|
|
Smyth, D., Blowes, D., Ptacek, C., & Bain, J. (2004). Application of permeable reactive barriers for treating mine drainage and dissolved metals in groundwater. Geotechnical News, 22(1), 39–44.
|
|
|
|
Kuyucak, N. (2001). Acid mining drainage prevention and control. Mining Environmental Management, 9(1), 12–15.
|
|
|
|
Johnson, D. B., & Hallberg, K. B. (2005). Acid mine drainage remediation options: a review. Science of the Total Environment, 338(1-2), 3–14.
Abstract: Acid mine drainage (AMD) causes environmental pollution that affects many countries having historic or current mining industries. Preventing the formation or the migration of AMD from its source is generally considered to be the preferable option, although this is not feasible in many locations, and in such cases, it is necessary to collect, treat, and discharge mine water. There are various options available for remediating AMD, which may be divided into those that use either chemical or biological mechanisms to neutralise AMD and remove metals from solution. Both abiotic and biological systems include those that are classed as “active” (i.e., require continuous inputs of resources to sustain the process) or “passive” (i.e., require relatively little resource input once in operation). This review describes the current abiotic and bioremediative strategies that are currently used to mitigate AMD and compares the strengths and weaknesses of each. New and emerging technologies are also described. In addition, the factors that currently influence the selection of a remediation system, and how these criteria may change in the future, are discussed.
|
|
|
|
Zinck, J. M., & Aube, B. C. (2000). Optimization of lime treatment processes. CIM Bull., 93(1043), 98–105.
Abstract: Lime neutralization technology is widely used in Canada for the treatment of acid mine drainage and other acidic effluents. In many locations, improvements to the lime neutralization process are necessary to achieve a maximum level of sludge densification and stability. Conventional lime neutralization technology effectively removes dissolved metals to below regulated limits. However, the metal hydroxide and gypsum sludge generated is voluminous and often contains less than 5% solids. Despite recent improvements in the lime neutralization technology, each year, more than 6 700 000 m3 of sludge are generated by treatment facilities operated by the Canadian mining industry. Because lime neutralization is still seen as the best available approach for some sites, sludge production and stability are expected to remain as issues in the near future. Several treatment parameters significantly impact operating costs, effluent quality, sludge production and the geochemical stability of the sludge. Studies conducted both at CANMET and NTC have shown that through minor modifications to the treatment process, plant operators can experience a reduction in operating costs, volume of sludge generated, metal release to the environment and liability. This paper discusses how modifications in plant operation and design can reduce treatment costs and liability associated with lime treatment.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
