PERSPECTIVES
SUCCESSFUL CLOSURE OF WASTE ROCK
STORAGE FACILITIES
Terry Brown Executive Consultant - ESG
December 2022 | #145
Mineral resource mining and processing operations
around the world generate significant amounts of waste,
predominantly wastewater, non-economic ore, waste
rock and tailings. The majority of material moved to access
mineral ores is discarded as waste rock. Huge amounts
of waste rock are produced around the world each year,
with the quantity expected to grow as lower-grade and
larger-scale deposits are mined to keep up with the global
demand for mineral resources (Vriens et al. 2020).
Acid rock drainage is an environmental problem of global
scale and deterioration of water quality from acid rock
drainage may persist for many years depending on the
geochemistry of the system (Evangelou 1995).
The model for the pyrite oxidation process is illustrated in
Figure 1 (Stumm and Morgan, 1996; Banks et al., 1997; Ali,
2011; Buzzi et al., 2013). This process differs from oxidation
of other acid-forming sulphide minerals but it illustrates
the basis for the acid-forming reactions. It must be noted
that though two oxidisable species are present in pyrite
(ferrous iron and sulphidic sulphur), it was experimentally
determined that irrespective of the mechanism (oxygen
or ferric mediated), during the initial solubilisation of
pyrite, only the sulphidic sulphur is oxidised and the iron
passes into solution in the ferrous state (Lowson, 1982).
1
Post closure rehabilitation of vegetation at mining operation.
Figure 1: Model for Pyrite Oxidation Process
In an environment which is sufficiently oxidising
(dependent on 02 concentration, pH greater than 3.5 and
bacteria activity), the ferrous iron generated as shown
in Figure 1 may be oxidised to ferric iron via the reaction
in Figure 2 (Blowes et al., 2003; Akcil and Koldas, 2006;
Udayabhanu and Prasad, 2010).
Figure 2: Model for Ferric Iron Production
Once ferric iron is produced by the oxidation of ferrous
iron (Figure 2), which is the case at low pH conditions and
strongly accelerated by microbiological activities, ferric
iron becomes an oxidant of pyrite (Figure 3) (Dold, 2010).
In fact, an important factor in the oxidation of pyrite and
the generation of acid mine waters is that Fe3+ is able
to oxidise pyrite under anoxic subaqueous conditions at
a much faster rate than does molecular oxygen (Espana,
2008). In other words, though oxygen is a primary oxidant,
the ferric iron (Fe3+) resulting from the oxidation of ferrous
iron is recognised as a more powerful oxidant than oxygen,
even at near neutral pH values (Zdun, 2001).
Figure 3: Model for Ferric Iron becomming an Oxident of Pyrite
It is noted that at pH < 3.5, reaction in Figure 2 is several
orders of magnitude slower than reaction in Figure
1 (Espana, 2008). Therefore, the oxidation of Fe2+  by
oxygen is considered as the rate-limiting step in pyrite
oxidation (Singer and Stumm, 1970). However, the
presence of acidophilic bacteria such as Acidithiobacillus
ferrooxidans  and  Leptospirillum ferrooxidans  greatly
accelerates the abiotic oxidation rate by a factor of 106
(Singer and Stumm, 1970; Nordstrom and Alpers, 1999;
Espana, 2008), thus maintaining a high concentration of
ferric iron in the system.
The geochemical processes involved in mine waste
weathering and drainage are well understood. However,
the prediction of drainage from mine wastes requires
identification of the local geology and weathering
mechanisms occurring under existing redox conditions
(Plumlee 1999). The weathering conditions and the
geology at a mining site are usually known, however,
the composition of waste rock varies from mine to mine
and can be heterogeneous within a mine site. Thus,
the prediction of mine wastewater quality during the
planning/design stages of a project is often a challenge.
Oxidation of acid-forming material (AFM) causes the
formation of acid and the release of elements such as
arsenic, copper, selenium and other elements that may
persist in solution, causing water quality issues (Evangelo
1995). The presence of acid neutralisation materials
is often available to react with the acid to eliminate
acid water conditions. However, although the acid is
neutralised, elements released during mineral dissolution
often remain in solution and are mobilised with the
seepage (Evangelou 1995; Nicholson et al. 2000). As
most waste rock storage facilities (WRSFs) are not lined,
the seepage migrates into receiving waters, negatively
impacting the aquatic ecosystems. Closure of a WRSF
must include mitigation actions to control seepage to
prevent water quality issues.
An important consideration for the closure of a WRSF
is the potential for significant lag time between waste
placement and onset of acid rock drainage (ARD). This
phenomenon is associated with the kinetics of the acid
forming reactions being controlled by the geochemistry of
the system often identified as the Galvanic Effect (Mehta
& Murr 1983, Evangelou 1995). The Galvanic Effect results
from the oxidation of a non-acid forming sulphide that
suppresses the oxidation of an acid forming sulphide. This
control mechanism can last for extended periods of time.
This type of ARD control exists in a WRSF that I have been
involved with in eastern Europe, resulting in 25-year delays
in acid formation (Brown, pers. Comm. July 2021).
The dissolution of carbonate minerals (calcite, dolomite,
ankerite), Al- and Fe-(oxy)hydroxides such as gibbsite
and ferrihydrite) and silicate minerals (feldspars, chlorites,
smectites, micas) introduces alkalinity into the solution
that neutralises acidity produced by sulphide oxidation.
2
Acid-buffering minerals dissolve simultaneously with
minerals undergoing sulphide oxidation when mixed in
the waste rock. The kinetics of carbonate dissolution are
typically rapid compared to sulphide oxidation, while the
dissolution of silicates is orders-of-magnitude slower.
This introduces important considerations with respect
to the timescales required for effective neutralisation
of acid. The concern is, if the kinetics of acid formation
is slow, the dissolution of the neutralising source can
be exhausted before the sulphides are oxidised and the
system could generate ARD and leachable elements
(Kirste et al. 2017). In this case, acid-base accounting does
not provide a good indication of acid formation.
To minimise detrimental environmental impacts from mine
wastes, effective long-term waste management strategies
must be employed during construction of a WRSF. Mitigation
actions are available that significantly reduce risks through
the post-closure phase. The key is to incorporate mitigation
actions in the initial stages of the project making sure
potential environmental risks are identified, based on the
expected geochemical conditions, and associated mitigation
actions are incorporated in the facility design.
In my experience with project closure over the past
30 years, waste rock management is almost never
planned or considered during project design. A WRSF
is usually located near the mining operation based
on ease of placement and the vicinity of mining.
Little, if any consideration is given to closure success
based on potential environmental impact. The idea of
environmental impact mitigation usually is considered
long after project design is completed and often after
waste rock is generated. Sometimes this approach works
fine but often negative outcomes are not known until
long after closure. This is often the basis of major legacy
issues noted at sites located throughout the world.
The discussion above highlights the need for early planning
of waste rock management. Mitigation actions are
available that significantly reduce risks during and after the
post-closure phase. This paper outlines a simple approach
to closure to lessen future environmental impacts.
CLOSURE ACTIONS TO CONSIDER
The successful closure of a WRSF requires consideration
of mitigation actions to significantly reduce or eliminate
potential environmental impacts. The relationship
between mining requirements and environmental impact
risks must be assessed during the design process.
Actions implemented to reduce or eliminate long-term
environmental impacts specific to mine conditions are
based on innovations directed to specific problems,
geochemical characterisation of materials, climatic
conditions and potential climate change issues. The
location and use of mitigation actions determined to be
the best to facilitate closure are based on many factors
relating to the following:
Availability of appropriate sites near the mining activity
and the topographic conditions required. The geochemical
characterisation of the waste rock to assess the potential
impact to water quality i.e. does the material have the
potential to develop ARD (acid and leachable elements)?
If environmental impact is a potential problem, the
condition of surface water and groundwater resources in
the area must be determined.
Mitigation measures required to remove or significantly
reduce potential water quality impacts. The strategy
used to develop a successful closure plan involves a series
of steps using an approach requiring limited migration
actions to a complex coordination of many actions
dependent on potential impacts.
1. Geochemical Characterisation of Waste Rock
The first step in project closure evaluation is
characterisation of the waste rock for the potential to
degrade water quality. Geochemical characterisation
should include estimation of the acid-producing versus
acid-neutralising nature of waste-rock based on
laboratory studies using static and kinetic testing and
mineralogical analyses.
Geochemical reactions of waste rock weathering typically
have large variability due to differences in waste-rock
composition across mine sites. As such, sulphide oxidation
and weathering rates vary by orders-of-magnitude. Such
variations were noted in long-term oxidation studies
conducted by White & Jeffers (1994), while developing a
predictive model for ARD from waste rock.
Waste rock characterisation and the potential to
generate ARD and leachable elements must include
quantitative assessment of relevant attenuation
mechanisms, supported by mineralogical analyses and
geochemical modelling (White & Jeffers 1994; Lèbre et
al. 2017). Solute attenuation by adsorption or secondary
mineral formation can lead to apparent discrepancies
between the elemental composition of bulk waste rock
and observed drainage loads.
The next step following an indication that the waste rock
generated poses a risk to environmental quality is to define
the water resource characteristics of the project area.
2. Water Resources Characterisation
If waste rock characterisation shows the possibility for
water degradation, an understanding of the potential
impact to water resources in the area must be defined.
A Water Resources Assessment should be conducted
including characterisation of the surface water and
groundwater systems. The components of the surface
water resources including streams, lakes, wetlands and
other aquatic habitats should be included along with the
quality and quantity components of the groundwater
system. Interactions between the surface water and
groundwater must be understood, along with existing
springs and water wells in the project vicinity.
3
The water resource characterisation in combination with
waste rock characterisation information determines the
impact risks to be expected and the mitigation actions
required to protect the environment.
3. Strategic Placement of the Waste Rock
Storage Facility
Placement of a WRSF is usually based on the availability
of land with appropriate topography located in the vicinity
of the mining operation with limited consideration for the
site characteristics required to achieve successful closure.
As noted previously, successful WRSF closure requires
consideration during the design phase of the project. If waste
rock characterisation and water resource considerations
suggest that water resources protection is required, the
placement location of the facility is a prime consideration.
Placement of a WRSF at specific locations in the landscape
will dictate the direction of seepage movement. In addition,
seepage from specific locations within a facility flow in
diverse directions. Flow path configurations can be used
to control migration of solutions to points of control and/
or containment. An example of placement control might
be related to the placement of AFM in a location where
seepage migrates into a mine pit, which acts as a sink for
groundwater flow. Other examples might relate to flow
controlled by an underground mine or the migration of
water away from an aquifer system. This type of control is
often effective at reduced long-term closure costs.
4. Water Management
Water management is a critical component required
to reduce seepage from a WRSF. Stream flow should
be diverted around or underneath the WRSF. It is often
managed with the construction of a flow system below
the facility or a diversion around it, preventing interactions
with the waste rock. With some creative thinking, the
use of HDPE and other materials can be used to separate
waste rock seepage from the stream. A diversion channel
constructed along the periphery of the WRSF is the best
way to prevent runoff from contributing to seepage.
5. Seepage Control
Surface seepage from a WRSF can be collected using
ditches and other containment structures located at
strategic locations around the facility. However, without
appropriate seepage control beneath the facility, leachate
can migrate into groundwater and sometimes surface
water, impacting water quality.
If seepage is an issue, liner systems can be installed to
prevent leachate migration to surface and groundwater
resources. This mitigation action is often a last resort
due to large areas and the insurmountable costs. Other
approaches such as installing water wells down gradient
of the facility to support a pump and treat system are
sometimes used. The issue with this mitigation is that
long-term operations and maintenance required to
maintain water quality.
 PAF
CaCO3 - 15cm thick
Compacted Zone - 15cm thick

NAF PAF
CaCO3 - 15cm thick
Compacted Zone - 15cm thick

Figure 4: Waste Rock Encapsulation within the Storage Facility.

6. Encapsulation of Waste Rock in the WRSF
Encapsulation is a mitigation action used to control
seepage from potentially acid-forming (PAF) waste rock
in a WRSF, see Figure 4. This is used in lieu of constructing
a liner system for the entire WRSF and/or a pump and
treat system, which would likely be cost prohibitive.
Waste rock characterised as PAF and/or producing
leachable elements is identified in the mine and
transported to specific locations in the WRSF that are
prepared to control ARD. Samples collected during
resource development and during blasting activities are
analysed and used to identify specific locations of the
problem materials. The high-risk rock is transported
to prepared locations lined with compacted clay prior
to placement followed by installation of a clay cap and
non acid-forming (NAF) waste. Where acid-neutralising
material (CaCo3) is available, the addition of this material
around the PAF cells will further act to mitigate ARD.
The materials identified are transported to prepared
encapsulation sites via instructions from the truck traffic
controller. The placement location and volumes of
materials are documented to provide records to support
actions needed to mitigate issues that occur in the future.
The encapsulation mitigation procedure can be used in
combination with other control measures to enhance
water quality protection.
7. Mixing Acid Forming Materials with High
Neutralisation Potential
Acid forming waste rock can be mixed with material
characterised with high neutralisation potential to
mitigate the formation of acid. The resulting material may
not generate acid but can produce leachable elements
that potentially impact water quality. Also, as noted in
the Introduction, the kinetics of acid generation and
the dissolution of the neutralising minerals may differ,
resulting in acid formation.
seepage into receiving waters. The potential for these
constituents to sorb on clay and organic surfaces can be
enhanced to reduce levels found in the seepage. Testing can
be conducted to develop mixtures to enhance both actions.
Material mixing is often used in combination with other
actions to achieve successful mitigation of ARD. This
procedure should not be considered an appropriate
mitigation action by itself.
8. Caping the WRSF
The placement of a cap on a WRSF during closure is an
effective mitigation action to reduce water infiltration
decreasing the quantity of seepage from the facility.
Establishing vegetation on the cap to reduce the amount of
water infiltration is an important component of the cap. This
action is more effective in dry climates where precipitation
approximates evapotranspiration requirements.
At locations characterised with high precipitation, the
best method to control infiltration is to create a textural
barrier below the root zone by placing a fine-textured
root zone material above a gravel/sand layer. The
significant texture difference slows downward water
movement. Water is held in the root zone and is available
for plant uptake. This works well in the growing season
but not so well during other times. Water is still held in
the surface materials but leakage from the fine-textured
material to the waste rock increases as the pore space
approaches saturation. In areas experiencing high levels
of precipitation, a more appropriate capping system
is required i.e., an engineered cap using HDPE or other
materials that prevent infiltration into the WRSF. Water
percolating through the rootzone is collected and used
to support water supply requirements.
In desert climates, seepage is not an issue but often a
cap is required to prevent dust generation and resulting
issues with stakeholders living or using adjacent areas.
Heavy textured materials such as rock or sandy materials
are used as a cap without consideration for revegetation.

Many of the metals will precipitate out and/or absorb onto This mitigation action is often used with other mitigation
particle surfaces. However, metalloids such as arsenic and applications to achieve seepage control.
selenium often remain in solution and migrate with the

4
9. Revegetating WRSF
As noted previously, vegetation establishment on caps is
important to promote transpiration removing significant
amounts of precipitation that would otherwise contribute
to seepage. The vegetation used is site specific and should
be determined based on climatic conditions, ease of
establishment, water use requirements and fertilisation
considerations. Slope and aspect may be important for
planning components of an established plant community.
An erosion control and water management program must
be implemented and maintained to support long-term
stability of the vegetation community. Appropriate
water diversions are required to manage water flow
using structures such as ditches and diversions armoured
with erosion control materials. Maintenance of erosional
features is an important component of the program
required to maintain stability of the vegetation.
10. Climate Change Assessment
Climate change is an important consideration that must
be included in closure planning. Precipitation levels will
change as climate change responds to global warming.
Some areas will receive more intense storms while other
areas will become deserts. Appropriate measures must
be incorporated into the closure plans for specific climate
change expectations.
11. Water Monitoring
A monitoring program should be implemented prior to
construction of the WRSF to develop baseline for the
surface water and groundwater systems located in the
vicinity of the facility. Sampling should continue throughout
operations and the post-closure project phases to provide
early detection of water quality issues related to seepage.
If issues are detected, appropriate mitigation measures
must be implemented to prevent or reduce further
impact to water quality. It is advisable to develop backup
mitigation plans early in project development to support
quick response to major contamination issues.
ALTERNATIVE WASTE ROCK STORAGE
CONCEPTS
Waste rock storage often includes alternative storage
concepts such as backfill for surface and underground
mines, used as construction materials, placement in lakes
and combined with tailings in tailings storage facilities.
Geochemical characterisation often dictates storage
requirements, but most alternatives can be managed to
handle acid forming materials.
5
1. Water Inundation of Waste Rock
Placement of waste rock underwater usually reduces
sulphide oxidation through redox control by forming
anoxic conditions. The placement of waste rock in water
bodies, mine pit lakes and in saturate tailings storage
facilities can be used to prevent sulphide oxidation and
the formation of acid and leachable elements detrimental
to water quality. The primary concern during closure is to
maintain the saturated condition beyond the post-closure
phase. If the system dries, the sulphides oxidise and acid
is generated which usually causes a significant problem.
This system is used primarily used where lakes or similar
facilities are stable beyond post-closure and the anoxic
redox conditions are maintained.
2. Waste Rock Storage – Mine Pit and
Underground Mine
Waste rock is often stored in the mine to reduce costs
while establishing an environmentally sound approach.
The key to success is the placement of acid forming
waste rock at locations that will be inundated with
water significantly reducing sulphide oxidation. This
type of disposal environment is often found in surface
and underground mines. With that said, issues resulting
at the air (oxygen) water interface must be considered
and mitigated. Fluctuations at the interface often cause
the formation of acid and the mobilisation of elements
detrimental to water quality. However, mitigation
measures can be implemented to significantly reduce
acid generation. The primary step is to locate acid forming
waste rock in the mine (surface and underground) where
air is limited. Acid forming material should not be placed
where water levels will fluctuate causing oxidation,
mobilising elements into the water. Also, the use of
organic materials to establish anoxic redox conditions
have been used to prevent sulphide oxidation.
CLOSURE COSTS
Detailed closure plans with associated closure cost
estimates should be developed early in the planning and
design stages of a project. The project must complete
a detailed closure plan based on projected plans. The
mitigation plan for closure usually requires many project
design components often significantly increasing
project costs. Resulting costs should be included in
the financial model. Minimum considerations should
include the availability of funds by appropriate financial
instruments to cover cost of closure at any stage of
project development. Funding should be by either a cash
accrual or a financial guarantee. This security assures
appropriate closure even if a project becomes insolvent.
RPM AND MINE CLOSURE
We consider rehabilitation and closure to be an integral
part of the mine planning process. Right through the life
cycle of a mining assets development achievable and
adaptable closure outcomes need to be considered, along
with their cost viability and the broader strategic plans
for the asset’s development. By conducting engineering
led design RPMGlobal is able to draw multidisciplinary
technical information from environmental geochemistry
right through to social performance criteria into the
life of mine plan right through to the post mining land
outcomes in a cost effective a proactive manner.
LITERATURE CITED
Evangelou, V.P. 1995, Acid Drainage Production, Chemistry,
and Prediction, Pyrite Oxidation and Its Control, CRC
Press, Inc., Boca Raton.
Kirste, D., Pearce, J., & Golding, S. 2017, Parameterizing
Geochemical Models: Do Kinetics of Calcite Matter?,
Procedia Earth Planet. Sci., vol. 17, pp. 606–609.
Lèbre, É., Corder, G.D., & Golev, A. 2017, Sustainable
practices in the management of mining waste: A focus
on the mineral resource, Miner. Eng., vol. 107, pp. 34–42.
About the Author
Terry has over 35 years of U.S. and International experience serving
in environmental management positions. Experience includes
working on numerous mining projects in the United States and
throughout the world including Canada, Latin America (Mexico,
Central and South America), Europe, Africa, Asia, and Indonesia.
He has managed large due diligence projects responsible for
the environmental and social evaluations primarily with mining
projects.
About RPMGlobal
RPMGlobal is the global leader in the digital transformation of
mining. We provide data with context, transforming mining
operations. Our Enterprise approach, built on open industry
standards, delivers the leading digital platform that connects the
systems and information and seamlessly, amplifying decision-
making across the mining value chain.
RPMGlobal integrates the planning and scheduling, with
maintenance and execution, with simulation and costings,
on RPMGlobal’s Enterprise Planning Framework, the mining
industry’s only digital platform that delivers insight and control
across these core processes.
6 info@rpmglobal.com.
Mehta, A.P., & Murr, L.E., 1983, Fundamental studies of
the contribution of galvanic interaction to acid-bacterial
leaching of mixed metal sulfides, Hydrometallurgy, vol. 9,
pp. 235 -
Nicholson, R.V., & Rinker, M.J. 2000, Metal leaching from
sulphide mine waste under neutral pH conditions, In
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Acid
Rock Drainage (ICARD), Denver, CO, USA, 21–24 May
2000, pp. 951–958.
Plumlee, G.S. 1999, The environmental geology of mineral
deposits, In Plumlee, G.S., Longsdon, M.S., Eds., The
Environmental Geochemistry of Mineral Deposits. Part
A: Processes, Techniques and Health Issues, Society of
Economic Geologists, Littleton, CO, USA, pp. 71–116
Vriens, Bas, Plante, Benoît, Seigneur, Nicolas, & Jamieson,
Heather 2020, Mine Waste Rock: Insights for Sustainable
Hydrogeochemical Management, Minerals, vol. 10, pp.
728-764.
White III, W.W., & Jeffers, T.H. 1994, Chemical Prediction
Modeling of Acid Mine Drainage from Metallic Sulfide-
Bearing Waste Rock, in Charles N. Alpers & David W.
Blowes (eds), Environmental Geochemistry of Sulfide
Oxidation, Symposium 204th National Meeting of the
American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., pp. 608-
630.
Significant experience in environmental impact analysis of
mining projects, development of impact mitigation measures,
construction and operations permitting of mine projects,
reclamation/mine closure planning, pit lake development,
environmental monitoring, evaluation of compliance with
environmental standards, liability determinations, and
environmental cost accounting. Experience with the Equator
Principles III, IFC Performance Standards, IFC EHS Guidelines on
Mining and other IFC Guidelines for mine associated facilities,
and World Bank Guidelines.
RPMGlobal’s Consulting & Advisory Team advise the global
mining industry on their most critical issues and opportunities,
from exploration to mine closure. Their deep domain expertise,
combined with their culture of innovation, and global footprint,
ensures our mining customers continue to lead.
RPMGlobal is the global leader in Enterprise mining software,
Consulting & Advisory services and Professional development
who operate offices in 20 locations across 13 countries and have
worked in over 125 countries.
For more information visit rpmglobal.com or email