Search Documents

By F. M. Doyle, J. P. Dwyer

Introduction The mining industry has a poor public image. It is often perceived as a despoiler of the landscape and a polluter of the environment, and there is little recognition of societal needs for the raw materials and fuels that this industry produces. There are many reasons for this poor image, but an important one is that a substantial number of mining operations have caused significant damage to the environment. Many of these operations, particularly those that now are abandoned, continue to have an adverse impact, principally in the form of water pollution.1 In some cases, the damage caused by this pollution extends well beyond the immediate region around the mine. Chemical contamination of ground and surface waters can, and does, occur in nature when these waters flow through or over undisturbed, mineralized rock masses. However, the problem is greatly exacerbated by mining because the mining activities increase, by several orders of magnitude, the permeability and the surface area of rock that can be contacted by percolating water. Water flowing through either the mine workings or the waste rock dumps becomes contaminated. Pollution can also arise if leachate from tailings ponds enters either groundwater or surface waters. This leachate may contain chemicals used in processing the ore. The magnitude of the threat posed by mining wastes depends on the type of minerals in the deposit, and on the chemicals used to process the ore. The magnitude of the threat also depends on two other, site-specific factors. One is the volume of water flowing into the mine and through the dumps, which depends on rainfall patterns, topography, and whether the mine workings are surface or underground. The other is the proximity of the pollution source to groundwater or surface waters, which depends on both the climate and geology. These factors influence the concentration and the quantity of polluted water forming and reaching the receiving water. Mining activities present a potential problem of enormous scale. Vast amounts of rock are mined each year2 and, as noted above, substantial problems have arisen at some mine sites. These problems are usually exceedingly costly to address, and it is imperative that these mistakes not be repeated. There are indications that we can accomplish this goal; we now better understand the processes that cause pollution and have methods to prevent or contain it. In addition, in the past few decades society has started to recognize the need for all industries to operate in a manner that maximizes the health and safety of workers and the public and minimizes adverse environmental impacts. A variety of recently enacted federal and state laws regulating public health and environmental hazards reflect the increasing concern over these issues. Many statutes, such as the federal Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, encompass activities undertaken by the mining industry. Other laws, such as the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, have been written to regulate specific hazards posed by this industry. At the present time, the federal government. through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and several state governments, are preparing new regulations specifically tailored to control the disposal of mining wastes. Given the magnitude of the potential environmental and health risks posed by disposal of mining wastes and the regulatory costs to the mining industry (both of which are due to the tremendous volume of waste generated), it is especially important that regulators have a good understanding of the different types of mining wastes and the risks they are likely to pose in various geographic and climatic circumstances. Only then can a regulatory program be designed with suitable procedures and substantive criteria to protect the environment and ensure compliance, while avoiding unnecessary or wasteful expenditures. California has long enjoyed a large, active mining industry. Today it produces a wide range of mineral commodities. The revenue from production of non-fuel minerals in California ($2.85 billion in 1988) greatly exceeds that of any other state. About a third of this revenue is from the production of inert sand, gravel and crushed stone. However, the remainder is from the production of a wide range of materials. These include boron minerals, rare earths, asbestos, talc and pyrophyllite, and gold. In earlier decades, an even broader range of minerals was produced, including mercury, copper, lead, zinc, and barite. There are acute environmental problems at some of these early mine sites. Because in 1987 the state of California was engaged in a revision of its regulations for mining waste disposal, the legislature commissioned a study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley to investigate and review: the magnitude of the problem posed by these wastes, • the best feasible control measures available for waste management and disposal, • the problems of abatement and cleanup at so-called "problem" mine sites, • the current regulations imposed on mining waste disposal by various federal, state, and local agencies and the effectiveness of these regulations. This paper summarizes the principal findings from this study (Mining Waste Study, 1988). The lessons from this investigation are likely to be of general interest because of the diversity of mineral products produced, and the wide range of geographic and climatic conditions encountered. The acute problems seen at some of the older mines are typical of the western United States, and teach useful lessons on strategies that should be implemented at new mines to prevent recurrences of these problems.

Jan 1, 1992

By R. Callaway

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (?CERCLA?), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA?) establishes a comprehensive Federal regulatory program for addressing environmental and public health risks posed by releases of hazardous substances into the environment from a wide variety of industrial and other sources. The statute is primarily administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). The applicability of CERCLA to the mining, milling, and smelting industries (hereinafter referred to as the ?mining industry?) has been upheld by the courts and recently affirmed by Congress. The purpose of this article is to briefly outline the scope of CERCLA as it applies to the mining industry, the scope of EPA's activities pertaining to the mining industry under CERCLA, the types of remedies which may be pursued by EPA, and the liability scheme of CERCLA as it applies to corporate entities, managers, and shareholders involved with the mining industry. Natural resource damage claims, State cooperative agreements, and other State-related issues will not be discussed.

Jan 1, 1988

By K Marler

The Water Act 2000 includes provisions to manage the take of overland flow water. Overland flow water is water that runs across the land after rainfall either before it enters a watercourse, after it leaves a watercourse as floodwater, or after it rises to the surface naturally from underground. To ensure adequate environmental flows and long-term security for water users, it is necessary to balance the amount of water taken as overland flow water and the amount left to flow into watercourses. A water resource plan made under the Water Act 2000 establishes the basis for the sustainable management of this type of water. Of the water resource plans that have been prepared for Queensland catchments, six include provisions to manage the take of overland flow water. This paper discusses some of the common features of these plans and the management approaches adopted. The paper identifies and explains key aspects of the Water Act 2000 framework for managing the take of overland flow water by the mining industry. In particular it explains key concepts of this framework, such as the ability to take overland flow water using existing works, uses of overland flow water that a water resource plan permits, situations where a specific entitlement under the Water Act 2000 is required, and the means for controlling works that take overland flow water. Future initiatives for the regulation and management of overland flow water are then identified and particular challenges for the mining industry associated with using overland flow water highlighted.

Jan 1, 2006

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 Howard Eavenson

ONE who has been trained in belief in the law of supply and demand and its effect upon prices finds it difficult to adjust himself to the minute regulations imposed by the New Deal, and also to the bewildering changes of government policy as expressed within a short period of time between the antitrust laws and the N.R.A., and later by the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935. A survey of the coal industry since the World War, both in this country and Great Britain, however, shows that regula-tion of some sort is needed if any stabilization is to be achieved and if the Wage structure and economic welfare of the many communities dependent solely upon coal are to be maintained. Let us look at what has happened to the industry since 1920, which can be considered as the end of the period affected by the war influence. This discussion will be confined solely to bituminous coal, although many of the general conditions are equally applicable to anthracite, the position of which now is at least as bad as that of the softer variety. Since 1920-to the end of 1934-the production of coal has decreased from 568.7 million to 358.4 million tons, or 37 per cent; the number of mines from 14,766 to 6,258, or 58 per cent; the average annual production per mine has changed from 38,512 to 57,425 tons, or 50 per cent. The number of large mines has increased considerably, and the number of men employed has decreased from 639,547 to 458,011, a reduction of 28 per cent, while the average output per employee has changed from 4.0 to 4.4 tons, or an increase of 10 per cent. The average price per ton of coal at the mine has varied from $3.75 to $1.75. During that time wages decreased largely until 1933 and since that time have increased, until now the rates paid are- considerably above those in other occupations, although the actual yearly earnings are low, because of part-time work. From 1920 to the signing of the Jacksonville wage agreement in 1924, about two-thirds of the men were union members and practically all of the nonunion mines were south of the Ohio River; with the fixing., of the high wage scale of that agreement, which soon proved to be an uneco-nomic one, many of the mines found that they could not retain their business, so gradually changed to nonunion. By 1928 the proportion

Jan 1, 1936

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 Satya Nandan

The International Seabed Authority is currently considering regulations for prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt rich crusts. The deposits of these two types of minerals are very different from polymetallic nodules for which the Authority has already adopted regulations in 2000. The presentation will discuss the nature of the deposits, the inadequacy of information and data concerning these deposits and their environment, as well as the problems of defining the method of allocation and the size of the areas to be licensed for exploration, and those to be retained for exploitation; the current status of the draft regulations being considered by the Council of the Authority.

Aug 24, 2006

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