Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

ACID MINE DRAINAGE (AMD) MANAGEMENT

Acid mine drainage (AMD) is a problem that is always faced by the coal mining industry in the
world. AMD's processing process requires large costs while the results of the processing do not
bring financial benefits to the company. AMD prevention is better than processing it because it is
more reliable for the long term and minimizes risk.

In many cases, geochemical characterization is the key to success, predicting good water quality
and waste management (rock) can prevent or minimize the occurrence of AMD. However, it must
be realized that AMD prevention must start from exploration and continue to post-mining.

Geochemical assessments were carried out to characterize the geochemistry of the overburden,
interburden and floor layers of coal seams and determine the potential for acid mine drainage
(AMD) in the mine area. The specific scope of the proposed work is as follows:
• Material classification of Potential Acid Forming (PAF) and Non Potential Acid Forming (NAF).
• Determination of appropriate methods for handling and selective PAF and NAF materials in
pit and waste dump areas.

In the classification of PAF and NAF material needed some following tests:
1. Paste pH Test,
2. Total Sulphur (TS) Test,
3. Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) Test,
4. Net Acid Generation (NAG) Test.

The test samples were obtained from 7 borehole points, namely JL4100GT, JL4122GT,
JL4132GT, JL4097GT, JL4155GT, JL4131GT, and JL4138GT. Sample depth taken varies from
each drill hole.

1. Paste pH Test

The paste pH were determined by equilibrating the sample in deionized water for approximately
12 hours at a solid to water ratio of 1:2 (w/w). This gives an indication of the inherent acidity and
salinity of the waste material when initially exposed in a waste dump area. Results are shown in
Table 1.

Table 1 pH paste result

No. No. Lab Sample Code From To pH H2O (1:2)

1 3917/19 JL4100GT 5.2 32 3.32


2 3918/19 JL4100GT 33.5 62.25 4.95
3 3919/19 JL4100GT 76 89.25 7.77
4 3920/19 JL4100GT 93.4 133.21 7.52
5 3921/19 JL4122GT 9.68 16.1 16
6 3922/19 JL4122GT 17 41.85 6
7 3923/19 JL4122GT 46.5 83.7 5.45
8 3924/19 JL4132GT 3 20.35 5.52
No. No. Lab Sample Code From To pH H2O (1:2)

9 3925/19 JL4132GT 23.7 60.45 7.38


10 3926/19 JL4097GT 0.8 21.6 2.83
11 3927/19 JL4155GT 6.2 30 6.46
12 3928/19 JL4131GT 8 24 4.92
13 3929/19 JL4131GT 24.7 46.8 7.24
14 3930/19 JL4131GT 48 91 4.25
15 3931/19 JL4138GT 7.8 28 8.61
16 3932/19 JL4138GT 35.7 65 6.26

2. Total Sulphur (TS) Test

TS is the amount of sulfur content in the soil sample where the total sulfur in the sample indicates
the amount of sulfuric acid that can be formed in the oxidation and reduction process in soil
samples.

TS is determined through the sample spawning process at a temperature of ± 1,250˚C using an


instrument. The sulfur oxides produced from the spawning process are captured by the sulfur
detection sensor in the tool and the amount of sulfur detected is expressed in%. TS measurement
is used to determine the Maximum Potential Acid (MPA) value with the following formula:

MPA =% TS × 30,625 kg H2SO4/ton

TS test results and MPA calculations can be shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2 Result of total Sulphur test and MPA calculations


Total S MPA
No. No. Lab Sample Code From To
(%) (Kg H2SO4/ton)
1 3917/19 JL4100GT 5.2 32 1.53 46.98
2 3918/19 JL4100GT 33.5 62.3 1.65 50.53
3 3919/19 JL4100GT 76 89.3 0.533 16.32
4 3920/19 JL4100GT 93.4 133 1.85 56.78
5 3921/19 JL4122GT 9.68 16.1 0.015 0.447
6 3922/19 JL4122GT 17 41.9 0.017 0.521
7 3923/19 JL4122GT 46.5 83.7 1.21 37.19
8 3924/19 JL4132GT 3 20.4 0.063 1.93
9 3925/19 JL4132GT 23.7 60.5 1.48 45.45
10 3926/19 JL4097GT 0.8 21.6 1.56 47.69
11 3927/19 JL4155GT 6.2 30 0.031 0.96
12 3928/19 JL4131GT 8 24 0.106 3.26
13 3929/19 JL4131GT 24.7 46.8 0.043 1.32
14 3930/19 JL4131GT 48 91 0.988 30.27
15 3931/19 JL4138GT 7.8 28 0.045 1.38
16 3932/19 JL4138GT 35.7 65 0.181 5.55
3. Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) Test

ANC measures the capacity of a sample to neutralize any acid that is produced. In the ANC
analysis a finely ground sample is reacted with a known amount of hydrochloric acid. The resultant
solution is back titrated to pH 7.0 with sodium hydroxide to determine the amount of acid
neutralized by the carbonates and other acid consuming minerals present in the original sample.
ANC may be reported as either kg CaCO3 or kg H2SO4 equivalent per ton.

ANC is determined based on the results of reactions generated after a small number of mine soil
samples are dripped with 2-3 drops of hydrochloric acid (HCL). The presence of neutralizing
ingredients is characterized by the emergence of bubbles on the soil surface, the more bubbles
produced, the greater the neutralizing potential contained in the soil. Results are shown in Table
3.

Table 3 Result of Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) test


ANC
No. No. Lab Sample Code From To
(Kg H2SO4/ton)
1 3917/19 JL4100GT 5.2 32 -1.5
2 3918/19 JL4100GT 33.5 62.25 22.98
3 3919/19 JL4100GT 76 89.25 40.25
4 3920/19 JL4100GT 93.4 133.21 25
5 3921/19 JL4122GT 9.68 16.1 -1.6
6 3922/19 JL4122GT 17 41.85 7.66
7 3923/19 JL4122GT 46.5 83.7 15.88
8 3924/19 JL4132GT 3 20.35 11.53
9 3925/19 JL4132GT 23.7 60.45 24.51
10 3926/19 JL4097GT 0.8 21.6 -4.81
11 3927/19 JL4155GT 6.2 30 7.5
12 3928/19 JL4131GT 8 24 4.74
13 3929/19 JL4131GT 24.7 46.8 24.66
14 3930/19 JL4131GT 48 91 21.77
15 3931/19 JL4138GT 7.8 28 135
16 3932/19 JL4138GT 35.7 65 24.22

4. Net Acid Generation (NAG) Test

Net acid generation (NAG) test is an analysis of the acidity potential reaction formed after pyrite
oxidation in the soil. In the NAG analysis the reactions that occur are acidity and neutralization
reactions where the final result of the oxidation reaction is the NAG-pH value which will give an
indication of the acidity and alkalinity of the soil being analyzed.

NAG in soil samples was determined through the oxidation process of pyrite in the soil to sulfuric
acid with the addition of 15% H2O2 reagent for one night or at least 12 hours of reaction time. If
pyrite in the mine soil forms sulfuric acid after being oxidized by water and air, the same reaction
process can be carried out by adding H2O2 and obtaining acidity from the soil will be formed
(simulating sulfide oxidation).

Net Acid Generation tests result are presented in Table 4. NAG pH values range from 2.87 to
7.92. There were 9 samples that had an NAG pH value of less than 4.5.

Table 4 Net Acid Generation (NAG) test result


NAG pH = 4.5 NAG pH = 7
No. No. Lab Sample Code From To pH NAG
(Kg H2SO4/ton) (Kg H2SO4/ton)
1 3917/19 JL4100GT 5.2 32 2.89 27.52 37.63
2 3918/19 JL4100GT 33.5 62.25 2.87 26.09 35.7
3 3919/19 JL4100GT 76 89.25 6.53 <0.01 0.44
4 3920/19 JL4100GT 93.4 133.21 2.88 27.81 34.62
5 3921/19 JL4122GT 9.68 16.1 5.22 <0.01 4.92
6 3922/19 JL4122GT 17 41.85 5.54 <0.01 2.76
7 3923/19 JL4122GT 46.5 83.7 3 19.22 26
8 3924/19 JL4132GT 3 20.35 4.81 <0.01 3.96
9 3925/19 JL4132GT 23.7 60.45 3 19.02 26.76
10 3926/19 JL4097GT 0.8 21.6 2.88 32.32 42.64
11 3927/19 JL4155GT 6.2 30 5.33 <0.01 2.35
12 3928/19 JL4131GT 8 24 4.2 1.02 11
13 3929/19 JL4131GT 24.7 46.8 6.33 <0.01 1.04
14 3930/19 JL4131GT 48 91 3.07 15.99 23.52
15 3931/19 JL4138GT 7.8 28 7.92 <0.01 <0.01
16 3932/19 JL4138GT 35.7 65 3.97 1.47 6.88

5. Net Acid Producing Potential (NAPP) Test

Based on the British Columbia test as outlined in Coastech Inc (1990) Acid Mine Drainage
Prediction Manual, NAPP gives a theoretical prediction of whether the Maximum Potential Acid
(MPA) of a material is greater than its Acid Consumption (AC) capacity. AC, which uses a titration
end point of pH 3.5, has been replaced in recent times by ANC (titrated to pH 7.0).

When NAPP is requested, Maximum Potential Acid (MPA), Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) and
whether the NAPP is positive or negative are all reported. NAPP suffers from the tendency to over
predict the acid production potential because it does not differentiate between acid producing and
non-acid producing forms of sulfur. The formula used to determine NAPP is as follows:

NAPP = MPA – ANC (kg H2SO4/ton)

Net Acid Producing Potential tests result are presented in Table 5. NAPP values range from -
133.62 to 52.50. There were 8 samples that had an NAPP value of more than 0.
Table 5 Net Acid Producing Potential (NAPP) test result
ANC MPA NAPP
No. No. Lab Sample Code From To
(Kg H2SO4/ton) (Kg H2SO4/ton) (Kg H2SO4/ton)
1 3917/19 JL4100GT 5.2 32 -1.5 46.98 48.48
2 3918/19 JL4100GT 33.5 62.3 22.98 50.53 27.55
3 3919/19 JL4100GT 76 89.3 40.25 16.32 -23.93
4 3920/19 JL4100GT 93.4 133 25 56.78 31.78
5 3921/19 JL4122GT 9.68 16.1 -1.6 0.447 2.05
6 3922/19 JL4122GT 17 41.9 7.66 0.521 -7.14
7 3923/19 JL4122GT 46.5 83.7 15.88 37.19 21.31
8 3924/19 JL4132GT 3 20.4 11.53 1.93 -9.60
9 3925/19 JL4132GT 23.7 60.5 24.51 45.45 20.94
10 3926/19 JL4097GT 0.8 21.6 -4.81 47.69 52.50
11 3927/19 JL4155GT 6.2 30 7.5 0.96 -6.54
12 3928/19 JL4131GT 8 24 4.74 3.26 -1.48
13 3929/19 JL4131GT 24.7 46.8 24.66 1.32 -23.34
14 3930/19 JL4131GT 48 91 21.77 30.27 8.50
15 3931/19 JL4138GT 7.8 28 135 1.38 -133.62
16 3932/19 JL4138GT 35.7 65 24.22 5.55 -18.67

6. Preliminary AMD Classification Criterion

Based on the current AMD data set, sample could be classified into PAF/NAF/UC based on
AMIRA Classification (2012) as shown in Table 6.

Table 6 AMD Classification

AMD Classification NAG pH NAPP (Kg H2SO4)

Non-Acid Forming (NAF) > 4.5 NAPP < 0


Potential Acid Forming
< 4.5 NAPP > 0
(PAF)

Uncertain < 4.5 or > 4.5 NAPP < 0 or NAPP > 0

Standard Classification (AMIRA, 2012)

Samples classification comparing the NAPP and NAG pH relation is shown in Table 7. Screening
criterion is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Table 7 AMD Sample Classification based on AMIRA (2012)
No. No. Lab Sample Code From To Ph NAG NAPP Classification
(Kg H2SO4/ton)
1 3917/19 JL4100GT 5.2 32 2.89 48.48 PAF
2 3918/19 JL4100GT 33.5 62.25 2.9 27.55 PAF
3 3919/19 JL4100GT 76 89.25 6.5 -23.93 NAF
4 3920/19 JL4100GT 93.4 133.2 2.9 31.78 PAF
5 3921/19 JL4122GT 9.68 16.1 5.2 2.05 UC
6 3922/19 JL4122GT 17 41.85 5.5 -7.14 NAF
7 3923/19 JL4122GT 46.5 83.7 3.0 21.31 PAF
8 3924/19 JL4132GT 3 20.35 4.8 -9.60 NAF
9 3925/19 JL4132GT 23.7 60.45 3 20.94 PAF
10 3926/19 JL4097GT 0.8 21.6 2.88 52.50 PAF
11 3927/19 JL4155GT 6.2 30 5.33 -6.54 NAF
12 3928/19 JL4131GT 8 24 4.2 -1.48 UC
13 3929/19 JL4131GT 24.7 46.8 6.33 -23.34 NAF
14 3930/19 JL4131GT 48 91 3.07 8.50 PAF
15 3931/19 JL4138GT 7.8 28 7.92 -133.62 NAF
16 3932/19 JL4138GT 35.7 65 3.97 -18.67 UC

Figure 1 Screening Criterion (based on Standard AMIRA, 2012)


Figure 2 AMD Sample Classification

Based on the Figure 1 and Figure 2, it knows that PAF material is dominating than NAF material.
Where, the percentage of PAF material is 44%, while the percentage of NAF material is 37%.

7. Prevention of Acid Mine Drainage

Prevention of acid mine drainage, carried out with PAF and NAF management. The management
of PAF and NAF in preventing acid mine drainage in waste dump area uses encapsulation
method to break the contact between sulfide material with air and/or water. This method is often
called dry cover.

In general, management of PAF and NAF material handling sequentially can be carried out in
alternatives as follows:
 2D and 3D modeling of PAF and NAF materials based on lithology resulting from AMD
classification (requires more drilling points for extrapolation).
 Determine the apparent thickness of PAF material for excavation purposes.
 Determine the position of PAF material at the time of mining operations based on the
results of column tests from the results of blasting drilling samples.
 Giving stakes of boundary markers between PAF and NAF material in PIT which will be
selectively excavated.
 Applying the encapsulation method in the inpit and outpit dump (selective dumping) by
giving the markers the boundary markers between PAF and NAF material.
 Compaction of dump material in the waste dump area.
 Construction of Open Channels at each level of waste dump area.
 Construction of Drop Structure at the outlet of the Open Channel by making a channel
floor with a tire arrangement.
 Constructing a special sediment pond for surface water management that flows the waste
dump area.
While the specific handling for selective PAF and NAF materials based on AMD classification
results in Figure 2, it is known that PAF layer dominates, so the management of PAF and NAF
material corresponding is by way of encapsulation PAF materials are compacted with clay 1 meter
thick, and compacted NAF material 2 meters thick. See Figure 3 for an illustration of the dump
management of PAF and NAF materials.

Figure 3 Illustration of encapsulation method in waste dump area of IUP Juloi Coal

This method is used if the availability of NAF is very limited and has a lot of clay availability. Has
the following characteristics:
 Costs depend on the length of the compaction work.
 Requires high level technical supervision.
 Vulnerable to erosion potential.
 The cover has the potential to break/damage.