SME/ARIES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN ENERGY PRODUCTION RICHARD WARNER UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY GREG HIGGINS MANAGER - MIDDLEFORK DEVELOPMENT CORP. SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 Using Weep Berms to Control Water Quality
SME/ARIESENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN
ENERGY PRODUCTION
RICHARD WARNERUNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
GREG HIGGINS MANAGER - MIDDLEFORK DEVELOPMENT
CORP.
SEPTEMBER 23 , 2015
Using Weep Berms to Control Water Quality
Briefing Outline
Overview of Current Mining Methods Cost-effective and Environmentally-protective
Innovative Methods Utilized in OSM Experimental Practice Drill Core Strata & Screening-level Assessment Isolation of Problem Strata Design and Construct Weep Berms Re-establish Hardwood Forest (FRA) Environmental and Community Protection
MFDC – Weep Berm
Profitability and Sustainability
Companies that Successfully Implement a High-Level Sustainable Mining Operation are More Profitable than those that don’t* Be protective of your communities Be protective of your environment
Yes, cost savings and environmental and community protection can all be achieved
Investing now in such measures generates opportunities to have a license to operate in the future.
*Harvard Business School study 1992 - 2010
Completely Change Engineering Design Philosophy
Current: Gather Runoff to Central Locations Passive treatment Discharge
Needed Change: Mimic Nature - Keep Runoff Spatially Distributed Passive treatment Discharge at multiple locations Incorporate the natural environment as a secondary
passive treatment system
PROFITABLECOST SAVINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
COMMUNITY PROTECTION
A Case Study: Incorporating U.S. OSM Experimental Practice on a Appalachian Surface Coal Mine
Current Mining Methods - Appalachia
Insert Greg’s 877-0179
PRESENT METHOD : Valley Fill
OSM Experimental Practice Mining Innovations
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
Attributes Disposition
6 Valley Fills 6 Sediment Ponds 40 Bench Ponds 13,000 ft Stream Covered by
Spoil 252 ac Bonded 46 KPDES Monitoring Locations ACOE 404 Permit Water Quality Liabilities Flooding Liability Substantial Reclamation Cost Compacted Spoil with Grass
100 % Eliminated 100 % Eliminated 100 % Eliminated Zero ft Stream Loss
Reduced to Bonding 190 ac 2 KPDES Monitoring Locations Not Needed ~Forest Water Quality No Flooding Potential Minimal Reclamation Cost Multi-use Forested/Grass
Watershed
Cost Savings and Environmental Protection
$7 TO $9/COAL TON
Cost Savings
Weep Berm US OSM Experimental Practice
Weep BermEngineered Earthen Berm with Multiple
OutletsPassively Slowly Discharges to Down-gradient
Forest
StreamForest
Check Dam
Check Dam
OutletStructures
Watershed Area SedimentDitch
WeepBerm
Check Dam
L
Sediment Laden Runoff
Weep Berm
Forest
Advantages of a Weep Berm
Cost Effective to ConstructSlow Passive Seepage into Forest through Multiple
Outlets (660 – MFDC)Sedimentation in Weep Berm and Close Proximity
Forest Zero Sediment Transported to Stream
Hydrology – Mining and Reclamation Sustainability Attenuates peak flow - eliminates flooding Complete storage and infiltration of small rainfall
events (less than 1 in – design depended) Increases base flow
Water Quality - Mining and Reclamation SustainabilityReduction of specific conductivity to pre-mining levels
Reduction of selenium to pre-mining levels
Weep Berm Performance
Georgia (USA) – Construction Site - Storm Water and Sediment Control (GA DNR funded)
Georgia – 2 Construction Sites, Comparison of Weep Berm and Silt Fence ( US EPA Region IV funded)
Peru (copper and zinc mines) – Treatment of Sediment and Metals (several mines) (Newmont (2) and Antamina)
Ghana ( 2 gold mines) –Sediment and Metals (Newmont)Panama (copper) –Sediment (Minera Panama)Democratic Republic of the Congo – Sediment (Freeport
McMoran - copper)Philippines – Sediment (Xstrata – coal)KY – Passive Water Treatment (sediment, pathogens and
nutrients) – horse muck composting facility (KY USDA funded)
KY – Passive Water Treatment (sediment, pathogens and nutrients) – horse muck storage facility (privately funded)
August 2000
© Surface Mining Institute
Weep Berm - Panama
Runoff – Panama (5.5 to 6 m/yr Rainfall)
TFM – Democratic Republic of the Congo
TFM – DRC – Demonstration Weep Berm
Combination Contour Weep Berm – Grass Filter25
Excavator Weep Berm Construction(Middle Fork Development Corp.)
Weep Berm – No Rock Lens
Weep Berm with Rock Lens
Storm Containment
Seepage Through Rock Lens
MFDC – Weep Berm
MFDC – Weep Berm
MFDC – Weep Berm
EarthWorks Weep Berm Design Steps
AutoCAD drawing with 3-D polylines (topography) and mine plan
Define working areaGenerates TIN and GIS gridSelect Weep Berm control structureStart point and end point (or length)Input weep berm and rock lens parametersGenerates AutoCAD drawing and catchment
(area, Tc),cut/fill, stage-area-capacity-dischargeSeamless export to SEDCAD
Contour Weep Berm Design Using Rock Outlets for Discharge
Schematic of EarthWorks Discharge Options
EarthWorks Weep Berm Inputs
EarthWorks Rock Outlet Input Options
EarthWorks Automatic Design
Contour Weep Berm Design with Excavation - Inputs
EarthWorks Automatic Design
Seamless Export to SEDCAD
Area and TcStage-Area-Capacity-DischargeAdd CN and UHSAdd sedimentologic parametersDesign CompletedPeak flow in/outPeak stageSediment depositionTSS in/outSettleable solids in/out
How Well Do Weep Berms Work?
HydrologicalSedimentologicStabilityConductivity
Current Valley Fill - Conductivity
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.00
500.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
10/17/2012 11/6/2012 11/26/2012 12/16/2012 1/5/2013 1/25/2013 2/14/2013 3/6/2013
Rain
fall
(inch
)
Cond
uctiv
ity
Date
Daily Rainfall
Instantaneous Conductivity
Avg Daily Conductivity
Middle Fork – Monitoring Locations
Maximum Depth of Water – Period of Monitoring Record
Weep Berm % Time Water Discharged over Entire Monitoring Period
Weep Berm - Average EC Discharged
Middle Fork - Hydrology