Sulfide Mining 2


Experts

There was a discussion about bringing in experts for information or knowledge during the rules promulgation process. This discussion occurred at the first day of rules.

Now I cannot remember the details of this discussion, but I though at the time it meant experts would be brought forth as the topics evolved. I anticipated maybe around 10 such persons. I thought to myself, this is a good thing.

It never happened. Only one expert came, and even he was nearly asked to not return.

The following are seemingly endless references to my notes. This reflects how much was said and debated concerning this topic of experts. The volume of notations cited here seems to indicate one should just as soon read the entire notes.
1. experts, (r5, p1, #3), (r5p5#41), (r5p6#47), (r5p7#51.5), [r6p4#33], (r3p4#18), [r3p6#35], (r3p7#39), (r4p4#15.5), r4p3#11.1], [r5p1#3], (r5p3#15), (r1p5#30), (r2p1#2), (r1p1#1), (r1p2#7), (r1p3#14), (r1p4#22), (r6p5#40), (r6p11#92),(r6p8#63), (r6p9#73), [r6p10#77], (r6p10#84)

2. lack of knowledge by DEQ r5p1#4, see Dona’s letter, see experts #3 above (r5p3#16)(r5p3#20)(r5p4#32)(r5p6#47) [r6p6#52],[r6p1#5],[r6p10#77], (r1p4#23), (r1p6#32), (see phil #s 2,3), (r1[6#33), ([r2[3#11], [r3p3#16], [r3p6#35], [r5p1#3], (r3p7#42), (r4p2#7.1)

3. lack of knowledge by Environmentalists [r5p2#9], (r5p2#15), NERAPA: (r5p5#37), QAQC (r5p5#42), (r5p6#47), [r5p7#51], (r5p8#61), [r6p5#45], [r6p3#20], (r6p5#44), (r6p7#60), (r6p8#67), (r6p9#71), [r6p9#76], (r6p10#87)(r6p11#89), (r2p4#19), (r3p2#14), (r3p4#22)

Assuming most humans are lazy or intimidated by numbers or busy with whatever, I’ve decided to simplify reading my notes. Underlined notes are those passages I thought were most interesting at that time. I have listed these below, for easy comprehension of the entire rules issues:

4. Underlining stuff: r1p1#4, r1p3#21, r1p4,5#27, r2p3#11, r2p4#16, r2p4##20, r3p3#17, r3p4#19. r3p5#27, r3p8#44, r3p8#45, r3p4#19, r4p4#16, r4p7#34, r4p3#7.9, r5p3#24, r5p5#41&42, r5p2#13, r5p3#16, r5p5#45, r5p6#47, r5p9,10, entire, r5p8#59, r6p3#20, r6p3#16, r6p4#27, r6p5#46, r6p1#31, r6p5#37, r6p5#43, r6p8#64

Another individual, John Coleman, who came from Wisconsin, could be perceived as a second expert, yet Hal continually or frequently disagreed with him. In addition I suspect Hal felt Coleman was just one of the environmentalists, therefore there was a kind of mind block from Hal to Coleman. Also interesting was that this mind block appeared from Hal to Steve Hoffman from the EPA, yet a different kind of attitude.

If experts had sincerely been brought in, maybe this perplexing mind block thing that Hal exhibited could have been “dealt with” more objectively and in an educated manner. Also, if the entire group could have seen and learned together from experts about technical issues, such productive group interaction would perhaps have created the confidence to communicate and work with Hal’s mind blocks, and also probably have given the environmentalist camp the strength to debate with industry to a more equitable and just agreement based on the Statute .

Think of this: the state of Michigan, the governor, etc. asked for the gathering of diverse interests (groups) in order to write a law for sulfide mining. This had infrequently been done before according to Senator Birkhoist, Chair of the Senate committee. This was announced by Birkhoist herself at the Senate meeting. She was proud of this team effort.

The rules committee was an offshoot or a near repeat of the original work group who wrote the statute. Individual group leaders had been brought in from all over Michigan. Without going into great detail of this effort, rest assured I admit it was significant that such diverse groups came together. Yet, permit me to make this clear… they are not experts outside their own areas of interest. There was great heart in these people, yet heart is not expertise.

Steve Hoffman of the EPA is an expert. He has paid his dues so to speak. Simply talk with him and you will find out how knowledgeable he is, after a bit of time. He knows sulfide mining inside and out from his expert perspective. John Coleman is also an expert in my opinion, but I don’t know what in… maybe landfills. It would be interesting to ask him. Of the industry interests: I do not know and they were not saying their extent of expertise. They primarily argued their views in response. They hardly initiated at all, yet another essay could be written on this, and I have run out of time. This essay on the reactionary tactics of industry would tie back to my essay on chiseling.

You (DEQ) use the public in order to get a law passed … but what does this mean?
You invite the public to St. Ignace meetings to discuss the rules process and partake therein. At the beginning Day 1, hour 1, you talk of inviting expert members of the public to come in and explain matters. But you limit the experts. What do I mean by “limit”? Steve Hoffman (EPA) was the only expert individual, whereas the issues are far more complex than what he or one individual can express, plus his personality and expression is unique which carries its own limits and benefits. The conclusion is: experts , whether primary or partial were not brought in. Therefore topics were not covered with facts or in a factual manner, but instead speculated about without substance. Decisions have been made from being pulled out of thin air --- yet claiming there was rational foundation.

In conclusion, only one and one-half experts were on the Rules writing group—this lack of experts was acknowledged by the DEQ on Day 1 of the rules meeting. Please Study how industry nearly had the EPA kicked out of these meetings. Make the decision yourself as to experts. Read my data. But my position is: lacking expert input, these rules are
incomplete, insufficient, and they don’t adequately reflect reality.

Examples : experts were missing on liners, monitoring, subsidence, bankruptcy, other state laws, spills/accident containment, insurance, groundwater, other contaminated sites, other successful sites, dust, chemistry aspects, seals, nationwide site criteria, the Wisconsin 10/10 rule, landfills, wilderness areas, testing, to name a few.



Notes Extract concerning Experts – How Steve Hoffman was nearly kicked out

1/15/05 Rules #1 (first meeting) verbatim notes page 1
afterthoughts, Summary of this point only. Steve’s issue was, kicking him out yet he was an expert

#1. Expertise: the group wanted experts brought in .. naturally to help .. note the word help, meaning they thought and discussed extensively about this. They know it is an issue, a huge issue. They talked about their own shortcomings. They never have had a sulfide mine before, yet they discussed others mines.
After Steve (EPA) gave his opinions and left, they talked about and some wanted him to not come back and help any further. One must ask oneself --- WHY?
The ones that did not want him back were most mining and some money interests. The environmental types argued for him coming back. It appeared so obvious to me how the lines or sides were drawn.
I finally saw the environmentalist express themselves with more debate and feeling.. especially Env. Her face appeared to turn shades of red. Another Env was firing his statement too. Industry gave the strongest expression to not bring him back... a kind of quiet but forceful expression. There was a five minute period of intense discussion. Fitch concluded with saying, he would see what Skip said.
#2. Now: what did Steve say so disruptive. Probably many things but one was specifically expressed. Once a mine site goes bad, it leaks (sulfuric acid) you cannot stop it. Even old mines are leaking today in Virginia. Steve was not given the opportunity to go into details, no-one asked, so far. But he did say: the way to deal with the problem, as best as possible is; UP FRONT FACTORS, he said. He stressed this point. He said it several times. Not twice but 3 or 4 times. He is a quiet soft spoken type, but he raised his voice for this point.
#3 In this line of thought: he went onto liability and said: the feds would have to pay the costs for huge leaks .. this is why he is here speaking .... NOW (he raised his voice and expression again) . It is understood to him that his assistance will help created laws that are up front in order that major problems do not happen. Cause the Feds are the ones who have had to pay in the end.
#4 Since Steve said; Mines leak which was negative to the DEQ and mining interest --- I think this is why they did not want him back but the answer these groups gave as valid was: Steve does not understand our own state process and therefore has to be brought up to speed, and he, besides goes off the topic sometimes .... A ? Env, complained of how she personally had to bring him up to speed (so to speak) Fitch said this about 3 times; as if saying such was the only issue. Yet, why was it given so much time and intensity form the mining interest and others.
The debate was probably for 15 to 30 minutes about weather to bring him back. Look at the time they waste with this.
#5. The frightenly expressive thing Steve said was “once a mine start to leak, you cannot stop it” Steve is a lead man out of Washing DC with the EPA. He has a reputation of being extremely knowledgeable in his field. 50 to 100 lawsuits he has been connected with.
Think of the above --- you’re having meeting to write law for guidance for the DEQ, for a whole dangerous industry evolving; yet they (DEQ) considers shutting off
Page 2
#6. this fantastic source of knowledge. I shake my head in dis belief. One of their answers also was: the EPA is out-dated and we are a unique entity with knowledge of our own. Yet, none of these arguments made sense to me --- except the DEQ is financially benefiting from mining. By the way, Hal Fitch directly did express this benefit early during the same meetings.



Chiseling In industry

One of the more disturbing aspects of the sulfide mining industry at large is their habit of chiseling. I define chiseling as being unwilling to shoulder true costs of their projects.
The true costs end up being paid for by the public in the form of taxes and devaluation of property, losses to future generations, and so forth. Chiseling in essence is profiteering, exploiting a situation without paying for one’s share of the true costs.

The solution to corporate chiseling would of course be forcing industry to pay the full cost of its activities and their consequences. This would mean putting teeth into the statute and the rules. Yet industry fought this, period. And thus I maintain the rules are incomplete.

A form of reversal of thinking by industry is reflected in their pseudo-environmental stance of being “pro-active”. Pro-active to them means stressing that improved technologies contain mistakes/accidents these days. These soothing words paper over
the fact that mining is a dirty business and needs a tremendous amount of monitoring, despite the technological improvements. They admit past mining has been very dirty, but current practices are much better. We the people should look and see. So I did.

After looking I feel they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They say one thing and do another. The issue is to prove technological improvements. I did look and see, I observed them at rules meetings. They are proactive from their own perspective. They say “things” that sound good… to a point. And it is fascinating to observe that point, yet during rules they were very inconsistent. Not just a little inconsistent, but a lot.

It comes back down to the chiseling—just spend enough money on improved technology to sound good and be convincing. An expert I talked with brought this up in a conversation independently of my words—the feared of money is behind their “pro-active” behavior.

I repeatedly observed industry at rules. The following are examples of inconsistencies or not truly being proactive…..

1. They fight financial responsibility
2. They argue over the affected area, don’t expand on it, and do not propose the correct thoughts…I know.
3. They argue over the liners: don’t point out the weakness of them, and don’t ask for better ideas.
4. Monitoring could be done by satellite, yet such was not talked about at all. A person at rules very experienced with CCI says CCI has considered type of monitoring.
5. They could pay somehow for an objective hydrological study.
6. They could pay for re-doing the Big Bay road compared to waiting for the public to demand otherwise.
7. They could say, take your time, encourage lots of public hearings. Get the public input, but they want things rushed along.
8. They could offer to buy out the people affected in the affected area. Those who lose because of the decline in tourism-based business, for example.
9. They could encourage the DEQ to make a socioeconomic study a requirement.
10. They could encourage the bringing in of experts.
11. They could ask that site criteria be included in the rules.
12. They could have reduced their pointed, contentious attitude towards the environmental interests present at the rules.

From another perspective, one person I respect points out industry is psychotic: it is the
fiduciary duty of corporate management, enshrined in their bylaws, to seek the greatest profits for that corporation, the greatest good for the corporation, but not the environmental good for the people as this costs them too much money. The principle is the all mighty dollar or BUCK. Here we are again at chiseling. So, one might not condemn industry, because this is the American way…. But it is a huge problem and is why I am opposed to this sulfide mining, because of the conflicts with other businesses and the current customs of the people.

The corporation will not and cannot do it safely, because it is not in their best interest financially and therefore violates their bylaws. Yet, if industry could think deeply enough it could realize the environment is more important then their profits, consequently industry would stop badgering environmentalists and safe mining laws could possibly evolve. Unfortunately this is not the case as we have a contentious situation therefore safe law is not the case and therefore I am opposed to this process and law. I have seen industry argue and it is an absolutely terrible sign.

Therefore corporate Chiseling causes or results in poor law. Because of chiseling, necessary provisions are omitted that cannot be omitted because of the importance of our environment and our society at large. Another way to say this is: one powerful entity wins at the financial and environmental cost of the losing persons. Today’s democratic society cannot function this way, as such leads to slow deterioration in a multitude of ways.

See Chiseling in notes




Conclusion --- What Bothers Me The Most
It is very disturbing to realize that the State of Michigan DEQ will not study the principle of Wisconsin’s 10/10 rule: how and why such a concept came about, and that
it may indeed be a sound, logical approach worthy of emulation.

As I see it, the obvious reason for this refusal is the State’s declared desire for “economic growth.” Yet this economic growth is only short-term. Sulfide mining leaves
a destructive legacy behind, including long-term damage to tourism far exceeding the boom-and-bust mining money.

Despite this truth of future economic loss, the DEQ protects the State’s position of economic growth propaganda by failing to include site criteria in the rules.

Yet site criteria is the ideal compromise that can be arrived at from the Statute language. Site criteria offers the necessary balance between economic growth versus protection of natural resources, which ultimately is a conflict between the present and the future.

It is so clear. If the DEQ studies site criteria of other states, these criteria include
that a person is not to mine under or near waterways, etc.

But that criterion would rule out the proposed sulfide mine on the Yellow Dog Plains.

So, such is our problem and essential flaw in the rules: industry has helped write the law and sat in on all rules meetings. A pure example of conflict of interest at work, and a perfect illustration of the fox designing the hen house, including the security system.

What a terrible obvious conflict.

Industry thinks it can extract sulfide ore anywhere because it says it can do so safely. But other states have been down this road; they have some experience with the sulfide mining industry, experience which the State of Michigan and its inexperienced DEQ appear to casually cast aside.

I believe that the DEQ should carefully consider the experiences of these other states with the sulfide mining industry. This may be a difficult and time consuming task. However, without this study our Michigan rules are incomplete, because such study will point right back to the 10/10 rule and the wisdom of site criteria as a compromise solution.