Will Michigan be able to afford the possible mess?

http://michiganmessenger.com/40044/dnre-reassurances-fail-to-convince-environmentalists-skeptics

By Eartha Jane Melzer 7/26/10 8:13 AM

This first mine to be permitted under Michigan’s non-ferrous metallic mining law — the Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company nickel sulfide mine west of Marquette — continues to draw concerns and criticism.

Michigan has dwindling resources for environmental regulation and its environmental and natural resources divisions are undergoing transformation and downsizing.

In an interview with Michigan Messenger this month state Department of Natural Resources and Environment spokesman Bob McCann — formerly spokesman for the Department of Environmental Quality — offered a dismal picture of how the state would regulate the mine. He said that the controversial nickel sulfide mine, like other businesses in Michigan, might be inspected once a year or less due to dwindling state resources. He also stated that Michigan has no system to pay for regulation though assessing fees, and that the $17 million financial assurance bond put up by Kennecott was expected to be enough to close up the mine if the company disappeared, but that any environmental damages that the mine might produce would have to be pursued in court.

McCann has now left DNRE and current spokeswoman Mary Dettloff says that McCann was mistaken about how the state will treat regulation at the mine.

Dettloff said that Michigan mining law requires that the mine be inspected at least quarterly. She said that these inspections will be carried out by the Office of Geological Survey specialist in the Gwinn office — Joe Maki.

Michigan does assess a “surveillance fee” based on the amount of material mined in order to fund oversight of the mine, she said.

According to the law that fee is equal to, “not more that 5 cents per ton of material mined from the mining area as reported under section 63213(1)(d), but not less than $5,000.00, for each calendar year the mine is in operation and during the postclosure monitoring period.”

Dettloff also said that the $17 million actually is supposed to cover the costs of any environmental remediation work needed after the mine is closed, and her assessment appears to be backed up by the statute.

The new information from DNRE does not reassure critics of the state’s approach to the mine.

It’s not clear what the mining inspections will entail. Those familiar with inspections at other UP mines are not reassured by the state approach, and some don’t trust the state to follow the statute because they feel the state has already violated the statute in issuing permits for the mine.

Michelle Begnoche is spokesperson for U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Menominee), who represents the Upper Peninsula.

“Regardless of whether that is supposed to cover just the costs of closing the mine, or the remediation, Representative Stupak is concerned that it is not enough,” she said.

Addressing water pollution can be very expensive, as evidenced by other contaminated sites in northern Michigan. In Petoskey, where the Bay Harbor resort development was built atop land contaminated with cement kiln dust, she said, the party responsible for clean up — CMS Energy — has estimated that cleanup costs will require $93 million.

Stupak has also warned that Michigan does not have adequate resources to monitor the mine and that state regulators did not require the company to conduct baseline environmental assessments of the area around the mine. This, he said, will make proving environmental damage very difficult.

Independent mining consultant Jack Parker, has raised numerous concerns about the planned mine.

“I recognize that inspections are meant to be quarterly,” he said, “but given the environmental records of both Rio Tinto and Kennecott Eagle Mineral Company, I would require constant monitoring, daily, with support from other experts on such matters as disposal of waste water at the mine, the mill and the transport system.”

Parker noted that some mines have been known to sprinkle toxic waste along gravel roads as a cheap and effective way to reduce dust.

An appropriate inspection regime for a mine run by Kennecott, he said, should involve at least one technically-oriented inspector who would be stationed at the mine full time.

This is a level of oversight far beyond what is planned by the state.

“I believe that overall our law is pretty good,“ said National Wildlife Fund attorney Michelle Halley. “But a law is only as good as it is enforced. Right now the way the state is applying its part 632 enforcement does not even exist.”

Halley, along with attorneys for the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve and the Huron Mountain Club, has filed suit against the DNRE in Washtenaw County, arguing that the permits issued to Kennecott are flawed and should be overturned.

Under Michigan mining regulations, “a permit can be granted only if the applicant demonstrates that the mining operation will not pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or other natural resources or the public trust in those resources in accordance with the Michigan Environmental Protection Act.”

Those suing the state argue that during the permitting process the state failed to require Kennecott to conduct an environmental inventory around the mine or address the mine’s cumulative impact.

“[Kennecott’s] permit includes no contingency plans for the most predicted and potentially fatal failures, omitting perhaps the most important mechanism for protecting humans and the environment,” the group writes.

They warn that the permit does not include “discussion of subsidence or crown pillar failure; discussion of catastrophic events or wastewater treatment plant closure for a substantial period of time; contingency for significantly increased inflow to the mine; contingency should the MVAR air filtering system not work; or contingency addressing contaminated water leaking into aquifers from the underground mine.”

This lack of contingency planning, they say, is particularly disturbing and dangerous in view of the fact that an expert retained by the state to examine the mine plan, David Sainsbury of HCItasca Consulting, warned that “analysis techniques used to assess the crown pillar stability of Eagle Mine do not reflect industry best-practice.”

The mine opponents also say that the state improperly allowed DEQ policy advisor Frank Ruswick to issue a final approval of the permits as the state Departments of Environmental Quality and Natural Resources were in the process of merging earlier this year.

Kennecott Eagle Minerals General Manager Jon Cherry did not return a call seeking comment for this story, nor did DNRE mine specialist Joe Maki.

Mary Dettloff of DNRE said that because of the ongoing litigation against the state, it would not be prudent to discuss concerns about how the permits were issued.