What is an acceptable cost to the environment for extracting minerals from the earth to make products such as steel, used in everyday American life? What is an acceptable cost to a region or nation’s economy for not allowing mining in order to eliminate risks to the environment?
This was the topic of discussion at a quarterly meeting of the Lake Superior Binational Forum, held March 23, 2012 in Ashland, Wisconsin.
At the forum, Dr. Susan Hedman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator of the six-state Great Lakes region, concurred with a statement by President Barack Obama that thinking we need to choose between a strong environment and a healthy economy is a mistake. “You can have a healthy environment and a strong economy,” she said. In fact, she added, you can’t have a strong economy without a healthy environment. She said the EPA takes is oversight role “very seriously.”
Hedman cited elevated levels of mercury in Lake Superior and in infants born along its North Shore. A lot of the nation’s elevated mercury levels comes from power plants, but in this area, mining is the biggest source, she said. The Obama administration and the EPA will not back down from protecting citizens from mercury contamination, she said.
Because Lake Superior is “a vast resource of fresh water that has not experienced the same levels of development, urbanization and pollution as the other Great Lakes,” according to the EPA’s website, Canada and the United States formed the Binational Program to Restore and Protect the Lake Superior Basin in 1991.
The Binational Forum, a citizen stakeholder group, was created to give agencies and governments input on management of the lake. Under a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative grant administered by the EPA, the Forum will spend the next two years investigating how mining activities around Lake Superior may impact the economies, natural environments, and social environments of local communities.
One of the Forum’s initiatives is the Zero Discharge Demonstration Project that aims to virtually eliminate nine critical chemical pollutants in the Lake Superior basin. They include mercury, PCPs, dioxin, and some pesticides now banned, such as DDT.
According to the Lake Superior Binational Program’s Lakewide Management Plan, the lake’s cold water “has profound effects on the ecology of the lake: fish grow more slowly [and] some contaminants remain available in the aquatic environment for longer periods of time.” While persistent toxic substances have decreased significantly since the 1970s, “contaminants continue to enter the Lake Superior food chain from the air, runoff, and direct releases from sources in the watershed.”
Different perspectives
Mike Wiggins, chair of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, warned of environmental hazards associated with mining. He had spent time with Hedman and said their discussion called for “paradigm shifts” in regard to mining. He commended those who can examine issues from multiple perspectives and who can be responsible for protecting the environment and public health. He said climate change, urban sprawl, and population growth are going to cause current environmental problems to grow exponentially unless something stops them. People who care about the environment, he said, can diminish the power of corporate interests and political lobbies.
In January, U.S. Congressman Chip Cravaack wrote, “The development and exploration of the critical and strategic mineral sector has the potential to build a new, vibrant industry in Minnesota. Truth be told, the industry is integral to our economic well-being.
“But despite our rich iron-mining history and mineral potential, Minnesota is ranked by the industry as one of the most difficult places for mining development due largely to our lengthy and expensive permitting process and exacting environmental standards.”
Cravaack quoted U.S. Steel Environmental Director Chrissy Bartovich as saying that Minnesota has “the most stringent water quality discharge permits for any taconite mine in the United States. These permits are not a choice between jobs and the environment. These permits show that the two can coexist.”
Cravaack said an advisory panel on the proposed PolyMet nonferrous mining project agrees that “mining without harm is the only way to build a sustainable, responsible mineralsexploration industry in northern Minnesota.”
Potential hazards of mining
Geologist Mike Ripley, environmental coordinator for the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority in Sault Saint Marie, Michigan, gave examples of the historic impact of ferrous (iron) mining. One mine west of Wawa, Ontario could not operate when the wind was blowing east because the arsenic, which killed off the trees, would blow into town. Although the mine is no longer in operation, the soils there still have high levels of arsenic and mercury.
Near White Pine, Michigan, underground mining operations broke into a salt water deposit, left over from an old sea bed, that has been leaking out ever since and has to be perpetually pumped to keep it out of Lake Superior.
In Silver Bay, Minnesota, Reserve Mining Company was allowed to dump over half of a billion tons of pulverized taconite tailings into Lake Superior from the 1950s to 1980, contaminating the water with mercury.
Sulfates from mining activities have been attributed to the decline of wild rice in some areas of the Fond du Lac Reservation west of Duluth.
Attorney Ann McCammon- Soltis, director of the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission’s Division of Intergovernmental Affairs, advocates for tribal sovereignty rights over activities that take place not only on reservation land but also on land that impacts reservation land. The wide range of natural resources used by tribes in the ceded territories requires a wide area of land, she said. The Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act give tribes authority to set standards for air and water quality, she said, and these standards apply to anyone whose activity off the reservation impacts the water and air on the reservation.
A Wisconsin Sierra Club document on the environmental track record of taconite mining states, “The evidence from neighboring states [Michigan and Minnesota] demonstrates that all taconite mines are polluters.” Minnesota mining operations cited for violations since 2004 include Northshore Mining, Hibbing Taconite, United Taconite, Minorca, Keetac, and Minntac, owned by Cliffs Natural Resources, Arcelor Mittal, and U.S. Steel.
The University of Minnesota is conducting a study on the health effects of taconite mining on miners and their spouses over time. The study will look at high rates of mesothelioma among taconite workers along with other health problems. Nationally, health problems related to certain types of mining include lead poisoning, mercury poisoning, respiratory disorders, and cancer.
A publication on iron ore by the Minnesota Minerals Coordinating Committee states, “A high level of environmental standards is desired by the state, and the history of the mining industry in Minnesota demonstrates that conditions can be satisfactorily met.” Cliffs Natural Resources states that its core values are “social, environmental, and capital stewardship.”
A 2011 Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission report on iron mining in the Lake Superior basin states, “Taconite mining projects are complex and encompass large areas and many natural resources. Understanding the impacts of a specific project requires detailed project plans and a thorough description of the land, water and other resources that will be affected.
“When landscape-changing projects are considered, they should be evaluated carefully and with full, objective discussion of benefits, costs and impacts.” This is the first in a two-part series on the March 23 Binational Forum in Ashland. The next part will discuss the economic impacts of mining.
Leave a Reply