The launch of the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) in August 2020, following the failure of the Córrego do Feijão mining facility in Brumadinho, Brazil, which killed 270 people and caused significant environmental damage, has seen the global mining industry aligning with the GISTM. Modern Mining recently caught up with CEO of the Federation for a Sustainable Environment (FSE), Mariette Liefferink, to find out how proactive the local mining industry has been in meeting the targets set out by the GISTM. By Nelendhre Moodley.
“Shortly after the disaster in Brumadinho, a call to industry was issued, supported by key investors. A Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) was developed and subsequently launched in August 2020,” says Liefferink.
She explains that tailings storage facilities (TSFs) are among the largest dams and structures in the world that will stand in perpetuity.
“As most of the TSFs in South Africa are upstream TSFs, they are considered low cost but high-risk developments. If poorly designed, constructed, or managed, TSFs present a significant risk to local communities and ecosystems, especially in downstream environments. A catastrophic release of a large amount of tailings could lead to long term environmental damage with huge clean-up costs.”
TSF poses high risk to people and the environment
According to Liefferink, historic tailings storage facilities have several associated challenges including, amongst others, that most of the historic TSFs are unlined (which poses challenges regarding ground and surface water contamination); have steep slopes (making the establishment of vegetation difficult and resultant erosion and dust fallout); as well as the fact that a number of TSFs have historically been constructed in wetlands.
“Due to the encroachment of residential developments onto TSFs, risks and hazards to local communities, such as radioactivity, windblow dust, contaminated water and soil, etc, have increased. To manage mining facilities responsibly, the TSF owner must understand the physical and chemical risks associated with the TSF and implement controls to reduce risks relating to potential health, safety, environmental, societal, business, and economic impacts in line with regulations.”
Liefferink cites a 2008 report titled A Remote Sensing and GIS Based Integrated Approach for Risk Based Prioritization of Gold Tailings Facilities — Witwatersrand, South Africa, which states that there are 270 TSFs within the Witwatersrand gold fields alone, containing over 6 billion tons of iron pyrite tailings.
The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that South Africa has been left with a legacy of abandoned tailings storage facilities, the majority of which have unstable slopes; no dust or erosion control or stormwater management systems; no functioning piezometers and no penstocks or toe paddocks, access control, warning signs or fences.
This has resulted in several TSF failures (the most recent were slope failures of two TSFs, which were owned by the Mintails Group of Companies), which have impacted ground and surface water resources, air quality, sensitive and protected eco-systems, and the health and safety of local communities and the environment.
Legislating TFS
Liefferink says the requirement to rehabilitate any environmental damage that occurred during mining, and to make financial provision for the rehabilitation and management of environmental impact or damage only became a legislative requirement in 1956 with the promulgation of the Mines and Works Act (27 of 1956).
To a large extent tailings dams were unregulated throughout the first half of the 20th century.
Speaking of the road to TSF legislation, Liefferink explains that in 1978, the Chamber of Mines’ Guideline for Environmental Protection – The Design, Operation and Closure of Metalliferous and Coal Residue Deposits, provided the first structured guideline for the design and operation of tailings dams in Southern Africa. It was subsequently updated in 1983 and again in 1996.
“In 1998, the South African Bureau of Standards’ Code of Practice: Mine Residue, although not legally binding, provided guidelines for the siting, design, construction, operation, management, surveillance and closure of tailings dams in Southern Africa. In South Africa, SANS 10286 (SABS, 1998) has been adopted by many mining companies. Since the adoption of SANS has been so pervasive, it is likely that the courts referred to it as a benchmark in the absence of other legislation,” she notes.
Interestingly, it was only in 2001 that the South African Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) required that the owner of a TSF have a mandatory Code of Practice for the facility.
The Code of Practice documented areas of responsibility for any mine residue deposit and required that it be updated on a continual basis.
Currently, there are a number of legal documents governing the construction and operation of TSFs in South Africa and compliance with the National Environmental Management Act, (NEMA), Mine Health and Safety Act (MHSA), National Environmental Management Waste Act, National Water Act, and the Constitution of South Africa (1996), amongst others, is required.
The South African Constitution states that everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecological sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
Given the individual’s rights to a clean and healthy environment, legislation has identified who is to bear responsibility for TSF related issues – i.e. firms, directors and those in management positions are to be held accountable should there be a failure in duty of care in the construction, operation and management of TSFs.
Liefferink explains that Section 34 of NEMA makes provision for firms (including companies and partnerships) and their directors (including board members, executive committees or other managing bodies or companies or members of close corporations or of partnerships) to be held liable, in their personal capacities, for environmental crimes.
“This personal liability also applies to managers, agents or employees who have done or omitted to do an allocated task, while acting on behalf of their employer.”
The Mine Health and Safety Act (MHSA) states that a general obligation rests on every employer to identify the relevant hazards and assess the related risks to which non-employees are exposed and to ensure that non-employees who are directly affected by the activities at the mine, are not exposed to any hazards to their health and safety.
“To this end, the employer must establish a policy concerning the protection of non-employees who are directly affected by the activities at the mine.”
In the case of TSFs at abandoned mines, the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act contends that these become the responsibility of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE).
The DMRE has, in cooperation with the Council for Geoscience, developed a national database of abandoned mines, with some 6 000 mines having been identified (2008 statistics).
These mines, which include gold mines, asbestos mines, copper mines, bismuth and molybdenum mines, have been found to pose a high environmental risk.
“Within the Witwatersrand gold fields there are no ownerless TSFs except for the Davidsonville Dump and the Tudor Dump of which the ownership is uncertain. There are, however, several dumps in care and maintenance,” explains Liefferink.
South African miners play their part
The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), which represents the world’s top 30 largest global mining companies, requires compulsory compliance to GISTM requirements by its members.
As such, ICMM members have committed to work towards designing, constructing, operating, monitoring and decommissioning tailings facilities that conform with the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management.
“The Standard strives to achieve the ultimate goal of zero harm to people and the environment with zero tolerance for human fatality. It requires operators to take responsibility and prioritise the safety of tailings facilities, through all phases of a facility’s lifecycle, including closure and post-closure. It also requires the disclosure of relevant information to support public accountability and the establishment of an Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan.”
According to Liefferink, although compliance with the GISTM is mandatory only for the current 30 members of the ICMM, financial institutions and insurers are likely to look increasingly tat the standard of management of tailings storage facilities when assessing dealings with mining houses; which makes it all the more imperative that mining houses adhere to the standards set by the GISTM.
“The FSE has knowledge of Sibanye-Stillwater and Gold Fields, as members of the ICMM, ascribing to the GISTM not only within the Witwatersrand gold fields but worldwide while other mining companies, such as DRD GOLD, Pan African Resources (a mid-tier gold mining company) and Harmony Gold, are all working towards the implementation of some of the principles of the GISTM. Other companies, include African Rainbow Minerals, Anglo American, Anglo Gold Ashanti, BHP, Glencore, Rio Tinto and South 32.”
Sibanye-Stillwater rolls-out its TSF strategy
Multinational mining and metals processing group, Sibanye-Stillwater, has been proactive in aligning with the standards set out by the ICMM and recently co-opted the services of the FSE to deliver presentations on tailings and the management of tailings storage facilities – as an independent and unrestricted party – to Sibanye-Stillwater’s host communities. The FSE’s mandate relates to:
- Inform interested and affected parties of the hazards, risks and impacts of tailings and tailings storage facilities.
- How to minimise the risks to communities from tailings and tailings storage facilities.
- Prepare the host communities in the event of the failure of a tailings storage facility.
- Involve interested and affected parties in decisions regarding closure and closure objectives, post-closure and future land use.
Sibanye-Stillwater, the world’s largest primary producer of platinum, second largest primary producer of palladium and third largest producer of gold, has already developed an Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan and Trigger Action Response Plans (TARPs), which are tools used to identify and manage risk.
TARPs describe pre-defined trigger alert levels (green, yellow, orange, and red) that are based on risk controls and critical controls of the TSF.
Liefferink explains that Sibanye-Stillwater has installed warning sirens in strategic places within the communities where it can be audible to all affected community members, should an emergency arise and evacuation is required, and has prepared a safety card (what to do and what not to do in the case of an emergency).
“Sibanye-Stillwater has also entered a MOU with the Gift of the Givers Foundation to provide humanitarian aid in case of a TSF failure. This information is currently presented to Sibanye-Stillwater’s host communities as well as the findings of the dam breach assessments.”
According to Liefferink, some of the leading local mining companies in South Africa continue to work proactively towards meeting the targets set out by the GISTM, with initiatives by companies, such as Sibanye-Stillwater, being a case in point.
