On March 6, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) closed the discretionary public comment period for the draft Permit to Mine for the proposed PolyMet mine. This followed similar comment periods last fall on other draft DNR permits for this project, which, if ultimately permitted, would be Minnesota's first copper-nickel mine.
The DNR now moves into a critical deliberative phase with this project. The agency and its consultants are reviewing approximately 22,000 public comments, objections and petitions for a contested case hearing.
For a large project such as PolyMet, the regulatory process is complex. We have gone to unprecedented lengths to do our work as thoroughly and transparently as possible, including posting applications and technical reports online in real time and providing for public comment — even when not required by law.
Despite these efforts, we understand there are inevitable questions and concerns. There have been several recent media stories ("PolyMet debate turns to waste dump," April 8) and interest group statements suggesting that the DNR ignored its staff and consultants in developing draft PolyMet permits. Most of these assertions center on the DNR's review of the proposed tailings basin, but others have involved climate change, financial assurance and other topics. Some have relied on isolated comments taken entirely out of context.
If there is one thing that PolyMet's passionate proponents and opponents should agree on, it's that the DNR (and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) must ultimately follow the process and the rigorous standards established in state law. Minnesota's environment, economy and communities deserve no less.
These statutory processes do not allow the DNR to pick and choose the information we use in decisionmaking. The DNR must engage in a rigorous, neutral and highly technical process. Done properly, this process involves robust internal debate during which the DNR often weighs diverse points of view.
Many of the recent assertions about how the DNR has considered staff and consultant recommendations take individual statements out of context, without acknowledging or considering other information in our record, subsequent steps the DNR took in response to these recommendations or the myriad factors the DNR must evaluate and balance.
For example, cautions from staff and consultants about the maintenance requirements of the proposed tailings basin design have been misrepresented as conclusions that the design, with proper maintenance, is inherently unsafe. All things being equal, would a tailings design that required no maintenance be preferable? Yes, absolutely. Are all factors equal across alternative designs? No.