|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Karathanasis, A. D., & Barton, C. D. (1999). The revival of a failed constructed wetland treating a high Fe load AMD. In K. S. Sajwan, A. K. Alva, & R. F. Keefer (Eds.), Proceedings; biogeochemistry of trace elements in coal and coal combustion byproducts. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
|
|
|
|
Johnson, D. B., & Hallberg, K. B. (2002). Pitfalls of passive mine water treatment. Reviews in Environmental Science & Biotechnology, 1(5), 335–343.
Abstract: Passive (wetland) treatment of waters draining abandoned and derelict mine sites has a number of detrac-tions. Detailed knowledge of many of the fundamental processes that dictate the performance and longevity of constructed systems is currently very limited and therefore more research effort is needed before passive treatment becomes an “off-the-shelf” technology.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Hellier, W. W., Giovannitti, E. F., & Slack, P. T. (1994). Best professional judgement analysis for constructed wetlands as a best available technology for the treatment of post-mining groundwater seeps. In Special Publication – United States. Bureau of Mines, Report: BUMINES-SP-06A-94 (pp. 60–69). 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.
|
|
