Minnesota pollution regulators approved a water permit for the state's first copper-nickel mine over serious reservations raised by their federal counterparts, according to a leaked memo obtained by the Star Tribune.
The 29-page memo was written by Kevin Pierard, chief of the water quality permitting branch in the Chicago office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It documents EPA efforts to strengthen water protections in the permit and how those efforts were handled by the EPA and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
The memo could play a role in three separate inquiries that are now examining how federal and state regulators handled the critical permit for PolyMet Mining Inc. and its proposed copper mine on Minnesota's Iron Range.
Minnesota environmental advocates have charged that top officials at the EPA in effect suppressed concerns raised by career regulators in the Chicago office, with the result that Minnesota granted PolyMet's permit without addressing all of their objections. Pierard's memo includes a chart of 29 EPA concerns, fewer than 10 of which appear to have been completely resolved.
U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota, who chairs a key House subcommittee on the environment and the interior, described the memo as "shocking documentation," adding: "The EPA scientists who raised the alarm were intentionally overruled in a blatantly politicized and corrupted process."
The memo describes the "refusal" of the Minnesota regulators to include specific numeric limits on heavy metals such as arsenic, cobalt, lead, nickel and mercury that could legally be discharged from the mining operations. Instead, the state opted for less strict standards such as "operating limits" that, Pierard wrote, "may lack a clear regulatory connection to controlling surface water discharges."
Conservationists opposed to copper mining in Minnesota's watery north seized on the memo as fresh evidence of wrongdoing by the regulators.
"This memo shows that EPA's concerns were deeper and broader than what we had realized before," said Paula Maccabee, a lawyer for nonprofit WaterLegacy in St. Paul, which has appealed the water quality permit. "Why would you take something that is a weak ... solution instead of using ... effluent limits that are simple, tough and effective?"