A panel discussion on nonferrous mining at the University of Minnesota- Duluth (UMD) on April 9, 2013 brought five very different perspectives on projects that PolyMet and Twin Metals are pursuing in Minnesota’s Arrowhead Region. The panelists each made opening comments, and then the meeting was opened for questions.
Environmental concerns
The first to ask a question was Friends of the BWCA Policy Director Betsy Daub, who addressed Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner Tom Landwehr. Minnesota law requires nonferrous mines to be maintenance-free at closure, she said, but PolyMet’s proposed mine has a perpetual treatment plan. If the DNR received a plan that called for long-term treatment, could they issue a permit?
Treatment would need to be passive (such as water being filtered through a wetland) or not active at closure, Landwehr responded. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) would monitor both surface and ground water. Financial assurance plans would need to cover costs even after the mining company was gone and/or no longer in existence.
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Water Projects Coordinator Nancy Schuldt asked U of M Center for Applied Research & Technology Development Director Don Fosnacht if existing mines were trying to prevent pollution. Yes, said Fosnacht, and they will probably use a combination of techniques. The U is pursuing technologies that will be effective.
Sulfates are not the only possible sources of nonferrous mining pollution, Daub said to Fosnacht. Fosnacht concurred, saying that chemical and biological treatments have been developed to deal with different kinds of pollutants. The university is aware that this is the headwater of the entire chain of Great Lakes, he said.
What discussions are taking place regarding the cumulative impacts and overall footprint of mining? a woman asked. Permits are only issued if a proposal meets water and air quality standards such as for sulfates, phosphates, and turbidity, Landwehr said. A lot of the greenhouse gases and mercury found in the Arrowhead Region’s fish come from other places, some even overseas. Schuldt said Fond du Lac is working to get the state to look at the cumulative effects of mining.
Permitting process
A member of the audience asked how the EPA could give a failing grade to the PolyMet project’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) after the MPCA and the DNR signed off on it. He expressed concern that politics was causing regulations to get softened.
“How do you take the politics out of the state legislature?” Landwehr asked. That’s what it is, he said. Crazy ideas don’t pass, and the governor’s signature is required on bills. The latest dispute is on sulfates standards in regard to wild rice habitat. The MPCA is studying at what level wild rice will be impacted by sulfates, he said. Minnesota is currently the only state with a sulfate standard.
The EIS process is an information gathering process, Landwehr said. It’s not a permit. The value of having two levels of state government review an EIS is that one level might catch something overlooked by the other level.
A proposal has been made to streamline the permitting process without weakening the standards mining companies are required to meet, said Twin Metals-Minnesota Vice President of Government & Public Affairs Bob McFarlin.
The current wild rice standard – 10 parts per million – was made according to good science, Schuldt said. It was done right. She said the legislature tried to change the standard but was stopped by the EPA.
One woman expressed concern that the state has issued mining leases on private properties in Aurora that have homes, cabins, and businesses on them, causing property values to drop. Landwehr said that everyone who buys property is informed if someone such as the state, the county, or a private entity owns mineral rights to that property. The surface owners must be compensated for any damage that occurs to their property. An EIS is required before any mining lease is granted.
Enforcement assurance
How can they know the state will enforce the protection of water? another audience member asked. Money from the general fund pays for water monitoring, Landwehr answered, but that fund has decreased. He said he does not think the legislature funds natural resources well enough – money ends up going to other things, such as education and health and human resources.
Energy needs
How much energy will be needed for the proposed mining projects and where will it be generated? an audience member asked. Fosnacht said that sulfates actually create some of the energy used in the process, but it does take a lot of energy.
McFarlin said mining companies either pay for power or generate it themselves. Twin metals is looking at various options for how to get things done with as little impact as possible and as efficiently as possible.
Lobbying efforts
One person asked about lobbying done by the mining companies. McFarlin said they do have lobbyists who spend a lot of time keeping public officials informed. They watch potential legislation to see how it could affect them, similar to what environmental lobbyists do. “By and large,” he said, “lobbyists come from good organizations.”
Profitability
How can you make an underground mine profitable? one student asked. McFarlin said the deposit dictates the operation. The minerals Twin Metals hopes to extract are 2,500-4,000 feet underground. The company conducts an economic feasibility study to determine if the operation can be carried out economically and without hurting the environment.
Integrity
Another student said it all comes down to the integrity of the companies involved. What recourse would Fond du Lac have if a mine produced acid mine drainage? he asked. Schuldt said they can set standards and monitor compliance, and they can urge legislators and government agencies such as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the EPA, the MPCA, and the DNR to enforce the standards. The treaties are protected by constitutional law, and they can go to court.
Sometimes the biggest changes in environmental law happen because of judicial action, Landwehr said. He noted the lawsuit that stopped the longtime dumping of taconite tailings into Lake Superior at Reserve Mining in Silver Bay in the 1970s.
Sometimes problems aren’t realized until years after a mine is opened, Daub cautioned.
McFarlin supported the permitting process, which includes a fact-based review of the issues, he said. He urged people not to pre-judge mining projects but to let the process go through its steps.
Landwehr said he was happy that diverse opinions were discussed at this meeting. As long as Americans are using things like cell phones, someone is going to be mining the minerals needed to make them. If we’re going to be using these minerals, he said, we have some obligation to make sure they are extracted safely rather than exporting our problems to other places that might not have the same environmental standards.
This is the second in a two-part series on a panel discussion on nonferrous mining that took place at UMD on April 9, 2013. The first article presented comments from each of the five panelists: DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr, Friends of the BWCA Policy Director Betsy Daub, U of M Center for Applied Research & Technology Development Director Don Fosnacht, Twin Metals-Minnesota Vice President of Government & Public Affairs Bob McFarlin, and Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Water Projects Coordinator Nancy Schuldt.
Leave a Reply