Docstoc

PECOMINES-FINAL-DELIVERABLES

Document Sample
PECOMINES-FINAL-DELIVERABLES Powered By Docstoc
					                    PECOMINES FINAL DELIVERABLES

                            Gyozo Jordan , 03/10/01


BACKGROUND

The PECOMINES project plan has the following deliverables:

 Inventory and mapping of toxic waste sites from mineral mining in Pre-
  Accession Countries (document and/or database)
 Environmental Vulnerability Indicators in relation to toxic waste sites from
  mineral mining
 Contribution to DGs on definition of criteria for safe disposal of mining
  waste and for the assessment of contaminated lands
 Provide input data for an environmental impact assessment of
  management of toxic mining wastes
 Technical reports on combined survey and assessment of exposure
  pathways at contaminated sites

Notes
The list sets fairly general deliverables. For instance, the legislation inventory
database in itself is a major output of our project but not mentioned explicitly
above. Format of communication is not mentioned.


DELIVERABLES FOR THE MINING WASTE INVENTORY


  (I) Potential Hazard and Sources

This level focuses on DATA PRESENTATION and description.


1. Potential Hazard Map(s): Database and maps of toxic mining waste sites.
Parameters include location, status (abandoned, remediated, etc), quantity,
physico-chemical charactersitics, technology. Scale: any desired output scale
can be generated with GIS from local and regional to country and CC scales.

Format: Database and maps on CD and web. GIS (relational database) on
CD. Maps on web are simply linked (no GIS on web).

Note: This is the most basic output of the inventory, also specified in the
original plan.


2. Report describing the Potential Hazard Map(s), database and the
derivation of the map(s). This includes the description of data sources,
partners (steering committee!), contribution of partners, objectives, etc.


Format: JRC Report


                                        1
3. Report and database on country reports. This is a report on a country-
by-country basis. This contains summary data and statistics for each country
on the total amount of mining waste, identification and description of
‘hotspots’, major hazard sources, problem identification, major efforts on a
country basis. Each country is one chapter. The summary reports are based
on the two page reports requested for the Steering Committee Meeting. The
most important is that each chapter is written by local partners! In this way we
provide room for the locals to identify and describe their most important
problems. Our job is to set uniform guidelines and format for each report and
combine them into the final report.

Format: JRC Report


4. Geoenvironmental Potential Hazard Map(s): Database and maps
showing major mineral deposits and their geology. Parameters include
location, extent, deposit type and description, etc. Scale: any desired output
scale can be generated with GIS from the original scale up.

Format: Database and maps on CD and web. Maps are scanned images, as a
start. If technically feasible, polygons of deposits with unique ID are overlain.
Data in tables is attached to deposit polygons.


5. Report evaluating data sources, QC (quality control) and QA (quality
assurance). The report also describes our data survey and questionnaire
approaches. This report is optional but can be very enlightening for policy
support. Relatively easy to produce since we have already made comparisons
of sources and evaluated them.

Format: QC and QA has to be addressed in the two reports above
(deliverables I/2 & I/3). This is a topic that can be published in the appropriate
professional journal separately.




  (II) Ecological Risk and Impact

This level focuses on DATA ANALYIS and evaluation.


1. Report evaluating potential hazard and risk categories of mine waste
sites. Indicators are developed for characterising toxic generation potential,
that is acid, toxic metal and toxic chemical (e.g. cyanide) generation and
release potential. Indicators relevant to the source characterisation include
quantity of waste rock, mineral and chemical composition, physical
characteristics (crushed waste rock or fine tailings sand, etc), facility safety
(engineering safety; BRGM report approached it using terms like ‘old or new
processing technologies’.) This report can include a similar evaluation of
geoenvironmental deposit maps (deliverable I/4) for risk of toxic release.

Format: JRC Report. Professional paper.
                                        2
2. Map of values potentially at risk. Potential values at risk near the source
are mapped for selected watersheds, deposits and/or sites. These are the
receiving endpoints around the deposits/sites. Potential risk indicators
include if a mining site falls into or close to a protected area, National Park,
etc; if protected aquatic habitat is close to the waste site, or other ecosystems
of high value. Indicators related to human society and activities include
population density, or if waste material was/is used for construction purposes.
Values at risk include major touristic and cultural values (e.g. Thermal Lake
Heviz in Hungary impacted by bauxite mining). Another indicator in relation to
potentially risked values is the vicinity of important soil reserve used for
agriculture (risk of soil pollution by tailings pond spill: Aznalcollar!). Important
drinking water aquifers are to be also shown in the maps (e.g. regional karst
aquifer and bauxite mines in Hungary!). Potential values at risk are
represented by digital maps overlain on the potential hazard (source) map.
Complete list of indicators to be developed. Scale: deposit and large
watershed.

Note: Quite easy to produce since little analysis is required. Existing
databases are used to get info on the potentially endangered values. In the
‘hot spot’ reports partners in each CC will provide this information.

Format: JRC Report. Professional paper.


3. Map of risk/impact factors. Risk/impact factors are mapped for selected
watersheds, deposits and/or sites. These are the indicators that tell which are
factors/processes that increase or decrease risk and potential impact. These
indicators are primarily related to transport pathways. Indicators include all
landscape components: climate, biosphere, geology, hydrology, soil,
topography and human society. A few examples: Geology and soil includes
geochemical background and buffer capacity. Climate includes weathering
intensity. Weathering rates of the same waste rock is different in Estonia and
Bulgaria! Heavy raining can lead to dam failure of tailings ponds. Hydrology
includes flood risk and frequency. Flooding event provides fast transport of
contaminant spill but disperses contamination over the floodplain at the same
time (exactly this happened for the flooding Tisza River after the Baia Mare
accident!). Complete list of indicators to be developed.

Note: This deliverable is one of the most difficult to derive because it requires
a lot of expert analysis.

Format: JRC Report. Professional paper.


4. Report on ERA/EIA methodology. Analysis of application of the DPSIR
and indicator methods for toxic mining waste problem. This report describes
the selection criteria for indicators used for the above risk maps. This report is
under development by Marc’s initiative. Myself and Erik also participates. All
participants are welcome to contribute!

Format: JRC Report. Professional paper.

                                         3
5. Metadatabase on relevant hazard and risk parameters. The database
describes and gives links to relevant databases and their relevant parameters.
One level is the European level databases such as GISCO. See Anca’s work
on GISCO. The other level is the country level. For each country relevant
existing (digital) databases are listed. This info can be obtained from the
Steering Committee, individual search (for example for Hungary I can provide
almost immediately the database descriptions). This requires little work and
can produce useful and nice output (a great deal of the work has already been
done). A third level of metadata can describe data for the selected sites and
regions for the detailed studies.

Format: web


FORMAT OF DELIVERABLES

Databases
and maps:           - CD
                    - web

Reports on
data analysis :     - JRC Reports
                    - Published papers
                    - CD

Note: Publishing evaluations and analysis first as JRC Reports and then as
papers has two advantages: 1. it produces two references, 2. it is efficient to
start with a report to clear ideas and summarise results and then develop
them into a paper subsequently.



CONCEPTS AND ISSUES

1. For the inventory and modelling tasks it makes more sense to follow the
   logical order of environmental investigation and produce deliverables
   accordingly:


potential hazard mapping  ecological risk analysis ( impact analysis)

This scheme also proceeds from the simple to the more complex.

2. Potential hazard maps are therefore the first deliverables. These present
   the mining waste database. Requires little analysis effort.

3. Next, ecological risk analysis and maps are produced. This requires data
   on the receiving environment, such as watershed boundaries, hydrology,
   population, ecology, etc.

4. Finally, impact can be analysed for know impacted areas (Baia Mare, Toka
   Creek).

                                       4
5. Data can be presented on any desired scale at or above the input data
   scale with GIS. This means that mine waste site information can be
   summarised and presented at regional (county) or country scales by
   summarising site data for the administrative units boundary map. In GIS
   terminology this is called ‘aggregation’.

6. It is important to realise that the inventory databases and their analysis
   for EIA/ERA are separate outputs and should be publish separately! The
   mine waste inventory will produce two types of deliverables: a database
   and report(s) on data analysis. (See the BRGM Report: database and
   evaluation report are two separate deliverables.)

7. It is important to be aware of that the inventory is successful and results
   can be published even if it is incomplete, that is if not all of the CC
   countries provided complete databases by the deadlines!

8. The created networks of expertise (Steering Committee) are important
   results of our project and should be presented as deliverables of our
   project!

9. I think we have to be much more specific about the deliverables than so
   far. For the Steering Committee Meeting it is mandatory to clearly explain
   what we request. This document is intended to provide well-defined
   deliverables.




                                      5

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:93
posted:3/3/2010
language:English
pages:5
Description: PECOMINES-FINAL-DELIVERABLES