Manual017 CoalMinePitWallAbandonment 20190507-FINAL
Manual017 CoalMinePitWallAbandonment 20190507-FINAL
Manual017 CoalMinePitWallAbandonment 20190507-FINAL
May 2019
Published by
Alberta Energy Regulator
Suite 1000, 250 – 5 Street SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 0R4
Telephone: 403-297-8311
Toll free: 1-855-297-8311
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.aer.ca
Alberta Energy Regulator
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3
4 References ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 1. Individual risk evaluation criteria using the “as low as reasonably practicable” principle
(modified from Canadian Standard Association 2017) ............................................................ 10
Figure 2. Societal risk evaluation criteria using the “as low as reasonably practicable” principle .......... 11
Figure 3. How to apply the “as low as reasonably practicable” principle (modified from Commission for
Energy Regulation 2013) ......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4. A sample FN curve .................................................................................................................. 20
Table 1. Example list of calculated (fi, Ni) for all hazardous events, sorted by number of fatalities ...... 19
Table 2. Example list of calculated cumulative frequency (F) of rockfall and rockslide per year
causing N or more fatalities ..................................................................................................... 20
1 Introduction
This manual provides guidance on the submission requirements, application process, and evaluation
criteria for coal mine pit wall abandonment under the Coal Conservation Rules (CCR). The goal is to help
industry assess the long-term safety and stability of pit slope features and reduce risks to acceptable
levels.
An operator applies to abandon a coal mine pit wall either as a standalone application or as part of larger
coal mine abandonment application.
This manual does not address conservation, closure, and reclamation requirements that are regulated
under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) or the Public Lands Act (PLA).
1) The operator first applies for AER consent to carry out its proposed abandonment activities (as per
section 12(2) of the CCR).
2) After the activities are complete, the operator then applies for an abandonment approval (as per
section 12(3) of the CCR).
If the recommended processes outlined in this manual are followed, then both applications should be able
to be processed and decided on within the defined timelines.
• The operator is encouraged to have a preapplication meeting with us to ensure that they understand
the application requirements and that their proposed abandonment activities comply with the
approved mine reclamation plan, the Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) and AER end land-use
requirements, and that the risk criteria and proposed factors of safety are appropriate and acceptable.
• The application will be posted on the AER Public Notice of Application page.
• Anyone who believes they may be directly and adversely affected by an application may file a
statement of concern. If we receive one, the standard process will be followed.
• Then we will complete a technical review of the application. Additional information may be
requested.
• We will then decide to approve or deny the application. If we deny it, the applicant may file an appeal
through the regulatory appeal process.
• We will provide the applicant with a link to the decision letter, which is accessible through the
Integrated Application Registry. We will also share our decision on our Publication of Decision page
and will send it directly to any statement-of-concern filers.
We will accept pit wall abandonment applications either on their own or as part of an overall coal mine
site abandonment application.
We will evaluate pit wall abandonment applications considering all factors, such as rockfall assessment
results, mitigation measures, factor of safety, performance history, seismic analysis results, and approved
land use. We are not setting prescriptive values for these factors with the exception of the acceptability
criteria for estimated risks.
• urban centres
• other industrial operations and lease boundaries, such as EPEA, PLA, Water Act boundaries
• water bodies
• road, rail, pipeline, power and utility corridors, and other public works
• approval boundary
• water bodies
• mine pits
• coal stockpiles
• coal reject/refuse and waste rock stockpiles defined as external discard mine dumps
• site roads, rail, pipeline, power and utility corridors, and other site infrastructure
• “as built” plans and representative cross-sections of the pit slopes to be abandoned
• comparison of previously approved abandonment plans versus the currently proposed abandonment
and the reasons and justifications for deviations (e.g., changes occurred through mine amendment)
3.1.4 Geology
Provide an overview of the regional and mine-scale geology, including the following:
• stratigraphy
• depositional setting
An overview of regional geology and mine-scale geological controls should be included with
representative cross-sections across the site. The geology and structural geological controls for each pit
slope to be abandoned should be provided and indicated in the “as built” plans and cross-sections
described in section 3.1.3.
3.1.5 Hydrogeology/Hydrology
Provide the general hydrogeology and hydrology conditions for the project area, as well as additional
details for each pit wall to be abandoned.
Provide the appropriate water management strategies to isolate the mine wall areas from water impact.
These may include control of surface water infiltration, both at the pit perimeters and at the mine wall
toes, and drainage systems to mitigate and prevent buildup of pore water pressure. These systems should
include a monitoring program and be incorporated into the final surface reclamation water management
plan before a reclamation certificate can be applied for and issued.
• recreational (camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, skiing, off road vehicles, etc.)
• forestry
Potential end land uses should align with AEP’s requirements, which may be discussed in the
preapplication meeting as outlined in section 2.
• seismic analysis
• performance assessment
• planar failure
• wedge failure
• toppling failure
Assessment of the long-term stability, especially for the abandonment of footwalls, should consider
reasonable worst-case scenarios for groundwater conditions at steady-state seepage and the appropriate
mitigation to reduce pore water pressures where required.
We recognize that when a pit slope is initially designed, there is limited site-specific data available,
especially during the initial mine or site development. Experience gained through observation, geological
mapping, and operations should be applied to subsequent assessments of the pits. In order for us to
evaluate the pit slope for abandonment, the operator needs to reassess the factor of safety for the slopes
and provide the assumptions and input parameters chosen, including the rationale for their selection. The
factor of safety reassessment should incorporate the end land use, which may be discussed in the
preapplication meeting.
The operator should submit a pseudo-static slope stability analysis for the slopes to be abandoned and
provide a rationale for the seismic coefficients and minimum factor of safety selected for the analysis.
The pit slope performance assessment should include at least the following:
• data from digital imagery, satellite, or other available technology with associated interpretation
For the purposes of this manual, the terms “rockfall” and “rockslide” are defined as follows:
rockfall A rapid movement (falling, rolling, or bouncing) of less than 100 m3 of rock fragments
from a coal mine pit slope.
rockslide A mass movement of more than 100 m3 of rock from a coal mine pit slope. Smaller
rockslides may start as a large block of rock that fragments quickly and moves like a
rockfall. Larger rockslides (greater than 100 000 m3) may display higher mobility and
move as one mass down the slope. The larger rockslides can start as a wedge, planar, or
rock mass (circular or bi-modal) failure.
Several rock classification systems have been developed and widely used, such as the rock mass rating
(Hoek 1995), the geological strength index (Marinos et al. 2007), and the rockfall hazard rating system
(Pierson 1992). We recognize that these systems are typically applied in rock mechanics design and for
highway-specific scenarios. The operator may need to tailor the systems or develop their own that is
suitable for its own site. We recommend that the operator consider the factors and conditions in
appendix 2 and develop a systematic method for rating their pit slopes.
The operator should distinguish the incidence of rockfall after mining from that during mining.
Operational incidents may not reflect the frequency of rockfall of rockslide after mining because safety
controls are implemented to reduce worker exposure to rockfall and rockslide, and not all incidents are
necessarily reported.
For the purpose of evaluating rockfall and rockslide risks in the pit wall abandonment design, only the
public safety impact is considered.
• hazard identification
• risk analysis
Appendix 3 provides additional guidance to operators on assessing rockfall and rockslide risks in their pit
wall abandonment applications.
• assess the physical extent of each potential rockslide and rockfall being considered, including the
location, overall extent, and volume involved;
• assess the likely initiating events, the physical characteristics of the rocks involved, and the
mechanics for rockslide or rockfall;
• estimate the resulting anticipated travel distance and velocity of movement; and
• address the possibility of fast-acting processes such as flows and falls, from which it is more difficult
to escape.
There could be multiple potential hazardous events identified for a site. The operator should provide
rationales and evidence to support their selection of hazardous events.
• Individual risk is generally described as the risk to a single person exposed to a hazard.
• Societal risk is generally described as the risk to groups of people who might be affected by
hazardous events.
The operator should estimate both individual risk and societal risk. The societal risk should consider the
end land-use types described in section 3.1.6.
Because of the danger that the estimated risk numbers could be used in a simplistic and mechanical way
without recognition of the uncertainties, sensitivity analyses are useful to evaluate the effect of changing
assumptions or estimates.
The operator should clearly state assumptions used in the risk analysis and the resulting sensitivity (i.e.,
variations in the estimated risk) in the submission. If a sensitivity analysis is not carried out, the operator
should explain some of the limitations and uncertainty in the risk estimates.
Risks cannot always be completely eliminated, but they should be reduced at least to a level that is “as
low as reasonably practicable,” meaning they are tolerable only if it can be demonstrated that all
reasonable and practicable measures have been taken commensurate with the level of assessed risk
(Canadian Standard Association 2017).
The “as low as reasonably practicable” principle divides risks into three bands
• an upper band called “intolerable,” where risk cannot be justified except in extraordinary
circumstances;
• a middle band called “as low as reasonably practicable,” where risk is tolerable only if it can be
demonstrated that all reasonable and practicable measures have been taken; and
• a lower band called “broadly tolerable,” where risk needs to be maintained to assure it remains at this
level.
The “as low as reasonably practicable” risk region is bounded by an upper tolerability limit and a lower
tolerability limit. Organizations worldwide developed their own risk tolerability limits based on societal
values supported by historical data (Macciotta and Lefsrud 2018). The AER adopted the following
tolerability limits for evaluating risks to public safety from rockfall and rockslides in pit wall
abandonment planning and designs
• for individual risk, the upper tolerability limit is 1 fatality per 10 000 years, and the lower tolerability
limit is 1 fatality per 1 000 000 years (see figure 1); and
• for societal risk, the upper tolerability limit and lower tolerability limit are specified in figure 2.
Figure 1. Individual risk evaluation criteria using the “as low as reasonably practicable” principle (modified
from Canadian Standard Association 2017)
Figure 2. Societal risk evaluation criteria using the “as low as reasonably practicable” principle
Figure 3. How to apply the “as low as reasonably practicable” principle (modified from Commission for
Energy Regulation 2013)
4 References
Australian Geomechanics Society. 2000. Landslide Risk Management Concepts and Guidelines.
https://australiangeomechanics.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/LRM2000-Concepts.pdf.
Bunce, C.M., D.M. Cruden, and N.R. Morgenstern. 1997. “Assessment of the Hazard from Rockfall on a
Highway.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34, no. 3: 344–356. https://doi.org/10.1139/t97-009.
Canadian Standard Association. 2017. CSA Z767-17: Process Safety Management Standard. Toronto:
CSA Group.
ERM-Hong Kong Ltd. 1998. Landslides and Boulder Falls From Natural Terrain: Interim Risk
Guidelines. Prepared for the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
https://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/publications/geo_reports/doc/er75.pdf.
Fell, R., K.K.S Ho, S. Lacasse, and E. Leroi. 2005. “A Framework for Landslide Risk Assessment and
Management.” In Landslide Risk Management: Proceedings of International Conference on
Landslide Risk Management, edited by O. Hungr, R. Fell, R. Couture, and E. Eberhardt, 3–26. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Fell, Robin, and Des Hartford. 1997. “Landslide Risk Management.” In Proceedings of Landslide Risk
Assessment, edited by David Cruden and Robin Fell, 51–110. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Hoek, E., P.K. Kaiser, and W.F. Bawden. 2000. Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
Macciotta, R., and L. Lefsrud. 2018. “Framework for Developing Risk to Life Evaluation Criteria
Associated with Landslides in Canada.” Geoenvironmental Disasters 5, no. 10.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40677-018-0103-7.
Marinos, P., V. Marino, and E. Hoek. 2007. “The Geological Strength Index (GSI): A Characterization
Tool for Assessing Engineering Properties for Rock Masses.” In Underground Works Under Special
Conditions, edited by Manuel Romana, Perucho Aurea, and Olalla Claudio, 13–21. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/NOE0415450287.
Pierson L. 1992. “Rockfall Hazard Rating System.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 1343: 6–13.
Appendix 1 Glossary
as low as The concept that risk is tolerable only if it can be demonstrated that all reasonable
reasonably and practicable measures have been taken commensurate with the level of assessed
practicable risk (Canadian Standard Association 2017).
endwall The pit wall created in a surface coal mine that connects two main pit walls together,
usually a footwall to a highwall.
footwall A pit wall created in a surface coal mine by the strata underlying a coal seam once it
is mined.
highwall The pit wall created in a surface coal mine by an unexcavated face of exposed
overburden and coal.
individual risk It is generally described as the risk to a single person exposed to a hazard. In this
manual, it is expressed as the total annual chance that a person at some distance from
the abandoned pit wall slope might die due to all potential hazardous events at the
slope.
pit wall Either a footwall, highwall, or the endwall of a surface coal mine pit.
rockfall A rapid movement (falling, rolling, or bouncing) of less than 100 m3 of rock
fragments from a coal mine pit slope.
rockslide A mass movement of more than 100 m3 of rock from a coal mine pit slope. Smaller
rockslides may start as a large block of rock that fragments quickly and moves like a
rockfall. Larger rockslides (greater than 100 000 m3) may display higher mobility
and move as one mass down the slope. The larger rockslides can start as a wedge,
planar, or rock mass (circular or bi-modal) failure.
societal risk It is generally described as the risk to groups of people who might be affected by
hazardous events. In this manual, it is expressed as the expected number of deaths
per year due to potential hazardous events at the abandoned pit wall slope.
Possible factors and conditions for rock slope characterization are described here. A mine operator may
adjust as necessary for their specific needs. It is paramount that the assessment be applied consistently
and be clearly rationalized.
Discontinuities
There are three important factors for discontinuities:
• Orientation
• Spacing
• Roughness
The discontinuities in sedimentary rocks may include bedding planes, two orthogonal joint sets, and
tectonic faults (thrust, strike-slip). Bedding planes are pervasive and continuous, joints sets are pervasive
and not continuous, and faults are typically discrete and continuous. The orientation has a large influence
on the occurrence of rockslides and rockfall. Unfavourable orientation of discontinuities permits rocks to
slide-fall and topple-fall from the pit slope. Similarly unfavourable orientations permit larger wedge and
planar failures to initiate rockslides.
Other things being equal, when joint sets and bedding are closely spaced, rockfall should be more
frequent, although blocks of rock are smaller and have less destructive energy. Widely spaced joints and
beds create larger blocks of rock and would dislodge less frequently, although they may bounce and roll
further. A larger rock is more destructive. Considering probabilities, smaller, more frequent rockfall may
generate a higher risk for individuals.
Roughness of bedding, joint, and fault surfaces influence the ease with which rocks can be dislodged by
freezing and thawing and affects the angle at which rocks will slide. A rough discontinuity may add
several degrees of resistance to the friction angle compared to a planar, slickensided, or weak infilled
discontinuity. Bedding planes are rougher than joint sets, which tend to be more planar and smoother.
Because beds are pervasive and continuous, the friction resistance is very important. Joints sets are
pervasive and not continuous, and larger wedge or planar failures that require shearing through intact rock
are less likely to occur.
Weathering
Weaker or softer, thinly bedded mudstone and shale weather and erode faster than siltstone, quartzite, and
sandstone. When mudstone and shale beds are exposed in a final pit wall and weather faster than
overlying rock, blocks will fall in response to loss of support. Similarly, a toppling failure mechanism is
accelerated when weaker beds weather and erode faster than adjacent stronger beds.
Seepage
Classify the influence of seepage on a sedimentary rock slope based on the following premises:
• Coal mine pit slopes are well drained at and behind the slope face because of bedding and joint sets.
The discontinuities are more open and free draining near the slope face in response to blasting and
excavation with large mining equipment.
• Seepage is a normal response to rainfall and snowmelt and has no adverse effect in these situations.
• Seepage that appears throughout the spring thaw indicates a seasonally higher groundwater table and
will have no adverse effect in most cases. However, should the duration of the seepage become longer
or become more widespread, a change in groundwater conditions is occurring behind the slope and
may affect slope performance. It is important to understand what is affecting the increase in
groundwater.
• Seepage accelerates the weathering and erosion of weaker shale or mudstone beds. Seepage may
support vegetation growth on the rock face. Roots, especially of trees, wedge rock loose.
• Seepage that is present on the pit slope much of the year indicates a higher groundwater table that
exits in the slope. Soft rock weathers and erodes faster in the presence of water.
• Winter seepage freezes and forms ice sheets and ice in discontinuities. Ice in discontinuities exerts
high physical forces that loosen rock on the slope.
Freeze-Thaw Cycles
Freeze-thaw cycles are common for all coal mines in Alberta. They occur in the fall and spring and have
more influence in the spring because diurnal temperatures vary more and more water is available to
expand and contract when it freezes and thaws.
Evidence of Rockfall
Rockfall accumulation (talus) at the base of pit slopes is strong evidence of rockfall. The challenge is to
distinguish rock that has fallen after completion of mining from rock that has fallen during mining in
direct response to the disturbance of the mining operation. The incidence of rockfall may be artificially
inflated if post-mining rockfall cannot be distinguished from rockfall during active mining. The operator
should assess the rockfall after mining is finished in the pit and annually for five years to provide
evidence of trends after mining. Photographs, videos, and digital imagery taken from the same place over
time are useful in this regard.
Hazard Identification
Methods for hazard identification include geomorphological mapping and gathering of historic
information on rockfall and rockslide in similar topography, geology, and climate. When identifying
possible hazards, considerations should be given to hazards located both on and off site. It is important
that the analysis includes the full range of hazardous events (from small, high-frequency events to large,
low-frequency events). The effects of additional development on the slope should also be considered, as
these effects may alter the nature and frequency of possible hazardous events (Fell et al. 2005).
• the number of rockfall or rockslide that may occur in a particular slope per year,
• the probability of a particular slope experiencing rockfall or rockslide in a given period (e.g., a year),
or
• the probability of driving forces for a rockfall or rockslide exceeding the resistance forces.
The operators may choose to apply any number of methods to assess and estimate the frequency,
depending on what information is available and the specific-site conditions. Upon receiving the
application, we will review and assess the appropriateness of assessment methods and reasonableness of
the estimated probability. The following provides a few examples of estimating frequency:
• historical data on the number of rockfalls in time and space, using predicted relative frequency
• data on site history, movement, occurrence, seismicity, rainfall, etc. using sources such as historical
records, previous survey plans, published data, and reports
Temporal-Spatial Probability
Risk estimation requires considering people who either live or may spend some time in the area affected
by rockfall and rockslide. The operator should include factors such as
• the likelihood of people being present (i.e., including the number of hours a day people are present).
The temporal-spatial probability is the probability that a person will be in the area affected by the rockfall
or rockslide at the time of its occurrence (Fell et al. 2005). Factors that should be considered in relation to
temporal-spatial probability include whether
• the affected person occupies or frequents the areas where rockfalls and rockslides may occur,
• there is varying occupancy of the area (e.g., night vs. day, week days vs. weekends, summer vs.
winter); and
Vulnerability
The operator should discuss and calculate the “vulnerability” (probability of loss of life of an individual
given an impact from a rockfall or rockslide) of affected persons. Influential factors include the following:
• size of rocks
Individual Risk
Individual risk is expressed as annual probability that a specific individual (i.e., a person who lives or
spends some time in the area affected by rockfall and rockslide from the abandoned pit wall slope) might
die due to a hazardous event H. It can be calculated as follows:
IR annual probability that a specific individual might die due to a hazardous event H
P(T|S) probability of a specific individual is in the area affected by rockfall or rockslide at the
time of its occurrence
V(L|T) probability of loss of life to a specific individual given the person is on the path of
rockfall or rockslide at the time of its occurrence
Total individual risk is expressed as the total annual probability that a specific individual might die due to
all potential hazardous events at the slope.
Societal Risk
Societal risk is expressed using plots of cumulative frequency (F) of rockfall and rockslide per year
causing N or more fatalities, versus the number of fatalities due to rockfall and rockslide. These are
commonly referred as FN curves.
1) Calculate the annual frequency of fatalities (fi) for each hazardous event Hi:
P(S|Hi) probability of people are on the path of rockfall or rockslide given a hazardous event Hi
P(T|S) probability of people are in the area affected by a hazardous event Hi at the time of its
occurrence
2) Calculate the number of fatalities (Ni) for each hazardous event Hi:
N(Hi) number of people in the area affected by a hazardous event Hi at the time of its
occurrence
V(L|T) probability of fatality given people are on the path of rockfall or rockslide at the time of
its occurrence
3) Sort the calculated (fi, Ni) for all hazardous events from the lowest to highest fatalities (table 1)
Table 1. Example list of calculated (fi, Ni) for all hazardous events, sorted by number of fatalities
H fi Ni
-4
H1 4.8 × 10 1
-5
H4 8.0 × 10 1
-4
H3 7.0 × 10 2
-6
H2 6.2 × 10 3
-6
H5 1.2 × 10 4
4) Calculate the cumulative frequency (F) of rockfall and rockslide per year causing N or more fatalities
(table 2)
Table 2. Example list of calculated cumulative frequency (F) of rockfall and rockslide per year causing N or
more fatalities
Fatalities Hazardous events Sum of fi for each event causing N or more fatalities
-3
1 or more H1, H4, H3, H2, and H5 1.27 × 10
-4
2 or more H3, H2, and H5 7.07 × 10
-6
3 or more H2 and H5 7.40 × 10
-6
4 or more H5 1.20 × 10