The draft environmental impact statement for the proposed PolyMet copper-nickel mine failed to adequately address several major issues and until that work is done, it would be illegal for government agencies to issue permits to mine, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy said in comments filed today.

“Minnesota’s citizens have been waiting for this environmental study for a long time and PolyMet tells us that it has cost a lot of money,” said MCEA Executive Director Scott Strand.  “But unfortunately the study still leaves open a number of serious environmental issues that need to be addressed before this new type of mining can be allowed to get started here.”

Chief among those issues are a likely increase in mercury-contaminated fish. The study states that PolyMet’s operations will lead to increased sulfate pollution in surrounding waters and sulfates have been linked to the accumulation of methylmercury in fish. Methylmercury is a neurotoxin that is dangerous to people and wildlife who eat the fish, which is why the state annually publishes fishing advisories limiting fish consumption from some lakes and rivers.  The impact statement needs to further study the risk downstream of Polymet and develop contingency plans to address the problem

The draft impact statement also noted that polluted water from the site will likely require treatment for decades, and probably centuries, after the mine closes. Yet, the study did not describe what water treatment technology will be used or how it would be paid for.

Other concerns and legal shortcomings MCEA and its experts found include:
•    Toxic waste storage. No analysis was done on whether PolyMet’s plan to store its most toxic wastes on top of potentially unstable iron ore tailings in an old LTV basin is safe.
•    Damage to endangered species. The study found PolyMet’s operations will damage critical habitat and wildlife corridors for endangered species such as the Canada lynx but failed to identify ways to reduce or prevent the damage.
•    Greenhouse gas emissions.  The study admits the mining operation will produce substantial new greenhouse gas emissions, but it needs to study alternatives such as renewable energy purchases.
•    Financial assurance.  The draft statement must include a detailed reclamation plan and provide a best estimate of the “damage deposit” PolyMet must provide to protect Minnesota’s taxpayers from having to pay for a clean-up that could exceed $100 million.
•    Strip mining alternatives. No analysis was done of doing underground mining, rather than the proposed strip mine, despite an earlier letter from MCEA requesting that.
•    Cumulative impacts on the environment. The statement cannot ignore the total environmental impact from PolyMet and the other proposed mining operations in the area, specifically the Teck Kominko, Duluth Metals, and Franconia Minerals projects.

“We certainly appreciate the work that went into the draft statement, but there is clearly more that has to be done,” Strand said.  “Our experts have outlined a number of reasonable, doable steps to address the current problems with the environmental impact statement.

“But we have to put this in context. PolyMet is the first in a long list of new proposed mining operations in Minnesota.  The hardrock mining industry has a very bad environmental track record, and there is a long history of problems being swept under the rug and environmental promises broken.  Here in Minnesota, we have to get this first one right. We cannot run the risk of permanent damage to Minnesota’s environment, potential risks to human health or saddling Minnesota’s taxpayers with clean-up costs that must be the responsibility of the mining companies.”