Nevada Enacts First Mercury Emission Controls
Dorothy Kosich
'10-MAR-06 04:00'
RENO--(Mineweb.com) Insisting that Nevada regulators have to start somewhere to address a potential environmental problem, the Nevada State Environmental Commission unanimously adopted the first regulations in the nation aimed at controlling airborne mercury emissions from gold mines.
However, opponents, including the Mayor of Salt Lake City and environmental special interest groups from Nevada, Utah and Idaho, called the new regulations flawed and weak. They also suggested that the new program is woefully underfunded.
The new Nevada program requires all mines that release significant amounts of mercury to install technology to reduce emissions. It also requires monitoring, testing, record-keeping and reporting.
The program is modeled on the state's voluntary mercury control program, which began in 2001 and attracted the participation of Barrick Goldstrike, Newmont Mining, Placer Dome's Cortez operation, and Queenstake's Jerritt Canyon operation (at the time owned by AngloGold).
Nevada miners realized the extent of the mercury emissions problem after the enactment of the federal Toxic Release Inventory in 1998. By 2000, TRI identified that gold mine mercury emissions were significant. By 2004, state officials from Idaho and Utah expressed concerns that airborne mercury emissions from northeastern Nevada gold mines were harming fish in Idaho and waterfowl in the Great Salt Lake in Utah.
John Mudge, Director of Environmental Affairs for Newmont's North American Operations, told Mineweb Thursday that the voluntary program has reduced mercury emissions by 80% from the baseline at the start of the TRI numbers through 2004. The accomplishments of the Queenstake Jerritt Canyon operations were particularly significant in achieving that reduction, according to Mudge.
"The beauty of this rule--that our State Environmental Commission passed--is it looks just like a federal rule would look if the Feds were to go to that effort. So, that was one of the keys that we really pushed for, let's make this just like the Clean Air Act would require if the EPA were to go to that effort," Mudge declared, adding that EPA's Region 9 "has been totally engaged through this process."
Mudge suggested that gold mines in Alaska and Colorado do not contain enough mercury in their ore to justify that EPA enact a national mine mercury emissions rule.
The Nevada Mining Association consulted with smaller operators, as well as major gold producers, to achieve a consensus supporting the new Nevada regulation. As a result, there was no small miner opposition, according to Mudge and Mary Korpi, Director of External Relations for Newmont's North American Operations.
However, the Mayor of Salt Lake City, as well as residents of Elko County, Utah and Idaho, called on the Nevada Environmental Commission to reject the proposed rules package. The Nevada-based environmental NGO Great Basin Mine Watch claimed that the state is the "biggest mercury hotspot in the nation."
In their report, "Mercury Rising," Great Basin Mine Watch claimed that "according to the most recent EPA data, gold mines here release more mercury to the air, water and land than any other industry in the nation, an estimated 100 tons in the past 25 years." Their report called for a cap on total annual air emissions, with a commitment to meaningful reductions over a five-year period. "The amount of mercury monitoring and associated funding should increase," the document declared, adding that it would only cost 60-cents per ounce of gold to fund their proposed mercury reduction program.
Great Basin Mine Watch asserted that the rules adopted by the State Environmental Commission "would allow the worst perpetrators to go on polluting at current levels. The proposed rules do not reduce or even cap emissions, nor do they adequately assess the public's risk of exposure."
The opponents argued that air currents from northeastern Nevada mining processes "likely carry mercury downwind to Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and perhaps other states." Great Basin Mine Watch presented a report which, they asserted, demonstrated that the new policy lacks critical features including "no commitment to reduce or even cap emissions levels." University of Nevada, Reno scientist Dr. Glenn Miller called for continuous emissions monitoring to be incorporated to the new state program to ensure that mercury control measures are working.
In an interview with Mineweb Thursday, Miller said the $250,000 allocated for the new state program is not adequate for monitoring and research of mercury emissions. He explained that emission monitoring methods now used by the EPA for coal-fired industries could be applied to gold mining mercury emissions. Miller also suggested the monitoring should take place on a quarterly or monthly basis instead of the annual schedule now mandated under the new program.
Meanwhile, program opponents asserted that "there is strong reason to believe that emissions coming from waste rock and dust at gold operations are a significant source of mercury pollution. These fugitive emissions must be controlled, and the mercury program needs to report them at each facility."
Mudge said the four keys to success of the new state program require the participation of all precious metals mining companies in the state; making the program enforceable through a permitting process; detailed monitoring, record-keeping, testing and reporting; and requiring miners "to install the maximum achievable control technology on every one of the sources of mercury." In other words, Nevada mine processing operators would be required to use best practices to reduce mercury emissions.
Newmont has achieved a 46% reduction in mercury emissions through its voluntary participation in the mercury reduction program, according to Mudge, who claimed that the decrease was mainly achieved through the application of a new control on a carbon kiln in Newmont's Twin Creeks operation.
Since Newmont has been gathering data since the original enforcement of the TRI, Mudge said the company already has a good baseline of information. Korpi stressed that the baseline data is just one segment of the overall mercury reduction program. She noted that, since state regulators will perform regular inspections at minesites, "we've got to ensure that all equipment is operating properly, that it's being maintained" and that other mercury emissions reporting will be required throughout the year.
Mudge said the environmentalists proposed using a risk-based analysis. However, he said the U.S. EPA struggled to implement the risk-based analysis for two decades when in 1990 Congress switched the emphasis to control technology to reduce emissions.
"The state's rule says [Maximum Available] control technology (MACT). We endorse that," Mudge declared. "The environmental community was saying, 'Do risk analysis, and figure out what's safe, and what safe numbers are. The Feds couldn't do it, therefore, the state can't do it."
Nevertheless, NGOs insist that 11 states have introduced far tougher mercury emission regulations than Nevada, mainly pertaining to power plants, iron and steel smelters, and waste incineration facilities.
mineweb.net |
