Industrial Minerals Events 3 RD Frac Sand Conference

Transcription

1 Industrial Minerals Events 3 RD Frac Sand Conference Proactive By Design. Our Company Commitment Recent Rule Making Affecting Silica Sand Operations State and Federal Mark J. Krumenacher, P.G. Senior Principal/Senior Vice President/GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Page 1

2 OVERVIEW Recent Silica Sand Rule Making State and Federal What are the latest state rules in Wisconsin and Minnesota that impact sand mining? What developments have occurred regarding silica sand mining and processing, the control of particulate emissions from silica sand projects and rules pertaining to the reclamation of silica sand mines? What are the latest permits that target industrial sand operations and pollution discharge? How will the industry be impacted by the Federal Waters of the US regulation? Page 2

3 Page 3

4 Minnesota Multi-Agency Silica Sand Rule Making Environmental Quality Board Shall amend its rules for environmental review for silica sand mining and processing Pollution Control Agency Shall adopt new rules pertaining to the control of particulate emissions from silica sand projects Department of Natural Resources - Shall adopt rules pertaining to the reclamation of silica sand mines Page 4

5 Minnesota Multi-Agency Silica Sand Rule Making Environmental Quality Board Proposed Rules Page 5

6 Minnesota Multi-Agency Silica Sand Rule Making Pollution Control Agency Proposed Rules Page 6

7 Minnesota Multi-Agency Silica Sand Rule Making Department of Natural Resources Proposed Rules Page 7

8 Wisconsin Page 8

9 Wisconsin WDNR Strategic Alignment Effort Designed to Better Align Agency Services to its Customers New Business Support and External Services Division Will Focus as key integration point between externally focused programs that provide multiprogram support to customers, local governments and business. Stormwater Runoff Management, Wetland, Shoreland Zoning, Dams Page 9

10 Wisconsin WDNR General Permit to Discharge Under the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System WPDES Permit Expired May 2014 Proposed Draft - Targets Industrial Sand Operations Standard Industrial Classification Code 1446 (Industrial Sand) Includes Focus on Tailings Management and Groundwater Working on Drafts Since February - Slowed Page 10

11 Wisconsin WDNR Air Permit Program June 2015 Changes to Minor Source Construction Permitting and Operation Permitting WDNR Proposed Guidance 2015 PM2.5 in Air Pollution Control Permit Applications only combustion and high temperature industrial sources directly emit significant amounts of PM2.5 PM2.5 emissions will not be estimated in an air permit review for fugitive dust sources, mechanical handling, grain handling, and other low temperature particulate sources. Page 11

12 Wisconsin WDNR Strategic Analysis [Oct 2014 Mar 2016] Industrial Sand Mining and Associated Infrastructure Reassess the Latest Scientific, Natural Resource, and Socio-Economic Information. Update of 2012 Silica Sand Mining in Wisconsin Report by WDNR. Institute for Wisconsin s Health, Inc. Independent, 501c(3) Tax-Exempt WI Corporation Outcome Will Be??? Page 12

13 Wisconsin Zwiefelhofer v. Town of Cooks Valley Made the regulation of non-metallic mining possible through police power ordinances. Non-metallic mining industry, now faces a patchwork of regulatory uncertainty depending upon where they are located in the state. Page 13

14 Wisconsin In general the industry supports fact- and science-based regulation and operating standards and their enforcement. Creating uncertainty with a patchwork of local rules that can vary among communities, change erratically over time and impose conflicting requirements is counterproductive The local rules do not protect the environment, health or community any better than existing, very stringent and very effective state and federal regulations - they simply add confusion and stifle responsible growth and business. Page 14

15 Federal - Waters of the US May 27, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finalized the Clean Water Rule (CWR) or the WOTUS Rule Rule Effective August 28, 2015 Regulatory Integrity Protection Act Went Nowhere US Army Corps - Not Pleased EPA's disregard for Corps concerns over the final WOTUS rule, and EPA s portrayal that the process represented a joint endeavor. Page 15

16 Federal - Waters of the US Multiple Lawsuits 30 States and Industry Groups Blocked by Temporary Injunction in 13 States: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming Page 16

17 Federal - Waters of the US A major clarification pertains to the definition of adjacent waters and neighboring Previously case specific determination Page 17

18 Federal - Waters of the US Waters Determined to be Jurisdictional under the CWR 1.Traditional Navigable Waters (TNW) (all waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide) 2.Interstate Waters (IW),including interstate wetlands, 3.Territorial Seas (TS), and 4.Impoundments of Jurisdictional Waters (IJW). Page 18

19 Federal - Waters of the US Waters Determined to be Jurisdictional under the CWR 5. Tributaries Characterized by the presence of physical indicators of flow Bed and banks and ordinary high water mark Contribute flow directly or indirectly to a traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the territorial seas. As defined, are jurisdictional by rule. Page 19

20 Federal - Waters of the US Bed and banks and ordinary high water mark Page 20

21 Federal - Waters of the US Waters Determined to be Jurisdictional under the CWR 5. Tributaries [continued] The rule only covers as tributaries those waters that science tells us provide chemical, physical, or biological functions to downstream waters and thus meet the significant nexus standard. Page 21

22 Federal - Waters of the US Waters Determined to be Jurisdictional under the CWR 6. Adjacent Waters Bordering, Contiguous, or Neighboring Including waters separated from other [WOUS] by constructed dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, etc.. Include wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar water features. Page 22

23 Federal - Waters of the US Waters Determined to be Jurisdictional under the CWR 6. Adjacent Waters [continued] Neighboring Defined as follows: (A) Waters located in whole or in part within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas, an impoundment of a jurisdictional water, or a tributary Page 23

24 Federal - Waters of the US Waters Determined to be Jurisdictional under the CWR 6. Adjacent Waters [continued] Neighboring Defined as follows: (B) Waters located in whole or in part in the 100-year floodplain and that are within 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas, an impoundment, or a tributary Page 24

25 Federal - Waters of the US Waters Determined to be Jurisdictional under the CWR 6. Adjacent Waters [continued] Neighboring Defined as follows: (C) Waters located in whole or in part within 1,500 feet of the high tide line of a traditional navigable water or the territorial seas and waters located within 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Great Lakes. Page 25

26 Federal - Waters of the US Waters Determined to be Jurisdictional under the CWR The final two types of jurisdictional waters are those that require a case-specific significant nexus determination to determine whether a significant nexus to a TNW, IW, or TS, is present. Page 26

27 Federal - Waters of the US Waters Determined to be Jurisdictional under the CWR 7. Prairie potholes, Carolina and Delmarva bays, pocosins (Bogs), western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie wetlands Are subject to a significant nexus analysis. These types of waters are considered similarly situated because they function alike and are sufficiently close to function together in affecting downstream waters. Page 27

28 Federal - Waters of the US Prairie Potholes Page 28

29 Federal - Waters of the US Carolina & Delmarva Bays Page 29

30 Federal - Waters of the US Vernal Pools Page 30

31 Federal - Waters of the US Waters Determined to be Jurisdictional under the CWR 8. Waters within the 100-year floodplain of a TNW, IW, or TS and within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or the ordinary high water mark of a TNW, IW, TS, IJW, or covered tributary Are subject to case-specific significant nexus determinations, unless excluded Page 31

32 Federal - Waters of the US Specific exclusions to the CWR include: Ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary Ditches with intermittent flow that are not a relocated tributary, excavated in a tributary, or drain wetlands Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into a TNS, IW, or TS Page 32

33 Federal - Waters of the US Specific exclusions to the CWR include: Stormwater control features constructed to convey, treat, or store stormwater that are created in dry land Erosional features, including gullies, rills, and other ephemeral features that do not meet the definition of tributary Artificial constructed lakes and ponds created in dry land Page 33

34 Can t Have an Industrial Minerals Event Frac Sand Conference Without Protestors Protestors 2013 Page 34

35 Protestors 2013 Page 35

36 Protestors 2013 Page 36

37 CONTACT Mark J. Krumenacher, P.G. Senior Principal/Senior Vice President GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc Swenson Drive, Suite 150 Waukesha, WI (o) (m) Page 37