U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Geochemical Characterization of Mine Waste at the Ely 

Copper Mine Superfund Site, Orange County, Vermont 

by 

Nadine M. Piatak1

, Jane M. Hammarstrom1, Robert R. Seal II1, Paul H. Briggs2, Allen L. 

Meier2

, Timothy L. Muzik1, and John C. Jackson1 

Open-File Report 2004-1248 

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement 

by the U.S. Government. 

1

U.S. Geological Survey, 954 National Center, Reston, VA 20192 

2

U.S. Geological Survey, 973 Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................3 

LIST OF TABLES AND APPENDICES ............................................................................4 

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................5 

METALLURGICAL OPERATIONS AND SAMPLING...................................................8 

METHODS ........................................................................................................................11 

 Bulk geochemical composition.....................................................................................11 

Mineralogy....................................................................................................................11 

Acid-base accounting....................................................................................................12

 Leach test ......................................................................................................................13 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................13 

 Bulk geochemistry ........................................................................................................13 

Mineralogy....................................................................................................................19 

Acid-base accounting....................................................................................................25

 Leachate ........................................................................................................................27 

CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................30 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................33 

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................33 

2 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Location of the Ely, Elizabeth, and Pike Hill mines in Orange County, 

Vermont ...............................................................................................................................6 

Figure 2. Ely mine site map showing mine-waste piles, the smoke flue, Ely 

Brook, and Schoolhouse Brook ...........................................................................................7 

Figure 3. Photographs of upper waste piles sampled at the Ely mine .................................9 

Figure 4. Photographs of sample areas at the Ely mine ....................................................10 

Figure 5. Concentration of Cu in surface samples from the Ely mine site .......................16 

Figure 6. Total base metals in mine waste plotted according to pile and dominant 

color ...................................................................................................................................17 

Figure 7. Total base-metal concentrations versus Fe content for mine-waste 

samples...............................................................................................................................18 

Figure 8. Box plots of Cu and Zn concentrations in mine waste from the Ely and 

Elizabeth mines ..................................................................................................................19 

Figure 9. Mineralogy of Ely mine waste based on Rietveld refinements using the 

Siroquant computer program .............................................................................................22 

Figure 10. Acid-base accounting results for mine waste from the Ely mine ....................25 

Figure 11. Dissolved metal concentrations in leachate as a function of pH ......................28 

Figure 12. Bulk geochemical results for Cu concentrations versus the 

concentration of Cu in leachate..........................................................................................29 

3 
LIST OF TABLES AND APPENDICES 

Table 1. Concentration of selected metals in mine waste from the Ely mine....................14 

Table 2. Minerals in mine waste from the Ely mine..........................................................20 

Table 3. Paste pH and acid-base accounting results ..........................................................26 

Appendix A. Sample information ......................................................................................37 

Appendix B-1. Bulk geochemistry of Ely mine waste ......................................................40 

Appendix B-2. Standard reference material.......................................................................43 

Appendix C-1. Quantitative estimates of mineral weight percentages based on 

Rietveld refinement of powder X-ray diffraction patterns using Siroquant ......................45 

Appendix C-2. Colored bar charts of relative percentages of minerals based on 

Siroquant results.................................................................................................................47 

Appendix D. Analytical results of leachate tests ...............................................................49 

4 
INTRODUCTION 

The abandoned Ely copper mine in the Vermont copper belt was placed on the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Priorities List (NPL) on 

September 13, 2001. The location of the mine is shown in Figure 1. Acidic drainage 

from the mine enters Ely Brook and has a major effect on the aquatic life. Ely Brook 

then flows into Schoolhouse Brook and eventually joins the East Branch of the 

Ompompanoosuc River approximately 2.8 km downstream from the site (Figs. 1 and 2). 

Currently, the USEPA is carrying out a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 

at the site to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to assess the potential 

threats to human health and the environment. Also, USEPA is performing a historical 

resource assessment to determine if the Ely mine is eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places. To aid in the RI/FS, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a 

study of the mine-waste piles at the Ely mine Superfund site. To determine the extent of 

contamination at the site, the investigation focused on answering the following questions: 

(1) What type of mine waste is present at the site? 

(2) What is the chemical composition of the mine-waste piles? 

(3) What is the acid-generating potential of the material? 

(4) Are potentially toxic trace metals leached from the waste? If so, are the metals 

leached in quantities that may contaminate soils and streams and have a deleterious effect 

on the environment? 

(5) How variable is the environmental impact among the various mine-waste piles? 

(6) Is any of the material geochemically similar to mine waste at the near-by Elizabeth 

mine, a Superfund site in the initial stages of remediation? 

This last question is important because if mine waste at the Ely mine is geochemically 

similar to the mine waste at the Elizabeth mine (Fig. 1), remediation technologies 

evaluated for the Elizabeth mine may be applicable to the Ely mine. 

The Ely mine has been investigated by both State and Federal agencies. In 1988, 

the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation inventoried fish species in 

Schoolhouse Brook and in 1991 stated that the macroinvertebrate community in 

Schoolhouse Brook was impacted by mine drainage due to high copper concentrations 

(USEPA, 2003a). In the early 1990’s, the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the Vermont 

Department of Environmental Conservation conducted water sampling and benthic 

macroinvertebrate surveys and constructed an experimental passive treatment system 

using limestone and sulfate-reducing bacteria (McSurdy and others, 1995). The results of 

the macroinvertebrate survey indicated a slight impact on Schoolhouse Brook 

downstream of the confluence with Ely Brook (McSurdy and others, 1995). Holmes and 

others (2002) characterized spring runoff from the Ely mine as highly acidic and highly 

contaminated. The pH of seepage from the mine-waste piles was generally less than 3.5 

and concentrations of metals including Cu, Al, Fe, Zn, Cd, Co, and Mn exceeded 

5 
Figure 1. Location of the Ely, Elizabeth, and Pike Hill mines in Orange County, Vermont. 

water-quality criteria. Holmes and others (2002) also found concentrations of copper in 

exceedance of water-quality criteria in Schoolhouse Brook over 10 km downstream of the 

mine. The geology, environmental geochemistry, and mining history of the Ely mine 

were summarized in a series of papers in the Society of Economic Geologists Guidebook 

Series, volume 35 (Crowley and others, 2001; Hammarstrom and others, 2001a, b; 

Hathaway and others, 2001; Kierstead, 2001; Seal and others, 2001a, b; Slack and others, 

2001). Composite surface samples from the upper and lower mine-waste areas (Fig. 2) 

contain high concentrations of metals including up to 19 wt. % Fe, which is in excess of 

the preliminary remediation goal (PRG) for industrial soil, and up to 2,000 mg/kg Cu 

(Hammarstrom and others, 2001b). Also, a composite sample of the pot slag revealed 

concentrations of Cu greater than 7,000 mg/kg (Hammarstrom and others, 2001b) and 

grab samples of the slag reported by Piatak and others (2003) contain up to 6,940 mg/kg 

Cu. Leachate tests on the slag indicate Cu and Zn may be leached in excess of the waterquality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (Piatak and others, 2003; 2004). Seal 

and others (2001b) reported acidic and metal-rich drainage at the Ely mine. For example, 

6 
the pH of Ely Brook ranges from 3.3 to 3.4 and the water is dominated by Ca, Fe, Al, and 

sulfate and contains Cu concentrations between 1,300 and 2,200 μg/L, well in excess of 

the acute and chronic water-quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (Seal and 

others, 2001b). The previous studies, in conjunction with this current report, summarize 

the extent of contamination and aid the USEPA in determining a reclamation scheme for 

this Superfund site. 

Figure 2. Ely mine site map showing mine-waste piles, the smoke flue, Ely Brook, and Schoolhouse 

Brook. Colored regions indicate composite samples and "x" indicates a grab sample. Colors for 

samples are based on an approximation of the dominant Munsell color. Boundaries for sample areas 

are schematic. Upper mine-waste samples 02Ely1 to 02Ely6 are abbreviated as "1" to "6". "dup" 

indicates field replicate samples. 

7 
METALLURGICAL OPERATIONS AND SAMPLING 

The Ely mine was in operation from the 1850’s to 1905 and exploited a Besshitype massive sulfide deposit (Slack and others, 2001). Bedrock includes 

metasedimentary and minor mafic metaigneous rock of Silurian and Early Devonian age. 

Massive sulfide ore occurred as an elongate body and was composed of pyrrhotite, 

chalcopyrite, and minor sphalerite and pyrite (Offield and Slack, 1993; Slack and others, 

2001). The Ely mine produced somewhere between 13.6 and 18.1 million kg of copper 

over the life of the mine, and was among the top ten U.S. producers of copper between 

1866 and 1881 (Kierstead, 2001). The Ely mine was the only copper mine in Vermont 

where complete copper refinement, from mining of raw ore to smelting of refined ingot 

copper, was successfully integrated on a large scale (Kierstead, 2001). 

The Ely site covers approximately 1,416,450 m2

 (350 acres) and includes shafts 

and adits, barren mine-waste piles, roast beds, flotation-mill tailings, the ruins of the 

World War I era flotation mill, remains of a smelter plant and slag heaps, and a smoke 

flue (Kierstead, 2001). As the ore was removed from the underground workings, accessed 

by at least six shafts and three adits, waste rock was deposited along the upper hillside. 

Six composite samples (02Ely1 to 02Ely6) of the upper mine waste collected for this 

study are shown in Figures 2 and 3. This area is characterized by fine-grained to bouldersized waste rock. The predominantly boulder-sized surface of 02Ely3 is likely the 

remains from hand cobbing the ore and may include some low-grade ore (Fig. 3C). Also, 

several acidic seeps are found emerging from the upper waste pile, and the red hardpan 

crust (ES-4) around one of these seeps was also sampled. This is the same seep referred 

to as ES-4 by Holmes and others (2002). 

During World War I, a small short-lived flotation mill recovered 1,633 kg (3,600 

lbs) of copper from old ore dumps (Kierstead, 2001). Sample Ely00JH24 is the surface 

composite of the footprint of the flotation mill area, which is approximately 50 meters by 

150 meters (Fig. 2). Within this area, the flotation-mill tailings cover an area of 

approximately 100 m2

 and are at least a meter deep. The tailings are stratified and 

samples include brownish yellow oxidized surface (02Ely8A), thin layers of pale yellow 

jarositic and gray muscovite-rich material at a depth of 35-46 cm (02Ely8B), and black 

unoxidized tailings below 71 cm (02Ely8C) (Fig. 4A). Composites of the lower mine 

waste include duplicates of waste rock west of the road (98JHEly-EB and Ely00JH22), 

duplicates of waste rock east of the road (02Ely7 and 02Ely9) and partially roasted ore 

from the roast beds (02Ely10) (Figs. 2 and 4B). 

The Ely smelting plant was built in 1867, and eventually became a massive 

operation consisting of 24 smelting furnaces and spanning over 213 meters (Kierstead, 

2001). Besides processing ore from the Ely mine, the Ely smelter processed ore between 

1878 and 1882 from the Union mine, shown on Figure 1 at Pike Hill (Kierstead, 2001). 

Remnants of the smelting operation include foundation walls, masonry furnace bases, and 

a section of magnesite-coated rocks from the lining of a copper converter. The pot slag 

from the operation was deposited along the bank of Schoolhouse Brook, extends for more 

than 90 meters, and is locally up to several meters high. Samples for this study include 

surface composites of the smelter-plant soil (02Ely11) and of the slag material (02Ely12) 

(Figs. 2, 4C and 4D). A smoke flue built in 1877 is located north of the smelter plant 

(Fig. 2). The flue was built to draw smelter fumes out of the valley, which by the mid 

1870’s was denuded of most vegetation. A 24-meter tall draft chimney (not extant) 

8 
Figure 3. Photographs of upper waste piles sampled at the Ely mine. A. Composite sample area 

02Ely1. B. Composite sample 02Ely2; note the pink flags which designate one sample of the 

composite. C. The soil between the boulders was sampled for composite sample 02Ely3. D. Looking 

west at composite sample area 02Ely4; note white efflorescent salts on boulders. E. White 

efflorescent salts on boulder in composite sample area 02Ely5. F. Composite sample area 02Ely6. 

topped the flue. The flue never worked as intended (Abbott, 1964). A grab sample of the 

soil from the end of the smoke flue was also collected (02Ely13) (Fig. 2). 

The types of mine waste found at the Ely mine are analogous to the types found at 

the Elizabeth mine. The upper and lower waste piles at the Ely mine include waste rock 

and partially roasted ore from copper extraction. The historic mine waste (TP3) at the 

9 
Figure 4. Photographs of sample areas at the Ely mine. A. Flotation-mill tailings; 02Ely8A is 

oxidized surface material, 02Ely8B is the pale yellow layer adjacent to the scale bar, and 02Ely8C is 

black unoxidized material. B. Composite sample area 02Ely10, roast beds. C. Smelter site and 

composite sample area 02Ely11. D. Weathered surface of slag pile; note the rounded casts of slag 

pots. 

Elizabeth mine is a composite of waste piles from early 19th century copperas production, 

partially roasted beds, and hand-cobbed waste rock from late 19th and 20th century copper 

mining (Kierstead, 2001). Geochemical characteristics of TP3 mine waste are 

summarized in Hammarstrom and others (2003). The flotation-mill site and the smelter 

site sampled at the Ely mine are similar in color and grain size to TP3. Flotation tailings 

are also found at both mine sites. Flotation-mill tailings at the Elizabeth mine are discreet 

piles covering an area of over 100,000 m2

, whereas tailings at the Ely mine are spatially 

associated with other mine waste and are volumetrically minor covering an area of 

approximately 100 m2

. Small localized slag deposits are present at the Elizabeth site, 

whereas an extensive slag deposit is found at the Ely mine along Schoolhouse Brook. 

Most of the mine waste at the Ely mine (not including the tailings and slag) is similar in 

color, grain size, and/or degree of metal extraction to the TP3 area of the Elizabeth mine. 

Geochemical characterizations of mine waste at these two sites are compared in this 

report. 

All samples were collected in October 2002 with the exception of 98JHEly-EB, 

collected in August 1998, and Ely00JH22 and Ely00JH24, collected in June 2000 

10 
(Appendix A). The mine-waste piles were divided based on variation in waste type, 

color, and geographic location. Composites of soil (<2 mm) material consist of a 

minimum of 30 sample increments over a measured area divided into a stratified grid. 

Increments were collected with a stainless steel trowel from either the top 5 cm of soil 

(surface, designated with an A) or at a depth of 25 cm (depth samples, designated with a 

B). Samples were mixed and sieved through a 10-mesh sieve. Grab samples (ES-4, 

02Ely8A, -B, -C, 02Ely13) were also collected using the stainless steel trowel. 

Composite and grab samples were stored in plastic bags for shipping to the laboratory, 

where they were air dried, and split into aliquots by fractional shoveling (Pitard, 1993). 

Splits of the samples were used to determine bulk geochemical composition, mineralogy, 

and acid-base accounting. In addition, laboratory-leaching tests assessed the reactivity of 

the material. Sample color was determined on dry material using Munsell soil color 

charts. Because of the variegated nature of the material, more than one color may have 

been chosen to describe each sample. For illustrative purposes in figures and graphs for 

this study, one color was chosen to represent the sample. The Munsell color and other 

sample information including sampling date, location description, and depth are in 

Appendix A. 

METHODS 

Bulk geochemical composition 

The bulk chemical composition of samples was determined using inductively 

coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) following acid-digestion by a 

mixture of HCl-HNO3-HClO4-HF in USGS laboratories in Denver, Colorado (Briggs, 

2002a). The USGS job number and laboratory sample number for entry into the National 

Geochemical Database (Smith, 2002) are listed in Appendix B-1. NIST certified 

reference materials were analyzed to monitor accuracy and precision (Appendix B-2). 

Analytical results of several duplicate splits are also presented in Appendix B-1. 

Mineralogy 

Mineralogical identification was determined using X-ray diffraction analysis 

(XRD) in USGS laboratories in Reston, Virginia. XRD was performed on samples 

pulverized in alcohol in a McCrone micronizer equipped with agate grinding pellets. 

Side-loading aluminum holders were used and the powder patterns were collected using a 

Scintag X1 automated powder diffractometer equipped with a Peltier detector with CuKα

radiation. The XRD patterns were analyzed using Material Data Inc.’s JADE software 

and standard reference patterns. The relative amount of phases in each pattern was 

estimated using the Siroquant computer program that utilizes the full XRD profile in a 

Rietveld refinement (Taylor and Clapp, 1992). The accuracy of the Siroquant results is 

approximately ± 5 wt. % 

Several mine-waste leachates (see below) were filtered through 0.45 μm pore-size 

nitrocellulose filters and allowed to evaporate to dryness to determine the tendency of 

trace amounts of salts to form from the mine waste. The presence of efflorescent sulfate 

salts can effect paste pH and acid-base accounting results; salts occur on the surface of 

11 
mine waste from the Ely mine (Hammarstrom and others, 2001b). Leachate evaporates 

were evaluated using XRD. 

Acid-base accounting 

Acid-base account (ABA) was originally designed to estimate the inherent 

capacity of coal-mine waste to produce or to neutralize acid (Sobek and others, 1978). 

Currently, this method is used to evaluate metal-mine waste as well as coal-mine waste 

and typically includes the determination of paste pH (White and others, 1999). Paste pH 

for this study was determined both in USGS laboratories in Reston, VA, and by B.C. 

Research, Inc., as part of their acid-base accounting procedure. Paste pH determined in 

USGS laboratories was measured on a split of 10 g of < 2 mm diameter sample. The 

sample is combined with 10 mL of deionized water (pH 5.33), stirred with a wooden 

spatula, and the pH of the paste is measured using an Orion pH meter fitted with an 

Ag/AgCl epoxy electrode and temperature probe. This method, based on Price and others 

(1997), is a quick indication of the relative acid-generating (pH < 4) or acid-neutralizing 

(pH > 7) potential of the samples. Sobek and others (1978) defined material with a paste 

pH of less than 4.0 as acid-toxic. 

ABA or net-neutralization potential (NNP) consists of two measurements: (1) 

neutralization potential (NP) and (2) the acid-generating potential (AP). NNP is defined 

as the difference between these two measurements (NNP = NP – AP). The NP/AP ratio 

is also used to describe the acid-producing potential of mine waste. ABA classifications 

for mine-waste samples are based on both NNP and NP/AP and are divided into three 

categories including acid-generating, uncertain, and non-acid generating. The definition 

of “acid-generating” based on NNP and NP/AP is variable from study to study and is 

outlined in White and others (1999) and Perry (1998). Morin and Hutt (1994) 

emphasized the need for site-dependent ABA criteria for estimating acidic drainage 

potential and the lack of certainty in universal criteria applicable to all sites. Although a 

single absolute ABA criterion does not exist, NNP or NP/AP values are useful in 

evaluating the potential of a material to be acid-generating or acid-neutralizing. For this 

study, NNP less than zero or NP/AP less than one are considered potentially acidgenerating, but further quantification of the degree of acid generation can only be 

determined by kinetic tests and by detailed mineralogical and geochemical 

characterization of site-specific samples, which is beyond the scope of this study. 

ABA analyses in this study were done by B.C. Research Inc. using a combination 

of the Sobek method to determine NP and the modified Sobek method to determine AP 

(Sobek and others, 1978; White and others, 1999). The first step in determining NP is to 

perform a “fizz” test by reacting the sample with diluted hydrochloric acid (HCl) at room 

temperature to estimate the calcium and magnesium carbonate content of the sample. 

Samples for this study had a fizz rating of “none.” Therefore, 20 mL of 0.1 N HCl was 

added to 2 g of < 60-mesh material and boiled until the reaction ceased. The mixture is 

then cooled and titrated with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to a pH of 7.0. The amount of 

NaOH added is a measure of how much HCl was neutralized and an indication of the 

neutralizing potential reported as kg of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) per metric ton of 

mine waste. 

AP was determined according to the modified Sobek procedure, which determines 

AP on the sulfide content rather than the total sulfur. Total sulfur was analyzed by LECO 

12 
furnace and sulfate-sulfur was determined by heating 5.00 g of sample with 20 mL of 3 N 

HCl to a boil. The sample is allowed to cool and diluted with deionized water (DI) to a 

known volume. The solution is then analyzed for sulfate by a turbidimetric method. 

Sulfide-sulfur is calculated from the difference between total sulfur and sulfate-sulfur and 

is assumed to be present in the acid-generating iron-sulfide minerals pyrite and 

pyrrhotite. For these sulfides, two moles of acid are produced for each mole of sulfur and 

one mole of CaCO3 will neutralize the two moles of acid. Thus, the AP is obtained by 

multiplying the weight percentage of sulfide-sulfur by 31.25 to yield AP in units of kg of 

CaCO3 per metric ton (White and others, 1999). 

For several mine-waste samples in this study, results for duplicate sulfate-sulfur 

analyses were poor. These samples contain jarosite, which is refractory in the 3 N HCl 

used in the procedure to determine sulfate-sulfur. Concentrated HCl and longer boiling 

times (30 minutes) were found to liberate the sulfate-sulfur in jarosite (Vos and O’Hearn, 

2001). Thus, the sulfate-sulfur contribution of the jarosite can be underestimated and the 

AP based on sulfide-sulfur overestimated. Two samples were reanalyzed by this more 

aggressive method. 

Leach test 

The field-leach test developed by Hageman and Briggs (2000) was performed on 

splits of the samples in USGS laboratories in Reston, Virginia. Splits of samples 

(material < 2 mm in diameter) were combined with a solution that approximates eastern 

United States precipitation (ESP) at a solution to sample ratio of 20:1. A mixture of 

sulfuric acid and nitric acid was added to deionized water to adjust the pH to 4.2 ± 0.1 to 

produce synthetic eastern precipitation solution (USEPA, 1994). The mixtures were 

shaken for five minutes and after 24 hours the pH and specific conductivity were 

measured on unfiltered splits. The leachates were then filtered through 0.45 μm pore-size 

nitrocellulose filters and analyzed for cations by inductively coupled plasma- mass 

spectrometry (ICP-MS) and ICP-AES, and for anions (sulfate and chloride) by ion 

chromatography (IC) in USGS laboratories in Denver, Colorado, and Ocala, Florida, 

respectively. ICP-MS and ICP-AES analyses were performed according to USGS 

methods outlined in Lamothe and others (2002) and Briggs (2002b). Dissolved total iron 

and ferrous iron concentrations were determined using colorimetric kits containing 1, 10 

phenanthroline indicator on a Hach DR/2000 spectrophotometer. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Bulk geochemistry 

The concentrations of major, minor, and trace elements in all samples are given in 

Appendix B-1. Duplicate splits of samples 02Ely2A, 02Ely6B, Ely00JH24, and 02Ely12 

were analyzed separately and are included in Appendix B-1. The results of analyzing 

NIST standard reference material are presented in Appendix B-2. 

The concentrations of selected metals and the USEPA preliminary remediation 

goals (PRGs) for residential and industrial soils are given in Table 1. PRGs are 

guidelines, not legally enforceable standards, used for initial evaluations of potentially 

13 
contaminated sites. Concentrations of metals above these levels do not designate a site as 

contaminated but suggests that further evaluation of the potential risks posed by the 

contaminate may be necessary (USEPA, 2002). Concentrations of metals that exceed the 

PRGs are shown in bold in Table 1. 

Table 1. Concentration of selected metals in mine waste from the Ely mine. 

Sample Al As Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Mn Mo Ni Pb V Zn 

wt.% mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg wt.% mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 

PRG-residential1 7.6 22 37 900 210 3,100 2.3 1,800 390 1,600 400 550 23,000 

PRG-industrial1 10 260 450 1,900 450 41,000 10 19,000 5,100 20,000 750 7,200 100,000 

02Ely 1A 4.4 <10 <2 31 49 3,680 17.5 1,390 31 12 32 135 102 

02Ely 1B 4.5 <10 <2 28 66 1,620 15.7 1,160 32 19 23 139 91 

02Ely 2A 4.5 <10 <2 31 57 2,320 17.4 1,620 28 11 35 156 201 

02Ely 2A DUP 2 4.6 <10 <2 32 57 2,630 17.6 1,620 30 12 40 151 155 

02Ely 2B 4.6 <10 <2 31 72 1,240 16.5 862 27 20 27 148 105 

02Ely 3 5.7 <10 <2 39 149 5,660 15.6 667 18 11 78 268 341 

02Ely 4A 5.3 <10 <2 37 107 2,050 18.4 1,050 33 13 49 212 194 

02Ely 4B 5.3 <10 <2 38 102 1,530 15.9 1,020 21 16 42 183 151 

02Ely 5A 4.6 <10 <2 39 75 3,250 21.4 890 34 12 46 202 269 

02Ely 5B 4.5 <10 <2 31 86 1,440 13.8 998 14 20 27 143 160 

02Ely 6A 4.7 <10 <2 39 73 4,220 18.3 1,340 34 12 52 172 223 

02Ely 6B 5 <10 <2 39 98 2,560 15.9 1,440 21 18 42 162 184 

02Ely 6B DUP 5 <10 <2 39 96 2,830 16.2 1,410 24 19 45 158 184 

ES-4 1 <10 <2 27 1.3 2,640 45.6 134 5.3 11 <4 60 60 

Ely00JH22 4.26 <10 <2 14 48 5,100 19.4 2,180 42 <3 69 197 149 

Ely00JH24 4.31 <10 <2 19 71 2,400 18.3 1,920 69 <3 82 211 207 

Ely00JH24 DUP 4.36 <10 <2 18 73 2,320 17.4 2,220 59 <3 79 207 210 

02Ely 7A 4.1 <10 <2 34 45 7,020 18.4 2,420 46 11 57 145 216 

02Ely 9A3

 4.1 <10 <2 39 42 6,940 19.5 2,330 45 12 65 150 250 

02Ely 7B 4 <10 <2 54 38 6,540 19.6 1,740 46 13 63 150 214 

02Ely 9B3

 4 <10 <2 53 42 5,580 19.5 1,730 48 14 71 163 228 

02Ely 8A 3.8 <10 <2 25 38 2,240 16.0 2,520 28 7.2 50 139 219 

02Ely 8B 5 <10 <2 20 68 1,510 10.8 2,050 20 7 46 144 113 

02Ely 8C 4.9 11 42 1,040 103 25,600 19.0 2,010 18 237 52 132 3,960 

02Ely 10A 3.9 <10 <2 50 68 2,040 19.6 1,210 41 18 47 169 447 

02Ely 10B 4.4 <10 <2 31 86 1,630 15.1 915 24 19 21 129 235 

02Ely 11 4 <10 <2 78 70 2,780 16.0 699 20 26 65 115 425 

02Ely 12 4 <10 <2 431 35 6,880 28.4 878 34 32 93 104 3,440 

02Ely 12 DUP 4 <10 <2 414 36 6,750 27.4 871 33 32 61 104 3,360 

02Ely 13 6.5 <10 <2 14 101 45 5.2 750 2.2 34 120 171 81 

1

 USEPA preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) for residential and industrial soils (USEPA, 2002). Samples 

 in bold are in excess of either the industrial or residential soil PRG. 2 DUP, duplicate analysis of the same sample. 

3

 02Ely9A and 02Ely9B are field replicate samples for sample 02Ely7A and 02Ely7B, respectively. 

14 
Mine-waste samples contain significant concentrations of Fe. All samples exceed 

the PRG for industrial soils (10 wt. % Fe), except 02Ely13 (smoke-flue soil), which 

exceeds the residential PRG of 2.3 wt. % Fe. The smoke-flue soil is not mine waste, but 

is organic-rich soil that may have been contaminated by smelter smoke exhausting from 

the flue. Thus, the 5.2 wt. % Fe of sample 02Ely13 may be an indication of the 

background concentrations of Fe in the soil around the site. The highest concentration of 

Fe, 45.6 wt. %, is found in the hardpan seep material, which is predominantly goethite 

(see below). Nearly half of the mass of the hardpan is Fe, nearly a third of the slag is Fe 

and between 10 and 21% of the mass of the other mine-waste samples is Fe (Table 1). 

Copper is the dominant metal found in the samples, with the highest concentration 

reaching 25,600 mg/kg in the unoxidized flotation-mill tailings. The areas sampled at the 

site which do not exceed the PRG for Cu in residential soil either at the surface or at 

depth are the two south-west sections of the upper mine waste (02Ely2, 02Ely4), the 

hardpan seep (ES-4), the soil around the flotation mill (Ely00JH24), the roast beds 

(02Ely10), the soil around the smelter site (02Ely11), and the smoke-flue soil (02Ely13) 

(shown in blue and green in Figure 5). In general, waste-rock material (except for the 

two samples from the upper waste pile mentioned above), the flotation tailings, and the 

slag shown in yellow, orange, and red in Figure 5 exceed the EPA guideline of 3,100 

mg/kg Cu for residential soils. All samples, except for the smoke-flue soil, contain 

anomalous concentrations (at least 1,200 mg/kg) of Cu when compared with the range of 

< 1 to 700 mg/kg Cu for soils in the eastern United States reported by Shacklette and 

Boerngen (1984). The reported value of 45 mg/kg Cu for the smoke-flue soil may be 

elevated when compared to background soil for the area due to contaminated exhaust 

from the smoke flue. The areal extent of such contamination is unclear. 

The concentrations of Zn in the mine waste are significantly higher than the mean 

concentration of 40 mg/kg for soils in the eastern United States (Shacklette and 

Boerngen, 1984) but do not exceed the PRG for residential soil (Table 1). The highest 

concentrations of Zn are found in the unoxidized flotation tailings (02Ely8C) and the slag 

material (02Ely12) with 3,960 and 3,440 mg/kg Zn, respectively. The concentrations of 

Mn in the surface samples from the lower mine-waste pile (Ely00JH22, 02Ely7A, 

02Ely9A), the soil surrounding the flotation mill (Ely00JH24), and the flotation-mill 

tailings also exceed the PRG for residential soil (Table 1). 

Copper is the dominant base metal in all samples, constituting over 80% of the 

total (Cu+Cd+Co+Ni+Pb+Zn), except for in the slag and smoke-flue soil. For the slag 

sample, 63% of the base-metal total is Cu and 32% is Zn. In general, the trend in basemetal variation is a reflection of the Cu concentration in the sample. The total base-metal 

concentration decreases with depth for most samples (Fig. 6 and Table 1). For example, 

the concentration of Cu is at least 25% lower at depth for the upper mine-waste samples. 

The concentration of total base metals and Cu decreases in the transition zone of the 

flotation-mill tailings sampled at a depth of 35-46 cm, but increases significantly in the 

unoxidized material sample at 71-91 cm (Fig. 6). This is due to the high percentage of 

sulfides in this sample (see section below). 

Color was one criterion used to distinguish between sampling locations and the 

concentrations of base metals do not appear to correlate with the dominant color of the 

material (Fig. 6). Similarly, Hammarstrom and others (2003) did not report a distinct 

trend between color and base-metal concentrations for TP3 samples from the Elizabeth 

15 
mine. At the Ely mine, the color of the upper mine-waste piles (02Ely1 to 6) ranges from 

yellow to strong brown and the total base metal of these piles ranges from 1,400 to 6,100 

mg/kg. The highest as well as one of the lowest base-metal sums are found in material 

that is reddish brown/brownish yellow. 

Figure 5. Concentration of Cu in surface samples from the Ely mine. Regions shaded in yellow, 

orange, and red exceed EPA preliminary remediation goals (PRG) for residential soil for Cu and all 

areas exceed the PRG for industrial soil for Fe, except the smoke-flue area. 

16 
Figure 6. Total base metals in mine waste plotted according to pile and dominant color. The samples 

increase in depth along the Z-axis. Data from Table 1. 

Total base metals do tend to increase with an increase in Fe content as shown in 

Figure 7. Although the lower and upper mine-waste piles cluster in the same area in 

Figure 7, lower mine-waste material is slightly more metal-rich than upper mine-waste 

material. Of the upper mine-waste piles, composite sample 02Ely3 contains the highest 

concentration of Cr (149 mg/kg), Cu (5,660 mg/kg), S (3.67 wt. %), and Zn (341 mg/kg). 

The surface of this area is covered with boulders and may be the remnants of a handcobbing area. The base-metal and Fe content of the flotation-mill soil, smelter soil, and 

roast beds are comparable to the upper mine-waste piles (Fig. 7). Slag contains high 

concentrations of base metals and is anomalously Fe-rich in Figure 7. Unoxidized 

tailings contain the only detectable As (11 mg/kg) and Cd (42 mg/kg) and the highest 

concentrations of Co (1,040 mg/kg), Cu (25,600 mg/kg), Ni (237 mg/kg), S (14.09 wt. 

%), and Zn (3,960 mg/kg; Fig. 7). The concentrations of Cd, Co, Cu, Fe, and Mn in this 

sample exceed the PRG for residential soils. In general, the most metal-rich samples at 

the Ely site, in decreasing base-metal content, are: the unoxidized flotation-mill tailings 

(02Ely8C), the slag material (02Ely12), the lower mine-waste pile east of the road 

(02Ely7 and 9), and area 02Ely3 in the upper waste piles (Figs. 6 and 7). The extremely 

high Fe content of the predominantly goethitic hardpan seep is distinct from the other 

samples. Smoke-flue soil has the lowest Fe and base metal concentrations (Fig. 7). This 

sample also contains significantly less Mo and S, but contains high Cr (101 mg/kg) and 

the highest concentrations of Al (6.5 wt. %), Ca (1.6 wt. %), Mg (1.5 wt. %), Pb (120 

mg/kg), Sn (28 mg/kg), Sr (139 mg/kg), and rare earth elements including Ce (45 mg/kg), 

La (21 mg/kg), and Yb (2.3 mg/kg) compared to the other samples (Appendix B-1). The 

high Al, Ca, and Mg may be a reflection of the presence of silicate phases (see section 

below) and the high Pb and Sn may be a result of contamination from the fumes of the 

smelter. Also, the 24-meter tall lead-lined draft chimney that topped the smoke flue may 

be a source of anomalous Pb. 

17 
Figure 7. Total base-metal concentrations versus Fe content for mine-waste samples. The 

composition of the historic mine waste (TP3), unoxidized tailings, and slag at the Elizabeth mine are 

plotted for comparison (Hammarstrom and others, 2001a, 2003; Piatak and others, 2003, 2004). Note 

the logarithmic scale for the total base-metal concentrations. 

Total base-metal concentrations in the historic mine-waste piles (TP3), the 

unoxidized tailings, and slag at the Elizabeth mine Superfund site are also plotted on 

Figure 7. TP3 samples containing the underlying till are not included in Figure 7 because 

no till has been found at the Ely mine. Iron content and base-metal concentrations in TP3 

vary significantly and most samples from the Ely mine fall within this range. Unoxidized 

tailings from the Ely mine contain close to the maximum base-metal concentration found 

in unoxidized tailings from the Elizabeth mine (Fig. 7). The composite sample from the 

base of the slag pile at the Ely mine is within the range of compositions in grab slag 

samples from the Elizabeth mine (Fig. 7). Similar to the Ely samples, the dominant 

metals in the mine waste from the Elizabeth mine are Cu (313-70,000 mg/kg) and Zn (29-

10,200 mg/kg) (Hammarstrom and others, 2001a, 2003; Piatak and others, 2003, 2004). 

Concentrations of these two metals from the Ely and Elizabeth mines follow trends 

similar to those found for the concentrations of total-base metals discussed above. The 

concentrations of Cu and Zn in oxidized mine waste and soil at both sites are similar; 

those in unoxidized tailings at the Ely mine are near the maximum for concentrations 

found at the Elizabeth mine; those in slag at both sites are comparable (Fig. 8). 

Generally, the concentrations of other metals follow similar trends. One exception is the 

slightly higher concentrations of Ni and Pb in slag from Ely mine. Concentrations of Co, 

Cr, Ni, and Pb in roast beds at the Ely mine are similar to those in surface samples of the 

red roasted material at the Elizabeth mine; concentrations of Cu, Mn, S, and Sr are higher 

in the Ely samples than the Elizabeth samples (Hammarstrom and others, 2003). 

18 
Figure 8. Box plots of Cu and Zn concentrations in mine waste from the Ely and Elizabeth mines. 

The median value is shown as the vertical bar in the center of the rectangular box whose ends 

represent the 25th and 75th percentiles. The ends of the "whiskers" that extend from the box 

represent the 10th and 90th percentiles; outlying points are also plotted. Concentrations for Ely 

unoxidized tailings and for Ely slag are displayed as points. Oxidized mine waste (TP3) at the 

Elizabeth mine does not include samples containing underlying till. Slag samples from the Elizabeth 

mine are grab samples, whereas the slag sample from Ely is a composite. Data for the Elizabeth 

mine (except one unoxidized tailings sample) are from Hammarstrom and others (2001a, 2003), and 

Piatak and others (2003, 2004). 

Mineralogy 

Although the Ely mine-waste samples are the products of a wide range of 

metallurgical processes, the samples were initially derived from the same set of host rock 

and ore. Thus, the same minerals are present in many samples and include a variety of 

silicates, sulfides, sulfates, and oxides (Table 2). Some minerals originally not present in 

significant quantities in host rock or ore were produced by the metal extraction processes 

(e.g., hematite from roasting, and fayalite from smelting). Estimates of the weight 

percentage of each phase were determined by a Rietveld refinement on a full XRD profile 

and are summarized in Appendix C. Rietveld results are illustrative with an accuracy of 

±5 wt. %, but are not meant to represent absolute mineralogical content for each sample. 

19 
Table 2. Minerals in mine waste from the Ely mine. Neutralization potential (NP) ranges and averages (in 

parentheses) are for monomineralic samples from Jambor and others (2000, 2002). NP units are kg 

CaCO3/ton. 

Minerals Ideal formula Acid- Inert Acid- Phase or Reference 

generating NP = neutralizing range of 

NP < 0 0-1 NP > 1 phases 

SILICATE MINERALS 

Quartz SiO2

Albite NaAlSi3O8 (An0-10)

Anorthite CaAl2Si2O8 (An90-100)

x 

0.5 Ab98 Jambor and others (2000) 

10.7 An93 Jambor and others (2000) 

Labradorite (Ca,Na)Al1-2Si2-3O8 (An50 - An70) 

Biotite K(Mg, Fe)3(AlSi3O10)(OH)2 

Muscovite KAl2(AlSi3O10)(OH)2 

Chlorite (Mg,Fe2+)5Al(Si3Al)O10(OH)8 

Kaolin Al2Si2O5(OH)4 

Talc Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 

Vermiculite-hydrobiotite K-Mg-Fe-Al silicates 

Sepiolite 1 Mg4(OH)2Si6O15•6H2O 

Hornblende (Ca,Na)2-3 

(Mg,Fe,Al)5Si6(Si,Al)2O22(OH)2 

Fayalite Fe2SiO4 

2.6-11.5 (8.0) An50-67 Jambor and others (2002) 

2.7-24.9 (10.5) Mg2-94 Jambor and others (2000) 

0.3 Jambor and others (2000) 

0.8-21.6 (8.3) Mg0.37-0.95 Jambor and others (2000) 

0 kaolinite Jambor and others (2000) 

1.7 Jambor and others (2000) 

29.0 Jambor and others (2002) 

0.2-8.7 (3.7) amphiboles Jambor and others (2002) 

40.2, 38.8 Fa66 & Fa89 Jambor and others (2002) 

OTHER MINERALS 

Calcite CaCO3 49.9 2 Jambor and others (2002) 

Goethite FeO(OH) 1.5 Jambor and others (2002) 

Hematite Fe2O3 2 Jambor and others (2002) 

3+ Magnetite Fe O4 2+Fe2 1.7 Jambor and others (2002) 

EFFLORESCENT SULFATE SALTS 

Alunogen Al2(SO4)3•17H2O 

Copiapite Fe2+Fe3+(SO4)6(OH)2•20H2O x 

Melanterite FeSO4•7H2O x 

Rozenite FeSO4•4H2O x 

OTHER SULFATE MINERALS 

Gypsum CaSO4•2H2O x 

Jarosite K2Fe6

3+(SO4)4(OH)12 -3.9 Jambor and others (2002) 

SULFIDES 

Chalcopyrite CuFeS2 x x Plumlee (1999) 

Pyrite FeS2 x Plumlee (1999) 

Pyrrhotite Fe1-xS x Plumlee (1999) 

Sphalerite ZnS x Plumlee (1999) 

1 Phase identified as sepiolite in the Rietveld refinement is likely altered biotite, see discussion in text. 

2

 Theoretical value of 50 kg CaCO3/ton for 20 mL of 0.1M HCl used in ABA tests on Ely mine waste. The 

theoretical value is 1,000 for complete dissolution. 

The Munsell color of some samples is a reflection of the dominant mineral 

present. This correlation was also reported by Hammarstrom and others (2003) for the 

TP3 samples at the Elizabeth mine. The variation in color found among piles at the Ely 

mine is not as distinct as the variation in color of TP3 samples from the Elizabeth mine. 

At Ely, the red color of ES-4 is due to the abundance of goethite (76 wt. %) (Appendix 

20
C). The Ely roast beds (02Ely10) are red because the area is hematite-rich (up to 16 wt. 

%). At the Elizabeth mine, the partially roasted ore is red and black; red piles contain up 

to 41 wt. % hematite and black piles contain up to 77 wt. % hematite (Hammarstrom and 

others, 2003). Several minerals may be similar in color and thus the dominant mineral in 

a sample cannot be determined exclusively by color. The unoxidized tailings (02Ely8C) 

are black because of the dominance of pyrrhotite (29.6 wt. %), but the slag material is 

dark gray due to the presence of abundant fayalite (39.2 wt. %). The smoke-flue soil 

(02Ely13) is predominantly composed of silicates and contains only trace amounts of Feoxides, which contribute to the light olive brown color of this sample. 02Ely8B is pale 

yellow due to the presence of minor goethite (2.5 wt. %), no hematite, and significant 

jarosite (13.9 wt. %). The remaining mine-waste samples are mixtures of several colored 

minerals and vary from yellow to brownish yellow to reddish yellow to reddish brown to 

strong brown. A simple correlation between mineralogy and sample color was not found. 

The major mineralogy of each sample is illustrated in Figure 9. Most silicates are 

grouped according to their acid-neutralizing potential (NP > 1) or their relatively inert 

behavior (NP ~ 0) (NP for individual minerals is given in Table 2). Sulfide fields 

represent the sum of pyrrhotite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, and sphalerite; salt fields represent 

efflorescent sulfate salts such as alunogen, copiapite, melanterite, and rozenite. 

With the exception of the hardpan seep, the samples contain significant quartz 

ranging from 18.8 to 43.3 wt. %. Quartz is neither acid-generating nor acid-neutralizing 

with respect to contributions to water quality, and thus is grouped with other minerals 

with a NP ~ 0 (Fig. 9). For most samples, the second most abundant phase is feldspar 

(Appendix C). The compositions of the feldspars range from anorthite to albite, most 

commonly identified by XRD as albite and labradorite. Sodic feldspars are less acidneutralizing than more calcic feldspars according to Jambor and others (2000 & 2002). 

Therefore, sodic feldspars are grouped with other relatively inert silicates (NP ~ 0) in 

Figure 9, whereas more calcic feldspars are grouped with acid-neutralizing silicates (NP 

> 1). In general, muscovite is the most common sheet silicate with lesser amounts of 

chlorite and/or biotite. Clay phases include kaolinite, talc, vermiculite, and a phase with 

a strong intensity, broad peak at a spacing of approximately 11.5 to 12 Å, identified as 

sepiolite in the XRD patterns. However, sepiolite is generally associated with low 

latitudes and semi-arid climates, commonly forming in shallow seas and lakes, and is 

unlikely to be found in mine waste. More likely, this peak may be ascribed to hydrous 

altered biotite. As reported by Rebertus and others (1986), biotite (strong intensity peak 

at 9.9 Å ) weathers to interstratified biotite-vermiculite (hydrobiotite) (stong intensity 

peak in the range of 10 to 14 Å). The range in peak spacing for the phase in the minewaste samples from approximately 11.5 to 12 Å may be a result of varying degrees of 

biotite alteration. Hornblende is found in most samples ranging from 0 to 7.9 wt. % for 

mine-waste samples and 16.2 wt. % for the smoke-flue soil. 

Goethite is the dominant oxide in most samples; goethite abundance decreases 

with depth (Fig. 9). The hardpan seep (ES-4) contains 76 wt. % goethite and thus a 

calculated Fe content from the Siroquant results of 48 wt. % Fe. This is in good 

agreement with the concentration of Fe from ICP-AES analysis of 45.6 wt. %. Only a 

few samples contain hematite, including one surface section of the upper mine waste 

(02Ely4A), the roast beds (02Ely10A & B), the smelter soil (02Ely11), the slag pile 

(02Ely12), and the smoke-flue soil (02Ely13). Only the roast beds contain major 

21 
Figure 9. Mineralogy of Ely mine waste based on Rietveld refinements using the Siroquant computer 

program. "A" samples are surface samples; "B" and "C" are at depth. 

22 
Figure 9. (cont.) 

23 
Figure 9. (cont.) 

amounts of hematite (15.9 and 8.8 wt. % for surface and depth samples, respectively). 

Hematite was a product of the roasting process, during which the pyrrhotite-rich ores 

were burned to drive off sulfur. The slag sample also contains magnetite (2.6 wt. %). 

These iron oxides (goethite, hematite, and magnetite) have a slight acid-neutralizing 

potential with NP values ranging from 1.5 to 2 kg CaCO3/ton. In contrast, jarosite is 

potentially acid-generating with a NP of –3.9 kg CaCO3/ton (Jambor and others, 2002) 

and the upper mine-waste piles, lower mine-waste piles, surface soil around the mill site, 

and the roast beds contain at least 10 wt. % jarosite. Localized, jarosite-rich, yellow 

layers were found at depth within the roast beds. The jarosite content increases or 

remains approximately the same at depth for most of the areas sampled at depth. 

Pyrrhotite and chalcopyrite were positively identified in several mine waste XRD 

profiles. The Rietveld-determined abundances of these minerals are up to 3.7 wt. % for 

pyrrohtite, except for the anomalously high concentration of 29.6 wt. % pyrrhotite in the 

unoxidized flotation tailings, and up to 1.6 wt. % for chalcopyrite. Chalcopyrite was 

positively identified by electron microprobe analyses in mine waste from the upper minewaste piles by Hammarstrom and others (2001b). The Rietveld-determined 

concentrations of pyrite and sphalerite are 0.5 wt. % or less. Overall, the total sulfide 

concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 4.5 wt. % for all samples, except for the unoxidized 

flotation tailings. Pyrrhotite and pyrite oxidation is acid-generating; chalcopyrite 

24 
oxidation can be acid-generating depending on the oxidizing agent; the oxidation of pure 

sphalerite is not acid-generating if oxygen is the oxidizing agent (Plumlee, 1999). 

The Rietveld-determined abundances of the sulfate salts including alunogen, 

copiapite, melanterite, rozenite, and gypsum are less than 1.6 wt. % (Appendix C). These 

results are also near the detection limit for the XRD profile. The presence of sulfate salts 

including gypsum, melanterite, rozenite, and chalcanthite in mine waste was investigated 

because these phases occur on the surface of mine waste at the Ely mine (Hammarstrom 

and others, 2001b). Sulfate salts found on the slag pile include chalcanthite, rozenite, 

siderotil, brochantite, and gypsum (Piatak and others, 2003; 2004). Filtered leachate 

water was evaporated (procedure discussed above in methods) and the resulting 

evaporates were identified as gypsum, rhombclase (FeH(SO4)2•4H2O), and szomolnokite 

(FeSO4•H2O). The results imply that soluble sulfate salts are present in the mine-waste 

samples, although potentially in quantities less than the detection limit of XRD. 

Calcite is the most effective acid-neutralizing mineral and therefore was included 

in the Siroquant analyses. The Rietveld-determined abundance of calcite in these minewaste samples is minimal (0 to 0.8 wt. %) and likely below the reliable detection limit for 

the XRD profiles. Therefore, calcite is included as a phase in Figure 9 with questionable 

reliability. 

Acid-base accounting 

Paste pH and acid-base accounting results (Fig. 10 and Table 3) indicate that most 

mine-waste samples from the Ely mine are acid-generating. The hardpan seep (ES-4) and 

slag sample (02Ely12) were not analyzed for ABA. According to paste pH, ES-4 is 

potentially acid-toxic (paste pH < 4), but the slag is not. The paste pH values were 

determined both by the USGS and B.C. Research, Inc., and are in excellent agreement 

(Table 3). 

Figure 10. Acid-base accounting results for mine waste from the Ely mine. Material with a paste pH 

< 4 and NNP < 0 are considered likely to generate acid. ABA results for historic mine waste (TP3) at 

the Elizabeth mine are shown as the shaded region (data from Hammarstrom and others, 2003). 

25 
Table 3. Paste pH and acid-base accounting results. 

Paste pH Paste pH Total S Sulfate S Sulfide S Maximum Neutralization Net Fizz NP/AP 

Potential Potential Neutralization Rating 

Acidity Potential 

(USGS) (B.C. (LECO) (AP) (NP) (NNP) 

Research) wt. % wt. % wt. % kg CaCO3/t kg CaCO3/t kg CaCO3/t 

02Ely 1A 2.4 2.1 2.56 1.28 1.28 40.0 -9.5 -49.5 none -0.2 

02Ely 1B 2.5 2.3 2.18 1.36 0.82 25.6 -8.3 -33.9 none -0.3 

02Ely 2A 2.3 (2.3)1

 2.1 2.48 1.84 0.64 20.0 -9.8 -29.8 none -0.5 

02Ely 2B 2.4 2.2 2.05 1.21 0.84 26.3 -8.8 -35.1 none -0.3 

02Ely 3 2.4 2.3 3.67 1.55 2.12 66.3 -4 -70.3 none -0.1 

02Ely 4A 2.5 2.5 2.09 1.11 0.98 30.6 -7 -37.6 none -0.2 

02Ely 4B 2.4 2.2 2.49 1.63 0.86 26.9 -8.3 -35.2 none -0.3 

02Ely 5A 2.3 2 2.88 1.35 1.53 47.8 -11.8 (-10.5) -59.6 none -0.2 

02Ely 5B 2.5 2.3 1.77 1.08 0.69 21.6 -8 -29.6 none -0.4 

02Ely 6A 2.4 2.1 2.76 1.67 1.09 34.1 -8.5 -42.6 none -0.2 

02Ely 6B 2.5 (2.5) 2.4 2.53 1.45 1.08 33.8 -4.3 (-5) -38.1 none -0.1 

ES-4 2.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Ely00JH24 2.8 2.5 2.30 0.37 1.93 60.3 -5.5 -65.8 none -0.1 

Ely00JH242 2.8 2.5 2.30 1.8 0.50 15.6 -5.5 -21.1 none -0.4 

98JH-ELY-EB n.a. 2.1 3.10 0.34 2.76 86.3 -14.7 -101.0 none -0.2 

98JH-ELY-EB2 n.a. 2.1 3.10 2.3 0.80 25.0 -14.7 -39.7 none -0.6 

02Ely 7A 2.3 2.2 3.33 1.61 1.72 53.8 -10.8 -64.6 none -0.2 

02Ely 9A3

 2.3 2.2 3.74 1.34 2.4 75.0 -12.8 -87.8 none -0.2 

02Ely 7B 2.3 2.1 3.62 (3.71) 1.6 2.02 63.1 -13 -76.1 none -0.2 

02Ely 9B3

 2.3 2.2 3.37 1.54 1.83 57.2 -12 -69.2 none -0.2 

02Ely 8A 2.4 2.3 2.69 1.11 1.58 49.4 -8.5 -57.9 none -0.2 

02Ely 8B 2.5 2.5 2.24 1.55 0.69 21.6 -4.5 (-4.3) -26.1 none -0.2 

02Ely 8C 3.1 2.9 14.09 0.83 13.26 414.4 -7.5 -421.9 none 0.0 

02Ely 10A 2.7 3.2 1.84 1.42 0.42 13.1 -7.3 (-7.5) -20.4 none -0.6 

02Ely 10B 2.7 3.2 2.19 1.28 0.91 28.4 -5 -33.4 none -0.2 

02Ely 11 3.1 3.4 1.28 0.93 0.35 10.9 -3.5 -14.4 none -0.3 

02Ely 12 4.5 (4.6) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

02Ely 13 4.1 4.4 0.07 (0.08) 0.03 0.04 1.3 -1.8 -3.1 none -1.4 

1

 Italic numbers in parentheses are duplicates. 

2

More aggressive method used to determine AP. 

3

 02Ely9A and 02Ely9B are field replicate samples for sample 02Ely7A and 02Ely7B, respectively. 

The NNP values range from –421.9 to –3.1 kg CaCO3/ton (Fig. 10). The acidgenerating potential of the samples does not vary on the basis of the Munsell soil color as 

shown in Figure 10. The soil from the top of the smoke flue (02Ely13) is the only sample 

that does not plot within the acid-generating area in Figure 10. This material has a 

slightly negative NNP value (-3.1) and a paste pH above 4. Of the remaining samples, 

most form a cluster of points in Figure 10 with paste pH values between 2.0 and 2.5 and 

NNP values ranging from –101 to –26.1 kg CaCO3/ton. The outlying samples include the 

26 
partially roasted ore (02Ely10) and the smelter-site soil (02Ely11), both of which have 

higher paste pH, 3.2 and 3.4, respectively, and slightly less negative NNP (Fig. 10). The 

most negative NNP value, –421.9 kg CaCO3/ton, is for the unoxidized tailings, which 

contains nearly 30 wt. % pyrrhotite according to the Siroquant results. This value is four 

times lower than the lowest NNP reported for the other samples. 

Acid-base accounting results for historic mine-waste piles at the Elizabeth mine 

are shown as the gray shaded region in Figure 10. Carbonate till underlying the Elizabeth 

mine waste and mixtures of this till and the mine waste are not shown in Figure 10. The 

NNP of most mine waste from the Ely mine plots in the upper range of NNP values for 

the historic mine waste from the Elizabeth mine (TP3 in Figure 10). Unoxidized tailings 

at the Ely mine are more acid-generating than the historic mine waste from the Elizabeth 

mine (Fig. 10). 

The NNP of the mine-waste samples is based on the amount of acid-generating 

minerals and acid-neutralizing minerals in a given sample. The amounts of these 

minerals present and their ability to counteract each other should result in the netneutralization potential. Table 2 lists the neutralization potentials (NP) for rock-forming 

minerals found in mine waste from the Ely mine. The NP values were derived from the 

results of static tests by Jambor and others (2000; 2002). In general, the silicates and 

oxides contribute minimal acid neutralization because of the slow dissolution kinetics of 

most of these phases compared to the oxidation of sulfides. The Ely samples lack acidneutralizing carbonate gangue minerals. Pyrrhotite is the most abundant sulfide and 

alters even more rapidly than pyrite. Also, these samples are composed of particles of 

various sizes, which may facilitate the access of oxygen and increase oxidation rates. 

Therefore, determination of the quantity of sulfides and acid-generating sulfates, such as 

jarosite and efflorescent sulfate salts, is the best indication of the acid-generating 

potential of the samples. 

The AP for acid-base accounting is calculated based on the quantity of sulfides 

present, but most mine-waste samples from the Ely mine contain significant jarosite. For 

this study, the more aggressive procedure required to liberate sulfate-sulfur in jarosite 

was conducted on two samples from the Ely mine (Table 3). The AP determined by this 

more aggressive procedure is less than a third of the AP determined by the standard 

method. The NNP for both these samples is negative, although less negative, indicating 

the material is still classified as acid-generating. 

Leachate 

Leaching tests conducted on the < 2 mm size fraction of each sample using a 

solution which approximates eastern United States precipitation indicate that significant 

concentrations of metals may be released from the mine waste (Appendix D). The 

leaching tests simulate weathering of the waste piles and approximate the composition of 

runoff. The surface runoff and seepage waters at this site funnel downhill from the upper 

mine workings towards Ely Brook, where water quality is impacted (McSurdy and others, 

1995; USEPA, 2003a). Results from the leaching tests were compared with water-quality 

guidelines for the protection of aquatic life and drinking water standards (Fig. 11). The 

toxicity guidelines for aquatic life for Cu, Cd, and Zn are based on a hardness of 100 

mg/L CaCO3. This hardness is slightly higher than the hardness reported by Seal and 

others (2001b) of between 64.2 to 87.3 mg/L CaCO3 for Schoolhouse Brook upstream of 

27 
Figure 11. Dissolved metal concentrations in leachate as a function of pH. Shaded fields represent 

the composition of leachate from the historic mine-waste pile (TP3) at the Elizabeth mine (data from 

Hammarstrom and others, 2003). Points that plot above the dashed lines exceed drinking water and 

acute toxicity water-quality standards (standards from USEPA, 2003b and 1993, respectively). 

28 
the confluence with Ely Brook. In general, an inverse relationship exists between 

hardness and the toxicity of these metals with regards to impacts on aquatic life. 

Therefore, aquatic life is adversely affected by a lower concentration of the metal in 

water with a lower hardness. 

The major anion in all leachate samples is sulfate. For most samples, Al, Ca, Cu, 

Fe, and Mg dominate the cations; Co, Cd, K, Ni, Mn, and Zn are significant in some 

samples (Appendix D). Concentrations of Cu in all leachates, except in the smoke-flue 

leachate, exceed the acute water-quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: 

Concentrations of Cu in all but six of the leachates exceed the USEPA drinking water 

standard (Fig. 11). The lowest amount of Cu was leached from smoke-flue soil (5.5 

μg/L), which contains the least Cu in bulk geochemical analysis (Fig. 12). The highest 

amount of Cu was leached from unoxidized flotation-mill tailings (120,000 μg/L), which 

contains the most Cu in bulk geochemical analysis (Fig. 12). Leachate produced from the 

lower mine-waste pile east of the road (02Ely7B) contains 16,000 μg/L Cu. This 

composite sample was collected at a depth of 25 cm. Samples from this area also have 

some of the highest concentrations of Cu, according to the bulk chemical analysis (Fig. 

12). Overall, the concentration of Cu in the bulk geochemical analysis correlates with the 

concentrations of Cu in leachate (Figure 12). An exception is the slag pile, which 

contains high concentrations of Cu in bulk analysis and relatively low concentrations of 

Cu in leachate, perhaps due to the more resistant nature of slag material. Samples which 

exceed the toxicity guidelines and do not exceed the drinking water standard for Cu 

include the slag pile, the roast beds, the hardpan seep, and one surface composite from 

the upper waste piles (02Ely4A). 

Figure 12. Bulk geochemical results for Cu concentrations versus the concentration of Cu in leachate. 

Note log scale. 

29 
The concentrations of Zn in most leachates from the Ely mine exceed the acute 

aquatic toxicity guideline but are less than the secondary drinking water standard for Zn 

(Fig. 11). Leachate from the unoxidized tailings contains anomalous Zn (91,000 μg/L), 

nearly twenty times greater than the drinking water standard. In general, leachate which 

contains the least amount of Cu, also contains the least amount of Zn and Cd (Fig. 11), 

including leachate from slag, soil at the smelter site, smoke-flue soil, roast beds, hardpan 

seep, and upper mine-waste sample 02Ely4A. Cadmium concentrations in leachate from 

surface composites from the upper mine-waste piles 02Ely3 and 02Ely6A, lower wastepile composite sample 02Ely7B, and the flotation-mill tailings sampled at 35-46 cm and 

71-91 cm exceed the USEPA drinking water standard. The pH of the leachate from all 

samples except slag material and smoke-flue soil is less than 4.2, the pH of the eastern 

synthetic precipitation leaching solution. This decrease in leachate pH implies that 

precipitation interacting with most mine waste at the site will produce acidic runoff. 

The most extreme leachate composition is from the unoxidized flotation-mill 

tailings, which contains the highest concentrations of Cu, Cd, and Zn, as previously 

mentioned, as well as the highest concentrations of Al (24.7 mg/L), Co (13,000 μg/L), Fe 

(90.6 mg/L), Ni (3,000 μg/L), Pb (5.9 μg/L), and U (70 μg/L). Trace metals such as Cd, 

Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Zn are leached from the depth composite sample from the lower 

mine-waste pile east of the road (02Ely7B and 9B) and the surface composite 02Ely3 

from the upper waste pile in higher amounts relative to most other Ely samples. 

Leachates with the lowest concentrations of trace metals (Cd, Co, Cu, Ni, and Zn) are 

from the surface and at depth composite samples from the roast beds and from the soil at 

the top of the smoke flue. In contrast, leachate from smoke-flue soil contains the second 

highest concentration of Pb (3.8 μg/L). Leachate from the hardpan-seep samples 

contains low concentrations of some trace metals including Cd (0.13 μg/L), Cu (200 

μg/L), Ni (1.7 μg/L), and Zn (16 μg/L). 

Concentrations of Cu, Cd, and Zn in leachate from the historic mine waste at the 

Elizabeth mine are shown as shaded regions in Figure 11. The leachate data are from 

Hammarstrom and others (2003) and the same leachate test was conducted on both suites 

of samples. Concentrations of Cu, Cd, and Zn in leachate from most Ely mine samples 

are similar to those in leachate from the historic mine-waste piles at the Elizabeth mine. 

The pH of the leachates from smoke-flue soil and slag material are higher than the pH of 

the leachate from the Elizabeth samples; the concentrations of metals in the leachate from 

smoke-flue soil and slag material are within the range of concentrations found in the 

leachate from the Elizabeth samples. Also, unoxidized tailings leachate contains higher 

concentrations of these metals than oxidized mine waste at the Elizabeth mine. In 

general, runoff from the Ely mine-waste piles are expected to be similar in composition 

to runoff from the historic waste piles at the Elizabeth mine on the basis of the results of 

the leaching experiments. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The data presented in this report support the following conclusions regarding these 

initially proposed questions: 

30 
(1) What type of mine waste is present at the site? 

The mine waste present at the Ely mine is a combination of host rock and discarded ore, 

some of which has undergone various stages of metallurgical processing. The barren 

landscape consists of host rock and discarded ore removed from underground workings, 

partially roasted ore, flotation-mill tailings (including an oxidized surficial layer and the 

unoxidized material at depth), the ruins of the World War I era flotation mill, and remains 

of a smelter plant and slag heaps. A partially intact smoke flue begins near the smelter 

site and runs to the top of a hillside east of the mine site. 

(2) What is the chemical composition of the mine-waste piles? 

In general, the bulk geochemical composition of the mine waste is Fe >> Al > S> K > Ca 

> Mg. Based on modal mineralogy, silicon is a dominant element in the samples but was 

not directly measured in this study. The samples contain significant Fe; all samples 

except smoke-flue soil exceed the PRG for industrial soils. Minor and trace element 

concentrations are generally characterized by Cu > Mn > Ba ~ V ~ Zn > Cr ~ Sr > Co ~ 

Mo ~ Pb. Concentrations of Cu, the dominant metal, are significantly higher than the 

average concentration of Cu in soils in the eastern United States. Also, the 

concentrations of Cu in the following samples exceed the PRG for residential soils: 1. 

four of the six surface composite samples from the upper mine-waste piles, 2. two 

composite samples from the lower mine-waste piles, 3. unoxidized flotation-mill tailings, 

and 4. slag. Several samples from the lower mine-waste piles contain concentrations of 

Mn that are greater than the PRG for residential soils. Also, all samples contain 

anomalous Zn when compared to the average concentrations of Zn in soils from the 

eastern United States. The concentrations of As and Cd are below the detection limits for 

all samples except the unoxidized flotation-mill tailings. 

(3) What is the acid-generating potential of the material? 

Low paste pH and negative net-neutralization potential (NNP) indicate that mine waste 

(excluding the smoke-flue soil) analyzed by acid-base accounting (ABA) is “acidgenerating,” with NNP values ranging from -421.9 to -14.4 kg CaCO3/ton. These samples 

contain a variety of minerals that may generate acid upon weathering including sulfides, 

jarosite, and efflorescent sulfate salts. Hardpan seep and slag were not analyzed by ABA. 

Smoke-flue soil has only a slightly negative NNP (-3.1 kg CaCO3/ton) and paste pH > 4 

and is the only sample considered “non-acid-generating.” 

(4) Are potentially toxic trace metals leached from the waste? If so, are the metals 

leached in quantities that may contaminate soils and streams and have a deleterious 

effect on the environment? 

The dominant trace metals leached from the mine waste are Cd, Co, Cu, Ni, and Zn. 

Copper was leached in concentrations that exceed the water-quality guideline for the 

protection of aquatic life from all samples except the smoke-flue soil. Also, 

concentrations of Cu in most leachates are higher than the drinking water standard. For 

most samples, Zn was leached in concentrations that exceed the acute aquatic toxicity 

standard but are lower than the secondary drinking water standard. Leachates from 

several samples exceed the acute aquatic toxicity and drinking water standards for Cd. 

There is no USEPA toxicity guideline established for Co, but the concentration of Co in 

31 
leachates (excluding the smoke-flue leachate) exceeds the New York water criterion. 

Also, the concentration of Ni in the leachate from the unoxidized tailings is higher than 

the acute aquatic toxicity guideline. Therefore, several potentially toxic trace metals are 

leached from the mine waste in quantities that may contaminate soils and streams and 

have a deleterious effect on the environment. 

(5) How variable is the environmental impact among the various mine-waste piles? 

Based on the parameters examined in this study, unoxidized flotation-mill tailings have 

the highest potential to produce metal-laden acidic water, which may have a negative 

environmental impact. This sample contains the highest concentrations of many trace 

metals including Cd, Co, Cu, Ni, and Zn and leaching tests indicate these metals are 

leached in concentrations that may be harmful to aquatic life. Also, this sample contains 

significant quantities of sulfides and has the lowest NNP. The unoxidized flotation-mill 

tailings are not usually exposed to weathering. Spring runoff can erode the overlying 

oxidized tailings and expose the unoxidized tailings to weathering, which may lead to the 

formation of efflorescent sulfate salts and may produce metal-laden acidic runoff. 

Slag material contains high concentrations of Co, Cu, and Zn, but leachate tests 

indicate these metals are not readily leached, although concentrations of Cu and Co do 

exceed water-quality standards. The boulder slope on the upper mine-waste pile (Fig. 2, 

area 02Ely3) contains the highest concentrations of several trace metals out of the six 

samples collected from the upper waste piles. The lower waste piles (sample areas 

02Ely7/02Ely9 and 98JHEly-EB/Ely00JH22) are also of environmental concern based on 

their bulk geochemistry, acid-base accounting, and leachate test results. 

In contrast, smoke-flue soil contains the lowest concentrations of most trace 

metals, is “non-acid-generating” based on ABA, and does not leach metals in significant 

quantities. Thus, this area, which was once denude of vegetation and is currently 

reforested, does not appear to contain acid-generating material that is having a significant 

impact on the environment. The smoke-flue soil does contain elevated concentrations of 

Pb, Cr, and Sn, which may be the result of contamination from fumes of the smelter. The 

areal extent of this contamination is unknown. 

(6) Is any of the material geochemically similar to mine waste at the Elizabeth mine 

Superfund site? 

In general, the bulk geochemistries of the Ely and Elizabeth samples are similar. For 

example, the concentration of Fe in samples from the Ely mine is within the range of 

similar type mine waste (i.e. oxidized mine waste, tailings, slag) at the Elizabeth mine. 

Smoke-flue soil contains lower concentrations of Fe and the hardpan from the seep 

contains higher concentrations of Fe compared to the Elizabeth samples. Also, Ely 

samples contain comparable total base-metal concentrations, with the exception of the 

smoke-flue soil, which contains less. Concentrations of Cu and Zn in oxidized mine 

waste and soil at both sites are similar. Concentrations of Cu and Zn in unoxidized 

tailings at the Ely mine are near the maximum for concentrations found at the Elizabeth 

mine; and the concentrations of Cu and Zn in slag at both sites are similar. In general, the 

concentrations of other metals such as Cd, Co, Cr, Mo, Ni, and Pb in mine waste at the 

Ely mine are within the range of concentrations of these metals in analogous mine waste 

at the Elizabeth mine. The roast beds at the Ely mine contain similar concentrations of 

32 
Co, Cr, Ni, and Pb and slightly higher concentrations of Cu, Mn, S, and Sr compared to 

the surface of the roasted red piles at TP3. As for the acid-base accounting results, 

overall both suites of samples are considered “acid-generating” with paste pH < 4 and 

negative net-neutralization potentials. Also, the composition of the leachate produced 

from most Ely mine samples is within the range found for the historic mine waste at the 

Elizabeth mine. Based these parameters, the mine waste at the Ely mine is geochemically 

similar to the historic mine waste at the Elizabeth mine. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors would like to thank Ed Hathaway and Bill Lovely, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, and Scott Acone, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for facilitating this 

project. The study was funded by support from the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency through a grant to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and by the Mineral 

Resources Program of the U.S. Geological Survey. 

REFERENCES 

Abbot, C.M., 1964, Green Mountain Copper (Long Version): Unpublished manuscript on 

file at the University of Vermont, Special Collections Library. 

Briggs, P.H., 2002a, The determination of forty elements in geological and botanical 

samples by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry, in Taggart, 

J.E., Jr., eds., Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other 

materials: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-0223. 

Briggs, P.H., 2002b, The determination of twenty-seven elements in aqueous samples by 

inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry, in Taggart, J.E., Jr., 

eds., Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-0223. 

Crowley, J.K., Mars, J.C., and Hammarstrom, J.M., 2001, Airborne imaging spectrometer 

and field spectroscopic studies of mine wastes at the Elizabeth mine, Vermont: 

Society of Economic Geologists Guidebook Series, v. 35, p. 249-253. 

Hageman, P.L., and Briggs, P.H., 2000, A simple field leach test for rapid screening and 

qualitative characterization of mine waste dump material on abandoned mine 

lands: ICARD 2000, Proceedings from the Fifth International Conference on 

Acid Rock Drainage II, p. 1463-1475. 

Hammarstrom, J.M., Seal, R.R., II, Slack, J.F., Kierstead, M.A., and Hathaway, E.M., 

2001a, Field trip days 1 and 2: Road log for the Elizabeth and Ely mines and 

vicinity: Society of Economic Geologists Guidebook Series, v. 35, p. 119-163. 

Hammarstrom, J.M., Seal, R.R., II, Ouimette, A.P., and Foster, S.A., 2001b, Sources of 

metals and acidity at the Elizabeth and Ely mines: Society of Economic 

Geologists guidebook Series, v. 35, p. 213-248. 

33 
Hammarstrom, J.M., Piatak, N.M., Seal, R.R., II, Briggs, P.H., Meier, A.L., and Muzik, 

T.L., 2003, Geochemical Characteristics of TP3 mine wastes at the Elizabeth 

copper Superfund site, Orange, Co., Vermont: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 03-431. 

Hathaway, E.M., Lovely, W.P., Acone, S.E., and Foster, S.A., 2001, The other side of 

mining: Environmental assessment and the process for developing a cleanup 

approach for the Elizabeth mine: Society of Economic Geologists Guidebook 

Series, v. 35, p. 277-293. 

Holmes, J.V., Bigl, S.R., Lawson, D.E., Seal, R.R., II, and Piatak, N.M., 2002, Spring 

runoff characterization Ely mine, Vershire, Vermont, Spring 2002: Unpublished 

Report, U.S. Army Cold Region Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, 

NH. 

Jambor, J.L., Dutrizac, J.E., and Chen, T.T., 2000, Contribution of specific minerals to 

the neutralization potential in static tests: ICARD 2000, Proceedings from the 

Fifth International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage I, p. 551-565. 

Jambor, J.L., Dutrizac, J.E., Groat, L.A., and Raudsepp, M., 2002, Static tests of 

neutralization potentials of silicate and aluminosilicate minerals: Environmental 

Geology, v. 53, p. 1-17. 

Kierstead, M.A., 2001, History and historical resources of the Vermont copper belt: 

Society of Economic Geologists Guidebook Series, v. 35, p. 165-191. 

Lamothe, P.J., Meier, A.L., and Wilson, S., 2002, The determination of forty-four 

elements in aqueous samples in inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry, in 

Taggart, J.E., Jr., eds., Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and 

other materials: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-0223. 

McSurdy, S., Dvorak, D., and Cooper, A., 1995, Ely mine site report on activities: 

Experimental passive mine water treatment system: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 

Pittsburg, PA, 51 p. 

Morin, K.A., and Hutt, N.M., 1994, Observed preferential depletion of neutralization 

potential over sulfide minerals in kinetic tests: Site specific criteria for safe 

NP/AP ratios, in Proceedings of the International Land Reclamation and Mine 

Drainage Conference and the Third International Conference on the Abatement of 

Acidic Drainage, Pittsburgh, PA, p. 148-156. 

Offield, T.W., and Slack, J.F., 1993, Structure and origin of the Ely copper deposit, eastcentral Vermont: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2039, p. 59-68. 

Perry, E.F., 1998, Interpretation of acid-base accounting, in Brady, K.B.C., Smith, M.W., 

and Schueck, J., eds., Coal mine drainage pollution prevention in Pennsylvania 

Harrisburg, PA, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 5600-

BK-DEP2256, p. 11-1 - 11-18. 

Piatak, N.M., Seal, R.R., II, and Hammarstrom, J.M., 2004, Mineralogical and 

geochemical controls on the release of trace elements from slag produced by baseand precious-metal smelting at abandoned mine sites: Applied Geochemistry, v. 

19, p. 1039-1064. 

34 
Piatak, N.M., Seal, R.R., II, Hammarstrom, J.M., Meier, A.L., and Briggs, P.H., 2003, 

Geochemical characterization of slags, other mine waste, and their leachate from 

the Elizabeth and Ely mines (Vermont), the Ducktown mining district 

(Tennessee), and the Clayton smelter site (Idaho): U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 03-260. 

Pitard, F.F., 1993, Pierre Gy’s sampling theory and sampling practice – heterogeneity, 

sampling correctness, and statistical process control, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC 

Press, 488 p. 

Plumlee, G.S., 1999, The environmental geology of mineral deposits, in Plumlee, G.S. 

and Logsdon, M.J., eds., The Environmental Geochemistry of Mineral Deposits. 

Part A: Processes, Techniques and Health Issues: Reviews in Economic Geology, 

v. 6A, p. 71-116. 

Price, W.A., Morin, K., and Hutt, N., 1997, Guidelines for the prediction of acid rock 

drainage and metal leaching for mines in British Columbia: Part II. 

Recommended procedures for static and kinetic testing: ICARD 1997, Proceeding 

from the 4th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, Vancouver, S.C., p. 

15-30. 

Rebertus, R.A., Weed, S.B., and Buol, S.W., 1986, Transformations of biotite and 

kaolinite during saprolite-soil weathering: Soil Science of America Journal, v. 50, 

p. 810-819. 

Seal, R.R., II, Hammarstrom, J.M., Slack, J.F., Hathaway, E.M., Lovely, W.P., and 

Kierstead, M.A., 2001a, Introduction: Environmental geochemistry and mining 

history of massive sulfide deposits in the Vermont copper belt: Society of 

Economic Geologists Guidebook Series, v. 35, p. 115-117. 

Seal, R.R., II, Kornfeld, J.M., Meier, A.L., and Hammarstrom, J.M., 2001b, Geochemical 

setting of mine drainage in the Vermont copper belt: Society of Economic 

Geologists Guidebook Series, v. 35, p. 255-276. 

Slack, J.F., Offield, T.W., Woodruff, L.G., and Shanks, W.C., III, 2001, Geology and 

geochemistry of Besshi-type massive sulfide deposits of the Vermont copper belt: 

Society of Economic Geologists Guidebook Series, v. 35, p. 193-211. 

Shacklette, H.T., and Boerngen, J.G., 1984, Element concentrations in soils and other 

surficial materials of the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1270, 105 p. 

Smith, D.B., 2002, The U.S.G.S. National Geochemical Database: A tool for 

environmental and resource management: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral News, 

v. 1, no. 2. Access at http://minerals.usgs.gov/news/v1n2/2geochem.html 

Sobek, A.A., Schuller, W.A., Freeman, J.R., and Smith, R.M., 1978, Field and laboratory 

methods applicable to overburden and minesoils: EPA 600/2-78-054, 203 p. 

Taylor, J.C., and Clapp, R.A., 1992, New features and advanced applications of 

Siroquant: A personal computer XRD full profile quantitative analysis software 

package: Advances in X-ray Analysis, v. 35, p. 49-55. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993, E.P.A. Region VIII Clean Water Act 

Section 304(a) criteria chart, July 1, 1993: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 12 p. 

35 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, Test methods for evaluating solid waste, 

physical/chemical methods (SW-846), 3rd Edition, update 2B: Environmental 

Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Publications, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, U.S. EPA Region 9, 2002 PRG Table: 

http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/files/02table.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003a, NPL site narrative for Ely copper mine: 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/np1/nar1641.htm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003b, List of Contaminants and their MCLs: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html#mcls 

Vos, R., J., and O’Hearn, T.A., 2001, Sulphate mineral speciation by sequential 

extraction for the Veladero minesite, Argentina: 8th Annual British Columbia 

Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEND) Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage 

Workshop, Vancouver, BC, November 28-29, 2001, p. 1-13. 

White, W.W., III, Lapakko, K.A., and Cox, R.L., 1999. Static-test methods most 

commonly used to predict acid-mine drainage: Practical guidelines for use and 

interpretation, in Plumlee, G.S., and Logsdon, M.J., eds., The environmental 

geochemistry of mineral deposits, Part A: Processes, techniques, and health 

issues: Society of Economic Geologists, Inc., Reviews in Economic Geology, v. 

6A, p. 325-338. 

36 
Appendix A. Sample information. 

Sample number 

Date collected 

Sample type 

Area Sampling Location Description Depth 

(cm) 

Munselcolor 

02Ely 1A 10/08/02 surface 

composite of soil 

upper waste piles 

Northernmost upper waste pile at west end of upper waste area. Area measures about 14.6 m (48 ft) (E-W) by 38.4 m (126 ft) (N-S); includes small pile at 24.4 m (80 ft) east of A1 beyond stand of trees. A1-A6-E1-E6 defines roughly rectangular area; A7  is location of small pile 24.4 m (80 ft) E of A1. 

Surface is littered with fist- to boulder-size oxidized ore and waste rock (subequal amounts). Country rock is shaley, greenish schist that forms smaller particles. 

surface yell

browni

02Ely 1B 10/08/02 composite 

of soil at 

depth 

upper waste piles 

same as above At depth, material is mostly sandy with 

mottled yellow patches and dark redbrown patches, which represent completely acid-leached rocks. Some large rocks at depth. No changes in soil character apparent in upper 25 cm and below.

 25 yell

browni

02Ely 2A 10/08/02 surface 

composite of soil 

upper waste piles 

Southwestern upper waste pile below road. Samples 10 across x 3 high. At center line, area is about 43 m (140 ft) across by 15 m (50 ft) wide. 

Locally at west end area includes dump area below timber loading platform(?), wet areas, clayey at depth, white salts around base of rocks and on soil. 

surface reddis

02Ely 2B 10/08/02 composite 

of soil at depth 

upper waste piles 

same as above 25 reddis

02Ely 3 10/08/02 surface 

composite of soil 

upper waste piles 

Boulder slope below road above flat top of area 02Ely2. Traversed across length and height of pile. 

Average boulder size 30 cm by 5 cm. Black, schistose ore with red oxidized surfaces and rusty-colored lichen coatings. 

surface reddis

strong 

02Ely 4A 10/08/02 surface 

composite of soil 

upper waste piles 

South-central part of upper waste dumps. Stonewall gully is the east end (break between waste rock on area 4 and more ore on area 5). Traversed 10 rows across ~EW (43 m) and 3 rows high (~NS). Top 2 rows on bench, 3rd row on accessible parts of slope. Trees at base of slope. 

Mine waste pile with abundant waste rock and little ore. Parts of slope covered with boulders; other parts are bare soil. 

surface reddis

strong 

02Ely 4B 10/08/02 composite 

of soil at 

depth 

upper waste piles 

same as above 25 reddis

browni
Appendix A. (cont.) 

Sample Date Sample Area Sampling Location Description Depth Munselnumber collected type (cm) color 02Ely 5A 10/08/02 surface upper waste South-east corner of upper waste pile. Waste pile with ore, decomposed ore surface strong 

composite piles Sampled 5 across (23 m across EW) x 6 forms local black soil. Note salts forming browniof soil vertical (49 m NS). on soil surface at east end (Relative 

Humidity 27%, Temperature ~17°C (63 °F) 

02Ely 5B 10/08/02 composite upper waste same as above 25 browni

of soil at piles 

depth 

02Ely 6A 10/08/02 surface upper waste Irregular, diamond-shaped area above the Heterogeneous area, local trees and roots, surface browni

composite piles seeps. See air photo for extent. Sampled bare slope with ore, gray areas, yellow of soil 6 x 5 stations. areas. 

02Ely 6B 10/08/02 composite upper waste same as above 25 browni

of soil at piles depth 

ES-4 10/08/02 ochre at upper waste ES-4 seep (Holmes and others, 2002) Red seep crusts. Note red-black crust over surface r

seep piles more orange hardpan material. Dry when 

sampled. 

Ely00JH24 06/27/00 surface lower waste Flotation mill area. surface browni

composite piles of soil 

98JH-Ely-EB 08/25/98 surface lower waste Lowest mine dump directly along Ely Brook surface browni

composite piles on both sides of the road. of soil 

Ely00JH22 06/27/00 surface lower waste Lowest mine dump directly along Ely Brook surface 

composite piles on both sides of the road. Replicate sample of soil of 98JH-Ely-EB sample area. 

02Ely 7A 10/08/02 surface lower waste Lower waste piles above the road sampled 10 surface yellowi

composite piles stations parallel to the road by 3 stations of soil perpendicular to the road. Sample 02Ely9 is 

a replicate sample of the same area. 

02Ely 7B 10/08/02 composite lower waste same as above 25 browni

of soil at piles 

depth 
Appendix A. (cont.) 

Sample number 

Date 

collected 

Sample type 

Area Sampling Location Description Depth 

(cm) 

Munsecolor 

02Ely 8A 10/08/02 grab 

sample 

lower waste piles 

Flotation mill tailings at north end of lower waste piles and east of mine access road intersection, downhill from cement foundation. Area of tailings appears to extend over a distance of about 25 m E-W along the mine access road and about 4 m in a N-S 

Oxidized surface material. surface browni

direction across the road to the stream edge. 

02Ely 8B 10/08/02 grab 

sample 

lower waste piles 

Flotation mill tailings Grey and yellow layered and mottled 

material sampled at a depth of 35 to 46 cm (below oxidized surface material and above unoxidized black tailings). 

 35-46 pale 

02Ely 8C 10/08/02 grab 

sample 

lower waste piles 

Flotation mill tailings Black, unoxidized tailings. Auger used to 

find unoxidized tailings at depth of 71 to 91 cm. Limit of auger was 91 cm; tailings may be thicker.

 71-91 bl

02Ely 9A 10/08/02 surface 

composite of soil 

lower waste piles 

Replicate of 02Ely7A surface yellowi

02Ely 9B 10/08/02 composite 

of soil at 

depth 

lower waste piles 

Replicate of 02Ely7B 25 browni

02Ely 10A 10/08/02 surface 

composite of soil 

roast beds Partially roasted ore sampled 10 stations 

long by 3 stations wide (long = parallel to the road). Note that the old road runs 

through this area. 

Mostly red surface area. Locally, especially at the north end, very bright red. 

surface r

02Ely 10B 10/08/02 composite 

of soil at 

roast beds same as above Some yellow, jarosite-rich layers at depth. 25 r

depth 

02Ely 11 10/09/02 surface 

composite of soil 

smelter site Sampled 10 stations (parallel to the road) x 3 

stations perpendicular to the road. Sampled in clearing between the stone wall and the road. 

surface yellowi

02Ely 12 10/09/02 surface 

composite 

slag pile Composite of small pieces of slag at base of 

the pile. 

surface dark 

02Ely 13 10/08/02 grab soil 

sample 

soil around top of smoke flue 

Soil in wooded area at the top of the smoke flue. 

surface light oli
Appendix B 

B-1: Bulk geochemistry of Ely mine waste. Sample Depth Ag Al As Au Ba Be Bi Ca Cd Ce Co Cr Cu Eu Fe 

(cm) mg/kg wt. % mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg wt. % mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg wt. % m

02Ely 1A 

02Ely 1B 02Ely 2A 02Ely 2A DUP1 

02Ely 2B 02Ely 3 02Ely 4A 02Ely 4B 02Ely 5A 02Ely 5B 02Ely 6A 02Ely 6B 02Ely 6B DUP ES-4 Ely00JH22 Ely00JH24 Ely00JH24 DUP 02Ely 7A 02Ely 9A2 

02Ely 7B 02Ely 9B2 

02Ely 8A 02Ely 8B 02Ely 8C 02Ely 10A 02Ely 10B 02Ely 11 02Ely 12 02Ely 12 DUP 02Ely 13 

0 

25 

0 

0 

25 

0 

0 

25 

0 

25 

0 

25 

25 

0 

0 0 0 

0 

0 

25 

25 

0 

35-46 

71-91 

0 

25 

0 0 

0 

0 

6.4 

5.7 

5.8 

5.5 

6 

6.6 

6.2 

5 

8 

3.6 

9.7 

7.6 

8.3 

4.2 

8 9 

10 

10 

11 

13 

14 

8.4 

6.8 

5.4 

19 

12 

11 

4.8 

4.6 

<2 

4.4 

4.5 

4.5 

4.6 

4.6 

5.7 

5.3 

5.3 

4.6 

4.5 

4.7 

5 

5 

1 

4.26 4.31 

4.36 

4.1 

4.1 

4 

4 

3.8 

5 

4.9 

3.9 

4.4 

4 

4 

4 

6.5 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 <10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

11 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 <8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

<8 

163 

164 

160 

195 

158 

126 

171 

169 

127 

239 

139 

151 

149 

71 

283 254 

241 

121 

108 

106 

140 

178 

179 

140 

182 

161 

228 

191 

181 

239 

1.1 

1.1 

1 

1 

1.1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

1.1 

<1 

1 

1 

<1 

<1 <1 

<1 

1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

<1 

1 

<1 

<1 

1 

1.2 

1.4 

1.5 

1.6 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<50 <50 

<50 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

<10 

1.2 

1.2 

1 

1.1 

1.1 

0.98 

1.1 

1 

0.93 

0.98 

0.91 

1.1 

1 

0.15 

0.877 1.003 

1.029 

1 

1 

0.83 

0.75 

0.91 

1.1 

0.96 

0.91 

1.1 

0.77 

1 

0.98 

1.6 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 <2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

42 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

11 

16 

16 

12 

20 

32 

21 

24 

14 

25 

22 

25 

26 

<4 

<5 

8 

<5 

8.5 

10 

13 

17 

11 

12 

11 

11 

17 

17 

23 

24 

45 

31 

28 

31 

32 

31 

39 

37 

38 

39 

31 

39 

39 

39 

27 

14 

19 

18 

34 

39 

54 

53 

25 

20 

1,040 

50 

31 

78 

431 

414 

14 

49 

66 

57 

57 

72 

149 

107 

102 

75 

86 

73 

98 

96 

1.3 

48 

71 

73 

45 

42 

38 

42 

38 

68 

103 

68 

86 

70 

35 

36 

101 

3,680 

1,620 

2,320 

2,630 

1,240 

5,660 

2,050 

1,530 

3,250 

1,440 

4,220 

2,560 

2,830 

2,640 

5,100 

2,400 

2,320 

7,020 

6,940 

6,540 

5,580 

2,240 

1,510 

25,600 

2,040 

1,630 

2,780 

6,880 

6,750 

45 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

17.5 

15.7 

17.4 

17.6 

16.5 

15.6 

18.4 

15.9 

21.4 

13.8 

18.3 

15.9 

16.2 

45.6 

19.4 

18.3 

17.4 

18.4 

19.5 

19.6 

19.5 

16 

10.8 

19 

19.6 

15.1 

16 

28.4 

27.4 

5.2 

1 DUP indicates duplicate analysis of same sample. 2 02Ely9A and 02Ely9B are field replicates of 02Ely7A and 02Ely7B, respectively
Appendix B-1. (cont.) 

Sample K La Li Mg Mn Mo Na Nb Nd Ni P Pb S Sc 

wt. % mg/kg mg/kg wt. % mg/kg mg/kg wt. % mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg wt. % mg/kg wt. % mg/kg m

02Ely 1A 1.2 7.8 8.9 0.74 1,390 31 1.4 <4 12 12 0.08 32 2.56 15 

02Ely 1B 1.3 8.6 14 0.96 1,160 32 1.4 <4 12 19 0.074 23 2.18 16 02Ely 2A 1.5 10 8.9 0.54 1,620 28 1.4 <4 13 11 0.07 35 2.48 16 02Ely 2A DUP 1.5 8.5 8.6 0.53 1,620 30 1.4 <4 12 12 0.07 40 15 02Ely 2B 1.6 12 16 0.84 862 27 1.3 <4 15 20 0.078 27 2.05 16 02Ely 3 2.1 18 18 0.97 667 18 1.6 <4 19 11 0.15 78 3.67 22 02Ely 4A 1.9 13 13 0.95 1,050 33 1.5 <4 16 13 0.087 49 2.09 20 02Ely 4B 2 16 15 1 1,020 21 1.5 <4 15 16 0.075 42 2.49 18 02Ely 5A 1.8 10 10 0.57 890 34 1.4 <4 16 12 0.089 46 2.88 17 02Ely 5B 1.5 11 16 0.82 998 14 1.2 <4 13 20 0.068 27 1.77 15 02Ely 6A 1.8 14 12 0.79 1,340 34 1.3 <4 17 12 0.091 52 2.76 18 02Ely 6B 1.8 15 15 1 1,440 21 1.4 <4 15 18 0.079 42 2.53 18 02Ely 6B DUP 1.9 16 15 0.98 1,410 24 1.3 <4 15 19 0.086 45 18 ES-4 0.51 <2 2.9 0.19 134 5.3 0.25 <4 33 11 0.047 <4 12 Ely00JH22 1.66 8 9 0.49 2,180 42 1.36 32 <9 <3 0.06 69 3.29 10 <Ely00JH24 1.56 7 11 0.625 1,920 69 1.3 36 10 <3 0.05 82 2 14 <Ely00JH24 DUP 1.46 6 11 0.64 2,220 59 1.31 33 <9 <3 0.05 79 1.96 15 <02Ely 7A 1.3 6.9 8.4 0.7 2,420 46 1.2 <4 12 11 0.088 57 3.33 14 02Ely 9A 1.4 7.8 8.4 0.67 2,330 45 1.3 <4 14 12 0.089 65 3.74 14 02Ely 7B 1.5 9.8 8.8 0.69 1,740 46 1.2 <4 15 13 0.093 63 3.62 13 02Ely 9B 1.7 12 9.9 0.71 1,730 48 1.2 <4 17 14 0.092 71 3.37 13 02Ely 8A 1.3 7.5 6 0.3 2,520 28 1.4 <4 11 7.2 0.059 50 2.69 15 02Ely 8B 1.7 8 8.4 0.46 2,050 20 1.7 <4 6.7 7 0.048 46 2.24 16 02Ely 8C 1.3 6.3 23 0.99 2,010 18 1.2 <4 14 237 0.2 52 14.09 22 02Ely 10A 1.2 7.1 10 0.55 1,210 41 1.1 <4 14 18 0.06 47 1.84 16 02Ely 10B 1.3 11 14 0.67 915 24 1.2 <4 14 19 0.062 21 2.19 14 02Ely 11 1.1 9.1 21 0.69 699 20 0.93 <4 14 26 0.073 65 1.28 12 02Ely 12 0.92 14 29 0.71 878 34 0.74 <4 29 32 0.09 93 15 02Ely 12 DUP 0.9 14 28 0.71 871 33 0.76 <4 29 32 0.088 61 14 02Ely 13 0.84 21 34 1.5 750 2.2 1.6 17 14 34 0.08 120 0.07 18 
Appendix B-1. (cont.) 

Sample U V Y Yb Zn Job No. Lab No. 

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 

02Ely 1A <100 135 9 1.7 102 MRP-04326 C-215170 

02Ely 1B <100 139 10 1.5 91 MRP-04326 C-215171 02Ely 2A <100 156 9 1.8 201 MRP-04326 C-215172 02Ely 2A DUP <100 151 8.3 1.6 155 MRP-04326 C-215173 02Ely 2B <100 148 7.7 1.1 105 MRP-04326 C-215174 02Ely 3 <100 268 8.5 1.3 341 MRP-04326 C-215175 02Ely 4A <100 212 6.9 1.1 194 MRP-04326 C-215176 02Ely 4B <100 183 7 1.1 151 MRP-04326 C-215177 02Ely 5A <100 202 5.7 1 269 MRP-04326 C-215178 02Ely 5B <100 143 8.4 1.4 160 MRP-04326 C-215179 02Ely 6A <100 172 8.4 1.3 223 MRP-04326 C-215180 02Ely 6B <100 162 8.5 1.4 184 MRP-04326 C-215181 02Ely 6B DUP <100 158 8.6 1.3 184 MRP-04326 C-215182 ES-4 <100 60 <2 <1 60 MRP-04326 C-215183 Ely00JH22 <100 197 9 <1 149 MRP-03747 C-200345 Ely00JH24 <100 211 9 <1 207 MRP-03747 C-200346 Ely00JH24 DUP <100 207 10 <1 210 MRP-03747 C-200347 02Ely 7A <100 145 10 1.8 216 MRP-04326 C-215184 02Ely 9A <100 150 9.7 1.7 250 MRP-04326 C-215189 02Ely 7B <100 150 7.2 1.4 214 MRP-04326 C-215185 02Ely 9B <100 163 7.5 1.2 228 MRP-04326 C-215190 02Ely 8A <100 139 10 1.7 219 MRP-04326 C-215186 02Ely 8B <100 144 10 1.6 113 MRP-04326 C-215187 02Ely 8C <100 132 10 1.8 3,960 MRP-04326 C-215188 02Ely 10A <100 169 6.4 1.1 447 MRP-04326 C-215191 02Ely 10B <100 129 8.8 1.3 235 MRP-04326 C-215192 02Ely 11 <100 115 7.4 1.2 425 MRP-04326 C-215193 02Ely 12 <100 104 13 1.7 3,440 MRP-04326 C-215194 02Ely 12 DUP <100 104 12 1.8 3,360 MRP-04326 C-215195 02Ely 13 <100 171 21 2.3 81 MRP-04326 C-215196 
Appendix B 

B-2: Standard reference material 1. 

NIST Standard Reference Material

 SRM 2709 SRM 2711 

Element Units MRP-04326 

CMF 

IMF (+) MRP-04326 

CMF 

IMF 

Ag 

Al As 

Ba

Be 

Bi Ca 

Cd 

Ce 

Co Cr 

Cu 

Eu Fe 

Ga 

Ho 

K 

LaLi Mg 

Mn 

Mo Na 

Nb Nd 

mg/kg 

% 

mg/kg 

 mg/kg 

mg/kg 

mg/kg 

% 

mg/kg 

mg/kg 

mg/kg 

mg/kg 

mg/kg 

mg/kg 

% 

mg/kg 

mg/kg 

% 

 mg/kg 

mg/kg 

% 

mg/kg 

mg/kg 

% 

mg/kg 

< 2 

7.5 

19 

950 

4 

< 10 

1.9 

< 2 

47 

13 

120 

32 

< 2 

3.5 

12 

< 4 

1.9 

24 55 

1.5 

540 

3 

1.2 

19 18 

0.41 

7.5 

17.7 

968 

1.89 

0.38 

42 

13.4 

130 

34.6 

3.5 

14 

0.54 

2.03 

1.51 

538 

2 

1.16 

19 

0.03 

0.06 

0.8 

40 

0.05 

0.01 

0.7 

4 

0.7 

0.11 

0.06 

0.05 

17 

0.03 

5 

6.5 

95 

720 

2 

< 10 

2.8 

42 

75 

10 

42 

110 

< 2 

2.8 

13 

< 4 

2.3 

39 27 

1 

620 

4 

1.2 

26 

31 

4.63 

6.5 

105 

726 

ND ND 

2.88 

41.7 

69 10 

47 

114 

1.1 

2.89 

15 

1 

2.45 

40 

ND 

1.05 

638 

1.6 

1.14 

ND 

31 

mg/kg 

1 QA/QC was monitored by analyzing NIST standard reference materials, field replicate samples, and laboratory duplicates. Field repli

 laboratory duplicates are included as separate entries in Appendix B-1. Certified mass fractions (CMF) for NIST standards reference  materials (in boldface with standard deviations), and information mass fractions (IMF) for NIST standard reference materials (shown  italics) are given. 
Appendix B-2. (cont.) 

NIST Standard Reference Material 

 SRM 2709 SRM 2711 

CMF (+) CMF 

Element Units MRP-04326 IMF MRP-04326 IMF 

Ni mg/kg 73 88 5 19 20.6 

P % 0.063 0.062 0.005 0.083 0.086 

Pb mg/kg 16 18.9 0.5 1100 1162 

Sc mg/kg 12 12 10 9 Sn mg/kg < 5 8 ND 

Sr mg/kg 220 231 2 240 245.3 

Ta mg/kg < 40 < 40 ND 

Th mg/kg 10 11 14 14 Ti % 0.34 0.342 0.024 0.29 0.306 U mg/kg < 100 3 < 100 2.6 

V mg/kg 110 112 5 80 81.6 

Y mg/kg 19 18 29 25 Yb mg/kg 2 1.6 3 2.7 

Zn mg/kg 110 106 3 350 350.4 
Appendix C 

C-1: Quantitative estimates of mineral weight percentages based on Rietveld refinement of powder X-ray diffraction patterns using Sir

Quartz Albite Anorthite Labradorite Biotite Muscovite Chlorite Kaolin Talc Vermiculite Sepiolite Hornb

02Ely1A 29.8 6.3 0 17.5 0 6.6 3 0 1.3 4.7 5.02Ely1B 28.8 9.8 0 13.6 0.3 5.5 2.2 1 1.6 3.4 7.02Ely2A 24.7 5.4 0 17.1 0 9.2 0 2.9 1.6 2.5 4.02ELy2B 30 3.4 0 16.7 0 6.4 0.4 0.5 1 7.1 5.02Ely3 22.3 9.5 0 11.9 4.9 8.6 2.4 0.8 0 12.6 1.02Ely4A 27.2 5.6 0 19.9 0.3 6.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 6.9 3.02Ely4B 25.7 8.9 0 17.4 0.6 7.3 0 0.6 0.6 5.5 2.02Ely5A 24.6 8.1 0 15.2 0 5.6 2.3 1.5 1.9 3.3 2.02Ely5B 34.4 9.3 0 11.9 0 9 5.6 0.8 1 5.4 2.02Ely6A 18.8 7.1 0 14.5 0 8.7 2.3 0.9 0.6 7.2 4.02Ely6B02Ely6B DUP1

 27.3 

 20.2 

9.1 

9.4 

0 

0 

18 

18.6 

0 

0 

6.6 

7.5 

4.1 

4.7 

0.4 

0.8 

0 

0 

8 

6.9 

1.

2.

ES-4 3.1 0 2.1 0.4 1.8 7.1 2.1 1.6 0.5 0 02Ely7A 02Ely9A2

22 

 23.4 

11.7 

9.9 

0 

0 

14.2 

9.1 

0 

0 

5.2 

9.1 

1.4 

4.3 

0 

0.2 

0 

0 

 3.9 

2.7 

7.

7.

02Ely7B02Ely9B2

 29.2 

 26.8 

11.7 

9.4 

0 

0 

13.7 

15.1 

0.1 

0 

5.4 

5.8 

3.2 

0.9 

0.4 

0.4 

0 

0 

6.1 

6.4 

2.

2.

02Ely8A 32.3 9.9 0 13.7 0.3 6.3 0.2 0.8 3.1 2.02Ely8B 32.6 10.5 0 13.7 0 12.4 3.3 0 0.7 5.5 0.02Ely8C 28.6 8.7 9.3 1.2 9.7 3.8 3.1 0.9 0 0.2 1 Ely00JH24 28.6 4.9 0.5 13.3 0 11.2 5.1 1.3 0.3 4.3 0 98JH-Ely-EB 20.5 14.2 1.9 0 0 12 6.3 0 0.6 3.5 4.02Ely10A 29.9 2.2 1.1 8.7 0 11.3 3.2 0 0 2.5 5.02Ely10B 36.1 2.1 0 11.3 0.2 10.2 4.5 0 0.1 2.7 6.02Ely11 43.2 3.1 0 11.4 0 4.5 4.7 1.4 0 5.8 3.02Ely12 28 0.9 6.6 2.5 2.6 4.5 1.8 1.5 0.7 2.3 0.5 0 02Ely12 DUP 43.3 5.6 0.5 9 1.7 7.2 0 0.6 0 4.3 0.4 1.02Ely13 35.5 4 0 15.4 0.9 9.6 7.1 0.3 0.3 7 0.2 16

1 DUP indicates duplicate analysis of same sample. 2 02Ely9A and 02Ely9B are field replicates of 02Ely7A and 02Ely7B, respectively.3 Chi2 is a computed statistical residual, which is used as a measure of the fit of the refinement. Chi2 = 1 for a perfect correspondence b

 least-squares model and the observed data. In complex natural mixtures, ideal values are almost never observed due to systematic er imperfect physical corrections. Values below 6 are considered reasonable fits for these complex mine wastes. 
Appendix C-1. (cont.) 

Goethite Hematite Magnetite Jarosite Alunogen Copiapite Melanterite Rozenite Gypsum Chalcopyrite Pyrite Py

02Ely1A 11 0 12.7 0.3 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.2 0 02Ely1B 7.9 0 15.1 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0 02Ely2A 14.8 0 13.4 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.3 0 02ELy2B 11.1 0 14.3 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.1 0 02Ely3 11.6 0 12.3 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 02Ely4A 15.1 1.4 10.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 02Ely4B 12.4 0 14.7 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 02Ely5A 17.1 0 14.1 0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0.3 0 02Ely5B 6.5 0 11.1 0 0.3 0.1 0 0 0 0.2 02Ely6A 16.5 0 14.9 0 1.2 0 0 0 1.1 0 02Ely6B 7.1 0 14.2 0 1.1 0.3 0 0.3 0.2 0 02Ely6B DUP 9.2 0 15.4 0 0.4 0 0 0.5 0 0 ES-4 76 0 3.5 0 0 0.8 0.4 0 02Ely7A 15.5 0 13.9 0.3 0.6 0.3 0 0.3 1.2 0 02Ely9A 14.6 0 14.2 0 1.4 0.6 0 0 1.6 0 02Ely7B 6.7 0 15.2 0 0.5 0.6 0 0 0.8 0.1 02Ely9B 12.2 0 16.7 0 0.9 0.6 0 0 0.6 0 02Ely8A 12.5 0 16 0 0.1 0.8 0 0 0.3 0.3 02Ely8B 2.5 0 13.9 0 0.2 0.7 0 0 0.1 0 02Ely8C 0 0 0 1 0 1.1 0 0 1.6 0.2 Ely00JH24 13.3 0 12.5 0 0.6 0.9 0 0.4 0.3 0 98JH-Ely-EB 16.1 0 14.5 0 0.9 0 0 0.9 1.2 0 02Ely10A 7.6 15.9 9.8 0 0.3 0.6 0 0 0 0.2 02Ely10B 4 8.8 9.7 0.6 1.6 0.9 0 0 0.1 0 02Ely11 9.1 3.4 5.8 0.6 0.9 0.3 0 0.2 0 0 02Ely12 1.1 2.8 2.6 0.1 0 1.1 0.6 0 0 0.5 02Ely12 DUP 1.8 3.2 2.3 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.3 0 0 0.1 0 02Ely13 0 0.8 0.4 0 0.5 1 0 0 0.1 0.5 
Appendix C 

C-2: Colored bar charts of relative weight percentages of minerals based on Siroquant results. Efflorescent sulfat

calcite, kaolin, talc, and gypsum are grouped as "other." 
Appendix C-2. (cont.) 
Appendix D. Analytical results of leachate tests. 

pH sp. ORP ORP ORP Fe2+ Fe total 

parameter/element cond. Ag Ag Al Al units method1 

μS/cm corrected mV mg/L 

Hach 

mg/L 

Hach 

μg/L 

ICP-AES 

μg/L 

ICP-MS 

mg/L 

ICP-AES 

μg/L 

ICP-MS 

IC

02Ely 1A 2.93 577 458.4 671.3 671.3 1.06 2.68 <1 <0.01 5.1 4,200 <

02Ely 1B 3.07 451 450.3 663.2 663.2 0.29 0.63 <1 <0.01 3.9 3,800 <02Ely 2A 02Ely 2A DUP2

2.98 

 2.96 

587 

593 

451.2 

452.2 

664.1 

665.1 

664.1 

665.1 

0.36 

0.19 

1.33 

1.07 

<1 

<1 

<0.01 

<0.01 

6.3 

7.4 

5,600 

6,100 

<

<

02Ely 2B 3.02 467 351.4 565.5 565.5 0.34 0.92 <1 <0.01 4.9 4,900 <02Ely 3 3.12 526 356.6 570.7 570.7 0.17 1.26 <1 <0.01 13.2 11,000 <02Ely 4A 3.25 241 357.1 571.2 571.2 n.a. n.a. <1 <0.01 0.7 480 <02Ely 4B 3.06 428 360.2 574.3 574.3 0.58 1.23 <1 <0.01 3.9 3,200 <02Ely 5A 2.96 547 363.6 577.7 577.7 0.59 1.38 <1 <0.01 6.8 5,700 <02Ely 5B 3.11 422 373.9 588.0 588.0 0.49 0.84 <1 <0.01 3.4 2,900 <02Ely 6A 3.02 557 382.7 596.8 596.8 0.27 1.64 <1 <0.01 8.4 7,000 <02Ely 6B 3.12 501 375.1 589.2 589.2 0.22 0.63 1.1 <0.01 2 1,900 <02Ely 6B DUP 3.11 490 377.1 591.2 591.2 0.11 0.65 1.1 <0.01 2 1,900 <ES-4 2.96 528 393.1 607.2 607.2 1.25 2.84 <1 <0.01 0.42 360 <02Ely 7A 02Ely 9A3

2.91 

 2.98 

612 

601 

407.9 

402.3 

622.0 

616.4 

622.0 

616.4 

2.4

0.58 

 5.2 

2.44 

<1 

<1 

<0.01 

<0.01 

4.6 

13.2 

3,800 

11,000 

<

<

02Ely 7B 02Ely 9B3

2.84 

 2.83 

822 

840 

418.2 

421.7 

632.3 

635.8 

632.3 

635.8 

10 

8.8 

18.6 

18.9 

<1 

<1 

<0.01 

<0.01 

9.7 

9 

8,500 

7,300 

<

<

02Ely 8A 3.01 429 391.1 605.2 605.2 0.4 0.58 <1 <0.01 2.2 1,800 <02Ely 8B 3.21 323 391 605.1 605.1 n.a. n.a. <1 <0.01 3.8 2,500 <02Ely 8C 3.51 1,090 368.7 582.8 582.8 29.5 95 <1 <0.01 24.7 19,000 <02Ely 10A 3.40 146.1 401.4 615.5 615.5 n.a. n.a. <1 0.063 0.14 120 <02Ely 10B 3.43 146.9 399.8 613.9 613.9 n.a. n.a. <1 0.04 0.19 160 <02Ely 11 3.63 163.5 400 614.1 614.1 n.a. n.a. <1 0.027 0.41 330 <02Ely 12 4.88 33.8 397.2 611.3 611.3 n.a. n.a. <1 <0.01 0.011 7.9 <02Ely 12 DUP 4.89 29.7 395.7 609.8 609.8 n.a. n.a. <1 <0.01 0.01 7.9 <02Ely 13 4.56 14.8 391.5 605.6 605.6 n.a. n.a. <1 <0.01 0.47 390 <

1 Hach: colorimetric method using Hach spectrophotometer; IC: ion chromatography; ICP-AES: inductively coupled plasma-atom spectrometry; ICP-MS: inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. 2 DUP indicates duplicate analysis of same sample. 3 02Ely9A and 02Ely9B are field replicates of 02Ely7A and 02Ely7B, respectively. 
Appendix D. (cont.) 

Au B Ba Ba Be Be Bi Ca Ca C

μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L mg/L μg/L μg

ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP

02Ely 1A < 0.01 <5 <1 0.52 <10 0.05 < 0.04 1.8 1.6 602Ely 1B < 0.01 <5 <1 0.86 <10 0.12 < 0.04 10.2 9.8 502Ely 2A < 0.01 <5 <1 0.08 <10 0.12 < 0.04 4.8 4.2 802Ely 2A DUP < 0.01 <5 <1 0.069 <10 0.14 < 0.04 5.4 4.3 902Ely 2B < 0.01 <5 <1 0.85 <10 0.21 < 0.04 11.6 11 802Ely 3 < 0.01 <5 <1 0.21 <10 0.18 < 0.04 10.2 8.7 202Ely 4A < 0.01 <5 <1 0.82 <10 <0.05 < 0.04 1.9 1.4 <02Ely 4B < 0.01 <5 <1 0.17 <10 0.1 < 0.04 6.3 5.2 702Ely 5A < 0.01 <5 <1 0.092 <10 0.054 < 0.04 2.2 1.8 102Ely 5B < 0.01 <5 3.8 4.2 <10 0.14 < 0.04 15.2 14 802Ely 6A < 0.01 <5 <1 0.12 <10 0.2 < 0.04 6.4 5.2 102Ely 6B < 0.01 <5 <1 0.33 <10 0.2 < 0.04 30.5 29 902Ely 6B DUP < 0.01 <5 <1 0.35 <10 0.14 < 0.04 27 26 1ES-4 < 0.01 <5 <1 0.52 <10 <0.05 < 0.04 0.2 0.16 02Ely 7A < 0.01 <5 <1 1.3 <10 0.077 < 0.04 1.4 1.2 902Ely 9A < 0.01 <5 <1 0.26 <10 0.26 < 0.04 2.2 1.8 102Ely 7B < 0.01 <5 1.6 2.6 <10 0.26 < 0.04 4.6 4.2 102Ely 9B < 0.01 <5 3 3.7 <10 0.19 < 0.04 4.2 3.6 102Ely 8A < 0.01 <5 <1 0.098 <10 0.085 < 0.04 2 1.6 02Ely 8B < 0.01 <5 24 21 <10 0.099 < 0.04 2.2 1.7 902Ely 8C < 0.01 <5 10 9.6 <10 0.57 < 0.04 1.3 1 1,202Ely 10A < 0.01 <5 3.9 4.5 <10 <0.05 < 0.04 0.55 0.53 <02Ely 10B < 0.01 <5 <1 0.67 <10 <0.05 < 0.04 1.9 1.7 <02Ely 11 < 0.01 <5 3.9 4.3 <10 <0.05 < 0.04 1.8 1.6 <02Ely 12 < 0.01 <5 16 16 <10 <0.05 < 0.04 3.4 3.3 <02Ely 12 DUP < 0.01 <5 14 14 <10 <0.05 < 0.04 3 3 <02Ely 13 < 0.01 <5 14 12 <10 <0.05 < 0.04 0.12 0.13 <
Appendix D. (cont.) 

Ce Cl Co Co Cr Cr Cs Cu Cu D

μg/L mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μ

ICP-MS IC ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP

02Ely 1A 12 0.2 63 56 11 9.7 1.7 3,140 2,400 002Ely 1B 26 0.2 65 64 <10 3.3 1.6 3,250 2,800 002Ely 2A 7.9 0.3 94 92 15 13 3.6 5,130 4,300 002Ely 2A DUP 8.3 0.3 104 91 19 14 3.3 5,890 4,500 002Ely 2B 20 0.2 135 140 <10 3.5 2.3 4,370 3,800 02Ely 3 11 0.4 194 190 20 17 1.6 10,200 7,900 202Ely 4A 1.3 <0.1 20 13 <10 <1 0.72 1,030 690 002Ely 4B 12 0.2 144 130 <10 5.4 2.1 2,990 2,300 002Ely 5A 6.8 0.3 60 56 24 18 1.8 4,150 3,200 002Ely 5B 22 0.2 130 120 <10 3.6 1.9 2,880 2,300 102Ely 6A 15 0.3 154 140 11 11 3.4 6,580 5,100 102Ely 6B 8.8 0.1 93 90 <10 2.9 3.6 5,510 4,500 002Ely 6B DUP 8.4 0.1 91 89 <10 3.1 3.3 5,450 4,500 0ES-4 1.7 0.2 <10 5.9 <10 <1 0.32 263 200 002Ely 7A 7.4 0.3 107 96 <10 5.6 2.1 5,090 3,900 002Ely 9A 18 0.4 229 210 <10 6.5 1.4 6,120 4,900 202Ely 7B 38 0.5 941 810 15 15 2.9 17,300 16,000 202Ely 9B 40 0.4 792 650 18 15 3.6 14,500 13,000 02Ely 8A 3.8 0.2 35 32 <10 3.2 3.5 2,660 2,100 002Ely 8B 5.5 0.2 248 190 <10 3.7 2.3 15,500 10,000 002Ely 8C 9.6 0.6 16,300 13,000 34 30 13 149,000 120,000 02Ely 10A 0.26 <0.1 <10 0.96 <10 <1 0.26 591 460 0.02Ely 10B 0.35 <0.1 <10 1.7 <10 <1 0.68 727 570 0.02Ely 11 1.4 <0.1 28 25 <10 <1 0.23 1,980 1,500 0.02Ely 12 0.044 <0.1 19 16 <10 <1 0.016 1,110 900 0.02Ely 12 DUP 0.039 <0.1 19 17 <10 <1 0.017 1,020 850 < 002Ely 13 0.6 0.2 <10 1.3 <10 <1 0.068 <10 5.5 0.
Appendix D. (cont.) 

Eu Fe Fe Ga Gd Ge Ho In K K 

μg/L mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L mg/L μg

ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP

02Ely 1A 0.2 2.5 2,100 0.038 0.77 < 0.02 0.11 0.039 <0.1 202Ely 1B 0.28 0.5 490 < 0.02 1.2 < 0.02 0.18 0.012 <0.1 <02Ely 2A 0.22 1.1 1,000 0.02 0.9 0.021 0.15 0.022 <0.1 <02Ely 2A DUP 0.23 0.96 810 0.026 0.95 < 0.02 0.15 0.022 <0.1 <02Ely 2B 0.33 0.65 640 < 0.02 1.3 < 0.02 0.17 0.012 <0.1 302Ely 3 0.74 0.88 770 < 0.02 3.2 < 0.02 0.45 0.012 0.1 102Ely 4A 0.035 0.11 90 < 0.02 0.17 < 0.02 0.025 < 0.01 0.22 102Ely 4B 0.24 1.1 900 < 0.02 1.1 < 0.02 0.14 0.014 <0.1 502Ely 5A 0.21 1.2 1,000 < 0.02 0.78 < 0.02 0.1 0.037 <0.1 <02Ely 5B 0.38 0.67 620 < 0.02 1.6 < 0.02 0.19 0.011 0.12 102Ely 6A 0.45 1.3 1,100 < 0.02 2 < 0.02 0.25 0.042 <0.1 <02Ely 6B 0.23 0.5 500 < 0.02 1 < 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.32 302Ely 6B DUP 0.21 0.42 440 < 0.02 1 < 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.28 3ES-4 0.036 2.7 2,200 < 0.02 0.18 < 0.02 0.021 0.011 <0.1 702Ely 7A 0.21 4.7 3,900 0.076 1 < 0.02 0.14 0.051 <0.1 402Ely 9A 0.55 2.2 1,800 < 0.02 2.8 < 0.02 0.39 0.055 <0.1 <02Ely 7B 0.84 16.4 14,000 0.14 3.8 < 0.02 0.48 0.19 <0.1 <02Ely 9B 0.89 18.1 14,000 0.065 4.1 < 0.02 0.51 0.17 <0.1 202Ely 8A 0.09 0.5 420 < 0.02 0.39 0.033 0.065 < 0.01 <0.1 502Ely 8B 0.14 0.44 320 < 0.02 0.62 < 0.02 0.086 < 0.01 <0.1 702Ely 8C 0.61 90.6 66,000 0.038 2.7 0.15 0.34 0.33 2.3 1,02Ely 10A 0.005 0.12 100 < 0.02 0.015 < 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.01 1.3 1,202Ely 10B 0.0073 0.044 39 < 0.02 0.03 < 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.01 0.95 802Ely 11 0.02 0.081 67 < 0.02 0.093 < 0.02 0.015 < 0.01 0.4 302Ely 12 < 0.005 <0.02 <6 < 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.01 0.49 402Ely 12 DUP < 0.005 <0.02 <6 < 0.02 0.0053 < 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.01 0.42 402Ely 13 0.017 0.084 69 < 0.02 0.068 < 0.02 0.01 < 0.01 0.96 8
Appendix D. (cont.) 

Li Li Mg Mg Mn Mn Mo Mo Na N

μg/L μg/L mg/L mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L mg/L m

ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP

02Ely 1A 8.1 4.4 3.6 2.9 179 150 <20 < 0.02 <0.1 0.02Ely 1B 8 4.4 3.3 3 502 480 <20 0.027 <0.1 0.02Ely 2A 9.8 6.2 5.7 4.7 267 240 <20 < 0.02 <0.1 0.02Ely 2A DUP 11 6.7 6.6 4.9 306 250 <20 < 0.02 <0.1 002Ely 2B 10 6.3 3.8 3.6 417 400 <20 0.031 <0.1 0.02Ely 3 20 15 14.9 12 1110 940 <20 < 0.02 <0.1 0.02Ely 4A 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.2 169 130 <20 < 0.02 <0.1 002Ely 4B 9.3 5.3 3.5 2.7 293 240 <20 0.053 <0.1 0.02Ely 5A 9.8 5.2 5 3.9 191 160 <20 < 0.02 <0.1 0.02Ely 5B 11 6.6 3.3 2.7 458 410 <20 0.06 <0.1 002Ely 6A 14 8.3 8 6.1 407 340 <20 < 0.02 <0.1 002Ely 6B 14 9.8 4.2 3.8 569 520 <20 0.03 <0.1 002Ely 6B DUP 14 9.8 4.1 3.8 532 500 <20 0.029 <0.1 0ES-4 4 0.4 0.35 0.26 28 23 <20 < 0.02 <0.1 0.02Ely 7A 5.6 1.9 2.2 1.7 145 120 <20 < 0.02 <0.1 0.02Ely 9A 5.8 2.1 3.2 2.5 245 210 <20 < 0.02 <0.1 0.02Ely 7B 5.4 5 5.4 4.5 708 660 <20 0.14 <0.1 0.02Ely 9B 6.6 5.8 5.4 4.3 612 550 <20 0.12 <0.1 0.02Ely 8A 7.2 3 2.3 1.8 243 200 <20 0.042 0.14 002Ely 8B 4.9 4 2.9 2.2 260 200 <20 0.022 <0.1 0.02Ely 8C 22 19 2.9 2.2 235 210 <20 0.54 <0.1 0.02Ely 10A <1 < 0.1 0.2 0.19 24 21 <20 0.045 <0.1 002Ely 10B <1 0.4 0.16 0.15 26 22 <20 0.039 0.12 002Ely 11 1.6 1.2 8.4 7.6 112 92 <20 0.051 <0.1 002Ely 12 <1 0.85 0.24 0.24 48 43 <20 0.1 0.19 002Ely 12 DUP <1 0.73 0.25 0.26 62 56 <20 0.12 <0.1 002Ely 13 <1 0.4 0.26 0.24 27 23 <20 0.16 <0.1 0
Appendix D. (cont.) 

Ni Ni P P Pb Pb Pr Rb Re S

μg/L μg/L mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg

ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP

02Ely 1A 12 13 <0.1 < 3 <50 <0.05 0.94 1.9 0.031 <02Ely 1B 32 16 <0.1 < 3 <50 <0.05 1.2 1.4 0.045 <02Ely 2A 20 21 0.12 < 3 <50 <0.05 1 0.74 0.056 <02Ely 2A DUP 24 22 0.13 < 3 <50 <0.05 1.1 0.63 0.055 <02Ely 2B 23 28 0.1 < 3 <50 <0.05 1.8 1.4 0.045 <02Ely 3 51 42 0.23 < 3 <50 0.12 2.3 3.1 0.05 <02Ely 4A <10 4.2 <0.1 < 3 <50 <0.05 0.17 4.6 0.021 <02Ely 4B 26 23 <0.1 < 3 <50 <0.05 1.2 3 0.023 <02Ely 5A 13 13 0.1 < 3 <50 <0.05 0.96 0.9 0.028 <02Ely 5B 26 26 <0.1 < 3 <50 0.2 1.8 4.7 0.027 <02Ely 6A 37 30 0.14 < 3 <50 <0.05 2.2 1.3 0.052 <02Ely 6B 29 28 0.11 < 3 <50 0.1 1.2 8 0.036 <02Ely 6B DUP 29 27 0.12 < 3 <50 0.82 1.1 7.5 0.038 <ES-4 <10 1.7 <0.1 < 3 <50 0.16 0.25 1.3 < 0.02 <02Ely 7A 18 14 <0.1 < 3 <50 0.31 1.1 1.6 0.048 <02Ely 9A 36 33 0.12 < 3 <50 0.23 2.9 0.32 0.05 <02Ely 7B 120 110 0.15 < 4 <50 0.054 5.5 0.68 0.096 <02Ely 9B 100 91 0.13 < 4 <50 0.33 6.1 2.3 0.081 <02Ely 8A <10 8.5 <0.1 < 3 <50 <0.05 0.47 2.8 0.046 <02Ely 8B 48 39 <0.1 < 3 <50 0.35 0.79 2.9 0.041 <02Ely 8C 3,460 3,000 1 < 4 <50 5.9 2.1 16 2.9 <02Ely 10A <10 0.89 <0.1 3 <50 1.1 0.026 6.4 < 0.02 <02Ely 10B <10 0.7 <0.1 < 3 <50 0.059 0.045 5.9 < 0.02 <02Ely 11 <10 6.5 <0.1 < 3 <50 0.41 0.13 3.6 0.045 <02Ely 12 <10 3.5 <0.1 3 <50 0.71 < 0.01 1.3 < 0.02 <02Ely 12 DUP <10 3.5 <0.1 4 <50 0.58 < 0.01 1.4 < 0.02 <02Ely 13 <10 1.7 <0.1 43 <50 3.8 0.072 4.1 < 0.02 <
Appendix D. (cont.) 

Se Si SiO2 Sm SO4 SO4 Sr Sr Tb T

μg/L mg/L mg/L μg/L mg/L mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μ

ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-MS IC ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP

02Ely 1A 2.7 0.37 0.54 0.9 140 140 <1 1.1 0.1 002Ely 1B 2.2 0.52 0.98 1.2 120 140 1.9 2.4 0.16 < 002Ely 2A 2.6 0.43 0.66 0.97 160 180 1.2 1.5 0.13 002Ely 2A DUP 2.6 0.49 0.71 1 160 180 1.2 1.5 0.13 002Ely 2B 1.3 0.34 0.65 1.6 140 170 3.6 4.2 0.18 002Ely 3 3.9 0.3 < 0.5 3.3 230 250 <1 1.1 0.43 002Ely 4A 2.2 0.45 0.6 0.17 49 47 1.2 1.1 0.02 < 002Ely 4B 1.7 0.38 0.53 1.1 110 120 <1 0.92 0.14 002Ely 5A 2.5 0.36 0.5 0.9 140 160 <1 0.52 0.094 002Ely 5B 0.89 0.58 1 1.9 130 130 4.8 5 0.2 002Ely 6A 4.4 0.29 < 0.5 2.2 170 180 <1 0.75 0.26 002Ely 6B 2.4 0.52 0.98 1 160 200 2.9 3.3 0.14 002Ely 6B DUP 2.3 0.49 0.93 0.99 160 190 2.6 3.1 0.14 0ES-4 < 0.2 0.74 1.2 0.22 89 92 <1 0.5 0.026 002Ely 7A 3.3 0.69 1.1 0.99 140 150 3.6 3.6 0.15 002Ely 9A 3.7 0.44 0.65 2.5 180 200 2.1 2.4 0.41 002Ely 7B 4.6 0.37 0.6 4 260 290 3.7 3.5 0.51 202Ely 9B 4.7 0.36 0.53 4.3 250 270 4.4 4 0.56 202Ely 8A 3.5 0.37 0.53 0.38 87 91 1.7 1.9 0.056 < 002Ely 8B 2.3 0.54 0.71 0.63 93 91 2.8 2.5 0.082 < 002Ely 8C 10 0.78 1.4 2.9 800 790 <1 0.52 0.36 302Ely 10A 1.3 0.59 1 0.014 26 26 4.2 4.2 < 0.005 < 002Ely 10B 0.99 0.49 0.84 0.039 28 30 7.1 6.8 < 0.005 < 002Ely 11 2.2 0.8 1.4 0.087 68 63 8.3 7.7 0.012 < 002Ely 12 1.6 0.44 0.88 < 0.01 12 15 15 14 < 0.005 < 002Ely 12 DUP 1.3 0.42 0.84 < 0.01 11 14 13 13 < 0.005 < 002Ely 13 1.6 0.46 0.84 0.082 1.8 < 4 1.6 1.3 0.013 < 0
Appendix D. (cont.) 

Tl Tm U V V W Y Yb Zn 

μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-AES ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-MS ICP-AES 

02Ely 1A <0.05 0.039 0.53 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 2.4 0.26 170 02Ely 1B <0.05 0.064 0.72 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 4.1 0.4 168 02Ely 2A <0.05 0.056 0.64 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 3.3 0.34 767 02Ely 2A DUP <0.05 0.052 0.67 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 3.4 0.33 869 02Ely 2B <0.05 0.067 0.86 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 4.3 0.4 322 02Ely 3 <0.05 0.16 1.1 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 11 0.85 2,510 02Ely 4A <0.05 0.0066 0.11 <10 <0.1 0.038 0.6 0.042 110 02Ely 4B <0.05 0.049 0.62 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 3.3 0.3 350 02Ely 5A <0.05 0.037 0.31 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 2.3 0.2 894 02Ely 5B <0.05 0.065 1.3 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 3.7 0.41 477 02Ely 6A <0.05 0.077 1 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 6.2 0.45 1510 02Ely 6B <0.05 0.049 0.99 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 3.5 0.28 654 02Ely 6B DUP <0.05 0.05 0.99 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 3.5 0.27 627 ES-4 <0.05 0.0066 0.1 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 0.47 0.04 23 02Ely 7A <0.05 0.048 0.65 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 3.3 0.28 798 02Ely 9A <0.05 0.12 1.2 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 8.6 0.79 741 02Ely 7B <0.05 0.14 2.2 <10 <0.1 0.053 11 0.82 1110 02Ely 9B <0.05 0.15 2 <10 <0.1 0.058 12 0.83 1410 02Ely 8A <0.05 0.026 0.17 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 1.6 0.16 258 02Ely 8B <0.05 0.034 0.45 <10 <0.1 0.037 2 0.2 744 02Ely 8C 0.39 0.12 70 <10 <0.1 0.043 6.6 0.73 94,700 02Ely 10A <0.05 < 0.005 0.024 <10 <0.1 0.25 0.057 < 0.01 17 02Ely 10B <0.05 < 0.005 0.03 <10 <0.1 0.23 0.098 < 0.01 14 02Ely 11 <0.05 < 0.005 0.079 <10 <0.1 0.21 0.34 0.025 122 02Ely 12 <0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 <10 <0.1 < 0.02 0.022 < 0.01 150 02Ely 12 DUP <0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 <10 <0.1 0.022 0.021 < 0.01 137 02Ely 13 <0.05 < 0.005 0.042 <10 0.42 0.027 0.26 0.025 16