Throughout Pennsylvania, many non-profit organizations have developed restoration plans for AMD impaired watersheds. To secure federal AML funding through Pennsylvania’s Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program and with other federal programs, those plans must include a cost/benefits analysis to assure that funds from the program are spent wisely. In an effort to assist in the development of a cost/benefit analysis for AMD projects being proposed for a qualified hydrologic unit watershed, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy worked with Hedin Environmental, through a technical assistance grant provided by Trout Unlimited’s Eastern Abandoned Mines Program, to develop a treatment cost calculator, which could compare costs on a variety of AMD treatment types. This presentation will demonstrate how it was used to develop a cost/benefit analysis for priority AMD discharges within the Sewickley Creek watershed in Westmoreland County.

1. Qualifications to meet DEP Acid Mine
Drainage Set Aside Program Guidelines

3. • Details requirements for acquiring funding
from the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) for AMD treatment.
• Federal funding comes from a fee collected
on every ton of coal mined in the US and is
earmarked for abandoned mine reclamation –
ALL abandoned mine problems.
• PA receives approximately 40 to 50 million
each year from SMCRA (recent reductions).

4. • SMCRA reauthorized in 2006
• PA held 10 public town hall meetings
throughout PA mining regions
• Public comments clear on two points: 30% of
the funds should go to AMD remediation and
funding should support local watershed
efforts
• Initial guidelines developed in 2008 by DEP
and the federal Office of Surface Mining
(OSM) with a first draft published in 2009

5. • Guidelines based on language in SMCRA and
an agency assessment of passive treatment
systems
• Attempts to provide a means to determine
where funding will be most effectively spent
primarily on treatment types.
• Requires watershed restoration plans to meet
specific requirements and be “qualified” by
BAMR as meeting those requirements.

6. • “restoration of land and water resources and
the environment” within a “qualified
hydrologic unit” is a key element.
• Must restore water quality and biologic
resources
• Uses a two-tier approach- Tier 1(high level)
removes stream from degraded list Tier 2
(lower level) restores stream to a fishery and
meets water quality requirements
• Must have a positive cost/benefit ratio

7.  HUP plan identifies restoration of Sewickley
Creek Main Stem and all major tributaries
impaired by AMD to the Tier 2 goal of re-
establishing the steams as a fishery
 HUP plan identified 11 major sources to be
treated (not considering work presently
taking place at Brinkerton)
 Biologic monitoring indicates all affected
stream segments are impaired

8. • All major discharges were monitored for
chemistry and flow for a period of one year to
identify the pollution load from each
discharge and to develop treatment options
and cost analysis for treating each discharge.
• Biologic monitoring was performed on
affected stream segments below major
discharges to determine if the streams were
biologically impaired.

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

13. 1. Compare treatment choices
2. Calculate benefit:cost ratio for proposed
projects within the hydrologic unit

14. • Cost analysis performed on each major
discharge to determine the most cost
effective treatment type.
• Costs includes operation and maintenance
over a 20 year period
• Benefits based on Fish and Boat Commission
value for lost fishing trips per mile of stream
(from BAMR Restoration Guidelines)

15.  Trout Unlimited Technical Assistance
provided to
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

16.  Conduct Benefit-Cost Analysis prescribed in
Set-Aside Guidance
 Useful for long-term O&M calculations
 Compare alternative technologies
 Make available to PA watershed groups
developing HUP plans for Title IV funding

17. Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH)
Pebble Lime (CaO)
Lime Slurry (Ca(OH)2)
Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2)

18.  NaOH
◦ minimal set-up costs
◦ High reagent cost
 Lime Slurry
◦ Moderate set-up costs
◦ Very low operator responsibility
◦ moderate reagent cost
 Pebble Lime
◦ Highest set-up costs
◦ Operator experience important
◦ Lowest reagent cost
 Hydrogen Peroxide
◦ Moderate Set up costs
◦ High operator responsibility

19. Aerobic Treatment
Anoxic Limestone Drain
Vertical Flow Pond
Oxic Limestone Bed

20.  Construction: based on realized costs for
fully functional passive systems
 O&M: based on realized costs
◦ Aerobic Systems: Fe sludge management
◦ ALD Systems: Limestone rehabilitation and Fe
sludge management
◦ Oxic Limestone Bed Systems: Limestone
rehabilitation and sludge management
◦ Vertical Flow Pond Systems: organic substrate
rehabilitation

21.  Capital (construction)
◦ Project cost schedules
◦ Vendor quotes
◦ AMD Treat
◦ Routine spreadsheet methodologies
 Annual O&M
◦ Documented costs at existing treatment systems
 Total Cost
◦ Capital + Present Value of future O&M

22.  Chemical addition unit
 Settling pond sized for 48 hr retention of
high flow rate
 Sludge pond sized for 20 years of solids
storage

23. Chemical O&M calcs using AMDTreat

24.  Documented costs from systems managed by
DMOs
◦ NaOH: Morris system (Cambria DMO)
◦ Pebble lime: Manor system (Moshannon DMO)
◦ Lime slurry: Woodcock system (Cambria DMO)
◦ H2O2: Mathies system (New Stanton DMO)

25. Hydrogen Peroxide
Date Electricity Labor Equipment Maintenance Insurance sludge
removal
cost gallons $/gal
2/28/15 $ 2,500
3/15/15 $ 2,172 $ 2,500 $ 5,805 1,995 $ 2.91
3/31/15 $ 2,500 $ 602
4/15/15 $ 1,647 $ 2,500
4/30/15 $ 2,500 $ 158 $ 5,500 1,890 $ 2.91
4/15/15 $ 5,143
5/4/15 $ 1,470
5/15/15 $ 2,500
5/31/15 $ 2,500 $ 1,271
6/15/15 $ 909 $ 2,500
6/30/15 $ 2,500 $ 5,198 1,786 $ 2.91
7/15/15 $ 2,461 $ 2,500
7/31/15 $ 2,500
8/15/15 $ 287 $ 57,938
8/31/15 $ 2,500 $ 5,161 2,085 $ 2.48

26.  $/ppd contaminant?
◦ Uncertainty about loading
 Incomplete flow rate information
 Mixture of multiple mine and non-mine water sources
 $/unit of reagent added
◦ Certainty about quantity of reagent used
◦ Certainty about costs
◦ Unit cost = (total treatment costs) / (quantity of
reagent)

27.  Alkaline reagents: $/ton-CaCO3
◦ NaOH: $1,056/ton-CaCO3
◦ Pebble lime: $329/ton-CaCO3
◦ Lime slurry: $627/ ton-CaCO3
 Hydrogen peroxide: $/gal 50% H2O2
◦ H2O2 (50%): $14.93/gal

28. Cost Category Pebble Lime Lime
Slurry
Caustic
$/ton
CaCO3
$/ton
CaCO3
$/ton
CaCO3
Reagent $93 $270 $553
Labor 71 65 232
Equipment/Misc 141 94 45
Maintenance 24 162 183
Utilities 36 63
Total $329 $627 $1,076

29. Category $/gal
H2O2 $2.84
Labor $5.60
Equipment $1.71
Maintenance $1.15
Utilities $1.11
Insurance $0.08
Sludge
management
$2.43
Total $14.93

30. Annual contaminant loading / Efficiency =
units/yr
units/yr X $/unit = $/year
Efficiency Unit cost
NaOH 85% $1,056 /CaCO3
Pebble Lime 60% $329 /CaCO3
Lime Slurry 70% $627/CaCO3
H2O2 100% $14.94/gal H2O2-
50%

31. Construction Annual O&M
Aerobic System Size based on Fe
loading and $2/ft2
(full system)
+ sludge basin
$1,500/yr + $25/ton
FeOOH sludge
management
Anoxic Limestone
Drain
Size based on 10 hr
retention, 20 years,
$40/ton LS installed
$1,500/yr + 50% of
LS every 10 years at
$50/ton
Oxic Limestone Bed Size based on acidity
loading and $90/ton
LS (full system)
+ sludge basin
$1,500/yr + $5/ton
LS cleaning every 4
years + 3%/yr LS
replacement at
$25/ton
Vertical Flow Pond Size based on acid
loading and $10/ft2
(full system)
$1,500/yr + rehab
organic substrate
every 10 years at 15%
of construction cost

32.  Construction + PV(annual O&M)
 PV
◦ 20 years
◦ 5% net discount rate

34.  Flow: avg. 1,158 gpm; 75th 1,258 gpm
 pH 6.6; -182 mg/L acid, 17 mg/L Fe, 1 mg/
Mn, <1 mg/L Al
Passive Construction
6.3 acre pond/wetland + 0.3 acre sludge pond
$548,000 + $24,000
Passive O&M
Inspections + Fe sludge management
$1500 + $2,194
Totals: construction: $572,000; O&M $3,694/yr

35. NaOH
Pebble
Lime
Lime
Slurry
H2O2
Passive
Aerobic
Construction $269,218 $469,218 $359,218 $188,915 $572,114
Annual $102,821 $45,382 $74,132 $79,620 $3,694
PV Annual $1,281,375 $565,557 $923,849 $992,242 $46,031
Total Cost $1,550,594 $1,034,775 $1,283,067 $1,181,157 $618,145

36. Flow: avg 545 gpm; 75th 548 gpm
pH 6.4; 97 mg/L acid, 72 mg/L Fe, 4 mg/ Mn, <1 mg/L
Al
Passive Construction
10,800 ton ALD + 3.7 acre pond/wetland + sludge pond
$431,000 + $320,000 + $46,000
Passive O&M
Inspections + Fe sludge management + LS rehab
$1500 + $4,273 + $13,481
Totals: construction: $797,000; O&M $19,254/yr

37. NaOH
Pebble
Lime
Lime
Slurry
Passive
ALD & Aer
Construction $226,050 $426,050 $316,050 $796,867
Annual $197,463 $87,154 $142,367 $19,254
PV Annual $2,460,824 $1,086,126 $1,774,210 $239,944
Total Cost $2,686,874 $1,512,176 $2,090,260 $1,036,812

38.  Flow: avg 79 gpm; 75th 131 gpm
 pH 2.7; 382 mg/L acid, 44 mg/L Fe, 30 mg/L Al
Passive Construction
44,000 ft2 vertical flow pond
$442,000
Passive O&M
Inspections + organic substrate management
$1,500 + $6,632
Totals: construction: $442,000; O&M $8,132/yr

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

40.  Construction costs
 Operation and Maintenance costs
◦ 20 years of analysis
◦ Calculate Present Value assuming 5% discount rate
 Total Cost = Construction + PV(O&M)

41.  Majority of discharges are alkaline with Fe
◦ Aerobic pond/wetlands
 Acid discharges are low Al
◦ Anoxic Limestone Drain
◦ Aerobic pond/wetlands

42. PFBC Value Lost for Sewickley Creek TSF = 1100 Trips per year x $78.02 per trip
Stream miles
Value Lost
Per year 20 year value
Sewickley Creek Mainstem 17.3 $1,484,721 $18,502,885
Buffalo Run 1.8 $154,480 $1,925,156
Jacks Run 5 $429,110 $5,347,655
Wilson Run 4.8 $411,946 $5,133,748
Boyer Run 0 $0 $0
Total 28.9 $2,480,256 $30,909,444
Estimated Cost of Restoration
Stream
System
Type
System
Cost
Costs over 20
years
Sewickley Creek Main Stem
Brinkerton 1A Passive $778,594 $833,264
Brinkerton Overflow Passive $718,262 $790,267
Brinkerton 2 Passive $548,172 $594,203
Brinkerton 3 Passive $177,220 $231,425
Soberdash 1 Passive $23,892 $47,250
Soberdash 2 Passive $398,147 $625,696
Soberdash 3 Passive $73,589 $94,525
Buffalo Run 1 Passive $398,147 $625,696
Jacks Run 1 Passive $929,469 $1,109,558
Wilson Run 1 Passive $359,773 $388,112
Wilson Run 2 Passive $590,742 $642,779
Boyer Run
Totals $4,996,007 $5,982,775
Cost/Benefit Ratio Total Benefit Value/Total Cost Value 5.17
Cost/Benefits Analysis