We are writing as citizens of Ely, to express our concerns regarding specific aspects of the proposed Northmet Project and the long-term implications for additional sulfide mining projects in northeastern Minnesota.
We are concerned that permitting multiple sulfide mining operations in northeastern Minnesota will lead to significant negative impacts on the long-term health of what has been a crucial resource for the socio-economic well being of this region—environmental tourism.
Below, we outline a number of specific concerns regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS):
• A series of dikes and ditches would capture and convey most, but not all, of the surface runoff and process water. The long-term mitigation plan with regard to permanent surface waste rock stockpiles relies on the integrity of liners and cover systems. For large surface waste piles, what is the long-term monitoring plan to determine when water quality discharge limits are met?’
• The DEIS notes that the mine site groundwater quality with respect to antimony, manganese, and nickel are predicted to exceed Maximum Contaminant Levels, potentially for the long-term at the mine site. In particular, sulfate would exceed the groundwater evaluation criteria of 250 mg/L.
• There is a reason that sulfide mining has not been allowed or encouraged in humid environments such as that of the project area. How quickly will potential mercury exceedances be detected and mitigated? What financial safeguards will be available to the communities to address future problems like the ongoing Dunka Pit contamination?
• Discussion of financial assurance figures and instruments should be included in the DEIS. What are the global and economic factors that could lead to a reduction in the work force below estimates, or a closing of the plant earlier than expected? What financial safeguards will be put in place to provide for future closure and post-closure problems or issues that arise once the original mining company (PolyMet in this instance) is no longer actively mining or seeking to expand operations in this region?
• What percent of the revenues coming from this mine will stay in the area or for that matter the United States? What percent of the processed resources will be used to meet domestic use versus being shipped across the border to Canada or elsewhere?
‰What are the potential long-term health risks to workers at the mine? Long-term health problems caused by taconite mining in the region have only recently come to light. Will the burden of paying for potential health risks be shouldered by individuals, the State (and taxpayers), or the mining company? As noted in the DEIS: “Thus, there remains an uncertain level of potential health risk from airborne [asbestos] fibers for the project.”
Our ability as a community to attract new citizens will suffer unless adequate monitoring and regulatory oversight is transparent and functioning on a regular basis.
Kathryn and Dirk Hanson
Ely, Minn.
I believe the reason that sulfide mining hasn't occured here in the past is because the price of the final product wasn't high enough to justify mining it here. There were existing mines in this country already mining for these minerals for decades. Also, American Companies were mining for these minerals in other countries. As the resources become depleted,Companies look for the resources where there are known deposits. Exploration for these resources here have taken place in this region since the 40's. New methods of extracting these resources safely compared to the old methods are now in the forefront of the Industry. I agree entirely with the thought we should protect our precious water resources and hold the Mining Companies accountable for ANY damage to the environment but to hold ANY Company accountable as to where the profits go from their operation or for that matter,where the final products' destintion is going, takes away from the real issue here. We must focus on the environment solely and not where a Companies' CEO sits.