pollution prevention and cleaner production in the mining industry: an analysis of current issues

Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 119–126www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Pollution prevention and cleaner production in the mining industry:an analysis of current issues

Gavin HilsonInstitute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street, Suite 1016, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3E8

Received 24 August 1999; accepted 25 November 1999

Abstract

This paper examines the major pollution prevention and Cleaner production (CP) issues in the mining industry. Past problemswith pollution has made waste minimization an issue of enormous importance for many mining companies. Since the advent ofthe first major environmental legislation circa-1970, there has been substantial improvement in environmental performance at themine sites of these firms, including a reduction in noxious air emissions, a decrease in levels of toxic contaminants in effluentdischarges, and a major upgrading in land management. All of these improvements are directly attributed to a corporate abandonmentof conventional, end-of-pipe apparatuses, and subsequent integration of cleaner technologies and strategies, including highly efficientenvironmental equipment, heavily retrofitted control systems, and comprehensive environmental management plans. Although hun-dreds of mining districts have already benefited from installing systems that foster pollution prevention and CP, in select instances,these have not proven to be realistic waste management remedies. Major barriers, particularly economic, technologic, and legislativeones, have both individually and collectively impeded the implementation of pollution prevention and CP strategies in such cases.Many of these barriers appear insurmountable but improved planning, employee education, and increased government interventionwould spell continued success in an industry that has already made enormous strides in the arena of environmental management. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Mining; Pollution prevention; Cleaner production (CP); Cleaner technologies and strategies

1. Introduction

Mining and smelting processes have the potential tocause widespread environmental damage on numerousfronts. Beginning with the exploration of prospectivesites, through to the refining and purification of minerals,a large number of contaminating wastes are generatedboth directly and indirectly. Traditionally, conventionalend-of-pipe technologies — equipment that aims toremediate problems with waste after it has been releasedrather than before it is discharged — had been used tocombat the pollution problems in the industry. However,the advent of strict environmental legislation in recentyears, combined with the ineffectiveness of several ofthese end-of-pipe systems, has, in many instances, madeit necessary to implement more effective cleaner techno-logies and strategies — defined here as state-of-the-art

E-mail address:[email protected] (G. Hilson).

0959-6526/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0959-6526 (99)00320-0

environmental management practices. In doing so, themining industry has dramatically improved its environ-mental performance, shifting from a position of reaction-ary pollution control to a position of proactive pollutionprevention and Cleaner production (CP).

At present, cleaner technologies and strategies, includ-ing highly efficient environmental equipment, heavilyretrofitted end-of-pipe designs, and comprehensiveenvironmental management plans, are being used atmany mine sites throughout the world. Each systemworks to minimize pollution to air, water, and land,rather than treating it once it has manifested into anenvironmental crisis. A major problem faced by othermining firms, however, is that many obstacles — which,in select situations, appear insurmountable — must beovercome in order to implement cleaner technologiesand strategies. In view of these difficulties, in order toprolong the current pattern of environmental improve-ment through pollution prevention and CP, a number ofchanges are needed. Specifically, by expanding govern-

120 G. Hilson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 119–126

ment-industry partnerships, increasing environmentaltraining and education for employees, and redesigningsites so that they operate in a more environmentallybenign fashion, mines could significantly improve theirenvironmental performance, and further contribute to anindustry that has already made enormous strides in thearena of environmental management.

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview ofpollution prevention and Cleaner production (CP) in themining industry. First, the importance of pollution pre-vention and CP in industry is briefly reviewed, followedby a summary of their importance in the mining industry.Second, some examples of the cleaner technologies andstrategies available to mining operations are presented,and a case study of the North American mining industryis used to illustrate the impact these have had on improv-ing environmental performance. Finally, the major bar-riers preventing the global diffusion of pollution preven-tion and CP in the mining industry are discussed,followed by a presentation of a methodology that wouldaccelerate its current pattern of environmental improve-ment, and put it in a better position to implement cleanertechnologies and strategies.

2. The need for pollution prevention and cleanerproduction (CP) and their significance in themining industry

In industry, the traditional end-of-pipe technologiesused to treat wastes have been average at best. Thesework to remediate pollution problems after they haveoccurred, rather than tackling them before they develop.The result has often been widespread environmental andecological damages, the cleanup costs for which firmshave financed. A more effective approach to waste man-agement is pollution prevention and Cleaner production(CP), which aims at reducing levels of pollutants inwaste streams prior to their release. The adoption of pre-ventative and CP strategies have proven integral inreducing environmental stresses, and have saved firmsenormous amounts of money [1] that would have other-wise been spent on environmental cleanup.

In the case of mining operations, vis-a`-vis those ofother industries, pollution prevention and CP are ofutmost importance since virtually every biotic and abi-otic entity can be impacted from activities. Inter-nationally, the environmental effects of mining werefully realized circa-1970, when strict environmentallegislation was passed for the first time, particularly inNorth America and Europe. The overall environmentalperformance of the mining industry has since improvedsubstantially. Levels of toxic pollutants in air emissionsand effluent discharges have dropped dramatically, andthe methods used to monitor and control waste streamshave been upgraded significantly. This has, for the most

part, been achieved from integrating cleaner techno-logies and strategies into several polluting areas of oper-ation. Since the continual functioning of a mine can yieldimmeasurable environmental stress, it is imperative thatmining operations be assessed regularly to determineappropriate “fits” and opportunities for cleaner techno-logies and strategies.

3. Examples of cleaner technologies and strategiesin the mining industry

The importance of minimizing and managing pol-lutants in the industry has led to the emergence of anumber of cleaner technologies and strategies, each ofwhich is highly efficient at reducing and detoxifyingwastes released from point sources. These systems, someof which have wide-ranging purposes, and others, spe-cific roles, all share the characteristics of CP systemsthat Christie et al. [2] have identified:

O Each system takes thermodynamics seriously, focus-ing not on linear throughput of materials but on con-tinuous reduction in energy, materials and wastes

O The use of each system results in a series of wastereduction measures: minimization, reuse, recoveryand disposal

O Each system calls for an integrated approach todesign, manufacture, and use of a product, where, inaddition to inputs and waste residuals, how productsare produced, disposed of, as well as how they aremade are accounted for

O Each system, over the long-term, is cheaper than con-ventional “end-of-pipe” clean-up technology

Collectively, these technologies have enabled companiesto operate in compliance with the stringent requirementsexpressed in environmental law, satisfy stakeholderdemands, and reduce the costs associated with environ-mental cleanup and operations auditing.

3.1. High-tech flue gas desulphurization (acid gasscrubbers)

Most ferrous and nonferrous metals occur as sul-phides, and when smelted, emit significant quantities ofsulphur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. A majorproblem associated with mass outputs of SO2 is that it isthe principal component of acid rain, which, in sufficientamounts, is deleterious to natural ecosystems and man-made structures. Although the past two decades has wit-nessed a complete makeover in SO2 emission legislation,the burdens and costs of having to remediate soils, water,and ecosystems, have been important reasons why sev-eral mining companies have adopted technical flue gasdesulphurization (wet scrubber) systems at their sites.

121G. Hilson / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 119–126

Howes et al. [3] and the OECD [4] cite desulphuriz-ation equipment as being conventional end-of-pipe rem-edies. However, a wet scrubber is presently the onlyeffective method available to cleanse flue gas, but moreimportantly, the thought behind their design, which is tominimize SO2, conforms to the ideas behind CP. Further,the overall effectiveness of scrubbing equipment makesthem more of a preventative strategy rather than a reac-tionary, ineffective end-of-pipe measure. Setups use limeslurries that routinely remove 90 percent of SO2 fromflue gases, and up to 99 percent removal can be achievedby using magnesium-enhanced lime and operating atappropriate pH and liquid-to-gas ratios [5]. In a typicalscrubbing process, high temperature combustion gasesrise upwards through a smelting tower, and enter thescrubber, which quenches the flue with streams of lime-rich solution. The gas then proceeds upwards through aseries of spray healers that introduce a uniform liquidflux of droplets [6]. These alkaline slurries, in effect,chemically neutralize the acid gas before it is releasedinto the atmosphere.

3.2. Wastewater treatment technologies

As Huisingh and Baas [1] note, CP is the most effec-tive approach to achieving improved water quality. Theproven inadequacies associated with conventional end-of-pipe water pollution control require firms to use morepreventative approaches in their quests for achievinglegislative compliance and waste minimization. Themost prevalent water pollution issue in the mining indus-try is acid mine drainage (AMD). Since coal and mostmetals occur as sulphides, separating their deposits fromuneconomic gangue creates vast quantities of waste rockand tailings, which, if flushed with rainwater or snow-melt, creates AMD [7]. If left untreated, the AMD, whendischarged into recipient waterbodies, creates conditionstoo toxic for fish and benthic invertebrates. An almostequally serious water pollution problem confrontingmining operations is contamination from heavy metals,particularly copper, lead cadmium and arsenic. Althoughtrace quantities of these heavy metals occur naturally inthe environment, mining and smelting processes increasetheir “loadings” to toxic levels. When water comes intocontact with exposed, excavated rock, these metals areleached and carried to lakes, rivers, and streams, wherethey poison organisms directly.

The passive approaches (e.g. naturally occurring geo-chemical and biological processes) that have been tra-ditionally used by the mining industry to tackle theseproblems have been unable to effectively preventenvironmental damages, and consequently, have createdenormous cleanup costs for firms. A number of advancedwastewater treatment technologies, however, haveemerged in recent years that more effectively mitigatethese water pollution problems. These include:

O Electrochemical methodsO PlasmotechnologiesO Membrane filtrationO Evaporation/CrystallizationO Biodegradation processesO Chemical precipitators

A major drawback with conventional end-of-pipe waterpollution remedies is their inability to minimize ecologi-cal “costs”, since each works to treat pollution problemsafter they have occurred, rather than targeting to preventthem before hand. The resulting ecological problems areoften unrepairable, therefore creating huge burdens forthe firm. Adopting preventative water pollution stra-tegies, such as those listed above, minimizes toxic efflu-ents, and helps put a firm in a better position to avoidthe costs of ecological “shock” created by mining wastesdispensed into water bodies.

3.3. Chemical detoxification

Different chemicals are used in the benefaction(dressing), leaching and refining processes of mineralsat mine sites. Many, however, are toxic to a wide rangeof plant and animal species, making it imperative thatmethods be in place that ensure these chemicals do notleak into soils and groundwater, or find their way intolakes and rivers. For example, in the case of silver andgold mining, cyanide has been the leach reagent ofchoice for over a century. Applied to a pile of rock ina low energy-intensive process called “heap leaching”,cyanide chemically dissolves gold and silver particles,is recovered, and recirculated until it is no longer econ-omic to continue leaching the residual metals from theore. However, after gold is removed, toxic transitionmetal cyanides and free cyanides remain in the pile [8],which, if leached, is lethal to a wide range of species ifexposed. In addition, the cyanide, like other chemicalsused in mineral processing, such as mercury and surfac-tants, can cause widespread ecological damage if acci-dentally released. The traditional methods used to treatcyanide — particularly natural degradation and detox-ification using harmful chemical processes such as alka-line chlorination — have failed to prevent environmentaldisasters in the past. Many substitute strategies and tech-nologies have emerged, which, if widely adopted, wouldresult in widespread CP in the industry. These include:

O Treatment using hydrogen peroxideO SO2/Air detoxification processesO Biological oxidationO Advanced chemical recyclingO Catalysis, bio-oxidation and photolysis detoxification

These “cleaner” strategies put a mine in a better position


to avoid a potentially costly chemical-induced ecologi-cal disaster.

4. A case study of North American miningoperations

4.1. Investment in pollution prevention andenvironmental improvement

There has been an ever-intensifying pattern of invest-ment in cleaner technologies and strategies in NorthAmerican mining operations. Canadian mines aloneinvested CAN$116.6 million in waste treatment facilitiesin 1996, a significant increase from the CAN$6 millionspent in 1992 [9]. Surveys and studies further confirmthis recent shift to increased pollution prevention andCP. For example, in a study conducted by Statistics Can-ada, Environmental Protection Expenditures in the Busi-ness Sector, 1995, it was discovered that of all the Can-adian industries, the mining sector spends the largestamount on environmental protection and pollution pre-vention projects (16% of total costs), a sum of approxi-mately CAN$390 million each year [10]. In addition tofinancing numerous projects, the Canadian mining indus-try has developed a number of practical pollution pre-vention guides, the most popular being the Guide to theManagement of Tailings Facilities. Developed by theMining Association of Canada (MAC), the nationalorganization of the Canadian mining industry, the docu-ment helps companies integrate environmental andsafety considerations in a consistent manner, with con-tinuous improvements in the operation of tailings facili-ties [11].

A similar investment pattern has occurred at USmines. Since 1973, pollution abatement measures in theUS mining industry have more than tripled, increasingfrom US$965.4 million to US$2569 million [12,13].Further, the US Environmental Protection Agency’sOffice of Pollution Prevention and Toxics is continuallyfunding a number of pollution prevention projects thatinclude mining operations. Many technical documentsthat detail methods to promote pollution prevention atmines have also been produced by the industry withassistance from government. These have been publishedindividually, or have been included in sector reports suchas Mining: Metallic Ores and Minerals and Profile of theMetal Mining Industry [14,15].

Pollution from mining has decreased continent-wideas a result of this increased investment in cleaner techno-logies and strategies, and environmental protection. Forexample, the group of mines representing MAC had col-lectively reduced air emission levels by 17 percentbetween 1996 and 1997. The group has also significantlyreduced releases of heavy metals as a result ofimplementing improved environmental management

practices. Between 1993 and 1997 alone, annual dis-charges dropped by nearly 50 percent, from 4753 t to2585 t [11]. Similar improvements have occurred in theUS. For example, the implementation of cleaner techno-logies and strategies has enabled nonferrous smeltingoperations to reduce their emissions of SO2. In 1970,releases of SO2 from nonferrous operations totaled 4060t. By 1997, this amount had decreased to 378 t, and itcontinues to decline with continuing research. Ferroussmelting operations have enjoyed similar environmentalsuccess, decreasing SO2 releases from 715 t in 1970 to156 t in 1997 [16].

In sum, both Canadian and US mining districts havereduced waste streams as a result of implementing cle-aner technologies and strategies.

4.2. Environmental improvements in Sudbury, Ontario,Canada: a North American mining district

An excellent example of a North American miningdistrict that has benefited from implementing cleanertechnologies and strategies is Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.For over a century, Sudbury copper and nickel mineshad operated with minimum environmental safeguards.By the 1970s, the city was essentially an ecologicalwasteland, heavily victimized by decades of acidic depo-sition created by SO2 fumes from metal smelters. Nearlyevery biological entity within a 500 km radius had beentouched, and amid severely contaminated surface soilsand water were 20,000 ha of completely barren land and80,000 ha of semi-barren land [17].

In the past 25–30 years, however, there has been acomplete environmental turnaround in Sudbury, due ina large part to the adoption of improved desulphurizationapparatuses by the Falconbridge and INCO companies.Notable examples include Falconbridge’s furnace devel-opments in its nickel–copper smelters [18], and INCO’sOutokumpto “flash smelter” [19], which have bothworked to reduce sulphur in concentrate. Improvementslike these have led to reduced levels of emissions of SO2

in Sudbury. For Falconbridge, in 1993, emissions of SO2

were less than one fifth (55 kt) of the 1970 output (320kt), in spite of a tripling in nickel production over thattime period. INCO has experienced similar success,achieving an 87 percent reduction in SO2 emissions from1972 to 1994 [20].

5. Barriers to implementing pollution preventionand CP strategies in the mining industry

Not every mining district is like Sudbury and canfreely implement cleaner technologies and strategies.Why has pollution prevention and CP not been infectiousthroughout the industry? In certain cases, many barriersexist that prevent the adoption of cleaner technologies


and strategies. Both individually and collectively, thesehave worked to detract corporate attention and invest-ment in highly efficient waste minimization techno-logies. The most significant barriers are economic, tech-nologic, and legislative.

5.1. Economic barriers

Many [3,21,22] have proposed that conventional end-of-pipe pollution abatement, in many instances, requiresless capital investment, less development and less dis-ruption than cleaner technologies and strategies. Thesetechnologies are therefore more attractive for a firm witha strict budget and limited funds, which, from the per-spective of environmental performance, is aiming onlyto invest what is necessary to meet legislative com-pliance, since no revenues can realistically be allocatedtowards purchasing cleaner technologies. This generalpattern has occurred at many mining sites throughout theworld, especially those of the “Junior Companies” —small operations with limited resources and no regularsources of income that finance operations through theissuance of treasury shares [23]. Since the industry can-not control the value of the commodity, severe down-turns in price affect how each mine is managed. Forexample, in the case of gold mining, many operationshave suffered (environmentally) from the recent econ-omic stock market crash of the mineral. In one personalcommunication with an environmental manager at aCanadian site, it was revealed that severe cash flow prob-lems forced the operation to shift to a mode of regulatorycompliance since no funds were available to invest inproactive technologies. In another communication witha manager from an American site, the same viewpointwas expressed. Citing cyanide management as anexample, recent economic pressures forced the companyto abandon bio-detoxification methods on heap leachclosure, deemed as being the “cleanest” method, andadopt less expensive chemical detoxification methodsinstead, which are more prone to environmental degra-dation.

A second note on economic barriers is that althoughthere are highly efficient waste minimization techno-logies available on the market, a lack of available fundsprevents widespread adoption of these in the miningindustry. For example, Noranda Inc., a multinational for-estry and mining company based in Toronto, Ontario,Canada, has in place at its mine sites throughout theworld the most highly advanced pollution preventionapparatuses. For example, at its Brenda Mine in BritishColumbia, Canada, a CAN$1.1 million wastewater treat-ment facility was installed in 1998, the cost of which tooperate is an estimated CAN$1.5 million per year [24].Very few other companies can speak of equivalentenvironmental technology. While large mining compa-nies have pollution control systems in place, a limited

environmental budget restricts spending on highlyefficient, expensive pollution prevention and CP techno-logies. For smaller sites — particularly those of the Jun-ior Companies — the implementation of such leading-edge environmental technology is completely unfathom-able.

5.2. Technologic problems

In many instances, structural barriers exist that preventthe adoption of cleaner technologies and strategies.Some of the pollution control systems at sites representbillion dollar investments, and the people employed haveskills and knowledge specific to the system [4]. Changesto conventional technologies could make workers andmanagers obsolete, and would require investment bycompanies in training programs, an added difficulty fora firm with a limited budget. Further, as Gombault andVersteege [25] note, often in a small or medium sizedoperation — in this case a mine — managers and staffpersonnel have limited time to make the inventory ofwaste streams required by law, let alone identify possi-bilities for reduction. Compounding the problem is a fre-quent shortage of manpower. This inhibits the chancesof formulating a methodology that would help theseoperations structurally improve their environmental per-formance.

In many parts of the world, another major technologi-cal barrier preventing the adoption of cleaner technologyin mining operations is the lack of available systems. Asignificant portion of global mineral production orig-inates from grassroots operations, which lack the appro-priate technologies to avoid environmental problems.For example, in many small-scale gold and silverrefining processes, primitive panhandlers in countrieslike Brazil and China continue to use mercury in spiteof its documented environmental impacts. With virtuallyno environmental safeguards in place, mercury is appliedto collected sediments, and “wets” and adheres to met-allic gold and silver, forming a pasty amalgam [26].Waste mercury is often disposed untreated into nearbystreams, or sediments are roasted which releases bothnoxious SO2 and gaseous mercury. Limited interventionby governments is the main reason why these operationscontinue to exist without any environmental safeguardsbut ultimately, a lack of available technologies inhibitsCP in instances like these.

5.3. Legislative barriers

The primary problem with environmental legislationis that it is cosmopolitan throughout the world. Thegovernments of many countries, particularly those of theDeveloped World, have well-established environmentalmandates in place. Here, regulations are strict, and theenormous penalties for noncompliance are incentives


alone for firms to pursue paths of pollution preventionand CP. However, environmental legislation is amendedso often in the Developed World that systems that arerecognized as being effective pollution prevention appar-atuses one year could very well be obsolete in the yearsto follow. For example, here in Canada the federal MetalMining Liquid Effluent Regulations (MMLER) werepassed in February, 1977, under the Fisheries Act. Theregulations set authorized concentration limits for del-eterious substances — arsenic, copper, lead, nickel, zinc,total suspended matter and radium-226 — contained ineffluents discharged to water frequented by fish [27].Initially, mines struggled to comply with the standardsand it has only been recently that they have finallyadjusted, achieving a 98 percent compliance rate indus-try-wide by the end of 1994 [28]. Many sites, at the time,had in place environmental safeguards to minimizeAMD, heavy metals loading, and air emissions that putthem beyond regulatory compliance levels. However, theMMLER standards are in the process of being reworked,which, in the end, could make these current cleaner tech-nologies mere environmental compliance machines.

On the flip side, in the Developing World, there is aproliferation of “loose” environmental legislationbecause of technological and information “gaps”. Whilesome of the newly industrializing countries — parti-cularly those in Southeast Asia — are rapidly catchingup to the pollution prevention practices of industrializedcountries, many other underdeveloped nations continueto struggle to compete with richer economies, and in theprocess, greatly overlook environmental issues. Forexample, it was in only 1988 that Mexico passed itsGeneral Law for the Ecological Balance and Protectionof the Environment [29], compared to the environmentallegislative polices that have been in effect in Europeancountries, Canada and the US for decades. In anotherexample, Argentina, the environmental framework underLaw 24,585 was passed during the 1990s [30]. Althoughactivities from exploration through to refining arecovered, this legislation overall is not very comprehen-sive. In countries like these, the problem is not with themultinationals, which generally operate at the sameenvironmental level throughout the world but with thesmall, local operations that are competing with thesecompanies. Although “loose” environmental legislation,for companies, is not perceived as being a problem, itis a major obstacle for the government and local environ-mental groups, as well as independent agencies seekingto improve industrial environmental performance.

6. Methods to improve environmental management,and promote pollution prevention and CP in themining industry

For the leading-edge environmental practitioners ofthe industry, environmental planning has become an

integral component of corporate agendas but for othercompanies, improved environmental management hasbeen a struggle. In such cases, obstacles preventing theadoption of cleaner technologies and strategies havebeen too difficult to overcome. To improve environmen-tally at their sites, a number of changes are needed.These, if made, would enable even the smallest miningoperations to more effectively implement plans for pol-lution prevention and CP.

6.1. Governmental intervention

Small-scale enterprises often require financial supportand appropriate technology to improve their productionprocesses. For mines, particularly those of smaller com-panies, limited funds, combined with a shortage of man-power make a shift from conventional end-of pipe pol-lution control to pollution prevention and CP virtuallyimpossible. Given these difficulties, for mines to effec-tively implement cleaner technologies and strategies,governments must take greater responsibility in promot-ing pollution prevention and CP. Unless governmentsclearly indicate that an industrial movement towards CPis of national interest, and are major goals of both federaleconomic and environmental policy, there may be verylittle incentive for mining firms to investigate and installcleaner technologies. Yakowitz [31] has identified manyof the priorities for governments, including:

O Obtaining and disseminating the appropriate infor-mation concerning cleaner technologies and stra-tegies, and outlining their economic aims

O Engendering strong public support for economicdevelopment based on cleaner technologies by pro-viding information and educational materials

O Providing documented results of successful casesO Arranging demonstration projectsO Ensuring that banks, insurance companies and other

lending institutions favour cleaner technologies intheir investment decisions

O Developing and implementing a cleaner technologycertification system for products, processes and ser-vices

O Providing technical assistance to firmsO Working with universities and the private sector to

develop managerial accounting systems for CP

In sum, governments must assume a leadership role andpromote the basic changes in awareness concerning theenvironment, pollution prevention and CP.

To promote CP measures that are costly, governmentsand donor agencies must develop schemes for financialassistance that are procedurally simple and easily access-ible [32] by small-scale mining operations. Further,implementing a number of financial and technical incen-tives would work to steer mining operations in an


environmentally benign direction. Benefits such as lev-ies, tax breaks, subsidies, and partnerships with edu-cational facilities could play important roles in facilitat-ing a movement towards CP.

6.2. Education and training

An obvious internal change required at mines is anincreased level of awareness of both environmentalissues, and the potential roles of cleaner technologiesand strategies in the industry. In many situations, aware-ness of pollution and health risks is low. Education atevery level is the key to increasing employee knowledgeof environmental issues, and ensuring that pollution pre-vention and CP move to the forefront of corporateagendas. Education can be fundamental in serving topromote understanding of the full impacts of mining pro-cesses and methodologies. Further, it can serve to pro-mote business appreciation of how cleaner technologiesand strategies can reduce environmental impactsthroughout operations [4].

Awareness training must begin with the managerialstaff and engineers of sites. Although these people areacquainted with environmental problems such as AMD,chemical usage, and emissions, often, ecological effectsare not fully understood. Awareness will motivate theseindividuals to work toward minimizing environmentalimpacts and extending knowledge of pollution issues toother employees, since a clean environment is to thebenefit of employee health. To aid in the training pro-cess, mines may require assistance from consultants, ormay even need to hire people with the appropriateknowledge and skills.

6.3. Improved planning

A final note is that improved planning would put amine in a better position to implement cleaner techno-logies and strategies, and enable it to avoid unnecessaryenvironmental cleanup, hence, scrutiny from governmentand lobbying groups. Environmental issues must beaccounted for in the original blueprints. An inventoriedlisting of environmental technologies, treatment pro-cesses, and toxic chemicals used, should be made upfront. Further, in the design of the mine, ecological “situ-ations” should be heavily accounted for when determin-ing where to implement specific environmental techno-logies. For example, it makes more sense to situate anAMD treatment and discharge site in close proximity toa waterbody with a large number of bicarbonate materialand a high buffering capacity, rather than constructingit near a waterbody containing sensitive ecological floraand fauna. This also applies when determining thelocation of setups involving the use of toxic chemicalssuch as cyanide, mercury and surfactants. These shouldbe situated in less-sensitive ecological areas, and the

types of environmental safeguards to be used should bestated up front.

For mines already established, two major changes canbe made that would put operations in an excellent pos-ition to implement cleaner technologies and strategies.First, the installation of an environmental managementsystem (EMS) — a set of organizational procedures,responsibilities, processes, and necessary means toimplement environmental policies [33] — would enablean operation to more effectively control and reduce itsenvironmental impacts, and better anticipate changingenvironmental conditions [34]. A highly evolved EMScontains basic components like implementation stra-tegies, measurement and evaluation criteria, efficiencymeasures, and goals for improvement, and can oftenadhere to recognized international standards — mostnotably, those of the International Organization for Stan-dardization (ISO) of Geneva, Switzerland: ISO 14001[35]. Often, the incompatibility with international stan-dards like ISO has detracted many mines fromimplementing an EMS. For example, a requirement ofISO 14001 certification under Legal and other Require-ments is to “comply to relevant environmental legis-lation” [36]. This makes practical sense for minesoperating in countries that have environmental legis-lation in place but for those based in countries lackingenvironmental laws and enforcement, ISO 14001 certi-fication would be a wasted expense. However, an EMSdoes not have to conform to international standards inorder to be effective, just as long as key environmentalmanagement issues are clearly identified. In fact, a well-designed EMS can go well beyond the traditional pro-cess-driven views of ISO and other international stan-dards by taking into account other activities such aslandscaping, commuting, and life-cycle analysis [37].Second, through conducting baseline environmental aud-its, firms are able to more readily identify environmentalproblems, and areas where improvements can be made.Auditing involves a thorough investigation of everyindustrial system and process. These must be conductedat regular intervals since technologies are constantlyimproving, and environmental demands are quicklychanging.

To summarize, there are a number of barriers pre-venting the adoption of cleaner technologies and stra-tegies at many mine sites throughout the world. Over-coming these obstacles requires several changes to bemade in the industry, which, if pursued actively, couldbe instrumental in steering many mining operationstoward CP. Specifically, a combination of governmentefforts, increased education and improved planning atsites are the keys to improving environmental perform-ance in the mining industry.


7. Conclusion

This paper has provided an overview of pollution pre-vention and Cleaner production (CP) in the miningindustry. Since mining operations can cause widespreadenvironmental degradation on numerous fronts, it makesit imperative that environmental technologies be in placeat sites that work to minimize wastes prior to their dis-charge. Although a number of highly efficient cleanertechnologies and strategies are available, and havealready been implemented at many sites, majorobstacles — economic, technologic, and legislative —have prevented their implementation at other sites. Thesebarriers appear difficult to overcome but expandedgovernmental roles, employee training and education,and select internal changes to operations, would enablethe mining industry, as a unit, to fully pursue a path ofpollution prevention and CP.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for valuable contributions fromDr Gordon Hopper, Dr Leo Baas, Professor BarbaraMurck, Professor Sonia Labatt, Professor VirginiaMaclaren, and Mr Paul Rochon (Environment Canada).The author would also like to thank Dr Michael Over-cash and three anonymous reviewers for comments onan early version of this paper.

References

[1] Huisingh D, Baas L. Eur Water Pollut Cont 1991;1(1):24–30.[2] Christie I, Rolfe H, Legard R. Cleaner production in industry.

London: PSI Publishing, 1995.[3] Howes R, Skea J, Whelan B. Clean and competitive. UK: Earths-

can Publications, 1997.[4] OECD. Technologies for cleaner production and products.

France: Organization for Economic Development andCooperation (OECD), 1995.

[5] Harriott P, Smith K, Benson LB. Environ Prog 1993;12(2):110–4.[6] Strock TW, Gohara WF. Chem Engng Science

1994;49(24A):4667–79.[7] Sanchez L. Environ Mngmnt 1998;22(4):521–31.[8] Clayton CA, Goldberg MM, Potter BB. Chemometrics and Intel-

ligent Lab Syst 1997;36:181–93.[9] Statistics Canada. Capital expenditures by type of asset and by

division. In: Millions of dollars, Annual (Table 1): Mining andOil Well Mine BLDGS, Treatm. Facilities. Ottawa: StatisticsCanada Database, CANSIM (www.statscan.ca/cansim.cg), 1999.

[10] Statistics Canada. Environmental protection expenditures in thebusiness sector, 1995. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1998.

[11] ARET. Environmental Leaders 3: voluntary action on toxic sub-stances. Ottawa: Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics,1999.

[12] Department of Commerce. Pollution Abatement Costs andExpenditures, 1992 in Economic, Social and Environmental DataBank (CD-ROM). Washington: US Department of Commerce,Economics and Statistics Administration, 1992.

[13] Department of Commerce. US Department of Commerce, Bureauof the Census, Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures.Washington: Current Industrial Reports, MA-200, DOC,Annual, 1993.

[14] EPA. Profile of the metal mining industry. Washington: UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency, 1995.

[15] Mining: Metallic Ores and Mineral. Technical Support DocumentInternational Training Workshop Principles of EnvironmentalEnforcement. Washington: EPA, WWF, UNEP, SEDESOL,1995.

[16] National Air Pollutant Emission Trends Update 1970–1997.Washington: Environmental Protection Agency, 1998.

[17] Gunn J, Keller W, Negusanti J, Potvin R, Beckett P, WinterhalderK. Water, Air, Soil Pollution 1995;85:1783–8.

[18] Stubina N, Chao J, Tan C. CIM Bull 1994;87(981):57–61.[19] Sirois LL, Macdonald RJC. Minerals, metals and mining techno-

logies. Canada: Minister of Supply and Services, 1983.[20] Crawford G. J Geochem Explor 1995;52:267–84.[21] Irwin A, Hooper PD. Bus Strat Environ 1992;1(2):1–11.[22] Bhat VN. The Green Corporation: the next competitive advan-

tage. London: Quorum Books, 1996.[23] NRC. Overview of trends in Canadian mineral exploration.

Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian IntergovernmentalWorking Group on the Mineral Industry, 1998.

[24] Noranda. Noranda 1998 Annual Environmental Report. Toronto:Self-published, 1999.

[25] Gombault M, Versteege S. J Clean Prod 1999;7:249–61.[26] Lacerda LD. Water, Air, Soil Poll 1997;97:209–21.[27] Environment Canada. Status Report on Water Pollution Control

in the Canadian Metal mining Industry (1994), Ottawa. Environ-mental Protection Series, Environment Canada, 1997.

[28] Environment Canada. Metal Mining Effluent Standards 1994Compliance Data, Ottawa Minerals and Metals Division,Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada, 1999.

[29] Albarracin SF. Resources Policy 1997;23(1/2):33–43.[30] Hernandez A. Resources Policy 1997;23(1/2):71–7.[31] Yakowitz H. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of cleaner pro-

duction. In: OECD Proceedings (Cleaner Production and WasteMinimisation in OECD and Dynamic Non-Member Economies,France, 1997:163–178.

[32] Frijns J, Van Vliet B. World Dev 1999;27(6):967–83.[33] Begley R. Environ Science Technol News 1996;30(7):298–302.[34] Jorjani H, Dyer JA. Impact Assess 1996;14:389–418.[35] DeSimone LD, Popoff F. Eco-efficiency: the business link to sus-

tainable development. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1997.[36] Lamprecht JL. ISO 14000: Issues and implementation guidelines

for responsible environmental management. USA: AMACOM,1997.

[37] Pringle J, Leuteritz KJ, Fitzgerald M, Sutner S, Gupta R, KelleyB, Roy N. ISO 14001: a discussion of implications for pollutionprevention. Washington: National Pollution Prevention Roundt-able ISO 14000 Workgroup White Paper, 1998.

pollution prevention and cleaner production in the mining industry: an analysis of current issues

Documents