-------

















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
-------