The state two months ago approved Constantine Metal Resources’ engineering plans for a revised wastewater management system at the Palmer Project, an exploratory mixed-metals mining operation 40 miles northwest of Haines.
The decision, which allowed Constantine to construct facilities essential for underground mineral exploration, came without public notice and was criticized by environmental groups who called for more transparency and public input during the state’s review of Constantine’s amended plans.
State officials said the lack of public notice for the engineering review was in keeping with department regulations and precedent.
Constantine in April submitted a revised design for a system to treat and discharge wastewater produced at the Palmer Project, where the company expects to begin underground exploration next year.
Six environmental groups in May wrote a letter to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) requesting a public comment period as part of the state’s review of Constantine’s updated plans.
“Wastewater discharge from Constantine’s mine operations has the potential to significantly affect the ecologically rich and culturally and economically critical Chilkat River watershed,” the letter said. “Constantine is seeking approval for a substantially modified wastewater discharge plan that the public has not had an opportunity to review.”
State officials held that Constantine’s submission was not a new or revised permit application — even though Constantine itself referred to it as a “revised application” — but rather an application for an amendment to a waste management permit granted in 2019.
DEC director Randy Bates explained, in a response letter to the environmental groups, that Constantine’s changes would only require a new permit — and a public comment period — if they “might result in an increase in … discharges, or might cause other detrimental environmental impacts.”
He said “there is no material risk that the proposed changes will increase discharges or otherwise cause increased environmental harm.”
Bates cited a department regulation that states that permit amendment applications “will be treated in the same manner as the initial application, except that public notice or hearing will not be provided.”
Environmental groups argue that the proposed changes make the wastewater system materially different from the plan approved in 2019, when the state granted Constantine a waste management permit.
“Now DEC has just folded the new design in under the public process of the old design, which is totally irrelevant,” said Southeast Alaska Conservation Council organizer Shannon Donahue. She added that the public comment period for the wastewater plans submitted in 2019 “concerned a completely different waste management system, in a different location.”
In its revised plans, Constantine said it would change the location, spacing and length of its wastewater disposal diffuser, a system of perforated pipes buried six feet below the surface, “to mitigate potential surface discharge and optimize groundwater flow paths in the overburden, based on recent site investigation results.”
The company also said it would install an active wastewater treatment plant instead of two passive settling ponds, which would be repurposed.
“Staff engineers conducted an engineering review of the submitted plans, and determined the submitted plans met the conditions of (the 2019 permit), followed standard engineering principles, and satisfied the requirements of 18 AAC 72,” DEC Wastewater Discharge Authorization Program manager Gene McCabe wrote in an email to the CVN. “The Program conducted the engineering plan review and construction approval consistent with 18 AAC 72 and its past practices for hundreds of other engineering plan approvals statewide each year.”
McCabe said the engineering design of a wastewater discharge system is not a permit condition and that the department did not execute an amendment to the 2019 permit.
“Engineering designs are reviewed and approved as a submittal between the licensed design engineer and the department review engineer. The restrictions, limits and conditions of (the 2019 permit) remain unchanged from those issued on July 17, 2019,” he said.
DEC decisions can be appealed — but a request for an informal review needs to be filed within 20 days of the decision and an appeal for an adjudicatory hearing needs to be filed within 30 days.
Shortly after issuing the waste management permit in 2019, the state remanded it for further review. Environmental groups had questioned the permit application’s thoroughness and Constantine’s hydrological assessment.
That permit remains in effect, but the state hasn’t released a final decision on the remand. McCabe said “the remand documents are being prepared for Director Randy Bates’ review.”
The permit allows for underground disposal of wastewater and prohibits discharge into surface waters. According to hydrological study results released in Constantine’s April 2022 submission, there was some, but limited, connectivity between ground and surface water where Constantine originally planned to discharge wastewater.
The company now plans to discharge in a different location, where the studies registered no connectivity but suggested more data would be needed to understand potential impacts of discharge on Glacier Creek.
Constantine couldn’t be reached for detailed comment by press time.
*The original version of this article stated that Constantine “now plans to discharge in a different location, where the studies suggest no connectivity.” While contractor Ozark Underground Laboratory determined in a report submitted in April 2022 that its dye tracing study “indicates” the location of Constantine’s new discharge system “does not impact Glacier Creek and its tributaries in the time interval tested,” it also said “the dataset presented in this report does not provide sufficient detail to permit reasonable estimates of groundwater contributions to Glacier Creek.”