There is a certain predictability to how the regulatory framework of a mining jurisdiction evolves. In the beginning, regulators embrace the best methods and technologies of the day, readily updating the standards whenever evidence of better practice becomes available. But as a jurisdiction matures, standards are hard- coded into legislation and rigidity sets in.
The prevailing standards may be based on good science, but it is old science; as a result, innovation is suppressed. Rigid numerical and procedural standards remove the space for the mining industry to develop new approaches to geochemistry work such as analysis of data collected from water-quality monitoring programs.
In a recent SRK project, we understood that applying the jurisdiction’s rigid standards for a very small effluent discharge into a receiving water with naturally elevated metals would force our client into an expensive and potentially unsustainable solution for site closure. We rethought the whole process, approaching it from the simple concept of ‘do no harm’. This enabled us to evaluate the impact of various closure alternatives on the geochemical environments downstream of the mine. As a result we devised a method of sustainable closure that would cause no harm to the environment, even if it fails to meet the strict numerical standard at the discharge point. This approach now awaits regulatory approval.
Even when regulators are willing to accept new approaches, they usually put all the financial and other risk on the mine operator. For example, they might allow the operator to pursue a new approach but still evaluate it using the standard approach. Most mining companies are unwilling to take on that level of risk, stifling innovation in how we look at geochemical systems on mine sites and how we apply the information collected from geochemistry studies to mine operations and closure.
We as an industry should always look for new ways to do things, but if strict rules or standards prevent us from applying these methods in real life, and if the risk is borne entirely by the operator, then we miss out on the opportunity to do our jobs better going forward.
Regulators can correct this situation by minimizing the prescriptive standards or methodologies written into law. Instead, these standards should be written into policy and guidance documents, making them easier to change when new innovations and technologies become available.
If the standard is written into law, then a back door should always be left open for the mine operator to propose a different approach so long as they can demonstrate that it meets the overall objective of the law. When Nevada introduced its water pollution control legislation, the underlying principle was that operators ‘will not degrade waters of the state’. Although specific methods were written into the law, operators were given the option of submitting alternative approaches to the Division of Environmental Protection. The problem is that as regulators become more accustomed to specific methods, it makes it harder for mine operators to propose an alternative.
Mine operators and consultants can also help to improve the situation: we must be willing to propose alternative approaches, educate regulators and local communities, and put in the work required to prove that our approach is the right one.
In short, we must always continue to innovate and educate.
