News

Mesabi Daily News
July 10, 2010

Like many Ely residents, we gave the Canadian company PolyMet the benefit of the doubt when they promised us a "new day" for mining and a new way to "do it right."

The Iron Range needs jobs and the world wants copper so it seemed that PolyMet's proposal offered some promise. It's a very risky venture because this new mining technology is unproven and PolyMet has no mining experience. But PolyMet assured us that oversight agencies would address our concerns in their Environmental Impact Statement.

However, when their draft EIS came out, it was soundly rejected as "unacceptable" by the Environmental Protection Agency. They found a lot of devils in the details. And while most of the scientific and legal jargon in this 1,000-page report is beyond us, one detail did catch our attention. On page 4.1-84, the report concedes that this project may leach toxins into our ground water for "over 2,000 years." How long does PolyMet propose to deal with this problem? "45 years." What provisions are proposed for dealing with it after that? None.

Wow! What a confidence killer that revelation is on our hopes for this project. We just hope we're still lucid enough in 45 years to explain to our great-grandchildren why they may no longer be able to drink the water here.

"Over 2,000 years" is essentially forever. Some states prohibit mines that require such perpetual care. Other states require that such risky projects include financial assurance that covers treatment of toxic seepage in perpetuity. Minnesota does not yet have such long-term safeguards in place. But we're being asked to be the guinea pig for unproven mining technology being attempted by a company with no mines.

Fortunately, the EPA acknowledges these concerns. It has required PolyMet to revamp their EIS and find better ways of coping with acid-leaching mine tailings. Frank Ongaro, head of Mining Minnesota, notes that our state has such stringent environmental protection in place that if there's a problem with this project, oversight agencies will catch it. He's right and they did. The EPA found that this project "will result in unacceptable and long-term water quality impacts."

Ongaro assures me that "alternatives that will be considered for waste handling have all but technically eliminated that possibility."

Let's hope he's right because these are not trivial issues: The EPA notes that no copper mine in the world has avoided acid mine drainage. Toxins include methyl mercury, sulfuric acid, arsenic, copper, nickel, lead, and manganese. Even trace amounts of some in drinking water have been linked to severe cognitive and motor impairments, to which children and pregnant women are most vulnerable. Health impacts include IQ and memory loss, blindness, lung cancer, heart disease, cerebral palsy and Parkinson's disease.

PolyMet has one more chance to "do it right." And so do we. As they prepare their supplemental EIS, let's insist that our oversight agencies assure us that this project will never contaminate our ground and surface water. Other mining companies ensure against long-term pollution. Given Minnesota's mining expertise, why can't PolyMet?

You can be sure any number of Gulf towns wish they had the opportunity we now have to speak out before the earth's crust is cracked open again with potentially disastrous consequences. Chances are BP wishes those towns had had that opportunity as well.

With the US Forest Service now involved, we can send our concerns to our friends and neighbors at our Superior National Forest office. As guardians of the world's most popular watershed wilderness, they are surely as concerned about these issues as we are. Just send a note to: kawishiwi@fs.fed.us saying, "Please ensure that the proposed mining projects do not pollute our watersheds."

Yes, the Iron Range needs jobs and the world wants copper. But we're not desperate enough yet that we would risk the health of our great-grandchildren in exchange for that ... would we?

Paul & Susan Schurke

Ely