Mining and Sustainable Development II - DTIE

Mining
dams have also been appointed under this act. The
Act and associated Regulations were further
strengthened when the Reservoirs Act 1975
specifically excluded tailings dams and recognized
the specific technical problems associated with
mining-related containment structures. This Act
and associated Regulations have been incorporated
into existing legislation or used as the basis for
new regulations in other countries.
Following the Mufulira tailings inrush disaster
in Zambia in 1970, the Mines and Quarries Act
was incorporated into the Mining Act in Zambia
and formed the basis for regulations for the
inspection and management of waste tips, water
dams and tailings dams on mining properties.
Similarly, the UK based legislation was also adopted
in Malaysia in formulating its regulations for
the management of tips and tailings dams, particularly
associated with the tin mining industry. It is
believed that this legislation has been the basis of
a number of similar local regulations with regard
to the control, operation and maintenance of tailings
facilities and their regular inspection.
It is noted that the Act has successfully regulated
waste tipping and tailings disposal and prevented
any fatal occurrences due to strict
enforcement by the Health & Safety Executive.
Moreover, the Act is seen as having had significant
benefits for the mining industry, governmental
bodies and planning and permitting authorities in
ensuring the preparation of regular independent
audit reports from competent persons throughout
a facility’s operational life. More importantly,
from an environmental perspective, the requirement
for continuation of these audits post closure,
indeed until the deposit or tip has been fully rehabilitated
and become benign, was also defined.
A further significant aspect of the UK regulations,
which has been repeated in other countries,
is the formal appointment of competent persons
to supervise the planning and design, undertake
the auditing and certify the facilities.
Corporate policy
In the last 10 to 15 years major mining companies
have taken a responsible attitude and have seen the
corporate benefit of developing a policy that
ensures compliance with appropriate engineering
and environmental standards for their tailings
facilities worldwide. In particular, as a result of a
number of high profile tailings dam incidents,
major mining houses have developed expert teams
to undertake independent auditing of all their
facilities regardless of the legislation under which
they were constructed. More recently smaller mining
companies have also adopted a similar policy
of ensuring that regular auditing of their facilities
is undertaken. These audits have often been instigated
as a result of financial reviews or restructuring.
Financial institutions require their investment
in projects to be protected and, as tailings management
facilities represent a major risk, auditing
is often specified.
Permitting
There has been a significant change in the planning
and permitting requirements for tailings
Section 9
Section 12
Section 18
Procedures before beginning tipping operations
1a
Geological map of site and boundaries at appropriate scale.
1b Geological section of the strata underlying intended tip.
1c Accurate plan of mine facilities at appropriate scale.
2 Tipping report which includes:
• total and annual amount of waste to be deposited;
• site investigation details;
• site preparation;
• plans and cross sections of the depository;
• method of tipping;
• inspection and monitoring routines.
Active classified tips require a report from a competent person on the tip and every matter
affecting security of the tip every two years.
Closed classified tips require a report from a competent person on every matter affecting
security of the tip every five years.
management facilities, particularly in North
America, Europe and Australia, primarily as a
result of concerns with regard to closure and the
premature abandonment of facilities which then
remain unremediated and lead to environmental
blight. As a result of this requirement planning
authorities are increasingly resorting to bonding
at permitting stage, primarily to ensure that premature
closure of a mine would not lead to unremediated
tailings management facilities or to
mining companies abandoning a site on mine closure.
Such bonding has primarily targeted closure
and environmental remediation, but has also
required the preparation and regular updating of
closure plans and external auditing of the facility
to ensure that it can be closed in accordance with
closure requirements. Again this has led to mining
companies being required to carry out audits
on the facility with regard to closure. However,
these tend not to be on a regular basis and therefore
are of less benefit in ensuring ongoing safety
and integrity of the facilities throughout their
operational life. Such arrangements do ultimately
require that, post closure, the facilities are monitored
on abandonment and that the safety, security
and environmental performance of the facilities
are monitored on a regular basis post abandonment.
These bonding arrangements also avoid
“walk away” and the adoption of a passive care
approach which inevitably leads to companies
undertaking regular monitoring of the facility to
ensure that as soon as a facility becomes benign
they can transfer their responsibilities and minimize
their long term liabilities.
Best practice
Experience of a wide range of systems for inspecting
and auditing of tailings management facilities
around the world indicates that where policies for
regular expert auditing by competent persons have
been enforced, failures have been reduced and
incidences of untoward discharges have been significantly
reduced. However, where legislation has
remained under local water regulations it is clear
that a number of problems remain due to the different
approaches appropriate to water reservoirs
and tailings dams. Such legislation has therefore
been found wanting. Where no legislation exists,
the risk of poor management practices and of failure,
leading to untoward events, is greatly
enhanced and a quick review of those failures
which have occurred in the last 25 years indicates
that a number have occurred in under-regulated
environments. The major driving force in reducing
the number of tailings dam incidents is, firstly,
the adoption of regulations that require regular
independent auditing and certification of a facility
and, secondly, the recognition of the need for a
competent person to undertake the audits, and
that the competent person must have experience
of tailings management facilities, rather than having
general competence in water dams or civil
engineering.
A way forward
To restore public and industry confidence in tailings
management facilities it is clear that a formal
auditing regime leading to regular certification
needs to be put in place. Many of the processes
already exist in legislation, but are fragmented and
not presented as a single coherent policy. However,
it is clear that although a framework already
exists it is inconceivable that identical legislation
could be passed in all countries where mining
occurs. The industry could, with appropriate support,
prepare relevant and workable guidelines for
mining companies and regulators alike, based on
existing and well proven legislation. Important
features which should be incorporated in such
guidelines could be:
◆ Definition of a competent person;
◆ Definition of risk categories;
◆ Frequency of inspections for different classes of
risk;
◆ Highlighting of the importance of continuity of
supervision;
◆ Emphasizing the need for accurate and long
term record keeping;
◆ Attempting to define the regulatory authority;
◆ Provision of guidance on relevant engineering
and environmental standards and reference appropriate
documents;
◆ Specification of the need for operator training;
◆ Encouraging high safety standards and a consistent
approach.
The question remains as to which bodies might
be sufficiently authoritative and acceptable in the
international arena to produce suitable guidelines.
For example, the European Commission (EC) has
drafted the landfill directive which, in the absence
72 ◆ UNEP Industry and Environment – Special issue 2000