Published
in The Star-Herald, 1-22-14
MINING RULES NEED TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION
Bravo to the organizers of the
public meeting on Mining in Maine on January 9 in Ashland for bringing in
geologists who directly addressed environmental risks and attempts to mitigate
them. And thanks also for encouraging
unlimited questions and comments from the audience. The presentations focused on the difference
between “legacy mines” and modern mines; the former operating in the days when
there was not sufficient scientific understanding about pollution, nor adequate
regulations, and the latter operating with advanced knowledge and technology.
Important
questions posed by audience members did not get reassuring answers. What about the possibility of leaks in liners
supposed to contain the toxic elements?
Yes, there is potential for leaks.
In addition to liner flaws, flooding, earthquakes, or other natural
disasters can cause the tailings ponds containing the toxins to fail. Is there potential for harm in using
bactericides to clean up the chemicals used in processing the metals? Yes, just as there is in the use of
pesticides. Hydro-geologist Carol White
explained, “Inherent in any of these studies is uncertainty . . . nobody can
guarantee water quality in the future, the idea is to draw up the rules in a
way that minimizes negative impacts.”
Asked to provide a specific example
of a modern mine using the advanced technology, Geologist Robert Marvinney
referred to the Flambeau mine in Wisconsin.
Another audience member googled “Flambeau Mine” on the spot and asked
about the toxic materials from that mine that are polluting surrounding waters
after closure in 1997. Marvinney said
that there is conflicting scientific opinion about the success of that mine in
reducing risks and it depends on who you believe.
So should we believe the scientists
who work for the mining industry (http://www.flambeaumine.com/) or the
scientists used by a site like miningtruth.org that provides an overview of the
technologies used and of the pollution problems that remain (http://www.miningtruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Flambeau-Mine-fact-sheet-Final-1.pdf)? Nick Bennnet, a scientist for the Natural
Resources Council of Maine explained to me some of the serious environmental
risks the Board of Environmental Protection has passed in its new regulations that
you can read below.*
There are important advances being
made in the scientific understanding of risks, and some technologies are being
developed that might help mitigate the risks.
But there is not enough evidence to warrant the relaxation of
environmental safeguards. Instead, there
is sound evidence that these rules increase the risks.
It’s true, there is plenty of
uncertainty in all areas of our lives, but when we can choose to reduce the
uncertainty by writing more rather than less rigorous protections, it is
socially irresponsible to increase the negative impacts and the uncertainty as
these regulations do. We need to err on
the side of caution and remain vigilant about the motives of those who seek
economic profit without serious regard for the health and safety of the environment,
humans, and wildlife. I look forward to
further educational meetings promised by organizers and hope they will bring in
alternative scientific viewpoints about current success in managing the
risks.
*Nick Bennet, scientist for the Natural Resources Council of Maine lists some of the most serious problems of the new mining regulations passed by the Department of Environmental Protection:
1.
They allow perpetual treatment for
wet mine waste units as long as the applicant defines the time frame (i.e.,
1000 years is okay) and DEP determines that wet mine waste units are the most
practicable way of dealing with mining waste. The thing is, DEP put in
sections about wet mine waste units because they think they are the most
practicable technology for mines in Maine, so it’s clear that any mining
applicant will get the okay to use them. This is a just a poorly
disguised way of allowing perpetual treatment.
2.
Many Land for Maine’s Future and
other public lands are not excluded from mining or protected by any buffer for
surface mines. Thus, mines – both underground and surface – are allowed
on many Land for Maine’s future lands depending on who owns the mineral
rights. TNC and AMC have said they will work on a map of what lands this
actually means.
3.
They don’t require full payment of
financial assurance prior start of mining.
4.
They don’t have a clear definition
of mining area, which means mining companies can likely pollute large areas of
groundwater.
He adds:
“Every mine needs maintenance
forever, especially mines that have tailings dams, which break if you don’t
keep them up and that’s an environmental disaster. Mines without tailings
dams need maintenance of caps, also potentially the scooping out of
wetlands that may get filled with sediment, etc. But mines that require
active wastewater treatment in perpetuity are a special problem that we have
been fighting against as hard as possible. That’s because if you need
active treatment after the mine is done operating, it means you have particularly
reactive waste or you have done a poor job of putting the waste to bed in a
sound way. Active treatment also often fails when the power goes out,
when the weather is very cold, or if there is no one around to pay the monthly
electric bills, add chemicals and do maintenance. And active treatment is
really expensive!
“While the trust fund will be ‘fully funded’ under the definition of ‘fully funded in the rules, that definition stinks. There is an incredibly complicated calculation the needs to be done at the start of each year figuring out how much money it would cost to clean up the mine a year from that point (this is actually from the existing rules). My definition of fully funded is: you do an estimate of how much it costs to completely remediate the mine under worst case conditions and put that money in a trust up front. Very different.”
“While the trust fund will be ‘fully funded’ under the definition of ‘fully funded in the rules, that definition stinks. There is an incredibly complicated calculation the needs to be done at the start of each year figuring out how much money it would cost to clean up the mine a year from that point (this is actually from the existing rules). My definition of fully funded is: you do an estimate of how much it costs to completely remediate the mine under worst case conditions and put that money in a trust up front. Very different.”
