Home » News

Send PolyMet to Summer School – sign the petition

March 25, 2010

We are proud to announce a new petition campaign insisting that PolyMet Mining Corp. and the responsible government agencies heed the Environmental Protection Agency and do the remedial work necessary to address serious concerns raised by the EPA in February. Sign the petition »

A Failing Grade

In February, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared that the PolyMet mine proposal presented unacceptable risks to the environment.

The EPA also said that the project should not proceed as proposed, but that the company and the responsible government agencies should do remedial work to bring it up to standards.

The “Send PolyMet to Summer School” petition simply calls for PolyMet and the agencies to do exactly what the EPA said they should. Rather than proceed to the usual next step in environmental review, they should do more work and give the public a chance to review it and offer feedback.

Sign the petition »

What did the EPA say?

In its February 18, 2010 comments letter on the PolyMet draft Environmental Impact State (EIS), the EPA said:

“…Because of deficiencies in the Draft EIS, additional information, alternatives, and mitigation measures should be evaluated and made available for public comment in a revised or supplemental draft EIS.”

The EPA rated the PolyMet draft EIS as “Environmentally Unacceptable (EU) / Inadequate (3).” This is the most negative rating possible. According to the EPA, “Environmentally Unacceptable (EU)” is reserved for projects that have “adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that EPA believes the proposed action must not proceed as proposed.”

Sign the petition »

Is this unusual?

Yes. The rating has only been given out to 41 of the 11,834 EISes the EPA has reviewed since 1987 (0.3 percent).

What does this mean for the PolyMet DEIS?

The EPA’s comments identify a number of gaps and flaws in the analysis that must be addressed. The EPA recommends the creation of a supplemental DEIS to address gaps such as a lack of financial assurance in the DEIS, incomplete analysis of water quality impacts, a lack of environmental analysis of necessary land exchanges, inadequate mitigation and protection of important wetlands, and mercury contamination of the Lake Superior watershed. Failure to address these issues would cause the EPA to “not support the issuance of a permit for this project.”

The EPA has the authority to force higher-level review of the PolyMet proposal through two separate mechanisms. If their concerns are not met, the EPA can refer the project to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), an executive agency that adjudicates environmental disputes. Second, the EPA can “elevate” the issue to higher levels of the EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

Sign the petition »

Media coverage of EPA statement:

Participating Organizations

Lead: Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness

Add your name to the list! Contact greg@friends-bwca.org if you want to be included as a participating organization.

Sign the petition »

Share

Revealing interview with EPA about PolyMet

March 22, 2010

Craig Stellmacher at the UpTake.org has provided a unique and in-depth interview with Ken Westlake of the Environmental Protection Agency about the agency’s comments on the PolyMet proposal and the failing grade the EPA gave the draft environmental impact statement.

In a 40-minute phone conversation, Stellmacher asked the right questions about the specifics of the agency’s concerns. As Stellmacher says, the EPA seemed to be the “missing witness” at the recent hearings in the Minnesota House and Legislature. This interview is the kind of testimony that we might have heard if they’d been there:

“The most compelling issue from our point of view, is the admission in the Draft EIS that this project will violate state and tribal water quality standards.”

Listen to the interview below, read the article and transcript here.

Share

March 10 Senate hearing time moved to 5 p.m.

March 9, 2010

Wednesday’s hearing about sulfide mining, including legislation that seeks to strengthen Minnesota’s “damage deposit” regulations, has been bumped up an hour. The hearing is now scheduled to start at 5 p.m. It will also feature testimony from the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy about the flaws in the PolyMet proposal that they have identified.

Please attend this important hearing to show your support. Get there early, at least an hour, if you want to get into the room, but there should be a lively crowd watching the proceedings in overflow spaces that will be provided.

Wear a blue shirt and look for folks handing out “Protect Clean Water” stickers!

Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
5 p.m.
Room 15 Capitol

Share

PolyMet makes false statement about EPA criticism

March 5, 2010

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency gave the PolyMet mine draft environmental impact statement the lowest possible rating the agency can assign such a document. Citing incomplete work and unacceptable pollution, the EPA assigned the project its “Environmentally Unsatisfactory – Inadequate” rating.

The rating highlights the extraordinary threats represented by the mine to clean water. The agency does not assign such ratings very often. In the past 23 years, the EPA has reviewed 11,834 EISes and gave the rating it gave to PolyMet to only 41, or 0.3 percent. In the upper Midwest region, the agency gave the rating to just 0.2 percent of the 844 EISes it reviewed.

Yesterday, PolyMet released a statement seeking to control the damage the EPA’s rating has done to its credibility. Unfortunately, the company included a statement in their press release that is blatantly false:

“The EPA’s rating of the draft EIS as unsatisfactory appears to have been based on the ‘proposed project’ without  consideration of alternatives or mitigations discussed in the document.”

This is false. In page two of the EPA’s letter, the agency states:

“This rating applies to the Proposed Action, the Mine Site Alternative and the Tailings Basin Alternative.”

There is no way to excuse such a misleading statement as PolyMet has made. Rather than offering specific details that respond to the EPA’s criticisms, the company has chosen only to muddy the waters.

Share

Historic mining hearings scheduled at state capitol

March 2, 2010

Clean water advocates are encouraged to attend at least one of the three hearings scheduled by the Minnesota Senate Environment & Natural Resources Committee the week of March 8.

The hearings will address the scope of mining exploration in the state, the history of how existing regulations were created, the PolyMet project, and a bill that would strengthen laws requiring a “damage deposit” from mining companies.

Please attend the meetings to show visible, vocal support for clean water. Wear a blue shirt to be part of this demonstration of citizen concern. More details coming soon!

Details:

Monday, March 8

12:30 p.m. – Room 107, Minnesota State Capitol

  • History of mining regulation and environmental review
  • PolyMet presentation on NorthMet Project

6 p.m. – Room 15, Minnesota State Capitol

  • PolyMet Draft EIS comments

Wednesday, March 10

5 p.m. – Room 15, Minnesota State Capitol

  • Financial assurance (“damage deposit”) legislation
Share

Legislation to strengthen mining regulations

February 8, 2010

Legislation has recently been introduced in the Minnesota legislature to  strengthen the state’s financial assurance regulations. These rules govern the “damage deposit” that mining companies are required to provide before mining.

The legislation would make common sense, necessary changes to close loopholes and protect our water, fish and wildlife, and our tax dollars. Take action immediately to support the financial assurance regulations. Here’s everything you need:

  1. Enter your address and find out who represents you here: http://www.gis.leg.mn/mapserver/districts/
  2. Call or e-mail your representative and senator and ask them to support:

It will only take you a minute or two and could make the difference between this bill even getting a committee hearing or being beaten back by powerful mining interests. Please contact your legislators today!

What exactly does the bill do? Here are the highlights:

  1. Requires financial assurance to be discussed in the environmental review
  2. Protects us from corporate shell games and hold companies who profit from mines responsible for clean-up
  3. Improve government transparency when setting and adjusting financial assurance
  4. Mandates that long-term water treatment be covered in calculations
  5. Requires the DNR to consult with financial experts in other agencies

Read the bill itself if you’re interested in the rest of the details. Please, contact your legislators right now.

Share

Citing serious flaws with PolyMet proposal, Friends recommend “no action”

February 3, 2010

MINNEAPOLIS, MN – The Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness today submitted its comments to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers on the PolyMet NorthMet mining project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

As the result of numerous serious flaws in the environmental review process and the project proposal, the Friends recommends the “No Action” alternative until significant problems have been addressed.

“PolyMet says they want to do this the environmentally-responsible way,” said Paul Danicic, executive director of the Friends. “But the Draft EIS is full of unsupported assumptions, omissions of data, and over-reliance on modeling. The fact is that this mine as proposed will inevitably, unavoidably, pollute the waters of northeastern Minnesota.”

To help analyze the document, the Friends retained four noted scientists with decades of combined experience in fields such as mine engineering, geohydrology, wetlands, aquatic ecology, and other relevant areas. More information about the experts, their credentials and their reports are available at the bottom of this announcement.

Significant flaws in the DEIS include, but are not limited to:

  • Lack of financial assurance – Delaying such an important component until the permitting stage is a serious omission, making it impossible to fully assess the project’s potential environmental impacts, and putting Minnesota’s taxpayers and natural resources at risk. (Page 3)
  • Inadequate data collection and disclosure – The DEIS is overly dependent on modeling when real-world data could have been easily obtained and would have provided far more useful and predictive information. (Page 9)
  • Long-term water contamination from waste rock – The DEIS predicts that water leaching from waste rock piles will exceed Minnesota’s water quality standards for multiple metals and compounds for up to 2,000 years. (Page 16)
  • Contaminated overflow from mine pit – Approximately 45 years after mine closure, the DEIS predicts that the mine’s West Pit will overflow and spill into the Partridge River. Water from the pit is expected to exceed water quality standards including likely mercury contamination, and pollution of the river will violate the Clean Water Act. (Page 16-17)
  • Inaccurate wetland characterization – By mischaracterizing many wetlands as isolated from groundwater, rather than accurately as “fens” which have higher connectivity with groundwater, the DEIS fails to acknowledge the potential for these wetlands to spread contamination from the tailings basin and waste rock piles and to increase the production of methylmercury. (Pages 18-19)
  • Overreliance on wetlands for water treatment – Despite acknowledging the wildly variable success of using wetlands for water treatment, the DEIS proposes to use wetlands as a primary tool for water treatment and relies heavily on the assumption that it will work. (Page 21)
  • Unsafe tailings basins – The DEIS acknowledges that the tailings basins will have a “low margin of safety” because the underlying material—fine tailings from the LTV taconite mine—is unstable and poorly-constructed. Failure of the tailings basin would result in the release of a catastrophic amount of toxic mine waste. (Pages 25-26)
  • Sulfate contamination and mercury methylation – High levels of sulfates discharged into surface and groundwater will increase the methylation of mercury, a biological process which can result in the bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and is toxic to wildlife and humans. Increased sulfate levels will also have negative impacts on wild rice beds in lakes and rivers downstream from the mine, seriously harming an important cultural resource of Ojibwa Band members in the region. (Pages 30-35)

“The flaws in this document are very real and very serious,” said Betsy Daub, policy director of the Friends. “Left unaddressed, these problems would mean enormous financial, environmental and health risks for the people of our state.”

In addition to describing the document’s flaws and the threats it poses to the region’s lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater, the Friends also provided substantive recommendations wherever possible, offering proactive solutions and measurable ways to improve the environmental review and the project. Recommendations include:

  • Inclusion of financial assurance calculations in the EIS, accounting for costs of long-term water treatment. In his report, Dr. Chambers provided a rough calculation of $100 million for mine clean-up, closure and long-term water treatment.
  • Basing the reclamation plan on a plan provided from another mine that includes details adequate to ensure full clean-up before the company is released from its permit conditions.
  • Analysis of a centerline design for the tailings basin to increase stability.
  • Additional data collection techniques to better understand groundwater flows, wetland types and behaviors, and other important information to inform predictions.

More than 750 individuals had submitted comments to the Minnesota DNR on the DEIS by Wednesday morning via the Friends’ sulfide mining website at www.preciouswaters.org. Commenters frequently echoed the above concerns, as well as expressing great concern over the possibility that this type of mining can even be done in the watery ecosystems of northeastern Minnesota without serious, long-term pollution.

“It is of critical importance that the environmental review process for PolyMet be done right,” said Danicic. “This is the first of several such mines that could open up in Minnesota, and precedents for what levels of risk are acceptable, and unacceptable, will be set during this process. PolyMet has a lot of work to do to convince the Minnesota public that they can mine this ore and protect our natural resources at the same time.”

Comments:

###

The Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness works to protect the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness through advocacy and education. Founded in 1976 to help pass the legislation that permanently designated the Boundary Waters as federal Wilderness, the organization’s mission is to protect, preserve and restore the wilderness character of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the Quetico-Superior ecosystem. Online at www.friends-bwca.org.

Share

Duluth Metals strikes deal to develop mine at edge of BWCAW

January 20, 2010

Location of mineral depositDuluth Metals, a company that is seeking to operate a mine for copper, nickel and other metals in sulfide ore near the South Kawishiwi River and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, announced a big partnership last week with the mining corporation Antofagasta plc to provide Duluth Metals with up to $227 million to develop the mine.

Duluth expects development activities at Nokomis to proceed on an accelerated basis, and anticipates pre-feasibility and bankable feasibility studies to be completed within 36 months.

While the mine is expected to be underground, as opposed to the PolyMet strip mine proposal, it also differs because it would be located much closer to and in the watershed of the  BWCAW where the South Kawishiwi flows into Birch Lake. The river ultimately flows out of Birch Lake, through the White Iron Chain of Lakes, and back into the BWCAW.

The arrival of a multinational mining corporation in northeastern Minnesota is being hailed as a victory for Duluth Metals, but environmental concerns should also deserve a fair hearing by the public, decision-makers and the media. Even mining industry spokesperson Frank Ongaro admitted in a Minnesota Public Radio story that Antofagasta represents an industry that has for a long time operated recklessly:

“There’s a perfect example of a company who’s currently mining copper the old way, strongly interested in investing in mining and processing copper the more, new, modern, environmentally responsible way,” Ongaro said.

While Ongaro claims that this is a sign Antofagasta wants to do things the right way for a change, there is no evidence of that except the sort of “trust us” arguments the industry has long used to silence opposition.

Make no mistake, interest in opening up sulfide mines in the BWCAW watershed is very intense and the PolyMet environmental review process which is currently underway will be extremely influential in determining standards and procedures for future projects, streamlining the permitting of subsequent mines. An editorial in the Ely Echo states:

During a conference call with investors, Duluth Metals leaders were quizzed over the company’s ability to pass Minnesota’s permitting maze. The answer was simple: follow PolyMet.

Now in the final stages of the environmental impact statement (EIS) process, PolyMet has had the misfortune of being the first in line. After countless delays and $20 million spent on getting the EIS done, PolyMet has laid down a map for how to permit a copper-nickel mine in Minnesota.

It is all the more important to speak up about PolyMet today–the public comment period on the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement closes on Feb. 3. Submit your comments using our handy online tool right now!

Share

State to auction off mineral leases across Arrowhead

January 4, 2010

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is planning to auction off mineral leases for sulfide mining across the northeastern part of the state. Last week, Minnesota Public Radio ran a story on the auction:

Chuck Laszewski, communications director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said the fact that the DNR’s new lease sale might expand mining exploration in Minnesota should make policy makers think about enacting laws that will ensure the state’s lakes and rivers are protected if a company proceeds with non-ferrous mining.

“We’re not talking about just St. Louis County anymore,” he said. “People who never thought they would see a mine in their county could now see a mine in their county, and they better pay attention to that.”

The scope of the interest is worrisome. Minnesota could see huge tracts of land in the Arrowhead (and beyond, including in areas in Aitkin County) developed for new copper-nickel mines. All of this activity would occur in sulfide ore bodies capable of producing acid mine drainage and other toxic pollution.

The location of some of the most recent activity is particularly concerning to those who enjoy fishing, swimming and other activities on some popular recreation lakes near Duluth, including Island and Grand Lakes. Save Lake Superior Association has posted some maps showing where leases are being offered near those lakes.

(Maps of the mineral leases near Island and Grand Lakes–click to view full-size. Courtesy Save Lake Superior Association.)

A mineral lease auction held by the DNR last year included significant lands around Ely. At the time, many property-owners and Realtors became very concerned because many of the leases were for mineral rights underneath private lands. Land-owners suddenly realized that a mining company could control the mineral rights underneath their property and there would be nothing they could do to prevent them from starting up a mine. The issue received considerable attention in the press at the time:

The Ely Echo ran an editorial last January:

Local realtor Charlie Chernak said there is reason for concern. “If you’ve got a $300,000 house sitting on a 40 (acre plot) and a company gets a minerals lease for that 40, I can tell you your house isn’t worth $300,000 anymore. I’m afraid this sale can have a harmful affect on a real estate market that’s already on its knees here.”

Chernak, who has been involved in economic development efforts in Ely, said the issue isn’t about mining.

“I’m not against mining but these mineral leases shouldn’t be on private ownership. The DNR says the odds of them drilling are slim and none but these are 50-year leases. My concern is it’s not the norm to have the minerals leased to a mining company,” said Chernak.

The Ely Timberjay also ran an article on the issue:

The state can offer mineral leases on those lands because the state of Minnesota allows what is known as “severed mineral rights,” which means the owner of the surface does not necessarily have rights to the minerals below. The state of Minnesota holds the rights to explore or mine for minerals across millions of acres of northeastern Minnesota, including much of the privately-held property in the region, and it typically exercises those rights through leases to mining companies. Under those leases, which can run up to 50 years, mining companies have a right to explore for, or mine, minerals on the lands covered by the lease, regardless of who owns the surface rights.

Learn more:

Share

Letters to the Duluth News Tribune

December 30, 2009

Last week, the Duluth News Tribune published an editorial voicing full support for the PolyMet mine project, despite the fact that the mine poses serious threats to the water and sustainable economy of northeastern Minnesota. In response, several individuals wrote letters to the editor, which are included below.

You can send your own letter to letters@duluthnews.com. Check out our letter-to-the-editor page for more tips and information about speaking up about this issue.

***

I am sure if Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., were well-informed of the environmental risks posed by PolyMet, he would not have announced his support for PolyMet (“Region’s lawmakers support PolyMet mine,” Dec. 11).

Franken needs to reconsider his position. Such a short-term employment gain at the risk of long-term deterioration of Minnesota’s total tourism industry could not have been understood by him when he made his position.

Mimi Gingold
Cincinnati and Ely

***

Evening news coverage of the proposed PolyMet mine was reminiscent of seven years ago when we were thrust, by a propaganda machine, into an unnecessary war. Dissenters were minimized or ignored outright by television news media whose responsibility it was to fully inform.

The PolyMet process has yet to be adequately explained by local television news outlets, except to say it is a new way of mining nonferrous metals that minimizes the enormous possible risks. After regularly viewing local evening news, I am no better informed regarding what the PolyMet process is, how the PolyMet process works, where it has previously been done successfully and what safeguards will be taken to ensure the health of the workers and environment. I do not know if the environmentalists have legitimate concerns, but it is very suspicious when one side of a controversy is so effectively dismissed. If this is a viable venture, there should be no problem in presenting an honest debate with scientists of equal stature, equal expertise and equal time.

These potential jobs, which could support hundreds of families for decades, are very important. Given the history of this industry, the people who will be laboring long days to make this mine profitable deserve, at the very least, a full and honest debate about the possible negative effects on their health and environment. This is the necessary function of television news.

The way this has played out on TV makes me wonder whether we are being sold a lemon that looks like gold but comes back to cause our children calamity. We don’t know. We need facts, not propaganda, from either side. It concerns me.

Thomas H. Glick
Two Harbors

***

Are the waters of Northeastern Minnesota less precious than those of Wisconsin?

Wisconsin will not allow sulfide ore mining until it can be proven that it can be done without harming the environment. No mining company has done that.

The waters of Northeastern Minnesota could be a testing ground for PolyMet’s unproven methods. The damage to our environment and the taxpayers’ cost for cleanup could last decades longer than the jobs.

Mary Thompson
Duluth

***

I’m a former guide and lifetime tourist in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, though I now live out of state. I care a lot about the environment and as a chemical engineer I know more than I really want to about what can go wrong and how hard or impossible man-made problems are to fix. So I’m asking the News Tribune to please reconsider its premature support for the PolyMet proposal (Our View: Minnesota can embrace PolyMet and copper mining,” Dec. 20).

Howard Myers
Pompton Plains, N.J.

Share
Page 1 of 3123»