REVIEW OF MINE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Contents
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ 4
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5
2 Objectives and Scope of Research ................................................................................. 6
3 Methodology of Search .................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Internet Searching ..................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Resources from MEND/NEDEM ............................................................................... 7
4 Review of Mining Wastes ................................................................................................ 8
4.1 Mining ........................................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Mining Wastes ........................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Impacts of Mine Wastes ......................................................................................... 11
5 Review of Mine Rock Waste Management .................................................................. 12
5.1 Acid Leachate .......................................................................................................... 12
5.1.1 Management of Acid Leachate of Mine Waste Rocks ................................... 15
5.2 Eye-Sore and Land Use Management.................................................................... 19
5.2.1 Management Techniques ................................................................................ 19
5.3 Coal Mine Wastes.................................................................................................... 19
6 References ..................................................................................................................... 20
List of Figures
Figure 4-1 Schematic cross-sections of open pit mines: (a) metal mines; (b) coal and oil
shale mines. (Lottermoser, 2010) .......................................................................................... 9
Figure 5-1 Schematic Cross Section of a Sulphide Waste Dump (Harraz, 2010) ............. 13
List of Tables
Figure 4-1 Schematic cross-sections of open pit mines: (a) metal mines; (b) coal and oil
shale mines. (Lottermoser, 2010) .......................................................................................... 9
Figure 5-1 Schematic Cross Section of a Sulphide Waste Dump (Harraz, 2010) ............. 13
1 Introduction
The rising environmental concerns during the last few years demand mitigating
measures for the impacts made on ecological and social activities by the industries.
Mining is the provider of the raw material resource base to almost all the sectors. The
production of industrial minerals leads to the creation of mine wastes, which needs to be
managed appropriately.

The reliance of industry on utilizing alternative uses and renewable resources for
production have given a competition to the mining sector to adopt best of all possible
uses for the land. Not only industrialized countries but other developing countries have
implemented environmental protection and rehabilitation policies and legal framework.
The mining conglomerates have shifted to underdeveloped countries for extraction of
metals, coal and other industrial minerals in the last few decades. The primary catalyst in
this activity was Low labor cost, exploration potential, and minimum existing
environmental policies (Hodges, 1995). While industrialized countries focused on the
formulation of ecological reports and implementation of environmental framework laws
in the 1970s (e.g., USA, Central Europe, Japan), developing countries like Chile, Peru,
Korea, and Pakistan started this process only recently in the 1990s (Weidner, 1997).

The increasing world population along with economic growth and industrialization in
developing countries like China and India, there is an ever-growing demand for metals
and industrial minerals which can be associated with environmental impact assessments
(Dold, 2013).

Concerning the raising attention for the environmental impacts of mining, there have
been the latest developments of mine waste management front where new techniques
have been adopted. Mostly, the base idea for the mine waste management remains
novelish due to techno-economic parameters which change from region to region.
Effective and efficient waste management programs are required to ensure long-term
environmental stability.

While very rare, the failure of dams and related mine waste management systems as a
result of various conditions can significantly affect the environment. Significant problems
have occurred in previous years in Spain, Italy, Guyana, Romania, South Africa, and the
Philippines, and Canada and the USA (but fortunately on a smaller scale). During the
study of 18,000 mines around the globe, the failure rate among the mines was 1.2%
during 100 years (ICOLD, 2001).

The environmental considerations are made for the neighboring communities as it is

their rights and duty of mine operator while the responsibility of the state. In the previous
few decades, there is a positive trend in mine operators to improve its environmental
performance eagerly.
2 Objectives and Scope of Research
The objective of this research was to overview a literature review of mine waste
management techniques and methods. This research attempted to identify world-wide
mine waste management techniques and developments in this regard. The result of this
research can be utilized in perspective mines in Pakistan. This review may also indicate
areas in which further research and development are needed.
3 Methodology of Search
This Literature Review Paper focuses on the management techniques adopted for the
mine solid wastes. The mine solid wastes are least managed in the developing countries.
The methods adopted in developed countries are to be researched to understand the
concepts of techniques being utilized for their mitigation.

In the recent years, the focus of authorities has been shifted towards the protection of
the environment. Mines are one of the biggest producers of the wastes. Many categories
of the wastes are produced by the mines. In developing countries, management of solid
wastes has not been adopted properly. In India and Pakistan, the overburden/waste rock
produced is left in form of heaps and piles leading to various environmental threats.

Therefore the study of mine solid waste management techniques is essential to

understand the latest methodologies being adopted for the mitigation of the
environmental impacts of mines.

During this research, a worldwide search for documents on mine waste management
was done through the following sources:

a. Internet search
b. Recourses from MEND/NEDEM

3.1 Internet Searching

It was discovered during the search that searching via the Internet was a very effective
way of revealing valuable information on relevant publications and organizations. Several
web sites and organizations were identified on the Internet, which provided valuable
information on the subject.

3.2 Resources from MEND/NEDEM

In 2002, a renewed MEND initiative created that focus on Canadian national and
regional information needs. A network of Canadian experts was brought together to help
identify the top priorities that included but not limited to verification of mitigation
technologies, closure management of mines, early predictions, neutral and alkaline pH
drainage systems, sludge management of mines, passive treatment, and cold
temperature effects. Strong emphasis was made on the need for guidance documents,
literature reviews, and technology transfer activities.
4 Review of Mining Wastes
4.1 Mining
At the beginning of every surface mining project, the area must first be cleared of top soil
to reach the bedrock. This material is called overburden. The topsoil can be utilized
within the mine operations, such as to construct roads.

To liberate the ore from the rock, explosives are used. The ground is drilled with holes,
which are filled with explosives that blast the rock to pieces. This method is called as
drilling and blasting. Sometimes, the material can also be collected via excavators or
bulldozers.

Excavators collected the rock and transported by trucks or dumpers. The surrounding
rock containing a lower concentration of the ore is removed to reach valuable ore. This
surrounding rock is known as waste rock. The waste rock is moved out of mine and is
usually deposited in the shape of piles or heaps. The quantity of waste rock produced is
relative to the quantity of ore mined is called the stripping ratio. The stripping ratio is
dependent on the depth and geometry of the ore body, the mining method, and the
composition and stability of the rock.

In underground mines, the amount of waste rock produced is comparatively a lot less as
relatively a smaller opening is made to access the ore and mine it. Various mining
methods subject to techno-economic parameters can be applied to utilize the solid mine
waste inside the mines as filling or packing material.

4.2 Mining Wastes

Before leading to the management techniques adopted to mitigate the mine wastes, it
would be useful first to identify the types of mine wastes. While the amount of waste
produced from a mine can be substantial, not all waste is considered harmful to the
environment (geointro, 2019). Some waste can even be used in other applications, such
as in building materials. When the waste contains certain minerals in enough quantity
along with poor management of the waste, it can become a substantial risk for
communities around mines in terms of environment and health.

Mine waste is present in several stages of the mining processes and throughout the life
of the mine. Several types of waste are generated in mine, but three types stand out with
the most massive volume:

a. waste rock,
b. tailings, and
c. mine water
Figure 4-1 Schematic cross-sections of open pit mines: (a) metal mines; (b) coal and oil shale mines.
(Lottermoser, 2010)
According to USGS Mining Wastes Overview, there are majorly four types of mine wastes,
as shown in Table No. 4-1 (Smith, 2003).

Table 4-1 Types of Mine Wastes, their Physical Characteristics, and Problems

Type Physical Characteristics Problems

Waste igneous, metamorphic,
sedimentary; very coarse High permeability, acidic
Rock Waste
fragments, unprocessed leachate
heterogeneous
Wind erosion before
Tailings Silt-size, processed consolidation, acidic
leachate
Sedimentary Rock, Acidic leachate, eyesore land
Coal Waste
interbedded coal, processed usage
Radioactive Processed Low-level radiation, radon

All types of minerals mining generate waste material. The quantum of waste generation,
however, does depend on the nature of the occurrence of the deposit, the topography of
the area, etc (RAJDEEP DAS, 2013).

Table 4-2 Sector Specific Wastes Generated During Mining

Sector Mining Type Beneficiation/Processing Primary Waste

Surface Cyanidation Mine Water
Underground Elution Overburden
In-Situ Zinc Precipitation Spent Process Solutions
Gold-Silver Experimental Milling
Base metal floatation Spent ore
Smelting
Amalgamation
Underground Milling Mine Water
Floatation Overburden/Waste Rock
Lead-Zinc
Sintering Tailing
Smelting Slag
Surface Milling Mine Water
Underground Floatation Overburden
In-Situ Smelting Tailings
Copper
Acid-Leaching Slag
SX/EW Recovery Spent ore
Iron Precipitation Spend leach solution
Surface Milling Mine water
Iron
Magnetic Separation Overburden/waste rock
 Underground Gravity Separation Tailings
Floatation Slag
Agglomeration
Blast Furnace
In Situ (Bayer
Filtering Red Mud
Process)
Various chemical
emissions like Fluoride,
Bauxite Smelting PAHs, Sulphur Dioxide,
Carbon Dioxide, Inorganic
Fluorides, etc
Electrolysis Cathode Waste
Underground Milling Overburden
Overburden &
Underground Milling
Limestone Intraburden
Surface Milling Overburden

4.3 Impacts of Mine Wastes

There are many ways to operate a mine such as; open cast, open pit, underground
method, surface stripping or hydraulic leaching. The mining operation may also include
milling. Mining and milling methods both influence the nature and amount of wastes that
are generated (Bruno Bussière, 2014).

The wastes include the overburden excavated to reach the ore or valuable mineral, the
waste rock that have no economical value that must be exacavted to reach the ore, and
the mill tailings produced at the processing plant. To these, one can add mine waters
pumped to the surface, sediments produced by clarification of waters from the mine or
the mill, and the sludge produced by the treatment of contaminated water (especially
acidic waters). These wastes must be managed properly during the life of the mine and
after, at the reclamation stage (Aubertin, 2001).
5 Review of Mine Rock Waste Management
Waste Rock is rock emerging from the mine that holds less or no economic value.
Therefore, it can either be ore which is below cut-off grade or a barren rock with no
economic significance (Harraz, 2010).

The waste rock dumps present around the mines have a wide range of different minerals
which is site specific depending upon the host rock and ore deposit’s nature. If sulfide
minerals are present in any rock, there is potential for acid mine drainage.

Usually, the rock dump sites are not sealed at their base due to which the risk of acid
water storming off into surface drainage systems or aquifers is high. Moreover, the rock
waste dumps have high permeability due to which there is a high risk of Acid Mine
Drainage production.

There are generally two environmental impacts of rock wastes:

1. Acid Leachate such as AMD & ARD

2. Eye Sore

5.1 Acid Leachate

Polymineralic aggregates usually cause sulfidic mine wastes. The aggregates apart from
sulfides contain a wide range of minerals including silicates, oxides, hydroxides,
phosphates, halides, and carbonates. Silicates remain the most common gangue
minerals, and the sulfides may represent ore or gangue phases. Thus, the mineralogy of
sulfidic wastes and ores is highly heterogeneous and deposit specific (Lottermoser,
2010).

Sulfides are produced in reducing environments with little or no amount of oxygen.

Therefore, they tend to become unstable and oxidize when they come in contact with
atmospheric oxygen.

Metallic ions are released into the solution when sulfide minerals oxidize. On the
generation of hydrogen ions (H+) during the process, the pH of water is lowered. Acid and
metallic rich water coming due to the oxidation of sulfide minerals is known as acid rock
drainage (ARD). When Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) is happening at an enormous scale with
high concentrations within a mine, it is called as acid mine drainage (AMD). The process
of ARD and AMD is, however, the same (geointro, 2019).

When mining exposes sulfidic materials to an oxidizing environment, the materials

become chemically unstable. A series of complex chemical weathering reactions are
spontaneously initiated. This occurs because the mineral assemblages contained in the
waste are not in equilibrium with the surface environment. Weathering of the minerals
proceeds with the help of atmospheric gases, meteoric water, and microorganisms. The
chemical weathering of an individual mineral within a polymineralic aggregate can be
classified as an acid producing (i.e., generation of H+), acid buffering (i.e., consumption
of H+), or non-acid generating or consuming reaction (i.e., no generation or consumption
of H+).
For example, the degradation of pyrite is an acid producing reaction, whereas the
weathering of calcite is acid buffering, and the dissolution of quartz does not consume or
generate any acid. The balance of all chemical reactions, occurring within a particular
waste at any time, will determine whether the material will turn acid and produce AMD
(D.W.Blowes, 2003).

Generally, a “plume” shape of contaminated water (which may or may not be acidic) and
precipitated waste products are developed below and around a rock dump.

Figure 5-1 Schematic Cross Section of a Sulphide Waste Dump (Harraz, 2010)

Pyrite is the dominant metal sulfide mineral in many ore deposits and as such plays a
vital role in the formation of AMD. However, other sulfide minerals commonly occur with
pyrite, and their oxidation also influences the chemistry of mine waters. The weathering
of these sulfides may occur via direct or indirect oxidation with the help of oxygen, iron,
and bacteria (Claire L. Corkhill D. V., 2009) (Claire L. Corkhill P. L., 2008)
Table 5-1Examples of simplified acid producing reactions in sulfidic wastes
5.1.1 Management of Acid Leachate of Mine Waste Rocks
Uncontrolled sulfide oxidation can lead to the generation of AMD. Appropriate strategies
are needed to avoid sulfide oxidation and the generation of AMD.

Factors that cause oxidation are:

a. sulfide minerals,
b. bacteria,
c. water,
d. iron, and
e. oxygen.

The removal of one or more of them leads to blocking/controlling of sulfide oxidation.

These methods aim to reduce the interaction between the waste and the other reactants.

Established control strategies include:

a. barriers (i.e., wet and dry covers)

b. selective handling and isolation,
c. co-disposal and blending with other materials,
d. the addition of organic wastes, and
e. bacterial inhibition (Brown M, 2002) (VP, 1998)

More technologically advanced and innovative strategies involve induced hardpan

formation, grouting, or mineral surface treatments. Both established and innovative
sulfide oxidation control strategies are generally designed to induce one or more of the
following:

a. Exclusion of water;
b. Exclusion of oxygen;
c. pH control;
d. Control of Fe3+ generation;
e. Control of bacterial action; and
f. Removal and isolation of sulfides

Not always a single technology is suitable to all mine site situation, and combination of
technologies needs to be applied for better results. Utilization of dry or wet covers is an
effective way to reduce oxygen availability to slow down the oxidation rate.

5.1.1.1 Wet Covers

The submergence of rock waste having sulfide minerals underwater remains an effective
way to mitigate acid generation. The concentration of oxygen in water is three times less
than that found in the atmosphere. The oxygen dissolves in water very less, and its
movement is not high. This also reduces the movement of oxygen in rock waste. After the
utilization of available oxygen, the rate of sulfide oxidation is reduced, and the anoxic
environment is created. The erosion is reduced, and sulfate-reducing bacteria growth is
seen which immobilize metals as sulfides. Oxygen still can enter in surface waters due to
vertical mixing of wind-induced waves, and the turbulence caused mixing. Therefore the
depth of the water cover has to be of such length that does not let oxidation happen. The
sulfidic rock wastes are kept in natural or engineered water covers such as worked out
open pits. The wet covers are not suitable for arid and semi-arid regions as drying out of
water will again start the process of oxidation, and AMD/ARD will generate.

Instantaneous flooding can be applied in underground mines and open pits to prevent
AMD from developing. This is useful where mine workings are located below the water
table.

5.1.1.2 Dry Covers

As the name proposes, this method is opposite to the wet covers. In this method, the
sulfide waste rocks are covered with a thick layer of solid material to stop acid
production. These dry covers serve a similar purpose as water does that is cutting off
oxygen flux and water flow to the waste rocks. This means two benefits:

1. Cutting off oxygen flux will slow the oxidation reactions, and
2. Reduction in water flow will cause no or minimum drainage of contaminated
water.

The materials used for dry covers have low hydraulic conductivity such as waste rocks
having low sulfide values, clay subsoils, organic wastes, and other neutralizing materials
such as limestone, lime, etc.

The dry cover usually has a clay layer which is roughly 1 meter thick. This layer is
adequately compacted to reduce hydrological conductivity. Where there is a shortage of
clay, coarse-grained material is compacted in the formulation of low permeability seals.
In old aged waste rocks, the oxidation and weathering lead to the formation of clay
minerals. These provide a natural barrier to oxidation and generation of AMD.

There are many types of dry covers such as simple clay barriers and complex &
composite dry covers which have many layers. It may be designed as follows:

1. Soil-Rock Layer: This will keep the moisture, supportive to vegetation and
safeguards against erosion
• Coarse-grained Layer: This is for the lateral drainage of any infiltration done;
• Compact Clay Layer: It is usually 30 mm thick and has low air voids, with
minimum permeability and oxygen rate of diffusion reduced to the waste rock
• Coarse-Grained Layer: This acts as a barrier/cushion between saline wastewater
and cover, & also avoids precipitation of secondary salts; and
• Acid Buffering Layer: Usually of lime which reduces the reaction of waste rock with
the overlying layer and forms a chemical protective cap.

The regions where vegetation is not supportive, to avoid erosion a rock layer is added on
top. Other types of players can also be added such as epoxy resins, chemical-based
layers, wood chips, municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, etc.
The vegetation cover remains an integral part of mine rehabilitation. Moreover, the
vegetation also promotes soil stability, effective dry cover, and reduce off-site effects.
The climatic conditions are also important as they drive the type of dry cover to be
formed, such as:

a. Unsaturated Dry Covers

In semi-arid and arid areas where evaporation is more than rainfall, only unsaturated
covers can be used. Unsaturated covers comprise a variety of geological materials (e.g.,
alluvium, topsoil, oxide waste). They have the following composition:

i. Compacted fine-grained layer

ii. A layer of acid buffering materials

The covers are designed to maximize rainfall run-off and to minimize water infiltration
and oxygen diffusion into the waste. The cover is topped with loose soil or benign waste
layer needed to promote the establishment of vegetation. However, a relatively thin top
layer means that trees need to be removed regularly to prevent roots penetrating and
damaging the layer design and allowing access of oxygen to the sulfidic waste.

b. Saturdated Dry Covers

In wet regions, this cover avoids ingress of oxygen to sulfide waste rocks. The capping is
layered in such manner that saturated layer is maintained all around the year, and water
is provided by rainfall.

The basic design involves a medium-grained material such as sandy clay with medium
hydraulic conductivity underlain by fine-grained materials such as clay with low hydraulic
conductivity. The layer of sandy clay is designed to hold water from infiltrating rainfall and
to act as a water reservoir keeping the pores close to saturation; that is, the layer acts as
a moisture retention layer. The clay layer may be compacted or uncompacted.

Capillary suction forces prevent drainage of this layer with low hydraulic conductivity. A
coarse-grained layer of rock, below the clay and at the base of the cover, drains first and
provides a capillary break to the movement of any AMD waters rising from the sulfidic
material below. An additional coarse-grained layer may also be installed above the clay
layer in order to reduce evaporation of the clay layer. At the surface, a layer of gravelly
sand/soil is placed above the sandy clay zone. The soil is not the only a substrate for the
vegetation but also protects the underlying cover from erosion.

c. Store & Release Dry Covers

The store-and-release covers are suitable for climates with distinctly seasonal rainfall
(Currey NA, 1999). The covers are designed to store water in an upper cover layer. An
irregular topography prevents surface run-off, and much of the drainage flows into the
waste. The porous, loose top layer becomes saturated with water during a precipitation
event. It then functions as an oxygen ingress barrier for the underlying sulfidic waste. The
barrier uses the low solubility and slow transport of oxygen in water, reducing oxygen
ingress in the same manner as a water cover does. Percolation of water into the waste is
limited because the majority of the stored water is removed through evapotranspiration.
Vegetation plays a significant role in using and pumping water from these covers
(Williams DJ, 1997). The pumping action of plants prevents the stored water from
infiltrating the underlying sulfidic waste. Nonetheless, cover failures may still be possible.

5.1.1.3 Encapsulation, In-Pit Disposal, and Mixing

During mining activities where there happen to be sulfidic ores, the waste produced has
different acid generation characteristics. They can be handled selectively to produce
dumps whose AMD/ARD potential is less. Less dangerous waste can be used to create a
buffer capacity to stop ARD.

a. We can enclose the sulfide-bearing rocks in non-reactive waste material which

can be an oxidized waste or neutralized material. This is called encapsulation
method (Cook T, 2008)
b. We can also backfill the waste rock at the end of mining operations into open pits.
This is called the in-pit disposal method. The waste is placed lower than the after
mining ground water table
c. We can also mix highly sulfidic waste and less dangerous waste. This is a mixing
technique

These techniques do not stop ARD/AMD but reduce them significantly.

5.1.1.4 Blending
The mixing of sulfide waste with alkaline material is another option. This can be referred
to as Co-disposal. It is the mixing of coarse-grained waste sulfide rock with fine-grained
tailings or coal washery wastes (Rensburg van L, 2004).

This method has numerous advantages. The fine tailings or benign material fills the large
pores of waste rocks altering the hydraulic properties of the sulfide waste. Due to this,
oxygen transfer is decreased.

In dry covers, we can blend alkaline material in the waste rock to increase the
neutralization potential of the waste rock. These materials can be limestone or any acid
buffering rock waste available on mine site. Surface applications of some alkaline
materials or applications under thin soil cover have not been successful (Smith and
Brady 1998).

The major disadvantage of blending is that it does not prevent sulfide oxidation.

5.1.1.5 Organic Waste

Sometimes the addition of organic wastes prevents sulfide oxidation.

The wastes can be used as a compacted subsurface layer in dry cover designs or as
amendments to create reactive, low permeability biomass surfaces. Trialed organic
materials include sewage sludge, wood chips, sawdust, manure, peat, pulp and paper
mill residues, and municipal solid waste compost (Cabral A, 1997).
The main technical challenge associated with implementing this technique in the field
will be delivering sufficient amounts of microbial communities and organic waste to
individual sulfide grains in an entire waste pile (Jin S, 2008).

5.1.1.6 Bactericides
Bacteria of certain types increase the rate of pyrite oxidation. Hence, antibacterial
agents, so-called bactericides, have been used to inhibit the growth of these
microorganisms (RLP, Mine drainage systems, 1997).

Compounds such as anionic surfactants, cleaning detergents, organic acids, and food
preservatives have been screened as selective bactericides. There happen to be clear
advantages in the use of bactericides, such as decreased pyrite oxidation and metal
mobility; there are also disadvantages and potential risks. The applied compound may
cause toxicity to other organisms; there is the possibility of resistance development, and
it is difficult to reach all zones of the sulfidic waste (RLP, Bactericidal control of acidic
drainage, 1998).

5.2 Eye-Sore and Land Use Management

In underdeveloped countries where the mining trends are at a rise, the waste rock is
piled up in huge piles, and mining companies take no measures to avoid run-off or dust
from waste rocks.

The overburden ratio for surface mining of metal ores generally ranges from 2:1 to 8:1
depending on local conditions (GROUP, 1998). The ratio for solid wastes from
underground mining is typically around 0.2:1 (GROUP, 1998).

The best use for waste rock is to backfill the excavated land, but it is rarely done in
practice as companies keep opening different faces of the mines without completely
exhausting any one of them. Fines from these dumps are carried by rainwater into nearby
watercourses or lands and pollutes both. During dry summers, these dumps become a
key source of air pollution for the surrounding areas.

5.2.1 Management Techniques

The overburden management and stabilization are essential from the environmental and
aesthetic point of view. The most common method of stabilization of rock pile is by
plantation. Tree species generally reclaim overburden dumps as plantation improves the
moisture contents, bulk density, pH and overall nutrient contents of soils. Tree species
like Dalbergia sissoo, Eucalyptus, Cassia seamen, Acacia mangium, and Peltaphorum are
found to be ideal for bioreclamation of overburden dumps.

5.3 Coal Mine Wastes

Coal mining can generate the most significant quantity of mine wastes. The
environmental issues related to the wastes produced by coal mining are exposure to
earth materials which are reduced, to oxygen (PL, 2004). The oxidation of coal and its
waste rock can result in in the release of acid waters because of pyrite oxidation.

The management of coal wastes is similar to ones described in the above sections.
6 References
Aubertin, M. B. (2001). Environnement et gestion des. Presses Internationales.

Brown M, B. B. (2002). Minewater treatment: technology, application and policy.

International Water Association Publishing.

Bruno Bussière, M. A. (2014). Meeting environmental challenges for mine waste

management. WASTE GEOTECHNICS.

Cabral A, L. G. (1997). Use of deinking residues as cover material in the prevention of

AMD generation at an abandoned mine site. Tailings and mine waste, 257-266.

Claire L. Corkhill, D. V. (2009). Arsenopyrite oxidation – A review. Applied Geochemistry.

Claire L. Corkhill, P. L. (2008). The oxidative dissolution of arsenopyrite (FeAsS) and

enargite (Cu3AsS4) by Leptospirillum ferrooxidans. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta.

Cook T, S. J. (2008). Covering pre-existing, acid-producing fills with alkaline sandstone to

control acid mine drainage. Mine Water Environ, 259-264.

Currey NA, R. P. (1999). Field performance and optimisation of two low flux soil cover
systems for the prevention of acid mine drainage in a semi arid environment.
Proceedings of the 24th annual Minerals Council of Australia environmental
workshop. Minerals Council of Australia, 458-465.

D.W.Blowes, C. J. (2003). The Geochemistry of Acid Mine Drainage. Treatise on

Geochemistry, 9, 149-204.

Dold, B. (2013). Basic Concepts in Environmental Geochemistry of Sulfidic Mine-Waste

Management. ChemInform Abstract.

geointro. (2019). Geointro. Retrieved from Geological Survey of Sweden:

https://www.sgu.se/en/geointro/lecture-4-mining-waste/

GROUP, W. B. (1998). Base Metal and Iron Ore Mining. WORLD BANK GROUP.

Harraz, H. Z. (2010, March). Mine wastes. Mine wastes. Research Gate.

Hodges, C. A. (1995). Mineral Resources, Environmental Issues, and Land Use. American
Association for the Advancement of Science.

ICOLD. (2001). “Tailings Dams—risk of dangerous occurrences,. Paris: United Nations

Environmental Programme (UNEP), Division of Technology, Industry and
Economics (DTIE) and International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD).

Jin S, F. P. (2008). Biological source treatment of acid mine drainage using microbial and
substrate amendments: microcosm studies. Mine Water Environ, 20-30.
Lottermoser, B. G. (2010). Mine Wastes Characterization, Treatment and Environmental
Impacts. Springer.

PL, Y. (2004). Environmental impacts of coal mining and associated wastes: a

geochemical perspective. Energy, waste, and the environment: a geochemical
perspective, 169-209.

RAJDEEP DAS, I. C. (2013). WASTE MANAGEMENT IN MINING INDUSTRY. Indian Journal

of Science and Technology.

Rensburg van L, M. M. (2004). Rehabilitation of co-disposed diamond tailings: growth

medium rectification procedures and indigenous grass establishment. Water Air
Spoil Poll, 101-113.

RLP, K. (1997). Mine drainage systems. Mining environmental handbook: effects of

mining on the environment and American environmental controls on mining, 237-
244.

RLP, K. (1998). Bactericidal control of acidic drainage. Coal mine drainage prediction
and pollution prevention in Pennsylvania.

Smith, S. F. (2003). Mining Wastes Overview. SmithBillings Symposium / ASMR Annual

MeetingAssessing the Toxicity Potentialof Mine-Waste Piles Workshop.

VP, E. (1998). Pyrite chemistry: the key for abatement of acid mine drainage. Acidic
mining lakes: acid mine drainage, limnology and, 197-222.

Weidner, H. J. (1997). Capacity Building in National Environmental Policy. Berlin:

Springer.

Williams DJ, W. G. (1997). A cover system for a potentially acid forming waste rock dump
in a dry climate. Tailings and mine waste, 231-236.