MDEQ to hold public hearing on Humboldt Mill surface water discharge permit Jan. 13

Eagle Mine, LLC, is applying for a renewal of their surface water discharge permit for the Humboldt Mill, pictured here, where they process ore from the mine into separate nickel and copper concentrates. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) will hold a public hearing on the draft permit next Tuesday, Jan. 13, at the Westwood High School Auditorium in Ishpeming. (File photo courtesy Eagle Mine)

MARQUETTE -- The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) will hold a public hearing on the proposed surface water discharge permit for the Eagle Mine -  Humboldt Mill in Marquette County beginning at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2015, at the Westwood High School Auditorium, 300 Westwood Dr., in Ishpeming.

A brief presentation, beginning at 6 p.m., will be followed by a question-and-answer session. The hearing will begin no later than 7 p.m., but may begin earlier. The hearing will end at 9 p.m. and the building vacated by 10 p.m. All interested parties are invited to attend.

Comments or objections to the draft permit and proposed decision regarding the Antidegradation Demonstration received by January 16, 2015, will be considered in the final decision to issue the permit.

Eagle Mine, LLC, operates the Humboldt Mill and the associated tailings disposal facility to process copper and nickel ores. The applicant discharges treated process wastewater, treated laboratory wastewater, and treated water treatment backwash through a pipeline to the wetland contiguous to the Middle Branch Escanaba River in the SW1/4, SE1/4, and in the NE1/4, SE1/4, Section 2, Town 47 N, Range 29 W, Marquette County. This draft permit, a renewal of Eagle Mine's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, includes several modifications on the previously issued permit.

Steve Casey, MDEQ Upper Peninsula District Supervisor, Water Resources Division, said the increase in discharge by the Mill required Eagle Mine to submit an Antidegradation Demonstration.

"Anytime there is an increased discharge, water quality will be lowered," Casey told Keweenaw Now. "We believe the proposed permit and the Antidegradation Demonstration both meet the requirements of the statute."

Two complaints about the water level from discharge into wetlands led to Eagle adding a pipe under U.S. 41 to take some of the treated discharge from the Mill to wetlands that are adjacent to the Middle Branch Escanaba River, Casey explained. Originally the discharge went through culverts from wetlands near the Humboldt pit under the highway to wetlands on the north side of U.S. 41. Some of the increased discharge will continue to take that route and some will go through the pipe.

The DEQ Public Notice on this permit states, "This draft permit authorizes an increased loading of pollutants to the wetland contiguous to the Middle Branch Escanaba River, which will lower the water quality with respect to certain parameters. The permitted discharge shall not lower the existing water quality of the receiving water below State Water Quality Standards."*

Casey also commented on the new discharge limits on various pollutants.

"The limits they are required to meet are protective of water quality in both the wetlands and the river," he said.*

Save the Wild U.P concerned about water quality degradation

Urging concerned citizens to attend the Jan. 13 hearing, Save the Wild U.P. recently made these comments on the proposed permit renewal: "Serious, unresolved environmental issues plague the Humboldt Mill. Tailings produced by Eagle will be deposited into the existing pit, adding to legacy contamination. There is an ongoing investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the mill’s status as a superfund site. An outflow pipe was built between the tailings pit and wetlands of the Escanaba River without permits or public involvement. As proposed, the NPDES permit for Eagle Mine - Humboldt Mill will degrade water quality in the Escanaba River."

Concerning the EPA investigation, Casey noted he was present when EPA officials and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) tribal staff toured Humboldt facilities last fall, to provide historical information from his long experience with the Humboldt site, but he was not present when EPA met with KBIC officials afterwards.

"They (EPA staff) did not share any conclusions with me," Casey said.

Eagle Mine: Water treatment plant surpasses standards

Eagle Mine also issued a statement concerning the proposed permit: "Since the issuance of the original NPDES permit additional background and operational data has been collected. This data helps ensure the permit conditions align with the operation. For example, the new permit would allow for an increase in discharge volume and a second discharge location which provides operational flexibility and allows for better water management.

"The renewed permit would not change the operation of the water treatment plant. The plant has had an exceptional performance record and continues to treat and discharge water that surpasses NPDES water quality standards."

MDEQ: Eagle's Antidegradation Demonstration "adequate"

MDEQ also states this in the public notice: "The Department proposes that the applicant’s
Antidegradation Demonstration, based on information required by Subrule (4) of R323.1098, shows that lowering of water quality is necessary to support the identified important social and economic development in the area. This is solely for purposes of satisfying state water quality regulations and is not intended to supplant local requirements, including land use or zoning laws. It is not, and should not be construed as, a finding by the Department that the proposed development meets local requirements or ordinances. In addition to the proposed permit, the Department is proposing to accept the Antidegradation Demonstration as adequate."*

Casey also confirmed that, during the Jan. 13 hearing, MDEQ will give an update on the groundwater discharge permit for Eagle Mine, which was the subject of the March 25, 2014, MDEQ public hearing at Westwood High School.

"We had a lot of good comments, and we made changes with regard to those comments -- which took a long time," Casey said. "There's one unresolved issue that we'll talk about on Tuesday (Jan. 13)."**

Notes:

* Click here to read more details on the permit in the MDEQ Public Notice.

** See our April 1, 2014, article on the March 25, 2014, public hearing: "Citizens question, challenge MDEQ proposed Groundwater Discharge Permit for Eagle Mine."

Letter to EPA: Comments on CR 595 road proposal

Editor's Note: The following letter, dated Apr. 6, 2012, was sent to the Watersheds and Wetlands Branch of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, Chicago, Ill., during the public comment period on the Marquette County Road Commission's permit application for the proposed CR 595, a haul road for the Rio Tinto-Kennecott Eagle Mine.

These observations do not deal with the details of road planning and construction and the environment -- but with the underlying fundamentals, essentially that the applicant, Kennecott Eagle Mining Corporation, is not and never has been negotiating in good faith.

We, a small group which evaluated the application for mining permits, initially for the National Wildlife Foundation but without sponsorship when NWF funds ran out in 2008, have found and reported that the application document was, and still is, unacceptably ill-conceived, erroneous, deceitful and fraudulent.

It is strange, but true, that we have presented the evidence to the regulating agency (MDEQ), to the courts and to all legal authorities up to the State Attorney General, then the U.S. Attorney General, then the FBI, and all simply said, "No thank you. End of conversation," and all refused to even investigate the charges. We have the proof.

Since the operations went underground in September 2011 MSHA entered the picture, being held specifically responsible for Mine Safety and Health Administration. We handed them proof of two specific allegations: That the mine design was based upon incorrect and falsified design data and that the mine design, if followed, would be unstable and might well collapse without warning (as did the Athens iron mine near Negaunee, MI, despite the 1800 ft. thick crown pillar) and as did the Ropes gold mine near Ishpeming.

NB: Sainsbury, the technical expert hired by MDEQ to evaluate the mining aspects of the application, testified that he was told by MDEQ to delete those "case histories" from his report. That surely should have raised a red flag over the permitting proceedings. But it did not.

At this time MSHA tells us that in Metallic Mining law their mandate is to deal with unsafe operations as they show up, but not preemptively. In Coal Mining law they do have power to evaluate and allow or reject planned activities. Judging from the Athens mine collapse events we will have to wait for the Eagle to collapse then send in an investigative team or two, much as we did at the two recent major coal mine disasters in Utah and W. Va.

This attitude fits the generally recognized pattern within the industry -- which is to "Do anything and to say anything to get the permits -- then make changes as necessary." Law 632 requires supported amendments for each of these changes, unless the DEQ deems them to be "insignificant" -- which is what the DEQ usually does -- without the required public hearings and input. To me, a plain old engineer, that looks like collusion.

The Federal agencies have some degree of independence and in the earlier evaluation of a haul road displayed it by declaring that the name "Woodland Road," or "Wetland Road," was deceptive in that a simple truck count or tonnage count would show that haulage of ore from mine to mill was/is the primary purpose for building it, and if there were no mine then no new road would be built.

The deception continues. Behind the scenes Kennecott deals with local authorities and induces them to get state funds to help with the haulage roads, and still they have no permitted route. Incidentally 632 requires that ALL mining-related permits be in hand before other mining-related activities begin. That ruling has been ignored, or defied, since Day One, by extension of power lines, for example.

As evidence of gross deception Kennecott continues to soothe local objections by sticking to their original story that the mine will produce an average of 1500 tons/day, i.e thirty 50-ton truckloads per day. The locals appear to have accepted that proposition. But the Humboldt Mill is being constructed to handle not 1500 but 10,000 tons/day. Obviously they intend to mine more, not thirty but two hundred round trips per day. That, of course, would make a lot of difference -- first to their claim to be open and transparent in their dealings with the public -- thence to the degree of opposition aroused. Revelation of the truth could sink the project.

That intentional opacity is again demonstrated in their refusal to answer all questions about the most basic questions concerning the design of a new road -- How much traffic per day? How heavy the loads? What speed limits, gradients, vertical and horizontal curves? Trucks do not have to go 55 mph! Think about noise, dust and accidents.

For what length of time will the haul road be needed? 

More specifically -- how many years would KEMC mine at the Eagle prospect? If, as planned, they take only the high-grade ore ($1,000/ton) they could do it in five or six years; but if they mined more responsibly they could recover an additional billion dollars worth of $150 ore and extend the life of the mine another 15 years. That would be much more desirable from our point of view.

The numbers are in the application.

They do not disclose their intentions directly but the corporate (Rio Tinto) business plan is to seek out and operate only projects which will be profitable through times both thick and thin -- which implies that they will take only high-grade -- as they did at the Flambeau mine in Wisconsin. Is it to be a 5-year life? Or 20 years?

Another question which they avoid -- although you asked it for "Woodland Road" -- is this: "How many other destinations will the haul road serve?" How much additional environment will be disturbed? I am reasonably sure that they have strong, if not conclusive, indications from their airborne and other exploration efforts. But that, of course, is called proprietary information. Behold the cloak.

Conclusion: I believe that all road-planning to date has been based on intentional deception, and should therefore be thrown out, and that KEMC should be required to start again, specifically without deception, thus displaying their vaunted openness and transparency. If the facts are not forthcoming there should be no new road. (Say anything to get the permits!)

I would not be surprised if the original transportation plan would have been the best -- if they were mining only high-grade ore -- to truck it to a railhead close to Marquette and ship trainloads direct to refinery. No Humboldt mill was needed. There is still doubt concerning that 10,000 tpd operation -- and tailings disposal. (Some day somebody will discover that a large tailings pond would have to be built in the wetlands there. Another surprise!) Try this one: "Why was the multi-million dollar monumental Bridge to Nowhere built on CR510 in 2006 forward. The motive? Ask for a photograph of the finished product.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Parker, Mining Engineer
Baltic MI 49963