SUBMIT A COMMENT TO THE MPCA
Make your voice heard by submitting a public comment to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Deadline: October 26, 2026
How to Comment:
- Open the MPCA Minntac public comment form
- Copy this subject line:
Comment on draft NPDES/SDS permit MN0057207 for the U. S. Steel Minntac Tailings Basin - Copy and paste the draft letter below. Add a few sentences about your connection to mining or local waters—for example, your family’s livelihood, work your business provides, or a community impact you have experienced. Explain why it matters to you.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on draft permit MN0057207 for the U.S. Steel Minntac Tailings Basin. Minnesota needs a permit that protects water, follows science, and provides a realistic path for responsible mining. The draft permit does not yet meet that threshold. Instead, the permit requires significant — yet undefined — capital investment without certainty that the proposed technologies will effectively reduce sulfate levels.
U.S. Steel’s Minnesota Ore Operations employ more than 1,900 people, support over 6,800 additional jobs, and generate more than $1.7 billion in annual economic impact. At a time when another mine is idled, the economic consequences of this permit are substantial and must be considered.
Several issues raised during the September 29 meeting require revision of the existing draft permit:
1. Extraction wells lack scientific justification. U.S. Steel did not propose extraction wells as part of the permit. MPCA has not demonstrated that this technology is necessary or feasible, yet it is still required. Requirements of this scale must be evidence‑based and should be reconsidered.
2. The cutoff wall represents a massive cost and engineering undertaking. U.S. Steel is being pushed toward a cutoff wall — an unproven installation in this region. The excessive cost, combined with the lack of guaranteed environmental benefit, does not justify this requirement.
3. Economic impact must be evaluated. MPCA stated that economic impact is not part of its analysis. For a permit with decades‑long capital obligations and regional consequences, this is unacceptable. The agency must conduct and publish an economic impact assessment.
4. MPCA should not finalize sulfate‑related permit conditions until supporting literature is released. MPCA indicated additional scientific literature will be published. Stakeholders must have the opportunity to review this information before the permit is finalized. This is the same basis MPCA used to justify “monitor‑only” sulfate requirements in the Gaylord/Waldbaum permit.
5. The Gaylord/Waldbaum permit shows clear regulatory disparity. MPCA is holding northeastern Minnesota to a higher sulfate standard than other communities. Sulfate is sulfate. The agency must explain and correct this inconsistency.
6. MPCA has not followed the 2011 legislative directive on wild rice sulfate standards. The Legislature required MPCA to study and update the 10 mg/L standard. That rulemaking was never completed. Enforcing a 1973 standard without completing the mandated scientific review undermines confidence in the regulatory basis.
7. The compliance schedule is unrealistic. Key deliverables are stacked on the same date, technology selection is required before testing and modeling are complete, and MPCA review time counts against the permittee’s deadlines. Environmental review timelines are not incorporated. The schedule must be revised to reflect real‑world feasibility.
Requested Revisions
- Remove or revise the extraction‑well requirement until scientifically justified.
- Address regulatory disparities and explain sulfate treatment differences across permits.
- Align sulfate requirements with the 2011 legislative directive and current science.
- Revise the compliance schedule to reflect realistic timelines for modeling, technology evaluation, environmental review, approvals, construction, and testing.
- Conduct and publish an economic impact analysis.
- Pause sulfate conditions and cutoff‑wall implementation until all supporting literature is released and reviewed.
Minnesota can protect water and support responsible mining — but only with a permit grounded in science, transparency, and achievable requirements.
Thank you for considering these comments.
–
Add your name and the contact information requested by the official comment form. Review your personalized letter, then submit it.
Please submit comments by October 26, 2026, urging MPCA to revise the draft Minntac permit to protect water, reflect sound science, and establish achievable requirements that sustain our communities and jobs.