Stakeholders’ workshop on the implementation of Directive

2006/21/EC

Management of waste from extractive industries

14 March 2017

2

► Presentation of the issue

► Evidence gathered

► Analysis of the implementation

► Good practice identified

► Possible solutions

Member State enforcement and control Presentation structure

Presentation of the issue Member State enforcement and control

3

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Article 17 sets inspection requirements during

the different stages of an extractive waste

facility

► Article 19 requires Member States to:

► lay down rules on penalties for infringement of

the provisions of the transposing laws

► take all measures necessary to ensure that

penalties are implemented

► adopt penalties that are effective, proportionate

and dissuasive

Evidence gathered Member State enforcement and control

4

► 3 indicators explored for Member State enforcement and control:

► Cases of non-compliance identified over the two reporting periods

► Review of Member State implementation reports

► Information provided on the non-compliance cases often incomplete and/or unclear

► Expertise of inspectors (diploma, technical training, etc.), how many inspectors per

site

► Consultation of trade association and mining experts literature

► Very limited information

► Evidence of Competent Authority carrying out sampling of mining waste, laboratory

tests and / or stress tests

► Consultation with an industry association

► Limited information

Analysis of implementation Member State enforcement and control

5

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Summary of the analysis of the implementation

► Number of non-compliance cases:

• Few countries identified issues of non-compliance

• Not possible to assess whether the limited number of cases is due to a high

compliance rate or to insufficient enforcement and control measures

► Expertise of inspectors (diploma, technical training, etc.), how many inspectors per

site

• Inspectors well qualified in countries with a ‘mining history’, but not always the

case in other MS

• The use of an independent expert to complement CA inspectors (e.g. UK and

Ireland) considered as a good practice

• No sampling and stress tests by CA inspectors

• Reliance on operators tests due to lack of technical and human resources

Possible solutions Member State enforcement and control

6

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Development by the Commission of technical inspection guidelines

► Based on a 2012 contractor report

► A draft act to be consulted on by the public in line with the "Better

regulation" commitment

► Adoption of the implementing act through the examination procedure

involving Member States representatives

Discussion Member State enforcement and control

7

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Do you consider the external report mentioned above as fit for

purpose? If not, please provide suggestions for improvement. Is the

ambition level proposed in this report proportionate to the risks to be

managed?

► Do you have examples of good practices relating to inspection of

extractive waste facilities that could be replicated in other Member

States?

8

Waste facility classification

Presentation of the issue Waste facility classification

9

Delivering on

our promises

► EWD recognises different types of facilities:

► Category A waste facilities;

► Waste facilities for non-hazardous non-inert

waste;

► Waste facilities for unpolluted soil, non-hazardous

prospecting waste, waste resulting from the

extraction, treatment and storage of peat and

inert waste;

► Waste facilities not meeting one of the criteria

described above (i.e. for instance facilities where

hazardous waste is stored but below the

threshold of meeting the Category A facility

definition)

Presentation of the issue Waste facility classification

10

► A waste facility shall be classified as Category A in line with Annex III of the

EWD and Commission Decision 2009/337/EC, if

► a failure or incorrect operation, e.g., the collapse of a heap or the bursting of a dam, could give

rise to a major accident, on the basis of a risk assessment taking into account factors such as

the present or future size, the location and the environmental impact of the waste facility if the

predicted consequences in the short or the long term could lead to non-negligible potential for

loss of life; serious danger to human health; serious danger to the environment; or

► it contains waste classified as hazardous

under the [Waste Framework Directive

2008/98/EC] above a certain threshold; or

► it contains substances or preparations

classified as dangerous/hazardous according

to [CLP]

Presentation of the issue Waste facility classification

11

Delivering on

our promises

► Of particular importance are Category A facilities

► The number of extractive waste facilities reported by Member States

appears low in comparison to information on extractive waste

generated

► Level of variation in the number of Category A facilities / discrepancies

between the numbers of facilities reported and the volumes of hazardous

extractive waste generated.

► Comparing the figures of the implementation report with the figures provided

in the statistical inquiry shows further discrepancies

Evidence gathered Waste facility classification

12

► Indicators explored for Waste facility classification

► Existence of guidelines and / or specific binding requirements to classify

mining waste facilities

► Sources: Review of Member State implementation report, Analysis of statistical data

by MS, Literature review (including Competent Authority websites), Engagement with

mining experts

► Coverage: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Slovakia,

Sweden and the UK

Reasons for classifying sites as Category A as reported by Member States

13

DRAFT 14/03/2017- work

in progress- data may be

revised

Analysis of implementation Waste facility classification

14

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

The analysis identified specific guidance for the

classification of facilities in two Member States

(Ireland and the UK)

There is not enough evidence to assure that

competent authorities of EU Member States have a

very consistent understanding of the relevant

concepts (such as what is a “serious danger to the

environment”)

Possible solutions Waste facility classification

15

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Dialogue with Member States on:

► What constitutes "extractive waste",

► What constitutes extractive "waste facilities" and

► How Category A facilities are identified in order to foster a correct and

uniform implementation of the Directive

Discussion Waste facility classification

16

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Are you aware of a structured approach being used in EU Member States for

the categorisation of "extractive waste" and also, for waste generated by

the extractive sector that is not to be considered as extractive waste? If so,

what information is available?

► Are you aware of a structured approach being used in the EU Member States

for the categorisation of extractive waste facilities? If so, what information

is available?

► Would there be added value in having EU level guidance on categorisation of

(extractive) waste, waste facilities, and in particular Category A facilities, as a

complement to the Commission Decision mentioned in the problem definition?

If so, what form should it take (compilation of good practices, case studies,

decision trees, or other)?

► Are there different categorisation systems used in Member States (e.g.

instead of categorising a facility as Category A, it might be categorised

according to a national system, e.g. for categorisation of dams)? If so, what

are the advantages/disadvantages of national systems?

17

Permitting procedures and financial guarantees

Presentation of the issue Permitting procedures and financial guarantees

18

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Article 7 permitting requirements:

► Extractive waste facilities must operate with a permit

► List elements that must be contained in the permit application

► Permit can only be granted if operator complies with the Directive

requirements

► Permit must be periodically reconsidered and updated

► Article 8 public participation requirements :

► Information of the public

► Public concerned to express comments and opinions to the CA

► Result of the consultation to be duly taken into account in the taking of the

decision

► Combined permitting procedures for mining waste facilities falling

under the Seveso and/or Industrial Emission Directives

Presentation of the issue Permitting procedures and financial guarantees

19

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Article 14:

► Extractive waste operators required to lodge a financial guarantee

► Decision 2009/335/EC:

► Further information on setting financial guarantees

Evidence gathered Permitting procedures and financial guarantees

20

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► 3 indicators explored:

► Public complaints against public participation procedure

► Very generic information from one source

► Application of BATs in relation to dam and heap stability

► A limited number of Member States have provided information on monitoring and

risk management measures to be applied by extractive waste facilities operators.

Limited information from literature review on new alternatives to conventional

tailing management

► Existence of guidance on setting financial guarantees

► Information identified from many Member States

Analysis of implementation Permitting procedures and financial guarantees

21

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Public participation procedure

► One NGO suggested closer involvement of the public in the permitting procedure

of mining activities. They request that the community's consent should be

compulsory for Category A waste management facilities.

► Application of BATs in relation to dam and heap stability

► There are new alternatives to conventional tailing management that ensure better

stability of the dam and the heap (e.g. high density thickened tailings or dry stack

filtered tailings)

► Existence of guidance on setting financial guarantees

► Overall appears to be implemented but information is general

Possible solutions Permitting procedures and financial guarantees

22

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Assessment of current practices for the reconsideration / updating of

permits in Member States with a view to foster good practices.

► Assessment of how Member States apply the EWD, Seveso and IED

in operational permits with a view to foster good practices for

integrated permitting.

► Foster a wider dissemination of existing good practices on financial

guarantees

Discussion Permitting procedures and financial guarantees

23

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Is there a need to clarify the interlinkages between the three Directives

mentioned above? If yes, how should such clarification look like

(preferred approach)?

► Would you see added value in a workshop on good practices in the

field of financial guarantees? If so, what should be the scope of such a

workshop?

24

Waste Management Plans

Presentation of the issue Waste management plans

25

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Article 5: Member States shall ensure operators draw up waste

management plans for the minimisation, treatment, recovery and

disposal taking into account sustainable development

► Objectives:

► Prevention and reduction of waste and its harmfulness

► Encouragement of the recovery of extractive waste

► Short and long-term safe disposal during:

► Design

► Operation

► After-closure

► Minimum contents (Article 5(3))

► To be reviewed every 5 years or amended (substantial changes)

► Avoidance of duplication

► Competent authorities shall approve and monitor implementation

Evidence gathered Waste management plans

26

► 3 indicators explored for Waste Management Plans

► Existence of guidance for operators to prepare waste management plans

► Limited evidence (best practice found in some Member States)

► Verification that the waste management plan includes the elements listed in

Article 5(3) of the Directive

► Most Member States include minimum content as in the Directive. Limited

evidence of verification system

► Number of Category A installations with an external emergency plan

► The list of Category A facilities with external emergency plans was taken from the

implementation reports (~75%)

Analysis of implementation Waste management plans

27

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Two examples of guidance with detailed explanations

► Limited evidence of verification of minimum content

► Waste management plans have been submitted since 2008:

► Experience from operators’ submissions

► Experience from competent authorities (review, approval and monitoring)

► Substantial knowledge base (almost 10 years)

Existing guidance identified Waste management plans

28

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► UK and Irish guidance

Proposed solution Waste management plans

29

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Compilation of best practices in the field of extractive waste

management plans and foster their wide dissemination.

Discussion Waste management plans

30

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Are you aware of any relevant guidance or EWMPs which you would

consider as best practice?

31

Inventory of closed waste facilities

Presentation of the issue Inventory of closed waste facilities

32

Delivering on

our promises

► Provision in Article 20 of the Directive

► Member States had to develop an inventory of closed waste facilities

► Deadline: 1st May 2012

► Guidance document from the TAC (2011)

Evidence gathered Inventory of closed extractive waste facilities

33

► National inventories are available online

► Some Member States considered that no facilities needed to be

included

► TAC Guidance on pre-selection:

► Risk-based

► Simple and office-based

► Address serious damage to both human health and the environment

(ecosystem) receptors

► Assess whether the closed waste facility contains either hazardous waste or

dangerous substances

► Reasonable and proportionate

► Eight Member States (AT, CZ, HU, IE, IT, SI, SE, UK) Risk-based

assessment method

Analysis of implementation Inventory of closed extractive waste facilities

34

► Despite evidence found for some Member States, it is unknown to

what extent Member States follow the TAC guidance

► National inventories are publicly available but:

► Same method?

► Same criteria?

► Same interpretation of the guidance?

► >20 links (Difficult analysis at EU-level, may not always be updated)

► There is no information on the frequency of updates (Directive

mentions they shall be “periodically updated”)

Possible solutions Inventory of closed extractive waste facilities

35

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► EU-wide inventory of closed extractive waste facilities that meet the

requirements specified in Article 20 of the Directive 2006/21/EC

Discussion Inventory of closed extractive waste facilities

36

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► To what extent is the guidance note developed by the TAC

subcommittee on pre-selection of closed facilities useful?

► Are there additional specific criteria in place or is there additional

guidance available in Member States to select the closed waste

facilities to be included in inventories?

► Would you consider the development of a publically available EU wide

inventory of closed facilities based on existing national inventories to

be useful?

37

Transboundary effects

Presentation of the issue Transboundary effects

38

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Article 16(3) of EWD requires Member States to ensure that in the

event of an accident involving a Category A waste facility likely to

have significant adverse effects on the environment of, and

any resultant risks to human health in, another Member State,

information provided by the operator to the competent authority is

immediately forwarded to the other Member State

Evidence gathered Transboundary effects

39

► Indicator 1: Existence of coordination mechanisms to ensure

information is forwarded to other Member states

► Source of information: MS implementation report

Analysis of implementation Transboundary effects

40

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► 3 MS reported that Category A facilities under their jurisdiction may

have an impact to another Member State:

► Spain (2)

► Italy (2)

► Sweden (2)

► Overall, Member States have established the relevant procedures and

defined the relevant authorities involved in this process

► However, findings on how well these procedures are applied in

practice are scarce due to lack of cases

► Guidelines exist at UNECE level for incidents with transboundary

impacts*

(*): https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2014/TEIA/Publications/1326665_ECE_TMF_Publication.pdf

Possible solutions Transboundary effects

41

Delivering on

our promises

► Development by the Commission of guidance on appropriate

transboundary communication (e.g. what “significant adverse effects

on the environment” on another Member State can be)

Discussion Transboundary effects

42

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Are the possible transboundary effects of extractive waste facilities

distinct from other sectors to such an extent as to justify dedicated

guidance?

► Are you aware of additional guidance/guidelines that could be relevant

for managing possible transboundary effects from extractive waste

facilities?

Guidance on implementation Priorities for guidelines on implementation - discussion

43

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Which key elements should be featured in such guidance to be a

useful tool to improve the implementation of the Directive?

► Does the list included in the background paper section 2.8 miss any

important issue?

► In view of limited resources, which priority topics should be covered in

such guidance among the following items?

► Waste facility classification

► Permitting

► Financial guarantee

► Waste Management Plan

► Transboundary effects

► Inventory of closed extractive waste facilities

44

► Gold mining in Europe

► Use of cyanide-based technologies

► Alternative technologies

► Implications

► Discussion

Update on the use of cyanide in gold extraction and possible alternatives Presentation structure

Gold mining in Europe

45

Delivering on

our promises

► Gold mining in the European Union contributes approximately 1.2% of

global mine production

► Finland, Bulgaria, Sweden and Spain are currently the largest gold

producers in Europe

Gold production 2014 (kilograms)

Source: British Geological Survey. 2015. World Mineral Production 2010-2014 https://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/statistics/worldStatistics.html

Use of cyanide-based technologies

46

► Cyanide-based technologies are one part of a series of steps in the

typical approach to gold production

► Raw ore extraction

► Ore crushing, grinding and grading

► Gravity separation or flotation

► Leaching to extract gold containing complexes

► Refining.

► Leaching stage typically uses cyanide-based technologies

► Chemical resistance of gold makes it difficult to find reagents that can

readily dissolve gold from the extracted ore

► Reagents which can dissolve gold (e.g. cyanide, chloride, sulphur

complexes), are mostly aggressive and toxic

Summary of the main possible alternative technologies

47

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

Name Current status / potential

Alpha-cyclodextrin Laboratory scale test only have been carried out. If developed to feasibility, could present a technology with a

benign waste, although reagents (hydrogen bromide and nitric acid) also present safety risks

Aqua regia Not feasible in large scale applications due to toxicity, corrosivity and instability of the reagent (nitric and

hydrochloric acids).

Chlorination Not adaptable for large scale operations. Economically unfavourable compared to cyanide leaching.

A demonstration plant has been built for a closed-circuit chlorination process, with no liquid or gaseous effluents

and inert, stable residues.

Bromine and iodine Not used due to difficult handling and high reagent costs. Not feasible in large scale applications.

Coal-oil agglomeration Only effective for removing free gold particles. Not effective for use with refractory ores.

Glycine Currently under research. No commercial scale trials reported.

Haber gold process Currently under research. No commercial scale trials reported.

Thiocyanate Not adaptable for large scale operations. Economically unfavourable compared to cyanide leaching. At the

experimental stage.

Thiosulphate Feasible but not widely used due to higher reagent cost and lower gold extraction rate. Potential for reduced

environmental risks. Economically unfavourable compared to cyanide leaching. Effective with preg-robbing and

high-copper ores due to lower sensitivity (than cyanidation) to contamination by cations. Has been used in

commercial full-scale applications in the US.

Thiourea Feasible but not used due to high reagent use and associated cost. Has potential for use with preg-robbing and

refractory ores resistant to cyanide. Potential for reduced environmental risks. Testing has reported that

combination of thiourea, thiocyanate and ferric sulphate reduces the thiourea consumption and hence may

increase commercial viability.

YES process Currently under research. No commercial scale trials reported.

Implications

48

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► European Parliament called for a ban on the use of cyanide mining technologies in the

EU in a 2010 resolution (and is again debating the issue).

► European Commission considered that a general ban of cyanide in mining activities was

not justified from environmental and health points of views

► Existing legislation (i.e. the EWD) includes precise, strict requirements, and limit values

for cyanide storage are the most stringent possible and imply a destruction step of

cyanide used before its storage

► Lack of better (i.e. lower environmental impact) alternative technologies available at

commercial scale; a general ban on cyanide use would imply the closure of existing

mines operating in safe conditions

► Situation does not seem to have changed substantially, although the development of

alternatives is worth monitoring

Questions and discussion

49

Add a coloured

transparent

segment and

caption if

required.

Delivering on

our promises

► Are you aware of further alternative processes that are already applied

in the EU or could replace cyanide in gold mining in the EU?

50

► National policies on extractives waste

► Case studies

Overview – Reprocessing of extractive waste Presentation structure

National policies on extractive waste

51

► 22 Member States responses

► Four Member States indicated they have dedicated strategies /

statements (Belgium, Bulgaria, Ireland and Sweden)

► Nine Member States indicated that extractive waste is covered in wider

waste management or resource efficiency strategies (Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Malta, Poland, Romania, Spain)

► Hungarian Office for Mining and Geology has commissioned work to

identify the quality, quantity and the possible exploitation options of

secondary raw materials in the extractive waste facilities

BRAVO – Bauxite Residue and Aluminium Valorisation Operations

52

Member State : Ireland, 30 stakeholders (private companies, SMEs, research

organisations, NGOs and academic) across the aluminium value chain

http://bravoeip.eu/

Objectives :

• Boost the innovation capacity of the Al value chain

• Foster co-operation across the Al value chain from extraction to recycling

• Creation of new value chains for recovered raw materials

• Test viability of solutions and processing concepts for secondary raw materials

• Mobilise the Al value chain to increase the impact of research, innovations and

achieve technology transfer

• Improve cooperation of actors in the value chain

• Promote socially acceptable, environmentally responsible and economically

viable technologies

• Generation of a more valuable waste which can be processed to recover critical

raw materials

BRAVO – Bauxite Residue and Aluminium Valorisation Operations

53

Activities / programme / description of the practice :

• Al-Ore: optimising the Al manufacturing process to improve sector competitiveness and employment. Increasing the

recyclability of by-products including bauxite residue (red mud)

• Al-Source: using red mud as a source of critical raw materials (e.g. gallium, titanium, selenium, germanium,

dysprosium and cerium)

• Al-Build: construction raw materials from red mud

• Al-Chain: developing a waste residue value chain building on the above aspects

• Al-Aware: raising public awareness, acceptance and trust on Al activities and management of red mud

Benefits (environmental / cost / other): Using red mud which is environmentally damaging due to its alkaline content.

Reclaiming materials. Enhancing employment opportunities. Extracting more value.

Transferability : The project is aiming to identify options for the whole Al value chain that can be replicated

Reprocessing of flotation tailings

54

Member State : Poland

Practices :

• The Zakłady Górniczo-Hutnicze Bolesław floatation tailings processing plant is

under construction

• Will have a processing capacity of two million tonnes of waste per year

• Will use the flotation tailings deposited in the nearby mining waste facility as input

• Purpose is to produce zinc concentrates from flotation waste

• Will be the first large scale installation of the secondary processing of tailings in

Europe

Reprocessing of flotation tailings

55

Benefits (environmental / cost / other) :

• Additional financial value from extraction of remaining minerals and metals

• Avoided environmental impacts of extraction for zinc containing minerals

• Socio-economic benefits from employment

Transferability :

• The practices described by Poland are transferrable where tailings have

suitable zinc content

Reprocessing of a closed mine’s waste

56

Member State : Spain

Stakeholders : Strategic Minerals Spain, mine of Penouta

History / background : Mine’s operations date from 1906 when shallow excavation of quartz was undertaken. Further

operations started in 1965. Approximately 700,000 tonnes of tin were extracted. The mine closed in 1985.

From 2011-2013 surveys were conducted finding large amounts of tin and tantalum minerals deposited in the floatation

tailings.

8.8 Mt of minerals with grades of 450 g/t of tin and 45g/t of tantalum were present. These minerals are now valuable, in

particular tantalum which is needed in many electronics devices such as mobile phones.

Reprocessing of a closed mine’s waste

57

Practice : Reprocessing of a closed mine’s waste.

Activities : Processing of mining wastes to extract tin and

tantalum minerals. Strategic Minerals Spain was provided

with the right to exploit the resource and can be an

important source to meet Europe’s tantalum needs.

Processing will be done through grinding of the ore,

concentration of minerals and magnetic separation. No

chemical processing is required. Water is being reused

with 75% of water re-circulated.

Benefits (environmental / cost / other) : Recovering

metals which are now increasingly valuable.

Transferability : Dependant on presence / concentration

of metals.

Stakeholders’ workshop on the implementation of Directive

2006/21/EC

Management of waste from extractive industries

Daren Luscombe – daren.luscombe@amecfw.com

Juan Calero – juan.calero@amecfw.com

14 March 2017