Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and

This article was downloaded by: [US EPA Library] On: 21 October 2013, At: 12:31 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/best20

Global Scenarios of Metal Mining, Environmental Repercussions, Public Policies, and Sustainability: A Review a

Lok R. Pokhrel & Brajesh Dubey

b

a

Department of Environmental Health, College of Public Health , East Tennessee State University , Johnson City , Tennessee , USA b

Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering , University of Guelph , Guelph , Ontario , Canada Accepted author version posted online: 27 Nov 2012.Published online: 15 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Lok R. Pokhrel & Brajesh Dubey (2013) Global Scenarios of Metal Mining, Environmental Repercussions, Public Policies, and Sustainability: A Review, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 43:21, 2352-2388, DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2012.672086 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2012.672086

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [US EPA Library] at 12:31 21 October 2013

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 43:2352–2388, 2013 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1064-3389 print / 1547-6537 online DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2012.672086

Global Scenarios of Metal Mining, Environmental Repercussions, Public Policies, and Sustainability: A Review LOK R. POKHREL1 and BRAJESH DUBEY2


1

Department of Environmental Health, College of Public Health, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA 2 Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

With rising valuation of mineral commodities, mining has been envisioned as a profitable industry regardless of many challenges it entails. This comprehensive review provides the state of knowledge about several aspects of the metal mining industry, including (a) the basic mining processes with reasons for mine closure, (b) the potential environmental and human health impacts associated with mining, (c) the potential techniques for impact mitigation, (d) the latest production statistics for the base and precious metals with identification of currently operational major metal mines for different countries, and (e) how mining activities are regulated in different nations. Finally, the authors provide critical appraisal on the debatable issue of mining and sustainability to stimulate thoughts on how metal mining can be made sustainable, and suggest a path forward. KEY WORDS: acid mine drainage, environmental impacts, fatalities, phytoremediation, sustainable mining

1. INTRODUCTION Emerging from the dawn of the hunter-gatherer, metallic minerals have served as the spine of urbanization and industrial prosperity. Although scientific innovations and discoveries have dominated the 21st century, human

Address correspondence to Brajesh Dubey, Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] 2352


Issues of Metal Mining: A Review

2353

explorations for mining and subsequent use of the metalliferous minerals do not seem to cease down.1 Because of their inherent characteristics, such as malleability, ductility, good conductivity of heat and electricity, and durability, metals serve many purposes.1 From bases of skyscrapers to ordinary homes, from automobile body parts to robust engines, from tailors’ sewing needles to surgeons’ scalpels, and from common household utensils to heavy duty machineries, all use metals in one form or the other. For alchemists, many metals serve as catalysts to facilitate the chemical reactions. Precious metals, such as gold, silver, and platinum, in bullion have great economic value. To meet the global demand of materials and energy for ever-growing human populations and to maintain better living standards, mining has been envisioned as a dependable source of many metallic minerals. With the recent growing hype for sustainable society, metal mining industry—the only source for almost two thirds of the mostly used metallic elements—is also anticipated to offer potential for sustainable development.2–4 Basically, metals are of two types—base metals and precious metals. Base metals are defined in many ways. Mining and economics define base metals as inexpensive, non-ferrous metals but not the precious metals. It includes copper, lead, zinc, and nickel.5 The U.S. Customs and Boarder Protection defines base metals under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) as iron and steel, copper, nickel, aluminum, lead, zinc, tin, tungsten (wolfram), molybdenum, tantalum, magnesium, cobalt, bismuth, cadmium, titanium, zirconium, antimony, manganese, beryllium, chromium, germanium, vanadium, gallium, hafnium, indium, niobium (columbium), rhenium, and thallium. The Oxford dictionary, on the other hand, defines a base metal as a common metal that is not considered precious, such as copper, tin, or zinc. Usually base metals are relatively reactive and form oxides. In contrast, precious metals are relatively less reactive, rarely available and highly expensive such as gold, silver, and platinum.6 This review follows the HTS definition for base metals. Although peer-reviewed publications covering one or few specific aspects of mining are abundant in the literature,7–21 studies addressing the full breadth of issues pertaining metal mining industries are limited. This review, therefore, attempts to provide a holistic view of metal mining industry. It begins with a brief overview of the mining processes including the issues of mine closure, followed by the state of the knowledge on the potential environmental repercussions and human health impacts associated with metal mining activities, and some commonly employed effective ways to mitigate such challenges. An appraisal of the latest production statistics for the base and precious metals, along with identification of currently operational major metal mines, for the United States, Australia, China, and New Zealand, is presented. Better understanding of how mining industry is regulated in different nations, as outlined here for the United States, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand, may allow international collaborations for efficient

2354

L. R. Pokhrel and B. Dubey

and sustainable resource exploitations. Finally, critical assessment of the debatable issues of mining and sustainability may generate better thoughts on how mining of metallic minerals can be made sustainable for the present and future generations, and suggest a path forward.


2. MINING AND MINE CLOSURE Mining is a challenging enterprise, which involves an acquisition of minerals from the earth’s crust. Mining begins with the scientific/technical exploration that involves surveying several parts of the earth’s geology, identifying commercially viable ore deposits, and culminating into excavation or drilling—the process being highly expensive in terms of dollars and time.1 The second step in the mining cycle, known as extraction, comprises of removing metal laden ores from the crust. This is followed by beneficiation, a process that involves concentrating the metal-laden minerals, as well as smelting and other processes, which allow separation of metals from their respective ores. Over time, as metals are extracted their respective ores get depleted, and mines turn economically unviable for the mining industry. This would result into mine closure—an ultimate step in the mining cycle.22 Mine closure has been a very sensitive undertaking in today’s environmentally conscious society. Activities which minimize and mitigate potential environmental, social, and human health effects post mine closure are generally mandated by laws to be in place.1 Mine closure occurs for various reasons: (a) resource depletion or exhaustion, (b) economic—sharp decline in mineral prices, (c) geologic accessibility and mechanical problems, (d) government interventions—change in government and new policy implementation, (e) safety issues—breaching standard safety practices, (f) environmental concerns of contaminations, and (g) societal pressure, among others.22 Most often about 25% of the mines are closed due to exhaustion of the mineral reserves, termed planned closure, and some other important causes include a high cost of mining and low market prices for some mineral commodities. Mine closure in the last three decades primarily due to safety and environmental concerns were, however, negligible.22,23 Even so, miners’ safety and environmental concerns have been the main hurdles for the expansion of currently operational mines and the development of the newly discovered mining sites.24

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MINING ACTIVITIES 3.1 Impacts on Land Ore concentration involves the processes such as cyanidation, amalgamation, and heap leaching, which utilize severely harmful chemicals such as mercury, cyanide, and sulfuric acids, among others. Following ore concentration and beneficiation, a significant amount of these harmful chemicals



2355

makes its way into the mine tailings.25 Although tailings are either managed in impoundments or used as dams, their effectiveness in locking-up harmful chemicals and retaining them for longer period have remained less clear and often been debated.26–28 Over time, natural forces such as erosion, rain, and flood can transport metallic minerals in tailings to the vicinity of mining sites and even to the far-off places.29 This results into soil contamination of various trace and heavy metals,30,31 as studies have documented significantly higher concentrations of metals, such as Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Hg, As, Ag, Zn, Ni, Ag, Au, and Pb, in the soils sampled from the proximity of abandoned mines around the world.32,33 As explained previously, mining activities introduce various kinds of metals into an adjacent and even far off soil profile in potentially toxic quantities. Soil contamination of diverse metal cations will render the soil highly acidic, thereby affecting the survival and propagation of the biotic communities, including the terrestrial vegetation. Production of crops in the soil contaminated with toxic heavy metals is of human health concern. As crops could bioconcentrate toxic metals, such as Pb, Hg, and As, among others, ingestion of such crops by livestock and humans could be fatal. Replacement or amendment of the contaminated soil profile is also considered less economical.34–36 Physical landscape disturbances due to innumerable open pits, waste rock piles, and mine tailings are also persistent problems associated with mining activities around the world. Such aesthetically unpleasant geophysical changes are unfavorable for tourism industry. Moreover, land subsidence due to deep underground pit mining is evidently disastrous to the infrastructures, such as roadways and buildings, in the surrounding area. For example, abandoned lead mines are linked to the several hundreds of land subsidence in Galena, Kansas.37

3.2 Impacts on Water Resources Impacts of mining activities on water resources are as diverse as the minerals themselves. A wide range of issues has been associated with water resources originating from increasing mining activities in many parts of the world. Some of the predominant effects, among others, include (a) sedimentation/siltation of the water bodies next to the mining sites,38 (b) depletion of the water table from the excessive use of water for low grade ore processing coupled with enhanced drainage,39 (c) diversion of river system into a pit and its conversion into the toxic lake (e.g., England),40 (d) contamination of the receiving waters due to excessive protons and metallic minerals leaching from the mine water could result into increased acidity,41 and (e) dewatering of the saline water from the deep mines and its subsequent surface release could cause surface water contamination.39 One yardstick of sustainable development is to maintain healthy water resources as water forms the basis of life. Operation of mining industry


2356


emanates diversity of contaminants including the toxic metal ions, acid precursors, cyanides, sediments, and many other chemicals into the lakes, streams, and rivers.42 Toxic chemicals could harm the aquatic biota or extirpate the rare species therein.43–45 Polluted water may not be suitable for irrigation. Exposed land surfaces due to mining activities are vulnerable to soil erosion.38 Sedimentation and siltation of the receiving waters due to erosion could result into significantly higher turbidity and conductivity, thus, affecting the physiology and behaviors (e.g., foraging and breeding) of various aquatic species, including the fish.46,47 Furthermore, depletion of water table and metal leaching from mine tailings and impoundments could impact the underground wells,48,49 which are the sources of drinking water for millions of people around the globe. Recent increase in open-pit mining activities has largely contributed to the high waste-to-product ratio (ca. 100:1); thus, exacerbating already existing problems of safe disposal of wastes, including the mine tailings. In places with excess annual precipitation and where soil is used for agriculture, submarine tailings disposal (STD) has been envisioned as a safe option for mine tailing disposal.50 In STD, mine tailings are injected into the abyss (deep sea water) where the presence of low oxygen hardly supports oxidation of the sulfide ores, which likely curtails leaching of most metals.50 Unfortunately, when less is known about the ecosystems which operate at the bottom of the sea and considering the importance of the sea floor ecosystems in the demersal, limnetic, and littoral zones of the water column, it is prudent to assume that disposition of millions of tons of mine tailings in the deep waters may be damaging to sea life and to the fishery and shellfish industry, unless new evidence indicates otherwise.50

3.3 Acid Mine Drainage Here we discuss the mechanism explaining the acid mine drainage (AMD), its impacts on the environment, and present evidence-based practices that can be employed to effectively mitigate the potential risks associated with the AMD. AMD is infamous as one of the most significant threats facing the aquatic resources, which can stretch many miles downstream (e.g., about 20,000 km of water resources in the United States are affected by AMD) from the current or past mining activities.51,52 Decreasing pH (i.e., increasing acidity) and subsequent dissolution of minerals, including many metal species are the primary problems of AMD.53 With millions of abandoned54 and operational mines throughout the world and more than half a million abandoned sites only in the United States,55 the problems of AMD are persistent and farreaching, as it not only affects the environment but also affects human health and the economy.8,53,56,57 The principal chemical mechanism governing the AMD has been generally understood as follows: when pyrite, a sulfide ore of iron (FeS2 ), comes

2357



in contact with water and oxygen, it is oxidized to form soluble Fe+2 ions, which facilitates an excess release of sulfate and hydrogen ions (Eqs. 1 and 2). These latter two react to form sulfuric acid, which is responsible for subsequent dissolution of the metallic minerals.58,59 Ferric ion (Fe+2) can either form the yellowboy, a red-orange precipitate of Fe(OH)3 (Eq. 3) that is usually observed in streams receiving the AMD—or it may react with pyrite to form excess ferrous ions and sulfuric acid precursors such as SO4 −2 and H+ (Eq. 4). When/if an excess of air reacts with an excess of ferrous ions as formed in equation 4, then the reactions shown in Eqs. 2 and 3 will likely repeat. However, in the absence of oxygen ferrous ion concentration will significantly increase when the reaction shown in Eq. 4 stops.60 As water turns acidic, activity of certain microbial species, such as Thiobacillus ferroxidans, T. thiooxidans, and Ferroplasma acidarmanus would support pyrite oxidation, thereby repeating the cycle of reactions as shown below.61,62 + 2FeS2 (s) + 7O2 (aq) + 2H2 O → 2Fe+2 + 4SO−2 4 + 4H

2Fe

+2

+

+ 1/2O2 + 2H → 2Fe 2Fe

+3

+3

+ H2 O

+ 6H2 O ↔ 2Fe(OH)3 (s) + 6H

(1) (2)

+

+2 + 16H+ 14Fe+3 + FeS2 (s) + 8H2 O → 2SO−2 4 + 15Fe

(3) (4)

Evidently, mine water acidity results from the excess protons (H+) generated due to the dissolution of metallic ions. Weathering of mine rocks and tailings leads to the generation of anions, such as OH−, CO3 −2, and HCO3 −, which tend to neutralize the acidic mine water due to their alkaline nature. However, because of the rapid excavation and higher exposures of rocky surfaces in underground and open-pit mines, the natural buffering capacity of water from the carbonate rich rocks (e.g., limestone) is surpassed by excess protons and soluble metals, thus rendering mine water more acidic.63 Lack of management would result into AMD being carried away by the rain or surface runoff, and will subsequently enter into the adjacent rivers, reservoirs, creeks, or groundwater. This event may continue hundreds of years, thereby affecting the quality of receiving waters, aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics and human health.60,64

3.4 Potential Mitigation Techniques for AMD Although many techniques for ameliorating the AMD have been suggested in literature, some are commonly employed in practice than others. Discussion on several procedures is out of the scope of this paper, so this review focuses on three common, yet relatively more effective and environmentally friendly techniques to mitigate acid contamination from the mining activities. These techniques include wetland construction, anoxic limestone drains, and phytoremediation.

2358



3.4.1 WETLAND CONSTRUCTION Constructed wetlands utilize the natural processes similar to that operating in the natural wetlands to ameliorate the pollutants therein. Wetlands contain natural organic matters (NOM; e.g., humic and fulvic acids) in abundance. Sediments, which lie below the NOM layer in the wetlands, render anaerobic and/or chemically reducing environment, facilitating the growth of anaerobic microorganisms. Generally, dissolved metals adsorb to NOMs and settle to the bottom. Reducing environment in the lower sediment layer supports the conversion of iron and sulfates into hydrogen and sulfides.65 Some plants (e.g., Typha, Sphagnum) that grow in the wetland environment are known to significantly remove minerals (e.g., Mn, Fe, SO4 ),66–68 either by retaining them in the roots69 and shoot or by providing conditions for the redox reactions to occur.58 However, designing wetland to treat AMD necessitates consideration of multiple factors. These include the loading rate, retention time, vegetation and substrate types, plan for sediment removal, slope of the topography, hydrology, and other factors essential for optimal microbial activities.65,70 Some of the optimal conditions identified for effective operation of constructed wetland include the terrain slope less than 1%,71 water holding rate of 200 m3/ha-day with seven days’ retention time,72 higher NOM concentration,65 and locally available perennial plant species (e.g., Typha, Sphagnum).65,73–75 Typha grows well in virtually most contaminated environments but is known to be less efficient at places with low temperatures.65,73,74 In contrast, Sphagnum tolerates low temperatures72 but is less adaptive in changeable water chemistry.65,73,74 More details on how wetlands should be constructed can be found in Skousen76 and U.S. EPA (Vol. 4).77

3.4.2 ANOXIC LIMESTONE DRAINS Compared to the wetlands, Anoxic limestone drains (ALDs) are cheaper to neutralize the acidity of AMDs. Low oxygen content and high ferrous ions containing typical mine water is channeled through an ALD to increase alkalinity up to 400 mg/L. This would raise the pH to circumneutral.7,63,78 ALDs are underground structures designed in a way such that no oxygen could enter the limestone layer because it is covered by a layer of plastic, on top of which a thick layer of clay soil is also present. However, ALDs’ efficiency is limited by the presence of ferric and aluminum ions in the mine waters. Because of the formation of respective hydroxides, the former (i.e., Fe(OH)3 ) encapsulates the limestone, thereby preventing its further dissolution. While the later (i.e., Al(OH)3 ) plugs the flow channels affecting the draining ability of the limestone bed. Originally proposed by the Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, ALDs have been used in most parts of the United States to treat mine waters.7,63,78 Based on the chemical nature of the ALD


2359

effluent and the type and mass of the metals present, the operator should determine if the effluent would require any further treatment.8


3.4.3 PHYTOREMEDIATION Phytoremediation is a biological approach that utilizes plants to remediate the environment (e.g., soil, water, air) of the pollutants including the heavy metals.9 As discussed previously, living plants (e.g., cattails and mosses) accumulate various minerals, including the metals, in different parts of their body such as root, rhizome and shoot.79,80 In addition, diffusion of oxygen through the roots of plants to the substrate also provides suitable microcosm for oxidation of metals (e.g., Fe and Mn) to occur. Since decaying plant matter is rich in organic compounds, it further allows efficient binding of metals and subsequent precipitation and settling, provided ample retention time in the wetlands. Moreover, plants and their remains may supplement growth nutrients for the bacterial community, which consumes oxygen and develops anoxic conditions suitable for sulfide precipitation.81,82 Evidently, some algae (e.g., Oscillatoria, Microspora) have also been identified to bioaccumulate between 30–90 g Mn/kg dry weight (dw) of algae.83,84 Likewise, recently a town in Macedonia had planned to remediate heavy metals, especially lead and cadmium, from the contaminated soil, which has been attributed to the abandoned lead and zinc smelter in the town, by planting roses in thousands.85 Rose might have been considered due to its aesthetic value and metal accumulating potential. One study has shown that a shrub of rose (e.g., Rosa laevigata) can accumulate up to 70 mg Cu/kg dw, in its root and ca. 6 mg Cu/kg dw in its shoot,80 which are significantly lower than being accumulated by other metal tolerant species such as Cyrtomium fortune (root = 1410 mg Cu/kg dw.; shoot = 30.1 mg Cu/kg dw), Pteridium aquilium var. latiusulum (root = 1390 mg Cu/kg dw; shoot = 67.9 mg Cu/kg dw), and Commelina communis (root = 851 mg Cu/kg dw; shoot = 86.1 mg Cu/kg dw).80

4. HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS AND FATALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH MINING With technological advancements, modern mining has been a complex undertaking, involving diverse types of tools and machineries and contributing significantly to the speedy extraction of the mineral ores. Activities involving extraction, beneficiation, and transportation of minerals, on the other hand, generate high decibel noise, tremors, and many kinds of pollutants. Significant improvements in mining have occurred in the developed countries. However, most developing nations and far-off isolated mining areas lax the standard practices, thus resulting into workers health and safety hazards.


2360


Studies have shown noise-induced deafness as a common problem among miners.86,87 Most of the mining processes involve the use of vibrating tools (e.g., drills), which have often been linked with hand–arm vibration syndrome.88,89 Cumulative trauma disorders, which can potentially cause prolonged disability, have long been recognized as one of the predominant occupational diseases in the extraction industry—the result being attributed to an excessive manual handling. Regular long shift hours may result into fatigue and sleeplessness in the miners—the conditions often associated with poor motor performance and cognition among the drivers.90 Benign acute mountain sickness (AMS) is also prevalent among the highaltitude mine workers.91 When it comes to deep underground gold mining activities (e.g., South Africa), heat exhaustion and heat strokes are known as the predominant causes of fatalities.92–94 Skin irritation and dermatitis,95 as well as respiratory diseases are of common occurrence among mine workers.96 Although mine ventilation system is generally effective in controlling underground radon species, their exposure is shown to potentiate the risk of lung cancer among the underground miners.97–99 Long-term exposure to silica (crystals) can cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,100,101 which increases the risks of lung cancer.102 Up to 30 times higher rate of tuberculosis reported for silicosis patients indicates an association between silica exposure and tuberculosis.103,104 Exposure to arsenic during copper processing is also known to increase the risks of lung cancer. Sulfur dioxide exposure during smelting of sulfide ores may result into an acute bronchospasm.105,106 Severe and fatal traumatic injuries, and posttraumatic stress disorders (PTSD) have also been noticed among miners.94 One Korean survey has shown that people in the vicinity of the abandoned copper mine had significantly higher cadmium levels in their blood and urine than the control population or the general Korean population.107 Higher blood Cd levels have the potential for kidney dysfunction.108,109 Taken together, the existing body of evidence suggests that low-dose long-term (chronic) exposures to the contaminants associated with mining may result into elevated health problems. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ preliminary report for 2009, there were 12.1 cases of work injury that resulted into fatality per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers in the extraction (including construction) industry.110 This was about 19% of the total fatalities recorded (818 out of 4,340 fatalities) among major civilian occupation group; while under the category labeled “Natural Resources and Mining,” there were 652 fatalities, accounting for 15.02% of the total fatalities in 2009.110 Considering only the category labeled “Mining” category, there were 176 fatalities in 2008, 159 in 2005, and 141 in 2003. This indicates an increasing trend in fatal injuries associated with mining.107 Independent contractors in the metal/nonmetal industry had highest fatality rate for 1993–1997 period (66.3 cases per 100,000 workers) compared to the period of 1998–2002



2361

FIGURE 1. Total estimated production of various metals for 2009 for all countries combined. Data are adapted from reference 113.

(54.1 cases per 100,000 workers); while metal operators averaged almost two-fold fatalities (20 cases per 100,000 workers) than the nonmetal operators (10.15 cases per 100,000 workers) for foregoing two periods combined.111 For the underground mines the highest risk resulted from landfall (roof or back fall) inside the cave (43.3%), while for the open mine the highest risk was from the powered haulage (carrier; 40.4%), followed by machinery related (20.8%) and slip/fall (13.2%) during 1998–2002 period.111 For the same period, ignition or explosion caused 11.3% fatalities underground, while it was associated with only 1.6% of the fatalities on the surface.111

5. GLOBAL SCENARIOS OF MAJOR METAL MINES: AN OVERVIEW 5.1 Global Perspectives on Metal Mining Figure 1 provides global statistics of select metals production for the year 2009. Bauxite was the most mined metal contributing to the total production by almost 75% (i.e., 201 Mt) of all the metals considered, followed by aluminum, copper, zinc, and lead in the descending order. In 2009, China was leading rest of the world for iron production with estimated 900 Mt, while Australia was the top producer of bauxite/alumina with estimated production of 63 Mt, followed by China with total production estimated at 37 Mt (Figure 2).113


2362


FIGURE 2. Total estimated global production of bauxite/alumina and iron ore for 2009. Data are adapted from reference 110.

Figure 3 illustrates country-wise distribution of the total estimated production of select base and precious metals for the year 2009. China was ranked the top producer of aluminum with an estimated production of 13 Mt, followed by Russia (3.3 Mt), Canada (3 Mt), Australia (1.97 Mt), the United States (1.71 Mt), India (1.6 Mt), and Brazil (1.55 Mt). Chile was the top producer of copper with estimated production of 5.32 Mt, followed by Peru (1.26 Mt), the United States (1.19 Mt), China (0.96 Mt), and Indonesia (0.95 Mt). China also remained the top producer of zinc, lead, and gold for the same year. It produced 2.8 Mt of zinc, 1.69 Mt of lead, and 300 tons of gold. Peru was the top producer of silver with an estimated total production of 3,900 tons, followed by China (3,000 tons), Mexico (2,500 tons), and Chile (2,000 tons) in 2009.113

5.2 Mines of Australia Mining has been an integral aspect of the Australian culture, progress, and the standard of living since the arrival of Europeans to the continent. As the gold rush began ca. 1850s, Australia was one of the world’s top producers of gold, maintaining about 40% of the global gold economy. Today, it is the



2363

FIGURE 3. Total estimated global production of the base (Pb, Zn, Cu, and Al) and precious metals (Au and Ag) for 2009. Data are adapted from reference 113.

third largest producer of gold, manganese, and iron ores; stands fourth as the nickel producer; and fifth as the copper producer with 6% of the global production, following Chile (36%), the United States (8%), Peru (8%), and China (6%). It is one of the top producers of lead and tantalum; the largest refiner of bauxite (an aluminum ore); the second largest producer of bauxite and zinc; and ranks fourth as the largest producer of primary aluminum, thus, making mining and metal industry the significant player of Australia’s trade and commerce.112 Figure 4 shows the state-wise frequency distribution of currently operational major metal mines in Australia. Australian iron ore industry is primarily dominated by Western Australia (WA), totaling about 97% of the national annual production. This represents 17% of the global iron ore and economic demonstrated resources (EDR). About 80% of the identified iron resources are present in the Pilbara region (WA), which contributed to 92.4% of the total iron production in 2008. Some other iron ore mines currently under operations are located in South Australia (SA), Queensland (QLD), New South Wales (NSW), Northern Territory (NT), and Tasmania (TAS). For bauxite, Weipa (QLD), Gove (NT), and the Darling Range (WA) production areas are the primary mining areas currently under operations, while central New South Wales (NSW), Cape York (QLD), Mitchell Plateau (WA), and Cape Bougainville (WA) are identified as the potential future mining areas for aluminum ores.112 Olympic Dam in South Australia (SA) and Mount Isa in QLD are the primary copper mining and smelting areas. Some other prominent copper mining areas include


2364


Northparkes, Cadia-Ridgeway and Tritton in NSW, Ernest Henry and Osborne (QLD), Nifty and Golden Grove (WA), and Mount Lyell (TAS).112 The gold resources and mining operations are currently present throughout Australia including the NT. WA and SA are the major areas for gold resources and mining operations, accounting for 41% and 26% of the total national gold resources, respectively, in 2008. Currently operational gold mines in Australia include Cadia, Cowal, Northparkes, and Peak, among others, that are located in NSW; Callie and Peko are the only two gold mines operating in NT; Charters Towers, Ernest Henry, Mount Rawdon, Mount Wright, and Vera-Nancy are some of the gold mines operating in QLD; Angas, Challenger, Olympic Dam, and Prominent Hill are the mines operating in SA; Beconsfield, Mt. Lyell, and Roseberry are three of the six mines operating in TAS; Augusta and Kangaroo Flat are two of the five mines operating in VIC; and Ballarat-Last Chance, Frogs Leg, Coyote, Perseverance, Sons of Gwalia, and Super Pit are few of the dozens of gold mines operating in WA. WA is the state where more than one third of the gold mines in the continent are situated. About a dozen of zinc and lead mines are also under operations in Australia with QLD being the prominent state. Some of them include Broken Hill, Endeavor, McArthur River, Century, George Fisher, and Mt. Isha, among others.112

5.3 Mines of the United States Metal mining in the United States began as early as the first quarter of 1800, with the opening of copper mine in Branby, Connecticut. With the California gold rush in 1848, discovery of more gold resources in Alaska followed. In 2009, metal mining was worth more than $20 billion business in the United States, with gold, copper, molybdenum, iron, and zinc dominating the industry. All minerals combined, the total worth of the minerals in 2009 was $57 billion, which was 20% less than it was in 2008. Gold was the top contributor with 30% of the total value of metal production, while zinc contributed only 6% to the total metal production for the same year.113 Figure 4 illustrates the total production of select base metals and two precious metals (i.e., gold and silver) in the United States for 2009.113 Nearly all aluminum used in the United States in the last decade was either imported or obtained through recycling the scraps. However, technical grade clay and other potential reserves are known as the potential future sources of bauxite, alumina, and aluminum.113 With 0.69 Mt of zinc production in 2009 (Figure 5), the United States was the fifth largest producer of zinc despite the closure of several mines in late 2008 and early 2009 when market valuation declined. Domestically produced zinc contributed to $1.18 billion to the U.S. economy in 2009, which was primarily contributed by 13 mines in six states.113



2365

FIGURE 4. State-wise frequency distribution of the currently operational metal mines in Australia as of 2009. WA = Western Australia; QLD = Queensland; NSW = New South Wales; TAS = Tasmania; SA = South Australia; NT = Northern Territory; VIC = Victoria. Data are adapted from reference 112.

Most of the copper mines in the United States are operated in Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, and Montana, which accounted for $6.2 billion in 2009. Copper was extracted from 29 mines, while 20 mines operating in the foregoing states accounted for 99% of the total national production for the same year. The United States was ranked second (8%) for global copper production in 2010.110 In the second quarter (April–June) of 2010, Arizona’s Morenci mine was the largest producer of copper (450,000 tons/day) and was expected to upscale the production to 635,000 tons/day by 2011.113,114 Other prominent copper mines operating in the United States include Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation in Utah;115 Silver Bell, Bagdad, and Copper Queen in Arizona;116 the Berkeley pit and Continental pit in Montana,117 among others. The U.S. Geological Survey113 estimated a total of 113 tons of gold production during the first half of 2010. Nevada led rest of the states for the recoverable natural gold resources and mining with three quarters of total domestic gold production. Other states combined contributed to little more than one quarter of the total national production, which include Alaska (e.g., Fort Knox mine), Arizona, California (e.g., Mother Lode mine, Mesquite mine), Colorado (e.g., Cripple Creek, Victor mine, Golden Wonder mine, Cash, and Rex mines), Idaho (e.g., Silver Strand and Bond mines), Montana (e.g., Montana Tunnels mine, Golden Sunlight mine, Browns Gulch placer, Lodestar mine), New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah (e.g., Bingham Canyon mine), and Washington.113

2366


Silver added more than half a billion dollar to the U.S. economy in 2009 with estimated production of 1,230 tons. Alaska and Nevada are the leading states for silver production. Silver has been mainly produced as a by-product of various metal mines. Rochester silver gold mine, Nevada Packard (Nevada), Greens Creek polymetallic mine (Alaska), Lucky Friday silver mine, and the Galena, and Coeur mines (northern Idaho) are some of the prominent operational mines in the United States. Some of the top silverproducing mining companies in the United States include Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation, Rio Tinta, and Hecla Mining.118


5.4 Mines of China Among the global mineral resources, China has maintained its dominancy for the production and consumption of several metalliferous and nonmetallic mineral commodities for many years.119 In 2008, it was the top producer of zinc, rare earth metals, iron, aluminum, gold, and lead, among others, and this accounted for $2.56 trillion worth of China’s trade. However, there has also been a short supply of other major metals such as copper, bauxite, nickel, chromium, and lead. This necessitates China to rely on foreign importations to meet its domestic demand. With the global decline in aluminum price in the year end of 2008 and early 2009, decrement in aluminum production was also evident in China, akin to other major producers around the world. Nonetheless, China, as the top producer, produced 13 Mt of aluminum compared to 3.3 Mt by Russia and 1.71 Mt by the United States in 2009 (Figure 2).113 China also owns more aluminum smelters than all other smelters combined for rest of the world.119 Qingtongxia Aluminum Co. and Lanzhou Aluminum are few of the many prominent aluminum companies operating in China, and about a dozen producers contributed to about 50% of the domestic annual production of aluminum in 2003.120 In 2008, most of the bauxite resources in China were extracted from the following provinces: Henan, Shandong, Guangxi, Shanxi, and Guizhou. With more bauxite resources being identified in the recent decade, such as the Chongzuoshi and the Fusui deposits in Guangxi Zhuangzu Autonomous Region, the Heitutian and Luobuchong deposits in Guizhou Province, and the Fudian-Minchi deposit in Henan Province, China’s bauxite resources totaled 2 gigatons in 2006 and has been viewed as a prominent contributor to the global market.121 In 2009, the domestic production of copper in China was 0.96 Mt and was predicted to rise to 1 Mt/year in 2010. China was the second largest producer of copper, following Chile at 5.32 Mt, Peru at 1.26 Mt, and the United States at 1.19 Mt, in 2009.113 The Chinese copper mines are situated in the Provinces of Qinghai, Jiangxi, Guangxi, and s Xinjiang.121 In 2009, China was the top producer of iron ore (Figure 2). But, because of rising demand of domestic iron consumption importations were necessary



2367

FIGURE 5. Total estimated production of select metals from mining operations in the United States for 2009. Data are adapted from reference 113.

to meet the domestic demand. China produced an estimated 3,000 tons of gold in 2009 and was the second highest producer in the world, following Peru at 3,900 tons. In most cases, silver was extracted in the form of byproduct during the extraction of metals such as gold, lead, copper, and other base metals.113 Global market of the rare earth metals (about 97%) was almost completely controlled by China in 2010.122 It is because foreign investors are not allowed to mine rare earth metals, such as dysprosium, yttrium, thulium, and lutetium, in China.122 Rare earth metals have wide applications in cuttingedge technologies, including electronics and wind turbines, hybrid cars, military weapons, and superconductors, among others.123,124

5.5 Mines of New Zealand Gifted with diversified geology, New Zealand owns several kinds of mineral reserves. However, only a few dozens of mines are currently operational which contribute significantly to the nation’s mining industry.125 New Zealand only extracts three types of metallic minerals, namely: gold, silver, and ironsand. The two largest gold mines, in descending order, are Macraes and Waihi. Situated at Otago, Macraes is located about 100 km from Dunedin and is owned and operated by OceanaGold (a publicly listed company). Its gold reserves extend to about 40 km in length; out of which only 50% have been explored. The reserve is expected to last until 2016. In 2009, it



2368

FIGURE 6. New Zealand’s total production of gold (A), silver (B), and ironsand (C) by different mines for 2008 and 2009. Data are adapted from reference 128.

produced a total of 6.8 tons of gold, which was 14% higher than its production in 2008 (Figure 6). Waihi mine (also called Martha mine) is the second largest gold mine in New Zealand with total annual production of 3.4 tons in 2009, which was about 33% lower than its production in 2008.126 Historically, Martha mine began mining operations more than three centuries ago, but was closed in 1951. However, later in 1987 it reopened due to the nation’s growing interest in the gold industry.127 Total gold production was similar for 2008 and 2009, which was about 13.4 tons (Figure 6A).128


2369


Regarding silver mining, Waihi’s contribution was 43 and 78 times greater than Macraes’ in 2008 and 2009, respectively. In 2008, Waihi’s silver production was 17.892 tons versus Macraes’ 0.229 ton. Waihi produced a total of 13.755 tons versus Macraes’ 0.317 ton in 2009. Overall, the total silver produced in New Zealand was 14.264 tons for 2009; this was about 4 tons less silver extracted compared to that of previous year (Figure 6B).128 Approximately 2.02 Mt of ironsand was produced by two mines operating in New Zealand in 2008. The greatest contribution was made by Waikato North Head (1.347 Mt), followed by Taharoa mine with annual production of 0.672 tons. Although individual mine data for 2009 were not available for these two mines, the total production of ironsand was, however, reported to be 2.092 Mt (Figure 6C).128

6. MINING LAWS AND REGULATIONS ACROSS NATIONS Different countries have different statutes and regulations governing mining operations. However, some common premises include requirement of mining permit prior to the commencement of mining operations, guidelines for minimizing harm to the biodiversity and environment including the best technology-based waste management, and specific fines/fees for noncompliance of provisions, among others. The following sections provide concise account of the major laws and regulations associated with metals and minerals activity/industry, especially for the United States, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand. The highlights of the statutes provided herein should not be misconstrued as the only provisions in the corresponding Acts or regulations. Although some terms used in the following paragraphs are exclusive and context-dependent, they are publicly available and are not redefined here.

6.1 Mining Laws and Regulations of the United States In the United States, the mining industry and its activities are governed by the federal laws and regulations, which have been in place as early as 1870. Some of them include the Mining Law of 1872; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), enacted in 1970; the Clean Air Act (CAA), amended in1970; the Endangered Species Act, enacted in 1973; Federal Land Policy and Management Act, enacted in 1976; and National Park System Mining Regulation Act, enacted in 1976; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 1976; the Clean Water Act (CWA), also called Federal Water Pollution Control Act, enacted in 1977; and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also called Superfund, enacted in 1980, among others. Brief insights into how


2370


these regulations apply to mining and mineral industry are presented in this review. The Mining Law of 1872 provides a basis for U.S. citizens to explore, purchase the mineral deposits and the land, and occupy such lands if minerals are located. Discovery of valuable mineral deposits gives the right for the claimant to hold the patent and own the land. The claimant can trade or sell the land as a private asset. Furthermore, this law also gives authority to U.S. citizens to locate the mineral deposits on those federal (public domain) lands that are not yet set aside for any specific purpose.129 The NEPA necessitates federal agencies to develop Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for major federal actions, which may have significant impacts to human health and the environment. It also makes sure that environmental information is available to public officials as well as general public before any action is taken. Any extraction operation which needs federal approval is required to follow NEPA. The U.S. EPA bears the responsibility to review and comment on the EISs.130 The CAA (1970) was enacted with the sole motto to provide highest quality air for the public to breathe.131 It mandates the U.S. EPA to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) against the common and hazardous air pollutants. With regard to the metallic mineral processing plants, EPA has developed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under §111 of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL. However, mineral processing facilities located underground are exempt from the NSPSs. Mining related fugitive dust emissions are regulated by the state programs that are equivalent to the Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Major sources (i.e., the source which emits either 10 tons/year of single hazardous air pollutant or more than 25 tons/year of different hazardous air pollutants combined) are mandated to implement the maximum available control technology (MACT) to minimize emissions (CAA §112). With regard to mining industry, ferrous and non-ferrous metals processing industries and mineral products processing industry are identified as the sources of hazardous air pollutants.130 The Endangered Species Act (ESA; 1973) mandates that the endangered and threatened species be conserved, along with the ecosystems on which they depend.132 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) shares the responsibility to manage marine and anadromous species (such as salmon which lives in ocean as an adult and moves to freshwater to reproduce), while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for managing the terrestrial and fresh water species. The ESA requires the federal agencies to ensure that no any activity pertaining to the government has any adverse effects on the threatened and endangered species or to their critical habitats. Depending on where the actions are undertaking (e.g., land or sea) as stated previously, consultations with the USFWS and NMFS are mandatory prior to conducting



2371

any such operations that may have potential adverse impacts to the species or their habitats.132 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA; 1976) gives the authority to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for planning and management of the public land such that it provides multiple use, sustained yield, and also protects the qualities of the land for scientific, ecological, scenic, historical, and recreational values.133 The statute requires that the federal government retain the public lands in federal ownership until it is determined that providing such land to private parties will benefit the nation. Further, the FLPMA requires that management of the public lands should recognize the national interest for domestic minerals, food, timber, and fiber from such lands (§102).133 The National Park System Mining Regulation Act (or Mining in the Parks Act [MPA]; 1976) was enacted by the Congress to prevent and reduce damage due to mining operations within the boundary of the National Park System.134 However, based on the type of the mining rights, whether patented or unpatented, the Secretary of the Interior’s ability to regulate the extraction industry varies as there appears more control of the federal government on unpatented mining claims than patented land owned by the private parties.134 In addition, the National Park Service also further regulates the mining rights. It limits the use and access to water, and mandates reclamation of the site post-closure. Obtaining an access permit and gaining mining plan approval are prerequisites for any mining activity to initiate its operation.135 Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA; 1976), Subtitle C, the EPA has established guidelines for the management of hazardous wastes from the time it is in the cradle to the time it ends up in the grave.136 When the solid waste is determined to be hazardous, it could be either “Listed” hazardous waste: F-, K-, P-, and U- listed, or characteristic hazardous waste. Any solid waste that is listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is predefined and categorized waste. To be a characteristic waste, any solid waste should possess one or more of the following characteristics: ignitable (flashpoint less than 140◦ F), corrosive (aqueous pH < 2 or > 12.5), reactive (unstable and highly reactive in water), and toxic (if exceeds the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure [TCLP] limit).137 However, the Bevill Amendment of 1980 exempts the solid waste resulting from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals from the definition of hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA.138 Then followed the EPA July 1986 decision that mining wastes shall not be regulated as hazardous wastes.139 Moreover, if any waste is not uniquely associated with mining activity, it must be managed as any other hazardous wastes as described in 40 CFR §261–271 or as per the state’s requirements.139 The CWA (1977) was enacted by the Congress in order to maintain and restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States.140 This objective is met through various programs conducted at


2372


the Federal and State levels. States are required under §303 to establish water quality standards based on the EPA water quality criteria to meet the CWA goal. National technology-based effluent limitation guidelines established by the EPA requires ore mining and dressing plants to adhere to the Best Available Demonstrated Technology (BADT) to limit the effluents from mine drainage and mill discharges. Moreover, EPA mandates that all point source discharges of storm water pertaining industrial activity, including mining activity, be permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Section 404 of the CWA protects the wetland ecosystems from the dredged or fill materials entering into U.S. waters. U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are responsible for an issuance of permit to allow discharging dredged or fill materials at each disposal site.140 The total amounts of various chemicals that may be discharged in effluent are enlisted in 40 CFR, Part 440, which is called “Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category, Subpart J.”141 The CWA also prohibits the use of STD procedure in the United States.50 The CERCLA, also called Superfund, was enacted by Congress in 1980 to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites in the United States. This law requires operators to report any release of hazardous substances to the environment and mandates liability for operators to clean up the sites, where hazardous substances are released, which may present an imminent risk to the public health and safety.142 The Superfund program involves U.S. EPA to clean up mineral-related contaminated sites throughout the United States.143 The US EPA can transfer the liability to the past owners or contributors of the contaminated site. Wastes from mining, smelter, and milling activities can be hazardous, despite exempted by the Bevill Amendment of RCRA, if the ingredients that it constitutes fall within the definition including those regulated under the CAA and CWA (42 USC §9601–9675).142 The CERCLA has been subsequently amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, and the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.143

6.2 European Union Regulations for Extraction Industry In order to regulate the mining industry and their activities, to accomplish sustainable management of the waste associated with extraction of minerals, and to protect the environment and human health from the hazardous mine tailings and contaminated rock piles, the European Union has devised several pieces of legislations, including Directive 1999/31/EC, Directive 2004/35/EC, Directive 2006/21/EC, and the Amendment Acts such as Regulation (EC)# 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June, 18, 2009.144 In accordance with Directive 2006/21/EC, the waste facility of any extraction industry cannot operate without a permit supplied by the competent



2373

authorities. To obtain a permit, the facility operator must comply with the provisions in the directive. It is mandatory of the competent authorities to inform the public that the applications for permits are submitted. This would allow the public to comment and participate in assessment procedure for permit authorization.144 Regarding building a new waste facility or modifying an existing one, the directive mandates the competent authorities to ensure that (a) the facility is located in the right place, (b) it is physically stable and do not harm soil, water, and air, (c) monitoring and inspection by competent persons are done in a regular basis, and (d) proper arrangements for facility closure, land rehabilitation, and post-closure are in place. To ensure that the waste facility operators adhere to the provisions in the directive, a financial guarantee must be provided by the operators before the facility begins to operate in order to ensure that funding is available for site restoration post-closure. Post-closure maintaining and monitoring of site is mandatory as long as the competent authority deems necessary.144 Those waste facilities emanating potential risk for public health and the environment (Category A) are required of the operators to present (a) a policy for preventing major accidents, (b) a safety management plan, and (c) an emergency plan highlighting what measures will be taken on site in an event an accident occurs. Furthermore, the competent authority is also required to have an external emergency plan in case an off-site accident occurs. Public participation for commenting and addressing their opinions are required of the competent authority.144 With regard to the mining waste, waste facility operators must present a waste management plan, subject to be reviewed every five years, with the following objectives: (a) the plan should incorporate methods to prevent or reduce waste generation and/or its hazardous behavior, (b) it should prioritize waste reduction/recovery via reuse, recycling or reclaiming, and (c) prioritize short- and long-term safe waste disposal techniques. In addition, the European Union member states require the operators to significantly reduce the concentrations of cyanide and its compounds in the tailing ponds, utilizing the best available practices to significantly reduce the toxic effects of these chemicals.144 Further, up-to-date record keeping of all the waste management operations and allowing the competent authority for review is expected of the facility operators. A report is mandatory for every Member State to be sent to the European Commission every three years on the implementation of the Directive; this is followed by the publication of a report by the Commission within a time frame of nine months of receiving the report from the member states. Wellmaintained and timely updated inventory of all closed and abandoned waste facilities must be maintained by the operators, and more importantly, of those facilities which are deemed hazardous for human health and the environment.144

2374



6.3 Minerals and Mining Regulations of Australia Several pieces of legislative statutes govern the mineral and mining activities in Australia. Some of the prominent ones include Mining Act 1978, Environmental Protection Act 1986, Land Administration Act (LAA) 1997, and Native Title Act 1993, among others. A concise overview of the mining regulations that are applied in Australia is presented. The Mining Act 1978 and LAA 1997 define that all minerals (except few percentages of non-precious metals owned by those before the law was enacted) belong to the Crown, and remain so until the Crown land is transferred in fee simple under the LAA Section 24.145,146 A mining title is mandatory to obtain where minerals are the asset of the Crown even before exploration takes place. The act is administered by the Minister for Resources and provides the basis for transfer and mortgage of mining tenements, compliance with environmental guidelines, and settlements of disputes and compensation.145,146 The Environmental Protection Act 1986 mandates an Environmental Protection Authority to use every measure possible for the control, prevention, and mitigation of pollution and for promotion and management of the environment.147 To protect the environment form the potential harm, the Act mandates to adhere to the following principles—principle of waste minimization, “polluter pays” principle, principle of intergenerational equity, principle of biodiversity and ecological integrity conservation, and the precautionary principle.147 Generally, in Australia, the activities associated with mining minerals are administered by the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy; however, all six states and the Northern Territory (NT) regulate mineral activities using their own State laws, which are for the most part analogous to the national laws. In order to obtain mining approval, one has to go through three different steps: (a) obtain an initial exploration license, (b) obtain a retention license, and (c) obtain a mining lease. However, variation in each of the foregoing step occurs depending on the State where an application is made. For example, any application made should be notified to the public via publication in the Government gazette or a local newspaper, which, however, is not required in Tasmania. A direct change from exploration license to mining lease is possible in some states (e.g., Tasmania, Victoria, and QLD), but not in others. Victoria does not have a provision of retention license per se. Usually exploration tenures are granted for a period of 2–6 years, and any renewals will result in reduction in areas. With exploration and retention licenses, compensation should be paid for “damaging land surface, restrictions for right of way, damage to improvements and reasonable expenses to control damage”. Moreover, compensation is also required to pay for depriving the use of land, earning cuts, and social impacts in the states of WA, SA, and NSW. In most states (with the exception of NT and SA)


2375

the miner is required to purchase the land and/or property on which the mineral deposit is located, especially if the plan is for surface or open-cut mining. Prior to the commencement of any mining operation, mining proposals must include environmental assessment, financial guarantee for reclamation, and program for rehabilitation. The mining lease periods vary among the states: e.g., Victoria, 20 years; WA and NSW, 21 years; and SA, 7–21 years.145,146


6.4 Minerals and Mining Regulations of New Zealand Under the Crown Minerals Act (CMA) 1991, mineral permits are issued pertaining to prospecting, exploring or extracting minerals owned by the Crown.148 However, a permit for land access is obtained from the land owner via negotiation. Resource consent should also be obtained from the District Council or the Regional Council before commencing any mining work. Resource consent generally includes limits on air and water quality, limits on water use, tailing dam standards, and conditions for major land clearance and rehabilitation. Additionally, the CMA mandates the Minister of Energy to prepare mineral programs. The Crown Minerals (Minerals and Coal) Regulations 2007 has set out premises for the explorers and miners on how to: (a) apply for a permit under the CMA, (b) apply for permit change, (c) make payments and royalty returns, (d) report to the Crown regarding prospecting and exploration, and (e) lodge cores and samples with the Crown, among others. The Crown Minerals (Minerals Fees) Regulations 2006 basically deals with fees payable for the tasks specified under the CMA.149 Crowned minerals comprise gold, silver, and substantial amounts of coal and other metallic and nonmetallic minerals, including aggregates and petroleum.148 Environmental issues come under the Resource Management Act of 1991; the objective of which is to manage the natural and physical resources in a sustainable manner, and promote their wise use and development.150 The Minister of Conservation together with local authorities enforce the conditions to prevent and minimize potential environmental impacts associated with mining operations. Under the act, the Minister of Conservation is responsible for making any decision about mining on the conservation land, while majority of the negotiation and decisions are delegated to the conservancy level.150 Under the Conservation Act 1987, mining companies have financial obligations similar to other users of the conservation estate. Regarding exploration and mining of the continental shelf (i.e., the seabed and subsoils of marine areas extending between 12 and 200 nautical miles from New Zealand and in some areas to the outer edge of continental margin), the Minister of Energy possesses absolute authority for granting a license under the Continental Shelf Act of 1964.151

2376


7. MINING AND SUSTAINABILITY


Whether mining can be regarded a sustainable enterprise is an open and ongoing debate. Some believe that a long lasting mine can be a sustainable business if its economic, environmental, and social implications are properly addressed,152,153 such as the surface coal mining in Appalachia.154 Others believe that mining cannot be sustainable155 because no any mine lasts for centuries, instead it lasts only from few years to 10–20 years before the natural reserve at the site depletes. Hence, mining can be referred as a non-renewable asset.156,157 The concept that mining is unsustainable dates back to Georgius Agricola’s seminal book De Re Metallica (1556/1950),158 on which he presented the thoughts of the opponents of sustainable mining as follows: that the fields are devastated by mining operations . . . that the woods and groves are cut down, for there is need of an endless amount of wood for timbers, machines, and the smelting of metals. And when the woods and groves are felled, then are exterminated the beasts and birds . . . when the ores are washed, the water which has been used poisons the brooks and streams, and either destroys the fish or drives them away. Therefore the inhabitants of these regions . . . find great difficulty in procuring the necessaries of life . . . Thus . . . there is greater detriment from mining than the value of the metals which the mining produces.

Agricola himself was, however, a proponent of the concept of sustainable mining. An efficient operation of mines with careful planning, which includes financial benefits, mitigation of environmental concerns, and direct local public participation in the mining sector, may support sustainability. Recently, Laurence and Scoble159 identified five areas that may guide the mining industries toward sustainability. These include (a) prioritizing miners’ safety, (b) maintaining profitable economy, (c) embracing environmental protection and conservation practices from the time of exploration until successful reclamation of the mining site, (d) resource optimization (efficiency), and (e) community development.159 According to the Brundtland Commission,160 sustainable development is “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The concept of sustainability should intricately be linked with mining; from its conception to its post-closure, each step in the life cycle of mining should incorporate sustainability principles. In 1992, the Earth Summit was perhaps the one that initiated discussions on mining associated pollution and sustainability.161 Later, the International Council on Mining and Metals developed 10 principles on mining sustainability.162 Briefly, the principles are to establish



2377

ethical business practices and sound governance; uphold and respect the employees’ rights and values; practice sound risk management principles; maintain better health, safety, and environmental practices; encourage life cycle assessment from product design to its disposal; facilitate community participation and development; and build trust with stakeholders via transparency.162 Recently, the concept of triple bottom line has been defined to incorporate environmental, economic, and social considerations to promote sustainability in the mining industry and business sector.153,163 However, in the hind side, as mining industry relies on financial companies for capital investment, it is realized that only those industries with sound environmental management practices and adequate societal responsibility—the concept often called Equator Principles—will more likely be funded.164 Unless this practice of funding is changed, companies that are interested to initiate the mining operations, especially in the third world countries, will not be able to operate; thus, necessitating nonadherence to the Equator Principles.161 A key report pertaining sustainability of mining in Australia by Mudd165 offers statistical analysis to investigate if mining enterprise in Australia is sustainable. This study was based on a century-long production data, especially for energy commodities (e.g., uranium and coal), metals (e.g., copper, gold, zinc), and bulk commodities (e.g., sand, bauxite). The report concludes that (a) there is no possibility for average ore grades to increase in the future, (b) the production capacity of individual mines showed a general trend of increase over the last century, (c) observation of increasing trend in solid waste generation resulting from mining operation, (d) increased production scale has led to resource depletion and exerted more pressure to explore viable resources, and (e) as complex mineral ores are being exploited these days, increasing concerns about potential release of contaminants, use of energy and water are only rising. Further, the report highlighted the problems associated with quantifying the environmental risk of incessant increase of minerals extraction and processing in several parts of the world. Some formal rubrics which have often been employed to understand if mineral mining is sustainable include (a) quantifying the embodied water (i.e., the total water needed to generate a product or good) of the product obtained through mining,166 (b) estimating total energy expensed to obtain the final product166,167 versus the energy that the final product can generate given that it is used for energy generating purposes, and (c) quantifying total amount of greenhouse gases added into the atmosphere during the production process.166,167 As is relevant for any business organizations, mineral industries should also (a) take into account the best available ways to minimize the energy usage during the extraction, beneficiation, and refining processes; (b) adopt the best practices to lower the carbon footprint in the environment; (c) minimize the use of water during mining and processing as it adds to the investment costs;168,169 and draining such waters comes with

2378


unexpected environmental consequences;170–172 and (d) adopt the principle of triple-R (i.e., reduce, reuse, recycle), which could potentially maximize the savings and minimize the resultant waste from mining activities.


8. THE PATH FORWARD Mining has grown as a multinational business adhering to better health and hygiene standards than ever before. However, sloppy applications of the standard procedures and inadequate management policies have frequented fatalities across the globe. Well-planned and well-executed studies will foster a better understanding in establishing cause-effect relationships between the contaminants of concern and toxic endpoints.94 The need for metals is ever growing, and with this the environmental concerns of acid mine drainage, soil and water contamination, and subsequent human health effects are only rising. Maintaining proper balance between increasing need for minerals, and protection and promotion of the environment is, however, challenging. Far-sighted mining policies coupled with adequate guarantee for mine reclamation and rehabilitation, and timely inspections with stringent regulations at the local and national levels should serve adequate risk abatement and environmental conservation. Implementation of the best available technologies, adequate trainings, and standard working practices should render mining safer occupation than ever before. Embracing the measures as discussed in this review may serve a basis for the mining industry to move toward becoming a sustainable enterprise.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments.

REFERENCES [1] Hudson, T. L., Fox, F. D., and Plumlee, G. S. (1999). Metal mining and the environment. AGI Environ. Awareness Series 3, 1–68. [2] Commission of the European Communities. (2005). Thematic strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities. [3] Jordan, G. (2009). Sustainable mineral resources management: from regional mineral resources exploration to spatial contamination risk assessment of mining. Environ. Geol. 58, 153–169. [4] Miranda, M., Chambers, D., and Coumans, C. (2005). Framework for responsible mining: A guide to evolving standards. 1–155. (http://www. frameworkforresponsiblemining.org/pubs/Framework 20051018.pdf)



2379

[5] World Bank Group. (1998). Base metal and iron ore mining. Pollution prevention and abatement handbook. Retrieved from http://www-wds. worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1999/06/03/000094946 99040905052283/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf [6] Household articles of base metal. U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Jan. 2010. Retrieved from http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/ trade/legal/informed compliance pubs/icp079.ctt/icp079.pdf [7] Naim, R. W., Hedin, R. S., and Watzlaf, G. R. (1991). A preliminary review of the use of anoxic limestone drains in the passive treatment of AMD. Paper presented at the West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force Symposium, Morgantown, WV. [8] Gazea, B., Adam, K., and Kontopoulos, A. (1996). A review of passive systems for the treatment of acid mine drainage. Min. Eng. 9, 23–42. [9] Salt, D. E., Smith, R. D., and Raskin, I. (1998). Phytoremediation. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 49, 643–668. [10] Gulumian, M., Borm, P. J., Vallyathan, V., Castranova, V., Donaldson, K., Nelson, G., and Murray, J. (2006). Mechanistically identified suitable biomarkers of exposure, effect, and susceptibility for silicosis and coal-worker’s pneumoconiosis: a comprehensive review. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev. 9, 357–395. [11] Donato, D. B., Nichols, O., Possingham, H., Moore, M., Ricci, P. F., and Noller, B. N. (2007). A critical review of the effects of gold cyanide-bearing tailings solutions on wildlife. Environ. Int. 33, 974–984. [12] Luus, K. (2007). Asbestos: mining exposure, health effects and policy implications. Mcgill J. Med. 10, 121–126. [13] Linge, K. L. (2008). Methods for investigating trace element binding in sediments. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38, 165–196. [14] Miretzky, P., and Cirelli, A. F. (2009). Hg(II) removal from water by chitosan and chitosan derivatives: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 167, 10–23. [15] Rukavishnikov, V. S., Pankov, V. A., Kuleshova, M. V., Lazarev, A. V., Rusanova, D. V., and Sudakova, N. G. (2009). Results and prospects of scientific research on sensory conflict under exposure to noise and vibration at work. Med. Tr. Prom. Ekol. 1, 1–5. [16] Sheoran, V., Sheoran, A. S., and Poonia, P. (2010). Soil reclamation of abandoned mine land by revegetation: A review. Int. J. Soil Sediment Water 3, 1–21. [17] Capasso, R., and De Martino, A. (2010). Polymerin and lignimerin, as humic acid-like sorbents from vegetable waste, for the potential remediation of waters contaminated with heavy metals, herbicides, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 58, 10283–10299. [18] Dhankhar, R., and Hooda, A. (2011). Fungal biosorption–an alternative to meet the challenges of heavy metal pollution in aqueous solutions. Environ. Technol. 32, 467–491. [19] Lizama, A. K., Fletcher, T. D., and Sun, G. (2011). Removal processes for arsenic in constructed wetlands. Chemosphere 84, 1032–1043. [20] Jamrozik, E., de Klerk, N., and Musk, A. W. (2011). Asbestos-related disease. Intern. Med. J. 41, 372–380.


2380


[21] Vearrier, D., and Greenberg, M. I. (2011). Occupational health of miners at altitude: adverse health effects, toxic exposures, pre-placement screening, acclimatization, and worker surveillance. Clin. Toxicol. 49, 629–640. [22] Laurence, D. C. (2006). Why do mines close? In: Proceedings First International Seminar on Mine Closure (pp. 83–94). Perth, Australia: Australian Centre for Geomechanics. [23] Laurence, D. C. (2009). Premature mine closures and the global financial crisis: Have we learnt anything from the recent past? Paper presented at the International Mine Closure Conference, Perth, Australia. [24] Beynon, H., Cox, A., and Hudson, R. (2000). Digging up trouble. The environment, protest and opencast coal mining. London, England: Rivers Oram Press. [25] Hoskin, W., Bird, G., and Stanley, T. (2000). Mining facts, figures and environment. Industry Environ. 23, 4–8. [26] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994). Design and evaluation of tailings dams. Technical Report, EPA530-R-94-038. Washington, DC: USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, Special Waste Branch. [27] Aucamp, P., and van Schalkwyk, A. (2003). Trace element-pollution of soils by abandoned gold-mine tailings near Potchefstroom, S. Africa. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 62, 123–134. [28] Antwi-Agyei, P., Hogarh, J. N., and Foli, G. (2010). Trace elements contamination of soils around gold mine tailings dams at Obuasi, Ghana. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 3, 353–359. [29] Mendez, M. O., and Maier, R. M. (2008). Phytoremediation of mine tailings in temperate and arid environments. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 7, 47–59. [30] Casado, M., Anawar, H. M., Garcia-Sanchez, A., and Santa Regina, I. (2007). Arsenic bioavailability in polluted mining soils and uptake by tolerant plants (El Cabaco Mine, Spain). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 79, 29–35. [31] Garcia-Sanchez, A., Alastuey, A., and Querol, X. (1999). Heavy metal adsorption by different minerals: application to the remediation of polluted soils. Sci. Total Environ. 242, 179–188. [32] Kien, C. N., Noi, N. V., Son, L. T., Ngoc, H. M., Tanaka, S., Nishna, T., and Iwasaki, K. (2010). Heavy metal contamination of agricultural soils around a chromite mine in Vietnam. Soil Sci. Plant Nut. 56, 344–356. [33] Rashed, M. N. (2010). Monitoring of contaminated toxic and heavy metals, from mine tailings through age accumulation, in soil and some wild plants at Southeast Egypt. J. Hazard. Mater. 178, 739–746. [34] Giasson, P., and Jaouich, A. (1998). Phytorestoration of contaminated soils in Quebec. Vecteur Environ. 31, 40–53. [35] Steinborn, M., and Breen, J. (1999). Heavy metals in soil and vegetation at Shallee mine, silvermines, Co. Tipparery. Biol. Environ., Proc. Royal Irish Academy 99B, 37–42. [36] Aslibekian, O., and Moles, R. (2003). Environmental risk assessment of metals contaminated soils at silver mines abandoned mine site, Tipperary, Ireland. Environ. Geochem. Health 25, 247–266. [37] Pollution issues–Mining. Retrieved from http://www.pollutionissues. com/Li-Na/Mining.html.



2381

[38] MiningWatch Canada: Mines Aletre. Mining and water pollution in Canada. Newsletter, Number 7, Autumn 2001, pp. 1–4. (http://www.miningwatch. ca/sites/www.miningwatch.ca/files/MWC newsletter 07 0.pdf) [39] Environment Canada. (2004). Threats to water availability in Canada. Burlington, Canada: Environment Canada. http://www.ec.gc.ca/inre-nwri/default. asp?lang=En&n=0CD66675-1&off [40] Hughes, D. B., and Clarke, B. G. (2001). The river Aire slope failure at the St. Aidans extension opencast coal site, Wet Yorkshire, United Kingdom. Can. Geotechnol. J. 38, 239–259. [41] Johnson, R. H., Blowes, D. W., Robertson, W. D., and Jambor, J. L. (2000). The hydrogeochemistry of the Nickel Rim mine tailings impoundment, Sudbury, Ontario. J. Contam. Hydrol. 41, 49–80. [42] Younger, P. L. (1997). The longevity of mine water pollution: a basis for decision-making. Sci. Total Environ. 194–195, 457–466. [43] Gilbert, N. (2010). Mountain mining damages streams. Nature 466, 806. [44] Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Schlesinger, W. H., Eshleman, K. N., FoufoulaGeorgiou, E., Hendryx, M. S., Lemly, A. D., Likens, G. E., Loucks, O. L., Power, M. E., White, P. S., and Wilcock, P. R. (2010). Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327, 148–149. [45] Pond, G. J., Passmore, M. E., Borsuk, F. A., Reynolds, L., and Rose, C. J. (2008). Downstream effects of mountaintop coal mining: comparing biological conditions using family- and genus-level macroinvertebrate bioassessment tools. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 27, 717–737. [46] Sedell, J. R., Reeves, G. H., Hauer, F. R., Stanford, J. A., and Hawkins, C. P. (1990). Role of refugia in recovery from disturbance: Modern fragmented and disconnected river systems. Environ. Manag. 14, 711–724. [47] Reid, L. M. (1998). Forest roads, chronic turbidity, and salmon. EOS Trans. 79(45), F285. [48] Younger, P. L. (1998). Coalfield abandonment: Geochemical processes and hydrochemical products. In K. Nicholson (Ed.), Energy and the environment. Geochemistry of fossil, nuclear and renewable resources. Society for Environmental Geochemistry and Health (pp. 1–29). Aberdeenshire, Scotland: McGregor Science. [49] Cao, X., Wahbi, A., Ma, L., Li, B., and Yang, Y. (2009). Immobilization of Zn, Cu, and Pb in contaminated soils using phosphate rock and phosphoric acid. J. Hazard. Mater. 164, 555–564. [50] MiningWatch Canada. Submarine tailings disposal. June 2002. (http://www. miningwatch.ca/sites/www.miningwatch.ca/files/01.STDtoolkit.intr .pdf) [51] USDA Forest Service. (2005). Wildland waters. Newsletter, Issue 4, FS-812. (http://www.fs.fed.us/wildlandwaters/newsletters/wildlandwaters winter05.txt) [52] Skousen, J., Hilton, T., and Faulkner, B. (n.d.). Overview of acid mine drainage treatment with chemicals. Retrieved from http://www.wvu.edu/∼ agexten/landrec/chemtrt.htm. [53] Costello, C. (2003). Acid mine drainage: Innovative treatment technologies. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office.


2382


[54] UNEP. Abandoned mines: Problems, issues and policy challenges for decision makers. United Nations Environment Programme and Chilean Copper Commission Summary Report. Santiago, Chile, 18 June, 2001. [55] Buck, S., and Gerard, D. Cleaning up mining waste. Political Economy Research Center Research Study 01-1, November 2001, pp. 1–28. (http://perc. org/sites/default/files/rs01 1.pdf) [56] Ustis, J. D., and Foote, B. A. (1991). Influence of strip-mining on the mortality of wetland caddisfly, Limnephilus indivisus. Great-Lakes Entom. 24, 133–143. [57] McClure, R. (2001, June 13). The mining of the West: Profit and pollution on public lands. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. [58] Wildeman, T., Gusek, J., Dietz, J., and Morea, S. (1991). Handbook for constructed wetlands receiving acid mine drainage. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [59] Durkin, T. V., and Herrmann, J. G. (1994). Focusing on the problem of mining wastes: An introduction to acid mine drainage. In: Managing environmental problems at inactive and abandoned mine sites. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Seminar publication number: EPA/625/R-95/007. pp. 1–4. [60] Younger, P. L., Banwart, S. A., and Hedin, R. S. (2002). Mine water: Hydrology, pollution, remediation. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. [61] Fennessy, S., and Mitsch, W. J. (1989). Design and use of wetlands for renovation of drainage from coal mines. In W. J. Mitsch and S. E. Jorgensen (Eds.), Ecological engineering: An introduction to ecotechnology (pp. 232–252). New York, NY: Wiley. [62] Acid-loving microbe maybe a key to mine pollution. (http://www. biology-online.org/articles/acid-loving microbe may key.html) [63] Gusek, J. J., and Wildeman, T. R. (1995). New developments in passive treatment of acid rock drainage. Paper presented at the Engineering Foundation Conference on Technological Solutions for Pollution Prevention in the Mining and Mineral Processing Industries, Palm Coast, Florida. [64] United Nations Environment Program. (2010). New science and developments in our challenging environment. In UNEP year book 2010 (pp. 1–80). Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2010/ [65] Fennessy, M. S., and Mitsch, W. J. (1989). Treating coal mine drainage with an artificial wetland. J. Water Pollut. Control Feder. 61, 1691–1701. [66] Snyder, C. D., and Aharrah, E. C. (1985). The Typha community: A positive influence on mine drainage and mine restoration. In Wetlands and water management on mined lands (pp. 187–188). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. [67] Kleinmann, R. L. (1985). Treatment of acid mine water by wetlands. In: Control of acid mine drainage. Proc. of a technology transfer seminar, Bureau of Mines circulator, 9027 (pp. 48–52). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior. [68] Weider, R. K., Lang, G. E., and Whitehouse, A. E. (1985). Metal removal in Sphagnum dominated wetlands: experience with a man-made wetland system. In Wetlands and water management on mined lands (pp. 187–188). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.



2383

[69] Sobolewski, A. (1997). Wetlands for treatment of mine drainage. Retrieved from http://www.enviromine.com/wetlands/Welcome.htm [70] Girts, M., and Kleinmann, R. (1986). Construction of wetlands for treatment of mine water. Paper presented at the Society of Mining Engineering, St. Louis, MO. [71] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1985). Freshwater wetlands for wastewater management handbook. EPA Region 4, 904/9-85-135. Atlanta, GA: U.S. EPA. [72] Wile, I., Miller, G., and Black, S. (1985). Design and use of artificial wetlands. In E. R. Kaynor, S. Pelczarski, and J. Benforado (Eds.), Ecological considerations in wetlands treatment of municipal waters (pp. 26–37). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. [73] Brooks, R. P. (1984). Optimal designs for restored wetlands. In Treatment of mine drainage by wetlands (pp. 19–29). University Park, PA: Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University. [74] Perry, A., and Kleinmann, R. L. P. (1991). The use of constructed wetlands in the treatment of acid mine drainage. Nat. Res. Forum 15, 178–184. [75] McHerron, L. E. (1985). The seasonal effectiveness on a Sphagnum wetland in removing iron and manganese from mine drainage. In Wetlands and water management on mined lands (pp. 365–372). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. [76] Skousen, J. (2001). Overview of passive systems for treating acid mine drainage. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Extensive Service. [77] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A handbook of constructed wetlands: Coal mine drainage (Vol. 4). Retrieved from http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET. exe/200053OD.PDF?ZyActionP=PDF&Client=EPA&Index=2000%20Thru% 202005&File=D%3A\ZYFILES\INDEX%20DATA\00THRU05\TXT\00000001\ 200053OD.txt&Query=&SearchMethod=1&FuzzyDegree=0&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&QField=pubnumberˆ%22843F00003%22& UseQField=pubnumber&IntQFieldOp=1&ExtQFieldOp=1&Docs= [78] Turner, D., and McCoy, D. (1990). Anoxic alkaline drain treatment system, a low cost acid mine drainage treatment alternative. In D. H. Graves and R. W. DeVore (Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Mining (pp. 73–76). Lexington, KY: OES. [79] Hedin, R. S., and Hyman, D. M. (1989). Treatment of coal mine drainage with constructed wetlands. In B. J. Scheiner, F. M. Doyle, and S. K. Kawatia (Eds.), Biotechnology in minerals and metal processing. Littleton, CO: AIME. [80] Ye, M., Li, J. T., Tian, S. N., Hu, M., Yi, S., and Liao, B. (2009). Biogeochemical studies of metallophytes from four copper-enriched sites along the Yangtze River, China. Environ. Geol. 56, 1313–1322. [81] Sencidiver, J. C., and Bhumbla, D. K. (1988). Effects of cattails (Typha) on metal removal from mine drainage. Ibid Ref 19, 359–366. [82] Ford, K. L. (2003). Passive treatment options for acid mine drainage. Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Technical note 409. [83] Kepler, D. A. (1986). Manganese removal from mine drainage by artificial wetland construction. Paper presented at the 8th Annual National Abandoned Mined Lands Conference, Billings, MT.


2384


[84] Dionis, K., and Stevens, S. E. Jr. (1988). Manganese accumulation by the green alga Oedogonium spp. in wetlands receiving acid mine drainage. Paper presented at the International Conference on Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, Chattanooga, TN. [85] Pechkov, P., and Jovanovska, S. (2010). Five thousand roses to clean soil in polluted Macedonian city. Oct. 14. Retrieved from http://waz.euobserver. com/887/31036 [86] Hessel, P. A., and Sluis-Cremer, G. K. (1987). Hearing loss in white South African goldminers. S. African Med. J. 71, 364–367. [87] Frank, T., Bise, C. J., and Michael, K. (2003). A hearing conservation program for coal miners. Occup. Health Safety 72, 106–110. [88] Narini, P. P., Novak, C. B., Mackinnon, S. E., and Coulson-Roos, C. (1993). Occupational exposure to hand vibration in Northern Ontario gold miners. J. Hand Surg. 18A, 1051–1058. [89] Dasgupta, A. K., and Harrison, J. (1996). Effects of vibration on the hand-arm system of miners in India. Occup. Med. 46, 71–78. [90] Williamson, A. M., and Feyer, A. M. (2000). Moderate sleep deprivation produces impairments in cognitive and motor performance equivalent to legally prescribed levels of alcohol intoxication. Occup. Environ. Med. 57, 649–655. [91] Richalet, J. P., Donoso, M. V., Jimenez, D., Antezana, A. M., Hudson, C., Cort`es, G., Osorio, J., and Le`on, A. (2002). Chilean miners commuting from sea level to 4500 m: a prospective study. High Alt. Med. Biol. 3, 159–166. [92] Donoghue, A. M., and Bates, G. P. (2000). The risk of heat exhaustion at a deep underground metalliferous mine in relation to body mass index and predicted VO2 max. Occup. Med. 50, 259–263. [93] Donoghue, A. M., and Bates, G. P. (2000). The risk of heat exhaustion at a deep underground metalliferous mine in relation to surface temperatures. Occup. Med. 50, 334–336. [94] Donoghue, A. M. (2004). Heat illness in the U.S. mining industry. Am. J. Ind. Med. 45, 351–356. [95] National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. (2000). Injuries, illnesses, and hazardous exposures in the mining industry, 1986–1995: A surveillance report. Washington, DC: NIOSH. [96] U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and Public Health Service. (1965). Vital Statistics of the United States 1963, Volume II—Mortality. Washington DC: Government Printing Office. (http://www.cdc. gov/nchs/data/vsus/mort63 2a.pdf) [97] Howe, G. R., Nair, R. C., Newcombe, H. B., Miller, A. B., and Abbatt, J. D. (1986). Lung cancer mortality (1950–80) in relation to radon daughter exposure in a cohort of workers at the Eldorado Beaverlodge uranium mine. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 77, 357–362. [98] Tirmarche, M., Raphalen, A., Allin, F., Chameaud, J., and Bredon, P. (1993). Mortality of a cohort of French uranium miners exposed to relatively low radon concentrations. Br. J. Cancer 67, 1090–1097. [99] Morrison, H. I., Villeneuve, P. J., Lubin, J. H., and Schaubel, D. E. (1998). Radon-progeny exposure and lung cancer risk in a cohort of Newfoundland fluorspar miners. Rad. Res. 150, 58–65.



2385

[100] Cowie, R. L., and Mabena, S. K. (1991). Silicosis, chronic airflow limitation, and chronic bronchitis in South African gold miners. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 143, 80–84. [101] Holman, C. D. J., Psaila-Savona, P., Roberts, M., and McNulty, J. C. (1987). Determinants of chronic bronchitis and lung dysfunction in Western Australian gold miners. Br. J. Ind. Med. 44, 810–818. [102] Steenland, K., Mannetje, A., Boffetta, P., Stayner, L., Attfield, M., Chen, J., Dosemeci, M., DeKlerk, N., Hnizdo, E., Koskela, R., and Checkoway, H. (2001). Pooled exposure–response analyses and risk assessment for lung cancer in 10 cohorts of silica-exposed workers: An IARC multicentre study. Cancer Causes Control 12, 773–784. [103] Cowie, R. L. (1994). The epidemiology of tuberculosis in gold miners with silicosis. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 150, 1460–1462. [104] Checkoway, H., Hughes, J. M., Weill, H., Seixas, N., and Demers, P. (1999). Crystalline silica exposure, radiological silicosis, and lung cancer mortality in diatomaceous earth industry workers. Thorax 54, 56–59. [105] Enterline, P. E., Day, R., and Marsh, G. M. (1995). Cancers related to exposure to arsenic at a copper smelter. Occup. Environ. Med. 52, 28–32. [106] Lee-Feldstein, A. (1986). Cumulative exposure to arsenic and its relationship to respiratory cancer among copper smelter employees. J. Occup. Med. 28, 296–302. [107] Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare. (2006). The Korean national health and nutrition examination survey - KNHANES III 2005. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Health and Welfare. [108] Buchet, J. P., Lauwerys, R., Roels, H., Bernard, A., Bruaux, P., Claeys, F., Ducoffre, G., de Plaen, P., Staessen, J., Amery, A., Lijnen, P., Thijs, L., Rondia, D., Sartor, F., Remy, A. S., and Nick, L. (1990). Renal effects of cadmium body burden of the general population. Lancet 336, 699–702. [109] Staessen, J. A., Roels, H. A., Emelianov, D., Kuznetsova, T., Thijs, L., Vangronsveld, J., and Fagard, R. (1999). Environmental exposure to cadmium, forearm bone density, and risk of fractures: prospective population study. Public health and environmental exposure to cadmium (PheeCad) study group. Lancet 353, 1140–1144. [110] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). 2009 Census of fatal occupational injuries (revised data). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm# 2009 [111] Mine Safety and Health Administration. (2003). Mining fatalities. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/data/default.html [112] Geoscience Australia. (2009). Australia’s identified mineral resources. Canberra, Australia: Geoscience Australia. [113] U.S. Geological Survey. (2010). Mineral commodity summaries 2010. Retrieved from http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/statistical summary/myb1-2010-stati.pdf [114] Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold. (2010, July 21). Second-quarter and sixmonth 2010 results. Press release. [115] Rio Tinto. (2010, July 14). Second quarter 2010 operations review. Press release.


2386


[116] Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources. (2008). Arizona’s metallic resources trends and opportunities. (http://www.admmr.state.az. us/Publications/ofr08-26.pdf) [117] Atlas Obscure. The Berkeley Pit. (http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/ berkeley-pit.) [118] Silver mining in United States—Overview. Retrieved from http://www.mbendi. com/indy/ming/silv/am/us/p0005.htm [119] For all the TNCs in China - A London calling special. Mines and Communities. March 22, 2004. Available at: http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article. php?a=43 [120] Johnston, S. R. (2003). Aluminium. Mining Annual Review, 1–27. (http://mincomtest.mbendi.com/pubs/samples/sample aluminium.pdf) [121] United States Geological Survey. (2010). Area Reports: International, Asia and the Pacific. United States Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2008, 3, 1–221. (http://books.google.com/books?id=DGuvgMVYS0wC&printsec=frontcover& source=gbs ge summary r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) [122] Coppel, E. (2011). Rare earth metals and U.S. National security. American Security Project: 1-7. (http://americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/ uploads/2011/02/Rare-Earth-Metals-and-US-Security-FINAL.pdf) [123] U.S. Geological Survey. (2008). Minerals yearbook China. Retrieved from http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/2008/myb3-2008-ch.pdf [124] Evans-Pritchard, A. (2009, August 24). World faces hi-tech crunch as China eyes ban on rare metal exports. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http:// www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans pritchard/6082464/W orld-faces-hi-tech-crunch-as-China-eyes-ban-on-rare-metal-exports.html [125] Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (2010). Making difficult decisions: Mining the conservation estate. (http://www.pce.parliament. nz/publications/all-publications/making-difficult-decisions-mining-theconservation-estate). [126] Crown minerals annual report. New Zealand Government. (2009/2010). 1–39 ISSN 1178–4512. (http://www.nzpam.govt.nz/cms/pdf-library/about/Annual% 20Report%20Web%20Version.pdf) [127] The Martha Gold Mine. Retrieved from http://www.waihi.org.nz/aboutus/martha-gold-mine/. [128] Ministry of Economic Development of New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.nzpam.govt.nz/cms/minerals/facts-and-figures#Gold–Silver [129] Mining Law of 1872. (1872). (30 U.S.C. §§22–54). [130] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994). Background for NEPA reviewers: Non-coal mining operations. Technical Document. EPA/530//R-95/043, NTIS/PB96/109/103. [131] Clean Air Act. (1970). (42 U.S.C. §§7401–7626). [132] Endangered Species Act. (1973). (16 U.S.C. §§1531–1544). [133] Federal Land Policy and Management Act. (1976). (43 U.S.C. §§1701–1782). [134] National Park System Mining Regulation Act. (1976). (16 U.S.C. §§1901–1912). [135] Mining and Mining Claims (36 CFR Part 9 Subpart A). (http://www.gpo. gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title36-vol1/pdf/CFR-2009-title36-vol1-part9.pdf) [136] Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. (1976). (42 U.S.C. §§6901–6992k).



2387

[137] 40 CFR 261.3(a) - Definition of hazardous waste. Identification and listing of hazardous waste. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011title40-vol26/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vol26-sec261-3.pdf) [138] 40 CFR §261.4(b) - Exclusions: Solid wastes which are not hazardous wastes. (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node= 40:27.0.1.1.2&idno=40#40:27.0.1.1.2.1.1.4) [139] 51 FR 24496. (1986). Mining wastes. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/osw/ nonhaz/industrial/special/mining/ [140] Clean Water Act. (1977). (33 U.S.C. §§1251–1387). [141] Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category, Subpart J (40 CFR, Part 440). (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/40cfr440 mining npdes 796.pdf) [142] Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. (1980). (http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lcla.html) [143] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1980). Superfund: Law, policy and guidance. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/index.htm [144] Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March. (2006). Official Journal of the European Union 11-4-2006. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/legislation summaries/environment/waste manageme nt/l28134 en.htm [145] Mining Act. (1978). Exploration and Mining Legislation-Onshore. Retrieved from http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/Documents/Minerals%20and% 20Petroleum%20Exploration/Guide for %20Investors 9OnshoreLegislation. pdf [146] Land Administration Act. (1997). (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/ wa/consol act/laa1997200/) [147] Environmental Protection Act. (1986). Retrieved from http://www.melvillecity. com.au/community/health/health-legislation/environmental-protection-act1986.pdf [148] Crown Minerals Act. (1991). Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt. nz/act/public/1991/0070/16.0/DLM242536.html [149] Crown Minerals (Minerals Fees) Regulations. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2006/0226/latest/DLM40314 9.html. [150] Resource Management Act. (1991). Retrieved from http://www.mfe.govt. nz/rma/index.html. [151] Conservation Act. (1987). Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/ public/1987/0065/latest/DLM103610.html. [152] Learmont, D. (1997). Mining must show that it is sustainable. Min. Eng. Littleton 49, 11–12. [153] James, P. (1999). The miner and sustainable development. Min. Eng. Littleton 51(6), 89–92. [154] Gardner, J. S., and Sainato, P. (2007). Mountaintop mining and sustainable development in Appalachia. Min. Eng. 59, 48–50. [155] Hansen, L. (2009). A plea to President Obama: End mountaintop coal mining. Yale Environment 360. Retrieved from http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature. msp?id=2168.


2388


[156] Mikesell, R. F. (1994). Sustainable development and mineral resources. Resources Policy 20, 83–86. [157] Auty, R. M., and Mikesell, R. F. (1998). Sustainable development in mineral economies. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [158] Agricola, G. (1556). De Re Metallica. New York, NY: Dover. (Originally published 1556) [159] Laurence, D. C., and Scoble, M. (2009). Integration of sustainability into mining schools: Counter-cycle strategies for the next boom. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Sustainable Development Indicators in the Minerals Industry, Queensland, Australia. [160] United Nations Secretary-General. (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427. Development and International Co-operation: Environment, 08-02-1987. Retrieved from http://www. un-documents.net/a42-427.htm [161] Laurence, D. C. (2011). Establishing a sustainable mining operation: An overview. J. Cleaner Prod. 19, 278–284. [162] International Council on Mining and Metals. (2003). Sustainable development framework—Final principles. Document Ref: C 020/290503. (http://liveassets. iucn.getunik.net/downloads/minicmmstat.pdf) [163] Rajaram, V., Dutta, S., and Parameswaran, K. (2005). Sustainable mining practices: A global perspective. London, England: Taylor & Francis. [164] Mason, A. (2008). Sustainable mining. Equities 57, 90–92. [165] Mudd, G. M. (2009). The sustainability of mining in Australia: Key production trends and their environmental implications for the future. Research Report No RR5, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University and Mineral Policy Institute. [166] Mudd, G. M. (2008). Sustainability reporting and water resources: A preliminary assessment of embodied water and sustainable mining. Mine Water Environ. 27, 136–144. [167] Mudd, G. M., and Diesendorf, M. (2008). Sustainability of uranium mining and milling: Toward quantifying resources and eco-efficiency. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 2624–2630. [168] Younger, P. L. (2006). The water footprint of mining operations in space and time—a new paradigm for sustainability assessments? Proc. Water in Mining Conf. 13–21. [169] International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2009). Sustainability framework 2.0. (http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/052263e2#/052263e2/1) [170] Cotter-Howells, J., and Thornton, I. (1991). Sources and pathways of environmental lead to children in a Derby-shire mining village. Environ. Geochem. Health 13, 127–135. [171] Wong, H. K. T., Gauthier, A., and Nriagu, J. O. (1999). Dispersion and toxicity of metals from abandoned gold mine tailings at Goldenville, Nova Scotia, Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 228, 35–47. [172] Younger, P. L. (2001). Mine water pollution in Scotland: Nature, extent and preventative strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 265, 309–326.