Assessment of Mineral Resources Technology Program of the U.S. Bureau of Mines: Report (1982)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMISSION ON ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS NATIONAL MATERIALS ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN Dr. Donald J. McPherson Vice President and Director of Technology Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland. CA 94643 Members Dr. Arden L. Bement. Jr. Vice President, Technology Resources Science and Technical Department TRW, Inc. 23555 Euclid Ave. Cleveland, OH 44117 Dr. H. Kent Bowen Professor, Ceramic and Electrical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 021.39 Dr. William J. Burlant Director, Lexington Laboratory The Kendall Co. Lexington, MA 02173 Dr. James C. Burrows Vice President Charles River Associates 200 Clarendon Street John Hancock Tower, 43rd Floor Boston, MA 02116 Dr. Raymond F. Decker Vice President. Corporate Technology & Diversification Ventures Inco Limited One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004 Dr. Brian R. T. Frost Division Director, Materials Science Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 Dr. Serge Gratch . - Director of Chemistry Science Lab Engineering & Research Staff Ford Motor Co. P.O. Box 2053 Dearborn, MI 48121 6/16/82 PAST CHAIRMAN Mr. William D. Manly Senior Vice President Cabot Corporation 125 High Street Boston. MA 02110 Dr. Nick Holonyak., Jr. Professor Electronic Engineering University of Illinois-Urbana Dept. of Electrical Engineering Urbana, IL 61801 Dr. Sheldon E. Isakoff Director, Engineering Research and Development Division E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. Wilmington, DE 19898 Dr. Frank E. Jaumot, Jr. Director of Advanced Engineering Delco Electronics Division General Motors Corporation P.O. Box 1104 Kokomo, IN 46901 Dr. Paul J. Jorgensen Stanford Research Institute 333 Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park. CA 94025 Dr. Alan Lawley Professor Metallurgical Engineering Drexel University Department of Materials Engineering Philadelphia, PA 19104 Dr. Raymond F. Mikesell W.E. Miner Professor of Economics University of Oregon Department of Economics Eugene, OR 97403 Dr. David Okrent Professor of Engineering & Applied Science University of California, Los Angeles 5532 Boelter Hall Los Angeles, CA 90024 Dr. R. Byron Pipes Director, Center for Composite Materials Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering University of Delaware Newark. DE 19711 Dr. Brian M. Rushton Vice President, Research & Development Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. P.O. Box 538 Allentown, PA 18105 Dr. John J. Schanz. Jr. Senior Specialist Congressional Research Service— ENR Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540 Dr. Dorothy M. Simon Vice President & Director of Research AVCO Corporation 1275 King Street Greenwich, CT 06830 Dr. Michael Tenenbaum 1644 Cambridge Flossmoor, IL 60422 Dr. William A. Vogely Professor and Head Department of Mineral Economics Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 Dr. Robert P. Wei Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics Lehigh University Bethlehem, PA 18015 Dr. Albert R. C. Westwood Director, Martin Marietta Labs Martin Marietta Corporation 1450 South Rolling Road Baltimore, MD 21227 NMAB STAFF K. M. Zwilsky. Executive Director R. V. Hemm, Executive Secretary

\ A ASSESSMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM OF THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES REPORT OF THE mh ON MINERAL RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY Or 4% . * OR NATIONAL MATERIALS ADVISORY BOARD COMMISSION ON ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS ORD on NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL oy y RB Publication NMAB-399 National Academy Press Washington, D.C. 1982 x Dp NAS NWAE JUL 2 6 1982 LIBRARY

Va -OOSÂ¥ C,/ NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the Councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. The report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its congressional charter of 1863, which established the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences. The Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems concerns itself with the development and application of the engineering disciplines to technological and industrial systems, and their relationship to societal problems of both national and international significance. The National Materials Advisory Board is a unit of the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems of the National Research Council. Organized in 1951 as the Metallurgical Advisory Board, through a series of changes and expansion of scope, it became the National Materials Advisory Board in 1969. Its general purpose is the advancement of materials science and engineering in the national interest. It fulfills that purpose by providing advice and assistance to government agencies and private organizations on matters of materials science and technology affecting the national interest, by focusing attention on the materials aspects of national problems and opportunities, and by making appropriate recommendations for the solution of such problems and the exploitation of the opportunities. This study by the National Materials Advisory Board was conducted under Contract No. J-0100106 with the U.S. Bureau of Mines. This report is for sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 2215l. Printed in the United States of America. ii

ABSTRACT This initial assessment of the Mineral Resources Technology (MRT) program of the U.S. Bureau of Mineg is the first report of the Committee on Mineral Resources Technology of the National Materials Advisory Board. The committee was formed in 1980 at the request of the Bureau of Mines to assess the MRT program. The program's principal function is to develop mining, beneficiation, and processing methods that better utilize conventional mineral resources or permit utilization of unconventional resources. The report outlines the guidelines the committee is using in its assessment, briefly describes the MRT program, and considers its impact on industry. It also cites aspects of the program worthy of further study by the committee. These aspects include relative emphasis on subject areas, the relative costs and effectiveness of contract versus in-house research, effectiveness of current technology transfer from the MRT program to industry, coordination of funding by the Bureau of Mines and other governmental agencies, and an extension of cooperative (industry-government) multiclient research. The report has three appendixes. The first is a statement of the terms of reference and the resulting outline of national needs of the minerals industry resulting from a limited attendance workshop. The second includes abstracts provided by the Bureau of all projects in the MRT program in 1981. The third describes the new Minerals and Primary Materials Processing program of the National Science Foundation, as provided by the Foundation. 1ii

PREFACE In 1980, at the request of the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the National Materials Advisory Board established a Committee on Mineral Resources Technology to assess the Mineral Resources Technology program of the Bureau's Minerals Research Directorate. The committee's general objective is to assess the materials aspects of the program and identify gaps and opportunities to make it more effective and more responsive to national needs. In the initial phase of its assessment, the entire committee met twice. The second meeting included a limited-attendance workshop where an attempt was made to define “national needs" in terms of mineral-resources technology and industry. (A statement of the background and terms of reference for the workshop and the resulting outline of national needs are included as Appendix A.) Also, the Bureau's 146 in-house and contracted projects in mineral resources technology were grouped by subject and reviewed by subgroups of the committee. Further, six of the Bureau's research center operations were visited by one or two members of the committee--augmented by noncommittee specialists on certain occasions. This assessment is continuing. For example, in the year ahead the review of the Bureau's recycling program will be completed and the committee plans visits to the five Bureau research centers not visited in the initial phase. Further, the committee plans to assess in greater depth selected portions of the Mineral Resources Technology program, e.g., minerals thermochemistry and materials substitution. Additional reports will be issued at periodic intervals. Valuable presentations of data and opinion were made and other assistance was Offered by many individuals during the committee's deliberations. The Committee on Mineral Resources Technology, therefore, wishes to thank the following persons: William L. Barham, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation John A. Basso, Pickands-Mather and Company Charles O. Bounds, St. Joe Minerals Corporation David P. Borris, Florida Institute for Phosphate Research Charles B. Kenahan, U.S. Bureau of Mines Garrett R. Hyde, U.S. Bureau Of Mines Ralph C. Kirby, U.S. Bureau of Mines Eugene J. Michal, AMAX R&D, Inc.

Kenneth W. Mlynarski, U.S. Bureau of Mines John D. Morgan, U.S. Bureau of Mines John E. Tilton, Pennsylvania State University Flora Young, U.S. Bureau of Mines Kermit B. Bengtson, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation Laurence L. Davis, U.S. Bureau of Mines James T. Dunham, U.S. Bureau of Mines Donald Kesterke, U.S. Bureau of Mines Charles W. Fairhurst, University of Minnesota Also, our thanks are extended to the directors and staffs of the six U.S. Bureau of Mines research center operations visited by representatives of the committee. Nathaniel Arbiter Chairman vi

COMMITTEE ON MINERAL RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY Chairman NATHANIEL ARBITER, Professor Emeritus, Columbia University, cy Vail, Arizona Membe rs NEVILLE G. W. COOK, Department of Materials and Mineral Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California WINSTON H. CUNDIFF, Consultant, Orinda, California DONALD D. DAHLSTROM, Vice President, Research and Development, Envirotech Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah MAURICE C. FUERSTENAU, Metallurgical Enineering Department, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota JOHN C. HALL, Consultant, Freeport Mineral Company, New York HERBERT H. KELLOGG, Henry Krumb School of Mines, Columbia University, New York MILTON E. WADSWORTH, College of Mines and Mineral Industries, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah ALBERT R. C. WESTWOOD, Martin Marietta Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland Liaison Representatives RALPH C. KIRBY, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. KENNETH W. MLYNARSKI, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. SAMUEL J. SCHNEIDER, JR., Center for Materials Sciences, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. JEROME PERSH, Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for R&E (ET), Washington, D.C. RICHARD E. DONNELLY, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for R&E, Washington, D.C. vii

HARRIS M. BURTE, AFWAL, Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio LOREN S. JACOBSEN, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia RICHARD SCHMIDT, Naval Air Systems Command, Washington, D.C. ROBERT J. MROCZEK, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. LEONARD A. HARRIS, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C. ROBERT REYNIK, Division of Materials Research, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. LOUIS IANNIELLO, Division of Materials Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. ROBERT J. GOTTSCHALL, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. ROBERT REILEY, Nonferrous Division, U.S. Dapartment of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Staff Officer RICHARD M. SPRIGGS, Staff Scientist, National Materials Advisory Board viii

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 Introduction CHAPTER 2 Guidelines for Evaluating Program CHAPTER 3 Bureau Organization and Responsibilities Mineral Resources Technology Program CHAPTER 4 Mineral Resources Technology Program MRT Program for 1981 Discussion of Programs by Classification Disciplines Specific Objectives Basic and Applied Research Discussion of the Classification of Projects In-house vs. Contractual Projects Distribution of Projects by Disciplines MRT Program's Impact on Industry Funding of MRT Research by Other Government Agencies Integration of MRT Programs with Industry R&D Distribution of Funds Among Personnel and Projects CHAPTER 5 Summary APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Distribution of MRT Projects by Disciplines Table 2 Distribution of MRT Projects by Goals Table 3 Distribution of MRT Projects by Major Disciplines and _ Specific Objectives in the Categories of Mining, Hydrometallurgy and Mineral Dressing Table 4 Distribution of Funding Among MRT Projects and Personnel, 198] ix PAGE 10 10 10 11 12 12 13 15 17 21 53 13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This is the initial report of the Committee on Mineral Resources Technology of the National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB). NMAB formed the committee in 1980 at the request of the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The committee is charged with providing a continuing overview and assessment of the Mineral Resources Technology program of the Bureau's Minerals Research Directorate. This report is in some measure preliminary. The committee has not canpleted its review of the 146 in-house and contracted projects in the Mineral Resources Technology program in 1981. Also, committee members have yet to visit five of the eleven Bureau of Mines research center operations where in-house projects are pursued. To date, the overall assessment principally has raised a number of broad questions that require further study and deliberation by the committee. (These are enumerated in the summary along with some suggestions for possible action by the sponsor.) This report briefly outlines the guidelines being used by the canmittee in its evaluation. It also briefly sketches the organization of the Bureau, particularly its Mineral Resources Technology (MRT) program. The MRT program is further discussed in terms of disciplines, goals and specific objectives, and the distribution of personnel and resources among the projects. The impact of the program on industry is considered as is its integration with industrial activities. The question of funding in the area by other government agencies is raised. Finally, areas worthy of further study by the committee are proposed.

CHAPTER 2 GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING PROGRAM The overall task of this committee is to provide a continuing overview and assessment of the program of the Mineral Resources Technology (MRT) Division of the Bureau of Mines. The general objective and scope are to assess the materials aspects of the program and identify gaps and opportunities to make it more effective and more responsive to national needs. For the pursuit of its task, the committee has established guidelines in the form of the following questions concerning the MRT progran: Are long-range goals clearly identified? What criteria are used to establish these goals, and are the criteria suitable? What is the likelihood that the program will achieve the goals? Are tasks identified in the program appropriate for federal study Or support? Are there gaps or omissions in the program? What are the opportunities for R&D in the program areas? Does the program have the proper overall balance? The committee is also addressing the following questions: What problems face the mineral-resources industry in terms of technology and research and development? What kind of R&D activities will most likely lead to solutions? Which constituencies and facilities are best qualified and equipped to pursue solutions? In light of the present and projected state of the economy and the mineral-resources industry, what should be the role of the government in sponsoring R&D in the area?

More generally, the committee hopes to be able to answer the question, “What should be the direction and scope of the MRT program to meet these goals and needs?" In support of these guidelines, the committee held a limited attendance workshop on national needs in materials resources technology. A statement of the background and terms of references for the workshop are included in Appendix A, along with a point-form outline of the results of the workshop in support of “National Needs of the Minerals Industry."

CHAPTER 3 BUREAU ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES The U.S. Bureau of Mines organization includes two Directorates -- Minerals Information Directorate and Minerals Research Directorate. The latter includes five divisions: Minerals Environmental Technology; Health and Safety Technology; Mineral Resources Technology; Research Center Operations; and Helium Operations. This committee is concerned only with the Mineral Resources Technology Division and its programs. The purpose and areas of responsibility of the Bureau of Mines as a whole derive from the Organic Act of 1912 as amended (P.L. 62-386), which gives the Bureau authority: ",..to conduct inquiries and scientific and technologic investigations concerning mining, and the preparation, treatment and utilization of mineral substances with a view to...conserving resources through the prevention of waste in the mining, quarrying, metallurgical, and other mineral industries...and ... to investigate the... unfinished mineral products ...with a view to their most efficient mining, preparation, treatment and use...." Mineral Resources Technology Program (MRT) The Bureau's Mineral Resources Technology Division has as its principal objective the development of new or improved mining, beneficiation, and processing methods that better utilize conventional mineral resources or permit utilization of unconventional resources. Together with means of recovering valuable materials from wastes, such methods would help to assure a more dependable supply of mineral-based crudes. In this way, better methods would improve the competitive position of the domestic mining industry which is faced with ores of declining grades and with increasing capital and operating costs. Other components of the MRT program seek to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign sources of critical materials by developing substitutes or technology for treating currently uneconomic domestic deposits of such materials.

CHAPTER 4 MINERAL RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM MRT Program for 1981 The MRT program for 1981 includes 146 projects. They are described in abstracts in Appendix A. Of the 146 projects, 87, or 60 percent, are being carried out in the Bureau's research centers; the remaining 59, or 40 percent, are being carried out by contractors. The contractors include commercial research and development organizations, equipment manufacturing and mining companies, and mining and metallurgical engineering departments of universities. At the beginning of FY 1981, the budget for 146 projects amounted to $23.466 million, with other MRT funds raising the 1981 MRT total to $26.190 million. For purposes of this review, the projects can be further classified in four ways. The first classification is by discipline or field of work--mining, mineral beneficiation, etc. The number and percentage distribution of projects by field or discipline are given in Table 1 and are based on the projects listed in Appendix A*. Table 1. Distribution of MRT Projects by Disciplines Total Projects Contracted Projects Discipline Number of Number of Projects Percentage Contracts Percentage Basic Research 15 10.3 6 10.2 Electrometallurgy 1 0.7 1 1.7 Hydrometallurgy 31 21.2 12 20.3 Materials Development 19 13.0 7 11.9 Materials Handling 9 6.2 7 11.9 Mineral Dressing 14 9.6 2 3.4 Mining 30 20.5 17 28.8 Pyrometallurgy 7 4.8 3 5.1 Recycling 17 11.6 2 3.4 Other 3 2.1 2 3.4 Totals 146 100.0 59 100.0 *It should be stressed that the percentage distributions cited herein are based on the number of projects and not on total dollars; the two are significantly different.

The second classification is according to the Bureau's three goals for the MRT, which are: advancing mineral science and technology; conserving domestic mineral resources; and developing domestic mineral resources. This breakdown is shown in Table 2 and is based on Bureau categorization; the projects are listed according to MRT goals and with estimated time requirements. Table 2. Distribution of MRT Projects by Goals Goal Distribution % 1. Advancing Mineral Science and Technology 36.6 percent a. Mineral Science Base 4.9 percent b. Efficient Extraction Technology 31.7 percent 2. Conserving Domestic Mineral Resources 34.5 percent a. Maximum Resource Recovery 20.4 percent b. Scrap and Waste Utilization 14.1 percent 3. Developing Domestic Mineral Resources 28.9 percent a. Use of Plentiful Resources 16.2 percent b. Substitutes for Strategic and Critical Materials 12.7 percent TOTAL 100.0 The third classification is based on more specific objectives: a) development of data and measurement techniques; b) development of new processing technology, application of either existing technology or improved technology to resources not previously exploited; and c) development of new materials or new equipment. The fourth classification distinguishes between basic research, with only long-range practical goals, and applied research and development, with shorter times for realization of results. Discussion of Programs by Classification Disciplines. Based on the total number of projects, Table 1 indicates major emphasis on two areas of work: mining, including development of materials-handling equipment (27 percent of the total in-house and contractual projects); and hydrometallurgy (21 percent). These two areas also receive greatest emphasis in the contracted projects, with 41 and 20 percent of the projects, respectively. Forty-five percent of the total projects are divided among four other disciplines: materials development

(13 percent); recycling (12 percent); basic research (10 percent); and mineral dressing (10 percent). Pyrometallurgy is lowest among the disciplines with 5 percent of the projects. The contracted projects do not follow the total-project distributions exactly. Relatively, more of the mining and materials-handling efforts are contractual; more of the recycling and mineral-dressing efforts are in-house. Specific Objectives. The goals in Table 2 involve some overlap. For example, a number of projects under “Advancing Mineral Science and Technology” (goal 1) may at the same time be seeking to conserve or develop domestic resources (goals 2 and 3). Similarly, projects under goals 2 and 3 may require the development of new or more efficient technology. This overlap can be clarified by considering the major disciplines according to basic data development, process development, and equipment development; the results are shown in Table 3 for three major categories. Table 3. Distribution of MRT Projects by Major Disciplines and Specific Objectives in the Categories of Mining, Hydrometallurgy and Mineral Dressing Mining Projects Equipment development 51 percent Mine plant design and operation 49 percent 100 Hydrometallurgy Projects Basic data 23 percent Process development 65 percent Equipment _12 percent 100 Mineral Dressing Projects Basic data 30 percent Process development 65 percent Equipment __5 percent 100 The goals can be further considered according to the commodities under investigation. Although the Bureau of Mines Mineral Commodities Survey for 1981 lists 89 industrially important nonfuel commodities, few of them are the subjects of current investigations. Predominant in order of frequency are sulfides, particularly those of lead and zinc, with major emphasis on hydrometallurgy. Second to sulfides is cobalt, with emphasis on its recovery from domestic resources, including sulfide ores and laterites. Substitutes for cobalt in alloys are also being sought. Other commodities under study (in from four to six projects each) include alumina, phosphate, and precious metals. Another dozen commodities are under investigation in one or two projects each.

10 Basic and Applied Research. The final classification is evident from Table 1, which shows that 10 percent of the projects are basic research. The remaining 90 percent are applied research and development. Discussion of the Classification of Projects An analysis of the foregoing classification of the 146 projects reveals the main thrusts of the Mineral Resources Technology Division's activities. At the same time, a number of questions must be raised about the distribution of projects as shown by Tables 1, 2, and 3. In-house vs. Contractual Projects. The fact that 40 percent of the 146 MRT projects are contractual, and that they are distributed almost uniformly across all subject areas, suggests that this mechanism has become an important component of MRT's program. (It should be noted, however, that Only 12 percent of the available funds are expended for contractual projects.) Some of the questions that should be raised, therefore, concern the comparative costs and effectiveness of in-house and contractual projects. Given the relatively limited manpower pool in the mineral industries in the United States, it is evident that the use of outside agencies to support the MRT's staff may be essential. This approach also may improve flexibility in executing programs by providing nonpermanent supplements to MRT activities. On the other hand, this mechanism probably reduces supervisory control of projects and makes somewhat more difficult the complete integration of MRT programs. (While no attempt is made here to evaluate this mechanism completely, the committee will consider the effectiveness of in-house and contractural projects in depth in the future.) Distribution of Projects by Disciplines. As noted above, Table 1 reveals that almost 50 percent of all MRT projects are in the mining and hydrometallurgy areas, with more than 60 percent of the contractual projects in these same areas (representing, however, only one-third of the MRT budget). No other single discipline receives more than about 10 percent of the effort. The committee has raised important questions about this distribution. The mining industry does tend to place less emphasis on mining research and development because of costs and logistics, and this tendency may justify greater government support in the area. On the other hand, the need for support is considered to be equal or greater in pyrometallurgy. This country has fallen far behind Finland, Japan, Canada, South Africa, and other countries in both ferrous and nonferrous smelting, particularly in developing energy-efficient and pollution-minimizing processes. Thus pyrometallurgy could be an important area for industry-government cooperation. Another question concerns the heavy emphasis on equipment development in mining--half of the MRT mining projects are in this area. The U.S. equipment manufacturing industry is a world leader. Thus one can ask whether the industry, rather than the Bureau, should not be initiating moet of this work and paying for it. Alternately, industry-government funding of