Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697644121442.pdf (Australia)
Author's personal copy ContinuingpollutionfromtheRumJungleU–Cuproject:AcriticalevaluationofenvironmentalmonitoringandrehabilitationGavinM.Mudda,*,JamesPattersonbaEnvironmentalEngineering,DeptofCivilEngineering,MonashUniversity,Clayton,VIC3800,AustraliabEnvironmentalEngineeringConsultant,Sydney,NSW,AustraliaTheRumJungleU–Cuprojectunderwentextensiverehabilitationinthe1980’s,however,itremainsamajorcauseofpollutiontotheFinnissRiver.articleinfoArticlehistory:Received2September2009Receivedinrevisedform25January2010Accepted29January2010Keywords:AcidminedrainageEnvironmentalpollutionUraniumminingMinesiterehabilitationabstractTheformerRumJungleuranium–copperproject,Australia,isaninternationallyimportantcasestudyonenvironmentalpollutionfromandrehabilitationofmining.TheRumJungleminingprojectisbrieﬂyreviewed,followedbyacriticalevaluationofmonitoringdataandpollutionloadspriortoandafterrehabilitation–leadingtotheconclusionthatrehabilitationhasclearlyfailedthetestoftimeafterjusttwodecades.Themostcriticalﬁndingsaretheneedtounderstandpollutioncyclesholistically,anddesigningmonitoringregimestomatch,explicitinclusionofradiologicalcriteria(lackinginoriginalplanning),andﬁnallytheneedtosettargetsbasedonenvironmentalcriteria.Twoexamplesincludepollutedgroundwaterwhichwasexcludedfromrehabilitationandthepoordesign,constructionand/orperformanceofengineeredsoilcovers–bothleadingtoincreasingaciddrainageimpactsontheFinnissRiver.Thecriticalreviewthereforepresentsavaluablecasestudyoftheenvironmentalperformanceofuraniumminesiterehabilitation.
2010ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.1.IntroductionIntheAustralianminingindustry,theformerRumJungleuranium–copperprojectholdsaspecialplaceformanyreasons.Itwastheﬁrstprojecttocommerciallymineandexporturaniumfornuclearweaponsinthe1950’s,itwasamajorpartofthepost-warNorthernTerritoryeconomy,itcausedwidespreadongoingenvi-ronmentalpollutionwhichreachedmanykilometresdownstream,itwasamongtheﬁrstgenerationofpollutingformerminesitestoberehabilitatedinthe1980’sandthiswasfollowedbyadecade-longpost-rehabilitationmonitoringprogram.Itisthereforepossibletoassessthepollutionloadsleavingthesitepriortoandfollowingrehabilitation,providingauniqueandimportantcasestudyforsuchprojects,especiallythelong-termeffectivenessofrehabilitatingformeruraniummines.AlthoughtherearenumerouspapersonspeciﬁcaspectsofRumJungle,thispaperseekstosynthesizeallkeydataandinformationandanalyseitholisticallyfromanenvironmentalperspective.ThepaperbrieﬂyreviewstheRumJungleproject,followedbyadetailedcompilationandcriticalevaluationoftheavailableenvironmentalmonitoringdata,givingauniquecasestudyoftheenvironmentalperformanceofuraniumminesiterehabilitation.2.TheRumJungleU–Cuproject–abriefhistoryTheRumJungleuranium–copperproject(U–Cu)hasbeenanimportantminingprojectinAustralia,formanyreasonsasnotedpreviously.Thissectionisabriefhistorytounderstandtheproject,itssubsequentrehabilitationandenvironmentalmonitoring.Themineralpotentialofthe‘RumJungle’region,justsouthofDarwin,hadbeennotedsincetheoriginalsurveysbyGoyder’steamin1869,primarilyforCuandgold(butnothingofeconomicinterestwasfound)(Barlow,1962).Thenameisbelievedtobederivedfromabullockwagonofrumwhichwasboggedinaswampin1871onitswaytothePineCreekgoldﬁeld,withthebullocky’sthendrinkingtheentirecargo–andthenameofRumJunglehasbeenusedeversince(Barrie,1982).Between1906and1913theareawasevaluatedforcopper,butnothingofeconomicinterestwasdiscovered(Crohn,1968).Theregionislocatedinthetropicalwet-dryclimateofnorthernAustralia,showninFig.1.FollowingtheadventofthenuclearweaponsracefromAugust1945,theAustralianGovernmentvigorouslypro
moteduranium(U)prospecting.In1949,localpastoralownerandamateurprospectorJackWhite,readingthegovernmentpamphletonUminerals,realisedthattheunusualgreenmineralsfromthebedoftheFinnissRiverweremostlikelytorbenite(theywereclearlynotCu)(Annabell,1971;Barrie,1982;Raggatt,1968).Thepotentialsignif-icancewasquicklyrealised,withtheAustraliangovernmenttaking*Correspondingauthor.E-mailaddress:Gavin.Mudd@eng.monash.edu.au(G.M.Mudd).ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirectEnvironmentalPollutionjournalhomepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/envpol0269-7491/$–seefrontmatter2010ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2010.01.017EnvironmentalPollution158(2010)1252–1260
Author's personal copy overinthe‘nationalinterest’(LichazandMyers,1977).Bylate1951twomodestUdepositswereprovenatWhite’s(U–Cu)andDyson’s(U).InAugust1952UexportarrangementswereagreedtowiththeUK/USA,beingfornuclearweapons,andtheﬁnalcontractwassignedon6January1953(Gowing,1974).TheprojectwasownedbytheAustralianGovernment,operatedundercontractbyConsoli-datedZinc(ConZinc,latertobecomeCRALtd,nowRioTintoLtd)andwasﬁnancedbytheUS–UKCombinedDevelopmentAgency(CDA)(Grifﬁths,1998).Theprojectwasconsideredamilitaryprojectandwasthereforeregulatedasaprojectofnationalsecurity–notbasedonnormalmininglawandregulations(DNT,1978;Rafferty,1982).Afteradifﬁcultconstructionperiod,includingswitchingfromundergroundtoopencutminingwhichnecessitateda1kmdiversionoftheFinnissRiver,theprojectwasofﬁciallyopenedinSeptember1954andproduceditsﬁrsturaniumoxide(U3O8)(Cawte,1992).TheWhite’sandDyson’sopencutswerecompletedbylate1958,withthemillprocessingstockpiledUandU–CuoreaswellasasmallamountofpurchasedUore.In1959,explorationdiscoveredtheRumJungleCreekSouth(RJCS)Udeposit,andthisprovedlargerthanWhite’sandDyson’scombined(Berkman,1968).TheRJCSsitewasminedover1961–63,andallowedprocessingtocontinueatRumJungleuntil1971withallUfromRJCSstockpiledbytheAustralianGovernment.TheIntermediateCudepositadjacenttoWhite’swasminedbyConZincover1964–65separatetotheCDAcontractandtollpro-cessedthroughthemill,plusanexperimentalCuheapleachproject(Fraser,1979).TheBrown’sPb–Cu–Ni–Co–Agprospectwasstudiedbutabandonedasuneconomicduetolowgradesanddifﬁcultprocessing(theBrown’s‘oxide’projectwasdevelopedin2008,miningoxideoreonly,butwentbankruptinearly2009duetothecollapseofcommodityprices;amajorsulﬁdeprojectcouldstillbedevelopedinthefuture).AcompilationofrelevantminingdataisgiveninTable1.Fig.1.LocationandsitemapoftheRumJungleU–Cuproject,NorthernTerritory(top)(adaptedfromPidsley,2002);correspondingGoogleEarthimage–date7June2005(bottom)(adaptedfromGE,2009).G.M.Mudd,J.Patterson/EnvironmentalPollution158(2010)1252–12601253 Author's personal copy
TheRumJungleprojectwasoperatedona‘production’basis–environmentalimpactswereclearlynotconsideredimportant(LichazandMyers,1977).Duringtheearlyyearsofoperation(1954–61),tailingsweredischargedtoaﬂatlow-lyingarea(laterknownas‘OldTailingsCreek)adjacenttothemill,thoughthetailingsprovedhighlyerodible(Davy,1975).About1millionL/dayofliquidefﬂuentwasdischargedintotheFinnissRiver,containingacids(pH1.5),metalsandradionuclides–attimesliquidwasteswoulddisappearintoholeswhichopenedupattheCucementa-tionlaundersforseveralweeks,untiltheareawascoveredandlaterabandoned(seeDavy,1975).About640,000toftailingswasdischargedandcovered35ha,withsome10–25%ofthesetailingshavingbeenerodedby1984whenrehabilitationwasundertaken.In1961,tailingsweredirectedtotheformerDyson’sopencutandtwosmallretentiondamswerebuiltontheFinnisstostoreprocessliquorsduringthedryseason,namelytheAcidandSweetwaterdams.Itwashopedthatearlywetseasonrainswouldgeneratesufﬁcientﬂowsfordilution–thoughlatercalculationsinthe1970’sshowedthisattemptatmanagingwaterimpactscouldneverhaveworked.TailingsandliquidwasteswerethendirectedtoWhite’sfrom1965to71withregularoverﬂowingduringthewetseason.RumJunglewasamajorsourceofenvironmentalpollutionfortheFinnissRiver–duetotailingsandliquidwastedischargesbutalsoduetotheacidminedrainage(AMD)derivedfromthetailingsbutespeciallywasterockdumps(Richardsetal.,1996).Thescaleoftheproblemwasidentiﬁedbythelate1950’sbutwasignoredduetothepoliticalnatureandperceivedimportanceoftheRumJungleproject(LichazandMyers,1977).Afterclosurein1971,nomajorworkswereundertakentoreducepollutionandbythemid-1970’stheRumJungleprojectwasinfamousforitsextremepollution,suchastheabsenceofallbiotafor15kmdowntheFinnissRiverandcontaminationofw100km2ofﬂoodplains(Davy,1975).TheenvironmentallegacyofRumJunglewasalsoamajorissueduringtheRangerUraniumEnvi-ronmentalInquiry(Foxetal.,1977).TheAustraliangovernmentconductedmajorrehabilitationworksover1982–86costingsome$18.6million(Richardsetal.,1996).TheprojectwasamongstoneoftheearliestinAustraliatoremediateanAMDsite,withtheprimaryobjectivesbeing:
(i)reductioninFinnissRiverpollutionloads(70%eachforCu–Zn,56%forMn);(ii)reductioninpublichealthhazards(includingradia-tion);(iii)reductioninpollutionloadsinWhite’sandIntermediateopencuts;(iv)aestheticimprovementsandrevegetation(AllenandVerhoeven,1986).AlthoughtheRJCSsitewasignoredduringtheRumJunglerehabilitationprogram,asitwasconsideredtohavenomajorpollutionproblems,itwaslaterfoundtopresentapublicradio-logicalexposureissueduetoitspopularityforrecreationalswim-ming.RJCSwasthenaddressedwithadditionalworksin1991tocoverthewasterockdumpandachieveunrestrictedpublicuseofthesite(seeKvasnickaetal.,1992).RumJunglehasbeenvisitedover2004–2007,andclearlyremainsamajorAMDpollutionsourcetotheFinnissRiver–despitetheextentofrehabilitationworks.Itisinthiscontextthattheavailableenvironmentalmonitoringispresented,analysedanddiscussed.Thesiteremainsacriticalcasestudy,providingnumerousinsightsintotheeffectivenessofminerehabilitation–withparticularrelevanceforuraniummining.3.GeologyandhydrogeologyoftheRumJungleregionThegeologyandhydrogeologyoftheRumJungleregioniscomplex,withthemostrecentdescriptionsgivenbyMcKayandMiezitis(2001)andCR(2005),summarisedherein.RumJungleisonthewesternpartofthePineCreekGeosyncline,withregionalgeologycomprisingPalaeoproterozoicmetasedi-ments(low-gradegreenschistfacies)unconformablyoverlyingArchaeangraniticbasement(theRumJungleComplex).Surﬁcialrocksareoftenintenselyweathered.TheGiant’sReefFaulthascausedsome4–5kmofdisplacement,leadingtoanembaymentstructurewhichisthelocationofmostmineralisedzones.Geologiccross-sectionsofWhite’s,Dyson’s,IntermediateandRumJungleCreekSoutharegivenbyFraser(1979).Thehydrogeologyiscomprisedprimarilyofsurﬁcialweatheredaquifersandunderlyingfracturedrockaquifersofvaryingsigniﬁ-cance,showninFig.2.Groundwaterisfoundbetween2and12mfromthesurface,andvarieswiththewet-drymonsoonalclimate,suggestingactiverechargeintounconﬁnedaquifersanddynamicdischargeprocessessuchastranspirationortosurfacewaterfeatures(CR,2005).Karsticsolutionfeaturesindolomiteareo
ftenpresent(e.g.liquidwasteswereoftenknowntovanishintosolutionfeatures;seeDavy,1975).Theextentofhydraulicconnectionbetweenshallowanddeepaquifersremainsuninvestigated.4.RumJunglerehabilitationprojectGiventheimportanceofRumJungleasatestcaseforAMDremediationinmining,amajorenvironmentalmonitoringprogramwasinitiatedafterrehabilitation,runningfrom1986until1998.TheTable1PrincipalminingdatafortheRumJungleﬁeld.OpencutWhite’sDyson’sRumJunglecreeksouthIntermediatecopperMtBurtonPeriod1953–Nov581954–Nov58Apr61–Aug6364–65Oct–Nov58Volume3,560,000m3917,000m32,220,000m3971,000m3101,000m3SurfaceArea110,000m260,000m2w110,000m250,000m2–UOre396,000ta156,000t663,000t–6100tGrade0.27%U3O80.341%U3O80.43%U3O8–0.21%U3O8ContainedU1070tU3O8530tU3O82850tU3O8–12.8tU3O8OtherMetals2.7%Cu–––1.04%CuLow-GradeOrenodata47,800t,0.077%U3O8116,000tc,0.066%U3O8nodata3500t,0.072%U3O80.69%CuWasteRockw8,640,000tbatw0.004%U3O8304,000m2b2,032,000t,84,300m24,877,000tatw0.018%U3O8219,000m21,727,000tat0.005%U3O8,0.2%Cu,0.5%Pb254,000tat32,800m2BaseMetalOres295,000tat2.8%Cu,0.3%Co,and87,000tat5.1%Pb,0.8%Cu,0.3%Cod––907,000tat2.2%Cu1400tat2.66%CuaSome102tof0.178%U3O8orewasalsominedfromWhitesExtendedinlate1958,inbetweenWhite’sandDyson’s.bApproximateonly,White’sdataisbasedonestimatesofoverburdentooreratios,alternativeheapvolumesandreferencescited;includesformerWhitesNorthheap(removedduringrehabilitation).cTruckedtoRumJungleformilling1969–1971.dLeadorewasnotprocessedandwasburiedduringrehabilitation.References:AAEC(1963),Barlow(1965),Berkman(1968),CG(1988),Davy(1975),DNT(1978),Fraser(1979).G.M.Mudd,J.Patterson/EnvironmentalPollution158(2010)1252–12601254
Author's personal copy
dataandassociatedanalysisofresultsarecontainedinAllenandVerhoeven(1986),KraatzandApplegate(1992),Kraatz(1998)andPidsley(2002),withpre-rehabilitationenvironmentalstudiesgivenbyDavy(1975).4.1.Rehabilitationmeasures(1982–86)TheRumJunglerehabilitationprogramfrom1982to1986wasprimarilyaimedatreducingthemetalloadsreachingtheFinnissRiver,aswellasreducingpublichazards.Speciﬁccomponentsincluded:excavationofremnanttailingsandtheCuheapleachpilefordepositionintoandbackﬁllingofDyson’sopencut,re-contouringofwasterockdumpsandconstructionofengineeredsoilcoverstolimitinﬁltrationandAMDgeneration,treatmentofpollutedwatersinWhite’sandIntermediateopencuts,rehabili-tationoftheformermillandstockpileareas,andpartialre-diversionoftheEastbranchoftheFinnissRiverandremovaloftheAcidandSweetwaterDams.4.2.Environmentalmonitoring(1986–1998)Environmentalmonitoringwasundertakenduringrehabilita-tionworksandforsome12yearsafterwards,includingsurfacewaterhydrologyandwaterquality,groundwater,biodiversity(e.g.ﬁshormacroinvertebratesurveys),wasterockdumphydrology,andsedimentanalyses.Samplingandanalyticalmethodologyaredetailedinthefourprincipalreports(seeearlier).Allresultspre-sentedbelowarederivedfromthesereports(unlessotherwisenoted).Someadditionaldatahasbeenincludedfromsubsequentresearchwork(years1998/99to2000/01).Nopre-andpost-rehabilitationradonorgammasurveysareavailable,despiterecommendationsoftheneedforsuchassess-ments(seePidsley,2002).TheprimarypointfordeterminingtheeffectivenessoftherehabilitationprojectinreducingmetalloadsinsurfacewaterswassetasGS8150097(w5.6kmdownstream,seeFig.1).Monitoringhasbeenreportedasbothconcentrationandloaddata,usuallyincludingmetals,sulfateandpH.Analyticalmethodshaveevolvedovertime,suchasearlyyearsbeingtotalsonly,whilelateryearsincludedtotalanddissolvedmetals.Furthermore,themajorityofwaterqualitysampleswerecompositestakenbytheauto-samplerbasedonpre-setﬂowstagelevels.DespiteUbeingacriticalissue,ithascommonlynotbeenincludedinroutinewaterqualityanalysesforallwetseasons.Similarly,radium(226Ra)wasonlymonitoredfortheﬁrsttwow
etseasonsafterrehabilitation.5.Monitoringresults5.1.OpencutsWhite’sopencut(OC)remainsamajorsourceofpollutants,withIntermediateOCminoronly.AwaterqualityproﬁleofWhite’sOCisgiveninTable2,andclearlyshowsthemorepollutedwatersatdepthsbelow30m.ItisconsideredthatWhite’sOCisstillcontributingsome2–3tCuperwetseasonatGS8150097.TheIntermediateOCappearstobemaintainingreasonablewaterqualitywithrespecttorehabilitationtargets,thoughdataisverysparse.OnDyson’sOC,whichwascompletelybackﬁlledandcoveredwithanengineeredsoilcover,diebackofsurfacevegetationwas-204002060Crater
FormationWhite’s FormationCoolambie DolostoneRum Jungle ComplexGeolsec FormationFaultWater Tables:Wet SeasonDry Season (m AHD)East FinnissRiverFig.2.Conceptualhydrogeologiccross-sectionofBrown’sarea,RumJungle(adaptedfromCR,2005).Table2WaterqualityproﬁleofWhite’sopencut,April1998(datafromPidsley,2002).DepthpHDOE.C.CaMgSO4CuMnZnNiFeAlm–mg/LmS/cmallmg/L06.86.6157413610.10.310.040.060.460.0956.55.9172–––0.10.340.050.060.440.13106.15.311038410.10.320.030.060.350.18155.75.2115–––0.10.460.040.060.190.13205.45.5151611640.20.740.040.090.060.13255.45.4171–––0.20.780.050.080.070.14304.44.627412201370.82.450.110.230.131.88314.13.6458–––1.34.420.180.370.215.2323.70.1993–––3.117.650.421.010.8714.8333.807168–––542445.4918.55378215343.807478–––602697.416.7404226353.8075584819028270622547.7519420236G.M.Mudd,J.Patterson/EnvironmentalPollution158(2010)1252–12601255 Author's personal copy noticedwithin5yearsofrehabilitation(MenziesandMulligan,2000).Themainreasonsforthediebackwerefoundtobecapil-laryaction,pullingmoistureandtheunderlyingacidicleachatefromminewasteupthroughthecover,aswellasinadequatecoverdesigninnotincludingacapillarybreaklayerand,ﬁnally,poorconstructiongivingthincoversand/orerosionproblems(Pidsley,2002).Fig.3.Wasterockdumpinﬁltration:monitoredinﬁltrationrate(left)(KraatzandApplegate,1992;Tayloretal.,2003),White’sWRDinJuly2007(right)–notetheactiveseepageﬂowandcharacteristics(photoGMMudd).44.555.566.577.500.511.522.533.544.555.566.577.58Distance downstream of minesite (km)Hp200300400500600700800900)L/gm( etafluS / )mc/Sµ( .dnoC .celEpHElectrical conductivity (µS/cm)Sulfate (mg/L)0020518SG7900518SG00.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.8200.511.522.533.544.555.566.577.58Distance downstream of minesite (km))L/gm( noitartnecnoCCopperManganeseZincNickel0020518SG7900518SGFig.4.ProﬁleofFinnissRiverwaterqualitydownstreamfromRumJungle(22April1994)(datafromPidsley,2002).G.M.Mudd,J.Patterson/EnvironmentalPollution158(2010)1252–12601256 Author's personal copy
5.2.WasterockdumpsTheinﬁltrationtargetforsoilcoversoverWRD’swassetat5%ofincidentrainfall(comparedtow50%previous;MenziesandMulligan,2000;Richardsetal.,1996).Althoughtherehavebeensigniﬁcantproblemswiththelysimetersusedtomonitorinﬁltra-tion,includingfailureofseverallysimetersandwickingleadingtoinaccurateinﬁltrationmonitoring(Tayloretal.,2003a),theavail-ablemonitoringdatashowedgoodperformanceinitially(ie.<5%),followedbyagradualincreaseinestimatedinﬁltration,asshowninFig.3.Thisisconsideredtoberelatedtothefactthatduringthedryseasontheclaysoilcoverdriesandcracks,leadingtoincreasinginﬁltrationandre-emergenceofAMDgenerationinsubsequentseasons(Lottermoser,2007).Internalconvectionduetotempera-turegradientscanalsobeimportantinunderstandingoxidationratesintheWRD’satRumJungle(KuoandRitchie,1999).SimilarlytoDyson’sOC,therearealsoareasofWhite’sWRDwherethesoilcoverwasconstructedtoothin(Pidsley,2002).RecentvisitstotheRumJunglesiteclearlyshowthatsigniﬁcantinﬁltrationratesmuststillbeoccurring,asseepageﬂowsfromWhite’sWRDcanbeseenthroughoutthedryseason(photoincludedinFig.3).Althoughdirectsamplingandanalysisofthiswaterisnotavailable,itisknowntocontainUfrom1to8mg/L(pers.comm.,Brown,2002).ItisabundantlyclearthattheWRD’scontinuetoactasmajorpollutantsourcesfortheFinnissRiver.5.3.SurfacewaterOnlyabriefexaminationofhydrologicandsurfacewaterqualitydataispossibleherein,andsoonlykeydataispresented.TheresultsofaFinnissRiverwaterqualityproﬁleareshowninFig.4,withmetalloadsforCuandZnshowninFig.5.AcomparisonofwaterqualityatGS8150097withcurrentguidelinesisgiveninTable3.Thereisclearlyseasonalbehaviourinmetalconcentrationsandloads(Table3).Tofurtherillustratethis,typicalmaximumconcentrationsintheﬁrstﬂushwatersoftheearlywetseasonarecompiledandshowninFig.6.Smallerwetseasonﬂowsleadtohigherconcentrations,withagradualdeclineovertime.AdditionalphotosoftheformerSweetwaterDamaregiveninFig.7.5.4.GroundwaterGroundwaterremainstheleastmonitoredandinvestigatedenvironmentalcomponentoftheRumJunglesite.Althoughsomemonitoringandassessmenthasbeenundertaken,thelatterstag
esofthemonitoringprogramdidnotincludegroundwater(seePidsley,2002).Itisimportanttonotethattherewasnoremediationofcontaminatedgroundwaterduringtherehabilitationproject,despiteitbeingidentiﬁedasheavilypollutedandanongoingsourceofpollutantsintotheFinnissRiver.TherecentfaileddevelopmentoftheBrown’soxideminedidnotsufﬁcientlyaddressgroundwaterissuesontheRumJunglesiteduringitsenvironmentalassessment,therebymissinganimportantopportunitytofurtherscientiﬁcunderstandingofgroundwaterbehaviour,possiblepollutantstratiﬁcation,groundwater-surfacewaterrelationshipsandsoon.Theavailablegroundwatermonitoringdata,showninFig.8,suggestsalinearrelationshipbetweenpollutantconcentrationsandEC,withCuandsulfategenerallyextremelyhigh.GiventhenatureofAMD,thisrelationshipcanbeexpected.R
= 0.88R = 0.79020406080100120Total wet-season flow (GL))uC t( daoL reppoC latoTPre-rehabilitation (prior 1982/83)During rehabilitation (1983/84-1985/86)Post-rehabilitation (after 1986/87)R = 0.95R = 0.0208162432400102030405060708001020304050607080Total wet-season flow (GL))nZ t( daoL cniZ latoTPre-rehabilitation (prior 1982/83)During rehabilitation (1983/84-1985/86)Post-rehabilitation (after 1986/87)Fig.5.Cu–ZnloadsinFinnissRiveratGS8150097before,duringandafterrehabilitation(datacompiledfromDavy,1975;Kraatz,1998;KraatzandApplegate,1992;Pidsley,2002).Table3SummaryofGS8150097waterqualityduringthe1992/93wetseason,comparedtoandcurrentwaterqualityguidelines(datafromKraatz,1998).mg/Lmg/LAlCaFeAsCoCrCuMnNiPbThUZnAverage3.69.91.74.11765485860169763.333209Minimum0.214.20.0960.6530.71804305320.02649Maximum929144148033110020004308802663670ANZECCaNDNDND14ND1b1.41900113.4ND6c8ND–notdetermined.aWaterqualityvaluesbasedon95%speciesprotectionforfreshwaters(ANZECCandARMCANZ,2000).bValueisforCr6þonly.cValueisfromtheoperatingRangeruraniumproject(Note:alowreliabilityvalueof0.5mg/LisgivenbyANZECCandARMCANZ(2000),duetoinsufﬁcientecotoxicologicaltesting.TheRangervalueisbasedonadditionallocalspeciestesting;seevanDametal.,2002).G.M.Mudd,J.Patterson/EnvironmentalPollution158(2010)1252–12601257 Author's personal copy
5.5.SedimentsConcentrationsofmetalsinstreambedsedimentshavebeenexamined,thoughonlyatspeciﬁctimesforaFinnissRiverproﬁle.Somedatahasbeenobtainedforsedimentquality,whileotherdatawasobtainedduringecologicalstudies.Thesedimentdata,Table4,clearlyshowstheessentiallybackgroundconcentrationsupstreamcomparedtoelevatedlevelsdownstream.5.6.BiodiversityThebiodiversityintheFinnissRiverhasbeenstudiedinthe1970’sandagainfollowingrehabilitationworks,mainlythroughﬁshdiversityandabundancesurveysandmacroinvertebratespeciesanddiversitystudies(includingbenthicsurveysandpollutantbioavailabilityandarchivalstudiesinmussels).Theoriginal1970’ssurveysestablishedthattheFinnissRiverimmediatelydownstreamofRumJunglewaslargelydevoidofbiota,withtheﬁrstﬂushofwetseasonrainsbeingparticularlypolluting.Followingrehabilitationworks,variousbiodiversitysurveyshaveestablishedareturnofbiotatotheEastBranch,withapparentlyloweroverallbioavailablemetalloads.Inaddition,recentresearchonCuecotoxicitytoblack-bandedrainbowﬁsh(Melanotaenianigrans)fromtheFinnissRiverhassuggestedanevolvingCutolerancetothemineleachatesstillemanatingfromthesite(Galeetal.,2003)–thoughthisisnotexactlysoundevidenceofasustainableecosystem.Althoughbiodiversitysurveyssuggestsomemeasureofsuccess,thishastobemoderatedwiththesigniﬁcantphysicalandchemicalevidenceofongoingpollutantgenerationandrelease(e.g.Figs.3and7).6.DiscussionTheRumJunglerehabilitationprojecthasbeenacriticalcasestudyonAMDpollutionandremediation,especiallyforUmining.ThereisacommonbeliefthatthelegacyoftheRumJungleprojecthasbeenaddressedandrehabilitatedsatisfactorily(perhapspeoplewhohavenotvisitedthesiteinrecentyears).Theabovereviewoftherehabilitationprojectandassociatedmonitoringdataraisesasigniﬁcantnumberofissues.Despitetheextentofreportedmonitoringandstudies,criticalgapsremaininfacilitatingamoreholisticandaccuratepictureoftheongoingpollutioncycleatRumJungle.Samplesupstreamofthesiteareextremelyrare,withtheonlyknowndatabeingthatobtainedforbiodiversitysurveys–despitebeingaverycommondesigninenvironmentalmonitoringandimpactassessment
studies.Samplingandmonitoringisofteninsufﬁcientinspatialandtemporalscaletoallowanaccuratewhole-of-sitemassbalancetobeassessed,meaningpollutantloadaccountingfromprimarysourcetermsisdifﬁcultorimpossible.Sincemostwaterqualitysampleswereactuallycompositesandnotgrabsamples,thetruepeaksinconcentrationsarenotknown–whicharecriticalinunderstandingpotentialbiologicalimpacts.ItcanbeexpectedthattheﬁrstrainsofthewetseasonwouldgiverisetoextremelyhighconcentrationsofsaltsandmetalsgiventheloadsonthebedoftheFinnissRiver(seeFig.7).Overall,thisleadstotheconclusionthat012345671986/71987/81988/91989/01990/11991/21992/3)L/gm(
noitartnecnoC010203040)LG( wolF nosaeS teWCuMnZnFlowFig.6.Firstﬂush(earlywetseason)metalconcentrationsandtotalwetseasonﬂows(datafromKraatz,1998;KraatzandApplegate,1992).Fig.7.FormerSweetwaterDam,July2007;Note–thewaterandﬂowintheleftphotoiscontinuingseepagefromWhite’swasterockdump(seeFig.3)(photo’sGMMudd).G.M.Mudd,J.Patterson/EnvironmentalPollution158(2010)1252–12601258 Author's personal copy
environmentalmonitoringwasnotrobustinitsdesigntoallowaccuratepollutantaccounting,especiallywithrespecttosourcesandcycles.Inaddition,thereispossiblegroundwaterdischargew0.5–1kmdownstreamofGS8150200(Fig.4),potentiallyexplainingspikesinsulfateandCu.GroundwaterremainsheavilycontaminatedandisverylikelytobecontributingtomajorpollutantloadsinsurfacewatersalongwithloadsderivedfromWhite’sOCandallWRD’s.Thereishistoricevidenceofpreferrentialﬂowpathsthroughthedolomitesequence(e.g.acidliquors),aswellasconcernsoverstratiﬁcationofpollutantsingroundwater.Theradiologicalcharacterisationandassessmentofthesiteremainspoor,despiteclearevidenceofextremeUconcentrationsinseepagefromWhite’sWRDandaccumulatedUinFinnissRiversediments(Table4).Furtherworkisrequiredtoaddressgamma,radonandprogenyexposures,especiallyformembersofthepublic.Theissueofdesignandconstructionofsoilcoversiscritical,sincethisisnowthemostwidelyusedapproachtomanagingandrehabilitatingsulﬁdicminewastes(e.g.TaylorandPape,2007).TheexperienceatRumJungleshowsthatmorerobustcoverdesignsarerequiredwhichallowforacapillarybreaklayeraswellasagreaterabilitytomaintainsaturationthroughoutthefullrangeofclimaticconditions,especiallyinthewet–drytropics.Unlikethecoverdesign,however,poorconstructionquality(ie.thincovers)cannotbeconsideredacceptable–especiallygiventhepublicprominenceoftheproject.Theﬁnalandperhapsmostcriticalissueofall,isthatrehabili-tationtargetswereonlysetbasedonexpectedpollutantloadreductions–notonachievingsaltandmetalconcentrationswhichwouldleadtosustainedrecoveryofaquaticbiodiversity.Thefactthatﬁsh,forexample,arebeingforcedtoadapttohigherCuconcentrationsshouldnotbeinterpretedasahealthyecosystem.Bycomparingwaterqualitytothecurrentguidelines(Table3),severalmetalsareinexcessbyuptotwoordersofmagnitude(e.g.Cu,Ni,U,Zn).Toachievealong-termandstablerecoveryinecosystemhealth,thewaterqualitytargetsshouldbebasedonecologicaltoxicity,asper(ANZECCandARMCANZ,2000).ThecurrentenvironmentalstatusoftheformerRumJungleprojectclearlyrequiresfurtherremediationworks.Duringthe1980’s,theoptionofex
cavatingwasterockandemplacementinopencutswasruledoutoncostgrounds.Inlightofcontinuingandgrowingaciddrainageproblemsfromrehabilitatedwasterockdumps,however,thismustbere-assessed.Byplacingthesulﬁdicwasterockintheopencuts,alargeproportionofthewastewouldbebelowthewatertable–therebylimitingfurtheroxidationandpollutantgeneration.Thisstrategyisnowwellrecognised,andhasbeenimplementedintherehabilitationofwasterockattheformerRonneburgopenpituraniummineineasternGermany(HagenandJakubick,2005),aswellasothersulﬁdicminewastesingoldorbasemetalmining(e.g.formerWoodcutterslead–zincmine,25kmeastofRumJungle).Anothermajoraspectoffuturerehabilitationwouldbeimprovedsoilcoverdesign,constructionandmonitoring.AtRumJungle,nocapillarybreaklayerwasincludedintheoriginaldesign–thoughthesearenowrecognisedasanimportantcomponentofsoilcoverdesignsinlimitingoxidationratesandAMDgeneration010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00005,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00005,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000Electrical
Conductivity (µS/cm))L/gm( noitartnecnoC etafluSRN25162RN22082URN220840102030405060708090Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm))L/gm( noitartnecnoC reppoCRN25162RN22082URN22084RN22084RN25162RN22082UFig.8.Sulfate(left)andCu(right)concentrationsversuselectricalconductivityin3boresinthevicinityofWhite’swasterockdump(dashedlinesindicativeonly)(datacompiledfromKraatz,1998;KraatzandApplegate,1992).Table4SedimentqualityproﬁlealongtheFinnissRiver(EastBranch),comparedtocurrentsedimentqualityguidelines(mg/kgdryweight)(datafromPidsley,2002).DistanceFromRumJungle(km)BaCdCoCuFeMnNiPbUZnUpstream18580.0551754541015164<DL0.2650.04113092212305152<DL0.01a770.373343262013103<DLDownstream4760.3269364312,28458237112712918968840.351931061842620919113845174811580.2220240410,510551983717112SQGlowbND1.5ND65NDND2150ND200SQGhighbND10ND270NDND52220ND410<DL–lessthandetectionlimit.ND–notdetermined.aOnupstreamjunctionofEastBranchwiththeRumJunglesite.bForthesedimentqualityguidelines(SQG),‘low/high’meanslow/highprobabilityofbiologicaleffects(thatis,‘high’valueswouldgiverisetoeffects)(ANZECCandARMCANZ,2000).G.M.Mudd,J.Patterson/EnvironmentalPollution158(2010)1252–12601259 Author's personal copy
(partlyasaresultoffailuressuchasRumJungle).Furthermore,thematerialsusedforsoilcoversatRumJunglewereinadequatetomeettheoriginaldesignspeciﬁcations(Tayloretal.,2003b).Itisthereforecriticalthatstrictcriteriabeestablishedforsoilcoverdesignandmaterials,andtheybemetduringconstructionwithoutcompromisetoensurelongevityinperformance.Theﬁnalmajorareaoffuturerehabilitationrequirementsispollutedgroundwater.Thisisperhapsthemostcomplexanddifﬁcultaspect,sinceverylittleisknownandunderstoodaboutthesecontaminantpathways.Possibleapproachescouldincludepumpandtreatsystems,permeablereactivebarriersorin-situtreatment(especiallysulfatereductiontechniques),withpossiblerecoveryofmetalstogeneraterevenueduringtreatment.Furtherresearchisrequiredinthisarea.InMay2009,theAustraliangovernmentallocated$8.3millionoverfouryearsto‘‘.supporttheenvironmentalmanagementandmonitoringoftheRumJungleformeruraniumminesite’’(pp.5,DEWHA,2009).Akeyaimofthisworkistounderpinfuturedeci-sionsregardingpotentialrehabilitation,aswellaslinkingthistoactivitiesatthefailedBrown’sOxideproject.7.ConclusionTheformerRumJunglemineremainsapollutingsite–asevi-dencedbytherangeofavailablemonitoringdataandrecentsiteinspections.Annualpollutantloadsremain4–12tCu,3–7tZnand1250–4800tsulfate–althoughtheycouldbeseenasmeetingrehabilitationobjectives,theyareclearlyecologicallysigniﬁcantmetalloads,especiallyattheiraverageandpotentialtruepeakconcentrations.Giventhatgroundwaterremainscontaminatedandwasterockdumpinﬁltrationisincreasing,pollutantloadsintotheFinnissRivercanbeexpectedtointensifyinthefuture.TheRumJungleU–Cusite,despitesigniﬁcanteffort,hasnotmetthetestoftimeandremainsanimportantcasestudytoassesstheeffective-nessofrehabilitationofmajorAMD-pollutingsites,especiallyformeruraniummines.ReferencesAAEC,1963.RumJungleProject:aReportontheUraniumMiningandTreatmentIndustryEstablishedbytheCommonwealthGovernmentatRumJungle,andItsContributiontotheDevelopmentofNorthernAustralia.AustralianAtomicEnergyCommission(AAEC),LucasHeights,NSW,p.16.Allen,C.G.,Verhoeven,T.J.(Eds.),1986.TheRumJungleRehabilit
ationProject–FinalProjectReport.NTDepartmentofMines&Energy(NTDME)fortheCommonwealthDepartmentofResources&Energy(DPIE),Darwin,NT,p.362.Annabell,R.,1971.TheUraniumHunters.Rigby,Sydney,NSW,p.277.ANZECC,ARMCANZ,October2000.AustralianandNewZealandGuidelinesforFreshandMarineWaterQuality.NationalWaterQualityManagementStrategy,Australian&NewZealandEnvironment&ConservationCouncil(ANZECC)andAgricultural&ResourceManagementCouncilofAustralia&NewZealand(ARMCANZ),Canberra,ACT.Barlow,T.,1962.RumJungle.UraniuminAustralia–ACollectionofArticlesontheHistoryandDevelopmentoftheUraniumMiningIndustryinAustralia.AustralianAtomicEnergyCommission(AAEC),Coogee,NSW,pp.29–35.Barlow,T.,1965.RumJungle.In:Proc..‘‘8THCommonwealthMining&MetallurgicalCongress’’.AusIMM,pp.211–216(Chapter9).Barrie,D.R.,1982.TheHeartofRumJungle:TheHistoryofRumJungleandBatchelorintheNorthernTerritory.S&DBarrie,Batchelor,NT,p.279.Berkman,D.A.,June16–21,1968.Thegeologyoftherumjungleuraniumdeposits.In:Proc.‘‘SymposiumonUraniuminAustralia’’.RumJungleBranch,Austral-asianInstituteofMining&Metallurgy(AusIMM),RumJungle,NT,pp.12–31.Brown,P.,September2002.PersonalCommunication.Freiberg,Germany.Cawte,A.,1992.AtomicAustralia1944–1990.UNSWPress,Kensington,NSW,p.226.CG,1988,Rehabilitationproposalsforabandoneduraniumminesinthenorthernterritory.In:PreparedbyConstructionGroup(CG)forCommonwealthDepartmentofAdministrativeServicesonBehalfofDepartmentofPrimaryIndustries&Energy(DPIE),Canberra,ACT,April1988,p.114.CR,November2005,BrownsOxideProject–PublicEnvironmentalReport.In:PreparedbyEnesarPtyLtdforCompassResourcesLtd(CR),HawthornEast,Victoria.Crohn,P.W.,1968.Bulletin82.TheMinesandMineralDepositsoftheKatherine-DarwinRegion,vol.2.BureauofMineralResources,Canberra,ACT,pp.171–295.Davy,D.R.(Ed.),1975.RumJungleEnvironmentalStudies.AustralianAtomicEnergyCommission(AAEC),LucasHeights,NSW.DEWHA,12May2009.EnvironmentBudgetOverview2009–10.DepartmentoftheEnvironment,Water,HeritageandtheArts(DEWHA),AustralianGovernment,Canberra,ACT.DNT,April1978.Rehab
ilitationatRumJungle:ReportoftheWorkingGroup.DepartmentoftheNorthernTerritory(DNT),Darwin,NT,p.117.Fox,R.W.,Kelleher,G.G.,Kerr,C.B.,17May1977.RangerUraniumEnvironmentalInquiry–SecondReport.AustralianGovernment,Canberra,ACT,p.415.Fraser,W.J.,June4–8,1979.ThegeologyandexplorationoftheRumJungleuraniumﬁeld.In:Proc.‘‘InternationalSymposiumonUraniuminthePineCreekGeo-syncline’’.InternationalAtomicEnergyAgency(IAEA),BureauofMineralResources,Geology&Geophysics(BMR)andInstituteofEarthResources,CommonwealthScientiﬁc&IndustrialResearchOrganisation(CSIRO),Sydney,NSW,pp.287–298.Gale,S.A.,Smith,S.V.,Lim,R.P.,Jeffree,R.A.,Petocz,P.,2003.Insightsintothemechanismsofcoppertoleranceofapopulationofblack-bandedrainbowﬁsh(Melanotaenianigrans)(Richardson)exposedtomineleachate,using64/67Cu.JournalofAquaticToxicology62(2),135–153.GE,2009.GoogleEarth.GoogleEarth(GE).http://earth.google.com/.Gowing,M.,1974.IndependenceandDeterrence:BritainandAtomicEnergy,1945–1952.In:PolicyMaking,vol.I.MacmillanPress,London,UK.Grifﬁths,M.,1998.OfMinesandMen:Australia’s20thCenturyMiningMiracle1945–1985.KangarooPress,EastRoseville,NSW,p.200.Hagen,M.,Jakubick,A.T.,2005.ReturningtheWISMUTlegacytoproductiveuse.In:Proc.‘‘UraniumMiningandHydrogeologyIV(UMH-4)–4thInternationalConference’’.Springer,Freiberg,Germany,11–16September2005,pp.11–26.Kraatz,M.(Ed.),1998.RumJungleRehabilitationProjectMonitoringReport1988–93.LandResourcesDivision,NTDept.ofLands,Planning&Environment(NTDLPE),Palmerston,NT,p.180.Kraatz,M.,Applegate,R.J.(Eds.),1992.RumJungleRehabilitationProjectMoni-toringReport(1986–88).LandConservationUnit,ConservationCommissionoftheNorthernTerritory(CCNT),Darwin,NT,p.298.Kuo,E.Y.,Ritchie,A.I.M.,1999.Theimpactofconvectionontheoveralloxidationrateinsulﬁdicwasterockdumps.In:Proc.‘‘MiningandtheEnvironmentII’’.CentreinMiningandMineralExplorationResearch,LaurentianUniversity,Sudbury,Ontario,Canada,pp.211–220.Kvasnicka,J.,Li,C.-C.,Robinson,R.,1992.RumJungleCreekSouthAbandonedUraniumMine:RadiationFieldsbefore,duringand
aftertheSiteRehabilitation.MinesEnvironmentDirectorate,NTDepartmentofMines&Energy,Darwin,NT,EnvironmentalTechnicalReport92/2,p.18.Lichaz,W.,Myers,S.,1977.UraniummininginAustralia.In:Elliott,M.(Ed.),GroundforConcern–Australia’sUraniumandHumanSurvival.Penguin,Melbourne,VIC,pp.25–63.Lottermoser,B.,2007.MineWastes–Characterisation,Treatment,EnvironmentalImpacts,seconded.Springer-Verlag,Berlin,Germany,p.291.McKay,A.D.,Miezitis,Y.,2001.Australia’sUraniumResources,GeologyandDevel-opmentofDeposits.GeoscienceAustralia(GA),Canberra,ACT,p.210.Menzies,N.W.,Mulligan,D.R.,2000.Vegetationdiebackonclay-cappedpyriticminewaste.JournalofEnvironmentalQuality29(2),437–442.Pidsley,S.M.(Ed.),2002.RumJungleRehabilitationProjectMonitoringReport1993–1998.NTDept.ofInfrastructure,Planning&Environment(NTDIPE),Palmerston,NT,p.247.Rafferty,P.J.,1982.LicensingandRegulationofUraniumMiningandMilling1944–1981.SchoolofNuclearEngineering,UniversityofNewSouthWales(UNSW),Kensington,NSW,p.284.Raggatt,H.G.,1968.MountainsofOre:MiningandMineralsinAustralia.LansdownePress,Melbourne,VIC,p.416.Richards,R.J.,Applegate,R.J.,Ritchie,A.I.M.,1996.TheRumJunglerehabilitationproject.In:Mulligan,D.R.(Ed.),EnvironmentalManagementintheAustralianMineralsandEnergyIndustries:PrinciplesandPractices.UNSWPress&AustralianMineralsandEnergyEnvironmentFoundation(AMEEF),Sydney,NSW,pp.530–553.Taylor,G.,Spain,A.,Neﬁodovas,A.,Timms,G.,Kuznetsov,V.,Bennett,J.,July2003a.DeterminationoftheReasonsforDeteriorationoftheRumJungleWasteRockCover.AustralianCentreforMiningEnvironmentalResearch(ACMER),Bris-bane,QLD,p.119.Taylor,G.,Spain,A.,Timms,G.,Kuznetsov,V.,Bennett,J.,July2003b.Themedium-termperformanceofwasterockcovers–RumJungleasacasestudy.In:Proc.‘‘SixthInternationalConferenceonAcidRockDrainage(6thICARD)’’.AustralasianInstituteofMining&Metallurgy(AusIMM),Cairns,Queensland,pp.383–397.Taylor,J.,Pape,S.(Eds.
),2007.ManagingAcidandMetalliferousDrainage.LeadingPracticeSustainableDevelopmentProgramfortheMiningIndustry.CommonwealthDepartmentofIndustry,TourismandResources,Canberra,ACT,p.107.vanDam,R.A.,Humphrey,C.L.,Martin,P.C.,2002.MiningintheAlligatorriversregion,NorthernAustralia:assessingpotentialandactualeffectsonecosystemandhumanhealth.Toxicology,181–182,pp.505–515.G.M.Mudd,J.Patterson/EnvironmentalPollution158(2010)1252–12601260