IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

Methods of environmental monitoring in mining areas: The Zambian Copperbelt Case Story

Bohdan Kříbek, Vladimír Majer, Ilja Knésl, Jan Pašava Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 3, 118 21 Prague 1, Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected]

Vojtěch Ettler, Martin Mihaljevič Institute of Geochemistry, Mineralogy and Mineral Resources, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Albertov 6, 128 43 Praha 2, Czech Republic

Ondra Sracek Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Palacký University, 17. listopadu 12, 771 46 Olomouc, Czech Republic

Palacky U niversity O lom o uc

IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

One of the tools enabling to assess the effect of mining and mineral processing on the environment and human health is environmental-geochemical monitoring Regional environmental-geochemical mapping and monitoring involve in particular:

 The localization and identification of the sources of contamination  The elucidation of the mode of contaminants spreading  The determination of areal extent and intensity of contamination  The estimation of harmful properties and biotoxicity of contaminants  The proposal for application of the most efficient methods to improve land remediation and land-use planning IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

SOURCES OF ANTHROPOGENIC CONTAMINATION IN MINING AREAS Soils and Plants: Gaseous and solid emissions from smelters Dust from dry parts of tailing impoundments  Dust from mining operations, processing plants and slag deposits Transport of concentrate and products

Surface Waters and Stream Sediments  Industrial water discharged into the watercourse

 Seepage and owerflow from tailing impoundments

 Erosion and washout of fine-grained particles from spoil banks and tailing impoundments (siltation) IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

ROUTES OF POLLUTANTS INTO ENVIRONMENT IN MINING DISTRICTS

Inflow from man-made sources Inflow from natural sources (fertilizers, municipal sewage) Inflow from anthropogenic sources (forest fires, volcanoes) not related to mining (road traffic) Dust fallout Terrestrial systems Atmosphere Dust fallout Wind erosion (soil, plants) Dust Canopy deposition Dust Dust Dust, SO2, NOx Vaste heaps Tailings Mining operations Ore crushing and Roasting, Chemical grinding Thickeners Flotation Vaste heaps Smelting rafination Throughfall Reprocessed Suspension Tailings Slag Chemical weathering, overflow Technological Stem flow solutions Mine water Suspension Water and ? wash-out suspensions Runoff overflow, seepage Runoff, Throughflow Decomposion Mineralisation Hydrosphere Throughflow Root uptake Irrigation Stream flow Deep percolation Legend: Inflow from non-contaminated River outflow catchements Very important flow Important flow Less important flow IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

SOURCES OF ANTHROPOGENIC CONTAMINATION IN MINING AREAS - DUST

Sandstorm over a dam of the Muntimpa impoundment, Zambia

Sandstorm over a dry beach of the Mindolo impoundment, Copperbelt, Zambia, Zambia

Sandstorm over the Mufulira impoundment IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

SOURCES OF ANTHROPOGENIC CONTAMINATION IN MINING AREAS - SEEPAGE

Chalcantite and gypsum precipitates, the Uchi River, Kitwe, Zambia

Chambishi tailing pond seepage, Chambishi, Zambia Muntimpa tailings pond seepage, Zambia IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

SOURCES OF ANTHROPOGENIC CONTAMINATION IN MINING AREAS - SILTATION

Collapse of the Luanshya tailings dam, Copperbelt, Zambia

Siltation of the Chingola River, Chingola, Zambia IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

SOURCES OF ANTHROPOGENIC CONTAMINATION IN MINING AREAS – TECHNOLOGICAL WATERS FROM CHEMICAL LEACHING PLANTS

Chibuluma- South II Open Pit

Chambeshi River, whitish precipitates of carbonates and gypsum, efluents from the Chambishi Chemical Plant Technological water from the Nkana Smelter and Processing Plant IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

BOX 1 Soil sampling • Each soil sample is a composite of 3-5 sub-samples collected from sampling sites located at the distance of 10-20 m from each other. Soil samples may be collected from soil pits or using soil auger. • Two different depth-related samples should be collected: (1) A topsoil sample from the 0 to 25 cm depth (excluding material from the organic-rich layers where present) and, (2) lower soil (subsoil) sample from a 25 cm thick section within a depth range of 50-100 cm. • Comparison of topsoil and subsoil data gives information about enrichment or depletion processes between soil layers. • Topsoil and subsoil samples (0.5-1 kg) have to be dried on paper or plastic dishes and sieved using plastic sieving set equipped with nylon mesh (2 mm). The < 2mm fraction (50- 100 g) is recommended to homogenize in agate ball mill to analytical fineness (< 0.063 mm) • Recommended soil sampling density for local phase of survey: 1 – 10 samples for km2 • Recommended soil sampling density for detailed phase of survey: 10 – 100 samples for km2 IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

SOIL SAMPLING

Silty surface layer Layer with high content of metals Silty to clay-rich layer with remnants of roots Sampling of subsurface soil with soil auger

Laterite

Soil profile IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

SOIL SAMPLING Distribution of metals in soils 140 120 Sub-surface soil Chromium – Surface vs. sub-surface soil concept 100 80 Higher concentration of chemical 60 element in sub-surface soil compa- 40 red to its concentration in surface 20 Surface soil

Cr -Cr sub-surface soil (ppm) 0 soil indicates its geogenic origin. 0 10 20 30 40 50 This is typical for Cr, Ni and V. Cr - surface soil (ppm)

Higher concentration of chemical 40 35 Sub-surface Cobalt element in surface soil compared 30 soil to its concentration in sub-soil in- 25 1 : 1 dicates an anthropogenic contami- 20 15 nation. This is characteristic for 10 As, Co, Pb, Zn, Hg and S. 5 Surface soil Co Co - subsurface soil (ppm) 0 Straight lines in graphs correspond to the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Co - surface soil (ppm) Metal(surface soil) /Metal(sub-surface soil) concentration ratio=1 IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

GEOLOGICAL MAP OF ZAMBIA Geological sketch map of Zambian Copperbelt and the extent of the environmental- geochemical survey 27°30' 29°

12°15' 12°15' Map Sheet 1227B4 Map Sheet 1228A3 Map Sheet 1228A4 Surveyed area ChililabombweKonkola Nsato Mokambo Mapped in 2005 Mapped in 2004 Mapped in 2004 Chililabombwe N Nchanga Chingola Map Sheet 1228C1 Mufulira D Mufulira . Mapped in 2002 R . Chambishi C Map Sheet 1228C2 O Map Sheet 1227D2 Mufulira-East N Chingola Mapped in 2006 Mapped in 2005 G Mindola O Chibuluma Kitwe Nkana Kalulushi NDOLA Map Sheet 1228C3 Map Sheet 1228C4 Map Sheet 1228D2 Kitwe Kitwe-East Ndola Total area: 4700 km2 Mapped in 2004 Mapped in 2006 Mapped in 2009 - 760 composite samples of surface soil Z A Luanshya - 264 samples of subsurface soils Map Sheet 1228C42 Map Sheet 1228C41 M Luanshya Bwana Mkubwa - 270 samples of stream sediments Partly Mapped in Partly mapped in B 2010 2009 - 120 samples of surface waters I - 60 special samples (slag, tailings, A ochres) 13°15' 13°15' 25 km 27°30' 29° W IN D R O SE Zambia: Geochemical-environmental mapping in the Copperbelt Province

Wind velocity (m/s) 1.9 2.6 Concentration of copper in surface soil, the Copperbelt Area, Zambia

Central-northern part of the Zambian Copperbelt (Kitwe, Mufulira, Chambishi, Chingola, Chililabombwe Mining Districts) IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013 TOTAL SULFUR IN SOILS SURFACE SOIL (0-3 cm) SUBSURFACE SOIL (80-90 cm) W IN D R O SE

Wind velocity (m/s) 1.9 2.6 IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013 ARSENIC IN SOILS ARSENIC IN SURFACE SOIL ARSENIC IN SUBSURFACE SOIL

W IN D R O SE

Wind velocity (m/s) 1.9 2.6 IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

ARSENIC IN SOILS

DIFERENCE: SURFACE TO SUBSURFACE SOIL GEOLOGICAL MAP

W IN D R O SE

Wind velocity (m/s) 1.9 2.6 IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

COBALT IN SOILS COBALT IN SURFACE SOIL COBALT IN SUBSURFACE SOIL

W IN D R O SE

Wind velocity (m/s) 1.9 2.6 IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

COBALT IN SOILS

DIFERENCE: SURFACE TO SUBSURFACE SOIL GEOLOGICAL MAP

W IN D R O SE

Wind velocity (m/s) 1.9 2.6 IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

MERCURY IN SOILS

MERCURY IN SURFACE SOIL MERCURY IN SUBSURFACE SOIL

W IN D R O SE

Wind velocity (m/s) 1.9 2.6 IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

NICKEL IN SOILS

NICKEL IN SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL GEOLOGICAL MAP COEFICIENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION (SURFACE SOIL)

W IN D R O SE

Wind velocity (m/s) 1.9 2.6

Close-up: Mufulira area

Explanation:

Coeficient of Industrial Pollution

As Co Cu Hg Pb Zn m m m m m m CIP As Co Cu Hg Pb Zn 6

mX – value of the metal concentration

IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013 RESULTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL GEOCHEMICAL MAPPING

Factor analysis – trace elements in surface soils

Factor No. Factor Interpretation Loading Factor 1: Explains the 19.1% Contamination of soils by trace variability of Co, Cu, Ni, elements transported by air in form Pb, Zn Hg, Se As, and of sulphide or sulfate particles from Stot smelters, tailing ponds and mining operations Factor 2: Explains the 22.7% This association reflects variability of Co, Cr, Ni, V, geochemical characteristics of soils Zn and Fetot and bedrock in the mapped region (This factor not related to mining) Factor 3: Explains the 13.0 % This factor reflects geochemical

variability of Zn, Hg Stot characteristics (content of Corg Corg) and Corg in soils (This factor is not related to mining) IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013 RESULTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL GEOCHEMICAL MAPPING Factor analysis – Maps of Factor Scores (topsoils)

Factor 1 - CONTAMINATION Factor 2 – SOIL AND BEDROCK CHEMISTRY

FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2

IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013 Total vs. gastric-available metals is surface soil

Total metal (Aqua regia extraction)

Gastric-available metal (extraction to glycine at pH 2.2, T= 38 oC). Oral cavity Extraction simulate Soil contaminant ingestion solubility of metals O esophagus in human stomach Bioaccessible fraction

released from the soil (FB )

Fraction of FB absorbed by Liver

the small interstine (FA ) S tom ach

Fraction of FA passing the liver

without being metabolized (FH ) Small interstine

Oral bioavailable fraction reaching systematic circulation (F)

F = FBAH * F * F IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

Gastric-available lead

Chingola Mining Area Nkana Smelter Area Gastic-available lead: 20% Gastric-available lead: 80% of of TOTAL lead TOTAL lead

Total Pb/ Available Pb

Lead in soils is more grastric-available in the smelter contaminated areas compared with mining areas IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

Gastric-available arsenic

Chingola Mining Area Nkana Smelter Area Gastric-available arsenic: 5% of TOTAL arsenic Gastric-available arsenic: 30% of TOTAL arsenic

Total As/ Available As Gastric-available metals Dust from electric furnance Dust from Pierce-Smith convertor

Dust from ore crushers 30 m

30 m90,0 80,0 Smelter area 70,0 Mining area 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0

% of% total amount of metal . 10,0

30 m 0,0 As Co Cu Fe Pb Zn Chemical Element IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

BOX 2 Stream sediment sampling • Stream sediment composite sample has to be prepared from sub-samples taken from 5 points along a 250-500 m length of the stream. • From each sampling site, 1 kg of material (taken from the 0-25 cm depth) should be collected. Blended (composite) samples may be sieved on spot (wet sieving) or after drying of samples (dry sieving) in the field laboratory. For sieving, plastic sieve set equipped with nylon mesh (0.15 mm) has to be used to avoid contamination. The <0.15 fraction (50-100 g) is recommended to homogenize in agate ball mill to analytical fineness. Note: Together with stream sediment samples, panned heavy mineral concentrates may be collected on selected sampling sites. The panned heavy mineral concentrates are an excellent resource for identifying drainage catchment mineralization as well as anthropogenic contamination. Note: It is recommended to collect water samples (for sampling details see above) before collecting stream sediment samples on individual sampling sites. IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

Stream sediment sampling

D.R. Congo

e

l

e

g

n

e

b CHILILABOMBWE u

L M02

K M04 AF M01 UE

a M05 m i M03 a

r is i h l

u

s f u M06

u M M MUFULIRA M07 CHINGOLA Mus akash Drying of stream sediment samples i M08 M09 M10 K CHAMBISHI A Zambia FU E Mwambashi M11 M12 M13

olo ind M M14 M15 hi SMELTER KITWE Uc

M TAILINGS DAM w a KALULUSHI n s M17 (ACTIVE/ABANDONED) h im b ACTIVE OPEN PIT a M16 10 km ACTIVE SHAFT M18

Sieving of stream sediment samples COEFICIENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION - STREAM SEDIMENTS

Stream sediments, Busakile River, Kitwe: - As: 1296 ppm Lubengele - Co 3660 ppm - Cu 65 465 ppm Kafue - Hg 6.4 ppm Kafue - Mo 48 ppm

Mufulira - Ni 360 ppm Changa - Pb 1370 ppm

Mushishima - Zn 3590 ppm

Uncontaminated Kafue Contaminated Kafue, Chigola

e

l

e

g

n

e

b u

L M02

K AF M01 UE M04 M05

a

r

M06 i

l

u

CHINGOLA f

u Contaminated Kafue M MUFULIRA M07 M usaka shi M08 M09 M10 K CHAMBISHI A F U E Mwambashi M11 M12 M13 o dol Min M14 KITWE i M15 ch M U w a n s h KALULUSHI im M17 b a M16 M18 Contaminated Kafue outflow from the Copperbelt Musakashi - S tot 2.1 %

Explanation: Muntimpa Chambeshi Mindolo

Kitwe Coeficient of Industrial

Uchi Contamination

As Co Cu Hg Pb Zn Busakile mAs mCo mCu mHg mPb mZn Chibuluma CIP 6

Lwanshimba Kafue mX – value of the metal concentration

IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

Uncontaminated Kafue Contaminated Kafue, Chigola STREAM SEDIMENTS

Contents of selected chemical elements in uncontaminated and contaminated

sediments of the Kafue River, Zambia

e l

Element Uncontaminated Kontaminated e

g

n

e

b u mg.kg-1 Kafue Kafue L M02 K AF M01 UE M04 M05

a

r

M06 i

l

u

CHINGOLA f Co 17-21 131-1174 u Contaminated Kafue M MUFULIRA M07 M usaka shi M08 Cu 115-161 1520-8837 M09

Uncontaminated Kafue Contaminated Kafue, Chigola

e

l

e

g

n

e

b u

L M02

K AF M01 UE M04 M05

a

r

M06 i

l

u

CHINGOLA f

u Contaminated Kafue M MUFULIRA M07 M usaka shi M08 M09 M10 K CHAMBISHI A F U E Mwambashi M11 M12 M13 o dol Min M14 KITWE i M15 ch M U w a n s h KALULUSHI im M17 b a M16 M18 Contaminated Kafue outflow from the Copperbelt M10 K CHAMBISHI A F U E Pb 4-13 21-54 Mwambashi M11 M12 M13 o dol As 0.14-0.57 1.9-7.4 Min M14 KITWE i M15 ch M U w a n s Hg 0.02-0.03 0.03-0.14 h KALULUSHI im M17 b a M16 M18 Contaminated Kafue Mn 103-133 395-2849 outflow from the Copperbelt

SEQUENTIONAL EXTRACTIONS OF STREAM SEDIMENTS

Results of sequential extractions show that compared with uncontaminated sediments, substanially higher amount of Cu, Co and Mn are bound to the acid-extractable fraction (exchangeable metals and carbonates) IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

STREAM SEDIMENTS Comparison with the Canadian Guidelines for Sediments

Concentrations between ISQG and PEL represent the range in which adverse biological effects are occasionally observed

Concentrations above the PEL are Element ISQG PEL expected to be frequently associated (ppm) with adverse biological effects As 5.9 (8.2%) 17.0 (2%)

Uncontaminated Kafue Contaminated Kafue, Chigola

e

l

e

g

n

e

b u

L M02

K AF M01 UE M04 M05

a

r

M06 i

l

u

CHINGOLA f

u Contaminated Kafue M MUFULIRA M07 M usaka shi M08 M09 M10 K CHAMBISHI A F U E Mwambashi M11 M12 M13 o dol Min M14 KITWE i M15 ch M U w a n s h KALULUSHI im M17 b a M16 M18 Contaminated Kafue outflow from the Copperbelt

Cd 0.6 (0%) 3.5 (0%) Percentage of samples exceeding the ISQG Cr 37.3 (22.9%) 90 (2%) and PEL values in the Zambian Copperbelt Cu 35.7 (98.4%) 197 (55.7%)

Hg 0.17 (8.2%) 0.49 (0%)

Pb 35 (6.6%) 91.3 (2%)

Zn 123 (0%) 315 (0%) IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

Explanation

HEAVY MINERALS

e CHILILABOMBWE l

SURVEY, e

g

n

e

b u

KAFUE RIVER, L M02

K COPPERBELT, M04 AF M01 UE ZAMBIA M05 M03 a

r

i

l

u M06 f

u M MUFULIRA M07 M usaka shi M08

Uncontaminated Kafue Contaminated Kafue, Chigola

e

l

e

g

n

e

b u

L M02

K AF M01 UE M04 M05

a

r

M06 i

l

u

CHINGOLA f

u Contaminated Kafue M MUFULIRA M07 M usaka shi M08 M09 M10 K CHAMBISHI A F U E Mwambashi M11 M12 M13 o dol Min M14 KITWE i M15 ch M U w a n s h KALULUSHI im M17 b a M16 M18 Contaminated Kafue outflow from the Copperbelt M09 Minerals identified in heavy fraction M10 K CHAMBISHI A of uncontaminated and contaminated F a U im E sediments of the Kafue River, Zambia is h Mwambashi s u M M11 Uncontaminated Contaminated M12 M13 Kafue River Kafue River o dol Min M14 KITWE i M15 ch Ilmenite, hematite, Hematite, chalcopyrite, M U w a n hornblende, pyrite, goethite, bornite, s KALULUSHI h im M17 b clinochlorite, rutile, covelline, malachite, a zircon, brochantite, M16 M18 dravite, apatite, pseudomalachite, quartz, albite, hornmblende, muscovite, microcline chlorite, clinozoisite, rutile, zircon, dravite, quartz, albite IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013 HEAVY MINERALS IN CONTAMINATED KAFUE RIVER, COPPERBELT, ZAMBIA

A B C Hfo

Hfo (FeO, Al, Si, P) Cv

Uncontaminated Kafue Contaminated Kafue, Chigola

e

l

e

g

n

e

b u

L M02

K AF M01 UE M04 M05

a

r

M06 i

l

u

CHINGOLA f

u Contaminated Kafue M MUFULIRA M07 M usaka shi M08 M09 M10 K CHAMBISHI A F U E Mwambashi M11 M12 M13 o dol Min M14 KITWE i M15 ch M U w a n s h KALULUSHI im M17 b a M16 M18 Contaminated Kafue outflow from the Copperbelt

Chcp Bn

Ti Chcp Spi

Microphotographs of heavy minerals in contaminated Kafue River sediments. A: Rutile (Rt), bornite (Bn), covellite (Cv), limonite/goethite (Hfo). Mushishima River, Chingola Area. B: Limonite/goethite (Hfo) with copper metal (Cu). Kafue River, downstream of the Chingola Town. C: Limonite/goethite, (Hfo), limonite/goethite with admixture of Al, Si and P and grain of covellite (Cv), Mushishima River, Chingola Area. D: Limonite/goethite. Mushishima River, Chingola Area. E: Magnetite-rich slag particle (Gmt), rutile (Rt) and intermediate solid solution (ISS) particle with oxidation rims (SM). The Uchi River, Kitwe Area. F: Bornite (Bn), chalcopyrite (Chcp), titanite (Ti) and chacopyrite with a rim of secondary spionkopite (Spi). The Uchi River, Kitwe Area.

IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

BOX 3 Stream water sampling •Two sub-samples of stream water have to be collected from each site: - unfiltered water for major anion analysis, - filtered water for cation analysis. • This two sub-samples can be supplemented with: - unfiltered water sample for mercury analysis, - filtered water sample for dissolved organic carbon (DOC) analysis. • Trace elements-free polyethylene bottles have to be used for water sampling. Bottles have to be filled with distilled water acidified with 1.0 ml of concentrated HNO3 for at least one week before the sampling campaign. • For filtering, 0,45- m disposable filters mounted on disposable syringes are recommended. Filtered water samples have to be acidified on the same day as sampling by the addition of

1.0 ml of super-pure concentrated HNO3 using a droplet bottle. • A blank water sample has to be collected, filtered, and preserved in the same manner as the actual samples after every 20th sample. • Electrical conductivity (EC) and pH and water temperature have to be measured in the field and alkalinity has to be determined by titration in the field laboratory. IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

RESULTS: pH VALUES AND CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS, the Kafue River

The pH values and concentration of chemical elements in uncontaminated and contaminated Kawue River water. The pH values and concentration of metals in surface water during acid spikes in the Lwanshimba and Chambeshi rivers (contaminated tributaries of Kafue) are given for comparison

Uncontamin. Contaminated Acid spike Acid spike Zambia limit EU limit Kafue Kafue Lwanshimba Chambeshi efluent efluent (2006-2011) (2006-2011) July7.2006 July 7, 2006 water water pH 6.8-7.1 6.9-7.2 3.62 2.04 6-9 6-8 Al (ppb) 4-8 11-21 3.62 2115 2500 1500 As (ppb) < 0.5 < 0.5-2.9 6929 872 Cd (ppb) < 0.05 < 0.05-3.43 6.5 2.0 50 1 Co (ppb) < 0.05 10-30 2.0 29528 1000 10 Cu (ppb) 2.5-4.2 38-107 29528 16442 1500 30 Mn (ppb) 19-25 200-374 16442 466 1000 500 Pb (ppb) < 0.2 0.2-0.7 317 161 500 15 RESULTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL-GEOCHEMICAL MAPPING SURFACE WATER CHEMISTRY River water exceeding Czech and European Union effluent limits shown in red colour

Mushishima – Co, Cu, Mn

Musakashi – Mn

Muntimpa – Co, Mn Chambeshi – Co, Cu, Mn, Pb, Mn, pH

Uchi – Co, Cu

Busakile – As, Co, Cu, Pb, pH IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

BOX 4 Groundwater sampling • In order to collect groundwater samples it is important to remove stagnant water of the well before collecting the sample. Many sampling practitioners collect samples after electrical conductivity (EC) of groundwater is stabilized. For water sampling, grab samplers (bailers) are recommended. They are portable, simple to use and relatively easy to clean. • It is highly recommended to rinse bailer several times in the well water before taking sample. Groundwater samples have to be processed in the same way as surface water samples (unfiltered water sample and filtered and acidified water samples). • Together with sampling, parameters such as geographic coordinates of the sampled well, sampling depth (water level), pH, temperature, electrical conductivity, oxidation-reduction (or redox) potential and dissolved oxygen have to be recorded. The alkalinity has to be determined in the field laboratory. • Before transporting samples to analytical laboratory, samples should be kept at a temperature lower than that at which it was collected (cool box or fridge). IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

THE BWANA MKUBWA COPPER PROCESSING PLANT, COPPERBELT, ZAMBIA

MONITORING BOREHOLES VILLAGE

Monitoring of groundwater quality, The Bwana Mkubwa processing plant, Zambia ive IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

THE BWANA MKUBWA COPPER PROCESSING PLANT, COPPERBELT, ZAMBIA Bwana Mkubwa, Groundwater Monitoring Site BH 2A, East Side of the Tailing dam TD5A

Jan Feb Mar May Jun Jul pH units 6.0 6.2 6.3 5.7 5.4 6.0 Electric conductivity 241 940 312 159 242 241.6 Total suspended 13 15 10 85 15 28.3 solids TSS) Total dissolved solids 169 658 220 112 69 146 (TDS)

Dissolved copper < 0.01 0.31 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.05 < 0.01 Dissolved cobalt 0.3 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Dissolved Iron < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.29 0.09 0.3 Dissolved manganese 0.06 0.08 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.09 < 0.01

Borehole depth (m) 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 Water level fom 9.59 7.96 8.75 9.8 10.1 28.6 surface (m) Well Volume (m3) 0.36 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.35 IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

THE BWANA MKUBWA COPPER PROCESSING PLANT, COPPERBELT, ZAMBIA

Bwana Mkubwa, Groundwater Monitoring Site BH 4 South-east Side of the Tailings Dam TD4

Jan Feb Mar May Jun Jul pH units 6.2 6.2 5.3 4.1 4.4 4.4 Electric conductivity 4080 3308 3632 8205 7895 5383 Total suspended 51 47 40 40 70 20 solids TSS) Total dissolved solids 2865 2320 2550 5778 5537 5383 (TDS) Dissolved copper < 0.01 < 0.01 39.66 384.2 317 1.39 Dissolved cobalt 0.36 < 0.01 0.91 9.01 1.67 0.48 Dissolved iron 22.5 8.5 9.9 243.1 140.2 410.5 Dissolved manganese 30.5 26.2 23.3 544.0 171.3 281.9 Borehole depth (m) 9.25 9.25 9.25 9.25 9.25 9.25 Water level fom 4.86 3.98 3.9 4.89 5.43 5.55 surface (m) Well volume (m3) 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

THE BWANA MKUBWA COPPER PROCESSING PLANT, COPPER CONCENTRATIONS Explanation Concentration below limit

Concentration higher than limit

Surface of the Bwana Mkubwa Tailings Pond

VILLAGE

ive Eroded dam of the Bwana Mkubwa Tailings Pond IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

BOX 5 Sampling of plants

• In order to assess the content of chemical elements in plants it is recommend to sample especially agricultural products, for example: lettuce (leaves), giant rape (leaves), cassava (leaves and tubers), sweet potato (leaves and tubers), maize (grains), rice (grains ) and fodder (grass). Samples should be taken from several plants of the same species and from the same place.

• When sampling leaves of bushes and trees samples should be taken around the whole of circumference of the crown.

• The amount of collected plant material depends on the type of subsequent chemical analysis. For "wet" digestion, i.e. the decomposition of plant samples in a mixture of acids is required 1-5 g of dry sample, for more precise analyses of vegetation ash 15-30 g of dry plant tissues is needed.

• Plant samples should be straight in the field spread on a nylon sieve and washed thoroughly several times with tap water. The used tap water should be sent for chemical analysis. Samples of tubers or bulbs must be peeled prior to washing.

• It is recommended to homogenize plant samples in agate ball mill to analytical fineness (< 0.063 mm) before sending them to analytical laboratories.

IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

Sampling of plants It is recommend to sample especially agricultural products:

•Maize - grains •Cassava – leaves •Cassava – roots •Sweet potatoes – leaves •Sweet potatoes – roots •Lettuce •Millet – grains

Cassava field, Kitwe Region, Zambiua

Cassava leaves sampling in cooperation with owner

Together with agricultural product, soil rhizosphere was sampled from the same point Soil rhizosphere sampling IGCP/SIDA 594 Training course, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 13-15, 2013

CONCLUSIONS

Environmental-geochemical mapping and monitoring allow geological surveys, the state administration, regional authorities and nonprofit organizations engaged in environmental protection to control effectively the obligations adopted by mining companies in the field of environmental protection Regional departments for land-use planning may use the results of monitoring in their planning activities in contaminated areas, in urban planning, in meaningful industralization of rural areas On the other hand, the mining companies may use the environmental- geochemical monitoring and its results to assess the efficiency of commitments made by them to protect the environment and to select priorities in remediation and reclamation works