Search Documents

By Steve Meador

West Virginia's basic coal mining regulatory programs are not unique when compared to Federally approved programs implemented by other coal producing states. In fact, the language in The West Virginia Energy Act governing subsidence mirrors that written in the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act as well as other states' statutes. Certain legal and administrative issues, how¬ever, combine to make West Virginia's regulation of surface subsidence a singular approach.

Jan 1, 1986

By Dick Whittington, W. R. Taylor

GENERAL In mid-1974, a representative of ARCO Petroleum Company walked into our Austin offices and asked for a permit for ARCO's first Clay West Mine site. This was the first in situ uranium mining permit issued in the United States. That initial permit, issued in January 1975, was for three acres. The four years since have been characterized by growth and change. Today there are 16 permits approved for approximately 1,540 production acres issued to five companies at eight sites in four counties. There are approximately seven additional permit applications being processed or on the verge of being submitted for an estimated 2,000 additional acres of production. As a rough gauge of the financial scope of this activity, at the typical 40 production wells per acre and an estimated $2,000/well, operators hale installed or committed $122 million for production wells. This does not account for the exploration and development wells installed to delineate the ore or the cost of processing facilities for extracting the uranium. HISTORY OF URANIUM MINING IN TEXAS Information I have concerning early in situ uranium mining activities is "sketchy" but the apparent first on-site test of in situ uranium mining was conducted between 1967 and 1971 at the Dueterstat site, north of Yorktown in Gonzales County, by City Service. Others ran tests at the Bruni site in Webb County and the Burns and Clay West sites in Live Oak County in the mid-70's. During this period, Texas Water Quality Board personnel in the central and district offices maintained a general surveillance of these various test activities. Regulation of in situ uranium mining was formalized with the issuance of a permit in January 1975 with the advent of ARCO's initial production scale (3 acre) effort in the Clay West area at the Moser mine site. Since 1975, the accelerating rate of mining and exploration activity is noticeable. There were 16 exploratory rigs operating early in 1977. This year, the rig count is averaging 46--a 287% increase. HISTORY OF LEGISLATION Paralleling this mining activity was state and federal legislation which subjected in situ mining to environmental regulation. The following is a brief chronology of the legislation that is directly or indirectly related to uranium mining. As most of you know, disposal wells are an integral part of most in situ uranium mines operating in Texas. They are used both during production and during aquifer restoration following production. The wells are regulated by the Texas Injection Well Act, enacted in 1961 by the Texas Legislature. In 1967, the Water Quality Act established the Texas Water Quality Board, and provided for the regulation of water quality by the so-called permit system. In 1969, the Solid Waste Act was enacted by the Texas Legislature. The legislation provides for control of wastes from manufacturing, mining, and agriculture. This Act regulated uranium surface mining activities until 1975 when the Texas Surface and Mining Reclamation Act placed responsibility with the Railroad Commission for uranium open-pit mining and surface mining of coal and lignite. In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500) was passed. This legislation forms the legal base for the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) and the subsequent point source effluent guidelines and standards. The November 6, 1975 issue of the Federal Register published interim final rules for Best Practical Treatment levels for effluent discharges from ore mining and dressing operations. Litigation was immediately initiated by eleven companies against these proposed rules, and they are currently being reconsidered for reissuance in 1979. In 1974, the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (Public Law 93-523) was enacted. A part of this legislation is the Underground Injection Congrol Program. The regulations implementing this program have undergone various public hearings and it is expected that they will be published in the Federal Register before the end of 1978. In 1975, the Texas Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (Senate Bill 55), providing for the Railroad Commission's authority to require reclamation of surface mines, was passed. In 1977, an amendment to Senate Bill 55 was introduced that proposed to place regulation of in situ mining of coal, lignite, and

Jan 1, 1979

By K. L. Williamson, P. W. Dugan

INTRODUCTION In recent years there has been increased social awareness and government attention directed toward the mining industry. The growing influence of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has resulted in volumes of regulations governing a multitude of health and safety aspects of mining and milling. These regulations naturally have had an impact on new plant design and in some cases have necessitated retrofitting of existing plants. This paper will not examine the regulations governing the industry, since they are a matter of public record, but rather will address two specific health considerations, dust and noise, and their influence on the design of crushing and screening plants. DUST AND NOISE CONCEPTS Dust is generally defined as finely divided solids which may become airborne without any physical or chemical change except fracture. Since the purpose of comminution circuits is to reduce the size of solids by fracture, a percentage of the material is normally reduced in size to a point where it can easily become airborne. The major cause of dust becoming airborne is the air induced by falling material. When granular material falls through a distance, the induced (or entrapped) air rushes out available openings, carrying with it the fine particles that have become suspended. For this reason, the major points of dust generation are the points where the material is falling: chutes, transfer points, screens and equipment feed and discharge points. The expected dust concentration in an area is a function of the degree of size reduction (i.e., finer particles are more readily carried by air currents than heavier particles) and the volume of air that is induced. The measured dust concentration values for various operations agree with this

Jan 1, 1982

By R. Fields

Nevada is primarily known today for its nation-leading production of gold and silver. However, industrial mineral production continues to play an important role in providing construction materials to help make the state the fastest growing in the United States. Aggregate production in Nevada was about 20 million tons in 1991. Most of that was used in construction in the fast-growing Las Vegas area. The state leads the nation in the production of barite and mined magnesite and has significant production of lithium carbonate, diatomite and gypsum. Other industrial minerals produced in the state include specialty clays, silica, lime and dolomite and relatively small production in salt, perlite and dimension stone. Industrial minerals operations are subject to state and federal permitting requirements, especially in the areas of air and water quality and mined land reclamation. As in all segments of the mineral producing industries throughout the nation, the amount and complexity of regulations affecting industrial minerals has increased significantly in recent years. Nevada is no exception.

Jan 1, 1993

By Mark R. Svinkin

Regulations are needed to keep construction vibrations in tolerable limits. The existing regulations were developed for low-rise residential structures, but they are incorrectly used for different super and underground structures. The existing regulations cannot prevent most of harmful vibration effects on sensitive devices, people and structures from construction and industrial vibration sources. It is important to determine the areas of application of the existing regulations and bring attention to the necessity of measurement of the structural responses for assessment of vibration effects on structures. For multi-story residential, commercial and industrial buildings, the frequency-independent safe limit of 51 mm/s (2 in./s) can be chosen for the peak particle velocity of structural, not ground, vibrations. Specifications for construction operations with dynamic sources have to consider specifics of each construction site. Preventive measures can be used to mitigate harmful vibration effects on various structures and settlements in sand and clay soils.

Jan 1, 2006

By Richard S. Ghent, Daniel G. Warnock

JOHN HAMRIC: Our next speakers are Richard Ghent, manager of environmental health and safety for CF Industries, Hardee Phosphate Complex, in Wauchula, Florida. Richard has 20 years' experience with environmental health and safety affairs. He has a bachelor of science degree from the University of South Carolina. With him is Daniel Warnock, who is supervisor of safety and training also at the Hardee Phosphate Complex. Daniel's experience is in safety programs and electrical training. Their presentation is "Regulations Versus Management Practice." RICHARD GHENT: Written procedures give structure to safety programs. At their best, they are brief and understandable to facility personnel and clearly identify roles and responsibilities. At worst, they attempt to recite the entire regulation they are intended to address. Some regulations, such as OHSA's Hazard Communication Standard, require employers to develop, implement, and maintain a written program. As written programs and procedures are developed, some basic questions arise: Is the program designed to achieve compliance with regulatory requirements or does management expect the program to go beyond compliance to some higher level of performance? Management may have difficulty in measuring and communicating performance expectations in safety. A facility with 4 million safe work hours does not suddenly become unsafe the day their safety record is broken. Generally, management expects safety programs to meet regulatory requirements and to protect the employer from enforcement actions and fines from regulatory agencies. Management also expects that safety programs will result in a safer work environment with fewer incidents, accidents, and near misses. But it is difficult to know when a safety program has succeeded. If the program is expected to go beyond compliance, what other standards should be included (e.g., ANSI standards, company management practices, lessons learned from inspections and audits, recommendations from safety committees, etc.) in the

Jan 1, 1998

By E. L. Reed

This paper addresses the state and federal permit- ting requirements and regulatory constraints associated with the development of new "grass roots" surface coal mines in the Western United States. Since a major portion of new coal development in the West will be on federally leased coal in Wyoming, my comments are directed towards that geographical area. This will give the reader some insight into the current regulatory framework within which western mining companies must operate-i.e., the major applicable state and federal laws and regulations, the more important state and federal regulatory agencies, and the major construction and operating permits that are required. Before discussing the impact of the regulations on our business, I would like to tell you something of my company and then briefly discuss Exxon's forecast of the long range outlook for coal. Carter Mining is an Won affiliated surface coal mining company. Exxon became interested in the coal business in the mid 1960's with the recognition of the future need for alternative fuel sources. Since that time, it has acquired coal reserves located in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, Arkansas, Texas, Illinois and West Virginia. Carter's first surface mine, the Rawhide Mine, located north of Gillette, Wyoming began production in August, 1977. Our second surface mine, Caballo, located just south of Gillette, began operating last October. We have a third block of federally leased coal just east of Gillette. By 1985 we anticipate Carter's western surface mines will be producing at an annual rate of 30 million tons, subject, of course, to successful market development efforts and regulatory considerations. Rawhide will ultimately have a permitted capacity of 24 MM tons per year. The coal at Rawhide is in two seams; one 80 feet in thickness and the other 20 feet (including a 6 to 10 foot parting). A large shovel is used to remove the overburden, and a similar shovel and dragline are used to mine the coal. Caballo has a 75 foot seam; otherwise it is similar in design and operation to the Rawhide Mine.

Jan 1, 1979

By Debra W. Struhsacker, Jean Kiel, Jeffrey Thatcher

3.1 INTRODUCTION As heap leach precious metal projects become increasingly common in the United States, federal, state and local regulatory agencies are beginning to take a closer look at the short- and long-term environmental consequences of this recovery technology. From an operator's point of view, there is seemingly a confusing regulatory maze to be navigated and a plethora of permits and approvals to be obtained prior to commissioning a heap leach operation. The degree of difficulty associated with obtaining permits for a heap leach project depends largely upon the state in which the project is located. Permit acquisition is generally easiest in those states most familiar with heap leaching technology. For example, heap leaching is well understood in Nevada, and heap leach operations are relatively easy to permit, although permitting conditions in Nevada have recently become more stringent. However, many states are just beginning to become familiar with heap leach operations. Many of these states such as Idaho, Colorado, South Dakota, Oregon, Montana, Washington and South Carolina are in the process of drafting regulations and establishing guidelines for heap leach projects. In most cases, these regulations specify design and operating criteria as well as reclamation and decommissioning procedures. This chapter provides an overview of the regulatory and permitting aspects of heap leach operations. Permitting requirements for projects developed on federal land are discussed in detail. 'The state and local regulatory atmosphere and permitting requirements for various states are also presented. The chapter concludes with a generic permitting strategy. 3.2 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS The primary concern of most local, state, and federal regulatory agencies is the use, storage and transport of sodium cyanide (NaCn), and potential cyanide contamination of surface and groundwater resources. The toxicity of cyanide to people, fish and wildlife is also an important issue. Unfortunately, in the public eye, cyanide heap leaching has some emotional impacts similar to those associated with radioactivity and uranium mining. This perception and the general lack of understanding of cyanide can lead to unnecessary concern about cyanide contamination, further complicating the regulatory environment.

Jan 1, 1988

By Dermot M. Winters, Brent T. Wahlquist, C. Y. Chen

The enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) in August 1977 addressed subsidence resulting from underground mines, in addition to creating the requirements for reclamation of surface coal mines. Subsidence control regulations pursuant to SMCRA were initially promulgated in March 1979. Several revisions have since been made. In addition, due to court challenges some regulations have been remanded and others are still on appeal. In the meantime the Secretary has agreed to initiate rulemaking on some issues. It is yet to be determined how the prohibition of certain areas from surface coal mining operations under Section 522(e) of the Act applies to subsidence. This presentation discusses the status of the regulations and issues related to or affecting the subsidence regulations.

Jan 1, 1986

By J. J. Peshel

As per the current conceptual design presented by the Department of Energy, the exploratory shaft facility (ESF) becomes a part of the repository if the Yucca Mountain site is found suitable for repository development. Therefore, the design of the ESF should be compatible with the performance requirements for the repository. The construction methods selected should limit to the extent practical, the degree and the extent of damage to the surrounding rock mass. The ESF construction and operation should be compatible with the site data gathering activities, such as geological, thermomechanical, hydrological and geochemical testing.

Jan 1, 1991

By Steven C. Borell

For more than a decade, changes have occurred each year that have improved the regulatory and business climate for mining in Alaska. These changes have taken place during Republican and Democratic governorships as well as when the state House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by either party. During some years, the changes have been relatively minor. In others, including the 2003 legislative session, the changes could only be characterized as massive. These improvements have encouraged exploration. This, in turn, has resulted in some major new discoveries. But Alaska is essentially unexplored and tremendous opportunities remain.

Jan 1, 2004

By Kenneth M. Reim

In 1971, United States Borax & Chemical Corporation (U.S.Borax) initiated a mineral exploration program on federal lands in Southeast Alaska, with the commitment that any possible development would be done with great care for the environment. This program resulted in the discovery of a molybdenum deposit and the location of mining claims in 1974, in an area 45 miles east of Ketchikan, now called the Quartz Hill Molybdenum Project (Figure 1). At the time of this mineral discovery, the area was part of the Tongass National Forest, managed by the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, and open to mineral entry and multiple use. In late 1978, the area was designated Misty Fjords National Monument and closed to mineral entry, and in late 1980 the area surrounding Quartz Hill was classified as Wilderness. These new laws and regulations, as well as the special interest environmental groups which oppose resource development, have significantly delayed and increased the costs of developing Quartz Hill.

Jan 1, 1983

By Paul Downing

Anyone in business today knows how difficult and time consuming it is to keep abreast of new and revised federal regulations. Those in the explosives industry know that such a task can be next to impossible as the regulatory environment faced by those in the hazardous materials community continues to undergo a major overhaul following the events of September 11th, 2001. This paper will attempt to clarify today’s regulatory picture by identifying some of the regulatory “hotspots” and “pitfalls” that affect individuals and companies involved in the sale, transportation, distribution and use of explosives.

Jan 1, 2003

By Ken Fucik, Jorge Briceno, Bjorn Bjorkman

In 1993, a lawsuit was filed on behalf ofnative groups in Ecuador against Texaco for environmental damage resulting from petrole­um production activities which had occurred many years earlier. The basis of the lawsuit at the time was that Texaco had failed to perform its foreign activities in the same manner that it operated in the U.S. No environmental regulations were in existence in Ecuador at the time of Texaco's operations. Also in 1993, a lawsuit for over $3 billion Australian was filed on behalf of native New Guineans for alleged environ­mental damages and health impacts that occurred as a result of BHP's operations at its Ok Tedi Mine. Since then, Royal Dutch Shell has been subjected to major criticism for environmental damage caused by its operations in Nigeria. A more recent report has criticized Shell for groundwater contamination of an aquifer in Turkey. Southern Peru Copper is now defending against a lawsuit filed by citizens exposed to air emissions from smelter operations in Peru. In all of these cases, much of the alleged damages occurred many years previous. A defense com­monly made by the companies has been that operations were conducted according to the standards in place at the time. This has not limited the lawsuits nor minimized the international publicity which has followed. While such lawsuits have been common in the U.S. for many years, their appearance in other nations have pointed out a growing sense of worldwide concern with regard to the impacts of industrial operations. Of particular concern is the fact that lawsuits have been filed in countries that have up to now had few, if any, environmental regulations. The regulatory environment has been a part of most U.S. business operations since the early 1970's. Now, however, envi­ronmental regulations are starting to be implemented in many less developed nations. This has led to the formulation of a myriad of standards and approaches to environmental regulation around the world. For multinational companies, the challenge becomes one of anticipating the level of compliance that will be required to minimize liabilities not only for the present but also in the future. The purpose of this paper is to provide some guid­ance with regards to choosing a level of compliance, particular­ly as it applies to water quality.

Jan 1, 1996

By Rob Farnfield

In the UK all new developments, including mines, quarries, tunnels, etc., are subject to a system of planning control. If the use of explosives is anticipated then such developments will attract a number of so-called ‘planning conditions’ relating to the blasting operation. This paper will outline a ‘typical’ set of conditions and how operators ‘plan to comply’. British Standards relating to both human and structural response are also reviewed and contrasted to the typical planning conditions previously outlined.

Jan 1, 2005

By Peri Mehling, Allister Brown

Environmental regulations concerning the processing of gold ores and the treatment and disposal of spent process solutions range from rigid standards in some locations to site specific options in several other jurisdictions. This paper examines the regulations and policies in two North American jurisdictions. Emphasis will be placed on the mill process and waste stream treatment and disposal, and implications for environmental impacts. Case examples of mine licence requirements will be discussed, with brief descriptions of individual treatment and disposal systems. Policies and environ- mental regulations within each jurisdiction will be examined in terms of potential environmental protection.

Jan 1, 1987

By Jim Sundal

Primary steel manufacturers using electric arc furnaces generate one of the largest hazardous waste streams nationwide. The waste stream, known as electric arc furnace dust, is a listed hazardous waste with the designation K061. Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., (OSM) of Portland, Oregon, has implemented a process known as Glassificationn, which uses KO61 as an ingredient in an onsite recycling process. Because OSM was able to demonstrate that the Glassificationm recycling process beneficially uses all toxic constituents in the electric arc furnace dust and that the recycling process produces marketable products, the process is not subject to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit requirements. The marketable products manufactured using Glassificationn include roofing granules, ceramic glazes and colorants, abrasive blasting media and, more recently, synthetic slag fluidizers. The purpose of this paper is to identify the regulatory issues for recycling hazardous waste and demonstrate that OSM glass frit is effective as a slag fluidizer in primary steel manufacturing.

Jan 1, 1994

By K Myers

Since the mid-1990s, the Chino Mine Facility (Chino) located near Silver City, New Mexico has been developing a closure plan with financial assurance to protect water quality, as required by State regulations. In February 2002, Chino and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) reached agreement on a closure plan; a closure cost amount of approximately $US 394 million ($A 591 million) was finalised in April 2003. Both the New Mexico Water Quality Act Regulations (1977) and the New Mexico Mining Act Regulations (1993) guided development of the closure plan and financial assurance amount. The process incorporated many years of correspondence, studies, negotiations and administrative hearings. The major technical issues focused on regrading slopes of the leach ore stockpiles and waste rock piles; cover systems; water treatment systems; and abatement of ground water contamination. The proposed financial assurance amount covers all closure costs and provides for perpetual water treatment.

Jan 1, 2003

By Deborah McCombe

-Canadian Regulators -Qualified Person -Professional Association -Resources & Reserves -Foreign Codes -Disclosure of Historical Resources -Issues in Application of Resources & Reserves -Industry Best Practices developed by CIM -Technical Report and Reserves and Resources -Summary

Jan 1, 2003

By Aladar B. Dory

INTRODUCTION Anyone familiar with the problems of hardrock mining will agree that the majority of the serious dangers present in mining are quite visible and obvious to any person reasonably familiar with the profession. Having unsecured, unscaled back over ones head, gives one a very good chance of ending up under a caved in mass of rock. Staying too close to a blast gives one almost a certainty of being hit by a flying rock. Too little oxygen in the air will very quickly lead to loss of consciousness and death. One walks only so much over deep, unsecured openings before he falls into them. It is because of this clear visibility of the conventional health and safety hazards that mining regulations in almost all jurisdictions world-wide are a more or less comprehensive collection of "shalls" and "must nots" of good common sense. When basic rules of common sense safe working practices are at stake, there is little room for dialogue and compromise. The mine inspector is then observing, during his inspection, how well the mine follows these common sense rules. RADIATION AS A HIDDEN DANGER Radiation in mines is a risk, the impact of which does not demonstrate itself immediately. It is first of all a potential risk. Two individuals exposed to identical radiation will almost certainly be effected differently, if at all. This is certainly true of exposures and doses one might encounter in the mines today. We hear very often the phrase: "there is very little known about the effects of radiation". It is one of the most misused and misunderstood half-true statements. I would doubt that there is any other carcinogen whose effects have been studied as extensively as the health effects of radiation. Where the statement is correct is regarding the knowledge of the quantitative assessment of the risk of low level radiation exposures. The reason for this uncertainty is that the magnitude of their health effect is very close to the health effects of natural radiation, cosmic radiation and the effects of other carcinogens such as industrial pollution, hydrocarbons from cars and other chemicals we have grown accustomed to using. As far as lung cancer is concerned, the effects of wide use of tobacco probably outperforms any other single substance. All this having been said, the bottom line is still unchanged. Radiation exposure, in most cases mainly radon daughter exposure, was and still is one of the health hazards of uranium mining and as such has to be controlled to the best of our ability. Various jurisdictions have adopted different approaches to the control of radiation exposures of uranium minemill workers. The following sections of this presentation will attempt to explain the regulatory approach taken in Canada. THE CANADIAN REGULATORY PHILOSOPHY As indicated earlier, the health effects of low level radiation are quantitatively not yet defined and no proven threshold of radiation exposure exists. The Atomic Energy Control Board's (the Board's) regulatory system is based on the basic assumption that there is no absolutely safe limit of radiation exposure below which there are no health effects. Theoretically we should therefore strive to reach zero exposure. It is obvious that this objective cannot be reached in real life. The objective of the regulatory process therefore has to be to achieve radiation exposures of the workers that are as low as reasonably achievable, social and economic factors taken into account. This, of course, is the internationally acclaimed ALARA principle put forward by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). To avoid any misunderstanding it is worth emphasizing that the ALARA principle is applied to achieve exposures below the regulatory limits which must not be exceeded in normal operation of any nuclear facility including uranium mines and mills. The present regulatory limits for radiation exposures of atomic radiation workers are based on the recommendations of the ICRP and they are almost universally accepted. They should ensure that the risk from radiation exposure is not greater than the risk associated with working in a comparatively safe industry. Basically, there could be two extreme approaches to the regulation of uranium mining and milling. One extreme approach is to develop very extensive and detailed regulations and requirements covering all aspects of radiation protection. This is a somewhat autocratic approach to the regulatory process. This approach has two very serious shortcomings. If detailed requirements are set in regulations, due to the great variations of actual conditions at various mine-mill facilities, they have to be set as a compromise between the desirable requirements and those which could be met by practically all facilities. This approach takes away from the management of the facilities the initiative to strive for improved conditions. Requirements are spelled out in clear, understandable targets and the only worry of the management is to comply with these targets. One of the basic duties of management is to manage the operations in the most effective way with the maximum health and safety of the workers in mind.

Jan 1, 1981