During the official part of the hearing, when citizens in the audience were invited to state their comments, but with no reply from MDEQ officials, Kathleen Heideman, Save the Wild U.P. president, expressed her concerns about pH limits. She also spoke about air pollution from the mine that could impact the groundwater and surface water.
Margaret Comfort of Michigamme pointed out in her comments at the hearing that vanadium can have many harmful impacts on human health. Vanadium pentoxide dust and fumes, she noted, can cause illnesses from bronchitis to lung damage. Comfort also cited a study that showed high concentrations of vanadium (which can cause kidney damage) in acid mine drainage from coal mining in Indiana.
"Your job is to regulate, not facilitate," Comfort told the MDEQ panel.
Casey told
Keweenaw Now that vanadium has not been detected in Eagle’s discharge.
"The highest amount allowed (by Eagle’s draft permit) in the groundwater is 3.6 ug/l," Casey noted. "This value has been approached and even exceeded due to natural variation in the groundwater."
Groundwater limits in the permit are set by the rules, which state that limits for most inorganic substances are set at halfway between background groundwater quality and Part 201 generic residential cleanup criteria.
This slide in the MDEQ presentation explains how rules provide for groundwater limits in the permit. (Photo by Keweenaw Now)
While the Eagle Mine's Wastewater Treatment Facility, using reverse osmosis, is used to remove ions from water before it is discharged into the groundwater and eventually surface water, specific (electrical) conductance is used to indicate whether the treatment system is working right and successfully treating the water.
In this video clip, Erik Moisio of Marquette, a Save the Wild U.P. volunteer, asks about the groundwater limits:
During the question session Erik Moisio of Marquette, a volunteer for Save the Wild U.P., asks about how limits are set for substances in groundwater. Chromium is used as an example in the MDEQ slide presentation.
Corey Kelly of Marquette, also a volunteer for Save the Wild U.P., asked what the procedures would be if the company violates limits on the permit:
Corey Kelly of Marquette, a volunteer for Save the Wild U.P., asks what would happen if the company violates the Groundwater Discharge Permit. Casey explains how specific conductance is used to monitor the water treatment and describes some circumstances under which the discharge could be shut down.
Casey also noted the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) has suggested a better way to use specific conductance as an indicator of water treatment effectiveness. MDEQ staff are working with KBIC on this, he added.
In their Jan. 20, 2014, letter to MDEQ on this draft permit, KBIC notes that specific conductance monitors the effluent from the Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF), but the Groundwater Discharge Permit does not require monitoring the chemical characteristics of the influent for comparison.
"The chemical profile entering the WWTF in the influent would seem to be a critical component of evaluating the efficiency and performance of the water treatment process," the letter states. "This would require just one more sample to be collected during sampling of the rest of the WWTF yet would yield very useful information."
Casey and other MDEQ officials met with KBIC Tribal Council members and other tribal members in Baraga the morning of March 25, before the hearing.
"We’re working with KBIC to improve the accuracy of the "Allowable Operating Range," which is used to determine whether the treatment system is working right or whether the discharge should be stopped," Casey told
Keweenaw Now. "Influent monitoring is part of that conversation."
In her statement during the hearing, Jessica Koski, KBIC mining technical assistant, mentions the need for strict enforcement to protect groundwater and surface water:
Jessica Koski, KBIC mining technical assistant, thanks MDEQ officials for their visit and consultation with KBIC leaders. She expresses concern for the potential of acid mine drainage from Eagle Mine in a pristine watershed and the need to recognize the interface between groundwater and surface water in setting limits.
KBIC member Jeffery Loman spoke during the hearing and requested that MDEQ regulate the groundwater permit under the same standards as the Clean Water Act:
KBIC member Jeffery Loman expresses appreciation for the MDEQ officials' visit to consult with the KBIC Tribal Council and other tribal members. Loman says he is glad to hear the MDEQ share his goal of protecting surface water as well as groundwater in the tribe's ceded territories, where treaties protect KBIC's rights to hunt, fish and gather. He asks that MDEQ, with the authority delegated to them by the federal government, issue a permit with Clean Water Act standards.
Attorney Michelle Halley, whose analysis of the permit was recently posted on the Save the Wild U.P. Web site, also spoke about the Clean Water Act in her comments at the hearing.
Attorney Michelle Halley comments during the hearing that MDEQ should require a Clean Water Act permit. (Photo © and courtesy Jeremiah Eagle Eye)
Halley noted the difference betweeen the (federal) Clean Water Act and MDEQ's Groundwater Discharge Permit.
"Under the Clean Water Act greater federal oversight would be involved," Halley said. "The anti-degradation rule would be applied."
Halley noted the mining company has intentionally formulated their mine plan to avoid federal permits, and the MDEQ has perpetuated this.
"You have the ability to require a Clean Water Act permit, and that's exactly the tool you should be using to accomplish your stated goals," Halley said.
Other speakers offered their personal views on the importance of water protection, based on their experiences living in other regions that have been degraded by mining or other industries.
Sara Culver of Marquette spoke about her experience in Grand Ledge, Mich., where the Grand River, once a popular fishing spot, is now polluted.
"We should not be putting a mine at our water source," Culver said. "We need water. We don't need more pollution."
Culver also referred to Thomas Power's report on the economic effects of mining on communities that often suffer from the boom and bust industry.*
Robert Tammen of Soudan, Minn., who worked 30 years in Michigan's Empire and Tilden mines and has opposed PolyMet's proposed open-pit sulfide mine in northeastern Minnesota which would impact the Lake Superior watershed, spoke about the detrimental effects of Minnesota mining on the local economy and the environment.
"In Michigan and in Minnesota, mining does not have a good record for economic development," Tammen said.
Noting in the discussion preceding the hearing how much higher permit levels are than background levels, Tammen said Michigan could use an anti-degradation clause in their statute.
Richard Sloat of Iron River noted mines of the past, such as the Buck and Dover mines, are examples of how pollutants were not regulated. He said their hazardous waste was trucked to sites right near Lake Superior. Sloat also said he wondered if state officials had ever done a study on the cumulative effects of metals and other substances released into the environment from mining.
Water quantity: Will the Eagle Mine be able to handle the amount of groundwater discharge and still protect surface water?
MDEQ's Fact Sheet on this draft permit, distributed at the hearing and available on their Web site, states, "The discharge permit is designed so that surface water quality standards will be met at the ground water surface water interface."**
In addition, Casey told
Keweenaw Now that the Part 632 permit requires monitoring of springs.
Several questions and comments at the hearing referred to concerns about the need for a hydrologeological study to determine whether or how the Eagle Mine can guarantee that groundwater discharges will protect the large areas of surface water on the Yellow Dog Plains -- from springs (seeps) to streams and rivers to Lake Superior.
During the question session, Steve Garske of Marenisco, Mich., a botanist who has done considerable hiking on the Yellow Dog Plains, described the surface water areas that could be impacted by groundwater and requested that a hydrogeological study be done for this permit:
Steve Garske describes how groundwater on the Yellow Dog Plains is not very far below the surface and sometimes becomes surface water. Garske notes reasons why a hydrogeological survey of the area is needed before this permit is allowed.
Offering a detailed explanation of this need for a hydrogeological study, Gail Griffith, retired Northern Michigan University chemistry professor, spoke about a 2004 petition requesting a hydrology survey. She also mentions the change from what would have been an EPA underground injection system to the present above-ground TWIS (Treated Water Injection System) regulated by MDEQ, and she notes the unknown impacts of the groundwater on surface water:
In her comments at the hearing Gail Griffith, retired Northern Michigan University chemistry professor, gives reasons why a hydrogeological
study of the area to be impacted by Eagle Mine is needed.
Cynthia Pryor of Big Bay gave more details on the refusal of Kennecott/Rio Tinto (former Eagle Mine owner) to support a hydrogeological study in the past and the problem this lack of a study poses for this groundwater permit:
Cynthia Pryor of Big Bay adds her voice to those calling for a hydrogeological study for the Yellow Dog Plains.
During the question session preceding the hearing, William Malmsten, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition president, asks about snow melt and other climate events that could impact the efficiency of the groundwater discharge at the Eagle Mine.
Casey explains the mine's capacity for flood events and snow melt in this video clip:
William Malmsten, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition president, questions whether Eagle Mine can handle snow melt and flood events.
Catherine Parker of Marquette asked about water storage capacity at the mine, noting a report from a DEQ consultant on the Part 632 mine permit, David Sainsbury, who had said mine water inflows were likely to have been underestimated:
Catherine Parker of Marquette cites an MDEQ consultant, David Sainsbury, who questioned estimates of mine water inflows for the Eagle Mine. Joe Maki, MDEQ geologist, replies to her question.
Parker told
Keweenaw Now recently that her information for the question on Sainsbury's report was based on a signed and notarized affadavit (March 2007) from Dr. Jack Wittman, documenting a phone conversation he had with MDEQ consultant Dr. David Sainsbury regarding the (Kennecott/Rio Tinto, former owner of Eagle Mine) application to mine.
Not all comments at the hearing were critical of the permit. A few were supportive.
Alvar Maki, Michigamme Township supervisor, while he expressed a preference for holding the hearing in his township since the mine is located in Michigamme Township, said he supported the permit based on the independent monitoring of the Superior Watership Partnership.***
"We think this permit should be approved," Maki said.
Michael Welch, Eagle Mine general manager, spoke at the hearing about his and Lundin's commitment to transparency and communication with the community as well as their commitment to protect water quality:
On the other hand, Save the Wild U.P. Executive Director Alexandra Thebert, addressing the MDEQ officials in her comments, cited several requests for improved communication with the public and assurances that the groundwater will be protected:
Alexandra Thebert, Save the Wild U.P. executive director, comments on the need for more communication between the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the public.
Thebert noted documents should be posted on the MDEQ Web site to be more accessible so that citizens will be spared the need to resort to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. She also reiterated the request by Carla Champagne of Big Bay and others that future hearings on the Eagle Mine be held in Big Bay or in a large population center such as Marquette so that those most directly affected by the mine can attend.
Toward the end of the hearing Chauncey Moran, who has been monitoring streams and springs on the Yellow Dog Plains for several years, displayed some of his photos related to groundwater issues:
Displaying some of his photographs, Chauncey Moran notes his observations of the TWIS (Treated Water Infiltration System), a drilling rig, water going into the development rock storage and his work with the springs.
Moran said he believes the MDEQ is doing a great job but perhaps receiving information that is not true.
Today, April 1, 2014, is the final day to submit public comments on the permit. According to Steve Casey, these may be submitted by mail and postmarked April 1 or emailed before midnight April 1. Email comments to Jeannette Bailey at
baileyj@michigan.gov or mail them to
Jeannette Bailey, Department of Environmental Quality, Water Resources Division, Permits Section, P.O. Box 30458, Lansing, Michigan 48909.
Notes:
*Click here to read about Thomas Power's presentations on the economic impacts of mining during his visit to Houghton last fall.
** Click here
to access the Fact Sheet, the draft Groundwater Discharge Permit, Eagle Mine contour maps and other related documents on the MDEQ Web site.
*** Click here to learn about the Superior Watershed Partnership's Community Monitoring Program at the Eagle Mine.
