Search Documents

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 J. P. Stone

The Mining Regulatory Affairs review arrived in time for the May issue. The Managing Editor inadvertently buried it in one of his paper piles. Regulatory developments at the federal level involving the minerals industry solid waste disposal under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) remained at the forefront of concern. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received public comments on two major documents. One was a strawman draft rule covering wastes from mining and beneficiation. The other was a report to congress covering selected mineral processing wastes. The regulation of minerals industry waste management is moving forward on parallel paths. Mining and beneficiation waste is somewhat further advanced.

Jan 1, 1991

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 Terry Bachynski

_ Regulatory Process _ Approval Timelines _ Trends _ Stakeholder Consultation Expectation _ Challenges _ Initiatives for Regulatory Process Reform _ A Better Way? Alberta Regulatory Process _ Regulatory Approval of a major capital development requires multiple approvals from several regulatory authorities: ? EUB ? Decision Report approves development scheme and recommends conditions for other regulatory agencies ? AEnv ? approvals to construct, operate and reclaim required prior to any in field construction activity ? Federal - approvals for federally regulated activities ? Municipal ? Development Permit

May 1, 2004

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 Chris Curfman

Sustaining Business in a Rapidly Changing Environment Topics: ?Sustainability @ Caterpillar ?Workforce Management ?Regulatory Environment & the Reality of living in a Carbon Constrained World

Jan 1, 2008

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 Johnston G, Joyce C

The permitting of new mining projects has evolved into a highly complex process that must be carefully managed. Only by developing a thorough understanding of the issues involved and stakeholder interrelationships can successful strategies be developed that integrate the often competing demands of: ò regulatory requirements, ò commercial requirements, ò social/cultural needs, and ò technical issues. Properly implemented, this approach can result in: ò shortened approval timeframes, ò better project definition ò broad based community support, and ò favorably disposed government departments.

Jan 1, 1997

By J. N. Hryn, E. J. Daniels, M. Askew, Kirchner. G.

This presentation addresses the changing regulatory climate towards aluminum dross and salt cake in Europe and in the United States. Although sporadic, the trend in the U.S. continues to be away from command-and-control regulation of these materials. This trend began in the early 1980s when the Environmental Protection Agency was successfully sued in court and prevented from classifying dross as a hazardous material. The situation in Europe is different. Because of Council Directive 96/61/EC from the European Commission, European Union member countries have all passed legislation that will essentially cause all salt cake and drosses to be reprocessed. The implementation date of the legislation varies from country to country: from 2001 in the United Kingdom to 2007 in Germany, France, Austria, Italy, and Spain. The European aluminum industry is urging the EC to use the approach adopted by the U.S. EPA, which declassifies the majority of aluminum drosses and salt cakes.

Jan 1, 2000

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