Stockton Mine Acid Mine Drainage and Its Treatment using Waste Substrates in Biogeochemical Reactors Craig A. McCauley1, Aisling D. O’Sullivan2, Paul A. Weber3 and Dave Trumm4 1
2
PhD Candidate, University of Canterbury, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand,
[email protected]
Senior Lecturer, University of Canterbury, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand,
[email protected] (corresponding author)
3
Environmental Business Manager, Solid Energy New Zealand Limited, 2 Show Place, Christchurch, New Zealand,
[email protected]
4
Environmental Scientist and Geologist, CRL Energy Limited, 123 Blenheim Rd., Christchurch, New Zealand,
[email protected]
Abstract Thirteen acid mine drainage (AMD) sites were monitored at Stockton Coal Mine near Westport, New Zealand to identify and quantify contaminants of concern and delineate their spatial and temporal variability. Metals (primarily Fe and Al) were the key contaminants and measured at concentrations exceeding off-site compliance targets or the Australia and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council (ANZECC) water quality guidelines. Dissolved metal concentrations ranged from 0.05-1430 mg/L Fe, 0.200-627 mg/L Al, 0.0024-0.594 mg/L Cu, 0.0052-4.21 mg/L Ni, 0.01918.8 mg/L Zn, 4.0 and < 1 mg/L Al 99% of the time; however, this research has demonstrated that BGCRs are a potential alternative for treating AMD from select seeps. Conclusions Results of this study indicated that AMD chemistry was variable on a spatial and temporal basis at Stockton coal mine (by up to three orders of magnitude for major metal contaminants). Despite the variability, Fe and Al were consistently the primary metals of concern (accounting for >98% of metal loading) with Cu, Ni, Zn and Cd considered secondary pollutants of concern, which typically exceeded ANZECC trigger values for protection of 80% of freshwater aquatic species. Although
metal concentrations were elevated at the AMD sites evaluated during this study, these are not a true indication of the quality of water leaving the mine site. Currently, this AMD is effectively treated further downstream by the Mangatini fine limestone dosing plant, and Solid Energy New Zealand Limitied is progressing with and considering other treatment options for mitigating AMD. Results of mesocosm-scale BGCRs incorporating industrial waste products as alkaline and carbon substrate materials were successful at neutralising Manchester Seep AMD and sequestering metals (Fe, Al, Cu, Ni, Zn, Cd and Pb) to compliance levels. Design criteria for bioreactors incorporating 2030 vol% mussel shells was established at >0.8 mol metals/m3 substrate/day, which was about three times greater than similar systems employed oversees that utilised limestone instead of mussel shells. The BGCRs can likely be employed to treat AMD waters evaluated here with possible exception of the Collis Seeps, which contained metal concentrations that were an order of magnitude greater than that of any other AMD water sampled as part of this study; however, adequate land availability, site topography, equipment accessibility and operational management (including awareness and mitigation of current and future planned mining activities) are required for successful implementation. Suspended solids inherent at any active mine site should not be conveyed to BGCRs. Instead, mitigating sediment transport through settling ponds and pre-treating any AMD that may incur large suspended solid loads, is recommended. Although BGCRs may not be feasible for treating all AMD-impacted waters, they do have application as a more cost-effective treatment alternative to traditional lime-dosing systems, especially for abandoned and decommissioned mine sites. Overall, water quality discharging from BGCRs should treat most AMD waters substantially and improve biodiversity and ecological health of the receiving water body. Based on results of this study, there is potential to remove an average of 8.97 tonnes of total metals, 6.49 tonnes Fe and 2.38 tonnes Al per annum if BGCRs were employed to treat AMD discharging from the Manchester Pond. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported financially by Solid Energy New Zealand Limited., a Technology for Industry Fellowship awarded by Technology New Zealand, the Coal Association of New Zealand and the University of Canterbury Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering. Industrial mentoring was provided by Andrew Brough of Pattle Delamore Partners Limited (PDP). Technical and logistical support was provided by university technician Peter McGuigan and operational staff at Stockton coal mine. Sea Products, Limited. in Christchurch, New Zealand donated mussel shells. REFERENCES American Public Health Association (APHA) 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 20th edition. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. Anthony MK 1999. Ecology of streams contaminated by acid mine drainage near Reefton, South Island. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and Agricultural and
Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand 2000. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) water quality guidelines. Black A, Trumm DA, Lindsay P 2005. Impacts of coal mining on water quality and metal mobilization: case studies from West Coast and Otago. In: Moore TA, Black A, Centeno JA, Harding JS, Trumm DA eds. Metal contaminants in New Zealand: sources, treatments, and effects on ecology and human health. Resolutionz Press, Christchurch, New Zealand. Pp. 247260, Davies HG, Craw D, Peake BM, Weber PA, Lindsay P 2008. Geochemical changes following pH remediation within Mangatini Stream, Stockton Mine, West Coast New Zealand. In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the New Zealand Branch of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Wellington, New Zealand. 31 August-3 September 2008. pp. 129-140. Davies et al this volume Flores R, Sykes R 1996. Depositional controls on coal distribution and quality in the Eocene Brunner Coal Measures, Buller Coalfield, South Island, New Zealand. International Journal of Coal Geology 29: 291-336. Gibert O, de Pablo J, Cortina JL, Ayora C 2003. Evaluation of municipal compost/limestone/iron mixtures as filling material for permeable reactive barriers for in-situ acid mine drainage treatment. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology. 78: 489-496. Gusek JJ 2002. Sulfate-reducing bioreactor design and operating issues: is this the passive treatment technology for your mine drainage? In: Proceedings of the 2002 National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs Annual Conference. Park City, Utah. 15-18 September 2002. 13 pp. Gusek JJ 2004. Scaling up design challenges for large scale sulfate reducing bioreactors. In: Proceedings of the 2004 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation and the 25th West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force. Morgantown, West Virginia. 18-22 April 2004. Pp. 752-765. Gusek JJ, Wildeman TR 2002. Passive treatment of aluminum-bearing acid rock drainage. Presented at the 23rd Annual West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force Symposium. Morgantown, West Virginia. 16-17 April 2002. 9 pp. Harding JS 2005. Impacts of metals and mining on stream communities. In: Moore TA, Black A, Centeno JA, Harding JS, Trumm DA eds. Metal contaminants in New Zealand: sources, treatments, and effects on ecology and human health. Resolutionz Press, Christchurch, New Zealand. Pp. 343-357. Harding JS, Boothryd I 2004. Impacts of mining. In: Harding J, Pearson C, Sorrell B, Mosley P eds. Freshwaters of New Zealand, New Zealand Hydrological Society and New Zealand Limnological Society, Christchurch, New Zealand. Pp. 16.1-16.10. James TI 2003. Water quality of streams draining various coal measures in the North-Central West Coast. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the New Zealand Branch of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Greymouth, New Zealand. 3-5 September 2003. McCauley CA, O’Sullivan AD, Weber PA, Trumm DA 2008. Performance of mesocosm-scale sulfate-reducing bioreactors for treating acid mine drainage in New Zealand. In: Proceedings of the 2008 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation. Richmond, Virginia. 14-19 June 2008. Pp. 662-698. McCauley CA, O’Sullivan AD, Milke MW, Weber PA, Trumm DA 2009. Sulfate and Metal Removal in Bioreactors Treating Acid Mine Drainage Dominated with Iron and Aluminum. Water Research. 43 (2009): 961-970. Neculita CM, Zagury GJ, Bussiere B 2007. Passive treatment of acid mine drainage in bioreactors using sulfate-reducing bacteria: critical review and research needs. Journal of Environmental Quality. 36: 16 pp. Newman NA 1988. Mineral matter in coal of the West Coast, South Island, New Zealand. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Niyogi D, Harding J 2007. Coal mine drainage: complex effects on streams. The New Zealand Wastewater Association Journal. 152: 50-53.
O’Halloran K, Cavanagh J, Harding JS 2008. Response of a New Zealand mayfly (Deleatidium spp.) to acid mine drainage: implications for mine remediation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 27(5): 1135-1140. Pope J, Newman N, Craw D 2006. Coal mine drainage geochemistry, West Coast, South Island – a preliminary water quality hazard model. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the New Zealand Branch of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Waihi, New Zealand. 29 August-1 September 2006. 12 pp. Pope J, Newman N, Craw D, Trumm D, Rait R this volume. Factors that influence coal mine drainage chemistry, West Coast, South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics (Special Edition - Mine Drainages in New Zealand):xxx-xxx. Reisman D, Rutkowski T, Smart P, Gusek J 2008. The construction and instrumentation of a pilot treatment system at the Standard Mine Superfund Site, Crested Butte, Co. In: Proceedings of the 2008 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation. Richmond, Virginia. 14-19 June 2008. Pp. 892-909. Rose AW, CA Cravotta III 1998. Geochemistry of coal mine drainage. In: Brady KBC, Smith MW, Schueck J eds. Coal mine drainage prediction and pollution prevention in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA. Rose AW, Dietz JM 2002. Case studies of passive treatment systems: vertical flow systems. In: Proceedings of the 2002 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation. Lexington, Kentucky. 9-12 June 2002. Pp. 776-797. Skousen JG 1996. Acid mine drainage. In: Skousen J, Ziemkiewicz P eds. Acid mine drainage control and treatment. National Mine Reclamation Center, West Virginia University. Pp. 9-12. Stumm W, Morgan JJ 1981. Aquatic Chemistry. Wiley Interscience. 470pp. Thomas RC, Romanek CS. 2002a. Passive treatment of low-pH, ferric-iron dominated acid rock drainage in a vertical flow wetland II: metal removal. In: Proceedings of the 2002 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation. Lexington, Kentucky. 9-13 June 2002. Pp. 752-775. Thomas RC, Romanek CS. 2002b. Acid rock drainage in a vertical flow wetland I: acidity neutralization and alkalinity generation. In: Proceedings of the 2002 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation. Lexington, Kentucky. 9-13 June 2002. Pp. 723751. Trumm DA, Black A, Gordon K., Canach J, O’Halloran K, de Joux A 2005. Acid mine drainage assessment and remediation at an abandoned west coast coal mine. In: Moore TA, Black A, Centeno JA, Harding JS, Trumm DA eds. Metal contaminants in New Zealand: sources, treatments, and effects on ecology and human health. Resolutionz Press, Christchurch, New Zealand. Pp. 317-340. Trumm D, Watts M, Pope J, Lindsay P 2008. Using pilot trials to test geochemical treatment of acid mine drainage on Stockton Plateau. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 51: 175186. Trumm D, Watts M this volume. AMD treatment in New Zealand - use of small-scale passive systems. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics (Special Edition - Mine Drainages in New Zealand):xxx-xxx Watzlaf G, Schroeder K, Kleinmann R, Kairies C, Nairn R 2004. The passive treatment of coal mine drainage. National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy. Information Circular. Waybrant KR, Blowes DW, Ptacek CJ 1998. Selection of reactive mixtures for use in permeable reactive walls for treatment of mine drainage. Environmental Science and Technology. 32: 1972-1979. Weber PA, Skinner WM, Lindsay P, Moore TA 2006. Source of Ni in coal mine acid rock drainage, West Coast, New Zealand. International Journal of Coal Geology. 67 (4): 214-220. Wildeman TR, Gusek JJ, Higgins J 2006. Passive treatment of mine influenced waters. Course Material for the ARD Treatment Short Course presented at the 7th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage (ICARD). St. Louis, Missouri. 25-30 March 2006. Winterbourn MJ, McDiffett WF, Eppley SJ 2000. Aluminium and iron burdens of aquatic biota in
New Zealand streams contaminated by acid mine drainage: effect of trophic level. Science of the Total Environment. 254: 45-54. Younger P, Banwart S, Hedin R 2002. Mine water: hydrology, pollution, remediation. Kluwer Academic, London. 442 pp. Zagury GJ, Kulnieks VI, Neculita CM 2006. Characterization and reactivity assessment of organic substrates for sulphate-reducing bacteria in acid mine drainage treatment. Chemosphere. 64: 944-954. Figure Captions Fig. 1 Stockton Mine project site location (West Coast, South Island, New Zealand) (from MapToaster Topo 2007). Fig. 2 Location of AMD seeps sampled at Stockton Coal Mine and the catchments they drain into including the Waimangaroa River, Mangatini Stream and Ngakawau River (aerial photo from Google Earth (2009)). Fig. 3 pH ranges from AMD sample locations at Stockton Mine. The variable n represents the number of observations from each sample location. Median concentrations are displayed when n≥3. Fig. 4 Dissolved Fe and Al concentration ranges from AMD sample locations at Stockton Mine. The variable n represents the number of observations from each sample location. Mean concentrations are displayed when n≤2. Median concentrations are displayed when n≥3. Bolded horizontal lines delineate compliance targets at the confluence of the Mangatini Stream and Ngakawau River. Fig. 5 Dissolved Cu and Ni concentration ranges from AMD sample locations at Stockton Mine. The variable n represents the number of observations from each sample location. Mean concentrations are displayed when n≤2. Median concentrations are displayed when n≥3. Bolded horizontal lines delineate ANZECC trigger values for protection of 80% species. The ANZECC trigger values for Cu and Ni are hardness dependent. Fig. 6 Dissolved Mn and Zn concentration ranges from AMD sample locations at Stockton Mine. The variable n represents the number of observations from each sample location. Mean concentrations are displayed when n≤2. Median concentrations are displayed when n≥3. Bolded horizontal lines delineate ANZECC trigger values for protection of 80% species. The ANZECC trigger value for Zn is hardness dependent. Fig. 7 Dissolved Pb, Cd and As concentration ranges (hanging bar graphs) from AMD sample locations at Stockton Mine. The variable n represents the number of observations from each sample location. Mean concentrations are displayed when n≤2. Median concentrations are displayed when n≥3. Bolded horizontal lines delineate ANZECC trigger values for protection of 80% species. The ANZECC trigger values for Cd and Pb are hardness dependent. The PQLs were 0.001 mg/L As, 0.0005 mg/L Pb and 0.00005 mg/L Cd. Fig. 8 Influent (AMD) and effluent (P1, P2, P3, S1, S2, S3 and S4) dissolved Fe and Al concentrations from mesocosm-scale treatability tests during metal loading rates from 0.23 to 0.83 mol/m3 substrate/day. Horizontal black lines represent median Fe and Al concentrations. P signifies BGCRs comprised of drums. S denotes trapezoidal-prism shaped BGCRs.
Table 1 Biogeochemical reactor substrate compositions (vol. percent). S1
Limestone Mussel Shells NSD Bark Post Peel Compost
S2 S3 S4 Trapezoidal Containers - 337 L (Substrate Depth – 440 mm) 12.5 0.0 0.0 5.0
P1 P2 P3 Cylindrical Drums - 138 L (Substrate Depth – 562 mm) 0.0 5.0 2.5
0.0
20
20
12
30
12
12
0.0 35 37.5 15
0.0 40 25 15
0.0 30 35 15
0.0 30 38 15
0.0 30 25 15
0.0 30 38 15
5.0 30 35 15
Table 2 Flow rates and calculated metal loading rates from the Manchester Seep, Manchester Pond and the Collis Seeps. Loading rates from the Collis Seeps were computed from either the summation of Collis Seeps 1 and 3 or from the drainage channel directly downstream of the seeps. Data represents mean loading rates ± standard deviations with the data ranges specified below in parenthesis. The number of observations (n) were: 11 for the Manchester Seep; 4 for the Manchester Pond Outlet; and 5 for the Collis Seeps.
Flow Total Metals Fe Al
Manchester Seep Manchester Pond Flow Rates (L/s) 2.36±2.44 1.50±0.48 (0.34-10.5) (0.87-2.00) Loading Rates (kg/day) 20.2±18.2 24.8±9.01 (0.44-57.1) (16.7-31.2) 14.7±15.0 18.1±17.5 (0.13-45.3) (11.2-25.1) 5.26±3.26 6.53±1.72 (0.31-11.0) (5.09-8.87)
Collis Seeps 0.33±0.14 (0.15-0.53) 46.1±14.7 (27.3-63.4) 31.8±10.3 (18.4-43.8) 13.8±4.25 (8.59-18.9)
Table 3 Measured pH and influent (Manchester Seep AMD) and effluent dissolved metal concentrations and calculated removal efficiencies from BGCRs containing 20-30 vol.% mussel shells (P1, S2 and S3) at metal loading rates of 0.23-0.83 mol/m3 substrate/day. Data are median concentrations or removal efficiencies with ranges denoted in parentheses. Removal efficiencies for total metals is based on removal of the summation of all metals analysed during this study with exception of Mn, which accounted for
