News

Minneapolis Star Tribune
March 2, 2010

The process for ensuring that the PolyMet nonferrous mining project proposed for northeastern Minnesota will be environmentally responsible is working exactly the way it is supposed to work.

A company proposes a project. State and federal agencies begin an environmental review, including the drafting of an environmental impact statement. It is in this process that all impacts are identified and preferred alternatives and mitigation plans are developed.

This is exactly what is happening with the PolyMet project. Attempts to create unnecessary emotional fears, as in a recent commentary ("PolyMet mine can't proceed as proposed," Feb. 26), do nothing to better our environment. They only serve to discourage and put into jeopardy the much-needed investment in jobs in Minnesota.

During the process of drafting an environment impact statement, there is a public comment period. In the case of PolyMet, this period was doubled to 90 days, giving even more time for people to review the statement.

Among the comments given during this period were those of the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The lead regulators for this project, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will take the EPA's concerns into consideration and respond to them.

Unfortunately, it appears that the EPA did not thoroughly review or understand the draft environmental impact statement. Much of the information it requested already had been submitted to the DNR and Corps of Engineers and already is in the statement or in supporting documents listed in the references.

In addition, state and federal agencies already have been working to identify the information needed for a final environmental impact statement. Most of the additional information the EPA requested is already being pursued through this process.

Many of the EPA comments also appear to be focused on the project as it was originally proposed. Based on input from regulators and on additional research, the project already has changed significantly -- and it will change even more, in part because of the comments received. All of these changes are for the better, making PolyMet an even stronger, more environmentally sensitive operation. Consequently, the EPA's comments cannot be interpreted as applying to the project that will ultimately go forward.

There are thousands of citizens across Minnesota who continually demonstrate their strong support for the PolyMet project, particularly its neighbors in the northeastern part of the state. They understand that PolyMet presents an opportunity for Minnesotans to show the world that we can develop these metals -- metals that we use every day, metals essential for a green economy, metals that we currently depend on foreign countries to provide for our consumption -- and do it in an environmentally responsible manner. With as much respect for the environment as anyone, and wanting to make sure that air and water quality are protected, these mining project supporters also want the badly needed economic benefit: nearly 1,000 jobs that will be created by the project.

Finally, there are still many steps of regulatory review ahead for PolyMet, including air permits and water permits at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the DNR's Permit to Mine, which includes financial assurance requirements. These regulatory steps all will provide opportunities for public comment and participation. Like any company, PolyMet will be required to demonstrate that it will meet all of Minnesota's strict air and water quality standards, or its project will not be built.

Minnesota regulators and the Corps of Engineers are listening closely to all interested parties and are addressing the issues in a coordinated manner. I just wish the left hand, the EPA, was paying more attention to what the right hand was already doing.

Once all comments are considered, the lead agencies will publish a final environmental impact statement that will more specifically define the project, its potential impacts and the mitigation to address them.

Right now, it's a draft. It isn't supposed to be "adequate" until the final statement is reviewed.

The process is working.

Frank Ongaro is executive director of MiningMinnesota, a trade group representing the nonferrous mining industry.