COST FOR TREATING MINERAL
MINING DISCHARGES
Originating from Mine and.Process Area Runoff
Contract No. 68-01-3273
FINAL REPORT
Prepared For:
Environmental Protection Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
Waterside Mall, East Tower
401 M Street, S.W., (WH-552)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared By:
VERSAR INC.
General Technologies Division
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield,
MARCH 1976
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
II
111
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . 1
INTRODUCTION . . 3
1.0 General Description of Industry 3
2.0 General Discussion of Current State Legislation ... 5
3.0 Cost Development Methodology . . . I 18
3.1 Design Elements 20
3.2 Soil Absorbenc/. ............... 22
3.3 Cost Elements . 23
3.4 Sensitivity of the Model Costs to Lagoon
Retention Time 29
3.5 Sensitivity of the Model Costs to the
Design Rainfall Event. ............ 29
3.6 Sensitivity of the Model Costs to
Sediment Load . 30
3.7 Verification of Model Costs ......... 32
INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION 37
1.0. DryCategories . . . . 37
1.1 Bentonite, Western Operations 37
1.2 Borax. . 37
1.3 Oil Impregnated Diatomite . 38
1.4 Feldspar, Dry Process .: .......' 38
1.5 Gilsonire . 38
.6 Graphite 38
.7 Jade .... -.-.. . ... ........... 38
.8 Lithium Minerals - Silver Peak, Nevada ... 39
.9 Magnesite 39
.1.0 Novaculire .................. 39
.11 Perlite 39
.12 Potash ...'... -39
.13 Pumice 39
.14 Salines from Brine Lakes . . . 40
.15 Sodium Sulfate, West Texas Brine Wells . . . 40
.16 Frasch Sulfur 40
.17 Trona Ore (Natural Soda Ash). ........ 41
.18 Vermiculite - Montana Operations ...... 41
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
Section Page
II! INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION - continued
1.0 Dry Categories - continued
.19 Fluorspar ...../........ 41
.20 Tripoli 42
.21 Garnet 42
.22 Bituminous Limestone . 42
.23 Diatomite. 42
2.0 Previously Regulated Categories. .;........ 43
IV APPLICATION OF RUNOFF MODEL BY SUBCATEGORY. 44
1.0 Dimension Stone. .................... 45
1.1 General Description of trie Industry. ....'. 45,
1.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data . . . . 45
1.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs . ..... 47
2.0 Crushed Stone ....'." 4?
2.1 General Description of the Industry. 4?
2.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data . 49
2.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs. . .... 51
3.0 Sand and Gravel and Industrial Sand . .55
3.1 General Description of the Industry. ..... 55
3.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data 56
3.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs 58
t
4.0 Gypsum .... . ; . . . . . . . . 60
4.1 Genera! Description of the Industry. ..... 60
4.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data 60
4.3 Runoff Control and. Treatment 61
5.0 Asbestos and WollastonIte . 66
5.1 General Description of the Industry. ..... 66
5.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data 66
5.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs . 66
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
Section Page
IV APPLICATION OF RUNOFF MODEL BY SUBCATEGORY -
continued
6.0 Mica and Sercite 68
6.1 General Description of the Industry. ..... 43
6.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data 68
6.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs £9
7.0 Rock Salt- . ^ ......... 70
7.1 General Description of the Industry. ...'.. 70
7.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data . 70
7.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs 70
8.0 Phosphate Rock 72
9.0 Bentonite ............ 74
9.1 General Description of the Industry. ..... 74
9.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data 74
9.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs 74
10.0 Fireclay. ...................... 76
10.1. General Description of the Industry 76
10.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data ........... 78
10.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs . ..... 79
11.0 Fuller's Earth . 83
11.1 General Description of the Industry 83
11.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data . . 84
11.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs . ..... 84
12.0 Common Clay and Shale 89
12.1 General Description of the Industry 89
12.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data 89
12.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs. ..... 92
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
Section Poge
IV APPLICATION OF RUNOFF MODEL BY SUBCATEGORY -
continued
13.0 The Kaolin Mining Industry ............. 97
13.1 General Description of the Industry. ..... 97
13.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data . . •....' ..... . 98
13.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs . ..... 100
14.0 Ball Clay ........... ..... ...... 104
14.1 General Description of the Industry. . . . . . ]Q4
14.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data . . . ...... . .
14.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs . .... .
16.0 Talc/ Steatite, Soapstone, Pytrophyllite .
15.0 Feldspar ........... ............ ]Q8
15.1 General Description of the Industry ...... ]Q8
15.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data . . ...... . . . 108
15.3' Runoff Control and Treatment Costs. ..... 108
16.1 General Description of the Industry ..... . HO
16.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data . . . . . . . . . . '.. ]1Q
16.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs .. ... .. ] ] ]
17.0 Previously Regulated Categories ..... ...... T'13
17.1 Lithium Minerals (Eastern Operations) .. . . ] ]3
17,2 Vermiculite ....... ........... 1 13
17.3 Barite . ............ ........ 114
17.4 Aplite. .:.... ..... .....".... ; 115
17.5 Kyanite. . ...... .... ........ .\}j
17.6 Mineral Pigments ..... .......... ] ]8
APPENDIX A — Summary of State Surface Mining and Mined Land
Reclamation Laws
APPENDIX B —Rainfall Maps and Mining Site Locations
APPENDIX C -. '
APPENDIX D — Bureau of Mines Clay Mining and Production Statistics,
1974
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Distribution of Surface Mining Laws ' 8
.2 Generalized Mine Sire Runoff Control Model ........ 21
3 Relationship Between-24'Hour Rainfall and Resulting Runoff . . . 24
4 Relationship Between the One-year and Ten-year Rainfall Events
at Various U.S. Sites 31
5 Comparison of Costs Derived from the General Cost Model with
Industry-Supplied Estimates ................. 33
6 Comparison of Estimated Capital Costs for Crushed Stone Sites . . 36
7 Comparison of Estimated Operating Costs for Crushed Stone Sites . 36
8 Total Disturbed Area Versus Production of Crushed Stone .... 50
9 Total Disturbed Area Versus Production of Sand and Gravel ... 57
10 Total Disturbed Area Versus Production of Gypsum. ...... 62
11 Production of Fireclay Versus Total Disturbed Area ..... . . 78
12 Production of Fuller's Earth Versus Total Disturbed Area . . . . 85
13 Production of Shale Versus Total Disturbed Area . 93
14 Production of Kaolin Versus Total Disturbed Area ....... 99
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Cost to Control the Runoff from the 10-Year Event 2
2 Industry Categories and SIC Codes . . .... 4
3 State Legislation 6
4 Rainfall and Runoff Data for Fireclay 80
5 Capital and Annual Operating Costs for Fireclay Mines ..... 81
6 Rainfall and Runoff Data for Fuller's Earth ........... 86
7 Capital and Annual Operating Costs for Fuller's Earth Mines . . 88
8 Production oF-Common Clay and Shale in the U.S. in 1974 ... 90
9 Rainfall and Runoff Data for Common Clay and Shale 94
10 Capita! and Annual Operating Costs for Common Clay and Shale
Mines .......... ....... 96
11 Capital and Annual Operating Costs for Kaolin Mines . . ... 102
12 Production and Projected Runoff Cost Data for Major Georgia
Kaolin Producers . . . . ... ... . ... . . ..-. . . . 103
VII
-------
SECTION I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The costs to control and treat the contaminated storm runoff from the mineral
mining and processing industry have been estimated to assess the economic impact.
During the course of this study, it was found that there are many industry sites for
which state regulations have already imposed comparable runoff control and which
therefore would have no additional cost impact due to EPA proposed regulations.
No single industry segment cost estimate has been made solely on the basis of
industry-supplied data. The cost estimates furnished herein are based on a general
runoff control model applied to each segment with regard to the distribution of affected
area sizes, soil absorbencies, and the need for treatment chemicals. In addition,
comparisons with such industry-supplied estimates as were available have been made.
Sixteen of the thirty-eight segments of this industry were found to have runoff
control problems and to operate in unregulated states. The preponderance of the control
costs were found to be concentrated in only five industry segments - sand and gravel,
industrial sand, crushed stone, common clay and shale, and kaolin. Twenty-two
industry segments have runoff problems whether or not they operate in regulated states.
A summary of costs by commodity is given in Table 1.
-------
Table 1. Costs to,Contro! RunoFf from the TO-Year Event
Capita!/ millions of dollors
to
Commodity
Dimension Stone
Crushed Stone
Send and Gravel (including
Industrial sand)
Gypsum
Asbestos and Wollastonle
Mica end Sericite
Rock Salt
Phosphate Rock
Ben Jon He
Fire Clay
Fuller's Earth
Common Clay and Shale
Kaolin
Ball Clay
Feldspar
Talc, Soapstone, Steatite
and Pyrophyilite
Lithium Minerals
Vcrmiculite
Burite
Aplite
Kyanite
Mineral Pigments
Total
Regulated
States
5.1
193.7
307.6
3.66
0.226
0.1
0.032
0.295
16.024
1.128
40.618
30.203
2.82
0.679
0.513
0.18
1.3
1.6
0.57
0.18
. 0.014
606.742
Unregulated
States
1.9
22.5
102
0.64
0.034
0.41
0.073
0.425
0.176
0.132
3.182
0.097
0.23
0.021
0.087
0
0
0
0
0
0
131.957
Total
7.0
216.2
409.6
4.3
0.26
0.51
*(2.9)
0.105
0.72
16.2
1.26
43.8
30.3
3.1
0.7
0.6
0.18
1.3
1.6
0.57
0.18
0.014
738.699
Annual Operattng/ millions of dollors
Regulated
States
2.55
59.6
88.9
1
0.09
0.171
0.014
0.169
6.108
0.613
18.185
8.018
1.36
0.189
0.253
0.048
0.382
0.44
0.12
0.056
0.018
Unregulated
States J
0.95
8.2
29.8
0.2
0.02
0.029
0.021
0.221
0.092
0.057
1.415
0.032
0.14
0.011
0.037
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
3.5
67.8
118.7
1.2.
0.11
0.2
*(0.15)
0.035
0.39
6.2
0.67
19.6
8.05
1.5.
0.2
0.34
0.048
0.382
0.44
0.12
0.056
0.018
188.329
41.275
229.604
kNot included In total; these are costs for covering storage piles rather than diversion.
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INDUSTRY
There are 38 commodity categories in mineral mining and processing industries
which were studied for this.report. These categories and corresponding SIC codes are
listed in Table 2.
Of these categories, several are in areas where runoff does not present a problem,
some are mined under ground and have no runoff, and several are in states with current
sedimentation and erosion control laws. Mine sites in regulated states have already
experienced a cost obligation for runoff control. Commodities mined only in regulated
states include lithium minerals, vermiculite, barite, aplite, kyanite and mineral
pigments. These along with the remaining 16 categories listed below that have runoff
problems are those for which costs of runoff control and treatment are assessed:
Dimension Stone Bentonite
Crushed Stone Fireclay
Construction Sand and Gravel Fuller's Earth
and Industrial Sand Shale and Common Clay
Gypsum Kaolin
Asbestos and WoIIastonite Ball Clay
Mica and Seriate F.e'clsPa.r . e-
Rock Shale Ta'c' Sf,ea,V'e' SoaPsonfe'
Phosphate Rock Pyrophyll.te
-------
Table 2. Industry Categories and SIC Codes
Categories SIC Codes
Dimension Stone 1411
Crushed Stone 1422, 1423,
1429, 1499
Construction Sand and Gravel 1442
Industrial Sand 1446
Gypsum ' 1492
Asphaltic Minerals 1499
Asbestos "and Wollastonite 1499
Lightweight Aggregates 1499
Mica and Seriate 1499
Barite 1472, 3295
Fluorspar 1473, 3295
Salines from Brine Lakes various
Borax 1474
Potash 1474
Sodium Sulfate 1474
Trona 1474
Rock Salt 1476
Phosphate Rock 1475
Frasch Sulfur 1477
Mineral. Pigments 1479
Lithium Minerals 1479
Bentonite 1452
Magnesite 1459
Diatomite 1499
Jade 1499
'Novaculite 1499
Fireclay 1453
Fuller's Earth 1454
Kyanite 1459
Shale and Common Clay 1459
Aplite 1499
Tripoli 1499
Kaolin 1455
Ball Clay 1455
Feldspar 1459
Talc/Steatite/ Soapstone, Pyrophyllite 1496
Garnet 1499
Graphite 1499
-------
2.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION OF CURRENT STATE LEGISLATION
During the initial phase of this study it became apparent that many States had enacted
legislation within the past five years that regulated surface mining, reclamation procedures,
erosion and sedimentation control, and related objectives. Several of the trade associations
confirmed that applications, drainage,, plans mining and reclamation schedules, perform-
ance bonds, and other regulatory information from both new and existing surface mining
operations are required by a number of states. A survey of applicable state legislation is
summarized in Table 3 and in Figure 1. The summary shows that 38 states have current
legislation controlling runoff, erosion, or siltation, 2 states are preparing or enacting
similar legislation, and 10 states either have no legislation or have not responded to the
request for information.
An analysis of these laws shows that many have similar, if not identical, language
»
relating to the control of runoff from disturbed or affected areas. Almost all require permits
to initiate or continue surface mining. These permit applications usually stipulate that the
operator must present a satisfactory erosion and sedimentation control plan. In a majority
of cases, the water discharged is required to meet the applicable state water quality
regulations.
Eleven states belong to the Interstate Mining Compact which requires effective pro-
grams for control of surface disturbance. These states are Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas
and West Virginia.
i • _ •
The following excerpts of pertinent sections of selected State Laws will illustrate the
widespread applicability of these laws and regulations to the control and treatment of runoff
from disturbed areas.
-------
Table 3. State Legislation
State Surface Mining Water Dam
Alabama X
Alaska X
Arizona X X
Arkansas X X
California X X X
Colorado X X
Connecticut No Law
Delaware No Law
Florida XXX
Georgia X X
Hawaii No Law
Idaho X
Illinois X X
Indiana X X
Iowa X X
Kansas X X
Kentucky X X X
Louisiana No Law
Maine X
Maryland X (coal) X
Massachusetts X
Michigan X X
Minnesota (drafting) X X
Mississippi (drafting) X
Missouri X X
Montana X
Nebraska Partial Law
Nevada X
New Hampshire X
New, Jersey No Law X X
New Mexico X (coal)
New York X X X
North Carolina X X
North Dakota X
Ohio xxx
Oklahoma X X
Oregon X X
Pennsylvania X X
Rhode Island
South Carolina X
South Dakota X X
Tennessee X
Texas X
Utah X X
Vermont X X
Virginia X X
Washington X
West Virginia XXX
Wisconsin No Law X X
Wyoming X X
-------
Alabama "Alabama Surface Mining Act of 1969", Section VII, 4.
4. Divert water from the mining operation in a manner designed to reduce siltation,
erosion, or other damage to streams and natural water courses.
Arkansas- "Arkansas Open Cut Land Reclamation Acr, Reclamation Plan Procedures,
~ Act 236 of 1971", Section 3. (h).
(h) "Affected land" means the area of land from which overburden has been removed
for open cut mining or upon which overburden or refuse has been deposited, or both; on or
after the effective date of this Act.
Section 6. (I)
(I) All refuse shall be disposed of in a manner designed to control silfaflon, erosion or
other damage to streams and natural water courses, as best allowed by the soil condition of
the location involved.
Colorado "Colorado Open Mining Land Reclamation Act of 1973", 92-13-6, (T)(f).
(f) All refuse shall be disposed of in a manner that will control stream pollution,
unsightliness, or deleterious effects from such refuse, and water from the mining operation
shall be diverted in a manner designed to control siltation, erosion, or other damage to
streams and natural watercourses.
Georgia "Georgia Surface Mining Act of 1968", "Mined Land Use Plan"
(Subsection 6(a) amended by Act No. 75(S.B. No. 3) approved
March 29, 1971).
(b) to submit, with the application for a license, a Mined Land Use Plan which shall
be consistent with the land use in the area of the mine and shall provide for reclamation of
the affected land. Once approved the operator v/ill be responsible for completion of the
plan. Once a Mined Land Use Plan has been approved for a specified area to be mined, it
shall not have to be submitted annually with the application for a license renewal. However,
-------
FIGURE!.
DISTRIBUTION OF.SURFACE MINING- LAY/S
LEGEND
EXISTING LEGISLATION
DRAFTING LEGISLATION
-------
any new area to be affected or any change in an approved plant must be submitted to the
Board for approval as an amendment to an operator's Mined Land Use Plan .
. (c) to file a bond with the Board written by surety approved by the Board and authorized
to transact business in this State. The bond shall be fixed by the Board in an amount not less
than $100 nor more than $500 per acre, or fraction thereof, of the area of affected land. The
bond shall be payable to the Governor and conditioned upon the faithful performance of the
requirements set forth in this Act and the rules and regulations of the Board. Any operator who
has fulfilled all <3f his obligations in accordance with his Mined Land Use Plan for three years
may be relieved of the future bonding requirements imposed by this Act, at the discretion of
the Board. However, any operator who violates any of the provisions of this Act or the rules
and regulations of the Board, or who defaults on his obligations under a present Mined Land
Use Plan or any Mined Land Use Plan filed by him in the future, after being relieved of the
bonding requirements imposed by this Act, may be required by the Board to post a new bond
for such period of time as the Board may determine. Operators shall have the option of
posting bond, government securities, cash or any combination thereof, on each mined area.
In determining the amount of bond, government securities or cash within the above limits, the
Board shall take into consideration the character and nature of the overburden, the future
suitable use of the land involved and the cost of reclamation to be required. The bond,
government securities or cash shall be held by the Board until the affected land or any portion,
thereof is satisfactorily reclaimed, in the opinion of the Board, at which time the bond,.
government securities or cash or portion thereof shall be terminated'or returned to the operator.
An operator, upon approval of an amended Mined Land Use Plan, shall file with the Board
the appropriate bond, government securities or cash to cover the plan as amended, unless
otherwise exempted from bonding under provisions of this Act. (Subsection 6(c) amended by
Act No. 75 (S.B. No. 3) approved March 19, 1971).
-------
Kentucky "Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Title
XXVIU, Chapter 350, Strip Mining, 1966", 350.090 (2)(d)
(d) Impound, drain or treat all runoff water so as to reduce soil erosion, damage to
agricultural lands and pollution of streams and other waters;
Regulation II — Water Quality, (2) Drainage.
(a) Water which might drain into the stripping pit shall be intercepted above the
hjghwall by diversion ditches and conveyed by stable channels (designed so they will not
erode) or other means to natural or prepared water-courses unless the Division finds these
ditches unnecessary. Such ditches shall be built of sufficient size and grade to handle the
runoff resulting from a once in ten (10) year storm event as a minimum.
(e) All drainage originating on the area of land affected must meet the specifications
in paragraph 1 (c) herein or exit through treatment facilities in accordance with paragraph 1 .
Michigan "Mine Reclamation Acts — Act No. 92 of the Public Acts of 1970, as amended
~ by Act No. 123 of the Public Acts of 1972", Section 3. (a).
(a) The sloping, terracing or other practical treatment of stockpiles and tailings basins
where erosion is occurring or is likely to occur which results or may result in injury or damage
to fish and wildlife, the pollution of public.waters, or which is causing or might cause injury
to the property or person of others.
Illinois "Surface-Mined Land Conservation and Reclamation Act, P.A. 77-1568",
effective Sept. 17, 1971 . Rule 1105 - Water Impoundments
All runoff water shall be impounded, drained, or treated so as to reduce soil erosion,
damage to unmined lands and the pollution of streams and other waters. The operator shall
construct in accordance with Chapter 15 of these Rules and Regulations earth dams, where
lakes may be formed, in accordance with sound engineering practices if necessary to impound
waters, provided the formation of the lakes or ponds will not interfere with underground or
other mining operations; other subsequent uses of the area approved by the Department-, or
10
-------
damage adjoining property. Such wafer impoundments shall be approved by the Department
based on rhc expected ability of the lakes or ponds to support desirable aquatic life and
shall have minimum depths in accordance with standards for fish stocking in the various areas
of the State recommended by the Department.
North Carolina "The Mining Act of 1971", 74.48 Purposes; 74.51 Denial of Permit.
74.48. Purposes.—The purposes of this Article are to provide:
(1) That the usefulness, productivity, and scenic values of all lands and waters
involved in mining within the State will receive the greatest practical degree of protection
and restoration.
(2) That from June 11, 1971, no mining shall be carried on in the State unless plans
for such mining include reasonable provisions for protection of the surrounding environment
and for reclamation of the area of land affected by mining. (1971, c. 545, s. 3.).
74.51. Denial of Permit
(2) That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on wildlife or fresh water,
esruarine, or marine fisheries;
(3) That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or
ground water quality which have been promulgated by the Department of Water and Air
Resources;
(6) Thaf previous experience with similar operations indicates a substantial possibility
that the operation will result in substantial deposits of sediment in stream beds or lakes,
landslides, or acid water pollution;
Oklahoma "The Mining Lands Reclamation Act, 1971;|, Rules and Regulations, Page 11,
(c). .
(c) Impound, drain or treat all runoff water so as to reduce soil erosion, damage to
grazing and agricultural lands, and pollution of subsurface waters;
11
-------
Pennsylvania "Surface Mining Con serva I ion and Reclamation Act, Nov. 1971", Section 1,
Purpose; Section 4, (2) (k).
.Section 1 . Purpose of Act — This act shall be deemed to be an exercise of the police
powers of the Commonwealth for the general welfare of the people of the Commonwealth,, by
providing for the conservation and improvement of areas of land affected in the surface mining
of bituminous and anthracite coal and metallic and nonmetallic minerals, to aid thereby in
/, -
the protection of birds and wild life, to enhance the value of such land for taxation, to decrease
soil erosion, to aid in the prevention of the pollution of rivers and streams, to prevent and
eliminate hazards to health and safety, to prevent combustion of unmined coal, and generally
to improve the use and enjoyment of said lands. (Amended November 30, 1971, Act No.
147.)
Section 4. (2) K. The application shall also set forth the manner in which the operator
plans to divert surface water from draining into the pit and the manner in which he plans to
prevent water from accumulating in the pit. No approval shall be granted unless the plan
provides fora practicable method of avoiding acid mine drainage and preventing avoidable
siltation or other stream pollution. Failure to prevent water from draining into or accumu-
lating in the pit, or to prevent stream pollution, during surface mining or thereafter, shall
render the operator liable to the sanctions and penalties provided in this act and in "The Clean
Streams Law," and shall be cause for revocation of any approval, license or permit issued by
the department of the operator.
Subchapter E. Surface Non-Coal Mining Operations, 77.101. Requirements.
(c) Water Quality Criteria
(14) The permittee shall take all necessary measures to prevent the discharge
of avoidable silt, clay or other fines associated with the operation into the receiving stream.
These precautions may include planting or vegetation, construction of settling ponds, and
treatment, if necessary to meet the current erosion and sediment control regulations of the
Department.
12
-------
(15) Any discharges emanating from the surface mine operation shall be in com-
pliance with the requirements of the Act of June 22, 1937 as amended, P.L. 1987, "The
Clean Streams Law" and Department regulations applicable to wafer quality criteria and water
pollution control.
(d) Drainage
(16) All surface water which might drain into the surface mine pit, shall be
intercepted by diversion ditches and conveyed to natural watercourses outside the surface
mining operation. Such conveyance shall be built of sufficient size and grade to prevent
overflow into any mine v/orkings. Alternate surface water control measures will be approved
on their own merit.
(17) In the process of surface mining, the permittee shall be responsible for all
impoundments of water encountered and shall take necessary action to prevent discharge of
water not meeting discharge standards.
(18) After mining has been completed, the permittee shall promptly complete
the mine closure procedures set forth in the approved reclamation plan.
(19) All water shall be directed through a collection basin for each point of
discharge, constructed of sufficient size for settling prior to discharge, unless water quality
indicates otherwise.
(e) Treatment
(20) All discharges from processing plants, which are integrated with and part
of an operation, shall meet minimum discharge standards and be covered by a permit.
(21) Discharges from processing plants which are not integrated with or part
of a permitted operation and are therefore not covered by a permit, shall apply for and
receive an Industrial Waste Permit from the Department prior to operation.
(22) When treatment facilities are a part of the approved plan of drainage, such
facilities shall be constructed, inspected and approved by the Department and ready for
operation prior to the initiation of mining.
13
-------
(23) Where'er treatment facility is required, it shall be maintained in proper
working condition and operated according to the approved design so that it performs the
functions for which it was intended.
(24) The permittee shall conduct such tests and/or shall install such equipment
for continuous monitoring as are reasonably necessary to assure continuous satisfactory operation
of the treatment facilities.
(25) The permittee shall employ personnel who are qualified by training and/or
experience to operate and maintain the treatment facilities.
(26) Treatment works shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of a
qualified professional engineer or registered surveyor. Construction shall be in accordance
with the approved plans, designs/ and other data and plans as approved, and the conditions
of the permit.
(27) During construction of treatment facilities, no changes shall be made from
the approved plans, designs, and other data unless the permittee shall first receive written
approval for each such revision from the Department.
(28) Monthly operation reports of the treatment facilities having a discharge to
a stream shall be submitted to the Department if required by the Department. Such reports
shall be submitted promptly after the end of each month on forms provided by the
Department.
South Carolina "The South Carolina Mining Act,. 1973",-Section 6.
The Department shall deny such permit upon finding:
(c) That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or
ground water quality which have been promulgated by the South Carolina Pollution Control
Authority;
(f) That previous experience with similar operations indicates a substantial possibility
that the operation will result in substantial deposits of sediment in stream beds or lakes,
landslides, or acid water pollution;
14
-------
Tennessee "Surface Mininc; Law, 1972", Regulations. 11.14- Y/cter Control-
The water flov/ from the mine area and haul rocds shall be controlled to minimize soil
erosion damage to other lane's and pollution of streams or other \vafers. This may include
construction of checks, impoundments, silt-trap darns, odd v/afer bars in conjunction with
other control measures as required. All sediment control, structures shall be constructed
according to criteria contained in the Drainage Handbook for Surface Mining published by
th.e Department of Conservation.
Utah "Utah Mined Land Reclamation Act, 1975", Section 15.
(b) To minimize or prevent present and future on-site or off-site environmental
degradation caused by mining operations to the ecologic and hydrologic regimes and to meet
other pertinent state and federal regarding air and v/afer quality standards and health and
safety criteria.
West Virginia "Surface Mining Reclamation Law, 1972", Regulations, Section 7.
7.01 Drainage Plan - There shall be submitted with the application for surface mining
a drainage plan which will show the proposed method of drainage on and away from the area of
land to be disturbed. Said plan shall indicate the directional flow of water, constructed
drainways, natural waterways used for drainage, streams or tributaries receiving or to receive
this discharge, location of sediment dams and other silt retarding structures, location of all
water test sites, treatment and all other data as may be required.
7B.01 Sediment Control - Embankment type sediment dams or excavated sediment ponds
will be constructed in appropriate locations in order to control sedimentation. All such
impoundments shall have a minimum capacity to store .125 acre-ft /acre of disturbed area in
the watershed. This disturbed area will include all land affected by previous operations that
Is not presently stabilized and all land that will be affected throughout the life of the permit.
Design criteria and construction specifications for embankment type sediment dams, excavated
15
-------
sediment ponds and other water retarding structures will be found in the "Drainage Handbook
for Surface Mining."
7C.01 Water Quality Control - All reasonable measures shall be taken to intercept
all surface v/ater by the use of diversions, culverts and drainage ditches or other methods
to prevent water from entering the pit area. All water accumulation into the pit shall be
removed as rapidly as possible with due recognition to v/ater quality requirements. All water
*\ ' ' ' ' • ' • . • •
discharged from the permit area is to be monitored daily by the operator and a written record
of the testing dates and analytical data shall be kept current and made available for inspection,
A monthly compilation of the foregoing information will be submitted monthly to the Chief of
the Reclamation Division. Any treatment works necessary to meet "adequate treatment" shall
be approved by the Division of Water Resources. The v/ater leaving the perrr\it area will not
lower the water quality of the river, stream or drainway into which it is discharged below
the water quality standards established for such river, stream or drainway. In general,
the following values or conditions are the minimum accepted standards for water leaving the
permit area:
V. pH - 5.5 to 9.0;
2. Iron - 10 milligrams per liter or. I ess;
3. Turbidity - not more than 1,000 Jackson Units (J.U.) of turbidity four hours
following a major precipitation event and not more than 200 J.U. after 24 hours.
(Major precipitation event - one-half inch of rainfall in 30 minutes.)
Water tests shall be taken before surface mining operations begin and the results of
these tests will be shown on the "drainage plan" map. The location for these preliminary
tests will be:
1 . On natural drainways above proposed surface mining operations;
2. On natural drainways below proposed surface mining operation at or near the
affected drainage area boundary;
16
-------
3. On natural clrainways upstream from tnc moulh of a nafura! drainway affected
by surface mining.
The fourteen state laws quoted above provide a spectrum of typical legislation.
Sections regarding enforcement have not been quoted, but tend to rely on periodic reports,
inspections, and fines for violations. In almost all cases, performance bonds are required
to assure completion of the approved plans.
As a result of this widespread trend to enact State legislation controlling erosion and
runoff from mining operations, a substantial percentage of all non-metallic mineral process-
ors have already completed or initiated programs for diverting, controlling, collecting, and
treating runoff from areas disturbed by mining and covered with overburden. In some cate-
gories in the mineral mining industry, all meaningful production is from regulated states.
In all categories, a substantial percentage of production is from such stares. It is therefore
evident that the economic impact of federal standards will only be felt by producers in non-
regulated states. In most categories these producers will represent a relatively modest
percentage of the total category, and the economic impact on each such category will
therefore be proportional to such percentage. However, costs were developed for production
of commodities in all states except those which for climatic reasons or mining methods used
have no runoff problems. A range of costs are given from the percentage in unregulated states
to the tofal for regulated and unregulated states.
Appendix A is a summary of state surface mining and mined land reclamation laws
prepared by the Bureau of Mines.
17
-------
3.0 COST DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this report is to present engineering cost estimates for diversion, total
containment or treatment of rainfall runoff for sediment control in the mineral mining and
processing industries. The estimates were based on data accumulated from industry, engineer-
Ing sources and various reports by the EPA, the Soil Conservation Service and the National
Weather Bureau. Other sources of useful information were the individual state mining laws,
sedimentation and erosion control laws where they existed, dam construction specifications
and water rights laws where applicable. More than 40 site visits were made to gather first-
hand information on the types of problems associated with runoff control at specific mine
sites.
Cost analysis was based on estimates from a uniform runoff control and treatment model
that took into account the variety of rainfall intensities, disturbed area sizes, and local
geological features. Where available, these were compared to'estimates furnished by industry
»
for specific mine sites. The generalized model includes: the disturbed area which encom-
passes the active mine site*, future working site, ore storage piles, and overburden and
tailings piles, rainfall events for specific sites; and the soil types which determine the
amount of rainfall absorbed and the amount which runs off. It Is recognized that this
model cannot account for some exceptions in these mining industries. However, it does
serves as a conservative guideline to assess costs at a majority of the mines sites. Excep-
tions, such as salt ana1 phosphate rock are assessed individually in the report.
Both capital and annual operating cost ranges were developed for disturbed areas
ranging from 2 to 200 hectares (5 to 500 acres), for rainfall events ranging grom 5 to 30.5
cm (2 to 12 in), and for soil types and saturation conditions with runoff factors ranging
from less than 10 to 90 percent. The following discussion includes the cost elements,
assumptions and rationale which served as the bases for computing costs which were then
interpolated to specific regions and commodities.
*For high wall quarries, where the pit area con tains "direct rainfall (which becomes mine dis-
charge), the active mine area is reduced by the pit area.
18
-------
A conservative model runoff control and treatment" system was designed to develop
capital and operating costs for the subcategories for which site-by-site costs were not
available or reasonable to estimate. This model was generalized in the sense that it was
designed to apply to a wide range of disturbed areas, severity of rainfall*, and soil
absorbency** - ground cover situations. The basic elements of the model consisted of:
— exclusion and diversion of all run-in of uncontaminated water at the
affected area perimeter by means of ditches and dikes,
— collection of all runoff within the disturbed area
— segregation of runoff from mine (pit) water
— conduction of the collected runoff via ditches through small stilling
basins to reduce sediment load to a settling lagoon system, capable of
flocculation treatment, if necessary.
The sedimentation lagoon system discussed below is based on an earthen impound-
ment for runoff of the 10- and 25-year, 24-hour event. It is further a system to control
and treat all other storm runoff that is smaller in amount than the 10- or 25-year event
runoff. Beside providing for this impoundment, the principal lagoon also contains at
all tirrtes a relatively small amount of water that is the normal week-by-week runoff
and direct precipitation that is being retained for at least 24 hours prior to discharge.
The volume of pond allocated for this function was sized conservatively as equal to
the volume of runoff from a one-year, 24-hour event. This lagoon must be maintained
with a freeboard that will accommodate the runoff from the 10- and 25-year event,
collected from the "disturbed area," plus direct pond infall. The lagoon design volume
consisted of these two volumes plus safety factor freeboard plus an upstream pretreat-
ment pond or basin.
The principal lagoon is designed to not overflow its spillway except when rainfall
occurs that is in excess of the 10- and 25-year event. Discharge of the treated runoff up to
*See Appendix B.
**As characterized by USDA-SCS. See paragraph below.
19
-------
the amounts of these events are by batch release when the proper degree of clarification
has been attained.
• Included in the "disturbedarea" are the disturbed land adjacent to the mine or pit,
the overburden piles, grout piles and temporary ore storage piles that are contiguous to
the mine, as well as the diversion ditches and dikes for runoff control. The general
characteristics of the model control system are shown in the sketch of Figure 2.
A significant conservative element of this runoff model is the perimeter exclusion
and diversion of uncontaminated run-in water. Although this Is only one of several ways
of dealing with runoff water that originates outside the "disturbed area" of the mine and
hence is "uncontaminated" prior to entry into the disturbed area/this control method allows
the model costs to be developed relatively independent of the topography of the territory
surrounding the mine site. Thus, a mine site which might normally experience the overflow
of the runoff of a large watershed would, in this model, be affected only by the direct
rainfall within the affected mine area because of the segregation.
3.1 Design Elements
The design of the runoff control and treatment elements, the ditches, dikes, and
- • * * * •
lagoons were then related principally to two important remaining variables:
— the size of the included disturbed area
— the amount of runoff to be accommodated.
The size of the disturbed area affects not only the amount of runoff water generated but also
.the length of the exclusion and collection dikes and ditches. The amount of runoff collected
is further affected in major ways by both the intensity of the local rainfall and the absorb-
ency of the soil in the affected area. For the purposes of this study, the size of the treatment
system was based on the 10- or 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event rather than normal rainfall.
The lagoon system was desicped to collect and treat by sedimentation for a minimum of
20
-------
DIVERSION
DITCH
AND DIKE
GENERAL
DIRECTION
OF DRAINAGE
.s.
DIVERTED :":-: \
RUNOFF /•£ »
fei" \
DIVERTED
RUNOFF
COLLECTION
DITCH
PERIMETER OF
AFFECTED AREA
KEY:
A — Mine Pit
B — Future Pit Expansion
C — Temporary Ore Piles
D — Grout Piles
E — Pit Sump
F — Overburden Area
G — Sedimentation and Flocculntion Basin
•H — Retention Pond
LEGEND:
••££&•: DITCH
BERMOR D!KE
MOUND
CLARIFIED
RUNOFF
DISCHARGE
Figure 2. GENERALIZED MINE SITE RUNOFF CONTROL MODEL
21
-------
24 hours retention time rainfall normally experienced by the !ocality/ and Further, to have
freeboard capable of impounding the 24-hour event rainfall for sedimentation treatment
prior to discharge. The treatment consisted of a minimum 24-hour lagoon retention with or
without addition of flocculants, prior to discharge. Water in excess of the 24-hour event
overflows the lagoon without treatment.
A single. level of flocculant treatment was included in the model for those mine sites
situations in which the runoff is believed to contain significant amounts of colloidal or
otherwise difficult-to-settle materials.
3.2 Soil Absorbency
Differences in absorbency of the disturbed areas were allowed for in the model by
providing for four absorbency conditions related to the four hydrologic soil groups of the Soil
Conservation Service (USDA). These USDA hydrologic soil groups, according to their infil-
tration and transmission rates, are:
Group A (Low runoff potential). Soils having high infiltration rates even when thoroughly
wetted. These consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or
gravels. These soils have a high rate of water transmission in that water readily
passes through them.
Group B Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. These consist
chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with
moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate
rate of water transmission.
Group C Soils having slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. These consist
chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water or soils
with moderately fine to fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
22
-------
Group D (High runoff potential). Soils having very slow infiltration rates when
thoroughly wetted. These consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling
potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with claypan or
clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious
material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
The soil, its cover, and its hydrologic condition, in most cases, affect the volume of
runoff more than any other single factor. The hydrologic condition of the soil is determined
by its moisture content at the time of the storm, its humus and organic content, its
temperature, and whether or not it is frozen. The soil cover condition for the disturbed area
was assumed to be equivalent to a combination of cultivated land with conservation treatment
plus roads in order to relate soil group to runoff potential. The assumed relation between
intensity of rainfall, soil condition, and resultant runoff is shown in Figure 3. Soil conditions
A, B, C and D refer to the A to D hydrologic soil groups with the soil cover condition as stated
above.
3.3 Cost Elements
Cost information contained in this report was assembled directly from industry, engineer-
ing firms, government sources, and published literature. Where possible, unit costs are based
on data from actual installations in this industry.
3.3.1 Interest Costs and Equity Financing Charges
Capital investment estimates for this study have been based on 10 percent cost
of capital, representing a composite number for interest paid or return on investment required.
3.3.2 Time Basis for Costs
AH cost estimates are based on August 1972 prices and, when necessary, have
been adjusted to this basis using the chemical engineering plant cost index.
23
-------
0.1
_ioo% RUNOFF
—'D CONDITION
-C CONDITION
— B CONDITION
-A CONDITION
50% RUNOFF
10% RUNOFF
2 5 10
24-HOUR RAINFALL, INCHES
Figure 3. RELATION BETWEEN 24-HOUR RAINFALL AND RESULTING RUNOFF
24
-------
3.3.3 Useful Service Life
The useful service life of equipment varies depending on the nafure of the
equipment and process involved, its use pattern, maintenance care and numerous other
factors. Individual companies may apply service lives based on their actual, experience
for internal amortization. Internal Revenue Service provides guidelines for tax purposes
which are intended to approximate average experience.
Based on discussions with industry and condensed IRS guideline information,
Hie following useful service life values have been used:
chemical treatment equipment 10 years
ponds, lined and unlined 20 years
3.3.4 Depreciation
The economic value of equipment and treatment facilities decreases over its
service life. At the end of the useful life, it is usually assumed that the salvage or recovery
value becomes zero. For IRS tax purposes or internal depreciation provisions, straight line,
or accelerated write-off schedules may be used. Straight line depreciation was used solely
in this report.
3.3.5 Capital Costs
Capital costs are defined as all front-endjOUt-of-pocket expenditures for pro-
viding runoff treatment and control facilities. These costs include equipment, construction
and installation, buildings and services. No extra costs for contingencies were included in the
capital estimates.
3.3.6 Annual Capital Costs
Most if not all of the capital costs are accrued during the year or two prior to
actual use of the facility. This present worth sum can be converted to equivalent- uniform
annual disbursements by utilizing the Capital Recovery Factor Method:
25
-------
Uniform Annual Disbursement = P > (1 + i)alh power
(1 -I J)nth pov/er - 1
Where P = present value (capital expenditure), i = interest rate.
%/100, n = useful life in years
For lagoons, which are assumed to have a 20-year useful life, the UAD is 11 .8 percent
and for chemical treatment equipment/ with an assumed useful life of 10 years, it is 16.3
percent.
3.3.7 Land Costs
Land used for runoff collection, diversion or treatment facilities requires
removal of the land from other economic use. This was taken into account by assuming
10 percent interest on land used for runoff treatment and control. It was also assumed that
the full value of the land is recoverable. Land was cos ted at $l>750/ha ($700/ac). This
land consists in the main of the land occupied by the diversion and collection ditches and
dikes and by the sedimentation lagoon system.
3.3.8 Operating Expenses
Annual costs of operating the treatment facilities include labor, supervision,
materials, maintenance, taxes, insurance and power and energy. Operating costs combined
with annualized capital costs give the total annual costs for treatment operations. No interest cost-
was included for operating (working) capital. Since working capital might be assumed to
be one sixth to one third of annual operating costs (excluding depreciation), about 1-2 per-
cent of total operating costs might be involved. This is considered to be well within the
accuracy of the estimates.
3.3.9 Operating Cost Basis
The three parameters which affect operating as well as capital costs are
disturbed area, soil type, and rainfall. The disturbed areas were assumed to range from 2 to
200 ha (5 to 500 ac) and the rainfall events were assumed to range from 0.8 to 30 cm
26
-------
(2 to 12 inches). The annual operating costs Include the following elements:
— cost of capital
— cost of land
•— cost of operating labor
— cost of pond dredging
— cost of flocculant
The annual capital is the Uniform Annual Disbursement (UAD) of the capital
cost.
The cost of land was derived by assuming 10 percent interest on invested
capital in land occupied both by treatment ponds and by diversion ditches and dikes.
Land costs were assumed to be $1,750/ha ($700/ac). The pond acreage was calculated by
determining the appropriate lagoon volume and dividing by an assumed depth of 3 meters
(10 feet). The acreage used in diversion ditches and dikes was a product of the length deter-
mined by the model times a width of 12 meters (40 feet). The sum of these gives the total
area tied up in the collection and treatment of runoff. The total land cosr is 0.10 times
$1,750 ha ($700/ac) times the area involved in the treatment system.
The cost of pond dredging depends on the amount of sediment- accumulated and
the storage capacity of the pond. To determine this cost, we made the following
assumptions:
— frequency of dredging is once per year, as a minimum
t.
—/•a cost of $0.66 per cu m ($0.50 per cu yd) of dredged material is based on
excavation values furnished by industry
— the amount of material settled is 1,000 ppm
— the proportionality factor between the annual rainfall and the 24-hour
event runoff is 7.5
27
-------
— the average annual rainfall has 20 percent runoff
— the average 24-hour event has 50 percent runoff
Therefore, the cost of pond dredging equals the cost per cubic meter (cubic yard) of dredged
material times the pond volume times the concentration of suspended solids times the propor-
tionality factor times the ratio of annual rainfall runoff to 24-hour event runoff.
In cases where chemical treatment is necessary to facilitate settling, the cost
of flocculdnt is added to the annual operating costs. These costs are assumed to be $0.085
per 1,000 liters ($0.32 per 1,000 gallons) of water treated.
The cost of labor includes the cost to monitor the quality of the effluent and
the cost to adjust and maintain the runoff control ponds. The monitoring was assumed to
require 4 hours per week for collecting a composite sample and 2 hours per week for miscel-
laneous work. This amounts to 312 hours per year. For maintenance, one man-day per
week, amounting to 416 man-hours per year was assumed. The costs were calculated by
assuming $10 per hour as an effective labor rate including overhead, fringes and supervision.
The cost to analyze samples was assumed to be $10 per sample and this cost was added to give
a total fixed cost of labor.
>
Additional labor costs are incurred when flocculotion is required. The labor
required for the chemical addition was assumed to be porportional to the amount of normal
runoff. It was further assumed that this was normal runoff was proportional to the 24-hour
event runoff. The effective labor rate is the same as above, $10 per hour including fringes,
overhead and supervision. The labor necessary was assumed to be 2 man-hours per month
i
for a 0.5 cm (0.2 in) runoff, and proportionally more for greater amounts of runoff.
In summary, the total annual operating costs are a sum of the cost of capital,
the cost of land, the cost of operating labor and the cost of pond dredging. Where
flocculant is added, the additional capital costs, additional labor costs and the cost of the
28
-------
flocculant were included. These estimates gave annual operating'costs por site ranging
from $8,700 to $362,000 without flocculation. Cost curves derived from the cost model
as described above are given in Appendix C.
3.4 Sensitivity of the Model Costs to Lagoon Retention Time
Since the model lagoon system is an impoundment for the 10- or 25-year
event runoff, it has the capability of retaining for an indefinite period of time the runoff
from any event up to and including the 10- to 25-year event. This is normally true because
the probability of any substantial additional rainfall occurring within a period of time equal
to the desired retention time after a 10- or 25-year event Is extremely low. The simple
criterion of 24-hour retention of any runoff up to the 10- or 25-year event was assumed in
this study. The probability of attaining this retention time with the model lagoon system
under the operating conditions prescribed is very high. Since the principal lagoon is in
fact a conservatively designed impoundment, it is not necessary to operate with continuous
.-•-.• r =• -*v* " "
discharge under any conditions except those exceeding the 10- or 25-year event. Proper
attention to periodic pump down or batch release of the normal runoff should insure that
any reasonable retention time can be maintained without affecting costs.
3.5 Sensitivity of the Model Costs to the Design Rainfall Event
The construction cost of the impoundment lagoons (ponds) is a major fraction of the
total capital cost for this modelled control and treatment system, ranging from 15 to 75 per-
cent across the range of runoff capacities considered in the model. Pond construction cost
Is fixed in the model by pond volume. In turn, pond volume is determined principally by
the amount of runoff from the 24-hour event selected for limitations. Strictly speaking the
model was designed to be valid in the 10- and 25-year event range because of the assumed
proportionalities in rainfall amounts. - The 25-year event on the average is approximately
29
-------
20 percent larger than.the 10-year event, and the corresponding runoff 30 to 35 percent
larger, depending on soil conditions. Therefore, the corresponding pond system would be
also approximately 30 to 35 percent larger/ but the cost to construct only about 23 percent
higher on the average.
If it were desired to limit runoff only up to the one-year, 24-hour event, the
model would have to be altered. The one-year, 24-hour event is approximately 55 per
c'ent as large as the 10-year event on the average. (See Figure 4.) The corresponding runoff
would be 25 to 35 per cent as large as the 10-year event runoff, depending on soil conditions.
Altering the model so that the freeboard in excess of normal operation is adequate to contain
only the one^-year event runoff before overflow would result in a sedimentation pond system
volume that is about 50 per cent of the 10-year event pond system volume. The corresponding
construction cost would be approximately 60 per cent of that sized to contain the 10-year
event. The differences in pond construction cost affect total capital and operating costs
derived from the runoff cost model. The following summarizes the approximate range of
effects of this cost variance and that of the 25-year event relative to the costs of 10-year,
24-hour event-sized systems:
change in change in
to impound; capital cost operating cost
25-year, 24-hour even t +3 to +17% -f0.6 to +15%
1-year, 24-hour event -6 to-30% -1.5 to -25%
3.6 Sensitivity of the Model Costs to Sediment Load
Sediment is picked up by runoff water moving across disturbed land, and the
greater the slope, the more sediment pickup would be expected. The major effects of
topography were excluded .from the model by the use of diversion ditches to prevent run-in
from surrounding watershed. An initial assumption was made that a sediment load of
30
-------
1U
to
UJ
x R
o b
2
H 4
UI
w 3
DC
ID
O
X
I
^rj" - 1
CN *-
cc"
^^
UI
UI
z:
o
1
©'/
y
/
00
) /OO
/^
©•
.
c
(
°i
S r^\^ (
,,000
5 -<
L 09
TX7
r '
"\ '
1
o /
•/o
n
OgHo
oo7oo.
L rjsV .
\S*~^~^
)0
;
/
. .
*t-
2 3 4 5 10
10 YEAR, 24-HOUR EVENT, INCHES
20
Figure4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ONE YEAR AND TEN YEAR RAINFALL
EVENTS AT VARIOUS U.S. SITES
31
-------
1,000 ppm was removed in the lagoon from t.ho runoff water collected on the disturbed
mining and processing area. The costs of dredging this sediment load ranged from 0.002
to 0.4 per cent of the annual operating costs. This is a very minor cost fraction and
further refinement of the model by including a slope factor would have had inconsequential
effects on the costs. This is one of the advantages for the purpose of cost estimation of
the conservative design feature of perimeter exclusion of outside runoff to minimize
topographic effects.
Mining area runoff follows existing slopes and where areas have been freshly disturbed,
the runoff velocity must be minimized by terracing, berms and other surface featuring to
form low slope drain ways. Numerous small stilling basins are included in the model drain-
age system for sediment traps to further minimize the sediment load carried to the final
impoundment. These small catch basins are constructed and in turn consumed in subsequent
mining. They are, therefore, temporary structures for erosion control.
3.7 Verification of Model Costs
In developing the estimated industry-wide costs, the-generalized runoff control cost
model was used in all but a very few instances because of an almost complete lack of in-
place control and treatment systems from which actual cost data could be obtained. Further,
the estimates of costs of hypothetical systems from industry sources that were solicited for
the purposes of this program were not forthcoming early enough or complete enough to use
the specific designs embodied in these estimates for total subcategory costs. However,
industry-furnished cost estimates have been used for comparison on a site-by-site basis
with the cost model to establish the validity and range of possible variance of the modeled
costs. Comparable model costs were estimated for certain specific sites for which industry
cost estimates had been received and the results are plotted against the industry estimates
in Figure 5.
32
-------
CO
cc
o
D
jiT
CO
LU
D
01
CO
<
CO
Ul
O
O
10,000,000
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
100
o
jr.
0 o©
1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
INDUSTRY - SUPPLIED ESTIMATE, DOLLARS
o
10,000,000
KEY:
O KAOLIN
A FIRECLAY
V BALL CLAY
D TALC
O- FULLER'S EARTH
DOUBLE SYMBOL = AVERAGE
OPEN SYMBOL = CAPITAL COST
SOLID SYMBOL = ANNUAL OPERATING COST
Figure 5. COMPARISON OF COSTS DERIVED FROM THE GENERAL COST MODEL WITH
INDUSTRY-SUPPLIED ESTIMATES
33
-------
The most extensive set of detailed cost estimates was received from kaolin
producers, and the cost model very accurately predicted the average of the capital and
operating costs from these sites, although individual values varied considerably. The
average values of capital and operating cost received from fireclay industry as well as
the average operating cost from fuller's earth producers were lower to a significant extent
that the model-based estimates, but the dollars involved are relatively small per mine site,
unlike the kaolin producers. The model was designed to produce annual operating costs
limited on the low side to about $8,000 so long as a control and treatment system was in
place, since this was felt to be the minimum annual cost that any control system could
incur, if costs were fully attributed. Thus when industry estimates of operating costs as
low as $250 per year are made, it is inevitable that the comparable model costs would be
significantly higher.
Crushed Stone Cost Data
Industry-supplied cost estimates for control and treatment of runoff were also
obtained through a Portland Cement Association survey from 36 companies operating
limestone, limerock, or shale mining operations that supply raw materials to cement plants.
For the most part these estimates did not contain sufficient detail with respect to disturbed
area to allow a comparison cost model estimate to be made. In all instances there was
insufficient detail of the cost elements to form an independent judgment of the compara-r
bility.
However, for some of the data furnished by eight companies, a comparable
model based estimate could be made because the size of disturbed area and rainfall data
34
-------
were given. The comparison of these is given in Figures 6 and 7. It should be noted that
some of these plant-furnished costs had to be substantially altered to make a comparison.
One company with 17 sites had calculated their costs based on ponds lined by material
costing $.50 per sq. ft. t which amounted to a very large part of their estimated capital
costs. The cost model does not allow for pond liner, nor is it believed to be necessary
for runoff water, which is usually contaminated only with suspended solids and otherwise
is similar to the local ground water. Therefore the cost estimates of this one company were
reduced by the costs involved in installing and depreciating the pond liner, and these
reduced costs plotted in Figures 6 and 7 (circles).
Apparently good correspondence of costs overall were found in this industry
segment between the model estimates and the industry estimates when allowances are made
for idiosyncracies of estimation, such as the cost year used and the lining of impoundments,
as discussed above. In general, the model appears to fulfill the requirements expected
of it, which were to predict with reasonable accuracy the overall total capital and
operating costs for the industry segments, and to estimate conservatively for small facilities,
where the cost impact can be especially serious.
35
-------
2X101
RUNOFF CONTROL
CAPITAL COSTS
105 106
PLANT-SUPPLIED ESTIMATE, DOLLARS
2X10°
Figure 6. COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR CRUSHED
STONE SITES
RUNOFF CONTROL
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
2X1 Oc
PLANT-SUPPLIED ESTIMATE, DOLLARS/YEAR
Figure 7. COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS FOR CRUSHED
. STONE SITES
36
-------
SECTION Hi
INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION
It is felt thai" certain mineral mining industry segments do not have runoff
problems requiring further consideration. This was based either on the fact that certain
minerals are mined where storm runoff has not been found to be a problem because of aridity,
or that certain minerals are mined underground and have no contaminated storm runoff.
The rationale is given in the following sections for each commodity not considered further.
1.0 . DRY CATEGORIES
Several categories of the mineral mining industry do not have problems associated
with contaminated rainwater runoff/ collection and treatment. These operations are free
of such problems for a variety of reasons discussed below.
1 .1 Bentonite, Western Operations
. These operations consist of open pits in arid areas (chiefly Wyoming, South Dakota,
and Montana). Data provided by one operation in this region shows that plants are normally
built close to the mining sites and that any runoff is generally collected, when available,
for use as scrubber makeup water at the plants due to the scarcity of v/ater in the area. Pro-
duct is stored inside. The ore is a good adsorbent so that runoff problems are virtually
non-existent.
1 .2 Borax
Borax ores are dry mined at Mojave Desert locations. The products are stored inside
and all wastes are sent to evaporation ponds. Runoff is not a problem because of extremely
low rainfall conditions.
37
-------
1.3 Oil !rnprcgnated Dici'tomite
This product is produced at only one location in a semi-arid area of California.
Diafomife, which is an adsorbent, is stored inside. The deposit consists mostly of non-oil
bearing material with a.searn of oil-bearing strata also present. Since the soil-free material
is an adsorbent, it Is expected that most rainfall would be held by exposed deposit areas
and hence, runoff problems are minimal. Pure diatomite producers in the same area have
encountered no runoff problems in larger operations.
.1 .4 Feldspar, Dry Process
This product is produced in arid and semi-arid regions (Arizona, California, Colorado,
South Dakota and Wyoming) and processed inside. Information from producers in South
Dakota (the area of highest rainfall and largest production) reveal that runoff from disturbed
areas has never been encountered at the sites. In addition, all of these states have regu-
lations controlling pollution from surface runoff.
1 .5 Gilsonite
This mineral is produced at one underground mine near Vernal, Utah, where all plant
and mine waters are collected and used locally for irrigation purposes in lieu of discharge.
The control method is unique to the needs of the local area.
1 .6 Graphite
Natural graphite is produced at only one site in Texas. Local topography controls
the situation. All mine drainage and process waters are combined for treatment prior to
discharge and covered by the recommended process wastewater guidelines.
1.7 Jade
The bulk of the U.S. production of this commodity comes from one mine in Wyoming
which is operated on an intermittent basis. The disturbed area is mininal. Due to the arid
location and limited disturbed area, contaminated runoff problems are nonexistent.
38
-------
1 .8 Lithium Minerals - Silver Peak, Nevada
Underground brine mining is used at this location. All wastewater is fed to evaporation
ponds and there are no runoff problems.
1.9 Magnesite
Magnesite is dry mined underground at only one site in Nevada. There is no disturbed
surface area of any consequence and the product is stored inside.
1.10 Novaculite
Novaculite is produced at one underground mine in Arkansas and the product is stored
inside. There is no disturbed surface area of any consequence and no runoff problems are
encountered.
KIT Per lite
Perlite is surface mined in an arid region of western New Mexico. No runoff problems
have been encountered In this category.
1.12 Potash
This mineral is either solution or dry mined from underground sources in arid areas.
The products are stored indoors and, in both cases, all wastes are disposed of in evaporation
ponds. No contaminated rainfall is generated other than direct precipitation on the ponds.
1.13 Pumice
Pumice is surface mined in several western states (Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho,
Arizona/ and Hawaii). In the arid locations, due to climatic conditions, there are no
runoff problems. At other locations (Northern California and Hawaii), the high porosity of
the exposed deposits prevents runoff problems. Contacts with producers in northern
California (annual rainfall of about 60 inches) have revealed that the porosities of the
exposed deposits are apparently sufficient to prevent runoff even under these high rainfall
conditions.
39
-------
1.14 Splines from Brine Lakes
1 .14.1 Searles Lake Operations
A varliy of saline products are recovered by underground brine mining at Searles
Lake, California, in the Mojave Desert. All spent brines and process water are returned to
the brine sources to maintain the operations and the products are stored under cover. No
runoff problems are present.
1 .14.2 Great Salt Lake Operations
These facilities recover a number of saline products from the Great Salt Lake
In Utah by evaporation processes. All spent brines and v/ash waters are returned to the lake
and the products are stored inside. The only exposed areas are the evaporation ponds and
any rainfall picked up in these areas will be evaporated along with the brines.
1.15 Sodium Sulfate, West Texas Brine Wells
The product is solution mined from underground deposits in arid areas. The recovered
product is stored under cover and all wastes are fed to evaporation ponds. There is no dis-
charge of any process or runoff waters from any of these operations.
1.16 Frasch Sulfur
This material is produced in three areas:
1) From anhydrite deposits in arid regions of West Texas. All process water
losses are to the underground deposits and the product is stored in heated tanks prior to ship-
ment. No exposed mining areas are involved.
2) From offshore deposits. Product is also stored in heated vessels prior to
shipment and there are no contaminated runoff problems.
3) From onshore deposits in Louisiana and East Texas. Product is stored in
enclosed heated vessels and the only exposed areas are the wastewater treatment facilities.
Any rainfall entering these areas will be treated along with process water prior to release.
40
-------
1.17 Trona Ore (Natural Soda Ash)
Trona ore is mined underground in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, an arid
region. Process area runoff and stockpile runoff goes to fhe process or process v/asrewarer
stream, and wastewater is sent to evaporation ponds from which there is normally no
discharge.
1.18 Vermiculite - Montana Operations
Vermiculite is mined from open pits at one site in western Montana. All
runoff from the mining areas drains into the process water ponds by design and serves as
makeup water. Because of the semi-arid location, the process water is totally recycled
from the ponds and there is no discharge.
1.19 Fluorspar
Fluorspar is produced intwo geographical areas:
1) southern Illinois and Kentucky, and
2) three southwestern states.
The bulk of the production is in the first area. Three underground mines are
involved and, due to topography, waste piles located at the adjacent plants drain into
the process wastewater treatment ponds. No surface mining areas are present at any of
these sites.
The southwestern operations all involve small production acreage and are
located in arid areas far removed from any streams or rivers. Runoff at these sites
generally evaporates.
41
-------
1.20 Tripoli
Tripoli is produced from underground mines in Arkansas, Illinois and Pennsylvania.
There are no significant- amounts of disturbed surface areas involved and the product Is stored
Inside. No runoff problems are encountered in this segment of the industry.
1.21 Garnet
This mineral is produced at two U.S. locations. At the first, in upstate New York,
topography is the dominant factor. AH runoff from the disturbed areas drains into the process
water ponds, where it is treated prior to discharge. At the second location, in northern
Idaho, placer mining in streams is used. These operations are currently under state regulation
and do not have runoff problems.
1.22 Bituminous Limestone
This material is produced without runoff problems at two locations in west Texas,
which is an arid area. The few small operations in southern Missouri which also once pro-
duced this material are no longer in operation.
%
1.23 Diatomite
Diatomite is produced at open pit mines in Nevada, Arizona and southern
» • •
California. The first two locations are in desert areas and no runoff problems are encountered
at these sites.
The southern California operations are all located at Lompoc, about 10 miles south
of the Oil Impregnated Diatomite production site discussed earlier. The largest producer
states that runoff problems are minimal because of the absorbent nature of the deposits and
because these sites generally have small impoundments to collect any runoff for plant use.
This area of southern California has low rainfall.
42
-------
2.0 PREVIOUSLY REGULATED CATEGORIES
In addition to the minerals which were excluded from further consideration due
to either methods of mining employed or locations Involved, there are six categories in which
all mining of the commodity occurs in states where land reclamation and rainwater runoff
from disturbed areas are already regulated by state laws. These include lithium mined
at eastern locations, vermiculite, barite, aplite, kyanite and mineral pigments. These six
categories are further discussed and cost estimates for runoff control and treatment
presented in Section IV.
43
-------
SECTION IV
APPLICATION OF RUNOFF MODEL BY.SUBCATEGORY
In this section, the sobcategory costs for treatment and control of
runoff derived from the cost model are presented.
44
-------
1 .0 DIMENSION STONE
T ..1 General Description of Hie Industry
Dimension stone is rock which has been specially cut or shaped for use in buildings,
monuments, memorial and gravestones, curbing, or other construction or special uses. The
principal dimension stones are granite, marble, limestone, slate, and sandstone.
' Many of the continental United States contain dimension stone operations of one
kind or other, however, the significant producing states are Minnesota, Georgia, Vermont,
Massachusetts, South Dakota, Indiana, Wisconsin, New York, and Pennsylvania. There are
approximately 300 dimension stone mining activities in the LJ.S,.
Dimension stone is usually mined in deep open pit, high wall quarries; very
little is mined from underground mines. A total of 277 dimension stone quarries was
included in the modeled costs for this mineral commodity. This includes states which have
regulations for both surface mining site reclamation and runoff control from disturbed areas,
and states without legislation.
1.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
The volume of runoff is determined by the rainfall event, the infiltration rate
of the soil, and the acreage of the affected area. Most of the acreage involved in dimension
stone is taken up by the quarry itself. Since runoff into the quarry becomes pit pumpout
water, which is presently regulated, no additional costs will be incurred for this volume of
water. Therefore, only the area immediately surrounding the quarry was considered the
affected area. This usually included haul roads, stockpiles, overburden areas, and stone
cutting and finishing areas. Because dimension stone quarries are deep open pits and
there is normally no crushing or screening of the stone, the disturbed area surrounding the
quarry is relatively small when compared to crushed stone plants. All dimension stone
quarries, except dimension limestone, were assumed to occupy 2 ha (5 ac) of disturbed area
45
-------
per quarry outside of the pit; dimensional limestone quarries (60 operations) were assumed
to occupy 4 ha (10 ac) of disturbed area per quarry outside of the pit. These assumptions
are based on actual site visits to dimension granite and limestone quarries. The larger
acreage for limestone is due to the larger stockpiles that occur with the quarrying and
finishing of this softer rock.
Each of the 277 dimension stone quarries was categorized according to soil
type and rainfall event. (See Appendix B for the soil map and the rainfall Atlas.)
The following table describes this categorization:
10-Yr/24-Hr Rainfall Event
0-5.1 cm 5.
Soil Type
C
D
Soil Type
A
B
0-5 il cm
(0-2 in)
0
0
3
1
0-7.6 cm
(0-3 in)
0
0
4
1
5. 1-12. 7 cm
(2-5 in)
0
39
137
25
25-Yr/24-Hr
7.6-15.2 cm
(4-7 in)
0
93
142
25
T2. 7- 25. 4 cm
(5- 10 in)
0
66
6
0
Rainfall Event
15.2-30.5 cm
(8- 12 in)
0
12
0
0
25.4-30.5 c
(10-12. in)
0
0
0
0
30.5-35.6 cm
02- 14 in)
0
0
0
0
46
-------
1.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
The following table lists the modeled capital and operating costs to control
and treat runoff from 277 dimension stone quarries. Floccufonts are usually not needed to
settle limestone, granite, or sandstone solids and therefore'are not part of the modeled
costs.
10-yr/24-hr Rainfall Event
Costs (in thousand $)
Category Capital Annual Operating
Soil B, 12.7 cm (5 in) rainfall, 2 ha (5 ac) 741.0 429.0
(39 quarries)
SoilB, 25.4 cm (10 In) rainfall, 2 ha (5 ac) 1,914.0 924.0
(66 quarries)
Soil C, 5.08 cm (2 in)rainfall, 2 ha (5 ac) 36.0 30.0
(3 quarries)
Soil C, 12.7 cm (5 in) rainfall, 2 ha (5 ac) 1,617.0 924.0
(77 quarries)
Soil C, 12.7 cm (5 in) rainfall, 4 ha (10 ac) 1,920.0 840.0
(60 quarries)
Soil C, 25.4 cm (10 in) rainfall,2 ha (5 ac) 180.0 90.0
(6 quarries)
Soil D, 5.08 cm (2 in) rainfall, 2 ha (5 ac) 15.0 10.0
(1 quarry)
Soil D, 12.7 cm (5 in) rainfall, 2 ha (5 ac) 600.0 300.0
(25 quarries)
Total 7,023.0 3,547.0
47
-------
25-yr/24-hr Rainfall Event
Costs (in thousand $)
Category Capital Annual Operating
Soil B, 15.24 cm (6 in) rainfall, 2 ha (Sac) 2,046.0 1,116.0
(93 quarries)
Soil B, 30.48 cm (12 in) rainfall, 2 ha (5 ac) 660.0 192.0
(12 quarries)
Soil C, 7.62 cm (3 in) rainfall, 2 ha (5 ac) 60.0 44.0
(4 quarries)
Soil C, 15.24 cm (6 in) rainfall, 2 ha (5 ac) l,88o.O 1,066.0
(82 quarries)
Soil C, 15.24 cm (6 in) rainfall, 4 ha (10 ac) 2,280.0 900.0
(60 quarries)
Soil D, 7.62 cm (3 in) rainfall, 2 ha (5 ac) 18lO 11.0
(1 quarry)
Soil D, 15.24 cm (6 in) rainfall, 2 ha (Sac) 675.0 350.0
(25 .quarries) •
Total 7,625.0 3,679.0
Total capital cost for treating a 10-year, 24-hour event is 7.0 million dollars;
capital cost for a 25-year, 24-hour event is 7.6 million dollars. The annual operating costs for
a 10-year and 25-year event are 3.5 and 3.7 million dollars, respectively.
Capital cost impact for unregulated states versus total industry cost for both
the 10- and 25-year rainfall events are given below.
Capital Cost, dollars
10-year event 25-year'event
Unregulated states 1,936,000 2,321,000
Total industry 7,000,000 7,600,000
48
-------
2.0 CRUSHED STONE
2.1 Genera! Description of the Industry
The crushed stone Industry is widespread arid varied in size of facilities and
types of material produced. Facility capacities range from less than 22,700 to 13.6 million
kkg/yr (25,000 to 15 million tons/yr). Facility production rate is roughly related to the
acreage disturbed; i.e. the larger capacity plants have the largest quarries. (Figure 8.)
Most crushed stone is mined from open pit quarries; very little is mined from
underground mines. A total of 4,286 crushed stone quarries was considered as part of
the runoff cost model. Although most states have regulations for both surface mining site
reclamation and runoff central from disturbed areas, modelled costs include all of the
4,286 crushed stone quarries.
.Crushed stone quarries are generally deep open pits with steep high walls or
working faces. Very little crushed stone is mined by surface stripping.
2.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
The volume of runoff is determined by the rainfall event, the infiltration rate
of the soil, and the acreage of the affected area. Large crushed stone quarries can use over
160 ha (400 ac) of land for the total quarrying operation. Most of the acreage, however, is
taken up by the open pit itself. Since runoff into the pit is classified as pit pump-out water
and is presently regulated, no additional costs will be incurred for this volume of water.
Runoff from adjacent areas outside of the quarry (e.g. stockpiles, overburden areas, crushing/
screening areas, etc.) will, however, have to be treated and is therefore included in the cost
estimates.
49
-------
100
50
IU
or
o
LU
cc
<
O
ID
CQ
CC
CO
o
10
1
o
o
0 0
^ ^
©(
\
o
0
o
0
^^t
,«*
o
i c\ (
J \J V
0
0 0
o
o
o
ery
k-'v
^x^t>*0
Q^ ""^ O
^-^^ 0 ° 0 C
) 0
O
o •
s
J
0°
\ f~^ -»^***^
*^~^
)
)
o
10,000
50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000
ANNUAL PRODUCTION, TONS
Figure 8. TOTAL DISTURBED AREA VERSUS PRODUCTION OF CRUSHED STONE
50
-------
Since the size of the affected area is roughly proportional to the production of crushed
stone, each of the 4,286 quarries was grouped into one of four size categories based on the
annual production tonnage of crushed stone. (Figure 8.) Disturbed acreage ranged from 4 to
30 ha (TO to 75 ac).
Each of the 4/286 stone quarries was further categorized according to soil type
x - "• • '
and the rainfall event. (See Appendix B for Soil Map and Rainfall Atlas.) Because of the
large number of quarries, categorization was done on a state by state basis, by averaging
the soil type and rainfall event within each state. The following table describes this categori-
zation.
10-year, 24-hour Rainfall Event
Soil
Type
A
B
C
D
0-7.
(0-3
0
0
198
185
6 cm
Sn)
10.2-17.8 cm
(4-7 in)
0
1,242
1,965
295
20.3-27.9 cm
(8- 11
0
320
81
0
m)
>27
(>1
0
0
0
0
.9cm
1 in)
25-year, 24-hour Rainfall Event
A
B
C
D
0-7.6 cm
(0-3 in)
0
0
198
73
2.3 Runoff Control
10.2-17.8 cm
(4-7 in)
0
1,242
1,965
407
and Treatment Costs
20.3-27.9 cm
(8-11 in)
0
320
81
0
>27.9
cm
(>11 in)
0
0
0
0
The following table lists the modelled capita! and operating costs to control
and treat runoff from 4,286 crushed stone quarries. Flocculants are usually not needed to
settle granite or limestone solids and therefore these costs do not include flocculation.
51
-------
10-year, 24-hour Rainfall Event
Costs (in million $)
Category Capital Annual Operating
Soil B, 10.2-17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall
(1,242 quarries) 54.3 19.2
Soil B, 20.3-27.9 cm (8-11 in) rainfall
(320 quarries) 25.7 7.3
Soil C, 0-7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall
(198 quarries) 4.9 2.3
Soil C, 10.2-17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall
(1,965 quarries) . 98.0 28.3
Soil C, 20.3-27.9 cm (8-11 in) rainfall
(81 quarries) 7.3 2.1
Soil D, 0-7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall
(185 quarries) 5.9 2.4
Soil D, 10.2-17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall
(295 quarries) 20.1 6.2
Total 216.2 67.8
52
-------
25-year, 24-hour Rainfall Event
Costs (in mi I [ion $)
Category Capitol Annual Operating
Soil B, 10.2-17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall
(1,242 quarries) 54.3 19.2
Soil B, 20.3-27.9 cm (8-11 in) rainfall
(320 quarries) 25.7 7.3
Soil C, 0-7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall
(198 quarries) 4.9 2.3
Soil C, 10.2-17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall
(1,965 quarries) 98.0 28.3
Soil C, 20.3-27.9 cm (8-11 in) rainfall
(81 quarries) 7.3 2.1
Soil D, 0-7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall :
(73 quarries) 2.4 1.0
Soil D, 10.2-17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall
(407 quarries) 24.3 7.6
Total 216.9 67.8
Total capital cost for treating a 10-year, 24-hour event is 216.2 million
dollars; capital cost fora 25-year, 24-hour event is 216.9 million dollars. The annual operating
costs for a 10-year and 25-year event are 67.8 million dollars and 67.8 million dollars,
respectively.
Actual installed costs for treating area runoff were not available from industry.
At this time, the few (~5) crushed stone plants that have implemented runoff control and
whose costs were examined tend to be approximately the same as the corresponding modeled
costs.
53
-------
Capital cost impact for unregulated states versus total industry cost for both
the 10- and 25-year rainfall events are given belov/:
Capital Costs, dollars
10-year event 25-year event
Unregulated states 22,500,000 23,000,000
Tota! industry 216,200,000 216,900,000
A nationwide survey of cement rock (limestone) quarries was conducted
through the Portland Cement Association. Each member company was asked to provide
Versar cost information on treating and controlling surface runoff at each of their quarries.
The survey form used contained a description of the Versar runoff model in order that
industry supplied costs could be compared with Versar modeled costs. Discussion of these
costs was given earlier in Section ll.
54
-------
3.0 SAND AND GRAVEL AND INDUSTRIAL SAND
3.1 General Description of the Industry
The sand and gravel industry, on the basis of physical volume, is the largest
non-fuel mineral industry. Because of its widespread occurrence and the necessity for
producing sand and gravel near the point of use, there are more than 5,000 firms engaged
in commercial sand and gravel output. Facility sizes range from very small producers of
pit-run material to highly automated permanent installations capable of supplying as
much as 3.6 million kkg (4 million tons) yearly of closely graded and processed sand and .
gravel products. The average commercial facility capacity is about 108,000 kkg/yr
(120,000 tons/yr). Facility size is usually directly proportional to the acreage disturbed;
i.e., the larger capacity plants have the largest stripping or working areas.
Geographically the sand and gravel industry is concentrated in the large
rapidly expanding urban areas and on a transitory basis, in areas where highways, dams,
and other large-scale public and private works are under construction.
Industrial sands include those types of silica raw materials that have been
segregated and refined by .natural processes into nearly monomineralic deposits and hence
have become the sources of commodities having special and somewhat restricted commercial
use. Uses of industrial sand include glassmaking, molding, grinding and polishing, and
blasting. Since the mining of industrial sand is similar in physical dimensions as that of
sand and gravel, industrial sands are included in this model along with sand and gravel.
Most sand and gravel is mined or extracted from shallow surface excavations,
sometimes called strip mines or open pits. Sand and gravel operations are not, however,
deep open pit quarries characteristic of crushed stone, nor are they large surface strip
55
-------
mines characteristic of coal mining operations.
A total of 5,867 sand and gravel and industrial sand operations was considered
as part of;the runoff cost model. Although most states have regulations for both surface
mining site reclamation and runoff control from disturbed areas, modeled costs include all
f ' ' •
of the 5,867 operations. Sand and gravel extracted by dredging, however, is not part
of the model.
3.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
The vojume of runoff is determined by the rainfall event, the infiltration rate
of the soil, and the acreage of the disturbed area. Large sand and gravel operations can
use over 40 ha (100 ac) of land which is not usually confined to one large pit or quarry as
in crushed stone. Most sand and gravel operations do not de-water their pits since they are
shallow and are excavated at a much faster pace. Therefore, runoff control from a typical
sand and gravel operation normally involves more acreage than a crushed stone quarry. In
addition to treating runoff from the working pit area, it must also be treated from adjacent
areas including stockpiles, overburden areas, and crushing or screening areas.
Since the size of the affected area is roughly related to the production of sand
and gravel and industrial sand, each of the 5,867 pits was grouped into one of four size
categories based on the annual production tonnage of sand-and gravel and industrial sand.
Affected acreage ranged from 8 to 40 ha (20 to 100 ac).The relationship of disturbed acreage
to production is illustrated in Figure 9.
Each of the 5,867 pits was further categorized according to soil type and the
rainfall event. (See Appendix B for Soil Map and Rainfall Atlas.) Because of the large
number of operations, categorization was done on a state by state basis, By averaging the
56
-------
100
50
t/5
UJ
cc
o
UJ
oc
<
Q
01
03
cc
Q
10
o o
-e-
0 O
1
10,000
•o
o
0
0
o
oo
o
•3>
-o
-n)
O
O
50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000
ANNUAL PRODUCTION, TONS
Figure 9. TOTAL DISTURBED AREA VERSUS PRODUCTION OF
SAND AND GRAVEL
57
-------
soil type and rainfall event within each state. The following table describes this categori-
zation:
10-year/24-hour rainfafl event
0-7.6 cm • 10.2-17.8 cm 20.3-27.9 cm >27.9 cm
Soil typo (0-3 in) , (4-7 in) (8-11 in) (>}} in)
A 00 0 0
B 0 1,040 436 0
C 473 3,225 59 0
D 461 173 0 0
25-year/24-hour rainfall event
A 00 0 0
B 0 1,040 436 0
C 473 3,225 59 0
D 216 418 0 0
3.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
The following table lists the modeled capital and operating costs to control and
treat runoff from 5,867 sand and gravel and industrial sand operations. Flocculants are
usually not needed to settle silica solids and therefore these costs do not include flocculation.
10-year/24-hour rainfall event
Costs (in m?ll?oh$)
Category Capital Annual Operating
Soil B, 10.2-17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall (1,040) 63.1 19.2
Soil B, 20.2-27.9 cm (8-11 in) rainfall (436) 52.1 12.6
Soil C, 0-7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall (473) 16.0 6.2
Soil C, 10.2-17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall (3,225) 235.2 67.7
Soil C, 20.3-27.9 cm (8-11 in) rainfall (59) 7.9 2.0
Soil D, 0-7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall (461) . 20,3 6.9
Soil D, 10,2-17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall (173) 15.Q 4.1
Total 409.6 118.7
58
-------
25-yr/24-hour Rainfall Event
Costs (in million $)
Category (with the number of operations) Capital Annual Operating
Soil B, 10.2-17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall (1,040) 63.1 19.2
Soil B, 20.3-27.9 cm (8-11 in) rainfall (436) 52.0 12.6
Soil C, 0-7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall (473) 16.0 6.2
Soil C, 10.2-17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall (3,225) 235.2 67.7
Soil C, 20.3-27.9 cm (8-11 in) rainfall (59) 7.8 2.0
Soil D, 0-7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall (216) 9.5 3.2
Soil D, 10.2-17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall (418) 36.0 9.7
Total . . 419.6 120.6
Total capita! cost for treating a 10-year, 24-hour event is 409:6 million dollars; capital
costs for a 25-year, 24-hour event is 419.6 million dollars. The annual operating costs
for a 10-year and 25-year event are 118.7 and 120.6 million dollars, respectively.
Actual costs incurred for treating area runoff were not available from industry
since very few sand and gravel plants were identified as having implemented runoff control
plans. In the one operation where runoff control has been implemented, the incurred costs
are similar to Versar modeled costs. Plant 1555 has spent $180,000 (capital) to control
runoff from a 40 ha (100 ac) area v/hich drains into a surface stream. Versar modeled
capital costs for the same rainfall, soil type and disturbed acreage are $160,000.
Capital cost impact for unregulated states versus total industry cost for both
the 10- and 25-year rainfall events are given below. '
Capital Costs, dollars
IP-year event 25-year event
Unregulated states . 102,000,000 104,500,000
Total industry 409,600,000 419,600,000
59
-------
4.o GYPSUM
4.1 General Description of the Industry
Gypsum deposits are found in over 30 states with the leading producers being
California, Iowa, Nevada, New York, Texas, and Michigan, and lesser amounts being
produced in Colorado and Oklahoma. In 1972 there were approximately 80 gypsum
.' • '•.-.'• '
operations; 53 surface mines and 27 underground mines. Only the surface mines were con-
sidered in this study.
Most of the 53 surface mines are characterized by the typical open pit quarry.
The stripping of overburden is usually accomplished with drag lines or with tractor equipment.
Gypsum quarries in the upper midwest (Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio) are deep open pit
quarries with relatively steep high walls. Quarries In Oklahoma, Kansas, and the Northwest
are more characteristic of surface strip mines.
Although most of the states with gypsum surface mines have some regulations
for both surface mining site reclamation and runoff control from disturbed areas, all 53
surface mines were included in the modeled costs.
4.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
The volume of runoff is determined by the rainfall event, the infiltration rate
of the soil, and the size of the disturbed area. Large gypsum quarries can utilize over
122 ha (300 acres) of land for the total quarrying operation. Most of this acreage, however,
is taken up by the open pit itself. Since runoff into the pit is classified as pit pumpout
water ana1 is considered to be regulated, no additional costs v/ill be incurred for this volume.
Runoff from adjacent areas outside of the quarry (e.g., stockpiles, overburden piles,
crushing and grinding areas, etc.) will, however, have to be treated and are therefore included
•in the cost estimate.
60
-------
The size of the affected area (outside of the pit) is proportional to the size
or production of the gypsum operation. The larger producers require greater areas for stock-
piles and overburden deposition. The 53 gypsum quarries in this model were placed into
one of three size categories: 10 ha (25 ac), 20 ha (50 ac), and 30 ha (75 ac), based on
production. (Figure 10.)
Each of the 53 quarries was further categorized according to soil type and
the rainfall event. The following table describes the categorization by soil type and
rainfall event.
lO-yr/24-hr Rainfall Event
>27.9 cm
(> 11 in)
Soil Type
A
B
C
D
0-7.6 cm
(0-3 in)
0
7
5
4
10. 2-17. 8 cm
(4-7 in)
0
4
16
9
20.3 - 27.9 cm
(8-11 in)
0
P
8
0
25- yr/24-hr Rainfall Event
Soil Type
A
B
C
D
4.3
•0-7.6 cm
(0-3 in)
0
4
3
2
Runoff Control and
10.2-17.8 cm
(4-7 in)
0
5
12
10
Treatment Costs
20.3-27.9 cm
(8-11 in)
0
2
13
1
0
0
0
0
>27.9 cm
1 in)
0
0
1
0
The following table lists the' modeled capital and operating costs to control
61
-------
100
50
C/5
LU
rcc
o
UJ
cc
o
UJ
£D
CC
rs
H
£ 5
10
1
O
O
0
Q)
OQ
o
0
O
-e=
10,000
50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000
ANNUAL PRODUCTION, TONS
Figure 10. TOTAL DISTURBED AREA VERSUS PRODUCTION OF GYPSUM
62
-------
and treat runoff from 53 gypsum quarries. No flocculants ore needed to settle gypsurn
solids and most quarries do not contain high amounts of clay material in the overburden,
therefore, these costs do not include flocculation.
10-yr/24-hr Rainfall Event
Category
Soil B, 0- 7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall
5 quarries at 10 ha (25 ac)
1 quarry at 20 ha (50 a c)
1 quarry at 30 ha (75 ac)
SoilB, 10.2- 1.7.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall
2 quarries at 10 ha (25 ac)
1 quarry at 20 ha (50 ac)
1 quarry at 30 ha (75 ac)
Soil C, 0-7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall
3 quarries at 10 ha (25 ac)
1 quarry at 2 0 ha (50 ac)
1 quarry at 30 ha (75 ac)
Soil C, 10.2 - 17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall
11 quarries at 10 ha (25 ac)
2 quarries at 20 ha (50 ac)
3 quarries at 30 ha (75 ac)
Soil C, 20.3 - 27.9 cm (8-11 in) rainfall
6 quarries at 10 ha (25 ac)
1 quarry at 20 ha (50 ac)
1 quarry at 30 ha (75 ac)
Soil D, 0-7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall
2 quarries at 10 ha (25 ac)
1 quarry at 20 ha (50 a c)
1 quarry at 30 ha (75 ac)
Costs (in thousand $)
Capital Annual Operating
110.0
34.0
44.0
108.0
85.0
115.0
90.0
48.0
60.0
715.0
220.0
420.0
690.0
200.0
260.0
80.0
65.0
80.0
55.0
13.0
14.0
34.0
23.0
28.0
36.0
15.0
18.0
198.0
52.0
93.0
180.0
44.0
58.0
28.0
18.0
22.0
63
-------
10-yr/24-hr Romfgll Event (continued)
Costs (in thousand $)
Category
Soil D, 10.2- 17.8 crrr (4-7 in) rainfall
6 quarries at 10 ha (25 ac)
2 quarries at 20 ha (50 ac)
1 quarry at 30 ha (75 ac)
Total
Capital Annual Operating
450,0
260.0
170.0
4,304.0
132.0
60.0
38.0.
1,159.0
25-yr/24-hr Rainfall Event
Category
Soil B7 0- 7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall
2 quarries at 10 ha (25 ac)
1 quarry at 20 ha (50 ac)
1 quarry at 30 ha (75 ac)
Soil B, 10.2- 17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall
3 quarries at 10 ha (25 ac)
1 quarry at 20 ha (50 ac)
1 quarry at 30 ha (75 ac)
Soil B, 20.3 - 27.9 cm (8-11 in) rainfall
1 quarry at 10 ha (25 ac)
1 quarry at 20 ha (50 ac)
Soil C, 0-7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall
1 quarry at 10 ha (25 ac)
1 quarry at 20 ha (50 ac)
1 quarry at 30 ha (75 ac)
Soil C, 10.2- 17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall
9 quarries at 10 ha (25 ac)
2 quarries at 20 ha (50 ac)
1 quarry at 30 ha (75 ac)
Soil C, 20.3- 27.9 cm (8-11 in) rainfall
9 quarries at 10 ha (25 ac)
2 quarries at 20 ha (50 ac)
2 quarries at 30 ha (75 ac)
Costs (in thousand $)
Capital Annual Operating
44.0
34.0
44.0
162.0
85.0
115.0
105.0
170.0
30.0
48.0
60.0
585.0
220.0
140.0
1,035.0
400.0
520.0
22.0
13.0
14.0
51.0
23.0
28.0
27.0
38.0
12.0
15.0
18.0
162.0
52.0
31.0
270.0
88.0
116.0
64
-------
.25-yr/2'-'-hr Rainfall Event (continued)
Costs (in ihousand $)
Category ]r£E!l:±L Annual Operating
Soil C, >27.9 cm (>12 in) roinfali
1 quarry at 10 ha (25 ac) 175.0 40.0
Soil D, 0-7.6 cm (0-3 in) rainfall
1 quarry at TO ha (25 a c) 40.0 14.0
1 quarry at 20 ha (50 ac) 65.0 18.0
Soil D, 10.2 - 17.8 cm (4-7 in) rainfall
7 quarries at 10 ha (25 ac) 525.0 154.0
2 quarries at 20 ha (50 ac)' 260.0 60.0
1 quarry at 30 ha (75 a c) 170.0 38.0
Soil D, 20.3 - 27:.9 cm (8-11 in) rainfall
1'quarry at 10 ha (25 ac) 130.0 32.0
Total 5,162.0 1,336.0
Total modeled capital and annual operating costs for treating a 10-year,
24-hour event are $4,304,000 and $1,159,000 respectively. Capita! and annual
operating costs for a 25-year, 24-hour event are $5,162,000 and $1,336,000., respectively,
Capital cost impact for unregulated states.-versus total industry cost for both
X
the 10- and 25-year rainfall events are given below.
Capital Cost, dollars
10-year event 25-year event
Unregulated states . 640,000 890,000
total industry 4,304,000 5,162,000
65
-------
5.0 ASBESTOS AND WOLLASTONITE
5. 1 General Description of the industry
Asbestos Is produced at seven sites in three states:
Surface Mine No. Disturbed Areas
State Lav/in Effect of Sites ha (ac)
California Yes 3 8 (20)
1 2.4 (6)
North Carolina Yes 2 4 (10)
Vermont No 1 1.6 (4)
1 2.4 (6)
5.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
The 10- and .25-year rainfall events and soil conditions for the sites are:
below.
10-year "Event 25-year Event
Location cm (in) cm (in) Soil Condition
California 70.2(4) 12.7 (5) C (all sites)
North Carolina 12.7(5) 15.2(6) C (all sites)
Vermont 8.9(3.5) 10.2(4) C (all sites)
5.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
The capital costs for handling the 10- and 25-year events are given befow
along with the operating costs for both the 10- and 25-year events.
Capital Costs Annual Operating Costs
Location 10-Year 25-Year 10-Year 25-Year
California
North Carolina
Vermont
Totals $2617000 $302,000 $105,900. $116,500
Flocculants are not required In this case.
Capital cost impact on this industry ranges from $34,000 in unregulated
66
159,000
68,000
34,000
188,500
78,000
35,500
58,600
27,300
20,000
64,500
30,000
22,000
-------
states Jo on Industry tola! of $261,000 for a 10-year event and from $35,500 k> $302,000
for a 25-year event.
-------
6,0 MICA AND SERICITE
6.1 General Description of the
Industry
Mica is produced by surface mining operations af 15 sites in 9
states .
is given a breakdown of locations and the disturbed acreages.
Location
Alabama
Arizona
Connecticut
Georgia
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
South Carolina
North Carolina
Surface Mine
Law in Effect
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No.
of Sites
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
Disturbed
ha (dc)
2
1.2
2
2
1.2
2
1.2
4
4
12
Acreage
(5)
(3)
(5)
(5)
(3)
(5)
(3)
(10)
(10)
(30)
6.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
•The
10- and 25-year rainfall events and soil
type for all of the
sites are listed below:
Location
Alabama
Arizona
Connecticut
Georgia
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
North Carolina
10- Year Event
cm (in)
15.2(6) .
7.6 (3)
12.7(5)
15.2(6)
7.6 (3)
10.2(4)
15.2(6)
7.6 (3)
12.7 (5)
25- Year Event
cm (in)
i
17.8 (7)
8.9 (3.5)
13.9 (5.5)
17.8 (7)
8.9 (3.5)
12.7 (5)
17.8(7)
8.9(3.5)
15.2 (6)
Soil Condition
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
68
-------
6.3 Runoff Control ond Treatment Costs
Below are given the capital costs involved in treatment of the 10- and
25-year events and operating costs involved for the 10-. and 25-year events.
Capital Costs Annual Operating Costs
location - 10-Year 25-Year 10-Year 25-Year
Alabama
Arizona
Connecticut
Georgia
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
South Carolina
North Carolina
Totals $508,000 $575,500 $202,900 $223,500
Flocculants are not needed in this case.
Capital cost impact ranges from $41,000 in unregulated states to an industry
total of $508,000 for a 10-year event. Capital costs for a 25-year event range from
$44,500 to $575,500.
23,000
10,000
21,000
23,000
10,000
18,000
10,000
38,000
355,000
25,000
11,000
22,500
25,000
11,000
21,000
11,000
42,000
407,000
11,400
8,600
10,900
11,800
9,100
10,500
9,100
14,500
117,300
12,500
9,500
12,000
13,000
10,000
11,500
10,000
16,000
129,000
69
-------
7.0 ROCK SALT
7.1 General Description of the Industry
Rock salt is mined underground in Kansas, Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan,
and New York. While all but two of these states have mining reclamation laws, there are
no runoff problems with the mining sites, but there is runoff from stored piles of product or
waste materials at"exposed locations. The areas occupied by these piles are generally one
acre or less.
• 7.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
Due to the widespread nature of the runoff problem from these piles, all types
of soil conditions except type D are involved. In Kansas salt piles are generally kept in
enclosed areas to prevent loss due to wind. Open stockpiles are found at sites in all of the
other involved states. Ten-year rainfall events for these locations are about 22.9 cm (9 in)
for Texas and Louisiana and about 8.9 cm (3.5 in) for the Michigan, Ohio, and New York
sites. Twenty-five year events range from 10.2 cm (4 in) for the northern sites to 27.9 cm
(11 in) for the Gulf Coast plants. Most salt piles are stored adjacent to the processing
% "
plants in essentially flat areas.
7.3 Runoff Control Treatment Costs
Flocculation is not needed to treat runoff from salt piles. These are three possible
approaches to containing runoff:
1) storage of the salt in enclosed areas,
2) use of portable covers for the piles, and
3) impoundment of runoff from piles stored outside.
All three approaches have been used by the industry.
70
-------
The plants are in five stoics, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Louisiana, and
Texas. In Ohio and Michigan, only one plant in each state is not currently covering the
storage piles. There are two facilities each in New York and Texas with uncovered piles.
Because of terrain problems, the Louisiana facilities generally store their salt in the mine
and ship the crushed.product as produced. Consequently, there are no outdoor, above
ground,storage facilities at the Louisiana plants. Thus, there are 6 facilities with outdoor
storage of salt. For each of these plants, costs of warehouse facilities with 100,000 ton
storage capacities would be $478,000 each based on recent construction costs for such a
facility in Kansas, which included loading equipment.
The total cost to the industry using this approach would be $2,868,000. The
impoundment approach is usable only in cases where evaporation exceeds rainfall, which
does not occur in any of these areas.
Total annual operating costs for this subcategory are estimated at $150,000.
These costs involve general maintenance of the storage buildings and electricity.
The costs presented above are based entirely on those supplied by plants
recently installing storage facilities with capacities similar to those required by the
involved production locations. Actual costs for the sites involved may vary slightly due
to small regional differences in labor rates.
71
-------
8.0 PHOSPHATE ROCK
This material is mined by surface operations In Florida, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. In the latter four states all mining is
conducted in arid areas and rainwater drains into the process ponds, where it is captured
for plant use. There is typically no discharge of either process water, pit pumpouf waters
or runoff from the western operations. One plant contacted In Wyoming, Plant 4023, does
not have any runoff to surface waters. All precipitation is adsorbed or evaporated. This
plant has an average 10-year rainfall (25-year) event of 2 inches (2.5) inches). The
soil v/as described as Type C. There is approximately TOO acres of disturbed area. Calcu-
lated costs of controlling runoff are summarized below using the appropriate curves in
Appendix C:
10-year 25-year
10-year Event 25-year Event
Event Annual Event Annual
10-year 25-year Capital Operating Capital Operating
Area Soil Event (in) Event (in) Costs Costs Costs Costs
100 acres Type C 2 2.5 $73,000 $21,000 $80,000 $24,000
The eastern sites (Tennessee, Florida, and North Carolina) are all currently
under state regulations governing both land reclamation of surface mining sites and runoff
from disturbed areas. Costs were solicited from the Florida and Tennessee producers but
no useful data were supplied. Florida and North Carolina phosphate plants consider all
•
precipitation to be process water. It drains into the process ditches and ponds and becomes
process water.
Plant 4003 in Tennessee supplied data on average disturbed area for their mine
sites. The average disturbed area was 9.69 acres per mine and the five-year average
number of mines was 21.8. Calculated costs of controlling runoff are summarized below
using the appropriate curves in Appendix C:
72
-------
'10- year 25-year
10-year Event 25*year Event
Event Annual Event Annual
10-yeor 25-year Capita! Operating Capital Operating
Area SoiI Event (ir.) Event (in) Costs Cor.ts Costs Costs
10 acres Type B 5.5 6 $32,000 $13,500 $34,000 -$14,100
Thus the aggregate capital costs for 22 sites are $704,000 (10-year) and
$748,000 (25-year) and corresponding operating costs are $297,000 (10-year) and $310,000
(25-year) per year.
73
-------
9.0 BENTONITE
9.1 General Description of the Industry
!n an earlier section, we discussed dry western bentonite operations. The
other operations In high rainfall areas are in Missouri, Texas, and Mississippi. The
disturbed areas of these latter are:
No.
Area of Sites
Missouri 1
Texas 1
4
. Mississippi 3
o
9.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
Disturbed Area
ha (ac)
2.4 (6)
8 (20)
2.4 (6)
8 (20)
2.4 (6)
Surface Lav/
Lav/ in Effect
Yes
Yes
No
The 10- and 25-year rainfall events for these sites are:
10-year Event 25-year Event
Location cm (in) cm (in)
Missouri
Texas
Mississippi
All of the locations have
12.7
17.8
15.2
typeC
(5) 15.2
(7) 20.3
(6). 17.8
soil condition .
(6)
(8)
(7)
9.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
The capital and operating costs derived from the cost model using flocculation.
are:
Capital Costs Annual Operating Costs
State 10-year Event 25-year Event 10-year Event 25-year Event
Missouri 36,000 41,000 21,800 24,000
Texas 259,000 ' 275,000 147,300 162,000
Mississippi 425,000 475,000 221,000 243,000
Totals $720,000 $791,000 $390,100 $439,000
74
-------
Capiicii costs for !nc 10-year event range from $425,000 in the unregulated
state to a total of $720,000 for the industry. Corresponding capital costs for the 25-year
oven I range from $475,000 to $791,000.
Flocculant costs were supplied for a plant of similar size using these materials
in the clay industry. These were estimated to be $300,000 but this cost also included
installation of metering equipment, pond redesign, etc. No real or projected costs v/ere
obtained for these Mississippi operations.
It should be noted that there may be some variation in costs with site location.
Contacts with several clay operations in Mississippi have revealed a considerable variation
in depths and acreages involved per ton of product for open pit mines. Thus, mines in the
northern portion of the state tend to be more shallow and involve greater acreage per unit
of production. Pits in the central portion tend to involve less acreage and to be considerably
deeper. At these latter locations, much of the rainwater may become pit pumpout due to
i ; -
the topography of the operations involved.
75
-------
10.0 FIRECLAY
10.1 General Description oF the Industry
Fireclay (including plasfic clay, flint clay, and bauxiiic clay) Is mined in
20 states with an aggregate.annual tonnage of 3.80 x 10 kkg (4.14 x 10° tons) in 1974.
This
State
Alabama
Calif.
Color.
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
NJ.
N.M.
Ohio
Penn.
Texas
Utah
Wash.
W.Va.
Undistributed
Total
No. of
Mines
10
6
14
5
1
5
3
12
81
1
1
4
2
32
36
4
2
4
2
3
226
Not Costed
Due to
Climatic Annual
o
Conditions kkg x 10
290
144
49
NoD.a
X N.D.
95
24
107
848
X
N.D,
34
X N.D.
1,031
821
38
X N.D.
. N.D.
N.D.
320
3,801
Production
(tons x IP3)
316
157
53
103
26
117
924
37
1,124
894
41
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
349
4,141
% of
Total
Produced
7.6
3.8
1.3
. ( ..
2.5
.6
2.8
22.3
1.0
27.1
21.6
1.6
8.4
100
Surface
Mine Law
In Effect
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
°Not disclosed
Total of undisclosed tonnage
The bulk of the fireclay is mined in three states: Missouri, Ohio and Penn-
sylvania, which account for 71 percent of the total produced. Alabama, California,
Kentucky, and Illinois account for another 19 percent of the total. Thus, seven stares
account for nearfy 90 percent of the total fireclay production.
76
-------
Missouri fireclay mines are small (1 to 3 acres) open pit operations. The
"average" Missouri fireclay mine produces 10,500 kkg/yr (11,400 TRY). Fireclay mines
In Ohio and Pennsylvania are strip-mine operations, similar in many respects to stop coal
mining operations. Fireclay seams in these states'are closely associated with coal seams.
Acid mine drainage is usually a problem and continuous lime treatment is required before
mine water can be discharged. In at least some of these mines, surface runoff commingles
with acid mine drainage, requiring lime treatment of the entire combined stream before
discharge. In these situations the lime treatment ponds also act as settling ponds for sedi-
ment in the mine surface runoff. Fireclay mines in Ohio and Pennsylvania are appreciably
larger than Missouri mines with the "average" mine producing 27/000 kkkg/yr (30,000 TRY),
Of the twenty states producing fireclay, 6 states (with a total of 8 mines) have been elimi-
nated from surface runoff considerations due to the arid climate.
10.2 Fireclay Surface Runoff Model Baseline Data
There was only limited data available on fireclay mine total disturbed area.
These data were plotted versus annual raw fireclay production in Figure 11. There
appears to be a direct relationship between fireclay production rate and total disturbed
*.'
area. This curve was then used to approximate the disturbed area of the fireclay mines in
the states under consideration, i.e., an "average" value for mine production in each state
was derived by dividing total production by the number of mines. The "average" total
77
-------
100
C/3
2
O
O
O
ID
O
O
OC
DL
50
20
10
• D
5 10 20 50
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA, ACRES
100
200
Figure 11. PRODUCTION OF FIRECLAY VERSUS TOTAL DISTURBED AREA
78
-------
disturbed area for this mine was then obtained from the curve, these data together with
the appropriate S.C.S. soil condition and average 10-year and 25-year rainfall events
for the states under consideration are given in Table 4.
10.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
For the purposes of the runoff model, all surface runoff in a fireclay mine is
>
assumed to be collected in a holding and treatment pond using appropriate ditching and
diking. Any acid mine drainage or pit pumpout is not considered in this model. It is also
assumed that a "standard" amount of flocculant will be added to precipitate colloidal clay
in the collection pond to an acceptable TSS level in the pond discharge. None of the
fireclay mines visited had any associated process plants adjacent to the mine. Based on
this observation, it is assumed that no process wastewater commingles with surface runoff
at the modeled mines.
Using the derived data, the assumptions made above, and cost curves for surface
runoff control in Appendix C, capital and annual operating costs were developed for the
10-year and 25-year rainfall events at the "average" fireclay mines for the states under
consideration. These costs are tabulated in Table 5. Total capital and annual
operating costs for all of the mines in these states are also presented below.
The total capital costs and annual operating cost for the 25-year rainfall
event are $18,500,000 and $6,800,000., respectively.
Capital cost impact for unregulated states versus that for the total industry
for both the 10- and 25-year event is given below.
Capital Costs, dollars
10-year 25-year
event event
Unregulated states 176,000 192,000
Total industry 16,206,000 18,528,000
79
-------
Table 4. Fireclay Rainfall and Runoff Data
CO
o
Average- Mine
Alabama
California
Colorado
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Missouri
New Jersey
Ohio
Pennsylvania1
Texas
Y/cshington
West Virginia
No. of
Mines
10
6
14
5
5
3
12
81
4
32
36
4
4
2
AverageMine Production
kkgxIO3
29
24
4 .
18
19
8
9
10
8
32
23
9
18
18
(TPYx 108;
32
26
4
20
21'
9
10
11
9
35
25
10
20
20
Total Disturbed Area
Hectares
25.1
19.4
10.1
13.0 .
14.2
3.6
5.0
5.5
3.6
30,8
18.2
4,5
13.0
13.0
(Acres)
62
48
25
32
35
9
12
13.5
9
76
45
11
32
32
Soil f
Condition
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
0
C
Average State Rainfall Data
10-year Event
cm
16.5
7.6
6.4
15.2
11.4
12.0
11.2
14.0
13.2
9.7
10.2
15.2
7.6
10.2
(in)
6.5
3
2.5
6
4.5
4.7
• 4
5.5
5.2
3.8
4 •
6
3
4
25-year Event
cm
19.0
10.2
7.6
17.8
12.7
12.4
11.9
15.2
14.7
10,7
11.9
17.8
10.2
11.4
(in)
7.5
4
3
7
5
4.9
4.7
6
5.8
4.2
4.7
7
4
4.5
TOTALS
218
-------
Table 5. Capital and Annual Operating Costs for Fireclay Mines •
Surface Runoff Collection and Treatment
CO
Capital Costs, dollars
Annual Operating Cost's, dollars
'State
Alabama
California
Colorado
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Missouri
New Jersey
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
No. of
Mines
10
6
14
5
5
3
12
81
4
32
36
4
4 '
2
Per Mine
10-year •
160,000
70,000
44,000
100,000 .
85,000
41,000
•41,000
58,000
44,000
110,000
85,000
52,000
72,000
70,000
25-year
190,000
90,000
50,000
120,000
95,000
41,500
43,000
.' 65,000
48,000
,120,000
100,000'
54,000
85,000 .
80,000
Total
10- year
1,600,000
420,000
616,000
500,000
425,000
123,000
492,000
4,698,000
176,000
3,5.20,000
3,060,000 .
208,000
288,000
140,000
25- year
1,900,000
540,000
700,000
600,000
475,000
124,500
576,000
5,265,000
192,000
. 3,840,000
• 3,600,000 •
216,000
340,000 '
160,000
Per Mine
10-year
56,000
23,000
18,000
34,000
29,000
21,000
19,000
26,000
23,000
34,000
30,000. .
26,000'.
26,000
27,000
25- year
65,000
30,000
20,000
40,000
• 31,000
22,000 '
23,000 '
27,000 '
25,000
38,000
34,000
28,000
' 32,000
30,000
Total
10-yecr
560,000
133,000
252,000
170,000
145,000
62,000
228,000
2,106,000
92,000
1,083>000
1,080,000
104,000
104,000
54,000
25- veer
' 650,000
. 1ED,CJO
250,000
• 200,COO
155,000
66,CCO
276,CCO
2,127,000
100,000
1,216,000
1 OO/t ftnn
Ifi.i'r/wt.'J
112,000'
1 28,000
60,00.0
TOTALS 218 1,032,000 ; 1,186,000 16,206,000 18,528,000 392,000
Overall Average
Costs/Mine
445,000 6,184,000 6,834,000
74,000
85,000
28,000
31,000
-------
Vr.O FULLER'S EARTH
11.1 General Description of the Industry
Fuller's earth (including attapulgite and montmorillonite) is mined in eleven
states with an aggregate annual production of 12.25 x 105 kkg (11.98 x 10s tons) in 1974.
This production is distributed as follows:
Not Costed Surface
No. % of Due to Mining
- of Annual Production Total Climatic Laws In
State Mines kkg x 103 (tons x TCP) Produced Conditions Effect
California ^
Florida '
Georgia !
Illinois '
Mississippi I
Missouri
Nevada
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Undistributed*
Total 2(
3 N.D.a
5 379
3 449
1 N.D.
3 N.D.
N.D.
0.07
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
1.8
295
S 1,198
413
489
0.08
2
321
1,225
33.7
40.0
0.0 X
0.2 X
26.2
10.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*N.D. = not disclosed.
*• Total of undisclosed tonnage.
*
Fuller's Earth mines in two states (Nevada and Utah) were not costed due to arid climate
conditions.
The bulk of the Fuller's Earth is mined in two states, Florida and Georgia,
which account for about 70 percent of the total produced. The "average" Fuller's Earth
mine in these two states produces about 63,000'kkg/yr (70,000 TPY).
82
-------
11.2 Runoff end Rainfall Data
The limited data available on total disturbed area in Fuller's Earth mines
was plotted versus annual production rate in Figure 12. A direct relationship is indicated
though the data does show some scatter. This correlation was used to derive an "average"
Fuller's Earth mine total disturbed area for each state by dividing the total annual produc-
tion by the number of mines in the respective state to obtain an "average" annual Fuller's
Earth production rate per state. Figure 12 was then used to obtain the respective average
total disturbed area. The total disturbed area in a Fuller's Earfh mine is about 4 to 8 ha
(10 to 20 ac).
Soil Condition D (with the highest runoff potential) was used for the entire
Fuller's Earth cost estimate based on observation of several mines.
Table 6 presents the "average" Fuller's Earth mine total disturbed area,
and an average 10-year and 25-year rainfall event for the states involved.
11.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
For the purposes of the cost model, all surface runoff in a Fuller's Earth mine
is assumed to be collected in a holding and treatment pond prior to discharge, using
appropriate ditching and diking. Fuller's Earth can either be the attapulgite type (a
fast-settling clay) or the montmorillonite type (a colloidal, difficult to settle clay),
depending on locality. A conservative approach in deriving the costs is to assume the
need in all cases to use a "standard" amount of flocculant which would reduce the TSS
level in the pond discharge to an acceptable level. None of the Fuller's Earth mines
visited in the previous effluent guidelines study had associated process plants immediately
adfacent to the mines. It is, therefore, assumed that no process wastewater commingles
with surface runoff.
83
-------
500
200
CO
z
o
2 100
I50
Q
O
CC
OL-
§ 20
10
di
E3
-B-
5 10 20 50
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA, ACRES
100
Figure 12. PRODUCTION OF FULLER'S EARTH VERSUS TOTAL DISTURBED AREA
84
-------
Table 6. Rainfall and Runoff for Fuller's Earth
oo
Ui
StateT
California
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Mississippi
Missouri
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Total".
No. of Average Mine Production,
Mines kkg/yr x IP3 (TPY x 10?)
3 27 (29*)
5 76 (83)
8 56 (61)
1 27 (29°)
3 27 (29°)
1 27 (29a)
1 27 (29a)
1 27 (29a)
1 27 (29°)
26
Average Total
Disturbed
Mine Area,
ha (ac)
-2.23 (5.5)
5.27 (13)
4.05 do)
2.23 (5.5)
2.23 (5.5)
2.23 (5.5)
2.23 (5.5)
2.23 (5.5)
2.23 (5,5)
Soil
Condition
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Average
Rainfall Event, cm (In)
10-yr. Event 25-yr. Event
7.6 (3)
19.0 (7.5)
15.2 (6)
11.4 4.5)
16.1 (6.5)
13.5 (5.3)
15.2 (6)
12.7 (5):
15.2 (6)
10.2 (4)
21.6 (8.5)
17.8 (7)
12.7 (5)
17.8 (7)
15.2 (6)
17.8 (7)
14.0 (5.5)
17.8 (7)
* These values'derived by dividing total undistributed tonnage In the first table by the number of mines Involved In these states to obtain
an approximation of the actualaverage value.
-------
Using the data and the assumptions presented above and the model cost
curves, capital and annual operating costs were developed for the 10- and 25-year
rainfall events requiring surface runoff collection at the 26 mines under consideration.
These costs are given in Table 7.
The total capital cost and annual operating costs for the 25-year rainfall
event are $1,300,000 and $780,000, respectively.
Capital cost impact in terms of unregulated states costs versus total industry
costs for both the 10- and 25-year events is given below.
Capital Costs, dollars
10-Year Event 25-Year Event
Unregulated states 132,000 135,000
Total industry 1,255,000 1,334,000
86
-------
Table 7. Capital and Annual Operatinq Costs For Surface Runoff Collection
and Treatment at Fuller's Earth Mines
CO
VI
State
State
California
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Mississippi
Missouri
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
TOTALS
No. of
Mines
3 '
5
8
1
3
1
1
1
1
26
Caplcal .Costs, dollars
Per
10-yr Event
' 34,000
74,000
56,000
35,000
44,000
40,000
42,000
39,000
42,000
407,000
Mine
25-yr Event
. 36,000
80,000
60,000
39,000
45,000
42,000
45,000
40,000 .
45,000
432,000
Average. Costs/Mine
Total
10-yr Event
102,000
375,000
448,000
35,000
132,000
40,000
42,000
39,000
42,000
1,255,000
48,000
25-yr Event
108,000
400,000
480,000
39,000
135,000
42,000 .
45,000
40,000
•45,000
1,334,000
51,000
Per
10-yr Event
18,000
38,000
30,000
23,000
28,000
25,000
27,000
24,000
27,000
240,000
Annual Operating Costs, dollars'
Mine
25-yr Event
21,000
44,000 .
34,0000
24,000
29,000
27,000
29,000
26,000
29,000
263,000
Total
10-yr Event
54,000
190,000
240,000
23,000
57,000
25,000
27,000
24,000
27,000
667,000
26,000
'per year
25-yr Event
63,000
220,000
272,000
24,000
87,000
27,000
29,000
26,000
29,000
779,000
30,000
-------
12.0 COMMON CLAY AND SHALE
12.1 General Description of the Industry*
Clay and shale are mined in 47 states and in Puerto Rico; there is no known
clay or shale production in Alaska, Rhode Island, Vermont and the District of Columbia.
A total of 41.1 x 10s kkg (45.2 x 10s tons) of clay and shale was mined in 839 mines,
including 3 mines in Puerto Rico in 1974. The average production per mine was about
44.5 x 103 kkg/yr (49 x 103 TPY).
Common clay and shale production in 1974 was distributed among states as
shown in Table 8.
Production of common clay and shale is widely distributed among the states
with the largest production being in Texas (~11% of the total).
For the most part, common clay and shale mines are .captive to the same com-
panies which manufacture products based on these raw materials. Only about 10 percent of
mine output is sold. The typical brick or tile manufacturing company is a one or two plant
operation, with one to three mining locations. The typical common clay or shale mining
operation which serves the portland cement industry, is owned by a large company which
operates a number of plants and mines. With respect to the entire industry, there is no
* • • .
"typical" situation: there are both large and small companies involved.
12.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
Forty-six of the 48 continental states have common clay and shale mines.
Therefore nearly every type of surface soil, topography and rainfall will be encountered
in this industry.
*AI1 statistical values quoted are from Bureau of Mines, 1974 data (See Appendix D).
88
-------
Toble 8. Production of Common Cloy and Shato in the
United States in 1974
Stote
Atoboma
Arizona "
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
•Wyoming
Undistributed (b)
Total
No. of
Mines
26
6
16
52
35
5
1
4
24
1
4
16
26
17
25
13
15 '
6
10
3
11
2
22
21
10
6
1 .
3
2
7
15
48
5
82 .
17
13
45
3
37 .
4
2)
93
9
33
15
4
1
• 4
Annual
kkg x JO3
2,150
151
830
2,055
549
143
13
339
2,241
N.D. (a)
8
1,362
979
881
1,203
671
707
134
812
200
1.984
N.D.
1,370
1,416
54
167
N.D.
31
62
50
1,332
3,141
N.D.
2,939
1,183
128
1,687
267
1,402
174
1,045
4,632
185
1,797
' 247
311
2
198
265
Production
tons x 103
2,342
164
904
2,239
598
156
14
369
2,441
9
1,484
1,066
960
1,311
731
770
146
884
218
2,161
1,492
1,542
59
182
34
67 '
55
1,451
3,422
3,202
1,289
139
1,838
291
1,527
190
1,138
5,046
201
1,957
269
339
2
216
239
Per Cent
of Total
Produced
5.2
.4
2.0
5.0
1.3
0.3
0.0
0.8
5.4
0.0
0.3
2.4
2.1
2.9
•1.6
1.7
0.3
1.9
0.5
• 4.8
3.3
3.4
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.2
7.6
7.1
2.8
0.3
4.1
0.6
3.4
0.4
2.5
11.2
0.4
4.3
0.6
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.6
Mines
. Not Costed
Due to
Climatic
Conditions
X
5(c)
7(c)
•
X
2(=)
"
9(c)
X
X
X
2{c)
. 9(c>
X
3(c)
X
*
X
Surface
Mining Low
In Effect
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
.Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
"Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yej
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
, Total
839
100.0
(o) N.D. not disclosed
(b) Total of undisclosed production
(c) Thcso mines in counties where climatic conditions eliminote-runoff consideration
89
-------
From a geographic standpoint common clay and shale deposits are concentrated
in three semi-distinct zones, as shown below:
1 . Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Zone - including:
Texas South Carolina
Louisiana North Carolina
Mississippi Virginia
Alabama Maryland
Tennessee Pennsylvania
Georgia New York
2. Central Interior Zone - including:
Ohio Missiouri
Michigan Arkansas
Indiana Kansas
Illinois Oklahoma
Iowa Nebraska
3. West Coast - including:
California Oregon
The Gulf-Atlantic coastal zone, as identified above, can be further charac-
terized as having Type B and C soils primarily, and as being subject to 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall events of about 12.7 to 25 cm (5 to 10 in.).
The Central Interior zone is not completely defined with respect to
V •
shale or clay. New York, Pennsylvania, and Iowa deposits are believed to be primarily
shale. The 25-year, 24-hour rainfall events are moderate and lie for the most part within
a small rainfall range of 10-15 cm (4-6 in). Topography does vary, with mountainous to hilly
areas in Pennsylvania, New York, and Arkansas. The "remain ing area is relatively flat or
rolling. Type C soils predominate.
The Pacific Coast area is quite variable with respect to rainfall events and soil
conditions (the area has Type B, C, and D soils).
• Referring to Table 8, those mines in states which have entirely arid climates
or in counties with arid climates, were eliminated.
90
-------
In addition, only mines in the continental U.S. were considered in the cost estimate.
Since it was not possible to get extensive data on the respective disturbed
areas for the common clay and shale mines in the various states under consideration, a
correlation of annual production versus total disturbed area was developed based on
limited data obtained for shale mines in Pennsylvania. These data are plotted in Figure
13. A direct relationship is indicated between disturbed area and production rate. As an
approximation to the actual total disturbed area for the mines under consideration, each
state total production of common clay and shale was divided by the total number of active
mines to derive an "average" production rate per mine. Using Figure 13, the "average"
area per mine was determined for each of the states under consideration. Table 9 tabulates
these derived values, together with the soil condition to be used, in calculations and the
average 10-year and 25-year, 24-hour rainfall events for the respective state under
consideration.
While common clay contributes more TSS to runoff than shale, it was conserva-
*
tively assumed that a "standard" amount of flocculant would be used in the model for all
of the common clay and shale mines under consideration. It is also assumed that there is no
/
commingling of surface runoff with process wastewater in the vast majority of the mines
under consideration.
12.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
For the purpose of the cost model, all runoff from the common clay or shale
mine is assumed to be collected in a holding and treatment pond system using appropriate
ditching and diking. Using the data developed in the previous section, together with the
cost curves for the appropriate soil condition, capital and annual operating costs were
developed for the 10-year and 25-year rainfall events for the various states under
91
-------
200
100
o
50
20
§ 10
oc
OL.
O
O
2 5 10 20
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA, ACRES
50
Figure 13. PRODUCTION OF SHALE VERSUS TOTAL DISTURBED AREA
92
-------
Table 9. Rainfall and Runoff Data for Common Clay and Shale
Stote^
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
No. of
Mines
26
16
47
28
5
1
4
24
16
26
17
23
13
15 . .
6
10
3
11
22
21
1
6
New Hampshire 3
New Jersey
New York
No. Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
So. Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
2
15
48 . •
82
15
9
45
37
21
90
33
15
4
1
Average
Production
Per mine
kkg/yr (TPY)
• .83,000(90,000}
52,000 (56,000)
40,000 (43,000)
16,000 (17,000)
29,000(31,000)
13,000(14,000)
85,000(92,000)
93,000 (102,000)
85,000(93,000)
38,000(41,000)
. 52,000 (56,000)
. 48,000 (52,000)
52,000 (56,000)
47,000(51,000)
22,000 (24,000)
81,000(88,000)
67,000(73,000)
180,000 (196,000)
62,000(68,000)
67,000 (73,000)
5,000(6,000)
28,000 (30,000)
10,000(11,000)
3,000(3,000)
89,000 (97,000)
65,000(71,000)
35,000 (39,000)
70,000(76,000)
10,000(11,000)
37,000(41,000)
38,000(41,000)
50, 000 (5--;, 000)
50,000(54,000)
54,000 (59,000)
16,000(18,000).
78,000 (85,000)
2,000 (2,000)
Average
Mine Area
ha (acre)
9.3 (23)
7.0 (17jr
5.7(14)
3.0(7.4)
4.5(11)
2.6(6.4)
9.3 (23)
10.1 (25)
9.3 (23)
5.3(13)
6.5(16)
6.5(16)
1 6.5(16)
6.5(16)
3.6 (9) '
8.9(22)
8.1 (20)
18.2(45)
7.3 (18)
8.1 (20)
6.9(17)
4:5(11)
2.2(5.4)
1.0(2.5)
9.7(24)
7.7(19)
1.1 (2.8)
8.1 (20)
2.1 (5.2)
5.3(13)
5.3 (13)
6.5(16)
6.5(16)
6.9(17)
3.0(7.3)
.8.1 (20)
.7(1.8)
Sol!
Condition
C
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
Rainfall, cm (In)
10-'yr. Event
16.5 (6.5)
15.8(6.2)
7.6 (3)
6.4(2.5)
12.1 (4.8)
14.0(5.5)
19.0(7.5)
15.2(6)
11.4(4.5)
11.9 (4.7)
11.4(4.5)
11.4(4.5)
10.2 (4)
19.0(7.5)
10.2(4)
12.7 (5)
11.4(4.5)
8.9 (3.5)
16.5 (6.5)
14.0(5.5)
6.4(2.5)
8.3 (3.2)
10.2 (4)
13.2(5.2)
10.2(4)
11.0(5.5)
9.6(3.8) .
14.0(5.5)
5.1(2) .
10.2(4)
15.2(6)
12.7(5)
15.2(6)
13.9(5.5)
7.6 (3)
10.2 (A)
10.2 (4)
25-yr. Event
19.0 (7.5)
17.8 (7)
10.2(4)
7.6 (3)
14.6 (5.8)
15.2 (6)
21.6(8.5)
17.8(7)
12.7(5)
12.4(4.9)
14.0(5.5)
14.0(5.5)
12.0(4.7)
22.2(8.8)
11.4(4.5)
14.0(5.5)
13.3(5.2)
10.2(4.0)
17.8 (7)
15.2(6)
7.6 (3)
11.4(4.5)
12.7(5)
14.7(5.8)
11.4 (4.5)
16.5 (6.5)
10.7(4.2)
16.5(6.5)
12.9(3)
11.9(4.7)
. 17.8(7)
11.0(5.5)
17.8 (7)
15.2(6)
10.2(4)
12.1 (4.8)
11.4(4.5)
-------
consideration. The developed costs are given in Table 10. The total 25-year event
capital and annual operating costs are $48,600,000 and $21,700,000., respectively.
Capital cost impact in terms of unregulated states costs versus total industry
cost for both the 10- and 25-year events is given below.
Capital Costs, dollars
10-Year Event 25-Year Event
Unregulated states 3,182,000 3,466,000
Total industry 43,845,000 48,591,000
94
-------
Toble 10. Capital and Annual Operating Costs for Surface Runoff Collection and
Treatment in Common Clay and Shale Mines
Capital Cost
Annual Operating Costs, dollars per year
No. of
State Mines
Alabama 26
Arkansas 16
California 47
Colorado 28
Connecticut 5
Delaware 1
Florida 4
Georgia 24
Illinois . 16
Indiana ' 26
Iowa 17
Kansas 23
Kentucky 13
Louisiana 15
Maine 6
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 3
Michigan 11
Mississippi 22
Missouri 21
Montana I
Nebraska 6
New Hampshire 3
New Jersey 2
New York 15
North Carolina 48
Ohio 82
Oklahoma 15
Oregon 9
So. Carolina 37
Tennessee 21
Texas 90
Virginia 33
Washington 15
West Virginia 4
V/isconsin 1
Totals 761 2,
Average Cost/Mine
Per
10-yr.
85,000
70,000
38,000-
36,000
46,000
38,000
85,000 •'
87,000
65,000
48,000
54,000
54,000
48,000
77,000
36,000
70,000
•61,000
75,000
74,000
71,000
38,000
38,000
30,000
25,000
62,000
67,000
24,000
70,000
31,000
58,000
60,000
65,000
64,000
36,000
56,000
22,000
118,000 2
Mine
25-yr.
95,000
75,000
. 46,000
38,000
53,000
42,000
97,000
110,000
72,000
50,000
62,000
62,000
55,000
85,000
40,000 .
75,000
70,000
85,000
80,000
75,000
50,000
44,000
34,000
26,000
.67,000 '
76,000
. 25,000
80,000
33,000 •
65,000
62,000
71,000
67,000
40,000
62,000
23,000
,316,000
Total
10-yr.
' 2,210,000
1,120,000
1,786,000
1,000,000
230,000
38,000
340,000
2,088,000
1,040,000
1,248,000
918,000
1,242,000
624,000
1,155,000
216,000
700,000
183,000
825,000
1,628,000
1,491,000
38,000
228,000
90,000
50,000
930,000
3,216,000
1,968,000
1,050,000
279,000
2,146,000
.1,260,000
5,850,000
2,112,000
540,000
224,000
22,000
43,845,000
50,000
Per Mine
25-yr.
2,470,000
1,200,000
2,162,000
1,064,000
265,000
42,000
388,000
2,640,000
1,152,000
1,300,000
1,054,000
1,426,000
715,000
1,275,000
240,000
750,000
210,000
• 935,000
1,760,000
1,575,000
50,000
264,000
102,000
52,000
1,005,000
3,648,000
2,050,000
1,200,000
297,000
2,405,000
1,302,000
6,390, 000
2,211,000
680,000
248,000
23,000
48,591,000
64,000
10-yr.
34,000
30,000
17,000
17,000
22,000
22,000
38,000
34,000
25,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
22,000
35,000
19,000
28,000
25,000
27,000
32,000
29,000
17,000
17,000
18,000
18,000
25,000
29,000
17,000
29,000
15,000
27,000
26,000
29,000
28,000
. 19,000
24,000
17,000
932,000
25-yr.
40,000
33,000
20,000
19,000
25,000
23,000
44>000
38,000
28,000
24,000
27,000
27,000
24,000
40,000
21,000
30,000
28,000
30,000
34,000
•31,000
18,000
22,000
21,000
20,000
27,000
32,000
18,000
32,000
17,000
30,000
27,000
32,000
29,000
22,000
26,000
'18,000
1,036,000
Total
10-yr.
884,000
480,000 '
799,000
476,000
110,000
22,000
152,000
816,000
400,000
598,000
391,000
52,900
286,000
525,000
114,000
280,000
75,000
297,000-
704,000
609,000
17,000
102,000
54,000
36,000
375,000
1,392,000
1,394,000
435,000
135,000
999,000
546,000
2,610, nno
924,000
285,000
96,000
.12,000
25-yr.
1,040,000
528,000
940,000
532,000
125,000
23,000
176,000
912,000
448,000
624,000
459,000
621,000
312,000
600,000
126,000
300,000
84,000
330,000
748,000
651,000
18,000
132,000
. 63,000
40,000
405,000
1,536,000
1,476,000
480,000
153,000
1,035,000
567,000
288,000
957,000
330,000
104,000
18,000
19,600,000 21,704,000
26,000
28,000
-------
13.0 THE KAOLIN MINING INDUSTRY
13.1 General Description of the Industry
Kaolin is mined in 14 states with an aggregate annual tonnage of
5.87 x 10° kkg (6.39 x 10° tons) in 1974. This tonnage is distributed as follows:
• Not Costed
% of , Due to Surface
No. of Annual Production Total Climatic Mining Laws
State Mines kkg x 103 (tons x 103) Production Conditions In Effect
Alabama
Arkansas
Califprnia
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Minnesota
Missouri
Nevada
No. Carolina
Pennsylvania
So. Carolina
Texas
Utah
Undistributed (b)
6
4
6
1
>3
59
1
10
1
2
2
21
2
2
309 (337)
73 (80)
39 (43)
7 (8)
25 (27)
4,372 (4,762)
N.D. (a)
91 (99)
1 .8 (2)
N.D.
N.D.
707 (770)
N.D.
N.D.
242 (264)
5.3
1.3
0.7
0.1
0.4
74.5
1.5
0.03 X
12.0
X
4.1
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Totals
120
5,867 (6,392)
100.0
(a) N.D. - not disclosed
(b) Total of undistributed tonnage
The bulk of kaolin products occurs in just two states, Georgia and South Carolina.
These states produce ~87% of the total amount of kaolin mined.
Since Georgia is the primary producing state for kaolin, both its government
agencies and producers have been solicited for surface runoff information. The Georgia
DMR states that "generally speaking, kaolin mining contributes substantially to the siltation
of adjacent watersheds. Highly turbid waters resulting primarily from surface runoff frequently
96
-------
affect low-lying areas. Soils involved are sandy and highly erodable, especially during
surface mining. General topography of kaolin mining areas is rolling to low hills." '
It Should be noted that Georgia has surface mining and water quality laws in effect.
However, the Georgia DMR has indicated that the mineral mining producers, including
kaolin producers, have largely ignored or circumvented these laws with respect to surface
runoff control. ' '
Seven of the largest Georgia kaolin producers have furnished projected capital
cost and annual operating cost data for control of surface runoff. This data is discussed
in Section 13.3 below.
i
Two states with kaolin mines have not been considered in the surface runoff cost
estimate due to arid climate considerations.
13.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data .
Available data on total disturbed area versus kaolin production has been plotted
in Figure 14. A direct relationship is indicated although there is some scattering of data.
This curve was used to approximate the disturbed area of the kaolin mines in all the states
under consideration except Georgia 'c', i.e., an "average" value for mine production in
each state was derived by dividing total production by the number of mines. The "average"
total disturbed area for this mine was then obtained from Figure 14. This data together
with the appropriate soil condition and average 10-year and 25-year rainfall events for
the states under consideration, are given in the table below:
(a) Personal Communication, Surface Mined Land
Reclamation Program," Georgia DMR, Feb 4, 1976.
(B) Personal Communication, Surface Mined Land
Reclamation Program, Georgia DMR, Feb 6, 1976.
(cjjjinough cost data were obtained from Georgia kaolin producers to fairly approximate
^^ne entire state cost of surface runoff control. Data presented in Section 13.3
97
-------
500
CO
z
o
200
100
50
I »
Q
O
DC
5.10
<
ID .
Z
10 20 50 100
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA, ACRES
200
500
Figure 14. PRODUCTION OF KAOLIN VERSUS TOTAL DISTURBED AREA
98
-------
State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Minnesota
Missouri
No. Carolina 2
Pennsylvania 2
So.Carolina 21
Texas
Average
Total
Disturbed
Mine Production Average
No. of
Mines
6
4
6
1 -
3
1
10
3 2
» 2
21
2
kkg/yr x 103
(TPY x 1G3)
51 (56)
18(20)
6(7)
7(8)
8(9)
27 (29) (a)
9(10)
27 (29) (a)
27 (29) (a)
34(37)
27 (29) (a)
Mine Area
ha (acres)
41.5(100)
13.3 (32)
7.3 (17.5)
7.7(18.5)
8.3 (20)
18.3 (44)
8.7(21)
18.3 (44)
18.3(44)
23.2(56)
18.3(44)
Average State
SDS
Soil
Condition
C
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Rainfall Event
10-yr.
cm (in)
16.5 (6.5)
15.7(6.2)
7.6 (3)
6.4 (2.5)
19.0 (7.5)
9.7(3.8)
13.5 (5.3)
14.0(5.5)
10.2 (4)
15.2 (6)
15.2 (6)
25-yr.
cm (in)
19.0(7.5)
17.8 (7)
10.2(4)
7.6(3)
21.6(8.5)
11.4(4.5)
15.2(6)
16.5 (6.5)
17.8 (7)
17.8(7)
17.8(7)
Total
58
(a) This value was derived by dividing total undisclosed state production
by the respective number of mines.
13.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
* For the purpose of the cost model, all runoff in a kaolin mine is
assumed to be collected in a holding and treatment pond using appropriate ditching and
diking. It is also assumed that a "standard" amount of flocculant will be added to precipi-
tate colloidal kaolin in the collection pond to an acceptable level of TSS in the pond dis=
charge. As far as is known, the vast majority of kaolin mines do not have process plants
adjacent to the mine. It is therefore assumed that no process wastewater commingles
with surface runoff at the modeled mines.
99
-------
Using the derived data presented in the table above, the assumptions made
above and the cost curves for surface runoff in Appendix C, capital costs and annual
operating costs were developed for the 10-year and 25-year rainfall event for the "average"
kaolin mine in the states under consideration as shown in Table 11, except for the state
of Georgia. Tota.l capital and annual operating costs for all of the mines in these states
are also shown. Projected runoff cost and other data presented by seven Georgia kaolin
producers are shown in Table 12. Based on the kaolin produced by these seven major
producers, approximately 3.39 x 10s kkg (3.74 x 10s tons) in 1975 out of a total
of approximately 3.43 x 10s kkg (3.78 x 106 tons)a produced in the state, the total
25-year, 24-hour rainfall event surface runoff costs are $24,750,000 capital and
$5,800,000 annual operating cost for Georgia. The total capital and annual operating
costs for all of the states under consideration, for the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event
are $33,360,000 and $8,860,000,respect?vely.
%
Capital cost impacts in terms of unregulated state costs versus total industry
costs for both the 10- and 25-year events are given below.
Capital Costs, dollars
10-Year Event 25-Year Event
Unregulated states 97,000 120,000
Total industry 30,330,000 33,360,000
"Private communication, John Hetrich, Georgia.DMR, Jan. 22, 1976
100
-------
State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Minnesota
Missouri
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Texas
Table 11. Capital Costs and Annual Operating Costs for Surface Runoff
Collection and Treatment- Kaolin Mining
Capital Costs, dollars
Annual Operating Costs, dollars
No. of
Mines
6
4
6
1
3
1
10
2
2
21
2
Per
1-0- year
Event
250,000
120,000
40,000
48,000
85,000
97,000
72,000
140,000
100,000
170,000
150,000
Mine
25- year
Event
280,000
130,000
48,000
52,000
95,000
120,000
75,000
160,000
130,000
190,000
170,000
Total .
10-year
Event
1,500,000
480,000
240,000
48,000
225,000
97,000
720,000
280,000
200,000
3,570,000
130,000
25- year
Event
1,680,000
520,000
288,000
52,000
285,000
120,000
750,000
320,000
260,000
3,990,000
340,000
Per
10- year
Event
70,000
40,000
18,000
20,000
38,000
32,000
29,000
45,000
34,000
56,000
48,000
Min.e
25- year
Event
80,000
48,000
21,000
22,000
42,000
37,000
32,000
54,000
42,000
65,000
58,000
Total
10-year
Event
420,000
160,000
108,000
20,000
114,000
32,000
290,000
90,000
68,000
1,176,000
96,000
25- year
Event
560,000
192,000
126,000
22,000
126,000
37,000
320,000
108,000
84,000
1,365,000
116,OOC
Total
120 1,272,000 1,450,000 7,360,000 8,605,000 430,000 501,000 2,574,000 3,056,000
-------
Table 12. Production and Projected Runoff Cost Data - Major Georgia Kaolin Producers
Producer (a)
5003
3024
5001
5002
3025
5009
5010
Totals
No. of Active
Mines (1975)
13
13
4
12
4
6
23
MMHV^M
75
Total Disturbed Total Raw Kaolin For 25-yr., 24-hr. Rainfall Event
Mine Area (1975) Production x 103 (b) Projected Surface Runoff Costs (c)
ha (acres) kkg/yr (TPY) Capital x 10s Annual Operating x IP6
105 (260)
308 (760)
212 (522)
284 (700)
365 (900)
612(1,512)
891 (2,202)
157 (173)
466 (514)
816(900)
422(465)
420 (463)
620 (684)
490 (540)
4.04(d)
3.43 (e)
7.56 (f)
2.72 (g)
0.59
1.29(h)
4.86
1.28(d)
0.79(e)
0.86 (f)
0.42 (g)
0.41
0.49 (h)
1.49
3,391 (3,739)
24.49
5.74
(a) Versar Code No.
(b) Where finished kaolin production data were obtained, these were converted to.raw ore production by dividing by 0.70.
(c) AM in 1972 dollars. Reclamation'costs presented by these producers have been deleted.
(d) For a total disturbed area of 113 ha (280 acres)
(e) For a total watershed of 3,240 ha (8,000 acres)
(f) For a total disturbed area of 381 ha (939 acres)
(g) For a total disturbed area of 850 ha (2,100 acres)
(h) For a total disturbed area of 689 ha (1,700 acres)
-------
14.0 BALL CLAY
14.1 Generol Description of the Industry
Ball clay, an impure form of kaolin, is mined and processed in eight
states, with an aggregate annual production of 7.43 x 10s kkg (8. 17 x 10s tons) in
1974. This production (a) is distributed as follows:
State
Arizona
California 1
Kentucky
Maryland
Mississippi
New York
Tennessee 33
Texas
Undistributed
NO: of
Mines
1
1
4
1
4
1
33
7
52
Annual Production
kkg x 103
N.D. (b)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
455
37
251
743
(tons x 103)
(500)
(41)
(276)
(817)
% of Total
Produced
61.2
5.0
33.8
100.0
Surface Minin;
Law in Effect
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
(a) Bureau of Mines Statistics
(b) Not disclosed
(c) Total of undisclosed production
The bulk of ball clay is produced in Tennessee (~61%) with Kentucky probably
accounting for most of the remainder (ho specific mine production figures are available
<•
for Kentucky). Ball clay is mined in open pit operations, where, following the removal
of overburden, front end loaders or drag lines excavate the raw material from the pit and
load it into trucks for transportation to the processing plant. Mining operations are
weather-dependent as ball clay is extremely difficult to handle when wet.
103
-------
Due to climatic considerations the one ball clay mine in Arizona has been
excluded from the runoff control cost estimate for this commodity, leaving 51 mines in
seven-states which are included in the cost estimates.
14.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
Plant 5684 currently operates 18 active mines in Kentucky and Tennessee,
with a total annual production of 275 x 103 kkg/yr (258 x 103 TRY) of ball clay. The
approximate total disturbed area of the above sites is 91 hectares (225 acres). For the
purposes of the surface runoff model calculation, each of the 51 ball clay mines total
disturbed area is assumed to be the same value as the average of the above data/ i..e.,
53 hectares (13 acres). It is also assumed that the bulk of the disturbed area at each site
has a clayey base with the highest runoff potential (soil condition D) pertaining.
The average 10-year and 25-year events for the various states are listed
below.
Average 10-year Event, Average 25-year Event,
State cm (in.) cm (in.)
California 7.6 (3) 10.2 (4)
Kentucky 10.2 (4) 11.9 (4.7)
Maryland 12.7 (5) 14.0 (5.5)
Mississippi 16.5 (6.5) 17.8 (7)
New York 10.2 (4) 11.4 (4.5)
Tennessee 12.7 (5) 14.0 (5.5)
Texas 15.2 (6) 17.8 (7)
Because of the colloidal nature of ball c\dyr it is assumed that a "standard"
amount of flocculant will be added to precipitate colloidal clay in the surface runoff
collection pond to an acceptable TSS level in the pond discharge. None of the ball clay
mines visited for either the effluent guidelines study or this study had associated process
plants immediately adjacent to the pit. Based on this observation, it is assumed that sur-
face runoff does not commingle with process wastewater in the model.
104
-------
14.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
For the purpose of the cost model, all surface runoff from the ball
clay mine is assumed to be collected in a holding and treatment pond system using appro-
priate ditching and diking. Using the data developed in the previous section, together
with the cost curves for Soil Condition D (Appendix C), capital and annual operating costs
were developed for the 10-year and 25-year rainfall events for the various states under
consideration: -
State
California
Kentucky
Maryland
Mississippi
New York
Tennessee
Texas
Total
Overall
Avg/Mine
State
California
Kentucky
Maryland
Mississippi
New York
Tennessee
Texas
Total
Overall
Avg/Mine
No. of
Mines
1
4
1
4
1
33
7_
51
Capital Cost Per Mine
No. of
Mines
1
4
1
4
1
33
7
51
10-Yr. Event
$44,000
54,000
60,000
70,000
54,000
60,000
66,000
25- Yr. Event
$54,000
57,000
63,000
74,000
56,000 •
63,000
74,000
Total Capital Cost
$408,000 $441,000
Annual Operating
Cost per Mine
10-Yr. Event
$21,000
25,000
29,000
35,000
25,000
29,000
33,000
25- Yr. Event
$25,000
28,000
31,000
36,000
27,000
31,000
36,000
$197,000 $214,000
10-Year Event 25-Year Event
$44,000
216,000,
; 60,000
280,000
54,000
1,980,000
462,000
$3,096,000
61,000
$54,000
228,000
63,000
296,000
56,000
2,079,000
518,000
$3,294,000
65,000
Total Annual
Operating Cost
10- Year
$21,000
100,000
29,000
140,000
25,000
957,000
231,000
$1,503,000
30,000
Event 25-Year Event
$25,000
112,000
31,000
144,000
27,000
1,023,000
252,000
$1,614,000
32,000
105
-------
Irvthe most conservative situarion (the 25-year rainfall event), the total capital and annual
operating costs for surface runoff collection and treatment for the entire ball clay mining
industry as calculated from the model are $3',300,000 and $1,600,000., respectively.
The capital cost impacts for a 10-year event range from $280,000 for unregulated
states to an industry total of $1 ,503,000. Similar cost impacts for a 25-year event range
from $144,000 to $1,614,000.
106
-------
15.0 FELDSPAR
15.1 General Description of the industry
As discussed earlier, the western feldspar operations have no area runoff and
are not included in this cost estimate. The remaining operations are in North Carolina,
Georgia and Connecticut:
Number Disturbed Area Surface
of per site, Mine Law
Location Sites hectares (acres) in Effect
North Carolina 6 12 (30) Yes
2 20 (50)
Georgia 1 2 (5) Yes
Connecticut 1 2 (5) No
15.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
All of the North Carolina sites are in the same area. The 10- and 25-year
rainfall events are 13 and 15 cm (5 and 6 in.),respectively. For the Georgia site, the
10- and 25-year events are 15 and 18 cm (6 and 7 in.). For the Connecticut location,
the I0-*and 25-year events are 13 and 14 cm (5 and 5.5 in.). The soil in each of these
locations is assumed to be in the C condition
15.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
The estimated capital and operating costs for the 10- and 25-year events
are:
Capital Costs, dollars Operating Costs, dollars/vr
State 10 Yr. Event 25-Yr. Event 10-Yr. Event 25-Yr. Event
North Carolina 660,000 772,000 180,000 198,000
Georgia 23,500 26,000 12,000 13,000
Connecticut 21,000 22,000 11,000 12,000
Total 704,500 820,000 - 203,000 223,000
Flocculants are not required for runoff treatment in this category.
107
-------
Capital cost impact ranges for both the 10- and 25-year event in unregulated
states versus the total industry are:
Capita! Costs, dollars
10-Yr. Event 25-Yr. Event
Unregulated states 21,000 22,000
Total industry 704,500 820,000
108
-------
.16.0 TALC, STEATITE, SOAPSTONE, PYROPHYLLITE
16.1 General Description of the Industry
Talc is produced at 53 sites in 14 states. Many of the sites have not been
attributed any control cost based on their locations in extremely arid areas. These are
17 sites in the Mohave Desert of southern California, one in an adjoining arid area of
southern Nevada, and 6 sites in CulbersonandHudspeth counties of west Texas. All of these
24 sites are located at least 20 miles from any rivers or streams. The remaining 29 sites
are distributed as follows:
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Maryland
Montana
Surface
Mine Law
in Effect
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Type of
Mine
1 pit
1 underground mine
5 underground mines
1 pit
2 underground mines
Disturbed Area,
hectares (acres)
2 (5)
0.4 (1) tailings area
0.4 (1) tailings areas
1.2 (3)
Oi4 (1) tailings areas
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
1 open pit,
2 underground mines
3 pits,
Spits,
1 underground mine
1 underground mine
Ipit,
3 underground mines
1 pit
2pits
2.8 (7)
3-0.4 (1) tailings areas
12 (30) each
4 (10) each
0.4 (1) tailings area
0.4 (1) tailings area
- - -^
(1) tailings areas
\ t
2.8 (7)
4-0.4
0.4 (1)
2 (5)
16.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
The 10- and 25-year rainfall events for the 29 sites are listed below, along
with the local soil condition.
109
-------
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Maryland
Montana
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Rainfall Event, cm (in.)
10-Year 25-Year
15.2
15.2
15.2
12.7
5
8.9
12.7
8.9
8.9
12.7
12.7
(6)
(6)
(6)
(5)
(2)
(3.5)
(5)
(3.5)
3.5)
(5)
(5)
17.8
17.8
17.8
15.2
6.4
10.2
15.2
10.2
10.2
15.2
15.2
(7)
(7)
(6)
(2.5)
(4)
(6)
(4)
(4)
(6)
(6)
Soil
Condi ti on
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
16.3 Runoff Treatment ond Control Costs
For most cases, there Is no special area runoff treatment required. However,
a special situation exists for the New York sites, where the talc deposits lie adjacent to
pyrite and zinc ore bodies. This leads to some pickup of sulfides and zinc in the runoff
which may require additional treatment.
The following table presents capital and operating costs for impoundment and
diversion for the 10- and 25-year rainfall events for all talc operations. These costs are
exclusive of lime treatment facilities required'at the N.Y. sites, which are presented
separately.
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Maryland
Montana
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Subtotals
Neutralization
Costs (N.Y. sites)
Totals
Annual
Capita! Costs, dollars Operating Costs, do!!ars/yr
10-Yr. Event 25-Yr. Event 10-Yr. Event 25-Yr. Event
21 ,000
7,000
35,000
13,000
10,000
33,000
363,500
5,000
41,000
6,000
42,000
576,500
20,000 (est.)
596,500
25,000
8,000
40,000
14,000
11,000
36,500
432,000
5,500
45,000
7,000
46,000
670,000
22,000 (est.)
692,000
110
11,000
8,000
41,000
9,000
16,000
35,000
132,000
7,000
43,000
9,000
23,000
334,000
4,000 (est.)
338,000
12,000
9,000
45,000
10,000
18,000
38,500
145,500
8,000
47,500
10,000
25,000
368,500
4,000
372,000
-------
Capital cost impact ranges for both the 10- and 25-year event in unregulated
states versus the total industry cost are:
Capita! Costs, dollars
10-Yr. Event 25-Yr. Event
Unregulated states 87/000 95,500
Total Industry 596,500 692,000
111
-------
17.0 PREVIOUSLY REGULATED CATEGORIES
17.1 Lithium Minerals (Eastern Operations)
17.1.1 General Description of the Industry
These materials are mined in two geographic areas; North Carolina and Nevada.
The latter location has been excluded from further consideration because of a combination
of mining methods and climatic conditions. In North Carolina, there are two sites with cost
impact. These areas considered are 20 and 12 ha (50 and 30 ac).
17.1.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
The 10- and 25-year rainfall events for the involved locations are 12.7 and
15.2 cm (5 and 6 in.), respectively. Both North Carolina sites have type C soil condition.
17.1.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
The capital costs for treatment of the 10- and 25-year events are $1787000 and
$210,000, respectively. The annual operating costs for the 10- and 25-year cases are
$48,000 and $53,000, respectively. Flocculants are not required for lithium minerals runoff water.
17.2 Vermiculite
17.2.1 General Description of the Industry
This product is produced in two areas - western Montana and South Carolina.
The former sites have been excluded from this phase of the study due to mining practices
. used. The latter location involved about 20 discrete sites, each having about 8.1 ha
(20 ac) of disturbed area.
17.2.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
The 10- and 25-year rainfall events for the South Carolina locations are 15.2
and 17.8 cm (6 and 7 in.), respectively. These sites have type C soil condition.
17.2.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
Capital costs for treatment of the 10- and 25-year events are $1,300,000 and
$1,500,000, respectively. The 10- and 25-year annual operating costs are estimated at
$382,000 and $420,000. Flocculants are not required for this category.
112
-------
17.3 Barite
17.3.1 General Description of the Industry
Barite is mined by open pit methods in seven states. The locations of the pits
and disturbed areas are:
Number. Disturbed Area,
Location of Sites hectares (acres)
Alaska 1 40 (100)
Arkansas 2 28 (70)
California 1 16 (40)
Georgia 1 8 (20)
2 4 (10)
Missouri 5 20 (50)
Nevada 4 20 (50)
Tennessee 3 4 (10)
17.3.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
Below are presented the 10- and 25-year rainfall events and soil condition for
the locations.
Soil
Site 10-Year Event, err, (in.) 25-Year Event, cm (in.) Condition
Alaskq 15.2 (6) 17.8 (7) D
Arkansas 15.2 (6) 17.8 (7) C
California 15.2 (6) 20.3 (8) C
Georgia 15.2 (6) 17.8 (7) C
Missouri 12.7 (5) 15.2 (6) C
Nevada 3.8 (1.5) 5 (2) C
Tennessee 12.7 (5) 15.2 (6) C
17.3 Runoff Con trol and Treatment Costs
Below are given the capital costs for diversion, collection and treatment of
the 10- and 25-year rainfall events and the annual operating costs for both rainfall events.
Flocculants are not needed for this category.
113
-------
Location
Capital Costs, dollars
10-Yr. Event 25-Yr. Event
Annual
Operating Costs, dollars/yr.
10-Yr. Event 25-Yr. Event
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Georgia
Missouri
Nevada
Tennessee
240,000
320,000
110,000
141,000
550,000
160,000
102,000
280,000
360,000
140,000
159,000
625,000
168,000
114,000
50,000
73,000
29,000
48,000
136,000
62,000
44,000
55,000
80,000
32,000
53,000
150,000
68,000
48,000
Totals
1,623,000
1,846,000
442,000
486,000
17.4 Aplite
17.4.1 General Description of the Industry
The aplite mining industry is located entirely in Virginia with two companies
each operating an active mine. Data on these two mines Is:
Plant
3020
3016
Total
Mine Production Rate
kkg/yr (TPY)
54,000 ( 60,000)
136,000 (150,000)
190,000 (210,000)
Total Disturbed Area
ha (acres)
27
128
(66)
(315)
The aplite mine (plant 3016) produces a relatively soft ore which can be mined
with a bulldozer, elevating scrapers and a grader without resort to blasting. The aplite
mine (plant 3020) produces a sufficiently rocklike ore which requires blasting to loosen the
ore. A power shovel than collects the broken stone and loads it into trucks for transport to
the nearby plant.
17.4.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
The 10- and 25-year rainfall events for these two mines are:
114
-------
10-Yr. Event 25-Yr. Event
Plont cm (in.) cm Jin.)
3020 15.2 (6) 19 (7.5)
3016 14.3 (5.6) 15.2 (6)
Soil Condition C is assumed to be pertinent to these mines.
17.4.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
For the purpose of the runoff model, all surface runoff in each of the two
aplite mines under consideration is assumed to be collected Tn a holding and treatment
pond using appropriate ditching and diking. No flocculant is needed for acceptable
pond performance. It is also assumed that no process waste water from the associated
processing plant commingles with surface runoff at the modelled mines.
Estimated capital and annual operating costs for the two aplite mines are:
10-Yr. Event 25-Yr. Event
Plant
No.
•3020
3016
Total
Capital Costs
150,000
420,000
570,000
Annual
Operating Costs
33,000
85,000
118,000
Capital Costs
75,000
450,000
625,000
Annual
Operating Costs
38,000
90,000
128,000
The total 25-year, 24-hour event capital and annual operating costs for the
two aplite mines are $630,000 and $130,000, respectively.
Mine 3016 has installed three surface runoff collection ponds at a total cost
of $90,000. These ponds were installed to collect surface runoff for process use for the
associated aplite process plants. This cost is about 0.2 of the model cost. Annual operating
cost for these ponds is about $7,500 per year (less than 10 percent of the 25-year event
model-derived cost).
115
-------
17.5 Kyanlte
17.5.1 General Description of the Industry
Kyanlte is produced In two states, Virginia and Georgia, two mines being
located in Virginia and one in Georgia:
Total
(a)
b)
c)
Plant
No.
3028
3015
5011
Raw Ore Production
kkg/yr
341 ,000
(TPY)
(375,000)
114,000 (125,000)(a)
Including 69,000 kkg/yr
Finished kyanite.
Versar estimate.
16,400 (18,000)(b)
(75,000 TPY) of by-product
Disturbed Area
ha
14.6
4.9
4.9
quartz sand.
(acres)
>>(C)
(13
(12)
The kyanite mining operation consists of blasting the ore loose in the quarry
and loading the broken rock with a power shovel into trucks for transportation to the plant.
17.5.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
^
The 10-year and 25-year rainfall events for the three mines under consideration,
Plant 10-Yr. Event 25-Yr. Event
No- cm" TJn"J: cm (in.)
3028 . 14.5 (5.7) -16.7 (6.6)
3051 15.2 (6) 19.0 (7.5)
5011 15.2 (6) 19.0 (7.5)
Soil Condition C was assumed for the surface runoff model.
17.5.3 Runoff Treatment and Costs
For the purposes of the runoff model, all surface runoff in a kyanite mine is
assumed to be collected in a holding and treatment pond using appropriate ditching and
116
-------
diking. It is assumed that no flocculant will be needed to achieve an acceptable TSS level
in the pond discharge. It is further assumed that no process wastewater commingles with
surface runoff at the modelled mines.
Capital costs and annual operating costs for the 10-year and 25-year events
are tabluated below for the three mines under consideration.
Annual
Plant Capital Costs, dollars Operating Costs
No.
10-Yr. Event
95,000
. 44,000
44,000
183,000
25- Yr. Event
100,000
49,000
49,000
198,000
10-Yr. Event
24,000
16,000
" 16,000
56,000
25- Yr. Event
26,000
18,000
18,000
62,000
3028
3051
5011
Total
The total 25-year event capita! and annual operating costs are $198,000 and
$62,000, respectively. There are no industry costs for surface runoff control available for
comparison.
17.6 Mineral Pigments
17.6.1 General Description of the Industry
Natural iron oxide pigments are produced at five sites in the U.S. At two
sites (one each in Minnesota and Michigan), the ore is mined primarily for iron production.
At another site in Pennsylvania, these materials are recovered as a minor co-product of
coal mining. These three sites are outside of the scope of this study.
The remaining two sites, one each in Virginia and Georgia, each involve
about 0.4 ha (1 ac) of disturbed area.
17.6.2 Runoff and Rainfall Data
The conditions of soil and 10- and 25-year rainfall events for the two sites are as
follows:
117
-------
Site
Virginia
Georgia
10-Yr. Event,
cm (in.)
15.2 (6)
15.2 (6)
25-Yr. Event,
cm (in.)
17.8 (7)
17.8 (7)
Soil
Condition
C
c
17.6.3 Runoff Control and Treatment Costs
Capital costs for the 10- and 25-year events and annual operating costs for
both events are presented below.
Capital Costs, dollars
Annual
Operating Costs, dollars/yr.
Site
Virginia
Georgia
Total
10-Yr. Event
7,000
7,000
14,000
25- Yr. Event
7,500
7,500
15,000
10-Yr. Event
9,100
9,100
18,200
25- Yr. Event
10,000
10,000
20,000
No special treatment such as flocculation is required.
118
-------
APPENDIX A
Summary of State Surface Mfning and Mined Lancf Reclamation Lav/s
•'!f*!;f"!!*':J'-,*.vfr.-?JF4*!':?***:!-i.:A'.-**f*tttW:!'1/'-"-'--?
-------
:S
APPENDIX A
SUWAM m tint seme! mmsc am ««» uso MCWATIW ws
JTITt
0 '
• o •
rwww •
tttu
ox
C«t eiTATtW
Tltl* 7.4, Al«*i*t JV«tt
Co-!», effective Octo!*r
The ArkuiMi Op»n Cut
LiAd P««tui*tlon Act
of lt?l. ArUniii
Slitutet Arvu,Ut*4|
TUlf 37, rt.*pter ?,.
> efftctlv* Jwlf 1. 1971.
1.
Th» Colorado Op*n Cut
LAA« l»clt**tlon Act
of 1*6* •• t»*nf not Ifli
thtn SJOO nor
violation contln*
The Act provide*
trittv*
prcctdurti for
dialing with
violation*.
bond.
1Q*Q
tovrrd by thf
or portion to bt
•ffecttd.
The bond p»«*lt7
to Iniur* the
fomtnce.
ator to pott •
perfon««nee bond
conditioned upon
th» ftlthful p»T.
forn»nce »f tttbl*
UtklLon work'.
HtCVA^ATTO)* ItttJt'T f.tXt!tf 3
c( tefuiri tnterl«l | *f«t
tion of pertilt.
CMI In fln*l cut* to lopound witeri cover
•r>t'n fro* pollution) »nd dlipoie of ill
•nil divert utter to control tUtillon.
•1 ind inriMitrl*!.
The CMMt*Unor of Htnei li nrpt-vered to
ton* qujirrlei, cliy pit*, tunnelt, f«nd
ncludtn^ v'('t*lion to prevent l«rd*t(d*i
tn-e of retlan*tlon to t>* p*i(uinr<1 1*
Con^lnlonet «ru1 the op»r*tor.
Th* Act l»poiei • i*v«rence t»i on tf^t
•Ue operatcr r>*r ottuln • r*fwnd of up
Act for OevMoptftR *nd Initltutlnf •
rtKALTT FOT
OF wm
Tei
OCK1A1
or ccv rtwir
YCB
.«..n,
Solid •ln*nU
vtilch at* »••
tfietM bf tM
ovn*r «f tS«
Ite of irwt»
ucN die, Jtct til.
-------
eimctA
owe
o
o
Q
CJ ruisois i
H-
N3
H>
nQlAM*
IOWA
e*«T*,ta 3w»f»f»
f twine Art of 1*«»
Co*?» of Oercla AAAO-
ti'.Ml, Till* *!, CTuptvr
t*. Lff»cllv» January 1,
)«».
Tt.« Idiho Surfact
MlnlMj Act.
I4«no Coce, ntll *7,
ChJftrr 13. tffrctlv*
•Uf 31, l»71. '
T%t Idaho Dr«!e* *n«
Flacrr R!nln( Protection
Act. Idiho Cede, Till*
*7, Chapter 13. tffec-
llw Bar 31,1'71.
.TT* Illlnola Surfae -
Hinod Land Conaerva ion
Act. Mllnola Anne ated
Sntuiei, Chapter 5 -J01
Mln«t a«v> Klrt«ri4 I (*<-
live July 1, 197S.
Indiana Codo 1971,
13.*, t. £.'.'«etiv*
r«bnj*rr J. 1974.
low* Surf*ct Mining LAW,
Tltl« V. CTi«pt«r 53A.
Iff^cltv* Jtnuary 1,
19C8, »flfn4«l Aueuit IS,
197).
All KtMTCtfl
All Blnrr*li
Mtntrtl* rteov«r«d vlth
th* ut» of dfftfftt l>o»t,
»lulc* waihlnc or othtT
ntthod c«t>»bl« of r*nov.
Ing nort Ctun tvo (2)
cubic ytrtfi of B»terl«l
p«r hour.
All ntntral*
Co»l» clay and ihalt
All Kln*ra1*
A Uetnit wit b«
cbtaln*^ fro* t^«
Surfac* KlA«tf L«n<
Vi» toirO. *
•IntiJ Und M*»
pi tn ti rmoUfd.
Ho p*n«tC It rfQutr*4
Oritrlntt to conduct *
tnd iurf»c« nlnlnr. op
•tttmlt and h*v* appro
floard of Land Conaltt
of r.tcliaatlon.
fnnlt apptleatlon
ntuit b* flttd with
thp So»rt) of Und
Con.nlBllon*ri.
Application! for prr*
• n4 nirirralt f«r alt
ID ft«t In d»pth or
*ff*ctln£ nor« th«n 10
year. A r»clamatlon
plan U rt'iulrtd.
Ajtpllcatlon* for per-
iiUi nu«t D«'ft!id vltr
tit* tlrpartmtnt of
Natural R»aourc»*. A .
rncUnatlon plan it
ruqutrcd.
I)«r*
Cnrtf and bic^flU p»*i>». rl«it»t. ••*«
v*ll»ya to • Tolling topogrtphyi cover
e*T**>«*d tonic or* i or nlneral aolltt and iireua at • result of v»t*r
Uimen cvntlnt-lwe to •rulttn conttot and
lifer and ccnplett reclar^tlrn within
feinlnf, iifiet at imtt lt> (!K* Crji« it rt^-iiifJ
to l^vel ai^l rsuwtli tfi« atf«-(.:»?d irva
c«.|>jr»l)U wvlh tl^« tiai-jtsl cwnttui of the
eioniid prlt>r tn tl.e rtlttur l-atce, and tn a
roiriUli'n cnn'Jtirlvv to th« rrovth of ver-
ln tti orlr.lnal cumlktluti by AkltlttiK (oi>-
vtr.etatlon.
CrMn fc(f"cl(-J land to a rolllf.p, to|«>.
(n».-*t i>!»nt*; l.-n, ii-rrr^rliitul »r »ti- t>.ii.ti.l
HH>H, •!*! th« o.itiiilff >'.iifx>» ol all ever.
l»itilnt (le|,v>f a nil r.r*'1f •! 1 f»«*il «f r t U4<1> an.)
lhall li*: eimpUtrJ fiiiT la I he f«('ii*tii'it
y»ar.
ir.pt«ind vatTi bury all.r,eta'i, Iurr.Wr. or
other rtetirl* or rt•fu^• tovnUini; Irom
k* ip-ift ii-ni, '*nri »twil ^J^e
r.l*(!ft in LUml vit'i Hit li-jiMJinr. ttriaini
p..nMr«ct 4n rAi'ili te * lakv t-t
l>i,ii>t niv l>r lci*M li> |H V|"'t U cnn'.ri>'. {'.••
3 t'rt «.| v.it H> t>r f|Hllit«tr «ll"Cl«-.l *|f4»
T*»
Te«
Y«l
Ytv
T»l
T*o
Y»»
Yt«
Tea
-------
o
JO
XAZtt
KAJMJUB*
tt.Q'.CA.t
?tk» TMIM* t*i(»*<.taM
«*tl0*l Affl.
ter 4?.fcW. (fftctlvt
l«v, Kentucky ffrvlfed
Statute!, Tltlf 28. Chai
O.*pi«r 3. Uwt of 1977.
Ccnitrvttlon
' and ftthatillttatloft of
U»^, Malr.e, rrvtntd
fart 5A, Oi«H»t ftSl.
Cffectlvt >.n« I, 1971.
Htrrlaftd Strip Klntnj
Strip m M tin. l-fi.ctlv*
Kfcl*n*tion of At nine
Anrotated, Art .No. 92 of
h* Public Act* of 1970.
• *n*r>-J*d by Act So. 12
f the hjbllc Act I of
972. E.'f»ctive M»rch 29
i*nd, ft»v*\ and
Co.!
All Klntrati except
th* Hlned Lund Con*
r*qulrf4.
th* Olvttlon of r«.
Nnliiloft to eon*
approval of th* op,
tr»tcra alnln& plan.
fton IK bureau of
pl'n ll required.
$30 plui !T5
p*r tctt.
$SO PUI
»5 for
fteted '
t to
t.l of
ssoo.
$10 for
?pi.*ed.
rif reciatwKd Itnn, Tho Intent of th*
pollution.
tt.r fin«l |,lt| fixl »».i|-..f(, wtlh * til).
ee-ipletion of the survey, rulei njy
fifh ,»ntt viid',t(«>> po!If
ihn] within t>r*ctlc.il 1 i.-.tt^t lr>n< t
wrl !». l.» t ,.,»„ ,„., <..
l-irt in -m..-..!^..! !,!.*( «•,! .i.-t.-i 1*1.
*"
TM
Ho
Yt>
...
-------
KIKrfSftW
KX&SOttt
HWTAJIA
r>rl Mutton of Lan<]*.
tatei. Title 8, Chapter
tu, effective August 1,
IVJ.
Mclaeatlon «f Hlnlnt,
land. Vernone Annotated
effective Septteiwr 2fl,
1971.
Verncm* Annotated HI ••our
ttx^r 26, 1971.
TM Hontana Strip Mining
and Kecla&atlon Act,
Xevlied Code of Montana,
Xrplacraint Vo'.une 3*
firt J. Title 50, Chapter
10. effective Karen 16,
1?73.
Kectaiutlon «r Mnlne
Strip Mlrrt Coal Comer*
vatlon Act, Chapter 14,
effective March 8. 19*3.
Chapter 15t effective
rureh 16, 1973.
H*talUc Mineral*
Coll avid baric*.
Cravtl.
CM! and urantwa.
uranlun.
Cotl
phciphtl* rock, ixnd tnd
travel.
Comiislontr of Natural
flctourcta. A rcclana*
clon plan It required.
Permit application*
must t»» ftleC with ^e
plan t> riqulrrd.
must t* filed with tnt
Land neeltnatlon Con*
plan li required*
I>rnlt application*
Lands. A reclamation
plan U required.
tnuit be obtained from
State Landi, A ree-
tract* nuit hi nad^ to
the Ri>ard wf Unrt Con.
*!t«innfr« If the
ft\*ni,ri) nj*ei'ar 1 01) t n-
volv^a rmnvlng |0,00»
ci'l'lc yard* or nor* of
prutucl or ovrrtn..
A tecl«r
mot a than SJOtK).
Each day viola-
tion occurs con.
•tltoi»i a »»p-
tlun MOOO utttt
$100 to 91QOO
vloUtlon con-
ttnooi. ' .
an approve J itrlp
xii.inr, plan- not
le«* than $100
11000 «nd an «d-
diilonal $100 to
Slt'OO fur each
cwnl t nucN.
tt,.|. f'.llf. ,,,,f
;. trikii >luiHi.
1.^,1, ila)r'» »n..
nt.U-rc.1 a «'|.4.
1 4ltt nf I >M.e,
required.
Not. leu than $300
for coal and $200 for
$?l)0(> mtnlmtin.
to be affected.
Not leu* than $200
ninlfun.
ICt «, .
future ecotionlc effect! of such regulations
an nlno operarors anl )*tw:cwi>era, the *ur-
Mlnnc-nota.
t(n- iiirt'ao* prior to mining.
f,r»llhy traveruhle t>y &ac!iln#ft) construct
fir* U:ics or acceci rondi tT>tPog!t jvejs to
ov«rb-itden to a Dlnir.ta pf 3* (e»t a: ttie
UTei and tow, tec out or plant upon the
Alt tur.tiwa',1* mi* l he if^urol. tlic *li'c]v»t
!* lop* ot vMcti it>«n t* mi ?,:«** icr in.ri ^o
fi'-{-:*,-i*t lull f/ Ilit 4lfl*C(e:1 U.vl li'iM !•••
(»ri i'irf».-" f.r.i.IioM ipM^nt l.m F.iiiiMe
fuv proppiert ]*t»J u*<*] revolution or t".!>er
ol strain chAnrela nnt! t>»n'r the rvir.c-v*! an ut,;ii«.
CJU-4 viitnn tl.r «ro (ilit'in-J le> hr- -.IM'J.
wpijirn it-t|i.iTfN t:ul u>>' !»:•<) :«• i •'..)«:••':
l'«|i,1t<>niPMt« incl'ldfl CM4M IS'Vri'lit .•! I'l'^f.
IrtlU-i' ci>v\T| t'-'ftlrnl w.tt«M t1r*iii*(-t| .trtil.
inrt n-.i».'V8l m tmrt*! ot i:.i-tal or wj>l«-|
a>xi i.-v.'i-.-rmlon of jiircn-.i in-*.
...
?n
T»»
.
...
Tei
rti
J^'.lc HuMlltf
njurr anJ prt-p^rt)'
* al«o re^utr*^.
-------
O
O.
flOTTAXA f«*«t.
rev raico
FtV T0«
Hie Strip Hln* Stttne
Act, Chapter 16, rff«fl-
tlve Jin-jarr 1, 197*.
Coil Surface HI nine
Act. K*v Milco
Statutee Annotated,
P.»plaee»ent Vol. J.
fart t, Artlcl* 34.
effective febrviry !>•
1972.
The Xew York Stat*
Fined. Und Kecluaatlofl
Uw, KcXlrjuy't Con-
• oll«ited Uvi of Nev
York. Ci-.vtronEfntal
C«r.iervation Uv, Title
27. effective April 1,
1975.
1971. Cer.eral Statutea
of Hurth Carolina,
Chapter 7fc, Ajtlele 7,
Ao*rrfed 1973. tffettlve
July 1, 1974.
tine* tarv!e, TUU 33,
Chapter M-l*, *ffe«.
tlv* Jwlv I, I«TJ.
Cott «nd urinlta*.
Coal
All Mineral a
All Rineril*
A »lfietUe location
p*nolt milt 9* ob-
tained Croa tha 0**
partnent of State
tindi bcfor* prepari-
tory worK (construe*
tlon of bulldlnge.
and train lo*d-out
ficllttlea, tr*ni»li-
• lon Hnet, etc.]
Application for per.
•It nutt be filed
with lite Coal Surfic*
Klntnr, C«w.m»ton.
plleatloni.
A penlt la required
nor* In 12 iucc*itlv«
Bonthi, A reclani-
• filed with the De-
partment of Comer.
plan It required.
Application for
filed with the'
hfbllc Service.
Com 1st Ion for
•11 planned
la retired.
330
tlon f-«.
$10 InltUl
Annuil' fe* '
of 420 p«r
acre for each
acre affect*'
during the
preceding
JlOO annually
r>t»u
will b*
•itlon plan
L'p to ten
pluf $10
mi»ber of
en to flf. •
ty *crt«.
iico i>iu«
£10 tln«i
the nucber
of aerri
betvern
elevvn ind
More thui
fifty icr*f.
i?75 j-lui
ilO tlvet
tht nu.T.bth>ftr«[0>r ai ia
conilatent with planned «nt! uae of the
nannrr a» to control eroaton and sill"-
tlon of the affected «r>« *rrf tyrrpur.*-
tiUon of the •f!«ci-'1 ar^i nuit be
acciwipl i«h*d In accordatic* with th*
ef the lnn.1, fiovUtona for ttf*ty to
overuurtfeit «nil trull «»Jll be In a
cont IRIII *tlon w!ilc*t la In *cr«*rd*nre
with icc*|.
• e«)uent me of th* l«nJ. SulliiMe drain*
»prt rrthod of Itl UtiMU^.-rnt ihiU
cfftfc'f to accented »tronr^tc end re.
r
h»-criiJ« affecteij *t*t 10 »pi>ro»ln»i«
cr»c'»'l con'o-ir, or rolling trpo^nphr
or topcr.ri[>hx ft"1 hl(h«r en-1 >i>e| iprefd
vtth the AciJi Tfwr cf bury all d*t-rlii
tera.
Yea
Yft
T*t
Tea
Tei
Tea
-------
O
o
10
-
•
OUA*OU*
cucot
Ohio f-*vl»«4 Co4e Anno*
Ut*4, Title 15. Chapter
1313. "ffectlv* April 10
Ut«4. ?U1« IS. Chap.
t*r 15!*,. effective
1*. 1.1. c U.X. U«.
1... Ion Ml. »l»uiu
Till «J. CTi.pt. t «A.
fit' llr. Jur. U, 1771,
An Act ftflttllte to
•Intnl. Prttwi h»vlM4
St.tutfi, Tltl« 49.
Mln.i ftnd Hlnmtl.
«
All Mineral.
Alt Mr-rel»
Application! for .
llcen>ei «w*l b*
filed vlth tht
DWlilen Of Ree-
ItAttlon* A rcclt*
matlon pun IB
• U nuit tte filed
with th« Dtvteton of
P.erlMnatlon, A r«C*
Application for
filed vtth the,
nation plan t«
required*
Permit* *iu»». b
obtained for * 1
Ing 10,000 cub c
extracted or »
In • period of 12
lion plin tt r qulr.
5100 plv.
930 for eich
«cr« to b*
530 for e«ch
ACT* tO be
$1000 p«r
JS8
S1JO, Ann-
plue $1000 per
*cre of l«nd
•ffccted. EK-
eeed llmlti of
Hccnse-51000
p-r .ere of
that IB not
UUUU1 nlti. * .
rirpreofnt«tton-
5100 to 51000
or 6 month!.
VloUitcr. »f
•ny other pro-
5SOO') or 6
(iloit Jl (H>0 per
Cl«M3lllf, llnlll
of pvrnlf
of land •Ifeet.
ed. HUNl
tlon.SlOO to
51000 or 6
•lonttu, nr
both. VIolAtlor
ptovttlDii.SlOO
to O'^t'OO or 6
•PHI**, nr botli
not lei* thwi
ISO nor Mire
Sicoo. r.ch
offenae.
out • penult.
Si POO,
vtolitlon of
r«r..il*iUfi It
• fin* of nol
lei* thin ClI
nor nore than
S?W. or t«pr!.
•onment for not
nrre th*n CO
d*ji, or bath.
Sufficient to eov*r
the eo*t of recl»rt«-
tlon but not lei»
thin 95000.
to be affected.
for each *er» to
the nlnHiin bond
•h*ll be ilOCO.
prr *cre to It
|
Cover Bll acid produclntt n»t»rt»li vlth
nontoxlc nnterltli conitruct *nd n«lnt4in
•ccea» road&i prevent the pollution of
wit era, crotlon. linfiill^ei , flooding *nd
the accuoulktlon or di*ch«rr,e of acid
cover inf..
(•••oil affected land with iop««11 or
ntlvf cover of r.T»*'. lef.nfB*), or tree*]
rencrve or 'burjr rrtuie re*ulltriL fron nln-
Pot be r*i]u?rd to le*i th»n the prlftlfial
front tutfece wining operation*! cuv*r
future vie of th« Unrt.
|n/| r«tt>'irtei (if «rtj».
otlirr f*etori cf pollution) »uch m^jti
Tor the completion rf r*cl»n»U*»n 4>per*>
tlon*.
,:.
Y.I
""
..
T.,
rvvrance tai on the
ollrvlrj ntn*T«ll for
h^ p.-rpoie oi^rec'.aia-
ng 1 *rrf afftcted 'Sj
trip a nin/.i
*? f<«i err.ti per ton
•of cc»l
b) f«i cent* p*r ton
f n!t
c) one ctnt per ton of
l»*iton« *hfl Caloait«j
d) or* crnt per ton of
e) thtte centt per
t-*rrel o! oil|
(1 ) on* crr.t ,-er tho>j-
r-.tur*! ML
injui)' ind SIW.CCO'
to iJOO.OOO for pro-
-------
o
o
o
H-
ro
C75
SOOT e*MUKA*
&/rf*c* HlRlrvj Coi»t*r.
vatlen *nd P*e!»»tl«n
Act. r>nn>ylvanla
Statute* Annotated,
7llle ',2, Chapter 1!94,
approved J^C 31. 1S4S.
He Art V>. 147,
h«v*nli»r 10, 1971. ef-
fective January I,
l?:j| futile Act 315,
approved Deceeber 2S,
1972| ru&lie Act *0.
941. approved October
18. l»7*.
Th« South Carolina
MUlnj Act. Code of
Titl* 63, Copter S.
tff*ctiv* July 1. 1»?4
Lave of !9t7. Tit'.* *5.
Chapter *>S-6A. *ff«c-
ode Annotated, Chap*
er IS. effective
.arch 23. 1972.
trend rd by Houie till
30, approved Karen 20,
974,
All Mineral*
All Mlfwrtl*
All Mineral* except It****
lion iton*.
Application for
filed vlttt th*
Departnont of
p.taourcea. A
reel ami I on plan .
Li required.
Comlu en, A
reel iff i Ion plan
It r*qu red. '
tloni no it bt
State Cont*rva*
lion Coral ulen.
$20 for p*r-
von* vlnlng
2000 tone or
lesi of nar-
rrali other
than coal
p*r year, and
SiOO for nln-
Inr. coal or
wor*! than
2000 cons of
other harVet-
abl* mlnnrala
pi- 1- yar.
KltllVliltl
coal and S300
In th* case
of a.11 uVlter
for each
Th* totil
Mlnlni, without
• p*nalt.$5000
or an amount
of not l«s»
profltn derived
froia unlawful
ictivltle.1. to-
r.rrher vlttt
thv COM «.f
rcitorlne th*
l«rrf to Iti
d It ion or
1 year ih|.rl-
si>n»«nt, or
both.
Utlon of th*
nation en pvrnlt
!'•• in«n UOO
nor nor* than
llOOO fine for
earn day th*
tlnu*a.
a fln« of
not !*••
for *ach day
the violation
contlnu*!.
•or* I5.0CO
Wlllfull vlo.
)*tlon.nnt le*l
th>n ilPOO nor
not to crceed
1 year, or both.
An Mount aufflclftnt
to tnaur* completion.
of h* reel a.-nat Ion
pi* * but not leita
•h« 550PO, except
In he cast of nln.
era a utlier than
ant ractte ar.J tjUu-
Mtiiooa coal wti-r* U
Attle nln*r»l3 to be
*-KC"e-J 2UOO loin, no
nnOi'r the honrt flMll
of tli* t>p'>rktlon aM
f«»r 5 y*ars there-
after.
JJ.Win i« SJ3.000 .
'
Backfill ill pltf within 6 mouth* alter
completion of mining. Sucti bacVftltlne
ahull t>* terraced or *lop«i TO an ant'.*
not to (•xoeett the ftrlf Inal Contour. ft "it <
upon if feet i'il land within 1 year after
backfilling.
left In • eonf if.urnlon »vU —
collection of pwall yooll of v«'.»-r that
odious, or fo>il. TTir type t>f v*|>i>t*tlve
and reforeitatlon practices. Pi* plan
completion or termination of nlnln& on
nil li Vsiued onleit a longer period it
i^eclflcally authcrlred.
Cor4>l»tjon of pperatloni. remov* ill
and .n*t-rl«la fron the iltf of o(
f> ninths following initiation of >oil diifur
V-l
• Y*»
„.
Operaiore Mining
p.lrerala othtr -^«n
th» *»(*,•?• i t>f
SlO,>, ^'.'0 rrr'.i.
flcaif r-f f:ttllc
poitvne the re.
-------
WHIKTKI
J
3
5
•>
b
>
I
WIST yiRCIIIA*
VTCK1SC
CHapt*r IT, Tltl* 45.1.
Code of Virginia (1950),
• a «jwfwl«-l. Effective
April 10, 1972.
Tltl« 43.1. CrupCfr !«.
Cod* of Virginli, 1950
• 1 wended. HftCtlve
Jut* 17, 1966.
Swrfaee-Kined Land Rrc.
lajiatlon ct, R*vlie4
tiled, Tl H 7«, Htnea
•nd Htner If, Owpter
.'•nu.rr 1, 1971.
Hlnlne Act, V*it Virslnli
CoCt. Vol. 5, 1970 P.e.
plac*»ent Vo'.une, Oup.
t»r 20. effective
Kirch 13, 1971.
The Vrcwliuj Cnvlronnen*
ttl Qjilltr Act, Vroaing
Statutes, Tltlt 35,
Artlelf A, Land
All Hln«r*li
mrnt. A rvclanatlon
Plan It required.
Ptrilt ippUcattoni
nuit bf ft ltd with
th* D*ptrt*i*nt of
Conicrvatlon atu)
Tconoolc LfVlop-
•'.ml, A rirtAnai ton
plan li r«Mj'ilr.'d,
Permit appllcatlont
nuit U« filed with
La ivqutrrd.
Appllcatlent for
p«rnltl nuat b«
filed tilth tht D«.
partnint of Natural
fllfd with the Ad-
alon of Urvl
qutr*d.
S3S-SJK
16 for *»ch icrt
to tn ifftctfd*
not to »ic**d *
tot«l of JI50.
SIS per p*nalt
S'.CX), Annual
r«r>«wal*MOO.
liT»on»t Injury
jvquirrd.
$10 for each act*
• )IUOO naxtftun.
Llc«n*r f«* for
mineral explor*.
tlun.SJi.
*.«wnr.s or Tiit i
Violation of ih*
»t« wfffiii*.
VlolltUn of th*
of Si ODD or 1 yvr
In J»lt, or uoih.
Violation vt th«
MOO to $1000
both.
frnn $10.000 to
fur certain vio-
latton* raniiinj
1 )vart Inprlaon*
URSTATt rflXIW C0.1
volvts Irai than
S *crf», !h* bond
ihal 1 not b* lei*
than $1000.
550 per icrt
nuwtt^r (if *ct*S
tu lit* 'tlMut bed.
nor* than $1000
$10.000 exC«Pt
tor scoria or
acre,
WCT
Sai»e »s for coal, excfpt that In the cat* of
Bp«cU1 coniiilrrattoii If r.lvun t(1 th» i^cufitr
HMtur* of the t*xcavalf>(t cavlfy.
IV fefl horizontal to 1 fmit vertical. In ill
>tBr[..-r thAii IS f.^I hort/.mt*l tu 1 f.xif
vi Mr* 1 ti'i tlicir ontlr" ti-nr.tli. All ttrtp
*h'i«'» i'f i|"i*rty toll* stull luvi* titi prr.icrlhrd
lilli-1 |o 4 »!..),«• i>l I Ifut liorl/.-tiCal to 1
preisfuns of spoil banks *hal) uv constructed
to a Efntlx tolling topcfjaphy. Suttat)]*
nori.flan.-i*l>le. nonronhiirtiblv tolidr. All
•ctrt-I.Mnit'^ nnl.'ffflls !>!i«U bv cov^tej with
C«vrr stall ... r,q>.tr,.t -^ .11 f.tf.c* r.,nln<
fl.i«.iV l-a.
Cover ,h. ,aw of. coal .,-, cn««*«l .«. .hh
qulr,,!.
wimJ and wjitfr crcistoi, anv! fr««n icid or toil
natcrials) cover, bury, i.iiKxjnJ or othervist
Uy wttli th«t apprcvt'-l reel a,T.*ti ^n plan.
Vet
Yet
Vrt
Yet
I'.S. Bu
Mining
April 1,
otherf thall be tUM*
no' in *\vr*t of ttnre
van of flint*
tnvlrorva«ttt
1»7J
o
CD
-------
APPENDIX B
Rainfall Maps and Mining Site Locations
000r.l?8.
-------
Washington, D.C. 1970)
-------
10-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
g
Key —
Figures are the number of
dimension sfone quarries
In the state.
-------
25-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
3$
Key — Figures are me number of
dimension sfooe quarries
in the state.
-------
,IN
-------
I. .1
25-YEAR 24-HOUR RA(NFAU „
CO '
Co
Key — Figures are the number of
crushed stone quarries in
the state.
-------
25-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
3.S
| Key - Figures are the number of sand and grave!
: plants in the state
-------
10-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
Key - Figures are the number of sand and gravel
plants in the state •
-------
10-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
m e\ /'T^
WJ Y\\V\ ) „ /
K^rymi r /••*
r^Av-iu (i
-------
25-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
-------
Gypsum
1. H. M. Holloway, Inc.
2. Temblor Gypsum Co.
3. U.S. Gypsum
4. CelotexCorp.
5. Ga-Pac Corp, Gypsum Div.
6. National Gypsum Co.
7. U.S. Gypsum
8. U.S. Gypsum
9. Ga-Pac Corp, Gypsum Div.
10. Grand Rapids Gypsum Co.
11. Michigan Gypsum Co.
12. National Gypsum Co.
13. U. S. Gypsum Co.
14. Flintkote Co.
15. Johns-Manvilie Products Corp.
16. U.S. Gypsum Co.
17. Ga-Pac Corp., Gypsum Div.
18. National Gypsum Co.
19. U. S. Gypsum Co.
20. Republic Gypsum Co.
21. U.S. Gypsum Co.
22. Univ. Atlas Cement, Div. of
U.S. Steel
23. S.D.Cement Commission
24. CelotexCorp.
Kern County, Calif.
Kern County, Calif.
Imperial County, Calif.
Webster County, Iowa
V/ebster County, Iowa
Webster County, Iowa
V/ebster County, Iowa
Des Moines County, Iowa
Kent County, Mich.
Kent County, Mich.
losco County, Mich.
losco County, Mich.
losco County, Mich.
Clark Co., Nev.
Clark Co., Nev.
PershingCo., Nev.
Erie County, N. Y.
Erie County, N. Y.
G.enesee County, N. Y.
Jackson County, Okla.
Blaine County, Okla.
Blaine County, Okla.
Meade County, S. D.
Fisher County, Texas
0^00138
-------
25. Flintkote County
26. Ga-Pac Corp.
27. National Gypsum Co.
28. U.S. Gypsum Co.
29. Agro Minerals Inc.
30. Big Horn Gypsum Co.
31. Winn Rock, Inc.
32. U.S. Gypsum Co.
33. U.S. Gypsum Co.
34. Dulin Bauxite Co., Inc.
35. Weyerhaeuser Co.
36. National Gypsum Co.
37. U.S. Gypsum Co.
38. Ga-Pac Corp.
39. National Gypsum Co.
40. CelotexCorp.
41. U.S. Gypsum Co.
42. Ga-Pac Corp.
43. U.S. Gypsum Co.
44. White Mesa Cypsum Co.
45. Superior County, Verde Div.
"46. Superior County, Winkelman Div.
47. National Gypsum Co.
43. Johns-ManviMe Products, Corp.
Nolan County, Texas
Hardeman Couniy, Texas
Fisher County, Texas
Nolan County, Texas
Okanogan County, Wash.
Park County, Wyo.
Winn County, La.
Fergus County, Montana
Washington County, Va.
Pike County, Ark.
Howard County, Ark.
Martin.County, Ind.
Martin County, Ind.
Marshall County, Kansas
Barber County, Kansas
Ottawa County, Ohio
Ottawa County, Ohio
i
Sevier County, Utah
Sevier County, Utah
Sandoval County, N. M.
Yavapai County, Ariz.
Pinal County, Ariz.
Pinq! County, Ariz.
Fremont County, Colorado
0000139
-------
.10-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
-------
25-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
TOvS'
-------
Potash
1. AMAX Chemical Corp.
2. Duval Corporation
3. IMC Corporation
4. Kerr-McGee Corp.
5. National Potash Co.
6. Potash Co. of America, Div. of Ideal
Basic Industries, Inc.
7. Teledyne Potash
Brine processing
1. Great Salt Lake Minerals & Chem. Corp.
2. Kaiser Aluminum.& Chemical Corp.
3. Kerr-McGee Corp.
Solution Mining
1. Texas Gulf, Inc.
Sodium Sulfate
1. U.S. Borax & Chemical Corp.
Others are brine processing
Lithium
1. Foote Mineral Co.
2. Foote Mineral Co.
3. Lithium Corporation of America
Eddy County, New Mexico
Eddy County, New Mexico
Eddy County, New Mexico
Lea County, New Mexico
Lea County, New Mexico
Eddy County, New Mexico
Eddy County, New Mexico
Ogden, Utah
Toole County, Utah
California
Potash, Utah
Boron, California
Kings Mountain, North Carolina
Silver Peak, Nevada
Bessemer City, North Carolina
0000142
-------
Per lite
1. Grcfco, Inc., Dicalite Div.
2. Johns-Manvilie Perilte Corp.
3. Filters Internationa!, Inc.
4. American Perlile Co.
5. Delamar Perlite
6. U.S. Gypsum Co.
7. Persolite Products, Inc.
8. Oneicla Perlite Corp.
9. Texas American Sulphur Co.
Taos County, New Mexico
Taos County, New Mexico
Gila County, Arizona
Inyo County, California
Lincoln County, Nevada
Pershing County, Nevada
Custer County, Colorado
Oneida County, Idaho
Presidio County, Texas
0000143
-------
Pumice
1. Apache Co., Hv/y. Dept.
2. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railv/ay
3. Superlite Builders Supply, Inc.
4. Aiken Builders Products
5. Cinder Products Co.
%
6. Glass Mountain Block, Inc.
7. Red Lava Products of California
8. Shasta lite Cinder Co.
9. Rilite Aggregate Co.
10. Savage Construction Co., Inc.'
11. Colorado Aggregate Co., Inc.
12. Dotsero Block Co., Inc.
13. McCoy Aggregate Co.
14. AmCor, Inc.
15. Hess Pumice Products
16. Producers Pumice
17. Rio Clay Products
18. Centra! Oregon Pumice Co.
19. Graystone Corp
20. Chester Hiatt
21. Oregon Portland Cement Co.
22. Jed Wilson &Son
Apache County, Arizona
Coconino County, Arizona
Coconino County, Arizona
San Bernardino, California
Lake County, California
Siskiyou County, California
Lake County, California
Siskiyou County, California
Washoe County, Nevada
Carson City County, Nevada
Costi I la County, Colorado
Eagle County, Colorado
Routt County, Colorado
Bonneville County, Idaho
Oneida County, Idaho
Bonneville County, Idaho
Starr County, Texas
Deschutes County, Oregon
Deschutes County, Oregon
Deschutes County, Oregon
Baker County, Oregon
Lake County, Oregon
0000144
-------
Pumice (continued)
23. Fong Construction Co., Lid,
24. H C &D, Ltd.
25. James Kuv/ana
26. Hi!o Coast Processing Co.
27. Lopahoehoe Sugar Co.
28. Volcanite, Ltd.
29. Genera! Pumice Corp.
30. Morton Bros.
31. Twin Mountain Rock Co.
32. W. L. Marenakos County
Vermiculite
1. W. R. Grace &Co.
2. W. R. Grace &Co.
3. Patterson Vermiculite Co.
Maui Island .
Molokai Island
Hav/aii
Hawaii Island
Hav/aii Island
Hav/aii Island
Rio Arriba County, New Mexico
Dona Ana County, New Mexico
Union County, New Mexico
Kitritas County, Washington
Libby, Montana
Enoree, South Carolina
Lanford, South Carolina
OU00145
-------
10-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
-------
25-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
-------
Burifc
1. Baroid Div., N.L. IndusU'ies Inc.
2. Dresser Mineral Div., Dresser
Industries Inc.
3. FMC Corporafion
4. Milchem, Inc., Mineral Div.
5. Dresser Minerals Div.
6. Milchem, Inc.
7. N.L. Industries Inc., Baroid Div.
8. N.L. Industries Inc., DeLcre Div.
9. Pfizer &Co.
10. Alaska Barite Co.
11. Dresser Minerals
12. N. L. Industries, Inc.
13. Industrial Minerals Co.
14. New Riverside Ochre Co.
15. Paga Mining Co., Div.
Thompson-Weirman & Co.
16. & N. L. Industries Inc., Baroid Div.
17.
18. B. C. Wood
EIS:c County, Nev,
Lancer County, Nev.
Lander County, Nev.
Lander County, Nev.
Washington County, Mo.
Washington County, Mo.
Washington County, Mo.
St. Louis County, Mo.
Washington County, Mo.
Southeastern Alaska
Hot Springs County, Ark.
Hot Springs County, Ark.
Shasta County, Calif.
Cartersville, Ga.
Cartersville, Ga.
Monroe County, Tenn.
Louden County, Tenn.
0000148
-------
Talc, Pyrophyllitc, Soapstone, Steatite
1. Southern Talc Co.
2. American Talc Co..
3. The MI (white Co., (nc.
4. Cyprus Mines Corp.
5. Cyprus Mines Corp.
6. L.Grantham Corp.
7. Minerals, Pigments £ Metals
Div., Pfizer, Inc.
8. Minerals, Pigments & Metals
Div., Pfizer, Inc.
9. Pomona Tile Mfg., Co.
(Div. of America Olean)
10. Western Talc Co.
11. Harford Talc Co.
1.2. Pfizer, Inc.
13. Governeur Tacl Co. Inc.
14. International Talc Co, Inc.
15. Hitchcock Corp.
16. Boren & Harvey Inc.
17. & Glendon Pyrophyllite
18
19. & Glendon Pyrophyllite
20
21 Piedmont Minerals Co. Inc.
Murray County, Ga..
Alpine, Ala.
Saline County, Ark.
Inyo County, Calif.
San Bernardino County, Calif.
Inyo County, Calif.
Inyo County, Calif.
San Bernardino County, Calif.
San Bernardino County, Calif.
San Bernardino County, Calif.
Harford County, Md.
Madison County, Montana
St. Lav/re nee County, N. Y.
St. Lawrence County, N. Y.
Cherokee County, N. C.
Granville County, N. C.
Alamance County, N. C.
Moore County, N. C.
Orange County, N. C.
0000149
-------
22. Standard Minerals Co., Inc.
23. John H. Pugh
24. Pioneer Talc Co. Inc.
25. Southern Clay Products Inc.
26. Texas Talc Co.
27. U.S. Sierra Div., Cyprus
Mines Corp.
28. Westex Talc Co.
29. Eastern Magnesia Talc Co.
30. Vermont Talc Co.
31. Windsor Materials Inc.
32. Blue Ridge Talc Co. Inc.
33. Western Minerals Inc.
Moore County, N. C.
Josephine County, Oregon
Hudspeth County, Texas
Hudspeth County, Texas
Hudspeth County, Texas
Hudspeth County, Texas
Hudspet'n County, Texas
LaMoille County, Vt.
WindhamCounty, Vt.
Windsor County, Vt.
Franklin County, Va.
Skaglt County, Wash.
0000150
-------
Mica & Sericite
1. Franklin Mineral Products Co.
2. Thornpson-Weirman & Co.
3. U. S. Gypsum Co.
4. San Antonio Mica Co.
5. Deneen Mica Co. Inc.
6. & Harris Mining Co.
7.
8. Micalith Mining Co. Inc.
9. The Mineral Mining Corp.
10. L. W. Judson
Hart County, GQ .
Cherokee County r Ga.
Randolph County, Ala.
Pina County, Arizona
Yancey County, N. C.
Mitchell County, N. C.
•York County, Penna.
Lancaster County, S. C.
Pennington County, S. D.
0000151
-------
10-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
^ A'
r-/
-------
2S-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
J.5
i OUuaU
I W&3$k
-------
Juclc
1. Majestic Jade Company
Aplffe
1. Feldspar Corp.
2. IMC Corp.
Riverton, Wyoming
Montpelier, Virginia
Pine/River, Virginia
Tripoli
1. Malvern Minerals Co.
2. Carborundum Company
3. Carborundum Company
Nova cu lite
1. Arkansas Abrasives/ Inc.
2. Arkansas Oilsfones Co., Inc.
3. John O. Glassford, Cleve Milroy,
M.V. Smith, Hiram A. Smith
Whetsfone Co.
4. Norton Pike Division
5. Hindostan Whetstone Co.
6. Cleveland Quarries Co.
7. Jasper Stone Co.
8. Baraboo Quartzite Co., Inc.
Garland County, Arkansas
Nev/ton County, Missouri
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Garland County, Arkansas
Garland County, Arkansas
Garland County, Arkansas
Garland County, Arkansas
Orleans, Indiana
Amherst, Ohio
Jasper, Minnesota
Souk County, Wisconsin
OOGC154
-------
Asbestos (Wo!Icistontic)
1. Jaquays Mining Corp.
2. At-las Asbestos Corp.
3. Coalinga Asbestos Co., Inc.
4. Pacific Asbestos Corp.
5. Union Carbide Corp.
6. Pov/hatan Mining Co.
7. Powhatan Mining Co.
8. Vermont Asbestos Group, Inc.
formerly GAP
Gila CounJy, Arizona
Fresno County, California
Fresno County, California
Calaveras County, California
San Benlto County, California
Yancey County, North Carolina
Jackson County, North Carolina
Orleans County, Vermont
-------
10-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
A
-------
25-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
-------
Fluorspar and Cryolite
1. Minerva Co., Mining Div.
Minerva Oil Co., Crystal Group
2. Minerva Oil Co., Minerva No. 1
3. Ozark-Mahoning Co.
4. Allied Chemical Corp.,
Industrial Chemicals Div.
5. Ozark-Mahoning Co.
6. Roberts Mining Co.
7. J. Irving Crowell, Jr.
8. D & F Minerals Co.
9. Spor Brothers
10. Wilden Fluorspar Co.
11. Southwest Fluorspar Co.
12. Calvert City Chemical Co.
Hardin County, III.
Hardin County, III.
Hardin County, III.
Boulder County, Col.
Jackson County, Col.
Ravalli County, Montana
NyeCounty, Nev.
Brewster County, Texas
Juab County, Utah
Juab County, Utah
Grant County, N. M.
Crittenden County &
Livingston County, Ky.
OOOOi 58
-------
Rock Salt
1 . Leslie Salt Co.
2. Leslie Salt Co.
3. Carey Salt Co.
4. Independent Salt Co.
5. Carey Salt Co.
6. Cargill, Inc.
%
7. Diamond Crystal Salt Co.
Jefferson Island Div.
8. International Salt Co., Avery
Mine & Refinery
9. Morton Salt Co.
10. International Salt Co., Inc.
11 . Morton Brothers
12. Cayuga Rock Salt Co. Inc.
13. International Salt Co.
14. International Salt Co.
15. Morton Salt Co.
16. Morton Salt Co.
17. United Salt Corp.
18. Inorganic Chemical Div.,
FMC Corp.
Alameda Counly, Calif.
San Mateo County, Calif.
Reno County, Kansas
Ellsworth County, Kansas
St. Mary County, .La.
St. Mary County, La.
Iberia County, La.
Iberia County, La.
Iberia County, La.
Wayne County, Mich.
Dona Ana County, N. M.
Tompkins County, N. Y.
Livingston County, N. Y.
Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Lake County, Ohio
Van Zandt County, Texas
Fort Bend County, Texas
Tyler County, W. Va.
0000159
-------
10-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
r v
-------
25-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
I
^YnWtf''
s_iAu,\\ iii\in.,
JCEY :
. O'/ATO M »T£
v -
-------
Mcignesite
1 . Basic Inc.
Gabbs, Ney.
Diatom! te
1. Johns-Manvilie Products
2. Grefco Inc.,
3. Grefco Inc.
4. Eagle-Picher Industries Inc.
5. Eagle-Picher Industries Inc.
6. Kenite Corp.;, Div. of
Whitco Chemical Corp.
7. Superior Co.
8. Basalt Rock Co.
9. Airox, Inc.
10. United Sierra Div.,
Cyprus Mines Corp.
11. A.M. Matlock
Lompoc, Calif.
Mina, Nev.
Lompoc, Calif.
Sparks, Nev.
Lovelock, Nev.
Quincy, Wash.
San Manuel, Ariz.
Napa, Calif.
Santa Maria, Calif.
Fernley, Nev.
Chrisfmas Valley, Ore.
Kyanife
1 . Kyanite Mining Corp.
2. Kyanite Mining Corp.
3. C-E Minerals
.4. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. Inc
Buckingham County, Va. .
Prince Ed ward County, Va.
Lincoln County, Ga.
Clay County, Fla.
-------
Feldspar
1 . Feldspar Corp.
2. Feldspar Corp.
3. Feldspar Corp.
4. i.M.C. Corp.
5. I.M.C. Corp.
6. Lav/son-United Feldspar &
Minerals
Mitchell County, N. C.
Middlesex County, Conn
Jasper County, Ga.
Mitchell County, N. C.
Mohave County, Ariz.
Mitchell County, N. C.
Garnet
1 . Barton Mines
2. Idaho Garnet Abrasives
Warren County, N. Y.
Benev/ah County, Idaho
Graphite
1 . Southwestern Graphite
Burnef, Texas
Borax
1 . U.S. Borax & Chemical Corp.
2. U.S. Borax & Chemical Corp.
3. U.S. Borax & Chemical Corp.
Boron, Kern City, Calif.
Wilmington, Calif.
Burlington, Iowa
0000163
-------
10-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
-------
M* ,*.
25-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
b y^\£P ~W
. Ctt* '
-------
PhoGphaie Rock
1. Agrico Chemical Company
2. Agrico Chemical Company
3. Agrico Chemical Co.
i
4. Borden, Inc.
\
5. Brewster Phosphates
6. Cities Service Co.
7. W. R. Grace & Co.
8. IMC Corp.
9. IMC Corp.
10. IMC Corp.
11. Mobil Oil Corp., Chemical Div.
12. Mobil Oil Corp., Chemical Div.
13. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
14. Swift Agri. Chem. Corp.
15. Swift Agri. Chem. Corp.
16. U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals, Inc.
17. Texas Gulf, Inc.
18. Hooker Chem. Corp.
19. Hooker Chem. Corp.
20. Monsanto Co.
21. Monsanto Co.
22. Monsanto Co.
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Hamilton County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Polk County, Florida
Beaufort, N.C.
Hickman County, Tennessee
Maury County, Tennessee
Giles County, Tennessee
Maury County, Tennessee
Williamson County, Tennessee
0000166
-------
Phosphate Rock (continued)
23. Stauffer Chemical Co.
24. Siauffer Chemical Co.
25. Tennessee Valley Authority
26. Tennessee Valley Authority
27. Agri. Products Corp.
28. Monsanto Co.
29. J.R. Simplot Co.
30. J.R. Simplot Co.
31. Stauffer Chemical Co.
32. Cominco American, Inc.
33. Stauffer Chem. Co.
34. Stauffer Chem. Co.
35. Stauffer Chem. Co.
36. Stauffer Chem. Co.
Giles County, Tennasrree
Maury County, Tennessee
Maury County, Tennessee
Maury County , Tennessee'
Caribou, Idaho
Caribou, Idaho
Bingharn County, Idaho
Caribou, Idaho
Caribou, Idaho
Powell County, Montana
Silver Bov/ County, Montana
Rich County, Utah
Vintah County, Utah
Lincoln County, Wyoming
0000167
-------
Sulfur
1. . Freeport Minerals Co.
2. Freeport Minerals Co.
3. Freepori Minerals Co.
4. Freeport Minerals Co.
5. Jefferson Lake Sulfur Co.
6. Texas Gulf
7. Atlantic Richfield Co.
8. Duval Corp.
9. Jefferson Lake Sulfur Co.
10. Texas Gulf
11. Texas Gulf
12. Texas Gulf
13. Texas Gulf
Minerals Pigments
1. New Riverside Ochre Co.
Trona
1. Allied Chemical Co.
2. FMC
3. Stauffer
4. Texas Gulf
Garden Island Bay, Louisiana
Grande Isle, Louisiana
Grande Ecaille, Louisiana
Lake Pelfo, Louisiana
Lake Hermitage, Louisiana
Bully Camp, Louisiana
Ft. Stockton, Texas
Pecos, Texas
Neea'ville, Texas
New Gulf, Texas
Fannett Dome, Texas
Liberty County, Texas
Spina'letop Dome, Texas
Cartersville, Georgia
Green River, Wyoming
Green River, Wyoming
Green River, Wyoming
Green River, Wyoming
0000168
-------
APPENDIX C
Model-Derived Capital and Annual
Operating Cosfs
0000169
-------
10 50 100
UNIT AFFECTED AREA, ACRES
500
W/O CHEMICAL TREATMENT
WITHFLOCCULANT
Figure C-1. CAPITAL COST, TYPE A SOIL CONDITIONS
0000170
-------
-10*
10*
to
cc
O
O
to
O
O
O
2
<
DC
LU A
24-HOUR
EVENT, INCHES
10°
10 50 100
UNIT AFFECTED AREA, ACRES
500
W/0 CHEMICAL TREATMENT
WITH FLOCCULANT
Figure C-2. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS, TYPE A SOIL CONDITi
-------
2'1-HOUR
uv!-:r\)T, INCH
10s
10
C/3
DC
_J
o
Q
CO
o
o
51
<
o
103
10 50 ' 100
UNIT AFFECTED AREA, ACRES
500
W/O CHEMICAL TREATMENT
WITH FLOCCULANT
Figure C-3. CAPITAL COST, TYPE B SOIL CONDITIONS
0000172
-------
24-HOUR
EVENT, INCHES
10 ^ .50 100
UNIT AFFECTED AREA. ACRES
500
VV/O CHEMICAL TREATMENT
WITH FLOCCULANT
Figure C-3. CAPITAL COST, TYPE B SOIL CONDITIONS
0000173
-------
24-HOUR
EVENT, INCHES
10 50 100
UNIT AFFECTED AREA, ACRES
500
J W/O CHEMICAL TREATMENT
- WITH FLOCCULANT
Figure C-5. CAPITAL COST. TYPE C SOIL CONDITIONS
0000174
-------
24-HOUR
EVENT. INCHES
10 50 100
UNIT AFFECTED AREA..ACRES
500
VV/0 CHEMICAL TREATMENT
WITH FLOCCULANT
Figure C-6. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS, TYPE C SOIL CONDITIONS
0000175
-------
24-HOUR
EVENT, INCHES
10 50 100
UNIT AFFECTED AREA, ACRES
500
W/O CHEMICAL TREATMENT
WITH FLOCCULANT
Figure C-7. CAPITAL COST, TYPE D SOIL CONDITIONS
0000176
-------
24-HOUR
EVENT, INCHES
10
10 50 100
UNIT AFFECTED AREA, ACRES
500
W/O CHEMICAL TREATMENT
WITH FLOCCULANT
Figure C-8. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS, TYPE D SOIL CONDITIONS
0000177
-------
APPENDIX D
Bureau of Mines Clay Mining
and Production Statistics,
__
0000178
-------
Table
-Cumber of mines from vhlch producer* oold or u»ed clay In the United States In 1974, by States
0000179
State
Xcnuna — -———-— ~
' * PV ••"~K-CQ
Kaolin
6
4
6
1
3
59
—
1
10 .
' 1
•. 2
2
21
2
•2
E-
• Ball .
clay
1
1
...
4
1
4
1
33
7
• Fire
clny
10
1
6
14
5
1
5
3 '
. 12
81
' . 1-
1
4
2
. 32
X ...
35
2
4
2
Scntonite
4
3-
10
• 3
\
. 5
1
10
4
• 4
• . 2
14'
3
435
FulU-r's
earth • .
__
3
5
8 • ' •• •
—
3-
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
. Coraon
clnv & shale
26
•6
16
52
35 ...
5
1
Z4
1
4
16
26
17 ' .
25 .
13
15
. 6
10 •
3 •
• 11
' 2
22
. 21
10
6 .
1
• 3
2
7
15
43
.5
82
17
13
45.
3
37
4
21 '
93
9
33
15
4
1 •
4
Total If
. • 45'
11
20
. . 74 .
53
5
1
12 '
89
• r •
.5
22
27"
17
25
15 .
6
. . 11
3
11
J
31
113 •
21
6
3
3
6
9
!6
50
5
103
17
17
74
3
58
6 .
•' 51
115
17.
33
16
6
1
439
Total
120-
52
226
453
26
839
1,718
If Data nay not add to totals shovn because of- nines having core than ona kind ot cloy.
-------
table 2.—Clays polo or
by produrert li
(S-ioil
r!i*> t'nltrd St«trf In 1971, tijr State \J
to.,.)
Cull clay
ln cUy
and
tot.l
value
41.b,,j ' 337.471 -- 316.401 U
.rUor.. -- U H 32.603
ArV.n.s. - 8°.)S6
C.lllofi.l. - 42.7»7 U 157.125 55.427 M
Colorado — 7,950 — \ J3.263 4.124
Cor.r.ectlcut
Del».ure ' " . — . —
Florid. - 27.270 -- — —•• 412.523
Ceorc.Ia «,762,000 . — U .— 469.204
K«uill " . --
Jd«ho— -— -- II •
llllnsl. ~ — 102.565 — . V
India.,. — - — « 26.236
lo--tt — — • "
Kansas - ---- « -• -- •- •-
Fectucky -"-- " W 116.7S7 — —
lo>MsUna -- — .
Kalt.e — — — --'
Kirylind -- .11 ' —
lUssachusfct •*--------------• •"- " •- -- --
Ktchtean
Mlm.fiot. W —
Kli>l>ii[>pl -- V -- 333,533 U
Klsiourl' 99.000 — 924.J97 W .«
Kontini • --•... W 239.290
{.•e^r^^^ —.__-.- .__ •„ ._ .• ._
Kcvidi--- 2.406 — 104 If • 80
Ucv fjuipshlre — — — . •-.--•<
Vru Jersey ' — — , 36.14.9 • — ••; --
Vev Hiflco —. — W •'.-••'..
Kev York — V . -- —•
Korth Carolina-------- V • -- « — «
.KorCh V&ott -- — — . -- »-
OSIo- — -- 1.123.506 — j
Okl«hoo4 ..,.__.---__._- .. _« »• „ __
Orceoo — — •- — . 1,119 •-
feohsylvanU W — S94.45S —
Puerto Rico-------—------- ~- .- •' • *~ *• ._
South Carolina 769.709 — — V
South Dakota — ' — W
TtDneciee — SO0.323 — — W
Teitas . U 4O.731 4O. JS4 «8,575 W
Ut«r,—— U — W 3.153 2,174
Vlrclola
V««MnEtt>n . — — V.
Vcat Vlr(!nla — — V .-..•-
Vlscoculn — --. —- "" ' » *"
vyo=lng — -- — 2.29S.24J
llodlstrlbuted 263.927 276.122 J48.576 276.22» ;;0.6)9
Total—- 6.392.826 817,176 4.140.841 3,310.500 1.2:4.640
V VltKheld to avoid disclosing individual co=:pa.ny confidential data; Included vlth "Undistributed."
j[/ Includes Fuerto Rico. . •'•-...
tf Excludes tentonite.
3/ deludes kaolin.
4/ Excludes fire clay.
5y Excludes iullcr's earth.
(/ Excludes ball clay.
2/ lococctlete total; resaiader included ID State totals.
2.34I.50H
163.816
903.711
1.239.161
597.9'.!
153.579
14,049
368.55&
2,440.255
W
9.795
1.484.411
1,065.697
960.221
1.310,576
731.423
7J0.254
146,333
884,189
217,685
2,160.928
V
1,492.249
1.541.656
S8.624
182.394
U
33.827
66.£27
55.336
1.450.564
3.421.825
U
J.201.636
1,268.938
138.649
1,837.522
291.007
1.527.252
189.592
1.137.603
J.045,922
201.201
1,956,746
269,425
333.617
2,33S
J15.903
:39.104
2_/:,995. 360
198.672
9S4.097
2.497.241
663.280
155.579
14.049
808.J49
4/7.691.959
U
4/9.295
5/1.587.0'.6
~" 1.092.133
960.221
1,310.576
6/848.210
"" 770..'54
146.331
t/884.189
~ 2l7,6
-------
...
/.in-.I.tt -
l-jlUi^t bctcV:
a
*«e«
K.«cirtr.ti parccUlB —
J;"|ll;" I IT.""
Klte:el oil. and sc<«.«,
flreSdci, block, and tS.srea-- -
ftcvtr ;•>:
Cleit.. fta.a. arj eoa=,l» -
Croti «:^ ercfea. refr-cicrv .-
ill
Oiler -
Oil et.d |re. i. ai.orbenc.---
feint -
faj*r flltloj
.flue. tay. and vad :
l«vtr f!p«. wl irlfted
' * v»ll^ c» f-il.
S^rJ *
T f
^ * ' . fll 8
teo'tl- -•-- — -
lotel
I/ Total erf cleja lnd[c«t«4 by footnote 7/.
'
}/
2/
11.000
2'
43.291
1.1)7
43°.13Z
1.959
11
2
y
'/
174,701
85.474
"--
127.189
F2.TS7
317.176
5/
17S".'70»
V
i|8)9
399.688
69.271
23.53)
71.293
V
738. OSS
209
506 .
14. CM
' 0^464
23.833
(.319
307
11.129
JO. 192
10.037
). 310.500
.nd .Sal.
72
J. 191, 314
17.2«3.S21
ll425
1.443
5.989,303
1.957.029
t8]9»
J6.97)
loo'
1.302.506
7.680
(34.413
142.769
156.191
63.534
. •• (4,591.
52.025 .
11.651
8.756
6!. 986
43.101.344
/lr. t!.r
v"
105, i 37
J
v"
2.462.36;
57.141
22i.)55 •-
K.t-i
142. 754
J48.140
250
*32. !61
18. "iM •
».392
20,460
105.10:
(5.998
l.COO . .
7.»t»
4.i4o.;i!
e.r,h
1,325
V
75^76
11.128
• is
11
409.734
-. 1.662.
J79.379
J57.993
' .. i/ , . '
V
J.286
5.203
82.241
1.224.640
JJJ.230
14, tit
613.3.18
C.916
J.C!6
1)4.573
21.555
(1.464
15.433
ee.o67
III. 964
>'
449.248
V
3.372
3.240
277.362
4.822
CO, 501
14.162
1.243
1.965
1.655
761.352
1.313.404
28.311
J4.27S
42.059
371.602
82.774
17.062
1.554
40.037
975.330
(.392.826
uteJ .!/
723
10.616
3S3
11.126
753
15. 171
13.670
J2.233
2.282
13.760
(.230
«/ *
(5.309
19l'.2U
21.125
3.132,249 •
9o]9S6
3.07!
12.130.5.-9
(47
(4,646
100,164
(51.753
(0,565
137,5)4
128,112
65.271
4/5'., 651
~ 71.293
4/2.939.2iS
47.346
4/156,9)0
972.422
58.106
4/4-0. 115
3,326
431.060
14,162
11.844
J.9J9.J03
2.967.02J
973,497
J8.929
16.862
306.851
424.594
247.9)9
1.315.759
1.G2S.8A9
670.464
K.OOO
4/2)1.94)
364.312
4/54.275
9.39J
270.011
379.102
4/257.475
1.608.710
7,(80
434,413
314.];)
138,03)
96.443
H.391
33.023
96.079
11.651
116.637
1.751.2)5
(1.087.327
'.
£/ Include! abcailvea; |rap^ite aaodei; tinolexa; oinrral wool and Ituulettoo; rooflQf franul«f; textile*; unk.novn u*ea;.«o4 d*te
£/ *Etx!letrl»ute4'* totel included vith total for «eeb a^eelflc use.
fey fooea«l« 3/.
0000181
-------
Table 20. — Shipments of principal structural clay products in the United States
Products
Unglazed cos^on and face
brick (M standard
brick, M dollars)
Unglazed structural tile
(M short tons,
M dollars)
Vitrified clay and sewer
pipe fittings
_£M short tons,
'M dollars)
Unglazed, salt glazed, and
ceramic glazed
structural facing tile,
including glazed_ brick
(M equivalent, M dollars)
Clay floor and wall tile,
including quarry tile
_£M square feet,
M dollars)
Total (M. dollars)
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
. 6,496 288 r 7,570 346 8,402 404 8,674 r '451 r 6,673 376
181 6 157 r 4 101 3 94 4 100 4
1,622 119 1,721 133 1,718 143 1,647 r 138 r 1,454 134
169 16 153 15 131 13 122 r 13 r 97 13
250 r .126 276 r 143 308 r 159 301 r 168 273 163
xxx 555 xxx 641 xxx 722 xxx 774 r xxx 695
r Revised.
M Thousand. H Million.
00
-------
GO
Table 21. --Common clay and shale used in building brick production
in the United States in 1974, by State
State
.
Arizona and Hawaii--
Maine and Maryland
Massachusetts and
Michigan -----
Minnesota and Montana-
Missouri --
Short tons
1,133,882
83,700
535,487
403,371
358,744
146,879 '
14,049
30,000 .
2,208,446
9,295.
459,407
444,414
243,120
502,146
319,518
199,539
418,799
207,476
56,512
1,146,018
170,495
94,762
Value
$1,725,994
94,900
515,028
746,877
920,636
346,133
8,429
44,040
4,313,507
10,348
1,192,425
702,027
381,041
649,904
355,264
294,984
1,280,387
' 316,153
• 90,338
1,600,611
435,738
263,240
State
New Mexico and North
Utah and West Virginia
Short tons
O 1 OO 7
•» J J, O//
- A f\ O •? 7
Q "7 "? ^ 0
Ql,lt.£
m9A1
> *"^
- i s^^ CHA
- A n o 1 A 3
11 A 1 0
LA 1 7 HO A
, 4 1 J , U „' -4
- 1 11 ^ SOS
1 A ODD
S7Q Q7?
245,445
- 1 TO1} 716
1 A 0 070
? 3 S S
61 181
-20 475 035
C.
O
o'
Value
$ 55,256
292,008
110,545
521,965
3,490,'979
3,150,950
1,001,041
52,331
4,296,415
. 2,004,739
17,030
730,785
2,853,266
455,345
1,547,640
300,898
4,368
.202,727
37,391,723
-------
"Table 22.—Clay and shale uoed In lightweight aggregate production in the United States
in 1974, by State and kind
0000184
State
Florida, Maryland, end Massachusetts--
Montana, North Dakota, and
Korth Carolina, Oliio,. and
Totnl---------- :................_'
Concrete
block
766,885
624,550
363,245
268,801
512,190
763,251
383,4^8
256,097
287,372 .
55,609
272,503
.. 437,200
131,619
29,773
164,436
672,319
5,989,303
Structural
concrete
60,038
178,000
358,035
121,601
89,200
450,262
68,659
49,725
24,236
466,352
365,800
87,745
6,236
134,400
506,740
2,967,029
Short tono
Highway
surfacing Otbcr
7,000
15,000
-"- 78
71,974 36,348
34,623
846,900 22.260
975,497 . 98,929
Total
833,923
817,550
721,280
39-0,480
601,390
560,429
• 346,065
. 346,231
5 5,609
738,860
803,000
219,364
36,009
258,836
• 2,048.219
10,030,758
.value
$999,135
951,500
' 712, ' 352
1,036,713
2,231,739
892,327
89,720
1,269,495
'361 'cCO
90^023
371,700
2.830.169
15,771,266
------- |