I
\ / OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Evaluation Report
Nationwide Identification of
Hardrock Mining Sites
Report No. 2004-P-00005
March 31, 2004
-------
Report Contributors:
Tina Lovingood
Barry Parker
Tiffany N. Smith
Hilda Canes
Frank Fennell
Dave Cofer
Tom Reilly
Abbreviations
AMD
AMLT
CERCLIS
Acid Mine Drainage
Abandoned Mine Lands Team
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
NMT National Mining Team
NPL National Priorities List
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG Office of Inspector General
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
ROD Record of Decision
Cover photo:
Homestake Mine, Lead, South Dakota (Tina Lovingood, EPA OIG)
-------
33
O
\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
March 31,2004
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Evaluation Report: Nationwide Identification of
Hardrock Mining Sites
Report No. 2004-P-00005
FROM:
TO:
Carolyn Copper /s/
Director of Program Evaluation: Hazardous Waste Issues
Office of Program Evaluation
Marianne Horinko
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
This is the final report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains information on
EPA's inventory of 156 hardrock mining sites.
This report contains findings and recommendations that describe problems the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) has identified and the corrective actions the OIG recommends. This
report represents the opinion of the OIG and the findings contained in this report do not
necessarily represent the final EPA position, and are not binding upon EPA in any enforcement
prodeeding brought by EPA or the Department of Justice. Final determinations on matters in this
report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution
procedures.
On February 5, 2004, the OIG issued a draft report to EPA for review and comment. We
received the Agency's response to the draft report on March 8, 2004. The Agency did not
identify any factual errors in the report and generally agreed with the report's recommendations.
-------
EPA conveyed their appreciation for the significant effort the OIG staff put into gathering
information, developing findings, and providing recommendations. The Agency also believed
that the recommendations, if implemented, would enhance the effectiveness of Agency decision-
making at hardrock mining sites.
The Agency provided a number of comments on various aspects of our report and on planned
actions in response to the report's recommendations. We provide a summary and general
evaluation of these comments in the Executive Summary. We include the full text of EPA's
comments in Appendix D.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide this office with a written
response within 90 days of the final report date. The response should address all
recommendations. For corrective actions planned but not completed by the response date, please
describe the actions that are on-going and provide a timetable for completion. Reference to
specific milestones for these actions will assist in deciding whether to close this report in our
assignment tracking system.
We have no objection to the further release of this report to the public. For your convenience,
this report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig. Should you or your staff have any
questions, please contact me at 202-566-0829, or Tina Lovingood, Project Manager, at
202-566-2906.
Attachment
-------
Executive Summary
Purpose
This review, focusing on hardrock mining, is part of an Office of Inspector General (OIG)
evaluation of Superfund mega-sites (sites that may cost $50 million or more to clean up).
Hardrock mining, which is not coal mining, involves the extraction of certain metals and
minerals found in hard formations of the earth. They include, among others, copper,
gold, iron ore, lead, and silver. Hardrock mining can cause significant impacts on the
environment, potentially affecting ground and surface waters, aquatic life, vegetation,
soils, air, wildlife, and human health. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
reported that the metal mining industry was the largest toxic polluter in 2000, releasing
3.4 billion pounds of toxics, or 47 percent of the total released by U.S. industry.
Although EPA can inherit the responsibility for cleaning up hardrock mining sites, the
Agency is just one of several with a role in regulating and cleaning up the environmental
impacts of hardrock mining.
Our overall evaluation question was: "Is there a financial impact from hardrock mining
sites on the Superfund Trust fund and on States?" This report involved developing an
inventory of hardrock mining sites, and providing information on current sites as well as
those that may need to be addressed by Superfund in the future. Regional officials
provided us with an inventory for all non-coal mines, mills, and primary smelters that had
cost or have the potential to cost the Superfund Trust fund $1 million or more. This
report provides information on estimated cleanup costs, human health and environmental
risks, cleanup responsibilities, and cleanup time estimates.
Results
We identified 156 hardrock mining sites nationwide that have the potential to cost
between $7 billion and $24 billion total to clean up (at a maximum total cost to EPA of
approximately $15 billion). These costs are over 12 times EPA's total annual Superfund
budget of about $1.2 billion for the last 5 years. This suggests potential difficulties for
the Superfund program, although, based on how EPA may apply listing and/or funding
criteria, these costs may not all fall to EPA. Following are some observations:
There is some uncertainty regarding the current human health and environmental risks
associated with sites in the inventory. Over a third (42 percent) of the mining sites
that are in EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS), but are not on the National Priorities List
(NPL) have unknown human health risks at this time. Ten percent of the mining sites
on the NPL have current unknown human health risks. On the other hand, 42 percent
-------
of NPL sites and 30 percent of the CERCLIS/Non-NPL sites have current high or
medium human health risks. Similarly, one half (50 percent) of the NPL mining sites
have current high or medium environmental risks while nearly two thirds (64 percent)
of the CERCLIS/Non-NPL mining sites have current high or medium environmental
risks.
Although at least one potentially responsible party (PRP) has been identified at 83
percent of the hardrock mining sites, uncertainties about the complete nature of these
parties' liabilities and their ability to pay for cleanup actions over the extreme long-
term counteract this positive news. For example, about 70 percent of current NPL
sites have a clearly viable potentially responsible party. However, our data also show
that the majority (59 percent) of all the projected sites will need 40 years to "in
perpetuity" for cleanup, and we question the ability of businesses to sustain efforts for
such lengths of time.
For long-term response actions that are financed by Superfund, EPA performs these
long-term response actions at cleanup facilities for up to 10 years, with the State
paying 10 percent of the cost, after which responsibility is turned over to the State.
Therefore, potentially responsible party viability and long-term cost issues will have
financial impacts on States.
The management and financial challenges from current and potential future hardrock
mining sites are not proportionately distributed throughout the country. More than
70 percent of all sites are located in four EPA Regions - 4, 8, 9, and 10. Also, the
western regions (8, 9, 10) and Region 7 have the largest number of sites with high or
medium risks to human health, and the western regions contain 75 percent of the sites
with acid mine drainage. Region 4's hardrock mining sites account for about half of
the nationwide total projected maximum cleanup costs.
Recommendations
Our research indicates some key areas of concern that need to be addressed to enhance the
effectiveness of Agency decision-making and planning, concerning the ability of the
Superfund program to manage potential challenges from hardrock mining financial
concerns. These issues include potentially responsible parties' long-term viability,
efficiency and effectiveness of existing remedies and alternative remedies, and location of
sites. An appropriate understanding of these issues will raise the Agency's capacity to
plan for financial impacts to the Superfund program and develop useful strategies.
Therefore, we recommend that EPA's Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response take action to have a report produced that looks at the
long-term sustainability and liability of businesses involved in hardrock mining
operations, the type of remediation technologies currently available, and promising new
technologies. We also recommended continuing support for improving EPA's National
-------
Hardrock Mining Framework, and the prioritizing of efforts based on human health and
environmental risks and workload per region.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our recommendations and indicated that if they were
implemented it would enhance the effectiveness of Agency decision-making at hardrock
mining sites. The Agency proposed several actions in response to our recommendations.
Although the Agency accepted our recommendations they had significant concerns
regarding the interpretation and analysis of information contained in the report on the risk
levels at hardrock mining sites and the cost estimates for cleaning up the sites. The
Agency noted that, over the last 20 years, they have placed mine sites on the NPL because
they presented significant risks to human health and the environment. Because a variety
of remedial and removal actions may have occurred at these sites, the Agency requested
that the report explain that many of the sites have low current risk due to Agency or
potentially responsible party actions. The Agency also said that our report should reflect
the fact that some of the sites have not yet undergone full risk characterization, the risk
assessments are subjective judgments made by regional field personnel, and the risk
assessments do not consider future risks that may sometimes be greater than current risks
based on land use decisions.
Regarding cost estimates, the Agency said that our report should state that many of these
sites will never rise to the attention of the Superfund program, but that those that are high
risk, where there is no viable potentially responsible party, or States are not willing to
address these sites, will. The Agency expressed concern that we report the maximum
end of cleanup cost ranges, not the minimum, which could substantially change the cost
estimate. In addition, the Agency requested that we report different types of cost
estimates based on the reliability of costing data. As an example, the Agency said we
should report the cost estimates for those sites where EPA or the State has calculated a
site-specific cleanup cost. Finally, the Agency said that our report should note the fact
that, until the Agency determines whether a viable potentially responsible party exists or
States are willing to take the lead on a site, the extent of Superfund lead expenditures
cannot be determined.
The actions the Agency has proposed to address our recommendations are generally
acceptable as long as the Agency produces tangible evidence, for OIG review, in lieu of
the report we recommended, to substantiate completion of their actions. The Agency
needs to provide milestones for the completion of these actions. With regard to the
Agency's concerns on the risk assessment and cost estimates that EPA staff provided to
us, despite criticisms of the data, the Agency has not provided us with an alternative
database, or inventory, with different, or more reliable data. Therefore, within the
limitations we state in our report, we believe the data we report is the best available. We
worked diligently and transparently with the Agency to obtain their input on the best way
-------
to collect information on the locations, risks, and potential costs associated with hardrock
mining activities. We learned early in our work that EPA does not have a consistently
used method for calculating cost estimates for hardrock mining sites, nor one that has
been demonstrated to be more or less reliable than another. Because of this problem, we
report cost estimates in ranges. We present most of our data in terms of maximum
projected costs to avoid minimizing the potential liability associated with these hardrock
mining sites, as cleanup costs can often be underestimated. Underestimation of cleanup
costs can occur when inflation is not considered, when acid mine drainage is inaccurately
predicted, or when cleanup is delayed. One study suggests that the discovery of
inaccurately predicted acid mine drainage can increase site cleanup estimates by up to
1000 percent or more. Costs to the Federal government may also increase when a PRP
defaults. For example, Asarco, which was the potentially responsible party for several
sites in the inventory, settled with the Federal government for $100 million. Based on the
cleanup estimate for only one site owned by Asarco in the hardrock mining inventory
($457.1 million), $100 million is a considerable underestimate of costs.
We also acknowledge that the Agency may not necessarily inherit all of this liability due
to the application of listing criteria, and, where possible, we report costs for those
operable units (sites in the hardrock mining inventory generally contained multiple
operable units) that have achieved a Record of Decision. Concerning risk information,
our draft report clearly stated that our survey asked about current risk and that remedial or
removal actions could have occurred in the past, resulting in current risk ratings that are
low.
We have made changes to the report as appropriate. The Agency's complete comments
are in Appendix D and our responses to specific points are in each Chapter, as
appropriate.
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
2 Profile of Selected Site Characteristics 11
3 Human Health Risk 23
4 Ecological/Environmental Risk 29
5 Cleanup Costs 37
6 Conclusions and Recommendations 51
Appendices
A Summary of the General Mining Law of 1872 53
B Survey 55
C Details on Scope and Methodology 63
D Agency Response to Draft Report 67
E Distribution List 81
-------
List of Figures
1.1 Photograph of MolyCorp Molybdenum Mine
1.2 Photograph of Example of Acid Mine Drainage
2.1 Breakdown of Total Sites by NPL Status
2.2 NPL Status of Sites by Region
2.3 Operating Status of Mining Sites
2.4 Number of Sites with Acid Mine Drainage
2.5 Most Common Contaminants at the 156 Sites
2.6 PRP Viability at NPL Sites
2.7 PRP Viability at CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites
2.8 PRP Viability at Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL) Sites
2.9 Operation and Maintenance Timeframes for the 156 Sites
3.1 Human Health Risks at NPL Sites
3.2 Human Health Risks at CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites
3.3 Human Health Risks at Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL) Sites
3.4 Human Health Risks by Region
4.1 Eco/Environmental Risk at NPL Sites
4.2 Eco/Environmental Risk at CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites
4.3 Eco/Environmental Risk at Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL) Sites
4.4 Ecological/Environmental Risk by Region
4.5 Health and Eco/Environmental Risk
5.1 History of Congressional Appropriations for the Superfund Program Since
1999
5.2 Estimates of Future Costs to EPA for the Superfund Program
5.3 Total Projected Cleanup Costs
5.4 102 Sites Provided Current Operable Unit Status
5.5 Total Maximum Projected Cleanup Costs by NPL Status
5.6 Maximum Projected Federal Capital Costs by NPL Status
5.7 Maximum Projected Cleanup Costs by Region
5.8 Maximum Projected Federal Capital Costs for Human Health Risks -
NPL Sites
5.9 Maximum Projected Federal Capital Costs for Human Health Risks -
CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites
5.10 Maximum Projected Federal Capital Costs for Eco/Environmental Risks -
NPL Sites
5.11 Maximum Projected Federal Capital Costs for Eco/Environmental Risks -
CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites
VI
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
This review is part of the Office of Inspector General's (OIG's) evaluation of Superfund
mega-sites. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) suggested that we examine the issue of mega-sites (sites
with actual or expected total removal and remedial action costs of $50 million or more1)
due to potentially significant cost implications for the Superfund Trust fund. This review
focuses on hardrock mining sites because these sites are costly and complex. Resources
for the Future recently reported that "the average cost to clean up a non-mega mining site
on the National Priorities List (NPL) is about $22 million, more than double the average
for most other non-mega site types, such as chemical manufacturing and recycling sites."
Our overall evaluation question was: "Is there a financial impact from hardrock mining
sites on the Trust fund and on States?" To address this question, we needed to obtain a
nationwide inventory of hardrock mining sites. This report provides information on the
inventory of 156 hardrock mining sites that were identified by EPA officials: a profile of
selected site data, human health risk information, ecological/environmental risk
information, and cost information. This report provides information on potential
financial impact to the Trust fund from hardrock mining sites. Due to the complexity and
uncertainties in some of the information provided to us, we were unable to quantify the
financial impact on States. However, the report data provides indicators of the potential
financial impact on States.
Our report recognizes EPA's current policy is to fund projects based on health risks,
contaminant toxicity, contaminant mobility, environmental or ecological risks, or other
program considerations, such as the likelihood that a potentially responsible party (PRP)
will reimburse EPA, the likelihood that other cleanup programs or States could manage
the cleanup, the site specific timing scheme for completing cleanup, and potential land
reuse opportunities. It also recognizes that EPA lists sites on the NPL based on human
health exposure and then considers other factors, such as: the need for a strong
enforcement for uncooperative potentially responsible parties; the level of State, tribal,
community, and congressional delegation support; estimated cleanup costs; the timing of
the costs and cleanup; environmental justice issues; prospects for commercial
redevelopment; and geographic balance. Where the data we collected provide insight on
these issues, we present information to assist management in implementing this policy
and we make recommendations to strengthen EPA's decision-making ability.
Superfund's Future: What Will It Cost?, Katherine N. Probst and David M. Konisky, Resources for the
Future, 2001.
-------
Organization of the Report
Chapter 2 provides a profile of selected inventory data, including information on regional
distribution of sites, presence of acid mine drainage, NPL status, and operational status,
among others. Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, provide information on human health and
environmental/ecological risks. Chapter 5 presents information on projected cleanup
costs of hardrock mining sites across the country.
In order to provide proper context, we generally present our information based on
whether sites identified in this inventory are currently (1) on the NPL, thus having the
ability to have long-term cleanup paid for by the Superfund program (i.e., NPL sites);
(2) not yet listed on the NPL for various reasons, but being tracked by the Superfund
program in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) (i.e., CERCLIS/Non-NPL sites); or (3) not yet included
in CERCLIS or on the NPL, but identified by EPA staff as potential sites that may need
attention (i.e., Potential sites).
-------
Background
Environmental Consequences of Hardrock Mining
In its 1999 report, "Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands," the National Research Council
of the National Academy of Sciences (a non-profit research organization that, under
Congressional mandate, advises the Federal government on scientific and technical
matters) noted that hardrock mining can cause significant impacts on the environment,
potentially affecting ground and surface waters, aquatic life, vegetation, soils, air, and
wildlife. Mining sites are typically large, complex, and costly to clean up. At least 19 of
the NPL sites in this hardrock mining inventory have estimated cleanup costs $50 million
or more. An example of a mining site is pictured in Figure 1.1.
lyCorp Molybdenum Mine. Quest a. New Mexico Courtesy of LiqhtHawfc
Figure 1.1
Source: Photo from report: Mineral Policy Center Issue Paper No. 4, Putting a Price on Pollution - Financial Assurance for Mine
Reclamation and Closure, Jim Kuipers, March 2003.
-------
Hardrock mining is not coal mining. Hardrock mining involves the extraction and
beneficiation (separation of minerals/metals from waste) of certain metals and minerals
found in hard formations of the earth. These metals and minerals serve as the primary
raw materials for most of the industrial, commercial, and consumer equipment and
structures produced by the U.S. economy. The removal and beneficiation result in large
quantities of waste (e.g., waste rock, tailings, mine water). The total amount of waste
produced can range from 10 percent (potash) to 99.99 percent (gold). Open mine pits,
tailings ponds, ore stockpiles, and waste rock dumps can all be significant sources of
toxic pollutants, primarily heavy metals such as cadmium and lead. EPA's Toxic Release
Inventory 2000 report indicates that the metal mining industry was the largest toxic
polluter in 2000, releasing 3.4 billion pounds of toxics, or 47 percent of the total released
by U.S. industry. While there is no current consensus, or conventional method for
defining or identifying mine sites, EPA estimates there may as many as 200,000
abandoned hardrock mines in this country, although these may not all fall within EPA's
responsibility.
The U.S. Forest Service estimates that approximately 10,000 miles of rivers and streams
may have been contaminated by acid mine drainage. Acid mine drainage can occur when
iron sulfides in rock are exposed to water and oxygen. The process of mining brings
sulfide-bearing rock to the earth's surface, fractures it, and exposes substantial amounts to
weathering. The minerals gradually oxidize to form dilute sulfuric acid and ferric
hydroxide, resulting in acid mine drainage. When acid drainage occurs, it is extremely
difficult to control. According to the National Research Council, "improved methods for
prediction, prevention, and long-term treatment are needed to minimize the expenses
related to acid drainage and to enhance the long-term protection of the environment."2
Resources for the Future noted that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
water quality standards at some sites due to acid drainage and leaching of mine wastes.3
An example of acid mine drainage is pictured in Figure 1.2.
Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands, National Research Council, 1999.
Superfund's F
Future, 2001.
Superfund's Future: What Will It Cost?, Katherine N. Probst and David M. Konisky, Resources for the
-------
Figure 1.2
Source: National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs
According to EPA, in recent years, environmental practices employed by the mining
industry have improved considerably and reduced the environmental impacts from mining
projects. Bureau of Land Management data indicate the number of plans and notices of
operations for new mining activities has fallen approximately 50 percent since 1992.
Some improvements made in mining operations include best practices for control of
storm water runoff, better treatment of wastewater, better management of tailings and
waste rock, and more efficient metal recovery technologies.
-------
Laws and Agencies Involved in Hardrock Mining
A complex set of Federal and State environmental laws and regulations apply to hardrock
mining activities. The type and size of mining operations; kinds of land, water, and
biological resources affected; organization of State and local permitting agencies; and the
manner in which Federal and State agencies implement appropriate laws and regulations
determine the degree and effectiveness of regulation. A significant amount of hardrock
mining occurs on Federal lands in the Western States.
Cleanup of mine sites located on Federally-owned lands is the responsibility of the
Federal agency having jurisdiction over the land, unless those lands become patented and
thus private, at which point the States and/or EPA take over cleanup responsibility. The
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 for the Bureau of Land Management
and the 1897 Organic Act and 1976 National Forest Management Act for the U.S. Forest
Service provide direction for Federal land management. The General Mining Law of
1872 is the primary statute regarding hardrock mining on Federal lands. This 131-year-
old law permits "the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment" to any person who
finds minerals on public lands, but does not contain any environmental protection
provisions or guidance on cleanup programs for abandoned mines. The potential for
considerable environmental damage due to the law has led some Federal and State land
managers, as well as EPA, to agree that the Mining Law of 1872 is outdated and should
be revised. See Appendix A for more details on the General Mining Law.
In September 1997, EPA's Office of Water issued a National Hardrock Mining
Framework (the Framework) to provide a multimedia, multi-statute approach for handling
environmental issues posed by proposed, active, and abandoned hardrock mining sites.
The overall goals of the Framework were to achieve improved environmental protection,
use resources more efficiently, and promote fiscal responsibility. The Framework called
for regions with mining concerns to develop mining strategies to help them deal with the
problems that mining sites pose.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our evaluation from March 2002 to June 2003, and we formally briefed
Agency officials on our preliminary results in September 2003. We defined the sites to
be included in the inventory as all non-coal mines, mills, and primary smelters that had
cost or have the potential to cost the Superfund Trust fund $1 million or more.
To collect site-specific information, we developed a survey instrument that we sent to
EPA site managers in all 10 EPA regions (see Appendix B). The survey contains
questions to collect information on general site characteristics, the Superfund status of the
site, cost information for the site, media affected at the site, and information on PRPs'
existence and viability (ability to pay for cleanup.)
-------
In developing the survey, we met with EPA headquarters officials from the OSWER and
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). We also consulted with
members of EPA's National Mining Team (NMT) and EPA's Abandoned Mines Land
Team (AMLT) asking for input and suggestions. In addition, we field tested the survey
instrument with headquarters and regional EPA officials.
To verify the information entered into the survey instrument, we performed several
activities. First, we conducted on-site data verification for selected sites in Regions 7 and
8. We focused our data verification on cost data, human health and
environmental/ecological risk data, and information on the status of cleanup. Verification
for the purposes of this evaluation meant that we asked regional officials to verify their
survey information to make sure that it was accurate and complete. It also involved
requesting explanations of data entered into source documents.
Specifically, we also asked regional officials:
to identify guidance documents used to develop the cost estimates in the survey
responses.
for the documentation that supported the cost estimates, and where none was
available, we asked for regional officials to explain the logic they used to develop
the cost estimates.
for supporting documentation for the rating decision for current human health and
ecological/environmental risks.
to answer a series of structured interview questions and checklists relating to their
survey responses in order to verify support for the information contained in their
survey responses. For our visit to Region 8, we refined this set of supporting
interview questions and checklists to again gain additional support for the
information in survey responses.
to review their submitted survey responses and to verify the accuracy of, or
correct, the information they provided for sites in their region.
For the remaining eight regions we requested similar information electronically.
We reviewed prior reports, including the 1997 OIG report on minimizing hardrock
mining liabilities; the 2003 report on obstacles impeding the achievement of results from
the Agency's hardrock mining Framework; and reports issued by the National Research
Council, Resources for the Future, the Center for Science in Public Participation, the
Mineral Policy Center, and the Western Governor's Association. We also obtained and
reviewed information from the National Mining Association.
We performed our evaluation in accordance with applicable Government Auditing
Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Additional
information on scope and methodology is in Appendix C.
-------
Explanatory Notes
Concurrent to our evaluation, EPA formed an AMLT whose goal is to identify abandoned
mine lands and find alternatives to their listing on the NPL or find alternative sources of
funding. In December 2002, this team identified 88 EPA NPL abandoned hardrock mine
sites. EPA has estimated that it will cost a total of about $2 billion to clean up these 88
sites.4 As of September 2003, 70 of the 88 sites are currently listed on the NPL. (The
others were deproposed, deleted, or proposed). The number of EPA NPL sites identified
in our universe differs from the number of sites the AMLT identified. Specifically, 16
sites in the AMLT universe did not meet the OIG definition and are not included in our
data. Reasons for this include the fact that some of these 16 sites were mine waste dumps
or secondary smelters, and cleanup costs did not exceed actual or potential costs to EPA
totaling $1 million or more. In addition, our work identified mine sites that were active,
inactive, and abandoned.
Limitations
The inventory may be understated. It does not include coal sites by definition,
and it does not include all Federal sites, sites that States may not have shared with
EPA, sites where it is too early in the process to identify them as meeting our
definition, and hardrock landfill or dump sites. It may also be understated based
on the regional officials' interpretation of our definition of sites to be included in
the database.
We did not collect or project yearly cost estimates. We asked survey respondents
to provide cost information including: past costs, total maximum projected
cleanup costs, and capital costs, including the portion of projected Federal costs.
Since EPA officials indicated it was difficult to pinpoint specific cleanup cost
estimates, when we asked for cleanup cost information, we asked for it in ranges,
from a "minimum" amount to a "maximum" amount.
Past costs may or may not be included in total projected cleanup costs. We
defined "total maximum projected cleanup costs" as those costs to be paid by
PRPs, EPA, Federal agencies, and other parties. Depending on whether a site
manager interpreted costs to be paid as those costs in total or in the future, past
costs may or may not be included in total projected cleanup costs. Past costs are
costs incurred before a settlement is reached with the potentially responsible
parties, or when a settlement is not reached and EPA initiates a cost recovery
action associated with cleanup costs paid.
Risk judgments reflect current conditions. We asked respondents to provide
information on current human health and ecological/environmental risks. At
This does not include sites on the Bureau of Land Management land. The Bureau estimates it may cost as
much as $35 billion to clean up contaminated hardrock mine sites on Bureau lands.
-------
many of these sites, the States or EPA have not conducted detailed risk
assessments. At NPL sites, it is possible that response actions or remediation has
occurred thus, lowering the human health and ecological/environmental risk since
the listing of the sites on the NPL. Further, current risks do not reflect future
risks, which could be substantially higher because portions of these sites may be
developed and this development could significantly increase risks posed at these
sites.
PRP viability is the survey respondents 'judgment. We asked survey
respondents to indicate each PRP's viability (ability to pay for cleanup) in one of
the following categories: clearly viable, potentially viable, bankrupt or filed for
bankruptcy, or PRP viability is suspect or largely unknown. Survey respondents
may not be experts in finance or have the knowledge of a PRP's aggregate
liability and therefore there may be some uncertainty in their judgments of
viability. Site managers may have responded that no PRP existed because no PRP
search had been completed.
-------
10
-------
Chapter 2
Profile of Selected Site Characteristics
In this chapter, we present information regarding the profile of selected site
characteristics in the mining sites inventory. The purpose of this chapter is to show site
characteristics, such as the regional location of the sites, the operating status of mining
sites, the presence of acid mine drainage at mining sites, NPL status, the contaminants of
concern, and projections for how long operation and maintenance will take.
What is the Inventory of Mining Sites?
The inventory is comprised of 156 sites: 63 NPL sites, 82 CERCLIS Non-NPL5 sites, and
11 Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL) sites. Approximately 60 percent of the mining
sites in the inventory are Non-NPL sites.
Breakdown of Total Sites by NPL Status
(Nationwide)
63 Sites
/
^
EPA Lead: 45
Other Lead: 18
O NPL CERCLIS / Non-NPL D Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL)
Figure 2.1
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
One-hundred and six (68 percent) of 156 sites in the inventory are, or are projected to be,
EPA-lead. However, these may not all become final NPL sites or sites that the Superfund
program addresses.
Inclusion in CERCLIS currently means that the site may be hazardous enough to merit Federal action or be
included on the NPL.
11
-------
There are hardrock mining sites in every EPA region. However, a majority of the sites are
concentrated in 5 of EPA's 10 regions. The western regions (Regions 8, 9, and 10) and
Regions 4 and 7 have the largest number of sites in the inventory.
NPL Status of Sites by Region
10
DNPL CERCLK/Non-NPL D Potential (Non-CERCLK/Non-NPL)
Figure 2.2
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
Three of the top five regions with the largest number of sites in the inventory (Regions 8,
9, and 10) have developed mining strategies pursuant to the Agency's Hardrock Mining
Framework.
12
-------
What Are Some of the Characteristics of Sites in the Inventory?
Operating status of the sites in the inventory can provide some indication of the ability to
locate a PRP - an individual, business, or other organization that is potentially liable for
cleaning up a site. Because most of the sites in the inventory are abandoned, this suggests
complications locating PRPs and potential increased liability for EPA.
Operating Status of Mining Sites
(Nationwide)
Abandoned
Inactive
Active
Uncategorized
32
25
10 20 30 40 50
Number of Sites
60
70
DNPL DCERCLIS/Non-NPL D Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL)
Figure 2.3
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
13
-------
Acid mine drainage (AMD) was identified at 45 of the 156 sites in the inventory. The
National Wildlife Federation believes that sites where AMD is present should be
carefully monitored as "the presence of acid mine drainage is either underestimated or
ignored until it becomes evident, at which time the costs often exceed the operator's (sic)
financial resources, leading to bankruptcy or abandonment of the site in many cases."
AMD appears to be concentrated in Regions 8, 9, and 10. The following is a list, in
descending order, of the total number of sites, by region, with AMD.
Region 8 14 sites
Region 9 11 sites
Region 10 9 sites
Region 1 4 sites
Region 6 4 sites
Region 4 2 sites
Region 7 1 sites
According to regional officials, the sites in the inventory in Regions 2, 3, and 5, had no
AMD.
Number of Sites with Acid Mine Drainage
NPL
CERCLIS/Non-NPL
Potential (Non-
CERCLIS/Non-NPL)
D Sites with AMD
I Sites without AMD
D Unknown
45 AMD Sites Nationwide
Figure 2.4
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
14
-------
Lead, arsenic, zinc, and cadmium were the most common contaminants, and were found at
between approximately 50 and 80 of the sites in the inventory.
Most Common Contaminants at the 156 Sites
156.
sites
160
>
-------
The International Agency for Research on Cancer has determined that cadmium is
carcinogenic to humans, while EPA has determined that cadmium is a probable human
carcinogen by inhalation. For example, breathing air with very high levels of cadmium
can severely damage the lungs and may cause death. Breathing air with lower levels of
cadmium over long periods of time results in a build-up of cadmium in the kidney and, if
sufficiently high, may result in kidney disease.
Agency officials recommended the following websites for information on the toxic effects
of these contaminants.
EPA's Integrated Risk Information
(IRIS, website: http://www.epa.gov/iriswebp/iris/)
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Toxicological Profiles
(website: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html)
16
-------
At How Many Sites Have PRPs Been Identified, and What Is Their Viability?
The number and viability (ability to pay) of PRPs at each site provides insight about the
parties that may be available to pay for cleanup. As might be expected, the average
number of PRPs and their respective viability reduces as the NPL status becomes less
certain - from NPL to CERCLIS/Non-NPL to Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL).
PRP Viability at NPL Sites
(As Reported by Regional Site Managers)
m Clearly Viable *
D Potentially Viable
Viability is Suspect or
Largely Unknown
Bankrupt or Filed for
Bankruptcy
D No PRP Identified
* Only 1 "Clearly Viable"
Figure 2.6
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
At least one PRP was categorized as "clearly viable" at 70 percent of the 63 NPL sites.
However, 11 percent of the NPL sites listed a Federal agency, such as the Department of
Interior, as the "clearly viable" PRP.
Thirty percent of the NPL sites either lacked an identified PRP, or lacked a clearly viable
PRP.
The number of PRPs at each NPL site ranged from zero to a maximum of 10. (Ten was
the maximum number the survey questionnaire allowed.) Each NPL site had an average
of 2.8 PRPs.
17
-------
Compared to NPL sites, at CERCLIS/Non-NPL sites, fewer PRPs are identified as being
clearly viable. At the majority of sites (67 percent), where a PRP has been identified, the
PRP has less than clearly viable status.
PRP Viability at CERCLIS/Non - NPL Sites
(As Reported by Regional Site Managers)
1 Clearly Viable*
D Potentially Viable
Viability is Suspect or
Largely Unknown
Bankrupt or Filed for
Bankruptcy
D No PRP Identified
* Only 1 "Clearly Viable" Is Needed To Be Included In This Category
Figure 2.7
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
18
-------
As expected, for the 11 Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non/NPL) sites, overall PRP viability
was still less certain, compared to NPL sites and CERCLIS non-NPL sites.
PRP Viability at Potential Sites
(As Reported by Regional Site Managers)
D Clearly Viable *
D Potentially Viable
Viability is Suspect or
Largely Unknown
Bankrupt or Filed for
Bankruptcy
D No PRP Identified
* Only 1 "Clearly Viable" PRP Is Needed To Be Included In This Category
Figure 2.8
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
19
-------
How Long Will Operation and Maintenance Be Needed?
Operation and maintenance activities are activities necessary to ensure that the remedy
remains protective of human health and the environment. Examples of operation and
maintenance activities are operating a treatment plant (when restoring groundwater to a
beneficial use), and maintaining fencing, site access, and security measures. For cleanups
that are financed by the Superfund program, EPA operates and maintains the cleanup
facility for up to 10 years, with the State paying 10 percent of the cost, after which the site
is turned over to the State to continue operation and maintenance activities. For funding
purposes, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
classifies activities during this 10-year period, which EPA calls "long-term response
actions," as part of the cleanup, not as operation and maintenance.6
The cleanup of mining sites takes generations according to current projections, as more
than half (59 percent, or 92 of 156) of the sites will require operation and maintenance
(activities necessary to ensure continued effectiveness of a post-construction remedial
action) from 40 years to in perpetuity. Forty percent (37 of 92) of these sites are currently
on the NPL. Further, operation and maintenance is expected to be needed for 99 of the
156 sites for more than 20 years.
Operation & Maintenance Timeframes
for the 156 Sites
Sites
NPL sites
CERCLIS
Non-NPL sites
ซ'
Potential (Non-
CERCLIS/Non-NPLI
) sites
Figure 2.9
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
GAO report, Superfund Program: Current Status and Future Fiscal Challenges, GAO-03-850, July 2003.
20
-------
Summary and Conclusions
The greater number of mining sites in the western Regions (8, 9, and 10) and
Regions 4 and 7 show that these regions may have greater needs for resources,
guidance, and tools in addressing both the financial and environmental impact of
mining sites.
There are known human health risks from some of the most common contaminants
of concern at hardrock mining sites (lead, arsenic, zinc, and cadmium).
Because operation and maintenance activities are projected to go on for decades at
the majority of sites, operation and maintenance activities, and the remedies they
are associated with, are leading candidates for being site cost-drivers, and
therefore, an area that EPA needs to be well informed about. Consolidated
information on the efficiency and effectiveness of innovative or promising new
cleanup remedies for hardrock mining sites, coupled with consolidated knowledge
about the long-term efficiency and effectiveness of traditional or conventional
remedies, potentially provide EPA with the foundation for implementing remedies
that do not require decades of operation and maintenance investments, conserve
Superfund resources, and ensure adequate long-term protection of human health
and the environment.
The projected length of operation and maintenance periods calls into question the
ability of PRPs (or States) to be in a position to assume long-term financial
responsibility for one or more sites. Consolidated information on the complete
environmental liabilities of businesses engaged in hardrock mining and an
evaluation of their ability to pay for liabilities can offer an important basis for fine-
tuned EPA projections on sites that may not have a viable PRP.
21
-------
22
-------
Chapter 3
Human Health Risk
This chapter reports information on current human health risks at sites in the inventory.
Human health risks, according to EPA officials, currently drive the prioritization for
funding the cleanup of NPL sites. An example of human health risk from the inventory
includes deaths. For example, hundreds have died from exposure to asbestos from a
vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana. Several other mine sites in the inventory reported
human health risks from exposure to lead; at these sites, a significant percentage of
children have blood lead levels above the acceptable limit.
For this survey, human health risk meant that one or more persons were at current risk for
exposure or potential exposure to a hazardous condition from a mining site. Current risk
does not address future human health risk which could be greater if areas containing mine
wastes are developed without site cleanup.
23
-------
What Are the Current Human Health Risks By NPL Status?
Less than half of the current NPL hardrock mining sites were assessed as having a current
high or medium human health risk. However, the largest percentage of NPL sites had
current low human health risks. Risk may be low because removal or remedial actions
have been completed at NPL sites7.
Human Health Risks at
NPL Sites
Total NPL Sites = 63
Figure 3.1
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
EPA has reported that blood samples collected from children near some mining sites in the inventory before
and after cleanups have shown an improvement with a reduction in the average blood lead levels.
24
-------
Compared to NPL sites, a smaller portion (30 percent) of sites which the Superfund
program has in CERCLIS, but which have not yet been listed on the NPL, have a current
high or medium human health risk. The largest portion of sites (42 percent) were rated by
respondents as having a risk to human health that is currently unknown. Twenty-two (or
27 percent) of these sites are in Florida in Region 4 and are phosphate mining sites.
Human Health Risks at
CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites
Total CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites = 82
Figure 3.2
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
25
-------
Finally, there are 11 Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL) sites in our database where
current human health risk was assessed. The smallest portion of sites had current high
human health risk. The majority of sites were either rated as currently having a low risk to
human health (36 percent), or were rated as having a human health risk that is still
unknown (55 percent). None of the sites had a medium current human health risk.
Human Health Risks at Potential
(Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL) Sites
Total Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL) Sites = 11
Figure 3.3
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
26
-------
What Are the Human Health Risks by Region?
The levels of current human health risks vary by region. Regions 7, 8, 9, and 10 have the
most sites (12, 14, 11, and 7, respectively) with high and medium risk to human health.
Region 4 has the most sites with unknown risk to human health.
Human Health Risk
by Region
R-l
R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5
R-6 R-7 R-8 R-9 R-10
D Unknown Low D Medium High
Figure 3.4
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
27
-------
Summary and Conclusions
There is a mix, and some uncertainty, in judgments of the human health risks
associated with current and potential future Superfund hardrock mining sites. For
example, the majority of current NPL sites, as well as CERCLIS/Non-NPL sites,
and the Potential sites, have current low or unknown human health risks. This
indicates that to the degree EPA consistently relies on the use of high human health
risk criteria to move sites into the Superfund program, our data do not suggest that
the Superfund program will absorb all of the CERCLIS/Non-NPL or Potential
sites. However, because a large percentage of both CERCLIS/Non-NPL and
Potential sites have current human health risks that are unknown, it is not certain
what risks these sites may pose and whether they will eventually move into the
Superfund program.
The larger number of high and medium risk sites in the western regions (8, 9, 10)
and Region 7 implies that these regions may have greater needs for resources,
guidance, and tools in addressing the impacts of hardrock mining sites and may
place greater demands on the Superfund program.
28
-------
Chapter 4
Ecological/Environmental Risk
In this chapter we present information regarding the ecological/environmental risk for the
mining sites in the inventory. This chapter shows risk ratings by status of the site and
shows the number of sites by ecological/environmental risk in each region. We also report
information on the relationship between current human health and
ecological/environmental risks.
For this survey, ecological/environmental risk meant that some portion of the
ecology/environment was at risk for exposure or potential exposure to a hazardous
condition from a mining site.
29
-------
What Are the Current Ecological/Environmental Risks By NPL Status?
Half of the 63 NPL sites in the inventory are assessed as having a current high or medium
ecological/environmental risk. Almost one-quarter of the NPL sites had an unknown
current ecological/environmental risk.
Eco/Environmental Risk at
NPL Sites
Total NPL Sites = 63
Figure 4.1
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
30
-------
For the 82 CERCLIS/Non-NPL sites, ecological/environmental risk appears to be a
concern for a greater number of sites than human health is, as a majority (64 percent) of
the sites had a current high or medium ecological/environmental risk. For the same sites,
human health risk was rated as being currently high or medium at only 30 percent of the
sites.
Eco/Environmental Risk at
CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites
Total CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites = 82
Figure 4.2
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
31
-------
There are 11 Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL) sites in our database where the
judgments for current ecological/environmental risk were provided. Forty-five percent of
the sites had either a current high or medium ecological/environmental risk. Together, the
majority of sites were either rated as currently having a low current
ecological/environmental risk (9 percent), or were rated as having an
ecological/environmental risk that is unknown (46 percent).
Eco/Environmental Risk at
Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL) Sites
Total Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL) Sites = 11
Figure 4.3
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
32
-------
What Are the Ecological/Environmental Risks by Region?
Regions 8 and 10 have the most sites (11 and 5, respectively) with high
ecological/environmental risk. Regions 4, 9, 8, and 10 have the most sites (25, 17, 17, and
11, respectively) with high and medium ecological/environmental risk. All of the sites in
Region 1 had high or medium ecological/environmental risk.
.c
s
z
Ecological / Environmental Risk
by Region
R-9 R-10
Figure 4.4
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
33
-------
What Is the Relationship Between Human Health and Ecological/Environmental Risk?
The following matrix matches up current human health and ecological/environmental risks
for sites in the inventory. Twenty-two percent of the sites (35) had a high or medium
human health risk and ecological/environmental risk. Fifteen of the 35 sites had acid mine
drainage.
Health and Eco/Environmental Risk
{Nationwide)
Human Health Risk
; !/. ' ''. .,v- .".'..'.. \ "...:.:'
High
(25)
Medium
(27)
Low
(57)
Unknown
(47)
(29)
(60)
8 b
^
J J
13
2
13
12
27
Low
(30)
2
3
24
1
(37)
9
3
8
17
Figure 4.5
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
34
-------
Summary and Conclusions
NPL sites and CERCLIS/Non-NPL sites were more commonly rated as having
high ecological risks than human health risks. For example, while 42 percent and
30 percent of NPL and CERCLIS/Non-NPL sites were rated as having high or
medium human health risks respectively, 50 percent of NPL sites and 64 percent of
CERCLIS/Non-NPL sites were rated as having high or medium ecological risks.
The larger number of high and medium risk sites in the western Regions (8, 9, 10)
and Regions 7 and 4 implies that these regions may have greater needs for
resources, guidance, and tools in addressing the impacts of hardrock mining sites
and may place greater demands on the Superfund program.
35
-------
36
-------
Chapter 5
Cleanup Costs
In this chapter, we present information on projected cleanup costs of current Superfund
hardrock mining sites and potential future sites. This provides an indication of the
financial impact of these sites on the Superfund Trust fund and general revenue which
supports the program as well.8 This information, combined with data we presented in
chapters 2-4, provides context for evaluating the significance and relevance of the impacts.
Given uncertainties in estimating the costs of cleaning up a site that could potentially take
years to complete, we present several aspects of cost data. We present most of our data in
terms of maximum projected costs to avoid minimizing the potential liability associated
with these hardrock mining sites, as cleanup costs can often be underestimated.
Underestimation of cleanup costs can occur when inflation is not considered, when acid
mine drainage is inaccurately predicted, or when cleanup is delayed. One study suggests
that the discovery of inaccurately predicted acid mine drainage can increase site cleanup
estimates by 200 to 1000 percent or more. Costs to the Federal government may also
increase when a PRP defaults. For example, Asarco, which was the potentially
responsible party for several sites in the inventory, settled with the Federal government for
$100 million. One of the sites in the inventory owned by Asarco is estimated (by a
recognized expert in cost estimating cleanup of hardrock mining sites) to cost $457.1
million to clean up.
As a subset of this cost information, we present information on the maximum Federal
capital costs. (Capital costs are expenditures required to construct a remedial action. They
are exclusive of costs required for long-term operation and maintenance of the remedial
actions.) This amount represents our projection of costs to the Superfund Trust fund.
Finally, for context purposes, we present one chart which shows the costs associated with
sites that have at least one record of decision (ROD) completed.
We could not identify any uniform, most reliable, cost estimating standards or procedures
for hardrock mining sites. EPA did not provide us with evidence regarding the reliability
of projected cost estimates for hardrock mining sites or portions of sites, such as operable
units. We recognize that as EPA staff learn more about sites as they progress through the
Superfund program, the learning process could impact their judgments about costs to clean
Until 1995, the Trust fund was financed primarily by a tax on crude oil and certain chemicals and an
environmental tax on corporations. The authority for these taxes expired in December 1995 and has not been
reauthorized; however, the Trust fund continues to receive revenue from interest accrued on the unexpended
invested balance, recoveries of cleanup costs from potentially responsible parties, and collections of fines and
penalties. The Trust fund has also received revenue from annual general fund appropriations that, along with
its other revenues, have been used to fund the Superfund program's operations.
37
-------
up a site. Cost estimates, like risk estimates, could increase or decrease based on the
learning process or stage of a site in the Superfund program.
Trend in Superfund Budgets and Expected Future Demands
In order to provide context for the cost data, we present EPA's Superfund budget for the
last 5 years. Figure 5.1 shows that EPA's Superfund budgets have been about $1.2 billion
for the last 5 years.
History of Congressional Appropriations
for the Superfund Program Since 1999
Billion $
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Note: Adjusted Base Superfund Appropriation
Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Figure 5.1
38
-------
In 2001, at the request of Congress, Resources for the Future estimated that EPA's
Superfund program needs would be (in inflation-adjusted dollars) about $1.8 billion in
2003, generally declining to approximately $1.6 billion in 2009. These estimates exceed
historical appropriations and assume that only 2 mega-sites (sites that will cost $50 million
or more to clean up) and 33 non mega-sites will be added to the NPL annually. Resources
for the Future concluded that a significant "ramp-down" of the Superfund program was not
imminent.
Estimates of Future Costs to
EPA for the Superfund Program
(RFF 2001)
2003
2004
2005 2006
2007
2008 2009
Figure 5.2
Source: Resources for The Future
39
-------
What Are the Total Maximum Projected Costs As Reported by Regional Site
Managers?
Overall potential cleanup costs for mining sites are extremely large relative to EPA's total
Superfund budgets. While we did not estimate yearly costs, our data show that maximum
cleanup costs will be approximately $24 billion and, at a minimum, will be about $7
billion. These maximum projected cleanup costs and the associated cleanup
responsibilities will not all be due immediately, and they may not all fall to EPA.
25
Total Projected Cleanup Costs
(All 156 Sites Nationwide)
Maximum
Minimum
Figure 5.3
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
40
-------
For Sites With RODs, What Are The Cost Estimates?
The Agency's Superfund Program Director suggested that cost information for sites with
RODs (the public document in which EPA identifies the cleanup alterative to be used at an
operable unit of a site) would generally be more accurate.9 Because information was
reported to us on a site-wide basis in our survey, we did not have individual operable unit10
information in the database. Subsequently, we asked site managers to provide us with
current individual operable unit information. Site managers at 102 of the sites in the
database were able to provide cost estimates and current site status for operable units.
Some sites had achieved more than one ROD while others had not achieved a ROD.
102 Sites Provided Current Operable Unit Status
NPL
CERCLIS/
Non-NPL
Potential
(Non-
CERCLIS/
Non-NPL)
TOTALS
Sites with at Least One
ROD or Equivalent11
29
(22 are EPA Lead)
12
( 8 are EPA Lead )
0
41*
Sites without a
ROD or Equivalent
13
( 10 are EPA Lead)
43
(33 are EPA Lead)
5
( 1 is EPA Lead)
61**
Figure 5.4
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
* The 41 sites with at least one ROD account for $5.4 billion of the maximum projected
cleanup costs, and $800 million of the maximum Federal capital costs.
** The 61 sites without a ROD account for $14.1 billion of the maximum projected
cleanup costs, and $11.8 billion of the maximum Federal capital costs.
10
We did not test this assumption, although it is consistent with assumptions of Superfund cleanup cost
estimating guidance.
A distinct project of the overall site cleanup. Sites can be divided into operable units based on the media to
be addressed (such as groundwater or contaminated soil), geographic area, or other measures.
A ROD equivalent is an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, no further action, or a State voluntary
cleanup program decision.
41
-------
What Does Cost Information By NPL Status Tell Us About Impacts to the
Superfund Program?
We are presenting the cost information by NPL status because NPL status is an important
indication of EPA's current liability. EPA cannot use Superfund resources for long-term
cleanup until a site is listed on the NPL. Therefore, total maximum cleanup costs are
broken down into each NPL status category.
A majority (61 percent) of the total maximum projected cleanup costs are for sites that are
in the inventory and in CERCLIS, but have not been officially added to the program by
being listed on the NPL.
16
14
12
10
.S 8
S
aa
Total Maximum
Projected Cleanup Costs by NPL Status
S7.8 Billion
S1.7 Billion
NPL
CERCLIS/Non-NPL
Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-
NPL)
Total = $24.3 Billion for all 156 Sites
Figure 5.5
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
At least nineteen of the NPL sites in this hardrock mining inventory have estimated
cleanup costs of $50 million or more.
42
-------
Federal Capital costs are the costs expected to be paid by the Federal government and
represent the real and potential financial impact on the Trust fund. Figure 5.6 shows the
amount of the maximum projected cleanup costs that are projected to be Federal Capital
costs.
Maximum Projected Federal
Capital Costs by NPL Status
(Nationwide)
/
$2.4 Billion:
^
\ $11 4Rillinn-
S*\
NPL
CERCLIS/Non-NPL
Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-
NPL)
Federal Capital Costs Portion of Maximum
Projected Cleanup Costs
Total Projected Federal Capital Costs = $14.8 Billion (Nationwide)
Figure 5.6
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
For the 63 NPL sites, Federal costs equal approximately $2.4 (31 percent) of the $7.8
billion maximum projected cleanup costs.
For the 82 CERCLIS Non-NPL sites, Federal capital costs are expected to comprise
approximately $11.4 billion (77 percent) of the $14.8 billion maximum projected cleanup
costs. Twenty-two of these sites reported Federal capital costs of $100 to $500 million
each. All of these sites are in Region 4.
For the 11 Potential (Non-CERCLIS/Non-NPL) sites, Federal costs are expected to be
approximately $1.0 billion (59 percent) of the $1.7 billion projected maximum cleanup
cost.
43
-------
Next are maximum projected cleanup costs by region. Cleanup costs are concentrated in
Region 4.
Maximum Projected
Cleanup Costs by Region
10
Federal Capital Costs
Total Costs
Figure 5.7
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
As shown earlier, over half (55 percent) of the 156 sites are located in three regions (8, 9,
10). However, Region 4 is accounting for approximately 50 percent, or about $11 billion,
of the total projected maximum cleanup costs. Regions 4, 7, and 8 had the highest
amounts, respectively, of projected Federal capital costs.
44
-------
What Does Projected Cost Compared with Risk Information Tell Us?
Figures 5.8 and 5.9 show the maximum projected Federal capital costs for human health
risks for NPL sites and for CERCLIS Non-NPL sites, respectively. The left side of each
figure shows the allocation of the maximum Federal capital costs by human health risk,
while the right side shows the total number of sites as rated by human health risk category.
Maximum Projected Federal Capital Costs
for Human Health Risks
NPL Sites
Maximum Projected Federal Capital
Clean-up Costs: $2.4 Billion
IHigh DMedum Blow DUnknown
Total Number of
NPL Sites =63
IHigh D Medium Low D Unknown
Figure 5.8
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
For NPL sites, 66 percent of the maximum projected Federal capital costs will be needed
for 25 percent of the high risk sites.
45
-------
Maximum Projected Federal Capital Costs
for Human Health Risks
CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites
Maximum Projected Federal Capital
Clean-up Costs:$ 11.4 Billion
IHigh DMedurn Low D Unknown
Total Number of
CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites =82
IHigh D Medium Low Unknown
Figure 5.9
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
For the CERCLIS Non-NPL sites, 96 percent of the $11.4 billion maximum projected
Federal capital costs are projected to be needed for 42 percent of the sites with a current
unknown human health risk. Conversely, only 2 percent of the maximum Federal capital
costs are projected to be needed for 10 percent of the CERCLIS Non-NPL sites that are
assessed as having a current high human health risk. In total, nearly 100 percent of
estimated Federal costs to clean up CERCLIS/Non NPL hardrock mining sites in the
inventory are projected for sites that predominantly are considered to have current low risk
or have a current unknown human health risk. EPA has indicated that almost all of these
CERCLIS Non-NPL sites are in regions, including the State of Florida in Region 4, where
the availability of water and the quality of the available water are issues of paramount
public concern. EPA states that contaminated water impacts the health of living resources
and also agriculture, municipal, and industrial water supplies, and commercial recreation.
The socioeconomic effects of contaminated water include the increased costs of water
treatment where practicable, the costs of developing additional sources of water where
contaminated water cannot be rendered useful through treatment, and ancillary effects such
46
-------
as the inability of urban and rural subsistence fishermen to obtain a safe protein
component for their diet.
Figures 5.10 and 5.11 show the maximum projected Federal capital costs for
ecological/environmental risks for NPL sites and for CERCLIS Non-NPL sites,
respectively. The left side of each figure shows the allocation of the maximum Federal
capital costs by ecological/environmental risk, while the right side shows the total number
of sites by ecological/environmental risk category.
Maximum Projected Federal Capital Costs
NPL Sites
for Eco/Environmental Risks
Maximum Projected Federal Capital
Clean-up Costs: $ 2.4 Billion
Total Number of
NPL Sites =63
I High D Medium Low D Unknown
Figure 5.10
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
Nineteen percent of the $2.4 billion maximum projected Federal capital costs are expected
to be needed for 28 percent of the NPL sites assessed with a current high
ecological/environmental risk.
47
-------
Maximum Projected Federal Capital Costs
for Eco/Environmental Risks
CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites
Maximum Projected Federal Capital
Clean-up Costs: $ 11.4 Billion
IHigh DMedium HLow DUnknown
Total Number of
CERCLIS/Non-NPL Sites =82
IHigh D Medium Low DUnknown
Figure 5.11
Source: OIG Analysis of Inventory Data
Nearly 100 percent of the maximum Federal capital costs are projected to be needed for 53
percent of the sites where a medium risk was assessed. No funds were expected to be
needed for the 11 percent of the CERCLIS Non-NPL sites assessed with high risk.
48
-------
Summary and Conclusions
We have identified 156 hardrock mining sites across the country that have the
potential to cost between $7 billion and $24 billion to clean up. We have not
projected the yearly costs to EPA. The total maximum cleanup costs to EPA for
the hardrock mining sites we identified are estimated at $15 billion. Although
these costs will not all be due immediately, comparison of these costs to EPA's
annual Superfund program budgets for the last 5 years (about $1.2 billion) suggests
these costs, alone, could present a significant management challenge. The
challenges that are suggested by the hardrock mining inventory are amplified by
the fact that EPA's Superfund program has experienced shortfalls in the last
2 years, resulting in some cleanup activities being stopped, and program increases
are not anticipated.
Because Region 4 is accounting for almost half of the total projected cleanup costs
we report ($11 billion out of $24 billion), the region is likely to place extreme
demands on the Superfund program and may have a greater need for resources,
guidance, and tools in addressing the impacts of hardrock mining sites.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency commented that the report uses the maximum estimated cleanup costs from
the cost range reported by the survey respondents. For example, they believed Region 4
filled out the survey using the $100 to $500 million cleanup cost estimate for the 22
phosphate mining sites in Florida. The Region believes that site cleanup costs will most
likely fall at the lower end of the $100 to $500 million range. The difference between the
low and high end of the cost for these 22 sites is about $8.8 billion. As we've stated
elsewhere in our report cost estimates can be inaccurate. The inaccurate prediction of acid
mine drainage can increase these costs by up to 1000 percent or more. None of the 22
phosphate mining sites in the inventory in Region 4 have reported the presence of acid
mine drainage, and therefore, haven't accounted for the likelihood of acid mine drainage in
their cost estimates. This is despite several recent articles that indicate that the highly
acidic water in the sites' lagoons have leaked and spilled and contaminated ground and
surface water supplies and killed fish and vegetation. Further, as a result of a recent
bankruptcy of a company that mined phosphate in Florida, the State of Florida has
concluded that State financial assurance requirements (requirements that make sure that
funds are available to clean up a facility should the PRP go bankrupt or abandon the site)
need to be strengthened so that the taxpayer does not bear the burden of paying for future
clean ups. Florida indicated it never considered a phosphate mining company would go
bankrupt.
49
-------
50
-------
Chapter 6
Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary and Conclusions
We have identified 156 hardrock mining sites across the country that have the potential to
cost between $7 billion and $24 billion to clean up. The total maximum cleanup costs to
EPA for the hardrock mining sites we identified are estimated at $15 billion. Although
these costs will not all be due immediately, comparison of these costs to EPA's annual
Superfund program budgets for the last 5 years (about $1.2 billion) suggests these costs,
alone, could present a significant management challenge for the Superfund program. The
challenges that are suggested by the hardrock mining inventory are amplified by the fact
that EPA's Superfund program has experienced shortfalls in the last 2 years, resulting in
some cleanup activities being stopped, and program increases are not anticipated.
The management and financial challenges from current and potential future hardrock
mining sites are not proportionately distributed throughout the country. Region 4 is
accounting for almost half of the total projected cleanup costs reported ($11 billion out of
$24 billion). The western regions (8, 9, 10) have more mining sites than other regions, and
in addition to Region 7, have more sites that pose high-medium ecological and human
health risks.
Although a potentially responsible party has been identified at 83 percent of the hardrock
mining sites, uncertainties about the complete nature of these parties' liabilities and their
ability to pay for cleanup actions over the extreme long-term counteract the positive news
that many have been identified. We found that 70 percent of current Superfund sites have
a clearly viable potentially responsible party, and 33 percent of sites in CERCLIS and 27
percent of other potential sites have an identified viable potentially responsible party.
However, our data also show that at the majority (59 percent) of sites, the projected
operation and maintenance period for the cleanup remedy is 40 years to "in perpetuity".
Overall, our research, considered in context with the financial challenges the Superfund
program is currently facing, demonstrate that some key actions need to be taken to enhance
the effectiveness of Agency decision-making and planning ability with regard to the
substantial impacts that hardrock mining are projected to have. Specifically, factors that
can effect how much EPA, or other parties, may pay for cleanup of hardrock mining sites
include PRPs' long-term viability, efficiency and effectiveness of existing hardrock
mining cleanup remedies, and potential efficiency and effectiveness of innovative or
promising hardrock mining cleanup technologies. Factors that can effect how EPA will
need to direct its limited resources include which regions have a high concentration of
hardrock mining sites, or have sites that pose higher risks than other locations. At a
51
-------
minimum, an appropriate understanding of these factors will raise the Agency's capacity
to plan for financial impacts to the Superfund program from hardrock mining sites and
develop reasoned, preventative, strategies and program guidance that could minimize
financial and environmental impacts.
Recommendations
In view of our analysis of the information EPA officials have provided to us, we
recommend that the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response lead, implement or co-implement as appropriate, and as their jurisdiction and
authority permit:
(1) A review and analysis of:
(A) the long-term sustainability, and complete environmental liability of
businesses involved in current or inactive hardrock mining operations.
(B) the type of remediation technologies (engineered or non-engineered) that
are in use at existing Superfund hardrock mining sites, and other hardrock
mining sites under EPA's jurisdiction. The review should address the
projected long-term costs and period of operation of the remediation
technologies, assuming a stated cleanup standard.
(C) innovative, alternative, or promising new remediation technologies
(engineered or non-engineered) that identify enhanced efficiency and
effectiveness in addressing remediation of hardrock mining sites and
associated waste. The review should address the projected long-term costs
and period of operation of the remediation technologies, assuming a stated
cleanup standard.
(2) Continue to support Agency programs and activities related to developing
improvements in the Agency's National Hardrock Mining Framework and
developing and sustaining Agency expertise in hardrock mining.
(3) Prioritize Agency assistance and guidance on hardrock mining site management
issues based on the immediate risks and overall potential workload that a region is
expected to encounter based on the region's hardrock mining profile.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The actions the Agency has proposed to address our recommendations are generally
acceptable as long as the Agency produces tangible evidence, for OIG review, in lieu of
the report we recommended, to substantiate completion of their actions. The Agency
needs to provide milestones for the completion of these actions.
52
-------
Appendix A
Summary of the General Mining Law of 1872
The General Mining Law of 1872 was passed to encourage mineral resource development and the
settlement of the Western United Sates. As amended it offers easy private access to hardrock
mineral resources on open public domain lands. The law allows individuals and corporations to:
1) freely prospect for hardrock minerals on Federal lands; 2) mine the land, if an economic deposit
is found; 3) sell the extracted minerals without reimbursing the Government; and 4) purchase, or
"patent," the land for a nominal sum of $2.50 or $5.00 an acre. Once patented, the mining claim
becomes a recognized private interest that can be traded or sold. As a consequence, mineral and
economic development in the West has been significant. The General Accounting Office
estimated in 1992 that "over 3.2 million acres of Federal land had been patented under the 1872
law." Arguments in favor of little or no change to the 1872 Law are made on the grounds that it
"embodies principles important to efficient mining: self-initiation of mineral rights, access to
prospects, exclusive right to develop a prospect, and security of tenure to 'hold' a discovery."
Critics of the 1872 Law say it is outdated and that the Government (as a steward of the land for its
citizens) gets very little return for making the land and mineral resources available. Because the
effective price paid by mining companies to use Federal lands and extract the minerals does not
equal the economic value of neither such use nor of the minerals, the 1872 Law "effectively
transfers wealth from the U.S. public to the hardrock mining industry." Moreover, discrepancies
between Federal and State bonding requirements for mined lands have caused concerns that a land
patenting provision of the 1872 Law provides mine operators relief from the stricter Federal
bonding requirements. The main concern is that some States' regulations have not kept pace with
Federal regulations in requiring sufficient financial assurances to restore the land if owners cannot
do so. A 1994 Congressional Research Service Report for Congress cites several economic
arguments for reform of the law: 1) because the U.S. hardrock mining is a mature industry and the
West is now economically developed, the 1872 Law is obsolete; 2) the 1872 Law pays little mind
to values embodied in environmental concerns or to alternative uses of the land; 3) as a matter of
economic equity, citizens, who as a whole own the land and the minerals, should receive fair
value; 4) shortcomings in the law that invite abuse of the claim and patent system diminish the
intended economic benefits; 5) treatment of hardrock mining under the 1872 Law is inconsistent
with the treatment of extractive industries on other Federal lands.
53
-------
54
-------
Appendix B
Survey
^ Financial Responsibility 3<5&
for Superfund Mining Sites t^S9
It you have any questions about the L se at this database please contact:
Tina Lovingood at (202) 566 2906 or Barry Parker at (202) 566-2913.
I specific data is to be Enforcement Confidential check the 'Enforcement Confidential1 checkbox for the Held
tail otthfdataitith.rh'puri! Enforcement Confidential pli-a-p clicf here ^ SeS all data to Enforcemen* Confidential
Submitted by: Tina Lovingood on: 06^11/2003 08:45 AM
J!ฑjsAdditional Readers:
yP 1 AddtorftkMofs:
ir ^\^
Use of this field gives the selected persons EDIT access to this document This is helpful when s
person is responsible or Updating or Ed ting a survey form that someone else has created. Please
use the drop-down arrow to select the additional editor s). Thank you.
^^
Use o this field gives the selected persons READ-ONLY access to this document. This is helpful when
one person is responsible for Cresting and Updating a survey form but would like to allow others to
review it. Please use the drop-down arrow to select the additional readers. Thank you.
*
GENERAL INFORMATION
Region(s) State s) pฐฐ!*nat^5
=* * ' ' Latitude/Longitude
0 AL LAT- 42
LONG; -23
Mine/Mill/Smelter Site Name:
(Mine, Mills, and Pr mar/ smelters only.)
DIG Workpapef tt:
Site Name: Junk
Current or Prospective JJ*J
Site of Concern? ./'^
C Current fป Prospective
|5f Enfarcemem Confidential jS
Why? junk .S
/
ID Number(s) -ฑ!d
!x EPA Ix CWA Jx Othei \
|X CEFICLA l>f State \
!x RCRA !x SPIL [if known) \
EPA ID: xyz \
CERCLA ID; xyz \
RCRA XD: xyz \
CฅA ID; xyz \
State ID: xyz \
SPIL ID: xyz \
Other ID; xyz \
Type of m in e/m ill/smelter: \
(check al that apply) \
Gold \
Specify Whether Defined Site .jffi.,1 \
or Watershed / \
CS Defined Ste C Watershed / \
Is the site being described a defined site or awatershed? \
ij
jS List ail known site ID#s and check the boxes for the programs they correspond to. If s te ID numbers are
jf not known, but another program is overseeing activ ty at the site, please check the program box for that
^ site.
CURRENT means the site s being addressed under some Federal or state program. PROSPECTIVE
means site is of potentia concern to EPA because PRP or stale may not be able to address problem
and EPA may need to fund the cleanup.
55
-------
SITE OPERATION
Start Date of Operation
(Year, i.e. 1890)
Year: 1 960 Estimate? ซ Yes O
Curr/nt Stat
r Active/ C Im
End Date of Operation
(Year, i.e. 1395)
Year: 1966 Estimate? (8 Yos C
nt Status of Operation
active (S> Abandoned
Brief Site Summary (Act
Junk
ilar to information put in
Specify year of start. If exact year is uncertain then give the best estimate and check the box that
indicates best estimate.
Specify year of end If exact year is uncertain then give the best estimate and check the box that
indicates best estimate. If currently operating then check the currently operating box.
Example paragraphs. Please limit to 2 paragraphs.
OR FOR PARAGRAPH 2,
e site has not been listed on the NPL and/or the site is/is not listed in CERCLIS. and/oi
'entory.
SUPERFUND STATUS
Indicate National Priorities List (NPL) status
C NPL C CERCLIS Non-NPL ฎ Neither
Please indicate Lead
C EPA C Stale
C Other Federal Agency C Tribal
If olhei please list: Junk
CONTACT INFORMATION
RPM/OSC/EPA Contact (if applicable):
junk Phone: ft
Regional Attorney
junk
Phone: tt
PAST COSTS
Past Costs for site J
$2,000,000
1
*J
!>? Errtorcernerft Cantidentisl
What Activities do the
Junk
pasts costs cover?
r
I Example statement of what past costs covered; pasts costs have been expended to cover the cost of 2 I
I removal actions and site assessment activities. I
56
-------
CLEANUP COSTS
JX Enforcement Confidential
Projected Cleanup Costs
C $1 million or less O $10-25 million C $50-100 million (S- $500 million
C $1-10 million C $25-50 million O $100-500 million
Method of Cost Estimate
Junk
Clean up costs e
other parties.
itimate should include both those to be paid by PRPs, EPA, Federal agencies and
Please include assumptions and what is included in costs estimate (i.e. cleanup, ORD costs, closure,
post closure, water treatment the number ot years or maintenance, etc.)
lie Federal (Actual) fx
|x Federal (Projected) ix
C $0- No Cost
O 25 to 50 million
O $0- No Cos!
O 25 to 50 million
O $Q-NoCosl
O 25fo50mlon
C $0- No Cos!
O 25 to 50 million
G $0- No Cost
C 25 to 50 million
C $0- No Cost
C 25 to 50 million
C $0- No Cost
O 25 to 50 million
C. $0- No Cost
C 25 to 5D million
CAPITAL COSTS
Sources Providing Capital Costs ,1ftl
State (Actual) ix PRP (Actual) fx Other (Actual)
State (Projected) Ix PRP (Projected) jx Other (Projecte
Federal Capital Costs (Actual)
C 1 million 01 less C 1 to 10 million
C 50 to 1 00 million C 100 to 500 million
Federal Capital Costs (Projected]
O 1 million oi less O 1 to 10 million
C 50 to 100 million C 100 to 500 million
State Capital Costs (Actual)
C 1 million or less C 1 to 10 million
C 50 to 1 00 million C 100to500mlon
State Capital Costs (Projected)
C 1 million or less C 1 to 10 million
C 50 to 100 million C 100 to 500 million
PRP Capital Costs (Actual)
C 1 million or less C 1 to 10 million
C 50 to 1QQ million C 100 to 500 million
PRP Capital Costs (Projected]
C 1 million or less C 1 to 10 million
C 50 to 1 00 million C 100 So 500 million
Other Capital Costs (Actual)
C 1 million or less C 1 to 10 million
C 50 to 100 million C 100 to 500 million
Othei Capital Costs (Projected]
C 1 million or less C 1 to 10 million
C 50 to 1 00 million C 1 00 to 500 million
O 10 to 25 million
(?' 500 million or more
O 1 0 to 25 million
500 million or more
^)
O 10 to 25 million 1
9' 500 million or more
O 1 0 to 25 million
{*> 500 million or more
O 10 to 25 million
9-- 500 million or more
O 10 to 25 million
(S 500 million or more
TOTAL Estimated Capital Costs = $4 Bil!ion++
The definition ot Capital Costs is "Expenditures required to construct a remedial action. They are
exclusive ot cost required to maintain the action." This definition is detailed in the document entitled "A
Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study"
(EPA-54Q-R-QQ-002) pages 3-1 and D-1.
57
-------
MAINTENANCE COSTS
C Enforcement Confidential
Sources Providing Maintenance Costs
fx Federal (Actual) |x State (Actual)
tx Federal (Projected) |x State (Projected)
fx PRP (Actual)
jx PRP (Projecled)
Annual Federal Maintenance Costs {Actual]
C JO - Mo Costs O $1OOK to $SOOK <$ $1 Million +
C $1 to 10OK
C $SOOK to $1 Million C Unkno\
Annual Federal Maintenance Costs (Projected)
C $0 - No Costs O $1DOK to $50QK 9 $1 Million +
C $1 to 10OK O $5QQK to $1 Million C Unknown
Annual State Maintenance Costs [Actual)
C JO - No Costs C $1 OOK to J500K (S J1 Million *
C J1to100K O SSOOK to $1 Million C Unknown
Annual State Maintenance Costs (Projected)
C JO - No Costs C $1 OOK to JSOQK W $1 Million +
C JttolQOK O 5500K to $1 Million C Unknown
Annual PRP Maintenance Costs (Actual)
C W - No Costs C- $1 OOK to J500K (8 $1 Million +
C J1to100K O $5DOK to $1 Million C Unknown
Annual PRP Maintenance Costs (Projected)
C JO - No Costs C $1 OOK to J500K ซ J1 Million +
C J1 to 10OK O $SQOK to $1 Million C Unknown
Annual Other Maintenance Costs [Actual)
C JO - No Costs O $1 OOK to J500K (? J1 Million +
C J1 to 10OK
O $5QOK to J1 Million C Unkno\
Annual Other Maintenance Costs (Projected]
C $0 - No Costs C $1 OOK to J500K ffi $1 Million +
C J1 to 10OK O $500K to $1 Million C Unknown
TOTAL Estimated Maintenance Costs = $8 Mlllion++
Other (Actual
Other (Projected)
ปปl
[X Enfor
How Long are Maintenance costs expected to be needed?
C 0-20 years C 21-40 years C 40- 100 years
-------
UNRECOVERABLE SUPERFUND TRUSTFUND COSTS
|X Enforcement Confidential
Amount of Unrecoverable
SuperFund TrustFund costs
f&' Known O1 Unknow
How much? $
|X Enforcement Confidential
Are Unrecoverable SuperFund
TrustFund costs Actual or Projected?
<$ Actual O Projected
Unrecoverable means costs are generally believed to be unlikely to be reimbursed tram a PRP or
other sources.
POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY (PRP)
PRPs should be MAJOR PRPs, not deminimis or demicromis PRPs.
You will be able to list up to 10 seperate PRPs.
PRP-Q1 | PRP-G2 | PRP-03 | PRP-04 | PRP-Q5 | PRP-06 | PRP-07 | PRP-08 | PRP-09 | PRP-10 |
List PRPs (if kn<
Junk
Characterize the PRP's viability
fifc Clearly viable
O Potentially viable
Potentially Responsible Party 01
Federal Facility 01 other financial contributors
C Bankrupt or filed lor bankruptcy
C PRP viability is suspect or largely unknown
Are PRPs at contributors US or Foreign owned? (it known]
(* US owned O Foreign Owned O US & Foreign Owned O Unknown
Aie PRPs a subsidaiy of a laiger patent company?
9 SubsidaEy C Not Subsidaiy C Both C Unknown
Indicate approximate cost percentage to be paid by PRP. Federal Facility, or other i
10
Upon what is this estimate based? [enforcement agreement, order, best guestimate, other]
cd
The approximate cost percentage means the fraction of total cleanup costs to be contributed by the I
PRP.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
1ST Enforcement Confidential
To whom has site pledged Financial Assurance (check ail that apply)
IST State r BLM F EPA |~ Other
|X Biforcament Confidential
Amount of Financial Assurance
(S Known C Unknown
List amount: $
Specify mechanisms used: (check all that apply)
}x Self Assurance (financial or corporate test) Is? Other (trustfund/letter of crediV bonding/other)
Ex Insurance Policy |x* Unknown
Is it reasonably expected that financial assurance will be adequate to cover
closure, post closure, maintenance costs, and any other costs?
Please provide narrative about the Adequacy of Financial Assurance
Junk
Include criteria used to address adequacy. Include types of costs that won't be covered. I
59
-------
If EPA crafted financial assurance regulations under EPA's Superfund 108
authority, similar to DOI's 3809 regulations requiring 100% bonding of
reclamation costs, and had a fully funded and implemented program, would
these regulations apply to this site?
(IB. Would Apply C Would Not Apply C Unknown
If potential regulation would apply, would the financial assurance be sufficient to cover the Superfund
expenditures?
C Sufficient (8- Nat Sufficient C Unknown
If not sufficient, why not?
Junk
Is This Mine on Public Lands? (BLM 01 Forest Service Lands]
<$ Yes C No C Unknown
Were Lands Patented?
Patented lands are lands secured by a private party pursuant to the 1372 Mining Law. I
HUMAN POPULATION RISKS
|X Enforcsmerrt Confidential
Is Human population currently at
risk?
(One or more persons at risk = Yes)
<$ Yes O No O Unknown
fx Biforcemert Confidential
General assessment of site for
Human population at risk
(i High C Low
C Medium C Unknown
IS" Biforcement Confidential
Provide narrative regarding
Human population at risk
Junk
fx Enforcement Confidential
Upon what is the assessment for
Human population at risk based?
(check all that apply)
fx Risk assessment fx Past Experience
fx Professional Judgement fx other
If other please detail:
Junk
jpj
Provide qualifications on human population at risk Include, if applicable and notable, the makeup I
(Environmental justice, tribal, or other sensitive populations) of human population. I
60
-------
MEDIA AFFECTED
Media affected at time of action
(check all that apply)
|X Ground water |X Soil |x Unknown
|x Surface water |x Sediment
|>F Air |x Wetlands
(if enforcement Confidential
Narrative regarding media affected
(optional)
Junk
ACID MINE DRAINAGE (AMD)
Is AMD currently occuring at this mine and/or is a remedy in place to
address AMD?
CONTAMINANTS
IS" Enforcement Confidential
Contaminants of Concern
Arsenic, Copper, Cadmium
ECOLOGICAL/ ENVIRON MENTAL RISKS
Is there current Ecological or
Environmental risk?
-------
DATA
Please describe any assumptions made about data provided or not provided
Data is junk for display purposes
Indicate the source(s) for the data you provide
Junkyard
Indicate any limitations there are on the data (i.e. reliability of data etc...)
Not to be used for other than display purposes
Please provide any information you have on states' inventories
None
Provide qualifications on ecological/environmental risk. Provide the makeup (endangered species,
etc...) of ecology, if notable.
OTHER COMMENTS
Provide any other information about the site that you want us to know
62
-------
Appendix C
Details on Scope and Methodology
Our evaluation question was: "Is there a financial impact on the Trust fund and on States
from hardrock mining sites?" The report summarizes the first part of the evaluation that
will be used to answer the objective. In order to answer the evaluation question, we
needed to obtain an inventory of hardrock mining sites. We defined the sites to be
included in the inventory as all non-coal mines, mills, and primary smelters that had cost
or have the potential to cost the Trust fund $1 million or more.
To collect site-specific information, we developed a survey instrument that we sent to EPA
officials in all 10 EPA regions (see Appendix B). The survey comprised several sections
of questions that addressed:
general information of the site, including its name, location, current cleanup status,
type of mine (i.e, gold, silver, phosphate, etc.) and if the site was a current or
prospective site of EPA concern;
the Superfund status of the site (i.e., NPL, CERCLIS Non-NPL, or Potential [Non-
CERCLIS/Non-NPL] ) and its current lead responsibility;
cost information for the site in a series of cost ranges, including each site's past
costs, total projected cleanup costs, capital costs, maintenance costs, and removal
costs;
the media that had been affected at the site, including the presence of acid mine
drainage, and the current human health and ecological/environmental risks (high,
medium, low, or unknown) as rated by the survey respondents: and,
the regional survey respondent's opinion of PRPs' viability.
As mentioned above, we asked regional officials to provide information on human health
and ecological risk. Since the Hazard Ranking System is not an effective tool for
measuring relative risk12, we developed a framework for focusing on relative risk. We
created the three general risk assessment tiers of high, medium, and low. We also asked
regional officials to identify sites where the human health risks were unknown. By using
According to EPA, the Hazard Ranking System is not a risk assessment tool, but rather, a way to screen out sites
that are not likely to be of sufficient risk to warrant NPL listing, and at the same time, provide enough information for the
purpose of, according to 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300, "identifying for the States and the public those facilities and
sites which appear to warrant remedial actions." The tool is not effective for measuring relative risk because: (1) site managers
do not always score all pathways because once they reach 28.5, they stop scoring, (2) the original Hazard Ranking System versus
the revised Hazard Ranking System is not comparable, (3) it is difficult to compare potential risk to actual risk, and (4) the score
may not accurately reflect risk.
63
-------
these assessment tiers, the team planned to gain an understanding of the relative risk for
mining sites in the universe. We did not specifically define these assessment tiers; rather,
we expected that these assessments would be subjective, and based upon the site
manager's experience. However, we did gather information on the factors that contributed
to the site managers' assessments.
It is possible that the risk a site posed at NPL listing is different than the current risk which
we asked about. For example, when a site was originally listed on the NPL it might have
been subjectively rated as a high risk. However, due to remediation efforts or removal
actions, the site may now be rated as a low risk. In addition, it is possible that if the
remediation for a current low risk site is not maintained, it could become a high risk site.
We did not verify the risk ratings assigned by the respondents, and it is possible that the
respondents were not risk assessors.
In developing the survey, we met with EPA headquarters officials from OSWER and
OECA. We also consulted with members of EPA's NMT and EPA's AMLT asking for
input and suggestions. In addition, we field tested the survey instrument with EPA
headquarters and regional officials in May 2002. We revised the survey instrument to
include appropriate EPA officials suggestions, clarifications, and comments.
In August 2002, we sent the survey instrument along with instructions to mining site
managers and management officials in EPA's 10 regional offices and at Headquarters. In
December 2002, we asked regional management officials to confirm or correct
information for each site specific survey response entered into the OIG survey database.
In February and March 2003, we performed fieldwork in Regions 7 and 8. We conducted
data verification for selected sites in these regions. We focused our data verification
efforts on cost data, and human health and environmental/ecological risk data, and the
status of cleanup. Verification for the purposes of this evaluation meant that we asked
regional officials to verify survey information submitted into the database to make sure
that it was accurate and complete. It also meant asking for explanations of certain data and
obtaining selected documentation where available. We also asked regional officials:
to identify guidance documents used to develop the cost estimates in the survey
responses.
for the documentation that supported the cost estimates, and where none was
available, we asked for regional officials to explain the logic they used to develop
the cost estimates.
for supporting documentation for the ratings decisions for current human health
and ecological/environmental risks that were rated as high, medium, low, or
unknown.
to answer a series of structured interview questions and checklists relating to their
survey responses in order to add support for the information contained in their
survey responses. For our visit to Region 8, we refined this set of supporting
64
-------
interview questions and checklists to again gain additional support for the
information in survey responses.
to review their earlier submitted survey responses and to verify the accuracy of, or
correct, the information they provided for these hardrock mining sites.
We also conducted a site visit of the Clear Creek Mine site in Region 8.
In April 2003, we asked officials in the remaining eight Regions to answer the same series
of supporting questions and checklists we used for our interviews in Region 8. We made
some slight modifications so that we could send these electronically to the other regions.
Again, we asked regional site managers and officials to review their earlier submitted
survey responses and to verify the accuracy of, or correct, the information they provided
for these hardrock mining sites. At the conclusion of our data verification process in June
of 2003, we had received an approximate 90 percent response rate for the supporting
information for the sites entered into the OIG database.
We reconciled the OIG universe to the universe of sites compiled by the AMLT. We
determined that 156 of the site specific survey responses met our definition for hardrock
mining sites that had either cost or had the potential to cost the Superfund Trust fund $1
million or more. While we used this inventory to help answer our evaluation question, we
recognize this inventory may be understated. It does not include coal sites by definition
and it does not include all Federal sites, sites that States may not have shared with EPA,
sites which are too early in the process to identify them as meeting our definition, and
hardrock landfill or dump sites. It may also be understated based on the regional officials'
interpretation of the OIG definition of sites to be included in the database. Also, we did
not presume that sites that were not NPL sites would ever make it to the NPL, though
respondents did indicate sites where they believed the Federal government might
eventually be needed to fund the cleanups.
65
-------
66
-------
Appendix D
Agency Response to Draft Report
March 5, 2004
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OSWER Response to the Office of Inspector General's Evaluation Report entitled
"Nationwide Identification of Hardrock Mining Sites"
FROM: Marianne L. Horinko/s/
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
TO: Carolyn Copper
Director of Program Evaluation: Hazardous Waste Issues
Office of Inspector General
This memorandum transmits the consolidated response from the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), the Office of Federal Activities (OF A), the Office of Water,
the EPA National Mining Team (NMT), and the Abandoned Mine Lands Team (AMLT) on the
Office of Inspector General's (OIG) Draft Evaluation Report entitled "Nationwide Identification
of Hardrock Mining Sites" issued in February 2004. We would like to convey our appreciation
for the significant effort the OIG staff put into gathering information, developing findings and
providing recommendations.
The Agency has significant concerns regarding the interpretation and analysis of
information contained in this draft on the risk levels found at National Priorities List (NPL) and
non-NPL hardrock mining sites. We also have concerns with the cleanup cost estimates in the
report. Despite these concerns, the Agency agrees with most of the recommendations laid out in
the draft report.
This memorandum highlights our concerns. We are also providing specific comments and
replacement language in Attachment A. We request that the OIG revise the draft report to
incorporate our comments.
67
-------
Risk Levels at Hardrock Mining Sites:
We are concerned that the report concludes that there are low to unknown human health
risks at many of the hardrock mining sites (Executive Summary and Chapters 3 and 6). The
Agency has, over the last 20 years, placed mine sites on the NPL because they presented
potentially significant risks to human health and the environment. During that period, a variety of
remedial and removal actions have been implemented by the Agency and by Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) which have led to significant reduction in risks at these sites.
Therefore, the report should explain that many of these sites have low current risk due to early
Agency or PRP response actions taken in prior years. The report should also note that Superfund
site response is designed to control both current and future exposures, but the survey asked only
about current risks.
The Agency recommends that language in the Executive Summary and Chapters 3 and 6
be revised to state the following: "There is some uncertainty regarding the level of human health
and environmental risk at the NPL sites and sites included in CERCLIS. The regional field
personnel who responded to the questionnaire were asked to broadly characterize "current risk" at
the sites as high, medium, low, or unknown. This called for a subjective opinion of current
conditions that did not account for the risks that were previously reduced."
The Executive Summary and Chapters 3 and 6 should be further revised to recognize that
"Future risks at NPL sites may be substantially higher than current risks because portions of these
sites may be developed in the future, and this development could significantly change risks posed
at these sites." For example, some sites on the NPL may be currently zoned for commercial or
industrial land use. This designation could change in the future to residential land use, thereby
increasing the risks posed by the contaminated property.
The Report should also note that many of the non-NPL sites have not undergone a full risk
characterization. Since these studies have not been completed, it is highly unlikely that the survey
respondents would have enough information to accurately characterize a site as having a high,
medium, low or unknown risk. Even though the questionnaire asked for the basis of this broad
characterization of risk (e.g., risk assessment, past experience or professional judgment), the
report itself does not reflect the bases of the risk characterization. For example, the report does
not indicate what portion of the medium risk sites was based on actual risk assessment as opposed
to the person's past experience or professional judgment.
Costs to Address Hardrock Mining Sites:
The report gives the overall impression that cleaning up the 156 sites will be very
expensive and beyond the capability of the Superfund program. This impression is conveyed by
giving equal weight to costs for NPL and non-NPL sites, and doing a good deal of the analysis
based only on maximum estimated costs. The report should note that many of these sites may
never rise to Superfund attention because the risks do not warrant such actions, or these sites may
be addressed by site owners and operators under state or Federal regulatory programs.
68
-------
Our major concern is that the report uses the maximum estimated cleanup costs from the
cost range reported by the survey respondents. For example, Region 4 filled out the survey using
the $100 to $500 million cleanup cost estimate for the 22 phosphate mining sites in Florida. The
Region believes that site cleanup costs will most likely fall at the lower end of the $100 to $500
million range. The difference between the low and high end of the cost for these 22 sites is about
$8.8 billion ($2.2 billion versus $11 billion). This is a major difference in total costs, and we
request that the report explain that cost estimates represent the upper boundary of a cost range
which may be significantly lower.
The Agency also requests that the OIG report use different types of cost estimates based on
the reliability of costing data. For example, there are a limited number of sites where EPA or the
state has calculated a site specific cleanup cost. The cost estimates for those sites should be
identified and separated from the cost estimates for the other sites.
An illustrative example of this is the cost data provided by Region 4. The Region
indicated that these data are very speculative because they are based on uncertainties regarding the
extent of the problems, contaminant levels, cleanup criteria, and whether the sites will be
enforcement vs fund-lead. Region 4 conducted some initial cost calculations for the cleanup of a
500 home subdivision and estimated a cost of $375,000,000. The Region then extrapolated this
data over the 40,000 acres of residential development and the even larger nonresidential mining
areas. Using this approach, it is easy to calculate cleanup costs in the billions of dollars.
Another factor that needs to be considered in presenting costs is whether PRPs will pay for
these cleanups, or states will take the lead in addressing these hardrock mining sites. The report
indicates that $13.8 billion (maximum estimate in Figure 5.6) will be needed to cleanup sites
which pose a risk to human health. The report should note that until the Agency determines if
viable PRPs exist or states are willing to take the lead, the extent of EPA Superfund lead
expenditures cannot be determined. The IG does address this issue in the survey since they asked
respondents to determine if a PRP existed. However, the Agency believes that many respondents
noted that there was no PRP because a PRP search had not yet been conducted.
OIG Report Recommendations:
The report provides several good recommendations that, if implemented, would enhance
the effectiveness of Agency decision-making at hardrock mining sites. The Agency generally
agrees with the recommendations but disagrees that it should prepare a report on all these actions.
The Agency proposes to do the following:
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, through the AMLT, will work with
the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement to conduct an analysis of the environmental
liability of businesses involved in current hardrock mining operations.
The AMLT will work with the Regions to analyze the type of remediation technologies
that are in use at Superfund hardrock mining sites to capture the capital and long-term
costs and period required to meet cleanup standards. The AMLT will add this data into
the upcoming abandoned hardrock mines website.
69
-------
The AMLT will work with the Technology Innovation and Field Services Division in the
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation and the Office of Research
and Development and Federal land management agencies to identify innovative or new
remediation technologies which may potentially be used to address hardrock mining sites.
The AMLT will hold a technical workshop next year with the Regions, ORD and other
federal, state and tribal agencies on the applicability of innovative and other new
technologies at hardrock mining sites. The AMLT will add new information, as it
becomes available, to the upcoming abandoned hardrock mines website.
The Agency will continue supporting programs and activities related to improving the
Agency's Hardrock Mining Framework and developing and sustaining Agency expertise
in hardrock mining through activities of the AMLT and NMT.
The NMT will work with the team representatives from the regions having the greatest
level of mining activity (Regions 4,7,8,9,and 10) to assess technical or other guidance
needs on hardrock mining management issues. The NMT will update senior Agency
management on high priority issues raised by any Region.
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to this draft report. Should you have any questions
concerning our comments and action items, you may contact Shahid Mahmud at
703-603-8789 or Johnsie Webster, OSWER Audit Liaison, at 202-566-1912.
Attachment
70
-------
ATTACHMENT
Specific Comments/Recommended Language
A. Comments related to Risk Levels at Hardrock Mining Sites:
No.
Chapter, page
Comment
1.
Executive
Summary, Results
Comment:
The characterization of human health risk as low should be
qualified to acknowledge that this was based only upon current
exposures and risk at the time of the survey, and that neither the
survey nor the report addresses exposures and risk which might be
expected in the future. It should also be noted that some of the
sites addressed may have had removal actions completed before the
survey, thereby lowering the risk that existed at the time of the
survey.
Proposed Alternative Language:
The Regional field personnel who responded to the questionnaire
in Appendix B were asked to characterize "current risk" at the sites
as high, medium, low, or unknown. This called for a subjective
opinion that did not account for the risks that would lead to a site
being listed on the NPL. Current risks might be low because
removal actions or remedial actions had already been completed.
Further, risks at NPL sites may be substantially higher because
portions of these sites may be developed in the future and this
development could significantly increase risks posed at these sites.
Superfund site remediation is designed to reduce or control both
current and future exposures.
2.
Executive
Summary,
Recommendations
page ii
Comment:
While we agree that immediate threats to human health in general
warrant a quicker response than less immediate threats, the
prioritization discussed in the last sentence on page ii should not be
limited to immediate impacts. Prioritization of sites with
contaminants like lead, cadmium and arsenic need to recognize that
such contaminants are environmentally persistent and tend to
bioaccumulate. It can sometimes take years for human health
exposures to cause toxic effects. These contaminants pose very real
human health threats of a chronic nature, which should be reflected
in prioritization and in this discussion.
71
-------
Chapter 1, page 5
Comment:
It is unclear whether current mining practices cause less
contamination and environmental damage than practices in the
past. Unless a significant number of recently mined sites, with
more advanced practices for environmental protection, are being
addressed as Superfund sites, we recommend that this text be
modified, or at least note its limited relevance to Superfund sites.
Chapter 1, page 7
Comment:
The third of the five bullets on page 7, which describe the survey,
should be emphasized to reflect that only current risk was
characterized. It should be clear that the survey did not address
changes in reasonable future land uses. Certain changes (e.g.,
industrial to residential, or encroachment of human populations in
areas which were historically remote) could lead to substantially
greater risks which would go unabated unless the sites were
cleaned up to protective standards.
Chapter 1, page 8
Comment:
The fourth bullet on the Limitations of the Information collected
speculates that actual risk today may be even less than at the time
of the survey because cleanup may have been provided for some of
these sites after the survey. While this may be possible, the report
should acknowledge that risks may also be higher. Land
development pressures into areas of mine waste contamination may
lead to greater human exposures and risk in the future than those
which existed at the time of the survey. In support of this position,
we note that the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300, the
regulations for Superfund) states that risk assessments, upon which
remedy selection is based, are to address reasonable maximum
exposures, which go beyond current risk.
Proposed language at the end of the 4th bullet:
However, it is also likely that human health risk at some of these
sites could be greater in the future as development expands into
areas of mine waste contamination, unless the site is cleaned up.
72
-------
Chapter 2, pages
15-16
Comment:
The discussion neglects to mention several toxic effects of these
contaminants at mining sites. It should be noted that children are
at greater risk to lead (than adults), and that some of the
developmental effects are subtle, yet real (e.g., depressed IQ). It
should also be noted that dermal exposures to arsenic may cause
hyperkeratosis and hyperpigmentation and that oral and dermal
exposures (to arsenic) may cause skin cancer. Zinc's ability to
cause gastrointestinal distress and discomfort should also be noted.
It is recommended that EPA's Integrated Risk Information (IRIS,
website: http://www.epa.gov/iriswebp/iris/) and the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registery (ATSDR) Toxicological
Profiles (website: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.htmn be
consulted and referenced for a more comprehensive discussion of
the toxic effects of these contaminants.
Chapter 2, page 20
Comment:
The discussion of operation and maintenance costs of pumping and
treatment of groundwater remedies is not correct. Pumping
groundwater as part of a remedial action (e.g., 90% Federal, 10%
State) is funded for 10 years only for remedies restoring
groundwater to a beneficial use. If the remedy is pumping
groundwater to contain a plume, the pumping is not viewed as an
O&M cost.
Chapter 3, page 24
Comment:
Note again that the characterization of risk as low is based upon
current risk, and does not address future risk, which may be greater
unless cleanup is provided.
Suggested edit, to be inserted at the second sentence on page 24:
Note that future human health risk could be greater if areas
containing mine wastes are developed without site cleanup.
73
-------
9.
Chapter 3, page 28
Comment:
Additional text should be added to this discussion to reflect that the
low risk at some of the mining sites may be low because removal
actions had already been completed (a good thing from the
perspective of public health protection). It should also be noted
that future risk was not addressed, and that risk in the future may
be greater as development leads to human exposures and risk in
areas of mining contamination, unless the site is cleaned up.
Suggested edit, add as the third sentence on page 28:
It should be noted that the survey asked about current health risk.
Future health risks at these sites could be greater if development
occurs in areas of mine waste contamination without site cleanup.
10
Chapter 3, page 28
Comment:
We believe that there is additional relevant information on the
human health risk at mining sites which should be reflected as an
additional conclusion at the end of Chapter 3. The report should
note that AT SDR and EPA have worked together on a number of
mining sites where lead was the principal contaminant. On several
of these sites, ATSDR collected blood samples from children
living near the site. Analyses of these blood samples for lead
showed a substantial percentage of the children at these sites had
elevated blood lead levels. Following site cleanups, additional
blood samples were collected and analyzed for lead showing a
measurable drop in the blood lead levels attributable to site cleanup
and related activities. Such actions represent quantified
improvement in the public health of these communities, which
should be reflected in the OIG report. Upon request, OSWER will
work with its Regional Offices and ATSDR to provide these
reports to OIG.
Add as second bullet (of the Summary and Conclusions):
"In response to a draft of this report, EPA has reported that blood
lead samples collected from children near some mining sites before
and after cleanups have shown a dramatic improvement with a
reduction in the number of children with elevated levels of lead in
the blood."
74
-------
11.
Chapter 5, page 45
Comment:
It should be noted again that the risk being characterized is current
risk only. This might best be reflected in this section as a footnote
on the figure titled "Maximum Projected Federal Capital Costs for
Human Health Risks".
12
Chapter 5, page 46
Comment:
The following statement is incorrect "In total nearly 100 percent of
estimated federal costs to cleanup hardrock mining sites in
CERCLIS, are projected for sites that predominately are considered
to be low risk or have unknown human health risk." At many of
these sites, the states or EPA have not conducted detailed risk
assessments. However, almost all of the sites identified in this
study are in regions, including Florida, where the availablity of
water and the quality of the available water are issues of paramount
public concern. Contaminated water impacts the health of living
resources and also agriculture, municipal and industrial water
supplies, and commercial recreation. The socioeconomic effects of
contaminated water include the increased costs of water treatment
where practicable, the costs of developing additional sources of
water where contaminated water cannot be rendered useful through
treatment, and ancillary effects such as the inability of urban and
rural subsistence fishermen to obtain a safe protein component for
their diet. Direct human health risk is a priority for Superfund, but
it is not the only objective of the statute. CERCLA section 104
(a)(l) authorizes the President to act, to "protect the public health,
welfare, and the environment."
75
-------
B.
1
Costs to Address Hardrock Mining Sites:
Executive
Summary, Results
The Report states ... "We identified 156 hardrock mining sites ... to
cost between $7 billion and $24 billion total to cleanup.."
Comment:
The report needs to clarify exactly how the IG came up with a list of
156 potential sites requiring Superfund attention. It is necessary to
explain to the reader how reliable this estimate is.
The IG should use a range of cost estimates based on reliability of
data about a site when calculating costs. For example, there are a
limited number of sites where EPA or the state has calculated a
cleanup cost. These sites having Engineering Evaluations/Cost
Assessments (EE/CAs), RODs or other standard Agency response
cost calculations should be identified and separated from other sites.
Executive
Summary, Results
Comment:
The report fails to acknowledge that when a site with significant
human health or environmental risks is brought to EPA's attention,
the Agency's first task would be to identify if a viable PRP exists.
The report should clearly state that the vast majority of mine site
cleanups are now being paid for by PRPs. There is an assumption
in the report that the billion dollar costs needed to cleanup the 156
sites will be primarily borne by the federal government. That may
not be the case. We do, however, acknowledge that some portion of
these costs may have to be borne by the federal government at high
risk sites where there is no viable PRP or states are not willing to
address these sites.
76
-------
Executive
Summary, Results
The Executive Summary states that: "For cleanups that are financed
by Superfund, EPA operates and maintains the cleanup facility for
up to 10 years, with the State paying 10 percent of the cost, after
which responsibility is turned over to the State."
Comment:
The above statement is a source of confusion because it is only true
for remedies when the Agency pays for groundwater or surface
water restoration. For example, if we cap a site, EPA turns the
O&M over to the state once the remedial action is complete, not
after 10 years. The Report should use the language provided in the
NCP Section 300.435 (f)(3) which states:
Recommended Language:
"For Fund-financed remedial actions involving treatment or other
measures to restore ground- or surface-water quality to a level that
assures protection of human health and the environment, the
operation of such treatment or other measures for a period of up to
10 years after the remedy becomes operational and functional will
be considered to be part of the remedial action."
Additionally, if the site is within a tribal reservation, there is no
equivalent to the state cost-share and O&M requirements.
77
-------
Executive
Summary, Results
Report states that "Region 4's hardrock mining sites account for
about half of the cleanup costs"
Comments:
The cleanup cost range between $100 to $500 million in the OIG
survey is very broad and capturing the upper bound costs greatly
exaggerates the cleanup costs and provides misleading information.
For example, Region 4 filled out the survey using the $100 to $500
million cleanup cost estimate for the 22 phosphate mining sites in
Florida. The Region believes that site cleanup costs will most likely
fall at the lower end of the $100 to $500 million range. The
difference between the low and high end of the cost for these 22
sites is about $8.8 billion ($2.2 billion versus $11 billion). This is a
major difference in total costs and we request that the report explain
that cost amounts represent the upper boundary of a cost range
which may be significantly lower.
Region 4 indicated that these data are very speculative because they
are based on uncertainties regarding the extent of the problems,
contaminant levels, cleanup criteria, and whether the sites will be
enforcement vs fund-lead. Region 4 conducted some initial cost
calculations for the cleanup of a 500 home subdivision and
estimated a cost of $375,000,000. The Region then extrapolated
this data over the 40,000 acres of residential development and the
even larger nonresidential mining areas. Doing this approach, it is
easy to calculate a cost of cleanup in the billions of dollars.
Chapter 5
Comment:
Chapter 5 clean-up costs are noted as maximum and minimum
estimates. As noted earlier, the report should separate out costs
based on reliability of cost information.
Chapter 5
pages 45-46
Comment:
The report indicates that $13.8 billion (maximum estimate in Figure
5.6) will be needed to cleanup human health sites. Until the Agency
determines if PRPs are available, it is unclear exactly who will pay.
The report questionnaire asked the respondents to identify whether a
PRP existed. The Agency believes that many respondents noted
that there was no PRP because no PRP search had been conducted
at that time. The Agency recommends that the OIG add language
that points this out.
78
-------
C. Comments on HRS:
The discussion related to HRS (including the footnote) as a tool for determining relative risk does
not seem relevant for this report and contains inaccurate statements. Even when a site scores way
above 28.5, it is not given priority over a site that scores at 28.5, since this score is only a
threshold number that indicates the need for further investigation. Further investigation leads to
much more accurate evaluation of risk. Also, it is true that some sites might score under the
revised HRS that did not score under the old HRS, but the revised HRS has been used to score
sites for the past 14 years. Most of the current NPL sites have been scored using the newer HRS.
1. Page 63, last paragraph, second sentence: Change to read "The Hazard Ranking System
was not designed as a risk assessment tool, but rather as a screening tool, the purpose of
which is to identify sites eligible for response action.11
2. We suggest footnote 11 on page 63 be changed to the following:
The Hazard Ranking System (HRS), as described in 40 CFR Part 300 (12/14/90), Hazard Ranking System,
Final Rule, is "the primary way of determining whether a site is eligible to be included on the National
Priorities List (NPL), the Agency's list of sites that are priorities for long-term evaluation and remedial
response, and is a crucial part of the Agency's program to address the identification of actual and potential
releases." Section 105(a)(8)A of CERCLA requires that EPA establish: "Criteria for determining priorities
among releases or threatened releases [of hazardous substances] throughout the United States for the
purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into account the potential urgency
of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action. Criteria and priorities * * * shall be based upon
the relative risk or danger to public health or welfare or the environment * * * taking into account to the
extent possible the population at risk, the hazard potential of the hazardous substances at such facilities,
the potential for contamination of drinking water supplies, the potential for direct human contact, [and]
the potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems * * *." The HRS was developed to meet the
described criteria in a quick and inexpensive way. It is important to recognize that the HRS is not a risk
assessment tool, but rather a way to screen out sites that are not likely to be of sufficient risk to warrant
NPL listing, and at the same time, provide enough information for the purpose of, according to 40CFR
Part 300, "identifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites which appear to warrant
remedial actions." * * *...."This provision is intended to ensure that the Hazard Ranking System performs
with a degree of accuracy appropriate to its role in expeditiously identifying candidates for response
actions.
D: Other Comments/Editorial: (Redline/Strikeout on specific language in Report)
Page i, Executive Summary -paragraph 2, 1st sentence
Suggest revising this sentence to read "For the purposes of this report, 'hardrock mining' refers to
proposed, active, inactive and abandoned mines, mills and mineral extraction facilities from the
79
-------
metal, phosphate, uranium and industrial mineral sectors; it does not include coal mining, crushed
stone quarrying mining, or aggregate mining."
Page ii, Executive Summary - Recommendations
The first sentence is a bit confusing. Suggest the following revision: "....to enhance the
effectiveness of Agency decision-making and planning, concerning the ability of the Superfund
program to manage potential financial burdens in implementing cleanups at hardrock mining sites
challenges irom naicliGCK mining financial concerns.
Suggest revising the last sentence to read "....and the prioritizing of resources efforts based on
immediate human health and environmental risks ...."
Page 13
Suggest revising the last sentence to read "Because most of the sites in the inventory are
abandoned, the extent of EPA liability stemming from complications of locating PRPs is
unknown at this time."
page 25
This paragraph needs to be clarified.
"Compared to NPL sites,(is this all NPL sites or just mining sites?) only 30 percent of sites which
the Superfund program has in CERCLIS, (is this 30 percent of identifiable mining sites?) but
which haven't been yet listed on the NPL, ..."
Suggest revising the last sentence as shown below.
Twenty-two (or 27%) of these sites with unknown human health risk are phosphate mining and
processing sites in Florida ..." (See figure 3.4).
page 37
"They are exclusive of costs required for (not to) the long-term operation and maintenance of the
remedial action.
80
-------
Appendix E
Distribution List
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5101T)
Assistant Administrator (Acting), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201 A)
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation (6101A)
Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Assistant Administrator (Acting), Office of Water (4101M)
Assistant Administrator (Acting), Office of General Counsel (2310A)
Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10
Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (5201G)
Deputy Director, Office of Solid Waste (5301W)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (1301 A)
Associate Administrator, Office of Public Affairs (1101 A)
Agency Followup Official (2710A)
Agency Followup Coordinator (2724A)
Audit Liaison, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5103T)
Audit Liaison, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201 A)
Audit Liaison, Office of Air and Radiation (6102A)
Audit Liaison, Office of Research and Development (8102R)
Audit Liaison, Office of Water (4102)
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Research and Development (8102)
Inspector General (2410)
81
------- |