[Policy Documents] [Forensic Intelligence Hub-Page] [Jhéön & Associates, Stephen P. Dresch, Chairman]
MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1996
At the outset I would indicate that I appreciate the difficulties confronted by officials of the Environmental Protection Agency, of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and of other agencies charged with enforcement of our panoply of federal and state environmental laws. In this as in many other domains our political organs have attempted to “have their cake and eat it too.” On the one hand, they confront highly-organized, articulate, single-issue environmental advocates, reinforced by broadly-based, ill-informed and inarticulate public sentiment for enhanced environmental quality. On the other, they confront the economic reality that enhanced environmental quality comes at a social and economic price. Not surprisingly, as a path through the horns of the dilemma legislators have crafted a growing body of vague law and assigned responsibility for its interpretation and implementation to regulatory agencies. Politicians then claim credit for “protecting the environment,” place the blame for the social and economic costs on the shoulders of the regulatory bureaucracy, and, of course, retain the power to exert covert influence on specific regulatory decisions of particular importance to politically-significant interests.
The unfortunate consequences are many, of which the following are only examples:
The recent history of the Copper Range exhibits many of the worst consequences of this discriminatory system of environmental protection.
First, White Pine is of marginal political interest. Although the largest employer in the county, Ontonagon’s population of less than 9,000 (probably substantially less with the closure of the smelter and cessation of conventional mining) renders it of marginal political concern.
Second, the economic costs of regulatory actions have been high, while the environmental benefits have been slight or nonexistent. Closure of the smelter resulted in significant direct loss of profits and employment and virtually dictated the subsequent termination of conventional mining. Yet the environmental benefits are questionable, especially in light of increased use of alternative facilities, the adverse environmental consequences of which are greater than those of the closed Copper Range facility.
In the present instance, in which regulatory uncertainty may dictate the cessation of solution mining, the environmental benefits would appear to be negative, at least if the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is to be believed. When it approved the company’s solution mining proposal, the MDEQ emphasized the commitment it had extracted from the company as a condition for that approval: The company would accept and pre-fund liability for any adverse future consequences of past conventional mining at White Pine. Thus, in an arrangement which was economically nonsensical and fundamentally extortionate, solution mining was held hostage not only to the company’s acceptance of responsibility for any adverse environmental consequences it might have but also for any adverse environmental consequences inherited from the past. If, in fact, the commitments extracted by MDEQ as a condition for approval of solution mining will have the effect of mitigating the future consequences of past activity, then the abandonment of solution mining (presumably voiding the company’s agreements with the MDEQ) can only have net adverse environmental consequences.
Turning to the environmental threat, if any, posed by solution mining: As a member of the Michigan House of Representatives representing Ontonagon and neighboring counties, in 1992 when the possibility of solution mining was first rumored, and anticipating the environmental protests which announcement of solution mining might engender, I consulted widely with academic and other experts. The dominant response can be briefly summarized:
In short, the fear of environmental depredation from acid solutions or brine spilling out of the mine, contaminating adjacent land, surface water and, eventually, Lake Superior is not scientifically founded. In short, considering both the fundamental realities of the situation and the agreement already extracted from the company by the MDEQ, the decision of the EPA to enter the arena can have no positive environmental consequences. However, the uncertainties introduced by EPA entry, superimposed on the extortionate terms previously extracted by MDEQ, can easily render solution mining an economically unjustified investment.
In short, when we should be attempting to maximize the ratio of environmental gains to economic costs, the decision of EPA to claim veto power over solution mining imposes high costs while gaining nothing environmentally.
The EPA might respond that, if solution mining is as environmentally neutral as I have claimed, then the company should have nothing to fear from EPA review. However, this ignores the frequently political basis for decisions in the environmental domain. Just as purely political considerations motivated EPA to claim a right of regulatory oversight, political considerations several years in the future might dictate even a baseless negative decision.
In closing, I would note a certain irony in EPA’s reliance on its authority over injection wells to justify its claim of authority over solution mining at White Pine. Substantively, this interpretation is as farfetched as, e.g., MDEQ’s interpretation of industrial water-pollution-prevention tax exemptions to extend to Type II sanitary landfills, or Manistique Papers’ claim that its NPDES permit covers operation of an unlicensed landfill in a wetland. But, even on its own terms one must question a regulatory apparatus and process which quickly awards a permit for a toxic waste injection well (which will serve primarily foreign hazard-waste generators), to be located in a highly urban area (Romulus), to a politically well-connected consortium [Anthony Soave’s City Management, the Runcos (erstwhile of Oakland Disposal and Bestway, responsible for a contaminated lake and groundwater in Waterford Township, Oakland County, Michigan), et al.], surrounded by scandal (e.g., the Detroit police and fire investment arranged by Jeffrey Eggan), but contemplates an indefinite review of a project with minimal, at most, environmental risk.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Dresch