Western U.S. Mining-
Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and
Ecological Risk Assessment
Technologies
SPEAKER
PRESENTATIONS
SPONSORED BY:
Office of Research and Development, Office of Solid Waste, Region 8
October 27 - 29. 1998 / A V
s _ _ o
Adams Mark Hotel f |
Denver, Colorado
pro^&
-------
Western U.S. Mining-Impacted Watersheds
Joint Conference on Remediation and
Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Presentation Page
Remediation and Risk Assessment Technologies:
Mineralogical, Geological and Historical Perspectives (Harry Posey) 1
An Overview of the EPA/DOE Mine Waste Technology Program 7
(Roger C. Wilmoth & Creighton Barry)
Berkeley Pit Innovative Technologies (BPIT) Project - Phase I, II and III:
Progress Report and Technology Summaries 13
(Karl Burgher, Ph.D.)
Analysis and Modeling of Contaminant Release, Transport and
Containment in Mountain Streams (Allen J. Medine, Ph.D., P.E.) 19
Assessing the Ecological Integrity of Mining-Impacted Watersheds:
A Regional Perspective (William H. Clements, Ph.D.) 25
Quantifying the Regional Effects of Mine Drainage on Stream Ecological
Condition in the Colorado Rockies from Probability Survey Data -
Results from the EPA Region 8 REMAP Project (Alan Herlihy) 29
Multivariate Analyses of Macroinvertebrate Communities to
Determine Mining Impacts on Stream Ecosystems (Michael Griffith, Ph.D.) 33
Biochemical Cycling and Control of Selenium in the Idaho
Phosphate Resource Area (Gregory Mo'ller, Ph.D.) 37
Reclamation in the High Country: Idarado Mine Remediation (Camille Farrell) 43
Clay-Based Grouting Demonstration Project (A. Lynn McCloskey) 45
Remote Site Neutralization at Crystal Mine (Martin Foote, Ph.D.) 53
Overview of the Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria Demonstration
Project under the Mine Waste Technology Program (Marietta Canty) 63
-------
An Update of ARCO's Experiences in the Investigation of Using
Surface and Subsurface Flow Wetlands to Remove Metals
from Mining-Impacted Groundwater (John Pantano, Ph.D.) 69
Commercial Scale Passive Treatment of Mine Drainage (Jim Gusek, P.E.) 73
Anaerobic Constructed Wetland Site Demonstration (Garry H. Farmer) 81
An Integrated Bioreactor System for the Treatment of Cyanide,
Metals and Nitrates in Mine Process Water (Marietta Canty) 87
An Overview of Innovative Processes that Show Potential for Arsenic
Removal and Long-Term Stabilization (Jay McCloskey) 92
Stabilization of ARD Wastes and Waste Streams by
In Situ Microbial Treatment (Jim Harrington) 99
Ceramic Microfiltration for Acid Mine Drainage Treatment
(David R. Stewart, P.E.) 107
Bulkhead Design for Acid Mine Drainage (John F. Abel, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.) 113
Notes pages 125
-------
Remediation and Risk Assessment Technologies:
Mineralogical, Geological and Historical
Perspectives
Harry Posey
Division of Minerals and Geology
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
1
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
2
-------
Western U.S. Mining impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
REMEDIATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
PERSPECTIVES:
* MINERALOGICAL
• GEOLOGICAL
* HISTORICAL
MINE SITE CONTROLS
Mine Site Classification
• Pre-law, abandoned
• Pre-law, permitted
• Post-law, permitted
PRE-LAW, ACTIVE MINES
• Reclamation required for permitted disturbance.
• No reclamation on pre-law areas
• Clean-up funding source:
Reclamation Bonds
Emergency Response Fund
Voluntary Cleanup
Non-Point Source Program
RISK ASSESSMENT CHARACTERIZATION
Sampling Requirements:
Must be Receptor Sensitive
• Example: Metals in streams
Dissolved Metals Appropriate for Aquatic
Life
Total Metals Appropriate for Walking
Wildlife
Sediment samples not a surrogate for
dissolved metals
PRE-LAW ABANDONED MINES
• No regulatory controls
• Clean-up funding sources:
Non-Point Source Program
Voluntary Cleanup under CERCI.A
Brown fields
Local Initiatives
• Draining Adits: A Special Class
Seasonal discharge
Seasonal variations in water quality
Some provide "Tributary Water Rights"
(Plugging may not be an option.)
POST-LAW ACTIVE MINES
• Reclamation required for entire disturbance.
• Clean-up funding source:
Reclamation Bonds
Emergency Response Fund
3
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
MINING-IMPACTED WATERSHEDS
"Mining Effects" Characterization
vs
"Aquatic Impacts" Characterization
(Scientific Reporting vs Public Perception)
« "Mining Effects" detectable for tens to hundreds of
miles.
• "Aquatic Impacts" attenuate within miles to tens of
miles.
• Consider public perception in reporting test results.
MINING-IMPACTED WATERSHEDS
Most Frequent Metal Sources
• Zinc
Somewhat Pervasive
Trace metal in clays, feldspars, and carbonates
Typical as ZnS in base'precious metal deposits
Environmentally persistent
Poor attenuattion
Sorbs poorly to fenihydnte
Precipitates slowly as Zn-hydroxide
Precipitates very slowly as Zn-carbonate
Zinc solids generally non-toxic
Sediment samples misleading
« Copper
Not persistent in neutral pH solutions
Excellent, rapid attenuation
Sorbs quicldy to fenihydnte
MINING-IMPACTED WATERSHEDS
wdmmsm
• PERPETUAL WATER TREATMENT
(Not an option In Colorado)
• TRADITIONAL RECLAMATION
Drainage controls
Capping
Stabilization
Alkaline amendment
» ABET PLUGGING
• PASSIVE BIOTREATMENTS
(Not a permanent solution)
• SOURCE REDUCTION
MINING-IMPACTED WATERSHEDS
CHARACTERIZATION in COLORADO
Metal contaminants (Colorado):
• Zn from Zn sulfide, Zn carbonate
• Cu from various Cu sulfides
• A1 from various major silicates
• Pb from Pb sulfide
• Cd from pyrite/sphalente
• Ag from silver sulfides
• As from As-sulfides and As.Ag-Sulfides
• Ba, Co, Ni, Sb, Be, Cr, Se, Tl, U problems rare.
• Hg present in lakes, typically not related to mining
Most Frequent Metal Sources
(Cont.)
« Aluminum
Present only where pH <3.5
Derived from major rock forming silicate minerals:
Precipitates very quickly where pH > 5.0 - 5.5
• Silver (Ag)
Present in >95% of deposits
Attenuates quickly due to adsorption
• Uranium
Impacts mostly east of Colorado Plateau
Toxic at high concentrations
MINING-IMPACTED WATERSHEDS
» PERPETUAL WATER TREATMENT
(Not an option in Colorado)
. TRADITIONAL RECLAMATION
Drainage controls
Capping
Stabilization
Alkaline amendment
« ADIT PLUGGING
• PASSIVE BIOTREATMENTS
(Not a permanent solution)
• SOURCE REDUCTION
4
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
REMEDIATION
(cons.)
. TRADITIONAL RECLAMATION
Drainage controls
• Minimize Infiltration
• Minimize erosion
Capping
• Infiltration barrier
Stabilization
• Minimize sedimentation
• Minimize physical
weathering
Alkaline amendment
addition
• Long-term add
neutralization
REMEDIATION
(conl.)
« ADIT PLUGGING
* REMEDIATION
(rant.)
. SOURCE CONTROLS
• A watershed approach
• Focus on all sources rather than "deep pockets"
» Focus on remediation raiher than maintenance
« Emphasize passive treatment technologies
• High-Cry waae rock piles
• Infiltration barriers
• Storm water diversion controls
CONCLUSIONS
a Remediation/reclamation options depend on
permit status, operator viability.
o Pre-screening can utilizegeology, mineralogy
and mining history. Screen sampling should not
utilize total metals analyses.
o "Miring effects" should be distinguished from
"environmental Impacts" to communicating
with the public.
o Remediation options In a watershed should
consider relative merits of natural attenuation.
Example: aluminum will attenuate quickly
whereas zinc tends to persist.
o Most cost-effective remediation option is source
reduction.
MINING-IMPACTED WATERSHEDS
REMEDIATION
The Solution to Pollution is Perpetual Water
Treatment.
(Is there a mistake in that solution?)
MINING-IMPACTED WATERSHEDS
REMEDIATION
(cont.)
Source Reduction
• A watershed approach
• Focus on all sources rather than "deep pockets"
• Focus on remediation rather than maintenance
• Emphasize passive treatment technologies
• High-Dry waste rock piles
• Infiltration barriers
• Storm water diversion controls
5
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
6
-------
An Overview of the EPA/DOE Mine Waste
Technology Program
Roger Wilmoth
U.S. EPA NRMRL
<&
Creigh+on Barry
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
7
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
8
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
WallErul Rlsli Manignmtint Research
C In thin ntt, CW 45308 ^
9
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Mine Waste Technology Program Oversight
• EPAOfitoofRvMjrcktndDmbpnKftt
- Ro«trW*»«th
• EPARcgknl
- Mlk-Bl.hop
• P*yi>mwiUfEncny
- M«l$liwpclGaKAjfcby
• TKtalcallntcf/itWftCoramlttc*
- Rkk Dak- >C«Mcn SunlljJU Mlm
- Lc* Dr«i(*«fT- ~SUle of Nrvmda
- John Ftopfttrfck ••i>RM*tr«fP(jcaiu*G«M
- Ron Hill • « EmJronnwniBlCom«»|i»j>t
- EnrfrMmcnhrilnfNnittrian Center
- BoW Ruhlnmo - - US BLM
• Jinti S<«fl • -Suh Df MtlHttl
- Twn Wrkkmxn-'CaknMiiSchMl oPMInrs
- NomYopm-USFiintSiitkf
- JtSnPnimft^ARCO
- BckOkinqr"EPA SITE Pragraoi
- Redgr Lw-'WwfVlrgtoUDeyleiNehirelRaotirtts
10
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
MINK WASTE TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM
TVehivjk'^y Tc4*mj; tor Tcwitrnw's
r Technology Program
Technology Testing/or Tomorrow's Solutions
Mission
Advance understanding and development of
engineering solutions to national environmental
issues resulting from mining
The Team
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Energy
MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
Montana Tech of the University of Montana
Magnitude of Mine Waste Problem
• Mining waste generated by
active and inactive mining
production facilities and its
impact on human health and the
environment are a growing
problem for government
entities, private industry, and
the general public
rn. ~ Total remediation costs for
these states estimated at
anywhere from $4-47 billion
Magnitude of Mine Waste
Problem
Number Indicates Mines
11
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
History of MWTP
Started 1991
Congressionally-
mandated
Appropriation allocated
$3.5 million to establish a
program for treating mine
wastes in Butte, Montana
Mine Waste Technology Program
• Develop and demonstrate innovative
technologies at both bench- and pilot-scale
-treat wastes to reduce volume, mobility,
and toxicity
• Extensive technology transfer and
educational activities
Funding History
(Dollars)
General Overview
Operation of the program includes
- Identify mine waste problems
-Evaluate engineering and economic factors
- Prioritize treatment technologies
- Plan and document demonstration, testing,
& evaluation
- Accelerate commercialization
-Technology transfer & education
Focus
Reduction of mobility,
toxicity, and volume of waste
Cost
Implementability
Short- and long-term
effectiveness
Protection of human health
and the environment
Technology innovation
Community acceptance
Mission Accomplished
Through Six Activities
• Identify and prioritize wasteforms,
¦
waste sites, and promising,
¦
innovative technologies
1
• Quality Assurance
• Bench-Scale Research
• Field Demonstrations
• Technology Transfer
• Education
12
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Accomplishments
Identify and prioritize waste forms, waste sites, and
promising* innovative technologies
- State-of-knowledgeof
• Mobile Toxic Constituents (Water and Add Generation)
• Mobile Toxic Constituents (Air)
• Cyanide
• Nitrate
• Arsenic
• Pyrite
• Selenium
- Science and Technology Information Retrieval System
(STIRS)—«tore and access information regarding mine waste
issues and technology
Accomplishments
Quality Assurance
- Develop Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) documents
Accomplishments
Technology Transfer'
- Transfer information to other researchers, mining industry,
regulatory agencies, & general public
• Volumes defining the Stale-ttf-Knowledgereiaiive to various mine
waste forms: 8
• Brochures: 10
• Final and Interim
Reports: 29
• Published Papers: 2
• Technical
Presentations: 51
• Published Abstracts: 13
• Guided Tours: ¦/
• Annual Reports: 5
Accomplishments
Education
- Mine ant Mineral Waste Emphasis
Graduate Students: 30
- Graduate Research Students: 20
- Undergraduate Students; 3Q
- K through 12 Students: 200
- Seminars and Workshops: 15
- New College Level Counts: 12
- Students in New Courses: 4S0
Laboratory-Scale Projects
Pit Lake
Characterization
Summary
i i'
8 Issue Identification and Prioritization Volumes
16 Field-Scale Demonstration Projects
7 Bench-Scale Development Projects
II Berkeley Pit Innovative Technologies Projects
8 Pit Lake Characterization Projects
122 Technology Transfer Activities
Over 1,000Individuals Affected by Educational
Activities
13
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
14
-------
Berkeley Pit Innovative Technologies (BPXT)
Project - Phase I, II and III:
Progress Report and Technology Summaries
Karl Burgher, Ph.D.
Mine Waste Technology Program
Montana Tech
The University of Montana
15
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
16
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
iMINE
\WASTE
^TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM
Denver, Colorado October 1998
Mine Waste Technology Program
Project 7 - Berkeley Pit Innovative
Technologies (BPIT) Project - Phase I,
Phase II, & Phase III
Progress Report and Technology Summaries
BPIT Project Goals
¦ To provide a test bed for Innovative and/or high risk
technologies tor the remediation of Berkeley Pit
water.
¦ Focus on bench-scale testing to help assist in
defining alternative remediation strategies for the
future clean-up of the Berkeley Pit water.
BPIT Progress Report
¦ Nine on-site, funded demonstrationscomplet*
¦ Twoon-»lte, unfundtddamonsfrationicomplate
¦ FiveTectinologyDemonstrsUcnReportsfinaliMd
¦ Numerous off-site, unfunded reMsreh effort* occuring
BPIT Project - Phase I
Funded On-Site Demonstrations
¦ Technical Assistance International and The Group of
Scientists, Moscow State University. Russia.
"Precipitation Induced Technology Process'
¦ SPC International and The Hebrew University of '
Jerusalem. "Remediation of Berkeley Pit Water by
Azolla Btofilter"
¦ Geo2, Ltd., Melbourne, Australia.
Process"
"Green Precipitate
BPIT Project — Phase II
Funded On-Site Demonstrations
¦ Geo2, Ltd., Melbourne, Australia. "Green Precipitate
Process'
¦ Metre-General, Inc., Westminster, CO. "Remediation
Of Berkeley Pit Water using OCOLIG."
¦ International Hydronics, Inc., Rocky Hill, NJ, "Zeolite
Pruduction Using Berkeley Pit Water."
17
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
BPIT Project-Phase III
Funded On-Site Demonstrations
Mine Remediation Services, Ltd., Brisbane. Australia,
"Remediation Of Berkeley Pit Water using KAD."
Hydrometrice, Inc., Helena, MT, "Removal erf Sulfate
from Berkeley Pit Water using WALMALLA Process."
Louisiana State University Center for Coastal,
Energy, and Environmental Resources, Baton
Rouge, LA, "A Combined Chelation/Microbial sulfate
Reduction Treatment Train tor Mine Waste."
BPIT Project - Phase I
Unfunded On-Site Demonstrations
Purity Systems, Inc., Missoula, Montana. 'Metal Ion
Spedatton Demonstration with Berkeley Pit Water"
HydroPlus Technologies, Grass Valley, California,
"ionic State Modification System"
BPIT Project Phase I Demonstration Summaries
Technical Assistance international and Moscow State
University (T/AI) PIT Processing System
¦ Proprietary equipment and technologies allowing for
nan-dogging precipitation
¦ Proprietary pra-ireaimenf of commercially avaiiabie
resins
* Proprietary technologies for ©luting, regenerating,
and flushing ionite
BPIT Project Phase 1 Demonstration Summaries
T/AI arid Moscow State University (continued}
Process capabte of bate* or continuous mode
operation
Low consumption of resins
Develops all required reagents from Input Berkeley
Pit Water
BPIT Project Phase I Demonstration Summaries
BPIT Project Phase I Demonstration Summaries
T/AS and Moscow State University (continued)
No requirement tor lime and/or limestone pre-
treatment
Use of well known principles of selective precipitation
T/AI and Moscow State University (Continued)
» T/A!DemoTOWtionR8SuRs(aII«m<»iitrati«mbppm)
#*rSekjf Ml Water
Mi fntoiti Wtttr
Al
29$
4ll)
Ci
2.1
Cm
lit
<«.0I
?*
m
SIS
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
BPIT Project Phase I Demonstration Summaries
SPC International and The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Azoila Biofilter System
¦ Filter columns packed with Azolfa Biomass
¦ Metal Ions binding to Insoluble matrix of Azoila
Biomass
¦ Demonstrated (low rates of 10mVmin, 20ml/min. and
40mMnin
BPI T Project Phase I Demonstration Summaries
Azolla Biofilter System (continued)
m Filer Biomass of 6Sg and 200s
¦ Adjusted pH of input water from 2.9 to 4.0
BPIT Project Phase I Demonstration Summaries
SPC International and The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem (continued)
Demonstration Results (all C©ne®rtra!ton*ln ppm)
Cent* ad Mint
ierfceicy Pit W«t«r
SPC Prac
m Rnulls
C«ncMitntl»ni
CofwenfratSeRB
Hlth
Uw
Al
0.
08
S.JS
4».»J
C«
l.«
*9.99»
C>
189
H.lli
ft
t.»S»
>.l)
%t a
90S
IT.IS
t.lll
8a
Stt
(Ml
<«.ll
Sallalt
19,999
8.928
l.MI
*K
Z.P
9.9
$.1
BPIT Project Phase II Demonstration
Summaries
Geo2 Limited, Green Precipitate Process
• Demonstrated 30 liter Batches
- Recovered Copper and Zinc from
Precipitate
• Used Approximately 30% Less Lime
¦ Performed Pilot-Scale Demonstration at
MSE-TA
19
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
BPIT Project Phase II Demonstration
Summaries
Metre- General, Inc., Octolig Process
• Demonstrated low pH recovery of Copper
and Zinc using Octolig
¦¦ Used Traditional Precipitation Techniques
¦ Demonstrated Octolig as Polishing Step
BPIT Project Phase II Demonstration
Summaries
International Hydronics, Inc., Zeolite Production
Process
• Demonstrated Production of Zeolite-like
material from Berkeley pit Water
¦ Used Sodium Silicate to Bind Metals
¦ Used NaOH as pH Modifying Agent
BPIT Project Phase III Demonstration
Summaries
Mine Remediation Services, Ltd., KAD (Kaolin
Amorphous Derivative) Process
- Demonstrated pH modification and ion
exchange properties of KAD material.
¦ Pinal Report is currently being reviewed
BPIT Project Phase III Demonstration
Summaries
Hydrometrics, Inc., WALHALLA Process
• Demonstrated Sulfate removal using
SX-44 (byproduct of cement
manufacturing process).
• Used after traditional time precipitation.
¦ Final Report is currently being reviewed
BPIT Project Phase III Demonstration
Summaries
LSU Center for Coastal, Energy and
Environmental Resources,
Chelation/Microbial Sulfate Reduction
Process.
• Demonstrated metals and sulafte removal
by forming metal sulfide precipitates.
• Final Report is currently being reviewed
BPIT Project Demonstrations
Summary and Conclusion
¦ Eleven bench-scale demonstrations completed
between March 1996 and October 1998
¦ Project will conclude in December. 1998
20
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Future Montana Tech Mine Waste
Technology Program Berkeley Pit Research
¦
Biological Sutvey of Berkeley Pit
¦
Sediment/Pore Water Characterization of Berkeley
Pit Sediments
¦
Organic Carbon Sources and Concentrations of
Berkeley Pit Water
¦
SRB Activity in Berkeley Pit Sediments
a
Sedimentation Rate in Berkeley Pit
¦
Surface Reactions and Kinetics
a
Water/Wan Rock Interactions
¦
Tailings Deposition as Remediation
For Copies of BPIT Reports
m Contact
Martin Foote
MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
P.O. Box 407$
Butte, MT 59702
Phone: (406) 494-7431
Fax: (406) 494-7230
21
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
22
-------
Analysis and Modeling of
Contaminant Release, Transport and
Containment in Mountain Streams
Allen Medine, Ph.D., P.E.
Water Science and Engineering
23
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
24
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
vjj Analysis and Modeling of Contaminant
Release, Transport & Containment
in Mountain Streams
Allen J. Medine, Ph.D., P.E.
Water Science and Engineering
Boulder, Colorado
Establishing Modeling Objectives
When are Models Useful?
Existing Data Not Sufficient and Difficult to Obtain
System Overly Complex
Quantitative Estimates of Future/Past Conditions Needed
Sampling Needs Must be Refined
Chemical Behavior Non-Conservative
Wastetoad Allocation Scenarios
Order of Magnitude Estimates Not Acceptable
Predict or Describe Exposures (Frequency or Duration)
1
j Environmental Modeling
" H • Depends on the problem at hand and system
complexity
• Conceptual model
• Simple analytic correlation analysis
• Equilibrium chemical modeling
• Reactive, multi-contaminant, multi-phase
transport and transformation modeling
c
Water Quality Improvement
Effectiveness of Restoration Plans
hp
T &
Mass Balance Approach
]
Preliminary Assessment of Load Reduction
Tributaries Routed as Total Load/Flow
Loss/Gain Percentage Between Stations Maintained to
Simulate Observed Sediment Interaction
Sediment-Dynamics In Lower Reaches not Included
Changes In Major Transformation Processes Should be Used
In Detailed Evaluations
Development of Conceptual Mode)
•Vrtac* Water
GnmAtfvAtar. Sdlt
Aquitte R*ieui*«*
Ttrmbtti Ruovni
MM
What is responsible for
f ' observed resource impairment?
i
h
^ • Habitat disruption
• Metals
• Major ions, pH
• Synergistic vs. antagonistic response
• Metal speciation
• Combination of the above
25
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
What is driving the system?
• Continuous Release
• Wet weather, storm Loading
• Which pollutants are of interest?
• Governing chemical reactions
9 Important physical attributes
STORM EVENT SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
ZINC IN DRAINAGE FROM GREGORY GULCH
-1 fcKft
lUnton tin.
MINUTES AFTER RUNOFF INITIATION
SO 180 110 200 210 309 MO
Contaminant transport pathways
• Direct releases
• Diffuse releases
• Overland
• Subsurface
Chemical Source Area Types
Primary
Dischergefrom Mine Drainage and Portals
Springs or Seeps Discharging Contaminated Groundwater
Direct Surface Water Contact wi th Pluvial Tailings or Piles
Runoff and Seapage from Waste Rock Plies, T&INngs,
or other impacted Areas
Relaaseof Dissolved or Particulate Metal from Contaminated
Stream Sediments and Floodplain Deposits
Secondary
Airborne Transport from Wastes or Contaminated Soils
Metal Releases from Mineralized Areas to Surface Water
or Groundwater
Why should we care about
specific metal species?
• Relations between metal forms and
observed toxicity
• Dissolved {Free ion, inorganic complexes,
organic complexes)
• Particulate (sorbed, available mineral, inert
mineral)
• Where does total recoverable metal fit into
the analysis and interpretation?
Contaminant Release, Transport
& Speciation Modeling?
• Human mental capacity, difficult to process
multiple chemical dimensions
• Overly complex systems
• Focus on controlling mechanisms
• Evaluate cause & effect prior to remediation
• Pollutant Interactions
• Sediment dynamics
• Source release rates and need for control
• META4, Version 3
26
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
T
T
h
\ I
WASP4-META4
*.A#,
Metal Exposure and Transformations
Assessment Model
« Water Analysis Simulation Program far 1,2 and 3
Dimensions Along With Water Column & Benthics
• Modified With Submodel to Specifically Address the
Complex Behavior of Metals
• META4 Based on MERC4, Developed for Electric
Power Research Institute
« Incorporates Metal SpeclaUon Based on MINEQL and
MINTEQA2
WASP4-META4
WASP4, V4.32
OUTPUT
INPUT DATA
z
OYNMYWMmW
\ | TOXH
\j eutrw |
Input Data Requirements
Water Quality Data
Boundary Concentrations
Point and Distributed Waste Loads
Natural Pollutant Loads
Segment Chemical Concentrations (Non-Simulated)
Initial Concentrations for Each Segment (Simulated)
Time Functions for Variable Loads, Boundaries, Etc.
Bed Sediment Quality/Mass
Input Data Requirements
Chemical Reaction Matrix
Sediment Types
Speciation Option (None, Simple,Competitive)
Iteration Error and Number of Iterations
Solution Chemistry
Inorganic Complexation
Organic Complexation
Solid Phase Reactions and Control
Sorption Reactions
Metal Transformation and
Speciation Reactions
Cadmium
Model Species:
Zn*» Cu* Cd*2 Mn F^Oxlda AI-Oxide
H' CO*4 Ci'1 Mg*J SO«* DOC
Metal Species & Reactions:
Cg) Cd4FeOx(w«ak)
Prscfpitatat: Data rmfnad from MINTEQA2, MINEQL-*-
Metal Transformation and
Speciation Reactions
Copper
Model Species:
Zn*1 Cu" Mn Fa-OxJde At-Oxlde
H* C03^ Ca*2 Ma*' S04* OOC
Major ion Reactions: C*tl Mg" COS-* SO44
Metal Speciation Reactions:
Cu*® CuSO,^ CuOH*
CuHCOj* CuCG^q)
CuKOH)}*
Sorted: Cu-FaOx(Strong) Cu-FaOx{watk)
Precipitates: Datcrmfnadfrom MINTEQA2, MINEQL*
27
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Metal Transformation and
Speciation Reactions
Zinc
Mode! Spectes:
Zn° Cu*1 Mn Fa-Oxide Al-Oxlda
H* COy* Cr* Mg" S04-» DOC
Metal Sgedatjon Reactions:
Zn'* 2nS0^ ZrOH', Zrt(OH^*
ZnHCO,' ZnCOrf«d ZN(CCy,«
Sort>ad: Zr»-feOx{Stror>g) Zn-F«Ox(w«*k)
Precipitates: Determined from MINTEOA2, MINEQL*
Modeling Applications
for WASP4-META4
Clear Creek
North Clear Creek
Blackbird Creek '
Big Deer Creek
California Gulch
Alamosa River
Whitewood Creek
Containment of Releases
Reduce dominant point source releases
Segregate dean water from contaminated watar
. Treatmtrrt (activevs. pasaiva)
Consolidate and stabilize waste piles
R«vag elation & neutralization of solid wasta acidity
Control run-on, Infiltration and runoff
Reduce contaminated soils erosion
Manage hydrology, revegetattar\ sedimant traps
Floodplalnand streambankstabil&ation
Remove contaminated sediment deposits
Maintain neutral to basic pH in surface water
Manage chemistry, acidity and metal interactions
n
I} i Metal Associations in Sediments
1 CHEMICAL. PHYSICAL
Amorphous Iron Oxides
Surface Area
Loss on Ignition
Total Extractable Iron
Other Organic Matter
Percent < 63um
Reactive Iron
Total Organic Carbon
Percent < 125 um
Metal Associations in Sediments
'
1
IRON OXIDES ARE EXCELLENT SCAVENGERS
OF METALS FROM SOLUTION
• Fine Grained, Amorphous Compounds
• Poorly Crystallzed
• Large Surface Area
• High Cation Exchange Capacity
• High Negative Surface Charge
CADMIUM PARTITIONING TO SOLIDS
North Clur Creek Sedlmsnts
Dtitwa from nMutfi In mttw*
H 1WJ Udi W| T7W MM 10»M IMW 11 MO 1UM ttOOOO MIM
J «u«W»/Ofe** | | HH|fathni9*«li<«
H UOtUtt |||| CMb«UH
28
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
.1
!rJ
X 140
g 120
S 100
Zn And Pb Sorption by Iron
Metal Concentration In Iron Hydroxides
to —
1000 1100 2000 2*00 MOO *500
Iron Hydroxide Concentration (mg/Kg)
Cd And Ni Sorption by Iron
Metal Concentration In Iron Hydroxides
• ce • M
I if
¦
*—
00 1M0 3000 2*00 3000 U
Iron Hydroxide Concentration (mgMg)
r 1
ih
As And Cu Sorption by Iron
Metal Concentration^ Iron Hydroxides
100 1000 1400 2000 2i00 MOO WO
Iron Hydroxide Concentration (mo/Kg)
Metal Sorption to Solids
Previously, Sorption has been Described
by Various Empirical Means
• Partition Coefficients
• Isotherm Equations
• Conditional Equilibrium Sorption Constants
However, Sorption of Metals is Strongly Dependant
on pH, Ionic Strength and Competing Ions.
The Empirical Description of Sorption Would Lead to
an Unwleldly Set of Fitting Parameters for Success
Development of Theoretical Models of
the Oxide/Water Interface
SURFACE COMPLEXATION MODELING
26 Year Effort Toward Understanding and
Mathematically Describing the Sorption
Mechanism Based on Electric Double Layer Theory
Some of the Models Advanced Include:
• Diffuse Layer Model
• Constant Capacitance Model
• Triple Layer Model
• Generalized Two-Layer Model
Development of Theoretical Models of
the Oxide/Water Interface
SURFACE COMPLEXATION MODELING
The Fundamental Concepts for all
Surface Complexation Models Are:
Sorption Takes Place at Specific Coordination Sites
Reactions Can Be Described Via Mass Law Equations
Surface Charge Results From the Surface Reactions
The Effect of Surface Charge Can Be Addressed by
Applying a Correction Factor (Coulomblc Term)
29
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
1
1 Current Modeling Capabilities
Model State Variables
p
Four Metals, Three Solids, pH
Cu Zn Mn Cd Pb As
Select 4 Metals Onlv
Iron Oxides Solid2 Solid3
(F» Double Layer Sorption, Others Activity Kd)
30
-------
Assessing the Ecological Integrity of Mining-
Impacted Watersheds:
A Regional Perspective
William Clements, Ph.D.
Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology
Colorado State University
31
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
32
-------
Assessing the Ecological Integrity of
Mining-Impacted Watersheds:
A Regional Perspective
William H. Clements, Daren M. Carlisle
Colorado Slate Univ., Fort Collins, CO
James M Lazorchak
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Phillip C. Johnson
U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Anchorage AK
Assessing Effects bf Metals at Different;
Spatial Scales
-~ Individual Stream Assessments
~ typical upstream vs. downstream assessment
upstream sites used as reference
subsamples used as "replicates"
~ gradient of effects
~ pseudoreplication
cannot attribute differences to a specific cause
~ improved by:
sampling multiple streams
long-term assessments
•• Multiple Watershed Assessments
- Regional Assessments
Overview,
- Background
~ heavy metal pollution in western streams
~ extent of metal pollution in Colorado
~ focus on benthic communities
''
¦» Assessing Effects of Metals at Different Spatial Scales
~ individual stream assessments
~ multiple watershed assessments
~ regional assessments
- Examples
~ Colorado, Idaho, New Zealand
-
Panther Creek, ID
]| 2.000
1.500
£ 1.000
I 500
I °
\
: p
PA01 RAj02 PA03 (VMM PA06 PA07 F»08 PA10 RM1 PA13
Station
o 5
3'8
CD
3
c:
3'
3"
-------
Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand
Station
UJ
::v:;r;:;;/<¦; SpatiiaiSbaie^:;
-»Individual Stream Assessments
-»Multiple Watershed Assessments
~ individual stations serve as "replicates"
~ broader generalizations
~ greater variability
~ confounding variables
-»Regional Assessments
Recovery of the East Fork of the Arkansas River, CO
2,000
i 1.000
f 500
2
200
100
50
20
10
A
* /
/ \ ~' ^
/ *"\
/
£ *
\ '
•
1 1 1 1 1—
rv^vV
J 1 1—fi—1 ..J I 1 1 _l •
Date
35
30
25$
"i
151
z
10
5
2nc Number
Concentration of Tuca
Interbasin Study, CO
-------
35
30
25
h
O. 20
UJ
t5
10
_ 5
^50°
3,400
d 300
= 200
O 100
Interbasin Study, CO
JI II
1992
1993
Background
Low Medium
Station
UJ
i Assessing Effects of Metals at j
^ 7;; Different Spatial Scales:
- Individual Stream Assessments
- Multiple Watershed Assessments
- Regional Assessments
~ randomly-selected streams
~ very broad generalizations
~ assess status and condition at large regional scales
"What percent of streams affected?"
North and South Island, New Zealand
22
I
»- 18
12
10
* 600
I
I
I
JiT
11
South Wand
locrtion
|l
O ^
§ 3
cB
o
(t>
O
3
CO
3
3
or
5"
C/5
8-
Co'
CO
CO
CD
Co
CO
3
-------
Southern Rocky Mountain Ecoregion, Colorado
20
° BMfcgiouatf Loh VmOum
ICO
Metal Category
UJ
cn
Trade-Offs Between Spatially-Extensive and
Temporally-Intensive Sampling
a
Individual Streams
¦
8
01
(9
Multiple Watersheds
O
a.
¦
E
&
Regional
¦
Stream
Watershed Region
Spatial Scale
generalizations;
long-term assessments
variability
U.S. EPA Regional Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP)
*¦ 79 Randomly selected streams
habitat
chemistry
toxicity Benthos (-)
benthos
18 of 79 sites were severely
degraded
Metals (-) Metals (~)
50
5
6
16
What is the Appropriate Spatial
Scale?
Spatial Scale
Advantages
I
Disadvantages §§
t-.
SS:
Individual Stream
Assessments
gradient of effects
examine spatial recovery
long-term changes
cannot show causation i|:;
inability to generalize
pseudoreplication p
Multiple Watershed
Assessments
broader generalizations
intermediate scale
high variability |§
Regional Assessments
large spatial scale
assess status and trends
high variablity H
logistics, cost |||
j
; -• *wX v.:. \. *. V. V.. , y'{ !;"• ;
2. co
CD
3
c;
CO
o
o
cS
s
o
CD
O
3
33 __
CD 3
2 "S
CD 05
3'
3'
CO
Q..
sa'
o"
3
0)
3
a
8"
o
o
-------
Quantifying the Regional Effects of Mine
Drainage on Stream Ecological
Condition in the Colorado Rockies from
Probability Survey Data -
Results from the EPA Region 8 REMAP Project
Alan Herlihy
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Oregon State University
37
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
38
-------
Western U. S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
antijying the Regional Effects of Mine
Drainage on Stream Ecological
Condition in the Colorado Rockies from
Probability Survey Data
Alan Herlihy (Oregon State Univ.), Jim
Lazorchak, Don Klemm, Frank McCormick
(EPA Cincinnati), Mark Smith (SoBran Inc.,
Cincinnati), Tom Willingham, and Loyes
Parrish (EPA Region 8)
Overview
~ Examine the response of stream
indicators to mine drainage stress
~ Relationship between indicators
~ Sediment and water chemistry
~ Sediment and water toxicity
~ Fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages
~ Assess the extent of mine drainage
impacts to Colorado Rocky Mt. streams
~
Region 8 REMAP Project
Streams in Colorado Mineral Belt
Located in Southern Rockies Level III
Ecoregion in Colorado Mineral Belt
Mining is Major Stressor
EMAP Stream Probability Sample
Design
~ River Reach File (RF3) as Sample Frame
~ 2nd-4 th Order (Wsdeable) Streams
~ Late Summer 1994/1995 Sampling
Study Target Population
w
~
Database
• 73 Probability Sites (half in each year)
~ 8 Repeat Sites - Within and Between Years
> 6 Hand-picked Reference Sites (good
condition) - 3 repeated
> 7 Hand-Picked Test Sites (poor
condition) -1 repeated
¦ All together 107 Site Visits in Database
~
Indicators Measured
~ Chemistry - Water & Sediment
~ Toxicity - Water & Sediment
~ Fish - Assemblages
~ Macroinvertebrate - Assemblages
~ Physical Habitat
~ Periphyton
~ Sediment Metabolism
39
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Chemistry
~ Water
~ Major Anions & Cations, Acid-Base
~ Dissolved Metals
~Field Filtered (0.45 umj, Acidified
~Total Metals
~Field Acidified
~ Sediment
~Total Metals - Acid Digestion
#
Toxicity Tests
~ Water Column Toxicity
~ 48 hour Fathead Minnow Survival
~ 48 hour Cerodaphnia dubia Survival
~ Criteria: < 80% survival of either species
~ Sediment Toxicity
~ 7 Day Hyalleia azteca Survival
~ Hyallela azteca growth rate vs. control
~ Criteria: < 80% survival or < 90% growth
Mine Drainage Classification
~ Least Disturbed:
~ Cl< 100 ueq/L (-4 mg/L) AND
~ S04 < 100 ueq/L (~5 mg/L)
~ Mixed Impacts:
~ CI > 100 ueq/L OR 100 400 ueq/L (-20 n g/ }
Mine Drainage Class
OneWayANOVA
• Highly Sign, (p <001), > lOx mean
~ Water: Zn, Cd, Cu, Mn, Al, Fe, Pb-total)
~ Sediment: Zn, Cd, Cu, Pb
¦ Highly Significant (p < .001)
~ Sediment: Ag, Mn, As
• No Mine Drainage Effect
~ Water: Cr, Ag, Pb-dis., As, Ni. Sc-dis.
~ Sediment: Cr, Al, Se, Hg
jtfgL Colorado Mineral Belt Population
Estimates
Jmpt-Macroinvertebrate Metric
ifr AMD Class Effects(ANOVA)
~ Significant (p< 001)
~ Not significant
* Total Taxa Richness
* HB(
~ £PT Taxa Richness
* % OMgoA./Leeches
~ IntotarantTaxa Rich.
~ % Shredder Taxa
~ Simpwn Index
» % SctspptrTaxa
» Shannon Diversity
~ % ChironomidTsxa
~ % in Dominant Taxa
» Omnivor* Richness
~ Benthic IBI
~ M«an # Indiv./Taxa
40
-------
Western U. S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
I#
yFish Assemblage
(Length Estimates)
Data
~ Species Richness
~ 18%had 0 species
#23% tad 1 species
~ 29% had 2 species
« 30% had 3-6 species
~ Trout Richness
~ 21% had 0 species
~ 34% had 1 species
~ 45% had 2-3 species
> 40% of Length had a
native species
• 15% of Length had
native cutthroat
trout
» No sig. relationship
between assemblage
metrics and AMD
chemical class
jj-Fzs/i at 15 Metals Impacted
Sites
» At 6 sites sed/ water not toxic
~ 5 of 6 sites had fish (trout, sculpin, suckers)
~ At 7 sites no fish were present
~ At2 sites, trout were present
~ Total Number of fish, species richness
related to water column toxicity test not
metal criteria or chemical class
~
Conclusions
~ Among the 6,630 km of wadeable 2-4th
order streams in the study area, 1,844
km (28%) had a sulfate signature of
mine drainage, 438 km (7%) exceeded
state Zn criteria and 376 km (6%) had
water toxic to the test organisms.
~ Sites with elevated metals and toxicity
were concentrated in the AMD class.
Conclusions (con't)
~ In terms of Indicators relative to mine
drainage as a stressor:
~ Water Column Tox » Sediment Tox
~ Macrobenthos > Fish Assemblages
~ Presence/ Absence of fish was most
strongly related to water column
toxicity not Zn criteria or chemical
class. Fish don't respond until severe
effect
41
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
42
-------
Multivariate Analyses of
Macroinvertebrate Communities to
Determine Mining Impacts on
Stream Ecosystems
Michael Griffith, Ph.D.
Ecological Exposure Research Division
U.S. EPA NERl
43
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
i
44
-------
4*
ui
OBJECTIVES
Identify potential metrics or taxa
that may be used as indicators of
impacts from mining in this
eco region.
Multivariate Analyses of
Macroinvcrtebrate
Communities to Determine
Mining Impacts on Stream
Ecosystems
M B. Griffith, B.H. Hill, J.M.
Lazorchak
USEPA, National Exposure Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH
&
A.T. Herlihy
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Oregon State University, CorvalHs, OR
DATA ENTERED INTO
CANONICAL
CORRESPONDANCE A NAI-YS1S
Data Set
Potential Used
Samples
117 106
Evironmcntal
variables
58 44
Species
271 116
Metrics
65 45
OBJECTIVES
To assess variation in structure of
benthic macroinvertebratc
communities in streams of the
Southern Rockies ecoregion in
relation to multiple chemical
environmental gradients.
METALS
VAR.
UNITS
i\IEAN
RANGE
AG_T
MB"-
0.16
<0 30-0.70
At. D
Mg/L
90.9
<30 - 5,590
AS_T
kb/l
2.56
<4.0- 17.2
AS_D
|.g/L
2.28
<4.0- 12.8
CD_D
I'B"-
0.47
<0.50 - 3.30
CR_T
|ig/L
0.55
<1.0-2.0
CUD
I'g/U
38.5
<1.0-2,460
FE T
620
<5.0- 11,200
FED
I'K'L
184
<5.0-6,120
MN D
,.S/t
102
<1.0- 1.570
NI_T
Hg/t-
1.72
<1.0-59.0
NI_D
lig/l
2.70
<1.0-71.0
PB T
PS/l-
2.88
<4.0-28.2
OBJECTIVES
Macroinvcrtebrate community
structure measured by:
- Abundanceof macroinvcrtebrate
taxa identified primarily to genus
- Invcrtebralecominunily metrics
as developed lor RBPs
II
^1
IS
3 co
o §
2 2'
§ 3"
3 cq
CD 3
2 "§
<6 ^
Q- i
Q)' ®
O
S
0}
. 3"
a a
m g-
o
o
5"
-------
at
EIGEN VALUES FOR
METRIC DATA
Am#
t
%
4 T«ts3
!s«$»
lipftvtAtts;
0.0
0.8
80
99 <52
1 avtMcns.
OM
»&4
0?
817
CwsuMvt parens
B&SefVBWCT
tl.fi
m
34ft
38-7
mrMwi
m
$4S
171
698
METALS
VAR.
UNITS
MEAN
RANGE
fB_D
Hg/L
2.03
<4.0 - 5.20
SE_T
pg/L
2.60
<5.0 - 6.90
FE_T
me/l
620
<5.0-11,200
SF.D
Mg/L
2.60
<5.0- 10.8
ZN_D
Jig/L
17)
<2.0 - 902
S_AG
mgflcg
1.32
<0.6- 11.4
S„AS
ntgflcg
5,16
<0.3 - 74.3
S.CD
mgAg
8.21
<0.05 - 15.9
S_CR
mg/kg
8.48
<1.1-67.5
s_cu
mg/kg
48.4
1 3-597
S_PB
mg/kg
123
<2.2-3,210
S_SB
mg/kg
0.16
<0.21 - 1.22
S_ZN
rog/kg
267
17.4-2,940
EIGEN VALUES FOR
SPECIES DATA
Axtf
! 2 3 t Tot*
0?*4 0m QW Offl 3341
Setcm-ewrwunem ewreiawns
om osii owe os?o
CMMJtsCM (wwrtsgc rfvarence
0(Vp«»M-cn>rt«*TO«( irteooo
)J ij.t ISS 185
140 ?3 5 30 1 36?
NUTRIENTS &
ALKALINITY
CODE
UNITS
MEAN
RANGE
NH3
0.65
<0.04-0.6$
N03
i*e*j/L
1X9
<0.05 - 243
P04
itig/L
0.044
<0.01 - 0.29
S04
fieq/L
655
22.9-6,480
DOC
mg/L
1.78
<2.0- 10 8
TOC
mg/L
2.23
<2.0- 10.0
TSS
tng/L
6.67
<2.0-72.0
ALK
peq/L
1,460
0-9, no
ADF
jicq/L
-149
-1,600- 1,230
(An. Dcf.)
CA
(icq/L
1,140
100 - 5,980
MG
(•eq/L
431
35.3 - 3,630
CON
(t$/cm
254
25.6 - 1,520
METRIC SCORES
TAXA
AX
AX
AX
AX
I
3
4
BIVAL
0.94
1,07
-0.43
1.6
OMNV
067
2.6
0.60
0.4
EPMM
054
-0.31
-
-
INT_T
0.44
-0.17
..
-
DM I T
0.33
0.13
GASTR
'0.13
(.6!
0 84
LIS
CRMO
..
! S3
i 27
1.92
OLLE
„
033
1.01
TGLT
-0.1
0.65
0 15
1.29
CRMO_T
-0,2
0.95
0.12
0.98
NTAN_T
-0.26
-0.24
TANYT
-0.38
„
-0.32
PLGC
0.11
-0.36
0.14
NUTRIENTS &
ALKALINITY
CODE
UNITS
MEAN
RANCE
F
Mcq/L
17.1
0- 132
CL
|wq/L
141
31.0 4.400
NA
}icq/L
525
30 4 - 11.300
K
jicq/L
30.A
<0,10-220
£=~ <&
-3 cn
o ^
o 3
c
h
§
a-
3'
CO
5 3*
If
|1
$
cB
3
O
CD
O
3
0)
O'
3
03
3
CD
a
&
of
_ 3f
a 5
m 5"
o CD
O
a*
<9
o"
2t
5
05
to
CD
Co
CO
2
CD
-------
4*.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCORES -
METRICS
ENV.
VARIABLE
AX
!
AX
2
AX
4
Oj-D
0.81
0.32
Cd-D
0.70
0.20
-0.17
AI'D
0.69
0.27
..
Zn-D
0.57
0.27
-0.25
Mn.D
0.54
0.47
«
mi,
0.53
0.14
0.41
Alkalinity
•O.S7
0.18
-0 18
TSS
0.28
0.62
0.19
H-T
031
0,58
0.22
PQ*
-
0.51
0.28
Mg
-
O.S0
Conductivity
0.17
0.5©
-0.14
CaO 14
0.48
ENVIRONMENTAL SCORES -
GENERA
CNV.
VARIABLE
AX
1
AX
3
AX
4
Fe-T
0.714
TOC
0.676
_
K
0.653
..
-
w>«
0.637
_
Mg
0.604
-
-
CI
0.598
0.422
«
Na
0.597
_
Scd-Ag
-
0.644
-
Cu-D
-
0.439
0.548
SO,
-
0.434
-
Al-D
6.53?
Mn-D
..
0.48$
Zn-D
-
0.448
POSITIVE GENERAL SCORES
TAXA
AX
AX
2
AX
3
AX
4
Gammanis
2 04
3.07
-
Radoianypus
1 75
2.54
..
Hygrobatcs
1.53
--
..
Tricorythodcs
1.43
..
MS
_
Dixa
1.31
2.11
»
Psilomctrocncmus
1.10
2.47
-
Hydroptila
I.to
--
2.07
-
Palpomyia
--
2.2?
..
Par.iphacnocladius
-
-
2.20
3.53
Pscudodiamesia
-
-
2.02
J.12
Hydracarina
..
1.19
2.50
Orcodylcs
..
2.14
Hcicroirissodadius
..
..
1.87
CONCLUSIONS
• Using genera abundance or
metrics, two primary axes were
identified -
• Describe community variation
in relation to:
I .the levels of nutrients and
alkalinity
2. the levels of dissolved or total
metals
NEGATIVE GENERA SCORES
TAXA
AX
1
AX
2
AX
3
AX
4
Pscudodiamcsia
-1.30
..
2.02
1.13
Neoihrcmma
-1.13
-
»
-
Koyoius
-1.00
--
Mcyarcys
-0 91
..
--
ParakidTicrclla
-0.81
--
--
Zaitzevia
-0S0
-1.06
Hygrobatcs
1.53
-0.77
--
SuciochiroiKjmus
• 1.27
-
Osvacoda
..
-1 22
Palpotnyia
..
2.27
-!. I?
-
Oiura
-
-0.81
Tricorytfiodes
1.43
1.15
-0.99
Atiencila
..
-
-0.95
CONCLUSIONS
« Several genera and metrics were
tentatively identified as
potential indicators for each of
these environmental gradients.
3'
CD"
o ?
§ 2
§> c
CD >-
8 fO
| §
2 a"
3 CQ
^ 3*
3 ^
CD ®
9- £?-
m ®
sa* Q.
O" «r-
5
0)
3
^ 3
m 5-
Qf
5T
o
0
5
1
5
In
ST
>
05
05
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
48
-------
Biochemical Cycling and Control of Selenium in
the Idaho Phosphate Resource Area
Gregory Moller, Ph.D.
Holm Research Center
University of Idaho
49
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
50
-------
Ln
Biogeochemical Cycling and
Control of Selenium in the Idaho
Phosphate Resource Area
Gregory Moller
University of Idaho
S. Maybey Canyon inlet
EE
Phosphate Fertilizer Mining
in S.E. Idaho
• Phosptioria- Calcium Apatite Mineral
• Often in ancient marine segmentary deposits
¦ ~ 15% of the US phosptiate supply from Idaho
• 50 year deposit
• 5 Companies, 98 lease sites
¦ Most on public lands - NF, BLM, State of Idaho
¦ Caribou Natl. Forest. Soda Springs, ID
¦ Agrium, FMC, Sokrtla (Monsanto), Rhodia (Rhone-
Poulenc), and Stmpiot
O
3'
ctr
CO
O ^
§ 3
=* c;
CD ¦
s
8 ?
ct> 3-
§ 2"
-3 CQ
£ 5-
ct> 3
3
CD &
Q-
A3 ®
E3- Q.
O'
3
0}
3
or
_ CD
a. &
m 2"
o
o
o
CQ
O'
Q3_
s
Co"
3T"
CO
Co
CD
CO
Co
3
CD
CD1
§•
3
o
o"
CQ
CD'
Co
CD
&
-------
U1
K»
.
Release Mechanism
• Precipitation (rain, snowpoch)
'J9 It*1 'RuMff'Stluciilng
I 1 f • InfVmtion - So looching
• Fo^o'l^Stf So Uptako
. • Surface WsrttrSolncroase
• InvortSftnatoexposuro
M * Vorftfirafoospos ure
-
- M
L
BiogcoehcfnlcalCyctfngofS*
H 1
| Pole Creek French Drain inlet
1 ^
—" m "• X _
V -•?
»
Environmental Chemistry
• French drain effects on water quality
¦ Inlet creek water. < 0.0007 mg/L Se; pH 8.0
¦ Outtsrt creek water: 0.680 rag/L Se; 3 mM CaS04;
pH 7.3
• Waste rock overburden
¦ -SO mg/kg total Se
¦ -0.04 - 0.20 mg/L Se In ieachatu wtft cm®*.
water.
Pole Canyon French Drain Outlet
:
Geochemistry
• Waste rock contains: Rex
Chert, Limestone and
Slltstone (Shale)
• Total Se by NAA Is about 50
mgfkg
• Se primarily associated
with the slltston®
• Pyrito mlcrogialns contain
about 0.1 to S% Se (why)
S-sr
o
o
3
3
3
O
3
§ 3"
=5 CQ
5 3"
© 3
3 "P
q> 3>
8-
23'
53"
O'
3
0)
3
a
JP
0
5"
-------
1/1
u>
Abatement/Control Research
• Water
¦ Iron co-precipitation
¦ Fe(0) reactors
¦ Bloreactors
• Waste rock dumps
1
¦ Microbial nutrients
¦ Chemical treatments
¦ Chemical reducing agents
• Armoring of rock and soil particle surface
• Iron co-preciptUtion reagent!
__
¦ Best Management Practices
:
Solution Geochemistry
• Sofrotnpyrtte(FeSj) assodatedwttti sttstor^ rrJcro-ARD
¦ Se**native;$eO,'leacH«t«; further oxtdteabfe
• Control availablefrom Fe In typical envlronments{Fe(OH)
SeO,) not aval fable due to high pbosphateconteirt(FeP04)
• Role of or9ano-sel*ntum compounds from hydrocarbon
toad?
• Microbial feedstock
a
Chemical/Microbial T reatment
• Chemical reduction F(1_, /Jf™1
m Oxldizable cartoon
• Chemical armoring of (•iu)
soil particles /F«(uiv. r/1^ ^
m FeJIil) ( WjT r°^)
m Fe(liq modified /
Dtapelymer-s — rwiu)
• Reductive microbial
activity jtfx? srb
¦ Nutrients
¦ Iron " srb
Reaction Pathway
S«awat«r
DitutfovHtrto TOoiiciSui?
HSe" J
v, frrn. r$.
FeSe — F«S»2 Z.' SeO,2* — SeO„:
^ iS
Fa2' r*
V W
Fe> Organo-Se <
Reduction Phase Oxidation Phase
to.;
SRB Growth on Corroding Iron Metal in
ARD Solution
5. w
o
o
3
c?
3
s
o
CD
O
3
CD
3
Q
3
or
_ 5T
Q- S5
m 5-
O CD
O
C?
s
33
CO
5°
£
CD
9>
2
CD
"-»¦
o
3"
3
O
CQ
CD'
Co
8"
-------
VI
Laboratory Soil Amendment Tests
• Colloidal iron metal
• Granular iron metal scrap
• Potato waste
• Potato starch
• Fe(lll)-thermal polyaspartic acid (tpAsp)
• Sulfate reducing bacteriainoculum
¦ Desul/atomaculum orients and Desutfovibrio
desutfuricans
• SRB inoculum plus all of above
1% Potato Waste Treatment
IE
SRB Inoculation
-------
1/1
cn
Field Research
• Water treatment
¦ Granular iron metal permeable treatment
barrier In Pole Creek
• Plant uptake
¦ Lyslmeter field planted with forage grasses
¦ Treatments: Iron metal "fertilizer", cheese
whey application, control
• Waste rock subsurface reductive zone
¦ 4 treatment cells
Fe(0) Permeable Treatment Barrier in
Pole Creek
II
o $
§ 3
5
o
CD
O
3
C
(/)
I
3'
CQ
CD 3
3 "S
CD m
a
£D
O'
3
0)
=3
a
5?
0
5"
£
-------
ln
CT»
Test Cells
4 Celts
• Control
¦ Iran granules
¦ Iron granutesplus potato
vast*
¦ Potato waste
4 pan lyslmeters and 2
ceramic lyslmeters per cell
Amendment at 6'-$' depth;
collection at 10' depth
Funding
¦ J.R.SimpM Company
Graduate Students
¦ MelanleBond,(MS)
• EnrS
¦ Jon Munken* (MS)
• EnvS
• Peter StelnhofT (MS)
• EnvE
Research Associate
¦ Kevtn Brackney MS
Faculty Collaborators
¦ Ron Crawford, PhD
• Dennis Gel it, PhD
I Monitoring Protocol
72 monitoring points across 4 cells
> 16 pari lyslmeters
¦ 32 by direct 2" water chemistry probe
i 8 ceramic lyslmeters
i Central sampling utility corridor, shed
(winter), and
i Water chemistry
| Anticipated Field Research Results
• A better understanding of natural and
engineered subsurface chemistry and
microbial dynamics
• Performance capability of permeable
treatment barriers for affected creeks
e Effectiveness of surface amendment to limit
plant uptake
• Development of knowledge for BMPsand
alternate control approaches
CD
Co
CD
3
o
o
CO
3'
3'
CQ
9
3
CD £
S-
a> ®
S3- Q.
O' -c-
3
a>
3
O
o"
CQ
o'
or
cS"
Q- S3
rn 3-
O Cp
8"
S-
CO
CO
CD
c0
3
CD
3
r—>-
c?
§•
3
o
5"
CD'
CO
-------
Reclamation in the High Country:
Idarado Mine Remediation
Camille Farrell
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
57
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
58
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Reclamation in the High Country:
Idarado Mine Remediation
Camille Farrell
Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment
Red Mountain Tailings
Total Cover
% Total Cow9r jo
01995
¦ 1996
~ 1997
RMT1-T TMT1-S AMT3-T «MT2-S XMTi-T RUT>S RMT4.T
Tailings Pitaa: T*Top, 5*Slop«
Red Mountain Tailings
Live Vegetative Cover
%Cov*r
~ 1995
¦ 1996
i
rr
-
i
—
-
~ 1997
10.
1
1
-
\
h
-
RMT1-T
TMT1-S RMT3-T RMT2-S RMT3-T RMTV5 RMT4-T
Tailings PKn: T*Top, S°5lop«
Telluride Tailings
Total Cover
100
JO
10
70
10
* Total Covtr 50
40
JO
20
10
0
~ 1595
¦ ISM
Q19I7
TT1-4
Top
TT1-4
Slop*
TTI4
Top
TTS-5
Slop*
Telluride Tailings
Live Vegetative Cover
=l
TT1-4 Top
T71-4
Stop*
rrs-o Top
BW5
¦ 19M
ojssl
TTM
Slop*
Telluride Tailings Test Plots
Total Cover
% Total
Cover
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10.
0.
=1
Jl
3 31 3
«• 4r b
S 3
te h
TTS-6 1997 T«Top,S«Slope
59
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Telluride Tailings Test Plots
Live Vegetative Cover
%
Cover
SO
J-
i
i
fl
-9
4 i s « * ] 6 |
TT&-6 1997 T=Top, S-Sk>p»
Red Mountain Tailings
Live Vegetative Cover
~ 1996
1997
RMT 4 Surface
Red Mountain Tailings
Total Cover
a 1»M
¦ 1997
1 r 11" It 2xOM Nitiv*
Soil Soil Um« Spp.
RMT 4 Surface
60
-------
Clay-Based Grouting Demonstration Project
A. Lynn McCloskey
MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
61
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
62
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
CLAY-BASED GROUTING
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
MINE WASTE TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM ACTIVITY III, PROJECT 2
A. Lynn McCloskey
MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
CLAY-BASED GROUTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
• Demonstrate how the strategic placement
and injection of a select grout into a
subsurface fracture system can reduce or
eliminate the amount of surface and ground
water infiltrating into underground mine
workings.
• Resulting in a reduction of contaminate
transport, acid generation and discharge from
the mine portal.
CLAY-BASED GROUTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
PROJECT TEAM:
• EPA/DOE-MWTP
• MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
• EPA SITE Program
• SAIC
• Morrison Knudsen - STG (joint venture)
• ASARCO/ARCO
• U.S. Bureau of Mines
• MDHES-CERCLA
• Hayward Baker/P.C. Exploration
CLAY-BASED GROUTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
SOURCE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY:
• Eliminate water from the acid generation
equation.
• Eliminate transport mechanisms from
mobilizing the metals/nonmetals.
• Long-term fix which is more cost effective
than treatment in perpetuity.
CLAY-BASED GROUTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
CLAY-BASED GROUT SELECTION:
• Past history
- Successful in Ukraine and other unified countries
- Eliminated flows of up to 4,000 gpm
- low maintenance, 25 to 30 years recorded "no
maintenance" since the grout was placed
• Rheological properties of clay-based grout
are greater than cementitions grout.
CLAY-BASED GROUTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
CLAY-BASED GROUT SELECTION (cont):
• Comprised of environmentally sound elements
-- kaolinitic/illitic clays
- binders
- proprietary additives
• Integrated process used to determine grout
formulation
- geology - geophysical
-• geochemistry - mineralogy
- hydrogeology « past mining history
63
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
MT MATP
(graphic)
MIKE HORSE MINE LOCATION
MIKE HORSE MINE ADIT
(before the project)
PROJECT SITE MAP
WITH DESIGNATED PROJECT AREA
(graphic)
PLAN VIEW OF PROJECT SITE
(simplified graphic)
PLAN VIEW OF PROJECT SITE
(simplified graphic)
CROSS SECTION OF THE PROJECT AREA
(graphic)
64
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
INJECTION HOLE ORIENTATION
(graphic)
CLAY-BASED GROUTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
• Completed extensive characterization of the
Mike Horse Mine site (5/94)
• Initiated subcontracts with STG/MK and
Hayward Baker (8/94)
• Completed Phase 1 - Clay-based grout
injection (1600 cu yd) (11/94)
DRILL USED TO DRILL INJECTION HOLES
(picture)
GROUT INJECTION SYSTEM
(graphic)
INJECTION PAD
(picture)
DURING GROUT INJECTION
(picture)
65
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
INJECTION SYSTEM
(picture)
INJECTION PACKER PLACEMENT
(picture)
INJECTION PORT
(picture)
CLAY-BASED GROUTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
• Completed extensive characterization of the
Mike Horse Mine site (5/94)
• Initiated subcontracts with STG/MK and
Hayward Baker (8/94)
• Completed Phase 1 - Clay-based grout
injection (1600 cu yd) (11/94)
DRILL USED TO DRILL INJECTION HOLES
(picture)
GROUT INJECTION SYSTEM
(graphic)
66
-------
Western U. S, Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
INJECTION PAD
(picture)
DURING GROUT INJECTION
(picture)
INJECTION SYSTEM
(picture)
INJECTION PACKER PLACEMENT
(picture)
INJECTION PORT
(picture)
CLAY-BASED GROUTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
INITIAL TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
MSE - EPA MWTP/SAIC - EPA SITE
• Changes in potentiometric surface
• Changes in surface flow
• Changes in water flow at 300' portal
• Changes in hydraulic conductivity of grouted
zones
« Core drilling - dispersivity of the grout
67
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
SEEP DOWN GRADIENT OF SITE
(picture)
DAM UPGRADIENT OF PROJECT SITE
(picture)
300' LEVEL PORTAL
(picture)
GROUT ZONE WHERE CORE HOLES
WERE TO BE PLACED FOR EVALUATION
(picture)
CLAY-BASED GROUTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
ISSUES:
• Phase II was canceled,
• At this time, the technology developer
claimed that 40% of the grout injection was
completed in Phase I of the Clay-Based
Grouting Demonstration Project.
CAUSE FOR PROJECT CANCELLATION
(picture)
68
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
CLAY-BASED GROUTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
CONCLUSIONS:
• Flow decreased by approx. 30% at the portal.
• The ASARCO dam that did not hold water
before the project, held water.
• Core drilling grouted areas (SITE/SAIC 1998)
showed >80% coverage.
• Hydraulic testing (SITE/SAIC 1998) showed
most areas fully grouted and only one area
allowed flow of 4 gpm in grouted areas.
CLAY-BASED GROUTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
LESSONS LEARNED:
• Perform such demonstrations at inactive
project sites.
• Inject grout during warm seasons to decrease
the cost.
69
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
70
-------
Remote Site Neutralization at Crystal Mine
Martin Foote, Ph.D.
MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
71
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
72
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
REMOTE MINE SITE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY TRAIN
The facility consisted of six stages. each of which contributed to the treatment of the
drainag? as follows;
Initial Oxidation • begin oxidation of Ton in the water.
Alkaline Reagent Addition • raise water pH to a minimum t0,0 by the
addition of crushed quicklime.
Final Oxidation • complete iron oxidation in the drainage.
ft'St Techficloyy Appi-caHons. Itie
REMOTE MINE SITE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY TRAIN (Continued)
Initial Solid Liquid Separation - separates the solids from
the water by settling and prevents the dissolution of
metals such as Zn and Al.
pH Adjustment - reduces the water pH to a value near
neutral.
Final Solid Liquid Separation - allows slow or late forming
solids to precipitate and reach neutral pH
/•'St Tticitnolojff h-C
REMOTE MINE SITE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
The purpose ot this project was to develop a treatment process facility at a
remote mine site which was capable of treating a variable flow rate ol acid rock
drainage.
The process facility had to be capable of operating for extended periods of time
(4-6 months) without the addition of external power and without operator
assistance.
The site chosen for the project was the Crystal Mine, a remote, inactive mine
site immediately adjacent to Uncte Sam Creek, located seven miles north ot the
community of Basm. Montana.
The lower portal 01 the mine workings drained from 20-50 gallons per minute of
acidic metal-laden water directly into Uncle Sam Creek
REMOTE MINE SITE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
An overview of the technology used in this project involved the
addition of lime and oxygen front air into an acidic metal-laden
mine drainage raising the pH of the water to an alkaline value of
near 10.
Once completed, the dissolved metals formed a solid metallic
hydroxide sludge. This sludge was captured in settling ponds
and periodically disposed of in an environmentally safe manner.
73
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY TRAIN
Initial Oxidation
Alkaline Reagent Addition
Final Oxidation
Initial Solid-Liquid Separation
pH Adjustment
Final Solid-Liquid Separation
Ml#" fot 4mvi - ViViI A<:
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
A1$£ Tcehnvfagy AppUeati&ns. Inc.
74
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
75
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
% Zinc Removal
% Iron Removal
100
90
80
4)
Oi
70
e
o
60
>
<
>1
SO
£
40
C
o
30
2
20
10
0
Aug-94 Nov-94 Jan9S Apr-95 Jun-95 Sep-9S Nov-9S Fcfc-96 Apr-96 Juf-96
Sep*. 94 - June 96
AfSf Tochn&tyy A\ipHciUons. Ore.
Aufl M fcov-M >Jn-95 Apr-95 Jtift-95 8cp-9S Nov-95 Fcb-16 Apr-9S
Sept. 94 - June 96
MS£ Techno'ogr ApphcafiO/ir. hK.
76
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
77
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
SiffWti.MY oj Cmtti fat Swaff Scale System
| CAPITAL l
GOSTS
Lime Addition
16.000
Sgmirni? PCnds
36,600
Tanks, tapt'L' • and pad
21.400
I^nc'tiiv, I.Mildlr^s and installation
4d.OOCs
Total Capitol Cos*
125,000
MSB Trchimhgy Ap^licoliom. loe.
Siim*rntry of Coxtn ftwe
| CAPITAL COSTS
1 Lime Addition FqLtpmens
1 5,000
i Pumps, compressor, mixers
3,000
' Ponds
39,600 |
' TarJt^nDppehfpaeJ
21.400
PlpiK] funcin^'DtMkJin^s-'nntMllarlnr.
48,000
tnM Capital Costs
127.000
M$€ TtctoOtOQy AppliCAtiOiit. Inc.
OPERATING C09tS«'VpAR
p^.TCjfinr @ $135 'ion
781
Maintenance
7,500
Mfttiiarirfii
22.500
| Sludqi: Flcrnpuir
-30.00 0
Power {1/4 hp, 1.75 'V motor)
800
Labor (0.6 up* Mor/slnh £a $30.00/hr
31,200
Total QptiBiino Coats
92,781
A*S£ Technology App'jcJttont. !
GO
<
>
50
p
•10
z
o
30
5
20
10
0
A'Sf Technology App'icitiom. inc.
No/-9t JAN-9S Af<-95 JuA-95 Sep^S Nov-9S Ftb-96 Ac*!rfJ Jul 96
Sept. 94 - June 96
M$£ Tucltoolog/ Apu'Jcationt, tnc
78
-------
Western U.S. Mining impacted Watersheds;
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
CONCLUSION
AQUA-FIX is 9 method for removing heavy metals from acidic
drainage with modifications
Trained operators must visit the site at least once
every two weeks
Design changes to the system to ensure a smoother
operation
- longer auger
- wind screen
The system, as modified, would serve the purpose of protecting
surface waters from the effects of acidic, metal laden drainage
until th< source of the drainage could be controlled
PURPOSE
To develop and demonstrate a process that
would require minimal operator assistance to
treat an acidic mine drainage at a remote mine
waste site.
MSi 7«clmcto(t y Appticvtiom. hic.
M$£ Atififrcalioos. Inc.
CRYSTAL MINE
Located 7 miles north of Basin, Montana at an
elevation of 7,500 feet.
MSE Ytcftnoloyy Applications, Inc.
DRAINAGE PARAMETER CHARACTERISTICS
Flow rates varied seasonally
- 20 gpm during base flow
100 gpm during peak flow (May-June)
MS£ Tacnnoiogv Applications, Inc.
:
79
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
80
-------
Overview of the Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria
Demonstration Project under the Mine Waste
Technology Program
Marietta Canty
MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
81
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
82
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Overview of the Sulfate-Reducing
Bacteria Demonstration Project under
the Mine Waste Technology Program
Marietta Canty
Senior Environmental Engineer
MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
200 Technology Way
P.O.Box 4078
Butte, MT 59702
(406) 494.7306
Project History
~ Performed under the Mine Waste Technology
Program (MWTP)
• The MWTP is funded by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and is jointly administered by
the U.S. Department of Energy
Scope of the Problem
• Acid Generation
- Occurs when metal sulfide minerals come in contact
with oxygen and water.
- Bacterial action (Thiobaccilusferrooxidans)
accelerates the acid production by 80%.
- General overall reaction equation
• FeSO, + >%02 + 7/jHjO -> Fe(OH), +250/ + 4H"
Technology Description
• Biological Sulfate Reduction is accomplished by
a group of heterotrophic, anaerobic known as
Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria (SRB).
• SRB are a group of very common microbes.
• SRB metabolically produce hydrogen sulfide and
alkalinity from sulfate dissolved in AMD and an
organic substrate.
Technology Description (cont'd)
• Hydrogen sulfide reacts with dissolved
metal ions in AMD to produce insoluble
metal sulfides.
• Alkalinity serves to neutralize the AMD.
¦ S042" + 2CH20 —> H2S + HCOj"
• S2" + M+2 > MS, where M = metal
Technology Description (cont'd)
• Biological Sulfate Reduction - sulfide
precipitation
• Adsorption
• Reducing Environment
• Hydroxide Precipitation
83
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Advantages of Biological Treatment
• Cost Effective
• Passive
• Environmentally Friendly
Case Study
• The SRB Demonstration Project to treat and
control acid mine drainage at the Lilly/Orphan
Boy Mine near Elliston, Montana.
• This project is funded by the EPA under the Mine
Waste Technology Program and performed by
MSE - Technology Applications, Inc.
Field Monitoring
• Began in September 1994
• Monthly measurements include pH, EH,
sulfate, sulfide, and metals.
T reatment Results
Al, Fe, Mo, Zn
¦ Before
P After Treatment
Treatment Results
As, Cd, Cu
¦ B«far*
0 After Tre«tm«itt
84
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
PORTAL REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
1 9 Aiusuaura
| <> Ctdnuutn
. « Ce«W
1 « MvtgMotc !
' <~ Z*K (
i 11!UIII!11! 111!
DAT!
Conclusion
• Laboratory and field data from this project
indicate that Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria systems
are effective in treating and controlling acid mine
drainage at sites located in northern climates.
85
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
86
-------
An Update of ARCO's Experiences in the
Investigation of Using Surface and Subsurface
Flow Wetlands to Remove Metals from Mining-
Impacted Groundwater
John Pantano, Ph.D.
ARCO
87
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
88
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Suhmurtucc How Wrttamtt ft Nenwi;
MHlMnittf Minim-lni|Uiticil
rn IIII^ , ClW(lwUw«tef
W*T" . , ,
• > .V. , , i'l|
Butte Priority Soils OU
• Evaluation of Water Treatment Alternatives
- Designs
- Performance
- O&M Components
89
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
90
-------
Commercial Scale Passive Treatment of
Mine Drainage
James J. Gusek, P.E.
Knight Piesold LLC
91
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
92
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
COMMERCIAL SCALE
PASSIVE TREATMENT
OF MINE DRAINAGE
by
James J. Gusek. P.E.
Knight Piesold LLC
Three Commercial Scale Systems
Two Built. One Planned
Fabius Coal Mine, Alabama - 1992/93
West Fork Bioreactor, Missouri - 1996
JCI/Amanzi Deep Gold Mine Dewatering/
Treatment Scheme, South Africa - Planned
KmMu HmUUC
WHAT IS PASSIVE TREATMENT?
PASSIVE u
TREATMENT 7~
MnisitJBiuUJ.ee
If It's Not a BLACK BOX.
What Is Passive Treatment?
It's the:
• Sequential
• Ecological
• extraction
of metals in a man-made
but naturalistic bio-system
MnlgtilJ&iaU LLC
Passive Treatment Milestones
¦
Naiura hat feaan paativalir tame*#*? ittiwttvoi tmldt Iran A«MI |
Ke*h Drain** 1**0) fe# aww
.e**3
Slits
"«NN> «i ctw) us tm
&*«*«&« p««t »ytt««i (of tmint wlna t&Q
[19M
TVA ewnfsrMmi Natwif wettnos betMwe •> ramovai
p?«sae»»; «wnalru«Ud vttfise>4s bNwM s«it^l»a«lta ©a® or tw« i
|NN»IMI
1111
¦rwa* *r TV* «H»w«n miM «r «M>xk HmmMM* |
«ralni in iMAt afliaMty >» *m) ARO
jSji[fbLPi*J9i4J*lC
Passive Treatment Milestones CconO
Hid !<;&# *nti KftigM MtosW 4tv«4«0 ffttteti «Mtpe I
i Mmrtgwwt a»w MS by TV* st Ps&Ni ipwPWM+Pw Of*! tt&Sa&St'' j
• KM?** MM MSt&n M« MM! gm SMte Mill Mbw sj-®t**es is J
fcswife ®ess8f« «*8 e&festite. gsgifrfsto ftfvn»fgw -
1 m g»«w»tw «KMM efeeteBy »W (s »i^ te tt*mt AftP ;
j tCeigfti H»mM esneiwua Srt« u#e« Mtftii (MM &>*4 sammsMs
1 ifMM ta path* I* *•« a nkn «* mi* Hi MlUMrt: PT
; wwili >8# tyrtaai »«»Un» eaateetetaa AMP aartara US.
jav*«na*« to SoseS*, fttoca to FT iftHm BWtfcs®
• *8s®te g$» 01 ASB ps>sap#£ 1mm 18 i^ds^fsea^ §sSsl mbasr.
93
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Three Case Studies
• Fabius Coal Mine. Alabama
• West Fork Bioreactor, Missouri
• JCI/Amanzi Deep Gold Mine Dewatering/
Treatment Scheme, South Africa
fnighlPiisoMUC
Fabius Coal Mine
Water Chemistry and Flow Rate
• Source 1: 40 mg/L Fe; 17 mg/L Mil, pH 5.5;
avg, flow 420 gpm
• Source 2: 40 mg/L Fe; 11 mg/L Mn; pH 5.5;
avg. flow 180 gpm
• Storm water runoff can increase flows to near
20,000 gpm
KnightSihoM LLC
Fabius Coal Mine System Layout
KniiMJHiiMUC
Fabius Coal Mine System
Key Components / Dimensions
• Two anoxic limestone drains (4,500 tons)
• Seven aerobic celts and settling ponds (10 acres)
• Planted with cattails and 12 other species
• Mosquitofish provide mosquito control
• Total cost with engineering: S680,000or S68.000
per acre (1996 dollars)
• 10 years of active lime treatment cost: S6 million
SniiMGisfMlLG
Fabius Coal Mine
System Performance
• 80% of Fe removed in upper oxidation pond
• Since 1993, discharge has consistently met:
- pH >6.3
- Fe < t.6mg/L
- Mn < 1,6 mg/L
- acidity < alkalinity
SnighWif M.LIQ
Three Case Studies
• Fabius Coal Mine, Alabama
• West Fork Bioreactor. Missouri
• JCI/Amanzi Deep Gold Mine Dewatering/
Treatment Scheme, South Africa
Knight JSiwMJ,L£
94
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
West Fork Water Chemistry and Flow
0.6 mg/L lead as soluble lead carbonate
complex
0.08 mg/L zinc
1,200 gptn, 24 hours/day, 7 days/ week
tnlfht tJmU.UC
West Fork System Layout
t.500 ppm IM*x}
t200 spm ttwnktoS
A elites Pert
W*it Fetk 0f
ibck Khitr
KimhtJShoMUC
West Fork Bioreactor
Key Components / Dimensions
Settling Pond (0.75 acres)
Two Anaerobic (SRB) Cells (0.5 ac each),
6 ft deep, 40 mil HDPE liner-substrate:
- 67% sawdust, 19% limestone (low Mn),
- 12% manure, 2% hay
Aerobic Rock Filter - 1.4 acres
HDPE-lined Aeration Pond - 2.0 acres
Total cost with engineering: S700,000
SemJaMpMlLC
WEST FORK OPERATIONAL
RESULTS SINCE JUNE. 1996
• pH - 7.8 s.u. (no change)
• Pb - 0.027 to 0.05 mg/L (meets
NPDES standard)
• Zn - <0.05 mg/L
• Sulfate -<140 mg/L
• Flow - 1,200 gpm
mghUtfaebiXW.
Three Case Studies
Fabius Coal Mine, Alabama
West Fork Bioreactor, Missouri
JCI/Amanzi Deep Gold Mine
Dewatering/Treatment Scheme. South Africa
Snigtil&iSsMMC
JCI/Amanzi
.tor .
mz.
Mk ten
<1.325
5.500
11,000
10.350
(H.W
5.5-7.5
2.5-3.5
2.5-3.5
§.§-6.0
450
9,500
3.SO0
3.500-4,000
10
100
100
150-200
20
200
200
200
ihm
7S*0
120
130
50
r- ^vnes
3 tfnes
2 mnes
3 mnes
Knisht-BuoMXlQ
95
-------
Western U. S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Typical JCI/Amanzi System Layout
MtHJHhMU.Q
JCI/Amanzi
Key Components
• HDS precipitation of iron & metals
• Anaerobic digester (w/raw sewage feed) to
reduce sulfate actively
• Passive Anaerobic (SRB) Cells (also recovers a
low-cost energy briquette?)
• Polishing aerobic cell
• Gyp-Six module to recover gypsum; discharge
drinking water after disinfection
fa>mmsettLLC
Primary Reasons to Implement Scheme
Ingress of Water - Flooding of Mines
Sterilized Reserves
> Associated Job Losses
>Secondary Economic Impacts
^Pump 46,000 gallons per minute
> Secure Current Reserves
Pump Additional 19,000 gpm
> Open Proven Reserves
MMghmmUMC
Advantages of Implementing Scheme
^Economic
>Potemiaily Sterilized Reserves are Mined
>Treated Water is Valuable Resource
Socio-Economic
>Job Security and - Creation
>Potable Water to 9.6 million People (@25 L/day)
Environmental
> Prevent Pollution of Dolomites w/ARD
XJtilize Waste (Sewage) Stream in. Process
Snigh!j®hmU,C
Economic Considerations
• Treatment cost: R1.98 per Kl w/P.T.
• Pumping cost: R0.97 per Kl
• Sell water @ RI.78 per Kl
• Sell gypsum @ R2.47 per Ki
« Sell energy wash
Net Return RI.3Q per Kl
KnieMMimMMjC
96
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Summary Observations
• Passive treatment of mine drainage technology has
evolved to commercial scale systems
• These designs can meet stringent effluent standards
• The technology is more evolved for coal mining
applications, but then coal mine drainage is less
complex than typical metal mine drainage.
• Phased design (lab, bench, pilot scale systems) is the
most prudent site-specific development approach.
• Education of regulators can minimize permitting
hassles for new & innovative treatment systems
Snighl-BkoMlLC.
97
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
98
-------
Anaerobic Constructed Wetland Site
Demonstration
1
Garry Farmer
Tetra Tech EM, Inc.
99
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
100
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
101
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
- ! }
«
s /
° I /
I \i
S6 M
u. \
Z I \
1 i >
* |
•*w 5
z 7
< | I
• <
i .
0 0 0 0 0° ~*«
lOBORfSl
11111
tf 8' £ *
utei6i«d f|uno3
; 1$
•Iftf
W
5
9€
o
5
¦-Hp
o
3f
M o
*ian H
£
3
-
o
z
:-W w
o
*6
<
o
-AON
-J
Hi
OOddOOC
> -ten
NO«»«N
muK>H/S* BNiavoi
102
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
103
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
104
-------
An Integrated Bioreactor System for the
Treatment of Cyanide, Metals and Nitrates in
Mine Process Water
Marietta Canty
MSE Technology Applications, Inc.
105
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
106
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
AN INTERGRATED BIOREACTOR
SYSTEM FOR THE TREATMENT OF
CYANIDE, METALS, AND NITRATES
IN MINE PROCESS WATER
Marietta Canty, MSE Technology App]ications
Leslie Thompson, Pintail Systems, Inc.
Pat Clark, EPA NRMRL
BIOCYANIDE DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT
i Performed jointly under the Mine Waste
Technology Program (MWTP) and the
Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Demonstration Program
* The MWTP is funded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and is jointly administrated by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE)
BIOCYANIDE DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT
* MSE Technology Applications of Butte,
Montana was responsible for conducting the
demonstration
«> Pintail Systems of Aurora, Colorado was
the technology provider
<» The Echo Bay McCoy/Cove Mine
southwest of Battle Mountain, Nevada was
the test site for the demonstration
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
• Cyanide is used to extract precious metals
from ores
• Cyanide is an acute poison and can form
strong complexes with several metals,
resulting in increased mobility of those
metals
• Conventional treatment processes tend be
expensive and chemical intensive
ADVANTAGE SUMMARY
* Natural biological process
* Nontoxic reactions and byproducts
* Complete treatment
«¦ Low application costs
* Relatively quick method
«• Bioremineralization of metals and
detoxification of cyanide and nitrates
TECHNOLOGY
* Cyanide compounds are naturally present in
the biosphere
* Some bacteria strains can break down
carbon-nitrogen bond in cyanide
* Biological treatment is nontoxic to the
environment as the bacteria die back to
natural levels
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
IMPLEMENTATION
» Characterize microorganism population
• Eliminate competitive microbes
• Preserve desirable strains
• Enhance working population
• Evaluate bacteria metabolisms
• Determine nutrient requirements
TREATMENT RESULTS
Mink
| »Mm OAtorfcteW I
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
~ Obtain a significant reduction of WAD
cyanide in gold mine process water
~ Evaluate effectiveness of heavy metal
removal in mine process water
~ Develop operating costs for treatment
system
TREATMENT RESULTS
I BBtfere OAftM-BoCTtMKt I
METAL REDUCTION RESULTS
108
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
METAL REDUCTION RESULTS
METAL REDUCTION RESULTS
ill
1
1
'1 1
1
1
\ -0 ^nJ
hkliM c«kth Citf aW m Zfe*
| WPtftw D khtt |
COST ANALYSIS
~ Full scale system costs were calculated
based on the treatment of a moderate
cyanided concentration feed stream of 1,000
gpm operating 300 days per year
Treatment cost per 1000 gallons is $0.81
CONCLUSIONS
* Significant reduction of total and WAD
cyanide in gold mine process water
* Effective removal of heavy metals in mine
process water
* Cost effective, innovative, treatment
technology
109
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
110
-------
An Overview of Innovative Processes that Show
Potential for Arsenic
Removal and Long-Term Stabilization
Jay McCloskey
M5E Technology Applications, Inc.
m
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
112
-------
Western U.S. Mining impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
An Overview of Innovative
Processes That Show Potential for
Arsenic Removal and Long-Term
Stabilization
By
J, McCloskty, MSE, he,; P, Miranda, MSE, Inc.;
Dr. L. Twidwelt, Montana Tech; and
Glenn Vicevic, Zenon Environmental, Inc.
Participants
Two different participants were involved in
the demonstration.
- Montana Tech of the University of Montana
* Mineral-Like Precipitation
- Zenon Environmental, Inc.
~ Alumina Adsorption with Mkrofiltration
Funding
The funding for these arsenic treatability
studies came from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Overall cost of the study was estimated at
$867,000.
Risk
The current maximum contaminant level
(MCL) for arsenic in drinking water is 0.05
milligrams per liter (parts per million) or 50
parts per billion.
Objectives
Reduce the concentration of dissolved
arsenic to less than 50 ppb.
If dissolved arsenic is less than 50 ppb,
reduce concentration by 50%.
Arsenic bearing products below maximum
concentration for toxicity characteristic
using TCLP of 5.0 mg/1.
Arsenic Technologies
Demonstrated
• #1 - Ferrihydrite Adsorption
• #2 - Mineral Like Precipitation
• #3 - Alumina Adsorption
113
-------
Western U.S. Mining impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Baseline Technology
According to the EPA's best demonstrated
available technology, ferrihydrite adsorption
technology was used as the comparative
baseline technology.
Process Waters Evaluated
• #1 - Lead Smelter Thickener Overflow
Water
- Located in East Helena, Montana
• #2 - Mine Effluent Water
- Located near Gardiner, Montana
Ferrihydrite Process
• Commonly used industrial process.
• Iron (Fe+3) to Arsenic mole ratio usually
greater than five.
• pH range of 4 to 5.
• Effectively removes when oxidation state of
Arsenic is 5.
¦ Ferric sulfate or ferric chloride is used as
iron source.
Formation of Ferric Hydroxide
Fe*3 + HjO —» Fe(OH)3(s) + 3H+
Adsorption and Coprecipitation
As+S + Fe(OH)J(l) + 4 H20 —~
Fe(OH)3(s) + AsO< + 8 H*
Acid Neutralization with Lime
CaO + 2 H* —¦» Ca2+ + HjO
114
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Alumina Adsorption
• Step #1 - Arsenic-contaminated water is
mixed with finely divided activated alumina
in a slurry form.
• Step #2 - Hollow microfiltration nodules
separate arsenic-fee permeate from finely
divided activated alumina.
Alumina Adsorption
» Regeneration of activated alumina is
accomplished by increasing pH of reactor to
desorb the arsenic.
• The concentrated sodium arsenate brine is
removed and collected.
Mineral-Like Precipitation
• Objective
- Produce Mineral-like precipitates that are
storabie in tailings pond environments.
- Substitution of arsenate ions in mineral-like
structure, such as hydroxy apatite.
Mineral-Like Precipitation
• Mineral-like structures can have arsenic
concentrations up to 30%.
• Minerals are stable in tailings pond
environments with concentrations less than
6%.
Mineral-Like Precipitation
Proprietary Reagent-to-Arsenic mole ratio
must be sufficient for stability in tailings pond
conditions.
ASARCO Demonstration
• Flowrate - 2.0 gallons per minute
• Time Period - 4 days
115
-------
Western U.S. Mining impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
ASARCO
Thickener Overflow Water
• Total arsenic concentration - 6.3 ppm
• Dissolved arsenic concentration - 0.6 ppm
• Undissolved arsenic was found in the
flocculent used in the system
• Arsenic Oxidation State - (III)
• Oxidant used was Potassium Permanganate
Mineral-Like Precipitation
• Two separate studies:
- Low reagent demonstration
• Proprietary reagenwo-atsenic mole ratio of 10 to 1
- High reagent demonstration
• Proprietary reagem-to-mole ratio of 20 to 1
Mineral-Like Precipitation
• Results with respect to process time
- Low reagent:
• 216 ppb after 15 minutes
• Less than 10 ppb after 420 minutes
- High reagent:
• 204 ppb after 15 minutes
• 27 ppb after 25 minutes
• 39 ppb alter 620 minutes
Alumina Adsorption
Results with respect to process time:
- Lowering pH to "5" increased amount of
dissolved arsenic from flocculent to 2.0 ppm.
- After 5 minutes, dissolved arsenic was reduced
to 398 ppb.
- After 620 minutes, concentration was measured
at 398 ppb.
- Drinking water standards were never achieved.
Alumina Adsorption Results
• Alumina adsorption had poor results using
ASARCO overflow water, which was a
direct result of a high sulfate concentration
in the process water.
• A direct correlation of dissolved arsenic
from the organic flocculent.
Ferrihydrite Adsorption
• Two separate systems were evaluated.
- Two different iron-to-arsenic mole ratios:
• 8 to I
• 10 to 1
116
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Ferrihydrite Adsorption
• Results with respect to process time.
- Low Iron (8 to J):
• 100 ppb after 5 minutes
• Between 60 and 100 minutes, concentrations
fluctuated between 100 and 500 ppb
-High Iron(10 to 1):
• 10 ppb after 5 minutes
• After 60 minutes, concentrations rose to 200 ppb
Mineral Hill Demonstration
• Flowrate - 2 to 5 gallons per minute
• Time period - 7 days
• Total gallons used -1800
• Arsenic concentration - 600 ppb
• Arsenic Oxidation State - (V)
Mineral-Like Precipitation
• Results (10 to 1)
- Process time:
• 15 ppb after 15 minutes
• 15 ppb after 1860
Alumina Adsorption
• Results
- Process time:
• 27 ppb after 360 minutes
* 3 ppb after 2S80 minutes
Ferrihydrite Adsorption
• Results (8 to 1)
- Process time:
• 39 ppb after 1100 minutes
• 45 ppb after 2880 minutes
Stability Tests
• Two separate filter cakes used:
- Ferrihydrite
- Mineral-Like Precipitation
• Performed in simulated outdoor-type
environments.
• Time period for stability tests - 2 years.
117
-------
Stabilization of ARD Wastes and Waste
Streams by In Situ Microbial Treatment
Jim Harrington
'
Sheperd Miller, Inc.
118
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
119
-------
Western U.S. Mining impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Stabilization ofARD Wastes and
Waste Streams
by In Situ Microbial
Treatment
Jim Harrington
m
ERDMIl
SHEPHERD MILLER
iWo'eliMmtte
unsssssrsa
Stabilization
"Reduces the hazard potential of a
waste by converting the
contaminants into their least soluble,
mobile, or toxic form."
In Situ Microbial Treatment
¦ In situ - "In place"
¦ Microbial Treatment without reagent
delivery = "natural attenuation"
¦ With reagent delivery = in Situ
Microbial Treatment
I2ST3mSBB
Redox Microbiology and Chemistry
"If we add electrons (in the form of reductants) to a
system containing several redox couples, the lowest
unoccupied electron levels will be filled up first...For
example, a reductant such as organic carbon will,
from a thermodynamic point of view, react first with
oxygen, then successively with nitrate, manganafe,
etc... It appears that in natural habitats, organisms
capable of mediating the pertinent redox reactions are
nearly always found".
-Zehnder and Stumm, 1993
Review: Redox Reactions-Effects
i Several metals/metalloids are redox
transformable e.g., As, Cr, Fe, Hg, Mrs, Ni, Se
t Sulfur and Nitrogen are also redox active
i Solubility changes often occur due to redox
transformation either directly (e.g., As3* vs.
As5*) or indirectly (e.g., adsorbed As5*
released from ferric iron during reduction)
ARD Process and Reactions
i Mineralized rock often contains metal
sulfides (MeS)
i Oxidation of metal sulfides produces acid,
metal ions, and sulfate:
MeS + 02 + H20
Me(iq) + H* + S04*
120
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
AKD is Biooxidation
i Requires oxygen transfer
i Redox conditions control reaction rates
I Requires ferric iron
i Physical parameters affect rate
Pyrite Degradation
2 Pyrite
iu.—12 Ferric Ions
Ferrous Ions
Sulfate + 2H*
2 Thlosulfate
Trithiorwte
Pentalhionate ~
Sulfur + HjO \
Sulfane-
' WonosuHonic"
1,5 O, acW ' Sulfate + 2H-
— Tetrath
V
feme Ions
2 Ferrous Ions
Tetrathlonate
Eliminating the Oxygen Supply
Carbon oxidation with oxygen = -125 kJ/mol
Sulfide oxidation with oxygen = -99 kJ/mol
With equal aqueous availability, carbon
oxidation should eliminate sulfide oxidation
by creation of anaerobic conditions.
Ferric Iron Supply
Ferrous Iron + Oxygen (+ Thiobacillus)
0
Ferric Iron + Acidity
Eliminating the Ferric Iron Supply
Ferrous Iron + Oxjfien {+ Thiotffillus)
Ox^eri
Ferric Iron + Acidity
Preventing Pyrite Oxidation
2 Pyrite v
jfc.—-12 Feqfp Ions
y * 14 Ferrous Ions
Sulfate + 2 H* 2 Thtosu"at®~~*^s^-2 Ffflc Ions
Y Y"2 Ferrous Ions
Trithionate Tetrathlonate
Psntathfonate +
Sulfur ~ H,0 V,
J
Sulfane-
' Monosulfonie '•"r
1.5 Kg acId J Sulfate +2 H*
Aftflr ScVppsrs. Jottt tnttstrxl, 1086
121
-------
Western U.S. Mining impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
®s®K:s=ai
Prevention ofARD
Traditional" Methods
8 Capping
¦ Chemical coating
¦ Subaqueous disposal
¦ Burial
Microbiological Treatment
¦ Oxygen utilization in
carbon oxidation
s Ferric Iron elimination
by microbial reduction
and sulfide reactions
¦ Sulfate reduction
.wmJpLfLLP*
Predictable Order of Reduction
Energy Yield (kJ/mol):
¦ Oxygen (-125.1)
¦ Nitrate (-81.8)
¦ Ferric Iron (-98/ -23)
¦ Sulfate Reduction
(-25.4)
aG = Afi"+ «T K(Q)
Q = [Products]/[Reactants]
I) LLP
Useful Effects of Carbon in
Mining Environments
m Elimination of oxygen, creation of carbon dioxide
¦ Elimination of nitrate, creation of nitrogen gas
and carbon dioxide
¦ Elimination of ferric iron, creation of ferrous iron
and carbon dioxide
¦ Elimination of sulfate, creation of sulfide and
carbon dioxide
Sulfide reacts with soluble metals based on
predictable sulfide chemistry
Thermodynamics—Why Adding Carbon
Works
SO/- + H++ 2 CHzO => 2 C02 + HS- + 2 H20
Q =
[C02]2 [HS-] [HzO f
m [S042] [CH20]2
The energy yield depends on the concentration
of the products / reactants in biological reactions.
Sulfide Reaction With Hematite
HS- + Fe203 (s) <=> {S8 + S042-} + Fe2* (aq)
Early increase in aqueous iron
concentration is often noted
during sulfidogenesis.
122
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Reductive Dissolution of Hematite by HS~
*
s . •
• *
~
A«irD» SMftiMnreMMms 1992
Aqueous Iron: Initial Response
m"' '
A" -
~
r
¦ SI
¦ T
> :r |
" . f ^
- >-i ^
, * xi.', z*?* i'*-w
*H0— 1 f
Aqueous Iron: Later Responses
t
-1-Hj
Huh*
v H-
11 tell A&h'ttoi:
Cascade of Sulfide Effects
¦ Reaction of sulfide with oxygen ~> S°
¦ Reduction of iron and trace metais
¦ Precipitation of iron (amorphous) and co-
precipitation of trace metals
¦ Precipitation of trace metals (amorphous)
¦ Pyritization of iron (potential release of co-
precipitates)
m Pyritization of trace metals
Cadmium vs. Copper Sulfide
Formation
5 -r -r 0.4
I «
ft,
0
MJun-S" Jan-M Jul-VS
~
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Water Quality: ARD Treatment
Initial C0:H\
Lomi-m Com*.
At
551';
AS
i'r.YX-l?
at
4 54
i
Vr
1 2
Co
23.7
Cti
!•<•
S3
>in
.>!')
... ••<¦5
-"'X
Ni
oU 4
U.wv-VlH/43
Zo
4v>
in mg/L
B5S3E2KL!
Proposed Treatment Design
m Analyze water chemistry - what is the current
rate of production of oxidized species?
m Analyze potential for reduced rate overtime by
formation of reducing conditions
¦ Nutrient test pulse establishes baseline system
response
¦ Follow-up nutrient additions have optimized
degradation rate to match system oxidation rate
Cost of Treatment-Calculation
Sum {Oxidized Species} < {Reducing Equivalents}
S042- + H+ + 2 CH20 => 2 C02 + HS" + 2 H20
Typical e' Acceptors: Oxygen, Nitrate. Ferric Iron, Sulfate
Anaerobic Cyanide Destruction
1 Aerobic cyanide destruction goes
through a CNO intermediate (cyanate)
1 Anaerobic cyanide destruction goes
through formate/ glycine I betaine
intermediates
1 Where ARD potential is high, cyanide
destruction anaerobically can occur
concomitantly with ARD treatment
Summary
¦ In situ redox manipulation is possible by
carbon addition
¦ Predictable order of electron acceptors
controls the order of reducing reactions
¦ Elimination of oxygen and ferric iron
reduces the rate and amount of oxidized
metals that are produced
Summary-continued
1 Sulfide produced by bacterial action has
several effects:
- reduces oxidized compounds
» Oxygen
» Feme Iron (soluble and structural)
» Manganate
- precipitates soluble metals
1 Extent of sulfide formation is controlled
by amount of carbon added
124
-------
Western U.S. Mining impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
STOMAS
Degree of Trace Metal Pyritization
¦ Trace metal pyritization increases with
increased formation of pyrite
¦ Arsenic, mercury and molybdenum sulfides
form fastest and first (> Fe)
¦ Cobalt, copper, manganese and nickel
sulfides form slower (< Fe)
¦ Cadmium, chromium, lead and ziric form
slowest (« Fe)
125
-------
Ceramic Microfiltration
for Acid Mine Drainage Treatment
David R. Stewart, P.E.
Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc.
126
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
127
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Ceramic Microfiltration for Acid
Mine Drainage Treatment
Pilot Plant Results at Summitville
Mine Site, Colorado
by
David R, Stewart, PE
BASX Systems, LLC
Presentation Outline
a Introduction
¦ Mine Site Characteristics
¦ Water Characteristics
m Effluent Goals/Criteria
¦ Ceramic Microfiltration System
» Results of the Pilot Plant Testing
¦ Cost Comparison
s Conclusions
Introduction
m START Program
¦ Technology evaluation in October 1997
m Successful removal of heavy metals
¦ Reduction in the amount of sludge
generated
¦ Lower operating costs
Mine Site Characteristics
m Summitville - abandoned gold mine
¦ San Juan Mountain Range
si Elevation of 11,500 feet
¦ Final receiving stream is Alamosa River
¦ Mining over the last 127 years
m 1984 - Galactic Resources started leach
pad procedure
Mine Site Location Map
Tv J" 1* 1
! "V " S• !
i \ i
-1
Mine Site Characteristics Cont.
¦ Leach pad was 127 feet deep and 48
acres
¦ Mining continued from 1986 to 1992
¦ Treated water during mine operation
did not consistently meet WQ limits
¦ EPA initiated emergency response in
1992 to prevent catastrophic release of
water to the environment
128
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Water Characteristics
i Water quality parameters indude:
- Aluminum
-Iron
-Copper
- Manganese
-Zinc
- High sulfates
- Low pH
Water Characteristics Cont.
¦¦¦Kaa
i Reynolds Adit has highest on-site water
quality problems
i Table 1 contains water quality data
i Impoundment water:
- 90,000,000 gallons
- Receives water from several sources
- Lower influent values
Effluent Goals & Criteria
i Tight stream standards
i Potential for tighter stream standards
i System met ail standards and close to
goals
i Over 99% removal for most metals
i Effluent was non-toxic for WET test
Effluent Water Quality Data
Ga&fcm
G*P» '
to-. - mm
"SSS3
a« * uto
pH ' ftfftoftO
SumrrfMli* Mm Sis
WlterQttJHyfttaAJfflMQMl* ,
taptetaiAdK IgpAXKfcratttFWK!
irAnsrt : ESMrt SKtemcMri ktest Start jKRimewl
a no! aa» m m
s&m "tim mm um aos,'" iw
* m j ~m* <
nm, «uw zm mm
wws mm ^olqi» " «s%
Chart of Heavy Metal Removal
Percent fomoviisfar Heavy M«ta£s
HMVy mm Of
129
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Ceramic Microfittration Process
a 2-Stage pH adjust to 8.5 to 9.5
¦ Concentration system
¦ Ceramic microfilter (0,2 microns)
s Formation of metal hydroxides
b Cross-flow filtration system
Figure 2 - Process Layout
f ;
¦tslll" -
t ~r ,*
)( ot. !
Ceramic Microfiltration Process
m Skid mounted system
m Low labor requirements
m Requires only 10 percent of the floor
space of a normal darifler plant
m Considerable cost savings on building
and O&M costs for ongoing water
treatment
Results of Pilot Plant Testing
« Excellent removal of heavy metals
¦ A reduction in sludge generation; from
85,000 cf per year to 22,000 cf per year
m System performed very well
m pH probe fouling will be a concern
m Dewatering of sludge will also be
required
Cost Comparison
¦ Existing labor and chemicals are
approximately $750,000 per year
¦ Projected costs for CMF is $325,000 per
year; Savings of almost 50% per year
on O&M
¦ Capita! costs for system is $2,500,000
for 1,000 gpm system
¦ Payback is 2.5 to 5 years, depending on
leasing & reduction of flow at the site
Conclusions
m CMF system is cost effective
m CMF is very effective at heavy metal
removal
¦ This new technology can be applied at
both active and abandoned sites with
computer control technology
130
-------
Bulkhead Design for Acid Mine Drainage
John F. Abel, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.
Professor Emeritus
131
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
132
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
BULKHEAD DESIGN FOR ACID MINE DRAINAGE
John F. Abel, Jr.
Professor Emeritus, Mining Engineering
Colorado School of Mines
Ransom Tunnel Bulkhead design calculations
Notation:
a = compression zone depth(in) minimum to balance rebar tension
As— area of rebar
bw = web width (12 in)
C = comp bending force (lb)
n'
D = dead load v I
(f)
b = beam width (1 in)
Bp = formation breakdown pressure (psi)
c = centroidal distance (in)
d = distance, extreme compression fiber to
E = earthquake load v ft / rebar
C Ib&ec2 ^
centrofd (in)
Em = earthquake mass V
F = fluid load («
fc = concrete comp strength (3,000 psi) = square root of
f5 *** flF* sil
fcl = concrete tensile strength v c ^ / £« =
= total earthquake load (lb)
FS = factor of safety
h = rebar yield strength (60,000 psi)
(635 ft) h = tunnel height (10 ft)
I = moment of inertia
L = beam length or depth (10 ft)
M = bending moment (ft lb)
M„ = factored beam moment (ft lb)
mc = minimum cover, form face to
rebar surface (3.5 in)
T = tensile bending force (lb)
Ua = earthquake required strength
V„ = nominal shear force (lb)
V„ = factored shear force (lb)
W = bulkhead load (lb)
s = concrete shear strength (psi)
¦ acceleration due to gravity (^2.2 sec2 = design water head
K_ (3.5 -2.5*0
1 = tunnel width (10 ft)
M„ = nominal beam moment (ftlb)
Mua = earthquake beam moment (ft lb)
S = section modulus )
S| = line-of-sight distance (360 ft)
U = required strength V ft /
Vc = concrete shear strength (lb)
Vs = rebar shear strength (lb)
vs = rebar shear stress (psi)
uniform load C ft )
earthquake acceleration
(0.087^)
= pressure head (275 psi)
^ = W"
= water density (62.4PCF)
m = pressure gradient (f)
= strength reduction factors
0.90 flexure rebar tension
0.85 concrete shear
0.65 plain concrete flexure
uniform bulkhead load 600 -j) ^ = bulkhead design depth (ft)
Load factors (ACI318, Sec 9.2.2, 9.2.3, 9.2.5)
Static fluid load factor (F) = 1.4;
Factor for fluid load under earthquake acceleration (F) = 1.05;
Earthquake accelerated load factor (E) = 1.40
Ity = concrete density (151PCF)
rock density (173 PCF)
^ = flexure stress (psi)
133
-------
Western U.S. Mining impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Ransom Tunnel Bulkhead design calculations (Continued)
Hydraulic pressure gradient:
Low pressure grouting of concrete-rock contact but not rock, gradient allowable = 41 psi/ft (Garrett &
Campbell-Pitt, 1958, Chekan, 1985, pi 1), with factor of safety of 4
Ransom tunnel bulkhead, maximum pressure head
n H% 635(62.4) .
~= I44- = 144 = 275 psi
Required bulkhead length with low pressure grouting on concrete/rock bulkhead contact:
a 275
L = 40 - 40 = 6.9 ft
n -- - 211
Pressure gradient with L = 8 ft HI — 8 ~ 8 = 34.4 psi/ft
Factor of Safety against water leakage along concrete/rock contact around 8-ft thick bulkhead is:
FS ~ ~MA = 1.19
Concrete shear on Ransom tunnel perimeter:
f?= 2/ff = 273000 = 110psi (ACI 318-95, Sec 11.3.1.1)
CM 275(10)10 __ 27500
L = 2(h+l)f? ~ 2(10+10)110 ~ 4400 = 6.25 ft
W = Oil = 275(10)10(144) = 3,960,000 lb
W 3960000
« ~ [2(h+l)]L(144) - 12(10+10)18(144) - 85.9 psi
,s
jj_ _ JJO.
FS = vs ~ 85.9 = L28
134
.
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Ransom Tunnel Bulkhead design calculations (Continued)
Plain concrete deep beam bending stress design, Ransom tunnel (ACI 318-95, Sec 9.9.2.5, 18.4.1(b), & AC! 318-71,
Sec 9.2.1.5)
Ransom Tunnel bulkhead, for 635-ft hydraulic head (275 psi pressure head):
§C=U = 1.4Qfl44)= ! ,4(275) 144 = 55,400 Of)
3§2 5S4000 32)
M„ = T - I - 692,500 ft lb
M„ 692S00
Mu= 0.65 ~ 0.65 = 1,065,000 ft lb
Jti 'O-'X^
i 12 u 144L2
o_c~A-~ ML ~ 6
b= 2 2
f® = 3jff = 3jmQ =
164 psi
fO 1CA rt_ M«c M» ] 065000 44400
ici —164 - LJ= J - s - - L2
6
/ 44400 _ FyfT
L = V v = 16.5 ft, length required for plain concrete bulkhead.
~ M„ Mu _ 1065000 _ 1065000
~ S ~ 144L2 - 144(82) - 1536 .
(, 6 = 693 psi
P
fd 164
FS = "H" ~ 693 = 0.24
Therefore, 8-ft long plug must be reinforced.
Reinforced concrete deep-beam bending stress design, Ransom tunnel (ACI 318-95, Sec 9.3.2.3, Sec 9.3.2.3.: Wang
& Salmon, 1985: Einarson & Abel, 1990)
C =
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Ransom Tunnel Bulkhead design calculations (Continued)
Mu=Asfy(d~ f); d = L - mc = 8(12) - 3.5 = 92.5 in
M„ = 60000As(d ~ f) = 60000As(92-5 ~ ) = 5550000AS - 58800A|
Therefore: 9,233,000 =5,550,000A, - 58,000^
58,800^ - 5,550,000A, + 9,233,000 - 0
jnl
As = 1.69 ft steel area required
, Jul
#10 bars (1.270 in per bar) on 8-in c-c provides 1.905 ft steel area
Check for adequacy
Allowable Mu = -58,80oAs + 5,550,0000As = 10,360,000 in lb
Design Mu = 9,233,000 in lb
10360000
FS= 9233000 - 1.12
Critical section shear strength for Ransom tunnel, 8-ft deep beam bulkhead
Deep beam defined as d* < 5 (AC1318-95, Sec 11.8.1). Critical section shear at 0.151 (1.28 ft) from ribside
in2
(ACI 318-95, Sec 11.8.5), with #10 bars on 8-in c-c, there will be 1.905 ft of steel per ft of beam width,
d« 92.5 in (7.71 ft).
Detailed shear strength at critical section (ACI 318-95, Sec 11.8.7)
1 10(12) 120
d [8(12)—3 5] 92.5 =1,30 <5 Therefore, reinforced concrete bulkhead
is a deep beam for design!
v„ - nominal shear stress shall not be greater than when d < 2
(ACI 318-95, Sec 11.8.4)
Limiting value: v„ ©8 J3000 438 psi V* ®(vn)bwd ©(438)12(92.5 ) 486,200 lb
JSL fJSVMlT) m
V„ = 2 _ 2 A 0.51 ) = 0.35^ = 0.35(55400)10 = 193,900 lb
136
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Ransom Tunnel Bulkhead design calculations (Continued)
193900
Vu= 0,85 ~ 0.85 = 228,100 lb
fifi-Yfl l « i"\ SflfA IS ]\JLLLL 1SS400(102)]
Mn = l2 AOJMJ-W.IMJ 2 =0.06375 2 =0.06375 2
M„ = 176,100 ft lb
Mn _ 176100
M„ = 0.9 ~ 0.9 =196,200 ft lb
Vt ,K(l.9^? + 2500Q,-g1)bwd
K= 3.5 - 2.5 vud =3.5-2,5
196300
228000(-^) .
= 3.5-0.28 = 3.22
K cannot exceed 2.5 Therefore K = 2.5
r-» As 3.905
~ bwd ~~ (12)92.5 = 0.001716 Trial, #10 bars on 8-in centers, two-way
Ve
lK(l.9V? + 2500Ql-^)bwd
1.973000 + 2500(0.00171
12(92.5)
Vc= 2.5
Vc = 2.5[104.1 + 38.45] 1110 = 2.5[ 142.55] 1110 = 395,500 lb
Allowable Vc ®(6-/S)bwd ®(673000 ) 12(92.5 = 364,800)lb (ACI318.95) Sec u 8 7)
Vc 364800
Therefore, FS= vu ~ 228100 = 1,60
Ransom Tunnel bulkhead depth below surface (Z) required to prevent hydrofrac of rock around tunnel by 635-ft
hydraulic head (275 psi pressure head): (Einarson & Abel, 1990)
= 3CJmn— Onax = 2C|vb= 2Z( ) = 2Z( ) = 2.403Z psi = 275 psi
275
Z= 2.403 = 114 ft
Therefore, the bulkhead must be centered at least 320 ft inside the portal to develop 114 ft of overburden.
Recommended bulkhead location from 319 ft to 327 ft inside the portal, for average distance from the
portal of 323 ft and an average depth of 116 ft.
137
-------
Western U.S. Mining Impacted Watersheds:
Joint Conference on Remediation and Ecological Risk Assessment Technologies
Ransom Tunnel Bulkhead design calculations (Continued)
Earthquake bulkhead design; Load factors (AO 318-95, Sec 9.2.2,9.2.3,9.2.5) Factor for fluid load under
earthquake acceleration (F) = 1.05; Load factor for earthquake accelerated mass (E) = 1.40. Maximum
credible earthquake acceleration is 0.087 sec-.
U= 1.05F+ 1.40E
Mass (E) accelerated by maximum credible earthquake
SiHkhl+Lhllj _ [360(62.4)10(10)+8(10)> 0(1S1)] _ [2,246.400+120.800] _ \bsec2
Em= 8 ~ 32.2 _ 32.2 -/i,DZU ft
4Em = Em = 73,520(0.087) = 6396 lb
Total load under earthquake acceleration
Ransom Tunnel bulkhead, for 635-ft hydraulic head:
p, Hflfc _ 635(62.4)
<-*= 144 ~ 144 = 275 psi
F = »w(12) = 275(12)12 = 39,600 T
U = 1.05F + 1.40E = 1.05(39600) + 1.40(640) = 41,580 + 896
TI —
u - 42,480 ft
Earthquake nominal beam bending moment
UsA2 42480(102)
M„s= ~T" = I ~ = 531,000 ft lb
¦» t M„ 531000
Mugs= 0 9 - 0 9 = 590,000 ft lb (7,080,000 in lb)
Steel area required for earthquake loading:
58800^5 - 5,550.000AS + 7,080,000 = 0
in2
As = 1.29 ft Steel area required to resist maximum credible
earthquake loading.
in2
#10 bars on 8-in c-c provide 1.90S ft steel area
Check for adequacy
Allowable Mus?= -58,800A?+ 5,550,000AS = 10,360,000 in 4b
Design Muay= 7,080, OOOin
10360000
FS = 7080000 = 1.46 against earthquake loading.
138
-------
u>
to
Appendix B. Some acid mine drainage bulkheads
installed
in Colorado
Mine/Location Distance
Depth
Design
Years
Comments
from
below
Head
of
Portal
Surface
(ft)
Service
(ft)
(ft)
Eagle Mine, Gilman
Numerous seeps (9), 7 along
Adit 6, *86
80
* 70
246
12
Rock Creek, equilibrium water
Adit 5, *86
200
«125
172
12
level 80 ft lower than design,
Adit 7, "87
150
«100
87
11
poor quality initial water
Newhouse, *87
»15Q
« 90
112
11
seeps, improved over time
Ben Butler Adit, *90
«200
st 60
110
7
Tip top Adit, *90
»100
« 50
118
7
Star of the West Incline, *90
»130
101
7
Internal
Comet Claims, Placer
Initial <1.5 gpm leak Lower
Gulch, Silverton, *91
Level along fracture zone east
Lower Level
250
230
520
' 2
side of plug, 1-in HDPE
Upper Level
150
122
295
2
compression fitting on pressure
gage line failed 2nd melt season
Thompson Creek
30
20
Unk
< 8
Water spurting around thin
Coal & Coke
(« 18-in), ungrouted plug
#1 Mine
Sunnyside Gold Corp.
American Tunnel
7950
2130
1550
2
815-ft current head £ rising,
2.8 pH upstream, w/20 tons lime
placed, 5gpm initial leakage
reduced to drips by regrouting
Terry Tunnel
3800
1160
650
1
« 20-ft current head, no leaks
&¦
o
o
3
8*
c5
3
o
CD
o
3
CF
Co
CD
3
Q
CO
3
3'
'
O
3
£0
3
a
5?
o
a"
CQ
o'
QJ
Co'
*T
CO
CO
CD
Co
1
CD
3
C?
§•
3
O
o"
CQ
CD'
CO
I
a
of
!
CO
3-
CD
&
-------
Appendix B (Continued). Some acid mine drainage bulkheads installed in Colorado
Mine/Location
Summitville Mine
Reynolds Adit
Distance
from
Portal
(ft)
1250
Chandler Adit
330
Depth
below
Surface
(ft)
425
Design
Head
(ft)
350
95
175
Years
of
Service
Comments
o
Minor dripping at downstream
face, high strength alloy bolts
severely corroded in 2 yrs,
leakage through fracture system
starting « 100 ft downstream
from bulkhead in 3120 psi rock
Initial 7-ft bulkhead failed at
« 85 ft head along l-ft wide
roof fault, overall 129 psi rock
20-ft extension, no leakage over
» 4 yrs
-------
Appendix B (Continued). Some water impoundment bulkheads installed outside Colorado
Mine/Location Distance
Depth
Design
Years
Comments
from
below
Head
of
Portal
Surface
(ft)
Service
(ft)
(ft)
Walker Mine,
2700
810
500
11
Low permeability rock,
Plumas Cty, CA*
equilibrium at 120 ft of
head, no leakage
Mammoth Mine, Shasta
Cty, CA*
Friday Louden Tunnel
613
150
670
8
No leakage, £ 350-ft max head
Lower Gossan
200
100
300
7
No plug leakage, unknown head,
pressure loss thru formation
fractures
Upper Gossan
250
100
140
7
No leakage, unknown head
Keystone Mine, Shasta
i Cty, CA*
Keystone 275
100
75
138
7
No leakage, unknown head
Keystone East Adit
400
250
288
7
No leakage, unknown head
Keystone 400 Level
200
100
450
0
No initial retention, 20-ft OD
130 psi grout ring added,
failed to hold water
Stowel1 Mine,
200
200
300
7
Two portals w/plugs installed,
Shasta Cty, CA*
No leakage, unknown head
Tyee Lake, AK
1500
790
1338
12
33gpm initial leakage, reduced
Hydropower Tunnel
to llgpm by regrouting contact
11
*3 co
£?¦
o ^
O 3
§1
c
in
§ 2'
3 CQ
® 2
3 "Q
o Q)
9-
03'
* - Acid mine drainage bulkheads
o'
3
a>
a
S1
0
1
I
5s
%
>>
y>
CO
y>
3
CD
3
51
§•
3
O
o~
CQ
CD'
03
o
5T
a
Q)
cB"
2
3-
CD
a
CO
-------
Appendix B (Continued), Some historical worldwide records of bulkhead life
hj
Mine
Length
(ft)
Year
Built
Design
Head
(ft)
Years
of
Service
Comments
CMR-6 Shaft 9 Level
West, RSA
17
1953
830
45
Isolation bulkhead
East Daggerafontein
30 Haulage North
and South, RSA
28
1949
1500
49
2 isolation bulkheads
Virginia 31 Haulage
South, RSA
63
1957
3810
41
Isolation bulkhead, no leaks
Free State Geduld
47 Level, RSA
46
1955
1910
43
Emergency, 1st parallel sided
bulkhead, full load in 72 hrs
Govt. G.M. Areas, RSA
Sub Nigel, RSA
5
11
1945
1953
230
459
53
45
Isolation bulkhead
Isolation bulkhead
West Dreifontein
10 & 12 Levels
4 bulkheads, RSA
60
1968
4000
(3740
actual)
30
Emergency 67,000 gpm inrush,
pH 3.8, 2500 psi sand-concrete
alloy steel severely corroded
14-ft high, 12-ft wide
West Dreifontein
7.7
1958
15690
<1
Experimental bulkhead,
400 gpm leakage
Rocanville Mine, PCS
Saskatchewan, CAN
87
1985
3000
13
Emergency 6,250 gpm inrush,
potash mine from overlying
aquifer, 8-ft high, 20-ft wide
Mammoth Mine, Shasta Cty, CA
Friday Louden Tunnel 6 1980
212
Insufficient strength for 670-ft
redesign head, removed & rebuilt
-------
NOTES
143
-------
NOTES
144
-------
NOTES
145
-------
NOTES
146
-------
NOTES
147
-------
NOTES
148
-------
.
*
I
.
» •
* i>
1
-------
|