SECOND MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF
POLLUTION OF LAKE SUPERIOR AND ITS TRIBUTARY BASIN
IN THE STATES OF MINNESOTA. WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN.
VOLUME I
Great Hall
Radisson Duluth Hotel
Duluth, Minnesota
January 14, 1971
-------
11
_GOr;jTENT_S
Page
Opening Statement - Murray Stein 1
The Honorable Wendell Anderson /+
The Honorable Patrick J. Lucey 6
The Honorable W. G. Milliken (read by R. Purdy) 13
The Honorable Philip A. Hart (read by M. Stein) 14
The Honorable Gaylord Nelson, The Hon. John Blatnik,
The Hon. Walter Mondale, The Hon. Hubert Humphrey,
The Hon. William Proxmire, The Hon. Philip Hart
(read by M. Stein) 15
The Honorable Patrick J. Lucey (letter) 15
The Honorable Philip E. Ruppe (read by M. Stein) 18
Communications
Calumet Laurium Keweenaw Chamber of Commerce 2?
League of Women Voters of the Copper Country 30
Mr. and Mrs. D. W. Hubbard 31
Robert R. and Viola Brown 31
Dr. and Mrs. J. M. Skaates 32
Escanaba League of Women Voters 33
Karen Hubbard 33
Mrs. Jerry Bell, League of Women Voters 34
Karen Hubbard 35
Mrs. M. A. Syfers, League of Women Voters 35
Robert W. Sharp 36
Ray J. White 42
Communication
Mrs. Kohn Toussaint, League of Women Voters 43
-------
Ill
CONTENTS, Continued
Charles H. Stoddard 44
Thomas G. Frangos 60
Communications
The Honorable Gaylord Nelson, et al. (Read by
M. Stein) 68
John P. Badalich 69
Grant T. Merritt 116
Charles E. Carson 130
Herbert Bergson 151
Communi cations
Dorothy Lindquist 155
Mary W. Andeen 156
Nancy Scofield 156
Nancy Scofield 156
Linda K. Warren 157
Mrs. George R. Mettson 157
Mrs. Douglas A. Stuart 15$
Dale W. Olsen 159
Communications
Viola J. Brown and Robert T. Brown 175
Robert Roningen 177
Bryan Hand 202
Don Mimette 204
John C. Green 206
-------
IV
CONTENTS, Continued
United States Steel Corporation 209
Public Utilities Commission, Village of Hibbing 214
Public Utilities Commission, Village of Babbitt 216
Village of McKinley (read by J. Badalich) 219
Edward T. Fride 223
Edward M. Furness 22#
-------
V
Second meeting for the Conference in the Matter
of Pollution of Lake Superior and Its Tributary Basin in
the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan,
under the provisions of Section 10 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
PRESIDING:
Murray Stein, Assistant Commissioner
for Enforcement, Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Quality Office, Washington, B.C.
CONFEREES:
Ralph W. Purdy, Executive Secretary,
Michigan Water Resources Commission,
Lansing, Michigan
Dale Bryson, Director, Lake Superior-
Upper Mississippi River Basin Office,
Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Quality Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Francis T. Mayo, Regional Director,
Great Lakes Region, Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Quality
Office, Chicago, Illinois
-------
VI
CONFEREES, Continued:
Thomas G. Frangos, Administrator,
Division of Environmental Protection,
Department of Natural Resources, State
of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Donald J. Mackie, Executive Assistant,
Department of Natural Resources, State
of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Robert C. Tuveson, Member, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Albert Lea,
Minnesota
John P. Badalich, Executive Director,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Dr. Howard A. Andersen, Chairman,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
PARTICIPANTS:
The Honorable Wendell Anderson, Governor,
State of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The Honorable Patrick J. Lucey, Governor,
State of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
-------
vii
PARTICIPANTS, Continued:
The Honorable W. G. Milliken, Governor, State
of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan.
The Honorable Philip A. Hart, United States
Senator, State of Michigan.
The Honorable Gaylord Nelson, United States
Senator, State of Wisconsin.
The Honorable Philip E. Ruppe, United States
Representative, State of Michigan,,
Robert W. Sharp, Environmental Ecologist,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Twin Cities,
Minnesota.
Ray Jo White, Aquatic Biologist, Wisconsin
State Council of Trout Unlimited, Madison, Wisconsin.
Charles H. Stoddard, Consultant, Northern
Environmental Council, Duluth, Minnesota.
Grant T. Merritt, Minnesota Environmental
Control Citizens Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Charles E. Carson, Associate Professor of
Geology, MECCA, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Herbert Bergson, President, Save Lake Superior
Association, Duluth, Minnesota.
Dale W. Olsen, Duluth Chapter, Izaac Walton
League, Duluth, Minnesota.
-------
Vlll
PARTICIPANTS, Continued:
Robert Roningen, Attorney, Township of Lakewood,
Township of Duluth, Duluth, Minnesota.
Bryan Hand, Works Manager, Abex Corporation,
AMSCO Division, Two Harbors, Minnesota.
Don Mimette, C.H.O.K.E., Duluth, Minnesota.
John C. Green, Professor of Biology, University
of Minnesota, Duluth, Minnesota.
Edward T. Fride, Attorney, of the firm of Sullivani
Hanft, Hastings, Fride and O'Brien, 1200 Alworth Building,
Duluth, Minnesota.
Edward M. Furness, President, Reserve Mining
Company, Duluth, Minnesota.
-------
ATTENDEES:
IX
David W. Anderson, Biologist
Reserve /lining Co,
Silver 3ay3 MX
i^cav.-^cy i-inuti oTS on
522 X, 6Cth Ave, W.
Duluth, MN 55807
H. G, Anthony, Chief Engineer
Ribbing Public Utilities
6th Ave, & 19th St.
Eibbing, MN 55746
Barbara Arnold
533 W. Wabasha
Duluth, MN 55803
Nancy Arnold
12C Apartment Village
UMD
Duluth, MN 55812
Jack H. Bailey
U.S. Dept. of Commerce
200 W. Superior St.
Duluth, MN 55802
Joan C. Battistini
550 W. Wabasha
Duluth, MN 55803
Herbert W. Bergson
Save Lake Superior Assn.
3630 Crescent View
Duluth, MN 55804
John P. Bergson
Jack D, Salo, Inc.
15 E. 1st
Duluth, MN 55802
Paul Bjornstad
Contractor
1102 E. 1st St.
Duluth, MN
Bert Borden
City of Eraser
Chisholm, MN 55719
Eugene M, Borgesen, Eng, Supv,
Travelers Insurance Co,
4G22 Minnesota Ave,
Duluth, MN 55802
George A, Bourman
Structural Tech,, USAF
74th ADMS USAF
Duluth, MN
John "F, Bowers, Project Manager
Bureau of Land Management
405 E. Superior St.
Duluth, MN 55802
Ronald Brosdal
National Water Quality Laboratory
13 So, 68th Ave. W.
Duluth, MN
Robert B. Brumder
Governor Lucey's Environmental Aide
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
State Capitol
Madison, WI
Thomas E, Caine
615 N. 16th Ave, E,
Duluth, MN
J. J. Calaman, Product Mgr,
Union Carbide
Box 247
Aurora, MN 55705
Peggy Cannon, Student
Students for Environmental Defense
2920 Ensign Ave,
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Ken Carlson, Sales Rep,
Arrowhead Brg. Co,
1015 E, Superior St,
Duluth, MN
Robert M. Carlson
Assoc, Prof, of Chemistry-
University- of Minnesota
Duluth, MN 55812
-------
Dr. Charles E. Carson
Assoc. Prof. Geology
MECCA
26 E. Exchange
St. Paul, MX
X&»c Carter
4501 London Road
Duluth, MN
G. M. Christensen, Biochemist
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, MN
Benedict J. Cismowski
Save Lake Superior Assn,
1532 8th Ave. E.
Duluth, MN 55805
Howard P. Clarke
U.S. Steel
700 Missabe Sldg.
Duluth, MN
Casey C. Coban, Sales Mgr,
Duluth Steel Bldgs,
4218 Grand Ave.
Duluth, MN
Don Cole
Babbitt Village
46 Fern :.
Babbitt, MN 55706
Evelyn J. Coleman
National Water Quality Laboratory
107 N. Cascale
Duluth, MN
Charles R. Collier
District Chief
U.S. Geological Survey
Room 1033, Post Office Bldg,
St. Paul, MN 55101
Hampton Connell
Vice Pres. Engineering
Diamond Tool & Horseshoe Co.
4702 Grand Ave,
Duluth, MN 55807
Quincy Dadisman
Reporter, Milwaukee Sentinel
10817 K. San Harino Dr.
Mequon,' WI 53092
Robert M. Donny, Coordinator
KWCHH
Eox 252
Superior,' WI
Louis F. Davis, Attorney
975 Northwestern Bank Bldg,
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Theodore J. Dengler,' Principal Engineer
Dept. of Natural Resources
State of Minnesota
Minerals Section
345 Centennial Bldg.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Thomas E, DeWitt
State of Wisconsin
Dept. of Natural Resources
Spooner, WI'
Cindy Eckerstroro,' Student
SED
4914 Cedar Lake Ttoad
St. Louis- Park, MN 55416
Roy Edwards
Box 32,' Star Mail Houte
Silver Bay, MN
Mrs, Madeline A. Enge.1
1717 N. 28th St.
Superior, WI 54880
Daniel R, Engstrom, Vice Chairman
Northern Environmental Council
398 Pike Lake
Duluth, MN 55811
Mrs. Daniel Engstrom, Student
Students for Environmental Defense
398 Pike Lake
Duluth, MN 55811
Rev. E. P, Erickson
Minister of Gospel
Assemblies of God
Knife River, W
-------
xi
Eldon L. Erickson
Northern Environmental Council
Rudy R. Esala
Arrowhead Regional Dev. Commission
900 Alworth Bldg.
Duluth, MN
Glenn L. Evavold, "Vice Pres,
PREM, Inc., Consulting Engineers
408 Board of Trade
Duluth, MN
Camille Evenson
Woodland Jr, High School
212 East Arrowhead Road
Duluth, MN
Blaine G. Fenstad
Little Marais, MN 55611
Dale Fetherling
425 Portland Ave. So,
Minneapolis Tribune
Minneapolis, MN
John J. Filipovich
502 Ugstad Road
Proctor, MN 55810
Mrs. John Filipovich
502 Ugstad Road
Duluth, MN 55810
KevinnJlaherty
6025 London Road
C.H.O.K.E,
Edward T, Pride, Attorney
Reserve Mining Co.
1200 Alworth. Bldg,
Duluth, MN
Mrs. Howard H. Friese
4130 London Road
Duluth., MN 55804
Raymond Ferzell
City Clerk
Chisholm, MN
Eugene 'R. Gere, Director
Div, of Waters-, S'oi'ls &
Minn, Dept. of Natural Resources-
345 Centennial Bldg.
S't, Paul, MN 55101
Steven B, Gilnertson, Student
5703 Oakley St,
Duluth, MN 55804
James A. Glasgow,' Attorney-
U.S. Dept, of Justice
Land & Natural Resources Div,
Washington,' D.C, 20530
Carl J, Glavan
Mayor, Village of Aurora
331 Sou,th 2nd St. Wes-t
Aurora,'MN 557Q5
James J, Golden
Manager TV Sales
KDAL TV
425 W. Superior St,
Duluth, MN 55802
David L. Granquist
801 5th Ave.
Two HarBors, MN 55616
John C, Green
Professor of Geology
Univ, of Minnesota,1 Duluth,
9773 No. Shore Dr.
Duluth., MN 55804
Gerald Groff
Tech.. Rep . , Calgon Corp .
18 Cedarlsland Dr.
Eveleth., MN
Wesley A. Grosh
U,S, Bureau of Mines-
Tt. Snelling federal Bldg,
Twin Cities, MN 55111
Raymond W. Gustafson
City Clerk
City- of Two HarBors, MN
-------
xii
Howard T, Hagen, Vice Pres.
Zenith Dredge Company
14th Ave. West and Waterfront
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
Barbara Halligan
National Water Quality Laboratory
4227 Cooke Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
Bryan Hand, Works Manager
Abex Corporation, AMSCO Div,
P.O. Box E
Two Harbors, Minnesota 55616
Louis Hanson
Home Secretary to
U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson
Mellen, Wisconsin
Robert D. Hanson
138 Edison Blvd.
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Thomas M, Hanson, Instructor
University of Minnesota-Duluth
Duluth, Minnesota 55812
Anne Hargrave
1076 - 84 Ave. West
Duluth, Minnesota 55808
Roger J. Hargrave, President
St. Louis County Pollution
Control Council
1076 - 84 Ave. West
Duluth, Minnesota 55808
Arlene I. Harvell
Commissioner, ARDC
1612 Waverly Avenue
Duluth, Minnesota 55803
Gary Harvell
1612 Waverly Avenue
Duluth, Minnesota 55803
Stephen C, Hedman
Izaak Walton League
Wilderness- Watch., Inc.
2831 E. First Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55812
Goldie Hein
Beaver Bay, Minnesota
M. Albert Henry
City Attorney
City of Two Harbors
Two Harbors, Minnesota
Gary W. Holcombe
Research Aquatic Biologist
National Water Quality Laboratory
Homecroft Trailer Ct., Lot 67
Superior, Wisconsin
Mrs. James L. Holmer
828 Claymore Street
Duluth, Minnesota
J. R. Holtman
Abex Corporation
Facilities Engineering Dept.
Valley Road
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
Evelyn P. Hunt, Biologist
EPA
National Water Quality Laboratory
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
Mr. and Mrs. David Huseby
S.L.S.A.
Box 123
Silver Bay, Minnesota
J. B. Hustad, Geologist
Hallett Minerals Co.
P.O. Box 7024
Duluth, Minnesota 55807
-------
xiii
John Use
Use Engineering (Research)
7177 Arrowhead Road
Duluth, Minnesota
James B. Isackson
Ewy, Engineer
4308 Tioga St.
Duluth, MN 55804
W. E. Jackson
Asst. Director, Envir. Control
U.S. Steel Corp.
525 Wm. Penn Place
Pittsburgh, PA
Donald L. Jacobson
3811 W. 4th. St.
Duluth, MN
Axel A. Jensen
Village of Silver Bay
52 Banks Blvd.
Silver Bay, MN 55614
A. W. Johnson
609 No. 41 st. Ave. W.
Duluth, MN 55807
C. G. Johnson
Engr. & Surveyor
Rt. 1, Box 64
Two Harbors, MN 55616
Mrs. Clayton A. Johnson
6770 LaVagne Jet. Road
Duluth, MN 55811
James A. Johnson
Supt, of Sanitary Services
City of Duluth
211 City Hall
Duluth, MN
Miss Bess Karon
1505 E. 4 St.
Duluth, MN 55812
Robert W. Kemler
District Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
461 Rice St.
St. Paul, MN 55103
Mrs , Darrel Kempffer
1707 9th Ave.
Two Harbors,' MN
Erick Kendall
Special Assignments Editor
Midland Co-op Publications
739 Johnson St. N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Kitty Kenney
Cathedral High School
922 Anderson Road
Duluth, MN
Richard Kienitz
Milwaukee Journal
2 W". Mifflin St.
Madison, WI
J.D. Kinkead
Operations Engineer
Ontario Water Resources Commission
135 St. Glair Ave. West
Toronto 195, Ontario, Canada
John R. Klovstad
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth.,' MN
Dr. Rudy G. Koch.
Dept, of Biology
Wisconsin State University
Superior,' WI' 54880
Rev, V.A. Kochendoerfer
"Unitarian Church of Duluth
4710 McCulloch
Duluth, MN 55804
Mrs, John R. Kohlbry, LWV
2928 Greysolon Road
Duluth, MN 55812
George Koonce
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
319 Eighth St. S.E.
Minneapolis, MN
Harold A. Koop, Director
Save Lake Superior Assn.
Two Harbors, MN 55616
-------
xiv
Ernest J. Korpela
Wis. State Representative
633 East 3rd
Washburn, WI 54891
Elaine Koski
SEED
Box 490 Mtd. Rte,
Two Harbors, MN
Roger Kurrle
Civil Engineer II
4315 Regent St.
Duluth, MN
John LaForge
Mgr. Station Operations
KDAL, Inc.
Duluth, MN
Richard D, Lange
Biology Teacher
Superior Board of Education
Superior, WI
Noel D. Larson, Hydrologist
U.S. Forest Service
Box 149
Ely, MN 55731
Vernon Larson
Chamber of Commerce
Silver.Bay, MN
W.H. Lander
Lake Home Owner
5518 London Road
Duluth, MN
Mrs. W.H. Lander
5518 London Road
Duluth., MN 55804
G. Fred Lee
Prof, of Water Chemistry
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Robert A. Lee
Reserve Mining Co.
Silver Bay, MN
Dr. A. ft. LeFeuvre
Environmental Quality- Coordinator
Canada Centre for Inland Waters
Box 5050
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Arnond E, Lemke
Res, Aquatic Biologist
National Water Quality- Laboratory
Duluth, MN
Edward P. Leone
Save Lake Superior Asan,
22 W. Ideal St.
Duluth, MN 55811
Mr. & Mrs. John Lind
Member, S'LSA
Two Harbors-, MN 55616
Dean A, LindBerg
Chief Chemist
Continental Oil Co.
Box 8
Wrenshall, MN 55797
Lila A, Lindgren
SLSA
242 W. Austin St,
Dulutn, MN 55803
Tina Lindvall
Woodland Jr. High School
1724 East Third St.
Duluth, MN
Clifford E. Lovold
Kings Landing Marina & Committee Member
Minnesota Sportsfishing Lake Superior
Box 427
Beaver Bay, MN
M.D, Lubratovich
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, MN
Jeanne Lundinen
600 Missabe Bldg.
Duluth, MN
-------
XV
'Jean McDonald, SLSA
3688 Miller Trunk
Duiuth, MN 55811
James M. McKim
Research Aquatic Biologist
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, MN
Wm. H. Magie
Friends of the Wilderness
3515 E. 4th St.
Duluth, MN 55804
Richard Mahal
Mayor, Village of Babbitt
38 Fir Circle
Babbitt, MN 55706
Mr. & Mrs. W.P. Mahoney
Save Lake Superior Assn.
1211 N. 57th Ave. W.
Duluth, MN
Robert S. Mars, Jr.
Vice-Pres,, WP&RS Mars Co.
215 South 27th Ave. W.
Duluth, MN
John Mason
Solicitor General
Attorney General
160 State Office Bldg.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Wilfred Matchitt
2626 West 3rd St.
Duluth, MN
Vincent R. Mattson, Biologist
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, MN
Francis T. Mayo, Regional Director
Water Quality Office, EPA
Chicago, XL
Mr. & Mrs, Samuel B, Mayo
Box 770, Route 6
Excelsior, MN
Mrs. Clinton Maxwell
33 Evans- Circle
Silver Bay, TSN
Mr. & Mrs. H, I, Melby
Voyageurs Marina
23 Floyd Circle
Silver Bay, MN
Alice L, Merritt
Save Lake Superior Assn,
2035 Columbus Ave,
Duluth, MN
Glen J. Merritt
Save Lake Superior Assn.
2035 Columbus Ave,
Duluth, MN
Fred Meyers
219 Gilead St. .
Sociology Club,' HMD
Duluth,' MN
Richard D. Miller
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minneapolis, MN
Wm. C. Miller,' Area Engineer
Federal Highway' Administration
461 Rice S t.
St. Paul, MN 55103
Don Mimette, C,R,0,K,E,
4526 Beverly St.
Duluth,' MN
W.K, Montague
409 Alworth Bldg.
Duluth, MN
Daniel D, Murphy
Save Lake Superior Assn.
2720 E. 7th St.
Duluth, MN 55812
Mrs. Leona Nanert
Save Lake Superior Assn.
2332 Wt 2nd St.
Duluth,1 MN
-------
xvi
Ronald Nelson
Save Lake Superior Assn.
18 W, Faribault St,
Duluth, MN 55803
Bruce M. Kiss
Consultants Assistant
Northern Environmental Council
601 Christie Building
Duluth, MN
Albert L. Nisswandt, M.D.
2029 E. Superior
Duluth, MN 55812
Mrs. Albert Nisswandt
2029 E. Superior
Duluth, MN 55812
Joseph J, O'Connor
Sales Engr., MP&L Co.
30 W. Superior St.
Duluth., MN
Dr. Dale W. Olsen
Duluth Chapt., IWLA
4615 London Road
Duluth, MN 55804
Diane L, Olson
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, MN
Gayle Olson, Chemist
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, MN
Thorvald A. Olson
40th Precinct
2624 W. 3rd St.
Duluth, MN
Wm. G. Opsahl
Vice-Pres,, Superwood Corp.
Duluth, MN 55802
Mrs. I.E. Oja
Duluth Council of PTA, Pres,
120 West Mankato St.
Duluth., MN 55803
Mr. Leonard Ojala
824 Claymore St.
Duluth", "MN
Candace Otiellette.
Reporter ,f Superior Eve, Telegram
1224 Tower Aye,
Superior, WI
Otto Overhy'
E, Star Rte., Box 77
Two Harbors, MN
Don Palusky
Save Lake Superior Assn,
3016 Branch St.
Duluth., MN
Thomas R, Park
4832 Otsego
Duluth., MN
J. Edward Persall, Mayor
City of Virginia, MN 55792
Izaac Walton
Glenn E. Pearson
Save Lake Superior
802 87th Ave. W.
Duluth., MN
Mrs. R,W, Pears-on
Interested homemaker
3400 East First St,
Duluth, MN
Jerrold M. Peterson
Ass-t. Professor, TJMD
209 Snively Road
Duluth., MN
Jory H, Peterson
Associate Editor, Lake Superior News
SLSA
209 Snively Road
Duluth., MN 55803
Ray Polzin
County Agricultural Agent
University of Wisconsin
Court House
Superior, Wisconsin
Skip Porter
Rt. 6 Box 180-D
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
-------
xvii
Howard L. Potter
Special Ass't to Federal
CoChairnan
Upper Great Lakes Regional Comm.
ROOT.I 504 Christie Blag.
Duluth, Minnesota
Theodore L, Priehe
Assistant Attorney General
Wisconsin Department of Justice
Capitol Building
Madison, Wisconsin
Frank A. Puglisi, Chemist
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, Minnesota
Ralph W. Purdy
Executive Secretary
Michigan Water Resources
Mason Bldg.
Department of Natural Resources
Lansing, Michigan
Mrs . Janet Pykkonen
419 West Faribault Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55803
Zora Radosevich
3 Vassar Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55803
Robert A. Ragotzkie, Director
Marine Studies Center
University of Wisconsin
1225 West Dayton Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Jim Randall, Attorney
Village of Kinney
402 East Howard
Hibbing, Minnesota
Deloris Roach
Star Rt. Box 50A
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Gene A. Roach, President
Local 5296 USWA
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Donald A. Rock
2020 Hammond Avenue
Superior, Wisconsin
Robert N, Roningen, Attorney
Town of Lakewood
Town of Duluth
816 First American National Bank
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
E. W, Ross
Zoning Administration
Douglas County
Room 103, Court House
Superior, Wisconsin
Leonard L, Rouse, President
Superior Fed. Labor
Sheet Metal Workers
2005 N. 24th Street
Superior, Wisconsin
Earl H. Ruble, President
Earl Ruble and Assoc,, Inc.
217 Lake Ave. So.
Duluth,, Minnesota 55802
Carlisle P. Runge
Prof. of Law
Univ. of Wisconsin
310 Law School
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
David Rutford, President
RREM, INC.
408 Board of Trade Bldg,
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
Franklin Ryders
Corps of Engineers
1210 U. S. Post Office and
Custom House
St, Paul, Minnesota 55101
John Safstrom
Sales Engineer
Armco Steel Corp.
631 Leicester Avenue
Duluth, Minnesota
-------
10
Wilmar L. Salo , Biochemist
UMD, Dept. of Chemistry
Rt. 3 Box 386-1
Duluth, Minnesota 55803
Victor Schmidt
Mill Manager
American Can Co .
Ashland, Wisconsin
Thomas W. Schmucker
Eveleth Fee Office
Box 521
Eveleth, Minnesota 55734
Robert T. Scott
Corporation Manager
Aguar, Jyring, Whitman, Moser, Inc.
126 E. Superior St.
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
Earl R, Seglem
Burlington Northern 'Railroad
719 W. Tischer Road
Duluth, Minnesota
Robert A, Seitz
Izaak Walton League
4333 Oneida St.
Duluth, MN 55804
Miss Helen Seymour
1925 E. 1 St.
Duluth, MN
A, Lloyd Shannon
County Commissioner •*- 5th Dist.
St . Louis County
204 Courthouse
Duluth, MN 55802
Robert W. Sharp
Environmental Ecologist
Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife
Federal Building, Ft. Snelling
Twin Cities, MN
Harold Sims
United Northern Sportsmen
Stanley Sivertson
Sivertson Bros. Fisheries
xviii
Dayid N. Skillings
Skxllings Mining Review
21Q Sellwood Building
Duluth., MN 55802
E.R, Smith
SLSA
1422 E. 1st
Duluth, MN
Mrs. Gilbert G, Smith III, Chemist
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, MN '
Wesley E, Smith
Research Aquatic Biologist
National Water Quality- Laboratory
Duluth, MN
Claudette Y. Springle
Histoldgical Technician
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, MN
Edward Stack
Wisconsin State Representative
1420 John Ave,
Superior, WI
Fred L. Stanley
4550 West 26th St.
Abex Corp,
Chicago, IL 60623
Anton Sterle, Pres,
United Northern Sportsmen
2418 West 15th St.
Duluth, MN 55806
Charles H. Stoddard
Consultant, Northern Envir, Council
600 Christie Bldg.
Duluth, MN 55802
John R. Suffron
Environmental Control Engineer
White Pine Copper Company-
White Pine, MI 49971
John A, Suinkonen, Manager
Eveleth Fee Office
Box 521
Eveleth, MN 55734
-------
11
xix
Ragnvald Sve
Commercial Fishing & Hesort
E. Star Rte., Box 121
Tv/o Harbors, MN
Roy A. Tanner, Adm. Asst.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Lake Superior Area Office
Canal Park
Duluth, MN
John I. Teas ley
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, MN
Patricia A. Tew
SEED
Route 1, Box 33
Wrenshall, MN 55797
Richard G, Thompson
202 Parkland
UMD Student
Duluth, MN
Don Ternes
Student
4 No. 17th Ave. East
Duluth, MN
Lois Toffol
337 Mygatt Ave,
Duluth, MN
Anna Tuftner
Interested & Concerned Citizen
Superior, WI 54880
Robert M. Tyo, Research Ch.emist
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth, MN
Kenneth Van Ess
Environmental Health Director
St. Louis County Health Dept.
512 Courthouse
Duluth, MN 55802
Mel Viant
C.C.I. Co.
504 Spruce St.
Ishpeming, MI
Charles. Walbr-tdge
National Rater Quality- Laboratory-
Dul-utfL,
Clarence Wan&
Area Engr ,
L,S. Area Q(fc. Corps, of Engineers
Canal Park.,1 Dul-uth., "MN
L.P. Warriner, Mining Consultant
78 Langdon Avenue
Arosley on Hudson, NY 105Q3
Dave Watkins
Student, SED
A-316 Griggs Hall,' TJMD
Duluth.,' MN
Janice Watkins
Student, SED
100 Washburn Hall
Duluth-, MN 55812
Leon W. Weinberger
Consulting Engineer, Reserve Mining
7400 Masters Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
Charles Win. Westin, Exe. Vice Pres .
Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce
220 Medical Arts
Duluth, MN 55802
Ray J, White, Aquatic Biologist
Wisconsin State Council of Trout
2930 Harvard Drive
Madison, WI 53705
Ronald L, Wiegel, Research. Associate
Mineral Resources- Research Center
Mines Experiment Bldg,, TJ of M
Minneapolis, MN 55455
John Leighton Wilson, Jr,, Pres,
UMD Students for Envir , Defense
University of Minnesota
Duluth, MN 55812
Robert G , Woods , Mayor
City of Siwabik
Biwabik, MN 55708
-------
12
Irwin M, Zebott
3681 Morris Thomas Road
Duluth, MN 55810
George Zeller
U.S. Steel Corp.
Duluth, MN
Herman Zuponcic
Supt, of Utilities
Village of Aurora, MN
David Bergs from
3819 Crescent View
Duluth, MN
Mary Brascugli
League of Women Voters
1560 6th Ave. N.
St. Cloud, MN
Keith M. Brownell
County Attorney, St, Louis
Court House
Duluth, MN 55802
Floyd J. Carlson
ASCS Douglas Co.
Room 205 Post Office Bldg.
Superior, WT
Kenneth A. Carlson
Manager of Divisions
Minnesota Power & Light Co.
30 W. Superior St,
Duluth, MN 55802
Albert P. Colalillo
Longshoremen - ILA Local #1366
606 Garfield Ave.
Duluth, MN
Mrs. M. Alison Contos, DFL
129 West Anoka St.
Duluth, MN
John Eaton, Res. Aq. Biol.
National Water Quality Laboratory
Duluth., MN
Emi.l H. Meitzner
Bist. Materials- & Soils- Eng,
Wise. Div. of Highways-
1517 Tower Ave,
Superior, WI 54.880
Milton M. Mattson
o ,ij , o t A»
Beaver Bay, -Minnesota
55601
Ernest Schober
Soil Conservation Service
2205 E. Fifth St,
Duluth, Minnesota 55812
-------
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
PROCEEDINGS
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MURRAY STEIN
MR. STEIN: The conference is open.
This Second Session of the Conference in the
Matter of Pollution of Lake Superior and its Tributary
Basin in the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, ana Michigan
has been reconvened under the provisions of Section 10
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The First Session of this conference was held
on May 13 to 15, 1969, and the conferees met in Executive
Session on September 30 and October 1, 1969* The Second
Session met on April 29 and 30, 1970, and met again on
August 12 and 13, 1970.
Both the State and Federal Governments have
responsibilities in dealing with water pollution control
problems. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares
that the States have primary rights and responsibilities
for taking action to abate and control pollution.
Consistent with this, we are charged by law to encourage
-------
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
the States in these activities.
At the same time, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency is charged by law with
specific responsibilities in the field of water pollution
control in connection with pollution of interstate and
navigable waters. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
provides that pollution of interstate or navigable waters
which endangers the health or welfare of any persons
shall be subject to abatement. This applies whether the
matter causing or contributing to the pollution is dis-
charged directly into such waters or reaches such waters
after discharge into a tributary.
On December 31, 1970, Administrator Ruckelshaus
forwarded the summary of the conference of the previous
meetings of the Second Session with the following
recommendation to the State of Minnesota:
"I recommend that the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency take appropriate action under its water pollution
control program and State and local law to ensure that
the recommendations of the conference are carried out.
With particular regard to the Reserve Mining Company, I
would call attention to the summary of conference of the
First Session of the Enforcement Conference on Lake
Superior wherein Reserve- Mining was to have submitted a
-------
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
report including a tentative timetable for necessary action,
and to the schedule for abatement actions for Minnesota in
the summary enclosed wherein the completion of treatment
facilities for Reserve Mining Company is recorded as 'not
specified.' I feel that this special consideration of one
polluter must end. Therefore, I recommend that you and the
conferees seek submission of final plans by July 1, 1971»
and insist on prompt submission of preliminary plans as
agreed upon at the conference and recorded as Recommendation
No. A-. Failure to accomplish prompt planning and scheduling
of corrective action for all polluters via the conference
route must result in more stringent enforcement procedures
by the Federal Government under appropriate Federal laws."
The purpose of this conference is to bring
together the State water pollution control agencies, repre-
sentatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, and
other interested parties to review the existing situation
and the progress which has been made, to lay a basis for
future action by all parties concerned, and to give the
States, localities, and industries an opportunity to take
any indicated remedial action under State and local law.
I will defer the statements on the procedures
of the conference until a little later in the day. But
the Federal law has provided since 194# that the primary
-------
Hon. W, Anderson
rights and responsibilities for controlling water pollution
rests with the States, There are two parts to this:
1) rights — and we have heard quite a bit about States'
rights — and 2) responsibilities,
I am glad to report today that we have evidence
— certainly concrete evidence — by all three States of
the States exercising these responsibilities. As a
tangible result of that, and certainly a real indication
of that, we have participation by the Governors of the
States, and I would like to first call on Governor
Wendell Anderson of Minnesota. Governor Anderson.
(Standing ovation)
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WENDELL
ANDERSON, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
MR, ANDERSON: Members of the conference, ladies
and gentlemen.
I was here last year in August and when they
introduced me they didn't stand up so I am very pleased
that you did.
When I appeared here last August as a private
citizen and also as a candidate for Governor, I indicated
-------
Hon. W. Anderson
that, if elected, I would take appropriate action so that
my State, Minnesota, would become a formal member of this
conference. Upon taking the oath of office some 10 days
ago, my first official act was to join this conference.
I think that indicates confidence in the members. I think
it also indicates the priority the people of Minnesota
give to the problems of the environment.
Last August when I was here, I indicated that
if the conference found interstate pollution I felt that
it would be most appropriate if they would issue a proper
order indicating that Reserve Mining would have to provide
appropriate facilities onshore, and I also Indicated I
felt that a very specific timetable should be adopted.
My position is the same today.
I believe that I speak for the vast majority
of people of Minnesota when I say that they are going to
insist that Reserve Mining provide this type of facility.
They will not be satisfied until every company, every
municipality is stopped from polluting Lake Superior.
They are not antibusiness, and I am not antibusiness.
All we are saying — and we recognize that if any company
is required to spend a substantial amount of money on
environmental facilities that the cost of the final
product will be higher. I think the people of Minnesota
-------
Hon, P. Lucey
and the people of our country are willing to pay more for
the final product. It is ray hope that the business
community will recognize that one very new legitimate cost
of doing business in America will be to consider and
provide for environmental factors. I recognize that many
issues are not black and white; many are in the gray area.
And on occasion sound arguments can be made on both sides
of the issue.
It is my hope that when you face that kind of a
situation if you must err, as we often do err on the side
of the environment, make the mistake on the side of public
health, I think if you do that, then I think you will
continue to have my confidence, and I think you will have
the confidence of the people of Minnesota.
Thank you very much.
MR. STEIN: Thank you. (Applause)
Next, we would like to call on Governor Patrick
J. Lucey of Wisconsin. Governor Lucey. (Standing
ovation)
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PATRICK J.
LUCEY, GOVERNOR, STATE OF WISCONSIN,
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
Hon, P. Lucey
MR. LUCEY: Mr. Chairman, Governor Anderson,
conferees, ladies and gentlemen.
As you know, representatives from the State of
Wisconsin have attended all the sessions of the Lake
Superior Enforcement Conference. There has been some
misunderstanding, however, about the extent of Wisconsin's
commitment to the conference. Now that I have assumed
office, I would like to clarify Wisconsin's position.
Like Governor Anderson and Governor Milliken,
I commit my administration to the objectives of this
conference. The State of Wisconsin will be a full party
and participating member. My administration will do
everything possible to see that the communities and
industries of Wisconsin install pollution abatement
facilities on or before the deadlines established. I
can assure you that the recommendations set forth by the
expert research capabilities of this conference will not
fall on deaf ears.
Governor Anderson and I are appearing together
as a demonstration of our dual interest in maintaining
Lake Superior as the most valuable freshwater resource
in this country. We have strong support for our positions
from Governor Milliken of Michigan. In his wire to me
he said, "... no other matter is more critical in this
-------
Hon. P. Lucey
decade." Mr. Chairman, we must not allow this irreplaceable
resource to fall victim to misdirected interests.
This proceeding is unique, or very nearly so,
for here the States of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin,
the Federal Government, private interest groups, and the
general public are attempting to preserve a great resource,
Lake Superior, before the effects of abuse become readily
apparent.
Lake Superior is today a lake of comparative
purity, but this is a compliment to no one. Its special
geographic location and geologic structure together with
its massive size have saved it and allowed it to maintain
its high quality despite some unthinkable forms of
despoilation. Because of its size, any damage that will
occur could last for a millennium. I reject the notion
that a discharge must be proved damaging to the environ-
ment and a danger to public health before it is altered
or stopped altogether. With Lake Superior this is not
an academic question. (Applause) It is essential, it is
critical that this conference take bold steps to assure
that Lake Superior be preserved. No halfway measures
should be adopted by the officials here.
It is my contention that the burden should fall
t
on all those who intend to use our waters to ensure that
-------
Hon. P. Lucey
no harm will occur to them. I commend the conferees for
their actions in regard to the Reserve Mining Company's
operations which at this very moment pose a serious threat
to the delicate ecological balance of Lake Superior. The
conditions now existing as a result of this large taconite
mining operation must be corrected and there must also be
a firm declaration that no repetition of this disposal
technique will ever be permitted to occur again in Lake
Superior.
In Wisconsin, as in the other States, the record
has not been encouraging. Our municipalities did not meet
the deadlines established for the provision of secondary
sewage treatment plants, as required. These delinquent
cases are now being referred to the Attorney General for
further legal action. Working closely with the Attorney
General and the Department of Natural Resources, my admin-
istration will assist and encourage pollution abatement
programs now being developed by those communities in the
Lake Superior Drainage Basin. I will recommend to the
next session of the Wisconsin legislature a bill proposing
that all industries be required to install pollution
monitoring equipment and submit a periodic report of the
quantity and type of all pollutants. The Department of
Natural Resources will verify the reports through periodic
-------
10
Hon. P. Lucey
monitoring of industrial wastes.
Like Governor Anderson, I consider the Regional
Sewage Plan by the Northeast Minnesota Development
Association to be a significant accomplishment. I, too,
will strive to ensure that the necessary steps are taken
in Wisconsin to enable creation of the Sewage District,
Mr. Chairman, there are several other areas
where I think Wisconsin can provide direction in assuring
that this proceeding will accomplish its objectives.
Erosion of red clay along the south shore of Lake Superior
is a longstanding problem. But it is one that can be
dealt with. To this end, I will see that the recommenda-
tions of the Red Clay Interagency Committee are put into
effect for controlling high amounts of turbidity in the
south shore region. In addition, I will ensure that the
actions of the State highway and agriculture agencies
reflect the recommendation to control soil erosion set
forth by the committee.
There is one other area, Mr. Chairman, about
which I am deeply concerned: the enormous amount of waste
that is discharged by the many ships that use the waters
of Lake Superior. Specifically, it seems to me that the
Federal response to this problem is not a sufficient
solution. The recommendation by Federal authorities that
-------
11
Hon. P. Lucey
chlorinator-macerators be installed in these vessels to
treat their wastes is an inferior approach. I urge the
conference to reject this recommendation in favor of an
order requiring all vessels to hold all wastes on board
until they reach port, where wastes can be pumped out and
treated before disposal.
Mr. Chairman, the future of this lake is before
you and the conferees assembled here today. I urge you to
pay special attention to a report received earlier by this
conference which stated that Lake Superior is H... a
delicate lake and, therefore, great caution must be
exercised when weighing the potential dangers to its
ecology."
Of the 51 enforcement conferences that
have been convened throughout the country almost every
one has been called to undo pollution wrought by care-
lessness with our technology and gross disrespect for
delicate ecosystems. Rivers are muddied with silt and
filth and lakes are choking with over-enrichment. I
sincerely hope that the time is not too late to reenlist
the ethic which calls for a communion with nature rather
than a consortium against it.
In his inaugural address, Governor Anderson
repeated a wise truth with which I fully concur. He
-------
12
Hon. P. Lucey
said, "If we are too cautious, too careful, let it be
caution and concern for our natural resources."
Thank you very much.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Governor Lucey. (Applause)
Governor, it is rare that I would make a comment
right after a Governor's statement, but I think you raised
a question here about macerator-chlorinators. I don't know
what Federal authorities — and there may be some who have
proposed this — but I will say this for this Federal
authority and for this conference: I don't think macerator-
chlorinators are appropriate for the lakes, and we have
stated so. We have stated so in this conference. The
conferees have stated so in the conference on Lake Michigan
and on Lake Erie«>
I fully agree with your suggestion that we have
to have holding tanks and proper disposal, and I don't know
what the ultimate judgment is going to be, but I would
like to put myself on the record here that for this Federal
representative I am in complete accord with your statement.
MR. LUCEY: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
May we call on Mr. Purdy for a statement from
Governor Milliken?
Mr. Purdy.
-------
13
Hon. W, G. Milliken
MR. PURDY: Thank you, Mr. Stein.
I would like to read a telegram from Governor
Milliken to William D. Ruckelshaus, Director of the
Environmental Protection Agency; to the Honorable Patrick
J. Lucey, the Governor of Wisconsin; the Honorable Wendell
R. Anderson, the Governor of Minnesota; and Murray Stein,
Conference Chairman:
"Because of my constitutional commitment to
present the State of the State Message on Michigan on
Thursday, January 14, I regret that I will not be able
to join you at the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference.
I have asked Ralph Purely, Executive Secretary of the
Michigan Water Resources Commission, to represent Michigan
at the conference. However, I look forward to working
with Wisconsin and Minnesota on solving Great Lakes problems.
My administration and all of Michigan government continue
to place the highest priority on programs to protect and
enhance the environment. No other matter is more critical
in this decade. I have directed the Michigan Water Resources
Commission to pursue vigorous enforcement of all necessary
pollution control measures throughout the State including
the Lake Superior Basin. My full support is with the
actions you will take for the protection of that magnificent
lake. Michigan will be a full party and participating
-------
14
Hon. P. A. Hart
member of the conference. I would urge that definitive
action programs be developed for any unresolved problems
which contribute to the pollution of Lake Superior, and
that full correction take place as rapidly as possible.
"To assure the other Lake Superior States that
all programs in the Lake Superior Basin are proceeding on
a mutually compatible basis, I invite the Water Quality
Office of the Environmental Protection Agency to join with
the State of Michigan in continuing a close surveillance
with regard to corrective measures to protect Lake Superior."
Signed by Governor William D. Milliken, State of
Michigan. (Applause)
MR. STEIN: And I have a few telegrams I would
like to read at this point.
"It is my understanding that the Lake Superior
Enforcement Conference will reconvene on January 14 to
consider the disposal of taconite wastes into Lake Superior
by the Reserve Mining Company. Further, I understand
that the Refuse Act permit to the Reserve Mining Company
has now expired and an excellent opportunity is presented
for prompt enforcement of abatement action. I urge
vigorous action by FWQA to prevent the further unwarranted
pollution of Lake Superior."
Signed Philip A0 Hart, Jo S0 Senator0
-------
15
Hon. P. Lucey
We have a telegram here asking that "State and
Federal Government will move expeditiously to ensure that
Lake Superior's high quality will be protected from
degradation oy every source, whether it be massive taconit;
wastes from the Reserve Mining Company, pollution from
municipalities and other industries within the lake's
basin, or discharges from ships and watercraft. It is our
urgent wish that the purest of the Great Lakes can be made
a symbol of man's realization of the high worth of a
quality environment."
This is signed Senator Gaylord Nelson, Represen-
tative John Blatnik, Senator Walter Mondale, Senator
Hubert Humphrey, Senator William Proxmire, and Senator
Philip Hart.
We also have a letter from Governor Patrick J0
Lucey. We have heard his statement, and without objection
I suggest we put the letter in the record as if read,
unless Wisconsin wants to do that. But I think the Governor
has made his statement already and this is repetitious.
(The letter mentioned above follows as if read.)
"Hon. William Ruckelshaus, Environmental
Protection Agency, Executive Office Building, 1600 Penn-
sylvania Avenue, N.W», Washington, D.C. 20006, January 12,
1971.
-------
16
Hon. P. Lucey
"Dear Mr0 Ruckelshaus:
"As you know, representatives from the State of
Wisconsin have been attending the Lake Superior Pollution
Enforcement Conference. There has been some misunderstanding
in our State, however, to the extent of Wisconsin's commit-
ment to the conference. Now that I have assumed office, I
would like to clarify Wisconsin's position. As of this date,
the State of Wisconsin is willing to be a party to and a
fully participating member of the Lake Superior Pollution
Enforcement Conference.
"This administration is in complete support of all
the pollution abatement orders and recommendations issued
by the conference,
"Lake Superior is this country's most valuable
freshwater resource. Its future can only be guaranteed by
positive and protective action now. I feel the opportunity
for such action is best achieved by cooperative effort
between the participating States and the Federal Government.
Further, vigorous enforcement by State governments can
compliment the efforts of the conference. Let me assure
you that such vigorous enforcement will come from this
administration.
"As an official participant in the Lake Superior
Enforcement Conference, the State of Wisconsin is prepared
-------
17
Hon. P. Lucey
to meet its commitment to preserve Lake Superior in the best
possible condition as a natural heritage for future genera-
tions. Throughout my term as Governor, I plan to enforce
strict deadlines for the abatement of pollution from
Wisconsin municipalities and industries. In the event
that these deadlines are not adhered to, I will refer the
cases to the Attorney General of Wisconsin for legal action,
encouraging him to pursue the cases with the greatest
possible diligence.
"We will also do everything we can to assist our
communities in constructing abatement and treatment
facilities. In this regard, I urge you to make the
maximum amount of funds available to our State and its
communities for the building of these facilities.
"As a member of the Lake Superior Enforcement
Conference, the State of Wisconsin will work in partnership
with your efforts in the Environmental Protection Agency
to save Lake Superior from the fate of Lake Erie and the
other Great Lakes.
"Sincerely, Patrick J. Lucey, Governor of
Wisconsin."
MR. STEIN: We also have a telegram from Governor
Milliken which you have heard in large measure, and we will
put this in the record, Mr. Purdy, and let Mr. Purdy have
-------
Hon. P. Ruppe
it in case he wants any extra material in on that.
We have a statement from Philip E. Ruppe, Member
of the Congress, who sent us a letter» He would appreciate
having his statement read and made a part of the record,
and in accordance with his wish, we will read the statement.
I know we have a telegram here from Senator
Nelson, but I wonder if Mrs. Piere or someone can come up
and go through these and see if we can possibly find that
because I would like to put this in the record at this
time. But in the meantime I will read Philip E. Ruppefs
statement.
"The fact that this conference is being conducted
in Duluth today is evidence of Federal and State interest
in maintaining the integrity of Lake Superior. I am most
pleased that Mr. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the newly
created Environmental Protection Agency, has reconvened
this meeting, and I want to make it clear from the outset
that I fully support the concept that underlies the
Enforcement Conference. It presents us with the opportunity
of developing a coordinated, overall attack that may, if
we are successful, prevent the ruination of the largest,
deepest, and purest body of freshwater in the world,
Lake Superior.
"While this conference is concerned with the total
-------
19
Hpn. P. Ruppe
problem of pollution in Lake Superior, and that is as it
should be, I am going to direct my remarks today to the
specific question relating to pollution resulting from
Reserve Mining Company's operations at Silver Bay, Minnesota.
In my view, this is the major difficulty facing the confer-
ence at this time,
*1 intend to keep this statement brief so that
the thrust of my message is not lost. Further, I do not
intend to go into technical considerations because they
have been presented to you in some detail during two
previous sessions. Suffice to say that, in my view, the
60,000 tons of taconite tailings that have been daily
dumped into the lake over the last 20 years constitute a
pollution hazard. This conference has, in fact, concurred
in that evaluation, and the major question remaining is
when will Reserve Mining Company submit and carry out an
acceptable plan for altering its methods of disposing of
these harmful wastes?
"The record to date is not encouraging. The First
Session, which convened in the spring and fall of 1969»
concluded that the taconite tailings from Reserve Mining
Company have a deleterious effect on the ecology of the
lake by reducing organisms necessary to support fish life.
Reserve Mining was directed to undertake engineering and
-------
20
Hon. P. Ruppe
economic studies of methods for reducing the harmful effects
of discharging the tailings, and was requested to submit a
report to the conferees within 6 months. That report was
specifically to include a tentative timetable for necessary
action. Nearly 10 months have passed since that report was
to have been submitted.
"Because of my concern over the inaction, I
directed a letter to the Secretary of the Interior in
April of 1970 and proposed that Reserve be given one year
to complete final plans and begin construction of a
pollution control facility. On June 1, I received a
letter from Federal Water Quality Administrator David
Dominick which stated, fReserve Mining is to submit to
the conference by July 26, 1970, plans or a series of
alternatives to prevent pollution of Lake Superior.
These plans,f he wrote, 'as submitted by Reserve Mining
Company, are to be ready for detailed engineering.* An
official summary of the first meeting of the Second
Session also stated that plans would be submitted by
Reserve on July 26.
"That second deadline came and passed and, to my
knowledge, no plans were submitted. The second meeting of
the Second Session convened in August, and I was under-
standably surprised when no mention was mude of the July 26
-------
21
Hon. P. Ruppe
deadline. Instead, the conference established a third
deadline, and directed Reserve Mining Company to submit
preliminary plans by December 1, 1970. That deadline has
now passed and I am informed that no plan has been submitted
as of this date.
MI am assuming that at this session, the long-
overdue pollution abatement plan, ready for detailed
engineering, will be presented. You can be sure that my
staff and I will carefully review the proposal with senior
officials of the Environmental Protection Agency.
"I am expecting to see three very important
results emerge from the Third Session of the Federal-State
Lake Superior Enforcement Conferences
"First, I expect a meaningful step to be taken
in the protection of Lake Superior»
"Second, I expect the conferees to demonstrate
that delay and obfuscation will not be tolerated in
affairs dealing with the integrity of our environment;
and we are willing to take the necessary steps to protect
resources that are currently in a relatively pure state,
rather than waiting until those resources are defiled and
ruined. The cost of protection is minimal when compared
to the hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars that
-------
22
Hon. P. Ruppe
must be expended in attempting to restore a lost resource.
"Third, I expect the Environmental Protection
Agency, now in its infancy, to use this occasion to build
public confidence by boldly demonstrating a no-nonsense
approach to the question of Reserve Mining Company in its
pollution of Lake Superior. The activities of EPA at
this conference will be under careful scrutiny both by
the Congress and by the people of the Nation.
"Thus, a great deal is riding on the outcome of
this conference. It is clear that Reserve has had
adequate time for the preparation of abatement plans. If
there is not to be a crisis of confidence in the ability
and motivation of EPA and the other Federal and State
organizations involved, then now is the time for action."
We also have several other communications which
will be put into the record when there is an appropriate
time. But I do know that we have a telegram on the way —
and I am asked to mention this — from Senators Nelson,
Mondale, Humphrey, Proxmire, Hart and Griffin; and Congress-
man Blatnik. All of them have signed this joint telegram
and, as sometimes happens, it has not yet been received,
but as soon as it is we will put it in the record at
this point, with the permission of the conferees, as if
read. (The above mentioned telegram follows.)
-------
22a
Telegram to: January 14, 1971
Murray Stein
Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
Mr. Stein
Governor Anderson of Minnesota, Governor Lucey of Wisconsin and
Governor Milliken of Michigan are to be commended for asserting
positive leadership in the early days of their new administration;
by making their States formal parties to the Lake Superior
Enforcement Conference. It is this type of leadership that is
needed by the States to confront the awesome challenge wrought
by the forces of environmental abuse. If there ever was doubt
about the legality of the conference to order abatement of all
sources of pollution of Lake Superior, it has been dispelled by
the actions of the three governors. It is our sincere hope that
the conference, which now representa a partnership of Federal and
State Governments, will move expediciously to insure that Lake
Superior's high quality will be protected from degradation by
every source—whether it be massive taconite wastes from the
Reserve Mining Company, pollution from municipalities and other
industries within the Lake's Basin, or discharges from ships and
water craft. It is our urgent wish that the purest of the freat
Lakes can be made a symbol of man's realization of the high worth
of a quality environment.
Sincerely,
Senator Gaylord Nelson,
Representative John Blatnik,
Senator Walter Mondale,
Senator Hubert Humphrey
Senator William Proxmire,
Senator Philip Hart,
'enator Robert Griffin
-------
23
Murray Stein
Now, I would like to ask the conferees to intro-
duce themselves. May we start at the left end of the table,
please?
DR. ANDERSEN: I am Howard Andersen, Chairman of
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
MR. BADALICH: John Badalich, Executive Director
of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
MR. TUVESON: Robert Tuveson, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
MR. MACKIE: Donald Mackie, Assistant Secretary,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
MR. FRANCOS: Thomas Frangos, Department of
Natural Resources, Wisconsin.
MR. PURDY: Ralph Purdy, Executive Secretary,
Michigan Water Resources Commission.
MR. BRYSON: Dale Bryson, Environmental Protection
Agency.
MR. MAYO: Francis Mayo, Regional Director,
Region 5t Water Quality Office, Environmental Protection
Agency.
MR. STEIN: Murray Stein, Environmental Protection
Agency; namely, representative of Administrator Ruckelshaus.
Now, as in previous conferences, we will call
upon people who have indicated that they wish to make
-------
Murray Stein
statements. We are also going to allow the States ,o
manage their own time with some of the people. What we
would like to do, in view of the large interest here, is
try to get the testimony or statements from the people
who have come up here on their own time to make statements,
if there are any such statements to be made.
Mow, I would like to ask several things. We
have been through this situation many, many times. You
would agree with all three Governors, and with the congres-
sional interest in this, that we are dealing with one of
the most important problems in the country, as far as the
protection of the environment goes, and I know you people
are thinking in terms of Lake Superior. Certainly some of
you may have heard me talk on this before, but let me be
very brief to put this in perspective.
The Great Lakes are the greatest single fresh-
water resource in the free world — probably the entire
world — but certainly in the free world. The miracle of
the Great Lakes is that they have remained fresh. We know
that lakes, subject to the impact of civilizations through
i
the ages, have become deteriorated. They became eutrophic and
they go downhill and they are not what they were. lou
check the Middle East lakes, the European lakes, and the
evidence is abundant. The evidence is abundant here, too,
-------
25
Murray Stein
in the condition of Lake Erie, in the condition of Lake
Ontario, in the problem that we are having in Lake Michigan
where we have a lake of somewhat better quality. But we
have a marginal situation where every time we are talking
about putting another discharge in, we are wondering if
we are not going to upset the balance* And after we have
had a multi-multimillion dollar program for industrial
and municipal waste treatment, we find that the improvement
in water quality, because of the complexity of the problem
and the vast amounts of water concerned and the years of
neglect, is proceeding at a snail's pace, and we have to
take years of careful testing before we even see a glimmer
of improvement.
We also recognize that Lake Superior is probably
in the best shape of any of these lakes, and we are going
to keep it so. We, I think, are all committed to
providing adequate treatment and satisfactory treatment
at the source by all polluters, by all dischargers, by
all potential polluters, whether they be municipalities,
industries, or boata, or any other source.
I think the conferees are committed to that kind
of program. Not only are the conferees committed to it,
but I think your .congressional delegation and your
Governors are committed to it. So I would ask that if we
-------
26
Murray Stein
are having any participants in the conference that they
recognize this commitment on the part of the conferees,
on the part certainly of the State governments, on the
part of the congressional delegation.
But in order to make something work, you have to
come up with answers or a program for certain specific
problems. And I think at this meeting we have indicated
to the conferees we would like to concentrate on the
Reserve Mining problem. This doesn't mean that Reserve
Mining is the only problem in the lake, but we would like
to do that.
In addition to that, I think we have — as the
Governor of Wisconsin has brought up — this red clay
problem, and we will be glad to consider that.
Now, I don't think we want to foreclose anyone
else who thinks he has a problem that should be called
to the attention of the conferees, and we are going to
hear everyone out. But I would like to ask the partici-
pants to be brief and direct themselves to specifics
because, again, I believe you have heard in all these
preliminary remarks the key question. I am just talking
in terms of priority for our getting on with the immediate
problem of preserving the water quality in Lake
Superior, the key issue is the resolution of the Reserve
-------
27
Murray Stein
Mining situation.
The floor is open, as you know, and we will give
it to you. Any consideration we have which is going to
get us away from that will have prime consideration by the
conferees.
I ask for your good faith, and I ask for your
indulgence on that in the question of priorities here so
you can enable us to proceed in an orderly way.
For example, I suspect we are not going to have
reports from the States on complete industrial and municipal
progress throughout the States at this meeting. As you
know, we have been scheduling those regularly. We will
schedule one again in the near future, and all of the recordis
of all of these States and the Federal Government are in
the open. We believe that we are public agencies doing
the public business in a public manner, so you know what is
going on.
But I ask, for this meeting, that we try if we
possibly can — unless you feel there are some other
problems — try to be brief, and remember that first
we want to see if we can come to grips with the Reserve
problem. After we are through with that, if the
conferees want to bring up this red clay problem, we will
be glad to take that up.
-------
Murray Stein
With that, I would like to call a recess for 10
minutes so I can get the requests of the people: l) We
will have the statements of anyone who wants to make a
statement, with questions and comments by the conferees,
2) then we will call on the Federal Government and the
States for any statements which you wish to make. As
the home State, we will call on Minnesota last and
Minnesota will be calling on Reserve Mining for its
statement,
I would like for you to rethink your statements
and let's take this recess and find out when we reconvene
whether we can proceed expeditiously. We stand recessed
for 10 minutes.
(Short recess.)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
I hope we have everyone who wants to make a
statement, but if we don't, here is how we have decided
to do this: We are going to allow the States and the
Federal Government to manage their own time. You pick
the jurisdiction you are from and see Mr. Purdy from
Michigan, or Mr. Frangos or Mr. Mackie from Wisconsin,
or Mr. Badalich from Minnesota, or any Federal people
should see Mr. Mayo. We will call on the people in
this order: First we will call on the Federal people,
-------
29
Communications
then on Michigan, then Wisconsin, and then Minnesota, and
we will be able to get all this material in.
Now, after the statements, as you know, the
conferees will have the privilege of making comments or
asking questions. We do not entertain questions or comments
from the floor because we would be here a very long time if
we did that. But if you feel you have anything to say,
just register and you will be given a full opportunity.
I would like to put this other material in the
record now. We have a telegram from John Ryan, the
President of the Calumet Laurium Keweenaw Chamber of
Commerce which, without objection we would like to put
in the record as if read.
(The above-mentioned telegram follows.)
"The Calumet Laurium Keweenaw Chamber of
Commerce decries the pollution of the waters and shores
of Lake Superior and takes this means of backing your
agency in its efforts to control the further pollution by
industries, municipalities and vessels. Your efforts in
controlling this pollution are greatly appreciated."
Signed, "John Ryan, President."
MR. STEIN: A telegram from the League of
Women Voters; a telegram from Mr. and Mrs. D, W. Hubbard
from Hancock, Michigan; a telegram from William H.
-------
30
Communications
Stephens, President, the Village of Laurium; a telegram
from Robert T. and Viola Brown, Professor of Ecology,
Michigan Technical University; a letter from Dr. and Mrs.
J. M, Skaates, Hancock, Michign; a letter from the
Environmental Quality Committee of the League of Women
Voters of the Escanaba, Michigan area, Lorna Benson,
Florence Britton, Dorrine Anderson; a letter from Mrs.
D. W. Hubbard at Hancock, Michigan; a letter from Mrs.
Jerry Bell in Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan; and another
letter from Mrs. Hubbard at Hancock, Michigan; and a
letter from Mrs. M. A. Syfers, President, League of Women
Voters, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.
All these will be included in the record as if
read, without objection, and certainly carefully considered
by the conferees.
(The above-mentioned communications follow, as
if read.)
"Immediate Conference action is needed to stop
all dumping by the Reserve Mining Company of Silver Bay,
Minnesota. Reserve has already been granted additional
time to perfect procedures now in use by all other taconite
companies. Save Lake Superior from further pollution.
Require immediate on-land disposal for all taconite
tailings." The League of Women Voters of the Copper
-------
31
Communications
Country, Houghton, Michigan.
*
"Today, yesterday and every day for the past 13
years Reserve Mining Company of Silver Bay, Minnesota has
dumped fine taconite tailings containing 30 tons of
phosphorus, 4-1/2 tons of chromium, 3 tons of copper, 3 tons
of lead, 1 ton each of nickel and zinc, and 375 tons of
manganese. Every 12 days Reserve has dumped enough sediment
into Lake Superior to equal as much as all tributaries
contribute in a year. Stop further abuse of Lake Superior.
Stop Reserve from all dumping after January 15* 1971."
Mr. and Mrs. D. W. Hubbard, Hancock, Michigan.
"The Village of Laurium supports your efforts to
stop all pollution of Lake Superior at once and wish you
success at the conference." William H. Stephens, President.
"Halt waste discharge into Lake Superior.
Resettle people if necessary0 Value of lake as water
resource far exceeds value as sewer. Preservation of
quality transcends mundane activity such as Reserve
taconite dumping or ship bilge pumping. Stop Reserve and
work on others. Do not allow contemplated new mining
operations." Robert T0 and Viola Brown, Professor of
Ecology, Michigan Technological University.
"Dear Mr. Ruckelshaus:
"We wish to take this opportunity to thank you
-------
32
Communications
for reconvening the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference.
"We strongly urge you to do everything in your
power to force the companies, that are presently continuing
to pollute Lake Superior, to stop. We wish to preserve
this beautiful body of water for our children (ages 5 months
and 2-1/2) and forvtheir future children.
"Sincerely yours, Dr. and Mrs. J» M. Skaates."
"Dear Mr. Ruckelshaus:
"As Chairman of the Environmental Quality Committee
for the League of Women Voters of the Escanaba, Michigan
area, I and my committee members would greatly appreciate
action on your part to halt all dumpings of taconite tailings
into Lake Superior from the Reserve Mining Company of Silver
Bay, Minnesota, immediately.
"According to George Laycock's article in the
May 1970 Audubon, 'Call It Lake Inferior,' Reserve has
been dumping 60,000 tons of taconite tailings daily for
13 years. These tailings bring on serious algae growth,
increased turbidity for 1$ miles from the discharge point,
diminished amounts of fish food, and death in the rainDow
trout sac fry, among other things.
"Lake Superior is the last of the Great Lakes
which has a chance of remaining relatively clean,
"Thank you for your anticipated action regarding
-------
33
Communications
this matter.
"Sincerely, Lorna Benson, Florence Britton,
Dorrine Anderson, Escanaba League of Women Voters."
"Dear Mr. Ruckelshaus:
"May I thank and commend you on your recent
action reconvening the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
to reconsider the pollution abatement plans of the Reserve
Mining Company. People in this area are deeply concerned
about the tremendous amount of fine metallic material that
has been dumped daily by Reserve for the past 13 years.
Currents from Silver Bay come to the Keweenaw Peninsula
and certainly if Lake Superior becomes algae-filled and
impure there is no hope for Lake Michigan or the other
Great Lakes. The Minnesota Court has shown that it will
take no action and the time is past for delay, study upon
study, and reduction of amount. All pollution by Reserve
should be stopped January 15th, 1971•
"Sincerely yours, Karen Hubbard (Mrs. Davis W.)"
"Dear Sirs:
"I am writing to ask that you insist that the
Reserve Mining Company stop dumping their unwanted taconite
tailings into Lake Superior completely and at once. It
has been known since the Department of Interior's paper
known as the 'Stoddard Report1 came out in December
-------
34
Communications
that the mining company is definitely polluting Lake
Superior. Yet nothing has really been done to stop them.
The company has continued to dump daily 60,000 tons of fine
taconite particles into Lake Superior.
"All other taconite plants on Lake Superior
already use alternate waste disposal methods so no new
technology is needed.
"I trust that you will do what needs to be done
and that is: have' the Reserve Mining Company stop dumping
completely and at once.
"Sincerely, Mrs. Jerry Bell, Environmental Quality
Chairman, League of Women Voters."
"Gentlemen:
"Pollution of Lake Superior by the Reserve Mining
Company should have been stopped after the Stoddard Report
showed indications of decay and enrichment. Further delay
will be a criminal abuse of a magnificent natural heritage.
One company will gain a small profit by more delays and
studies and the millions of people in the Great Lakes area
will suffer. A pure great lake can never be recovered.
Can these fine metallic particles ever be taken out?
Can an 'I'm sorry1 by the company (or the conference)
two or five or ten years from now ever repay for lost
grandeur?
-------
35
Communications
"All dumping into Lake Superior by the Reserve
Mining Company should stop January 15t h, 1971•
"Sincerely yours, Karen Hubbard (Mrs. Davis W.)"
"Gentlemen:
"The League of Women Voters of Sault Sainte
Marie and Les Cheneau area urge you to take immediate action
in seeing to it all companies emptying pollution into Lake
Superior be stopped.
"Particularly we urge action be taken against
Reserve Mining Company who are dumping 'taconite1 tailings
into Lake Superior at an alarming rate. We understand all
the other mining companies have complied with the law in
this respect. Reserve Mining Company should not be an
exception.
"Please act.
"Yours truly, Mrs. M. A. Syfers, President,
League of Women Voters, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan»K
MR, STEIN: At this point, we would like to call
on Mr. Mayo for any Federal presentation.
Mr. Mayo.
MR. MAYO: We have one Federal presentation,
Mr. Chairman, a presentation by Mr. Robert W. Sharp, the
Staff Environmental Ecologist for the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of Interior, Twin
-------
36
R. W. Sharp
Cities.
Mr, Sharp,
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W, SHARP, ENVIRONMENTAL
ECOLOGIST, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND
WILDLIFE, TWIN CITIES, MINNESOTA
MR, SHARP: Chairman Stein, conferees, ladies
and gentlemen. My name is Robert W. Sharp of the Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of Interior,
I would like to submit for the record and to
supplement the earlier testimony of the Bureau a report
entitled "Fish and Wildlife as Related to Water Quality of
the Lake Superior Basin."
This is a detailed report on fish and wildlife
resources. It is a joint submission of the Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries now known as the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
The duties of this agency on the Great Lakes
have been taken over by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife as of July 1, 1970. The report is prepared under
the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
of 194$.
-------
37
R. W. Sharp
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will submit
it for the record.
MR. STEIN: This report will be submitted for the
record as an exhibit, and it will be available in the
offices of the Regional Office, and at Headquarters of EPA
during normal business hours, and be made a part of the
record.
However, I think in view of the extensiveness of
the report and certainly the justifiably proprietary interest}
that you should have in it, we will let you make the dis-
tribution of this through its normal channels. We will be
happy to assist if you wish in any way, but this is your
report, and it should be considered as such.
MR. SHARP: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman,
that additional copies are available in modest numbers
from our Twin City offices of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much, and I really
appreciate this report, because it certainly looks very
good, and is extensive and thorough, and it is the kind
of information that I think has been needed for a long
time and we certainly appreciate having it.
MR. SHARP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(Abov« mentioned—Exhibit #1 is on file at Headquarters,
EPA and Region V.)
-------
R. W. Sharp
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
MR. MATO: Mr. Chairman, there are no other
Federal presentations at this time. However, I would like
to advise you and the conferees that this morning we have
received from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Department
of Interior, our initial copy of a report entitled "Water
Oriented Outdoor Recreation in the Lake Superior Basin."
The report was prepared for the Federal Water Quality
Administration then in the Department of Interior.
I would like to submit a copy of the report as
an exhibit for the record, and we will arrange to provide
the conferees with copies of the report at the earliest
possible date.
I presume that copies can be obtained by other
parties by writing directly to the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, Lake Central Region, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
MR. STEIN: May I have that? We will make that
an exhibit, too, for the conference, and make this part
of the record. However, this will not be — and I want
to emphasize this — these are rather big reports made
by other agencies and they will not be reproduced as
part of the record.
Now, sometimes there is a little misunderstanding
in this, and let me explain why we do this. We generally
-------
39
R. W. Sharp
put material in the record which is not available anywhere
else. But when material comes out which is part of a
regular publication — it is a regular publication of
another agency — State, Federal, university, or in a
magazine or something of that kind — and is made available
through the normal channels for distribution, and placed
in scientific libraries, we do not republish this in the
record. We just make it an exhibit because if you get
the reference to this you can go to any library or the
organization that put the report out and get a copy for
you to look at.
With that, that will be made an exhibit.
(The above-mentioned Exhibit #2 is on file Hq. EPA and
Regional Offices, Chicago, Illinois.)
Mr. Mayo.
MR. MAYO: We have no further comment, Mr.
Chairman, at this time.
MR. STEIN: May we go to Michigan, Mr. Purdy?
MR. PURDY: Mr. Stein, I had informed you earlier
that Michigan would not have a statement, but I very
seldom keep a promise like that, not to say something.
At the last conference, recommendations were
made that the State should adopt new water quality standards
for the open waters of Lake Superior. Now that the
summary has been issued by Mr. Ruckelshaus confirming the
recommendations of the conferees at that last session,
-------
R. Purdy
we expect to move forward on that at an early date. Also
in the summary under Michigan municipalities it noted that
there was a completion of secondary treatment requirement
for Laurium, Michigan, of December of 1970, This project
is not yet under construction. Bids were taken. The
contractor has agreed to hold his contract bids until
February 15, 1971. There has been some delay here in
finalizing the contract with the contractor due to a delay
in review of some unusual matters that relate to this
project in the construction grant program. But grant
offers, I think, will be made very shortly, if they have
not already been made by the Chicago office, and we in turn
at the State level will provide a State grant.
This is a rather small project. The construction
period in the contract document is ISO days, 6 months,
so we expect that project to move forward this coming
summer, and to be completed in the year 1971• I should
point out that Laurium is under a court order of the State
of Michigan to proceed.
MR, STEIN: Are there any comments or questions
on that?
MR, MAYO: As I understand at least part of the
situation, Mr, Purdy, the sewage treatment facilities at
Laurium are privately owned at the present time.
-------
R. Purdy
MR. PURDY: The sewer system that will be con-
structed here will discharge to sewage treatment facilities
that are already in operation for Calumet,
MR. MAYO: I see.
MR. PURDY: And this system has been in operation
for some #0 years — the soil absorption system — and is
owned by a private utility, and this has created some
problems.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Again, without going into detail, unless you
want to, not to mystify the audience: We have a provision
in our municipal grant program that we can only make
grants to public bodies, and every time you run into a
private body it gives all of the technicians and the lawyers.
a field day, and I guess that is how we lawyers make our
living.
Any other comments?
MR. PURDY: Outside of that, Mr. Stein, I have
no other information to place in the record on behalf of
the State of Michigan, and I have not been contacted by
anybody that indicates that they want to make a statement.
MR. STEIN: Right.
Now, if anyone from Michigan wants to make a
statement — and this, applies to all of the States — I
-------
42
R. J. White
don't have to repeat this: We are here to hear you, and
you are not foreclosed. You can come up and indicate that
you want to say something.
May we call on Wisconsin? Mr. Frangos.
MR. FRANCOS: Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers
who have indicated they would like to make a brief presen-
tation to the conference. I would like to call first on
Mr. Ray White, who is representing the Wisconsin State
Council of Trout Unlimited.
STATEMENT OF RAY J. WHITE, AQUATIC
BIOLOGIST, WISCONSIN STATE COUNCIL
OF TROUT UNLIMITED, MADISON, WISCONSIN
MR. WHITE: As a fishery biologist, I am
representing the Wisconsin State Council of Trout
Unlimited, a branch of the national organization dedicated
to conservation of the salmonid sport fishery resource.
Wisconsin Trout Unlimited is here to represent
the interests of the quarter million people who annually
fish for trout and salmon in Wisconsin and in its boundary
waters. We express our concern over the various ecological
problems under consideration by the conference. They
should certainly have great bearing on the salmonid
-------
R. J. White
resource of Lake Superior which is one of our great
interests.
We would commend the commitment to restoring
and to maintaining water quality expressed by Governor
Lucey, by Governor Anderson, and by Mr. Stein here this
morning.
We are here today mainly to observe the proceed-
ings and to collect information for reporting to Wisconsin
anglers.
Thanks to you, Mr, Stein, to your agency, and
to our Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for the
opportunityo
MRo STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
If not, this may be a good point to put this
telegram in. I have one from Mrs. Kohn Toussaint,
President, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin. I would
like to put this in as if read without objection.
(The above-referred to telegram follows.)
"The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin urges
the enforcement conference to take all action necessary
to ensure nondegradation of the waters of Lake Superior.
We support, strict enforcement of Water Quality Standards.
Adequate and coordinated and cooperative interstate and
-------
44
C. H. Stoddard
interagency efforts."
MR. STEIN: Mr. Frangos.
MR. FRANGOS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
We have a statement by Mr. Daniel Engstrom, who
is the Vice Chairman of the Northern Environmental Council.
Mr. Engstrom has a prepared statement. I would ask that
this be submitted as if read for the record, and I would
ask Mr. Engstrom if he could perhaps summarize his state-
ment. We have had a considerable amount of testimony at
previous sessions as to the nature of the erosion and
siltation problem, and if he could summarize that and get
to the key points in his presentation, we would appreciate
that.
MR. ENGSTROM: There has been a bit of confusion
here with who is going to present our statement, so since
I am not entirely familiar with the subject, I would call
on our consultant, Charles Stoddard, to present the statement
in my place.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. STODDARD, CONSULTANT,
NORTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
MR. STODDARD: Mr. Chairman, members of the
-------
C. H. Stoddard
conference. The Northern Environmental Council, which is
made up of 31 conservation and citizens groups, had
a study committee working on the red clay problem in
northwestern Wisconsin, following a red clay interagency
committee that has been operating for several years and has
reported on the subject in the form of a published report.
However, there has been relatively little followup
on the work of the committee. The time is now for some
action. What kind of action? The problems that were
identified were basically soil erosion from gullies, from
stream banks, from roads; sheet erosion from fields and
the cave-in of the lakeshore along the south shore. This
is due to the fact that this red clay was laid down by silt
in the earlier geologic eras, and the lake has retreated,
and this is a relatively young soil formation subject to
geologic erosion which has been accelerated by man's
clearing of the land and various other activities.
These problems are solvable by soil conservation
techniques that are well known and that have been applied
in other areas; stream stabilization, gully control, strip
cropping on fields and terracing, rip-rapping where
necessary on stream banks — the various techniques that
have been developed by the Corps of Engineers, for example,
on clay bank stabilization along the lakes.
-------
C. H. Stoddard
The Northern Environmental Council's Policy
Research Paper No. 7, which deals with this subject,
summarizes briefly what the last ft ed Clay Inter-Agency
Committee reported on a more recent study on roadside and
roadbank erosion, comes up with a number of suggestions
here with respect to what can be done, the principal one
being the need for establishing a small watershed associa-
tion for the areas along the lake that drain into the lake.
The development of plans of soil conservation
land management plans for the lands in the area where there
is erosion, specific works developed in cooperation with
private owners on private lands, then public works on
those situations where there is a clear public responsi-
bility, as in the case of roads, as in the case of stream
banks, and as in the case of the red clay banks along the
lake shore itself.
The need now is to implement the recommendations
of the Red, Clay Inter—Agency Committee by putting together
in effect what would be a joint working group with this
association. We recommend that the Governor of Wisconsin
appoint a key official who would ram-rod a program and set
up a schedule for accomplishment once the studies have
been made and the plans have been worked out* and then
develop a. funding program and an allocation of the job to
-------
47
T. G. Frangos
the individual agency that is responsible.
That, in effect, is a summary of the recommenda-
tions, Mr, Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Stoddard.
MR. FRANGOS: Perhaps I will just respond to
that very good statment, Chuck.
We were having some discussions with the Governor's
people just yesterday about this particular problem. He is
very much interested in attacking some of these non—point
source problems that we have. I think some of the things
that we are recommending to the Governor, and in which he
appears interested, is imposing, for example, on our State
agencies, as he indicated in his talk today, on their highway
construction program, assurances that these will be put
through with a minimum of erosion problem.
Additionally we are kind of encouraged by some of
the reaction by the Federal Government and the USDA. My
understanding is that, for example, the AGP program has
now undergone a fairly radical approach, and as I understand
the Nixon Administration position in this area it is that
the majority of those funds will now be channeled into
environmental type projects rather than projects that have
the primary purpose for improving cultivation, if you will.
So I think we are moving in that direction.
-------
C. H. Stoddard
I notice you are talking about shoreline and flood
plain zoning. You may notice that our Department has turned
the screws on that particular program. We would anticipate
that all of our counties will have their shoreline zoning
ordinances adopted within the next 45 days, and we are
moving, I think, fairly well in the floor plain zoning
program also.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Stoddard, before you go on, may
we have copies of that statement for the record for the
reporter?
Secondly, do you have anything to add to this to
specifically suggest that we may as conferees do? Do you
see a role for us in this or not?
MR. STODDARD: Yes. As Tom Frangos pointed out,
most of the elements for dealing with this problem are
available; i.e., the techniques, and the agency responsi-
bilities are fairly well assigned. There is a need for
pulling these together because you have Federal, State, and
local agencies working in the same area, but not under any
sort of area-wide team approach, and our suggestion is for
a small watershed district minus drainage ditching and
dams specifically laid out in the small watershed thingo
This is one of the problems that they have had in other areas,
and we don't want to have this come back to haunt us. So
-------
C. H. Stoddard
that the emphasis would be on watershed conservation measures
and soil erosion correction practices, but that there be
a coordinating mechanism set up which would be the associa-
tion, and would be in charge to bring the various elements
together into a team operation.
MR. STEIN: Chuck, let me try to take this becaus*
this is one of our most vexing problems, not just here but
I think everywhere else.
Maybe you don't think we do that good a job, but
I think relatively speaking we do a better job with indus-
tries and municipalities — possibly in that order because
we don't have the public financing problem with industries
— than we do with sheet runoff, non-point sources, as we
call it, or you generally may say land runoff. I
hesitate to say agricultural waste because this is just
a broad point runoff.
We have the same problem back East where in
our wisdom we have managed to pave the country from
Boston down to Richmond. I don't think you can call
that agricultural runoff. Whenever it rains bucketsful
and you get something like we have had here for the last
day or two and there is a melt, you get it all over.
The land isn't holding this, and without enough drains in
the streets, it hits every stream and every tributary at ab
-------
C. H. Stoddard
the same time. This is the one where we have been
remiss, and it is a very, very difficult problem for us,
with the given procedures we have here when we are not at
a point source.
Now, with that as a background, would you say that
this whole red clay watershed you are speaking of is
entirely within the State of Wisconsin?
MR. STODDARD: Practically, yes. I think it
runs over to the Montreal River and pretty well quits when
it gets into the hilly country in Michigan there. It is
not serious in the Apostle Islands, and the Sand Island
area down around until you get beyond the Kakagon Sloughs,
and then this starts up again.
MR. STEIN: Now, as I understand your proposal,
you feel that what you need here is some kind of authority,
say, on a small watershed basis to deal with this. Maybe
we can start in one State or maybe Michigan wants to do
thisj, But I am just putting these proposals out that these
outfits be concerned with keeping the land on the land, not
let it get into water and not be concerned with damming,
drainage, and other problems which have usually been of
concern of watershed districts. Is this your —
MR. STODDARD: This is the point: that the
watershed district would be the institutional focal point
-------
C. H. Stoddard
for the coordination of the Federal programs, the Federal
agricultural programs, the Soil Conservation Service tech-
nicians, the county road people, and the towi road people,
and the Corps of Engineers, I think, comes in, because they
have great expertise in the handling of clay banks or of
sloughening banks in the Great Lakes, and of shoreline
stabilization. So you have a team play that has got to be
put together; it can't just happen, i.e.,, one agency go
ahead and another one, and so on. There has got to be a
basic plan.
MR. STEIN: I am sure Mr. Frangos and Mr. Mackie
and the rest of us are very aware of the problem/. We
want to get something done, and I am sure that we have
heard Governor Lucey and he is very interested in this,
too. But it would seem to me as we explore this that
the problem you are dealing with is dealing with a political
institution, at least with aa emphasis or having a coordina-
tive role that is not too common in our country,, I know
we have one in my home county, in Fairfax County, Virginia,
where we have had the same problem* T.hey have set up
a soil conservation district in a sense to keep the material
on the land in the same way, and at least I think we are
having a few glimpses of success there, too.
Now, it would seem to me that what we are largely
-------
C. H. Stoddard
doing is dealing with the political institutions and the
local and State institutions of the State of Wisconsin.
I don't know if this should be the suggestion. But if
we want this for the conferees, I think we could ask
Michigan, certainly, which may be concerned with this, and
certainly get the Federal expertise and people involved
who are familiar with both the technical problems and the
problems of the political subdivisions in the States.
But the proposal might be to ask if Wisconsin
can think in terms of coming up with a proposal which would
fit in with the State laws and institutions to provide a
public mechanism to get the program working.
Now, I don't want to run that by too fast, and
if this is your proposal, maybe you can agree to it now or
think about it. But we will hold that until the end of the
conference and let Wisconsin think about that a little
more because we are going into a relatively new field.
MR. STODDARD: This is right.
MR. STEIN: At least my approach at this point
as Chairman is very tentative. I would like to get
the views of the conferees before we decide how
deeply a water pollution control conference should take
this on and get enmeshed in this kind of business.
This is quite a responsibility and I would like
-------
53
C. H. Stoddard
the conferees to think about this carefully,,
As I see it, we will probably be here until
tomorrow and unless someone has something to say
now, maybe we will defer our discussion on this until we
complete Reserve and other problems.
MR. STODDARD: Well, I think you have put the
problem very clearly. There is no specific precedent
that can be used for pulling all of these agencies together.
There is a fragmentation of responsibility that has to be
coordinated, not just in some kind of a talking committee
but in terms of a working committee with some authority,
and this takes quite a little staff work to figure it out.
There is no easy package.
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. STODDARD: Here are the copies that you
asked for.
MRo STEIN: Thank you very much, Mr» Stoddard.
(The report of the Northern Environmental
Council follows in its entirety.)
-------
NORTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
NOREC Policy Research,Papel
January, 1571
RED CLAY SOIL EROSION ON LAKE SUPERIOR'S S3UTH SHORE
IN NORTHWESTERN WISCONSIN
BACKGROUND
The problem of the Red Clay ercsion along Lake Superior's South
Shore (in Northwestern Wisconsin) was brought into focus in 1955 vhen a
Red Clay Inter-Agencjr Committee was formed of local, state, and federal
agencies. This Committee has made an analysis of land-use practices
and applied available techniques to soil 'erosion situations in many
test cases.
The Red Clay erosion problems have been noted in other studies by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Northwest Regional
Planning Commission, the U, S. Soil Conservation Service, and the Federal
Water Pollution Enforcement Conference on Lake Superior.
The Inter-Agency Cotrmittee published a report in 1?67 Toncerniflg
the Rod Clays and its outline of the general problem follows:
THE GENERAL PROBLEM
Sedimentation in streams and rivers of the Lake Superior drainage,
resulting in part from excessive erosion, has been classified by the
committee as the number one soil conservation problem in the northwestern.
red clay area of Wisconsin. This area contains 880,000 acres of land
located in Ashland,, ^ayfield, Douglas and Iron Counties. Due to tho
relatively steep slopes in the watersheds in this area, unprotected red
clay soils are unstable and therefore highly erodible, particularly along
field gullies, roads and stream banks.
The red ciay area is gsologically young with soil erosion processes
still occurring naturally at a rapid rate. These become accelerated
wherever and whenever steep slopes become bare due to natural or man-made
causes. The levels of sedimentation in the streams can be classified.
as "accelerated" following catastrophic floods, and "continuing"
occurring in the mrmal flew. Abnormally heavy rains have periodically
accelerated erosion on exposed clay soils. Man has also speeded up
erosion through certain agricultural activities, timber cutting and
highway construction.
Erosion was speeded up as the area was first cleared—clearcutting
of forest lard, clearing.of agricultural fields and to sane extent fires
were the major .contributing factors. Conditions in the area have been
steadily a ggrava ted through destructive logging practices, improper
construction and inadequate naintenance of roads, Intensive graxing and
tramping along the stream banks and ravines which exposes bare soils,
and improper drainage to the point that mw even minor precipitation is
55802, PHONE (218/727/2424)
-------
NOREC Policy Research Paper § 7
- 2 - January, 1971
Although erosion and the resultant sedimentation cannot be eliminated
entirely, the/ can be reduced trough proper soil and water conservation
practices. Generally, the presence of vegetation on steep slopes is one
of the principal soil stabilizing factors. To the extent that forest
cover prevents, deters, or postpones erosion, forests are valuable.
However, forest cover alone is not the answer to adequate erosion control.
Deep gullies were forced in bygone days before axe or saw even touched a
tree on these red clay soils. However, vegetation serves to reduce runoff
both by its use of water in growth processes and by physical retardation.
While cover alone will not in many cases stabilize the steep raw slopes,
the maintenance of existing cover and the restoration of cover on denuded
areas are among the first courses of action,
1967 REPORT
The 1967 Intei>Agency Report then listed specific erosion problems
as the y pertained tb agriculture, forestry, highways > fishery, scenic
values, and recommendation for correction* The Report points out that
red clay erosion is not only a physical problem but that "Control of
sedimentation—is a social, economic and political problem. Special
programs are reqAredi Where possible, federal, state and local programs
should be immediately implemented"v
TODAY 1970
Implementation of the 1967 Report has been limited to a few cases
as: The Deer Creek Gully Control Project, The Montreal River Watershed,
Highway #112 Gully Control and the Cemetary Ravine in Bayfield. However,
t^e problem continues to worsen with erosion accelerating. This has been
duly TO ted at the recent Lake Superior Pollution Enforcement Conference
in Duluth, Minnesota.
The current status of erosion and control efforts in each major
source sector is shown in the following paragraphs,
In Agriculture, farm programs such as soil bank have retired lands
that are suitable for crops and grazing and -put more cows in gully and
ravines causing greater erosion. Stream bank erosion has not been
dealt with.
In Forestry, increased timber production, year-around logging,
bigger bulldozers and skidders, clear cutting and more logging roads
have all aggravated the problem.
In Roads, the State Highway Department has attempted to control
erosion and has dore excellent work such as the reconstruction of
Highway #2 in Douglas County. On the other hand, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs is probably the worst offender with construction of the Kim
Hoist Bridge on the Bad River and the road to the new Lake Superior
Campground on the Bad River Reservation. Town and county governments
have not made a serious attempt to control badly eroding ditches or
stream banks and in many cases have made them worse. An example is the
grader cutting into a stabilized roadside bank on the hill leading
to the Big Rock County Park on the Sioux River in Bayfield County*
Sedimentation caused by roads is worsening, according to the recent
survey by the U. S, Soil Conservation Service and District*
-------
NORBC Policy Research Paper #7
- 3 - January, 1P71
In Utility Righte-of-way, there Is a serious gap between construct-
ion and the length of time that pipeline companies get around to fixing
their damage. This has caused heavy silting. Pipeline locations at
stream crossings has caused substantial damage, as in the case on the
Brule River and Totogatic Rivers and was corrected only after construct! on-
not during.
Alongf play banks of Lake Superior there are long stretches of
eroding soil and cave-ins.Practically nothing has been tried to
correct this problem which usually falls to the U. S.-.Army Corps of
Engineers. fc
RECOMMENDATIONS
Soil Conservation technology is available to meet ihe problem*
A 7-year program should be initiated with specific recommendations
scheduled and a timetable in «ihich they would be put into effect. The
Red Clay Interagency Committee should be reactivated to develop a
comprehensive program,
1. Aie whole South Shore area (drainage basin) which includes
streams and rivers draining into Lake Superior should be
organized into a P.L. £66 Small Watershed Assocla tion with
the primary objective of arresting soil erosion. (Ditching,
drainage, and stream channelization should be specifically
omitted from programs and upstream impoundments and dams
kept to a minimum,
2. All private land ownership where erosion Is a problem should
have soil conservation-land use plans drawn up with specific
control practices indicated,
3. The U, S. Soil Conservation Service should assign more
manpower to this planning function and reduce manpower
assignments on reservoirs, ditching, draining, and
channelization projects elsewhere. Additional appropria-
tions for S.C.S, should be requested for t his program.
lu Emphasis in Agricultural Conservation Practices subsidy
payments should give priority to implementation .of the
practices set forth in the above plans,
5. For those erosion problems clearly in the public sector
(streambante, roadsides and lakeshore) specific public
works should be planned and funded as follows:
a) Streambank erosion "control by special .public works
appropriations including allocation from the Upper
Great Lakes Regional development Commission,
-------
57
NOREC Policy Research Paper
- U - January, 1971
b) Roadbank erosion should be corrected by allocating
state gasoline tax money to counties and townshipo for
this purpose. The state law should be amended so that
portions of gas tax money for town and co unty road
maintenance could either be withheld or a b onus paid
on roads which have been put under an erosion stabiliza-
tion program under the supervision of a State art/or
Federal Agency.
c) A pilot program be initiated for stabilization of
clay banks on Lake Superior shoreline. The U. S. Corps
of Engineers which have the technical knowledge for
this type of work would need a special appropriation for
this work. It would need, to be authorized by the
Public Works Committees of the U. S. House of Represent-
atives a n3 Senate.
6. The Bureau of Indian Affair's in cooperation with paper
companies and1 private owners should work up a location
plan of logging roads in the Bad River Indian Reservation
so as to minimize potential damage and to control erosion
on land disturbances when logging is completed.
7. A special leaflet describing the "Erosion Control Problems
and Needs of the Red Clay Region" should be made available
to owners in the Red Clay area.
fl. State flood plain and shoraland zoning ordinances be
imposed where counties have failed to pas's such laws under
Chapter 6lU, Laws of Wisconsin, 1965.
CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATION
In order to move the~,e several agency proposals into consistent
steps forward, it is recommended that the Lake Superior Pollution
Enforcement Conference request the Governor of the State of Wisconsin
to reactivate tte Red Clay Inter-Agency Committee and charge that
Committee with ttae responsTKTtity of" coming up with a complete plan
of work and an organization structure for sponsoring the work program.
A seven-year target should be established for completion. A aorking
chairman from the Department of Natural Resources responsible to the
dknrernor should be appointed and a plan of work presented t-o him fcy
3974
-------
53
NOREC Policy Research Paper #7
- 5 - January, 1971
REFERENCES
"Erosion and Sedimentation Control On The Red Clay Of
North-western Wisconsin", ,Red Clay Inter-Agency Committee, Madison>
•Wisconsin, 1967.
Headwaters Pri-Ru-Ta-Resource Conservation and Development
Project, 1970.
Multi-Soil and Water Conservation Districts1 Lake Superior
Framework Program for Areas 1 and 2.
*##*•#
- This Policy Research Paper was prepared by the NOREC Land Use
Planning sub-committee on Soil Conservation, chaired by Martin Hanson
of the Wisconsin Resources Conservation Council,
- The NORTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL is composed of conservation and
citizen groups joined into a conrnon effort to prevent e rvironmental
deterioration of the northwoods, lakes, and prairielands of Northern
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan's Upper Peninsula, North Dakota, and
Indiana.
OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL
Prof, Paul Lukens Chairman Biologist, Wisconsin State
University, Superior, Wisconsin
r)a*;ii- Engstrom Vice- S.E.D., University of Minnesota,
Chairman Duluth, Minn.
Herbert Bergson Secretary President, Save Lake Superior
Association
Js: -3 Buchanan Treasurer Audubon Society, Duluth
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Officers of Council Dr. Dale Olsen
Martin Hanson Arnold Overby
Milton Pelletier Dr, Charles Carsen
CONSULTANTS
Sigurd Olson Ecologist, Ely, Minn.
Charles Stoddard Minong, Wisconsin
-------
59
NGREC "roll/-; Res-.arch P*p»r #?
- 6 - January, 1971
MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS OF THIS COUNCIL
JVrule River Sportsmen, Inc.
Citizens Committee for the Voya gears National Park
Citizens to Save Superior Shoreline
Conservation Committee of the fiuluth Central Labor R^V AFL-CIO
Dakota Environmental Council
Douglas County Fish and Game League
Duluth Bird Clih
fluluth-Superior Sane
Ernie Swift Memorial Conservation Committee, Wise, aid Minn.
First Unitarian Church of Duluth, Env. Action Comm.
Friends of the Wilderness
Izaak Walton League of America— Duluth Chapter
Izaak Walton League of America--Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lake Owen Property Owners Association
Lake Superior North Shore Association
Milwaukee Committee of NOREC
Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens Association
North Dakota Natural Science Society
Save Lake Superior Association
Students for Environmental Defense
Students for Pollution Control
Superior Clean Air Cotrmittee
Superior Jr. Woman's Club
Unitarian Environmental Committee
United Northern Sportsmen
University of Wisconsin Forestry Club
Wilderness Society
Wilderness Wetoh, Inc.
Wisconsin'Bowhunters Association
Wiscorain Resource Conservation Council
The Junior League of
- Copies of this Policy Research Paper may be obtained from the
Northern F.uvH-arnnfntt.-il OomwJl Oft'Lce, 601 Christie Building, Dulvfrh,
Minnes-ota 55^02, at a oost of One Dollnr each.
-------
60
T. Go Frangos
MR. STEIN: Mr. Frangos.
MR. FRANGOS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We would also
like to report to the conferees briefly on the status of
our municipalities.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. FRANGOS: I will read a summary of this and
ask that the entire report be submitted for the record.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, this will be
included in its entirety as if read.
(The above-mentioned report follows in its
entirety.)
-------
61
Department of Natural Resources
Madison
REPORT TO THE LAKE SUPERIOR ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
Duluth, Minnesota -- January 14-15, 1971
This report provides the change in status of waste discharge sources in the isconsin
section of the Lake Superior drainage basin since the August 12-13, 1970, Lak"
Superior Enforcement Conference.
1. The City of Hurley failed to meet the requirements of Wisconsin Water Pollution
Abatement Order Number 1-68-11 and was referred to the Wisconsin Attorney Ge-neral
on September 17, 1970. The Attorney General's office has filed suit in this matter.
City of Hurley officials have advised our Department that they are implementing
recommendations of their consulting engineer to reduce clear water in the sewerage
system. They have also asked consideration for a regional treatment system with
Ironwood, Michigan.
2. Our Department referred five other wastewater sources in the basin to the
Attorney General on December 11, 1970. Court action has been initiated against:
The City of Washburn (Order 1-68-30), the City of Ashland (Order 1-68-2), the
City of Bayfield (Order 1-68-4), the Pureair Sanitorium, Bayfield (Order 1-68-21)
and Superior Fiber Products Company (Order 1-68-26).
3. The E. I. du Pont de Nemours plant at Barksdale will discontinue operation
on March 31, 1971.
4. A meeting was held with the Federal Environmental Protection Agency on
December 10, 1970, to discuss the proposal for areawide sewage treatment facilities
to be located at Duluth, Minnesota. These facilities might serve the City of Superior.
All other entities listed in Wisconsin's Water Quality Standards implementation
schedule for the Lake Superior Basin have provided the required remedial measures.
-------
CO
t-4
CO CTi
01 r-l
4J •
1-1 r-4
r-4 r-4
CO
•H fr
o rt
•rl 3
3 cfl
JS •"!
m
B
CO
C
8
CO
3
4J
CO
4-1
CO
^
4-1
a> 1-1 co
4J i-l 4-1
cO CO CO
*J 3 0
to Qf
CO •
rl rl r-l
6 4-1 g
tH cO H
rH
CO
i-l CO
•d *d
01 0)
Jco
00 4J
a B
1-1 co
4J §
CO £
TI rl
•H CO
CO 4J
O CO
•
o
0) 0
a
M rl
3 O1
o *xd
CO rl
o
1
s •
O CM
o r--
CO CM
CO r-l
CO
O >>
CX.O
2 B
ex O
•rl
4-1 01
a ex
•d
rl M •
ah o
01 1^-
01 1-1 -~»
P^ r-4
fr 01
§. r-l
•d
1-4 01 •
•S p .
r-l rl <
CO CX
rl 5. 0
PM o) 4-1
^*
O r- r»
r^- r** "*•*.
r-4 r-l CO
^-. "^*. *"••.
O O CM
01 CO
fr CO S
CO S O
r* J^i pt
8 CO CO
01 O
co r-i .c:
co o S
o
i-i
4J
u
fr £
CO d
E 1*4
•rl CO
h -H
rl
O
•H
h
co
ex
CO
CO
h h .
Oho
CX CO 1^
01 IM ^
Pti r-l
fr CM
CO • r-l
a -d
•H CO •
S > O
•5 o •
r-H h <
co ex
rl CX O
PW CO 4J
O r*
1-4 r-l
^^ ^^
O 0
h
CO
fr CO
cO t^
'd
C* h
O CO
U Ol
0) r-l
co u
o
•rl
4-1
y
>, 01
M <4-4
JO C
E i-i
•H CO
h -H
p_l ^^
h
O
•H
h
Ol
(X
3
0)
J(J
3
TJ ^-s
CO 1
1-4 CO
<4-l VO
f>> 1
oj i-l
pa N-'
60
C
Ol O
C f»
• o — .
co m
G co CM
o c --s
o o a\
•H
•d 4J h
co co 01
4-1 -O 4J
B C cO
01 Ol ?
BE
9 § h
r-l O Cd
CX U CO
S CO r-4
Mho
0 "^
O fl CXr-4
. Ol CO r-l
< CJ h
CO CO
0 OS fS CO
4J h >
cfl i-l
•d • ti 4J
Ol O 1-1 CO
h r^ E p
h --. t-l h
co rx r-i co
<4-4 r-l Ol 4-1
Ol -»» rl r-l
P<4 (Tl P, CO
s^
f^ f^* f^
i^ r** *^.
~~, -^ r— 1
r-l r-l CO
•^^ ^^ "*s»
O O CM
h
co a
^S *•• 3
h at h
cO S O
•d &
£3 h 0,
O cO co
U Ol O
01 i-l £
CO O H
O
•rl
4J
U
f*.
h h
4J 01
c >
£ti
^My
ON
r-l
1
/*N CO
r-4 CM
r-i 1
>> 1 O
CO 00 rx.
r-4 \O 1
h i po
3 r— 1 %^*
EC v^'>-/
i
§ CM
o r^«
-^.
CO CM
CO r-4
CO
O ^i
CX XI
S B
CX O
1-1
4J Ol
1-1 r-l
o a
,
•M •
a> *o
Q) QJ •
C S ^C
1-1 at Q
60 i-l 2
co co i
h
>. 60
h 4J a
co h i-4
B 0 h
i-l CX Ol
E co -d
•H h i-l
r-l CO
01 60 B
h fi o
P-l -H O
*^
CO r** f^*
p* r~ ^
i-4 i-4 CO
^» ^"^ "^^.
O O CM
h
0) CO
fr cfl S
CO S O
*d r~!
B h CX
O CO CO
O CO O
CO r-4 JH
CO U PM
B
0
1-1
4-1
u
fr«S
CO B
P *H
»-l W
h 1-1
PM Q
h
O
•d
01
CX
3
CO
Ol
^
3
^>^
r^
r-l
1
,•^00
h vO CM
O CM I
•H 1 O
h co f^.
CO :O 1
CX 1 PQ
3 >~l <•
CO »-'%•'
I >.
Q
U B
0
O -rl
4-1 4-1
O
CO 3
CO rl
CO 4J
O CO
SO
0
CX
01 r-l
4J CO "^«-
1-1 r-l CM
CJ CX r-l
1
h •
01 *d
01 Ol
B >
i-l O •
60 h O
B ex •
co ex <
CO
h* 4-1 4J
CO rl
B O -d O
1-1 CX oi r»
E CO h -~.
•H rl h r-l
r-l CO r-l
0) 00 H-l ^~-
h C « CM
PU i-l P4 i-H
O r^.
r^ r^*
r-4 r-l
^•^ ^*s»
o o
M
0)
fr 00
CO S
•d
B rl
O CO
U 0)
CO r-l
co o
o
4J
o
friS
co B
E -rl
T! °
PM a
h
o
•d
01
Cw
3
co
4)
^j
3
/-v
B O
G ro
3 1
.a oo
,C vO
CO 1
CO rH
3 s""
4J CO
B B
Tl 1-1
O h
•r— ) CO
M E
o x:
U-l 4-1
60 3
B
1-1 4J
CO CO
4-i *3
O CO
60 0)
a) h
& 4J
Cfl
*
0
4J
•d CD
CO !>•
h -x.
h r-4
Ol r-l
m *^»»
as
Q
3
•rl h
< q
4-1
CO 1-1
PM Wl
62
-------
i-i
o\
1-1
•
CO r-l
CU r-l
Page 1
Indus tri
January
i
4
1
i
|
1
CJ
(I
I
0
4-1
CO
4J
co ft cu
4J i-l 4J
cd cd cd
4J 3 Q
n o*
cd
M M i-l
44 OJ ft
fi *J E
&
t— 1
cc)
•H CO
•a T,
cu a
PJ
60 4J
C C
•ri a
a 1
*r4 Q]
W M
60
pj
•H CO
> M
•H OJ
CU 4J
U CO
tS 3
^
•
§M
3 0)
o •«
CO W
s
• M
..*?
c o-
o
•H 1
4J
O CO
3 CO
t)
8*
in .
4J r*« fc*s
C r-
cd i
0. S
1 O Q
a 1-1 o
M fa D3
*rj
co . cu
4J & M
cd CU M •
4J to a) o
co <*-! r-.
• CU *••»»
C C P4 r-l
O Cd r-l
CO ~-^
4J • CM
(3 m 4J i-H
CJ O C
3 iw co .
cr G o
CMC.
•H cu cd <;
r-l -0 OJ
OJ M M O
Q O 4J 4-1
O
«»^
1 1— 1
^^
O
•"*
• 4J
4J M
M H
H
CU
• 4-1
& CO
cu cd
co 3
• *
g "c
CO W
1
60
-< C
ed i-l
CJ C
iH CU
6 cu
60
co.
n
o
^^
^1
cu
ex
CO
Ji
J
M
O
TJ
0)
CJ 3
A co
M O ^O
O U CM
•H 1
M • 00
CU T) VO
a. o i
3 M r^
CO P^l ^
CU
60
*o
3
i—4
CO
00 •
C C
•H O
4J i-l
Cd 4-1
60 cd
i-l M
4J CU
co C
> 0
* •
M TJ
CU 4J CU
T> C 4J
M OJ cd
O El 3
|"i f__(
cu cd cd
4-1 CU >
cd M CU
4-1 4-1
co oo
1-1 G
*^3 Cfl »i^
CU C3 CU
•H O J3
M-l -H
CO 4-1 CO
1-4 -H T)
4-1 T) CU
flj T^ 3}
co <: c
OJ
fj
o
23
0
§
*
r-4 <1)
CO 60 M
CJ 3 OJ
•H U-l -H
Cd M -H
43 4J M
0 C Cd
0) CU r-l
goo
M
O
T-l
M
&
CO
5
5
*
8
1
American
Ashland
(1-68-3)
•-t
•H
4J
fj
3
O
3
cr .
CO Is*
3 **^
4-1 i-l
CO f>
eo n
TJ
cu
CO
o
1-1
o
CU
o
4-1
w
G
cd
i—i
0
•fc^
i-H
•^^
o
r-l
•
13 4J
5 g
. a) B
o* -f cd
Q) 00 CD
< & H
C
o
•rl 1
Cd r-l
N Cd
rl 5.
i— i rj*
cd u C
3 0 4J
cu i-< cd
&; fa N
•2^
0)
2
o
CO
I"
o
1-4
4) cd
CO
4J >^
c tl
o cd
Q to rs
* 3 oo
M O vO
Q l
• CU r-l
&0
c
0)
CU
u
c
cd
•H
r-4
CX
O T3
O CU
M CU
CU i-l
O M
60 tS
CJ »Q
^4 AJ
•H C
3 CU
o" E
CU 4J
M cd
CU
Q) 4J
T3
M CU .
O 4-1 r-l
cd r-»
0) 3 ^~.
4J err- 1
cd cu -^
4J T3 0
CO Cd r-4
CU
c
0
• 4-1
cu g
CO g
• a)
g2
CO H
cd
m
1-1
jjj
.
4J
CO
w
«
8 rjT
AIM Graii
Superior
(4B-70-2;
O r-4
Is* Cd
-v. ,
C ja
•rl
M 4-1
•H G
3 CU
cr e
CU 4J
M cd
CU
M M
CU 4-1
TJ
M CU •
O 4-1 i— 1
cd r»
cu 3 --~
4J cr i—i
cd cu *--
4-1 TJ 0
CO Cd r-l
CU
CJ
o
X
0)
60
OJ 0)
• cd
SCO
M
co H
CU
I
^
ol
03
M
O
•H
h
OJ
CX
co
„
9
* ei ^.
• CM
C « i
O 00
4J C M CM
W) C o 1
C CU -H O
•rl J3 M rx
r-l 4J CU 1
M I-l Qu »
3 0 3 •»
pq a co ^
63
-------
to
4-1
«
4J
CO
4J
4) i-4 4)
4-J i-l 4J
ol at aj
w 3 a
2 &
at
h u
4J 4) PJ
flsl
at
1-1 CO
-S-S
60
C
T1 w
> h
i-4 4)
4) 4J
u at
4) S
a\
01'
IN £j£l
CD «
4) 3 2
60-0 g
at C *
S w^
3 4)
o -a
CO P
O 4)
4J Se
4)
4) n
•O
* >>
E 4J
T4
CO U
4J
C O
4) 4J
§ 4J
60 U
4)
C
O
< o
2
60 >,
C -a
1-1
M 4J
•H C
3 4>
n
0) 4J
rl 4) •
O 4J i-l
a) r*.
4) 3 \
4J CTi-4
- a).
4J Tt O
CO CO r-4
4)
C
o
4)
60
§
4)
CO
a) E
4J 4J
IH at
g 2
co H
4)
C!
O
e
CO
«
M
4)
§•
co
4>
4J
h
4)
J3 ^v
•H CO
J I
cd oo
J V4 . M
4-1 OJ
0)
0) 60
u at
« C
U-l 1-4
M at
3 b
CQ a
C « x-\
3 CO <}•
5T3 I
e oo
3 M CN
» o o i
at to i-i o
r-l 60 U t^
60 t-> 4) I
3 i-l P. M
O OJ 3 c
o o
? ° •
C c
•woo
tn -u -H
C 4J
O O 3
O t>. r-4
-~. r-l
^4 «* O
>
5-°
M 4J
C
(1)
3
CT e
0) -O
(U U
& .
(U 3 -^
4J CTi-l
at o> -~.
4J T) CM
co at 1-1
I
«
60
4)
CO
at
eo
U
I?
n
CO
•H
4J
co
U
C
u o
4J 1-1 I
t-l t-> I
O 4J
&§•!
W CO «
i
ao
-i
2 §
V
4) CO
"S >,
E 4J
B O
0) 4-1
§ 4J
60 U
C 9)
h O
< o
60 >,
M 4J
•H C
3 S
tr s
a> o
M at
a>
(4 M
CD 4J
(40).
O 4J i-l
at P".
a
§
25
co
a
O /-N
i-l VO
C i
E) oo
1-1 CN
CO O I
M i-l O
4) to r*.
e a) i
W P. M
at 3 4-1
4) 4J
M 01 .
O 4J i-4
«J 3
4J
aj 8)
CO 03
eu
60
I
0)
co
&«
S3
4J 4J
»4 at
c » M
4J a)
i-l PL.
a *^
CO
1-1
3
4-1
CO
p, r^
1-1 i
ff. oo
CO I-l 04
O I
*4 1-1 O
(U M 1^
N (U I
cd a M
P 3 .
C A
Tt
M 4J
i-l C
3 •
O 4-1 i-4
at r>«
01
co
-
T3 O
at 1-1
4)
60
I
0)
CO
SB
1-1 at
a 4>
at h
w H
n
0)
T3
at
§
-------
t*
o
g
U
c?
u
5
ft
<
CO
M
i
i
u
H
^
S
CO
SS
8
CO
g
r-l
r»
o>
r-l
A
Mr-j
fl) I—I
*&
M
i-l 01
01 4J
o a
01 3
iS
o
4) S5
U
M P
3 41
0 T3
CA P
o
v^
00 >.
d •&
•H
M 4J
•^8
STB
M cd
41
M M
at 4J
State ordi
adequate '
10/1/71.
41
d
S
41
00
cd
I
co
4-1
r?g
SB
•5-8
5^
41
ti
o
X
>»
n
to
•H
1
.
4J
CO
Elevator,
ior
-28-9)
SI M O
,Q 01 Is-
O CX 1
r-l 3 ffl
o co .
>LJ co
ft VJ
8.2 0
r». n
Si-l -H
«j r-. 4J
10 CM M
scs
1-4 i-l J3
ft r-l Cd
00 >>
a .0
1-1
M W
•H C
3 4)
«r I
4) O
M cd
MS
0) 4J
M 4) •
O 4J i-l
cd Is-
4) 3 -.
4J STr-l
cd 41 --.
4J -a o
co cd i-i
4)
§
a
a)
00
cd
g
CO
4J
&g
SB
•H cd
d 41
cd M
co H
I
>.
«
n
CO
—1
3
3
•
4J
CO
I-l
cd «
3£ -
3 o
co ex i-i
4) 6 1
^ O CO
Cd U M CM
J 0 I
Jd -H O
4J u M r->
cd o 0) I
4) Q P. M
M 3 ,
0 C 4-»
n -i-i 1-1
»». o
sr» u^
0 0
U-l 4J
O 00
d w
p i-l O
0) to 0)
4J 1-1 C
4J > C
0) TJ O
M cd U
60 >.
C J3
^tJ
•5g
5T I
4) B
M cd
4)
M M
41 4J
M 4) •
O 4J r-l
§!->
»v.
4J CTi-4
SO) --.
-o o
co cd •-!
I
2
4)
00
S
§
CO
w
&g
SB
•H cd
§s
CO H
S
fs
&
M
M
4)
a.
3
CO
•8 & ^
cd cd -i
r-l fX r-l
4J E 1
MO CO
O U M CM
ft 0 1
4J -rl O
d C M Is-
o co a) i
p f3 ex CQ
3 4) 3 si-
Bd o m^
00 >k
d A
114,
38
fffl
M cd
4)
M M
4> 4-1
"S 4) •
O 4J r-l
§!-»
--.
4J O*r-l
SO) --.
•d o
CO Cd r-l
4)
§
a
4)
00
cd
4>
CO
4J
e-g
SB
Is
CO H
I
>,
S
M
O
•H
M
41
(X
•3
CO
Elevators,
Superior
0-28-12)
O •> r*«
^ o pa
s^e
•
o
p^.
r-l
C *-.
0 0
•^ 1-1
4J
U >>
0) -^
g-d
O 0)
O 4J
41
M i-l
§ &
41 O
CO U
00 >>
3-°v
* a 5
•3 g£
o-l «
41 JJ Tl
M 2 cd
Ql *w
M M W
01 4J
State ord
adequate
.10/1/70.
0)
C
S
4)
00
2
3
ca
4-1
&g
SB
§2
co H
i^
&
1-1
O
fs
cd
M
to
•H
3
a
•
4-1
CO
.ern Engrg.
Superior
0-28-13)
JC Is-
4J • 1
M • n
o o
-------
0
*-
o
r^ 4.)
• C .
o c1 :^
n u u
-^ C -r4.
10 r-4 -H (J
i
1
BJ
1
e
g
9
>
W
<1) t-l
J*
erf
60 U
B B
•H a
4-i e
ca £
•H co
U 1-
H
60
B
t-l CO
> ^
•H U
0) 4-1
U cti
4-1 T-l «
4-1 > B
,
fi XI
M 4J
•H fi
3 (!)
0- E
0) 4-i
W CO
(U
M H
0) 4J
"? .
M cu •
O 4-1 i-H
ca r>-
(U 3 >^
4J Wi-l
C8 ,
Sj
j
V4- 0
• 14 [--
"^ '" '
I'l -3 -3
i CM co s-'
T^
CU
O
0)
M
r-4
«
(0 •
0 0
a.r>-
o --,
M 0 >>
B X.
•H
(-J 4J
•H fi
3 0)
cr i
a) o
M 0)
cu
r-l M
0) 4J
•a
M (U •
O 4-1 r-)
oj r~
ca 3 -^.
4J CTr-)
ca >
a
PQ
l-i
O
•H
M
0)
o.
3
CO
•t
«
o
CJ
r-4 X-N
5) IT)
Q *-*
O |
oo
SO IU CM
W O 1
1-( -r-l O
>»
o r-i sf
o. o. CM
co B *^
ft O r— 1
Q O r-4
60 >-,
5* •
"^ U "S
** B ^
3 4) 2
8*1 S
S « Tl
i! -M
^ 2 «
a) w OT
TJ
State or
adequate
10/1/71.
cu
B
o
rZ
*
4-1
r-l
H
>
0)
co
B
(0
co
g
4J
&
o
CO
n
<
!— |
T-l
0
CO
>>
ca
PQ
CO
1-4
3
3
•
4J
CO
tv
• x*s
Di VO
• r—i
ci i
oo
-------
67
J. P. Badalich
MR. MAYO: Just a point of clarification, Mr.
Frangos. I understand that there has not yet been an
action on the part of Wisconsin to formally extend any of
these dates.
MR. FRANGOS: No, these dates have expired, and
on the basis of our State orders they have been referred
to our Attorney General.
MR. STEIN: Well, I hope the list gets smaller,
but I never fail to be amused as we come to these con-
ferences to find an outfit on a list of polluters called
Pureair Sanitorium.
Are there any other comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much. That concludes the Wisconsin
statement, and we will go to Minnesota.
Will you handle that for us, Mr. Badalich?
MR. BADALICH: I certainly will, Mr. Chairman*,
MR. STEIN: Let me say at the outset, we intend
to continue until about 12:00 o'clock when we will recess
for lunch, and I just want to indicate that for the con-
venience of the people who will be called on the schedule.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, fellow conferees,
I will present the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
statement first, and then we do have a list of approxi-
mately 14 or 15 individuals as well as
-------
Murray Stein
municipalities that want to make a statement, including
industries, and we will finally end up with Reserve
Mining Company making their proposal.
MR. STEIN: May I interrupt just one second
because I should get this over. We have had this before
here and let me get off the record on this.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. STEIN: Let me put this telegram into the
record. This will appear at the beginning with the
other telegrams.
(Whereupon, Mr. Stein read a telegram. See
p. 22a.)
-------
69
J. P. Badalich
This telegram is signed by Senator Gaylord
Nelson, Representative John Blatnik, Senator Walter
Mondale, Senator Hubert Humphrey, Senator William
Proxmire, Senator Philip Hart, and Senator Robert
Griffin.
I hope that this gets the record clear on
that.
Would you continue?
Let me go off the record just for one second.
(Discussion off the record.)
STATEMENT OF JOHN P. BADALICH, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY,
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, fellow conferees,
ladies and gentlemen. This is a statement of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency to the conference of the Lake
-------
70
J. P. Badalich
Superior Enforcement for January 14 and 15, 1971*
The Minnesota conferees, again, are Dr. Howard
Andersen, Chairman of the Agency; Mr, Robert Tuveson,
femer Chairman and Member; and myself, as the Executive
Director of the Agency,
The following comments, which will bring you
up to date on developments since the August meeting,
relate to the remaining relevant recommendations of the
Federal Water Quality Administration summary of January
26, 1970, as modified by the conferees in April and
August of 1970.
If you want to refer to your July or your Jan-
uary 1970 summary, and we can follow through on these
recommendations.
Recommendation 1: The Agency is implementing the
recommendations made concerning standards for the open waters
of Lake Superior, A public hearing on adoption of the
proposed standards is scheduled for February 17, 1971, in
Duluth, The pesticide limits previously set by the
conferees in Recommendation 15 have been included as well
as others. We take this opportunity to invite the con-
ferees and their technical representatives to appear at
this hearing and present evidence bearing on the proposed
standards.
-------
71
J. P. Badalich
Recommendation 3: The Reserve Mining Company has
not as yet submitted the final report on waste disposal
improvements that was to be submitted by December 1, 1970.
Request by the company for an extension of this deadline has
not been granted.
In mid-December the District Court rendered its
judgment in regard to the appeal of the company from Minnesota's
interstate water quality standards. A copy of the judgment
of the court was provided earlier to each conferee.
Although the Court held that the effluent standard
of Minnesota, Regulation WPG 15» is invalid in regard to
Reserve, at the same time the Court ordered Reserve to
flocculate the fines and convey all of the tailings by
pipeline to the floor of Lake Superior to thus eliminate
the green water effect. Plans to accomplish this task were
ordered to be submitted by May 15 to the Agency for approval
and the Agency was directed to grant a variance from the
regulation until this is done. The Attorney General has
stated that an appeal will be filed.
A concept proposed recently to some of the
conferees apparently relates to an earlier proposal which
includes clarifiers for flocculation of the fines and a
piping system to carry the tailings into the lake to a depth
of about 150 feet.
-------
72
J. P. Badalich
The plan has not yet been presented to the
Minnesota conferees and we have not had an opportunity to
make a technical evaluation or to determine whether the
proposed system will meet the requirements of the Minnesota
and Federal Water Quality Standards.
Recommendation 4: A grant application has been
prepared to expand our current contract study on the prev-
alence of pesticide residues in the waters of the basin.
The expansion will consist of the inclusion of mercury,
lead, other metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls. The
application will be submitted for consideration as soon
as funding becomes available for the matching State portion.
In addition, Dr. Shapiro of the University of Minnesota
Limnological Research Center is interested in applying
for a grant to study the nutrients and key growth elements
in the waters of Lake Superior, and the Minnesota Geological
Survey also has indicated an interest in undertaking a
survey to determine the content of mercury and other toxic
elements in the natural rocks and soils of Minnesota.
Recommendation 5s Except for the village of
Carlton, stipulations for secondary treatment have been
entered into with the Agency by all of the municipalities
in Minnesota which discharge to or affect interstate waters
and all of these municipalities are presently in compliance
-------
73
J. P. Badalich
with the current requirements of the action plan as set
forth in Attachment A. (See P. 73)
The engineering reports required by March 1,
1971» also have in most instances been completed or are
well under way, but it is anticipated that the authorization
for preparation of final plans will in a number of cases
have to be deferred for at least 3 months beyond the April
1, 1971i deadline of the action plan.
The necessity for the delay arises from a proposal
for a regional approach to sewage disposal in the Duluth-
Superior-Cloquet area which was presented recently to the
Agency by the Northeastern Minnesota Development Association,
NEMDA. Most of the conferees have previously been furnished
a synopsis of the proposal and also have had a personal
briefing by NEMDA, so I will not repeat the details of the
project here. It provides interceptors to carry the wastes
from the Cloquet area and Superior to a regional plant in
Duluth with all of the facilities to be constructed and
operated by an area-wide sanitary district. The proposal
offers the usual advantage of a regional approach plus
removal of all effluent from the St, Louis River and the
possibility of substantial cost savings because of the
inherent economics of scale and the commingling of paper
and pulp mill wastes with the sewage. There are also
-------
J. P. Badalich
disadvantages, among which are the need for time to permit
formation of the district and postponement of completion of
needed new treatment works from beyond 1973 to possibly
1975.
The proposal appears to have the support of
virtually all of the municipalities and major industries
of the area. The Agency is convinced of the overall desir-
ability of the project and, therefore, has agreed to allow
deferral of compliance with the interim stipulation schedules
until mid-June. This was done to give the proponents time
to obtain from the 1971 legislature, now in session,
necessary enabling statutes for formation of the district.
If for any reason the district is not formed by July 1,
•<- 1971» the final completion dates of the stipulations shall
remain in effect and will be met. We ask your concurrence
in this action.
Recommendation 7: The suit against the Superwood
Corporation of Duluth was settled by a stipulation and
court order which require diversion of the company's sewage
and industrial wastes into the city system by May of 1973
and interim chlorination of the sewage effluent. Chlorin-
ation has been started at the Duluth Works of the U.S.
Steel Company. Further details are given in a report of
the status of scheduled construction. This is contained in
-------
75
J. P. Badalich
Attachment B. (See Pp. 79-^3)
Recommendation B: The Agency on December 14,
1970, adopted regulations which require the reduction of
phosphorus to the level of 1 milligram per liter in all
sewage or industrial wastes discharged to surface waters
of the Lake Superior Basin. Orders are being prepared for
issuance to the municipalities and industries, and this is
listed in Attachment C. (See Pp. 8/+.-S6)
Recommendation 9s The general comments made
previously in regard to municipalities under Recommendations
5 and B apply also to the industries involved with this
recommendation for equivalent treatment. The industries
which have stipulated are listed in Attachment B, and the
others in Attachment C.
Recommendation 13: The status of separation of
combined sewers and other sewer system improvements is
given in Attachment C.
Recommendation 16: A brief report on a survey
of port facilities for sewage disposal is appended as
Attachment D. (See Pp. #7-91)
In summary, the more noteworthy developments
which have occurred since August 1970 include the court
orders which require the Reserve Mining Company and
Superwood Corporation to install waste control works, the
-------
76
J. P. Badalich
signing of stipulations by the Continental Oil Company for
phosphorus reduction at its Wrenshall Refinery and the
village of Scanlon for secondary treatment and phosphorus
reduction, the proposal by the NEMDA for formation of a
regional district for sewage and waste disposal in the
Duluth-Cloquet-Superior area, and the receipt of a prelim-
inary engineering report from the Continental Oil Company
of Wrenshall. Engineers have been retained and/or techni-
cal studies begun by Babbitt, Gilbert, Ribbing, Hoyt Lakes,
Kinney, McKinley, Meadowlands, the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources for Jay Cooke State Park, and the city
of Virginia,
Those responsible for wastes discharged into the
Lake Superior Basin have been requested to be present in
order to furnish detailed information on their situation.
I trust that those representatives present today can
provide whatever additional information may be desired
by the conferees for their deliberations in this matter.
The Agency reaffirms its pledge to cooperate in every
manner possible to ensure that this conference is success-
ful in protecting these waters. I thank you.
The attachments I have, Mr. Chairman, numbered
A through D, I would like to have also included in the
record.
-------
77
J. P. Badalich
MR. STEIN: Without objection, they will be
included in the record as if read.
(The above Attachments A through D will be found
at Pp. 7S-91.)
MR. STEIN: Mr. Badalich, I would like a point
of clarification.
MR. BADALICH: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: I want to preface that by saying
I consider this a very important point of clarification.
In two places you say "the court," and I assume
that is the State — "the court ordered Reserve to
flocculate" — and at the end you say that "the court
orders ... require ... Reserve Mining ... to install
waste control works."
I would really like a clarification on that
because I read that court opinion, and at first blush I
am not sure that that is an order, is it?
MR. BADALICH: Well, I think it is, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Well, I would like your views.
MR. BADALICH: Well, my views are that the
matter was retained with the court, first of all, and the
court also indicated that by May 1$ of 1971» that the
Reserve Mining Company must present to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency a plan for modification of
-------
Attachment A
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Division of Water Quality
Preliminary Action Plan and Completion Schedule for Construction
of Treatment Works to Conform with Recommendations of Lake Superior
Enforcement Conference as set forth in Summary of January 26, 1970
April, 1970
Waste Treatment and/or
Control Task
Listed in FY 70
I & E Plan with
Requirement for .
Nutrient Reduction^ '
Other Sources
which Discharge
to or otherwise
affect Interstate
Waters(2)
Sources which
otherwise
affect only
Intrastate
Waters'3/
Effluent disinfection or equivalent
Retain consulting engineer
Engineering report on secondary
treatment and/or phosphorus
reduction
Authorize final plans
Final plans on secondary treatment
and/or phosphorus reduction
Engineering report on sewer
separation
Financ ing arrangement s
Award contract for secondary works
and/or phosphorus reduction
Initial contract for sewer
separation
Secondary works completed and in
operat ion
Tertiary works completed and in
operation
Sewer separation projects completed
May, 1970
March,
April,
Oct.,
Oct.,
Jan . ,
April,
April,
Nov.,
Nov.,
Nov. ,
-
1971
1971
1971
1971
1972
1972
1972
1973
1973
1979
Sept . ,
March,
April,
Oct.,
Oct.,
Jan.,
April,
Apri±,
Nov.,
Jan.,
Nov.,
1970
,-1971
1971
1971
1971
1972
1972
1972
1973
1975
1979
May, 1970
Sept . ,
March,
April,
Oct . ,
Oct.,
Jan.,
April,
April,
Jan. .
Jan.,
Nov . ,
1970
1971
1971
1971
1971
1972
1972
1972
1975
1975
1979
(l) Included only municipalities which discharge sewage, directly to an interstate lake, bay
or reservoir.
(2) Normally incliides some sources not discharging directly to interstate waters but which
because of proximity or inadequate treatment may violate standards for interstate waters
(3) Except for possible discharge of nutrients.
-------
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Division of Water Quality
Status of Scheduled Construction of Works for
Treatment of Wastes which are Discharged to
Waters of the Lake Superior Basin (l)
January 12, 1971
Attachment
Source and Remaining Control Tasks
Cloquet
Operation of pilot plant and analysis of data by
August 12, 1970 extended to June 14, 1971
Preparation of final basis of design and estimates
of costs for treatment facilities by October 12,
1970 extended to June Ik, 1971
Negotiations for final contract for joint treatment
facilities by December 12, 1970 extended to
June 14, 1971
Preparation of plans and specifications for treat-
ment facilities by November 12, 1971
Submittal of plans and specifications to appropri-
ate authorities for approval
Advertisement for bids, bid analysis, and awarding
of contract, subject to approval of agency grant-
ing construction funds, by January 12, 1972
Agency approval for granting construction funds
Construction of'treatment facilities by
November 12, 1973
Status
A preliminary engineering report
on joint treatment with the indus-
tries has been provided. A letter
from the city dated February 6, 1970
indicates that they will proceed
with planning for joint treatment
with the Northwest Paper Company
and Conwed.
Continental Oil Company.
Wrenshall Refinery. Wrenshall
Furnish revised engineering report for expansion of
existing wastewater treatment facilities by
February 1, 1971.
Make a decision on diversion to Carlton or independ-
ent waste treatment facilities, and submit contract
for municipal treatment of plant wastes, if chosen,
by July 1, 1971.
If independent waste treatment is chosen, submit
final plans by December 1, 1971.
Take bids and award contract for works by April 1, 1972.
Complete construction and place facilities in opera-
tion by May 26, 1973-
(1) Includes only those schedules which are incorporated in an order or stipulation
-------
January 12, 1971
Source and Remaining Control Tasks
Conwed Corporation. Cloquet
Operation of pilot plant and analysis of data by
August 12, 1970 extended to June 14, 1971
Preparation of final basis of design and estimate
of costs for treatment facilities by October 12,
1970 extended to June 14, 1971
Negotiations for final contract for joint treatment
facilities by December 12, 1970 extended to
June 14, 1971
Preparation of plans and specifications for treat-
ment facilities by November 12, 1971
Submittal of plans and specifications to appropriate
authorities for approval
Advertisement for bids, bid analysis, and awarding
of contract, subject to approval of agency granting
construction funds by January 12, 1972
Agency approval for granting construction funds
Construction of treatment facilities by
November 12, 1973
Status
A letter dated February 9, 1970
from Conwed indicates that the com-
pany will proceed with planning for
joint treatment with Cloquet and
the Northwest Paper Company if this
method proves to be of least cost
to the company. The company has
submitted a preliminary report on
studies leading to complete elimina-
tion of wastes by process changes
and in-plant controls.
Duluth
Furnish to Agency and Superwood a preliminary draft
of joint commitment or agreement with Superwood for
construction of interceptor sewer and future sewer
service by January 15, 1971.
Furnish to Agency for approval an executed commit-
ment or agreement with Superwood, as above, and sub-
mit preliminary engineering report on Superwood
interceptor by February 15, 1971.
Authorize preparation of final plans for Superwood
interceptor by March 15, 1971.
Authorize consulting engineers to prepare final con-
struction plans and specifications for secondary
treatment works, including phosphorus reduction, by
June 14, 1971.
Submit final plans for Superwood interceptor by
June 15, 1971.
Solicit bids and award contract for Superwood inter-
ceptor by August 15, 1971.
Submit final plans and specifications for secondary
treatment works, including phosphorus reduction, by
November 15, 1971.
Revised engineering report on sec-»
ondary and tertiary treatment
facilities has been received.
-------
-3-
January 12, 1971
Source and Remaining Control Tasks
Solicit bids and award contract for secondary treat-
ment works, including phosphorus reduction, by
January 15, 1972.
Complete construction of Superwood interceptor by
November 26, 1973.
Require Superwood to commence discharging its wastes
into the interceptor if so requested by the Agency
by Kay 15, 1973.
Complete construction and place in operation second-
ary treatment works, including phosphorus reduction,
by November 26, 1973.
Fitger Brewing Company. Duluth
Construction of necessary in-plant changes and diver-
sion of process wastes into the sanitary sewer sys-
tem by December 31, 1970 extended to June 30, 1971
Some pipe location work has been
done but connection delayed by
uncertainty as to site of new free-
way interchange.
Grand Marais
Construction plans for secondary and tertiary treat-
ment facilities by December 30, 1970
Contract awarded for secondary and tertiary treat-
ment facilities by Kerch 30, 1971
Secondary and tertiary treatment facilities to be com-
pleted by September 30, 1972
Engineering report has been received.
Further field work needed to evaluate
sewer infiltration has delayed sub-
mission of plans.
Minnesota Power and Light Company.
Hibbard Plant. Duluth
Engineering report on improvement of sewage and ash
disposal systems to be submitted by September 1, 1971
Final plans to be submitted by January 1, 1972
Construction to be completed and facilities to be
placed in operation by July 7, 1972
The company has recently submitted
report on studies.
Minnesota Power and Light. Company.
Hoyt Lakes Plant, Hoyt Lakes
Complete construction and place in operation neces-
sary sanitary and process wastes disposal systems by
July 1, 1971 so that all waste effluents are in com-
pliance with applicable water quality standards.
The company has recently submitted
a report on proposed revisions to
the existing system.
-------
-4-
January 12, 1971
Source and Remaining Control Taskjs
The Northwest Paper Company, Cloquet
Operation of pilot plant and analysis of data by
August 12, 1970 extended to June 14, 1971
Preparation of final basis of design and estijnate of
Costs for treatment facilities by October 12, 1970
extended to June 14, 1971
Negotiations for final contract for joint treatment
facilities by December 12, 1970 extended to
June 14, 1971
Preparation of plans and specifications for appropri-
ate authorities for approval
Submittal of plans and specifications to appropriate
authorities for approval
Advertisements for bids, bid analysis, and awarding
of contract, subject to approval of agency granting
construction funds by January 12, 1972
Agency approval for granting construction funds
Construction of treatment facilities completed by
November 12, 1973
Status
A letter dated February 6, 1970
indicates that the company will
proceed with planning for joint
treatment with Cloquet and Conwed.
Pilot plant studies have had to be
more prolonged than anticipated.
Scanlon
If Agency disapproves of the decision of the village
to improve its treatment works, village must contract
to divert wastes to multi-municipal facility by
June 14, 1971.
If Agency approves continuing independent treatment,
village must submit final plans for secondary and
tertiary treatment works by June 15, 1971.
Take bids and award contract for independent works
by July 15, 1971.
Complete construction and place facilities in opera-
tion by September 1, 1973.
The Agency has not commented on the
village's decision because of the
proposal for the NEMDA project.
Silver Bay
Final plans on expansion of secondary treatment
facilities and phosphorus reduction and measures to
eliminate sources of infiltration and/or storm water
influx by February 28, 1971
Bids and awards by May 30, 1971
Construction feo b».completed by November 30, 1972
Engineering report has been received.
-------
-5-
January 12, 1971
Source and Remaining Control Tasks
Superwood Corporation. Duluth
Complete necessary construction on company property
prior to November 26, 1972 to connect to public
interceptor, and divert sewage and industrial wastes
to city sanitary sewer system by May 15, 1973.
Status
Consultant is working on in-plant
improvements concurrently with
studies for diversion to the city
system.
Two Harbors
Final plans on sewer improvements by
September 1, 1970
Bids and awards on sewer works by November 1, 1970
Amended preliminary report and revised federal grant
application by October 31, 1971
Final plans on treatment works by December 30, 1971
extended to March 30, 1972
Bids and awards on plant by April 30, 1972 extended
to May 31, 1972
Plant construction to be completed by May 26, 1973
Sewer separation to be completed by November, 1979
Engineering repcrt on secondary
and tertiary treatment facilities
and on sanitary sewer infiltration
and storm water influx problems
has been received.
-------
Attachment C
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Division of Water Quality
Remaining Non-Conforming Sources of Sewage and Industrial Wastes Discharged in the Lake
Superior Basin for which Additional Treatment or Control may be Necessary for Compliance
with Recommendations of Enforcement Conference. (1)
Name and Location
December, 1970
Treatment and/or
Control Need
Remarks
Abex Corporation,
Two Harbors
Aurora
Babbitt
Biwabik
Buhl
Carlton
Chisholm
Cloquet
Diamond Tool and Horseshoe Co.,
Duluth
Duluth
Eveleth
Ploodwood
Fraser
Gilbert
Grand Karais
Improve treatment works
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Secondary treatment and
phosphorus reduction, sewer
system improvements.
Phosphorus reduction
Sewer system improvements
Treatment works or divert, to
city sanitary system
Sewer system improvements
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Sewer system improvements
Company is making study of
wastes and preparing plans.
Progress has not been reported.
Village has studies underway
and has requested a variance.
Progress has not been reported,
Progress has not been reported.
An engineering report has
been received.
Progress has not been reported.
An engineering report has
been received.
Progress has not been reported.
It is understood that the city
has made some improvements,
however, a report on a
comprehensive sewer study has
not yet been submitted.
Progress has not been reported.
Progress has not been reported.
Progress has not been reported.
A consulting engineer has
been retained.
An engineer has been employed
and studies are underway.
(l) Does not include federal establishments.
-------
Hibbing
Hibbing Power Plant
Hoyt Lakes
Iron Junction
Kinney
LeonIdas
McKinley
Meadowlands
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Jay Cooke
State Park, Carlton County
Mountain Iron
iiichols Township,
St. Louis County
Reserve Mining Company,
E. W. Davis Works and Power
Plant, Silver Bay
R. J. Reynolds Foods,
Duluth
St. Louis Count;/,
Nopeming Sanitorium, Duluth
Scanlon
Stuntz Township,
Hblly Lake Community,
St. Louis County
Thompson Township,
Ssko Community
Carlton Countv
-2-
Phosphorus reduction
Treatment works
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Expand treatment including
phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
Treatment works
Expand treatment including
phosphorus reduction or
divert to city system
Phosphorus reduction
Sewer system improvements
Phosphorus reduction
Phosphorus reduction
A consulting engineer
been retained.
has
Progress has not been reported.
A consulting engineer has been
retained.
Progress has not been reported.
A consulting engineer has been
retained.
Progress has not been reported.
A consulting engineer has been
retained.
A consulting engineer has been
retained.
Department has agreed
improve facilities.
to
Progress has not been reported.
Progress has not been reported.
Company has retained engineers
and is preparing specific
proposal.
Company has agreed to do
intensive sampling of wastes
to determine if further
diversion to city system is
needed.
Progress has not been reported.
Progress has not been reported.
Progress has not been reported.
Progress has not been reported
-------
Two Harbors Power Plant
Union Carbide Co., Duluth
U.S. Steel Corporation,
Duluth Works, Duluth
-3-
Treatment works
Treatment works
Expand treatment works
Phosphorus reduction
U.S. Steel Corp., MinnTac Plant Phosphorus reduction
sewage works, Mountain Iron
Progress has not been reported.
Progress has not been reported.
The company has agreed in
principle to upgrade facilities
to comply with standards
requirements, and has studies
underway.
Progress has not been reported.
Virginia
Phosphorus reduction
A consulting engineer has
been retained.
-------
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Division of Water Quality
Memorandum on Sewage Disposal Facilities for Uatercraft
and Commercial Vessels at Ports on the North Shore of Lake Superior
January 5, 1971
Commercial, recreational and other vessels on Lake Superior contribute both
untreated and inadequately treated sewage and wastes to the Lake and harbor areas.
These wastes have been found to include sewage, bilge water, dunnage, ballast
water, wash waters, chemicals and various cargo spills.
Existing federal regulations prohibit the dumping of litter, sewage and
various other wastewaters near water intakes and some other locations on the
Great Lakes. Minnesota has a law requires pleasure craft which have on-board
toilet facilities, to also have an acceptable sewage treatment device or holding
tank. This survey was made to determine the extent of the shore installations
available to service such units.
An investigation was conducted during the week of October IB, 1970 of all
known ports, marinas or harbors in the Lake Superior Basin of Minnesota to
determine the availability of facilities for collecting and treating the various
wastes which originate on watercraft.
The investigation results revealed that only two marinas, both in Duluth, have
facilities for emptying holding tanks from pleasure craft. The remaining harbors
or mooring areas along the North Shore do not provide any type of collection or
treatment equipment for pleasure craft wastes, nor do any of the industrial
harbors provide collection or treatment for sanitary sewage, garbage, dunnage, or
bilqe lanc' ballast waters.
The Port of Duluth-Superior has regulations which prohibit discharge of
polluted ba.Hast or bilge waters, garbage and dunnage while vessels are in port,
but the only regulation pertainiig to sewage requires the use of splaeh boards
on docked vessels to prevent spillage over the dock 'surfaces. Attempts at pro-
-------
- 2 - gg
viding portable privies on the docks for use by work crews and ship personnel
while vessels art.1 moored, have not been successful.
Garbage and dunnage from foreign and ocean-going vessels in the Port of Duluth
can be disposed of only through the "Marine Sanitary Service," a private enter-
prise that operates a series of scows and dump trucks that individually service
the vessels while in port. The garbage is collected in closed, waterproof con-
tainers and burned in an oil fired incinerator near the harbor area. Ash residue
is disposed of in the Duluth landfill. Dunnage is openly bejrned on property
adjacent to the incinerator. American and Canadian vessels in the harbor are
not required to use this service and the majority of these ships burn their
garbage on deck in 50 gallon drum-type incinerators, with ash res,idue and dunnage
received on the dock for disposal.
A recent study prepared for the Northeastern Minnesota Development Association
(NEMDA) relating to the feasibility of a regional waste treatment plant to serve
the combined municipal and industrial wastes of the Duluth-Cloquet area included
provisions for serving the Duluth-Superior Harbor area.
The report proposed a vessel pollution control system consisting ofl) a mobile-
scavenger service, (either powered or towed, )to collect solid refuse from ships,
gather sewage from on-board holding tanks, and to treat bilge and ballast maters
in oil-water separators before discharge to the harbor; plus 2) on-shore
facilities consisting of tanker cleaning stations, additional oil-water separa-
tors for treating bilge and ballast waters, sewage transfer stations for the
mobile scavengers and equipment to service pleasure craft with on-board
holding tanks, transfer stations for solid waste and oil processing facilities
to reclaim oil residues.
The estimated capital costs for the necessary shore-handling facilities ap-
proximate $750,000. Also.it is estimated that four mobile-scavenger units, at
$350,000 each v^ould be necessary for adequate service to the harbor area.
-------
39
The cost of these facilities would be charged against those vessels using the
port and are anticipated to average about 2$ per ton of cargo. Total cost for
typical vessels calling on the port would vary from $160-$£»QO, depending on
their size and the services required.
The Agency approved on December 1*», 1970, the overall concept of the NEMDA
proposal, including the concept of shore disposal of sewage originating from
vessels and watercraft in the Port of Duluth. However, should the regional district
proposal not receive Legislative authorization, it is recommended that additional
studies be initiated by the County and the Seaway Port Authority to provide on-
shore sewage disposal facilities in Duluth in the near future. Such facilities
should also be provided at all of the Lake Superior industrial harbors and marinas
in Minnesota.
Michael A. Zagar, Staff Engineer
Section of Municipal Works
-------
90
Sites Inspected for Sewage Disposal Facilities on
the Worth Shore of Lake Superior, October 1970
Location
Description
Regulations and/or
Facilities Available
Port of Duluth
Connie's Landing, Duluth
Commercial port
Privately owned launch-
ramp & marina
Splash boards required,
garbage and dunnage
from foreign & ocean
going vessels collected
and incinerated.
Regulations prohibit
dumping of wastes
while in port.
No pumping facilities
available; generally
do not handle boats
large enough for hold-
ing tanks.
Drill's Marina, Duluth
Lakehead Boat Basin.
Duluth
Duluth Marine Sales,
Duluth
of Knife River
Privately owned launch-
ramp, •& marina
Privately owned launch-
ramp. 8 marina
Privately owned launch-
ramp
Municipal harbor
Pump for pumping hold-
ing tanks; waters
hauled to Smithville
Waste Treatment Works.
Pump for pumping hold-
ing tanks; wastes go
to Duluth sanitary
sewer.
Facilities available
No facilities avail-
able
City of Two Harbors
King's Landing
Village of Silver Bay
Village of Taconite Harbor
Lutsen Ski Lodge and
Resort
launch area,
iron ore docks
Private launch ramp, &
marina
Reserve Mining iron ore docks
Erie Mining Power Plant
Private landing
No facilities available
No facilities available
No facilities available
No facilities available
No facilities availablp
No facilities available
Village of Grand Marais
Municipal harbor
No facilities available
-------
- 2 -
91
Location
Description
Regulation and/or
Facilities Available
Hsvland
Voyager Marina,
Grand Portage
Launch area and landing
Private launch ramp
No facilities available
No facilities available
-------
92
J. P. Badalich
disposal of their taconite tailings, and if you read this
memorandum, I believe the memorandum very clearly stated
that the method shall be the flocculation of the fine
tailings, and in turn discharge into the lake at a point
so that — or discharge by conduit so that the total
tailings reached the so-called Great Trough.
MR. STEIN: Now, I am not arguing with the
details. The question here is whether there is an order
of the court against the community. In the memorandum on
the matter, the court says here: "This court feels that
the time has come to brush aside all legal technicalities
and procedures that may impede a resolution of these
questions without further delay..."
Is it your opinion that this is an order of the
court? If it is, I am not disputing this because this is
a State Judgment. I think we would like to hear this
when Reserve comes up here what their opinion of this is
too because I think this is a vital point on whether there
is a court order or not that Reserve is under.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I construe it as
a court order, at least from the legal advice that we
have obtained.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Are there any further questions or comments?
-------
93
J. P. Badalich
MR. PURDY: I have one question, Mr. Stein.
Mr. Badalich, you mentioned under Recommendation
16 this matter of port facilities for sewage disposal.
If I remember correctly, at an earlier conference, a union
representative, I believe, appeared and made a statement
and said that the union would not unload ships that did not
have waste disposal facilities installed, and I am wonder-
ing what took place this last summer.
MR. BADALICH: I think from the feedback I get,
Mr. Purdy, from Mr. Tom Burt, that this was being done.
The unions — I mean the longshoremen were making it diffi-
cult to have the vessels unloaded unless there were facili-
ties available for disposal of the waste generated on
shipboard.
MR. PURDY: Is it the sanitary waste? To my
knowledge, most lake freighters do not have sanitary waste
disposal facilities onboard. This is one of the problems
we are having right at the moment on those lake freighters
that sail in Michigan waters.
MR. BADALICH: Well, it is my understanding that
the foreign vessels, or any commercial vessel that did
use the dockage at Port Duluth that they were asked, and
I think in some cases forbidden, to use the head facilities
onboard, and there were onshore — on-dock facilities
-------
94
J. P. Badalich
available, like the satellite, or this type of a facility,
was made available to the foreign vessels.
MR. PURDY: So this related only to when they
were in port and not when they were out in the open?
MR. BADALICH: That is correct.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions or
comments?
Well, I would like to bring one up and have a
little further edification on this, am? that is that
regional approach- , I think your statement on this is
pretty candid, but when you talk about the disadvantage,
the disadvantage means that you are going to postpone
completion of the treatment works from 1973 to 1975, and
that is a 2-year delay. Now, that is not a modest dis-
advantage, it seems to me0
Throughout the country we are about 1973/r I
think the other States can look at that date,which has
been the completion date for putting their works in
in compliance with this round of standards that we are
having in the States* T would like to get some comment
on the appropriateness of a 2-year delay on this.
How much time did we give them in the first
place?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate on
-------
95
J. P. Badalich
that a little bit<, This is sort of an outside date that
was given by the consultant on the basis of the preliminary
report that was presented. I don't think this is an
actual, factual date, because before the organization NEMDA
can proceed any further they have to get the enabling
legislation or at least creation of a sanitary district
through some legal means0
Once this is done, immediately they will start
proceeding on time schedule, preliminary plans, and so on.
So whether 1975 is the date or late 1974, at this time, I
don't think we can positively state other than we feel
this would be the maximum time that could be allowed, or
would even be contemplated in this massive construction.
MR. STEIN: I understand what you are saying,
Mr. Badalich, but again in the consideration — and I am
just talking about Federal people — in the acceptance or
nonacceptance of this, I think the key point is going to
be how much of a delay this is going to bring about. If
you are just talking in terms about a 3-month delay in
preliminary plans, it would seem to me that you may want
to look at this again because there may be some padding —
and I know we all do this when we prepare plans and speci-
fications or a proposal — in that last date.
I think the crux of this matter, at least from
-------
96
J. P. Badalich
acceptability from the Federal Government standpoint
and one of the major issues is going to be what kind of a
delay this is going to be. Now, I think originally — what
was it, a 4-year program that we gave at the first for a
cleanup?
MR, BADALICH: Yes.
MR. STEIN: And to add another 2 years would
extend the time 50 percent. This is a considerable delay.
MR. BADAJLICH: That isn't quite true, Mr. Stein.
After all, we had to wait almost 2 years for the Federal
Government to approve our interstate water quality 'stana-
aras . This was approved in late 1969, although we
started a year before that in issuing compliance schedules,
and so on. So I don't think it was a 4-year program. As
far as Minnesota is concerned, it is a 3-year program.
MR. STEIN: And you are ready in 2 years for the
3-year program?
MR. BADALICH: As a maximum.
MR. STEIN: That seems to me quite a bit of delay
that you are proposing here; if you are proposing this as
a 3- to a 5-year program, this is pretty significant.
MR. B&DALICH: Well, the stage of all of the
dischargers now located within the Lake Superior Basin
— their state of compliance now is the submission of
-------
97
J. P. Badalich
preliminary plans, and this would have been accomplished
either in March or April of 1971• Following this comes
the normal procedure of approval and from there we get
into the design engineering. So that by late this year
or early 1972, they would be under construction on
individual facilities, and this would be accomplished,
according to our interstate water quality standards, by
November 26 of 1973 for all dischargers.
The problem here is that in order for all of the
dischargers to meet this regional approach — and here
again this is one thing that I believe we have endorsed
the regional approach on all our basin, and I think it
has been clearly stated by EPA that this is also the
approach that should be used to all river systems in the
United States — so in all fairness to the municipalities
and industries involved in this area, we have declared
more or less a 6-month moratorium on the preparation of
the final plans until this matter of establishing of a
sanitary district can be accomplished* Following this,
which will be July 1, at the maximum, as the time that
any law that is created or enabled by the legislature
will take effect, and if there is no enabling legislation
at that time, well, then, immediately the discharger will
have to proceed on an individual basis and catch up so
-------
J. P. Badalich
that the final completion date of November of 1973 is also
accomplished. Also if the sanitary district is created,
well, then, in turn we will work out a schedule, and I am
saying that that is a possibility because of the complexity
of this large treatment facility which will treat up to
60 million gallons a day, plus 20-some-odd-mile interceptor
that we feel that it probably will be necessary for 3 years
of construction. Or maybe this can be shortened to 2 and
a half years. We don't know.
We know that concurrently the interceptor as
well as the regional treatment facilities can be constructed!.
But here again we don't know, at this time, what the extent
of engineering and construction might be. It could maybe
be shortened to 1974» but at this time I just can't state
that.
MR. STEIN: I would like to ask Mr. Majo if he
has anything to add. I am going to suggest if we are
going ahead with this plan, or proposing this plan, the
kind of extension you have, we have to be very careful
and not get into numbers here. You talk about a 6-month
extension. Then in your report you said reports required
by March 1, 1971, bnt it is anticipated that they need
3 months» March to April is one month; 3 months beyond
April is another 4. We get to 4 months. Then, in the
-------
99
J. P. Badalich
proposals, it becomes 6 months, and before we know it we
are up to 2 years.
Now, I think if we are going to do this, and
put this before the Federal people, we are going to have
to really coine up with a plan that is going to try to
pare things down. Our regional approach doesn't neces-
sarily mean an integrated system if it is gqing to take
more time*
MR. BADALICHi Mr. Chairman, I think you have got
to realize, too, that in the event this is created, we are
certainly going to have the NEMDA organization — or
whatever this sanitary district might be called — we
will have them under stipulation, and I am sure there
are going to be some interim measures that they have to
continue to do and provide. It is a very good possibility
that maybe during an interim period, for example, the city
of Duluth, which handles primary treatment now — maybe
they will have to begin to use chemicals or coagulation
to provide better treatment. That can be worked out.
But at this point, before this district can be
created, it is just anybody's guess on what some of the
mechanics of this is.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Mayo.
MR. MAYO: By way of comment, Mr. Chairman, we
-------
100
J. P. Badalich
had the opportunity about a month ago to review the NEMDA
proposal with the consultants. Mr. Purdy was present, and
Mr. Frangos was present.
As I understand the key factor that is involved
here is that it is proposed that there be a bi-state district,
Neither of the States now have enabling legislation to permit
such a district to be created.
I think Governor Lucey a little earlier this
morning indicated that such enabling legislation is being
introduced in Wisconsin. I don't know whether that kind of
legislation has yet been introduced in Minnesota.
MR. BADALICH: No, it hasn't, but it is being
formulated.
MRo MAYO: The nuts and bolts in Mr. Badalich's
proposal here is that we permit the communities, until July
1, 1971> the opportunity to resolve the legislative needs,
in terms of enabling legislation, and the organizational
needs for the creation of the district. Failing the accom-
plishment of either of these, I think particularly the
accomplishment of the enabling legislation, there would be
no relaxation on the current November 1973 target date.
But with the accomplishment of the enabling legislation
and the creation of the district by July of 1971, that very
serious consideration may be given to the regional plan that
-------
101
J. P. Badalich
has been proposed and an appropriate implementation schedule
at that time, which might or might not require until 1975
to accomplish. And we are very concerned about that kind
of an extension of the time, and we would be particularly
critical of any indication that a stretchout was being
proposed more as a matter of convenience than as a matter
of necessity.
So I think that the interim period for the
achievement of the enabling legislation, which is probably
not an unreasonable one — but failing that accomplishment,
there should be absolutely no relaxation on the November
1973 date.
MR. STEIN: I understood that in the original
thinking.
MR. BADALICH: This we have agreed to, Mr. Mayo.
MR. STEIN: I understood that in Mr. Badalich's
presentation^) But the issue that I raise — and I think
it is fair to say that the States and the State legislatures
need a clue on this — if they get through this enabling
legislation, is the Federal Government going along with
this?
Now, I think they need this before they go on.
I fully understand the proposal. The question, I think, £
-------
102
J. P. Badalich
trying to get a notion on and that we have now, is for the
States at least to make an effort to make a presentation to
us to get every bit of water out of that schedule, so that
we would have a tighter schedule for completion, because I
think you are entitled to some kind of agreement from the
Federal Government as to whether you are going to go with
this or not.
MR. BADALICH: I think following the enabling
legislation if we should be successful, I would very defi-
nitely want the input from the conferees and the Federal
Government and everyone else, to help us along on this to
see what would be a reasonable date. We are not going to
do this unilaterally. We have to have your support.
MR. STEIN: Maybe I am not making this clear.
We are not going to open the door or get the camel's nose
under the tent by stages. We have a program agreed upon,
and we have to come to an agreement whether this is a rea-
sonable approach to extend this for 2 years. The point
is that passing enabling legislation does not give you
a moral largess or an agreement from the Federal Government
that we are going along with this proposal. You should
know this before we start so we don't get into any
problems after you have your legislatures to pass the
bills.
-------
103
J. P. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: Well, do you think, at this point,
Mr, Chairman, that the 6-month extension we have given on
these interim dates is a reasonable request?
MR. STEIN: Well, the point is, as I read your
proposal, if the legislation fails that you are not going
to fail to meet the final dates.
MR. BADALICH: That is correct.
MR. STEIN: And in light of that, I wouldn't think
that your judgment here is wrong.
However, I would say that you have no assurance
nor do I have any assurance yet that we are going to get
the green light from the Federal officials on allowing a
2-year extension for a cleanup.
MR. BADALICH: Well, at this point, what I am
stating, Murray, is that this.is probably the maximum time
of extension, but I think when we get into the point of
developing some realistic approach to this on what should
be a nominal schedule for compliance or for completion of
this project, certainly we are going to ask for your
concurrence and your ideas, and so on.
MR. STEIN: What I am saying, John, is that I
think if you can come up with this realistic answer or
proposal beforehand, before you go through to this June or
July and we pan get a reading on this, we will be a lot
-------
104
J. P. Badalich
better off than waiting until you have this, because this is
going to put you in the posture of getting this through.
Now, let me tell you: I know times are difficult,.
and I hope something like this can work out. B.ut if you go
to the Kansas Cities now, you will find two waste treatment
plants across the street from each other — two big ones,
mult^wiill ion dollar plants — one in Kansas City, Missouri,
and one in Kansas City, Kansas. And the reason they are
there is because they could get the legislation through one
State legislature but not the other, and they couldn't put
them together, and this is not always the easiest thing
to do.
Now, I know; I worked with that. When you put
these things together and they either go or they don't go,
you come up for considerable sacks of money. I am sure if
we could have built one plant in the Kansas City area, we
could have saved a lot of money, and not have two plants
opposite each other across the street.
But I think the closer you can get Federal-State
agreement at the earliest stage of the game the better off
we are going to be on these projects. Because — let me
again state possibly something that I see 6 months down
the road, then we will let you go.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that both
-------
10$
J. P. Badalich
State legislatures pass the bill, and let us assume that you
come up with a plan that at that point the Federal Government
will not agree to. I think we put ourselves in a confronta-
tion position that I would like to avoid at all costs.
MR. BADALIGH: So would we very definitely.
MR. STEIN: That is right. Therefore, I think we
should try to get the problems or the potential problems,
or the questions that Mr. Mayo and the Federal staff are
going to ask, before we go much farther down the road and
not wait until the legislature has got this. Because then
we may have passed the point of no return and this is what
I would like to avoid.
MR. BADALICH: Isn't this the purpose of our
conference today —
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. BADALICH: — is to try to arrive at some-
thing? So why can't we discuss it sometime during the
course of this conference?
MR. STEIN: Well, what would you think, Mr. Mayo?
MR. MAYO: Could we discuss the details of the
plan?
MR. BADALICH: Well, that seems to be what Murray
is getting at. It seems to be premature. I am certainly
not going to go ahead and do this unilaterally without the
-------
106
Jo P. Badalich
support of the conferees and the support of the Federal
Government.
MR. STEIN: That is right. How do we approach
this?
MR. PURDY: I am ready to make a comment, Mr.
Stein.
MR. STEIN: Right. Yes.
MR. PURDY: Well, in the review of this project,
Mr. Stein, it is my understanding that it is a favorable
project on an intrastate basis0 That is, the economies of
•scale, and so forth, are favorable from the standpoint of
the regional system within Minnesota alone. So if the
interstate problem of legislation should be a stumbling
block, it would still not cause the failure of the total
project*
Now, on the assumption that if the total project
would fail -chat there is no delay in the 1973 date, I think
the regional system offers some distinct advantages and
also that when you go into the details of the project,
that possibly there are things that could be brought into
play early in the period. For example, the treatment works
could be constructed to provide the higher degree of treat-
ment for Duluth. As I understand it, it is going to be
at the site of the present Duluth plant, while the
-------
10?
J. P. Badalich
interceptor — and be in operation while the interceptor is
being constructed. Possibly not all parts of the project
would take the same 3-year construction period.
In addition to that, it is my understanding that
if the State of Minnesota should proceed on the present
stipulation and that separate treatment facilities are built
at all locations, that from the standpoint of the resulting
river water quality that this would only bring you to
an interim objective at the present time.
MR. BADALICH: That is correct, Ralph.
MR. PURDY: And that if the regional system goes
through, that it would in one step bring you to your objec~
tives for water quality in Lake Superior, and also within
the St. Louis River. And to me this is a very distinct
advantage, and if this can be done in a reasonable length
of time by extending this 1973 date, I think it would be
a shame to proceed on the interim project and not obtain
your full goal.
MR. STEIN: Right.
Now, again, I don't know if Mr. Mayo wants to
talk to this, but I think what you have pointed out 4e-
providing tne answers, or at least answers I think I can
go with to some of your questions,
I think the question answers this* When you are
-------
108
J. P. Badalich
talking a year or two extension, and two may be the maximum.
you are not talking about this for the complete project.
This was when every last jot and tittle would be completed.
But before that a lot of the works would be in and we would
have water improvement before that. Is that correct?
MR. BADALICH: That is correct.
MR. STEIN: That is the understanding I had.
And if we do that, 1) you are going to have the standards
being met in one fell swoop, and 2) you are going to have
the advantage of no effluent going into the St. Louis
River.
MR. BADALIGH: Right.
MR. STEIN: And there is only one thing that
that could do with the St. Louis River and that is going
to help. I surely don't want to come up here on a mercury
case/, The St. Louis River, as far as I know, in this
case has always been a polluter. It is an interstate
stream.
MR. BADALICH: It has been in bad condition, yes,
MR. STEIN: That is right. So I think these are
the advantages. But I think the key point that we should
try to zero in on is all these points and the notion that
you are not going to have this delay for the whole project
for an improvement to take place.
-------
109
J. P. Badalich
The improvements will be phased in from a period,
say, from 1973 to 1975, and that there will be significant
improvement, say, during that period, and you can schedule
it. But by 1975 we will have met the standards, and if we
went with the other plan, the probability is — and if you
finished the work in 1973 — that you wouldn't completely
meet the standards until maybe 1975 completely anyway, if
then.
MR. BADALICH: That is a very good possibility
especially in the Cloquet area.
MR. STEIN: That is right. So, therefore, if you
consider making a presentation, you may want to consider
emphasizing some of these points, or the conferees may
want to consider them.
MR. FRANGOS: Just a few observations. We
generally concur in the assessment of the situation that
both you and Mr. Purdy made. We are always faced with
this question about whether you are delaying abatement,
and we can plan for all kinds of savings — pollution may
continue for half a dozen years — and we are anxious to
avoid that kind of a situation here.
Our position in this is — as it relates to the
city of Superior — that under our law there doesn't appear
to be a prohibition in adjoining across the line in some
-------
110
T. G. Frangos
kind of a venture. But one of the questions that we would
be concerned about is whether we would give a State grant
to a foreign entity, but we would concur with —
MR. STEIN: I thought you just considered the
Feds foreigners. Join the club, John, you are in, too.
MR. FRANGOS: But I think we would very much
support this kind of a consideration by the conference,
including the reservations that you went over, Mr. Stein,
that we would use this 6-month period with the understand-
ing that these time schedules would be refined the next
time that we convened, and that we all agreed on the
principle that we did not mean by any action that we take
here that we would be extending or delaying any remedial
action for a period of 2 years.
MR. STEIN: By the way, your point is very well
taken about having a public entity outside the State, and
these aren't easy to handle. With the best will indeed
to make financial contributions, as we have learned to
our sorrow in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan A.rea/., Tou
get a legal opinion that is against you and there is no
way you can move, whatever you want to do0 It is the
hardest thing to get money across the State line through
another jurisdiction in a Public Works program* This has
to be considered very, very carefully indeed.
-------
Ill
T. G. Frangos
The jurisdiction can do this by contract itself
presumably, but once public funds are involved, particularly
State or Federal funds, where we have an allocation, we are
bound by all kinds of restrictions.
MR. FRANGOS: Yes. And I would follow up on
that with a comment that we have expressed a concern when
we discussed this amongst ourselves—that even this 6-month
period is very ambitious in terms of nailing this proposal
down, unless there is a maximum effort. I can't be too
optimistic that this thing is going to go, but we would
like to pursue it and we think there is considerable merit.
MR, STEIN: Wait a minute. You have given your-
self a deadline, as I understand it. When is it, July
1st?
MR. FRANGOS: Yes.
MR. STEIN: To get it through the legislature.
Do you think that is realistic?
MR. BADALICH: Whether it is realistic or not,
we adjourn sometime the latter part of May.
MR. STEIN: I know your States do a lot better
than we do in the Congress on the Federal level. But there
is no business that you just keep hanging on, and think
we are going to have the maximum day and the next day and
the next day.
-------
112
J. P. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: Well, under Minnesota law, Murray,
the State or the municipalities certainly have the right
to create a sanitary district under the Joint Powers Act.
They also have a right to create a sanitary district by
petitioning our Agency, but you know in an area like this
where you have got possibly 25 or 30 different entities,
you are going to have a devil of a time trying to get
unanimity on a Joint Powers Agreement.
MR. STEIN: John, if you want this stricken from
the record, I will be glad to do it. But, you know, we
were up and down this mountain with Minneapolis-St. Paul
how many years?
MR. BADALICH: It took 10 years, and five
legislative sessions.
MR. STEIN: Ten years of five legislative
sessions.
I don't think I have ever been in a more frus-
trating Alice-in-Wonderland situation in my life, and I
hope you are going to do a little better here.
MR. BADALICH: Now, we have got nationwide
recognition on it, Mr. Stein.
The other thing, Murray, I would like to bring
out, too, is: I am a little fearful of what would happen
in the event that this sanitary district wasn't created,
-------
113
J. P. Badalich
in light of the philosophy the Federal Government has now
on river basin planning, and the construction grant program
being contingent upon this. Would the Federal Government
go ahead and fund all of these municipalities on an indi-
vidual basis when we know the regional approach is the
only approach in this particular area, and this would go
against your own regulations, your own philosophies for
attacking the pollution control problem? Do you propose
this will succeed so we can work from there on and resolve
this matter?
MR. STEIN: Let me answer the question as I see
it here. Having a regional approach does not always mean
that you are going to be in one integrated system. There
can be a regional approach with individual plants.
MR. BADALICH: Oh, yes, very definitely.
MR. STEIN: And I would hope that even the
existing plan is a regional approach. For example, I
think, to go back to that example I used before — and I
think I was using it as a horrible example — you might
say the Kansas City operation is a regional approach.
These guys were both sharp because the hydrology of the
region got them to put the plant at exactly the same place.
The trouble is they couldn't put them together.
But looking at the way that operates, that is a
-------
114
J. P. Badalich
regional system because you are following the normal flow
of the land, and both of them came to the same conclusion
where the plant should be. It is just it is not one.
In other words, it doesn't have to be one plant to fit a
regional approach.
MR<> BADALICH: Well, except also, Murray, we would
like to go along with the philosophy of the Federal Govern-
ment: we also want to enhance our waters and here is a
very good opportunity to do it.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments on this?
Again, I wish the conferees would think about
this. This is going to be a rather difficult thing to
formulate and handle,, I wonder, Mr. Mayo, if your
staff and your group — if you could think about this and
possibly if there is some appropriate action for the
conferees, we can come up with a proposal for the con-
sideration of the conferees at the end, where we can move
this forward or at least move it to some point where we
can get a resolution one way or another.
Okay. Is there anything else?
MRo BADALICH: There is nothing else, Mr.
Chairman, insofar as the Agency's presentation, but I
do have a list of 14 or 15 witnesses along with Reserve
Mining Company to make a presentation.
-------
115
J. P. Badalich
MR. STEIN: Well, I tall you, we are going to
let them get stronger by eating your wonderful food, and
we will recess for lunch and reconvene at 1:30.
(Noon recess.)
-------
116
G. Merritt
AFTERNOON SESSION
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
Mr. Badalich.
MR. BADALICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I indicated before the noon break, the
Pollution Control Agency had finished their testimony at
this particular time. I will call on those persons indi-
cating a desire to be heard, and number one on the list —
this, again, was received on the basis of the requests
coming in by mail, so I will call first upon the Minnesota
Environmental Control Citizens Association, MECCA, which
is represented by Mr. Grant Merritt.
STATEMENT OF GRANT T. MERRITT
MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CITIZENS
ASSOCIATION, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
MR. MERRITT: Mr. Chairman, conferees, and ladies
and gentlemen. My name is Grant Merritt, and I have
appeared at the previous sessions of this conference on
behalf of the Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens
Association.
MECCA has participated in the four previous
-------
117
G. Merritt
meetings of this conference and is pleased to again have
the opportunity to present a statement to the conferees.
We are hopeful that the conference will finally
take positive action to end the pollution of Lake Superior
from all sources and adopt onshore disposal for Reserve
Mining Company. We in Minnesota are proud that a portion
of this great lake is within our borders. It is the hope
of all Minnesotans that this magnificent lake shall forever
justify the name Superior.
MECCA believes we can prevent Lake Superior from
becoming a Lake Erie if we act now. We are pleased by the
strong plea stated this morning by Governor Anderson for
onshore disposal. We are also pleased by the full support
and agreement given the onshore disposal plan by Governor
Lucey at the press conference this morning.
In a few minutes, I would like to call on Charles
Carson to present the specific position of MECCA.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Merritt, I have listened to both
Governors. I didn't hear them ask for onshore disposal.
MR. MERRITT: Yes, Mr. Stein, at the press con-
ference this morning at 1:30 —
MR. STEIN: No, they were here on the record,
I didn't hear them ask for onshore —
MR. MERRITT: Governor Anderson did call for
-------
G. Merritt
onshore disposal.
MR. STEIN: Where?
MR. MERRITT: In his statement this morning.
Well, he did if you will check the record.
MR. STEIN: I will have the record checked.
Let me ask you: Why do you think onshore
disposal would be less damaging to the ecology, or do you
think we should go to the method that is less damaging to
the ecology?
MR. MERRITT: If we adopt some plan which
provides for continuing discharge or dumping into Lake
Superior, we have no assurance that after 5 years or any
length of time that that plan will not continue pollution
of Lake Superior. If we adopt an onshore disposal plan,
there will be no further dumping in Lake Superior, and
as the Governor has pointed out — Governor Anderson —
this will solve the problem.
MR, STEIN: He didn't point that out at this
conference, but let me make —
MR0 MERRITT: He did. I beg to differ.
MR. STEIN: Let me make this point. We never
substitute, for example, an air pollution problem for a
water pollution problem. We don't intend to go with any
problem that is going to give us a bigger problem with the
-------
119
G. Merritt
ecology, and I didn't hear either Governor say this.
Why do you limit us in what we can do to protect
the ecology? I don't quite understand you.
MR. MERRITT: Well, the point that you raised,
Mr. Stein, is one that Reserve Mining has raised at
previous sessions of this conference, and that is that
supposedly an onshore disposal system would result in
some kind of pollution of Lax Lake or of the area over the
hill and behind Silver Bay. I don't think that followed --
MR. STEIN: Well —
MR. MERRITT: Just let me finish, Mr. Chairman.
I don't think it followed that there would be
any greater pollution problem if we adopt onshore dis-
posal. Quite the contrary, the lake would then be
restored and preserved.
MR. STEIN: I am not saying there would be a
greater pollution problem. What I am saying is: I don't
think that I heard either Governor or Governor Milliken,
whose message we heard, come out for any method of
disposal. I would suggest that in dealing with
Reserve Mining, if the company is going to stay in
business — and I hope we can keep them in business -- we
come up with a method that will provide the least damage
to our ecology. Shouldn't that be our goal?
-------
120
G. Merritt
MR. MERRITT: Well, let me again state very
clearly that the Governor of Minnesota this morning —
as the record will clearly indicate — favored onshore
disposal for Reserve Mining Company. Governor Lucey in
the press conference that was held right after the two
Governors appeared at this morning's session stated he
was in full support of onshore disposal for Reserve
Mining. And I think that is very clear on the record at
this time. (Applause)
MR0 STEIN: The record can show applaus$, but
as far as I can see, I have been sitting here listening
to the record and I haven't heard it.
MR. MERRITT: I would suggest —
MR. STEIN: You can keep repeating that and
saying this, but I have listened to this very carefully
by the Governors, and I did not hear this.
Now, again, I don't get your rationale. If we
are going to protect the ecology of the lakes, and we
are going to look at the best method of the ecology of
this planet, what this magic is of onshore or offshore
disposal or what your problem is here, I don't understand
your rationale, Mr. Merritt, and I would like to hear it.
MR. MERRITT: The rationale —
-------
121
G. Merritt
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairmanc
MR0 STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: The Minnesota conferees do
disagree with the Chair, and we believe the Governor also
stated that the method because of the public concern
would be an onshore disposal system. (Applause)
MR. STEIN: Well, I think the record will speak
for itself. Go on.
MR. MERRITT: I would like to just say one final
word about the problem we face, and then Charles Carson
will present the specific proposals that MECCA has for
the conferees and the reasoning behind themc
We believe these proposals, if they are adopted
and enforced, that the majesty of Lake Superior's oceanic
expanses will be restored and preserved for posterity.
We believe that the public will support this action. We
fail the people if we continue the delays of the past,
and we have had too many delays so far in this conference.
Past failures have eroded public confidence in
the ability of any government to reverse the awful
desecration of our environment. Certainly none of us in
MECCA — we have tried to make this point clear at every
session of this conference — is antibusiness. We do
not favor shutting down the plant. We have stated from
-------
122
G. Merritt
the very outset that what we want is an order now, and
then give the company 2 years or 3 years, or whatever it is,
to build, to design and build the onshore disposal facility
and this needs not cost anyone the loss of a job.
Thousands of concerned citizens are watching
your efforts here today and tomorrow. Let us have the
will to move now to stop the pollution of this great lake.
It is now my pleasure to introduce Charles
Carson.
MR. STEIN: Just a minute, Mr. Merritt.
Let's see if we can get an answer for the
next question.
MR. MERRITT: All right.
MR. STEIN: Because we want to proceed on
scientific evidence.
The point is: If we are going to deal with the
disposal of the tailings, we want to put them where they
are going to do the least ecological damage. I don't
want to make a pre^udgment on the basis of emotion or
anything else.
Now, if we are precluded — and you talk about
onshore disposal — the scope of our operation is limited*
On what basis do you say this if there is a basis.r. Or
what magic is there to do this?
-------
123
G. Merritt
I am not saying that onshore disposal may not be
the way to do this. But what I am saying is: If we adopt
your premise, to keep the company in business, it seems to
me that we have to put these tailings in the place where
they will do the least damage to the ecology. And I hope
we will not move into this with preconceived notions or
conceptualism. We will let them all stand up.
Now, unless there is a foundation or in the law
something upon which to predicate this and we have a notion that
we shouldn't put something somewhere, I don't think we
should proceed on that basis. We have to figure where
these wastes will not harm the environment.
MR. MERRITT: Let's start with the onshore
disposal facilities as far as worrying about keeping the
company in business, which you mentioned, Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: You said that; I didn't.
MR. MERRITT: Well, you just mentioned it.
It is our judgment, based on the studies that
have been conducted so far, that the company could well
afford to build the onshore disposal facilities, that the
cost would not be prohibitive, and that the profit of the
company is sufficient to take care of that facility.
Now, if we are to wait for a further plan of
some kind of limited or additional dumping in Lake Superior,
-------
124
G. Merritt
we take the risk that whatever floccul£nts are added will
themselves pollute the lake, that the fines will not settle
down to the bottom of the Great Trough or will not stay
within the 3-niile zone, and we may end up 5 years from now
in a conference something like the conferences that have
dragged on, on other waters of this country.
MR. STEIN: Like what?
MR. MERRITT: Like the Mississippi River.
MR. STEIN: What conference has dragged on, on
the Mississippi River?
MR. MERRITT: A number of conferences of 5 years —
MR. STEIN: Let's —
MR. MERRITT: Just let me finish.
MR<> STEIN: Let's be specific. What conference
has dragged on, on the Mississippi River?
MR. MERRITT: The Potomac River conference has
gone on for years.
MR. STEIN: Is that close to the Mississippi?
Are you shifting your ground, Mr. Merritt?
MR. MERRITT: No. I wish you would let me
finish.
MR. STEIN: I asked you. You raised the point.
The question is: You said the Mississippi River.
MRi MERRITT: That is right.
-------
125
G. Merritt
MR. STEIN: Do you want to talk about the Potomac?
We will talk about it.
MR. MERRITT: I want to talk about what could
happen here, Mr. Stein, if we adopt some halfway measure
which may or may not work — we don't know — we come back
in 5 years and find out that the program won't work, that
the tailings are still destroying the aquatic life, that they
are stimulating bacteria, that they are stimulating algae,
or that they are affecting adversely the overall ecology of
the lake, and continuing the green water, where have we
been? We have been in conferences for 5 or 10 years8
Instead, we now have a solution which is feasible,
which the company could afford, which will solve this
problem once and for all. Why don't we look at that
instead of waiting for some kind of halfway measure that
Reserve will come in with?
MR. STEIN: Let me raise this point with you
again, because I think you are missing it: No one has
talked about the company not being able to afford it or
anything of this sort, and if I had the choice between
keeping the company in business or of preserving Lake
Superior, I know what choice I would take.
The issue here is: If you put this stuff on
the land, whether you would be creating a greater damage
-------
126
G. Merritt
to the ecology than putting it in the water. This is not
a question of what it affords.
Now, I have made no prejudgment on this, but
I don't see that we have the basis or the evidence now to
indicate that I have seen up to now that placing this
material on the land would be less of a damage to the
ecology than putting it in the water.
Now, if it is — if it is — I think we should
go for this. But I don't think, in the absence of scien-
tific judgment, in evaluting one of these against the
other, that we should make an emotional judgment on which
way we go, and we have had this over and over again in
placing material on land, in dumping material in the sea,
in taking material out of the water and sending it up a
smokestack. I think we have a proposition here where
we have to evaluate a program that is going to do the least
damage to the ecology wherever we can do it.
What bothers me is before we start on this and
make the scientific evaluation, we already are circum-
scribing our choices by deciding from a theoretical or a
notion on the basis of possible principle, allegedly,
or emotion, that we are not going to allow a certain
kind of disposal.
And I am not sure you are doing yourselves or the
-------
127
G. Merritt
people of this region, or the people living around Lake
Superior, or the people in this country a service when you
limit our choices that way before we have the evidence.
MR. MERRITT: Now, if I may reply, Mr. Chairman •
and I appreciate your points — but I think you are equat-
ing — and the trouble with what you are saying is that
you are equating the ecology of Lax Lake or of the area
behind Silver Bay with Lake Superior. There is just one
Lake Superior in this world. It is a magnificent resource.
It is the largest body of freshwater in the United States
and one of the largest in the world.
It provides, as you well know, an inspiration for
people throughout Minnesota and throughout the United
States.
Now, the question i& Shall we clean up Lake
Superior? Shall we save Lake Superior? And that is the
issue before this conference.
Now, by adopting onshore disposal and moving
the tailings back to a stilling basin that was proposed
by the Stoddard Report, when this whole controversy
began, we aren't going to destroy the ecology of Lax
Lake. But suppose we did destroy the Lax Lake area or
a portion of Lax Lake? There are a number of Lax Lakes
in this State and in this Nation, but there is only one
-------
128
G. Merritt
Lake Superior, and I think we are here today and have been
for nearly 2 years now in this conference proceeding,
trying to save the ecology and the priceless resource of
Lake Superior. So I can't accept your equation of the
ecology of the region behind Silver Bay on the same terms
with Lake Superior.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Merritt, I just wish you would
look at the record, and listen to what I said.
I said, and my words — I think I can quote them
— but something that would do the least damage to the total
environmento I didn't mention Lax Lake or equate Lax Lake
with Lake Superior. The only way we got into that is
you said I did. But not only was that a misinterpretation
of what I said, but entirely contradictory to what I said.
And if we are going to have a useful dialogue, I think we
have to accept what we say — either one says — at face
value. You can't turn what I say to the opposite and
expect to have an intelligent conversation.
MR. MERRITT: Well, there can't be any harm to
the ecology of Lake Superior if we stop the dumping from
the source at Silver Bay by Reserve Mining, and from all
of the other sources. So, therefore, I think that is a
proper interpretation of what you said, Mr» Stein.
I think if we stop the dumping we end the
-------
129
G. Merritt
problem at Silver Bay and we do the same thing about the
other sources of pollution on this lake — and there are
some 40 or 45 point sources of pollution on Lake Superior
— and certainly we do solve the problem if we stop the
dumping entirely, and that is our position now, has been
in the past, and will continue to be. (Applause)
We do have a written statement, Mr. Chairman,
and we will circularize it to all of the conferees.
Dr. Carson is a member, in fact chairman of the
policy committee of MECCA.
MECCA met last night and adopted this statement,
and at this time I would like to present for your con-
sideration the statement of MECCA and Dr. Carson.
MR. MAYO: Before you leave, I would like to ask
a question.
I gather from your comments that MECCA has
come to the subjective conclusion that in order to accom-
plish onshore disposal of the tailings as a means of pre-
serving the integrity of Lake Superior, that whatever that
environmental price might be for onshore disposal, it is a
tolerable price.
MR. MERRITT; That is correct. This is precisely
right, Mr. Mayo* Thank you.
Dr. Carson.
-------
130
C. Carson
STATEMENT OF DR0 CHARLES E0 CARSON,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY, MECCA,
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
DR. CARSON: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen. I would like to read MECCA'S brief formal
statement on this problem.
It is with great satisfaction that MECCA and
other conservation groups note the formal joining of the
Lake Superior Enforcement Conference by Governor Anderson.
This action now resolves any doubt the conference lacks
jurisdiction or that tailings pollution is interstate.
MECCA has filed a forma], statement on the matter
of pollution in Lake Superior at every conference held
since 1969* Until now, however, all the testimony of
MECCA, other conservation groups, and Federal scientists
has fallen short of achieving our goal of reversing the
degradation of Lake Superior.
It is our hope that the formal action of the
Governors and the call of the Governors for onshore
disposal will herald a new and serious effort to actually
stop pollution of this great lake. But the Governors alone
can do little without public support, and support of this
-------
131
C. Carson
conference. We urge that support. Experience in this
matter cautions us to remain vigilent. So far, pollution
continues; Reserve Mining still dumps its tailings into
the lake, a harsh and fundamental fact which cannot be
ignored. Because of this fact, therefore, the board of
directors of our 3»500 member organization have directed
the following statement to be made at this conference:
We cannot afford complacency simply because the
State has now formally joined the conference. There have
been many delays and subterfuges on the part of polluters
before and there is little reason to expect the same tactic$
will not be tried again. Scientific testimony at previous
conferences has shown that taconite tailings encourage the
growth of harmful bacteria in the lake and algae which
will accelerate its eutrophication. Reserve has responded
to these concerns with delays, threats, bogus testimony
and intentionally preposterous "solutions«w In light of
£his record, MECCA strongly urges the conference to support
Governor Anderson's call for onland disposal. There
should be a definite timetable for completion of onshore
disposal facilities backed by a suitable surveillance
system and prompt penalties for failure to comply.
It is our considered opinion that any disposal
systems whereby taconite tailings- will still be dumped
-------
132
C. Carson
in the lake will only provide the means for further
degradation and the possibility of subterfuge. If no
tailings go into the lake, then these possibilities are
automatically ruled out, at least as far as Lake Superior
is concerned.
The proposal to flocculate tailings fines has
not, so far as we are aware, been tested in any pilot
project here. There is no assurance that it will work,
no assurance that the flocculent would not itself become
a colloidal pollutant itself, and no very feasible way
to monitor such an operation. And we can be assured that
if any such facilities are built and then found inadequate,
Reserve will naturally be loathe to make any further
changes, claiming, no doubt, that they have made a sincere
effort at great expense, and that all objections spring
only from ignorance or ill will.
Finally, as we have made clear many times, MECCA
has no wish to see Reserve Mining Company closed down.
And there is no reason to believe that this is even
remotely necessary. However, they cannot be allowed to
continue as they have in the past. Changes will have to
be made in the public interest.
Also, we recognize that Reserve Mining is not
the only source of pollution in Lake Superior. There are
-------
133
C. Carson
others. To assist in their identification, MECCA urges
this conference to the adoption of effluent standards
rather than simply water quality criteria. In this way,
pollution sources can be pinpointed and the public will not
be wondering where it all comes from after it gets into
the water.
Thank you. (Applause)
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Carson.
I think it should be pointed out that the majority
of the conferences we have had have adopted effluent stan-
dards including this one for other sources in the lake.
When we talked about effluent, secondary treatment,
reduction of phosphates, chlorination of the effluent, we
were talking in terms of effluent standards.
DR. CARSON: I see.
MR, STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
Yes, Mr. Purdy.
MR, PURDY: So that there is no misunderstanding
here, in your statement, Dr. Carson, you mention about
fully joining this conference, I have represented Michigan
at all sessions of this conference, and I want to assure you
that Michigan fully joined this conference on the date that
the first one was held, and from my standpoint there was
never any doubt in my mind"that Michigan would participate
-------
134
C. Carson
in decisions of this if there was a finding of interstate
pollution from any source including that of Reserve Minings
and the telegram that Governor Milliken sent out only
reaffirms this position. It does not mean that Michigan
was not a full partner in this conference prior to this
date,
DR. CARSON: I am sorry. I was misinformed in
respect of that,
MR, PURDY: Now, in your statement, you have made
some reference here to testimony and what it has shown,
and since I am from out-of-State, I did not have an oppor-
tunity to follow closely what took place in the way of
testimony at the court appearance, or at the court case
here in the Sixth Judicial District, and I am wondering if
you are acquainted with the testimony0
DR, CARSON: I am not acquainted with that recordo
I was referring to what has been presented here at the
conference in past sessions of the conference.
MR, PURDY: It was my understanding that there
were some 6 or 7 weeks of scientific testimony presented
at that, and I wondered whether this conference had some
particular testimony available to it that was not made
available to the court, because the court's findings seem
to be in somewhat a different light than your interpretation
-------
C. Carson
here.
DR. CARSON: Well, I can't speak for the court.
I am only referring to what has been presented here.
MR. PURDY: Thank you.
MR, STEIN: Any other comments?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I think for the
record it should be noted that the State of Minnesota, as
part of its Water Quality Standards does have an effluent
requirement, and this is our means of enforcing or seeking
compliance.
DR. CARSON: That is right, and I didn't mean to
imply otherwise. All I wanted to do was emphasize the fact
that this should be emphasized further because we don't —
MECCA does not want to see the adoption of the mixing zone
standards or any relaxation of WPC-15. I realize that is
what the court litigation is all about.
MR. BADALICH: Thank you.
MRo STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
MR. MAYO: I have a question, Mr. Chairman„
In your statement, Dr. Carson, you refer to the
testimony that has been given on the impact of the taconite
tailings on the growth of harmful bacteria in the lake and
algae which would accelerate as a consequence of
-------
136
C. Carson
eutrophication.
Again, I gather it is the position of MECCA that
the only approach that can be taken to the elimination of
the opportunity for harmful bacteria or for the acceleration
of eutrophication is onland disposal exclusively,
DR. CARSON: Well, there are always possibilities,
but I think I would have to say yes. Yes, so far as we have
been able to tell from all of the alternative proposals
that have been presented by Reserve and other testimony,
this really probably is without question the best possible
solution. Therefore, it is our position that that should
be — any disposal should be restricted to onland disposal.
MR. STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Carson, are you aware of the
proposal that will probably be presented by Reserve this
afternoon?
DR. CARSON: I have heard something about itc It
has to do as I understand with flocculation of these
fines, the fine fractions in particular, and then they
are transferred to a deeper position of the lake. I
haven't read it in detail. I haven't seen a copy of it.
MR. BADALICH: I would take it from your testimony*
then, that you would reject this proposal.
DR. CARSON: I would be very wary of it, yes,
-------
137
C. Carson
for the reasons stated here.
MR. STEIN: I understand this.
You see, here is the problem I have with that.
If you haven't seen the proposal yet — and I am not sure
that I have either — but before we make a judgment on
it, let's say the difficulty is in making a judgment on
a conceptual basis and events. If we are going to have an
open mind at these things — and this is what I want you
to understand — certainly no one is opposed theoretically
to onland disposal. But the question here is that before
the evidence comes in on a scientific basis and before we
have had a full opportunity for discussion as to alterna-
tives to limit the inquiry in this regard, it doesn't
seem to me necessarily to be completely scientific or in
accord with our system of fair play and due process that
we have in this country.
In other words, if a guy wants to come up with
a proposal this is fine. I have heard, for example, for
years that an electric engine or a steam engine wouldn't
work in an automobile. Yet before I left my hotel room
this morning, I heard Lear Jet alleges a steam engine
would be an answer to our air pollution problem.
Now, the difficulty that I have in the spirit of
-------
138
C. Carson
scientific inquiry in dealing with a real problem of the
environment is to cut off any kind of proposal at the
source before the thing comes in.
Now, if you can evaluate —
DR. CARSON: May I respond to that?
MRo STEIN: Yes. But let me finish.
If you can evaluate, if someone comes in with a
disposal of the wastes in the lake, and if we relate that
to, say, one, two, or three different kinds of land dis-
posal, and the land disposal can stand up to that and be a
much better method of disposal, that is the way to go. But
to indicate before they come in and to let us take to all
comers in advance, it seems to me that we are cutting our-
selves back, and we are not really approaching this really
with an open mind.
DR. CARSON: Well, I think, as l have indicated
in the statement here, some of our attitude is due to past
experiences, of course, with this problem, when there does
not seem to have been a serious attempt
-------
139
G. Carson
meaning, and you are going to have to flocculate these
fines with something that itself is very small and possibly
also much more reactive, undoubtedly much more reactive
than the inert quartz fractions0 So from what little bit
I know about floccul&nts and colloid chemistry it seems to
me it is going to be rather difficult to keep that material
itself from polluting the lake. And also there is going to
be some question as to whether these particles that are
flocculated are going to be larger in colloidal size. If
they are not, we are going to be right back where we
started, and the lake waves and currents will continue to
take the stuff down the shore, so this is the grounds.,
We are not trying to be prejudicial against
Reserve. These are the grounds for the statement.
MR. STEIN: Doctor, I agree. I
am glad we have had this, because I agree with everything
you said. You said — let me repeat: You said that you
agree that at least theoretically there is a possibility
that possibly putting in the lake might be as effective as on
the land. But unless the flocculent works and you have
some very severe doubts about that —
DR. CARSON: That is right.
MR. STEINi — and I have some other problems.
Nov*, I i ior?ur"'^> 3.gree with you on that. Now, the point
-------
140
C. Carson
is unless we can be satisfied that if you are going to take
the job of putting a material in the lake and you are not
going to have these tremendous safeguards and satisfy us,
we won't entertain it. But we are saying the same thing.
In a sense, let me again just try to give you
a rough analogy. I still remember when i/hey used to say
that if they meant man to fly they would have given him
wings, and for years I felt safer on the ground. I worked
for a boss for years who insisted on —
DR. CARSON: I still do.
MR. STEIN: — insisted I take the train.
But the point is we were ready to go. We talk
about onland disposal, because possibly we know more about
that — how to handle stuff that we can see and control on-
land — than anything else. And there are many safeguards.
But when you wanted to fly, then you had to provide
these extra fail-safe devices — one, two, three systems —
and we do now have commercial aviation. Then, if you go up
into space you get another dimension. We had to provide
for further fail-safe systems. Now that doesn't say that
theoretically that didn't work, because we got a man
on the moon, and we got him back.
Now, what I would like to say and I think we
both said is that we do not preclude necessarily any
-------
141
C. Carson
method of disposal where you want to put it in the air,
on the ground, possibly below ground, or in the lake.
However, if you are going to take your option that you
want to put your wastes in the lake, you are going to
have to satisfy everyone as to the nature of the flocculent*
the nature probably of the recirculation, and the clarity.
In other words, like getting the program going
for putting men on the moon, you are going to have to
provide all these fail-safe features and systems —
features which are going to work, which you might not
have to supply if you were going to just stay on the
ground.
The point I am suggesting is, in our system
of government, just because you might think it is
going to be difficult to do this and I might think it
is difficult to do this, we don't conceptually before
the proposals are in reject this out of hand, on the
basis on a philosophic principle that we can't accept
it.
DR. CARSON: Well, we are willing to give
Reserve a hearing, but we still call for onland disposal.
MR. STEIN: All right. (Applause)
-------
142
C. Carson
MR. STEIN: You know, that comes very close to
the motto of the old West "Hang 'em first and try 'em
afterward."
I hope we don't do that.
MR. FRANGOS: Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Carson, if I can get you back down to earth
here for a few minutes and more specifically on the land,
my recollection from the previous session of the conference
is that you had reviewed — your organization had reviewed •*-
some of the alternatives that were proposed by Reserve,
had examined a number of alternatives on the land, and
my recollection is that you did select one that you thought
was preferable.
Now, has your organization done any more study
or analysis that would give us your feeling on which one
of these you think is the most satisfactory?
DR. CARSON: Not since the August conference.
At the August conference, as you recall, I
presented our statement, which was quite lengthy, but we
were unable to get on the agenda until late in the afternoon
and most people had gone. But we did an analysis showing
that Republic and Armco Steel, who are the controlling
companies in Reserve, show a net returned annual income
of $#7 million, and the engineering study that had been
-------
143
C. Carson
conducted by, I think, the Bureau of Mines, showed that the
onshore disposal system that they proposed would cost, I
think, $7 million to build, in the first place, and $3»5
million thereafter to operate,. So we felt on that basis
that Reserve could well afford to adopt this particular
kind of onland disposal. I don't rule out that there are
others.
MEU FRANCOS: I am sorry. Which onsnore method?
DR. CARSON: The dike method; restricting these
things behind a dike.
MR. FRANGOS: At lake level?
DR. CARSON: I believe that was the point of the
study, yes.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions?
MR. PURDY: Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. PURDY: Dr. Carson, when you speak of onland
disposal, are you also including a closed cycle from the
standpoint of the water, or what would happen to the liquid
overflow now in your concept here?
DR. CARSON: The principal difficulty, it seems
to me, in this is the fine fraction which gets into the
lake, wnich as I understand is about 4,000 tons a day.
Now, then, it is my understanding that the other
-------
144
C. Carson
14 or so taconite plants in the region recycle their
water. I don't imagine, however, that they take out all
of the fines in that process and I don't know if Reserve coulld
do this or not. But I think they could recycle some of
their water, and it may very well be possible to take some
of the fines out of it. I don't know.
MR. PURDI: Well, what I was wondering about is
that you seem to be real concerned about the type of floccu-
l.eiits that might be used. I.n our experience in Michigan
we have onland disposal^ but we have overflow now of the
clarified water back to surface water, and flocculants
have to be used even on this type of onland disposal to
take the solids out and the fines. So that simply having
onland disposal does not mean that you are not going to
have to use floccul^nts, and that the floccule,nts in them-
selves will be soluble, and so will be carried into the
receiving body of water.
DR0 CARSON: That is perfectly true, but it
doesn't have to be Lake Superior.
MR. STEIN: Wait a moment.
MR. PURDI: Well, would you transport then this
over into some other basin?
DR. CARSON: You might have to take the fine
fractions and the liquid and pump those over the hill. I
-------
145
C. Carson
don't know.
MR. PURDI: Now — well, again —
DRo CARSON: That doesn't mean all of it0 That
is only a small fraction.
MR. PURDY: Again, at the national level recently
there is the requirement of an environmental impact state-
ment where you have to include consideration of all envir-
onmental aspects on Federal projects, and we in Michigan
— the Governor is going to expand this to State projects.
And it seems to me that if these flocculeints have an
environmental impact upon the quality of Lake Superior that
you also have to consider the environmental impact of those
flocculents in their final resting spot, and that this
conference has a responsibility to make sure that we do
this so that it has the least environmental impact and
that we don't trade one problem for another, just move it
to a different spot.
DR. CARSON: The object here though is concern
for Lake Superior, isn't it?
MR. PURDY: I have a concern for all surface
waters of this Nation.
MR. STEIN: Right.
Let's pursue this, because I think we have a
question hers,. I hope we can say this, and I am asking
-------
C. Carson
all of you to work with us on this because this is one of
our most difficult problems. That is the transporting
and treatment of wastes.
A lot of these people at least come from around
Lake Michigan, and if you followed the Lake Michigan
diversion case you know where we stand. Likewise, the
problem on the Colorado River or the Columbia River is getting
water from one place to the other.
Now, let us suppose we agree, for a point of
view, because I think we all go the same way. Let'.s take
this on the flocculents.
When we are dealing with flocculents, most big
municipal water systems, or quite a few, use a flocculent
to clean their water, and those waters have been ingested
for years and there is a certain solubility there and
contamination. Presumably our Public Health people have
certified these municipal waters as safe and potable water
supplies that we are now drinking, not alone going into
the lake.
You get big city after big city using the
flocculent in its water but —
DR. CARSON: We are drinking a lot of stuff we
hadn't ought to be drinking. I agree with that.
MR. STEIN: But I am just putting this as the
-------
147
C. Carson
first step.
For example, the water in Washington, B.C. or
Cincinnati, or — to name a few — Omaha and St. Louis —
that water has been treated with a flocculent before you
get it out of the tap, and the people in all those cities
have been drinking it.
But here is the point: Let us suppose we have a
problem of solids in raw water. We have to use presumably
some kind of an agent to get the solids out. We may be
able to strip them first — the big pieces — but if we are
talking about the fines, and that is what we are talking
about, we are going to have to use a flocculent. If we
don't use the flocculent we are not going to get that all
out. Here we are talking about putting wastes behind a dike,
This is fine to remove settleable solids. But the real
fines go out with the wastewater and into the lake where
they remain in suspension and are recirculated. Flocculenta
are necessary to remove these fine suspended solids.
Now, if we keep the solids behind that dike, the
water has to go somewhere. The water —
DR. CARSON: Well —
MR. STEIN: — let me finish just the problem.
The water goes somewhere. The water goes into several
places. Either you keep it in the same drainage basin or
-------
148
C. Carson
you pump it out of that drainage basin.
Now, I think what Mr. Pardy has pointed out is
that whenever we have a pollution situation particularly
or even a question of just the quantity of water rather than
the quality, when we take the water out of a particular
drainage basin and put it outside that drainage basin you
run into the most horrible problems.
As was mentioned this morning, we even had that
in Lake Tahoe where we got it out of the drainage basin, and
there were all kinds of problems once you got it out.
Now, if what you are asking is if we are taking
the water for the process from Lake Superior — and we want
to keep the company in business — and we are talking
about treating it in a way where you think it is not of
the kind of quality to be put back into Lake Superior —
even if we can drink it — if the proposal is to put that
water somewhere else, it seems to me that we have an
environmental impact.
DR. CARSON: I don't think that is necessarily
tru'e.
MR. STEIN: But the point is if we can't treat
it good enough so that whatever we take off when we take out!
the impurities it can go back into Lake Superior, then I
think we may have at the least an environmental impact.
-------
149
C. Carson
What I am suggesting to you is that whatever the
spectrum of this is, wherever we put it, we are still
faced with the same problem. Now, if you want to use some
specific examples, l) you may be in better shape than you
believe if you put this into Lax Lake, 2) you may be in
better shape if you put it along the shore behind the dike,
3) the company may believe it is in better shape by putting;
it in this Great Trough and recirculating it. But, in
any event, we are going to have to have a residue of water.
When we get through, we are going to have to put it, some-
where.
DR. CARSON: That may not be true.
MR. STEIN: What are you going to do with it?
DR. CARSON: I don't know for sure but I would
rather — if it is necessary in the Reserve process to have
water as clean as it comes out of the lake originally —
perhaps it doesn't have to be that clean — maybe if they
recycle most of the fines out of it, the few that remain
may not hurt anything.
MR. STEIN: Sir, this is what I was getting at with
Grant Merritt and yourself. If this is what you are
saying, this is precisely what I say. i,et 's not prejudge
it. If we have this problem and this is the problem,
I would look at it that .ultimate disposal —
-------
150
C. Carson
DR. CARSON: That is still disposal, isn't it?
MR. STEIN: It may or it may not be.
The ultimate disposal of the water we have to
drain out of the solids we keep somewhere that is confined,
we are going to have to put back in a watercourse.
Now, you are saying if we can recycle enough or
get a few grains in this, that might not do any harm.
That may be the approach we should look at this if this is
our objective. But I would not be —
DR. CARSON: That is still land disposal.
MR. STEIN: Until the evidence is in, I don't
think we should limit ourselves conceptually as to how
we are going to do this.
Once we are agreed on what you just said here —
and this is what I agree is the question — we are going to
suck as many of these solids out and keep them in a confined
place and we are going to have an amount of water which
we may be able to recycle, hopefully. Maybe we can.
But if we can't, we are going to have to bleed it off
and put it somewhere else.
DR. CARSON: I hope that we don't have to do that.
MR. STEIN: You are going to have to do some of
it.
-------
151
H« Bergson
Now Mr. Purdy says if you get to the question
of transporting this to another river basin, you may have
a problem. The question is how are we going to handle
this? Therefore, what I would suggest to you and the rest
is we leave ourselves wide open for consideration here in
how we are going to handle it and examine all of the proposals,
DR. CARSON: As I say, we are certainly willing
to listen, but you know our position. Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Mr. Badalich,
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I would next like
to call upon the League of Women Voters, and I have an
indication here from Mrs. Mary Brascugli that you will
make the appearancee Is anyone here from the League of
Women Voters?
If not, I will call on Save Lake Superior
Association. I believe there is a statement to be made
by Mr. Robert Bergson — Herbert, I am sorry — Herbert
Bergson.
STATEMENT OF HERBERT BERGSON, PRESIDENT,
SAVE LAKE SUPERIOR ASSOCIATION,
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
-------
152
H. Bergson
MR. BERGSON: Mr. Stein, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Herbert Bergson. I am President of
the Save Lake Superior Association. Our organization has
been in existence almost 2 years, a bit longer than your
First Session in Duluth in 1969• Our organization has
felt it important to make statements at each session along
with other concerned citizens' groups. Our concern for
Lake Superior is even more now than it was when we first
organized, and I wanted to let everyone know that we are
still here and we will continue to be here until Reserve
Mining Company stops dumping its 67,000 tons of tailings
into the lake each day, and we will be here to fight any
other kind of polluting.
The Save Lake Superior Association has been
praised by many and scorned by few. We have been accused
of being anti-industry and trying to shut down the plant
at Silver Bay. Let me repeat what I have said many times
before: We want Reserve Mining Company to exist to
provide jobs to bring more economic benefits to the people
of Minnesota, but we will not allow this corporate giant
to continue to pollute, when this company with its vast
knowledge and resources can have complete onshore dis-
posal within a reasonable time. Our organization does not
advocate shutting down the Reserve plant today, but
-------
153
H. Bergson
strongly suggests and must insist on construction of an
onland disposal plant as soon as possible.
Reserve Mining Company, I call upon you to stand
up to the challenge and accept the facts. Do not continue
to spend thousands of dollars in defense of your pollution
but follow the order of the conferees and spend the money
to begin an onland disposal plant. We will be the first
to praise you when this is done. We will accept no com-
promise. In other words, we will not accept a disposal
plan which uses a pipe to the bottom of the lake or any
other method which uses the lake as a tailings basin.
We endorse wholeheartedly Governor Wendell
Anderson's first official act in office when he formally
joined this conference. We have known of his concern for
sometime and his promise to do something when elected.
It is said politicians forget their campaign promises
after election day. Governor Anderson did not forget his
promise and future generations will thank him for his
action. The statements of Governor Anderson and Wisconsin
Governor Patrick Lucey today show that neighbors can work
together for the betterment of all. There need be no
barrier between any State nor should there be a barrier
between industry and the people.
In closing, I would like to give thanks for the
-------
154
H. Bergson
aid of another man, a man who has served his country and
the world in public service for most of his adult life,
a man who led the fight against pollution when most people
didn't know what pollution meant, a man who now heads
the powerful Public Works Committee, and can guide the
Corps of Engineers and ask for the revocation of the permit
granted to the Reserve Mining Company to use Lake Superior
as a basin for its tailings. Representative John Blatnik,
I publicly want to thank you for joining with the dis-
tinguished men who have already done this: Governor
Wendell Anderson, Governor Patrick Lucey, Senator Walter
Mondale, and Senator Hubert Humphrey, along with the
Wisconsin Senators. Mr. Blatnik, you are the only one
left. Join with us. Give us your help. Do it now.
Thank you. (Applause)
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
Are tnere any comments or questions ?
Let me make a comment after this. Let me try
it this way. It seems to me — and I have been here
through all these conferences — that there may be methods
of land disposal of taconite waste tailings which may
create and continue to create a continued pollution
condition of the lake.
The question here is not, it seems to me — and
-------
H. Bergson
I ask you to look at this with me — not where you put the
tailings, but what you keep out of the lake,?; lou can
put the tailings on a land disposal and have a system of
drainage where you have polluted water courses. We have
this in mines all over the country. We have had this in
mercury all over this country. We had this in feed lots,
and I ask you to remember this. The question here is not
where you are putting the material necessarily — although
that is an important point — but the question is what
we are keeping out of the lake. And please don't let
this conceptualism really get you off, because I can design
you methods of land disposal which will guarantee pollution.
Now, I have some other letters and postcards I,
would like to put in the record as if read without objection:
Dorothy Lindquist of Escanaba; Mary Andeen of Chassell;
Nancy Scofield, Houghton — she wrote two identical letters;
Linda Warren of Houghton; Mrs. George R. Mettson of
Houghton; and Mrs. Douglas A. Stuart, President of the
League of Women Voters of Copper Country.
(The above-mentioned communications follow as if
read.)
"The Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus, Adminis-
trator for Environmental Protection
"Dear Sir:
-------
156
Communications
"I want to protest the dumping of taconite tailings
into Lake Superior by the Reserve Mining Company. This is
a disgraceful practice, which demonstrates blind disregard
for the future of our natural resources and supply of pure
water for posterity.
"Very truly yours, Dorothy Lindquist"
"Conferees, Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
"Dear Sirs:
"I was so pleased to hear of the reconvening of
the conference, and I certainly hope it will be productive.
Each day counts as Reserve Mining Company dumps 60,000 tons
of taconite tailings each dayc This dumping must be stopped
completely and at once0
"Yours truly, Mary W. Andeen (Mrs. Gerry B. Andeen)?"
"Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
"Gentlemen:
"I urge you, at this session of the conference,
to take strong action to stop the pollution of Lake Superior
by the Reserve Mining Company. I wrote earlier but that
letter may not have been mailed.
"Yours truly, Nancy Scofield (Mrs. S. L.)"
"Mr. ¥. D. Ruckelshaus
"Dear Mr. Ruckelshaus:
"I urge you, at this session of the conference,
-------
157
Communications
to take strong action to stop the pollution of Lake Superior
by the Reserve Mining Company. I wrote earlier, but there
is a possibility that letter was not mailed.
"Yours truly, Nancy Scofield (Mrs. S. L.)"
"Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
"Dear Sirs:
"I feel Reserve Mining Company must be forced
to stop dumping taconite particles (at the rate of 60,000
tons daily) into Lake Superior.
"This should be terminated completely and at once!
"Sincerely, Linda K. Warren"
"Conferees, Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
"Conferees:
"It has come to my attention that a conference is
called for January 14-15th to determine the acceptability
of the Reserve Mining Company's pollution abatement plans.
For 13 years Reserve has been dumping 60,000 tons of fine
taconite particles into Lake Superior, I feel very strongly
that the Reserve Mining Company should stop its dumping of
taconite completely and immediately! There are other waste
disposal methods being used now by other taconite plants
along Lake Superior, and perhaps they are applicable to
the Reserve's pollution abatement plans.
"Sincerely, Mrs. George R. Mettson"
-------
Communications
"Conferees, Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
"Gentlemen:
"The League of Women Voters of the Copper Country
supports strong and immediate action to stop further
pollution of Lake Superior by the Reserve Mining Company
and others.
"Strong local concern over the continued daily
dumping of 60,000 tons of taconite tailings by Reserve was
expressed in a 10-day petition drive in August. Copper
Country citizens drove into town and stood in lines at
banks and stores to sign the petition asking for immediate
action to stop further dumping by the Reserve Mining Company*
We hope it will be possible for the January conference to
take such action.
"Sincerely, Mrs. Douglas A. Stuart (Norma Lee
Stuart)"
MR. STEIN: Mr. Badalich*
MR. BADALICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Next I would like to call upon Steve J. Gadler
from St. Paul. Is he here this afternoon? I believe not.
Next is the Duluth Chapter of the Izaak Walton
League of America. Is there a representative of this
organization here?
MR. OLSEN: Yes.
-------
159
D. Olsen
STATEMENT OF DALE W. OLSEN, DULUTH CHAPTER,
IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA,
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
MR. OLSEN: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Dale Olsen. I represent the Duluth
Chapter, Izaak Walton League of America.
Dr. Hedman had been scheduled to be here but was
unable to remain for the afternoon session.
We have appeared at each session of the conference
and we have a very brief statement which we would like to
read at this particular session.
As lay citizens of the Lake Superior Basin,
concerned with the present and future quality of this great
natural resource, we wish to reiterate the views which we
have expressed at each previous session of this conference.
In the broader context we are opposed to present
or future degradation of the waters of Lake Superior or
any of its tributary waters from municipal, industrial
or private discharges of sewage or other types of waste
materials. Our concern extends to radioactive discharges,
thermal pollution, pesticides and other chemicals, dredged
materials and the dumping of shipboard wastes.
-------
160
D. Olsen
Specifically, we continue to urp-e that taconite
tailings no longer be permitted to be dumped into Lake
Superior bv Reserve Mining Company at Silver Bay, Minnesota >,
and that a suitable on land disposal site be developed by tl:
companv which has been referred to as a 'Vood Corporate
Citizen."
Citizens of this Nation, including many fine
young persons, are growing restive and become disillusioned
with corporate actions which they feel may ultimately affect*
the very survival of a livable environment. A positive
corporate response, as opposed to a continuing reluctance to
change, could do much, we feel, to dispel the uneasiness
which affects our society.
Perhaps short-rur profits could be reduced a bit
and perhaps dividend checks to Republic and Armco Steel
Corporation stockholders shaved slightly in order to save
a great water resource for all future generations. There
seems little reason to believe that employees of Reserve
Mining Company would be relieved of their employment becausf
of adoption of an alternative onland tailings disposal
system. Perhaps such a system might even increase availably
jobs. As we stated on May 14, 19&9> at the conference
session: "It is possible to have jobs and also to husband
our resources for generations yet unborn."
Lake Superior is unique in its water quality
-------
161
D. Olsen
Standards in this lake should be maintained at the highest
quality to ensure nondegradation. From our reading of the
conference proceedings to date, a continued dumping of
taconite tailings into the lake does not seem at all com-
patible with the maintenance of a high quality water resource.
We also have a concern in relation to the regional
sewage proposal which came up a little earlier in the session
this morning.
A proposal has recently been made to provide for
regional sewage treatment in the St. Louis River Basin. We
wish to record our support for the regional concept. We
do, however, wish to emphasize the contingency of this support
as follows:
1. Water quality standards in the basin should
be applied to the body of water which receives the final
effluent as well as to the effluent prior to discharge from
the plant. This would preclude a heavy reliance upon
dilution in the receiving watercourse as the ultimate
solution for disposal of potentially harmful residues in
the discharged effluent.
2. Each contributor to the system should have
monitoring facilities on his premises which can be checked
periodically to determine the nature and content of the
effluent which he discharges into the system. Such
-------
162
D. Olsen
monitoring may indicate that some industrial wastes would
necessitate pre treatment before disposal into the regional
system.
3. Our concern is particularly great that the
standards finally set consider all possible substances which
may be contained in the effluent. We are particularly con-
cerned that mercury, lead, and other metallic residues be
rigidly controlled.
We wish to strongly commend the action of Minnesota
Governor Wendell Anderson through which the State of
Minnesota has formally joined this conference0 We feel that
intrastate and interstate powers may now be more forcefully
brought to bear on pollution in the Lake Superior basin0
I would revise the next sentence to recognize that
Governors Lucey and Milliken have also formally joined, and
I must refer to Mr. Purdy and Mr. Frangos who have been here
lo these many sessions — we recognize that Michigan and
Wisconsin have been well represented. But the formal
joining is what we are plotting at this point — whatever
that might mean.
And finally we wish to thank the conferees for
providing us with an opportunity to appear. We commend
your efforts in our behalf for the protection of our
environment.
-------
163
D. Olsen
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Any comments or questions?
MR. PURDY: I have one question.
MR. STEIN? Yes.
MR, PURDY: Mr. Olsen, you mentioned a suitable
onland disposal site, and I am wondering if you can say —
give the conferees some guidance as to what your definition
of a suitable onland disposal site might be.
MR. OLSEN: How long do we have?
MR. STEIN: Just give us a name.
MR. OLSEN: Just a few general points.
I think the point, Mr. Chairman, that you made
awhile back — in other words, we have to be concerned
about degradation in areas other than Lake Superior. But
then I would raise the question: How about this concern
in the areas where the stripping is going on, to bare the
rock or the ore. We have the same problems there of the
water runoff, and io on. So, in a sense, I think it is,
as some of the other people have pointed out, a matter of
considering the value of the resource and perhaps being
willing to accept a little bit more by way of degradation
in one area than another. And I guess I would have to say
the uniqueness of the lake makes it such that I would have
-------
164
D. Olsen
to be willing to accept some degradation on land.
MR. PURDY: Well, I have heard a great deal of
discussion about the so-called Lax Lake Area, and it is my
understanding this area contains, at the present time, a
natural lake. If it could be shown that the tailings could
be placed in a restricted area in the lake — and I fully
support Governor Lucey's comment this morning that there
should be no repetition of this technique, that we are deal-
ing with an existing situation — and if it could be shown
that you could place those in a restricted portion in the
lake with no ecological damage other than filling that
particular section of the lake, do you feel that, say,
using the Lax Lake area as a tailings basin would be a
suitable alternate?
MR. OLSEN: I would rather not commit myself
specifically to Lax Lake, but I think that some suitable
location where these other threats — the ones discussed
with Dr. Carson and others — might be controlled, we would
be willing to accept this as opposed to continued dumping
in Lake Superior if that is what you are getting at.
We would prefer the onland even if it means
filling a lake, whether it be Lax or some other inland
lake. This is a State with — how many thousand do we have?
And I love all of them. But I think that Lake Superior as
-------
165
D, Olsen
compared to another individual one would leave little choice
and I would have to opt for Lake Superior.
MR. PURDY: I place some constraint on my question
there of where, if it could be conclusively shown that no
ecological damage would occur to Lake Superior other than
filling a restricted portion of the lake —
MR. OLSEN: Of which lake?
MR. PURDY: Lake Superior.
Would you then opt for onland disposal where
you might use Lax Lake area for a tailings basin? I am
trying to get the magnitude here of your concern about a
suitable onland disposal site.
MR. OLSEN: Well, as I thought I spelled out, we
would opt for the onland disposal site in Lax Lake or another
lake as opposed to any continued dumping in Lake Superior.
MR. STEIN: Even though it didn't do any ecological
damage in Lake Superior except to fill?
MR. OLSEN: Only if I could be definitely assured
that this would not be the case, and this is what concerns
me, because when the Reserve permit was granted in 1947»
we were assured that, you know, we wouldn't face these
problems today.
MR. STEIN: This is the assumption he made in
the question0
-------
166
Do Olsen
Now, let me again give — and I hope the rest of
you are with us on this thing — let's try to work this
out.
I know every time we come out here, we find some
new theory that the local people have that they are all
caroming to, and now this seems to be onland disposal, and
certainly I am not objecting to it.
But the problem that I have had in the water field
— and I think Mr. Purdy has worked with his former
predecessor, and his former predecessor, who spent their
careers litigating that Chicago diversion case.
f±
Years ago, Abel Wo-lmarr, who was one of the big
names in the engineering profession, came up with a solu-
tion to clean up the Potomac situation by building a pipe-
line to Chesapeake Bay and dumping it into Chesapeake Bay.
We were pushed to extremes in Lake Tahoe, which
is a relatively small program like this, and I was in on
that and I was the chairman of the conference on that the
same way, and we said no effluent, treated or untreated,
could go in the lake, and we had to go over the Divide and
put it somewhere else. And the people down in Sparks
near the Tahoe River and the Truckee River had a fit no
matter how well we treated it.
I have also been in a situation for years and
Wolman & Associates
Baltimore, Maryland
-------
167
D. Olsen
spent a career on this on the Colorado River with Utah,
Arizona and California, and some of you people might know
— may or may not know — that 10 million people in southern
California use the Colorado River as a drinking water
supply, they are piping through the Divide.
However, in order to solve these transbasin
operations, it took us decades of litigation. The problem,
sir, that I have and I think you all share this with us
is that I don't think we have that time to fool around
with Lake Superior. We must come up with an answer.
Now, the problem that you give us is not a very
easy one. You have to recognize this. As far as I can
see, on this onland disposal it means when we put it on
the land we have to have some transport water. Let me give
it to you, because maybe some people have another notion
or very wrong notions or either we put that stuff —
and I don't know how we do this in the wintertime — in
carts and take it back to Babbitt and dump it in an open
pit. The difficulty is — and I have been dealing
with the mining business for maybe a quarter of a
century — no one has indicated to me yet how you run an
open pit mine, work it and keep filling it at the same
time. I don't know that there is an answer to that. That
-------
D. Olsen
may be like trisecting a triangle.
Maybe you have some other mines up there that you
can fill in and I don't know how much — maybe around a pla$e
perhaps like Lax Lake. Then maybe you have some land north
of the plant where you can build a dike, and we and the
Corps of Engineers know how to build dikes with fill land,
or else you have that gorge in front of the plant.
Now, it is obvious to me we have to preserve Lake
Superior. This is our first step at all costs. Our first
step in almost all solutions is that we are either going to
have to have a residue of water we are going to have to
drain from the solids stuff we are going to have to put
back in the lake, or else transport it to another watershed,
Whatever your particular judgment in putting this
into another watershed may be, I visualize that we have
tremendous legal problems. No one wants to be on the
receiving end. The guys in Chesapeake Bay didn't want
to be on the receiving end of Washington's pollution,no
matter how good you might think it is.
I remember years ago I was on an airplane with
Tommy Corcoran, who was the lawyer for Roosevelt and the
New Deal. Tommy Corcoran said, "When are you guys going to
get off of your dead ends and take the Fraser and Columbia
River and divert it and get that water down into Oklahoma
-------
169
D. Olsen
and Texas?"
He thought of it in 1932, and we haven't been
able to do it yet. This is the most difficult kind of
thing.
In Chicago, when we had the diversion case, we
didn't send the wastes from Chicago into Lake Michigan, but
we put it in a Sanitary Ship Canal and shipped it out to
the DesPlaines River, to the Peoria, to the Illinois River,
and into the Mississippi. That took 40 years of litigation.
What I am saying to you is that we have to come
up with a solution. I think if we are going to preserve
Lake Superior it is fundamental we are going to have to
fly. I would not like to tie into a prolonged case of
litigation so that if we get into that, Reserve Mining —
and I hate to mention them; I hope they will pardon me in
prejudging it — it is going to keep doing the same thing
it is doing right now without any change until the suit
is settled. We have had enough of this.
What I am trying to do, sir, is come up with
the solution that we must come up with and put it into
operation I would hope within 2 years possibly to save this
lake and keep this out. To save this lake, it seems to
me that the key point — and I ask you to keep your
eye on this — is not so much of where we put the
-------
170
D. Olsen
solid material, because we know how to confine that, but
what the characteristics of the water is going to be that
we are going to take off. Whether the fines are going to
be in that, whether we are going to have to, whatever we do»
dispose of that in the lake, and whether that is going to
flow down off the lake.
Now, sir, let's suppose we opt for Lax Lake, or
let's suppose we go up above there and build a dike, or let's
suppose we have the gorge. If we are not worried about the
solid material, we are kidding ourselves, unless we
recognize that the water flowing off that is going to get
into that lake and spread around, and it is going to be
deleterious to the lake and we have to keep that innocuous.
And I submit to you, sir, that this latest theory here now
— this onland disposal — that is great and is one alterna*-
tive and may be the way we solve it.
But we are looking at the wrong end of the
telescope. The thing we have to keep our eye on is not
where we put the material but what is going to have to
happen to the stuff that runs off from that material and
gets into the lake. That is what we have to guard
against.
This may be a wretch to the people here, but I
-------
171
D. Olsen
ask you to really, really start thinking about
thatf because other than that we are not going to preserve
Lake Superior and no one wants to do that more than I do
really.
MR. OLSEN: I think my concern would be parallel
with yours in many respects, including that of seeking to
assure — assuming some one of many possible onland sites
— including hauling it back up to the strip area.
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. OLSEN: And so on.
But I guess what I am concerned about is
assurance either in that case — if that is what it is
going to be — or assurance if what Reserve is purportedly
— you hadn't heard about it yet or others hadn't heard
about it — purportedly something to do with making larger
segments and filtering it out —
MR. STEIN: Let me ask you —
MR. OLSEN: Can I finish?
MR. STEIN: Yes. I am sorry.
MR. OLSEN: What I am concerned about is: I
can -- assuming I had the money to do this — I could
retain consultants who would come up with, let's say, two
perfectly respectable, responsible scientists of whatever
nature, who would come up with diametrically opposed views
-------
172
D. Olsen
as to the assurances in these systems, and in the last
analysis you are going to have to make the decisions.
MR. STEIN: But, sir, let me tell you this.
Admittedly I am pushing this point, and it is always dan-
gerous on the record, but I think we are all sophisticated
enough to understand it.
I can visualize an onland disposal where you would
let the stuff run off, when theoretically that is possible
to do more damage on the lake than perhaps putting material
in a gorge in the lake unless you had a dike or a barrier
and you picked up that water and recirculated and purified
it before it got out.
So I am saying, while it is an important point
where you put the stuff, and you may have to have more
assurances if you are going to put it in water, the key
point is that we have to protect or guard against the
stuff that runs into the lake. That is what I am asking
you to keep in mind.
If I may switch and because you pushed this, I hav«
one more point on your prerequisites of what you want to
do in that plan.
I know we have a sophisticated audience. Let
me try to give you part of our problem here. You said
if we could keep out the pollutants including — you
-------
173
D, Olsen
gave the notion — mercury and lead. Well, sir, we are
going to keep that mercury and lead out if we approve the
plan. But the trouble is, if we started up a year ago —•
MR. OLSEN: You wouldn't be aware of the problem.
MR. STEIN: — you wouldn't have mentioned mercury
and lead and I wouldn't have known about mercury and lead.
The point is tihai I want to make clear to you
the things that vex us like mercury are pollutants and
the problems we know nothing about. When we know some-
thing about it we can do something about it.
When you ask us to keep out all, that is a
pretty tall order, and if any one of us were smart enough
3 years ago to talk about mercury, I didn't hear them.
All right.
MR. OLSEN: I think the point I particularly
wanted to emphasize in this session on the regional plan
was that if a major commitment was made, and if it is,
albeit seemingly impossible to set up an interstate com-
pact between Wisconsin and Minnesota in the State Legis-
latures to set up a single district and agree to build
a single plant, what our concerns are — and I hope
you bear in mind we are speaking essentially as a layman
in all of these points and have to defer to some
other people in terms of their expertise, and then make
-------
174
D, Olsen
our judgments on what —
MR. STEIN: Let me say you are not such a layman0
You know, as far as you are concerned, we are just as
much laymen on this. I got the mercury program and I got
up to the Congress. They asked me why I didn't abate this
beforehand. Then I told them we had these great reductions
and we got all these plants to roll back, and I thought
we got the best results. They said why were you sitting
around? Do you realize that in 1966, in the Japanese
Medical Journal and a Sweden scientific journal there was
an article on mercury?
Of course, what I didn't say is when you talk
about laymen, I am supposed to be an expert. I really
don't read the Japanese and Swedish journals. I am just
as much a layman as you are.
MR. OLSEN: I am beginning to wonder, Mr0
Chairman.
MR. STEIN: I mean unless someone calls this to
our attention, we are in the same spot as you are.
MR. OLSEN: The point I was beginning to make
there was that our specific three points here on the
regional system , it is our hopes that if it is backed
all of the way along that sufficient safeguards will be
built into the engineering, based upon all known
-------
175
D. Olsen
information or all information available at the point.
Obviously we are not omniscient; you are not omniscient.
We appreciate that.but the essence of our argument is if
we are going to put these millions of dollars into this
and we feel it would be an excellent sort of facility or
could be, we aren't absolutely certain that we can protect
against those real threats — albeit plans — that we are
a little bit wary of. And that is our major concern.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
If not, Mr. Badalich, before you go on, we
have another letter from our penpal, Viola Brown and
Robert T. Brown, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology of Michigan
Technological University. Without objection, I would
like to put this in the record at this point as if read.
(The above-mentioned letter follows as if read.)
"Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
"Gentlemen:
"One of the best pieces of news concerning the
problems of improving our environment is the reconvening
of the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference to determine
the acceptability of Reserve Mining Company1s abatement
plans. Our hope is that the conference will deal sternly
with the company as it continues to pollute the only clean
-------
176
Communication
body of water among the Great Lakes. We feel, as you do,
that Lake Superior must be protected for coming genera-
tions. An ounce of prevention, as the old adage goes, is
certainly more easily attained than solution to the
problems that come with attempting the cure. What can
be done, for instance, with Lake Erie?
"As an ecologist and a biologist, I feel that
preservation of quality in Lake Superior transcends any
mundane activity as being carried out by the Reserve
Mining Company. The value of this lake as a water
resource alone far exceeds any value it may have as a
sewer.
"Sincerely yours, Viola J. Brown (Mrs. Robert
T.), Robert T. Brown, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology,
Michigan Technological University"
MR0 STEIN: Mr0 Badalich.
MR0 BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank
Mr. Olsen and also want to thank you for your supporting
statement.
Next I would like to call upon Mr. Robert
Roningen, who is representing — attorney representing
the towns of Lakewood and Duluth.
-------
177
R. Roningen
STATEMENT OF ROBERT RONINGEN, ATTORNEY,
TOWNSHIP OF LAKEWOOD, TOWNSHIP OF DULUTH,
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
MR. RONINGEN: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is
Robert Roningen. I am an attorney in private practice in
Duluth, and am the attorney for the Township of Lakewood
and Township of Duluth which are located in St. Louis County,
Minnesota.
These are the two townships that are immediately
north and east of the city of Duluth and extend to the border
of the county of St. Louis which is located at approximately
Knife River.
The St. Louis County Helath Department, under the
direction of the county health engineer, Kenneth VanEss,
made, in 1968, an environmental survey along this area and
other areas in Duluth, and this report is known as the
VanEss Report. I am hereby offering to the conferees a
true copy of this report as an exhibit, and I have handed
it to the secretary already.
(The above-mentioned report follows in its
entirety.)
-------
I Oto
178
f Let heu'ooj <*- T0wr\
Environmental Survey - 1968
St. Louis County, Minnesota
Prepared by
Kenneth Van Ess
St« Louis County Health Department
Duluth, Minnesota
April 1969
-------
179
Environmental Survey 1968
St. Louis Cowaty, Minnesota
Introduction;
In 1963 the St. Louia County Board of County Commissioners adopted the
first part of the St. Louis County Public Health Code which regulates the
installation of individual sewage disposal systems. The Code requires anyone
installing an individual sewage disposal system to obtain a permit from the St.
Louis County Health Department and the system must be inspected and approved
by the Health Department before it can be used. The Code also requires all
sewage to be disposed of in a sanitary manner without creating any nuisance
conditions.
The intent of the Public Health Code was to correct the many sewage
disposal problems throughout the County and to prevent the creation of such
problems in the future. Although a great deal of progress had been made it
was becoming quite evident that there were still too many sewage problems
that needed to be corrected. It also seemed that in spite of the controls
there were still some problems being created. However, the magnitude of the
problem was not known and little was known regarding the pollution of lakes
by septic tank systems. Therefore, a special survey was conducted during the
summer of 1968 by the St. Louis County Health Department. The survey was
made possible by a public health service grant from the Minnesota Department
of Health.
Survey Procedure;
Areas where sewage problems had been experienced were selected to be
surveyed to determine the extent of the problem and what factors contributed
to the problem. Other areas where little or no problems were experienced
were also selected to be surveyed as a basis of comparison.
-------
ISO
- 2 -
Four summer employees conducted a house to house survey in each of the
selected areas utilizing the form shown in Figure 1. An attempt was made to
inspect every one of the houses in the areas. If no one was home at the time
of the survey no inspection was made but a number of attempts were made to
recontact the occupants of the home. In this way a very high percentage of
the homes were inspected. A survey form was completed for each home contacted.
The interviewer would first introduce himself and explain the reason for the
survey. He would then ask the occupant a number of questions regarding his
sewage disposal system and the occupants preference for a community sewer
vs. their own individual sewage disposal system. Every attempt was made to
be impartial and not influence the answer of the person interviewed. With
the permission of the occupant the interviewer then made a brief inspection
of the property to determine if there was some type of problem with the
sewage disposal system. After completing the inspection the interviewer would
indicate on the form whether there was a sewage problem and if there was a
problem he would indicate the type of evidence that was found.
Sampling Procedure;
Throughout the summer 335 water samples were collected from 81 lakes
and streams throughout the County. The samples were taken to determine if
there was any amount of pollution occurring in any of these lakes. With a
few exceptions, samples were collected each Monday in order to give the
laboratory sufficient time to conduct all of the tests during the regular
working days* An attempt was made to take the samples from representative
points in each lake.
If samples taken from a lake showed there was very little if any
pollution, no further samples were collected from that lake. However, if the
results showed a moderate or high amount of pollution further samples were
collected to further substantiate the extent of the pollution. Because of the
-------
131
„ 3 ~
special Interest in the probable pollution of Pike Lake, 130 samples were
collected from this lake throughout the summer. In this way it was hoped
that more could be learned about the relationship of the failing septic tank
systems and the lake pollution and what effect temperature and rainfall might
have upon the level of pollution.,
The water samples were collected in sterile plastic bags and were taken
at 6 to 12 inches below the surface of the water. The temperature of the
water was measured and recorded at each sampling site. The samples were
then transported to the Health Department Laboratory in an ice chest. The
laboratory tested each sample for total coliform count, fecal coliform count,
enterococci (fecal streptococci) count, nitrate nitrogen concentration, and
total soluble phosphorous concentration. The samples taken the first four
weeks were tested for detergent but because none was found this test was
discontinued.
Survey, Results;
The survey encompassed 45 areas throughout the county. Table 1 lists
the areas aurvoyed and the per cent of homes contacted. Although it was
practically impossible to contact every home in each area a very high per-
centage of homes were contacted in the areas with a high percentage of
problems. A special effort was made in the Pike Lake area to obtain a high
percentage of contacts.
The inspection findings in Table 2 indicate a wide range of percentage
of sewage problems. Thirteen areas totaling 331 surveyed homes had no
eew&ge problems. There were fifteen areas containing 730 surveyed homes that
had 407« or more of the homes with sewage problems. Some of the interview
data is compared with the inspection findings in Table 3.
A comparison «'ti«* ffiaui- between the soil and ground conditions and the
percentage of -jewag," problems iv.\ Table U. For the 22 areas listed the soil
-------
182
- 4 -
and ground conditions were given a broad classification. The conditions were
classified "good" if the soil was generally dry and coarse sand and/or gravel.
The area was designated "fair" if clay and/or silt was found to some extent
in the soil and parts of the area had wet portions. Where most, of the soil
was clay or most of the ground was very »et the area was classified "poor".
The areas included in Table 4 are quite representative of the wide range of
soil types found in St. Louis County.
Sampling Results;
Table 5 shows the results of the laboratory tests made on the 335 water
samples. No chemical tests were run on some of the early samples because of
a delay in getting the test procedures established. The bacteriological
results showed a wide variation in values but the chemical concentrations did
not vary greatly.
Discussion of Survey Results;
With a few exceptions the results of the survey were about what was
anticipated. The sewage probLems were found in the expected areas and
somewhat to the extent found. It could be expected that more sewage problems
would be found in the sewage systems that have been in use for a greater
length of time (Table 3). It has always been known that more sewage problems
existed in areas with "poor" soil and ground conditions. A superficial
examination of Table 3 would indicate that a greater percentage of sewage
problems are found in the systems where the septic tanks are cleaned most
frequently. However, it must be remembered that most people will not clean
their septic tank until and unless they experience a problem. This is why in
so many of the areas where little or no problems are found most of the people
"never" clean their septic tanks. This, of course, would influence the
results of the survey. A close examination of the results for the areas with
-------
1*3
high percentage of sewage problems shows about the same percentage of
problems regardless of the frequency the septic tank is cleaned. A study of
the remaining interview data gave no indication of the cause of the sewage
problems.
Although the results shown in Table 4 were generally anticipated it was
rather amazing that the soil and ground conditions related so closely to the
degree of sewage problems. It was also quite ahocking that so many areas had
close to 507. of the homes experiencing some type of sewage problem that was
revealed by the surveyo It is no wonder that a distinct sewage odor can be
detected when driving through some of the areas.
No attempt was made to find out which systems had been inspected by the
health department when they were originally constructed,, It has been shown
in previous studies that a sewage pystem would function properly for a greater
length of time if it was constructed according to accepted standards. The
survey data from the North Shore area would at first seem to contradict this
fact. About half of this area is within the City of Duluth and the Health
Department has inspected the construction of septic tank systems in this
part of the area since 1935« In the remainder of the area outside the city
limits the health department did not make such inspections until 1963.
Nevertheless the percentage of sewage problems was approximately the same in
both parts of the area* However, it must be pointed out that the soil is
predominantly clay in this area and by acceptable standards is considered
unsuitable for septic tank systems. In spite of this fact septic tanks have
been allowed in this area until very recently. This is also true for the
other areas with "poor" soil and ground conditions. Acceptable standards
include the requirement that the soil be suitable as determined by soil
percolation teats. Therefore, th«re is no reason to believe that proper
-------
- 6 -
construction methods won't extend the life of a septic tank system if it is
installed in suitable soil.
The survey results have substantiated the fact that the condition of
the soil and ground is the main determining factor in the life expectancy of
a septic tank system. When the soil is considered unsuitable by acceptable
standards many of the septic tank systems can be expected to fail and create
sewage problems. In the case of this survey about 507. of the systems were
creating problems in areas of unsuitable soil conditions. It would seem
logical that if 507o of the homes were found to have a sewage problem at the
time of the survey most of the rest of the homes have or will have sewage
problems as well. These conditions will continue to exist in spite of
efforts to repair or rebuild the individual sewage systems. The people of
these areas are generally aware of the futility of trying to repair their own
sewage systems. For this reason over half of the people expressed an interest
in obtaining public sewer in their area if it could be provided at a
reasonable cost.
In the North Shore area attempts were made to overcome the poor soil
conditions by installing extra large drain fields (1930 sq. feet of
absorption area) but this has made no measurable improvement. Sewage systems
in these areas have been known to fail in less than a year. With half of the
homes experiencing sewage problems these areas definitely have a dangerous
public health problem. Newer types of home sewage treatment systems are now
being tried but it is already obvious there are some limitations and the
initial cost is about twice the cost of an ordinary septic tank system.
Discussion of Sampling Results;
The results of the sampling program did not reveal very much information
about the water quality of the various small lakes sampled. This is primarily
due to the lack of a meaningful standard to compare with the results. Most
-------
1*5
- 7 -
standards now used set a maximum total coliform count of 1000/100 ml. of
sample., Other standards set this maximum at 2400/100 ml. Total coliforra
counts above these values are supposed to indicate that the body of water is
polluted and unsafe for swimming purposes. However, quite a number of samples
collected from lakes which are known to be free of pollution had total
coliform counts above these standards. In addition, there are no generally
accepted standards for fecal coliform counts, enterococci counts, and chemical
concentrations.
The coliform group of bacteria as enumerated in the total coliform
count are found in great numbers in fecal material from warm-blooded animals,
in soils and on some plants. It is no surprise then that these organisms
are found in our lakes and streams. It has generally been shown that in
waters that are known to be polluted with sewage coliform bacteria will be
found in large quantities. Attempts to set a meaningful standard have been
unsuccessful and it has been concluded that a physical inspection of the lake
or stream must be performed in addition to the sampling in order to establish
whether the water is polluted.
The fecal coliform group of bacteria comes only from the intestinal
tract of warm-blooded animals. This organism: provides a somewhat better
indicator of sewage pollution but it does not differentiate between the human
and animal sewage pollution. Only recent attempts have been made to establish
standards for this organism. The National Technical Advisory Committee on
Water Quality Criteria recommended in their report in 1968 that "the fecal
coliform content of primary contact recreation waters shall not exceed a log
mean of 200/100 ml., nor shall more than 10 per cent of total samples during
any 30-day period exceed 400/100 ml.," However, in the same report the
committee stated;
-------
186
- 8 -
"The establishment of special criteria (e.g0 public health
requirements) necessary for the protection of the primary contact
recreation user has been a major problem for the Subcommittee.
Moreover, in recommending specific water quality for this purpose
the Subcommittee is faced with a sharp dilemma - that of balancing
reasonable safeguards for the public health and physical well-being
against possible undue restrictions on the availability of waters
for contact recreation. The problem is further complicated by
the inadequacy of studies correlating epidemiological data on
water-borne diseases with degrees of pollution in recreational
waters."
Even though the fecal coliform counts obtained in this survey showed
that the lakes complied with the recommended standard it must be noted that
a physical inspection (sanitary survey) of the lakes must also be made in
order to make any conclusions. Where time allowed, such an inspection was
made as part of the environmental survey.
The enterococcus group of bacteria can be found in warm-blooded
animal feces, insects and plants. In human feces the fecal coliform bacteria
will generally outnumber the enterococci by 4 to !• However, in non-human
feces from other warm-blooded animals the ratio is completely reversed with
the enterococci bacteria outnumbering the fecal coliform. This provides
a method of differentiating between human and noa-buaan sewage. However, it
is not known if this relationship holds true after sewage is diluted In a
body of water as a lake or stream.
The results of the environmental survey and water sampling at Pike Lake
indicate that this relationship may not be quite the same but would point
-------
. 9 -
to the presence of human sewage pollutione Sampling stations 4 and 6 are
relatively near the areas where most of the sewage problems were found.
are the only two places where it could be reasonably assured that the waJter
was polluted with human sewage. For these stations the average values for
the fecal coliform count and the enterococci count were almost the sameo For
the other stations and lakes the enterococci count was somewhat greater than
the fecal coliform count. The exceptions to this observation are no doubt
caused by the small number of samples or the very low counts. A forthcoming'
report on the Pike Lake study will include further information on this point.
Most of the recent scientific literature has indicated that when the
nitrate nitrogen concentration exceeds 1.4 ppm and the phosphorous concentra-
tion exceeds 0.1 ppm an accelerated growth of algae and other aquatic vege-
tation can be expected if climatological and other conditions are favorable.
However, not all of the conditions necessary for such accelerated growth are
known and it has been found that many lakes exceed these concentrations with-
out excessive growth of weeds of algae. As near as can be determined the lakes
sampled in this survey have near normal levels of nitrogen and phosphorous
concentrations. Sewage is one source of these nutrient chemicals in addition
to natural sources. Therefore, it is quite possible that some of the lakes
could have aquatic weed problems if they receive too much sewage pollution.
Many factors including water temperature and rainfall can greatly affect
the water quality of lakes and streams. This is why the test results will
vary considerably from time to time. Because of this fact very little
reliance can be placed on 1 or 2 samples from a lake. It can only serve as
an indication as to whether further sampling and investigation may be necessary
On the other hand some conclusions can be made when numerous samples are
taken over a period of time as was done in the case of Pike Lake.
-------
IBB
-4Q -
Even so the sampling results need to be carefully related to survey data
and other related information in order to draw meaningful conclusions.
Conclusions:
Based on the results of this study and information from various other
sources the following conclusions can be made:
1. In areas where the soil is classified as unsuitable in accordance
with accepted standards the construction of new septic tank systems should be
prohibited. Public sewers should be installed in these areas as soon as
possible.
2. Where septic tank systems can be expected to function satisfactorily
a great effort by the health department should be made to obtain corrections
of faulty sewage systems. The health department should continue to inspect
the construction of new sewage systems in these areas.
3. With the exception of Pike Lake the survey indicated that the lakes
tested probably had little or no pollution. Some of the Itf zr* 5.rr.l streams
such as Little Fork River need further investigation and sampling to determine
if the one or two samples are indicative of the pollution lf-val» In the case
of Pike Lake the extensive study gives evidence that the lake is being
polluted. This conclusion is primarily based on the results of the survey
but the water sampling also gives some support to this conclusion.
Summary;
An environmental survey was conducted by tht St. Louis County Health
Department during the summer of 1968. A house to house survey was made of
3,104 homes in 45 selected areas to determine the magnitude of failing septic
tank systems. In addition, 335 water samples were collected from 81 lakes
and streams to determine the extent of pollution caused by failing septic
tank systems.
-------
189
- ll -
The results of the survey indicated -that poor soil conditions were
the predominant factor in the failure of septic tank systems. There were
fifteen areas containing 730 homes that had 407. or more homes with sewage
problems. In the problem areas over half of the people were desirous of
obtaining public sewer. In the worst areas there is a real need to prohibit
the construction of new septic tank systems.
The extensive survey and water sampling in the Pike Lake area indicated
the lake is being polluted by human sewage in at least two areas. The rest
of the lakes and streams did not seem to be polluted but several indicated a
need for further investigation.
KVE:sle
-------
N-H-
St. Louis County He'alth Department
Environmental Survey
190
Name
Address
Owned
Rented
No. bedrooms
INTERVIEW DATA
i. S.T. w/sub-drain field f[
2. S.T. w/seepage bed or pit |f
3. Cesspool I ] Seepage pit L
Septic tank only I [
4. Drain line only [ j Privy I }
5. No. persons served^
6. Installed by owner I _ j Contractor
7. In uae: 1-5 yrs. Q7 6-10 yrs.
Never
Never
10+ yrc
8. Malfunction: ErequentCannually or less) j__J Occasional
9. Sludge removed each: 1-3 yrs. ( | 4-6 yrs. |~[ 7* yrs
10. Garbage disposal in use: 5fes|' | No I I
11. Prefer: Community sewer [ j Individual system fj Wo opinion
INSPECTION DATA
1-f) NO evidence of problem
2*1 1 ground is extraordinarily wet and soft, and sewage odor can be detected
J 1 indicating sewage system is near failure.
3.1j Household wastes or sewage effluent is observed on the surface of the
I ground or in an open depression cr container.
4.|| Household wastes or sewage effluent is observed polluting a ditch, stream,
1 or body of water.
REMARKS:
Date
Interviewer
-------
191
TABLE 1. SURVEY AREA NUMBERS AND PER CENT OF HOMES SURVEYED
Area Total Homes Homes Surveyed
Ho. Area Surveyed in Areas No. %
1 Adams Hill, Eveleth 49 28 57.2
2 Bass Lake, 57-16. 74 28 37.9
3 Bay View Heights, Duluth 69 56 81.2
4 Benneville, Babbitt 36 20 55.6
5 Birch Pt., Lake Vermillion 141 48 34.1
6 Boundary Avenue, Duluth 34 32 94.1
7 Calvary Road, Rice Lake Township 178 149 83.7
8 Cedar Island Lake, Biwabik Township 30 12 40.0
9 Chandler-Finn Hill, Ely 92 71 77.2
10 Cook, Minnesota 21 11 52.3
11 Corey Acres & Mesaba Addition, Ribbing 42 35 83.4
12 Deferding Pt., Ely Lake 30 11 36.7
13 Donnywood Acres, 60-18 17 12 70.6
14 Dunkee River Platte, Babbitt 34 18 53.0
15 East Chandler Road, Ely 40 24 60.0
16 Elliot Lake, 56-17 30 13 43.4
17 Ely Lake, Fayal Township 180 102 56.7
18 Elynwood, Ribbing 13 11 84.7
19 Esquagaraa Lake, Biwabik Township ill 58 52.2
20 Everett Pt., Lake Vermillion 28 12 42.9
21 First Avenue €< 53rd Street, Hibbing 113 74 65.5
22 Frazer Bay, Lake Vermillion 31 14 45.2
23 Herman Township, Section 25 145 123 84.8
24 Hoodoo Pt., Lake Vermillion 60 16 26.7
25 Industrial Area - W. 41st St., Hibbing 19 15 79.0
26 Kelly Lake, Stuntz Township 17 12 70.7
27 Lake Fourteen, 60-19 103 42 40.7
28 Lake Leander, 60-19 97 42 43.3
29 Leetonia, Stuntz Township.. 53 35 66.1
30 Little Sturgeon Lake, French Township......... 105 55 52.4
31 Long Lake, Fayal Township.. 96 55 57.3
32 Mounted Route, Aurora 28 17 60.7
m^2fm^m^^M^JtaSLam&UAS^^iSAm&£t^^^it^3^0^^m^^t»»^^t^mi^i^^^^^^i^^^^^^^m^^^^^^^^^£^^lf
34 North Shore, Duluth 235 198 84.3
j5^^"™"™TyrR1oTirTell™Roax^lH3TDTnTigTTT^
36 Philman Addition, Ribbing 16 12 75.0
37 _Pike Lake, Car.osia & Grand Lake Townships 256 235 91.8
38 St. Mary's Lake, Fayal Township 64 35 54.7
39 Sand Lake, 60-18 140 68 48.6
40 Side Lake, French Township 59 29 49.2
41 Sparta No. 1, Missabe.Mtn. Township 61 44 72.1
42 Sparta No. 2, llissabe Mtn. Township 29 23 79.4
43 Spaulding, Ely... 29 16 55.2
44 Spruce Location, Eveleth 15 11 73.4
45 Wakem-up Bay, Lake Vermillion '39 18 46.2
All Areas 3,104 1,971 63.5
-------
TABLE 2. INSPECTION FINDINGS
192
Types of Sewage Problems
Area
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3i>
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
TOTAL
Homes
Surveyed
28
28
56
20
48
32
149
12
71
11
35
11
12
18
24
13
102
11
58
12
74
14
123
16
15
12
42
42
35
55
55
17
19
198
12
12
235
35
68
29
44
23
16
11
18
1,971
Wet surface
& sewage
odor
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
5
1
0
0
5
0
1
0
n
4
0
2
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
Sewage
on
ground
9
2
15
1
0
14
41
0
10
5
9
1
0
0
0
0
5
1
2
0
14
0
21
0
1
5
0
0
1
0
1
1
A
36
4
3
23
0
0
0
2
5
1
2
0
239
Sewage in
ditch or
stream
2
0
11
2'
0
5
40
0
28
3
3
2
0
0
6
0
2
0
0
0
19
0
12
0
0
0
0 '
0
1
0
3
2
A
49
3
1
12
0
1
0
6
5
5
3
0
230
Sewage
Problems
(No. } %
11 39.3
•-.2 7.1
27 48.3
3 15.0
0 0
19 59.4
83 55.7
0 0
38 53.6
8 72.8
21 60.0
3 27.2
0 0
0 0
6 25.0
0 0
11 10.8
2 18.2
2 3.5
0 0
36 48.7
0 0
34 27.6
0 0
6 40.0
6 50.0
0 0
0 0
7 20.0
0 0
5 9.1
3 17.7
R A? 1
89 45.0
7 58.3
6 50.0
39 16.6
1 2.9
2 2.9
0 0
8 18.2
10 43.5
6 37.5
5 45.4
0 0
514 26.1
No Sewage
Problem
No. ! % |
17 60.7
26 92.9
29 51.7
17 85.0
48 100.0
13 40.6
66 44.3
12 100.0
33 46.4
3 27.2
14 40.0
8 72.8
12 100.0
18 100.0
18 75.0
13 100.0
91 89.2
9 81.8
56 96.5
12 100.0
38 51.3
14 100.0
89 72.4
16 100.0
9 60.0
6 50.0
42 100.0
42 100.0
28 80.0
55 100,0
50 90.9
14 82.3
11 S7 Q
109 55.0
5 41.7
6 50.0
196 83.4
34 97.1
66 97.1
29 100.0
36 81.8
13 56.5
10 62.5
6 5 A. 6
18 100.0
1,457 73.9
-------
193
TABLE 3. Comparison of some Interview Results with Inspection Findings
Area Sewage
No. Problem
Years in Use
1-5 6-10 10+ Unknora
Frequency Septic Tank
Cleaned - Years
1-3 4-6 7+ Never Unknown
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No.
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
0
1
8
0
3
2
6
1
14
0
6
3
14
1
4
0
8
3
1
2
2
1
4
1
7
0
6
0
6
0
2
0
36
3
3
1
11
1
5
0
3
0
1
0
15
6
3
3
5
0
5
2
6
2
12
0
3
6
9
17
5
0
3
0
0
2
2
4
1
1
5
0
11
0
4
1
2
0
20
3
4
1
13
0
4
0
6
7
2
0
15
4
8
7
6
2
20
23
5
0
16
0
4
9
41
63
3
0
19
32
2
4
7
14
2
1
0
0
0
0
6
5
2
0
21
4
2
0
13
1
1
0
22
27
0
0
55
23
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
3
3
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
7
2
0
0
4
1
4
2
1
0
15
11
12
1
3
0
3
8
18
18
0
0
5
12
2
0
3
8
0
1
1
0
2
0
2
3
0
0
17
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
13
10
0
0
36
14
1
2
1
1
0
4
2
1
2
0
0
1
8
15
1
0
2
9
0
2
3
4
0
0
2
0
2
0
3
1
1
0
12
2
1
1
5
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
17
4
3
2
4
1
1
2
0
0
5
0
0
2
4
8
1
0
10
8
0
1
1
2
3
0
0
0
4
0
2
1
0
0
3
0
3
0
6
1
0
0
6
12
0
0
3
1
3
5
13
0
11
10
3
1
32
0
9
6
33
42
10
0
10
7
1
5
5
7
4
2
9
0
10
0
10
1
5
0
46
6
5
1
26
1
10
0
10
11
3
0
31
15
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
-------
TABLE 3 con't.
194
Area Sewage Years in Use
No. Problem 1-5 6-10 10+ Unkno-.m
Frequency Septic Tank
Cleaned - Years
1-3 4-6 7+ Never Unknown
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
All
Areas
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
V«e
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Ye-
No
Yes
6
0
1
0
0
1
13
0
4
0
4
2
7
0
14
2
2
0
3
n
21
8
1
0
2
1
75
4
17
0
12
0
4
0
5
1
3
2
3
0
1
2
2
0
375
49
4
0
0
0
2
3
3
0
4
0
3
1
9
0
6
1
6
1
4
A
22
21
2
1
0
0
47
14
2
1
6
0
4
0
4
2
2
1
6
2
2'
1
1
0
279
106
1
0
8
6
0
1
2
0
4
0
12
4
0
0
16
1
4
2
4
A
63
52
2
5
4
4
71
19
5
0
23
2
7
0-
15
4
6
6
1
2
0
2
1
0
504
329
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
1
0
0
n
3
8
u
1
0
1
3
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
50
30
2
0
3
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
4
1
0
9
2
1
0
5
A
24
21
i
0
1
4
67
17
4
1
9
0
0
0
5
1
3
2
2
0
0
3
1
0
281
155
3
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
'0
0
2
1
2
0
3
1
2
2
0
n
18
19
u
0
0
0
12
1
1
0
6
0
1
0
5
0
2
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
127
81
1
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
9
0
2
1
0
n
11
6
u
1
2
0
9
2
2
0
5
2
1
0
3
0
3
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
117
57
5
0
2
1
3
1
17
0
12
0
14
2
14
0
17
1
8
0
5
A
52
3C
}
6
3
o
X.
101
18
18
0
33
0
13
0
13
6
4
6
6
3
2
1
2
0
646
2,07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
n
4
7
u
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
10
-------
195
TABLE 4. Comparison of Sewage Problems with Soil ana Ground Conditions
Soil and Ground Percent of Homes
Conditions with sewage problems
AJ.«;CL UK***
27
28
30
40
39
19
2
31
37
41
29
15
23
43
33
34
3
21
9
7
6
11
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor.
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
07.
07.
07.
07.
2.97,
3.57.
7.17.
9.17.
16.67.
18.27.
20.07.
25.07.
27.67.
37.57.
42.17.
45.07.
48.37.
48. 7%
53.67.
55.77.
59.47.
60.07.
-------
TABLE 5. Water Sample Data
196
Average Values
Lake sampled & location
Boulder Lake, 54-14
Caribou Lake, 51-16
Corns tock Lake, 55-15
Dodo Lake, 53-16
Fish Lake, 52-15
Baby Grand Lake, 51-16
Little Grand Lake, 51-16
Grand Lake, 51-16
Hartley Pond, Duluth
Island Lake, 53-14
Leora Lake, 53-16
Nichols Lake, 53-17
Prairie Lake, 50-20
Rice Lake, 51-15
Rose Lake, 53-16
Twin Ponds, Duluth
Whiteface Lake, 56-15
Ely Lake, 57-17
Long Lake, 57-17
Horse Shoe, 57-17
Stream «to Long Lake, 57-17
Mud Lake, 57-17
Fayal Pond, 57-17
Side Lake, 60-21
Little Sturgeon Lake, 60-21
Sturgeon Lake, 60-21
West Sturgeon Lake, 60-22
South Sturgeon Lake, 60-21
Birch Lake, 61-12
Eagles Nest Lake #1, 62-14
Eagles Nest Lake, #3, 62-14
Eagles Nest Lake #4, 62-14
Sand Lake, 60-18
Little Sand Lake, 60-1?
Little 14 Lake, 60-19
Lake 14, 60-19
Lake Leander, 60-19
Dark Lake, 60-19
Clear Lake, 60-19
Big Rice Lake, 60-17
Perch Lake, 60-21
Longyear Lake, 53-20
Embarrass Lake, 58-16
Number of
Samples
3
10
9
3
3
2
5
7
9
3
3
3
4
6
3
18
3
12
5
3
1
1
1
4
4
2
1
2
3
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
B .
O *-*
*W £
•^
r-l 0
o o
O r-l
•^*^,
r-l 4J
<0 C
-J 3
O O
H O
756
219
733
150
100
340
52
31
2241
99
110
520
4425
2735
10
1312
383
101
136
447
500
640
1300
108
92
10
130
210
203
90
70
13
30
70
10
0
0
470
150
1700
0
3310
2940
E .
O r-4
*4-l E
•H
r-l O
0 0
O •-)
*^
i-H *J
4-' a
^i
T*
•z.
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.2
.75
.75
0
.75
1.0
0
.8
1.0
t
ex
V 1
r-t
ja m
3 3
0 U
CO O
i— i "K.
03 in
4J 0
O JZ
H a.
.064
.096
.447
.032
.064
.925
.127
.159
.064
.127
.319
.351
.542
.064
.478
.096
.096
.351
.319
.415
.032
0
.064
.255
.096
0
C
0
0
.159
.447
-------
TABLE 5 Con't.
Average Values
197
Lake sampled & location
Wynne Lake, 59-15
Sabin Lake, 59-15
Cedar Island Lake, 58-16
Eshquagama Lake, 58-16
Whitewater Lake, 58-14
Colby Lake, 58-14
Bass Lake, 57-16
Lost Lake, 57-16
Long Lake, 56-16
Loon Lake, 57-15
Twin Lake, 57-15
Harvey Lake, 57-17
Fig Lake, 56-17
Elliot Lake, 56-17
Murphy Lake, 56-17
Hiekkila Lake, 56-17
Stone Lake, 56-17
Pleasant Lake, 57-17
Elbow Lake, 57-18
Lake Vermilion, 62-15, 16
Burntside Lake, 62-13
Bear Island Lake, 61-11
Long Lake, 59-21
Dewey Lake, 59-21
Kelly Lake, 57-21
Harriett Lake, 55-21
Janet Lake, 55-21
Island Lake, 55-21
Mashlcenode Lake, 5S-18
Ash Lake, 66-20
Moose Lake, 65-14
Myrtle Lake, 65-18
Pelican Lake, 64-19
Little Fork River, 62-19
Manganika Lake, 58-18
Half moon Lake, 57-17
St. Louis River, 56-17, 58-15
Pike Lake; 51-15, 16
Sampling Station vl
Sampling Station #2
Sampling Station ->"3
Sampling Station #4
Sampling Station i':5
Sampling Station ;?6
Sampling Station #7
Sampling Station ??8
•nrvrft
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
L
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
20
20
20
20
20
20
5
5
me
6
i-i •
O r-t
£ E
•r*
r~l O
O O
O r-l
i-l 4->
03 C
>-> 3
0 0
H CJ
36
2200
1100
580
630
700
90
1200
2135
100
800
4000
1380
140
980
4600
370
400
30
460
20
120
300
380
250
240
360
190
640
1540
540
148
850
6560
. 43
134
2615
1122
819
351
1319
334
2066
842
88
M •
O r-4
£ E
fl
r-l O
O O
O '-'
r-4 4-1
<0 C
O 3
-!
4->
v-l
X
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.2
.6
1.5
.9
2.2
.8
1.2
1.0
.8
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.5
a
a
0) 1
r-i
£> W
3 3
r-l O
O 1-1
CO O
J^\
r-l C.
cc ci
4-1 O
0 £.
H a.
.478
.542
.734
.510
.415
.510
1.02
.638
.415
.478
.383
.478
.159
.638
.510
.383
.319
.191
.319
.255
.894
.478
.064
.255
.255
.223
.702
.319
.415
.542
.638
1.43
.319
.510
.782
.534
.631
.711
.455
.490
.474
.410
-------
19$
R. Roningen
Briefly, this report shows that there are serious
pollution problems along the lakeshore, extending back
perhaps a half mile or so from the shore of the lake. At
that time, 45 percent of the septic systems had failed and
the rest are failing, and there is now raw sewage flowing
directly into Lake Superior. There will be more raw sewage
going directly into Lake Superior in the near future as more
systems fail.
The sewage that is flowing from our two townships
into Lake Superior is carried by the currents of Lake
Superior in a southwesterly direction and this current
passes directly over the water intakes for the city of
Duluth and the U. S. Water Quality Laboratory located at
Lester River. As a result, it is just a matter of time before
this discharge is going to contaminate both water supplies.
The reason these septic tanks are failing is
because of the unique geology of the area. The area has a
bed-rock of old basalt lava flows, which is within just a
few feet of the surface. This is overlaid by red clay.
Both of these materials are impervious to water absorptions
and as a result the only absorptions for the septic systems
are materials which have bean hauled in and placed in the
trenches of the leeching fields. As soon as this material
becomes saturated the system fails, causing the sewage to
-------
199
R. Roningen
flow into the ditches and on into Lake Superior.
The towns of Lakewood and Duluth have been very
active in the past in their efforts to control this* They
have called public meetings and have approached various
governmental bodies on ways and means of controlling this
problem.
One of the preliminary emergency steps that was
taken by the St. Louis County Health Department was to
prohibit the building of new septic systems. This step has
been responsible for effectively stopping the upgrading of
existing systems and new construction, which is not what we
want. It also has the side effect of destroying property
values and progress.
The town of Lakewood and the town of Duluth have
also attempted to apply to HUD for a feasibility study to
correct this- problem. At the present time the application
is waiting for funding of the program.
Very recently NEMDA has proposed regional sewage
plants for the Duluth, Superior and Cloquet areas. It is
our feeling that this plant should also include the area
to Knife River as we feel it is the most economical
solution to our problem. We feel that if a trunk sewer line
were placed along the old Highway 6l the local government
and residential units would be able to then put their feeder
-------
200
R. Roningen
lines and collector systems into it. This would solve the
problem completely.
To implement this, we ask that this conference
recommend that the area served by the regional sewer plant
be enlarged to include this area.
Another thought that we have had is, that it is
our understanding that the U. S. Corps of Engineers is con-
sidering building regional sewage treatment plants and
this to us appears like an excellent opportunity for the
Corps to build a model pilot plant for the Nation in our
area. This plant would be the proposed NEMDA Regional
Treatment Plant.
We urge that our U. S. Representative, the
Honorable John A. Blatnik, who is Chairman of the Committee
on Public Works, introduce such legislation forthwith to
preserve this area.
Thank you.
-------
201
R. Roningen
MR. STEIN: Where did you pet the idea that the
Corps was goinp- to build a regional sewage treatment t>lant?
MR. RONINGEN: I have been doing some talking witty
other people around this area.
MR. STEIN: Well, I would check that a few
times before you went to that assumption.
MR. PURDY: I have one question.
I am wondering if the townships are prepared to
pay for that trunk sewer, or are they expecting NEMDA to
pay the cost of the trunk sewer and they will only parti-
cipate in the lateral system?
MR. RONINGEN: This is something for negotiation.
We have to solve the problem somehow. We have to work out
whichever is best, whoever seems to be the solution at
that time. Naturally the townships want to pay as little
as possible, but they understand the reality that they
have to pay something, too.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I was going to state
-------
202
B. Hand
that I believe the head of the Lakes Inter-Governmental
Council is applying to EPA for a planning grant to try to
tie down with the NEMDA boundaries, and I am sure that this
area that Mr. Roningen is talking about will be given great
consideration.
We are hoping this can be done concurrently, at
the same time as the legislation to create the district, and
if we are successful this will be done.
MR. RONINGEN: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Would you proceed, Mr. Badalich?
MR. BADALICH: Yes.
Mr. Chairman, next I would like to call upon the
Abex Corporation of Two Harbors. I believe Mr. Hand indi-
cated a desire to be heard.
STATEMENT OF BRYAN HAND, WORKS MANAGER,
ABEX CORPORATION, AMSCO DIVISION,
TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA
MR. HAND: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen.
I represent the Abex Corporation in Two Harbors,
which is a foundry engaged in producing steel castings.
I would like to say that we are now actively engaged
-------
203
B. Hand
in negotiations with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
and we are prepared in the immediate future to enter into a
legal agreement.
Thank you. That is all I have to say.
MR. STEIN: Do you have any comment on that?
MR. BADALICH: No, not at this time, Mr. Chairman.
I believe this is being analyzed by the staff, and we will
be coming up with a solution. In fact, I believe this
company will be receiving a compliance schedule on how to
solve that particular problem.
MR. STEIN: Any other questions or comments?
If not, thank you very much.
MR. BADALICH: Thank you, Mr. Hand.
Next, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call upon the
city of Two Harbors. I believe they are represented by Mr.
Ray Gustafson and Mr. Ray Ode.
Not here?
Next, Mr. Chairman, I have a Mr, Don Mimette
representing C.H.O.K.E., Cathedral High School Opposed to
the Killing of the Environment.
Mr. Mimette.
-------
204
D. Mimette
STATEMENT OF DON MIMETTE, C.H.O.K.E.,
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
MR. MIMETTE: Mr. Chairman, distinguished
conferees, ladies and gentlemen.
I represent C.H.O.K.E., Cathedral High Opposed to
the Killing of the Environment. This is an organization
that has been formed at our school to try to keep this area
an area of natural beauty.
One of the first things we have done in this
organization was to come to the meeting in October — the
conference in October. We were there. We sent representa-
tives there, and we have observed at that conference and
the conference in April after that.
We at first hoped that the problem would have been
solved then. It wasn't for various reasons, but we feel, if
at all possible, that it should be solved right now. We
believe that something should be done now, because Lake
Superior must be saved at all costs„
We have heard quite a bit of evidence and the
conferences we have attended that this has caused — this
will cause damage on the area, has caused damage. We have
heard some spokesmen by Reserve saying that it is not all
-------
205
D. Mimette
that dangerous, and the possibility that the density currents
would bring it to the bottom of the lake so that it would not
affect the lake.
I would also like to bring to mind that density
was supposed to bring mercury to the bottom of a lake so
that mercury would not cause any harm.
They said that tailings, since they are inert,
would probably cause no harm. DDT was not supposed to kill
fish. DDT was not supposed to kill birds.
We believe that there is quite a bit of evidence
shown that there is a great possibility that the tailings
produced by Reserve could produce quite a bit of harm.
We admit there is a possibility that it might not be harmful,
that there is a chance that Reserve could pollute and get by
without ruining the lake, but we believe that this is not
enough.
We believe, as young people, we have a special
interest in this because if pollution continues to go on,
and if the lake is damaged, it is us who will suffer; it is
us that will have to pay for any reconstruction of the lake;
it is us that will not be able to swim and will not be able
to use the lake for drinking water.
I would like to say that we do admit that there
is a possibility that Reserve can continue polluting the
-------
206
D. Mimette
lake, and there is a chance that it will not be harmful, but
we do not think it would be prudent to play Russian Roulette
with the greatest freshwater body in the world. (Applause)
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Any comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much.
MR. MIMETTE: Thank you.
MR. BADALICH: Thank you, Mr. Mimette.
Mr. Chairman, next I have Mr. John C. Green,
Professor of Geology at the University of Minnesota, Dulutho
He filed a statement, but I believe he wanted to read this.
If not, Mr. Chairman, I will file this written statement
with the conference.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that will be
entered into the record as if read.
(The above-mentioned statement follows in its
entirety.)
-------
207
Statement for the Record of the Reconvened Lake Superior
Pollution Enforcement Conference
14-15 January, 1971
It is extremely important to minimize the deleterious environmental
effect of any industrial process, municipal facility or private use
on magnificent and irreplaceable Lake Superior. On the other hand,
we must also be fully aware of environmental implications of alternative
proposals when changes in current, harmful practices are considered. In
the long run, drastic changes that involve major and sudden dislocation
of people and industry can be more harmful to the general public good
than more deliberate, thoughtful solutions in which all alternatives
have been thoroughly investigated and tested, and the best long-tern
method of preserving environmental values has been found.
In the case of Reserve Mining Company's taconite tailings disposal problem,
I as a geologist and also an environmentalist feel that (a) it is only
the "fines", that escape the 3-mile limit, that are causing the problem; the
coarser tailings that rapidly flow to the bottom or add onto the delta are
neutral as far as the esthetic, biological and other environmental aspects
of the Lake are concerned; and that (b) it would be esthetically very
harmful and perhaps dangerous to the public to construct on shore tailings
disposal at Silver Bay; and that (c) there are serious environmental risks
involved in establishing a large onshore tailings basin inland " over the
hill" from Silver Bay, unless it were many miles away (farther than Lax
Lake area), the dam could be made permanently secure, water quality could
be guaranteed at current State standards, and a wind blown dust problem
could be prevented from arising. In my estimation, some combination of
-------
203
- 2 -
Reserve's Alternate Methods No's 4, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18 (April, 1970)
properly and fully researched, funded and monitored, would be the best
compromise.
Another potential problem for Lake Superior, that this Conference should
consider, is the future development of power plants in its drainage basin.
Although the area surrounding the Lake is not a large market for power,
Lake Superior does offer a very attractive source of coolant for either
fossil fuel or nuclear power plants or breeder reactors; some mention
of these has already been made in the press. The cold water of the lake
is one of its prime and distinctive attributes, and this Conference and
the Conferees individually must establish standards for thermal pollution
that will guarantee minimal effect. In particular, a well-funded pro-
gram of research must be initiated to study by models or otherwise how
a local source of hot water such as might be emitted by a power plant
would be dissipated or distributed throughout the lake. This would
necessitate a thorough understanding of lake water circulation and con-
vection at various levels and the various effects of different volumes,
methods, depths, and areas of discharge of waters of different tempera-
tures. Such a study should also investigate the meteorological implica-
tions of warmer water on the surface of Lake Superior, and its possible
effect on snowfall on adjacent land areas.
John C. Green
Professor of Geology
University of Minnesota, Duluth
-------
209
J. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I also have a written
statement by U. S. Steel Corporation, which I would also like
to have filed with the conference.
Is that accepted, Mr. Chairman?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
What happened to Dunsmore? They just had an air
problem or what?
MR. BADALICH: They sort of have a small air
problem.
MR. STEIN: Are they bashful?
All right. This will be entered as if read.
(The above-mentioned statement follows in its
entirety.)
MR. BADALICH: I believe the gentleman is here,
but they filed a written statement.
MR. STEIN: All right.
-------
210
H. J. DUNSMORE
DIRECTOR - EN VIRONMENTAL CONTROL
January 11, 1971
Mr. J. P. Badalich, Executive Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
717 Delaware Street, S.E.
University of Minnesota Campus
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440
Dear Mr. Badalich:
Reference is made to your notice dated December 29,
1970 of the reconvening of the Federal-State Conference on Lake
Superior and its tributary basin on January 14 and 15, 1971.
At the preceding session of this conference, held in
Duluth on August 12 and 13, 1970, a statement in behalf of United
States Steel Corporation was submitted and was filed with the
records of the conference. That statement reviewed the background
and the steps leading up to and culminating in the adoption by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on June 19, 1970 of a resolution
accepting the program of United States Steel for improvements in air
and water quality at the corporation's Duluth steel works and
Universal Atlas Cement plant, as stated in a letter dated June 17,
1970 from USSC to Mr. Badalich.
This conference on Lake Superior is, of course, concerned
only with water conditions. The program of USSC insofar as it
pertains to water conditions was set forth in the June 17, 1970
statement. USSC has proceeded xvith this program and with the
construction, installation and other work and obligations thereunder.
Extra copies of this letter and the progress report are
enclosed for filing with the conference on January 14-15 if you
choose to do so.
Very .truly'yours,
Attachment
-------
211
CO
O
I
VO
ft.
m
w
co
ffi
£°
PS P
O tD
ft Q
ft
W
CJ
o
ft,
en
<
o
r-
I
o
CN
I
CO
WJ3
W
EH
CO
W
§
8
PS co
H
EH
E^
CO
Q
W
EH
H
3
co
en
m
U
W
ft
s
2
w
EH
S
CO
O
en
rH
^
rH
n
W
m
H
U
W
Q
PH
O
CO
><
B
W
S
ft
PH
O
co
p~i
£_)
f^
EH
CO
W
EH
Q
W "Z,
o o
ID H i
Q ^
W W
M i_1
U ft
co s
o
o
o
CTi
rH
• S-l
O 0)
en g
rH 3
u
^ QJ
r- Q
(N
•d
73 0)
C -P
rd 0)
J
10 ft
i O
-P M-l -H (D
-H -P -P
m O -P o
U] O
rH G
W CO rd
'Q O rG -
'O I vQ
73 • r-~
G 73 CO H
Cn 0) H t)
O PS rd
w
>co
-H >
g 73 PS U
•HO !s
W W CO -p
-H 0)
0) rd O -P
G u
ft
OOiO
(U
t-l 1<
H-i 73 0)
(d O 4J
rd -H •
a) 14-1 en
+J 4J O rH
w o
fd H
JQ ft
w a) "d
0) ^ 0> 4->
rH C -P 3
Mn S-i rd O
H a
tn • (D O
4-J <]} 0) U
0 W ,d M
rH rd -P
73 M o o
Q) 0) IS O
O rH
fd p CN G
.a o i o
ft 05 CO O
05 r-
•iH en •
rH O
M >i cn
• A CN
O < o
4->
•H
ft
rd 05
73 H (d
U
H O O
ft.M -rj
-P -P rd
O ft +J
rd a) co
-P X C
O -H
O 73 4J
0) rd
>i -P C
ftO
O
O
0)
Q
05
Q)
•H
S-l C
rd 0 0) M
d)4J
05
&
PS
W S
^ 5>
s o
p§
W ft
CO
O v4
ft O
O PS
K EH
ft 2i
O
iJ U
W
W >H
EH EH
CO H
o a
•d -H
^1 W -H
C. (to **
O -P
O G d
O rd
rd -n trj
•P O
rH rrj VH
rH U O
rd 'H ^
4J M
W X! (U
,-< r-J f-t
•H
0
5 -H
0) 0)
O (U
•H Vl
-P
6 -rj
73 C rd
ra rd w
(d
rd ft
XWtn
"f~i 'r^
-P H
<1) >i -H -P
H G -P rrj -H
rH -r-l -rH W -P
rd E r-l Ui 3
4J C -H (I)
s &
a O C M rd
,COO rHrHOJldC
C Vi MH -H 0 -H
^ W O -P S 73 -P
•H C -H -H O tJi C (d -P
S rd 4J rH GO W
•H O rH -H -H rH
-P G -H -H rH rd -rl H
a)-H4-ia)g;oog
-------
212
o
[-^
en
rH
*•
H
ro
P^
M
S
PL)
p
Q
frj
O
w
*3*
s
w
o
ft
frj
o
w
D
EH
EH
W
in
G
•rl
Cn
•d
o>
'd
A
"G
0
ft
4-1
G
rd
rH
ft
oi
^
o
u
G
•H
rd
•P
G
•H
rd
•
to
-d
o
o
0
o
1
•sr
^D
cn
H
,G
O
^
rd
|
J>S|
^_l
03
£3
!H
*Q
0)
f*-i
•
M
tJ
^1
0
o
0
n.
CN
CO
1
[*N.
{Q
O
f—{
^1
•H
P
|
cj
U
^j
nJ
S
*
10
•d
0
o
0
o
in
i
CM
en
rH
H
o
£3
0)
-P
ft
0>
W
1
01
G
3
t
to
-d
o
o
o
0
in
i
o
r^
cn
rH
SH
01
Q
O
•p
o
o
^1
rH
3
U)
l
4J
•H
-d
•H
M
3
4-1
rr}
£
rd
w
•d
•rl
rH
O
to
'd
0)
•d
o>
to
3
to
tn
G
•H
O
T3
0)
rl
G
•rl
to
01
0)
0
0
3
to
Q)
G
g
^_J
0)
4-1
0)
'd
o
4-1
W
4-1
CO
01
4->
4-1
U
3
•d
G
O
O
o
•M
CO
3
•rl
-P
G
O
O
rH
rH
•rl
S
to
^
M
O
15
£1
-P
3
rH
,§
•
to
G
0
•H
4-1
•H
fd
G
O
0
.p
g
0)
3
rH
IH
IH
0)
rd
•rl
rl
ft
0
ft
H
EH
H
3
D
CX
existing
01
.G
4->
G
•H
rd
4-1
G
m
S
•
^J1
4->
rd
10
c
•H
to
rd
Q
tr>
G
•H
H
4-)
4-1
0)
CO
ds removal
•rl
i-H
o
to
3
e
•H
-!->
ft
O
investigate
•*.
^s,
o
0)
• H
O
•H
M-J
IH
01
to
'd
•d -H
G rd
•H
m 4-i
O rd
3
4-1 C"
C rd
0) O
g O
•iH
SH 0>
Oi >
S-'U
01 O
0)
13 IH
C IH
rd Q)
rnace waste
3
IH
4J
to
rd
r-H
q
M
0
IH
rove
ft
g
•H
O
-p
^}
01
4-1
rd
l^
•d
c
rd
G
O
•H
4J
rd
rH
3
U
O
q
IH
0)
rd
4-1
£l
ftf
».
Cn
•rl
r-H
4-1
4-1
01
w
CO
ft
Q)
0)
0)
H
G
O
CO
rd
0)
J-4
5q
0)
'4-1
o
effective
0)
X!
J-*i
rd
g
-P
rd
4J
O)
4-1
Cn
fn
•H
£>
o
ft
g
•H
G
•H
^J
rd
K*1
4-1
•H
•O
•rl
^
^
3
rH
m rd
o "H
4-1
CO 3
nrj O
•H
rH 0)
0 0
to rd
G
T3 !-l
0) 3
>d >H
G
-------
213
o
en
rH
H
n
PH
W
^
W
u
w
D
Cn
O
W
EH
U
I"}
O
rt
P-J
o
w
EH
EH
W
(U
0
4->
id
G
JZ
E*
$
3
rH
3
Q
ii_j
o
>1
4J
•rH
0
U)
A
4-1
^
4J
•rH
^
rrj
H
0)
r^
G.
(U
XI
(D
>
id
A
01
tn
C
W
a
(U
u
G
id
4J
p.
0)
0
0
id
MH
0
4J
\
<&
1)
S
0
tn
tn
0)
01
•H
id
}*)
^i
i — i
4J
G
Q)
tn
0)
^
ft
01
a)
4J
01
id
^
o
•rH
G
id
£
o
i
4->
•H
U
0)
•^
^1
/!
•
(U
4J
01
id
^
o
•rH
G
id
tT1
r4
O
in
•rl
_r^
4J
tn
G
•H
4J
ft
Q)
U
U
id
0
•P
01
>
•H
O
G
O
O
-H "O
(Ti
0 -H
Id 'd *rH
A G 4J
•rH 01
^ >
O
r^ rtj
H p<
rs s
l
O 4-)
'd tji
S fi.
-P -n
Id 4->
"d
•H O
S 4-1
rd 4J •
Q) rH O
4-> O f»
4-1 ft I
•H a) n
g M CN
3 »d o
0) 0) rH
4J a) 0)
in > O
O -H -H
W 0) 4H
P^ Q O
o en
id
£ M
0)
Q) ,Q
4-1 K
W 0)
id >
G ai
a) u
3 G
rH -H
MH in
MH
01
>
a) id
M J2
rH 4-1
,G -H
4-1 r-H
C id
O 2
g &
n
I
r-3 O
D H
Q EH
O
w
cr>
er>
H
I
O
en
CTi
rH
O
(U
Q
1
L PROPOSED WATER
W
EH
CO
LO
P
CONTROL PROGRAM
£
H
a
Of
ider construction of a
o)
G
0
u
in
r line to Municipal system
a)
0)
m
sanitary wastes and other
!H
0
MH
nic wastes amenable to
id
tn
o
ogical treatment from Coke
t and Blast Furnace areas
is acceptable to Municipal
orities
mal Effects (Per MPCA
H C 4-1 ,G M
O I
•rH r
A (•
a id 4-> a)
H ,C P rC
lj 4-1 id EH
vr>
rH
co
m
O
•H
0)
•H
a>
c
M
in
4J
G
IH
4J
Id O
^54J
4J
'd
rH ,Q
p
4-> O
U H
.. U)
M
01
o 3
O
• -d G
•d P G
id ijn rH
Cn C «-M ^
C fd u -^
•H ,G id
X -P XI -P
•rH P Id
SH id 4) a)
01
•H
X! k O
4J 3 -P
•H 4-1
P
a) o
H co
"9 •«
a>
a)
4JP
P a) a) 3 _
>i id p X) o
X! G a) -H X
M rH M a)
C 4J i4J (d 4J 4J
id G
P -rH !H 01
O 3 > ft a)
.c .c
a)
3
MH
ft -rH ft 0) nj -r-i MH
MH
O &
O -H
4J G
G id
<$ 01
£ -d
•H G 0)
id 0)
tn 4J
G rH 01
•H id id
M -H S
0) SH
a) P T3
G in -H
•H P 3
O^ "^ 0"*
G G -H
M -H H
4J
q
3
H
>H
m
o
o
ft
(u.
i-H -P
4J H
G Id
O 3
s a
CO
-------
214
J. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: Next, I have a written statement
from the Public Utilities Commission, Village of Hibbing,
which I would also like to have filed. We might save a
little time here, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: We appreciate that.
MR. BADALICH: Next, Mr. Chairman —
MR. STEIN: Now, the best way these corporations
can save time is to show up at these things. The time we
waste is waiting for them to clean up their problems. I
will give them the time here if they want it.
MR. BADALICH: We have to pass out a little solid
waste, too.
Mr. Chairman, next, I have a statement from the
Public Utilities Commission, the Village of Babbitt.
MR. STEIN: Just a minute, on the Village of
Hibbing. This statement will be entered into the record,
as if read.
(The above-mentioned statement follows in its
entirety.)
-------
215
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
VILLAGE OF NIBBING
HIBBING. MINNESOTA - 55746
January 12, 1971
State of Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency
717 Delaware Street S.E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440
Attention: .John P. Badalich, P.E.
Executive Director
Subject: Phosphate Concentration in Effluent Waters
from Power Plant
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the phosphate use in our Power Plant
is for boiler water control purposes only and is controlled at 20 PPM.
in the boilers. This same concentration exists at the point of blow
down. When diluted with other discharge waters this level of concen-
tration ia reduced to .66 PPM at the point of discharge from the plant
to the main 3ewer 1:5no.
The present plant lines discharge to the storm sewer system.
To change this would create a great inconvenience and a sizable amount
of money.
Our present plans call for the elimination of use of all
phosphates on or about June 1, 1971.
If further specific information is required, please feel free
to contact us immediately.
Very truly yours,
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
H. G. Anthony
Chief Engineer
HGA.: so
cc: Richard !). Miller
-------
216
J. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: Next, I have a statement from the
Village of Babbitt, the Public Utilities Commission, which
I would also like to have filed in the conference,
MR. STEIN: Without objection, this statement
will be entered into the record as if read.
(The above-mentioned statement follows in its
entirety.)
-------
21?
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Mr. John Badalich, Director;
CONFERENCE OF THE FEDERAL POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY.
Dear Sir:
On August 12, 1970, the Village of Babbitt appeared before the Federal-
State Conference on Pollution of the Waters of Lake Superior and tributary basin*
At vhat appearence a request of a variance from the Pollution Control Agency's
order for Phosphate removal was made* This request was based on evidence as
submitted at the Conference.
The Village of Babbitt requests that all evidence as submitted be in-
vestigated. At the conclusion of said investigation, should our request for a
variance be denied, the Village of Babbitt is ready and willing to proceed as
recommended.
We might add that on January 5, 1971, a specialist of the Pollution
Control Agency was in Babbitt to investigate our situation, bu*t as of this
date we have not received his report of the findings*
To further substantiate our request for a variance please find attached
w_xu of a letter from, W. John Blakesley, Area Fisheries Manager.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION:
Village^of Babbitt, Minnesota 55706
Don cole, Chairman
/-
-------
21S
Area fisheries Hdqtrs.
Box 14?
Win ton, Minnesota 55796
January 13, 1971
Donald Cole
k6 Fern Court
Babbitt, Minnesota
Sir:
Upon request by Mr. E. F. Jordan, Babbitt, Minnesota, I am writing you
concerning the effects of the Babbitt sewage disposal on fish life in Bay
Lakes Twp 60 Rge 13 Sec
Our management on Bay lakes is very limited. Me harvest or rescue only
the Northern Pike which would normaly be lost due to winter oxygen depletion.
I know of only two reasons why we have a fish kill in Hay lakes:
1. normal summer run off leaving fish stranded in shallow water
2. normal winter oxygen depletion, which occurs every winter due to shallow
water and vegitation of the lakes*
Yours truly,
Signed:: W. John Blakesley
Area Fisheries Manager
-------
219
J. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I have a short letter
here in behalf of the Village of McKinley, from the engineer-
ing firm of Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates of
St. Paul. It is addressed to our Agency regarding the
conference.
"Gentlemen:
"Your attention is drawn to a previous statement
on behalf of McKinley, Minnesota, dated August 12, 1970.
At that time, it was indicated that the Village intended to
conform to a schedule for planning and construction of
treatment facilities which was in accordance with the
recommendations of the conferees. This is still McKinley's
intention.
"Very truly yours, Harry G. Brown, Engineer for
Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates.*1
Mr. Chairman, at this point, I believe I should
ask again: Is there any representative of the League of
Women Voters here at this time?
If not, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn this
over to Mr. Ed Fride, representing the Reserve Mining
Company, to continue with their presentation,
MR. MAYO: I have a question about the letter
from Babbitt. It addresses itself to a request for a
variance with respect to phosphorus removal.
-------
220
J. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: Yes, it does, Mr. Mayo. This
will be considered by the Agency at the next reulgar meeting
of the Agency to see what disposition will be made of this.
MR. MAYO: My point is that this letter is directed
to the conferees, to the conference as a whole, for some
sort of a variance. We would hope to get guidance from
Minnesota in terms of your recommendation on this.
MR. BADALICH: I think, at this point, it might
be a little premature. I haven't discussed this with the
staff at this time, and the Agency will be considering this
matter. I believe, Mr. Mayo, it was addressed to me.
MR. STEIN: Right. It says Badalich. But I
don't think we want to be technical about this. I think
this is appropriate, if you agree, for the Minnesota
Agency to handle this in its regular course of business.
MR0 BADALICH: Yes.
MR. STEIN: And if you think it is appropriate to
report to the conference —
MR. BADALICH: We certainly will and this has
been our intention with all of these dischargers. As soon
as they get out of compliance, the conference will be
informedo
MR. STEIN: Right, I think this is just a
technicality that we should put back on the track.
-------
221
Murray Stein
MR. PURDY: Dili understand, from the standpoint
of phosphorus removal, it was left to the State to determine
how to accomplish the overall objective of $0 percent
total phosphorus removal, and that if the State could
acquire this at one location, fine?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
But this is up to the State to deal with each
locality. As far as I am concerned, we have had no problem
with any of the States on Lake Superior as well as on Lake
Michigan and on Lake Erie in the concept of the phosphate
program. But I think we had best leave the community work
with the State.
Now, let me ask for the rest of the day — Mr.
Fride, how long do you think the presentation will take in
total?
MR0 FRIDE: About 2 hours, I would think, Mr.
Chairman. That wouldn't allow much time for questioning.
MR. STEIN: No. No. I think we had better go —
and I don't want to rush it, when they are too tired —
let us recess and then come back to a determination. But
I think maybe we better go, after you conclude, and just
asking the conferees, for about an hour and then perhaps
have an hour again when we start in the morning from
Reserve, which will give the rest of the time that the
-------
222
Murray Stein
conferees can ask their questions. Because, again, on the
basis of experience, I know what happens when you go to
the end of the day, and you get toward 5:00 o'clock, and
you begin working these questions back and forth. Some-
times we get the Aurora Borealis, and we get more heat than
light or light than heat.
So, unless I hear to the contrary when we recess
and have a consensus, at least the proposal I have is that
\
we take about a 15-minute recess, you go for an hour, then
we recess for this evening. We come back in the morning
and we go for another hour until you finish, and then we
will ask questions.
Also, if we are going to do this, if anyone
else feels that he wants to make a statement, and-he
cannot be here tomorrow and wants to do it today, we
will give him an opportunity to make the statement todajr.
Again, I hope everyone will try to be brief, and
we will stand recessed for 15 minutes.
(Short recess.)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
Mr. Badalich.
MR. BADALICH: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to continue?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to call
-------
223
E. Fride
upon Mr, Ed Fride, representing Reserve Mining Company,
who will start the testimony for Reserve, and the outlay
of their proposal regarding the different method of
deposition of their taconite tailings.
MR. FRIDE: Thank you, Mr. Badalich.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.
Reserve's presentation with respect to the
engineering plan which the conferees have called for will
involve basically three participants. We intend to call
Mr. Edward Furness, President of the Company. We will
then call Mr. Carl Skinker, who is the Vice-President of
Parsons-Jurden Company of New York City, who have done
the engineering design. And then we will call on Dr.
Leon Weinberger, who is an environmental consultant, who
will discuss some of the environmental consequences of
the plan.
In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I am
wondering — and to provide the conferees with the kind
of continuity which we hope the last two presentations
will evolve — I would ask that we adjourn after Mr.
Furness1 presentation today.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, I think we will
do this.
I think we should get a full presentation with
-------
224
E. Fride
full continuity as the Company sees fit and, as I understand
it, it is your notion that if we do it the other way, it
will be split.
MR. FRIDE: I think that is right, Mr0 Chairman.
We will have a slide presentation, and I think the two
concepts — the engineering and the environment — are so
tied together that that would provide the best presentation.
MR. STEIN: There will be no objection to that.
MR. FRIDE: With that, then, Mr. Chairman —
MR. STEIN: Let me ask you a question before you
go, Mr. Fride, as long as you are up here. I don't get the
benefit of this free legal advice from a man of your stature
very often.
What do you think — we heard a reference this
morning to an order of the court relating to Reserve — what
is your view of that?
MR. FRIDE: My view of the entire order?
MR. STEIN: No. I am not on the Supreme Court of
Minnesota yet. I guess they are going to hear that. No,
just a reference to this morning.
MR0 FRIDE: I must just say as long as you bring
up the order, Mr. Chairman, that I am inclined to agree
with the Court's comment that his order, as he saw it, was
such that it wouldn't please either party completely nor
-------
225
E. Fride
perhaps please every segment of the public, but that he
regarded it as a very concrete and important step in the
right direction.
I do look at it as an order, as a directive to
both the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and to Reserve
Mining Company to either agree upon a plan which will meet
the major concerns expressed by the Court and by this
conference, or in the event that those two agencies are not
able to arrive at some kind of a reasonable resolution
and a specific plan, that the Court would retain juris-
diction for the purpose of enforcing his directive. So
I do regard it as a directive and as an order, which is
binding upon the parties unless it were reversed on
appeal.
MR. STEIN: Yes. But as far as I can see, if
you are in default of doing this, the Judge would have
to get you back into Court and decide what to do. If any
violation of this would not involve a violation which wouldl
be subject to punishment, per se, he would have to get you
back in there again.
MR. FRIDE: Well, I think with the Court's
retaining jurisdiction, we are only a phone call away
from being back up in the Court House, and I do think
that the State District Judge as well as the Federal
-------
226
E. Fride
Judges, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, have a very broad
range of the kind of powers that they can utilize to imple-
ment their decisions, and I am sure that, in this case, in
my own judgment, that Reserve would be subject to those
kinds of considerations.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions that
you want to ask Mr. Fride?
If not, thank you very much, Mr. Fride.
MR. FRIDE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At this time, then, Mr. Chairman, I would call on
Mr. Edward Furness, the President of Reserve Mining Company0
Mr. Furness.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, maybe before Mr.
Furness gets up here — you asked that question of me this
morning also about whether this was an order, or so on.
In reading a memorandum here, again, Mr. Stein —
you have it before you — on page number 15 which is part
of the order, it states that: "The attached memorandum is
hereby made a part of these findings of fact and conclusions
of law."
And if you go to page number & of the memorandum,
that is where they talk about the judgment of the Court:
"In the judgment of this Court, any modification must
ensure the flocculation of the fine tailings and the deposit
-------
22?
E. Fride
of all the tailings by conduit to the floor of the Great
Trough."
I think that — as Mr0 Fride might have stated —
I believe this is an order.
At this time — it must be reviewed by the
15th of May, and, if not, well, then, the Court will
retain jurisdiction.
MR. FRIDE: I might add, Mr. Badalich, if I may,
Mr. Chairman, that I think we are in agreement on that
point.
I might say, too, that while the Court had
directed that the plan be submitted by May 15 of 1971»
Reserve has tried to and will continue to try to not take
advantage of any kind of time deadlines for the purpose of
any kind of a delay. We want to get this problem resolved.
We would like to get it resolved as soon as possible.
Frankly, we don't believe that there is any very substantial
difference between the objectives that the Court has out-
lined, and the major concerns that have been raised at this
conference. We think the same are compatible, and to that
end we expect to present this plan formally to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency at its next regularly scheduled
meeting.
Mr. Furness.
-------
228
E. Furness
STATEMENT OF EDWARD M. FURNESS, PRESIDENT,
RESERVE MINING COMPANY, DULUTH, MINNESOTA
MR. FURNESS: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen.
My name is Edward M. Furness. I am President and
Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of direc-
tors of Reserve Mining Company. I live in Silver Bay,
Minnesota, where our processing plant and our general
offices are located. I am a graduate civil engineer and
have spent most of my professional career in the iron ore
mining and processing industry in New York State and
Minnesota.
Reserve will present at this conference a plan
for altering its disposal of waste sand called "tailings."
Significantly, the cost of this plan is some $14 million
— one of the largest water quality and environmental con-
trol projects by a single industrial plant in the Nation.
It represents a financial commitment by Reserve over the
next 20 years of nearly $49 million — about one-seventh
of the total cost of our mining and processing facilities at
both Babbitt and Silver Bay. I might mention, also, that
this plan provides no financial return to Reserve on this
-------
229
E. Furness
huge investment. There is no provision for improving the
quality of our product, hence no provision for improving
our posture in what you know is a very competitive industry.
Nothing is done to raise the iron content or to lower the
silica content or to improve the physical quality of our
pellets. The nearly $49 million would be spent over the
next 20 years strictly and exclusively to preserve and
protect the quality of Lake Superior.
Reserve undertook its engineering and technical
studies not because we believed our present operations were
harming or threatening Lake Superior in any way, but because
we were anxious to relieve the concern some people have
about Reserve's use of the lake.
In a recent Lake County District Court trial
which ran nearly 7 weeks in Two Harbors, Minnesota, the
entire question of Reserve's use of Lake Superior and the
possible effect of tailings on the water and its aquatic
life was thoroughly considered. Numerous witnesses includ-
ing many outstanding scientists were questioned and testified
under appropriate rules of evidence, under oath, where cross
examination was permitted for the first time. The files of
Reserve Mining Company as well as Federal and State
agencies were opened and reviewed.
In his findings, Judge C. Luther Eckman said:
-------
229a
E. Furness
"After 15 years of operations and discharge of tailings
into Lake Superior by Appellant (Reserve), the evidence
before the Court establishes that said discharge has had
no measurable adverse or deleterious effects upon the water
quality or use of Lake Superior insofar as its drinking
water quality, any conditions affecting public health,
affecting fish life or the reproduction thereof, or any
interference with navigation."
The Court found, however, two areas of possible
concern: 1) a contribution by tailings to the green water
phenomenon and 2) a slight decrease in the numbers of a
scud, a smelt food, in the immediate area of the discharge°
The Judge stated, "Although measurable, these
conditions were of minimal significance or materiality."
Emphasizing his interest in maintaining the
present high quality of Lake Superior, the Court did order
a modification of the present method of tailings discharge
to provide for the flocculation of the tailings and their
transportation by a form of conduit to the lake bottom
where they present no ecological concern.
It is in response to the request of this con-
ference made at the August 14, 1970, session, as well as
to the Court's order that Reserve submits its plan for
modifying its tailings discharge system. As previously
-------
229b
Eo Furness
reported to this conference, Reserve has retained nationally
known engineering firms to propose as well as to evaluate
suggestions for a modification. These include: Bechtel
Corporation; Engineering-Science, Inc.; Arthur D. Little,
InCoj Parsons-Jurden Corporation; Trygve Hoff and Associates,
In addition, Reserve has retained >Tell qualified
environmental consultants to assess the impact of such
proposals. The plan that we will be presenting here has
been selected from the many considered as the best from
the standpoint of sound conservation and technical and
economic feasibility.
The plan is the product of the thinking and
expertise of many people with years of experience in water
management, minerals processing, mining, hydraulics,
design engineering and tailings handling. The Parsons--
Jurden Corporation of New York is principally responsible
for the investigation and studies which led to the
preliminary design and engineering plans which we will
submit.
Parsons-Jurden has design ^ -md built tailings
handling and mineral benefaction systems in foreign
countries and throughout the United States, including
Minnesota.
We believe this plan will answer questions and
-------
230
E. Fumess
concerns which have been raised about Reserve's present
tailings har.}": Lvi~ svste" and our use of Lake Superior.
At the same tiny?, Lt, will create no new conservation or
ecological nroblems. We believe it is technically sound
and economically oossible.
We ^ubmit this nlari for the approval of the
-i ooropriat-3 regulatory a^-;ncLes. As soon as approval is
obtained, Reserve is prepared to oornpj.et•> f'inal desip-n and
construction to make the svstem operable within 2 years.
We believe it will answer the needs, hopes, and desires
or all who share Reserve 's concern *~'or the preservation of
nature while, at the same time, we en.jov the benefits which
modern industry provides to us all.
Thank vou.
MR. STEIN: Thank vou, Mr. Furness.
Are there any comments or questions?
I would like to make one observation. Of course,
we have to look at the plan first. This is without pre-
ludFinp anything but in a sense I think this is really a
landmark, and I hope probably a watershed in the case.
Because for the first time I think we have from the
Company of Reserve here a proposal to p-o forward with a
plan. I think it is fair to say that in the past some
of the state, probably povernmental and local people said
-------
231
there was pollution, but the olant said they werenlt hurting
anvthinn;. Maybe they still take that same position. But
I think for the first time we are in a position that the
company, in the person of its President, Mr. Furness, has
come forward with a plan which he believes will do the ,~job.
I think I have mentioned this here before. I
certainly have said it time and time apain in other forums,
In watching the democratic adjudicatory system in orocess,
we have a system in this country that however different
our philosophies may be, when we let the system work, in
any specific case, we move toward a solution of the
particular problem.
I think we may have gotten over an essential
hurdle here, and I am very grateful.
Let me ask a couple of questions here.
Would that $1/4. million be an initial expenditure
or over the life of the prolect?
MR. FURNESS: This is over a 20-year period.
MR. STEIN: Is the 349 million —
MR. FURNESS: The $49 million is over a 20-year
period. The cost of the plant to construct it and build
it is $14 million,
MR. STEIN: But that will be initial, fourteen?
-------
232
E. Furness
MR. FURNESS: Fourteen.
MR. STEIN: Fourteen initial.
MR. FURNESS: And this would be for the writeoff
of the moneys and the operation — additional operating
expenses for the next 20 years.
MR, STEIN: Right.
I don't want to get carried away with myself,
but generally when you apply the principles we have applied
to these conferences or these hearings, my instinct nasMyeen
correct. Now, as I understand this: Here we have an order
or a directive by a State Judge, punctured by a decision
presumably coming forward after he has heard a considerable
amount of evidence subject to cross examination, that he
modify the present method of tailings discharge to provide
for the flocculation of the tailings and the transportation
by the form of a conduit to the lake bottom where they
present no ecological problem.
On the other hand, we have heard from various
members of the locality that the one way to do this i«
with an onland disposal.
We have the opinion of the Judge and the opinion
of several other people. I think I would rest with the
thesis that I have been pushing all day—that as far as
the conferees are concerned we should keep our options
-------
233
E. Furness
open, and since we have a determination by a Judge after he
had heard the evidence, and since we have heard the other
people, I don't know what other course of action we have
particularly... I look at this in a particular way,, since
both the Company and the Minnesota Agency regard this as
an order and an order of the court.
And I say we have to keep both actions open
because I think the record is abundantly clear,, I don't
think we are going to serve the cause of pollution any by
creating the dilemma which some people are going to come
around to,when we come in with other State representatives
and the Federal Government* and say that the Governor has
asked for onland disposal0 I didn't note that he did,
and I have asked for a transcript of that testimony so
I can look at it.
Then, we have got, on the other hand, that a
Court has ordered disposal in the lake bottom* I
don't know how we can put these together, ana as far as
I can see in our form of government we have traditionally
separation of the powers.
Now, I would recommend, as I have up to now,
not knowing that all these facts and
proposals were going to come out, that the only thing we
could do in the Federal conference is keep all options
-------
234
E. Furness
open and entertain a method which will protect the lake
and protect the ecology of the lake and not substitute
one form of pollution for another.
Again, I think you people have sat here and
have watched this record unfold the way I have watched it
unfold, and I think the problem is abundantly clear.
Now, again, if any of the conferees — of course,
they can go a»yway they wish, but if they have any other
views on this, either they can make it known today or
tomorrow when we reconvene.
Are there any other comments?
MR. FURNESS: Thank you.
MR, STEIN: Mr. Purdy.
MR, PURDT: Yes.
Mr. Furness, Mr. Fride, in his comment noted the
Court's comment that his order would probably not please
either party to the lawsuit or all segments of the
public.
In your statement, am I correct, that even in
view of this — and Mr. Fride indicated that he was not —
the Company was possibly not fully satisfied with his
order — but do I understand that you now are going to
proceed to comply with the order of the Court without
further litigation?
-------
235
E. Fride
MR. FRIDE: May I respond to that?
MR. FURNESS: Yes.
MR. FRIDE: Better do something to earn my salt
here, Mr, Chairman, if you will put up with me for a moment.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
I wasn't under the impression it was salt, but
go ahead.
MR. FRIDE: Very good.
In any event, I think the answer to the question,
of course, is that Reserve is proposing a plan — an engin-
eering plan, a very definitive plan, one that will
initially cost $14 million to construct. It will cost this
company an additional $>2.4 million per year in extra added
operating costs, and over the 20-year period will cost almost
$50 million.
Now, obviously^ we are in a situation here where
we have major concerns raised by members of this conference
and by people who have testified to the conferees. We
also have the question of the Court and compliance with
its order. And we also have, of course, the question of
revalidation of permits.
Now, obviously, I think that all of these
things are to some extent tied together, and as I
indicated just a few moments ago, it is my judgment that
-------
236
E. Fride
the concerns raised at this conference and the concerns
raised by the Court are not at all inconsistent, and that
a solution to one may very well be the solution to all.
Now, it would be folly, of course, for me to
suggest to this conference that despite what the conference
might decide, or despite whether or riot the pollution
control agency takes an appeal from this decision—as
I understand, there is still uncertainty about that —that
we would go ahead anyway and construct this kind of a
facility^ Because,, obviously,, be fore it could be constructed
it would need approval from the appropriate regulatory
agencies.
So I think what we are saying is that we have
a plan that we believe is sound and will meet the concerns
raised, and that as soon as approval is forthcoming from
the appropriate agencies, this plan, will be completely
designed, constructed, and made operable within 2 years.
But necessarily approval is a prerequisite to going
forward, and F,m sure that the conferees would understand
that. I don't know if I have directly answered the
question or note
MR. STEIN: That was Mr. Purdy's question»
MR. PURDY: Well, I was assuming, of course,
that if you had the approval of the various agencies, is
-------
237
E. Fride
it your feeling that the plan that you are proposing meets
the objectives of the Court and you do not contest the
findings of the Court?
MR. FRIDE: That would be correct. If we had
the approval of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
this conference and the appropriate agencies, we would go
forward. We would not contest the ruling of the Court^,
even though there are aspects with which we have some
disagreement. And in the interest of solving this problem
and of relieving the concern, and of going forward with
what seems to be a sound engineering concept, we would go
forward despite any kinds of concerns along that line.
MR. PURDY: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments?
MR. FRANCOS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this
will come out in more detail as you get into your presen-
tation, but perhaps Mr. Fride or Mr. Furness might get into
this matter of cost a little bit more.
Would you like to do it now, or do you have some
presentation that will give us a little bit more of a
breakdown?
MR. FRIDE: Well, I could respond in general
terms, Mr. Frangos, to general inquiries.
Mr. Skinker, who will be the next person
-------
E. Fride
appearing on behalf of Reserve, of course, has a detailed
analysis and can give you technical kinds of information with
respect to cost. But if you have some general question I
would be happy to see if I could answer it.
MR. FRANGOS: Perhaps I will defer that until your
expert gets on.
MR. FRIDE: All right, sir.
MR. STEIN: There was one more point, I think, that
we will all appreciate, and I know Mr. Purdy asked about
litigation. And, of course, you are in a State litigation
situation, and you are in a Federal enforcement litigation.
Both of these can, of course, lead to litigation if we
cann't solve the issue.
However, there is one other factor here which
may almost be overriding, and that is that Reserve Mining
Corporation is discharging its wastes into Lake Superior
under the provisions of a Corps of Engineers permit.
The Corps of Engineers, as many of you know, as
announced by the President, is taking into account the
effects on water quality now in the issuance of a permit,
based on the certification of the State and the recommen-
dation of our Agency, among other things. And no permit
no operation.
So this may be the — because you cannot put
-------
239
E. Fride
it in a navigable water of the United States without such a
permit — and I think that may be an overriding issue. So
I don't know if we should resolve this — if it is fair to
resolve this operation, that it is necessarily going to be
culminated by the kind of litigation you might think.
This may well result in the question of whether the
industry has a valid permit or not. For all these reasons
that we have here, for the expressions that we have on one
side and the directions of the Court order on the other,
I would suggest that the conferees have perhaps the last
opportunity at this session of the conference — I say
tonight because I think we have to think about this — the
last chance at this session of the conference to come up
with the kind of a resolution where we can get this on the
track.
I think one of the statements made before — and
I think this probably is a fair statement — we have had a
deadline; we have extended the deadline. We had a deadline
at the beginning of December. We just are going to get
this report presumably tomorrow. In other words, there has
been at least one extension and possibly one miss, and I
don't think we are going to have another chance.
So, while we all may have or apparently have
fundamental differences possibly in approach, in the measure
-------
240
E. Fride
of philosphy, I would strongly commend to the conferees, the
industry, and all of the others concerned that we try as
best we can to come up with a mode of procedure that is
going to lead to an equitable solution of this problem
without further litigation and further delay, and I say
this just on the basis of past cases.
That last case lasted what?
MR. FRIDE: Just about 7 weeks.
MR. STEIN: On testimony alone?
MR. FRIDE: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: If we go into another legal contest,
you can draw your own conclusions.
What I want to point out is the time it is going
to take.
But I want to point out to all concerned that for
every day we engage in a procedure like that, as far as I
know — and I have been up there occasionally — Reserve is
operating round the clock, and 67,000 tons of tailings are
going into that lake every day.
I suggest before you rest too hard on your
principles and figure that we have to vindicate one of
them by going to litigation, remember what is going to
happen every day while we are doing that.
I am not suggesting giving a thing away, because
-------
241
E. Fride
we don't. But I am suggesting that we have one last chance
here to try to resolve this in a reasonable, equitable way,
and I hope everyone will come that last mile to stretch out
that hand and try to make it.-, Because if we don't do it
v '•"
here, I am a'f'raid we are just going to have to engage in
something which will not result in a clean lake necessarily
immediately.
MR. FRIDE: May I make just one comment, Mr.
Chairman?
I think that I certainly agree with the majority
of what the Chair has said in terms of trying to achieve a
resolution of this whole problem as quickly as possible,.
And I hope that the conferees appreciate that Reserve has
not taken the posture here that this is strictly something
to be settled in the Courts or strictly a battle of
legalisms versus other kinds of legalisms.
We hope that a practical kind of a resolution can
result accommodating the major kinds of concerns that have
been voiced both here and in the Court.
I might say, too, that as the conferees are
aware, the Court, during those 7 weeks, had the benefit
of some very distinguished witnesses. Mr. Mayo appeared
and testified during that proceeding. Dr. Bartsch appeared,
Dr. Mount appeared. Dr. Baumgartner appeared. Some of the
-------
242
E. Fride
best qualified scientific minds in the country. And it was
after all of that testimony that the Court reached the
decision with which you are familiar.
But I do suggest, too, that we at Reserve would
like to try to resolve this and get it solved on a basis
that is technically sound and conservationally wise, and to
that end, as the Court did in this District Court decision,
we would welcome, as we have in the past, monitoring. We
would welcome participation. We would welcome testing.
We would welcome those kinds of things the technical people
feel are best suited to achieve a sound environmental kir^
of consideration.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any other questions?
If not. Thank you, Mr. Fride.
Let's decide when we are ,2:0ing to reconvene.
You are going to be about 2 hours?
MR, FRIDE: Approximately. Perhaps not quite that
long with the direct presentation, Mr. Chairman. With Mr.
Furness having already testified, I would expect somewhere
around an hour and a half — something of that sort — on
the direct presentation; and perhaps whatever questions
the conferees might have5 I am sure the participants would
do their very best to answer.
-------
243
Murray Stein
MR. STEIN: Perhaps we can come in at the
regular time.
We will reconvene at 9:30 tomorrow morning.
We stand recessed.
(The conference recessed at 4slO p.m.)
i V. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1971 O - 428-629
------- |