State has dwindling resources to regulate Kennecott mine

In the wake of the EPA’s decision that no federal permit is necessary for a controversial new nickel sulfide mine to be located on state land near Lake Superior, state officials and mining experts are questioning the state’s ability to adequately regulate the project on its own.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Menominee), the outgoing congressman for Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, recently warned that Michigan is not prepared to regulate Kennecott’s mining project. Stupak said that Kennecott’s parent company Rio Tinto, is known for cutting corners on environmental and safety matters and that a $17 million assurance bond put up by the company would not be enough to deal with damage that the mine could create.

The decision that the company does not require a federal permit for its wastewater system means that the responsibility for regulating operations at this massive project falls entirely to the state.

Staff and funding for environmental programs, however, have taken heavy cuts in recent years and this year’s merging of the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Natural Resources, together with more cuts scheduled for next year’s budget, is expected to further erode the capacity of the state to enforce regulations that protect against environmental degradation.

According to state Department of Natural Resources and Environment spokesman Bob McCann, there are no minimum requirements for inspections by regulators and it will be lucky if officials manage to visit the mine once a year.

“For most businesses in Michigan if we inspect them once a year that’s a lot,“ he said. “We don’t have the people to be out in the field a lot and our resources are dwindling.”

MDNRE staff have warned that they do not have enough people to adequately respond to environmental complaints, and a major state environmental group, the Michigan Environmental Council, has asked the EPA to review Michigan’s air quality program to see if the state is fulfilling its duties in carrying out this federally mandated program.

Rio Tinto is expected to invest $469 million to develop the mine which is expected to produce around 30,000 tons of nickel and copper per year for the next six years.

State Rep. Gary McDowell (D-Rudyard) — a candidate for Congress in Stupak’s district — suggested that because of the lucrative nature of the operation Kennecott would be willing to pay for needed regulation by the state.

“I believe that they want those metals badly enough that they will pay for that,” he said.

But according to McCann of the DNRE, there are no provisions in state law that would allow for that arrangement.

Michigan has required Kennecott to set aside $17 million to cover the costs of closing the mine in the event that the company ceases operations before the site is returned to its previous state.

This money is not expected to cover the costs of repairing any environmental damages that may occur during the operation of the mine, McCann said. These expenses the state would have to pursue separately through legal action.

Opponents of the mine argue that the ground and surface water contamination is likely to result from Kennecott’s activities and that the state could be stuck with a decades-long cleanup with costs that could range into the billions.

Mining consultant Jack Parker says that environmental damage is likely if the mine is constructed as designed.

Parker, who holds geology and engineering degrees from Michigan Technical University and has spent several decades working in about 500 mines across the U.S. and abroad, says that flaws in the analysis of the mine’s geology means that the current design is vulnerable to collapse.

“The mine will be unstable,“ he said. “People could get hurt.”

If the mine collapses then the surface is likely to collapse and that would upset the drainage, he said. One of the reaches of the Salmon Trout River comes close to the mine and a collapse could potentially destroy parts of this tributary to nearby Lake Superior.

Parker also warned that the state does not have inspectors with the experience necessary to evaluate the plans for the Kennecott mine and that Michigan has not followed state law by requiring that mine operations consider and limit the impact of blasting on area fish populations.

Kennecott has also failed to conform with state rules by demonstrating that their groundwater discharge system will work as planned, Parker claimed.

Kennecott’s operations have resulted in water contamination elsewhere

In Utah’s western Salt Lake Valley, where another Kennecott subsidiary is involved in copper mining, operations have resulted in groundwater contamination plumes that cover 70 square miles and impact the drinking water of several communities with sulfate, lead, arsenic, cadmium, fluoride, aluminum and nickel.

Douglas Bacon, a manager with Utah Department of Environmental Quality’s Department of Environmental Response and Remediation, has worked on supervising clean up of the mining area for the last 12 years.

“In the state’s opinion since 1995 Kennecott has been cooperating with remediation plans supervised by state and federal government,” Bacon said.

Kennecott, the state of Utah and the EPA have entered into a cleanup agreement under federal Superfund law and the company is carrying out and funding cleanup activities.

It took nine years of work by the state to get to this point, however.

Utah first filed suit against Kennecott in 1986 and was unable to get the company to agree to address its pollution until the federal government stepped in with threats of enforcement action.

Jon Cherry, who is now working to develop Kennecott’s nickel mine in the Upper Peninsula as general manager of Kennecott Eagle Minerals, previously worked on the Utah mine — where he coordinated cleanup response plans with the EPA.

In light of this history, opponents of the new UP mine have not yet given up on stopping the project. They have filed suit in circuit court in Washtenaw county, arguing that the permits were issued in violation of state mining law.