EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

January 2003

APPENDIX J

EPA RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SOURCE BOOK
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

A-1 August 2002

Commentors on the Draft Source Book

Number Name Affiliation

1 Kenwyn George Alaska Department of Environment and Conservation

2 Steven Borrell Alaska Miners Association

3 Luke Russell Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation

4 Clyde Gillespie Fairbanks Gold Mining (Kinross Gold Corp.)

5 Rens Verburg Golder Associates

6 Keith Brady Pennsylvania Bureau of Mining and Reclamation

7 Pierre Mousset-Jones University of Nevada - Reno, Mackay School of Mines

8 Lisa Kirk Northwest Mining Association

9 David Chambers Center for Science in Public Policy
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

J-2 

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

1 ADEC, Juneau General When opening the documents using Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0 you get

the message "Could not find the ColorSpace named Cs9", followed by themessage "This file contains information not understood by the viewer.Suppress further errors?"

No response necessary.

2 ADEC, Juneau General I do not see anything on bonding for reclamation costs. Maybe add an

Appendix just for Reclamation and Bonding? Bonding is required by state

& federal permits (e.g. the USFS). The issues are many, from immediate

maintenance and continuing operation of units to executing the

exclamation plan (with the hope that the plan is sufficiently detailed thatone could bid work from it). We are currently looking at

bonding/reclamation of the Greens Creek mine in conjunction with theUSFS and other agencies and the City & Borough of Juneau. PeteMcGee of the Fairbanks office has recent experience with bondingproblems at the Illinois Creek mine (and we will be using his knowledge

and experience from this mine for the Greens Creek requirements).

[Would you like this information/contacts?]

EPA has added a brief discussion not added an entire appendix or se

3 ADEC, Juneau 2.0 Page 7- How about having a second page similar to page 7, Figure 1, that

incorporates State Certification? Also, perhaps on Figure 1, in the lowerright box, Consider other applicable regulations, include State Regulations

and Water Quality Standards?

EPA made no changes. This docupermits, not state ones.

4 ADEC, Juneau 5.1.2 There are two page 32's (Table 6), and no page 33. In adobe this equates

to two Table 6's on electronic pages 35 and 36.

Change made as suggested.

5 ADEC, Juneau B-2.2 Page B-6 Item 2.2- how about listing the state web pages where state

WQS are listed. 

EPA added a reference to state wequality standards. Since URLs canot include the URLs.

6 ADEC, Juneau B-3.2.2 Page B-18; Table B-2 is split onto two pages - it would be good to keep it

all on one page.

EPA has modified the formatting to table's second half will include a tit

7 ADEC, Juneau B-4.3 Pg B-21; 4.3 Is equal the sum [either equals, or is equal to] Correction made as suggested.

8 ADEC, Juneau C-4.4.1.3 Item 4.4.1.3 wastes using a a batch leach [duplicate a's] Correction made as suggested.

9 ADEC, Juneau C-4.4.5 4.4.5 batch test tended...(but not always) How about "batch tests frequently, 

made as suggested.

10 ADEC, Juneau E.4.1 4.1 Surface water Hydrology provides [there is a hard return after water] Correction made as suggested.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-3 

11 ADEC, Juneau D-2.2.3 Pg D-9 - put Figure D-1 on the same page & just under the reference to

the table.

Correction made as suggested.

12 ADEC, Juneau D-2.2.3 Pg D-10 Figure D-1 - include intermittent and permanent surface

discharges from the lake?

Correction made as suggested.

13 ADEC, Juneau D-3.0 Pg D-11 3.0 (e.g. heap leach piles, [tailings piles?] This change was not made, since 

Appendix D.

14 ADEC, Juneau D-3.0 Second paragraph - add to second sentence "and the design of the

engineered, or reclamation cap"?

This concept has been included in 

15 ADEC, Juneau D-3.1 Pg D-12 3.1 Similarly, actions taken at closure...[include "design of the

final cover".]

Correction made as suggested.

16 ADEC, Juneau D-3.1 Pg D-14 Figure D-2 needs to be larger - you cannot read the text at its

current size.

Correction made as suggested.

17 ADEC, Juneau D-3.1.1 Pg D-16 - last sentence of 3.1.1 - readers should refer to this document

[which? this source book?, Appendix A?, a specific EPA publication?]

Two documents are cited at the besentence has been changed to rearemove any ambiguity.

18 ADEC, Juneau D-3.2.1 Pg D-16 3.2. and run-off (for run-off). ?? [Was this meant to be for runon]? The parenthetical "(for run-off)" wil

19 ADEC, Juneau D-4.1 Pg D-20 4.1 run-on/runoff [Use run-off for consistency?] The hyphenated version has now 

Book.

20 ADEC, Juneau D-4.2.2 Pg D-25 Put Figure D-3 just after the reference to it? Correction made as suggested.21 ADEC, Juneau D-6.0 Pg D-24 6.0 (e.g. the Multi-Sector General Storm Water Permit, [Sector

G - add this?]

Correction made as suggested.

22 ADEC, Juneau E-2.0 Pg E-2 In Table E-1, Storm Water Description, "contracts" should be

"contacts"

Correction made as suggested.

23 ADEC, Juneau E-3.0 Pg E-3 Item 3.0, last para - a range of different of options [remove

second "of"]

Correction made as suggested.

25 ADEC, Juneau E-5.1.1.2 Pg E-6 Item 5.1.1.2 Some sulfide precipitation occur [should be

"occurs"]

Correction made as suggested.

26 ADEC, Juneau E-5.1.1.2 Pg E-7 Put Figure E-1 with the text reference, i.e. on the previous page,

with the last part of 5.1.1.2 on pg E-7 instead of E-6.

Correction made as suggested.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-4 

27 ADEC, Juneau E-5.1.1.3 Pg E-8 Item 5.1.l.3 ...precipitation efficiency beyond the use... [How

about "greater" rather than "beyond"?]

EPA modified the wording to clarif

28 ADEC, Juneau E-5.1.1.3 .......to describe a different type water treatment [type of... ] Correction made as suggested.29 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2 5.2 reactivesurface [should no doubt be reactive surface] Correction made as suggested.

30 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2 ions from the waste water.. [Extra period] Correction made as suggested.31 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2 treated or disposed. [disposed of?] EPA believes the meaning is clear32 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2 is used by , electroplatersdischarging [remove space, split the two

words]

Correction made as suggested.

33 ADEC, Juneau E-5.1.3 Pg E-9 5.1.3 semipermeable [hyphenate] Correction made as suggested.34 ADEC, Juneau E-5.1.3 ........the volume of brine stream [either "of the" or delete "stream"] Correction made as suggested.35 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2 Pg E-11 5.2 uses a number of treatment processes destroy” ... [to

destroy]

Correction made as suggested.

36 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2.1 5.2.1 Change "...remove all forms of cyanide excluding" to "...cyanide,

excluding"

Correction made as suggested.

37 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2.1 Under ideal conditions, [delete comma] The existing punctuation is consist

document, so no change was mad

38 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2.1 WAD cyanide, using a chemical, chlorine, that is.......[How about WAD

cyanide, using chlorine, which is....

The sentence was revised to make 

39 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2.1 and cyanide complexes [How about "and the problem that iron cyanide

complexes....."]

Correction made as suggested.

40 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2.4 5.2.4 Disadvantages include limited application and [application, and.....] Correction made as suggested.41 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2.4 may need to be reduced , due [delete extra space] Correction made as suggested.

42 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2.4 to toxic effect [effects] Correction made as suggested.43 ADEC, Juneau E-5.2.5 5.2.5 bacteria present [why not just "bacteria"?] Correction made as suggested.44 ADEC, Juneau E-5.3 Pg E-14 5.3 electrical repulsive [electrically repulsive] Correction made as suggested.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-5 

45 ADEC, Juneau E-5.3 (e.g. anthracite coal or garnet sand) [Wouldn't this be and, rather than

or?]

Correction made as suggested.

46 ADEC, Juneau E-6.0 Pg E-16 6.0 sulfide precipitation), , [extra comma] Correction made as suggested.47 ADEC, Juneau E-6.2 Pg E-17 6.2 At present, it unclear [it is....] Correction made as suggested.

48 ADEC, Juneau E-7.1 Pg E-20 7.1 extraction processes. . [extra period] Correction made as suggested.49 ADEC, Juneau E-8.0 Pg E-21 8.0 disposal of wastewaters [Needs a period] Correction made as suggested.50 ADEC, Juneau E-8.2 “surface water). Wastewater and ground water monitoring plan...” [How

about] surface water), and “A wastewater and ground water monitoringplan....”

The bullets were corrected to be c

51 ADEC, Juneau E-8.3 Pg E-23 8.3 demonstrate the ability maintain [to maintain] Correction made as suggested.52 ADEC, Juneau E-9.0 9.0 STORM WATER MANAGEMETN [MANAGEMENT] Correction made as suggested.53 ADEC, Juneau E-9.0 Pg E-24 Section 2 of Source Book [the Source Book] Correction made as suggested.

54 ADEC, Juneau E-9.0 ...process water NPDES permits, may [delete comma] Correction made as suggested.55 ADEC, Juneau E-9.0 ...require preparation of BMP [require the....?] The sentence actually reads "...req

change will be made.

56 AK Miners, NWMA Main text Clarification of Intent - The Source Book is not meant to be a prescriptive

regulation or policy document but rather general information listing of thetypes of data that will or may be necessary to meet the permittingrequirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA). Several persons have raised theconcern that although a document like this is not meant to be prescriptive,

over time it may be used that way. The intent of the Source Book, that itis not prescriptive, regulatory or a policy document should be stated at

specific locations within the individual sections which we will mentionlater. This intent also needs to be stated prominently and highlighted inthe front of the document, possibly on the inside front cover and theintroduction. 

The purpose of the Source Book hpage and in section 1.1. 
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-6 

57 AK Miners, NWMA General Existing Studies Completed - There is need for the mining industry to

know what work has already been done for other projects, how it wasdone, the parameters, the methodology, the QA/QC of both sampling andlab work, etc. In other words, what have other projects done and howhave they approached the issues. The very best, most comprehensivesource of this information is the EPA's own library of files from pastprojects. These are examples of what has worked, what has beendetermined to be acceptable, etc. A listing of these studies would be avaluable tool in assisting other companies in knowing how to approachtheir specific project. The industry has spent multiplied millions of dollarsdeveloping these reports and they would be of tremendous benefit tofuture permitting by other companies. That an appendix be created listingthe major mines and mining projects, by state, and for each provide abibliography of the studies that were completed for that mine/project. Thebibliography should list all baseline and other studies of all types

developed for NEPA compliance and for final permitting for - air, surfacewater, groundwater, climatological, wetlands, fish, wildlife, endangeredspecies, etc. The bibliography should list the study name, author(s), date

completed, etc. For Alaska this appendix would include, at a minimum:Greens Creek, Red Dog, Red Dog Expansion, Fort Knox, Illinois Creek,Nixon Fork, Alaska-Juneau, and Kensington. 

Although such a compilation of cascould be valuable, this is beyond twould encourage the independent bibliographies.

58 Alaska Miners

Association 

General The Source Book should also contain descriptions of the various research

programs, where the information has been obtained, who has generatedthat information, etc. It would also be beneficial to know how to contactthe authors and what past work they have performed. These researchprograms should be developed into a cross-referenced stand-alone

section organized by topic.

This would be useful, but is beyonencourages independent preparat

mining research.

59 Alaska Miners

Association 

General Mining Specific References - Most of the texts, reference documents, etc.

utilized by the mining industry are not mentioned. For example, the MiningEnvironmental Handbook is mentioned in the first chapter but it is not

cited again after that. Many of the references cited are from meetings and

workshops of limited exposure to the general public, and most particularlythe mining industry. That a bibliography of mining specific texts, technicalarticles, references, etc. be added and that these items be referenced in

the Source Book along with the existing references.

A comprehensive bibliography of rbeyond the scope of the Source B

60 Alaska Miners

Association 

General State by State Summary. A discussion and/or table should be included

showing which regulatory programs have been delegated to each of the

states in Region 10 and any differences, peculiarities, or special situations

that exist for each of the states. 

EPA has added a section to the m
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-7 

61 Alaska Miners

Association 

Title Page Title Page - should include a list of the States to which the source book

applies. It should also clarify that "hardrock" mines do not includeplacer/alluvial mines or sand and gravel operations.

The introduction has been revised 

beginning of the document.

62 Alaska Miners

Association 

1.1 Section 1.1, page 1, second paragraph notes that each mining operation

is unique, that it is impracticable to develop guidance applicable to allsites, and that the guidance in the source book is not mandatoryguidance. We support that concept, but are concerned that the sourcebook will become mandatory either through adoption as EPA Region 10policy or Regulation. Accordingly, we recommend the stated purpose ofthe source book be placed on the flyleaf as a Note to readers to clearly

emphasize the information is only suggested guidance since each mine isunique. The Note should also indicate that new technologies and/or

permit requirements could cause a significant revision to the data and

methodologies described 

EPA has no intention of adopting tregulation. The purpose of the Sointroductory section.

63 Alaska Miners

Association 

1.2 Section 1.2, page 2, first paragraph notes that EPA Region 10 has

difficulty in providing timely and consistent permitting advice to the miningindustry and interested publics. A short discussion of why this difficulty

exists and the extent that other EPA Regions also have this issue would

be helpful in understanding the Problem Statement and the extent thesource book resolves the issue of timely and consistent advice from EPARegion 10.

EPA has clarified the meaning of ithat EPA’s role in the environmentis not well understood by industry Book is intended to clarify EPA’s rneeds for timely processing of env

64 Alaska Miners

Association 

1.2 Section 1.2, page 2, second paragraph generally describes the

ecosystems in Region 10. We suggest that it would be more descriptiveto add "Arctic Ocean" after "high plateau".

The sentence has been modified t

ecosystems.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-8 

65 Alaska Miners

Association 

1.3 Section 1.3, page 3 provides a list of things that Applicants can do to

minimize delays in the NEPA and CWA decision process by EPA. This isgood, but we recommend that a second list of things EPA Region 10 cando to provide timely and consistent advice be added. For example, the

National Research Council in its 1999 report "Hardrock Mining on FederalLands" notes in RECOMMENDATION 10 that from the earliest stages ofthe NEPA process all agencies must cooperate effectively in the scoping,preparation and review of environmental impact assessments for newmines. The NRC further noted that it is imperative that key staff for therelevant agencies actively participate. On page 112 the NRC expresslynotes "The EPA was frequently singled out a an agency that often createssuch problems because of its unwillingness to participate early in theNEPA process." Accordingly, EPA Region 10 should indicate in thesource book their commitment to be more effective and proactive inproviding timely and consistent guidance. Another area that EPA shouldcomment on is a prompt review and timely report to the mining companythat required monitoring data has been received, reviewed and the mining

operation is consistent with EPA permit requirements, or if not, corrective

action that is required to bring the project into compliance.

EPA is continually trying to improvresponsibilities under the Clean Wunder which it has responsibilities. is in part a response to criticism thprocess early on. The Source Booyet generic scoping document integuidance to any mining company c

mining operation in the Northwest feedback on compliance monitorinenforcement and compliance assis

66 Alaska Miners

Association 

2, 3, 4, 5 Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 provide a general overview of the EPA role in mine

permitting. We recommend these discussions be more focused on miningoperations in the EPA Region 10. In general, EPA's role in minepermitting and approval is not different in Region 10 than elsewhere in thenation. 

Region 10 is necessarily more invoRegions by virtue of the fact that twnot yet authorized to implement this implemented by EPA.

67 Alaska Miners

Association 

General The source book gives short attention to mines in the coastal zone. We

recommend that the EPA role for mine permitting in the coastal zone beexpanded so the Applicant knows the extent of EPA involvement and anyadditional data requirements.

Text has been added to clarify add

that may be required to comply witwhich is implemented primarily by 

68 Alaska Miners

Association 

General The source book should have a thorough discussion about EPA

permitting requirements for mining projects involving marine, estuary and

intertidal waters. This should include discussions about marine dischargesconsidered for the A-J Mine and Kensington Mine and Quartz Hill, all in

Alaska.

As a general rule, tailings may not including marine waters. The exceconsideration of submarine tailings and Quartz Hill projects are so limwarranted.

69 Alaska Miners

Association 

2.0 Section 2.0, Figure 1 would be improved by adding the time it takes to get

through each step for a simple and a complex mining operation.

The time required to go through eamisleading to add time to the figuradded to the text indicating that this greatly influence by the timelineprovided by the applicant.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-9 

70 Alaska Miners

Association 

2.0 Section 2.0, page 8 notes that EPA is not obligated to permit an

application to mine. This is an issue that should be firmly resolved duringthe first meeting between EPA and the potential Applicant discuss aproposed project. If EPA believes the proposed project is not permittableby Region 10, the Applicant should be immediately notified in writing thatno permit will be issued and why. This avoids unnecessary expense andfrustration by the Applicant and should be listed as things EPA Region 10will do. (see comment 65).

In general, EPA cannot state with issued so early in the process. EPparticular approach might be extresteps that would be required. This their projects more "permittable." 

applicant to decide how to design determine whether the project can 

71 Alaska Miners

Association 

2.2 Section 2.2, page 10 notes that the EGL guidelines do not apply to placer

gold mines. This needs to be discussed in Sections 1.1 and 1.2. (also seecomment 61)

The introduction has been clarified 

not address placer mines.

72 AK Miners, FGMI 2.2 On page 13 the discussion regarding the use of Best Professional

Judgement (BPJ) to develop technology-based limits is of concern. Whentechnology-based limits cannot be defined, discharges should only be

required to meet the applicable water quality standards for the receivingstream.

A sentence has been added to maexisting discussion is not otherwis

73 AK Miners, FGMI 2.3 On page 16 the explanation of Anti-degradation is not appropriate and we

recommend that the text be replaced with the following: Anti-degradation:Each State must adopt an anti-degradation policy. In states that haveapproved NPDES permit programs the states will incorporate compliancewith their anti-degradation policy as a part of the permitting process. Forstates without an approved NPDES program where EPA will be issuingthe permit, EPA will require that the affected state to determinecompliance with the state's anti-degradation policy and provide EPA withcertification of compliance. Applicants should consult with the affectedstate agency and be prepared to demonstrate that the proposed projectwill comply with the state's anti-degradation policy as a part of thepermitting process.

EPA does not agree that the discuappropriate” and has left it unchancommenter’s language concerning 

follow to ensure compliance with a

74 AK Miners, FGMI 3.0 Pages 22 and 23 contain discussions regarding EPA's authority to veto

permits issued by the Corps of Engineers. Since EPA's veto authority is

based on a resource value determination, it appears this determinationmust be made early in the permitting process - this would be verybeneficial to the mine seeking the permit and could save delays along

with significant financial commitments (see comment 65).

EPA agrees that an early determinsufficient information to make a de

later than desirable. That makes ithe right information as early in the 
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-10 

75 AK Miners, FGMI 4.3 On page 29 a bullet should be added to the second list of bullets to read:

Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist

even if the Federal agency believes that on the balance the effect will bebeneficial. This point, found in 40 CFR 1508.27(b), appears to have beenoverlooked.

The commenter's point has been n

76 Alaska Miners

Association 

6.1.1 Section 6.1.1 page 43 indicated an Applicant should have a baseline

hydrological study extending beyond the boundary of the proposedoperation. We do not disagree with the concept, but recommend thatEPA Region 10 give some examples of how to determine how far theboundary should be extended.

The precise boundaries cannot be 

basis. The text has been modified 

need to encompass the entire wat

77 Alaska Miners

Association 

6.2 Section 6.2, page 45 discusses water quality on a watershed basis. As

noted in comment 77, Region 10 should include several examples ofwhat has been required of mining operations in Alaska and the otherRegion 10 States so the Applicant and the public have a common startingpoint.

Section 6.2 is a summary of informimpacts to water quality. Appendic

for characterizing hydrology and re

appropriate watershed scale. 

78 Alaska Miners

Association 

6.3 Section 6.3, page 51, last paragraph discusses aquatic resources studies.

This, like most of the topics are issues that are finalized in the NEPAscoping process. Accordingly, we recommend the first sentence bemodified by changing "predict changes that might occur..." to "predict

relevant changes that might occur..."

Correction made as suggested.

79 Alaska Miners

Association 

B-2.4.1.1 Appendix B, pages B-13 and B-14 discuss the Red Dog Mine. This is the

sort of description of permitting actions that are suggested for greater use

in the final document (see comment 67). The discussion of the Red DogMine should also be expanded to include a summary of the EPAdecisions in the NEPA process for base line information and how thatbaseline information has been used in the ongoing water qualityclassifications for waters downstream from the mine, including the factthat fish have migrated into the project area where naturally there werenone, or limited fish due to natural high metals loading of the streams. 

The specific decisions are not as iexisting discussion: applicants shmineralization so they can be cons

80 Alaska Miners

Association 

B-4.4.2 Appendix B, page B-22 discusses QAPP being a potentially fatal flaw in

using existing and historical data sets. In Alaska there are relatively few

existing or historical data sets that meet QAPP standards. Accordingly,

we recommend EPA construct a conceptual Figure, similar to Figure 1 onpage 7, showing the steps and timing for an Applicant to obtain a data setthat EPA Region 10 would reasonably accept for a mining operation inAlaska and for the other States in the Region.

EPA agrees with the commenter aEPA QA/G-5 Guidance on Quality (EPA/600/R-98/018, February 199

Quality Assurance Project Plans (Qexpectations and requirements, andocument provides a linkage betwprocess and the QAPP. It contains users develop improved QAPPs.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-11 

81 Alaska Miners

Association 

I-2.1 Appendix I, page I-3 discusses "riparian" plant communities within the

context of being jurisdictional wetlands. We agree that most riparian plant

communities are likely to be considered jurisdictional wetlands in Alaska

because of permafrost induced soil saturated conditions or heavyprecipitation along coastal rainforest. But since the source book also isintended to also cover semiarid high plateau, either include all NWI plantcommunities or delete the inference that "riparian plant communities areautomatically jurisdictional 

The discussion cited by the commintended to imply that "riparian plajurisdictional wetlands."

82 AK Miners, FGMI 5.1.2 On page 31, Table 6 includes several facilities that are not considered

point sources and included in Title V permits. Typically only emission unitsare included in Title V permits. Fugitive emissions from overburden piles,waste rock piles, tailing, and spent ore need only be evaluated todetermine the HAP portion of the emissions when making a major sourcedetermination. Land applications, ore handling piles, heap and dumpleaches, process ponds, mine pit, underground workings, blasting,

construction, reclamation/post reclamation, and abandoned mines needonly be included in the evaluation to determine if a source is a majorsource by Title V definition.

EPA has added a note in Table 6 tsome of these fugitive sources are making a major source determinat

83 AK Miners, FGMI 5.1.2 Table 6 includes vehicle emissions that should not be included in a Title V

permit. Table 6 should be revised to include emission units typicallyincluded in an air quality operating permit or the table should be removedfrom the source book..

The table does not purport to show permit. Rather, it shows various pregulatory status.

84 AK Miners, FGMI 6.0 Section 6.0 discusses EPA's requirements for the NEPA process. This

section fails to discuss the scoping process that is required as part ofNEPA. The scoping process is crucial to the process and defines thesignificant issues to be addressed in the NEPA document and should alsodetermine the area to be studied. This needs to be spelled out along with

the importance that all agencies (including EPA) and groups define their

issues and concerns during scoping.

Scoping is generally an agency reapplicant. The discussion of publiRequirements for Environmental Rhas been revised slightly to clarify 

85 AK Miners, FGMI 6.1 The first paragraph of section 6.1 includes a discussion of the need for

long term meteorological and hydrological data collection to be used forfacility design, water balances, and impacts analysis. Since most designs

of storm water diversion channels, development of water balances, and

impacts analysis require use of the 25 year or 100 year storm events,sentences four, five, and six of this paragraph should be deleted.

EPA believes that the fact cited by require use of the 25 year or 50 yemore important to establish a long

record. Thus, EPA did not delete 

86 AK Miners, FGMI 6.1.1 The third paragraph in section 6.1.1 discusses the extent of the hydrologic

study. The extent of the hydrologic study should be defined during thescoping process.

EPA agrees in part, but notes that consider conducting comprehensiv

for additional information.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-12 

87 AK Miners, FGMI 6.1.1 The list of data needs included in Table 7 should be refined during the

scoping process. Not all of the data listed will be necessary to determinethe impacts from every proposed mining project.

EPA agrees in part, and notes thacomprehensive list of data needs. concerns about impacts to any spethe data listed for that resource are

88 AK Miners, FGMI 6.1.1 On page 40 Table 8 proctor moisture/density testing is listed for rock,

soils, and sediment. However, this testing is for design and construction of

facilities and it has little applicability to an impact analysis and should beremoved from Table 8.

EPA agrees with the purpose of th

for this information in an EID. It is soils, and sediment) to be used in 

moisture/density testing results to 

89 AK Miners, FGMI 6.1.1 On page 42 Table 10 references the need to predict the stability of piles,

impoundments, and backfill. Backfill stability should not be an issue andshould be removed from Table 10.

EPA disagrees that backfill stabilit

90 AK Miners, FGMI 6.2.3 Section 6.2.3 on page 46 should be changed to clarify that the design

described would apply only if the facility is expected to generate acid ormobilize metals. The discussion seems generic as if it should apply to allfacilities.

EPA agrees, and has clarified the 

91 AK Miners, FGMI 6.2.4 Section 6.2.4 on page 48 needs to include the option of blending in

neutralizing material with acid generating material to neutralize the acid asit is formed. This is common practice throughout the world.

This option has been added.

92 AK Miners, FGMI 6.2.7 Section 6.2.7 regarding heap leach pads and capping is not science

based but rather is quite subjective. The discussion should be changed to

specify that leach pad effluent water quality at closure must be addressedand included in the NEPA analysis.

EPA notes that the discussion is vdiscussion is subjective. EPA agr(leach pad effluent water quality) a

paragraph.

93 AK Miners, FGMI 6.4 Section 6.4 discusses the impact analysis for wetlands but does not

address the potential for mitigation. The discussion should include thepotential to offset lost acres of wetlands with developed wetlands and to

offset lost wetlands by upgrading/improving other wetlands.

EPA has added a discussion that 

94 Coeur d’Alene Mines

Corporation 

General We believe that EPA can play an important role in improving the

permitting process, and see the Source Book as an initial step in thatdirection.

EPA appreciates the recognition o
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-13 

95 Coeur d’Alene Mines

Corporation 

Introduction Coeur supports EPA's efforts to develop "guidance" on how the mine

permitting process can be expedited and coordinated between EPA and

other agencies. We agree that EPA requirements and expectations areall too frequently not presented early enough in the permitting process,and that this lack of communication has led to increased costs anddelays. This has created confusion and controversy and we appreciate

EPA's efforts in the development of this draft guidance document. However, it is not clear what this guidance means or how it will be usedto streamline the permitting and NEPA review process. The footnote onpage 1 states that the document does not provide Agency policy orguidance for meeting any regulatory requirements. How then does EPAsee this document being utilized?

EPA has revised the Introduction tSource Book

96 Coeur d’Alene Mines

Corporation 

General The draft report provides good general background on recommended

permitting data needs, but it fails to provide specifics on how EPA willpromote predictability and consistency within Region X. It also fails toclarify how EPA Region X intends for operators to proceed with permitdevelopment using the various methods of technical evaluation

presented, which at times is inconsistent and subjective.

EPA acknowledges that the Sourcand may even seem inconsistent d

contingencies, but believes that thimpacts makes detailed guidance 

have the responsibility of satisfying requirements, and this Source Boomap to EPA's requirements.

 97 Coeur d’Alene Mines

Corporation 

General The document attempts to define where problems have been encountered

in previous permitting efforts. The document would be more useful if the

agency identified common problems and pitfalls more clearly, perhaps as

short case studies, and made recommendations on how operators shouldproceed in these areas.

The text has been modified in sectproblems include water balances tlow flow scenarios, underestimatin

detection limits that are too high, uapproaches and assumptions, overepresentative samples) and failurand post-closure scenarios.

98 Coeur d’Alene Mines

Corporation 

General An element lacking in this draft report is how EPA in the implementation of

its authorities, will recognize and defer to other agencies, especially state

authorities. For example, Coeur and EPA have successfully developedMemorandums of Understanding between EPA and other regulatoryauthorities to improve communication, coordination, and streamlining of

the permitting process (e.g. Kensington). This process could be used to

clarify EPA and state requirements and expectations early in the process.

While this draft is silent on this type of approach we encourage EPA touse this type of a collaborative permitting process more often.

To the extent possible, EPA works 

federal, state, and local agencies. discussion of NEPA in section 4.0

99 Coeur d'Alene,

NWMA

2.1 The document refers to the broad definition of point source, but fails to

include that a point source must be a "discharge of pollutants" as found inthe Clean Water Act. This section also suggests that non-point sourcescould require an NPDES permit which is not the case.

EPA has clarified what a point souimply that nonpoint sources may re
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-14 

100 Coeur d'Alene,

NWMA

2.2 The document points out that the Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG)

established technology based limits and that neither the ELGs nor otherregulations require the use of any particular treatment technology. We

agree, yet we question why then is EPA apparently pressuring mineswithin the region to install specific treatment technologies (e.g. sulfide

precipitation).

EPA does not intend to "pressuretechnology, and does not believe tHowever, sulfide precipitation is a has the capability of achieving a ve

from mine waste waters. 

101 Coeur d'Alene,

NWMA

2.3 Mixing zones are of critical importance to any discharge under the

NPDES point source program. The document in this section states thatdischarge must show "where appropriate", dilution of the effluent in thereceiving water (mixing zones) would meet the limitation. Given that the

use of mixing zones are a state lead effort (CWA Section 101(b) thedocument fails to clarify how EPA will work with the states early in thepermitting process to clearly establish how and where mixing zones canbe utilized to meet water quality standards.

EPA consults with states early on NEPA documents will display efflu

scenarios.

102 Coeur d'Alene,

NWMA

2.3 The trend in effluent limitation establishment seems to be designed to set

limits that cannot be routinely measured, are beyond reasonabletreatment capabilities, or use overly conservative factors of safety. This

results in deadlocked permitting. It would be very helpful if the documentcould provide clarification on how site-specific standards can be efficiently

reviewed and processed.

EPA disagrees that there is any suthe Source Book to define the revistandards. 

103 Coeur d'Alene,

NWMA

2.3 There are many ways in which a discharge may be regulated under the

NPDES program. There are now over 8 different methods and measuresof compliance including: effluent water quality tests, whole effluent toxicity

tests (WET), receiving water quality tests, background comparisons, antidegradation mon-degradation, bioassay tests, sediments and narrativetests. The present "policy" between states, permit writers or enforcement

officers is not consistent. It would be helpful if EPA could clarify how

discharge permits will be enforced and how applicants can better ensure

compliance.

This type of discussion is beyond t

104 Coeur d'Alene,

NWMA

2.3 The document suggests that the TMDL program is for point sources,

nonpoint sources, and natural background sources. The TMDL program isto regulate points sources that exceed 25% of the load into a particular

stream. The document should clarify how the CWA categorizes streams

under Section 303 (d)(l) and (d)(3);(d)(1) TMDL's are for waters impairedby point sources operating under effluent limitation guidelines developed

under Section 301(b)(1)(A) & (B) of the CWA,(d)(3) TMDL's are for

informational purposes only and do not require EPA oversight or approval.Waters impaired by nonpoint sources are required to be listed andaddressed under CWA Section 19.

EPA has revised the paragraph on implementation of 303(d) more clethe TMDL process is to identify all including nonpoint and background refers to a provision in Idaho state when the point source exceeds 25body). It should be noted that this CWA requirements under section only point sources.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-15 

105 Coeur d'Alene,

NWMA

4.1 Section 4.1 overviews various NEPA steps but fails to clarify how EPA

can and is willing to expedite the process and how it will interact withother regulatory agencies.

EPA has added a brief discussion agencies. The Source Book is pa

process by clearly explaining procprospective permit applicants as w

106 Coeur d'Alene,

NWMA

5.2 The document should clarify how and when EPA will coordinate with the

National Marine Fishery Service and how their role in the permitting

process can be streamlined.

Figures 3A and 3B illustrate how aTo the extent possible, EPA stream

the permitting process, but cannot 

and procedures.

107 Coeur d’Alene Mines

Corporation 

E-5.2 EPA discusses several potential cyanide destruction techniques.

However, cyanide recovery has also been successfully used in Region X(DeLamar) and we strongly encourage EPA to add this approach to thedocument.

EPA has added a paragraph on cy

108 Coeur d’Alene Mines

Corporation 

E-5.2 There is a patented process called Cyanisorb that employs high efficiency

packed towers to strip cyanide from either slurries or clear solutions at a

near-neutral pH. Cyanisorb recovers both free cyanide and weak-acidcomplexes and returns the recovered cyanide back into the leachingcycle. This reduces consumption, transportation requirements, andcyanide concentrations remaining in the tailings impoundment. EPAshould consider including a discussion of this technology.

A discussion of cyanide recovery tsection E.5.

109 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

2.2 The flow sheet on page 14 appears to have the "Yes" and "No" arrows

switched for the step entitled; are pollutants discharged at levels wellbelow benchmark threshold values? If the pollutants in runoff are below

benchmark levels the water should be considered storm water and be

covered by the multi-sector, general storm water permit.

The commenter is correct, and EP

110 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

3.0 Near the bottom of Page 22, EPA suggests evaluating alternatives and

proposing mitigation on lands not owned or controlled by the proponent. 

This suggestion has many underlying considerations that may or may not

be resolved to allow the acquisition of additional property. For most mine

permitting processes the land acquisition involves mining claims thatcomplicate the acquisition process, especially acquiring additional claims

near a site that is active or actively acquiring permits. In most instances

land acquisition is not an easy process and can be very time consuming.

[The commenter] suggests the two sentences discussing alternatives and

mitigation on land owned by others be removed from the document.

The sentences were not removed 

language has been added. The C

230) limit issuance of CWA 404 peprojects (e.g., a mine) to the “least 

alternative”. The term “practicable

“available and capable of being do

existing technology and logistics in 

therefore appropriate to include in owned by the applicant.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-16 

111 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

4.3 The last sentence in the second bullet (first set of bullets) on Page 28

would more accurately reflect the language of 40 CFR 6.605(a) if writtenas follows: In this case, the broad cumulative impacts of the proposalswould be addressed in an initial comprehensive document, while otherEISs or EAs may have to be prepared to address issues associated withsite-specific proposed actions or can be addressed in the cumulative

document.

The meaning of the recommended been made.

112 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

4.3 The last bullet on Page 28 would better reflect the language in 40 CFR

part 6.605(b) if it was written as follows: The environmental impacts ofthe issuance of a new source NPDES permit would have a significantdirect adverse impact on a property listed or eligible for listing in theNational Register of Historic Places.

The correction was made as suggchanged to read: "The issuance oa significant direct adverse impact

113 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

4.3 The first bullet on Page 29 would better reflect the language in 40 CFR

part 6.605(b) if it was written as follows: Any major part of the new sourcewill have significant adverse effects on parklands, wetlands, wild andscenic rivers, reservoirs or other important water bodies, navigationprojects, or agricultural lands.

The correction was made as suggchanged to read: "The issuance osignificant adverse effects..."

114 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

5.1 The last sentence in the second paragraph on Page 30 would be more

concise if written as follows: Mines with complex oxidation processes or

smelters generally trigger at least one of the threshold values for the sixparameters and are typically sources subject to the PSD program.

The change was made as suggest

115 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

5.1 Section 5.1 Clean Air Act, intermingles the Title V and PSD permitting

processes. A major source by definition in 40 CFR 70.2 is a source thatemits more than 100 tons of a criteria pollutant or 10 tons of a specificHAP or 25 tons of total HAPs. Designating these facilities as minor isconfusing to the reader.

While the processes are discussed 

discussion is clear as it is.

116 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

5.1.1 The last sentence in the first paragraph under section 5.1.1 on Page 31

discusses the opacity standard for particular matter. [The commenter]believes EPA is discussing particulate matter.

The correction has been made.

117 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

6.1.1 The second bullet on page 38 states that the hydrologic analysis should

include any impacts due to current or historic mining activities. The

hydrologic analysis should include any impacts from any activity relativeto the proposed project.

The change was made as suggest
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-17 

118 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

6.1.2 At the top of Page 43 the source book discusses the extent of the

groundwater study area. This should be defined during the scopingprocess. The last bullet on this page discusses the effects from current orhistoric mining activities. FGM believes all activities (current or historic)that may effect groundwater within the study area should be included.

EPA agrees that the scope of the gearly in the process, ideally during second point and has revised the t

119 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

6.1 A general comment on section 6.1 - groundwater models used to assess

impacts from mining operations should be updated annually throughoutthe operation of the mine and the impacts determination modified if themodel changes significantly.

EPA agrees and has modified tabl

120 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

6.2.4 At the top of page 48 the source book implies the use of a 40-week

humidity cell test. Testing to date indicates most material will generateacid within eight to 14 weeks. Testing is only extended beyond the 20-week time frame on a case by case basis. The implication of a 40-weektest should be removed unless EPA has data supporting the benefit of a40-week test.

EPA does not necessarily recommindicates that it would "be viewed f(Price et al. 1997) that does advoccommenter notes that "most" mateweeks; EPA is concerned with the actual number, and thus encouragreduced uncertainty. In general, ththat longer test times should be co

that there is a growing body of evidneeded for samples that are on the 

121 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

6.3 Beginning with the fourth sentence in the first paragraph of section 6.3 on

Page 50, the remainder of the paragraph reads like a predeterminedimpact analysis. These sentences should be re-written to state the issues

that must be addressed and leave the impact analysis to the EISpreparers.

EPA disagrees. These sentences that can occur from mining and miapplicants identify the potential im

provided.

122 Fairbanks Gold

Mining

6.3 The third full paragraph on page 51 discusses the study area for the

aquatic resources. The study areas should be determined during thescoping process.

EPA generally agrees, but notes thidentifies potential impacts to aquaassessed. The nature of the operathe area generally define the potenand this area may or may not be d
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-18 

123 Golder Associates 6.2.4 It is somewhat misleading to suggest that only "recently" we have come to

the realization that the number of tested samples should reflect thematerial's variability. This concept has been around for a long time, asrepresentative testing of material for environmental purposes is not

fundamentally different from determining ore grade. Clearly, if an ore

deposit is heterogeneous, more samples are required for resourcecharacterization. In addition, it would be useful to point out that thevolumetric distribution of the various materials should be taken intoaccount. A material that is only present in minor quantities, will likelyrequire less testing, unless it can be demonstrated that it may have adisproportionally large environmental impact despite its small volume.

Conversely, materials that are present in large quantities generally requiremore testing, unless it can be demonstrated that they are veryhomogeneous. Ideally, therefore, the number of samples is a function ofboth compositional variability and volume. This issue is addressed inAppendix C, but the casual reader may not get that far.

EPA generally agrees with the commany applicants, who clearly recogore with variable grades, still resisapplies to environmental samples. modified to make these points mo

124 Golder Associates 6.2.4 Petrographic analysis is generally not considered cheap (in the order of

$500/sample). As a first step, mineralogical analysis by x-ray diffraction iscommonly conducted, which is a truly inexpensive ($50-100) and rapidmethod. Petrographic analysis is generally part of a second-stagemineralogical evaluation, when more detail is required (for instance w.r.t.

weathering behavior or in the case of a large proportion of non-crystallinematerial).

EPA does not disagree, and has re

125 Golder Associates 6.2.4 Use of composite samples results in a "smoothing" of the characteristics

of interest. In my opinion, compositing must be founded on a goodunderstanding of the entire range of properties of the materials of interest.If compositing is performed without an understanding of the potential"extreme" behaviors, certain environmental impacts (e.g., those resulting

from the presence of "hot spots") may not be adequately predicted.

EPA agrees with this comment.

126 Golder Associates 6.2.4 A commonly-used way to describe static vs. kinetic testing is that static

testing provides information on the potential for acid generation, but not

on the likelihood or rate at which this will take place. Although I realize thissection represents a summary of Appendix C, it may be useful to point outin this paragraph that long-term information can also be obtained from onsite activities, such as monitoring of waste rock/tailings test pads

specifically designed for this purpose.

A note has been added to this sec

127 Golder Associates 6.2.4 I would strengthen the wording w.r.t. the need for material characterization

before and after kinetic testing. In my opinion, this is essential forunderstanding and predicting the long-term behavior.

While EPA agrees with the concesufficiently strong.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-19 

128 Golder Associates 6.2.4 I agree with the observation that interpretation of test results is not

straightforward. This requires, therefore, considerable professional

judgment, which can only be obtained through the necessary formaltraining and experience. Too often, ABA and other results are evaluatedby novices, whose only frame of reference is the guidance provided byauthors such as Mills and Price. Perhaps it would be wise to point out thatspecialized knowledge is required - and expected by EPA - for properevaluation of the characterization results.

This point has been added to the t

129 Golder Associates 6.2.4 It may be useful to point out that metals leaching can occur in the

absence of acidic conditions. Too often it is thought that acid generation

and metals leaching necessarily go hand in hand, but there are numerousinstances in which metal leaching can occur in a neutral to alkalineenvironment. For instance, I am currently involved at a site whereleaching of zinc from smithsonite (ZnCO3) in a limestone is a major

problem, despite the fact that no acid is being generated and conditions

are alkaline.

This point has been added to the t

130 Golder Associates B-4.5 PHREEQC Version 2 is now available at:

http://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/GWC_couple/phreeqc. The new

capabilities of Version 2 include (1) a general formulation for kineticallycontrolled reactions, and (2) a complete formulation for lD diffusive oradvective/dispersive transport with double porosity.

EPA has now cited the updated PH

131 Golder Associates C-4.3.1.3 Why are the Price (1997) guidelines for static test interpretation not used,

as these guidelines have become widely used (to Bill's chagrin, I shouldadd; I don't think he anticipated such proliferation of his guidelines). On amore general note, why the numerous references to a rather old guidancedocument (BC AMD Task Force, 1989) when Price's documentrepresents a more updated version?

Price (1997) guidelines are now di

132 Golder Associates C-4.4.1.2 I think it would be appropriate to point out that the TCLP test has little or

no relevance w.r.t. characterization of mining wastes. Its goal is to providea regulatory classification rather than be used for characterization. TheTCLP test simulates conditions that are almost certain to be absent onmining sites. In addition, the Bevill amendment excludes most miningwastes from RCRA Subtitle C regulation, so the regulatory applicability ofTCLP is limited.

EPA does not necessarily agree thon mining sites. We have clarified generally removes the regulatory aand beneficiation wastes.

133 Golder Associates C-4.4.1.2 On a related note, I could not find any reference in the document to the

role of the Bevill amendment (I fully admit that I only glanced at somepages, so l may have missed it. It might be appropriate to add aparagraph on Bevill if it's not already present).

There is now a section that briefly and how mining wastes are addres
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-20 

134 Golder Associates H-4.4.2 The correct name for the model is "Sedimot-II" model, not "Sedimont-II". The correction has been made as 

135 Golder Associates H-4.4.2 Why is the GSTARS2 model not included in the listing of models, in

particular since EPA helped develop it?

EPA has added this model to the l

136 PA Bureau of Mining

& Reclamation

6.2.4 In coal mining we use other prediction tools in addition to "static" and

"kinetic" tests. These tools include: results of previous mining, premining

water quality, & geologic factors (such as rock type, effects of surfaceweathering, glaciation, etc.). These, along with laboratory tests, aredescribed in our recent book "Coal Mine Drainage Prediction & Pollution

Prevention in Pennsylvania." Although some of these methods may not beapplicable to hard rock mining, others must certainly have parallels. Asfor geologic factors there has been some excellent work by Kathy Smith,Geoff Plumlee & Walter Ficklin at the USGS-Denver. Plumlee, GS, KSSmith, WH Ficklin, et al., 1993. Empirical studies of diverse minedrainages in Colorado--implications for the prediction of mine-drainagechemistry: Proceedings, 1993 Mined Land Reclamation Symposium,

Billings MT, v.1, p.176-186. Smith, KS, GS Plumlee, & WH Ficklin, 1994.Predicting water contamination from metal mines and mining waste:

Notes, Workshop No.2, International Land Reclamation & Mine DrainageConference and 3rd International Conference on the Abatement of AcidicDrainage: US Geol. Survey Open-File Report 94-264, 112 p.

EPA agrees that these are importa6.2.4 and Appendix C accordingly

137 PA Bureau of Mining

& Reclamation

6.2.4 Over a decade ago, we circulated a paper that examined mine drainage

prediction in Pennsylvania, and one of the primary criticisms was that it

emphasised laboratory methods too heavily. I think the same criticismcould be leaveled at your Hard Rock Mining source book. Non-laboratory

methods (i.e., field methods) should be examined and discussed. TheUSGS work should certainly be included, near-surface weathering(oxidation of pyrite & dissolution of carbonates) has to be a factor in many

places, and results from previous mining must also occur. As with coal

mining, I'm sure that there are plenty of caveats that must be considered

for each of these, but there also have to be some useful rules of thumb. We have found that the best predictions are those that are made using a

variety of tools. It's especially reassuring when the different methods ofprediction all point in the same direction.

EPA agrees that non-laboratory mlaboratory data, and has added dis
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-21 

138 Mackay School of

Mines

C Appendix C is severely lacking in detailed guidance on sampling protocol

to achieve adequate characterization of the waste rock. Typically mining

companies are very interested in the mineralised rock which may be aresource or a reserve and under appropriate conditions it can be

classified as ore (an often misused and misunderstood word). Usuallyproper attention is paid to the sampling process to minimise error and bias

using Gy's sampling formula to determine size of sample, samplepreparation protocol (crushing and splitting), assay protocol, and finallyGeostatistics is used to characterize the regionalised variable i.e. the

mineral grade/rock property, taking into account the geology of the area,rock type, structure, faulting, etc., using variograms and various krigingmethods to interpolate/extrapolate between sample locations to arrive at aresource/reserve estimate.

Section 6.0 of Appendix C describexpanded the section somewhat.

139 Mackay School of

Mines

C This same approach (refer to comment 155) needs to be taken with the

waste rock but the process/practice has not been so rigorous as withmineralised rock/ore and few guidelines are available on such matters as

number of samples, size of samples, location of samples, samplepreparation, etc. Appendix C is inadequate in this regard, Section 6.0 andFigure C-3 need to be considerably enhanced to include many of the

procedures used by industry to appropriately characterize the mineralised

rock. Unfortunately, there is little published on proper characterizing ofwaste and few studies have been undertaken on this topic. I think it is anarea that EPA needs to consider, since nowadays waste characterizationis as important as mineralised rock characterization and should be givenequal attention starting at the exploration phase.

EPA agrees that this is an importasomewhat. EPA also agrees that needed, but it is beyond the scope 

140 Northwest Mining

Association

General The [commenter] supports EPA efforts to develop "guidance" on how the

mine permitting process can be expedited and coordinated between EPAand other agencies. We appreciate the effort to provide a referencedocument of use to both industry and agency personnel. We agree that

EPA requirements and expectations are all too frequently not presentedearly enough in the permitting process, and that this lack ofcommunication has led to increased costs and delays. This has createdconfusion and controversy and we appreciate EPA's efforts in thedevelopment of this draft guidance document. We also applaud EPA's

efforts to respond to industry concerns raised in review of the HardrockMining Framework. The Mining Source Book is certainly comprehensive,and like other overview documents, could prove useful to those applying

for environmental permits. It is especially useful as a literature review,providing citations to a cross section of the best available literature on the

topic of mining environmental management.

EPA appreciates the recognition o
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-22 

141 Northwest Mining

Association

General EPA has statutory authority over mining impacts to surface water, under

the Clean Water Act; air, under the Clean Air Act; and wetlands, under the404 provisions. EPA also has authority for CERCLA sites. The guidelines

set forth in the Mining Source Book are much broader in scope, however,and offer guidance for aspects of non-CERCLA sites in areas where EPAdoes not have statutory authority. Operators and proponents should moreproperly be focused on meeting the requirements of the agencies that dohave authority over the various resources. 

EPA disagrees. The Source Book 

Rather, the Soruce Book describeanalyses that should be submitted 

to proceed most efficiently and (b) 

142 Northwest Mining

Association

General The draft document provides good general background on recommended

permitting information, but it fails to provide specifics on how EPA willpromote predictability and consistency within Region 10. It also fails toclarify how EPA Region 10 intends operators to proceed with permitdevelopment (e.g. how to choose from among the various methods oftechnical evaluation), given the site specific, subjective, and at times,vague or inconsistent guidance provided in the document. Further, such

guidance is only meaningful if it enables an operator to meet a regulatoryrequirement.

As noted in section 1.1, mines are identify the precise technical evalu

Source Book is intended to provide the types of information and analys

143 Northwest Mining General The Mining Source Book guidance may be useful for larger mining

companies, who have the resources to attempt the level ofcomprehensive characterization defined in the Mining Source Book.Ironically, these larger companies also possess much of the information

presented in the document, which could literally serve as an introductory

text to mine permitting. Paradoxically, it is these same companies who,after preparing permit applications that follow these guidelines closely atthe cost of millions of dollars, have also been unable to permit significant

mining operations in the Northwest in the past 5 years. Members ofNWMA who have shared in this experience include Crown Butte Mines at

New World, SPJV at McDonald Gold, and most recently, Battle Mountainat Crown Jewel.

EPA notes the comment (and also Region 10 except for the Crown Jerejected by the State of Washingto

144 Northwest Mining General It seems likely that the guidance presented in the Mining Source Book

would be particularly helpful for small business mine operators, who maylack the comprehensive expertise needed to address the range of issues

presented in the source book. These smaller operations are likely,however, to struggle in attempting to meet the lofty and comprehensivegoals of the programs defined in the guidance document. For this reason,

it might be useful to present a focused "must do" section for small mineoperators.

EPA believes that a small operatothe approximate level of detail that the operation and property at issueto focus on during data gathering.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-23 

145 Northwest Mining General An element lacking in this draft report is how EPA, in the implementation

of its authorities, will recognize and defer to other agencies, especiallystate authorities. We are aware of cases within the region whereMemorandums of Understanding have been developed between EPA andother regulatory authorities to improve communication, coordination andstreamlining of the permitting process (e.g. Kensington). This processcould be used to clarify EPA requirements and expectations early in theprocess. While this draft is silent on this type of approach we encourageEPA in doing more of this type of collaborative permitting.

EPA does indeed collaborate as macknowledges the role of other agBook is to assist applicants in deaagencies.

146 Northwest Mining 1.3 EPA refers to a problem of "metal constituents in surface water samples

may be measured using methods with detection limits that are higher thanwater quality standard values." However, this statement is disingenousbecause it completely disregards the fact that EPA has been setting thewater quality values for many metals below the reliable limits of detection

of any currently available testing method. We believe that this constitutesan arbitrary and capricious approach to setting compliance standards.

Thus, the real problem often lies not with the applicants, but with EPA.

EPA notes that water quality standbut rather on science (specifically, 

biology, and other disciplines relev

effects of pollutants on organisms quality standards are reviewed evethat the science upon which they adetection methods and limits, is co

147 Northwest Mining 1.3 ...we do agree that many in the mining community need to be more

cognizant of the limitations to water sampling protocols, parameters, andprecision that are completely suitable for mineral exploration. Asdiscussed in the draft document, this information has often fallen short ofwhat is needed to properly analyze and evaluate water quality from anenvironmental viewpoint. Our experience has shown that the difference in

time and cost between having information useful for both environmentaland geologic purposes and single purpose data sets is relatively small, if

the need is fully considered early in the project.

EPA generally agrees with the combring the same rigor to evaluating 

ore bodies.

148 Northwest Mining 1.3 [The commenter] notes that EPA raised the "chain of custody" issue in its

discussion of gathering water quality samples. To the degree thataccurate tracking of samples is intended to maintain good quality control,

we would agree that maintaining records documenting the who, when,where, and how's of sampling, storage, transport, and analysis is bothuseful and necessary. However, based on direct experience, we are

convinced that EPA desires what could be turned into a very cumbersome

mechanism, if the purpose evolved into a making sure the resulting data

was absolutely "bulletproof' in court.

EPA made the point because it is questions about various aspects osuch straightforward procedures s

could resolve any questions and d

"cumbersome" procedure can sav
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-24 

149 Northwest Mining A-3.1 Page A-3 - Paragraph 3 "Increases in constituent concentrations will be

highest for those areas with the largest amount of surface runoff'. Thiswould not be expected in there is a negative correlation between streamflow and constituent concentration. It should be noted that the relationship

between streamflow and constituent concentration is not limited to

positive and negative as the text implies.

EPA has rewritten this paragraph t

150 Northwest Mining A-4.1 Section 4.1 - The authors correctly indicate the problems associated with

the measurement of precipitation at remote sites. The discussion of pointestimation techniques is inappropriate. The precise technique for

estimation should begin first with an understanding of the purpose for theprediction. If the data is to be used to simply characterize mean annualconditions at the site, the exact method is probably not critical. If theprecipitation estimate is to be used to size a storage pond in an areawhere human life or property would be threatened if the structure fails, theselection of the appropriate prediction method may be more critical.

In general, EPA agrees with the cohas clarified the discussion.

151 Northwest Mining A-4.1 Section 4.1 - It should also be noted that techniques like Theissen do not

necessarily produce less accurate results than contouring or kriging (see,

for example, Applied Geostatistics). Rather, the Theissen method makes

some assumptions about conditions within a polygon and that the edgesof polygons that may be unrealistic. There are other methods that may beappropriate as well. It is probably most important that no single method berelied upon blindly. It is critical that the values obtained using one methodbe compared to values obtained using other methods. If the predictedvalues agree relatively well, then a greater degree of confidence can beassigned to this prediction. If; on the other hand, the values obtainedusing different methods vary significantly, it is important to understandwhy the predictions are different and to then use professional judgementto select the most appropriate value for the task at hand. It is incorrect toassume that this is "prescribed" process.

EPA will clarify the discussion to inbe dependent on specific objective

prescribed.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-25 

152 Northwest Mining A-4.3 Page A- 15 - the authors feel that prediction methods that use the SCS

number approach are inherently inferior. Given the level of detail availablefor most design projects in general, this is not necessarily true. Theestimation of an SCS curve number for a project certainly involves

professional judgement but it is at least as reasonable as the rational

method. Again, several prediction methods should be used andcompared rather than relying on the conventional EPA prescriptiveapproach. It should also be remembered that approaches like waterbalance models and some unsaturated flow numeric models use the SCS

approach as well. Depending on the situation and the nature of theprediction, the multiple uses for the curve number approach may have a

great deal of merit.

EPA agrees that the SCS approacproject objectives. EPA will revise 

method, including the SCS numbeshould depend on project objective

153 Northwest Mining A-4.3 Page A- 18, paragraph 2- This paragraph is really the key to this section

and the other information is less relevant. However, it should be notedthat it is not simply the time-consuming nature of some of the predictive

methods that makes them unattractive. Often, the lack of realistic input

data and the uses of the predictive results makes more sophisticatedmethods unattractive. In many cases, sufficient information is missing notbecause the applicants neglected to collect it but simply because it isimpossible to accurately measure the parameters over a reasonable

period of time. This problem is not unique to mining projects but is equallytrue of all development projects. In addition to attempting to bound critical

estimates with stochastic approaches, it is also wise to make sure that the

final designs include relatively conservative factors of safety.

EPA agrees.

154 Northwest Mining A-4.5 Page A- 19 - Paragraph 1..." Aquifer pump tests and drawdown tests of

wells need to be conducted under steady-state or transient conditions..."Are there any other conditions???

This should have read "...steady-s

has been corrected.

155 Northwest Mining A-4.5 Page A- 19 paragraph 1 ".. It is important that these tests be performed at

the pumping rates that would be used by a mining operation...". This is

often difficult to estimate and is even more difficult to replicate. In general,

it is not necessary if sufficient baseline information is available andpredictive strategies can be used.

EPA does not entirely agree, but duncertainty in future pumping ratesneed for the tests in most if not all 

156 Northwest Mining A-5.0 Page A-20 - Paragraph 3 - We know of no operation that is in a constant

need of adding make-up water.

EPA's point was that make-up watover time, but neglected to include clarified.

157 Northwest Mining A-6.2 Page A-26 drop all reference to specific models since the list is by nature

incomplete and again, the specific software should be selected based onthe available input data and the model purposes.

EPA believes it is appropriate to mclarified that the models mentioned 

list.
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-26 

158 Northwest Mining B-2.4 Appendix B - pages 11-16. EPA correctly points out that applicants need

to evaluate an area of appropriate size when assessing surfacehydrology. However, while noting that the term "watershed" goesundefined in the draft document, the statement that using a "watershedperspective" is a common approach is not supported by information

provided by our members. We are especially concerned since it is

apparent that the "watershed" being referred to by EPA is not just thelocal drainage or drainages that could be potentially affected by theproposed mining operation. EPA is clearly referring to a much largergeographic area, such as those increasingly described in federal

documents pertaining to "ecosystem management" or more recently in theso-called "clean water initiative." 

In general, the "watershed" of concdrainage basin that contributes suto the project area and the downstquantity may be affected by miningto refer to an enormous expanse bThis is clarified in the text.

159 Northwest Mining B-2.4 Appendix B - pages 11-16. Thus, NWMA objects to the assertion by EPA

that mining companies applying for an NPDES permit always should startat the "watershed" level. While a very few projects may need to evaluate alarger than normal area, such should hardly be the norm. Our membersupport the use of good science, but the community of natural resource

industries should not be subsidizing other activities or public entities bypaying for expensive research projects that have nothing to do with

project impacts.

EPA does not intend, and has not 

should "subsidize" any other entitygood science. See the changes m

160 Northwest Mining B-2.4 Appendix B - pages 11-16. Based on past experience with EPA in

general, and NMFS and USFWS in particular, the Association is deeplyconcerned the Agency may soon force NPDES applicants into evaluatingmuch larger areas than is justified by the science to fulfill other agendas. 

This view is substantiated by statements made on the record of high levelForest Service and BLM officials to NWMA staff during hearings in

Spokane on the Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.Needless to say, we are definitely seeking "clarification" of EPA's intent

and specifics on the definition of what a "watershed" is in the context ofNPDES permitting.

As noted in other responses, the "

is the upstream portion(s) of a draand shallow ground water flows to portion(s) whose water quality or qrelated activities. EPA did not meabeyond the reach of the operationsection B.2.4. 

161 Northwest Mining B-2.4 Appendix B - pages 11-16. At the minimum, [the commenter] urges EPA

to be very specific in defining what constitutes a "watershed." We strongly

recommend that the agency use the existing accepted clarification system

established by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS hasalready divided the United States into hydrologic units which are thestandard reference for reporting and tracking water related data.

Under this system, cataloging unitsize of "watershed" that may need mining projects (see the USGS Inf

February 1999). As noted in other general concern to EPA is the upsthat contributes surface and shalloarea and the downstream portion(be affected by mining-related activ

enormous expanse beyond the rea
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-27 

162 Northwest Mining B-2.4 Appendix B - pages 11-16. If filling data gaps is a motivating factor for

EPA and the other agencies, [the commenter] urges a collaborative basinwide approach, a position we have advocated for a decade. Under suchcircumstances, [we] would consider supporting cooperative studiesconducted jointly between mining project proponents and agencies toexpand the water quality database, as long as an equitable cost-sharingapproach was utilized. Involving other interested parties would be highly

desirable.

EPA generally agrees with this com

163 Northwest Mining B-2.4 Appendix B - pages 11-16. Another approach to this conundrum is to

make sure all users of data gathered by industry pay for the privilege ofusing that data, and any related analysis. We will suggest to our membercompanies that they copyright all reports in the future, as they qualify asintellectual property with a market value. Of course, a license will begranted to the lead permitting agency to use the data and related analysisas needed for that specific permit. Any other use by the lead agency oranyone else would require the payment of an additional fee. The principal

is exactly the same as with geophysical companies that gather extensive

data over wide areas and then sell it. Naturally, anyone is free to duplicatethe work if they do not wish to buy the information from the vendor.

EPA notes the concept.

164 Northwest Mining B-2.4 Appendix B - pages 11-16. The licensing fee (for protected data] also

would be waived for any entity that acted as a partner in the original datagathering and analysis phase. This would be a fair and equitable

approach. For example, if the science required a company to assess anumber of drainages in one or more watersheds, it could be to theadvantage of federal, state, local, or tribal entities to contribute resourcesto complete the picture. Such cooperative cost sharing is an approach

long espoused by the Association, an publicly endorsed by several stateand federal agencies in the past.

EPA notes the commenter's intent
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-28 

165 Northwest Mining B-2.4 Appendix B - pages 11-16. Our final point on EPA imposing "watershed"

analysis as the standard for gathering data for future NPDES permits isprocedural. While basing government planning efforts on a "watershed"approach may have some merit, at least conceptually, we would question

the legality of imposing a host of expensive new requirements on industry

without prior notice or rulemaking. This general concern is heightened by

recent EPA efforts to expand the definition of "point source" to includevirtually all-human created soil disturbances, contrary to the clear intent of

Congress in drafting Sec 319 of the Clean Water Act. Thus, we cautionEPA about moving in this direction without meaningful dialogue with the

affected public. Absent this, the mining community would have little

recourse but to vigorously oppose the imposition of new regulatoryrequirements created outside of the legally mandated process.

EPA notes that it is not "imposing" 

for gathering data for future NPDErecognizes that a watershed approto assess impacts and to remediat

166 Northwest Mining C-4.4.5 This section discusses the utility of various extraction methods and

indicates that EPA method 13 12 (SPLP) is best suited to mining wastes.The text provided in the Mining Source book then discusses ways tomodify this standard method. In 1995, EPA published Applicabilitv of theTCLP to Mineral Processing Wastes, in which it identifies TCLP assuperior to SPLP in characterizing mine wastes. This issues is the subjectof ongoing regulatory discussion. If the SPLP is the appropriate method,why does the document offer means of altering it? The guidance isunclear within the document and inconsistent with other EPA guidance.

EPA has modified the text to clarifnoted in the text, in some areas, pothers, and this may make a more 

167 Northwest Mining C-6.2 All of the possible approaches to determining a representative level of

sampling are discussed, but guidance is not offered to the operator onwhich approach to use. Why does EPA present the BC samplingnomograph if it agrees that the level of sampling for larger projects isunrealistic and in its words, prohibitive? Experience of many operators

shows that regardless of which method they choose, the regulatorycommunity will suggest that the alternative method might have beenpreferable. Specific, consistent guidelines on how sampling are needed,

not an academic discussion of possible means of determining the numberof samples.

The text has been clarified someware used simply emphasizes that tcomplex questions regarding a rep

168 Northwest Mining F-3.0 Section 3.0 references recent contaminant releases that emphasize the

importance of comprehensive geochemical testing. What contaminant

release in Region 10 is EPA referring to? 

At mines in Region 10 and elsewh

been released via seepage from wtailings dams, leaks in liners, and o
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-29 

169 Northwest Mining General The commenter, which represents many companies, expressed the

concern that EPA staff takes an overly academic approach to developingdischarge limits and setting water quality standards. For example, a longstanding, major concern .... is the "ridiculously low detection limits" beingmandated by EPA in an attempt to "measure" a discharge limit that isimmeasurable. We are unaware of any competent practitioner outside of

EPA who thinks much of this really makes any practical sense.

EPA notes the comment.

170 Northwest Mining General [The commenter] desires additional opportunities to work constructively

with EPA on water quality issues, among others. [They] must encourageEPA to make its processes for developing policy and technical standardsmore transparent. Not only would this strengthen the science, but it wouldhelp to enhance the working relationship between the Agency and thosein the regulated community.

EPA notes the comment and apprBook. This is one way in which EPtransparent, as the commenter en

171 Center for Science in

Public Policy

A-4.1 The number of modern mines with water balance problems, many of

which led to major environmental problems, are too numerous to quote. One of the most common problems that has led to miscalculating waterbalance is assuming, rather than actually measuring, the precipitation at

the minesite. In section 4.1 it is stated “Actual measurements of precipitation and runoffwithin the specific watershed of a mine are preferred and should be used

whenever possible to develop probabilistic storm frequency and design

hydrological structures.” [p. A-6, emphasis added] Taking this ‘soft’approach is not likely to prevent the worst cases of miscalculation, e.g.where a mine proponent is trying to save money, or is using aninexperienced contractor. EPA should take a stronger and proactive position with regard to datacollection, e.g. requiring a minimum of one year’s data at the minesite,which can then be correlated to longer term precipitation records fromnearby stations. Data should be collected at the minesite, not just in thewatershed. (See Section 4.5 Groundwater, where the basic requirementsfor data collection are clearly laid out.)

EPA believes that such a prescriptcases. EPA recognizes that there 

emphasizes that data and evaluat

adequacy. 

172 Center for Science in

Public Policy

B

Table B-2

You might consider adding thallium to the list of “Other Metals.” There isa water quality standard for thallium, and exceedance of the human healthstandard is a problem at the Kendall Mine in Montana.

EPA has added thallium to the list
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-30 

173 Center for Science in

Public Policy

C-6.2.1 In the discussion of the BC AMD Task Force recommended minimum

number of samples appropriate for a rock unit, the following statement ismade: “This approach can lead to extensive sampling requirements for

large facilities and result in inordinately high sampling costs.” [pp. C-33,34]. I believe it would be more correct to say that “This approach can lead to... inordinately high sampling costs.” The key is in demonstrating the

statistical-geochemical uniformity of a “rock unit.” I believe that thesampling guideline is projecting that with the recommended number ofsamples, the statistical uniformity of the resulting data should bedemonstrated. If it can be demonstrated that an acceptable level ofstatistical uniformity can be demonstrated with fewer samples (i.e. thedefined geologic unit has a higher-than-expected degree of uniformity),then fewer total samples will be needed to define the geochemicalcharacteristics of the material. EPA could perhaps offer more guidance in this Appendix as to when itexpects the Runnells approach, or the BC AMD Task Force approach, tobe utilized.

EPA has revised the discussion co

it to applicants to choose the appro

174 Center for Science in

Public Policy

E-8.2 Suggest you add several additional points to the discussion here:

1. Application RateThe land application of mine effluent will be managed so that the amountof water applied would be tied to the agronomic rate of uptake of theplants (plus evaporative loss). It should be stated that land application willbe governed by the agronomic uptake – this information is commonlyavailable through agricultural support agencies. The land application planshould specify exactly how this would be accomplished.2. Use of lysimeters to monitor application rates.We are finding that it is appropriate to use lysimeters to check thetheoretical application rate to insure that the applied solution is notmigrating down into groundwater.3. Cation Exchange CapacityEPA has recommendation for total loading for metals of concern for landapplication of municipal sludge. If these are matched with loading ratescalculated from the geochemical makeup of the land application solution,and the cation exchange capacity of the soil, which can be determinedfrom soil samples, metal loading for the soils for the life of the LADoperation can be determined. This analysis should be performed as apart of land application planning.

EPA agrees and has added these 
EPA and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska

Appendix J: EPA Responses to Comments on the Draft Source Book

Comments on 1999 Draft Source Book and EPA Responses

No. Commenter Section Comment Re

J-31 

175 Center for Science in

Public Policy

F-3.0 After working on a number of reclamation projects, it has become evident

that an accurate record of the timing and source of waste rock that isplaced in a waste rock dump or heap leach pad is often essential todesigning the reclamation plan for a mining facility. This is especiallyrelevant when problems arise with acid mine drainage in waste piles orheaps. EPA should, at a minimum, strongly recommend that mineoperators keep accurate and easily interpretable records of the source,amount, and location of all waste placed in waste storage facilities, andfor ore material placed on heap leach pads. Reclamation design can then

be facilitated, especially if it is shown that the original geochemicalcharacterization of the waste (or the altered state of leached ore) isdifferent than predicted. 

EPA agrees and has added this re

176 Center for Science in

Public Policy

F-4.1.2 In the discussion on the different types of embankments on page F-12, it

might be appropriate to mention that upstream construction is virtually

used [unused?] in modern mine design because of the risks associated

with seismic failure.

EPA has added a statement conce

177 Center for Science in

Public Policy

F-4.1.3 This section mentions cyanide and radioactive materials as substances

that might require a liner. Metals might also be considered if they pose arisk to groundwater resources.

EPA has revised the text accordin

178 Center for Science in

Public Policy

F-4.1.3 a sentence in this section says: “Tailings pond liners can be composed of

compacted clay, synthetic materials, or tailings slimes.” [p. F-18,

emphasis added] Using non-engineered material, e.g. tailings slimes, has

failed to produce the desired liner-effect in many instances. It would be

better to stay away from suggesting tailings slimes in particular, and nonengineered materials in general, for use as a liner material.

EPA does not believe this “sugges

but rather identifies slimes as a ma

notes that clay and synthetic liners desired liner-effect in many instancemphasized is that liners should b