24-MMP-A6 Mining and the Environment · December 2018
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
EGBC National Exam — Mining and Mineral Processing Engineering, 09-MMP-A6 Mining and the Environment, 2018-Dec. 3 hours duration, open book (any non-communicating calculator permitted). SIX questions are printed on the paper; FIVE questions constitute a complete exam paper, and only the first five questions as they appear in the answer book are marked. Most questions require a concise, point-form-acceptable answer rather than a full essay. Every question is solved in full below (including all six, not just the five a candidate would normally submit) so this set also serves as complete study material.
Reference texts: Government of Canada, Fisheries Act and the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (MDMER, the current name for the exam's "Metal Mining Effluent Regulations"); Government of Canada, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA); Government of Canada, Impact Assessment Act (successor to the 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act named in the exam); Government of Canada, Species at Risk Act; International Network for Acid Prevention (INAP), Global Acid Rock Drainage (GARD) Guide; Price, W.A., MEND Report 1.20.1, Prediction Manual for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphidic Geologic Materials (1997/2009); Canadian Dam Association (CDA), Dam Safety Guidelines (2013/2019); Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM, 2020); Vick, S.G., Planning, Design, and Analysis of Tailings Dams (1990); ATSDR, Toxicological Profiles for mercury; BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia.
Question text not reproduced: the examination questions are © Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Open the official past paper (linked at the top of this page) to read the question, then follow the worked solution below.
Acid Rock Drainage. ARD's primary concern is the acidification and metal-loading of surface and groundwater downstream of a source: low pH combined with elevated dissolved metals (iron, aluminum, copper, zinc, and often co-mobilized arsenic) is acutely and chronically toxic to fish and benthic invertebrates, and can render downstream water unsuitable as a drinking water source without treatment. Its source with respect to mining is the oxidation of sulfide minerals (chiefly pyrite and pyrrhotite, see Question 3) exposed to air and water in waste rock, tailings, exposed pit walls and underground workings. Transport occurs as a dissolved metal/sulfate plume in ground and surface water, with iron and aluminum hydroxide precipitates ("yellow boy") depositing on and smothering downstream stream substrate; because the underlying oxidation reactions are self-sustaining once initiated (Question 3B, Equation 4), ARD's fate is to persist and continue loading the receiving environment for decades to centuries unless actively intercepted, treated or the source is encapsulated.
Mercury. Inorganic mercury reaches mine sites both as a trace natural constituent of some ore bodies and, historically, from gold amalgamation processing (a legacy contamination source at many older gold mines and downstream placer-mining areas). Organic mercury (methylmercury) is not usually released directly by mining; instead it forms when inorganic mercury deposited in anoxic sediments or wetlands downstream of a mine site is methylated by sulfate-reducing bacteria. Methylmercury bioaccumulates and biomagnifies strongly up the aquatic food chain, so fish consumption is the dominant human exposure pathway (a particular concern for Indigenous communities relying on country foods); it is a potent neurotoxin, with developing fetuses and young children most sensitive to its effects.
i) Three mine water control technologies (6 marks):
ii) Active vs. passive treatment (6 marks): Active treatment (e.g. a lime neutralization/high-density-sludge plant) uses continuous mechanical and chemical processes – requiring ongoing energy input, reagent supply and trained operating staff – to achieve rapid, tightly controlled water quality regardless of influent variability; it produces a sludge by-product requiring ongoing disposal, has the highest operating cost of the two approaches, and still requires effluent monitoring to demonstrate compliance. Passive treatment (e.g. a constructed wetland, anoxic limestone drain, or sulfate-reducing bioreactor) relies on gravity flow and natural biological/geochemical processes with minimal energy or labour input, giving much lower long-term operating cost and making it well suited to closed/legacy sites where an operator will not remain indefinitely; it requires a larger land footprint, responds more slowly to changing influent conditions, and still requires periodic performance monitoring (it is not "walk away and forget"), but needs far less active maintenance than a mechanical plant.