JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to use the Site in standard view. However, it seems JavaScript is either disabled or not supported by your browser. To use standard view, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options.

  • Bibliography
| Last Updated: :22/03/2024

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Title : DESIGNING SCIENCE BASED EFFLUENT PERMITS FOR THE MINING INDUSTRY
Subject : Water Pollution
Volume No. : xxx
Issue No. : 
Author : J.P. Clark
Printed Year : 2013
No of Pages  : 11
Description : 

The goal of this presentation is to firstly, review mine effluent permits in a number of regulatory jurisdictions; and secondly, to develop a strategy for incorporating the regulatory requirements into the environmental assessment (EA) process for new mine proposals. The focus was on the province of British Columbia (BC) and their recent initiative on the One Project, One Process initiative. This task was approached by reviewing mine effluent permits for various regulatory jurisdictions and comparing them to BC mine effluent permits. This comparison revealed a variety of approaches for designing mine effluent permits, but there is a common scientific approach, which supports the conclusion that the permitting of mine site discharges can be designed based on a scientific approach. This approach is expected to: (a) achieve sound environmental protection, (b) demonstrate the application of Best Achievable Technology, (c) incorporate sound sustainability approaches, (d) incorporate regulatory objectives, and (e) create efficiencies for the regulator and mining industry. There is an essential precursor to developing a sciencebased effluent permit for which the proponent must provide: (1) the necessary technical assessment information to demonstrate the mine effluent permit application will result in an environmentally protective effluent discharge, to the satisfaction of the permitting agency; (2) the necessary level of detail for essential mitigation pollution control works to demonstrate how they will be operated to achieve the necessary treatment goals; (3) the necessary level of detail for non-treatment mitigation (passive treatment, or passive pollution control); and (4) the necessary level of detail to demonstrate how pollutants will be prevented from being mobilized (or being generated) from ore and waste materials, or, if the pollutant originates from an added milling reagent, how the reagent will be reduced. While (active) mitigation pollution control equipment is more definable in an effluent permit, non-treatment mitigation is more nebulous in terms of defining in a mine effluent permit; it is therefore recommended that appropriate management plans be developed for essential mitigation pollution control and non-treatment mitigation (passive treatment) and submitted with the proponent’s EA/effluent permit application packages. Major deficits in adequate active and passive pollution control will inevitably lead to regulatory impediments to developing a permit and allowing a mine to be developed, although EA processes strive to preclude major permit information gaps; the onus is on the proponent to provide complete information in this area. Hence the importance of EA processes ensuring that the major technical information requirements for effluent permit development are included in the EA phase. Recently, this aspect of the mine EA process has taken on a new role under the political efforts of One Project, One Review Process (Canadian) and One Project, One Process (in BC). These initiatives translate, in part, to “synchronous permitting” (in BC): effluent permitting, for example, may be initiated shortly after the proponent submits the EA application to Ministry of Environment.

 

Read The Complete Paper: CLICK HERE