From the US Environmental Protection Agency:
EPA requires permit for proposed wastewater well
Release date: 03/23/2007Contact Information: CONTACT: Karen Thompson, (312) 353-8547, thompson.karen@epa.gov
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
No. 07-OPA042CHICAGO (March 23, 2007) – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 has notified Kennecott Eagle Minerals Co., Marquette, Mich., that it must obtain an underground injection control permit before it can begin construction of a proposed wastewater disposal well.
Kennecott is proposing to begin a mining operation in northern Michigan. The well would be used to dispose of industrial process wastewater.
EPA requires permits in order to protect underground sources of drinking water. Based on the significant volume of wastewater to be discharged and the industrial nature of Kennecott’s proposed well, permit conditions will be necessary to protect human health and the environment and to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and underground injection control regulations.
Kennecott must submit a complete permit application for the proposed wastewater well to EPA within 60 days. They must also provide assurance to EPA that sufficient money has been set aside to properly close the well.
Mines dominate toxic polluters list: ‘Release’ doesn’t mean ‘risk’
By DOUG McMURDO – Associate Editor
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:02 PM PDT
ELKO — The federal Environmental Protection Agency released its annual list of toxic polluters and, as usual, Nevada mines are at the top of the list. The news is not nearly as bad as it looks, however, since the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory includes waste rock at mines — not emissions released into the air or water.
“Of everything the EPA calls a release, this is the most misleading,” said Nevada Division of Environmental Protection spokesman Dave Gaskin. “They’re talking about waste rock, tailings that are in lined impoundments.”
The inventory, he said, “was initially a good concept” because it served to make communities aware of potential threats. “But as it evolved, TRI began to address strategic accumulations, but not things that are really released into the environment.”
The Red Dog Mine in northwest Alaska was listed as the top polluter in 2005 — the most recent year data is available — with nearly half a billion pounds of on-site releases. This is the sixth consecutive year Red Dog earned the top spot.
Kennecott Utah Copper Mine Concentrators and Power Plant near Copperton, Utah, was second with a dramatically lower figure of roughly 97 million pounds.
Advertisement
Related news stories/websites.
Three through five on the list were Newmont’s Twin Creeks Mine near Golconda in Humboldt County, approximately 81 million pounds; Newmont’s South Carlin Operations near Carlin in Eureka County, 60.3 million pounds; and Barrick Gold of North America’s Goldstrike Mine, also near Carlin, with slightly more than 49 million pounds.
“Ninety-eight to 99 percent of what gets reported is naturally occurring in the rock,” said John Mudge, environmental manager for Newmont, “It’s in the tailings, and in the heap leach pads after we extract the gold.”
One reason Newmont’s Twin Creeks numbers are higher than in the past can be attributed to the fact more mining was done in 2005 than 2004. Other contributing factors include the variability in mining from year to year, said Mudge.
The quality of rock also changes as mining continues on a site, he said, and some rock holds more metals than others.
“The key here is there’s no indication of a risk,” Mudge said.
“The TRI ignores the fact there’s no risk” agreed the state’s Gaskin. “People see huge tons but there’s no relation.”
While Gaskin characterized the federal government’s reports as “alarmist,” Mudge would say only that he hoped the government would revise the manner in which the program defines the term toxic emissions. “If they say released, they should mean released into the air or into water because there’s no indication of a risk, but that’s what communities are left to believe.”
Both Mudge and Gaskin noted virtually each of the 50 businesses cited operate legally and work within the scope of their permits. “They’re regulated,” said Gaskin, “so people should not equate ‘release’ with there’s a risk of chemical toxicity. Our job is to protect the environment and we try to do that to the best of our ability.
“The TRI is interesting reporting, but people need to be careful what they read into the report.”
“We feel really good about the job we do in managing waste,” said Mudge. The federal government has also taken pains to explain the data does not mean environmental laws have been violated.
In Nevada, numbers increased in 2005 over 2004 by roughly 56 million pounds, or 21 percent, with the majority coming on land releases (waste rock). Metal mining and primary metal facilities accounted for 97 percent of all land releases.
Air releases increased 179,000 pounds, or 10 percent in 2005 over 2004 figures, a fact attributed to R.R. Donnelley & Sons, a commercial printing facility in Washoe County; and the Mohave Generating Facility in Laughlin in Clark County. By contrast, air releases by metal mining decreased 5,000 pounds, or 1 percent.
Water discharges increased 3,000 pounds, or 2 percent, due to an increase in nitrate compound discharges at Newmont’s Lone Tree Mine near Valmy.
Robinson Nevada Mining Company near Ruth and Newmont’s Mule Canyon Mine near Battle Mountain were the other Nevada mines in the top 50, giving Nevada a total of seven companies on the list.
Some questions I thought of by looking at Kennecott’s Track Record:
Would the profits stay in Michigan, in Powell Township?
Would the people hired & trained for the jobs be local?
Would the damage to the site be acceptable (minimal) and healed within one generation?