Home | [1–10] << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >> [21–25] |
Eger, P., Melchert, G., & Wagner, J. (2000). Using passive treatment systems for mine closure – A good approach or a risky alternative? Min. Eng., 52(9), 78–83.
Abstract: In 1991, LTV Steel Mining decided to close an open-pit taconite mine in northeastern Minnesota using a passive-treatment approach consisting of limiting infiltration into the stockpiles and wetland treatment to remove metals. More than 50 Mt (55 million st) of sulfide-containing waste had been stockpiled adjacent to the mine during its 30 years of operation. Drainage from the stockpiles contained elevated levels of copper, nickel, cobalt and zinc. Nickel is the major trace metal in the drainages. Before the closure, the annual median concentrations ranged from 1.5 to 50 mg/L. Copper, cobalt and zinc are also present but they are generally less than 5% of the nickel values. Median pH levels range from 5 to 7.5, but most of the stockpile drainages have pH levels greater than 6.5. Based on the chemical composition of each stockpile, a cover material was selected. The higher the potential that a stockpile had to produce acid drainage, the lower the permeability of the capping material required. Covers ranged from overburden soil removed at the mine to a flexible plastic liner. Predictions of the reduction in infiltration ranged from 40% for the native soil to more than 90% for the plastic liner. Five constructed wetlands have been installed since 1992. They have removed 60% to 90% of the nickel in the drainages. Total capital costs for all the infiltration reduction and wetlands exceeded $6.5 million, but maintenance costs are less than 1% of those for an active treatment plant. Because mine-drainage problems can continue for more than 100 years, the lower annual operating costs should pay for the construction of the wetland-treatment systems within seven years.
|
Dillard, G. (2000). A win-win way to clean up by changing ionic state, new process can precipitate heavy metals. Pay Dirt, 734, 10–11.
Keywords: acid mine drainage; California; chemical composition; companies; environmental analysis; environmental management; heavy metals; ion exchange; ions; metal ores; metals; mining; pollutants; pollution; precipitation; processes; remediation; soils; surface water; United States; water treatment 22, Environmental geology
|
Brunet, J. - F. (2000). Drainages miniers acides; contraintes et remedes; etat des connaissances--Acid mine drainage; problems and remediation techniques; state of the art. Principaux Resultats Scientifiques – Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et Minieres, 1999/2000, 97–98. |
Bernoth, L., Firth, I., McAllister, P., & Rhodes, S. (2000). Biotechnologies for Remediation and Pollution Control in the Mining Industry. Miner. Metall. Process., 17(2), 105–111.
Abstract: As biotechnologies emerge from laboratories into main-stream application, the benefits they, offer are judged against competing technologies and business criteria. Bioremediation technologies have passed this test and are now widely used for the remediation of contaminated soils and ground waters. Bioremediation includes several distinct techniques that are used for the treatment of excavated soil and includes other techniques that are used for in situ applications. They play an important and growingrole in the mining industry for cost-effective waste management and site remediation. Most applications have been for petroleum contaminants, but advances continue to be made in the treatment of more difficult organ ic and inorganic species. This paper discusses the role of biotechnologies in remediation and pollution control from a mining-industry perspective. Several case studies are presented, including the land application of oily wastewater from maintenance workshops, the composting of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils and sludges, the bioventing of hydrocarbon solvents, the intrinsic bioremediation of diesel hydrocarbons, the biotreatment of cyanide in water front a gold mine, and the removal of manganese from acidic mine drainage.
|
Tarutis Jr, W. J., Stark, L. R., & Williams, F. M. (1999). Sizing and performance estimation of coal mine drainage wetlands. Ecological Engineering, 12(3-4), 353–372.
Abstract: The effectiveness of wetland treatment of acid mine drainage (AMD) was assessed using three measures of performance: treatment efficiency, area-adjusted removal, and first-order removal. Mathematical relationships between these measures were derived from simple kinetic equations. Area-adjusted removal is independent of pollutant concentration (zero-order reaction kinetics), while first-order removal is dependent on concentration. Treatment efficiency is linearly related to area-adjusted removal and exponentially related to first-order removal at constant hydraulic loading rates (flow/area). Examination of previously published data from 35 natural AMD wetlands revealed that statistically significant correlations exist between several of the performance measures for both iron and manganese removal, but these correlations are potentially spurious because these measures are derived from, and are mathematical rearrangements of, the same operating data. The use of treatment efficiency as a measure of performance between wetlands is not recommended because it is a relative measure that does not account for influent concentration differences. Area-adjusted removal accounts for mass loading effects, but it fails to separate the flow and concentration components, which is necessary if removal is first-order. Available empirical evidence suggests that AMD pollutant removal is better described by first-order kinetics. If removal is first-order, the use of area-adjusted rates for determining the wetland area required for treating relatively low pollutant concentrations will result in undersized wetlands. The effects of concentration and flow rate on wetland area predictions for constant influent loading rates also depend on the kinetics of pollutant removal. If removal is zero-order, the wetland area required to treat a discharge to meet some target effluent concentration is a decreasing linear function of influent concentration (and an inverse function of flow rate). However, if removal is first-order, the required wetland area is a non-linear function of the relative influent concentration. Further research is needed for developing accurate first-order rate constants as a function of influent water chemistry and ecosystem characteristics in order to successfully apply the first-order removal model to the design of more effective AMD wetland treatment systems.
|