|
|
Bell, A. V., & Nancarrow, D. R. (1974). Salmon and mining in northeastern New Brunswick (a summary of the northeastern New Brunswick mine water quality program). CIM Bull., 67(751), 44–53.
Abstract: It was aimed toward developing solutions to major water quality problems in the base metal mining regions of northeastern New Brunswick and specifically toward insuring that the extremely valuable fishery resources and aquatic environments of the region could be maintained in the face of existing and future base metal mining developments. The program analyzed in detail the fishery resources of the region, their water quality requirements, the mineral resources of the region and the many aspects of mining waste management at each phase of mine development. This paper describes the reasons for the initial concern and the approach adopted toward finding a solution. It briefly summarizes the important findings and recommendations made to support the conclusion that the fishery resource can be maintained and co-exist with current and future base metal mining developments in the region
|
|
|
|
Schoeman, J. J., & Steyn, A. (2001). Investigation into alternative water treatment technologies for the treatment of underground mine water discharged by Grootvlei Proprietary Mines Ltd into the Blesbokspruit in South Africa. Desalination, 133(1), 13–30.
Abstract: Grootvlei Proprietary Mines Ltd is discharging between 80 and 100 Ml/d underground water into the Blesbokspruit. This water is pumped out of the mine to keep the underground water at such a level as to make mining possible. The water is of poor quality because it contains high TDS levels (2700-3800 mg/l) including high concentrations of iron, manganese, sulphate, calcium, magnesium, sodium and chloride. This water will adversely affect the water ecology in the Blesbokspruit, and it will significantly increase the TDS concentration of one of the major water resources if not treated prior to disposal into the stream. Therefore, alternative water desalination technologies were evaluated to estimate performance and the economics of the processes for treatment of the mine water. It was predicted that water of potable quality should be produced from the mine water with spiral reverse osmosis (SRO). It was demonstrated that it should be possible to reduce the TDS of the mine water (2000-2700-3400-4500 mg/l) to potable standards with SRO (85% water recovery). The capital costs (pretreatment and desalination) for a 80 Ml/d plant (worst-case water) were estimated at US$35M. Total operating costs were estimated at 88.1c/kl. Brine disposal costs were estimated at US$18M. Therefore, the total capital costs are estimated at US$53M. It was predicted that it should be possible to produce potable water from the worst-case feed water (80 Ml/d) with the EDR process. It was demonstrated that the TDS in the feed could be reduced from 4178 to 246 mg/l in the EDR product (65% water recovery). The capital costs (pretreatment plus desalination) to desalinate the worst-case feed water to potable quality with EDR is estimated at US$53.3M. The operational costs are estimated at 47.6 c/kl. Brine disposal costs were estimated at US$42M. Therefore, the total capital costs are estimated at US$95.3 M. It was predicted that it should be possible to produce potable water from the mine water with the GYP-CIX ion- exchange process. It was demonstrated that the feed TDS (2000- 4500 mg/l) could be reduced to less than 240 mg/l (54% water recovery for the worst-case water). The capital cost for an 80 Ml/d ion-exchange plant (worst-case water) was estimated at US$26.7M (no pretreatment). Operational costs were estimated at 60.4 c/kl. Brine disposal costs were estimated at US$55.1M. Therefore, the total desalination costs were estimated at US$81.8M. The capital outlay for a SRO plant will be significantly less than that for either an EDR or a GYP-CIX plant. The operating costs, however, of the RO plant are significantly higher than for the other two processes. Potable water sales, however, will bring more in for the RO process than for the other two processes because a higher water recovery can be obtained with RO. The operating costs minus the savings in water sales were estimated at 17.2; 6.7 and US$8.6M/y for the RO, EDR and GYP-CIX processes, respectively (worst case). Therefore, the operational costs of the EDR and GYP-CIX processes are the lowest if the sale of water is taken into consideration. This may favour the EDR and GYP-CIX processes for the desalination of the mine water.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Blowes, D. W., Ptacek, C. J., Benner, S. G., McRae, C. W. T., & Puls, R. W. (1998). Treatment of dissolved metals using permeable reactive barriers. Groundwater Quality: Remediation and Protection, (250), 483–490.
Abstract: Permeable reactive barriers are a promising new approach to the treatment of dissolved contaminants in aquifers. This technology has progressed rapidly from laboratory studies to full-scale implementation over the past decade. Laboratory treatability studies indicate the potential for treatment of a large number of inorganic contaminants, including As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Fe, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Se, Tc, U, V, NO3, PO4, and SO4. Small scale field studies have indicated the potential for treatment of Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, NO3, PO4, and SO4. Permeable reactive barriers have been used in full-scale installations for the treatment of hexavalent chromium, dissolved constituents associated with acid-mine drainage, including SO4, Fe, Ni, Co and Zn, and dissolved nutrients, including nitrate and phosphate. A full-scale barrier designed to prevent the release of contaminants associated with inactive mine tailings impoundment was installed at the Nickel Rim mine site in Canada in August 1995. This reactive barrier removes Fe, SO,, Ni and other metals. The effluent from the barrier is neutral in pH and contains no acid-generating potential, and dissolved metal concentrations are below regulatory guidelines. A full-scale reactive barrier was installed to treat Cr(VI) and halogenated hydrocarbons at the US Coast Guard site in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, USA in June 1996. This barrier removes Cr(VI) from >8 mg l(-1) to <0.01 mg l(-1).
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
