DOCSLIB.ORG

Dam Safety Assessment Mount Nansen Tailings Facility Near Carmacks, YT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dam Safety Assessment Mount Nansen Tailings Facility Near Carmacks, YT Dam Safety Assessment Mount Nansen Tailings Facility near Carmacks, YT Project No: 0201-00-14618 May2002 EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. DAM SAFETY ASSESSMENT MOUNT NANSEN TAILINGS FACILITY NEAR CARMACKS, YUKON Prepared by: EBA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD. Whitehorse, Yukon Submitted To: Water Resources Division Department of Indian Affairs & Northern Development - Yukon Region Whitehorse, Yukon Project No.: 0201-00-14618 May2002 Calcite Business Centre, Unit 6, 151 Industrial Road, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada Y1A 2V3 Telephone: (867) 668-3068 - FAX: (867) 668-4349 - e-mail: [email protected] - http/lwww.eba.ca 0201-00-14618 -1- May2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1 .2 SCOPE OF WORK ..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 AVAILABLE INFORMATION .................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 MOUNT NANSEN TAILINGS FACILITY .............................................................................................. 4 2.1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 FACILITY DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................... 6 2.3 FACILITY OPERATION ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.3.1 Operational Phase ............................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.2 Shutdown Phase ................................................................................................................................. 10 2.4 CONSEQUENCE CLASSIFICATION AND EXTREME EVENT CRITERIA ............................................... 12 3.0 FIELD EV ALUATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 SITEVISITS ............................................................................................................................................ 12 3 .2 FIELD PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................. 13 4.0 SEEPAGE CONTROL DYKE ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 14 5.0 SPILLWAY ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................... 14 5.1 HYDROLOGY REVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 15 5.2 CHANNEL FLOW CAPACITY AND CONDITION ................................................................................... 15 5.2.1 Diversion Channe/ ............................................................................................................................. 16 5.2.2 Emergency Spillway ........................................................................................................................... 16 5.2.3 Diversion Spillway ............................................................................................................................. 17 5.3 DIVERSION SPILLWAY UPGRADING ................................................................................................... 18 5.3.1 Upgrading Design .............................................................................................................................. 18 5. 3. 2 Upgrading Activities .......................................................................................................................... 18 5.4 FINAL SPILLWAY CONDITION ............................................................................................................. 19 6.0 TAILINGS DAM ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ 19 6.1 DAMPERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................................ 20 6.1.1 Permafrost Thaw ................................................................................................................................ 20 6.1. l. l Pond Level ................................................................................................................................................ 23 0201-00-14618 -11- May2002 6.1.1.2 Phreatic Levels .......................................................................................................................................... 24 6.1.1.3 Seepage ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 6.1.2 Settlement & Deformation .................................................................................................................. 28 6.2 LIQUEFACTION AND STABILITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................. 31 6.2.1 Seismic Hazard ................................................................ ,................................................................. 32 6.2.2 Liquefaction Assessment .................................................................................. ,................................. 33 6.2.2.1 Liquefaction Assessment Procedure ........................................................................................................ .33 6.2.2.2 Liquefaction Assessment Results ............................................................................................................. .35 6.2.3 Stability Analyses ............................................................................................................................... 36 6.2.3.1 Thawed Depth .......................................................................................................................................... .37 6.2.3.2 Bulk Unit Weight and Soil Strength Parameters ....................................................................................... 37 6.2.3.3 Phreatic Surface within the Dam .............................................................................................................. 39 6.2.3.4 Excess Pore Water Pressure in Foundation Soils ..................................................................................... .40 6.2.3.5 Residual Strength of Liquefied Soils ....................................................................................................... .40 6.2.3.6 Results of Stability Analyses ................................................................................................................... .41 6.3 SOUTH ABUTMENT SUBSIDENCE ........................................................................................................ 43 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 46 7.1 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 46 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 47 7.2.1 Maintenance and Surveillance ........................................................................................................... 48 7.2.2 Extreme Event Studies ........................................................................................................................ 49 8.0 CLOSURE .................................................................................................................................................. 50 Figures Appendix A: Terms and Conditions Appendix B: Spillway Assessment Appendix C: Thermal Analysis Appendix D: Seepage Assessment Appendix E: Seismic Hazard Assessment 020 l-00-14618 -m- May2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. was retained by the Yukon Region of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to complete a dam safety assessment of the abandoned tailings impoundment at the B.Y.G. Natural Resources Inc. mine site, west of Carmacks, Yukon. The dam safety assessment was to consider the physical condition and stability of the earthfill tailings dam, and the adequacy of both the spillway and the seepage control dyke associated with the tailings dam. The evaluation of these items was to consider both the current state of these facility elements as well as a projected condition five years in the future. During the course of this assessment, site visits, site characterization studies, and reviews of available geotechnical data were completed. Detailed reporting of these activities is included in a Summary Data report that is presented under separate cover. Moreover, specific safety deficiencies and inadequate performance of the spillway and the seepage control dyke were identified at an early stage in the assessment process and upgrading and repair measures were enacted in the fall of 2000 and the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Landscaping at the Water's Edge
    LANDSCAPING/GARDENING/ECOLOGY No matter where you live in New Hampshire, the actions you take in your landscape can have far-reaching effects on water quality. Why? Because we are all connected to the water cycle and we all live in a watershed. A watershed is the LANDSCAPING land area that drains into a surface water body such as a lake, river, wetland or coastal estuary. at the Water’sAN ECOLOGICAL APPROACHEdge LANDSCAPING Landscaping at the Water’s Edge is a valuable resource for anyone concerned with the impact of his or her actions on the environment. This book brings together the collective expertise of many UNH Cooperative Extension specialists and educators and an independent landscape designer. Unlike many garden design books that are full of glitz and glamour but sorely lacking in substance, this affordable book addresses important ecological issues and empowers readers by giving an array of workable at the Water’s Edge solutions for real-world situations. ~Robin Sweetser, Concord Monitor columnist, garden writer for Old Farmer’s Almanac, and NH Home Magazine Landscaping at the Water’s Edge provides hands-on tools that teach us about positive change. It’s an excellent resource for the gardener, the professional landscaper, designer, and landscape architect—to learn how to better dovetail our landscapes with those of nature. ~Jon Batson, President, NH Landscape Association Pictured here are the : A major river watersheds in N ECOLOGICAL APPROACH New Hampshire. This guide explains how our landscaping choices impact surface and ground waters and demonstrates how, with simple observation, ecologically based design, and low impact maintenance practices, you can protect, and even improve, the quality of our water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Blue Riverriver
    Reviving River Yamuna An Actionable Blue Print for a BLUEBLUE RIVERRIVER Edited by PEACE Institute Charitable Trust H.S. Panwar 2009 Reviving River Yamuna An Actionable Blue Print for a BLUE RIVER Edited by H.S. Panwar PEACE Institute Charitable Trust 2009 contents ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................... v PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1 Fact File of Yamuna ................................................................................................. 9 A report by CHAPTER 2 Diversion and over Abstraction of Water from the River .............................. 15 PEACE Institute Charitable Trust CHAPTER 3 Unbridled Pollution ................................................................................................ 25 CHAPTER 4 Rampant Encroachment in Flood Plains ............................................................ 29 CHAPTER 5 There is Hope for Yamuna – An Actionable Blue Print for Revival ............ 33 This report is one of the outputs from the Ford Foundation sponsored project titled CHAPTER 6 Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan - An Example of Civil Society Action .......................... 39 Mainstreaming the river as a popular civil action ‘cause’ through “motivating actions for the revival of the people – river close links as a precursor to citizen’s mandated actions for the revival
    [Show full text]
  • TAILINGS DAM BREACH ASSESSMENT Knight Piésold
    IDM MINING LTD. RED MOUNTAIN UNDERGROUND GOLD PROJECT TAILINGS DAM BREACH ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR: IDM Mining Ltd. 1500 – 409 Granville Street Vancouver, British Columbia Canada, V6C 1T2 PREPARED BY: Knight Piésold Ltd. Suite 1400 – 750 West Pender Street Vancouver, BC V6C 2T8 Canada p. +1.604.685.0543 • f. +1.604.685.0147 Knight Piésold VA101-594/4-6 Rev 0 C O N S U L T I N G June 16, 2017 www.knightpiesold.com IDM MINING LTD. RED MOUNTAIN UNDERGROUND GOLD PROJECT TAILINGS DAM BREACH ASSESSMENT VA101-594/4-6 Rev Description Date 0 Issued in Final June 16, 2017 Knight Piésold Ltd. Suite 1400 750 West Pender Street Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6C 2T8 Telephone: (604) 685-0543 Facsimile: (604) 685-0147 www.knightpiesold.com IDM MINING LTD. RED MOUNTAIN UNDERGROUND GOLD PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A tailings dam breach assessment for the Bromley Humps Tailings Management Facility (TMF) was conducted for the Red Mountain Underground Gold Project. The dam breach study presented herein is not a risk assessment and ignores the likelihood of occurrence of a breach. The purpose of the study was to generate inundation maps that are used for evaluating the downstream incremental impacts to population at risk (PAR) and potential loss of life, to environmental and cultural values (including consequences to wildlife and commercial, recreational, and aboriginal (CRA) fisheries), and to infrastructure and economics (CDA 2014). This report also supports the assessment of the “breach or failure of tailings dam or other containment structure” as identified in Section 9 – Accidents and Malfunctions of The Application Information Requirements for the Project (EAO 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Dimensions and Hydrologic Effects of Beaver Ponds on Kuiu Island in Southeast Alaska
    Physical Dimensions and Hydrologic Effects of Beaver Ponds on Kuiu Island in Southeast Alaska by David Beedle A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science Completed August 28, 1991 Coimnenceinent June 1992 APPROVED: Professor of Forest Engineering in charge of major Head of department of Forest Engineering Dean of Graduate School Date thesis is presented August 28. 1991 Typed by David L. Beedle AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF David L. Beedle for the degree ofMaster of Science in Forest Engineeringpresented onAugust 28, 1991 Title: Physical Dimensions and Hydrologic Effects of Beaver Ponds on Kuiu Island in Southeast Alaska Abstract approved: Robert L. Beschta Dimensional characteristics of 44 beaver dams and ponds on Kuiu Island in Southeast Alaska were determined to evaluate the hydrologic effects of these structureson peak flows. The study area consisted of low gradient, incised streams in broad U-shaped valleys. Pond routing simulations were conducted using four return intervals (2-, 10-, 25-, and 50-year) and seven watershed sizes through medium- (752 m2 of surface area) and large-sized (6002 m2) beaver ponds. The annual precipitation during field data collection was below normal resulting in a need to estimate winter pond conditions from summertime measurements. The average dam length and height was 32 m and 0.7 in, respectively. The average winter pond surface area and volume was 2,140 m2 and 1,250 m3, respectively. Pond volume was significantly related (p = 0.05) to surface area (r2= 0.91). Dam and pond dimensions were influenced by local stream and landscape characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Master Plan 2012 CITY of ST
    August 2012 Stormwater Master Plan 2012 CITY OF ST. PETERS, MISSOURI BLACK AND VEATCH PATTI BANKS ASSOCIATES City of St. Peters Stormwater Master Plan 2012, FINAL Report Summary This Stormwater Master Plan will be used for planning of future capital improvements, improving water quality, and continuing compliance with Missouri Department of Natural Resources Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MDNR MS4) regulations. Preliminary investigations have evaluated the existing conditions of the City’s open-channel stormwater infrastructure based on hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, field reconnaissance, water quality modeling, and review of relevant policies at the City, State, and Federal levels. The City of St. Peters has a population of approximately 57,000 and encompasses about 22 square miles. The City owns, operates and maintains over 165 miles of storm sewer pipe and associated structures, as well as 3 pump stations. The City contains more than 47 miles of waterway, 55 stream/roadway crossings, 43 wet retention basins and 207 dry detention basins. The majority of the City is situated in the Dardenne Creek Watershed, a 29 mile long basin that covers approximately the middle third of St. Charles County and drains to the Mississippi River. The primary subwatershed in St. Peters is Spencer Creek. Other subwatersheds identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) include East Dardenne, Sandfort Creek, and un-named Tributaries No. 1 and No. 2. A small portion in the southeast of St. Peters drains to the Missouri River. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling The City’s current stormwater master plan, completed in 2002, included computer models developed at a level of detail suitable for master planning.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcguire Nuclear Station
    Duke STEVEN DCAPPS ztEnergy, Vice President McGuire Nuclear Station Duke Energy MGOJ VP / 12700 Hagers Ferry Rd. Huntersville, NC 28078 980-875-4805 980-875-4809 fax Steven. [email protected] November 26, 2012 10 CFR 50.54(f) U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Subject: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), Units I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 Renewed License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17 Flooding Walkdown Information Requested by NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuantto Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(0 Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-lchiAccident; dated March 12, 2012 Reference: 1. NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuantto Title 10 of the Code of FederalRegulations 50.54(0 Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident, dated March 12, 2012 2. NEI 12-07, Guidelines for Performing Verification Walkdowns of Plant Flood ProtectionFeatures, Revision 0-A, dated May 2012 3. NRC Letter to NEI, Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 12-07, "Guidelinesfor Performing Verification Walkdowns of Plant Flood Protection Features",dated May 31, 2012 On March 12, 2012, the NRC staff issued Reference 1. Enclosure 4 of Reference I contained specific Requested Actions, Requested Information, and Required Responses associated with Recommendation 2.3 for Flooding Walkdowns. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54, "Conditions of licenses," paragraph (0, addressees were requested to confirm within 90 days their intent to use the NRC-endorsed flooding walkdown procedures, and to submit their final response within 180 days of the NRC's endorsement of the walkdown procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Pond Biodiversity Report
    POND BIODIVERSITY SURVEY OF WATERBODIES AT ALDEN VALLEY WOODS LOCAL WILDLIFE SITE, ALDEN ROAD, HELMSHORE, ROSSENDALE DISTRICT, LANCASHIRE For Chris Mason 10th April 2014 Dave Bentley BSc (Hons) Dave Bentley Ecology 0161 280 1648 & 07944 122292 [email protected] www.davebentleyecology.co.uk Version 1.1 1 Introduction 1.1 An area of hardstanding in the middle of a former quarry and ex-industrial (cotton mill) site in the southern part of Alden Wood, Alden Road, in Helmshore in the Rossendale District of Lancashire is the subject of a planning application by Chris Mason (who is not the current owner/land manager) to build an Aquaponics Farm. The hardstanding is currently used as a forestry operations yard. An Ecological Scoping Survey has already been completed by the Tyrer Partnership of Formby. This report accompanies that Survey but also updates and corrects it. This report is designed to deal with the value of the two small waterbodies within the quarry area for their potential to support legally protected Great Crested Newts, and also considers the site’s suitability to support other protected aquatic species such as White- clawed Crayfish, Otters and Water Voles. This report also evaluates the waterbodies as wildlife habitats in general. This report updates the Badger survey. The hardstanding is situated at Grid Reference SD774199. A survey was carried out by Ecologist Dave Bentley of Bury on the evening of 10th April 2014 in the company of Chris Mason. 1.2 Dave Bentley has worked in conservation in the Irwell Valley since 1983 and has been an ecological consultant since 1991.
    [Show full text]
  • Knight Piésold Ltd
    IDM MINING LTD. RED MOUNTAIN UNDERGROUND GOLD PROJECT TAILINGS DAM BREACH ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR: IDM Mining Ltd. 1500 – 409 Granville Street Vancouver, British Columbia Canada, V6C 1T2 PREPARED BY: Knight Piésold Ltd. Suite 1400 – 750 West Pender Street Vancouver, BC V6C 2T8 Canada p. +1.604.685.0543 • f. +1.604.685.0147 Knight Piésold VA101-594/4-6 Rev 0 C O N S U L T I N G June 16, 2017 www.knightpiesold.com IDM MINING LTD. RED MOUNTAIN UNDERGROUND GOLD PROJECT TAILINGS DAM BREACH ASSESSMENT VA101-594/4-6 Rev Description Date 0 Issued in Final June 16, 2017 Knight Piésold Ltd. Suite 1400 750 West Pender Street Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6C 2T8 Telephone: (604) 685-0543 Facsimile: (604) 685-0147 www.knightpiesold.com IDM MINING LTD. RED MOUNTAIN UNDERGROUND GOLD PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A tailings dam breach assessment for the Bromley Humps Tailings Management Facility (TMF) was conducted for the Red Mountain Underground Gold Project. The dam breach study presented herein is not a risk assessment and ignores the likelihood of occurrence of a breach. The purpose of the study was to generate inundation maps that are used for evaluating the downstream incremental impacts to population at risk (PAR) and potential loss of life, to environmental and cultural values (including consequences to wildlife and commercial, recreational, and aboriginal (CRA) fisheries), and to infrastructure and economics (CDA 2014). This report also supports the assessment of the “breach or failure of tailings dam or other containment structure” as identified in Section 9 – Accidents and Malfunctions of The Application Information Requirements for the Project (EAO 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 158/Tuesday, August 17
    51112 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2004 / Notices request: 89,465 (81,765 reporting hours NUCLEAR REGULATORY For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. + 7,700 recordkeeping hours) or an COMMISSION Chandu P. Patel, average of 125 hours per response Project Manager, Section 2, Project (81,765 reporting burden hours/655 [Docket No. 50–400] Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project responses) and an average of 13 hours Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. per recordkeeper (7,700 recordkeeping Carolina Power & Light Company, et al. burden hours/601 recordkeepers). [FR Doc. 04–18732 Filed 8–16–04; 8:45 am] Notice of Withdrawal of Application for BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 9. An indication of whether Section Amendment to Facility Operating 3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: Not License applicable. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 10. Abstract: Part 70 establishes The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory COMMISSION requirements for licenses to own, Commission (the Commission) has [Docket Nos. 50–413 AND 50–414] acquire, receive, possess, use, and granted the request of Carolina Power & transfer special nuclear material. The Light Company (the licensee) to Duke Energy Corporation; Concerning information in the applications, reports, withdraw its December 8, 2003, the Application for Irradiation of Mixed and records is used by NRC to make application for proposed amendment to Oxide Lead Test Assemblies at licensing and other regulatory Facility Operating License No. NFP–63 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and determinations concerning the use of for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 2; Environmental Assessment and special nuclear material. The revised Plant, Unit 1, located in Wake and Finding of No Significant Impact estimate of burden reflects the addition Chatham Counties, North Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Conowingo Pond Management Plan
    Conowingo Pond Management Plan Publication No. 242 June 2006 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Paul O. Swartz, Executive Director Denise M. Sheehan, N.Y. Commissioner Kenneth P. Lynch, N.Y. Alternate Scott J. Foti, N.Y. Alternate/Advisor Kathleen A. McGinty, Pa. Commissioner Cathy C. Curran Myers, Pa. Alternate William A. Gast, Pa. Alternate/Advisor Kendl P. Philbrick, Md. Commissioner Dr. Robert M. Summers, Md. Alternate Matthew G. Pajerowski, Md. Alternate/Advisor Major General William T. Grisoli, U.S. Commissioner Colonel Robert J. Davis, Jr., U.S. Alternate Colonel Francis X. Kosich, U.S. Alternate Daniel M. Bierly, U.S. Advisor The Susquehanna River Basin Commission was created as an independent agency by a federal-interstate compact* among the states of Maryland, New York, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the federal government. In creating the Commission, the Congress and state legislatures formally recognized the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin as a regional asset vested with local, state, and national interests for which all the parties share responsibility. As the single federal-interstate water resources agency with basinwide authority, the Commission’s goal is to coordinate the planning, conservation, management, utilization, development and control of basin water resources among the public and private sectors. *Statutory Citations: Federal - Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509 (December 1970); Maryland - Natural Resources Sec. 8-301 (Michie 1974); New York - ECL Sec. 21-1301 (McKinney 1973); and Pennsylvania - 32 P.S. 820.1 (Supp. 1976). This report is available on our website (www.srbc.net) by selecting Public Information/Technical Reports. For a CD Rom or for a hard copy, contact the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 1721 N.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Sediment Retention Functions of Salt Pond Systems In
    EVALUATING THE SEDIMENT RETENTION FUNCTION OF SALT POND SYSTEMS IN THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Prepared by: Denise S. Rennis Colin M. Finney Barry E. Devine February 16, 2006 Water Resources Research Institute University of the Virgin Islands St. Thomas, USVI 00802 Disclaimer The research on which this report is based was financed in part by the U. S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, through the Virgin Islands Water Resources Research Institute. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U. S. Department of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement by the United States Government. i ABSTRACT Salt ponds and the specialized salt-tolerant vegetation communities that they support perform a variety of biological, hydrologic and water quality functions with benefits to both wildlife and humans. This study identified and evaluated the features of salt ponds and their watersheds (salt pond system) that are important in contributing to the effectiveness of the sediment retention function. The study focused on providing information upon which sound management policies could be formulated to protect valuable coastal resources. As part of this study, the use of remote sensing to aid monitoring of sedimentation in coastal waters was evaluated for its potential use as an additional management tool. Thirteen key parameters were identified as being important in the function of sediment retention in salt pond systems of the US Virgin Islands. Data were collected in the field or through GIS analysis of orthophotography for 17 salt pond systems on St.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Guide for Metal and Nonmetal Tailings Disposal
    Information Circular 8755 Design Guide for Metal and Nonmetal Tailings Disposal By Roy L. Soderberg and Richard A. Busch UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary BUREAU OF MINES As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interim hos responsibility fu most of our nationally owned public lands ond natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water re- sources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national pork and histmica1 places, and pviding fa the enjoyment of life through outdou recreation. The Deprtment assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major re- sponsibility fa American Indian reservation communities and fa people who live in Island Territaies under US. administration. This publication has been cataloged as follows: Soderberg, Roy L Design guide fm metal and nonmetal tailings disposal / by Roy L. Soderberg and Richard A. Busch. [Washington] : United States Depstment of the Interim, Bureau of Mines, 1977. 136 p. ; 27 cm. (Information circular - Bureau of Mines ; 8755) Bibliography: p. 107-111. 1. Tailings (Metallurgy). 2. Mineral industries - Wasre dis- posal. I. Busch, Richard k., joint author. 11. United Stares. Bureau of Mincs. UI. Title. IV. Series: United States. Bureau of Mincs. Information circular - Bureau of Mines ; 8755. TN23.U71 no. 8755 622.06173 U.S. Depr. of the Inr. Library For sale bp tbc Svpcriotcodcnt of DocumeoL1. USGwuoment prioting OMrr Wuhington. D.C. 20402 St& No.
    [Show full text]