Report critical of EPA for using fictional projections

If The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment to bypass normal regulatory procedures to stop the proposed Pebble project in Southwest Alaska, it could have profound implications for domestic mining in the U.S., warned Dr. Bonner Cohen at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

In a new report, “The EPA’s Pebble Mine Assessment Puts Politics Above Sound Science,” Cohen was highly critical of the EPA assessment on the possible impact of Pebble Mine on the Bristol Bay watershed – before the project has even entered the formal and well-established permitting process.

Cohen submitted his report to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for use in an investigation of the EPA related to the proposed project.

Using a “Hypothetical Mine Scenario” based on a fictional mine, the EPA created an “ecological risk assessment” Cohen said. “The EPA then drew far-reaching conclusions on the mine’s impact, bypassing and preempting a permitting process that is supposed to review real plans for real mines, not imaginary ones.”

As is customary, the EPA subjected its work to a 12-member Peer Review Panel, many of which were critical of the agency for using a fictional mine.

“Unfortunately, because of the hypothetical nature of the approach employed, the uncertainty associated with the assessment… the utility of the assessment, is questionable,” said William A. Stubblefield, Senior Research Professor, Department of Molecular and Environmental Toxicology, Oregon State University.

Charles Slaughter, a hydrologist at the University of Idaho, called the EPA process “pure hogwash.”

“By circumventing the well-established permitting process, EPA undermines the trust of the entities it regulates and taxpayers who provide the agency’s funding,” Cohen pointed out. “Once the precedent is set that EPA can preemptively shut down any mining project before plans are submitted for permit review, what investor will risk time and capital in a doomed effort to win a regulatory game EPA has rigged?”

The proposed Pebble Mine has the potential to triple America’s strategic reserves of copper and more than double strategic reserves of gold. It could also nearly double America’s reserves of molybdenum, allowing the U.S. to rival China as a global leader in the production of this critical metal used to harden steel for U.S. manufacturing and construction industries.

Cohen’s report details how the EPA uses hypothetical scenarios to determine potential impacts of the project.

In the established permitting process, Pebble must show the mine can coexist with the environment. The company will be required to submit detailed plans on how it proposes to develop the mine, mitigate impacts, and protect fisheries and wildlife. The project must obtain more than 60 major permits from federal and state agencies before it can move forward with the project.

Rep. Paul Broun, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, has expressed concerns to the EPA about the assessment. He noted the federal Clean Water Act does not require EPA to do an assessment before the permitting process gets underway.

In a letter to the agency, Broun acknowledged EPA had been asked by Bristol Bay residents to initiate a process where it could stop the project. Instead of stopping the project, the agency chose to do the assessment. But the purpose of the assessment is unclear, Broun said. “I am troubled by EPA’s vagueness in explaining the purpose of the assessment, particularly since it appears as though the agency is positioning itself to use the document in any manner it sees fit in the future,” Broun said.

“I do not understand the reason for spending scarce federal dollars on a document that the agency is unable to rationalize when it could, and should, wait for a real mine application, to pursue the clearly defined state and federal process, which also involves other agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,” Broun added. “It is difficult to view this draft watershed assessment as anything other than an attempt by the EPA to create additional and unnecessary regulatory hurdles.”

The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, is also investigating the assessment.

Return to newsletter headlines