 |
As stated yesterday, mining and mineral processing operations are regulated under several different laws and regulations, increasing the possibilities for non-compliance. Of all the possibilities, however, violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) rank near the top on EPA’s hit list and have resulted in some of the worst environmental pollution and degradation in the country.
In one case settled in early 2013, a surface mining company failed to obtain CWA permits for stream impacts from mining operations in Indiana. The associated unpermitted activities dated as far back as 2002 and resulted in illegal excavation and filling of more than 53,000 feet of streams that flow into the White River. According to the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers issued cease and desist orders in 2008 and again in 2009 when the company did not respond to the first order.
The company is required to restore or enhance almost 40,000 linear feet of stream and stream bed and create and maintain 66 acres of forested buffers and nine acres of forested wetlands to protect the restored streams. The civil penalty assessed was $810,171.
Need an answer fast? Relax. Our editors guarantee a personalized response to your questions within 3 business days. Take a free trial of Enviro.BLR.com and see what everyone is talking about. For a limited time, also receive a free 2014 EHS Salary Guide. Download Now.
Another CWA action was announced in April 2013 against a New Hampshire concrete producer for discharging stormwater and process wastewater into wetlands and waterways without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The action was a joint operation between EPA and the state and resulted in a $135,000 federal penalty, and a $500,000 Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) to install a pervious pavement parking lot and, in a parallel state settlement, a $700,000 civil penalty and restoration of a “significant area of wetlands.”
Another area of concern is that of compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), something a Pennsylvania-based company learned the hard way last December. According to the EPA two of the company’s subsidiaries in Oregon were alleged to have violated RCRA regulations pertaining to proper storage, transportation and disposal of anhydrous magnesium chloride, a reactive hazardous waste and byproduct of titanium and zirconium processing. The EPA estimated the companies illegally shipped about 160 million pounds of the hazardous waste to landfills that were not permitted or equipped to appropriately manage them. Penalties for the violations totaled $825,000 and both companies are required to improve hazardous waste management and recordkeeping practices.
Everything You Need for Environmental Compliance
Enviro.BLR.com puts everything you need at your fingertips, including practical RCRA, CAA, CWA, hazardous waste regulatory analysis and activity, news, and compliance tools. Try it at no cost or risk and get a FREE report.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) is another law violated by mining and mineral processors, in this case by three gold mining firms owned by the same corporation. The violations came to light following “careful analysis” of the mines’ Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) recordkeeping from 2005 through 2008 for cyanide used to extract gold from ore, and lead and mercury produced during the extraction process.
All of the mines are located in Nevada, a state where 98 percent of all TRI releases reported to EPA are from metal ore mining. The companies were assessed $278,000 in penalties, and required to spend an additional $340,000 on a SEP at the mine located in Cortez to identify the metal compounds formed in its oxide mill process. The Cortez gold mine is among the largest in the world. The company must also audit and correct TRI reports from 2005 to 2011 at the Nevada mines and audit other facilities in Nevada and Montana, correcting violations and paying any additional penalties up to $250,000.
Last but not least, in May 2013, a Louisiana phosphoric acid processer was cited for Clean Air Act (CAA) violations at its cooling tower operations. Under the settlement the company was required to install pollution controls to prevent emissions of 15 million pounds of the hazardous air pollutant hydrogen fluoride and to pay a $198,825 civil penalty.