|
|
Cox, M. R., & Peterson, G. L. (1997). The effectiveness of in-situ limestone treatment of acid mine drainage Association of Engineering Geologists program with abstracts, 40th annual meeting; Converging at Cascadia. In Annual Meeting – Association of Engineering Geologists, vol.40 (93).
|
|
|
|
Burt, R. A., & Caruccio, F. T. (1986). The effect of limestone treatments on the rate of acid generation from pyritic mine gangue. Environmental geochemistry and health, 8, 8.
Abstract: Surface water enters the Haile Gold Mine, Lancaster County, South Carolina by means of a small stream and is ponded behind a dam and in an abandoned pit. This water is affected by acidic drainage. In spite of the large exposures of potentially acid producing pyritic rock, the flux of acid to the water is relatively low. Nevertheless, the resulting pH values of the mine water are low (around 3.5) due to negligible buffering capacity. In view of the observed low release of acidity, the potential for acid drainage abatement by limestone ameliorants appears feasible. This study investigated the effects of limestone treatment on acid generation rates of the Haile mine pyritic rocks through a series of leaching experiments. Below a critical alkalinity threshold value, solutions of dissolved limestone were found consistently to accelerate the rate of pyrite oxidation by varying degrees. The oxidation rates were further accelerated by admixing solid limestone with the pyritic rock. However, after a period of about a month, the pyrite oxidation rate of the admixed samples declined to a level lower than that of untreated pyrite. Leachates produced by the pyrite and limestone mixtures contained little if any iron. Further, in the mixtures, an alteration of the pyrite surface was apparent. The observed behaviour of the treated pyrite appears to be related to the immersion of the pyrite grains within a high alkalinity/high pH environment. The high pH increases the rate of oxidation of ferrous iron which results in a higher concentration of ferric iron at the pyrite surface. This, in turn, increases the rate of pyrite oxidation. Above a threshold alkalinity value, the precipitation of hydrous iron oxides at the pyrite surface eventually outpaces acid generation and coats the pyrite surface, retarding the rate of pyrite oxidation.
|
|
|
|
Coulton, R., Bullen, C., & Hallett, C. (2003). The design and optimisation of active mine water treatment plants. Land Contam. Reclam., 11(2), 273–280.
Abstract: This paper provides a 'state of the art' overview of active mine water treatment. The paper discusses the process and reagent selection options commonly available to the designer of an active mine water treatment plant. Comparisons are made between each of these options, based on technical and financial criteria. The various different treatment technologies available are reviewed and comparisons made between conventional precipitation (using hydroxides, sulphides and carbonates), high density sludge processes and super-saturation precipitation. The selection of reagents (quick lime, slaked lime, sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, and proprietary chemicals) is considered and a comparison made on the basis of reagent cost, ease of use, final effluent quality and sludge settling criteria. The choice of oxidising agent (air, pure oxygen, peroxide, etc.) for conversion of ferrous to ferric iron is also considered. Whole life costs comparisons (capital, operational and decommissioning) are made between conventional hydroxide precipitation and the high density sludge process, based on the actual treatment requirements for four different mine waters.
|
|
|
|
Norton, P. J. (1992). The Control of Acid Mine Drainage with Wetlands. Mine Water Env., 11(3), 27–34.
Abstract: The recent increases in environmental legislation, especially in the USA'have meant that there is a need on behalf of the mining companies for more judicious operational planning and more thorough restoration techniques in order to reduce costs and prevent violation of the smctly enforced regulations. Water pollution is probably the greatest problem and many less enlightened operators, especially for example, in surface coal milling in Pennsylvania, have been forced into liquidation after having been unable to meet the severe restrictions on Acid Mine Drainage (AMD). The problems of AMD are also inherent in most forms of metalliferous and coal mining and also in some types of aggregate quarrying. As excavations go deeper in search of ever diminishing reserves then they are more likely to encounter groundwater which can become polluted if insufficient care is not taken. It is to be expected that the laws will also become more severe than they are at present in Europe and methods of treatment of AMD will need to be developed that are more efficient than the costly chemical methods currently used. Research by the author and others into the source of AMD pollution and its treatment with engineered wetlands and other operational methods are discussed in the paper. The methods have- the distinct benefit that they are cheap to install, are cost effective over a long period with the minimum of supervision and are environmentally acceptable to the planning and regulatory authorities.
|
|
|
|
Ketellapper, V. L., Williams, L. O., Bell, R. S., & Cramer, M. H. (1996). The control of acid mine drainage at the Summitville Mine Superfund Site. In Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Environmental and Engineering Problems (SAGEEP), vol.1996 (pp. 303–311).
Abstract: The Summitville Mine Superfund Site is located about 25 miles south of Del Norte, Colorado, in Rio Grande County. Occurring at an average elevation of 11,500 feet in the San Juan Mountain Range, the mine site is located two miles east of the Continental Divide. Mining at Summitville has occurred since 1870. The mine was most recently operated by Summitville Consolidated Mining Company, Inc. (SCMCI) as an open pit gold mine with extraction by means of a cyanide leaching process. In December of 1992, SCMCI declared bankruptcy and vacated the mine site. At that time, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took over operations of the water treatment facilities to prevent a catastrophic release of cyanide and metal-laden water from the mine site. Due to high operational costs of water treatment (approximately $50,000 per day), EPA established a goal to minimize active water treatment by reducing or eliminating acid mine drainage (AMD). All of the sources of AMD generation on the mine site were evaluated and prioritized. Of the twelve areas identified as sources of AMD, the Cropsy Waste Pile, the Summitville Dam Impoundment, the Beaver Mud Dump, the Reynolds and Chandler adits, and the Mine Pits were consider to be the most significant contributors to the generation of metal-laden acidic (low pH) water. A two part plan was developed to control AMD from the most significant sources. The first part was initiated immediately to control AMD being released from the Site. This part focused on improving the efficiency of the water treatment facilities and controlling the AMD discharges from the mine drainage adits. The discharges from the adits was accomplished by plugging the Reynolds and Chandler adits. The second part of the plan was aimed at reducing the AMD generated in groundwater and surface water runoff from the mine wastes. A lined and capped repository located in the mine pits for acid generating mining waste and water treatment plant sludge was found to be the most feasible alternative. Beginning in 1993, mining wastes which were the most significant sources of AMD were being excavated and placed in the Mine Pits. In November 1995, all of the waste from these sources had been excavated and placed in the the Mine Pits. This paper discusses EPA's overall approach to stabilize on-site sources sufficiently such that aquatic, agricultural, and drinking water uses in the Alamosa watershed are restored and/or maintained with minimal water treatment.
|
|
