| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> |
|
Banks, S. B., & Banks, D. (2001). Abandoned mines drainage; impact assessment and mitigation of discharges from coal mines in the UK. In R. N. Yong, & H. R. Thomas (Eds.), Geoenvironmental engineering Engineering Geology (pp. 31–37). 60.
Abstract: The UK has a legacy of pollution caused by discharges from abandoned coal mines, with the potential for further pollution by new discharges as groundwaters continue to rebound to their natural levels. In 1995, the Coal Authority initiated a scoping study of 30 gravity discharges from abandoned coal mines in England and Scotland. Mining information, geological information and water quality data were collated and interpreted in order to allow a preliminary assessment of the source and nature of each of the discharges. An assessment of the potential for remediation was made on the basis of the feasibility and relative costs of alternative remediation measures. Environmental impacts of the discharges and of the proposed remediation schemes were also assessed. The results, together with previous Coal Authority studies of discharges in Wales, were used by the Coal Authority, in collaboration with the former National Rivers Authority and the former Forth and Clyde River Purification Boards, to rank discharge sites in order of priority for remediation.
|
|
Ye, Z. H., Whiting, S. N., Qian, J. H., Lytle, C. M., Lin, Z. Q., & Terry, N. (2001). Trace element removal from coal ash leachate by a 10-year-old constructed wetland. J. Environ. Qual., 30(5), 1710–1719.
Abstract: This study investigated the ability of a 10-yr-old constructed wetland to treat metal-contaminated leachate emanating from a coal ash pile at the Widows Creek electric utility, Alabama (USA). The two vegetated cells, which were dominated by cattail (Typha latifolia L.) and soft rush (Juncus effusus L.), were very effective at removing Fe and Cd from the wastewater, but less efficient for Zn, S, B, and Mn. The concentrations were decreased by up to 99% for Fe, 91% for Cd, 63% for Zn, 61% for S, 58% for Mn, and 50% for B. Higher pH levels (>6) in standing water substantially improved the removing efficiency of the wetland for Mn only. The belowground tissues of both cattail and soft rush had high concentrations of all elements; only for Mn, however, did the concentration in the shoots exceed those in the belowground tissues. The concentrations of trace elements in fallen litter were higher than in the living shoots, but lower than in the belowground tissues. ne trace element accumulation in the plants accounted for less than 2.5% of the annual loading of each trace element into the wetland. The sediments were the primary sinks for the elements removed from the wastewater. Except for Mn, the concentrations of trace elements in the upper layer (0-5 cm) of the sediment profile tended to be higher than the lower layers (5-10 and 10-15 cm). We conclude that constructed wetlands are still able to efficiently remove metals in the long term (i.e., >10 yr after construction).
Keywords: acid mine drainage; Alabama; ash; bioaccumulation; boron; cadmium; constructed wetlands; environmental analysis; environmental effects; iron; Jackson County Alabama; Juncus effusus; leachate; manganese; metals; pH; pollutants; pollution; remediation; soils; sulfur; trace elements; Typha latifolia; United States; vegetation; waste water; wetlands; Widows Creek; Widows Creek Steam Plant; zinc; Typha; Juncus 22, Environmental geology
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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).
|