REGIONAL— The Department of Natural Resources and other agencies considering permitting PolyMet Mining’s proposed NorthMet copper-nickel mine have significantly more work to do before reaching that point. That’s according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which weighed in on the PolyMet Final Environmental Impact Statement in comments submitted to the DNR on Dec. 21.

In a relatively brief letter of comment, the EPA, which served as a cooperating agency in development of the FEIS, recommends significant additional environmental analysis as part of the permitting process. The EPA cover letter states that the FEIS did adequately address some of its comments on the preliminary version of the study, put out last summer, including comments on base flow estimates, cumulative impacts, model calibration and contradictory information. But in more detailed comments attached to its cover letter, the agency made it clear that the FEIS isn’t sufficient, by itself, as a basis for issuing permits. Much of the additional information and analysis that the EPA says it wants to see would normally be part of an FEIS, but was not included in the document released by the DNR on Nov. 6.

At the top of the list of concerns raised by the EPA, is the current uncertainty over the volume and direction of untreated mine water that will escape into the bedrock aquifer and possibly flow to the north, entering the Rainy River watershed. “Given the possibility of a northward flow path, analyses of environmental impacts associated with this possibility should be conducted and evaluated during the permitting process,” stated the EPA in its comments. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, another cooperating agency, had argued, without success, that the issue should have been addressed more thoroughly in the FEIS.

While the FEIS includes some details about possible mitigation methods to head off a northward flow of contaminants, the EPA is recommending better scientific backing for the ideas suggested by the DNR. “The selection of any measures determined to be necessary must be informed by data that sufficiently support refining their design and assessing their impacts in the context of the project as a whole,” states the EPA. Among the issues to assess, according to the EPA, is whether sufficient surface water is actually leaking into the bedrock to support the DNR’s theory that a groundwater “mound” might form that could block a northward flow of contaminants.

The EPA is also recommending that the permitting agencies hire a “specialized expert” to assist the permitting agencies as they review a comprehensive modeling and monitoring program prior to issuing of any permits.

While the EPA’s comments aren’t make or break for the FEIS, since the agency has no authority over the process, the EPA will need to approve what’s known as a Section 404 permit that would regulate discharges under the federal Clean Water Act. As such, the EPA will have significantly more authority to shape, or reject, a final project once it hits the permitting phase.

And that’s where environmental opponents of the mine believe the project is most vulnerable. “The EPA has been saying for a long time that they are going to focus their efforts on the permits, where they have actual authority, rather than address the FEIS,” said Paula Maccabee, legal counsel for the St. Paul-based group Water Legacy. Maccabee said she views the FEIS as so fundamentally flawed that it made little sense for the EPA to spend any energy trying to improve it. “There’s a point of diminishing returns,” said Maccabee. “When the EPA has asked for more information, what they are getting from PolyMet, filtered through the agencies, is such poor quality science, it’s little more than nonsense.”

While Maccabee suspects state regulators may be subject to political manipulation in support of PolyMet, she said she doesn’t think that’s as likely at the federal level, where voluminous case law has provided pretty clear boundaries for federal officials. “I can’t imagine a federal court is going to accept this. There’s an awful lot of federal precedent that says this dog won’t hunt,” she said.

Other environmental critics were interpreting the EPA’s comments similarly. “The recommendations found in the EPA’s detailed comments on the FEIS submission demonstrate that flaws and gaps remain in what is being described as the final draft of the proposal,” said a release issued last week by Mining Truth. “After over a decade of study, all Minnesotans should be concerned that PolyMet still can’t say for sure which direction its polluted water would flow,” said Paul Danicic, Executive Director of Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, which is a member of the Mining Truth coalition.

DNR spokesperson Chris Niskanen declined to weigh in on the EPA’s comments specifically. “The DNR will be carefully reviewing all comments we received on the FEIS,” he said. “We will not be interpreting those comments for the media. Instead, the DNR will document our consideration of the comments in the adequacy determination.”

The DNR reported that they had received more than 30,000 comments on FEIS when the comment period closed last week. The agency has said it plans to issue an adequacy decision in February.