SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ
SULFATE REDUCING BIOREACTOR TREATING ACIDIC COAL MINE INFLUENCED WATER (MIW) IN WESTERN
PENNSYLVANIA
R. L. Eppley, Blacklick Creek Watershed Assoc., Homer City, PA
J. J. Gusek, Golder Associates Inc., Lakewood, CO
ABSTRACT
The Blacklick Creek Watershed Association was awarded a
$158,000 Growing Greener grant from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection in 2002 for the design and construction of a
sulfate reducing bioreactor (SRBR) cell to treat acidic discharge from
the Judy 14 abandoned underground coal mine near Indiana, PA. The
vertical flow SRBR was designed to treat 38 liters per minute of MIW
containing elevated concentrations of aluminum and iron. Other
treatment systems at this site plugged due to aluminum precipitates;
this problem did not occur in the SRBR. The bioreactor has been
periodically overloaded with flows up to six times the design rate. To
date, the only maintenance performed on the unit has been the
addition of hay to the surface of the unit in response to less than
expected performance. The periodic hay additions appear to have
restored the SRBR to nearly post-construction levels. Since
construction, the SRBR has treated about 136,000 cubic meters (36
million US gallons) of MIW.
INTRODUCTION
The Judy 14 underground coal mine in Indiana County,
Pennsylvania, about 75 km east of Pittsburgh, was active from the
1940s to about 1963 according to available maps in the National Mine
Map Repository (www.mmr.osmre.gov). The Crichton Coal and Coke
Company reportedly mined bituminous coal from the Lower Kittanning
B and the Upper Freeport E seams. The seams were accessed
through drift portals which drain acidic mining influenced water (MIW)
to this day. Typical Judy 14 MIW chemistry is net acidic as shown in
Table 1.
The mine site is within the Blacklick Creek watershed which has
been severely impacted by MIW from 300 surface coal mines, 170 coal
refuse dumps, and 200 miles of underground mines which are all
contributors to the pollution. The Blacklick Creek watershed stretches
420 miles across Indiana County and into Cambria County. Its major
tributaries include Blacklick Creek, Two Lick Creek, Yellow Creek, and
Elk Creek, with all of them affected by the area's mine drainage. The
watershed reportedly has 88 identified MIW sources; due to scarce
funding, only six have been addressed as of 2009.
Table 1. Typical Judy 14 MIW Chemistry.
Typical Value/ Concentration
Parameter 1
Range
pH 2.7 to 2.8
Iron (total) 20 to 55 mg/L
Iron (ferrous) 1.0 to 5.8 mg/L
Aluminum (total) 24 to 58 mg/L
Manganese (total) 2.5 to 5.6 mg/L
Sulfate 510 to 920 mg/L
Acidity (hot) 270 to 572 mg/L
1
Ranges based on available data for 2006 and 2007.
The Judy 14 MIW also contains significant concentrations of total
zinc, copper, and nickel but these are not typically analyzed.
Concentrations are on the order of 0.86, 0.10, and 0.32 mg/L,
respectively.
1 Copyright © 2010 by SME
Preprint 10-050
In 1993, a group of concerned citizens formed the Blacklick Creek
Watershed Association (BCWA) to address the historical impacts of
coal mining in their community. The impacts of acid MIW from the
Judy 14 Mine were especially visible from a main highway and this
prompted the BCWA to address this site as one of their first projects.
The Judy 14 Mine drainage was unevenly distributed through four
sealed mine portals in the Lower Kittanning B seam outcrop. BCWA’s
first projects (1A and 1B) addressed an MIW source from the Lower
Freeport seam whose chemistry was not as aggressive as that shown
in Table 1. In this situation, BCWA developed and implemented
designs using the Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems (SAPS)
technology in conjunction with iron precipitate settling ponds.
SAPS are lined ponds with a layer of crushed limestone in the
bottom, overlain with an organic mixture that typically consists of
mushroom compost and/or aged manure. If dissolved aluminum is
present in the mine drainage entering a SAPS, it precipitates as a
white sludge that over a short time (sometimes less than two months)
will plug the limestone layer and render the SAPS inoperative. Many
SAPS designs have flushing capabilities to periodically purge the
aluminum sludge. However, the periodic flushing can become
particularly time- and labor-intensive at remote treatment sites.
Based on its success at Sites 1A and 1B, BCWA subsequently
designed SAPS for a site designated 2A. The MIW chemistry at this
site was similar to the values listed in Table 1 and aluminum plugging
inevitably occurred. (All three systems were subsequently retrofitted
as SRBRs and are performing as intended.)
About the same time (2000 to 2001), the SRBR technology was
being evaluated at a nearby site (Gusek and Wildeman, 2002) where
the aluminum concentrations were about the same. Promising bench
and pilot scale test results suggested that aluminum plugging was not
an issue in SRBR cells but the exact mechanism for aluminum was
unknown. In the demonstration cell, it was theorized that the aluminum
would precipitated as any number of “aluminum-organic-sulfate” or
silicate mineral phases that are relatively dense compared to aluminum
precipitates formed in SAPS. Thomas and Romanek (2002) observed
that preferential formation of aluminum hydroxy-sulfate precipitates
instead of aluminum hydroxide (gibbsite) was occurring in SRBRs due
to a substitution mechanism associated with the crushed limestone
typically used in SRBR substrate.
It appeared that the SRBR technology was more appropriate than
the SAPS process for the Judy 14 MIW. Using funding from a
Pennsylvania Growing Greener Grant, a demonstration scale SRBR
was designed and constructed in the summer of 2002. The Growing
Greener program has provided over $1.7 million in grants to the BCWA
for the Judy 14 SRBR demonstration system and other projects.
SYSTEM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Locally, the Judy 14 SRBR system is referred to as the Yellow
Creek Phase 2B system. Untreated overflow from the nearby Phase
“2A” treatment system shares a common limestone-lined effluent
channel and a settling pond with the 2B system. The 2A system
effluent is commingled with 2A overflow and 2B effluent in a settling
pond before the reconstituted and treated Judy 14 MIW discharges to
Yellow Creek which is a tributary to Blacklick Creek.
 The 2B vertical flow cell was designed to treat about 38 liters per
minute (10 gpm) of MIW. The cell has a bottom footprint of about
2
1,300 m ; the organic substrate thickness is about 770 mm (2.5 ft).
The cell is lined with impermeable clay soil which is common in the
area. Flow to the 2B SRBR is diverted from a 203mm (8-inch)
diameter buried pipeline (High Density Polyethylene [HDPE]) to the top
of the SRBR via a splitter box that was designed to apportion flows
through a combination of effluent pipe sizes and valve arrangements.
About 150mm (6 inches) of standing water covers the organic
substrate, which is totally saturated. During the winter, this water
surface can intermittently freeze but the flow to the SRBR does not
appear to be impeded.
Treated water is collected in a drainage layer consisting of
perforated pipe surrounded by pea gravel sized limestone. The treated
TM
effluent from the 2B SRBR passes through an AgriDrain in-line water
level control structure with removable stop-logs which feeds into an
203mm (8 inch) diameter HDPE pipe and thence into a common Figure 2. SRBR Cell, Yellow Creek 2B System in 2003.
drainage channel (with System 2A) which is lined with Van Port
limestone with a “3A” gradation. System flow rate is typically In accordance with the Growing Greener grant, the 2B
measured with a bucket and stopwatch. demonstration cell was to be operated for at least a full year to
evaluate its performance during a wide range of climatic conditions.
The 150mm standing water depth is typically maintained on top of During the course of that year, the flow to the cell would be
the cell by stop-logs in an internal spillway structure. If the standing intentionally increased to above design values to evaluate the
water level increases due to permeability issues (independent of flow), response of the technology to temporary overloading conditions.
stop-logs can be removed to increase the differential head between the
standing water and the cell outfall. Most flows, all sampling and all analyses were performed by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
The organic substrate initially installed was a mixture of wood Abandoned Mine Reclamation (PADEP/BAMR). BCWA periodically
chips, sawdust, crushed limestone, hay, and cow manure. double checked the flow rates and frequently monitored the oxidation
TM
Approximate proportions are provided in Table 2. reduction potentials of the effluent flows within the AgriDrain in-line
water level control structure.
Table 2. SRBR Substrate Mixture
Component Percent by As-Received Weight The 2A and 2B systems receive AMD from the pipeline originating
Chipped Wood 50% in a portal of the Judy 14 Mine, 915m (3000 ft) upslope along the
Limestone 30% anticline of Chestnut Ridge. A splitter box is used at the head of the
Hay 10% 2B system to deliver 57 to 76 liters (15 to 20 gallons) of MIW per
Cow Manure 10% minute to the 2B system. Although the terms of the demonstration
grant with the PADEP/BAMR required 57 to 76 liters per minute as the
The SRBR cell design required the proportioning and mixing of typical flow, higher flow rates were delivered to evaluate system
3
about 1,410 cubic meters (m ) or 1712 cubic yards of substrate. This response to overloading.
included a 10% contingency. Assuming a 50 percent void space and Flows to the 2B system actually reached 227 L/min (60 gpm) as
ignoring the standing water atop the cell, the hydraulic retention time at th
measured on April 19 , 2007, but were typically maintained in the
the design flow (38 L/min) is about 13 days and proportionately less at range of 38 to 56 L/min (10 to 15 gpm) as shown on Figure 3. Again,
higher flow rates. the design flow was 38 L/min.
Photos of the 2B SRBR cell under construction in the summer of
2003 and in early 2003 are provided in Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

Figure 1. SRBR Cell, Yellow Creek 2B System under construction in

2002.
OPERATIONAL HISTORY
The 2B system was commissioned in September, 2002 after a
two-month construction effort that was followed by a one-month
"incubation" period with no flow through until the oxidation reduction
potential of the bottom material (via a short flush) was found to lie in
the range of -80 to -100 millivolts (mv).

Figure 3. SRBR 2B Outfall and Settling Pond.

2 Copyright © 2010 by SME
 As of October, 2009, the 2B SRBR has not experienced overt
aluminum plugging problems which would have been evident shortly
after commissioning in a SAPS type of system. Its discharge typically
contains excess alkalinity which neutralizes the acidity in the MIW that
by-passes/overflows the 2A system.
However, during the period Dec 2004-Jan 2005, the organic layer
was remixed to compensate for lowering flow throughput rates and in
concert with the observation of increased elevation of the 2B SRBR
pond level. A very low ground pressure (LGP) skid-steer loading
machine with rubber tracks was used in the remixing effort and the
pond level and flow efficiencies returned to typical. It is unclear if this
was necessary due to aluminum plugging or another flow-restricting
mechanism.
Outflow rates again exhibited restriction in August of 2005, at
which time 282 kilograms [400 pounds] (approx) of dry Timothy hay
were strewn over the SRBR surface but not mixed in. Flow was
temporarily reduced to encourage a “semi-incubation condition” in the
cell. The problem recurred in May of 2007 when another 282 kg of dry
hay were added to the surface with the return generally to normal Figure 4. pH and Flow Rate.
operating conditions (depressed ORP in the effluent and little head
loss through the organic substrate). Finally, in March of 2009,
conditions indicated that another 282 kg of hay application was
required.
While the exact mechanism is unknown, the authors believe that
some level of blinding could have been occurring on the surface of the
SRBR from the precipitation of aluminum hydroxide or iron
oxyhydroxide in an oxidizing environment (see Thomas and Romanek,
2002). The hay addition may have provided enough organic matter to
re-create reducing conditions (-80 to -100 mv) which could have
dissolved the aluminum or iron precipitates. Regardless, the addition of
the hay appeared to temporarily disrupt the blinding mechanism that
was causing the periodically-occurring flow restrictions. This
procedure has been found to work well on five other BCWA systems
(Richards 2A, 2B, Laurel Run 2, Yellow Creek 1A and 1B) with similar
issues.
The three episodes of hay addition and the remixing effort of 2004
comprise the only maintenance performed on the 2B SRBR since its
commissioning in 2002.
Figure 5. Iron Removal, SRBR 2B and By-Passed MIW.
OPERATIONAL RESULTS
Aluminum
Before the Yellow Creek project was established, the Yellow Total aluminum removal by the 2B SRBR is typically about 90
Creek downstream from the site was generally devoid of aquatic life. percent or more until the April, 2007 overloading event; thereafter, as
The combination of BCWA treatment projects 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C and shown on Figure 6, aluminum removal appears to parallel the influent
2C (modified) have improved about 610 meters (2,000 ft) of the Yellow concentration. Aluminum spikes in 2004 and 2005 which coincide with
Creek stream segment receiving passively treated MIW to the extent the iron spikes previously discussed do not appear to have affected 2B
that it now supports stocked trout except in low flow periods. The SRBR effluent quality. Similar to Figure 5, Figure 6 includes effluent
BCWA is in the process of upgrading all its passive treatment systems aluminum data for the final discharge into Yellow Creek which includes
to SRBR type units. commingled System 2A, 2B and any by-passed MIW which mixes with
the 2A/2B flow in the final sedimentation pond. This data suggests that
The following discussions focus on the primary SRBR
additional aluminum removal occurs after the System 2A/2B treatment.
performance parameters: pH, iron, aluminum, alkalinity, and sulfate
This observation is also subsequently discussed in more detail.
reduction.
pH
As shown on Figure 4, influent MIW pH exhibited a pH of less
than 3.0 standard units (s.u.) and the 2B SRBR effluent appears to
drop below 6.0 s.u. only in response to two major overloading events.
Iron
Immediately after commissioning, total iron removal by the 2B
SRBR is nearly complete; thereafter, as shown on Figure 5, removal
appears to parallel the influent iron concentration which exhibited
spikes to about 130 mg/L in 2004 and 2005. The acidity loading from
these iron spikes most certainly stressed the system; however, the
2005 spike does not appear to have caused as much adverse effect in
effluent iron quality as the 2004 event. Figure 5 includes effluent iron
data for the final discharge into Yellow Creek which includes
commingled System 2A, 2B, and any by-passed MIW which mixes with
the 2A/2B flow in the final sedimentation pond. This data suggests that
additional iron removal occurs after the System 2A/2B treatment. This
is subsequently discussed in more detail.
Figure 6. Aluminum Removal.

3 Copyright © 2010 by SME

Alkalinity 2006, 2007, and 2008. From the data available, it is difficult to find a
SRBRs produce alkalinity through two mechanisms: limestone peak corresponding to the summer of 2005.
dissolution and bacterial activity. Data plotted on Figure 7 reveal that
alkalinity generation varies cyclically and close examination of the peak
data points reveal that alkalinity generation is the highest during the
summer months, coincident with peak bacterial activity. After the April,
2007 overloading event, alkalinity peaks are still observed in the
summer months, but their peak values are significantly less than those
observed prior to the overloading event. It is surmised that the two
extreme overloading events and general 2B SRBR overloading have
contributed to the decline of the bacterial consortium health in the unit.
This is supported by sulfate reduction data, subsequently discussed.
Similar to the previous two figures, Figure 7 includes effluent
alkalinity data for the final discharge into Yellow Creek. The authors
theorize that the additional iron and aluminum removal observed after
2B SRBR treatment is facilitated by the excess alkalinity present in the
2B and 2A (about 220 mg/L -- data not plotted) system effluents.
Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP)
ORP data was collected very infrequently and are not plotted. In
general, effluent flow ORP of the 2B SRBR typically remained within
the range of -80 to -130 millivolts.
Figure 8. Sulfate Reduction and Sulfate Reduction Rate.

Figure 7. Alkalinity Generation. Figure 9. Sulfate, Flow Rate, and Estimated Temperature.

Sulfate Reduction
Figure 8 shows the influent and effluent sulfate values for the 2B
SRBR plotted on the Y axis. As expected, effluent sulfate
concentration typically parallel influent concentrations. The volumetric
loading rate for sulfate metals (plotted on the 2Y axis) is measured in
moles per day per cubic meter of organic substrate (moles/day/m ). A
3
3
value of 0.3 moles/day/m is a benchmark value that has been
established over dozens of passive treatment systems ranging from
bench- to pilot- to full-scale systems. Data from only eight sampling
events suggest sulfate reduction rates above or near the benchmark;
in some sampling events, the volumetric loading rate is negative,
suggesting that the acidity loading on the cell is so high that previously-
precipitated sulfide minerals are being dissolved and that this process
is out-pacing bacterial sulfate reduction which may still be occurring.
MIW temperature has been demonstrated to affect bacterial
sulfate reduction rates (Reisinger and Gusek, 1999); colder
temperatures typically suppress bacterial activity and the consortium of
bacteria in an SRBR is no different. Unfortunately, the data set of field
and analytical results for the 2B SRBR does not include MIW
temperature. An “intuitive” temperature set was generated with a peak
summertime temperature of 20 C° and a low wintertime temperature of
3 C° in-filled with approximate intermediate temperatures appropriate
to spring and fall conditions. This data is provided on Figure 9.
From the data plotted in Figure 9, the volumetric sulfate reduction
rate appears to be sensitive to both flow rate and temperature after the
first full year of operation during which the bacterial community
probably had yet to reach full maturity. Consequently, volumetric
sulfate reduction rate peaks are observed in the summers of 2004,
4 Copyright © 2010 by SME
As discussed earlier, the 2B SRBR was designed for a flow of 38
liters per minute. This target flow rate is plotted on the Y-axis of Figure
9. Although a flow measurement is lacking for September 30, 2003,
the poor sulfate reduction rate suggests that the flow had been
increased from 38 to 76 liters per minute (double the design rate) at
about the same time that colder winter temperatures prevailed.
Consequently, throughout the winter of 2003-2004, volumetric sulfate
reduction rates were typically negative or well below the benchmark.
The cell appears to have responded to the warmer water temperatures
of the summer of 2004 and the following cooler winter weather. Similar
correlations can be drawn for the remainder of the data set. As
expected, sometimes the warmer summer temperatures can offset the
negative effects of an overloading event as seen in the summer of
2007. Reducing the inflow rate to nearer the design value certainly
helped in this particular instance.
Other Heavy Metals
As previously discussed, the Judy 14 MIW appears to contain
zinc (0.86 mg/L), copper (0.10 mg/L), and cobalt (0.32 mg/L). A
random sampling event in 2003 revealed the following concentrations
in the 2B SRBR effluent:
• Zn – 0.06 mg/L
• Cu – <0.0009 mg/L
• Ni – 0.002 mg/L
LESSONS LEARNED
Typical SRBR treatment systems are designed to last up to 25
years, depending upon the quality of the MIW being treated. They may
be periodically rejuvenated if necessary in the interim by adding hay or
other organic material (e.g., wood chips) to the organic layer. SRBRs
are not “walk away” treatment units; they require regular inspection
and in some situations, corrective measures will be required.
For example, muskrats and turtles burrowing into the treatment
mixtures have caused short circuits where the water ran directly
through without being treated. In the latest BCWA sponsored repairs,
heavy plastic mesh materials have been laid on the inside banks of the
ponds to discourage muskrat attacks.
It is clear that overloading an SRBR chronically and/or extremely
will adversely affect sulfate reduction, metal removal, and alkalinity
generation. While wintertime temperatures can adversely affect
bacterial processes, SRBR burial to insulate the bacterial consortium
can be used to minimize this.
The data provided in this paper suggest that metal removal post-
SRBR treatment from alkalinity consumption can contribute a
significant amount to the total system treatment performance and
benefit to the receiving stream, especially if the SRBR effluent mixes
with by-passed MIW during a high flow event. This is consistent with
the emerging SRBR design policy of providing a mixing and settling
pond to commingle excess flows (especially during the spring freshet)
with the well-buffered effluent from a healthy, unstressed SRBR that is
operating well within its design window.
Concisely, there is no benefit in overloading an SRBR except
perhaps for brief periods in response to storm events.
REFERENCES
1 U.S. Office of Surface Mining (no date), National Mine Map
Repository, Online: http://mmr.osmre.gov/ (accessed July 17,
2009).
2. Gusek, J.J., and T.R. Wildeman (2002), “Passive Treatment of
Aluminum-Bearing Acid Rock Drainage,” presented at the 23rd
Annual West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force
Symposium, Morgantown, WV, April 16-17, 2002.
3. Reisinger, R. and J. Gusek (1999), “Mitigation of Water
Contamination at the Historic Ferris-Haggarty Mine, Wyoming”
Mining Engineering Magazine, vol. 52, no. 8, August, pp. 49-53.
4. Thomas, R.C., and C.S. Romanek (2002), “Passive Treatment of
Low-pH, Ferric Iron-Dominated Acid Rock Drainage in a Vertical
Flow Wetland II: Metal Removal,” presented at the 2002 National
Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation
(ASMR), Lexington, KY, June 9-13, 2002.

5 Copyright © 2010 by SME