Bill Overview
Title: Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2022
Description: This bill promotes the remediation of abandoned hardrock mine sites by Good Samaritans. A Good Samaritan means a person that is (1) not a past or current owner or operator of the abandoned site; (2) had no role in the creation of the historic mine residue; and (3) is not potentially liable under any law for the remediation, treatment, or control of the historic mine residue. The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a Good Samaritan pilot program. Under the program, the EPA may issue permits to allow Good Samaritans to remediate historic mine residue at abandoned hardrock mine sites without assuming liability under specified environmental laws for past, present, or future releases, threats of releases, or discharges of hazardous substances or other contaminants at or from the abandoned mine site. In addition, the bill establishes a Good Samaritan Mine Remediation Fund for land management agencies that authorize Good Samaritans to conduct remediation projects on federal land.
Sponsors: Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by environmental and health impacts of abandoned hardrock mines
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill focuses on the remediation of abandoned hardrock mines, which are predominantly found in regions with historical mining activity, such as the western United States.
- Communities located near abandoned hardrock mines are likely to have experienced negative environmental and health impacts from mine residue, thus being primary beneficiaries of mine remediation efforts.
- Environmental quality improvement, such as cleaner water and reduced soil contamination, benefits the general population living in proximity to these abandoned mines.
- Good Samaritans who are willing to take part in mine remediation will be positively impacted by receiving legal protection from liability under specified environmental laws.
- Environmental organizations and advocacy groups interested in improving land and waterway health near abandoned mining sites will be indirectly affected as they might see advancements in their goals.
Reasoning
- The population affected by this policy is concentrated in areas with abandoned hardrock mines, primarily in Western states like Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, and California.
- People living near these sites are likely to experience altered environmental conditions such as cleaner water and improved soil quality due to remediation, potentially improving wellbeing.
- Good Samaritans receive legal protection, encouraging more entities to take part in cleanup tasks, indirectly benefiting many local communities through enhanced environments.
- The policy has limited funding, which restricts the number of sites and projects that can be addressed initially, affecting fewer than the total individuals living near abandoned sites.
- Different demographic groups, including residents, local business owners, health professionals, and environmental activists, will perceive the policy differently based on their interactions with mine residue.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental engineer (Colorado)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will bring much-needed attention to the environmental issues we've faced due to mining residues.
- It's encouraging that Good Samaritans will have legal protection, which could accelerate cleanup efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Local business owner (Nevada)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could help improve the area's image by addressing the environmental damage.
- I'm hopeful that better environmental conditions will draw more visitors to our region.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired teacher (Arizona)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My community has suffered from health issues likely linked to mining waste.
- I hope this program leads to cleaner air and water for future generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental activist (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative aligns with my advocacy for environmental remediation.
- We need more awareness and volunteers for such causes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Public health official (Utah)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may help reduce local health issues if effectively implemented.
- Monitoring and evaluation should be integral to ensure the policy's success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Local government representative (Arizona)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The legal protections are a major step forward for collaborative remediation efforts.
- This program could serve as a model for other environmental challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired miner (Montana)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's vital to clean up the remnants we left behind for the sake of the environment.
- I hope the policy helps revitalize these lands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Good Samaritan volunteer coordinator (California)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Legal assurances will ease the recruit process for volunteers.
- This program can bring a real sense of purpose to my group's work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
College student studying environmental science (New Mexico)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The program may provide hands-on learning opportunities for students like me.
- Understanding real-world applications of environmental science is crucial for my education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Rancher (Idaho)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My livestock have been affected by potential contamination from old mines.
- This policy may help ensure safer water sources for my ranch.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The potential for legal challenges regarding liability and environmental regulations could affect program deployment.
- The scale and selection of sites for remediation can significantly alter both cost and impact estimates.
- The pilot nature of the program implies limited scope, which affects the magnitude of potential fiscal and economic impacts.