Laserfiche WebLink
02123, 96 15:25 S 702 356 8917 nc[la]1a~d Lab Il <br />6 <br />• kinetic test was conducted for 35 !weeks subseyuwu u, evaluating static rest data. A Mod <br />ABA static test was conducted or~ the humidity cell test residue. <br />Mnd ABA static test results showed Ibat the sample contained '13.54% sulfide sulfur <br />which was equivalent to an AGP of 423 tons CaCO, equiv:dents per 1000 tuns of wrote <br />rock. 7'he Per. Ox, AGP value was 68 tuns CaCO,% 1000 tuns, and by back calculation <br />cotttaincd 2.18%, readily oxidizable sulfide st[Ifur. The ANP value fur both static test <br />methods was 93 tons ('aCO,JI(N1V tons. Mod ABA results predicted that the waste rock <br />would be a massive acid producer because the NNP (ANP -AGP) was negative 330 tons <br />(:aCUl/10(]0 tons, and the ratio (ANP + AC.1') was very low at 0.22. Per. Ox. static test <br />results predicted that the waste rock would I,e an acid neutralizer. The NNP was <br />positive 25 and the ratio was 1.37. <br />Kinetic humidity cell test results showed than the sample slid nut gu acid and oxidizing <br />conditions were oo[ established iu 35 weeks of kinetic testing. fixtract pH remained <br />above SA, acidity and sulfate cuncenlrations were low, end (Fh) values remained below <br />400 mv, and iron mobility, particularly ferric iron, wac miuintal. <br />Mod ARA static test results showed that the humidity cell test residue still conwined <br />13.311~1o sulfide sulfur (AGP _ 416 tons CaC:O,/10110 tons) and a residua] ANP value of <br />82 tons CaC03/1000 tons. The resultant NNY was -334 and the ruin was U.20. <br />Adjusting t'or SU; generated, the humidity cell test residue still contained 1..94% readily <br />oxidizable sulfide sulfilr which calculated to an AGI' of (iU.G tons CaCU,/1W0 tons. <br />With an ANP of 82, the resultant NNP would he positive 21.5 and [he ratio would still <br />he 1.36. <br />• The combined data dcntnnsiratc that the Yer. Ole. static test method more accurately <br />predicted the behavior of the sample in the humidity cell, and that sufficient neutralizing <br />capacity was available in rho sample ul prevent cstxhlishmcnt of acid and oxidizing <br />conditions during kinetic testing. <br />Uther examples of such comparative data could he provided, but space does not permit. <br />llE77iRMINA'17UN UN A(:lll NISU77tAL17.ATION POTENTIAL <br />The neutralization procedure iv provided ahead of the three static test methods because <br />it is common to all three. <br />"I'he paste pH of the sample (finer than ti0 mesh, usually -15U mesh) is determined. A <br />paste pH of 4 ur less usually indicates that the sample will produce acid. A paste pH of <br />:cbcrve R normally indicates a high C:aCOr content, unc! in that case the sample should be <br />ixeleached with liCl before the AC~P lti detCnnined tCl minimize interference with sulfide <br />oxidation reactions. <br />A preliminary 'fizz' rating test is conducted on the sample for ANP analysis to determine <br />the quantity and concentration of IlCI to use i'or dissolution of the alkaline component <br />. Mct'L1tL1.ANl) LA130KATORIES, INC'. <br />