Rules enough?

To the Journal editor:

A Mining Journal editorial on an environmental ballot proposal (Oct. 21) claimed that Michigan has "significant regulations in place to insure that mining does not damage our environment."

While I am not involved in the ballot campaign, I have to ask if those "significant" regulations are being followed.

Last September, DEQ Director Steven Chester said, "We simply don't have the kind of funding we need to adequately implement the laws we're required to implement."

In court, Joe Maki, the DEQ's application review coordinator for Kennecott's Eagle Project, said his agency did not consider a central tenet of Michigan's current sulfide mining law requiring that a mine application has to establish that the proposed mining operation "reasonably minimize[s] actual or potential adverse impacts on air, water and other natural resources."

On June 19, 2008, shortly before 6 p.m., when asked if either he or his mine team followed that law in recommending approval of the project, Maki said, "I did not, no," and "I don't believe so, no."

Charges have been made by well-respected mining expert Jack Parker that the Eagle Mine is not safe and could collapse. The state's own expert, Dr. David Sainsbury, said that Kennecott's mine plan is "technically antiquated, sloppy and equivalent to high school level work," that Kennecott's methodology does "not reflect industry best practice" and Kennecott's conclusions regarding the mine's stability "are not considered to be defensible."

In a July 2008 letter, the DEQ's deputy director, Jim Sygo, said that Kennecott "would have to apply for an amendment of the mining permit for construction of a new haul road and ... before beginning activities to extend electrical service from County Road 550 to the Eagle Project mine site."

So where's the application for mining permit amendments for the current work on the powerline going to the mine and the road going from the proposed mine, on the Yellow Dog Plains, to the proposed processing facility, in Humboldt? Both plans are clearly for the Eagle Mine and are paid for by Kennecott. Legally, Kennecott has to reapply to add these plans to their mine plan. Why aren't they? Why isn't anyone requiring them to follow the law?

If the state won't even require Kennecott to follow the current law, is it really unexpected that a group would be working to try to strengthen that law and do the job for them?

Teresa Bertossi

Marquette