Proposal to the University of Pittsburgh
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
For
The Entry and Analysis of Data in Order to
comply with the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Act 54
February 3rd, 2009
William Cowan 410-308-1610 wcc10@pitt.edu
Craig Stevenson 732-567-8763 crs76@pitt.edu
Mohamed Koubaa 412-620-3450 mok6@pitt.edu
Team Webpage:
http://www.engr.pitt.edu/freshman/academic/engr0715/studentdata/Team15/team15.htm
l
University of Pittsburgh
ENGR 0715:
Engineering Applications for Society
1
Abstract
Problem Statement:
This undertaking entails entering and analyzing of existing data that includes landowner claims
against Western Pennsylvania coal companies and damages resulting from longwall-style mining. In
conjunction with data pertaining to room-and-pillar and other such mining practices, this information
will be compiled in order to aid in the submission of a comprehensive report of damages from all
Pennsylvania bituminous coal mining. The report will help state officials identify strengths and
weaknesses in current mining laws. More details about this project can be found in the statement of
work and Gantt chart that are included below.
Background:
Coal mining is a very profitable business in Western Pennsylvania in the last two hundred years;
more than 10 billion tons of bituminous coal have been produced. There are two main types of mining in
Western Pennsylvania, room and pillar and longwall. Longwall mining causes damage to properties that
are undermined. But it is preferred over room and pillar mining because it is more efficient and safer.
In 1966 the Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act (BMSLCA) was passed to
“regulate underground coal mining”. In 1994, an amended act, Act 54, was passed. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) is required to issue a report every five years detailing
the damage caused by undermining as reported by homeowners and the coal companies. Act 54
required that if found responsible for damage to the properties undermined, the coal company must
remedy the problem or reimburse the owners for the damage caused. Coal companies spend about $2
per ton of coal mined grouting damaged streams alone.
The last Act 54 report was issued by the California University of Pennsylvania, which made some
recommendations for future reports to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. They
recommended “that the study period take place either contemporaneously with the assessment period
or at increments during the assessment period”, “the ongoing acquisition of certain data that were
required by the MOU but found to be incomplete, conflicting, confusing, or missing in the electronic file
system or in paper files”, and that baseline field studies with a consistent methodology be established
for all natural entities, particularly for streams.
Statement of Work
Goals and Rationale:
Our primary goal is to provide a concise, easy to read summation of data retrieved from the Bituminous
Underground Mining Information System (BUMIS), so that our clients, Dr. Anthony Innacchione and
Megan Witkowski, will be able to provide the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a report of coal
2
mining related damages from 2003 to 2008. In order to achieve this, we have formed the following
objectives:
1. Enter all data from the 9 Longwall mines under examination into an organized spreadsheet
system.
In order to properly analyze and interpret mining data, we must be able to view a
comprehensive collection of BUMIS system data. All data in BUMIS is accessible on an individual,
property-by-property basis. Although this format facilitates record keeping on the state
government’s part, it is nearly impossible to determine trends in individually collected records.
Thus, a summative compilation of records in an organized spreadsheet is necessary for analysis.
2. Ensure that the data entered is correct and accurate.
As we enter the properties into the Excel spreadsheet from BUMIS, we will note any
irregularities in the data. Upon plotting the properties on the six-month mining maps, we will
analyze said properties to determine if any information, such as the property location within the
RPZ zone, is incorrect.
3. Design changes to streamline the spreadsheet system already in use.
At the beginning of the project, our client, Megan Witkowski, had already begun entry of
data from some Longwall mines, using a spreadsheet of her own design. We will begin our work
by continuing the data entry into her spreadsheet. In order to enhance the data entry and
streamline the analysis process, we will propose changes to the spreadsheet system.
4. Identify and cross-check any irregularities/trends in the damages.
In order to further assist our clients with their project, we will be examining the data to
identify trends in subsidence related damage. In particular, we shall look for relationships
between different types of damage (structural, water loss, utility damage, etc.) and distance to
mining fronts.
5. Use USGS/Mining company maps to identify properties eligible for compensation.
Many properties in areas of mining suffer damage over the years, but not all are eligible
for retribution from coal companies. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Act 54 designates which
surface zones are eligible for compensation due to mining damage. It is deemed that any
damage outside of these zones is not due to subsidence. In order to accurately identify
properties eligible for compensation, we must use maps of mines in conjunction with USGS
survey data.
3
Work Breakdown Structure:
1.0 Become familiar with our task
1.1. Research
1.1.1.Learn about Longwall mining.
1.1.2.Learn about Act 54.
1.2. Prepare for Client meeting
1.2.1.Setup meeting with Dr. Iannacchione and Megan Witkowski.
1.2.2.Prepare list of Questions unanswered by our research.
2.0 Meet with Clients
2.1. Learn specifics about mining
2.1.1.Identify differences between longwall and room & pillar mining techniques.
2.1.2.Understand the causes of subsidence and surface damage.
2.1.3.Understand current environmental laws and regulations affecting coal companies.
2.2. Learn about project
2.2.1.Understand our purpose in working on this project
2.2.2.Identify our responsibilities.
2.2.3.View work that has already been done.
2.2.4.Identify the dates our work will cover (August 21, 2003 to August 20, 2008).
3.0 Preparation
3.1. Design Process
3.1.1.Recognize the clients’ wants and requirements
3.1.2.Develop a problem statement
3.1.3.Plan the project
3.2. Become acquainted with BUMIS
3.2.1.Learn the responsibilities involved with using a state-owned database.
3.2.2.Learn how to navigate the BUMIS database.
3.2.3.Learn how to develop reports from BUMIS.
3.3. Gather equipment
3.3.1.Acquire three University-owned tablet PCs
3.3.2.Create secure logins on computers
3.3.3.Install BUMIS on computers
4
4.0 Submit Proposal
4.1. Write preliminary proposal
4.1.1.Continue design process
4.1.2.Write an abstract
4.1.3.Begin making a Gantt Chart
4.1.4.Set timelines
4.2. Submission
4.2.1.Make appropriate changes and correct
4.2.2.Submit proposal to clients
4.2.3.Listen to feedback
4.2.4.Modify accordingly
5.0 Entry of Data
5.1. Distribute responsibility evenly among teammembers
5.1.1.Enter data from BUMIS into Excel
5.1.2.Check data against maps
5.1.3.Collect all data into a single spreadsheet
5.1.4.Develop a system to cross analyze data to insure accuracy.
6.0 Streamline spreadsheet system
6.1. Make suggestions
6.1.1.Use modifies prototypes to analyze data
6.1.2.Check pros and cons of the new format
6.2. Restructure
6.2.1.Obtain approval and suggestions for new format
6.2.2.Implement changes in all spreadsheets
7.0 Finalization
7.1. Present final summary of project to client
7.1.1.Present to instructor
7.1.2.Present to Client
7.2. Participate in the Freshman Conference
7.2.1.Present our project
5
Deliverables:
1. A complete spreadsheet, filled with data from 9 longwall mines operating in Western Pennsylvania.
2. All of the properties mapped and noted whether they were damaged.
3. An analysis of whether we find any discrepancies or patterns in the data after entered onto the map.
4. Detailed descriptions of any methods developed to acquire, enter, or analyze data.
5. Final report summarizing work completed and the deliverables listed above.
Cost Estimates:
• There is no monetary cost, as all equipment, software, and data is already owned by or
accessible to the University.
Schedule Estimates:
• From beginning to end (data from 2 mines entered to data from all 9 mines entered) the
project should take no longer than 10 weeks. This results in approximately 1-2 mines’
data being entered weekly.
i. Becoming Familiar with our Task 1/6 – 1/14
ii. Meet with Clients 1/15 – 1/19
iii. Preparation 1/20 – 2/2
iv. Submit Proposal 1/29 – 4/6
v. Entry of Data 2/12 – 4/6
vi. Streamline Spreadsheet System 3/1 – 4/6
vii. Finalization 4/7 – 4/14
• Please reference our Gantt Chart for a more detailed schedule.
Responsibilities:
• We are working under the direction of University of Pittsburgh graduate student Megan
Witkowski. We will be entering data and streamlining the spreadsheets in use to assist
her with her report to the state.
Assumptions:
1. All data in BUMIS is representative of actual damage.
2. All data has been correctly entered into BUMIS.
3. Mines are where maps indicate.
4. Our portion of the project is presently on schedule.
5. Damage in liable areas is a result of mining.
6. Changes in bodies of water are not related to climate changes.
7. Any unanticipated events resulting in a change in work scope or schedule will be
immediately communicated to the client for approval.
6
Gantt Chart
7
8