The problem of arsenic disposal in non-ferrous metals production

Abstract

Arsenic is a minor and inevitable component of all inputs to the non-ferrous metals extraction industry but sales are only a small proportion of input. Safe disposal of the excess is a substantial problem. Public perception exaggerates the toxicity of arsenic and generates emotional reactions, whereas arsenic has a natural cycle in the environment and all life is tolerant to traces with detoxication processes to deal with excess. Toxicity data for overload doses to biota in general are poor when required for the formulation of standards for disposal of waste thus making difficult the legal definition of hazardous wastes for appropriate regulation. Suitable tests to determine the stability of a waste for safe disposal are complex, costly, and uncertain against the need for the waste to be in place for a very long time. Further, there is no universal agreement on the principles which should govern the means of disposal of hazardous wastes. Safe disposal of arsenical wastes is thus difficult but practical and convincing solutions must still be devised, guided by thermodynamics and by natural processes. Much judgement and goodwill are required. However, few if any arsenical substances are so stable to moist air that they will not release unacceptable concentrations of arsenic when left in a thermodynamically open dump. Control of “hot spot” dumps must therefore start with planning of location and configuration, and the wastes must be sealed to exclude air and water and to contain leachates indefinitely. This is very difficult to ensure. Registration, control and testing of waste stability and dump behaviour must be planned on the assumption that leakage will arise at some time in future millennia, a major and expensive logistical problem. Adsorption of arsenate by soils and aquatic sediments is an important buffering and fixing process for any leakage, but waters can still be polluted. It is, however, argued that deliberate retention of leachate can lead to problems from uncontrolled future leakages, and thus that "“hot spot” dumps should be designed to allow controlled leakage within the capacity of the receiving environment. Better still would be efficient dilution and dispersal. Marine disposal may be politically unattractive, but the arsenic reports to sediments and the process copies nature. It is probably the best environmental disposal option where practicable.