Waste Rock Backfill of Open Pits: Design, Optimisation, and Modelling Considerations
Waste Rock Backfill of Open Pits: Design, Optimisation, and Modelling Considerations
Waste Rock Backfill of Open Pits: Design, Optimisation, and Modelling Considerations
net/publication/281684538
CITATION READS
1 1,746
2 authors, including:
Kenneth C. Carroll
New Mexico State University
77 PUBLICATIONS 808 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Facilitated Transport Enabled In Situ Chemical Oxidation of 1,4-Dioxane-Contaminated Groundwater View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kenneth C. Carroll on 04 December 2018.
Abstract
Open pit lakes are potential sources of contamination to groundwater, surface water, and the surrounding
ecological system. In dry climates many pit lakes act as passive hydraulic sinks, resulting in no discharge to
the surrounding aquifer. However, these lakes are still subjected to evapoconcentration and are exposed to
humans and wildlife habitats. Backfilling open pits above the water surface is one method of mitigating these
pit lake environmental issues. However, while backfilled pits result in no exposure to these habitats, there
may be discharge to groundwater because the hydraulic sink is eliminated.
Backfill designs may be optimised such that the exposed lake is eliminated but not the passive hydraulic sink.
Optimised backfilling of open pits is becoming an increasingly attractive closure option for mine operators
and regulators. For the mine operator, pit backfill could mean shortened and potentially less costly
downhill haulage routes, and a potential way to dispose of reactive (e.g., acid-generating) waste rock. For
regulators, pit backfill, if placed to optimised elevations, results in a long-term passive hydraulic sink (i.e.,
no discharge of impacted water to groundwater), and minimal surficial pit lake exposed to humans or
wildlife habitats.
This paper provides a summary of pit backfill closure design concepts. The designs are described in terms
of their potential to provide hydrologic and geochemical containment/isolation of pit lake/pore water
solutions. Finally, some tools are described that can be used to design and simulate the performance of
optimised pit backfill closures.
1 Introduction
The trend in hard rock mining continues to evolve toward the exploitation of lower-grade, higher tonnage,
sulphide deposits worldwide. The resulting open pits generally extend below the water table and fill with
water after operations cease. These future and existing pit lakes are becoming increasingly scrutinized by
regulators and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as a potential source of impacts to the environment.
In wet climates, pit lakes often discharge to surface water and groundwater with potential impacts to public
drinking water sources, aquatic life, wildlife, recreation, and other uses. In arid climates, while discharge to
external waters may be limited or non-existent, they may pose a threat to local wildlife and avian life.
Recent advances have resulted in pit management options that consider closure and environmental issues.
These options have included natural refilling (no action), rapid lake filling, sequential backfilling, and post-
mining backfilling (Parshley et al., 2006; Dowling et al., 2004; and Williams, 2006). Backfilling, or
deposition of mined materials in an open pit, has been considered as an option for passive treatment of pit
lakes and closure for open pit mines. Sequential backfilling occurs during operations with multiple pits by
backfilling a previously mined pit with material from a new pit, which decreases closure costs by installing
the closure facilities during operations and minimising haulage.
This paper describes pit and pit lake management strategies and methods that consider not only operational
and economic drivers but also environmental and closure requirements. Optimised, managed backfilling of
pits can be designed for any climate and hydrogeologic regime, as well as various mine types and their
potential liabilities (e.g. poor water quality, acid rock drainage). Finally, this paper describes some tools that
can be used to design and simulate the performance of optimised pit backfill closures.
2 Optimised backfill
Utilising backfilling from a closure standpoint involves evaluating the long-term impacts, sustainability of
environmental (and other) benefits, and the goals/requirements of the mine closure. The technical approach
of a long-term closure management plan utilising backfill is typically based on the following objectives:
1) Permanently cover and submerge as much of the reactive (i.e. sulphide) rock in the pit walls
as possible to minimise long-term oxidation.
2) Optimise the volume and placement of backfill such that the pits function as hydrologic
sinks with no net outflow, effectively preventing groundwater discharges.
3) Use passive treatment components to manage potential outflows and meet water quality
goals.
4) Design management options in a manner consistent with existing engineering limitations
and long-term geotechnical conditions.
Designs of open pit backfilling for mine closure generally include:
No backfill (with or without treatment) – pit refilling to form a pit lake without the addition of
backfill;
Partial (optimised) backfill – partial backfilling of the pit in order to eliminate the lake and
maintain a passive hydraulic sink in perpetuity;
Complete backfill – completely backfilling a pit with minimal or no pit walls exposed and the
surface of the backfill compacted to minimise infiltration,
Complete backfill with lime amendment – identical to the complete backfill option with solid-
phase lime addition to neutralise acidity generated from potentially available sulphide minerals.
4 11
1 2
Legend
6
5 1 Bedrock
2 Damaged Rock Zone (DRZ)
9 3 Pit Lake
4 Precipitation to pit wall
5 Evaporation
3 6 Pit wall runoff
8
7 Groundwater inflow/outflow
8 Flushing of DRZ
7 9 Infiltration to DRZ
10 Catchment run-in/overflow
11 Precipitation to pit lake
4 Conclusions
Backfilling of open pits is a feasible closure strategy that warrants consideration. Each mine will have
specific issues that need to be considered that will affect the feasibility of backfilling, including pit size,
hydrogeology, climate, hauling distance, and rock geochemistry. The partial backfilling alternative is a
reasonable approach for mines with potential water quality problems because it can be optimised to maintain
a hydraulic sink and limit exposure of reactive pit wall zones. Environmental issues for closure generally
relate to processes that couple hydrology and geochemistry, and a closure design feasibility evaluation
should consider all of the relevant contributing factors. Closure planning and design developed during
mining operations (concurrent closure planning) provides the flexibility for optimising material haulage and
facility construction timing while minimising material movement and other costs.
References
ASTM (1996) ASTM D5744-96 – Standard Test Method for Accelerated Weathering of Solid Materials
Using a Modified Humidity Cell.
Davis, G.B. and Ritchie, A.I.M. (1986) A model of oxidation in pyritic mine wastes: Part 1 - Equations and
approximate solution, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 10(5), pp. 314-322.
Dowling, J., Atkin, S., Beal, G., and Alexander, G. (2004) Development of the Sleeper Pit Lake, Mine Water
and the Environment, 23, pp. 2-11.
Dzombak, D.A., and Morel, F.M.M. (1990) Surface complexation modelling--Hydrous ferric oxide: New
York, John Wiley, 393 p.
GTG (2004) GoldSim – Dynamic Systems Modelling Platform. Goldsim Technology Group, GoldSim
Version 8.024.
Parkhurst, D.L. and Appelo, C.A.J. (1999) User’s Guide to PHREEQC (Version 2) - A Computer Program
for Speciation, Batch-Reaction, One-Dimensional Transport, and Inverse Geochemical Calculations,
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4259, Denver, CO.
Parshley, J.V., Bowell, R.J., and Ackerman, J. (2006) Reclamation and Closure of Summer Camp Pit Lake
Nevada: A Case Study, The 7th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage (ICARD), March
26-30, 2006, St. Louis MO. R.I. Barnhisel (ed.) Published by the American Society of Mining and
Reclamation (ASMR), 3134 Montavesta Road, Lexington, KY 40502.
Williams, R.D. (2006) Pit Backfill: Yea or Nay, A Montana Example, The 7th International Conference on
Acid Rock Drainage (ICARD), March 26-30, 2006, St. Louis MO. R.I. Barnhisel (ed.) Published by
the American Society of Mining and Reclamation (ASMR), 3134 Montavesta Road, Lexington, KY
40502.
TECHNICAL AND SOCIAL PROGRAM
October 16-19, Sheraton Hotel & Convention Center, Santiago, Chile