||Prevention of acid mine drainage generation from open-pit highwall Mine Waste Technology Program Activity III, Project 26 / [electronic resource] :
McCloskey, A. Lynn. ;
McCloskey, A. L. ;
||MSE Technology Applications, Inc., Butte, MT. ;National Risk Management Research Lab., Cincinnati, OH. ;Department of Energy, Aiken, SC. Savannah River Operations Office.
|| U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Acid mine drainage--Environmental aspects. ;
Tailings (Metallurgy)--Environmental aspects. ;
Mineral industries--Environmental aspects.
Acid mine drainage ;
Performance evaluation ;
Technology assessment ;
Site characterization ;
Quality control ;
Quality assurance ;
Field tests ;
Environmental protection ;
Open-pit highwalls ;
Mine Waste Technology Program
||Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy.
||1 online resource (xii, 3, 54 p.) : ill., charts, maps, digital, PDF file.
This document summarizes the results of Mine Waste Technology Program Activity III, Project 26, Prevention of Acid Mine Drainage Generation from Open-Pit Highwalls. The intent of this project was to obtain performance data on the ability of four technologies to prevent the generation of acid mine drainage (AMD) from an open-pit highwall. The four technologies applied included Ecobond (Trademark) ARD developed by Metals Treatment Technologies, LLC of Denver, Colorado; a magnesium oxide passivation technology developed by the University of Nevada-Reno (UNR); a potassium permanganate technology developed and patented by DuPont Technology and applied by UNR (the current patent holder); and a furfuryl alcohol resin sealant developed by Intermountain Polymers of Idaho Falls, Idaho. The demonstration was conducted at the Golden Sunlight Mine, an active open-pit gold mine. The four technology providers spray applied their technologies to a designated 50-foot-high by 50-foot-wide area on the highwall. The primary objective of this demonstration was to determine the impact of the treatments on the designated plot areas compared to an untreated area of the highwall. Also, during application of the technologies, each technology provider was required to apply the technology to a specially prepared sample that underwent humidity cell (HC) testing. Each technology inhibited AMD differently, dependent on chemistry of the treatment formulation, sulfide content, morphology, pH of the waste material, weather conditions, and the amount of water draining from the highwall. Overall, each of the technologies applied to the highwall decreased the generation of acid and the mobility of metals from the highwall. However, the results from the highwall residual wash sampling indicate that in the field the technologies perform differently in comparison to samples analyzed in a controlled laboratory environment such as the HC.
Title from title screen (viewed on Dec. 4, 2011). "EPA/600/R-05/060." "July 2005." Includes bibliographical references (p. 53-54). Final report "Contract no. DE-AC09-96EW96405, through EPA IAG No. DW89938870-01-1".