- Количество слайдов: 94
1 Starting Soon: Mining Waste Treatment Technology Selection u u u Mining Waste Treatment Technology Selection at http: //www. itrcweb. org/miningwaste-guidance/ Download Power. Point file • Clu-in training page at http: //www. clu-in. org/conf/itrc/mwtts/ • Under “Download Training Materials” Using Adobe Connect • Related Links (on right) § Select name of link § Click “Browse To” • Full Screen button near top of page u Follow ITRC
2 Welcome – Thanks for joining this ITRC Training Class Mining Waste Treatment Technology Selection An ITRC Web-based Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document at http: //www. itrcweb. org/miningwaste-guidance/ Sponsored by: Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (www. itrcweb. org) Hosted by: US EPA Clean Up Information Network (www. cluin. org)
3 Housekeeping u u u Course time is 2¼ hours This event is being recorded Trainers control slides • Want to control your own slides? You can download presentation file on Clu-in training page u Questions and feedback • Throughout training: type in the “Q & A” box • At Q&A breaks: unmute your phone with #6 to ask out loud • At end of class: Feedback form available from last slide § Need confirmation of your participation today? Fill out the feedback form and check box for confirmation email and certificate Copyright 2016 Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 50 F Street, NW, Suite 350, Washington, DC 20001
4 ITRC (www. itrcweb. org) – Shaping the Future of Regulatory Acceptance u u u Host organization Network • State regulators Disclaimer • Full version in “Notes” section • Partially funded by the U. S. government § All 50 states, PR, DC § ITRC nor US government • Federal partners warranty material § ITRC nor US government DOE DOD endorse specific products EPA • ITRC materials copyrighted – • ITRC Industry Affiliates Program • Academia • Community stakeholders u Follow ITRC see usage policy u Available from www. itrcweb. org • Technical and regulatory guidance documents • Internet-based and classroom training schedule • More…
5 Meet the ITRC Trainers Cherri Baysinger Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Jefferson City, MO 573 -522 -2808 cherri. [email protected] mo. gov Paul Eger St Paul, MN 651 -459 -5607 paul. [email protected] com Doug Bacon Utah Department of Environmental Quality Salt Lake City, UT 801 -536 -4282 [email protected] gov
6 ITRC Mining Waste Team u Community Stakeholders Team is fairly diverse (35 participants) University 2% Industry 33% 5% International 2% 29% States Federal Agencies u Products 29% • 2007 - Mine Waste Issues of the United States: A White Paper • 2010 - ITRC’s Mining Waste Technology Selection Guidance § Quick method of selecting potential technologies to address multiple environmental conditions at a site • 2013 - Biochemical Reactors for Mining-Influenced Water technology guidance
7 Mine Waste – A Burning Issue
8 Value of this Guidance u Web-address: www. itrcweb. org/miningwaste-guidance u Quick tool to identify appropriate technologies u Applies to all potentially impacted media u Access to case studies u Reference tool for new personnel u Describes potential regulatory constraints
9 What We Will Cover Today u Background to mining issues u Overview of guidance • Decision trees • Technologies • Case studies • Regulatory issues u Case study: Dunka Mine, Minnesota u Case study: Bingham Mine, Utah
10 Goals u u u Provide participants with an understanding of issues related to mining waste Familiarize participants with the content and components of the Mining Waste Technology Selection Guidance Familiarize participants with the use of the guidance using case studies
11 Mining is Important u Issues • Mining practices • Lack of mined land reclamation and restoration laws u Needs • Innovative technologies and approaches • Solutions for regulatory barriers
12 Scale of the Problem u u Large sites Single sites • Annapolis Lead Mine, MO • Anaconda Superfund Site, MT u Mining districts • St. Francois County, MO • Affect large areas • Many small mines
13 Media Affected by Mining Waste u u 1 Air Water Soil Vegetation 2 3 4
14 Solid Mining Waste u u u Includes • Mine pits and workings • Waste rock stockpiles • Tailings • Smelter waste • Other Contain residual metals or other chemicals Hundreds of square miles affected
15 Mining-Influenced Water u Mine drainage • p. H • Contaminants u u Over 10, 000 stream miles impacted Groundwater impacts
16 Objectives of the Guidance u u u Select applicable technology(s) Provide information on technologies Remediate mine waste contaminated sites Flambeau Mine, WI During mining Flambeau Mine, WI After reclamation
17 Approach u Problem based technology/regulatory guidance • Multiple technologies solve problems • Select appropriate technologies u Optimize your approach • Clean up the source • Clean up the media
18 Advantages of Web-based Approach u Interactive • Easy to navigate u Graphics • Color images, photos, etc can be used for illustration u Flexible • Easier to update site as new information or case studies become available
19 Content of Guidance u Overview u Decision Trees u Technology Overviews u Case Studies u Regulatory Issues u Stakeholders Concerns u Additional Resources
20 Overview Page Sidebar Navigation Register for Internet based training Print PDF versions of the page
21 Overview Page Navigation in the footer Contact information for Team Leaders and ITRC Disclaimer, Privacy and Usage Policies
22 Decision Trees – Getting Started >2 years <2 years
23 Immediate Decision Tree u Navigation aids • Titles • “You are here” diagram
24 Solid Mining Waste Decision Tree u Links to Technology Overviews
25 Mining-Influenced Water Decision Tree u Links back to other trees as necessary
26 Technology Overviews u Focus • Information on newer technologies • Novel uses of conventional technologies • Provide case studies and additional references
27 Technology Overviews 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Administrative and Engineering Controls * Aeration Anoxic Limestone Drains Backfilling, Subaqueous Disposal Biochemical Reactors * Capping, Covers and Grading Chemical Stabilization Constructed Treatment Wetlands * Diversionary Structures Electrokinetics Electrocoagulation 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Excavation and Disposal In situ Biological Treatment In situ Treatment Ion Exchange Microbial Mats Passivation Permeable Reactive Barriers * Phosphate Treatment –Chemical Stabilization 20. Phytotechnologies * 21. Pressure Driven Membrane Separation 22. Reuse and Reprocess * ITRC has guidance documents
28 Case Studies u u u u Site Information Remedial Actions and Technologies Performance Cost Regulatory Challenges Stakeholder Challenges Other Challenges/ Lessons Learned References
29 Case Study Distribution 18 47 9 25 48 34 32 29 21 35 2 45 3 58 20 50 51 28 30 10 59 49 22 6 57 4 11 12 3641 43 26 8 5 15 52 24 13 37 44 38 17 # Mining Case Studies 16 56 23 40 42 53 39 31 27 19 7 33 54 55 46 14 1 Total of 59 Case Studies (as of August 2010)
30 Regulatory Issues u Discuss regulatory issues and challenges related to • Water quality • Solid mine waste
31 Stakeholder Concerns u Competing values may slow the cleanup • Public health • Ecological health u Full vs. partial cleanup • Why not clean up to background u Economics • Workforce
32 Summary u Web-based guidance • Assumes site is characterized • Help select appropriate technologies to remediate contaminated mine sites • May need to go through decision trees several times u u Technology overviews - not design manuals Unique site characteristics and costs must be carefully considered
33 Course Road Map u Background to mining issues u Overview of guidance • Decision trees • Technologies • Case studies • Regulatory issues u Case study: Dunka Mine, Minnesota u Case study: Bingham Mine, Utah
34 Case Study – Site Location
35 Case Study – Dunka Mine
36 Waste Rock Stockpiles
37 Dunka Pit Geology Cross-Section (Schematic) Virginia Formation Mineralized Zone Duluth Complex Dunka Pit Giants Range Granite Biw abik Iron For mat ion
38 Duluth Complex, Copper-Nickel Deposit Fresh sulfides Oxidized sulfides
39 Dunka Mine Effluent u u Precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration Effluent from the stockpile
40 The Problem u u 5 major seeps Flow • Average ~ 5 – 250 gpm (19 -946 L/min) u u p. H • Generally >7 • One site p. H ~ 5 Trace metal concentrations, mg/l • Nickel, ~ 1 -10 • Copper ~ 0. 01 – 1 • Cobalt ~ 0. 01 - 0. 1 • Zinc ~0. 01 - 2
41 Problem – Mining-Influenced Water u u Water quality was primary driver Source of problem waste rock stockpiles
42 Decision Trees - Getting Started >2 years <2 years
43 Decision Trees - Getting Started Mining. Influenced Water >2 years Solid Mining Waste <2 years
44 Decision Trees - Getting Started >2 years <2 years
45 Mining-Influenced Water Decision Tree Mining-Influenced Water Do you need to control water quality at the human receptor or at the source?
46 Mining-Influenced Water Decision Tree Source Can you eliminate the mininginfluenced water by addressing the solid mining waste source?
47 Mining-Influenced Water Decision Tree No Do you need to control water quality in groundwater or surface water?
48 Mining-Influenced Water Decision Tree Surface Water Do you need a treatment technology that is more passive or can you use a more active technology?
49 Active vs. Passive Treatment Global Acid Rock Drainage (GARD) Guide, 2009 u Active • Requires ongoing human operations, maintenance and system monitoring • Based on external sources of energy using infrastructure and engineered systems u Passive • Processes do not require regular human intervention • Employs natural construction material, natural materials and promotes natural vegetation • Gravity flow
50 Mining-Influenced Water Decision Tree Passive
51 Why Passive? Closure Costs, Million dollars (1986) Technology Cost Category Operation Capital Maintenance Active $8. 5 m $1. 2 m Passive $4. 0 m $0. 04 m
52 Mining-Influenced Water Decision Tree Constructed Treatment Wetlands
53 Technology Overview Note: Reference to Existing ITRC Guidance
54 Limitations u u To reduce the area required, needed to reduce input flow Required treating the solid mine waste Requires appropriate land for wetlands construction
55 Solid Mining Waste Decision Tree Solid Mining Waste Do you have saturated sediments affected by mine waste?
56 Solid Mining Waste Decision Tree No Do you need to control exposure to mining wastes which have been transported indoors?
57 Solid Mining Waste Decision Tree No Do you need to control exposure in a residential yard?
58 Solid Mining Waste Decision Tree No Is it feasible to remove the mine waste?
59 Solid Mining Waste Decision Tree No Can you control exposure by treating the mining waste?
60 Solid Mining Waste Decision Tree No Can you control exposure with physical barriers?
61 Solid Mining Waste Decision Tree Capping, Covers and Grading Diversionary Structures
62 Capping, Covers, Grading u u Classify stockpiles Cap accordingly • Soil cover § ~ $13, 000/acre ($32, 000/ ha) • Membrane cover § ~ $50, 000/acre ($124, 000/ha) u Problem • Could only cap flat portions • Side slopes ~ 1. 5: 1
63 40 ml LDPE Liner
64 Routing Water Off Stockpile
65 Capping Performance Overall Mass Reduction 94% 80 0 600 400 200 40 Before After Nickel Concentration mg/L Flow L/sec 120 Mass Release mg/min Flow 0 Before After Nickel Concentration 4 3 2 1 0 Nickel standard 0. 2 mg/L Before After BUT. . . Nickel concentrations still exceeded the standard
66 Mining-Influenced Water Conclusion u u u Could not completely control problem with source control Still needed to treat water Constructed treatment wetlands
67 Wetland Treatment Systems
68 Wetland - Before and After Wetland construction
69 Inflow Outflow Nickel Concentration, mg/L Wetland Treatment Performance Inflow Outflow
70 Regulatory Approach Initially used chronic standards • All systems removed metals • Not all systems consistently met standards u Flexibility • Final acute value u § Effluent cannot be toxic § Summation of individual metal toxicities • Variances • Receiving stream monitoring § Invertebrates, fish § Toxicity testing
71 Q&A Follow ITRC u Background to mining issues u Overview of guidance • Decision trees • Technologies • Case studies • Regulatory issues u Case study: Dunka Mine, Minnesota Question and answer break u Case study: Bingham Mine, Utah
72 Using Technology Overviews and Case Studies to Select a Technology u Covered so far • Overview of web-based guidance document • Decision trees to reach a list of technologies u Now • How to select from the list of technologies u Example, Bingham Canyon Water Treatment Plant, Bingham Mine, Utah
73 Case Study– Bingham Canyon Water Treatment Plant
74 Sources of Mining-Influenced Water u Ore body and waste rock • Gold-silver-moly-copper porphyry body surrounded by a pyrite halo • 4 to 5 billion tons of sulfide bearing waste rock • Meteoric water and acidic leach solutions • Mining-influenced water not entirely captured 1 2
75 Sources of Mining-Influenced Water u Impounded leach and process waters • Mine and non-mining influenced water § Stored in the historic unlined Bingham Reservoirs § 1960’s to 1990’s • Reservoir complex leaked ~1 million gallons a day • Water quality similar to acid rock drainage (ARD)
76 Map of the Two Plumes Bingham Reservoir Footprint Sulfate concentrations: 20, 000+ mg/L 15, 000 to 19, 000 mg/L 10, 000 to 14, 999 mg/L 5, 000 to 9, 999 mg/L 1, 500 to 4, 999 mg/L 500 to 1, 499 mg/L Waste Rock Dump Footprints S With population growth, the impacted aquifer represents approximately ¼ of the potential drinking water for the Salt Lake Valley
77 Selecting a Technology – 1 st Step u Know the problem u Problem statement • Once extracted, groundwater poses a human health risk § High TDS and Sulfate – ~ 2 to 20 times the Utah Primary Drinking Water Standard § ~ 300 - 650 feet below the current surface grade u Consider other influencing criteria • As a part of the settlement agreement Kennecott has to provide 3500 acre-feet/yr of treated water § 3500 acre-feet/yr equates to 1. 14 Billion gallons/yr
78 Selecting a Technology – 2 nd step u Use Decision Tree Mining-Influenced Water Do you need to control water quality at the human receptor or at the source? Receptor
79 Selecting a Technology – 2 nd Step u Review box of potentially applicable technologies Administrative/Engineering Controls Pressure Drive Membrane Separation Ion Exchange
80 Selecting a Technology – 3 rd Step u Three key sections of the Technology Overviews include • Applicability • Advantages • Limitations
81 Why Not Administrative/Engineering Controls (AECs)? u u Transfers ultimate treatment costs to the well owners u Plume can potentially migrate and impact other well owners u Stop the Drilling, Stop the Drilling! Does not address removal of contaminants directly Solid state contaminants of concern (COCs) will remain adsorbed to aquifer substrate and do not get removed
82 Why Not Ion Exchange (IX)? u Does not reduce TDS appreciably u Dependent upon required treatment volumes, water quality standards to be attained and cost efficiencies: • Comparably IX can have higher capital costs and reagent costs u Disposal limitations TDS I have escaped!
83 Why Pressure Driven Membrane Separation (PDMS) Was Selected… u u u Active treatment Cleans both aqueous and solid phase Removes Sulfate and TDS • Other COCs u u Attains applicable drinking water standards Produces various volumes of treated water Tested and tried technology Disposal location for the concentrate was available Perforated Central Tube Brine Seal on ti d Solu Feed Channel Spacer Membrane ate Perme rate nt tion ollecerial Conce Outer Wrap te C Mat cer rmea Pe Spa annel Ch Feed Image from: http: //www. americasbestairandwater. com/media/ROMembrane. jpg
84 Other Selection Information Is Available in Technology Overviews u u PDMS Technology includes four types: • Microfiltration • Ultrafiltration • Nanofiltration • Reverse Osmosis (RO) These membrane systems differ in terms of the • Solutes they reject • Operating pressures • Configuration options Image from: http: //www. watekwater. com/images/particles. jpg
85 Why RO Was Chosen for Use at the Case Study Site u Allows only water molecules to pass through u Removes a wide range of contaminants of concern (COCs) u Can attain strict drinking water standards u Recovery efficiency around 75% u Used in 1995 to calculate the value of the lost resource in the Zone A Sulfate Plume u Existing and functional disposal facility for the concentrate (or waste water)
86 Using Case Studies to Refine the Selection u Each case study includes • Contact information • Performance data • Costs data (if available) • Regulatory challenges • Stakeholder challenges • Reference Information u PDMS tech overview includes 2 case studies: • Bingham Canyon Water Treatment Plant (BCWTP); Copperton, Utah • Coal mine; Southwestern, Pennsylvania
87 Bingham Canyon Water Treatment Plant 2 1 Images From: http: //www. itrcweb. org/miningwasteguidance/cs 48_kennecott_south. htm 3
88 Removal Performance Comparison of Feed and Permeate Water Quality Concentration, mg/L Feed Water Permeate Water TDS removal efficiencies averaged 98. 7% over the operational period June 2009 to May 2010 Average Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Average Sulfate
89 Lesson Learned – Limitations on RO Concentrate Disposal Gilbert Bay of the Great Salt Lake Concentrate Water Quality Rack 3 Rack 4 8000 mg/L I-80 KUC North Tailings Impoundment - Active 6000 4000 KUC South Tailings Impoundment - Not Active 2000 0 Average TDS Average Sulfate Northern Front of the Oquirrh Mountains Magna, Utah Image from: Google Earth
Lesson Learned – Final Product Water Quality mg/L 90 u u 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Average TDS (mg/L) Average Sulfate (mg/L) TDS Compliance Limit (mg/L) Approximate Permeate TDS (mg/L) 2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 20092007 2008 2009 2010 Permeate (treated water) has a low mineral content and requires remineralization Final product water quality complies with State of Utah Drinking Water Standard for TDS (& Sulfate)
91 Product Volume – “Bang for the Buck” Production Volume Production Totals For Operational Years 4000 u Cost $15 Million in capital and $1. 2 Million annually for O&M u Average product water recovery rate has been 73. 8% u Will average 3500 acre-feet per year over the first five years of operations 3000 2000 1000 0 2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 20092007 2008 2009 2010 Acre-Feet per Year Gallons per Minute Rolling Average (ac- feet) • 1 acre-foot is approximate volume of water used by a family of four in 1 year
92 In Summary… u Provided overview of how to select a technology u Described information in technology overviews and case studies • Acknowledging those sections that can help select one technology over another u Demonstrated the decision path for picking one technology over another and why • Described why Pressure Driven Membrane Separation (PDMS) (and more specifically Reverse Osmosis (RO)) was selected over Administrative/Engineering Controls (AECs) or Ion Exchange for the Bingham Canyon Water Treatment Plant (BCWTP) site u Exemplified the types of performance information that is available in the case studies to refine selection
93 Overall Course Summary u Background to mining issues u Overview of guidance • Decision trees • Technologies • Case studies • Regulatory issues u Case study: Dunka Mine, Minnesota u Case study: Bingham Mine, Utah See also: Biochemical Reactors for Mining. Influenced Water at http: //www. itrcweb. org/bcr-1/
94 Follow ITRC Thank You u Question and answer break u Links to additional resources • http: //www. cluin. org/conf/itrc/mwtts/resource. cfm u Feedback form – please complete • http: //www. cluin. org/conf/itrc/mwtts/feedback. cfm Need confirmation of your participation today? Fill out the feedback form and check box for confirmation email and certificate.