Dear Larry,

I'm sorry to have to tell you this but after reviewing the proposed rule changes you passed out at the May 19th Rules Hearing in Eau Claire, it is my opinion that the proposed changes do more to accommodate the mining companies than they do to protect the health and safety of Wisconsin's citizens.

Under the present rules, mining companies enjoy a 1200-foot compliance zone around a mine site. Under the proposed change this zone will not be changed, except that protective action limits (PALS) will be monitored within the zone which will now be called a Design Management Zone (DMZ). Call it whatever you like, it is still a special treatment not enjoyed by any other industry in our state. I must agree with Al Gedicks when he said: "To change the language without changing the substance is an insult to Wisconsin citizens."

The DMZ for solid waste landfills is 150 feet. The DMZ for wastewater disposal lagooons is 250 feet. The DMZ for a hazardous waste facility is ZERO. (I take this to mean nuclear dumps.) But I would consider the witch's brew that's going into the proposed tailings pond at Crandon Mining Company's (CMC) mine, including the 18 ton monthly storage of cyanide - as called for in their permit application - to be just as dangerous as a nuclear dump. I say this with all sincerity, having been in the nuclear business for many years. I am a commissioned Authorized Nuclear Inspector. Incidentally, Larry, I was inspecting the pumps and fans at the bottom (some 5000 Ft.) of the Carey Mine at Hurley, WI before many of today's experts were out of diapers.

Adding to the problem, is the enormous size of the proposed tailings pond, which in my opinion is poorly designed. If you think about it, as a hydrogeologist, I think you will agree that the 15 foot unsaturated zone, between the bottom of the tailings pond and the water table, is a potential sulfuric acid generator of the first order. There is a probability of leachate percolation through this zone, to the water table. Why then, this special treatment for CMC?

At our May 19 meeting, you intimated that the 1200-foot DMZ was necessary to facilitate the use of computer groundwater modeling. CMC is relying heavily upon these models. But the MODFLOW standard for computer modeling, used by CMC has been discredited by just about all of the government agencies that have had anything to do with this mine, when it comes to answering questions posed by the project. Several highly respected independent experts also have discredited these models.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers used words like "not suitable" in their assessment of the models. At one meeting with CMC officials, one of the DNR's own hydrogeologists used the term, "not acceptable" in regard to the model being discussed. How then, can you permit this to continue?? You said "it's the best thing we've got to work with." Well, Larry, with all due respect to you, this is not good enough for the coalition of over 60 Wisconsin clubs and organizations opposing the mine.

I hate to put you "on the spot" but you admitted in our conversation of May 19th - in front of TV cameras - that much of CMC's high tech research is just guesswork! We cannot afford to let foreigners come in here and guess and gamble with our precious water resources.

On February 12th, Governor-For-Life, Tommy Thompson told the State Legislature: "I want to be very clear: if a mining company cannot prove its operation is safe it will not receive a mining permit in Wisconsin." I hope he keeps his word because CMC cannot prove that their mine operation will be safe, with flawed computer groundwater modeling. The only real proof, is in history - and I'm not talking about the Flambeau Mine, which did not mill any ore on site and which has yet to be reclamated.

I know you've heard it a hundred times before, but there are no examples of successfully reclaimed metallic sulfide mines where the mine is closed, the water treatment plant is shut down and the water runs pure and clean.

From the Wisconsin Environmental Law Journal:

"The Summitville gold mine in Rio Grande county, Colorado provides a very recent example of a mining company going bankrupt and leaving a highly contaminated and extremely expensive cleanup to be shouldered by taxpayers. Despite assurances from the mining company that state-of-the-art technology was in place to protect the environment, the technology failed to do its job. Every day, taxpayers spend over $30,000 on cleanup at the site. The U.S. EPA estimates total cleanup costs around $100 million. Before the mining company declared bankruptcy, leaking cyanide from the mine had decimated trout populations in over 17 miles of nearby rivers and contaminated downstream irrigation supplies."

Keep in mind, that there are 40 lakes and streams, within a ten mile radius of the CMC mine site.

The citizens of Wisconsin need to be re-assured that something like the Summitville experience will not happen here. The proposed irrevocable trust will not do the job and here's why: (a) No dollar figure, to start out with has been established. Judging by the Summitville experience, the trust should start out with nothing less than $100 million. This is not an unreasonable amount, when you consider that CMC stands to make billions from our resource. (b) There doesn't seem to be anything new in the way funds are to be "adjusted" every five years, or as needed. With all this money shifting back and forth, it seems like a perfect formula for corruption. What is set up by the DNR can be taken down by the DNR. One wonders what the "Badger Fund" was spent on. Under proposed rules, there are too many uncertainties as to the adequacy of funds that are derived solely from CMC's coffers. We must make sure the money is there when needed. (c) Throughout the rule changes, you talk about "far into the future" etc. but perpetual liability or perpetuity is not defined anywhere in the statutes or rules. Unless you spell it out, it's not forever, it's just a hollow promise! (d) The mining companies short term financial obligations should also be extended. Under current rules a mining company can have its bond released in as little as 20 years after reclaimation.

The timing of these rule changes are designed by a few assemblymen to make other assemblymen think everything's O.K. now, so they can vote against the Mining Moratorium Bill, AB 70. We need the moratorium, so that fail-safe rules can be promulgated and no-risk technologies can be developed.

I recently read a proposal for companies to trade or "swap" water pollution, just as power companies have "swapped" smokestack emissions for years. I don't know who's idea it is, but if this is put into effect, it will just be one more accommodation for the CMC to load up the Wisconsin River with Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). As you probably know, the Wisconsin River is maxed out now, on BOD's. Under present regulations, CMC cannot legally discharge their treated water into the Wisconsin River. It's probably pretty hard for CMC to get their BOD's down to non-detectable limits, so someone is staying awake nights, trying to figure out other alternatives, including discharge into Lake Michigan, where Perch are having a difficult time spawning.

It's a shame how much we have polluted our state in the past 100 years. We must try to protect what's left and not give in to greed.

Larry, I have attended several hearings in the past ten years. Most of them have just been a sham. But I want to congratulate you on conducting a good hearing in Eau Claire. Fortunately, there were not too many people there and the mining forces did not bus in stooges and pay them to occupy the seats as they did on May 12 at Ladysmith.

Thanks for your cooperation and again, thanks for a good hearing.

Sincerely,

Kermit Benson