Nairn, R. W., Griffin, B. C., Strong, J. D., & Hatley, E. L. (2001). Remediation challenges and opportunities at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, Oklahoma. In R. Vincent, J. A. Burger, G. G. Marino, G. A. Olyphant, S. C. Wessman, R. G. Darmody, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual National Meeting – American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, vol.18 (pp. 579–584).
Abstract: The Tar Creek Superfund Site is a portion of the abandoned lead and zinc mining area known as the Tri-State Mining District (OK, KS and MO) and includes over 100 square kilometers of disturbed land surface and contaminated water resources in extreme northeastern Oklahoma. Underground mining from the 1890s through the 1960s degraded over 1000 surface hectares, and left nearly 50 km of tunnels, 165 million tons of processed mine waste materials (chat), 300 hectares of tailings impoundments and over 2600 open shafts and boreholes. Approximately 94 million cubic meters of contaminated water currently exist in underground voids. In 1979, metal-rich waters began to discharge into surface waters from natural springs, bore holes and mine shafts. Six communities are located within the boundaries of the Superfund site. Approximately 70% of the site is Native American owned. Subsidence and surface collapse hazards are of significant concern. The Tar Creek site was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983 and currently receives a Hazard Ranking System score of 58.15, making Tar Creek the nation's number one NPL site. A 1993 Indian Health Service study demonstrated that 35% of children had blood lead levels above thresholds dangerous to human health. Recent remediation efforts have focused on excavation and replacement of contaminated residential areas. In January 2000, Governor Frank Keating's Tar Creek Task Force was created to take a “vital leadership role in identifying solutions and resources available to address” the myriad environmental problems. The principle final recommendation was the creation of a massive wetland and wildlife refuge to ecologically address health, safety, environmental, and aesthetic concerns. Additional interim measures included continuing the Task Force and subcommittees; study of mine drainage discharge and chat quality; construction of pilot treatment wetlands; mine shaft plugging; investigations of bioaccumulation issues; establishment of an authority to market and export chat, a local steering committee, and a GIS committee; and development of effective federal, state, tribal, and local partnerships.
|
|
Skousen, J. (1997). Overview of passive systems for treating acid mine drainage. Green Lands, 27(4), 34–43.
|
|
Skousen, J., Rose, A., Geidel, G., Foreman, J., Evans, R., & Hellier, W. (1998). A handbook of technologies for avoidance and remediation of acid mine drainage.
|
Tarutis Jr, W. J., Stark, L. R., & Williams, F. M. (1999). Sizing and performance estimation of coal mine drainage wetlands. Ecological Engineering, 12(3-4), 353–372.
Abstract: The effectiveness of wetland treatment of acid mine drainage (AMD) was assessed using three measures of performance: treatment efficiency, area-adjusted removal, and first-order removal. Mathematical relationships between these measures were derived from simple kinetic equations. Area-adjusted removal is independent of pollutant concentration (zero-order reaction kinetics), while first-order removal is dependent on concentration. Treatment efficiency is linearly related to area-adjusted removal and exponentially related to first-order removal at constant hydraulic loading rates (flow/area). Examination of previously published data from 35 natural AMD wetlands revealed that statistically significant correlations exist between several of the performance measures for both iron and manganese removal, but these correlations are potentially spurious because these measures are derived from, and are mathematical rearrangements of, the same operating data. The use of treatment efficiency as a measure of performance between wetlands is not recommended because it is a relative measure that does not account for influent concentration differences. Area-adjusted removal accounts for mass loading effects, but it fails to separate the flow and concentration components, which is necessary if removal is first-order. Available empirical evidence suggests that AMD pollutant removal is better described by first-order kinetics. If removal is first-order, the use of area-adjusted rates for determining the wetland area required for treating relatively low pollutant concentrations will result in undersized wetlands. The effects of concentration and flow rate on wetland area predictions for constant influent loading rates also depend on the kinetics of pollutant removal. If removal is zero-order, the wetland area required to treat a discharge to meet some target effluent concentration is a decreasing linear function of influent concentration (and an inverse function of flow rate). However, if removal is first-order, the required wetland area is a non-linear function of the relative influent concentration. Further research is needed for developing accurate first-order rate constants as a function of influent water chemistry and ecosystem characteristics in order to successfully apply the first-order removal model to the design of more effective AMD wetland treatment systems.
|
|
Wiseman, I. (2002). Constructed wetlands for minewater treatment. Bristol, England: Environment Agency.
|
