|
|
|
|
CYANIDE CODECYANIDE CODE STEERING COMMITTEEMinutes of the 5h Meeting, December 3-5, 2001, held in Santiago, Chile
******************************************************************* Agenda Item 1 1.A Presentation by Jerome Simpson, Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (Hungary) Jerome Simpson spoke to us of who reviewed the draft Code and had some specific questions and areas of concern. Because these are highlighted in his presentation (attached), the specifics are not reiterated here. 1.B Presentation by Dr. Andrew Parsons, South African Chamber of Mines Andrew Parsons talked about mining in South Africa and the South African Chamber's development of their cyanide Guideline which is intended to be complementary to the international Code (a copy of his presentation slides are also attached). One of the very interesting points is that all gold miners in South Africa had been spoken to their Code drafter. In addition, a copy of the South African Guideline has been given to every gold mine in South Africa (each mine signed that they received a copy) regardless of whether they were Chamber members of not. Larger companies which are Chamber members have been asked to mentor smaller gold mining operations as standards of all gold mining operations need improvement. As an indication of government support, the Chief Inspector of Mines has issued a note to all gold mines recommending implementation of the cyanide Guideline and in the event of an accident, mines will have to give reasons why the Guidelines were not implemented. In terms of the relationship between the international Code and the South African Guideline, essentially the international Code provides the overview umbrella with national guidelines falling under it and being more specific to local circumstances and then under that, will be company specific guidelines which are even more specific to their individual sites. The South Africa Guideline will be revisited after the international Code is finalized. In the discussion following Andrew's presentation, several points were made, namely:
In terms of the Administering body, it should be independent of any one stakeholder group and should be internationally focussed (this points to the idea from UNEP for an International Mining and Minerals Forum or the initiative proposed as an outcome of the World Summit by the government of Canada). 1.C Presentation by Dr. Peter Lotz, MINTEK (South
Africa)
Agenda Item 2 Recent Cyanide Spills (Ghana and China) On 16 October, in Tarkwa, Ghana, there was a pipeline break resulting from a slipping toe of the heap leaching pad which broke a nearby pipeline. The mine is owned and operated by Gold Fields of South Africa. UNEP encouraged the company to post the environmental report of the accident that was filed with the Ghanaan authorities. The spill was reported shortly after the break occurred; a small nearby lake was impacted and, a 3rd party inspection found there were 54 dead fish; the 2 downstream villages were personally notified at 5:45 and water trucks made available in the villages until it was ascertained the water was safe to drink and the cyanide was neutralized in the water with sodium hypochlorite. UNEP calculated that 117 kg of cyanide was released into the environment. On 28 October 2001, there was an unknown cyanide spill at a mine owned by Satellite Goldfields in Kubekro, Ghana. No information has been posted on the Internet and no information is available from the government authorities. However, due to the lack of news, combined with impressions from personal discussions, Wanda indicated that the cyanide spill was probably minimal although any spill results in further blackening the eye of the mining industry. On 1 November 2001, there was a transport accident in Henan province, China when 11 tonnes of liquid sodium cyanide was released into a river. 500 tonnes of hypochlorite was used to neutralize the cyanide. The river was sealed off, detoxified and then opened again. A large fish kill was reported. After the accident in Ghana, Wanda had asked the Code Manager to investigate with the technical experts the recommended means to handle cyanide spills into flowing water as there are impacts from hypochlorite and from dumping one chemical to flow after another chemical doesn't result in neutralization. In the resulting discussion about how the Code might have prevented these (and other) accidents, the first point made was that the Standards of Practice relating to use, transport and emergency preparedness would have made a difference as the Code deals with monitoring and inspection, packaging for transport; and information about neutralizing spills. It was acknowledged that companies must not just add chemicals to free flowing water, and that companies will need to think about what kinds of accidents can occur and what the appropriate remedies are to follow. The first point also is that employees must be informed and educated about what to do in the event of an accident. Agenda Item 3 Code Rollout, Administrative Issues
and Promotion The Code will be published in January, co-sponsored by UNEP, the Gold Institute and hopefully by ICMM as UNEP and ICME initiated the investigation into cyanide and mandated the Steering Committee's efforts. A color sample of the trademark symbol was shown and Paul will be follow-up on the necessary steps to register this (hopefully it will become as well known and respected as that for Responsible Care).
Harold is working with Winner Associates on the website development (www.cyanidecode.org) and a small mailer will be prepared for sending out, probably in January. Frequently asked questions and answers will need to be prepared and posted on the website. Where applicable, information needs to be available concerning cyanide related initiatives being undertaken by other organizations (eg UNEP and ICOLD). Agenda Item 4 Steering Committee Member Perspectives Steve Hunt: labour has reviewed the Code and it looks good from their vantage point. Fred Fox: Kennecott did a pilot test of the Code and they found there was room for improvement in aspects of their operations vis-à-vis the Code and these areas are being addressed. Basie Marie: Anglo Gold also pilot tested the Code and although a significant portion of their cyanide bill is going into improvements, they are not there yet. There is a relationship between the international Code and the South African Guidelines, which, since it was launched has lost its initial momentum. The wait and see attitude is really not helpful. He expressed some concern that the smaller companies in SA may not want to sign up to the international Code (ie just sign on to the SA Guidelines). However, since the SA Guidelines have been launched, he has been approached by the Press about what is going on internationally. Norm Greenwald: 7 mines pilot tested the Verification Protocol and although they found administrative problems (i.e. repetitious in places) they discovered interpretation issues and areas where clarification was needed. In response, there has been clarification and some consolidation of the text to make it more user-friendly. Juergen Loroesch: the Code will lead to improvements for the producers and transporters as well as in the mine site operations. The Code will strengthen global emergency response and this is also needed. Michael Rae: This Code was discussed at a recent NGO meeting and participants were "underwhelmed" by draft 7. Most NGO's are concerned about the scope and especially how issues like the "home" for the Code and 3rd party verification will be operationalized. Will the Code prevent another Baia Mare accident? There remains concern: about the silence of the suitability of heap leaching in areas of high rainfall; community issues; host governance; industry-community issues; accreditation of auditors (i.e. technical competence and probity). Essentially, NGO's are reserving judgement until they see results. John den Dryver:A meeting in Perth reviewed the Code and there have been 2 trail runs. Normandy has spent a lot of time in management development and is reviewing all its sites. A lot of work will be required to prepare emergency plans and undertake training. John Gammon: The Code is a good product but general knowledge about it is very low as is mining association knowledge; this is of concern. For governments, they are asking if this is relevant for them as they think that large companies are already doing this but there is concern about SME's. Implementation will produce the real and needed results and candid communications will be important. Tom Hynes: Although ICME has evolved into ICMM, there is a question as to what ICMM will do vis-à-vis the Code although he will recommend that ICMM support it and co-publish it. The Environment Committee has deisgnated work of tailings for the next 2 years but this has to be formalized. Wanda Hoskin:UNEP DTIE circulated the Code widely to participants of: the UNEP Australia Regulators Workshop, the APELL mailing list; other contacts; and posted it on the MRF wevbsite (www.mineralresourcesforum.org). It was also sent to the UNEP Chemicals Unit for comments (which were received). UNEP sees the implementation of this Code as an important step forward and meets the UNEP-ICME mandate to:
Harold Barnes: Homestake has undertaken audits of both a heap leach and autoclave project to see how the Code would work and pilot tested the Protocol to determine the level of evidence required. This is a workable Code that will make a difference. Paul Bateman: The IAG has continued to meet and all the feedback was given to Norm Greenwald. Steve Bailey: The draft Code was given to key World Bank and IFC people for their review. Stephan Theben: the draft Code was circulated in the European Commission and to Member States and the EC has essentially 5 critical issues to be addressed in order to have its support: the nature of the Administering body; loss of certification; WAD cyanide levels; decomissioning and scope of Code. Stan Szymanski: ICCA has publicized his presence on the Code Steering Committee and he has had requests for information. He has circulated the Code to numerous people and has received some concerns about auditing and legal issues. He also received some comments about issues of liability and cost of liability insurance and areas of legal action but this is focussed mainly in the USA. [During discussion Michael Rae mentioned that, for the Forest Stewardship Council issues, there were several certifying companies in the US and they have performance standards to audit against and perhaps some of these questions could be posed to them.] Juergen Loroesch: Newmont had contacted DeGussa to help them with trying to implement the Code as there may be concerns over language especially between the company and the cyanide producer (there may be a liability problem when the mining company looks at a producer's operations. As a suggestion, the Administering Body could audit producers and have a list which then mining companies could refer to (rather than having each mining company look at their producer's operations). There is a need to have an audit trail. He gave the Code to DeGussa's office in Germany who pointed out 2 issues: in a risk analysis, what is the weakest point and, in case of an accident in open water, one must not dump in more chemicals - the Code needs to be helpful in this matter. Julio Bonelli: presented the draft Code at last two mining conventions but received no comments. In Peru, the government will change audit procedures next year. Time will be needed to implement Code. Agenda Item 5 Review of the Paris Workshop's Expectations for the Code Harold Barnes reviewed the 7 key points for the cyanide
Code as given from the Paris
Agenda Item 6 Recommended Changes to Draft 8 Norm Greenwald went over all the comments received on the draft in an organized way talking about both the Principles and Standards of Practice, the Preamble, Scope and Code Management. The Committee discussed all issues and comments received and made a decision on what will be in the final draft. Points were discussed from both a mining operation point of view and how an auditor would ascertain the Standards of Practice. In all cases, a consensus decision was reached and Norm is making final changes to the Code. Agenda Item 7 Presentation by Tomas Astorga, Government
of Chile
Agenda Item 8 Sergio Chavez, General Manager of Homestake
in Chile
Agenda Item 9 Code Administration
Harold gave a presentation on The International Cyanide Management Institute. The Organization is seen as:
The Board of Directors Responsibilities:
The Managing Director
The Staff Responsibilities are to:
Potential Funding Sources include:
The Chair asked the Committee about how to go forward as there remain several details which need to be worked out. Harold will be sending a letter to UNEP and ICMM, who mandated the Code, with a proposal for a separate Administrative Body as well as indicating other related issues that came up during the meetings and which will need addressing in the future. Two points of major concern to members of the Committee, during discussions, were the home for the Code and how non-compliance with the Code will be handled. Without an Administrative Body established to implement the Code's audit provisions, the Code's effectiveness was questioned. Finally, in a round table discussion, each of the Committee members indicated to whom they might be willing to send letters to encourage recognition of and implementation of, the new Code, as ultimately only significant reduction in the number of cyanide accidents will "prove" the benefits of implementing the Code. (something is missing here) Agenda Item 10 Closing Remarks
Finally, John said, on behalf of the Committee that the Committee endorsed and empowered him to carry the final issues forward to UNEP and ICMM, making whatever proposals he deemed appropriate. The Chair did a round table and asked each of the Committee members to give their assessment of the Code in a grade as measured against the mandate the Committee was given. The roundtable indicated a consensus grade of A (excluding the issue of a 'home' for the Code). Comments included:
Agenda Item 11 Code Roll-Out/Promotion/What's Next Norm Greenwald will remain for awhile to finalize text, circulate to Committee and for the legal review. The Winner Associates contract will be downsized and will become more focussed on the website. The Chair expressed his warm personal appreciation to the Group. He thanked everyone for their hard work and wished everyone well in their future endeavours. If you need to obtain this page in PDF |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(93 KB), click