Viewpoint: Is mining permit based on sound science?

By Chuck Brumleve

I would like to comment on the proposed granting of mining-related permits for the Kennecott Eagle Project by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Many have brought the environmental risks of a metallic sulfide mineral mine to the forefront of the mining permit discussions. But I am voicing my opinion on the quality of work by the Mining Permit Applicant, Kennecott, owned by Rio Tinto.

Regardless of where you stand on the mining permit question, for or against it, we all expect a certain level of professional quality from both a company filing a mining permit application and our regulatory agencies in accepting and reviewing a permit application.

I have been working with the DEQ since the early '90s and I regret the lack of professionalism displayed by the Department in reviewing the three required permit applications: Mining, Groundwater Discharge and Air Permit Applications.

I am a geologist and engineer of 30 years including 10 years in underground mining. I have submitted many reports to the DEQ and I have seen more rigorous technical review, more thorough analysis given to Closure Reports for gas stations than the review given to the Kennecott applications by the DEQ.

People of this state rely on the DEQ scientists to represent us, the people of the state. There is an inherent trust by us and an inherent responsibility by the DEQ to use sound science and engineering principles to make decisions.

Along with the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, National Wildlife Federation and Huron Mountain Club, I have reviewed the permits and worked with many professional scientists and registered engineers in reviewing these permit applications.

I am very disappointed, very angry that the DEQ, specifically the Office of Geological Survey, has accepted these applications that contain literally hundreds of technical mistakes, poor analyses, missing analyses, missing data, unsubstantiated assumptions, inadequate field work and faulty conclusions. How can the DEQ not only accept Kennecott’s applications but propose to grant permits based on such sloppy, unprofessional and incomplete work as presented in these applications? We’re not talking about "State of the Art" -- only meeting "Industry Standard" work. A university professor would flunk a student for work this poor. If Kennecott cannot do a proper mining permit application, how can they operate a zero discharge sulfide mineral mine -- the first in the world?

If the DEQ grants these permits to Kennecott, the State of Michigan regulatory agencies will set a dangerous precedent for accepting and doing very poor technical work. Due to the base and precious metal "gold rush" now occurring in the Upper Peninsula, several other mineral exploration / mining companies (e.g., Prime Meridian, Bitterroot Resources, Aquila) are out there watching how Kennecott does with its permit applications. If the markets hold, the State can almost certainly expect more mining permit applications. Whether we support this new mining or are dead set against it, shouldn’t we, the people of Michigan, demand good science and workable engineering? DEQ needs to raise the bar -- be scientist and engineers -- not political facilitators!

Editor's Notes: Chuck Brumleve, the author of this article, is a resident of Keweenaw County. Photo of Chuck Brumleve by Gustavo Bourdieu for Keweenaw Now.

See our previous article, "MDEQ deadline for public comments on proposed Kennecott sulfide mine is Oct. 17, 2007," posted on Oct. 11, for information on how to email your comments to decision makers. See Save the Wild UP for more information on the mining issue.

See also, in the Madison, Wis., Capital Times, the article "Let's keep mine away from U.P. headwaters" by Eric Hansen of Milwaukee, author of Hiking Michigan's Upper Peninsula and Hiking Wisconsin.