative average deviations from the mean for each site were 0.93 per-
cent + 0.70 and 0.90 percent .:!: 1.15. The average spike recovery for the
Greenidge samples was 108.1 percent.:!: 7.6 The blank recovery was 106 percent
indicating that the high recovery was due to an error during the preparation
of the spike samples or during instrument calibration. For Russell the re-
covery was 102.0 percent.:!: 6.47. The blank recovery was 102.8 percent.
C.2.I7 Selenium
The matrix of the coal pile runoff samples presented severe interference
for selenium analysis. Sulfate interferes at concentrations greater than 200
llg/ml in the furnace. The sample concentrations started at 10 times this
value and ranged up to 200 times. Samples produced negative responses when
compared to aqueous standards. Because of the wide range of matrix concentra-
tions, it was impossible to match the matrix of the standards to the samples.
Selenium was analyzed by the gaseous hydride procedure following condi-
tions recommended in the instrument manufacturer's manual for the MRS-10
Mercury/Hydride System. 0.5 ml of 30 percent hydrochloric acid was added to
an aliquot of digested sample or standard diluted to 10.0 ml. Sodium boro-
hydride was introduced into the sample reaction flask converting the selenium
to its gaseous hydride which was then carried into the heated quartz cell for
measurement. The responses were recorded on a strip chart recorder. A linear
regression equation plotting selenium in the standards versus peak height was
c - 22
used to calculate the concentration of selenium in the samples. The instru-
ment was set at its most sensitive conditions so that concentrations of sele-
niulIII as low as .001 \.l g/ml would be measureable. The relative average devia-
tion from the mean for Greenidge was 13.17 percent 10.78 and for Russell was
7.46 percent . 7.76. Greenidge samples were spiked with .020 \.l g/ml and the
average recovery was 19.1 percent 17.8. Russell samples were spiked with
.040 ]Jg/ml and the average recovery was 38.3 percent :!:. 21.55. In hydride
methods, interferences are usually minimized because the volatile hydrides are
removed from the solution and leave behind many potentially interferring sub-
stances. The precision and poor spike recovery for these samples indicated
the presence of compounds that interfere in the formation of the hydride.
Reductions in peak height occur with H
2
S0
4
and HN0
3
concentrations ex-
ceeding 1 M and in the presence of large amounts of iron. Sulfate and iron
concentrations were extremely high in these samples. The method of standard
addition used with the hydride procedure would give improved recoveries. In
this method a series of one blank and three standards is prepared uSing equal
volumes of the sample. The concentration of the element of interest in the
sample is extrapolated from the plot of standard concentration versus absor-
bance.
C.2.l8 Vanadium
Vanadium was analyzed by the EPA furnace procedure. The addition of rea-
gents was not necessary. The precision for this procedure improved from
Greenidge to .. Russell although the analytical conditions remained the same.
The relative average deviation from the mean for Greenidge was 15.13 percent :!:.
14.38 cLndimprOved t02.9a percent 3.24 for Russell. Greenidge samples were
spiked with 0.100 ]Jg/ml and the recovery was 62.5 percent 42.2. The blank
c - 23
recovery was 61 percent. Russell samples were spiked with 0.200 lig/ml and
the recovery was 97.1 percent.:t 19.86. The blank recovery was 88 percent.
C.2.19 zinc
Zinc was analyzed using an air/acetylene flame and the primary analytical
line at 213.9 nm. The burner was turned to its greatest angle in order to
increase the linear range from 1 Ii g/ml to 12 Ii g/ml. The majority of sam-
ple concentrations were within this range. The relative average deviation
from the mean was 0.81 percent ~ 0.85 for Greenidge and 3.85 percent + 16.17
for Russell. The spike recovery for Greenidge was 96.4 percent .:t 3.6 and
104.0 percent + 12.8 for Russell.
C.3 Physical and Nonmetallic Analysis of Coal Samples
ASTM procedures were followed for the analysis of moisture, ash, particle
size and fluoride. These procedures are listed in the 1981 Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, Part 26, Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke; Atmospheric Analysis.
C.3.1 Moisture
ASTM Procedure D3302 "Standard Test Method for Total Moisture in coal" is
based on the loss in weight of a coal sample in an air atmosphere under rig-
idly controlled conditions of temperature, time and air flow. This procedurE
consisted of two parts, the measurement of air dry loss and the measurement of
residual moisture. Residual moisture can be measured by either of twc
methods, depending on the top size to which the prepared sample is crushed.
Initially, the total coal sample was placed in a shallow pan, and remained fot
16 hours in a temperature (20C 25
0
C) and humidity (less than 5C
percent) controlled environment in order to equilibrate it and obtain air dry
C - 24
loss. For this program, Procedure B of ASTM D3302was used for residual
moisture corttent. The sample was crushed to pass through a No. 60 sieve
o 0
(25 jJm). A 1 gram sample was heated at 107 ::!:. 3 C for 1 hour and t.ota 1
and residual moiSture was calculated. Triplicate determination of moisture
had a relative average deviation from the mean of 1.76 percent.
C.3.2 Ash
The ash content of the coal was performed to determine the variability of
the coal at each site. At Greenidge ASTM Procedure D3174 "Standard Test
Method for Ash in the Analysis of Coal and Coke" was followed to determine the
variability because the test was used as a screening technique to determine
the number of coal samples to be taken for the complete coal analysis. In
this method, ash was determined by weighing the residue remaining after igni-
ting coal which passed a No. 10 sieve to const.ant weight at 700 to 750
o
C.
The relative deviation from the mean for triplicate analyses was 0.92 percent.
Since sample size determination was not needed at Russell, the ash content
method was different. The ash content of these samples was obtained during
the plreliminary ashing of the coal for trace metal digestion. The coal was
ground to pass a No. 60 sieve then ignited at SOOoC and the residue weighed.
C.3.3 Particle Size
ASTM Procedure D410-38 "Standard Method of Sieve Analysis of Coal" was
followed to determine particle size. The weights of the coal samples ranged
from 100 to 1000 grams which were less than the recommended sample size for
this analysis. The series of sieves used for this analysis varied from the
set listed in the procedure. These differences can be seen in Table C-S. The
c - 25
TABLE C-S
SIEVE SIZES USED FOR COAL PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
ASTM Recommended Sieve Sieve used
25 rom 25 mm
19 rom
12.5 rom 12.5 rom
9.5 rom
4.75 rom 4.00 mm
2.36 rom 2.00 rom
1.18 rom 1.00 rom
600 pm 600 pm
300 1I m 250 11m
150 1I m 125 1I m
7511 m 63 11m
C - 26
series of sieves was shaken manually for the Greenidge samples, however a
Ro-Tap Testing Sieve Shaker Model B was used for the Russell samples. The
sum of the fraction percentages was greater than 98 percent which was within
the test requirements. The results were reported as percent retained on Sieve
A passing, Sieve B, where A is the number of a sieve and B is the number of
the next larger sieve.
C.3.4 Fluoride
,1\STM Procedure D3761-79 "Standard Test Method for Total Fluorine in Coal
by the Oxygen BOlIlb COlIlbustion/Ion Selective Electrode Method" was used for
this analySis. A weighed sample was combusted in an oxygen bomb with a dilute
base absorbing the fluorine vapors. The contents of the bomb were rinsed into
a beaker with water, the pH was adjusted, the solution was heated to drive off
CO
2
, a buffer was added and the fluorine was determined using an Orion
Fluoride Specific Ion Electrode Model 9409 in conjunction with an Orion Iona-
lyzer Meter Model 407A. The Orion TISAB IV buffer which complexes high con-
centrations of iron and aluminum was used in place of the citrate buffer; des-
cribed in the ASTM method. The relative deviation from the mean for a dupli-
cate analysis was 7.10 percent. The average spike recovery for five salilples
was 86.5 percent + 9.3.
Originally, fluoride was to be analyzed using ASTM Procedure D3269
"Standard Methods for Analysis for Fluoride content of the Atmosphere and
Plant Tissues (Manual procedures). n A few coal samples were prepared accor-
ding to this method in which the samples were fused with sodium hydroxide
then steam distilled from aperchloric acid solution and fluoride measured in
the distillate by specific ion electrode.. The fusion and distillation proce--
dures were time-consuming and difficult to control compared to the oxygen bomb
procedu:te. The spike recovery was only 42 percent so .this method was not used.
C - 27
C.4 Metal Analysis of Coal Samples
Ten samples from each site were analyzed for the same nineteen metals
tested in the runoff. The National Bureau of Standards, Standard Reference
Material 1632a "Trace Elements in Coal (Bituminous) II was analyzed along with
each site' s samples. The samples were prepared for analysis using digestion
procedures developed by the Tennessee Valley Authority during the study of
coal and ash samples at the _ Colbert Steam Plant. (1) A description of the
five digestions used follows and is summarized in Table C-6.
The coal was oven dried at 40
0
C for 16 hours and then air dried for 2
hours in a temperature and humidity controlled room and ground to pass though
a No. 60 sieve before being ashed or digested.
The first digestion procedure with hydrofluoric acid and perchloric acid
resulted in solutions which were analyzed for 12 metals (Be, Ca, Cr, Cu, Fe,
Mg, Mo, Mo, Ni, Pb, V and Zn). A sample of coal was ashed at SOOoC until
all carbonaceous material disappeared. 10.0000 grams of ash were weighed inte
a platinum dish, 10 ml of Ult:rei" hydrofluoric acid and 1 ml of reagent
grade perchloric acid were added, and the sample heated to dryness at a tem-
o
perature of 250 C. The acid addition caused some of the ash to fly out of
the dish. This problem was avoided with the Russell coal by wetting down the
ash before adding the acid. The acid addition and heating was repeated twiCE
on the sample. 1 ml of Ultrei" hydrochloric acid and 10 ml of water were
added to the cooled residue, the dish was covered with a watch glass ani
(1) Field Study to Obtain Trace Element Mass Balance at a Coal-Firec
Utility Boiler, Final Report May 1975-September 1980. Tennessee Valle:\!
Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Division of Energy Demonstration anc.
Technology, Robert Evers, V.E. Banderfriff and R.L. Zielke, October 1980,
1 4 ~ pages, EPA-600j7-80-171.
C - 28
-------''"
()
'" <.0
plgeotion (1)
Metal Procedure Method(2J and Procedure Reagents Conunents
____ 0
Aluminum 2 202.1 Flame - H
2
O/aeet ReI J09.1 om (primary wavelength)
Antimony 204.2 Furnace NII
4
N0
3
Arsenic 3 206.2 Furnace HI(N0
3
'2
Beryllium 210.1 Flame - H
2
o/aeet a-hydroxyquinoline
CadmiUlI 2 213.2 Furnace
(N"4'2"
P0
4
Calcium 215.1 Flame LaCl) angle burner
Chromium 218.1 Flame Nlf4HF2 .. Ne
2
sO ..
Cobalt 2 219.2 Furnace
Copper 220.1 Flame
Iron 236.1 Flame 346 .. 6 (110 times less sensitive)
Lead 239.1 Flame
Magnesium 2U.1 Flame LaCi
l
time& leas sensitive)
Manganese 241.1 Flame 279.5 Irlm (primary wavelength)
Hel:"cury 5 245.5 Cold vapor
Molybdenum 246.2 Furnace

Nicke 1 249.1 Flame 23Ll iliA (8..5 UrneS less sensitive)
Selenium 270.3 Hydride
VanadiuQI 286.1 Flame - "2o/aeet
Zinc 289.1 Flame angle burner
(ll
Field study to Obtain Trace Element Mass Balance at a Coal-Fired Utility Boiler, Final Report May 1975-September
1980. Valley Authority, chattanooqa, Tennessee
D
Division of Energy Demonstration and Technology, Robert
Evers, V.E. aanderfciff and R.L. Zielke, October 1980 6 146 pages6 EPA-600/7-80-17L
(2)
11
2,
J,
4)
S}
Ashed, digested with HF and HCI04
Digested with lithium metaborate
Digested with UNO] and "2S04
Digested with Eschka mixture
Digested with aqua regia
... L .. U ... O I.UI, \..o"l::lIIl.lO':'.I, of Water and Wastes, March 1979.
heated to dissolve the salts. The sample was then quantitatively transferred
to a 100 ml volumetric flask using 5 percent Ultrex'" hydrochloric acid as
the diluent.
The second preparation for the analysis of aluminum, cadmium and cobalt
involved fusing the coal with lithium metaborate. 0.5000 grams of coal and
2.0 grams of lithium metaborate were mixed in a platinum dish and heated in a
muffle furnace at 900
0
C until a clear melt was obtained. The cooled dish
was placed in a beaker with 75 ml water and 4 ml of trace metal grade nitric
acid. The beaker was placed on a magnetic stirrer and stirred vigorously
until the melt was dissolved. LO gram of tartaric acid was added and the
solution was quantitatively transferred to a 100 ml volumetric flask.
For the arsenic digestion, 0.5000 grams of coal, 7.0 ml of 1: 1 reagent
grade sulfuric acid and 5.0 mt of trace metal grade nitric acid were heated
unti 1 the white fumes of S03 appeared. 2.5 rut of water was added to the
cooled sample and the evaporation was repeated to expel the oxides of nitro-
gen. The sample was then quantitatively transferred to a 100 ml volumetric
flask.
The fourth digestion for selenium and antimony involved ashing of the coal
in the presence of Eschka mixture (2 parts by weight of light calcined magne-
sium oxide to one part of anhydrous sodium carbonate). L 0000 gram of coal
was mixed with 1. 5 grams of Eschka mixture in a procelain crucible the!
covered with an additional 1.5 grams of the mixture. The samples were placec
in a cold oven and heated to 500
0
C for 1 hour then the temperature was in-
o
creased to 750 C for 2-1/2 hours until all the coal was ashed. The ash mix-
ture was transferred to a beaker which contained 20 ml of hot water and :
grams of tartaric acid. The crucible was rinsed 3 times with 5 ml aliquots of
C - 30
reagent grade hydrochloric acid which were added to the contents in the
beaker. The solution in the beaker was transferred to a 100 ml volumetric
flask.
The fifth digestion for mercury was modified slightly from the TVA proce-
dUre in order to adapt the procedure to the Perkin Elmer MRS-lO Mercury-
Hydride System. Approximately 0.4000 grams of coal were weighed and placed in
a 100 ml volumetric flask. 5 ml of water and 5 ml of aqua regia (3 parts hy-
drochloric acid to 1 part nitric acid) were added and the solution was heated
for two minutes ina water bath at 95
0
C. The solution was cooled and 50 ml
of water and 15 ml of 5 percent potassium permanganate solution were added.
The solutions were heated in the water bath for 30 minutes then cooled. 6 ml
of a solution of 12 grams of sodium chloride and 12 grams of hydroxylamine
sulfalte diluted to 100 ml with water were added to the sample solutions to
reduce the permanganate. The sample solutions were then diluted to 100 ml.
The solutions were analyzed using the Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption Unit
described in Section C.2. The metal content of the coal was reported as ~ g
metal/grams of coal. This was calculated using the following equation:
~ gig ..
~ g metal
ml of digested solution
x
volume of digested solution, ml
grams of coal digested
The analytical conditions for each element are described below and summarized
in Table C-6. The results of the analysis of the NBS-SRM sample which was
analyzed along with each site's coal samples are presented in Table C-7. D1s-
cussiorl of the comparison of results with the coal standards follows for each
metal.
C - 31
TABLE C-7
RESULTS OF COAL STANDARD ANALYSES
Relative Relative
Certified Greenidge Error from RUssell Error from
Values NBS Value Certified NBS Value Certified
Metal II gig llg/g Mean % II gig Mean %
Aluminum
31,000 (II
24,100 -22.3 32,200 +3.9
Antimony
0.6(1)
< 3.7 0 < 1.6 0
Arsenic "9.3 + 1.0 9.0
-3.2 (2)
53.0 +470
Beryllium
Cadmium 0.17 . 0.02 0.08 -52.9 0.14 -17.6
Calcium 2,.300 :t 300 977 -57.5 2,600
+13.0(21
Chromium 34.4
:t 1.5
34.1
-0.9 (21
34.1
-0.9 (2)
Cobalt
6.8 (1)
< 9.5 0 4.2 -38.2
Copper 16.5 :t 1 15.4 -6.7 15.5
-6.1 (2)
Iron 11,100 . 200 8,160 -26.5 10,300 -7.2
Lead 12.4 :t 0.6 192 +1450 13.7 +10.5
Magnesium 1,000 (1)
494 -50.6 1.140 +14.0
Manganese 28 + 2 16 -42.9 26
_7.1(2)
Mercury 0.13 :t 0.03 0.39 +200 0.10
-23.1(2)
Molybdenum
Nickel 19.4 . 1.0 20.8 +7.2 23.0 +18.6
Selenium 2.6 :t 0.7 2.1
-19.2(2)
3.6 +38.5
Vanadium 44
:t
3 36 -18.2 46
+4.5 (2)
Zinc 28 + 2 512 +1730 28
0(2)
{ll Not certified - results based on a non-referenced method, or not deter-
mined by two or more independent methods.
(2) Within certified range.
C - 32
C.4.1 Aluminum
Aluminum was analyzed using the same procedure that was used for the run-
off samples, EPA Method 202.1. However, the primary analytical wavelength was
used for the coal samples which provided a linear working range to 50 lJ g/ml
and the samples were diluted by a factor of 5. The relative error for the. NBS
standard analyzed with the Greenidge samples was -22.3 percent and improved to
+3.9 percent for the Russell analysis.
C.4.2 Antimony
jmtimony was analyzed by the furnace method used for the runoff samples.
The clnalysis of the NBS sample for both sites gave values less than the limit
of detection. The NBS value was also below the limit of detection.
C.4.3 Arsenic
Arsenic was analyzed using the same furnace procedure used for the runoff
samples . The NBS value obtained during the Greenidge analysis was within the
certified range with a relative error of -3.2 percent. The Russell value was
in error by +470 percent. This high recovery may be related to the fact that
background correction could not be used during this analysis due to excessive
noise caused by the background corrector.
C.4.4 Beryllium
Ber.yllium was analyzed using the same flame method used for the runoff
samples. values for this metal were not given for the NBS standard. Aspike
sampleprepal'ed using a digested coal sample resulted in 102 percent recovery.
C - 33
C.4.5 Cadmium
Cadmium was analyzed by the EPA Furnace Procedure 213.2 whereas the runoff
samples were analyzed by the flame method. A 40 percent solution of ammonium
phosphate was prepared in water and added to the samples and standards in a
ratio of 1:50. The addition of this reagent permitted charring of the sample
at a higher temperature (500
o
C) in order to volatilize more of the sample
matrix before atomization. The relative error for the NBS standard analyzed
with the Greenidge samples was -52.9 percent and for the Russell NBS analysis
was -17.6 percent. The limit of detection for this procedure was approxi-
mately 0.08 \1 9 Cd/g coal. The concentration of the NBS standard was only
two times this value at 0.17 0.02 \19/9. Because the standard was near the
limit of detection, the errors are not as poor as they appear to be.
C.4.6 Calcium
Calcium was analyzed using the same flame method and sample preparatior
used for the runoff samples. Various dilutions were necessary. The relativE
error for the NBS standard analyzed with the Greenidge samples was -57.5 per-
cent which improved to +13.0 percent for the Russell NBS sample which was
within the certified range.
C.4.7 Chromium
Chromium was analyzed using the same reagents and flame conditions usee
for the runoff samples. Both sites' NBS results were within the certifiec
range and had a relative error from the certified mean of -0.9 percent.
C - 34
C.4.8 Cobalt
Cobalt in the coal was measured using EPA Procedure 219.2 for furnace
analysis instead of the flame procedure used for the runoff samples. The ad-
dition of reagents was not necessary. During the analysis of the Greenidge
coal samples the cobalt standards decreased in response by a factor of 3. The
limit of detection was set at the value of the maximum standard due to the
drop in sensitivity. The coal analytical values were all nondetected, < 10
llg C:o/g coal. The NBS value was given as 6.8 llg/9 coal which the labora-
tory result supported. For the Russell analysis sensitivity of the standards
did not drop off as severely. The limit of detection was 0.8 llg Co/g coal.
The result of the NBS standard analyzed with the Russell samples was 4.2
).Ig/g which had a relativ.e error of -38.2 percen.t.
C.4.9 Copper
CI::>pper was analyzed using the same flame conditions used for the runoff
samples. The relative errors for the NBS standard analysis were -6.7 percent
for the Greenidge result and -6.1 percent for the Russell result which was
within the certified range.
C.4.l0 ~
Iron was analyzed using the same flame conditions used for the runoff sam-
ples. The NBS relative error for the Greenidge analysis was -26.5 percent and
for the Russell analysis was -7.2 percent.
C - 35
C.4.11 Lead
Lead was analyzed using EPA Procedure 239.1 for flame analysis. The in-
terferences encountered with the .analysis of the runoff samples in the furnace
did not occur in the flame. The Greenidge analysis of the NBS standard had a
relative error of +1450 percent. The value of this sample was very high com-
pared to the 10 coal samples, some of which were nondetected. This indicates
that the NBS sample was probably contaminated with lead.. The Russell NBf
value had a relative error of +10.5 percent.
C.4.l2 Magnesium
Magnesium was analyzed using the same flame procedure used for the runofj
samples. LaC1
3
was added to eliminate interferences from aluminum and sili-
con. The Greenidge samples were analyzed using the primary analytical lim
which gave a linear concentration range to 0.5 jlg/ml. The samples were di
luted between 10 and 100 fold. The relative error was -50.6 percent for thE
NBS analysis. For the Russell site, the analysis was carried out at the les;
sensitive wavelength and the relative error for the NBS sample was +14.0 per-
cent.
C.4.l3 Manganese
Manganese was analyzed by the flame procedure using the primary analytica
line of 279.5 nm while the runoff samples were analyzed at 403.1 nm which wa:
9.5 time less sensitive. The relative error for the Greenidge analysis of th'
NBS sample was -42.9 percent. The Russell NBS value was within the certifie(
range with a relative error from the mean of -7.1 percent.
C - 36
C.4.l4 Mercury
The MHS-lO Mercury/Hydride System in conjunction with the atomic absorp-
tioll unit was used for the analysis of the digested coal and standards. An
aliquot of the digestate was placed in the reaction flask and attached to the
unit. Sodium borohydride was added to the flask and the absorbance of the
generated mercury vapor was measured and recorded on a strip chart recorder.
The linear regression equation was calculated for the standards used to obtain
the concentration of mercury in the coal. The relative error for the
Greenidge NBS sample was +200 percent. The result of the NBS standard ana-
lyzed with the Russell samples was within the certified range with a relative
error f.rom the certified mean of -23.1 percent.
C.4.lS Molybdenum
Molybdenum was analyzed by the same furnace procedure used for the. runoff
samples. No value was given for the metal in the NBS sample.
C.4.l6 Nickel
Nickel was analyzed by the same flame procedure used for the runoff sam-
pIes. The relative error for the Greenidge NBS sample analysis was +7.2 per-
cent and for the Russell NBS analysis was +18.6 percent.
C.4.l7 Selenium
Before the selenium coal digestate was analyzed by the hydride method, an
aliquot of the digestate was mixed with an equal volume of concentrated hydro-
+6 +4
chloric acid to reduce Se to Se The samples were analyzed using the
MHS-lO system that was used for the runoff samples. The selenium result for
C - 37
the Greenidge NBS analysis was within the certified range with a relative er-
ror from the mean of -19.2 percent. The Russell NBS sample error was +38.5
percent.
C.4.1B Vanadium
Vanadium was analyzed by EPA Procedure 286.1 using a nitrous oxide/
acetylene flame. The runoff samples were analyzed in the furnace. Aluminun
increases the response of vanadium in the flame. Since aluminum was present
in the samples, the standards were prepared to contain 200 \.lg!ml aluminum ir
order to match the sample matrix. The relative error for the Greenidge anal-
ysis of the NBS sample was -18.2 percent. The Russell NBS result was withir
the certified range with a relative error from the mean of +4.5 percent.
CG4.19 Zinc
Zinc was analyzed by the same flame conditions used for the runoff sam-
ples. The relative error for the Greenidge analysis of the NBS was very high,
1730 percent. Zinc contamination of the NBS sample was suspected. The leve:
of zinc in the coal samples was much lower. The Russell NBS result equalle(
the certified mean value which gave a relative error of a percent.
c ~ 38
APPENDIX D
DATA REDUCTION
0.1 Correction of Flow, pH and Conductivity Data
The three major runoff parameters, flow, pH and conductivity which were
continuously recorded required a correction based on field calibrations.
Flow data was supplemented by bucket and stopwatch readings. When a dry
day base flow was entered into the data bank it was the average of three
readings taken on those runoff channels experiencing flow. For Greenidge this
represented 1 runoff stream while at Russell it represented at least 2 streams
when there was flow. In developing the storm hydrographs all bucket and
stopwatch readings were plotted initially. Data from the ISCO flow meters (2
at Russell, 1 at Greenidge) were recorded as a volumetric measure. This data
was then adjusted according to bucket and stopwatch readings taken
simultaneously. For the 2 liquid level recorders used on Channels 1 and 2 at
Russell, calibration curves had to be used in order to convert height of water
in the V-channel to flow. Storm hydrographs for Russell were developed for
each runoff channel. By summing the 4 hydrographs a single hydrograph for
each Russell storm was then determined. The hydrograph data on Russell
presented in this report therefore is the composite of 4 individual flow
curves .
Conductivity and pH data were also continuously recorded. Periodic
calibrations, referred to as beginning-of-period and end-of-period were used
to adjust the recorded values for each parameter.
0.2 Prdcedure for Determining Drainage Coefficients
The, determination of the runoff coefficient requires the knowledge of
drainage basin area, amount of precipitation, and total runoff volume. The
drainag'e basin area for both sites was acquired from planimeter studies on the
D - 1
site maps. Precipitation and flow data were provided from the tipping bucket
and flow instruments, respectively. Hydrographs were developed from the flow
data, using the following equation:
where:
N=1\l0.2
N = recession period from peak flow, days
Ad = drainage area, mi
2
Eq. 0-1
For example, the Greenidge pile has a runoff area of 5.26 acres, or 0 . 0 0 8 ~
.2
ml.. By the above equation, the recession period of the Greenidge pile frm
the peak flow is:
(0.0082)0.2 = 0.383 days =< 9.2 hours
An integration of the hydrograph, extended to N days, provided informatiol
on the total volume of storm runoff in gallons. This total volume was the!
used in the calculation of the runoff coefficient, which is described b
J
equation D-2:
where:
R = k P
R = runoff volume, gallons
P = volume of precipitation, gallons
k = runoff coefficient, unitless
Eq. 0-:
Runoff, in gallons, is already a known quantity from the hydrograpl
integration. precipitation must be converted from inches to gallons. Fo]
example, the rain on October 1, 1981 at Greenidge was recorded at 0.5(
inches. The total volume of water added to the pile can be calculated by:
0.50 inches x
1 ft
12 in
x 5.26
43,560 ft2
acres
acre
D - 2
x
7.48 gal
=
ft
3
71,411 gallon:
By knowing the volumes of precipitation and runoff, k, the drainage
coefficient is calculatedl in this example,
2867 gallons
71411 gallons
=
0.040
This calculation was performed for all the storms at Greenidge and Russell.
D.3 Selected Correlation Analyses
A number of selected correlations were performed on the data collected
during the coal pile runoff events. Since conductivity was selected as an
indicator parameter for dissolved materials, the first correlation performed
was conductivity versus dissolved solids.
Another featUre of conductivity which was observed during storm events was
the inverse relationship of conductivity to flow. Therefore data was
presented showing the correlation of conductivity to flow on the same time
base.
Acidity data and selected dissolved metals data was entered into the data
bank. A linear regression analysis was performed to determine their
correlation. The results of this correlation are presented in the databank.
Stormwater and base flow anal.ysis included the quantification of both
dissolved and total metals. Due to the extremely low pH of the coal pile
drainage it may be expected that there was a significant correlation between
total and dissolved metals.
pH values remained steady for all drainage conditions. Because of this
fact pH correlations were substituted by acidity correlations.
Met.als conc'entrations did vary over each storm event. Data is presented
in the data bank on ahydrograph overlay showing the changes of metals during
a storm event.
D - 3
D.4 Correction of Moisture Cell Data
Data was collected daily on the dynamic moisture contents of the pile by
measuring the resistances of the moisture probes, located at various locations
and depths in the pile, on an MC-30SB soil moisture meter.
correlate the measured resistance with actual moisture
In order tc
percentages,
calibration curves were prepared for each of the moisture probes prior tc
their placement in the piles. In the preparation of these curves, coal was
obtained from the surface of the pile. It was found through experimentatior
that the fiberglass in the cells retain moisture and require long drying-out
periods. Consequently, the coal samples used in the calibration curVE
preparation ranged from dry to wet in that order. The sample was thoroughlj
mixed and all of the probes were firmly buried at least several inches in thE
sample. The probes were allowed to equilibrate for a minimum of one hour, ani
resistance readings were taken using the meter. After all of the data hat
been logged, a sample of the coal, at least 150 gm, was bagged to be takel
back to the TRC laboratory for moisture analysis.
After this first point had been obtained, the coal sample was thel
moistened slightly with water and completely mixed again. The probes wert
again located in the coal fragments, and allowed to equilibrate. This entirt
procedure was repeated three times, in order to achieve probe resistances a'
four different moisture contents. The moisture content of the samples wer!
measured according to ASTM Procedure "Standard Method of L a b o r a t o r ~
Determination of Moisture Content of Soil", Designation 02216-71. The dat,
collected from these calibrations were then plotted on a semi-log plot oj
resistance, in ohms, versus percent moisture. An example of these calibratiol
D - 4
curves for four moisture probes (A-7, M-6, G-l and D-l) at the Greenidge pile
are shown in Figure D-l. From these curves, daily data from the probes, as
measured in ohms, were converted to moisture percentages. The conversion of
daily moisture readings by this procedure then led to the development of the
moisture profiles, found in Sections 3.3.3 and 3.4.3.
D.5 .Evaporation Data Reduction
gvaporation pans have been traditionally used to measure evaporation from
freewater surfaces. In this method, a pan is filled with water daily, and the
weight loss, due to evaporation, is continuously recorded. pile evaporimeters
were designed which would more closely simulate the evaporation from the coal
piles.
A comparison of the data obtained from the two types of evaporimeters must
necessarily be made on the basis, either cumulative evaporation or net water
gain/:Loss (inclusive of precipitation). Because the pile evaporimeter data
includes precipitation, as well as evaporation, the net water gain/loss became
the sf::andard for comparison. To obtain this term for the pan evaporimeter,
daily precipitation, in millimeters, was subtracted from the cumulative pan
evaporation, in millimeters. By performing this minor calculation, the two
types of evaporation data could be equally compared. The daily precipitation
amount used in the calculations with the pan evaporimeter was obtained from
the tipping bucket data. All results on evaporation are reported as net
,gain/IClss of water from the piles, for both types of evaporimeters.
D - 5
-o
o
o
,..
><
fIJ
e
.c
o
-
w
o
z
<:
l-
f/)
-
f/)
w
a:
2
PERCENT MOISTURE
Figure 0-1. Example moisture cell calibration curve.
n - 6
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE DATA SHEETS, LOGS AND CALIBRATION CURVES
t.<j
I-'
Instrulnent

I
Conduct ivity
Rain Gauge
-
Hygrothermograph
Evaporat ion
Instrument
Flowrrreter
-- -"- --,----->
- [
Water Temperature
--
- -
Flume
I
--
Initial
OK
!
Not
OK

I
Status Fixed
- -
I
-"
-- -- -- - ---- ----- -- -
t'1
N
ESEERCO ! ! i.
Tnc ProJec t 1709 - P60! - '52. i
: . I i I
INSTRUMENT
HYGROTtIEMOGRAPIi
EVAPORATION
RECORDER
! I t
! DAILY SITE CUECK LIST fOR:
. i
\
PILE EVAPORIMETER:
Site
I /82

DATE
TRC PERSONNEL .ON SITE
GENERAL COMMENTS
(Problems. Breakdowns. Repair, Placement)
.j
INSTRUMENT
BELFORr
TIPPING BUCKET
GLI
CONDUCTIVITY
CHANNEL 2
BEL FORT
CHANNEL 3
ISCO
{SCO
SAMPLER
WEATHER:
, U ~
TRC PERSONNEL ON SIrE
GENERAL COMMENTS
(Problems. Breakdowns. Repair. Placement)
I'""f. 'ACTUATOR CHECKED:
BOTTLE POSITION:
APPROX. TIME Of EVENT:
ESEERCO
TRC PROJECT #1709-860-32
WEEKLY PIEZOMETER DATA LOG
DATE
. "
.- ~ ~ - ~
----
---_.-
,,"
. ,--_._-,-.-
. ' .".
-.--"
.-------
--------,_.
'.
-"
PIEZOMETER PI
P
2
P3
P
4
P7
P
g
DEPTH(l)
'-
- - .. .
pH
CONDUCTIV TTY (
2
)
DEPTH
,.
0
pH
.. _-.-
CONDUCT!V ITY
DEPTH
,
pH
CONDUCTIVITY
.
DEPTH
pH
CONDUCTIVITY
DEPTH
.. - ' ~ - - ~ - . - . - - - ." '"
-----
.-- - . - ~
pH
._- - -
CONDUCTIVITY
.-.-"
. , - <.- -,
.DEPTH
-- --_ .
_ _ . ~ ___ o ___
." , . .. ~ . - --_ ..
- _ ..
-- -- - --
.. ,
pH
__ ~ _____ ._ - , _____ , ____ , ,_ --,0-
.,
CONDUCTIVITY
'-
DEPTH
----- . - _.- --" - ---- ._---'.".
."
pH
, ,
-
CONDUCTIV ITY
... ..
(1) Depth measured to 0.005 feet from mark on top of piezometer
(2) Conductivity measured to umhos
E - 4
-
RUSSELL
(
.
.
.
II ~

"
II
"

I
\
o
o
....
LO
....
\0
'<t
I
~
t
I
~ . II
iii :ti E
~ . 1 .. _lil =111a!1. =-IIJ
= -;::: .. ~ ~ .
~ ; " , ~ ~ [j "'111
II
. .
. .
~ ~ ~ o lii
I .
o
=
.tm'
~

FF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COAL PILE

You might also like