71 focused exclusively on operational land use. First, this approach enables a more precise differentiation between areas that can transition relatively quickly to uses compatible with surrounding activities and those that require extended remediation, additional controls, or permanent land‑use restrictions. Early identification of these differences supports more efficient allocation of resources and reduces the likelihood of late corrective actions during the post‑closure phase. In addition, the explicit linkage between risk estimation and closure design decisions provides an objective and transparent technical framework for engagement with regulators and communities. For example, where a residential future‑use scenario indicates that a hazard index for a contaminant of concern exceeds reference values, or that incremental cancer risk surpasses acceptable thresholds, management options become clearly defined: (i) excluding that land use, (ii) implementing more stringent remediation measures, or (iii) establishing long‑term institutional land‑use controls. This structured decision logic reduces discretion, strengthens decision traceability, and enhances regulatory and social transparency. The forward‑looking approach also addresses a common limitation of closure planning based solely on operational land use. Once operations cease, assumptions related to exposure patterns, administrative controls, and access restrictions often no longer apply. This disconnect helps explain why closure plans that technically meet physical and chemical stability requirements do not always enable safe or socially acceptable post‑mining uses, leading to uncertainty, loss of trust, and subsequent conflict. A qualitative shift occurs when closure is designed explicitly around future‑use scenarios, supported by use‑specific success criteria and monitoring programs. Another key benefit is the ability to define stage‑specific management and remediation objectives grounded in HHRA and ERA outcomes. During closure, objectives may focus on minimizing occupational and community exposure associated with closure activities through dust control, effluent management, and access restrictions. In the post‑closure stage, emphasis shifts toward verifying cover stability, receiving‑water quality, and revegetation performance. Under future‑use scenarios, objectives focus on ensuring that contaminant concentrations at points of exposure and contact rates associated with the intended land use remain within acceptable risk levels. This staged logic avoids generalized criteria and supports more targeted and effective risk management. The approach also facilitates early identification of areas requiring intervention beyond the original closure plan. For instance, groundwater risk assessment under agricultural or residential scenarios may reveal the need for reactive barriers or drainage design adjustments to prevent contaminant transport to wells used for irrigation or human consumption. Similarly, residential scenarios may justify additional surface covers or tailored revegetation strategies to reduce particulate matter resuspension. Rather than representing obstacles, these findings improve closure efficiency by reducing the likelihood of costly and unplanned corrective actions driven by post‑closure social concerns.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2