1. Managing TDS in the Upper Monongahela River Basin Project WRI 119 Paul Ziemkiewicz, PhD Director West Virginia Water Research Institute 1 West Virginia University Water Research Institute

2. Project Goals 1. Identify and monitor the primary components of TDS in the Upper Monongahela River Basin 2. Identify the primary sources of TDS 3. Understand the relationship between stream flow and [TDS] 4. Evaluate and develop efficient and effective methods for controlling TDS concentration Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 2

3. Pittsburgh Basin-Major AMD plants Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 3

4. Major AMD treatment Plants-Upper Mon River Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 4

5. Background on TDS in the Upper Monongahela Basin: 1. The river was dead due to untreated AMD prior to 1970 2. AMD treatment brought back fisheries 3. As UG mining moved down dip toward the center of the Pittsburgh Coal Basin, salinity increased 4. No basin-wide flow/chemistry monitoring until mid 2009 5. TDS loads needed to understand assimilative capacity Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 5

6. Elizabeth PA L/D Hourly sampling: 2003 to 2008 [TDS] mg/L vs. Flow 0-5,000 cfs West Virginia Water Research Institute 6 Assimilative Capacity ?

7. Elizabeth PA L/D Hourly sampling: 2003 to 2008 [TDS] mg/L vs. Flow 5,000-10,000 cfs West Virginia Water Research Institute 7

8. Elizabeth PA L/D Hourly sampling: 2003 to 2008 [TDS] mg/L vs. Flow >10,000 cfs West Virginia Water Research Institute 8

9. Estimated TDS loads (tpy) from Upper Mon AMD treatment plants Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 9 average maximum full pump observed capacity Dunkard Ck 153,340 190,784 257,950 Robinson Run (Mon Co.) 11,000 22,000 17,600 Flaggy Meadows Run 12,205 34,166 47,300 Indian Ck 12,975 30,008 115,500 Paw Paw Ck 2,200 4,400 11,550 Buffalo Ck 10,043 36,938 36,300 Robinson Run (Marion Co.) 3,900 9,779 27,500 Total 205,662 328,075 513,700

10. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 10 WF 01 West Fork River DS Worthington, WV TY 02 Tygart Valley River, Coalfax, WV Mon 03 Monongahela River at MUB DE 04 Deckers Creek in Morgantown Mon 05 Monongahela River at Point Marion, PA CR 06 Cheat River at tailrace of dam DU 07 Dunkard Creek Shannopin Gage Mon 08 Monongahela River at Masontown PA WH 09 Whiteley Creek TM 10 Tenmile Creek near Route 88 Mon 11 Monongahela River, Elizabeth PA YR 12 Youghiogheny River near Sutersville, PA

11. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 11

12. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 12

13. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 13

14. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 14

15. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 15

16. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 16

17. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 17

18. Between 1940 and 2008 the flow in the Upper Monongahela River* was > 2,800 cfs 65% of the time Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 18

19. Dunkard Ck: TDS concentration and load vs. flow July 09 to Jan 10 Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 19 mg/L

20. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 20

21. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 21

22. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 22

23. Flow vs. EC: July 09 to Feb 10 Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 23

24. Distribution of TDS in Dunkard Ck-2008 Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 24 TDSFlowTDS average 2008mg/L(cfs)(tpy) US Steele Shaft371 361.7 123,28556% Steele Shaft9178 10.0 89,41740% AML discharges1525 7.0 12,0855% Mouth of Dunkard *1078 378.7 221,736101%

25. Distribution of TDS in Dunkard Ck-2008 Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 25 TDSFlowTDS mg/L(cfs)(tpy) high flow 2008 12-May-08 US Steele Shaft324 758.5 243,76677% Steele Shaft8439 13.6 113,46736% AML discharges2177 4.9 8,0603% Mouth of Dunkard413 777.0 316,280115% medium flow 2008 17-Jan-08 US Steele Shaft352 251.6 88,65946% Steele Shaft9765 10.4 100,56652% AML discharges1807 4.0 7,9594% Mouth of Dunkard742 266.0 194,530101% low flow 2008 17-Nov-08 US Steele Shaft436 83.9 37,43020% Steele Shaft9330 5.9 54,21728% AML discharges1438 3.2 7,8574% Mouth of Dunkard2080 93.0 190,65452%

26. How much TDS can enter the Mon while maintaining a [TDS] of 500 mg/L? Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 26 9 Oct 09 Pt Marion PA Elizabeth PA flow 1,305 2,210cfs TDS 357 500mg/L TDS 459,176 1,089,088tpy difference 629,912tpy Drought Pt Marion Elizabeth flow 400 500cfs TDS 500 mg/L TDS 197,120 246,400tpy difference 49,280tpy High Flow Pt Marion Elizabeth flow 12,000 18,000cfs TDS 500 mg/L TDS 5,913,600 8,870,400tpy difference 2,956,800tpy

27. Coal Industry TDS Working Group Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 27 Formed in January 2010 Consists of the major coal producers in the upper Monongahela basin Supported by ongoing TDS monitoring and assessment carried out by the WV Water Research Institute

28. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 28 Q (Dunkard Ck)30120300cfs TDS load148,170 296,340tons/yr [TDS]5,0001,2501,000mg/L The relationship among: flow, TDS Load and resulting [TDS] in Dunkard Ck. Remember: the total load from AMD treatment plants normally ranges between 100,000 to 300,000 tpy

29. Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 29 Where: L= cumulative TDS load (tpy) from all AMD treatment plants in the watershed L a =TDS load (TPY) allowable to meet target in-stream TDS concentration (TDS t ) P i = pumping rate (gpm) at a given AMD plant Q s = Stream flow (cfs) TDS t =target TDS concentration (mg/L) TDS i = TDS concentration (mg/L) from a given AMD plant TDS s = in-stream TDS concentration (mg/L) FOS = Factor of Safety n = number of AMD treatment plants in the watershed i = individual AMD treatment plant

30. The math is straightforward and therefore predictive ability is high: Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 30 For example, for a watershed with three AMD treatment plants: (i= 1,2,3), P=2,500 gpm, TDS = 5,000, then L 1 = 27,500 tpy P=5,500 gpm, TDS = 10,000, then L 2 = 121,000 tpy P=7,500 gpm, TDS = 6,000, then L 3 = 99,000 tpy Total = L = 247,500 tpy

31. Managing TDS in the Monongahela River Basin Things that can be done in the near term Water Research Institute West Virginia University 31 Develop relationship between flow and TDS Management tools: Identify Assimilative Capacity Coordinate release of treated AMD With higher river flows What are the critical flows in the Mon and the tributaries? Manage by month? Season? Instantaneous flow? Will require: Monitoring program: chemistry and flows Organization/Coordination: Industry TDS Working Group Understanding of mine water storage capacities More responsive pumping systems Alternatively we’ll probably see end of pipe discharge limits for TDS

32. Conclusions: Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 32 None of the TDS constituents are cumulative or toxic at reasonable concentrations Upper Mon AMD plants generate between 200,000 and 500,000 tpy of TDS That accounts for between 20 to 100% of TDS in the Mon For much of the year the Mon can easily assimilate that sort of loading while maintaining a [TDS] below 500 mg/L It should be possible to develop a managed, load-weighted discharge program to control [TDS] at the desired levels That will require organization, commitment, transparency and accountability

33. Questions? Managing TDS in the Monongahela River Paul Ziemkiewicz, PhD Director West Virginia Water Research Institute West Virginia University Water Research Institute West Virginia Water Research Institute 33