Opponents of a proposed sulfide mine in Michigan's Upper Peninsula are pointing to a new study produced by Earthworks and Nunamta Aulukestai (Caretakers of the Land) that finds widespread inadequacies in mine permitting processes as another reason for residents and the Michigan state government to oppose the sulfide mining. The proposed mine, located on the Yellow Dog Plains in Marquette County and known as the Eagle Project, has the potential to pollute the Salmon Trout River and other waterways emptying into Lake Superior. Kennecott Minerals has claimed that their proposed mining operation will not threaten the environment in applications filed with the Michigan Department of Environmental Equality and in its public relations materials. However, the study prepared by Earthworks examines statements made in permit applications for 25 mines across the United States and compares them with actual water quality results from the mines, finding that while 100% of the applications predicted compliance with water quality standards, 76% of the mines failed to meet those standards and are now polluting rivers and groundwater with toxic contaminants including lead, mercury, arsenic, and cyanide. When mine applications are in close proximity to water resources, as is the case with the proposed Eagle Mine, predicted water quality impact statements rarely match up with the actual outcome of mining according to the study. This is due to a permitting process is largely broken with regard to predicting impacts on water quality and relies on faulty scientific methodology. It warns that in light of recent increases in metal prices and an increase in the number of mines being proposed since 2002, flawed permitting processes ultimately threaten water quality throughout the United States.
Earlier this year, a permit application for the Eagle Project completed by Kennecott was found to have 91 deficiencies, causing the permitting process to be delayed for six months. While Kennecott Minerals has responded to questions from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, opponents of the mine have charged that Kennecott has still failed to adequately address a number of issues raised with regard to the first permit. These include a failure to submit an adequate plan for monitoring groundwater near chemical storage facilities and for monitoring water quality downstream. The company has not submitted an "adequate" plan to monitor levels of air contamination and how those contaminates might make it back into the water, nor has it submitted adequate tables and maps describing the mine's impact on hydrology. Kennecott also failed to provide information on a "rigorous analysis technique" relating to the subsidence and the stability of the roof in the underground mine. Despite requests for additional information in these areas by the Michigan Department of Environmental Equality, Kennecott failed to provide new information in its response to the deficiencies.
Such inadequacies in the permitting applications for hardrock mines in the United States are common according to the Earthworks study. The study points to a widespread failure on the behalf of industry, consultants, and the government has led to the approval of mines that pollute despite assurances that they would comply with standards. The study's review of twenty-five mines found that 76% of the mines failed to meet water quality standards and that mitigation measures proposed by mine operators to prevent water pollution failed at 64% of the mines reviewed. In the reviewed mines, applications failed to demonstrate how mitigation measures would function and the assertions made by applicants were often accepted on the basis of "faith" rather than sound science. The study faults models used to predict water quality impacts, both due the complexities of the science involved and the quality of data used, as well as due to the conflicts of interest that arise when environmental impact consultants are hired by corporations seeking to open new mines. These failures ultimately cost those living within the United States, both in terms of environmental and physical health, as well as financially, with government agencies and taxpayers often being forced to deal with expensive mine clean-up operations.
The study also draws attention to the impact of acid mine drainage on water quality. The issue of acid mine drainage has been raised by opponents of the Eagle Project and sulfide mining in Michigan, who argue that acid mine drainage poses a potential long-term threat to the environment if sulfide mining is allowed. With sulfide mining, acid mine drainage occurs when sulfuric acid leaks into wells, streams, and lakes. The study found that 93% of mines near groundwater with an elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant leaching exceeded water quality standards. Of those mines located near surface water and with a potential for acid drainage and contaminant leaching, 85% exceeded water quality standards. The study also found that of the mines that developed acid drainage, 89% predicted that they would not.
In response to their findings, the study's authors have recommended a widespread review of both the permitting process and the models used to predict water quality impacts. Perhaps the most important of these recommendations is that all existing mines revisit original predictions and compare them with their adherence to water quality standards. It is then suggested that these past predictions and results be consulted in applications for new mines and disclosed publicly. The report also suggests that there be better screening of high-risk mines with those mines near water resources and with elevated acid drainage or contaminant leaching potential being rejected unless regulators can demonstrate concrete improvement in the accuracy of mine water quality prediction and mitigation efforts. Consultants should also be independently selected and paid by regulatory agencies as a means of lessening influence exerted by corporations seeking mines. Furthermore, the study urges that regulators incorporate "uncertainty" into the application process and require that applications describe "worst-case" scenarios and inform the public of the uncertainty of water quality prediction.
