Over 575,000 Pounds of Toxics Discharged into Michigan’s Waterways

Industrial facilities dumped 575,930 pounds of toxic chemicals into Michigan’s waterways, according to a report released today by Environment Michigan: Wasting Our Waterways: Industrial Toxic Pollution and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Clean Water Act. The report also finds that toxic chemicals were discharged in 1,900 waterways across all 50 states.

“While nearly half of the rivers and lakes in the U.S. are considered too polluted for safe fishing or swimming, our report shows that polluters continue to use our waterways as dumping grounds for their toxic chemicals,” said Shelley Vinyard, Environmental Associate with Environment Michigan.

“The Detroit River has played an important role in the economic development of Southeast Michigan,” said Robert Burns, Detroit Riverkeeper. “From an early trade and transportation route, to its current role as the source of drinking water and recreational opportunities for millions of people. Protection of the river’s water quality and its natural resources is essential for maintaining the quality of life for the area’s residents.”

The Environment Michigan report documents and analyzes the dangerous levels of pollutants discharged in to America’s waters by compiling toxic chemical releases reported to the U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory for 2007, the most recent data available.

Major findings of the report include:

• The JR Whiting Generating Plant and the Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant released a combined 65,794.7 pounds of toxic chemical waste into Lake Erie. The Mead Johnson & Co. facility was the largest reported polluter of toxic chemicals in Michigan in 2007.
• The Detroit River had 70,290.9 pounds of chemicals dumped into it in 2007.
• The Escanaba Paper Company released 3,125.0 pounds of cancer-causing chemical waste into the Escanaba River in 2007.

With facilities dumping so much pollution, no one should be surprised that nearly half of our waterways are unsafe for swimming and fishing. But we should be outraged.

Environment Michigan’s report summarizes the discharge of cancer-causing chemicals, chemicals that persist in the environment, and chemicals with the potential to cause reproductive problems ranging from birth defects to reduced fertility. Among the toxic chemicals discharged by facilities are lead, mercury, and dioxin. When dumped into waterways, these toxic chemicals contaminate drinking water and are absorbed by the fish that people eventually eat. Exposure to these chemicals is linked to cancer, developmental disorders, and reproductive disorders. In 2007, manufacturing facilities discharged approximately 1.5 million pounds of cancer-causing chemicals into American waters.

“There are common-sense steps that should be taken to turn the tide against toxic pollution of our waters,” added Vinyard. “We need clean water now, and we need the federal government to act to protect our health and our environment.”

In order to curb the toxic pollution threatening our Great Lakes and other waterways across the state, Environment Michigan recommends the following:

1. Pollution Prevention: Industrial facilities should reduce their toxic discharges in to waterways by switching from hazardous chemicals to safer alternatives.
2. Tough permitting and enforcement: EPA and state agencies should issue permits with tough, numeric limits for each type of toxic pollution discharged, ratchet down those limits over time, and enforce those limits with credible penalties, not just warning letters.
3. Protect all waters: The federal government should adopt policies to clarify that the Clean Water Act applies to all of our waterways.

This includes the thousands of headwaters and small streams for which jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act has been called into question, as a result of recent court decisions.

“We know these industrial toxins are harmful to both our health and our environment,” said State Representative Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor), Chair of the Michigan House of Representatives’ Great Lakes and Environment Committee. “As the Great Lakes state, we simply must work to preserve our inland lakes and streams, and send a strong message to manufacturers that it is unacceptable to continue to put Michigan’s citizens and natural resources at risk. By protecting the waters that define us, we are protecting our families, our jobs, our farms and the very features that make Michigan a special and unique place to live.”

“We urge Congress and the President to listen to the public’s demands for clean water. They should act to protect all of our lakes, rivers and streams from toxic pollution,” concluded Vinyard.

Environment Michigan is a statewide, citizen-based environmental advocacy organization that works to protect Michigan’s air, water, and open spaces. For more information, visit www.EnvironmentMichigan.org.

Road Commission Decision on South Road October 19

Marquette County Road Commission Meeting
Monday, October 19, 2009
Ishpeming Township Hall (note location change)
6:30 pm

The MCRC will either vote to accept Kennecott’s Proposed South Road plan or defer the decision until a later meeting. At a public hearing held Sept 28, a group of 20 citizens voiced their concerns about the proposed route and urged the commission to postpone their decision until Kennecott 1) amends their mining permit and 2) obtains all of the necessary permits to do their mining business.

Urge the commission to postpone their decision on the public portion of this massive road project that promises to

 degrade and destroy the wilderness highlands of Michigamme Township
 displace wildlife
 open thousands of acres to intensive logging, sulfide mining, and other development
 threaten the ecological health of sensitive wetlands, streams and rivers

TAKE ACTION:
Attend the meeting Monday night!

If you cannot,

Call  MCRC, Jim Iwaniki,  Monday and voice your concerns!          486 -4491 Ext. 200

Ballot Initiative Moves Forward

LANSING (AP)

A proposed Michigan ballot measure that would prohibit some types of mining and restrict others took a small step forward Wednesday.

The petition form submitted by a group called the Michigan Save Our Water Committee was approved by a state election board. The group would have to collect more than 300,000 valid signatures of Michigan voters to get its proposal on the statewide November 2010 ballot.

The group has not yet started collecting signatures but says it could begin that process by the end of the year.

Supporters say the ballot measure calls for tougher laws to protect the Great Lakes, inland lakes, rivers and the rest of the environment from contamination caused by some types of mining.

Opponents of the ballot proposal say it would cripple Michigan’s mining industry and severely damage the Upper Peninsula’s economy.

”The proposal winds up being a direct assault, a direct attack on the U.P.,” said Deb Muchmore, a spokeswoman for Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs, a developing opposition group that is expected to soon include mining interests. ”It would be a job killer and an industry killer for that region of our state.”

The most publicized mining dispute in Michigan is related to Kennecott Eagle Minerals Co.’s plans to mine nickel and copper in the Upper Peninsula. But supporters of the ballot proposal say their effort is much broader.

”This is not about one mine,” said Maura Campbell, Michigan Save Our Water Committee spokeswoman. ”This is us looking down the road.”

The measure would prohibit uranium mining and processing until ”new rules” are established to ”protect against the special risks associated with those activities,” according to the petition language.

Sulfide and other types of mines would have to be located at least 2,000 feet away from any lake, river or stream unless it is proven the mining operation won’t hurt the water.

Companies seeking permits would have to do more studying of potential environmental impact.

The Michigan League of Conservation Voters has endorsed the proposal. Some other environmental groups have not yet taken a position on the measure.

Community Reaction to the Initiative announcement

John Pepin of the Mining Journal questions the community

MARQUETTE – Both proponents and opponents of a new mining and water-related ballot initiative are digging their heels in for what is expected to be a hard-fought, costly battle to win over Michigan’s voters.

The state Board of Canvassers approved a four-page petition form Wednesday from the Michigan Save Our Water Committee. The committee – whose honorary chairman is former Michigan Gov. William Milliken – now has six months to gather 304,000 signatures of registered voters to get the measure on the Nov. 2, 2010 ballot.

“We are just strengthening the law that’s in place with some straightforward common sense (rules),” said Duncan Campbell, treasurer of the Michigan Save Our Water Committee in Detroit. “We think this issue is so important we need to go before all of the voters of Michigan.”

The legislative initiative would amend Part 632 – the non-ferrous metallic mineral mining section of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act – which was enacted in 2004 to govern mining projects like the Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company site proposed for the Yellow Dog Plains in northern Marquette County.

Tougher restrictions – which some critics say are impossible to meet – would be added to the mining law, in an effort to protect Michigan’s water resources.

“This is not a regulatory measure, this is a prohibition,” said Lansing attorney Pete Ellsworth of the Detroit law firm Dickinson-Wright. “This is a measure that prohibits mining. I think that’s the only fair way of characterizing this.”

Ellsworth is offering election process and rules advice to a new Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs Committee formed over the past couple of weeks to challenge the ballot initiative.

Ellsworth – who called the petition language “a lawyer’s field day” -said the provisions may prove to be unconstitutional. He said attorneys are still reviewing the numerous details of the proposal, but contends “the way the criteria is set up, it cannot be met.”

The initiative seeks to “prohibit uranium mining and processing until new rules have been established to protect against the special risks associated with those activities.” It would also “require a mining area to be located more than 2,000 feet away from any water body, unless it is proven that the mining operations will not cause any injury to groundwater or water bodies.”
A permit applicant would also be required to provide a regional groundwater and surface water analysis to enable an assessment of all potential impacts to those waters from the proposed mining project.

In a provision fashioned after a Wisconsin mining statute, applicants would also have to “show that another mine in the United States or Canada is similar to the applicant’s proposed mine in all relevant ways and operated for at least five years and has not harmed natural resources or caused any exceedance of applicable environmental criteria for at least 10 years after closure.”

The initiative would also “prescribe additional requirements for reporting, notification, permit review, permit amendments and enforcement.”

In Michigan, Kennecott’s proposed nickel and copper Eagle Mine is the first non-ferrous mining project to be permitted under Part 632, but it has not been built or operated, with legal and permit challenges still pending.

“You’ve got a call for regulation updates on a law that hasn’t been tested in terms of going into operation,” Ellsworth said.

Jon Cherry, general manager of Kennecott, said, “Kennecott is prepared to join others in fighting for the Upper Peninsula, and to protect the hundreds of jobs our company and its planned operations alone are set to create.”

“We’re still reviewing the proposal, but would initially observe that it is very misleading, with the sole intent of creating an outright prohibition of the mining industry in the U.P.,” Cherry said. “We don’t believe people will stand for that once they understand the true agenda of the proposal’s backers.”

And while some critics say the “Mi Water” ballot initiative is just the latest attempt to stop the Kennecott Eagle project, proponents say the scope of their amendments are also aimed at a much broader group of mining interests waiting for the outcome of Kennecott’s mining attempt – interests whose efforts could result in a new regional mining district in northern Michigan.

“There’s exploration across the U.P.,” said Kristi Mills, director of Save the Wild U.P. in Marquette. “The district is a concern, this mining district.”

Mills said the initiative would not affect the U.P.’s traditional iron mining operations, which Cliffs Natural Resources and other companies have undertaken for decades.

Employing technological advances, a good deal of resource exploration has been conducted in the U.P. over the past few years by several companies seeking gold, silver, copper and other minerals.

This may yield great potential for further development, which many people in the area see as an opportunity for a resurgence of mining jobs and economic prosperity.

“We could see a revival of mining across the Upper Peninsula not different than what it was, in terms of volume, dating back to the 1930s and 40s,” said Jon LaSalle of Marquette, chairman of the Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs Committee.

“We stand to have a lot of jobs come out of the exploration and mining of those resources.

“This would really foreclose on the U.P.’s economic future if we were to say no to non-ferrous mining.”

Campbell said green jobs and sustainable jobs have been growing while mining and construction jobs have faltered.

“The problem with mining jobs are they are boom and bust and what’s left over is pollution for our children and our grandchildren,” Campbell said.

Babette Welch of Marquette has been working with Mi Water proponents to raise money to promote the ballot initiative. Alluding to Michigan’s recent successful “Pure Michigan” tourism advertising campaign, Welch said, “I’d like to change the concept of Michigan from being the rust belt to the water belt. I’m interested in preserving our water, having our pure Michigan with pure water.”

Many proponents of the ballot proposal contend clean water is essential to protect Michigan’s tourism industry. Welch said many of the images in the Pure Michigan campaign focused on the state’s beautiful water resources.

Mills said, “If we’re going to move forward into a more sustainable future, then we don’t need this type of mining that threatens our water.”

LaSalle said the U.P. cannot rely on tourism to provide jobs with health insurance, good wages and other benefits attractive enough to keep the region’s children working here after graduation from high school. He said 7 out of 10 people living here could not make a living from tourism.

“We all love to be tourists, but whether we should paint the U.P. into that economic corner, I doubt that,” LaSalle said.

Amy Clickner, chief executive officer of the Lake Superior Community Partnership in Marquette, agreed with LaSalle jobs are greatly important to the region, as is the environment.

“I don’t think it’s jobs at any cost,” Clickner said. “I don’t think there’s any group that thinks the environment is more important than those of us who live here, and to live here you have to have a job.”

On Oct. 3, the Upper Peninsula Association of County Commissioners adopted a resolution against the ballot initiative, with hopes of gaining the support of the state’s other 68 counties. Marquette County Board Chairman Gerald Corkin said the initiative would be detrimental to both the U.P. and Michigan. Corkin expressed concern about the location of the Mi Water campaign’s headquarters.

“It’s always a little scary when you’ve got a downstate group putting out a ballot initiative that mostly affects the U.P., but I guess that’s what we’re dealing with,” Corkin said.

Campbell said given the number of petition signatures needed, and the U.P.’s roughly 300,000 total population, the battle to put the proposal on the ballot must be fought from the Lower Peninsula where there are more people.

Campbell said that while the non-ferrous mining activities may be located in the U.P., the Great Lakes waters fed by the rivers and streams of the region reach the length of the state. Any pollution from mining activities could potentially impact the whole state.

“We all live downstream,” Campbell said.

Wetlands program saved, but state budget cuts expected

October 1, 2009

James Clift, 517-256-0553

Lansing — The legislature will return to Lansing today to put the final touches on a bill that will keep Michigan’s wetlands program running at the state level for an additional three years.  Proposals had been made to send the program back to the federal government to operate on a limited basis.

Environmental groups applaud the efforts of the legislature to protect these critical resources. Wetlands protect neighborhoods from flooding, cleanse water before it reaches lakes and streams, safeguard the purity of well water and provide vital habitat for fish and other water-dependent wildlife.

“Keeping the program in Michigan is certainly an environmental issue, but it is also a very pressing economic issue,” said Grenetta Thomassey, policy director at Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. “Sen. Patty Birkholz, Rep. Rebekah Warren, and Rep. Dan Scripps all understood that and worked tirelessly to help keep the needed perspective.  Relinquishing the program would have meant unacceptable work-related delays as our state climbs out of the recession, in addition to increasing the likelihood of damaging environmental violations.  And keeping the program here, and funded, keeps our prospects much higher for being eligible for Great Lakes Restoration funding from the federal government which will also create jobs as it restores wetlands and provides clean water infrastructure.”

Unfortunately, the retention of the wetland program is the only good news for natural resources in a budget deal that includes drastic reductions in general fund support for Michigan’s public health, water protection and natural resources management. In the case of the Department of Environmental Quality the cuts amount to a 39% reduction in general funds for program designed to protect public health. We believe the legislature must explore more thoroughly options that increase revenues, either through the elimination of outdated tax breaks or new sources.

MEC President Chris Kolb noted that the budget does not give away Michigan’s wetland protection program to the federal government – a positive and important development. But he said even that silver lining is not enough to outweigh the damage that draconian budget cuts will have.

The Detroit News: New era for Michigan mining

Video interviews

Jim Lynch / The Detroit News

Republic

Upper Peninsula mines have called the fathers, brothers, sons and, eventually, the mothers and daughters of the region’s families to work for more than a century.

Days spent in the dark and the dirt searching for copper, iron and nickel put food on the table and carved out a rugged identity for Michigan’s northernmost territory.

Only two mines still operate — a far cry from the industry’s heyday. The loss of that economic cornerstone, coupled with the national financial crisis, hit the region hard and pushed unemployment levels far above average.

Mineral companies are once again looking to the Upper Peninsula for a “new era in mining,” which could begin with the opening of a new nickel mine this spring. Their interest has risen with commodities prices, and the value of nickel reached record highs just two years ago partially because of its value in new battery technologies.

Company officials are approaching communities with the promise of new jobs, investment and money to aid governments and schools. Companies are buying and leasing mineral rights in anticipation of a new wave of mines. The first such project, Kennecott Minerals’ proposed Eagle mine near Marquette, is getting its share of support from elected leaders and citizens and providing the first test of state mining laws enacted four years ago. At least two other companies are investigating mine projects.

Environmental groups find the rush to bring in mining projects alarming. Mining can harm streams and groundwater and the effects could be felt for decades. The risk of long-term damage, they say, is not worth the short-term economic gains, particularly in an area as unspoiled as the Upper Peninsula.

Mark Onkalo of Republic, 30 miles west of Marquette, isn’t so certain. The 50-year-old Onkalo is part of a long line of men who made their living in the mines, including a great uncle who died in a cave-in. Onkalo is going on his 14th month without work.

“There are so many people out of work right now, millwrights are a dime a dozen,” said Onkalo, who hopes to land a job at the Eagle mine if the project goes ahead. “It’s terrible for me right now. I’m down to my last (unemployment) extension check.”

Those are the factors environmentalists are trying to overcome in their opposition to not only the Eagle project, but also the wave of mines that could follow if Kennecott is successful.

“Places like the Upper Peninsula are rare now to find,” said Joe Saari, a retired history professor and president of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition. “And if we let them go because we think like we did in the 19th and 20th centuries — that you can never exhaust these resources or ever pollute this water so much that it won’t be usable and healthy for us — we’re wrong. We’ve seen that it can happen.”

Company pitches the pluses

Somewhere underneath the ground out here on the Yellow Dog Plains — roughly 30 miles northwest of Marquette — is a chunk of ore worth anywhere from $3 billion to $6 billion or maybe more. It’s exactly the kind of high-grade nickel and copper lode Kennecott hoped to find when it began explorations in the Upper Peninsula a decade ago.

Yet it sits in amid land held dear by those who enjoy the outdoors as well as the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. The entrance to the mine would be at the base of Eagle Rock, a place where Keweenaw community members go for celebrations and contemplation.

To drum up support for the Eagle Mine venture, company officials tick off a list of benefits to the community:

• 500 jobs for construction of the mine and the redevelopment of a mill site in Humboldt.

• As many as 200 full-time jobs once the mine and mill are online.

• Tax boosts for local government, school district and more than $100 million in revenue for the state.

• Construction of a $50 million 22-mile road through western Marquette County.

In a place like Marquette County, where the unemployment rate is 10.6 percent, or in neighboring Baraga County, where that number soars to 24.5 percent, such investment is water in the desert.

“Generations of families have been supported by the mining industry and had a great life in the Upper Peninsula,” said Lois Ellis, vice president of economic development for the Lake Superior Community Partnership. “So a lot of the population views the project positively as something we’re good at and something that can contribute positively to the economy.”

If work on the Eagle project gets under way this spring as the company plans, it will likely be the first of many new mines. Kennecott has identified 150 sites for potential operations in the Upper Peninsula and the company is spending as much as $5 million a year on exploration.

Two other companies have contacted Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality about potentially filing for mining permits. Orvana Minerals is looking at a copper ore body south of White Pine. Canadian company Aquila Resources announced this summer it intends to open a gold and zinc mine near Stevenson, possibly as soon as 2012.

Acid mine drainage feared

There is nothing subtle about the mining process. At the most basic level, it’s tearing minerals from the ground for processing and, environmentally speaking, it’s a process with a spotty history.

Kennecott’s owner, London-based Rio Tinto, is the second-largest mineral company in the world and has experience mining on six of the seven continents. Many of those projects have stirred up controversy over harm caused to the surrounding areas.

Company mines in places like Alaska and Utah are at or near the top of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s lists for toxic releases in those states. Environmentalists are threatening a lawsuit against Kennecott over pollution at the Flambeau Mine in Ladysmith in northwest Wisconsin.

For conservationists in the Upper Peninsula, the worry is acid mine drainage — sulfuric acid created by digging for metals like nickel and copper working its way into local waters. And the area targeted by the Eagle project, they argue, is particularly vulnerable.

“Ninety five percent of mines — underground sulfide mines that occur near surface water or groundwater — pollute,” said Michelle Halley, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation who has challenged the state permits issued to Kennecott’s Eagle project in court.

“That’s a risk that’s just too great to bear for the Yellow Dog Plains, the Salmon Trout River and the Yellow Dog River. In a worst-case scenario, as our experts predict, the roof of the mine caves in and takes the river with it. There is no contingency plan adequate enough to deal with that problem.”

In addition, Eagle’s critics point out that the jobs created are short-term — up to eight years before the mine is expected to play out. The money that comes along with the mine, they said, will only be a temporary boost.

And finally, they point to the state’s compensation. If Kennecott stands to reap billions from the Eagle mine, they ask, why is Michigan only getting $100 million from it?

Firm touts safeguards

Not surprisingly, company officials have a different take. Their mine in Salt Lake City ranks second on the national toxic release inventory simply because it moves more material than almost any other mine in the nation — as much as 500,000 tons of rock a day.

And the Flambeau mine, they argue, is a model program that received no environmental violations from the state during its operation in the mid-1990s or afterward.

Jon Cherry helped Kennecott remediate its Utah mine site before coming to Michigan as the Eagle project manager.

He said he is confident the company’s investment in the latest environmental safeguards — including liners to prevent drainage, and water treatment plants at the mine and the mill — make the mine a safer bet than those that came before.

“One hundred years ago they just started mining and you ended up with what you ended up with,” he said. “Today, it’s much more (protective) environmentally with a lot more rules and regulations, which I think is a good thing.”

Halley and others, however, want the company to put its money where its mouth is.

“Those same Kennecott people have been challenged under oath to guarantee that the mine will not pollute and the technology they propose will operate as planned,” she said. “And they won’t guarantee it.”

Asked if it’s fair for any company to be expected to issue a guarantee like that, Halley responded: “It’s fair when you have the world’s largest freshwater resource at stake.”

jlynch@detnews.com (313) 222-2034

Great Lakes United wins mining lawsuit

The Canadian Federal Court decision requires Environment Canada to make the mining industry annually report the toxic waste accumulating in tailings ponds and waste rock piles.

John Jackson

Great Lakes United

Great Lakes United and Mining Watch Canada, with the legal assistance of Ecojustice, have won a court case, forcing Environment Canada to require the mining industry to annually report the toxic substances put into tailings ponds and waste rock piles to a public inventory. This means that approximately 20 metal mining facilities located on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes basin will have to report their waste. This court decision will allow us to more completely understand threats to the Great Lakes basin as a result of mining activities.

Ecojustice launched the suit in November, 2007 on behalf of Great Lakes United and Mining Watch Canada. On April 23 2009 the Canadian Federal Court issued an order requiring the federal government to immediately begin publicly reporting mining pollution data from 2006 onward to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI).

The strongly worded decision described the government’s decision-making pace as “glacial” and chastised the government for turning a “blind eye” to the issue and dragging its feet for “more than 16 years”.

In response to the Canadian Minister of the Environment’s failure to require reporting, the Honourable Mr. Justice Russell concluded, “the result is that the people of Canada do not have a national inventory of releases of pollutants that will allow them to assess the state of the Canadian environment and take whatever measures they feel are appropriate to protect the environment and facilitate the protection of human health.”

In contrast, since 1998, the U.S. government has required mining companies to report all pollutants under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), the U.S. equivalent of the NPRI. In 2005, the 72 mines in the U.S. reporting to the TRI released more than 500 million kilograms of toxic substances to mine tailings and waste rock. This accounted for 27% of all U.S. pollutants reported. The addition of the Canadian data will give us a more complete picture of the mining threat in the Great Lakes.

Toxics leak through tailings ponds walls and evaporate into the air on an ongoing basis. As climate change threatens to bring more frequent and increasingly intense storms, the potential for tailings ponds’ walls to collapse increases. This means toxic tailings rushing out into the environment and into the lakes. Such devastating collapses of tailings ponds have already occurred in Europe and in the coal mining area of the U.S.

The decision also means that the public will have to be told about the devastating toxic discharges to the massive tailings ponds created by mining the tar sands in Alberta.   The product of tar sands development—one of the largest industrial undertakings in the world—is being touted as the source of oil for proposed expansions of oil refineries throughout the Great Lakes in locations such as Superior, Wisconsin, Gary, Indiana, Detroit, and Sarnia.

Now that we will have knowledge on the toxic contents of these tailings ponds and rock piles on both sides of the Great Lakes basin, we will be more capable of pressuring for action to protect the Great Lakes from these threats.

Environment Canada has stated that they will move quickly to implement the judge’s decision.

jjackson@glu.org

To read the entire legal judgement, click on http://www.glu.org/en/node/293.

Polluted mines as economic engines? Obama admin says ‘yes’

By SCOTT STREATER, Greenwire

One of the nation’s longest-running environmental eyesores is poised to become a critical jobs engine for the rural West under the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Together, the Interior and Agriculture departments expect to set off a hiring boom among idled industry and agricultural workers whose charge will be to clean up thousands of abandoned hardrock mines that once formed the backbone of the region’s economy, but whose greater legacy is one of toxic wastes and thousands of miles of contaminated rivers, creeks and streams.

Three agencies — the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service — are working to finalize the list of cleanup projects to be funded with $105 million in stimulus money.
Nearly half of the money, $50 million, will go the Park Service, whose lackluster attention to abandoned mines drew sharp criticism from the Interior Department’s inspector general in a report issued last July. The remaining funds will be split between BLM and the Forest Service, at $30 million and $25 million, respectively, according to a spokesman for Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who sponsored an amendment detailing the agencies’ shares.

“It’s a huge infusion [of money], like we’ve never seen before,” said John Burghardt, coordinator of NPS’s Abandoned Mine Lands and Mining Claim Validity programs.

Proponents of the cleanup program say the stimulus money will create hundreds of new jobs over a short period, and that hundreds of mines are already in the pipeline for cleanup once the funds are distributed. But others question whether throwing millions of dollars at an intractable environmental problem like mine wastes is the best use of economic recovery dollars.

Among the arguments made by critics is that such projects come with too many bureaucratic hurdles, including long lead times for environmental assessments and compliance with other provisions of federal law.

But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told reporters during a conference call last week that the Park Service and BLM will select projects whose environmental assessments have been completed, and that officials will avoid using stimulus money on sites where cleanup may be slowed by environmental problems or legal challenges.

“BLM, by itself, has a huge number of mines across the country that are already shovel ready to go and mines that could be remediated as soon as we give them the go-ahead,” Salazar said. “We will be moving forward on that agenda as quickly as we can.”

Daniel Esty, a former senior EPA official and environmental adviser to Obama’s presidential transition team, said including dollars for mine cleanup is consistent with the administration’s overarching goal for the stimulus package: to serve the public good by protecting dwindling water supplies and improving conditions in the national parks and forests.

“The president has been very clear and the public supports him that this is a time to get the economy back on track, and beyond that to ensure that society has something to show for it down the line,” said Esty, the director of Yale Law School’s Center for Environmental Law and Policy. “There is real value in putting people to work in ways that not only produce a paycheck but also [provides] long-term value for the American public.”

An ‘enormous’ problem

Mining once formed the backbone of the economy in many parts of the United States, but the nation’s 19th- and early 20th-century quest for mineral wealth came with huge environmental downsides. Today, the Government Accountability Office estimates at least 250,000 abandoned mines dot the landscape, many of which are former hardrock mines in the West.

Hardrock mines pose particular environmental concerns because after the valuable metals are extracted, the leftover waste rock is often pushed into surface piles where it is exposed to wind and rain. Over time, mineral sulfides in the waste rock cause the leaching of heavy metals, which in turn accumulate in streams, creeks and rivers.

The problem is so extensive that one EPA estimate placed the full cost of abandoned mine cleanup at $50 billion. The agency spent roughly $2.2 billion between 1998 and 2007 working on mine cleanup projects across the country, while BLM and the Forest Service spent
$259 million targeting mine pollution on public lands. Congress, meanwhile, allocates about $30 million annually to the two agencies to target roughly 50 abandoned mines each year.

Given the magnitude of the problem, experts say the stimulus bill provision for mine cleanup is money well spent.

“The need’s so enormous,” said Velma Smith, manager of the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining, which has lobbied Congress to reform mining laws to prevent future mine pollution. “So I don’t think we can’t underestimate the impact the economic stimulus money will have.”

The Interstate Mining Compact Commission, which represents state government interests in addressing mining’s environmental impacts, is also convinced that using stimulus money to clean mines will quickly “benefit the environment and stimulate the economy.”

In a joint statement last December to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the IMCC and the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs reported that tens of millions of dollars’ worth of mine reclamation projects were shovel ready, and that executing those projects would result in the hiring of hundreds of contractors, engineers and other workers.

“Most of this abandoned mine land work is done by local contractors using local materials, so it’s very much the kind of thing that has impact locally,” said Greg Conrad, IMCC’s executive director. “These projects will have a very big on-the-ground impact.”

Biggest bang for the buck?

But even with the expected boost in jobs, some question whether using federal stimulus money to clean abandoned mines in remote settings will provide a sufficient societal benefit, as the Obama administration has indicated is its priority.

Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation who now heads the environmental group at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, suggested that other environmental projects — such as retrofitting diesel school buses with air pollution controls
— offer more bang for the buck because they require new equipment purchases and labor to install the controls, and ultimately improve public health by reducing diesel particulate pollution that contributes to thousands of premature deaths each year.

“There are some environmental cleanups that clearly have long-term value, but others that clearly don’t,” Holmstead said. “Abandoned mines tend to be in pretty isolated areas where there’s little human exposure to contaminants. My gut feeling is it’s probably not a great investment.”

Smith, with the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining, disagreed. She cited a 1997 EPA study that detailed the environmental risks of mine pollution, including a finding of “significant populations” living within close proximity of hardrock mines, especially in the West.

Moreover, she said, pollution from abandoned mines can have affects far from the mine site itself. The U.S. Bureau of Mines, for example, has calculated that 12,000 miles of rivers in the West are contaminated with metals from mining operations, often at significant distances from the pollution’s point of origin.

“Many of these sites create widespread and long-term water problems,”
Smith said. “So it becomes more important to clean the mess up.”

Peru Creek mess

One example of a mine whose lingering pollution problems could be addressed under the stimulus package is the Pennsylvania Mine in northwest Colorado.

The abandoned hardrock mine, whose operations date to the late 1800s, continues to bleed toxic metals, including lead and copper, into nearby Peru Creek. From there, the metals move down the Snake River watershed, cutting through the White River National Forest and past expensive ski lodges before emptying into a massive reservoir that provides drinking water for the Denver metro area (<http://www.eenews.net/public/Landletter/2008/12/04/6>Land Letter, Dec. 4, 2008).

The pollution has decimated once-thriving stocks of rainbow and brook trout and turned Peru Creek into the most polluted waterway in the Snake River watershed, said Jean Mackenzie, a remedial project manager at EPA’s Denver regional office who is overseeing the cleanup effort.

Now, the Pennsylvania Mine is a strong candidate to receive cleanup money from the stimulus package, said Kurt Muenchow, abandoned mine lands program manager for the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Region in Denver.

The Forest Service, working with EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey and Colorado regulators, has put together a request for just over $1 million in economic stimulus funding to clean not only the polluted water flowing from the mine, but piles of waste rock that sit on adjacent national forest land and continue to pollute the Snake River.

Muenchow said the regional office could know as early as this week whether their project made the list of funded cleanups.

“We’re competing with all the other land management agencies for some of that money,” he said. “But the Pennsylvania Mine project is hopefully a strong contender because we’re partnering with the EPA and others, and there are significant environmental benefits.”

Elizabeth Russell, mine restoration project manager for Trout Unlimited, said the additional spending on Peru Creek could have significant implications for the broader Snake River watershed, which the organization has spent years trying to restore.

“Cleaning up that old mine would be the best thing in the world,” Russell said.

New life for old mines

Once cleaned up, at least some of the former mines could be used to advance another central objective of the economic stimulus plan:
expanding wide-scale use of alternative energy.

Salazar, in his teleconference with reporters, said he wants the public lands to be “an engine for the clean-energy economy,” which could steer billions of dollars toward the construction of solar arrays, wind farms and geothermal power plants.

Reclaimed mine sites are ideal for solar and wind projects because they are far enough away from population centers not to be a nuisance and the land has already been disturbed by mining activity, thus minimizing habitat destruction. In addition, the sites are often linked by roads and electric transmission lines.

The Mine-Scarred Lands Initiative, a 7-year-old federal program administered by EPA, BLM and the Forest Service, would treat restored mines as brownfields that could be redeveloped by the private sector with financial assistance from federal agencies.

“Definitely, the stimulus money [EPA] is set to receive will be used to access, clean and redevelop brownfields sites, and abandoned mines can be used for that,” said David Lloyd, director of EPA’s Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization. “The remediation and reuse of abandoned mines is a priority.”

Federal regulators are already testing the concept at a former mine in Beatty, Nev., about 110 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Bullfrog Mine ceased operations in 1999, and its owner, Barrick Gold Inc., has transferred 81 acres of the site to the town of Beatty. Studies show that the Beatty area has some of the best solar energy potential in the United States, as well as a high potential for wind-power generation.

EPA is working with town leaders to develop a large solar array atop the old mine site, and money from the economic stimulus package could be used to advance that project.

“In terms of upping the amount of renewable energy we generate, this idea is a perfect fit,” said Smith with the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining. “It’s a win-win.”

Scott Streater is a freelance journalist based in Colorado Springs, Colo.

DEQ Holds Hearing on Rio Tinto’s Humboldt Mill Project; Comments Focus on Jobs and Water Quality

by Gabriel Caplett

Humboldt, Michigan – While a blizzard raged in the eastern part of the county, about 100 citizens attended a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hearing on a mining application for Kennecott-Rio Tinto’s proposed Humboldt Mill project. Comments were starkly divided between those citing perceived job creation as motivation for their support of the project and those concerned about the proposed Eagle Project and potential for water pollution and fugitive dust problems at the site.

The meeting contrasted sharply with hearings held on Rio Tinto’s proposed Eagle Project mine from 2006 to 2007. More than 400 attended one Eagle hearing, with over ninety-percent speaking in opposition to the project.

While not quite the inverse of the Eagle hearings—roughly sixty-percent of public comments were offered in support of the milling project and only about forty public comments were taken—the number in support greatly outnumbered detractors, partly due to the presence of mine company staff and generous amounts of heckling from much of the crowd.

To thunderous applause, one audience member disrupted Big Bay resident and Save the Wild UP (SWUP) director, Kristi Mill’s public comment. The man shouted that discussion of Rio Tinto’s Eagle Mine was “not relevant” to the Humboldt hearing. Moderator, James Collins, replied that Mills had time remaining for her comment and that discussion of Eagle was allowed because the two projects “are related”.

Mills had been questioning why the DEQ was using tax payer dollars to consider Rio Tinto’s Humboldt Mill application while the Eagle Project has been “deferred” indefinitely.

According to Marquette resident and part-time SWUP worker, Teresa Bertossi, “With numerous, unresolved issues revolving around approval of the Eagle Project and serious questions as to whether Rio Tinto will ever fully pursue the project at all, why the DEQ is even considering the Humboldt application at this time is baffling.”

Rio Tinto has had a rough few months.

The company has seen a dramatic reduction in its share value as metal prices have plummeted. Nickel, alone, has fallen from over $25 per pound roughly a year ago to less than $5 per pound today. Burdened with roughly $40 billion in debt, the company announced plans last week, to sell nearly one-fifth of the company to the Chinese government-run aluminum company, Chinalco, currently Rio Tinto’s largest shareholder. Kennecott is, currently, a wholly-owned subsidiary of London-based Rio Tinto.

Economy Main Issue at Hearing

A need for additional area employment and economic growth was, by far, the strongest theme during the hearing. Every comment in support of the project cited the need for more jobs without addressing the Humboldt application specifically. Although not a job creation agency, the DEQ was repeatedly urged to approve the project based on the potential for job creation and economic growth.

County commissioner Deb Pellow said that Rio Tinto’s project is “very important to the county’s overall economic diversification and well being.”

“DEQ: do your job and bring us these jobs,” urged Pellow.

Gerald Corkin, chairman of the Marquette County Board of Commissioners, said the mill project would “provide up to fifty to seventy full-time jobs [and] one-hundred to two-hundred construction jobs.”

“There’s the potential to have mining for another hundred years in the UP,” Corkin speculated.

Joe Derocha, Humboldt Township supervisor, said, “Mining was what raised us, brought us here today.”

“More businesses, more jobs, more people create more economic development,” said Derocha.

Tom Peterson, former Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company general manager and current president of Citizens for Responsible Mining offered his support for the project and represented the hearing’s only complaint coming from a Rio Tinto supporter.

“I did not want to see Kennecott do what they did down in Ladysmith at the Flambeau Mine and that is to high-grade a deposit and leave a lot of ore that could be mined,” said Peterson.

According to Jack Parker, former Rock Mechanics Director at the White Pine Mine, Rio Tinto has similar plans for the Eagle ore deposit. According to Parker, the company plans to leave much of the ore behind, taking only the richest available. Parker maintains that, since much of the ore is owned by the people of Michigan, mining only the high and mid-grades and leaving the rest is “not responsible mining”.

DEQ: “Mercury would likely be a major concern to the public” at Humboldt Mill

According to documents obtained through an open records request, the DEQ believes mercury discharges may be a serious issue at the mill site. Mercury is known to bioaccumulate in fish tissue and is considered a serious danger to public health. According to the DEQ, “There are no proven technologies to consistently achieve [a] low level…Mercury would likely be a major concern to the public and environmental groups.”

At the hearing, some local citizens expressed concerns regarding potential water contamination and fugitive dust control problems at the Humboldt Mill.

Robert Rivera, from Iron River, told the DEQ that he is opposed to Rio Tinto’s milling plans that could process ore currently being explored by Prime Meridian Resources, in Iron County, where he has lived most of his life.

“I grew up in a mining family, in a mining town a quarter of a mile from an abandoned and toxic mine site on the Iron River. It has been remediated and remediated again and it still leaches yellow boy,” said Rivera.

Ely Township resident and miner, Stephen Johnson, said that he lives along the Escanaba River. “Since the thirty years I’ve lived here I’ve seen the Middle Branch of the Escanaba deteriorate as a quality watershed,” Johnson said. “We used to have brook trout galore in it some thirty years ago and I’m not aware of anybody catching a brook trout down by my residency in the last fifteen years.”

Johnson commented on Callahan Mining’s Humboldt Mill application in the 1980s and said that he was “not really happy with the way, at that time, the DNR handled the situation. There were a lot of questions we asked that were never answered.”

“My major concern is here what is the DEQ going to do to ensure that the quality no longer deteriorates anymore and what are we doing to bring it back to the level that it was thirty years ago,” said Johnson.

Incomplete Application?

Only a handful of comments in opposition to Rio Tinto’s milling project highlighted concerns directly related to aspects of the company’s milling application.

Chuck Brumleve spoke on behalf of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and raised concerns regarding water inflow through bedrock surrounding the tailings pit. According to Brumleve, “the applicant seems to treat the pit as if it’s a sealed pool or container for sulfide tailings.”

“There is a whole body of current information by the Canadians and the [Environmental Protection Agency] that indicates surrounding rock considerations are the primary consideration in safe tailings disposal, which is not addressed by the applicant in this mining permit application,” said Brumleve.

Brumleve also addressed the need to clean-up existing mining contamination at White Pine, the Keweenaw Copper district and the Empire and Tilden mines before new mining projects are permitted.

Brumleve urged Rio Tinto supporters to “think of the next seven generations and not of your level of affluence here in today.”

Big Bay resident, Cynthia Pryor, raised concerns that construction plans for a protective berm were not included in the Humboldt application and that the plan lacks adequate contingency plans for such events as an “absolute berm failure”.

“It’s very difficult to give public comment on something that’s not included in the application,” said Pryor.

Defending the DEQ

Even the DEQ’s Office of Geological Survey Director, Hal Fitch, took his turn at the microphone to respond to this writer’s public comment on DEQ malfeasance regarding the handling of Rio Tinto’s Eagle Project application. Fitch also defended his role in forming a non-profit corporation with Kennecott and Bitterroot Resources while the Eagle Project application was under agency consideration.

The Northern Michigan Geologic Repository Association (NMGRA) was formed by the DEQ in 2007, with Fitch as president. Meetings were held in the DEQ’s Lansing office building and were attended by paid DEQ and DNR staff. Company representatives expressed an interest in utilizing federal and state grants to fund NMGRA projects.

In an October 2007 e-mail, Fitch acknowledged “that there would be a problem with a state agency forming a corporation” but “came up with an innovative way to address the problem: formation of a non-profit corporation that is not a part of any state agency, but in which OGS is a participating member.”

Hal Fitch resigned from the NMGRA’s board in Fall 2008.

At the Humboldt hearing, Fitch defended his actions: “To suggest that somehow I’m corrupt because I tried to organize a system where we could get the users to pay for something we’re mandated to do, I don’t think that’s very responsible.”

Fitch also defended the actions of DEQ employee Joe Maki, who testified under oath during a recent contested case hearing, that the DEQ did not follow a key provision in Michigan’s new metallic mining law:

“The applicant has the burden of establishing that the terms and conditions set forth in the permit application, mining, reclamation and environmental protection plan and environmental assessment will result in a mining operation that reasonably minimizes actual or potential adverse impacts on air, water and other natural resources and meets the requirements of this act.”

When questioned by a National Wildlife Federation attorney if either he or “the mining team” applied this key section of the new law to their analysis of the Eagle Project application, Maki responded, “I did not, no.”

At the Humboldt hearing, Fitch disagreed, saying, “Joe Maki did not say that we did not, that we disobeyed the law in processing the permit,” said Fitch.

Fitch was presented with a copy of Maki’s court transcript.

Rio Tinto is proposing to produce both nickel and copper concentrates at the Humboldt Mill that would “most likely” be shipped via rail to smelters in Canada. The waste material, containing heavy metals and acid-generating material, would be deposited underwater at the mill site, on top of Callahan’s tailings. The company plans to discharge treated wastewater into wetlands that feed into the middle branch of the Escanaba River.

According to the DEQ, the company must still apply for Air Use, Surface Water Discharge and Inland Lakes and Streams permits before the Humboldt Mill can be used again for mine processing. The DEQ expects to issue a proposed decision in “mid-April.” A new public hearing, addressing all of the required permits would follow.

Citizens are encouraged to send in written comments on the Humboldt Mill mining application. Comments are due to the DEQ by 5:00 pm on Wednesday, March 18.

Letters should be sent to:

Kennecott/Humboldt Mill Comments

DEQ Office of Geological Survey

PO Box 30256

Lansing, MI 48909

Or, by e-mail:

Deq-kennecott-humboldt-mill-comments@michigan.gov

Eagle Project on Hold

Rio Tinto released today a 38-page press release which discusses the company’s 2008 fiscal performance.   Buried in one paragraph on page 10 of the release, the company states that the “development of the Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company nickel and copper mine on the Yellow Dog Plains has been “deferred until market conditions recover.”

See http://www.riotinto.com/media/5157_17102.asp and click on the Press Release (pdf) at the bottom.

Jon Cherry of Kennecott Minerals hastily prepared a statement which reads,

“It is important to note that the Eagle project is one of many projects that add value to Rio Tinto. As market conditions continue to impact all industries, the Eagle team remains focused on realizing the inherent value of the project. We are continuing to work on our permits, litigation, and engineering design so that when the opportunity presents itself we will be poised to evaluate economic conditions and our next steps. The roughly 25 employees that are part of the Eagle project are integral to the ongoing activates in the U.P. These positions remain unchanged as we continue to focus on efforts and activities related to Eagle mine, Humboldt mill, and ongoing exploration activities.”

The fact is Kennecott finished their drilling activities for 2008 in December and laid off the young drill crew and security personnel indefinitely. Their plans for ‘full steam ahead’ have been slowed not only by the weather, but by Rio Tinto’s uncertaintly to proceed as planned.

The Eagle permit application has been criticized by experts in the field as being ‘worthless’ and should be thown out. The testimony given in the contested case against the Michigan DEQ and DNR proves that these agencies did not follow the law when evaluating and approving the mine permit. Thousands of citizens have signed petitions, written letters, and testified before the DEQ in efforts to bring attention to this project. Rio Tinto has not responded to the overwhelming public protest against Eagle project and remains isolated in London from these real issues surrounding Eagle.

The following are excerpts from John Pepin’s article published on the Mining Journal website, February 12, 2009 further explains Rio Tinto’s economic situation.

…[Though Rio Tinto reduced its net debt by $6.5 billion last year, posted underlying earnings of 38 percent above 2007 and had record 2008 production in iron ore, bauxite, U.S. coal, hard coking coal, alumina and borates, net earnings totaled $3.7 billion, half what they were the previous year, according to the release.

In December, Rio Tinto announced it would eliminate 14,000 jobs, cut capital spending from $9 billion to $4 billion for the coming year and expand the scope of assets targeted for divestment, including “significant assets” not previously up for sale.

At that time, Rio Tinto Chief Executive Tom Albanese said the measures were being taken in “response to the unprecedented rapidity and severity of the global economic downturn, which has caused sharp falls in commodity prices and a significantly weaker outlook.”

Albanese said Rio Tinto remained committed to an exploration and development strategy. But Albanese also said the company’s capital expenditure reductions would result in “impacts on projects across the board. Some projects will be canceled and others deferred until markets recover.”

Rio Tinto said then those projects would be announced today.]

[Some financial analysts speculated the $300 million Eagle Project could have made Rio Tinto’s canceled projects list because of faltering nickel prices and delays in starting the mine due to legal challenges over permits, which are continuing.

Even if legal challenges were soon resolved in the company’s favor, construction on the mine would take two years to complete before operations would begin.

This could mean the project deferment may not end up having much of an impact on the company’s plans for the Eagle Mine. But depending on how long it takes for the markets to rebound, the deferment might also pose big problems for Kennecott.

When asked what the company would do if it was legally able to begin construction in April, Cherry said, “We’d have to wait and see how things looked then. We’ll just have to see how it all fits together.”

Meanwhile, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has scheduled meetings and public hearings next Wednesday to take public input on Kennecott’s plans to reuse the Humboldt Mill.

The $80 million project would be expected to process ore from the Eagle Mine before it is shipped by rail to Canada for further processing. The facility is also eyed by Kennecott because there is room to expand processing there if additional Kennecott mining prospects in the area pan out.

Cherry said today’s project deferment announcement would not affect the sessions.

Kennecott officials said about 100 construction jobs and 50 full-time jobs in operation would be created at the Humboldt Mill. The Eagle Project, situated in northern Marquette County, would mine a six-acre underground deposit expected to yield 250 million to 300 million pounds of nickel and about 200 million pounds of copper.]

“Mining Madness, Water Wars” Documentary Showing January 22

Save the Wild UP will host a showing of the compelling documentary, “Mining Madness, Water Wars: The Great Lakes in the Balance” on Thursday evening, January 22 at Peter White Public Library.

Produced by the National Wildlife Federation, this 33 minute production lays bare the controversial proposal to blast a mine beneath a blue ribbon trout stream in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

A social gathering with refreshments will begin at 6:00 pm in the Community Room followed by a brief update on the sulfide mining issue at 6:30. The documentary showing will begin at 7:00. A question and answer session will follow. For more information, call Save the Wild UP at 228-4444