Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry

Federal RegisterFeb 21, 2018

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 320

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781; FRL-9971-50-OLEM]

RIN 2050-AG61

Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final action.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is announcing its decision to not issue final regulations on its proposed regulations for financial responsibility requirements applicable to hardrock mining facilities that were published on January 11, 2017.

This decision is based on the record for this rulemaking. This final rulemaking is the Agency's final action on the proposed rule.

DATES:

This final action is effective on March 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781. All documents in the docket are listed on the

https://www.regulations.gov

website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available,

e.g.,

Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through

https://www.regulations.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Mail Code 5303P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; Barbara Foster, (703) 308-7057,

Foster.Barbara@epa.gov;

or Michael Pease, (703) 308-0008,

Pease.Michael@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

A. Overview

B. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

C. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

D. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory Action

II. Authority

III. Background Information

A. Overview of Section 108(b) and Other CERCLA Provisions

B. History of This Rulemaking

C. Recent Litigation Under Section 108(b)

D. Hardrock Mining Priority Notice

E. Hardrock Mining Proposed Rule

IV. Statutory and Record Support for This Final Rulemaking

A. Statutory Interpretation

B. Evaluation of the Administrative Record

1. Reports on Risk Posed by Hardrock Mining Facilities

2. Federal and State Regulatory Requirements

a. Federal Environmental Statutes

b. Federal Reclamation Laws

c. Other Existing Regulatory Requirements

3. Risk of Payments From the Fund

C. Comments Supporting a Final Rulemaking

D. Comments Opposing a Final Rulemaking

1. Comments Regarding Appropriateness of Information Used

a. Use of Information Not Relevant to the Mines To Be Regulated Under the Rule

b. Use of Data That Did Not Directly Demonstrate Risk at Current Hardrock Mining Operations

2. Comments That EPA Failed To Consider Relevant Information

a. Comments Providing Information on the Role of Federal and State Programs and Protective Mining Practices in Reducing Risks at Current Hardrock Mining Operations

(1) Examples of Federal Programs

(2) Examples of State Programs

b. Comments Providing Information on Reduced Costs to the Taxpayer Resulting From Effective Hardrock Mining Programs and Owner or Operator Responses

E. Evidence Rebutting EPA's Site Examples

1. Example of Sites Now Not Relevant to the Mines To Be Regulated Under the Rule

2. Example Reflecting Reassessment of Costs to the Taxpayers Based on Additional Information

3. Example Where Program Requirements Were Subsequently Modified To Address the Problem

F. Information Regarding Financial Responsibility Instrument Availability

V. Decision to Not Issue the General Facility Requirements of Subparts A Through C in This Final Rulemaking

VI. Obstacles to Developing and Implementing Section 108(b) Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hardrock Mining Facilities

A. Potential Disruption of State, Tribal, or Local Mining Programs

B. Challenges To Determine the Level of Financial Responsibility

C. Concerns Regarding Costs and Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule

1. Overall Concerns Regarding Cost and Economic Impact

2. Concerns Particular to Impacts on Small Entities/Businesses

D. Concerns Regarding Financial Responsibility Instrument Availability

E. Challenges To Identify the Facility

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

L. Congressional Review Act

I. Executive Summary

A. Overview

EPA is announcing its decision on its proposed regulations for financial responsibility requirements applicable to hardrock mining facilities that were published on January 11, 2017. EPA has decided not to issue final regulations because the Agency has determined that final regulations are not appropriate. This decision is based on EPA's interpretation of the statute and analysis of its record developed for this rulemaking. EPA has analyzed the need for financial responsibility based on risk of taxpayer funded cleanups at hardrock mining facilities operating under modern management practices and modern environmental regulations,

i.e.,

the type of facilities to which financial responsibility regulations would apply. That risk is identified by examining the management of hazardous substances at such facilities, as well as by examining federal and state regulatory controls on that management and federal and state financial responsibility requirements. With that focus, the record demonstrates that, in the context of CERCLA section 108(b), the degree and duration of risk associated with the modern production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances by the hardrock mining industry does not present a level of risk of taxpayer funded response actions that warrant imposition of financial responsibility requirements for this sector. This determination reflects EPA's interpretation of the statute, EPA's evaluation of the record for the proposed rule, and the public comment received by EPA.

The decision not to issue final regulations will address the concerns of those federal and state regulators and members of the regulated community who commented that the proposed requirements were unnecessary and would, therefore, impose an undue burden on the regulated community. This decision will provide assurance to state regulators who were concerned that the proposed requirements would be disruptive of state mining programs. This decision also will address the information provided by the insurance industry regarding the lack of availability of financial instruments that meet the requirements of section 108(c)(2). This decision is based on the record for this rulemaking, and does not affect the process for site-specific risk determinations, or determinations of the need for a particular CERCLA response, at individual sites, nor does this decision affect EPA's authority to take appropriate CERCLA response actions. Decisions on risk under other environmental statutes would continue under those statutes. This final rulemaking is the Agency's final action on the proposed rule.

B. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund, directs EPA to develop regulations that require classes of facilities to establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances. The statute further requires that the level of financial responsibility be established to protect against the level of risk the President, in his discretion, believes is appropriate, based on factors including the payment experience of the Fund. The President's authority under this section for non-transportation-related facilities has been delegated to the EPA Administrator.

See E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923 (January 23, 1987).

In a

Federal Register

notice dated July 28, 2009,

EPA identified the classes of facilities within hardrock mining

as the classes for which it would first develop financial responsibility requirements based on consideration of many factors, including factors unrelated to modern facilities, such as legacy contamination, and factors not demonstrating risk, in and of themselves, such as Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports under Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) section 313.

Identification of Priority Classes of Facilities for Development of CERCLA Section 108(b) Financial Responsibility Requirements, 74 FR 37213, July 28, 2009.

For purposes of this final rulemaking, EPA includes within the term “hardrock mining” the facilities included in the definition of that term developed for purposes of the

Priority Notice,

that is, facilities that extract, beneficiate, or process metals (

e.g.,

copper, gold, iron, lead, magnesium, molybdenum, silver, uranium, and zinc), and non-metallic non-fuel minerals (

e.g.,

asbestos, gypsum, phosphate rock, and sulfur).

On January 11, 2017, the Agency published proposed financial responsibility requirements applicable to hardrock mining facilities.

The proposal identified two goals for section 108(b) regulations—the goal of providing funds to address CERCLA liabilities at sites, and the goal of creating incentives for sound practices that will minimize the likelihood of need for a future CERCLA response. As discussed below, EPA now believes that these goals have been met for the hardrock mining classes of facilities.

Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry, 82 FR 3388, January 11, 2017.

The proposal identified for public comment a range of options and supporting information, as described in the proposed rule preamble.

The proposed rule set forth, in proposed 40 CFR part 320, subparts A through C, requirements for a comprehensive financial responsibility program under section 108(b) that would be applicable to hardrock mining facilities as well as to future industry sectors for which requirements under section 108(b) are later developed. In addition, the proposed rule set forth, in proposed part 320, subpart H, requirements specifically applicable to hardrock mining facilities.

See 82 FR 3388, January 11, 2017.

EPA provided information and analysis demonstrating releases and potential releases of hazardous substances at hardrock mining facilities. EPA also discussed the relationship of section 108(b) to other federal law and to state law.

However, despite making a commitment to do so in the notice entitled “Identification of Priority Classes of Facilities for Development of CERCLA Section 108(b) Financial Responsibility Requirements” (2009 Priority Notice), published on July 28, 2009, in the development of the proposed rule the Agency did not consider other federal and state programs when determining the need for section 108(b) regulations.

Instead, the proposed rule would have considered other programs only after financial responsibility requirements are imposed, as a means to reduce such requirements. EPA now believes that it is appropriate to consider such programs at the outset, when evaluating both the degree and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances as well as when evaluating the risk of taxpayer financed response costs.

82 FR 3402-03 (concluding that section 108(b) applies even when a facility is subject to financial responsibility requirements under federal law).

74 FR 37219 and n. 50.

EPA's final action on the proposed rule is a decision not to promulgate it.

As explained below, EPA has reconsidered whether the rulemaking record supports the proposed rule in light of the Agency's interpretation of the statute, the Agency's evaluation of the record, and the information and data received through public comment. As a result of this reconsideration, EPA has determined that the rulemaking record it assembled does not support imposing financial responsibility requirements under section 108(b) on current hardrock mining operations. This determination is based on information in the record on the degree and duration of risk posed by modern production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances at mining sites operating under modern regulations that demonstrates that financial responsibility requirements are not necessary to address the risk of taxpayer financed response actions at hardrock mines. EPA has reconsidered its assessment of the risks posed by hardrock mining operations presented in the proposed rule, and determined that that assessment did not adequately consider the degree to which existing federal and state regulatory programs and improved mining practices at modern mines reduce the risk that there would be unfunded response liabilities at currently operating mines. Furthermore, EPA notes that even under the analysis in the proposed rule, the

projected level of risk of EPA-funded response actions was relatively low ($15 to $15.5 million per year), and was significantly less than the projected cost to industry of providing the additional financial responsibility that would have been required by the proposed rule ($111-$171 million per year).

EPA has made editorial changes to this document from the prepublication version, including replacing various references to the action being a “final rule,” in accordance with the Office of the Federal Register's (OFR) interpretations of its implementing regulations (1 CFR 5.9 and parts 21 and 22), the

Federal Register

Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 15) and Document Drafting Handbook. OFR regulations, however, expressly disclaim a legal effect from these publication requirements. “In prescribing regulations governing headings, preambles, effective dates, authority citations, and similar matters of form, the Administrative Committee does not intend to affect the validity of any document that is filed and published under law.” 1 CFR 5.1(c). Accordingly, these editorial changes do not affect the legal status of the action as a final regulation under CERCLA.

The Agency's decision that a section 108(b) rule for the hardrock mining industry is not appropriate relies on the record developed for this rulemaking as well as information submitted by commenters on three key points, which in combination demonstrate significantly reduced risk at current hardrock mining operations: (1) The reduction in risks due to the requirements of existing federal and state mining programs and voluntary protective practices of current hardrock mining owners and operators, (2) the reduced costs to the taxpayer resulting from effective hardrock mining programs, enforcement actions, and owner or operator responses, including financial assurance requirements pursuant to these other programs, and (3) the resulting reduction in the risk of the need for federally financed response actions at hardrock mines. The record thus evaluated also supports EPA's determination that federal and state regulation and practices at modern facilities reduce the risks posed by operating facilities and, therefore, the imposition of section 108(b) financial responsibility requirements is not appropriate.

This determination also addresses concerns regarding disruption and duplication of state and federal financial responsibility requirements, the difficulty in tailoring financial responsibility to a specific level of risk, as well as concerns raised by the financial industry regarding challenges in providing financial instruments that meet the requirements of the statute and the proposed rule. As discussed below, the proposed rule created the potential for the preemption of state financial responsibility requirements. In addition, EPA acknowledges that the formula through which EPA had proposed to determine the level of financial assurance relied on information unrelated to risks of taxpayer financed costs posed by the current facilities to which the proposed rule would apply. Finally, as discussed below, members of the financial industry commented that section 108(c)(2), which allows direct claims against a guarantor providing evidence of financial responsibility, is at odds with relevant commercial law and practice and would significantly deter the financial industry from providing such instruments and services.

This final rulemaking does not affect, limit, or restrict EPA's authority to take a response action or enforcement action under CERCLA at any individual hardrock mining facility, including the currently operating facilities described elsewhere in this final rulemaking and in the Technical Support Document for this final rulemaking,

and to include requirements for financial responsibility as part of such response action. The set of facts in the rulemaking record related to the individual facilities discussed in this final rulemaking support the Agency's decision not to issue financial responsibility requirements under section 108(b) for currently operating hardrock mining facilities as a class, but a different set of facts could demonstrate a need for a CERCLA response at those sites. This final rulemaking also does not affect the Agency's authority under other authorities that may apply at hardrock mining facilities, such as the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

See: EPA, “CERCLA Section 108(b) Hardrock Mining Final Rule Technical Support Document,” December 1, 2017.

C. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

EPA is not requiring evidence of financial responsibility under section 108(b) at hardrock mining facilities in this action. Thus, there are no regulatory provisions associated with this final action.

D. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory Action

The Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed rule demonstrated that the projected level of taxpayer liability that would have been avoided by the proposed rule was relatively small, and that the costs of meeting the proposed financial responsibility requirements were an order of magnitude greater than the costs avoided by the federal government as a result of such requirements. EPA is not requiring evidence of financial responsibility under section 108(b) at hardrock mining facilities in this action. EPA therefore has not conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis for this action.

II. Authority

This final rulemaking is issued under the authority of sections 101, 104, 108 and 115 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601, 9604, 9608 and 9615, and Executive Order 12580. 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

III. Background Information

A. Overview of Section 108(b) and Other CERCLA Provisions

CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), establishes a comprehensive environmental response and cleanup program. Generally, CERCLA authorizes EPA

to undertake removal or remedial actions in response to any release or threatened release into the environment of “hazardous substances” or, in some circumstances, any other “pollutant or contaminant.” As defined in CERCLA section 101, removal actions include actions to “prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the environment,” and remedial actions are “actions consistent with [a] permanent remedy[.]” Remedial and removal actions are jointly referred to as “response actions.” CERCLA section 111 authorizes the use of the Superfund Trust Fund (the Fund) established under title 26, United States Code, including financing response actions undertaken by EPA. In addition, CERCLA section 106 gives EPA

authority to compel action by liable parties in response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance that may pose an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to public health or welfare or the environment.

Although Congress conferred the authority for administering CERCLA on the President, most of that authority has since been delegated to EPA.

See

Exec. Order No. 12580, 52 FR 2923 (Jan. 23, 1987). The executive order also delegates to other federal agencies specified CERCLA response authorities at certain facilities under their “jurisdiction, custody or control.” This can include CERCLA authorities at mines located on federal lands under the jurisdiction of BLM and the Forest Service.

CERCLA sections 106 and 122 authority is also delegated to other federal agencies in certain circumstances.

See

Exec. Order No. 13016, 61 FR 45871 (Aug. 28, 1996).

CERCLA section 107 imposes liability for response costs on a variety of parties, including certain past owners and operators, current owners and operators, and certain transporters of hazardous substances. Such parties are liable for any costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the federal government, so long as the costs incurred are “not inconsistent with the national contingency plan,” (NCP).

Section 107 also imposes liability for natural resource damages and health assessment costs.

As has been the case since

CERCLA's enactment, these provisions of CERCLA are available according to their terms, to the federal government and other parties, regardless of whether an owner or operator has provided evidence of financial responsibility under section 108(b).

See CERCLA section 107 (a)(4)(A).

See CERCLA section 107 (a)(4)(C)-(D).

In accordance with CERCLA, in 1990 EPA issued the current version of the NCP.

These regulations provide the organizational structure and procedures for preparing for, and responding to, discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants. The NCP is codified at 40 CFR part 300. Among other provisions, the NCP provides procedures for hazardous substance response including site evaluation, removal actions, remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FS), remedy selection, remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA), and operation and maintenance.

The NCP also designates federal, state, and tribal trustees for natural resource damages, and identifies their responsibilities under the NCP.

Under the NCP, EPA undertakes response actions that address or prevent risk to human health and the environment from the release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. A determination whether a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants presents a risk to be addressed under other sections of CERCLA or under other law is a separate determination from whether under section 108(b) risk associated with the management of hazardous substances at current hardrock mining operations warrants imposition of financial responsibility requirements. Nothing in this final action restricts EPA's other authorities. The Agency's decision not to issue final regulations under section 108(b) applicable to hardrock mining facilities does not change or substitute for EPA's procedures for site-specific evaluations of risk, and for determining the need for response, in accordance with the NCP.

See 55 FR 8666, March 8, 1990.

See 40 CFR part 300, subpart E.

See 40 CFR part 300, subpart G.

Section 108(b) establishes an authority to require owners and operators of classes of facilities to establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility. Section 108(b)(1) directs EPA to develop regulations requiring owners and operators of facilities (in addition to those under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and other federal law) to establish evidence of financial responsibility “consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances.” In turn, section 108(b)(2) directs that the level of financial responsibility shall be initially established, and, when necessary, adjusted to protect against the level of risk that EPA in its discretion believes is appropriate based on the payment experience of the Fund, commercial insurers, courts settlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction. Section 108(b)(2) does not, however, preclude EPA from considering other factors in addition. The statute prohibited promulgation of such regulations before December 1985.

In addition, section 108(b)(1) provides for publication within three years of the date of enactment of CERCLA of a “priority notice” identifying the classes of facilities for which EPA would first develop financial responsibility requirements. It also directs that priority in the development of requirements shall be accorded to those classes of facilities, owners, and operators that present the highest level of risk of injury.

B. History of This Rulemaking

In November 2003, EPA initiated a study of the Superfund program, commonly referred to as the “120 Day Study.”

This “120 Day Study” resulted in more than 100 recommendations. In 2005, EPA initiated an Action Plan for implementing the recommendations of the 120-Day Study of the Superfund Program. Under that plan, EPA conducted an analysis to determine whether action under section 108(b) was appropriate (Recommendation 12). This analysis resulted in two detailed studies specifically designed to help identify classes of facilities for priority consideration under section 108(b), carried out from 2006 through 2008. The report of these studies, labeled “draft” and dated February 2009, are titled: “CERCLA 108(b) Financial Responsibility, Phase 1: Preliminary Analysis” (hereinafter Phase 1 Report) and “CERCLA 108(b) Financial Responsibility, Phase 2 Preliminary Analysis” (hereinafter Phase 2 Report).

Another analysis,

referred to as the 40 TSD Study, also recommended by the 120-Day Study (Recommendations 10 and 11), on the sufficiency of financial assurance requirements imposed on hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities regulated under RCRA also provides relevant information.

See

Superfund: Building on the Past, Looking to the Future

(Washington DC: April 22, 2004), EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-0501.

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265-0019 and EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265-0020.

See “Analysis of 40 Potential TSDs: Potential RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities Proposed to the Superfund National Priority List after 1990,” Office of Solid Waste, January 19, 2007.

In the Phase 1 and Phase 2 analyses, EPA interpreted the financial responsibility requirements of section 108(b) to apply to currently operating facilities and current or future risks. Accordingly, in the analyses performed from 2006 through 2008, the Agency attempted to exclude historic practices and legacy contamination resulting from such practices by using 1990 as a date to distinguish between modern and legacy practices. The Agency stated that it used 1990 because by that date most of the regulations under RCRA relating to management of hazardous waste had been promulgated. This approach was consistent with the 40 TSD study, which excluded facilities proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL) before 1990 to exclude facilities with legacy contamination that predated the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory program. However, because EPA determined in 1986 under section 3001(b)(3)(C) of RCRA that solid waste from the extraction and beneficiation of ores and minerals do not present sufficient risk to warrant regulation under subtitle C of RCRA,

1990 is not a precise date for the advent of modern regulation of mining. As discussed below, commenters noted that state and federal mining regulations developed over a period of time. For mining regulated under state law, commenters suggest the mid-1990s represent the advent of modern mining regulation.

51 FR 24496 (July 3, 1986).

State mining laws are discussed below.

In 2009, the Agency changed its interpretation of the statute. A July 2, 2009, memorandum attached to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports states that EPA decided that the reports were deficient because they excluded sites listed on the NPL before 1990. Accordingly, EPA did not finalize the reports and did not proceed to an analysis of the federal and state regulatory requirements and the modern practices of any specific industry sector.

Instead, in a

Federal Register

notice dated July 28, 2009,

EPA identified certain classes of facilities within the hardrock mining sector as the classes for which it would first develop financial responsibility requirements.

EPA based that identification on consideration of many factors, including factors unrelated to risk posed by the production, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances at facilities that would be regulated under the proposed rule, such as legacy contamination, and non-risk based information, such as Toxic Release Inventory reports under SARA section 313. This notice represented a substantial departure from previous EPA interpretation of the statute to exclude legacy activities when determining the need for financial responsibility requirements under section 108(b).

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265-0019 and EPA-HQ-SFUND-0265-0020.

Identification of Priority Classes of Facilities for Development of CERCLA Section 108(b) Financial Responsibility Requirements, 74 FR 37213, July 28, 2009.

Compare EPA's Phase I and Phase II reports (EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265-0019 and EPA-HQ-SFUND-0265-0020) to 74 FR 37213.

In the 2009 Priority Notice, EPA identified hardrock mining facilities as a priority without considering the impacts of modern federal and state regulations. Instead, EPA stated: “EPA will carefully examine specific activities, processes, and/or metals and minerals in order to determine what proposed financial responsibility requirements may be appropriate. As part of this process, EPA will conduct a close examination and review of existing Federal and State authorities, policies, and practices that currently focus on hardrock mining activities.”

74 FR 37219.

On January 11, 2017, the Agency published proposed financial responsibility requirements applicable to hardrock mining facilities.

The proposed rule adopted two goals for section 108(b) regulations—to provide funds to address CERCLA liabilities at sites, and to create incentives for sound practices that will minimize the likelihood of need for a future CERCLA response.

82 FR 3388 (January 11, 2017).

The proposal identified for public comment a range of options and supporting information, as described in the proposed rule preamble. The proposed rule set forth, in proposed part 320, subparts A through C, requirements for a comprehensive financial responsibility program under section 108(b) that would be applicable to hardrock mining facilities, as well as to future industry sectors for which requirements under section 108(b) are later developed. In addition, the proposed rule set forth, in proposed part 320, subpart H, requirements specifically applicable to hardrock mining facilities.

The proposed rule provided information and analyses on releases and potential releases of hazardous substances at hardrock mining facilities. The proposed rule identified several classes of hardrock mining facilities that were excluded from the financial responsibility requirements because they involved a lower risk, and sought comment on whether additional classes should be excluded from the scope of a final rule.

The proposed rule also discussed the relationship of section 108(b) to other federal law and to state law.

However, contrary to the commitment made in the 2009 Priority Notice, the proposed rule did not consider reductions in risk as a result of such laws when determining the need for financial responsibility requirements. Instead, the proposed rule would have established such requirements at a level based on the activities already covered by reclamation bonds as well as the cost of cleaning up historic mining sites and then, based on information provided by the facility, would have allowed reductions in the amount of financial responsibility,

or release from the requirement for financial responsibility entirely.

82 FR 3456-59; Hoffman Memo, “Mining Classes Not Included in Identified Classes of Hardrock Mining,” June 2009. See 82 FR 3455 n. 145. See exclusions from the rule at proposed 40 CFR 320.60(a)(2). EPA solicited comments on whether to identify additional exclusions based on a finding of minimal risk, citing iron ore, phosphates and uranium mines as examples. 82 FR 3456.

82 FR 3402-03.

Proposed 40 CFR 320.63.

Proposed 40 CFR 320.27.

EPA received over 11,000 public comment submissions on the proposed rule. Other federal agencies, state agencies, and industry representatives overwhelmingly opposed financial responsibility requirements under section 108(b) for the hardrock mining industry. Environmental groups urged adoption of the proposed rule. EPA also received a large number of identical comments from individuals through multiple letter-writing campaigns, advocating both for and against adoption of the rule. Among other concerns, commenters objecting to the proposed rule expressed the view that the Agency's assessment of the information relating to risks posed by hardrock mining operations as presented in the proposed rule was deficient because the Agency: (1) Relied on inappropriate evidence, such as data that did not demonstrate risk, and evidence not relevant to the facilities to be regulated under the rule; and (2) failed to consider relevant evidence, such as the role of federal and state mining programs and voluntary protective mining practices in reducing risks at current

hardrock mining operations, and the reduced costs to the taxpayer resulting from effective hardrock mining programs, including existing financial responsibility requirements, and owner or operator responses.

A discussion of which mining operations are considered “current” or “modern” can be found in section IV.D.1. of this final rulemaking.

EPA has considerable discretion under the statute and, as explained below, has reconsidered whether the rulemaking record supports the proposed rule in light of EPA's interpretation of the statute, review of the record, and the information and data received through public comment. As a result, EPA has determined that the assessment of the information relating to risks posed by hardrock mining operations as presented in the proposed rule was not supported by the record. This reassessment relies on the information in the record on three key points: (1) The reduction in risks due to the requirements of existing federal and state mining programs and protective practices of current hardrock mining owners and operators, (2) the reduced costs to the taxpayer resulting from effective hardrock mining programs, including existing financial responsibility requirements, and owner or operator responses, and (3) the resulting reduction in the risk of the need for federally financed response actions at hardrock mines.

C. Recent Litigation Under Section 108(b)

On March 11, 2008, Sierra Club, Great Basin Resource Watch, Amigos Bravos, and Idaho Conservation League filed a suit against then EPA Administrator Steven Johnson and then Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation Mary E. Peters, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Sierra Club,

et al. v.

Johnson,

No. 08-01409 (N.D. Cal.). On February 25, 2009, that court ordered EPA to publish the Priority Notice required by section 108(b)(1) later that year. The court later dismissed the remaining claims.

See

Sierra Club

Johnson,

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68436 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2009).

EPA continued to work on a proposed rule for the next several years. However, developing a regulation that meets the statutory requirements presented a significant challenge.

Dissatisfied with the pace of EPA's progress, in August 2014, the Idaho Conservation League, Earthworks, Sierra Club, Amigos Bravos,

Great Basin Resource Watch, and Communities for a Better Environment filed a new lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, seeking a writ of mandamus requiring issuance of section 108(b) financial responsibility rules for the hardrock mining industry and for three other industries—chemical manufacturing; petroleum and coal products manufacturing; and electric power generation, transmission, and distribution.

Companies and organizations representing business interests in the hardrock mining and other sectors also sought to intervene in the case.

See the discussion regarding instrument availability in section IV., and the discussions in section VII of some of the obstacles to developing a rule under section 108(b).

In re: Idaho Conservation League, et al., No. 14-1149.

Following oral argument, the court issued an Order in May 2015 requiring the parties to submit, among other things, supplemental submissions addressing a schedule for further administrative proceedings under section 108(b). The Court's May 19, 2015 Order encouraged the parties to confer regarding a schedule and, if possible, to submit a jointly agreed upon proposal. Petitioners and EPA agreed to a schedule calling for the Agency to sign for publication in the

Federal Register

a proposed rule for the hardrock mining industry by December 1, 2016, and a notice of its final action on the proposal by December 1, 2017. The parties submitted this schedule to the court, and on January 29, 2016, the court granted the parties' joint motion and issued an order that mirrored the submitted schedule in substance.

With this action the Agency has now satisfied both of these obligations.

In re Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d 502.

D. Hardrock Mining Priority Notice

As described above, section 108(b)(1) requires the President to identify those classes of facilities for which requirements will be first developed and to publish notice of such identification in the

Federal Register

. On July 28, 2009, EPA issued a “Priority Notice” entitled “Identification of Priority Classes of Facilities for Development of Section 108(b) Financial Responsibility Requirements.”

In the 2009 Priority Notice, EPA explained how it then chose to evaluate indicators of risk and its related effects, to inform its decision on the classes of facilities for which it would first develop requirements.

The 2009 Priority Notice pointed to eight factors that EPA considered,

and stated that its review of those factors and the associated information in the docket led the Agency to conclude that hardrock mining facilities present the type of risk that, in light of its evaluation, justified them being the first for which EPA would develop section 108(b) requirements.

The 2009 Priority Notice satisfied the notice requirement in section 108(b)(1).

See 74 FR 37213 (July 28, 2009).

See Id. at 37214.

These eight factors were: (1) Annual amounts of hazardous substances released to the environment; (2) the number of facilities in active operation and production; (3) the physical size of the operation; (4) the extent of environmental contamination; (5) the number of sites on the CERCLA site inventory (including both NPL sites and non-NPL sites); (6) government expenditures; (7) projected cleanup expenditures; and (8) corporate structure and bankruptcy potential (74

FR 37214, July 28, 2009).

Id.

E. Hardrock Mining Proposed Rule

On January 11, 2017, EPA proposed requirements in a new 40 CFR part 320 that owners and operators of hardrock mining facilities subject to the rule demonstrate and maintain financial responsibility as specified in the proposed rule.

The proposed rule identified two goals for section 108(b) regulations—the goal of providing funds to address CERCLA liabilities at sites, and the goal of creating incentives for sound practices that will minimize the likelihood of need for a future CERCLA response. The proposed rule explained that first, when releases of hazardous substances occur, or when a threat of release of hazardous substances must be averted, a Superfund response action may be necessary. Therefore, the costs of such response actions can fall to the taxpayer if parties responsible for the release or potential release of hazardous substances are unable to assume the costs.

Second, the likelihood of a CERCLA response action being needed, as well as the costs of such a response action, are likely to be higher where protective management practices were not utilized during facility operations.

The proposed rule discussion acknowledged the existence of federal and state financial responsibility requirements but took the position that they do not duplicate CERCLA financial responsibility requirements. 83 FR 3402. For example, the proposed rule claimed that state regulations include but are not limited to hazardous substance releases. 83 FR 3403.

As discussed below, the Agency now believes that protective management practices must be considered when determining the need for financial responsibility requirements.

The proposed rule discussed information assembled by EPA in the record for the action, which, as discussed below, included information on legacy practices and legacy contamination, as well as information not related to risk. Based on that record, EPA had proposed to presume that hardrock mining facilities as a class present the type of risks that section 108(b) addresses. The proposed rule then proceeded to establish a methodology to determine a level of financial responsibility in accordance with a proposed formula. The formula then allowed adjustments to the level of those requirements if a facility could demonstrate site specific conditions that rebut the presumption that the hardrock mining facilities that would be regulated under the rule pose a risk.

See proposed 40 CFR 320.63.

EPA proposed limiting the applicability of the rule to owners and operators of facilities that are authorized to operate or should be authorized to operate on the effective date of the rule (hereinafter referred to as “current hardrock mining operations”).

EPA explained its interpretation of the statute on this issue.

The proposed rule also relied, in part, on the grounds that these owners and operators are more likely to further the regulatory goals of section 108(b) requirements than are owners and operators of facilities that are closed or abandoned. EPA also proposed limiting the applicability of the rule to current hardrock mining operations because those facilities are readily identifiable and, since they are ongoing concerns, they are more likely to be able to obtain the kind of financial responsibility necessary under the regulation.

EPA continues to believe that this focus upon current hardrock mining operations is appropriate.

See proposed 40 CFR 320.2.

82 FR 3404-05.

The proposed rule also excluded 55 specific substances (see footnote 25 infra).

IV. Statutory and Record Support for This Final Rulemaking

A. Statutory Interpretation

Section 108(b) provides EPA only general instructions in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), on how to determine what financial responsibility requirements to impose for a particular class of facility. Section 108(b)(1) directs EPA to develop regulations requiring owners and operators of facilities to establish evidence of financial responsibility “consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances. Section 108(b)(2) directs that the level of financial responsibility shall be initially established, and, when necessary, adjusted to protect against the level of risk that EPA in its discretion believes is appropriate based on the payment experience of the Fund, commercial insurers, courts settlements

and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction. Section 108(b)(2) does not indicate that this list of factors is exclusive. Read together, it is clear that the statutory language on determining the degree and duration of risk presented by a class, and in setting the level of financial responsibility as it determines is appropriate, confers a significant amount of discretion upon the Agency. EPA discusses these key phrases in turn below.

Section 108(b)(1) directs EPA to develop regulations requiring owners and operators of classes of facilities that EPA identifies, to establish evidence of financial responsibility “consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances.” Thus, the statute indicates that EPA is to evaluate risk from a selected class. However, EPA does not interpret this direction to require a precise calculation of risk associated with the selected classes of facilities. Standard dictionary definitions of the term “consistent” include merely “being in agreement” or “compatible.”

Moreover, section 108(b) requirements are necessarily imposed in the absence of any response action, although it is through such response actions that the precise level of risk associated with a particular site is ascertained. The statute thus confers upon EPA wide latitude to determine, for purposes of a section 108(b) rulemaking proceeding, what the degree and duration of risk presented by the identified class is. Section 108(b)(2) in turn directs that the level of financial responsibility shall be initially established, and, when necessary, adjusted to protect against the level of risk that EPA in its discretion believes is appropriate based on the payment experience of the Fund, commercial insurers, courts settlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction. This statutory direction does not specify a particular methodology for the evaluation, indicating simply that the level of financial responsibility be established to protect against the level of risk that EPA “in [its] discretion believes is appropriate.” Thus, this decision is committed to the discretion of the Administrator. While the statute does provide a list of information sources in section 108(b)(2) on which EPA is to base its decision—the payment experience of the Superfund, courts settlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction—that list is not exclusive, nor does the statute specify how the information from these sources is to be used, for example, by indicating how the categories are to be weighted relative to one another. As discussed elsewhere in this final rulemaking and in the Technical Support Document, the record and comments received by EPA, provide details about the payment history of the Fund, experience with enforcement actions and court settlements resulting in operational changes, and voluntary actions by companies to reduce risks at specific sites that were used by the Administrator in his judgement to evaluate the risks from current hardrock mining operations. EPA has, therefore, taken multiple considerations into account, including information in these categories which, taken together, inform the exercise of its statutory discretion.

301 Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary (1988).

Among the types of information the statute authorizes EPA to consider are the existence of federal and state regulations and financial responsibility requirements. Section 108(b)(1) directs EPA to promulgate financial responsibility requirements “for facilities in addition to those under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and other Federal law.” According to the 1980 Senate Report on legislation that was later enacted as CERCLA, Congress felt it was appropriate for EPA to examine those additional requirements when evaluating the degree and duration of risk:

The bill requires also that facilities maintain evidence of financial responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risks associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. These requirements are in addition to the financial responsibility requirements promulgated under the authority of section 3004(6) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. It is not the intention of the Committee that operators of facilities covered by section 3004(6) of that Act be subject to two financial responsibility requirements for the same dangers.

S. Rept. 96-848 (2d Sess, 96th Cong.), at 92.

While the report language addresses section 3004(6) of RCRA specifically, EPA believes that it is consistent with Congressional intent for EPA to consider other potentially duplicative Federal financial responsibility requirements when examining the “degree and duration of risk” or the “level of risk” when determining whether and what financial responsibility requirements are appropriate. EPA also believes that it is consistent with Congressional intent for EPA to consider state laws before imposing federal financial responsibility requirements on facilities. Consideration of state laws

before

developing financial responsibility regulations is consistent with section 114(d) of CERCLA, which prevents states from imposing financial responsibility requirements for liability for releases of the same hazardous substances

after

a facility is regulated under section 108 of CERCLA. Just as Congress clearly intended to prevent states from imposing duplicative financial assurance requirements after EPA had acted to impose such requirements under Section 108, EPA believes it reasonable to also conclude that Congress did not mean for EPA to disrupt existing state programs that are already successfully regulating industrial operations to minimize risk, including the risk of taxpayer liability for response actions under CERCLA, and that specifically include appropriate financial assurance requirements under State law. Both reviews (of state and other Federal programs) help to identify whether and at what level there is current risk that is appropriate to address under section 108 of CERCLA.

EPA also believes that, when evaluating whether and at what level it is appropriate to require evidence of financial responsibility, EPA should examine information from hardrock mining facilities operating under modern conditions. These modern conditions include state and federal regulatory requirements and financial responsibility requirements that currently apply to operating facilities.

This reading of section 108(b) is consistent with statements in the legislative history of the statute. The 1980 Senate Report states that the legislative language that became section 108(b) “requires those engaged in businesses involving hazardous substances to maintain evidence of financial responsibility commensurate with the risk which they present.”

This reading of section 108(b) is also supported by testimony given by EPA before Congress during consideration of legislation that led to CERCLA. In 1979, Thomas C. Jorling, the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management, testified before a Senate subcommittee that new financial responsibility requirements in a hazardous substance liability law would be important to increase “standards of care” with respect to management of such substances. Mr. Jorling testified that this goal is not “relevant” to sites where “it is already too late; emergency assistance and containment are

required.”

EPA notes that nothing in Mr. Jorling's testimony suggests that there are not other potential mechanisms, such as successful regulatory programs under state and other Federal laws, that can ensure appropriate “standards of care.”

S. Rept. 96-848 (2d Sess, 96th Cong.), at 92.

See

Statement of Thomas C. Jorling, Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management, USEPA regarding S.1341/S.1480 (Sen. Comm. on Env't and Public Works, Subcommittees on Resource Protection and Environmental Pollution, June 20, 1979).

This statutory interpretation was also reflected in the proposed rule. The proposed rule would have applied to currently operating facilities.

As explained in the preamble to the proposal, EPA sought to document the extent to which hardrock mining facilities as a class continued to present risk associated with hazardous substance management.

Moreover, this direction to identify requirements “consistent with” the risks found also led EPA to recognize that imposition of financial responsibility requirements under section 108(b) would not be necessary for facilities that present minimal current risks

and to seek comment on whether other classes of facilities should be excluded.

See proposed 40 CFR 320.2 and 82 FR 3404-05.

See 82 FR 3470-80.

See exclusions from the rule at proposed 40 CFR 320.60(a)(2), as well as the opportunity to obtain a release from financial responsibility requirements at proposed 40 CFR 320.27. Both were proposed based on an evaluation of the level of risk posed by the facilities. 82 FR 3455-59.

82 FR 3456.

Despite its focus on currently operating facilities, the proposed rule relied on a record of releases of hazardous substances from facilities and payments to respond to such releases that does not present the same risk profile as the modern facilities to which the rule would apply.

As a result, EPA has determined that the analysis of risk presented in the proposed rule is inconsistent with the scope of the proposed rule and EPA's intended approach under the statute.

82 FR 3460-61.

The final rulemaking does not seek to rely on historical practices, many of which would be illegal under current environmental laws and regulations,

to identify the degree and duration of risk posed by the facilities that would be subject to financial responsibility requirements. Instead, in this final rulemaking EPA has considered modern federal and state regulation of hazardous substance production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal at hardrock mining facilities. As discussed below, the record does not document significant risks associated with such facilities. Further, this final rulemaking does not rely on the cost of responding to historic mining activities and instead reflects the reduction in the risk of federally financed response actions at modern hardrock mining facilities that result from modern practices and modern regulation. With a few exceptions, discussed below, EPA has made minimal expenditures for modern hardrock mining operations. In addition, EPA engaged in significant discussions with, and received significant comments from, commercial insurers and other financial instrument providers. These providers have submitted information indicating that the availability of financial responsibility instruments would likely be limited for regulated entities, should EPA require companies to obtain them. Thus, to the extent that risks remain at current hardrock mining operations, the information provided by commenters has further convinced EPA that it is not appropriate to establish financial responsibility requirements on this class of facilities.

See, for example, Clean Water Act effluent limitations applicable to mining, discussed below.

Nor does EPA believe that issuing final financial responsibility requirements is necessary to achieve the stated goals of the proposed section 108(b) rules for hardrock mining, namely, the goal to increase the likelihood that regulated entities will provide funds necessary to address CERCLA liabilities if and when they arise, and the goal to create an incentive for sound practices. EPA's economic analysis showing that the proposed rule would avoid governmental costs of only $15-$15.5 million a year supports this conclusion. Based on these estimates, commenters objected that the projected annualized costs to industry ($111-$171 million) are an order of magnitude higher than the avoided costs to the government ($15-15.5 million) sought by the rule. Further, given the fact that federal and state laws, including potential liability under CERCLA, have already created an incentive for sound practices, promulgating financial responsibility regulations for hardrock mining facilities under section 108(b) also is not necessary to advance that goal.

This final rulemaking is based on the record assembled for this action. This decision does not substitute for any site-specific determinations of risk made in the context of individual CERCLA site responses. Those decisions will continue to be made in accordance with preexisting procedures. EPA has reached these conclusions on the record for this rulemaking, including public comments.

The major concerns raised by commenters are described below in Sections C and D. Section E below, and the Technical Support Document for this final rulemaking, discuss case examples in EPA's record that correspond to these major concerns. It should be noted that much of the public comment received on the proposed rule addressed specific provisions of the proposal. Because EPA has decided not to issue regulatory text under section 108(b) for hardrock mining facilities, or the general provisions in proposed subparts A through C, comments on specific regulatory provisions are outside the scope of this final rulemaking.

B. Evaluation of the Administrative Record

EPA has reevaluated the administrative record for this rulemaking regarding risk at current hardrock mining operations in light of its interpretation of the statute discussed above, and has determined that that record does not support the proposed rule and supports, instead, a final Agency action of no rule. This determination is based on an evaluation of the three primary reports that the proposed rule relied on to identify risk to be addressed by section 108(b): Evidence of CERCLA Hazardous Substances and Potential Exposures at Section 108(b) Mining and Mineral Processing Sites (hereinafter referred to as the “Evidence Report”); Releases from Hardrock Mining Facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “Releases Report”); and Comprehensive Report: An Overview of Practices at Hardrock Mining and Mineral Processing Facilities and Related Releases of CERCLA Hazardous Substances (hereinafter referred to as the “Practices Report”).

This determination also is based on EPA's consideration of the reduction of risk as a result of federal and state regulatory and financial assurance requirements. Finally, this determination is based on the record of payments from the Superfund Trust Fund to address hazardous substance releases from modern mining facilities.

See

Releases from Hardrock Mining Facilities, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-0497; Comprehensive Report: An Overview of Practices at Hardrock Mining and Mineral Processing Facilities and Related Releases of CERCLA Hazardous Substances, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-0144; and Evidence of CERCLA Hazardous Substances and Potential Exposures at Section 108(b) Mining and Mineral Processing Sites, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-0505.

1. Reports on Risks Posed by Hardrock Mining Facilities

Evidence Report

As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, the Evidence Report documents EPA's preliminary efforts from 2009-2012 to examine CERCLA site-specific documents for estimated exposures of human and ecological receptors to CERCLA hazardous substances from mining and mineral processing sites cleaned up under Superfund in the past. This report also collected available information on potential exposures of human and ecological receptors to CERCLA hazardous substances from mining and mineral processing sites that were operational in 2009 (the most current available data at the time the evaluation took place). The proposed rule relied on the following conclusions from the Evidence Report:

Overall, the compiled information demonstrates that sites requiring cleanup under Superfund in the past, and sites operational in 2009 share characteristics related to the potential release of CERCLA hazardous substances and the exposure of human and ecological receptors, and illustrated the applicability of EPA's CERCLA experience to evaluating currently operating mines and processors.

82 FR 3475.

Upon review, EPA has now determined that those conclusions are not supported by the information provided in the Evidence Report. Further, these conclusions are not a primary factor in determining the “degree and duration of risk” presented by currently operating mines under modern environmental regulations. As a result, the Evidence Report does not support a rulemaking under section 108(b).

First, the Evidence Report compares releases of hazardous substances at 24 facilities on the NPL that continued to operate after 1980 (called post-1980 historical sites) to facilities operating in 2009. It does not specify whether or not 1980 can be considered a date by which mining facilities could be considered modern facilities subject to modern regulations. The report does not identify or consider whether the releases from the historical sites were due to pre-1980 activities and practices or whether the releases were caused by practices that are no longer typical of current mines. Instead, the report conflates risks posed by the historical facilities to risks posed by the 2009 facilities by comparing mining practices and contaminants of concern released at the facilities.

When comparing mining practices, the report does not take into account the fact that by 2009, practices at mining facilities were already heavily regulated. For example, the effluent limitation for processes that use cyanide to extract gold or silver is zero discharge.

See 40 CFR 440.100(d).

When comparing contaminants of concern, the Evidence Report identifies contaminants of concern at the historic sites through CERCLA response action documentation.

In contrast, at the 2009 operating sites, contaminants of concern are identified through reports of TRI releases and through discharge monitoring reports submitted pursuant to Clean Water Act permits.

The report fails to acknowledge that the evidence presented regarding releases of hazardous substances from facilities operating in 2009 is not evidence of risk. “TRI data do not reveal whether or to what degree the public is exposed to listed chemicals.”

Further, releases reported under Clean Water Act permits are regulated releases. The fact that the same hazardous substances may be present at historic modern hardrock mining facilities is simply a consequence of the type of ores and processes used at hardrock mines. The mere presence of hazardous substances is not equivalent to risk. Similarly, the existence of common environmental receptors at historic and modern mines is not determinative of risk. The presence of a receptor does not indicate that there are releases of hazardous substances at levels that cause risk. Rather, the primary determinant of risk is how current operations at the mine are conducted, including the current regulatory regime under which they operate. As documented in this final action, it is in this respect that most of the historic examples discussed in the proposed rule differ from the modern mines that would actually be subject to its requirements.

Evidence Report, at 9.

Evidence Report, at 17.

See

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/factors_to_consider_6.15.15_final.pdf.

Finally, the Evidence Report admits that the releases identified as a cause of past fund expenditures are now regulated under the Clean Air Act and RCRA.

Evidence Report, at 55-56.

As a result of these limitations, the Evidence Report fails to identify substantial risks associated with modern hardrock mining facilities and therefore does not support a rule that would impose financial responsibility requirements on the current hardrock mining sector.

Releases Report and Practices Report

Implicitly recognizing the limitations of the Evidence Report, as well as the inability to rely on reports that are decades old,

EPA developed two additional reports to attempt to provide record support for a rule under section 108(b), the Releases Report and the Practices Report.

See the 1992 and 1997 reports cited at 82 FR 3475.

The Releases Report was intended to “substantiate the ongoing existence of environmental risk from releases to the environment from hardrock mining and mineral processing operations in spite of improved regulation of and practices instituted by the hardrock mining and mineral processing industry.”

It purports to document releases from facilities “that had no previous significant legacy mining issues.”

Releases Report, at 1.

82 FR 3471.

The report lists sites that required CERCLA, CERCLA-like, and potential CERCLA actions, and describes the release and response narratively. However, the limitations of this report prevent it from supporting a determination that requirements under section 108(b) for hardrock mining facilities are appropriate. As discussed in section E, below, and in the Technical Support Document for this final rulemaking,

the Releases Report included facilities with significant mining activity that pre-dated modern regulation, creating legacy contamination. The report also fails to address whether or not the releases resulted in the expenditure of federal dollars or appropriately distinguish releases that predate modern regulation and are now prohibited by law or otherwise regulated.

See: EPA, CERCLA Section 108(b) Hardrock Mining Final Rule: Technical Support Document, December 1, 2017.

The Practices Report purports to present information on the potential for future releases at operating hardrock mining facilities.

However, the Practices Report acknowledges that it cannot be used to draw conclusions about future releases, stating that: “Many sites and facilities within the non-operating and currently operating samples have been active for a century or longer. When a post-1980 release occurred at these facilities, it was difficult to determine if the equipment or practice responsible for the release was newly constructed or part of the site's past operations.”

The Practices Report acknowledges that “a number of

factors limited the inferences that can be drawn from data about releases at currently operating facilities.”

Practices Report, at 1.

Id., at 5.

Practices Report, at 9.

Both reports also lack important information on whether or not the releases resulted in the expenditure of federal dollars or whether the releases identified are now prohibited by law or otherwise regulated. As noted in section E, below, and the Technical Support Document for this final rulemaking, many of the releases discussed in those reports are being addressed by the responsible parties.

Despite the limitations of the Releases Report and the Practices Report, the proposed rule claimed that they validated the conclusions of earlier reports stating that: “EPA believes the results of this relatively recent effort to further document the state of current mining practices substantiates the findings from the other documents described herein [the Evidence Report and the reports from 1992 and 1997] and further reinforces the Agency's belief that currently operating hardrock mining and mineral processing facilities subject to this proposal continue to present risks of release of hazardous substances.”

82 FR 3475.

As discussed above, upon reexamination, EPA now believes that none of these reports provide an appropriate basis for identification of the risk of hazardous substance releases at the facilities that would be regulated under the proposed rule or the risk of federally financed response actions at such facilities. Additional relevant information on many of the sites discussed in these reports which helped inform EPA's conclusions in this final rulemaking is documented in section IV.E below and in the Technical Support Document.

2. Federal and State Regulatory Requirements

EPA has determined that modern regulation of hardrock mining facilities, among other factors, reduces the risk of federally financed response actions to a low level such that no additional financial responsibility requirements for this industry are appropriate. This section summarizes the regulations that support that determination.

a. Federal Environmental Statutes

The proposed rule proposed to regulate facilities that engage in the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of metals, (

e.g.,

copper, gold, iron, lead, magnesium, molybdenum, silver, uranium, and zinc) and non-metallic, non-fuel minerals (

e.g.,

asbestos, phosphate rock, and sulfur), other than placer mining, exploration only activities, and mines and processers disturbing less than five acres.

This scope includes mines, processors, and smelters.

See Proposed 40 CFR 320.60.

While much mining and beneficiation is exempt from RCRA,

these activities are regulated under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. In addition, some waste material from covered mineral processing facilities is regulated under RCRA. Finally, permissions to mine on federal land are subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act and may require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

See 51 FR 24496.

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits discharges to waters of the United States, unless in compliance with another portion of the Act.

Principal among those other provisions is the permitting program established under section 402 of the Act, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Existing dischargers of toxic and nonconventional pollutants are required to install best available control technology that is economically achievable.

New dischargers must meet new source performance standards, based on the best available demonstrated control technology. If these technology-based standards do not fully protect water quality, then a facility must adopt additional controls to meet applicable water quality standards (water quality-based effluent limitations).

33 U.S.C. 1311.

33 U.S.C. 1342.

33 U.S.C. 1311.

33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(C).

Technology-based effluent limitations for hardrock mining are found at 40 CFR part 440. The Ore Mining and Dressing Effluent Guidelines apply to facilities in twelve subcategories as follows:

Iron Ore

Aluminum Ore

Uranium, Radium and Vanadium Ores

Mercury Ore

Titanium Ore

Tungsten Ore

Nickel Ore

Vanadium Ore (Mined Alone and Not as a Byproduct)

Antimony Ore

Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver, and Molybdenum Ores

Platinum Ores

Gold Placer Mining

The Background Document for the proposed financial responsibility formula states: “Nearly three-quarters of the 354 currently operating facilities report mining five commodities (gold, iron, copper, phosphate, and uranium), with gold mines alone making up nearly half of the universe.”

Accordingly, subpart J, the Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver, and Molybdenum Ores Subcategory, is of particular relevance. Last amended in 1982 (effective January 1983), this subpart applies to:

EPA-HQ-2015-0781-0500 at 3-11.

(1) Mines that produce copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, or molybdenum bearing ores, or any combination of these ores from open-pit or underground operations other than placer deposits;

(2) Mills that use the froth-flotation process alone or in conjunction with other processes, for the beneficiation of copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, or molybdenum ores, or any combination of these ores;

(3) Mines and mills that use dump, heap, in-situ leach, or vat-leach processes to extract copper from ores or ore waste materials; and

(4) Mills that use the cyanidation process to extract gold or silver.

40 CFR 440.100.

Under this subpart, the following activities must meet an effluent limitation of zero discharge:

(1) Mine areas and mills processes and areas that use dump, heap, in situ leach or vat-leach processes to extract copper from ores or ore waste materials (40 CFR 440.103(c)); and

(2) Mills that use the cyanidation process to extract gold or silver (40 CFR 440.103(d)).

In addition, drainage from all mines in this subcategory and discharges from mills in this category that use a froth-flotation process must meet limitations for copper, zinc, lead, mercury, and cadmium.

Discharges to water from mineral mining and processing facilities are regulated under 40 CFR part 436. Last amended in 1979, these regulations require best practicable control technology for wastewater discharges from mine drainage, mineral processing operations and stormwater runoff. This part includes subpart R, which applies to the mining and the processing of phosphate bearing rock, ore or earth for the phosphate content. These regulations regulate the pH of discharges from phosphate mines and limit discharges of total suspended solids from such mines to a daily maximum concentration of 60 mg/l.

The Clean Water Act regulates discharges of pollutants from smelters under 40 CFR part 421 (Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category). Last

amended in 1984, these regulations limit pH and the concentration of metals in discharges.

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act regulates air emissions from industrial processes like mining and mineral processing. These include National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) as well as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

The 2011 NESHAP for gold ore processing and production facilities controls mercury air emissions from these facilities. 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEEEE.

On June 12, 2002, EPA promulgated final air toxics standards for the Primary Copper Smelting major sources 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ. These regulations control emissions of arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese and nickel. On June 4, 1999, EPA promulgated a NESHAP for primary lead smelting (40 CFR part 63, subpart TTT) that controls emissions of lead. In 2007, EPA promulgated a NESHAP for zinc, cadmium and beryllium smelters (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGGG), and those regulations established a particulate matter standard. Under section 111 of the CAA, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) applicable to metallic mineral-processing plants have been established (40 CFR part 60, subpart LL control emissions of particulate matter). EPA's 1976 NSPS for primary lead smelting (40 CFR part 60, subpart R) controls emissions of particulate matter.

RCRA

While most hardrock mining and beneficiation waste is exempt from RCRA subtitle C,

mineral processing waste (other than twenty “special wastes”) are not.

Thus, mineral processing facilities may be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C. The management of hazardous wastes is generally subject to strict minimum technology requirements.

Land disposal of hazardous wastes is prohibited unless treatment standards are met.

51 FR 24496 (July 3, 1986).

See the list at

https://www.epa.gov/hw/special-wastes#mining.

42 U.S.C. 6924(o).

42 U.S.C. 6924(d)-(g).

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an environmental review of major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Major federal actions include the issuance of federal permits or permission to use federal lands.

Mining activities on federal lands are generally subject to NEPA. Accordingly, the potential environmental impacts of those activities are considered and publicly disclosed before they occur. These reviews include consideration of impacts to surface water, ground water, air, soils, ecosystems, wetlands, endangered species, and flood plains.

42 U.S.C. 4332.

40 CFR 1508.18.

b. Federal Land Management Laws

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (herein referred to at the Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs), have both promulgated regulations that apply to hardrock mining operations on land they manage.

BLM has promulgated regulations under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701

et seq.

) that apply to hardrock mining operations on BLM land. These regulations include a requirement to develop a plan for reclamation of disturbed areas and a financial guarantee sufficient to fund completion of the reclamation plan.

43 CFR part 3800, subpart 3809.

In order to obtain a permit to mine on public lands, the operator must submit a plan of operations that includes plans for water management, rock characterization and handling, spill contingency, and reclamation.

The plan of operations for the mine cannot be approved until thirty days after a final environmental impact statement has been prepared and filed with EPA.

The required reclamation plan must detail stabilization of land disturbed for mining, reclaiming and reshaping the land, wildlife rehabilitation, controlling potentially hazardous materials, and post-closure management.

43 CFR 3809.1-6.

43 CFR 3809.1-3(d).

Like BLM, the Forest Service also requires a plan of operation that includes a plan for reclamation of mining disturbances on Forest Service lands.

The requirements for environmental protection are set forth in 36 CFR 228.8 and include compliance with all air quality, water quality, and solid waste standards; protection of scenic values; and reclamation to control erosion and water runoff, isolate, remove or control toxic materials, reshape and revegetate disturbed areas, and rehabilitate fisheries and wildlife habitat. The Forest Service requires a bond to cover the cost of stabilizing, rehabilitating, and reclaiming the area of operations.

Like a BLM plan of operations, approval of a Forest Service plan of operations also is subject to NEPA.

36 CFR part 228.

36 CFR 228.13.

The Forest Service regulations allow the Forest Service to require a modification to the Plan of Operations and reclamation plan (36 CFR 228.4(e)) and adjust the bond to cover the modified plan (36 CFR 228.13(c)).

EPA's conclusion that BLM and Forest Service regulations address risks at hardrock mining facilities is further supported by the comments submitted by these agencies, discussed below.

c. Other Existing Regulatory Requirements

The proposed rule stated that addressing CERCLA liabilities is different from the mine reclamation bonding requirements required by BLM, the Forest Service, or state requirements that seek to ensure compliance with technical engineering requirements imposed through a permit, or to ensure proper closure or reclamation of an operating mine.

This discussion in the proposed rule was intended to highlight legal distinctions between the section 108(b) requirements and the requirements of other federal and state programs. However, even when developing the proposed rule, EPA acknowledged the overlap between the risks to be addressed by section 108(b) and existing federal and state regulations. EPA now recognizes that the existence of these other programs, whatever legal differences there may be in their intent and implementation, are critical to understanding “the degree and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances” as well as the risk to taxpayers of being required to fund response activities under CERCLA, which are the primary factors relevant to EPA's determination of the need for and appropriate level of financial responsibility requirements under section 108(b).

82 FR 3403.

For example, 16 of the 27 sites discussed in the Releases Report are called “CERCLA-like” releases. Thus, according to the Releases Report, these sites present the same type of risk that is to be addressed under section 108(b). However, as discussed below and in the Technical Support Document for this final rulemaking, we have documented no expenditure of funds by EPA for those “CERCLA-like” releases, which,

as is explained in the Releases Report, are being addressed under other state and Federal programs, demonstrating that modern regulation adequately addresses the risk of Fund financed response action posed by these sites.

The limited number of sites referenced in the Releases Report for which there were CERCLA actions and EPA expenditures are discussed below.

Even the methodology used in the proposed rule to develop the proposed financial responsibility requirements shows that the actual physical risks addressed by modern regulations are essentially the same as the risks to be addressed by section 108(b). The Background Document for the financial responsibility formula demonstrates that the costs of existing federal and state reclamation and closure requirements were used to develop costs for the categories of response activities that are the building blocks of financial responsibility requirements under the proposed rule.

Thus, the proposed financial responsibility requirements largely address the same risks that are addressed by existing regulatory requirements.

See CERCLA 108(b) Financial Responsibility Formula For Hardrock Mining Facilities, Background Document, Sept. 19, 2016 (EPA-HQ-2015-0781-0500), at 2-17, Table 2.2. See also 82 FR 3462 (“EPA found that such engineering cost data was readily available from cost estimates developed for state and Federal mining reclamation and closure plans, and associated documents.”).

This conclusion is further supported by comments submitted by the Forest Service, and a number of states opposing the proposed rule. The Forest Service demonstrated in their comments how their regulations address the same physical risks that are captured in the response categories that are the building blocks of the proposed section 108(b) financial responsibility formula.

The states of Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico, and South Dakota each provided a similar analysis for their state, and the Interstate Mining Compact Commission provided analyses for Arizona, South Dakota, and Utah.

The National Mining Association (NMA) also compiled similar information for 15 states.

See comment from the Forest Service, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2400, at page 2.

Alaska (Attachment 5/Attachment D to EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2785); Nevada (Appendix to EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2651); New Mexico (Attachment A at p. 17 of EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2676); South Dakota (Attachment to EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2419); IMCC (showing results for Arizona, South Dakota, and Utah at EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2758 & EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2757).

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2794 at Appendix A.

In conclusion, EPA is convinced by the arguments made by state and Federal commenters that the risks sought to be addressed by the proposed rule are already addressed by existing state and Federal programs. The proposed rule would have considered the risk reduction of existing regulations only as a means to reduce the amount of otherwise required financial responsibility and sought comment on several aspects of this approach. EPA is now convinced that those regulations obviate the need for additional financial responsibility requirements under section 108(b) on the hardrock mining sector. As stated by the Forest Service:

[T]he fact that EPA refers to existing regulations as a rationalization for building the requirements of a particular reduction [in financial responsibility] serves to underline that these existing regulations serve the purpose that EPA hopes is served by the proposed rule: To reduce the risk of a release of a hazardous or toxic substance. Therefore, the specific requirements in the reductions are unnecessary, because other programs with more site-specific presence than EPA has, are already requiring these actions, using site-specific conditions as criteria for design of the mitigations in question. Thus, the outcome is that EPA is attempting to regulate that which is already regulated.

See comment EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2400, at page 11.

3. Risk of Payments From the Fund

According to the preamble of the proposed rule, EPA estimated that the historical costs of responding to releases from 243 hardrock mining and minerals processing facilities totaled $12.9 billion, of which approximately $4 billion was paid for through EPA's Superfund program. EPA relied on this estimate to conclude that: “Such significant cleanup costs may be considered as an indication of the relative risks present at these sites, and the potential magnitude of environmental liabilities associated with this industry overall.”

82 FR 3479.

As discussed above, EPA has now determined that as a result of modern regulations, the degree and duration of risk associated with the modern production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances by the hardrock mining industry does not present a level of risk of taxpayer funded response actions that warrant imposition of financial responsibility requirements for this sector.

EPA acknowledges that the Agency has incurred response costs at mining sites. However, as many commenters have noted, the vast majority of those costs have been to address legacy practices. EPA also acknowledges that there are a handful of examples of sites where EPA has incurred response costs, notwithstanding regulation under the Clean Water Act, or other state and federal law. However, the Agency does not believe that these few examples are an appropriate basis for regulation under CERCLA section 108(b).

The record for the proposed rule includes background information on response costs, expenditures, and settlements at 185 NPL sites and 134 non-NPL sites to inform the proposed financial responsibility formula.

To develop this information, EPA collected and reviewed data available in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) settlements database, as well as a 2004 report of the EPA Inspector General, and a 2010 report from the Government Accountability Office.

100

As part of this analysis, EPA combined data from CERCLIS and IFMS into a Microsoft Access file to summarize Fund expenditures incurred at each hardrock mining facility for which EPA had data (as of 2011).

101

A link to an FTP site containing these files was provided in the docket.

102

CERCLA 108(b) Financial Responsibility Formula For Hardrock Mining Facilities, Background Document, Sept. 19, 2016 (EPA-HQ-2015-0781-0500), at sections 2.1 and 2.2, and Appendix B. The formula also includes estimated costs for natural resources damages and public health assessments. However, both are a function of a release that requires a response action. In the formula, health assessment costs are simply a fixed cost of $550,000 and the natural resource damages are assumed based on a percentage of the response costs. Id. at section 5 and page 6-2.

100

Id. at 2-1. EPA was able to obtain cost information for 319 hardrock mining facilities.

101

Id. at 2-2. If EPA itself had incurred expenditures at a hardrock mining facility, those expenditures would have been included in the data pulled from these databases.

102

It also is available here:

ftp://newftp.epa.gov/CERCLA108B

While the purpose of this data collection was to support the development of the financial responsibility formula, it also can be used to examine Fund expenditures at specific sites. For example, the results of a query of the Microsoft Access file on site expenditures results in a table that has data for only eight of the 27 sites identified in the Releases Report.

103

The

discussion of why the releases at these sites do not support the proposed rule is discussed in the Technical Support Document accompanying this final rulemaking.

104

Of the eight, seven are gold or gold and silver mines. Of the seven, six were operational after the effective date of Clean Water Act effluent limitations applicable to cyanide heap leach mining processes. Thus, regulation does not always prevent releases. In fact, the release at the Summitville Mine in Colorado was significant and the response was very costly. As discussed in the Technical Support Document accompanying this final rulemaking, the costs of response at that site included costs of addressing acid mine drainage from legacy (since 1890) operations, unrelated to the releases from cyanide heap leach process. Further, Colorado has since changed its regulation to prevent a repeat of the releases that occurred from the heap leach process at Summitville. Thus, Summitville mine is not an example of current risk. However, it also is important to understand that, according to a 1996 retrospective review of Summitville prepared by an EPA Region 8 employee and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, the Colorado-issued Clean Water Act permit, which assumed no discharge from the heap leach process, was based on an erroneous water balance calculation for the site. The permit assumed that evaporation would be greater than precipitation.

105

EPA's financial responsibility formula similarly relies on water balance data, and could be subject to the same type of error, demonstrating that neither regulation nor financial responsibility requirements are infallible.

106

103

See the site expenditure table from the D Site Exp.accdb file on the FTP site. These sites are Barite Hill, a gold and silver mine in South Carolina ($6.3 million), Brewer Gold, a gold and silver mine in South Carolina ($12.3 million), Cimarron Mine, a gold mine in New Mexico ($3.5 million), Formosa Mine, a copper and zinc mine in Oregon ($3.1 million), Gilt Edge mine, a gold and silver mine in South Dakota ($75 million), Grouse Creek mine, a

gold mine in Idaho ($314,000), Silver Mountain, a gold and silver mine in Washington ($1.4 million), and Summitville, a gold and silver mine in Colorado ($226 million). These numbers are presented in nominal dollars and are current as of 2011. The Microsoft Access file on settlements available at the same FTP site shows past cost settlements totaling $12.7 million at Gilt Edge, response work and past cost settlements totaling over $9 million at Grouse Creek, and past cost and future cost settlements at Summitville totaling approximately $49 million. See the settlements table from the cerclis_historical_sites_41612.accdb file on the FTP site.

104

The Technical Support Document addresses all but two of the eight sites discussed in the Releases Report for which there is a record of Fund expenditures. Silver Mountain is a gold and silver mine that operated beginning in 1928 and that used a cyanide heap leach process before the promulgation of strict Clean Water Act regulations for those processes. See Releases Report, at 7. Grouse Creek was operated by Hecla Mining Company and the Microsoft Access files on the FTP site show only $314,000 in EPA expenditures and a greater amount in cost recoveries. Thus, these sites are not evidence of risk of Fund-financed response actions at currently operating sites.

105

The Mining History and Environmental Clean-up at the Summitville Mine. Colorado Geological Society Open File Report 96-4. Available at

http://2fdpn7hy0ht206jws2e9og41.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/38.pdf

106

EPA-HQ-2015-0781-0500, at section 3.4.

Issues with the financial responsibility formula in the proposed rule are also discussed in, January 19, 2017 comments submitted by the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy. SBA used data in the record to compare the results of the proposed financial responsibility formula against actual site costs at six mining sites. The formula both underestimated, and in some cases greatly overestimated the costs of response. For example, at one mine the actual costs to address an open pit were $77,000, while the formula would have required financial responsibility in the amount of $197,900,000 for this response activity.

107

At another site, the formula would have required evidence of financial responsibility to cover interim operation and maintenance at a level of $69 million while the actual costs reported by the site operator who is paying for the response action pursuant to its reclamation plan were over $96 million.

108

EPA acknowledges that any formula with limited site specific information is necessarily a very imprecise means of determining potential response costs, and may significantly over or underestimate actual costs, as documented in the SBA comments. As noted by several commenters, financial assurance amounts established by state and other Federal regulatory programs are usually informed by site-specific assessments by on-the-ground regulators and are thus likely to better reflect actual response costs.

107

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-1406, at 18.

108

Id. (discussing Hycroft Resources, an active gold mine in Nevada). See also discussions of Hycroft in the Background Document for the financial capability formula. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-0500.

The conclusion that modern regulation has greatly reduced the risk of taxpayer financed response actions also is supported by the experience of other federal agencies. For example, in letters sent to Senator Murkowski, BLM and the Forest Service stated that no modern mines permitted since 1990 by either BLM or the Forest Service have been added to the NPL. When asked how many mining plans of operation BLM and Forest Service have approved since 1990, and how many of the corresponding sites have been placed on the NPL, BLM responded that it had approved 659 plans since 1990 and none had been added to the NPL and the Forest Service reported approval of 2,685 plans since 1990 with no sites being placed on the NPL.

109

These data support a conclusion that federal financial responsibility programs (and related mining engineering and permitting requirements) have been effective at lowering risk, reducing taxpayer liability, and contrasts strongly with the historical record involving legacy mines.

109

Letter dated June 21, 2011 from BLM Director Robert Abbey to Senator Lisa Murkowski, dated June 21, 2011; Letter dated July 20, 2011 from USDA Secretary Thomas Vilsack to Senator Lisa Murkowski, dated July 20, 2011. The letters were written in response to several questions posed by Senator Murkowski relating to hardrock mining programs on BLM and Forest Service lands.

States have had similar experience with their own programs. The state of Nevada, which has roughly one fourth of hardrock mines in the potentially regulated universe of mines developed by EPA for purposes of analysis in the proposed rule, has not had a case involving taxpayer funded response action since 1991, when the state's new rules were put in place.

110

Nevada comments, at Appendix 3 (EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2651).

EPA considered these examples of the limited payment experience of the Fund, as well as the record relating to payments covered by federal and state financial responsibility instruments required under other federal and state law, and payments made pursuant to settlements and voluntary response actions

111

to further support EPA's determination that the degree and duration of risk associated with the modern production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances by the hardrock mining industry does not present a level of risk of taxpayer funded response actions that warrant imposition of financial responsibility requirements for this sector.

111

EPA considers this information to be encompassed by the categories of information set forth in section 108(b)(2) (“payment experience of the Fund, commercial insurers, courts settlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction”).

C. Comments Supporting a Final Rulemaking

EPA received many comments on the proposed rule that expressed support for promulgation of financial responsibility requirements under section 108(b). Sixty comments from individual private citizens encouraged EPA to issue final requirements, as did four mass mailing letter campaigns sponsored by the Idaho Conservation League, Water Legacy, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, and Earthworks. The main comment in support of the rule came

from Earthworks, representing 35 different environmental groups.

112

Earthworks submitted comments on the proposed rule representing: Inform, Western Organization Resource Councils, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition, Natural Resources Council of Maine, Montana Environmental Information Center, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Conservation Law Foundation, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, Friends of The Boundary Waters Wilderness, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Save Our Sky Blue Waters, Gila Resources Information Project, Brooks Range Council, The Lands Council, Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, Friends of The Clearwater, Rock Creek Alliance, Save Our Cabinets, Patagonia Area Resources Council, Friends of the Kalmiopsis, Clean Water Alliance, Water Legacy, Park County Environmental Council, Great Basin Resource Watch, Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Rivers Without Borders, Spokane Riverkeepers, Western Watersheds Project, Okanagan Highlands Alliance, Boise Chapter Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Copper Country Alliance, Nunamta Aulukestai, and Idaho Conservation League.

Earthworks, et al. commented that CERCLA financial assurance regulations are necessary to ensure enough funds are available to complete cleanup actions without shifting the burden to the general public. They also stated in their comments that the proposed regulations did not duplicate existing state rules, which they argued do not cover pipeline spills, tailings spills, tailings impoundment failures and other releases of hazardous materials which commonly occur at hardrock mines, and can result in substantial liabilities.

113

In a separate comment on the proposed rule, the Idaho Conservation League stated that the state of Idaho's financial assurance requirements do not authorize bonding for groundwater contamination and water treatment in perpetuity and that a section 108(b) rule is necessary to close that gap.

114

113

See comment from Earthworks, et al., EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2739, at page 2.

114

See comment from Idaho Conservation League, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2700, at page 1.

In their comments on the proposed rule, Earthworks stated that: “Strong CERCLA 108(b) regulations are necessary to protect taxpayers from incurring the cost of mine clean-up, and to ensure that clean-up of hazardous materials at mine sites occur in a timely manner.” To support their conclusion, they specifically mentioned a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that concluded that EPA should “fully use its existing authorities to better ensure that those businesses that cause pollution also pay to have their contaminated sites cleaned up.”

115

They also pointed to a 2004 report by EPA's Office of Inspector General (IG) that identified 29 specific sites where, according to the IG, cleanup work was delayed or scaled back in ways harmful to human health and the environment because of funding shortfalls.

116

In addition to this report, Earthworks identified in their comments other examples of cleanup efforts at mines that they stated remain uncompleted due to insufficient funds being available, or that took an inordinate amount of time to complete, exposing the public to dangerous substances. As discussed in the specific case studies and the accompanying Technical Support Document, a number of the examples cited by the IG and Earthworks are not representative of the risk posed by currently operating hardrock mining facilities.

115

Earthworks,

et al.,

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2739, page 5.

116

Ibid. page 5, 6.

EPA appreciates Earthworks' concern that insufficient funds leads to incomplete or slow cleanup and restoration of mine sites. Earthworks acknowledges that the universe of entities that EPA proposed to regulate under the proposed rule excluded mines that are no longer operating. They recommended that the universe be expanded to cover mine operations that are no longer active but still retain a responsible party. They state that, “Many past hardrock mining facilities are already and/or will be the site of CERCLA liabilities and necessary response actions. The CERCLA 108(b) regulations should apply to these operations.”

117

EPA disagrees with this comment, and notes that the Agency has determined the goals of a section 108(b) rule as described in the proposal have already been satisfied.

117

Ibid., page 11.

Earthworks also commented that “CERCLA 108(b) regulations are essential because they address risks and liabilities that aren't addressed in most other State or federal land management financial assurance programs, including spills, accidental releases, and tailings failures.”

118

To support this conclusion, they point to several instances in ongoing mining operations where there are impacts to natural resources and/or groundwater due to ongoing mining operations which other federal or state rules fail to regulate. Earthworks also submitted comment claiming the need for financial responsibility for long-term water treatment. EPA recognizes that some historical mining operations have resulted in the need for long-term water treatment.

119

However, modern regulation of both process discharges and runoff, as well as reclamation requirements to control sources of contamination, significantly address those risks. Additionally, as discussed above, while EPA acknowledges that the risk of a release is never totally eliminated by the requirements of other programs, this residual risk is to be evaluated in light of EPA's discretion under the statute on whether to set section 108(b) requirements, and in light of the other information in the record for this action discussed elsewhere in this final rulemaking. Viewed in this manner, such residual risk does not change EPA's conclusion that it is not appropriate to issue final section 108(b) requirements for current hardrock mining operations.

118

Ibid., page 12.

119

Ibid., page 2.

Water Legacy and Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness submitted separate comments expressing concern that Minnesota's financial assurance laws, for instance, are not adequate to cover mine pit seepage, waste rock pile seepage, tailings dam seepage and/or catastrophic dam failures.

120

However, as is discussed in the site examples elsewhere in this final rulemaking and accompanying Technical Support Document, commenters submitted information to demonstrate that most releases at currently operating facilities are being addressed by owners and operators, and that the costs of these incidents at modern operations are generally not falling to the taxpayer.

120

See comment from Water Legacy, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2649, at page 3.

EPA received comments from three federally-recognized tribes and from three Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) resource managers regarding section 108(b) financial responsibility. Tribal comments were generally in support of the proposed rule, and cited some concerns about the potential negative impacts of hardrock mining on commercial enterprises and on subsistence living, along with the need to more fully identify the benefits of the rule. A primary ANCSA concern was that the section 108(b) financial responsibility requirements would duplicate existing federal and state requirements, resulting in a negative impact on Alaska Natives and states, that receive royalties through the Regional and Village Corporations. These comments are discussed in section VIII.G.

D. Comments Opposing a Final Rulemaking

1. Comments Regarding Appropriateness of Information Used

a. Use of Information Not Relevant to the Mines To Be Regulated Under the Rule

Many commenters on the proposed rule, including mining companies, trade associations, as well as state and federal agencies, commented that EPA's record incorrectly characterized the on-going environmental risk at operating hardrock mining facilities by relying on information related to mines that were constructed and operated before current regulatory requirements were in place, rather than on information specific to current hardrock mining activities, which are highly regulated. Commenters argued that since the rule would not apply to inactive, non-operating sites, EPA should not rely on information related to such sites as part of its rulemaking record to justify the need for financial responsibility requirements for current hardrock mining operations. Several commenters disagreed with EPA's assertion in the proposed rule that the $4 billion spent by EPA through the Superfund for cleanup costs at historical hardrock mining facilities is an indication of the relative risk present at the facilities covered by the proposed rule. Commenters argued that the 2009 Priority Notice and the proposed rule did not differentiate between costs associated with the highly-regulated mining practices of today and pre-regulation practices in developing that number.

EPA agrees with commenters that information about facilities that present a level of risk similar to those proposed to be regulated is the most appropriate focus for the Agency's record for this action. EPA also agrees with commenters that because mining practices have changed significantly over the past several decades, information related to risk presented by mines that operated before those changes occurred may not reflect the level of risk presented by currently operating facilities that include controls such as surface water containment structures, engineered storage facilities, water treatment, impermeable liners, and leak detection and recovery systems. Finally, EPA agrees with commenters that the cost of addressing releases from mines that operated without the controls in place today should not be assumed to be comparable to the cost of addressing releases from current operations, where controls such as monitoring assure early detection.

Commenters objected to the use of 1980 in the Practices Report,

121

(CERCLA was enacted in December 1980) as the point when “historic” mining practices changed over to “modern” ones. They felt this ignored the evolution of mining practices that took place since 1980, in response to other environmental laws, as well as state mining regulations which were still in their infancy in 1980. Some commenters seemed to agree that EPA should consider “modern” mining practices to have begun post-1990, and some suggested that the mid-1990s was the true beginning of modern hardrock mining practices.

121

EPA relied on this date numerous times in the Practices Report (

e.g.,

pages 7, 8, 72, 119, 126, 127, 133, 145).

In evaluating the record for this rulemaking, EPA considered the issue of when mining operations became “modern” or “current.” EPA recognizes that there are not nationally-applicable federal standards governing the operation of mines,

122

and that the current regulatory scheme of federal and state mining programs has evolved over time. Thus, the requirements of individual hardrock mining programs developed at different paces and sequences. One commenter provided a table demonstrating the evolution of hardrock mining programs over time, extending from 1972 to 2014, and including the adoption of regulations in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah during that period of time.

123

EPA has therefore concluded that no particular date in the past reliably distinguishes between “historic” or “legacy” and “current” or “modern” mines nationwide, and that a better approach is to consider operations taking place under the current applicable regulatory scheme as “current” operations, and mine operations that took place before the enactment of the currently applicable and relevant requirements as “historic” or “legacy.”

122

In 1986 EPA made a determination under section 3001(b)(3)(C) of RCRA that wastes from the extraction of ores did not pose a significant enough risk to warrant regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. 51 FR 24496.

123

See comment from Freeport-McMoRan, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2793, Attachment B.

b. Use of Data That Did Not Directly Demonstrate Risk at Current Hardrock Mining Operations

Some commenters who opposed the rule objected to EPA's analysis of the information presented in the 2009 Priority Notice relating to hardrock mining risk. Commenters objected that EPA relied on inappropriate information to demonstrate risk at current hardrock mining operations, by focusing on data that does not address potential exposure to CERCLA hazardous substances, or the possibility that a CERCLA response action may occur in the future, that is—Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and data from the Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR).

124

Commenters argued that EPA's approach to identifying hardrock mining did not evaluate actual or potential risk.

124

See, for example, comment from Comstock Mining, Inc., EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2735, at page 31.

EPA agrees with commenters that information regarding releases from hardrock mining facilities does not, in and of itself, demonstrate risk. For example, as noted in EPA's “Factors to Consider When Using Toxics Release Inventory Data” (2015), “TRI data do not reveal whether or to what degree the public is exposed to listed chemicals.”

125

In fact, TRI data generally encompass releases that are permitted under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), or the Safe Drinking Water Act, as well as the lawful disposal of hazardous substances. Accordingly, EPA agrees that TRI data cannot help predict the risk associated with potential mismanagement and therefore cannot be used to support any determination under CERCLA section 108(b) that imposing financial responsibility requirements on a sector is appropriate. Similarly, EPA agrees that BRS data and National Response System (previously referred to as the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) data do not provide information on the risk, if any, posed by the management of hazardous substances at hardrock mines.

125

See

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/factors_to_consider_6.15.15_final.pdf.

Another commenter stated that EPA's methodology for assessing risk was simply to describe some of the major mining practices that contributed to past CERCLA releases and simplistically conclude that similar practices are used today. The commenter argued that this approach is not accurate because it fails to account for the major changes in mining practices and regulatory requirements that are applied to modern mines. EPA agrees that it is important to consider modern mining practices and current regulatory regimes and has adopted that approach in this final action.

2. Comments That EPA Failed To Consider Relevant Information

Commenters on the 2009 Priority Notice and the proposed rule objected

that EPA failed to consider relevant information in the 2009 Priority Notice and the proposed rule, specifically on the role of federal and state regulatory programs and protective practices in reducing risks at current hardrock mining operations, and on information on reduced costs to the taxpayer from regulatory programs and cleanup by owners and operators. For example, the American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) commented that the Federal Land Management Agencies and the states have significantly evolved their financial assurance programs with specific emphasis on post-closure care and maintenance, thereby minimizing the long-term potential for releases of hazardous substances and un-bonded agency liability. AEMA further commented that existing financial responsibility programs are working at modern mines and there is no need for a costly EPA program.

126

See comments from American Exploration and Mining Association at Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2657, page 2.

a. Comments Providing Information on the Role of Federal and State Programs and Protective Mining Practices in Reducing Risks at Current Hardrock Mining Operations

Many commenters who opposed the rule objected that EPA's analysis failed to consider the technical or engineering requirements specified by other regulatory programs or the requirements that financial assurance be established to ensure that required measures will be funded when needed. The commenters stated that both types of requirements significantly decrease the risks posed by modern mines, including both risks to the environment and risks that potential future liabilities will not be funded by mining companies.

127

EPA agrees that due to the increased regulation of hardrock mining practices over the past several decades, mining operations are conducted in a manner that does not present the same level of risk as practices of the past.

127

Freeport-McMoRan Inc; Fertilizer Institute; MiningMinnesota; New Mexico Environment Department and New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department; Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety; National Mining Association.

Commenters provided extensive information regarding the requirements of those programs including design standards, engineering controls, and environmental monitoring. Commenters argued that engineering controls and best practices reduce the degree and duration of risk associated with the modern production, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances to minimal levels and that no additional financial responsibility requirements are necessary to protect the taxpayer or the Superfund. Some of these federal and state programs are discussed below.

(1) Examples of Federal Programs

The regulations of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service, applicable to hardrock mining facilities, are described below.

Bureau of Land Management

BLM's surface management regulations at 43 CFR part 3800, subpart 3809, govern the majority of the hardrock mining operations on the public lands that would be subject to the proposed rule. These regulations were first promulgated in 1980 pursuant to the agency's authority under the Mining Law of 1872,

128

and its mandate under section 302(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to take any action to prevent “unnecessary or undue degradation” of the public lands.

129

BLM also regulates the development of solid minerals subject to other mineral disposal authorities, such as phosphate, through the issuance of permits and leases under 43 CFR part 3500. BLM's regulatory programs provide cradle-to-grave oversight of mining operations on the public lands. For example, BLM's subpart 3809 regulations require operators to obtain authorization from BLM to conduct any surface disturbance greater than casual use.

130

All operations under subpart 3809 must comply with the general and specific performance standards set forth in the regulations which govern, among other things, disposal of mining wastes and handling of acid-forming, toxic, or other deleterious materials.

131

In addition, subpart 3809 requires all operations to comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations, including laws related to air and water quality.

132

For extractive mining operations and some exploration, operators under subpart 3809 must submit and obtain BLM approval of a plan of operations that includes plans for baseline data collection, water management, rock characterization and handling, spill contingency, and reclamation.

133

BLM's subpart 3809 regulations impose also requirements for design, operation, closure, and reclamation to ensure productive use of the land after mining. The required reclamation plan must detail stabilization of land disturbed for mining, reclaiming and reshaping the land, wildlife rehabilitation, controlling potentially hazardous materials, and post-closure management.

128

30 U.S.C. 22-54, as amended.

129

43 U.S.C. 1732(b).

130

43 CFR 3809.10, 3809.11.

131

See 43 CFR 3809.420.

132

See 43 CFR 3809.5, 3890.420(b)(4), (b)(5).

133

43 CFR 3809.401.

BLM's regulations also require operators to provide a financial guarantee before they can begin all hardrock mining operations.

134

Moreover, financial guarantees for mining operations must remain in effect until BLM determines that reclamation has been completed in accordance with the authorized operations and the agency releases the financial guarantee.

135

BLM's regulations also allow the agency to initiate forfeiture of the financial guarantee in the event the operator refuses or is unable to conduct reclamation.

136

134

See 43 CFR 3504.50, 3809.4500.

135

43 CFR 3504.71, 3809.590.

136

43 CFR 3504.65, 3809.595.

Forest Service

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service regulations governing mining under the Mining Law of 1872 were promulgated in 1974

137

and can be found at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A. Disposal of minerals such as phosphates, sodium, potassium, and hardrock minerals on acquired National Forest System lands are subject to the mineral leasing laws and are regulated by BLM under 43 CFR part 3500.

137

See comment from United States Forest Service, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2400 at page 10; comment from National Mining Association, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2794 at page 29.

Under the Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, operators must submit and obtain approval of a plan of operations before conducting any operations that might cause significant disturbance of surface resources.

138

The regulations are designed to minimize adverse environmental impacts both during and after mining operations. The regulations prohibit releases of hazardous substances, and require financial guarantee that is calculated to reasonably insure that operations and reclamation are conducted to avoid releases, and to respond to releases that may occur.

139

USDA highlighted in its comments how well developed Plans of Operations, site inspections, and monitoring reduce environmental risks before, during, and after mine closure. Specifically, USDA stated that an operator complies with Forest Service

regulations by developing a Plan of Operations, which requires that the operator submit enough detail that the agency can analyze various risks associated with the proposed operation and, through the NEPA process, identify proper mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate those risks.

140

The regulations also require that, “all operations be conducted so as, where feasible, to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest surface resources” (36 CFR 228.8). This allows the Agency to be very site-specific in its analysis of risk and mitigation.

141

A Plan of Operations must also include detailed reclamation and closure plans, which are reviewed and approved to minimize the potential future risk to the environment based on predicted outcomes.

142

USDA further stated that Plans of Operation must include hazardous materials inventory and handling procedures, spill prevention plans, and transportation mitigation measures.

143

USDA stated a Plan of Operations for a hardrock mining operation cannot be approved unless hazardous substances are managed so that the threat of present or future release is minimized.

144

During the mine permitting process, the Forest Service actively engages in memorandums of understanding and agreements with other State and Federal Agencies to ensure that all parties' permits are approved and implemented. Currently this can involve over forty separate permits and authorizations.

138

36 CFR 228.4(a).

139

See comment from United States Forest Service, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2400 at page 2.

140

Ibid.

141

Ibid.

142

Ibid., page 5.

143

Ibid., page 4.

144

Ibid., page 4.

The Forest Service requires that mine operators provide a financial guarantee to assure complete reclamation and compliance with environmental laws under the following authorities: 16 U.S.C. 551; 30 U.S.C. 612; 36 CFR 228.8, 228.13.

145

USDA stated that regulatory requirements (36 CFR 228.13) require operators to provide a bond sufficient to insure stabilization, rehabilitation, and reclamation of the area of operations.

146

Environmental protection measures described in under 36 CFR 228.8 also include certification of compliance with all other applicable environmental standards.

147

Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 228.4(e) allow the agency to require a modification to the Plan of Operations to allow for bond adjustments to address unforeseen environmental effects.

148

In its comments on the proposed rule the USDA stressed that financial guarantee requirements further reduce financial risk to the public. The operator must provide a financial guarantee that must be of a sufficient amount to ensure that, upon closure, the operation no longer presents long-term risks to the environment and a liability to the Forest Service and the public.

149

USDA further noted that any ongoing obligation to continue the protection of the environment is also provided for in a long-term financial assurance instrument required by the Forest Service.

150

145

Ibid., page 1.

146

Ibid., page 3.

147

Ibid., page 3.

148

Ibid., page 5.

149

Ibid., page 5.

150

Ibid., page 5.

Commenters also noted the role the NEPA plays in identifying risks at mining operations. NMA stated that a federal plan of operation is also scrutinized under NEPA, usually requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement, which evaluates potential environmental impacts of the mining operation, assesses alternatives, and requires the identification of mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts.

151

The Forest Service also offered several examples of the ways in which the NEPA process mitigates risk for mines which require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Specifically, the Forest Service noted that it identifies closure requirements as part of the NEPA process after in-depth studies using site-specific data.

152

Moreover, Forest Service noted that proposed reclamation requirements and potential for releases at mines on NFS lands are examined and disclosed in NEPA documents prepared for Forest Service approval of the plan of operations, which are reviewed by EPA.

153

The Forest Service also noted that EPA reviews all NEPA documents, and comments on the adequacy of mitigation measures and reclamation plans in general. Once an operator incorporates source controls and mitigation measures into their plan, the Forest Service approves that plan, based on the expected outcomes and not the individual engineering standards used.

154

EPA notes that the NEPA process applies to all federal agencies and thus is not limited to only mines on NFS lands.

151

See comment from National Mining Association, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2794 at page 30.

152

See comment from United States Forest Service, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2400 at page 3.

153

Ibid., page 5.

154

Ibid., page 7.

(2) Examples of State Programs

A discussion of the mining programs of five states—Nevada, New Mexico, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana—is provided below. Of the 184

155

mining sites in the potentially regulated universe of mines developed by EPA for purposes of analysis in the proposed rule, roughly one fourth are located in Nevada, and roughly one tenth are located in New Mexico, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana combined. In addition to the examples discussed below, the record includes detailed information on the protectiveness of mining programs in Arizona, Utah, South Dakota, and Idaho that were provided by those states and state organizations.

156

Additional information on state programs also was provided by other commenters.

157

155

This number does not include the stand-alone mineral processors in the potentially regulated universe of 221 hardrock mining facilities developed by EPA for purposes of analysis in the proposed rule.

156

See comment and attachments from Beth A. Botsis, Deputy Executive Director, Interstate Mining Compact Commission, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2759; EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2758; EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2757), discussing the protectiveness of mining programs in Arizona, Utah, and South Dakota. Together, Arizona and Utah have 35 potentially regulated mines. See also, comment from Governor Butch Otter, noting that that most of the mines in Idaho are on federally managed land and thus would be subject to Forest Service or BLM regulations, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2682. Idaho has nine potentially regulated mines.

157

See the discussion of comments on state mining programs in below.

Nevada

The Bureau of Mining, Regulation, and Reclamation of Nevada requires closure and reclamation for hardrock mines under the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 519A.010—NRS 519A.280 and the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 519A.010—NAC 519A.415.

158

Nevada's regulatory program was enacted in 1989-1990 and includes the authority for the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) to require financial assurance for long-term management of mine-impacted waters.

159

Commenters reported that Nevada's stringent regulations “impose extensive permitting, design, operation, monitoring, corrective action, closure, reclamation, and financial assurance requirements on hardrock mining

operations in the State.

160

In addition, because many mines in Nevada operate on federal lands, Nevada and BLM and Forest Service have entered into Memoranda of Understanding to ensure coordination of financial assurance requirements across private and public lands.

161

Mines in Nevada estimate the amounts of their required financial assurance through use of Nevada's Standardized Reclamation Cost Estimator (SRCE).

162

The SRCE is well-regarded amongst mining reclamation programs and is used by several other states and Federal agencies.

163

158

See comment from Nevada Lithium Corp, Comment Number: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2681 at page 4.

159

See comment from Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2651 at page 1.

160

See comment from Newmont Mining Corporation, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2712 at page 46-47.

161

See comment from Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2651, at page 2, and Attachment.

162

See comment from Nevada Lithium Corp, Comment Number: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2681, Page 4.

163

See comments from Women's Mining Coalition, Comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2705 at page 5, Pershing Gold Corporation, Comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2688 at page 6, Hecla Mining Company, Comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2688 at page 21, Mining and Metallurgical Society of America, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2734 at page 3.

Nevada's hardrock mining regulatory programs, including its reclamation surety program administered by NDEP, include stringent design standards, including standards in liner systems, dam safety, and tailings impoundments that are intended to manage and contain process wastes.

164

The regulations also specify treatment of spent ore heaps at closure to ensure surface and groundwater impacts are prevented.

165

NDEP provided comment that no modern mines that commenced operation after the promulgation of the Nevada mine reclamation financial assurance regulations have required public funding for proper closure or reclamation as evidence of the strength of Nevada's program.

166

164

See comment from Newmont Mining Corporation, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2712 at page 48.

165

Ibid., page 49.

166

See comment from Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2651 at page 2.

New Mexico

The New Mexico Mining Act (“Mining Act”) was adopted in 1993 with the purposes of “promoting responsible utilization and reclamation of lands affected by exploration, mining or the extraction of minerals.”

167

The Mining Act broadly defines “mining” and “minerals” to cover the extraction and processing of hardrock minerals.

168

167

See comments from New Mexico Environment Department and the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2676-2 at page 4.

168

Ibid. page 4.

Mining operations in New Mexico, both “existing” and “new,”

169

are required to obtain permits which include closeout, or reclamation, plans.

170

These plans, which are developed in coordination with closure plans required under the Water Quality Act, address the areas disturbed by mining including impacts from any of the thirteen site features identified by EPA as the sources of releases or threatened releases at hardrock mining sites.

171

The reclamation and remediation of these site features, which include tailings, waste rock, leach piles and open pits, are addressed in the permits issued under the Mining Act and the Water Quality Act.

169

“existing mining operations” were producing minerals prior to June 18, 1993, and “new mining operations” began producing minerals after that date. Section 69-36-3(E) and (I).

170

See comments from New Mexico Environment Department and the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2676-2 at page 5.

171

82 FR 3461, fn. 171.

Mining operations in New Mexico are subject to significant compliance and enforcement provisions. The Mining Act mandates a specific set of minimum inspections for each class of facility including one inspection a month when a mine is conducting significant reclamation activities.

172

If the agency determines that a facility is in violation of the Act, regulations or the permit or is creating an imminent danger to public health or safety or is causing significant environmental harm, the agency can order a cessation of mining or undertake administrative or judicial enforcement proceedings.

173

Violations can result in civil penalties of up to $10,000 a day, and knowing or willful violations can bring criminal penalties.

174

172

See comments from New Mexico Environment Department and the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2676-2 at page 5.

173

Ibid., page 5.

174

Ibid., page 5.

Financial assurance is an integral and inseparable part of New Mexico's regulation of hardrock mining and attendant reclamation requirements. Before a permit can be issued under the Mining Act, financial assurance must be filed with the agency. “The amount of the financial assurance shall be sufficient to assure the completion of the performance requirements of the permit, including closure and reclamation, if the work has to be performed by the director or a third-party contractor.”

175

The financial assurance amount is based on a detailed engineering cost estimate to complete the approved reclamation plan and must be based on what it would cost the State, or the State's contractor, to complete the reclamation plan. Financial assurance must include costs for: Contract administration; mobilization; demobilization; engineering redesign; profit and overhead; procurement costs; reclamation or closeout plan management; and contingencies.

176

175

Ibid., page 5.

176

Ibid., page 5.

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) regulates mining operations under the New Mexico Water Quality Act (“Water Quality Act”).

177

Enacted in 1967, the Water Quality Act requires the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (“WQCC” or “Commission”) to adopt regulations to protect surface water and groundwater quality. The Commission must “adopt water quality standards for surface and ground waters of the state,”

178

and must also adopt regulations requiring a permit for “the discharge of any water contaminant.”

179

The Commission authorizes NMED to place conditions on discharge permits to protect groundwater, and must deny a discharge permit if the discharge would cause or contribute to contaminant levels in excess of water quality standards at any place of present or potential future use.

180

The WQCC must adopt procedures for providing notice to interested persons and the opportunity for a public hearing, and must also adopt regulations “for the operation and maintenance of the permitted facility, including requirements, as may be necessary or desirable, that relate to the continuity of operation, personnel training and financial responsibility.”

181

Finally, the Water Quality Act was amended in 2009 to direct the WQCC to adopt regulations for the copper industry, resulting in a comprehensive and prescriptive set of copper mine regulations,

182

and in accordance with the directives of the Water Quality Act, the Commission has adopted a body of implementing regulations codified in Title 20, Chapter 6 of the New Mexico Administrative Code.

177

Ibid., page 6.

178

Ibid., page 6.

179

Ibid., page 6.

180

Ibid., page 6.

181

Ibid., page 6-7.

182

Ibid., page 6.

The stated purpose of the Ground and Surface Water Protection Regulations is

“to protect all ground water of the state of New Mexico which has an existing concentration of 10,000 [milligrams per liter] or less [total dissolved solids], for present and potential future use as domestic and agricultural water supply.”

183

The regulations include three categories of groundwater quality standards: (1) Maximum numerical standards for thirty-three contaminants for protection of human health; (2) maximum numerical standards for nine contaminants and a range for pH for protection of domestic water supplies; and (3) maximum numerical standards for five contaminants for protection of water for irrigation use.

184

183

Ibid., page 6-7.

184

Ibid., page 6-7.

The regulations also address discharge permits,

185

prohibiting any person from causing or allowing a water contaminant to “discharge so that it may move directly or indirectly into groundwater” unless that person is discharging pursuant to a discharge permit issued by NMED.

186

The regulations provide for notice to the public of a proposed discharge permit, and the opportunity to request a public hearing on the permit.

187

The regulations further provide that a discharge permit may include a closure plan to protect ground water after the cessation of the operations causing the discharge. The closure plan must include “a description of closure measures, maintenance and monitoring plans, post-closure maintenance and monitoring plans, financial assurance, and other measures necessary to prevent and/or abate . . . contamination.”

188

185

Ibid., page 6-7.

186

Ibid., page 6-7.

187

Ibid., page 6-7.

188

Ibid., page 6-7.

The Copper Mine Rule

189

was promulgated in 2013 and the state indicated that it is the most prescriptive rule governing copper mining operations in the United States. The Copper Mine Rule establishes specific operational, monitoring, contingency, closure, and post-closure requirements for copper mines to ensure protection of water quality and prevent the release of contaminants into the environment during operations and following closure. The Copper Mine Rule is supplemental to the general discharge permit regulations, and is implemented through the issuance of ground water discharge permits.

189

Ibid., page 7.

The Copper Mine Rule covers all aspects of mine operation and closure. The permit application requirements for copper mine facilities result in a comprehensive document that identifies all mine units at the facility including: Impoundments; pipelines; tanks; leach stockpiles; waste rock stockpiles; crushing, milling, concentrating, smelting and tailing impoundments; open pits; underground mines; and, truck and equipment washing units.

190

Each of these respective mine units is subject to prescriptive engineering design criteria to control and prevent the release of contaminants.

191

190

Ibid., page 8.

191

Ibid., page 8.

Existing mine units in operation prior to promulgation of the Copper Mine Rule have extensive groundwater monitoring to determine their effectiveness in preventing the release of contaminants to the environment.

192

Discharge permit requirements for existing mine units include operation of groundwater interceptor systems, as well as seepage and surface runoff capture systems to ensure impacts are contained as close as is practicable.

193

The Copper Mine Rule requires development and implementation of a site-wide water management plan describing in detail how impacted storm water and groundwater at the site is contained and managed.

194

Construction and operation of new mine units or expansion of existing mine units is subject to detailed engineering design requirements that include lined leach stockpiles, double lined process water impoundments, leak detection systems, flow metering, and extensive groundwater monitoring.

195

192

Ibid., page 8.

193

Ibid., page 8.

194

Ibid., page 8.

195

Ibid., page 8.

Proposals for new mine units such as waste rock stockpiles and tailing impoundments are required to include an aquifer evaluation to determine the nature and extent of any impacts to groundwater that may occur if these mine units are proposed to be unlined.

196

Based on the aquifer evaluation, the Copper Mine Rule requires a design report for proposed interceptor systems to ensure containment of groundwater impacted by the stockpile or tailing impoundment such that applicable standards will not be exceeded at monitoring well locations.

197

As previously stated, monitoring wells must be located as close as practicable to the various mine units being monitored.

198

Impacted water collected at a mine site typically is used in the process water system, offsetting use of potable water. Any impacted water in excess of process water requirements must be treated prior to release.

199

In the event a demonstration of containment cannot be satisfactorily made, a liner system placed beneath waste rock or tailing impoundments may be required.

200

196

Ibid., page 8.

197

Ibid., page 8.

198

Ibid., page 8.

199

Ibid., page 8.

200

Ibid., page 8.

The Copper Mine Rule also contains prescriptive requirements for closure of mine units that have the potential to impact water quality

201

including requirements for process solution reduction plans

202

and closure water management and water treatment plans.

203

There are prescriptive engineering design requirements for surface re-grading and cover design to ensure storm water is routed off and away from encapsulated mine waste, and that infiltration into mine waste is minimized.

204

It should be noted that the prescriptive closure design criteria are based on designs that have been implemented successfully not only at copper mines in New Mexico, but mimic successful closure design that has been consistently required and applied at other mine sites in New Mexico.

201

Ibid., page 9.

202

Ibid., page 9.

203

Ibid., page 9.

204

Ibid., page 9.

Under these regulations, any hardrock mine that has the potential to impact groundwater must obtain a permit from NMED. The Water Quality Act provides numerous enforcement mechanisms for violations of the provisions of the Act, the regulations, a water quality standard adopted pursuant to the Act, or a condition of a permit issued pursuant to the Act.

205

These include injunctive relief ordered by a district court; suspension or termination of a permit allegedly violated;

206

civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day of noncompliance for a violation of the Water Quality Act permit provisions at NMSA 1978, Section 74-6-5, including regulations adopted or a permit issued pursuant to that section;

207

up to $10,000 per day for each violation of the Water Quality Act or regulations other than Section 74-6-5; up to $25,000 per day for each day of continued noncompliance with a compliance order; and criminal penalties.

208

205

Ibid., page 6-7.

206

Ibid., page 6-7.

207

Ibid., page 6-7.

208

Ibid., page 6-7.

The New Mexico state commenters indicated that NMED and the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department work closely together pursuant to a Joint Powers

Agreement in drafting and issuing permits for hardrock mining facilities to ensure that financial assurance and other permit requirements are consistent, integrated, and complementary. These agencies allow permitted facilities to submit a single financial assurance instrument, or set of instruments, that are jointly held by the agencies, meeting the financial assurance requirements of both statutes. They also have Memoranda of Understanding with BLM and the Forest Service to avoid duplication where federal land is involved. Through mining permits issued under the Mining Act, and groundwater discharge permits issued under the Water Quality Act, the Agencies have jointly required permittees to establish financial assurance for all operating hardrock mines in New Mexico, as well as many that are no longer operating.

Freeport McMoRan Inc. commented that there are existing, state-imposed financial assurance requirements, often amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars per mine, that might be sufficient to protect against risks,

209

and offered the example that EPA itself has adopted state reclamation requirements specified in New Mexico law, as the CERCLA remedy for the Questa mine site.

209

See comments from Freeport McMoRan, Inc., EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2402 at page 9.

Alaska

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation requires financial assurance to prevent releases from mines to water.

210

Financial assurance for reclamation at mines on state, private, municipal, and federal land is managed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources under authority granted by the Alaska Mine Reclamation Act.

211

The act describes a general reclamation standard which “prevents unnecessary or undue degradation of land and water resources”

212

Under the mine permitting process undertaken for most large mines in Alaska, coordination with federal, state, and local governments is employed to review mine plans.

213

As evidence of the stringency of Alaska's requirements, AEMA offered comment that large mines in Alaska are required to undergo a comprehensive third-party environmental audit every five years.

214

210

See comment from NOVAGOLD, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2720 at page 2.

211

See comment from Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2785 at page 9.

212

See comment from Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2785 at page 9.

213

Ibid., page 10-11.

214

See comment from AEMA, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2657 at page 10.

Alaska requires further safeguards for mines where the plan includes a dam. These requirements include operation and maintenance plans and contingencies in an emergency action plan.

215

Alaska made the “Guidelines for Cooperation with the Alaska Dam Safety Program” guidance available which outlines regulatory requirements applying to dams, including design standards, methods of analysis, [. . .] performance requirements and risk profile of the facility, operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements, emergency action planning and incident reporting, periodic safety inspections” as well as financial assurance.

216

215

See comment from Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, comment number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2785 at page 10.

216

Ibid., page 19.

Colorado

In 1976, the Colorado state legislature passed the Mined Land Reclamation Act

217

(MLRA) establishing a Mined Land Reclamation Board (“Board”).

218

The MLRA provided far more structure for permitting mine sites and, importantly, oversight of reclaiming these sites. The MLRA's legislative declaration stated:

217

C.R.S. section 34-32-101

et seq.

218

See comments from Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety at Docket ID number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781-2774, page 3.

It is the declared policy of this state that the extraction of minerals and the reclamation of land affected by such extraction are both necessary and proper activities. It is further declared to be policy of this state that both such activities should be and are compatible. It is the intent of the general assembly by enactment of this article to foster and encourage the development of an economically sound and stable mining and minerals industry and to encourage the orderly development of the state's natural resources while requiring those persons involved in mining operations to reclaim land affected by such operations so that the affected land may be put to a use beneficial to the people of this state. It is the further intent of the general assembly by the enactment of this article to conserve natural resources, to aid in the protection of wildlife and aquatic resources, to establish agricultural, recreational, residential, and industrial sites, and to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of this state.

219

Ibid., page 4.

In 1984, the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety (DRMS) permitted the Summitville mine.

220

This was a high elevation mine located in the historic mining district of Summitville in Southwest Colorado. Errors were made in the permitting review and initial build out of this mine site. The financial assurance at Summitville was not site-specific but based on a formulaic approach, and ultimately proved to be far short of the actual reclamation cost.

221

The large cyanide heap leach operation almost immediately encountered problems with construction and water treatment.

222

Ultimately, the operator walked away from the site after a significant environmental release leaving the state with an insufficient financial assurance.

220

Ibid.

221

Ibid.

222

Ibid.

The state indicated that it learned from the errors at Summitville, and the state legislature subsequently passed major programmatic revisions to the MLRA in 1993, strengthening permitting and enforcement provisions.

223

Most importantly, the MLRA was specifically amended to create a new class of mining sites now known as Designated Mining Operations (DMOs) and to clearly require financial assurance for all sites based on site specific, not formulaic, criteria.

224

223

Ibid.

224

Ibid.

The DMO amendment is the backbone of Colorado's hardrock regulatory program and requires operators to submit an Environmental Protection Plan with numerous technical elements that were previously not required in light of lessons learned from Summitville.

225

A DMO's Environmental Protection Plan now describes how the operator assures protection of all areas that have the potential to be affected by designated chemicals, toxic or acid forming materials, or acid mine drainage.

226

The plan must include an Emergency Response Plan and must implement any measures required by Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the protection of wildlife or Colorado Water Quality Control Division for the protection of water quality.

227

Other aspects of the DMO amendment required submission of information to evaluate the potential for adverse impacts associated with acid mine drainage or acid or toxic producing materials to leach facilities, heap leach pads, tailing storage or disposal areas, impoundments, waste rock piles, stockpiles (temporary or

permanent), land application sites and in-situ or conventional uranium mining operations.

228

225

Ibid., page 5.

226

Ibid.

227

Ibid.

228

Ibid.

Further Environmental Protection Plans must include designated chemicals and materials handling plans, facilities evaluation, groundwater evaluation and protection measures, surface water control and containment facilities information, surface water quality data, hydrologic monitoring plans, detailed climate data to assist in facilities design, geotechnical and geochemical data and analysis, construction schedules including quality assurance and quality control measures, plant and soils analysis, tailings and sludge disposal plans.

229

Ibid.

The financial assurance amendment required all hardrock mine facilities in Colorado, including prospecting operations, to post a financial assurance equal to the amount necessary for the state to reclaim a site if permit revocation and forfeiture were to occur.

230

The financial assurance amount is calculated during the permitting phase of a mine and updated throughout the life of the mine to account for any changes to the mining or reclamation plans or changes in reclamation costs.

231

As discussed above, DRMS did not calculate site-specific financial assurance prior to the 1993 amendments. As part of the 1993 amendments, language was removed that had allowed sites to be permitted for an established amount (depending on permit type) and language was inserted to mandate that DRMS require, on a site-specific calculation, the total amount of financial assurance necessary for the state to complete reclamation. DRMS now calculates financial assurance amounts during permitting and periodically (at a minimum every four years) through the life of the mine.

232

230

Ibid.

231

Ibid.

232

Ibid.

The MLRA minimizes the adverse impacts of hardrock mining in Colorado by requiring every operator to obtain a permit and adhere to rigorous reclamation standards, both during and after mining.

233

Many of the MLRA's reclamation standards are designed to prevent the release of hazardous substances into the environment.

234

Pursuant to the MLRA, DRMS regulates mining in Colorado to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of Colorado and to ensure that affected lands are appropriately reclaimed by those operating mines and mills.

235

See Section 34-32-102, C.R.S. Under Section 34-32-109, C.R.S., any operator of a mine or mill must obtain and maintain a reclamation permit.

236

To ensure that reclamation obligations are performed, Section 34-32-117(1), C.R.S., provides that no mining and reclamation permit may be issued until the Board receives performance and financial warranties.

237

Pursuant to Section 34-32-117(3)(a), C.R.S., a financial warranty consists of a written promise to the Board to be responsible for reclamation costs together with proof of financial capability.

238

Each operator must submit a financial warranty sufficient to assure compliance with applicable reclamation standards, as incorporated in the operation's reclamation permit.

239

See Section 34-32-117, C.R.S. During the life of a mine, DRMS requires financial assurance for water quality treatment, as well.

240

233

Ibid., page 6.

234

Ibid.

235

Ibid.

236

Ibid.

237

Ibid.

238

Ibid.

239

Ibid.

240

Ibid.

Under the MLRA, reclamation must be conducted, both during and after the mining operation, in accordance with a reclamation plan that meets certain performance standards.

241

Many of the reclamation standards are designed to prevent releases of hazardous substances and prevent adverse impacts on surrounding properties.

242

See Section 34-32-116, C.R.S. (requiring measures to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic balance, protect outside areas from damage, and control erosion and attendant air and water pollution).

243

MLRA's financial assurances ensure that DRMS can complete reclamation according to those standards if the operator is unwilling or unable.

244

Regulatory financial assurances require enormous expertise, and must be established by fact-intensive case-by-case review.

245

DRMS calculates the financial assurance amount by developing and aggregating task-by-task cost estimates using current reference materials as well as the regional expertise of its staff.

246

Applicants may submit initial estimates; however, DRMS rigorously reviews those estimates. DRMS is also charged with continuously reviewing the adequacy of financial warranties and uses the same methods.

247

241

Ibid.

242

Ibid.

243

Ibid.

244

Ibid.

245

Ibid.

246

Ibid.

247

Ibid.

DRMS and the Board have promulgated a robust set of rules and regulations specific to the oversight of the hardrock mining industry that implement the MLRA.

248

The rules contain specific performance requirements for hardrock mining to protect, for example, both surface and groundwater, impacts to wildlife, and offsite impacts including erosion controls.

249

The rules are evidence of how DRMS minimizes the risk associated with the potential for releases from hardrock mine facilities.

250

248

Ibid., page 7.

249

Ibid.

250

Ibid.

Colorado's regulatory program is predicated on three essential independent but interrelated elements; permitting, inspection and enforcement

251

that allow DRMS to carefully plan for mining and reclamation through the permitting process which is anchored by a thorough financial warranty calculation.

252

It also allows DRMS to periodically review sites through inspections to determine compliance with their permits and, if necessary, take enforcement action to remedy non-compliance.

253

251

Ibid.

252

Ibid.

253

Ibid.

The permitting process requires prospective operators to, among other things, assess baseline conditions for hydrology, soils, vegetation, land use, climate, geology, and plan for a number of other factors such as chemical and toxic materials handling plans, as they develop their mining and reclamation plans.

254

Many of these plans are required to be certified by a registered professional engineer to ensure design integrity and performance, particularly with respect to any environmental protection facility.

255

A financial warranty is then calculated utilizing the specific factors associated with these plans, including cost details associated with construction of environmental protection facilities and costs associated with demolition and removal of some of these same facilities and structures.

256

Other aspects included in these calculations address volumes of topsoil to be removed and replaced, volumes of overburden to be moved and regraded, waste piles and tailings impoundments to be constructed, capped and reclaimed

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.