Letter from YDWP Explaining Flaws in Alger Delta / Kennecott Plan

July 10, 2008

Mr. Tom Harrell
Alger Delta Cooperative Electric Association
426 N. 9th St.
Gladstone, MI 49837

RE: Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company Electric Service

Dear Mr. Harrell,

As we discussed at our meeting with the Marquette County Road Commission and other interested parties, it is important for Alger Delta to recognize the legal issues regarding the upgrade of existing service along CR 550 and the extension of existing services with the installation of new service along CR 510 and CR AAA to the Kennecott Eagle Mineral Company (KEMC) proposed mine site on the Yellow Dog Plains. As we discussed, the following of Non-Ferrous Metallic Mine permit statute (commonly known as Part 632) pertain to this project:

R 425.103(a) the definition of ‘mining activity’ includes (iv) Beneficiation; (x) Construction of haul roads; and (xi) Construction of utilities or extension of existing utilities.
R4 25.202 Environmental Impact Assessment shall be required for: (q) Existing and proposed infrastructure and utilities
R 425.204 Reclamation Plan (iii) ‘all . . .infrastructure . . . constructed as a result of the mining activities shall be removed, unless they are converted to an alternate use in accordance with the proposed final land use.’
Kennecott is currently not permitted to do any work related to the project since the permits are not final due to:

1. Ongoing Contested Case proceedings with the State of Michigan regarding the mining permit,
the air permit and the ground water discharge permit
2. The unmet requirement for KEMC to obtain an Underground Injection Control permit from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
3. The lease from the State of Michigan allowing KEMC to use state land for this proposed
operation is not finalized

It is the opinion of our organization and of our attorneys, that Kennecott’s current mining application and the subsequent permit issued, do not permit for the work Kennecott has contracted with Alger Delta in the extension of power to the proposed mine site. The current mining permit stipulates the use of diesel generators at the site, not electrical service provided by a utility. Subsequently, KEMC has not submitted an amendment request to the DEQ changing the existing permit as required by the statute and rules of the Non-Ferrous Metallic Mine permit process (commonly known as Part 632). Under these rules the following language applies as taken directly from the Part 632 rules:

R 425.206 Amendment of permits.

Rule 206. (1) A mining permit may be amended at any time to address changes in the mining operation, natural or humanmade conditions, or technology, or to correct an oversight. An application for amendment of a mining permit shall be submitted on a form prescribed by the department, signed by the permittee or an authorized representative of the permittee. The application shall include revisions of any of the following that are affected by the changes:

(a) The environmental impact assessment.
(b) The mining, reclamation, and environmental protection plan.
(c) The contingency plan.
(d) Federal, state, and local permits and licenses that are anticipated to be required.
(e) Provisions for financial assurance required under R 425.301.
(f) Other terms and conditions of the mining permit.
(2) A permittee may submit a request to the department to amend a mining permit.
(3) The department may require a permittee to submit an application for amendment of a mining permit if the department determines that the terms and conditions of the mining permit are not providing the intended reasonable protection of the environment, natural resources, or public health and safety.
(4) Within 30 days after receiving a request to amend a mining permit, the department shall determine whether the request constitutes a significant change from the conditions of the approved mining permit. If the department determines that the request is a significant change, then the department shall submit the request for amendment to the same review process as provided for a new permit application in R 425.211(4).

Under this rule, an amendment to the current permit is necessary in order for the work Alger Delta plans to be legal under Part 632. It is our opinion that Alger Delta would be working as an agent to KEMC and therefore, may be responsible for violations of this law.

At this time, we urge Alger Delta to rethink their planned work to the upgrade and extension of services for Kennecott Minerals until the following conditions are met: 1) the mining permit is final, (2) the conditions of the state lease are met allowing KEMC to begin working on the mine and (3) Kennecott addresses the necessity of amending their mining permit. Until these conditions are all accomplished, any work performed by Alger Delta to extend existing service or to install new service on CR 550, CR 510 and the CR AAA roads to service Kennecott Minerals – will be in direct violation of the Part 632 statute and rules.

If you would like to discuss further, please contact me at 906 360-2414.

Sincerely,

Cynthia Pryor
Executive Director
Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, Inc
P.O. Box 5, Big Bay, MI 49808

cc: Mr. Jon Cherry – Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company
Mr. Stephen Chester – MI Department of Environmental Quality
Ms. Rebecca Humphries – MI Department of Natural Resources
Ms. Michelle Halley – National Wildlife Federation
Ms. Susan LaFernier – Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
Mr. Peter Dykema – Huron Mountain Club

2 thoughts on “Letter from YDWP Explaining Flaws in Alger Delta / Kennecott Plan

  1. As a concerned citizen and property owner/taxpayer (since the 1930’s) in Powell Township and Marquette County, Michigan, I am troubled and disgusted in regard to both Alger Delta Electric and Rio Tinto/Kennecott’s “cavalier attitude” as regards a “preface” of their several preparatory, new, mining worksite infrastructure operations prior to any needed Michigan State DNR and DEQ permits, as well as the US EPA’s Region 5 office’s final permits–to begin any potential metallic sulfide mining operations in Marquette and Baraga Counties.
    Any new roads, electrical lines, and other new infrastructure-creating operations (which also affect the bordering private properties, access, public roadways and watersheds), seems to indicate a “done deal” for these corporations and a complete disregard to the present laws, public lands, crucial information, documents and public meetings that are needed prior to any such actions. This is not a “done deal”.
    We are not slaves to foreign corporations who intend to take our valuable minerals and also use and potentially pollute our clean water resources and wartersheds. And also use (and damage) the present and publicly owned infrastructure (such as County Road 550 and its easements) to further their selfish corporate goals of mega-profits. With their lack of present responsibility for transparency to the public of their full intentions and by also ignoring the timetable for public input and the legal permit process, they again show their arrogance and disregard for the public’s rights to be heard and recognized in this important matter.

  2. thank you Douglas Scott Treado for putting into words what many many of us in Marquette County are thinking.