MINING INDUSTRY SOLID WASTE
AN INTERIM REPORT
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 1981
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Site Selection Method 6
Step I - The selection of mining industry segments 8
Step II - The selection of waste management practices 21
Step III - Selection of sites for monitoring 40
Future Plans for Comprehensive Monitoring 89
Company contacts 89
Initial site visits 89
Comprehensive monitoring research plan 91
Comprehensive monitoring 92
Final report 93
11
-------
FIGURES
Number Paqe
Waste Management Practice and Site Selection 7
Process - Application of Criteria and Other
Input
Geographic Distributions and Copper Ore Produc- 33
tion Contributions of Major Producing States
Geographic Distribution and Phosphate Ore 35
Production Contributions of Major Producing
States
Geographic Distribution and Uranium Ore Produc- 36
tion Contributions of Major Producing States
Geographic Distribution and Gold/Silver Ore 37
Production Contributions of Major Producing
States
Geographic Distribution and Lead/Zinc Ore Pro- 38
duction Contributions of Major Producing States
Geographic Distribution and Molybdenum Ore Pro- 39
duction Contributions of Major Producing States
Schedule for Comprehensive Monitoring Program 90
111
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Annual Solid Waste Production Statistics at 12
Surface and Underground Mines
2 Evaluation of Study Industry Segments 13
3 Major Industry Segment Management Practices 22
4 Evaluation of Waste Management Practices 23
5 Waste Management Practices Selected for Further 28
Consideration
6 Major Producing Regions Within Industry Segments 34
7 Mining Districts to be Studied for Each Waste 40
Management Practice
8 Evaluation of Specific Southwest Copper Tailings 47
Pond Sites
9 Evaluation of Specific Southwest Copper Leach 53
Dump Sites
10 Evaluation of Specific Florida and Idaho 57
Phosphate Waste Rock Dump Sites
11 Evaluation of Specific Florida Phosphate Tail- 62
ings Pond Sites
12 Evaluation of Specific Wyoming Uranium Waste 66
Rock Dump Sites
13 Evaluation of Specific New Mexico and Wyoming 71
Uranium Mine Waste Pond Sites
14 Evaluation of Specific Nevada and South Dakota 76
Gold/Silver Tailings Pond Sites
IV
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
15 Evaluation of Specific Missouri and Tennessee 81
Lead/Zinc Tailings Pond Sites
16 Evaluation of Specific Molybdenum Tailings Pond 85
Sites
17 Mine Sites Selected for Comprehensive Monitoring 88
-------
INTRODUCTION
The mining industry, which has been a part of this country's
industrial base from before its founding as a nation, has already
accumulated some 30 billion tons of solid waste. It is estimated
that approximately 2.3 billion tons are added to this figure each
year.
Over the past several years, the Congress has shown increas-
ing interest in the environmental effects of the disposal of this
massive amount of material. Two segments of the industry have
been singled out for particular attention. The Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), administered by the
Department of Interior, is exclusively focused on coal mining and
controls the disposal of coal mining waste. The Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 focuses on the need for
proper disposal of the highly radioactive waste material produced
when uranium ore is processed. This act is enforced by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
All other mining wastes come under the authority of the most
comprehensive of all solid waste legislation, the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act of 1976, and the recently passed
amendments to the Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1980. Mining wastes are specifically mentioned as being included
-------
in the definition of "solid waste" [Section 1002(a) (27)]. In
addition, Section 8002 instructs EPA to carry out the following
study:
"(f) Mining Waste - The Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior, shall conduct a detailed and
comprehensive study on the adverse effects of solid wastes
from active and abandoned surface and underground mines on
the environment, including, but not limited to, the effects
of such wastes on humans, water, air, health, welfare, and
natural resources, and on the adequacy of means and measures
currently employed by the mining industry, Government agen-
cies, and others to dispose of and utilize such solid
wastes and to prevent or substantially mitigate such adverse
effects. Such study shall include an analysis of-
"(1) the sources and volume of discarded material
generated per year from mining;
"(2) present disposal practices;
"(3) potential dangers to human health and the environ-
ment from surface runoff of leachate and air pollution
by dust;
"(4) alternatives to current disposal methods;
"(5) the cost of those alternatives in terms of the
impact on mine product costs; and
"(6) potential for use of discarded material as a
secondary source of the mine product.
In furtherance of this study, the Administrator shall, as he
deems appropriate, review studies and other actions of other
Federal agencies concerning such wastes with a view toward
avoiding duplication of effort and the need to expedite such
study. The Administrator shall publish a report of such
study and shall include appropriate findings and recommenda-
tions for Federal and non-Federal actions concerning such
effects."
This mandate has been slightly changed in the amendments of 1980:
"Sec. 29, Section 8002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is
amended by-
(1) by striking out the last sentence of subsection (f) of
such section and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"Not later than thirty-six months after the date of the
enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980
the Administrator shall publish a report of such study and
shall include appropriate findings and recommendations for
Federal and non-Federal actions concerning such effects.
Such report shall be submitted to the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the United States Senate and the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the United
States House of Representatives."
2
-------
The Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 also add a
new mining study as follows:
"(p) Materials Generated From the Extraction, Beneficiation,
and .Processing of Ores and Minerals, Including Phosphate
Rock and Overburden From Uranium Mining-The Administrator
shall conduct a detailed and comperhensive study on the
adverse effects on human health and the environment, if any,
of the disposal and utilization of solid waste from the
extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and min-
erals, including phosphate rock and overburden from uranium
mining. Such study shall be conducted in conjunction with
the study of mining wastes required by subsection (f) of
this section and shall include an analysis of-
"(1) the source and volumes of such materials generated
per year;
"(2) present disposal and utilization practices;
"(3) potential danger, if any, to human health, and the
environment from the disposal and reuse of such mate-
rials;
"(4) documented cases in which danger to human health
or the environment has been proved;
"(5) alternatives to current disposal methods;
"(6) the costs of such alternatives;
" (7) the impact of those alternatives on the use of
phosphate rock and uranium ore, and other natural
resources; and
"(8) the current and potential utilization of such
materials.
In furtherance of this study, the Administrator shall, as he
deems appropriate, review studies and other actions of other
Federal and State agencies concerning such waste or materi-
als and invite participation by other concerned parties,
including industry and other Federal and State agencies,
with a view toward avoiding duplication of effort. The
Administrator shall publish a report of such study, which
shall include appropriate findings, in conjunction with the
publication of the report of the study of mining wastes
required to be conducted under subsection (f) of this sec-
tion. Such report and findings shall be submitted to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United
States Senate and the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce of the United States House of Representatives."
To eliminate duplication of effort and in recognition that
the two studies are very similar, the Agency has decided to pre-
sent a single report to the Congress by October 21, 1983, touch-
ing on all points mentioned in both Sections (f) and (p) of 8002.
-------
The overall focus of that report will be slightly different,
however, based on the perceived intent of the 1980 amendments.
These amendments also contain (Section 7) an exclusion from the
Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations for "solid waste from the
extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals
including phosphate rock and overburden from the mining of urani-
um ore." This exclusion is to remain in effect until six months
after the submission to the Congress of the 8002 studies mentioned
above. Clearly, the Congress intended EPA to make significant
use of these studies in determining the need for hazardous waste
regulation of waste streams within the mining industry. While
the original goal of EPA's efforts under Section 8002(f) of RCRA
were the study of mining industry and its waste streams in the
broadest context possible, we feel that the amendments recently
passed instruct us to focus our efforts on those waste streams
which appear at this time to have the greatest potential for
environmental harm.
This refocusing has come at a most opportune time. The last
two years have been spent gathering data in the following three
areas:
0 Broad based statistical information on the industry and
its disposal practices as a whole, primarily from the
existing literature.
0 Overviews of 65 major mining operations from limited
site visits and the literature.
-------
0 Complete characterization and chemical analysis of over
400 waste samples taken at 65 mining sites (Presurvey).
Due to the acquisition of the above information, the Agency
is now in a position to focus its efforts on the monitoring of
actual disposal sites to determine the extent of environmental
impact from the disposal of selected mining wastes. Approxi-
mately $2 million has been allocated for this task. Although the
exact number of sites which can be adequately monitored given
this amount of money is presently unknown, it will probably not
exceed 15. The Agency is now proceeding to its next and most
difficult step, the selection of mining waste disposal sites to
be monitored. The purpose of the remainder of this document is:
1. To explain the method developed by the Agency for
selecting mining disposal sites to be monitored.
2. To pull together all data presently available on
mining sites for comparison within the framework of
this method.
3. To choose candidate sites for monitoring.
4. To describe the future plans and schedule for the
comprehensive monitoring of these sites.
-------
SITE SELECTION METHOD
The United States Mining Industry encompasses more than 100
major segments (e.g., gold, copper, nickel, etc.) and consists of
in excess of 14,000 individual mining sites. The selection of 10
to 15 sites from a universe of 14,000 is the most difficult
conceptual task of this project. Clearly, 10 to 15 sites will
not give a cross section view of so diverse an industry. Thus,
the task here is to develop criteria which will narrow the focus
of the project so that useful, rather than random data can be
produced.
For the reasons mentioned in the preceeding section of this
report, EPA has decided that it will focus its efforts on those
industry segments, solid waste streams and solid waste management
practices which appear at this stage of the investigation, to
present the greatest potential for environmental damage. To
achieve this focus EPA has developed a three step method (Figure
1) which first narrows the possible list of industry segments;
then further narrows the list of practices and waste streams
within these segments to those with the most potential for pol-
lution migration; and then finally assists in choosing sites
typical of those industries, wastes, and practices.
A major undertaking in the development of the site selection
method was the summarizing of a massive amount of information to
6
-------
STEP I
DETERMINE MINING INDUSTRY
SEGMENTS HO STUDY
INPUT
•MAGNITUDE OF WASTE GENERATION
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
•POTENTIAL FOR OTHER IMPACT
STEP II
DETERMINE WASTE MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES AND LOCALES WITHIN
EACH INDUSTRY SEGMENT
MAGNITUDE OF WASTE GENERATION
PRESURVEY WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
•POTENTIAL FOR OTHER IMPACT
-TENDENCY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORT
-SIGNIFICANCE OF LOCATION OR DISTRICT
WITHIN INDUSTRY SEGMENT
STEP III
SELECT SITES TYPICAL OF
MANAGMENT PRACTICES FOR
COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING
PROGRAM
•PRESURVEY WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FOR
SPECIFIC SITES/PRACTICES
-ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTING
POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT
-MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS
Figure 1. Waste management practice and site selection process -
application of criteria and other input.
-------
enable the Agency to make decisions. As such, it is a tool and
is in no way an indication that any specific waste stream is neg-
atively affecting the environment. In the process of assessing
first the industry segments (Step I) and then individual waste
streams and disposal methods (Step II), values were assigned
ranging from 0 to 3 pluses (+++). These values signify different
things in different criteria. Each will be explained clearly in
proper sequence. No attempt has been made, nor should be made,
to total the number of pluses to assign a "degree of hazard"
rating. The purpose of the method is to summarize information,
primarily from existing literature, and to visually display
relative, rather than absolute values in order to make choices.
In Step III, negative (-, =) as well as positive values are
assigned to indicate, for example, the typicality of a specific
site. A detailed description of the process follows.
STEP I - THE SELECTION OF MINING INDUSTRY SEGMENTS
The mining industry has been singled out by the Congress for
special study largely because of the enormity of the waste streams
involved. Clearly, the size of the waste stream is a major cri-
teria in selecting industry segments. It is not alone, however.
The literature on this subject points to various degrees of po-
tential environmental danger from the waste streams themselves in
the form of radioactivity or cyanide content, for example. This
step has been designed to narrow the choice of industry segments
to those which have the greatest potential for environmental
8
-------
effect whether through shear size, inherent waste stream charac-
teristics, or a combination of the two.
Four industry segments have been excluded from consideration
in this evaluation. The basis of the exclusion of these segments
is addressed in the following.
0 Coal Mining and Preparation. Wastes from this industry
are regulated by the Surface Mining Control and Recla-
mation Act of 1978, which is administered by the Office
of Surface Mining within the Department of Interior.
The recently passed Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments
of 1980 contain sections instructing EPA to defer to
the Department of Interior in writing permits under
Subtitle C of RCRA. EPA is now reviewing the SMCRA
waste disposal regulations and will shortly transmit
its analysis to the Department of Interior. As Inte-
rior is clearly the lead agency in this area and as
such, is coordinating its own disposal studies, EPA has
determined that it would be needlessly duplicative and
not in keeping with Congressional intent to include
coal mining wastes in this study.
0 Uranium Milling. Section 1004 of RCRA states, "The
term "solid waste" means any garbage, refuse, sludge
[etc.]...but does not include...source, special nuclear
or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 as amended." Uranium mill tailings fall
under this designation and thus are excluded both from
-------
RCRA and this study. The proper disposal methods for
this waste product are being developed and regulated
under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
of 1978 which is enforced by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Oil Shale Mining Wastes. Oil shale mining and benefi-
ciation wastes are covered by RCRA and are included in
the exclusion from the Subtitle C regulations (see Page
4). They are not included in the present study for two
reasons. First, this investigation has concentrated on
existing mining industry segments. Although oil shale
mining has been practiced on a small scale in the past,
there are presently no commercial operations nor are
any planned to begin for some time. At this point,
there is little to study in the context of monitoring
for environmental effects. Secondly, EPA's Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory in Cincinnati is now
conducting various studies in the oil shale area and
has more elaborate ones in the planning stage for the
future. EPA's final report to the Congress will in-
clude the subject of oil shale wastes; however, this
study will not.
In-situ Mining. Both uranium and shale oil are re-
covered through in-situ mining techniques. Because
this practice takes place well below the surface of the
earth and leaves most of its residuals "in-situ" or in
10
-------
place, the Agency has decided to study its effects and to
regulate it through the underground injection control pro-
visions of the Safe Drinking Water Act rather than RCRA.
In-situ mining residues will be dealt with primarily through
the Safe Drinking Water Act and will not be included in
either this study or the 8002 (f) and (p) report.
Step I Criteria
A. The first criteria in the selection of industry segments is
the magnitude of the waste stream. Table 1 presents the
latest available statistics on the tonnage of waste material
generated by the mining industry. These statistics have
been transferred to Table 2 using the following grading
system to indicate the relative volume of wastes generated
by individual segments.
0 = less than 10 million tons per year
+ = 10 to 50 million tons per year
++ = 50 to 100 million tons per year
+++ = greater than 100 million tons per year
This comparatively simple quantitive ranking indicates the
clear importance of the copper, iron, uranium, and phosphate
segments, all of which generate waste in excess of 100
million tons per year. Only crushed stone is in the 50 to
100 million tons per year category. The rest of the seg-
ments are somewhat equally divided between those above and
below the 10 million tons per year dividing line.
B. The second criteria of Step I is that of waste character-
istics or perceived potential for hazardous environmental
11
-------
TABLE 1. ANNUAL SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION STATISTICS AT SURFACE
AND UNDERGROUND MINES9
(thousand short tons)
Industry
segment
Metals
Bauxite
Copper
Gold
Iron
Lead
Molybdenum
Silver
Tungsten
Uranium
Zinc
Other'1
Total metals
Nonmetals
Asbestos
Clays
Diatomite
Feldspar
Gypsum
Mica (scrap)
Perlite
Phosphate rock
Potassium salts
Pumice
Salt
Sand and gravel
Sodium carbonate
(natural )
Stone:
Crushed or
broken
Dimension
Talc, soapstone,
pyrophyllite
Total
nonmetal s
Mine
waste5
11,500
378,000
11,800
277,000
2,270
13,100
2,010
210
306,000
1,270
17,000
1,020,000
4,150
43,000
NA
192
2,700
467
107
420,000
163
108
NA
NA
332
82,400
1,620
1,460
572,000
Tailingsc
1,480
260,000
5,400
175,000
8,900
30,400
1,900
1,750
16,200
6,700
NA
508,000
2,180
0
NA
920
700
1,310
294
136,000
17,200
210
1,100
6,000
5,080
0
2,830
420
174,000
Total non-
coal minerals
Total
13,000
638,000
17,200
452,000
11,200
43,500
3,910
1,960
322,000
7,970
17,000
1,510,000
6,330
43,000
NA
1,110
3,400
1,780
401
556,000
17,400
318
1,100
6,000
5,410
82,400
4,450
1,880
724,000
2,230,000
Percent of
total for all
noncoal minerals
<1
29
1
20
<1
2
<1
<1
14
<1
1
68
<1
2
NA
<1
<1
<1
<1
25
<1
<1
•O
<1
<1
4
<1
<1
32
Based on data obtained from 1978-79 Minerals Yearbook, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Includes overburden from surface mining operations and waste discarded
on the surface from underground mining operations.
cEstimated by PEDCo from data in the 1978-79 Minerals Yearbook.
Antimony, beryllium, manganiferrous ore, mercury, nickel, rare earth metals,
tin, vanadium.
NA - Quantitative information on these wastes are not compiled since
relatively insignificant amounts are generated.
12
-------
TABLE 2. EVALUATION OF STUDY INDUSTRY SEGMENTS
Industry segment
Metals
Bauxite
Copper-
Gold
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Si Iver
Tungsten
Uraniur.3
Zinc
Otherb
Nonmetal s
Asbestos
Clays
Diatomite
Feldspar
Gypsum
Mica (scrap)
Perlite
Phosphate rock
Potassium salts
Pumice
Salt
Sand and gravel
Sodium carbonate
Stone
Crushed and broken
Dimension
Talc, soapstone,
pyrophyll ite
A. Magnitude
of waste
generation
+
444
4
44 +
4
0
4
0
0
444
4
oc
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
444
4
0
0
0
0
44
0
0
B. Waste characteristics
Toxicity
0
44
444
4
44
444
4
444
4
4
44
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Corrosivity
0
44
4
0
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Radioactivity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
444
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C. Other
potential
impacts
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
0
a Mining wastes only.
Antimony, beryllium, manganiferrous ore, monzonite, nickel, platinum group metals, rare earth metals,
tin, titanium, ilmanite, vanadium.
cAlthough the "other" industry segment generates 17 million tons of solid waste annually (Table 1),
a zero was assigned to it because no single industry of the eight segments included in "other" generates
over 10 million tons per year.
13
-------
impact through the properties of the individual waste
streams. It should be noted that this step (Step 1) was
formulated prior to carrying out the Presurvey in which grab
samples were taken at 65 mining sites and extensively
analyzed. Thus, the information used to construct the
results of this criteria were taken from the literature
available approximately one year ago (October 1979) . The
results of the Presurvey have, for the most part, substan-
tiated these relative values. The ranking system for this
criteria falls into three categories: toxicity, or the
presence of toxic elements in the waste capable of leaching;
corrosivity as determined by pH; and radioactivity, or the
presence of the radioisotope radium-226. Because few
specific data were available at the time Step I was formu-
lated, the ranking system is somewhat subjective and con-
tains no numerical boundaries.
0 = no potential
+ = minor potential
++ = moderate potential
+++ = significant potential
Column B of Table 2 indicates the following:
0 Toxicity - The potential impact of the gold and silver
segments of the mining industry was believed to be
significant because of the relatively high concentra-
tions of cyanide in the tailings from the cyanide-leach
beneficiating process employed by these precious metal
industries. A significant potential hazard was also
assigned to the mercury segment because of the toxicity
14
-------
associated with the mercury itself and other heavy
metals associated with it. Copper, lead, and zinc
wastes were believed to have moderate potential for
hazardous impact because acidic conditions produced by
the pyritic ores provide a mechanism for dissolution of
the heavy metals present. The other metals industries
were believed to have minor potential for toxicity. Of
the non-metal segments, only phosphate was thought to
have any potential at all and that was minor.
0 Corrosivity - The copper, gold, lead, molybdenum,
silver, tungsten, uranium, and zinc industries were
believed to pose a potential hazard due to the corro-
sive atmosphere associated with the pyritic ores, which
are associated with many of these mines. In addition,
gold and silver employ a cyanide leach process, which
was thought to produce tailings which are potentially
corrosive.
0 Radioactivity - Uranium mining was believed to have a
significant potential for hazardous impact because of
the radioisotopes associated with uranium ores. The
phosphate mining segment was believed to have a moder-
ate potential for hazardous environmental impact be-
cause of the radioisotopes associated with phosphate
ores.
C. The third criteria under Step I has been titled Other Poten-
tial Impact. A preliminary evaluation of the potential of
15
-------
various industry segments to either produce sediment loading
of surface waters, degrade air quality through the emission
of fugitive dust, or to negatively effect environmentally
sensitive areas such as floodplains, wetlands, and the
habitats of endangered species. The grading system under
this criterion is less wide, advancing only to one rather
than three plusses, because the effects are assumed to be of
less importance than the hazardous effects of Criteria B
above. This criterion is also somewhat subjective and is
based solely on the literature. The ranking system is as
follows:
0 = no potential
+ = some potential
Column C indicates the following:
0 Of the metals, copper was expected to show a signifi-
cant potential for environmental impact under this
heading, largely because of the potential for fugitive
dust emissions from the dried-out portions of the
copper tailings ponds located in the arid West and
Southwest (Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico). Uranium
mine waste dumps and molybdenum tailings ponds were
believed to have a less significant potential for
fugitive dust emissions.
0 Almost all of the metals are expected to have some
effect because of the sediment loading on surface
waters from erosion of waste rock piles and tailings
pond dikes.
16
-------
0 Eighty percent of all phosphate mining takes place in
Florida; much of this Florida phosphate district is
located in wetlands, which increases the potential for
neaative impact from the large volumes of waste materi-
als generated in these environmentally sensitive areas.
0 Sand and gravel and crushed stone mining often take
place within floodplains, which increases the potential
impact from these industries in these environmentally
sensitive areas.
0 The ore and host rock materials associated with several
mining industries are known to contain asbestos and as-
bestos like fibers which can be released to the envi-
ronment during mining and waste disposal activities.
These industries include the direct mining of asbestos
and selective operations in the taconite, vermiculite,
copper, gold, and talc mining industries. The asbestos
association with these industry segments was the major
contributing factor to the plus value assigned to each
of these industries.
Results of Step I
Based on the overall evaluation by criteria (Table 2), and
input from the nine Solid Waste Coordinating Committee*, nine
This committee was established by FPA to assist in this study
and in the development of PCRA guidelines and standards for the
raining industry. The MSVCC consists of representatives of the
following: EPA Regional Offices, EPA's Office of Solid Waste,
EPA's Office of Pesearch and Development, Bureau of Mines, the
Geological Survey, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service. Representative of the American Mining
Congress and the Interstate Mining Compact acted in an advisory
capacity.
17
-------
mining industry segments were selected for study:
0 Copper mining and beneficiating
0 Uranium mining
0 Phosphate mining and beneficiating
0 Zinc mining and beneficiating
0 Lead mining and beneficiating
0 Molybdenum mining and beneficiating
0 Gold mining and beneficiating
0 Silver mining and beneficiating
0 Iron mining and beneficiating
The rationales for these selections are described below:
0 Copper -- This industry segment had at least some indi-
cation of potential environmental effect in every
category. An industry which generates 29 percent of
all non-coal mineral waste, wastes which have at least
some degree of toxicity, corrosivity, and radioactivity,
was an obvious choice for inclusion in the study.
0 Uranium - This segment also had some indication of po-
tential environmental effect in every category. As the
fourth largest producer of mining waste as well as the
waste most likely to prove hazardous due to radioactiv-
ity, uranium was another obvious choice.
0 Phosphate - The phosphate segment, because of the mag-
nitude of the wastes generated (25 percent of all non-
coal wastes), radioactive contents, and potential neg-
ative impact on wetlands, was included in the study.
18
-------
Molybdenum - This industry segment was chosen because
of the potential for corrosivity and toxicity from
heavy metals in the 44 million tons of wastes generated
annually.
Zinc and Lead -- Although these industry segments gener-
ate relatively lesser amourits of waste than do the
phosphate, copper, and uranium segments; nonetheless,
these wastes are significant in size. In addition,
they were chosen because of the potential for corro-
sivity and toxicity from heavy metals in the waste-
streams, both of which are associated with the pyritic
ores often characteristic of these industries.
The ores mined for the recovery of lead and zinc
(primarily galena for lead and sphalerite for zinc) are
very often associated with each other in nature, due to
the similar geochemical processes which formed them.
Many ore bodies contain appreciable recoverable quan-
tities of both, such as in the Couer d'Alene lead/zinc/
silver mining district of Northern Idaho. In other
areas, either lead or zinc is the principal metal
mined, such as in the Missouri Lead Belt or the Eastern
Tennessee zinc mining district. Regardless, the waste
rock produced from mining these ores, the beneficiating
process employed to concentrate these ores, and conse-
quently the tailings from beneficiating these ores, are
very similar. Because of these similarities, lead and
19
-------
zinc are discussed together in Steps II and III of the
site selection process.
Gold and Silver - These two industry segments primarily
were chosen because of their potential for corrosivity
and toxicity from heavy metals and particularly because
of the cyanide employed in the beneficiating of these
nrecious metals.
The association of gold and silver is analogous to
the lead/zinc association, i.e., the ores associated
with these precious metals very often occur together in
nature, due to the similar geochemical processes which
formed them. Nany ore bodies contain recoverable quan-
tities of both metals; however, depending on the rela-
tive quantities of each, they may be principal gold or
silver mines, or gold/silver mines. In any case, the
mining operations and beneficiating processes (cyanida-
tion) and the characteristics of their associated waste
rock and tailings are very similar. Consequently, gold
and silver are addressed together in Steps II and III
of the site selection process.
Iron - This segment was chosen because it generates ap-
proximately 20 percent of total wastes generated by
non-coal mining industries, and because it was believed
that the taconite tailings posed a potential impact
through toxicity from heavy metals.
20
-------
STEP II - THE SELECTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Comparatively few waste management practices are used in the
mining industry. Table 3 presents a matrix of the industry seg-
ments chosen in Step I, and the waste management practices common
to those industries. As can be seen, waste rock dumps* are com-
mon to all segments. Tailings ponds are also universally uti-
lized, although this study does not address them in the uranium
area for reasons given on Page 9. Low grade ore dumps are common
to the copper, uranium, iron, and precious metals industries;
mine water ponds in the uranium, lead/zinc, and molybdenum seg-
ments. Leach dumps are unique to the copper industry as are sand
tailings piles to phosphate.
The objective of this step is to determine which industry
wastes and waste management practices are most likely to have an
effect on the environment. The criteria in this step is closely
akin to that in Step I in that size of the waste stream and
characteristics of the waste are again important determiners. A
major difference at this step, however, is that actual sampling
data from the presurvey is utilized, making waste characteriza-
tion determinations more defensible. Table 4 has seven criteria-
A. As in Step 1, the first criterion is that of size of the
waste stream as an indicator of the magnitude of the possi-
ble environmental impact. The grading system is as follows:
For simplicity of terminology, waste rock dumps include over-
burden from surface mining operations and waste discarded on
the surface from underground operations.
21
-------
TABLE 3. MAJOR INDUSTRY SEGMENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
NJ
Management
Practice
Mine waste
rock dumps c
Low grade
ore dumps
Mine water
ponds
Tailings
ponds
Leach dumps
Sand tail-
ings piles
Industry Segment
Copper
X
X
X
X
Uranium
X
X
X
N/Ab
Phosphate
X
X
X
Gold/silver
X
X
X
Lead/zinc
X
X
X
Molybdenum
X
X
X
Iron
X
X
X
alsolated instances may exist in which a management practice is occasionally
employed at some of the industry segments.
Not within the scope of this study.
clncludes overburden from surface mining operations and/or waste discarded
on the surface from underground mining operations.
-------
TABLE 4. EVALUATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
K)
U)
Industry/waste
management practice
Uranium mining
Hine waste rock dumps'
Low grade ore dumps
Hine water ponds
Phosphate
Hine waste rock dumpsa
Tailings ponds
Sand tailings piles
Copper
Mine waste rock dumps
Low grade ore piles
Leach dumps
Tailings ponds
Lead/zinc
Mine waste rock dumps
Tailings ponds
Mine water ponds
Gold/silver
Mine waste rock dumps*
Low grade ore piles
Tailings ponds
Molybdenum
Hine waste rock dumps3
Tailings ponds
Mine waste ponds
Iron
Hine waste rock dumps
Low grade ore piles
Tailings ponds
A. Magnitude
of waste
generation
++t
4-
0
++*
+4
4+
+44
4
•f 4
+++
0
•f
0
•f
0
4
•f
•f
0
+++
-t-t
4-44-
B. Waste characteristics
EP toxicity
4
4
++
+
44
0
+
4-
4-44-
++
44
++
4-f
+
4
+++
0
4
-f
0
0
0
Corrosivity
0
+
0
0
0
+
+
•f
+++
++
0
•f
0
0
+-f
+
4
++
0
0
0
0
Radioactivity
•f-f
+++
•f++
+4
+ 4-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cyanide
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4-
0
+
0
0
0
+4-4
0
4
0
0
0
0
C. Other
potential
impacts
+
0
0
+
4-
4-
4-
+
4-
+
+
4-
0
4-
+
4-
4-
+
0
4-
4-
4-
D. Tendency
for
environmental
transport
0
0
4-
0
4
0
0
0
+
4-
0
+
+
0
0
+
0
+
4-
0
0
4-
aWaste rock dumps include overburden from surface mining operations and waste discarded on the surface from underground operations.
-------
0 = less than 10 million tons per year
+ = 10 to 50 million tons per year
++ = 50 to 100 million tons per year
+++ = greater than 100 million tons per year
The four largest waste streams were uranium and phos-
phate mine waste rock dumps and copper and iron tailings
ponds, all of which exceed 100 million tons per year in
generation. The phosphate, copper, and iron segments have
two streams each which are generated at more than 50 million
tons per year.
B. The second set of criteria assign values to the character-
istics of the wastes. The waste characteristics or proper-
ties addressed in the current and previously proposed RCRA
hazardous waste regulations that relate to the mining indus-
try are EP toxicity (acetic acid extraction), corrosivity,
radioactivity, and the use of cyanide in flotation and cya-
nidation processes. These properties were determined for
the Presurvey waste samples and employed as a measuring de-
vice to evaluate the relative potential hazardous impact of
each industry segment waste management practice. (For fur-
ther details on mining waste characteristics see the Pre-
survev Report for this study). The following values were
assigned under the waste characteristics criteria:
EP Toxicity;
0 = Concentrations of one or more metals in liquids or acid
extracts of solid materials within the WMP* are less
than specified in "primarv drinking water standards"
(PDWS).
*
Waste Management Practice.
24
-------
+ = Concentrations of one or more metals in liquids or acid
extracts of solid materials within the WMP are more
than specified in PDWS, but less than 10 times the
PDWS.
++ = Concentrations of one or more metals in liquids or acid
extracts of solid materials within the WMP are more
than 10 times specified in PDWS, but less than 100
times the PDWS.
+++ = Concentrations of one or more metals in liquids or acid
extracts of solid materials within the WMP are more
than 100 times the PDWS.
Corrosivity:
0 = Liquids within the WMP have a pH between 4 and 10;
solids have a potential acidity* of less than 500 yg
carbonate/g of material.
+ = Liquids within the WMP have a pH between 3 and 4 or
between 10 and 11; solids have a potential acidity of
greater than 500 but less than 5000 yg carbonate/g of
material.
++ = Liquids within the WMP have a pH between 2 and 3 or
between 11 and 12.5; solids have a potential acidity of
greater than 5,000 but less than 50,000 yg carbonate/g
of material. *
+++ = Liquids within the WMP have a pH less than 2 or greater
than 12.5; solids have a potential acidity of greater
than 50,000 yg carbonate/g of material.
Radioactivity:
0 = Liquids or solids within the WMP have radium 226 values
of less than 4.0 pCi/liter or 4.0 pCi/g, respectively.
+ = Liquids or solids within the WMP have radium 226 values
greater than 4.0, but less than 10 pCi/liter or 10
pCi/g, respectively.
++ = Liquids or solids within the WMP have radium 226 values
greater than 10 but less than 50 pCi/liter or 50 pCi/g,
respectively.
+++ = Liquids or solids within the WMP have radium 226 values
greater than 50 pCi/liter or 50 pCi/g, respectively.
Potential acidity of solid samples was determined to measure
their acid forming potential.
25
-------
Cyanide;
0 = Cyanide is not added or used in the processing of ore.
+ = Sulfide flotation process employs cyanide.
+++ = WMP includes leach cyanidation process waste.
This rating system revealed the following:
0 Wastes from copper leach dumps/ lead/zinc tailings
ponds and mine water ponds, and gold/silver tailings
ponds have the highest potential for EP toxicity;
0 Wastes from copper leach dumps and tailings ponds,
lead/zinc tailings ponds, gold/silver low-grade ore
piles, and molybdenum tailings ponds have the highest
potential for corrosivity;
0 Wastes from uranium mine waste rock dumps, low-grade
ore dumps, and mine water ponds, and phosphate mine
waste rock dumps and tailings ponds have the only ele-
vated levels of radioactivity.
0 Wastes from gold/silver tailings ponds appear to be the
only wastes having significant concentrations of cyanide,
C. The third set of criteria, other potential impact, as in
Step I, assigns values for impact from sediment loading of
surface waters, air quality degradation from fugitive dust,
and location within environmentally sensitive areas. The
following rating system was used for this criterion:
0 = No potential
+ = Some potential
26
-------
The potential impact from copper mine waste rock dumps and
copper tailings ponds is believed to be significant because of
the possible degradation of air quality by fugitive dust emis-
sions. The potential for impact from the three waste management
practices used in the phosphate mining segment is believed to be
significant because much of the Central Florida phosphate dis-
trict is located in wetlands.
D. The last criterion to be considered, factors affecting
tendency for environmental transport of waste, addresses the
potential for transport of waste material and its hazardous
constituents into the surrounding environment. The major
factors contributing to this tendency are small particle
size and the presence of water in the disposal area, both of
which can increase the dissolution of waste constituents
that may ultimately contaminate ground water and/or surface
water.
The following rating was used for this criterion:
0 = Physical characteristics of material disposed of
within WMP and the disposal area have significant
potential for dissolution of constituents.
-I- = Physical characteristics of materials disposed of
within WMP or the disposal area itself can con-
tribute signficantly to increased potential for
dissolution of constituents.
Small particle size and prevailing wet conditions are character-
istic of tailings; therefore, tailings ponds in each of the nine
industry segments were considered to have a significant tendency
for environmental transport. Mine water ponds in the uranium,
27
-------
lead/zinc, and molybdenum mining segments also have these char-
acterisitcs and are similarly rated.
Results of Step II
The major results of this step are the following:
0 Of the seven industry segments resulting from Step I,
the only industry which does not appear to pose a sig-
nificant risk to the environment is the iron industry.
Each of the other industry segments employ one or more
waste management practices which appear to pose a po-
tentially significant impact. From the remaining in-
dustries, nine waste management practices were selected
for study (Table 5). The rationales for their selec-
tion are given below. (See Table 4 for waste manage-
ment practice criteria and results).
TABLE 5. WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SELECTED
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Uranium mine waste rock dumps
Uranium mine water ponds
Phosphate tailings ponds
Phosphate mine waste rock dumps
Copper leach dumps
Copper tailings ponds
Lead/zinc tailinqs ponds
Hold/silver tailinqs ponds
Molybdenum tailings ponds
28
-------
Copper Mining Segme'nt--
0 Tailings Ponds - The copper mining industry disposes of
approximately 260 million tons (12 percent of all non-
coal mine wastes) of potentially corrosive and toxic
tailings annually (elevated levels of cadmium and sele-
nium in fresh tailings, settled tailings, and dike ma-
terial) . Tailings ponds scored pluses in 6 out of 7
categories and became an obvious choice for inclusion
in this study.
0 Leach Dumps - The leach liquors from this management
practice exhibited corrosivity characteristics that
could be detrimental to the environment (pH <2). Cor-
rosivity is believed to be attributable to both the
pyritic constituents of the dump leach material and the
sulfuric acid which is often employed to enhance the
leaching process. Also, elevated levels of cadmium and
selenium were found in dump leach piles, constituting
the potential for negative impact from toxicity. This
management practice had pluses in five of the seven
possible categories, based on potential for toxicity
and corrosivity, making this management practice anoth-
er obvious choice.
Phosphate Mining Segment--
0 Mine Waste Rock Dumps - A management practice which an-
nually disposes of 420 million tons (19 percent of
total non-coal mine wastes) of potentially radioactive
29
-------
(many samples had radium 226 concentrations greater
than 5 pCi/g) and toxic (elevated levels of selenium
and cadmium) wastes is another obvious choice for the
comprehensive monitoring phase. This waste management
practice had pluses in four (toxicity, radioactivity,
magnitude of waste and under ''other impacts" for fugi-
tive dust emissions) of the seven possible categories.
0 Tailings Ponds - This waste management practice had
pluses in all but two (corrosivity and cyanide) of the
seven possible categories. The presurvey results
revealed elevated levels of radium 226 (some of the
tailings liquid fractions exceeded 50 pCi/liter) and
heavy metals (cadmium, selenium, chromium, and lead).
Because there appears to be a significant potential for
migration of the radium 226 and heavy metals from the
68 million tons of phosphate clay tailings generated
annually, this waste management practice was selected
for more comprehensive study.
Uranium Mining Segment--
0 Mine Waste Rock Dumps - Each year, the uranium industry
disposes of more than 300 million tons of waste rock
(approximately 14 percent of all non-coal mine wastes).
Analytical results from the presurvey show this materi-
al to exhibit radioactivity levels ranging from 1.71 to
46.6 pCi/g. Because of the magnitude of these wastes,
their radioactive and toxic characteristics, and the
30
-------
potential for fugitive dust emissions, this management
practice scored four pluses out of seven categories and
became another obvious choice for comprehensive study.
0 Mine Water Ponds - Although these ponds represent rela-
tively lesser volumes of wastes than the other practices
chosen for comprehensive study, there appears to be po-
tential for impact to groundwater with elevated, levels
of heavy metals and radium 226 in these waste streams.
The Presurvey data indicated elevated levels of radium
226 (concentrations as high as 416 pCi/liter) and ele-
vated levels of barium, apparently from the barium
chloride employed to remove radium 226 from the mine
water prior to discharge. For these reasons, uranium
mine water ponds were chosen for further study, despite
the fact that this waste management scored pluses in
only three of the seven categories.
Lead/Zinc Mining Segment--
0 Tailings Ponds •- The Presurvey results indicated the
presence of elevated levels of lead, zinc, mercury,
cadmium, chromium, selenium, and silver in lead/zinc
tailings. Because of the great potential for migration
of these heavy metals from the 16 million tons of lead/
zinc tailings generated annually, this management prac-
tice was selected for more comprehensive study. This
management practice rated pluses in all but one (radio-
activity) of the seven categories.
31
-------
Gold/Silver Mining Segment—
0 Tailings Ponds - This waste management practice scored
pluses in all but one (radioactivity) of the seven pos-
sible categories. The Presurvey results revealed ele-
vated levels of lead, cadmium, selenium, mercury, sil-
ver, chromium, and cyanide. Because of the great po-
tential for migration of these heavy metals and cyanide
from the 8 million tons of gold/silver tailings gener-
ated annually, this management practice was selected
for comprehensive monitoring.
Molybdenum Mining Segment--
0 Tailings Ponds - This waste management practice scored
pluses in six of the seven possible categories. The
Presurvey results indicated slightly elevated levels of
arsenic, lead, selenium, and cadmium. In addition,
cyanide is used in the beneficiating processes. Corro-
sivity characteristics were also reported in the Pre-
survey results. Because there appears to be a signif-
icant potential for migration of these heavy metals
from the 30 million tons of molybdenum tailings gener-
ated annually, this waste management practice has been
selected for further study.
Selection of Specific Mining Districts
Having selected the waste management practices listed above,
it was necessary to focus on the geographic location of these
industries to choose the most significant locations for study.
As will be seen on the maps which follow, each industry segment
32
-------
has one to three major producing locales. These major mining
districts naturally tend to have mining sites which are similar
to each other in soils, geologic strata, and climatic conditions.
The maps-clearly point out these major districts. Because fund-
ing limits the number of sites which can be visited, each map is
accompanied by an explanation of the Agency's decision to study
one district over another. Table 6 gives the major ore producing
districts for each of the industry segments.
Figure 2. Geographic distributions and copper ore production
contributions of major producing states.
Copper .Mining Industry Segment
The major copper producing district is the Southwest (Ari-
zona and New Mexico), which accounts for 78 percent of U.S. pro-
duction (Table 6, Figure 2). The large open-pit mines and asso-
ciated waste management practices in this area are also fairly
typical of open pit operations in Utah and Montana. This region
has consequently been selected to comprehensively monitor both
copper tailings ponds and leach dumps.
33
-------
TABLE 6. MAJOR PRODUCING REGIONS WITHIN INDUSTRY SEGMENTS'
Industry
segment
Major
producing
states
Ore production
1000 short tons,
(% of total)
Copper
Lead/zinc
Molybdenum
Phosphate rock
Gold/silver
Uranium
Arizona
Utah
New Mexico
Montana
Missouri
Tennessee
Idaho
Colorado
New Mexico
Florida .
Western states
Tennessee
Nevada
South Dakota
Idaho
Colorado
New Mexico
Wyoming
Other0
152,000 (68)
30,900 (14)
22,100 (10)
14,000 (6)
7,430 (60)
2,930 (24)
680 (6)
26,400 (83)
5,330 (17)
157,000 (94)
7,310 (4)
2,890 (2)
4,180 (55)
1,580 (21)
775 (10)
205 (3)
3,400 (37)
3,320 36
2,480 (27
Information obtained from 1978-1979 Minerals Yearbook. U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Includes Alabama, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.
Includes Colorado, Texas, Utah, and Washington.
34
-------
94%
Figure 3. Geographic distribution and phosphate ore production
contributions of major producing states.
Phosphate Mining Industry Segment
The domestic phosphate mining industry consists of about 40
mines. All the mines except one, which is located in Montana,
mine phosphate rock by surface mining methods. Florida is the
major producing state accounting for more than 90 percent of the
U.S. production (Table 6, Figure 3). Idaho, the next major pro-
ducing state, is responsible for about 4 percent of the domestic
production. Although this production is considerably less than
that for Florida, phosphate mining is nonetheless a significant
and major industry in Idaho.
Large quantities of overburden and waste rock are generated
by both Florida and Idaho phosphate mining operations. Both of
these states have therefore been chosen as the areas in which the
impact from phosphate waste rock piles may be comprehensively
monitored. The specific reasons for selecting both areas are as
follows: 1) both states are leading producers of phosphate rock;
2) the chemical characteristics of Florida phosphate waste rock
are distinctly different from those of Idaho waste rock; and 3)
waste management practices utilized in these two areas are
distinctly different.
Operations in Florida and Idaho both produce tailings; how-
ever, the amount generated by the Florida industry is substan-
tially larger than the amount generated by the Idaho industry.
This is mainly due to the larger amount of phosphate rock that is
concentrated by the Florida industry and the lower grade of Flor-
ida phosphate rock. Therefore, Florida has been chosen as the
area for monitoring phosphate tailings ponds.
35
-------
Figure 4. Geographic distribution and uranium ore production
contributions of major producing states.
Uranium Mining Industry Segment
Uranium is mined at more than 200 operations in western
states, (Table 6, Figure 4) with New Mexico and Wyoming the
leaders, producing 37 percent and 36 percent of this country's
uranium oxide, respectively. About 75 percent of all uranium
mines are underground operations, the largest of which are lo-
cated in New Mexico. The remaining mines are large, open pit
operations, concentrated primarily in Wyoming.
The vast majority of uranium mine waste rock is generated by
the large, open pit mines in Wyoming (underground mines produce
relatively insignificant amounts of mine waste rock as compared
to surface mines). Therefore, Wyoming has been chosen as the
mining area in which the impact from uranium mine waste rock
piles will be comprehensively monitored.
Mine water ponds in the uranium mining industry are commonly
employed at both the underground operations of New Mexico and the
large surface mines in Wyoming. Because both of these areas are
major producers of uraniun, New Mexico and Wyoming have been
chosen as the mining areas in which the impact from uranium mine
water ponds will be comprehensively monitored.
36
-------
Figure 5. Geographic distribution and gold/silver ore production
contributions of major producing states.
Gold/silver Mining Industry Segment
The domestic gold/silver mining industry consists of more
than 175 mines, nearly all in Western states. About a third of
these mines produce gold and silver as a principal product; the
remainder are base metal mines (e.g., copper, lead, zinc) which
recover gold and silver as byproducts at smelters. The principal
gold/silver producing states are Nevada (55%), South Dakota
(21%), and Idaho (10%)(Table 6, Figure 5). The one mine in South
Dakota and all the mines in Nevada employ the cyanidation tech-
nique for beneficiating the ore. Because the environment of the
principal gold/silver producing states of South Dakota and
Nevada are considerably different, both these areas have been
chosen for the comprehensive monitoring phase.
37
-------
Figure 6. Geographic distribution and lead/zinc ore production
contributions of major producing states.
Lead/Zinc Mining Industry Segment
One of the most widely scattered of the industry segments is
the lead/zinc segment. Lead/zinc ores are recovered as a primary
product at about 50 mines. Missouri, Tennessee, and Idaho account
for about 60, 24, and 6 percent of these ores, respectively
(Table 6, Figure 6). Missouri is the major lead producing region,
while Tennessee is the major zinc producer. The majority of
mines in the lead/zinc industry are underground operations.
Because both Tennessee and Missouri are the major producing
mining districts of these metals, each district has been chosen
to be included in the comprehensive monitoring program.
38
-------
Figure 7. Geographic distribution and molybdenum ore production
contributions of major producing states.
Molybdenum Mining Industry Segment
There are only three primary molybdenum mines; two are lo-
cated in Alpine/sub-Alpine environments in Colorado while the
third is situated in the mountainous region of northern New Mexi-
co (Table 6, Figure 7). One of the Colorado mines is an under-
ground operation while the other has both surface and underground
workings. The New Mexico mine has recently changed from open pit
to underground. The two Colorado mines accounted for over 83
percent of the total molybdenum produced in 1979. Production
from the New Mexico mine has dropped off due to the ongoing
changeover from surface to underground operations.
The two Colorado mines currently contribute about 80 percent
of the mill tailings generated by the primary molybdenum industry,
In addition, future expansion of this industry segment will prob-
ably involve development of one or more primary molybdenum mines
in Colorado. For these reasons, Colorado has been chosen as the
mining area in which the impact from molybdenum mill tailings
ponds will be comprehensively monitored.
39
-------
Table 7 presents the final list of waste management prac-
tices selected for the study in Step II.
TABLE 7. MINING DISTRICTS TO BE STUDIED FOR EACH
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Southwest copper tailings ponds
Southwest copper leach dumps
Florida and Idaho phosphate mine waste rock dumps
Florida phosphate tailings ponds
Wyoming uranium waste rock dumps
Wyoming and New Mexico uranium mine water ponds
Nevada and South Dakota gold/silver tailings ponds
Missouri and Tennessee lead/zinc tailings ponds
Colorado molybdenum tailings ponds
STEP III - SELECTION OF SITES FOR MONITORING
The objective of this final step is to choose sites for air,
surface, and groundwater monitoring which are typical or most
representative of the industry segments and waste management
practices which have been chosen in Steps I and II.
This step is thus significantly different from the first
two. As mentioned earlier, Steps I and II have sought to find
the streams and practices with comparatively high levels of risk
for the environment. The criteria in Step III will now be uti-
lized to find sites which are (1) typical of the practices which
they will represent and (2) amenable to monitoring and data in-
terpretation. The criteria for each industry segment, and each
40
-------
industry segment will be explained separately, will thus fall in-
to two major categories: typicality of the site and ability to
monitor.
Step III Selection Criteria
The somewhat complex criteria used in Step III are explained
in the following paragraphs.
Typicality of the Site—
There are two subcriteria for consideration in this section,
waste characteristics and environmental factors.
Waste characteristics—Although the waste managment practices
were considered to be fairly consistent among sites within a
district, as was expected, the degree of variation of waste
characteristics was greater from site to site. Since it is the
Agency's intention to select sites that are typical of the se-
lected mining districts, it was important to choose sites whose
wastes exhibited characteristic values (0 to +++) most frequently
repeated with other site wastestreams. This minimized, the chances
for selecting sites whose wastes are more/less representative of
the norm.
The grading for this subcriteria is similar to that already
discussed in Step II; however, it is applied to individual sites
for each of its waste management practices. The grading system
is outlined below:
EP Toxicity:
0 = Concentrations of one or more metals in liquids or acid
extracts of solid materials within the WMP are less
than specified in "primary drinking water standards"
(PDWS).
41
-------
+ = Concentrations of one or more metals in liquids or acid
extracts of solid materials within the WMP are more
than specified in PDWS, but less than 10 times the
PDWS.
++ = Concentrations of one or more metals in liquids or acid
extracts of solid materials within the WMP are more
than 10 times specified in PDWS, but less than 100
times the PDWS.
+++ = Concentrations of one or more metals in liquids or acid
extracts of solid materials within the WMP are more
than 100 times the PDWS.
Corrosivity:
0 = Liquids within the WMP have a pH between 4 and 10;
solids have a potential acidity of less than 500 yg
carbonate/g of material.
+ = Liquids within the WMP have a pH between 3 and 4 or
between 10 and 11; solids have a potential acidity of
greater than 500 but less than 5000 yg carbonate/g of
material.
++ = Liquids within the WMP have a pH between 2 and 3 or
between 11 and 12.5; solids have a potential acidity of
greater than 5000 but less than 50,000 yg of carbonate/g
of material.
+++ = Liquids within the WMP have a pH less than 2 or greater
than 12.5; solids have a potential acidity of greater
than 50,000 yg carbonate/g of material.
Radioactivity:
0 = Liquids or solids within the WMP have radium 226 values
of less than 4.0 pCi/liter or 4.0 pCi/g, respectively.
+ = Liquids or solids within the WMP have radium 226 values
greater than 4.0 , but less than 10 pCi/liter or 10
pCi/g, respectively.
++ = Liquids or solids within the WMP have radium 226 values
greater than 10 but less than 50 pCi/liter or 50 pCi/g,
respectively.
+++ = Liquids or solids within the WMP have radium 226 values
greater than 50 pCi/liter or 50 pCi/g, respectively.
42
-------
Cyanide:
0 = Cyanide is not added or used in the processing of ore.
+ = Sulfide flotation process employs cyanide.
+++ = WMP includes leach cyanidation process waste.
Environmental factors—The effects from climate and hydro-
geological conditions were another important consideration for
selecting typical sites. With few exceptions, differences in
precipitation/evaporatranspiration ratios were not anticipated
for sites within a given district; however, proximity to surface
and groundwaters was expected to be more variable. Once again,
the intent was to select sites whose underlying hydrogeological
profiles are most representative of the district. Specific con-
ditions considered and the grading system for each are as follows:
Precipitation/Evapotranspiration Ratio:
- = Ratio for the area in which a particular WMP exists is
less than 0.5.
0 = Ratio for the area in which a particular WMP exists is
equal to or greater than 0.5 but less than 1.0.
+ = Ratio for the area in which a particular WMP exists is
equal to or greater than 1.0 but less than 1.5.
++ = Ratio for the area in which a particular WMP exists is
equal to or greater than 1.5.
Proximity of Waste Management Practice to Surface Water:
0 = Surface water greater than a mile from the WMP.
+ = Surface water is between 200 yards and a mile of the
WMP.
++ = Surface water is within 200 yards of WMP.
43
-------
Proximity of Waste Management Practice to Groundwater:
0 = Groundwater depth at WMP is expected to be more'than
150 feet.
+ = Groundwater depth at WMP is expected to be between 50
and 150 feet.
++ = Groundwater depth at WMP is expected to be less than 50
feet.
Monitoring Considerations—
A second major criterion for selecting sites under Step III
was various monitoring considerations, including existing moni-
toring installations and external influences that would adversely
affect an effective monitoring program.
Existing monitoring program—Under this criterion, a site
having an existing monitoring installation would be favored over
another site where monitoring is nonexistent. The advantages
would be a saving of monies and an existing bank of historical
data to verify new data collected under this study.
External influences—The external influences that were con-
sidered included the following:
The location of the waste management practice in proximity
to another mining or non mining operation—Isolated management
practices were favored over management practices in close prox-
imity to other operations. This gave added assurance that the
data will demonstrate a direct cause and effect relationships for
the specific management practice being studied.
Age of operation—Established sites were favored over newly
developed sites to allow potential contamination to be mobilized
44
-------
and thus detectable. In most cases, waste management practices
in existence less than four or five years were given less consid-
eration for final selection than older practices.
Mixing of two or more waste streams—Some sites routinely
mix wastes from different sources. These practices were less
preferable for selection than wastes that were maintained sepa-
rately.
The following rating system was used for monitoring consid-
erations :
Monitoring Program:
0 = There are no monitoring programs for surface water and/
or groundwater.
+ = General site monitoring of surface water and/or ground-
water is being conducted.
++ = Monitoring of the WMP for surface water and/or ground-
water is being conducted.
External Influences:
0 = No problems are expected in the monitoring of ground-
water or surface water at a particular WMP.
- = Some problems are expected in the monitoring of ground-
water or surface water at a particular WMP, but they
are believed to be resolvable.
— = Unresolvable problems are expected in the monitoring of
groundwater or surface water at a particular WMP (elim-
inates management practice from further consideration).
Step III - Results
The sites selected based on Step III criteria for the com-
prehensive monitoring program are presented for each industry
segment waste management practice in the following sections.
45
-------
Southwest Copper Tailings Pond Sites
Approximately 200 million tons of tailings are generated an-
nually at copper mines in the Southwest, accounting for about 9
percent of the total non-coal mining industry solid wastes. Cop-
per in this district is recovered from sulfide ores (principally
chalcopyrite). Typically, tailings are disposed of in on-site,
unlined ponds with recycle of tailings water to the beneficiating
process. Tailings dikes are typically constructed of coarse
tailings.
Based on the application of Step III Criteria to the six
Southwest Copper Presurvey Sites (Table 8), four sites were
selected for comprehensive monitoring:
0 Pima Mine (No. 28)
0 San Manuel Mine (No. 30)
0 Sierrita Mine (No. 31)
0 Morenci Mine (No. 32)
Pima Mine—
The Pima Mine is owned by the Cyprus Pima Mining Company,
which is owned by Cyprus Mines Corporation, Union Oil, and Utah
International and is located about 20 miles southwest of Tucson,
Arizona. This site was selected because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other
Southwest copper tailings ponds.
0 Unlined pond with recycle of tailings water to
beneficiation process (no discharge).
0 Tailings dike construction consists of a small
earthen starter dam and coarse tailings.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
Southwest copper tailings ponds sampled during the Pre-
survey.
46
-------
TABLE 8. EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC SOUTHWEST COPPER TAILINGS POND SITES
Site
Ho.
28
29
30
31
32
33
Typicality of waste management practice
Haste characteristics
EP
toxlclty
44
4+
4-f
44
44
44
Corros1v1ty
0
0
4
44
4
44
Radio-
activity
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cyanide
4
0
4
0
0
0
Environmental factors
Precipitation/
evapotrans-
plratlon ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
Proximity to
surface water
0
0
+
0
+
•f
Proximity to
groundwater
0
0
0
0
0
0
Existing
monitoring
program
++
4
4
+-f
44
4
External
Influences
0
0
-
0
-
-
-------
0 Some liquid samples and/or EP acid extracts of
settled solids or dike material revealed concen-
trations of certain metals which were greater than
10 but less than 100 times the PDWS (2 pluses in
Table 8).
0 Cyanide is employed in the sulfide flotation
process (one plus in Table 8).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other Southwest
copper mining operations.
0 Elevation is approximately 3,000 feet with rela-
tively flat terrain. Located on a pediment of the
Sierrita Mountains. Climate is semi-arid.
0 The substrata underlying the tailings pond con-
sists of relatively thin layer of sand and gravel,
soil, siliceous material with some carbonate ce-
mentation (50-200 feet thick) overlying siliceous
igneous bedrock.
0 It is located in the Santa Cruz drainage basin,
more than a mile from the Santa Cruz River—(a
rating of zero in Table 8).
0 Groundwater in the area of the tailings ponds
occurs at a depth of 200 to 400 feet (a rating of
zero in Table 8).
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 Several water supply wells located on site are
periodically monitored. Also, some groundwater
monitoring around the tailings pond area has been
conducted by the Pima Association of Governments.
(2 pluses in Table 8.)
0 There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
San Manuel Mine--
The San Manuel Mine is owned by the Magma Copper Company, a
subsidiary of Newmont Mining Corporation, and is located about 34
miles northeast of Tucson, Arizona. This site was selected be-
cause :
48
-------
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other
Southwest copper tailings ponds:
0 Unlined pond with recycle of decant water to the
beneficiation process.
0 Tailings.pond dike is constructed of coarse tail-
ings separated through the use of cyclones placed
on the birm.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
Southwest copper tailings ponds sampled during the Pre-
survey :
0 Some liquid samples and/or EP acid extracts of
settled solid or dike material revealed concentra-
tions of certain metals which were greater than 10
but less than 100 times the PDWS (2 pluses in
Table 8).
0 Cyanide is employed in the sulfide flotation
process (one plus in Table 8).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other Southwest
copper mining operations.
0 Sparsely vegetated, gently rolling terrain in a
semi-arid setting typical of copper mining opera-
tions in the Tucson area.
0 The substrata underlying the tailings pond con-
sists of siliceous material with some carbonate
cementation overlying siliceous igneous bedrock.
0 It is located in the San Pedro River drainage
basin less than one mile from the river (a rating
of one plus in Table 8).
0 Groundwater in the area of the ponds occurs at
depths of 200 to 300 feet (a rating of zero in
Table 8).
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 Groundwater obtained from 1,000 foot deep wells
pumping from a supply aquifer is periodically mon-
itored (one plus in Table 8).
0 Plant wastes, other than beneficiation tailings,
are sent to the tailings ponds. These wastes in-
clude smelter wastewaters and solid and liquid
49
-------
domestic wastes. This practice of combining
wastes results in a minus under External Influ-
ences in Table 8. This practice is common at a
number of copper mining operations and domestic
wastes discharged to the tailings pond is rela-
tively insignificant.
Sierrita Mine—
The Sierrita Mine is owned by the Duval Corporation, a sub-
sidiary of Penzoil Company and is located about 15 miles south of
Tucson, Arizona. This site was selected because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other
Southwest copper tailings ponds:
0 Unlined pond with recycle of tailings water to
beneficiation process (no discharge).
0 Tailings dike construction consist of a small
earthen starter dam and coarse tailings.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
copper tailings ponds sampled during the Presurvey:
0 Some liquid samples and/or EP acid extracts of
settled solids or dike material revealed concen-
trations of certain metals which were greater than
10 but less than 100 times the PDWS (2 pluses in
Table 8).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other Southwest
copper mine operations.
0 Gently rolling topography (elevation 3,500 feet)
in a semi-arid setting typical of copper mining
operations in the Tucson, Arizona area.
0 The substrata underlying the tailings pond con-
sists of siliceous material with some carbonate
cementation overlying siliceous igneous bedrock.
0 It is located in the Santa Cruz drainage basin,
with drainage to the east (approximately 5 miles
from the Santa Cruz River—a rating of zero in
Table 8).
0 Groundwater in the tailings pond area occurs at a
depth of 200-500 feet (a rating of zero in Table 8)
50
-------
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 The groundwater in the tailings pond area is being
monitored; 13 monitoring wells located east and
south of tailings dike (two pluses in Table 8).
0 There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
Morenci Mine--
The Morenci Mine is owned by the Phelps Dodge Corporation,
and is located in Morenci, Arizona along the Arizona-New Mexico
border. This site was selected because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other
Southwest copper tailings ponds:
0 Unlined pond with recycle of tailings water to
beneficiation process (no discharge).
0 Tailings dike construction consists of a small
earthen starter dam and coarse tailings.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
copper tailings ponds sampled during the Presurvey:
0 Some liquid samples and/or EP acid extracts of
settled solids or dike material revealed concen-
trations of certain metals which were greater than
10 but less than 100 times the PDWS (2 pluses in
Table 8).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other Southwest
copper mine operations.
0 Mountainous topography (elevation 3,600 - 6,500
feet) in a semi-arid setting typical of copper
mining operations in Southeastern Arizona - South-
western New Mexico.
0 The substrata underlying the tailings pond con-
sists of siliceous material with some carbonate
cementation overlying siliceous igneous bedrock.
51
-------
0 It is located in the San Francisco drainage basin,
with drainage to the east (approximately 3/4 mile
from the San Francisco River—a rating of one plus
in Table 8).
0 Groundwater in the tailings pond area occurs at a
depth of 115-240 feet (a rating of zero in Table 8)
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 The groundwater level in the tailings pond area is
monitored on a weekly basis. In addition, there
are process water supply wells within 1/4 mile of
the tailings pond. (2 pluses in Table 8).
0 There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
Southwest Copper Leach Dump Sites
Mine waste material is leached to recover its copper content
at some Southwest copper mining operations. Typically copper
bearing material is piled above grade and leached with water or
acid. The leachate or pregnant leach liquor is collected and the
copper is subsequently recovered from the leachate by precipita-
tion with iron scrap. The portion of the total mine waste mate-
rial generated at a site which is subjected to leaching varies
considerably from site to site.
Based on the application of the Step III Criteria to the two
Southwest copper leach dumps sites visited during the Presurvey
(Table 9), one site was selected:
0 Chino Mine (No. 33)
Chino Mine—
The Chino Mine is owned by the Kennecott Corporation and is
located near Hurley, New Mexico which is in the southwest portion
of the state. This site was selected because:
52
-------
TABLE 9. EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC SOUTHWEST COPPER LEACH DUMP SITES
en
Site
No.
31
33
Typicality of waste management practice
Waste characteristics
EP
toxlclty
+++
4-M-
Corros1v1ty
+++
++
Radio-
activity
0
0
Cyanide
0
0
Environmental facto
Precipitation/
evapotrans-
plratlon ratio
-
Proximity to
surface water
0
•f
rs
Proximity to
groundwater
0
0
Monitoring considerations
Existing
monitoring
program
+
++
External
Influences
0
-------
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other cop-
per leach dump operations.
0 Copper bearing material is piled above grade near
the open pit. Piles are initially leached with
acid to start the leaching process and then water
is used to complete leaching.
° Leach liquor is collected downgradient from the
piles and sent to the precipitation plant for cop-
per recovery. The entire volume of mine waste ma-
terial generated at Chino is subjected to leaching,
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
leach dumps material sampled during the Presurvey.
0 Concentrations of certain metals in the pregnant
leach liquor material were greater than 100 times
the PDWS for these metals (three pluses in Table
9). Samples of the leached rock material also re-
vealed relatively elevated levels for certain
metals.
0 Pregnant leach liquor had a pH between 2 and 3
(two pluses in Table 9).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other leach dumps
in the Southwest copper mining district.
0 Gently rolling topography (elevation in area of
operation ranges from 5,000 to 6,000 feet). Semi-
arid climate and sparse vegetation.
0 The substrata underlying the area consists of wea-
thered sandstone which is cemented, altered lime-
stone, shale, and granite.
0 Lamp Bright Creek, an ephemeral stream, is in
close proximity (less than one mile) to the mine
and the leach dump area (one plus in Table 9).
The intermit flow of this creek occurs most fre-
quently between July and October which is typical
of most ephemeral streams associated with the
Southwest copper mining industry.
0 Groundwater in the area varies but generally oc-
curs at a depth of 150 to 200 feet (a rating of
zero in Table 9).
54
-------
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 Seepage associated with the leach dump operation
is collected by ten barrier or interceptor wells
that are located downgradient from the leach dump
area. These barrier wells also serve as monitor-
ing wells (two pluses in Table 9).
*
° There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
Florida and Idaho Phosphate Mine Waste Rock Dump Sites
Approximately 395 million tons of phosphate waste rock is
generated annually in Florida and Idaho, accounting for about 18
percent of the total solid waste generated by non-coal mining
activities in this country. The ore deposits and consequently
the waste rock management practices employed in Florida and Idaho
are distinctly different. In Florida, two distinct management
practices are typically used. In both methods, the mine waste
rock is initially backfilled into adjacent sites previously ex-
cavated. Then the mine waste is either graded and revegetated
for ultimate uses such as grazing land, or it is employed to con-
struct the dikes of clay tailings ponds.
In the mountainous terrain of the southeastern Idaho phos-
phate district, the shale material is initially segregated from
the cherty-limestone material. These materials are then dumped
over mountain sides, in mountain valleys, or backfilled into pre-
viously excavated pits with shales placed over the cherty-lime-
stone material. Reclamation of the mining areas is typically af-
fected by grading and revegetating the waste rock dumps.
55
-------
Based on application of Step III Criteria to the four Flor-
ida and four Idaho waste rock dump Presurvey sites (Table 10),
three were selected for comprehensive monitoring:
0 Fort Green Mine (No. 2)
0 Lonesome Mine (No. 3)
0 Wooley Valley Mine (No. 8)
Fort Green Mine—
The Fort Green Mine is owned by the Agrico Chemical Company
and is located about five miles south of Mulberry, Florida in the
central Florida phosphate mining district. This site was selected
because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other Flor-
ida phosphate waste rock dumps (overburden).
0 Waste rock (overburden) is placed in piles adjacent
to cuts being mined and and later used to cap com-
pleted clay tailings ponds, with subsequent reveg-
etation.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
Florida waste rock dumps sampled during the Presurvey.
0 Samples revealed radium 226 concentration greater
than 4 but less than 10 pCi/g (one plus in Table 10)
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other Florida
phosphate waste rock dumps.
0 Flat to gently rolling terrain (elevation of 120-
135 feet) in a subtropical climate.
0 The substrata underlying the waste rock dumps con-
sists of unconsolidated layers of clays and fine
sand, underlain by limestone and dolomite forma-
tions, regional in extent.
0 The mine waste rock dumps are located in the
drainage basin of Payne Creek (total watershed is
102 acres), Payne Creek is about 2,300 feet from
the mine waste rock dump areas. (A rating of one
plus in Table 10).
56
-------
TABLE 10. EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC FLORIDA AND IDAHO PHOSPHATE WASTE ROCK DUMP SITES
Site
No.
Florida
1
2
3
4
Idaho
5
6
7
8
Typicality of waste management practice
Waste characteristics
EP
toxlclty
+
0
0
0
4
4
4
+
Corrosfvlty
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
Radio-
activity
4
4
44
44
4
44
4
++
Cyanide
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Environmental factors
Precipitation/
evapotrans-
plration ratio
4
•f
4
4
0
0
0
0
Proximity to
surface water
4
+
++
+
0
-f
+
4
Proximity to
groundwater
44
44
44
44
0
4
0
44
Monitoring considerations
Existing
monitoring
program
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
External
Influences
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
0 Surficial groundwater in the waste rock dumps area
occurs at a depth of 20-50 feet (a rating of 2
pluses in Table 10). The Floridian aquifer occurs
at a depth of 100-150 feet.
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 Tailings pond discharge is monitored to meet NPDES
permit requirements (one plus in Table 10).
0 There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
Lonesome Mine—
The Lonesome Mine is owned by the Brewster Phosphates; a
subsidiary of American Cyanamid, and is located about five miles
south of Bradley, Florida. This site was selected because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other Flor-
ida waste rock dumps.
0 Waste rock (overburden) is placed in piles adjacent
to cuts being mined and later used to cap completed
clay tailings ponds, with subsequent revegetation.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
Florida waste rock dumps sampled during the Presurvey.
0 Samples revealed radium 226 concentrations greater
than 10 but less than 100 pCi/g.
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other Florida
phosphate waste rock dumps.
0 Flat to gently rolling terrain (elevation of 120-
135 feet) in a subtropical climate.
0 The substrata underlying the waste rock dumps con-
sists of layers of clays and fine sand, underlain
by limestone and dolormite formations, regional in
extent.
0 The mine waste rock dumps are located in the
drainage basin of the south fork of the Alafia
River (two pluses in Table 10).
58
-------
0 Surficial groundwater in the mine waste rock dump
area occurs at a depth of 20-50 feet (2 pluses in
Table 10). The Floridian aquifer occurs at a
depth of 100-150 feet.
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 Tailings pond discharge is monitored as part of
NPDES requirements.
Wooley Valley Mine—
The Wooley Valley Mine is owned by the Stauffer Chemical
Company and is located 15 miles northeast of Soda Springs, Idaho.
It was chosen because the waste characteristics and environmental
factors associated with its waste rock dumps are typical of the
other Idaho phosphate sites.
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other
Southeastern Idaho phosphate mine waste rock dumps:
0 Waste rock is segregated into cherts, limestones,
and altered shales. The cherts and limestones are
deposited first and then the altered shales are
placed over these materials, to provide a good
growing medium for revegetation practices.
0 Surface runoff from the disposal area is controlled
by sediment retention basins located down gradient
of the dumpsite.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
Idaho phosphate mine waste rock dumps sampled during
the presurvey.
0 EP acid extracts of mine waste rock samples re-
vealed concentrations of certain metals which were
greater than, the PDWS, but less than 10 times the
PDWS (one plus in Table 10).
0 Activity levels for radium 226 were elevated (two
pluses in Table 10).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of the Eastern Idaho
phosphate mining industry.
59
-------
0 Mountainous topography (elevation between 6,300
and 7,000 feet). Average annual precipitation is
19 inches and the potential evapotranspiration is
approximately 23 inches.
0 The substrata in the area of the mine waste dump
consist of approximately 20-30 feet of unconsoli-
dated sediment underlain by nearly vertical dip-
ping beds of cherts, shales, and limestones.
0 Drainage is to Angus Creek which eventually flows
into Blackfoot River. Angus Creek is about 1/4
mile from the mine waste dumps. (one plus in
Table 10).
0 Groundwater systems are alkaline with high buffer-
ing capacities which is common to the area.
Groundwater either flows vertically through the
carbonate beds underlying the waste rock dump or
horizontally through the unconsolidated surface
sediments toward Angus Creek (shallow -20-30 feet
deep - two pluses in Table 10).
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 Surface water in the Southeastern Idaho phosphate
mining district is routinely monitored by the U.S.
Forest Service. U.S. Geological Survey also is
investigating radioactivity in surface waters and
springs in the area (one plus in Table 10).
0 There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
Florida Phosphate Tailings Pond Sites
The Florida phosphate mining and beneficiating industry gen-
erates approximately 70 million tons per year of clay tailings,
accounting for about 5 percent of the total non-coal mining in-
dustry solid wastes generated annually. Phosphate clay tailings
are typically disposed of in unlined ponds or mined out cuts from
which water is completely recycled. Florida clay tailings ponds
are typically constructed from mined out pits with dikes built up
60
-------
around them of mine waste rock or waste gypsum from adjacent fer-
tilizer plants.
Based on application of the Step III Criteria to the four
Florida tailings pond Presurvey sites (Table 11), two sites have
been selected for the comprehensive monitoring program:
0 Fort Green Mine (No. 2)
0 Suwannee River Mine (No. 4)
Fort Green Mine—
The Fort Green Mine is owned by the Agrico Chemical Company
and is located about five miles south of Mulberry, Florida in the
central Florida phosphate mining district. This site was selected
because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other Flor-
ida phosphate tailings ponds.
0 The clay tailings containing 40 percent solids are
pumped to mined cuts averaging 550 acres. Over-
flow from gravity settling of clay solids is re-
cycled to beneficiating process. Overflow is
discharged to surface waters.
0 Reclamation involves placement of an overburden
cap over the tailings, followed by revegetation.
Reclaimed land is used for pasture, timber pro-
duction, wildlife habitat, and recreation.
0 Canals are employed to recycle water throughout
operation.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
Florida phosphate tailings pond wastes sampled during
the Presurvey.
0 Some tailings liquid samples and/or extracts of
tailings solids samples revealed concentrations of
certain metals which were more than any specified
in PDWS, but less than 10 times the PDWS (one plus
in Table 11).
61
-------
TABLE 11. EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC FLORIDA PHOSPHATE TAILINGS POND SITES
Site
No.
1
2
3
4
Typicality of waste management practice
Waste characteristics
EP
toxicity
+
•f
++
++
Corrosivity
0
0
0
0
Radio-
activity
0
<•++
0
+
Cyanide
0
0
0
0
Environmental factors
Prrcipitation/
evanotrans-
piration ratio
+
+
+
t
Proximity to
surface water
+
+
+
+
Proximity to
groundwater
+ +
+-f
++
f 4
Monitoring considerations
Existing
monitoring
program
+
+
+
* *
External
influences
-
0
0
0
-------
0 Elevated radium 226 levels (some liquid or solid
tailings samples had radium 226 concentrations
greater than 50 pCi/liter or 50 pCi/g respectively)
(three pluses in Table 11).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other Florida
phosphate tailings ponds.
0 Flat to gently rolling topography (elevation of
120-135 feet) in a subtropical climate.
0 The substrata underlying the tailings ponds con-
sists of unconsolidated layers of clays and fine
sand, underlain by massive limestone and dolomite
formations, regional in extent.
0 The tailings ponds are located in the drainage
basin of Payne Creek (total watershed is 102
acres), Payne Creek is about 2,300 feet from the
tailings pond (one plus in Table 11).
0 Surficial groundwater in the tailings pond area
occurs at a depth of 20-50 feet, depending primar-
ily on rainfall (two pluses in Table 11). The
Floridian aquifer occurs at a depth of 100-150
feet.
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 Tailings pond discharge is monitored to meet NPDES
permit requirements (one plus in Table 11).
0 There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
Suwannee River Mine--
The Suwannee River Mine is owned by Occidental Chemicals,
Inc., and is located 10 miles north of White Springs, Florida.
This site was selected because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other Flor-
ida phosphate tailings ponds.
0 The clay tailings containing 40 percent solids are
pumped to mined cuts averaging 550 acres. Over-
flow from gravity settling of clay solids is re-
cycled to beneficiating process. Overflow is
discharged to surface waters.
63
-------
0 Reclamation involves placement of an overburden
cap over the tailings, followed by revegetation.
Reclaimed land is used for pasture, timber pro-
duction, wildlife habitat, and recreation.
0 Canals are employed to recycle water throughout
operation.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are basically typical
of other Florida phosphate tailings ponds sampled dur-
ing the Presurvey.
0 Some tailings liquid samples and/or extracts of
tailings solid samples revealed concentrations of
certain metals which were more than 10 times but
less than 100 times the PDWS (two pluses in Table
11).
0 Elevated radium 226 levels of some liquid or solid
samples had radium 226 concentrations greater than
4 but less than 10 pCi/liter or 10 pCi/g, respec-
tively (one plus in Table 11).
(3) Environmental factors are basically typical of other
Florida phosphate tailings pond operations; however,
subtle differences exist at this north-central Florida
operation. Selection of this site therefore will re-
veal the impact from a tailings pond in a slightly dif-
ferent setting than those located in Central Florida.
0 Flat to gently rolling topography in a subtropical
climate.
0 The substrata underlying the tailings pond con-
sists of layers of unconsolidated clays and fine
sand, underlain by massive limestone and dolomite
formations, regional in extent.
0 The tailings pond is located in the drainage basin
of the Suwannee River. Tributaries of the Suwannee
River (Swift, Hunter, and Roaring Creeks) are
within a mile of the tailings ponds. (one plus in
Table 11).
0 Surficial groundwater in the tailings pond area
varies considerably with rainfall but always
occurs within a depth of 50 feet (two pluses in
Table 11). Floridian aquifer occurs at a depth of
about 50-60 feet.
64
-------
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 Existing monitoring wells and surface water moni-
toring. U.S.G.S., as subcontractor to EPA Region
IV, will complete surface and groundwater monitor-
ing programs around the tailings area by December
1981 (two pluses in Table 11).
0 There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
Wyoming Uranium Mine Waste Rock Dump Sites
Over 240 million tons of uranium mine waste rock are gener-
ated annually in Wyoming, amounting to 11 percent of the total
waste generated by non-coal mining industries. Mine waste rock
from the open pit mines is typically hauled by truck and either
backfilled into the mines or dumped in areas adjacent to the open
pits. These mine waste dumps and backfilled areas are graded for
subsequent reclamation.
Based on the application of the Step III Criteria to the
four Wyoming waste rock dump Presurvey sites (Table 12), two
sites were selected for comprehensive monitoring:
0 Bear Creek Mine (No. 16)
0 Lucky Me Mine (No. 19)
Bear Creek Mine—
The Bear Creek Mine is owned by Bear Creek Uranium Company,
which is jointly owned by Rocky Mountain Energy Company and Mono
Power Company, which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Union Pa-
cific Corporation and Southern California Edison Company, respec-
tively. Bear Creek is located about 35 miles northeast of Doug-
las, Wyoming. This site was selected because:
65
-------
TABLE 12. EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC WYOMING URANIUM WASTE ROCK DUMP SITES
CTl
CT>
Site
No.
16
17
18
19
Typicality of waste management practice
Waste characteristics
EP
toxlclty
+
+
+
•f
Corroslvlty
0
0
++
+
Radio-
activity
+
0
0
+
Cyanide
0
0
0
0
Environmental factors
Precipitation/
evapotrans-
plratlon ratio
0
0
0
0
Proximity to
surface water
+
+
++
+
Proximity to
groundwater
0
0
0
0
Existing
monitoring
program
+
+
4-
+
External
Influences
0
0
0
0
-------
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other Wyo-
ming waste rock dumps.
0 Waste rock dumps are constructed in areas near the
open pit to minimize disposal costs. Construction
of surface dumps includes topsoil removal and
storage, placement of wastes, and reclamation.
0 Some procedures employed at Bear Creek concerning
reclamation activities and general management of
the dump sites are somewhat exemplary. These pro-
cedures include grading some areas of piles to a
5:1 slope, use of diversion ditches and retention
ponds to control runoff, and some use of vegetable
fiber matting to hold soil during revegetation.
All sites employ these types of activities (grad-
ing, runoff diversion, revegetation) but not to
the extent that Bear Creek employs them.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
mine waste dumps sampled during the Presurvey.
0 EP acid extracts of some waste rock samples re-
vealed concentrations of certain metals which were
greater than specified for these metals in the
PDWS, but less than ten times more (one plus in
Table 12).
0 The radium 226 values recorded for some samples
were greater than 4 pCi/g, but less than 10 pCi/g
(one plus in Table 12).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other Wyoming
uranium operations.
0 Topography is rolling, elevation about 5,000 feet,
and vegetation is sparse. Climate is semi-arid
with less than 12 inches average annual precipi-
tation.
0 The substrata underlying the area consists of
claystone, siltstone, and sandstone.
0 The site is located on the divide of the Cheyenne
River. Bear Creek is within approximately 1,000
feet of the waste dumpsite (one plus in Table 12).
0 Top of the water table is between 200 and 250 feet
deep (a rating of zero in Table 12).
67
-------
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 A fairly extensive monitoring program is maintained
at Bear Creek. The program includes a meteorology
station, some overburden characterization, air
monitoring (including radon daughters sampling
station), and surface and groundwater monitoring.
Most monitoring is associated with the tailings
pond. (one plus in Table 12.)
0 There are no apparent external incluences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
Lucky Me Mine—
The Lucky Me Mine is owned by the Pathfinder Mines Corpora-
tion, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Utah International,
Inc., which is a wholly owned affiliate of General Electric Com-
pany. The operation is located near Gas Hills, Wyoming which is
about 80 miles west of Casper. This site was selected because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other Wyo-
ming uranium waste rock dumps.
0 Waste rock dumps are constructed in areas near the
open pit. Construction of the dumps includes top-
soil removal, placement of wastes, and subsequent
waste stabilization by reclamation.
0 Reclamation involves slope reduction (piles graded
to either a 3:1 or 4:1 slope), placement of a
runoff diversion system, and revegetation.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
waste rock material sampled during the Presurvey.
0 EP acid extracts of some waste rock samples re-
vealed concentrations of certain metals which were
greater than specified for these metals in the
PDWS, but less than 10 times more (one plus in
Table 12).
0 The radium 226 values recorded for some waste rock
samples were greater than 4 pCi/g, but less than
10 pCi/g (one plus in Table 12).
68
-------
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other Wyoming
uranium operations.
0 The operation is located in the southeastern por-
tion of the Wind River Basin. Elevation in the
vicinity of the mine ranges from 6,000 to 6,700
feet.
0 The climate is semi-arid, with mean annual precip-
itation of less than 10 inches. Most of the pre-
cipitation occurs during April, May, and June in
the form of wet snow and rain.
0 Topsoil in the area ranges from 6 and 30 inches.
The substrata underlying the site consists mostly
of sandstone and shale. The major bedrock units
in the area are the Wind River and Cody shale for-
mations.
0 Numerous creeks and draws occur throughout the
area of the Lucky Me operation. Fraser Draw is
the major drainage in the vicinity of the opera-
tion. Fraser Draw is a tributary of Muskrat Creek
which is a tributary of the Wind River. All the
drainage in the area are dry except for periodic
runoff from snowmelt and rain storms. Fraser Draw
is within one mile of the dumps (one plus in Table
12).
0 The water table in the area is estimated to be
about 200 feet deep (a rating of zero in Table 12).
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 A fairly extensive monitoring program is maintained
at Lucky Me. Most of the monitoring is associated
with the tailings pond but there are also some
general area or site monitoring stations located
around the vicinity of the operation (one plus in
Table 12).
0 There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
New Mexico and Wyoming Uranium Mine Water Pond Sites
Although the precise quantity of waste associated with the
water pumped from uranium surface and underground mines in Wyoming
69
-------
and New Mexico is not known, it is certainly relatively insignif-
icant compared to the volumes of other mine wastes generated.
Nearly all of the mine water produced is treated before discharge,
typically in a series (usually three) of 2 to 10-acre ponds by
alum flocculation of suspended solids and precipitation of radium
226 with barium chloride.
Based on the application of Step III Criteria to the four
New Mexico and four Wyoming mine water pond Presurvey sites
(Table 13), three sites were selected for comprehensive monitoring:
0 Churchrock No. 1 Mine (No. 13)
0 Section 35 Mine (No. 14)
0 Shirley Basin Mine (No. 18)
Churchrock No. 1 Mine—
The Churchrock No. 1 Mine is owned by the Kerr-McGee Corpo-
ration and is located 25 miles northeast of Gallup, New Mexico.
This site was selected because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other New
Mexico uranium mine water ponds:
0 Liners are not used beneath the mine water ponds.
0 Pond system has a discharge.
0 Several mine water ponds are used in series for
treatment. Flocculants and barium chloride are
reagents employed for treatment.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
New Mexico uranium mine water ponds sampled during the
Presurvey.
0 Liquid samples and/or EP acid extracts of settled
solids from the mine water pond revealed that cer-
tain metals were in concentrations between 10 and
100 times the PDWS (two pluses in Table 13).
70
-------
TABLE 13. EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC NEW MEXICO AND WYOMING URANIUM MINE
WATER POND SITES
Site
No.
New
Jtexlco
12
13
14
15
Wyoming
16
17
18
19
Typicality of waste management practice
Waste characteristics
EP
toxldty
44
+4
44
4
4
44
44
44
Corroslvlty
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Radio-
activity
444
444
444
444
44
4
4
4
Cyanide
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Environmental factors
Precipitation/
evapotrans-
plration ratio
- .
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
Proximity to
surface water
0
44
4
+
0
4
4
4
Proximity to
groundwater
4
4
44
44
0
4
0
0
Monitoring considerations
Existing
monitoring
program
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
External
Influences
-
-
-
-
0
-
0
-
-------
0 Radium 226 concentration in some samples of mine
water ponds were greater than 50 pCi/g or 50 pCi/1.
(three pluses in Table 13).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other New Mexico
uranium mine sites.
0 Mesa and valley topography with elevations approx-
imately 6,700-7,000 feet in a setting with semi-
arid climate.
0 The substrata underlying the mine water pond con-
sists of siliceous alluvial deposits with regional
interbedded sandstones. Shale beds exist but are
not considered an aquaclude, due to fracturing.
0 The Rio Puerco drains the mine site area and is
less than 100 yards from the ponds (two pluses in
Table 13).
0 Groundwater in the mine water pond area occurs at
a depth of 80-100 feet (one plus in Table 13).
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 NRC requires the groundwater in the vicinity of
the tailings pond be monitored (one plus in Table
13).
0 Run-off from mine waste rock and low-grade ore is
routed to the mine water pond for treatment. This
combining of waste streams is not believed to sig-
nificantly change the character of the mine water
ponds, because of the arid climate (i.e., minor
volumes of run-off water as compared with the con-
stant volume of mine water), (one minus in Table
13).
Section 35 Mine--
The Section 35 Mine is owned by the Kerr-McGee Corporation
and is located in Ambrosia Lake, 20 miles north of Grants, New
Mexico. This site was selected because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other New
Mexico uranium mine water ponds:
0 Liners are not used beneath the mine water ponds.
72
-------
0 Pond system has a discharge.
0 Several mine water ponds are used in series for
treatment. Flocculants and barium chloride are
employed for treatment.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
New Mexico uranium mine water ponds sampled during the
Presurvey.
0 Liquid samples and/or EP acid extracts of settled
solids from the mine water pond revealed that cer-
tain metals were in concentrations between 10 and
100 times the PDWS (2 pluses in Table 13).
0 Radium 226 concentrations in some samples of mine
water ponds were greater than 50 pCi/g or pCi/1.
(three pluses in Table 13).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other New Mexico
uranium mine sites.
0 Mesa and valley topography (elevation approximate-
ly 6,000 feet) in setting with semi-arid climate.
0 The substrata underlying the mine water pond con-
sists of siliceous alluvial deposits with inter-
bedded dipping sandstones as bedrock. Shale beds
are present and act as aquacludes. This strata is
regional in extent.
0 The San Mateo Creek drains the mine site area and
is approximately 1 mile (one plus in Table 13).
0 Groundwater in the mine water pond area occurs at
a depth of 30-50 feet (two pluses in Table 13).
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 NRC requires the groundwater in the vicinity of
the tailings pond be monitored (one plus in Table
13).
0 There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
73
-------
Shirley Basin Mine—
The Shirley Basin Mine is owned by the Pathfinder Mines Cor-
poration which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Utah International,
Inc., which is a wholly owned affiliate of General Electric.
This site was selected because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other uran-
ium mine water ponds.
0 Relatively small, unlined ponds with intermittent
discharge.
0 Flocculants and barium chloride are used to pre-
cipitate radium.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
uranium mine water ponds sampled during the Presurvey.
0 Liquid samples and/or EP acid extracts of settled
solids from the mine water pond revealed that cer-
tain metals were in concentrations between 10 and
100 times the PDWS (two pluses in Table 13).
° Some liquid and solid samples had radium 226 val-
ues greater than 4.0 but less than 10 pCi/liter or
10 pCi/g, respectively. These values are lower
than those recorded for samples from New Mexico
uranium mine water ponds, but they are typical of
the values recorded for samples from other Wyoming
mine water ponds (one plus in Table 13).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other uranium
operations..
0 Topography is gently rolling, elevation about
7,000 to 7,100 feet, and vegetation is sparse.
Climate is generally semi-arid with an average
annual precipitation of about 11 inches per year.
0 The Shirley Basin is an extension of the Wind
River Basin. The predominant substrata underlying
the operation is sandstone and some shale.
0 Local surface drainage is low. The area is drained
by Spring Creek and the Little Medicine Bow River.
Little Medicine Bow is less than 1 mile from mine
water pond area (one plus in Table 13).
74
-------
0 Groundwater in the area occurs at a depth of 150
to 200 feet (a rating of zero in Table 13).
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 There is very little monitoring directly associated
with the mine water pond; however, general Multime-
dia (air, groundwater, and surface water) monitor-
ing is conducted on site and at several areas in
close proximity to the site (one plus in Table 13).
0 There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
Nevada and South Dakota Gold/Silver Tailings Pond Sites
Gold/silver mines in South Dakota and Nevada generate over 5
million tons of tailings annually, accounting for less than one
percent of total solid wastes generated by non-coal mining indus-
tries. The gold/silver mining industry is characterized by a few
large mines producing a large percentage of total U.S. production
through the cyanidation leaching process.
Tailings from the cyanidation processes are typically sluiced
to unlined ponds. State-of-the-art technology includes seepage
collection/recycle systems at the base of the tailings dams with
standby chlorination systems for cyanide destruction in the event
of failure or overload of the seepage recycle system.
Based on application of the Step III criteria to the three
Nevada and one South Dakota tailings pond Presurvey sites (Table
14), two sites were selected for comprehensive monitoring:
0 Carlin Mine (No. 52)
0 Lead Mine (No. 55)
75
-------
TABLE 14. EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC NEVADA AND SOUTH DAKOTA GOLD/SILVER
TAILINGS POND SITES
CT>
Site
No.
Nevada
52
53
54
South
Dakota
55
Typicality of waste management practice
Waste characteristics
EP
toxicity
+++
+++
4
+
Corrosivity
+
4
0
4
Radio-
activity
0
0
0
0
Cyanide
444
444
444
444
Environmental factors
Precipitation/
evapotrans-
pi rat ion ratio
0
Proximity to
surface water
4
0
0
+ 4
Proximity to
groundwater
0
0
+
+ *
Monitoring considerations
Existing
moni toring
program
4
0
0
++
External
influences
0
-------
Carlin Mine--
The Carlin Mine is owned by Newmont Mining Corporation and
is located 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. This site was se-
lected because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other gold/
silver tailings ponds for cyanidation wastes:
0 Unlined pond with recycle of decant water to bene-
ficiation process (no discharge).
0 Tailings pond dam consists of an earthen dam.
0 Seepage collection systems with pump-back capabil-
ities are located below the pond.
(2) Presurvey waste capabilities are typical of other gold/
silver tailings ponds for cyanidation leach process.
0 Some liquid and/or EP acid extracts of settled
solids revealed concentrations of certain metals
which were greater than 100 times the PDWS (three
pluses in Table 14).
0 Liquid sample revealed slightly elevated levels of
corrosivity having a pH value between 10 and 11
(one plus in Table 14).
0 Significant quantities of cyanide is employed in
the cyanidation leaching operations during bene-
ficiation (three pluses in Table 14).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other Nevada gold/
silver tailings ponds for cyanidation leaching wastes:
0 High relief to mountainous (elevation 6,000 to
6,700 feet) in semi-arid settings.
0 The substrata underlying the tailings pond is sed-
imentary in origin. The majority of surface de-
posits are siliceous interbedded sandstones,
cherts, and shales.
0 The mine site is located in the Sheep Creek drain-
age basin, located approximately 1 mile to the
north (a rating of one plus in Table 14).
77
-------
0 Groundwater in the area of the tailings pond
occurs at a depth greater than 150 feet (a rating
of zero in Table 14).
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 Water supply wells and some monitoring wells are
located downgradient of the tailings pond (one
plus in Table 14).
0 The beneficiation mill and certain mine waste
dumps are approximately 200 to 300 yards up-grad-
ient of the tailings pond, but should not interfere
with the location and interpretation of background
data.
Lead Mine--
The Lead Operation is owned and operated by the Homestake
Mining Company and is located in Lead, South Dakota. Although
this mine is the only significant gold mine in South Dakota, it
was chosen because:
(1) It is the largest gold mine in the world, representing
21 percent of total U.S. gold/silver production from
principal mines.
(2) The waste management practice is typical of tailings
disposal at other gold/silver mines using cyanidation
recovery process.
0 Unlined pond with recycle of decant water to bene-
ficiation process (no discharge).
0 Tailings pond dam consists of an earthen dam.
0 Seepage collection and pump back facilities are
located below the pond.
(3) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
gold/silver cyanidation tailings ponds sampled during
the Presurvey:
0 Some liquids and/or EP acid extracts of settled
solids revealed concentrations of certain metals
which were greater than specified for these metals
in the PDWS but less than 10 times the PDWS (one
plus in Table 14).
78
-------
0 Significant quantities of cyanide is employed in
the cyanidation leaching operations during bene-
ficiation (three pluses in Table 14).
0 Some solid samples revealed potential acidity
values in the 500 to 5,000 yg 003 per gram of sam-
ple range (one plus in Table 14).
(4) It represents a different environmental setting than
that of Nevada operations:
0 Hilly topography, elevation about 5,500 feet, with
a precipitation to evapotranspiration ratio of
0.75 to 1.0.
0 It is located in the Grizzly Creek drainage basin
which drains to Strawberry Creek, surface waters
are within a mile of the practice (one plus in
Table 14).
0 Groundwater in the area below the tailings pond is
expected to be within 50 feet of the surface (two
pluses in Table 14).
(5) Monitoring Considerations
0 The tailings pond has many groundwater wells and
surface water sampling stations. Ground and sur-
face waters are routinely analyzed from these sam-
pling points (two pluses in Table 14).
0 The age of the tailings pond is only 3 years, but
because of the relatively shallow groundwater
table the age of this waste management practice
should be sufficient to allow detection of leach-
ate if it is present (one minus in Table 14).
Missouri and Tennessee Lead/Zinc Tailings Pond Sites
Approximately 13 million tons of tailings are generated an-
nually at underground lead and zinc mines in Missouri and Tennes-
see, accounting for less than one percent of the total non-coal
mining industry solid wastes. Typically, tailings are disposed
of in on-site ponds, with dams constructed of earthen materials,
mine waste rock, and/or coarse tailings.
79
-------
Based on the application of Step III Criteria to the one
Tennessee and two Missouri lead/zinc Presurvey sites (Table 15),
two sites were selected for comprehensive monitoring:
0 Young Mine (No. 40)
0 Viburnum Mine (No. 46)
Young Mine—
The Young Mine is owned by ASARCO Incorporated and is lo-
cated about 30 miles east of Knoxville, Tennessee, near Mascot.
The Young Mine and beneficiating plant are representative of
other operations in the eastern Tennessee zinc mining district.
The specific reasons for selecting the Young tailings pond for
comprehensive monitoring are as follows:
(1) The beneficiating process and the tailings waste man-
agement practice are typical of other eastern Tennessee
operations:
0 Beneficiating process consists of conventional
crushing, heavy media separation, grinding, flota-
tion, and limestone (agricultural lime) byproduct
recovery. The tails, which consists of the slimes
that remain after limestone recovery, are dis-
charged to a 50 acre tailings pond.
0 Tailings pond is unlined and tailings water is re-
cycled. Periodic discharging does occur during
periods of heavy rainfall. Discharge is through a
small decant pond.
(2) Only one eastern Tennessee mining operation was sampled
during the Presurvey and therefore a comparison of the
characteristics of tailings from different sites in
this district cannot be made. Information obtained
through telephone contacts indicate that characteris-
tics of tailings from different operations in this dis-
trict are not expected to vary significantly. Also,
the waste characteristics data recorded for the Young
Mine are consistent with the results obtained for other
(e.g., Missouri and New York) lead/zinc mines sampled
during the Presurvey.
80
-------
TABLE 15. EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC MISSOURI AND TENNESSEE LEAD/ZINC TAILINGS POND SITES
Site
No.
Tennessee
40
Missouri
45
46
Typicality of waste management practice
Waste characteristics
EP
toxlclty
4+
+
44
Corroslvlty
0
0
0
Radio-
activity
0
0
0
Cyanide
0
t
4
Environmental factors
Precipitation/
evapotrans-
plration ratio
4+
4
4
Proximity to
surface water
4
4
+
Proximity to
groundwater
4
4+
•t-f
Monitoring considerations
Existing
monitoring
program
4
4
4
External
Influences
0
00
-------
0 Some liquid and/or EP acid extracts of settled
solids revealed concentrations of certain metals
which were greater than 10 but less than 100 times
the PDWS (two pluses in Table 15).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other Eastern Ten-
nessee zinc mines.
0 Gently rolling topography (elevation 800 to 1,200
feet) with seasonal climate (precipitation exceeds
evaporation) which is typical of the setting for
most lead/zinc mining operations in the eastern
United States and Missouri.
0 The substrata of the Eastern Tennessee zinc mining
district is karstic (an irregular limestone region
with .numerous sinks, underground streams, and cav-
erns). The depth to groundwater varies consider-
ably (50 to over 150 feet)(one plus in Table 15).
0 Several small streams are located in close prox-
imity to the tailings pond. Beaver Creek, the
largest stream in the immediate area, is about 1/2
mile west of the tailings pond (one plus in Table
15).
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 Several wells located on private property near the
Young operation are periodically monitored. Bear
Creek is monitored at least once a year at points
upgradient and downgradient of the Young site (one
plus in Table 15).
0 There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
Viburnum Mine—
The Viburnum Mine is owned and operated by St. Joe Minerals
Corporation and is located 1.5 miles southeast of Viburnum, Mis-
souri. This site was selected because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other Mis-
souri lead tailings ponds:
0 Unlined pond with recycle of tailings water to
beneficiation process (no discharge).
82
-------
0 Tailings pond was constructed by damming a valley.
Tailings pond dam construction consist of a small
earthen starter dam and coarse tailings.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are typical of other
lead/zinc tailings ponds sampled during the Presurvey:
0 Some liquid and/or EP acid extracts of settled
solids or dike material revealed concentrations of
certain metals which were greater than 10 but less
than 100 times the PDWS (two pluses in Table 15).
0 Cyanide is employed in the sulfide flotation pro-
cess (one plus in Table 15).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of other Missouri
lead mine operations.
0 Hilly topography (elevations between 1,000 and
1,300 feet) in a high precipitation - low evapo-
transpiration setting which is typical of the en-
tire New Lead Belt mining operations in southeas-
tern Missouri.
0 The substrata underlying the tailings pond con-
sists mainly of massive carbonate formulations,
regional in extent.
0 The pond is located fairly close (-1/2 mile) from
Indian Creek, a continuous flowing drainage for
the area (one plus in Table 15).
0 Groundwater in the vicinity of the pond is less
than 50 feet deep, which is typical of valleys in
the New Missouri Lead Belt. (two pluses in Table
15).
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 Mining effects on the environment within the New
Missouri Lead Belt has been studies by the Univer-
sity of Missouri (one plus in Table 15).
0 The tailings pond is only 4 years old; however,
since there groundwater is relatively shallow, it
is believed that the age of this waste management
practice will be sufficient to detect leach.ate
within the groundwater system (one minus in Table
15).
83
-------
Molybdenum Tailings Pond Sites
The three primary molybdenum mines, two in Colorado and one
in New Mexico, generate about 30 million tons of tailings annual-
ly, and account for about 2 percent of the solid waste generated
by non-coal mining industries. Tailings from the beneficiation
plants at these sites are all slurried to unlined impoundments.
State-of-the-art tailings disposal technology includes seepage
collection/recycle systems at the base of the dams which are con-
structed of coarse tailings. The two Colorado sites account for
the majority of the molybdenum tailings produced, in addition fu-
ture expansion of this industry segment is likely to include ad-
ditional mine development in Colorado.
Based on application of the Step III criteria to the two
Colorado tailings pond Presurvey sites (Table 16), one tailings
pond site was selected for comprehensive monitoring:
0 Henderson Mine (No. 50)
Henderson Mine--
The Henderson Mine is owned and operated by the Climax Mo-
lybdenum Company, a subsidiary of AMAX, Inc. The mine is located
on the eastern side of the Continental Divide near Empire, Colo-
rado, while the mill is on the western side of the Divide about
15 miles away. The tailings pond at this site was selected
because:
(1) The waste management practice is typical of other pri-
mary molybdenum mines:
0 Unlined pond with recycle of decant water and col-
lected seepage to the beneficiation process.
84
-------
TABLE 16. EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC MOLYBDENUM TAILINGS POND SITES
Site
No.
49
50
Typicality of waste management practice
Waste characteristics
EP
toxldty
*
+
Corroslvlty
+•+
4-f
Radio-
activity
0
0
Cyanide
+
+
Environmental factors
Precipitation/
evapotrans-
plratlon ratio
+
4
Proximity to
surface water
•f
+
Proximity to
groundwater
++
+
Monitoring considerations
Existing
monitoring
program
*
4-
External
Influences
0
00
en
-------
0 Tailings dike construction consists of an earthen
toe dam, with successive lifts of coarse tailings.
(2) Presurvey waste characteristics are. typical of other
molybdenum tailings ponds sampled during the Presurvey:
0 Some liquid and/or EP acid extracts of settled
solids from the tailings pond or dike material re-
vealed that certain metals were in concentrations
greater than, but less than 10 times the PDWS (one
plus in Table 16).
0 Samples of material in the tailings pond revealed
levels of potential acidity in the same range as
found in the other major operations (two pluses in
Table 16).
0 Cyanide is employed in the flotation process (one
plus in Table 16).
(3) Environmental factors are typical of those at tailings
ponds at the other primary molybdenum mines.
0 Mountainous topography in Alpine/sub-Alpine set-
ting similar to the other major operation in
Colorado.
0 The substrata underlying the tailings pond area is
highly siliceous material, consisting of clays,
sands, and gravel overlying bedrock.
0 It is located in the Ute Creek watershed, with
drainage north-east to the nearby Williams Fork
River, approximately 0.5 mile from the Williams
Fork River (one plus in Table 16).
0 Although no specific data was available on depth
of groundwater in the immediate area the available
information suggests that groundwater depth is not
greater than 150 feet, similar conditions exist at
the other operation (one plus in Table 16).
(4) Monitoring Considerations
0 There are no groundwater monitoring wells in the
area of the tailings pond, as is true of the other
Colorado operation. There are some surface water
monitoring programs at the tailings pond sites
(one plus in Table 16).
0 There are no apparent external influences which
would significantly interfere with a monitoring
program.
86
-------
Table 17 presents a summary of the specific sites selected
for each industry segment waste management practice to be studied,
87
-------
TABLE 17. MINE SITES SELECTED FOR COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING
Southwest copper tailings ponds
Pima (No. 28) - Arizona
San Manuel (No. 30) - Arizona
Sieritta (No. 31) - Arizona
Morenci (No. 32) - Arizona
Southwest copper leach dumps
Chino (No. 33) - New Mexico
Florida and Idaho phosphate mine waste rock dumps
Fort Green (No. 2) - Florida
Lonesome (No. 3) - Florida
Wooley Valley (No. 8) - Idaho
Florida phosphate tailings ponds
Fort Green (No. 2)
Suwannee River (No. 4)
Wyoming uranium mine waste rock dumps
Bear Creek (No. 16)
Lucky Me (No. 19)
Wyoming and New Mexico uranium mine water ponds
Churchrock No. 1 (No. 13) - New Mexico
Section 35 (No. 14) - New Mexico
Shirley Basin (No. 18) - Wyoming
Nevada and South Dakota gold/silver tailings ponds
Carlin (No. 52) - Nevada
Lead (No. 55) - South Dakota
Missouri and Tennessee lead/zinc tailings ponds
Young (No. 40) - Tennessee
Viburnum (No. 46) - Missouri
Molybdenum tailings pond
Henderson (No. 50) - Colorado
88
-------
FUTURE PLANS FOR COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING
At this time the EPA is planning to monitor all of the rec-
ommended sites. However, some sites may be dropped from the mon-
itoring program if sufficicent funds are not available. Other
sites may be dropped if information is uncovered during the ini-
tial site visit that would make the site undesirable for addi-
tional study.
Figure 8 presents the schedule for the major task involved
in conducting the comprehensive monitoring phase of the study.
Eash of the major tasks is discussed below.
COMPANY CONTACTS
A period of approximately one month will be required for
PEDCo to establish the proper contacts with the mining companies
selected for comprehensive monitoring. A schedule will be estab-
lished for the initial site visits. Potential problem areas such
as the procedures to be followed for site access, safety require-
ments, etc., will be discussed.
INITIAL SITE VISITS
Site visits of two to four days' duration will be made to
insure that the actual site characteristics will facilitate a
monitoring program and to collect all background information nec-
essary for developing monitoring plans. Several teams, consisting
89
-------
VD
O
Mining company contacts
Initial site visits
Development of compre-
hensive monitoring
research plan
Industry review and
comment
Comprehensive moni-
toring program
Final report
1981
M
^m
A
M
^M
™
M
••••
*"•
•••
J
urn
•^
J
IB
A
S
0
N
D
1982
J
F
M
A
M
J
.
J
A
S
0
Figure 8. Schedule for Comprehensive Monitoring Program.
-------
of personnel from PEDCo, their subcontractors, and EPA will
conduct these visits.
COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING RESEARCH PLAN
At the completion of the initial site visits, PEDCo will
prepare a comprehensive monitoring research plan for each indi-
vidual site. This plan will describe in detail the types of sam-
ples to be collected, the parameters to be monitored, the samp-
ling frequency, the length of the monitoring program, and other
site specific details. The comprehensive monitoring research
plan will be reviewed by the individual mining company before
implementation.
A number of parameters will be monitored. These include the
following:
0 Solid Waste. Representative mining solid waste samples
will be collected and analyzed. The samples may be
grab samples, composite samples, and or samples ob-
tained from borings. In addition to the normal ana-
lytical work, RCRA Extraction Procedure tests will be
conducted on some of the samples.
0 Groundwater. It is believed that this aspect of the
study is extremely important. In order to adequately
study the groundwater hydrology and quality, a series
of wells will be drilled. The exact number, depth, and
orientation of these wells will be determined after the
preliminary site visits have been made. When necessary
to define groundwater movement, pump, draindown, and
91
-------
other tests will be conducted. All drilling will be
subcontracted.
0 Surface Water. The surface water flow around a dispos-
al practice will be thoroughly studied. Both quantity
and quality of the surface waters will be evaluated.
Since the flush-off of pollutants during a storm event
may be a time of significant pollution contribution,
sampling during storm events will be conducted. Data
will be collected using weirs and Parshall flumes and
continuous recorders and samplers.
0 Air Monitoring. Air samples will be collected from se-
lected disposal sites to measure fugitive or other air
emissions such as radon gas. Due to funding limitations,
the extent of this phase of the study may be limited.
0 Meteorological. Where on-site data is not available, a
weather station will be installed at each site. Records
of precipitation, evaporation, relative humidity, tem-
perature, and wind direction and magnitude will be ob-
tained.
COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING
The comprehensive monitoring will be initiated on a staggered
basis to allow for efficient utilization of equipment and program
personnel. Regional climatic conditions will play a major role
in developing the monitoring schedule. It is estimated that each
site will be monitored for a period of two to six months. PEDCo
personnel will not be on site the entire time. It may only be
92
-------
necessary to collect samples weekly or even monthly. At the con-
clusion of the data collection phase of the study, all weirs,
flume, meteorological equipment, etc., will be removed and all
wells capped or sealed.
FINAL REPORT
At the conclusion of the comprehensive monitoring phase of
the study, PEDCo will prepare a detailed final report describing
all the results of the mining solid waste study. EPA will use
this data, as well as the results from other studies as part of a
final report to Congress fulfilling the Agency's mandate under
RCRA and the 1980 Amendments.
93
-------
Attachment A
MINE SITES SELECTED FOR COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING
Southwest copper tailings ponds
Pima (No. 28) - Arizona
San Manuel (No. 30) - Arizona
Sieritta (No. 31) - Arizona
Morenci (No. 32) - Arizona
Southwest copper leach dumps
Chino (No. 33) - New Mexico
Florida and Idaho phosphate mine waste rock dumps
Fort Green (No. 2) - Florida
Lonesome (No. 3) - Florida
Wooley Valley (No. 8) - Idaho
Florida phosphate tailings ponds
Fort Green (No. 2)
-Stwa-nnee-R-i-ver-'(No-r~4-} -A-v^y 0-«-
Wyoming uranium mine waste rock dumps
Bear Creek (No. 16)
Lucky Me (No. 19')
Wyoming and New Mexico uranium mine water ponds
Churchrock No. 1 (No. 13) - New Mexico
Section 35 (No. 14) - New Mexico
Shirley Basin (No. 18) - Wyoming
Nevada and South Dakota gold/silver tailings ponds
Carlin (No. 52) - Nevada.
Lead (No. 55) - South Dakota
Missouri and Tennessee lead/zinc tailings ponds
Young (No. 40) - Tennessee
Viburnum (No. 46) - Missouri
Molybdenum tailings pond
Henderson (No. 50) - Colorado
-------
DATE.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FBB24I9S1
REGION 1>;
HoiW'81
.SUBJECT: Mine Solid Waste Study ~ Two Reports for Review
. o
A\A'
Yvonne M. Garbe
FROM-. Office of Solid
Hazardous & Industrial Waste Division
TO: EPA Regional Offices I - X
Our Office of Solid Waste and the Office of Research and
Development have been conducting a joint investigation of the
mining industry as mandated under Section 8002(f) of RCRA, 1976
and more recently, under Section 8002(p) of the 1980 RCRA Amendments.
We have just completed the first phase of a major $3.1 million
technical contract to PEDCo Environmental, Inc. to study the phos-
phate, uranium, iron, copper, lead, zinc, molybdenum, gold and silver
mining industries. The "tirst half of the study included sampling
and analyses of solid wastes collected from 65 various mine sites
within these industry segments.
The sampling and analytical procedures along with the test
results are presented in the accompanying Phase I - Presurv.ey .draft
report. Copies of the report have been distributed for review and
comment to the participating industry sites as well as to various
Federal Agencies and program offices concerned with mining. If
you wish to submit comments, we would appreciate receiving them no
later than March 15, 1980 to allow ample time for incorporation
into the final report.
A second draft report, Mining Industry Solid Waste Interim »,
• Report, is also enclosed for your review. The report explains the
method EPA employed to select 20 candidate sites (see attachment A)
for more comprehensive study during the second phase of the contract.
Those sites were selected from the original list of 65 visited
during the Presurvey (Phase I). Under Phase II,
streams and associated management practices will
monitored for their effects on the environment.
likely that our present budget will not allow us
sites, we will visit each initially with the intention
the number to 12-15 final sites at a later date.
specific waste-
be comprehensively
Although it is
to monitor all 20
of reducing
A general Phase II schedule beginning with the initial site
visits and an outline of the comprehensive monitoring program are
discussed in this report (see pages 89 - 93). Your comments on
this draft report are invited as well. •
We have been and will continue to work closely with the Regional
Offices throughout this study. We will notify the appropriate staff
within each Region well in advance of all site visits. Meanwhile,
if you have questions regarding the reports or the study, or if you
are aware of any information that would enhance, deter or otherwise
affect this study, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Your cooperation with both our contractors and our.headquarters and
research offices has be.en greatly appreciated.
Attachments
: PA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
(3)
------- |