CENTER for SCIENCE in PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

224 North Church Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715

Phone (406) 585-9854 / Fax (406) 585-2260 / web: www.csp2.org / e-mail: csp2@csp2.org

“Technical Support for rassroots Public Interest roups”

 

CSP

2

 

March 14, 2014 Lisa Fay EIS Project Manager MDNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources Environmental Review Unit 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155-4025  NorthMetSDEIS.dnr@state.mn.us 

RE: Comments on NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Forest Service, November, 2013

The Center for Science in Public Participation provides technical advice to public interest groups, non-governmental organizations, regulatory agencies, mining companies, and indigenous communities on the environmental impacts of mining. CSP2 specializes in hard rock mining, especially with those issues related to water quality impacts and reclamation bonding. Dr. David Chambers has 37 years of experience in mineral exploration and development – 15 years of technical and management experience in the mineral exploration industry, and for the past 22 years he has served as an advisor on the environmental effects of mining projects both nationally and internationally. He has Professional Engineering Degree in Physics from the Colorado School of Mines, a Master of Science Degree in Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley, a Ph.D. in Environmental Planning from Berkeley, and is a registered professional geophysicist in California (# GP 972). Stuart M. Levit has a Masters Degree in Land Rehabilitation from Montana State University in 1989, where he focused on natural resources issues, mining, and environmental regulation, and a law degree from the University of Montana in 1994. He worked for the Montana Abandoned Mines Reclamation Bureau where he designed reclamation projects, and was oversaw site evaluation, engineering, and construction of these projects. Stu has worked with the Center for Science in Public Participation since 2000, concentrating on reclamation planning and bonding, the adequacy of environmental impact statements, and water pollution regulatory issues.

SUMMARY

The NorthMet Project Supplemental Draft EIS is based on a plethora of information, but there are still several important areas that need additional work and/or revisions: (1)

 

Probably the most glaring omission is that there is only the most scant analysis of the financial surety that will be needed for this project. As is discussed in more detail to follow, the financial surety for this project could be in excess of $400 million. This is very significant potential impact not only to the financial requirements of the mine owners, but also to the citizens of Minnesota, who are ultimately accountable should the mine operator go bankrupt without an adequate financial surety to

 

Page 2 of 32

 close the mine and treat waste water. If the mine operator were to go bankrupt without an adequate financial surety public funds for closure would either need to be provided, or the public would bear the environmental consequences of not properly closing the mine. Either way, the public would pay,  probably for centuries. (2)

 

Every Draft EIS should contain a Draft Reclamation Plan which includes a detailed analysis of the financial surety, so that it is demonstrated before the project is allowed to proceed that project closure can be accomplished using demonstrated reclamation techniques, and at a cost that is affordable. Lack of a viable reclamation plan and closure cost estimate is a major flaw in the SDEIS. Many sections of the Reclamation Plan (and its referenced documents, such as the Mine Plan, Water Management Plan, Wetlands Management Plan are more accurately plans to plan reclamation than actual reclamation plans. As described in these comments, the Reclamation Plan often lack detail and specific goals and methods necessary to evaluate the likely success of reclamation and provide comment about how to improve the chances of success. These are the most critical issues, but there are a number of other important points to be made in the Section-Specific Comments below.

SECTION-SPECIFIC COMMENTS: 2.6 Financial Assurance

This section, which should be one of the major points of analysis and public disclosure, is a mere ½ page in length. It is stated:

“The level of engineering design and planning required to calculate detailed financial assurance amounts is typically made available during the permitting process.” (SDEIS, p 2-10)

This statement is most probably not correct. The engineering design and planning to calculate detailed financial assurance is available at the point a project reaches the Draft EIS stage. For a company to reach this stage without having this information available, and without having performed this calculation internally, would be fiscally irresponsible to the company’s shareholders and board of directors. Management could not go forward with a proposal to the company board to spend the hundreds of millions/billions of dollars involved in constructing a mine of this type without knowing what the likely closure costs will be, since those costs are also likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. Likewise, the public is the final resting point for any financial surety. If there is a bankruptcy or other applicable failure to perform that requires the use of the financial surety, and this surety is lacking the  public either makes up the deficit with tax dollars, or bears the environmental costs of not performing the reclamation, water treatment, or any other costs related to the deficit in the financial surety. With this much money at stake, regulatory agencies should want the most thorough review possible before allowing a project to go forward.

 Recommendation: A detailed financial surety calculation, based on the project as proposed by the  applicant, should be presented in the SDEIS.

 

Page 3 of 32

 

3.1.1 NorthMet Project Proposed Action Overview 3.1.1.7 Project Closure Overview

A very important component of the financial assurance, long term water treatment, is mentioned in this section:

“Mechanical water treatment is part of the modeled NorthMet Project Proposed Action for the duration of the simulations (200 years at the Mine Site and 500 years at the Plant Site). The duration of the simulations was determined based on capturing the highest predicted concentrations of the modeled NorthMet Project Proposed Action. It is uncertain how long the NorthMet Project Proposed  Action would require water treatment, but it is expected to be long term;

 actual treatment  requirements would be based on measured, rather than modeled 

 , NorthMet Project water quality  performance, as determined through monitoring requirements.” (SDEIS, p 3-5,

emphasis added 

)

It is appropriate to base models like this on worst-case predictions, because there are too many examples of situations where conditions turned out to be worse than the worst-case prediction. It is also appropriate to eventually base water quality predictions and the need for water quality treatment on actual conditions, once a mine is in operation. However, for a new mine the initial calculations of a financial surety must be  based the best information available, because the mine could go bankrupt before a sufficient amount of data has been collected to establish an operational baseline. An initial calculation of a financial surety must necessarily be based on worst-case water quality predictions – until operational data can prove conditions to the contrary. In effect, from a worst case standpoint any prediction of poor water quality from a model that extends more than 5 years beyond the closure of a mine must essentially be treated as requiring water treatment in  perpetuity. (For example, it might take 5 years for tailings pond seepage to stabilize post-closure.) This is  because no geochemical model today is accurate enough to predict how much time it will take for water quality to improve enough to terminate water treatment required after mine closure.

 Recommendation: The initial calculation of the financial surety should be based on worst-case water quality predictions, and on the project as proposed by the applicant.

3.2.2.1.6 Haulage, Storage, and Transport of Ore

Ore will be transported from the mine to the mill in side-dump rail cars. (see Figure 3.2-21: Side Dump Railroad Cars, SDEIS, p 3-85): at the Rail Transfer Hopper haul trucks dump run-of-mine ore into the hopper, where it is loaded by conveyor onto the rail cars. Each 100-ton rail car can be loaded in one minute (SDEIS, p 3-43). There is no mention of an enclosed building, so it is assumed that this is being done in the open. Since this is run-of-mine ore there will be a fraction of the ore that is dust-sized material. The high transfer rate both with the haul trucks dumping to the hopper, and the conveyor loading the rail cars, will generate a significant amount of dust in the vicinity, and in the predominant downwind direction of the Rail Transfer Hopper. And, since the rail cars are open-top, there will be an accumulation of dust along the rail corridor between the mine and mill. Ore-dust contains a number of potential contaminants which, even though a low concentrations, could accumulate over years of use.

 Recommendation: The Rail Transfer Hopper and rail car loading conveyor and platform should be in  an enclosed structure, and the rail cars fitted with a top that would limit the loss of  ore-dust along the rail line between the mine and mill.