|
|
Wolkersdorfer, C., & Younger, P. L. (2002). Passive mine water treatment as an alternative to active systems. Grundwasser, 7(2), 67–77.
Abstract: For the treatment of contaminated mine waters reliable treatment methods with low investment and operational costs are essential. Therefore, passive treatment systems recently have been installed in Great Britain and in Germany (e.g. anoxic limestone drains, constructed wetlands, reactive barriers, roughing filters) and during the last eight years such systems successfully treated mine waters, using up to 6 ha of space. In some cases with highly contaminated mine water, a combination of active and passive systems should be applied, as in any case the water quality has to reach the limits. Because not all the processes of passive treatment systems are understood in detail, current research projects (e.g. EU-project PIRAMID) were established to clarify open questions.
|
|
|
|
Eger, P., Wagner, J. R., Kassa, J. R., & Melchert, G. D. (1994). Metal removal in wetland treatment systems. In Special Publication – United States. Bureau of Mines, Report: BUMINES-SP-06A-94 (pp. 80–88). Proceedings of the International land reclamation and mine drainage conference and Third international conference on The abatement of acidic drainage; Volume 1 of 4; Mine Drainage.
|
|
|
|
Kuyucak, N. (2002). Acid mine drainage prevention and control options. CIM Bull., 95(1060), 96–102.
Abstract: Acid mine drainage (AMD) is one of the most significant environmental challenges facing the mining industry worldwide. It occurs as a result of natural oxidation of sulphide minerals contained in mining wastes at operating and closed/decommissioned mine sites. AMD may adversely impact the surface water and groundwater quality and land use due to its typical low pH, high acidity and elevated concentrations of metals and sulphate content. Once it develops at a mine, its control can be difficult and expensive. If generation of AMD cannot be prevented, it must be collected and treated. Treatment of AMD usually costs more than control of AMD and may be required for many years after mining activities have ceased. Therefore, application of appropriate control methods to the site at the early stage of the mining would be beneficial. Although prevention of AMD is the most desirable option, a cost-effective prevention method is not yet available. The most effective method of control is to minimize penetration of air and water through the waste pile using a cover, either wet (water) or dry (soil), which is placed over the waste pile. Despite their high cost, these covers cannot always completely stop the oxidation process and generation of AMD. Application of more than one option might be required. Early diagnosis of the problem, identification of appropriate prevention/control measures and implementation of these methods to the site would reduce the potential risk of AMD generation. AMD prevention/control measures broadly include use of covers, control of the source, migration of AMD, and treatment. This paper provides an overview of AMD prevention and control options applicable for developing, operating and decommissioned mines.
|
|
|
|
Benner, S. G., Blowes, D. W., & Ptacek, C. J. (1997). A full-scale porous reactive wall for prevention of acid mine drainage. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 17(4), 99–107.
Abstract: The generation and release of acidic drainage containing high concentrations of dissolved metals from decommissioned mine wastes is an environmental problem of international scale. A potential solution to many acid drainage problem is the installation of permeable reactive walls into aquifers affected by drainage water derived from mine waste materials. A permeable reactive wall installed into an aquifer impacted by low-quality mine drainage waters was installed in August 1995 at the Nickel Rim mine site near Sudbury, Ontario. The reactive mixture, containing organic matter, was designed to promote bacterially mediated sulfate reduction and subsequent metal sulfide precipitation. The reactive wall is installed to an average depth of 12 feet (3.6 m) and is 49 feet (15 m) long perpendicular to ground water flow. The wall thickness (flow path length) is 13 feet (4 m). Initial results, collected nine months after installation, indicate that sulfate reduction and metal sulfide precipitation is occurring. Comparing water entering the wall to treated water existing the wall, sulfate concentrations decrease from 2400 to 4600 mg/L to 200 to 3600 mg/L; Fe concentration decrease from 250 to 1300 mg/L to 1.0 to 40 mg/L, pH increases from 5.8 to 7.0; and alkalinity (as CaCO<inf>3</inf>) increases from 0 to 50 mg/L to 600 to 2000 mg/L. The reactive wall has effectively removed the capacity of the ground water to generate acidity on discharge to the surface. Calculations based on comparison to previously run laboratory column experiments indicate that the reactive wall has potential to remain effective for at least 15 years.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous. (1998). Remediation of historical mine sites; technical summaries and bibliography. Littleton: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration.
|
|
