|
Hazen, J. M. (2000). Acid mine drainage characterization and remediation using a combination of hydrometric measurements, isotopes and dissolved solutes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado,, .
|
|
|
Fripp, J., Ziemkiewicz, P. F., & Charkavorki, H. (2000). Acid Mine Drainage Treatment. Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program Technical Notes, Erdc Tn-Emrrp-Sr-14, 7.
Abstract: Contaminated water flowing from abandoned coal mines is one of the most significant contributors to water pollution in former and current coal-producing areas. Acid mine drainage (AMD) can have severe impacts to aquatic resources, can stunt terrestrial plant growth and harm wetlands, contaminate groundwater, raise water treatment costs, and damage concrete and metal structures. In the Appalachian Mountains of the eastern United States alone, more than 7,500 miles of streams are impacted. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission estimates that the economic losses on fisheries and recreational uses are approximately $67 million annually (ref). While most modern coal-mining operations (Figure 1) must meet strict environmental regulations concerning mining techniques and treatment practices, there are thousands of abandoned mine sites in the United States (Figure 2). Treatment of a single site can result in the restoration of several miles of impacted streams. The purpose of this document is to briefly summarize key issues related to AMD treatment. This document is intended as a brief overview; thus, it is neither inclusive nor exhaustive. The technical note presents the preliminary planning issues
|
|
|
Jage, C. R., & Zipper, C. E. (2000). Acid-mine drainage treatment using successive alkalinity-producing systems. Powell River Project research and education program reports.
|
|
|
Smith, I. J. H. (2000). AMD treatment, it works but are we using the right equipment? Tailings and mine waste ', , 419–427.
Abstract: For the past 40 years various approaches have been developed to treat acid waters coming from abandoned as well as operating mining operations. System designs have evolved to meet increasingly stringent discharge permit limits for treated water, as well as to provide solid disposal within economic constraints. A treatment system for remediation of acid mine drainage (AMD) or acid groundwater (AG) requires two main steps: 1. The addition of chemicals to precipitate dissolved metals contained in the waters, and if necessary, to coagulate the precipitated solids ahead of physical separation. 2. Physical separation of the precipitated solids from the water so the water can be lawfully discharged from the site. Choosing the appropriate technology and equipment results in the most efficient plant design, the lowest capital outlay, and minimum operating cost. The goal of these plants is to discharge liquids and solids able to meet standards. The separation of solids from liquids can be achieved through various means, including gravity settling, flotation, mechanical dewatering, filtration and evaporation. As important as the liquid solids separation unit operations are, they are driven by the chemistry of the water to be treated. The content of the dissolved solids will influence the quality and quantity of the solids produced during precipitation. Thus the two aspects must be integrated, with chemistry first, then mechanical engineering. This presentation will provide an overview of a number of liquid solids separation tools currently being used to treat AMD-AG at several sites in the USA. It will also discuss how their operations are impacted by the chemistry of their particular acid water feeds. The tools used include clarifier-thickeners, solids contact clarifiers, dissolved air flotation, polishing filters, membrane filters, and mechanical dewatering devices (belt and filter presses, vacuum filters, and driers).
|
|
|
Srivastave, A., & Chhonkar, P. K. (2000). Amelioration of coal mine spoils through fly ash application as liming material. J. Ind. Res., 59(4), 309–313.
Abstract: The feasibility of fly ash as compared to lime to ameliorate the low pH of acidic coal mine spoils under controlled pot culture conditions are reported using Sudan grass (Sorghum studanens) and Oats (Avena sativa) as indicator crops. It is observed that at all levels of applications, fly ash and lime significantly increase the pH of mine spoils, available phosphorus, exchangeable potassium, available sulphur and also uptake of phosphorus, potassium, sulphur and oven-dried biomass of both these test crops. The fly ash significantly decreases the bulk density of coal mine spoils, but, there is no effect on bulk density due to lime application. However, when the spoils are amended with either fly ash or lime, the root growth occurs throughout the material. Fly ash and lime do not cause elemental toxicities to the plants as evidenced from the dry matter production by the test crops. The results indicate that fly ash to be a potential alternative to lime for treating acidic coal mine spoils.
|
|