minerals

Article
Sustainable Reuse of Mine Tailings and Waste Rock
as Water-Balance Covers
Mohammad H. Gorakhki and Christopher A. Bareither *
Civil & Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA;
mrhg@rams.colostate.edu
* Correspondence: christopher.bareither@colostate.edu; Tel.: +1-970-491-4660

Received: 1 June 2017; Accepted: 18 July 2017; Published: 24 July 2017

Abstract: The focus of this study was to evaluate the potential reuse of mixed mine tailings and
waste rock in water-balance covers (WBCs). Reuse of mine waste in geoengineering applications
can provide an economic advantage via offsetting raw material requirements and reducing waste
volumes to manage. Water-balance covers are designed to minimize percolation and/or oxygen
ingress into underlying waste via moisture retention while also providing resistance against
slope failure and erosion of cover materials. Water-balance simulations were conducted using
a variably-saturated one-dimensional numerical model to assess hydrologic behavior of an actual
WBC as well as hypothetical mixed mine waste WBCs. The actual water balance cover included
a 1.22-m-thick silty-sand storage layer and a 0.15-m-thick topsoil layer. Three scenarios were evaluated
via hydrologic modeling that focused on replacing the actual storage layer with a layer of mine waste:
(1) storage layers were simulated as 1.22-m-thick layers of pure mine tailings (i.e., copper, gold, coal,
and oil sand tailings); (2) storage layers were simulated as 1.22-m-thick layers of mixed mine tailings
and waste rock; and (3) mixed mine tailings and waste rock storage layer thicknesses were redesigned
to yield comparable percolation rates as the actual cover.

Keywords: covers; hydrology; sustainability; tailings; waste rock

1. Introduction
The increased consumption of raw materials due to population growth has increased demand on
natural resources. In turn, the generation of mine waste has increased, which require innovative and
sustainable waste management considerations. In the mining industry, waste materials include waste
rock discarded from mining operations and fine-grained tailings produced during ore extraction
processes. The Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development Project (MMSD) reports that
approximately 3500 active mine waste facilities exist worldwide. Disposal and management of mine
tailings in impoundments and waste rock in gravity piles can be challenging due to variability in
physical and chemical properties of the mine waste. Using mine tailings and waste rock as earthwork
materials (e.g., water balance cover) can provide a sustainable and cost effective alternative to mitigate
disposal and management challenges.
Mine waste is categorized as a non-hazardous material based on Subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act [1]. Non-hazardous waste facilities are required to have covers to
minimize percolation into the underlying waste. Permeability of cover soils must be less than or equal
to the permeability of the liner system or ≤10−5 cm/s [2], such that water passing through a cover
does not exceed the volume of water exiting through the liner. Considerably higher cover permeability
can lead to a “bathtub effect” [2], whereby water ponds inside the waste on the liner and increases leachate
generation. There are two main types of cover systems used to close waste facilities: (i) conventional covers
and (ii) water-balance covers (WBCs). Conventional cover systems rely on low-permeability soil layers

Minerals 2017, 7, 128; doi:10.3390/min7070128 www.mdpi.com/journal/minerals

Minerals 2017, 7, 128 2 of 17

and/or impermeable geomembranes to minimize percolation [3,4]. Water-balance covers (also known as
store-and-release, evapotranspirative, or alternative covers) rely on a balance between precipitation,
soil water storage, evaporation, and transpiration to limit percolation. Thus, WBCs function based on
principles of unsaturated flow to control percolation into underlying waste [5–8]. These covers are
viable for long-term isolation of waste, particularly in semi-arid and arid regions where precipitation
is balanced by evaporation and transpiration. The costs associated with WBCs are typically less than
conventional covers when suitable soil is available; for example, constructing a 1200-mm-thick WBC
in OR, USA resulted in 64% cost savings relative to a 460-mm-thick compacted clay cover [2].
Water-balance covers are intrinsically sustainable as they employ natural hydrologic processes
congruent with the surrounding landscape, which reduces long-term maintenance requirements.
Local materials are typically employed to minimize transportation costs, which can reduce energy
consumption and emissions. An additional opportunity to enhance the sustainability of WBCs is to
use waste materials or industrial by-products in the cover system. Mining provides an opportunity
to reuse waste materials in cover systems considering that (i) enormous volumes of mine wastes
are generated during ore extraction processes and (ii) mine waste management facilities (e.g., tailing
storage facilities, waste rock piles, heap leach pads) require covers for site closure.
The two predominant mine wastes that require short- and long-term management are tailings and
waste rock [9,10]. Tailings typically are fine grained and have high water contents (low solids contents),
whereas waste rock generally is gravel- to cobble-sized material with sand and fines. Mine tailings
have been shown to have moisture retention characteristics comparable with naturally occurring fine
sand, silt, and clay [11–13] and field-scale studies have documented the effectiveness of using mine
tailings in the water storage layers of WBCs [14–16]. An effective WBC for a mine waste management
facility shall provide long-term resistance against percolation of precipitation and ingress of oxygen
into underlying waste (hydrologic performance) as well as resistance against slope failure and erosion
of the cover materials (mechanical performance). The potential leaching of contaminants (e.g., heavy
metals) from mine wastes used in WBCs is also a concern. However, mine wastes with the propensity
to generate contaminated leachate are not candidate materials for use in WBCs. The focus herein is on
the hydraulic behavior of WBCs composed of mixed mine waste, and the mine waste considered in
this study are assumed to have negligible leaching concerns.
Fine-grained soils and mine tailings can have low shear strength and high susceptibility to erosion
that can preclude their use in cover systems; however, these materials also have ideal hydrologic properties
for use as water storage layers in WBCs [15,16]. Mine waste rock has been shown to have shear strength
parameters comparable with naturally occurring gravels [13]. The addition of waste rock to mine
tailings, known as co-mixed waste rock and tailings (WR&T), has been proposed as an alternative mine
waste management approach to enhance impoundment stability, reduce acid rock drainage, reduce
storage volume and land required for waste management facilities, and reduce liquefaction potential
of tailings [13,17,18]. Waste rock and tailings can be mixed proportionately to develop a material with
enhanced strength via waste rock and lower hydraulic conductivity via mine tailings [9,19].
The use of mine tailings in cover systems at mine facilities has been evaluated on a trial basis [14,20],
but broad-scale adoption has not occurred. Cover test sections consisting of co-mixed WR&T have
not been evaluated due to uncertainty in hydrologic behavior of the co-mixed material as well as
mixing and deployment of the material as a homogeneous layer in a cover system. The objective
of this study was to assess the viability of using a co-mixed layer of WR&T as the storage layer in
a WBC via hydrologic modeling. Three tasks were completed to address this objective: (i) evaluate
theoretical WBCs containing mine tailings; (ii) evaluate the effect of waste rock addition on hydrologic
behavior; and (iii) evaluate storage capacity of co-mixed WR&T covers that have the potential to yield
comparable percolation rates to covers with no waste rock inclusions. Water-balance modeling was
completed using meteorological data for a semi-arid site in the Western U.S. where an actual WBC test
section has been constructed [21]. This actual WBC was used for comparison to all theoretical WBCs
created with mine tailings and waste rock.
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 3 of 17

Minerals 2017, 7, 8 3 of 17
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Soils and Mine Tailings
2.1. Soils and Mine Tailings
Geotechnical properties of the cover soils from Benson and Bareither [21] and mine tailings from
Qiu and Sego [12]
Geotechnical are summarized
properties in Table
of the cover soils1.from
The particle-size
Benson anddistribution (PSD)
Bareither [21] and of mine
the silty-sand
tailings from
Qiu storage
and Sego layer soilare
[12] andsummarized
four mine tailings are shown
in Table 1. Theinparticle-size
Figure 1a. Thedistribution
silty-sand contained
(PSD) of 33%thegravel;
silty-sand
however,
storage layer all
soilmine
andtailings contained
four mine only
tailings aresand and fine-grained
shown in Figure 1a.particles (Table 1).contained
The silty-sand The fines content
33% gravel;
(particles < 0.075 mm) of the mine tailings ranged from 21% for oil sand tailings to 77% for gold mine
however, all mine tailings contained only sand and fine-grained particles (Table 1). The fines content
tailings. Soil water characteristic curves (SWCCs) of the cover soils and mine tailings are shown in
(particles < 0.075 mm) of the mine tailings ranged from 21% for oil sand tailings to 77% for gold mine
Figure 1b. These SWCCs were obtained from Qiu and Sego [12] and Benson and Bareither [21], and
tailings. Soil water characteristic curves (SWCCs) of the cover soils and mine tailings are shown in
are shown in Figure 1b as SWCCs fitted with the van Genuchten [22] equation:
Figure 1b. These SWCCs were obtained from Qiu and Sego [12] and Benson and Bareither [21], and are
m
 1
shown in Figure 1b as SWCCs fitted with the van Genuchten [22] equation:
θ = θ r + (θs − θ r )   (1)
1 + (α ⋅ψ ) 
n
m
1
θ = θr +θ(s θis
where θ is volumetric water content, s −saturated
θr ) water content, θr is residual (1)
1 + (volumetric
α · Ψ)n
volumetric water content, Ψ is soil suction, α and n are fitting parameters, and m = (1 − 1/n). All van
Genuchten
where parameters
θ is volumetric forcontent,
water the SWCCsθ s isshown in Figure
saturated 1b are compiled
volumetric in Tableθ1.
water content, r is residual volumetric
water content, Ψ is soil suction, α and n are fitting parameters, and m = (1 − 1/n). All van Genuchten
Table 1. Characteristics of soils and mine tailings evaluated for water balance covers.
parameters for the SWCCs shown in Figure 1b are compiled in Table 1.
α, Ψa Sand Silt Clay ks (cm/s) ks (cm/s)
Soil
Table θs θr
1. Characteristics n and mine tailings evaluated for water balance covers.
of soils Ropt
1/cm (cm) (%) (%) (%) (Actual) (Modified)

Top Soil 0.50 Ψ

0.00α, 0.0049
205.76
a
--
Sand 1.33
--
Silt --Clay2.8 × 10ks (cm/s)2.8 × 10−5 ks (cm/s)
- −6
Soil θs θr n Ropt
Silty-Sand 0.35 0.001/cm 0.0142 1.27 (cm)
70.27 (%) 34 (%)
-- -- (%) 6.0 × 10(Actual)
−5 6.0 × 10−4(Modified)
2.01
Top Soil 0.50 0.00 0.0049 1.33 205.76 – – – 2.8 × 10−6 −42.8 × 10−5 -
Copper 0.46 0.01 0.0196 1.453 50.99 69 30 1 7.6 × 10−5 7.6 × 10 2.43
Silty-Sand 0.35 0.00 0.0142 1.27 70.27 34 – – 6.0 × 10−5 6.0 × 10−4 2.01
Copper Gold 0.46 0.45 0.01 0.00
0.01960.01631.4531.33 50.99
61.18 23.5
69 71.5
30 5 1 4.3 × 10 −5× 10−47.6 ×
7.6−5 × 104.3 10−4
2.38 2.43
Gold 0.45 0.00 0.0163 1.33 61.18 23.5 71.5 5 4.3−6 × 10−5 −54.3 × 10−4 2.38
Coal 0.47 0.04 0.0054 1.249 183.50 35 39 26 1.2 × 10 1.2 × 10 2.49
Coal 0.47 0.04 0.0054 1.249 183.50 35 39 26 1.2 × 10−6 1.2 × 10−5 2.49
Oil Sand aOil Sand0.39a 0.390.00 0.00
0.01670.01671.34 1.34 61.18
61.18 6767 24
24 9 9 2.7 × 10 −7× 10−62.7 ×
2.7−7 × 102.7 10−6
2.16 2.16
Note: θ s = saturated volumetric water content; θr = residual volumetric water content; α and n = Van
Note: θ s = saturated volumetric water content; θ r = residual volumetric water content; α and n = Van Genuchten
fittingGenuchten
parameters, Ψa = parameters,
fitting Ψa = air
air entry pressure; ks entry pressure;
= saturated ks = saturated
hydraulic hydraulic
conductivity; and Rconductivity;
opt = optimumand Ropt ratio.
mixture
a Low k of oil sand tailings attributed
= optimum
s mixture ratio. a Low kto presence
s of oil sandof bitumen
tailings [12].
attributed to presence of bitumen [12].

100 6
10
(a) 5 (b)
80 10
Percent Passing (%)

4
Oil Sand Tailings
10
Suction (kPa)

60 3 Coal Tailings
10
2 Gold Tailings
40 10
1 Copper Tailings
10
20 0 Silty Sand
10
-1
0 10
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Particle Size (mm) Water Content

Figure 1. Particle-size-distributions
Figure 1. Particle-size-distributions (a)
(a) and soilwater
and soil watercharacteristic
characteristic curves
curves (b) silty-sand
(b) for for silty-sand
in thein the
Natural Cover
Natural from
Cover Benson
from Bensonand
andBareither [21] and
Bareither [21] andgold,
gold,copper,
copper, coal,
coal, andand oil sand
oil sand tailings
tailings from from
Qiu Qiu
and and
SegoSego
[12].[12].

The θs (which is equivalent to porosity) of copper, gold, and coal mine tailings were similar (0.45
The
to (which is
θ s whereas
0.47), θs equivalent to porosity)
of the silty-sand and oil sand of tailings
copper,were
gold, and(Table
lower coal mine
1). Thesetailings
lower were
θs weresimilar
(0.45dueto 0.47), whereas
to higher θ s of the contents
coarse-grained silty-sand(i.e.,and
sandoiland
sand tailings
gravel). Thewere lower
air entry (Table(Ψ1).
pressure These lower θ s
a) of the silty
weresand,
due oil
to higher coarse-grained
sand, gold, and copper mine contents (i.e.,
tailings sand
were and and
similar gravel).
rangedThe air 5entry
from to 6.9pressure (Ψa ) of the
kPa; however,
silty the
sand,
Ψa oil sand,
of coal gold,
mine and copper
tailings and topmine tailings
soil were higherwere similar
(Table andtoranged
1) due fromclay
the higher 5 tocontent
6.9 kPa;of however,
the
the Ψa of coal mine tailings and top soil were higher (Table 1) due to the higher clay content of the coal
coal tailings and high fines-fraction of the top soil.
tailings and high fines-fraction of the top soil.
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 4 of 17

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ks ) of the soils and mine tailings are also in Table 1. The ks of the
silty sand, copper, and gold mine tailings were in a close range of 4.3 × 10−5 to 7.6 × 10−5 cm/s. The ks
of coal mine tailings and top soil were approximately one order of magnitude lower (~2 × 10−6 cm/s)
and ks of the oil sand mine tailings was two orders of magnitude lower (3 × 10−7 cm/s). The lower ks
of coal and oil sand mine tailings is due to the higher clay fraction of these mine tailings (Figure 1a
and Table 1). Saturated hydraulic conductivity was increased by one order of magnitude (modified ks )
to be the representative of in-service, post-construction covers [23]. Details on the SWCC and ks
measurements are provided in [12,21,24].

2.2. Water Balance Cover Design and Modeling

2.2.1. Storage Assessment

Design of a WBC includes (i) preliminary design and (ii) numerical modeling [2]. Preliminary
design is completed to estimate the required cover thickness from a water storage analysis:

∆S = P − R − β · PET − L − Pr (2)

where ∆S is soil water storage, P is precipitation, R is surface runoff, β is ET/PET ratio, PET is potential
evapotranspiration, L is lateral drainage, and Pr is percolation. The required storage (Sr ) for a WBC
can be computed via summing storage (∆S in Equation (2)) for months where ∆S > 0 [2].
The available water storage (SA ) in a given soil layer is computed as the difference between water
content at field capacity and wilting point:

S A = H · (θc − θm ) (3)

where θ c is volumetric water content at field capacity (Ψ = 33 kPa), θ m is volumetric water content at
the wilting point (Ψ = 1500 kPa), and H is thickness of the water storage layer. The H in Equation (3) is
optimized in a WBC design to determine a water storage layer meeting the requirement of SA ≥ Sr .

2.2.2. Water-Balance Modeling

Prior to construction of a WBC, water-balance modeling is completed to evaluate hydrologic
behavior of the proposed WBC design. Water-balance modeling was completed in this study
using the code WinUNSAT-H, which simulates variably saturated flow, root water uptake, and
climatic interaction [24–27]. WinUNSAT-H is an implementation of the variably-saturated flow code
UNSAT-H [28] used for near surface hydrology. When properly parameterized, WinUNSAT-H
provides a reliable prediction of hydrology for WBCs, and modestly overpredicts percolation [26,27,29].
Water-balance modeling is typically completed for climate conditions representative of the wettest
years or wettest periods (i.e., 5 to 10 sequential years) on record [2]. Water-balance metrics considered
in the hydrologic performance of a WBC include runoff, evapotranspiration (ET), soil water storage
(SWS), and percolation. Percolation often is the main parameter of interest to compare with prescribed
percolation rates or regulatory thresholds for a given site. For example, the WBC at the solid waste
site described in Benson and Bareither [21] has a maximum percolation rate of 4 mm/year. In general,
an average annual percolation rate <3 mm/year is required for a WBC [21].
Variably-saturated flow in UNSAT-H is simulated via the modified-Richards’ Equation [25,28]:

∂θ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂θ
= − [k T + k u + qvt ] − S(z, t) (4)
∂Ψ ∂t ∂z ∂Ψ
where t is time, z is the vertical coordinate, ku is unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, kT = ku + kvΨ ,
where kvΨ is isothermal vapor conductivity, qvt is thermal vapor flux density, and S(z,t) is a sink
term representing water uptake by vegetation. The relationship between θ and time at each node in
a numerical simulation is obtained from Equation (4). The sink term was simulated by applying the
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 5 of 17

transpiration demand among nodes in the root zone in proportion to the root density profile. Potential
evapotranspiration (PET) is computed in WinUNSAT-H via the Penman [30] equation:

∆ · Rn
      
γ U
PET = + 0.27 1 + ( e a − ed ) (5)
∆+γ ∆+γ 100

where ∆ is the slope of the saturation vapor pressure–temperature curve, γ is the psychrometric
constant, Rn is net solar radiation, U is average 24-h wind speed measured at 2 m above the ground
surface, ea is saturation vapor pressure at mean air temperature, and ed is actual vapor pressure.
The θ-Ψ relationship (i.e., SWCC) and θ-ku relationship are required for variably-saturated flow.
The θ-Ψ relationship was represented with Equation (1) and model parameters summarized in Table 1.
The θ-ku relationship was simulated with the van Genuchten–Mualem function as:
 m λ    m 2
1 1
ku = ks · 1− 1− (6)
1 + (α · Ψ)n 1 + (α · Ψ)n

where λ is the pore interaction term, which was assumed −2 for all simulations [31], and m = (1 − 1/n).

2.2.3. Test Site, Vegetation Characteristics, and Meteorological Data

The baseline WBC used in this study for comparison to covers composed of tailings and co-mixed
WR&T is a monolithic cover located at a disposal site in the Western U.S. [21,24]. This WBC consisted
of a 150-mm-thick top soil layer overlaying a 1220-mm-thick storage layer composed of silty sand
(Table 1). Average annual precipitation for this site was 337 mm for 1949 to 2010 and average potential
evapotranspiration was 842 mm [24]. Thus, the ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration
(P/PET) was 0.40, which is representative of a semi-arid climate in the Western U.S. and is comparable
to a broad range of mining sites in the U.S. and throughout the world.
Vegetation characteristics for water-balance modeling were obtained from site-specific
measurements reported in Benson and Bareither [21]. A leaf area index (LAI) of 1.42 and root density
function from Bareither et al. [24] were used in all hydrologic models. The wilting point was set at
3532 kPa, the anaerobiosis point at 32 kPa, and the limiting point at 146 kPa [24,32].

2.2.4. Boundary and Initial Conditions

Boundary conditions included an atmospheric flux boundary for the cover surface and a unit
gradient boundary at the base of the cover [24]. An initial water balance simulation was conducted
with data from 2004 that was run 5-year sequentially to develop an initial θ-Ψ distribution for the
cover profile to use as an initial condition [2]. Data from 2004 were used to represent a typical year
within the 20-year period from 1990 to 2010 (period evaluated for this study) and favor a wetter initial
soil profile such that percolation would not be underestimated.
An initial distribution of θ-Ψ was obtained for each model simulation that incorporated a different
material used to represent the storage layer (e.g., mine tailings or WR&Ts). Each model conducted
for this study included yearly simulations for each year in the 20-year data set from 1990 to 2010.
Following the simulation in Year 1, initial conditions for each subsequent year (e.g., Year 2, 3, 4, etc.)
were obtained from the final soil moisture profile at the end of the previous year. The 20-year
water-balance model completed for the actual WBC was adopted from Bareither et al. [24] and is
referred to herein as the Natural Cover. Full 20-year simulations were completed for each of the mine
tailings used as a replacement material for the silty-sand water storage layer.

2.3. Water-Balance Covers Composed of Mine Waste

Water-balance models consisting of 20-year simulations for 1990–2010 were completed for the
following scenarios: (i) mine tailings used to replace the 1220-mm-thick storage layer in the Natural
Cover; (ii) co-mixed WR&T with different fractions of waste rock used to replace the 1220-mm-thick
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 6 of 17

storage layer in the Natural Cover; and (iii) co-mixed WR&T with storage layer thickness adjusted
to compensate for reduced storage due to waste rock particle inclusions. Storage layers in the
water-balance models that consisted of pure tailings incorporated the hydrologic properties in Table 1.
The ks of mine tailings storage layers were assumed unchanged by the inclusion of waste rock particles
since the tailings fraction controls flow through the mixed material. The SWCC parameters were
modified to account for a reduction in water storage capacity of the tailings fraction via inclusion of
solid waste rock particles following recommendations in Bareither and Benson [33].
The effect of gravel content on ks of a fine-grained material was evaluated in Shelley and
Daniel [34]. They reported that gravel addition did not considerably change ks of mixtures for
gravel contents up to 50%, by mass. However, the addition of ≥60% gravel content increased ks 5 to 6
orders of magnitude. Wickland et al. [19] compared ks of tailings and WR&T mixtures that contained
80% waste rock, and reported similar ks for effective stress ≤20 kPa. This magnitude of effective
stress is representative of WBCs [2]. Thus, ks was assumed unchanged by the addition of waste rock
particles such that the finer, tailings matrix controlled flow for all water-balance simulations completed
for this study.
Bareither and Benson [33] investigated the influence of gravel inclusions on the SWCC of
sandy soils. They reported that the SWCC of material containing a coarser and finer fraction
can be approximated based on (i) modifying θ s of the mixed material in accordance with the
Bouwer–Rice method [35] and (ii) using van Genucthen SWCC parameters (α and n) of the finer
fraction. The Bouwer–Rice equation used to compute the corrected θ s (θ s−c ) is

θs-c = (1 − VR ) · θs- f ine (7)

where θ s-fine is θ of the finer soil fraction and VR is the volumetric fraction of coarse particles. Thus, for all
co-mixed WR&T water storage layers simulated in this study, van Genuchten parameters tabulated for
the mine tailings in Table 1 were used with θ s-c computed based on Equation (7).
Waste rock and mine tailings mixtures can range from fine-dominated mixtures that consist
predominantly of the tailings fraction, to coarse-dominated mixtures that consist predominantly of the
waste rock fraction. The mixture ratio (R) commonly used for WR&T mixtures is defined as

R = Mwr /Mt (8)

where Mwr is dry mass of waste rock and Mt is dry mass of tailings. The optimum mixture ratio (Ropt )
is defined as a mixture where the finer fraction (tailings) just fills the void space between the coarse
particles (waste rock). Co-mixed WR&T prepared at Ropt have been reported to have shear strength
representative of the waste rock and hydrologic behavior representative of the tailings fraction [18].
An equation for Ropt is
Ropt = (1 + et )/eWR (9)

where et is the tailings void ratio and eWR is waste rock void ratio. Equation (9) was developed assuming
that the specific gravity of tailings and waste rock are the same and density of water = 1 g/cm3 .
Optimum mixture ratios were computed for each mine tailings via determining et that corresponded to
θ s and accounting for an eWR = 0.76, which was reported for a crushed gravel with a PSD representative
of hard rock mine waste rock in a loose particle arrangement [18].
Two methods were evaluated in this study to redesign the water storage layer thickness for
a co-mixed WR&T cover. In both methods, Sr was assumed constant since this was computed based
on historical MET data, and SA was re-calculated. The first method, referred to as Method 1, followed
the same design criteria as recommended in Albright et al. [2] with SA computed via Equation (3).
Thickness of the storage layer including waste rock (HWR ) was computed as

HNWR · (θc-NWR − θm-NWR )

HWR = (10)
(θc-WR − θm-WR )
Minerals 2017, 7, 8 7 of 17

The
Minerals second
2017, 7, 128 method, referred to as Method 2, was developed to maintain a consistent 7void of 17
volume between the pure tailings storage layers and storage layers consisting of WR&T. The
redesigned storage layer thickness based on Method 2 was computed as
where HNWR is thickness of the storage layer with no waste rock, θ c-NWR is volumetric water content
H N W R of soil with no waste
R ⋅ θ s − N W R = ( H W R (1 − VR ) ) θ s − N W R  H W R =
of soil with no waste rock H N W at field capacity, θ m-NWR is volumetric water content
(11)
rock at the wilting point, θ c-WR is volumetric water content of soil with waste 1 − VR rock at field capacity,
and θ m-WR
where is is
θs-NWR volumetric
saturated water content
volumetric of soil
water with of
content waste rock at
a tailings the wilting
layer with nopoint.
waste rock and VR is the
The second method, referred to as Method
volumetric fraction of coarse material (i.e., waste rock). 2, was developed to maintain a consistent void volume
between the pure of
A summary tailings storage layers
the co-mixed WR&T and storagelayers
storage layersredesigned
consisting of WR&T. The
following redesigned
Methods 1 andstorage
2 is in
layer thickness based on Method 2 was computed as
Table 2. Methods 1 and 2 were applied to redesign storage layers containing coal mine tailings with
VR = 30% and 45%, whereas only Method 2 was used to redesign storage H layers containing copper
H · θs-NWR = ( HWR (1 − VR ))θs-NWR ⇒ HWR = NWR (11)
mine tailings with VR =NWR 30% and 45%. An example of the Method 1 redesign
1 −procedure
VR for coal mine
tailings is shown in Figure 2. The difference in volumetric water contents used to compute SA (θc −
where θ s-NWR is saturated volumetric water content of a tailings layer with no waste rock and VR is the
θm) for the storage layer with only coal mine tailings was 0.20 (Figure 3). This difference (θc − θm)
volumetric fraction of coarse material (i.e., waste rock).
decreased to 0.135 and 0.102 for coal mine tailings with 30% and 45% waste rock addition,
A summary of the co-mixed WR&T storage layers redesigned following Methods 1 and 2 is in
respectively (Figure 2). The storage layer thickness for each of the 30% and 45% waste rock additions
Table 2. Methods 1 and 2 were applied to redesign storage layers containing coal mine tailings with
was computed via Equation (11) to yield thicknesses reported in Table 2. As anticipated, higher waste
VR = 30% and 45%, whereas only Method 2 was used to redesign storage layers containing copper
rock content led to an increase in storage layer thickness due to reduced water storage of the material.
mine tailings with VR = 30% and 45%. An example of the Method 1 redesign procedure for coal
The Method 2 redesign procedure is independent of soil type in the storage layer and only
mine tailings is shown in Figure 2. The difference in volumetric water contents used to compute
depends on waste rock content and initial θs (Equation (11)). The redesigned storage layer thickness
SA (θ c − θ m ) for the storage layer with only coal mine tailings was 0.20 (Figure 3). This difference
with coal mine tailings based on Method 2 with 30% waste rock was 1740 mm and with 45% waste
(θ c − θ m ) decreased to 0.135 and 0.102 for coal mine tailings with 30% and 45% waste rock addition,
rock was 2220 mm. Method 2 yielded thinner cover thicknesses in comparison with Method 1 (i.e.,
respectively (Figure 2). The storage layer thickness for each of the 30% and 45% waste rock additions
reduced thickness by 70 and 170 mm) for both waste rock contents simulated with the coal tailings.
was computed via Equation (11) to yield thicknesses reported in Table 2. As anticipated, higher waste
rock content led to an increase in storage layer thickness due to reduced water storage of the material.
Table 2. Water balance covers simulated with coal and copper mine tailings that had varying waste
rock contents. Cover thicknesses were fixed and adjusted following Methods 1 and 2.
Table 2. Water balance covers simulated with coal and copper mine tailings that had varying waste
rock contents. Cover thicknesses
Waste Rock were fixed and adjusted following Methods
Storage 1 and 2.Percolation
Layer
Soil/Tailings Modeling Condition
Content (%) Height (mm) Rate (mm/year)
Waste
0 Rock - Storage Layer
1220 Percolation
0.200 Rate
Soil/Tailings Modeling Condition
Content
30 (%) Fixed height Height (mm)
1220 (mm/year)
0.260
30 0 -
Adjusted height-Method 1 1220
1810 0.200
0.135
Coal mine
3030 AdjustedFixed height
height-Method 2 1220
1740 0.260
0.135
tailings
Coal mine
30 Adjusted height-Method 1 1810 0.135
4530 Fixed height
Adjusted height-Method 2 1220
1740 0.830
0.135
tailings 4545 AdjustedFixed
height-Method 1 2390 0.075
height 1220 0.830
4545 Adjusted
Adjusted height-Method 2
height-Method 1 2390
2220 0.075
0.075
0 45 Adjusted height-Method
- 2 2220
1220 0.075
3.17
Copper mine 30 0 -
Fixed height 1220
1220 3.17
4.71
Copper mine
tailings 3030 AdjustedFixed height
height-Method 2 1220
1770 4.71
3.36
tailings 30 Adjusted height-Method 2 1770 3.36
4545 Adjusted height-Method 2
Adjusted height-Method 2 2350
2350 3.09
3.09

1000000
Storage WR = 0%
Coal mine
100000
Storage tailings
WR = 30%
10000
Suction (kPa)

ψ = 1500 kPa WR=0%

1000 WR=30%
WR=45%
100
ψ = 33 kPa
10 Storage
WR = 45%
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Water Content

Figure
Figure 2. Method
2. Method 1 redesign
1 redesign for balance
for water water balance coverwith
cover height height with
waste waste
rock rocktoaddition
addition totailings.
coal mine coal
mine tailings.
WinUNSAT-H. Evapotranspiration for the different covers was a function of how fast water could
be delivered to the soil surface via evaporation and the accessibility of water to plant roots for
transpiration. Evapotranspiration was in a similar range for the Natural Cover, gold tailings, and
copper tailings since these materials had comparable ks (Figure 3b). The trend line in Figure 3b
suggests that a modest decrease in ET can be anticipated with a decrease in ks when all other water-
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 8 of 17
balance modeling factors are held constant (e.g., meteorological data, vegetation data, etc.).

3 350 4

Evapotranspiration (mm/yr)
(a) (b) (c)
340

Percolation (mm/yr)
3
Runoff (mm/yr)

2
330
2
320
1
1
310

0 300 0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -6 -5 -4 -3 -6 -5 -4 -3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
k (cm/s)
s
k (cm/s)
s
ks (cm/s)

Figure3.3. Relationships
Figure Relationshipsbetween
betweenannual
annualaverage
average(a)(a)runoff;
runoff;(b)
(b)evapotranspiration;
evapotranspiration;and
and(c)
(c)percolation
percolation
versus saturated hydraulic conductivity (k ) of silty sand and mine tailings.
versus saturated hydraulic conductivity (ks s) of silty sand and mine tailings.

The Method 2 redesign procedure is independent of soil type in the storage layer and only
depends on waste rock content and initial θ s (Equation (11)). The redesigned storage layer thickness
with coal mine tailings based on Method 2 with 30% waste rock was 1740 mm and with 45% waste rock
was 2220 mm. Method 2 yielded thinner cover thicknesses in comparison with Method 1 (i.e., reduced
thickness by 70 and 170 mm) for both waste rock contents simulated with the coal tailings.

3. Results

3.1. Fixed Storage Layer Thickness Composed of Mine Tailings

Water-balance metrics predicted by WinUNSAT-H for the 20-year simulations on the Natural
Cover and WBCs that included pure mine tailings are compiled in Table 3. Annual average precipitation
was 331.8 mm for the 20-year period, which was higher than the annual average evapotranspiration
(ET) for all five simulated WBCs. The higher precipitation relative to ET resulted in runoff, percolation,
and/or an increase in average soil water storage (SWS).

Table 3. Water-balance metrics for the Natural Cover and WBCs with copper, gold, coal, and oil
sand tailings.

Evapo- Average Soil Average

Simulated Water Runoff Percolation
Transpiration Water Storage Saturation
Balance Cover (mm/year) (mm/year)
(mm/year) (mm) Degree (%)
Natural Cover 328.6 0.215 151.6 30.3 2.36
Copper Tailings 327.4 0.185 91.1 18.3 3.17
Gold Tailings 329.6 0.18 144.1 28.9 1.69
Coal Tailings 325.6 0.18 303.7 60.9 0.20
Oil Sand Tailings 314.9 2.17 120.4 24.1 0.00

Relationships between ks and annual average runoff, ET, and percolation for the silty-sand cover
and four WBCs with mine tailings are shown in Figure 3. The higher annual runoff predicted for the
oil sand tailings cover resulted from a low ks (Figure 3a) combined with large precipitation events that
occurred over a short time. Runoff was relatively low since the models were designed to be conservative,
which led to reduced runoff and increased percolation and SWS. Runoff was <0.7% of total precipitation
in the oil sand tailings cover and runoff was <0.07% for all other models. Thus, the effect of runoff on
hydrologic performance of the WBCs in this study was considered negligible.
Annual average ET of the Natural Cover and four WBCs with mine tailings ranged from 314.9 to
329.6 mm/year (Table 3) and increased with decreasing ks (Figure 3b). The potential ET for each
simulation was independent of cover soil and calculated with the Penman–Monteith equation in
WinUNSAT-H. Evapotranspiration for the different covers was a function of how fast water could be
delivered to the soil surface via evaporation and the accessibility of water to plant roots for transpiration.
four WBCs that included pure mine tailings are shown in Figure 4. The 3 mm/year percolation rate
line in Figure 4 corresponds to a typical upper-bound percolation rate [2] and the 4 mm/year line
corresponds to the regulatory threshold for the Natural Cover. All WBCs simulated with mine
tailings for the 1220-mm-thick storage layer met the 4 mm/year percolation rate, and only copper
tailings exceeded the 3 mm/year percolation line for the 20-year simulation. The other three mine
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 9 of 17
tailings WBCs (i.e., gold, coal, and oil sand tailings), as well as the Natural Cover, all met the 3
mm/year percolation rate threshold for the 20-year simulation period.
Pronounced periods
Evapotranspiration was in ofapercolation
similar range occurred
for thein Years 6Cover,
Natural and 9gold(Figure 4) forand
tailings, the copper
Naturaltailings
Cover
and
sinceWBCs
these with goldhad
materials andcomparable
copper tailings. These3b).
ks (Figure periods of high
The trend linepercolation
in Figure 3b were preceded
suggests that abymodest
years
of high precipitation (i.e., precipitation = 412 mm in Year 5 and 526 mm
decrease in ET can be anticipated with a decrease in ks when all other water-balance modeling factorsin Year 8) that resulted in a
higher
are held degree
constantof saturation in the water
(e.g., meteorological storage
data, layers. data,
vegetation Higher saturation yields less available water
etc.).
storageThecapacity and leads
relationship betweento increased
average percolation with subsequent
annual percolation precipitation
and ks in Figure eventsthat
3c suggests [24].
larger ks
Cumulative percolation from the WBC simulated with oil sand tailings
facilitated water movement from the top to the bottom of the cover profile that led to higher percolation as the storage layer was
0rates.
mm (Table 3). Although
These results oil sand tailings
are in agreement had the lowest
with Zornberg storage capacity (θs in Table 1), the one- to
et al. [6].
two-order of magnitude lower k for oil sand tailings
Temporal trends of percolation during the 20-year simulation
s (2.7 × 10−7 cm/s) compared
period for thetoNatural
all otherCover
materials
and
(Table 3) contributed to the zero percolation. The influence of k on percolation
four WBCs that included pure mine tailings are shown in Figure 4. The 3 mm/year percolation rate
s was also observed in
percolation
line in Figure predicted from WBCs
4 corresponds with coal
to a typical and copper
upper-bound tailings. These
percolation rate [2]two
andmaterials had nearly
the 4 mm/year line
identical volumetric storage capacity (θ = 0.46 and 0.47); however, k for
corresponds to the regulatory threshold for the Natural Cover. All WBCs simulated with mine tailings
s s coal tailings was over 60
times
for thesmaller than ks for
1220-mm-thick copper
storage layertailings.
met the Additionally,
4 mm/year coal tailings rate,
percolation had and
a highonlyΨcopper
a, which when
tailings
combined
exceeded the with the lower percolation
3 mm/year ks resulted in linea storage layer with
for the 20-year reduced ability
simulation. The otherto convey
three minewater. This
tailings
comparison highlights the importance of variation in hydraulic parameters
WBCs (i.e., gold, coal, and oil sand tailings), as well as the Natural Cover, all met the 3 mm/year between storage layer
materials
percolation that
ratehave similarfor
threshold volumetric
the 20-year storage capacity.
simulation period.

80

4 mm/yr
Percolation (mm)

60 Natural Cover
Copper
40 Oil Sand
Coal
3 mm/yr Gold
20
Oil sand tailings
percolation = 0 mm
0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (yr)

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Temporal
Temporaltrends
trendsofofpercolation
percolationfor the
for Natural
the Cover
Natural and
Cover WBCs
and WBCssimulated withwith
simulated copper, oil
copper,
oil sand,
sand, coal,
coal, andand gold
gold mine
mine tailings
tailings over
over the the 20-year
20-year model
model simulation
simulation period.
period.

The relationship
Pronounced between
periods Ψa and n occurred
of percolation (van Genuchten
in Yearsfitting
6 and parameter)
9 (Figure 4) versus
for the average soil water
Natural Cover and
storage and average saturation of in the cover soil is shown in Figure 5. Water storage
WBCs with gold and copper tailings. These periods of high percolation were preceded by years of high and saturation
increased with(i.e.,
precipitation an precipitation
increase in Ψa=and/or
412 mm decrease
in Year in n. Air
5 and 526entry
mm in pressure
Year 8)isthat
theresulted
minimum in aapplied
higher
pressure required to drain the largest pores in the soil, and n is related to the pore
degree of saturation in the water storage layers. Higher saturation yields less available water storage size distribution
in the soil.
capacity and A leads
largertoΨincreased
a and lower n mean that the soil has a higher moisture holding capacity via
percolation with subsequent precipitation events [24].
smaller and more uniformly-sized
Cumulative percolation from the pores.
WBC A soil with low
simulated with moisture
oil sandcapacity results
tailings as in lower
the storage storage
layer was
in the storage layer and a greater ability to drain water at the bottom of the cover.
0 mm (Table 3). Although oil sand tailings had the lowest storage capacity (θ s in Table 1), the one- to Coal mine tailings
had the highest
two-order storage lower
of magnitude capacity and
ks for oilaverage saturation
sand tailings (2.7 × due
10−7tocm/s)
the highest
compared air to
entry pressure
all other and
materials
lowest n. Copper
(Table 3) minetotailings
contributed hadpercolation.
the zero the lowest soilThewater storage
influence of kand average saturation due to a high
s on percolation was also observed
sand content (≈70%) and no clay, which results in a lower
in percolation predicted from WBCs with coal and copper tailings. These field capacity water
twocontent.
materials had nearly
identical volumetric storage capacity (θ s = 0.46 and 0.47); however, ks for coal tailings was over 60 times
smaller than ks for copper tailings. Additionally, coal tailings had a high Ψa , which when combined
with the lower ks resulted in a storage layer with reduced ability to convey water. This comparison
highlights the importance of variation in hydraulic parameters between storage layer materials that
have similar volumetric storage capacity.
The relationship between Ψa and n (van Genuchten fitting parameter) versus average soil water
storage and average saturation of in the cover soil is shown in Figure 5. Water storage and saturation
increased with an increase in Ψa and/or decrease in n. Air entry pressure is the minimum applied
pressure required to drain the largest pores in the soil, and n is related to the pore size distribution in
the soil. A larger Ψa and lower n mean that the soil has a higher moisture holding capacity via smaller
and more uniformly-sized pores. A soil with low moisture capacity results in lower storage in the
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 10 of 17

storage layer and a greater ability to drain water at the bottom of the cover. Coal mine tailings had
the highest storage capacity and average saturation due to the highest air entry pressure and lowest
n. Copper mine tailings had the lowest soil water storage and average saturation due to a high sand
Minerals (≈70%)
content2017, 7, 8 and no clay, which results in a lower field capacity water content. 10 of 17

400
(b)
Water Storage (mm)

(a)
Oil Sand Tailings
300
Average Soil

Coal Tailings

200 Gold Tailings

Copper Tailings
100
Silty Sand

0.8
(d)
Average Saturation

(c)
Oil Sand Tailings
0.6
Coal Tailings
0.4 Gold Tailings
Copper Tailings
0.2 Natural Soil

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Air Entry Pressure, ψ (cm) Fitting Parameter, n
a

Figure 5. Relationships of average soil water storage versus (a) air entry pressure (Ψ ) and (b) van
Figure 5. Relationships of average soil water storage versus (a) air entry pressure (Ψaa) and (b) van
Genuchten’s n parameter, and relationships of average saturation of the soil water storage layer versus
Genuchten’s n parameter, and relationships of average saturation of the soil water storage layer
(c) Ψa and (d) n.
versus (c) Ψa and (d) n.

An average
An averagepercolation
percolationrate rate ranging
ranging between
between 0.0 and
0.0 and 3.2 mm/year
3.2 mm/year suggests
suggests that thethatmine the mine
tailings
tailings considered in this study meet the percolation requirement for WBCs. Hard
considered in this study meet the percolation requirement for WBCs. Hard rock mine tailings (e.g., rock mine tailings
(e.g., copper
copper and mine
and gold gold mine tailings
tailings in thisinstudy)
this study) typically
typically classify
classify as low asplasticity
low plasticity
silt andsiltcontain
and contain
33%
33%
to to 100%
100% fine-grained
fine-grained particles
particles [36],[36],
whichwhich
areare similar
similar characteristicstotomaterials
characteristics materialstypically
typicallyusedused in
in
WBCs. Covers simulated with coal and oil sand tailings had low percolation rates
WBCs. Covers simulated with coal and oil sand tailings had low percolation rates due to higher clay due to higher clay
contents (clay
contents (clay == 26%
26% for
for coal
coal tailings
tailings and
and 9%
9% for
for oil
oil sand
sand tailings).
tailings). In
Ingeneral,
general, WBCs
WBCs constructed
constructed withwith
tailings with
tailings with high
high clay
clay contents
contents (e.g.,
(e.g., coal
coal and
and oil
oil sand
sand tailings
tailings in
in this
this study)
study) result
result inin low
low percolation
percolation
rates. However, post-construction changes (biota intrusion, freeze-thaw, and wetting-drying
rates. However, post-construction changes (biota intrusion, freeze-thaw, and wetting-drying cycles) cycles)
should be
should be considered
considered duedue to
to the
the propensity
propensity for for clayed
clayed materials
materials to to change
change with
with time
time [23].
[23].

3.2. Fixed
3.2. Fixed Storage
Storage Layer
Layer Thickness
Thickness Composed
Composed of of Tailings
Tailings and
and Waste
Waste Rock
Rock
The second task in this water-balance model analysis
The second task in this water-balance model analysis was to was to replace
replace the
the storage
storage layer
layer soil
soil of
of the
the
Natural Cover
Natural Cover with
with WR&T.
WR&T. These
These models
models were
were completed
completed with with aa fixed
fixed storage
storage layer
layer thickness
thickness ofof
1220 mm that was simulated with WR&T. Waste rock and gravel particles
1220 mm that was simulated with WR&T. Waste rock and gravel particles were assumed to act as were assumed to act as
inclusions in
inclusions in the
thefiner
finerfraction with
fraction withzero water
zero retention
water capacity
retention to correct
capacity SWCCs
to correct of the mine
SWCCs of thetailings
mine
and silty-sand
tailings storage layers
and silty-sand storage[33]. Hydraulic
layers conductivity
[33]. Hydraulic of the WR&T
conductivity and
of the silty-sand
WR&T with additional
and silty-sand with
gravel content
additional were
gravel assumed
content wereconstant
assumed based on literature
constant based on[19,34].
literature [19,34].
A summary
A summary of of the
the water-balance
water-balance models
models completed
completed for for the
the evaluation
evaluation with
with aa fixed
fixed storage
storage layer
layer
thickness of 1220 mm is in Table 4. Each model simulation that included a waste
thickness of 1220 mm is in Table 4. Each model simulation that included a waste rock content (or rock content (or gravel
for thefor
gravel silty-sand cover)cover)
the silty-sand aboveabove
the baseline content
the baseline (i.e., 0%
content (i.e.,for
0%allformine tailings
all mine and and
tailings 33%33%for the
for
silty-sand cover) required a corrected SWCC. Examples of corrected SWCCs for
the silty-sand cover) required a corrected SWCC. Examples of corrected SWCCs for coal mine tailings coal mine tailings with
0, 15, 0,
with 30,15,
45,30,
and45,
71.3%
and waste
71.3%rock
wasteaddition are shown
rock addition areinshown
Figure in 6. These
Figurecorrected
6. TheseSWCCscorrected include
SWCCsthe
same van Genuchten fitting parameters (α and n) as the baseline SWCC
include the same van Genuchten fitting parameters (α and n) as the baseline SWCC with 0% wastewith 0% waste rock, but with
rock, but with θs corrected in accordance with Equation (7). An increase in waste rock content yielded
a decrease in θs that also decreased the available storage capacity for a constant thickness (Equation
(3)).
Average annual water-balance metrics for the 20-year model simulations summarized in Table
4 include runoff, ET, percolation, average SWS, and average degree of saturation of the storage layer
soil. The addition of waste rock particles decreased porosity and correspondingly reduced storage
Minerals 2017, 7, 8 11 of 17
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 11 of 17
in saturation, and increase in percolation with increase in waste rock content. However, percolation
of oil sand tailings WBCs remained negligible with increasing waste rock content for all simulations.
θ s corrected in accordance with Equation (7). An increase in waste rock content yielded a decrease in
θ s that also decreased the available storage capacity for a constant thickness (Equation (3)).
Table 4. Water balance metrics for the Natural Cover and WBCs simulated copper, gold, coal, and oil
sand tailings with varying waste rock inclusions for the 20-year simulation period.
Table 4. Water balance metrics for the Natural Cover and WBCs simulated copper, gold, coal, and oil
Average Soil
sand tailings with varying waste rock inclusions for the 20-year simulation period. Average
Waste Runoff Evapotranspiration Percolation
Soil/Tailings Water Storage Saturation
Rock (%) (mm/year) (mm/year) (mm/year)
(mm)
Average Soil Degree (%)
Average
Waste Rock Runoff Evapotranspiration Percolation
Soil/Tailings 33(%) 0.215 328.6 2.36 Water Storage
151.1 Saturation
30
(mm/year) (mm/year) (mm/year)
(mm) Degree (%)
Natural Cover 48 0.170 328.1 2.69 139.4 32
63 33 0.215
0.190 328.6
327.1 2.36
3.41 151.1
112.8 30 30
Natural
48 0.170 328.1 2.69 139.4 32
Cover 0 63 0.185
0.190
327.4
327.1
3.17
3.41
91.1
112.8 30
14
Copper
15 0.180 330.5 4.08 80.3 15
Tailings 0 0.185 327.4 3.17 91.1 14
Copper 30 15 0.180 325.9 4.71 75.3 16
0.180 330.5 4.08 80.3 15
Tailings 0 30 2.170 314.9 0.00 120.4 22
0.180 325.9 4.71 75.3 16
Oil Sand
30 0 2.140
2.170 328.3
314.9 0.00
0.00 93.5
120.4 22 23
Tailings
Oil Sand 45 30 1.040
2.140 301.0
328.3 0.00
0.00 71.8
93.5 23 24
Tailings
0 45 1.040
0.180 301.0
321.7 0.00
0.20 71.8
303.7 24 47
15 0 0.190
0.180 333.9
321.7 0.32
0.20 274.0
303.7 47 49
Coal Tailings 30 15 0.190
0.320 333.9
317.8 0.32
0.26 274.0
212.4 49 45
Coal Tailings
45 30 0.320
0.265 317.8
328.9 0.26
0.83 212.4
215.0 45 55
45 0.265 328.9 0.83 215.0 55
71.371.3 0.525
0.525 315.0
315.0 1.85
1.85 124.4
124.4 52 52

6
10
5
10
WR = 0%
Suction (kPa)

4
10
WR = 15%
3
10 WR = 30%
2 WR = 45%
10
WR = 71.3%
1
10
0
10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Volumetric Water Content (m/m)

Soil water
Figure 6. Soil water characteristic
characteristiccurve
curvefor
forcoal
coalmine
minetailings
tailings(solid
(solidline),
line),and
and15,
15%,
30, 30%, 45%
45, and and
71.3%
71.3% rock
waste wasteaddition.
rock addition. The mixture
The mixture ratio
ratio (R) (R)optimum
is the is the optimum
mixturemixture
ratio inratio
WRin WR = 71.3%.
= 71.3%.

The
Averagerelationships between average
annual water-balance annual
metrics for theET20-year
and waste
modelrock content for
simulations the silty-sand
summarized cover4
in Table
and all co-mixed
include runoff, ET, WR&T WBCs average
percolation, are shown SWS,in Figure 7. Thedegree
and average annualofaverage
saturationET was
of theapproximately
storage layer
constant with varying waste rock content (315 to 334 mm/year). As discussed
soil. The addition of waste rock particles decreased porosity and correspondingly reduced storage previously, the
potential ET was constant for each model as this was a function of MET data, and
capacity. Thus, the simulations summarized in Table 4 indicate a reduction in average SWS, increase in the actual ET varied
as a function
saturation, andofincrease
ks (Figurein 4b). Considering
percolation ks of the in
with increase storage
waste layer was assumed
rock content. However,constant for varying
percolation of oil
waste
sand tailings WBCs remained negligible with increasing waste rock content for all simulations. 7).
rock content, there was no observable trend between ET and waste rock content (Figure
Temporal trends between
The relationships of percolation
averageforannual
the WBC simulations
ET and waste rockoncontent
the Natural
for theCover,
silty-sandcopper
covermine
and
tailings cover, and coal mine tailings cover with different waste rock contents
all co-mixed WR&T WBCs are shown in Figure 7. The annual average ET was approximately constant are shown in Figure 8.
Percolation increased with an increase in waste rock content when the storage
with varying waste rock content (315 to 334 mm/year). As discussed previously, the potential ET was layer thickness was
fixed.
constantThis forwas
eachattributed
model asto reduced
this storage capacity
was a function whenand
of MET data, fine-grained,
the actual ET water-retaining material
varied as a function of is
ks
replaced with waste rock particle inclusions with zero water retention capacity.
(Figure 3b). Considering ks of the storage layer was assumed constant for varying waste rock content, However, addition
of waste
there wasrock to the WBCs
no observable did between
trend not considerably affect rock
ET and waste percolation
contentrate in the
(Figure 7).first 5 year.
The influence
Temporal of waste
trends rock addition
of percolation for theonWBCpercolation was more
simulations on the pronounced
Natural Cover,from Year
copper 6 to the
mine
end of the 20-year simulation period (Figure 8). The percolation in Year 6 followed
tailings cover, and coal mine tailings cover with different waste rock contents are shown in Figure 8. a year when SWS
increased,
Percolationresulting
increased in with
elevated saturation
an increase in and
waste higher
rock propensity
content when for the
percolation [24]. From
storage layer Year was
thickness 6 to
the endThis
fixed. of the
was20-year simulation,
attributed to reducedhigher saturation
storage within
capacity whenthe storage layers
fine-grained, combined with
water-retaining reduced
material is
storage capacity via waste rock addition increased percolation. These observations suggest that the
addition of waste rock to the storage layer of a WBC may become detrimental to meeting percolation
rates in years following high precipitation that can leave little remaining SWS capacity.

350

Evapotranspiration (mm/yr)
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 12 of 17
Minerals 2017, 7, 8 12 of 17
340
Natural Cover
addition with
replaced of waste
330 rock
waste to the
rock storage
particle layer ofwith
inclusions a WBCzeromay become
water detrimental
retention capacity.toHowever,
meeting percolation
Copper
addition of
Gold
rates inrock
waste years following
to the
320WBCs high
did precipitation
not considerablythat can
affect leave little
percolation remaining
rate in theSWS
first capacity.
5 year. Oil sand
Coal
Evapotranspiration (mm/yr) 310
350

300
340 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Natural Cover
Waste Rock Content (%)
330 Copper
Gold
Figure 7. Relationship
320 between average annual evapotranspiration and waste rockOil
content
sand for the 20-
year simulations with the Natural Cover and copper, gold, oil sand, and coal mineCoal
tailings.
310

Water-balance
300 simulations on oil sand tailings with varying waste rock content did not follow
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
these observed relationships between reduced SWS and increased percolation (Table 4). Total
Waste Rock Content (%)
percolation in the oil sand tailings simulations was 0 mm for all waste rock contents evaluated (Table
4). This exception
Figure in observed
Relationship
7. Relationship between
between behavior
average was
averageannual
annual attributed to the low
evapotranspiration
evapotranspiration kwaste
and
and s of the
waste soil
rock
rock sandfortailings
content
content for 20- that
the the
compensated
20-year for thewith
simulations
year simulations reduced
with
thethestorage
Natural
Natural capacity
Cover
Cover andand such that
copper,
copper, nooilpercolation
gold,
gold, oil sand,
sand, andand was
coal
coal simulated.
mine
mine tailings.
tailings.

100Water-balance
simulations on oil sand tailings with varying waste rock content did not follow
(b) Coal Mine (c)
WR=0% WR=0%
these observed relationships(a)between reduced
WR=33% SWS and increased percolation
WR=15% WR=15%
(Table 4). Total
Tailings
WR=48%
percolation
75 in the oil sand
WR=63% 4 mm/yr
tailings simulations was
WR=30%0 mm for all waste rock contents
WR=30%evaluated (Table
Percolation (mm)

WR=45%
4). This exception in observed behavior was attributed to the low ks of the soil sand tailings that
WR=71%
compensated for the reduced storage capacity such that no percolation was simulated.
50 4 mm/yr
4 mm/yr 3 mm/yr
100
3 mm/yr (b) Coal Mine (c)
25 (a) WR=0% WR=0%
WR=33% 3 mm/yr Tailings
WR=15% WR=15%
WR=48%
75 4Natural
mm/yr Cover WR=30% WR=30%
Copper Mine Tailings
Percolation (mm)

WR=63%
WR=45%
0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5WR=71%10 15 20
Elapsed Time (yr) Elapsed Time (yr) Elapsed Time (yr)
50 4 mm/yr
3 mm/yr 4 mm/yr
Figure 8.8. Temporal
Temporaltrends
trendsofof percolation
percolation forfor
thethe
(a) (a) Natural
Natural Cover,
Cover, (b) copper
(b) copper tailings,
tailings, and
and (c) (c)mine
coal coal
3 mm/yr
mine tailings
25 tailings with varying
with varying waste waste rock content.
rock (WR) (WR) content.3 mm/yr

Natural Cover Copper Mine Tailings

Relationships between annual average percolation and waste rock content for the silty-sand
0 The influence of waste rock addition on percolation was more pronounced from Year 6 to the
0 5 10 tailings
15 20 0 5 with 10co-mixed15 20 0 shown 5 in Figure
10 15 Data in
20
end ofand
cover the three
20-year mine
simulation
Elapsed Time (yr)
WBCs
periodsimulated
(Figure 8). TheTime
Elapsed percolation
(yr)
WR&T are
in Year 6 followed a year
Elapsed
9a.
Timewhen
(yr) SWS
Figure 9a support
increased, resultingthe observation
in elevated of an increase
saturation and higher in percolation
propensitywith increase in[24].
for percolation waste rockYear
From content
6 to
for WBCs
Figure simulated
8. Temporal with a
trendsfixed
of storage
percolation layer
for thickness.
the (a) NaturalThe linear
Cover, trend
(b) copper
the end of the 20-year simulation, higher saturation within the storage layers combined with reduced lines fitted
tailings, for
and the
(c) Natural
coal
Cover,
storage copper
mine tailings
capacity tailings cover,
with varying
via waste and
waste
rock coal
rock tailings
addition cover,
(WR) content.
increased all yieldedThese
percolation. coefficients of determination
observations suggest that (Rthe
2) >

0.83, which
addition supports
of waste rockthe observed
to the storage effect
layerofofincreased
a WBC may percolation with reduced
become detrimental toSWS capacity
meeting due to
percolation
Relationships
the addition between annual average percolation and waste rock content for the silty-sand
rates in yearsof waste rock.
following high precipitation that can leave little remaining SWS capacity.
coverAlthough
and three the mine tailings WBCs simulatedtowith the co-mixed WR&Tofare shown in Figurepercolation,
9a. Data in
Water-balance additionsimulations of waste
on oil rocksand tailings storage
with layer
varying WBCs
waste increases
rock content did not
Figure
numerous 9a support
of the the observationsimulations
water-balance of an increase that inincluded
percolationwaste with increase
rock met in waste
the 3 and rock
4 content
mm/year
follow these observed relationships between reduced SWS and increased percolation (Table 4).
for WBCs
percolation simulated
thresholds with a fixed
(Figure storage
9a). The layer
rate of thickness.
increase in The linear
percolation trend
with lines
waste fitted
rockfor the
additionNatural
(i.e.,
Total percolation in the oil sand tailings simulations was 0 mm for all waste rock contents evaluated
Cover,
slopes4).copper
of tailings
lines incover,
trendexception Figure and9a)coal
can tailings
be used cover, all yielded
toattributed
assess thetoamountcoefficients of rock
determination (R2) is >
(Table This in observed behavior was the lowof ks waste
of the soil addition
sand tailingsthat
that
0.83, which to
reasonable supports
meet a the observed
prescribed effect of increased
percolation. Larger percolation
trend line with in
slopes reduced
Figure SWS
9a capacity
suggest a due
higher to
compensated for the reduced storage capacity such that no percolation was simulated.
the addition
sensitivity ofofpercolation
waste rock.with waste rock addition. Slopes of the trend lines in Figure 9a are plotted
Relationships between annual average percolation and waste rock content for the silty-sand
versusAlthough
ks of the the addition fraction
fine-grained of wastein rockFigure to 9b.
the storage layer 9b of and
WBCs the increases percolation,
cover and three mine tailings WBCs simulated withData in Figure
co-mixed WR&T are shown logarithmic
in Figure 9a. trend
Datalinein
numerous
suggest thatof the
the water-balance
rate of increase simulations
in percolation that
with included
addition waste
of wasterockrockmet is the
larger 3 and
for 4 mm/year
storage layer
Figure 9a support the observation of an increase in percolation with increase in waste rock content for
percolation
materials thresholds
that have (Figure 9a).a The rate of increaseininWBCs percolation with waste rock addition (i.e.,
WBCs simulated withhigher
a fixedksstorage
. As result, percolation
layer thickness. The linear trendwithlines
finer-grained
fitted for the particles
Natural (e.g.,
Cover,oil
slopes of trend lines in Figure 9a) can be used to assess the amount of waste rock addition that is
copper tailings cover, and coal tailings cover, all yielded coefficients of determination (R2 ) > 0.83,
reasonable to meet a prescribed percolation. Larger trend line slopes in Figure 9a suggest a higher
which supports the observed effect of increased percolation with reduced SWS capacity due to the
sensitivity of percolation with waste rock addition. Slopes of the trend lines in Figure 9a are plotted
addition of waste rock.
versus ks of the fine-grained fraction in Figure 9b. Data in Figure 9b and the logarithmic trend line
suggest that the rate of increase in percolation with addition of waste rock is larger for storage layer
materials that have higher ks. As a result, percolation in WBCs with finer-grained particles (e.g., oil
Minerals 2017, 7, 8 13 of 17

sand tailings and coal mine tailings) that typically have lower ks are less sensitive to waste rock
addition in comparison with covers constructed with coarser-grained materials (e.g., copper and
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 13 of 17
silty-sand soil).

6 0.08
(a) Natural (b)
5
Cover
Percolation (mm/yr)

0.06
4 Copper Slope = 0.113 + 0.0164log(K)

Slope
2
3 0.04 R = 0.87
Gold
2
Oil 0.02
1 Sand
Coal
0 0 -7 -6 -5 -4
0 20 40 60 80 10 10 10 10
K (cm/s)
Waste Rock Content (%) sat

Figure9.9.Relationships
Figure Relationshipsbetween (a)(a)
between average annual
average percolation
annual and waste
percolation rock content
and waste for fixed-height
rock content for fixed-
water
heightstorage
water layers
storagecontaining waste rock;
layers containing androck;
waste (b) the rate
and (b)of the
percolation increase with
rate of percolation increase
increase in
with
waste rock content and saturated hydraulic conductivity of the water storage layer.
increase in waste rock content and saturated hydraulic conductivity of the water storage layer.

3.3. Adjusted
AlthoughStorage Layer Thickness
the addition Composed
of waste rock to theofstorage
Tailings andof
layer Waste
WBCsRock
increases percolation, numerous
of theAn water-balance simulations
alternative approach that included
to meeting waste
a prescribed rock met rate
percolation the 3with
andthe
4 mm/year
addition ofpercolation
waste rock
thresholds
to a storage layer with WR&T is to redesign the storage layer thickness to meet(i.e.,
(Figure 9a). The rate of increase in percolation with waste rock addition the slopes
requiredof
trend lines inrate.
percolation Figure 9a) can bepreviously,
As discussed used to assess the amount
the storage layerof waste rock
thickness addition
of WBCs that from
created is reasonable
coal and
to meet a prescribed percolation. Larger trend line slopes in Figure 9a
copper tailings were redesigned following two methods: Method 1—thickness re-computed viasuggest a higher sensitivity of
percolation
Equation (3)with waste rock
to maintain addition.
a constant SASlopes of the trend
with modified SWCC lines in Figure 9a
parameters, areMethod
and versus ks of
plotted2—thickness
the fine-grained fraction in Figure 9b. Data in Figure 9b and the logarithmic
recomputed to maintain a constant void volume to the waste rock-free storage layer (Table 2). trend line suggest thatA
the rate of increase in percolation with addition of waste rock is larger for storage
summary of the redesigned WBCs for coal tailings and copper tailings is in Table 2 along with average layer materials that
have
annualhigher ks . As a result,
percolation obtainedpercolation
from the in 20-year
WBCs with finer-grained
simulations. particles (e.g.,
Water-balance oil sand
covers tailings and
redesigned for
coal mine tailings) that typically have lower k are less sensitive to waste rock
copper tailings only are included for Method 2 since both methods yielded similar storage layer
s addition in comparison
with covers constructed with coarser-grained materials (e.g., copper and silty-sand soil).
thicknesses.
Temporal trends of percolation for WBCs simulated with only coal mine tailings (height = 1220
3.3. Adjusted Storage Layer Thickness Composed of Tailings and Waste Rock
mm), with 30% and 45% waste rock plus fixed height (height = 1220 mm), and with 30% and 45%
wasteAnrock
alternative approach
plus adjusted to meeting
height a prescribed
with Method 1 (height percolation
= 1810 mm rateandwith2390the mm,
addition of waste rock
respectively) and
to a storage
Method layer with
2 (height WR&T
= 1740 mm is toand
redesign the storage
2220 mm, layer thickness
respectively) are shown to meet in the required
Figure 10a,b. percolation
The total
rate. As discussed
percolation for coalpreviously,
mine tailings the with
storage layer thickness
no waste rock was of 4.0WBCs
mm and created from coal
percolation and copper
increased with
tailings wereaddition
waste rock redesignedand following
no changetwo methods:
to the thickness Method
of the 1—thickness
storage layer re-computed
(i.e., percolation via Equation
= 5.2 mm for (3)
to maintain
30% a constant
waste rock and 16.6 SA with
mm for modified SWCC
45% waste parameters,
rock). and Method
The redesigned WBC2—thickness recomputed
thickness following with
both
to Method
maintain 1 and Method
a constant 2 decreased
void volume to thepercolation
waste rock-free relative to thelayer
storage constant
(Tablethickness
2). A summaryWBC with of
waste
the rock (Figure
redesigned WBCs 10a,b).
for Results from and
coal tailings coal copper
mine tailings
tailings suggest that the
is in Table redesigned
2 along WBCs can
with average yield
annual
comparableobtained
percolation low percolation
from the rates 20-year in comparison
simulations. with WBCs containing
Water-balance no waste rock.
covers redesigned for copper tailings
Temporal
only are included trends of percolation
for Method for WBCs
2 since both methods simulated
yielded with similar only copper
storage mine
layer tailings (height =
thicknesses.
1220Temporal
mm), with trends
30% waste of rock plus fixedfor
percolation height
WBCs (height = 1220 mm),
simulated withand onlywithcoal
30% andmine45% waste
tailings
rock plus
(height adjusted
= 1220 mm),height
with 30% with andMethod 2 (height
45% waste = 1770
rock plus mmheight
fixed and 2350(heightmm, respectively)
= 1220 mm), andare withshown
30%
in Figures
and 45% waste10a,b.
rockThe
plus redesigned
adjusted heightWBCswith thicknesses
Method with coal =mine
1 (height 1810 tailings
mm andand 2390waste rock yielded
mm, respectively)
lower
and total percolation
Method 2 (height =relative
1740 mm to WBCs with
and 2220 mm,waste rock and aare
respectively) fixed thickness.
shown Results
in Figure 10a,b.from The copper
total
mine tailings
percolation foranalysis
coal mine further
tailings support
with no that comparable
waste rock waspercolations rates can beincreased
4.0 mm and percolation achieve with withWR&T
waste
WBCs
rock when the
addition andstorage
no change layertoisthe redesigned
thickness to of account
the storage for layer
the reduced storage capacity
(i.e., percolation = 5.2 mm dueforto30%the
waste rock
waste rock and
inclusions.
16.6 mm for 45% waste rock). The redesigned WBC thickness following with both
Method 1 and Method 2 decreased percolation relative to the constant thickness WBC with waste rock
(Figure 10a,b).
No WR Results Withfrom coalHeight
WR + Fixed mine tailings suggest
With WR + Adjustedthat the
Height redesigned
(Method 1) WBCs
With WR + can yield
Adjusted Heightcomparable
(Method 2)
low percolation rates in comparison with WBCs containing no waste rock.
Temporal trends of percolation for WBCs simulated with only copper mine tailings
(height = 1220 mm), with 30% waste rock plus fixed height (height = 1220 mm), and with 30% and
45% waste rock plus adjusted height with Method 2 (height = 1770 mm and 2350 mm, respectively)
are shown in Figure 10a,b. The redesigned WBCs thicknesses with coal mine tailings and waste rock
 both Method 1 and Method 2 decreased percolation relative to the constant thickness WBC with
waste rock (Figure 10a,b). Results from coal mine tailings suggest that the redesigned WBCs can yield
comparable low percolation rates in comparison with WBCs containing no waste rock.
Temporal trends of percolation for WBCs simulated with only copper mine tailings (height =
1220 mm), with 30% waste rock plus fixed height (height = 1220 mm), and with 30% and 45% waste
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 14 of 17
rock plus adjusted height with Method 2 (height = 1770 mm and 2350 mm, respectively) are shown
in Figures 10a,b. The redesigned WBCs thicknesses with coal mine tailings and waste rock yielded
lower total
yielded lowerpercolation relativerelative
total percolation to WBCsto with
WBCs waste
withrock and
waste a fixed
rock and athickness. ResultsResults
fixed thickness. from copper
from
mine tailings analysis further support that comparable percolations rates can be achieve
copper mine tailings analysis further support that comparable percolations rates can be achieve with WR&T
with
WR&T WBCs when the storage layer is redesigned to account for the reduced storage capacity duethe
WBCs when the storage layer is redesigned to account for the reduced storage capacity due to to
waste
the wasterock inclusions.
rock inclusions.
Minerals 2017, 7, 8 14 of 17
No WR With WR + Fixed Height With WR + Adjusted Height (Method 1) With WR + Adjusted Height (Method 2)

20
(a) Coal Tailings (b) Coal Tailings
Percolation (mm)

15 30% Waste Rock 45% Waste Rock

10

100
(c) (d)
Copper Tailings Copper Tailings
80
Percolation (mm)

30% Waste Rock 45% Waste Rock

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Elapsed Time (yr) Elapsed Time (yr)

Figure
Figure10.10.Temporal
Temporaltrends
trendsofofpercolation
percolationforforwater
waterbalance
balancecovers
coverswith
with(a)
(a)coal
coaltailings
tailings+30%
+30%waste
waste
rock,
rock,(b)
(b)coal
coaltailings
tailings+45%
+45%waste
wasterock,
rock,(c)
(c)copper
coppertailings
tailings+30%
+30%waste
wasterock,
rock,and
and(d)(d)copper
coppertailings
tailings
+45%
+45%waste
wasterock.
rock.

3.4.
3.4.Contribution
Contributiontotothe
theCircular
CircularEconomy
Economyand
andMining
MiningSustainability
Sustainability
The
TheU.S.
U.S.EPAEPAhashasoutlined
outlinedthe thefollowing
followingwaste wastemanagement
managementhierarchyhierarchythat thatprogresses
progresseswith with
decreasing impact on sustainability: (i) prevention of waste generation, (ii) reuse
decreasing impact on sustainability: (i) prevention of waste generation, (ii) reuse of waste, (iii) recycling of waste, (iii)
recycling
of waste,of(iv)waste, (iv) recovery
recovery from waste,fromand waste, and (v) disposal
(v) disposal of wasteof[37].
wasteIn [37]. In applying
applying this hierarchy
this hierarchy to mine
totailings
mine tailings
and waste and rock,
wastethe rock, the prevention
prevention of mineofwaste
mine generation
waste generation is thesustainable
is the most most sustainable
option.
option. Preventing the generation of mine waste reduces costs associated
Preventing the generation of mine waste reduces costs associated with transferring waste, reduces with transferring waste,
reduces
the land the land
area area required
required for wastefor disposal,
waste disposal, and reduces
and reduces costs associated
costs associated with monitoring
with monitoring the
the closed
closed waste impoundment. Preventing waste generation is not
waste impoundment. Preventing waste generation is not always a viable option, and implementingalways a viable option, and
implementing
measures to reuse measures to reuse
and recycle andwaste
mine recyclearemine
morewaste are options
practical more practical optionssustainability
to enhancing to enhancingof
sustainability of mine waste
mine waste management. management.
McLellan et al. [38]McLellan
emphasized et al.
the[38]
roleemphasized
of reuse and the role of
recycling in reuse and
mine waste
recycling in mine waste management and considered reuse and recycling
management and considered reuse and recycling of mine waste as a “key elements” for a sustainable of mine waste as a “key
elements” for a sustainable
waste management practicewaste management
in mineral practice
industry. in mineral
The reuse industry.
opportunity The reuse
central to thisopportunity
paper is the
central
reuse of to mixed
this paper
WR&T is the reuse ofwhich
in WBCs, mixedcan WR&T in WBCs,beneficial
be financially which can andbereduce
financially beneficial
landfilled and
waste via
reduce landfilled waste via offsetting the amount of waste to be managed.
offsetting the amount of waste to be managed. Creating WBCs from mixed mine waste can also create Creating WBCs from
mixed mine waste
employment in new can also create
industries andemployment
raise a givenin new image
mine’s industries and raise
in society a given mine’s
for protecting image in
the environment.
society for protecting the environment. Recovery of mine waste is also
Recovery of mine waste is also a sustainable option that involves recovery of economically viable a sustainable option that
involves
mineralsrecovery
from olderof economically
mine waste that viable
been minerals
processedfrom older mine waste that been processed [39].
[39].
Lottermoser
Lottermoser[37] [37]listed
listedthe
thefollowing
followingpotential
potentialreuse
reuseandandrecycling
recyclingoptions
optionsfor formine
minewastewasterock:
rock:
(i)(i)resource for additional extraction of minerals and metals; (ii) backfill material
resource for additional extraction of minerals and metals; (ii) backfill material for open voids; for open voids; (iii)
landscaping materials;
(iii) landscaping and and
materials; (iv) (iv)
additive to asphalt.
additive Lottermoser
to asphalt. Lottermoser [37][37]
andandCorder
Corder [40]
[40]identified
identifiedthe
the
following
followingpotential
potentialreuse
reuseandand recycling
recycling options
options forfor
tailings: (i) resource
tailings: (i) resourcefor for
additional
additional extraction of
extraction
minerals
of mineralsand metals; (ii) cement-amended
and metals; (ii) cement-amended tailingstailings
for use foras backfill
use as in underground
backfill mines; andmines;
in underground (iii)
clay-rich tailings amendment for sandy soils for manufacturing of bricks, cement, floor tiles, sanitary
ware, and porcelain. Many of these applications are not located on the mine site, which can limit their
economic benefit and overall impact on mining sustainability and the circular economy.
The possibility of reusing mixed WR&T as the storage layer in WBCs was evaluated in this study.
When compared to the other reuse and recycling applications listed previously, WBCs that employ
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 15 of 17

and (iii) clay-rich tailings amendment for sandy soils for manufacturing of bricks, cement, floor tiles,
sanitary ware, and porcelain. Many of these applications are not located on the mine site, which can
limit their economic benefit and overall impact on mining sustainability and the circular economy.
The possibility of reusing mixed WR&T as the storage layer in WBCs was evaluated in this study.
When compared to the other reuse and recycling applications listed previously, WBCs that employ
mixed WR&T focus on waste reuse at the mine site, which limits potential off-site contamination and
exposure to humans and the environment. On-site reuse reduces costs associated with transporting and
handling these waste sources off-site for other uses and reduces costs associated with acquiring raw
materials for site closure. Additional investigations are needed to evaluate the leaching of contaminants
from WR&T mixtures, mechanical properties of WR&T mixtures, and potential to sustain vegetation
in WR&T. These investigations need to be coupled with full-scale cover tests sections to transform the
potential reuse of mixed WR&T in cover systems to a viable solution for sustainable mine closure.

4. Conclusions
Water-balance modeling was conducted to evaluate the viability of using mixed waste rock and
tailings (WR&T) as the water storage layer in water balance covers (WBCs). Theoretical WBCs were
created with (i) mine tailings and (ii) mixed WR&T to assess the effect of waste rock addition on
hydrologic performance. Two methods for redesigning the storage layer of a WBC were evaluated that
consist of mixed WR&T to yield comparable percolation rate as covers with no waste rock inclusions.
The following conclusions were drawn from this study.

• Percolation rates for WBCs simulated with hard rock mine tailings met the prescribed percolation
rate of the Natural Cover (i.e., 4 mm/year). Lower percolation rates were representative of tailings
with higher clay content and lower hydraulic conductivity (ks ).
• Evapotranspiration and percolation increased and runoff decreased with an increase in ks of
the storage layer. Storage layers with larger ks results in faster infiltration through the cover
(percolation) and faster transfer of water out of the soil via evapotranspiration.
• Addition of waste rock to WBCs increased percolation when the storage layer thickness was fixed
due to reduced storage capacity. The effect of waste rock addition was more pronounced in WBCs
that included tailings with higher ks .
• Two methods were presented to redesign the storage layer thickness in a WBC that includes
mixed WR&T: Method 1—redesign for the constant available storage and Method 2—redesign for
the constant void volume. Both methods yielded similar WBC thicknesses and similar percolation
rates that compared favorable to the percolation rate with no waste rock.
• Reuse of mixed WR&T in on-site WBCs provides an opportunity to enhance mine site
sustainability via reduced costs associated the acquisition of raw materials required for closure as
well as reduced waste volumes requiring storage.

Acknowledgments: Financial support for this study was provided in part by National Science Foundation to
Colorado State University. Support also was provided by Colorado State University. The opinions, findings,
conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
views of the National Science Foundation, or Colorado State University. Funds were made available at Colorado
State University to publish in open access.
Author Contributions: Christopher A. Bareither and Mohammad H. Gorakhki conceived and designed the
water-balance models for this study and Mohammad H. Gorakhki completed all model simulations. Christopher
A. Bareither and Mohammad H. Gorakhki collaborated on data analysis, preparation of figures and tables,
and writing the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 16 of 17

References
1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Publication Law 94-580; 94th United States Congress:
Washington, DC, USA, 1976.
2. Albright, W.H.; Benson, C.H.; Waugh, W.J. Water Balance Covers for Waste Containment: Principles and Practice;
American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2010.
3. Meer, S.R.; Benson, C.H. Hydraulic conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners exhumed from landfill final
covers. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 2007, 133, 550–563. [CrossRef]
4. Albright, W.H.; Benson, C.H.; Gee, G.W.; Abichou, T.; McDonald, E.V.; Tyler, S.W.; Rock, S.A. Field
performance of a compacted clay landfill final cover at a humid site. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 2006, 132,
1393–1403. [CrossRef]
5. Khire, M.V.; Benson, C.H.; Bosscher, P.J. Capillary barriers: Design variables and water balance. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. 2010, 126, 695–708. [CrossRef]
6. Zornberg, J.G.; LaFountain, L.; Caldwell, J.A. Analysis and design of evapotranspirative cover for hazardous
waste landfill. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 2003, 129, 427–438. [CrossRef]
7. Albright, W.H.; Benson, C.H.; Gee, G.W.; Roesler, A.C.; Abichou, T.; Apiwantragoon, P.; Lyles, B.F.; Rock, S.A.
Field water balance of landfill final covers. J. Environ. Qual. 2004, 33, 2317–2332. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Malusis, M.A.; Benson, C.H. Lysimeters versus water-content sensors for performance monitoring of
alternative earthen final covers. In Unsaturated Soils 2006, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Unsaturated Soils, Carefree, AZ, USA, 2–6 April 2006; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA,
2006; pp. 741–752.
9. Bussiere, B. Colloquium 2004: Hydrogeotechnical properties of hard rock tailings from metal mines and
emerging geoenvironmental disposal approaches. Can. Geotech. J. 2007, 44, 1019–1052. [CrossRef]
10. Blight, G. Geotechnical Engineering for Mine Waste Storage Facilities; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2009.
11. Aubertin, M.; Ricard, J.F.; Chapuis, R.P. A predictive model for the water retention curve: Application to
tailings from hard-rock mines. Can. Geotech. J. 1998, 35, 55–69. [CrossRef]
12. Qiu, Y.; Sego, D.C. Laboratory properties of mine tailings. Can. Geotech. J. 2001, 38, 183–190. [CrossRef]
13. Williams, D.J.; Wilson, G.W.; Panidis, C. Waste rock and tailings mixtures as a possible seal for potentially
acide forming waste rock. In 6th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage; The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne, Australia, 2003; Volume 400, pp. 427–435.
14. Bussière, B.; Aubertin, M. Clean tailings as cover material for preventing acid mine drainage: An in situ
experiment. In Proceedings of Sudbury; Laurentian University: Sudbury, ON, Canada, 1999; Volume 99,
pp. 19–28.
15. Bossé, B.; Bussière, B.; Hakkou, R.; Maqsoud, A.; Benzaazoua, M. Assessment of phosphate limestone wastes
as a component of a store-and-release cover in a semiarid climate. Mine Water Environ. 2013, 32, 152–167.
[CrossRef]
16. Bossé, B.; Bussière, B.; Hakkou, R.; Maqsoud, A.; Benzaazoua, M. Field experimental cells to assess
hydrogeological behaviour of store-and-release covers made with phosphate mine waste. Can. Geotech. J.
2015, 52, 1255–1269. [CrossRef]
17. Wickland, B.E.; Wilson, G.W. Self-weight consolidation of mixtures of mine waste rock and tailings.
Can. Geotech. J. 2005, 42, 327–339. [CrossRef]
18. Jehring, M.M.; Bareither, C.A. Tailings composition effects on shear strength behavior of co-mixed mine
waste rock and tailings. Acta Geotech. 2016, 11, 1147–1166. [CrossRef]
19. Wickland, B.E.; Wilson, G.W.; Wijewickreme, D. Hydraulic conductivity and consolidation response of
mixtures of mine waste rock and tailings. Can. Geotech. J. 2010, 47, 472–485. [CrossRef]
20. Kabambi, A.K.; Bussière, B.; Demers, I. Hydrogeological Behaviour of Covers with Capillary Barrier Effects
Made of Mining Materials. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2017, 35, 1199–1220. [CrossRef]
21. Benson, C.H.; Bareither, C.A. Designing water balance covers for sustainable waste containment:
Transitioning state of the art to state of the practice. In Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice:
Keynote Lectures from GeoCongress 2012; American Society of Civil Engineering: Reston, VA, USA, 2012;
pp. 1–33.
22. Van Genuchten, M.T. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1980, 44, 892–898. [CrossRef]
Minerals 2017, 7, 128 17 of 17

23. Benson, C.H.; Sawangsuriya, A.; Trzebiatowski, B.; Albright, W.H. Postconstruction changes in the hydraulic
properties of water balance cover soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 2007, 133, 349–359. [CrossRef]
24. Bareither, C.A.; Foley, J.C.; Benson, C.H. Using surrogate meteorological data to predict the hydrology of
a water balance cover. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 2015, 142, 1–16. [CrossRef]
25. Benson, C.H. Modeling unsaturated flow and atmospheric interactions. In Theoretical and Numerical
Unsaturated Soil Mechanics; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 187–201.
26. Ogorzalek, A.S.; Bohnhoff, G.L.; Shackelford, C.D.; Benson, C.H.; Apiwantragoon, P. Comparison of field
data and water-balance predictions for a capillary barrier cover. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 2008, 134, 470–486.
[CrossRef]
27. Bohnhoff, G.L.; Ogorzalek, A.S.; Benson, C.H.; Shackelford, C.D.; Apiwantragoon, P. Field data and
water-balance predictions for a monolithic cover in a semiarid climate. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 2009, 135,
333–348. [CrossRef]
28. Fayer, M.J. UNSAT-H Version 3.0: Unsaturated Soil Water and Heat Flow Model. Theory, User Manual,
and Examples; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Richland, WA, USA, 2000.
29. Khire, M.V.; Benson, C.H.; Bosscher, P.J. Water balance modeling of earthen final covers. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
1997, 123, 744–754. [CrossRef]
30. Penman, H.L. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys.
Eng. Sci. 1948, 193, 120–145. [CrossRef]
31. Schaap, M.G.; Leij, F.J. Improved prediction of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity with the Mualem-van
Genuchten model. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 843–851. [CrossRef]
32. Roesler, A.C.; Benson, C.H.; Albright, W.H. Field Hydrology and Model Predictions for Final Covers in the
Alternative Cover Assessment Program-2002; Geo Engineering Report; University of Wisconsin-Madison:
Madison, WI, USA, 2002; pp. 2–8.
33. Bareither, C.A.; Benson, C. Evaluation of Bouwer-Rice large-particle correction procedure for soil water
characteristic curves. Geotech. Test. J. 2013, 36, 680–694. [CrossRef]
34. Shelley, T.L.; Daniel, D.E. Effect of gravel on hydraulic conductivity of compacted soil liners. J. Geotech. Eng.
1993, 119, 54–68. [CrossRef]
35. Bouwer, H.; Rice, R.C. Renovation of wastewater at the 23rd Avenue rapid infiltration project. J. Water Pollut.
Control Fed. 1984, 56, 76–83.
36. Gorakhki, M.H.; Bareither, C.A. Unconfined compressive strength of synthetic and natural mine tailings
amended with fly ash and cement. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2017, 143, 1–14. [CrossRef]
37. Lottermoser, B.G. Recycling, reuse and rehabilitation of mine wastes. Elements 2011, 7, 405–410. [CrossRef]
38. McLellan, B.C.; Corder, G.D.; Giurco, D.; Green, S. Incorporating sustainable development in the design of
mineral processing operations–Review and analysis of current approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1414–1425.
[CrossRef]
39. McLellan, B.C.; Corder, G.D.; Ali, S.H. Sustainability of rare earths—An overview of the state of knowledge.
Minerals 2013, 3, 304–317. [CrossRef]
40. Corder, G.D. Insights from case studies into sustainable design approaches in the minerals industry.
Miner. Eng. 2015, 76, 47–57. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).