View Member Comments
View the Action Alert
May 29, 2013
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 28221T)
Docket # EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0189
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Via: http://www.regulations.gov
To Whom It May Concern:
The Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (RDC) is writing to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Revised Draft Bristol Bay Assessment (BBA).
RDC is an Alaskan business association comprised of individuals and companies from Alaska’s oil and gas, mining, forest products, tourism and fisheries industries. RDC’s membership includes Alaska Native Corporations, local communities, organized labor, and industry support firms. RDC’s purpose is to encourage a strong, diversified private sector in Alaska and expand the state’s economic base through the responsible development of our natural resources.
RDC is writing to urge the EPA from further premature action on the BBA. RDC urges the EPA to not use the BBA to preemptively halt a project as such action would deprive government agencies and stakeholders of the specific information, science and rigorous reviews that would come out of the multi-year process. The EPA should not preemptively veto projects in the Bristol Bay area, or anywhere, and should stop undermining existing regulatory processes and avoid setting a dangerous precedent for development. Investment in Alaska should not be jeopardized by federal overreach.
One of RDC’s top priorities is to promote and defend the integrity of the existing permitting process and to advocate for predictable, timely, and efficient state and federal permitting processes based on sound science and economic feasibility. A preemptive decision, prior to permit or project application and completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, is unacceptable, whether it be approval or denial of any project, in any industry.
Every project, no matter the size or location, should have an opportunity to be reviewed under existing legal processes. In the case of mining in Alaska, there are more than 60 major permits and hundreds more from local, state, and federal agencies that must be successfully obtained. If the process determines a project as designed cannot protect the environment and other resources, it will not advance. The process will not permit one industry or resource to advance at the expense of another.
Currently, there are seven large operating mines in Alaska coexisting with other resources and activities. The economic value from production at these mines and the many placer mines and rock, sand and gravel operations was $3 billion in 2012. Jobs created by these projects are high paying and generate revenue in regions in Alaska where few other opportunities exist. All seven of these projects have been subject to existing processes and procedures. Projects in the Bristol Bay region must be allowed to go through the same process.
The revised assessment remains significantly flawed since it continues to refer to a hypothetical mine, and outdated mining techniques. Although the revised BBA has fewer references to old practices, the report still fails to incorporate current high tech and state-of-the-art mining practices and regulatory requirements.
RDC also wishes to reiterate that any assessment of the Bristol Bay area must be objective and thorough. The findings of such an assessment must also be based on extensive study, sound science, and a project applicant’s formal plans and proposed mitigation measures, as the EPA is likely to base key decisions about mining in Bristol Bay upon the outcome of it.
RDC continues to be concerned the EPA is conducting the assessment to pre-empt a project in the area (the proposed Pebble Mine) that has not yet applied for any development permits. The existing state and federal permitting process will not be done in haste, as it is stringent and thorough. Further, RDC is concerned the BBA is conclusion driven, based on a hypothetical project.
The lack of transparency in the EPA’s revision of the initial BBA draft is also troubling. The revised assessment does not address many of the questions and concerns submitted by Alaskan stakeholders. In a letter dated May 9, 2013, RDC requested “the EPA provide a detailed breakdown of the changes made to the previous draft to develop the current draft. The EPA has noted 233,000 comments were received, but does not clearly indicate responses to the comments by showing changes or reasons why changes were made. RDC urges the EPA to outline responses to previous comments, and clarity on how those comments impacted the current draft of the BBA.”
In addition to concerns about the lack of transparency in the process, RDC is troubled by the lack of access to comments by reviewers, and inadequate period of time for stakeholder comments.
RDC has requested the EPA extend the comment period of May 31, 2013 by at least 120 days. The hurried public review of the assessment in one month is irresponsible for a document of such magnitude.
Furthermore, RDC urges the EPA to choose an unbiased, science based peer review team. RDC is concerned the studies and the BBA are not fully based on science.
RDC urges the EPA to stop undermining existing regulatory processes and avoid setting a dangerous precedent for development. Preemptively halting a project would deprive government agencies and stakeholders of the specific information, science, and rigorous reviews that would come out of the multi-year process.
Alaska’s governor and congressional delegation all support due process and fair consideration of the project. Alaska’s Attorney General has asked the EPA to stop its work on the assessment process until there is a permit application submitted to the federal government.
In conclusion, the revised draft Bristol Bay assessment is seriously flawed. By embarking on this poorly conceived exercise, EPA is undermining its credibility as a neutral science-based regulatory agency. Once the EPA receives a permit application and project plan, it must take the time necessary to thoroughly get an assessment right. At that point, the assessment could potentially serve as a tool to supplement the state and federal permitting process after it begins.
Sincerely,
Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc.
