## 2 Preliminary Qualitative Analysis
The granulate remains on the soil in unchanged form until atmospheric precipitation, and then it gradually disintegrates and returns to silty form and gradually penetrates into the soil structure [33]. * As fillers for thermoplastics: in the scope of this technology, the gabbro waste can be used as an attractive solution for obtaining inexpensive composites with good thermal and mechanical properties [34]. The research of known case studies and literature [19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34] on environmental and economic aspects allowed to identify the following criteria to be proposed for analysis:  
Environmental criteria:  
* Criterion **K1**--waste category--dangerous or inert,
* Criterion **K2**--location in protected natural areas and Main Underground Water Reservoirs,  
Economic criteria:  
* Criterion **K3**--raw materials that are essential for the economy,
* Criterion **K4**--occurrence above 10 000 thousand Mg,
* Criterion **K5**--occurrence of loamy raw materials (use e.g., in agriculture or in the food industry),
* Criterion **K6**--occurrence of raw materials as a source of potassium--meals and small granite fractions,
* Criterion **K7**--occurrence of raw materials as a source of magnesium--serpentinite, basalt, syenite. Application of the abovementioned criteria in the qualitative analysis led to a selection of 20 sites listed in Table 1 for further analysis. Location of all the sites is shown on the map in Appendix A. Example mining waste treatment facility is shown in Appendix B. The results of conducted analysis indicated that the selected objects have waste containing: clay, gangue with overgrown weathered granite, basalt, granite, overburden containing loamy raw materials, serpentinite, sands contaminated with clay, inferior quality rock raw material, crushed stone (e.g., granite, gabbro, serpentinite, basalt). The multicriteria analysis consisted of two stages, where stage one (A) provided ranking of mining waste sites (Table 1) and stage two (B) allowed to determine the most suitable potential uses for the six highest ranked waste sites. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Rank** & **Mining Site** & **Mineral** & **Weighted Score** \\ \hline
1. & Krzeniow & basalt & 2.6542 \\
2. & Lubier & basalt & 2.3808 \\
3. & Grabina Slaska-Kam. 15/27 & granite & 2.0890 \\
4. & Ginekowkow & granite & 1.9811 \\
5. & Boguszove & sands and gravels & 1.9298 \\
6. & Romanowo Görme & marble & 1.9022 \\
7. & Rogoznica II & granite & 1.8732 \\
8. & Bycer I & sands and gravels & 1.8722 \\
9 & Stroza Görme II & sands and gravels & 1.8722 \\
10. & Sulikow & basalt & 1.8640 \\
11 & Stupiec-Deböwka & gabbro & 1.8640 \\
12 & Janina I & sandstone & 1.7326 \\
13 & Rybrica Leesna & melaphyre & 1.6864 \\
14 & Doboszowicz I & genesis & 1.6564 \\
15 & Radostów Sredni II, III & sands and gravels & 1.6564 \\
16 & Braszowicz & gabbro & 1.6482 \\
17 & Jenków & schist & 1.5209 \\
18 & Nowy Waliszów – scozewka C & marble & 1.5168 \\
19. & Polom & limestone & 1.5168 \\
20. & Redziny & dolomite & 1.4892 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Ranking of mining waste sites [6].