mag public comments aquila back forty project › aps › downloads › permits...tmf - another...
TRANSCRIPT
Mi11i11g A,:tio11 Group Attn: Upper Peninsula Environmental Coa lition P. 0 . Box 673 Houghton Ml 49931
► ►
MAG Public Comments
Aquila Back Forty Project Combined Public Comments on the Mining Permit Amendment (MPAA) and Air Quality Permit to Install Modification (PTI)
➢ DEGLE Oil Gas and Minerals Division - Mining Permit Amendment # MP 01 2016 ➢ DEGLE Air Quality Division - Permit to Install PTI #205-15A
Comments regarding the agency’s proposed decisions on three interconnected permits for the Aquila Back Forty Mine project: the Mining Permit Amendment (MPAA), the Permit to Install Modification (PTI), and the Consolidated Hearing held on June 25, 2019.
Submitted July 23, 2019
NOTE: Detailed comments addressing the Dam Safety Permit (#HNK-5X9D-9HC0S) were submitted separately on July 4, 2019. Many of these comments are relevant to the MPAA review, as the Dam application concerns the design of the Back Forty Tailings Management Facility (TMF), a key part of the MPAA’s Facility Design.
ATTN:
Governor Gretchen Whitmer, State of Michigan [email protected]
Director Liesl Eichler Clark, Michigan DEGLE [email protected]
Jerrod Sanders - DEGLE Water Resources [email protected]
Luke Trumble - DEGLE Water Resources [email protected]
Melanie Humphrey - DEGLE Oil, Gas, and Minerals [email protected]
Andrew Drury - DEGLE Air Quality Division [email protected]
Adam Wygant - DEGLE Oil, Gas, and Minerals [email protected]
Jay Parent, UP District; DEGLE Water Resources [email protected]
Director Daniel Eichinger, Michigan DNR [email protected]
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 1 of 42
Key Files ● Dam Safety Permit Files (no direct link provided by DEGLE) ● DEGLE Mining Permit Amendment MPAA Files ● DEGLE Air Quality Division - Permit to Install
Our Previous Comments on the Back Forty Project ● MAG Public Comments on Aquila Back Forty Mining Permit Application and EIAA - February 2016 ● MAG Public Comments on Aquila Back Forty Wetland Permit - February 2018 ● MAG Comments on Aquila Back Forty Wetland Augmentation Plan - May 2018 ● Aquila Back Forty MPAA - Technical Report, Center for Science in Public Participation - February 2019 ● MAG Public Comments (Aquila Back Forty MPAA, Air Permit to Install, Dam Safety Permits) - February 2019 ● MAG Public Comments on Aquila Back Forty Dam Safety Permit - July 4, 2019
Contents
Interest in Application
Statement of Concern
Technical Report by CSP2
AIR Permit to Install Application No. 205-15A
AQD - Public Notice
Quality and Nature of Toxic Air Contaminants
Proposed Emissions - Toxic Air Contaminants
Visual Emissions - Concerns about Opacity Testing
Digital Opacity Compliance Requested
Stack Tests
Eastern Transportation and Utilities Corridor (ETUC) ETUC Emissions Omitted
EUROAD and FGFUGITIVES
ETUC - Purpose
Fugitive Dust Control Plan - Mining and Ore Transfer Fugitive Emissions - Controls needed for Ore Storage
Request for Concrete Barriers Higher than Ore Storage Areas
Air Deposition Analysis - Lead and Mercury
Additional Emission Concerns - Haul Roads
Fugitive Dust Suppression
Fugitive Dust - Track Out Emissions - Concentrate Handling
Emissions from Tailings (TMF)
Mining Permit Amendment Application MP 01 2016
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Fails to Consider “Affected Area”
Part 632 - Transportation Concerns
River Road “Proposed Realignment”
Misrepresentation of Eastern Transportation and Utilities Corridor (ETUC) Part 632 - Statutory Review of Transportation; Utilities
Adverse Effect on Natural Resources and Public Trust Tailings Management Concerns
See: MAG’s detailed comments pertaining to the Aquila Back Forty project’s Dam Safety Permit (7-4-19) Spillway Design; Flood of Record
TMF - Risk Management; Satellite-based Monitoring
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 2 of 42
TMF - Global Crisis of Tailings Dam Failures
TMF - Another significant tailings dam failure: Cobriza Mine
Tailings Management Alternatives - Dry Stack Analysis Incomplete
TMF Stability - Compaction Methods
Part 632 - Burden of Proof Special Permit Condition - Covering of Reactive Materials
Environmental Monitoring - Surface Water Quality
Financial Assurances Underestimated; Disaster Response
Gossan - Milled or “Removed as Ore”?
Cumulative Impacts Analysis - Incomplete
TMF - Cumulative Impacts, Reasonable and Foreseeable Activities
Conclusions
Interest in Application The Mining Action Group (MAG) of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition (UPEC), previously known as Save the Wild U.P., is a 100% volunteer grassroots effort to defend the clean water and wild places of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula from the dangers of sulfide mining. As environmental stakeholders, we participate in a broad citizen-led effort to raise awareness about the dangers of sulfide mining.
The Upper Peninsula is witnessing a resurgence in mining and mineral exploration which threatens watersheds of both Lake Michigan and Lake Superior basins, and the treaty-protected natural and cultural resources of federally-recognized tribal nations. Playing off the area’s history of economic boom-and-bust cycles, mining companies arrive promising good jobs and pledging concern for the environment, ignoring the fact that mining and milling bring short-term profits at the expense of long-term contamination. The Aquila Back Forty Mine project, on the Menominee River, perfectly illustrates the environmental hazards of mining.
Most of the mine site will be covered by waste rock, ore storage areas, milling facilities and tailings storage. Aquila repeatedly claims to be “minimizing impacts” but the footprint of the Back Forty facility has ballooned to 440 hectares (1087 acres) in this MPAA, largely due to a larger tailings management facility. The Back Forty’s environmental impacts could be significantly reduced by using common-sense feasible alternatives — but the applicant has rejected these options.
The Aquila Back Forty Mine project threatens critical natural resources including the Menominee River, Shakey River Watershed, Shakey Lakes, and Lake Michigan. Surface development of the Aquila Back Forty Mine site will destroy private and State forest lands, with wetland ecosystem impacts (direct and indirect losses) increasing from 28.39 to at least 55 acres during the Wetland permit process, as well as the direct loss of streams, and impacts to floodplains. Natural resources will be destroyed by the construction of the tailings disposal facility (TMF), waste rock storage facilities, ore stockpiles, and contact water basins.
The proposed “Life of Mine” — and any claimed “benefits” — will be short-lived, yet the mine’s degradations will be long-lasting or permanent. The mine proposes to create a huge impoundment of reactive metallic waste tailings (TMF) at the site, taller than most of the U.P.’s tallest buildings, to contain the mine’s waste in perpetuity. Construction and operation of this large-scale industrial facility will permanently alter the Scenic River Road, the
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 3 of 42
►
culturally significant Sixty Islands segment of the Menominee River, and the adjacent Escanaba State Forest. Water quality in the Menominee River and surrounding lakes and streams will be degraded, and the Back Forty presents a long-term threat to groundwater quality. The Back Forty’s environmental impacts from air-dispersed pollutants will stretch for miles, resulting in bio-accumulation of mercury, mercury violations of water quality, and the deposition of lead, arsenic and other toxic metals in the surrounding watershed, including Shakey Lakes, Shakey River, Menominee River, and other local streams and wetland complexes surrounding the project area.
Statement of Concern
In opposing the Aquila Back Forty Mine project, we stand with a broad coalition of concerned citizens, environmental groups, governments and tribes who are working to safeguard the history and future of the Menominee River. We believe the Aquila Back Forty Mine permit amendment would violate the Clean Water Act, and unlawfully authorize the impairment and destruction of natural resources. The Aquila Back Forty tailings dam, in particular, presents long-term harms to the freshwater natural resources of the State of Michigan, imperils interstate waters of Michigan and Wisconsin, and undermines Public Trust in those resources.
In 2019, the Mining Action Group joined with the Front 40 Environmental Group, the Coalition to Save the Menominee River and received grants from Freshwater Future’s Great Lakes Network and the Western Mining Action Network to obtain a technical review of the Back Forty permit from the Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP2). CSP2 analyzes mining applications in order to “provide objective research and technical advice to people impacted by mining.” The technical review was conducted by Dr. Kendra Zamzow, an environmental geochemist, and Dr. David Chambers, an internationally-recognized expert on tailings dam safety. It identifies serious faults with Aquila Resources’ Back Forty Mine Permit Amendment Application which must be addressed.
The concerns identified in this report were “answered” by Aquila but their answers were directed to DEGLE staff reviewers, rather than to CSP2. We do not believe the applicant’s responses were technically adequate — especially with regards to claims about the TMF design — and urge the State of Michigan to directly request a technical response from the Center of Science in Public Participation.
Technical Report by CSP2
● Aquila Back Forty MPAA - Technical Report, Center for Science in Public Participation (February 2019)
● Aquila’s response to the CSP2 Technical Report
➢
AIR Permit to Install Application No. 205-15A DEGLE Air Quality Division - Permit to Install PTI #205-15A
○ Aquila Resources “Permit to Install”: http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aps/cwerp.shtml ○ Proposed permit: http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aps/downloads/permits/PubNotice/205-15A/205-15A.pdf ○ DEGLE Air permits to install - Air Permits to Install (PTIs):
https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3310_70487-11390--,00.html
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 4 of 42
○ Rule 201 - http://dmbinternet.state.mi.us/DMB/ORRDocs/AdminCode/1494_2014-154EQ_AdminCode.pdf
AQD - Public Notice
The DEGLE “NOTICE OF CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND HEARING” is posted at https://www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/deq-ogmd-mining-Back_Forty_mine_amendment-Consolidated_Publi c_Hearing_Notice_5.20.2019_655950_7.pdf . Item (2), page 1 of this document states that: “The PTI application and related correspondence are on the website at: http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aps/AppsOfInterest.shtml .” During the critical days leading up to the PTI Public Comment deadline, this link was reported as malfunctioning, producing the error message: “The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.”
Quality and Nature of Toxic Air Contaminants
(3) For the purposes of this rule, “meaningful” with respect to toxic air contaminant emissions is defined as follows: (i) “Meaningful change in the quality and nature” means a change in the toxic air contaminants emitted that results in an increase in the cancer or non-cancer hazard potential that is 10% or greater, or which causes an exceedance of a permit limit. The hazard potential is the value calculated for each toxic air contaminant involved in the proposed change, before and after the proposed change, and it is the potential to emit (hourly averaging time) divided by the initial risk screening level or the adjusted annual initial threshold screening level (ITSL), for each toxic air contaminant and screening level involved in the proposed change.
Since the original Mine Permit and Air PTI permits were issued, the applicant has acknowledged that Lead Concentrate will be produced at the mill (~10 tons per day). Lead is a chronic contaminant of great concern for human development. Lead will be present in the ore, waste rock, dust emissions, and concentrate handling area. Was this change evaluated as a “meaningful change” in the “quality and nature of toxic air contaminants”? Shouldn’t lead emissions (0.003 tons per year) should be included in TAC calculations? Explain why Table 5-4 of the PTI does not include estimates tons per hour of lead emitted to the environment.
Proposed Emissions - Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants The anticipated arsenic (8.89 lbs per month) does not meet the Allowable Emission Rate (AER) – either the Screening level specific Emission Rate (“NO”) or the Max Hourly Rate (“NO”). In fact, the rate of arsenic emissions appears to exceed AER by several orders of magnitude. Explain?
● Predicted ambient impact of arsenic (0.00197 g/m3) is predicted to nearly match the TAC screening level (0.002 g/m3). Explain - what is the margin of error?
● Cadmium, copper and silver will exceed the AER Screening level specific Emission Rate (“NO”). Explain why these failures to meet the Allowable Emission Rate is acceptable?
● Lead and Zinc are not included in the Toxic Air Contaminants table, p. 466 of the R-AIR PTI application. Explain. Lead and Zinc are expected to be present in the ore at high levels and the Back Forty Mill will
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 5 of 42
Concentrate Production (Maximum year)
Copper Concentrate in Year 4 14,400 tonne/yr 39 tonne/day 1.6 tonne/hr
15,840 ton/yr 43 ton/day 1.8 ton/hr
Lead Concentrate in Year 4 3,400 tonne/yr 9 tonne/day 0.4 tonne/hr
3,740 ton/yr 10 ton/day 0.4 ton/hr
Zinc Concentrate in Year 4 166,300 tonne/yr 456 tonne/day 19.0 tonne/hr
182,930 ton/yr 501 ton/day 20 .9 ton/hr
Facility Name: Aquila Resources, Inc. Contact Name: Facilitv Address: t Phone Number:
Geocoordinates lif knownl: :t Email Address :
-
Proposed Is Proposed Emission Screenin!I Level Emission Rate (ERi Rate less than AER?
Max Hourly IRSL or
ITSL ITSLAvg SRSL ER Screening
Rate Rate Units lbsniour Level Max Hourly
Chemical Name CASNo. IJillm' Time 1,,1gtm • Specific ER Rate Antimony 7440-36-0 0.2 anrual 4.33E-01 lbs/month 6.01E-04 vcs yes
Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.002 8.89E+00 lbs/month 1.23E-02 no no Barium 7440-39-3 5 8-hr 5.65E-02 lbs/8 -hr 7,06E-03 yes yes
Bervllium 7440-41 -7 0.02 24-IY 8.16E-04 lbs/24•hr 3.40E-05 yes ves Bervllium 7440-41 -7 0,004 2.45E-02 lbs/month 3.40E-05 ves ves Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.006 1.42E+00 lbs/month 1,97E-03 no yes Cerium 7440-45-1 6 a nooa1 ... 3.21E-01 lbs/month 4.46E-04 yes yes Ch romium. Tri valent 16065-83-1 5 8,hr 1.76E-02 lbs/8-hr 2.20E-03 ves Yes Cobalt 7440-48-4 0.2 8-hr 1.09E-03 lbs/8-hr 1.37E-04 Yes Yes Coooer 7440-50-8 2 8•hr 2.46E-01 lbs/8-hr 3.07E-02 no Yes Lithium 7439-93-2 35 24-l'r- 2.1 8E-03 lbs/24-hr 9.08E-05 ye,, ves Maonesium 7439-95-4 100 8-hr 4.08E-01 lbs/8-hr 5.10E-02 vcs vcs
Manaanese 7439-96-5 0.3 anrual 1.12E+00 lbs/month 1.56E-03 yes ves Mercury 7439-97-6 0,3 anr"WJal 3.89E-01 lbs/month 5.40E-04 ves ves Mercury 7439-97-6 I 24-IY 1,30E-02 lbs/24-hr 5.40E-04 yes yes Molybdenum 7439-98-7 30 8-hr 3.33E-03 lbs/8-hr 4.17E-04 yes yes Nickel 7440-02-0 0,058 1.92E-01 lbs/month 2,67E-04 ves Yes Selenium 7782-49-2 2 8-hr 2,30E-04 lbs/8-hr 2,87E-05 Yes Yes Silver • soluble 7440-22-4 0.1 8-hr 7.76E-03 lb$18-hr 9.69E-04 no ves Strontium 7440-24-6 150 24•1Y 2.73E-02 lbs/24-hr 1.14E-03 yes yes Thallium 7440-28-0 0.2 8-hr 7.86E-04 lbs/8-hr 9.83E-05 vcs yes Thallium 7440-28-0 0. 1 a nooal 7.08E-02 lbs/month 9.83E-05 YCS yes Tin 7440-31-5 20 8-hr 1.33E-03 lbs/8 -hr 1.66E-04 YCS yes
Phosphorus (total) 7723-1 4-0 20 24-1" .. 1.36E-01 lb!/24-hr 5.65E-03 yes yes
MIBC 108-11-2 1000 8-ht 0.0282 lbs/8-hr 0.00353 yes yes Yttrium 7440-65-5 10 8-hr 1.64E-03 lbs/8-hr 2.04E-04 yes yes
29 • The ITSL for manganese is most appropriately applied to PM10.Mn data ra ther than TSP-Mn data.
26 • The com bined ambient impact of all particu late TAC em issions must be below the applicable PM primary NAAOS. Tl s 150~/m1
produce both Lead and Zinc concentrates.
● Toxic Air Contaminants table - several footnotes referenced (#35, #17, #7, #34) are missing. ● The TAC table shows the Allowable Emission Rate of Mercury (“lbs per month, 24-hr, 8-hr or 1-hr”) at
0.12; doesn’t the Proposed Emission Rate of Mercury at 1.30E-02 lbs/24-hr exceed the AER?
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 6 of 42
Table 5-4
Comparison of Maximum Source Impacts for Michigan TAC to Appropriate ITSL, IRSL, SRSL, or
RfC Screening Levels
Maximum Predicted Ambient Screening Level Screening Level Averaging Type of Screening Impact
Listed T AC11 ( g/mJ) Time Level ( g/1113)
Arsenic 0.002 A nnual SRSL 0.00 197
Cadmium 0.006 Annual SRSL 0.00043
Copper 2 8-Hr Avg ITSL 0.068
Sil ver - So luble 0. 1 8-Hr Avg ITSL 0.003
Prepared by: FJMJ Notes: Checked by: A KM
{l l Remain ing identified TACs are in compliance with all screening levels using the screening tool provided under R 336. 1227 (a). See spreadsheet in Append ix C.
Abbreviations:
g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Avg = a vcragc I-I r = hour
IRSL = Initial Risk Screen ing Level
ITSL = In itial Threshold Screening Level
MDEQ = Michigan Department of Environmental Qual ity
RfC = Reference Concentration
SRSL = Sccondal)' Risk Screening Level
TAC = toxic air con taminant
4.3.3.1 40 CFR Part 60 - Subpart LL - Standards of Performance for Metallic Mineral Processing Plants
Subpart LL (40 CFR 60.380 through 60.386) applies to emission points including ventilation equipment at the Crushing Building for the crushers, screens, and conveyor belt transfer points.
For affected facilities , the fo llowing PM standards apply to any stacks (paragraph 60.382):
• PM must be less than or equal to 0.05 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot).
• Exhibit less than or equal to 7% o acity, unless the stack emissions are discharged through a wet scrubber.
• After initial start-up, process fugitive emissions must be less than or equal to 10% o ac ity. Process fugitive emjssions are defined as PM emissions from an affected faci lity that are not co llected by a capture system.
Visual Emissions - Concerns about Opacity Testing
Stack testing is not specified. The Air Permit appears to require “opacity testing” or the subjective monitoring of visible emission limits rather than continuous air quality monitoring or analysis. This means, essentially, there are no enforceable limits on airborne contaminants, and no methods for air quality monitoring.
Concerns have been repeatedly raised about imposing strict limits on visible emissions (blasting, roadways etc); the agency’s (2016) response shows that visible emission observations will be required, rather than strict air quality testing. Use of the opacity testing method alone is inadequate.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 7 of 42
The beueflLs of basing emissions statutes on opacity, or density,
are quite evident, even though equipment and fuel regulations have in
creasingly assumed precedence in control legislation. When the visual
standard is specific with reference to a cutoff point and time interval,
it is simply and directly enforced. All enforcement officers need do is
observe an emission of an opacity or density beyond that allowed by the
regulations for a minimum time interval in order to cite a violator for
excessive emissions.
Although the visual standard is limited to estimations of particu
late pollution which obscures vision, its application simultaneously
tends to reduce grain loading, since there is a relationship between
grain loading and opacity, although this relationship is somewhat com
plex . The standard, therefore, is most versatile in accomplishing gross
reductions of atmospheric pollutants in a community, and can be applied
not only to smoke, but to fumes, dusts and mists arising from a variety
of sources.
It should be cautioned, however, that while such benefits can be
assumed, they cannot always be precisely predicted or evaluated. Deter
mination of opacity and shade of any emission alone gives no specific
measurements of the quantities of contaminants being emitted.
We request that continuous air quality monitoring stations be required due to the presence of highly toxic metals in fugitive emissions, including lead, mercury, arsenic and other contaminants.
“While there will be several small stacks at the site, the most significant sources of emissions will be from fugitive sources.” - FOTH to Andrew Drury, September 13, 2018.
Opacity testing is 19th century technology for a 21st century problem. As the EPA long ago acknowledged in “GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF VISIBLE EMISSION (1975), opacity testing “gives no specific measurements of the quantities of contaminants being emitted”1
Use of the visible opacity method assumes that fugitive emissions are in fact visible. At Eagle Mine, blasting takes place year round. During the winter, predawn blasts are followed by emissions blown from the ventilation stack, which has no baghouse filter or other technological controls and requires visible opacity testing. The effectiveness of visible emissions testing in the dark has not been confirmed. In winter, the mine’s afternoon blasts (between 4:30 and 5 pm) are also conducted in poor light (sunset is 5pm on December 8 for Big Bay MI). Any visible opacity testing should be independently validated.
Questions about Opacity Testing: ● Explain whether “visible emissions” can be reliably observed if they take place in the dark.
1 "Guidelines for Evaluation of Visible Emissions - CiteSeerX." 3 Apr. 2010, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.368.5229&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 23 Jul. 2019.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 8 of 42
● Are emitting activities limited to daylight hours? The timing of visual opacity testing is not addressed. Does the Back Forty PTI assume that key mining activities like blasting or crushing or the placement of rock in the waste rock facilities will take place only during daylight hours? Will daylight and nighttime emissions be the same?
● Does the PTI Management Plan for fugitive dust ensure that the fugitive dust from road segments within the site will be compliant during all hours of operation?
● Does the PTI ensure that “weekly visible emission readings of baghouse exhaust stacks” from the Back Forty milling facility be conducted during daylight hours?
● Will regular stack tests be required in addition to visible emission readings? ● Does the permit require air quality compliance monitoring (emissions from equipment) within the facility?
If so, a table should be provided, summarizing which contaminants will be monitored, in which spots/processes, with corresponding permit levels.
● Will air quality data be continuously recorded and submitted to DEGLE for review? ● Will there be regulatory checks, or is visual opacity testing self-monitored? A fugitive dust management
plan may be adjusted by AQD “following an inspection (if) the department determines the fugitive dust requirements or permitted opacity limits are not being met.” Visual opacity testing results should be independently verified.
Digital Opacity Compliance Requested 2We request that opacity testing be completed via a camera-based visible opacity measurement method, per EPA guidelines, in order to guarantee a “scientifically defensible method for the measurement of visible opacity.”
“As an early regulatory step, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a visible opacity method (Method 9) to estimate the rate of emission of soot and related combustion fines exhausting from a stack (but...) observations are inescapably subjective and unverifiable. EPA's Emission Measurement Center (EMC) has acknowledged the acute need for the development and promulgation of a new, scientifically defensible method for the measurement of visible opacity. The initial phases of this program developed the Digital Opacity Compliance System (DOCS) and validated that the combination of digital camera and software tested is a reliable tool for measuring plume opacities under conditions specified for Method 9.“3
Stack Tests
“Stack testing, if required by the MDEQ, will be performed at Aquila expense.”4 We request that stack testing confirmation be required on an annual basis throughout the life of mine.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Measuring-visual-opacity-using-digital-imaging-McFarland-Terry/09c16d1bd9303da9249da73e86a5ee a341d42aa2 3 "An Alternative to EPA Method 9 - Field Validation of the Digital Opacity ...." https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a444394.pdf. Accessed 23 Jul. 2019. 4 R-AIR Permit Application Modification 2018-11-21.pdf p. 424
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 9 of 42
2
Testing
Stack testing, if required by the MDEQ, will be performed for specified emission rates as required by the MDEQ in the approved Permit to Install at Aquila expense.
Evaluation of visible emissions, if required by the MDEQ, will be performed at Aquila expense.
Monitoring
Monitoring for specified rates as required MDEQ in the approved Permit to Install shall be perfonned by Aquila at the specified time and frequency.
T-o<IW•otD><1-'90fl'i<>efne f.::ii]~E-T, ___ UW)tConlllor
Aquil•
♦-·-
♦Foth ""lt.N0V'1Bk••
A~QIJ-'Lln' IMPACTANALYSIS OVERALLSITE PLAN
STEPliENSOO, MICI-IIGAN
O.Tf.NOV'15-0f" 00.T ....... 17~1
Eastern Transportation and Utilities Corridor (ETUC) According to DEGLE staff who participated in the June 18th webinar, there are no emissions for ETUC because the "(regulatory) authority of the Air Permit applies to everything that's inside the facility fenceline. So portions... outside the fenceline are not addressed by the permit. At this time I believe that road segment is going to be a public roadway. If they gated it... if it is only accessible to the Back Forty we would have to reevaluate that. As far as I know that is going to be a public roadway... emissions that occur on public roadways are not subject to the air permit process.”
ETUC Emissions Omitted
● The Permit to Install omits fugitive emissions which should be attributed to the Back Forty “Eastern Transportation and Utilities Corridor” – the site access road would need to be constructed through the Escanaba State Forest.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 10 of 42
● “Haul road configurations” have been modified in the new facility design, with the assumption that the ETUC road will be constructed on schedule, as a public road, and that the Eastern Entrance (access gate) will be developed. This assumption changes the sensors in the facility model and appears to create bias (preferential placement of sensors would result in lowered PM emissions) in the model.
● In the 2015 Mine Permit, the Eastern corridor was originally proposed to contain only utilities, or to use “existing trails” (a claim no longer accurate on either count, now that there will be a new road in addition to utilities, and the road is “realigned” so it will not follow current trails).
● The applicant does not specifically explain whether the ETUC will be a private road, a public road or a magic carpet. This site access road is described in detail in the Mining Permit Amendment, and discussed in the requests for additional information, yet the proposed decision calls it an “option.”
● Under Part 632 rules, the “Eastern Transportation and Utilities Corridor” is intended to consider the “affected area.” ALL environmental impacts of the project, including cumulative impacts, are to be considered under Part 632. This includes construction of site access, impacts of site development, haul roads, and new utilities or the extension of utilities to service a mine site. These impacts are not considered in the Mine Permit Amendment, and the new site access road is dismissed as an “alternative” or an “option” several times, bypassing the EIA.
● The ETUC road was described in the MPAA’s Amended Contingency Plan (contingency planning is not optional). The ETUC road cannot be dismissed as merely an alternative or “option” at this late permitting stage. In the Air Permit to Install, it is assumed that the road will be built (it not an option) and it is assumed to be a public road. These are dangerous assumptions.
● The ETUC road was omitted from the AIR permit on the assumption that it will be a “public road”, but there is no evidence showing that any public agencies are interested in developing this road. In fact, Aquila plans to privately finance ETUC, and the road would end at the mine gate. ETUC is a private road and all emissions and other environmental impacts should rightly be included in the PTI, and attributed to the applicant, not some future road construction company.
● In the Air Permit, under “Unpaved Haul Roads” the applicant explains their transportation plan is still in flux and will change during the mine’s operation: “Service trucks will arrive on the east entrance road to the facility and proceed to designated buildings at the site. Initially, site access will be from River Road, southwest of the facility. Aquila will pursue local permitting and construction of the Eastern Corridor access.”
● In Aquila’s Technical Report (“BACK FORTY FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT” September 7, 2018), there is no mention of anEastern Corridor being used for transportation, and no discussion of site access via an Eastern Gate. The terms “Corridor” “sourphrase “Eastern Transportation and Utilities Corridor” is not mentioned. Aquila states:
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 11 of 42
BACK FORTY PROJECT FEASIB ILITY STUDY Page 18.1 NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT - PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
18.1 Overall Site
The overall site plan is shown in Figure 18.1 and includes major facilities of the Project including mine open pit,
COW, oxide and sulph ide processing plants, TMF, WRFs, CWB and NCWBs, mine services, access road and
WWTP.
Access to the facility is from the west side of the project off the existing River Road. Main access will be via the
main security gate near the process plant.
Grid power will be provided from an incoming HV line from the east side of the Project.
3.3.20 Fugitive Emissions from Haul Roads
EUROAD and FGFUGITIVES Haul roads at the faci li ty are in several areas (Figure 3-1):
• Within the mine pit. • Ground level from the pit to each oftbe TMF, NWRF, and SWRF. • Ground level from the ore storage piles to the ROM.
Vehicle travel on the TMF, NWRF, and SWRF. • Product truck travel for concentrate from the handling area to the east entrance gate.
While haul routes will be completely different than in the current permit, these types of controls will not change. All of the above haul roads will be unpaved. In the previous permit, the haul route from the concentrate handling area to the main gate was to be paved. Final product will now be transferred off-site through an east entrance gate with the road being unpaved . Various
● In the OGMD’s proposed decision, the draft Mine Permit as amended states there is an “option to access the mining area from the east via proposed Eastern Corridor. Access from the west via the River Road remains an option from original mining plan.”
EUROAD and FGFUGITIVES
Under 3.3.20 of the Air PTI application, however, the ETUC is presented as a fait accompli, and there is no mention of emissions from haul road traffic using the west entrance gate, or River Road:
The Air Permit application, the MPAA, and the mine’s 2018 PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY report on “Project Infrastructure” offer conflicting accounts of whether the ETUC is an “access road” or a transportation “corridor”; whether it is an “option” or a baseline assumption for critical emissions calculations — or whether it exists at all.
ETUC is also included in the “Haul Road Segment 4” under two different names; no mileage is listed in this table, which would be useful for clarity and ease of comparison:
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 12 of 42
3.2 Haul Road Segments
Documentation of roadway dust suppression acti vities for haul and access roads will be docwnented using a fonn similar to the On-Site Haul Road Watering Docwnentation Form in Appendix A. The fonn will be used by fi eld supervisors to assess the effectiveness of roadway dust suppression techniques and document corrective actions taken to minimize generation of fugi tive dust. The fo rm will be completed each day of operations. For ease in identify ing potential problem areas, roadways within the facility have been ass igned roadway segment identification numbers. These identification numbers can be used when filling out the watering documentation form each day. Identification numbers will be as fo llows:
Haul Road Segment Description
Open Pit Area
Haul Road to Ore Stockpi les, TMF, NWRF, and SWRF
Concentrate Loadout Haul Road - River Road
Concentrate Loadout Haul Road astern Corridor
Identification Number
Segment l
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
On-Site Haul Road Watering Documentation Form Segment Haul Truck Routes
Date: ---- Name of Employee: _________ _
1. Was watering applied to haul roads on this day?
2. If yes to the above, what was the watering schedule?
First Shift
Second Shi ft
3. What was the approx imate volume of water used?
Yes
Segment 1 - Open Pit Area Gallons Segment 2 - Haul Road to Ore Stockpiles, TM F, NWRF, SWRF Gallons Segment 3 - Access Road - River Road Gallons Segment 4 - Access Road - Eastern Corridor Gallons
No
ETUC - Purpose
The ETUC road, if constructed as currently planned, would end at the mine gate, effectively serving as a long driveway leading between the public highway and the private facility. The purpose of the ETUC road is clearly private and industrial. This is not the purpose of a public road. Yet DEGLE staff have stated “As far as I know that is going to be a public roadway... (and) emissions that occur on public roadways are not subject to the air permit process.”
It is unfortunate indeed if the DEGLE AQD staff believe their regulatory jurisdiction for air pollution emissions ends at an industrial fenceline. Air, like water resources, flows over and through fences and property lines. That the DEGLE staff is unsure whether the access road will be public or private shows a lack of understanding of what is being permitted, that should be clarified before any permit is issued.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 13 of 42
Clean Air belongs to all, and is part of the Public Commons. Air surrounding the Aquila Back Forty site will be degraded by the proposed industrial development of the corridor. Air functions as a transport mechanism, just as a pipe will carry wastewater discharge to the Menominee River; wind currents will convey uncontrolled industrial PM emissions (blasting, dust) that become airborne within the mine site. These PM emissions blow away and are dispersed over the surrounding landscape, contaminating a large area of air, soil and water.
Who holds the authority to assess, regulate and limit the toxic constituents in these emissions, if not the Air Quality Division? How can air quality be regulated on one side of an arbitrary boundary, but not the other?
The AQD must look beyond the frantic reassurances and constantly shifting facility designs of the applicant. As there is no clear plan for construction of an ETUC road — private, public or imaginary — the Permit to Install ought to evaluate all foreseeable site access options, including: further industrialization of River Road (widening, paving); abandonment of River Road; bypass impacts as industrial traffic is transitioned to ETUC; a scenario in which ETUC is constructed as a public road; and (perhaps more likely) the scenario in which ETUC is constructed as temporary private road and the mine’s sole access point. After each of these various alternatives are calculated — “to be conservative” (a phrase used multiple times by FOTH in the PTI application) — the full amount of the highest potential emissions scenario should be applied.
The applicant obviously wants the ETUC road considered “public” in name only to circumvent proper regulatory review, public participation, environmental impact assessment, and more. The applicant is clearly attempting to bypass responsibility for emissions and other negative effects attributable to the corridor.
Fugitive Dust Control Plan - Mining and Ore Transfer Fugitive Dust Control Plan identifies the methods used to minimize or eliminate fugitive dust at the Back Forty mine site. In 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency expressed concerns with the Fugitive Dust Control Plan:
“ (a) The plan establishes speed limits for haul roads at 15 miles per hour and 20 miles per hour for service roads outside of the haul roads areas. The plan does not provide any practical enforceable methods to determine if the drivers of the trucks are staying below the posted speed limits. MDEQ should include provisions such as speed detection systems to accurately know the speed limits are being followed. 6 (b) The plan requires that a dust suppressant be applied to the haul and service roads. The plan does not address the roadway just outside of the mine site. The plan should include a requirement that the public roadways immediately outside of the facility be observed on a routine basis to determine if they require watering, sweeping, or the application of a dust suppressant due to truck traffic from the site as necessary.”
The AQD responded that “a speed detection system is not necessary as the majority of the trucks travelling within the facility will be ore haul trucks. These very large trucks are not capable of exceeding the proposed speed limits.” This claim is nonsense. One needs to look no further than the Eagle Mine in Marquette County, where ore haul trucks hauling ore from the mine travel at prevailing speed limits of 55 mph (and frequently exceed speed posted speed limits) on their 65-mile trip to the Humboldt Mill. On its website, Eagle Mine states that, “Safety is stressed with our ore truck drivers, which is why we constantly monitor speed, location, and braking efforts throughout the entire transportation process.”5 Yet on the false assumption that an ore trucks can’t travel very fast, the AQD won’t even require Aquila to monitor truck speed along much shorter haul road segments within the Back Forty site:
5 Mining 101: Transportation. Eagle Mine (Lundin Mining). http://eaglemine.com/mining-101/ (Accessed July 21, 2019).
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 14 of 42
3.3.1 Fugitive Emissions from Mining and Ore Transfer Activities
EUOPENPITMINE and FGFUGITIVES PM will be generated by mining activities in the pit and the transportation of the material to various locations on the site. These fugitive emission sources were grouped as one emission unit under the current Permit to Install and should remain the same. EUOPENPITMINE includes the following emission sources:
+ Mine pit activities including drilling, blasting, transfer to haul trucks, and haul truck
travel to pit entrance.
Controls for fugitive dust are covered in detail in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan, A end ix D. In summary, drilling and blasting activities will be conducted using acceptable industry equipment and practice for such operations. During ore transfer to haul trucks, drop heights will be minimized to reduce the potential for particulate emissions. In addition, all of the above operations will take place in an open pit, which is below surface level of the mill process area. It is anticipated that some of the PM will settle out in the open pit before it can rise to the surface and disperse .
(b) The concentrate haul trucks, which are the primary traffic into and out of the facility, must be washed before leaving the concentrate building. All vehicles that have been in areas where they may come into contact with ore or concentrate must go through a wheel wash before leaving the facility. In addition, roadways, parking lots, and truck staging areas routinely travelled by concentrate haul trucks and delivery trucks are required to be paved. Therefore, the potential for material to be tracked out of the facility onto public roads is minimal and evaluating roadways outside the facility is not necessary. (c)
Explain whether “Fugitive Emissions” from activities in the EUOPENPITMINE and FGFUGITIVES will take place during daylight hours, or 24-7? See 3.3.1, Fugitive Emissions from Mining and Ore Transfer Activities:
Fugitive Emissions - Controls needed for Ore Storage
Fugitive Emissions Controls are needed for Ore Storage Piles. Additional controls are needed due to an increased number of stockpiles and preferential processing. The mine’s revised plan calls for extraction to outpace the speed of milling, using additional ore storage piles, which should no longer be considered “temporary piles used to blend the ore before transferring it to the crusher building” (as previously described by AQD in 2016).
Request for Concrete Barriers Higher than Ore Storage Areas
In reviewing the applicant’s previous Permit to Install, AQD dismissed the EPA’s earlier concern that concrete barriers should be higher than ore storage piles, saying that “given the temporary nature of the storage piles and the use of water sprays, requiring the storage piles to not exceed the height of the concrete barriers is not necessary to minimize fugitive dust emissions.”
The ore stockpiles are no longer “temporary” under the revised mining plan. Under the MPAA, ore will now be stored in multiple stockpiles (7 stockpiles instead of 2), and ore will be preferentially processed. This means that certain types of rock, and lower grades of ore, may linger in uncovered ore stockpiles for several years.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 15 of 42
Table 5-4
List of Metal Toxic Air Contaminants and Facility-Wide Emission Rates
Pro1>osecl Maximum Proposed Maximum Emission Rate Emission Rate
Metal (lb/hr) Metal (lb/hr)
Antimony 6.0 lE-04 Manganese l.56E-03 Arsenic l.23E-02 Mercmy 5.40E-04
Barium 7.06E-03 Molybdenum 4.17E-04 Be1yllium 3.40E-05 Nickel 2.67E-04
Cadmium l.97E-03 Selenium 2.87E-05 Cerium 4.46E-04 Silver (Soluble) 9.69E-04
Chromium (Triva lent) 2.20E-03 Thallium 9.83E-05 Cobalt l.37E-04 Tin l.66E-04
Copper 3.07E-02 Phosphorus (total) 5.65E-03 Lithium 9.0SE-05 MIBC 3.53E-03
Magnesium 5.l0E-02 Yttrium 2.04E-04 Abbreviations: Prepared by: FJMl
lb/hr = pounds per hour Checked by: AKM
According to the Dam Safety Permit, Tailings Management Facility – Permit Support Design Package, 2.9 Mining and Milling Plan, “The ore bodies will be mined at a higher rate than required by the processing plants to allow preferential stockpiling and the processing of higher-grade ores before lower grade ore. A total of seven ore stockpiles will be maintained throughout the life of the mine.”
● Applicant should be required to build concrete wind barriers higher than ore stockpiles for all stockpile areas, so that unprocessed ore is safely “enclosed within at least a 3-sided structure” with walls higher than the stockpiled material.
Air Deposition Analysis - Lead and Mercury
From the November 2018 PTI application:6
Explain why Lead is not included in Table 5-4 “List of Metal Toxic Air Contaminants and Facility-Wide Emission Rates”? Is the proposed emission rate of airborne Mercury really 5.4 pounds per hour?
Additional Emission Concerns - Haul Roads
● Calculations in the permit to install are intricately linked with fugitive emissions from mill’s haul road. ● PTI emissions calculations appear to be missing the fugitive dust impacts from this area. This access road
(ETUC) is depicted on some of the mine site maps but not in its entirety. The proposed access road is considered purpose-built for mine, however, and in a 2019 clarification letter the applicant clearly stated that the mining company would pay for the construction and maintenance of this road segment.
○ The PTI “restricts” the applicant to nearly FOUR THOUSAND ore trucks entering and leaving the mine site on an annual basis (“3,836 52.8-ton concentrate trucks entering and leaving”).
6 Michigan Air Use Permit –Permit to Install Modification. Project I.D. 17A021.18. Prepared by Foth for Aquila Resources Inc. November 2018
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 16 of 42
Ill. PROCESS/OPERATIONAL RESTRICTION(S)
1. The permittee shall not exceed a maximum equivalent of 3,836 52.8-ton concentrate trucks entering and leaving the facility for each 12-month rolling time period , as determined at the end of each calendar month. (R 336.1205, R 336.1224, R 336.1225, R 336.1301 , 40 CFR 52.21(c) & (d))
This figure appears to be excessively high - and yet truck emissions are omitted for the ETUC road. Explain?
● PM emissions are expected from vehicle traffic on the project’s unpaved onsite haul-roads, which appear to be accounted for in the PTI. Unpaved roads will be “sprayed with water or other wet substances as needed to suppress PM emissions” or paved. Explain whether dust from the EU haul road segments is included?
● PM emissions from vehicle traffic on the unpaved haul-roads do not include tailpipe emissions. Explain this.
Fugitive Dust Suppression
What is the source of the water to be used for dust suppression within the mine site? ● Water source for dust suppression should be repurposed from treated wastewater, rather than
groundwater from utility wells. ● Fugitive Dust Suppression plan does not address Malfunction Prevention and Abatement
Fugitive Dust - Track Out The PTI omits any discussion of TRACK OUT. Fugitive emissions from industrial haul road “track out” must be anticipated. This will include track-out spread onto River Road and CR-356. “Track out” is an uncalculated fugitive emission source, and poses a risk to public safety and public health. According to the AQD’s “Managing Fugitive Dust: A Guide for Compliance with the Air Regulatory Requirements for Particulate Matter Generation”7, the proper management of track out must not be limited to the fenceline of an industrial property. In the case of the Breckenridge Sand Mine, an example cited by AQD, the facility includes “a sweeper (vehicle) which regularly cleans track out from the apron and paved area of the north access road. This sweeper also travels onto Poplar Road and cleans portions of that road which may be subject to track out. The sweeper operates at these locations every time it rains.” Track out fugitive emissions and a track out management plan should be included in the Air PTI.
Truck Washing Truck washing facility onsite: Truck washing is mentioned but where is it to be located? and will the mine site also handle the routine servicing of the returning concentrate trucks, ore truck refuelling, truck maintenance and other needs? In the case of Eagle Mine in Northern Marquette County, truck washing (misting of tires) was included in the permit, but the mine’s trucking contractor built a separate truck facility on nearby private forest land, down the road from the Eagle Mine site. This facility is a cautionary tale: it effectively expands the industrial footprint of the mine by several miles, creating a trail of light pollution, noise pollution, transportation emissions, and related air pollution (the track out is routinely spread between truck facility and Eagle Mine).
7 "Managing Fugitive Dust - State of Michigan." https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-ead-caap-genpub-FugDustMan_313656_7.pdf. Accessed 22 Jul. 2019.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 17 of 42
Of specific concern: the truck maintenance facility for Eagle Mine is located on a dirt road. Every ore truck (returning empty) visits this facility just prior to reaching the gate of the mine. Track out from the mine site (by departing ore trucks) is an ongoing issue. Fugitive dust and track-out are serious problem, underestimated by the PTI. There is paved county road between the truck maintenance site and the mine, but pavement is generally covered with dust and dirt from the truck facility — wet when muddy, and dusty when dry. In the Eagle Mine PTI, there appears to be no condition to calculate or control these mine emissions. How will this be addressed in the Aquila Back Forty PTI?
● Emissions should include ETUC: “3.7. Road Dust Refers to particulate matter (PM) that is suspended into the atmosphere through the interaction of a moving vehicle and the road surface. Road dust as measured by a mobile monitor through the means described here is further restricted to PM that is less than 10 microns (PM10), less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and coarse particles (PM10-2.5) that is suspended into the atmosphere as a consequence of the interaction of vehicle tires with the road surface.” 8
○ AQD has stated: “(b) The concentrate haul trucks, which are the primary traffic into and out of the facility, must be washed before leaving the concentrate building. All vehicles that have been in areas where they may come into contact with ore or concentrate must go through a wheel wash before leaving the facility. In addition, roadways, parking lots, and truck staging areas routinely travelled by concentrate haul trucks and delivery trucks are required to be paved. Therefore, the potential for material to be tracked out of the facility onto public roads is minimal and evaluating roadways outside the facility is not necessary.
Emissions - Concentrate Handling
● According to the PTI Application Modification dated 2018-11-21, “The concentrate will contain approximately 8-10% moisture.” Explain the reduction in moisture of concentrate?
● Elsewhere, the applicant states that concentrate will contain more moisture: “concentrate handling occurs within enclosed buildings, which will minimize the emissions to the ambient air from concentrate handling... Special Condition number V.2 of FGCONC.”
● Emissions will be produced by handling/load-out. The applicant claims that metallic (copper-lead-zinc) concentrates and (gold-silver) dore in the load-out facility will NOT require dust controls despite producing particulate emissions because the inherent “moisture content” of the concentrated metals will minimize fugitive emissions. Their claim is unsubstantiated.
● Applicant claims that an average moisture content of the metallic concentrate (10-12% or as low as 8% depending on which permit file is consulted) will effectively inhibit PM emissions at loading. Applicant underestimates the potential for emissions: 10-12% moisture will not effectively limit PM emissions. For purposes of comparison: the average moisture content of a bag of commercial flour is 14% moisture, higher than the expected moisture content of the metallic concentrate — yet flour readily produces a significant cloud of airborne particulate dust during normal handling (indoors, without wind) despite its higher moisture. The toxicity of the concentrate emissions (metallic concentrate containing lead, zinc, cobalt, and other contaminants of concern) is unconsidered:
○ Applicant states that “(12) Emissions from the concentrate load-out area in the flotation building include particulate emissions from dropping flotation concentrate from hopper into super sacks. This emission source is minimal due to enclosure the drop point and the fact the material is 10-12% moisture. It is nonetheless included in air dispersion modeling to be conservative. For purposes modeling, it is assumed it would be volume source that includes just the south end of the building.
8 "Method to Quantify Road Dust Particulate Matter Emissions from ... - EPA." 15 Jan. 2014, https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm34.pdf. Accessed 16 Jun. 2019.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 18 of 42
Emissions from Tailings (TMF) From the March 2019 PTI Response to Add. Info “Tailings and Waste Rock Management - Wind Erosion and Material Transfer” (p. 38):
● “Tailings will be deposited in the Tailings Management Facility (TMF) on the central portion of the facility (Figure 3-2). Both oxide and flotation mill tailings will be deposited together into the TMF. The TMF will be constructed in lifts. The berm for the tailings impoundment portion will be constructed of waste rock from the pit. Tailings will be pumped from the mills in a water-saturated state (approximately 80% solids) and the tailings will be generally covered with water in the TMF.”
● Aquila Back Forty spokesman Dan Blondeau (February 2019) stated there would NOT be a pond inside the TMF. This suggests there would be no water cover for the tailings at any time (which could reduce emissions and potential reactivity, as described in the Air PTI). Which claim is true? If there is no pond or water cover, the PTI calculations for fugitive dust must be reconsidered.
● “The most effective way of restricting the exposure of reactive wastes to oxygen is to deposit them permanently under water, a technique that succeeds because of the limited amount of dissolved oxygen in water. However, water covers are only viable when an assured supply or storage of water is available. For surface reactive waste storages, this will require valley containment in a catchment of sufficient size to maintain a water cover over the wastes, incorporating a water dam and spillway.”9 In the case of the Back Forty TMF, the various permits seem to agree that there will not be a permanent water cover over the tailings to keep them from reacting with oxygen and producing acidic leachate. Applicant should explain what the Back Forty spokesman means, in context with the permits. If the water cover does not remain, are the emissions calculated properly for the various TMF Stages? (potential for windborne emissions will increase as water cover is lost).
Conflicting “Moisture” claims are found the R-AIR Permit Application Modification 2018-11-21: ● The applicant claims “The tailings are thickened to approximately 66% moisture content. The thickened
tailings are then pumped to the TMF” (p. 20). ● The applicant also claims “when saturated, tailings will have approximately 20% water content” (p. 27). ● Subsequently, Aquila Back Forty spokesman Dan Blondeau (February 2019) said that the tailings will not
be liquid. Explain which of these various claims is true. ○ How can tailings be “66% moisture” and “80% solids” simultaneously? ○ Is “20% water content” the same as “66% moisture content”? ○ At what moisture content are tailings considered “liquid”? ○ Which figure (20%? 66%?) was used for moisture content in determining the TMF’s potential to
emit (EUTMF, EUWRF, and FGFUGITIVES)?
● Water is the only control discussed for fugitive emissions in the TMF during mining and milling operation. Explain the source of the water to be used for dust control (groundwater? treated wastewater?).
● The source of the water used for dust suppression should be a special permit condition, to avoid wasteful use and degradation of clean groundwater resources.
● Previously, the applicant claimed that wind-borne erosion would not be a problem, assuming “98% control due to formation of crust layer on exposed tailings area and remaining moisture in material.
https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-04/lpsdp-a-guide-to-leading-practice-sustainable-development-in-mining-handbook-engli sh.pdf
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 19 of 42
9
Exposure to wind erosion is also reduced by placing tailings in layers between waste rock layers and is below-surface of a berm formed by waste rock materials.” 10
● The applicant “anticipates” and “estimates” and “expects” a great deal of ideal scenarios, including the creation of a hard pan (crust formation) atop the tailings, regardless of the many design changes made to the tailings facility. In the Dam Safety permit, the applicant repeatedly downplays the amount of supernatant pore water (tailings pond); while in the Air permit, the applicant suggests that the tailings will remain moist or water-covered in order to limit wind erosion and fugitive emissions from the TMF. The applicant makes numerous conflicting statements about the nature of the tailings; it is impossible to assess these claims.
● This is no longer the situation. Tailings will not be contained between waste rock layers. Tailings and waste rock will have greater exposure to wind erosion. Explain how the potential to emit has been updated?
The applicant states “Drying may occur in inactive sections of the tailings impoundment, however it is anticipated that a crust layer will form over the dried portions of the tailings area. While no particulate emissions will occur in active tailings areas due to the high moisture content as the material is pumped into the basin, some particulate emissions may occur in inactive areas due to wind erosion. To be conservative, wind erosion will be estimated based on this area. It is estimated that at maximum, approximately 112,500 square meters of exposed tailings beach would be present at Stage 4 of the TMF.”
● What is the expected geochemical composition of the crust? Explain the nature of the “crust layer” expected to form on exposed tailings and virtually eliminate wind erosion of tailings. How long will crust formation take? Will there be a biological component? Will neutralizing lime, organic material such as waste treatment sludge, or other substances be added to aid crust-formation in this surface layer? If the crust layer doesn’t form as planned, how will emissions from “Wind Erosion (tails)” change (increased, or decreased emissions?.
● Were calculations offered, modeling the anticipated wind erosion of tailings, with and without the expected “crust”?
● Due to significant design changes made in facility plan of the Mine Permit Amendment, the new TMF design no longer reduces “exposure to wind erosion... by placing tailings in layers between waste rock layers.”
● Waste rock will be largely segregated in other waste rock facilities and backfilled into the mine pit. Explain how TMF emissions changed based on the updated total volume of tailings expected to be produced and stored in the TMF (a total tailings reduction from 5.1 Mm3 to 4.9 Mm3).
● There appears to be a substantial increase in the quantity of exposed waste rock (no longer covered by wet tailings) which will be incorporated into the TMF. Waste rock, demonstrated elsewhere in the Permit to Install, has an extremely low moisture content and will be subject to wind erosion and water transport of metals.
● If tailing deposition is halted during the expected life of mine (for example, a period of idled operations) and decant water drains from the tailings, how will fugitive emissions from dusting be controlled? Permit should explicitly address this scenario.
What is the expected geochemical composition of the tailings? Under the new MPAA, the oxide and flotation tailings will be mixed and stored together in the TMF. Clarity is needed — which of the applicant’s previous geochemistry reports were used as the basis for determining the expected chemistry of tailings and potential emissions from the TMF?
10 http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aps/downloads/permits/Aquila/PTI%20205-15%20Final%20Emission%20Calculations.pdf#page=1
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 20 of 42
Mining Permit Amendment Application MP 01 2016
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Fails to Consider “Affected Area”
The applicant has too narrowly interpreted the “Affected Area” in order to exclude from their EIA analysis the impacts to adjacent properties, nearby lands/waters, and other areas which will be impacted by the proposed mining operations.
MCL 324.63201(b): Part 632 defines “Affected area” as “an area outside of the mining area where the land surface, surface water, groundwater, or air resources are determined through an environmental impact assessment to be potentially affected by mining operations within the proposed mining area.”
● Spring Lake, a few miles south of the mine site, in the Shakey Lakes) will be degraded by mercury: according to the Mine Permit Amendment EIA - Depositional Analysis, Updated depositional analysis describes mercury impacts to water from airborn deposition. This is expected to result in a 21% increase in mercury over baseline for Spring Lake, one of the Shakey Lakes. Explain - how is this safe?
● Wetlands contiguous with or adjacent to the mine site have not been properly evaluated under “affected area.” Wetland impacts will extend beyond the mine’s fenceline (drawdown).
○ An objection letter from EPA (March 2018) cited “Aquila’s failure to adequately characterize secondary impacts to wetlands and “lacks information regarding the extent of wetlands that will be impacted by the project and how these wetlands will be affected by the proposed project's Menominee River drawdown of some 125,000 gallons per day.”
● Wisconsin landowners on the Menominee River who live opposite the open pit mine have not been adequately considered in the “Affected Area.” EIA should be expanded to properly include a variety of environmental impacts to natural resources in this area (noise, airborne deposition of toxic materials, vibrations, aesthetic impacts, threats to river tourism, degradation of river corridor, wildlife etc.)
Part 632 - Transportation Concerns
River Road “Proposed Realignment”
As pointed out in our previous comments on the MPAA, mine site diagrams show “realignment” for a short section of River Road north of the open pit, north of the proposed termination of River Road.11 This section of River Road has not been identified as a potential access road for the mine, or a future “north access gate” location. The applicant controls the surface property in this area, however, and has identified additional underground resources. Cultural resources are present in this area. Roadside utilities serving local residents may also be present. Explain the purpose of the realignment of this segment of River Road (screenshot below, with segment of “realignment” circled):
11 Back Forty Project Figure 1-2 “Existing and Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations, Environmental Monitoring Plan” February 2019
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 21 of 42
Misrepresentation of Eastern Transportation and Utilities Corridor (ETUC) ● The MPAA proposed decision refers to the ETUC as an ‘option’ but it is described differently in other
permits. The Air Permit to Install assumes that the road will be built, which minimizes the environmental impacts by shortening haul distances between concentrate load-out area and the Eastern mine gate. The applicant’s claims are unsubstantiated.
● ETUC is not defined as “option” but as the intended mine site access —the River Road site access used for the first phase only (and then abandoned as the pit expands), switching to the ETUC gate during second or third year of mining operations. This is unsubstantiated.
● State of Michigan cannot lawfully permit the Mine’s ETUC road plan as a component of the Mine Permit Amendment:
○ Aquila (and DEGLE) claim that ETUC would be a “public roadway.” But the purpose and intent of the ETUC road is clearly to service the Back Forty mine. The applicant proposes to pay for the construction and maintenance of the road, and the road would dead-end at the mine fenceline (no public access). The ETUC road would function as a long driveway for concentrate trucks leaving the facility.
○ The ETUC’s proposed concept, route, funding, and purpose are limited to connecting Back Forty truck traffic and utility lines to County Road 356.
○ The ETUC road doesn’t exist, and there are no plans to build it.. ○ Public road building requires land-use studies, and strategic planning by township and county
officials. The Menominee County Road Commission has expressed opposition to building the ETUC road, Lake Township is opposed to the ETUC. Historically, there is no demonstration of need for this “public road.”
○ Development of a new road through the Escanaba State Forest to serve the mine site should require pre-approval of the State of Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources, for the purposes of accurate permitting and environmental review. The MCRC has shown no interest in supporting the mine’s new Eastern Transportation and Utilities Corridor and both the township and road commission appear to oppose the planned abandonment of the River Road for the mine pit. Michigan law requires that such a corridor (haul road, specifically for utilities and also addressing transportation roads) be properly permitted under Part 632. This includes a complete review of all cumulative environmental impacts. It is unlawful to use permit segmentation or attribute the impacts of the corridor to another entity (road building contractor, road commission, or utility company); Part 632 clearly includes these as mining activities.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 22 of 42
Part 632 - Statutory Review of Transportation; Utilities
Under Part 632 rules, the “Eastern Transportation and Utilities Corridor” must be considered part of the “affected area” and all environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts, are to be considered related to construction of site access, impacts of site development and haul roads, new utilities or the extension of utilities to service a mine site. These impacts are not considered in the Mine Permit Amendment, and the new site access road is dismissed as an “alternative” several times, bypassing the EIA. The site access road is described in the Amended Contingency Plan, but it is omitted from the AIR permit.
Part 632’s clear statutory direction is to consider all areas that may be affected by mining operations. This includes the “area outside of the mining area” where “the land surface, surface water, groundwater, or air resources” are determined to be vulnerable to the impacts of the proposed mining operation. "But the applicant claims that a new access road to the site and new utilities to the mine are not part of the facility, because they extend beyond the fenceline. This is apparently the applicant’s justification for excluding the mine’s Eastern Transportation and Utilities Corridor from their revised EIA.
The applicant’s fundamental misapplication of the statute has contaminated all of the permits currently under review:
● The MPAA’s “Project Boundary” was reconfigured and substantially expanded in the MPAA mine site, but still includes land where minerals are controlled by the applicant but the surface is State-owned (this includes a portion of the proposed open pit shell design). This area was included in the EIA.
● The MPAA’s “Project Boundary” excludes the proposed access road to the mine site, identified as “the Eastern Transportation and Utilities Corridor” (ETUC) which the applicant is proposing to fund and maintain. Details are vague, but it is clear that the ETUC would be a new road, not aligned with existing forest trails, and new utilities would be installed in the same corridor.
● The applicant proposes that the ETUC be constructed on State-owned land — an area where the applicant controls mineral leases, but the State owns the surface.
○ The applicant wrongly claims that ETUC is not a haul road or access road. ETUC would be a new road directly connecting the Back Forty milling area with County Road 356.
○ According to the State of Michigan, BMPs related to dusting and track-out are required for industrial truck traffic on an “access road”12. The applicant has not provided this information.
○ During a pre-hearing webinar (June 18th 2019), an AQD staffer claimed that the emissions related to the project’s transportation and utility corridor were not considered because the applicant did not include the ETUC in their “project boundary” and because they do not control the surface of that property. This statement was incorrect. The ETUC property is similar in ownership to the State-owned land by the proposed mine pit, which was included in the Air Permit.
○ During a pre-hearing webinar (June 18th 2019), OGMD mining staff claimed that the project’s transportation and utility impacts “outside of the fenceline” are not considered under Part 632. This statement is incorrect.
● Environmental impacts of the ETUC (Fugitive Dust, VOCs etc.) should be included in the Air Permit. Applicant wrongly claims the corridor is “outside the fenceline” of the project, and the surface is not controlled by the applicant. Yet this (partial state ownership) appears to be the case with part of the proposed mine pit, as well; clearly the EIA and Air PTI were wrong in omitting these road segments.
12 https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/nps-access-road_332124_7.pdf
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 23 of 42
■ Site Constraints : Regulated wetlands were identified within the Project site, limiting the land available for the facilities and stockpiles. Due to these site constraints, it was important to reduce their footprint areas and to
keep them as close as possible to the mine pit and processing plant in order to reduce environmental impact
and haulage distances.
● The applicant has a long history of claiming that negative impacts to natural resources (air, scenic areas, threatened species, wetlands, groundwater) will end at the project boundary. In multiple permits, the applicant claims no significant potential for impacts beyond the site. But this is wrong, and violates the intent of Part 632, defines “affected area” and requires an assessment of environmental impacts of the mining project that extend beyond the mining site fenceline.
● There is significant potential for the Aquila Back Forty project to adversely impact natural resources beyond its fenceline.
Adverse Effect on Natural Resources and Public Trust §324.31514 requires “the department shall not issue a permit to construct a new dam (...) unless it determines, after a review of the application submitted, that the proposed activity for which a permit is requested will not have a significant adverse effect on public health, safety, welfare, property, or natural resources or the public trust in those natural resources.” The proposed Aquila Back Forty Tailings Management Facility (TMF) is a key component of the mine and would be authorized by the Dam Safety Permit under review. But it does not meet the fundamental statutory requirement under §324.31514. Health, safety, natural resources and public trust are clearly endangered by the proposed TMF, as designed, and the Dam Safety Permit cannot be lawfully issued.
The applicant claimed that the Back Forty facility design, especially the design of the TMF, was "constrained" by the presence of wetlands on the site, and that the new site design has “mitigated” (sic) the mine’s environmental footprint.
This claim is not justified. The facility’s footprint has expanded, not decreased, from 865 acres to “1087 acres (due to) increased area for tailings and waste rock storage and contact water storage capacity” (from the MPAA “Summary of Amendment Request Proposed Changes”).
In fact, the TMF’s location and design directly contribute to the Back Forty project's direct and indirect wetland losses; the applicant failed to consider reasonable alternatives to key site features, such as the siting of the TMF, which could have been constructed on uplands adjacent to the Project Area, avoiding or minimizing “significant adverse effect on (...) natural resources or the public trust in those natural resources.”
● In an objection letter (March 2018) the EPA found that Aquila failed to provide adequate support for their determination that “offsite upland alternatives for some mine features (e.g., tailings storage) are not practicable.”
● In the DEQ WRD’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, April 30, 2018.13 : The application has provided a feasible and prudent alternative analysis in their Least Environmental Damaging Practicable Alternative Analysis (LEDPA) report. The report outlines the conceptual alternatives that include onsite layout configurations and the requirements of offsite conceptual location. The application does not demonstrate and support the conclusions that no feasible and prudent alternative exists.”
13 http://bit.ly/Findings-of-Fact
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 24 of 42
(8) An alternative that entails higher costs, as described in R 28 l .922a(l I) of the Michigan administrative code, is not feasible and prudent if those higher costs are unreasonable. ln determining whether such costs are unreasonable, the department shall consider both of the following:
(a) The relation of the increased cost to the overall scope and cost of the project.
Finding: The application does not provide a cost analysis for the project or alternatives.
(b) Whether the projected cost is substantially greater than the costs normally associated with the particular type of project.
Finding: The application does not provide any cost analysis on the preferred alternative or as part of the LEDPA. The nature of the project is mining and it is reasonable to assume that cost associate with mining projects may be relevant to this project. When additional information was requested regarding the LED PA, the applicant provided a rebuttal to the suggestion of a feasible and prudent alternative of investigating the State of Michigan land to the east of the project site. (Please see Attachment D for notes on the economic analysis provided by the applicant and further investigation of cost associated with transportation of onsite ore.) The information provided in the rebuttal was speculative (based upon information that was provided in the application). Further investigation of the State of Michigan parcel to the east of the project site shows that the costs of this alternative would not be substantially greater than the cost normally associated with this pa11icular type of project.
(b) There are no feasible and prudent a lternatives to the proposed activity.
Finding: The application does not demonstrate the extent of the impacts that will be realized by the project. The application does not demonstrate that a feasible and prudent alternative for the full extent of the impacts does not ex ist.
Asked to explain their new TMF design, the applicant references their Wetland Permit, in which the revised/expanded facility design and the upstream TMF were first described, and alternatives dismissed.
In reviewing that permit, however, Water Resource staff determined that the Back Forty project “does NOT demonstrate that an unacceptable disruption to the aquatic resources of the State will not occur and that the activities associated with the project are NOT consistent with the permitting criteria for an acceptable impact to the resources regulated under Parts 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, and Part 303, Wetlands Protection.” DEQ WRD’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, April 30, 2018.14
In their Findings of Fact, the Water Resource Division staff rejected the applicant’s claims regarding LEDPA/Feasible and Prudent Alternatives:
Back Forty TMF would have a demonstrated adverse effect on Natural Resources and the Public Trust.
Tailings Management Concerns
The Aquila Back Forty Tailings Management Facility is designed to fail. In our previous comments on the Dam Safety Permit (submitted on July 4, 2019)15 we expressed critical concerns about the TMF including:
● effect on public health, safety, welfare, and property;
14 http://bit.ly/Findings-of-Fact 15 Mining Action Group, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition. July 4, 2019. Aquila Back Forty Project. Public Comments on the Dam Safety Permit. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O7mXh8VvyAEbtq0L1zeHRB9J_p5KkwJsopJgqdcTwSg/edit?usp=sharing
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 25 of 42
● adverse effect on natural resources and Public Trust; ● unsubstantiated claims of public benefit; ● inadequate project assessment; ● hazard classification; ● risk consequence rating; ● spillway design and flood of record; ● incomplete risk analysis; ● need for consolidation of tailings (post-closure); ● conflicting claims regarding the feasible alternatives analysis; ● extreme hazards associated with the 'upstream' design; ● Inadequate contingency planning; ● geotechnical factor of safety and risk; ● “design for closure” vs. the potential for expansion; ● supernatant tailings pond; ● applicant’s claims regarding “paste tailings storage” and misleading comparisons with the tailings
solutions implemented at Malartic Mine, Musselwhite Mine, and Neves-Corvo Mine; ● highly reactive nature of the waste and the extreme risk of groundwater contamination; ● underestimated cumulative impacts; ● incomplete analysis of “reasonable and foreseeable” impacts or actions including the likelihood that dam
walls would be raised to accommodate additional tailings, greatly increasing riskiness of the TMF.
See: MAG’s detailed comments pertaining to the Aquila Back Forty project’s Dam Safety Permit (7-4-19)
Spillway Design; Flood of Record
Spillway and TMF should be designed for “The emergency spillway, however, is not anticipated to be activated during the mine life because the TMF and decant area are designed to safely contain the 100-year, 24-hour storm.”
The “100-year 24-hour storm” should not be used for the design basis. According to“MCL 324.31516:“(e) Spillway design capacity shall not be less than the flood of record.” Explain in detail which Flood of Record event (date, location, how much precipitation) was used in risk-testing the design of the TMF (“spillway”).
● In the upper Midwest region “extreme precipitation has increased 37 percent from 1958 to 2012."16
● Official rain totals (as of 7AM July 12, 2016) in several northern Wisconsin and Minnesota cities neared the 10 inch mark, with Wascott, Wisconsin registering the highest amount at 10.0 inches exactly.17
● Saxon Harbor, where two creeks spill into Lake Superior, may have seen overall rainfall totals approaching 14 inches, which caused destructive flash flooding, costing millions of dollars in damage to infrastructure and leaving one person dead.(...) A wide swath of the Northwoods recorded rain totals nearing double digits with Wascott in Douglas County topping the official list at 11 inches, according to the National Weather Service.18
16 https://www.climatesignals.org/events/northern-wisconsin-and-minnesota-flood-july-2016 17 https://www.climatesignals.org/resources/map-top-rainfall-reports 18 https://www.climatesignals.org/node/3957
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 26 of 42
The failure of a tailings dam and the uncontrolled release ofthe impounded waste may have serious ,consequences for the public safety, the environment and the Owner or Operator. Some of the types of consequences can include the following:
• Economic Consequences: Included under th is headi1ng ar,e the costs of repair or reconstruction of the dam and impoundment and the effects on the operator of the faoility of a temporary lack of storage for waste.
• Public Safety: Public attention has increasingly focused on matters relating to safety and a hazard which may affect a large number of peopl,e in a single catastrophe is less acceptable than ev,ery day hazards which may in aggregate cause far more deaths but in each incident affect only one or two individuals.. An imposed and inv,oluntary exposure due to living close to some hazard is much less acceptable than a vo untary exposure to a high risk activity.
• Environmental Damage: The release of a substantial quantity of waste material which then flows ov,er a large ar,ea of surro unding ground may cause massive environmental damage, particu larly if the waste is toxic .. There are also risks associated with incr,emental events ov,er a longer term such as dust dispersion, groundwater contamination, landslide or gro und instability.
• The Risk Management process involv,es carrying out a Risk Assessment to assess the potential failure modes and consequences, a Risk Management Plan to reduce the risks through design or operations and a Contingency Plan to dev,elop an optimal response to failures.
● “The frequencies of heavy rain events (defined as occurring on average once per year during the past century) have doubled since the early 1900s (Kunkel et al, 1999).19
TMF - Risk Management; Satellite-based Monitoring
Given the riskiness of the site (Menominee River), the inexperience of the applicant, the reactive nature of the tailings, and the selection of the inherently risky ‘upstream’ design, the best available TMF monitoring technologies should be required. We recommend satellite-aided monitoring:
“The failures of tailings dams, used to store waste from mining operations, pose a significant risk to the health of people and the environment, especially in many low income countries where the extractive industry makes a significant contribution to the nation's wealth. Recently the rate of failure of tailings dams has increased. The demand for raw materials and increases in intense rainfall as a result of climate change will exacerbate this issue in the future. The monitoring of tailings dams is essential to reduce their probability of failure. Virtually all the recent tailings dams failures were preventable. However, there is generally a lack of transparency and accountability for these structures by mining companies. In the past 10 years an increase in the global coverage and accuracy of Earth Observation (EO) based information has made it technically possible to use EO-based data to remotely monitor critical aspects of tailings dams, such as their deformation and the leakage of pollutants. This paper describes the development of an EO-based service, being piloted in Peru, which would allow tailings dams to be monitored cost effectively,
19 https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/midwest-climate-impacts.pdf
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 27 of 42
and also help to forecast any potentially risk inducing behaviour from tailings dams several weeks in advance.”20
“Keeping these structures intact over many decades is challenging. The failure rate of tailings dams worldwide over the past 100 years has been estimated by Azam and Li (2010)(*) to be 1.2%, which is more than two orders of magnitude higher than the failure rate of conventional water retention dams which is reported to be 0.01% (1). Some 50% of serious tailings dam failures in the last 70 years occurred between 1990 and 2009 (2). These have resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives. The cost of catastrophic failures of tailing dams globally over the next ten years is predicted to be approximately US$6 billion (3).”
Satellite-based monitoring (such as DamSat) would enable real-time monitoring of the TMF during operation as well as during closure and post-closure — it is a “a cost effective service to help monitor operational, closed and abandoned tailings dams and storage facilities, especially those in remote locations, and to help forecast potentially catastrophic failures.”21
Following the collapse of tailings dams in Brazil, the government has signed a memorandum of understanding with Inmarsat to investigate options for improving dam monitoring and reporting:
including potential use of the smart monitoring IoT and a satellite technology to provide real-time data on the structural integrity of tailings dams to mining companies and regulators. Inmarsat said connected sensors gathered data, such as piezometric pressure, pond elevation, local weather conditions and inclinometer readings, which was then aggregated and transferred via its global L-band network to a cloud-based dashboard. "The information presented in the dashboard provides the necessary transparency for mining companies, auditors and regulators to make faster and smarter decisions, improve safety standards and helps support regulatory compliance," the company said. Inmarsat president Paul Gudonis said the safety of tailings dams was a long-standing issue in the mining industry.
TMF - Global Crisis of Tailings Dam Failures
Since the applicant prepared their MPAA, tailings dam disasters have forced an international conversation on tailings storage. Brazil is the newest country to ban the 'upstream' design, and major mining companies are reexamining their widespread use of this risky TMF design.
TMF - Another significant tailings dam failure: Cobriza Mine22
Another significant TMF failure has occurred – this time at Doe Run’s Cobriza mine in Peru. The Cobriza mine switched to thickened tailings 15 years ago after it encountered “permitting difficulties” due to mine waste storage limitations —in short, the TMF was reaching capacity. Thickened tailings allowed the tailings dam to accept more waste, with less water. The safety of the Cobriza tailings dam was analysed and certified by the German firm Tüv Süd.
20 "The potential to reduce the risks posed by tailings ... - ScienceDirect.com." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420919302766. Accessed 22 Jul. 2019. 21 "Project overview – DAMSAT." https://tailingsdams.info/the-project/project-overview/. Accessed 23 Jul. 2019. 22 "Cobriza, Peru: another significant tailings dam failure - AGU ...." 16 Jul. 2019, https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2019/07/16/cobriza-mine-1/. Accessed 22 Jul. 2019.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 28 of 42
In 2018, Tüv Süd also certified that the Brumadinho tailings dam in Brazil was structurally sound, when documents show they knew it was vulnerable to collapse. Tüv Süd selected “optimistic parameters” and added special conditions to the certification: “making it, for example, dependent on there being no explosions around the site -unlikely in mining country. This enabled them to sign it off despite its weakness.”23 The Brumadinho tailings dam collapsed in January 2019.
Cobriza is similar to the Back Forty project in several regards: the mine and mill sites, perched next to major rivers, are constrained by the terrain. Cobriza’s ore contains copper, zinc, silver, gold and a variety of other metals, complicating their milling processes. The mine switched to “thickened tailings” in order to save space, but despite implementing their thickened tailings solution, the Cobriza TMF failed, sending a large quantity of liquid (slurry) tailings into the nearby river. The Cobriza mine had a history of discharging mine tailings directly into the river prior to 2004. 24
Cobriza adopted a thickened (paste) tailings solution — extremely similar to what Aquila is now proposing. Like Aquila, Cobriza’s owner Doe Run also placed great faith in new mining technologies, proudly describing their implementation of tailings thickening to limit the environmental footprint, and their implementation of milling
23 "Brazil dam: How German firm approved Brazil dam before ... - BBC.com." 17 Jul. 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48948775. Accessed 22 Jul. 2019. 24 "Cobriza, Peru: another significant tailings dam failure - AGU ...." 16 Jul. 2019, https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2019/07/16/cobriza-mine-1/. Accessed 22 Jul. 2019.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 29 of 42
updates intended to lower airborne discharges of toxic lead, zinc and mercury and reduce the lead exposure of their employees. Because these technologies were expensive, however, the company was unable to fully fund their remediation goals, and their closure plan. Yet Doe Run’s asset development director Chris Neaville praises
25:their commitment to remediation funding
“Mining companies’ practices for mine waste often mean that chat and tailings, the leftover materials from the milling process, are placed in piles and impoundments next to their operations (...) In the future, mining operations won’t need remediation, because we plan for a location’s closure before mining even begins, setting aside money to prepare it for future use and storing waste in a responsible way as we mine.”
Cobriza’s tailings dam was highlighted as a success story: “Cobriza was able to overcome an environmental problem in strict accordance to government PAMA1 regulations and has been able to maintain the current mine operation by successfully installing the first paste surface disposal system in South America. Rheological requirements, design engineering, implementation – optimization and operating philosophy are thoroughly presented. Economic project impact issues are analyzed as well as technical and social aspects, and how all these, intimately correlate for an efficient operation.” 26
Following the failure of the Cobriza tailings dam, environmental regulators in Peru have ordered the company to immediately remove tailings from the river: “After the supervision actions, the Environmental Evaluation and Inspection Agency (OEFA) ordered the mining company Doe Run Peru to collect the tailings, clearing and dragging material of the Mantaro river in Huancavelica after the emergency occurred on July 10... the mining company has a maximum period of 20 business days to carry out the actions.”27
As of 2018, however, the mine was in dire financial straits and facing liquidation; it is extremely likely that Doe Run will be able to fund environmental clean-up and remediation costs required for the tailings dam failure at Cobriza. The mining company’s website features a document called “The Truth About Cobriza” which states that “due to the difficult ground topography... tailings were directly discharged into the Mantaro river for 40 years. Now they are disposed of in high density form in waterproof deposits built with high technical and safety standards, safeguarding a cleaner Mantaro river for the surrounding communities.”
According to Doe Run, “The most important achievements in copper mine management have been in the aspects of environment and safety. In environmental management, it completed its 4 PAMA projects in June of 2004, the tailings disposal project being the most significant, ending 36 years of contamination of the Mantaro River.” And “Our environmentally responsible management in our operations (Cobriza and Oroya)... No environmental impact. We do not pollute any river.”
Tailings Management Alternatives - Dry Stack Analysis Incomplete
Tailings alternatives analysis was incomplete, as it failed to evaluate technically feasible solutions that would have fewer environmental impacts and smaller facility footprint. The applicant considered conventional and paste thickening solutions but there was no serious evaluation of dry-stacking. Traditional slurry tailings include tailings water and create wastewater management, dam capacity and long-term stability concerns. When reviewing their
25 https://doerun.com/media/news/historic-site-remediation-preparing-for-the-future/ 26 Gonzales, V 2005, 'Cobriza’s cu Tailings Surface Stacking A Successful story', in R Jewell & S Barrera (eds), Proceedings of the International Seminar on Paste and Thickened Tailings, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 261-270. 27 https://diariocorreo.pe/peru/oefa-ordena-doe-run-recoger-el-relave-y-desmonte-del-rio-mantaro-huancavelica-899496/
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 30 of 42
,,,. r .... , n Met&I~' L ·,der ;; ·oun:: t, ine. 11· , ti lliJred 1ai in;;" t:,_,- 1 rm lhi!-
i: ·1!-:i !iltll'9' ~ !>:l:11:I ::~ !! ~ r..:I, ·.-.i ll b:: li".J r. Oiti!cl lfl 11'11~ dry sti.:itk. ;• ·r.rn. 1 ,:tr ltu~ I· 1:v?:s!-:i n.1 p laril. T·m'I :n!:t ~ I in,:;k.J •: a gra,., il !f
d:.!li:i.!1:JC !-: :f.ib:!n la calc,:I .,..t,; !!ol:\fCl r 1n:ii!1lum m:r:,··1!-:, in lh1~ '! ;• lirg!i
ir ~" r.::Lilim i:•:md!;, w1i1:h v,• I ~m ti :y r:h:-d b ack :i la lhr~ i:rs:o :!!i !-:i1"9
p_.1~ . Th1! d i)' !,l.tr.k m;Jtr.:i:-! 'Aili b1! o:1n ~ 11:l~ 1 b ~!rua1m ~! .?.:dirty, ;nrl
!hr.- ~ ;!di: 11!1 .1vr:, UT! ,1m1.nrJ 1 ?:~, i l!(]I, .::::n ~i!.ln t · r. ln •:0 1, ";! :tr~ m lhr.:.rm.,,.
B:NE T3
~ S1EKJl9 9'1ruoo.ire- rre ;"IS m;, d .. rn. e.M ITO possib e @II 7!18 c'.am aJ lur
• Thtl' w,:1 tor ., rer~ l(!d ir;;rn th h~ 1r).J pror, to ~ :ilo lhlJ: (try
~Gk .;rlen!;l l IS rBJ;'fQOO j-!) ! l"e pror, "1!'j1 ~;;int lc"CI 6d loop I
• S1,!Qlll!rl l,1i lrl:J !I. 'i!o; I bl!· pl:1cr. rl ;:,n ;• I :ir.:-, rn.::l.11 ·id r.,n ti:1 p ,11r:
n:!t -."'1 "'1 il .im: vr.gr.-t·111nn
M T::!! iin;;~ .,. I br~ ·c :: lairu!d in :; l,!1-;Jl:I!i , n :: a ,11 aua: - :, p ·o::1:~
~ lk:rJ F "D:Jrr~a.1 rr~ ,11 ·11 ar
~ SJ9 -~ml~ small holptim lfl;:!;:) O!'J ril't.!rr.ianal ..., ts il :'1(:1:l
~ rage-
tailings management options – thickened or paste tailings, and dry stack tailings – mining companies tend to select the cheapest option. In the case of Back Forty, it appears that dry-stacking is the most costly option, and was dismissed from consideration prematurely for this reason. Other regional polymetallic mining projects are proposing the use of dry-stacked tailings,
“The developer of a controversial mine proposed to be built on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters says it will use a new, potentially safer method of storing mine waste than what is typically used in similar mines. Twin Metals Minnesota announced Thursday it intends to use an approach known as “dry stack” to store the finely ground tailings (...) Twin Metals announced the project update Thursday, months ahead of the anticipated release of its formal mine plan of operation, which will trigger a long environmental review and permitting process. The announcement is significant because environmental groups pushed another company, PolyMet Mining, to use dry stacking at the copper-nickel mine it is planning to build just south of the Twin Metals site in northeastern Minnesota, saying it’s the best available technology to protect northeastern Minnesota’s water-rich environment from potential pollution.”
Regional environmentalists, and two mines (Polymet and Twin Metals) are now claiming that “dry stacking” is the best environmental option for protecting a “water-rich” environment. There may be significant advantages in this method, including a reduction in the mobility of hazardous species like cyanide or sulfides.
While significant concerns remain with this method (and the inherent risks of polymetallic sulfide ore), the dry-stacking alternative should be reassessed for the Back Forty, given the touted benefits of stability, closed loop water treatment, and smaller environmental footprint.
TMF Stability - Compaction Methods
Other methods of stabilizing and condensing tailings within the Back Forty TMF were apparently not considered. These include actions that could be completed between raises (design phases) of the TMF, to expel trapped pore
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 31 of 42
A Peruvian lead/zinc mine recent! im lemented a stacking system utilizing an Eimco DCT. his plant started up at the beginning of 2004 and has been very successful. The plant was having a problem with their dischar e ermit, forcin a revamP. of their disP.osal methodology. he options studied were a new tailings pond, thickener/filter combination, and a new paste thickener. The paste thickener was selected and installed. Startup was in early 2004. Discharge solids concentrations are in-line with expectations, operating at roughly 4,400 tpd. The disposal area is achieving an excellent beach slope (see Figure 4) .
Figure 4: Cobriza tailings deposit.
28
waters in the tailings and increase the stability before adding further material: deep dynamic compaction (blasting), vibratory compaction (mechanical) and other methods. Unfortunately, these methods may have been dismissed as too costly. Such short-term thinking is evident in the “Cobriza Tailings Thickener Rehabilitation Study”
“Prior to joining Tierra Group, our Team investigated the failure mode for a 10-m diameter conventional tailings thickener and determining the feasibility of rehabilitating it. Activities included on-site forensic investigations and site surveying. A failure mode analysis determined unsuitable foundation preparation led to the thickener settling. Ground modification alternatives such as deep dynamic compaction, vibratory compaction, and pre-consolidation were determined to be economically unfeasible. Recommendations were made to replace the conventional thickener with a high capacity, cone thickener.”
Two decades after this study dismissed compaction options and opted for thickening, the Cobriza tailings dam collapsed.
Part 632 - Burden of Proof The applicant is seeking a mining permit under Part 632. Under MCL 324.63205(3), the applicant bears the burden of proving that the mining project will satisfy applicable requirements, including that the project will proceed in ways minimizing adverse impacts on the environment:
“The applicant has the burden of establishing that the terms and conditions set forth in the permit application; mining, reclamation, and environmental protection plan; and environmental impact assessment will result in a mining operation that reasonably minimizes actual or potential adverse impacts on air, water, or other natural resources and meets the requirements of this act.”
The Part 632 permit application fails to demonstrate that the proposed plan “reasonably minimizes” either the actual or potential adverse impacts to air, water and other natural resources. Specifically, the mine facility includes
28 https://www.tierragroupinternational.com/project/mina-cobriza-tailings/
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 32 of 42
Comment #15: Part 632, R409(i)(F) requires a cover to be employed to isolate the reactive materials from precipitation and air as soon as practicable. While it may not be practicable to cover the waste rock and ore during operations, especially with an operations period of only 7 years, provide plans for covering these materials should production be idled.
Response to Comment #15: Ore on the ore pad represents a mined resource. If the decision were made to idle production, it is expected that the ore would be milled first before shutting down the Processing Plant.
It is not practicable to cover the waste rock faci lities while they are actively being used, particularly since the LOM plan is to relocate the waste rock back into the open pit at permanent closure. If production was idled, Aquila would continue to monitor and collect the leachate at the base of the TMF, North Waste Rock Facility (NWRF) and the South Waste Rock Facility (SWRF) and to treat it as necessary.
a redesigned tailings impoundment for the permanent onsite storage of reactive metallic tailings. The applicant claims that the structure’s design and placement minimizes the footprint of the facility, but comparison with the applicant’s original Mining Permit (issued 2016)and the revised facility design provided in the applicant’s Wetlands Permit (issued 2018) makes it clear that the mine site increased dramatically between the permit and the proposed amendment: the design of the TMF does NOT minimize the environmental footprint.
The proposed design and construction of the tailings impoundment structure (TMF) requires a Dam Safety Permit from the Water Resources Division; no proposed decision has been reached. The proposed TMF is to be constructed using reactive waste rock. (77% of waste rock is acid-generating), and almost ALL of the tailings will be acid-generating. The tailings will be pumped in a wet slurry, which is expected to drain through the walls of the waste rock berm, requiring collection and treatment of leachate. Walls of the TMF are also acid-generating and expected to contain high quantities of (leachable) toxic metals. According to the 2018 Technical Report, “kinetic testing showed waste rock and tailings readily leaching a variety of metals.”
Special Permit Condition - Covering of Reactive Materials
Regarding the Design of the Tailings Management Facility, Waste Rock Facilities, Ore Storage Areas, and Overburden Stockpile, Volume I, Appendix C: 15. Part 632, R409(i)(F) requires a cover to be employed to isolate the reactive materials from precipitation and air as soon as practicable. The State asked the company, “While it may not be practicable to cover the waste rock and ore during operations, especially with an operations period of only 7 years, provide plans for covering these materials should production be idled.” The company’s response is that they would NOT plan on covering these areas if the mining is suspended, that it would not be practical.
Ignoring the clear response of the applicant, the proposed decision lists implementation of a “cover” as a special condition:
“SPC L18A: If mining operations are suspended, or are expected to be suspended, for a continuous period exceeding 90 days, a cover shall be employed to isolate materials determined to be reactive as defined by R425.103(j) from precipitation and air as soon as practicable, as required by R425.404(i)(F).”
Explain how this special condition will be enforced since the applicant has already declared that it is not practical (financially or technically feasible)?
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 33 of 42
Comment #27: Module 2, Table 2-2, Swface Water - For consistency with the NP DES ejjluent water quality monitoring, provide a revised Table 2-2 to include the following additional parameters: Barium, Beryllium, Boron, Total Chromium, Hexavalent Chromium, Total Cobalt, Lithium, Molybdenum, Strontium, Thallium, and Vanadium. See item #38 regarding detection levels.
Response to Comment #27: Table 2-2 is consistent with the proposed ambient water quality parameter list contained in the NPDES Pe1mit Fact Sheet (see Attachment 27). As such, Aquila proposes to keep Table 2-2 as is to maintain consistency with the ambient water quality monitoring requirements contained in the NPDES Permit. Note that the parameters cited in this comment wi ll be monitored in the effluent as noted in the comment. If the need ever arises to add these parameters to the ambient water quali ty parameter list, MDEQ has the authority under the Part 632 Permit to require the additional parameters .
Environmental Monitoring - Surface Water Quality
We repeat the request (Comment #27, below) that additional monitoring parameters (barium, beryllium, boron, total chromium, hexavalent chromium, total cobalt, lithium, molybdenum, strontium, thallium, and vanadium) be added for surface water quality at this time, especially as no third-party independent monitoring program has been proposed, and because it is difficult to add monitoring parameters under Part 632 revisions.
Financial Assurances Underestimated; Disaster Response
● The Mine Permit (issued 2016) established required up-front financial assurances but the amount was underestimated, as it was calculated prior to the complete redesign of the mine facility plan. Under the proposed MPAA, the financial assurances should be substantially increased in light of the following risk-related factors:
○ The operational plan calls for extraction at a rate that will outpace processing, resulting in the stockpiling of sulfide ore on the surface. The applicant describes ‘preferential processing’ which indicates that high-grading of the ore will be taking place (richest ore processed first).
○ High-grading approach results in wasteful pit shell design which has been “optimized” to exclude some resources (lowering waste rock production or emissions in favor of faster extraction).
○ The applicant claims that the redesign and placement of the tailings management facility has been done to minimize the environmental impacts — but the tailings waste footprint has actually expanded (“Overall facilities footprint has increased from 350 hectares (865 acres) to 440 hectares (1087 acres), primarily due to separating storage of waste rock and tailings.”)29
○ Wetlands impacts increased over originally estimates and greater drawdown loss is expected due to uncertainties about the groundwater modeling which applicant revealed during the permitting process, 2017-2018.
○ The tailings dam is proposed to be constructed using the riskiest (‘upstream’) engineering method, even as countries are banning this impoundment design. As global mining companies have been reviewing their global mining facilities and publishing tailings dam risk assessments, it is evident that ‘upstream’ dams are the cheapest and least safe tailings dams, with human life/environmental risk classifications of VERY HIGH or EXTREME.
29 Aquila Resources Back Forty Amendment Application – Proposed Decision
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 34 of 42
The financial assurance estimate includes an allowance of$ IO.3M for postclosure monitoring and maintenance for the Life of Mine (LOM) operating period, which includes an allowance of $2.6M for 25 years of postclosure water treatment. This cost item is labeled as ' Closure WWTP ' in the financial assurance cost estimate provided in Appendix Hof the MPAA, and it accounts for the costs of the Operations WWTP at the onset of Phase 3 of reclamation. During this phase, the TMF and Contact Water Basin (CWB) will be dewatered prior to commissioning of the Closure WWTP. The $2.6M allowance for postclosure water treatment was based on the water treatment unit cost in the project cost model and conservatively addresses the treatment costs for average annual postclosure TMF seepage rates predicted in Section 11.4.2 in Appendix C of the MPAA. The costs to treat the final major flux of water during the first year of Phase 3 reclamation is estimated to be $422,000. As seepage subsides in Year 2 and Year 3 of Phase 3 reclamation, the annual water treatment costs decrease to $140,000 and $56,000, respectively. In summary, the $2.6 allowance for postclosure water treatment in the financial assurance cost estimate for the LOM operation period accounts for the treatment of the final major flux of water from the TMF and CWB at the onset of Phase 3 of reclamation and 25 years of postclosure water treatment. This includes operation of the Closure WWTP following decommissioning of the Operations WWTP.
○ The applicant dismissed all other technically feasible LEDPA alternatives; selecting the only option deemed economically feasible.
○ Phase 3 reclamation costs ($2.6M including 25 years of postclosure water treatment)30 is not conservative, but rather woefully underestimated.
○ Any breach or failure of the TMF would result in catastrophic releases of tailings to the Menominee River. Financial assurances, in light of the risky “upstream tailings dam” design and the thickened tailings deposition method, must be increased by an order of magnitude.
Gossan - Milled or “Removed as Ore”?
This question has not been satisfactorily answered. More information: GOSSAN is one of 13 rock lithologies within the Back Forty orebody. The question refers to the MPA and MPAA which describe shipping of concentrates and dore. The extraction or shipping of whole ore is not described. But according to the 2015 Mine Permit Application “Geochemical Investigation Report” (Vol. IA, p. 9):
“Results presented for static, kinetic, and mineralogical tests are in good agreement. Based on static testing results, four of the 13 lithologies are not expected to generate acidity; their drainage pHs remained neutral over two years of kinetic testing. The remaining eight lithologies that underwent kinetic testing, representing 77 percent (%) of the total waste rock, are expected to generate acidity and low pH leachate has been observed in kinetic their tests. The GOSSAN did not undergo kinetic tests because it will be removed as ore rock. All tailings samples are expected to generate acidic leachate, and after over two years of kinetic testing, 10 of the 11 samples produced leachate with pH below 3.”
According to this statement, GOSSAN was apparently excluded from the geochemical kinetic test, used to predict tailings reactivity. Why did the applicant claim that GOSSAN would be “removed as ore”? OGMD has since stated that no ore will be removed or shipped whole (without milling). Explain where this change is described.
GOSSAN (the 13th or ‘final’ lithology) was clearly excluded from the 2015 Mine Permit Application “Geochemical Investigation Report” kinetic test. Has it subsequently been retested? If so – where are the
30 Aquila Resources - Response to EGLE OGMD Additional Information Request 3-1-2019
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 35 of 42
Mineralization at the Back Forty deposit consists of discrete zones of: 1) zinc or copper-rich massive sulphide
(±lead), which may contain significant amounts of gold and silver, 2) stockwork stringer and peripheral sulphide,
which can be gold, zinc, and copper-bearing (±lead/silver), 3) precious meta l-only, low-sulphide mineralization,
and 4) oxide-rich, precious metal-bearing gossan.
geochemical/kinetic results for GOSSAN? Applicant should address the nature and fate of the GOSSAN lithology specifically.
In the 2019 document “Michigan Air Use Permit – Permit to Install Application No. 205-15A, Response to Michigan DEQ March 26 2019” the application refers to the National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report, UPDATED MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE AND TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE BACK FORTY PROJECT (February 6, 2018). This 2018 report ( NI 43-101) repeats the applicant’s Mine Permit Application claim concerning GOSSAN, with slight revisions:
“Results for static, kinetic, and mineralogical tests are in good agreement. Static testing showed four lithologies are not expected to generate acidity. Eight lithologies underwent kinetic testing, representing 77% of the total anticipated waste rock. Acidity and low pH leachate was observed in those kinetic tests. The final lithology was the gossan, which was not tested because it will be completely removed as ore. Tailings samples are expected to generate acidic leachate. Further, kinetic testing showed waste rock and tailings readily leaching a variety of metals.”
An additional sentence was added in Aquila’s 2018 report: “These results indicate the waste management structures will have to address the potentially acidic and metal leaching characteristics of the stored materials.” Clearly GOSSAN was “not tested” yet GOSSAN would contain high levels of precious metals, arsenic, mercury and other contaminants of concern. GOSSAN is mentioned 54 times in the “Back Forty Project Feasibility Study” report by Lycopodium Minerals August 2018, for example:
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 36 of 42
20.1.3 Geochemical Characterization of Water Rock and Tailings
In 2009, a detailed study was commissioned on the geochemistry of the waste rock and tailings that will be
generated from the mining operation. The study is documented in the Mining Permit Application (Foth, 2015b).
The Project has followed industry standards in relation to the characterization of waste streams, to assess the
potential for acid rock drainage and/or metal leaching (ARD/ML) from the anticipated waste materials. Static,
kinetic, and mineralogical testing programs have been completed, and the data from these studies are be ing
used to aid in the development of engineering plans for waste and water management facilities and
reclamation plans for the Project.
Thirteen lithologies have been identified at the site. The ARD/ML assessment of potential waste rock examined
(using primary and duplicate samples) 481 static samples and 40 kinetic and mineralogical samples. Eleven
tail ings samples representing early mill tailings streams, a duplicate, and composite streams from two
alternative mine designs were also tested using the same static, kinetic, and mineralogical test methods.
Results for static, kinetic, and mineralogical tests are in good agreement. Static testing showed four lithologies
are not expected to generate acidity. Eight lithologies underwent kinetic testing, representing 77% of the total
anticipated waste rock. Low pH leachate was observed in those kinetic tests. The final lithology is the gossan,
which was not tested because it will be completely removed as ore. Tailings samples are expected to generate
acidic leachate. Further, kinetic testing showed waste rock and tailings readily leaching a variety of metals.
These results indicate the waste management structures will have to address the potentially acidic and metal
leaching characteristics of the stored materials.
○ Explain why GOSSAN was excluded from waste rock kinetic testing. ○ The 2018 Feasibility Report repeats the 2015 claim that GOSSAN will be “completely removed as
ore” (hence not tested for tailings reactivity). ○ If GOSSAN will be blasted/crushed and concentrated at the Back Forty mill, it will end up in the
mixed tailings stream, and be deposited in the TMF. ○ According to detailed plans (Lycopodium’s Project Feasibility Study, LOM Operating Costs, Table
1.6), all GOSSAN will be processed in the “Sulphide Plant” during the first three years of operation.
○ GOSSAN will be reactive. Explain whether additional geochemical testing is needed. ○ PINWHEEL GOSSAN is described as “auriferous” (containing a high grade of gold). It is also
described as rich in hematite, silver and copper.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 37 of 42
13.2 Previous Testwork
Several rounds of test ing were undertaken at various laboratories prior to the most recent phase of study. A
summary of the programs and results are described in the subsections below, as extracted from the original
metallurgical testing reports from the individual laboratories, issued electronically.
Historical sample names and domains differ from the latest eight defined metallurgical types. However,
historical composites usually fall under one of the current types. These latest eight metallurgical types are
listed in Table 13.1 below.
Table 13.1 Metallurgical Types
Metallurgical Type
No. Name
1 Main Zone Massive Sulphide
2 Pinwheel Massive Sulphide Cu Rich
3 Pinwheel Semi-Massive & Stringers
4 Pinwheel Extension
5 Tuff Zone
6 Oxides
7 Pinwheel Gossan Flotation
8 Pinwheel Ma ss ive Sulphide Cu-Zn Rich
The head grades of the samples tested in the 2007 campaign are summarized in Table 13.2 below.
Table 13.2 KM 1983 Composite Head Grades
Met Assay - % or g/t Composite
Type Cu Pb Zn Ag Au As Sb Hg Cd
East Zone+ Hinge 1 0.59 0.09 6.03 28 5.4 0.14 128 18 244
Pinwheel 2,3,8 4.04 0.05 0.13 86 1.9 0.14 128 45 14
~outh Limb 1 0.62 0.06 2.83 25 1.1 0.13 132 20 104
!Tuff Zone 5 0.09 3.37 7.42 96 2.2 0.13 156 89 210
~ossan Pinwheel 6 0.80 0.09 0.03 88 16.8 0.084 178 51 4
~ossan East 6 0.04 0.09 0.02 13 19.5 0.12 174 3 4
~tringer Zone 1 0.27 0.10 0.69 13 2.7 0.11 60 6 28
○ If GOSSAN was omitted from geochemical kinetic tests – wasn’t this geochemical data used in modeling the Air Permit (esp. Toxics Analysis TAC) and fugitive emissions?
○ In addition to precious metals, GOSSAN contains high quantities of sulfide, arsenic, and mercury: was it properly included in the geochemical data used for dispersal modeling of these contaminants? Gossan includes high quantities of mercury (51 g/t) according to the newest Feasibility Report:
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 38 of 42
○ GOSSAN is described as exhibiting a lower chalcopyrite liberation, and sphalerite liberation, and “would require a finer primary grind”. Explain how GOSSAN will be processed differently from other ore types at Back Forty.
○ GOSSAN is not specifically mentioned in the MPAA’s revised EIA, nor in the depositional modeling document. Since it was omitted in earlier geochemical testing, explain whether GOSSAN was properly included in the revised Air Permit. If the fate of GOSSAN ore has changed, explain why it is not mentioned in the EIA.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis - Incomplete
Michigan’s Administrative Code R 425.202(1)(b) requires that an EIA provided with an application for a permit to mine nonferrous metallic minerals, including “analysis of the potential cumulative impacts on each of the conditions or features listed in [Rule 425.202(2)] within the mining area and the affected area from all proposed mining activities and through all processes or mechanisms.”
The analysis shall “consider additive effects, and the assessment of significant interactions between chemical and physical properties of any discharges, with reference to the physical and chemical characteristics of the environment into which the discharge may be released.” Rule 425.202(2) lists the many features and conditions to be considered.
Numerous aspects unresolved by the application include: ● cumulative impact of multiple stressors (increased metals toxicology in wetlands) ● proposed airborne deposition of high levels of lead and arsenic, and the “additive effects” of these metals
into local watersheds and wetlands” ● proposed airborne deposition of mercury resulting in “a 21% increase of mercury over baseline” for Spring
Lake, part of the Shakey Lakes system located directly south of the proposed facility
TMF - Cumulative Impacts, Reasonable and Foreseeable Activities
The applicant’s MPAA and amended EIA, particularly the updated Air Dispersion analysis, does not satisfy the statutory requirement to evaluate cumulative impacts. “Cumulative impact” refers to “the environmental impact that results from the proposed mining activities when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities.” R 425.102(1)(h).
There is an incomplete review of “reasonably foreseeable future activities” related to the project: ● It is reasonable and foreseeable that the Back Forty orebody will be pursued underground (based on a
decade of statements made by Aquila in which they describe the project as a 16 year mine, with 7 years of open pit mining and 9 years underground mining.
● It is reasonable and foreseeable that the Back Forty project will apply for underground mining permits once open pit operations are underway.
● How will “reasonably foreseeable future activities” (expansion of mining, extended groundwater drawdown) exponentially increase the cumulative impacts?
● It is reasonable and foreseeable that the underground mining will require additional waste storage capacity onsite. There is no consideration given in the permit to the likelihood of additional tailings, nor the potential impacts of additional waste storage.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 39 of 42
● Risk assessment, financial assurances and contingency planning should explain how and where additional mining wastes could safely be stored onsite. Would the TMF be made taller? As this is commonly done in the mining industry, the applicant needs to explain the potential for the TMF design to expand to accommodate greater wastes, and how a larger TMF holding additional tailings would change the cumulative impacts and the environmental risks of the project. “The operational phase of a (tailings) dam is dynamic and is likely to include expansion of the dam, raising of the dam height and/or addition of dams.” - BHP.
● It is reasonably foreseeable that milling facilities at the Back Forty project will remain in use – rather than be closed and remediated. The life of the mine and the life of the mill may differ by several decades – mills tend to greatly outlive mines, and are pressed into service for other mines, greatly concentrating the environmental problems.
● It is foreseeable and foreseeable that the Humboldt Mill may process ores from other orebodies or other locations. In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, this is the case with the Humboldt Mill (it is currently milling copper-nickel ore for Lundin, previously milling gold ore for Callahan, previously an iron mine owned by Cleveland Cliffs); this may also be the case with the White Pine Mine (previously processing copper ore for historic White Pine mine, with plans to process copper ore for a future mine).
● The Humboldt Mill is permitted separately under Part 632. Explain why the Back Forty mine and mill facilities are permitted under the same Part 632 permit when their impacts (real and potential) are extremely different? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to permit the mine and the mill under different Part 632 permits?
● Reasonably foreseeable future milling activities will result in additional mine waste at the Back Forty site, and an exponential increase in environmental impacts, including an increase of waste to be stored at the TMF, increased emissions and increased airborne dispersion of mercury, sulfate, lead, arsenic and other toxic metals which will be broadcast to the surrounding and watershed from this project site. The applicant’s EIA considers none of these reasonably foreseeable future activities.
The applicant fails to address the question of additional raises or the environmental risks of additional tailings waste. The applicant only discusses the “social benefits” (ore), arbitrarily parting the ore from the production of wastes; the applicant does not acknowledge or calculate the costs – lost tourism, lower property values, increased road maintenance costs, environmental degradation. The applicant does not admit that they are planning to pursue underground mining, which would extend the life of the mine, increase the quantity of mine wastes and emissions, and increase the project’s risk due to greater volumes of toxic waste to be stored.
Conclusions The Back Forty nonferrous metallic mineral mining project presents serious threats to natural resources. In particular, the Back Forty Tailings Management Facility (TMF) should be considered extremely risky, due to acid mine drainage, threats to groundwater from seepage or liner leakage, the size of the dam structure, the quantity of reactive ore, the location, the permanent nature of the TMF, the proximity to sensitive wetlands and the Menominee River, potential for loss of life, and threats to threatened and endangered species and species of concern.
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 40 of 42
The applicant has failed to calculate cumulative impacts of emissions, and has dismissed the risk of contamination to groundwater and surface waters which will be caused by hydraulic connectivity through fractured rock between the pit and the Menominee River. As the hydraulic connection and estimated losses (from backfilled pit to the groundwater/river) are now clearly demonstrated, we urge the Department to deny the Mining Permit Amendment unless the project can meet the lawful requirements of a Groundwater Discharge Permit.
The degradation of natural resources and the public trust in those resources, combined with the extreme risk (consequence, hazard) of the facility’s Tailings Management Facility are unacceptable. We have enumerated serious concerns in our comments, which warrant additional environmental safeguards beyond the control measures and financial assurances currently applied in the Mining Permit Amendment.
We urge full and cautious reconsideration of the TMF, in particular. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the benefits would outweigh the certain calculated damages (destruction of wetlands, habitat loss, and risks to natural resources). We urge the State of Michigan to use the most stringent independent classification system for assessing the risk of mine tailings dams. To avoid catastrophic dam failure, we recommend that new tailings dams in Michigan no longer utilize the ‘upstream’ construction.
The ‘upstream’ design of the Aquila Back Forty TMF cannot be permitted. The applicant’s claim to have “mitigated” (sic) the environmental footprint of the project is baseless. The footprint has actually increased. The Mine Permit Amendment makes it clear that the size of the site has greatly expanded from 865 acres to 1087 acres. This number does not include the proposed Eastern Transportation and Utilities corridor. Despite the significant increase in size, the environmental impacts did not increase, the cumulative impacts are not calculated, and the “affected area” was so narrowly drawn as to exclude environmental impacts related to a new site access road (construction of a new paved road through State Forest, wetland or habitat losses, vehicle emissions).
In all of the permits under consideration, additional safeguards would be needed to address environmental airborne dispersion of mercury, lead, cobalt, arsenic and other contaminants. Additional compliance monitoring should be required (TMF stability, air quality monitoring, groundwater discharges or contamination from TMF) and the EIA and Permit to Install should be reconsidered, to include all environmental impacts attributable to the Eastern Transportation and Utilities Corridor.
● Part 632 – The Department may only approve a mining permit “if it determines both of the following: The permit application meets the requirements of this part. The proposed mining operation will not pollute, impair or destroy the air, water or other natural resources or the public trust in those resources in accordance with Part 17 of this act (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, MCL 324.101, Part 17, MCL 324.1701-1706.)”
● Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules – the Air deposition analysis “prepared to evaluate impacts from the Project air emissions over the life of the project” makes it clear that there will be unacceptable environmental impacts to surrounding areas, including mercury deposition in surrounding lakes, rivers and wetlands and on surrounding soils. The Air Permit includes emissions of arsenic and other toxic contaminants, with proposed emissions that far exceed the screening limits.
A preponderance of evidence shows that the Back Forty project cannot be permitted under NREPA. The burden of proof lies with the applicant, but in all permits – the AIR Permit to Install, the Mining Permit Amendment and the Dam Safety Permit – the applicant failed to demonstrate that "the proposed mining operation will not pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or other natural resources or the public trust in those resources." The Back Forty project poses significant and unacceptable risks to natural resources due to the proposed air contaminants (emissions of toxic metals), highly reactive nature of the ore and waste materials, river and groundwater
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 41 of 42
contamination, the lack of a coherent transportation plan, lack of transparency regarding the life of the mine, unnecessary wetland losses, and especially the inherent risks of the tailings dam design.
Please deny both permits — the Mining Permit Amendment Application and the Permit to Install.
We urge the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy to act in accordance with Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act in “protecting air, water, and other natural resources and the public trust in these resources from pollution, impairment, and destruction.”
The mining permit amendment and air permit cannot lawfully be issued.
Please deny these applications. Thank for your consideration of our comments, questions and requests for additional information.
Kathleen Heideman, Submitted on behalf of the Mining Action Group of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition
Combined Public Comments - Mine Permit Amendment and Permit to Install, Mining Action Group to Michigan DEGLE | page 42 of 42