Sustainable Development Principles for the Disposal of Mining and Mineral Processing Wastes

5/21/2018 Sustainable Development Principles for the Disposal of Mining and Mineral P...

http:///reader/full/sustainable-development-principles-for-the-disposal-of-mining-and-mi

Sustainable development principles for the disposal of mining and mineralprocessing wastes

Daniel M. Franks a,n, David V. Boger b,1, Claire M. Cote c,2, David R. Mulligan d,3

a Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland, Sustainable Minerals Institute, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australiab The University of Melbourne, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australiac Centre for Water in the Minerals Industry, The University of Queensland, Sustainable Minerals Institute, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4072, Australiad Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, The University of Queensland, Sustainable Minerals Institute, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 11 June 2010

Received in revised form

10 December 2010

Accepted 10 December 2010Available online 11 January 2011

JEL classification:

L72

N50

O19

Keywords:

Sustainable development

Tailings

Waste management

Policy

Mining

a b s t r a c t

This paper examines the minerals industrys response to sustainable development in the area of waste

disposal and argues thatleadership and guidance are still needed to forge collective agreement on norms

and standards of practise. To encourage further debate, the paper develops a set of sustainable

development principles for the disposal of mining and mineral processing wastes, and discusses the

implications forcurrent and future practise. In practise, the principlescan guide waste disposal decisions

through the consideration of what risk and magnitude, in any given local context, a particular

management solution poses to their application. The sustainability challenge in the management of

tailings and waste rock is to dispose of material, such that it is inert or, if not, stable and contained, to

minimise water and energy inputs and the surface footprint of wastes and to move toward finding

alternate uses. Future trends in mining and processing may compound the challenges of waste

management, as lower ore grades increase the ratio of waste produced for a given unit of resource,

and emphasise the urgency and need for the industry to adopt new approaches. New technologies and

innovations, such as thickened tailings, dry stacking and paste backfill, have greatly increased the waste

disposal methods available to meet the future challenges to sustainable development.

&2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Incidents of poor waste management practise are amongst the

most conspicuous features of the global minerals industry. Tailings

spills, dam failures, seepage, unrehabilitated sites and cases of

directdischarge into waterways canresult in severeand long-term

environmental and social consequences (Van Zyl, 1993; ICME and

UNEP, 1998; Hart, 2007; Franks, 2007; Spitz and Trudinger, 2009;

Fourie, 2009). Mine and mineral processing wastes have the

potential to leave environmental, social and economic legacies

for thousands of years (Kempton et al., 2010), as evidenced by sitessuch as the Rio Tinto estuary in Spain, where surface water

contamination is still present from historic mining as early as

4500 years ago (Leblanc et al., 2000).

The legacy of poor waste management continues to dispropor-

tionately shape the reputation of the minerals industry, the will-

ingness of governments and communities to support new

operations, the approach of governments towards their choice of

policy instruments, and the calculations of risk made by financial

institutions and investors (Boger, 2009; Boger and Hart, 2008).

Exploitation of lower ore grades and the associated increase in

waste per unit resource (Mudd, 2010), and competitionover water

and other resources (Kemp et al., 2010), have the potential to

compound the future challenges of wastemanagement.While poor

waste management canlead to substantial liabilities for the public,it can also impose costs on mining and minerals processing

companies by eroding share value, increasing the risks of tempor-

ary or permanent shut down, exposure to compensation, fines and

litigation costs, lost future opportunities and increased remedia-

tion and monitoring, to name a few.

Despite these risks, there remains a lack of consensus amongst

companies, peak industry bodies, investors, international financial

institutions, civil society organisations and governments on how

wastemanagement practicescan meetthe challenge of sustainable

development (MMSD, 2002). For example, some resource compa-

nies, such as BHP Billiton, have now ruledout thepractise oftailings

disposal directly into waterways (see BHP Billiton, 2009), while

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage:www .elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

Resources Policy

0301-4207/$- see front matter& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2010.12.001

n Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3346 3164, fax: + 61 7 3346 4045.

E-mail addresses:[email protected] (D.M. Franks),

[email protected] (D.V. Boger),[email protected] (C.M. Cote),

[email protected] (D.R. Mulligan).1 Tel.: +61 3 8344 7440, fax: +61 3 8344 6233.2 Tel.: +61 7 3346 4012, fax: +61 7 3346 4045.3 Tel.: +61 7 3346 4050, fax: +61 7 3346 4056.

Resources Policy 36 (2011) 114122
http://-/?-http://www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpolhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_9/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2010.12.001mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_9/dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000623http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_9/dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000623mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_9/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2010.12.001http://www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpolhttp://-/?-



others continue to utilise such techniques. The Norwegian Pension

Fund Global has divested from a number of operations based on an

assessment of their tailings disposal techniques, including cases of

direct disposal (Government Pension FundGlobal, 2008,2009). The

issue of direct disposal is contrasted by the increased use of paste

and thickened tailings technologies which have the potential to

dramatically improve the waste management outcomes with

respect to sustainable development (Nguyen and Boger, 1998;

Sofraand Boger, 2002; Jewell and Fourie, 2006; Boger et al., 2006;Boger, 2009; Fourie, 2009). Thediversity of perspectives reflects, in

part, the individual circumstances faced by different governments,

companies and investors and the local contexts in which they

operate. However, it also arises as a consequence of an absence of

clear policy guidance on the conditions that need to be met to

ensure responsible waste disposal andthe lack of a policy response

by international institutions and peak industry bodies.

While the management of mining and minerals processing

wastes encompasses a broad array of issues across the waste

hierarchy (reducereuserecycletreatdispose), this paper

focuses on the issue of waste disposal. The reduction, reuse,

recycling and treatment of mining and minerals processing waste

are increasingly receiving greater research and development

attention for their contribution to improving the sustainability ofthemineralsindustry (see,for example, vanBeers et al.(2007)). The

reuse of mining and minerals processing waste, if inert, can offset

the impacts that would have been generated by the replaced

material, and reduce the amount of waste produced per given unit

of resource. Reprocessing of waste has the potential to provide an

economic opportunity to rehabilitate historical sites into stable

landforms. Improved processing efficiency can provide the means

for ore minerals to be recovered from historic mining and minerals

processing waste, and an economic incentive for rehabilitation.

Thereis, however, also muchto be gained from bettermanagement

of wastes, which continue to be produced in high volumes in most

contemporary and foreseeable mineral developments.

This paper asks the questions: (1) what does the responsible

disposal of mining and minerals processing waste look like in light

of the sustainable development agenda? And (2) what policy

guidance is availableto theindustry to help navigatethe suitability

of various wastedisposalmethods to their local context?To answer

these questions, the paper traverses the various sustainable

development initiatives of the global minerals industry, including

the Global Mining Initiative, the World Bank Extractive Industries

Review and theInternational Councilon Mining andMetals (ICMM)

with respect to the issue of waste disposal. In light of this analysis,

the paper distils a set of principles to guide responsible disposal of

mining and minerals processing wastes and discusses the implica-

tions for past, current and future practise.

Waste and the minerals industry response to sustainable

development

Sustainable development is a concept which attempts to shape

the interaction between the environment and society, such that

advances in wellbeing are not accompanied by deterioration of the

ecological andsocial systems whichwill support life into the future

(WCED, 1987). Due to the importance of mineral resources to

contemporary society, debates about mining and sustainability at

the global and national level have focussed on the issue of renew-

ability, resource access and endowment, consumption rates and

appropriate use (Hilson and Murck, 2000). At the local scale, the

issue of renewability is less relevant. While it is true that mineral

resources are not readily renewable, due to the slow timescales by

which bio-geophysical systems replenish ore bodies, it is also true

that minerals targeted for extraction are less fundamental to the

function of ecosystems supported above them than the way that

for example, timber is fundamental to a forest.

Instead, much of the sustainable development debate at the

scale of a mining or mineral processing operation is necessarily

focused on the challenge of if,where, and/orhow, the developmen

might proceed without significantly disturbing the ecosystems

communities and economies overlying and surrounding minera

deposits and processing sites and the issues that need to be

considered to make such a determination.The management of mining and minerals processing wastes is

therefore a fundamental sustainable development issue. The ele-

ments and compounds uncovered and liberated through mining

and processing, which are not usually part of the ecologica

systems (in such a form or concentration) have the potential to

alter the receiving environment to its detriment. Most mining and

minerals processing wastes contain minerals which are formed at

higher temperatures and pressures at the geological depth. When

exposed to surficialconditions,or as a result of processing, mineral

may breakdown releasing elements from their mineralogica

bindings which may not be easily absorbed by unaccustomed

ecosystems without impact. It is precisely, because these elements

did not interact with the overlying ecosystems before mining

that they may pose issues to ecosystems and communities post-mining.

Following the release of the Brundtland Report by the UN

World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 and

the UN Conference on Environment and Development, held at Rio de

Janeiro in 1992, the minerals industry undertook a series of con-

sultations to better understand the relationship between resource

extraction and sustainable development. Through such fora as the

Global Mining Initiative (19992002), the World Banks Extractive

Industry Review (20012004), and the International Council on

Mining and Metals (formed in 2001), the industry has sought to

position itself as a positive contributor to the sustainable develop-

ment agenda.

As part of the Global Mining Initiative, the World Busines

Council for Sustainable Development and the International Insti-

tute for Environment and Development undertook a review of the

sustainability of the minerals industry called the Mining, Mineral

and Sustainable Development Project (MMSD). The final reportBreaking New Ground, proposed a series of principles of sustainable

development for the minerals sector, among them to promote

responsible stewardship of natural resources, to remediate past

damage and to minimise waste and environmental impacts along

the supply chain (MMSD, 2002). The report urged that mining and

minerals processing should not leave unacceptable legacies and

long-term damage, should shoulder the costs of remediation, and

should exercise prudence, where potential impacts are not known

With regard to the waste management, the report emphasised the

need to ensure physical and chemical stabilities of the disposed

waste, avoid the release of elevated metals and residual chemicals

into the environment and minimise the water consumptionFinally, the report recommended:

Large-volume wastethe International Council on Mining &

Metals (ICMM) and other appropriate convenors such as UNEP

should initiate a process for developing guidance for the disposal

of overburden, waste rock and tailings and the retention of waterMarine disposalindustry,governmentsand NGOsshould agree

on a programme of independent research to assess the risks of

marine and, in particular, deep-sea disposal of mine waste.

Riverine disposala clear commitment by industry and govern-

ments to avoid this practise in any future projects would set a

standard that would begin to penetrate to the smaller compa-

niesand remoter regions,where thisis stillan acceptedpractice

D.M. Franks et al. / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 114122 115



Capacitya source of technical expertise and advice must

be made available to government, insurers, communities,

companies and others to ensure that they can build their

capacity for the best practice (MMSD, 2002).

The World Banks Extractive Industries Review (EIR) generated

similar recommendations, urging the cessation of disposal of

mining waste into rivers and caution in the application of sub-marine tailings disposal (World Bank, 2004).

The ICMM was established in 2001 and is responsible for

carriage of the MMSD recommendations. ICMM has developed

an industry code of practise for member organisations. The only

specific reference to waste in the code is to rehabilitate land

disturbed or occupied by operations in accordance with appro-

priate post-mining land uses and to provide for safe storage and

disposal of residual wastes and process residues (ICMM, 2008b).

Principle six of the code is to seek continual improvement in an

environmental performance. The principle commits members to:

assess thepositive and negative, thedirect and the indirect andthe

cumulativeenvironmental impacts of new projectsfromexplora-

tion through closure; implement an environmental management

system focused on continual improvement to review, prevent,

mitigate or ameliorate adverse environmental impacts; rehabili-

tate land disturbed or occupied by operations in accordance with

an appropriate post-mining land uses; provide for safe storage and

disposal of residual wastes and process residues; design and plan

all operations, so that adequate resources are available to meet the

closure requirements of all operations (ICMM, 2008b).

The ICMM has developed position statements and guidance in

support of the industry code, including a guide on mine closure,

although has yet to produce a specific position statement or

guidance document on mine waste management in the nine years,

since the MMSD recommendations. The centrality of mining and

minerals processing wastes to the sustainable development agenda

and the disproportionate impact tailings has on community

perceptions of the industry are important reasons why such

guidance is necessary. The difficulty of achieving industry con-sensus notwithstanding, guidance on mining and minerals proces-

sing waste disposal couldforge collective agreementon norms and

principles and set standards for practise. In the absence of an

industry position, the environmental guidelines of international

financial institutions have become the de facto standards for the

industry.4 These guidelines demonstrate a preference for conven-

tional tailings storage facilities, although are only relevant for

projects seeking assistance from the particular funds (Hart, 2007).

The ICMM organisational website has a number of case studies on

tailings facility failure. The ICMM guide Planning for Integrated Mine

Closuremakes reference to the need to cap and cover tailings storage

facilities, and to monitor sites post-closure for their chemical and

physical stabilities, but does not explore mining and minerals

processing waste disposal issues in depth (ICMM, 2008a). A recentICMM and Euromines guidance document has been produced on the

classification of ores as hazardous substances with reference to the

European Union REACH initiative (ICMM and Euromines, 2009).

In 2005, the ICMM, in partnership with the International

Commission on Large Dams, launched the information portal

Tailings:good practice to provide resources on tailings manage-

ment, as part of a broader website on sustainable development in

the mining and metals sectors. At the time of writing the site is no

longer available. The site referred readers to the literature, includ-

ing the Australian Government leading practice guidelines on

Mine Rehabilitation, Tailings Management and Managing Acid

and Metalliferous Drainage5 (Department of Industry, Tourism and

Resources, 2006, 2007a, 2007b), the International Council on

Metals and the Environment and the United Nations Environment

Programme Case studies on Tailings Management (ICME and

UNEP, 1998), theMining Association of Canadas, 1998 Guide to

the Management of Tailings Facilities and various other research

reports predominantly concentrating on the topic of tailings

storage facilities. The site did not host any reports on the particularissues faced by direct disposal of mine waste or with advice on the

selection of mining and minerals processing waste management

techniques.

In summary, mining and mineral processing wastes are recog-

nised both insideand outside of theindustry as issuesof significant

consequence that disproportionately affect the industrys perfor-

mance and shape the industrys reputation, and that still demand

leadership and guidance. The following section draws from the

analysis and resources listed above to distil principles relevant to

decision makers in the industry and government.

Sustainable development principles for the disposal of miningand mineral processing wastes

In the absence of an international consensus, this paper

proposes a set of principles to guide the disposal of mining and

mineral processing wastes. The question that directs the choice of

principles is what characteristics must a given waste disposal

solution exhibit, in the context of local conditions, for mining and

mineral processing to proceed, without significantly disturbing the

ecosystems, communities and economies overlying and surround-

ing ore deposits and processing facilities? The principles are

applicable to the various techniques currently applied to manage

wastes and the different types of solid wastes produced by mining

and minerals processing, including overburden, tailings, waste

rock, heap leach piles and in-situ leached rock. The principlesprovide a set of ideals. In practise, the principles can guide waste

disposal decisions through the consideration of what risk and

magnitude, in any given local context, a particular management

solution poses to their application.

Stable

Principle 1. Mining and mineral processing wastes should be man-

aged, such that it remains physically, geographically, chemically and

radiologically stable.

The techniques adopted to dispose mining and mineral proces-

sing wastes should aim to ensure the stability of waste over the

long-term. Geographic and physical stabilities refer to the ability to

withstand environmental and climatic changes, such as earth-

quakes, storms and erosion. Chemical stability refers to the

decomposition of minerals over time and the propensity to release

elements (commonly as acid and metalliferous drainage) and

organic compounds (DITR, 2007a). Radiological stability refers to

the propensity for atoms to decay over time and release radiation

(Lottermoser and Ashley, 2006; Mudd, 2008).

4 Theacademic literatureis similarlythin on policyguidance, with,for example,

only one article (Mudd, 2007) published in resources policy which contains the

words tailings or mine waste in its abstract, title or keyword.

5 The leading practice Tailings Management guide only covers tailings storage

facilities as direct disposal into waterways is not permitted by the Australian

regulations (Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2007a).

D.M. Franks et al. / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 114122116



Inert

Principle 2. Mining and mineral processing wastes that interact with

the environment should be inert, i.e., equivalent(in form, concentra-

tion, location, volume, time and rate) to material and chemicals

already within the same ecosystem.

Principle 3. Mining and mineral processing wastes that are not inert

should be isolated, be as inert as practicable, and in a form that iscompatible with the adopted waste management technique and the

sensitivity of the ecosystem and social context.

Mining and mineral processing wastes that are incompatible

with their environment can present major social and ecological

risks and should be isolated in a form that limits interaction and

subsequent mobilisation. Uncontained waste that interacts with

the environment should be inert and must not interact in such a

way as to have significant adverse effects on an ecosystemfunction,

species or ecological and social communities, such as those

resulting from processes such as dust mobilisation and surface

water and/or groundwater seepage (DITR, 2007a). The rate,

volume, form, location and timing of waste disposal can be as

important as concentration. Moreover average values may maskecologically significant short-term spikes. Isolated wastes should

be as inert as possible and, in addition to managing/minimising the

availability and exposure risks to heavy metal contaminants,

potentially toxic elements and compounds arising from the

chemical additions in the process plant, should also be minimised.

Isolated wastes should be managed consistent with their toxicity.

For example, highly toxic material should not be stored using a

technique which has a possibility of failure, or in a location of

ecological or social sensitivity or risk.

Contained

Principle 4. Mining and mineral processing wastes should be con-

tained, i.e., geographically bounded, exhibit a minimal footprint in a

location of acceptably low ecological and social values and be in

physical and chemical forms, given local conditions, that limits

interaction with the surrounding environment.

Wastes should be contained in a geographical position which is

small and bounded. Geographically bounded refers to the natural

barriers which reduce opportunities for environmental interaction

over the long-term. The footprint where wastes are located should

be environmentally and socially acceptable to the communities

that value the location. While such a determination is locally

specific; in most cases, this means that the footprint should not

significantly disturb ecosystem and social functions and values.

Local context and continuous improvement


aged in a manner consistent with the environmental and social

conditions of each location. The determination of acceptability of

the disposal technique should include the views of stakeholders.


aged to minimise active post-closure management, inputs (such as

water and energy)and the volume of wastes generated per volume of

an extracted ore.

Principle 7. Mining, mineral processing and waste management

technologies which offer improved environmental and social perfor-

mance and a smaller surface footprint should be preferentially

adopted. Opportunities for re-use of waste material should be pursued

when practicable.

Finally, waste management should minimise inputs such as

water and energy. Mining and mineral processing wastes have the

potential to generate long-term, even perpetual risks (Kempton

et al., 2010). As such rehabilitation should be designed to avoid the

need for active post-closure management. Waste managemen

should be consistent with the local context, in which the waste is

situated. The physical and chemical nature of the tailings, site

topography and/or bathymetry, climatic conditions, production

rate and mine life, location of mine processing facilities, socio-

economic factors, baseline conditions, community and ecosystem

sensitivities and values can all significantly influence mine waste

management outcomes. The views of stakeholders should be

canvassed to determine the acceptability of the disposal method

Stakeholders disproportionately affected should have a greate

influence on the decision making.

Mining, processing and waste management technologies that

offer improved environmental and social performance should be

preferentially adopted. For example paste, thickening technologie

and the useof backfilling canreduce thesurfacefootprintof mining

and mineral processing wastes improve water recovery and aid

rehabilitation efforts through greater solid density (Boger, 2009)Declining oregrades andthe associated increase in waste per given

unit of resource (Mudd, 2010) emphasise the urgency and need fo

the adoption of such techniques. Improved mine planning can also

address contamination and waste management issues (Napier

Munn et al., 2008); for example, by targeting the extraction of ore

such that the ratio of mine waste stripping as a function of ore

extraction is improved. Geological mapping of the distribution of

potential contaminants and gangue mineralogy can assist mine

planning and decision making during feasibility studies (Kwong

2009).

Discussion: implications for current and future practise

The implications of the principles for common waste disposal

techniques, including wastestoragefacilities (conventional tailing

dams, paste and thickened tailings, overburden and waste rock

dumps, and heap leach piles) and direct discharge of mine waste

(river and submarine tailings disposal, and in-situ leaching) are

now discussed in light of the principles outlined above. The

suitability of each technique to the principles will depend on the

context of each local situation. The following discussion is by no

means exhaustive, but provides a picture of how the principles

might be applied in practise to guide waste management decision

making. Further resources can be found inSalomons and Forstner

(1988), Vick (1990), Jewell and Fourie (2006), Dixon-Hardy and

Engels (2007),Spitz and Trudinger (2009)andBoger (2009).

Conventional tailings dams

Conventional tailings dams are the most common form o

mineral processing waste management utilised by the minerals

industry. Tailings dams isolate the waste material from the

surrounding ecosystems through storage and containment. Tail-

ings are most commonly piped into dams as a wet slurry with the

dam wall progressively built as the volume of waste materia

increases. Tailings dams may utilise topographic depressions (such

as valley impoundments) or be entirely engineered (such as ring

dykes;Vick, 1990; Dixon-Hardy and Engels, 2007). Conventiona

tailings dams are best suited to semi-arid and arid environments

where precipitation does not exceed evaporation. In wetter envir-

onments, where sub-aqueous deposition is often practiced as a




means of reducing oxidationof potentially acid-generating wastes,

high precipitationmay lead to excess water that requires discharge

and treatment and increase the risks relating to the physical

stability of the dam and its containment/bunding structures.

Long-term physical stability can be a challengefor conventional

tailings dams. Tailings dam failures account for most mining-

related environmental incidents. The physical stability of tailings

storage facilities varies with the amount of stored water withinthe

tailings (Spitz and Trudinger, 2009). Structural failure can result indestructive flooding and inundation of downstream environments

(Rico et al., 2008). According toICOLD and UNEP (2001), the main

causes of failure and incidents are lack of control of the water

balance, the lack of control and consistency of construction,

due to the progressive nature of tailings dam construction and

the lack of understanding of the features which contribute to safe

operations. Natural hazards, such as earthquakes, are factors in

only a minority of cases of failure. The stability of tailings reten-

tion structures is improved when they are designed as water

retention structures; i.e., where the embankments are designed

to provide all of the strength and sealing properties of a water

storage dam.

The chemicalstabilityof the tailings canalsobe anissue. Erosion

and seepage can present a containment challenge. Water leachingthrough tailings dams can accumulate elements at elevated con-

centrations and further break down metal sulphides, commonly

generating acidic conditions (DITR, 2007a, 2007b; Edraki et al.,

2005). The creation of anoxic conditions by keeping tailings under

water (only possible in higher precipitation environments) can

improve chemical stability, but often at the expense of the physical

stability of the dam and the increased risk of seepage into ground

and surface waters. Rehabilitation, revegetation and the capping of

dams can reduce the erosion of tailings at the surface and restrict

water infiltration and the subsequent chemical alterations and

oxidation of underlying tailings which can result in the generation

of metal-contaminated groundwater. Tailings dams, however, can

take a longtime to consolidate,and thus delayrehabilitation efforts

(Vick, 1990). The recovery of seepage from groundwater may be

required for long periods of time even after mine closure, if

inadequate or inappropriate dam construction has resulted in

groundwater contamination.Kempton et al. (2010), for example,

canvass the necessity for perpetual environmental management at

some sites.

Paste and thickened tailings

Increasingly, paste and thickened tailings techniques are being

used more widely, due to a larger range of thickener technologies,

reduced costs, increased familiarity and access to expert knowl-

edge, and increased water scarcity at some localities (Jewell and

Fourie, 2006; Boger, 2009). Paste and thickened tailings refers to a

continuum of tailings with high solid concentrations and higheryield stress, due to the greater level of fluid removal from tailings

before disposal. Conventional tailings typically range 3050%

solids, thickened tailings 5575% and paste over 75% (solid con-

centrations vary with particle size and shape, clay content, miner-

alogy, electrostatic forces and flocculant dosing). Paste and

thickened tailings can require additional capital expenditure but,

over the long-term, thickening techniques may result in decreased

management, lower dam construction and rehabilitation costs and

significantly lower water use. Thickened tailings require transport

by centrifugal pumps, while paste tailings utilise positive displace-

ment pumps and high pressure piping (Boger, 2009).

The thickening of tailings waste has the potential to store waste

material in a more stableand inert form, andcontained in a smaller

footprint. Stability is improved by the increased density of the

material, steeper beach slopes and the ability to rehabilitate more

quickly, due to the shorter time frame required for sufficient

consolidation to have occurred to allow safe access. The improved

water and process chemical recovery, reduced quantity of decant

water and the reduction of pore water and pore space can assist

the reduction of the volume and potential toxicity of seepage and

result in a more inert residual waste material. Water reclaimed

during the thickening process can be recycled, thus reducing water

inputs (Cote et al., 2009). Paste and thickened tailings occupy acomparatively smaller storage area, when compared to the con-

ventional techniques. This is particularly the case for dry stacking

techniques, whereby the material is spread onto drying pans, dried

in the environment and layered, and transported for disposal. Paste

may be backfilled into mining voids to dramatically reduce the

surface footprint and the demand for storage facilities, improve

structural support and manage subsidence in underground

operations.

Direct disposal

The direct disposal of mining and mineral processing wastes

into rivers, oceans and lakes presents significant technical, socialand environmental challenges to sustainable development. River-

ine tailings disposal (RTD) is the direct discharge of mine process

tailings into rivers. Overburden is also sometimes co-disposed

during RTD. Riverine tailings disposal is relatively uncommon, but

is still practiced in parts of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea (e.g.

Salomons,1995; Brunskillet al., 2004;Swansonet al., 2008;Bolton,

2009). Riverine tailings disposal is conspicuous and visible andhas

come to characterise the industry in the public consciousness. The

technique is often considered in circumstances, where rugged

topography, highrainfall, seismic activity,high groundwater levels,

the lack of cross-valley locations and the absence of suitable

embankment material preclude the impoundment of tailings. The

method attracts low up front costs, although is clearly a method of

mine waste disposal that has been responsible for cases of serious

pollution (e.g.Plumlee et al., 2000; Lee and Correa, 2005; Bolton,

2009). According to the final report of the MMSD (2002), the

experiences of RTD are overwhelmingly negative.

It is difficult to envisage circumstances, where RTD could meet

the principles as previously outlined. Direct discharge creates

opportunities for interaction with the environment and rivers do

not create environmental conditions of containment. Mine waste,

particularly tailings, is generally not inert and must be isolated

from interacting with the environment. Sedimentation, process

chemicals such as cyanide, metal mobilisation and acidity can

change the physicaland chemical form of rivers, increase the risk of

flooding anddieback of the surroundingvegetation, andmay cause

damage to aquatic ecosystems. Finer sediments may impact down-

stream estuaries. Even in circumstances, where waste material is

chemically inert,the volume of waste mayoverload thecapacity ofthe river, increasing turbidity and breaching banks (Bolton, 2009).

Engineered solutions to contain wastes with levies may still result

in an unacceptably large sacrificial footprint. Uncontained and

potentially toxic waste may continue to erode at accelerated rates

into perpetuity. Communities that rely on rivers may experience

economic, social and health impacts. In such circumstances, the

social andenvironmentalrisks to an operationand to communities

in the vicinity of operations dramatically increase. Conflict and a

breakdownof social licence to operate may expose organisationsto

significant long-term costs, particularly where downstream

impacted communities are not party to agreements for the mining

project (Boege and Franks, in press).

Submarine tailings disposal (STD) refers to the direct discharge

of mine process tailings into theocean. There aretwo distinct types




of STD.6 The first is the disposal of wastes at the ocean surface.

Historical examples of ocean surface tailings disposal are consid-

ered by many to be some of the worst examples of past industrial

pollution in the world with the clear potential for, and/orreality of,

very significant social, health and environmental effects (Castilla

and Correa, 1997; UNEP, 1997; Plumlee et al., 2000; Lee et al.,

2006). Ocean surface tailings disposal does not provide any

containment of waste material, chemical and physical interaction

with the environment and the potential for contamination is high,ocean mixing and erosion continues into perpetuity, and highly

productive areas of the ocean can be significantly modified.

Uncontained beached waste can remobilise by wave, tidal and

wind erosion.

The second type of STD is the disposal of wastes at depth, below

the maximum depth of the surface mixing layer, the euphotic zone

(the depth reached only by 1% of the photosynthetically active

light), and the upwelling zone. This type of tailings disposal is

known as deep-sea tailings placement (DSTP). DSTP is not that

common (and only certain physical locations around the world

make it an option considered by the minerals industry in the first

instance), but where it is possible, it is increasingly being con-

sidered in circumstances,where land is restricted in rugged terrain

or islands with little space, or where precipitation exceeds eva-poration and excess water needs to be discharged from a tailings

dam or there is risk of earthquakes.

Some proponents of DSTP (e.g.Ellis et al., 1995; Jones and Ellis,

1995; Poling et al., 2002; Ellis, 2008) argue that the technique

should be considered where:

tailings can be demonstrated to be non-toxic at their point of

discharge into the marine environment and do not leach metals

and other potential contaminants into the water column;

the proposed site has a low biological resource value;

the transportroute has a lowriskof spilling orupwellingintothe

upper photosynthetic zone of the marine environment;

the wastes contain no residual toxic reagents;

coral reefs are protected from sedimentation; and there is no subsequent dispersal into the upper euphotic zone.

According to Poling (2002), DSTP is a significant alternative

tailing storage technology that can and is competing successfully

with on-land storage alternatives in a wide variety of political

jurisdictions and environmental sensitivities. The advantages of

the technique are argued to be that tailings may be more stable on

the ocean floor, if in a depression or canyon, than in an impound-

ment; that there are reduced oxidation opportunities in the

submarine environment, thus reducing the breakdown of minerals

to release metals and making thewaste more chemically stable; up

front capital and operating costs are lower; the alkalinity of

seawater inhibits mobilisation of metals; there is a lower risk of

contamination of the freshwater systems surrounding mines; andthe technique is more visually aesthetic (Poling, 2002).

There arealso significant disadvantages andrisksof DSTP which

are acknowledged by some advocates. All DSTP systems have an

impact on ecosystems. This may take the form of a benthic

footprint, topographic alteration of the sea floor, the release of

leachable toxins and residual chemicals, if present in the waste, or

impacts on fisheries and other socio-environmental impacts on

communities which rely on the ocean. According toPoling (2002),

DSTPcan present the prospectof bothacute and chronictoxicities,

bioaccumulation of metals and habitat alteration. DSTP also

demonstrates higher risks of contamination due to rupture of

the transport system (pipelines are located in high energy envir-

onments and carry abrasive material; Shimmield et al. (2010))

reduced options for remediation after disposal (material cannot

easily be re-dredged);delays in permitting; loweropportunities fo

water recycling; greater baseline and monitoring costs (specialised

ocean studies) and longer monitoring periods, and greater socia

risks.7

The technique is based on the assumption that the waste is

physically contained by the ocean thermocline and will not be re-mobilised in surface water, chemically contained by the alkalinity

and reduced oxygen of seawater, and is geographically stable after

deposition in ocean depressions or canyons.

Currently, there is a lack of peer-reviewed and independent

scientific studies to verify these assumptions, a situation acknowl

edged byPoling (2002)and the findings of theMMSD (2002).8 In

2010, the Scottish Association for Marine Science published a deep

water study of the ecological and geochemical processes which

accompany DSTP at two sites in Papua New Guinea (Shimmield

et al., 2010). Baselineinformation was also gatheredat another site

where DSTP is planned. In comparison to reference sites at both

DSTP locations, the study found significant impacts to the compo-

sition of small sediment-dwelling animals (meiofauna), the

abundance and diversity of larger sediment-dwelling animals(macrofauna), and elevated metal concentrations in suspended

material and sediment that corresponded to the distance from the

outfall. Sampling undertaken three years after the cessation o

DSTP at one site still demonstrated significant impacts on the

abundance and diversity of the benthic community. The study

concluded that an ongoing DSTP at one site has a major impact on

the abundance and diversity of animals in deep-sea sediments

and that where it is incorrectly designed or badly managed DSTP

can also cause serious damage to coastal resourcesand, potentially

communities (Shimmield et al. (2010), 11, 13).The study developed

best practise guidelines should DSTP be chosen as a tailings

management option. Until such a time when there is a greater

understanding of the risks and costs of DSTP, a strong case can be

made that the precautionary principle should apply.

Heap leaching

Heap leaching is a common method for the extraction of metal

from ores for some commodities, such as gold and copper. Heap

leaching consists of the excavation and crushing of ore, placemen

on an impermeable membrane and irrigation with a reagent to

promote decomposition of ore minerals and mobilisation and

capture of the desired metal. The residual piles are a form o

mineral processing waste. They may be rehabilitated, but are

sometimes left unrehabilitated in the landscape. Heap leach piles

face many of the same physical andchemical stabilitychallengesas

6 In addition to marine disposal, mining wastes have also been disposed into

lakes (Spitz and Trudinger, 2009).

7 STD has attracted debate, opposition and civil society attention, and ha

exposed some organisations to significant public controversies. In 2004, fo

example, in the final year of operation of Newmonts Minahasa Raya mine in

Indonesia, community members at Buyat beach linked the death of a child to the

DSTP into the bay. The event resulted in international media scrutiny, significant

reputational damage for Newmont, and the indictment of Newmont Indonesia

PresidentDirectoron criminal charges of pollution in theManado District Court(he

was later acquitted in April 2007). This was despite Newmont maintaining tha

scientific evidence supported their position that the bay was not polluted

(Newmont, 2006).8 Proponents of DSTP(e.g. Ellis et al., 1995; Polinget al., 2002; Ellis, 2008) poin

to the Island Copper mine, Canada, as a successful example of STD, though the

success of the case is disputed. The mine was the first to use an engineered

submarinetailings disposal system. Polinget al.(2002) claim that IslandCopper ha

demonstrated no effect on fisheries and no heavy metal bioaccumulation to any

significant extent, though there was an observed reduction in the benthi

biodiversity. According toBurd (2002), however, tailings and elevated copper have

dispersed over a 1620 km radius from the outfall.




conventional tailings dams. There are also stability challenges

unique to the technique, which include increased erosion, due to

the physical form of the material and the often unconsolidated

nature of the waste, the long-term integrity of membranes and the

contribution of membranes to an increased risk of physical

instability of heap leach piles during earthquakes (Thiel and

Smith, 2004). When heap leach piles are left uncontained and

unrehabilitated, there is an increased risk of chemical and physical

erosions of the waste. The containment of the irrigation reagentsduring processing can also present a challenge, particularly for

spray-type systems which can be blown onto surrounding ecosys-

tems or communities (Franks et al., 2010).

In-situ leaching

In-situ leaching (ISL) is a relatively uncommon mining process

technique, whereby reagents are pumped into in-situ ore bodies

with the aim to dissolve desired ore minerals into solution for

extraction and further processing. ISL is most commonly used for

certain types of uranium deposits, but can also be adapted for

particular copper or gold deposits depending on the local condi-

tions and issues.

In-situ leached rock can also be considered as a form of mineralprocessing waste. The leached rock has a high physical stability, as

it remains relatively consolidated in its original position (depend-

ing on the extent of artificial permeability enhancement). The

containment of potential contaminants mobilised as a result of

leaching into groundwater, however, can be a challenge for in-situ

leaching facilities and a long-term source of contamination.

Remediation of contaminated groundwater has proved difficult

(Mudd, 2001). Techniques to isolate such wastes may provide

opportunities for containment. The return of anoxic conditions

post-leaching can reduce the further decomposition of minerals.

Wast rock dumps and backfilling

Overburden andwaste rock are typically storedin waste dumps

surrounding mining operations. Open-cut operations, in particular,

generate large volumes of excavated rock that ore deposits overly

(overburden; Mudd (2010)). Some of this rock is non-mineralised

(such as sandstone or limestone), while other rocks can contain

sulphidic gangue minerals, as well as ore minerals at grades not

high enough to be considered ore, and hence not worthy of

processing.

In locations of low rainfall, the risk of erosion and the potential

for geochemical changes which cancause release of toxic elements

may be low and not necessitate additional containment of the

waste material. In such circumstances, waste material may

remaininert andstable. Wind erosion, however can be a significant

mobiliser of contaminants, at some arid localities (e.g. Lottermoser

and Ashley (2006)). In areas where high rainfall and/or highintensity rainfall events can occur, erosion may lead to the

interaction of wastes with the environment. Waste rock containing

metal sulphides presents particular challenges for responsible

waste management in such environments. Following excavation

and exposure of sulphide ores to the vastly different surficial

environmental conditions, the minerals can oxidise and produce

undesirable decomposition products. This process is the inevitable

result of the re-equilibration of minerals formed at high tempera-

tures to weathering conditions on the surface. During this process,

potential contaminants can be released and mobilised, particularly

in the acidic environment often created during the dissolution

of the sulphides. This process is commonly known as acid rock

drainage (ARD), acid mine drainage or acid and metalliferous

drainage (AMD) (Akcil and Koldas, 2006; DITR, 2007b). It should

be noted that acidic conditions are not necessarily the only

conditions under which metals in dissolution are mobile. The

neutralisation of the acid by dilution or reaction with, for example,

carbonates (limestone) may not halt the mobilisation of some

contaminants. Apart from those occurring in the driest of environ-

ments, waste dumps usually require techniques, such as capping

and rehabilitation with vegetation, to minimise water infiltration.

In those circumstances where deep drainage through mineralised

wastes still occurs, ongoing treatment of seepage by various activeand/or passive methods may be required.

Overburden, waste rock and dried tailings may also be placed

into mining voids to reduce the surface footprint and demand for

surface dumps, a technique referred to as dry backfilling (Dixon-

Hardy and Engels, 2007). Dry backfill can exhibit high physical and

chemical stabilities and containment in a dramatically reduced

footprint. However, the volume expansion of mined material, the

costs of double handling and transport of the material, the green-

house and energy implications of transport, the remaining poten-

tial for generation of leachate and subsequent containment of

seepage that mayarise, andissues related to temporarystorage,are

all factors which can limit the application of this method. The back

loading of ore haul trucks (where waste is loaded for the return

journey) or the use of conveyers may provide solutions to the issueof double handling.

Summary of discussion

In summary, conventional tailings dams are the most common

form of waste disposal, although their long-term physical stability

can be a challenge. Tailings dam failures account for most mining-

related environmental incidents. The chemical stability of the

tailings can also be an issue. Erosion and seepage can present

containment problems, particularly over long timescales. Conven-

tional tailings dams best meet the principles when situated in arid

and semi-arid environments, where there is limited interaction

with water. In such environments, however, water scarcity is

motivating greater recovery of water from tailings, and increasing

theuse of thickening methods. The thickening of tailings waste has

the potential to store waste material in a more stable and inert

form, and contained in a smaller footprint. Water reclaimedduring

the thickening process can be recycled, thus reducing water inputs.

Direct disposal can pose great risks to the achievement of the

principles as outlined here. Direct discharge into rivers and at the

ocean surface does not provide containment of waste material and

establishes inevitable interactions with the external environment.

Mining and mineral processing wastes, particularly tailings, are

generally not inert and must be isolated from interaction with the

environment. Even in circumstances where waste material is

chemically inert, the volume of waste may overload the capacity

of ecosystems. Advocates of DSTP argue that the containment and

stability issues that confront other forms of direct discharge areovercome if the waste material is discharged in the ocean at depth.

The residual piles from heap leachingand excavatedwasterock,

and spent rock from an in-situ leaching, are also forms of mining

and mineral processing wastes. Heap leach piles present many of

the same challenges as conventional tailings dams in terms of

chemical/geochemical alterations and physical erosion and long-

term stability. Depending on local circumstances, the containment

of the irrigation reagents and mobilisation of potential contami-

nants can be an issue in both heap leaching and in-situ leaching

operations.

The stabilityof overburden andwasterockalso varies according

to the local environmental conditions. In localities where wastehas

the opportunity to interact with water it may not remain inert and

can present contamination problems.Capping and rehabilitationof



http:///reader/full/sustainable-development-principles-for-the-disposal-of-mining-and-m

waste storage facilities with vegetation can minimise water

infiltration and physical erosion. Dry backfilling presents an

opportunity to improve the containment and stability of tailings,

waste rock and overburden.

Conclusions

This paper has observed industrys response to sustainabledevelopment with regard to the disposal of mining and mineral

processing wastes and argued that further guidance is needed to

forge collective agreement on norms and standards of practise.

Further, presented for ongoing discussion and debate is a set of

principles for the disposal of mining and mineral processing

wastes. These principles can be used to guide future practise by

considering what risk and magnitude, in any given local context, a

particular management technique poses to their application. That

is, the principles are a set of ideals developed from the perspective

of sustainable development.Industry mustlook beyond short-term

costs to considerthe totality of environmental, social and economic

costs over the long-term. In cases where there is a high risk of the

disposal alternatives significantly breaching the principles, con-

sideration should be given to alternate waste management stra-tegies. Where the high risk cannot be avoided or reduced,a decision

not to mine in that location maypresentthe most preferable option

from the perspective of sustainable development.

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by an Australasian Institute of

Mining and Metallurgy Bicentennial Gold 88 Endowment. An

earlier version of this research was presented at the First Inter-

national Seminar on Environmental Issues in the Mining Industry,

(Enviromine), 30 September2 October 2009, Santiago, Chile. The

paper benefited from the comments of anonymous reviewers,

which are gratefully acknowledged.

References

Akcil, A., Koldas, S., 2006. Acid mine drainage (AMD): causes, treatment and casestudies. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 11391145.

BHP Billiton, 2009. Our Sustainability Framework:BHP BillitonsPolicies. Standardsand Commitments, Melbourne, Victoria September. 12p.

Boege, V., Franks, D.M., in press Re-opening and developing mines in post-conflictsettings: the challenges of companycommunity relations. In: Lujala, P., Rustad,S.A.(Eds.), StrengtheningPost-conflict Peacebuilding throughNatural ResourceManage-ment, vol. 1, High-Value Resources. The Environmental Law Institute, UnitedNations Environment Programme, University of Tokyo, and Specialist Group onArmed Conflict and the Environment of the International Union for Conservation ofNatures Commission on Environmental Law.

Boger, D.V., 2009. Rheology and the resource industries. Chemical Engineering

Science 64 (22), 45254536.Boger, D.V., Hart, B., 2008. Making an unsustainable industry more sustainable. In:

Proceedings of the 11th International Seminar on Paste and Thickened Tailings,59 May, 2008, Kasane, Botswana, pp. 314.

Boger, D.V., Scales, P.J., Sofra, F., 2006. Rheological Concepts. In: Jewell, R.J., Fourie, A.B.(Eds.), Paste and Thickened Tailings: a Guide. Australian Centre for Geomechanicssecond ed. , pp. 2537 Chapter 3.

Bolton, B.R. (Ed.), 2009. Developments in Earth & Environmental Sciences 9.Elsevier, Sydney.

Brunskill, G.J., Zagorskis, I., Pfitzner, J., Ellison, J., 2004. Sediment and trace elementdepositional history from the Ajkwa River estuarine mangroves of Irian Jaya(West Papua), Indonesia. Continental Shelf Research 24, 25352551.

Burd, B., 2002. Evaluation of mine tailings effects on a benthic marine infaunalcommunity over 29 years. Marine Environmental Research 53, 481519.

Castilla, J., Correa, J., 1997. Copper tailings impacts in coastal ecosystems of northernChile: fromspecies tocommunityresponses. In:Moore,M., Imray,P., Dameron, C.,Callan, P., Langley, A., Mangas, S. (Eds.), Copper. Report of an InternationalMeeting, 2021 June 1996, Brisbane. National Environmental Health Mono-graphs, Metal Series no. 3, National Environmental Health Forum, Australia,

pp. 7180.

Cote, C.M., Moran, C.J., Gozzard, E., Craven, A., Shih, J., 2009. Understanding leadingpractice in water management. Australian Coal Association Research ProgramProject, Project C16035, January.

Departmentof Industry, Tourism andResources, 2006.Mine rehabilitation,. LeadingPractice Sustainable Development Program for the Mining Industry. AustralianGovernment October. 67p.

Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2007a. Tailings managementLeading Practice Sustainable Development Program for the Mining IndustryAustralian Government February. 79p.

Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2007b. Managing acid andmetalliferous drainage, Leading Practice Sustainable Development Programfor the Mining Industry. Australian Government February. 96p..

Dixon-Hardy,D.W.,Engels, J.M., 2007. Methodsfor thedisposaland storage of minetailings. Land Contamination & Reclamation 15 (3), 301317.

Edraki, M., Golding, S.D., Baublys, K.A., Lawrence, M.G., 2005. Hydrochemistry, mineralogyand sulfur isotopegeochemistry of acidmine drainageat theMt. Morgan mineenvironment, Queensland, Australia. Applied Geochemistry 20, 789805.

Ellis, D.V., 2008. The role of deep submarine tailings placement in the mitigation ofmarine pollution for Coastal and Island Mines. In: Hofer, T.N. (Ed.), MarinePollution: New Research. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp. 2351.

Ellis,D.V., Poling,G.W.,Baer, R.L.,1995. Submarinetailingsdisposal (STD)for minesan introduction. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 13 (1), 318.

Fourie, A., 2009. Preventing catastrophic failures and mitigating environmentaimpacts of tailings storage facilities. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science 110671071.

Franks, D.M., 2007. Consuming landscapes: towards a political ecology of resourceappropriation. Thesis, Ph.D. Griffith School of the Environment, Centre foGovernance and Public Policy. Griffith University.

Franks, D.M., Cohen, T., McLellan, B., Brereton, D., 2010. Technology future

discussion paper: technology assessment and the CSIRO minerals down undernational research flagship. Prepared for CSIRO Minerals Down UndeFlagship, Minerals Futures Cluster Collaboration, by the Centre for SociaResponsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University oQueensland, Brisbane.

Government Pension Fund Global, 2008. Council on Ethics Recommendation to theMinistry of Finance Regarding Rio Tinto. February 15. 10p.

Government Pension Fund Global, 2009. Companies excluded from the investmenuniverse. Ministry of Finance, Norwegian Government. /http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-topics/The-Government-Pension-Fund/Ethical-Gudelines-for-the-Government-Pension-FundGlobal-/companies-excluded-from-the-investment-u.html?id=447122S (accessed 06.04.09.).

Hart, B., 2007. Improving the sustainability of mining waste management. Ph.DThesis. Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University ofMelbourne.

Hilson, G., Murck, B., 2000. Sustainable development in the mining industryclarifying the corporate perspective. Resources Policy 26 (4), 227238.

ICME and UNEP, 1998. Case Studies on Tailings Management. International Councion Metals and the Environment and United Nations Environment Programme

November. 58p.ICMM and Euromines, 2009. Ores and Concentrates: An Industry Approach to EU

Hazard Classification. International Council on Mining and Metals and Euromines, London 26p..

ICMM, 2008a. Planning for Integrated Mine Closure: Toolkit. International Councion Mining and Metals, London 84p.

ICMM, 2008b. Sustainable Development Framework: A Sustained Commitment toImproved Industry Performance. International Council on Mining and MetalsLondon 18p.

ICOLD and UNEP, 2001. Tailings dams, Risks of Dangerous Occurrences: LessonLearnt fromPracticalExperiences.InternationalCommission on LargeDams andUnited Nations Environment Programme, Paris 144p.

Jewell, R.J., Fourie, A.B. (Eds.), 2006. Australian Centre for Geomechanics second ed.Jones, S.G., Ellis, D.V., 1995. Deep water STD at the Misima Gold and Silver Mine

Papua New Guinea. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 13 (1), 83200.Kemp, D., Bond, C., Franks, D.M., Cote, C., 2010. Mining, water, and human rights

making the connection. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 15531562.Kempton, H., Bloomfield, T.A., Hanson, J.L., Limerick, P., 2010. Policy guidance fo

identifying and effectively managing perpetual environmental impacts fromNew Hardrock mines. Environmental Science & Policy 13, 558566.Kwong, Y.T.J., 2009. Practical applications of environmental ore deposit models in

mine development with a SEDEX Example. In: Wiertz, J., Moran, C.J. (Eds.)Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Environmental Issues in theMining Industry, 30-September2 October, Santiago, Chile, Gecamin.

Leblanc, M.,Morales,J.A., Borrego,J., Elbaz-Poulichet,F., 2000.4500-Year-oldmininpollution in southwestern Spain: long-term implications for modern miningpollution. Economic Geology 95, 655662.

Lee, M.,Correa,J.,Seed,R.,2006.A sedimentqualitytriadassessmentof theimpactocopper mine tailings disposal on the littoral sedimentary environment in theAtacama Region of Northern Chile. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52, 13891395.

Lee, M.R., Correa, J.A., 2005. Effects of copper mine tailings disposal on littorameiofaunal assemblages in the Atacama Region of Northern Chile. MarineEnvironmental Research 59, 118.

Lottermoser, B.G., Ashley, P.M., 2006. Physical dispersion of radioactive mine wasteat the rehabilitated radium hill uranium mine site, South Australia. Australian

Journal of Earth Sciences 53 (3), 4 85499.Mining Association of Canada, 1998. A Guide to the Management of Tailing

Facilities. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. September. 54p.

http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-topics/The-Government-Pension-Fund/Ethical-Guidelines-for-the-Government-Pension-Fund---Global-/companies-excluded-from-the-investment-u.html?id=447122http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-topics/The-Government-Pension-Fund/Ethical-Guidelines-for-the-Government-Pension-Fund---Global-/companies-excluded-from-the-investment-u.html?id=447122http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-topics/The-Government-Pension-Fund/Ethical-Guidelines-for-the-Government-Pension-Fund---Global-/companies-excluded-from-the-investment-u.html?id=447122http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-topics/The-Government-Pension-Fund/Ethical-Guidelines-for-the-Government-Pension-Fund---Global-/companies-excluded-from-the-investment-u.html?id=447122http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-topics/The-Government-Pension-Fund/Ethical-Guidelines-for-the-Government-Pension-Fund---Global-/companies-excluded-from-the-investment-u.html?id=447122http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-topics/The-Government-Pension-Fund/Ethical-Guidelines-for-the-Government-Pension-Fund---Global-/companies-excluded-from-the-investment-u.html?id=447122http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-topics/The-Government-Pension-Fund/Ethical-Guidelines-for-the-Government-Pension-Fund---Global-/companies-excluded-from-the-investment-u.html?id=447122http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-topics/The-Government-Pension-Fund/Ethical-Guidelines-for-the-Government-Pension-Fund---Global-/companies-excluded-from-the-investment-u.html?id=447122


http:///reader/full/sustainable-development-principles-for-the-disposal-of-mining-and-m

MMSD,2002. Breaking new ground: mining minerals and sustainable development.The report of the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development project.Earthscan Publications, London. 419p.

Mudd, G.M., 2001. Critical review of acid in-situ leach uranium mining: 1. USA andAustralia. Environmental Geology 41, 390403.

Mudd,G.M.,2007. Globaltrendsin gold mining: towards quantifying environmentaland resource sustainability. Resources Policy 32 (12), 4256.

Mudd, G.M., 2008. Radon releases from Australian uranium mining and millingprojects: assessing the UNSCEAR approach. Journal of Environmental Radio-activity 99, 288315.

Mudd, G.M., 2010. The environmental sustainability of mining in Australia: key

mega-trends and looming constraints. Resources Policy 35, 98115.doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2009.12.001.

Napier-Munn, T.J., Parbhakar, A., Edraki, M., Bradshaw, D., 2008. Managing ARDpotential through mine planning and mineral processing practice. In: Bell, L.C.,Barrie, B.M.D., McLean, R.W., Braddock, B (Eds.) Proceedings of the SixthAustralian Workshop on Acid and Metalliferous Drainage, 1518 April, Burnie,Tasmania, pp. 351376.

Newmont, 2006. Letter to Shareholders Regarding Buyat Bay. May 31. 7p.Nguyen, Q.D., Boger, D.V., 1998. Application of rheology to solving tailings disposal

problems. International Journal of Mineral Processing 54 (34), 217233.Plumlee,G., Morton, R.,Boyle,T., Medlin, J.,Centeno, J.,2000. Anoverviewof mining-

related environmental and human health issues, Marinduque Island, Philip-pines: Observations froma JointU.S. Geological SurveyArmedForces Instituteof Pathology Reconnaissance Field Evaluation, May 1219, U. S. GeologicalSurvey Open-File Report 00397, 46p.

Poling,G.,2002.An introductionto deep seatailingplacement.In: Poling, G.,Ellis, D.,Murray,J., Parsons,T., Pelletier, C. (Eds.), UnderwaterTailing Placementat IslandCopper Mine: A Success Story. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,

Littleton, Colorado, pp. 116.Poling, G., Ellis, D., Murray, J., Parsons, T., Pelletier, C. (Eds.), 2002. UnderwaterTailing Placement at Island Copper Mine: A Success Story. Society for Mining,Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, Colorado.

Rico,M., Benito, G., Diez-Herrero, A., 2008.Floods fromtailings dam failures. Journalof Hazardous Materials 154, 7987.

Salomons, W.,F orstner, U. (Eds.), 1988. Environmental Managementof SolidWaste:Dredged Material and Mine Tailings. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Salomons, W., 1995. Environmental impact of metals derived from miningactivities: processes, predictions, prevention. Journal of Geochemical Explora-tion 52 (12), 523.

Shimmield,T.M., Black,K.D., Howe,J.A., Hughes, D.J.,Sherwin,T., 2010.Independentevaluation of deep-sea mine tailings placement (DSTP) in PNG. Final Report.Project no.: 8.ACP.PNG.18-B/15. Scottish Associationfor Marine Sciences, Oban,Scotland, 293p.

Sofra, F., Boger, D.V., 2002. Environmental rheology for waste minimisation in theminerals industry. Chemical Engineering Journal 86 (3), 319330.

Spitz, K., Trudinger, J., 2009. Mining and the Environment: From Ore to Metal. CRCPress 891p..

Swanson, K.M., Watson, E.,Aalto, R.,Lauer, J.W., Bera, M.T.,Marshall, A.,Taylor,M.P.,Apte, S.C., Dietrich, W.E., 2008. Sediment load and floodplain deposition rates:comparison of the Fly and Strickland rivers, Papua New Guinea. Journal ofGeophysical Research 113. doi:10.1029/2006JF000623F01S03.

Thiel, R., Smith, M.E., 2004. State of the practice review of heap leach pad designissues. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (6), 555568.

UNEP, 1997. Compendium of summaries of judicial decisions in environmentrelated cases: ChilePedro Flores y Otros v. Corporacion del Cobre, CODELCO,Division Salvador. SACEP, United Nations Environment Program, NORADPublication Series on Environmental Law and Policy, No. 3. /http://www.unescap.org/drpad/vc/document/compendium/ch1.htmS (accessed 20.02.07.).

van Beers, D., Corder, G.D., Bossilkov, A., van Berkel, R., 2007. Regional synergies inthe Australian minerals industry: case-studies and enabling tools. MineralsEngineering 20, 830841.

Van Zyl, D., 1993. Mine waste disposal. In: Daniel, D.E. (Ed.), Geotechnical Practicefor Waste Disposal. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 269286 Chapter 12.

Vick, S.G., 1990. Planning, Design, and Analysis of Tailings Dams. BiTech Publishers,Vancouver, Canada 369p..WCED, 1987. Our common future, World Commission on Environment and

Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.WorldBank, 2004.Strikinga betterbalance.Final Reportof the ExtractiveIndustries

Review, Washington, vol. 1, 77p.

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_9/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2009.12.001http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_9/dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000623http://www.unescap.org/drpad/vc/document/compendium/ch1.htmhttp://www.unescap.org/drpad/vc/document/compendium/ch1.htmhttp://www.unescap.org/drpad/vc/document/compendium/ch1.htmhttp://www.unescap.org/drpad/vc/document/compendium/ch1.htmhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_9/dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000623http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_9/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2009.12.001

Sustainable Development Principles for the Disposal of Mining and Mineral Processing Wastes

Documents

Transcript of Sustainable Development Principles for the Disposal of Mining and Mineral Processing Wastes