Sen Tom Saviello: Statement re Maine Mining Regulations Misconceptions
- Login to post comments
For Immediate Release
September 27, 2012
Statement of Senator Tom Saviello Regarding Misconceptions about Maine’s Mining Regulations
AUGUSTA, Maine – For the purpose of clearing up misconceptions about Maine’s mining regulations, Senator Tom Saviello (R-Wilton) issued the following statement:
“As Senate Chair of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee and a member of the Regulatory Fairness and Reform Committee, I am proud of the many accomplishments of the 125th Legislature. We worked hard to ensure that our natural habitats are protected while at the same time striving to stimulate Maine’s struggling economy.
In so many ways, Maine’s quality of life is reflected in our commitment to the environment and I believe that our commitment can and will remain front and center as we continue the process of streamlining the regulatory burden on businesses to encourage investment and spur economic growth. As a forester and retired environmental manager, I am keenly aware of the critical balance between Maine’s precious natural resources and economic development. I have no doubt that a thriving economy can co-exist with rigorous environmental protections.
In April 2012, LD 1853, An Act to Improve Environmental Oversight and Streamline Permitting for Metallic Mining in Maine was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. Maine's mining laws, last overhauled in 1991, imposed requirements that were confusing, rigid and time-consuming. As a result, no metallic mineral mine has been permitted or constructed in the state since the laws were revised.
Opponents continue to criticize the metallic mining bill’s introduction late in the Session, asserting the bill was rushed and not carefully considered. The public process on this piece of legislation was unprecedented; in addition to the Informational Briefing and Public Hearing, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee held nine work sessions and throughout the process the Committee continued to take testimony from interested parties.
In reality, unlike some far-reaching bills the Maine Legislature acts on, the Committee expended enormous amounts of time and energy refining and improving this legislation, all the while focused on developing language that balanced our dedication and commitment to protecting Maine’s environment and our responsibility to ensure sound economic policy and good jobs for our citizens.
There certainly was no rush to judgment, and foolhardy for anyone to suggest that even a single member of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee was interested in putting forth a piece of legislation that endorsed unrestricted mining activity or compromised the environment. Our purpose was to determine the most effective and efficient regulatory structure, to develop a framework that will continue to provide stringent protections of lands and waterways in the area of mining activities.
The metallic mining law sets forth the strongest of protections and continues to uphold our state’s strict environmental laws. Before a permit to develop a mine can be issued, an applicant must demonstrate that “the mining operations will not unreasonably adversely affect existing uses, air quality, water quality or other natural resources.”
The law further reinforces stringent standards now governing our aquatic resources. It explicitly requires mining operations comply with existing water quality standards. And, it directs an applicant to reasonably assure “that public and private water supplies are not affected by the mining operation.”
The law stipulates that 1) any discharge to ground water beyond a mining area must meet drinking water standards or be as clean as the water that is there today; and 2) surface water must not be contaminated directly or indirectly by mining operations.
Further, water quality must be monitored throughout mining operations, during suspension of mining operations and following closure of a mine, a period defined as at least 30 years after mining has ceased.
The law mandates that rules governing metallic mining be subject to an extensive review and approval process before they are finalized. Experts hired by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection will oversee the rulemaking process which is expected to take nearly two years. The draft rules will be submitted to the Board of Environmental Protection, comprised of citizens from across the state, for examination and approval. The rules will further be considered by the Environment and Natural Resources Committee and then go to the full Legislature for approval. The process – from start to finish – will be deliberative and thorough, and again provide extensive opportunity for public input.
Metallic mineral mines across the country have been open, operated, reclaimed and closed without environmental problems. Of course, mines that were constructed and operated before current environmental laws and regulations have a mixed environmental record. But today’s operations are a far cry from facilities first opened in the 1800s and operated up until the 1980s such as the Callahan mine. Rigorous environmental laws, requirements for reclamation and closure planning and advanced water treatment technology combine to offer the opportunity to mine in a safe, responsible manner.
In addition to the requirement that an applicant prepare an operations, closure and environmental protection plan before the mine is permitted, the applicant must provide financial assurance that the mine will be reclaimed and closed without spending taxpayer money. A permit cannot be issued until the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection finds that the financial assurance for closure and reclamation are adequate. The forms of financial assurance required do not allow a company to pledge assets other than cash, and furthermore, the financial instruments allowed cannot be “cancelled, withdrawn, revoked or otherwise reduced without the express written consent of the Commissioner . . .”
Before us is the possibility of revitalizing an industry that dates back to the 1800s, an industry that could potentially create hundreds of jobs in a county that desperately needs jobs, pumping millions of sorely needed dollars into our state’s economy. This can be done with critical environmental protections in place. Just as importantly, we have the chance to say loudly and clearly to others across the state and around the world interested in creating jobs that Maine’s business community, citizens, environmentalists and lawmakers are ready and willing to work together to create solutions that benefit all of us.”
Contact: Senator Tom Saviello, email: drtom@hotmail.com, (207) 645-3420
###
Senator Tom Saviello represents Maine Senate District 18 which includes the Franklin County communities of Avon, Carrabassett Valley, Carthage, Chesterville, Coplin, Dallas, East Central Franklin, Eustis, Farmington, Industry, Kingfield, Madrid, New Sharon, New Vineyard, North Franklin, Phillips, Rangeley, Salem Township, Sandy River, South Franklin, Strong, Temple, Weld, West Central Franklin, Wilton, and Wyman. The district also includes the Kennebec County towns of Belgrade, Fayette, Mount Vernon, Readfield, Rome, Vienna, and Wayne, as well as the Somerset County communities of Mercer and Smithfield.
I have no doubt at all that Senator Saviello wants both good long term jobs and responsible environmental management in his district and I am encouraged that Senator Saviello is speaking beyond the obfuscating polarity of jobs vs tree huggers that often makes it possible for us to just visit important issues together beyond party ideology and pure rhetoric. If that is what Senator Saviello stands for then I hope will take the lead in introducing a stautory cyanide heap leaching ban well ahead of, and setting clear parameters for, the implementation of Maine's Metallic Minerals Mining Act in January 2014. Without this urgently needed action, what Mr. Saviello says he is about, what he says this bill is about puts Maine's new mining Act in dircet conflict with protection of the watershed supporting human life and important agriculture as well as all the income from fishing and hunting which are s important to the economy of Maine;s northern counties as well as to the recreational life of its people.
At Bald Mountain gold exists at microscopic levels most likely much less than 3 grams per ton which is the average world wide for modern gold mines. The cheapest and therefore most widely used process for extracting these trace levels of gold from sulfide ore is called "cyanide heap leaching". And the problem is there is inherent and virtually unavoidable conflict between protection of watersheds, for potable drinking wate and for fish & wldlife habitat and the cyanide heap leaching process. To make matters worse Maine's new law, the law Senator Saviello assures us will completely safeguard our water says (a) that mining is presumed to be the best use, in the most public interest and (b) that a process to which there is no practical alternative is deemed an acceptable process . In essence this allows mining any where there is an applicant who wants to mine and deems the cyanide heap leach process the only viable method. I will post the exact text from the statute at the end of the post and it is easy to understand why Senator Saviello may not have understood this legaleeze drafted by Pierce Atwood specifically to to the needs and convenience of the metal mining industry. And how would Senator Saviello or any of us know that cyanide heap leaching is, in effect, the only practical method of extracting trace amounts of gold from tons of rock. How would Senator Saviello or any of us know whether that is good or bad.?
Well it turn out it is very bad and despite what the metal mining lobby maintains about "best practices" and "safe practices" for cyanide heap leaching there is no acceptably safe way to do do cyanide heap leaching. These "best practices" and the International Cyanide Code are a panicked industry response to global and trends toward cyanide bans and also to cyanide bans in the major U.S.mining states. But according to to Dr. Robert E. Moran, an independent Water Quality Engineer, these industry "best practices" are based both on (1)false confidence in the safety of the state of the art membrane and drainage systems which line the heaps and drain off the gold impregnated cyanide solution and (2) faulty science about the complex chemistry of cyanide. In effect the trailings ( the ore left on the heap from which gold traces have been extracted) can never be made safe. ( never means the 30 years in our statute isn't enough to neutralize the cyanide introduced into the heap to extract the gold and it cannot be contained "on site"). Here is Dr. Moran's study which was written for the European Union and the U.N. Environmental Programme. :
http://bankwatch.org/documents/decodingcyanide.pdf
Here is a very clear and simply stated excerpt from it:
"as this report will demonstrate, most of what has been
proposed by industry and governments in regard to cyanide management misses
the mark. These “codes” or regulations fail to address the issues that are of most
concern to the public. Issues such as protecting land resources, communities,
and water resources. Arguably, current “code” and regulatory proposals amount
to greenwashing in that they give the appearance that governments and mining
companies are addressing environmental issues, when in fact they are not"
"“ the “code” draft (UNEP/ICME,2002) reflects, predominantly, what is best for industry, not the interest of the environment or the public. “
Before our legislature allows this mining act to go any further guided only by the mining industry itself and its lobbyists, it needs to take a look at the realities of modern metal mining, the actual on the ground experience in the U.S. and globally. I am sure Dr. Moran would be glad to hold a skype conference with any group of legislators interested in hearing more about the cyanide heap leaching process and I know Dr. Moran can answer any questions the legislators might have in simple plain English. Dr. Morans principal findings were also independently confirmed by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2000 and our legislators could track down those scientists as well. Importantly the U.S. Geological study emphasized that these persisting issues of cyanide in trailings are worse in cold climates like ours in the northern counties. I have always found that real experts are easily and readily available to discuss their work. Real experts are not at all snobby about talking to non experts or evasive about their work
Important to consider that gold has no industrial uses. It is used for jewelry..for luxury ornamentation and even Tiffany's is boycotting gold produced through the cyanide heap leaching process. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/international/24GOLD.html?pagewanted=a... All of this risk only for ornamentation.
Also the job claims that have been bantered around need a very close and careful look to see exactly how many of these jobs would be permanent and for Mainers. In passing in the course of this research I saw that one of the world's largest and most productive cyanide leach mines which produced 700,000 ounces per year employs only 170 full time equivalents even with a 24 hours 7 day a week production schedule The other obs are high etch insourced jobs using the hi tech resonance imagery needed to locate the most metal intensive ore sections Based on what I've seen listed as employment base at the world's biggest mines I see little possibility that there would be more than 170 obs generated statewide from all possible mines let alone the possibility of the 300 D Irving says could result at Bald Mountain.
When industry comes in writing its own laws to serve its own aim on maximum profits and promises jobs, Maine legislators need to say "jobs for whom" show me your ob based at other operations..how many folk at these other operations are full time locals?
Lindsay Newland Bowker
Risk Manager, New York City Enviornmnetal Protection ( The City's sewer and water authority)
1986-1998
Stonington, Maine
- Login to post comments
se re post below ( and my apologies)